Loading...
PBSD MSTBU Agenda 04/11/2012 (Revised)_TMTrV O • f�iA Y n LU l [ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION C V/4 CC ....................... 10y; Service Taxing and Benefit Unit ! ,� BY:......... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Pledge of Allegiance Fiala 2. Roll Call Hiller _ 3. Agenda Approval Hennin 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman Coyle ✓ 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes COlettaG a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Administrator's Report a. Pathways b. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive (Chandler) c. Beach Renourishment d. South Berm Restoration Permit e. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Letter to Commissioner Hiller and response regarding resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard b. Letter to Army Corps of Engineers and response regarding dredging workshop c. Announcements 8. Committee Reports 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Audience Comments 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE IVAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TOPARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. M'sc. Corres: Cate: —1 Item #: k UT— 2 A 2`—1 Copies to: 3/30/2012 2:35:19 PM CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, February 21 at 4:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Michael Levy Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers In the audience: thirteen (13) attendees. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman 3. Clam Bay Tidal Monitoring Procedures & Purpose; Update on Status of 2011 Annual Report by Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers 4. Clam Bay Restoration 2011 Annual Report by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn ROLL CALL Chairman Trecker gave a brief presentation about Clam Bay matters including: 1) Services of Engineers (USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clam Bay maintenance permits and responsibilities; 2) Seagate appealed the FDEP decision denying an qAM lawsuit is still pending; 3) water quality regulations that would define approved by the FDEP and Florida Legislature, but approval by the Em and environmental groups are challenging the legislation; and 4) Collier I Bay dredging permit to provide a framework to maintain the Clam Bay Triggers for dredging are hydrologic, but not quantified. There are no bi 5 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 r CLAM BAY TIDAL MONITORING PROCEDURES & PURPOSE, STATUS OF 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY KENNETH K. HUMISTON, P.E., HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. gave a presentation about Clam Bay tidal monitoring procedures and purpose, and the status of the 2011 Annual Report. He explained the purpose of tidal monitoring is to maintain tidal flushing and to keep the Clam Pass inlet open. Prior to monitoring, the inlet was unstable and would close and need to be dredged frequently, so the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management plan was developed and implemented to stabilize it. Gauges are deployed throughout Clam Bay to measure tidal range and phase lag. The smaller the phase lag is the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. The larger the tide range is in the bay the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. This data tells whether shoaling in the inlet is going to interfere with circulation important to water quality, the health of mangroves, and other environmental issues. Inlets have a natural equilibrium condition that is determined by measuring velocity that helps indicate whether dredging is necessary. The higher the velocity is the better and indicates the Pass will stay open longer. The Pass was dredged twice since 1998 in 1999 and 2007. In his opinion, the current entrance channel dredge cuts are appropriate to maintain tidal flushing. Mr. Humiston explained that due to due to malfunctioning gauges, the tidal data is incomplete. However new gauges were deployed and will be retrieved for analysis prior to coming to any conclusions or making any recommendations. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about dredging cut parameters in the new permit application. Mr. John Domenic asked what the function of the ebb shoal is. Mr. Humiston explained the ebb shoal is the platform allowing sand to be transported across the inlet to naturally maintain tidal flushing. Ms. Mary Johnson asked how the inlet cross - section survey was done and was concerned whether increasing the width of the dredge cut would contribute to beach erosion. Mr. Humiston said cross - section surveys are done using GPS kinetic systems and appropriate dredge cut width is between 40 -80 feet to maintain tidal flushing and minimize beach erosion. CLAM BAY RESTORATION 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY TIM HALL. SENIOR ECOLOGIST & PRINCIPAL, TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES. INC. u Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2012 not present and there is no evidence of any oil spill damage within the system. Other comments made expressed support for the Services Division to continue to monitor the Clam Bay system. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Mr. Cravens made a motion to make a recommendation to the full Board to support requests to hold a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers workshop. The Subcommittee agreed clarification of the process was needed. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker for the Clam Bay Subcommittee to make a recommendation to the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board that the "PBSD/MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Society and others to review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit application materials ". The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURN Discussion concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Dave Trecker, Chairman 7 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/2012 10:06:09 AM "23yj iy 1 z PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION (DRAFT) MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation 35 in the audience (REVISED) AGENDA 853E Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7.2012 8. Old business 9. New business 10. Audience comments 11. Miscellaneous correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL All present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler suggested the Board discuss the Foundation's request to reconsider Feb. 1 Board action first under Pathways; and Vice Chairman Cravens added "Erosion along the west side of the berm" to Landscape Water Management Subcommittee report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amender! The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimous! in favor and the motion was passed. JANUARY 10, 2012 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimous! in avor and the motion was passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT PATHWAYS Mr. Chandler and Ms. O'Brien stated reasons why it was appropriate to reconsider the February 1 Board ac ' 11 as how one could come to a different conclusion than what was recommended by the Community Improvement IP). Chandler said the CIP pathway analysis did not include usage counts, incident reports, statistics, or refer o ublication relating to accident prevention; however he made his own observations and reports, this Board has re vie - s, Collier County Sheriff s incident reports, received information from Florida Department of Transportation arding f having a shared -use pathway adjacent to a roadway, and the operations manager communicated project side adjacent condominiums. Ms. O'Brien added that the County is responsible for maintaining roadway , and was not planning to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard until 2016; the County was not doing aWto 1• taining the pathways; 8539 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 AUDIENCE COMMENTS OPPOSED TO WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Harry Weingartner (Avalon), Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge), Mr. Bill Hennig (Grosvenor), and Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) were not in favor of widening pathways to eight feet because: (1) concerned about tree removal to accommodate greater width; (2) perceived that wider pathways encouraged more and faster bicyclists creating unsafe conditions at driveways, particularly from bicyclists going against traffic; (3) pathways in the project area are not in as poor condition as in other areas, and pathways in the worst condition should be redone first; and (4) it was not the Services Division's responsibility to maintain the pathways, because residents pay property taxes to the County to maintain pathways. IN FAVOR OF WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Carson Beadle (past Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Charles Bodo (Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Mike Kitchen, Ms. Patty Vlasho (Crown Colony), and Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) were in favor of widening pathways to eight feet. Comments made included: (1) February 1 decision should have been postponed because three members were absent; (2) that the decision made February 1 did not represent the community majority, but a minority of dissenters; (3) Board should recognize that the CIP recommendation was based on a significant amount of work; (4) that they had stopped using the pathways because pathways are too narrow, surface is uneven, and one could easily injure themselves on the existing pathways; and (5) agreed that wider was better to encourage an active lifestyle and would mesh with the community's conceptual design. Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) was concerned about bicyclist safety and suggested putting bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Cal Grayson said the pathways on Crayton and Myra Janco Daniels are unsafe. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt said the CIP study did not address the standard width of multi -use pathways. However the current Florida Department of Transportation standard for multi -use pathways is 10 -12 feet. Wider pathways are more stable and 8 feet is a compromise. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the concerns expressed including (1) that the community could not accommodate the standard currently ride in the roadway would stay in the roadway; and (5) that because of the County's im adequate maintenance due to shortage of funds, that the community might eventually have to assume respons' MOTION TO MO VE FORWARD TO WIDEN PATHWAY FEET M Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said the engineer would complete the plans and apply for necessary right of way permits then the project would then be put out to bid for the Board's review and recommendation prior to construction. OBSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN PATHWAYS AND ROADWAY BLOCKING STREET LIGHTS AT NIGHT ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD FROM THE GLENVIEW TO THE PHIL The Services Division was informed by Mr. James Morrison (Glenview) that high shrubbery was blocking street lights from reaching the pathways along Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil. Staff began trimming and Mr. Morrison sent a follow -up letter March 5 that the lighting had improved significantly. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT SUMMER 2012 COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that February 13, the Budget Subcommittee discussed whether to do additional crosswalk and associated landscaping projects this summer in advance of FY 2013. The proposed projects would renovate existing crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road to make them consistent with the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crossings recently completed. The cost is approximately $50,000 per intersection. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino) conveyed residents' complaints of the noise made by vehicles driving over the cobblestones at the Beach walk crossing; Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) said the cobblestones were not effective as rumble strips; Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) observed that the crosswalks are not uniform throughout the community and agreed with Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater) that the crossings needed to be illuminated at night; Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) said the cobblestones created a tripping hazard, and suggested the Board add a blog to its website; all agreed with Mr. Dave Ritger (Oakmont) that the Board should obtain community feedback before implementing more crosswalk projects; and Messrs. Domenie, Ritger and Bill Hennig (Grosvenor) agreed the projects were a waste of money. Mr. Dorrill said that the statement made about cobblestones was untrue; cobblestones do not create a tripping hazard. Mr. Levy did not agree that the Crayton Road intersection should be left out. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned with the Board moving forward without doing a survey first. Mr. Gibson reiterated that safety was the Board's first concern, but purpose of the CIP was to retain property values. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Gibson to implement crosswalk projects during the summer of 2012 along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive a Mvra Janco Daniels Boulevard The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed AqJ COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING dr. Lukasz proposed that additional landscaping renovation projects be done this summer in hou ad 113 budget at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Myra Janco Daniels; 2. ointe; and 5) Hammock Oak. Each intersection is estimated to cost $18,000 - $25,000, depe er tion improvements needed, and design was based on the landscape architect's t 1 con an . As. O'Brien suggested that the Board, on a future agenda, discuss perfor ual to obtain coi prior to moving projects forward. AUDIENCE COMMENTS vls. Marcia Cravens was concerned about the irrigation he in with the landscaping at ion. Mr. Lukasz clarified that the appropriate rotator pop -u lume tion heads were installed. 8541 P Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 ' F an Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve in -house landscaping projects to be done this summer at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard. l) Daniels; 2) North Pointe, 3) Glenview; 4) Crayton; and S) Hammock Oak. The Board ous) in favor and the motion was passed. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION OWNERSHIP OF BERM AND WATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill explained that the parcel of land upon which the berm sits is owned by the Pelican Bay Foundation; that within this parcel are drainage easements upon which the former Pelican Bay Independent District (PBID) used public funds to construct improvements to the water management system; therefore, any improvements constructed by the PBID within the drainage easements are now assets of Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), as successor to the PBID. The PBSD is responsible for operations and maintenance of the Pelican Bay water management system and assets located within the drainage easements. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt clarified that the Foundation owns the underlying land; Westinghouse granted an easement to the PBID to construct the water management berm; PBID permitted the Foundation to use the land atop the berm to access the Foundation's facilities and the Foundation is responsible for operating and maintaining the asphalt atop the berm; that the Foundation established rights of access over the land atop the berm as private property; and the land atop the berm is maintained as Foundation private property. For the current restoration project, the Services Division is responsible for reestablishing the slope of the berm; and the Foundation is responsible for replacing the asphalt path atop the berm. Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about PBID dissolution, succession, and with using PBSD funds for this project. BERM ENGINEERING PLANS TO DATE (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill reported that due to miscommunication, Wilson Miller did not submit the Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit application. However, Mr. Dorrill would make certain that the permit application is submitted. If no hiccups, the permitting process should be complete in 90 days; and concurrently, the engineers will complete specifications and design plans and project put out to bid. Construction could begin as early as this summer. REVISIT PROPOSAL TO RESURFACE PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD EARLY (O'BRIEN) Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve into the record report as amended with revised income statement. The Board voted unanimo motion was Passed. bidding process. 8542 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by ice Chairman Cravens to renew the Dorrill Management Group contract at the existing fee structure: annual contract is $75,360 to start July 1, 2012 and end June 30, 2013. The Board voted unanimousl in favor and the motion was passed. APRIL MEETING SCHEDULE The majority of the Board agreed to cancel the April 4 Board regular meeting and rescheduled April 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets March 8 at 1 p.m.; Foundation Board meets March 23 at 8:30 a.m.; the Foundation's Annual Meeting is March 26 at 9 a.m.; and the Services Division's Budget Subcommittee meets March 26 at 3 p.m. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE WORKSHOP REQUEST (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens and Dr. Trecker reported that at the February 21 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting, a motion was passed to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board provide support to several environmental groups request to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that the Corps hold a workshop to allow these groups to participate and express concerns about the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Mr. Tim Hall clarified that anyone can make a request to the Corps to hold a workshop. However, it is the Corps sole decision as to whether it is necessary; the Corps is not obligated or mandated to do so. If the request to hold a workshop has already been made, then the Board could provide its support to the groups that made the request and send to the Corps regional office in Fort Myers. Ms. Cravens confirmed that the letter of support should be sent to Corps reviewer, Ms. Linda Elligott. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by as amended, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board acknowledges, supports, and endorses requests for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass- Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier County Audubon Society. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor and the motion was passed. Chairman Dallas was opposed. Messrs. Baron & Hansen were not present. aerial Vice Chairman Cravens observed areas of erosion along the west side of the y_=� that heading south, ends at mile marker 1.2, generally from the north boardwalk by the nesting behavior of Florida soft -shell turtles. He planned to show MrI that staff could address before the rainy season. Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the County did a were still several Brazilian Peppers and Australian Pines. 851 t t S Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the County was in the process of drafting its FY 2013 budget policy, so the next Budget Subcommittee meeting is March 26 at 3 p.m. At this meeting, staff will introduce the very preliminary FY 2013 budget and discuss proposed projects and cash flow and the annual assessment. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Ms. Womble presented schematic design plans for two Foundation restaurants that illustrated what could be done within the current "footprint' or available space; and reported that Mr. Carson Beadle stepped down from the SPC and that it was not yet known what the plans were to replace his spot. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted unanimous) in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 .m Keith J. Dallas, Chairman NMI I Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/23/2012 4:46:30 PM April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 1 of 12 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas rmailto :keithidallasC�gmail.coml Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:16 PM To: LukaszKyle; Neil Dorrill Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Arborist Kyle & Neil, The Foundation today discussed Rich Galli's letter where his arborist said 40 or 50 trees would be killed by our pathway widening. Initially they were going to pass a motion saying the PBSD and the Foundation would jointly hire an arborist to look at trees throughout the community. Then realizing how little they liked the PBSD motion about paving the upland at the Commons for parking, Gerry Moffat withdrew his motion. Then they debated sending us a letter requesting we hire an arborist, but finally agreed that letter was unnecessary since I assured them we would discuss the item April I lth. For your information, at least Mary Ann and Susan also were there (a couple other PBSD Board members attended earlier in the session, but i think had left by the time this was discussed at the end of their session). Before the next meeting, I'd like you to think about hiring an arborist and at the 11th be able to : Discuss how we would go about hiring an arborist, possibly with ideas about some specific individuals, or • Have a good discussion about why it is unnecessary Someone also brought up that some of the condo associations had used a County Extension arborist for their trees, which is a free service. The issue about the trees is currently being primarily driven by those who don't want the pathways widened and those who don't like our recent landscape decisions. Nonetheless, I think there is an underlying issue that we should address: should we use an arborist to advise us on the ramifications of widening specific pathways, and also where trees throughout our community have lived their useful life and should be replaced. Having a professional advise us on the pathways will become even more major if in future years we decide to work on pathways to the north of North Tram Station or the east side by the driving range where whatever we do may harm nearby trees. If we can do whatever possible to assure the public we care about the trees and are doing everything practical to make sure we don't have unintended consequences, I believe most people will support our projects. Keith April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 2 of 12 March 22, 2012 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors: Ms. Bonnie Bellone Mr. Bill Carpenter Ms. Mary McLean Johnson Mr. Jerry Moffatt Ms. Noreen Murray Mr. Robert Naegele Mr. Robert Pendergrass To: Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors: Mr. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Ladies & Gentlemen, RECEI 1ii+.1,J PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION I have been an owner here in Pelican Bay as a resident of St_ Maarten for 24 years (since our building opened). We love the ambiance of PB & all that it has to offer. I am very disturbed at what I for see as a disaster with the plan to widen the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd. walkways to 8 ft. Until recently, I was under the impression that they would be 6 ft. I personally do not know, professionally, the impact of such action, but logically as I view the landscape along Pelican Bay Blvd., it would decimate a hugh amount of trees. This would be totally unacceptable!! My friend here at St. Maarten, who is a qualified engineer & builder of high quality homes in Southern New Jersey, sent you the attached study that he has done & the impact of what you are planning. 1 would ask that you evaluate his recommendations in the attached & reconsider the current plan to widen the walkways. The last thing we need to do in our community is destroy the beautiful trees & landscape that has taken years to mature for the sake of a walkway. Perhaps a 6 ft. wide walkway is sufficient & would prevent much of the destruction that Rich Galli describes in his memo. Please check it out TO BE SURE we preserve the beauty of Pelican Bay Blvd. I would appreciate a response to my letter with your evaluation & next steps before the Board proceeds, Ahi1)Gut2e0rmuth 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Apt. # 401 St. Maarten Condominium Naples, FL 34108 Phone 591 -3160 judesterz@aol.com Copy: St. Maarten Board of Directors Mr Rick Galli, St. Maarten, Mr. Phil Dabill, Montenero, Mr Jack McHugh, Cap Ferrat April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 3 of 12 ResnickLisa From: q.moffatt41(@gmail.com rmailto :Q.rnoffatt41(@gmail.coml On Behalf Of Gerald Moffatt Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:35 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Gerald A Moffatt Subject: Re: Pelican Bay Services Division Board March 7 Recap Lisa -- Please forward this email to all Board members. Thank you Jerry As you move ahead with repaving and widening the pathways I ask that you consider why Pelican Bay, the premier community in Southwest Florida, will be the only community that has asphalt pathways. You will be hard pressed to find any sidewalks or pathways in North Naples that are not concrete, which is a much more premium look. I sat through the very limited discussion at the joint SPC meetings when the comment was made that concrete is 3 times more expensive than asphalt. That same rational did not prevent the use of pavers for crosswalks which is also 3 times more expensive that paint striping. This is a 30 year decision. When you put in the crosswalks, you used concrete for all the approaches. A great upscale look. Before you begin this work in the summer, please revisit the decision to use asphalt. With the proper root guards, reinforced concrete should be the premium answer. Thanks for reading and considering. Jerry April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 4 of 12 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas f mailto:keithjdallas(�bgmail.coml Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:45 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Cost of Pathways. Lisa, Would you also see this email is distributed to the Board before our next Budget Meeting. It explains where numbers came from and hopefully eliminates some past confusion as to what is included /excluded from various numbers. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithdallasOcomcast.net> Subject: Cost of Pathways. Date: February 20, 2012 3:50:46 PM EST To: Kyle Lukasz <KyleLukasz(cD.colliergov.net> Cc: Lisa Resnick <LResnickna.colIiergov.net >, Neil Dorrill <neil(a)dmgfl.com> The question you asked about my estimates of the cost of pathways. All came from Wilson/ Miller report, and then I increased them 40% to reflect the one quote that was obtained for the central section of PBB. Here is a summary: Item Central PBB IW14N71 � Gulf Park W/M Cost $205,700 $351,700 $138,000 Increased 40% $288,000 $492,300 $193,200 Confusion is that the total of N & S PBB and Gulf Park Drive, increased 40 %, is $685,500, which may have described by some as "the remainder of PBB ". That with the central section gives you almost $975k. We will have to be careful (me included) to make it clear that the higher # includes Gulf Park, or to say rest of PBB is only $492k. Keith f S April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 5 of 12 rrN V1 *c Z— TO: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RECEIVED r � i BOB UEK JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY ROBERT NAEGELE MAR 14 2012 pFtI m BAY SEi vxu DIVIS104 FROM: RICK GALLI, Resident Owner r • r , • Attached is my 2 page report, that I prepared for your information and consideration, on what I think will likely happen if we proceed with this project as now designed, along with my recommendations to prevent or minimize the damage that I think it will cause. NOW I Mr. Rickard J. Galli Ex6101 Pelican Bay Blvd Unit 12 Naples, FL 34 10& April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 6 of 12 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors, & SPC, PBSD Chairs MAR CH 16 - 4 2012 REVIEW PATHWAY PRC�IECT I want to warn you about an unrecognized major threat to our Pelican Bay Boulevard streetscape that we are facing from the proposed West pathway expansion to 8 feet. I have practical experience with Northern Species trees and believe that the health and survival of our trees have been overlooked. The extensive tree root cutoff that is planned will probably weaken and disfigure or kill 64% of the irreplaceable large old growth trees (Some up to 20 inches in diameter). Before any damage is done, I wanted to point out the specifics and ask you to have a professional, certified arborist address these concerns and either dismiss them with his independent appraisal, or show you how to minimize the forecast damage. Today, for 3 hours, I took the June 2011 Construction Plans for the 8 foot expansion and walked the proposed project route both ways to observe, measure and understand how the pathway would impact the treescape. You may not realize it, but when you cut into the existing root structure of a tree down to the planned depth of 17 inches, you will weaken the structural strength and reduce it's resistance to overturning from storm and hurricane winds; lower it's biological resistance to disease and infestation; and curtail it's uptake of nutrients and water. By my count this project will put most of the other established trees at risk in addition to the 10 trees that you are planning to remove. This represents a major reconfiguration and change to our streetscape and I wanted you to be fully aware of what you are planning to do to the community before you start. I would like to show you what I found and review my findings with a certified tree arborist to develop a better, knowledgeable path forward for our community. The Construction Drawings do not show the extensive root damage an 8 foot pathway would inflict on the trees *. I have actually measured the proposed level of root removal and predict that 33 trees will be structurally and biologically weakened. The proposed tree removal of 10 trees will decimate one of the prettiest natural canopy archways that we have and I would like to show you a way to avoid that with a simple realignment. The alarming conclusion, that apparently no one has reached, or expressed, is that 83% of the total 52 trees along the pathway will be removed, damaged or killed. Or only 17% or 8 of the 52 trees will be unaffected. *One section of the design calls for a subgrade compaction to a 10 foot width which would do more damage. l used the 8 foot width. N April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 7 of 12 -2- If we had unlimited space I would have no objection to a wide pathway and in 60% of the route that is the case. But in 40% of the route we will suffer a progressive deterioration and die off like the Mangrove die off of a few years ago. I am sure that you do not want to be responsible for inflicting that kind of blight on our community. A tree is a living element and the idea that if we cut to within 2 feet of the trunk we will not damage the tree is false. The roots extend out as far as the canopy drip line and any construction inside the drip line will disturb the tree. In the cases that I cite, you are proposing cutting off up to 3 feet of the root structure which is a huge damage level that will have serious consequences over time. You can save 4 critical trees that are scheduled to be removed, by rerouting a section to preserve a beautiful canopy archway in front of the Montenaro. One tree is missing from the plan and another tree that is shown on the plans was removed and sodded over the stump area. I do not have a problem with removing dead or diseased trees, in fact there is one big dead tree that is not mentioned on the plans. I am concerned about this project because the mature treescape along the Boulevard is a signature element that elevates Pelican Bay above other high end residential communities. The established old growth trees that line the street create a distinctive, tranquil and aesthetically pleasing road thru the center of our community. The well developed green canopy and lushness of these trees is an irreplaceable hallmark that developed over a 25+ year growth period and needs to be maintained to preserve our identity as the premier residential West Coast Florida community. The trees attract people to a walking and driving adventure thru the shade, provide shelter for wildlife and enhance property values. We need to maintain and preserve it and not allow it to be inadvertently destroyed by shortsighted good intentions. Thanks for your consideration. I would be glad to help in any way I can. Rick Galli, St Maartens April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 8 of 12 ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pathway Evaluation Attachments: Pathway Evaluation copy.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, I have attached an evaluation of the Pelican Bay pathways that Kyle recently provided me. Please see it is distributed to Board members before the Budget meeting. In his transmittal, Kyle said: "Attached is a modified pathway evaluation that includes the section from Commons to the North Tram Station west side. I have modified some of the ratings, I found that some parameters weren't scoring correctly. After going back and looking at Hammock Oak I noticed that although it ranks 23% and 29% it wouldn't need to be overlayed but could just be repaired at this point, especially compared to others that are below 20 %. As a point of reference a 1000 foot sidewalk with two patches and one are of root damage with minimal edging problems would score 92 %, the same 1000 foot sidewalk with 10 areas of root damage (one /100') would score 20%." I hope this will help us think about where the PBSD goes in future years. Keith April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 9 of 12 Pelican Bay Pathway Evaluation * Overall Pathway Location Length Rating Pelican Bay Boulevard Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Commons, West Side 5430 29% Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Gulf Park Drive, East Side 5950 21% PBB - Gulf Park to North Tram Station, East Side 5675 7% PBB - Commons to North Tram Station, West Side 6240 28% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, East Side 4900 10% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, West Side 4900 10% Gulf Park Drive Gulf Park Drive - North Side 3960 63% Gulf Park Drive - South Side 3960 66% Pelican Bay Boulevard Side Streets MJD Blvd. - Bridgeway to Seagate, West Side 1220 11% MJD Blvd. - PBB to Bridgeway, West Side 725 73% MJD Blvd by Phil, East Side 725 62% Crayton Road 2050 60% Glenview Drive 440 37% North Point Drive, West Side 2150 87% North Point Drive, East Side 2150 57% Hammock Oak Drive, West Side 1625 23% Hammock Oak Drive, East Side 1625 29% Ridgewood & Oakmont Single Family, Commercial @ Ridgewood Dr. /Laurel Oak Dr. Ridgewood Drive, Laurel Oak Drive 6300 22% Oakmont Pkwy, Greentree Drive 6300 55% * Rating is based upon the number of repairs estimated to be necessary in the next 18 months from root damage, amount of cracking on the edges of the pathway and the general condition including amount of existing patches. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 10 of 12 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: John Chandler <johnchandler219ggrnail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM Subject: Pathway Repair/Replacement To: Neil Dorrill <NeiI9dmgfl.com> Cc: "Keith J. Dallas (keithdallasgcomcast.net)" <keithdallasgcomcast.net> As you know, the one issue for which there seems to be unanimous support in our community is the need to repair /replace our pathways. At our 4/11 PBSD Board Meeting, I'd like Kyle to show us his log of calls or emails to the County for pathway repair /replacement so that we can all see how many requests have been issued since 1 /1 /11, when those requests were issued and when the repairs were made. Also, Kyle can educate us on his program for reviewing all pathways and prioritizing his requests to the County. John Chandler April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 11 of 12 ResnickUsa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas f mailto :keithdallaS(d,)comcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:50 PM To: LukaszKyle Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Thanks. When you have a plan I'd like a copy. Also have you considered going over the plan with the impacted condos? Specifically I'm thinking of the Marbella. The question is if we remove trees to allow the pathway to be moved away from their driveway entrance to help visibility, or leave the trees and possibly make a difficult situation slightly worse. I would leave that decision up to the condo association, as long as they understand the tradeoffs and accept the consequences of their decision. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:32 PM, LukaszKyle wrote First, none of the trees at the Montero will need to be removed. There is a total of 1 –pine tree, 3– sable palms, 3- mahogany trees, I– orchid tree and 4–oak trees that will need to be removed. Of the materials above to be removed the 3- sables can easily be replaced with the exact same size palms, the pine, orchid, one oak and one mahogany are in poor condition and would eventually be removed regardless of the pathway (see attached pictures). Also, two of the other oak trees only need to be removed in order to realign the pathway for improved visibility at the two Marbella driveways. The proposed alignment will allow a minimum of approximately 2 foot clearance from all remaining trees and a minimum 2 foot distance from the edge of curb. Any questions please let me know. Kyle From: Keith Dallas fmailto :keithdallasacomcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:22 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Will you have the answers today? We are having a Montenero Board meeting tomorrow morning and it would be nice if I could confirm that the latest plans don't require the Montenero's oak trees to be removed. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(a)comcast.net> Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Date: March 12, 2012 12:19:33 PM EDT To: Robert Lauer <ralau43()hotmail.com> Cc: <aecumminsCd)comcast.net >, <rdiarvis1469(d)g mail. com >, "'kevin "' <kcshanahan(8comcast.net> Bob, That is my understanding. I have asked staff to show me the latest plan and to confirm our trees do not need to be removed and to make sure what other trees are being recommended to be removed. I should hear early this week, and will confirm this when I have heard. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Robert Lauer wrote All —fyi Keith—does this mean that the Oak Trees at the front of our property will be preserved? Bob April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessipn 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 12 of 12 From: med5(o)comcast.net fmailto:med5(a)comcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:08 AM To: Bob Lauer Cc: Mike Wooldridge Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Bob, I just received this email from Susan Boland. We have checked with two certified arborists and our oak trees are in OK. It is winter and some lose their leaves now. We pruned them a couple of weeks ago and they look great. I don,t know how they will fit in the pathway without losing quite a bit of landscaping. Note that Keith voted for the 8 ft. along with Mrs. Womble and the commercial board members. Womble and the commercial members were not present at the February meeting. Elaine From: JOHNSUSANBOLANDna.aol.com To: waltaa.kovacicusa.com, med5(cbcomcast.net Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:51:23 AM Subject: Motion for Pathways MR. GIBSON MADE A MOTION, SECOND BY MR. HANSEN RECOMMENDING THAT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PATHWAYS TO EIGHT FEET ALONG PB BLVD FROM THE COMMONS TO THE NORTH TRAM STATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS (AS DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT): 1) THAT THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE DESIGN OR BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE TREE BE REPLACED IN KIND NEARBY; AND (2) AT DRIVEWAYS, THAT THE PATHWAYS BE POSITIONED AS CLOSE TO PB BLVD AS POSSIBILE TO IMPROVE LINES OF SIGHT BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES AND PATHWAY USERS. THE BOARD VOTED SEVEN(7) IN FAVOR(GIBSON, BARON, HANSEN, DALLAS, CRAVENS, LEVEY, WOMBLE) TO FOUR (4) OPPOSED (TRECKER, IAIZZO, CHANDLER, O'BRIEN) AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED. THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE DRAFT OFTHE MINUTES. Susan April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 1 of 10 PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION BOARD: BILL CARPENTER RONNIE BELLONE FiEC BOB UEK JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY PELICAN BAY SEENIGES DNISION MARY JOHNSON ROBERT PENDERGRASS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CHAIR: KEITH DALLAS 8' PATHWAY PROJECT This follows up on my previous, March 16 memo regarding the un- anticipated immediate and long term damage that I expect would result from this project. I have not received any direct reply to that memo so a group of Owners selected and retained an experienced, certified, local Arborist, Signature Tree Care, of Naples, to look at the proposed project and provide their independent assessment of tree damage potential; to have something concrete for the scheduled April 11, PBSD meeting. Their report is attached for your information and use. On Friday, April 5, we reviewed the June 2011, Agnoli Barber & Brundage, IS Page Plans that I used for my survey and together walked the project area to physically observe the field situations, tree sizes, tree conditions and proposed changes that the construction would impose on the tree roots. They told me that it is common for trees that are weakened from root cutting by nearby sidewalk projects to fall over and gave me the attached University of Florida root cutting Guidelines. They confirmed my concerns and more clearly define the expected resulting damage that would occur with the proposed 8' widening plan. With this additional credible information, I ask you to reconsider going back to your earlier decision of a 6' or less width. My concerns are not only from the safety hazard from falling trees, but also the hazard of mixing pedestrians and cyclists on the same sidewalk, when a clear, safer alternate is adjacent and nearby. The attached color chart illustrates my suggestion is that you reconsider doing a test section in the same area of Pelican Bay Blvd. of a temporary street bike lane, similar to what exists on Crayton Road. In that case the open carriage way is 8'9" wide with opposing traffic. On PBBIvd. We would have a 10' carriage way with parallel traffic which is 1'3" wider than Crayton. This would put all high speed wheeled traffic on the same hardscape and improve walker safety, minimize tree damage/loss and save considerable construction money by keeping the 5` width. Furthermore, these recommendations would better align with the intent of the SPC Master Plan - Priori II SAFETY & SECURITY: #2 Convert asphalt paths along one side of the main streets (how about in the streets ?) to dedicated multi use paths... (by providing a safer and flatter dedicated biking surface), and begin following Priority III OtJR ENVIRONMENT — NATURAL & BUILT: #3 Develop a complete "Streetscape ", (by utilizing the attached, or another professional Arborist, in dealing with the Blvd. Streetscape this "Recommended Action" would be achieved) Thank you for your consideration. RICK GALLI, ST. MAARTEN APRIL 9, 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 2 of 10 J� V 1..3 va 1 , Nw - - - - caC ��Y� \mow "�!s�!� y+. J� V April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report, Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 3 of 10 Si:gmgure Tir ee c,c�'e l= 481 10th Avenue:• N.E. * Naples. Florida 341 20 O fice: t2391 348 -1330 *Fax: (2-19) 148 -3133 Email: info@'si�,,naturetrt?ecare.cum FAN ORIFKOFF fSA (` €artifie(l Arborist #f 1- 10.3%4 f loric.la Crertifie(f Horti(alture f'tof'(,ssional #11F,(15655 April 6, 2012 Attention: Rick Galli, Galli Builders Re: Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Blvd. Pathway Project from Westside - Commons to North Tram Station Arborist consultation completed this date regarding tree and root related issues in proposed pathway project. Client requested an arborist site visit along with report concerning tree health and safety issues relating to current proposed redesign which would require the severing of roots for a pathway / bike path. Area of concern would include but not limited to, as per plan given to me this date, the right of way trees on West side of South bound lanes of Pelican Bay Boulevard on either side of walk and bike pathway, Pathway is proposed to be widened with various distances between it and the trunks of multiple trees of various sizes and species. Pathway level of use would be considered high with day to day ingress and egress of pedestrian, bicycle and residential and commercial vehicular traffic. The targets and liabilities of any future tree failures would be considered high. Targets include pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. These tree failures could also impact (but are not limited to) structures such as the pathway itself, irrigation lines, utilities, landscaping, hardscape and lights. Emergency services and evacuation routes would also be impaired with failure of right of way trees. Benefits of trees alone a road include but are not limited to: *Realtor studies show communities with a mature tree canopy have increased property values *Privacy screen of traffic, poles, buildings, etc. *A collective canopy produces a wind buffer reducing wind damage to property when compared to wide open areas in the community *Shade creates a cooling effect for people who use pathway and increases pavement life by 40 to 60 % 1 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 4 of 10 4Dkgna =e 'Tree Care, mc 481 10th Avenue~ N.E, • Naples, Florida 34120 ()ffi( e: Q1{)i 3411.1 330 • Fax: i23e)i 348-11 33 [mail: infoOlsignaturetree( area ( wil IAN ORUKOFF IS-1 CIertilieel Arborist #11.11).3711 i forid,i t ertlfiecl Ilorticulture Prot'(Is.iotm/ #110056�55 Benefits of trees alone a road include but are not limited to (continued): *Sound buffer qualities reduce traffic noise *Safety: studies show tree lined streets reduce accidents / injuries by 5 -20 % *Speed reduction: multiple studies show drivers naturally slow down with speed differentials between 3 and 15 mph when traveling streets lined with trees *Storm water runoff remediation, in their given area. Trees absorb the first 30% of rainfall through their foliage and another 30% with their roots. *Trees create a greater sense of community having a reduced rate of crime and fewer incidences of road rage The benefits of trees increase as the canopy matures. Many of the statistics above are based on a mature canopy. A majority of trees are not considered to be productive trees until they reach maturity. Some of the trees on Pelican Bay Blvd are considered to be mature trees. In order to retain a mature and productive urban canopy tree roots vs, their nearby structures is a very significant consideration when dealing with development / design as well as pre and post construction. Tree roots and the surrounding urban structures are typically not considered during the early stages of development. It is not until tree health declines or tree failure occurs that the true causes are identified. Considerations during the design phase should include but are not limited to: Design factors, site conditions, soil compaction, media utilized, level of accuracy that specifications are carried out, contractor knowledge and quality of work are some of the considerations when dealing with a successful tree retention program for urban development. Other factors include: * Size of roots to be cut, how many, what percentage of root zone affected, distance to trunk, area of distribution, past history of root loss, * Soil conditions 2 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 . April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 5 of 10 Signature Tree Carte;,Lw 481 10th Avenue N.1, • Naples I loricl�i 34120 Ofii(v: ( 239) 348 -1330 * Fax: t2 0 348 -31 31 Email: infoO'signatrrretreec arf,.rom IAN ORLIKOFF ISA C ertifhOArfxorist #Fl. -103ZA Florida Certifiod I hwiculture i'rofessional #1 00 O > Considerations during the design phase should include but are not limited to (continued): * Tree species characteristics, condition, age, tolerance to root cutting, stability (lean, root to crown ratio) Right of Way frequency and targets * Future tree maintenance costs * Potential targets if tree fails and corresponding liability It is not recommended in any situation to remove any roots as they collectively provide support. Removal of buttress or stabilizing roots is not an accepted arboricultural practice as this may impact tree health and will certainly increase risk potential for catastrophic failure. Buttress roots or stabilizing roots have a poor ability to seal, which may provide an open door for decay / disease rendering the tree more unstable in the future. Decay / root rot may traverse unseen into the tree (basal flare) or base. This increases the risk for tree failure and is multiplied as the canopy develops. Trees that may appear to be stable after root zone integrity has been compromised may in the future have an increased risk of failure. This is in part due to size of roots removed, decay issues, as well as percentage of root zone relative to canopy size. This is known as root to crown ratio. The main stabilizing roots (or buttress roots) support the tree under the forces of compression and tension. Compression occurs when a tree leans on roots. Roots act as a brace or buttress on the leeward side of the tree. Tension occurs when the tree pulls and the roots act as an anchor on the windward side of the tree. During a wind event any rain increases the impact of that wind. The weight of the tree increases (weight of the rain on the leaves) with rain as well as reduced root tension from wet soils. Increased weight on canopy set in motion by wind creates a wind throw effect. Decreased root tension coupled with reduced root surface area exponentially increases risk of failure. When dealing with structural conflicts and roots, removing any roots as a short term or temporary solution to one issue only lends to a far greater problem in the future. If root removal occurs managing crown size and density through a proper pruning program can help alleviate wind throw effect. However, a pruning program is not a tool to compensate for root loss. Rather it is a last resort to help decrease future canopy losses. Removing roots can result in tree stress. Stressed trees have a Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 6 of 10 Signawre Free Cue,Lw 481 10th Avenue N, I. • Naple,,, f lorida '34120 Office: Q 391 348-1 330 • Fax: (23`)) :348 -3133 Email: infs� 4if n<turc�trert arf}.c`m IAN ORLIKOFF ISA C ertifiE (J Art)o ict 01-1037A f lorid i C ertifiecl Hortic ulture Professional #H60,56 55 reduced ability to heal injured root zones and removing foliage further increases the effect of stress weakening the tree. Options to Root cutting: 1. Curve pathway: curve far enough away for a stable root zone to remain intact. This may require cooperation with individual or multiple properties if they are open to preserving the present tree canopy. This is the highest standard for community involvement. 2. Flexible permeable pavement: allows roots to remain in place while providing a quality surface for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Bridging: a structure that is built over roots for pedestrian and bike access. Tool to determine existing roots to be impacted: Signature Tree Care would be able to perform a diagnostic root zone inspection, if requested, by carefully excavating soil from individual root zones using an Airspade (use of compressed air) to identify what roots would be impacted if root cutting was to occur during the project. Decisions could then be made by Pelican Bay Services Division if and how tree roots should be managed for the pathway project. Follow up: 1. Due to possible defects or canopy developmental concerns within an individual tree, it is recommended that each candidate for preservation be evaluated to compare the cost of preservation to the cost of replanting a better option. Example: sheet 12 of 15 in plan, tree second from left, top row, #5 on Mr. Galli's plan (Shows x8.27 on tree image). Arborist recommendation would be for removal due to poor wound closure and poor structure (see picture attached of wound). Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2012 . April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 7 of 10 iDSuture Tree Cue,= 481 10th .Avenue N F. + Naples, Florida '14120 Office: (239) 348 -1 M 0 Fax: x';91 148 -3133 Email: info �signaturetr € -c,r �ire.com IAN ORLIKOFF AA(.:(,rtitie(1 Arl),)ri,t 9111- 1(1.37.A Ifori(Ia (- ertifre(I Hordctrlture Professional #1 °1605655 2. Specifications must be written to avoid and monitor any tree damage during construction. Example: sheet 11 of 15, bottom row, first tree on the right, (shows x8.73 on tree image). Tree has poor wound closure and is leaning towards road. Arborist note: Any impact to the root zone of this tree is extremely detrimental (see picture attached of tree). As an ISA Certified Arborist I discover on a daily basis that trees are not able to develop into productive mature trees due to design in- considerations. Often, it is the upfront costs of an engineering design and cost to build that push the trees into unsustainable growing conditions /environments. As a result, future maintenance costs increase associated with tree development, vigor, health, structure, tree value and loss of function. Ultimately, trees do not become productive trees in the urban landscape as intended if not properly planned for in the design phase of any project. I Regards, Ian Orlikoff r{ 5 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 2 12 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 8 of 10 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 9 of 10 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional correspondence (from R. Galli, received 4/10) Page 10 of 10 Cutting roots - Maintenance - Landscape plants - Edward F. Gilman - OF /IFAS Page 1 of 1 Cutting roots See: removing_stem girdling roots See: root._prunging_guidelines Cutting roots for any reason under existing trees can severely damage the tree (see right photo). Many roots are located just below the surface of the soil. Adjust the location of the utility lines, driveways, buildings, and planting holes to avoid cutting roots under the canopy. Even cutting small (less than one- half inch) roots under or outside the edge of the canopy for long stretches can cut off water supply to the tree. This can cause the tree to decline or die during the next several years. The rare spruce pine tree shown at right was cut on two sides of the trunk about ten feet from the trunk. Older trees treated like this can decline and die over a 10 to 15 year period. Make root pruning cuts only with sharp pruning tools, not tractors and trenching devices. Cutting roots dose to the trunk as shown below right can cause tree failure a decade or more later. The roots of this tree were cut to construct a driveway about 15 years ago. Driving vehicles under the canopy compacts soil. Even lawn mowers can compact soil. Severely compacted soil can cause severe tree health issues. Vehicles also damage and break surface roots as they turn on the soil. If mature tree health is important to you, do not allow ANY vehicles to operate underneath trees. If there appears to be no option, then consider the preventive solutions listed below. Preventive solutions Hire a consulting arborist. • Construct a fence at the edge of the tree canopy to prevent ALL vehicles from operating there, establish fines for violations. • A 12 -inch thick layer of coarse bark mulch can be spread under the canopy and mulch can be covered with steel plates. Vehicles drive on the plates. This system has been successfully used on many sites to preserve mature trees. • Do not use the area under the canopy as a parking zone or materials storage area. • Restrict ALL vehicles to fenced -off transportation corridors and materials storage areas. • Tunnel under the roots using a trenchless technology device which installs utilities without cutting a trench. Copyright 2011 1 University_Qf FWida_l $0 Feedback.) last Modified: December 12, 2011 http: / /hort. ifas .ufl.edu /woody /disturbing.shtinl 4/10/2012 ResnickLisa Subject: April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board qegular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Additional corresponden re: pathways (3 of 4) Page 1 of 1 FW: Letter from Rick Galli From: Keith Dallas fmailto:keithidallasC gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:07 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Fwd: Letter from Rick Galli Lisa, Have this as a handout for today's meeting. Thanks. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Neil Dorrill <NeilO- dmgfl.com> Subject: RE: Letter from Rick Galli Date: April 11, 2012 10:13:56 AM EDT To: James Hoppensteadt <iimh(a)pelicanbay.org> Cc: Keith Dallas <keithidallas(g)gmail.com> Jim: Thanks and I agree. This issue is scheduled to be discussed at the meeting later today. Neil - - - -- Original Message---- - From: James Hoppensteadt fmailto jimha,12elicanba .or Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:17 PM To: keithidallas(&gmail.com; Jerry Moffatt; Mary Johnson; Noreen Murray; Robert W. Uek; Ronnie Bellone (vbellnpls(a,yahoo.com); Suzanne Minadeo; William Carpenter Cc: Suzanne Minadeo; LukaszKyle; Neil Dorrill Subject: Letter from Rick Galli Attached is a letter from Rick Galli. Apparently, Mr. Galli independently hired an arborist, but $'m not sure the arborist's report supports Mr. Galli's conclusions; as any pathway work will require root pruning. The reality is that not enough room was planned for mature trees planted between the road and the pathway. Sincerely, Jim Jim Hoppensteadt President Chief Operating Officer Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, Florida 34108 Tel: 239.260.8460 Cell: 239.398.7074 Fax: 239.597.6927 pelicanba�org "A Guaranteed Quality Customer Experience" * * * * * The information transmitted is intended only for person or entity to which it is addressed confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipien that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or i including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the material from any computer. * * * * * ind may contain you are hereby notified )pying of this message order and delete the April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Bo< 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Additional Page 1 of 1 From: Keith Dallas rmailto :keithjdallasCa)gmail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:09 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Trees along pathways. Lisa, Please distribute this also. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: LukaszKyle <KvleLukasz(ftolliergov.net> Subject: RE: Trees along pathways. Date: April 11, 2012 8:13:30 AM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithidallas(a)amail.com> Cc: Neil Dorrill <Neil dm fl.com> You were correct on the number of palms. Also, I did meet with the arborist with the County Extension to look at the trees and what potential impacts could be expected from the pathway widening. They did think there would be some impacts from some partial die -back to possible loose of a tree. Depending on the root structure and the roots required to be cut it could also cause a tree to become unstable. As indicated in the recent report from Signature Tree that Mr. Galli obtained the repre entatives from the Extension Service also thought that removal and replacement with some alternative trees would�be advisable. If the root damage that is presently being experienced is going to be addressed using a root tree impacts could be expected even with the paths at 5 and 6' in width. Maybe a planned rE program designed to accommodate a pathway of a certain width is advisable. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas f mailto :keithjdallas(d)ymail.coml Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:51 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: Trees along pathways. , then some of these and replacement Kyle, I recounted the number of trees to be removed because of the 8 feet pathway on your new diagr m. I get 12, not 11. The difference is I still see 3 sable palms to be removed north of Commons Driveway, not the 2 you state. Agree? Keith CONSTRUCTION rvs core: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WEST SIDE - FROM THE COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION LOCATED IN SECTIONS 32 & 33, TOWNSHIP 48S, RANGE 25E AND SECTIONS 4, 5, 8 & 9, TOWNSHIP 49S, RANGE 25E COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. C--- REVIEWING AGENCIES — COLLIER COUNTY - COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLA. 34104 TEL: (239]M3- 00 TELEPHONE: CENTURY LINK P.O. BOX 2477 NAPLES, FLA. 34104 TEL [2'9126 .6319 ENVIRONMENTAL: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2295 VICTORIA AVENUE No. 364 FT. MYERS, FLORIDA 34113 TEL: 12-39) 332-6975 SEWER: COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FLA. 34113 TEL: [239] 732-]575 WATER MANAGEMENT: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2301 MCGREGOR BOULEVARD FORT MYERS, FLORIDA. 33901 TEL: [239] 33& &9 I■DCf1CINDI POWER: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 4105 15TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST NAPLES, FLA. 34116 [2391353 -6090 TELEVISION: COMCAST 301 TOWER ROAD NAPLES, FLA. 34113 TEL:[239]793 -3577 FIRE DISTRICT: NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 1780 IMMOKALEE ROAD NAPLES, FLA. 34109 TEL: [2391597 -3222 WATER: COLLIER COUNTY WATER DEPARTMENT 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FLA. 34113 TEL: [2391732 -2575 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ----- - - -12" WM--- - - - - -- EXISTING WATER MAIN &PIPE SIZE. -- - - - - -- B" EM --- - - - - -- EXISTING EFFLUENT MAIN & PIPE SIZE ---------- n---- - - - - -- EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ---0-+-12" WM PROPOSED WATER MAIN, VALVE & PIPE SIZE N 8° EM PROPOSED EFFLUENT MAIN, VALVE & PIPE SIZE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM -- -- - - - -8" Ss - - - - -- • 8" SS -------- 4' FM -- 4' FM — EXISTING SEWER MAIN & PIPE SIZE EXISTING MANHOLE PROPOSED SEWER MAIN, MANHOLE & PIPE SIZE EXISTING SANITARY FORCE MAIN & PIPE SIZE PROPOSED SANITARY FORCE MAIN & PIPE SIZE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM ----- - - -15" RCP-- - - - - -- EXISTING STORM DRAIN & PIPE MATERIAUSIZE -----------a---------- ----------o--------- 24 LF 15' RCP O 0.2% x 9.6 12.50 EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLEHEADWALL PROPOSED STORM DRAIN, INLET & PIPE INFO EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED GRADE DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW SECDON DE$16WI TOR —� 2 � DESIGN CROSS SECTION SECnOV TAKEN FRW THIS SHEET SECDOV SNOW ON THIS SHEET PREPARED FOR Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597 -1749 PROPERTY INFORMATION FOLIO NO.: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that fractional part of Section 32, lying South of Vanderbilt Beach Road; and all of Section 33, lying South of Vanderbilt Beach Road and West of State Road 45 (U.S. 41); all in Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. AND ALSO, all of Section 4, lying West of State Road 45 (U.S. 41); all fractional parts of Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 5; all fractional parts of Section 8; and all of Section 9, lying West of State Road 45 (U.S. 41), excepting therefrom the South 70 feet of Southeast 1/4, and the South 70 feet of the East 15825 feet of the Southwest 1/4; all in Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida PUD NAME: PELICAN BAY ORDINANCE #: 04 -59 X 7T!1TATTT.7 A R A TT V i W SHEET INDEX r SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE 1 COVER SHEET 2 MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN & GENERAL NOTES 3 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (1) 4 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (2) 5 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (3) 6 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (4) 7 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (5) 8 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (6) 9 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (7) 10 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (8) 11 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (9) 12 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (10) 13 SITE PLAN, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (11) 14 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 15 I SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS J T I-N rl A TTf- ITT X T A TN AAa -2a -11 AD V PAIN ALIGNMENT, ROII L E, ADD BIOBARR A10 -a -I1 ADD EROSION CONTROL c5i 2 -]0 -12 NXSr PATH RIDTH & ADGNMENT d.5 -30 -12 A " PATH RIDTH & ADGNMENT TO 9' �1! M PNOE DIN Di ENBIWG Utt NAB BEEN PREPAKO iRLW THY NOSi R[LIAIXE nER6 EYCG,T1"LLRA TLTOR 9/NLMKmfY M[ LOCATw Y ut uiutt5 W1EME FKLO. 2 CNW1RACiOR 9fALL NO— NL It"", _.S T: AREA b HWRS YWAN/M lox TO STANT lY COYBIRUCDON AND WALL NAK Nl SERNCE LVKS (WY FF IPR DR T O. AAftT.WGAS SNITNY BEER AND FCNCC MNx) LOCAIfD AND (LAGGED III 1 SCHEDULE NY REWIRED RfLOCATG,S THE LSiTNMCH Fa,OwsTIS NOT ALL WUUSI.: All An W "A' 1-11 LILN _NA_ ttx a/s (SITE. NA"j (M Set -Oleo LNVZ.vE oPERAEMWS (PN LNtrcw) [zJS7 zsz -ez91 (1") JS }6013 ( mLtrRLr rMS,uxal (Ore aWm/0 (zJ9l ]DJ -ezT1 ctwusT r.ABLL (MINK coapxrzR (239) 11 1733 mire uiluir sxaue`E"iw>,iu ai .'rIxONACrLO i9rs Plioe ro xrP m. ALL KCESS4RY REPNRS SHALL BE P[RlG1MED IIRAEGA1ElY. T 91 (ACG,SIRUCTDN11IN PUBL�C MGUS- CfFD"YAY)IANO CIXffLffR CCNNTY OPDNANIY 88-1] NENOEO (UTAITES IXNwANGF). my 6. T1E OENATMNS fRDYF1HE PLNB MMI1 SPI EC6ILAMMSAI fRGA THE ENGWFER FGL ALI ONAOISIONS AND 117­ PRIOR ]. REGpREO ALAN OENAIiGISMFTOx Ax0 NOTffr TNC w0'x[FR wuESxATFLY IX NY INE PPOECO MAREt uL maiFlC uu /WiENANCE CON.IX fLCA10A MANUAL O' ARAIFlC CLWIROL THE uux2N HIT ALLS A. Y RACE S — STREET AAD "14 , _SIRUCTDµ Es (uM A M)L LNro S MTAN CLwS1RULMw %1 K RFYOSEO Np /aR FFODGTEpD ByATE G+ CWARAnOR AS gRFCTEp BY THE ENONFER. 10. ALL OA .1 TO _% ""S FT E53 MIIKRwRFS�aRED 10 A cwdilrn ENONECR. uxL O Y eY nE 11. mBR 101 M __ w -1. —.1 Wtt1B NCURS W AD— O' All 12 NEI CONT1 MApCRT ro511TK FOVT .ONTxC � "TOLARS T1EH HOIK£ TO THE EIGWEER AND ___l �� �CkDFN9r WBTNp D —TONS IA GMENSIWS ARE w _ NDADFbuN.SttUxtE55 D xi FRwYA OWOx�) K 1839 I& ROM, w 3010. NNED FRGA TNC COLLIER OOUNIY APPRA 'S OL1Y¢ AND K. Ie. ALL OARS AND WTTFN RADA SYOMN ARE TO 1K SIX O' AA—, 1 S CD.RS AND — Bp KS — ME UMITS tt ] CWSIRUCiIOV 9HLLI BE ADJI _ TO PROPOSED ORADE Br 1Hf --I- 11 !ON _ CT - dSPOSC a ANY UNSIIIYTABIF ON WASTE """' "Dw NATFM, IE g1NOACE IS YNNINHI At ALL TD_ RE A MENr OR AECONBTRTWi Tol LIX -STWO ON—— lit _­S TI TI REUOKD ON ­N. AS RED BYN NLNMMFERXKP pe N"Y IIEYS w ME x1 THE SUNMNY OTITIONS ROMWAY PAY IKYB. NO YP 11 _FIC PAYME T BE NAK FGf NY —1 ANNRPFD i0 —1 NO, YNS KOARENENT. aWRENi MM tM 11. AAND"15<OMENTACONIROL DCNCfs SXALL BFBF MTSTALLEDIK DEEMED NFC(SSNYNIII ON SI 21 ALL MPKr, 9wmcN A , O sMwI ECDEPAaTwEHr a co"NUiuwTVDs 'S DA FCG:EL 14 =­ St tN,05CAPF I_S AND IKS 9wu tt aCFO W mEE.s = ON N. A GARB NE¢OSSARY BYLECGSiFACNF fOR I COKRADf TO Ry"I" BOM ON -DIAL o, D­y AID RT KCB D NECT ,DDNDAATTONN WTI PPC ILA1 M BAY BERYKESYIM£ I-AASI BE3 3B3 S L RI—D TO APPtr FOR A U4 K -w Sl.WM0. SI/OAO K MSI1 TO A1EFwG TO CCNSTRUGi Tf fAGLITEi 1Hf EM P1.1NS WES MOT INCOV9BIENI WM [XT=10 EAYMENi5 A0f RECpi0.KMENIS NHI[H A4F 1]. BEF CETAe SHEET M OF rA FOR DCAKS AND 5[CTONS 1 A — NTATGN OF ALL SIG1WG AND PA.NENi MNMNGB —1 BE IN DENCES (.41 TK 1010 FGTGI EF ME FOOT STZaL SPECYIKAff EON ROAD AND (S NENOCO BY THE WIIIRALt BPCOFICAiIMS) AND M ALL ID ..O Lo MwCO*B1TIK fpOYQE9d YSTANDARa 2 KuENT uARpNGS SIIALL 6E FDOi APPRO.D Mf1dY0PLASiK LM£SB OMERwSF { _ SNAIL BC APetKO I E RETRO- RER[CR. ­T A—RS (NPUS) ST A ALL 1-1 MNNI"LY 91NL BE IN ACCORD — MM RDEx N0. 1- D PuLEMFNT v RPYS —1 eF w AccpxpANCE 1. — ND. 1TJ31 A ALL SIGNS SI1ALL BF 1ACKO IN ACCMONCE wM —1 NO 1]]01. sxALL NDTFY SUNSNAX OMC CALL AT LCAST b HGMS PRIOP TO cONSIRNTI0N.g1 WKC WD Br ME ENGINFCR APPROxMATE ND NA, KWIK FIFLp ADAISWIt AS I SON CMB L I; ETG u 1r tt ADA/SIED BY INE ENF arT,EFn w ntl'ccl�MU�U� 11KNTHS °7 E1iw]'SW. T0. LAI — SIIWI.D BE EXERGYD NHCN RELOCA TNO CXISTAD VDNS TO MK DANACF TO MC SIGNS ANDIOR THEIR SLIPPONTS IF THE SIGNS ND/dt 9I—TS ARC OAAMDED CaY Mid Al IDx9 CE�1FNNE BY THE ENONLER. THEY SIAL BC FEIA— BY ME _NT 1 i0 =AR09 FTHAWT HEIOIBT.M-1 A 0 11ETIOD DIT nutn� ND 11, ANY E—NO SIGN TTO W INI —TED( BHA1L BE RESET 10 CURRENT STAKAROB TOR 1< REt WA Sw T,4C SAWS G 11—ATDN. PA-1 SNAIL K NDF UNDER IWM - 11 IANY M SON, MSN N fN It— �SAy MMIN THE PN, ECT LIMITS 9111 REMAIN 1 CWGN i9AN1 BEYNA. UNDER ICOLUM R D. ­AIDIN S-1 G51S IX BTNCT E 1 R OR OFRE AMRLED N"1 Wt fM 9W,5 TO K NLB A". ON A MIxIMUM S DEEP W SOtt. THE paiE Of wBAALLATOH, Am Wn N uSI M MLH KRMSE"NA E AN iNE PR0.ECSt HUMBER AT TIE eDTiO N THE PAN. (POSTS) FOR 9NIXC MUNI 9ONS SN.W. MATCH TIC EYTIwG I]. �C AT. SIGN —IS MMIH PELICAN BAY. COOIMATE ALL NEW ON MDWFRU SIGN IS WT, PE -1 BAY ffRNCES WSIRKT, — L—. 39111BS T KRKY THE LENOTH tK 8 TIE LG.LRI/1 91PP0I1 W THE re 0 M. TO fNMCATp1Tp CONS 1 All NL BE KlURm . BY THE CW INAC14 0 THE S.ATSlACTW OY 9. FNO%1.PSH INDILATED IN TIE AtAlS W. ME RAMS WNC A KlRD_.ZCT. PA.NENT MNNERB A/RC - mmRECTWN COLORLESS KO / R NB R EELWES (MU i CONMIXS FOR 9 TT AID �CWAFNCW DOADNX =ION), ADRFNBFD TO OAT. FOR GO— TRAFFIC CON M0. ZCNE REWFMMENIS AND DOONAL IKURYATION, K TO TE STATE W RORIDA KPARMENT CF IRNSPORTADOY (FOOT) BODALET VE STANDANOS• DATED 3010 INOFX Noe. 300 TNRWGN BB4 AS A—CN.. IS 2 (M=CP. 1K COST DI' 1c, e[ wctu0E0 w vaY I1EM T03- I,EwuuTEN HA F t C.P. N PREPAKD Br AN INMNOUN MM ME NYNCED —I 1 FN IpNE 1 d ElPR i RAAPS ATALON OR/iEx C I M AS( x NWI BE A S EI RIaOFN CN iFOO R PNIRK IOR Po GI] CAWT S TIRO DY W SanLCT W SONSTRT TO Nr UrLxT E /O V .wauNEO F "uawialNEO Ax0/bR AD.NSrEO OUPoNG PFMODB IX CLNSARU FW TON D __ ITx 9Kw AaePLICamE. LLMEAwMF.D"1�siR cirri DI, mirtN K IA—' ANDD•AaxNLR• 9cxs Aa ustn TK PoNG PFRIOOS MIEN CONSTNCTXX/ O'ERATOYS AAE su�"[N117 MO'1rW°rs °KWEI(NDS ON NIXIDAr9. S LANE OOSURfS SHNI tt SLxEWt(p AB _D_ OD9WE RI0.UM,L' n.WII LNES 9INL a NPROKO BY FIE wtlKRPMaxATp TE NPtCYCNTAIICW G TE 0.0AxE. K DONE REWMwp A u. 1 TO 11 B[ 11 M lGLLOwxG rIWRS a, AsvEMAITKaerpixE FNCwT1�pA nlawrW rxroAr ­ES AS 1 BY OK CWNTY GY uN-1 Aw ENFLRT N/T QNI E D, TK wOWER.. A T E MINAA w CF NY IRASEL AK AT ANY TIME SNAU K ID IEET OUFMD ca S—cl. ]. FALL LOW1KF1Ti,G NHEA9CG1IX15I" WNSMUCTOV SNNL tt CGAPLERO BffORE TIE 4 uxEST Ot NwsE N/1NOM3E0 BY — EMDwEER. M T ACS— A DE. TO.ft%, i2E151 �IOPoKWAIS Ai ALLATZT11 wl Tel eoQlnee�a, p1eTU�en. [ Veypn tn 0 �5^ O `, 00 +� M 6QAw wrj0� aW�z a 0 d °z acncn z° °F z W� z P� aW 9a DESIGNED BY: ABB CHECKED BY: JAC REYIMD BY: ABB HORIZ. SCALE: 1' = 500' VKRT. SGLE: N/A DATE: JUNK 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst AHB PR 11COJET If PLOT VIEW \ LAYOUT site(1) -2 SHEET 2 OF 15 Acad File 10574 BEGIN PROJECT 18M1 ss BJ PELICAN BAY BLVD 0 — — — - --Sli, 911 �93 sg h � }B x910 9> x9,16 ,'III. ►��II'i' 6.19 U 0 EXISTING WATER BACKFLOW t t ,�0 t �'1 1 WEST EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY Q LINE(TYP.) ASPHALT k> t PATH 9 g5 01 aWz 9 Zm 18M1 ss BJ PELICAN BAY BLVD 0 — — — - --Sli, 911 �93 sg h � }B x910 9> x9,16 ,'III. ►��II'i' 6.19 U 0 EXISTING WATER BACKFLOW t t ,�0 t �'1 1 EXISTING VALVE 4 REMOVE (1j'- 4, REMOVE (1) VAULT ', EXISTING ` -! EXISTING 02 `SABAL PALM �SABAL 711 09 �. 7 0g A x8 fi8 �1 PALM j(,�. h p 3p' * ; 1 EXISTING 9 ASPHALT - -+ PATH (ZYP.) 7.25. ^a 3 BV A / 03 , 4 gq .63 3tl2i1`� e 4PROPOSED _ .45 — — ; n V WIDE CROSSWALK _ EX IS (l) W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING `P SABAL PALM \ NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #1 1-0293E, ASS t.NS17 FILE #10504) NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. 0 555\ a 18,0 A F T 9�8 g r►A f Z ,690 NOTE: SIGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #1 i -0293-E, ASS FILE 910504) NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. 292 / 1a T1h - q"--g rGENERAL NOTES- 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK SE SHALL BE INSTALLED 8 COMPACTED 539 WEST EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TYP.) ASPHALT AT H P P NONOZ V. A 2 ' ObO }5 Nngs 10 0 5 10 EXISTING ELECTRIC HAND HOLES 24x36 SCALE: 1" = 10' - iii�JAjRBER & iHIUNDAGE- �l nd su -ayo en, PleuveA Innd s Yon O z1 1 O rn 00 a i� Q — — — _ — — — — k> t O G -- - --+-- -- >25 PROPOSED 23 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT D aWz 9 Zm t W Op SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 Z j1 i ri) < REMOVE EXISTING m PATH 8 SUBGRADE 1 � / ., AND RESTORE SOD I 7) g5 31 —� ammIrm 165 EXISTING VALVE 4 REMOVE (1j'- 4, REMOVE (1) VAULT ', EXISTING ` -! EXISTING 02 `SABAL PALM �SABAL 711 09 �. 7 0g A x8 fi8 �1 PALM j(,�. h p 3p' * ; 1 EXISTING 9 ASPHALT - -+ PATH (ZYP.) 7.25. ^a 3 BV A / 03 , 4 gq .63 3tl2i1`� e 4PROPOSED _ .45 — — ; n V WIDE CROSSWALK _ EX IS (l) W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING `P SABAL PALM \ NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #1 1-0293E, ASS t.NS17 FILE #10504) NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. 0 555\ a 18,0 A F T 9�8 g r►A f Z ,690 NOTE: SIGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #1 i -0293-E, ASS FILE 910504) NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. 292 / 1a T1h - q"--g rGENERAL NOTES- 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK SE SHALL BE INSTALLED 8 COMPACTED 539 WEST EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TYP.) ASPHALT AT H P P NONOZ V. A 2 ' ObO }5 Nngs 10 0 5 10 EXISTING ELECTRIC HAND HOLES 24x36 SCALE: 1" = 10' - iii�JAjRBER & iHIUNDAGE- �l nd su -ayo en, PleuveA Innd s Yon O z1 1 O rn 00 a -97 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH Q — — — _ — — — — k> t EXISTING SABAL PALM -97 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH Q — — — _ — — — — -; EXISTING SABAL PALM -- - --+-- -- >25 PROPOSED 23 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 I- aWz 9 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS t W Vi SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 EXISTING PINE i EXISTING WATER VALVE ! N 1 = rl ��o 1 � / O 00 t W t 10 i PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH Q EXISTING HEDGE I IIANTS nw EXISTING SABAL PALM (I( (EXIBTING OAK OR MAHOGANY v V V�,VVViy EXISTING PINE o EXISTING WATER VALVE t W t 10 i - Q 1 to 1 m 1 u, w o 1 'IQ�i'�JII VF] o ��o SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: EXISTING STOPSIGN 8 STOP BAR PRO POSED 24-WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 NITPROPOSED CONCRETE \ CURB ACCESS EXISTING TRANSFORMER PONOC> Wz W 10 0 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ABB DRAIIN BY: RAF 24.36 SCALE: 1' =10' cHECEED BY: 7AC REMOVE EXISTING HIBISCUS 8 .+rr b� REPLACE WITH ARBORICOLA } y REMOVE FRONT ROW OF w — _ 7.26 ACCOMMODATE NEW 1 +..,,�„__. - - EXISTING PLAN —_ a ti _. _. `' -.x ,... +� _.__ PINE TREE 9nn PATH 1 6 EXISTING HEDG TO ih 2 n � , v -+— 26— 00T H 09 '06' —_ _ k , y) ON W r a w -Fj — -__ __ . -_ ; 7'.9 _ B00 l _ x 1155 I M gN V, TIONS. UU 1 - -4�f REMOVE (1) . 0 �-a— _. \/ ' oasnnGOnx PROPOSED 30 LF SO BARRIER ROOT i / t� CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W ! '•/ PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. PELICAN BAY SEE GENERALNOTE#2 s6 _ x812 W _ ® W O . NOTE: SIGNS RECENTLY PERMITTED ! REMOVE (1) W 1 - ROW PERMIT #11-0293£, ASS FILE / ^` �EXISTINGOAK IW W 1 a (ROW � PROPOSED 3p LF AL INS ALL TI OT ; H N #10504)N OT YET CONSTRUCTED. 4 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. t v SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 t u � _ W �a �A z� 20 HORIZ. SCALE: 1' = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PROJECT # 11 -0043 PLOT VIEW \ LAYOUT site(1) -3 SHEET 3 OF 15 A—d File # - - 10574 e 1 1 / 1 1 1 _ yPJM _ 1 _ - — W I 2 1 7.73 _ U) 1 'P PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT IwL ' CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION U) ,1' PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 4�' SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 1 1 _ — 1 0 y�( 1 6 f, d 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 s °S�QOS` 1 NOTE: THIS PORTION OF SIDEWALK RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED UNDER ROW PERMIT #11- 0293E, ABB FILE #10504 EXISTING TEUEHONE8 WAT ARV Y s� e� x �R 1;'15 3 6 m NOTE: THIS PORTION OF SIDEWALK RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED UNDER ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E. ABB FILE 4105D4 F PROPOSED : +� NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY y CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB in FILE #105D4) +t' r a1,�, I �m �. 00 FILE #10504) D 9 h0 +0g G I s 4 \ \ V N e m 1 m NOTE: THIS PORTION OF SIDEWALK RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED UNDER ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E. ABB FILE 4105D4 F PROPOSED : +� NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY y CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB BJ° FILE #105D4) +t' / NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY 1 1 CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB 1 FILE #10504) 10 0 5 10 9 h0 +0g s RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (TYP.) PELICAN BAY BLVD 24x36 SCALE: I"= 10' A r�4g.D7 �' B _ ' J� 'PO 1 1 933 +0 N 1 9 9 u xo l EXISTING WEST ASPHALT RIGHT -OF-WAY H (TYP LINE (TYP. ) ..._. - PAT_) QrO7 801-- - F¢. — — 6.06 _ GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED. 1 1 2 1 N 1 = 1 F /W 1 � _em 1 / 1 1 Q 1 m O Not I W HDRIZ. SCALE: I" = 10• / 1 1 G 2 � 9 YO60 4 M 'A 1 1 10 0 5 10 WEST s RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (TYP.) 1 24x36 SCALE: I"= 10' A r�4g.D7 �' B _ ' J� 1 1 _ _._ — 7 1 _ —_� � _ -_ _._ __ _. — _.._. _._ _ '111 BR _� 1s 1 VJ 1 1 1 IW 1 W 1 1 2 1 N 1 = 1 F /W 1 � _em 1 / 1 LEGEND: EjPRDPOSEDASPHALTPATH 1 Q 1 m I W HDRIZ. SCALE: I" = 10• 1 1 DATE: JUNE 2011 1 1 1 1 tiM s 1 1 1 LEGEND: EjPRDPOSEDASPHALTPATH /1 EXISTING HEDGE /PIANTS EMSTINGSABN.- f EXISTINGOAXOR MAHOGANY V EXISTINGPINE EXISTING WATER VALVE SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: OEXISTING STOP SIGN A STOP BAR PROVO SED24•WHITESTOPBAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE ❑3 ®.',�,° WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 ®PRO POSED CONCRETE CURBACCESS ❑1116 PGNOCI U' 9 2 9 z P m � x �b .B °YnaO to o 5 10 24.36 SCALE: 1'= la iic�iJGNOLI iWpARBER k iii)RUNDAGE,m. Protesasonel ea�giveen. plemen, k land 5 rnTOnw awm 2ao e =�Inelsn10���1 �. (ae/sm -ersa If) E" I �4 0 o M �AAw aU0 a�az W� 0 00 Q p" o a a 8. �z� w CIO DESIGNED BY: ABB CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ABB HDRIZ. SCALE: I" = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 1 1 tiM 1 1 1 - J� 1 _ _._ — 7 /1 EXISTING HEDGE /PIANTS EMSTINGSABN.- f EXISTINGOAXOR MAHOGANY V EXISTINGPINE EXISTING WATER VALVE SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: OEXISTING STOP SIGN A STOP BAR PROVO SED24•WHITESTOPBAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE ❑3 ®.',�,° WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 ®PRO POSED CONCRETE CURBACCESS ❑1116 PGNOCI U' 9 2 9 z P m � x �b .B °YnaO to o 5 10 24.36 SCALE: 1'= la iic�iJGNOLI iWpARBER k iii)RUNDAGE,m. Protesasonel ea�giveen. plemen, k land 5 rnTOnw awm 2ao e =�Inelsn10���1 �. (ae/sm -ersa If) E" I �4 0 o M �AAw aU0 a�az W� 0 00 Q p" o a a 8. �z� w CIO DESIGNED BY: ABB 1 1 1 i WAD FILE NAME: 10574mst LED PROJECT /# ?LOT 11-0043 4 s>te(2) " SHEET 4 OF 15 A°a File # 10574 CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ABB HDRIZ. SCALE: I" = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 1 1 1 1 1 - J� 1 1 1 i WAD FILE NAME: 10574mst LED PROJECT /# ?LOT 11-0043 4 s>te(2) " SHEET 4 OF 15 A°a File # 10574 J� 1 _ _._ — 7 1ss 111 W N 1 —_� � _ -_ _._ __ _. — _.._. _._ _ '111 BR _� VJ - _T2.4 1 W , PELICAN ' a � B AY BLVD : W y LU 1 —7-- 1 1 1 i WAD FILE NAME: 10574mst LED PROJECT /# ?LOT 11-0043 4 s>te(2) " SHEET 4 OF 15 A°a File # 10574 1 1 1 1 EXISTING WEST r, pb WES T REMOVE EXIS HEDGE (TYP.) RIGHT-OF-WAY PATH V LINE (TYP.) AND RESTORE GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED. I LEGEND: r jj PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH EXISTING HEDGE I PVWTS EXISTING SABAL PALM ` ( EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY EXISTING PINE tA EXISTING WATER VALVE PAVERS t0. NOTE: NEW PAVER PATTERNS TO COORDINATE Z WITH OWNER CROWN COLONY& PELICAN BAY SERVICES DISTRICT. Q S EXISTING COBBLE } PATTERN PAVERS EXISTING COBBLE j g5�\ tg PATTERN PAVERS �s '8 5 /Xe -- - - --.— '� - EXISIONG PAVER BORDER -_ — rBETWEEN COBBLE I & HERRINGBONE _ _ 6 t 3 REMOVE 18 LF EXIST. CURB &REPLACE _ _ _W/ 9 NEW FLUSH CURB & 2' TAPER SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: OEXISTING STOPSIGN & STOP BAR PRO POSED 24-WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. YK ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS i It3 t' 'tt' ham' 0tp �9 DUSTING e�� REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. HERRINGBONE PAVERS PROPOSED 8' WIDE CROSSWALK CURB &REPLACE W/ W/ NEW 12' PAVER BORDERS NEW FLUSH CURB& 2' TAPER ` Rk� A PON OC! V ? z 0 Ob VA'11N a 10 0 5 10 2406 SCALE: 1" = 10' 1 _ ! 3\ R 1 1 1 VE EXISTING,` EXTEND PAT&SUBGRADE i it EXISTING AND HRESTORE ( 1 1 1 +06 1 F 1 LU 1 LU a - _ LU -_ - - ID , _� . _._ _ 151 . IGy F Ld W 1 1 1 1 1 1 r— 1 — _ _„— — GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED. I LEGEND: r jj PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH EXISTING HEDGE I PVWTS EXISTING SABAL PALM ` ( EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY EXISTING PINE tA EXISTING WATER VALVE PAVERS t0. NOTE: NEW PAVER PATTERNS TO COORDINATE Z WITH OWNER CROWN COLONY& PELICAN BAY SERVICES DISTRICT. Q S EXISTING COBBLE } PATTERN PAVERS EXISTING COBBLE j g5�\ tg PATTERN PAVERS �s '8 5 /Xe -- - - --.— '� - EXISIONG PAVER BORDER -_ — rBETWEEN COBBLE I & HERRINGBONE _ _ 6 t 3 REMOVE 18 LF EXIST. CURB &REPLACE _ _ _W/ 9 NEW FLUSH CURB & 2' TAPER SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: OEXISTING STOPSIGN & STOP BAR PRO POSED 24-WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. YK ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS i It3 t' 'tt' ham' 0tp �9 DUSTING e�� REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. HERRINGBONE PAVERS PROPOSED 8' WIDE CROSSWALK CURB &REPLACE W/ W/ NEW 12' PAVER BORDERS NEW FLUSH CURB& 2' TAPER ` Rk� A PON OC! V ? z 0 Ob VA'11N a 10 0 5 10 2406 SCALE: 1" = 10' PGNOLI i - � A W rr d � Gb .N PA 0A8 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1' =10' 00.29 1 1 WEST 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY 1 All [LINE (TYP.) Qo B 8 .".9.56 ° +0 % a41 EXISTING 1 by - 1 �. ASPHALT - PATH (TYP) EXISTING t _ 1 �"°`"""^ "`��w....H,,.....,. 1� ❑, HEDGE (TYP.) @SB - *837 - ♦- _.____ -- .- ____...___.._..___ .........w T 3 LLJ 9 lu t� g . \ . .x. Bat 4 ;_ C 831 a. 1 t N �� p 7'99 .-. _ — uj 554 1 1 / i i 1 -r 8 & lene<n, plemen, & lannd d ' - mvay on h 0 00 J �I=LJI M �qqw 1j, C!1 �u aW4�a� W 3 00 aoz zF 7y w U� fit O C) w z °xw � `a DESIGNED BY: ABB ICAECKED BY: SAC I AOR12. SCATS: 1' = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ICAD FILE NAME: 10574mst BB PROJECT If 11 -0043 'LOT VIEW \ LAYOUT si*3) -5 SHEET 5 OF 15 Acad F11e # 1 _ ! 3\ R 1 1 1 VE EXISTING,` EXTEND PAT&SUBGRADE i it EXISTING AND HRESTORE ( 1 1 1 PAVERS / W /SOD 995 � 1 1 a n p H n A^ . IGy F Ld W j e W1 _ \ 1 > 20 ° W ° W 1 N 1 1 1 ° i PGNOLI i - � A W rr d � Gb .N PA 0A8 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1' =10' 00.29 1 1 WEST 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY 1 All [LINE (TYP.) Qo B 8 .".9.56 ° +0 % a41 EXISTING 1 by - 1 �. ASPHALT - PATH (TYP) EXISTING t _ 1 �"°`"""^ "`��w....H,,.....,. 1� ❑, HEDGE (TYP.) @SB - *837 - ♦- _.____ -- .- ____...___.._..___ .........w T 3 LLJ 9 lu t� g . \ . .x. Bat 4 ;_ C 831 a. 1 t N �� p 7'99 .-. _ — uj 554 1 1 / i i 1 -r 8 & lene<n, plemen, & lannd d ' - mvay on h 0 00 J �I=LJI M �qqw 1j, C!1 �u aW4�a� W 3 00 aoz zF 7y w U� fit O C) w z °xw � `a DESIGNED BY: ABB ICAECKED BY: SAC I AOR12. SCATS: 1' = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ICAD FILE NAME: 10574mst BB PROJECT If 11 -0043 'LOT VIEW \ LAYOUT si*3) -5 SHEET 5 OF 15 Acad F11e # PONOC/ L � l' ? � F ii�B�GNOLI i1ARLIN 8 RUNDAGE,pl. Pro[essionel ermine n, plemen, &lend s rveyore -q 0 1 _ 06 /' ' ' rya s�ilaTMew now. s�,H em O'v ,T B 0 RIGHT -0 F -WAY 97 xS B6 /mss ; r.o =���lo sn�sin 10 0 5 10 LINE (TYP.) tn S 24838 SCALE: 1' =10' EXISTING "i ✓ ,.r'- �^^^^�~~N8_ -- -__. -. _ ,o ��` �_ ASPHALT roti PATH (TYP.) B ❑r,,,,...ww.,..."^"" sa ;z 1 }a.>�� _ -- + ---�`� EXISTING ELECTRIC) I" 00 HANDHOLE ADJUST Imo, C TO SLOPE WITH PATH 1/' O 1 ❑+ .. __ " gal ` -- -. +Sr � 9 SURFACE x 4211 119 +Q 1 81 0. - _ -- Y of —7 — _— — Y BD W v O 4 — 1 O 45.07 - - -9 LIU LU LU 1 1 N ry LU 1 W N � 1 1 1 N 00 — A �— a Fm In A .ro �I FBI Q —f /r I.�yQyJI Fail W U LEGEND:+ x z Q&; o 0 cy�� PGNOC7 M�z vi F-I SANDPIPER z �� PARKING ° REMOVE EXISTING ! (� N- rJaO j'/11U0 a REMOVE EXISTING PATH 8 SUBGRADE 1 ) PATH 14 SUBGRADE I/ ° AND RESTORE �/ v I AND RESTORE -� \W /SOD (TYP.) i1 G WI SOD (TYP.) % �� 3 10 0 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ABB C Dg0 °[` n �~ JJ WEST \ DRA1fN BY: RAF 1 6 e. m •-� ./, 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY t RAISE PATH SURFACE 24X36 SCALE: 1 "= 1U C88CEED BY: 7AC CULVERTS PROPOSED 66 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT ": '/ N / LINE ( Z ELEVATION t8' /PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION m 35 ro' ^ / _ l "7'y ABOVE EXISTING $ e 1 j CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 0' s ( C_ 28 REVIEWED BY: ABB PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. +> PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. �_ ,,s . r 92 00 % y,�72 _ -a-^ j RORt " = 0 °v SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 B.3 C '^`ti.•� r„ "'I'� ``^"" ^"^^ Z. SCALB: 1 1 if SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 / T 9'+ \ }rA0 ,IS J j. _ 1 / ._. 111 "'�� Aa PERT. SCALE: N A -w. 0 - ----- - _ ..._ _ b ,q 4F - "...„y,- ,� -w .C- 'C--- ..._.. —�.r.. — 0 �OJp _ -. DATE: ]UN8 2011 a _1 1 6 ag 1 1 1 1 i H w _ ' — N 1 N ' 1 F 1 1 1 5 ; IL 1 O F. d ,.:. { a� a _ _ c _ � J r o A9 g0 \ +g@O ( B g d I -- - -8._31 _.f.PPP . PR O PO SEDBWIDECRO SW 'mom W/ 12WHITE STRIPING aI5 sy PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 i 6 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION j Fe CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION a as PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY NOTE: SIGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 REMOVE (3) EXISTING ) PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB PERMITTED ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB SEE GENERAL NOTE iF2 1 r MAHOGANIY TREES / FILE #10504 ( '°"'®" °"�,�w��.- �\ ) FILE #10504) CUT BERM t1' TO MATCH PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 W 1 N 1 1 l i i 1 1 1 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS i EXISTINGSABALPALM PROPOSED ALUMINUM EXISTING OAX OR MAHOGANY �K 0 1 h PEDESTRIAN RAILING PER FOOT (INDEX 860) EXISTING RETAININGs97 WALL 8 STORM f '] EXISTING PINE ��...// (Y•l EXISTING WATER VALVE Q&; o 0 cy�� PGNOC7 M�z vi F-I SANDPIPER z �� PARKING ° REMOVE EXISTING ! (� N- rJaO j'/11U0 a REMOVE EXISTING PATH 8 SUBGRADE 1 ) PATH 14 SUBGRADE I/ ° AND RESTORE �/ v I AND RESTORE -� \W /SOD (TYP.) i1 G WI SOD (TYP.) % �� 3 10 0 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ABB C Dg0 °[` n �~ JJ WEST \ DRA1fN BY: RAF 1 6 e. m •-� ./, 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY t RAISE PATH SURFACE 24X36 SCALE: 1 "= 1U C88CEED BY: 7AC CULVERTS PROPOSED 66 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT ": '/ N / LINE ( Z ELEVATION t8' /PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION m 35 ro' ^ / _ l "7'y ABOVE EXISTING $ e 1 j CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 0' s ( C_ 28 REVIEWED BY: ABB PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. +> PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. �_ ,,s . r 92 00 % y,�72 _ -a-^ j RORt " = 0 °v SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 B.3 C '^`ti.•� r„ "'I'� ``^"" ^"^^ Z. SCALB: 1 1 if SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 / T 9'+ \ }rA0 ,IS J j. _ 1 / ._. 111 "'�� Aa PERT. SCALE: N A -w. 0 - ----- - _ ..._ _ b ,q 4F - "...„y,- ,� -w .C- 'C--- ..._.. —�.r.. — 0 �OJp _ -. DATE: ]UN8 2011 a _1 1 6 ag 1 1 1 1 i H w _ ' — N 1 N ' 1 F 1 1 1 5 ; IL 1 O F. d ,.:. { a� a _ _ c _ � J r o A9 g0 \ +g@O ( B g d I -- - -8._31 _.f.PPP . PR O PO SEDBWIDECRO SW 'mom W/ 12WHITE STRIPING aI5 sy PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 i 6 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION j Fe CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION a as PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY NOTE: SIGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 REMOVE (3) EXISTING ) PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB PERMITTED ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ABB SEE GENERAL NOTE iF2 1 r MAHOGANIY TREES / FILE #10504 ( '°"'®" °"�,�w��.- �\ ) FILE #10504) CUT BERM t1' TO MATCH PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 W 1 N 1 1 l i i 1 1 1 NEW PATH GRADE i �K w N ACAD FILE NABE: T6 X9.,9 - -- _ -- -- r ■-- S°° - - — ; -- ---- -- - —— 10574mst — — — — - ABB PROJECT j 1 11 -0043 PLOT VIER \ IAYOUT '°`b d I site(4) -6 i 18.81 � 9sJ 1 SHEET 6 — ' ' g —+ ---- - - - -L+ ~9 --" -- OF IS A—d Fee # 10574 ,O40L/ O (REMOVE EXISTING SUBGRAD PATH m AND RESTORE E l YJeOA' N U 9 �' ` 0 X M WI SOD (TYPJ RAISE PATH SURFACE m Q "ti- �` -'"- PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 10 0 5 10 ELEVATION 38" RELOCATE �..i D EXTEND CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION ABOVE EXISTING EXISTING �FXISTING� PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. EXISTING WEST SEE GENERAL N0TE #2 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY STOP SIGN T C 1 PAVERS _ ASPHALT 24236 SCALE: 1 "= 10' ^ NEW 24" WHITE \w.% 93 0 1 LINE ITI STOP BAR / *e' 9 PATH (TYPJ / N / 4 45 . 9 69 15 Oy @ B @a +@ �1' 01 / �9 ..ct d , _i 3 __moo-✓ 'D' ea 6.."v.. - -___- �.k " --@� 4+ B15 + _. 'j_i`8. 1 qp =Y i-C� .. X874 ` ,—� ) d 86 9.2o ess �"^ -"..& g 1 @ �^^'w✓w.",..,.,,>8. 57 _ 8.5�L 39 6. 8.84 ,,.� ""`� -� l _ __ _ v - 9.34- �..��� ..,,. v..- n-- a"= .t."� ... ............. ___�_.....,.........,.......,. x:.,.�......'• 1_ a 3 31 _ Ry 1� �fi 3 4 +@ +9 097 1 8,26 8.25 O> + 1 8 5.%6 @Z� 81K t1 6 pA 86 6 _ - - -._ - _ __ -__ _ -_. -- - - - __.�- 1 'ys REMOMOVE - ` EXIS S REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. �] e07 B q 1 j TING t CURB & REPLACE W/ REMOVE 12 LF EXIST. 1 w a PATH & SUBGRADE S NEW FLUSH CURB & CURB & REPLACE WI 1 LU 1 AND RESTORE W /r� 2' TAPER NEW FLUSH CURB 8 LU ! 3\ ` SOD (TYP.) J' Y TAPER -'- RAISE PATH SURFACE 2 ' .f ELEVATION t4" 1 NOTE: SIGNS RECENTLY PERMITTED y U) 1 w (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293-E, ASS FILE PROPOSED V WIDE CROSSWALK ABOVE EXISTING , H 1 W , #10504) NOT YET CONSTRUCTED. W /12 "WHITE STRIPING 1 U) 1 1 1 EXIST( WHITE S ; i WHITE STRIPE BA ARROW 1 1 a 0 1 O r- 8 1 — 1 O i 1 m � W 8.69 1 W y 1; E n , _ � 1 PROPOSED 25 LF BOBARRIER ROOT '1M1' CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION E +0 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. +@ SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 rye 1 B�1 1' d ,r K WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY 19 LINE (TYP.) +8 4 n' GENERAL NOTES: /i 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK \ASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED xy34 LEGEND: PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH w,. EXISTING HEDGE PLANTS EXISTING -- PALM N MAHO(IANY EXISTING OAK OR 1 l EXISTING PINE SIGN 8 STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTINGSTOPSIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE ❑3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 3D4 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS �pNOL/ C z � h s Jb g 0M1789 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1" =10' "-iiiJppARHER & i.IBRUNDAGE- Prot•sioml engtneen, plemera, xo na w) z O00 0 M �Aqw UWW Up -a W� 9 � O 00 tn v o �z� w in W" �w G on o w� z GO Q aa ��r���VVV"'''"'''"111111 DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: JAC - ----- {{{{{{0��� 9 HORIZ. SCALE: 1" = 10' 1 Q� 801 7"^"- ` ^^M�^.......� 9? BO YERT. SCALE: N/A { \�7I �y �� S „h. 069 J11 08 DATE: NE 2011 700- -------- 85 06 LU 1 �'1i i O@ @ J +s 1 W ' ; _ S t81 zn.e .. - 3 , —REM E (I) E -_- ,^� PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT O -�� _- _ a = I .0 $ 1 \ PER MANUFACTURER ACTU ER RI SPECIFICATIONS. '�• -i- .-_ t = N N W REMOVE (1) EXISTING ) y r� ;ORCHID TREE �.1 _ +e L„ IL 1 ,�- „_,� --�.i lq\ SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 LU z .. .. OI ' a w LU 1 __� P t wl y t B _~ y ACAD FILE MANE: ' 10574mst — / ADS PROJECT # t 11 -0043 1 PLOT VIEIf \ IAYOUT site(5)-7 SHEET 7 u _ of 15 Aced File # 10574 PROPOSED 30 LF BK)BARRIER ROOT *848 a CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. S 860 RAISE PATH SURFACE + SEE GENERAL NOTE 42M1 BNB 3.µm x� ,�,,,,� ................,w0w,"` �, ELEVATION t2' ABOVE EXISTING Q' 843 m 9 ( 8 1 .A`5/ 8. _ I I i - -- t 9 —� m , J B d `= PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 - CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION -- 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. mss -�- 1^ - �s � 1 1 — � SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 �? _ IW F 1 EXISTING ELECTRIC ~. �N W 1 HANDHOLE. ADJUST TO W 1 SLOPE WITH PATH SURFACE 1= W 1 1 1 �e� m O � _ IW U) 1 1 1 • a� QD > m REMOVE EXISTING Z PATH & SUBGRADE Q AND RESTORE •A W� I (TYP.))) pp < N m � O Oti 0G1 LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING SABAL PALM l l EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY QEXISTING PINE C'O EXISTINGWATERVALVE kll- REMOVE EXISTING PATH 8 SUBGRADE AND RESTORE X895 ' 'W /SOD(TYPJ.J 851 BS N J SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSE0 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FDOT INDEX NO. 304 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS i GENERAL NOTES: 3' 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK \BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED &COMPACTED. +88J WEST m [RIGHT -OF -WAY / LINE (TYPJ ff'o 4 9.38 a� N 0 1 / L i 2 `/ ✓F vb td V 1'l1N0 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1' = 10' m � U N _o- o • 0 . m a EXISTING ASPHALT y.....,.,..,...:.......,,..,.,..., .- ...,.,.,..�,.,.,...- .,.,....- 1 �JS? B PATH (TYP.) m y NN W a 3 PONOG/ z3 gp0 9�6� 801 F z � m z Gb 3 ONI7Ufl *9q9 WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE(TYR.) b'.i; 10 0 5 10 - X9.49 W. 9?0 •, 24x36 SCALE: 1' =10' i 8 9 x 4 0 EXISTING _4 9 ELECTRIC � O 1 f 1 l>s 3 T T �6 40 HANDHOLE ��� -i-� I 9 —� m , J B d `= PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 - CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION -- 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. mss -�- 1^ - �s � 1 1 — � SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 �? _ IW F 1 EXISTING ELECTRIC ~. �N W 1 HANDHOLE. ADJUST TO W 1 SLOPE WITH PATH SURFACE 1= W 1 1 1 �e� m O � _ IW U) 1 1 1 • a� QD > m REMOVE EXISTING Z PATH & SUBGRADE Q AND RESTORE •A W� I (TYP.))) pp < N m � O Oti 0G1 LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING SABAL PALM l l EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY QEXISTING PINE C'O EXISTINGWATERVALVE kll- REMOVE EXISTING PATH 8 SUBGRADE AND RESTORE X895 ' 'W /SOD(TYPJ.J 851 BS N J SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSE0 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FDOT INDEX NO. 304 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS i GENERAL NOTES: 3' 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK \BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED &COMPACTED. +88J WEST m [RIGHT -OF -WAY / LINE (TYPJ ff'o 4 9.38 a� N 0 1 / L i 2 `/ ✓F vb td V 1'l1N0 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1' = 10' m � U N _o- o • 0 . m a EXISTING ASPHALT y.....,.,..,...:.......,,..,.,..., .- ...,.,.,..�,.,.,...- .,.,....- 1 �JS? B PATH (TYP.) m y NN W a 3 829. z3 gp0 9�6� 801 0d n�s2 b'.i; U) 1 ' o / , 99 ] 89 /JS ;�. •, i 8 9 x 4 0 EXISTING _4 9 ELECTRIC � O 1 f 1 l>s 3 T T �6 40 HANDHOLE ��� -i-� I '>O Tl s� sJ B ..._ _ _ _ - _ — —� - - _ --- - S _i + f0 Ws — .— — �– W -T _� �BJ -- > PROPOSED B' WIDE CROSSWALK s 1 �- 111 N U) S J1� 1 1 1 1 1 W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii1iJARBER & t•.'URUNDAGE -. elooel epglneen, plevners, mna : rreJ -on •• •P. zr5l M W au0 a� z W a L r•� O Q z� a °z a W� F as a DESIGNED BY: ABB ICRECEED BY: JAC I BDRIZ SCALE: 1' = 10' VERT. SCAlb N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ,CAD FILE NAME: 10574mst IBB PROJECT M 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ IAYOUT - site(6) -8 SHEET 8 OF 15 Aced File N 10574 m� z ii v> mm 9.76 9.36 m !' 1 } Y of 1A a. 9jp 5. 6 I Y8.17 19.10 I m 11 Alf .emu. a7 t n n m .6- _._.°_--- aq0 }� ,, <r194s t9.lz ` 1 i �C) y.a5a S. �6'6x •BSS 4 � � I 1 9CZn1�\ � j ,so4 I g.6°� c �_ 8.57% - - /84�3 8.D 1 3$•r - — ' 3 a 3 8.50 '-- r EXISTING 8.36 1 ELECTRIC I Q)3 1 HANDHOLE Jy / �B.T7 1 0' B70 � 25 lg - — - 1 ADJUST TOP TO REMOVE 9 LF EXIST. 1 w BE LEVEL WITH t1` CURB 8 REPLACE W/ 1 ASPHALT SURFACE NEW FLUSH CURB& 1 / 7 TAPER 1 1 I PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 1 9.22x 1 g81 3 1 [ 565 O.?0 + Y B 1 yoh 3 lms LU x t+ 1 N 4 2 1 01 8 u r 's+ _ _ - -- - -- 7.83 W- _— N SON O t L. A 2 - � P M W A 06 4y Q'V D H a 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"= 19 3 A �MOVE2'WIDTN�I REMOVE EXISTING PATH & PROPOSED 142 LF L INSTALLATION ION P ADJUST EXISTING RESTORE W/ SOD - CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER t CONCRETE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. GAS VALVE \� ^.�_— ,.J SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 L� WEST r RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING 233 / LINE (TYP.) ASPHALT 1.e1 1 PATH(IYP.) p 1 0 _ ------------ - _. — - V r i) 1 rt.1 rs w I W 1. /RE 8E 10 LF EXIST. PROPOSED V WIDE CROSSWALK & REPLACE W/ W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING NEW FLUSH CURB & + 2' TAPER NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293E, ABB FILE #105D4) I� I APPROXIMATE EXIST. GATE tt) '° >m D� E m -- m eQ APPROXIMATE EXIST. GATE EXISTING ELECTRIC HANDHOLE +Q�7`"3 8.37 REMOVE 15 LF EXIST. 8 REPLACE W/ It W i in [ _ Ir ADJUST TOP TO BE _ ; (n B W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING NOTE: SIGN & STRIPING RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #11-D293-E, ASH FILE #10504) i LEVEL WITH ASPHALT 1 Ip 1 m 1 W LU [ y / NEW FLUSH CURB & it5� t- oy NEW FLUSH CURB 8 1 /GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK , BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED/ rLEGEND: PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH w EXISTING HEDGE /PLANTS EXISTING SABA. PALM Iv EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY QEXISTING PINE AJ EXISTING WATER VALVE SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PRO POSED 24'WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 31W ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS PGN 017 z A m V� A 06 18 gr-11 10 0 5 10 2436 SCALE: 1• = 10' PROPOSED 147 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT / REMOVE 2' WIDTH /?\ -CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER . EXISTING PATH & Ng 1 -� MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 RESTORE WI SOD / 1 u m WEST �9'3B +g x g82 ,..^... - _ .�•H'..� - i 'a, = RIGHT -OF -WAY a 65 _ �LINE(TYP.) g78 974 999_ ^"_.. _ --------------- L-- � � ...sue e � o 99 3 (/ 1 • ��,; ;p cam' � x7.83 -_ _.__ - __ .- �- �- 1 _ _ 9 10 — — — 1 � - -.._ --. - - -� _— �� a_IA �Q EXISTING ELECTRIC �W BB NDHO HALE. 1 W 7 , y CL 1 REMOVE 15 LF EXIST.Tj '" CURB & REPLACE WI PROPOSED B' WIDE CROSSWALK REMOVE 15 LF EXIST. 8 REPLACE W/ �' ADJUST TOP TO BE _ ; (n W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING CURB LEVEL WITH ASPHALT NEW FLUSH CURB & NEW FLUSH CURB 8 SURFACE [ W W2'TAPER 2'TAPER ILU 1 W 1 1 VJ 1 1 1 1 � 1 1. x 830 1 �+ 1 8.43 a 1 1 � ioml­in . PI¢meea I Yo Len - = o No sm�. zoo �o z CA 00 M �AAw uw G7 aV0a z Vl a 00 a0 �z w rn �Wg 1, 1 �" O CZ7 DESIGNED BY: ASH CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: AHD HORIZ. SCALE: 1' = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ICAD FILE NABE: 10574mst WID PROJECT / 11 -0043 'LOT VIEW \ LAYOUT site(7) -9 SHEET 9 OF 15 Ac.d "I. Ill 10574 aF , �m 73 REMOVE EXISTING > APPROXIMATE D PATH & SUBGRADE I EXIST. GATE m 3 j REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY PAVERS & REPLACE WITH NEW ( PAVERS WITHIN 8' CROSSW:t<) WIDTH. COORDINATE WITH SERVICES DIVISION e`' - /// !REMOVE EX&ING� PATH & SUBGRADE AND RESTORE W/ SOD (TYP.) j -645 1 � �, A AND RESTORE ../ r r C ( 95 m Z PROPOSED B WIDE 1 . ._ -.. ..�....� .w...'.- ." "'.- . 8.9 6 CROSSWALK F _ -z - - -- - _ W DRAFI' PROPOSED 3D LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. • SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 I 1W Be !REMOVE EXIST. HEDGE l &REPLACE AFTER BIORARRIER INSTALLATION) PROPOSED 215 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. BID ALTERNATE ITEM - TO BE FIELD COORDINATED DURING CONSTRUCTION. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 EXISTING ASPHALT PATH CrYP.) B �x 0.fi4 t s'0 10 REMOVE EXISTING 5' _ WIDE PAVER CROSSWALK & REPLACE WITH EXIST. OCTAGON PAVERS 841)` 8.82 t 30�'k9.75 Dry' 9p3' NEW 6 LF TYPE E CURB (MATCH EXIST.) _ 1 ;T_ P�h071 1 REMOVE EXIST. HEDGE - & R AFTER BIOBARRIER RIER IN INSTALLATION) 1° PROPOSED 93 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER rlb0 4 I MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONEL N!1 S 6 BID ALTERNATE ITEM - TO BE FIELD Q COORDINATED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10 0 5 10 m I SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 Q O REMOVE EXISTING WEST n! PATH & SUBGRADE Os 24x36 SCALE: 1 "= 10' Z /� r RIGHT -OF -WAY 8 +�� 6s AND RESTORE LINE ( TYP. ) a5B Q m t I1 W / SOD (TYP.) 1 s 190 - �J PROPOSED WIDEss REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. CROSSWALK TYPE D CURB & REPLACE W/ NEW S" PAVER BORDERS REMOVE 12 LF EXIST. WITH PAVERS &CROSSWALK CURB 8 REPLACE W/ FLUSH WITH GRADE NEW FLUSH CURB & /NEW PAVERS COORDINATE 7TAPER '\ REMOVE MEDIAN 8 PROVIDE WITH PH SERVICES DIVISION , '-�.�,v NEW 17 LF TYPE D CURB REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. TYPE A CURB 8 REPLACE WITH PAVERS & CROSSWALK FLUSH WITH GRADE GENERAL NOTES: _ L 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED. WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TYP.) W 1 �' ----- ---- -----r >. -�� -- - -- -.o> - '�. ~ Y� 61 37 .54 cP ! LU 0 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT B W 1 IA 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 0)'a.1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 - SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 T > 1 1 B OZ 9B d• 8 16 1 ay::. PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH vw EXISTING HEDGE PUNTS EXISTING SABAL PPLM SEXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY V EXISTING PINE �X1 EXISTING WATER VALVE I t I U) 9 1 > B - °,) PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 F CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 CO CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 � � 1 SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 361 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS _ PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 x8 45 s x1 — 7,80 ADJUST TOP TO SLOPE WITH ASPHALT SURFACE @ 2% MAX REMOVE EXISTING L PATH & SUBGRADE -..l AND RESTORE 1 Q-p W ^SOD (TYP.) a' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION EXISTING PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. ELEC. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 HANDHOLE PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 RELOCATE STOP SIGN PGN OC/ O 2 x m -0 R n < D s °vnaB e m 10 0 5 0 D 2436 SCALE: 1"= 101 m m (,3 1 REMOVE EXISTING 1- ' PATH & SUBGRADE ] i AND RESTORE 1 .26 %16 J -� /SgD(T p-"k y C �j- 0 6 71 3 �alq 1 T• MIUARBER & :I•MURUNDAGE. siomi engineer. Ple­ lands a... eu uwx�' x..m. ewe zaa In CD z5 O En Go 0 r7,A Aw CAI w5C)1.4 1--1 aW z a z r-I 00 woo a a >H Z4 �Wg p� o u rn r5 H QI DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: SAC NORI SCALE: 1" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A E. DATE: JUNE 2011 9 r ''31 U >q REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. w fn y CURB & REPLACE W/ C9 1 r 5 a NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 F a 3 REMOVE 2' TAPER 1 W 5 ^ H 1 1 W 33 (EXIST. PROPOSED B WIDE N 2 m n CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING j W 1 V) ACAD FILE NAME: 1 REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. 1 10574mst CURB & REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 2'TAPER 1 ABB PROJECT # — - - - - - -- 11 -0043 9 PLOT VIER \LAYOUT • site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 A�xd Ftle x 10574 - �J PROPOSED WIDEss REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. CROSSWALK TYPE D CURB & REPLACE W/ NEW S" PAVER BORDERS REMOVE 12 LF EXIST. WITH PAVERS &CROSSWALK CURB 8 REPLACE W/ FLUSH WITH GRADE NEW FLUSH CURB & /NEW PAVERS COORDINATE 7TAPER '\ REMOVE MEDIAN 8 PROVIDE WITH PH SERVICES DIVISION , '-�.�,v NEW 17 LF TYPE D CURB REMOVE 14 LF EXIST. TYPE A CURB 8 REPLACE WITH PAVERS & CROSSWALK FLUSH WITH GRADE GENERAL NOTES: _ L 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED. WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TYP.) W 1 �' ----- ---- -----r >. -�� -- - -- -.o> - '�. ~ Y� 61 37 .54 cP ! LU 0 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT B W 1 IA 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 0)'a.1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 - SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 T > 1 1 B OZ 9B d• 8 16 1 ay::. PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH vw EXISTING HEDGE PUNTS EXISTING SABAL PPLM SEXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY V EXISTING PINE �X1 EXISTING WATER VALVE I t I U) 9 1 > B - °,) PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 F CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 CO CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 � � 1 SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 361 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS _ PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 x8 45 s x1 — 7,80 ADJUST TOP TO SLOPE WITH ASPHALT SURFACE @ 2% MAX REMOVE EXISTING L PATH & SUBGRADE -..l AND RESTORE 1 Q-p W ^SOD (TYP.) a' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION EXISTING PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. ELEC. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 HANDHOLE PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 RELOCATE STOP SIGN PGN OC/ O 2 x m -0 R n < D s °vnaB e m 10 0 5 0 D 2436 SCALE: 1"= 101 m m (,3 1 REMOVE EXISTING 1- ' PATH & SUBGRADE ] i AND RESTORE 1 .26 %16 J -� /SgD(T p-"k y C �j- 0 6 71 3 �alq 1 T• MIUARBER & :I•MURUNDAGE. siomi engineer. Ple­ lands a... eu uwx�' x..m. ewe zaa In CD z5 O En Go 0 r7,A Aw CAI w5C)1.4 1--1 aW z a z r-I 00 woo a a >H Z4 �Wg p� o u rn r5 H QI DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: SAC NORI SCALE: 1" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A E. DATE: JUNE 2011 9 r ''31 U >q REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. w fn y CURB & REPLACE W/ C9 1 r 5 a NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 F a 3 REMOVE 2' TAPER 1 W 5 ^ H 1 1 W 33 (EXIST. PROPOSED B WIDE N 2 m n CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING j W 1 V) ACAD FILE NAME: 1 REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. 1 10574mst CURB & REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 2'TAPER 1 ABB PROJECT # — - - - - - -- 11 -0043 9 PLOT VIER \LAYOUT • site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 A�xd Ftle x 10574 1 T > 1 1 B OZ 9B d• 8 16 1 ay::. PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH vw EXISTING HEDGE PUNTS EXISTING SABAL PPLM SEXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY V EXISTING PINE �X1 EXISTING WATER VALVE I t I U) 9 1 > B - °,) PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 F CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 CO CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 � � 1 SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 361 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS _ PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 x8 45 s x1 — 7,80 ADJUST TOP TO SLOPE WITH ASPHALT SURFACE @ 2% MAX REMOVE EXISTING L PATH & SUBGRADE -..l AND RESTORE 1 Q-p W ^SOD (TYP.) a' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION EXISTING PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. ELEC. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 HANDHOLE PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 RELOCATE STOP SIGN PGN OC/ O 2 x m -0 R n < D s °vnaB e m 10 0 5 0 D 2436 SCALE: 1"= 101 m m (,3 1 REMOVE EXISTING 1- ' PATH & SUBGRADE ] i AND RESTORE 1 .26 %16 J -� /SgD(T p-"k y C �j- 0 6 71 3 �alq 1 T• MIUARBER & :I•MURUNDAGE. siomi engineer. Ple­ lands a... eu uwx�' x..m. ewe zaa In CD z5 O En Go 0 r7,A Aw CAI w5C)1.4 1--1 aW z a z r-I 00 woo a a >H Z4 �Wg p� o u rn r5 H QI DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: SAC NORI SCALE: 1" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A E. DATE: JUNE 2011 9 r ''31 U >q REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. w fn y CURB & REPLACE W/ C9 1 r 5 a NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 F a 3 REMOVE 2' TAPER 1 W 5 ^ H 1 1 W 33 (EXIST. PROPOSED B WIDE N 2 m n CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING j W 1 V) ACAD FILE NAME: 1 REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. 1 10574mst CURB & REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 2'TAPER 1 ABB PROJECT # — - - - - - -- 11 -0043 9 PLOT VIER \LAYOUT • site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 A�xd Ftle x 10574 t I U) 9 1 > B - °,) PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 F CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 CO CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 � � 1 SIGN & STRIPING ` LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 361 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS _ PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 x8 45 s x1 — 7,80 ADJUST TOP TO SLOPE WITH ASPHALT SURFACE @ 2% MAX REMOVE EXISTING L PATH & SUBGRADE -..l AND RESTORE 1 Q-p W ^SOD (TYP.) a' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION EXISTING PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. ELEC. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 HANDHOLE PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 RELOCATE STOP SIGN PGN OC/ O 2 x m -0 R n < D s °vnaB e m 10 0 5 0 D 2436 SCALE: 1"= 101 m m (,3 1 REMOVE EXISTING 1- ' PATH & SUBGRADE ] i AND RESTORE 1 .26 %16 J -� /SgD(T p-"k y C �j- 0 6 71 3 �alq 1 T• MIUARBER & :I•MURUNDAGE. siomi engineer. Ple­ lands a... eu uwx�' x..m. ewe zaa In CD z5 O En Go 0 r7,A Aw CAI w5C)1.4 1--1 aW z a z r-I 00 woo a a >H Z4 �Wg p� o u rn r5 H QI DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: SAC NORI SCALE: 1" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A E. DATE: JUNE 2011 9 r ''31 U >q REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. w fn y CURB & REPLACE W/ C9 1 r 5 a NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 F a 3 REMOVE 2' TAPER 1 W 5 ^ H 1 1 W 33 (EXIST. PROPOSED B WIDE N 2 m n CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING j W 1 V) ACAD FILE NAME: 1 REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. 1 10574mst CURB & REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 2'TAPER 1 ABB PROJECT # — - - - - - -- 11 -0043 9 PLOT VIER \LAYOUT • site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 A�xd Ftle x 10574 MIUARBER & :I•MURUNDAGE. siomi engineer. Ple­ lands a... eu uwx�' x..m. ewe zaa In CD z5 O En Go 0 r7,A Aw CAI w5C)1.4 1--1 aW z a z r-I 00 woo a a >H Z4 �Wg p� o u rn r5 H QI DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: SAC NORI SCALE: 1" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A E. DATE: JUNE 2011 9 r ''31 U >q REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. w fn y CURB & REPLACE W/ C9 1 r 5 a NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 F a 3 REMOVE 2' TAPER 1 W 5 ^ H 1 1 W 33 (EXIST. PROPOSED B WIDE N 2 m n CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING j W 1 V) ACAD FILE NAME: 1 REMOVE 13 LF EXIST. 1 10574mst CURB & REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 2'TAPER 1 ABB PROJECT # — - - - - - -- 11 -0043 9 PLOT VIER \LAYOUT • site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 A�xd Ftle x 10574 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 E EXISTING SUB WADE STO E (r'R) 0 _ 1 Ui 1 L!EMOVE EXIST. HEDGE t. 8 REPLACE AFTER BIOBARRIER INSTALLATION PROPOSED 145 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT / CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION WEST PERMANUFACTURERSPECIFICATIONS. CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION RIGHT -OF -WAY gs6 / SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. LINE (TYP.) es7 SEE GENERAL NOTE LF2 n DID B �e `k --- -- -- -'"^ -- — 6 B '� PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 ADJUST IRRIGATION VALVE BOX TO GRADE. T D ca m r 0 tim 1 8 J ; �J tI des 0 EXISTING CURB REMOVE EXIST. HEDGE 1 B REPLACE AFTER BIOBARRIER INSTALLATION PROPOSED TO LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 AONOC / L d 2 � 9 m YJb 4 OI'n a0 10 0 5 t0 ` \24X36 SCALE: 1• =10' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 n Bag �p01 ii11-1�L.NOLt iJARBER k Ml. RUNDAGE, Profeaeiouel evglneen. ylnnnen. & lends rvey-on "� eo. n.n:".. sl, silos w "na saw sos t �1 z rD o � O CA Oo N 1 w Fw d 1 LU 9 g s5s N '= qw rn +B�s PROPOSED 6' WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING — REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. / �A CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 2' TAPER INSTALL PATH TO PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT EDGES OF VALVE BOX CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 a i • �s Q 1 - CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER W J9 1 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT i CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION i PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 t 1 1 1 SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 --- -- -- -'"^ -- — 6 B '� PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 ADJUST IRRIGATION VALVE BOX TO GRADE. T D ca m r 0 tim 1 8 J ; �J tI des 0 EXISTING CURB REMOVE EXIST. HEDGE 1 B REPLACE AFTER BIOBARRIER INSTALLATION PROPOSED TO LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 AONOC / L d 2 � 9 m YJb 4 OI'n a0 10 0 5 t0 ` \24X36 SCALE: 1• =10' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 n Bag �p01 ii11-1�L.NOLt iJARBER k Ml. RUNDAGE, Profeaeiouel evglneen. ylnnnen. & lends rvey-on "� eo. n.n:".. sl, silos w "na saw sos t �1 z rD o � O CA Oo N 1 w Fw d 1 LU 9 g s5s N '= qw rn +B�s PROPOSED 6' WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING — REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. / �A CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 2' TAPER INSTALL PATH TO PROPOSED 30 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT EDGES OF VALVE BOX CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 LU t w - x 1 - -- T 1 x H °g .. , F- l --------- _ W � d 1 9.24 j 8.71 ,7p 1 0. - -- WL._ — —._ - -- — 1 *f U) 1 1 PROPOSED 30 IF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 / SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 i 1 1 1 i i t 1 y 1 1877 Ir D i() rn +0?ry ^ m C 0' �7 74 () 1 rn }0. � xg 13 m �7 a: F F QJa 3 EXISTING 7. 2 h0 CROSSWALK — PROPOSED IT WIDE CROSSWALK N W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING REMOVE S LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 7 TAPER REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 2' TAPER REMOVE (1, EXISTING OAK GENERAL NOTES: : s'•. 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK VASE SHALL BE INSTALLED 8 COMPACTED) MPROPDSEDASPHALTPATH •w.- EXISTING HEDGE I PINTS y� EXISTING SABAL PPLM C J EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY { J EXISTING PINE l� EXISTING WATER VALVE 's PROPOSED 63 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT Q 1 - CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER W 1 r-4 z MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. °o zp — s,a SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 W Q a PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 f/! SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 REMOVE EXISTING 1 00 PATH 8 SUBGRADE AND RESTORE 1 EXISTING w/ so0 (nP.) i 5' ASPHALT PATH (TYP.) N 1 01 g m� i LU t w - x 1 - -- T 1 x H °g .. , F- l --------- _ W � d 1 9.24 j 8.71 ,7p 1 0. - -- WL._ — —._ - -- — 1 *f U) 1 1 PROPOSED 30 IF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 / SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 i 1 1 1 i i t 1 y 1 1877 Ir D i() rn +0?ry ^ m C 0' �7 74 () 1 rn }0. � xg 13 m �7 a: F F QJa 3 EXISTING 7. 2 h0 CROSSWALK — PROPOSED IT WIDE CROSSWALK N W/ 12" WHITE STRIPING REMOVE S LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 7 TAPER REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURB 8 2' TAPER REMOVE (1, EXISTING OAK GENERAL NOTES: : s'•. 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK VASE SHALL BE INSTALLED 8 COMPACTED) MPROPDSEDASPHALTPATH •w.- EXISTING HEDGE I PINTS y� EXISTING SABAL PPLM C J EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY { J EXISTING PINE l� EXISTING WATER VALVE 's � Q 1 t — W 1 r-4 z °o zp — s,a ;O 10 PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 W Q a PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 f/! SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 z .--I E 1 00 1 1 t t � 1 t — W 1 a °z °o zp w�� �1 U a W Qro 'SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN 8 STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE ❑3 WARNINGS PER FDOT INDEX NO. 304 OPROPOSED CON CRETE CURB ACCESS REMOVE EXISTING PATH 8 SUBGRADE f d W EST R + AND RESTORE / 'B RIGHT -OF -WAY '0 9 WtS D` (TYP.) //""- ,!� LINE (NP.) B I C,N0 /, Pq r z 9 2 � a =U F H �bQMnao 3 a a 10 D 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ABB DRAWN BY: RAF 2436 SCALE: 1"= 10 CHECKED BY: JAC 1 � +� 1 e 1 m t 1 f6 0.51 et -.... -_. .F... B-4 1 soh 1 w a . .20 Y i % �pJ_ n 7.87 Lu w .8y, B 1 W S PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT j N o CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION E W REMOVE 8 LF EXIST. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. t CURB 8 REPLACE W/ PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. 1 N NEW FLUSH CURB 8 SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 , 2' TAPER 1 t 1 1 t Dry � V � a c7 w �i �A Old z c7 REVIEWED BY: ABB HORIZ. SCALE: L" = 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PROJECT # 11 -0043 PLOT VIEW \ LAYOUT Site(9) -11 SHEET 11 OF 15 Aced FLA. # 10574 i 1 1 1 WEST 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY _ 1 LINE (TYP.) 1 EXISTING A 1 ASPHALT C I � m e PATH (TYP.) LU 7.75 cn UU LU --- - - - - -- J ( NI 7zB ------------- '-''?- - / i I — 1 d' PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 "PROPOSED 30 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. ' PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 ' SEE GENERAL NOTE R2 1 1 _.. t,' __ -- - _ _. ?s PROPOSED 30 LF SIDEARM ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE N2 w / 1 1 1 1 4\� # 8.50 REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB & REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB & 2' TAPER PROPOSE V W DE - CROSSWALK W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB & REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB & T TAPER 0 ej�933 1\ GENERAL NOTES: �s', 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED., LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH .- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING—PAL. EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY f l EXISTING PINE EXISTING WATER VALVE WEST PROPOSED 24 LF BIOSARRIER ROOT r ry CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS— 1 Z� _ - -� SEE GENERAL NOTE p2 -— — _ w - -�~ B m m 0 i6 �6 R7& REMOVE t8 LF EXIST. Z -V 1 CURB & REPLACE WI NEW CURB RAMP & FLUSH CURB T v y9. 1 ; a CROSSWALK. REPLACE EXISTING N Imo/ CONC. SAN WITH B' MIN. LENGTH O DOWN TO PATH 1 K QUO TAPER m 12:1 MAX SLOPE. 2 Q Z / -� � ., .. lg 1 BUJ ?e 99 0. + 1 9.16 xt .1', '9 Om H OO w / 1 1 1 1 4\� # 8.50 REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB & REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB & 2' TAPER PROPOSE V W DE - CROSSWALK W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB & REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB & T TAPER 0 ej�933 1\ GENERAL NOTES: �s', 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED & COMPACTED., LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH .- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING—PAL. EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY f l EXISTING PINE EXISTING WATER VALVE WEST PROPOSED 24 LF BIOSARRIER ROOT r RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TVP.) CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS— 1 o En 00 _ - -� SEE GENERAL NOTE p2 -— — _ w - -�~ B U W W 0 i6 �6 R7& 0.4 -V 1 - a y9. 1 ; r 1 ► BPI `3\ _.. Im Q Z / -� � ., .. lg a z ,-y EXISTING SIGN TO BE RELOCATED FROM NORTH S INSTALLED PER MUTCD ) i H OO r - RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN 3 180' SOUTH PGN OCI L' � z Fes/ P �/1 m d � OIle 0 Nn a O 4 10 0 5 10 24x38 SCALE: 1 " =10' '- iiiJARBER & iiSRUNDAGE- Plot esi- engine n, P-m & Innd --l.. l.. wont ewe ¢oo IP1 0 STANDARDS. 1 3 1 1 1 SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN A STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 3% ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURBACCESS ' 1 1 P-4 H O o� F to �o 0w MRN w o PGNOC!Wj r�i o' ° fy A m U d A Ob id � �Nnae ' �1y �1� 0 V 1"I adl a �O � V 10 0 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ADS DRAWN BY: RAF 24x35 SCALE: 1" = 10' CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ADS HORIZ. SCALE: 1" = 10' 1 VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 4 i r z 1 o En 00 _ - -� M -— — _ w - -�~ U W W 1> 0.4 �w 1 / �u 1 ; T GRADE & PROVIDE SOLID ► BPI `3\ _.. Im Q Z / -� � ., .. , LU 111' a z ,-y EXISTING SIGN TO BE RELOCATED FROM NORTH S INSTALLED PER MUTCD ) j H OO STANDARDS. 1 3 1 1 1 SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN A STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 3% ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURBACCESS ' 1 1 P-4 H O o� F to �o 0w MRN w o PGNOC!Wj r�i o' ° fy A m U d A Ob id � �Nnae ' �1y �1� 0 V 1"I adl a �O � V 10 0 5 10 DESIGNED BY: ADS DRAWN BY: RAF 24x35 SCALE: 1" = 10' CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ADS HORIZ. SCALE: 1" = 10' 1 VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 4 1 ( ADJUSTIRRIGITI { VALVE BOXES TO MATCH PATH 1 ; T GRADE & PROVIDE SOLID TOPS (NO GRATES) PBSD TO RELOCATE FROM PATH IF NECESSARY , 1 , 1 PROPOSED BB LF BK)BARRIER ROOT ' CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. SEE GENERAL NOTE 42 m 1 m ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst ADS PROJECT ,y 11 -0043 PUFF VIEW \ LAYOUT Site(10)-12 SHEET ] 2 OF 15 Aced File B 10574 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REMOVE I WIDTH 1 f ASPHALT&BASE 1 1 WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (TYP.) 7 8 PROPOSED 118 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1J -To N Z D z "' m� 0 ;am PGNOC/ z � b 7 n � F vb 3 7 O PROPOSED 100 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION A 10 0 5 10 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. � SEE GENERAL NOTE 02 v 24.36 SCALE: 1' = 10' EXISTING g0 / ASPHALT y1 ✓ o^ r� , ;J, /�j ! xa.9t 1 PATH (TYP.) B / T -- - -. ! >3 1 Teo 78A x (/x 50 >62 7 91 6' WIDE CROSSWALK 9 = LU Ld �r 3 EXISTING WATER VALVE - y h -- �a — 1— p PROPOSED 118 LF SIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, SEE GENERAL NOTE #2 1J -To N Z D z "' m� 0 ;am PGNOC/ z � b 7 n � F vb 3 7 O PROPOSED 100 LF BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION A 10 0 5 10 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. � SEE GENERAL NOTE 02 v 24.36 SCALE: 1' = 10' EXISTING g0 / ASPHALT y1 ✓ o^ r� , ;J, /�j ! xa.9t 1 PATH (TYP.) B / T -- - -. ! >3 1 Teo EXISTING OAK DR MAHOGANY 7 91 6' WIDE CROSSWALK 9 = LU Ld EXISTING PINE 3 EXISTING WATER VALVE - y h -- �a — 1— p oc)> END -c _ �FB14 PROJECT 1.54 1 i I ` - -- - - -+- 75 Y -- - - — _ -- -�5- l60 Iw 1> 1 �PROPOSEDBWIDE 3,2 �..✓' ✓'v- �'v. -.ti CROSSWALK ADJUST IR W/ 12' WHITE STRIPING , 4 lVALVE BOXES TO MATCH PATH RIGATION D1 + '1 t GRADE d PROVIDE SOLID TOPS (NO GRATES) PBSD TO RELOCATE FROM PATH IF NECESSARY-' 1 PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 — — — — y 1 k98B m 1 _ k v - _ -- - -_ —kQ22 GENERAL NOTES- -k. 1. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12.1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. 2. AREAS OF TREE ROOT INTRUSION SHALL BE REMOVED OF ALL ASPHALT AND •-1 CONTAMINATED BASE. NEW LIMEROCK x\7,70 T 6B\ 115 ) - �- -__ - -� j J BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED 8 COMPACTED. \ L REMOVE 7871 EXISTING 1(7.89 M ^� � �^ CONCRETE 8.02 78 >c 7.85'Q, yk "''A ='"�M^ 1B 5 ' � �1, tears Oao k � _ ! �7g5 •"`�- ...,�. 9� WEST RIGHT-OF WAY ..-:_ .,.. .. ��:; -... m °' _ _- _...___ '-.___._ ,¢ !i%.^e� ^. ^.wN•v�"'�^^�Sk-�?,,;,,,5 LINE (TY ) ro _ �e t. )) 1 '4S 193 . - -. - •• , ? 8.07 �1 2 _ 1 A ..- .- - A.1 8.07 - - _ _ - _ - .- _. _._ -- X017 +) s 7.75 i1 NOTE: PAVER CROSSWALK _ _ - __ ._ ?s? °O _ _ 4 N� RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED II \'� s NI (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293-E. ABB -� - _ ° /RJ J..: =1 FILE #10504) B 135 LEGEND: PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH )n +� EXISTING HEDGE /PLANTS EXISTING SABAL PALM 4 1�� EXISTING OAK DR MAHOGANY _._ - rREMOVE 6' WIDE CROSSWALK EXISTING S PATH B SUBGRADE / PROPOSED B WIDE CROSSWALK 0 EXISTING PINE a� EXISTING WATER VALVE - �;, - - I 1 � m 1 1 _ 1 / kys 9�21L 1 S C 1 s - 1 1 ' J NOTE: SIGN & STRIPING RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED (ROW PERMIT #1 1-0293-E, ABB FILE #10504) PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 A - - - -- ��--- pf✓ 8.57 ` SIGN 6 STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24 -WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �3 WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 ®PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB ACCESS p"N0 /I 2 Y -/1 r ,gib g ON'1 U S 10 0 5 10 2436 SCALE: 1" = 10' iiZ�G \011 iiEUMER & iiURUNDA(;E- Pro(essi°mlvgip�n, Plennen. & land TO on na.. rwo r��.m r.m. xo.re, -1 2na W) 0 H Oo �( 0 En O M iii----- - �A Aw w50� P-4 TW^^ z Vl a 0 V ~ a o z r�1 Do 0 �O���l•-Hr1 �' � v W / t A �" F W zo M�z fU )ESIGNED BY: ABB CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ABB HORIZ. SCALE: 1" _ 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 9CAD FILE NAME: 10574mst OB PROJECT # 11 -0043 PLOT VIEW \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 A-d Fil° # 10574 REMOVE EXISTING _._ - rREMOVE 6' WIDE CROSSWALK EXISTING S PATH B SUBGRADE / PROPOSED B WIDE CROSSWALK AND RESTORE r- W/ 1Y WHITE STRIPING ,3, REMOVE EXISTNG�� y h PATH & SUBGRADE I AND RESTORE ✓ �a u W /SOD (TYP.) oc)> END -c _ �FB14 PROJECT i R � 3 78 4 4 REMOVE 6 LF EXISTING VALLEY GUTTER . 5 x REMOVEBLF EXISTING VALLEY GUTTER `� � iiZ�G \011 iiEUMER & iiURUNDA(;E- Pro(essi°mlvgip�n, Plennen. & land TO on na.. rwo r��.m r.m. xo.re, -1 2na W) 0 H Oo �( 0 En O M iii----- - �A Aw w50� P-4 TW^^ z Vl a 0 V ~ a o z r�1 Do 0 �O���l•-Hr1 �' � v W / t A �" F W zo M�z fU )ESIGNED BY: ABB CHECKED BY: JAC REVIEWED BY: ABB HORIZ. SCALE: 1" _ 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 9CAD FILE NAME: 10574mst OB PROJECT # 11 -0043 PLOT VIEW \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 A-d Fil° # 10574 GRADE LINE 6" 16' 1.5" ASPHALT SLOPE TO MATCH Y R - 9. 7. ADJACECENT PAVEMENT SLOPE D 6" LIMEROCK BASE H 12" lz 1 3/4'J / 12" STABILIZED T C_ SUBGRADE TYPE A CURB 1 NTS TYPE 'D' CONCRETE CURB N. T. S. PAVEMENT SURFACE PAVEMENT SURFACE TO BE 114" ABOVE LIP OF GUTTER PAYTMENT SURFACE 12" 12° P/a ENI UCE .M BB, ABD UE �112- f 1e• I 11/2- N . q // \ 36" VALLEY GUTTER NTS 24" VALLEY GUTTER N. T.S. MOTH VARIES � - -_ - -- a�WR GUTTER _. !' PUN AARP , SIDEWALX H' PORTLAND 41D MAWDRIV[ L �pPTTS W WLLEr GUTE.$ CEMENT CONCRETE III III III — III — III —III I11 I I I— III SIDEWALK —III III — III —III 111- 12. OF EXISTING SOIL WNE'NCY OVER ZO WIDL TO BE COMPACTED TO 1l2•EXfYJ &. JOINT SHALL BE 989 OF MAX. DRY DENSITY. F 4 m16R EP6lHC NEW OO CONCRETE SIDEWALK CfX1511NgG/GONLCNSTR;1TION 2" TYPE S ASPHALHC CONCRETE 6- ABC -3 ASPHALT (BLACK BASE) %, snNC suecrrAOE /�� / /���/ 1) STABILIZED SUBGRADE MUST BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 98X CF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND HAVE A MINIMUM LBR OF 40 AFTER MIXING. 2) ASPHALT TO BE APPLIED IN TWO I• LIFTS. 3) SUSCRAOE SHALL EXTEND 12' PAST EDGE OF PAVEMENT TYPICAL ROAD PAVEMENT SECTION N. T. S. PROPOSED PAVERS (MATCH E411N1 PATTERNS OR AS N0TE0 Ixi PLANS) I• FINE SAND (TNP.) . a• uMERDGx BASE (uBR roo) —III —I ( —III NOTE: ROAD BASE EXISTS AT EXISTING PAVER DRIVEWAYS re• srANUZEn SUBGRADE (lBR 40) TPROPOSED PAVERS rs ROW LINE `J w YU.R —e' To O[I -GKr AT RADII 4RyGt ~- PLAN VIEW REM EDGE OF SUEwALK�. 'FRONT EOOE OF 9e0EWA1Jf�` - CU� Ra+r-EOCC oR"6ROPTz1b - ��- EDGE OF 6Dc wLIOCA'TO IFRONT OFFQ�RIREMU FRONT TOP OFCIIf�� PROFILE VIEW JOOR TW 7 JUpT SEALER Sr I' -B' �i�• -T-Y T 1 •��SN'T4 SECT. A —A LAS[ N(p I Is°LFEs S�PE 001 ft/fti j}"IN 'sue'E IVFIE9 - D4M1 /fl NORMAL wRES _- gerLnL MA">t. SL Pp1 Gu VALLEY T00laG( OF ebEwEARLK f Ih qH NSION:... GUTT411 �FM N SECT. C- I k COLLIER COUNTY % =°o"e CURB AND GUTT ER ACCESS nnrne nucOnZAjla() cnrm AroROVED a.� DETAIL PROPOSED W WIDE ASPHALT PATH VARIES �• -��_ � ^-� VARIES 0' TO 3' (TYP.) (TYP.) VARIES EXISTING T WIDE I VARIES I EXISTING O TO 17- (TYP.) ASPHALT PATH 4' TO I T (TYP.) PELICAN BAY REMOVE ALL EXISTING ASPHALT A BLVD. PROVIDE NEW ASPHALT OVER 1 - !_--- -_ -_5- 3 R ENTI RESWIDTHOFPATH 3 S - - -- �- - _ - -_ _- - - -- - 4 — — — — — 4 L_i_____ 6 6 s OEXISTING I• MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE 11 (VARIES I TO V TYP.) OEXISTING 4• LIMEROCK BASE ON IT STAB. SUBGRADE ® PROPOSED 1.5 MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE S (OVER ENTIRE A' WIDTH) ® PROPOSED 4' MIN. LIMEROCK LBRI DO ON 12• STAB. SUBGRADE L3R4D. NEW BASE TO MATCH EXISTING. ORELOCATE ALL IRRIGATION HEADS TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF NEW PATH. RESTORE BOTH SIDES OF NEW PATH WITH SOD OR LANDSCAPE AS APPLICABLE TO RESTORE EXISTING CONDITION& © EXISTING'PROPOSED I2• STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR40 SECTION A -A - TYPICAL PATH NTS v (PROP .11-11 i1 ASPHALT PATH O 703' 0'703' ROW LINE (TYP) (TYP') VARIES EXISTING S' WIDE VARIES EXISTING D TO 1 T (TYP.) ASPHALT PATH 4' TO 11' (TYP.) PELICAN SAY REMOVE ALL EXISTING ASPHALT A BLVD. PROVIDE NEW ASPHALT S S QI \jOVER ENTIREVWIDTHOFPATH 3 S 4 — — — — — 4 - - - -__- 6 z — — — — 6 OEXISTING V MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE It (VARIES I• TO, 4•TYP.) OEXISTING 4- LIMEROCK BASE ON 12• STAB. SUBGRADE - OPROPOSED 1.S MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE S (OVER ENTIRE A' WIDTH) ® PROPOSED 4- MIN. LIMEROCK LBR100 ON 1T STAB. SUBGRADE LBR40. NEW BASE TO MATCH EXISTING. ®RELOCATE ALL IRRIGATION HEADS TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF NEW PATH RESTORE BOTH SIDES OF NEW PATH WITH SOD OR LANDSCAPE AS APPLICABLE TO RESTORE EXISTING CONDITIONS. © EXISTINGIPROPOSED 12• STABILIZED SUBGRADE LER40 3 4 SECTION 13-13 - TYPICAL PATH - - -- - NTS NSt T NOTE CLA59 I CONC wx PEl N 29 OATS. IN FILLET! NAE if REPUCEG JCNTATIO' lamIM TYP[C"ll- JONi t' CER. TRANSOIW A1T BEAL. TYB L7E1trAN90N JOINT 1 TTR . SECTION AA EXIB -3 ROAD BASE THE ;r RNp "r C lr ry a oP- ---,,. SECTION se • M1p P-t l +`-SECTION CC SECTION DD' COLLIER COUNTY RTE -zee CURB ACCESS RITTI TRANSPORTATION APANDVEC ,.4 PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED RAMP e M m OPERATIONS DEPARTS�.NT � - -_ - -- a�WR GUTTER _. !' PUN AARP , SIDEWALX OUT CURB N— OR 41D MAWDRIV[ L �pPTTS W WLLEr GUTE.$ )i OREN JIJ 9 r.ACEO C JOIYTt N EXISTPL FS -- - GITTEl1 XT EWAL 201M %J N[ERVALS EGR Y wloE •• CO— FILLET S' CONC, VALLEY GUTTER WNE'NCY OVER ZO WIDL \`? 1l2•EXfYJ &. JOINT SHALL BE 3 G• %5"Ip/�p F 4 m16R EP6lHC NEW OO y. N AT CfX1511NgG/GONLCNSTR;1TION l 1I TN�ERmYALNTe POLR __&-T, �O \ E%15T1lIGG KMGV'� `J w YU.R —e' To O[I -GKr AT RADII 4RyGt ~- PLAN VIEW REM EDGE OF SUEwALK�. 'FRONT EOOE OF 9e0EWA1Jf�` - CU� Ra+r-EOCC oR"6ROPTz1b - ��- EDGE OF 6Dc wLIOCA'TO IFRONT OFFQ�RIREMU FRONT TOP OFCIIf�� PROFILE VIEW JOOR TW 7 JUpT SEALER Sr I' -B' �i�• -T-Y T 1 •��SN'T4 SECT. A —A LAS[ N(p I Is°LFEs S�PE 001 ft/fti j}"IN 'sue'E IVFIE9 - D4M1 /fl NORMAL wRES _- gerLnL MA">t. SL Pp1 Gu VALLEY T00laG( OF ebEwEARLK f Ih qH NSION:... GUTT411 �FM N SECT. C- I k COLLIER COUNTY % =°o"e CURB AND GUTT ER ACCESS nnrne nucOnZAjla() cnrm AroROVED a.� DETAIL PROPOSED W WIDE ASPHALT PATH VARIES �• -��_ � ^-� VARIES 0' TO 3' (TYP.) (TYP.) VARIES EXISTING T WIDE I VARIES I EXISTING O TO 17- (TYP.) ASPHALT PATH 4' TO I T (TYP.) PELICAN BAY REMOVE ALL EXISTING ASPHALT A BLVD. PROVIDE NEW ASPHALT OVER 1 - !_--- -_ -_5- 3 R ENTI RESWIDTHOFPATH 3 S - - -- �- - _ - -_ _- - - -- - 4 — — — — — 4 L_i_____ 6 6 s OEXISTING I• MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE 11 (VARIES I TO V TYP.) OEXISTING 4• LIMEROCK BASE ON IT STAB. SUBGRADE ® PROPOSED 1.5 MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE S (OVER ENTIRE A' WIDTH) ® PROPOSED 4' MIN. LIMEROCK LBRI DO ON 12• STAB. SUBGRADE L3R4D. NEW BASE TO MATCH EXISTING. ORELOCATE ALL IRRIGATION HEADS TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF NEW PATH. RESTORE BOTH SIDES OF NEW PATH WITH SOD OR LANDSCAPE AS APPLICABLE TO RESTORE EXISTING CONDITION& © EXISTING'PROPOSED I2• STABILIZED SUBGRADE LBR40 SECTION A -A - TYPICAL PATH NTS v (PROP .11-11 i1 ASPHALT PATH O 703' 0'703' ROW LINE (TYP) (TYP') VARIES EXISTING S' WIDE VARIES EXISTING D TO 1 T (TYP.) ASPHALT PATH 4' TO 11' (TYP.) PELICAN SAY REMOVE ALL EXISTING ASPHALT A BLVD. PROVIDE NEW ASPHALT S S QI \jOVER ENTIREVWIDTHOFPATH 3 S 4 — — — — — 4 - - - -__- 6 z — — — — 6 OEXISTING V MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE It (VARIES I• TO, 4•TYP.) OEXISTING 4- LIMEROCK BASE ON 12• STAB. SUBGRADE - OPROPOSED 1.S MIN. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE TYPE S (OVER ENTIRE A' WIDTH) ® PROPOSED 4- MIN. LIMEROCK LBR100 ON 1T STAB. SUBGRADE LBR40. NEW BASE TO MATCH EXISTING. ®RELOCATE ALL IRRIGATION HEADS TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF NEW PATH RESTORE BOTH SIDES OF NEW PATH WITH SOD OR LANDSCAPE AS APPLICABLE TO RESTORE EXISTING CONDITIONS. © EXISTINGIPROPOSED 12• STABILIZED SUBGRADE LER40 3 4 SECTION 13-13 - TYPICAL PATH - - -- - NTS NSt T NOTE CLA59 I CONC wx PEl N 29 OATS. IN FILLET! NAE if REPUCEG JCNTATIO' lamIM TYP[C"ll- JONi t' CER. TRANSOIW A1T BEAL. TYB L7E1trAN90N JOINT 1 TTR . SECTION AA EXIB -3 ROAD BASE THE ;r RNp "r C lr ry a oP- ---,,. SECTION se • M1p P-t l +`-SECTION CC SECTION DD' COLLIER COUNTY RTE -zee CURB ACCESS RITTI TRANSPORTATION APANDVEC ,.4 PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED RAMP e M m OPERATIONS DEPARTS�.NT i. GNOLI kUN k UNDAGE,- Profesaisnet engine n, pl..— 8 laud surveyors et Aua•aizau•• n... a ®5454 Nadea. rte9•IpE xoM, 9Wb NO tn PLI �0EA00 z�aA� v� aVOa P-4 � a Z W 00 arAo zQ W� O 1� 0 9 9 o U U is W a as DESIGNED BY: AHH CHECKED BY: JAC HORIZ. SCALE: N/A VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst uEe PROJECT 1 11 -0043 PLOT VIER \ LAYOUT con dtl -14 SHEET 14 A— I-, _ 15 10574 PPuu��S5 qQ� ♦ �p�}pNy RM LINE 1M�IE. RJEwLM5 e6M0�T TpTEbCJt CJPB BE'w EN 9EPEflATE CQVC POU11i D BETWEEN E. IN. AN N[W CONO. OUT CURB N— OR MSICALLY O lEz 1�2•AALTO ONG CO SIDEWX TYP[ II-I OR TYPE 1 MY JOINT. MIN 2 OENSITY TES'! Be S OF SIB% PER { LIFT{. {! Y CURB TRANS T ON —EY GUTTER INVERT Y wloE •• CO— FILLET S' CONC, VALLEY GUTTER _HANICAPPED RAMP PLAN VIEW TCSi u1�IE d5?SNCE O�FIAiOI' TROY . N,G gGpGE OP VALL[Y GUTTER ANO TO [%LSTNe JOINT I2N GLOP' MAN. SFACE OF CUM R G ' I VANE• 1 ISECTION AAAA ro pu� Y-0 SLO' =LD• f �� �•Gd1T• �•IITTOI 1 R. : 1 _SECTION BB pofeors a/�u/03 COLLIER COUNTY }E �90N TRANSPORTATION CURB ACCESS WITH ax¢ OPERATIONS DEPARTUENT APFRO\YD PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED RAMP i. GNOLI kUN k UNDAGE,- Profesaisnet engine n, pl..— 8 laud surveyors et Aua•aizau•• n... a ®5454 Nadea. rte9•IpE xoM, 9Wb NO tn PLI �0EA00 z�aA� v� aVOa P-4 � a Z W 00 arAo zQ W� O 1� 0 9 9 o U U is W a as DESIGNED BY: AHH CHECKED BY: JAC HORIZ. SCALE: N/A VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst uEe PROJECT 1 11 -0043 PLOT VIER \ LAYOUT con dtl -14 SHEET 14 A— I-, _ 15 10574 SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN eee:9GNDLI SCALE: 1" = 40' - �J�iRBER & lZ .pNOt IS`. LUCIA ! '- �._.— ___- _..... UNDAGE•ue. - —_ — — � —_ = e, z z + =ml F+,� swv=ob R tAb _ -- v n__ _ .. emz�CeWnrl ••• � a. BEGIN - - -- e— _ -- -Y�- - ( EATION nv DBccTVrJ —_ a -_ PROJECT-' -- -' -_ ------------- __ ---- --- - - - --- - - - -- -- -- - - ----------------------- -- - - ---- -' c:) g.-= -'- _- -- -- - - - - _ u _ C cn 00 \ r-L � � o ae, zp I i i i t I I i i U 44 s : __' `_` - ._. nL.- oTc- ) a T-Lm- 1 (t'or_ eee w BOoC e ' SANDPIPER PARKI NG 1 WA K PLACE _ Q _ _-_ ❑ d _ _,_ 1 y ., c _ - - - -- -- 4 DoE zm _ _ -- tab -- i — _.-- .-- ��. ENADI � —_� __ - -r a ---------- --- --------------- ______- _ .. _ y _ If 00 ow i z I �" 1 MARBELLA V i �� - - � BY: DESIGNED ASS RAPHAF� I THE ❑ . s Y ___ _ -- __ � f2 � z a --- B CHECKED BY-. JAC t COVE „ n r ___ -`-- Co VILLA DO , �! �f ❑ n--- _�""." s' ✓- " - '� - _ —_. ----- REVIEWED BY ADS VBRTZ SCALE:' N%A ___ ¢- ------- - ------ --- ❑ - —__— _ __ >-m _�__ DATE: NNE 2011 .. � _ —_�_ _�__� _ IlaDtlB1ACA11Ri _ —____— n MONTENERO CLARIDGE ahNnxe `- -- - - - I((! -'._ __-._ _._._.. - MONTEN -- -.— --- -- - /r- - ,._,,..:....d --. --- _ o�F L::- _,�_�- >_:1,;,1=_,.._- .•,_______ —__ — - -___— y b. -------------- SILT Fa�Nm LOCATION o' m�- __.`+.,.;, xa aa--,-' _' loae BOC TYP. - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - -- r __----------------- Nat ` ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst f '\�""- ,5•�,.,,�1 'r = P ' - i R y B0' caxaaAr.xorrx L pmrn ro CPV�try �� i C£ CpvSIFUCnon acnnn, aPPFCaFia1E rno9W '� B PROJECT o � uNAN 11 -0043 9ILTF�1 ®I.00AD(8! i (1'OPPHOCTYP.7 __ �` -.. - .. ,. ` KA F T *. •a;:. _ 1111 as A=E � rs aFE FECwu T MANUAL FEOwFEUE6 ENCEo- fFVrFrn¢ acmoa pEyTIOPMENi MANUAL NEF, PPS s J01 ro 6-MO). q��.fcra66R•LiA�mracnmcmAn[i Arbr- bmwwsruBaartBOm.`nu� PLAT VIER \ LAYOUT _ SHEET 15 '- ---- �E� PROJECT .. �Fac m FLL o�F.eE F �m a.o �.P�°aFa A mcsr sesE uanaceMCrr rxacncES feuP7 AFC rmui tr me FraufFCrcNrs rrn Fn9��a P R aMSa" s, F� a�FBFrya rroRr air O1� 15 SEDIMENT FENCE xca ccssaxo vcancPCFUO Oanons Aced File 10574 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Administrator's Report. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Dohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:22 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net) Subject: Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive Lisa, At the 4/11 Board Meeting, I would like us to have a brief discussion of the merits of installing cobblestones as part of the revised crosswalk that we are planning to install across Pelican Bay Blvd at North Pointe Drive. I just learned that the Board of Directors of San Marino has asked the Foundation to remove the cobblestones from the crosswalk that was recently constructed adjacent to their community. They claim that the cobblestones have had no impact on reducing the speed of traffic approaching the crosswalk and that the noise from cars crossing the cobblestones is an irritation to their residents. John Chandler April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 1 of 13 From: McAlginGary To: Hambri hg_tGail Subject: FW: Funding Beach Renournishment Date: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:57:16 AM Importance: High Gail, Please distribute to the CAC, TDC and Leo. CAC and TDC Board members- - I am distributing Mayor Sorey email at his request. This is intended to be a one way communication. Due to Sunshine Laws, please do not respond back to me or to each other. This will be discussed at the next CAC meeting on 3/8/12. Gary McAlpin - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Sorey [mailto Jsorey(d )na I�esgov.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:19 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Bill Moss Subject: Funding Beach Renournishment Gary: I have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the comments from the last TDC meeting and would like your review and comments on the following. Once completed, please add to my comments and share with the CAC and TDC, and Mr. Ochs. The comments must be done quickly, as I would like this to be an agenda item on the March 8th 2012 CAC agenda. As we have communicated multiple times, the scope of the next beach renourishment is unknown and will depend on the funds available. We should permit a true ten year design which is anticipated to cost approximately $30,000,000. This will provide the most flexibility and is consistent with the direction from the BCC and the Naples City Council which was to maximize the time between beach renourishments while maximizing the economics of the project. At the last TDC meeting, Mr. Hill appropriately questioned the reserves available for the next beach renourishment. He cited an availability of $25,000,000 based on the financial information provided by you in the TDC packet. I know based on our various discussions in the past, that this is "carry forward" which represents unspent monies from existing projects and set aside reserves. We must do a better job of communicating these numbers in the future. My understanding is the reserves are $23,951,950 and consist of the following: Catastrophe Reserve - -- $5,000,000 as required by the BCC Major Renourishment reserve $12,000,000 Pier Reserve $79,000 which is inadequate and should be addressed. Reserve for FDEP reimbursement $3,400,000 Currently earmarked for FY 2013 Projects $3,026,950 As indicated, of the $23,951,950 reserves identified, the only current source of funds available for beach renourishment is $12,000,000. If only the $12,000,000 was available, we would have funding in FY13 /14 to duplicate the 2005/06 project. This is not acceptable and is inconsistent with our guidance. As you indicated, you expect the basic renourishment project cost after anticipated savings to be approximately $16,000,000. In FY13/14, I understand you expect reserves and unspent project funds to be $16,500,000. This funding is without any state or federal monies and does not accomplish BCC or City Council direction to maximize the time between renourishments. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 2 of 13 In addition to the $16,500,000 identified for the basic beach renourishment project, funds have been budgeted for the Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening project($1,700,000); and the Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild project($ 3, 000, 000). Additional renournishment, hot spots, groin removal, and the jetty spur at Doctor's Pass will require additional funding. These funds could come from: the FDEP State Cost Share program; FEMA Tropical Storm Fay ($5,000,000 to 7,000,000); Fund 183 - -Beach Park Facilities ($10,000,000+ -) and /or the Catastrophe Reserve ($5,000,000). The Beach Fund does not have enough money to accomplish the scope of work directed by the City Council and the County Commission. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are the life of the renournishment plan, and the funding thereof. Funds are accrued on a ten year funding cycle, however the amount accrued is not sufficient to fund a ten year or maybe even a six year cycle. When we renourish in FY13/14, eight years will have elapsed since the last cycle, and already a number of beach sections are inadequate for our residents and tourists. Visit the area just south of the Naples Beach Hotel for instance. As we discuss allocation of TDC funds, the beaches must receive more resources to protect one of our most valuable assets. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment CAC Mare 8, 2012 Page 3 of 13 ., VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4of6 excerpted MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE from: Naples, Florida, February 9, 2012 VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Plan /Schedule Collier County Main Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin provided the document "TS Fay FEAM finding renewal discussion" dated February 9, 2012 as a primer to the item. a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin noted the item contained backup material and presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013114 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" dated February 9, 2012. He provided an overview of 4 options available for the major renourishment project for City of Naples /Collier County Beaches proposed by staff (based on previous input from the Coastal Advisory Committee): Option 1. — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $ l OM. This sand placement would only restore damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of the project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue the six -year design project life that most likely could be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctor's Pass. Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $24M. It would also include: removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and for the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (I OOK CY's at $2.8M) that has lost 200 linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. Option 4 — Execute a ten -vear proieCt that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment for an estimated cost of $31 M. This plan would increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as construction width in sections required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten -year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctor's Pass is included to help minimize erosion on down drift beaches. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 4 of 13 CAC March 8, 2012 VIA Approval of CAC Minutes 5of6 In addition to the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park Beach, rebuild /repairs at Barefoot Beach, the removal of groins at Park Shore Beach, a jetty spur for Doctor's Pass and it addresses additional hot spots by adding critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this option. Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Committee recommended the Executive Summary (and/or any other similar presentations) clearly identify the cost savings associated with each Option. Mr. Moreland moved for the Coastal Advisory Committee to recommend that Option 4 be executed. Additionally, proposing the Option 4.A which includes the scope of work proposed in Option 4 and the concept of the County providing stockpiles of sand at strategic locations to assist in the renourishment of "hot spots" or other renourishment emergencies that may come to light over time. The project incorporates concepts of "Scope Management" as necessary. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 5 of 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. OBJECTIVE: A conceptual plan has been developed that addresses various options and costs for the next major beach renourishment in Collier County. The renourishment is currently scheduled for FY 2013/14. Staff is requesting direction and approval from the BCC on how to proceed. CONSIDERATIONS: The BCC directed staff in the 2011 joint Collier County and City of Naples workshop to maximize the interval between major beach renourishments. To accomplish this, past beach performance was analyzed, the coast was modeled, hot spots identified and options developed that incrementally increase the scope and cost to maximize beach renourishment. The Conceptual Plan and the Conceptual Design Report are attached. The four options developed are: Option 1 — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $1 OM on the beach. This sand placement would only restore the damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of this project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any Jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue with the six year design project life that most likely can be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address the Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address the beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctors Pass. Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $24M on the beach. It would also include: The removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); the renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach GOOK CY's at $2.8M) which has lost 200 Linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. Option 4 — Execute a ten -year project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment with an estimated cost of $31M. This plan will increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as the construction width in sections as required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctors Pass is included to minimize erosion on the down drift beaches. In addition to renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park beach, the rebuild /repair of Barefoot beach, removal of groins in Park Shore beach, the jetty spur to Doctors April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 6 of 13 Pass and addressing the additional hot spots with additional critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this modification. Savings on the project cost could be expected if it was possible to achieve the following items: • Approximately $5M- $7M could be achieved if the TS Fay PW was extended. • $1M could be saved if this project is combined with similar projects from the Captiva Erosion Control District and /or the City of Longboat Key to share mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. The economies of scale are significant as well as early bidding before contractors have committed their production capacity to other projects. • $1M - $2M savings can be expected if schedule flexibility is enhanced to allow year round renourishment. Examples of schedule flexibility that would result in a price reduction are: stockpiling sand off shore in the non -peak renourishment timeframe; early contracting that would allow maximum planning and minimizing equipment mobilization costs; schedule that permits renourishment during off season and /or low equipment utilization periods; ability for the contractor to pursue "projects of opportunity" with clear and specific guidelines /restraints and schedules that identify start and completion dates and with approval, allow the contractor the flexibility to manage the schedule. • Maximizing FDEP's cost share contribution to this project. • If the schedule cost savings are to be pursued, a FDEP permit modification must be applied for that will permit year round renourishment or renourishment during a portion of turtle nesting season. Turtle nesting season begins on May I" and ends on October 31" of each year. The FDEP, USACE, FWS and FWC will allow year round renourishment and FWC and FDEP have indicated they have "No Objections" to granting a permit for year round renourishment. No Collier County Ordinance prohibits renourishment during turtle nesting season. However, Collier County has always strived to be excellent environmental stewards and avoid any negative impacts to nesting by renourishment during turtle nesting season. Additionally, the Conservancy of SW Florida recognizes the importance of healthy, cost effective beaches to our local economy and both organizations agree and support without objection the following renourishment schedule. 1. Renourishment to begin on September 15, 2013 on the Naples beach segment which has the lowest nesting density of all beaches within Collier County. This will require any nest laid after 7/7/13 on a Naples beach segment to be relocated to a designated relocation area. Offshore mobilization can proceed prior to 9/15/13 and the landing of the offshore pipeline on the beach prior to 9/15/13 is permitted. Pipe and equipment staging on the beach will not be allowed before 9/15/13. 2. Renourishment will proceed from south to north renourishing the Naples, Park Shore, Clam Pass, Vanderbilt and Barefoot beaches. All renourishment activities will be complete by 6/1/14. This equates to an 8.5 month renourishment cycle. 3. A permit modification will be supported by the Conservancy of SW Florida to begin renourishment on 9/15 and complete all renourishment activities by 6/1 the following year. Recommendations: 1. Seek a permit modification to allow beach renourishment from 9/15 to 6/1 of the following year. 2. Options will be developed and presented to the BCC for their decision making as funding; schedule coordination and scope definition is resolved. J April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 7 of 13 3. Scope manage this project based on direction from the BCC to match available funding with sand placement quantities at the time of renourishment. 4. Assure appropriate staffing, training and permitting of turtle monitors and relocation specialists. Work with State and Federal agencies in the development of this plan. 5. Aggressively pursue partnership with the City of Longboat Key and Captiva Erosion Control District to reduce mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. Additionally, pursue early bidding before contractors have committed production capacity to other projects. 6. Maximize leverage with FEMA and FDEP to secure project funding. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax, Fund 195. It is estimated that the construction costs for Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches will be between $20,000,000 - $30,000,000 depending on the project approach, scope and funds available. It is also estimated that the permit design, plans and specifications for this project will cost $400,000 to $600,000. Pre - construction, during construction and post - construction activities are estimated to cost an additional $800,000 and $1,000,000. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are expected with approval of this Conceptual Plan. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are currently anticipated as a result of the Beach Renourishment project itself. As the design and permitting process advances, the maintenance and lifecycle costs will continue to be evaluated. Using today's dollars, the total cost to replace the asset is $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. The project has an expected life expectancy of 10 years generating a hypothetical annual depreciation cost of $2 to $3 million. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director, Coastal Zone Management Department April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 8 of 13 Subiect: Collier County and FWC Video Conference Call Date / Time: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 —10:00 am Purpose: Discuss plan that would allow construction of next Collier County Nourishment Project to extend into sea turtle nesting season (requiring a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC) Collier County is interested in requesting a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC which would, in part, allow construction of the next beach nourishment project to extend into sea turtle nesting season, if necessary. The duration of the project (including mobilization and demobilization), especially if the project is constructed jointly with other nearby counties, will likely make construction entirely outside of nesting season impossible; therefore, the County seeks the flexibility to construct during nesting season when necessary. Collier County is committed to sea turtle conservation, and believes that through proactive coordination with FWC a plan can be developed that will balance the need for nourishment of Collier County beaches with conservation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Collier County proposes the following suggestions as possible ways to accomplish this goal, and welcomes comments and discussion from FWC. Advance Planning and Coordination: • Local Coordination and Management: Collier County will ensure that all project activities comply with local codes and ordinances, and the County Manager can provide a letter which states this compliance and approves the project. The City of Naples is a partner in this project and can provide similar assurances. • Prepare Necessary Resources: Collier County will ensure that the necessary resources are available which will enable the County to conduct all sea turtle conservation measures (i.e., nesting surveys, relocation, data collection). If necessary, the County would apply for another FWC sea turtle permit and /or secure outside help with proper credentials, which would allow more trained personnel to assist with these activities. • Plan Potential Relocation Sites: For each construction reach, find potential suitable nest relocation sites that will protect nests and hatchlings from construction activities while also maintaining a safe environment with minimal impacts from lighting. Potential areas include those stretches of Collier County beaches not receiving nourishment, as well as areas back towards the dune in cases where fill will only be placed on a portion of wider beach sections. Wide beaches in less developed areas (such as gaps between large condominiums), parks and gaps in the fill are potential candidate sites. For example, Lowdermilk Park or the condominium gap in Parkshore between R49 and R50 have potential. Significant coordination with FWC will go into the final selection of relocation sites. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 9 of 13 Pre - Construction Planning: • Determine construction optimal direction and timing: Once a contractor has been determined and it is time to schedule construction, Collier County will coordinate with FWC to devise a construction plan that would minimize impacts to turtle nesting. For instance, if construction is going to begin in sea turtle nesting season, it will make sense to start the project in the Naples Beach segment (which has the lowest nesting density of the project reaches) and then work north from there. By scheduling the construction in this way, the construction in the higher nest density areas may avoid peak nesting season. Minimizing impacts to higher nesting areas also reduces the management and effort required by sea turtle personnel responsible for relocation and monitoring. Implementation of Sea Turtle Protection Measures: • Compliance with all permit conditions: Collier County will conduct the pre - application meeting with FWC and the contractor. Throughout construction the work will comply with all FWC and USFWS permit conditions to avoid or minimize impacts to sea turtles, and FWC will be contacted with any questions or concerns that may arise. 19 dni Q g LJ 9 ti Li CC 0 0 C> C) Cl) =3 L D D 10 C'4 ca 0 co E �2 q l 'D L—n fl. ca a, A .9 C3 < co lz , —p - 72 19 April,11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session COi�l�r County 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment y Page 11 of 13 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2006 Capital Projects )Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Clam Bay Improvement Program (183805) Engineering (320- 183805 - 631400- 511051) Restoration Consultant Services $80,000 The Clam Bav monitoring program includes biological, water quality and hydrogmphic analysis which is performed on an annual basis. Findings of these analyses are developed into an Annual Management Report used to identify any potential improvements in the restoration of the Clam Bay System. The fees being requested are for the consultant services necessary for these improvements. Also, included is 520 hours for biologist time to assist staff in the Clam Bay Restoration Program. Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment $0 This funding will allow PBSD to participate in the permitting process with Collier County which will give the Pelican Bay community a cost effective option for beach renourishment. Other Contractual Senices (320 - 183805 - 634999- 511051) Pelican Bay Beach Renourishment $840,000 These fees are the renourishment of Pelican Bay Beaches from the Contessa south to approximately 1,500 feet south of the Sandpiper Beach Facility. TDC will fund the beach renourishment from the Contessa north to the Ritz Carlton. Interior Tidal Channels 55,000 Fees are being budgeted for the contractual services necessary for the construction of the Interior Tidal Channels. Cattail Enhancements & Plantings $25,000 These fees are for cattail replanting within the Clam Bay System. 58 $80,000 $870.000 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 12 of 13 From: Johandomenie@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:57 AM To: smith —b; WardJ @glmoyer.com Subject: (no subject) Barbara: Page 1 of 2 Could you please include this in the packets going to the Sub - Committee as well as the Board, and make sure the subject of Beach Renourishment" is included on both Agendas On Friday, July 22nd , Kyle Lukasz and the undersigned met with Gary McAlpin (Senior Project Manager - Coastal Projects, Tourism) at our offices. I had been under the impression that it was to discuss the Proposed Inlet Management Policy, but instead it was to update us on the present status of the Beach Renourishment Project. The shocker was that the overall cost to bring in 673,000 cubic yards of sand from a "deposit" located about 33 miles northwest of Wiggins Pass to be deposited on Collier County beaches stands at $25,000,000 about $6,000,000 above previous estimates. (The work of placing sand stands at $20,450,000 and the balance is for monitoring costs, approving and building the artificial reef, etc) As far as the status of the permitting process goes: The design phase has been completed. The DEP permit has been obtained. The County has drafted the Biological Study (turtles, nesting shore birds, etc) and it is anticipated that the review by Fish and Wild Life will be completed within a month. Then the US Army Corps of Engineers have to provide their Notice to Proceed by early September - no delay is anticipated. It is hoped to present everything to the Board of County Commissioners at their September 16th Meeting for final approval, and that actual work will commence on November 1st 2005 and terminate by May 1, 2006. The problem both for the County and Pelican Bay is the same: In order to meet budgeted allowances we must either: a.- reduce costs, or b.- obtain additional funding. For the County this means to look for funds from the state, and for us to look for a source of funds - beyond the $840,000 presently allocated for this project. The County is funding the renourishment as far south as one half mile south of monument 30.5 - (the southern access from the Ritz - Carlton) - or about monument 33 (the monuments are 1,000 feet apart). We in turn would have to pay $1,011,539 to bring in 36,904 cubic yards of sand to our beach - stretching from monument 33 down to monument 37 located 1,300 feet south of the Sandpiper Restaurant. (based on a cost of $27.41 per cubic yard) file: //H: \Barbara Smith F drive\Beach Renourishment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug... 3/29/2012 April.11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Page 2 of 2 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 13 of 13 To complicate matters the County will conduct a survey in September to measure the exact amount of sand to be brought in - depending on the profile of the beach at that time. If large amounts of sand have been washed away during summer storms it might cost us as much as $1,200,000 to obtain the approved profile. We thus have two choices -for which the County wants an urgent answer: a.- Do we work within the $840,000 approved budget and receive about 6,300 cubic yards less than estimated - and where do we reduce the profile? (there also exists the possibility that if less than the 38,904 cubic yards are placed on the beach the per cubic yard unit cost may go up! - and hence even less sand!) b.- Do we look for additional funds from within the budget (or the Foundation ?) and restore the beach to the desired profile It is anticipated the beach renourishment will be subject to a six year cycle. Mr. McAlpin has agreed to make a presentation to both our sub - committee as well as the regular board at our next meeting in August. John Domenie file: //H:\Barbara Smith F drive\Beach Renourishment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug.,. 3/29/2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 1 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,301,231.69 Interest Receivable - Vehicles 96,538.00 Due from Property Appraiser - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 2,397,769.69 Total Assets $ 2,397,769.69 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ 2,146.82 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 28,676.87 Total Liabilities $ 30,823.69 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 1,292,615.54 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 1,074,330.46 Total Fund Balance 2,366,946.00 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,397,769.69 3 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 2 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: $ 132,800.00 $ 66,400.00 $ 62,283.88 $ 4,116.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment - Water Management Admin Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 666,300.00 619,659.00 624,033.04 300.00 4,374.04 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 11,300.00 1,907,800.00 1,774,254.00 1,786,576.40 1,500.00 12,322.40 Special Assessment Past Due - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 2,603.19 286.42 2,603.19 Charges for Services 42,400.00 1,500.00 25,056.00 - Telephone - Surplus Property Sales 180.20 119.80 - - 3,400.00 - Miscellaneous Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - 403.48 - 403.48 Interest 1,150.00 15,300.00 7,648.00 3,976.70 900.00 (3,671.30) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,523,861.00 $ 3,539,892.81 $ 16,031.81 Operating Expenditures: 5,400.00 2,700.00 1,004.59 1,695.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 Water Management Administration 1,213.40 3,286.60 Tree Triming 30,000.00 15,000.00 9,984.00 Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.87 $ 1,194.13 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 13,500.00 10,216.00 3,284.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,459.30 540.70 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 5,700.00 6,113.73 (413.73) Insurance - General 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 1,000.00 254.34 745.66 Training and Education 1,100.00 600.00 85.00 515.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 89,691.93 $ 6,908.07 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 66,400.00 $ 62,283.88 $ 4,116.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 6,000.00 236.25 5,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 3,500.00 812.65 2,687.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00. 11,300.00 4,919.25 6,380.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 500.00 286.42 213.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 24,400.00 25,056.00 (656.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 180.20 119.80 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,400.00 2,803.87 596.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 2,700.00 1,004.59 1,695.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 4,500.00 1,213.40 3,286.60 Tree Triming 30,000.00 15,000.00 9,984.00 5,016.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 760.38 (60.38) Page 1 of 3 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 3 of 11 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,318.70 (818.70) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 39,900.00 36,356.11 3,543.89 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 800.00 381.25 418.75 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,800.00 3,058.37 (258.37) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 184,600.00 $ 152,255.32 $ 32,344.68 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 29,500.00 18,700.00 17,688.00 1,012.00 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 21,300.00 $ 20,095.85 $ 1,204.15 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 7,100.00 7,000.00 100.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 17,200.00 12,763.00 4,437.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,461.30 538.70 Postage 3,000.00 500.00 (92.28) 592.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 6,300.00 6,612.75 (312.75) Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 1,300.00 434.63 865.37 Training and Education 1,500.00 800.00 105.00 695.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 57,550.00 $ 48,863.25 $ 8,686.75 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 403,700.00 $ 345,621.23 $ 58,078.77 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 45,600.00 43,918.51 1,681.49 Pest Control 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 (3,325.00) Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 1,300.00 471.44 828.56 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 18,700.00 17,688.00 1,012.00 Temporary Labor 190,100.00 117,100.00 119,556.62 (2,456.62) Telephone 3,200.00 1,600.00 1,132.36 467.64 Electricity 3,400.00 1,700.00 1,047.14 652.86 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 6,600.00 6,060.33 539.67 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 1,300.00 1,123.38 176.62 Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 200.00 76.93 123.07 Insurance - General 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 700.00 - 700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 13,600.00 14,396.97 (796.97) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 30,700.00 14,269.66 16,430.34 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 400.00 101.94 298.06 Tree Trim ing 63,600.00 61,800.00 57,759.25 4,040.75 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 3,400.00 3,251.06 148.94 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,471.70 28.30 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 31,700.00 33,547.00 (1,847.00) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 33,000.00 31,326.75 1,673.25 Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 47,800.00 22,941.40 24,858.60 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 3,000.00 - 3,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 11,000.00 4,757.45 6,242.55 Painting Supplies 800.00 400.00 28.66 371.34 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,562.08 (62.08) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 4,500.00 3,379.53 1,120.47 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 858,700.00 $ 743,214.39 $ 115,485.61 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,197,450.00 $ 1,034,024.89 $ 163,425.11 Page 2 of 3 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 4 of 11 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ $ $ - General Improvements - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,294,050.00 $ 1,130,562.89 $ 163,487.11 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 48,212.00 1,140.00 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) - Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,126,826.56 $ 2,740.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,423,617.00 $ 2,257,389.45 $ 166,227.55 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 1,100,244.00 $ 1,282,503.36 $ 182,259.36 Page 3 of 3 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 5 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets $ 508,249.56 Liabilities and Fund Balance 42.95 $ 508,249.56 $ 508,249.56 $ 42.95 194,157.20 314,049.41 S08,206.61 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 508,249.56 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 6 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement wJ Budget - Marh 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Ca rryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Variance $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - 436,800.00 406,224.00 409,145.99 $ 2,921.99 $ - 26,900.00 $ 13,450.00 10,216.00 $ 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 4,500.00 1,575.00 605.09 $ (969.91) 598,900.00 565,399.00 585,681.33 $ 20,282.33 $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.75 $ 1,194.25 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 13,450.00 10,216.00 $ 3,234.00 3,900.00 $ 2,000.00 1,078.23 $ 921.77 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 6,100.00 6,402.83 $ (302.83) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 400.00 15.36 $ 384.64 1,000.00 $ 500.00 - $ 500.00 93,700.00 355.50 46,250.00 40,125.86 6,124.14 62,500.00 31,300.00 29,456.46 1,843.54 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 400.00 - 400.00 400.00 200.00 191.51 8.49 44,200.00 22,100.00 17,218.39 4,881.61 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,200.00 1,055.02 1,144.98 1,200.00 600.00 210.35 389.65 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) 12,400.00 2,500.00 2,144.50 355.50 Page 1 of 2 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 7 of 11 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 64,250.00 55,089.63 9,160.37 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 110,500.00 95,215.49 15,284.51 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 110,700.00 95,215.49 15,484.51 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,225.77 549.23 Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 Reserve for Future Construction 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - Reserves for Equipment 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - Revenue Reserve 22,000.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,225.77 5,444.23 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 437,370.00 416,441.26 20,928.74 Net Profit /(Loss) - 128,029.00 169,240.07 41,211.07 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 8 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 425,400.97 425,400.97 $ 425,400.97 Liabilities and Fund Balance 303, 213.58 122,187.39 425,400.97 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 425,400.97 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 9 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget -March 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Variance Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - Special Assessment 127,100.00 118,203.00 119,010.42 807.42 Special Assessment Past Due 6,700.00 - - Fund 111 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - Transfer from Tax Collector $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ - $ - Interest $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 834.21 $ 134.21 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 442,414.88 $ 443,356.51 $ 941.63 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 81,700.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 64,042.25 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 35,100.00 9,728.00 25,372.00 Tree Trimming 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 - - - Aerial Photography 7,500.00 - - Minor Operating 588.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 131,300.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 103,914.25 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ 1,300.00 $ - $ 1,300.00 Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 132,600.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 105,214.25 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,380.20 $ 349.80 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,818.00 1,482.37 335.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,762.57 $ 685.43 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 153,048.00 $ 47,148.32 $ 105,899.68 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 289,366.88 $ 396,208.19 $ 106,841.31 Page 1 of 1 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 10 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets $ 2,575,171.35 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 2,575,171.35 $ 2,575,171.35 39,832.15 9,067.34 48,899.49 2, 582, 848.52 (56,576.66) 2,526,271.86 $ 2,575,171.35 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 11 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractura) Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 308,667.00 310,738.42 2,071.42 19,500.00 6,825.00 5,925.14 (899.86) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,305,376.04 $ 3,360,034.60 $ 54,658.56 $ 131,654.37 $ 15,798.52 $ 13,854.20 $ 1,944.32 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 429,605.74 102,539.47 9,370.03 (9,370.03) 72,615.50 (72,615.50) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 13,680.14 (13,680.14) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 12 85,000.00 - - 500.00 - - 22,275.72 - - 3,306,684.04 $ 587,512.43 $ 578,679.21 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,800.00 17,500.00 6,386.00 $ 4,216.00 6,214.77 $ 3,896.51 $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,111.28 $ $ 3,341,284.04 $ 598,114.43 $ 588,790.49 $ $ - $ 2,707,261.61 $ 2,771,244.11 $ Page 1 of 1 8,833.22 171.23 319.49 490.72 9,323.94 63,982.50 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 1 of 5 ResnickLisa Subject: 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas Imailto :keithdallas(a)comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:57 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Lisa, Please forward this to Board members for their information. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: HillerGeorgia < GeorgiaHiller (cD.colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Date: March 20, 2012 1:13:06 PM EDT To: Theodore Raia <tedraia(cDVahoo.com >, "nsdordll(cbaol.com' <nsdorrill(ccDaol.com >, "Bob Naegle (roniranaeaelnet.com)" <roniram egelnet.com >, "Keith Dallas (keithdallasO-comcast. net )" <keithdallas(acomcast .net >, "nsdorrill(Qaol.com" <nsdorrill(cDaol.com> Cc: HillerGeorgia < GeorgiaHiller(&colliergov.net >, RaineyJennifer < JenniferRainev(acolliergov.net> Commissioner Hiller asked that I send you this email for your information. Thank you, Jennifer Rainey Executive Aide to Board of County Commissioners Aide to Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District #2 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite # 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8602 (239) 252 -6407 Fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:06 PM To: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Leo /Jeff: The roads in PB were superficially resurfaced with a product that was supposed to extend their life. This has not happened. What's the warranty on the product and what recourse does the county have against the manufacturer and /or contractor. Please provide a copy of the contract and product information for my review. In light of this failure, the road resurfacing will need to be scheduled other than as would have been anticipated had this product/application worked. Please provide the revised schedule. With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 2 of 5 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples. Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 February 24, 2012 The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 -5746 Dear Commissioner Hiller, The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is studying ways to maintain the Pelican Bay community and keep it appealing to current and future residents. In this process, we have looked at the current condition of our roadways and pathways. As you are well aware, Collier County is responsible for maintaining both. In 2006, Pelican Bay Boulevard was unfortunately resurfaced using an experimental and low cost method called Micro - Surfacing, a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and mineral fillers or "gravel" applied overtop of the existing roadway surface and intended to preserve and extend the life of the pavement an additional 5 - 8 years. However this process was unsuccessful and within a year the new surface revealed significant wear. The attached photograph shows the current condition of a section of Pelican Bay Blvd, in front of the Philharmonic. We have been told that the County is scheduled to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. no sooner than 2016. Similarly, the County is deficient in maintaining Pelican Bay's pathways. The County uses the "patch" method to repair our pathways. However many of our pathways have been patched to the extent that they are now hazardous for walking, particularly by some of our older residents. The attached photos illustrate the problem. We have been told there is no money in the County budget to rebuild the pathways in the foreseeable future. Hence, the PBSD Board is faced with the dilemma of either waiting indeterminately for the County to snake repairs or use our Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU) monies collected for other purposes. It is difficult to explain to residents the current conditions of the roadways and pathways, but it is even more challenging to rationalize using MSTBU monies for maintenance items that we have already paid through our County property taxes. Also, we understand that to the extent MSTBU monies are used for these items, we would have to defer other projects for which the monies were originally intended. Clearly, staff can only provide as much maintenance work as has been funded, and the County has experienced a significant decline in revenue. Nonetheless, the County should recognize its responsibility to maintain its essential infrastructure, On behalf of the PBSD Board, we implore you advocate strongly to provide adequate countywide funds to maintain roadways and pathways. Regard�s�,+�'� �) / Keith j. Dall: ha►rman Pelican Bay Services Division Board R C f ( C N N L . April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 3 of 5 . 1 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 4 of 5 n { e ° rcr S f C�ji ry Ay Y. �jp +r �t3 r -r.T!'.,� ! +„1.Z's t ' t �..'r t 3 1 n � C /� 1 �� d a �� pe4 •it r• �•btt5t+ s t � r- 1 .•,�xt I i` X47 a �` � �Yl i ♦ {i ,l + t > vy1 }4�N11 y, �` rr'rrrt r t .� _..=1 �Yrrr�' a�,�'tifj'� ^{f ^_t, ✓)r -i ri.., x ir'17 ii• -� _,�. 9�r fit /..rf.t rro r. { t i r h .X k is ..1 s it r�rii iw s auky^; 11`YCt ` �{ �.k t ✓_P a 7w t �, ;t '{ r ''t��. f i n t `.t �•ar -. I ✓rli.�yV*Yy a '�i'�'r✓;Y /�d,,jj �itr'7t;. ht r Ify e:.: %�rF�t C.�1 •y.t �; �t r ! ~ J t i�" ��� ^} +14,1.•1 t t � 7�, `�'t`'s, -Y.' '�iv, _ '° t�"r". ?Y°Y.�.�' ��:;6 '^.) 'b °• {1: r, .7,i l..v r s. ., r •,+sly. , {{e �' '. 4�T� ` ' tci• .r..4�., ,:3• �` - t ^,�.j wt r�4; "t.:'•� S, "�irs'.'i. t',+. '`i t {, r ,1 J r t: a � r tTb s cJ'�;�� � t 'i 1 . ; vT !G _ 'r ,,Ly lx`'�s! a�:. 'I s �• c t. :4 �r t ,r "YU• � �7.� - � 1 3�j.. �'•*� ij5y��'Y ri' �Ac�,�� y'Kf < � •.s� ,L- a 'Tr �}t {�j q.tY � , °7+ v _ _ rit�.�'Ar +�f d o V`.•`,+4 ���'. � t i /r. r'rfnc ✓ ) � � . r �" �5 .1"t{ �r q,�.: iJ, f� l f i., 1 t3''f;,xS rw���Y *�, ar .a y'�h ✓r,7't •a �� 5�.��� -S -; y>' J': d. E 14` .S' .y'j � y ��; :t r1� t .r � i♦ Yi$': i o � dr ,(. t't i rr�r r r ♦ 7 r- V r r,r+Sttfo�Frr'J fn ;' r C a vj ♦ � �.�� ert �� r.. r, '.r r! Y• t t - to ✓ :Y a c 7 r : !:: y 4 <'' 'r .s ,,ri T Y y� 1 �l$ r,. �t r fJ J -,f \t � ♦ WL r.6C fi } �t y:l F { 7 l �t"•r t lf: i�; 1 y' ,yLY.. �5 1 }F} t:' s } '�( tr r r -• r '^�' '.,�+.: ,''�„r., � rn.q'fi / .,^ ( (i •Y,..~S ., E It: d'r. �'c4•r r.� °Y!'i { ..d,•}('"' , ++•t`i ?. ;.., �� '' "' � 1',Y rr ��5.- ;�fi`'��icr}t "t'..t,; .� r��S 1 r rJ: rr- Jrti�,��4'.•1�st�t +i9• �F 'i`.�ti �, -` t ?, � ' .��- �. >, / r/{ ( Y =yt t i } ;r1 t {1 t�` ei??it \'+ 1 y Sir • i v -i FJ. i z _,! �zr. �, >� i } 1a { s } Y t r• �1u,,,f� �,.�7� d t {t i $ i � - L t rl f!. r �'C: a ,?' (t tJ: .? }J •t Jrc`- YyS A r, 4 t >i / , `�'' 1' r�?� Fig : J Y r i �'';1�� e. -: t�� 1 {� r tp �1 r- tr�irztr.^t ✓j ! ,.�� .:-ry) r .y 3 ' ::t' .Y'tF�y'' 'jtr'�i Y t ,yi, I I tr T., c �?�, i ' 7 �Y,'v r r 'r? y D. b t �t )' n ;;: l' d Kr ✓ r. i t+ l ,i] j.3 r o' ti { ?•;. x^tr3`t''2N.t !tf y ! t Y.'I...i r` tf�i:• ;;/ y •}r Jt t)Tii {; n.Vt•f- `tiry rt s �.;},1 a ,i:i S } 1..; t ,. - _ �i..{ '4 }its.l. {'h t fr. {:T �,� ,j•�yQr:2- t r �. �t, � - .4 } { <�, �„i,�,ji�;.t-r�Y )�, t4 5 itr 7 S.• f�rr,; t �kf, / iY} y . ,( � i 1, � t � 5 k+.. tr }�. '{t?�.4.• r ! ,y r�. r•.:�,v � � t :r r,;s!�i /1� d,;{e� C16 a ✓t',r ?• d �,. t s- ,r�tY sFr: {�jS. s.3{.r•+' r'1 �;t` .'Y. I'd ly ri: 11'1f r; v.-i t J „ � J,, • �':J;Jb:. ?�i iFt' S t��-o< :' ri ,� ,� s ti �b r .y! .7� xi? "' � * Y�S ♦ .i: i 1, �`tL r t '�r ,. i 'rF, } t 1 (f. t -' f i 4 �{ ;; >,. r� \` �. rlk{ ^Y t^ En f'" j k:' x: r ,.., r `✓ S v'bp'7Ja��� yya"J^jO;1i t-r' t l(.9.in'tfg.%lZt+'..;� i .,tai r • r f (! � �fx. �f,.s {a l N +..� ?r4 i j t v' %r�r ! �'� I �',q'. gilt }'Ky.., . ,t •r,A,yQ.a.Xtt r %�l,titirf i! t 1 ` -Y � 1 qll .f `. � s �•} J t (t...� � ^"y ,. °�' 1 r . � j r.:/ J djj .i Y' t) t � J�p.. F}�R e .,,5 �.': Z 1 �, T ra c ;'% lr,� t T .r. iy { i.• ! �'� (t l't `,'s'i t. �t ti� ?i..t } + � � k t � i -r, } ,/r 9 1 r t -r � 7 f riy q ' � -` r ;fr /:,••[�,,,T � i:r YL1 SSi� r %t 1 4 y t?% � t L', L ;: I t,,�i;hY %j«{{ ,!"jc ✓ r. >. /,+- {, �r' �.f t +C { iY t,` 1 r^.i' t � :'1�. .. r .� . r gr:rr,., r .� .. , ...;1,._. -,.t r .. %,✓ , . .,. -i 1.:� ,., : A � ♦ .. t .: �I,i z I April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 5 of 5 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Additional correspondence from Commissioner Hiller regarding resurfacing Page 1 of 2 ResnickLisa Subject: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan From: Keith Dallas fmai Ito: keithdallas(a)comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 7:57 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: RE: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Lisa, Include in Wednesday's package. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: HillerGeorgia < GeorgiaHiller(acolliergov.net> Subject: Re: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Date: April 9, 2012 5:18:44 PM EDT To: KlatzkowJeff <JeffKlatzkow(a)colliergov.net> Cc: Dorrill Neil <nsdorrill(a)aol.com >, Dallas Keith <keithdallas(a)comcast.net >, Ted Raia <tedraia(ZDgmail.com >, Naegle Bob <ronir(@naegelenet.com >, "lor3lor3(cDaol.com" <1or3lor3na.aol.com> Jeff- Staff reported that the road is in very poor shape. I'd be glad to take you for a drive. Again, please provide answers to my questions about warranties and recourse. Note also the life expectancy per the executive summary when this was approved. With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 On Apr 9, 2012, at 4:33 PM, KlatzkowJeff <mailto:JeffKlatzkow @collier oa v.net> wrote: Commissioner: I have spoken with staff, who believe that the condition of the road is acceptable, normal wear and tear excepted. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:34 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Subject: Fwd: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 and 5 Year Plan Jeff - I would appreciate a response to my email of March 20th regarding this contract. The repaving schedule was extended based on the micro - surfacing, which clearly has not worked. What recourse does the county have? April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Additional correspondence from Commissioner Hiller regarding resurfacing Page 2 of 2 i With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Begin forwarded message: From: "ChesneyBarbara" <<mailto :BarbaraChesney_(&,,collier ov.net>> To: "HillerGeorgia" <<mailto:GeorgiaHillerna,collier og v net>> Cc: "CasalanguidaNick" <<mailto :NickCasalaneuida(a�,collier ov.net>, WlietJohn" "GossardTravis" <<mailto:TravisGossard(&collier og v.net> >, "B1ancoAlexander" < "OchsLeo" «mailto:LeoOchs(&collier og v.net >, "SheffieldMichael" <<mailto:Mi "MarcellaJeanne" <<mailto:JeanneMarcella (a)collier og v_net>> Subject: RM 3452 Micro surfacing and Pelican Bay Blvd Information Tentative list # 4 Commissioner Hiller: Please find below the questions that you asked about relative to Pelican microsurfacing and repairs on Orange Blossom Drive. Q: Repair work on Orange Blossom Drive. A: Temporary filling of the areas where repair was needed on Orange Blossom Drive was asphalt on 3/26/12. Travis Gossard of Road Maintenance has just advised that the contractor work on 4/23/12. Q: Microsurfacing in Pelican Bay. A: Pelican Bay Boulevard was micro surfaced in FY 05 -06 with work completed on 5 -06 -( #4 is "Tentative" subject to change. Pelican Bay Boulevard is tentatively scheduled to be All roadways are evaluated on an annual basis. After expenditure of this year's budget, J annual evaluation of all roads inclusive of Pelican Bays, and if the rating changes we information you requested. On behalf of Nick Casalanguida Barb og v net> >, 15 Year Plan lay Boulevard -d with a cold mix 11 begin permanent repair Please note that the List surfaced in FY 15 -16. I Vliet will perform the 1 advise. Attached is the April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b. Chairman's Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dredging workshop Page 1 of 2 ResnickLisa From: Elligott, Linda A SAJ [ Linda .A.Elligott @usace. army. mil] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: ResnickLisa - Subject: RE: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas - response from ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Lisa, Thank you for your request on behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division. The Corps does not have a function that supports a Permit Workshop such as you have requested. I appreciate your understanding and thank you for your interest in this project; if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Linda - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ResnickLisa fmailto:LResnick a colliergov.netl Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:48 AM To: Elligott, Linda A SAJ Cc: Jim Powers (jimna,dmgfl.com); Keith Dallas Subject: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas Dear Ms. Elligott: On behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Keith J. Dallas, please see attached Regards, Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lresnickgcollier ov.net <mai Ito: lresnickAcollier ov.net> http://pelicanbgyservicesdivision.net <htt .// elicanba servicesdivision.net/> Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b. Chairman's Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dredging workshop Page 2 of 2 Z--% aw i ! 1 Pelican Bay Services Division $01 laurel Oak 13ri4c - Suite 601 - Naples. FlI ida 44 1118 .(231) 597- 1749 - Fax (234) 7- 4502 March 15, 2012 Ms. Linda A. Elligott U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville Regulatory Division Fart Myers :Section 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd., Suite 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RR: Permit Application No. SAj- 1946 -02789 (1P /LAE) "Clam Pass" Dear Ms. Elligott, The Pelican Bay Services Division /Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (PBSD /MSTBU) Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club Calusa Group, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and collier County Audubon Society. Regards, Keith J. pads, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board April 11.uo1u Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Pago1 of 27 _ 7 7,71 � ill WC n-n or =,. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 2 of 27 E_ April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 3 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 4 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 5 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 6 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 7 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 8 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 9 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 10 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 11 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 12 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 13 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 14 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 15 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 16 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 17 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 18 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 19 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 20 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Paqe 21 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 22 of 27 jw M i,fa�y��� ��• t a April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 23 of 27 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Page 24 of 27 a� �r a racy . � ,�C' �,� ♦ � . , r+ V Fi'fy��'' �l �1^ . r .a ,. • .i rJ ' pp t � , r a y l f April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) Paae 25 of 27 FAMWAK4M ' � .*P:� 3 tom• M_ /f April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) P April 11.eu1u Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ~ o. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Report. "Looking North on the Berm" Presentation (by T. Cravens) ' Page 27 of 27 , Vtil IN 28,61 Ilk Vw 7 1"ee