NASSAU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Nassau Place, Yulee, Florida Public Service Building REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2007

Transcription

1 NASSAU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Nassau Place, Yulee, Florida Public Service Building REGULAR MEETING July 17, :00 am Sign-off/Variation of Development Plans/Plats Amelia National Maintenance Facility, SP Distribution of New Submittals and Re-Submittals Ron Anderson Chevy Bay Addition, SP Parliament Court (Trim All), plat A1A & Chester Retail Development, SP Status of All Current Projects 9:30 Asa Gillette, P.E./ (904) Azalea Point Village Preliminary Discussion 10:00 Jose R. Deliz, P.E./(904) Lot 20 Waterman s Bluff Preliminary Discussion 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 Amelia Island Plaza (revised), SP Amsouth Bank, PUD, SP Barnwell II, SP Barnwell II, plat Five Points Plaza Outparcel/TJ of Nassau, SP Goffinsville Park, SP Johnson s Hammock, 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 AICC Miner Road North Nursing Home, SP AICC Miner Road South Nursing Home, SP Amelia National Maintenance Facility, 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 Lakes at Amelia Concourse, SP Lakes at Amelia Concourse, plat Nassau Commerce, SP Nassau Power Sports, SP Oakwoods, Re-plat Parliament Court, plat Racetrac Service Station, SP Riverbend Townhomes, Phase I & II, SP Ron Anderson Chevy Bay Addition, SP Sherwin Williams Paint Store, 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 District 5 Marianne Marshall Bent Oaks Plantation, SP /13/07,3:21 PM 2

3 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 Callahan Guyed Tower, SP West Meadow Plantation, SP West Meadow Plantation, plat 7/13/07,3:21 PM 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: 21 May 2007: 1. Need to add or relocate at least two of the accessible parking spaces and access aisle to center of complex in front of the 18,150 sf retail center. Provide new curb cut through landscape island, striped crosswalk, curb ramp and 3 x 5 strip of the Truncated Dome Detectable Warning Material on both sides of crosswalk. 2. Need to add Detectable Warning Material on both sides of the crosswalks where the accessible route crosses the vehicular way in front of retail center and on the north side of road at the out-parcel crossing. 3. Need to ensure level landing at all exterior doors N.T.E. 2% in any direction. 5. Need accessible route connecting out-parcel fronting on Chester with curb ramps, marked crossings, Detectable Warning Material. 6. Provide 12 dimension center-line to center on the blue painted stripes outlining the accessible parking. 7. Note: Out-parcels will need to have an accessible route within their boundaries connecting all parcels together with a pedestrian walkway. 7/13/07,3:21 PM 4

5 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: 30 May 2007: 1. You will need a current St. Johns River Water Management District permit before this project is approved. 2. If there are any street connections or storm water discharge 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 out lots, interior traffic flow and the need for turn lanes and street striping, etc. A complete review will not be possible until this report is submitted. STREETS: 4. As has been stated several times before, the Engineering Department is opposed to an entrance opposite the entrance to Shoppes of Amelia because of the conflict between left and right turns and its general effect on reducing traffic flow at the nearby intersection with A1A. The proper location would be opposite Courtney Isles Way. 5. The second right turn lane into the site is also not allowed as it will further confuse and congest traffic and is not needed. 6. The site PUD allows one entrance onto A1A at a point opposite the entrance to the shopping center on the South side of A1A. The entrance shown violates Section (H) (b) of county ordinance 99-17, which specifies a minimum distance of 660 feet between entrances on A1A. 7. Preliminary designs and discussion in the past have specified that the site would have an interior minor collector street from Chester Road to Nassau Place Drive. Previous small projects have designed and or installed small pieces of this interior street. This interior road was part of the PUD and the entire street should be part of this submittal. 8. 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. Section 4.2 of County ordinance allows the County to require a developer to upgrade County Roads, when they are substandard. Chester Roadis substandard in its width; an additional 20 feet of land adjacent to Chester Road must be donated to the county for street right of way. It is premature to comment at this point in the review, but it is likely that intersection improvement at Chester Road and A1A will be required and an additional portion of the existing bank site will be needed to be deeded to the County for intersection improvements. 10. There is an existing bank located at the corner of A1A and Chester Road that is shown as part of the project. This bank has two entrance grandfathered in. Changing the use or combining this tract with the adjacent land may affect the status of these driveways and under no circumstances can they be connected with other street in the development to create another access onto Chester Road or A1A. 11. Section of County ordinance requires sidewalks adjacent to all streets in commercial developments; this includes A1A, Chester Road and interior streets. 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. Proper striping is missing in many places in the plans. 14. Referring to Sheet C-1: a. The plan and profile sheet should also include the existing ground contours and soil boring with water table when applicable. b. There should be a detail of the intersection of the interior road with Chester Road. c. A drainage pipe under the new proposed entrance to allow draining along Chester Road. d. At the end of the street, the transition to existing ground should be added. e. Road A should also be identified on the proper plan sheets. f. Drainage swale flow lines for both sides should be shown on the plans. 15. Referring to Sheet C-420; a. The details should also specify the street construction with sub base, limestone and asphalt type and thickness and test requirements. b. Sidewalks should be shown on the street details. c. The street swale side slopes should be at a 4:1 ratio, the street sections indicate slopes varying from 4:1 to almost 1:1. This should be corrected. d. Section C-C indicates the street being about 4 feet below the adjacent land. If this is a cut, then the street will be close to the groundwater table. Normally good engineering requires about 18 inches between the water table and the bottom of the limestone sub base. g. The plan view on Sheet C-110 shows a painted median and two 12 foot wide travel lanes and a center area. This information should be shown on the details and an explanation given for this design in the missing traffic study. h. There should be a detail explaining how the sidewalks crossing the street will traverse the swales and still be ADA compliant. i. For clarity, there should be a note on Sheet C-420 stating the detail locations are shown on the plan view on Sheet C-130. BUILDING AND PARKING AREAS: 16. Please explain the purpose of the service area. Also will it be paved or grass? 17. There is an apparent curb around the buildings and service area but it has a break in it, please explain why there is a large break allowing unrestricted access? 18. Identify type and height of all curbs on site and provide details in the construction plans. 19. Sheet C-140 specifies minimum first floor elevation for two out lots south of the parking lots, the third out parcel has it first floor elevation written on the existing bank site, thus implying that these two lots will be combined. There is another location in the plans where it is indicated that the existing bank site is part of the adjacent out parcel. It is unlikely this will be allowed and under no circumstances will the County allow a connection between the bank site and the out parcel that would allow traffic to enter the parking lot from the existing two driveways. At the least, if the two parcels were allowed to be combined, the existing access points would be forfeited. DRAINAGE: 20. The detention pond detail on Sheet C-532 identifies the NWL at 7/13/07,3:21 PM 5

6 23.0 and the top of the berm at Also, there is no outlet structure shown on the detail. The ICPR program and basin summary sheet identify the drawdown orifice at feet. The ICPR data and plan view on Sheet C130 indicate a berm height of 31.0 feet. The detail ignores the upstream pond, but includes a dispersion pond downstream. Obviously, the pond detail has major errors and needs to be completely revised. 21. The predevelopment plan indicates storm water runoff flowing from the South, North to the wetland. The proposed street does not include a design for transfer pipes to allow this drainage to cross under the street. These pipes should be designed and added. 22. The ICPR computes, but omits for the 10 year rain event in the summary table and it should be added to the table. 23. There is a detail for an outlet structure on Sheet C-531, almost every dimension in this detail is in error and the detail should be revised to conform to the data in the ICPR program. 24. The detention pond on Sheet C-532 references some 2:1 interior pond slopes. The County requires 4:1 side slopes to a depth of 2 feet below the normal water level, then the slope can be deeper. Please revise the pond detail accordingly. 25. The flow results table for the ICPR program indicates that for the 3 yr rain the pond water elevation will be and the 25 year pond water level will be Your top elevation of the swale grate (S-1) is As designed with even a small rain, the water in the pond will back flow out of inlet S1 flooding the swale area and in heavier rain possibly flooding the street. This backflow also negates the detention purpose of the pond. This design is severely flawed and should be revised so as to contain all discharge in the pond where proper treatment is available. 26. Pond detail on Sheet C-532 indicates the top of the pond berm is Section A-A and B- B indicate top of pond berm is 31. Which is correct? If the berm is 31, then the slope problem discussed above is worse. 27. The normal water level, the 5 yr, 10 yr and 25 yr water surface elevation and the surface area at normal water level should be stated for both ponds on Sheet C As submitted, street sections D-D an E-E indicate that approximately 300 of the proposed street will simply drain off to adjoining land without any water quality treatment or storm water detention. County ordinance require that all street runoff will be detained. 30. As drawn it is very difficult to believe that the three out parcels will drain to the proposed inlets. It is expected that they would drain to the South as there is no plan presented to contain these flows within the sites. I think you need to review your design. 31. There are tracts of land shown on Sheets C-130 and 131 that are not part of the project. All areas and tracts not part of this submittal should be identified as such for clarity and to avoid confusion. 32. There were no computations submitted to justify the storm sewer design, therefore it was impossible to review the storm sewers. Computations are required. County ordinance require that the storm sewer system be designed to a minimum of a 5 year rain event. Higher rain frequencies are allowed to flood the parking lots but must be contained by high curbs etc., so that they do no discharge is undetained. 33. Storm sewer line S-2 to S-34 is a 60 RCP, if the ditch inlet elevation is 26.0 and there is one foot from the top of the grate to the top of the pipe, the invert of the pipe is below the bottom of the pond and the design should be revised. 34. In addition to no storm sewer computations submitted, a review of the construction plans indicated an absence of invert and inlet elevations and pipe length. Also, normally there is a pipe and structure table with all pipe and inlet information listed. As drawn, it would be impossible to install these storm sewers. Revise the plans accordingly. 35. You have set up the creek node as a static water level at Why do you think this wetland will not rise with heavy rains in the area? The geotechnical report indicated the seasonal high water table would be about 29.0; it s difficult to understand how the wetland can be at 25.0 when the water table is at In addition, the end invert of your roadside swale is You need to justify your assumption. 36. No wetlands were shown on the plans. If there are any wetland they should be identified, if not, then there should be a note stating there are no wetlands on the site. These plans are not of suitable quality for review. Once started, I continued the review; however, the re-submittal will be reviewed first for completeness and response to comments. If not complete and responsive, it will be rejected and returned to you without review. Fire/Rescue: 14 May 2007: 1. The minimum flow from any one individual fire hydrant shall be one thousand (1000) gpm. I suggest you loop the water main or provide hydraulic calculations proving 1000 gpm is available from the fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the water and sewer plan. 2. Provide a fire hydrant at the northwest entrance drive, near location on north entry plan. Growth Management : 13 June 2007: 1. As discussed in our meeting on February 14, 2007, the preliminary meeting with the Development Review Committee on April 24, 2007, an amendment to the PUD is necessary to accommodate the proposed shopping center and identify the site specific uses for approval. The outparcel located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Chester Road and State Road 200 (A1A), since included as part of this plan, needs to be included in the amended PUD. Please see attached letter. 2. Please review the Comprehensive Plan for policies that apply to your application for development approval in an area identified as Industrial (I) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Provide a letter from the Owner and/or Owner s representative acknowledging the current Future Land Use Designation of the subject property and his/her desire to proceed with the project as proposed. 3. Policy A of the Comprehensive Plan of Nassau County states that Rights-of-Way for planned 7/13/07,3:21 PM 6

7 improvement projects shall be protected through negotiated purchase or 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. [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 deifined 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. [Section c of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 5. Include a table identifying areas of each tract and outparcel on the site engineering plans. [Section d of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 6. Please include a graphical scale on all applicable pages. [Section e of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 7. Include on the plans the dimensions of all structures (vertical and horizontal), type of construction as defined by the adopted Building Code, and major features including setbacks and percent of lot coverage. [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 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. [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 the Nassau County Land Development Code. [Section l of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 10. Provide the information on jurisdictional wetlands; show wetland buffers and include a wetland calculations table required in Section 6.5 (as revised by Ord ) of the Development Review Regulations. [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. [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. [Nassau Center PUD Ordinance ] Health: 10 May 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. Please submit completed site plan review application with $45.00 review fee. Traffic: 30 May 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 20 December AICC MINER ROAD NORTH NURSING HOME, SP OR with Conditional Use, 16,901 sf, 3 acres, 23 parking spaces, 16' height, located on the west side of Miner Road next to Hickory Village Way, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 7 December 2006, distributed: 12 December Re-Submittal: 8 February 2007, distributed: 13 February Building: 18 December 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Plans: 25 April 2007: approved as submitted. Concurrency: 3 March 2007: Subject does not have concurrency. Engineering: 23 February 2007: 1. When you receive your Concurrency and St. John's permit, send this department copies and we will approved your plans. Fire/Rescue: 13 December 2006: approved as submitted. Growth Management : 1 March 2007: approved w/conditions: 1. Indicate the current zoning and conditional use permit for the subject site. Health: 19 February 2007: approved as submitted. 7/13/07,3:21 PM 7

8 Traffic: 23 January 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 14 March AICC MINER ROAD SOUTH NURSING HOME, SP OR with Conditional Use, 16,901 sf, 3 acres, 23 parking spaces, 16' height, located on the east side of Miner Road between Bear Lane and Virginia Lane, Yulee area. Developer: Submittal: 7 December 2006, distributed: 12 December Re-Submittal: 8 February 2007, distributed: 13 February Building: 18 December 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Plans: 25 April 2007: approved as submitted. Concurrency: 25 May 2007: Concurrency cannot be granted at this time. Engineering: 17 May 2007: approved as submitted. Fire/Rescue: 13 December 2006: approved as submitted. Growth Management : 20 February 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 19 February 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 17 May 2007: approved as submitted. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 15 March AMELIA ISLAND PLAZA (REVISED), SP CI, 10,264 sf, 30 heigt, 1.31 acres, located at the corner of SR200/ A1A and Amelia Island Parkway, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submittal: 28 June 2007, distributed: 10 July Building: 10 July 2007: awaiting comment. Computerized Plans: 10 July 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 10 July 2007: A review of our records indicates the above referenced project was issued concurrency on July 28, Engineering: 10 July 2007: awaiting comment. Fire/Rescue: 10 July 2007: awaiting comment. Growth Management : 10 July 2007: awaiting comment. Health: 10 July 2007: awaiting comment.. Traffic: 10 July 2007: awaiting comment. SJRWMD: # , issue date: February 24, AMELIA NATIONAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY, SP PUD, sf, 2 bldgs., 24 parking spaces, located on the Amelia Concourse, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 18 October 2006, distributed: 24 October Re-Submittal: 15 March 2007, distributed: 27 March Re-Submittal: 31 May 31, 2007, distributed: 5 June Re- Submittal: 26 June 2007, distributed: 3 July Building: 12 July 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 18 October 2006: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval. Concurrency: 24 October 2006: awaiting comment. Engineering: 14 November 2006: approved as submitted. Fire/Rescue: 28 March 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 22 March 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 11 June 2007: approved as submitted. Traffic: 14 November 2006: approved as submitted. SJRWMD: # , issue date: 10 June 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: 14 March 2007: 1. Provide 36" depth on the Detectable Warning Material in front of access aisle. Computerized Data: 13 March 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 13 March 2007: awaiting comments. Engineering: 28 March 2007: 1. You should be aware that the St. Johns River Water Management District permit was approved in March of 1994 before Nassau County passed their Roadway and Drainage Ordinance. Nassau County did not approve the drainage plan in 1994 and is not bound by a St. Johns permit. It will be necessary for the new commercial development to comply with current design regulation 7/13/07,3:21 PM 8

9 included in the Nassau County Ordinance I suggest that you review this ordinance on line at the county web site. 2. A letter dated July 26, 2006 and signed by the then current Director of Engineering Services, Jose R. Deliz, stated that this project is exempt from concurrency regulations, because the subdivision was approved prior to the concurrency ordinance and Section 3.3.(c) of the concurrency ordinance specifies exemption of such projects. 3. A drainage report is required and should be submitted for review with the next submittal. The report should quantify the 5, 10 and 25 year storm water runoff for the site for the pre development and post development conditions. Any excess drainage above the pre development flows must be detained on site unless there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm sewer and existing detention pond. I suggest that you review the contents of ordinance for the design criteria. 4. The PUD specified a minimum 30 foot buffer and opaque buffer next to Lots 1, 2, 3 and A traffic study is required to determine the average daily traffic flow into the site and also to determine if the traffic flow will trigger the need for a right and possibly a left turn lane on the subdivision street or the highway. The traffic count computations shown in the box on Sheet C1 were noted, but they did not include traffic for drive up windows which can be substantial. 6. The bank site does not occupy the entire commercial site. A site plan should be included in the plans showing the bank site as it relates to the entire commercial tract. 7. A note on Sheet C3 located in the 25 year storm event box states, "By master development 75% of site is designed as impervious". Please note that Section 6.3 of Ordinance requires that all commercial sites have a maximum imperviousness of 70%. 8. There are storm sewer design computations as required by ordinance and they should be prepared and submitted for review. 9. The plans are not clear as to where the new storm sewers discharge point is; it appears to be Inlet #1, which is an existing inlet? If on site detention is required then this design will not work. Also is the existing storm water system adequate to accept the design flows? 10. There should be an asphalt design detail showing the sub base, limestone and asphalt surface conforming to Nassau County standards. Fire/Rescue: 13 March 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 5 July 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 27 April 2007: 1. Include a note regarding the presence of wetlands and any required buffers as contained in the attached ordinance (this is required even though wetlands may not exist on the subject property). [Section n of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 2. Please submit a landscape plan for review and approval. [Section k of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 3. Since this is a Class IV Development, please demonstrate compliance with the tree protection regulations contained in Article 37 of the Nassau County Zoning Code. In addition, include a tree protection detail for the trees proposed to remain. [Section k of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 4. Include the north arrow on the Vicinity Map and Location Map. [Section e of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. Traffic: 28 March 2007: see Engineering plans. SJRWMD: # ERP, dated: 31 March 1999 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. 7/13/07,3:21 PM 9

10 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 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 SELF STORAGE, SP CI, 3.3. acres, 91,800 sf of mini warehouse and 12,500 sf specialty retail, located on the southwest corner of Bailey Road and SR200/A1A, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 20 July 2006, distributed: 1 August Re-Submittal: 21 September 2006, distributed: 29 September Re-Submittal: 4 January 2007, distributed: 9 January Building: 9 October 2006: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 18 April 2007: approved as submitted. Concurrency: 18 June 2007: The Final Certificate of Concurrency for a 91,800 sf Mini-Warehouse and a 12,500 sf Specialty Retail Center development, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Codes 151 and 814 respectively cannot be granted at this time, pursuant to Section , Ordinance No Engineering: 18 May 2007: approved w/conditions: Subject to granting of Concurrency. Fire/Rescue: 9 January 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 26 January 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 23 October 2006: approved as submitted. Traffic: 18 May 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: , issue date: 20 October BARNWELL II, SP RS-1, 11 lots, 5.43 acres, located at 194 Barnwell Road, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submitted Plans: 22 March 2007, distributed: 27 March Re-Submittal: 7 June 2007, distributed: 12 June Building: 29 March 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 27 March 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 26 April 2007: Final Certificate of Concurrency Granted with Conditions. Engineering: 19 June 2007: PREVIOUS COMMENTS: #2. The sidewalks as drawn infringes on the existing drainage channel for Barnwell Road. Move the sidewalks onto subdivision land and establish a 10 foot wide easement for the sidewalks. 36. The peak factor should reflect the actual design conditions and not be at the discretion of the design engineer. 484 is the correct peak factor. NEW COMMENTS: #8. There was no geo tech report included in the submittal or as part of the drainage report. The plans indicate boring locations so I assume there is a report. Please send another copy with the next submittal. #9. Lot areas should be on each lot. #10. The ICPR quotes a 9% DCIA, but no computations are included to justify this percentage. Also the water surface area of the pond should also be included in the DCIA calculations. #11. In the ICPR entry for the drop structure, a pipe n factor of was used. This is not within the normal range for storm sewer pipes. The most favored n is 0.013, but has been used also, please adjust your n factor. #12. You have a culvert under the entrance (30 to 31) but there are no design computations to support pipe size chosen and these computations should be added to the report. #13. I assume if you move the sidewalks you will have no need to relocate the drainage ditch? #14. Do you know if the existing roadside ditch by Barnwell Road has the capacity to carry the 25 year discharge from the pond plus its upstream flows? Please supply computations to support the existing capacity. Fire/Rescue: 28 March 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 20 June 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management: 11 July 2007: 1. As discussed, please eliminate the wetland buffer table that reflects the inaccurate buffer requirements. The buffer table on the top right hand corner of page should be retained. [Section n of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. 2. Include the buffer language required by Section 6.5 (as amended) regarding wetlands. [Section n of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations]. Traffic: 19 June 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: 15 March 2007: application filed. 7/13/07,3:21 PM 10

11 BARNWELL II, PLAT RS-1, 11 lots, 5.43 acres, located at 194 Barnwell Road, Fernandina Beach area. Developer: Submitted plans: 22 March 2007, distributed: 27 March Re-Submittal: 21 June 2007, distributed: 3 July Building: 29 March 2007: approved as submitted. Computerized Data: 27 March 2007: to be received and approved by GIS prior to DRC approval Concurrency: 26 April 2007: Final Certificate of Concurrency Granted with Conditions. Engineering: 10 July 2007: PREVIOUS COMMENTS: #2. As stated in the review of the construction plans, the sidewalk adjacent to Barnwell Road is to be built on subdivision land and it will be necessary to add a sidewalk easement along Barnwell Road. #4. A statement has been added in the Adoption and Dedication assigning maintenance responsibility for the streets, storm sewers and detention pond to the lot owners as requested, but the statement has been placed in parenthesis, why? Unless there is a valid reason the parenthesis should be removed as they are confusing as to the intent of the statement. Fire/Rescue: 28 March 2007: approved as submitted. Health: 20 June 2007: approved as submitted. Growth Management : 11 July 2007: approved w/condition: 1. Please reconcile the wetland buffer table shown on the plat with the correct table shown on the site engineering drawings. [Section of the Nassau County Development Review Regulations] Traffic: 10 July 2007: see Engineering comments. SJRWMD: 15 March 2007: application filed. 911 Addressing: 3 July 2007: Denied. Need road name for pre-approval. 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: 20 February 2007: awaiting comments. 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 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 7/13/07,3:21 PM 11

12 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 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: 20 February 2007: awaiting comments. 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 7/13/07,3:21 PM 12

13 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. 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: 17 May 2007, distributed: 22 May /13/07,3:21 PM 13