HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC - 091307 - Downtown at the Gardens1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Development Review Committee Meeting
Petition No. PUD- 07 -08- 000007
Downtown at the Gardens Site Plan Amendment for Office Building
September 13, 2007
The meeting took place in the Council Chambers of the City of Palm Beach Gardens on
Thursday, September 13, 2007, and started at 11:30 a.m.
Present at Meeting:
Kara Irwin, Growth Management Administrator
Ali Kalfin, Cotleur and Hearing,
Erin Porter, Cotleur and Hearing
Jim Orth, Assistant City Engineer
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Officer Julius Barone, Crime Prevention, Police Department
Jim Brown, Deputy Building Official, Building Department
James Mahrer, Menin Development Companies
John Glidden, Oliver, Gildden, Spina & Partners
Mike Rossin, Oliver, Gildden, Spina & Partners
Martha Carter, MB Schorah & Associates
Donaldson Hearing, Cotleur and Hearing
I. Purpose of the Meeting
Review Site Plan Amendment to add Professional Office Buildings.
H. Comments
Seacoast Utility Authority
• Written comments added to record.
Deputy Fire Chief
• Written comments were read into record.
Police
• Enhance or upgrade camera system compared with initial structure. Video quality
is not great and has some issues in terms of being able to use for identification
purposes. Will need more enhancements with what is already in place.
• Vision panels in doorways in stair wells.
• Close off first level stair well. Bottom of stairwell to be sealed off and not
exposed, as to not allow persons access to go below stair well.
City Engineer
• Signage, plans need to be clear on what's proposed and what's has already been
approved on both Site Plan and Engineering Plans.
• Request to view Engineers marked plans.
DRC 091307 Action Downtown at the Gardens PUD -07 -05 -000007
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
• Request for other solutions regarding access through site for vehicles to be able to
drive all around to the back side of The Cheesecake Factory Restaurant, from
design perspective this is not what was intended.
• Concerns regarding catch basin at handicapped spots next to garage access point
and catch basin right in midst of crosswalk.
• Catch basins previously existed and will address and relocate if necessary.
• Concern with traffic movement and loading and unloading at Cheesecake Factory.
City Forester
• New Site Plan does not fair better than what was previously approved. The square
footage fits that of the Gosman site and should not be relocated. Proposal does not
better the lake plan.
• Bouganvillea planting does not work over service areas. Re -open all previously
approved wavers for re- evaluation. Service areas will need to be completely
screened.
• Pedestrian bridge plans and rendering needs to be submitted for approval and will
need to be shown on site plan so building of bridge can begin.
• Lake Wall requires both sides to be painted the same color, looks unfinished
otherwise.
• Public amenity stage rendering and plans needs to be submitted for approval and
will need to be shown on site plan. Include all typicals and any small additions.
• Unfinished landscaping which was to be bonded is still outstanding and will need
to be completed to satisfaction as project goes forward.
• Any changes to Lake Plan will not be carried, especially any changes to public
access easement, including open spaces.
• Landscaping for foundation of building should be separate from the requirement
of the Lake Plan they should not over lap. Should have set backs from the PPA at
a minimum, as like Garden Point.
• Landscaping around Cheesecake Factory should not be changed it is a stand
alone.
• Utilities, potential conflicts may occur in trying to put too much the same as
landscaping.
• Proposed front entrance which affects the open space and PPAE that currently
wraps around Cheesecake Factory is unappealing and does not work.
• Don Hearing responded that the pedestrian bridge currently in progress will be
submitting alternative concept plans in near future.
• Discussed proposed plan for Perpetual Public Access Easement (PPAE).
• Requested clear direction of how staff would like project to proceed.
• Requesting clarification of what Staff is saying to better evaluate what is
perceived rather then showing obstacles that suggests project should not go
forward.
Planning & Zoning
• Proposed plan is not complete and clear "do not have whole story here" so
comments are based on what was presented.
DRC 091307 Action Downtown at the Gardens PUD -07 -05 -000007
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
• PPAE changes need to show all changes and benefits to changes so proposal is
clear on where intent is going. Also need to show on site plan, even if it is
separate plan just to show where it all fits in to plan. Master plan should be
included as it is a site plan amendment to the master plan.
• As there are no plans to compare an access drive through PPAE is currently
unacceptable.
• Proposed height of the structure is not in keeping with the character of the
surrounding areas, The Cheesecake Factory looks dwarfed.
• Photometric plans will be submitted. Work closely with Police regarding design
of garage, security, and lighting. Meet with Seacoast, FPL, Bellsouth Assistant
City Engineer, City Forester to resolve and conflicts and to ensure design does not
impacted negatively. Request to provide photometric plans prior to City council
as not the have to go through multiple literations due to the complexity of the
photometric and parking structures.
• Discussed parking problem at peak time, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday between
6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. peak period with movies, retail, and restaurants at full
tilt. Contingency plan will be required.
• Discussed peak times that only the office spaces is being shared but pointed out
potential for other peak times other than weekends such as lunch time during high
season.
• Parking for shared site. Balance between shared parking and restaurants does not
work there are too many restaurants will need to be justified. Plans must be clear
and conditions that the project is being approved by have increased.
With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Submitted by:
Patricia Snider
City Clerk
Note: These action minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. and are not verbatim
transcripts of the meeting.
DRC 091307 Action Downtown at the Gardens PUD -07 -05 -000007 Page 3
Ll_
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Julius Barone, Police (w /attachments)
Jim Orth, Engineering (LBFH) (w /attachments)
Scott Fetterman, Fire Marshall (w/ attachments)
Bruce Gregg, Seacoast Utility Authority (w/ attachments)
Mark Hendrickson, Forestry (w /attachments)
Doug Wise, Building Official (w/ attachments)
Via PBG Email:
James Brown, Building
Jack Doughney, Community Services
Ray Ellis, City Clerk
Todd Engle, Construction Services
Ross Gilmore, GIS
Charlotte Presensky, Recreation
Mike Kelly, Parks Division
Trecia McKellar, City Clerk
Mike Morrow, Public Works
David Reyes, Code Enforcement
Stacy Rundle, City Administration
Christine Tatum, City Attorney
Angela Wong, Operations
Via Email:
Alan Boaz, Florida Power and Light
Gerald Gawaldo, Palm Beach County
Rick Kania, Waste Management
Layle Knox, North Palm Beach Improvement District
Robert Lozano, Florida Power and Light
DATE: August 22, 2007
FROM: Kara L. Irwin, Growth Management Administrator
kirwin a,pbgfl.com
561- 799 -4243
561- 799 -4281 (fax)
SUBJECT: Downtown at the Gardens Site Plan Amendment for Office Building
Application for Site Plan Amendment- Petition # SPLA- 07 -08- 000007
Please provide your comments on the subject DRC petitions to the Growth Management Department
no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2007. Your comments must be forwarded to our office (attn:
Kara Irwin (Kirwin a,pbgf1.com) in order to provide written comments to the applicant in accordance
with the timeframes established in the City's Land Development Regulations. Your comments must be
provided by the deadline stated above. Should you have no comments, please indicate so next to your
name on the second page and forward this memo to our office. Additional copies of the application are
available in the Growth Management Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
MEETING DATE:
A Development Review Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 11:30
a.m., in the City Council Chambers to review the following development applications:
PALM BEACH GARDENS PETITION NUMBER: #SPLA- 07 -08- 000007- Downtown at the Gardens
Site Plan Amendment
A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc., agent for the applicant, for an approval of a Site
Plan Amendment to the Downtown at the Gardens master site plan. The applicant is seeking approval
of a major amendment to allow for the construction of a 180,000 square foot professional office
building and 271 space parking structure. This request consists of a eight -story 180,000 square -foot
office building, an expansion of the existing parking structure, amendments to existing conditions of
approval, the addition of two valet locations, modifications to the existing P.P.A.E. and approval of a
revised shared parking plan. This site plan amendment request is for a 48.76 -acre parcel located east of
Alternate AIA, between Kyoto Gardens Drive and Gardens Parkway.
The applicant will be in attendance at this meeting. Our office requests your participation in the
review of this project. Please review this request and attend the meeting if possible. Receiving your
comments prior to the meeting will provide staff with the ability to give proper direction to the
applicant.
Thank you for your ongoing cooperation and assistance. Please contact our office at 799 -4243 should
you have any questions or comments.
Julius Barone, Police
Jim Orth, P.E., Engineering (LBFH)
Scott Fetterman, Fire Marshall
Bruce Gregg, Seacoast Utility Authority
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Doug Wise, Building Official
Jack Doughney, Community Services
Todd Engle, Construction Services
Tim Kasher, Recreation
Mike Kelly, Parks
Mike Morrow, Public Works
2
Development Review Committee
September 13, 2007
Petition SPLA- 07 -08- 000007
Downtown at the Gardens
NAME
(l) 00 f rw f�l
(2) Al, KOM-Vi
(3) tai In I VI �x
(a) 3 '� U ri-�
SIGN IN SHEET
ORGANIZATION
PbG
cf+
c+�
("arglpeo 643)
(8) /Vl4- r4-h,- cr
TEL. #
7,171- gZLf3
7ql (o 3 3�0
7.17 103310 .
(10) hllV4 nFh 4 Q
C � i
d4A 06sY
JW5 Norff ""A
�tA- bj 41
lk
. A.
David Reyes, Code Enforcement
Christine Tatum, City Attorney
Angela Wong, Operations
Alan Boaz, Florida Power and Light
Gerald Gawaldo, Palm Beach County
Rick Kania, Waste Management
Layle Knox, North Palm Beach Improvement District
Robert Lozano, Florida Power and Light
Attachment: Development Plans
CC' Without Attachments to:
Kara Irwin, AICP, Growth Management Administrator
Ray Caranci, Growth Management
Dan Clark, P.E. City Engineer (LBFH)
Patricia Snider, City Clerk
Nancy E. Stroud, Assistant City Attorney
Stephen Stepp, Police Chief
Don Hearing, Cotleur & Hearing
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
BUILDING DIVISION
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS FLORIDA 33410 -4698
(561) 799 - 4201
Memorandum
To: Kara Irwin
From: James Brown
Regarding: Petition for SPLA -07 -08 -000007: Downtown Office Building & garage
Date: September 6, 2007.
Based upon a review of the submitted documents I have the following
certification comments:
1. In order to ensure there are no defects in the footprint and conceptual
design, please provide a brief Building Life Safety Analysis to include
building height and area, including limitations per Table 503 FBC, based
upon building type, sprinklers and construction type. Please include
interior exiting strategies, and distances, as well as exit capacity
tabulations for the office buildings and the parking garage.
2. Provide the maximum allowable and proposed area of openings in
accordance with FBC 704 for walls on the office building and the garage.
3. In order to ensure there are no defects in the footprint and design of the
parking garage, please provide details to include the existing and
proposed, open or enclosed, clear height of each floor
4. Please indicate the total number and location of proposed accessible
parking spaces provided in the parking garage including van accessible in
accordance with FBC 11- 4.1.2(5) and FBC 11- 4.6.2.
5. Please provide information from a structural engineer indicating the
existing footings and structural elements are able to support the additional
loads of the proposed additional floors.
6. The two proposed valet locations do not indicate passenger loading zone
required by FBC 11- 4.1.2(e).
The following general comments affect this project should be duly noted by the
applicant:
1. Separate permit and application will be required for: paving, drainage,
water and sewer improvements, landscaping, irrigation, site lighting,
signage, fire sprinkler and fire alarm, generator, fence.
2. The parking garage and office building qualify under FS 553 as a
threshold building. Building F and G may qualify as a threshold building
depending upon the occupant load. The owner shall be required to retain
a threshold inspection agency and provide a threshold inspection plan with
the building permit application for review and approval.
Development Review Committee
September 13, 2007
11:30 a.m.
Petition SPLA- 07 -08- 000007
Downtown at the Gardens
Site Plan Amendment
Professional Office Building
Staff Comments
August 24, 2007
Ms. Kara Irwin
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
RE: Downtown At The Gardens PCD Amendment
Dear Ms. Irwin:
We offer the following comment on your transmittal dated August 22, 2007 concerning the
referenced project. The applicant needs to revise the conceptual engineering
existing extensive electrical switch gear, FPL transformer, irrigation pump
controllers currently located on the east side of the parking garage.
Please call if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
SEACOAST UTILITY AUTHORITY
Bruce Gregg
Director of Operations
dp
cc: R Bishop
J. Callaghan
J. Lance
J. Orth
plans to reflect the
station and valve
r
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 3341011698
FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kara Irwin, Growth Mgmt. Admin.
DATE: August 28, 2007
FROM: Scott Fetterman, Deputy Chief
RE: SPLA- 07 -08- 000007: Downtown at the Gardens Site Plan
Amendment
Fire Rescue has reviewed the above referenced site plan amendment
petition and has the following comments and concerns:
• The circular drive in front of the proposed building is not sufficient for fire
apparatus to turn around. Fire Rescue will require access through the site
connecting with the Cheesecake Factory loading/service area. The access
area also needs to provide an area next to the building that provides a 30'-
ft. wide by 45' -ft. long area for aerial apparatus setup, capable of
supporting 35 -tons.
• The new office and parking structure will be come part of the existing
parking structure thus creating one building. The entire structure will be
considered one building and will be required to meet current code.
• The office and parking structure addition will need to be constructed in a
manner that does not interfere with the existing parking structure and that
all life safety systems remain in service while the existing building is
being used.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration in this matter. Please
contact me if you have any questions or any future changes are proposed.
PALM BEACH GARDENS POLICE DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL OPERATIONS BUREAU
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: KARA IRWIN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: OFFICER JULES BARONE
SUBJECT: PETITION # SPLA- 07 -08- 000007 DOWNTOWN AT THE GARDENS SITE
PLAN AMENDMENT FOR OFFICE BUILDING /PARKING GARAGE
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2007
CPTED Compliance:
Crime Prevention through Environment Design is a branch of situational crime
prevention that maintains the basic premise that the physical environment can be
designed or manipulated to produce behavioral effects that will reduce the incident
and fear of crime. The review performed by the police officer listed above shall
encompass but not be limited to the following principles: natural surveillance,
natural access control, territorial reinforcement and maintenance. The police
department has reviewed the site plan and strongly recommends the following
minimum conditions be met.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE /COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL PUDs
Non - Certification Comments
1. Provide natural surveillance throughout the site by:
a. Providing landscaping that does not create hiding spaces.
b. Providing clearly marked transitional zones that indicate movement from public to
semi -public through use of brick pavers.
c. Ensure windows and exterior doors are visible from the parking areas.
d. If practical, designate separate parking area for employees.
e. Ensure parking areas are visible from windows, and are not blocked by landscaping.
f. Restrict shrubbery to no more than three feet high for clear visibility in vulnerable areas.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
2. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on -site lighting shall be
installed. All exterior lighting shall utilize 20 -25 foot light poles or as approved and all
on -site lighting shall consist of metal halide or equivalent lighting approved by the Police
Department and, shall not conflict with planted landscaping. (Police Department)
3. Landscaping shall not obstruct the view from windows or walkways. Ground cover
should not exceed "6" in height and high branched trees should be trimmed to seven
feet (Police Department)
4. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Downtown at the Gardens
office building, the Applicant shall provide a timer clock or photocell sensor engaged lighting
above or near entryways and adjacent sidewalks for said building. (Police Department)
5. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the office building all entry
doors(non -glass single /double) shall be equipped with astragal over the threshold of the locking
mechanism and case hardened deadbolt locks shall be provided on all exterior doors with a
minimum one (1) inch throw or mechanical interlock. Doors secured by electrical operation shall
have a keyed- switch or signal locking device to open the door when in the locked position .Glass
exterior doors should have a holding force of at least 1000lbs. Door hinges shall employ non -
removable hinges, and the main entries to the building shall have closed - circuit digital camera
surveillance system. (Police Department)
6. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction site
security and management plan for review and approval by the Police Department.
Noncompliance with the approved security and management plan may result in a stop -work
order for the PUD. (Police Department)
7. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the office building, numerical
addresses shall be placed at the front and rear of the building. Each numerical address shall be
illuminated for nighttime visibility, with an uninterruptible A.C. power source, shall consist of
twelve (12) inch high numbers, and shall be a different color than the color of the surface to
which it is attached. The rear doors of the building shall have an illuminated 6 inch number on
or along side the door.(Police Department)
8. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the following security
measures shall be installed, and reviewed and approved by the Police Department.
a. Buildings shall be equipped with a intrusion alarm system.
b. Doors shall be equipped with metal plate over thresh- hold of the locking mechanism.
c. Interior doors to offices /meeting rooms shall have 180 degree peephole viewers or a vision
panel.
d. Case hardened commercial grade dead bolt locks shall be installed on all exterior doors with
minimum of one inch throw into the strike receiving the bolt. The cylinder shall have a
cylinder guard and a minimum of five -pin tumblers.
2
e. Door hinges shall be installed on interior side of door or non — removable hinge pins or a
mechanical interlock to preclude removal of door from the exterior.
f. Glazing in interior doors, or 40 inches within of any locking device shall be rated burglary
resistant glazing.
g. Restrooms shall be placed in central areas with maze entrances; avoid double door entry
systems.
h. Exterior /interior pedestrian doors which provide access into parking garage shall be solid
core, equipped with automatic hydraulic closure device and a minimum 100 square inch
vision panel. Where applicable emergency doors shall have no exterior handles. Panic
hardware shall have self locking mechanism, may have one locking point and shall have a
protective astragal attached to the exterior of the door, which will cover opening between
the door and frame, it should extend one inch beyond edge of the door to which it is
attached.
i. A high resolution color digital video camera system with monitoring and photo
processing/ freeze frame /zoom capabilities shall be installed. Cameras shall be
above entrance /exit doors, stairwells (each landing) and inside elevator cab.(Police
Department)
j. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the office building,
elevator cab interiors which are not completely visible when the door is open, shall
have shatter resistant mirrors placed in a location approved by the Police
Department. (Police Department)
k. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, buildings with a total square
footage of at least 10,000 square feet shall have roof top numbers placed parallel to
the addressed street, only visible from the air. The numerals should be blocked
lettered, weather resistant material, four feet in height and 18 inches wide. (Police
Department)
1. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for each building, interior
stairwells doors shall have glazing vision panels, five inches wide by 20 inches in
height. Areas beneath stairways at ground level shall be fully enclosed. Fully enclosed
stairways with solid walls shall have shatter resistant convex mirrors placed at each
level, and landing to provide visibility from the level below or above to persons using
the stairwells. (Police Department)
Parking Garage:
Parking garages are high priority security areas. Parking garages comprise a large
area with relatively low levels of activity; with this in mind the Police Department
makes the following comments:
Lighting is universally considered to be the most important security in a parking garage
and serves as an excellent deterrent to potential criminal activity. Lighting
recommendations are as follows:
a. Shall adhere to the IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America) standards for garages.
b. Design shall incorporate both vertical and horizontal luminance.
c. Lighting shall extend into parking stalls and over vehicles rather than just
into driving aisles. To avoid shadow effect fixtures shall not be flushed
mounted to underside of T -beam.
d. The exterior of garage shall be well lighted on all sides.
e. Metal Halide lighting shall be used for the interior of garage.
f. Position light fixtures to minimize glare to drivers and enhance depth
perception, and should be vandalism resistant.
2. Ground level pedestrian exits that open into non - secure areas shall be emergency exits
only, fitted with panic bar hardware and install "local" alarm that activates if ground level
door is opened (when exit is intended for emergency use only).
3. Stairwells shall be designed to be completely visible from either interior or exterior.
a. Stairwells shall have open metal handrails and steps. Areas beneath stairways at
ground level shall be fully enclosed or access to them limited.
b. Interior doors to stairwells shall have fire light glass doors - vision panel of one
hundred square inches with a minimum 5" width.
c. Convex mirrors and digital video surveillance cameras with freeze frame /zoom
capabilities shall be installed in each stairwell to capture and record pedestrian
traffic.
4. Elevators with at least one shaft wall exposed to the exterior shall have clear glazing
installed in the one wall to provide visibility into the elevator cab or one or more of the
followingr . video camera shall be installed in each elevator cab, install shatter resistant
mirrors, equally reflective material so placed as to make entire cab interior visible to
entering visitors.
5. Applicant shall install a digital video camera system (freeze frame /zoom) at exit /entry to
parking facility to capture and record in /outbound vehicle traffic /license tags.
6. Applicant should assign parking facility a specific identifier displayed at main entrance
using numbers /letters of twelve inches in height and of contrasting color.
7. Directional signage, including floor designation and section, shall be provided to expedite
movement through facility. Signage shall be displayed not less than 60 inches from
parking surface and highly visible from within any portion of the facility.
cc: Chief Stepp
Major Artola
Major Carr
Major Facchine
Capt. Wesenick
Capt. O'Neill
4
L h.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,
SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
CIVIL
AGRICULTURAL
WATER RESOURCES
WATER & WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY & MAPPING
GIS
"Partners For Results
Value By Design"
3550 S.W. Corporate Pkwy.
Palm City, FL 34990
(772) 286 -3883
Fax (772) 286 -3925
www.lbfh.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kara Irwin
FROM: Jim Orth, P.E.
DATE: September 11, 2007
FILE NO. 05 -4424 / 31821
SUBJECT: Downtown at the Gardens
Professional Office Building and 271 Parking Spaces
SPLA- 07 -08 -07
We have reviewed the following plans and information for the referenced project
received August 27, 2007:
• Development Application dated July 31, 2007 prepared by Cotleur Hearing
• Site Plan Amendment Justification Statement prepared by Cotleur Hearing
• Site Plan (Sheet 1 thru 6 of 6) dated July 30, 2007 prepared by Cotleur Hearing
• Parking Evaluation dated (signed) July 30, 2007 prepared by Kimley Horn &
Associates, Inc.
• Traffic Analysis dated (signed) July 30, 2007 prepared by Kimley Horn &
Associates, Inc.
• Architectural Plan (Sheet Al thru Al l of 11) dated July 27, 2007 prepared by
OGS &P
• Color Rendering of Site prepared by OGS &P
• Color Chart of Materials prepared by OGS &P
• Boundary Survey dated (signed) January 3, 2007 prepared by Miller Legg
• Copy of Request for Service Provider Capacity Letters to Providers prepared by
Cotleur Hearing
• Engineering Plan (Sheet I thru 7 of 7) dated (signed) July 31, 2007 prepared by
Michael B. Schorah & Associates, Inc.
• Water Management Calculations dated (signed) July 31, 2007 prepared by
Michael B. Schorah & Associates, Inc.
We have the following comments:
• This review is of a submittal of the applicant's request for site plan
approval for a 180,000 sq ft office building including additional parking
garage level, a new shared parking analysis, modification of Condition #5
of Resolution 120, 2005 and the addition of two valet stations.
• We have forwarded the Parking Evaluation and Traffic Analysis to the
City's traffic consultant, McMahon & Associates, and to Palm Beach
County Traffic Department for review and comment. We will forward
their comments when they are received.
C: \Documents and Settings \joilh \Local Settingffeinpoiary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \SVPSC I XR4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
hINC I Downtown at the Gardens Page 2 of 9
LBFH No. 05 -4424 / 31821
Certification Issues
1. The applicant shall clearly identify the area of the intended work on the site
plan (SP), landscape plan (LP) and engineering plan (EP) by means of outlining
or shading of the project area for conformance with Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
2. The applicant shall clearly show, label and dimension the site plan and
engineering plan, conforming to Section 78 -46 of the LDR, to clearly identify
all existing and proposed site feature, within the area of the proposed work,
including but not limited to; curb (noting type), curb radii, pavement width,
drive aisle width, pavement radii where curb is not proposed, sidewalk and their
width (including public sidewalks on adjacent street right -of- ways), handicap
ramps (labeled "HR" or "CR "), flush walk with pavement ( "FW "), raised walk
in lieu of curb along the edge of the pavement, parking stalls (standard and
handicap), pavement areas versus grass areas, easements, utilities, light fixtures,
etc.
3. The applicant shall label the point of connection of proposed work to the
existing facilities for conformance with Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
4. The applicant shall clarify the intent of the design of the rotary island (EP Sheet
3 of 7 and SP Sheet 3 of 6) as to the intended traffic pattern for conformance
with Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
5. We recommend that the applicant provide signage for the entrance of the garage
rotary to clarify the intended traffic pattern for conformance with Section 78 -46
of the LDR.
6. The applicant shall identify the curb type for the outside west half of the garage
rotary island (EP Sheet 3 of 7, SP Sheet 3 of 6 and LP Sheet 5 of 6) for
conformance with Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
7. The applicant shall dimensionally clarify the radii of the project. The applicant
provides a note (Note #2) which indicates that "all radii are four (4') feet unless
otherwise noted." However, there are radii shown which do not appear to
conform to this note, such as the entrance curb to the garage.
8. The applicant shall dimension the minimum paver width at the northeasterly
corner of the proposed westerly curb ramp south of the MI Restaurant (EP
Sheet 3 of 7 and SP Sheet 3 of 6). The applicant shall verify that minimum clear
width of the walk in this area is in conformance with Section 78 -506 of the
LDR.
9. The applicant shall identify the boarder material (type of curb), for the back of
the proposed paver walk, on the site plan (SP Sheet 3 of 6), landscape plan (LP
Sheet 5 of 6) and engineering plan (EP Sheet 3 of 7) for conformance with
Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
CADocuments and Settings \jorth \Local Set tings \Temporary Intemet Files \Content.Outlook \SVPSC I XF \4424 - 3 182 1 -
20070905 - SPLA -07 -08- 07.doc
Downtown at the Gardens Page 3 of 9
LBFH No. 05 -4424 / 31821
INC.
10. The applicant shall clarify the shaded area, at the head of the western-most
handicap parking stall (SP Sheet 3of 6), to assure that adequate access is
maintained for conformance with Section 78 -506 of the LDR.
11. The applicant shall dimension the walk at the front of the parking stalls on the
west side of the proposed garage rotary area (EP Sheet 3 of 7) to ensure
conformance with Section 78 -506 of the LDR.
12. The applicant shall identify the traffic direction of the entrance of the proposed
garage (EP Sheet 3 of 7 and SP Sheet 3 of 6) for conformance with Section 78-
46 of the LDR.
13. We recommend that the applicant show pedestrian crossing signs for non -
controlled intersections, such as mid - block. The applicant is referred to Section
2C.41 of the 2003 MUTCD, which notes; "When used at the crossing,
Nonvehicular signs shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing
Arrow (W16-7p) plaque (see Figure 2C -11) showing the location of the
crossing." One such location is the crosswalk south of the garage rotary.
14. The applicant shall provide traffic signage within the proposed garage at the
entrance for conformance with Section 78 -46 of the LDR.
15. The applicant shall provide the photometric plan for compliance with
Ordinance 26, 2006 and the City's lighting standards, which amends Section
78 -182 and Section 78 -751 of the LDR, for the site lighting as well as the
interior garage lighting.
16. The applicant shall provide the following information on the landscape plan to
address spacing between existing and proposed trees and any proposed control
structure:
a. The applicant shall identify all drainage control structures on the site plan
and landscape plan by labeling them "CS ", in accordance with Section 78-
46 of the LDR.
b. The applicant shall identify a minimum clear zone around the control
structures within an area that is equal to the radius of 1 % times the mature
height of the tallest tree specimen. (For a 20' high mature tree, the applicant
shall provide a minimum 30' radius, clear of all trees, from the control
structure).
c. The applicant shall identify the full mature height and proposed distance
from the control structure of all trees, which exist or are proposed to be
located within a radius of two (2) times the height of the tallest mature tree,
in a table on the landscape plan. The table, containing the following
information, shall be located on the plan sheet and in relative proximity to
the location of the control structure on the landscape plan.
C\Documentsand Settings \joilh \Local Set tingsJempoiary Intemet Files \Content.0utlook \SVPSCIXF \4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
Ibfh I Downtown at the Gardens Page 4 of 9
LBwH No. at 05-4424 / dens
Tree ID
Code
Existing or
Proposed Tree
Specimen
Name
Species
Mature Height
Distance from
Control Structure
(1) The applicant shall clearly show, label and dimension, on the
landscape plan, the minimum clear zone radius around each of the
control structures, based on the above criteria.
Based on the submitted information, the City Engineer will determine if the
type of tree proposed will present a future maintenance issue with the proposed
location of the control structure.
17. The applicant shall modify the note of the 20' Lake Maintenance Easement (SP
Sheet 5 of 6) as the text appears to be cut off , for conformance with Section
78 -46 of the LDR.
Waiver Requests
1. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 78 -153 of the LDR, which
limits the building height to the lesser of two stories or 36 feet. The applicant
proposes an eight story building of 143 feet. Please note we remain in support
of the City's LDR requirements.
Non - Certification Issues
NOTE: All engineering /infrastructure plans are considered conceptual during
the planning and zoning review phase and are subject to further review during
the final construction review. These non - certification comments shall be
satisfied prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit.
1. The applicant shall provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and a
drainage area map, which identifies the drainage areas and flows via drainage
arrows and high /low points, to support the proposed design.
2. The applicant shall identify the location of any roof drains and their connection
to the existing /proposed storm drains or their discharge point.
3. The applicant shall clarify the design alignment of the "existing" inlet shown at
the north curb of the proposed parking stalls, on the west side of the garage
rotary (EP Sheet 3 of 7).
4. The applicant shall modify the design to provide for the relocation the existing
catch basin, which is shown in the middle of the cross walk, at the west
entrance /exit for the garage (EP Sheet 3 of 7).
CADocuments and Settings \jorth \Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files \Content.0utlook \SVPSCIXF\4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08 -07.doc
I Downtown at the Gardens Page 5 of 9
Ib(h INc LBFH No. OS -4424 / 31821
lll�l
5. The applicant shall the note on the engineering plan to reflect the City's
requirement for the taking of tests to certify the minimum compaction
specifications. The City's specifications shall apply, except where the specific
requirements of contract documents or Seacoast Utility Authority are greater.
The note shall read,
"Density Tests for trenches shall be taken in maximum one (I ) foot lifts,
measured from the top of pipe. The tests shall be taken, at a maximum
spacing of every 300 feet measured from the structure, or at least one test at
the center of the pipe segment between two structures if less than 300 feet.
Tests shall also be taken, on alternating sides of the structure with each lift
tested. The test location at the structure shall be within five (5) feet of the
structure. The location and depth of all tests shall be clearly indicated in
the description area on the test report and /or on a location map which shall
be attached to the test report. Required testing at structures shall include all
inlets, manholes, culverts, vaults, and valves within any paved area."
The applicant is further advised that the testing lab or engineer -of- record shall
certify, on the test report, the lift thickness for all subgrade, base and pavement
tests taken for construction.
6. Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the applicant shall
provide a copy of the following approved permits, as applicable:
a. SFWMD
b. NPBCID
c. PBC
d. FDOT
e. PBC Health Department /FDEP
f. NPDES
6. Satisfied. The applicant indicated the structural numbers for the `Asphalt
Section (Typ.)' and the `Vehicular Concrete Pavers' section detail on the
Engineering Detail Sheet (EP Sheet 6 of 7) in accordance with Section 78 -499
Table 41 of the LDR. The applicant provided a table indicating the layer,
material, LBR/FBV, material thickness, FDOT layer coefficient; the SN for the
pavement section, base section, and subgrade section; and the total SN for the
total pavement section and the required SN in accordance with the FDOT
Flexible Design Manual.
Pavement Section Table
Layer
Material
LBR /
FBV
Material
Thickness
FDOT
Layet-Coefficient
SN
Surface
Asphalt
- --
1.50"
0.44
0.66
Base
Baserock
LBR
100
6"
0.18
1.08
Subgrade
Compact
FBV 35
12"
- --
0.00
1 `a�
Total SN
1.74
Required SN
1.50
CADocuments and Settings \jorth\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \SVPSC I XF \4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
at the Gardens Page 6 of 9
LBFH No.
LBFH No. 054424 / 31821
7. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the project, including public
infrastructure and all landscaping and irrigation costs for review and approval
by the City in order to establish surety. The cost estimate shall be signed and
sealed by an engineer and landscape architect registered in the state of Florida.
Surety will be based on I 10% of the total combined approved cost estimates
and shall be posted with the City, prior to the issuance of the first land
alteration permit.
SUMMARY OF ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
of Probable Construction Costs for
On -site and Off -site Public Improvements
Grading
$
Sanitary Sewer
$
Water
$
Storm Water Maintenance
$
Subtotal
Landscaping
$
Irrigation
$
Subtotal
$
Total
Is
110 %Total Required Surety
Is
8. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the on -site project
improvements, not including public infrastructure, landscaping and irrigation
costs (which were previously submitted by the applicant) for review and
approval by the City. The cost estimate shall be signed and sealed by an
engineer and shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of the first land
alteration permit.
SUMMARY OF ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
of Probable Construction Costs for
On -site Non Public Improvements
Grading
$
Sanitary Sewer
$
Water
$
CADocuments and Set[ ings \jorth \Local SettingsJempoimy Internet Files \Content.0utlook \SVPSCIXF \4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
hINC
Downtown at the Gardens Page 7 of 9
LBFH No. 054424 / 31821
Storm Water Maintenance Is
otal
9. The applicant shall provide. a cost estimate for the parking garage structure and
associated infrastructure and landscaping and irrigation items, which is signed
and sealed by an engineer and /or architect registered in the state of Florida.
Surety will be based on 110% of the total combined approved cost estimates
and shall be posted with the City, prior to the issuance of the first land
alteration permit for the structure.
SUMMARY OF ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
of Probable Construction Costs for
the Parking Garage and Associated Work
Garage Structure
Garage Lighting
Garage Utilities
Garage Pavement Markin
& Signing
Subtotal Infrastructure
Landscaping
Irrigation
Subtotal Landscape
rri ation
Sub -Total
otal (110% Surety)
Conditions of Approval
1. "Applicant shall copy to the City all permit applications, permits, certifications
and approvals. " (City Engineer)
2. "Applicant shall provide all necessary construction zone signage and fencing
as required by the City Engineer. " (City Engineer)
3. "Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of' the first land
alteration permit, applicant shall provide cost estimates in accordance with
LDR Section 78 -309 and 78 -461 and . for on -site project improvements, not
including public infrastructure, or landscaping and irrigation costs.for review
and approval by the City. The cost estimates shall be signed and sealed by an
engineer and landscape architect registered in the state of Florida and shall be
posted with the City, prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit. "
(City Engineer)
4. "Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the ultimate
demolition and restoration of the parking lot area, which shall include any
additional landscaping and irrigation costs which were not previously
submitted by the applicant . for review and approval by the City. The cost
estimate shall be signed and sealed by an engineer and landscape architect
C:\Docuinentsand Settings \joilh \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\Content. Out look \SVPSC I XF\4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
IN h� I Downtown at the Gardens Page 8 Of 9
LBFH No. 05 -4424 / 31821
registered in the state of Florida. Surety will be based on 110% of the total
combined approved cost estimates and shall be posted with the City, prior to
the issuance of the first land alteration permit. " (City Engineer)
5. "Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, applicant shall provide a demolition bond, in a format
agreeable to the City Attorney, in the amount of 110% of the certified cost of
demolition and restoration of the parking lot. " (City Engineer)
6. "The applicant shall demolish the temporary parking facility, by removal of all
constructed facilities and the restoration of the site, per the approved
demolition plan within 90 days following expiration of the 24 -month temporary
use. The demolition shall include the removal of all pavement, walk and curb,
pavement marking and signage, PVC or other non - reinforced concrete pipe, the
filling of the dry detention areas, the removal of the shuttle shelter, regrading
and landscaping, and the closing of the entry drives of the parcel. " (City
Engineer)
7. "The construction, operation and /or maintenance of any elements of the subject
project shall not have any negative impacts on the existing drainage of
surrounding areas. If, at any time during the project development, it is
determined by the City that any of the surrounding areas are experiencing
negative drainage impacts caused by the project, it shall be the applicant's
responsibility to cure said impacts in a period of time and a manner acceptable
to the City prior to additional construction activities. " (City Engineer)
8. "Prior to issuance of the first land alteration permit, applicant shall submit
signed /sealed /dated construction plans (paving /grading /drainage and
water /sewer) and all pertinent calculations for review and comment. " (City
Engineer)
9. "Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, applicant shall schedule a pre permit meeting with City
staff " (City Engineer)
10. "Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit the applicant shall
provide to the City letters of authorization fom the applicable utility companies
allowing landscaping and light poles to be placed within the utility easements. "
(City Engineer)
11. "Applicant shall notify the City's Public Works Division at least 10 working
days prior to the commencement of any work/construction activity within any
public right- of-way within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. In the case of a city
right -of -way, the applicant has at least five working days to obtain a right -of-
way permit. Right -of- -way permits may be obtained at the Building Division.
Failure to comply with this condition could result in a Stop Work Order of all
work /construction activity within the public right -of- -way and the subject
development site. " (Public Works)
CADocuments and Settings \jorth \Local Settings \Temporary Intemet FiIcs \Contenl.0ullook \SVPSCI XF \4424 - 31821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
s
L
hINC I Downtown at the Gardens - Page 9 of 9
LBFH No. 054424 / 31821
The applicant is requested to return a copy of our comments with the
applicant's acknowledgement of each comment and the response. Compliance
will expedite the subsequent review. It is suggested that the applicant either
"cloud" or highlight the location of all changes to the plan to further expedite
the review.
The applicant is reminded that all submittals are to be made to the City of
Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Department.
JRO /mef
cc:
CADocuments and Settings \forth \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Contew.OuIIook \SVPSC I XF \4424 - 3 1821 -
20070905 - SPLA- 07- 08- 07.doc
Memo to File
To: Kara Irwin, Growth Management Administrator
Through: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
From: Ray Caranci, Forestry Technician e
Subject: SPLA- 07 -08 -07 Downtown at the Gardens
Date: Septemberl2, 2007
It is the opinion of Forestry Staff that this design does not allow enough room to
accomplish the required landscape buffers, setbacks, foundation landscaping and
protection of the existing public open space. The size, height and location of the proposed
building do not fit into the space. The area around the lake would be impacted negatively.
The building square footage would be better suited in size to the old Gosman parcel along
PGA Boulevard as approved. The lake site should continue to be used as approved for a
one story restaurant. The open space and landscape amenities would be accessible and
contribute to the public enjoyment of the area with the construction of the approved
entertainment stage. We continue to support the location approved on the site plan for a
second parking garage which would alleviate parking concerns. The site has been
planned and approved by City Council with a public friendly entertainment and restaurant
theme. This proposed site plan disrupts the original concept.
I have reviewed the Land Development Regulations for the above referenced petition and
provide the following comments for the DRC:
Certification Issues
1. There are several lingering outstanding issues for the Downtown project that have
to be addressed with this petition:
a. The service areas need to bee screened. The Bouganvillea planted as an
attempt to resolve the issue is not working as hoped.
b. There are no plans yet for the pedestrian bridge. Plans need to be submitted to
show the construction of the pedestrian bridge that links to Landmark, The
approved lake plan would potentially be affected by this petition, and the
bridge needs to be finished as part of the approved lake plan.
c. The wall for the lake needs to be painted to match the rest of the lake wall.
d. The performance stage has not been constructed as part of the public amenity
benefits.
e. The unfinished landscaping, specifically replacing the Holly trees with Oaks
in the western parking area.\
2. The applicant is asking for several changes that result in reductions of the
approved open space and the Perpetual Public Access Easement (PPAE) in
addition to a height waiver. The applicant has not shown any potential benefits to
justify this loss of approved amenities and open space.
3. The addition of Professional Office space at this location does not allow space for
the required landscaping buffers and setback from residential units of Landmark
and Mira Flores. We are not supporting any waiver to the building height
proposed.
4. In accordance with Section 78 -320 (a) (4) b of the LDR, foundation landscaping
for a building of more than two stories shall be not less than 30 percent of the
height of the adjacent wall. We will not support any waiver to the foundation
landscaping.
5. In accordance with section 78- 320(a) (4) c. of the LDR, non residential buildings
shall have at least one shade tree or palm cluster installed for each 30 linear feet,
or fraction thereof, of fagade width. Trees and palms shall be of an installed size
relating to the height of the adjacent wall or fagade, as indicated in Table 30.
Please revise the landscape plan to include the required number of trees or palm
clusters at the proper height around the east and south sides of the proposed office
building.
6. The foundation landscaping of the proposed office building encroaches into the
PPAE. Please revise the plan to show the required foundation plantings for the
building outside of the PPAE.
7. Some of the approved foundation landscaping for the Cheesecake Factory has
been altered or removed. This is unacceptable.
8. In accordance with Section 78 -306 of the LDR, all locations for proposed utilities,
easements, underground drainage, and light fixtures shall be shown on the
landscape plan and the site plan to prevent possible conflicts with landscaping.
Please revise the landscape and site plan to show all utilities and easements. There
are numerous conflicts between utilities and landscaping, particularly water lines
entering the office building. The FP &L easement is not shown, and the sewer line
and easement is not shown.
9. The proposed front entrance to the office building removes open space and
reduces the PPAE. This application does not demonstrate any benefit to
compensate for the loss of approved public open space. There are other buildings
in Palm Beach Gardens that use the parking garage as access to the office
building, and avoid taking up open space for access drives. This design is
unacceptable.
10. We do not support any change to the PPAE.
Please understand that additional information may be requested, and staff may have
additional comments as the review process continues.
N
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
Memo to File
From: Kara L. Irwin, Growth Management Administrator
Growth Management Department
Date: 9/11/2007
Re: DRC Comments SPLA- 07 -08- 000007: Downtown at the Gardens — Site Plan
Amendment for 180,000 square foot Office Building
Cc: Christine Tatum, City Attorney
Stacy Rundle, Assistant to the City Manager
Allyson Maiwurm, Administrative Projects Coordinator
Applicant
I have reviewed the above - referenced project and have the following comments:
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
1. The proposed 20' perpetual public access easement is not consistent with the
approved Regional Center PCD lake plan. The PPAE must be shown on the
proposed plan in order for staff to evaluate the impacts of the office building on
the lake park plan. Please revise accordingly.
2. In addition, please provide a sheet dedicated to the PPAE that shows the entire
boundaries so that the reconfiguration can be evaluated. Please provide staff
with justification for this request.
3. The proposed plan shows an access roadway through the existing PPAE, which is
not an appropriate utilization of the space. The access drive is not a compatible
use within the perpetual public access that is platted. The PPAE must be
maintained in the same manner as previously approved.
4. In staff's professional opinion, the proposed height of the structures is not in
keeping with the character of the surrounding areas. Staff recommends that the
proposed development be redesigned in a manner that is sensitive character of
the adjacent communities. Please provide an elevation with the dimensions
showing the exact dimensions of the separation between the proposed office
building and the Landmark towers.
5. The applicant shall revise the waiver chart on the site plan to differentiate
between the previously approved waivers and the currently requested waivers
for the proposed amendment. Currently, the waiver list only shows the request
for the height waiver. The applicant shall revise the application documents
accordingly. Please provide detailed justification for the requested waivers and
an accounting or status of the improvements that were committed to during the
approval process for the waivers approved for the Downtown project originally
(e.g. pedestrian bridge, cultural improvements, PPAE).
6. The applicant shall request a waiver from City Code Section 78 -141 to allow for
reduced setbacks for the professional office building extension. The Professional
Office standards shall be applied to the professional office building.
7. The applicant shall indicate which spaces are for the required handicapped
parking on the site plans and provide a justification for the proposed locations.
8. Staff has concerns with the architecture of the proposed office tower due to the
close proximity to the Landmark towers. The City has received many complaints
regarding the starkness of the existing architecture of Downtown commercial
buildings. Staff strongly recommends providing greater architectural detail,
specifically along the easternmost portion of the southern elevation as the
building is massive in contrast to the single -story restaurant. Staff also
recommends elements that compliment the Landmark condominium towers to
the East due to the close proximity.
9. The proposed foundation landscaping is not adequate. Staff recommends
increasing landscaping throughout the site, specifically foundation landscaping
should be drastically increased adjacent to Gardens Parkway.
10. The landscape plan provided for review does not show the entire perimeter of
the office site. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the garage, so a plan
showing the entire area around the garage /office towers is required.
11. Staff has serious Concerns with the location of PPAE being located in such close
proximity to the office tower.
12. The applicant should reflect the proposed bicycle parking spaces on the site plan.
13. Please reflect on the proposed site plan all necessary easements required by all
utility companies that will be providing service to the proposed development. If
necessary, please arrange a meeting with City staff, the applicant, and
representatives of utility providers as soon as possible. This is to prevent future
reductions or encroachments into landscape areas.
SITE DESIGN
14. The proposed valet area /entrance loop for the building encroaches on the
designated PPAE and requires the access drive in an inappropriate location. Staff
recommends that the applicant mimic the design of Building 12 on Parcel 56,
where the access to the office building is completely limited to the garage. This
would be one step in alleviating the obvious space constraints presented by the
plan.
15. The Parking Level Site Plan depicts vehicular entries into the ground level garage
parking onto Gardens Parkway, but it is not fully designed on the plans. Please
4
provide details for this access and verification that it was approved as more than
just emergency access with the previous approval.
16. The applicant has not provided for the screening of utility structures and storage
sheds on site from the public view. The existing FPL transformers and sheds
located on the commercial structure shall be required to be screened to the best
of your ability. The applicant shall label all utilities and sheds on the landscape
plan and provide for the screening thereof.
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
17. Staff cannot determine how the office building is accessed through the parking
garage on each level. Please provide a description of the access points to the
office building from each floor level. The applicant shall provide a significantly
higher level of detail on the elevations of the ground level (i.e. doors and store
fronts should be labeled; building materials should be labeled; garage entrances
should be labeled; etc.).
18. Along the southeast corner of the garage adjacent to the office building the floor
plans show a dead -end parking area without sufficient area for a turnaround.
19. The scale of the elevations do not seem to be consistent with the floor plans as
shown.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
20. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review.
21. The applicant shall be aware that colored, three - dimensional perspectives of
major architectural elevations are required to be submitted prior to a hearing
before the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board.
22. The applicant shall work with the Police Department to come up with a design
for the garage that addresses all safety issues (i.e. location of entrances; visibility
into and out of the garage; lighting; etc.). Staff will be looking for a design that
allows for maintaining the maximum visibility into the garage.
23. The applicant shall set up a meeting with Seacoast, FPL, Bellsouth, the Assistant
City Engineer, City Forester and other City Staff to review the proposed site plan
and identify the locations of utilities on site in order to avoid a reduction in
landscaping in the future. The applicant shall be advised that once the project is
approved by the City Council, a reduction in landscaping due the placement of
utilities may require the approval of the City Council.
24. The applicant shall submit a legal description for the site in Microsoft Word
format to be included in the approving resolution.
25. The applicant is proposing to add only 5% of the required parking for the
180,000 square foot office building to the site to accommodate the peak parking
demand that was determined for the existing commercial site to be 8:00 p.m.
Saturday evening. Please provide a 'contingency plan' for accommodating the
full parking requirement should the alternative demand study fail. In addition,
3
show the requirement per the city straight code and the shared parking formula
as provided by City Code.
26. The site plan amendment process opens the entire site for review and comment.
The existing commercial center shall be required to provide a plan for the
screening of the service bays /areas throughout the site. The plan must provide
for control of access, as well as screening of unsightly storage, utility and waste
for the site. The applicant has been advised previously that the proper screening
of the service areas would be an issue during this process, yet a plan to provide
the screening has not been included as part of the application. Please advise
staff of the details of the plan prior to review by Planning, Zoning, and Appeals
Board.
27. The proposed plan provides for the relocation of 180,000 square feet from an
approved PUD (Gardens Corporate Center /Gosman Site) to the subject site. The
approved plan for the Gosman Site approved +231,000 square feet on a +6 -acre
site, which provides for adequate space for development, as opposed to the
restricted area of the proposed site plan amendment. The proposed
amendment alters the character of the existing site plan from shopping center to
urban area and impacts existing improvements that were proposed to justify
waivers of the previous approval for the site plan. The proposed office building
is better suited to the PGA corridor as a continuation of the developed office
buildings, as opposed to the constrained area between the Cheesecake Factory
Restaurant and the parking garage.
28. Conditions from previously approved development orders and administrative
approvals shall be evaluated and applied to the proposed development project.