| Date |
Text |
| 2022-08-19 16:37:28 | TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS |
| | 1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUSIVE |
| | OF THE REFERENCED EXHIBIT D. PLEASE PROVIDE FILE NAME, |
| | AS IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE LATEST SUBMISSION. NOTE: THE |
| | REVISION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO DATED MAY 19, 2015 IS |
| | NOT VALID, AS IT PROVIDES A MERE RE-ALLOCATION OF |
| | TURNING VOLUMES FROM THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT |
| | UPDATING THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE |
| | PROPOSED AND NEARBY EXISTING/FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS |
| | 2) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY. |
| | ROADWAYS GEOMETRY AND NEARBY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS HAVE |
| | CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE INITIAL SITE PLANS |
| | APPROVAL. REASONING PROVIDED FOR NOT CONDUCTING A NEW |
| | STUDY DO NOT SUBSIST; AS THERE IS NO FAILURE FROM THE |
| | CITY, NOR THE DEVELOPER. MOREOVER, VESTED TRIPS DO NOT |
| | HAVE ANY MEANING ON THIS REQUEST. THE SITE BEING WITHIN |
| | A TCEA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CITY TO REQUEST A REVISED |
| | STUDY OR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE CASE OF POTENTIAL |
| | SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE EXISTING AND FUTURE |
| | TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. A METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH THE |
| | CITY IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED |
| | 3) NOT SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE |
| | TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, TDM MEASURES MAY NEED TO BE |
| | NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED. THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT |
| | IS TRANSIT ORIENTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS PRECLUDED |
| | FROM IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION MEASUREMENTS. NEGATIVE |
| | IMPACTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND/OR COMMERCIAL |
| | COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DO NOT GET A |
| | FREE PASS BY BEING PART OF A TRANSIT PROJECT. EVEN IF |
| | THE OVERALL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT ARE FEWER THAN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, |
| | THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTDATED, |
| | AS THEY WERE PERFORMED MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO. |
| | MOREOVER, THE SHIFT IN LAND USE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND |
| | RESIDENTIAL, THE CHANGE OF BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL |
| | ROAD GEOMETRIES, AND THE CHANGE OF EXISTING AND ASSUMED |
| | BACKGROUND VOLUMES COULD BRING A NEW SET OF SIGNIFICANT |
| | NEGATIVE IMPACTS, WHICH CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED NOR |
| | ADDRESSED TILL A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY IS PROVIDED |
| | 4) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER |
| | 5) SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAILS PERTAINING THE TRANSITION |
| | FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES, IN TERMS OF |
| | LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS. COMMENT WILL BE SATISFIED |
| | ONCE DETAILS FROM PBC ARE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS |
| | 6) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SEPARATE SITE PLAN |
| | SHOWCASING ONLY BASIC TRANSPORTATION FEATURES AND THEIR |
| | DIMENSIONS. SPECIFICALLY: SIDEWALK, CURB, PARKING |
| | STALLS, CROSSINGS, WALKWAY, ROADWAY, DRIVE ISLES, |
| | DRIVEWAYS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE. C-10 AND C-11 |
| | ARE NOT PROPER, AS THEY ARE MISSING MOST OF THE |
| | DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS. PLEASE NAME THE |
| | TRANSPORTATION SITE PLANS T-01, T-02 AND HAVE THEM |
| | SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER SET OF SITE PLANS (I.E. CIVIL, |
| | ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE) |
| | 7) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE |
| | SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (I.E. DRIVEWAY AND PARKING |
| | STALLS) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING |
| | THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME |
| | AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURES. THE |
| | APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED |
| | TRANSPORTATION-SPECIFIC-PLANS SO THAT THE REVIEWER CAN |
| | PROPERLY ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION |
| | COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. |
| | PLEASE APPLY SUCH CRITERIA TO THE T-SERIES |
| | TRANSPORTATION PLANS |
| | 8) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR |
| | GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND |
| | OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC |
| | ENVELOPES CLEARLY DEFINED. ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PROVIDED |
| | IN A SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT |
| | NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS. LATEST |
| | RESPONSE DID NOT PROVIDE FILE NAME AND SHEET NUMBER, |
| | PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. LATEST ANALYSIS DOES NOT SHOW THE |
| | WHEEL PATHS AND THERE ARE INSTANCES OF PARTIAL |
| | ENCROACHMENTS. USE DIFFERENT COLORS FOR VEHICLE DYNAMIC |
| | ENVELOPE AND WHEEL PATHS. CITY CAN PROVIDE SAMPLES OF |
| | PROPER ANALYSIS IF NEEDED/REQUESTED |
| | 9) SATISFIED. SEVERAL ADA PARKING STALLS IN THE GARAGE |
| | MUST BE RELOCATED TO THE NEAREST ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL |
| | UNIT AND ELEVATORS, SPECIFICALLY: 10, 11, 33, 34, 63, |
| | 64 |
| | 10) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. REDUCE GARAGE RAMPS TO ONE |
| | SINGLE LANE, INSTALL CHEVRON MARKINGS ON THE SIDE OF |
| | THE RAMP FOR SUCH REDUCTION. IF TWO LANES ARE KEPT, A |
| | CONTINUOUS DIVIDING ELEMENT MUST BE INSTALLED (I.E. |
| | RAISED CURB WITH FLEXIBLE POLES). PROVIDE A TRAFFIC OR |
| | QUEUING ANALYSIS TO PROVE THAT DOUBLE ENTRY LANES ARE |
| | NECESSARY TO AVOID VEHICULAR SPILLBACK INTO CLEARWATER. |
| | PROVIDE THE CODE REFERENCE REQUIRING ?AMPLE? STACKING |
| | OF EXISTING VEHICLES WITHIN THE SITE. |
| | 11) SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONTACT PERSON THAT |
| | WOULD RECEIVE MARKED UP SITE PLANS. THERE ARE SEVERAL |
| | COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DESIGN THAT WOULD BE |
| | BETTER CONVENED WITH SITE PLAN MARK-UPS THAN COMMENTS |
| | HERE |
| | 12) NOT SATISFIED. THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS |
| | PROJECT DOES NOT ALLOW LEFT TURNS FROM CLEARWATER TO |
| | BANYAN. PLEASE UPDATE THE SITE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. A |
| | LEFT-TURN APPROVAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MUST BE |
| | IMPLEMENTED. THUS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO REDUCE THE |
| | NORTHBOUND LANES TO A SINGLE ONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF |
| | CLEARWATER AND BANYAN. MOREOVER, IT IS SUGGESTED TO |
| | CONVERT THE CURRENT PROPOSED NORTHBOUND RIGHT-MOST LANE |
| | ON CLEARWATER DR TO A MERGE/ACCELERATION ONE. |
| | 13) NOT SATISFIED. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON CLEARWATER |
| | MUST BE HIGH EMPHASIS ONES WITH INSTALLATION OF |
| | RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS. STOP BARS AND |
| | SIGNAGE MUST BE REPLACED/REALLOCATED ACCORDINGLY. THE |
| | OPERATION WITHIN THE ITC ARE WITHIN COUNTY?S CONTROL. |
| | HOWEVER, CLEARWATER DR IS OUTSIDE OF THE ITC AND A CITY |
| | ROAD; THUS, COUNTY HAS NO CONTROL. MOREOVER, STOP BARS |
| | IN THE VICINITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS WERE |
| | ALREADY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEPICTED IN PRIOR |
| | SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS |
| | 14) PROVIDE A SUMMARY TABLE CAPTURING THE NUMBER OF |
| | METERED PARKING REMOVED OR RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH |
| | PARKING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING SUCH REMOVAL AND |
| | RELOCATION |
| | 15) REMOVE THE STOP BARS ALONG CLEARWATER DR BY THE |
| | GARAGE ENTRANCE OR PROVIDE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS |
| | WARRANTING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
