| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-08 12:52:02 | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER ONCE |
| | RECEIVED |
| | 2) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ADDRESS THE FDOT |
| | REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. PROVIDE A |
| | SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH AND/OR FURTHER NARRATIVE ADDRESSING |
| | FDOT COMMENT PERTAINING THE EVALUATION OF A NORTHBOUND |
| | RIGHT TURN LANE AT THE QUADRILLE & FERN INTERSECTION. |
| | PLEASE INSERT A SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | ADDRESSING THIS ITEM AND PROVIDE FDOT FINAL OPINION IN |
| | THE APPENDIX |
| | 3) FERN/QUADRILLE, FERN/DIXIE, LAKEVIEW/QUADRILLE |
| | VOLUME DEVELOPMENT SHEETS IN THE APPENDIX. PLEASE |
| | EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE NUMBERS FOR THE RT PROJECT TRAFFIC |
| | 4) PLEASE PROVIDE REASONING PERTAINING THE RTOR |
| | REDUCTION PARAMETER AND ITS VALUE. PLEASE REMOVE IT |
| | WHEN IT DOES NOT APPLY (E.G. WESTBOUND RT AT FERN AND |
| | DIXIE) |
| | 5) UNLESS THE SAME VOLUMES ARE PRODUCED, PLEASE USE THE |
| | LATEST COUNTY INTERNAL CAPTURE SPREADSHEET, AND PROVIDE |
| | THE ACTUAL SPREADSHEET (NOT A PDF PRINTOUT) AS PART OF |
| | THE TRAFFIC REVIEW SUBMISSION MATERIAL |
| | 6) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY RT VOLUMES ARE OMITTED IN SYNCHRO |
| | TIMINGS ANALYSIS OUTPUT |
| | 7) FERN/QUADRILLE SYNCHRO TIMINGS AND HCM, PLEASE |
| | EXPLAIN HOW FOR CERTAIN MOVEMENTS THE DELAY DECREASES |
| | WHEN COMPARING EXISTING VS FUTURE SCENARIOS, GIVEN THE |
| | SAME SIGNAL TIMING PLAN, BUT HIGHER VOLUMES IN THE |
| | LATTER |
| | 8) WAS SYNCHRO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION FEATURE |
| | UTILIZED IN THE ANALYSIS? IF YES, PLEASE SPECIFY AND |
| | ELABORATE IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | 9) PLEASE PROVIDE SYNCHRO NETWORK FILES AS PART OF THE |
| | TRAFFIC REVIEW SUBMISSION MATERIAL |
| | 10) PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERS FOR EACH PAGE OF THE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY, INCLUDING APPENDIX ONES FOR EASE OF |
| | REFERENCE |
| | 11) PAGE 9. THE 45 AND 90 PEAK-HOUR VEHICLES ARE FOR |
| | THE EASTBOUND RIGHT-TURN MOVEMENT, NOT THE LEFT ONE. A |
| | DECELERATION/STORAGE LANE IS WARRANTED. PLEASE UPDATE |
| | THE SITE PLAN(S) TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH FEATURE |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 12) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT |
| | MARKING PLAN. INCLUSIVE OF ALL FEATURES WITHIN THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL ROADS FRONTING THE |
| | SITE. C-101 IS MISSING SEVERAL STOP BARS AND |
| | CORRESPONDING SIGNS, ON-STREET PARKING STALLS ARE NOT |
| | MARKED, LOT LINES AND DRAINAGE POINTS CAN BE OMITTED |
| | 13) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE AUTOTURN |
| | ANALYSIS IN A SEPARATE FILE THAN THE TRANSPORTATION |
| | SITE PLAN. PLEASE SHOWCASE BOTH DYNAMIC ENVELOPE AND |
| | WHEEL PATHS IN DIFFERENT COLORS. PLEASE PROVIDE A COLOR |
| | LEGEND IN SHEET C-102 THROUGH C-104 |
| | 14) PLEASE REMOVE THE WB-67 NORTH SERVICE BAY. BASED ON |
| | C-102, IT SEEMS THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY CAN BE |
| | REDUCED, IF ONLY THE WB-67 SOUTH BAY WERE TO BE USED |
| | 15) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN |
| | EASILY ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM |
| | 8 X 20 FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION |
| | READINESS WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH |
| | SCHEDULE 40 PVC) TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL |
| | PULL BOX (240V / 10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE SHOWCASE AND |
| | CLEARLY MARK THIS ITEM IN THE C-101 SITE PLAN |
| | 16) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE |
| | NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES |
| | 17) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN, |
| | PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER |
| | OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED, |
| | IF ANY |
| | 18) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? |
| | IF SO, CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK |
| | DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
| | IS NOT SUFFICIENT, PLEASE PROVIDE A COMPLETE RESPONSE |
| | 19) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED OR |
| | CONTEMPLATED IN THE FUTURE? |
| | 20) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASONING |
| | OR NECESSITY OF TWO EXIT LANES AT THE FERN ST DRIVEWAY. |
| | A VARIANCE REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR THE EXCESSIVE |
| | WIDTH. PLEASE INSERT DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT |
| | MARKINGS ACCORDINGLY. |
| | 21) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE |
| | PARKING AREA ON DIXIE. PLEASE DESIGNATE SUCH STALL AS |
| | TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL LOADING/UNLOADING, DELIVERY AND |
| | SHARE DRIVING ONLY. |
| | 22) NOT SATISFIED. THE PROPOSED SERVICE DRIVEWAY |
| | SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED WIDTH OF |
| | 24-FEET. A VARIANCE REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED |
| | 23) NOT APPLICABLE/DISREGARD. PER CITY CODE |
| | 94-312(2)(A): ???THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS TO SERVE A |
| | SITE SHALL BE KEPT AT A MINIMUM AND SHALL BE EVALUATED |
| | ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS???. FOR SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL |
| | PURPOSES, ACCESS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE LOWEST |
| | FUNCTIONAL CLASS OF ROADWAY HAVING FRONTAGE ON THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THUS, THE DRIVEWAY UNTO S DIXIE |
| | HIGHWAY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, AS BOTH FERN ST AND |
| | GARDENIA ST CAN ACCOMMODATE ANY ACCESS NEEDS, WHILE THE |
| | PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE TOO DISRUPTIVE TO VEHICULAR |
| | AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS ALONG DIXIE. FURTHER |
| | DISCUSSION WILL BE PERFORMED BASED ON THE UPDATED |
| | DRIVEWAY DESIGN. |
| | 24) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE GARAGE RAMPS SLOPES. |
| | ARE THE SLOPES FOR THE ENTRY AND EXIT RAMPS DIFFERENT, |
| | AS SHOWN IN A1.03? |
| | 25) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. CLEARLY MARK/CALLOUT THE |
| | TURNAROUND SPACES AT THE GARAGE DEAD-ENDS. UNLESS |
| | AUTOTURN ANALYSIS PROVING FEASIBILITY IS PROVIDED, THE |
| | TURNAROUND SPACES IN A.103 (BY THE WESTERN HANDICAP |
| | STALL) AND THE ONES IN A 1.04, A1.06, A1.07 ARE NOT |
| | PROPER. NOTE: A PARKING STALL SIZE & CONFIGURATION |
| | SPACE SHOULD BE DEDICATED AND MARKED FOR TURNAROUND |
| | PURPOSES |
| | 26) BIKE LANES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF FERN ST ARE |
| | ENCROACHING THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY. PLEASE RE-DESIGN |
| | ACCORDINGLY AND CLEARLY DIMENSION THE SEPARATION |
| | BETWEEN BIKE LANES AND PARKING STALLS; AS THERE IS |
| | CURRENTLY A 2-FEET SEPARATION BUFFER |
| | 27) NOT APPLICABLE/DISREGARD. CONSIDER SHIFTING THE |
| | BIKE LANES AND REMOVING THE ON-STREET PARKING ON THE |
| | EAST LEG OF THE FERN/QUADRILLE INTERSECTION ALONG THE |
| | SOUTHERN SIDE OF FERN ST, SO TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A |
| | WESTBOUND LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANE |
| | 28) PLEASE PROVIDE A DEDICATED TRAFFIC FOLDER/DOCUMENT |
| | CONTAINING ALL RELATED ITEMS IN FUTURE RESUBMISSIONS, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED FILES (I.E. FDOT |
| | LETTER) |
| | 29) PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE |
| | REFER TO CITY CODE SEC 86-246 FOR DETAILS. THIS COMMENT |
| | COULD BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND MUST BE SATISFIED |
| | BEFORE ENGINEERING PERMITTING IS ISSUED |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
