Civil and Landscape Plan Review: 76 Issues Found

Summary: 29 index entries | 11 perfect matches | 8 mismatched | 10 missing Mismatched (8): C0.30 - C0.31: Expected: DEMOLITION AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN | Actual: DEMOLITION AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN (p7) C1.00: Expected: MASTER SITE AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN | Actual: MASTER SITE PLAN (p9) C1.20 - C1.21: Expected: ACCESSIBILITY...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 251218 Normandy Cove Phase 1 - Approved Plan Set.pdf - Page 1 Schedule

Summary: The Master Utility Plan (C3.00) indicates in the Sanitary Sewer Structure Table that upstream manhole MH-2 has a south invert elevation of 11.75. The plan view shows the sanitary sewer system flowing south from MH-2 toward the proposed lift station. However, the Private Lift Station Section View (C3.40) specifies an 8' inlet invert elevation of...

Why it matters: Because the lift station is downstream of MH-2, the inlet invert at the lift station must be lower than the upstream invert leaving MH-2 (11.75) to allow for gravity flow. Showing a higher inlet elevation at the lift station (11.77) mathematically implies the sanitary sewer would flow uphill, which is physically impossible and will cause the...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct invert elevations for the sanitary sewer routing from MH-2 to the proposed lift station. Either lower the lift station inlet invert (and adjust the wet well depths accordingly) or raise the upstream manhole inverts to ensure positive gravity flow.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct invert elevations for the sanitary sewer routing from MH-2 to the proposed lift station. Either lower the lift station inlet invert (and adjust the wet well depths accordingly) or raise the upstream manhole inverts to ensure positive gravity flow.

Summary: Sheet C1.10 labels the roadway directly adjacent to the north side of the Edward H. White High School property (Real Estate #: 008236) as 'E ANN MITCHELL DRIVE' and identifies 'SHELDON DRIVE' as a separate road to the east. Conversely, Sheet C5.12 labels the exact same roadway adjacent to the high school property as 'SHELDON DRIVE'.

Why it matters: This direct contradiction in street naming between the site plan (C1.10) and the offsite roadway plan (C5.12) creates severe ambiguity for surveyors, utility coordination, and contractors. If the baseline horizontal control references the wrong street name or orientation, it may lead to offsite roadway improvements being built in incorrect...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct street names for the roadways bounding the project site and the adjacent high school. Update the horizontal control plan (C1.10) and offsite roadway plans (C5.12) to use consistent and accurate street names.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct street names for the roadways bounding the project site and the adjacent high school. Update the horizontal control plan (C1.10) and offsite roadway plans (C5.12) to use consistent and accurate street names.

Summary: The irrigation schedule lists a Zurn 975XL 1-1/2' Reduced Pressure Backflow device, and the pump detail calls for a 2' Double Check BFP device. However, the specification requires a Wilkins 720A pressure vacuum breaker.

Why it matters: Installing the incorrect type of backflow prevention device (RPZ or Double Check vs. PVB) or an incorrectly sized model will likely violate local plumbing codes and fail health department or water purveyor inspections.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exact make, model, type, and size of the required backflow preventer. The drawing schedule shows a Zurn 975XL 1-1/2', the pump detail specifies a 2' double check, and the specification requires a Wilkins 720A pressure vacuum breaker.

RFI draft: Please clarify the exact make, model, type, and size of the required backflow preventer. The drawing schedule shows a Zurn 975XL 1-1/2', the pump detail specifies a 2' double check, and the specification requires a Wilkins 720A pressure vacuum breaker.

Summary: The Sanitary Sewer Structure Table on the Master Utility Plan explicitly specifies the Structure Type for all sanitary manholes (MH-2 through MH-7) as 'MANHOLE PER FDOT INDEX 425-001 AND 425-010'. However, the JEA Standard Notes within the specifications mandate that all sanitary wastewater work must be constructed in accordance with the latest...

Why it matters: Utilizing stormwater manhole standards for a sanitary sewer system will result in structures that lack critical sanitary features, such as proper invert channeling, sealed covers, and hydrogen sulfide-resistant coatings. This mistake will lead to severe infiltration/inflow (I&I) issues, the release of sewer gases, and certain failure to pass...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Sanitary Sewer Structure Table on C3.00 to specify appropriate JEA Standard sanitary sewer manhole details instead of FDOT Index 425 stormwater structures.

RFI draft: Please revise the Sanitary Sewer Structure Table on C3.00 to specify appropriate JEA Standard sanitary sewer manhole details instead of FDOT Index 425 stormwater structures.

Summary: The plan view designates the 'FIBERGLASS WETWELL' as 'H-20 LOAD RATED', indicating that the structure is designed to be located in an area subject to vehicular traffic. However, the corresponding hatch covers for the wetwell and the adjacent valve box are specified as a '300 PSF ALUMINUM COVER' and a '300 PSF ALUMINUM HATCH'. Specifying a 300...

Why it matters: An H-20 traffic rating corresponds to a 32,000 lb axle load. A 300 PSF pedestrian hatch is completely inadequate for vehicular loads and will suffer catastrophic structural failure if driven over, presenting a severe life safety and liability hazard.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the private lift station wetwell and valve box are located in a vehicular traffic area requiring H-20 load ratings. If so, revise the hatch specifications from '300 PSF' to 'H-20 Traffic Rated' to ensure structural integrity and safety. If they are in a non-traffic area, clarify why the wetwell is specified as 'H-20 LOAD RATED'.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the private lift station wetwell and valve box are located in a vehicular traffic area requiring H-20 load ratings. If so, revise the hatch specifications from '300 PSF' to 'H-20 Traffic Rated' to ensure structural integrity and safety. If they are in a non-traffic area,...

Summary: Civil demolition plan C0.31 labels a 40-inch diameter tree as '40' WO' (Water Oak), while the Tree Disposition Table on LS-6 identifies the only 40-inch DBH tree on the project (Tree ID 6186, Arborist #233) as a 'Live Oak' and counts the 40 inches under the Live Oaks mitigation category. Similarly, civil plan C0.30 labels a 29-inch twin tree as...

Why it matters: This species misidentification directly affects the tree mitigation calculations on LS-7. The Tree Mitigation Table tracks Live Oaks separately (251 inches removed at a 1:1 ratio) from Hardwood Trees >24' (279 inches at a 1:1 ratio). If the 40' and 29' trees are actually Water Oaks as shown on the civil plans, 69 combined inches would shift...

Suggested next step: Request the project arborist and civil engineer clarify the correct species identification for the 40-inch diameter tree (Tree ID 6186, Arborist #233) and the 29-inch twin tree (Tree ID 466, Arborist #97). Confirm whether these are Water Oaks or Live Oaks. If the Tree Disposition Table is correct (Live Oak), update civil demolition plans C0.30...

RFI draft: Request the project arborist and civil engineer clarify the correct species identification for the 40-inch diameter tree (Tree ID 6186, Arborist #233) and the 29-inch twin tree (Tree ID 466, Arborist #97). Confirm whether these are Water Oaks or Live Oaks. If the Tree Disposition Table is...

Summary: The Civil Demolition Plans identify 'BEECH' and 'BAY' trees (e.g., '19' BEECH' and '12' BAY') on the site. However, the 'Tree Disposition Table (Ordinance)' schedules on the Landscape plans do not include any Beech or Bay species.

Why it matters: Omitting removed or protected tree species from the disposition tables results in inaccurate mitigation calculations and deficit costs, potentially causing non-compliance with the municipal tree ordinance.

Suggested next step: Please reconcile the Civil Demolition Plans and the Landscape Tree Disposition Tables to ensure all existing tree species, specifically Beech and Bay, are accurately inventoried and accounted for in the mitigation calculations.

RFI draft: Please reconcile the Civil Demolition Plans and the Landscape Tree Disposition Tables to ensure all existing tree species, specifically Beech and Bay, are accurately inventoried and accounted for in the mitigation calculations.

Summary: Note 1 on sheet C4.11 states that wastewater force main materials shall either be Epoxy-Lined Ductile Iron (ELDI) Protecto 401 or PVC C900 DR18. However, the plan and profile on sheet C4.12 clearly specify a 4' HDPE force main installed via directional drill for the segment crossing under Old Middleburg Road. HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) is...

Why it matters: This material specification conflict could cause confusion during material procurement and construction. If the contractor follows the notes strictly, they would not be authorized to install HDPE pipe, potentially delaying the directional drill portion of the work. Conversely, if they follow the plan, they would be in non-compliance with the...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the acceptable force main materials. Note 1 on sheets C4.11 and C4.12 limits materials to ELDI Protecto 401 or PVC C900 DR18, but the plan and profile on C4.12 specify a 4' HDPE force main for the directional drill segment. Should Note 1 be revised to include HDPE as an acceptable material for directional drill installations, or...

RFI draft: Please clarify the acceptable force main materials. Note 1 on sheets C4.11 and C4.12 limits materials to ELDI Protecto 401 or PVC C900 DR18, but the plan and profile on C4.12 specify a 4' HDPE force main for the directional drill segment. Should Note 1 be revised to include HDPE as an acceptable...

Summary: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Legend on C0.21 dictates a provided wetland buffer of '15' MIN. (AVERAGE >25 FEET)'. However, the Master Offsite Roadway Plan (C5.00) details locations with a '10' BUFFER'.

Why it matters: Constructing a 10' buffer where a 15' minimum is required by the SWPPP and environmental permits could result in compliance violations, fines, or require costly rework to establish the correct buffer distance.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct minimum wetland buffer width. Should the buffer be a minimum of 15' as noted on C0.21, or is the 10' buffer shown on C5.00 correct? Adjust site grading and limits of disturbance accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct minimum wetland buffer width. Should the buffer be a minimum of 15' as noted on C0.21, or is the 10' buffer shown on C5.00 correct? Adjust site grading and limits of disturbance accordingly.

Summary: Drawing C2.20 includes a plan note specifying a '6' WIDE LMZ' and directs the contractor to 'SEE DETAIL SHEET C2.30'. However, the cross sections between the two sheets contradict each other regarding the LMZ location and pond grading. The 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY CROSS SECTION' on C2.20 depicts the LMZ near the top of the bank, adjacent...

Why it matters: This contradiction affects the grading and volume calculations of the Stormwater Management Facility. If the contractor installs the LMZ as a 6-foot flat shelf at the Normal Water Level per the C2.30 standard detail, it will significantly alter the pond's geometry and potentially reduce its storage capacity compared to the continuous 1:3 slope...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended location and grading for the Low Maintenance Zone (LMZ). Should the LMZ be located near the top of the pond bank with a continuous 1:3 slope to the water as shown on C2.20, or should it be constructed as a 6-foot shelf adjacent to the Normal Water Level (N.W.L.) with the bank sloping upwards from it, as detailed on...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended location and grading for the Low Maintenance Zone (LMZ). Should the LMZ be located near the top of the pond bank with a continuous 1:3 slope to the water as shown on C2.20, or should it be constructed as a 6-foot shelf adjacent to the Normal Water Level (N.W.L.) with...

Summary: Drawing C3.10 (which explicitly notes 'REFER TO OFFSITE UTILITY PLANS (SHEETS C4.10 -C4.12)') designates a '20' PROPOSED PUE' (dimensioned as 10' on each side) for the utility corridor routing offsite. However, the continuation of this exact same utility corridor on Drawing C4.12 specifies a 'PROPOSED 25' PUE' (dimensioned as 10' and 15').

Why it matters: A discrepancy in the public utility easement width between the onsite and offsite plans can lead to incorrect land dedication, right-of-way issues, and legal complications during the platting or permitting process. The required easement width must be clearly defined and consistent across the civil drawing set.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required width of the Proposed PUE for the offsite utility corridor. Is it 20' as shown on C3.10 or 25' as shown on C4.12? Please update the affected sheets for consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the required width of the Proposed PUE for the offsite utility corridor. Is it 20' as shown on C3.10 or 25' as shown on C4.12? Please update the affected sheets for consistency.

Summary: There are multiple contradictions regarding the force main bends between the plan and profile views across the referenced sheets. On C4.11, the plan view locates a bend at STA 107+55.84, while the profile places it at STA 107+54.78. More significantly, on C4.12, the plan view shows two bends (STA 110+88.06 with a south invert, and STA 110+94.35...

Why it matters: Discrepancies in the stationing, quantity, and invert orientation of the bends will cause confusion during the layout phase, potentially leading to pipe misalignments or clashes with existing underground utilities that these bends are meant to navigate around.

Suggested next step: Verify the correct stationing, quantities, and invert orientations for the force main bends, particularly the sequence between STA 110+87 and 110+95, and update the plan and profile views to be consistent.

RFI draft: Verify the correct stationing, quantities, and invert orientations for the force main bends, particularly the sequence between STA 110+87 and 110+95, and update the plan and profile views to be consistent.

Summary: The Master Site Plan indicates a parking space depth of '18'' for the standard parking layout, which includes the accessible parking spaces. However, the 'ACCESSIBLE PARKING & RAMP DETAIL' specifies a depth of '16'' for the accessible parking spaces.

Why it matters: If the accessible parking spaces are constructed at a 16' depth instead of the 18' depth shown for the rest of the parking row, vehicles may overhang into the drive aisle, or the curb line will be misaligned. Accurate dimensions are critical for striping and curb layout during construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required depth for accessible parking spaces. Should they match the typical 18' depth shown on the site plan, or the 16' depth specified in the Accessible Parking & Ramp Detail?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required depth for accessible parking spaces. Should they match the typical 18' depth shown on the site plan, or the 16' depth specified in the Accessible Parking & Ramp Detail?

Summary: The Master Site Plan labels the north-south road intersecting Sheldon Drive as 'E ANN MITCHELL DRIVE'. However, the Detailed Offsite Roadway Plan, which is explicitly referenced for this intersection's improvements, labels the identical road as 'OLD MIDDLEBURG ROAD (R/W VARIES)'.

Why it matters: Inconsistent street naming across the plan set will cause confusion for permitting, utility coordination, addressing, and contractor layout. Notably, the Master Site Plan contradicts itself by labeling the road 'E ANN MITCHELL DRIVE' while simultaneously listing the adjacent high school's address as '1700 OLD MIDDLEBURG RD N'.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct, legal street name for the north-south road intersecting Sheldon Drive. Update the drawings to consistently label the road across all sheets.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct, legal street name for the north-south road intersecting Sheldon Drive. Update the drawings to consistently label the road across all sheets.