Marion County Board of County Commissioners

Transcription

1 Marion County Board of County Commissioners Office of the County Engineer 412 SE 25th Ave. Ocala, FL Phone: Fax: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE A G E N D A April 16, :00 AM 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADOPT THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: April 2, CONSENT AGENDA: STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL A. DOLLAR GENERAL OCALA/US HWY 441 MAJOR SITE PLAN 7080 S PINE AVE OCALA Project # #7680 Parcel # Permit # Causseaux, Hewett, & Walpole 4. SCHEDULED ITEMS: A. DUNN DENTAL OFFICE MAJOR SITE PLAN Project # #6738 Parcel # Mastroserio Engineering Applicant requests extension to retain active status. B. CLEMENTS BUSINESS COMPLEX MAJOR SITE PLAN Project # #5096 Parcel # S2A Engineering Applicant requests extension to retain active status. C. OCALA CROSSINGS NORTH PUD - REZONING 4390 SW 80TH ST OCALA Project # #7041 Parcel # & Gray, Ackerman & Haines

2 Development Review Committee Agenda April 16, 2012 D. OCALA CROSSINGS SOUTH PUD - REZONING 4390 SW 80TH ST OCALA Project # #7042 Parcel # & Gray, Ackerman & Haines 5. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ITEMS: None 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None 7. OTHER ITEMS: 8. ADJOURNED: 2

3 Development Review Committee Minutes April 2, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Straub (Chairman); Mounir Bouyounes at 9:05 a.m. Paul Nevels (Vice Chairman) Chris Rison (Planning) Sam Martsolf (Zoning) Flip Mellinger (Utilities) OTHERS PRESENT: Dana Taylor (Legal) Justin Ryan (Planning) Jim Couillard (Parks) Alfreada Harmon (911) Paul Wildman (Office of the County Engineer) Brian Snyder (Office of the County Engineer) Bert Yancey (Office of the County Engineer) Stephanie Galarza (Office of the County Engineer) Carla Sansone (Office of the County Engineer) Wendy Walters (Office of the County Engineer) Tracy Straub called the Development Review Committee to order at 9:00 am. 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADOPT THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: March 26, 2012 Motion by Sam Martsolf to approve, seconded by Chris Rison Motion carried CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. SCHEDULED ITEMS: A. PETITION TO CLOSE NW 49TH AVE & NW 17TH PL ROADS IN OCALA PALMS UNIT 1 Doug Iannarelli - Moorhead Engineering Company Motion by Sam Martsolf to recommend approval of the abandonment of the road subject to (1) retaining an easement for utilities; (2) retaining an easement for whatever drainage provisions were established with Unit 1 or whichever unit is involved with the roadway; (3) allowing parallel access to the three lots southeast of the intersection, east of 49th Avenue; and (4) providing maintenance to convert this to private maintenance of those easements by Ocala Palms, seconded by Paul Nevels Motion carried 4-1 with Chris Rison voting in opposition

4 DRC Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 2 of 3 B. MARION COUNTY SILVER SPRINGS SHORES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WAIVER REQUEST 450 EMERALD RD OCALA Project # #7921 Parcel # Todd Crosby - London Engineering & Associates L.D.C. Section d (8) - DRA 12' Wide Maintenance Berm CODE states drainage retention/detention basins or areas, either public or private, shall have side slopes no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) with a 12 foot stabilized vehicle access at six percent grade maximum. APPLICANT requests waiver to provide a 5 foot wide berm instead of the 12 foot wide berm due to the location near the property line. Motion by Chris Rison to approve the 5 berm, seconded by Sam Martsolf Motion carried 5-0 C. MARION COUNTY SILVER SPRINGS SHORES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MAJOR SITE PLAN 450 EMERALD RD OCALA Project # #7624 Parcel # Todd Crosby - London Engineering & Associates Motion by Chris Rison to approve, seconded by Paul Nevels Motion carried 5-0 D. DECHAMPLAIN PROPERTY, SUZANNE WAIVER REQUEST NW HWY 225A REDDICK Project # #7889 Parcel # Kevin McCall - KJM Construction L.D.C. Section a (1) (a) - Major Site Plan Submittal CODE states if collectively, all existing and proposed impervious surfaces exceed 35 percent of the gross site area, or if existing and proposed impervious surfaces collectively include 9,000 or more square feet of ground coverage a drainage plan shall be submitted. APPLICANT requests waiver to install 140 x 250 farm building with gutters on entire building and 20 downspouts with 3 x3 x3 stone in ground on all 20 downspouts for drainage. There are no buildings within 500 feet in any direction. Motion by Sam Martsolf to approve subject to a stormwater inspection and meeting any requirements as a result of that inspection, seconded by Chris Rison Motion carried 5-0 E. TRI COUNTY WORSHIP CENTER - WAIVER REQUEST 8780 SE 157TH PL SUMMERFIELD Project # #7919 Parcel # Permit # Alan Melton - Cross State Construction

5 DRC Minutes April 2, 2012 Page 3 of 3 TRI COUNTY WORSHIP CENTER - WAIVER REQUEST CONTINUED L.D.C. Section k (7) - Buffering CODE states, when required, every development shall provide sufficient buffering when topographical or other barriers do not provide reasonable screening and when the Board determines that there is a need to shield neighboring properties from any adverse external effects of a development. APPLICANT requests waiver to install a 5-6 foot high wood or white vinyl fence in lieu of landscape buffer due to budget constraints. There is existing fence on a portion of the east property line and also well established trees throughout the proposed buffers. Motion by Sam Martsolf to approve provided that a 6 opaque privacy type fence is installed along the east and west boundaries, at least to the extent of the development, and the existing trees will then serve as the tree requirement in the buffer, seconded by Chris Rison Motion carried CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ITEMS: None 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None 7. OTHER ITEMS: None 8. ADJOURNED: 9:49 a.m. Attest: Mounir Bouyounes, P.E., Chairman Carla Sansone, Plans Coordinator

6 APRIL 11, 2012 DANIEL YOUNG CAUSSEAUX, HEWETT, & WALPOLE 6011 NW 1ST PLACE GAINESVILLE, FL PROJECT NAME: DOLLAR GENERAL OCALA/US HWY 441 PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICATION NUMBER: 7680 Dear Daniel: The above referenced project was reviewed by Development Review staff and the following informational comments are for your review. You need not reply to the comments, and if the comments have been previously completed, simply disregard. Your plan will be scheduled for approval by the Development Review Committee on April 16, This item will be on the consent agenda and attendance is not required. 1. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 37. Provide copy of FDEP's Construction Generic Permit (CGP) for NPDES or (NOI). STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: Demonstrate compliance with FDEP's NPDES by providing a copy of the permit or NOI prior to construction. 2. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Legal Documents STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: Provide the following executed documents for review and approval prior to CO: 1. sidewalk covenant 2. parallel access covenant showing cross parallel access to the north & south 3. public ingress/egress easement Please contact Carla Sansone in Development Review at (352) to obtain the necessary documents.

7

8 DRC Minutes October 10, 2011 B. DUNN DENTAL OFFICE MAJOR SITE PLAN Project # #6738 Parcel # Shawn Hubbuck Initial review comments. Applicant requests extension for resubmittal time frame. Motion by Sam Martsolf to recognize all the staff comments and the applicant s willingness to comply with those comments and extend the time to resubmit to 60 days, seconded by Jimmy Massey Motion carried 4-0 DRC Minutes January 9, 2012 A. DUNN DENTAL OFFICE MAJOR SITE PLAN Project # #6738 Parcel # Paolo Mastroserio - Mastroserio Engineering Applicant requests extension to retain active status. Motion by Jimmy Massey to grant the extension for 90 days from today s date, seconded by Flip Mellinger Motion carried 5-0

9 Marion County Board of County Commissioners Office of the County Engineer 412 SE 25th Ave. Ocala, FL Phone: Fax: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT STAFF MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 6, :30 a.m. A. DUNN DENTAL OFFICE MAJOR SITE PLAN Project # #6738 Parcel # Mastroserio Engineering 1. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 37. Provide copy of FDEP's Construction Generic Permit (CGP) for NPDES or (NOI). REMARKS: Demonstrate compliance with FDEP's NPDES requirements by providing a copy of the permit or NOI. 2. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Waivers listed on cover sheet (if applicable). REMARKS: Add waivers if requested in the future. cs 3. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Application fee. REMARKS: The application fee is due when this plan is resubmitted (if a resubmittal is necessary). Refer to Resolution 10-R-630 for the current fee schedule. Additionally, please include a separate review fee for $40.00 made payable to the Marion County Health Department. cs 4. DEPARTMENT: MANAGEMENT REVIEW ITEM: 10. Correct road names supplied REMARKS: Note: incorrect road name of State Road 200 on all pages. Correct road name is SW Hwy 200. Please correct on any future submissions. Becky Passage, Management

10 5. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 22. Pipe conveyance calculations 25yr-24hr event with a 25yr-24hr tailwater. REMARKS: Please provide conveyance calculations that demonstrate the system has the capacity for the 25 YR 24 HR storm event with a 25 YR 24 HR tailwater condition as it connects to the existing system structure "D-4" (HGL = +/-62.93) as identified in the Bridlewood Crossing Plans. Please note that the as-builts indicate an existing 18" RCP stub out at the connection location. 6. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 23. Pipe calculation reports labeled with identifiers related to the plans. REMARKS: Pending calculations. 7. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: a (1) (d) - Sidewalks REMARKS: 9/28/2011: Please provide wheel stops for the parking spaces adjacent to the walkway along the NE side of the building or widen the walkway to 7'. 8. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: All sheets 24" X 36" and identified as "Major Site Plan". REMARKS: Plan not identified as "Major Site Plan". cs 9. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Plans signed by owner & signed and sealed by engineer/surveyor. REMARKS: Plans must be signed and sealed by engineer/surveyor prior to final approval. cs 10. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Boundary survey submitted. REMARKS: please provide a signed and sealed survey prior to plan approval. 11. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Required engineer's/surveyor's certification. REMARKS: Please provide signed and sealed plans for final approval 12. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Water Management District permit (if applicable). REMARKS: 13. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Environmental Assessment for Listed Species Provided? [FLUE 4.16/CE 2.22] REMARKS: An updated Environmental Assessment for Listed Species (EALS) is required as the prior EALS os a mumber of years old, and the site has been cleared in advance which may have also attracted known LS to the site. 2

11 14. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Access Management - Are Sidewalks Provided? [TE 4.2 & LDC Section a.(1)(d)] REMARKS: Revise the plan to provide a sidewalk connection from the building to the SR 200 sidewalk. It is recommended that the landscape islands in the parking row along Hwy 200 be shifted one space south and the southern island widened to include the sidewalk segment that can then align with the handicapped parking aisle facing the building. 15. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Developer's Agreement REMARKS: The site is part of a larger site subject to a Developer's Aggrement. Revise the plan data (right side of cover sheet) to add that the site is subject to a Developer's Agreement recorded at OR Book Pages DEPARTMENT: ENGSUR - SURVEY REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 2. A signed, sealed and dated boundary and topographic survey of the site meeting Florida Minimum Technical Standards Florida Administrate code (61G17-1) and Florida Statutes Chapter 472, being no more than six months old. REMARKS: Survey not signed or sealed. 17. DEPARTMENT: ENGSUR - SURVEY REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 4. A minimum of two vertical benchmarks shown on project site with datum noted. REMARKS: No benchmarks shown. 18. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: e (2)(a) - Trees to be preserved require plan changes REMARKS: The encroachment under 30" and 40" Oaks is excessive. 19. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: f (2)(a) - Tree protection barricades REMARKS: Tree protection barricades must be shown at the dripline of each tree or groups of trees to be saved. Use a desktop canopy rule of 1' radius for each inch of DBH size. Barricades may be temporarily removed to work within dripline as long as the barricades are reinstalled after work is complete. 20. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: g (1) - Smallest grade change possible around existing trees REMARKS: Approximately 1.84' of fill is proposed on top of 10", 30", and 40" Oaks is unacceptable. Use tree wells or small retaining walls to protect root zone. 21. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (5)(f) - Fifty percent all vegetation (less grass) native plants suitable for site REMARKS: Only 46% native vegetation provided. Code requires 50%. 3

12 22. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (6)(c) - Shade tree specifications REMARKS: Shade trees shall have a minimum of 2 1/2" DBH. 23. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (7)(c)i - Screening of garbage collection and utility areas REMARKS: Show garbage collection area screening on landscape plan and account for required landscape material and irrigation accordingly. 4

13 ENGIN - Shawn Hubbuck ( ) ENGDRN -Paul Wildman ( ) ENGTRF - Brian Snyder ( ) ENGSUR - Jerry Gowen ( ) LUCURR - Chris Rison ( ) ZONE2 - Bob Johnson ( ) DOH - Dan Dooley ( ) FRMSH - Angie Sweeney ( ) ( ) UTIL - Todd Petrie ( ) LSCAPE - Jim Couillard ( ) NOVEMBER 24, 2010 S2A ENGINEERING AMIN SHAHEED 1469 N MAGNOLIA AVE STE F1 OCALA, FL PROJECT NAME: CLEMENTS BUSINESS COMPLEX PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICATION NO: 5096 Dear Amin: This letter is in regard to your recent submittal for the above referenced project. During the process of reviewing the plans for sufficiency, some items were found which must be addressed. Please respond to the following staff comments requiring correction and/or revision within 180 days. To request an extension of the 180 days from the Development Review Committee, please submit a written request prior to the expiration date. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Access Management - Cross/Parallel Access Required? [TE 4.2 & LDC Section a(2)(e)] STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: Provide Parallel Access along NE 36th Avenue unless suitable LDC Waivers are obtained. Staff notes that according to the plan, a waiver request is pending; however staff understands parallel access exists on adjacent parcel and staff would be reluctant to support a full waiver of parallel access requirements. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Final Review Pending the following LDC Waiver Requests Per Site Plan: STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: 1) Sidewalks 2) Minimum Driveway Access 3) Section Line Roads 4) DRA Maintenance Berm 5) Parallel Access 1

14 DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: Tree Calculations STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: Tree Calculations for this site are as follows: 1. Retain or replace native trees equal to a minimum of 100 inches DBH per acre; or up to pre-development inches per acre. 2. One shade tree (2 1/2" DBH min.) per 3,000 square feet of site area. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 1. Soils Map with site outline shown. REMARKS: Please provide a legend on the soils map. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 2. Submitted curve numbers reflect the soil conditions in the field. REMARKS: Please clarify how the pond bottom is being addressed in the CN calculations. Has this area been modeled as impervious? DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 9. Watershed Basin boundary line. REMARKS: Please further evaluate the watershed basin to the north. Will upstream off-site runoff contribute to this proposed system? USGS quad map indicates 85' contour elevation to the north and plans only indicate +/-40' north of the north property line with a 74' contour elevation. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 10. Time of concentration calculations and show the hydraulic length for each basin. REMARKS: Provide Time of Concentration calculations for pre/post design. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 14. Pond holds the post development volume if in problem area. REMARKS: Pending CN revisions. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 15. Pond recovers volume in 14 days. REMARKS: Plans indicate 14 day drawdown in hours and reference the Modret calculations. Marion County Modret calculations were not found, please provide. 2

15 DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 16. Private retention/detention pond maintenance sign. REMARKS: DRA sign detail has been provided and is satisfactory; however, the location of the sign has not been identified. Please indicate the location on the plans. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 17. Pond detail cross-sections showing DHWL 100yr - 24hr event and the SHGWT. REMARKS: Pond bottom in typical sections are indicated to be seeded and mulched. Per new springs protection requirements please revise the notes to indicate the pond bottom to have vegetative cover. (Sod) DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 20. Pond maintenance berm 12' 4:1 slope or flatter, 15' for 3:1 slope or steeper. REMARKS: Provide a 12' maintenance berm around the pond or seek waiver. Typical minimum width recommended to DRC is 5' should applicant seek waiver. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 34. Specifically state the amount of lot specific impervious designed for. REMARKS: Clarify total impervious area as cover indicates 19, SF, while the summation of coverage's indicates 22, SF. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 35. Provide for construction entrance erosion control. REMARKS: Please indicate the construction entrance location and controls as needed. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 39. Springs Protection Elements REMARKS: Please provide a BMP maintenance document as required for Springs Projection. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 40. Stormwater REMARKS: Pre-development CN values are including existing impervious areas. Please revise to evaluate only "pre-development conditions" as naturally occurring. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 41. Stormwater REMARKS: HydroCAD has been used for modeling and questions remain in regards to the following: percolation rates and aquifer input data, terms such as discarded and summary results. Please discuss these items with stormwater to address. 3

16 DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 42 Stormwater REMARKS: Provide a discharge structure as this design will not retain the entire post development 100 year 24 hour design storm with rate and volume discharge values. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: a (1) (d) - Sidewalks REMARKS: 11/18/2010: Please acquire waiver for the future sidewalk adjacent to NE 36th Ave. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: a (2) - Design Criteria REMARKS: 11/18/2010: Parallel access easement is shown in a 2001 Major Site Plan for American Fire & Safety Equipment which is located directly south of this site. Please provide parallel access that connects to this easement. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: a (9) - Sign and Pavement Markings REMARKS: 11/18/2010: 1) Please have the diagonal striping adjacent to the existing building striped toward the direction of travel. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: All sheets 24" X 36" and identified as "Major Site Plan". REMARKS: 11/12/10 - Remove the word "improvement". DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Sheets numbered and cross referenced. REMARKS: 11/12/10 - The landscape plan is listed on the index but was only provided with 3 plans. All plans should be complete sets. cs DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Waivers listed on cover sheet (if applicable). REMARKS: 11/12/10 - Waivers are listed but have not been requested as of this date. cs DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Name & address and signature of owner/applicant. REMARKS: 11/12/10 - Plans not signed by owner. cs 4

17 DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Boundary survey submitted. REMARKS: DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Required Surveyor's Certification signed/sealed. REMARKS: DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Recording of easements/deeds. REMARKS: DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Water Management District permit (If applicable). REMARKS: DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Sidewalks REMARKS: Please provide or obtain appropriate waiver DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Parallel Access REMARKS: Please provide or obtain appropriate waiver DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Recording of Access Easement REMARKS: DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Springs Protection Design Required (If YES - ADD SPZ CHECKLIST) REMARKS: 1) Revise the plan to include a prominant note that states the following: "This project is located within the Silver Springs Primary Protection Zone." 2) The plan must clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicable spring protection zone standards. This is a significant concern in relation to the planned outdoor storage area and potential rainfall run-off conditions and characteristics. 5

18 DEPARTMENT: ZONE2-2ND LEVEL OF REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: All applicable requirements of Article 9 and the LDC have been met. REMARKS: 1) List of required regulatory approvals, or permits. (county, state such as W.M.D., D.E.P., D.O.H. and D.O.T.) Article 9 item 20 2) On the cover sheet list of waivers and/or variances required or requested. (Article 9 item 22) 3) Type "E" buffer along NE 36th ave - call out contents - 4 trees per linear 100' and a double staggered hedge row. 4) No buffering required along the east, north and south property lines as they abut B5 zoning 5) 6.4 karst feature protection -(a) Submittal Documents. An applicant for new development or expansion of existing development shall submit a signed and sealed site plan, to scale, which shall depict Karst features on the project site and off-site within 100 feet of the project boundary. Additional karst feature protections may be required ) Does this site require Fire Tank(s) or Fire wells) 7) SPZ Define what type of business / outside storage is proposed for the impervious area of the site. If it includes manufacturing and repair or storage of non serviceable machinery / equipment addition SPZ requirements will be required as stated in section. 8) statute (a)handicapped 44" walk isle All spaces must be located on an accessible route no less than 44 inches wide so that users will not be compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. 9) (b) Each space must be located on the shortest safely accessible route from the parking space to an accessible entrance. If there are multiple entrances or multiple retail stores, the parking spaces must be dispersed to provide parking at the nearest accessible entrance. 10) Show and record "cross access easement" along NE 36th ave (comp plan collector) 11) Sidewalks (Commercial External) provided or waiver, in all property within urban commercial and industrial areas d- DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: e (1) - Tree locations and tree calculations REMARKS: Update calculations to reflect the correct ratios and replacement (if needed). DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: g (3) - Swaling and minor grades changes to be outside of dripline REMARKS: Drainage swale does affect root zone of 14" DBL Oak. Provide root protection/recovery notes for this area. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: B 6(b) - Buffer required REMARKS: Refer to Zoning comments pertaining to buffer along NE 36th Ave. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (1)(a)ii - Group plant types with similar care needs; hydrozone REMARKS: 'Fashion' Azalea have a higher water demand than adjacent proposed plant material. 6

19 DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (1)(b) - Minimum landscape areas for non-residential development REMARKS: To receive a reduction in Landscape Area, use only native trees and plant material, drought tolerant plant material and FFL principles. See following comments on use of FFL. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (1)(d) - Use of approved native or drought tolerant plants; fifty percent native species REMARKS: Only 45% of the proposed species are native. 'Little Gem' Magnolia, 'Weaver White' Dogwood and 'St. Luke' Plum are not native to Florida. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (1)(d) - Use of Florida-Friendly Landscaping principles REMARKS: The 20% Landscape Area = 8,973.4sf 40% must be landscaped using FFL principles = 3,589.3sf Sod under trees will not be counted towards the FFL area. Other FFL issues to be addressed: 1. Plants being shown too close to buildings (offset rootball 2' - 3' away). 2. Bedlines are difficult to maintain. 3. Include trees in front of building into a bed for ease of maintenance. 4. Camelia tree will block access to north side of buliding and make turf management difficult. 5. Planting Myrtle Holly near powerlines, where space permits, may be acceptable however planting trees with a mature growth of 20' to 40' under powerlines is prohibited. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (6)(c) - Shade tree specifications REMARKS: Use shade trees to meet these requirements. Palms and ornamental trees should not be counted as shade trees. Due to the size of the Holly trees, they could be counted as shade trees however newly installed ornamental trees will not be counted. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (6)(d) - Post development ratio minimum one shade tree per 3,000 square feet REMARKS: Shade tree calculations require 15 shade trees. Five existing Oak trees and two existing Holly trees shall count towards this requirement. Provide eight new shade trees (2 1/2" DBH min.). DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (6)(f) - Location of trees conflict with utilities REMARKS: See previous comment about using trees under powerlines. 7

20 DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (7) - Buffering REMARKS: Refer to Zoning comments. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: k (1)(h) - Landscape maintenance procedures REMARKS: Add note to plan: All landscape maintenance shall be in accordance with Marion County LDC Article k (1)(h) - Florida-Friendly Best Management Practices. Resubmittals must be complete, signed and sealed by the project engineer, project surveyor, and owner, if applicable, and folded not rolled. Please include a letter with the comments of the reviewers, an explanation to those comments, and on what page of the plan the corrections were made. When these items have been corrected, resubmit thirteen (13) plans to the Office of the County Engineer for process and review. Resubmittals will not be processed if incomplete. In the event these deficiencies are not corrected within 180 days or an extension granted by the Development Review Committee, this application shall become invalid and a new application must be submitted along with the appropriate fees. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Carla Sansone Plans Coordinator c: Sylvia Clements 8

21 DISCLAIMER: This is a work in progress. This application was compiled by the Marion County Property Appraiser's Office solely for the governmental purpose of property assessment. These are NOT surveys. Our goal is to provide the most accurate data available, however no warranties, expressed or implied, are provided with this data, its use, or interpretation. All information subject to change without notice. Use at your own risk.

22 DISCLAIMER: This is a work in progress. This application was compiled by the Marion County Property Appraiser's Office solely for the governmental purpose of property assessment. These are NOT surveys. Our goal is to provide the most accurate data available, however no warranties, expressed or implied, are provided with this data, its use, or interpretation. All information subject to change without notice. Use at your own risk.

23 PROJECT NAME: OCALA CROSSINGS NORTH PUD AKA BRADFORD FARMS PHASE 3-5 PUD REZONING PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICATION NUMBER: DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 2. Stormwater STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: The minimum width for drainage easements is 20'. Please consider this during design as the side setbacks would encroach into the drainage easement, as applicable. 2. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: ZONING CHANGE STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: 12/5/2011: Approved, Traffic Section is ok with general location of collector roads. 3. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: Rezoning STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: N/A 4. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 1.Stormwater STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION ON AGREEMENT REMARKS: 3/22/12: At this time the plans and presented agreement cannot move forward with a recommendation of approval. References pertaining to the obligations of Marion County, which to the knowledge of stormwater, have not been agreed to or accepted must first be discussed and finalized prior to approval. Please schedule a meeting with the appropriate staff to discuss the developer's agreement and what obligations are agreed to by all parties involved. STATUS OF REVIEW: AGREED TO AMEND LANGUAGE FOR SHARED POND FACILITIES 11/22/11: Note 15.3 indicates potential drainage stub-outs to adjacent property. Please clarify note if this is only referring to utility stub-outs. If drainage stub-outs are proposed, this will require a discussion with staff prior to any approvals. 5. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Plan Notes STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH COUNTY ENGINEER & COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REMARKS: 3/30/12 - All notes obligating the County to any future construction or improvement shall be removed from the plans. Denied. The proposed plan notes addressing median openings, drainage retention areas and maintenance is not consistent with meetings between Transportation and the owner and owner representative. The roadway is 100% designed and permitted. 6. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Developer's Agreement STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH COUNTY ENGINEER & COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REMARKS: The proposed agreement is overreaching and obligating to the County to provide infrastructure and improvements that are not funded and may not be for a long time. Staff will not be in support of the agreement as proposed. The proposed agreement shall be revised to eliminate items obligating the County to provide infrastructure.

24 7. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Proposed PUD Uses & Densities are consistent with Land Use Designation? STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET/WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF REMARKS: Per LUA/DA agreement, the base density shall be calculated on the remaining acreage minus the R/W dedicated for SW 49th Ave (10.74 acres). Resulting maximum density is 715 total units. Revisiting this issue will require consideration in an advertised public hearing. 8. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Developer's Agreement for LUA/Zoning completed? STATUS OF REVIEW: THIS WILL BE DONE LATER WITH REVISED SUBMITTAL REMARKS: The Developer's Agreement must be finalized and recorded prior to PUD Master Plan approval. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - OR BOOK/PAGE: (PENDING). LUA GRANTED: 4/14/2011 (Found in Compliance) LUA CASE NUMBER: 08-L26 BCC APPROVAL DATE: 02/10/2011 PARCEL NUMBER: ACREAGE: OWNER NAME(S): Bradford Farms Ph 3 CONDITIONS: SEE LUA AGREEMENT 9. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Conceptual Review of Primary Development Requirements REMARKS: The following remarks are general in nature and provided regarding the conceptual plan submitted for review, wherein formal review will take place upon submission of the project's formal Master Plan: 1. Minimum Residential Density [FLUE Appendix A-5]: The Marion County Comprehensive Plan functionally establishes 3 dwelling units per acre as the minimum development density required for Medium Density Residential designated sites. The final Master Plan will need to reflect this minimum density requirement. 2. Environmental Assessment for Listed Species Provided? [FLUE 4.16/CE 2.23]: An Environmental Assessment for Listed Species will be required at the time the final Master Plan is submitted for DRC review processing. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 3. Springs Protection Zone/Design: The site is located in Marion County's Rainbow Springs Secondary Springs Protection Zone (SPZ). This zone type will need to be noted on the final Master Plan and subsequent plans, and the project design must comply with the applicable SPZ design standards. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 4. Wellhead Protection (NGAR & LDC Section ]: The proposed potable water well(s) will require identification and delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) on the final Master Plan and appropriate subsequent development plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: WAIVER REQUESTED 5. Access Management - Existing R/W, Functional Roads, Major Roads: The existing R/W widths for the abutting roadway network must be provided with the final Master Plan. The proposed SW 49th Avenue (Functional Collector), SW 80th & 90th Streets (Collector/Major Road), and Ocala Crossings Boulevard (Collector/Major Road) appear to provide a sufficient and complete street network coordinated with the surrounding area. A formal waiver will be required at address any other un-met Section/Quarter-Section R/W dedication requirements; however Planning staff would support such a waiver. 2

25 STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON FUTURE MASTER PLAN 6. Access Management - Internal/Interconnected Access/Parallel Access: The proposed Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network appear to provide sufficient access alternatives to address Interconnected and Parallel Access; however final review is subject to more detailed information required with the final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans. Direct access to the Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network by individual sites will be prohibited, particularly for individual residential developments; however some facilities may be authorized for access on a case-by-case basis to be further addressed by the final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON FUTURE MASTER PLAN 7. Access Management - Multi-modal: The final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans will need to provide for multi-modal access addressing pedestrian/sidewalk and bicycle access, particular given the public facilities and long-term commercial development opportunities in the surroundings. The Master Plan will need to establish location and design standards for the overall "multi-modal access network" which is then reflected by the project's subsequent phase plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 8. Concurrency Utilities: The project must be served by central water and central sewer service. 9. Concurrency Traffic (Access Improvements): Conveyance/establishment of the Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network roadways shown on the plan will be necessary, along with providing for any additional improvements indicated as necessary to support the development and/or its access needs (e.g., turn lanes at intersections, etc.). STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 10. Concurrency Deferral: The following note must be provided on the final Master Plan unless other suitable and acceptable arrangements are made: "This project has not been granted concurrency approval and/or granted and/or reserved any public facility capacities. Future rights to develop the resulting properties are subject to a deferred concurrency determination and final approval to develop the property has not been obtained. The completion of concurrency review and/or approval has been deferred to later development review stages, such as, but not limited to, Preliminary Plat, Improvement Plan, Final Plat, Site/Drainage Plan review and/or Building Permit review." 10. DEPARTMENT: UTIL - MARION COUNTY UTILITIES REVIEW ITEM: Comments - Response Required. STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH MARION COUNTY UTILITIES REMARKS: Contact Marion County Utilities to discuss developers Agreement 3

26

27 PROJECT NAME: OCALA CROSSINGS SOUTH PUD AKA BRADFORD 159 P2 PUD - REZONING PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICATION NUMBER: DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 2. Stormwater STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: The minimum width for drainage easements is 20'. Please consider this during design as the side setbacks would encroach into the drainage easement, as applicable. 2. DEPARTMENT: ENGTRF - TRAFFIC REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Rezoning STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: 12/5/2011: Approved, Traffic Section is ok with general location of collector roads. 3. DEPARTMENT: LSCAPE - LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND IRRIGATION REVIEW ITEM: Rezoning STATUS OF REVIEW: INFO REMARKS: N/A 4. DEPARTMENT: ENGDRN - STORMWATER REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: 1. Stormwater STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION ON AGREEMENT REMARKS: 3/22/12: At this time the plans and presented agreement cannot move forward with a recommendation of approval. References pertaining to the obligations of Marion County, which to the knowledge of stormwater, have not been agreed to or accepted must first be discussed and finalized prior to approval. Please schedule a meeting with the appropriate staff to discuss the developer's agreement and what obligations are agreed to by all parties involved. STATUS OF REVIEW: AGREED TO AMEND LANGUAGE FOR SHARED POND FACILITIES 11/22/11: Plan notes , 15.5, 15.7 and 15.8, which are related to stormwater, will need to be discussed with staff prior to approval of this concept plan. 5. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Plan Notes STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH COUNTY ENGINEER & COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REMARKS: 3/30/12 - All notes obligating the County to any future construction or improvement shall be removed from the plans. Denied. Plan notes are not consistent with comments from Transportation from previous meetings with owner and owner representative. Notes pertaining to medians, drainage retention areas, and maintenance needs revisions. The roadway is 100% designed and permitted. 6. DEPARTMENT: ENGIN - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Developer's Agreement STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH COUNTY ENGINEER & COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REMARKS: The proposed agreement is overreaching and obligating to the County to provide infrastructure and improvements that are not funded and may not be for a long time. Staff will not be in support of the agreement as proposed. The proposed agreement shall be revised to eliminate items obligating the County to provide infrastructure.

28 7. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Proposed PUD Uses & Densities are consistent with Land Use Designation? STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET/WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF REMARKS: Per LUA/DA agreement, the base density shall be calculated on the remaining acreage minus the R/W dedicated for SW 49th Ave (32.74 acres). Resulting maximum density is 1346 total units. Revisiting this issue will require consideration in an advertised public hearing. 8. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Developer's Agreement for LUA/Zoning completed? STATUS OF REVIEW: THIS WILL BE DONE LATER WITH REVISED SUBMITTAL REMARKS: The Developer's Agreement must be finalized and recorded prior to PUD Master Plan approval. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - OR BOOK/PAGE: (PENDING). CONDITIONS SUMMARY - SEE LUA AGREEMENT FOR DETAILS. LUA GRANTED: 04/14/2011 LUA CASE NUMBER: 08-L27 and 08-L26 BCC APPROVAL DATE: 02/10/2011 PARCEL NUMBER: and (Portion of) ACREAGE: (08-L27) and (08-L26) OWNER NAME(S): Bradford 159 P2 LLC 9. DEPARTMENT: LUCURR - LAND USE CURRENT REVIEW REVIEW ITEM: Conceptual Review of Primary Development Requirements REMARKS: The following remarks are general in nature and provided regarding the conceptual plan submitted for review, wherein formal review will take place upon submission of the project's formal Master Plan: 1. Minimum Residential Density [FLUE Appendix A-5]: The Marion County Comprehensive Plan functionally establishes 3 dwelling units per acre as the minimum development density required for Medium Density Residential designated sites. The final Master Plan will need to reflect this minimum density requirement. 2. Environmental Assessment for Listed Species Provided? [FLUE 4.16/CE 2.23]: An Environmental Assessment for Listed Species will be required at the time the final Master Plan is submitted for DRC review processing. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 3. Springs Protection Zone/Design: The site is located in Marion County's Rainbow Springs Secondary Springs Protection Zone (SPZ). This zone type will need to be noted on the final Master Plan and subsequent plans, and the project design must comply with the applicable SPZ design standards. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 4. Wellhead Protection (NGAR & LDC Section ]: The proposed potable water well(s) will require identification and delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) on the final Master Plan and appropriate subsequent development plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: WAIVER REQUESTED 5. Access Management - Existing R/W, Functional Roads, Major Roads: The existing R/W widths for the abutting roadway network must be provided with the final Master Plan. The proposed SW 49th Avenue (Functional Collector), SW 85th & 90th Street (Collector/Major Road), and Ocala Crossings Boulevard (Collector/Major Road) appear to provide a sufficient and complete street network coordinated with the surrounding area. A formal waiver will be required at address any other un-met Section/Quarter-Section R/W dedication requirements; however Planning staff would support such a waiver. 2

29 STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON FUTURE MASTER PLAN 6. Access Management - Internal/Interconnected Access/Parallel Access: The proposed Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network appear to provide sufficient access alternatives to address Interconnected and Parallel Access; however final review is subject to more detailed information required with the final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans. Direct access to the Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network by individual sites will be prohibited, particularly for individual residential developments; however some facilities may be authorized for access on a case-by-case basis to be further addressed by the final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON FUTURE MASTER PLAN 7. Access Management - Multi-modal: The final Master Plan and subsequent phase plans will need to provide for multi-modal access addressing pedestrian/sidewalk and bicycle access, particular given the public facilities and long-term commercial development opportunities in the surroundings. The Master Plan will need to establish location and design standards for the overall "multi-modal access network" which is then reflected by the project's subsequent phase plans. STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 8. Concurrency Utilities: The project must be served by central water and central sewer service. 9. Concurrency Traffic (Access Improvements): Conveyance/establishment of the Functional Collector and Collector/Major Road network roadways shown on the plan will be necessary, along with providing for any additional improvements indicated as necessary to support the development and/or its access needs (e.g., turn lanes at intersections, etc.). STATUS OF REVIEW: ENGINEER WILL ANNOTATE ON MASTER PLAN 10. Concurrency Deferral: The following note must be provided on the final Master Plan unless other suitable and acceptable arrangements are made: "This project has not been granted concurrency approval and/or granted and/or reserved any public facility capacities. Future rights to develop the resulting properties are subject to a deferred concurrency determination and final approval to develop the property has not been obtained. The completion of concurrency review and/or approval has been deferred to later development review stages, such as, but not limited to, Preliminary Plat, Improvement Plan, Final Plat, Site/Drainage Plan review and/or Building Permit review." 10. DEPARTMENT: UTIL - MARION COUNTY UTILITIES REVIEW ITEM: Comments - Response Required. STATUS OF REVIEW: WILL MEET WITH MARION COUNTY UTILITIES REMARKS: Contact Marion County Utilities to discuss developers agreement. 3

30