| Date |
Text |
| 2023-06-06 18:43:59 | APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: |
| | 1) ALLEY TO BE REPAVED THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIRETY FROM |
| | SAPODILLA TO ROSEMARY. CORRESPONDING ONE-WAY SIGNS E |
| | AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS MUST BE INSTALLED EXTENSIVELY AND |
| | EXHAUSTIVELY |
| | 2) PROVIDE A DRAFT TDM PLAN TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED |
| | BY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING |
| | |
| | |
| | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. PROVIDE A FULL DETAILED |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY. NOTE: THE STUDY MUST BE PRESENTED IN A |
| | SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAN THE INSIGNIFICANT TIS. PLEASE |
| | COMPLETE THE STUDY, INCLUSIVE OF TEST 2, AND PROVIDE |
| | SUMMARY TABLES HIGHLIGHTING DEFICIENCIES AND/OR LEVEL |
| | OF SERVICE DEGRADATION, IF ANY; A SITE PLAN SHOULD BE |
| | PROVIDED. HCM ANALYSIS FOR THE EVERNIA DRIVEWAY SHOULD |
| | BE PROVIDED TO PROVE THAT A LEFT-TURN LANE WOULD NOT BE |
| | NECESSARY. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT COUNTY CONCURRENCY |
| | DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY CITY CONCURRENCY, AND THE |
| | FACT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN A TCEA |
| | DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CITY TO REQUEST FURTHER ANALYSIS |
| | 2) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER, ONCE RECEIVED |
| | 3) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION |
| | DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES. NONE WERE PROPOSED IN |
| | THE LATEST RESUBMISSION, EVEN THOUGH A SECTION IN THE |
| | TRAFFIC STATEMENT WAS TITLED AS SUCH. |
| | |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 4) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. 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 T1. SEVERAL TRANSPORTATION ITEMS AND |
| | CORRESPONDING DIMENSIONS ARE MISSING, PLEASE REVISE. |
| | 5) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. IN THE T1 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) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN PROVIDE A SIGNAGE AND |
| | PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN, WHICH COULD BE A SEPARATE |
| | DOCUMENT OR INCLUDED IN THE T1 SITE PLAN. SEVERAL |
| | SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO |
| | THE ALLEY ARE MISSING |
| | 7) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. 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. PLEASE PROVIDE A HIGHER |
| | RESOLUTION BACKGROUND IMAGE, INSERT EXACT MEASUREMENTS |
| | OF ALLEY WIDTH, AS THE ACTUAL DRIVABLE SURFACE IS MUCH |
| | LESS THAN 11-FEET. ANY OBSTRUCTION, SUCH AS LIGHT POLES |
| | AND TREES MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. |
| | THERE ARE MAJOR ENCROACHMENTS SHOWN AT THE MOMENT. |
| | 8) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE |
| | NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES |
| | 9) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO, |
| | CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE |
| | FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK OR EDGE OF TRAVEL LANES |
| | 10) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO, |
| | PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |
| | 11) CONDITION. ALLEY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED ONE-WAY, |
| | INSTALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | PLEASE COORDINATE WITH PUBLIC WORKS PERTAINING |
| | PREFERRED DIRECTIONALITY. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS |
| | GENERATING A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NEW TRIPS THAT WILL |
| | TRAVERSE THE ALLEY; THUS, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAFE AND |
| | OPTIMAL VEHICULAR OPERATIONS, PROPER MITIGATION |
| | MEASURES, SUCH AS RE-PAVEMENT WITH AT LEAST |
| | ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH ASPHALT THICKNESS, EXTENSIVE |
| | SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES |
| | AND OBSTRUCTIONS ARE WARRANTED. PLEASE DO SHOW THE |
| | EFFECTIVE PAVEMENT WIDTH, BASED ON ACTUAL & CURRENT |
| | FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. |
| | 12) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. SHOWCASE THE ALLEYWAY AND |
| | ALL RELATED TRANSPORTATION FEATURES THROUGHOUT ITS |
| | ENTIRE LENGTH FROM SAPODILLA TO ROSEMARY. LATEST |
| | TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN IS EXTREMELY DEFICIENT IN |
| | ADDRESSING THIS COMMENT. |
| | 13) WAIVED/APPROVED BY ADMIN. THE PROPOSED LOADING ZONE |
| | DOES NOT SEEM PROPERLY LOCATED FOR SAFE AND ATTAINABLE |
| | VEHICULAR OPERATIONS AND MANEUVERINGS. A DEDICATED AND |
| | MORE DETAILED (E.G. SHOWCASE EXACT ROAD CONFIGURATION, |
| | HIGHLIGHT ANY OBSTRUCTIONS/OBSTACLES, ETC.) AUTOTURN |
| | ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO PROVE ITS FEASIBILITY |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
