| Date |
Text |
| 2020-12-10 12:47:58 | CASE NO. PB1060MM |
| | BJ'S @ BRANDSMART |
| | 751 WEST EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR |
| | (4) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON THURSDAY, |
| | DECEMBER 23, 2020, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR |
| | THE FEBRUARY 16, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS/THE PPRC MEETING (BY |
| | FEBRUARY 10, 2020), THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY |
| | THE APPLICANT THAT THE CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | GENERAL |
| | |
| | 1) INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED AS TO WHY |
| | STAFF SHOULD SUPPORT THE WAIVERS THAT ARE REQUESTED. |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF |
| | INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES TO |
| | CREATE MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE |
| | CITY. THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE STATED AS THE |
| | INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES |
| | FROM THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND STAFF'S RESPONSE: |
| | |
| | A. PROPOSED INTERCONNECTIVITY TO THE ADJACENT SITE **** |
| | THERE IS NO INTERCONNECTIVITY DESIGNED INTO THE SITE |
| | PLAN AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. ADDITIONALLY, THE DESIGN |
| | OF THE TRAFFIC PATTERN WOULD NOT PERMIT VEHICLES FROM |
| | THE BRANDSMART SITE TO SAFELY ACCESS THE ADJACENT SITE. |
| | THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH LATER IN THE COMMENTS. |
| | B. SIGNIFICANTLY UPGRADING THE LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE |
| | **** THE LANDSCAPE ARE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. |
| | 3122-98 IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ALL OF THE EXISTING MATURE |
| | TREES REMOVED AND REPLACED BY CODE REQUIRED MINIMUM |
| | SIZE TREES AS WELL AS BEING REDUCED IN AREA BY OVER |
| | 60%. THIS IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE, BUT RATHER A |
| | DOWNGRADE IN THE LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE. |
| | OFFERING A NEW PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY PARK AREA **** THE |
| | PROPOSED PARK, WITH THE SEAT WALL, SHADE TREES, |
| | BENCHES, LIGHTED BOLLARDS DECORATIVE CONCRETE PATH AND |
| | PAVER PLAZA DO NOT OFF SET THE NON-INNOVATIVE LAND |
| | PLANNING DESIGN THAT IS PROPOSED AND THE WAIVERS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE DESIGN. |
| | C. INCLUDE OVERALL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE INFILL AND |
| | REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCD **** THE CREATION OF DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES THAT INCLUDE THE WAIVERS IS NOT A |
| | JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVERS REQUESTED. |
| | D. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THE REQUESTED PCD WAIVERS BY |
| | NEW PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES **** THE PROPOSED DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES RESTATE THE WAIVERS AND DO NOT REDUCE THEIR |
| | IMPACT. |
| | E. CREATE A POA FOR THE OVERALL MAINTENANCE CARE AND |
| | UPKEEP OF THE NEW COMMON AREAS **** CREATING A POA FOR |
| | COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE IS NOT INNOVATIVE AND SHOULD BE |
| | A GIVEN FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT. |
| | F. THE SITE'S REDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING ADDITIONAL AD |
| | VALOREM TAX BASE TO THE CITY **** ADDITIONAL AD VALOREM |
| | TAX BASE IS NOT AN INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT |
| | TECHNIQUE AND DOES NOT RESULT IN DESIRABLE AND |
| | ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | G. THE OVERALL PROJECT WILL BE AN ECONOMIC VALUE-ADDED |
| | ADDITION TO THE CITY'S CONTINUED ECONOMIC SUCCESS **** |
| | AN ECONOMIC VALUE-ADDED PROJECT NOT AN INNOVATIVE LAND |
| | PLANNING DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUE AND DOES NOT RESULT IN |
| | DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) THE PROPOSED SITE DESIGN DOES NOT INCLUDE THE USE OF |
| | SUFFICIENT INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT |
| | TECHNIQUES TO CREATE A DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE |
| | DEVELOPMENT TO JUSTIFY THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED |
| | WAIVERS. |
| | |
| | 3) STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DESIGN AS |
| | PROPOSED. THE CITY'S DESIGN VISION ALONG EXECUTIVE |
| | CENTER DRIVE IS FOR BUILDINGS TO ADDRESS THE STREET AND |
| | HAVE FRONT DOORS FACING THE STREET. WHILE THE |
| | BRANDSMART BUILDING DOES NOT MEET THIS STANDARD, |
| | ORDINANCE NO. 3122-98 CONTEMPLATED THE CONSTRUCTION OF |
| | A RETAIL AREA TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL. THE OPEN LANDSCAPED |
| | OPEN SPACE EXISTS WITH HE GOAL OF IT EVENTUALLY HAVING |
| | AN INFILL BUILDING. IF THIS DOES NOT OCCUR, THE AREA IS |
| | REQUIRED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE, WHICH WAS |
| | INSTALLED. THE REMOVAL OF THE MATURE LANDSCAPE AND THE |
| | REDUCTION IN AREA OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA TO THE |
| | EAST OF THE BRANDSMART BUILDING AND ITS REPLACEMENT |
| | WITH PARKING IS IN OPPOSITION WITH THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPROVED DESIGN. |
| | |
| | 4) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REAR OF THE PROPOSED BJ'S |
| | BUILDING, INCLUDING PARKING AND THE GENERATORS ALONG |
| | EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE CITY'S |
| | DESIGN VISION ALONG EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE FOR |
| | NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED COMMERCIAL USES WHICH ADDRESS THE |
| | STREET AND HAVE FRONT DOORS FACING THE STREET. MOVING |
| | THE BJ'S IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE WOULD NOT |
| | CREATE A NEGATIVE STREET FRONTAGE ALONG EXECUTIVE |
| | DRIVE. THIS WOULD THEN PERMIT A FUTURE BUILDING |
| | ORIENTED TOWARD EXECUTIVE DRIVE TO BE INSTALLED IN THE |
| | NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 5) SITE A1 AND SITE A2 ARE TWO DISTINCT PARCELS AND THE |
| | OPEN SPACE, FLOOR AREA RATIO, LANDSCAPE AREA, |
| | IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, ETC. MUST BE CALCULATED SEPARATELY |
| | FOR EACH ONE. |
| | |
| | 6) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS, INCLUDING THE HEIGHT OF THE |
| | PROPOSED TRANSFORMERS. THE TRANSFORMERS MUST BE |
| | SCREENED WITH A LANDSCAPE HEDGE FROM EXECUTIVE CENTER |
| | DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 7) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS, INCLUDING THE HEIGHT OF THE |
| | PROPOSED GENERATORS. NOTE: THE GENERATORS MAY NOT BE |
| | LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED LINEAR PARK OR |
| | ADJACENT TO EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. ALL PLANS MUST SHOW |
| | THE SAME CONDITIONS ONCE THE GENERATORS ARE PROPERLY |
| | LOCATED. |
| | |
| | 8) THE PROPANE TANK IS REQUIRED TO BE SCREENED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-315A. |
| | |
| | 9) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LISTED ON THE |
| | BUILDING FOOTPRINT DRAWINGS IS LARGER THAN THE SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE LISTED AS COVERED BY BUILDINGS IN THE VARIOUS |
| | AREA BREAKDOWN TABLES. |
| | |
| | 10) IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SITE WAS |
| | CAPPED DUE TO ARSENIC ISSUES WHEN THE BRANDSMART WAS |
| | ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE |
| | EXCAVATION FOR THE NEW UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE AND |
| | THE FUTURE ABOVEGROUND FEATURES (NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS, |
| | BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, ETC.) AND REMOVAL OF THE |
| | RETENTION AREAS WILL COMPLY WITH THE DEP REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 11) SINCE THE PREVIOUS MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST WAS |
| | HEARD BY THE PLANNING BOARD, THE NEW SUBDIVISION |
| | REQUEST REQUIRES A NEW APPLICATION, INCLUDING FEES AND |
| | REVIEWS. |
| | |
| | 12) THE FPL LETTER STATES THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING |
| | INTERFERES WITH EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND |
| | ENCROACHES ON THEIR EASEMENTS. HOW IS THIS BEING |
| | ADDRESSED? |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 13) THE BUILDING DIVISION MUST APPROVE THE PROVISION OF |
| | A NON-ADA PARKING SPACE CLOSER THAN AN ADA PARKING |
| | SPACE CLOSEST TO THE TIRE STORE ENTRANCE. |
| | |
| | 14) PARKING ROWS EXCEEDING 10 SPACES NOT PERMITTED. THE |
| | ENTIRE PARKING LOT IS BEING REBUILT, SO THERE IS NO |
| | JUSTIFICATION TO PERMIT MORE THAN THE CODE ALLOWED 10 |
| | SPACES IN A ROW. |
| | |
| | 15) THE CITY MEASURES THE WIDTH OF PARKING SPACES FROM |
| | THE CENTER OF THE DOUBLE STRIPE. THE DIMENSION TAGS FOR |
| | SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE PLAN ARE |
| | MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE OF ONE STRIPE TO THE CENTER |
| | OF THE DOUBLE STRIPING ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH |
| | INCORRECTLY SHOWS THE STALL WIDTHS. SHOW DIMENSION |
| | LINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS SO STAFF |
| | CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE. NOTE: THIS IS CORRECTLY SHOWN ON |
| | THE STRIPING PLAN. |
| | |
| | 16) THE DIMENSION WIDTH OF SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES |
| | ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROPOSED BJ'S AND |
| | THE EAST SIDE OF THE BRANDSMART ARE LISTED AS EIGHT (8) |
| | FEET. ARE THESE PROPOSED TO BE COMPACT PARKING SPACES? |
| | IF SO THEN THEY NEED TO BE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AND |
| | PROVIDED ON THE PARKING TABLE. |
| | |
| | 17) WHERE THERE IS NOT PLANNED TO BE A VEHICLE OVERHANG |
| | AT THE FRONT OF THE PARKING SPACES, WHEEL STOPS MUST BE |
| | PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 18) THERE ARE FOUR PARKING SPACES SOUTH OF THE |
| | BRANDSMART THAT ARE SHOW AS 15.9 FEET DEEP WITH AN |
| | OVERHANG. SPACES MUST BE 16 FEET DEEP IN THIS |
| | SITUATION. NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE SAME DIMENSION SHOWN |
| | ON THE STRIPING PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST SHOW THE SAME |
| | CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | 19) THERE ARE THREE PARKING SPACES IN EAST OF THE |
| | BRANDSMART (IN THE ROW WITH 13 SPACES) THAT ARE NOT 18 |
| | FEET DEEP. |
| | |
| | 20) THE EAST-WEST PARKING ROW CLOSEST TO THE FUEL PUMPS |
| | IS INCORRECTLY TAGGED WITH 12 PARKING SPACES WHEN ONLY |
| | 10 ARE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 21) PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF THE PARKING SPACE WIDTH ON |
| | THE PARKING ROW DUE SOUTH OF THE BRANDSMART ENTRANCE |
| | WHERE ONE OF THE SPACES IS NARROWER THAN THE ONE ACROSS |
| | FROM IT (NEXT TO THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND). |
| | |
| | 22) COMPACT PARKING MAY OCCUPY NO MORE THAN 30% OF THE |
| | REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, BE MARKED, AND NEED TO BE |
| | DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT. THEY |
| | MAY NOT ALL BE CONCENTRATED AS SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 23) THE PARKING SPACES MARKED AS "PROPANE PARKING ONLY" |
| | MAY NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE MINIMUM PARKING |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 24) PARKING PROVIDED |
| | |
| | A. STAFF ONLY COUNTS 812 PARKING SPACES ON SITE (AFTER |
| | REMOVAL OF THE 4 PROPONE ONLY SPACES). |
| | |
| | B. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-485B.2 ONLY ON-STREET |
| | PARKING SPACES DIRECTLY AND WHOLLY ABUTTING THE |
| | PROPERTY MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE PARKING |
| | REQUIREMENT. ONLY 12 ON STREET PARKING SPACES MEET THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT, NOT 42. |
| | |
| | C. THERE ARE ONLY 824 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED FOR THE |
| | PROJECT. NOTE: SITE REDESIGN TO COMPLY WITH OTHER |
| | COMMENTS MAY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 25) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LISTED ON THE |
| | BUILDING FOOTPRINT DRAWINGS IS LARGER THAN THE SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE LISTED FOR EACH BUILDING IN THE PARKING |
| | TABULATION TABLE. BASED ON THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE |
| | SHOWN ON THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, STAFF CALCULATES THAT |
| | 883 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. BASED ON THIS |
| | CALCULATION, THERE IS A DEFICIENCY OF 59 PARKING SPACES |
| | ON THE SITE PLAN AS CURRENTLY SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 26) CROSS UTILITY AGREEMENTS/EASEMENTS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | SITE CIRCULATION |
| | |
| | 27) THE CROSS ACCESS POINT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON THE |
| | PLANS AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT WHEN |
| | THE ADJOINING SITE IS REDEVELOPED, THEIR SIDE OF THE |
| | DRIVE CAN BE DIRECTLY TIED IN TO THE CONNECTION. THE |
| | LANDSCAPE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 28) THE DESIGN OF THE SITE DOES NOT SAFELY PERMIT |
| | CUSTOMERS FROM THE BRANDSMART/BJ'S SITE TO ACCESS THE |
| | FUTURE CONNECTION. THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY IS ONE WAY IN |
| | A WESTERN DIRECTION, SO IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE FROM THE |
| | PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE TIRE SHOP. THE PARKING |
| | FIELD ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BJ'S BUILDING DOES NOT |
| | PERMIT SAFE ENTRANCE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE FOR CUSTOMERS |
| | USING THE EGRESS DRIVE TO EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. THESE |
| | DRIVERS WOULD BE FORCED TO CROSS THE INCOMING TRAFFIC |
| | FLOW WITHOUT HAVING A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT TO VERIFY |
| | THAT THE TURNING MOVEMENT IS SAFE. THE DESIGN ALSO |
| | ENCOURAGES CUSTOMERS TO LEAVE THE SITE AND TRANSITION |
| | BACK TO THE ADJACENT PARCELS VIA LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS |
| | ACROSS EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. THIS MOVEMENT ALSO |
| | EXACERBATES THE QUEUING DEFICIENCY THAT PALM BEACH |
| | COUNTY MENTIONED IN THEIR TPS LETTER. THE SITE NEEDS TO |
| | BE REDESIGNED TO PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS TO THE CROSS |
| | ACCESS POINT. |
| | |
| | 29) WHERE IS BRANDSMART DUMPSTER? SHOW THE SANITATION |
| | TRUCK VEHICLE MOVEMENTS TO SHOW HOW IT IS PICKED UP. |
| | |
| | 30) PROVIDE THE TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENTS FOR THE FUEL |
| | TRUCKS TO THE GAS STATION AND THE LOADING AREAS FOR |
| | BJ?S AND BRANDSMART. |
| | |
| | 31) PROVIDE INFORMATION AND A DETAIL OF HOW THE FUEL |
| | STATION STACKING IS EXPECTED TO FUNCTION. THE CURRENT |
| | PLAN APPEARS TO BE CONFIGURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT CARS |
| | WILL BE STACKING INTO THE DRIVE AISLE, WHICH IS NOT |
| | PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | SIGNAGE |
| | |
| | 32) THE EXISTING BRANDSMART SIGN IS SHOWN ON BOTH THE |
| | SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. |
| | HOWEVER, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS A TREE PLANTED ON TOP |
| | OF THE SIGN OUTLINE. PLEASE EXPLAIN. THIS PARKING |
| | ISLAND REQUIRES A CODE COMPLIANT TREE REGARDLESS OF |
| | WHETHER THE SIGN REMAINS OR IS REMOVED. |
| | |
| | 33) PROVIDE WHAT THE BJ?S FUEL STATION DIRECTIONAL |
| | SIGNS WILL LOOK LIKE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE SIGNS ARE |
| | PROPOSED TO INCLUDE BJ?S COPY, THEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED |
| | FREE STANDING SIGNS AND ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE |
| | FREESTANDING SIGN REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 34) PROVIDE A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF |
| | THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE |
| | RELOCATED ALONG EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 35) PROVIDE THE SETBACKS FOR THE RELOCATED MONUMENT |
| | SIGNS FROM EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 36) PROVIDE THE SETBACKS AND SIZE OF THE MONUMENT SIGNS |
| | ALONG I-95, BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED SIGN. |
| | |
| | 37) THE SIGN REGULATIONS ONLY PERMIT ONE WALL SIGN PER |
| | BUSINESS PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS. THE BJ'S ELEVATIONS |
| | SHOW THAT THIS IS EXCEEDED. |
| | |
| | 38) PROVIDE THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED WALL SIGNS SO THAT |
| | STAFF CAN VERIFY CODE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 39) PARKING AREA INSTRUCTIONAL AND RELATED SIGNS ARE |
| | ONLY PERMITTED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX (6) |
| | FEET. THE PLANS SHOW THE PROPANE AND TIRE STORE SIGNS |
| | AT GREATER THAN SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT. THIS STANDARD |
| | ALSO APPLIES TO THE MEMBER WITH INFANT SIGNS. |
| | |
| | ELEVATIONS |
| | |
| | 40) WHILE STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE CURRENT SITE |
| | LAYOUT, IF YOU PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS GENERAL |
| | SITE PLAN, THE ELEVATION ALONG EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE |
| | NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED. |
| | |
| | 41) WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE BJ'S TOWER? IS THIS USABLE |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE? |
| | |
| | 42) PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE PARAPET WALLS FOR BJ'S. |
| | THESE MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT TO SCREEN THE |
| | ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORING |
| | PROPERTIES, TO INCLUDE THE MALIBU BAY RESIDENTIAL |
| | PROPERTY ACROSS EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 43) PROVIDE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE FUEL STATION |
| | ELEVATIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LIGHTING UNDER THE |
| | CANOPY NEEDS TO BE RECESSED SO THAT NO GLARE IS CAST |
| | OFF-SITE. |
| | |
| | 44) PROVIDE THE SETBACK DIMENSION FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | THE FUEL STATION CANOPY STRUCTURE. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 45) THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE TREES ARE FAILED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED WITHIN LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AS REQUIRED BY THE |
| | ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 46) THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE LIGHTS APPEAR TO |
| | CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE ISLAND TREES, |
| | WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | 47) THE AREA BREAKDOWN TABLE FAILED TO PROVIDE |
| | INFORMATION ON THE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPE ON THE OVERALL |
| | SITE OR FOR INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. PLEASE NOTE THAT WHILE |
| | THE DRY DETENTION AREAS DO NOT COUNT AS OPEN SPACE, |
| | THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO COUNT TOWARD MEETING THE 15% |
| | LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE |
| | DETENTION AREA IS LINED, IT IS NOT PERVIOUS AND MUST BE |
| | EXCLUDED FROM THE PERVIOUS CALCULATION. |
| | |
| | LIGHTING |
| | |
| | 48) THE PHOTOMETIC CALCULATIONS NEED TO BE CONTINUED TO |
| | THE PROPERTY LINE AND MAY NOT EXCEED ONE FOOTCANDLE |
| | PAST THE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL PARCEL |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS |
| | |
| | 49) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PROPOSES THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT FOLLOW. STAFF HAS INCLUDED A |
| | RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSALS. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPED AREA: EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SHALL PROVIDE A |
| | MINIMUM OF 10% LANDSCAPED AREA. THE OVERALL MINIMUM PCD |
| | LANDSCAPED AREA SHALL BE 15%. ***** WHILE THIS MIRRORS |
| | THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT STAFF SUPPORTED, |
| | THE PREVIOUS SUPPORT WAS BASED ON THE MITIGATION |
| | PROVIDED FOR THE REQUESTED WAIVER TO THE INDIVIDUAL |
| | PARCEL LANDSCAPE MINIMUM. THE DESIGN OF THE SITE DOES |
| | NOT JUSTIFY STAFF SUPPORT OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | PERIMETER PARCEL BUFFER: EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SHALL |
| | PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF A FIVE (5) LANDSCAPED BUFFER |
| | AROUND THE PERIMETER OF EACH PARCEL EXCEPT WHEN |
| | ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING WATER BODY OR THE I-95 |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY. ***** STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT A BUFFER |
| | REDUCTION AT ANY POINT ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. |
| | ENCROACHMENTS: LANDSCAPED BUFFERS MAY ENCROACH INTO |
| | EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTS. ***** THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER |
| | MUST BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE OF ANY UTILITY EASEMENTS TO |
| | ENSURE THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BUFFER IN THE EVENT |
| | THAT THE UTILITY HOLDER FORCES THE REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPE |
| | FROM THE EASEMENT. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT. |
| | PERIMETER PARCEL BUFFER LANDSCAPING: EACH INDIVIDUAL |
| | PARCEL SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF A CONTINUOUS HEDGE |
| | MATERIAL PLANTED 24 INCHES IN HEIGHT AROUND THE |
| | PERIMETER OF EACH PARCEL EXCEPT WHEN ADJACENT TO AN |
| | EXISTING WATER BODY, I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY OR INTERNAL |
| | PARCEL. ***** STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT HAVING A CODE |
| | COMPLIANT 36 INCH HIGH HEDGE AROUND THE ENTIRE |
| | PERIMETER OF THE SITE. |
| | PCD LANDSCAPE BUFFER: A MINIMUM FIVE (5) FOOT |
| | LANDSCAPED BUFFER SHALL BE PROVIDED AROUND THE |
| | PERIMETER OF THE ENTIRE PCD. ***** THIS IS STAFF?S |
| | POSITION BUT IS CONTRADICTED BY AN EARLIER REGULATION |
| | YOU PROPOSED. |
| | MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF %. THE OVERALL |
| | MAXIMUM PCD LOT COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED %. ***** |
| | STAFF IS UNABLE TO RESPOND SINCE NO INFORMATION |
| | PROVIDED. STAFF COULD SUPPORT ITS PREVIOUS POSITION: |
| | MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS: 60 PERCENT FOR THE |
| | ENTIRE BRANDSMART COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; |
| | HOWEVER INDIVIDUAL PARCELS MAY HAVE UP TO 75 PERCENT |
| | LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS. |
| | EASEMENTS: EASEMENTS SHALL NOT BE USED TO MEET THE |
| | MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. ***** THIS IS |
| | STAFF?S POSITION BUT IS CONTRADICTED BY AN EARLIER |
| | REGULATION YOU PROPOSED. |
| | FOUNDATION PLANTINGS: FOUNDATIONS PLANTINGS SHALL BE |
| | REQUITED AND CAN BE APPROVED FOR EACH PARCEL ON A CASE |
| | BY CASE BASIS. ***** THE 30% FOUNDATION PLANTING MUST |
| | BE MET FOR ALL BUILDINGS AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT. |
| | PARCEL SETBACKS: ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO |
| | THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS AS CONTAINED WITHIN THE GENERAL |
| | COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DISTRICT. ***** STAFF AGREES. |
| | GENERAL SETBACKS: ALL PARCELS WITH THE PCD SHALL COMPLY |
| | WITH THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DISTRICT |
| | SETBACKS BASED UPON THE FRONTAGE ESTABLISHED ON THE |
| | MASTER PLAN. ***** STAFF AGREES. |
| | CROSS PARKING: A CROSS PARKING EASEMENT IS CREATED FOR |
| | THE ENTRE POA. THE OVERALL MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING |
| | SPACES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL COMBINED USES |
| | CONTAINED WITHIN THE PCD. ***** STAFF AGREES. |
| | BUILDING HEIGHT: EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SHALL BE |
| | PERMITTED A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF FIFTY (50) FEET. |
| | PARCEL ONE (1) SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE THIS STANDARD |
| | UNLESS AND UNTIL PARCEL 1 IS REDEVELOPED. ***** STAFF |
| | DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED HERE. THE |
| | PROPOSED BJ'S (SITE A1) IS OVER 50 FEET IN HEIGHT. |
| | FLOOR AREA RATIO: THE MAXIMUM OVERALL PCD FLOOR AREA |
| | RATIO (FAR) IS 1.0. NO INDIVIDUAL PARCEL SHALL EXCEED |
| | AN FAR OF 2.0. ***** WHILE THIS MIRRORS THE PREVIOUS |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT STAFF SUPPORTED, THE PREVIOUS |
| | SUPPORT WAS BASED ON THE MITIGATION PROVIDED FOR THE |
| | REQUESTED WAIVER TO THE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL LANDSCAPE |
| | MINIMUM. THE DESIGN OF THE SITE DOES NOT JUSTIFY STAFF |
| | SUPPORT OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | GENERAL PCD STANDARDS: ANY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS NOT |
| | SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN SHALL COMPLY, TO THE |
| | GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL |
| | (GC) ZONING REGULATIONS. ***** STAFF AGREES. |
| | |
| | 50) NOTE: NO WAIVER FOR PARKING BACKING INTO STREET |
| | SINCE NOT ROW PARCEL BEING PROPOSED. ALL 3 PARCELS AS |
| | DESIGNED FRONT ON AN ROW SO NO INTERNAL ROW PARCEL IS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 51) NO BICYCLE PARKING WAS PROVIDED TO MEET CODE FOR |
| | THE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
