| Date |
Text |
| 2022-10-20 16:25:15 | OLARA (Z22070008) STORM #3 |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE |
| | 9/30/2022.. PREVIOUSLY SATISFIED COMMENTS ARE NOT |
| | INCLUDED. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1. [SATISFIEDL] THE CITY???S OFFICIAL VERTICAL DATUM IS |
| | NGVD1929. THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THE USE OF NAVD1988 AS |
| | LONG AS THE CONVERSION EQUATION TO NGVD1929 AT THE |
| | PROJECT LOCATION IS PROVIDED. PROVIDE THE VERTICAL |
| | DATUM CONVERSION TO NGVD1929 ON THE SURVEY. |
| | |
| | 3. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS TO |
| | CONSIDER SEA LEVEL RISE ON THE GROUNDWATER TABLE AND |
| | TAILWATER CONDITIONS. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ??? EXPLAIN |
| | HOW SEA LEVEL RISE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN AND |
| | DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS. GROUNDWATER WILL INCREASE WITH |
| | SEA LEVEL RISE. THE FLAP GATE WILL NOT BE NEEDED ??? |
| | THE WEIR SHOULD PREVENT BACKFLOW INTO THE ONSITE |
| | DRAINAGE SYSTEM. |
| | |
| | 4. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] JUSTIFY THE DIAMETER OF THE |
| | OUTFALL PIPE. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: WHAT WAS ASSUMED AS |
| | THE DOWNSTREAM HGL ELEVATION (AT STRUCTURE ST-31)? IF |
| | THE OUTFALL PIPE NEEDS TO BE 18??? DIAMETER, THEN THE |
| | EXISTING 15??? RCP BETWEEN ST-31 AND THE EXISTING |
| | MANHOLE WILL NEED TO BE UPSIZED. THE HORIZONTAL |
| | CLEARANCE BETWEEN THIS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT PIPE AND |
| | THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WILL NEED TO BE |
| | VERIFIED AS WELL AS THE EXISTING STORM MANHOLE IS LARGE |
| | ENOUGH TO BE MODIFIED TO CONNECT THE PROPOSED |
| | REPLACEMENT PIPE. NOTE THE CONTROL STRUCTURE TOP SLAB |
| | MAY CONSTRICT THE 25-YEAR 3-DAY FLOW OVER THE WEIR. |
| | |
| | |
| | 11. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SHOW HOW ALLEY GRADING WILL |
| | TRANSITION TO EXISTING GRADE. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE |
| | ALLEY APPEARS TO SLOPE FROM WEST TO EAST AND AT THE |
| | EAST END THE PROPOSED GRADES DIRECT THE WATER TO THE |
| | SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NEW END OF THE ALLEY. HOW WILL |
| | THE STORMWATER RUNOFF BE PREVENTED FROM FLOWING ONTO |
| | THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? |
| | |
| | 15. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] LABEL EXISTING UTILITIES IN |
| | THE RIGHT OF WAY (PIPE SIZE, MATERIAL, ETC.) ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENT: STORM PIPE ON PINE STREET IS LABELED AS 48??? |
| | AND 54??? RCP. LABEL THE PINE STREET SEWER MAINS ON |
| | SHEET C-500. |
| | |
| | 17. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR |
| | ELEVATIONS ON THE PGD PLANS. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: |
| | FFE???S WERE REMOVED ON SHEET C-500 IN THE 9/30/22 |
| | SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 18. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ??? INCLUDE MILL AND RESURFACE |
| | HATCHING IN THE SHEET LEGENDS.] SHOW MILL AND |
| | RESURFACING LIMITS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS WITHIN THESE |
| | LIMITS. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: SHEET C-600 SHOWS PROPOSED |
| | UTILITIES CROSSING N. FLAGLER DRIVE BUT THERE IS NO |
| | INDICATION OF MILL AND RESURFACING ON SHEET C-500. |
| | |
| | 21. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXISTING |
| | GRADES ALONG THE EP OF N. FLAGLER DRIVE, NORTH OF THE |
| | PROPOSED DRIVEWAY. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: REVIEW THE |
| | PROPOSED GRADING FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO N. FLAGLER DRIVE. |
| | THERE WILL BE A LOW POINT BETWEEN TWO HIGH POINTS ALONG |
| | THE EP AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS (8/26/2022 SUBMITTAL) |
| | |
| | 22. [SATISFIED] SECTION A-A |
| | A. BEGINNING OF DRIVEWAY SHOULD MEET EXISTING GRADE. |
| | B. VALLEY GUTTER MAY NOT BE NEEDED. |
| | C. CREATE A HIGH POINT IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THE BACK OF |
| | SIDEWALK AND ELIMINATE THE TRENCH DRAIN. ADD A CATCH |
| | BASIN ONTO THE 18 INCH STORM PIPE TO COLLECT RUNOFF |
| | WITHIN THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 23. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SECTION C-C |
| | A. MOVE SECTION ABOUT 20 FEET TO THE WEST TO FALL |
| | WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA BETWEEN THE SIDEWALKS AND |
| | THROUGH THE SEATWALLS. |
| | B. FG LINE APPEARS TO BE SHIFTED TO THE RIGHT. IF NOT |
| | THEN ABOUT 5 FEET OF SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE IS TOO STEEP. |
| | C. CONFIRM PROPOSED GRADE OF 6.01 (VS. 6.10 ON PGD |
| | PLAN). |
| | D. R/W DIMENSIONS ADD UP TO LESS THAN 37.5 FEET. |
| | E. THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING INTERIOR APPEARS TO HAVE |
| | 10% SLOPE. |
| | F. SHEET A0.08 SHOWS A DOOR OPENING TO THE CAF?? SPACE |
| | WHERE THE PGD PLAN SHOWS SPOT GRADES BETWEEN 8.03 FEET |
| | AND 6.34 FEET NAVD ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. CAF?? FFE |
| | IS 9.00 FEET NAVD. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: |
| | G. GRADES SHOWN FOR 9.4??? SIDEWALK RESULT IN CROSS |
| | SLOPE STEEPER THAN 2%. |
| | H. LIMIT SLOPE OF LANDSCAPE AREA TO 4:1 OR FLATTER. |
| | INDICATED SLOPE OF 17% IS OK. |
| | |
| | 24. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SECTION D-D |
| | A. NOT SHOWN ON KEY MAP. |
| | B. BEGINNING OF DRIVEWAY SHOULD MEET EXISTING GRADE. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: |
| | C. SHOW DROP CURB AT BEGINNING OF THE 14.8 FT DRIVEWAY |
| | APRON. |
| | |
| | 25. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SECTION F-F |
| | A. CREATE A HIGH POINT IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THE |
| | PROPERTY/RIGHT OF WAY LINE, CONVERT ST-29 TO A CATCH |
| | BASIN AND ELIMINATE THE TRENCH DRAIN. THIS WILL ALLOW |
| | ST-29 TO BE SMALLER THAN 7 FEET IN DIAMETER BY |
| | ELIMINATING THE SOUTH PIPE CONNECTION. |
| | B. R/W DIMENSIONS ADD UP TO LESS THAN 25 FEET. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: |
| | C. CONFIRM THE 8.63 FT NAVD SPOT GRADE. PGD PLAN SHOWS |
| | DRIVEWAY EP BETWEEN 8.62 FT AND 8.28 FT NAVD. TRIM |
| | BLACK LINE TO BACK OF VALLEY GUTTER. |
| | D. SHOW/DIMENSION THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | SIDEWALK/CROSSWALK THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. |
| | |
| | 26. [SATISFIED] SECTION G-G |
| | A. DIMENSIONS DO NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET |
| | C-400. |
| | B. SECTION SYMBOL ON KEY MAP SHOULD POINT TO THE WEST. |
| | C. WILL SIDEWALK HAVE A THICKENED EDGE? PROVIDE A |
| | DETAIL OF THE SIDEWALK IF SO. |
| | D. SHOW HEIGHT OF SITE WALL. |
| | E. CREATE A SWALE OR BERM ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO |
| | PREVENT DIRECT RUNOFF ONTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. |
| | F. SHOW CURBING ADJACENT TO THE ISLAND AND IN-BOUND |
| | DRIVEWAY. |
| | |
| | 27. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SECTION H-H |
| | A. SHOW HEIGHT OF SITE WALLS. |
| | B. WHY CAN???T THE FRONT OF SIDEWALK NEAREST THE R/W |
| | MATCH EXISTING GRADE? |
| | C. CREATE SWALE BEHIND EAST SITE WALL TO PREVENT |
| | RUNOFF FROM FLOWING ONTO SIDEWALK. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENT: |
| | D. CREATE SWALES/DEPRESSIONS IN EACH OF THE LANDSCAPE |
| | AREAS. |
| | |
| | 28. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE DETAIL SHOWING 18-INCH PIPE |
| | CONNECTION TO TRENCH DRAIN. |
| | |
| | 29. [SATISFIED] SECTION G-G SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY SLOPING |
| | TO THE NORTH. THE TRENCH DRAIN ACROSS N. FLAGLER |
| | DRIVEWAY NEEDS TO EXTEND TO NORTH CURB LINE. |
| | |
| | 30. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] CONSIDER ADDING TRENCH DRAIN |
| | ALONG NORTH CURB LINE WEST OF THE SIDEWALK CROSSING OF |
| | THE N. FLAGLER DRIVEWAY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF |
| | FLOWING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK CROSSING. ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENT: DUE TO THE CROSS SLOPE OF THE DRIVEWAY, ALL OF |
| | THE RUNOFF WILL FLOW ALONG THE NORTH CURB LINE OF THE |
| | DRIVEWAY. THE SUGGESTION IS THE ADD TRENCH DRAIN ALONG |
| | THE NORTH CURB LINE, WEST OF THE CROSSWALK ACROSS THE |
| | DRIVEWAY, TO COLLECT THE RUNOFF BEFORE IT FLOWS ACROSS |
| | THE CROSSWALK. A SECOND SUGGESTION IS TO HAVE A CURB |
| | CUT AND FLUME TO THE YARD DRAIN IN THE 17 FT WIDE |
| | LANDSCAPE AREA/SWALE. |
| | |
| | 31. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ??? SHOW THE CONCRETE APRONS |
| | ON THE CROSS SECTIONS] DRIVEWAY APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT |
| | OF WAY SHOULD BE CONCRETE. |
| | |
| | 32. [SATISFIED ??? CAN MH (RENUMBERED AS SS-01) GO IN |
| | THE SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF DRIVEWAY? DRIVEWAY EXIT WILL BE |
| | BLOCKED WHEN THE MH IS OPENED.] CONSIDER MOVING |
| | SANITARY MANHOLE SS-05 OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND OUT OF |
| | THE SIDEWALK. COORDINATE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 33. [SATISFIED] REMOVE STRUCTURES ST-28 AND ST-34 OUT |
| | OF THE ALLEY R/W. |
| | |
| | 34. [SATISFIED] SOUTH EDGE OF ALLEY NEEDS TO MEET |
| | EXISTING GRADE AT RIGHT OF WAY. |
| | |
| | 35. [SATISFIED] WILL SIDEWALK AT DROPOFF AREA BE FLUSH |
| | WITH PAVEMENT AND/OR HAVE THICKENED EDGE? |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS (9/30/22 SUBMITTAL): |
| | |
| | 36. THE EXISTING 15-INCH CAST IRON (CAS) SANITARY SEWER |
| | MAIN IS NOT SHOWN GOING THROUGH STRUCTURE SS-EX-01. ARE |
| | PIPE INVERTS FOR SS-EX-01 AVAILABLE? |
| | |
| | 37. CHECK GRADING OF THE EAST END OF THE PROPOSED |
| | SIDEWALK ON BUTLER ST. CROSS SLOPE SHOULD NOT EXCEED |
| | 2%. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 5%. |
| | |
| | 38. ON THE DEMOLITION PLANS, INDICATE WHAT WILL HAPPEN |
| | TO THE STREET LIGHT POLES. THERE IS A LIGHT POLE |
| | OPPOSITE BROWARD AVE. |
| | |
| | 39. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ON NE CORNER OF BROWARD AVE |
| | AND BUTLER ST IS SHOWN IN THE SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 40. INCLUDE IN THE LEGEND THE SYMBOL SOUTH OF THE |
| | PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY #1. THE SYMBOL CONSISTS |
| | OF A CIRCLE WITH A PLUS SIGN. |
| | |
| | TRACY WARD, PE |
| | SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | 561-494-1120 (O) |
| | 561-351-0510 (M) |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
