| 2012-04-10 16:31:17 | CASE NOS. PB 1621, 1621A, HPB 12-07 |
| | SUBWAY ? FLU, REZONING, CLASS B |
| | 901 SOUTHERN BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT FRIEDERIKE MITTNER @ (561) 822-1457 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN |
| | (10) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 PM |
| | ON APRIL 20, 2012, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE MAY 15, |
| | 2012, PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING |
| | DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC |
| | COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC |
| | MEETING (APRIL 11, 2012), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED |
| | WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW |
| | DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED |
| | COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ADDRESS THE FUTURE LAND USE, |
| | REZONING, CLASS B AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS. NOTE: NOT |
| | ALL COMMENTS WILL APPLY TO ALL APPLICATIONS, BUT FOR |
| | BREVITY, ALL COMMENTS WERE COMBINED. |
| | |
| | 1) PLEASE PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A LETTER FROM FPL |
| | STATING THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING IS PERMITTED IN THEIR |
| | EASEMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL BE CORRECTLY CALCULATED |
| | USING GREEN NOT OPEN SPACE. PLEASE INDICATE PERCENTAGE |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 3) CONCERN ABOUT THE HOLLY BEING PLANTED NEXT TO A |
| | POLE, PLEASE REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLAN THOROUGHLY FOR |
| | FEASIBILITY OF PLANTS AND HEIGHTS. |
| | |
| | 4) BUILDING REQUIRES 30% FOUNDATION PLANTINGS |
| | |
| | 5) THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE MUST BE SETBACK AT LEAST 5? |
| | FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, BE OF THE PROPER |
| | DIMENSIONS (12?-6? OPENING SIZE) AND BE LANDSCAPED ON |
| | THREE SIDES. |
| | |
| | 6) PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRICS PLAN AND LIGHTING |
| | DETAILS FOR THE SITE. CANNOT EXCEED 0.5 FOOTCANDLES AT |
| | THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE AND NO GLARE INTO THE |
| | RIGHT OF WAY. POLES SHALL NOT EXCEED 15? IN HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 7) PLEASE CLEARLY DIMENSION THE SIGNAGE ON THE |
| | BUILDING. CLEARLY INDICATE WHERE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE |
| | AND MENU BOARD WILL BE LOCATED. |
| | |
| | 8) COMPACT SPACES (# 10) ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR THIS |
| | AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES. PARKING SPACE #1 NEEDS TO |
| | ACCOMMODATE CURBING |
| | |
| | 9) D CURBS ARE REQUIRED WHICH PERMIT A 2? OVERHANG. |
| | PLEASE REVISE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 10) PLEASE CLEARLY INDICATE WHERE THE MECHANICAL |
| | EQUIPMENT WILL BE PLACED AND THE DIMENSIONS AND |
| | SCREENING FOR IT. |
| | |
| | 11) STAFF SUGGESTS USING CURBING INSTEAD OF WHEEL STOPS |
| | TO ALLOW THE FRONT OF THE CAR TO OVERHANG A GREEN AREA. |
| | PLEASE REFER TO FIGURE XIV-2 IN ARTICLE XIV OF THE |
| | ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS WOULD |
| | ALLOW MORE AREA FOR ROOT GROWTH, WHICH WOULD BE |
| | ESPECIALLY BENEFICIAL ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT NO LANDSCAPE MATERIAL OVER 6 INCHES IN |
| | HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 12) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE |
| | PLAN AMENDMENT, THE REZONING, AND THE CLASS B SPECIAL |
| | USE INCORRECTLY INDICATE THAT THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND |
| | USE DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT SITE IS MULTIFAMILY, |
| | WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY SINGLE FAMILY. THE JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENTS NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT |
| | THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. |
| | |
| | 13) THE SITE PLAN INCORRECTLY INDICATES THAT THE |
| | CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT |
| | SITE IS MULTIFAMILY, WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY SINGLE FAMILY. |
| | THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO ACCURATELY |
| | REFLECT THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. |
| | |
| | 14) PER SECTION 94-485 OF ARTICLE XV - PARKING- OF THE |
| | CITY'S ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE PROPOSED |
| | PROJECT WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING FOR ONE |
| | (1) BICYCLE. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT |
| | DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY BICYCLE PARKING. PLEASE AMEND TO |
| | SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ONE BIKE PARKING SPACE CONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE BIKE PARKING GUIDELINES |
| | MANUAL THAT IS BEING PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT |
| | SEPARATELY. |
| | |
| | 15) THE APPLICANT'S LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | PREPARED BY SUSAN O'ROURKE INDICATES THAT THIS LAND USE |
| | AMENDMENT WILL GENERATE AN IMPACT OF 496 DAILY TRIPS, |
| | 49 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS, AND 33 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY ALSO INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT |
| | REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSIS BECAUSE PER THE COUNTY POLICY |
| | 3.5-D, THE NET IMPACT IS INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT IS |
| | LESS THAN 50 PEAK HOUR TRIPS. TABLE 3.5-1 SIGNIFICANT |
| | IMPACT OF COUNTY POLICY 3.5-D, ESTABLISHES THAT A |
| | PROJECTS NET IMPACT IS INSIGNIFICANT IF IT GENERATES |
| | LESS THAN 50 DAILY TRIPS. BECAUSE THIS LAND USE |
| | AMENDMENT WOULD GENERATE 496 ADDITIONAL DAILY TRIPS, |
| | THE STUDY NEEDS TO EVALUATE IMPACTS ON THE DIRECTLY |
| | ACCESSED LINKS (SOUTHERN BOULEVARD AND PARKER AVENUE) |
| | FOR BOTH EXISTING CONDITIONS AS WELL AS FOR THE LONG |
| | RANGE TIMEFRAME, CONSISTENT WITH THE MPO'S LONG RANGE |
| | TRANSPORTATION PLAN. AS A RESULT, THE LAND USE |
| | AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDS TO BE REVISED |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 16) THE AMENDMENT PACKET REFERENCES THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | COMMERCIAL USES WILL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 2,000 |
| | SQUARE FEET AND THE LOS ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED |
| | REFLECTING THE IMPACTS OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF |
| | COMMERCIAL USES. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | LIMITS THE ANALYSIS TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF FAST FOOD |
| | RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH WITH A NET DAILY TRIP |
| | GENERATION OF 506 TRIPS. AS SUCH, THE PROPOSED LAND USE |
| | AMENDMENT SHOULD INCLUDE A LIMITATION SUCH AS THE ONE |
| | BELOW: |
| | |
| | DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE LIMITED TO USES |
| | PERMITTED IN THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION |
| | THAT HAVE A DAILY TRIP GENERATION THAT IS EQUIVALENT |
| | TO, OR LESS THAN 506 DAILY TRIPS. THIS EQUIVALENCY |
| | SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED IN AN UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY IN |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME AND PREPARED BY A |
| | LICENSED ENGINEER. THE UPDATED STUDY SHALL OUTLINE THE |
| | NUMBER OF DAILY TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED USE |
| | AND INTENSITY/BUILDING AREA AND BE SUBMITTED TO THE |
| | CITY FOR ITS APPROVAL BEFORE ANY ALTERNATIVE USES ARE |
| | ALLOWED. |
| | |
| | 17) THE SUMMARY TABLE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS NEEDS |
| | TO BE REVISED TO REFLECT IN THE TRAFFIC SECTION THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATION (AS CONDITIONED) WOULD |
| | GENERATE 506 DAILY TRIPS FOR A RESULTING IMPACT OF 496 |
| | DAILY TRIPS. THE TRAFFIC SECTION IN THE LOS TABLE |
| | CURRENTLY INDICATES THAT THE "ANALYSIS OF THE 2020 |
| | PLANNING HORIZON MEETS THE LOS STANDARD". AS REFERENCED |
| | IN A PREVIOUS COMMENT, THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PERFORM |
| | A COMPLETE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE TRAFFIC LOS |
| | IMPACTS OF THIS AMENDMENT. ALSO, THE APPLICANT WOULD |
| | NEED TO PERFORM A LONG RANGE ANALYSIS CONSISTENT WITH |
| | THE MPO'S LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CURRENTLY |
| | YEAR 2035). AS A RESULT, THIS SECTION OF THE LOS TABLE |
| | WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 18) A TRAFFIC CONFLICT EXISTS AT SOUTH END OF PROPERTY. |
| | APPLICANT SHALL EITHER ELIMINATE THE DRIVE-THRU OR THE |
| | ENTRANCE ONTO THE SITE FORM SOUTHERN. |
| | |
