| Date |
Text |
| 2021-03-22 17:03:47 | CASE NO. PB1060MM |
| | BJS @ 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 TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE |
| | SCHEDULED A PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM |
| | THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY MAY 22, 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| | CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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. |
| | |
| | INNOVATIVE FEATURES LISTED IN JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | |
| | 1) 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 **** |
| | THE SITE PLAN DOES SHOW INTERCONNECTIVITY; HOWEVER, IT |
| | DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CARWASH NEXT DOOR. THIS WILL BE |
| | DISCUSSED IN MORE DEPTH LATER IN THE COMMENTS. |
| | B. SIGNIFICANTLY UPGRADING THE LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE |
| | **** THE LANDSCAPE AREA BEHIND BRANDSMART THAT IS |
| | REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3122-98 IS PROPOSED TO HAVE |
| | ALL OF THE EXISTING MATURE TREES AND PALMS EITHER |
| | RELOCATED OR REMOVED. PLEASE NOTE THE LANDSCAPE COMMENT |
| | REQUIREMENT THAT YOU MUST PROVIDE THE CALCULATIONS THAT |
| | YOU ARE INCREASING THE TREE CANOPY/MASS IN THIS AREA. |
| | THE PLAN REPLACES THE BERMED LANDSCAPE AREA WITH THE |
| | DETENTION AREA, WHICH PROVIDES LESS VISUAL BUFFERING. |
| | NOTE: ONCE STAFF HAS THIS ANALYSIS, IT CAN BE |
| | DETERMINED IF THERE IS AN UPGRADE. PLEASE PROVIDE THE |
| | SAME ANALYSIS FOR THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED |
| | BJS. |
| | C. OFFERING A NEW PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY PARK |
| | AREA/WALKABLE AMENITIES **** THIS NEEDS TO BE UPDATED |
| | TO REFLECT IS A BOARDWALK THROUGH A BIOSWALE AREA. |
| | THERE IS NO LONGER A SEAT WALL, BENCHES, A DECORATIVE |
| | CONCRETE PATH AND PAVER PLAZA. ADDITIONALLY, AS |
| | PROPOSED, THE BOARDWALKS THROUGH THE BIOSWALE AREA (IN |
| | ACTUALITY A STANDARD BAHIA GRASS DRY DETENTION AREA) |
| | DOES NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD OF INNOVATIVE LANDS |
| | PLANNING TO OFF SET DESIGN THAT IS PROPOSED AND THE |
| | WAIVERS REQUIRED BY THE DESIGN. IN ORDER TO COMPLY, THE |
| | BIOSWALE NEEDS TO BE TRULY DESIGNED (AND MAINTAINED) AS |
| | A BIOSWALE THAT PROVIDES BOTH NATURAL DRAINAGE |
| | FILTERING AND HABITAT. THE TWO PROPOSED BOARDWALKS NEED |
| | TO CONNECT PARALLEL TO EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE SO THAT |
| | USERS CAN TRAVERSE THE LENGTH OF THE BIOSWALE. |
| | D. INCLUDE OVERALL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE INFILL AND |
| | REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCD **** TO REPEAT, THE CREATION |
| | OF DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT JUST INCLUDE THE WAIVERS IS |
| | NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVERS REQUESTED AND ARE |
| | NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. |
| | E. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THE REQUESTED PCD WAIVERS BY |
| | NEW PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES **** TO REPEAT, DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES THAT RESTATE THE WAIVERS DO NOT REDUCE THEIR |
| | IMPACT. |
| | F. 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. |
| | G. 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. |
| | H. 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) REPEAT COMMENT: 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. WHILE THE REVISED DESIGN ALONG |
| | EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE HAS STARTED TO HEAD IN THE RIGHT |
| | DIRECTION, THE TWO DETENTION AREAS SURROUNDED BY TREES |
| | NEED TO BE ENHANCED AND TURNED INTO TRUE BIOSWALES WITH |
| | THE LARGER ONE (IN FRONT OF BRANDSMART) HAVING THE |
| | BOARDWALK TRAVERSING ITS LENGTH TO APPROACH THE IN |
| | INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES TO |
| | CREATE MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE |
| | CITY. YOU WILL ALSO SEE THE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BJS |
| | FA?ADE THAT WILL RESULT IN A MORE ATTRACTIVE PEDESTRIAN |
| | EXPERIENCE. |
| | |
| | WAIVERS |
| | |
| | 3) STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE WAIVERS LISTED IN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AS WELL AS WHAT STAFF HAS |
| | IDENTIFIED BASED ON THE PLANS AND HAS PROVIDED THEM |
| | BELOW WITH COMMENTARY. |
| | |
| | A. WAIVER REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF ON SITE PARKING |
| | SPACES REQUIRED - PLANNING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE |
| | PARKING STUDY AND IS AWAITING INPUT FROM TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING FOR FINAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | B. INTERIOR LOT LINE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS - STAFF WOULD |
| | ACCEPT THE WAIVER REQUEST; HOWEVER, SINCE THERE ARE |
| | LOCATIONS ALONG THE EXTERIOR BUFFERS THAT DO NOT |
| | MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, STAFF CANNOT |
| | JUSTIFY THAT THE INTENT OF THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPE |
| | BUFFERS ARE BEING MET BY THE PROVISION OF THE EXTERNAL |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. IF EXTERNAL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ARE |
| | MET, THE MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT |
| | BASED ON THE PROVISION OF A TRUE BIOSWALE WITH FULL |
| | BOARDWALK CAN OFFSET THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | C. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS - NEED HEIGHT OF |
| | BRANDSMART TO VERIFY THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK (10 |
| | FEET) TO SEE IF A WAIVER IS REQUIRED. IF NEEDED, THE |
| | MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE |
| | PROVISION OF A TRUE BIOSWALE WITH FULL BOARDWALK CAN |
| | OFFSET THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | D. THERE IS NO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN A GENERAL |
| | COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SO THE LISTED WAIVER TO BUILDING |
| | HEIGHT DOES NOT APPLY AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. NOTE: |
| | TALLER BUILDINGS REQUIRE GREATER SETBACKS, BUT THAT, IF |
| | REQUIRED, IS COVERED BY COMMENT #3C. |
| | |
| | E. NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE BJS - 3 PERMITTED, 6 |
| | PROPOSED. MEETS SF ALLOWANCE. THE MORE DESIRABLE AND |
| | ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE PROVISION OF A TRUE |
| | BIOSWALE WITH FULL BOARDWALK CAN OFFSET THIS WAIVER |
| | REQUEST. |
| | |
| | F. NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE FUEL CANOPY - 3 PERMITTED, 4 |
| | PROPOSED. THE MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT |
| | BASED ON THE PROVISION OF A TRUE BIOSWALE WITH FULL |
| | BOARDWALK CAN OFFSET THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | G. SIGNS ON THE SHORT END OF THE FUEL CANOPY EXCEED |
| | REQUIRED SIGNAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE. STAFF IS NOT |
| | PREPARED TO AGREE TO THIS WAIVER. |
| | |
| | H. LISTED WAIVER FOR BACKING INTO A STREET DOES NOT |
| | APPLY AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. |
| | |
| | I. LISTED WAIVER OF 18 SPACES IN A ROW DOES NOT APPLY |
| | AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. REGARDLESS, STAFF WILL NOT |
| | SUPPORT THIS WAIVER SINCE THE SITE IS ALREADY |
| | REQUESTING TO HAVE NO LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO |
| | PARCELS AND THE PARCEL LINES ARE IN THE PARKING AREAS. |
| | THIS WAIVER WOULD REDUCE PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | J. NOT PLANTING TREES IN THE BUFFER ALONG I-95 IN FRONT |
| | OF THE SIGNS. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT REDUCTIONS IN THE |
| | PLACEMENT OF BUFFER LANDSCAPE, ESPECIALLY FOR SIGNS. |
| | |
| | K. NOT PLANTING ALONG A PORTION OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO |
| | FUTURE CARWASH DUE TO EASEMENT. STAFF HAS COVERED THIS |
| | IN THE EASEMENT SECTION OF THE COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 4) THE SITE REQUIRES A MINOR SUBDIVISION, BUT NO PLAT |
| | WAS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 5) THE FAR TABLE ON SHEET C101.0 IS INCORRECT. THE |
| | MAXIMUM FAR FOR THE SITE IS 1.0, NOT 2.0. WHILE THE |
| | SITE COMPLIES, THE TABLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 6) THE PLANS NOW IDENTIFY COMPACT SPACES, WHICH ARE ALL |
| | DESIGNATED AS EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES. WHERE DO |
| | EMPLOYEES WITH NON-COMPACT CARS PARK? |
| | |
| | 7) THE BRANDSMART EMPLOYEE COMPACT SPACES MUST BE |
| | LABELED ON THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8) THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO THE 0.34 |
| | ACRE DRY DETENTION AREA SHOULD HAVE THE CURB AT 14 FEET |
| | WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG AND REMOVE THE WHEEL STOPS |
| | (NOT BOTH A CURB AND WHEEL STOPS). NOTE: THERE MUST BE |
| | A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET FROM THE END OF THE PARKING SPACE |
| | TO THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SIGN POST OR THE PARKING SPACE |
| | IS NONCOMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | 9) THE SIGN POSTS BETWEEN THE FACING EMPLOYEE PARKING |
| | SPACES ARE ONE FOOT IN DIAMETER, WHICH ENCROACH INTO |
| | THE PARKING SPACES AND MAKE THE 16 FOOT DEEP COMPACT |
| | PARKING SPACES NONCOMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | 10) THE SIGN POSTS BETWEEN THE FACING TIRE CENTER |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE ONE FOOT IN DIAMETER, WHICH ENCROACH |
| | INTO THE PARKING SPACES MAKING THE SPACES NO LONGER |
| | CODE COMPLIANT AS THEY ARE NO LONGER 18 FEET DEEP. |
| | |
| | 11) THE SIGN POSTS BETWEEN THE FACING MEMBER WITH |
| | INFANT PARKING SPACES ARE ONE FOOT IN DIAMETER, WHICH |
| | ENCROACH INTO THE PARKING SPACES MAKING THE SPACES NO |
| | LONGER CODE COMPLIANT AS THEY ARE NO LONGER 18 FEET |
| | DEEP. |
| | |
| | 12) THE LIGHT POSTS IN THE PARKING ROWS ON THE EASTERN |
| | PARKING AREA MUST BE LOCATED IN THE CORNER WHERE THE |
| | FOUR SPACES MEET, NOT IN THE MIDDLE AS SHOWN AS THIS |
| | RENDERS THE PARKING SPACES NON-COMPLIANT BASED ON THE |
| | PARKING SPACE NO LONGER BEING 18 FEET DEEP. |
| | |
| | 13) UPDATED COMMENT: 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. |
| | YOU SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLING WHEEL STOPS AND CURBS. YOU |
| | THE CURB SHOULD BE PULLED BACK TO THE WHEEL STOP LINE |
| | WITH THE OVERHANG PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 14) PARKING PROVIDED ? VERIFIED AFTER THE LANDSCAPE |
| | CORRECTIONS ARE MADE. |
| | |
| | 15) REPEAT COMMENT: NO BICYCLE PARKING WAS PROVIDED. |
| | CODE COMPLIANT BICYCLE PARKING, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF |
| | PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | SITE CIRCULATION |
| | |
| | 16) THE CROSS ACCESS POINT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE |
| | LOCATION SHOWN ON THE RECENTLY SUBMITTED CARWASH |
| | REDEVELOPMENT ON THE OLD CHINESE RESTAURANT PARCEL. |
| | BRIAN CHEGUIS STATED THAT HE HAD COORDINATED WITH THE |
| | KIMLEY HORN TEAM TO ALIGN THE CROSS ACCESS. THE CROSS |
| | ACCESS POINT IS FURTHER TO THE WEST FROM WHERE IT IS |
| | SHOWN ON YOUR PLAN, WHICH CREATES A SAFER SITUATION |
| | THAN THE LOCATION THAT YOU SHOW CLOSER TO EXECUTIVE |
| | CENTER DRIVE. PLEASE SHOW ALIGN YOUR PLANS WITH THE |
| | CARWASH CROSS ACCESS LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 17) THE CARWASH APPLICANT PROVIDED A COPY OF THE |
| | EASEMENT WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS COVERING THE |
| | CROSS ACCESS AREA. IT INDICATES THAT BEST BUY HAS AN |
| | INTEREST IN THE CROSS ACCESS, SPECIFICALLY A DRIVE TO |
| | EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION |
| | THAT BEST BUY HAS RELEASED THEIR INTEREST IN THE |
| | EASEMENT. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS LANDSCAPING OBSTRUCTING |
| | BEST BUY FROM UTILIZING THE EASEMENT. PLEASE NOTE THAT |
| | REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS STATED IN THE EASEMENT, BEST BUY |
| | HAS NO RIGHTS TO THE INSTALLATION OF AN OFF PREMISE |
| | SIGN, WHICH WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING AND |
| | LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | SIGNAGE |
| | |
| | 18) REPEAT COMMENT: THE ISLAND WITH THE EXISTING |
| | BRANDSMART SIGN IS AN INTERIOR PARKING ISLAND AND IS |
| | THUS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN A CODE COMPLIANT TREE. |
| | |
| | 19) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE WHAT THE BJS FUEL STATION |
| | DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WILL LOOK LIKE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF |
| | THE SIGNS ARE PROPOSED TO INCLUDE BJS COPY, THEN THEY |
| | ARE CONSIDERED FREE STANDING SIGNS AND ARE REQUIRED TO |
| | COMPLY WITH THE FREESTANDING SIGN REQUIREMENTS. **** NO |
| | DETAILS OF THESE SIGNS WERE PROVIDED. IF THE REQUEST IS |
| | APPROVED WITHOUT SIGN DETAILS, THEN THERE MAY BE NO |
| | DEVIATION FROM THE SIGN REGULATIONS WHEN THESE ARE |
| | SUBMITTED. THIS INCLUDES NO BJS LOGO BEING PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | 20) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE SIZE |
| | AND HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGNS THAT ARE |
| | PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED ALONG EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 21) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE THE SIZE OF THE MONUMENT |
| | SIGNS ALONG I-95, BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED |
| | SIGN. **** THE COMMENT RESPONSE STATES THAT A SIGN |
| | PACKAGE WAS SUBMITTED. THE ONLY SIGN PACKAGE SUBMITTED |
| | WAS FOR THE WALL SIGNS. |
| | |
| | 22) THE SIGN REGULATIONS ONLY PERMIT ONE WALL SIGN PER |
| | BUSINESS PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS. THE BJS ELEVATIONS |
| | (BOTH STORE AND FUEL CANOPY) SHOW THAT THIS IS |
| | EXCEEDED, WHICH REQUIRES WAIVERS. |
| | |
| | 23) THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS ON THE SHORT SIDES OF THE |
| | FUEL CANOPY EXCEED THE PERMITTED SIGNAGE ALLOWANCE. |
| | THESE MUST EITHER BE REMOVED, REDUCE OR A WAIVER |
| | APPROVED. |
| | |
| | ELEVATIONS |
| | |
| | 24) THE DIMENSIONS ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT |
| | MEET THE LISTED SCALE. PROVIDE THE BUILDING LENGTH |
| | DIMENSIONS, SO STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY THE ELEVATIONS |
| | MEET THE SITE PLAN BUILDING SIZE. DUE TO THE INCORRECT |
| | SCALE, STAFF IS UNABLE TO EVEN SCALE THE DRAWINGS TO |
| | DETERMINE THE DIMENSION. |
| | |
| | 25) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE BJS ELEVATION DRAWING |
| | WITH THE LANDSCAPE SUPERIMPOSED ON IT. THIS VERIFIES |
| | THAT THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF THE ELEVATION ALONG |
| | EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED. THIS CAN |
| | BE DONE WITH STUCCO BANDING/DESIGNS OR OTHER WALL |
| | APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE RED ROCK PAINTED CONCRETE WALL |
| | PANELS TO CREATE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL VISUAL INTEREST. |
| | |
| | 26) THE BJS ELEVATION PLAN INCLUDES A NOTE STATING, |
| | "TOWER ELEVATION SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO ENABLE N/S |
| | VISIBILITY FROM HIGHWAY I-95". THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS |
| | NEED TO SHOW THE ACCURATE CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING |
| | APPROVED BY THE CITY. |
| | |
| | 27) THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT SHOW THE GENERATOR |
| | ENCLOSURE WALLS. |
| | |
| | 28) THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF OF THE FUEL |
| | STATION KIOSK NEEDS TO BE FULLY SCREENED. THE PROPOSED |
| | SCREENING IS INSUFFICIENT. |
| | |
| | 29) IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE PROPOSED SETBACKS AND IF |
| | SETBACK WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED, PROVIDE THE HEIGHT OF THE |
| | BRANDSMART (ELEVATION DRAWING REQUIRED) AND BJS |
| | BUILDINGS ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS. THE HEIGHT |
| | MEASUREMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT CODE METHODOLOGY AS FOLLOWS, "THE HEIGHT |
| | SHALL BE MEASURED AS THE VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM THE |
| | AVERAGE ELEVATION OF THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE BUILDING |
| | TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE OF A |
| | FLAT ROOF, OR TO THE DECK LINE OF A MANSARD ROOF, OR TO |
| | THE MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN EAVES AND RIDGE FOR |
| | GABLE, HIP, AND GAMBREL ROOFS." NOTE: WHILE THE HEIGHT |
| | IS NOT SHOWN CORRECTLY ON THE BJS ELEVATION DRAWING, |
| | THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SHOWN AT 65 FEET |
| | MEETS THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIRED OF 21 |
| | FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 30) REPEAT COMMENT: THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE TREES ARE |
| | FAILED TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AS |
| | REQUIRED BY THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 31) YOU MAY NOT HAVE 140+ GAPS OF NO BUFFER TREES ALONG |
| | I-95. |
| | |
| | 32) THE TWO DETENTION AREAS ALONG EXECUTIVE CENTER |
| | DRIVE ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A BIOSWALE AND NOT JUST |
| | A STANDARD DEPRESSION WITH BAHIA GRASS IN ORDER TO |
| | PROVIDE THE ENHANCED THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG |
| | EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE |
| | ORIGINAL BRANDSMART CPD APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 33) THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE |
| | BRANDSMART BUILDING MUST PROVIDE A SOLID SCREEN TO SIX |
| | (6) FEET IN HEIGHT IN LIEU OF PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL |
| | ENHANCEMENTS TO THE FACADE. |
| | |
| | 34) YOUR RECENT SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE STORMWATER LINE |
| | FROM BEST BUY IS NOT WITHIN THE PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE |
| | EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE BRANDSMART SITE. YOU NEED TO |
| | CONFIRM WHAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS |
| | ON THE BRANDSMART SITE (IF DIFFERENT FROM THE SURVEY)? |
| | THE NON-EXCLUSIVE OUTFALL DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED IN |
| | ORB 11870 PG 300 INCLUDES PROVISIONS FOR TERMINATION OF |
| | THE EASEMENTS OF PORTIONS OF EASEMENTS THAT ARE NO |
| | LONGER NEEDED. IF NOTHING IS LOCATED WITHIN THE |
| | EASEMENT, THIS SHOULD BE PURSUED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO |
| | INSTALL THE CODE COMPLIANT BUFFER LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | LIGHTING |
| | |
| | 35) THANK YOU FOR EXTENDING THE PHOTOMETIC CALCULATIONS |
| | TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE PLAN SHOWS THAT THERE ARE |
| | STILL AREAS WHERE THEY EXCEED ONE FOOTCANDLE PAST THE |
| | PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED AND MUST BE |
| | CORRECTED. |
| | |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL PARCEL |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS |
| | |
| | 36) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PROPOSES THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED ON |
| | THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WHICH HAD FIVE PARCELS AND AN |
| | INTERNAL ROADWAY. NOW THAT THE PROPOSAL IS TWO PARCELS |
| | WHICH COMPLY WITH MOST OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL |
| | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A LIST OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS |
| | IS NOT NECESSARY. THE FEW WAIVERS WILL BE COVERED BY A |
| | WAIVER TABLE. |
| | |
| | CONDITION - PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE FPL MUST |
| | PROVIDE A RELEASE OF THE EASEMENTS WHICH CONFLICT WITH |
| | THE PROPOSED BJS BUILDING. |
| | |
| | CONDITION - ALL TRANSFORMERS MUST BE SCREENED. |
| | |
| | CONDITION - ALL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE |
| | SCREENED TO THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE EQUIPMENT. |
| | |
| | CONDITION - CROSS UTILITY AGREEMENTS/EASEMENTS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |