Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 10 08 Site Plan Review Board 'r".'~~j1:i.~~~~'~'il'_~~ffl;'l~"~''''''.'.'''-''''''"'~"'-W.' '-'"~~~'"'d'''-'.'~_.f>-.~'.~lliil~~''''''''''''''''.'~~''IP''''''''''' /- Mr. Peter Cowell City of Winter Springs 1126 E. State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 RE: Brucato Site Plan Review CPH Job No. W0402.00 ConlL....., ~ort.r ..... Ho...... ~ (p) ENGINEERS. 1tC. soo W, FUlTON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1976 SANfORD. FLORIO" 3277' TEL3OU22-t141 TEL 306 131-11717 .~ V' ~~ .(,~~~ Q ..,." ~~ <: ': ,~ ~ ~ O~{-;J \. ~~ ~ Crj. ,~~~~ s.' October 17, 1985 Dear Mr. Cowell: We have reviewed the above-referenced project in accordance with your request, and would make a recommendation for approval by the City provided the following items are addressed and corrected: 1. The existing retention pond in the front of the property is shown to be regraded from a 1:1 side slope to a 3:1 side slope, however, the drawings do not indicate the revised pond bottom. If the pond is regraded, the existing storm lines coming into the pond would have to be extended with mitered end sections. Based on our review, both retention pond 11 and 12 fall short of providing the amount of storage shown on the plans. If pond 11 is regraded to 3:1 side slope, we have deter~ined that there would be approximately 8,900 cubic feet of storage to the very top of the pond. This does not allow for any freeboard. In pond 12, the pond volume calculated by our office is roughly 1,560 cubic feet to the very top of the pond and also would not allow for any freeboard. 2. No elevation of the flow line is shown for the proposed flume into the DOT right-of-way. The elevation of this proposed flume could influence other factors on the site in the future. If the invert elevation of the flume was set at the top of berm, several of the existing inlets would overflow. T~e existing inlet at the very front of the project discharges into retention pond 11 and does not show a grate elevation which is needed to determine whether the system will work adequately. (We would also recommend that the City have the developer obtain a letter of approval allowing this discharge to the DOT right-of-way.) 3. The outfall grate elevation for the inlet shown in retention pond 12 is set at the very top of the pond elevation, and therefore, before overf10win~ intQ that inlet, water would flood back into the existing gravel parking lot. Conk...., ~ort.r and Holm.. ~ ~O ENGINEERS. INC. liOO w. FULTON STREET POST OFFICE BOX '976 SANFORD. FLORIDA 32771 TEL30U22....' TEL30li 13'-5717 10/17/85 Mr. Peter Cowell City of Winter Springs Page 2 4. The drainage calculations do not indicate the peak rate of discharge from the site and whether or not this site will impact downstream conditions for a 25-year storm. We will need such calculations before we can recommend approval. 5. We need some indication of the anticipated high groundwater table for the site to determine if regrading pond 11 and the construction of pond 12 would conflict with the groundwater table and therefore require underdrains. 6. They show a new well toward the back of the property adjacent to retention pond 12. It is our understanding that the current DER regulations require a separation of 200' from retention basins to wells. 7. The skimmer detail shown on the detail for the Type .C. modified inlet shows the skimmer only on one side of the inlet. The dr~wings indicate that the skimmer will be placed along all sides of the inlet in retention pond #2, therefore, the detail should be modified to show the skimmer on all sides of the inlet. f 8. The drainage calculations do not show that the existing 12. system is capable of handling the discharge from retention pond 12 and the other existing inlets for a 10-year storm as required by the Land Development Code. Please forward a copy of these comments to the Design Engineer. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, & HOLMES-ENGINEERS, INC. TMZ:pat " " . '~ ,: .' ~ ,. ~ ....~ l...;:~~"'1."..~~,~'t. ..;. , .t,';,~", r: ~'~':f~' .. . . :"'.'~,' , ~~ Conkbl1, ~ort.r and Holm.. @ [p)O ENGINEERS. INC. 500 W. FUI. TON STREET POST OFFICE BOX "76 SAHFOflO, FLORIDA 32771 1'IL_U~1 laa06Ut..717 October 14, 1985 Mr. Peter Cowell City of Winter Springs 1126 East S.R. 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 RE: Group 3 Design Sign Locations for Winter Springs Plaza CPH Job No. W0402.00 orr OF Wl~TER 5Pi.~GS RECEIVED . OCT18l985 CI1Y flUNlQ I ~ Dear Peter: We have reviewed the information submitted by your office for the sign locations and details for the Winter Springs Plaza. We have performed a rough calculation of the information submitted and find the embedment length to be inadequate. The Engineer has not submitted any calculations to justify the design as submitted to the City of Winter Springs. We therefore request that these calculations be submitted. We will then review their design for adequacy to meet the City's code and to withstand wind loads within this area. Please forward a copy of this letter to the Engineer for their timely submittal of the information required. Sincerely, / CONKLIN, PORTER & HOLMES-ENGINEERS, INC. Zaudtke, P. E.' TMZ:pat . .