City of West Palm Beach eGovPlus

Plan Review Details - Project Z20090011

Plan Review Stops For Project Z20090011

Review Stop	L			LANDSCAPING
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	10-05-2020			Cont ID
Sent By	rcaranci			Date	10-05-2020	Time	12:13	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rcaranci			Date	10-05-2020	Time	12:13	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	4	Status	P	Date	06-18-2021			Cont ID
Sent By	eschneid			Date	06-18-2021	Time	10:11	Rev Time	4.00
Received By	eschneid			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	3	Status	F	Date	04-27-2021			Cont ID
Sent By	eschneid			Date	04-27-2021	Time	15:56	Rev Time	6.00
Received By	eschneid			Date	04-27-2021	Time	15:56	Sent To

Notes

2021-04-27 16:00:33	CASE NO. PB1559M - 2ND RESUBMITTAL
	LA CLARA UTILITY AND ARRIVAL COURT CHANGES
	1515 S. FLAGLER


	- CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
	[email protected]

	- PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
	WRITTEN FORMAT.

	- WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE
	(3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT
	OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
	RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
	TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
	COMMENTS.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
	RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
	FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY JUNE 27, 2021), THE
	PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE
	CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL
	REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1)
	ADDITIONAL RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF
	PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE
	SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED
	A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL
	APPLICATION FEE ($60).

	1) THE REVISED WEST ELEVATION SHEET SHOWS THE SCREEN
	WALL MEETING THE SETBACK; HOWEVER, THERE IS SOMETHING
	SHOWN GENERALLY AT THE AMENITY DECK LEVEL AND AT GROUND
	LEVEL THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK. PLEASE
	EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS. NOTE: THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS
	SUBMITTED WITH THE PERMIT DOES NOT MATCH THIS ELEVATION
	DRAWING.

	2) THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WITH VARIOUS BUILDING PERMIT
	SHEETS SHOWING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE NORTH SETBACK
	LINE. ALL THESE NEED TO BE CLEARED UP TO REFLECT THE
	CONFORMING SETBACK AS SHOWN ON ALL BUT THE WEST
	ELEVATION PLAN RESUBMITTED WITH THE MINOR AMENDMENT.

	3) PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE RESUBMITTAL INCLUDES THE
	LATEST VERSION OF THE FOLLOWING PLANS

	SITE PLAN: ?GREAT GULF - 1515 S FLAGLER DRIVE,? SHEET
	A111, PREPARED BY STANTEC ARCHITECTURE, INC

	FLOOR PLANS: ?GREAT GULF - 1515 S FLAGLER DRIVE,?
	SHEETS A113 THROUGH A123, PREPARED BY STANTEC
	ARCHITECTURE, INC

	ELEVATIONS: ?GREAT GULF - 1515 S FLAGLER DRIVE,? SHEETS
	A124 THROUGH A127, PREPARED BY STANTEC ARCHITECTURE,
	INC.

	LANDSCAPE PLANS: ?GREAT GULF - 1515 S FLAGLER DRIVE,?
	SHEETS L000.1, L000.2 AND L000.3, ORIGINALL PREPARED BY
	URBAN ASSOCIATES, INC., AND REVISED BY SAVINO & MILLER
	DESIGN STUDIO

	CIVIL PLAN: ?GREAT GULF - 1515 S FLAGLER DRIVE,? SHEETS
	C5.00, C5.10 AND C6.00, PREPARED BY KIMLEY HORN,

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date	01-20-2021			Cont ID
Sent By	eschneid			Date	01-20-2021	Time	08:52	Rev Time	4.00
Received By	eschneid			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2021-01-20 08:54:32	CASE NO. PB1559M - 1ST RESUBMITTAL
	LA CLARA UTILITY AND ARRIVAL COURT CHANGES
	1515 S. FLAGLER
	COMMENTS REVISED 10/5/20

	- CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
	[email protected]

	- PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
	WRITTEN FORMAT.

	- WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE
	(3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT
	OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
	RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
	TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
	COMMENTS.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
	RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
	FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY MARCH 20, 2021),
	THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE
	CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL
	REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1)
	ADDITIONAL RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF
	PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE
	SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED
	A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL
	APPLICATION FEE ($60).

	1) NORTHERN SETBACK. SHEET A114 GROUND FLOOR PLAN SHOWS
	ALL PLAN ELEMENTS COMPLYING WITH THE NORTHERN 34 FOOT
	10 INCH SETBACK. SHEET A115 AS WELL AS THE CIVIL AND
	LANDSCAPE PLANS CONTINUE TO SHOW THE COLUMNS AND/OR THE
	SCREEN WALL ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK. THERE WAS NO
	REVISED EAST ELEVATION SHEET PROVIDED TO SHOW
	COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTHERN SETBACK. THE REVISED WEST
	ELEVATION SHEET SHOWS THE SCREEN WALL MEETING THE
	SETBACK; HOWEVER, THERE IS SOMETHING SHOWN GENERALLY AT
	THE AMENITY DECK LEVEL THAT IS ENCROACHING INTO THE
	SETBACK. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS. NOTE: THE
	ELEVATION DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE PERMIT DOES NOT
	MATCH THIS ELEVATION DRAWING.

	2) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING CROSS SECTIONS SHOWING THAT
	THE PROPOSED ROYAL PALMS ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
	WILL NOT IMPACT THE FPL DUCT BANK. PLEASE PROVIDE A
	LETTER FROM FPL PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF THE
	ROYAL PALMS AS WELL AS THE WAX MYRTLE, THE COCONUT PALM
	AND THE SABAL PALMS (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SITE) WITHIN
	THEIR EASEMENT.

	3) THE CURRENT GROUND FLOOR PLAN SHEET A114 REMOVED
	WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY LABELED AS SPACES 58C AND 59C. THE
	NUMBERING WAS NOT ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE REMOVAL OF
	THESE SPACES (THE COUNT SHOWN GOES TO 98 SPACES INSTEAD
	OF THE PROVIDED 96 SPACES). WHILE THE CLEANEST WAY TO
	CORRECT IS TO RENUMBER ALL THE SPACES FROM 60 TO 96,
	STAFF WILL ACCEPT CONVERTING SPACES 97 AND 98 TO 58 AND
	59.

	NOTE: THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SHOWN MEET
	BOTH THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS MINIMUM
	SIZE AND DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS.

	4) THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE TOWER IS 47 FEET. THE
	TOWER IS THE BUILDING THAT IS LEVEL 2 AND ABOVE. WHILE
	THE WALL WITH THE DOOR TO THE POOL STORAGE ROOM IS
	APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND
	MEETING THE MINIMUM SETBACK, IT APPEARS THAT THE AREA
	TO THE SOUTH OF THE DOOR IS A ROOFED AND WALLED IN
	AREA. THIS MOVES THE SETBACK AS SHOWN TO THE 44 FEET 9
	INCH DIMENSION LINE, WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE
	PERMITTED SETBACK AND IS NOT ALLOWED.

	5) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE LETTER FROM MR. CARLOS
	FRES REGARDING THE POTENTIAL EXHAUST SOUND AND ODOR.
	WHILE IT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED THE ODOR AND GAS
	ISSUED, PLEASE PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM MR.
	FRES CLEARLY STATING THAT THE NOISE WILL NOT VIOLATE
	THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE. I HAVE INCLUDED THE
	PERTINENT SECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BELOW:

	SEC. 34-35. - NOISES; UNNECESSARY AND EXCESSIVE
	PROHIBITED.
	IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO MAKE, CONTINUE,
	OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR CONTINUED ANY UNREASONABLY LOUD,
	EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY OR UNUSUAL NOISE. THE FOLLOWING
	ACTS, AMONG OTHERS, ARE DECLARED TO BE UNREASONABLY
	LOUD, EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY OR UNUSUAL NOISES IN
	VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, BUT THIS ENUMERATION SHALL
	NOT BE DEEMED TO BE EXCLUSIVE, NAMELY:
	(5) EXHAUSTS. THE DISCHARGE INTO THE OPEN AIR OF THE
	EXHAUST OF ANY STEAM ENGINE, STATIONARY INTERNAL
	COMBUSTION ENGINE, OR MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPT THROUGH A
	MUFFLER OR OTHER DEVICE WHICH WILL EFFECTIVELY PREVENT
	UNREASONABLY LOUD OR EXPLOSIVE NOISES THEREFROM.

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	10-01-2020			Cont ID
Sent By	eschneid			Date	10-01-2020	Time	11:10	Rev Time	5.00
Received By	eschneid			Date	10-01-2020	Time	11:10	Sent To

Notes

2020-10-01 11:10:27	CASE NO. PB1559M
	LA CLARA UTILITY AND ARRIVAL COURT CHANGES
	1515 S. FLAGLER
	COMMENTS REVISED 10/5/20

	- CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
	[email protected]

	- PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
	WRITTEN FORMAT.

	- WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE
	(3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT
	OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
	RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
	TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
	COMMENTS.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
	RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
	FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY DECEMBER 5, 2020),
	THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE
	CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL
	REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1)
	RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED
	COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE
	APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE
	WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($60).

	1) SHEETS A114 AND A115 SHOW THE BUILDING ENCROACHING
	OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH SETBACK LINE AT THE TENANT STORAGE
	AND FIRE PUMP ROOMS AND YOGA ROOM AND GYM. SHEET A-001
	THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, BUT NOT THE
	MINOR PD AMENDMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THIS DIMENSION AT 34
	FEET 5.75 INCHES, WHICH VIOLATES THE REQUIRED SETBACK
	OF 34 FEET 10 INCHES.

	2) THE CIVIL CROSS SECTION, THE SITE PLANS AND THE
	ELEVATIONS DO NOT SHOW THE SAME DIMENSIONS FOR THE REAR
	(WEST) PEDESTAL SETBACK. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE
	SAME, ACCURATE, COMPLIANT SETBACK DIMENSION.

	A. THE WESTERN ELEVATIONS SHOW THE LOUVER FOR THE
	MECHANICAL ROOM EXTENDING INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.
	BUILDING PERMIT PARTIAL WALL SECTION 1 A-527 SHOWS THE
	BOTTOM OF THE LOUVER RESTING ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS
	NOT PERMITTED AS A STRUCTURAL INTRUSION, BUT IS A
	SETBACK VIOLATION. THE LOUVER AT THIS LOCATION ALSO
	INVALIDATES THE STRUCTURAL INTRUSION OF THE ROOF
	ASSEMBLY.

	3) THE EAST ELEVATION DRAWING SHOWS SOMETHING, MOST
	LIKELY THE LOUVERED METAL SCREEN ON THE NORTH FACADE,
	EXTENDING INTO THE REQUIRED 34 FOOT 10 INCH SETBACK,
	WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNLESS IT IS PURELY A STRUCTURAL
	INTRUSION, WHICH MEANS IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE
	SUPPORTED ON THE GROUND OR ON A LOWER WALL (RETAINING,
	KNEE OR OTHERWISE). THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS INCLUDE
	SECTION DRAWING 2 A-502 AND SHEETS S-102 AND S-721 AS
	WELL AS OTHER PLANS SHOWING THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE
	LOUVER RESTS ON THE GROUND, WHICH MEANS IT ENCROACHES
	INTO THE SETBACK AND IS NOT PERMITTED.

	4) ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE RETAINING WALL,
	PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE EXTERIOR GRADE IS NOW SHOWN AT
	14 FEET, WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AT 11.5 FEET IN
	THE SAME LOCATION. THIS IS BOTH ON AND OFF SITE. YOU
	ARE NOT PERMITTED TO FILL THE NEIGHBOR?S PROPERTY AS
	PART OF THIS PERMIT APPLICATION.

	5) THE LANDSCAPE BASE PLAN NEEDS TO REFLECT THE SAME
	CONDITIONS AS THE CIVIL PLANS:

	A. SOUTHERN BUFFER AT WEST SIDE OF SITE SHOWS A
	STORMWATER LINE WITH THE ROYAL PALMS PLANTED ON TOP
	THAT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE CIVIL PLANS. WHICH PLAN IS
	ACCURATE?

	B. THE OLD RETAINING WALL LOCATION WAS NOT REMOVED FROM
	THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

	C. THE NEW STORMWATER LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BUFFER
	NEEDS TO BE SHOWN. ONCE THIS IS CORRECTLY SHOWN WITH
	THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE, THE PLANS WILL BE CIRCULATED TO
	THE CITY STORMWATER ENGINEER FOR REVIEW.

	D. THE NEW FPL EASEMENT AND DUCT BANK NEED TO BE SHOWN
	ALONG THE SOUTH, EAST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES AND THE
	TREES ADJUSTED AS NEEDED.

	E. THERE IS A NEW FPL TRANSFORMER SHOWN ALONG ARKONA
	CT. ON THE UTILITY PLAN THAT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT APPEARS THERE MAY BE CONFLICT WITH A
	TREE. ADDITIONALLY, THE SHRUB PLAN DOES NOT SHOW IT
	BEING SCREENED.

	F. THE ARRIVAL COURT DOES NOT MATCH THE SITE PLAN AT
	THE TURN AROUND SPACE.

	6) PARKING - THE BUILDING REQUIRES 181 PARKING SPACES.
	THE DATA TABLE SHOWS THAT 183 ARE PROVIDED (THIS
	EXCLUDES THE 11 REQUIRED PUBLIC PARKING SPACES ALONG
	ARKONA CT), WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS PROVIDED BELOW.

	A. THE ON-STREET PARKING LINE ON SHEET A114 UNDER
	PARKING REQUIRED INCORRECTLY STATES THAT THE ORIGINAL
	MODERN APPROVAL HAD 13 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES. ONLY
	11 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES WERE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED
	FOR PUBLIC USE AS PART OF THAT APPROVAL, SO ONLY 11
	NEED TO BE MAINTAINED FOR PUBLIC USE AS PART OF THE
	CURRENT PROJECT. THE 2 ADDITIONAL PARALLEL PARKING
	SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED MAY COUNT TOWARD MEETING THE
	LA CLARA PARKING REQUIREMENT AND BE MARKED AS LA CLARA
	PARKING ONLY. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY.

	B. BASEMENT PARKING SPACE 51(C) ON SHEET A113 DOES NOT
	HAVE THE REQUIRED 24 FOOT BACK-UP AND MAY NOT BE
	COUNTED AS A PARKING SPACE. THIS LOCATION MAY NOT BE
	INCLUDED AS A PARKING SPACE ON THE PLANS OR THE DATA
	TABLE. IT MAY BE DESIGNATED AS A VALET ONLY LOCATION.

	C. PARKING SPACES 58(C) AND 59(C) ON THE GROUND FLOOR
	PLAN (SHEET A114) ARE INCORRECTLY SHOWN AS HAVING A 30
	DEGREE ANGLE. THESE ARE 60 DEGREE SPACES AND THUS
	REQUIRE AN 18 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, WHICH IS NOT PROVIDED.
	ADDITIONALLY, SPACE 9(C) DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AN 18
	FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE BEHIND IT DUE TO THE EXTENT OF
	SPACE 59(C). THIS RESULTS IN 3 ADDITIONAL PARKING
	SPACES NOT MEETING CODE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BE USED
	TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

	D. THE PARKING COUNT NOTE ON SHEET A114 SHOULD
	SPECIALLY BREAK OUT THE 4 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ON
	THE ARRIVAL COURT AS PART OF THE 113 PARKING SPACE
	TOTAL. IT IS CONFUSING AS WRITTEN.

	E. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS A TURN AROUND SPACE AT
	THE ARRIVAL COURT. BASED ON THE TRAFFIC PATTERN, THERE
	IS NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO TURN AROUND. THIS COULD
	POSSIBLY BE REVISED INTO A PARKING SPOT OR TWO (MAY
	NEED TO BE COMPACT) TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOST SPOTS IN
	THE BASEMENT.

	F. WITH THE FOUR PARKING SPACES THAT MUST BE REMOVED
	FROM THE PARKING COUNT (BASEMENT 51, GROUND FLOOR 9, 58
	AND 59), THE SITE ONLY PROVIDES 179, NOT THE REQUIRED
	181 PARKING SPACES (EXCLUDING THE REQUIRED 11 ON-STREET
	PUBLIC PARKING SPACES).

	G. DUE TO THE LARGE (MOVING) TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENT,
	PARKING SPACES 1 - 4 ON SHEET A114 MUST BE LABELED AS
	EMPLOYEE PARKING. THESE SPACES MUST BE ABLE TO BE USED
	FOR MANEUVERING DURING LOADING IN/OUT.

	7) IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD CLEAR FENESTRATION ON
	THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PET GROOMING ROOM?

	8) EXPLAIN WHAT IS HAPPENING SOUTH OF THE ADMIN ROOM
	AND POOL RESTROOMS. THE LAST APPROVED PLAN HAD A 48
	FOOT 9 INCH SETBACK TO THE BUILDING AT THIS LOCATION.
	THE PROPOSED PLANS SHOW A REDUCED SETBACK OF 44 FEET 9
	INCHES.

	9) THE ROOF PLAN SHOWS A SECTION OF THE ROOF BEING
	RAISED TO 305 FEET 7 INCH NGVD (TOP OF STAIR TOWER?),
	YET THIS HEIGHT DIMENSION IS NOT REFLECTED ON THE
	ELEVATION DRAWINGS.

	10) THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION NEEDS TO BE ACCURATELY
	REPRESENTED ON THE PLANS. THE MATERIAL IS CALLED OUT
	BUT NOT SHOWN. THE CURRENTLY APPROVED PLANS SHOW A
	DECORATIVE TILE SCORED PATTERN. A DECORATIVE PATTERN IS
	REQUIRED. STAFF HAS STILL NOT SEEN THE DETAILS OF THE
	EXHAUST VENTS/LOUVERS TO VERIFY THAT THESE DO NOT
	VIOLATE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THESE NEED TO BE
	PROVIDED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. ADDITIONALLY, NOT ALL
	THE EXHAUST LOUVERS ARE SHOWN. EX. THE GENERATOR.