| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
03/19/2025
|
03/13/2025
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
08/09/2024
|
08/13/2024
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
12/01/2022
|
12/02/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
No Comments
|
11/29/2022
|
11/29/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Record Drawings Review
|
Corrections
|
11/15/2022
|
11/15/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
As-graded MDP Review
|
Corrections
|
11/11/2022
|
11/11/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
03/29/2022
|
03/16/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
03/15/2022
|
03/15/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Detail 2 on ADA-Accessible Ramp: The design slope along the diagonal on the turning space is greater than 1.5%. I am showing 1.7% using your elevation callouts. The turning space cannot be above 1.5% design slope in any direction, including the diagonal. Please revise, as 1.5% is our maximum slope in any direction on a turning space.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Your email dated Mar. 15, 2022 stated "The grading issue / comments being made on Lot 183 is something we cannot resolve. The lot has poor grading existing on the lot and we have done what we can.". If Lot 183 has poor drainage, then alternatives will be required. The City cannot approve of lots with poor drainage. Please review and revise as appropriate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Your email dated Mar. 15, 2022 stated "...when we stopped and the project was re-evaluated based on incorrect information related to the downstream storm system." That is not the case. The plans were re-reviewed based on the fact that your grading plan changed from Sept. 28, 2021 to Dec. 2021 without our knowledge. That is what triggered the re-review of your plans. The issue you refer was a separate issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
03/15/2022
|
03/15/2022
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
02/18/2022
|
02/12/2022
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200 shows two (2) swales aligned roughly north/south. No cross-section lableling was done for these two (2) swales. Proper labeling is required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
None of the swales denoted by cross-sectional call-outs show any specific cross-section along suitable intervals (e.g., 20 feet?). Cross-sections of the swale are required along suitable intervals for all swales. The "Typical Channel Section" at the top of this sheet is not a detail, but rather, a generic cross-section. Provide site-specific cross sections for each swale, and include sufficient number of cross-sections along the route.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.201: Grayed-out contours are shown which do not match Sheet C.200.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the email dated Feb. 10, 2022 sent at 12:53 pm. A copy is included in Cityview for your reference, and is included with the one sent on the same date at 2:22 pm (i.e., it is the second email in the thread). As stated in this email, I had placed a revision cloud around the area we discussed during our Zoom meeting on Feb. 10, 2022. Although it was difficult to determine proposed grading, it appeared you had created a berm along the east side of the plat boundary, and graded to the property line which is not allowed unless suitable agreements are reached with adjoining property owner. If I remember correctly, this is a wood fence along their property boundary, and drainage from the top of the berm to the bottom of the berm will be directed onto their property and towards the fence. Despite its low drainage area, this still creates an adverse impact to the adjacent property owner, who has had issues with his in-ground pool due to groundwater issues. Any further impact will likely be assigned by the homeowner to this alteration to existing drainage patterns. I had suggested a swale be created to the east of the berm, all contained within the plat boundary, and the 100 year WSE contained within the plat boundary. I had asked whether this is possible. I then stated "if not, other alternatives should be explored." When revising the Master Drainage Plan for this area, please review this email and detemine what can be done to eliminate these concerns.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the email dated Feb. 10, 2022 at 2:22pm. A copy is uploaded into Cityview for your reference. As stated in the email, long term the area at and near Lot 183 is going to be filled-in, which would appear to alter the drainage flow patterns toward the adjacent owner’s property and fence. I would suggest detailed notation on the MDP, along with a supplementary sheet showing what the homebuilder must do during construction to eliminate these concerns. Whatever is done to eliminate these concerns, they shall be clearly visible on the MDP, and contain sufficient detail for plot plan review.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.205: ADA-accessible ramp details are grayed-out along the outline of the ramps, indicating these are existing features, rather than features to be constructed with these plans. Please provide bold lineweight for ADA-accessible ramps to be built during the subdivision improvements. Detail 2 construction shall include all features denoted by "R", "TS", and the area of ramp shown between the curb ramp and the turning space.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
12/17/2021
|
12/17/2021
|
|
|
Karen Quackenbush
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
12/22/2021
|
12/16/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
12/22/2021
|
12/16/2021
|
|
|
Karen Quackenbush
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
From previous comment no. 7, detail has been added to sheet C205. It appears that there may be a typo for the elevaton on the south/east corner. An elevation of 989.30 creates a cross-slope of 2.6%. Please take a look at the elevation and the cross-slope of 1.40% and revise.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Cheet C.205 - Please include all of the detail labeling on Detail 3 like you show on Detail 2.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.205 - On Detail 2, all slopes for the turning space (TS) must be 1.5%. And all cross-slopes must be at or below 1.5%. See Table LS-5 from the LS adaptation of APWA section 5300.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
10/12/2021
|
10/12/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see comments on the plat for Napa Valley 5th. Easement widths are not adequate for storm lines between lots on at least three (3) segments. Easement widths should match what is recommended in the comment letter for Napa Valley 5th Final Plat.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see comment above. Inadequate easement widths would pertain to Lots 173 and 174, 188 and 189, and 169 and 170. Easement width should be twice the maximum depth of the line, plus an allowance for the width of the pipe. Minimum easement width is always based on measurements from the outside of the pipe, so please ensure the easement width meets this requirement. Depth shall be measured at the deepest point along the easement, which would appear to be approximately 12 feet the first two lot groups (storm line 2), and approximately 10 feet for the last lot group (storm line 1) . It would appear the total width of the easement for storm line 2 should be 25.5 feet, and 21 feet for storm line 1.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C201: It appears from the lot corner callouts that Lot 179 and 180 are partially within the 100 year floodplain. It is our understanding that all lots would be completely removed from the floodplain. Sheet C201 does not appear to agree with the elevation callouts in terms of floodplain extent, and using the configuration shown, it would appear a CLOMR-F is required prior to moving forward.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C201: Lot corner callouts do not appear to be pointing to the actual lot corners. It appears they are pointing to easement corners or some other undefined feature. Please revise as appropriate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C201: Lot 180 is missing a lot corner callout.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C205: Detail 2 on the ADA accessible ramp is missing details on the turning space behind the ramp on the east side of the street. It is also missing the design details for the portion of the ramp after the turning space that ties into the ADA-accessible ramp. Please call if any questions.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The ADA-accessible ramp at the end of the cul-de-sac did not appear to be shown as a detail.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
10/12/2021
|
10/12/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Connection to Stoney Brook still showing a radius of 150'. A 200' minimum is required.
|
|
|
Existing city standards reflect the correct sign lettering.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
08/16/2021
|
08/17/2021
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears at least one (1) of the lots is located partially within the 100 year floodplain. Please show the location of the floodplain, including the extent shown on plan view, and numeric callouts of the base flood elevation along key points. It may be necessary to obtain a CLOMR-F if filling within the floodplain to remove lot(s) from the floodplain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stop signs are shown after the unnmarked crosswalk. Stop signs shall be a minimum of 4 feet before any unnmarked crosswalk, and the stop sign shall be no more than the PC of the radius. This shall require a re-design of the ADA-accessible ramps.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: A large portion of the grading plan does not include elevation callouts for the proposed contours. Please show key elevation callouts for the contours.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: Grading is shown off-site. This will require a temporary construction easement from the adjacent property owners.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
What is the plan for managing stormwater on the east side of Lot 183 and Lot 181? It would appear an auxiliary swale would be warranted?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Two north/south swales are depicted on Sheet C.200 without typical section views and a start and stop point. These swales are shown on the east and west side of Lot 185. It would appear section views, along with the start and stop point, should be shown.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Lots 184, 185, and 186 do not appear to drain in the rear. There is a lack of definition on swales in these areas. Please clearly show how the rear of these lots will drain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
What is the plan to drain Lot 193 at the southeast corner? Are you planning on utilizing the existing field inlet on the off-site lot?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.200: Extensive off-site grading is shown on a lot which has already been built upon (to the northwest of Napa Valley 5th). Is this even possible given the existing structure exists at this location? Are there other homes already built in this area? If so, how will this be accomplished?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Basement type did not appear to be shown on the Master Drainage Plan. This shall be required for all lots. Location of the 100 year floodplain shall also be shown on the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Are there any lots that require an MBOE? It did not appear any were shown on the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please show the 100 year (100% clogged, zero available storage) water surface elevation on the Master Drainage Plan in graphical and numeric format.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street profile shown on Sheet C.203 shows a cross-slope for the ADA route in excess of the maximum 1.5% design slope at the west end of Flintrock. ADA-accessible ramps at stop controlled intersections shall be designed with a minimum 5 foot wide ADA-route across the stop controlled intersection with no more than a 1.5% cross-slope.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C.205: Stop signs shall be no further than the PC of the radius. As such, the geometry of these ramps cannot work as shown. Please see previous comments concerning placement of the stop sign in relation to the crosswalk. This will determine the location of the ADA-accessible ramps.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
HGL for the design storm were missing from the storm profile views. Please shown the design HGL on the profile views.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It is recommended the underground storm system be designed to contain the 100 year event a minimum of 6 inches below the throat of any inlet. The HGL for the 10 year event should be at or below the crown of the pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A stormwater memorandum was missing. The memorandum should discuss the existing detention basin in relation to Napa Valley 5th Plat, and whether this basin will serve the stormwater detention requirements for this phase of the development.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A Floodplain Development Permit may be required for work within the floodplain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please remove the erosion and sediment control plan from the plan set. These plans shall be reviewed separately from the Street, Stormwater, and Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
08/16/2021
|
08/16/2021
|
|
|
Brad Cooley, P.E., RSPI
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C. 101 - "Named Street Name Sign Detail" needs to be updated. (ie. "SW Longview Blvd")
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C. 101 - Stop signs shall be in front of crosswalks.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C. 203 - Min. horizontal radii is 200'.
|
|
|
|
