Date |
Text |
2023-07-20 12:03:37 | INSUFFICIENT |
| |
| 1) HANDHOLE 08+12 MAY NOT BE LOCATED IN THE LOCATION AS |
| SHOWN. THE BULB OUT WAS ESTABLISHED AS FULLY PLANTED |
| WITH SHRUBS, REGARDLESS OF THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF |
| THOSE SHRUBS. A HANDHOLE MAY NOT BE LOCATED HERE AS IT |
| WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED |
| FOR LANDSCAPE GROWTH. |
| |
| 2) HANDHOLE 14+60 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE |
| ELECTRIC LINE FOR THE STREETLIGHTS. THE PROFILE VIEW |
| DOES NOT SHOW THE STREETLIGHT ELECTRIC LINE. PROVIDE |
| THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE TELEPHONE PROVIDER (MOST |
| LIKELY CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH BUT COULD BE FPL). |
| |
| 3) BORE PIT 17+60 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A |
| TELEPHONE LINE. PROVIDE THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE |
| TELEPHONE PROVIDER (MOST LIKELY AT&T). |
| |
| 4) THE PLANS SHOW AN OPEN CUT TRENCH STARTING AT STA |
| 19+75. THE DETAILS SHOW THAT A PORTION OF THE TRENCH IS |
| PROPOSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SIDEWALK EASEMENT DOES NOT |
| PERMIT WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. |
| |
| 5) BORE PIT 20+61 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A |
| TELEPHONE LINE AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF EXISTING TELECOM |
| INFRASTRUCTURE. PROVIDE THE UTILITY SIGN OFF FROM THE |
| TELEPHONE PROVIDER(S) (MOST LIKELY AT&T). |
| |
| 6) THE PROFILE VIEW ON SHEET 28A DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS |
| SHOWN ON PLAN SHEET 28 (EX. BORE PIT 20+61 IS NOT |
| SHOWN). |
| |
| 7) REPEAT COMMENT: SURVEY SHEET 18 SHOWS THAT A PORTION |
| OF THE BORE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET ON |
| ENGINEERING SHEET 29 IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IS |
| NOT PERMITTED UNLESS IT IS WITHIN A GENERAL UTILITY |
| EASEMENT. NOT UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON YOUR |
| SURVEY. |
| |
| 8) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THE TREE PITS ON THE NORTH |
| SIDE OF FERN STREET ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A 20-FOOT BY |
| 20-FOOT AREA OF STRUCTURAL SOIL WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED |
| TO BE DISTURBED BY HANDHOLES, BORE PITS, BORES OR |
| EXCAVATIONS. HANDHOLE 22+13 AND ITS EXCAVATION AND |
| BORES ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STRUCTURAL SOIL |
| SURROUNDING A TREE PIT AND IS NOT PERMITTED IN THIS |
| LOCATION. |
| |
| 9) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| UTILITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET IN FRONT OF |
| THE 360 ROSEMARY BUILDING. THERE CONTINUES TO BE A |
| DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOUR PLANS AND THE 360 ROSEMARY |
| PLANS AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE GAS LINE UNDER THE |
| SIDEWALK. YOU MUST SHOW THIS ACCURATELY AND PROVIDE A |
| LETTER OF NO OBJECTION BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF YOUR |
| PROPOSED EXCAVATIONS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THEIR LINES. |
| THE GAS LINE NEEDS TO BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON THE |
| PROFILE PLAN. |
| |
| 10) UPDATED COMMENT: WHILE HANDHOLE 25+32 ON SHEET 29 |
| IS SHOW WITHIN THE FUTURE SIDEWALK OF THE 515 FERN |
| STREET PROJECT, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE EXCAVATION |
| IS WITHIN THE PROPOSED STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPE AREA. IF |
| THE HANDHOLD IS INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE STREETSCAPE |
| IMPROVEMENTS, THEN THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE |
| EXCAVATION. IF THE HANDHOLE IS INSTALLED AFTER THE 10) |
| |
| 11) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| UTILITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERN STREET IN FRONT OF |
| THE 515 FERN STREET BUILDING. HANDHOLE 25+32 DIRECTLY |
| CONFLICTS WITH A GAS LINE. YOU MUST PROVIDE A LETTER OF |
| NO OBJECTION BASED ON THE PROXIMITY OF YOU PROPOSED |
| EXCAVATIONS WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THEIR LINES. THE GAS |
| LINE NEEDS TO BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED ON THE PROFILE |
| PLAN. |
| |
| CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ 561-822-1446 |
| [email protected] |
| |
| |
| |