| Date |
Text |
| 2022-11-21 12:50:16 | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE |
| | 10/28/22.. PREVIOUSLY SATISFIED COMMENTS ARE NOT |
| | INCLUDED. SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONDITIONS ARE LISTED AT |
| | THE END. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 3. [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. [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 INCH DIAMETER, THEN THE |
| | EXISTING 15 INCH 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? 10-28-22 COMMENT: ENSURE THE |
| | PROPOSD SWALE BETWEEN THE ALLEY AND PINE ST WILL HAVE |
| | THE CAPACITY TO CONVEY THE STORMWATER RUNOFF TO PINE |
| | ST. THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW TREES AND OTHER PLANTINGS |
| | IN THE SWALE AREA THAT WILL IMPEDE THE FLOW. |
| | |
| | |
| | 15. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] LABEL EXISTING UTILITIES IN |
| | THE RIGHT OF WAY (PIPE SIZE, MATERIAL, ETC.) ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENT: EXISTING STORM PIPE ON PINE STREET IS LABELED |
| | AS 48 INCH ON UTILITY PLAN AND 54 INCH RCP ON PGD PLAN. |
| | LABEL THE PINE STREET SEWER MAINS ON SHEET C-500. |
| | |
| | 17. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR |
| | ELEVATIONS ON THE PGD PLANS. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: FFES |
| | WERE REMOVED ON SHEET C-500 IN THE 9/30/22 SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 18. [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. [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) |
| | |
| | |
| | 23. [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 CAFE SPACE |
| | WHERE THE PGD PLAN SHOWS SPOT GRADES BETWEEN 8.03 FEET |
| | AND 6.34 FEET NAVD ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. CAFE FFE |
| | IS 9.00 FEET NAVD. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: |
| | G. GRADES SHOWN FOR 9.4 FT 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. [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. [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. |
| | |
| | 27. [SATISFIED] SECTION H-H |
| | A. SHOW HEIGHT OF SITE WALLS. |
| | B. WHY CANNOT 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. |
| | |
| | 30. [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. [SATISFIED] SHOW THE CONCRETE APRONS ON THE CROSS |
| | SECTIONS. DRIVEWAY APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY |
| | SHOULD BE CONCRETE. |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS (9/30/22 SUBMITTAL): |
| | |
| | 36. [SATISFIED] 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. [SATISFIED] 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. [SATISFIED] ON THE DEMOLITION PLANS, INDICATE WHAT |
| | WILL HAPPEN TO THE STREET LIGHT POLES. THERE IS A LIGHT |
| | POLE OPPOSITE BROWARD AVE. |
| | |
| | 39. [SATISFIED] EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ON NE CORNER OF |
| | BROWARD AVE AND BUTLER ST IS SHOWN IN THE SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 40. [SATISFIED] INCLUDE IN THE LEGEND THE SYMBOL SOUTH |
| | OF THE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY #1. THE SYMBOL |
| | CONSISTS OF A CIRCLE WITH A PLUS SIGN. |
| | |
| | CONDITIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL (12-1-2022): |
| | |
| | 1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET |
| | SFWMD ERP CRITERIA. |
| | |
| | 2. DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE STORMWATER RUNOFF |
| | FROM THE ALLEY WITHOUT IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES |
| | AND WITHOUT THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOWING OVER THE |
| | SIDEWALK TO REACH THE CURB AND GUTTER ALONG THE STREET. |
| | |
| | 3. DEVELOPMENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE YARD |
| | DRAIN/CURB DRAIN SYSTEM (INCLUDING MAINTAINING THE |
| | SIDEWALK FLAGS ADJACENT TO THE DRAINS AND THE CURB AND |
| | GUTTER THE PIPES ARE PENETRATING) DRAINING THE SWALE |
| | USED TO CONVEY STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE ALLEY. |
| | |
| | 4. DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE FLOW TO DRAINAGE |
| | STRUCTURES FOR ALL CURBS AND CURBS & GUTTERS ALONG ITS |
| | STREET FRONTAGES. |
| | |
| | 5. SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE R/W SHALL HAVE FLATTEST |
| | LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AS POSSIBLE AND NOT EXCEED 5 |
| | PERCENT. CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2 PERCENT. |
| | |
| | TRACY WARD, PE |
| | SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | 561-494-1120 (O) |
| | 561-351-0510 (M) |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
