| Date |
Text |
| 2020-11-23 14:25:16 | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE |
| | 10/30/2020 SUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | 1. [SATISFIED] PAGE 17 OF THE DECLARATION OF CONVENANTS |
| | (ORB5430, PAGE 1548) STATES THERE IS TO BE A 20' BUFFER |
| | ADJACENT TO LAKES AND NO PARKING IS PERMITTED IN THE |
| | BUFFER. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE AMENDED CONVENANT. |
| | APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IS THAT THE BUFFER IS NOT NEEDED |
| | NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL AROUND THE LAKE, WHICH WILL |
| | PERMIT THE PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE WITHIN 20 FEET OF |
| | THE RETENTION AREA. |
| | |
| | 1.1 [SATISFIED] SHOW THE 20' BUFFER PER THE DECLARATION |
| | OF COVENANTS ALONG THE PROPOSED LAKE EXPANSION. |
| | APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IS THAT THE BUFFER IS NOT NEEDED |
| | NEXT TO THE RETAININAG WALL AROUND THE LAKE. |
| | |
| | 1.2 [NOT SATISFIED] PART OF THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING |
| | AND BALCONIES APPEAR TO ENCROACH IN THE 20' CANAL |
| | BUFFER. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE STATES THE CANAL BUFFER |
| | WILL BE AMENDED. THIS AMENDMENT CAN BE A CONDITION FOR |
| | SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED BEFORE |
| | THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUIDLING PERMIT. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1.3 [NOT SATISFIED] SECTION 8 OF THE DECLARATION OF |
| | COVENANTS STATES PARKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED ON |
| | PUBLIC ROADWAYS. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE LAW |
| | DEPARTMENT SHOULD DETERMINE IF THE DECLARATION OF |
| | COVENANTS SHOULD BE AMENDED. |
| | |
| | 2. [SATISFIED] UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO THE FEMA FIRM |
| | LISTED ON THE SURVEY. NEW FLOOD MAPS WERE ISSUED IN |
| | 2017. THE SURVEY WAS NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS SUBMITTAL. |
| | NOTE THIS IS THE THIRD REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 3. [SATISFIED] CONSIDER RELOCATING THE WATER AND FIRE |
| | SERVICE LINES FROM UNDER LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO AVOID |
| | CONFLICTS WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. |
| | |
| | 4. [NO LONGER APPLICABLE] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS IN |
| | EACH DIRECTION OF THE DETENTION AREA SHOWING THE GRAVEL |
| | PATHWAY. |
| | |
| | 5. [SATISFIED] THE STORM ALIGNMENT ON THE LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS DOESN'T APPEAR TO MATCH THE ALIGNMENT OF ON THE |
| | ENGINEERING PLANS. |
| | |
| | 6. [SATISFIED] CONFIRM THE LENGTH OF RETAINING WALL ALL |
| | ALONG THE LAKE DOES NOT EXCEED 40 PERCENT OF THE |
| | SHORELINE LENGTH PER SFWMD WET RETENTION/DETENTION AREA |
| | DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA. THE SHORELINE IS MEASURED AT THE |
| | CONTROL ELEVATION. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE STATES THE |
| | TOTAL LENGTH OF RETAINNING WALL AROUND THE LAKE WILL |
| | NOT EXCEED 40 PERCENT OF THE SHORELINE LENGTH. |
| | |
| | 7. [NOT SATISFIED] THE FOLLOWING APPEAR TO BE PROPOSED |
| | TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LAND NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. |
| | CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS MAY |
| | BE NECESSARY. |
| | A. LAKE EXPANSION AND RETAINING WALL |
| | B. PAVER ENTRANCE |
| | C. WATER MAINS, WATER METER AND BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES |
| | D. STORMWATER AND SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES |
| | E. PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS |
| | THE MAINTENANCE AGREEEMENTS [IF REQUIRED BY OTHER |
| | PROPERTY OWNER(S)] AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS CAN BE A |
| | CONDITION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, TO BE SUBMITTED |
| | BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT. |
| | |
| | 8. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE CCTV OF THE STORM SEWER AS SHOWN |
| | ON MAP PROVIDED BY V. NOEL/CWPB. CCTV WILL NOT BE |
| | NEEDED IF THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT |
| | THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM SEWER IS NOT |
| | THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. |
| | |
| | 9. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] EAST SIDE OF PROPOSED BUILDING |
| | WILL BE CONSTRUCTED CLOSED TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE |
| | SYSTEM. THERE IS AN EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLET UNDER A |
| | PROPOSED BALCONY. LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW MULTIPLE SPECIES |
| | OF TREES OR PALMS PLANTED OVER OR NEAR THE STORM PIPE. |
| | STAFF SUGGESTS RELOCATING THE STORM PIPE AWAY FROM THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING AND PROVIDING ROOT BARRIERS AROUND |
| | TREES WHERE NEEDED. EXISTING STORM PIPE NEEDS TO BE |
| | SHOWN TO BE REMOVED WHERE APPLICABLE. WILL ONE OF THE |
| | NEW STRUCTURES BE AN INLET? |
| | |
| | 10. [SATISFIED] CALL OUT EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT ON |
| | THE CIVIL PLAN AND PROPOSED CWPB UTILITY EASEMENT ON |
| | THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 11. [NOT SATISFIED] EXPLAIN WHAT THE EAST FACING ARROW |
| | REPRESENTS AS SHOWN ON THE CIVIL PLAN IN THE BIKE LANE |
| | OF CENTREPARK BLVD. E. [RESPONSE TO LAST SET OF |
| | COMMENTS INDICATED THE ARROW WAS DELETED. THE ARROW IS |
| | STILL ON THE CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLAN. |
| | |
| | 12. [TO BE ADDRESSED AT ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL] |
| | UPDATE FDOT STANDARD INDEX REFERENCES TO FDOT STANDARD |
| | PLAN REFERENCES. THIS COMMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH THE |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 13. [NEW COMMENT] PROPOSED RAISED INTERSECTION: |
| | A. NO STOP SIGN OR STOP BAR SHOWN. |
| | B. NO ADVANCED WARNING SIGNS SHOWN |
| | C. CURB RAMP ON NORTHWEST CORNER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN |
| | THE CROSS WALK. |
| | D. CROSS WALK AND CURB RAMP ON NORTHEAST CORNER FALLS |
| | WITHIN THE EAST SLOPE OF THE RAISED INTERSECTION. |
| | E. RAISED INTERSECTION WILL AFFECT DRAINAGE PATTERNS. |
| | F. NO MARKINGS SHOWN ON RAISED INTERSECTION FOR |
| | WESTBOUND THROUGH LANE |
| | |
| | |
| | TRACY WARD, PE |
| | SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | 561-494-1120 (O) |
| | 561-351-0510 (M) |
| | [email protected] |
| |
Print |
