Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI (D1) Planatation Grove PUD : Plantation Grove Shopping Center - Phases 2 & 3, Final Subdivision Plan, Project No. LS-98-008Agenda 7-20-99 Item VI D 1 "CENTER OF GOOD LIG'LNG- PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR* COMMISSIONER S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS DANNY HOWELL 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTTANDERSON OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY J (407) 656-2322 NANCY I.. PARKER CITY MANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO STAFF REPORT DATE: July 16, 1999 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert Lewis, AICP, Principal Planner , .-7 THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phase 2 & 3 Final Subdivision Plan Project # LS-98-008 ISSUE: Should the Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 37 BACKGROUND: The Plantation Grove Shopping Center is the Commercial portion of the Plantation Grove PUD, located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Maguire Road and Moore Road. Phase 1 was built several years ago. Phases 2 and 3 include about 10 acres and are permitted by the PUD to include up to 107,500 square feet of commercial space. Phase 2 will be an outparcel of the shopping center at the comer facing Maguire Road and Phase 3 will be an extension of the retail shopping center constructed as part of Phase 1 (see attached Development Plan of the Commercial parcel of Plantation Grove PUD). DISCUSSION: Existing development in the Phase 1 shopping center has established the standards for general appearance, landscaping and traffic circulation within the Commercial parcel of the Plantation Grove PUD. The overriding concern which has guided Staff in its review of this Final Subdivision Plan is to make sure that the development within Phases 2 and 3 of the project will be consistent and compatible with the existing development in Phase 1. Pmtetl arre�-p G�L- July 16, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Page 2 Existing conditions which affect the design of the subdivision include a 60 foot utility easement which runs through the southern portion of the site. This easement contains a large high pressure reuse water line for the Orange County Conserve II wastewater reuse system. There me also existing agreements for stormwater management and cross access between sites which tie this portion of the PUT) together with the other commercial and residential portions of the Plantation Grove PUD. As can be seen by comparison with the PUD Development Plan, the Developer has shifted a substantial amount of stormwater management from the multi -family portion of the PUD to the Phase 2 & 3 commercial portion of the project. The PUD Land Use Plan also provides for various access points from Maguire Road and Moore Road into the subject property. The Final Subdivision Plan presented addresses many of the design requirements established for the PUD, however, there are still a number of elements of the plan which staff believes are inconsistent with the standards previously established by the existing Phase 1 development in the PUD. One point that should be brought out is that most of the improvements to Moore Road shown in the Final Subdivision Plan drawings are proposed to be constructed by the City, rather than the Developer. These Moore Road improvements are intended to be constructed at the same time as the City is doing the Maguire Road widening improvements. This Plan has been revised three times to address staff comments, however, there are still several issues which have not been resolved. Staff normally does not bring a project forward with many unresolved issues. In spite of this policy, after three revisions, the applicant insisted that the Plan move forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Commission for action (see letter from Scott Clark to Paul Rosenthal, dated June 10, 1999). Prior to the DRC meeting, there were still seven comments from the Planning Department, six comments from the City Attorney and two comments from the Building Department which had not been satisfactorily addressed. The Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 3 (received May 24, 1999) was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on June 22, 1999. The DRC discussed all of the outstanding comments and during the discussion, the applicant verbally agreed to comply with some of staffs comments. A few other comments were agreed to be deleted. However, with so many remaining issues still unresolved, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend denial of the Plan. A copy of the staff report and the transcript from that DRC meeting me attached for reference. The applicant was instructed to submit the appropriate number of plan sets for this Final Subdivision Plan to be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission without any changes from the set of plans which was considered by the DRC on June 22, 1999. The applicant has submitted the appropriate number of plan sets (signed by the engineer July 7, 1999) However, there appear to be changes on these plans which were not on the plans considered by the DRC. Therefore, the attached plans appear to reflect in general the Final Subdivision Plan which was acted upon by the DRC, but staff has not evaluated the changes to see what affect they have on the staff position. July 16, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Page 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On July 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 3. During the discussion, the applicant's attorney, land planner and traffic engineer made presentations. The applicant's attorney indicated that they have now agreed to all of the conditions outlined by the DRC except two conditions. The two remaining issues were: 1) The size of the turning radius of the curb at the point where the internal north -south drive behind Lot 1 connects to the internal east -west drive along the southern edge of Phase 1; and 2) The location of a sign easement for a shopping center ID sign at the northwest comer of Lot 1. Regarding the first issue, the applicant believes that they need a minimum of a 40' turning radius on the curb to accommodate fuel delivery trucks to the proposed Hess station on Lot 1, while staff believes that the radius should be no more than 25' to be consistent with the radii in the rest of the shopping center, including the radii used new the existing Mobil station. In support of the staff position that a 25' radius is appropriate, Exhibit "A" (attached) shows the plan which was submitted with the Special Exception for the Mobil station with the path of a fuel delivery track driving into the site with much smaller turning radii than are shown in these drawings. For a comparison, the Mobil plan shows a 25' radius on the curb at the northwest comer of the site where the shopping center running behind the Mobil site meets the shopping center entrance drive running along the west side of the Mobil site. Regarding the second issue, the applicant would not object to locating the shopping center ID sign at the median in the Maguire Road entrance which is located new the southwest comer of Phase 1 as proposed by staff. However, the applicant believes that if they cannot get permission to put the sign at that location, they should be allowed to put it at the northwest comer of Lot 1 as proposed. Staff believes that locating the shopping center sign at the northwest comer of Lot 1 would present a traffic safety hazard, because it would encourage people to use the Lot 1 driveway entrance to enter the shopping center, rather than the Maguire Road entrance located new the southwest comer of Phase 1. In the event that permission to locate the sign at the Maguire Road entrance to the shopping center cannot be obtained, staff believes that the sign should be located at one of the entrances on Moore Road. The Moore Road option is unacceptable to the applicant. The first motion made by the Planning and Zoning Commission was to recommend denial of the Final Subdivision Plan, based on failure to comply with radii and signage issues (supporting staffs recommendation). The vote was 3 in favor and 5 against that motion, so it did not pass. A second motion was made to recommend approval with a 35' turning radius at the intersection in question with additional landscaping there, and an additional condition regarding the sign location, to place it at the northwest corner of Lot 1 as proposed if permission is not obtained for the preferred location. This recommendation is not consistent with staffs recommendation on either the radius issue, or the sign location issue. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 in favor and 3 against the second motion, thereby voting to recommend approval of the Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 3, subject to the stated conditions. July 16, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the DRC meeting, the applicant has agreed to comply with some of the conditions which were outstanding at the conclusion of the DRC meeting. Martha Formella, Assistant City Attorney, has prepared a memo to the Mayor and City Commissioners (see attached Exhibit `B") which includes suggested conditions of approval for this application which would support the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those conditions include the conditions which the applicant has agreed to since the DRC meeting and most of the conditions which were outstanding at the conclusion of the DRC meeting. The following staff recommendation incorporates those conditions, with a few modifications which would incorporate all of the conditions which were outstanding at the conclusion of the DRC meeting. Based on the fact that the applicant has agreed to most of the DRC's outstanding conditions and based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Staff would recommend that the Mayor and City Commission approve the proposed Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 3, that was date stamped received by the City on May 24, 1999, subject to including the additional conditions described in the memo from Martha Formella dated July 15, 1999, with the following changes: 1) The proposed Condition of Approval listed in Condition # 1 will be changed to read: "The Shopping Center identification sign shall be located within the median at the southern entrance to the Shopping Center, subject to obtaining permission from the fee owner. The Developer and the City will use their best efforts to obtain such permission. If permission cannot be obtained prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on Lots 1 or 2, then the Shopping Center identification sign shall be located at one of the Shopping Center entrances on Moore Road." 2) Condition # 2 will be changed to read: "The radius at the intersection of the entrance road off of Maguire Road and the entrance road along the eastern property boundary shall be 25 feet. The Developer shall install additional landscaping at that location to soften the visual impact" Attachments: Copy of a letter from Scott Clark to Paul Rosenthal, dated June 10, 1999 Copy of the Staff Report presented to the DRC, dated June 21, 1999 Copy of the Transcript from the June 22, 1999 DRC meeting Exhibit "A" - Copy of Mobil plan showing fuel truck movement into the site Exhibit "B" - Memo from Martha Formella to Mayor and Commissioners dated July 15, 1999 Plantation Grove PUD Commercial Parcel Development Plan Final Subdivision Plan, signed by the project engineer July 7, 1999 O:\CALEXANDER\ALL_DATA\CAPDFILE\Staff Reports\CC SR\SR99050.doc JUM-14-SS 11'12 FROM -"LEY HNU 06/10/66 16:13 W:faul E. Rosenthal Fro.:kotn 0. Clark 1 t4e11 647-0047 Page 1/3 GRARAM, CIARV d()NF , W11FIDY12, PPATT & MARKS ATl'ORNEYSAT LAw .W NnmrNnrYmx A"rvcmT Pre VlM1� Fsx ,Flnen/.;tt'nt9 T+va� (4M 64•i-4i55 '1'� (407)7gt 3 MNIM': N,IARS licr[) VAR41`1, 3Z 90 wak=arAu�r1. 3Tl90 rJd/.rt: :,lnlTTl.C7A4Y June 10, 1999 W. f. avlc' a &INJ Paul E. Rosmf.L4 Esq. Foley & I.ardner P.O. 1 fox 2193 Orlactk. Florida 32802 Re' Rq site spccW exception/ Plantation Grove commercial subdivision plan and plat Dear Paul It is my older talding that all of the shove items have been resubmitted to the City of Omee Plaming ApartuxmI iR It; with our various rxmi, Lovfauax;s and diu:usn:iolts QonLNxaing ibis proja2 In anm action with that resubminal, we requen dat the City place the matter om the agenda for the ne# available Planning and Zoning ('.otmnission meeting, that Ineitlg the next meeting after which the various advoxiiciog rafuirlml`IIta awld be mcf- We underaand that the (:ity may doni.e to convene a nrcding of the Ievelopment Review Cemmntee. (:ertsinly we will make ourselves available to attend such a meeting but we believe that the pmoass should not he delayed if such a meeting cannot he timely held. Section 4-X(Axl) of your land Ivelopment Colo requires, that tho application be f<awarded to the Development Review Commiu( fix rLNI('N'. Thin has bear dons. ThaeaRw. the Dircdoa of P4auuml; or vammtllu; arc to mak: a report `.oN=: a n�&d dcaa®wlim of Dds ..." aml 1'awacd it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Similarly, the staff has previously prepared this finding, and it should now submit it to the P&Z with any modifications they may dean newssary based on the raised wbmittals_ Under (Ax2) of COdc Section 4-9, any further diffcnences or Comments with the plan should b: forwar&d to tlx: Pla,_e & 7oung C�w ralhu than buag wmt ba& to ils Applicant with a r Nucsl fix revision to the: plan. At this point wu b&,i wu arc cmit.Lud to pro=,d with the public hLari"ag pros =d that the ('ity (:nmmissien mast now review the applio sties. "Ihe City Commission is required to approve JUN-14-99 11+12 FROM FULLY HNU `UNLN ...........0 m:raul L. aoxntaal Ru.:k.t, D. Clerk U 1 (4071 647-8647 Ng, 213 J. 10, Lp?9 or distaovc the prol"I within We guidelines of 4-kB), whiuh I believe to bL; wry spocilic and relatively narrow in targd. Wo aLso bclicvo th:d, ds: City can atlach only those x=Uiom as arc aplaopnec "N ecmrre arrtPlierKe with the provisions ofthia (1 and I)evelapment) Code.^ I have not in my review of the: Co&- or any odes prutardcut found authority whisks suggeais that tho City ease substitute: the results of ils n-vu;w of ulhcT si" as approval sued- dv in plan: of tho btuadards that arc: a{ fodh m du: Cad.:. I dso do not find any authority wtuuh bvggvsLs Iha1 a spwial exception may he limited to smaller signage than dust which would be available to a Permitted use on the name property. I would still w Io me the opportunity to meet with you on this issue before the hcarin&s a to occur. I would appreciate it if you could have the City staff advise me as snon as passible of the hcariugdatcs ao Elud we wn be prcpatuL Sincerety your&, Soott 1). Clark SDCltyl a: 1'mm IAIy Janus i. I:Gdinalld R.bx L F ad'zuad "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF NEST ORANGE" COMMISSIONER S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFF CITY OF OCOEE Cam>nssia eu DANNY HOWELL SCOTT ANDERSON 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIvE RUSTY JOHNSON OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 NANCY L PARKER (407)656-2322 CIT1'H1A>i>GE0. ELLIS SHAPIRO INIFMORANDUM DATE: June 21, 1999 TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Robert Lewis, AICP, Senior Planner }� � THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning SUBJ: Planning Department Recommendation Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 & 3 Final Subdivision Plan, Received May 24, 1999 The Planning Department recommends denial of the proposed Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phase 2 & 3 as presented in the submittal dated May 24. 1999, due to inconsistency with the Plantation Grove Commercial Shopping Center Final Development / Preliminary Subdivision Plan and general provisions of the Ocoee Land Development Code, as further specified below: 1) The location of Maguire Road project identification sign is currently shown at the entrance to Lot 1. The project identification sign should be located within the median at the southern main entrance to the shopping center rather than on one of the out parcels. We feel that if the sign is located as proposed, it will encourage people to enter the subdivision by this entrance with the intent of going to the shopping center. We feel that entering the shopping center from the Lot 1 driveway entrance will create an unsafe traffic pattern for traffic going to the shopping center, since this entrance provides only indirect access to the shopping center. 2) The recent submittal does not include a detail showing what the project identification sign will look like. Since the sign will be part of the subdivision improvements constructed under this plan, a sign detail should be provided showing the dimensions and general appearance of the proposed project sign. This is necessary in order to confirm that an integrated development plan is being followed with this shopping center. The new project identification sign should be consistent with prior signage approvals for this PUD. 3) The plan sho,,bs a proposed N-S access road along the east side of Lot 1 joining with the parking lot area of Phase 1. The return radii at the north end of that access road are too wide. They need to be reduced to match the radii used in the rest of the shopping center parking lot. June 21, 1999 Development Review Committee Page 2 4) The potential driveway location for access to Lot 5 (Phase 1) from the cross access driveway running along the east side of Lot I is not consistent with the reciprocal driveway shown on the approved site plan for Lot 5. Also, Note 23 which is intended to describe the responsibilities related to this driveway is unacceptable. Cross access must be provided between parcels and each property owner will be responsible for the improvements located on their property. 5) On Sheet 4 of 8 in the reduced plan set, in the Typical 24' Driveway Section, the 5' sidewalk needs to be deleted, since it is not shown on the plan (Sheet 1 of 2 in full size set). 6) The Note provided on the Conceptual Plan regarding the potential for the site layout changing with the Final Site Plan is unacceptable. It should be worded as follows: "This plan is conceptual only. Phase 3 site plan may change when the Final Site Plan is submitted. However, if the Final Site Plan is not consistent with the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plan, the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plan must be amended through the public hearing process before the Final Site Plan can be approved" 7) All plan sheets in the submittal need to be full size, rather than part full size and part reduced size as currently submitted. 8) In addition to the above Planning Department comments, the attached comments from the City Attorney and the City Building Department need to be addressed. RWL VAPolice_firc1AplannineAR EWISV L_DATA\rlpdfil,ADe,,IopmenlRerieo'(1999)�SR99034.doc IN JUN 11999 FOLEY & LARDNER CITY OF7�0 00EE EMORANDUM CLIENT -MATTER NUMBER 020377/0476 TO: Ellen M. King, Development Review Coordinator FROM: Martha H. Formella, Esq., Assistant City Attorney DATE: June 16, 1999 RE: Plantation Grove Shopping Center Phases II and III Final Subdivision Plan In connection with the above referenced application, we have reviewed the following documents: "Final Subdivision Plan for Plantation Grove Phases II & III and Moore Road Widening" (8 Sheets) stamped received by the City of Ocoee May 24, 1999; 2. "Plantation Grove Shopping Center Phases 2 & 3 Final Subdivision Plan" (2 Sheets) stamped received by the City of Ocoee May 24, 1999 ("FSP"); and 3. Response letter from Thomas Daly of Daly Design Group, Inc. dated May 24, 1999 and stamped received by the City of Ocoee May 24, 1999. This memorandum supersedes our memoranda dated December 22, 1998, December 30, 1998, and April 7, 1999. Based on our review of the documents noted above pursuant to the new Land Development Code, we have the following comments: Notes 9 and 14 have been revised and Notes 21, 22, 23, and 24 have been added. City Staff should confirm that these changes to the FSP are acceptable. In addition, at the end of the first sentence of Note 14, please add the following: ,,at the time of four laving of Moore Road". If the payment amount referenced in Note 14 is firm, please delete "estimated". If the payment amount is estimated, the procedure to determine the final amount should be included in Note 14. Please add the following sentence to the end of Note 14: "No building permits shall be issued on the Phase 3 Shopping Center Property until the payment is received by the City." 1- 11I1F ItG]4i 2. As requested in Comment 2 of our memorandum dated April 7, 1999, please delete Note 13 as it is not applicable. (The water main has been constructed in a different configuration such that the note upon which this Note 13 is based is moot). 3. Two sets of drawings titled "Final Subdivision Plan" have been submitted. (Sheet 2 of the 8 Sheet plan set is missing). City Staff should determine whether this format is acceptable. 4. City Staff should confirm that the "4' Tract" along Moore Road provides sufficient area for the sidewalk. If any portion of the sidewalk will be constructed outside the public right-of-way, then a sidewalk easement will be required and the following note should be added: "A sidewalk easement in favor of the City will be provided at the time of platting." 5. The references to "cross access drive" and "Developer of the Shopping Center" are unclear. Please clearly identify the cross access area which is the subject of the note and the party responsible for its development, maintenance, and drainage. If the responsible party is not the owner of the Phase 2 or Phase 3 property, then please provide an instrument in recordable form which documents the third party's acceptance of the responsibilities. 6. Please add the following note: The project identification sign shall be located within the median at the southern entrance to the Shopping Center, subject to obtaining permission from the fee owner. The Developer and the City will use their best efforts to obtain such permission. If permission cannot be prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on Lots 1 or 2, then the project identification sign shall be at an alternate location along Moore Road which is acceptable to the Developer and City. In addition, please label the appropriate location as follows: "project identification sign (see Note _)". If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. cc: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney -2- 006.119]9] 'CENTER OF GOOD LIVTNG -PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE'' MAYOR • COMIMMNER S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT CITY OF OCOEE Co.nssioleu DANNYHOWELL SCOTT ANDERSON 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE RUSTY JOHNSON OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761-2258 NANCY J. PARKER (407)656-2322 Cl vMANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: ELLEN KING, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COOEDINATOR FROM: NLIAN HARPER, ZONING COORDINATOR //(�`J THROUGH: D.W. FLIPPEN, BUILDING AND ZONING OFH IC 1J� DATE: NNE 7, 1999 SUBJECT: BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMINIENTS PLANTATION GROVE SHOPPING CENTER PHASE 2 & 3, 3RD STAFF REVIEW Proposed F.S.P. date stamped May 24, 1999: When reviewing the following comments, please refer to the attached exhibits, namely: Exhibit One: April 7, 1999, Plamung Comments; Exhibit Two: May 24, 1999, Daly Design Group Inc., Response Exhibit Three: April 28, 1999, Parsons Brinkerhoff Responses to Ken Swartz, GTC Engineering 1) In regards to Exhibit 91 Comment #8, Exhibit #2 Response #8; and, Exhibit #3 Response #3 (see notations entered on each of the respective exhibits), when will the Building Department receive a clearance letter from Orange County with detailed specifications regarding the permitted construction activities in, over, and around the 54" Consery II Transmission Main? Specifically address the Hess Gas Station and adjacent stormwater retention pond excavations. 2) In regards to Exhibit #1 Comment #21 and Exhibit #2 Response #2 (see respective notations on exhibits), when will the Building Department receive a clearance letter from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding the alleged on -site ground pollution, batteries, and barrel burying? "Cv,TERJFGDODLIL'IR'G-PPJDEGfIVESTORIAGE" s. S.^OTT VANDERGFIET OCO'Et E. CITY OF OCOE CPIM O DANN'YHOWEwELL O\ Q SCOTT ANDERSON 150 N. LAi EiHORN E ERE RUSTY JOHNSON OCOEE, FLOUDA 34761-2258 NANCY I. PARKER V O _ (407)656-2322 CI .ZV CITY v KAGE3 vim ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM -'- DATE: April 7, 1999 TO. Ellen King: Development Review Coordinator FROM: Robert Lew'S, .AiC P, Senior Planner I THROUGH: Russ ``+agner. AICP, Director of Plarnnine 61AY 2 4 1999 CITY OF OCOEE SL'B,I: Planning Deparunent Comments Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 5c 3, 2nd Staff Review Final Subdivision Plan. Received March 2, 1999 1) lRepeat Comment, Modified] The sign detail provided shows tie dimensions anc: general appearance of the proposed project sign to 'oe located on Maguire Road. Please confirm that there will be no Such signage on Moore Road. The Maguire Road sign should be located within the median at the southern main entrance to the shopping center rasher than on one of the outparcels. In order to provide an integrated develonment Plan th- new sienage should be consistent with prior sienage approvals for this PLD As cumentiv shown the sign is not consistent with prior approvals for this FUD. [Repeat Comment] A west-bocnd right turn lane needs to be provided on Moore Road between the first right-in/right-out entrance (station 3+00) and the service entrance (station 7+80). This turn lane needs to be shown schematically on the plans. Cost sharing agreements for this improvement need to be worked out with the City to include these improvements as part of the Maguire Road project. 31 lRepeat Commentl The full access entrance from Moore Road to Phase 3, located in the middle of that parcel, needs to have 3 lanes - one lane in and two lanes out, reflected on all appropriate sheets. 4� [Repeat Commentl The proposed lot line between Phase 2 and Phase 3 needs to be ideetitied on PlarvProfle Sheet 5 of 9. .v 5) lRepeat Comment] Revise General Note 414 on Sheet 2 to indicate that the Moore Road improvements will be constructed in accordance with the aareemenL between the Developer and the City. When the site plan for Lot l is approved, it will include modifications to the western -most entrance from Moore Road designed to temporarily present left fuming movements into the site. April 7, 1419u Ellen King. Deelopment Review Coordinator Page 2 6) [Repeat Comment, Modifiedl General Korc = 9 indicates that the retention ponds shown -Long Moore Road will be constructed with Phasc 2 of this subdivision. "-hc Final S!le Nan t,,r Phase I of the Esplanade Apafinents indicates that those pond's will be constn,,%d with Phase 2 of that prniect. 'Those improvements need to be corsrructed as par. of the subdivision improvements for the Plantation drove Shopping Carter prior to either !m being de•.daped. Please revise these plans accordmglp and make the appropriate revision. to General Note a D. %) (Repeat Comment[ The cross sec:ioi. Of the entnance drives from Moore Road whici was' provided shows sidewalks, but the landscape buffers shown on either side of the drives are not adequate. Thera should be a landscaped strip between the sidewalk and th^ driveway. and That. needs to be adequate space to accommodate landscaping between the f\ sidewalk (driveway) and th.c top of the berm for the adjacent reten[cn ponds, Also, •I appropriate details need to be provided for these proposed landscape buffers. R) lRopeat C'ommentl Provide documentation that Orange County has approved your proposal To put these retention ponds nestle their 60' utility easement and the ?roposad to put your srormw'ater pipes across the casement to convey runoff from the site to the ponds. =%f 9) P: ovide a note indicating that the design of the buildinits, parking lot layout and trdul rapmc in Phase 2 & 3 will be compatible with the design in the existing shopping —crs,t�Z''- Lcentcr and outparcels. ' "10) Provide landscape plans showing the landsaping :o be installed along the southem - houndarics of the common mutmion pone tracts adjacent to the Moore Road riair-ofway 7�0 elm'. and along the three driveways rote the shopping an center from Moore Road. The landscape- marcria's and buffers used on this site needs to be similar to :hose used on the existing shopping center site, in order to provide an ixegrated developmer.r clan. 11) Clearly show a sidewalk leading into the site along the full access driveway into the shopping center from Moore Road on all plan view and cross section drawings. i'_) 'ihc "i ypica.I Drivewac Senior needs to shove a 6" raised concrete curb rnher tier. Mani cur' as curten ly shown. 13) Provide a rom indicating that indirect access through Lot I will be provided to allow flow-rhmugh traffle between the curb cut on Maguire Road and Lot 2. t 14) Show a driveway which connects the north end of Lot 5 from Phase I to the cross access drivewav running along the east side of Lot I to the parking lot in Phase 1. 151 Pleas. identify the proposed use for the small area between Lot 5 from Plies, I and the cross access driveway running along the east side of Lot I to the parking lot it.. Phase 1. aK r t6) Pra,le a note indicating that the cross access dri•:ewnys within Let 2 will be utilized for :mlYie en-cuinnom only. they will not gave Parking spaces hacking into them. I re -7 '7 April 7, 1999 Ellen King, Development Review Coordinator Page i The retention ponds shown to be constructed for this subdivision oa Esplanade Apartments site need to be consistent with the retention ponds shown on the approved Prelim-mary Site Plan for the apartments, and the approved Final Site Plan for Prase I of the apartments. - ate' 18) Our review of the plan for the Moore Road improvements, including the added right turn lane, suggests that a portion of the sidewalk along the -north side of the road may have to be constructed outside the right-of-way on this site. Therefore, a sidewalk easement should be provided as necessat' to accornmodate the public sidcw'alk on private property. - 19) The Preliminary Subdivision Plan showed conceptually how the shopping censer and parking areas would be laid out for the entre development (Phases 1, 2 & 3i Even though the details will be worked out when Final Site Plans are submitted. this Final Subdivision Plan needs to show conceptually how the buildings and parking areas will be laid out in Phases 2 & 3. The layout must reflect an integrated development plan so that when the entire site is completed, it will appear to be one development and will function as one development. - At this point, we do not see how over 100,000 square feet of space can be constructed on this site without structured parking. Alternatively, the Developer has the right to seek to revise the Preliminary Subdivision Plan if he so desires to de, -!up (hc remaining two phases on other than an integrated basis. However. this approach would require public hearings and would not be supported by s;f. If the Developer dues not revise the Preliminary Subdivision Plan, then development of the remaining phases must be consistem w'ieh the approved PSP. 20) Provide a note on the plan indicating that the layout of buildings and parking is c,�ncepnlal only. It should indicate that Final Site Plans for Phases 2 & 3 will be submiued later and they w'i11 be consistent with the approved Preliminary Subdivision; Sire Plan for Tract F of the Plantation Grove PUD. 21) For }'our information, the Planning Staff has been informed by at least three sepsate sources that there were airplane fuel storage tanks on this property when it was operated (f ro E as an airfield. At least one of these sources suggested that there have been significant fuel ly leaks into the soil on the property and that there are batteries and maybe ever, barrels buried on the site. The Developer may wish to confirm finis prior to beginning construction and coordinate with appropriate state agencies. 0.RL ",GIti In:('➢Lr\V;:NG'.RLE\11S�n LL_pAl'AYlp.l(¢c,Un'cloprto-p Rotor lltiWiYFI'Y90r1 Ern 3 e -r' -? May 24, 1999 Ms. Ellen King Development Review Coordinator City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Dr. Ocoee, Florida 34761 Re: Plantation Grove Shopping Center Job. No 9809 Ms. King, daly desigr.group, inc. Land Planning • Landscape Architecture • Project Management [ T R 9 W 9 I�AY 2 4 1999 CITY OF OCOEE The following is our response to the cities comments dated 4/7/99. The format of the comments matches the format of the staff reports, which have been attached for your convenience. Planning Department, Robert Lewis /1. Sign detail has been removed in order to expedite the approval process. The easement will remain, as the developer will not relinquish their rights to a project identification sign on this property. As we discussed at our May 6Lh meeting, the owner is open to discussions with the city on alternative sign locations. At the time of submittal no alternative location has been identified. 2. The city has agreed to construct this turn lane. The city manager and city attorney have approved financial arrangements. 3. Third lane has been added. - 4. Lot line has been indicated. 5. Note 14 has been revised to reflect agreements reached with the city manager and city attorney. 6. On numerous occasions we have described in detail the timing of construction for these ponds. The engineering department understands this issue and has recommended approval. If the planning department still has questions, please discuss this with the city engineer. Maybe the he will be able to communicate our intentions more effectively. D 7. Sections have been revised to reflect the agreed upon buffersl p Q// 8. Documentation has been submitted with this package. Nd I F� �7Q We have prepared and submitted a conceptual plan for your info rm,Yn. �/ 4 p sons 10. As agreed to at our May 6' meeting a cross-section has been provided. D f 11. Sidewalk has been included on the section and the plans. 12. Raised curbing has been added. Y/l 2 [� 4'9 13. Note has been added to the plans. 14, Potential driveway has been indicated. 15. Area has been identified as a landscape area. 16. Note has been added to the plans. 17. Plans have been revised. Xff/d/�Gt'O / 07- -2 18. Issue has been resolved with the city manager and city attorney. WJ 19. A separate drawing has been submitted. LGhk/ -h�p / / yQ. Note has been added eh / 0�i Q, 21 No comment.— W GG �f J sJ"4 e� p -, - Martha Formella, Assistant City attorney 1. The second amendment has been withdrawn. 2. This issue must remain per note 11, approved development plan dated 7/21/92 3. Typographical errors have been corrected. Tony Weirsbecki, Utilities and Engineering Dept 1. Plans will be turned over to the city. Any corrections will be made by PEC. 2. Water line has been relocated. 3. 367.48' is the adjusted property dimension following the corner clip taken for the traffic light. Plans have been corrected. To the best of our knowledge these are the final issues that needed to be addressed. Please schedule this project for the next available development review committee meeting. Sincerely, i o% h s Daly sident Cc: Drs. James and Robert Ferdinand Mr, Scott Clark Mr. Firas Munjed, GTC Engineering winter park, fl 32789 daly design group, Inc. 861 west morse blvd. suite 6 •� 4�2 �� lnn_7s73 fax 407-740-7-7661 April 28, 1999 Mr, Ken Schwartz, P.E. Project Engineer GTC Engineering Corporation 98 South Semoran Blvd. Orlando, Florida 32807 v,racn, 3C]!I cafe osnny G.e r.s,.x,.rwn M,V,Ids Ma d76q FJ1 9U51 F0:orb-VS- Pas: aOi�B: S-aJJe MAY 2 4 1999 CITY OF OCOEE RE, Proposed Amerada Hess Station at Plantation Grote and Possiole Conflicts with the Water 9� Consery II 54-inch Transmission Main Dear Mr. Schwartz'./PA This letter is written to address the response made by GTC Engineering Corporation. Inc. dated April 16, 1999 to comments made by PB Water dated April 7, 1999, We thank you for addressing tie out insd Issues and providing the requested Informatlon. In addition. v, request the following items prior to commencement of excavation or mobilization of heavy equipment at the proposed Amerada Hess Station site: 1. Please change'Woodard & Curran' to "Woodard & Curran, Inc.' on all documents. 2. Please revise the Site Data Section of the T•tle Sheet that references the transmission main to read: Water Consew It Woodard & Curran, Inc. (407)656-2332 lacy Phil Cross Please provide all pending requested information in the final submittal. 9 iQ y 4. Please request Daly Design Group, Inc. to add a note to both of their Landscape & Irrigation Plans referring the contractor to the "General Notes" found on Sheet P3 h and the "General Guidelines for Construction above the Water Consery It Effluent Transmission Main —April 1999' found on sheet C-11. 5. Please request Daly Design Group, Inc. to remove tree proposed within the 50-foot w?de Utility Easement located on the south side of the proposed building from plan Sheet 1. O✓or a G .no" ✓t i En9i^ear^! Cxcel!e^ce i FYALI,9/7- EXHIBIT "B" FOLEY & LARDNER MEMORANDUM CLIENT -MATTER NUMBER 020377-0476 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Ocoee FROM: Martha H. Formella, Esq., Assistant City Attorney DATE: July 16, 1999 RE: Plantation Grove Shopping Center Phases 2 & 3 - Final Subdivision Plan The Final Subdivision Plan ("Plan') was considered by the Development Review Committee ("DRC") on June 22, 1999. The memorandum from the Planning Department to the DRC dated June 21, 1999 outlined all of the outstanding Staff comments including memoranda from the Building Department and City Attorney's Office as attachments (collectively "DRC Report"). During the DRC meeting, various issues were verbally resolved as reflected in the DRC transcript. However, based on the remaining unresolved issues, the DRC unanimously voted to recommend denial of the Plan. On July 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission ("PZC") voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval of the Plan subject to certain representations by the Developer at the PZC meeting, revisions the Developer and the Staff agreed upon at the DRC meeting, and revisions the PZC required. If the City Commission desires to uphold the PZC recommendation, it would be appropriate to move to approve the Final Subdivision Plan subject to the following conditions: The following Condition of Approval shall be added to the Plan: The Shopping Center identification sign shall be located within the median at the southern entrance to the Shopping Center, subject to obtaining permission from the fee owner. The Developer and the City will use their best efforts to obtain such permission. If permission cannot be obtained prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on Lots 1 or 2, then the project identification sign shall be located on Lot 1 as shown hereon. 2. The radius at the intersection of the entrance road off of Maguire Road and the entrance road along the eastern property boundary shall be 35 feet. The Developer shall install additional landscaping to soften the visual impact. 006.146343.1 3. The Developer shall provide a clearance letter from Orange County Engineering Department as to the proposed improvements made over the 54" Consery II wastewater line with particular attention directed toward the proposed 16' deep stormwater retention ponds and driveway crossings. 4. The Developer shall submit a revised Final Subdivision Plan consistent with the City Commission action. The Final Subdivision Plan shall become effective upon confirmation by the Planning Director and City Attorney that the revised Final Subdivision Plan is consistent with the City Commission action. The verbatim language of the PZC motion included references to other documents including the DRC transcript and DRC Report. To assist the City Commission and clarify the record, the above motion sets forth the conditions of the PZC recommendation as we understand them without any references to other documents. In light of the changes to the record plan which would be needed if the City Commission upholds the PZC recommendation, we recommend Condition 4 above (which was not specifically included in the PZC motion). cc: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney Russell B. Wagner, AICP, Planning Director o06A46943.1 _y_ CITY OF OCOEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Ocoee, Florida June 22, 1999 1:42 p.m. PLANTATION GROVE SHOPPING CENTER PHASES 2 & 3 CASE NUMBER LS-98-003 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS, INC. 8612 Summerville Place Orlando. Florida 32819 (407)354-3355 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY: ELLIS SHAPIRO, City Manager PAUL ROSENTHAL, City Attorney RUSS WAGNER, City Planner DAVID WHEELER, Assistant City Engineer RON STROSNIDER, Fire Chief RICHARD FIRSTNER, Fire Department TONY WILSON, Police Department ROBERT LEWIS, Senior Planner BRAD FRIEL, Transportation TONY WIERZBICKI, Engineering Department JIM WASHINGTON, Engineering Department BOB SMITH, Public Works Director CAROLYN ALEXANDER, Planning Department APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER: ROBERT FERDINAND, Owner TOM DALY, Daly Design Group SCOTT CLARK, Graham, Clark, Jones, et al. WILLIAM REED COOK, Amerada Hess Corporation 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. SHAPIRO: This is Case Number LS-98-003, Plantation Grove Shopping Center, Phases 2 and 3, Final Subdivision Plan. Who's taking this one for staff? MR. WAGNER: Me. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. MR. WAGNER: This is -- well, the first and second project, the developer, we reached a point in the staff review process where they sent us a letter asking that we proceed to the DEC and to the planning commission and to the City Commission even though we didn't have all issues resolved. For that reason, the Planning Department is recommending denial of the final subdivision plan for Phase 2 and 3 because it's inconsistent with the Plantation Grove Commercial Shopping Center final development preliminary subdivision plan and general provisions of the Ocoee land development code as specified in our staff report and as additionally supported by comments by our attorney and the Building Department. MR. DALY: We have not received those comments. MR. LEWIS: These were all faxed out to you this morning. MR. DALY: All we received in fax was the special 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exception application for the comments for the Hess station. We have not received any comments this morning from the Plantation Grove, so we really don't have any benefit of -- of what the issues are. MS. ALEXANDER: I've got a copy I can give them. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, it's -- I've got a little problem with them receiving it at 1:03 in the afternoon of the meeting of the DRC. MS. ALEXANDER: It was faxed this morning, sir. MR. SHAPIRO: Do you want to break and take a look at this thing somewhere for a few minutes or do you -- I mean, you know, does that -- MR. DALY: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. MR. DALY: Could we have five minutes, please? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. Would you -- Robby, would see if the conference room down the hall -- MR. LEWIS: Sure. MR. SHAPIRO: -- is available? Then we'll break. [There was a break in the proceedings.] MR. SHAPIRO: We're on the record again. MR. WAGNER: Okay. (To Mr. Daly) Just for the record, Tom, this morning at 8:26 we did fax 12 pages to you which is the entire report of the Plantation Grove 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Shopping Center, so -- MR. DALY: We did not receive it. MR. WAGNER: Well, we -- we -- MR. SHAPIRO: We have confirmation. MR. WAGNER: We have a confirmation letter. Whether you received it or not, we assumed that it went through; it says it went through, and it did get to Hess. So we had no reason -- had no reason to believe that it didn't go through. MR. DALY: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Well, we're going to put it as part of the record. Okay. Go on. MR. WAGNER: Well -- (to Mr. Shapiro) and 1 made my statement, Ellis. There are all these issues and I guess it will be up to the Applicant it they want to respond to any of these items individually or -- you know, these are the items that we feel need to be a part of the plan for us to move forward with the project. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Applicant? MR. CLARK: Let's go through and we'll attempt to respond to each one. I -- some of the things have hit us kind of cold whether it was delivered now or at 8:30 this morning, so -- but we'll respond the best we can to it. MR. ROSENTHAL: Right. Now, Ellis, before that I 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 might just comment for the benefit of the other DEC members, that typically we do not hold the DEC's until all of these issues are resolved. But, at the request of the Applicant, we're holding the DRC because they asked us to move forward notwithstanding the fact that all issues were not resolved with the City staff. MR. CLARK: Right. We determined after several meetings that some of them might not be likely to be resolved. So looking at your comment number one which is the -- the identification sign for the Phase 3, a comment in line with -- MR. DALY: Martha's. MR. CLARK: -- Martha Formella's comment -- MR. DALY: Number six. MR. CLARK: -- number six, suggests that we would attempt to gain an easement right or license to place the sign here an property that we don't own, you know, if we could not do that, that the signs would be over here on Moore Road. We don't agree with that. I can't fathom any circumstances by which we would agree with that comment. MR. WAGNER: Let me just state for the record that off -site signs are prohibited by the code. In other words, placing the shopping center sign, which was on its individual lot, on another lot, is considered to be an off - site sign. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: But in our meeting, though, we did state we would try and that we would attempt to -- we would waive that if, in fact, we could do that, and that's what our meeting said. MR. WAGNER: No. Well -- correct. But it was in the meeting -- MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Well -- MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't want it partially correct. MR. WAGNER: Partially correct. MR. SHAPIRO: What's the -- what's the part that isn't? MR. WAGNER: It's -- what I'm pointing out is that putting it on the out -parcel is not something that is normally approvable under the code because off -site signs are not permitted. In other words, what Martha is saying is you have the right to put it on your own lot on Moore Road, and then we had said consistent with the PUD -- if you can get an easement, then it would be consistent with the PUD to put in the median. But we're not saying that you automatically have the right to put it on the out -parcel because we don't permit those anywhere in the City. MR. ROSENTHAL: Again, in our meeting prior to DRC, we said that we would attempt to facilitate getting 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the ability to put the sign on the property you don't -- you don't own. I've spoken with the representative of the property owner and explained the situation to them and, as of this point in time, I haven't heard back one way or the other. But, you know, it's an issue that the City is clearly recommending to the owner of the first phase of the shopping center. MR. DALY: Okay. I guess that -- that would be an off -site, quote, sign then also; is that correct? The issue of being an off -site sign, through the -- how many -- ten months that we've been at this, since August of last year, has never been brought up until this point. It's never been -- it's been -- MR. WAGNER: Well -- MR. DALY: We've talked about it as a location requirement, can we move/can we not, but it's never been classified as an off -site sign. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, and I think the response to that is -- is very clear. Until this particular meeting, we weren't asked to put things in, for lack of a better word, legal terms. We did receive a letter from Scott Clark discussing what the standards were for various review processes and, as a result of that, we have gone back through any point that we were in dispute to make sure and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 determine whether or not it was a basis to continue to ask you for them. As a result, some points which have previously been raised are not in the staff report. Those for which we believe there is a legal basis in the code are in the staff report with the legal basis specifically identified. DR. FERDINAND: I thought our understanding of that sign issue was resolved. At our last meeting, my understanding was we agreed if you could get us permission to put the sign in the median of that -- of the adjacent property owner's property, we would do that. Otherwise, we would need the right for us to put the sign, you know, on Maguire but we weren't going to -- we weren't going to show any sign because we didn't know what our needs would be, we didn't know how many names would be on the marquee or anything else, so we left it as a mute [sic] point to be addressed when the third phase of the shopping center was to be approved. That was my understanding; it was settled. I mean, we would do it if you got us permission and, if we didn't, then we would have the right to put it there, but we don't have any approval of that sign. That sign would be approved at a later date. Now we got another moving target here. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think the -- I think the first 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part I agree, I believe, between us was clear that -- that if we were able to get permission, that we all agreed that it would go on the -- on the full access on Maguire Road. DR. FERDINAND: Uh-huh. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't know that the Planning Department in that meeting -- I don't know that our focus was on where the alternative was and at least -- DR. FERDINAND: Oh, mine was. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- you know, the Planning Department -- DR. FERDINAND: My focus was very clear. MR. SHAPIRO: I remember the discussion. DR. FERDINAND: My focus was very clear. MR. SHAPIRO: I remember the discussion that Mr. Ferdinand had regarding that and I didn't hear us yell no or foul, we just didn't say anything. DR. FERDINAND: I would only ask you this: If you're telling me that off -- under your proposed interpretation here, if -- if my sign on the Hess side, which I presently still own, of course, is an off -site sign, then the sign in the median is also an off -site sign because I don't own that property. So why would there be a discriminatory approval of putting it in a median maybe 30 feet from where I'm going to put it on the Hess side? I mean, there's 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certainly no traffic impact; there's certainly no safety impact; there's certainly no utility impact. There's no impact here. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I think the staff report focuses on the safety impact and the proposed location. I would have the Planning Department speak to the off -site (inaudible). MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I don't think there is -- I mean, let's consider Dr. Ferdinand's statement as rhetorical, as bringing up an issue, and let's go on. MR. DALY: Okay. MR. CLARK: Could I ask what the -- what's the code provision that -- that you're referencing? MR. ROSENTHAL: You'd have to ask the Planning Department MR. WAGNER: Off -site sign? Yeah. It's -- you know, we can cite the section for you -- MR. CLARK: That would be helpful. MR. SHAPIRO: Are we going to be doing this on every one these -- MR. WAGNER: Well, just hopefully -- MR. SHAPIRO: -- issues right now, or -- MR. WAGNER: I mean, we -- this -- MR. DALY: There's just like three or four issues. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Then are we -- are we -- MR. CLARK: That's just not one I'm familiar with is why -- MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. I don't know that -- MR. WAGNER: We can get that information. I mean, Ellis, just from a practical matter, I just want to remind you we got about six other -- MR. SHAPIRO: No, no. You don't have to remind me at all; I have other meetings, too. MR. WAGNER: Well, if we've got to look up every one of these codes -- MR. CLARK: I don't have to have it right now. (Inaudible) MR. S14APIRC: All right. But that's why I was asking the question. Can we make sure that every one's cited that you have a problem with but not as part of this record? I mean, is that okay with everybody here? MR. CLARK: I don't have to have it in the record -- MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. MR. CLARK: -- I just (inaudible). MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Let's go on to the next issue. MR. DALY: Item number two relates to the signage also. At our meeting the last -- the last time we met with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 the City Manager, the attorney and the Planning Department, it was requested that we remove the elevation of the project ID sign in order to facilitate the process in the final subdivision plan. We did that, and comment number two says that we need to have it back on there. So I have a question as to what's the -- what's the determination.. We showed it and then it was -- MR. WAGNER: What this is saying -- MR. DALY: -- requested to take it off. MR. WAGNER: -- is if you do put a sign inconsistent with number one and what the City Attorney has recommended, that being the Moore Road location, that it, in fact, should match the other sign to be consistent with the PUD. MR. CLARK: The other sign being -- MR. DALY: Well, it says a sign detail should be provided showing dimensions and general appearance of the proposed project sign. So you're asking for a sign elevation to be put upon these plans. MR. WAGNER: And what we're saying is, if you are going to show the sign, yes, that you need to show -- MR. DALY: Show a general -- MR. CLARK: Yeah. There's no -- there's no "if," you're asking us to show the sign. MR. DALY: You're saying show the sign which we 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had shown on our previous submittal which met the code, height restrictions and square footage. MR. WAGNER: And this is saying that's not acceptable. It's saying that in our prior discussions to have an integrated plan, the sign needs to be consistent with the existing shopping center sign and it needs to be in one of the two locations that's been identified by the Planning Department and the City Attorney. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yeah. Russ, my recollection is probably closer -- MR. SHAPIRO: His. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- to what Tom is saying in that -- MR. SHAPIRO: Mine is, too. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- I thought that we told them to remove the sign detail. We did say we were going to address the sign location issue. Are you asking them to show the sign detail? MR. WAGNER: We would -- MR. SHAPIRO: That's not what we agreed upon. MR. WAGNER: Well, I believe that we did because -- MR. SHAPIRO: No. MR. WAGNER: -- isn't this a part of the integrated signage of the PUD and coordinated look over the 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entire project? MR. SHAPIRO: That's not what we said. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think we -- my recollection is what the discussion was, that they would remove the sign detail. They understood that this approval was not an approval of the sign -- MR. SHAPIRO: Of the sign. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- detail -- MR. SHAPIRO: Right. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- and that the position of the City is that when they came in for site plan -- MR. SHAPIRO: Plan approval -- MR. ROSENTHAL: -- approval -- MR. SHAPIRO: -- we would look at it again. MR. ROSENTHAL: And that they would have to be -- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly what we said. MR. ROSENTHAL: And we clearly stated our position being what you just said -- MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly what we said. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- that it had to be consistent. MR. SHAPIRO: We -- we -- we're not -- I'm not arguing with your position, I'm arguing with what your comment is here, because I remember specifically that you all said let's remove it, not have it as part of any argument regarding this, and when you came in for site 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan, that issue would come back up basically the same way, but not in this -- not in this situation. MR. WAGNER: Does that also include the -- MR. SHAPIRO: And that's exactly what -- MR. WAGNER: Does that -- then that must also include the proposed easement on the Hess site. You can't have it both ways. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I'm only talking -- we were talking at the time about this particular issue of this particular case. I don't know what it means. MR. WAGNER: Well, I'm saying if -- if you lose the argument -- MR. ROSENTHAL: That's -- MR. WAGNER: -- that it can be in the easement, then we would want to know where it's located and what it looks like. If you're not going to have any reference to a sign on these plans whatsoever, then you also have to remove the easement. DR. FERDINAND: No. We can have that. MR. CLARK: We can reference the location without -- MR. DALY: Without the elevation. MR. CLARK: -- the elevation. MR. WAGNER: Well, and obviously number one said 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we've got a problem with that. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, comment number one did -- and this is, I think, talking about more number one -- said the note would show the Hess sign was objected to and there is a new note proposed with respect to the full access and the -- and the Moore Road -- Moore Road location. I think that is a -- that's a separate issue from -- MR. SHAPIRO: From the detail. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- from the detail of what that -- MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I don't believe number two is -- MR. ROSENTHAL: -- Hess sign -- of what that sign is. MR. SHAPIRO: -- appropriate because I think that's -- I think it's two separate issues, and I thought we addressed that as a site plan issue. I -- number one and number two are not the same. MR. WAGNER: No, they are not. MR. SHAPIRO: And number one and number two don't have anything -- they're not mutual. MR. WAGNER: Correct. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So is there any -- I mean, I -- my recollection of the discussion was that number two was not required as part of this approval. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sorry, but that's -- I mean, I -- you -- MR. ROSENTHAL: That's my recollection with the acknowledgment of the Applicant that they understand -- MR. SHAPIRO: Understand that we're still -- MR. ROSENTHAL: -- the City's position -- MR. SHAPIRO: -- going to deal with it. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- is as reflected and that it will be a site plan -- MR. SHAPIRO: A site plan issue -- MR. ROSENTHAL: -- issue. MR. SHAPIRO: -- but it was not an issue regarding this. MR. WAGNER: And if it's also understood for the record that -- that we've also all the time said that we expect whatever sign that would be submitted would be integrated with the rest of the development. MR. ROSENTHAL: Absolutely. MR. SHAPIRO: I don't think we ever said anything different. But -- but -- MR. WAGNER: So that would need to be a part of the final site plan (inaudible). MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: But that -- but it wasn't part of this. MR. WAGNER: Okay. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: It's not an issue regarding this. MR. WAGNER: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: So number two is deleted, for the record. MR. DALY: Number three regards turning radiuses or turning movements. We have proposed a road coming north and south; we have a turning radius in order for -- allow the Hess site trucks to come in and not break up the curbing out there. It's my understanding that the code is a minimum 40-foot turning radius. MR. WAGNER: That's off of the street. MR. DALY: Well, this is a private situation and we've looked at some of the other shopping centers in the City and notice a lot of broken curb from a lot of narrow turning radiuses. We're maintaining it, we're building it; the City really doesn't have any responsibilities out there. And so we want to make sure that we build a curb that's not going get crushed by gas station trucks coming in once or twice a week for it to fill up. MR. WAGNER: Well -- MR. CLARK: If you look at the curb there, it's been broken and in some cases repaired and rebroken, there on the Mobil site. MR. WAGNER: Again, this is a comment to be consistent with the remainder of the shopping center. I'm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 not aware -- I regularly go to that shopping center and I don't see any major disruption of the curbing. And I go to Mobil all the time and their truck somehow makes it in there. And it's definitely a safety issue. It's a matter of narrowing down the throats of the entry driveway to create definite lanes for people to go in and out of. It also slows the traffic down as it goes in and out of the site. And it also adds to the green space by narrowing down; it creates a more pedestrian -friendly environment. And it's exactly consistent with the rest of the shopping center. So you've opened up -- we have no problem with the increased radius coming in off of the public street, that being Maguire Road or Moore Road. Our issue is the radii that are on the private driveway within the shopping center property. In other words, we see the safety of getting off of the main highway and getting into the site, but within the site we want to keep the traffic slow and we want to line up the driveway aisles with the rest of the parking area. MR. CLARK: Well, number one, we believe that there are code provisions that govern things like this. And the fact that Mobil did it differently, that was their 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property, they were -- they were free to do that. MR. WAGNER: No. It's the entire shopping center. MR. CLARK: Let me finish, please. They did that. It's the other part of the shopping center. They chose to do that. The fact of the matter is that there are problems with it. It doesn't work well; it's objectionable to the proposed user. And we don't recognize that we're bound by what somebody else did in designing a property. That's why we have codes; that's why we look at the codes. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. I think you all made your statement. You have yours. Go on. MR. DALY: All right. Drive way location with regards -- there was a comment relative to cross access between the out -parcel, Lot 5, on the Plantation Grove shopping center. We have shown a potential location for that. Not -- without benefit of knowing where they are proposing to put it in, we -- we agree to move that location; however, we don't agree to build that cross access which is referenced in Note 23. What Note 23 states is that we will provide them the ability but we will rely upon -- 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. FERDINAND: Anywhere they want. MR. DALY: -- we'll rely upon them to construct any kind of cross access that they desire. And I guess I just want to get a better -- a better understanding of what staff's position is on that. MR. WAGNER: Well, the issue here is timing. That out -parcel owner -- and I'm surprised they haven't started already, they have an approved site plan. And that site plan shows that driveway ending at their property line, which it should. There is no driveway to connect to. I don't know if they have the right to access into your site and, even if they did, there's no driveway to connect to. So the issue is that when you construct your driveway, presumably after he has developed his property, that you simply -- and it really only amounts to, what, ten feet? MR. LEWIS: I'm not sure how much it is; it might be as much as 20 feet. MR. WAGNER: Maybe 20 feet. I mean, we're not talking a lot. It's basically a return off of your driveway just to match their driveway. So, I mean, we're not talking a lot, and it's on your property. MR. DALY: Before -- I think we can resolve this. Let's get -- if we can take a look at where the location is to make sure there's no safety issues from our standpoint 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prior to the P & Z, I think we can come up with an answer on our response to that comment. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Let's -- MR. DALY: (To Mr. Clark) Is that agreeable, Scott? MR. CLARK: Yeah. I don't -- I don't think we have a problem with granting them the right to come on our property and do it if we agree about the location. MR. DALY: Right. And I just want to make sure where that driveway is before I -- (To Ms. Alexander) So if we can get a copy of that approved site plan sent to my office, Carolyn, then we take a look at it. Then I think we can move forward on it. MR. SHAPIRO: Number five. MR. DALY: That's no problem. It seems to be informational. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Is there -- is that true; is that just an information discussion? MR. WAGNER: (Nods head affirmatively) MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Number six. MR. WAGNER: There's an inconsistency in there. MR. CLARK: I would propose on that that we just delete the note that you're talking about. If you know which note number that is, maybe we should look at it. MR. LEWIS: It's on the conceptual plan; turn the 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page. MR. DALY: It's on the second -- it's on the second sheet, Scott. MR. CLARK: Okay. MR. ROSENTHAL: What note number is that? MR. LEWIS: It's right in the middle of the site. MR. ROSENTHAL: Oh. MR. CLARK: If it's offensive to you, we'll just take it out. MR. WAGNER: Well, the issue here is, again, we specifically wanted to see how your -- you're asking us to plat the property and have a final subdivision plan. And for us to understand how that worked, we asked you to put a conceptual layout of the parking and the buildings on the plan because there was some question as to whether you could fully construct what you had proposed, and we also wanted to be sure that it was an integrated plan and lined up with all the driveways on the other part of the development. So the issue is, we had it put on there to ensure that it substantially conforms to the existing plan. If we take the note off, then we have no consistency statement whatsoever to follow in the future when the site plan comes in. Since this is a PUD, I believe this is the appropriate spot that we would ensure that the plans are following 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through and being consistent with the overall PUD. MR. CLARK: Well, the code states that the final site plan on this has to be consistent with the preliminary and final subdivision plan. So I'm not sure what the issue is. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I guess -- I guess I'm not sure what the objection is because at least looking at the proposed note in Item 6 of the staff report, it appears to me to be a correct statement of the code and the law and that is that this is conceptual. If it changes when the final site plan is submitted and it's not consistent, you'll have to go back and amend the preliminary. So is there something in the proposed note that you disagree with? MR. CLARK: I agree to the extent the code requires that; I agree with that. And, having just gotten this, I haven't had a chance to compare the language with the code. If that's an exact restatement of the code, then that's -- that's fine and we can go with it. If that imposes a greater obligation than the code, then I don't agree with it. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't think it is a -- I don't believe that is a verbatim statement from a provision of the code. I believe it is a correct statement as to what the code requires. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CLARK: Then -- then perhaps what we need to say is let me -- let me have the opportunity to review that question and I might not have an objection after that. MR. SHAPIRO: Number seven. MR. DALY: Number seven. All plan sheets in the submittal need to be full-sized rather than part -sized. We did Moore Road plans and we donated those to the City. And so to save us a lot of printing costs for submitting 12 sets, we produced them on half-size sheets that said "not for construction." And -- MR. WAGNER: Well, for the -- I mean, all this is is informational, but we would simply expect when you -- when we have the final set of documents, that they're all the same size. MR. DALY: Well, we have released ourselves from the design of Moore Road and donated those plans to the City and gave them to your engineer. So, I mean, we can submit a set of -- MR. WAGNER: But they're a part of your -- they're a part of the final subdivision plans because it entails some responsibilities as far as costs and access points and, yes, sir, it has to do with the turn lanes are and how they are to be constructed. MR. LEWIS: Even if an agreement has been reached as far as who's responsible for paying for it, it still 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should be part of the subdivision. MR. DALY: I'll make them full size. I'll submit as many sets as -- it's a non -issue; it's just kind of frustrating. MR. ROSENTHAL: But that's not a final design. The final design is to be done by the City; correct? MR. DALY: Yeah, yeah. MR. ROSENTHAL: Correct? That's your understanding? MR. WAGNER: I don't know. I thought they were construction plans. MR. SHAPIRO: No. I thought the final design was going to be done by us. And, if that's the case, what the hell do we care what size they are? MR. WAGNER: Because -- MR. DALY: Or getting them now when -- MR. WAGNER: Well, first of all, you can't read them. MR. SHAPIRO: But the point of it is, if the final design is ours MR. WAGNER: It's a part of the plan, Ellis. MR. SHAPIRO: If the final design is ours and we determine and control that design, and they've already agreed to that, then what does it matter? MR. WAGNER: Because you don't know what -- how 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are they supposed to see -- MR. SHAPIRO: They seem to feel they can see it. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, what I want to make sure doesn't happen is, I don't want there to be an issue when the City does the final design -- MR. SHAPIRO: That there's going to -- MR. ROSENTHAL: -- that the Applicant can come -- MR. SHAPIRO: -- be a problem. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- that either someone can suggest the Applicant then needs to modify their plan, or that the Applicant can tell the City how to do the final design. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. That's the issue. That's not -- and, to me, I don't give a damn about the size of the plans but I do care about the issue regarding the fact that we're designing it; we're designing it in accordance with what we know to be your plan. Yeah. Fixed costs. I mean, the point of it is, is that we've already gone to that point. But I think the concern that staff has is that for some reason later on there will be some kind of a fuzzy as to what it really meant, and that's the only issue, I think. I mean, that's the only issue I can have. MR. WAGNER: Well, it clearly -- MR. SHAPIRO: I don't agree with you on the other. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WAGNER: Well, it clearly shows why there is right-of-way being dedicated. It shows the cross -sections to the ponds and the -- and how the drainage is going -- I mean, I think it's an integral part of the final subdivision plan. MR. SHAPIRO: It's the sheet that you already turned over. MR. ROSENTHAL: What sheet are we talking about? MR. DALY: No. We're talking about a full set of engineering plans for Moore Road -- MR. SHAPIRO: Right. MR. DALY: -- is what we're talking about. MR. ROSENTHAL: Not -- not something -- MR. DALY: Nothing here. MR. SHAPIRO: Which I thought we were doing. MR. DALY: Yeah. We'll just -- we'll submit it for information. MR. WAGNER: But the City Commission has to give their approval for that. MR. CLARK: We're going to spend the reproduction costs. It's less than the professional fees sitting here arguing about it. You know, why don't we just -- MR. DALY: we'll do it; yeah. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, again, I just want to -- MR. WAGNER: How are you going to explain that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 to the City Commission? MR. ROSENTHAL: No. I -- I want to -- I want to know -- it's one thing, if we submit that to the City Commission informational. But I just want to be careful we don't put ourselves in a box by making them part of the final subdivision plan which will require that the City staff undertake additional work because if they deviate from that in their design, I'm going to tell them they're going to have to go back to the City Commission and a public hearing or whatever process we use to go through this. And if the Engineering Department wants to be bound by that restriction, that's fine with me. MR. WHEELER: It makes us part of the design team. If we have to -- if we have to attach the Moore Road design drawings to their -- to their final site plan, it makes us part of the design team and I don't think we want that position. If they furnish the preliminary layout for Moore Road to us and we're going to complete the design, that's a separate issue. We just have to make sure that the turnouts and the signage and all that stuff is consistent between the two sets of plans; that's a coordination issue between us and them, that's all. MR. SHAPIRO: We're designing the final Moore Road? 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WHEELER: That's correct. MR. SHAPIRO: So all you're looking for is the coordination of the two? MR. WHEELER: Yeah. If we -- if we have to furnish -- MR. SHAPIRO: I think maybe -- MR. WHEELER: -- final design plans to attach to their development plans, that makes us part of the design team. It makes this kind of a conflict of interest if we're part of the design team and the -- and the approving/reviewing agency. So we don't want to -- preliminarily, I think they've met their obligation. Now, if they want to make them full size, that's fine, but we don't want to impact any of the rest of their -- you know, their development plans. MR. SHAPIRO: So what are you trying to say? I don't understand what -- MR. ROSENTHAL: They -- I don't -- I think you're saying they should not -- you have a -- they should not be part of the final -- MR. WHEELER: Right. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- subdivision approval by the -- MR. WHEELER: That's correct. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- City Commission. CIE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Right. MR. ROSENTHAL: They certainly can be given to the City Commission for informational purposes if -- if that's needed. MR. SHAPIRO: Does everybody -- MR. WAGNER: Well, are you going to explain any of this to the City Commission? MR. SHAPIRO: Well, that's -- that's up to Public Works -- Public -- that's up to the engineer and the City Attorney to decide, not you. MR. WAGNER: Well, let me put it this way: I have never had a development plan that we have not included all the adjoining roadway improvements in the final subdivision plan, regardless of who was paying for it or building, whether it was FDOT or the developer or us or anybody else. MR. ROSENTHAL: But in this case -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I think we've told the developer they can go forward even if we don't -- MR. WAGNER: That's correct. MR. ROSENTHAL: -- because our scheduling will not delay their project. MR. WAGNER: But the City Commission -- what I'm saying is, they should -- MR. SHAPIRO: Be aware of it. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WAGNER: -- have the right to see the plans. And that's -- all I'm suggesting that they are preliminary. They are -- in other words, there's no final plans for the actual lot out here either yet. They have to come back later and submit some more engineering plans just like you're going to have to come back later and submit some more engineering plans for the actual roadway. MR. WHEELER: That's correct. MR. WAGNER: So all this is is a conceptual approval -- or, you know, it's -- I don't know how to put it, it's like a preliminary engineering level of work on a portion of the project, part and parcel of the whole package. MR. LEWIS: Could you put a note on the plan indicating that the drawings submitted are -- or that Moore improvements are conceptual and final will be submitted later? MR. DALY: I really don't want to put anymore notes on the plan. MR. ROSENTHAL; Only if the Engineering Department wants to bound by those restrictions, because you're restricting our City, you're not restricting the developer. them. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. You're restricting us, not 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm going to go ahead and -- I'm going to listen to the City Engineer on this. You can explain to the City Commission that we're doing the design, write a little memo to attach to it, basically saying that we're doing the design and such -- will be held -- you know, that we have been told where some of these entrance/exits are, but we are doing the design, and not worry about the size of this thing or anything. I mean, we can deal with that that way, because I don't want to be bound -- I don't want us to be bound by -- by their project. MR. ROSENTHAL: And I'm sure if the Engineering Department needs a full set, you will provide it. MR. SHAPIRO: Then they'll be able to provide the one set that they need to be able to design from. MR. DALY: Absolutely. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. MR. WHEELER: (Inaudible) get us a digital copy. MR. DALY: We got it over at PEC. MR. WHEELER: Digital copy and a hard copy? MR. DALY: Yeah. MR. SHAPIRO: And then we already have it. Okay. Let's go to the -- MR. DALY: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: You're now at Formella's comments? MR. DALY: Yeah. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. That's on Page 1 of Martha Formella, Assistant City Attorney, comments. MR. CLARK: Note number one requests that we either strike the word "estimated" from Note 14 or set a mechanism up to determine what the cost will be. I believe that the costs shown there are what we agreed to and, therefore, we would strike the word "estimated." MR. DALY: This is the note that tells our financial obligations. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I believe that it was decided. MR. CLARK: We set a figure -- MR. SHAPIRO: It doesn't have to be estimated. MR. CLARK: -- we -- and we agreed to it, so -- MR. SHAPIRO: So delete the estimate. MR. CLARK: The rest of the comment is fine. It is our understanding that -- that contribution will be made before building permits on Page 3. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So that's fine. We all agree, then, that we'll strike "estimated." MR. DALY: Okay. Note 13 is something that's continued to come up, and I'll read it aloud. It says, "The City shall request that anyone who shall tie into the water main extensions across Moore Road reimburse the Maguire Road Corp. or their assigns from the costs of said 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 extensions plus the tie-ins, parties' pro rate share of the property owner's cost of installing the water main along Maguire." This is relative to the requirement to extend water lines down Maguire and up Moore Road. That note is taken from the approved preliminary development plan that we've referenced with the shopping center and referenced those previous approvals. So that's not really something that we want to give up at this point. MR. WAGNER: There's no further developers that are going tie on to that water main. MR. DALY: Then it's a moot point; we should leave it on. MR. WAGNER: Well, she's saying it's a moot point, take it off, because there isn't anything -- MR. SHAPIRO: Well, let's not get into a pissing contest on this thing. If there's -- MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I think -- MR. SHAPIRO: If there's no -- MR. ROSENTHAL: I'm recalling through the series and I think there at the early on may have been a question as to what that note meant. MR. CLARK: There was a question earlier about the wording of it -- MR. ROSENTHAL: Yeah. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 MR. CLARK: -- because the -- initially it said the City shall require that, and the City objected to that -- MR. ROSENTHAL: Right. MR. CLARK: -- and we went back and looked at what the original notes said, and the original note said the City shall request it. So if, you know, we can -- MR. ROSENTHAL: If it matches the original -- MR. CLARK: We -- yeah. We can say it will never happen but, you know, how many things that we said will never happen that happened. So, if it happens, that's a right that we bargained for; we want it to be maintained on there. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. MR. ROSENTHAL: (Inaudible) been constructed in a different configuration. MR. WHEELER: Yeah. MR. ROSENTHAL: (To Mr. Wagner) Russ, we have in our comments that water main is being constructed in a different configuration such that the note upon which Note 13 is based is moot and is -- MR. WAGNER: Well, I think that had to do with they didn't -- I don't think it all goes down Moore Road anymore. I think it cuts across to the apartment's property and -- MR. SHAPIRO: Right. Because there's nobody else 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up there. MR. WAGNER: -- and into the shopping center. i mean, aren't you sort of cutting a corner, David (indicating Mr. Wheeler)? MR. WHEELER: I think a lot of it has to do with the way they laid out the storm water ponds. I think the original probably a long time ago was obviously we were trying to keep it within the right-of-way and I think that, you know -- MR. DALY: Well, the original -- the way the lines sit right now, it runs down Moore Road. .here is a temporary -- MR. WHEELER: Yeah. MR. DALY: -- smaller line that ties back in to loop the system, as a requirement as part of the esplanade, to bring this down and loop it back through -- MR. WHEELER: Yeah. MR. DALY: -- which we agreed to, and which relates to that note. It's just a -- it's a right that we've had for -- MR. ROSENTHAL: To get -- MR. CLARK: We spent -- we spent money -- we spent money on doing that. We regard that the note was a property right for whatever that we required. MR. ROSENTHAL: If the note now matches the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 existing approval, then I don't have any objection. And I guess while we do not believe there is anybody who will ever connect, I think somebody should note if those circumstances change in the future, that this is the (inaudible). MR. SHAPIRO: So we have no objection. Go on. MR. DALY: The next is item informational and we'll -- we'll take care of that and sign Sheet 2 of -- MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Let's go to four. It's informational. MR. DALY: City staff should confirm that the four -foot track along Moore Road provides sufficient area. I believe that by no comment from the City staff that that's a deleted comment. Is that -- MR. LEWIS: As far as I know, it's sufficient. MR. DALY: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Then delete. MR. WAGNER: I can't tell because I don't know -- can't read it. MR. CLARK: Well, we argued it for a long time to get to the four foot, so I'd hate to reopen it. MR. SHAPIRO: No. Let's delete it. Go on to five. MR. DALY: (To Mr. Glass) Scott, this is the 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 covenants and restrictions. MR. CLARK: Yeah. (To Mr. Rosenthal) Paul, can you explain comment five to me? MR. ROSENTHAL: We just saw various phrases, developer of the shopping center, and we weren't clear who you were referring to because you have what was originally Opus South and -- and which is now Teacher's and -- MR. CLARK: Must say developer of Phase 3? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yeah. We just wanted that -- MR. CLARK: That solves the problem? MR. ROSENTHAL: -- yeah -- to reference Phase 3 or whatever. We didn't know what you were referring to. MR. CLARK: We can do that by referencing the developer of Phase 3 because when we are talking about the shopping center, that's what we're talking about. MR. ROSENTHAL: That -- that's correct. So if you reference it by -- MR. SHAPIRO: All right. So that's not a problem. You'll change -- you'll add that to it. MR. CLARK: No problem. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. MR. ROSENTHAL: And that may be in a few different -- MR. SHAPIRO: What else you got? MR. DALY: (To Mr. Clark) Scott, do you want to 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 handle number six? MR. CLARK: Six, we discussed just a project sign. MR. DALY: I think that goes back -- MR. SHAPIRO: That goes back to the number one again. MR. ROSENTHAL: Right. MR. SHAPIRO: So that's one that nobody is going to -- MR. CLARK: I don't think I've got anything to add. MR. SHAPIRO: Right. Okay. MR. CLARK: (Inaudible) MR. DALY: And the last page of comments on the shopping center is from Julian Harper. Comment number one we have no problem with. Comment number two we have some serious concerns -- concerns with. We've addressed this with the City staff prior and we're very disappointed that it continues to make itself in the public record. MR. SHAPIRO: This is the one where at one time it -- remember this one? This is that -- where we made an allegation that there may be some kind of a polluted ground problem that no one could prove. MR. ROSENTHAL: I've always advised -- I don't think I've ever recommended that. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: All right. Delete. Go on. MR. DALY: The remainder of the package for this project is copies of what was submitted. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Okay. At this point in time, do you all have any other comments? MR. CLARK: (Inaudible) MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have -- anybody around here have any comments? (No audible response) MR. SHAPIRO: Is there a motion? MR. WAGNER: Move to deny. MR. SHAPIRO: On those -- motion to deny -- MR. WAGNER: On the issues that are unresolved. MR. SHAPIRO: -- on the issues that are -- continued to be unresolved. Is there a second? MR. FRIEL. I'll second. MR. SHAPIRO: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye." (Voice response) MR. SHAPIRO: All opposed? (No audible response) MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Let's go to number two. MR. CLARK: What was the vote? I didn't -- 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SHAPIRO: The vote was unanimous. MR. CLARK: I didn't see a lot of votes. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, some people here are as backup staff, so you're not going to get -- you're going to have a voting group and your -- and some backup staff, so they're not going to vote. It's not like a 83 to one vote or anything like that. It's not -- MR. DALY: I don't get that one, huh? MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I mean, it's just that there's backup people; you're not going to hear them say anything. [The proceedings were concluded at 2:41 p.m.] 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF ORANGE: I, Louan Roe, Court Reporter, certify that I reported the foregoing proceedings at the time and place aforesaid, and that pages numbered 3 through 43, inclusive, constitute a true, complete and accurate transcript of said proceedings. I further certify that I have no personal, professional or financial interest in the outcome of this action. DATED this Sth day of July 1999. ,.,.. ri � s,s.. .\... r,... t. Y� ... ..,.,:�� } ., A :x'.: . r.,�', .xt, t. •re:: ^-;.4. hi,y.. ,xr;,5: ,•y 4 •In.,{ � f+4 ...:, : i. t,.. _ M sr,,.,,. , ". ,:v. , .xP,r�' . r,�.l^-. 4,,. i - ,.. , .s. ��.,... r ;• .: ..�... x „ ts.... . :�4. "� 5 _ x� 1 Y 3::'s �1 ,i�. �,',lf .:...a I .p, ,.: . <�,• 3,..,, ...,. ,..... a.;., ,...rrt'. t =,..., ;',:,. <. ...s, ,. v. :.„ N :ya } tt , _.. x ,. ... .F. jj Pv. B.. ...a. .,.. : ,.m �.. .. - . .. -•..: ,[u .. ,..... „ „_�. .. .r,. ,.' ,t. .1 :: ).- 4 i t ,^. .ei. 'v.-ST f..,: ...i :,u,,.. e,.,.,,, x.,.v<.. 'x�: „ ,: .. ,.e.. . r.. _ a%::`:t :t=�''' :• : 43 .R?:i {, �„'� 1'.s`r: tklr'.zii' (, t. � .�i.4 4v r, a � .v ,... ..,. � t ,.: ,,.. .. \„-t.'r:R .a.. xe # ;+ :a•:' ;•,.'s :. r-: :.„a. 'I -a::. +..s':. v ��. ;.i'V �a'St. yt,w: a : .... s. .. . •.... .. .. .. � :o... ,t ..,.,. «•.. ......... ... . <, ...ht t.. i. Y. r.... , :x.; ',£ f: .. a .u; .�Sr ): x't�„ . s.. ...... ..,»a tt.. -. ,,..t, .. f- , .. ... ,, .,� , ..}.. , ..x .�,.- t, ,..,..:..:, ; l ..x•..: Y.. t tik _. ,x >. a,s. -.,. v. �.,... i. ._ , f.: .�.... ,.,4 ..., .. .,.,., -. A: ,1.. ,• ...r.{rU .«+.{., .t :,., {_�. 2.,M. ",5 )�:.,. v 4 Sti fi i i - 5 Ti � 2111 a"as:,a; � ,_= 3 -i "y, ,';.r f � } ,., `{{�nX� � t � j �'; �tS??�'t 4Xt a �s m 7 01 S41V .i � � ��F �. v ° > e�gt P r. tnJ.: t „•, �+° ' i ��ru + "T' r.:.i?a•"Y ,$?k c.,+:.k ,':? .�,}�:3i, 5�a .'"t„i. k.,9t .:} �'ey 'e 'fiS r.;'? �'t,.." S1X {s, .} ;XtiXt `�it••�.. �yF i,«yF y 4 # nt 5 �i➢ e z� ,r{ t � � ¢ k J'f#lat a Hr+ . & f,t n 1 r �1 Y x7t, M czfg, ....:. .�t :a ,t .:. r.. •.a is r.., ,.. � a�.�.+. .,;. 1, Ye, x..,, .," t.'ia, rtn:., f ,.. . ,: Gi .i .. =.'�k ,,; ,.,�. ,,.7 x:k. ,e,. .rs d. .�t: t^Y '({t §, i` �r `k' xr, kF=�: s.t ,. s_, ,.a:r 4r�'.• aE;u +�„ta ix#„ :x ,.:,,,.: -:ra•. -.4t ±"t,Y'. ,,.•:.� ;.,r,. rli .;. „sn+... ::., :...a �i a tt` ,: �;.; „f:, ,.<;.,� .=.r:;. :'::., jl} pry.,§: .;•-. s ,;7 '.'v .":;:. ,s.;, ? �., 1'! E ,.YF�. a. e i.....i '�?._...,�.:. S ..,s. _.•.� _ta. :,.�..: kt'..,•U.s.... s..�.,ai _.�.,, ..,tt,j .tPu .� . Fa ,2:�3 n _> il 'as: 4,fi. } ;�-., . r:,,.. ,.•.„r, a � ,...; ,. ...: ,.,. .,i r . ,.:.- ,..,. t-.,,<,... .v.- ,.,.. . ,;.... aU „ ,.., . Y 1:. d. a. ... -;,.. 2kki — ,�{: r+f^, - .#;nrd - ,`R ,k.x .s'ux,. try„N✓, :e� ..t' `SF,. '1 r' '_,"t' i t .,N .....,.- .:ex-r..�... r. .... d r,.b ...;fie. imar »3 :_: 'h>'?fx �y'n<.... a-r..n. +v.m1ti..,a ., -s:� wag. ._�r; �v�"{.ls+s'�" f .'.. "�"`t,,.. "<i••., m»R� .sz,.-�._�.«.y% F COMPANIES CONTACT 1. WATER DISTRIBUTION " CITY OF OCOEE".....................JIM SHIRA (407) 656-2322 2. TELEPHONE " US SPRINT"................................................MIKE SHELL (407) 877-5344 3. FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION..........................................................(407) 620-1010 4. CABLE " CABLEVISION INDUSTRIES".....................................................(407) 656-6035 ,� >x X t .: / r t� rt 2 s* i � t• ;•, v'a' a `- t a t�l +u r tE' 46 't j FJM1 4tzsY$ 2 #Tt#Q { t S± 4 x .} • 4:' u 777,I� 1}. , a .�, t= "x§r 2 �r<k . ..��,. t• snfi4 `»S ;�k R.: x g- � �' W. r, x F q J .?ut Construction plans were prepared in accordance with the "Manual of Uniform Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways, State of Florida" (FDOT Green Book) and the City of Ocoee Regulations and Specifications. 1. All construction is to conform with the City of Ocoee standards and specifications, unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer_ 2. The Engineer certifies that all roadways were designed to the applicable standards, as "set forth by the City of Ocoee and the latest edition of the Florida Department of Transportation Manual of Uniform Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways. 3. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within existing road right-of-ways with the City of Ocoee Engineering and Utilities Departments. 4. It will be the responsibility of the Contractor to get the necessary Right -of -Way Permit(s) and provide for the safety and control of local traffic during construction. 5. The Contractor shall be extremely cautious when working near trees that are to be saved, whether shown in the plans or designated in the field. 6. The Contractor shall be responsible for locating and verifying (horizontally and vertically) all existing utilities before construction, and for notifying the various utility companies to arrange for any relocation, temporary disruption of service, or clarification of activity regarding said utility. The contractor shall exercise caution when crossing an underground utility, whether shown in these plans or field located. All utilities which interfere with the proposed construction shall be relocated by the respective utility companies and the Contractor shall cooperate with them during relocation operations. Any delay or inconvenience of the various utilities shall be incidental to the contract and no extra compensation will be allowed. 7. The locations of all existing utilities, facilities, and any other features shown on these plans have been determined from the best available information and are provided for the convenience of the Contractor. The Engineer does not guarantee the accuracy or the completeness of the location information provided. Any inaccuracy or omission in such information shall not relieve the Contractor of his responsibility to protect such existing features from damage or unscheduled interruption of service. Should a discrepancy arise between these plans and actual field conditions which would appreciably affect the execution of these plans, the Contractor will halt construction and notify the Engineer immediately. 8. The Contractor shall be responsible for meeting all inspection criteria and schedules, and for signing for said inspections. 9. Water service shall be provided by the City of Ocoee. The water distribution system shall be installed by the Contractor and shall conform with the City of Ocoee Standards and Specifications. 10. The Contractor shall not excavate, remove, or otherwise disturb any material, structure, or part of a structure which is located outside the lines, grades or grading sections established for this project, except where such excavation or removal is provided for in the contract, plans or specifications. 11. All work and all materials furnished shall conform with the lines, grades, grading sections, cross sections, dimensions, material requirement, and testing requirements specified in the contract, plans or specifications. 12. Prior to commencing work, the Contractor shall furnish, erect, and maintain all barricades, warning signs, and markings for hazards and time control of traffic, in conformity with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways or as directed by the City Engineer, to effectively prevent accidents in all places where the work causes obstruction to traffic or constitutes in any way a hazard to the public. 13. All ductile iron pipe and fittings shall have an interior protective seal coat (30 mil thick) of coal tar epoxy in accordance with ANSI/AWWA A21.51/C151. 14. Compact all utility trenches within the top two (2) feet of the roadways to 98% of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density, and to 95% within other areas. 15. After the roadway has been constructed to subgrade, if shall be proof -rolled to assure that proper compaction has been attained. The proof -rolling and compaction operations shall be inspected and tested by a Florida licensed Soils Engineer to assure that the specified compaction is maintained and all deleterious materials have been removed. 16. In areas which require fill material, the Contractor will strip or otherwise remove all vegetation such as brush, heavy sods, heavy growth of grass, decayed vegetable matter, rubbish, and any other deleterious material before the embankment is started. Immediately prior to the placing of fill materials, the entire area being filled shall be scarified in a direction approximately parallel to the axis of fill-, The Geotechnical Engineer shall approve the area prior to the placement of fill. 17. Install valve boxes with all valves. Valve boxes under pavement shall have traffic -bearing covers. 18. The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance of all landscape buffers until the work has been accepted by the Owner. All disturbed areas shall be returned to their original condition. 19. The Contractor shall comply with all legal load restrictions in the hauling of materials in public roads beyond the limits of the work. A special permit will not relieve the Contractor of liability for the damage that may result from the moving of material and equipment. 20. The Contractor shall familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines established by the City of Ocoee, Florida for the preservation of all public and private property_ The Contractor shall be responsible for all damage or injury to property of any character during the execution of the work, resulting from any act, omission, neglect, or misconduct in his manner or method of executing the work, or at anytime due to defective work or materials. 21. The Contractor shall ensure that proper sail densities are achieved for placement of all headwall/endwall footings, retaining wall footings, and in general, any footing support described on these plans. It will also be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure that sufficient geotechnic al testing has been performed prior to construction. 22. The F.D.O.T_ Roadway and Traffic Design Standards (booklet dated January 1994) is to be used for drainage structures and pavement markings. 23. Water and Sewer Crossings: a. NORMAL CONDITIONS: Water mains shall be laid to provide a minimum separation of 18 inches between the bottom of the water main and the top of the sewer pipe, UNUSUAL CONDITIONS: When construction conditions prevent a vertical separation of 18 inches, the sewer pipe shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with mechanical joint. If the conflict is caused by a storm sewer, the water main shall constructed of ductile iron pipe. b. Water mains shall be above the sewer wherever they cross. Adequate structural support for both the water main and sewers shall be provided to prevent excessive deflection of joints and settling. c. The lateral seperation between force mains, sanitary sewer, and water mains shall not be less than 10'. If this seperation cannot be maintained, then either of the two pipes shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with pressure -tight joint. NO ENCASEMENT of the sanitary sewer or water will be allowed. d. Where ductile iron pipe is required for water mains, it shall conform to ANSI/AWWA A21.51. A minimum thickness of Class 50 per ANSI/AWVVA shall be supplied. e. Ali water main fittings, valves, restraints, couplings, pipe, and in general those materials required for installing the water supply system, shall comply with minimum material standards, ratings and classifications established by the City of Ocoee and AMA Standards and Specifications. PVC water mains four (4) inches diameter or greater shall be AMA C-900 (DR18) minimum. AN water mains shall bear the NSF logo for approval for drinking water. f. Water main connections shall be made under the supervision of the City of Ocoee Public Utilities. All valves shall be operated by the City of Ocoee personnel only. Water mains are to be disinfected per ANSI/AWWA C651-92 and the City of Ocoee Public Utilities Manual of Standards and Specifications for Wastewater and Water Main Construction. All water mains shall be hydrostatically tested in accordance with the latest version of AWWA M23 standard. 24. All Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) shall be minimum Class IIL 25. It is the Contractor's responsibility to obtain a copy of the Geotechnical Engineer's report for this project and meet the Geotechnical Engineer's requirements for soil preparation on the site. The Contractor's Geotechnical Engineer shall certify all site, utility and roadway compaction as well as underdrain and pavement construction to GTC Engineering Corporation. Geotechnical recommendations are not the responsibility of GTC Engineering Corporation. GTC Engineering Corporation assumes no responsibility for the correctness, completeness. or accuracy of the geotechnical information. 26. During construction, no direct discharge of water will be allowed to downstream receiving waters. The Contractor is responsible for water quality and shall route discharges in such a manner to adequately remove silt before runoff from the site. 4 � .,:.. (� .zt� � ,5++��' �x ii} ^,� (, { 4 � r � .;� i �h,C♦t £ i,. '� z . a t � a 2 s DATE BY DESCRIPTION ,i t 27. For sign details, refer to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices," published by the c. Before the start of construction, the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the U_S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration - 1978 (ANSI D6.1- Engineer a project construction schedule (Bar Graph) and update the schedule monthly. 1983). All signs to be single mounted according to F.D.O_T_ Index No. 11862 (70 mph wind loading) and F.D.O.T_ Index No. 17302. d. Any fuel storage areas shall have owner's prior approval and appropriate measures r shall be taken to ensure protection of groundwater and sail resources. 28. Blue reflective pavement markers shall be placed in the center of the driving lane in front of ' all Fire Hydrants. e. The Contractor shall coordinate all backfili operations with the Resident Geotechnical Engineer and submit test reports to the Engineer prior to beginning work on the next 29. Erosion Control Notes item of work. a. Provide effective temporary and permanent erosion control following the requirements f. The Engineer reserves the right to require the Contractor to perform any action in Section 104 of the State of Florida Department of Transportation Standard necessary to ensure that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1992 Edition (FDOT Section 104). the plans and specifications. b. Control features, methods and conditions included in this contract include the following as indicated by X in blank: 31. The Contractor shalt field verify horizontal and vertical information for all connection points (1) X Coordinate construction of temporary erosion control features with permanent to existing utility systems, as well as the location and depth of all clusters of fittings and erosion control features. valves, before submittal of shop drawings. (2) X Control operation which result in wafter pollution (FDOT Section 104-3). (3) X Provide schedule for clearing and grubbing, earthwork operations and construction of permanent erosion control features and proposed use of temporary erosion control features (FDOT Section 104-5). 32. Any discrepancy between the dimensions and measurements shown on the plans and the actual field conditions shall immediately be brought to the Engineer's attention. Failure to do so (4) - Limitation of exposure of erodible earth without temporary or permanent shall make the Contractor completely liable for whatever errors and/or problems that may erosion control features is square feet (FDOT Section 104-6- 1) subsequently arise. (5) X Temporary grassing (FDOT Section 104-6.4.2). 33. It wilt be the responsibility of the Contractor(s) to ensure that all required permits are obtained and are in hand at the job site prior to the commencement of construction. Contractor shall (6) X Temporary sod (FDOT Section 104-6.4.3). abide by all conditions contained therein. Permits included (but not necessarily limited to) are: (7) X Temporary mulching (FDOT Section 104-6.4.4). a. FDEP water distribution. (8) _ Sandbagging (FDOT Section 104-6.4.5). b. Local right-of-way use. c. Local underground utilities. (9) _ Slope drains (FDOT Section 104-6.4.6). 34. The Contractor shall stake all improvements using the plat. Contractor shall confirm with (10) _ Sediment basins (FDOT Section 104-6.4.7). American Surveying And Mapping, Inc. (Phone 407-539-2274) that the plat is current prior to construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to completely stake and check (11) -Artificial coverings (FDOT Section 104-6.4.8). all improvements toyensure adequate positioning, both horizontal and vertical, including minimum building setbacks, before the installation of any improvement (12)-Berms (FDOT Section 104-6.4.9). 35. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting all existing survey monumentation. (13) Baled hay or straw (FDOT Section 104-6.4.10)- Disturbed monumentation shall be restored by a Florida -licensed land surveyor selected by the Owner at the Cor=,tractor's expense. (14) Temporary silt fences and staked silt barriers (FDOT Section 104-6.4.11). „> 36. The Contractor is responsible for grading all pavement areas to drain positively. Intersections i 15 Floating silt barriers FDOT Section 104-6.4.12 . ( ) 9 ( ) shall be transitio sh ned to provide` smooth driving surfaces while maintaining positive drainage. Should areas of poor drainage be observed, the Contractor shall notify the Engineer prior to (16) Remove temporary erosion control features (FDOT Section 104-6.5). paving so that recommendations for correction may be made. 1 (17) X Maintain permanent and temporary erosion control features (FOOT Section 37. The quantities and lengths of materials shown on plans should be verified by the Contractor. 104.7). Any discrepancy between callouts and actual shown in plan view is to be brought to the Engineer's attention by the Contractor prior to bidding. It is the Engineer's intention to build ; (18) X This contract design has been approved by the OWNER and regulatory what is shown on the construction plans: agencies having an interest in erosion control abatement. The design in its final form meets or exceeds minimum standards. All temporary erosion control 38. The Contractor is to maintain weekly monitoring reports per general conditions of N.P.D.E.S. features required during construction shall be constructed by the Contractor, General Permit. and the cost thereof included in the Contract Sum as a regular obligation incidental to the work. 39. Record Drawing: At the end of construction, the Contractor shall provide one (1) set of drawings showing ALL CHANGES marked in waterproof red with the following Contractor c. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining all erosion protection, especially along Certification executed on EACH SHEET: the wetland boundary during the entire construction process, including repairs, , etc., to prevent any siltation from entering these areas, as well as any unsuitable The Contractor discharges offsite or into the existing wetland. hereby certifies to the OWNER that improvements covered by this drawing and the related details have been constructed as indicated or as modified by the notes and graphics shown. Absent a note or graphic to the contrary, the improvements have been constructed meeting industry standard tolerances. 30. Miscellaneous Engineer Notifications Signed: pate: a. The Contractor shall provide the Engineer 24 hour advance notification for the Authorized Contractor's Representative following construction and inspection activities: (1) Connections to existing systems. (2) Thrust block pours and restraint connections. (3) Storm drain Tamping. (4) Inlet top pours (reinforcing steel check). (5) Water and force main pressure tests. (6) Bacteriological sampling. (7) Base observation and sounding. (8) Asphalt placement. (9) Pre -final inspection. (10) Final inspection. b. The Contractor shall keep DAILY "As -built" drawings employing the criteria shown on the Paving and Drainage, Sanitary and Water Detail sheets. Record all As-builts in waterproof RED Ink. L U -�WS # :I 'y FIELD: Ocoee Florida CADD BY: GTCqG"TC Engineerin gr Corporation 'r CHECKED D Y: C HE E B LC i .j 98 Sonih Searoran Blvd, Orlando, Fl. 32807 Moore Road DESIGNED BY: FSM 407-380-0402 ;1. SCALE: NONE DATE 4-21-99 JOB NUMBER TDD-9 SHEET , 3'pf 8' . TDDINOTE.3of., i 25' 12' o' 151 i I r j 1-LANDSCAPC 4 BUFFER wl # AREA I i I ELEV.= 130.0 j NORMAL WATER LEVEL = 127.0 v- _ I ELEV.= 125.0 � - - --' CONSTRUCT TYPE !!! f�� STAKED SILT FENCE EXISTING STORMWA TER POND PER FDOT INDEX !02 , ' EXISTING le BOTTOM ELEVATION= 1I9.0 PVC WATER MAIN \ (TO REMAIN) 25' MOORE ROAD POSTED SPEED 35 MPH DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH 12' /Of 15' /0' 5r CONSTRUCT 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK BUFFER W f 5' AREA �jCONCRETE SIDEWALK r B ELEV.= 130.0 NORMAL WATER LEVEL = 127.tT _ l ! ELEV.= 125.0 CONSTRUCT TYPE III EXISTING STORMSTAKED SILT FENCEWATER POND PER FDOT INDEX 102 / CONSTRUCT 12' PVC WATER MAIN \� (36' MIN. COVER) \ \ BOTTOM ELEVATION= 119.0 , \ — — —..— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — "— — —� CONSTRUCT TYPE 'F' CURB AND GUTTER 25' - _ 12' _) _ I _ 151 BUFFER AREA NATURAL ELEV.= I30D i GROUND \ ------------------------------------ / NOT t't` i' c,,; � �� CONSTRUCTION - � F1 "�tt �. „�f ?'; FOR : S fi' tS t I 1,, 1 F ONI.'7 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES . .." to 'i., 'n�;�, r`..,. .,. �'. �+t 'rx♦ ..: .s : :try.S it,T{ +""� �`J �� t9 � iw<� �. f 5' SOD G' VAHItS VAHita is t ruN AND rHW-ILL sHtttlSJ Mlfts C YH/S/CJ ; I CONCRETE SIDEWALK WIDENING Q` TO lQ`) WIDENING tQ' TO 77 SOD l !r VARIES 2' 2' 3' 4' 3' 1�VARIES SPECIAL j PGL !t DITCH' 1 0.03- O.D3� ffi /- GROUND 00 - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1� - - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- S TA e 8 -�-OO o00 TO S TA o I3 -� 20.00 WIDENING 2 112 "ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, FDOT, TYPE S-I WITH 10'SOIL CEMENT BASE L 71999 AND 12'COMPACTED SUBGRADE 95% MODIFIED PROCTOR, T-180 t - - ; FIELD: The City of Ocoee FI ' zGTC - - CADD BY: GTC Engineering o o CHECKED BY, CLC 98 Soulh Semarah Blvd, Orlando, / /. 32807 Moore Road 1 DESIGNED BY: FSM 407-3WO402 -- -- -- —.� ---- --- -- DATE BY DESCRIPTION SCALE: NONE DATE 4-21-99 JOB NUMBER,,, TDD-1 SHEET 4 of 8 u TRENCH WIDTH VARIES 'il SIZE OE P1PE CROWN iRENCN IN UNIMPROVED AREAS 0' MIN.) T-FINISHED GRADE (SEE NOTE 8) n SEE NOTE 4- �r / w �? i COMMON FILL �f:, PIPE O.D. SELECT z COMMON o `'' FILL m UNDISTURBED EARTH (SEE NOTE 3) NOTES: I. PIPE BEDDING: SELECT COMMON FILL COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AS PER AASHTO T-180. 2. TRENCH BACKFILL•COMMON FILL COMPACTED TO 957. OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AS PER AASHTO T-180. 3. PIPE BEDDING UTILIZING SELECT COMMON FILL OR BEDDING ROCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH TYPE A BEDDING AND TRENCHING DETAIL MAY BE REQUIRED AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNTY. 4. (0.15' MAX. FOR PIPE DIAMETER LESS THAN 24', AND 24' MAX. FOR PIPE DIAMETER 24'AN0 LARGER. 5. WATER SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE TRENCH DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. ALL PIPE TO BE INSTALLED WITH BELL FACING UPSTREAM TO THE DIRECTION OF THE FLOW. 7. REFER TO SECTION 32.5 OF THE MANUAL FOR SHEETING AND BRACING IN EXCAVATIONS. 8. FINAL RESTORATION IN IMPROVED AREAS SHALL A E IN COMPLIANCE WIT H ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF GOVERNING AGENCIES: SURFACE RESTORATION WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILIZATION REGULATIONS AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. TYPE B BEDDING AND TRENCHING DETAIL 61G. 100) UNDISTUI SOIL (TY EDGE OF TRENCH (TYP.) AREA FOR UG CROSS W/PLUG WOOD FORM BOARDS BEHIND BELL SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH JOINT (TYP. CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK (TYP.) 2 ° OFFSET (AS REO'D) -- EDGE OF CROSSCUT -� UNDISTURBED SOIL (TYP. TRENCH WIDTH - -� THRUST FITTiNG� i--� R CROSS W/ TWO PLUGS '-'e EDGE OF TRENCH (TYP.) \. "-THRUST BLOCK AREA (SQ, FT.) `-CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK. TYPICAL SECTION SCHEDULE FOR THRUST BLOCK AREAS PIPE SZE ONCHES) 90 BEND (SO FT) 45 BEND (SO FT) 22-1/2 BEND (SO NT) 11-114 BEND (SO FT) TEE 8 PLUG (SO FT) DESIGN PRESS (PSI) , 4 0 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.3 150 6 2.7 L5 0.8 05 2.7 ISO 8 4.6 2.5 1.3 0.7 4.6 t58 10 6.8 3.7 1.9 1.0 6.8 150 i 12 9.7 1 5.3, 2.7 1.4 9.7 150 NEE. zeee TIUMT BL0.'R A� TO BE COPPITED ON BASIS OF LK PER SR FT. SOIL PESTRAVII 0.500 "Im BEARING. SEE NOTE 5 . TO BE COMPLETED BY ENGINMR. AREA FO6 TEE TEE TEE W/PLUG AREA FOR 45' BEND WYE TEE W/ END PLUG WOOD BLOCKING (TYP.) AREA FOR PLUG AREA FOR TEE AREA FOR PLUG NOTES: 1. THRUST BLOCK BEARING AREAS SHALL BE POURED AGAIN UNDISTURBED MATERIAL. WHERE TRENCH WALL HAS BEEN DISTURBED, EXCAVATE ALL LOOSE MATERIAL AND EXTEND TO UNDISTURBED MATERIAL. 2. EXTEND THRUST BLOCK FULL LENGTH OF FITTINGS. JOINTS SHALL NOT BE COVERED BY THRUST BLOCKS. FITTINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY POLYETHYLENE FILM (8 MIL.)PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK. 3. ROUGH BLOCKING FORMS SHALL BE USED ALONG SIDES 0 THRUST BLOCKS,AS REQUIRED. 4. THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE USED IN COMBINATION,AS REQUIRED,TO SUITE THE SPECIFIC FITTING ARRANGEMENT 5. ALTERNATE DESIGNED RESTRAINING SYSTEMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE STANDARD THRUST BLOCKING IS NOT SUITABLE AND/OR SOIL RESISTANCE BEARING IS LESS THAN 1500 PSF. 6. ALL WOOD BLOCKING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE. TLJDI ICT CI r)(',1! ncTATI SET TOP OF VALVE BOX, HYDRANT TO FINISHED GRADE OPERATING ^` CONCRETE COLLAR NUT N UNPAVED AREAS HOSE NOZZLE I FINISHED GRADE SEE DETAILS) \ AS RED'D. 24'SQUARE OR -- --1 <Yj ROUND AND 6' THICK I PUMPER NOZZLE q r�� REINFORCED CONCRETE �b SHEAR PAD. SEE FACiN 'STREET NUTS ' - VALVE COLLAR -Tz (SEE DETAIL, ADJUSTABLE CAST IRON 1) `= A ? AT 9' \ 1 SEE NOTE 2 VALVE BOX AROUND BOX SHALL REST ON - RESILIENT SEAT i BEDDING ROCK NOT 1 ON VALVE OR PIPE CDMPACTED ' T. ..: M J.GATE VALVE } t BACKF LL. -I 1 M J H,LIRAuT (4fir AND SHALL BE I I 1 a� JrANCHO'RING TEE WATER -�� T CENTERED ON SEE NOTE 3 - i MAIN OPERTI ATING NUT (� -J I- 2 MIN. L G ,. -n • � „. � 1 E° BEDDING ROCK i RESILIENT SEAT GATE 6'BEDDING ROCK j I COUPLIANCHORING J - VALVE AND BOX (SEE DETAIL-) NOTES: I.PVC EXTENSIONS SHALL NOT BE USED ON VALVE BOX INSTALLATION. 2.THE ACTUATING NUT FOR DEEPER VALVES SHALL BE EXTENDED TO COME UP TO 4 FOOT DEPTH BELOW FINISHED GRADE. GATE VALVE AND BOX DETAIL IFIG. 408) NOTES: I.FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE SUPPLIED WITHOUT A 'WEEP HOLE, OR WITH A PERMANENTLY PLUGGED WEEP HOLE. 2.THE DEVELOPER MAY INSTALL THE SHEAR PAD RECESSED UP TO 4 INCHES BELOW FINISHED GRADE AND SOD THE RECESSED SECTION. -CLEARANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF BOLTS AND TDP OF SHEAR PAD SHALL BE A G'MINTMUM. FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY DETAIL P 16. 402) { x } ! 4 f Y t {. ( 3 r2�' � r,T, � ) s~I t r•; a 1� � a� 7 , t.; � •F s i s rk � ,� � � � rt,. 3 r F aS: ,✓. 4tfi:: (FIG.103) DATE I BY MINIMUM LENGTH (FT) TO BE RESTRAINED ON EACH SIDE OF FITTING(S). PIPE SIZE 4' 6' 8° 10" 12' 16' 20' 24- 30' 36° 90° BEND 18 30 38 45 91 45' BEND 1 7 12 16 19 38 22-1/2 ° BEND 4 6 7 9 18 11-1/4 'BEND 2 3 4 4 9 PLUG OR BRANCH OF TEE 116 NOTES: 1. FITTINGS SHALL BE RESTRAINED JOINTS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 2. INSTALL FULL LENGTH JOINTS WITH TOTAL LENGTH EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN SHOWN IN THE TABLE. ST 3. WHERE TWO OR MORE FITTINGS ARE TOGETHER, USE FITTING WHICH YIELDS GREATEST LENGTH OF RESTRAINED PIPE. 4. IN LINE VALVES AND THROUGH RUN OF TEES OUTSIDE LIMITS. OF RESTRAINED JOINTS FROM OTHER, FITTINGS NEED NOT BE RESTRAINED UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 5. LENGTHS SHOWN IN THE TABLE HAVE BEEN CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN "THRUST RESTRAINT DESIGN FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPP AS PUBLISHED F BY DIPRA, WITH THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS: WORKING PRESSURE:----150.... P.S.I.= . SOIL DESIGNATION:__ GOOD_ SAND--_- a LAYING CONDITIONS:-1W_0-- G. FOR PIPE ENCASED IN POLYETHYLENE, USE VALUES GIVEN IN PARENTHESES OR INCREASE THE GIVEN VALUE BY A FACTOR OF 1.5. * TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ENGINEER. RESTRAINED PIPE 1-ABLE. (FIG.104) OPTIONAL POST POSITIONS PRINCIPLE POST POS 1 T I ON I CANTED �O TOWARD FLOW I Li FIL TER FABRIC i SILT FLOW Tye /Il Silt Fence (FDQT Index No. 102) DESCRIPTION FIELD: CADD BY: GTC CHECKED BY: CLC DESIGNED BY: CLC SCALE: NONE I AND COVER ITYFJ \ // - r � � /4\ ''i:1\jJi. OR FORCE MAIN 2500 P.S.I. CONCRETE MIN. -� = -1 ANCHORS -' MMETALLIC LOCATING WIRE W. �1, MAX. �- UNIMPROVED CS'NDITION I-- - TOP FLUSH WITH - - FINISHED GRADE -� - - - - - - - - ASPHALT SURFACE �x Ih 1 II i I BASE I / VALVE _ �� AND COVERVER NOTES: -- - 4'Y.. 4'r ;8'LONG 1. PVC PIPE SHALL REQUIRE INSULATED METALLIC LOCATING WIRE (MIN.) POST O4 GAUGE COPPER)CAPABLE OF DETECTION BY A CABLE LOCATOR WITH ,DIAMETER 2. AND SHALL BE BURIED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE CENTERLINE OF THE PIPE. I (TYP BRONZE DISC SET IN LOCATING WIRE SHALL TERMINATE AT THE TOP OF EACH VALVE SOX GROUT AS SHC=WN 3. AND BE CAPABLE OF EXTEN0114G 12'ABOVE TOP OF BOX IN SUCH A lMPROVED CONDITION ABOVE. MANNER SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH VALVE OPERATION. v { it USE DUCT TAPE AS NECESSARY TO HOLD WIRE DIRECTLY ON THE NOTES: TOP OF THE PIPE. i. BRONZE IDENTIFICATION DISC SHALL BE REOIJIRED FOR ALL, VALVES ,16' AND LARGER. OR AS REOUIRED BY THE COUNTY =0R CRITICAL OFFSITE VALVES. 2. VALVE COLLAR DIMENSIONS MAY BE REDUCED TO 18'X IB'X 6' WHEN THE BRONZE IDENTIFICATIDN DISC IS NOT REQUIRED. " VALVE COLLAR DETAIL PVC PIPE LOCATING WIRE DETAIL '+ 1F!ik A7) - ff1G. k08) - �i rT :I EU ""'E WA TER LINE N Q 1. Thle heaviest construction equipment crossing the farce main shall be a � 1 concrete truck loaded which equals 32 tons or 5 tons per wheel. . All construction equipment will cross aver the farce main at designated locations that will be 25 feet wide with 6 feet of dirt cover minimum. . All excavation above the force main will be accomplished without setting equipment on top of the main. . the force main shall be staked at 25 foot intervals td clearly identify its location and elevation. Minimum cover of 3 feet .shall e maintained priorr to pouring concrete. 5. the finished pavement shall be stamped to provide additional markings regarding? 1r4{ Me Ideation of the pipeline. s' (� (i grange County shall have a representative on site during construction around . T the force main. 7. A schedule should be submitted to Orange 'County Utilities with a escrip ion o- Me sequence of work to be performed. 1 L ® d 99 Ocoee Florida ® Q WATER ur"'ETAILS Engineering f EMUS. n 0® ■s uETA 1d 98 South Semoran Blvd Orlando, Fl. 32807 407-380-0402 Moore Road DATE 4-21-99 JOB NUMBER TDD-1, SHEET 9 of 8., TDD I W DET.301'(' {�I PLANTATION GKUV� i i i SITPS EXISTING ZONING/LAND USE: PUD PROPOSED LAND USE:. RETAIL COMMERCIAL 25.00 ACRES (DOES NOT llCLUDE SITE: AREA: COMMON STORMWATER PARCEL H LOCATED.ON MULTIFAMILY PARCEL A) • 100 YEAR FLOOD DATA - NO PART OF THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY: WATER SERVICE TO THE SITE SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF OCOEE VIA EXTENSION :OF THE 1211 WATER MAIN LOCATED ON MAGUIRE R'ADF,..; E FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS: MAXIMUM DISTAN EL OF 35->, FEET 'APART :WITH A ' MINIMUM .FLOW OF 1000 G.P.M.. SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO THE, 'SITE SHALL BE PROVIDED 13Y THE --•--. CITY` OF OCOEE BY CONNECTION TO THE LIFT STATION LOCATED :,T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE. PUD ON MAGUIRE ROAD. PROJECT SCHOOL AGE POPULATION: 0 PERSONS. SITE BOUNDARY BUILDING SETBACKS: MAGUIRE ROAD: 40' FROM PROPOSED MOORE ROAD: 40' FROM PROPOSED R/W PERIMETER: 50' FROM MULTIFAMILY PARCEL A CONSERVATION AREAS: " ` "THERE ARE NO CONSERVATION AREAS LOCATED ON THIS SITE AS DEFINED BY. THE CITY OF OCOEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: THE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS SITE WILL MEET CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED BY BOTH THE CITY OF OCOEE AND THE ST. JOHNS RIVER y WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE j - STORMWATER POND WILL BE PARCEL If OF THE REVISED LAND USE, PLAN (COMMON RETENTION/DE`iLNTION .POND). EXTENT OF PARCEL II WHICH 4� WILL REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL ENGINE;isRING. INCLUDING FUTURE OUTPARCELS: TRAFFIC GENERA 217800 SQ F`T COMMERCIAL - 11496 'ADT'S.(AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS). MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEET REQUIRED PARKING SPACES: NOT INCLUDING FUTURE•OUTPARCELS WHICH WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE A—G SUBMITTALS TO MEET CITY OF OCOEE REQUIREMENTS' AT THEIR TIME OF. DEVELOPMENT. 1 SPACE/200 SQ FT F X 144120 SQ FT= 721 SPACcS. , LOT 1 I 28" RCP 30'I I rINT HIGH ASPHALT XISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE INTENSITY STOP REFER TO C-3 FOR NOTES , 30'-0" 24'-0' SIGN SEE YD-t 90'-tt 1/2' 24-0" 31'-0 1/2 ® ----�� -- - - m----- ------TOOO ----- NEWJUNC _ �� 7 EXISTING NEW SLOTTED DRAIN ® EXIST Wo RCP BOX SEE 'R 25 r UHT = 24" RCP SEE DWG C-3 NEW DUNS 21'3Sr'E � 0.00' P&D DWG C-3 w� 12'-0" BOX SEE S21'10" E' 200.05' MEAS NEW SLOTTED 0] N Z T.P. STOP BAR DWG C-3 EXISTING 8" DRAIN SEE p N R DWG C-3 T.P. STOP BAR �-UJ " 6� sa pe �p CONCRETE RECLAIM :. INSTALL NEW . N t: ' Y Y p ft�-TANKS AND GREAS DUAL 400W omitted , e R ' omi Led• y ■ AP SEE DWG TP-1 S? YD LT & BASE S yard light IN LL NEW 24 -• .1VSd ljj h ..--11 0 1 ■ 0 1 "� ON 14' POLE 24' p tl t DUAL 4DOW Qt �x J L e'J ' . POLL. CTRL "'INSTALL WIT _ 1 Yp LT & BASE revised -4, DeL YELLOW OUTFAL S UCT 6" EXTRUDED 4' DBL YELLOW (ON 14' POLE I ®curb line SSO�1G� 20 �'.: SEE DWG CCNC- CURB STRWINC 20' W W% 6X6. 6" _ P PROPO�D 1DOa _ Q ®'. CAFiWAfJM FC-CLAIM , NEW 6" CONIC RA4P LONG w X 3S FIN FLOO # W/ 6X6. 6/6 W W 65,-0" a 8A =17 _ 00 20•-0' NEW 750 GAL revised 49'-0' 20'-9' SETBACK GREASE IN T.'ER. Q&curb Nne SIGNAGE COIN/ 0 SEE DWG TP-T 4 TOKEN Q1 BOX vM U. gc A C !t COOLER is �a- Q- _ 'v --- -- (25' __ .. ._ �,_•,_ _ __ I ._ __i.__ __-_L. _ __r.__ : IPL NO CURB FORMS I' , LRAISED CONIC TYPICALre`sede SIDEWALK w cub line 25'- 24'-0- N CLEAR DIM O7 0 o z - ('. • '-e>_�. CLEAR DIM 00 Z 1 I 40OWLYDNLT x a- m vw Box �' o w •. INSTALL NEW 10 M mn 8F i a a 40OW YD LT .. 1 I ( &BASE ON a Z o �� x A & BASE ON ta' POLE I• ^Sm p - .-f . ',�� I �o ®POLE SNEWLAB 8' CONIC PH o: I EMERGENCY 2 '!�1 relocoted SLAB WITH NEW JUNC A S P H A L TIu < SHUT OFF./ r]� yard light 6X6, 6/6 WWF d 80X SEE PAVING ' ;A j `i'I ON COLL) N DWG C-3I I::r--- '•� a INSTALL NEW 6" EXTRUDED 5' CONIC. WALK 6 CONC. CURB I INSTALL HC / IV-20' HANDICAP 01 (TYPICAL) PARKIN SJG( HANDICAP RAMPS SL I N INSTAL NEW o ON STk E- PARKING 1:12 MAX DUAL 400w® 1 (5) 9' x 20' FRONT ULL SPACE t39'-9e® o ARKING SPACES / ' YD LT & BASE I r CLEAR DIM W L ON 14' POLE ? - - curreAt I J-HIGH .INTENSITY -- STOP SIGN(SEE Y --iJSRO - -- _ - I` ALL NE _ HANDICAP� W SEE TYP CA PARKING 40OW LYDNLTI . \ - 1 -INSTALL O,_. _ - 4_ .--_ ----_ _ STRIPING DETAIL THIS &BASE ON VACUUM 4�c-H9ASE!� e4\ t ER DB 4 P 'a S'P Hb AMT STANDAT y,1�..�rOn.L_E.- T NG- 4' POLE STRtF1 2NG 0 0 ... - _ __ _ A L-T p 1 •. - --- _ LONG : 1 24'xlll'-B- AREA mac.-<-_ ,... 'N W SLOTTED DRAIN N CANOPY \. S DWG h-3 ---! ---" �! SEE LAYOUT PLAN 6' CONCRETE SLAB - -- _ 39'-F/t/2' CIA HT 36' W/6x6, 6/6 WWF r' I•.Y •\•, CLEAR DIM �_ '--•_:,_.\ ' �\, ' , -• ..,a\ $v ; I - I{� �_ �' fit' •tt I STEEL BUMPER '.• ' r� • r \ {\ I/. • ! tail i f-"jj / I} ., li �,/�POST (TYP) �_.} V \( 11, a _y I 'O _;y ft�o,Itl i1 1( 1 to CANOPY COL LL EXIS:'JdNT� ( I ' I !!) ' n Op}, tY \\ ,1 i -(TYP 1Tt1 1 00 INSTALL FIRE ..o uPD (TYP) I} 1 a O i 'o.I too; Ex PNGUISHER •� AT GRADE-� N p • ' 1V ;• I -.T 1 1 I AS REO'D BY ISLAND (TYP) ' // � ` •') / I ! .. '^� i._ I FARE uARRSHAL -- '\ EXP. j101NT5 I tut i LL %�j� NE4 SIGN k _^ r'INSTALL NEw 1 f0V T10N I ® / I t2h✓\ 17)40ow YD LT E. S-t, ► NEW 8" CONCRETE yv\ RV III BASE ON rP TANK $ NTH \ 6X6. 6 14' POLEe �— \ WY8— aSP tOM �\, •.\ \;' r ' g ZO Q (y,o INSTALL NEW \ A+ U i H -� 1 `•z }ti S� H A L -T h �: 6" EXTRUDED \ Tom \ \ i J ? A C _ a 3 _ CONIC. CURB _ _\ ®omitted i j- 1 NEW CATCH- -' moo. I \ CH-_.- �•�...__/._. ., _INSTALL NEW __ NEW . -I �_"�� \� . \ I BASIN. SEE ``•---�- �� !"\ well C�3 _ DUAL __-_-_ _ W-ALIJT�G \ look 0 YD LT & BASE 7=ET -'- SAND (1) / t. Ir \ 1 .�' .. m POF.f -.. I .'•WDBL Y j N 1 _ -i FG T NK� 4 m�m� o f"'?'i -- z 15'-0- ID SIGN SETBACK- c�Nrbelln� 1. b` m 1 t ri — o Qj r NEW LATCH BASIN(SEE DWG C-3) 0 15' LANOS�APE BUFFR UTILITY EASEMENT 7171 TURNING ACTION �+I p��' \p-iE,f>; •g N INSTAL NEW 5 CONIC —_ OF LOADED TANKER, THIS 4JAL( WALK W/ SCORED EXP.t AREA TO BE 6" POURED .� '• N 5 CONCRETE DRIVE \• 4-O" SITE TRIANGLE ----.s-CIXJC. WALK { _ : S 00 23'11" E 279. _ - s S 00'21'35' E 279.94' P2ppQQ' MEAS exlsr. , N 00'19'20" W , ea) GR.-1v RY _ oo, sawcQ u..1a N 00'21'35' W La_ 12" X 22" RC[x, t ® E/P r -`--gemr i MAGUIRE ROAD R/W VARIES FROM 80' TO 90' PER P.B. 28, PG'S 2 — 3 WATER 2. ALL ON, MAINTAI 3. NO'PAN 4, THERE 5. TOPOOR 6- FIRE HN 7.'WATERI� LOCATE A : ^1, FOR TI 9. STORM PHASE! 011,Pit VIA A CONSTI 10- THIS, F PLAND P REFERI �-THIS T COMME JULY.', 12. A TRE 13,e THE, C RD. R 1HE I VAIN 15, COLOIVIAL DRIW 0 SERVICE TO BE:PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF: OCOEE. EWER zm U u N SITE PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE :'SYSTEMS WILL BE PRIVATELY, OWNED. AND ru Stormwater outfall to be th CL U i 0 _j be apartment site. Easements to _U SM FLOOD LINE. dedicated at time of platting ,,.'THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 100 YR. NO'� CONSERVATION AREAS-10CATED ON THIS SITE �AS DEFINED IN THE CITY OF OCOEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ROBERSOV Ra 1`._IS- BASED UP ASM SURVEYING MOORE ROAD (It: SHALL, BE SPACED A MAXIMUM DISTANCE.OF 350' APART WITH A MIN. OF FLOW OF 1000 GPM. OF A ir, WATER MAIN I WILL BE P,ROVIDED.VlA,_AN EXTENSION ONGAAQUIRE RD., & THE, EXTENSION OF A 112"t WATER MAIN LOCATED ALONG MOORE RD. iCRETE - BLOCK WALL VILL, BE CONSTRUCTED BY 'TH SE III IN CONJUNCTION ,VEILOPMENT OF,THAT PROPERTY. THE OWNER OF PHASE III WILL BE RESPONSIBLE MAINTENANCE OF THE WALL LANADE APARTMENT PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF PLATTING :APE.,EASEMENT WILL BE.,:'GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THEIESP 114TENANCE OF LANDSCAPING' BETWEEN THE WALL AND'THE ESPLANADE.APARTMENT PROPERTY LINE'.�., ... ....... ..... . ...... ...... ............... HAVE:BEEN DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE STROMWATER RUN OFF FROM LAW .. ........ 0, RETENTION AREAS, ....... . ... DDW WHICH EVER BEGINS 'CONSTRUCTION FIRST. PROJECT OUTFAILL WILL BE, CONSTRUCTED WIT H THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PONDS. Ap -a me. w. asell �OF THE SHOPPING�, CENTER. THE ENTIRE SYSTkMVILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE 2 SHOPPING CNTR. h The E$Plan 4­ z SEMENTS ACROSS THtAPARTMENT LANDS WILL BE PREPARED PLANS FOR THESE, PONDS WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT-�OF PHASE 2. t Location M n i ATE, INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED AT THE TIME OF PLAT RECORDING FOW PHASES 2&3. ;U661VI SION PLAN IS BASED�,UPON REFERENCES 1HE AMENDED LAND USE PLAN FOR -14. SU 'AMENDED LAND P ...... ...... ,GOOVE,APPROVED JULY 2111,1998 BY. THE ORDINANCE No. 98 CH_ RATED HERE IN BY OU D ... ...... ..... . .. ..... ... . ..... ND"THE CONDITIONS OF,:APPROVAL SET FORTH THEREON BEING INCORPO . .. . . .. ..... . ....... ..... ...... ... ii"D:� MADE PART OF THIS'- FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN LU LO WBDIVISION PLAN IS ALSO,�BASED U PLANTATION GROVE - .SHOPPING, CENTER FINAL:�D INARY SUBDIVISION PLAN APPROVED . . ....... .. 192 pedestrian access C� 00 rom apt site to ,M:_ii�'NOT REQUIRED� FOR. THIS SITE. 00 0 phase III property. . . .... .. . . (11 . . .. .. SHALL TIE INTO, WATER MAIN EXTENSION ACROSS MOORE z C14 4ALL REQUEST THAT. ANYONE, VHO STS NSION PLUS ..... E M GUIRE ROAD CORP' -OR THEIR ASSIGNS FROMJHE CO OF SAID EXTE < T 'S Y� PARS -RATA, SHARE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S COST OF INSTALLING THE WATER -PRO -MAGUIRE RD.. L Propo___ riw%tion . ..... sad egal Desc 5'Wall & Landscape easement (see note 8) tk M EXTENSION OF,�A 12" WATER MAIN AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, backflow preventer A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 3Z Township 22 South. Ronge.28 East. Being D _AUCTED BY THE CrrY,-:'OF OCOEE AT THE TIME OF, FOUR LANING OF MOORE ROAD. ]MPROVEMENTS ]NCLUDING, THE 478.78' ady described as follows: THE DEVELOPER'S SHAREI�017 IMPROVEMENTS IS,$13 031. 4 S 00*21'35" E to service phase III more particul development - . ..... . on 3Z Township 22 South, Range 28 East Thence FEES ENT TO THE CITY WILL BE, PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER OF PHASE 3 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PAYMENT OF IMOA T Commence at the Northwest comer of Secti ISSUED ON THE PHASE-3 SHOPPING CENTO PROPERTY Run South 8859'26' East along the North line of the Northwest quarter of sold Section 3Z IASE 3 SHOPPING CENTER ROPERTY. NO BUILDING 'PERMITS SHALL BE . ..... a distance of 40.00 Feet. to a point an the Easterly Right -of -Way line of Maguire Road; Thence xist. 6" pvc water line to be Aar Run South 00*21'35" East, along sold Easterly Right -of -Way line. a d�toace of 111ELBB THE CITY. . ... . ..... PAYMENT IS RECEIVED a6andoned with phase III construction Feet; Thence leaving sold Easterly Right -of -Way, lin e, Run North 89*53 36 East. 20.00 Feet ius.170.00 Feet; Thence Thence X'Wr East. 176;bO Feet: Thence Run South 00*21'35* East, 74.73 Feet. to n South 00*21'SV East 1124.92 Fast to the Point Of Beginning; Thence Run M,'A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN. THE TABLE PROVIDED ON PAGE 2 of 2 . ..... ght out North 89 the point of curvature of, a curve concave Easterly, having a red Right in Ri ["GROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" APPROVED JULY 21, .1992. INCORPORATING OUT PARCEL F existing 10'water'lin"asement Southeasterly along the Arc of sold curva through a central angel of 371600% a distance of 110.52 Feet to the point of a reverse curve concave Westerly having a radius of I DD.00 Feet; ]FAS DEPICTED, ON THE,APPROVED PLAN. Thence Southeasterly along the Arc of sold curve through a central angel of 37'31'25*. a Ln-0 Run South 00'0610* East, 159.10 Feet: Thence Run, South C 50' Building Setback distance of 65.49 Feat, Thence - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8954�50" West 224.32 Feet; Thence Run North 00"21'35' West 397.48 Feet to the exi4t. 8" sanitary sewer line to PERVIOUS SURFACE'AREA FOR THE EACH LOT sHALL BE 70X. point of beginning. servicdpk�se III development of Ocoee, Orange County, Florida and containing 1.845 Acres more Ak.ACCESS TO THE MAGUIRE & MOORE ROADS WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY Or�'OCOEE U or losm 0 ""\road to connect e ------ 1% Sold lands lying In the City kPPROVED LOCATIONS WSHOW ON THE PLANTATION GROVE AMENDED, LAND.USE PL Proposed N co Future service Drainage 1998. Proposed Right of Way z the existing shop�hR, center (phase 1) Easement AND WILL A MULTANEOUSLY AS A SINGLE COMMERCIAL PLAT. C.4 to 11 be provided along the east 0 (Typ.) PLATTED Moore Rd. wi Existing Right,of Way A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 22 South, Range 28 East, being more particularly described as follows; phase 3. WILL' BE- UNFENCED WITH A MAXIMUM 5:1 SIDE SLOPE. property line with the velopment of oProposed 5' Sidewalk tR':.PONbS WILL BE OWNED'AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1'& 2. Commence at the Northwest corner of Section 3Z Township 22 South, Range 28, East; Thence Run South 8959`26' East along the North line of the Northwest quarter of acid Section 3Z --EASEMENT WILL BE PLACED OVER RETENTION..AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS Vlk,, THE RECORDING Turn Lane by City a distance of 40.00 Fes� to a point on the Northeasterly Right -of -Way line of Maguire Road; .. .. . ..... %L PLAT. Thence Run South 00-2135 East. along sold Eanterly,RIght-of-Way line a distance of 1118.56 Fact Thence leaving said Easley Right -of -Way line Run North 89*5336" East, 16 20.00 Feat; Thence Run South 0021*35' East, 904.85 Feet Then R n North ce u L BE PROVIDED THROUGH LOT I TO LOT 2 TO ALLOW F TRAFFIC MER! u ure 8954'5(r East. 170.00 Feet. to the Point Of BegInnInT, Thence Run North 89*38*25* OFFZ 'UT ON MAGUIRE RD. AND,LOT 2. F t access to phase I from East. 342.54 Feet; Thence Run South 00"21'35" East. 1.00 Feet; Thence Run North Moore Rd. . The exact location 89*38*25* East. 234.86 Feet, Thence Run North 0021'35" West. 1.00 Feet; Thence 'ACCESS DRIVES BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND, THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER WILL NOf" HAVE PARKING S 1 i� Run North 89*,W25* East. 21.00 Feet; Thence Run South 00'21'35* Ecat. 478.78 Feat-, 21'35' East. t Thence Run Smith 5371'33' West, 26.05 Feet* Thence Run South Go' will be determined at the time Thence Run South 89*54'50` West, 573.09 Feet; Thence Run North ONTO THESE PRIVATE'ROADWAYS. 126.89 Feet z of site plan approval for phase 3. 00'05'10* West, 159.10 Feet. to the point of curve concave Westerly having a radius of 100.00 Feet; Thence Northwesterly along the Are of sold curve concave through a c DN', OF THE RETENTION "PONDS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED'PRELI N SITE PLAN rbO ESPLANADIE"iPARTMEN'TS. entral angle of 37*3 ,J A 1*25', a distance of 65.49 Feet, to a point on a reverse curve concave Easterly having Fire A�ilraht a radius of 170.00 FeaL Thence Northwesterly along the Are of sold curve through a central angel F ....... . . a /k c Thence Run North 00'21'35* West 295.58 of 371500% a distance of 110.52 Feet. Feet, to the point of beginning. :f Full Access Said [ends lying In the City of Ocoee, Orange County, Florida and containing EL158 Acres mom RECOVERED PIC NAL . ...... ....... or Ism DISM LB FROG alk Proposed 5'Sidew �Lo . . ....... Lot 2\ 30'Permenent Utility Easement A_� Per O.R. 3427, Pgs. 970 -972 Phase 10 O.R. 3578, Pg. 811 tn O.R. 3534, Pg. 575 < N q4 7. f9h 4 a c 0 R. 3490, Pg. 2172 z LLJ 'k- f 30'& 60'Permenent Utility Ea sement LJ Cn Plantation Grove ng Center 10 1 5541 g.f.a,.) Per. O.R. 3598, Pg 2594 'Shoppi (.0 g p Opus South P.B., 33,Pgs. 21 C4 f'x Zoning PUD'. 1 GiAITI N J- A R k­ City of Ocoee Proposed N-S access road to be R Fire Station U), constructed wl phase If development 0 CO IOU, I 0 03 Legend Turn Lane by City W WATER LINE W1 FIRE HYDRANT 4' Tract along entire Moore Rd. right of way SANITARY SEWER LINE Dedicated to the city by plat. DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW STORMWATER 0 Lo EXISTING CONTOURS WIVI WATERMAIN in FIVI FORCEMAIN 0.t 0 1 4 Proposed phase 11 ar"'ite Data boundary CK) F Right in Right out z \ , EXISTING ZONING PUD 1"14 Potential access easement GROSS LAND AREA 1 D.0 ACRES RETAIL COMMERCIAL APPROVED USE Turn Lane by City to lot 5. J"i ..... . ..... APPROVED Sq.Ff. 107,541 6,000 - - - - - - - - - - - PHASE 11 la dscapeiarea-,­ .......... .... RECOVERED 5/V 9 ROD CAP EB JM7 6- -landscape buffer -PHASE 111 101,541 original phase.Lil W 215.00 boundary N C .20 Right of way APPROVED F.A.R. E5zo Buildii q Setb; ck 10' Building Setback i k57 r REQUIRED PARKING iQ W CP Lot 1 0 1 SPACE/200 'SQ.Ft. PHASEII 12" waterline to be constructed by the city r, b� 3-33 Pg 21 42) Phase 11 Lot R, P1 § I spac a/200 Sq. Ft. GFA PHASE III Mobile Oil LLJ C Bank Site inconjunction with Moore Rd. 5 451x15'sign co Ret 'I C mercial ai Gas Station 2.1_ 38 spaces(surface p rking) CNI improvements. The developer MAXIMUM PARKING 107,541 s.f.) P. U. D. reimburse the city per note #14 CL. U & Landscape -,(6,000 g.Tr. a.) BUILDING SET13ACK /f Und el 0 easement,p -44. roje8t FRONT( Maguire Rd.) 400 'Dh FYI identification 'be coordir�6fefl sa itary sewer /j, iveway design to Fj 15' FRONT( phase 111.) m e to service OD with site plan for lot I z 35' j z SOUTH (Moore Rd.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40'Building Setback Esplanade'A 50' pts pha� REAR' 15'Landscape Buffer & Utility Easement Fire Hydraht NORTH (Ex. Shopping Center) of __T per PB.33 Pg 21 �j Proposed 16 Land;;;;gffL& N, 2.19.5T -­1Y­­­ 'a E c.N yplal 9 MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 112 PLAIM RI(W-OF-ftY .. .. . ... . .. VV . . . . . .......... M', ­p L REQUIRED OPEN SPACE ACRES 6xiii. f2" idat&inIn Right in I Right out .. ........ ... ........ a, _Pro�osed I U) water line PROJECTED A.D.T. 15,090