Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse Letter, 9.02.2020LcIADE CONSULTING JINRIGHT & ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS June 18, 2020 Mr. Tahir Curry, Associate Planner St. Lucie County Planning and Development Services 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 RE: HSC Fort Pierce, LLC JADE No.: DHSVEN-1646 Dollar General County Project No.: MNSP-12204925654 Minor Site Plan Dear Mr. Curry: We respectfully submit on behalf of our client our response to comments March 26, 2020. Enclosed are five (5) 24 x 36 folded revised plans and two (2) computer disks (CD) referenced in our responses. Listed below in bold italic are our responses to the review comments: D. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS — PLANNING S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1. Include the loading zone dimensions. Response: Loading zone dimensions are shown on sheet C2 and C3 now. The loading zone is 12' x 75'. 2. The proposed bicycle parking location is not identified on the site plan sheet. Please identify location. Response: The bike rack is located to the right of the main entrance and is called out on the site plan sheet C2. Architectural standards 1. Include the Palm Trees location that would block the HVAC vents on the resubmittal Landscape Plan and submit hardcopies of the new Architectural Elevation Plan. Response: Landscape plans have been updated with additional palms to block HVAC. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the subject parcels shall be unified Response: Noted. The Unity of Title requires the owner to sign. Once closing of the property occurs then HSC Fort Pierce, LLC can sign the application to process the unification of title. POST OFFICE BOX 1929 • FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA 36533 TELEPHONE (251) 928-3443 WWW.JADENGINEERS.COM Mr. Tahir Curry June 18, 2020 Page 2 F. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS — ENGINEERING DIVISION. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. The County Surveyor has no further comments, all previous comments have been addressed Response: Noted. Thank you. G. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS — ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FINDINGS 1. Following a site visit by ERD staff, the tree survey is inconsistent with ERD staff observations. Oak tree #1003 (40 inches DBH) does not require mitigation due to the tree being decayed; however, the remaining 130 inches DBH do require mitigation at the 2:1 ratio totaling 260 inches DBH of required mitigation. Provide how mitigation will be met. ERD notes and calculations have been included to the submitted plans for your convenience. Response: Communication with Aimee Cooper to confirm tree health of various trees onsite has changed this finding. She and other staff are aware of recent findings. 2. Due to the changes in the most recently submitted landscape plan, two (2) additional native trees are required along Virginia Avenue per LDC 7.09.04.A. Response: Landscape plans have been updated accordingly. 3. Where abutting residential use, call -out the height and the material used for the eight (8) ft. opaque fence/masonry wall on the landscape plan. The fence/wall may be waived if a signed and notarized administrative wall waiver from the adjacent property owner is submitted; however, the landscape material is still required per LDC 7.09.04.E. Response: Landscape plans have been updated accordingly. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of a Vegetation Removal Permit or Exemption, a gopher tortoise survey may be required per appropriate state protocols. Response: An Environmental Assessment was completed for this project and already submitted to the county in February, was commented on, and then an update was submitted in April. The report Includes a statement that no gopher tortoises were found on site. That updated EIR/EA is included with this submittal to ensure receipt. 2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all Category I listed invasive species shall be eradicated from the site. Response: Understood. A Vegetation Removal Permit shall be submitted concurrently with the building permit application. Please refer to sheet LP500 where this note is included on the plans. rjADE Mr. Tahir Curry June 18, 2020 Page 3 H. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING & WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS — WATER QUALITY DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. There appears to still be some conflicts between some landscaping and the drainage outfall pipes. 2. Advisory: The engineer may want to consider relocating the trees near the mitered end sections of the detention areas further from the mitered end sections. Response: These conflicts have been reviewed by our team and any conflicts have been revised. The plans submitted with this package should satisfy this concern as all trees are proposed an adequate distance from each mitered end section. 3. The site development permit is under review. Further comments will be issued after completion of the review. Response: Understood. Thank you. I. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS REQUIREMENTS — PROPERTY ACQUISITION DIVISION, LEGAL DEPARTMENT 1. Engineering has requested a 10' right of way dedication. Property Acquisitions will be handling the due diligence. Response: Understood. We appreciate any 2. When the property changes ownership into Dollar Generals name. on the Deed can you please list out the 10' right of way dedication. By doing this it will ensure that there will be no mortgage to encumber the 10' dedication and a release of lien will not be needed. Response: Noted, our legal team is working through the details to ensure this is handled. However, the property will not change ownership into Dollar General's name. The owner shall be HSC Fort Pierce, LLC. J. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS — FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY 1 FPUA is working with the applicants engineer of record towards an approved utility plan. Before any water or wastewater construction may begin an approved utility plan is required. For FPUA to provide water and wastewater services to the property an annexation agreement is required and must be signed by the owner of the parcel. The annexation agreement included in this submission is not signed by the current owner. Before execution both the annexation agreement and FDEP permit will require the signature of the owner. Response: Understood. After discussions with FDEP and with FPUA we have determined that review of the project will progress until all comments are satisfied. Then, upon closing, a deed will be provided from HSC Fort Pierce, LLC to all parties. At this time FPUA will approve the annexation agreement and formally sign the application for the FDEP permit. FDEP has already issued an email NOI to approve the project and does not have any further comments. FDEP permit should be issued soon after closing of the property. Please see email communication included with this submittal. F)ADE Mr. Tahir Curry June 18, 2020 Page 4 2. Electric & Gas Engineering: Rejected - Please remove Florida Power & Light on the utility easement sketch and description. Should be Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. Attached is the FPUA markup. Response: This revision has already been made and accepted by FPUA. Included with this submittal is the updated easement exhibit. 3. Electric service is available from the south side of Virginia Avenue. For project coordination, please contact Sal Scimeca. Response: Communication with Sal Scimeca on May 21, 2020 is included with this submittal and indicates the plan is acceptable. K. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE REQUIREMENTS —ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. The following revisions are necessary: Response: After discussions with county staff and with Lt. Wayne Boyer on June 11, 2020 we believe that all comments have been addressed. Please see previous response letter for responses and please advise if there are any new comments. Our team would respectfully request that the next county comment letter indicate that comments have been addressed to avoid any further confusion. M. DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF FORT PIERCE — PLANNING DEPARTMENT Review Advisory Comments: 1. Provide a separate gated entrance to the refuse collection area for employee access. Response: The proposed dumpster enclosure meets the requirements of St. Lucie County. 2. Consider adding more faux windows with canopies to punctuate the blank walls shown on the rear and right elevations. Response: This has been added on the updated A02 Exterior Elevation sheet approved by Tahlr Curry. 3. Redesign parking spaces to accommodate a parking stall depth of 19 feet. Response: Parking spaces are designed at 18' deep to meet county standards. 4. Provide a lighting plan that shows a minimum average of 2 footcandles in all parking areas. Response: The existing lighting design currently meets the minimum average of 2.0 fc's specifically in parking spaces. The stats included in the prior submittal included statistics for the entire property. C)ADE Mr. Tahir Curry June 18, 2020 Page 5 5. If not already initiated, the two parcels that will make up this project shall be combined through the St. Lucie County Property Appraisers office and a Unity of Title shall be conducted through the St. Lucie County Clerk of Courts. Response: Noted. The county has also made our team aware of this requirement. The Unity of Title requires the owner to sign. Once closing of the property occurs then HSC Fort Pierce, LLC can sign the application to process the unification of title. 6. It is noted that an FPUA Annexation Agreement is attached to the re -submittal, the City will look to annex the property into the City Limits in the near future. Response: Understood. 7. As this property will eventually be annexed into the City Limits consider any signage that will be utilized to conform to the specification of the Cities sign code which is Chapter 15. Based on the current County Zoning and Future Land Use the property would be annexed with the City Zoning of General Commercial (C-3) and a Future Land Use of General Commercial (GC). Response: Noted. All signage meets the requirements of St. Lucie County. 8. For all trees that are proposed to be 2.5 DBH at planting, instead consider trees that are 3.5 DBH at planting. Response: Landscape plans have been updated accordingly. Respectfully, JADE CONSULTING, LL c Paul Marcink�PE., Civil Engineer Enclosure \sr r]ADE