CITY OF PALM COAST
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
September 22, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT:NONE
DRC STAFF PRESENT: Ray Tyner, Current Planning Manager; Constance Bentley, Land Development Manager; Andrew Ames, Traffic Engineer; Phong Nguyen, Transportation Planner; Chris Johnson, Utility Department; Bill Butler, Landscape Architect; Jeff Pattee, Fire Marshal; John Morris, Capital Projects; Ken Kruger, Development Review Engineer; KendraIannotti and Dee Chaudoin, Land Development Technicians; John Schneiger, Community Development Director; Carol Hamilton, Recording Secretary
1.Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Tyner called the DRC Meeting to order at 9 am
Voting Members will be Ken Kruger and Bill Butler
Staff introductions
2.Approval of the September 8, 2006 Development Review Committee Meeting Minutes.
Mr. Kruger made a motion to approve the September 8, 2006Development Review Committee Meeting Minutes as amended. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and approved 3-0.
3.Case SD-PLP-06-14– Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; OLD KINGS ROAD PROFESSIONAL CENTER;proposed 11 commercial-use lots on a total of 49.449 +/- acres located in the OFC-2 (Office – General) and the COM-2 (Commercial – General) Zoning Districts;project is located north of the Lehigh Railroad, on the east side of Old Kings Road; Applicant – Kent Mace (Project 2006090001; Applicant #1239)
Dennis Leap, Vice President with Tomoka Engineering; David Butler, Manager, town Center East LLC; and Ken Mace, Director with town Center East, LLC were in attendance representing the project.
DISCUSSION INCLUDED:
PLT – PLANNING TECHNICIAN:
General:
Comment #3 – There appears to be a discrepancy concerning the City of Palm Coast being named a property owner within the Title Opinion. Be advised that this discrepancy will be required to be addressed prior to the issuance of the Final Plat Development.
Comment #4 – Provide commitment letters from service providers (i.e. Palm Coast Utilities, BellSouth, FPL, Waste Management and Cable Provider).
Plat:
Comment #2 – Sheet 2 of 3, although an access easement is provided to Lot 3, actual access is not established. Be advised that access shall be established and provided at this time on the construction plans.
Comment #3 – Sheet 3 of 3, although an access easement is provided from Yale Court through Lot 11 to Lot 10, actual access to Lot 10 is not established. Provide constructed access to Lot 10 at this time.
Comment #6 – Sheet 3 of 3, Lots 9 and 10, there are wetland areas located on these lots however no wetland conservation easements are provided. Please explain.
Construction Plans:
Comment #3 – The cover sheet and various other sheets show a hatched area over Lots 6, 7, and 10. Explain this hatched area. Perhaps a legend should be provided on all plans.
Comment #4 – The hatched-area shown on the construction plans over Lots 6, 7, and 10, should this area be shown and labeled on the plat.
Comment #7 – Cover sheet, Zoning Data, remove “PUD – Planned Urban Development” as the parcels included in this plat are NOT zoned PUD.
Comment #8 – Cover sheet, Zoning and Soils Data shall be revised so that the zoning districts are correctly depicted in accordance with the existing zoning map. Currently the zoning line depicted does not appear to be located in the correct location. Further construction plans and plat will require to be updated to ensure that proposed lot lines follow the existing zoning district lines.
PLLA – PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Comment #2 – Since the street trees have been shown to be planted in the right-of-way, need to show a revised utility corss section indicating there will be no conflict with the proposed utilities. Presently the trees are shown to be planted on a water line. If conflicts cannot be resolved, locate the trees within a 5’ wide area just outside of the 10’ FPL utility corridor that is outside of the right-of-way.
Comment #4 – Need littoral zone plantings around the perimeter of the detention ponds such that 30% of the surface area of the pond at normal water elevation is in equivalent plantings, 50% submergent and 50% emergent species.
Additional Comment to read: “Move drainage easement further back out of 35’ landscape buffer.”
PLTR – PLANNING TRANSPORTATION:
Interconnectivity and access between all 11 lots are required.
Additional Comments to read:
“Provide access mgt for the overall site development especially at hidden lakes drive section. Take into consideration for providing a service road because Yale Court will not be able to have a median opening.”
“Provide an easement or row for decal lanes for future widening of Old Kings Road for all 3 accesses.”
UD1 – UTILITY DEPARTMENT:
Comment #1 – Utility fees, Agreements and FDEP permits or Design Engineers letter of determination must be completed before a final Development Order will be issued.
Comment #2 – Provide a copy of the plans to the Engineering firm designing the Old Kings Road Widening (Ayres & Associates) for their review and approval on proposed utility locations.
FD1 – FIRE REVIEW:
No Comments
TRENG – TRAFFIC ENGINNER:
Mr. Ames distributed City Traffic Engineering comments to the Applicant/Developer at this time.
Traffic Study: The site trip distribution does not make sense and needs to be approved by City Staff
Plat and Site Layout: Define access to Lot 3 and Lot 10.
SW1- STORMWATER ENGINEER:
Where is the compensating storage shown for the proposed ditch filling through Lot 6?
Brief Staff discussion included turn lanes and the construction of 4-laning on Old Kings Road. Meeting will be scheduled to discuss transportation issues/concerns.
Mr. Kruger made a motion to continue Case SD-PLP-06-14 – Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; OLD KINGS ROAD PROFESSIONAL CENTER;proposed 11 commercial-use lots on a total of 49.449 +/- acres located in the OFC-2 (Office – General) and the COM-2 (Commercial – General) Zoning Districts. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and approved 3-0.
4. Case SD-PLP-06-12– Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; CITATION ESTATES proposed development of 12 Tracts, and 56 single-family lots on 125.10 +/- acres, located in the Citation Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development) District; project is situated on the corner of Citation Parkway and Belle Terre Boulevard in the Quail Hollow Subdivision; Applicant – Michael Braniff (Project #2006070006, Application #1197)
Robbie Richmond, Vice President with River City Homes & Development; Brett Markovitz, Vice President, Jim Edwards, and John Melendezwith CPH Engineers were in attendance representing the project.
DISCUSSION INCLUDED:
PLT – PLANNING TECHNICIAN:
General Comment #1 – Provide commitment letter from BellSouth. The letter provided with this submittal is not a commitment letter. (Staff received commitment letters from FPL, Palm Coast Utilities, Brighthouse and Waste Management).
Plat Comment #4 – Tracts 7 & 8 are dedicated to the SJRWMD for wetland buffer however the City also requests a Conservation Easement over all wetlands. Please review and address.
Plat Comment #5 – Explain where access to Tracts 7 and 8 are provided? Staff suggest extending Tract 12 boundary line past Tracts 7 and 8 boundary lines in order to provide access to these tracts.
Construction Plans Comment #2 – Previous Comment – The following lots do not appear to meet minimum width requirements as set forth in the PUD agreement. (i.e. Lots 1,3,4,9,12,20,21, 27,28,30,31,32,33,41,42,&56). On construction plans, provide lot width at the 20’ from the front property line of the parcel since it is located within the driveway to the development.
Construction Plans Comment #4 – Is a construction trailer proposed at this site? If so, it shall be depicted on the construction plans. Be advised that if it is not designated at this time, an additional site plan review for the placement of the construction trailer will be required prior to submitting a building permit application.
PLLA – PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Delete Comments #1 and #2.
Comment #3 – Previous comment stated, “Per the PUD in Section 4.0 (b), it states, “Provisions for filtering of runoff of fertilizers, pesticides, and chemicals into lakes, wetland and stormwater detention facilities shall be made which may include but is not limited to creation of a littoral planting shelf with appropriate upland and submergent species, detention berms prior to runoff entering water or other means deemed appropriate for the situation.” This has not been provided in the plans as the single-family lots runoff directly into the detention ponds and upland wetland buffers with no treatment. Provide a cross-section detail of these sloped areas indicating the type of treatment to achieve this requirement.” Response was that a detention berm was placed at the rear of the single-family lots to prevent runoff entering the wetlands and the slopes of the pond are sodded. This does not address the issue of littoral zone plantings around the detention pond. Sod is not acceptable.
Comment #4 – Previous comment stated in part, “Need to show the location of the street light poles on the street tree planting plan to insure the poles and trees do not conflict. Design locations such that poles are equidistant from each adjacent tree.” Several areas show the proposed light poles within 5’ of a shade tree. Need to re-space poles or trees to maintain at least a 15’ separation. Show a labeled symbol for the light poles (symbols not presently labeled).
Delete Comment #7.
PLCON – PLANNING CONCURRENCY:
Comment #1 – A “Preliminary Traffic Impact Review and Turn Lane Analysis” submitted addressing only for the 56 residential single-family lots is not deemed sufficient to assess traffic concurrency for the entire site. After speaking with CPH Engineers on 07/26/2006, Staff came to an understanding that a full Traffic Study will be submitted for the entire site; therefore, Staff withheld concurrency review until the full Traffic Study is received. 7/26/06 PTN.
UD1 – UTILITY DEPARTMENT:
Comment #6 – Increase the water main size to 10”. With Tract 4 development: the water main will likely need to connect from Citation Boulevard to the water stub proposed for Tract 4.
PLFM – PLANNING FLOODPLAIN:
Delete Informational Comment.
ENGIN1 – CITY ENGINEERING:
It was noted that the Applicant/Developer responded to Previous Comments. There are no comments.
TRENG – TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
It was noted that the review was not received by Mr. Ames.
SW!-STORMWATER ENGINEER:
Revise first sentence of Comment #1 to read: Provide “cross-sections” for the proposed roadway work on Belle Terre.
CA1 – CITY ATTORNEY:
Comment #4 – Nevertheless, the Certificate of title states that Citation Estates, LLC is the owner of the property. However, the Plat continues to state that 4th Dimension Development is a property owner. Applicant/Developer will schedule meeting with City Attorney for language clarification.
Mr. Kruger made a motion to approve Case SD-PLP-06-12 – Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; CITATION ESTATES proposed development of 12 Tracts, and 56 single-family lots on 125.10 +/- acres, located in the Citation Estates PUD (Planned Unit Development) District subject to DRC Comments. Mr. Butler seconded the motion.
Mr. Ames stated that he did not receive a package to review and asked that the approval also be subject to his comments, if any, generated as a result of the review. Mr. Kruger and Mr. Butler agreed.
The motion carried and was approved 3-0.
5.Case SP-MOD-06-04– Site Plan, Moderate; SHOPPES AT GRAND HAVEN;proposed development of a 2-story commercial-use shopping center (with a total of 60,517 s.f.), on 9.23 +/- acres, located in the Grand Haven PUD (Planned Unit Development) District; project is situated on the west side of Colbert Lane, South of Palm Coast Parkway, located directly across from Waterside Parkway North.; Applicant – Michael Braniff (Project #2006040016, Application #1162)
Robbie Richmond, Vice President of River City Homes and Development; and Brett Markovitz, Vice President, Jason Kellogg, P.E., Project Engineer, Raghu Veturi, Senior Traffic Analyst and John Melendez, Division with CPH Engineers were in attendance representing the project.
DISCUSSION INCLUDED:
PLENV – PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL:
Delete Comment #1
PLLA – PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Delete 2nd, 3rd, 4th sentences from Comment #2.
Comment #6 – Previous comment stated, “Littoral zone plantings required around the perimeter of all normally wet stormwater detention ponds if ponds are not sized at 150% of capacity. Area of plantings to be equal to 30% of the area of the pond at normal water elevation. Plantings to consist of 50% emergent species and 50% submergent species. Provide a cross sectional detail of planting elevations with quantities of plants, size and spacing.” It was stated in the previous response to comments that the ponds were sized at 150% and therefore littoral zone plantings are not required. However, upon further investigation of the Grand Haven DRI agreement in Section 7.3, “At a minimum, a vegetated littoral zone shall be provided around 50% of the total water management system, including the remaining wetlands.” Therefore, the comment still stands except that the 30% provision must be changed to 50% and must be addressed.
Comment #9 – Previous comment stated, “Need to negotiate an easement for a shell based trail along the western edge of the site within the upland buffer of the wetland. The City has secured a grant from the Department of Transportation for a connecting trail from Colbert Lane through GrahamSwamp to Old Kings Road. A preliminary layout of the trail in this area is currently being prepared and the City would like to discuss this with the Applicant.” Applicant stated a willingness to provide an easement for the trail but this needs to be provided in a recorded document and furnished to the City. Additionally, plants are shown to be planted in the trail easement area which will not work. Need to reduce the planted area of the easement to a 3’ wide strip on the Westside and within the 15’ wetland buffer and trail easement. In the remainder of the area, a 12’ wide compacted shell marl trail shall be constructed by the developer. Provide a detail for the trail construction.
Comment #10 – The DRI for Grand Haven states in Section 7.9 the following, “the Applicant of the Grand Haven project shall use double silt fencing when appropriate as sedimentation control on all lands adjacent to surface waters or wetlands, especially for development areas abutting GrahamSwamp….” Therefore, need to note on sheet C-12 that all silt fencing along the west side of the site abutting GrahamSwamp shall have double fencing installed.
ENGIN1 – CITY ENGINEERING:
Delete all Comments (1 through 7).
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS Comment #1 – A geotechnical report was not provided to verify drawdown analysis of the storm tech system.
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS Comment #2 – Storm Tabulations were not provided to check pipe sizing.
FD1 – FIRE REVIEW:
No Comments
TRENG – TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
Traffic Study: Opening year volume shall be used for background traffic. Opening year will not be 2006. Use opening Year 2008 and project volumes from the City’s traffic counts. Use percentage growth for that specific segment of road and grow the background traffic accordingly.
Lengthy discussion included Colbert Lane signal, turn lanes, and tapers.
Mr. Kruger made a motion to continue Case SP-MOD-06-04 – Site Plan, Moderate; SHOPPES AT GRAND HAVEN;proposed development of a 2-story commercial-use shopping center (with a total of 60,517 s.f.), on 9.23 +/- acres, located in the Grand Haven PUD (Planned Unit Development) District. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and approved 3-0.
6. Case SP-MOD-06-05 – Site Plan, Moderate; CLINICA DEL SOL; proposed development of medical offices, health facility, tennis courts, and convention center on 13.44 +/- acres, located in the COM-3 (Commercial – High Intensity) District; project is located on the Northeast corner of Palm Harbor Parkway and Palm Coast Parkway; Applicant – Claus Peter Roehr (Project # 2006040018, Application # 1166)
Jerry Finley, P.E. with Finley Engineering Group; Peter Roehr, and Todd Whitehead with EuropeanVillage werein attendance representing the project.
DISCUSSION INCLUDED
PLT – PLANNING TECHNICIAN:
Comment #11 – Provide another sheet to show construction staging and remove references to see Sheet 3 and 5 and Sheet 6 on site plan sheet.
Comment #12d – Provide documentation providing for shared parking.
Comment #12g – For clarification, align the ‘Lot Area’ calculation criteria in columns to reflect acreage, area and percentage of existing and proposed.
Comment #12h – For clarification, align the ‘Building Area’ calculation criteria in columns to reflect area, acreage and percentages of existing and proposed to include a column for total.
Comment #12i – Provide data for pool area coverage, and restroom square footages.
Comment #13 – Provide covenants and restrictions for Staff review.
Comment #14 – Provide wheel stops for each parking space abutting a sidewalk and landscape area as depicted on typical.
Comment #17 – Provide details and location of any proposed wall and fence.
Comment #19 – Provide setbacks from property line to closest point of structure. Property abuts a PUD, MFR and TCU zoning district.
Comment #22 – Provide bike rack with details.
Comment #25 – Provide taxi stand area. The proposed project is a commercial site which anticipates high volume of pedestrian and vehicular activities.
PLLA – PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Comment #11 – VUA island is required on the far west side of the parking lot that breaks up a row of more than 10 parking spaces. An island has been shown in this location, but it is not the required 250 square feet in area, does not have a shade tree and is not labeled with a letter designation.
Additional Comment to read: “Need to clarify location of existing sidewalk at the northwest corner of the site and insure connectivity is maintained and that sidewalk is not in the proposed buffer on the west side of the site. If sidewalk is in the buffer, need to relocate sidewalk and obtain any necessary easements off-site to construct the walk.”
UD1 – UTILITY DEPARTMENT:
Comment #3 – any individual units will need a water meter. All the common area can utilize one meter. Call out meter locations.
Comment #5 – Provide plan for the restaurant. Provide grease interceptor detail.
Comment #8 – Provide booster pump information.
Comment #9 – A study is currently being done on the impact this development will have on the wastewater system. Off site improvements to the wastewater system will likely be needed.