Date |
Text |
2022-07-27 08:41:02 | INSUFFICIENT |
| |
| 1) A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR, |
| MUST BE UPLOADED FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF THE PROJECT. |
| THE RESPONSE STATES THAT THE ENGINEERING PLANS ARE |
| BASED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER |
| MAPS ARE NOT A SURVEY AND OFTEN DO NOT SHOW ACCURATE |
| PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE RELATIONSHIP, WHICH IS |
| WHY THE CITY CODE REQUIRES THE PLANS TO BE BASED OFF A |
| PROVIDED SURVEY. SURVEY SHEETS, CREATED BY PRINCIPAL |
| MERIDIAN SURVEYING, INC., DATED 11-15-20 AND 2-17-20, |
| HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY AS PART OF PREVIOUS |
| APPLICATIONS AND THE ONES THAT STILL SHOW EXISTING |
| CONDITIONS MAY BE UPLOADED FOR USE. PLEASE NOTE THE |
| FOLLOWING COMMENTS, SOME OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY |
| PROVIDED AND SOME ARE BASED ON THE NEWLY SUBMITTED |
| PLANS. |
| |
| A. CURRENT SHEET 10 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 00+00 AND |
| PROPOSED BORE PIT 02+80, SHOWS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN |
| THE ROW LINE ON THE SURVEY AND THE ROW LINE ON SHEET |
| 10. THE ROW LINE IS SHOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK |
| ON THE SURVEY WHILE THE ROW LINE CALLED OUT ON SHEET 10 |
| IS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION AT THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. |
| WHILE THE BORE APPEARS TO BE WITHIN THE ROW, PROPOSED |
| BORE PIT 02+80 WOULD BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE NO |
| EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| B. CURRENT SHEET 11 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 05+10 AND ADDITIONAL HHS, SHOWS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN |
| THE ROW LINE ON THE SURVEY AND THE ROW LINE ON SHEET 11 |
| ALONG CLARE AVE. THE ROW LINE IS SHOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF |
| THE SIDEWALK ON THE SURVEY WHILE THE ROW LINE CALLED |
| OUT ON SHEET 11 IS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION AT THE BACK |
| OF THE SIDEWALK. WHILE THE BORE APPEARS TO BE WITHIN |
| THE ROW, PROPOSED HH 05+10 WOULD BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY |
| WHERE NO EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT |
| PERMITTED. THE REMAINING HH ARE ALL WITHIN THE ROW. |
| C. CURRENT SHEET 12 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 13+80 AND ADDITIONAL BORE PITS, IS PASSED BY ZONING. |
| D. CURRENT SHEET 13 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 23+25 AND BORE PIT 19+90, SHOWS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN |
| THE ROW LINE ON THE SURVEY AND THE ROW LINE ON SHEET 13 |
| WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE ROAD ROW. THE ROW LINE IS SHOWN |
| IN THE TRAVEL LANE ON THE SURVEY WHILE THE ROW LINE |
| CALLED OUT ON SHEET 13 IS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION AT |
| THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. THE BORE APPEARS TO BE ON |
| PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE NO EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE |
| SURVEY. THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| E. CURRENT SHEET 14 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 28+08 AND ADDITIONAL BORE PITS, SHOWS A DISCREPANCY |
| BETWEEN THE ROW LINE ON THE SURVEY AND THE ROW LINE ON |
| SHEET 14 WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE ROAD ROW. THE ROW LINE |
| IS SHOWN IN THE TRAVEL LANE ON THE SURVEY WHILE THE ROW |
| LINE CALLED OUT ON SHEET 14 IS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION |
| AT THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK. THE BORE, BORE PIT 26+25 |
| AND HH 28+08 APPEAR TO BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE NO |
| EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. THIS IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| MERCER AVENUE, NORTH OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD, SHOWS THE BORE |
| AND BORE PIT IN THE ROW. |
| F. CURRENT SHEET 15 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED BORE |
| PIT 34+63, IS PASSED BY ZONING. |
| G. CURRENT SHEET 16 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 40+70, IS PASSED BY ZONING. |
| H. 2/2/22 SUBMITTED SHEET 20 OF 31 (CURRENT 17/18 OF |
| 29), WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 45+15, IS PASSED BY ZONING. |
| NOTE: SURVEY PAGE 8 OF 19 VERIFIED THAT THIS PORTION OF |
| PROJECT IS WITHIN PBC ROW. NOTE: PLEASE UPLOAD THE |
| REVISED SHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ZONING AS SEPARATE |
| EMAIL PACKET TO ENSURE MOST CURRENT PLANS ARE UPLOADED. |
| I. 2/2/22 SUBMITTED SHEET 21 OF 31 (CURRENT 18/19 OF |
| 29), WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 50+24, IS PASSED BY ZONING. |
| BASED ON THE WIDTH OF THE ROW, THE PROXIMITY OF THE |
| BORE TO THE OFF RAMP AND THE NEW PLANS, NO SURVEY |
| REQUIRED AT THIS LOCATION. NOTE: PLEASE UPLOAD THE |
| REVISED SHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ZONING AS SEPARATE |
| EMAIL PACKET TO ENSURE MOST CURRENT PLANS ARE UPLOADED. |
| J. 2/2/22 SUBMITTED SHEET 22 OF 31 (CURRENT 19/20 OF |
| 29), WHICH INCLUDES HH 55+07. PREVIOUSLY ISSUED |
| COMMENT: THE SURVEY OF THIS LOCATION IS REQUIRED SO |
| THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE AT THIS LOCATION IS |
| NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR THAT THERE IS A UTILITY |
| EASEMENT IF THE BORE ENCROACHES. NOTE: PLEASE UPLOAD |
| THE REVISED SHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ZONING AS |
| SEPARATE EMAIL PACKET TO ENSURE MOST CURRENT PLANS ARE |
| UPLOADED. |
| K. 2/2/22 SUBMITTED SHEET 23 OF 31 (CURRENT 20/21 OF |
| 29), WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 60+69. PREVIOUSLY ISSUED |
| COMMENT: THE BORE ON SHEET 23 STILL SHOWS ENCROACHMENT |
| ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (OWNED BY FPL). UNLESS THERE IS A |
| UTILITY EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AT THESE |
| LOCATIONS, YOU MAY NOT CROSS ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY. |
| NOTE: BASED ON REVIEWING THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PROPERTY |
| APPRAISER SITE, THE SIDEWALK IS NOT WHOLLY WITHIN THE |
| RIGHT-OF-WAY; THEREFORE, YOUR BORE UNDER THE SIDEWALK |
| CROSSES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| THE SURVEY IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THAT EITHER YOU ARE |
| NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR THAT THERE IS A UTILITY |
| EASEMENT FOR WHERE YOU ENCROACH. NOTE: PLEASE UPLOAD |
| THE REVISED SHEET THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ZONING AS |
| SEPARATE EMAIL PACKET TO ENSURE MOST CURRENT PLANS ARE |
| UPLOADED. |
| L. 2/2/22 SUBMITTED SHEET 24 OF 31 (CURRENT 21/22 OF |
| 29), WHICH INCLUDES HH 67+59, IS PASSED BY ZONING. NO |
| SURVEY FOR THIS AREA IS REQUIRED SINCE STAFF HAS |
| REVIEWED THE SURVEYS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OKEECHOBEE AT |
| THIS LOCATION TO VERIFY THE THAT BACK OF SIDEWALK IS |
| THE ROW LINE. NOTE: PLEASE UPLOAD THE REVISED SHEET |
| THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ZONING AS SEPARATE EMAIL PACKET TO |
| ENSURE MOST CURRENT PLANS ARE UPLOADED. THESE PLANS |
| SHOW THE CORRECT ROW LINES AS WELL. |
| M. CURRENT SHEET 23 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 74+83, REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE SAPODILLA |
| AVE SECTION OF THE BORE IS WITHIN THE ROW AND DOES NOT |
| INTERFERE WITH EXISTING TREES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. FROM |
| THE RECENT RECONSTRUCTION OF THIS AREA, STAFF CAN |
| VERIFY THAT THE ROW LINE IS NOT SHOWN CORRECTLY ON THE |
| ENGINEERING PLAN AND THAT BORE PIT 70+88 ENCROACHES ON |
| PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED AS THERE IS NO |
| UTILITY EASEMENT AT THAT LOCATION. |
| N. *** UPLOAD PLAN INCLUDED IN EMAIL TO CITY BUT NOT IN |
| THE PERMIT SET. PREVIOUS PLAN SUBMITTAL FAILS FOR SAME |
| REASON - CURRENT SHEET 24 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES |
| PROPOSED HH 82+78, REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY |
| FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY |
| THAT THE BORE IS WITHIN THE ROW. FROM THE RECENT |
| RECONSTRUCTION OF THIS AREA, STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE |
| ROW LINE IS NOT SHOWN CORRECTLY ON THE ENGINEERING PLAN |
| AND THAT HH 82+78 ENCROACHES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH |
| IS NOT PERMITTED AS THERE IS NO UTILITY EASEMENT AT |
| THAT LOCATION. |
| O. CURRENT SHEET 25 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES BORE PIT |
| 02+50, REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE IS |
| WITHIN THE ROW. BORE PIT 02+50 IS SHOWN ON PRIVATE |
| PROPERTY WITH NO EASEMENT AND IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| P. CURRENT SHEET 26 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 08+35, |
| REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE AND HH |
| IS WITHIN THE ROW. |
| Q. CURRENT SHEET 27 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 14+90, REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE, BORE |
| PITS AND HH IS WITHIN THE ROW. THE ENGINEERING PLAN |
| FAILS TO SHOW ALL EXISTING TREES ALONG SAPODILLA. THE |
| EDGE OF THE HH EXCAVATION IS REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST 10 |
| FEET FROM A TREE TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE TREE AND ITS |
| ROOT SYSTEM. HH 14+90 DOES NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT |
| AND MUST BE IN AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. YOU ARE NOT |
| PERMITTED TO OPEN CUT AROUND THE TREE AS SHOWN. |
| R. CURRENT SHEET 28 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 22+10, |
| REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE, BORE |
| PITS AND HH ARE WITHIN THE ROW. THE ROW HAS BEEN |
| RECONSTRUCTED SINCE THE LAST SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED. |
| THERE ARE PLANTERS THAT ARE BOTH SHOWN AND NOT SHOWN ON |
| THE ENGINEERING PLANS SURROUNDED BY A STRUCTURAL SOIL |
| SYSTEM THAT IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE DISTURBED BY THE |
| INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED HH 22+10 OR THE BORE |
| ROUTE, SO THE CURRENT LOCATION IS NOT APPROVED. THE |
| FULL AREA COVERED BY THE STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE |
| SIDEWALK IS A MINIMUM OF 19 FEET EAST TO WEST AND THE |
| FULL DEPTH OF THE SIDEWALK FROM THE CURB TO THE EDGE OF |
| THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. NO EXCAVATION OR INSTALLATION |
| MAY OCCUR CLOSER THAN SEVEN (7) FEET FROM A PARALLEL |
| LINE WITH THE OUTER EDGES OF THE PLANTER WALLS, FROM |
| THE CURB FACE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. THIS SHALL BE |
| CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED ON THE PLANS. ANY BORE SHALL |
| CLEARLY BE SHOWN TO BE AT LEAST 36 INCHES BELOW THE |
| STRUCTURAL SOIL SYSTEM LIMITS. THIS COMMENT WAS |
| PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. |
| S. CURRENT SHEET 29 OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 28+45, |
| REQUIRES A SURVEY, PREPARED BY FLORIDA LICENSED |
| SURVEYOR, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE BORE, BORE |
| PITS AND HH IS WITHIN THE ROW. THE ROW HAS BEEN |
| RECONSTRUCTED SINCE THE LAST SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED. |
| THE PLANTERS THAT ARE SHOWN ENGINEERING PLANS ARE |
| SURROUNDED BY A STRUCTURAL SOIL SYSTEM THAT IS NOT |
| PERMITTED TO BE DISTURBED BY THE INSTALLATION OF THE |
| PROPOSED HH 25+35 OR THE BORE ROUTE, SO THE CURRENT |
| LOCATION IS NOT APPROVED. THE FULL AREA COVERED BY THE |
| STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE SIDEWALK IS A MINIMUM OF 19 |
| FEET EAST TO WEST AND THE FULL DEPTH OF THE SIDEWALK |
| FROM THE CURB TO THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. NO |
| EXCAVATION OR INSTALLATION MAY OCCUR CLOSER THAN SEVEN |
| (7) FEET FROM A PARALLEL LINE WITH THE OUTER EDGES OF |
| THE PLANTER WALLS, FROM THE CURB FACE TO THE |
| RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. THIS SHALL BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED |
| ON THE PLANS. ANY BORE SHALL CLEARLY BE SHOWN TO BE AT |
| LEAST 36 INCHES BELOW THE STRUCTURAL SOIL SYSTEM |
| LIMITS. THIS COMMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. |
| |
| 2) THE BORE SHOWN AT 5 TO 12 FEET BELOW GRADE IS AT A |
| SUFFICIENT DEPTH TO AVOID TREE AND PALM DAMAGE. THE |
| FOLLOWING BORE PROFILE SHEETS, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY |
| LISTED, COMPLY WITH ZONING REQUIREMENTS: |
| |
| A. SHEET 10A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 00+00 AND |
| PROPOSED BORE PIT 02+80. |
| B. SHEETS 11A AND 11B OF 29, WHICH INCLUDE PROPOSED HH |
| 05+10 AND ADDITIONAL HHS. |
| C. SHEETS 12A AND 12B OF 29, WHICH INCLUDE PROPOSED HH |
| 13+80 AND ADDITIONAL BORE PITS. |
| D. SHEETS 13A AND 13B OF 29, WHICH INCLUDE PROPOSED HH |
| 23+25 AND BORE PIT 19+90. |
| E. SHEET 14A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH 28+08 |
| AND ADDITIONAL BORE PITS. |
| F. SHEET 15A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED BORE PIT |
| 34+63. |
| G. SHEET 16A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH 40+70. |
| H. SHEET 20A OF 31, WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 45+15 NOT IN |
| CITY ROW SO NO ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| I. SHEET 21A OF 31, WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 50+24 NOT IN |
| CITY ROW SO NO ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| J. SHEET 22A OF 31, WHICH INCLUDES HH 55+07 NOT IN CITY |
| ROW SO NO ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| K. SHEET 23A OF 31, WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 60+69 NOT IN |
| CITY ROW SO NO ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| L. SHEET 24A OF 31, WHICH INCLUDES TIE IN 60+69 NOT IN |
| CITY ROW SO NO ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| M. SHEET 23A AND 23C OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 74+8 APPROVED BY ZONING AND 23B NOT IN CITY ROW SO NO |
| ZONING REVIEW OF UTILITY PROFILE. |
| N. *** PLAN INCLUDED IN EMAIL TO CITY BUT NOT IN THE |
| PERMIT SET. SHEET 24A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH |
| 82+78. |
| O. SHEET 25A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES BORE PIT 02+50. |
| P. SHEET 26A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 08+35. |
| Q. SHEET 27A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH 14+90, |
| DOES NOT PASS ZONING DUE TO HH 14+90 DIRECTLY IMPACTING |
| TREE ROOTS. |
| R. SHEET 28A AND 28B OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES HH 22+10, |
| DOES NOT PASS ZONING UNTIL THE AVOIDANCE OF THE |
| STRUCTURAL SOIL SYSTEM IS PROVIDED. |
| S. SHEET 29A OF 29, WHICH INCLUDES PROPOSED HH 25+35, |
| DOES NOT PASS ZONING UNTIL THE AVOIDANCE OF THE |
| STRUCTURAL SOIL SYSTEM IS PROVIDED. |
| |
| 3) THE CITY HAS ON FILE THE PRIVATE UTILITY PROVIDER |
| APPROVAL OF THE BORE FOR ALL OF THE SECTIONS EXCEPT THE |
| NEWLY SHOWN SAPODILLA AND FERN SECTIONS. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| UPDATED LETTERS FOR THESE SECTIONS OR CLEARLY |
| DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL BORES, HANDHOLES AND BORE PITS ARE |
| AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITY |
| FACILITIES. |
| |
| 4) PLEASE DO NOT UPLOAD THE MOT PLANS WITH THIS WCF ROW |
| PERMIT. MOT PLANS ARE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE |
| RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. |
| |
| 5) PROVIDE AN UPDATED PLAN KEY SHEET FOR THE LENGTH OF |
| THE PROJECT. THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE SET OF PLANS |
| EMAILED TO PLANNING STAFF. |
| |
| CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| [email protected] |
| |