| Date |
Text |
| 2021-04-05 21:41:41 | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE |
| | 3/22/2021 SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. |
| | |
| | 1. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] EXPLAIN WHY THE PROPOSED CURB |
| | LINE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 2ND STREET AND |
| | SAPODILLA AVE IS BEING MOVED INTO THE ROAD AND |
| | NARROWING THE LANE WIDTH. PREVIOUS COMMENT:PROPOSED |
| | NORTH CURB DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING CURB AT THE |
| | WEST END OF 2ND STREET. THERE IS ALSO A GAP BETWEEN THE |
| | START OF THE CURB AND THE BEGINNING OF THE WESTERN |
| | PARALLEL PARKING AREA. |
| | |
| | 2. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] MOVE STRUCTURE S-105 WEST OR |
| | EAST SO THAT IT IS NOT DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE MID-BLOCK |
| | CROSS WALK.PREVIOUS COMMENT: AVOID PLACEMENT OF |
| | MANHOLES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SIDEWALK. IF |
| | UNAVOIDABLE, LOCATE THE STRUCTURES AWAY FROM CROSS |
| | WALKS WHERE POSSIBLE. |
| | |
| | 3. [SATISFIED] DRAINAGE AND SANITARY SEWER PIPES AND |
| | STRUCTURES TO BE LOCATED A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 3 FEET |
| | (5 FEET PREFERRED) FROM WATER MAINS. |
| | |
| | 4. [NOT SATISFIED] SHOW 10' WIDE EASEMENT CENTERED OVER |
| | THE STORM PIPE. PREVIOUS COMMENT: EASEMENT WILL NEED TO |
| | BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY FOR THE STORM PIPE BETWEEN |
| | S-204 AND THE EXISTING CATCH BASIN IF THE DESIGN DOES |
| | NOT CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 5. [NOT SATISFIED] WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF STRUCTURE |
| | S-201, A TYPE 'D' DBI IN THE PARKWAY OF 3RD STREET? |
| | |
| | 6. [SATISFIED] WILL CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS BE NEEDED TO |
| | INSTALL THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY |
| | BOUNDARY? |
| | |
| | 7. [NOT SATISFIED] COMMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. VERIFY THE HGL BETWEEN |
| | STRUCTURE CS-1 AND S-101 WILL NOT EXCEED THE RIM |
| | ELEVATION OF S-101. |
| | |
| | 8. [SATISFIED] HOW WHERE THE CROSS SECTIONS PROVIDED ON |
| | SHEET C3.1 ARE TAKEN. LABEL THE PARTICULAR STREET RIGHT |
| | OF WAY ON EACH SECTION. |
| | |
| | 9. [NOT SATISFIED] COMMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. ASSUMING SECTION A IS FOR |
| | THE WEST PROPERTY LINE NORTH OF THE ALLEY, DIMENSION |
| | THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND |
| | THE CENTER OF THE 18" STORM PIPE. |
| | |
| | 10. [NOT SATISFIED] COMMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. ASSUMING SECTION B IS FOR |
| | THE WEST PROPERTY LINE SOUTH OF THE ALLEY,DIMENSION THE |
| | HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE |
| | CENTER OF THE 18" STORM PIPE. |
| | |
| | 11. [NOT SATISFIED] ASSUMING SECTION C IS FOR 2ND |
| | STREET (30' R/W), CREATE A DEPRESSION BETWEEN THE BACK |
| | OF CURB AND FRONT OF WALK TO CAPTURE THE STORMWATER |
| | RUNOFF FORM THE SIDEWALK. SHOW WHERE THE EXISTING C&G |
| | ON THE NORTH SIDE IS LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE NORTH |
| | R/W LINE. |
| | |
| | 12. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE A SECTION OF 2ND STREET |
| | WHERE THERE WILL NOT BE PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | THE STREET. |
| | |
| | 13. [NOT SATISFIED] CAN EXTERIOR SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE |
| | LEASING LOBBY BE LOWERED, AN ELEVATED LANDING BE |
| | CREATED OUTSIDE THE DOORS TO THE LEASING LOBBY AND |
| | STEPS AND HANDICAP RAMP BE CREATED TO CONNECT THE |
| | EXTERIOR SIDEWALK TO THE LANDING? PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | ASSUMING SECTION D IS FOR ROSEMARY AVE, CAN THE FFE OF |
| | 22.0 FT NAVD FOR THE LEASING LOBBY AT THE SE CORNER OF |
| | THE DEVELOPMENT BE LOWERED TO REDUCE THE SIDEWALK |
| | ELEVATION OF 21.85 FT AND THEREBY FLATTEN THE SLOPE |
| | BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND BACK OF CURB? AS CURRENTLY |
| | DESIGNED, THIS SLOPE IS AROUND 4:1. THE FFE OF THE REST |
| | OF THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG ROSEMARY AVE. IS 20.6 FT NAVD. |
| | |
| | 14. [NOT SATISFIED] CONSIDER USING PERVIOUS PAVERS TO |
| | REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF. |
| | |
| | 15. [NOT SATISFIED] ON THE DRAINAGE PLAN, THE VIEWPORT |
| | SCALE DOES NOT MATCH THE SHEET SCALE. THE DIMENSIONED |
| | LINES APPEAR TO BE 10% SHORTER USING THE SHEET SCALE. |
| | |
| | 16. [NOT SATISFIED] ASSUMING SECTION E IS FOR 3RD ST., |
| | THE SECTION SHOWS THE R/W AS 25 FEET WIDE AND THE |
| | SURVEY HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY AT 50 FEET WIDE. |
| | |
| | 17. [NOT SATISFIED] THE GAP BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPE |
| | ISLAND AND C&G IS NOT SHOWN. PREVIOUS COMMENT: HOW WILL |
| | RUNOFF FLOWING INTO THE 3 PARKING SPACES DIRECTLY EAST |
| | OF THE MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK ON 3RD ST AND INTO THE |
| | PARKLING SPACES ON 2ND STREET REACH A DRAINAGE |
| | STRUCTURE? |
| | |
| | 18. [NOT SATISFIED] ON SECTION E FOR 3RD STREET, THE |
| | 8.0 FEET PARKING SPACE DIMENSION WOULD EXTEND FROM THE |
| | EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE TO THE FACE OF THE 'D' CURB AND |
| | WOULD INCLUDE THE 2-FOOT VALLEY GUTTER AND 6 FEET OF |
| | ASPHALT. THE BACK OF 'D' CURB WOULD BE 3.3 FEET FROM |
| | THE R/W LINE AND THE LANDSCAPE AREA BETWEEN THE |
| | SIDEWALK AND 'D' CURB WOULD BE 6.3 FEET WIDE INSTEAD OF |
| | 5 FEET. PREVIOUS COMMENT: ON 3RD STREET, CONSIDER |
| | SLOPING THE PROPOSED PARKING TOWARD THE STREET AND |
| | INSTALL VALLEY GUTTER WHERE THE EXISTING TYPE 'F' C&G |
| | IS LOCATED. TYPE 'D' CURB CAN THEN BE INSTALLED AT THE |
| | HIGH SIDE OF THE PARKIG SPACE AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES |
| | S-201 AND S-203 MAY NOT BE NEEDED. |
| | |
| | 19. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE SMALL RETENTION AREAS |
| | BEHIND THE NORTH SIDEWALK OF 2ND STREET BETWEEN STOOPS |
| | TO REDUCE THE AREA DIRECLTY DRAINING TO THE R/W. |
| | |
| | 20. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PROPOSED GRADES WILL BE |
| | NEEDED FOR THE DRIVEWAY. THE PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN AND |
| | CONNECTION TO THE ONSITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHOULD NOT |
| | ALLOW BYPASS OF THE PERIMETER ELEVATION FOR THE SITE. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: INDICATE HOW THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TO |
| | SAPODILLA AVE WILL DRAIN. |
| | |
| | 21. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] ADA MATS MAY BE NEEDED ON |
| | EITHER SIDE OF THIS DRIVEWAY AND ON EACH SIDE OF THE |
| | ENDTRANCE TO THE PARKING GARAGE. PREVIOUS COMMENT: WILL |
| | CURB RAMPS BE NEEDED ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS DRIVEWAY? |
| | |
| | 22. PROFILE VIEWS OF ALL PROPOSED STORM PIPES WITHIN |
| | THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS: |
| | 23. STOP SIGN AND STOP BAR SHOULD BE BEHIND THE |
| | SIDEWALK FOR THE MIDBLOCK DRIVEWAY TO SAPODILLA AVE. |
| | |
| | 24. PROPOSED EAST CURB LINE OF SAPODILLA AVE NEAR 3RD |
| | STREET WILL CREATE TOO NARROW OF A STREET FOR TRAFFIC. |
| | |
| | 25. CHECK INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SLOPES OF PROPOSED |
| | SANITARY SEWERS. |
| | |
| | 26. PIPE SIZES LISTED WITH SEWER INVERTS DO NOT MATCH |
| | THE PIPE SIZES CALLED OUT FOR THE EXISTING SEWERS ON |
| | ROSEMARY AVE. |
| | |
| | 27. CAN THE SPOT GRADES OF 24.50 FEET NAVD AT 5 FEET |
| | FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE BE LOWERED TO 24.0 FEET? |
| | |
| | TRACY WARD, P.E. |
| | SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | [email protected] |
| | 561-494-1120 (O) |
| | 561-351-0510 (M) |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
