Loading...
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.