NASSAU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Nassau Place, Yulee, Florida Public Service Building REGULAR MEETING September 4, 2007

Transcription

1 NASSAU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Nassau Place, Yulee, Florida Public Service Building REGULAR MEETING September 4, :00 am Sign-off/Variation of Development Plans/Plats Distribution of New Submittals and Re-Submittals Blackheath Park, re-plat Plummer Creek, Phase One, plat Bailey Road Apartments, SP Azalea Point Plaza Outparcel, SP Status of All Current Projects 9:30 10:00 10:30 Additional Approvals and/or Distributions as Necessary

2 NASSAU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT Site Plans/Plats by Commissioner's District District 1 - Jim B. Higginbotham District 2 Mike Boyle Amsouth Bank, PUD, SP Azalea Point Plaza, SP Bailey Road Improvements/ Amelia Island Parkway Roundabout, SP Bob s Mini-Storage, Phase II, SP Dunes Lodge, PUD, SP Five Points Plaza Outparcel/TJ of Nassau, SP The Gate (F.K.A. Barnwell II), SP The Gate (F.K.A. Barnwell II), plat Goffinsville Park, SP Hendricks Road 195 Monopole Johnson s Hammock, plat Lakes at Amelia Concourse, SP Lakes at Amelia Concourse, plat Marsh Lakes-Outparcel, SP Oyster Bay Harbours, Johnson, Bay, Contessa Islands, SP Preserve at Summer Beach, Unit Three, SP Preserve at Summer Beach, Unit Two, re-plat Spencer Cove, Lot 1, replat Woodbridge Village 4-9, SP Woodbridge Village 4-9, plat District 3 - Tom Branan A1A & Chester Retail Development, SP Amelia Concourse, Phase III, SP Amelia Concourse, Phase III, plat Amelia Station, PUD, SP BB&T Bank, SP Blackrock Cove, SP Blackrock Cove, Plat Blackheath Park, SP Blackheath Park, re-plat Coastal Self Storage, SP ERA Realty, Redesign, SP Flora Parke, Unit 5, plat Hampton Lakes, Phase III, PUD, SP Hampton Lakes, Phase II, plat Harden & Associates Yulee Office Bldg., SP Heritage Oaks, SP Heritage Oaks, Plat Nassau Power Sports, SP Oakwoods, Re-plat Racetrac Service Station, SP Riverbend, Phase I, SP Ron Anderson Chevy Bay Addition, SP The Shoppes at Eagle's Crossing, SP Warehouse Commons LLC, SP District 4 - Barry Holloway Brantley Plantation, SP Brantley Plantation, plat Cross Branch, plat Happy Tales Kennel, SP

3 Tompkins Landing, SP Tompkins Landing, plat District 5 Marianne Marshall Bent Oaks Plantation, SP Bent Oaks Plantation, plat Clear Lake Estates, Unit Two, plat Greene Terrace, SP Greene Terrace, plat Hawks Landing, plat Hawks Landing, SP Meadow's Bend, plat Plummer Creek, Unit One, SP (revised) Plummer Creek, Phase One, plat River Glen, Phase II & III, SP Timber Creek Commercial, SP Tupelo Plantation West, plat West Meadow Plantation, SP West Meadow Plantation, plat 3

4 SITE PLANS/PLATS UPDATE A1A & CHESTER RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, SP PUD, 51,675 sf, 411 parking spaces, 1 building 35 height, acres, located within the Nassau Center PUD, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 1 May 2007, distributed: 8 May Re-Submittal: 12 July 2007, distributed: 17 July Building: 23 July 2007: 1. Need to add or relocate at least (2) of the accessible parking spaces to approximate center-line of 18,150 sf retail building accessible route. Need to add Detectable Warning Material on both sides and stripe crosswalk, curb ramp, etc. 2. Provide crosswalks and pedestrian rout to.79 acre out parcel. 3. Provide Detectable Warning Material on both sides of crosswalks (typ). Computerized Plans: 8 May 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval. Concurrency: 8 May 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Engineering: 6 August 2007: PREVIOUS COMMENTS: #1. A St. Johns permit was not included with the submittal and is still required. #2. If there are any street connections or storm water discharges to A1A, a FDOT permit will also be required. #3. There was no traffic report submitted with this project and one is required. It should detail the proposed volume of traffic for the proposed buildings and outlots, interior traffic flow and the need for turn lanes and street striping, etc. The turn lanes plans will need to show the length, width, cross sections, joint details, ties to existing pavement, sidewalks and stationing. A complete review will not possible until this report and proper plans are submitted. #4. I checked with the Department s director and his viewpoint is that you are entitled to one access point onto Chester Road within your frontage. He did inform you in the meeting that the County intends to widen Chester Road to 4 or 6 lanes and expects to install a center median. This would allow right turns into this site from Chester Road, but prevent left turn out. There will also need to be a merge lane on the North side of Chester Road. #5. The reasoning presented is inaccurate, also it is expected that any right turn lane into any street opposite of the Shoppes of Amelia would need to be several hundred feet long and would extend past the proposed second entrance, thus you would have a entrance off of a turn lane. #6. The site PUD allows one entrance onto A1A at a point opposite the entrance to the Lofton Pointe shopping center on the South side of A1A. The entrance shown on the plans violates Section 35.05(H)(b) of county ordinance 97-19, which stated for retail business centers, the creation of out parcels is prohibited unless access to said parcel is not directly to A1A. The correct solution is to establish a frontage street to the singles existing allowable access point. #7. Our regulation does not prohibit submission of plans for review without a St. Johns permit, but final approval is conditioned on have a St. Johns permit. The interior street should be part of this project so as to relieve some of the traffic from Chester Road and A1A as was the intention of the original PUD design. The Chester Rd. intersection is already overloaded and when the Concourse is completed this year more traffic will enter the intersection from the South. This interior street is need to allow another exit and access without entering that intersection. It will also be very beneficial to the developer as it will allow shoppers better access to the stores. The County has been cooperative in allowing a delay in construction of this street with other projects with less traffic, but believes that this interior street is essential to this development. #8. Fire engines need to be able to turn around and some provision needs to be made for them. Based on the present design, the interior street goes nowhere and a Cul de Sac would be required at the end as well as collection of the storm water generated by the street. #9. What does your statement mean? #12. No traffic study detailing the amount of traffic, the need for turn lanes, and design parameters for such lanes was submitted; therefore, no comments can be made at this time. #13. Based on the statements that there will be a median in Chester Road, an interior left turn out lane would not be needed, it is also questionable if the center painted median on the internal street is needed. It may be better to have a simple two lane entrance and street and then add right turn lanes at each intersection. #14. Referring to Sheet C-1: a. The plan and profile sheet does not indicate any soil borings data and there is no information of the existing ground water elevation. This information is required. b. There is no detail of the intersection of the Entrance road and Chester Road. c. There is no drainage pipe 4

5 shown at the entrance to convey water in the ditch on Chester road. There is none shown on the plan view on the plan and profile sheet either. e. Road A is still not identified on the plan view sheets. #15. Referring to following comments: a. The detail sheet C-150 does not contain some information of street construction; however, there are some question and errors. 1. The lime rock base should have a minimum LBR of 100, not 75. Also sub base should be 12 thick. It would be better to reorganize the table into, main streets, side streets and parking areas. 2. The pavement/curb detail specifies ACC pavement. This is a generic term. County design requirement require a minimum of 1 ½ inches of SP 12.5 for local streets and 2 inches of SP 12.5 for minor collector streets. A tack coat is required but not 2 of binder. 3. For clarity, please add a notation on the detail requiring a minimum of 2% cross slope. 4. In Note #1 of detail #4 on C-150, sod is required an all slopes greater than 3:1 and one foot width of sod is required next to curbs on all streets for erosion protection. 5. In detail #5, on same sheet, it displays cutting the curb and installing an ADA ramp. This joint is a source of infiltration and at least part of the ramp should be poured monolithly with the curb. b. Sidewalks and curbs are not shown on one side of Section B-B and D-D and should be added. Also section AA & CC total only 76 feet wide in an 80 foot right of way? Lastly, the detail show a drop off next to sidewalks, in such instances handrails should be added to protect pedestrians. c. Road swales have been omitted so my comment is moot. h. Moot. i. There isn t a cross reference on C-420 explaining where the sections are shown on a plan view. Such a reference should be added and a second cross reference on the plan view sheet indicating the location of the street cross sections should also be added. #16 &17. I don t understand your answer. Sheet C-110 indicates that the area is paved and there are interior parking spaces on the perimeter, yet you state that it is pervious? Please explain the purpose of the service area. You also state that the design is incomplete. The county does not approve incomplete projects. Either a determination should be made of its use and design, or the area can be blocked out and removed from this submittal. At some future date when a decision is made, then a new submittal for this parcel only can be submitted for review. #18. Details are noted. Please add notations on C 110 that all parking lots perimeter curbs are to be city curbs. Identify all other curbs as to type on plans. #21. Where is the culvert? #22. Can t review or respond because drainage report was not submitted. #23. There is still a detail labeled control structure on Sheet C-531? #28. Detention is required by the County for all runoff. As stated SJRWMD and the County are each independent and approval of one is not binding or interchangeable with the other. #30. The County does not approve projects that are incomplete. You need to provide complete grading plans and a building footprint and parking. An alternate is to remove the parcels from the submittal and resubmit as a new and separate project later when the design is complete. #31. On Sheets C-130 and C-131, there appears to be a dotted line around the projects perimeter. If this is incorrect, then add legend and identify the symbol as the project boundary. It is very important for both the developer and the County to know exactly what area is being reviewed. #32. There were no computations or drainage report included with this submittal. #34. Where are the pipe lengths and pipe material specified? #35. An interesting reply. As I understand your comment you are stating that the ground water level curves so as to remain the same distance from the ground. I thought the common belief was that water seeks its own level and always has a flat surface? Please expand on your reasoning. #36. County procedure is for all wetlands to be identified on construction plans. When there are no wetlands on the site then there should be a notation added stating that there are no wetlands as determined by. The person or company responsible for the determination should be inserted in the space. NEW COMMENTS: Sheets C-135 and C-136 (Pre and Post Development) sheets were not included in the plan set, they should be included in the next submittal. #38. Sheet C-140 is also missing but I think it was incorporated into Sheet C-540. If so, then it should be removed from the Table of Contents. #39. Sheet C-120 indicates an open cut on Chester Road for the water main. This should be a boring, please change. #40. You are welcome to use any sheet identification method you wish, but the streets should also be labeled consecutively in a numerical order with the total number of sheets identified ( 1 of 27, etc.). #41. A street lighting plan for the project is required. It should be designed to provide light at intersections along roadways and in parking areas. The system should be designed to avoid glare onto vehicles on Chester Rd. or A1A and provide vehicle and pedestrian safety within the site. #42. There must be a MOT plan for any work on A1A or Chester Road. #43. There should be designated crosswalks on all interior streets. #44. Storm sewer from S-25 to S-28 and from S-19 to S-13 exceed the maximum allowable distance between access points as shown in Section of Nassau County ordinance #45. Along Chester Road, the city standard curb should end at the Right of Way line and revert to ribbon curbs and then a flare so as to protect the Chester Road asphalt. #46. On Sheet C-120, you haven t changed the plan view of your storm sewer as the old culvert and pond discharge lines are still shown faintly. Growth Management : 8 August 2007: 1 & 2. Growth Management is in receipt of your response dated July 12, It remains the position of the Growth Management Department that the proposed development of a commercial shopping center on approximately 25 acres located within the Nassau Center PUD zoning district has not sufficiently demonstrated consistency with the underlying FLUM designation 5

6 of Industrial (I). The comprehensive plan of Nassau County indicates that Land designated for industrial use is intended for activities that are predominately associated with the manufacturing, assembly, processing, or storage of products. Industrial land uses provides for a variety of intensities of use including heavy industry, light industry, and industrial park operations. Ordinance amendment the Nassau Center PUD to include the following language: The total acreage for the Nassau Center PUD is approximately one hundred and seventy one (+/- 171) acres. The total acreage of NON-INDUSTRIAL uses in Parcels A-K shall not exceed seventy (70) acres in order to maintain the principal land use as Industrial as designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The preliminary development plan adopted indicates that Parcels A-K total approximately one hundred forty-one (141) acres. Non-industrial uses include commercial activities, restaurants, retail stores, car washes, government uses, utilities, wetlands, etc. There remains significant vacant acreage within Parcels A-K of the Nassau Center PUD that involves properties not owned by Chester Road, LLC. On numerous occasions, such as February 14, 2007, the preliminary meeting with the Development Review Committee on April 24, and at our meeting on July 10, 2007, Growth Management has indicated that an amendment to the PUD is necessary to accommodate the proposed shopping center and identify the site-specific uses for approval. Growth Management finds that during the Nassau Center PUD amendment process, Chester Road, LLC can simultaneously demonstrate that the project will be consistent with the comprehensive plan of Nassau County. Development of the properties under your ownership as shown in the proposed plans directly affects the property rights of the remaining land owners in the Nassau Center PUD, it is through the PUD amendment process that the fair and equitable distribution of uses within Parcels A-K can be ensured. It also would have the effect of increasing traffic generation. Your failure to provide a list of proposed uses for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners renders their decision-making process more difficult. Staff notes that the plan has been modified to exclude the bank parcel located on the northeast quadrant of State Road 200 and Chester Road. 3. Policy A of the Comprehensive Plan of Nassau County states that Rights-of-Way for planned improvement projects shall be protected through negotiated purchase or right-of-way contribution through the development review process, or other right-of-way preservation mechanisms permitted through State law. Address the construction of the interior road from Nassau Place to Chester Road and Identify additional right-of-way dedication for Chester Road separate from the perimeter landscape buffer required as part of the PUD. Staff notes your response dated July 12, 2007 and resolution of issue can be accomplished through the recommended PUD amendment. [Section g of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 4. Include in the tabulation of site areas: land coverage, total parking area, and the total area of open space. Please note that the land coverage maximum for Industrial land use classification, per of the Comprehensive Plan of Nassau County is 50% not 80%. Land coverage is defined as the total area of all impervious improvements on a parcel of land. This includes, but is not limited to, total area of all structures, all parking facilities, and all stormwater retention facilities measured at the normal high water level. Staff notes your response dated July 12, 2007 and respectfully disagrees with the position stated. Development is subject to a maximum land coverage requirement of fifty (50) percent as stated above. All development orders must be consistent with the intensity standards established in the Comprehensive Plan. [Section c of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations and Policy , Nassau County Comprehensive Plan]. 5. Include a table identifying areas of each tract and outparcel on the site engineering plans. This item was acknowledged by the acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section d of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 6. Please include a graphical scale on all applicable pages. This item was acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section e of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 7. Include on the plans the dimensions of structures (vertical and horizontal), type of construction as defined by the adopted Building Code, and major features including setbacks and percent of lot coverage. This item was acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section f of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 8. Landscape plans do not clearly identify the types and locations of plants please include a legend for each symbol used. Locations of existing trees are not shown. Please note that a minimum of 25% of the total caliper inches of all hardwood trees in excess of six (6) inches at dbh must be preserved. The plans submitted do not demonstrate having met this requirement. Additional buffer areas are required for those areas located within parcel A-1. Please refer to PUD Conditions that require a minimum fifty (50) feet buffer along the public right of way. This item was acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section k of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 9. Please show the location of on-site lighting and signs. Note that signage must comply with the A1A Overlay Regulations contained in Article 35 of Nassau County Land Development Code. This item was acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section l of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 10. Provide the information on jurisdictional wetlands; show 6

7 wetland buffers and include a wetland calculations table required in Section 6.5 (as revised by Ord ) of the Development Review Regulations. This information must be shown on the plans, if adjacent properties include wetlands, the twenty-five (25) feet average, and fifteen (15) feet minimum distance separation must be demonstrated on the plans. [Section n of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 11. Location of all dumpsters and screened enclosure details. Note that these areas must be screened in accordance with Article 35 of the Nassau County Land Development Code. This item was acknowledged by the Engineer and will be addressed in future submittals. [Section o of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 12. Proposed access points are not consistent with the Nassau Center PUD preliminary development plan. Revised access points may be considered during the review of the PUD amendment discussed above. Staff notes your response dated July 12, 2007 and resolution of this issue can be accomplished through the recommended PUD amendment. [Nassau Center PUD Ordinance ]. Health: 2 August 2007: 1. Utility Extension Plan Review Fee based on the following guidelines $300 plan review for extension to a subdivision or $20 per developed lot where the sewer line passes more than 15 developed properties (homes or businesses): $100 plan review for extension to a single residence or business- provide plans for sewer extension for review/determination of Utility Extension Fee. (unless applied before April 2005 for Utilities). 2. Provide dumpster pad with hose bibb and drain with locking cap. 3. The proposed site plan is requesting public water and public sewer capability; therefore, a letter from the utility provider indicating that water and sewer is available will be required prior to final approval of plan. 4. Provide site plan for sewer extension showing all wells including adjacent properties, or note on plans no wells within 200 of proposed sewer extension (indicate page number) 5. Completed site plan review application with $45.00 review fee. Traffic: 6 August 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 20 December AMELIA CONCOURSE, PHASE III, SP RS-2, 172 lots, acres, located on the Amelia Concourse, south of North Hampton, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 2 August 2007, distributed: 7 August Building: 16 August 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Plans: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Concurrency: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 8 August 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management : 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 20 August 2007: 1. Utility Extension Plan Review-fee based on the following guidelines; $ plan review for extension to a subdivision or $20.00 per developed lot where the sewer line passes more than 15 developed properties (home or businesses); $ plan review for extension to a single residence or business-provide plans for sewer extension for review/determination of Utility Extension Fee. (unless applied before April 2005 for Utilities). 2. Provide site plan for sewer extension showing all wells, or note on plans no wells within 200 of proposed sewer extension (includes adjacent properties). 3. Completed site plan review application with $45.00 fee required prior to final approval. Traffic: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 9 May AMELIA CONCOURSE, PHASE III, PLAT RS-2, 172 lots, acres, located on the Amelia Concourse, south of North Hampton, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 2 August 2007, distributed: 7 August Building: 16 August 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Plans: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Concurrency: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 17 August 2007: 1. The application included a copy of the St. Johns River Water Management District permit for Phase II of this project. A permit for Phase III will be needed, unless a previous permit included this tract. 2. Referring to detail A, you can t replat the Phase One plat by recording this plat. The existing lot owners of Phase 1 need to sign off on any replating. If you own all of those lots then a small separate detail plat could be recorded. 3. Who will own tracts 7 & 8, it is not specified in the dedication statement and an owner should be specified. The same for Tracts C, D, E and F, they should be dedicated to a specific entity. 4. What is the meaning of the symbol PRO in front of all of the first floor elevations? 5. The streets must have official names and not letter names before final plat approval. Fire/Rescue: 7 August 2007: approved as submitted. 7

8 Growth Management: 7 August 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 19 February 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 17 August 2007: see Engineering comments. 911 Addressing: 7 August 2007: We need road names for Road C & D. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 9 May AMELIA STATION, PUD, SP PUD, 110,027 sf, 3 existing, 11 proposed with 592 parking spaces on approximately acres, located on Lofton Square Boulevard, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 16 August 2007, distributed: 21 August Building: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 21 August 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 28 August 2007: 1. Provide the location and size of existing and proposed water mains. 2. Show location of fire protection backflow preventer(s) for fire sprinkler systems. 3. Provide electricity to proposed fire protection backflow preventer(s) for the purpose of protection of freezing. 4. Provide a fire hydrant in front of building # s 2 & 4, on the north side, in the landscape islands. 5. Provide a fire hydrant between building # s 10 & 11, on the east side, in the landscape island. 6. All fire department access roads (drive isles including one way isles) shall be a minimum of 20 ft. Growth Management: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Traffic: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: 16 August 2007: application filed. AMSOUTH BANK, SP PUD, 3,820 square feet, 1.45 acres, located within the Azalea Pointe PUD, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 8 March 2007, distributed: 13 March Re-Submittal: 26 June 2007, distributed: 3 July Building: 23 July 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 13 March 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 13 March 2007: awaiting comments. Engineering: 13 July 2007: PREVIOUS COMMENTS: #1. Your reasoning is incorrect. The original project included storm sewer design up to the existing inlets and manholes in Spring Blossom Lane. The total commercial site was only included in the design computations for the detention pond. The engineer assumed a maximum of 75% impervious area computed the flow and designed the storm sewers and detention pond accordingly. You can review our files or St. Johns River Water Management District files to verify this. Nassau County did not review this project although Ordinance was passed before the project was approved. I suppose an exception was made because the project had been reviewed prior to the ordinance s adoption and it was in the pipeline. St. John s River Water Management District did issue permit # , please refer to condition #25 which states, Prior to construction of the commercial parcels, the permitee must submit paving and grading plans to staff (St. Johns) and receive staff approval. The plans must demonstrate the runoff from the (entire) commercial parcel will be conveyed to the surface water management system (detention pond) and that impervious area of the parcels does not exceed 75%. Section 6.3 of Nassau County Ordinance requires the County to include St. Johns River Water Management District s approval for your project. #3. You are in error, my letter and our phone conversation did not state that you were exempt from submitting plans. It should also be clarified that your storm sewer design must include provisions for future service to the remaining commercial area on the north side. #4. I could not find a defined buffer on Sheet C-1. There is an area with several trees, but the buffer must be defined on the plans. #5. An unsealed and unsigned two page traffic report was submitted late, but was reviewed. It determined that there would be 942 new trips/ day to site. While the report refers to pass by trips, Section of Ordinance states that turn lanes are determined by daily trips, there is no provision for a reduction due to pass by trips. The new traffic volume requires that both right and left turn lanes be constructed into Spring Blossom Lane. These lanes must be designed to FDOT standards and designed to serve the volume for the entire commercial area and the existing residences. It is my understanding that plans are being submitted for a commercial area on the south side of Spring Blossom and most likely they will have the same requirement. Possibly both parties could cooperate and share the cost of the turn lanes. Also, include a signed and sealed copy of the traffic report with your next submittal. #8. As stated above, a complete drainage report, storm sewer design and computations are required. #10. As it appears that your design is equal to or exceeds the county s 8

9 requirements the design is acceptable. NEW COMMENTS: #11. All submittals require a geo tech report to determine the ground water level and soil types. It was stated in the notes that such report was conducted, but apparently a report was not submitted with the first submittal; please include a copy of your site geo tech report with your next submittal. #12. Section of ordinance requires maintenance of traffic plan for any work in a County right of way; this applies to Spring Blossom lane. #13. You will need a construction permit and MOT approval from FDOT for any construction in the A1A right of way. #14. Please verify that your standard details for stop signs, etc comply with Nassau County design standards. #15. There should be a standard detail for a standard parking space showing the length and width. #16. Please remove general note #14. #17. It is assumed that the dotted line around the site with distances and bearing on Sheet C2 is the limits of this submittal. If so, then please identify same as project boundaries, so there is a clear understanding of the site being reviewed. It should be noted that this is the second review and you have yet to submit a complete set of plans and all reports, this is causing a delay for your client and excessive review time for the County. Please revise the plans, add a drainage report and geo tech report and resubmit for further review. Fire/Rescue: 13 March 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 5 July 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 6 August 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 13 July 2007: see Engineering plans. SJRWMD: # ERP, dated: 31 March 1999 AZALEA POINT PLAZA OUTPARCEL, SP PUD, 4 professional offices with a total of 9,303 square feet, located on SR200/A1A, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submittal: 28 August 2007, distributed: 4 September2007. Building: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 4 September 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Growth Management : 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Traffic: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: 20 August 2007: Modification application filed. BB&T BANK,SP IW w/conditional Use, 3,999 sf, 1.02 ac, 29 parking spaces, located within the Amelia Concourse, Yulee area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 12 October 2006, distributed: 17 October Building: 18 October 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 17 October 2006: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 17 October 2006: awaiting comment. Engineering: 13 November 2006: 1. You will need a letter of concurrency for the project. If you haven't already done so, please contact Brad Powell in our department for details. 2. Please identify the adjacent parcels by lot number and if they are occupied, then identify the occupant (company). 3. The plan is not specific on the type of outside curbs. Please identify the type of curb on the outside of the parking area and provide a detail. 4. Provide a detail of a standard roadway section with specifications for sub base, limestone and asphalt. 5. Section of Nassau County Ordinance allows commercial driveways onto local road to vary from 24 to 30 feet. Both driveways scale to be about 34 wide and should be removed. Fire Rescue: 18 October 2006: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 30 November 2006: 1. Include the legal description of the subject property on the engineering plans. [Section b of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 2. Include the north arrow on all pages. [Section e of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 3. Please show the dimensions of the proposed building, show setback distance from drivethru canopy area from rear of property line, and percent of lot coverage (building only). [Section f of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 4. Show the location of any signage and lighting. Note that signage must comply with A1A Overlay Regulations. [Section l of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 5. Please include the location and screening details for the dumpster area, this needs to be consistent with the requirements screening areas for dumpster enclosures within standards found in Article 35 of the Nassau County Zoning Code. [Section o of the Nassau County 9

10 Development Review Regulations]. 6. Identify adjacent land uses on the site engineering plans. [Section v of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. Health: 31 October 2006: approved as submitted. Traffic: 13 November 2006: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: 18 September 2006: modification application filed. BAILEY ROAD APARTMENTS, SP RG-2, 48 units, 4.86 acres, located at the corner of Bailey Road and Amelia Island Parkway, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submittal: 28 August 2007, distributed: 4 September2007. Building: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 4 September 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Growth Management : 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. Traffic: 4 September 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: 30 August 2007: application filed. BAILEY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS/AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY ROUNDABOUT, SP Bailey Road improvement from Crane Island Access Road to Amelia Island Parkway. Installation of a Roundabout at Amelia Island Parkway and Bailey Road, Fernandina Beach area.. Developer: Submittal: 23 August 2007, distributed: 28 August Building: 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 28 August 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: exempt Engineering: 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. Growth Management : 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. Traffic: 28 August 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: # , issue date 30 October BENT OAKS PLANTATION, SP RS-2, 198 lots, acres located east of Callahan on the north side of SR200/A1a west of Gressman Road, Callahan area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 15 December 2006, distributed: 20 February 2007 Building: 22 February 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 20 February 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 24 October 2006: Final Certificate of Concurrency Granted with Conditions. Engineering: 14 March 2007: 1. This project will need concurrency, if there is a concurrency letter issued, please provide a copy. Otherwise, submit an application for concurrency with this department as soon as possible. 2. The project will need a permit from St. Johns River Water Management District before final approval is given. 3. The traffic study will be needed to determine the number of daily trips and recommendations for turn lanes at the entrance of the project. The study should also address the method of turning East onto the highway. Presently there is a Highway left turn lane onto Gressman Road. It is unlikely that another left turn lane would be allowed and if Gressman Road is to be used as a significant entranceway then it will need to be upgraded to County local road standards including possible additional right of way. 4. There is a notation on Sheet 44 requiring the contractor to perform groundwater testing in accordance with EPA requirement to determine petroleum groundwater contamination levels. If there is a possibility of groundwater contamination, then these tests should be done before the plans are approved and supervised by a Professional Engineer and not a contractor. Groundwater contamination would affect the design of the project and especially the use of underground drains to lower the groundwater table. These test should be started immediately and it is doubtful if the plans will be approved without acknowledgement from proper agencies that there will be no contamination of the surface waters or effect on new homeowners. 5. The geotech report states that the seasonal high water table is basically at the surface. The streets, as designed, are basically at the existing surface elevation or slightly higher or slightly lower. This design will not allow a proper distance between the ground water and the bottom of the limestone sub base. All affected streets need to be raised so as to 10

11 provide a proper clearance between the limestone and the seasonal high water table. The above comments may require significant design changes to the project, a review of the plans submitted will be completed, but not as detailed as normal. Only significant general items will be noted. 6. There should be a provision for a street extending to the West from this subdivision in accordance with the County's goal of providing interconnectivity of projects to remove local traffic from major roadways. 7. It was noted that there is not a street detail for the divided entrance street and such a detail should be added. 8. It is unclear if there is an intention to use Gressman Road as an emergency or future entrance. The plat refers to a future Phase 3 on the other side of Gressman Road. In any event a Cul de sac is not required at the end of H Street and conflicts with Section 4.6 of Nassau County Ordinance which requires the Cul de sacs be a minimum of 50 feet from the project boundary line. In any event, the 60 foot wide street right of way should be extended to Gressman Road for future possible use. If Gressman Road becomes part of the development, it will be necessary to upgrade the road, including providing a 60 foot right of way, if needed. 9. Inlet sill elevations are required to be at or above the 25 year rain event water level in their respective detention ponds. An initial review indicated that Inlets S49, S52, and S99 were too low and need to be raised. 10. The storm sewer design was based on a 3 year rain event. Section of Nassau County Ordinance requires that the sewer be designed to a minimum of a 5 year rain event. The intensity criteria is the Zone 4 I-D_F curves in the FDOT Drainage Handbook. The computations need to be revised. 11. The two detention pond discharges are Out 1 and Out 2. Out 1 discharge near the abandoned railroad right of way and Out 2 discharges into FDOT highway land. Section of Nassau County ordinance requires that all storm water from a project have a legal positive discharge points which will not adversely affect downstream land or create flooding. Out 2 will need a permit or letter from FDOT allowing discharge onto their land. There is insufficient contour information to determine what happens to the discharge flow at Out 2. More information needs to be added to the plans or as a supplement explaining that this point is a valid discharge point. 12. Transfer line S66-S67 from Pond 2 to Pond 3 is 207 feet long in the pipe table, but 100 feet long in the ICPR program, please correct as needed. 13. S58-S59, which is the pond discharge line is not included in the pipe schedule and should be added. I suggest that all ICPR pipes be reviewed and verify that they are properly shown in the pipe schedule. 14. The pond outlet structure detail on Sheet 42 is confusing. I could not get the weir lengths in the table to match the span widths in the ICPR program. Please review these entries and if possible reorganize the table for clarity. 15. It is also not clear if the offsite areas are being drained into the pond and flow through or if retention volume is provided for these offsite areas. Please explain. Fire/Rescue: 23 February 2007: 1. Provide a master utility sheet, to scale, for fire hydrant locations. 2. Fire hydrants shall be provided at intersections where possible. 3. The maximum distance between fire hydrants hall be 500 ft. Health: 22 February 2007: 1. The proposed plan is requesting public water and public sewer capability; therefore, a letter from the utility provider indicating that water and sewer is available will be required prior to final approval of plan. 2. Provide site plan for sewer extension showing all wells, or note "no wells with 200' of proposed sewer extension". (includes existing wells on adjacent properties. 3. Utility Extension Plan Review Fee: $300 plan review for extension to a subdivision or $20 per developed lot where the sewer line passes more than 15 developed properties (homes or businesses). $100 plan review for extension to a single residence or business. 4. Please submit completed site plan review application $ review fee. Growth Management: 16 April 2007: 1. Please identify the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. [Section b of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 2. Please include a tabulation of gross site acreage and land coverage, total building area, total parking area, total area of stormwater retention structures at normal water line, and the total area of open space. Density compliance cannot be determined at this time. [Section c of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 3. Show the location of any on-site lighting and signs. [Section l of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 4. Include a note regarding wetland buffers as contained in the attached ordinance. [Section n. of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 5. An environmental survey conducted to determine the existence of any threatened or endangered species must be submitted. [Section p of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 6. Include a note on all sheets identifying the location of sidewalks proposed. [Section g of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 7. Please include all patterns shown on the plans in the legend. 8. Identify all adjacent land uses. [Section v of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] Traffic: 14 March 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: 20 November 2006: application filed. BENT OAKS PLANTATION, PLAT 11

12 RS-2, 198 lots, acres located east of Callahan on the north side of SR200/A1a west of Gressman Road, Callahan area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 15 December 2006, distributed: 20 February 2007 Building: 22 February 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 20 February 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 24 October 2006: Final Certificate of Concurrency Granted with Conditions. Engineering: 13 March 2007: 1. I suggest that you wait until the construction plans review is completed before working on this plat. There is a question as to whether the emergency access road (Gressman Road) is acceptable in its present form. Also if there is a phase two, the entrance road will probably need to have an 80 foot wide right of way. 2. A letter granting concurrency will be required before the final approval of the plat. 3. In the Adoption and Dedication statement, it appears that Tract J was omitted and should be added to the statement. 4. All blank spaces in surveyor's notes should be filled in. 5. I see no purpose for the Cul de sac at the end of Road H, since there are no lots. If this street is intended to provide access to the second emergency road, then there should be a 60 foot wide right of way all the way to existing road. This Cul de sac also conflict with Section 4.6 of Nassau County ordinance which requires Cul de sac's to be no closer than 50 feet to the project's property line. 6. On sheet 4, there is a statement at the end of road "C" stating, "Future Development Bent Oaks, Phase Three". If there are future phases, then a minimum of a sketch should be presented to this department. Additional phases affect concurrency and may require a large width entrance street. 7. Minimum first floor elevations must be specified for each lot. Fire/Rescue: 21 February 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 22 February 2007: 1. Please submit completed plat application with $ review fee. 2. Certificate date is incorrect. Growth Management: 16 April 2007: 1. Provide the correct legal description of the property. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 2. Include the names of all proposed streets. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 3. Complete the language regarding storm surge inundation. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 4. Complete the note regarding wetland line determination. Also, include a note and table on the plans as required by Ordinance (previously transmitted). [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 5. Please complete the language regarding the zoning district and yard regulations. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] Traffic: 13 March 2007: see Engineering comments. 911 Addressing: 22 February 2007: 1. Need road names for pre-approval. 2. Request road have a subdivision name. BLACKROCK COVE, SP RS-2, acres, Phase 1 of a two phase residential subdivision with 56 lots, located west side of Blackrock Road and on the North side of SR200/A1A Developer: Submitted Plans: 20 April 2006, distributed: 25 April Re-Submittal: 24 August 2006, distributed: 29 August Re-Submittal: 17 November 2006, distributed: 21 November Building: 1 May 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 15 November 2006: approved as submitted. Concurrency:29 May 2007: The Final Certificate of Concurrency for a 120 dwelling unit (du) cannot be granted at this time. Engineering: 14 December 2006: approved as submitted. Fire Rescue: 27 April 2006: approved as submitted. Health: 13 October 2006: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 3 January 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 14 December 2006: approved as submitted. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 18 August BLACKROCK COVE, Plat RS-2, acres, Phase 1 of a two-phase residential subdivision with 55 lots, located west side of Blackrock Road and on the North side of SR200/A1A Developer: Submitted Plans: 20 April 2006, distributed: 25 April Re-Submittal: 28 September 2006, distributed: 3 October Re-Submittal: 6 December 2006, distributed: 12 December Building: 1 May 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 15 November 2006: approved as submitted. Concurrency: 29 May 2007: The Final Certificate of Concurrency for a 120 dwelling unit (du) cannot be granted at this time. 12

13 Engineering: 19 December 2006: approved as submitted. Fire Rescue: 27 April 2006: approved as submitted. Health: 15 May 2006: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 3 January 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 19 December 2006: approved as submitted. 911 Addressing: 25 April 2006: Denied, no road names. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 18 August BLACKHEATH PARK, SP RS-1, 28 lots, acres located on the east side of Blackrock Road on Blackheath Park Drive, Yulee area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 8 February 2007, distributed: 13 February Re-Submittal: 4 April 2007, distributed: 10 April Re-Submittal: 16 August 2007, distributed: 21 August Building: 22 February 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 13 February 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 13 February 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 27 April 2007: approved as submitted. Fire Rescue: 14 February 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 16 April 2007: 1. Well and Septic abandonment permits will be required for the existing well and septic indicated on submitted site plan. Growth Management: 30 April 2007: 1. Include a wetland buffer language required by Section 6.5 of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations. [Section n of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. Traffic: 27 April 2007: approved as submitted. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 7 March BLACKHEATH PARK, RE-PLAT RS-1, 28 lots, acres located on the east side of Blackrock Road on Blackheath Park Drive, Yulee area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 8 February 2007, distributed 13 February Re-Submittal: 17 May 2007, distributed: 22 May Re-Submittal: 28 August 2007, distributed: 4 September Building: 22 February 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 13 February 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 13 February 2007: awaiting comment. Engineering: 30 May 2006: approved as submitted. Fire Rescue: 14 February 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 30 May 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 31 May 2007: 1. Please include all easements with dedication and beneficiaries clearly described for all amenities that will be used by home owners in Blackheath Park including any common areas, open space for parks/recreation, shared docks, pavilions, or any other similar facility. All areas or facilities that will be open to use by home owners of Blackheath Park shall be depicted on this plat and shall have access that is traversable and runs separate from any privately owned lots or lots depicted on this plat for purchase by an individual for private use or easements dedicated for other uses such as drainage, utilities or other similar easements. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 2. The current Developer Agreement places the responsibility of monitoring the compliance with the level of service for parks on Growth Management at the time of site development application. Please clearly and thoroughly describe how those levels of service will be met. No public facilities or park space is depicted on the plat. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] 3. The addition of 6lots will require the Developers Agreement to be amended to address concurrency, park requirements and any other aspect of the Agreement which is affected by increased intensity of the site. Traffic: 30 May 2006: approved as submitted. 911 Addressing: 31 May 2007: approved as submitted. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 7 March BOB S MINI-STORAGE, PHASE II, SP CG, 107,250 sf mini-storage with existing 4,351 sf office/church to remain, located at E SR200, Fernandina Beach area.. Developer: Submittal: 16 August 2007, distributed: 21 August Building: 21 August 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 21 August 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval 13