| Date |
Text |
| 2022-09-02 13:38:57 | TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING ENGINEERING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE |
| | COMMENT RESPONSES BELOW. SUCH CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY AS |
| | A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR |
| | THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SPECIFICALLY: |
| | |
| | 1) SETUP A METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH ENGINEERING |
| | SERVICES AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY |
| | 2) BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, IN |
| | CASE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE EXISTING |
| | TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT |
| | (TDM) MEASURES INCLUSIVE OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO |
| | TRANSIT OR MICROMOBILITY SERVICES MUST BE NEGOTIATED |
| | 3) ALL PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL FEATURES (I.E. STOP, |
| | YIELD, SIGNAL) AFFECTING PUBLIC ROW MUST BE SUPPORTED |
| | BY A TRAFFIC STUDY OR WARRANT ANALYSIS PRIOR TO |
| | APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION |
| | 4) A TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC SITE PLAN MUST BE |
| | PROVIDED, PLEASE CONTACT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ANY |
| | QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER |
| | 5) PROPOSED ROADWAY CONFIGURATION MUST CONFORM TO |
| | EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS (I.E. BANYAN STREETSCAPE |
| | IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) |
| | 6) PROVIDE A REVISED AND PROPER AUTOTURN ANALYIS. |
| | PLEASE CONTACT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ANY QUESTIONS |
| | OR SAMPLE ANALYSES |
| | 7) EXPLAIN THE REASONING FOR LOCATING THE ADA STALLS ON |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR BY THE GARAGE RAMP. SHOWCASE THE PATH |
| | FROM SUCH STALLS TO THE NEAREST EXIT OR PEDESTRIAN |
| | ACCESS POINT(S). IN CASE OF SAFETY CONCERNS SUCH STALLS |
| | SHALL BE RELOCATED. |
| | 8) AT LEAST TWO (2) SETS OF RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING |
| | BEACONS (RRFB) SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT PEDESTRIAN |
| | CROSSINGS ALONG SITE FRONTAGE |
| | 9) NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) TAKING SHOULD BE |
| | ALLOWED ALONG CLEARWATER DR, UNLESS AN ACCEPTABLE |
| | MULTI-USE PATH IS INSTALLED ALONG SITE FRONTAGE |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 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 REALLOCATION OF |
| | TURNING VOLUMES FROM THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT |
| | UPDATING THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE |
| | PROPOSED AND NEARBY EXISTING/FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS |
| | |
| | 2) CONDITIONALLY 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 |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE |
| | AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO |
| | WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS |
| | FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A |
| | REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 3) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF |
| | THE TRAFFIC STUDY 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 |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE |
| | AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO |
| | WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS |
| | FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A |
| | REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 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) CONDITIONALLY 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 |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS C-22 AND C-23 |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: A SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION SITE |
| | PLAN WAS PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME |
| | DETAILS CONTAINED IN THE PROVIDED SITE PLANS THAT WILL |
| | NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 7) CONDITIONALLY 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 |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SITE PLANS AND TRAFFIC FEATURE |
| | SHEETS C-4, C-5, C-22, C-23 |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: A SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION SITE |
| | PLAN WAS PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME |
| | DETAILS CONTAINED IN THIS SITE PLAN THAT WILL NEED TO |
| | BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION TO APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 8) CONDITIONALLY 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 |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS C-17 AND C-18 |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: AUTO TURN ANALYSIS WAS |
| | PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DETAILS |
| | CONTAINED IN THIS AUTO TURN ANALYSIS THAT NEED TO BE |
| | MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING |
| | PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO THE |
| | ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | 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) CONDITIONALLY 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. |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: LANES DIVIDER AND AUTO- TURNS |
| | PROVIDED. SEE SHEETS C-19 AND A5-10 |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THERE ARE SOME DETAILS |
| | CONTAINED IN THESE REVISIONS TO SHEETS C-19 AND A5-10 |
| | THAT NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF |
| | AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT |
| | |
| | |
| | 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) CONDITIONALLY 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. |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE |
| | AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO |
| | WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS |
| | FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A |
| | REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 13) CONDITIONALLY 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. |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE |
| | AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO |
| | WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT; HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS |
| | FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER DISPOSITION OF THIS |
| | COMMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME IT WILL BE DETERMINED AS A |
| | CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS |
| | PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL |
| | LIST. |
| | |
| | 14) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SUMMARY TABLE |
| | CAPTURING THE NUMBER OF METERED PARKING REMOVED OR |
| | RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH PARKING DEPARTMENT |
| | PERTAINING SUCH REMOVAL AND RELOCATION. |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: TV?S CURRENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT |
| | WITH THE CITY (SECTION 9.1) REQUIRES THE CITY TO REMOVE |
| | THE PARKING METERS ON CLEARWATER DRIVE. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION |
| | CONTAINING SUCH INCENTIVE AGREEMENT |
| | |
| | 15) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. REMOVE THE STOP BARS ALONG |
| | CLEARWATER DR BY THE GARAGE ENTRANCE OR PROVIDE A |
| | TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WARRANTING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. |
| | |
| | TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE |
| | AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO |
| | WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS |
| | FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A |
| | REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN |
| | ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST. |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |