| Date |
Text |
| 2023-07-20 12:03:37 | INSUFFICIENT |
| | |
| | 1) HANDHOLE 08+12 MAY NOT BE LOCATED IN THE LOCATION AS |
| | SHOWN. THE BULB OUT WAS ESTABLISHED AS FULLY PLANTED |
| | WITH SHRUBS, REGARDLESS OF THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF |
| | THOSE SHRUBS. A HANDHOLE MAY NOT BE LOCATED HERE AS IT |
| | WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED |
| | FOR LANDSCAPE GROWTH. |
| | |
| | 2) HANDHOLE 14+60 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE |
| | ELECTRIC LINE FOR THE STREETLIGHTS. THE PROFILE VIEW |
| | DOES NOT SHOW THE STREETLIGHT ELECTRIC LINE. PROVIDE |
| | THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE TELEPHONE PROVIDER (MOST |
| | LIKELY CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH BUT COULD BE FPL). |
| | |
| | 3) BORE PIT 17+60 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A |
| | TELEPHONE LINE. PROVIDE THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE |
| | TELEPHONE PROVIDER (MOST LIKELY AT&T). |
| | |
| | 4) THE PLANS SHOW AN OPEN CUT TRENCH STARTING AT STA |
| | 19+75. THE DETAILS SHOW THAT A PORTION OF THE TRENCH IS |
| | PROPOSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| | THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SIDEWALK EASEMENT DOES NOT |
| | PERMIT WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | 5) BORE PIT 20+61 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A |
| | TELEPHONE LINE AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF EXISTING TELECOM |
| | INFRASTRUCTURE. PROVIDE THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE |
| | TELEPHONE PROVIDER(S) (MOST LIKELY AT&T). |
| | |
| | 6) THE PROFILE VIEW ON SHEET 28A DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS |
| | SHOWN ON PLAN SHEET 28 (EX. BORE PIT 20+61 IS NOT |
| | SHOWN). |
| | |
| | 7) REPEAT COMMENT: SURVEY SHEET 18 SHOWS THAT A PORTION |
| | OF THE BORE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET ON |
| | ENGINEERING SHEET 29 IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IS |
| | NOT PERMITTED UNLESS IT IS WITHIN A GENERAL UTILITY |
| | EASEMENT. NOT UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON YOUR |
| | SURVEY. |
| | |
| | 8) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THE TREE PITS ON THE NORTH |
| | SIDE OF FERN STREET ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 20-FOOT BY |
| | 20-FOOT AREA OF STRUCTURAL SOIL WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED |
| | TO BE DISTURBED BY HANDHOLES, BORE PITS, BORES OR |
| | EXCAVATIONS. HANDHOLE 22+13 AND ITS EXCAVATION AND |
| | BORES ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STRUCTURAL SOIL |
| | SURROUNDING A TREE PIT AND IS NOT PERMITTED IN THIS |
| | LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 9) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| | UTILITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET IN FRONT OF |
| | THE 360 ROSEMARY BUILDING. THERE CONTINUES TO BE A |
| | DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOUR PLANS AND THE 360 ROSEMARY |
| | PLANS AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE GAS LINE UNDER THE |
| | SIDEWALK. YOU MUST SHOW THIS ACCURATELY AND PROVIDE A |
| | LETTER OF NO OBJECTION BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF YOUR |
| | PROPOSED EXCAVATIONS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THEIR LINES. |
| | THE GAS LINE NEEDS TO BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON THE |
| | PROFILE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 10) UPDATED COMMENT: WHILE HANDHOLE 25+32 ON SHEET 29 |
| | IS SHOW WITHIN THE FUTURE SIDEWALK OF THE 515 FERN |
| | STREET PROJECT, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE EXCAVATION |
| | IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPE AREA. IF |
| | THE HANDHOLD IS INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE STREETSCAPE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS, THEN THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE |
| | EXCAVATION. IF THE HANDHOLE IS INSTALLED AFTER THE 10) |
| | |
| | 11) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| | UTILITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET IN FRONT OF |
| | THE 515 FERN STREET BUILDING. HANDHOLE 25+32 DIRECTLY |
| | CONFLICTS WITH A GAS LINE. YOU MUST PROVIDE A LETTER OF |
| | NO OBJECTION BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF YOU PROPOSED |
| | EXCAVATIONS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THEIR LINES. THE GAS |
| | LINE NEEDS TO BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON THE PROFILE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ 561-822-1446 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
