Plan Review Details - Project E22020017
Plan Review Stops For Project E22020017
Review Stop ENG-A ENGINEERING FORMAL REVIEW
Rev No 3 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-A ENGINEERING FORMAL REVIEW
Rev No 2 Status F Date 12-19-2022 Cont ID  
Sent By rrossano Date 12-19-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By rrossano Date 12-19-2022 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2022-12-19 13:20:58E220250017 - 300 BANYAN - 301 CLEMATIS 9.30.22
 RESUBMITTAL
 NO COMMENTS FROM RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORDINATOR,
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPT., 561-494-1098
 [email protected] :
  
 MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPER., WPB PUBLIC
 UTILITIES, 561-822-2262 OR [email protected]:
 -C4.5. ADD ADDRESS TO LABEL OF METER SHOWN IN PROFILE.
  
 -UPDATE PROFILE ON C4.5 TO SHOW GV3 AND TAP SIZE TO
 MATCH PLAN VIEW. SHOULD BE 4 INCH.
  
 -RESPONSE LETTER SAID THAT FPL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT WILL
 RUN UNDER ALL OTHER UTILITIES ACROSS ALLEY AND THAT
 LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO PLANS. CANNOT FIND ON
 PLANS AND PROFILES. PLEASE ADD.
  
 -SHEET C4.2. ADD SIZE OF PROPOSED DCDA FOR 301 CLEMATIS
 TO CALLOUT LABEL.
  
 -SHEET C4.2. ONE OF THE EXISTING METERED WATER SERVICES
 NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY IS NOT LABELED FOR
 REMOVAL. ADD ADDITIONAL LEADER LINE.
  
 -STILL MISSING SIGNED, SEALED, AND DATED FLOW
 CALCULATIONS FOR EACH OF THE LARGE DOMESTIC WATER
 SERVICES AND EACH OF THE FIRELINES AS DESCRIBED IN SD
 WS5 AND WS7. (THIS IS SEPARATE FROM WATER DEMAND
 CALCULATIONS)
  
 -ON SHEET C4.3, ADD NOTE ABOUT DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH OF
 301 CLEMATIS BUILDING EXISTING FOUNDATION FOOTER THAT
 IS NEAR PROPOSED 3 INCH METER AND BACKFLOW.
  
 -RESPONSE LETTER SAID THAT ALL OF THE EXISTING SEWER
 LATERALS IN ALLEY FOR 301 CLEMATIS WERE REMAINING.
 PLEASE ADD NOTE OR CALLOUT IN PLANS COMMUNICATING THAT.
  
 -NO CLEANOUTS ARE SHOWN FOR EXISTING 301 CLEMATIS SEWER
 LATERALS IN ALLEY, BUT HISTORIC PICTURES SHOW THEM.
 SHOW ON PLANS AND LABEL WITH ELEVATIONS. ENSURE NO
 CONFLICTS SUCH AS GATE VALVE AND CLEANOUT IN SAME
 LOCATION.
  
 -DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR BYPASS BOX ON
 EAST SIDE OF 300 BANYAN LARGE METER. PLEASE SHOW IT ON
 WEST SIDE INSTEAD OF EAST.
  
 -ADD NOTE TO WATER PLANS THAT UTILITY BOXES FOR METER
 BYPASS BLOWOFF NEED TO BE CDR TIER 22 FLARED WALL WITH
 17 INCH X 30 INCH LID.
  
 RICKY ELIZONDO, PUB. UTILITIES PLAN EXAMINER,
 [email protected], 561-494-1101:
  
 SHEET C4.1
 -PLEASE DENOTE PROPOSED PIPE TAPS AS ???TAPPING SLEEVE
 AND VALVE??? RATHER THAN ???TEE AND TAPPING VALVE)
  
 -ADD THE LENGTH OF THE PROPOSED 8??? DIP FIRE LINE
  
 -DENOTE GATE VALVES 1B AND 4 AS POINTS OF SERVICE
  
 -CALLOUT FOR UTILITY EASEMENT IS NOT POINTING AT THE
 MARKING SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
  
 SHEET 4.4
  
 -PROFILE IS MISLABELED, SHOULD BE CALLED ???WATER MAIN
 PROFILE???
  
 -3??? INCH WM TAP NOTED ON PROFILE IS LABELED AS 4???
 TAP ON PLANS, PLEASE REFLECT AS SUCH
  
 -CALL OUT THE MATERIAL FOR THE EXISTING ELECTRICAL
 BUNDLE ON THE PROFILE.
  
 SHEET 4.5
  
 -DENOTE TAPPING SLEEVE AS 4X4 WITH GV 3 LABELED AS A
 4???.
  
  
 TRACY WARD, SR. STORMWATER ENG., ENGINEERING SERVICES,
 [email protected] 561-494-1120
  
 COMMENTS ON THE 300 BANYAN BLVD / 301 CLEMATIS ST PLANS
 (S&S 9/30/2022) E22020017
  
 1. SHEET C2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMO. PLAN
 A. PROVIDE THE SIZE AND MATERIAL OF THE SHORT PIPE
 SEGMENT CONNECTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING
 WEST CATCH BASIN IN THE ALLEY AND INDICATE IF IT IS TO
 BE REMOVED OR IS TO REMAIN.
 B. WHICH PIPE DOES THE NORTH INVERT ELEVATION OF 8.97
 FT NAVD REFER TO AT THE EXISTING WEST CB IN THE ALLEY?
 C. THE EXISTING EAST CB IN THE ALLEY IS CALLED OUT TO
 BE CONVERTED TO A STORM MANHOLE (NOTE TYPO STH VS STM).
 SHEET C3.1 CALLS FOR REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING CB.
 D. WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THE BANYAN PHASE 2
 IMPROVEMENTS AND THIS PROJECT???S PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
 IN THE BANYAN BLVD R/W OR ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH R/W OF
 BANYAN BLVD?
 2. SHEET C3.1 PAVING & GRADING PLAN
 A. EXISTING EAST CB IN THE ALLEY IS CALLED TO BE
 REMOVED. INDICATE WHAT IS THE DONE WITH THE 10??? PVC
 RAIN WATER LEADER THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE STRUCTURE.
 IF BY TEE TO THE 24??? ADS, THEN A CLEANOUT AT THE
 BUILDING WILL BE NEEDED AND POSSIBLY AN AIR GAP.
 B. SPOT GRADE OF 12.00 NORTH OF STRUCTURE S-109 COUPLED
 WITH FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 12.30 AT THE DOOR
 OPENING WILL RESULT IN SURFACE SLOPE STEEPER THAN 2%.
 DOES THE SLOPE NEED TO BE 2% OR FLATTER?
 C. PROPOSED GRADE OF THE EAST END OF THE ALLEY (SPOT
 GRADE OF 11.90 FT NAVD) WILL RESULT IN RAMP SLOPE IN
 EXCESS OF 20% (EXISTING PAVEMENT SLOPE IS BETWEEN 11.28
 AND 11.11 FT NAVD). CONFIRM THERE IS SUFFICIENT
 SIDEWALK WIDTH WITH SLOPE OF 2% OR FLATTER ADJACENT TO
 THE ALLEY R/W.
 D. INCORPORATE BANYAN BLVD PHASE 2 DRAINAGE
 IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS. INDICATE WHAT WILL BE
 CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS (E.G. BY THE BANYAN BLVD
 PROJECT). LATEST BANYAN PLANS HAVE REVISION #9.
 I. THE TWO DRAINAGE STRUCTURES (S1-89B AND S-189F) AND
 STORM PIPE IN THE BACK OF THE PARKING AREAS.
 II. DRAINAGE MANHOLE (S-189C) IN THE CENTER OF BANYAN
 BLVD.
 III. DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (S-189A) TO THE WEST OF THE
 DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE.
 IV. CONVERTED INLET TO MANHOLE (S-189) AT THE CORNER OF
 BANYAN BLVD AND OLIVE AVE.
 V. PROVIDE CURB ALIGNMENT AND GRADING PLAN TO
 TRANSITION NEW CURB LOCATION IN FRONT OF THIS
 DEVELOPMENT TO THE EXISTING CURB TO THE WEST.
 VI. CONFIRM WITH THE CITY???S PROJECT MANAGER (VLADIMIR
 JEANNOT ??? TELEPHONE NO. 561-494-1107) FOR THE BANYAN
 BLVD PROJECT THAT THE VALET DROPOFF IS TO SLOPE FROM
 SOUTH TO NORTH TO THE VALLEY GUTTER.
 E. FULL SIDEWALK WIDTH (8 FEET?) IS TO HAVE CROSS SLOPE
 OF 2% OR FLATTER ALONG BANYAN BLVD AND OLIVE AVE
 FRONTAGES.
 F. VALET DROP AREA ON OLIVE AVE APPEARS TO HAVE VARYING
 CROSS SLOPE BETWEEN 5% AND 7%.
 G. LABEL THE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER TYPES ALONG
 BANYAN BLVD., INCLUDING THE BACK OF THE VALET DROPOFF
 AREA.
 H. SHOW AND LABEL THE BACK OF SIDEWALK ALONG BANYAN
 BLVD AND OLIVE AVE FRONTAGES. PROVIDE WIDTH DIMENSIONS
 FOR THE SIDEWALK.
 I. CHECK EXISTING AND PROPOSED LINEWORK ALONG BANYAN
 BLVD. THE EXISTING DASHED LINES FOR THE CURB AND GUTTER
 DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.1.
 3. SHEET C3.2 DRAINAGE PLAN
 A. EXISTING EAST CB IN THE ALLEY IS CALLED OUT TO BE
 MODIFIED TO A STORM MH RING AND COVER. SEE COMMENT NO.
 2.A. ABOVE. DOES THE STRUCTURE NEED TO BE MODIFIED
 OTHER THAN ADJUSTING THE GRATE ELEVATION TO THE
 PROPOSED ALLEY GRADE? CAN STRUCTURE S-109 BE MOVED TO
 THE EAST TO REPLACE THE EXISTING EAST CB?
 B. PROVIDE PROPOSED RIM ELEVATION AND EXISTING INVERT
 ELEVATIONS FOR THE EXISTING EAST CB IN THE ALLEY.
 C. CONFIRM SE INVERT ELEVATION OF 7.05 FT NAVD FOR THE
 EXISTING 12??? STORM PIPE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE CS-1.
 THE NORTH INVERT OF THE EXISTING 12??? STORM PIPE IS
 LISTED AS 8.86 FT NAVD AT THE EXISTING WEST CB.
 D. LABEL THE PIPE MATERIAL FOR THE EXISTING 12??? STORM
 PIPE.
 E. THE NORTH AND WEST INVERTS AT THE EXISTING WEST CB
 ARE LISTED AS 8.86 FT AND 7.14 FEET NAVD, RESPECTIVELY.
 SHEET C2.1 LISTS THE NORTH AND WEST INVERTS AS 8.97 FT
 AND 7.10 FT NAVD, RESPECTIVELY.
 F. SEE COMMENT 2.D. ABOVE REGARDING INCORPORATING THE
 BANYAN BLVD IMPROVEMENTS.
 G. PROVIDE STRUCTURE NUMBERS FOR THE EXISTING CBS IN
 THE ALLEY. THIS WILL FACILITATE SHOP DRAWING REVIEW AND
 FIELD REPORTING.
 H. SHOW IN A DIFFERENT LINE TYPE (DIFFERENT FROM EXDN)
 THE PROPOSED 24??? ADS BETWEEN THE EXISTING WEST CB AND
 STRUCTURE S-109.
 I. INCLUDE A PRB FOR WEST INVERT AT STRUCTURE CS-1.
 J. INCLUDE THE WEIR ELEVATION IN THE CALLOUT FOR
 STRUCTURE CS-1.
 K. WHAT IS THE CALLOUT FOR 18 LF, 18??? HDPE POINTING
 TO BETWEEN STRUCTURES S-104 AND S-105?
 L. LABEL THE DASHED LINES ACROSS THE EAST END OF THE
 ALLEY. IF THIS IS A TRENCH DRAIN, MOVE TO THE WEST TO
 BE OUT OF THE OLIVE AVE SIDEWALK AREA.
 M. CHECK THE LINE WORK ALONG BANYAN BLVD. THE EXISTING
 CURB AND GUTTER APPEARS TO BE SHOWN IN SOLID AND DASHED
 LINES.
 4. SHEET C3.3 SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN
 A. IF ALLEY IS ONE-WAY EAST BOUND THEN A DO NOT ENTER
 SIGN SHOULD BE ATTACHED OR POLE MOUNTED ON THE EAST
 SIDE OF THE 301 CLEMATIS ST BUILDING.
 B. INCLUDE STOP BAR AND ???STOP??? LETTERING ACROSS THE
 ALLEY BEFORE THE N. OLIVE AVE R/W.
 C. CONSIDER A PAINTED LEFT ARROW ON THE ALLEY PAVEMENT
 UNLESS ALLEY WILL BE PAVERS.
 D. CHECK EXISTING AND PROPOSED LINEWORK ALONG BANYAN
 BLVD. THE EXISTING DASHED LINES FOR THE CURB AND GUTTER
 DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.1
 5. SHEET C4.1 WATER & SEWER PLAN
 A. EXISTING CBS IN THE ALLEY ARE NOT SHOWN.
 B. CONFLICT #1 ??? TOP OF 24??? STORM LISTED AS 6.70
 FEET NAVD. AT STRUCTURE S-109, 18 FEET TO THE WEST, THE
 PIPE INVERT ELEVATION IS 6.70 FEET NAVD. PLEASE CONFIRM
 THESE ELEVATIONS.
 C. SEE COMMENT #3.H. ABOVE REGARDING STORM PIPE LINE
 TYPE.
 D. CHECK EXISTING AND PROPOSED LINEWORK ALONG BANYAN
 BLVD. THE EXISTING DASHED LINES FOR THE CURB AND GUTTER
 DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.1
 6. SHEET C4.2 WATER & SEWER PLAN
 A. SEE COMMENT #3.H. ABOVE REGARDING STORM PIPE LINE
 TYPE.
 7. SHEET C4.3 WATER & SEWER PLAN
 A. EXISTING EAST CB IN THE ALLEY IS NOT SHOWN.
 B. SEE COMMENT #3.H. ABOVE REGARDING STORM PIPE LINE
 TYPE.
 C. WHAT DETERMINED THE LENGTH AND LOCATION OF THE 8???
 DIP SLEEVE FOR THE 4??? WM?
 8. SHEET C4.4 WATER, SEWER & DRAINAGE PROFILE
 A. EXISTING CBS IN THE ALLEY ARE NOT SHOWN.
 B. PROFILE VIEW LABELS THE EXISTING WEST CB AS AN
 EXISTING STRUCTURE. SHEET C3.2 CALLS FOR THE STRUCTURE
 TO BE REPLACED. SHOW THE NEW STRUCTURE AND NEW 24???
 ADS STORM PIPE IN PROFILE.
 C. COORDINATE THE INVERT ELEVATIONS SHOWN FOR THE STORM
 STRUCTURES ON THE PROFILE WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
 ON SHEET C3.2.
 D. PROPOSED 15??? RCP CALLED OUT AT EXISTING STORM
 STRUCTURE. IS THIS PIPE SUPPOSE TO CONNECT TO THE
 EXISTING 12??? STORM PIPE CALLED OUT ON SHEET C3.2? DO
 NOT MIX PIPE DIAMETERS BETWEEN STRUCTURES.
 E. CALLOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE
 BETWEEN THE EXISTING WEST CB AND THE PROPOSED STORM
 STRUCTURE ON THE PROFILE.
 F. LABEL THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ON THE PROFILE.
 G. CORRECTLY SHOW THE ROADWAY GRADE, PARTICULARLY THE
 CROSS SLOPE OF THE OLIVE AVE PORTION.
 9. SHEET C4.5 WATER, SEWER & DRAINAGE PROFILE
 A. EXISTING EAST CB NOT SHOWN.
 B. DON???T PUT THE NORTH-SOUTH STORM PIPE ON THE SAME
 PROFILE AS THE EAST-WEST UTILITIES. PUT ON SEPARATE
 PROFILE GRID.
 C. PROPOSED 15??? RCP CALLED OUT AT EXISTING STORM
 STRUCTURE. IS THIS PIPE SUPPOSE TO CONNECT TO THE
 EXISTING 12??? STORM PIPE CALLED OUT ON SHEET C3.2?
 D. CALLOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE
 BETWEEN THE EXISTING WEST CB AND THE PROPOSED STORM
 STRUCTURE ON THE PROFILE.
 E. STRUCTURE S-109 SHOWN AS EXISTING STRUCTURE (DASHED
 LINES) ON THE PROFILE.
 F. EXISTING EAST CB NOT SHOWN ON THE [PROFILE.
 G. IS THE EXISTING 10 RWL BEING RE-ROUTED TO STRUCTURE
 S-109 OR STAYING CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING EAST CB?
 H. THE INVERTS FOR THE 59 LF 24??? ADS STORM PIPE
 APPEARS TO BE DRAWN AT 4.7 FT AND 4.3 FT NAVD BUT THEY
 ARE LABELED AS 7.7 FT AND 7.3 FT.
 I. LABEL THE STRUCTURE TO THE RIGHT OF THE EXISTING
 STORM STRUCTURE (PROFILE VIEW). IF THIS IS STRUCTURE
 CS-1, THE PIPE INVERTS FOR THE PROPOSED 15??? RCP DO
 NOT MATCH SHEET C3.2. SHEET ALSO INDICATES THE EXISTING
 12??? PIPE IS TO REMAIN.
 J. SHOW THE PROPER SUMPS FOR THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE
 STRUCTURES.
 10. SHEET C5.1 PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS
 A. CONFIRM PIPE SIZES AND PIPE INVERT AND WEIR
 ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE CS-1 WEIR BOX DETAIL.
 B. SHOW PRB ON THE CS-1 WEIR BOX DETAIL.
 C. CALLOUT MANHOLE FRAME AND GRATE FOR ANY MANHOLES TO
 BE WITHIN THE R/W.
 11. SHEET C5.2 PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS
 A. PROVIDE PAVEMENT SECTION DETAILS FOR SUBGRADE, BASE
 AND PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION. NOTE SUPERPAVE IS TO BE USED
 WITHIN THE R/W.
 B. CALLOUT PAVEMENT SECTIONS THICKNESSES AND
 CURB/GUTTER TYPES ON THE SECTIONS.
 C. PROVIDE A SECTION FOR THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY.
 D. SECTION A
 I. LABEL THE STREET R/W.
 II. DIMENSION THE DISTANCE FROM THE R/W (P/L) TO THE
 BACK OF VALLEY GUTTER TO THE LEFT PUBLIC R/W LINE AND
 TO THE FACE OF BUILDING.
 III. SHOW WHERE THE SIDEWALK AREA ALIGNS WITH THE
 DRIVEWAY APRON AND PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR THE SIDEWALK
 WIDTH AND THE DISTANCE FROM BUILDING FACE OR R/W.
 IV. CONFIRM THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE SECTION.
 E. SECTION B
 I. COORDINATE THE DESIGN (E.G. SLOPE DIRECTION) OF THE
 PROP. VALET DROPOFF AREA.
 II. DIMENSION THE PROP. VALET DROPOFF AREA AND THE
 DISTANCE FROM THE R/W (P/L) TO THE FACE OF THE
 BUILDING.
 III. SHOW WHERE THE SIDEWALK WILL BE. DIMENSION THE
 ???EDGE??? OF SIDEWALK WIDTH AND THE DISTANCE THE
 SIDEWALK IS FROM THE R/W OR BUILDING FACE.
 IV. CONFIRM THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN. SHEET C3.1 SHOWS A
 SPOT GRADE OF 12.25 FT ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING WEST OF
 THE SECTION LINE.
 F. SECTION C
 I. DIMENSION THE WIDTHS OF THE VALET DROPOFF AREA AND
 THE TREE PLANTER
 II. DIMENSION THE DISTANCE FROM THE R/W (P/L) TO THE
 FACE OF BUILDING AND TO THE RIGHT LINE OF THE PUBLIC
 R/W.
 III. SHOW WHERE THE SIDEWALK WILL BE. DIMENSION THE
 SIDEWALK WIDTH AND THE DISTANCE THE ???EDGE??? OF
 SIDEWALK IS FROM THE R/W OR BUILDING FACE.
 G. SECTION D
 I. DIMENSION THE WIDTHS OF THE VALET DROPOFF AREA AND
 THE TREE PLANTER
 II. DIMENSION THE DISTANCE FROM THE R/W (P/L) TO THE
 FACE OF BUILDING AND TO THE RIGHT LINE OF THE PUBLIC
 R/W.
 III. SHOW WHERE THE SIDEWALK WILL BE. DIMENSION THE
 SIDEWALK WIDTH AND THE DISTANCE THE ???EDGE??? OF
 SIDEWALK IS FROM THE R/W OR BUILDING FACE.
 IV. SHOW THE TYPE OF CURB AT THE BACK OF PROP. VALET
 DROPOFF AREA (WHERE THERE WILL NOT BE A TREE PLANTER).
 12. SHEET C6.5 WATER & WASTEWATER DETAILS
 A. INDICATE THE ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION TYPICAL SECTION
 CONCEPT IS ???LOOKING EAST??? OR LABEL THE NORTH AND
 SOUTH R/W LINES.
 B. ARE THE CONFLICT STRUCTURE DETAILS STILL NEEDED?
 13. SHEET C7.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
 A. THE INLET IN FRONT OF THE NORTH CONSTRUCTION
 ENTRANCE SHOULD EXTRA PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT ENTERING
 THE STRUCTURE. WILL THIS INLET BE CONVERTED TO A VALLEY
 GUTTER INLET PRIOR TO OR DURING THE ONSITE
 CONSTRUCTION?
 B. EXISTING CBS (ALLEY AND BANYAN BLVD) NOT SHOWN.
 C. CALLOUT INLET PROTECTION AND PROVIDE A DETAIL.
 D. CHECK EXISTING AND PROPOSED LINEWORK ALONG BANYAN
 BLVD. THE EXISTING DASHED LINES FOR THE CURB AND GUTTER
 DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET C2.1
 14. PROVIDE DETAILS FOR:
 A. VALLEY GUTTER
 B. OTHER CURB AND CURB AND GUTTER TYPES TO BE
 CONSTRUCTED.
  
  
 VLADIMIR JEANNOT, PMP, SPECIAL PROJECT MGR.,
 ENGINEERING SERVICES [email protected] P: 561.494.1107
 C: 561.356.3230
 1- LABEL CATCH BASIN IN PLAN TO REFERENCE CCTV DONE BY
 SHENANDOAH. PROVIDING A KEY MAP WOULD BE HELPFUL ALSO
 2- LABEL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TO REFERENCE CCTV DONE
 BY SHENANDOAH. PROVIDING A KEY MAP WOULD BE HELPFUL
 ALSO
 3- PLAN SHOWS ALL STORM TO BE A SIZE OF 24??? HDPE.
 HOWEVER, CCTV SHOWS VARYING SIZES; PLEASE CONFIRM AND
 NOTE APPROPRIATELY IN THE PLANS.
 4- SHOW ALL SANITARY, WATER MAIN AND STORM CONNECTIONS
 OR TAPS ON PLANS
 5- IDENTIFY/LABEL ALL UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
 6- WILL VIBRATION MONITORING BE PROVIDED?
 7- HAS A PLAN BEING DISCUSSED ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE
 ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE CCTVS?
 8- HAVE WE DONE SOFT DIGS TO CONFIRM ELEVATIONS OF
 EXISTING UTILITIES?
 9- HAS MARK HURLEY CONFIRM IF THE METERS IN THE ALLEY
 ARE ACTIVE OR NOT?
 10- IT APPEARS THAT THE WATER WILL NEED TO BE
 DISCONNECTED TO INSTALL THE DRY UTILITY CONDUITS? IF
 SO, IS THERE A PLAN FOR A TEMPORARY WATER MAIN? HOW
 WILL SERVICE BE MAINTAINED FOR THOSE PROPERTIES?
 11- GAS MAIN SEEMS TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED
 DRY UTILITIES AS WELL.
 12- PROVIDE UTILITY CONFLICT TABLE?
 13- MERGE THE 300 ALLEYWAY PLAN WITH THE ENGINEERING
 SUBMITTAL PLAN FOR 300 BANYAN FOR BETTER COORDINATION
 OF WORK AND CONFLICTS
  
  
Review Stop ENG-A ENGINEERING FORMAL REVIEW
Rev No 1 Status F Date 04-14-2022 Cont ID  
Sent By RROSSANO Date 04-14-2022 Time   Rev Time  
Received By rrossano Date 04-14-2022 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2022-04-14 08:49:48E220250017 - 300 BANYAN - 301 CLEMATIS FIRST ENG
 SUBMITTAL
 COMMENTS FROM RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORDINATOR,
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPT., 561-494-1098
 [email protected] :
  
 1. CONFIRM THAT A COMPLETED LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE
 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO ENGINEERING (SHEET 33 OF
 CITY OF WPB DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION).
 2. CHECK TO SEE IF FDEP FORMS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY
 SEWER ARE REQUIRED.
 3. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE, MAXIMUM
 AND PEAK) AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS. CALCULATIONS SHALL BE
 PER FAC 64E-8 FOR WATER AND PER FAC 64-E.008 FOR SEWER.
 4. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS OF REVISED PERVIOUS AND
 IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPACTED
 AREAS.
 5. COORDINATE WITH MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE
 SUPERVISOR WITH CITY OF WPB PUBLIC UTILITIES, REGARDING
 PLACEMENT OF BACKFLOW DEVICES AND WATER METERS. CONTACT
 HIM AT 561-494-2262 OR [email protected]
 6. PLANS SHALL SHOW EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOCATIONS AND
 DIMENSIONS OF ALL WATER, STORMWATER, AND SANITARY AND
 SEWER LINES AND CLEANOUTS, GREASE TRAPS, ETC. INCLUDING
 STUBS TO EACH PROPERTY LINE FOR WATER AND SANITARY
 SEWERS, THE MAKE AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES, POTABLE AND
 IRRIGATION METERS, BACKFLOWS, FIRE HYDRANTS AND FDCS,
 AND OTHER DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SYSTEM, CATCH
 BASINS, CULVERTS, DITCHES INCLUDING GRADES, PIPES
 SIZES, MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS,
 CALCULATIONS, INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ALL INLETS AND
 MANHOLES AND PROFILES OF SANITARY SEWER LINES. GATE
 VALVE BOXES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN CURB OR SIDEWALK.
 ALL AVAILABLE ELEVATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE
 VIEW. DIRECTION OF FLOW SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLAN VIEW ON
 PLAN VIEW FOR ALL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS. PLEASE
 SHOW SLOPE % ON ALL SANITARY LINES AND CALL OUT
 MATERIAL. ADDITIONALLY, PLAN VIEW SHALL SHOW ALL
 EXISTING AND PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY LAYOUT,
 INCLUDING FIBER OPTIC, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION &
 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE
 RIGHT-OF-WAY.
 7. PLEASE CUT AND CAP UTILITIES NOT IN USE AND REMOVE
 ANY ABANDONED UTILITY LINES LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM
 CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
 8. PLEASE SHOW EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS,
 INCLUDING THOSE PROPOSED TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR CITY
 PERSONNEL TO PROPOSED UTILITY WATER METERS.
 9. PLEASE PROVIDE ENLARGED VIEW ON PLANS OF PROPOSED
 LOCATION OF WATER METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION, AND
 EXISTING METER AND BACKFLOW (TO BE REMOVED?). BACKFLOWS
 SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF
 EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY. DOMESTIC WATER METERS
 SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY
 LINE. 3 INCH AND LARGER WATER METERS SHALL BE INSTALLED
 ABOVE-GROUND ONLY.
 10. PLEASE CALLOUT DOMESTIC BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS RPPA
 AND FIRE BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS DCDA. SPECIFY LEAD FREE
 DESIGN ON ALL BACKFLOWS.
 11. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, SFWMD ERP AND
 NPDES NOI REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED.
 - AN NOI IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS THAT:
 - 1) DISTURB ONE OF MORE ACRES OF LAND OR DISTURB LESS
 THAN ON ACRE OF LAND BUT ARE PART OF A COMMON PLAN OF
 DEVELOPMENT OR SALE;
 - 2) DISCHARGE STORMWATER TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE
 STATE OR TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE THROUGH A
 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4).
 - THE SFWMD ERP CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH A 10-2 SELF
 CERTIFICATION THROUGH FDEP OR AN ERP APPLICATION
 THROUGH SFWMD. EITHER WAY, THE DEVELOPER/ENGINEER SHALL
 SUBMIT A COPY OF THE ERP PERMIT OR FDEP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 OF THE 10-2 CERTIFICATION.
 12. PROVIDE PROFILE AND CLEARANCES BETWEEN WATER, SEWER
 AND STORM LINES AT ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS WITHIN ROW PER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH STANDARD DETAIL GN-2 SERIES.
 13. WHEN SUBMITTING APPROVED MATERIALS LIST, PLEASE
 PROVIDE MATERIAL/CUT SHEETS FOR ALL PROPOSED BACKFLOW
 DEVICES SHOWING SPECIFIC MODEL NUMBER AND SPECIFYING
 USC APPROVED LEAD-FREE DESIGN.
 14. PLEASE CLEARLY SHOW ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
 15. PLEASE PROVIDE SANITARY ELEVATIONS AT MANHOLE
 TIE-IN.
 16. IF SANITARY LINES ARE PROPOSED IN ROW PLEASE SHOW
 ADJACENT SANITARY LATERAL LOCATIONS AND SHOW ADDRESSES
 OF ADJACENT PARCELS.
 17. IF WATER LINES ARE BEING REPLACED IN ROW, SHOW
 ADJACENT PARCEL ADDRESSES.
 18. IF TRENCHING IN IN CITY-MAINTAINED ROADWAY AREAS
 ADD NOTE TO PROVIDE 50 FT. PAVEMENT RESTORATION
 TRANSITION ON EACH SIDE OF PROPOSED TRENCH PER CITY OF
 WPB STANDARD DETAIL GC-4.
 19. PLEASE PROVIDE LEGEND ON ALL PLAN SHEETS TO INCLUDE
 STREETLIGHT, SIGN POSTS, TRANSFORMER BOXES ETC.
 20. PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS IN WRITING AND
 INCLUDE PROJECT NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMIT NUMBER
 (E-XXXXXXXX).
  
 MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPER., WPB PUBLIC
 UTILITIES, 561-822-2262 OR [email protected]:
  
 -UPDATE LABEL FOR LARGE METERS WITH WORDING: ABOVE
 GROUND.
 -SHEET C4.3: DOORS PATH SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE
 PARALLEL 4 INCH BACKFLOWS AND RELATED PIPING; FOR 3
 INCH BFP ALSO ADD SIZE OF METER; IF 3 INCH METER IS
 PROPOSED THEN TAP/PIPING SHOULD BE 4 INCH INSTEAD OF 3
 INCH; REMOVE PRIVATE FROM LABEL OF 301 CLEMATIS
 PROPOSED WATER SERVICE.
  
 -CALLOUT ALL CONFLICT CROSSINGS WITH UTILITIES. ADD
 CROSSING TABLE IF NEEDED.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL ALL FRANCHISE UTILITIES.
  
 -IF METERED WATER SERVICE ON EAST SIDE OF 301 CLEMATIS
 WILL NOT BE USED, THEN SHOW REMOVAL.
  
 -LABEL OLIVE AVE ON SHEET C4.2.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER MAINS,
 SEWER LATERALS, WATER METERS, METER BOXES, WATER
 SERVICES, SEWER MAINS, MANHOLES, FORCE MAINS, AND
 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES IN THE AREA OF 300 BANYAN AND 301
 CLEMATIS. FOR PIPING ADD SIZE AND MATERIAL TYPE TO
 LABEL.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL EXISTING FIRELINE WATER SERVICE FOR 301
 CLEMATIS ST.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL PROPOSED DCDA INSTALLATION FOR 301
 CLEMATIS ST.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED FDCS FOR 301
 CLEMATIS AND 300 BANYAN.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS
 NEAR 301 CLEMATIS AND 300 BANYAN.
  
 -SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS.
  
 -SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER MAIN VALVES.
  
 -ADD PROFILES FOR ALL PROPOSED WATER SERVICES.
  
 -BOX FOR PROPOSED IRRIGATION METER LOOKS TO CONFLICT
 WITH EXFILTRATION. ALSO BOX LOOKS ROTATED DIFFERENT
 DIRECTION THAN EXISTING.
  
 -APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT BACKFLOW COVENANT FOR
 300 BANYAN BLVD. AND 301 CLEMATIS ST.
  
 -VERTICAL MOUNT DCDA IS NONSTANDARD. ENGINEER NEEDS TO
 SUBMIT PROPOSED DESIGN AND VERIFY ANY SUPPORTS NEEDED.
  
 -ADD FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS TO WATER PLAN.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL EXISTING WATER SERVICE FOR IRRIGATION
 WITH PIPE SIZE AND MATERIAL TYPE.
  
 -VERIFY THERE WILL BE NO FOOD SERVICE IN 300 BANYAN
 THAT WOULD REQUIRE USE OF GREASE TRAP, BUT BYPASS IT.
  
 -AT EAST SIDE OF GREASE TRAPS, THERE IS A PIPE 90. IS
 THAT ALRIGHT AND HOW IS IT CONSTRUCTED?
  
 -ADD SLOPE GUIDANCE TO LABELS OF SEWER LATERALS.
  
 -WATER PLAN SHOWS GAS LINE GOING THROUGH GREASE TRAP.
  
 -TWO MANHOLES IN ALLEY ARE OVERLAPPING.
  
 -INCORPORATE PRIOR GUIDANCE FROM TECHNOW: ADD NOTE THAT
 WATER MAIN TIE-IN IS TO PROCEED AFTER THE CONTRACTOR
 HAS SUBMITTED A CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN FOR
 PIGGING/FLUSHING TO THE CITY AND RECEIVING PBC HEALTH
 DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.; INSERT COWPB STANDARD DETAIL GS-7
 ?DOGHOUSE MANHOLE? ON DETAIL SHEET.; THE GRAVITY SEWER
 IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A CASING THROUGH THE CONFLICT
 MANHOLE. INSERT COWPB STANDARD DETAIL P-10 FOR THE
 CASING AND THE FDOT CONFLICT MANHOLE STANDARD DETAIL
 INDEX 425-080 INTO THE PLANS.
  
 -PROPOSED 3 INCH BFP AND METER FOR 301 CLEMATIS ST. IS
 LOCATED SUBSTANTIALLY CLOSE TO EXISTING BUILDING.
 CONCERN WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT BUILDING FOOTERS AND
 EXCAVATION ADJACENT BUILDING. EOR SUGGESTED DIMENSIONS
 OF BUILDING FOOTER AND SAFETY OF EXCAVATION COULD BE
 CONFIRMED. PLEASE SUBMIT THOSE VERIFICATIONS.
  
 -ON WATER PLAN, CALLOUT ABOUT A FIRE HYDRANT LOOKS TO
 BE OBSTRUCTING PLAN VIEW OF MANHOLE IN OLIVE.
  
 -SHOW AND LABEL SANITARY MANHOLE AT EAST SIDE OF OLIVE
 WHERE WASTEWATER FLOWS TO. ADD INVERT INFORMATION TO
 LABEL.
  
 -PLANS ARE MISSING SEVERAL STANDARD DETAILS INCLUDING
 SMALL METERED WATER SERVICE, LARGE METERED WATER
 SERVICE (ABOVE-GROUND AND DETAILS), AND FIRELINE
 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY.
  
 -SUBMIT LATEST REVISION SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPING PLAN,
 AND IRRIGATION PLAN, AND CONFIRM THOSE HAVE NO CONFLICT
 WITH UTILITIES.
  
 -PAVEMENT RESTORATION BOUNDARIES ON OLIVE FOR UTILITY
 WORK DOES NOT MATCH DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.
  
 -COUPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHADING ON PAVING PLAN IS
 NOT IDENTIFIED ON LEGEND.
  
 -WILL THERE BE STANDING WATER AT MH2?
  
 -DID NOT SEE SPOT ELEVATIONS CALLED OUT ON WEST SIDE OF
 BUILDING.
  
 -ON PAVING PLAN CANNOT SEE STREET NAMES CLEARLY.
  
 -WILL APPLICANT MAINTAIN TRENCH DRAIN IN ALLEY?
  
 -APPROVAL LETTER STATES: ALLEYWAY SHALL BE DESIGNATED
 AS ONE-WAY IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION, AND NECESSARY
 SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS INSTALLED THROUGHOUT ITS
 EXTENSION BETWEEN DIXIE AND OLIVE. ENSURE THAT ALL
 SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ARE SHOWN ON PLANS TO
 SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT.
  
 -ADD FLOW CALCULATIONS TO WATER PLAN AS DIRECTED IN
 WS-7.
  
 -ADVISE ON STATUS OF UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD
 UTILITIES. SHOW ANY PROPOSED TRANSFORMER BOXES ON
 PLANS.
  
 -PROVIDE SEPARATE WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS ON WATER
 PLANS FOR 300 BANYAN AND 301 CLEMATIS. NOT SURE IF WHAT
 IS CURRENTLY SHOWN IS COMBINED OR JUST FOR BANYAN.
  
  
 MIKE TECHNOW, PUB. UTILITIES ENGINEER,
 [email protected], 561-494-1047:
  
 -SHOW ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
 PROVIDE SUNSHINE811 TICKET FOR NORTH OLIVE.
 - PROVIDE PROFILE AND VERTICAL CLEARANCES BETWEEN
 WATER, SEWER AND STORM LINES PER CITY OF WEST PALM
 BEACH STANDARD DETAIL GN-2 SERIES, AT ALL UTILITY
 CROSSINGS. SHOW EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ON THE
 PROFILE. THE PROFILE SHOULD SHOW PROPOSED PIPE FROM
 TIE-IN AT THE MAIN TO POINT OF SERVICE.
 - SHOW STATIONING AND HORIZONTAL SEPARATION CLEARANCE
 BETWEEN PROPOSED UTILITIES AND EXISTING UTILITIES
 AND/OR BASELINE.
 - ADD NOTE THAT WATER MAIN TIE-IN IS TO PROCEED AFTER
 THE CONTRACTOR HAS SUBMITTED A CONSTRUCTION PHASING
 PLAN FOR PIGGING/FLUSHING TO THE CITY AND RECEIVING PBC
 HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.
  
 COMMENTS FROM TRACY WARD, SR. STORMWATER ENG.,
 ENGINEERING SERVICES, [email protected] 561-494-1120
  
 1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS
 A. PAGE 5 OF 8: TRENCH STORAGE MAY CHANGE BASED ON
 COMMENT 1.D BELOW.
 B. PAGE 6 OF 8: REVIEW RAINFALL DEPTHS. THEY APPEAR TOO
 LOW FOR DOWNTOWN WEST PALM BEACH.
 C. PAGE 7 OF 8: INDICATE WHERE THE ELEVATION 17.00 CAME
 FROM IN THE LAST LINE ON THE PAGE. FINISHED FLOOR
 ELEVATION IS 12.30 FEET NAVD.
 D. PAGE 8 OF 8: IN EXFILTRATION TRENCH EQUATION:
 I. H2 CANNOT EXTEND BELOW BOTTOM OF TRENCH
 II. DU CANNOT EXTEND BELOW THE HIGHER OF THE TRENCH
 BOTTOM ELEVATION OR WATER TABLE ELEVATION
 III. PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE EXFILTRATION RATE
 (K).
 2. FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, NUMBER ALL OF THE PROPOSED
 AND EXISTING DRAINAGE AND SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES.
 FOR THE PROPOSED CONFLICT STRUCTURES, THE TYPE OF
 STRUCTURE (STORM OR SANITARY) WILL BE DETERMINED BY
 WHICH UTILITY PIPE DOES NOT PASS THROUGH THE STRUCTURE.
 3. SHOW THE EAST CONTINUATION OF THE SANITARY SEWER
 MAIN AT THE CONFLICT STRUCTURE IN THE INTERSECTION OF
 THE ALLEY AND N. OLIVE AVE.
 4. INCLUDE IN THE SHEET LEGENDS ALL OF THE HATCHING
 STYLES SHOWN ON THE SHEET.
 5. CALLOUT REPLACEMENT OF THE CURB FOR THE DRIVEWAY
 ACCESS ON BANYAN BLVD WITH VALLEY GU
 6. MOVE THE TRENCH DRAIN AT THE EAST END OF THE ALLEY
 OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH-SOUTH SIDEWALK CORRIDOR ALONG THE
 WEST SIDE OF N. OLIVE AVE. TRENCH GRATE TO BE ADA AND
 BICYCLE SAFE.
 7. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS.
 LABEL RIGHT OF WAY. PROVIDE DISTANCES FROM RIGHT OF WAY
 TO: CENTERLINE, BACK OF CURB, BREAK POINTS, BUILDING
 FACE. SHOW TYPICAL SURFACE SLOPES, SIDEWALK WIDTHS,
 LANDSCAPE AREAS, ETC.
 A. DRIVEWAY CONNECTION ON BANYAN (FROM CENTERLINE OF
 BANYAN BLVD TO 10 FEET INSLDE BUILDING.
 B. FROM CENTERLINE OF BANYAN BLVD TO FACE OF BUILDING.
 C. FROM CENTERLINE OF N. OLIVE AVE TO FACE OF BUILDING
 NEAREST THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF N. OLIVE AVE.
 D. FROM CENTERLINE OF N. OLIVE AVE TO FACE OF BUILDING
 SET FURTHER FROM THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF N. OLIVE AVE.
 8. SHOW ON THE PAVING AND GRADING PLAN WHERE THE
 SPECIAL TYPE ?F? CURB AND GUTTER IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
 9. INDICATE IF THE GRADES ALONG N. OLIVE AVE ARE FOR
 EDGE OF PAVEMENT, TOP OF CURB, ETC.
 10. DO NOT LEAVE THE 8? +/- LONG MILL AND RESURFACING
 GAP ON N. OLIVE AVE.
 11. PROVIDE AN ENGLISH UNITS (INCHES) VERSION OF THE
 SPECIAL TYPE ?F? CURB AND GUTTER DETAIL ON SHEET C5.1.
 12. ON THE DRAINAGE PLAN, LIST WHICH STRUCTURES ARE TO
 HAVE PRB?S INSTALLED AND WHICH PIPE INVERT WILL BE
 COVERED BY THE PRB.
 13. PROVIDE A DETAIL FOR THE CONTROL STRUCTURE.
 14. PROVIDE PROFILES OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES
 IN THE ALLEY FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE WEST PROPERTY
 LINE ACROSS THE ALLEY TO THE CONFLICT MANHOLE IN N.
 OLIVE AVE. INCLUDE PROPOSED GROUND GRADING PROFILES
 ALONG NORTH AND SOUTH ALLEY RIGHTS OF WAY AND
 CENTERLINE (FLOWLINE) OF ALLEY.
 15. PROVIDE TO-SCALE PROFILE OF OUTFALL PIPE BETWEEN
 CS-1 AND EXISTING CB. SHOW BOTH DRAINAGE STRUCTURES,
 PROPERTY/RIGHT OF WAY LINE, AND EXISTING/PROPOSED
 UTILITIES INCLUDING THE EXISTING 10? SANITARY SEWER.
 DOES THE OUTFALL PIPE NEED TO BE 18? IN DIAMETER?
 16. PROVIDE TO-SCALE PROFILES OF THE SEWER LATERALS
 CROSSING THE ALLEY. SHOW ALL UTILITY
 CONFLICTS,STRUCTURES, PROPERTY LINES, BENDS, GROUND
 PROFILE, ETC.
 17. THE PROPOSED DOG HOUSE MANHOLE (MH-1) APPEARS TO BE
 IN HORIZONTAL CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED CONFLICT
 MANHOLE TO THE NORTH.
 18. IS CENTERLINE STRIPING NEEDED FOR DRIVEWAY APRON TO
 BANYAN BLVD?
 19. PROVIDE STRIPING PLAN FOR BANYAN BLVD AND N. OLIVE
 AVE. IN THE MILLING AND RESURFACING AREAS.
 20. INCLUDE NO LEFT TURN SIGN WITH THE ONE WAY SIGN AT
 THE ALLEY.
 21. USE ALTERNATIVE TO HAY BALES FOR INLET PROTECTION.
 22. SHOW WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WILL BE LOCATED.
 IT SHOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
  
Review Stop ENG-D ENGINEERING DEFICIENCY REVIEW
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-E ENGINEERING ENVR. MIT. REVIEW
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-F ENGINEERING FINAL DRAWING REV
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-M ENGINEERING MODIFICATION REV
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-P ENGINEERING PLANNING REVIEW
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop ENG-T ENGINEERING TRAFFIC STUDY REV
Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
  Print


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved