| Date |
Text |
| 2021-08-19 13:37:20 | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE |
| | AUGUST 5, 2021 PLAN SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 1. [CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL] COORDINATE THE |
| | GRADING OF CURRIE CRESCENT WITH THE FLAGLER FORTE |
| | DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 2. [CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL] CURRIE CRESCENT |
| | CURB AND GUTTER TO HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO THE STREET |
| | DRAINAGE SYSTEM. |
| | |
| | 3. [CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL] MAINTAIN CROWN |
| | CROSS SECTION OF CURRIE CRESCENT. |
| | |
| | 4. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED DIMENSIONS WERE ONLY |
| | PROVIDE FOR SECTIONS B-B, C-C, D-D, H-H, AND J-J. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: FOR THE CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET |
| | C-501, PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FROM PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT OF |
| | WAY LINE TO VALLEY GUTTER OR BACK OF SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 5. [SATISFIED] SUGGEST SLOPING THE SIDEWALK PORTION OF |
| | THE DRIVEWAY SHOWN IN SECTION B-B TOWARD THE VALLEY |
| | GUTTER. |
| | |
| | 6. [NOT SATISFIED] SECTION D-D SHOWS 10% SLOPE EAST OF |
| | THE PROPERTY LINE. SHEET A-101 SHOWS 7.5% RAMP UP. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: COORDINATE THE SLOPES SHOWN FOR THE |
| | DRIVEWAYS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. FOR EXAMPLE, |
| | SECTION C-C SHOWS 3.4% SLOPE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND |
| | VALLEY GUTTER. SHEET A-101 SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY AT 7.5% |
| | SLOPE. |
| | |
| | 7. {SATISFIED] SECTION D-D: PROVIDE SIDEWALK AREA WITH |
| | SLOPE NO STEEPER THAN 2%. |
| | |
| | 8. [SATISFIED] SECTION E-E: CORRECT LABELS FOR ROAD |
| | CENTERLINE AND PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 9. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ? GRADING OF THE AREA BETWEEN |
| | THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND THE CENTER LINE OF DIANA |
| | PLACE CAN BE A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO BE |
| | WORKED OUT DURING ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.] THE |
| | GRADING BETWEEN THE ROAD CENTERLINE AND R/W, AS SHOWN |
| | ON SECTIONS H-H THROUGH K-K NEEDS FURTHER REFINEMENT. |
| | THE ROAD AND PARKING CROSS SLOPES NEED TO MEET THE |
| | CITY?S DESIGN CRITERIA AND BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY |
| | TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER. THE LANDSCAPE SLOPES STEEPER |
| | THAN 4:1 ARE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN. FOR SECTION J-J, |
| | THE LANDSCAPE AREA SHOULD MEET THE TOP OF CURB. FOR |
| | SECTION K-K, THE ARROW FOR THE 0.1% LANDSCAPE SLOPE IS |
| | POINTING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | SECTION G-G, CONSIDER LOWERING THE COURTYARD AREA |
| | WITHIN THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO FLATTEN THE SLOPE |
| | BETWEEN THE 10 FT WIDE SIDEWALK AND THE BACK OF CURB OF |
| | DIANA PLACE. |
| | |
| | 10. [SATISFIED] IT APPEARS THE TOWNHOME AT THE WEST END |
| | OF THE PROJECT WILL HOLD WATER BEHIND THE DIANA PLACE |
| | SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 11. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION FROM THE NORTH |
| | PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING INCLUDING |
| | DIMENSIONS TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE UNDERGROUND PARKING |
| | GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 12. [SATISFIED - TO BE WORKED OUT AT ENGINEERING PERMIT |
| | SUBMITTAL] FOR THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH ALONG THE NORTH |
| | PROPERTY LINE, THE SFWMD TRENCH EQUATION WILL HAVE TO |
| | BE MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RETAINING WALL ON ONE |
| | SIDE AND POSSIBLE GARAGE WALL ON THE OTHER THAT WILL |
| | LIMIT THE FLOW OUT OF THE TRENCH. |
| | |
| | 13. [SATISFIED] EXPLAIN HOW THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH |
| | ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WILL BE MAINTAINED, |
| | INCLUDING POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT, WHEN IT HAS LOST ITS |
| | DISPOSAL CAPACITY IN A FEW YEARS. |
| | |
| | 14. [NOT SATISFIED. INFORMATION CAN BE PROVIDED WITH |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL] PROVIDE AN EXFILTRATION |
| | TRENCH DETAIL, LABELING THE TRENCH WIDTH AND THE |
| | ELEVATIONS FOR THE TOP OF TRENCH, THE BOTTOM OF THE |
| | TRENCH, AND THE PIPE INVERT. |
| | |
| | 15. [NOT SATISFIED. INFORMATION CAN BE PROVIDED WITH |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL] PROVIDE DETAIL OF CONTROL |
| | STRUCTURE(S). NOTE BLEEDERS CANNOT BE USED AS PART OF |
| | THE CONTROL TO SURCHARGE THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH. |
| | |
| | 16. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SHOW MILL AND RESURFACING |
| | LIMITS ON CURRIE CRESCENT (BECAUSE OF THE TRENCH CUTS |
| | AND THE CHANGE IN PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR THE PARKING |
| | SPACES). PREVIOUS COMMENT: SHOW MILL AND RESURFACING |
| | LIMITS FOR TRENCH CUTS IN THE ROADWAY PER CITY'S |
| | STANDARD DETAIL GC-8. |
| | |
| | 17. [SATISFIED] CONVERT EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE IN |
| | THE EXISTING SOUTH DRIVEWAY TO S. FLAGLER DRIVE TO A |
| | CATCH BASIN WITH A HOODED FRAME AND GRATE. THE |
| | STRUCTURE MAY NEED TO BE ENLARGED IN ORDER TO CONNECT |
| | THE PROPOSED 15-INCH RCP FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 18. [SATISFIED ? TO BE WORKED OUT AT ENGINEERING PERMIT |
| | SUBMITTAL] DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN TO CONSIDER SEA LEVEL |
| | RISE. |
| | |
| | 19. [SATISFIED ? PIPE WAS REMOVED] WHAT IS THE PURPOSE |
| | OF THE 6-INCH HDPE PIPE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND EAST |
| | PROPERTY LINE? |
| | |
| | 20. [SATISFIED ? TO BE ADDRESSED DURING FINAL |
| | ENGINEERING DESIGN] THE ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM WILL NEED TO |
| | BE DESIGNED SO THAT MANHOLE LIDS ARE NOT DISPLACED BY |
| | THE PRESSURE OF THE WATER OR TRAPPED AIR IN THE ROOF |
| | DOWNSPOUTS. |
| | |
| | 21. [SATISFIED] IT APPEARS THE TOWNHOME AT THE WEST END |
| | OF THE PROJECT WILL HOLD WATER BEHIND THE DIANA PLACE |
| | SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 22. [CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL] WHAT DRAINAGE |
| | MITIGATION (WATER QUALITY AND PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION) IS |
| | PROPOSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA IN THE |
| | DIANA PLACE PARCEL. |
| | |
| | TRACY WARD, PE |
| | SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | 561-494-1120 (O) |
| | 561-351-0510 (M) |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
