HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsS TAt-r iREVIEW COMMENTS NO. 9
roject CREEK MEADO r^✓S SEC 4 PH 2B (FP)
ENGINEERING COP,'" 1-1-S NO, 1
1.
Sheet 5 - The Ine.
'rot^Cticn Carrier on the north side of Carnes Ct. S. appears to be
shown incorrectly.
2.
Sheets 7&8 - Plea se
ovide a minimum 0.1-ft drop across manhole inverts.
3.
Sheets 7&8
there is at least 12-i-, clearance between waterline and
storm at crossinc-.
4.
Sheets 7&8 - Flo;Alr,cs and s'^.pcs on plans do not coordinate with report. Please revise.
5.
Sheet 8 - Pleas-- verifyf'
3t tt o _.ucleo =e are accurate.
6.
Sheet 9 - It nnne-
'"-' F n Cl;ing picposed at the joint, which is not
permitted. Pleas- yr
, .
7.
Sheet 9 - Is encases r,ar'
:_eing pre; os,;d for the v;aterline? Please label.
8.
Sheet 10 -A min
-'nch s,-a'er main is required. Please revise.
9.
Sheet 10 - Please
that I ^t 15, Bock 2 has a water service lead.
10.
Sheet 10 - Rou,i,),
ns-r lends around stomr boxes is not permitted. Please
provide single aL
. - i-e to Lc 's 24 and 25.
11.
Please include o:
`ied
12.
Please su'c m ; __.,,
,,. -i C
13.
Water/Sewer 4- � � '
r as ise h "Vater Report to reflect the addition of a 4-inch
waterline.
14.
Water/Sever P-,-nn
- -'er and sewer map which shows
all existing d ,-n_'n
-c'i' .: ne ,. _ in the report.
Reviewed by: fS Date: 1/21/08
NOT).:A ;), tl eust be captained in your next transmittal
I., these 1, .iat not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a
compictely new 11 Page 2 of 2
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: CREEK MEADOWS SEC 4 PH 2B (FP)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. Now that the 0.1-ft drop has been added across the invert in Junction Box "J4", soffits are
not being matched. Please revise and replace sheets 7 & 8.
2. (Repeat Comment) Sheets 7&8 - Flowlines and slopes on plans do not coordinate with
report. Please revise. Flowlines between A-7 & J-4 and A-8 & A-7 are still incorrect in the
calculations.
3. Drainage Report — Please make sure that the appropriate n-values are being used for RCP
or ADS pipe.
4. Water/Sewer Report — Page 8, Table #4 indicates that the pipe runs in this section are not
meeting our minimum velocity requirement of 2 fps. Please revise.
5. The Letter of Acknowledgement should document and explain any deviation from City
standards.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 2/17/09
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your nest transmittal
letter and "bubbled' on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a
completely new review. Page 2 of 2