| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-01 00:27:20 | 1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER |
| | 2) NOT SATISFIED. IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, PROVIDE TRIP |
| | GENERATION REFERENCE (I.E. COUNTY TABLE OR ITE LAND USE |
| | PAGE WITH ADOPTED RATES) AND LATEST SITE MAP IN THE |
| | APPENDIX. UPDATED TRAFFIC STATEMENT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN |
| | THE LATEST RESUBMISSION. INSIGNIFICANT DOES NOT HAVE |
| | ANY MERIT FOR THIS COMMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE THE ACTUAL |
| | REFERENCE ITE TRIP GENERATION PAGES AND/OR COUNTY TRIP |
| | GENERATION TABLE. LATEST SITE PLAN WAS NOT PROVIDED IN |
| | LATEST REVISION. LASTLY, STUDY STILL MENTIONS A FULL |
| | ACCESS DRIVEWAY ON HOGAN, WHILE LATEST SITE PLAN |
| | SHOWCASES A ONE WAY DRIVEWAY WITH ENTRANCE FROM HOGAN |
| | AND EXIT TO 20TH ST |
| | 3) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE |
| | VALET SERVICE |
| | 4) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC |
| | SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING |
| | TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS, |
| | DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, |
| | DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, |
| | CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.) |
| | PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD |
| | BE NAMED T-1.0 |
| | 5) NOT SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE |
| | SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, ETC.) ON THE |
| | OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT |
| | 6) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT |
| | MARKING PLAN. INCLUSIVE OF ALL FEATURES WITHIN THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL ROADS FRONTING THE |
| | SITE. SUCH PLAN IS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW |
| | AND SHOULD BE NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T-1.1 OR T-2.0) |
| | 7) SATISFIED. IF PERTINENT, PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS |
| | FOR GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN |
| | AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE |
| | DYNAMIC ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND |
| | DEFINED IN DIFFERENT COLORS. PROVIDE THE ANALYSIS IN A |
| | SEPARATE SHEET. SUCH PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE ANALYSIS |
| | ARE PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND SHOULD BE |
| | NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2, T-3.0) |
| | 8) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE ENGINEERING REFERENCE AND |
| | SPECS SHEETS FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION |
| | FEATURES (E.G. CURB, RAMP, GATE, SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT |
| | MARKING, SIGNAL, ADA STALL, BIKE RACK, ETC.) |
| | 9) SATISFIED. PROVIDE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE |
| | REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING/RACKS |
| | 10) SATISFIED. THE NUMBER OF PROVIDED PARKING STALL IS |
| | EXCESSIVELY HIGHER THAN THE REQUIRED. PLEASE PROVIDE AN |
| | EXPLANATION |
| | 11) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE ADA STALL IS MISSING THE 5 |
| | FEET SIDE BUFFER. IS THE ACCESS AISLE FLUSH WITH THE |
| | STALL? OTHERWISE A RAMP WOULD BE REQUIRED |
| | 12) SATISFIED. EXTEND THE EXISTING SIDEWALK SOUTH OF |
| | THE PROPERTY SO TO CONNECT TO THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN |
| | GATE |
| | 13) SATISFIED. HAS THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF |
| | THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT BEEN PERMITTED AND UNDER |
| | CONSTRUCTION? |
| | 14) EXISTING SIDEWALK ALONG DIXIE IS 7-FEET WIDE. SUCH |
| | WIDTH MUST BE KEPT THROUGHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT |
| | FRONTAGE, PLEASE REVISE THE SITE PLAN ACCORDINGLY |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
