HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 11 24 Regular Item C
lIf'
COMMISSION AGENDA
"
ITEM
c
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
/
November 24, 1997
Meeting
MGR<<~EPT~~
Authorization
REQUEST: Engineering Division, Community Development Department, is requesting
Commission final action (approval or disapproval) on the engineering offive (5)
floodway lots on the west side of Howell Creek. This project is known as The
Reserve at Tuscawilla, Phase I-A.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to take final action on the
engineering plans for five (5) tloodway lots on the west side of Howell Creek.
This project is known as The Reserve at Tuscawilla, Phase I-A and the lots are
located in that subdivision known as The Reserve at Tuscawilla Phase I which is
on the east side of Tuscora Drive.
BACKGROUND:
Final Engineering Plans were submitted for ninety-two (92) total lots, to be built in
two (2) phases, for the subdivision known as The Reserve at TuscawiIla. During
the review process it was determined that eight (8) of the lots encroached into the
FEMA Floodway area. In order not to delay the approval process, Staff
recommended to the City Commission that only eighty-four (84) of the lots be
approved and the developer would, at a later date, submit final engineering and
other necessary documentation for the approval of those lots encroaching into the
floodway area. The Commission approved the Staff recommendation at their
meeting of August 22, 1994.
The developer's engineer submitted a request for a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
amend the official Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), to allow for residential
construction of the proposed lots and realignment of the present floodway
boundary. The CLOMR was issued on April 26, 1996, with conditions. When the
lots are constructed, per the engineering plans approved by FEMA, FEMA will
November 24, 1997
Regular Agenda Item
Page 2
then realign the floodway boundary outside the buildable portion of the five (5)
floodway lots, 10 through 14.
The engineering, for Lots 10 through 14, has been determined by FEMA to meet
minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain management
criteria, with conditions. Permission to encroach into the present tloodway and
realign the floodway boundary rests solely with the City.
APPLICABLE CODE:
Section 8-55. Standards for regulatory floodways.
When floodways are designated within areas of special flood hazard, additional
criteria will be met. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the
velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion
potential, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvements and other developments unless certification by a professional
registered engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments
shall not result in any increase in flood levels during occurrences of the base flood
discharge.
(2) If (1) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements
shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of section 8-51
and section 8-52.
Section 8-51(2) Construction materials and methods:
a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
November 24, 1997
Regular Agenda Item C
Page 3
b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using
methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
Section 8-51(4) Subdivision proposals:
a. All subdivision or other land development proposals shall be consistent with the
needs to minimize flood damage.
b. All such proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage.
c. All such proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure
to flood damage.
d. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals and other
proposed developments which contain at least fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres
(whichever is less).
e. All requirements of Chapter 9 of this Code which exceed the above criteria
shall apply.
Section 8-52(1) Residential construction: New construction and substantial
improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including
basement, elevated to or above base flood elevation.
Section 8-52(5) Mechanical and utility equipment: New installation and
substantial improvement of any electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and
air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be elevated above the
base flood elevation or designed so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the equipment components during conditions of flooding.
Section 9-74(a) If the developer elects to request approval of a final development
plan separately and prior to approval to record the plat of that development, the
city commission may approve such final development plan if the plan is in
substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan or a subsequently
approved modification to the preliminary plan. The final development plan may be
approved if it complies with all relevant regulations included in this chapter.
November 24, 1997
Regular Agenda Item C
Page 4
Approval of the plan shall be subject to fulfillment of all conditions specified by the
city staff and sanctioned by the city commission. Action to approve a final
development plan shall be taken by the city commission within thirty (30) days
after receipt by the city of the complete plan with all supporting data required by
this chapter.
CHRONOLOGY:
July 15, 1994 - Process commenced for FEMA approval to encroach
into the floodway
August 22, 1994 - Commission approved final engineering for The Reserve
at Tuscawilla (less the eight (8) lots encroaching the
floodway)
September 7, 1995 - SJRWMD Permit for Lots 10-14 issued
April 26, 1996 - FEMA CLOMR issued
November 7, 1997 - Engineering for Phase I-A satisfied City Code
FINDINGS: Because of work to be done in the floodway, the eight (8) lots were reduced to
five (5) lots. The engineering, as presented to the Commission, meets all Code
requirements and has been approved, with conditions, by FEMA for encroachment
into the present floodway.
The existing eighty four (84) lots are under a common Homeowners' Association.
Section 5 of the proposed Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, etc.,
incorporates the monitoring and maintenance requirements for Lots 10 through
14 making the full Homeowners' Association responsible for expenses for the
five (5) floodway lots.
November 24, 1997
Regular Agenda Item C
Page 5
ISSUE:
The Federal Emergency Management Letter (CLOMR) dated April 26, 1996
(please refer to City Engineer Memo to Community Development Director,
Document #3) specifically states on Page 2 and Page 3 that the City is ultimately
responsible for the maintenance of the realigned floodway. The proposed
Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, etc., dated August 1997,
states in Section H.5 that the Homeowners' Association (HOA) is designated as
the maintenance entity.
If the BOA fails to properly perform its obligations, then Section H.8 of the
proposed Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, etc., states that the City shall
have the right to perform the maintenance obligations and charge cost plus twenty
five percent (25%).
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the developer's request to
construct lots 10 through 14 as presented. Staff also recommends that the
issuance of building permits for Lots 10 through 14 be contingent upon the receipt
ofa Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA.
ATTACHMENTS:
November 7, 1997 - City Engineer Letter to Michael B. Galura, P.E.
November 11, 1997 - City Engineer Memo to Community Development
Director and Land Development Coordinator
(with 8 documents attached)
November 13, 1997 - Land Development Coordinator Memo to Community
Development Coordinator
- Supplemental Covenants
November 24, 1997
Regular Agenda Item C
Page 6
COMMISSION ACTION:
- Sheet 2 of engineering plan (Lot/Block Grading and
Erosion Control Plan)
- Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Revised/Proposed
Project Model Howell Creek
;-r'. r_,
\,='7~:tI
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
'I
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER S'PRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
November 7, 1997
Michael B. Galura, P.E.
PEC - Professional Engineering
Consultants, lnc,
200 E. Robinson
Suite 1560
Orlando, FL 32801
.. -"..tt~.
RE: Enqineerinq Review (Resubmittal) - Proposed Lots 10 Through
14, Proposed Plat Name -"The Reserve at Tuscawilla Phase I-A"
(pka Tuscawilla 80), Plans Seal Date October 13, 1997.
PROPOSED FLOODWAY ENCROACHMENT
Dear Mr. ".Ga l.ur-a :
The subject revised engineering plans, sealed on Octo~er 13,
1997, were received 18 days later on Friday afternoon, October 31,
1997. This submi t tal foll.owed our meeting of September 10, 1997
and addressed the four (4) items mentioned in my letter to Curt
Wilkir.son, dated September 5, 1997. COpy ATTACHED
Items tl and #2, of my September 5, 1997 letter to Curt
Wilkinson, were found to have been satisfied, although there i3
still a "proposed fill" note at Section 2.050, on sheet 3 of 10,
tr:at ';./as supposed to have been deleted. This wil1 need to be
corrected the next time you submit this set or plans to the City.
Item #3, of the same letter, dealt with the FEMA acceptance of
tne maintenance plan. Donald LeBlanc, the Land Development
Coordinator, feels the latest maintenance plan is acceptable.
l~em #4, of the same letter, dealt with who pays for the
maint~nance; the HOA or the lot owners of Lots 10-14. This was an
option on the part of the developer and according to your letter to
me, of October 29, 1997, he has chosen to have the whole HOA pay
the maintenance fee.
The submitted proDosed plat was found to be acceptable.
Please contact
Development Director
engineering plans and
appearing on the next
Charles Carrington, the city's Community
at 407-327-1800, for how many copies of
any other issues that relate to this project
available Commission agenda.
l ,. "'.' j
~ .-';..~ ....
Michael B. Galura, P.E.
The Reserve at Tuscawilla, Phase IA
November 7, 1997
page 2
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 407-327-
8397. Note: You must correct the above mentioned error on sheet
8 of 10 of the engineering plans.
.~~...s.incerel y,
~
Mark L. Jenkins, P.E.
City Engineer
attachment: Copy of 9-5-97 letter to Curt Wilkinson
cc: City Manager
Land Development Coordinator
Community Development Director
Michael Galura, P.E., PEC, FAX # 849-9401
Curt Wilkinson, Richland Properties FAX # 813-286-4130
;
. .
~ ___ ~. 'i
\:1
I)
-
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
September 5, 1997
J. Curt Wilkinson
Director of Development
Richland Properties
One Urban Center
4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.
Suite 740
Tampa, FL 33609
- ~:.il"
RE:
"The Reserve at Tuscawilla Phase I-A"
Proposed Lots 10 - 14, Proposed Floodway Encroachment
Staff Requirements to Forward to City Commission
Dear Curt:
The following items are required in
subject project to the City Commission for
order to
action:
forward
the
1. .AII references to. "surcharge" must be removed from the
plans. The language makes it appear there is an increase in
the lOa-year flood stage after, and due to, the proposed lot
encroachment. Since Mike Gal ura, the engineer for the subject
plans, submitted a "no rise certification" regarding the
proposed floodway encroachment, all plans must reflect that
"no rise" condition. The "surcharge" note on the plans sealed
August 5, 1997, makes it appear there will be an increase in
the 100-year flood stage due to the proposed encroachment.
2. The City must have a letter from the Army Corps or
Engineers (ACOE) that states they have no jurisdictional
issues regarding the subject proposed lots and site plan. It
must be site specific and make reference to the subject lots
and proposed site plan.
3. The City must have a Creek Maintenance Plan that is
acceptable to FEl1...;' and the City. FEMA. officially accepted the
Aori1 1997 Maintenance Plan, but did not state the City has a
right to charge cost plus 25 percent if the City has to step
in if the H.O.A. does not perform the required maintenance and
monitoring. Please contact Donald LeBlanc, with the City at
407-327-1800, to coordinate the acceptable wording for the
Maintenance Plan.
"1
.,.--. .. ...\:.
'.. .....:;.',... ..
......I
It
.
J. Curt Wilkinson
Reserve at Tuscawilla Phase I-A
September 4, 1997
page 2
4. It would appear that maintenance charges related to lots
10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 shoul d be borne by those lot owners
ra ther than the full H. O. A. The other property owners, in
this subdivision, have no interest or legal responsibility for
maintaining the relocated floodway.
In my letter to Mike Galura, dated August 29, 1997, I
requested that he contact me as soon as possible to discuss the
remaining issues. To date, I~;tlhave not heard from anyone at PEC
since I called there on Friday, August 29,1997, and left a message
for Mike Galura to call me. It'is recommended that he do so prior
to his next submittal to save you time and engineering fees.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call
at 407-327-8397.
Thank you
Mark L. JenkJ.
City Engineer
P.E.
cc: Community Development Director
Land Development Specialist
Mike Galura, PEC, FAX# 849-9401
Curt Wilkinson, Richland Prop., FAX# 813-286-4130
-".
~ tc'~~ "i
.... ' ."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
November II, 1997
TO: Community Development Director,
Charles Carrington, AICP
AND
Land Development Coordinator,
Donald LeBlan~
FROM: City Engineer _l~h /Jv(fl/-
Mark L. Jenkins, P.E. ~
SUBJECT: The Reserve at Tuscawil1a - Phase I-A (Floodway Lots)
Agenda Packet Items
The fo11owinq items (attached) should be part of the aqenda packet:
DOC #1
DOC #2
DOC #3
DOC #4
DOC #5
DOC #6
DOC #7
DOC # 8
The location of the present Fl oodway, as drawn by the
City Engineer. This will change when lots are built and
FEMA moves the boundary.
Verbatim minutes, from final engineering approval of
original "The Reserve at Tuscawilla", by City Commission
showing floodway lots were not part of that action.
FEMA CLOMR letter, stating proposed floodway lots meet
minimum NFIP requirements for Floodwav encroachment and
requirements of FEMA for lots. (see DOC #1 comment)
File memo, stating Mark Vieira's (engineer with FEMA)
concern over proper maintenance of creek.
FEMA letter stating the creek maintenance plan, by the
developer, is acceptable for CLOMR requirement.
DRMP's letter stating the CLOMR engineering, submitted to
FEMA, ".. .fol1owed sound engineering practices."
Comment #20, from the SJRWMD permit for the floodway
lots, stating surveying requirements.
Ci ty Engineer's excerpts from Federal and State
regulations, showing the City is the ultimate decision
maker in floodplain management. FEMA does not control
what the City feels is best. FEMA and state encourage
stricter floodplain management.
, ~ ~..~.. )
~
\
\
1
I \
I \
, \
JJR~tci:'c~~ .--' \
LINE \
(
1 i! ~'
\' '--
,.
llN(
HOWELL CREEK
1lY.l '1'1l 11.000 U:VAnQN5 5ll0_ "'(REeN A'
Of< 5Jl.......0 , O<NICA.!.. PUBUCA no" 5J C'_
" PROPOSC:O 11.000 UANAC("(NT plA,,-rr
~ Tl<( "'O'W(L'. C!l((1o: aASN
ORAHC.. AN S!:UINOU COUNn(5. 11.0'1:0.
~ '993
~N~ rr " PANEL '"029~-OOC~C)
'-J'-" .... ,.e...l,"....
.l":.\-~ ?
ZONED PUI
PHILLIP R. YONCE (
P.8. 1. PGS 35-
4
'"
29
47
,
t . ..
l
r
! ~ 37 ~
i ,. ~ :18
\ .1
I n. .' .....
=
..-
4r
~
(j
p.::i
.p
. ..' I
10~ ORAIN~ t [.A.stU(~t'... .... 12000'
I .1
I ';"\ .1.1\
. ': : I ,. . I i~
,I.:' 40 .1 'g ..41
I I '1 ~,- .J':.
.. . . . ~', r. ~". .
L _ _ _ _ _"J .. - '- -
'. ~~ .
39
(N"RO EN TAL
SW u:
IONED pur
PHIEp R. YONCE C
.8. I, PCS J5-
,O),r:6
,
3 5 ~ 6 ~ ~ 8 -
g. 8 ~.
......
HOWELL CRED
100 YR rLOOO (L
".3'~ (~"uO)
16 o' :t (r(u.o.)
-..'--
ij
.:..,..,...... 664,97"
. S 88'55'07' W
-------------
D ~ RVv' 1k.t ~"'!I fJ1'J
129.01'
5 88'55'07- W
--
't3 '( ~ ~T( 'E.i\J (yl.v~y<
. .'
\= l-t9 OD <.AJ A 't
--- ------------------
~1\)r:
~f
fL
"
. , ;;J
.~
. .
. .
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
May 1, 1996
Commission meetina or Auqust 22, 1994,
Verbatim comments; on1 y that portion of the meetinq reqardinq
Tuscawilla 80, "The Reserve at Tuscawilla" request for approval of
Final Enqineerinq.
Present were: Mayor .J?Hsh; Commissioners McLeod, Gennell,
Langellotti, Ferring & Torcaso; City Manager Govoruhk; City
Attorney Kruppenbacher; City Clerk Mary Norton; Scott Culp,
represent i ng the deve 1 oper; Land Deve 1 opmen t Coordi na tor, Carl
Gosline and Land Management Specialist, Don LeBlanc.
Mayor Bush, "Turn to Item E, Tuscawilla Parcel 80, approval-
disapproval of final engin~ering and initial review of covenants.
Carl Gosline, "Mayor, commissioners, this is another project coming
through for final. This is the project located on the west side of
Howell Creek, south of 434, it also has been completely through the
process and is recommended for your approval. One thing you should
no~e is as discussed at, I think, at preliminary the lots along the
creek have been eliminated from (from) your action this evening.
That's because the FEMA determination, determination from FEMA, of
the fl o'odp lain 1 ine is still pending . That, thos e lots caul d be
pending for some time."
Mayor Bush, "We may find it out here if it keeps raining,"
Carl Gosline, "That's right, The, those lots. would come back, in
a, (in a) phase 3 at some time in the. future, once that issue is
resolved. (pause) staff recommends approval. May I answer any
questions that you all have?
At tornev Krup'Oenbacher, "Same
regarding the covenants, as the
adopted as part of the motion."
comments
prior 2
and recommenda ti ons
deve I opmen ts mayor be
Scott Culp, "Here again we have one other item of concern I think
the commission can deal with of rather easily, We have walls,
landscaping walls., ," (complete comment not shown)
A discussion of the entrance and landscaping walls took
place at this point in the meeting, then a return to the
main subject of approval or disapproval of the final
engineering.
Doe
~7_~
" .,
,/
///-'
,/'
.~.,
!
----
Comm. Mtg. 8-22-94
Tusc. 80 approval/disappr.
verbatim comments
page 2
Mayor Bush, "Can we have a motion for approval or disapproval."
Commissioner Torcaso, "So moved."
Commissioner Lanqellotti, "I make..."
Scott Culp, "Does that motion include. .."
Mayor Bush, "Yea, that's a...Il.,."
Commissioner Torcaso, "The motion includes."
Mayor Bush, "Mr. Torcaso, maybe... (pause).. .the motion. ....
Commissioner Torcaso, "Uh, mayor..."
Mayor Bush, "To approve here you wanna..."
Commissioner Torcaso, "Mayor, I
"
Attorney Kruppenbacher, "Would the maker and second of that motion,
or the maker incorporate in their motion subject to the
finalization of the covenants and homeowner documents in accordance
with the negotiations and representations that have taken place."
Commissioner Torcaso, "If that's what they're askin for, that's
good."
Mayor Bush, "Do we have a second?"
Commissioner Lanqellotti, "Yea, I second that."
Mayor Bush, "OK. Discussion? (pause) Ok, call the role Mary."
City Clerk Mary Norton, "Commissioner Gennell? (She responds "Aye")
Commissioner McLeod? (He responds "Aye") Commissioner Torcaso? (He
responds "Aye") Commissioner Ferring? (He responds "Aye")
Commissioner Langellotti? (He responds "Aye")"
Mayor Bush, "Motion passes."
Meeting continues on to the next agenda item.
(abm t1?..nscti.ptian by eft! Ell;iJJee, Had Jeakins)
. ~
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
APR 2 6 !996 :
Mr. John Govoruhk
City of Winter Springs Manager
1126 East State Road #434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number: 95-04-361R
Community Name: City of Winter
Springs, Seminole
County, Florida
Community Number: 120295
(104)
Dear Mr. Govoruhk:
This is in reference to a July 7'A~l5, letter from Mr. Michael B. Galura,
P.E., of Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a conditional
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the proposed Tuscawilla Parcel 80
subdivision along Howell Creek. The proposed project, which will be located
from approxi~ately 260 feet to 1,475 feet downstream of the CSX Transportation
line, will consist of the placement of fill in the 1% annual chance floodplain
and floodway. The area of the proposed project is shown on Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) number 12ll7COl65 E, dated April 17, 1995, for Seminole
County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas.
;\( This ie't~;;';;~per~edes ~ theM~~~h 27 ;:i 996;~0;;di iio,",~; LO~;:; 71=:-
We received the following technical data, prepared by Professional Engineering
Consultants, Inc., in support o~ this request:
. a HEC-2 hydraulic model, dated May 30, 1995, of the 10%, 2%, 1%,
and 0.2% annual chance floods and floodway for Howell Creek,
duplicating the model used to prepare the April 17,1995, Seminole
County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Study
(FIS) ;
. HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated December 8, 1995, of the 10%, 2%,
1%, and 0.2% annual chance floods and floodway for Howell Creek,
reflecting existing and proposed con~itions;
. topographic mapping, dated May 1994, entitled Tuscawilla Parcel 80
_ Richland Properties. Inc., Sheets 1 and 2, at a scale of
1"-100', with a contour interval of 1 foot, showing the proposed
fill and the location of cross sections used in the previously
mentioned HEC-2 models;
. a copy of FIRM number l2ll7C0165 E, dated April 17, 1995,
annotated to show the location of the project site; and
completed application/certification forms. nD.)~~
All data necessary to process this request were receive~~~~~ll~~~
c.c: c \-Ty Mj"... ~
u -\- ~ \. '+7 J) I'''' APR 2 9, 1996'
L.2.""d. ~,""-1 .5fec:
\ I IJ~ WiNTER SPR/r6-p
~JTY ENGINEER
.
l}"r tt -Z
... "
.' .
e
.
2
Because the existing conditions HEC-2 hydraulic model for Howell Creek, dated
December 8, 1995, used additional cross sections and more detailed topographic
information than that used to prepare the April 17, 1995, FIS and FIRM for
Seminole County, Florida and Incorporated Areas, it was used as the baseline
model for comparison. When compared to the baseline model, the proposed
conditions model shows decreases in the 1% annual chance water-surface
elevations along Howell Creek. The maximum decrease on Howell Creek is 0.25
foot. When compared to the modeling used to prepare the April 17, 1995, FIS,
the proposed conditions model shows increases in the 1% annual chance water-
surface elevations. The increases are solely due to the more detailed
analysis.
We have reviewed the submitted data and determined that the proposed project
meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). If the project were built as proposed, a revision
to the FIS and FIRM for your count)11.would be warranted. This revision would
show increases and decreases in the 1% annual chance floodplain and floodway
widths along Howell Creek, and due to the use of new cross sections, would
show increases in the 1% annual chance water-surface elevations. The maximum
increase in 1% annual chance water-surface elevations of 0.66 foot would occur
at the downstream side of the CSX Transportation line. The maximum increase
in 1% annual chance floodplain widths would be 250 feet at a point
approximately 0.38 mile downstream of the CSX Transportation line. The
maximum increase in 1% annual chance floodway widths would be 13 feet at a
point approximately 0.40 mile downstream of the CSX Transportation line.
Future revisions to the FIS and FIRM, or restudies of the flood hazards in
this area, could modify this determination.
We based this determination on the 1% annual chance flood discharges computed
in the FIS for your community without considering subsequent changes in
watershed characteristics that could increase flood discharges. The
development of this project and/or other projects upstream could cause
increased flood discharges, which could cause increased 1% annual chance
water-surface elevations. Future restudies of your community's flood hazards
would consider the cumulative effects of development on flood discharges and
could, therefore, establish higher 1% annual chance water-surface elevations
in this area.
This conditional LOMR is based on m~n~mum floodplain management criteria
established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all
proposed floodplain development, including the project for which this request
has been received. State and Community officials, based on knowledge of local
conditions and in the interest of safety. may set higher standards for
construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If the State of
Florida or the City of Winter Springs has adopted more restrictive or
comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take precedence
over the minimum NFIP requirements.
NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7) requires communities participating in
the program to "assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or
relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained." Without proper
maintenance, such as the regular clearing of a channelized stream, channel
e
e
3 ,
modification projects will, in time, fail to function as designed, thereby
recreating the flood hazard that they were intended to mitigate. Therefore,
upon completion of the project, your community must submit documentation
ensuring that the modified channel will be maintained in order to preserve its
design function. Please be aware that we may request that your community
submit a description and schedule of channel maintenance activities as
outlined in Subparagraph 65.6(a)(12) of the NFIP regulations.
If fill is placed in your community to raise the ground surface to or above
the base (1% annual chance) flood elevation, your community must meet the
criteria of NFIP regulations Subparagraph 65.5(a)(6), which require that the
community's NFIP permit official, a registered professional engineer, or a
soils engineer certify the fol~owing:
· that the fill has been compacted to 95 percent of the maximum
.~~~
density obtainable, as measured by the Standard Proctor Test
method for fill pads prepared for residential or commercial
structure foundations;
· that fill slopes for granular materials are not steeper than one
vertical to one-and-one-half horizontal (steeper slopes must be
justified); and
· that adequate erosion protection is provided for fill slopes
exposed to moving floodwaters (slopes exposed to flows with
velocities of up to 5 feet per second [fps] during the 1% annual
chance flood must, at minimum, be protected by a cover of grass,
vines, weeds, or similar vegetation; slopes exposed to flows with
velocities greater than 5 fps during a 1% annual chance flood
must, at minimum, be protected by stone or rock riprap).
Also note the requirements for floodway revisions outlined in NFIP regulations
Subparagraph 65.7(b)(1) (copy enclosed), which states that when a floodway
change is proposed, a copy of a public notice distributed by the community
stating the community's intent to revise the floodway, or a statement by the
community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected
adjacent jurisdictions, must be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). This requirement must be fulfilled when requesting a map
revision to reflect the completed channel modifications.
Upon completion of the proposed project, your community must request a
revision to the FIS and FIRM. The revision request should be submitted to our
Regional office in Atlanta, Georgia, and include the data listed below.
1. Evidence of compliance with NFIP regulations Paragraph 65.4(b),
which states that "all requests for changes to effective
maps.. .must be made in writing by the community's Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) or an official designated by the CEO. Should the
CEO refuse to submit such a request on behalf of another party, we
will agree to review the request only if written evidence is
provided indicating the CEO or designee has been requested to do
so."
"
____., ,
e
e
4
2. "As-built" plans of the project, certified by a registered
professional engineer.
3. HEC-2 hydraulic models of the 10%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2% annual cha~ce
floods and floodway, representing "as-built" conditions. The
elevations in the "as-built" HEC-2 models must coincide with the
FIS elevations at the upstream and downstream ends of the project.
4. Delineation of the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplain and
floodway, and the locations and alignment of the cross sections
and flow lines used in the hydraulic models.
a. Please show ~his information on a map of suitable scale and
topographic definition to provide reasonable accuracy.
b. Label all items fb~'easy cross-referencing to the hydraulic
model and summary data.
5. Evidence of compliance with NFIP regulations Subparagraphs
60.3(b)(7), 65.7(b)(1), 65.5(a)(6) regarding channel maintenance,
floodway notification, and fill requirements, as previously
discussed.
Items 3 and 4 have been submitted for proposed conditions and do not have to
be resubmitted if the project is built as proposed. If any changes take place
during construction, however, these items must be resubmitted to reflect "as-
built" conditions.
We have enclosed a copy of our application/certification forms for your
reference. Typically, we do not require these forms if the project is
completed as proposed. The enclosed document entitled "Requirements for
Submitting Application/Certification Forms to Support Requests for NFIP Map
Revisions" describes in detail the circumstances under which the forms are
required.
The NFIP is not taxpayer-funded; rather, its expenses are borne by
policyholders. We recover costs associated with reviewing and processing
requests for modifications to published FISs and FIRMs, to minimize the
financial burden on the policyholders while maintaining the NFIP as self-
sustaining. Therefore, you must submit an initial fee of $225, which
represents the minimum charge associated with a request of this type, before
we can process your revision request. If items 3, 4, and 5 listed above must
be resubmitted, the initial fee could exceed the minimum of $225. Your
payment must be a check or money order made payable to the National Flood
Insurance Program, and should be forwarded to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fee Charge System Administrator
P.O. Box 3173
Merrifield, Virginia 22216
/-------
....'.
..;..-;-_.
---- .
e
e
~
5
Once we receive the items listed above, including the initial fee, complete
our review, and verify that the completed project meets all applicable NFIP
standards, we will revise your community's FIS and FIRM, and incorporate the
effects of the completed project, as appropriate.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Director,
Mitigation Division of FEMA in Atlanta, Georgia, at (404) 853-4432, or Matthew
B. Miller of our Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., at (202) 646-3461, or
by facsimile at (202) 646-4596.
Sincerely,
if~ ~1 ~
-f-t'T''Michael K. Buckley, P. E., Chief
Hazard Identification Branch
Mitigation Directorate
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Mark Jenkins, P.E., Winter Springs City Engineer
Mr. Michael B. Galura, P.E.
State Coordinator
ill
t
I
CITY OF WI NTER SPRINGS, FLORlDf \ LEe 0 P Y
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
November 12, 1996
TO: Reserve at Tuscawi11a File
(aka Tuscawilla 80)
FROM: Ci ty Engineer, _....h~ ~
Mark L. Jenkins, P .E. r
SUBJECT: Proposed Howell Creek Floodwav Encroachment
In April 1996, I forwarded information to Mark Vieira, P.E.,
with FEMA in Atlanta, regarding the proposed Howell Creek floodway
encroachment to add additional lots at The Reserve at Tuscawilla
(aka Tuscawilla 80). At that time, Mr. Vieira stated he had some
concerns regarding this proposed encroachment.
This morning, Mr. Vieira called the City Engineer regarding
this matter.' He stated that.FEMA in Washington, per their
consultant Dewbarry & Davis, found the information presented by the
engineering firm, PEe, in the Conditional Letter of,Map Revision
(CLOMR) submi t ta I met minimum National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) requirements. This was ~eported in FEMA's letter 9f April
2 6, 1 9 9 6 . ,.
Mark Vieira stated.he has a major concern over the maintenance
of the modified portion bf Howell Creek after the propo~ed floodw~y
encroachment is constructed. He state'd that in this particular
situation the City should not have to be the responsible party to
maintain the modified channel. He emphasized the importance of
keeping the modi fied channel maintained in perpetui ty to avoid
flooding problems that would be caused by the ,proposed
encroachment.
cc: City Manager
Public Works/Utility Director
Land Management Specialist
Jim Hunt, P.E., DRMP, FAX# 896-4836
bo[ ~ 4
..~..
~ .,
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
PJJG / 2 /997
Mr. Michael B. Galura, P.E.
Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1560
Orlando, Florida 32801
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number: 97-04-249P
Community Name: City of Winter Springs,
Seminole County, Florida
Commwlity Number: 120295
Dear Mr. Galura:
This is in response to your May 30, 1997, request for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to review the submitted Maintenance Plan for the proposed placement of fill
associated with the Tuscawilla Parcel 80 sh'6aivision along Howell Creek in the City of Winter
Springs, Florida. A conditional Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) (Case No. 95-04-361R) was
issued for the proposed project on April 26, 1996. Specifically, you had two questions in your
letter: 1) Will FEMA accept and approve the Maintenance Plan in its current form with the
Reserve at Tuscawilla Community Association, Inc., the Home Owners Association (BOA), as
the entity with primary responsibility for implementation of the Maintenance Plan; and 2) As a
participating community, as defined by the applicable National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations, is the City of Winter Springs ultimately responsible for assuring that the floodplain
encroachments described in the Maintenance Plan are maintained?
We received the following data to review:
· an unsigned legal document prepared by Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., dated
April 1997 , entitled Home Owners Association Document Regarding Floodwav
Monitoring/Maintenance and Certificate of Title for Reolat. which includes the
channel monitoring and maintenance plan and a description of the legal
responsibilities of the HOA; and
· certified construction plans prepared by Allen Madden Engineering, Inc., and
Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated April 21, 1997, entitled
Tuscawilla Parcel 80. Phase I-A. Lots 10-14. FloodwaylFloodolain Modification.
showing the grading plan, the erosion control plan, the cross-section locations of
the HEC-2 model used in support of the April 26, 1996, conditional LOMR., and
embankment reinforcement details.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations Subparagraphs 60.3(b)(7) and 65.6(a)(12)
address the channel maintenance responsibilities of participating communities that have altered
or relocated flooding sources. Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7) requires that communities participating
in the NFIP "assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained." Subparagraph 65.6(a)(12) states that if a community or other party
seeks recognition from FEMA for a map revision based on an altered or relocated portion of a
watercourse that provides protection from the base flood, documentation may be required that
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 1997
(.;1 ry 0f= WINTER S;JRINGS
CITY ENGINEER
~ ~/ -H:-- r;:;
. ...
.. .. I i
.8
.
2
"shall describe the nature of the maintenance activities to be performed, the frequency with
which they will be performed, and the title of the local community official who will be
responsible for assuring that the maintenance activities are accomplished."
.
~' e'.sulilmtt&fMiiliitifuiIice;Plan hiS' v. .. reVi~ed'8:n(fdetermin&r to:ttieefe Tnmimiml'.NEiF:::'!
,..;,;"..;",.,..."".'.... r.~......l\'jf...--.h:t......._~~.....~~...""..~\ !.~!;;~, "-1..-1..;._'" ."":::....,~......':;><~t4."'="...-........i'I. ~.~.,..,r....., ..-IP..,.~.,~~~,.4~~.;.c"ft':...~........'tf~:.,.... . _,
- ., "wrements' forl"{channel mairifeillUice-' lan,'.ilFEMAWill"..'. c""fthe= MairiteDaiiC<<fPltui. ~?
'k-~~~'f"'JI.''''''''''''''''.A"........~~~;.......r''";''~'''''':''':.::i''';;.1''lt..... .o..j.;~'''f~ "I"'''''II!':~. p.u...'-~..'...,....,..,....__"-.;,.._-'r..",~". ~~':"CtIW.......,. _ ._ ...._,...~>)\o"~.~......~ _ ~
'T-"'" "'n_ofa"iria~reViSio ;- as"stated'm~'thi:f.:A' ril.26'~ 1296"'coridition& LOUD":'t6 "reflecfiL;
~P.~L_ ,_., P ~ .. ,p _ t- _" nL.._____...._...____..~~~~,._~~..,n~
placement of fill along Howell Creek in its current form. The HOA may serve as the entity with
primary responsibility for implementation, however, as the participating community within the
NFIP, FEMA will ultimately hold the City of Winter Springs responsible for the requirements of
Subparagraphs 60.3(b)(7) and 65.6(a)(l2). Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the City of
Winter Springs to ensure that the HOA implements the submitted Maintenance Plan or to assume
responsibility for maintenance.
_ ..:.t!.,
All of the criteria and requirements listed in this letter, and the previously issued conditional
LOMR, represent the minimum Federal requirements for floodplain management. The City of
Winter Springs is responsible for approving all proposed floodplain development, including the
project for which this request has been received. State and community officials, based on
knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for
construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If the State of Florida or the City of
Winter Springs has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria,
those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Director, Mitigation Division of
FEMA in Atlanta, Georgia, at (770) 220-5406, or me at our Headquarters Office in Washington,
D.C., at (202) 646-4155, or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596.
Sincerely;....')
I f
\. .
...~_..._-:-~ ,'" ._/"0" "'.. ("".~ '_, .
'-r~
i PriS~I~ SC~~gS ~J:fU
Project Engineer
Hazard Identification Branch
Mitigation Directorate
For: Frederick H. Sharrocks Jr., Chief
Hazard Identification Branch
Mitigation Directorate
cc: Mr. Mark L. Jenkins, P.E., Winter Springs City Engineer
ENGINEERS'SURVEYORS'PLANNERS
January 13, 1997
Mr. Mark L. Jenkins, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
;::-...~~~~~';J'i';o':-,~~.
H,) ! I C'V f". .~, ;:;: 'r! i.., ,.; \
' ~I .. ;::a \ ~ I ...,.. \ ,- I -\~ .'
1..1 ii, ',' ..:":-::. 'J.;.,sJ"'~ \.oil L" I:;:
.!' ,1--.1.""..< ....'"") , . ,
I:\.~' :......... ' ""'" 0.,j .
',~Y .~.;
~JAN 1 5 i';97
Subject:
;~iS ~ !fmnER ~t;;~
'..... t:NG1:1l1:'.:"lI ;
~ ~1 ,lh.;:,;or .'.
. c.\"\v- fJ..Jr-
e.G. I
\-< l l'
, TuscawilJa (parcel 80) - }?'lyelopment Review
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
DRMP, Inc. is 'pleased to present its fmdings related to the reVIew of The Reserve at
TuscawilIa (Parcel 80) Floodway/Floodplain Development Study. The purpose of this review
is to provide the City of Winter Springs with reasonable assurances that sound engineering
practices were followed during the design of this project and that existing flooding conditions
will not be exacerbated as a consequence of the project I s construction. It is proposed that a
ponion of the Howell Creek floodwaylfloodplain be filled and that compensating storage be
provided to mitigate for the encroachment.
In the course of this study the following references were reviewed: Technical Publication
5194-3; the Drainage Inventory Engineering Study for Howell Creek; Chronology of Events for
Tuscawilla (Parcel 80); and, the Final Technical Document - Conditional Letter of Map
Revision - CLOMR Case No. 95-04-361R - Howell Creek. The majority of the review process
centered around the Final Technical Document. This report details the methodology and
results used to analyze the system.
The report presems IT...ree separate sc~nario? that have be::e::n analyzed. by the applicant: 1)
duplicate effective model; 2) corrected effective model; and, 3) revised/proposed project
model. The duplicate effective model recreates the original Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) input and output results. This model is used to establish a reference point
between the original FEMA study and the proposed analysis. This analysis used Floodway
Analysis Method Four with varying surcharge limits to determine the regulatory encroachment
limits. The duplicate effective model matched the elevations published for the effective model
within reasonable tolerances.
At this point, the designer would normally move directly to the revised/proposed project
model. However, in this case more detailed survey information was analyzed to better assess
the existing (1995) condition. Additional cross-sections were obtained in order to make this
1505 eAsrCOLONIAL DRlve.p. O. 80X538505' ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32853.8505' reLePHONE:(407) 896-0594' FAX: (407) 896.4836
n I") /' .rr- 1'.",
~. . .,
..4
e
..... .....:.
e
.i..
1ark L. Jenkins
...Llary 13, 1997
rage 2
assessment. As such, a new or corrected effective model was prepared using more detailed
topographic data provided by Allen-Madden Engineering, Inc. and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) (reference: Addendum - State Road 434 Bridge Hvdraulics Report-1
February 1992). In addition to the more detailed topographic information, the overbank
Manning I s roughness coefficient was changed from 0.1 to 0.08. However, this change is
appropriate for the sub-canopy in this area and would tend to decrease flood stages if enacted
alone. Decreasing the Manning's roughness coefficient caused the stages within the site to be
reduced by a maximum of 0.46 foot. This half-foot change may seem large, however as long
as the same Manning's roughness coefficient is used in both the corrected effective and revised
proposed models, the logic and consistency of the approach is maintained. This analysis used
Floodway Analysis Method Four with varying surcharge limits to determine the regulatory
encroachment limits. This same meth~'Was used in the duplicate effective model. The
corrected effective model yields higher flood stages upstream of the CSX Railroad bridge than
the duplicate effective model. The stage increases by 0.75 foot at cross-section 'C' located
immediately upstream of the CSX Railroad bridge. This increase is due primarily to the
addition of a previously unmodeled constricting cross-section, 2.050, located downstream of
the CSX Railroad bridge. The results of the corrected effective model provide a better
representation of the current condition of HoweII Creek than the duplicate effec~ive model and,
therefore, should be used for comparison purposes with the proposed design.
The revised/proposed project model was then analyzed. This model simulates the stages that
would be reached after the proposed construction has been completed. This model uses cross-
sections at the same location as those used in the corrected effective model, with the exception
of the proposed grading improvements through TuscawiIIa (parcel 80). The overbank
Manning's roughness coefficient remained at 0.08 as in the corrected effective model.
Floodway Analysis Method Four was used in all areas except in the TuscawiIIa (parcel 80)
area where Method One was incorporated. Method Four uses equal conveyance reduction in
the overbanks to determine the designated floodway width, whereas Method One allows the
user to specify the exact location of encroachment for a given 'cross-section. Method One was
used On the west side of HoweII Creek through the Tuscawilla (Parcel 80) site. The maximum
stages realized for the model were less than or equal to the corrected effective model. The
stage reductions ranged from 0.10 foot at cross-section 'C', upstream of the CSX Railroad
bridge, to 0.00 foot at cross-section 'G', located 11,725 feet upstream of cross-section 'C'.
Therefore, compared to the corrected effective model no net increase in flood stages in the
revised/proposed project model was realized as a result of this construction being incorporated
into the model. Table 1 sununarizes the existing and proposed water levels within the site.
'.-
/"
e
-
Mr. Mark L. Jenkins
January 13, 1997
Page 3
TABLE 1
Water Surface Elevation with Tuscawilla Parcel 80
Description Cross Length Length Duplicate Corrected Revised Difference
Section Incremental Cumulative Effective Effective Project RP-CE
V/S S.R. 434 1.300 0 0 15.25 15.24 15.24 0.00
Tuscawilla 80 2.010 620 620 NA 15.87 15.80 -0.07
Tuscawilla 80 2.011 100 720 NA 15.91 15.79 -0.12
Tuscawilla 80 2.020 360 1080 NA 15.99 15.89 -0.10
Tuscawilla 80 2.030 255 1335 NA 16.34 16.09 -0.25
Tuscawilla 80 2.040 405 . .J 740 NA 16.53 16.33 -0.20
Tuscawilla 80 2.050 95 1835 NA 16.67 16.55 -0.12
Tuscawilla 80 3.000 200 2035 16.02 16.78 16.68 -0.10
D/S CSX RR -3 . 100 20 2055 16.03 16.79 16.68 -0.11
The maximum change in stage from the duplicate effective model to the revised project model
is 0.66 foot on the downstream side of the CSX Railroad bridge, section 3.000. The
maximum increase in the 100-year floodplain width is 250 feet at a point approximately 0.38
mile upstream of the CSX Railroad bridge. The floodway's maximum increase is 13 feet at a
point 0.40 mile upstream of the CSX Railroad bridge.
Future studies of Howell Creek could predict higher stages than those identified above. As the
area is developed, more runoff will enter the creek. The 25-year storm is required to be
attenuated by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). However, no
criteria are in place to attenuate the flow from the 100-year storm event. Storm events
occurring more often than the 25-year storm are not anticipated to cause an increase in stage,
however, larger storm events (lOO-year) are likely to increase stages within Howell Creek.
The flow velocity through the site and the potential for sediment deposition are two important
issues related to this project. The velocity within Howell Creek decreases from 6.61 feet per
second at a point approximately 8,000 feet upstream of the project to 2.46 feet per second at
the southern boundary of the project. Velocities above 5 feet per second tend to cause erosion
and sediment transport. Velocities in the 3 to 5 feet per second range will have varying
erosion responses depending on soil characteristics. When velocities decrease below 3 feet per
second sediment deposition will begin. The creek's velocities within Tuscawilla Parcel 80 are
generally between 3 and 5 feet per second, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, certain areas,
such as cross sections 2.040 and 2.050, will transport sediment, whereas other cross sections,
such as 2.010 and 3.000, will encourage the deposition of sediments. Overall the velocities
within the site are greater in the proposed model than in the corrected effective model.
Therefore, an equal or less amount of sediment would be expected to be deposited.
,:.;~: ~~ r::
.... -
.. ~~
''t .'.
. " .....~
.;
................
e
e
'Mr. Mark L. Jenkins
January 13, 1997
Page 4
Additionally, no major changes in the erosion/sedimentation characteristic of this section of
the creek is anticipated as a result of this construction.
Experimental HEC-2 simulations were conducted assuming that 2 feet of sediment had
accumulated in Howell Creek and the proposed excavation area. The resulting stages were
0.27 foot (3 inches) higher then those predicted with no sedimentation. Even though this is a
very small increase in stage, routine maintenance would still be required to clean any debris
from the creek. Additionally, Mark Vieira with FEMA in Atlanta stressed the importance of
creek maintenance after the floodway encroachment to avoid flooding problems. This
maintenance issue could be addressed in several ways: 1) The City could collect an annual
special assessment for the specific purpose of providing annual routine maintenance, with
inspections every six months; 2) The by-law$ of the homeowners association could require the
cleaning and/or inspection of the creeR""6f a periodic basis; 3) The City could increase its
stormwater utility rates to maintain that portion of Howell Creek within the City's boundaries;
4) A bond could be requested of the developer or other responsible entity; and, 5) The City
could maintain the creek from general revenue funds.
TABLE 2
Maximum Velocities
Description Cross- Velocity
Section feet/sec.
V/S S.R. 434 1.300 8.56
Tuscawilla 80 2.010 2.46
Tuscawilla 80 2.011 3.70
Tusca willa 80 2.020 4.34
Tuscawilla 80 2.030 4.18
TuscawilIa 80 2.040 5.35
Tusca willa 80 2.050 5.40
Tuscawilla 80 3.000 3.58
D/S CSX RR 3.100 3.60
8,000 feet V/S 8.000 6.61
Several studies have been conducted on Howell Creek. The following is a comparison
between Technical Publication SJ94-3 (SJRWMD); the Drainage Inventory Engineering Study
for Howell Creek (DRMP); and, the Final Technical Document - CLOMR Case No. 95-04-
361R Howell Creek (PEC). Technical Publication SJ 94-3 used HEC-1 and HEC-2 to perform
the analysis. The Drainage Inventory Engineering Study for Howell Creek prepared by DRMP
for Seminole County used adICPR version 1.4. The Final Technical Document used FEMA
generated HEC-1 flows and HEC-2. Table 3 summarizes the maximum stage data from these
reports.
:.:f~//' ;.".
".' .:,.
" .
, ,
. '
, .
:i:. ,',
"
../
.---.-/
.---
e
e
~ "Mr. Mark L. Jenkins
January 13, 1997
Page 5
Table 3
Existing Condition Stage Comparison
PEC^ DR1VIP St. Johns PEC* DRIVIP St. Johns
X-Section X-Section X-Section Stage Stage Stage Location
Name Name Name (feet) (feet) (feet)
1.2 11-0203B 58+20 14.97 13.89 ' 12.45 S.R. 434
3.2 11-0206B 78+30 16.83 15.64 15.19 CSX RR Trestle
4.1 11-0272X 100 + 60 18.75 20.11 19.21 FEMA X -Section D
5.0 1l-0215B 145+65 19.32 25.2 23.88 FEMA X-Section E
7.0 1l-0218B 172 + 19 25.37 28.64 27.18 Nonhern Way
9.0 1l-0224B 207 + 00 3.1: 88 34.32 31.20 Dyson Road
* Corrected Effective Model
^ Professional Engineering' Consultants (PEC)
The stages listed above have no apparent correlation. The elevations are all of the same order
of magnitude and all are believable. The variances between the stages are accounted for by
the fact that different input data were used, different computer models were utilized and the
data retrieval points do not correlate exactly. In theory, anyone of these three models could
have been used to analyze the development as long as no net increase in stage was realized.
PEC's model, which is based on FEMA's model, must be used in this instance in order to
meet the requirements for obtaining a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). As the
SJRWMD and D&.\1P models have been completed within the past three years, the results
reflect a more current existing condition than the FEMA' s 1977 study. However, refinements
are needed in both of these models to achieve common stages.
Based on the research and analysis that was conducted the project follows sound logic and
engineering judgment. The stages achieved during the proposed condition model are less than
or equal to those realized in the corrected effective conditions model. No changes to the
analysis phase have be identified. The City could require the applicant to submit a LOMR to
update jJe existing condition Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRlvf). However, FEMA typically
performs only one adjustment in situations such as this in order to limit the review time and
amount of paperwork required.
:.
~I!f!!.t
'.'~
. _---M"i-. Mark L. Jenkins
--------- January 13, 1997
Page 6
e
e
DRMP appreciates the opportunity to perform this work for the City of Winter Springs. If we
can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this Letter Report, please
feel free to COntact me at your Convenience.
Very truly yours,
DRl\1P, Inc.
Mlt, P.E.
Manager, Watt:r Resources Department
... .....i "r~
cc: Ron Magahey, DRMP
George Cole, DRMP
Jeff Earhart, DRMP
960112/REPRT
Ol-13JJE.LTR
'.':.t
.,~ "
. ~..
. .
.: -.
. .
, .
. ."
. .
." ..
.. ,.,.. ......t...
fJ
e
20. Prior to initiating construction within Lot Nos. 10,
11, 12, 13, and 14, the permittee must clearly monument
the intersection of each lot line and the conservation
easement boundary line, and any inflection points along
the boundary line, with permanent conc~ete monuments of
sufficient height to be clearly visible. Each monument
should clearly indicate that it delineates the boundary
of an established conservation easement that is subject
to the conditions and restrictions specified in
Subsection 14.1.6 of the Homeowner's Association Document.
.. -
,~~. .. vl~~ "~
~~ \( c. ~~ /:;-1:)' (f)~~
\ 7: ~" '\ V
O~~.~'( ~1~~1
~\?" AtL)) - ~
'f"VV ,/ \
......0
\:)oc #= 7
'.
--.
I
,I
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
"
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Excerpts from the City Enqineer's (Hark L. Jenkins, P.E.) July 23,
1996 letter to Michael B. Galura, P.E.
A major misconception, that has been continually alluded to in
most of your correspondence to .date, is that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) somehow has final jurisdiction on what is
constructed in floodplains and floodways. Based on that
misconception, it would appear that whatever receives FEMA approval
mus t be allowed by the 1 oca-r"ltomrnuni ty . This is Fal se.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by
FEMA, is an optional program on the part of a local community for
residents to purchase flood insurance. It is not a mandatory
program. The NFl? is governed by Ti tl e 44 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR), Chapter I, Parts 55 through 77.
Part 60 "Cri t eri a For Land Managemen t and Use", Subpart A
"Requi remen ts for FI oodpl ain Managemen t Regul a ti ons", Section 60.1
"Purpose of Subpart", paragraph (d) states in part, "The criteria
set forth in this subpart are minimum standards. . .Any communi ty may
exceed the minimum cri teria under this part by adopting more
comprehensive flood plain management regulations.. .Therefore, any
flood plain management regulations adopted by a .State or a
community which are more restrictive than the criteria set forth in
this part are encouraged and shall take precedence."
In the publication; "State of Florida A.ssistance Office for
the National Flood Insurance Program, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT,
Interpretive Letters, Policy statements and Technical Bulletins",
published by The State of Florida Department of Community A.ffairs,
Di visi on of Emergency Managemen t", s ta tes, "Many local governments
have adopted these minimum federal regulations in order to regulate
their SFRAs. (Special Flood Hazard Areas) Others have adopted more
stringent local and state standards, which both this Department and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency encourage. The purpose of
these regulations is to ensure the protection of public health,
safety and welfare."
In FEMA's letter of April 26,1996, it is stated on page 2
that; "If the state of Florida or the City of Winter Springs has
adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management
cr~eria, those cri teria take precedence over the minimum NFIP
requirements."
~ ""/"
-rt-o
November 13, 1997
To:
Charles Carrington, Community Development Director
Don LeBlanc, Land Development Coordinator ~
From:
Re:
Review of Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements and
Restrictions for The Reserve at Tuscawilla and Grant of Easement
The Reserve at Tuscawilla, as presently platted and being developed, is divided into two (2)
phases, one phase consisting offorty (40) lots situated west of Howell Creek and east of Tuscora
Drive, and another phase consisting of forty four (44) lots west of Tuscora Drive. The existing
eight four (84) lots are all under one common Homeowners' Association. Further, each phase as
now platted can stand on its own (stormwater management, etc.) and needs no further
improvements.
Upon review of the above referenced Covenants, etc., it was noted in Section 5, at the bottom of
Page 4, that the entire Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for all financial expenses
associated with the monitoring and maintenance requirements of the improvements needed for the
proposed five (5) floodway lots.
This appears to be an unnecessary burden on the existing or future homeowners of the other
eighty four (84) lots. The only benefits, with the addition of the five (5) lots, will be for the
owners of those five (5) lots and the developer by virtue of having creek side lots for sale.
My recommendation is that all expenses for the monitoring and maintenance requirements for
these five (5) lots be borne by the future owners of these lots and the developer.
The balance of the amended covenants appear to be proper.
"" e....
3.0
AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS FOR THE RESERVE AT
TUSCA WILLA AND GRANT OF EASEMENT
" .c.
This instrument prepared by and
after recording return to:
Robert M. Poppell, Esq.
Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A.
Two South Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION
OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR THE RESERVE AT TUSCAWILLA AND
GRANT OF EASEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS,
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE RESERVE AT TUSCAWILLA AND GRANT
OF EASEMENT (this "Amendment") is made this day of
,19 ,by RICHLAND TUSCAWI LLA, LTD., a Florida limited
partnership, whose address is One Urban Center, 4830 West Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 740, Tampa, Florida 33609, hereinafter referred
to as the IIDeveloperll.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of a certain tract of land
located in Seminole County, Florida, commonly known and referred to
as The Reserve at Tuscawilla and sometimes herein referred to as
the IIReserve Development. II
B. Developer has heretofore placed of Public Record that
certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements and
Restrictions for The Reserve at Tuscawilla, recorded at Official
Records Book 2853, Page 1055, as supplemented and amended by that
certain Supplemental Declaration and Amendment of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for The Reserve at Tuscawilla, recorded
at Official Records Book 2999, Page 0018, each of the Public
Records of Seminole County, Florida, hereinafter collectively
referred to as the IIDeclaration.1I
C. The Declaration encumbers and benefits those portions of
the Reserve Development known as (i) The Reserve at Tuscawilla,
Phase I (IIPhase III), according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat
Book 48, Pages 31 through 40, inclusive, Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida (IIPhase I Plat"), and (ii) The Reserve at
Tuscawilla, Phase II ("Phase 11"), according to the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 50, Pages 3 through 9, inclusive, Public
, e
Records of Seminole County, Florida (II Phase I I Plat II), which
properties are collectively referred to in the Declaration as the
IIsubject Property II or liThe Reserve at Tuscawilla.1I
D. Developer is the current fee simple owner of that portion
of IITract Ell of Phase I more particularly described on Exhibit II All
attached hereto and, by this reference, hereby incorporated herein
(IIDevelopable Creek Front propertyll).
E. The Developable Creek Front Property is included within
the Subject Property as part of Phase I, but was not initially
planned for development into Lots due to the need to plan for
certain "Floodway Encroachmentsll (as defined below) associated with
any development of the Developable Creek Front Property.
F. Developer has now received ali necessary approvals to
replat and develop the Developable Creek Front Property into
single-family, residential lots (IICreek Front Lotsll) as part of the
Reserve at Tuscawilla, together with certain common areas and
improvements for the benefit of the Owners, all as are, or will be,
reflected in the replat of the Developable Creek Front Property
pursuant to the plat of The Reserve at Tuscawilla Phase I-A as, or
to be recorded, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida
'(IIPhase I-A Replatll) .
G. In connection with the development of the Creek Front
Lots as part of The Reserve at Tuscawilla, Developer desires to
amend the Declaration to (i) provide in favor of the Association an
easement for purposes of fulfilling its monitoring and maintenance
obligations arising pursuant to the II Floodway
Monitoring/Maintenance Planll (as defined below) as required by the
City and (ii) impose upon the Association an obligation to contract
with a qualified, licensed engineering firm to fulfill the
foregoing monitoring and maintenance obligations.
H. Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 16.1 of the Declaration,
Developer retained the right to change, amend or modify the
Declaration without the joinder or consent of any person or parties
whomsoever.
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer, for itself and its successors and
assigns, by the execution and recording in the Public Records of
Seminole County of this Amendment, does hereby declare that the
Declaration shall be amended as provided herein.
1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct
and, by this reference, are hereby incorporated into this
Amendment.
2
ii>
2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used in this
Amendment shall have the same meanings given to such terms in the
Declaration, unless otherwise amended or indicated to the contrary
in this Amendment. From and after the date of execution of this
Amendment, any and all references to the Declaration shall be
deemed to refer to the Declaration as amended by this Amendment.
The Declaration and this Amendment are sometimes hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "Declaration."
3. Applicability of Declaration to Developable Creek Front
Property. Notwithstanding the replatting of the Developable Creek
Front Property pursuant to the Phase I-A Replat, the Developable
Creek Front Property shall remain subject to the scheme, coverage
and operative effect of, and shall continue to be held, transferred
and conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants and restrictions
contained in, the Declaration to the same extent as if the Creek
Front Lots and all common areas, drainage easements, conservation
easements, improvements and other matters depicted on the Phase I-A
Replat were depicted on the Phase I Plat. Further in this regard,
from and after the recording of the phase I-A Replat, and
notwithstanding such replatting of the Developable Creek Front
Property, the definition of the Subject Property shall continue to
include the Developable Creek Front Property for all intents and
'purposes under the Declaration, and the definition of all terms
used in the Declaration the meanings of which are dependent,
directly or indirectly, upon the definition of the Subject
Property, including, without limitation, the definition of the
terms II Plat, II liThe Reserve at Tuscawilla II or liThe Reserve at
Tuscawilla Community, II "Common Property," "Lot{s) ," "Owner,"
II Drainage Easement, II "Conservation Easement II and "Surface or
Stormwater Management System, II shall be deemed to include the
Developable Creek Front Property, all subdivisions thereof and
improvements constructed thereon or in connection therewith and
other matters depicted on the phase I-A Replat.
4. Creek Front Lots Drainage Easement and Swale System.
Each Creek Front Lot shall have a creek front swale comprising a
part of the Surface Water Management System for The Reserve at
Tuscawilla designed and constructed to prevent direct surface
stormwater drainage or discharge into Howell Creek. A drainage
easement is hereby created and reserved on each Creek Front Lot
encompassing the swale system as more particularly provided in
Subsection 14.1.2 of the Declaration and as more particularly shown
on the Phase I-A Replat. The Developer, City, Association and
Owners shall have the same rights with respect to the Creek Front
Lot swale system and drainage easement, and the construction, use
and maintenance of the swale system shall be subject to the same
covenants, restrictions and obligations, as are set forth in
Subsection 14.1.2 of the Declaration~
3
5. Fill Slope and Compensation Area Monitoring/Maintenance.
The Developable Creek Front Property includes an area designated as
a floodway within an area of special flood hazard ("Floodway") into
which Floodway area there will be certain fill encroachments in
connection with the construction of improvements upon the Creek
Front Lots ("Floodway Encroachments"). Construction of any
improvements on each Creek Front Lot must be performed in
accordance with the Construction Plans for Tuscawilla Parcel 80,
Lots 9-17 Floodway/Floodplain Modification, prepared by
Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated January, 1997,
Job No. RP-37, as approved by the City on ,
1997 (the "Grading Plan"). Pursuant to and as depicted on the
Grading Plan, the Floodway Encroachments associated with the Creek
Front Lots will include elevated building areas and fill slopes
("Fill Slopes") connecting such building areas to the swale system
located at the rear of each Creek Front Lot within the twenty foot
(20') wide drainage easement depicted on the Phase I-A Replat. The
minimum required dimensions of the Fill Slopes are depicted on the
Grading Plan. Also pursuant to and as depicted on the Grading
Plan, and also as required by the City as a condition of approval
of the Floodway Encroachments and Phase I -A Replat, the real
property constituting the portion of "Tract E" of Phase I not
included within the Developable Creek Front Property shall be
'designated as a "Floodway Compensating Storage Area" and used to
mitigate the impacts of the Floodway Encroachments ("Compensation
Area") .
The Fill Slopes and Compensation Area will form a part of the
Surface Water or Stormwater Management System for The Reserve at
Tuscawilla. Additionally, the proper monitoring and maintenance of
the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area by the Association is crucial
to the proper and appropriate development and improvement of each
of the Creek Front Lots, is necessary for the protection of such
lots against improper and inappropriate development, improvement
and use and otherwise will serve to fulfill the objects and
purposes of the Declaration. By reason of the foregoing, the Fill
Slopes and Compensation Area, and the Association1s interest
therein by way of the "Floodway Easement" (defined below), form a
part of the Common Property of The Reserve at Tuscawilla and as
such, pursuant to Article IX, Section 9.8 and Article XII of the
Declaration, the administration, regulation, care, maintenance,
repair, restoration, replacement, preservation and protection of
the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area are and shall be the
responsibility of the Association. Further, all expenses
associated with such administration, regulation, care, maintenance,
etc. shall be Common Expenses subject to assessment by the
Association from the Owners pursuant to Article X of the
Declaration.
4
As a condition of its approval of the Floodway Encroachments
and Phase I-A Replat, the City has required, and by the terms of
this Amendment the Declaration shall so provide, that the Fill
Slopes and Compensation Area be monitored and maintained in the
manner set forth in the following provisions of this paragraph,
which provisions shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as
the ("Floodway Monitoring/Maintenance Plan"). The Association
shall be responsible for (i) the perpetual monitoring, testing and
inspecting of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area for the purpose
of detecting any erosion or displacement of sod at the Fill Slopes
or Compensation Area, or any slope instability associated with the
Fill Slopes, and (ii) the making or conducting of any maintenance,
repairs or replacements, as needed, to maintain the integrity of
the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area consistent with the Grading
Plan, including, but not necessarily limited to, (a) mowing the
grass of, and provision of additional fill and sodding to, the Fill
Slopes and Compensation Area as may be necessary due to possible
future erosion, displacement of sod, or slope instability, (b) the
removal of any sediment accumulating in the Compensation Area as a
result of erosion from the Fill Slopes, in a manner so as to ensure
that the Compensation Area conforms to the floodplain management
standards established by the City, the St. Johns River Water
Management District and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
'so that the Compensation Area will be restored to the original
lines and grades shown on the Grading Plan and (c) the removal from
Howell Creek of any deposited sediment resulting from erosion of
the Fill Slopes. The required monitoring, testing and inspecting
of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area must be performed by a
qualified, licensed professional engineering firm: (i) twice per
year, in June and October of each year, and (ii) following each
rainfall event during which at least eight (8) inches of rainfall
occurs during any 24 hour period. The engineering firm must
prepare and submit to the Association and the City a signed and
sealed report setting forth (i) the results of such monitoring,
testing and inspecting of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area,
including the status of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area as
compared to the specifications of the Grading Elan, and (ii) any
maintenance, repairs or replacements necessary to restore the
integrity of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area consistent with
the Grading Plan.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article XII, Section 12.4.6 of
the Declaration pertaining to the employment of independent
contractors to carry out, perform and discharge duties, obligations
and responsibilities of the Association, including but not limited
to the Association's obligations with respect to the Common
Property, the Association shall enter into and continuously
maintain in effect for so long as same is required by the City, a
contract ("Floodway Management Agreement ") with a qualified,
licensed professional engineering firm to perform all of the
5
Association's monitoring and maintenance obligations pursuant to
the Floodway Monitoring/Maintenance Plan. Any such Floodway
Management Agreement must be consistent with the provisions of
Article XII, Sections 12.4.6 and 12.5(a) of the Declaration.
6. Floodway Easement. In order to permit the Association to
carry out its obligations to monitor and maintain the Fill Slopes
and Compensation Area pursuant to the Floodway
Monitoring/Maintenance Plan, and pursuant to the provisions of
Article XIV, Section 14.2 of the Declaration pertaining to Future
Easements, there is hereby created, declared, granted and reserved
against the Developable Creek Front Property and the Compensation
Area, for the benefit of the Association, the City, the Developer
and all Owners, a non-exclusive easement under, over, upon and
within the Developable Creek Front Property and the Compensation
Area ("Floodway Easement"), for purposes of, and to the extent
reasonably necessary for, conducting all monitoring and maintenance
of the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area, including the right in
favor of the Association, City, Developer or Owners to enter upon
the Developable Creek Front Property and Compensation Area for the
purpose of performing any tests, taking any samples, and performing
any inspections, maintenance, repair, and replacements, all as
necessary pursuant to the Floodway Monitoring/Maintenance Plan.
7. Ordinary Maintenance and Prohibited Activities Within
Fill Slopes and Compensation Area. Notwithstanding anything in the
foregoing provisions of this Amendment to the contrary, each Owner,
including builders, shall be responsible for the ordinary
maintenance of the Fill Slopes located on their respective Creek
Front Lots. For purposes of the Declaration, such ordinary
maintenance shall mean only mowing, cleaning, and keeping such area
free of debris or any obstructions. Filling, excavation,
construction of fences or otherwise obstructing or altering the
Fill Slopes and Compensation Area or the potential flow of flood
waters across the Fill Slopes and Compensation Area in a manner
inconsistent with the Grading Plan is strictly prohibited and any
Owner, builder or other party causing such obstruction, alteration,
etc. shall be responsible to immediately clear and/or reverse the
impact of such obstruction, alteration, etc. and to repair and
return the Fill Slopes and/or Compensation Area to its original
condition as required by the Grading Plan.
8. Ci ty Right to Perform Floodway Monitoring/Maintenance
Plan and Collect Assessments. If at any time the Association fails
to properly perform its obligations pursuant to the Floodway
Monitoring/Maintenance Plan, as set forth in Paragraph 5 of this
Amendment, including any such failure resulting from the
Association's failure to levy Assessments required to perform such
obligations, the City shall have the right to perform and satisfy
the Association's obligations under' the Floodway
6
Monitoring/Maintenance Plan and is hereby authorized to levy
Assessments against the Owners in an amount necessary to pay all
costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith,
plus an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of such costs and
expenses which shall be payable to the City to cover its
administrative and other overhead expenses. For purposes of the
foregoing and to ensure the City's ability to perform the
obligations under the Floodway Monitoring/Maintenance Plan as set
forth above, the City shall be deemed to be a beneficiary of the
Floodway Easement described in Paragraph 6 of this Amendment.
9. No Further Amendments. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the terms and provisions of this Amendment
and the terms and provisions of the Declaration, the terms and
provisions of this Amendment shall control. Otherwise the
Declaration is unmodified and remains in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer has caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
"DEVELOPER"
RICHLAND TUSCAWILLA, LTD., a
Florida limited partnership
By:
RICHLAND
INC. I a
corporation,
partner
MANAGEMENT,
Florida
its general
By:
Name:
Title:
Print Name:
Print Name:
7
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___
day of , 19 , by , as of
Richland Management, Inc., a Florida corporation on behalf of
Richland Tuscawilla, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership. Said
person (check one) 0 is personally known to me, 0 produced
as identification.
Print Name:
Notary Public, State of Florida
Commission No. :
My Commission Expires:
F:\REAL\128D\D-2605.AG5
8
~t!
EXHIBIT "A"
THE RESERVE AT TUSCAWILLA, PHASE I-A
lr.:,\~.:T o'E"
~"-"
\
\ ~'L A '( Bi)(:f(
\
CONSERVA nON
(ASEI.AENT
THE RE::;[R\'~ n
'!L.:S(:.f'..'t';;:;.l.,.\. Pi-:lt.~~:::
43, P ,.\(;,E S ~ t.....:.O
"
t:. = 1 r01'42N
R = 125.00'
L = .37.15'
N 88'55'07. E
494' :!:
------- --<
--- ......
P.C.
\ \
LOT 14
:-..-:
() 25'
:c z
g 0
;:0 d
SA:~rT,':.:'~'( ..... -<~.
! (J\
in, () -1.04
~;:o ·
I ~ I :l:
^
() ;g
;:0 <:
() ~
r M
f11
LOT 13
LOT 4-3
TR.\CT .,;:.t
I I
I I
I
EASTERLY R,cHT-cr_wAY\l'Nl
I
;p ~3i
:e: r~
-.
-- '^'
~~
I..i)'; 1.',,(:
III
..
'"
M
,.,
lJ' ....
ql.....
;:0
n
=. 1.04
b !=D
.., 1.04
~ \D
:>
-<
.>..
e:t; 2
1.i
;j
~~~
~~1
..~
~ '"
...., ,-)
~~. ~~
~~ f.:
:.=: ]>
LOT 12
~~'t
~~
:..:), ,~:
t:. = 1S'44'45N
R = 125.00'
L = .34.35'
t:. = 48'31 '50.
R = 25.00'
L = 21.18'
t:. = 53'07'4 7N
R = 50.00"
L = 46.36'
TANGENT BEARING
N 1 9'15'SON E
25'
LOT 11 \ \
13.38'
/"" N 70'44'10. W
z
o 0'1
_ 0'1
'c,.,
o (J\
POINT OF BEGINNING ~ .
1ol0ST NORTHERLY CORNER 1.04
OF lOT 9, nit RESERIIt AT' J S
ruSCAv.lllA, PHASE I
PLAT BOQl( 48, PACES Jt-.O ~
NORniERl Y liNE or lOT 9,
nit RESERIIt AT TVSCAv.lllA, PHASE I
LOT 10
88'5S'07N W
\
CON$ERVA nCN
[ASEI.AENT
L:::T ~
TH[ RESERVE .i. T
::jS::~.\'''':t.L AI P:-: f.. ~..[
~+:+
~~,~~+.
t_~
~""..&OOILHlli EJrst...>>
,'~%f_~'I.ae:~":~}~;:
hTo'(;;:~r.'fi'!';',~
. ~~p::"
1420 East Robinson Street
O1a>cla, ~Olo J2BOI' ( 407 ) 897-140
PLA r B{):::~~ .~al F'AG~'::: ~i ....~,J
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0
~ - ..
- -
( IN FEET )
inch = 100 (L
50
I
100
I
I
APPROXIMA TE
LOCA TlON OF
THE CEN TER
LINE OF
HOWELL CREEK
'~
KEY TO MAP
50G'Year F:oou Bounuar'y
~ 186
laD. Year Flood BOUlldary
Zone Deslgl'at ,0115
UNPLA TTED
lQO-Year F!OOd Boulldar'r
500. Yea r FloOd tloulluarv
Base f"looJ lIevJlloll Line
With EleYdllon In recto.-
57 J------.
x
8ase FtooJ EleYdllOIl III Feel
Y'lhcre Ulllform Within LoncH
( E L 98 7)
EleYdllon Refcrcllle ,'v1Jrh.
RM7X
RI"er ,'Ide
· M 1.5
"'ReterenceJ 10 tile ~jtlOlldl GeoJet,l Vertlldl Udtum of 1929
CSX TRANSPORTA TION
LEGEND
-
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD ARE.^S INUNDATED
BY 100-YEAR flOOD
ZONE A No b.ue flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE B.ase flood d~vation.s determined.
ZONE AH Flood u€ptns ~ 1 to ) r~t (u~ually areas of
pondingl; b.ue flood elevations detesmincd.
ZONE AO HooJ depths ot 1 to 3 (eet (u~udlly sheetllow
on ~ol1ing terrain); ayerage dep{hs de{er-
mined. FOf areas ~ ailuvidl (a.n flooding;
"elocities also determmcd.
fo be protected (rol11 100-'1ear !lood by
Federal flood pfote<.tlon \~{em under con-
~(ru<.tion; no base flood elevations deter-
Inned.
ZONE A99
, , '\ '
189
. . , "'-'}: ; ~
, ~ ,':;/ .:,' ".';.' ~ .',;' i/: ' ?';'~ ,.;, ' "
/ Ad;S;\i,~~)),;,g5'?i?; . . . . .
, ?t?~~l;:'~ fJ;.....~.: i%,~;}'",:t~,}l ~';~?~~::" ,
. ,.' ,>:7,>'(~' ~", '/"":"'/;C:f.;'~ :C;' - ,~) (
'/' ." .' '>- , , , c,.-,.
<, ;'\< " >'" "'<'>~" "
,'/,>""'i) t'rf",,";' /. < (<>:d!,\<. -,',>," (
';. ./ .',,' 'V,:?" ",t. \,;J7' ,'. '->><',. >; ':;>.
<1:):,~/:c/",{c"::,:-<>/"' ;1, .:' ',s ~v;Y.;',.", fft~ ."
, ;':}~::T~ :!'i<;;/~'~ ;?::/~t '2i~:{j 2:',<~:i< ':;eY,?,:.:: /.
' '/ :::3 ;" ' <: ,J, {;." -54:,;" :i};.j/' J'" ....
' ; -./ "~ 5::S ~"':i'~( >') \i. 'j,'\:' '/,;0 ?;}.:; ~2:> '?
.'\:~: ,~,; ';'~?},":'{'0:: ....."~/"it~'~ >!;:,~}" ;?>/j ;>
. ~::~"><"fJ;~:,~,,~,:;{~,;;(,;~<,; X;<~;;/y /:'/:/ 'S"
';j}~/'~%, ?,~.j,'fX; , 'i:" ':>f:<:,.:.
',!;.r~ -t^~),~ jC;XM;~ ,', 'Y;,:~f;-',
','~:.c, ^ .y::<~ ''l ~7'~,,'> ' 7;x~"~~c~ ;~?;g;; :/;:,' .~.
>, :\;/c ;{~: ;,(~/<;;t, . ,":<,>Y;t;~E /",):<~>.i ::1
; ; ';':r'~!?"', '( ;) ~({%~';'S'/;; jc; ~~~};..~ 1:]
,/,1 }..;t'~~~'.<~E ..;"/)~~ y, :?f .;/'2 ;;{,{ ',.' ;,
",\":~ ';~C< I~;{;f:\ ;~';0'/ ~;~;J;;~XS~~"~j; ,::;~~:~<::2t1
~}{;< '/: ", ~<>7,if 'i,; ~;'<
;t~f~~:~rl~, " y: (~' .',".'/!}t;;;/~}
~~~t,:~~~~i/; '>r";-:; " " //,
,~~~'.r;:~/, ^,~, "';~ .:H~;~' (I,~;.~' ~^~; .(,~~(> ':: ,;",;/! ;
. C';i:;": '::< , :~'/)J<;', ,
, .~.,~/ ;#',~~i ,'>/
;~'~V>;\)'l~' ';";;;~ R J:0^;}/;,
~,~f~~ ~;, ) e1e';' ji:E~j ;c~l
V$1.~~.'~ '".~, 5~ :;S;~:t?2~2 ?)'{!i ~~t:;'i;.
: if. ,r!:\.S ;::' :;';".0:; >" j.
';".\' "~;{;; ;>.
";o;/j~; ;)/'/j ;;
"(iit/ ..j, c"'l' ~ ,:: ~.
'~~ . >(0
'T.r.",)^
"\
"
Z ON EVE
Coaslal flood with ~el\Xily hazard (wa~e
a<.tlOn}; no b-Me flood elevation~ determined.
Coastal flood with ~erocily hazard (wave
actiont; ba~ flooJ elevations ue{ermined.
,,;
ZONE V
..
FlOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
x
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE )(
Nea, ~ 5QO.year flood; areas of 100-~ea(
flood with average depths of I~s lhdl1 1 foot o(
\\11th drain.1ge areas le~s lhdn 1 ~ua(e mile;
and a.reas pcO{c<teJ by le..ees (rol11 100-YNr
flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZON E )( Areas Jc(eflnincJ to be oUlSiJe 5QO.yeac flood--
plain.
ZONE D NCas In '.\rhKh {load h.Harus Me unde(et-
rn'necl.
x
, c '
AE
:d5Y~ :;J:~:-,,~r"'<,;::"";:"'-0".'}
>' -;
if
/"
/
I
~/
l
!
;
j
!
,j:
f' '."
~ ~
... 3, ;:
x
x
?'
ff~.
j"",r r X
1 "\' {'.
J ~,~
;'j: "1
'Y);D/ .'~ 9;\
'" <'};i~<~'~:\
1 (,.(1,; i;;V; ~~ /2
r .~". :~{;'~i;'k~ );-'(t [J(ij;:'f~
~"{;:;/; 8':;J.:~ t;r'/;~; i'Z}~j: ~ ':),;i.?
~)~:( ',:,<:'//; ';',/j+
' f. ':,.;}; ((;,?:c/ '/: :
i,0~~' 2,:;;~::;-1~"!'j'~!iJ,,/'{ ~~(/i;^'$~
~'f('" :< '.':<);~' ,Z?"
;' /;,{,./ ,.:;t?,; : "
:o',:5/':S:V /<:~t. :~",f'{:;"l
>~~'~;;/; "...;./;;~~~,.Sh';';>;"',~
:,;,':? 2f?;j" <"f"; ;"'/3}'y}"
...;;/.; ,,~>,..(,(';;~:jV;') ",~;;.;;?<;
,; ';; t~t} i:~~>~<?i~,:.
\? ' .' ..f ':Jt::>S'~fk;l
\ ~":?ii /, }f. .'#
~'< y '{y
j(;
~:; V';' :::t;";~;, ~
J/j> ';
;? ,;; ";, ~~ (
~ I~B ' ~', '; b;":;
)~:l ;:,;:c:)~ !:; ;Z~
, " ;, ~.";"' ,< r(:)
cC).:' " .... :;;J;;;J-/ '-":.,'
7-O~ ;5/ .,';,"",:c; '?J:J.~;
~ ~"0~};~[?~'/ X ~i;'{r';j:r~;,,~)
.l)r~~0/:'~YXi{;':;"',2Z:;
.: ;/ ~'~)ri\J"e:-B"jE;
. ,;;;>,:' ,7<;{ f;;~
>~, ~':~,'2i}~~1';:~
,}"', . MW~ ,'"
t'I'
',;./,
{ '?i:~ : . :, ,.
':;'.r:: .... ,.r,/ "'<;.
:,.';"''-,;, i''', ,','
" '. ,.
7i
1-
~
f
>
~
i
1
~
:t
~
_ .i
x
~
*
f
I .'~ r ) ;
I" ,. .
CITY OF WINTER SPRING\,
120295
:cX
Z()f\l E-: X
:fA
~
~
~
~
'J
i
I
-:l
i
#
\
<
.<
/
"16~V<
'.' ~!
r"'"
@
./ :
I
!
~
~
~
~
~
I
I
~
I
)
X
r, AE
'. "
,,' ,"
::.\
x
;:, ~"
{
f
I
1
.,
5.-";0 y. ",-"~;,p /;;'
I :,,'
. ,....,:?<~'.
i:'..' ~'j.?,Ul<
.';~:/:;;Pli.,:/:jl&<
/: .'~j?,:R
'~ f' ~
\\. ~
\, ~>!)
) ,"v)..~_<<r"":: /-,~~q'-;..(>
~
I
i
~
i
I
,,;pel
f
r
AE
l~d{~X
; \J r~.
Reference:
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 12117C0135.
12117C0145, 12117C0155. 12117C0165, SEMINOLE
COUNTY, FL AND INCORPORATED AREAS, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, April 17, 1995.
"t
~
i
I
~
i
,
,
j
THE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS MAP PANEL SHALL NOT
BE INTERPRETED AS THE OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES UNTIL THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) ISSUES EITHER A LETTER OF
MAP REVISION (LOMR) OR A PHYSICAL MAP REVISION (PMR).
- "~...<
,. '-,,",,/r'.-'.-
7' l _
; <
SC.~LE ~ 1":= 500'
ORAWtJ BY
MBG
LLS
APP'O BY
REV, OA TE ' _JlES~?~"1JQ~_J_ ____. __~_. __._ ~r-----u- _
___ .1__- ~~. :~~-=-=:L- ~~ -~ .-~~ _ _ _ u _._ - -- - --- -- - -- t- .-- - -- -- -
1.~=- ----~L~- n__~~-~_=- == --.= -= ~..._ ~~ -__-_~=~ u==_= ~=__=~_-
6
PEC/~~~~~~~'?~AL EN~I'~~~R!~~ CONS~L;~,~:~~
---
-~J
OESIGtJED BY
'NC.
TUSCAWILLA - PARCEL 80
APPROVED BY
DVM
SUite 1560, Eola Park Centre
:200 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 3:2801
407 /4~::'-8062
RICHLAND PROPERTIES, INC.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)
REV I SE D / PROPOSED PROJECT MODE L
HOWELL CREEK
NOT ro~ CONS rnUCTION
;;Z~/2/~
II /r2 / 1 -;
--------
DEPARTMENT MANAGER
vOB No RP-,37
DATE JAN 1997
C::'
-,
CHECf<ED BY
M8G
SHEET 9 OF 10
'"J'
"'J
~', .'
1,',1-'
: '''',..Hl\:.,
\:-
'".~(
,',
',.i
~I" ~
, '
\.
j (
\', "
". C ; ,:'r~
..,:,..:.:f:.,...,'<.'
~ :.;,.,.".. ,"'~" .~
.,.' ,\
, "'''J~;;i;/'
,}'.'~ !.
> '.
v",>
~~~'r.!'
'-!)
<
CD
r--
en
en
-
~
(D
~
..-
..-
rrI
(\j
c:
<"0
J
::::l
.r::::.
....
W
l.LJ
G-
ce
CO
..-
(V")
en
/'
(\.J
-l
C(
Z
......
u..
/'
~
WJ
/'
CO
<<Xl
;:; \:'
en
..-
""
.....
<
(::)
/'
c:::;
;
. ._.~-..,..
. }.. r '"
t'''' '.,' 7-' "J
, t.
. ,:";r~
" - .,'~--'-:---T" ---- -
...-.- "'r:--:- T, --;___~-
- --~:.. ......
". ....t .. .
---:'~~:'''.~' ~_...,--.-....~ .~
,,,.
~. ,,;;~_1...,;:-.~-{.7. rv-:
" '
u _ '..;:>',' '.~
,- --..--.-_._:;"'~.:......~....... ~--" .....,-
- "~-'
\~
~..
....
'~
.. ~~"
~.' .
~ :.t, J'/
GgAPHIC" SCALE
\. ~gi~ t~ STREET UNOERORAINS 6: J~6 LF'
YARD LlNOERPRAlNS a en LF
TOTAl flOW (ANllOPATED 7 MONTHS/YEAR\;
, '.- JOJ6 LF' X 2 erD"
+677 IF" X 1 ~.
TOTAL FLOW... 6749 CFO
. = 50,486 GPO
~~ ~~ ~T OF UNDEItDRAlN saP.-
GEe.)
TOTAL LF STREET UNDtRDRAINS
TOT~ Lf YARD UNDERDRA1NS : 875 LF
TOTAL FLOW (ANTICIPATED 7 MONTl1S/~~';
= 87tl IF X 2 CFO-r.:
+ 0 IF X 1 cro.
TOTAL FLOW,", 1750 cm
0:: , 3,091 GPO
r- ~g~~t LLrF' ySTREET. UNOERORAINS = 1100 LF
I . ARD UNOEROR AINS ... 0 LF
TOTAL FLOW (ANTICIPATED 7 MONTHS/YEAR'I:
I ~ 1100 LF X 2 cm'
... OLFX1Cro"
TOT AL flOW = 2200 crn
=> 16,457 GPO
100 0
~
I:iO
t
100 aoo
,~ 1.1
(~rur)
1 inch' - tOO It.
400
t
f.
.~
, I.
....~
~ '-.....~~ ")cf>
~ ~ CfTY^r-
~ --... ~ Vf"' IM....
___ k . n,w,n. R SPR "
/NCs ",'b
III
-
.
,-
SEMINOLE COUNTY
BENCHMARK , 2392501
4" X 4" CONCRETE
MONUMENT 48.5' S.L
OF POWER POLE 1748961
ElEVA TION ::z 27.27'
AfJq,
. -~
~
--------' \ \
~-- ..--.- --\ -
\
\
\
r--
__.1
. "I
.- ~
. -':.,...
..... SJRWMO
JURISDICTION
LINE
-
SILT FENCE -"
ON LINE ""'-
(TY?) '"
LEGEND:
_./ LOT NUMBER
1 8 ....-----
[73--- FHA GRADING 1YPE .
~-- FINISH FLOOR EI.fvAT10N
[CO
--
FLOW DIRECTION
SWALE FLOW OH~E.C nON
PROPOSED SPOT GR AOE
SJl T FENCE
...
e 39,59
---0-0-
NOTES:
I
li-- ---- DRAINAGE ESM T - ..I
. 'MOTH 'v"ARIES (SOD) i
I '
: I
I '
~ ,,-SWALE BOHOM i.~
'~\ -<~~'"""
, ~,I.'~
~~
S~CCIFiED
/ "8"
/ '- ADS FULLY P'RFORA;[O
L PIPE WITH FIL TlR- F ARRIC WRAP
'BACKFILL WITH
NATIVE SOIL
RE A.R YARD SW,ALE SECTIO .
____ ~(LQTS 60, 86-91, 73--80, 35-42)
UNDfRDRAtN CONNECTiON (OUTFALL) POIN1S:
~OR LOT 60, CONNEcr ro STRUCTURt- #D1 ''','
r OR lOTS 73 RO 0" ~F -, ".v, 34.77
~ _ -., u: AI..L TO PONDt/'" wi c'ONCRETE
~OORR LOTS 8~- 91. CONNECT TO 6" NON _ P'ER~ OR APRON, ~DOT INDEX 286
LOTS .3..r42, CONNECT TO STRUCTURE #D'9~Tf~vP11~~O 0 C.O
el.f ,t.~';OUTS SHALL Bf PRO'/lDEO A I I -
'.:fLANGE IN DIRECT'ON ~1A1 DIST T.\.... TtR~INAL POINT AND ANY TIME THERE IS Ar~ ABRUPT
HA','f .il, 12~x 12~ 4~' PI/'r ,... ANCl BE-TWEEN CLEANOUTS SHAll B( 400'. C.LEANOUTS SI.'ALL
_ x, r vK 'vONCR(TE Sl.AB "
)[NOTES SWALF U!\jDE.~DRAIN LOCATiON.
Pf!fI. (()pt!onsl z.- x ~ Or I
2i IIln. O~. Woo4 St.,1
I.J3 Lbs/Ft. IIln.) ,
I Optional Post Poslt~
o PrincIpiI Post PosItIon
j Filter FabrIc (In j. ~ (Cllnted 200 TOWQrrJ F_I
, ConforlfltlltCe WIth' il '
Sec. 985 FOOT Spec,) :=:,1 fr.:
,- ~~ l Fllttr Fabric
I _ \ .. il flit Flow
"\ - \
~U
SECTION
~ llax:.....
i ?e
.e
~ ~ ,.
- ~
.., ...
~ "
4
~
,
.
ELEVA TION
Note. Silt F Mae to be fJDld for und Itte
" . contrrJcf unit prfoe ff1' S1f1tH Slit F.nt>> (IFI.
TYPE III SILT FENCE ;
,.., .~.=:':f;~:
: ~,
.~:>
'''f~L;
SJRWD
JURISDICTIONAL
LINE
'ALLEN.
.ItAODI'N
(>n9"1~~'I 'nCl. Ill,.'
, .' .~!
ClVlLtNClNttRS
LAND SURVEYoRS'
......., ' :.~ .
3670 l.fAGIJIRE BLVD., STE 105
ORLANDO, F-'L 32803
(407) 897-1443
c
z
<(
C
~~
Q
<(
a:
(:J O~
~Ou.
8Z
...J
m
~
I- .
Ow
..J
~ ~
10
-< ~n
:j CI)~n
~ ~<~
< 100 I
o ~ 3 fD
(/) )( It ~
::> 0 '"'
Fe CEl .......
.~ ~
o qz-
Z o..Q2;:I:
< 5; 0..
-' D::
::r: ~
~ i
w
o
~~
I
U
Z
Ct::
w
w
z
o
z
w
:..(
0, 0
. "3
C2:)C!
~
~
o
~
<.
~
j
...:l
.....
~..
U
r.n
::J
~
LJ
" .
<:no..
~z
'l"""'4w
o
'1"""'4 a
4{
>'::.i
o
:z .
~
(f)
W
...J
0:::
4{
::I:
U
".'
. ','''1
(/)
~'
z'
a:::
9;
.~
~
I
, :;':
o
o
.......
N
+
.......
v
co
SIL T FENCE, Sll T fENCE. 4."
PHASE II PHASE I t-
10' PLANTING/SCREEN -~ · - ~
-4>"" EASEMENT .~fti I L ~.R. 434 (OLD S.A. 419) rSIL T FENCE g
T '" ,..- + 4' .,' ON R/"" ,....~
, Jr I ,1i'\~"'Il1 -...0> ,.... ,ot' '" ,", /
, . '..~. . . ,-,-H . .-----+-->< · · ---- . · '
- - - --
~ TATE ROAD # 434
r:-
...
~ ~l '--.'---- 7 ~ ----~-~~~~~ -" -~r~~F'~-- ~ -- .-."\ " .~
3 R '\ 'l''''~ 74 ___ ~"""~ 10' ORAl ~EMENT ~ ~ -~- -7 i"F.---- u. ~ :~''- JL-t -.! - - - -\- l? /PROP~D SR 434 R/W 7\\\
~r ,~~~ -~Vt~~~!@i~ ~1-~~Z~:~MGE " '1 (:~>, ~F, l'0DYRI-LOODLI~ -CONtRvAllON -AREA-// - \\~CON~~DN-
'" 1= 1 ':A ~ ~ ~21l_'" r-....... ~ ~ "'" <J, ),,&5 r ElK ,,,.. UJII' ~ ,\I ( rEMA ) / // \
I . 1107'" = "- 23_31 ' l~ \ ,I ll. / \ \ r 1
EN IIIRON TAL J '::::: ,,,, "'.52 ~ ......... "-- - ".::--- " , "--- "--.... ~ ~ --- --- '- \ ~'\. / \ \
I SWAlE 73..-c- - ~ ,_IN.. "~ / \ \ I l ,.----
/ 1'\ ' I, /.-.-
TREE L1N~.G\-H ~ 1~31----.u52 ~'l ,..., <:: _ -<8<'~-~ ~. \ " ~ ~ '- :--- ~~~.'" ~ WEIR' \ I / / SJRWMO II \ '\ /")) '.> A( ~
~ 8 29 ~ ! '1'. A '-. I r ,-.... _-"', ""r ~. JURISDICTION ----;1 \ "'" ,.- --'" ,
1.1 'lOT fL 5 _ -- Jd3~ ] ____ ~'""2 ~ 2~ ....... \ :--.... 3 1/ LINE \ \ \<.. ""'\ .."
~ 2 ""'" "~A 1---11.. 1 Jl ,-----. ----"::;A I "'...... I" I DRAINA7; \ ,~ 0 \ ~\ \ \C'~, //' \
~ . r----.<>. n" SIlT fENCE ON ~#~\\~ \ \ ~ \ II
~ fJ 29 ~ :-\ \ ~ CONSERV UNE 5' BERM ~ '/yfIR ~~/%\\\\~\) \ , ~, (-- \
d 35j;l..:J- _____ ' "-,, '" (,...) ,. (J1.'" i';....';: ~ . . '" - \.... '-.... --- ' .#~ \ -@ ~ \ ~ ,'" \
/~-/;,,, .J. l ,~~.} .... ,.~,>"'(32-") - EO :-~~ ,_",)'. '~U-'" -"'1 Uio r------: " ..... ',- ........~~"~~ \'-, \.0~', \~\,
~........... VB Ie ~ ..._" I ~ ) ,- ~ -' - ,~"'-!~7_"", '" -~ ~ ~f, mr,,\.\\\\ \\'-.......~)' .............. ..... ~ \
1 L .371 Z-- lJl~f~ - J41~;~ i il [J3: J :--tj8~8 ,~~"''' ........." ~1 ~ 'Q2, , I i".... " J I'-..... ~~'~ ffrSJ.~- fill' II ~~:--;; 1/' '\ ..... ---~~ \
I _ ...... =------ k ~1 ) -_ 8 . 90 ~ c"'J ~ "- C --... I.... h.. 15' ~" ,t ,,~~-~~ I ~ "\ - ~ )) ~
" .:~. :-:n-o'--'~ 35.46 I~ I 2~'7 ""'~ ~ . - ~A1NA ~ A'7o.~" ...." I \ \ \ \, " /
6 _. 70 _<< -." ~ '" ,. - _", .... f---~--J We ~fO T'-.... ...::'" ",--:, I -....;::, EA EN r ' ,,~ r=--" \ . \ · \" I
I _.[8~ __ ~." ~_ rl(. w.r/;;-.~~ -.)o...~:"" 33 , ! '-l;:~ I '; ~3 ~ ~. ~ ':'-.... >Z '-........ I~ 5 \ 4 - ~ll "' - - ~ "f>~ 'l'h '/ -0-> POND \ \ \ ') I I
[G ("'''')0'------- 139-7 3 ~'J'"'' I ~ " " 'K H AS I II......... ~~ ~ 'i .... ~ 't B 7c'V ~ Of//. ""1, , '\ .".--: 4 1\ ~ ~
i ___ ~ . ,r I _ ~ _ J ,~~'" ....Al'll.: ___ - 33.23 ~_" J2." ' ''''' '-. ~/ ~ ........_ ~~ J I as.. ,21" ..1 ~,3e T\. 'h c "i ~ ~ - V/I/M ,,0 I ~ Y;
l ~ l I ~ --......... ~___ _:s.--= ~....... '~~ .... " " 2\1.10 ~"' .< f///, ' CaE \ /1 I C)
o '-.: 38,56 ,j '/ 'W' 34.40 JJ~7 ............--.. ' ..r ~ ~ . - " '- " " \ \RIS ICTIQNA I / \
" 37 ANWELL _ 33.55. -..,,--: ", '-.. ~,,~ . 2 . "'"' "'Il . '"' ~ J
I / 53 __ ~ ~~ . ""="" I " ". '- "'- ~ ,I' ,L E -------. L.-j! / \ \
_"" .. (1 iIo~W .. ~ \ A)\' ~ .
_, /N I If,.,.. \ ~./I..........J \
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL _ I r-- E ~ ~ \ I " 1\ c,' 'il'\;\;! , 15' 0 AINA ./'/::" ~14I""'~1.oo "-- \'\ /y 1 \
SHOWN ,Jl'REON LOT GRADE LOrS TO Tr10SE ELEVATIONS __~B 'i 8 37.2*) L 38.77 I -...;: B 50 / I, ,,22. ~ ~:qO\ /. \\\~ \\ \EAS ./ -:-----:;:; -j./ ( r--
'L S SHt.LL NOT BE GR 01 14),' I ......... ...........1. "1,7:50 ' 5?ia..... _ . 49 A HI ,.,:;-' --"..- - ", .,' "U\/'/2 \\~ ~,-...::~.~ ENT J ~ ~~;.- --;:--Y/'~'~ ~/ .// ~ ((- '-' I' \
THE PERI ME TER . WALLS TO OBT A!N PROpcRAOGER~D~GAINSl .. "" _______ = _ ,,' f 0\1 - ' · -, F n - ~ O'Y / .-/ /
, . _c- I __ "",_"33~, 37_34 '-OJ \f=JCJ 35_151- / I -- -4 "'~ ~ ~ / L "- I
,.,,,~.t:~~;~-~'~ ~ ~~jt e " ~"50 -"~ l~~;.~ l ,,~",!. m\& .. ~, .. ~ ., ,>> [~l ,.~- ,,,~l~ ;~~.~ ~:\- -~1-~ ~ -- ~r -fj v~J vO)\)
'" ~". I '----------G.a -...:~ ".., 40_60 /; ...50 ~-'3-- . ._ -.. \......, \,. '''''') \. ~~ J.:~ ." ,... N ~ 'll.4- 1&:"1 ~ " ~,. (1 ; / ~';;t E T BE E j L ~AJ lid T I
C}';-i;..Q:~" ~~ ~, "1" ". ,<<21l...) ~.- ."
~1,~ EO (43.5:tj 4~ ---~~:"ool 39.78 40.601 5 S(' ~~., ,,. -- F_' ~ \ " :1\'7 !'-!C>. ..~ "'" ll' ~G 9.U) . '. 18 - '\1--' --- ~'7
-\' .\h 'J _ ~~ II, il>. ~ - /, .-r, '.v("''' ~ "'); Lv ""-.. . 1 ~ . \ I r We 1 \ - , '\.
,,~1t;s,. A7 'i "0 ~~" -40(;6ij / ~ ~ ~" ;' // i ~ @/ ~,~ f1:.' ~ '\ " 20 l2~ \ \ Z'e~,.. 1:- . - .uo I" ~,
" .,<. ""60 I ~ "",," "'-." 'r/ 58_.J\, ,. ~ _~? 'f h ,'f/ / / .......,,~ -.:o--,~ ~ -' ll' ~ · 'l '~ 75 7 ~ ~\'\ ~ ~ '" ( - \
......... ,,(.,..) " 66 ,,_.. ~--u; y'----- e' '/ _ \ I. ;' / UPLAND PRESERVE ~~< - I 23ff.i.: ~,,"J
, " \ ~ B\ 'u. 'J I ~ 8E :ED I ~ -0 \). ~ \,
"".... "'{( ~<' 44. _~ II ',,- ",-~" ,_ ,\ 59 . / ,1 ON R/W' JNE ON CONSERV LlNE \ )S ,Y 29 ' _ilK. - ~ --", L&": >------- -- IJ '. "1 j / r ) \rChf2~ I /;
........, _ , ,,("'u) ~ 65 "_,, ~ """ ',- / ~ \: liJW I // #~/ /' '" 1 B 71 ." If!i~~. '\ ~1t- '\ L__ << ~ L--A~ i /' / ,
_ ~ _ / ~ -\. 9~g,- \ ~ ' , II ' 'Q("_~~ '\___/~ /\. - \\ ]\33-14 . · ~ ...,-., ~ ~~-"" ='?" '" "4:3 \(.... , \1" 'JlO · / j ~ / 0
__- " ,~~ ", A_ I ,,~7 I I I'rl CONSERVATION AREA //' ~ ,,-," \ ~ \ \ If r- v-... c:-----r-- ,7 \( \
" . v.. I \ 14/1 I I ~~' Ic:<-- cONsl:Rvh~ ~
, '- ~6" / ;:-A J~I :\~........ j ~ \. PH ASE I ((; (.332 ~/ "- ~-34B5:t ~ · "I.. .A:?_"'- ---"""\ '.7,......... 4 '\ . - OPOSED\ ~: ~. 17.llt 1\ L/ ,--->:j/; \ \ ") ~~~I
, a~ ~ 43.10 J' / '~ ,"4' r; "\ ~&'. ~ I, ~ - ""'~ 1 "- "- '\..~_ _ ''-. uf, ~~N~ .,"" -+ I - i>-- vi \ \ \ /
, ......... 0". ,,,_"') - 63 "'.. ~ -""-. \ '. "l.. .:; / :0.. ~") ~~"." ,,' " \' -y ""--"'\ '-., "''''','' ~\-- I ' .~ .', '
--......... ,~;Sj; , 'i-........./ ~60 10X:/. . '.7 "'\\' ,~~-_..~~~/ ...:~ 3~~,1 J~" I ~7~~48'~/r\- I / "46......... ~ _513 ~ftJ?! ~ \11 -~\ \ N I~f:/~:-":-.,.~~I
" < ~ EG (4'.~) / ~62 'y. ~~ \ __ '\ [-~83 ~\ 1~ 29.0 R 1 2_~_ 'H6 /A' \, ,,\ ~ I \,. 17.7tl q ~ ~/ 'I .: / CJ
"-." 'JlI~..... ......... Y i _ ---1 I \~\ ,"- ~ ';:--...... '\ 3--------4 tJ ) ~ s I 30 20..", f" \ \ \ \ f ' " f / ;j
,,'''~' ..... r42 j /1 ~ .. e ,J1.97~ ~. . f.G .4%), '- \ 17.~6"'_ \ j I 11.00,_10 :/ i'
",-- ' " i. ~ \:~ ...7.29 31, 1. \! ~ (24 ~ ..... r
rL1 .,; ,'/ '+~8 32.M...oIII O:t.o ~ A \ \ 1 1 ' I
'- -'l, ,.".... , .. / 6 ., >900' ,,, .... .r, ,u<>'" '" ,. ".... Fe 3<'" --- ' F-_ ;~
,1
............. -J .</2>......... 'v 421 OJ )<..... \ ~ ~'" I", 35 (GI"" ""'- ~ ,. n :;.) ~ 7:.:) \ 1:" ~ '- ". ~1~:') -~-~ ~ ~~. 1=1. . ( ~ / 1//
"-.........", .........,,'. EG (40,g~)-'............... ,/1/ '\ 60 J J:,,, . ~ . ~'42\ B 1 36 ......... '- - I', -.... . I ,,' ' ,..~ -, '\ < r:
................" --..'-..... ''',............ ); l~~__.l ';,_ ""~O~..\,6~~~~~\34.181.u01/')u-::J 3 ----~ -ORA~EA ~EN1'-" ',,- '--" -~\\ 7 c...._ i -' I
.'... ""_ ""< \ [ 41. i I \ ~ ~ \. \ ' ~~_ . ~ I ~ fa Ie
'..... ............"........EG(40.U)~-............'l>... __ <.\.L'_/r..O. \,~~\ \11, l..-l\r?f~~~~~4.~3+16,1 ~,,-~L~""'2 ------'--;',20, IT":37 ....... 3160 CI ,. .~ ,........ J' v \\~ I J
, _....... -... ~ _., if._. --.c-------_____. I ~.~ '..." L~~ ~:>~'> J-i9 19J ....',\..LX~~n-l'" :'J ~~,l :~ ~'V>~\~ ,(. /
-......' ' 'iN V 35_ 1 0 " ! ,,:;---------......" "I '" J..", ~---'<\ ''I \:,\ I 'oll,l8:" \ \ \ \ J )
_, -......, ~) II , 1 ~ - ----=- '" " .."'.........,. t l "" ".,~ i ".'"' \", " w. --:::c::\ \ \ \ \ I1JlO /" I
, '" ~J OIl 'f"1. J26 '" !Stlffi !... ;'{ , - '\
----........ , -... '------. , ....... ... I ' iL"'~ ,. --..JR.' / ~ J,. ,. - - ~, " " . ~ --:;-; "-->c ;, s..:....-- ":. -, ''\." ^'" ~ '-~ V \' ~ \ ~\\ \ \ 'i' \) ,T
, """"';' x I. "'''' 3,.55 (?FfJ. ~ "W/ffi "os' - ,\ \
'............. /" , ~~ ..-......>r-4..~L ') / riff '\ ~ I \1 .48 \' .............., >,-...[.......... ... ',,~l "\ ~ ~23~O \\\\\. ~ _~t~
CoO >, -...,,_ ___________ '. on, ,"_0 ~ 3 - ' , '- ,,1\
INV 35_ 33 ~/ __ I 6- I '-" ~ \ \--\ \ \' ... ·
_ ---!' , ; rl.f"l, ---.. '''_~ f{, \ ',,- I? ~ r A A ~ 5 . ~ I "'1' " :!-.- '-...... I " 8, \ \: \\ \ \ \nr\~, ~ '-
_ "1' 1'71;,;'" " V ~ ~7J I .... A I ," Ii. 1 "\ r -".,- '. \1 !l, \ \,,1,'..,:>, '--------"~- -::......
....,,~y ....... II ".. _ __ ,. ~o.) ';,:- - 3517........ 34.17 ! I--y 74 · ~-~" fi' \ \, '.. '-
Top (lev . ,39.48 ___._'- 7f 1 _ x _ __________:::<____ I ....'" '-' '" - - L~f_,-_ \ L 31.3T . ,9_ - C ~ SE I\:OON ..
s. .. .".S6 _ ."'" . .';- ~ ~ . "-OIl "" i', ---- -- fAT'--"
, "" .30_" ._ ,..... r< -... ____ ON ,. (33..') __ . ~ ' /, I -,~ -- ~- - --.,...... I
" SlTE BENCHMARK~ _ _________ LINE ,. (J2S') - ,.---;'0;---+-"------ --- -- ,,~' \ 1\-2....... ,j EO
~ " '., TOP or SANiT A R Y M ANilotE-- _ _ () r. (" a, ,. '''' -'*) ,.,,,,.,., \" ,. (,....) - --'----------- -- - -- ..L-
~.'- '" _ ELEVATION: 39.4e' - - _______ - ~ - ----
~~~Z:::~8-PVC :zv I....'b"'i;.;,- '" s. ,.. - - L_ - - --- EROSION '-CONTROl-NO - ---------.. -- ----
;,I~:. :~t~~ ~ ~~\ .A. " CONSERVAl1ON J - - -- --- --- 9TES:
"'~ AREA ,1- DURING CONSTRUCTION ClEARING SH
" . ~ "'" ' ALl- BE UM'TID TO POND AREAS.
), 2 '~. ',_ T.. ",~.'._.:";;'."", 2_ ALL CLEARED AREAS SHALL lIE SOD RIGHTS-Of WAY, ANa SWALES.
"- .._ -32,'. _ ....'" 3 - .. OED OR SEEllED AND MULCHED
". ~ '"' -J2_'" _ ...'" - PEAII.ANENT VEGETATIVE GO\Q ON INDlVIDU .
"" .,: 4 SILT . Ai. lOTS SHAll BE PROVIDED AT TI"E
... . _ _ fENQNG SHAll BE f'RO'.lDtD IN M or INDlVlOUAL LOT DE\fiOPM
5, ~~~OC:';': ~~ NOT ~,:~A~O R;:~EDSH~ PR~~S~,:r DISCHARGED Of SEDIMENT_ TH:T
. SHALl REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABUSHED.
'I
"
u.
o
~.
,0
"'l
..
, ,
l!?~l!?l!:'l!? l!:'1!!
z z z z Z Z i
<Il ~ ~ ~ ~..... .....
o~~~~~2.~ (/)
:! J 5 f (.l U (.l ~ u .Z
I~.j~~~~ ~~O
'2V1:< uuOD uuo;
~ f1 >- ~ f5 ffi ffi 15 ~ ~ c:. >
go..l:la..a..a..a..>-i5:'lt 4J
Re.a.:OOAO.ooA, B::
o liI V' Ul ~ ~ VI IX ~ ~ 1'1'
~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;; ~. ~ .. .
I I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~"~ ~. J, .~ .l. to .....' ~I
1 I . I I - - ..
~ ~ ~ ~.~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.JOB II 93188
DATE: 1-23__97,
SCALE: 1"=100'
CALC 8'1': PM,..,
DESIGNED 8'1'; CM~.
DRAWN 8'(; PMM
APPROVED .6Y: C~M '
. .: ~;~
..,t' '
~
.- ::'- 7'~. . '": ~..:~~
. ~,' .. ,. ..', ...... <:
J~ :'~f '.... ~'- ,~
. ,t.' .' "';4J'
., ,1b.. 1b::i' "".....-
.~. -,!I,''-,~~ :t