Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project E22020017
Project Number E22020017
Review Stop ENG-A
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
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
  
  
  Print


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