Home Records and Reports Contractor Records Owner Records Permit Records Permit Reports Business Reports Property Records Business Tax My Account Code Enforcement Contact Us Log In/Out Print Plan Review Stops For Project Z22040014 Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Rev No 3 Status P Date 08-30-2022 Cont ID   Sent By scwelter Date 08-30-2022 Time 13:40 Rev Time 0.00 Received By scwelter Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-30 13:45:10 POTENTIAL PUBLIC ART SITES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE   LANDSCAPE PLANS.       AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT A COMPLETED ART ASSESSMENT   AND EVIDENCE OF THE 1% ESCROW ARE REQUIRED.       CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER [email protected]     Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Rev No 2 Status F Date 08-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By scwelter Date 08-02-2022 Time 11:22 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 08-02-2022 Time 11:24 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-02 11:23:53 IF DEVELOPMENT IS CHOOSING TO PROVIDE ART ON SITE TO   SATISFY THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT THEN POTENTIAL ART   SITES MUST BE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN. IF DEVELOPER   IS CHOOSING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ART FUND, THEN PLEASE   EMAIL [email protected]   FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL IT IS REQUIRED THAT EITHER   CHOICE BE STATED CLEARLY.   IF INTEGRATING ART ON THE SITE IT MUST BE IN AN OPEN,   PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AREA, SUCH AS THE OPEN GRASS AREA   ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE.     Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-12-2022 Cont ID   Sent By scwelter Date 05-12-2022 Time 11:35 Rev Time 0.00 Received By scwelter Date 05-12-2022 Time 11:36 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-02 11:22:33         IF DEVELOPMENT IS CHOOSING TO PROVIDE ART ON SITE TO   SATISFY THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT THEN POTENTIAL ART   SITES MUST BE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN. IF DEVELOPER   IS CHOOSING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ART FUND, THEN PLEASE   EMAIL [email protected]   FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL IT IS REQUIRED THAT EITHER   CHOICE BE STATED CLEARLY.   IF INTEGRATING ART ON THE SITE IT MUST BE IN AN OPEN,   PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AREA, SUCH AS THE OPEN GRASS AREA   ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE.       CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER   [email protected]     2022-05-12 11:36:12 PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT   PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT:   TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE OVER   $500,000 IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT AS   PER CITY ORDINANCE.   SECTION 78-129: ALL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS,   INCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, OR THE RENOVATION OR   IMPROVEMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, WHERE TOTAL   CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN   $500,000 ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT.   OPTION 1: INSTALL ARTWORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE   VALUED IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE   TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS; OR   OPTION 2: CONTRIBUTE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 75 PERCENT OF   ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DEPOSIT   TO THE PUBLIC ART ACCOUNT.   A COMPLETED PUBLIC ART ASSESSMENT APPLICATION IS   REQUIRED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.       CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC ART &   CULTURE AT [email protected] TO OBTAIN AN ART ASSESSMENT   APPLICATION AND REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS.     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 3 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-19-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 07-19-2022 Time 15:56 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 07-19-2022 Time 15:56 Sent To   Notes 2022-07-19 16:12:31 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,   COMMENTS:       1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE   SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH   FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE   ADDRESSED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.       2. NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. INFORMATIONAL   COMMENT. THE PARKING DATA IS NOW SHOWN IN THE VEHICULAR   PARKING TABLE ON SHEET A0-02. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE   REQUIRED NUMBER OF VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES CAN BE   PART OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES. IT IS   NOT NECESSARY FOR THE VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO   BE IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE   MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED   SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING ACT AND   SECTION 208.2 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE.       3. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. NOW ALL OF   THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE NOW SHOWN CLOSE TO   THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS, AND NONE OF THE ACCESSIBLE   PARKING SPACES ARE SHOW AS THE CLOSEST PARKING SPACES   TO THE SOUTH OFFICE/HOTEL/RETAIL BUILDING. THERE ARE   DOZENS OF REGULAR PARKING SPACES SHOWN CLOSER TO THE   PARKING GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATOR THAN THE DISTANCE FROM   THE CLOSEST ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE TO THAT ELEVATOR.   THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST BE DISTRIBUTED SO   THAT SOME OF THEM ARE THE CLOSEST PARKING SPACES TO THE   VARIOUS RETAIL SPACES. PER SECTION 208.3 OF FLORIDA   ACCESSIBILITY CODE, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE TO BE   LOCATED ON THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL FROM   ADJACENT PARKING TO ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES. THE DESIGN OF   ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 502   OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE       4. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. INFORMATIONAL   COMMENT. IF ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE   PROVIDED AT LEAST 1 IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE   PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS.       5. BUILDING SIZE. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT. WHEN SUBMITTED   FOR BUILDING PERMIT, THE PLANS SHALL SHOW THAT THE TYPE   OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BUILDINGS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE   WITH THE HEIGHT, AREA AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN   CHAPTER 5 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.       6. ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT. IF   THE PARKING GARAGE DOES NOT HAVE WALL OPENINGS, OR   SUFFICIENT WALL OPENINGS TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN   OPEN PARKING GARAGE, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ENCLOSED   PARKING GARAGE AND MUST HAVE EXHAUST SYSTEMS. THE   EXHAUST SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE NOISE   LEVELS USING INLINE FAN SILENCERS OR OTHER APPROVED   METHODS.       7. GREASE INTERCEPTOR. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT. IF ANY OF   THE COMMERCIAL SPACES WILL BE OCCUPIED BY RESTAURANTS,   GREASE INTERCEPTOR(S) WILL BE REQUIRED. FOR INFORMATION   ON THE REQUIRED TYPE, SIZE AND LOCATION, PLEASE CONTACT   RYAN BROWN, CHIEF PLUMBING INSPECTOR, DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AT (561) 805-6692, OR BY EMAIL:   [email protected]       8. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT.   ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED   BEFORE COMMENCING THE WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND   FEES, ARE REQUIRED FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS,   GAS SYSTEMS, GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE   SPRINKLER AND OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE   INTERCEPTORS, SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE   IRRIGATION, ETC.       9. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT.   PROPERTY OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS   FOR PARKING OF CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE   IMPACT ON ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       10. PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. INFORMATIONAL   COMMENT. PROPERTY OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT   ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, INCLUDING VEHICLES, FROM   DAMAGE OR DIRT CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL   NOTIFY THE OCCUPANTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ABOUT   ALL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION THAT MAY AFFECT THE USE OF   THEIR PROPERTY.       11. BUILDING ADDRESS. INFORMATIONAL COMMENT. EACH   SEPARATE BUILDING, AND UNIT WITH AN INDEPENDENT   ENTRANCE FROM THE STREET, SHALL HAVE A SEPARATE ADDRESS   ASSIGNED BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING   ENTRANCE. FOR STREET ADDRESSING, CONTACT CAROLINE   PUELL, ADDRESSING COORDINATOR, AT (561) 805 6659, OR BY   EMAIL: [email protected]       ROBERT BROWN   BUILDING OFFICIAL   TEL: 561 805 6652   EMAIL: [email protected]     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-11-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 05-11-2022 Time 20:37 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 05-11-2022 Time 20:37 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-11 21:05:27 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,   COMMENTS:       1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE   SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH   FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE   ADDRESSED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.       2. UNITY OF TITLE. FOR ANY BUILDING CROSSING A PROPERTY   LINE, EITHER A RECORDED UNITY OF TITLE, OR SOME OTHER   APPROVED LEGAL INSTRUMENT, SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE   PERMIT APPLICATION, OR THE BUILDING MUST HAVE A FIRE   WALL ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, PER SECTION 202 OF   FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, BUILDING, FIRE SEPARATION   DISTANCE.       3. NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE FLOOR PLANS   SHOW ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES BUT IT APPEARS THAT   THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT BASED ON THE PROPSED 2,003   TOTAL PARKING SPACES. TTHE PARKING DATA TABLE ON ZONING   & PROJECT DATA DRAWING, SHEET A0-02, DOES NOT SHOW THE   COUNT FOR ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE MINIMUM NUMBER   OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED SHALL BE IN   ACCORDANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING ACT AND SECTION 208.2 OF   FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE.       4. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. NONE OF THE   ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWERS. PER SECTION 208.3 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY   CODE, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE TO BE LOCATED ON   THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL FROM ADJACENT   PARKING TO ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES. THE DESIGN OF   ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 502   OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE       5. VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. NONE OF THE   ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE MARKED VAN ACCESSIBLE.   PER SECTION 208.2.4 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE, ONE   IN EVERY SIX REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE SPACES (AT LEAST ONE)   IN A PARKING STRUCTURE, SHALL BE ?VAN ACCESSIBLE? AND   DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION OF 502 OF FLORIDA   ACCESSIBILITY CODE (VERTICAL CLEARANCE NOT LESS THAN 98   INCHES AT SPACE AND VEHICULAR ACCESS ROUTE)       6. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. IF ELECTRIC   VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST 1   IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE   REQUIREMENTS.       7. BUILDING SIZE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,   THE PLANS SHALL SHOW THAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR   THE BUILDINGS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT,   AREA AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE   FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.       8. ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES. IF THE PARKING GARAGE DOES   NOT HAVE WALL OPENINGS, OR SUFFICIENT WALL OPENINGS TO   MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN OPEN PARKING GARAGE, IT WILL   BE CONSIDERED AN ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGE AND MUST HAVE   EXHAUST SYSTEMS. THE EXHAUST SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED   TO MINIMIZE NOISE LEVELS USING INLINE FAN SILENCERS OR   OTHER APPROVED METHODS.       9. GREASE INTERCEPTOR. IF ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE   WILL BE OCCUPIED BY RESTAURANTS, GREASE INTERCEPTOR(S)   WILL BE REQUIRED. FOR INFORMATION ON THE REQUIRED TYPE,   SIZE AND LOCATION, PLEASE CONTACT RYAN BROWN, CHIEF   PLUMBING INSPECTOR, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AT   (561) 805-6692, OR BY EMAIL: [email protected]       10. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS   AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCING THE   WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND FEES, ARE REQUIRED   FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS, GAS SYSTEMS,   GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE SPRINKLER AND   OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS,   SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE IRRIGATION, ETC.       11. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. PROPERTY OWNER AND   CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARKING OF   CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ALL   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       12. PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER   AND CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTY,   INCLUDING VEHICLES, FROM DAMAGE OR DIRT CAUSED BY THE   CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY THE OCCUPANTS OF   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ABOUT ALL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION   THAT MAY AFFECT THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.       13. BUILDING ADDRESS. EACH SEPARATE BUILDING, AND UNIT   WITH AN INDEPENDENT ENTRANCE FROM THE STREET, SHALL   HAVE A SEPARATE ADDRESS ASSIGNED BASED ON THE LOCATION   OF THE BUILDING ENTRANCE. FOR STREET ADDRESSING,   CONTACT CAROLINE PUELL, ADDRESSING COORDINATOR, AT   (561) 805 6659, OR BY EMAIL: [email protected]       14. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT   TO ART LIFE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE CITY OF WEST PALM   BEACH ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AIPP) PROGRAM. FOR ADVICE   ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ARTWORK IN LIEU OF THE AIPP   ASSESSMENT, CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ART IN PUBLIC   PLACES COORDINATOR, AT (561) 822-1521, OR BY EMAIL:   [email protected]       ROBERT BROWN   BUILDING OFFICIAL   TEL: 561 805 6652   EMAIL: [email protected]     Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 4 Status P Date 08-01-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 08-01-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 08-01-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-01 09:44:30 PLEASE PROVIDE CCTV OF EXISTING SANITARY AND STORMWATER   INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE AS PREVIOUSLY   REQUESTED. IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.       THANKS,   RICK ROSSANO   SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT 561-494-1098   [email protected]     Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 3 Status F Date 07-20-2022 Cont ID   Sent By RROSSANO Date 07-20-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 07-20-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-21 09:48:28       Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-01-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 07-01-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 07-01-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-01 16:26:07 Z22040014 - TRANSIT VILLAGE - 150 CLEARWATER ? 6.15.22   RESUB       COMMENTS FROM RICK ROSSANO, SR. PROJECT COORDINATOR,   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT 561-494-1098   [email protected]   O PROVIDE CCTV VIDEO OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND   STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG ENTIRE PROJECT   FRONTAGE.   (REPEATED COMMENT ? THIS IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SITE PLAN   APPROVAL.)   COMMENTS FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE   SUPERVISOR WITH CITY OF WPB PUBLIC UTILITIES,   561-822-2262 OR [email protected]   -IR510 SPECIFIES FEBCO 825Y RPZ. IF THAT IS A   CONTAINMENT BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY, THEN IT MUST BE LEAD   FREE. LF825Y IS THE LEAD FREE VERSION. PLEASE UPDATE   IR510 AS NEEDED.       -EXISTING 12 INCH WATER MAIN ON SHEET C08 TRYING TO USE   FOR NEW WATER SERVICES SEEMS TO BE CONNECTED TO 36 INCH   WATER MAIN. IF SO, CONNECTION WOULD NEED BE MAINTAINED   AND WATER SERVICE DESIGN ALTERED. EOR NEED INVESTIGATE   FURTHER AT FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL.       -PROVIDE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT SHOWS UPDATED UTILITY   AND TREE LOCATIONS ON ONE SHEET, SO CAN VERIFY NO   CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEM.       -ADDITIONAL UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR PROPOSED   WATER SERVICES ON SHEETS C08 AND C09.       -SEWER LATERAL ON SHEET C09 LABELED AS 8 INCH, BUT SAYS   6 INCH CONNECTION AT MAIN. PLEASE VERIFY SIZING.       -SHEET C09 ENLARGED VIEW SAYS THERE IS AN 8 BY 6 TEE ON   THE 8 INCH FIRELINE. PLEASE VERIFY AND CORRECT AS   NEEDED.       -VERIFY WELLS WILL NOT BE CONNECTED TO PRIVATE FIRE   SYSTEM.       -EXISTING WATER METER BOX NEAR SOUTHWEST AREA OF   PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN GRASS. SEE IF CAN   RELOCATE IT TO PARKWAY OUT OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC   HARDSCAPE AND SUFFICIENTLY DISTANCED FROM TREES.     Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-09-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 05-09-2022 Time   Rev Time   Received By rrossano Date 05-09-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-05-09 11:39:42 COMMENTS FROM RICK ROSSANO, SR. PROJECT COORDINATOR,   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT 561-494-1098   [email protected]   O PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS IN WRITING, AND   INCLUDE PROJECT NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMIT NUMBER   (Z-XXXXXXXX).   O THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH HAS A NUMBER OF   REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WHICH DIRECTLY   AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF WATER AND   WASTEWATER UTILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. PLEASE SEE   DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AT THE LINK   BELOW:   A. HTTP://WPB.ORG/CMSPAGES/GETAMAZONFILE.ASPX?PATH=~\WP   B_WEBSITE\MEDIA\ENGINEERING\DEVELOPMENT-APPLICATION-FUL   L-PACKAGE_2016.PDF&HASH=7BD4DD7EB6115181D8C5977BCC02A97   B1960045731D3658206F27451722716EF   B. THIS AND OTHER RELATED ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS CAN BE   FOUND HERE:   HTTP://WPB.ORG/DEPARTMENTS/ENGINEERING-PUBLIC-WORKS/FOR   MS,-PERMITS-APPLICATIONS   C. ALSO SEE: CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF WEST PALM   BEACH, FLORIDA, CODIFIED THROUGH ORD. NO. 4183-08,   ADOPTED SEPT. 22, 2008. (SUPPLEMENT NO. 18)   CHAPTER 90 UTILITIES, ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL,   SEC. 90-7. POLICY REGARDING EXTENSION OF WATER OR SEWER   SERVICE FACILITIES OF THE CITY.   THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND THE   CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ADDRESS RESERVATION OF CAPACITY   BASED ON USAGE, METER SIZE AND FEES, DESIGN STANDARDS,   BACKFLOW PREVENTION, FIRE SERVICE AND IRRIGATION.   O AS OF DECEMBER 20, 2015, THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH   CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL HAS BEEN REVISED,   STATING "ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE LEAD-FREE". FOR   MORE INFORMATION, REFER TO THE LINK BELOW:   A. HTTP://WPB.ORG/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-UTILITIES/FORMS-PU   BLICATIONS/BACKFLOW-CROSS-CONNECTION- CONTROL-MANUAL   O PLEASE SUBMIT A FORMAL AS-BUILT REQUEST FOR ALL CITY   OF WEST PALM BEACH-OWNED UTILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC   RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE LIMITS OF   YOUR PROJECT. IDENTIFY TYPE OF UTILITY, LOCATION, PIPE   MATERIAL, AGE AND SIZE. PLEASE CONTACT JANICE TARBILL   IN THE WPB ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT   [email protected] OR 561-494-1079 FOR FURTHER   ASSISTANCE. NOTE THAT FIELD RECORDS ARE FOR INFORMATION   ONLY. FIELD VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS USING FIELD   SURVEY, POT-HOLING, SOFT DIGS ETC.   O PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS OF PERVIOUS AND   IMPERVIOUS AREAS FOR PROPOSED IMPROVED AREAS.   O PLEASE CORRECT TITLE BLOCKS ON ALL CIVIL SHEETS.   BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY AND METERS:   O SHOW AND LABEL ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED WATER   SERVICES AND WATER METERS, ALONG WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING   TO THEM.   O SHOW EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEDICATED UTILITY   EASEMENTS TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR CITY PERSONNEL TO   PROPOSED UTILITY WATER METERS. VERIFY THAT THERE ARE NO   STRUCTURES WITHIN EASEMENT.   O PROVIDE ENLARGED VIEW ON PLANS OF PROPOSED LOCATION   OF WATER METER AND BACKFLOW   PREVENTION.   O BACKFLOWS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY   OUTSIDE OF EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY. DOMESTIC WATER   METERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO   PROPERTY LINE. 3 INCH AND LARGER WATER METERS SHALL BE   INSTALLED ABOVE-GROUND ONLY.   O CALLOUT DOMESTIC BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS RPPA (MAKE   NOTE USC APPROVED) AND FIRE BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS DCDA.       WATER/WASTEWATER PLAN:   O PROVIDE VERTICAL DATUM AND DATUM CONVERSION   INFORMATION (NAVD 1988 AND NGVD 1929).   O SHOW PROJECT ADDRESS ON ALL PLAN SHEETS.   O PROVIDE LEGEND ON ALL PLAN SHEETS TO INCLUDE   STREETLIGHT, SIGN POSTS, TRANSFORMER BOXES ETC.   O PLANS SHALL SHOW EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOCATIONS AND   DIMENSIONS OF ALL WATER, STORMWATER, AND SANITARY AND   SEWER LINES AND CLEANOUTS, INCLUDING STUBS TO EACH   PROPERTY LINE FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWERS, THE MAKE   AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES, POTABLE AND IRRIGATION METERS,   BACKFLOWS, FIRE HYDRANTS AND FDCS, AND OTHER DEVICES TO   BE INSTALLED ON THE SYSTEM, CATCH BASINS, CULVERTS,   DITCHES INCLUDING GRADES, PIPES SIZES, MATERIALS,   ELEVATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, CALCULATIONS, INVERT   ELEVATIONS FOR ALL INLETS AND MANHOLES AND PROFILES OF   SANITARY SEWER LINES.   O GATE VALVE BOXES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN CURB OR   SIDEWALK. ALL AVAILABLE ELEVATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE   PROFILE VIEW.   O DIRECTION OF FLOW SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLAN VIEW ON PLAN   VIEW FOR ALL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS.   O SHOW SLOPE % ON ALL SANITARY LINES AND CALL OUT   MATERIAL.   O PLAN VIEW SHALL SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   UNDERGROUND UTILITY LAYOUT, INCLUDING FIBER OPTIC,   ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION & TELECOMMUNICATION   FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.   O PROVIDE PROFILE AND CLEARANCES BETWEEN WATER, SEWER   AND STORM LINES PER CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH STANDARD   DETAIL GN-2 SERIES, AT ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS.   O SUBMIT COMPLETED LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE DIRECTLY   TO ENGINEERING (SHEET 33 OF CITY OF WPB DEVELOPMENT   APPLICATION). PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING   AND PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE,   MAXIMUM AND PEAK) AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS. CALCULATIONS   SHALL BE PER FAC 64E-6 FOR SEWER AND PER FAC 64-E.008   FOR WATER.   O PROVIDE FIRE FLOW TEST DATA.   O PROVIDE CCTV VIDEO OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND   STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG ENTIRE PROJECT   FRONTAGE.   O CUT AND CAP UTILITIES NOT IN USE AND REMOVE ANY   ABANDONED UTILITY LINES LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM CITY   ROW.   O WHEN PROPOSED, WATER MAINS IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL   BE MADE OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE (NOT PVC) AND SPECIFY   PROPOSED LENGTH IN FEET.   O CHECK TO SEE IF FDEP FORMS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY   SEWER ARE REQUIRED.   O PROVIDE CLEANOUTS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY LINE ONSITE   JUST INSIDE PROPERTY LINE, AT JOINTS AND EVERY 75 FEET.   O ADD NOTE TO PLANS SPECIFYING CITY?S DOWNSTREAM LIFT   STATION NUMBER.   O PROVIDE ONSITE CLEANOUTS NEAR PROPERTY LINE FOR   PROPOSED SANITARY LATERALS.   O LABEL WATER LINES AS PRIVATE WHERE APPLICABLE.   O PLEASE SHOW AND LABEL EXISTING AND PROPOSED GREASE   TRAPS (IF ANY).   O PER CITY STANDARDS MAINTAIN MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN   OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF CITY PIPE AND ROOT BARRIER.   FORMAL ENGINEERING REVIEW:   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, SFWMD ERP AND NPDES   NOI REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED.   - AN NOI IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS THAT:   - 1) DISTURB ONE OF MORE ACRES OF LAND OR DISTURB LESS   THAN ON ACRE OF LAND BUT ARE PART OF A COMMON PLAN OF   DEVELOPMENT OR SALE;   - 2) DISCHARGE STORMWATER TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE   STATE OR TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE THROUGH A   MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4).   - THE SFWMD ERP CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH A 10-2 SELF   CERTIFICATION THROUGH FDEP OR AN ERP APPLICATION   THROUGH SFWMD. EITHER WAY, THE DEVELOPER/ENGINEER SHALL   SUBMIT A COPY OF THE ERP PERMIT OR FDEP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT   OF THE 10-2 CERTIFICATION.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE   EASEMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF PROPOSED WATER METERS.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PROVIDE PROFILES OF   WATER AND SEWER AND SHOW ANY CROSSINGS/CONFLICTS.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, WHEN SUBMITTING   APPROVED MATERIALS LIST, PLEASE PROVIDE MATERIAL/CUT   SHEETS FOR ALL PROPOSED BACKFLOW DEVICES SHOWING   SPECIFIC MODEL NUMBER AND SPECIFYING USC APPROVED   LEAD-FREE DESIGN.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF SANITARY LINES   ARE PROPOSED IN ROW PLEASE SHOW ADJACENT SANITARY   LATERAL LOCATIONS AND SHOW ADDRESSES OF ADJACENT   PARCELS.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF WATER LINES ARE   BEING REPLACED IN ROW, SHOW ADJACENT PARCEL ADDRESSES.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, ADD NOTE TO PROVIDE   50 FT. PAVEMENT RESTORATION TRANSITION ON EACH SIDE OF   PROPOSED TRENCH IN CITY MAINTAINED ROADWAY AREAS PER   CITY OF WPB STANDARD DETAIL GC-8.       COMMENTS FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE   SUPERVISOR WITH CITY OF WPB PUBLIC UTILITIES,   561-822-2262 OR [email protected]   -BUILDING IS SHOWN IN EXISTING FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS   EASEMENT. VERIFY THAT IS ALRIGHT.       -A WELL AND LIFT STATION WERE SHOWN ON SURVEY. WILL   THEY REMAIN?       -CLEARLY SHOW AND LABEL EXISTING METERED WATER SERVICE   AND BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY FOR THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NEAR   THE BUS ENTRANCE ON CIVIL PLANS.       -CLEARLY SHOW AND LABEL EXISTING FORCE MAIN AND WATER   MAIN NEAR ENTIRE LENGTH OF WEST PROPERTY LINE ON CIVIL   PLANS.       -SHEET C09 SHOWS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIRE HYDRANT   BLOCKING USE CROSSWALK.       -SURVEY REPORT NOTE 5 SAYS THAT NO SEARCH OF PUBLIC   RECORDS HAS BEEN PERFORMED. WHEN WILL IT BE PERFORMED?       -L110 SHOWS STOP BAR IN POSITION THAT MAY BLOCK   CROSSWALK. VERIFY LOCATION IS ACCEPTABLE.       -ENSURE THAT NO TREES WILL BE IN WATER LINE EASEMENT.   ALSO ENSURE NO TREES WILL BE CLOSER THAN 5 HORIZONTAL   FEET FROM CITY WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES.       -ON CIVIL PLAN SHOW AND LABEL ALL GREASE TRAPS.       -PART OF THE NORTH BUILDING APPEARS TO BE ENCROACHING   INTO SETBACK. IS THAT ALRIGHT?       -ADA PLAN SHOWS PATH GOING THROUGH COLUMNS, TREES,   GRASS, AND CROSSWALKS THAT ARE LABELED TO BE REMOVED.       -SOUTH OPEN SPACE AREA SAYS IT IS GATED AND FENCED.   WHEN TIMES WILL GATE BE CLOSED?       -SOME OF THE COLUMNS LOOK LOCATED AGAINST BUILDING   WALLS. IS ANY CLEARANCE DISTANCE NEEDED BETWEEN THEM?       -LANDSCAPING PLAN L110 SHOWS GRASS AT THE END OF   CROSSWALKS.       -MOTOR LOBBY DOOR PATH SEEMS LIKE IT BLOCKS MOST OF   SIDEWALK. IS THAT ALRIGHT?       -THERE IS A SEWER LINE AND CLEANOUT THAT ENCROACHES   INTO A COLUMN AND FOOTER.       -DID PLAN DESIGN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BANYAN STREETSCAPE   PROJECT THAT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED NOW?       -VERIFY PROPOSED 4 INCH PVC PRIVATE FORCE MAIN IS   SUFFICIENT SIZE. ALSO VERIFY EXISTING 6 INCH DIP   FORCEMAIN HAS ENOUGH CAPACITY AS THERE ARE A COUPLE   SUBSTANTIAL BUILDING PROJECTS STARTED IN AREA.       -UTILITY MAINTENANCE MAY SOMETIMES IMPEDE USE OF MAIN   BUILDING ENTRANCE/EXIT BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED IN WATER   LINE EASEMENT, THERE ARE EXISTING UTILITIES NEAR IT,   AND PROPOSING ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.       -THERE ARE MANY EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS FPL,   FIBER OPTIC, CROSS ACCESS, POLE LINE. FOR ANY EASEMENTS   WHERE STRUCTURES ARE BEING BUILT, VERIFY THAT IS   ACCEPTABLE WITH EASEMENT PROVISIONS.       -DOES THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT SPECIFY WHO OWNS   AND MAINTAINS THE COLUMNS AND FOOTERS IN THE ITC   PROPERTY? ALSO DOES THE AGREEMENT SPECIFY ANY CROSS   ACCESS, OR USE OF ANY SHARED UTILITIES.       -THE 6 INCH DOMESTIC METER LOCATIONS ARE NOT   ACCEPTABLE. THEY NEED TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE   PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT EXCESSIVE SERVICE LINE LENGTH.   ALSO SHOW AND LABEL THE DOMESTIC BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES   NEAR THEM.       -ON CIVIL PLANS, SHOW AND LABEL 10 INCH WATER MAIN   RUNNING NEAR NORTHWEST AREA OF PROPERTY.       -C08 SHOWS GUY WIRE IN RUN LANE OF DRIVEWAY.       -THE LOCATIONS OF FIRELINE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES ARE NOT   ACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE TAPS AND   EXCESSIVE PIPE LENGTHS BETWEEN THEM.       -ON L112, SHOW WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES AND VERIFY   TREES ARE DISTANCED AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THEM.       -ONE FDC LOCATION APPEARS IN MIDDLE OF SIDEWALK.     Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT Rev No 1 Status P Date 05-06-2022 Cont ID   Sent By pleduc Date 05-06-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By pleduc Date 05-04-2022 Time 12:57 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-06 10:56:15 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY PETER LEDUC,   FIRE MARSHAL, BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, WEST PALM   BEACH FIRE RESCUE.       THIS REVIEW CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AS THE   DRAWINGS THAT WERE REVIEWED WERE NOT COMPLETE.   ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAN BE EXPECTED WHEN FULL DRAWINGS   ARE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT.       THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE   PROPOSED PROJECT; HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE   PROVIDED AND MAY NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS WHERE   APPLICABLE.       1. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND RENOVATION TO COMPLY   WITH NFPA 241. EXTRA ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE   PERMITTING AND LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS. A   PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER RELATED   TO THIS PROJECT. SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM MAIN   STRUCTURES AS WELL AS OTHER TRAILERS SHALL BE CLOSELY   MONITORED FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF FIRE SPRINKLER   PROTECTION.       2. SITE ACCESS AND EXIT POINTS ARE TO BE CLEARLY   IDENTIFIED AND MAINTAINED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES DURING   ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.       3. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM   ALL ACCESS ROADWAYS, INCLUDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.   ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND   AND SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT   WITH A ONE (1) INCH STROKE FOR ALL BUILDINGS.       4. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRASH AND DEBRIS IS TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE SITE DAILY OR MORE OFTEN TO REDUCE THE   ACCUMULATION OF POTENTIAL LIFE AND FIRE SAFETY HAZARDS.       5. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH   THE 7TH EDITION OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE,   INCLUDING NFPA 1 & 101, AND ALL ASSOCIATED FIRE CODES.       6. ALL PARKING STRUCTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH NFPA 88A,   PARKING STRUCTURES AND NFPA 101, THE LIFE SAFETY CODE,   INCLUDING MORE SPECIFICALLY, CHAPTER 42 STORAGE   OCCUPANCIES (PARKING STRUCTURES)       7. FOR PROJECT PLAN REVIEW PURPOSES THE FIRE PROTECTION   OF THESE INDIVIDUAL HIGH RISES GREATER DETAIL WILL BE   NEEDED ON HOW EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING IS SUPPLIED AND   PROTECTED.I.E, FIRE PUMP(S), FIRE ALARM(S), FIRE   COMMAND ROOM(S), ETC.       A NFPA 13 COMPLAINT FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND NFPA 14   COMPLIANT WET STANDPIPE SYSTEM ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS   STRUCTURE. TEMPORARY STANDPIPES ARE REQUIRED WHEN THE   BUILDING REACHES THREE LEVELS OR THIRTY FEET WHILE   BEING CONSTRUCTED.       SEPARATE SHOP DRAWINGS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED,   REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU   PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION.       IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR HIGH RISES HAVE TWO SEPARATE FDC   LOCATIONS REMOTELY LOCATED.       ONLY ONE FDC WAS IDENTIFIED FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT.       7A. PER NFPA 14       6.4.5.4* FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED   NOT MORE THAN 100 FT (30.5 M) FROM THE NEAREST FIRE   HYDRANT CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY.       ONLY 1 FIRE HYDRANT WAS IDENTIFIED FOR THE ENTIRE   PROEJECT.           7B. PER NFPA 1       18.3 WATER SUPPLIES.   18.3.1* AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING   THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE   PROVIDED TO ALL PREMISES UPON WHICH FACILITIES,   BUILDINGS, OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS ARE HEREAFTER   CONSTRUCTED OR MOVED INTO THE JURISDICTION. THE   APPROVED WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH   SECTION 18.4.       PER FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 61G15-32.004,   FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS SHALL INCLUDE THE   POINT OF SERVICE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY, A LIST OF   APPLICABLE NFPA STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT,   CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARD OCCUPANCY FOR EACH ROOM OR   AREA, SUPPRESSION SYSTEM TYPE, DESIGN DENSITIES, WATER   SUPPLY DATA (FIRE PUMP DATA, HYDRANT FLOW TEST DATA)   AND ANY PERFORMANCE BASED INFORMATION SUCH AS   PRE-ENGINEERED SYSTEMS.       FOR THE PROPOSED FIRE PUMP(S) , WHAT IS(ARE) THE   PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POWER SOURCES?           7C. THE LOCATION OF THE DDCV FIRE LINE LOCATION SHALL   MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 24 AND SHALL BE   COORDINATED WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE MARSHAL, THE CITY'S   ENGINEERS OFFICE, THE LANDSCAPE PLANNER, AND THE CITY'S   PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE.           8. A CLASS ?A? NFPA 72 COMPLIANT MONITORED FIRE ALARM   SYSTEM IS REQUIRED FOR THIS STRUCTURE. SEPARATE SHOP   DRAWINGS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND   APPROVED BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PRIOR TO ANY   INSTALLATION.           9. ALL ELEVATORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A REGION 7   KEYWAY SYSTEM.       ALL NEW ELEVATORS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FIRE FIGHTER?S   EMERGENCY OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF ASME A17.1/CSA   B44, SAFETY CODE FOR ELEVATORS.       ANY BUILDING THAT IS MORE THAN THREE STORIES HIGH OR IN   WHICH THE VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM TERMINAL   LANDING AND THE TOP TERMINAL LANDING EXCEEDS 25 FEET   MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONTAIN AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER   ELEVATOR THAT IS OPERATIONAL AND WILL ACCOMMODATE AN   AMBULANCE STRETCHER 76 INCHES LONG AND 24 INCHES WIDE   IN THE HORIZONTAL POSITION.           10. COMPLETE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR EACH OCCUPANCY SHALL   BE PROVIDED THAT ILLUSTRATE OCCUPANT LOADS, TRAVEL   DISTANCES, COMMON PATHS OF TRAVEL, DEAD-END CORRIDORS,   EXIT SIGNS, EMERGENCY LIGHTING, EXITS LEADING TO A   PUBLIC WAY, FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND ALL FIRE   SAFETY FEATURES AND EQUIPMENT.       11. ALL EXISTING AND NEW FIRE HYDRANTS PLANNED FOR THIS   DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CLEARLY INDICATED AND IDENTIFIED   ON THE PLAN AND CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE BUREAU OF   FIRE PREVENTION.       ALL NEW FIRE HYDRANTS AND FDC?S PLANNED FOR THIS   DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE   BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS AND   FDC?S SHOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET   OR ACCESS ROADWAY TO ALLOW FREE ACCESS FOR OTHER   ARRIVING EMERGENCY VEHICLES.           12. COMMAND ROOM       THE FIRE COMMAND CENTER SHALL COMPLY WITH NFPA 1,   CHAPTER 11, BUILDING SERVICES; 11.9 AND SHALL CONTAIN   THE FOLLOWING FEATURES:       11.9.1 THE LOCATION, DESIGN, CONTENT, AND FIRE   DEPARTMENT ACCESS OF THE EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER SHALL   BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.       11.9.2 THE EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER SHALL BE SEPARATED   FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING BY A FIRE BARRIER   HAVING A FIRE RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 1   HOUR.       11.9.3 THE EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER ROOM SHALL BE A   MINIMUM OF 200 FT2 (19 M2) WITH A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF   10 FT (3050 MM).       11.9.4 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE EMERGENCY   COMMAND CENTER.   (1) THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.   (2) A TELEPHONE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT USE WITH CONTROLLED   ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC TELEPHONE SYSTEM   (3) SCHEMATIC BUILDING PLANS INDICATING THE TYPICAL   FLOOR PLAN AND DETAILING THE BUILDING CORE, MEANS OF   EGRESS, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, FIRE-FIGHTING   EQUIPMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS   (4) WORK TABLE.   (5) IF APPLICABLE, A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN   FOR THE BUILDING.   11.9.5 WHERE OTHERWISE REQUIRED, THE FOLLOWING DEVICES   OR FUNCTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE EMERGENCY   COMMAND CENTER.   (1) THE EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM   CONTROL UNIT.   (2) FIRE DETECTION AND ALARM SYSTEM ANNUNCIATOR UNIT.   (3) ANNUNCIATOR UNIT VISUALLY INDICATING THE LOCATION   OF THE ELEVATORS AND WHETHER THEY ARE OPERATIONAL   (4) STATUS INDICATORS AND CONTROLS FOR AIR-HANDLING   SYSTEMS.   (5) CONTROLS FOR UNLOCKING STAIRWAY DOORS   SIMULTANEOUSLY   (6) SPRINKLER VALVE AND WATER FLOW DETECTOR DISPLAY   PANELS   (7) EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER STATUS INDICATORS   (8) FIRE PUMP STATUS INDICATORS   (9) GENERATOR SUPERVISION DEVICES AND MANUAL START AND   TRANSFER FEATURES.   (10) PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM, WHERE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED   BY OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS CODE   (11) CONTROLS REQUIRED FOR SMOKE CONTROL       NFPA 101       11.8.6* EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER.       11.8.6.1 AN EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER SHALL BE PROVIDED   IN A   LOCATION APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.       11.8.6.2 THE EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER SHALL CONTAIN THE   FOLLOWING:   (1) VOICE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PANELS AND CONTROLS   (2) FIRE DEPARTMENT TWO-WAY TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION   SERVICE   PANELS AND CONTROLS WHERE REQUIRED BY ANOTHER SECTION   OF THIS   CODE   (3) FIRE DETECTION AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ANNUNCIATION   PANELS   (4) ELEVATOR FLOOR LOCATION AND OPERATION ANNUNCIATORS   (5) ELEVATOR FIRE RECALL SWITCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME   A17.1/CSA B44, SAFETY CODE FOR ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS   (6) ELEVATOR EMERGENCY POWER SELECTOR SWITCH(ES) WHERE   PROVIDED   IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME A17.1/CSA B44   (7) SPRINKLER VALVE AND WATERFLOW ANNUNCIATORS   (8) EMERGENCY GENERATOR STATUS INDICATORS   (9) CONTROLS FOR ANY AUTOMATIC STAIRWAY DOOR UNLOCKING   SYSTEM   (10) FIRE PUMP STATUS INDICATORS   (11) TELEPHONE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT USE WITH CONTROLLED   ACCESS TO THE   PUBLIC TELEPHONE SYSTEM   (12) STAIRWAY VIDEO MONITORING EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED BY   11.8.8           13. TWO-WAY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS.       NFPA 1, CHAPTER 11, BUILDING SERVICES; 11.10 TWO-WAY   RADIO ENHANCEMENT SERVICES.       11.10.1 IN ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS, MINIMUM   RADIO SIGNAL STRENGTH FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT   COMMUNICATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL   DETERMINED BY THE AHJ.       NFPA 72, 24.9 TWO-WAY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ENHANCEMENT   SYSTEMS.   24.9.1 GENERAL.       24.9.1.1 NON-INTERFERENCE. NO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM   CAPABLE   OF OPERATING ON FREQUENCIES OR CAUSING INTERFERENCE ON   FREQUENCIES   ASSIGNED TO THE JURISDICTION BY THE FCC SHALL BE   INSTALLED   WITHOUT PRIOR COORDINATION AND APPROVAL OF THE   AUTHORITY   HAVING JURISDICTION. THE BUILDING MANAGER/OWNER SHALL   SUSPEND AND CORRECT OTHER EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONS THAT   DEGRADE   THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM OR   PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM.       24.9.1.2 APPROVAL AND PERMIT. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED   FOR   APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF   SUCCESSFUL   ACCEPTANCE TESTING, A RENEWABLE PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED   FOR THE   PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM WHERE REQUIRED   BY   THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.       THE SYSTEM SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM RADIO SIGNAL   STRENGTH OF -105 DBM FOR THE RADIO SYSTEM USED BY WEST   PALM BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT. TESTING SHALL BE BY AN   ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL STANDARD DOCUMENTING PERCENTAGES   NOTED ABOVE AND BY ACTUAL RADIO TESTING BY FIRE   PERSONNEL. IF THE MINIMUM CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, A   BI-DIRECTIONAL AMPLIFIED SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH   A MINIMUM 2-HOUR RUN TIME BATTERY BACK-UP.       AT THE APPLICABLE TIME PLEASE CONTACT MARK FILLA, PALM   BEACH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS MANAGER,   [email protected], 561-233-0837; AS OUR RADIOS OPERATE   ON THEIR SYSTEM FOR DETAILED RADIO FREQUENCY AND   INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.           14. KNOX-BOX KEY SYSTEM SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THES   BUILDINGS.       ANY GATES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH KNOX KEY SWITCHES FOR   24 HOUR EMERGENCY ACCESS.           15. THE SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM SHALL COMPLY WITH NFPA   101, CHAPTER 9, BUILDING SERVICE AND FIRE PROTECTION   EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING:       THE SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED,   INSPECTED, TESTED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH   NFPA 92, STANDARD FOR SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS; NFPA 204,   STANDARD FOR SMOKE AND HEAT VENTING; OR NATIONALLY   RECOGNIZED STANDARDS, ENGINEERING GUIDES, OR   RECOMMENDED PRACTICES, AS APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY   HAVING JURISDICTION.   THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE   INTENT OF THE SYSTEM, THE DESIGN METHOD USED, THE   APPROPRIATENESS OF THE METHOD USED, AND THE REQUIRED   MEANS OF INSPECTING, TESTING, AND MAINTAINING THE   SYSTEM.       ACCEPTANCE TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A SPECIAL   INSPECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9.9.           16. THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT   DOES NOT CONSTITUTE IT'S FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.           17. THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING   PLANS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH   THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS.           PETER LEDUC   FIRE MARSHAL   561-804-4709   [email protected]     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 7 Status P Date 01-10-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 01-10-2023 Time 11:37 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 01-10-2023 Time 11:37 Sent To   Notes 2023-01-10 11:37:48 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   JANUARY 10, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE   TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON   SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5) STANDARDS   SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF GOOD,   MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS   REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL   FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE DISPOSITION   MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE PRESERVED,   RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.   8/17/22 L100 NEEDS TO HAVE THE BACKGROUND LAYERS   REMOVED TO MAKE THE TREE LOCATIONS AND LABELS EASILY   LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.   LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO FULFILL THE   STREET TREE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH   SPECIFIC TREES INDICATED THAT WILL MEET THE QUALITY,   SIZE AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION   AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS   THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE DISPOSITION CHART   AND PLAN. THE RESUBMITTAL NOW INDICATES A NUMBER OF   NATIVE TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.   11/29/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE   CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES   AND PALMS THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE   DISPOSITION CHART AND PLAN.           2. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY   MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20   FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE   CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS   THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE   CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.   CHART HAS CHANGED, SO STATUS OF COMMENT CHANGED.   THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE ON SHEET   L601:   ??? ILEX CASSINE IS A CATEGORY 2 TREE WITH 150 SQ FT OF   MITIGATION DUE. CORRECT ON CHART FOR #006, 097, 098,   190, AND 191.   ??? CORRECT #125 TO SHOW ABOVE 20???   ??? CORRECT #108 TO 300 SQ FT MITIGATION DUE FOR LIVE   OAK CATEGORY 1.       3. SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE REQUIRED AND   PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THE   ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE AS   ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN SECTION   94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF OPEN   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 GARDEN COURTYARD IS SPECIFIED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   1B REQUIRED VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE   THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE CHART. OVERALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART   MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR   VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 RENAMED GARDEN PLAZA, BUT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED   AS THIS UNLESS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING   BEING ON GROUND LEVEL.   9/1/22 THESE AREAS ARE NOW SHOWN AS ADDITIONAL ON SHEET   L008 AND NOT COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS,   BUT IF NOT ON GROUND LEVEL CANNOT BE CALLED GARDEN   PLAZA.               OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.   8/17/22 CORRECTED ON SHEET L005. SHEET L002 IS   INCOMPLETE.   9/1/22 NOW SHOWN ON SHEET L006. SHOW THE PERIMETER OF   EACH AREA SPECIFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE   TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS.   HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN   EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY. OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT   CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW   HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED   AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.   8/17/22 NOT CORRECTED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH   OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY. 9A   DOES NOT MEET THE VEGETATED AREA REQUIRED.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.   8/17/22 SHEET L002 SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL AREAS, SHEET   L005 CHART MUST SHOW THE BREAKDOWN FOR EACH AREA FOR   THE VEGETATED AREA LOCATIONS, TREE CANOPY, ETC. AS   SHOWN ON L002.   9/1/22 SHEET NUMBERS HAVE BEEN REVISED.           4. SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING TREE   CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR   TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.   8/17/22 TREES MUST BE SHOWN THAT ARE BEING USED FOR   CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT AND THE   CREDITS ASSIGNED SHOWN WITH TOTAL. THIS IS BEST   ACCOMPLISHED WITH A PLANT LIST AND AREA SHOWN FOR EACH   OPEN SPACE.   9/1/22 AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, PROVIDE THE   TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN   VERIFY THE CREDITS.       5. SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE   PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF   THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE   SHEETS REFERENCED.   IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS FOR THE TREES AND PALMS TO BE   RELOCATED. THE ROYAL PALMS ARE THE ONLY RELOCATES   MARKED AS GOING TO OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY ON THE   DISPOSITION LIST.               6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO SMALL A SCALE   TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL. NEED TO BE   SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 THE SCALE IS STILL TOO SMALL TO SUFFICIENTLY   REVIEW THE PLANS. THE COLOR EASEMENTS NEED TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. INDIVIDUAL SHEETS OF THE   SEPARATE OPEN SPACE AREAS NEED TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED   AND UNNECESSARY INFORMATION REMOVED.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR REQUIRED STREET   TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET OR PORTION   THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND SHOW THE   NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116. THE   BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON   THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT WITH   THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.   8/17/22 THERE IS A LARGE GAP WITH NO STREET TREES   ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 1A. THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA   ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED   STREET TREES.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   9/1/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF THE   SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113.       11/29/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF   THE SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   SATISFIED. BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND   SHOWS PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113. DETAIL IS NOT CORRECT.           12/22/22 THE SILVER BUTTONWOOD TREES DO NOT MEET THE   REQUIREMENTS AS STREET TREES TO PROVIDE SHADE. CHANGE   TO SHADE TREES.   THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK WIDTH IS 8 FEET NOT 5 FEET PER   94-113(D)(1) AND MUST BE LOCATED ALONG THE BUILDING   FRONTAGE. THE STREET TREES MAY BE ABLE TO BE LOCATED   CLOSER TO THE EASEMENT WITH THE SIDEWALK PROVIDED   ADJACENT TO THE CURB MEETING THE REQUIREMENT. INDICATE   THE SIDEWALK LOCATION AND PROVIDE THE DIMENSION.               11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER AND   SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. SHOW   LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS OF UTILITY   LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED   TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT EVIDENT ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER, SEWER   AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH   REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS FOR   SCREENING.       11/29/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER,   SEWER AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS   WITH REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS   FOR SCREENING.           13. SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO   INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 PLANT LIST NOT FOUND ON L004 AS INDICATED IN   THE RESPONSE MEMO.       11/29/22 PROVIDE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST FOR THE PROJECT   ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.               14. SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L.   PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT   MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET.   11/29/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A   COMPLETE PLANT LIST.           15. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY MITIGATION   PROVIDED FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT LIST.   9/1/22 RESPONSES INDICATE THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED   ON SHEET L112,   BUT WAS NOT FOUND.       17. SATISFIED. THE PALM SUBSTITUTION INFORMATION   PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CHART ON SHEET   L002 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.   REVISE.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 9/1/22:   18. CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. LOCATIONS IN REQUIRED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACES FOR POSSIBLE AIPP ON SHEET L008 AND   L010 DO NOT SHOW DETAIL OF HOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING   WOULD BE AFFECTED.   11/29/22: THE NOTE PLACED ON SHEET L008 DOES NOT   ADDRESS THE COMMENT. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT BE   AFFECTED BY ART PLACEMENT.           CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.       4. FINAL LOCATIONS FOR PUBLIC ART WILL REQUIRE AN   AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN TO VERIFY ALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.       5. AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL, ENGINEERING   AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL BE REVISED TO ACCURATELY SHOW   THE LOCATIONS OF REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SOIL.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 6 Status F Date 12-22-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 12-22-2022 Time 14:04 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 12-22-2022 Time 14:04 Sent To   Notes 2022-12-22 14:05:28 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   DECEMBER 22, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE   TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON   SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5) STANDARDS   SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF GOOD,   MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS   REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL   FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE DISPOSITION   MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE PRESERVED,   RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.   8/17/22 L100 NEEDS TO HAVE THE BACKGROUND LAYERS   REMOVED TO MAKE THE TREE LOCATIONS AND LABELS EASILY   LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.   LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO FULFILL THE   STREET TREE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH   SPECIFIC TREES INDICATED THAT WILL MEET THE QUALITY,   SIZE AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION   AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS   THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE DISPOSITION CHART   AND PLAN. THE RESUBMITTAL NOW INDICATES A NUMBER OF   NATIVE TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.   11/29/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE   CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES   AND PALMS THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE   DISPOSITION CHART AND PLAN.           2. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY   MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20   FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE   CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS   THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE   CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.   CHART HAS CHANGED, SO STATUS OF COMMENT CHANGED.   THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE ON SHEET   L601:   ??? ILEX CASSINE IS A CATEGORY 2 TREE WITH 150 SQ FT OF   MITIGATION DUE. CORRECT ON CHART FOR #006, 097, 098,   190, AND 191.   ??? CORRECT #125 TO SHOW ABOVE 20???   ??? CORRECT #108 TO 300 SQ FT MITIGATION DUE FOR LIVE   OAK CATEGORY 1.       3. SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE REQUIRED AND   PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THE   ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE AS   ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN SECTION   94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF OPEN   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 GARDEN COURTYARD IS SPECIFIED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   1B REQUIRED VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE   THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE CHART. OVERALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART   MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR   VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 RENAMED GARDEN PLAZA, BUT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED   AS THIS UNLESS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING   BEING ON GROUND LEVEL.   9/1/22 THESE AREAS ARE NOW SHOWN AS ADDITIONAL ON SHEET   L008 AND NOT COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS,   BUT IF NOT ON GROUND LEVEL CANNOT BE CALLED GARDEN   PLAZA.               OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.   8/17/22 CORRECTED ON SHEET L005. SHEET L002 IS   INCOMPLETE.   9/1/22 NOW SHOWN ON SHEET L006. SHOW THE PERIMETER OF   EACH AREA SPECIFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE   TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS.   HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN   EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY. OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT   CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW   HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED   AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.   8/17/22 NOT CORRECTED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH   OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY. 9A   DOES NOT MEET THE VEGETATED AREA REQUIRED.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.   8/17/22 SHEET L002 SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL AREAS, SHEET   L005 CHART MUST SHOW THE BREAKDOWN FOR EACH AREA FOR   THE VEGETATED AREA LOCATIONS, TREE CANOPY, ETC. AS   SHOWN ON L002.   9/1/22 SHEET NUMBERS HAVE BEEN REVISED.           4. SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING TREE   CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR   TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.   8/17/22 TREES MUST BE SHOWN THAT ARE BEING USED FOR   CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT AND THE   CREDITS ASSIGNED SHOWN WITH TOTAL. THIS IS BEST   ACCOMPLISHED WITH A PLANT LIST AND AREA SHOWN FOR EACH   OPEN SPACE.   9/1/22 AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, PROVIDE THE   TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN   VERIFY THE CREDITS.       5. SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE   PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF   THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE   SHEETS REFERENCED.   IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS FOR THE TREES AND PALMS TO BE   RELOCATED. THE ROYAL PALMS ARE THE ONLY RELOCATES   MARKED AS GOING TO OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY ON THE   DISPOSITION LIST.               6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO SMALL A SCALE   TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL. NEED TO BE   SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 THE SCALE IS STILL TOO SMALL TO SUFFICIENTLY   REVIEW THE PLANS. THE COLOR EASEMENTS NEED TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. INDIVIDUAL SHEETS OF THE   SEPARATE OPEN SPACE AREAS NEED TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED   AND UNNECESSARY INFORMATION REMOVED.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR   REQUIRED STREET TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET   OR PORTION THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND   SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED   ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT   WITH THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.   8/17/22 THERE IS A LARGE GAP WITH NO STREET TREES   ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 1A. THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA   ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED   STREET TREES.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   9/1/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF THE   SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113.       11/29/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF   THE SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   SATISFIED. BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND   SHOWS PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113. DETAIL IS NOT CORRECT.           12/22/22 THE SILVER BUTTONWOOD TREES DO NOT MEET THE   REQUIREMENTS AS STREET TREES TO PROVIDE SHADE. CHANGE   TO SHADE TREES.   THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK WIDTH IS 8 FEET NOT 5 FEET PER   94-113(D)(1) AND MUST BE LOCATED ALONG THE BUILDING   FRONTAGE. THE STREET TREES MAY BE ABLE TO BE LOCATED   CLOSER TO THE EASEMENT WITH THE SIDEWALK PROVIDED   ADJACENT TO THE CURB MEETING THE REQUIREMENT. INDICATE   THE SIDEWALK LOCATION AND PROVIDE THE DIMENSION.               11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER AND   SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. SHOW   LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS OF UTILITY   LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED   TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT EVIDENT ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER, SEWER   AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH   REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS FOR   SCREENING.       11/29/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER,   SEWER AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS   WITH REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS   FOR SCREENING.           13. SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO   INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 PLANT LIST NOT FOUND ON L004 AS INDICATED IN   THE RESPONSE MEMO.       11/29/22 PROVIDE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST FOR THE PROJECT   ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.               14. SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L.   PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT   MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET.   11/29/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A   COMPLETE PLANT LIST.           15. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY MITIGATION   PROVIDED FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT LIST.   9/1/22 RESPONSES INDICATE THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED   ON SHEET L112,   BUT WAS NOT FOUND.       17. SATISFIED. THE PALM SUBSTITUTION INFORMATION   PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CHART ON SHEET   L002 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.   REVISE.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 9/1/22:   18. CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. LOCATIONS IN REQUIRED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACES FOR POSSIBLE AIPP ON SHEET L008 AND   L010 DO NOT SHOW DETAIL OF HOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING   WOULD BE AFFECTED.   11/29/22: THE NOTE PLACED ON SHEET L008 DOES NOT   ADDRESS THE COMMENT. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT BE   AFFECTED BY ART PLACEMENT.           CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.       4. FINAL LOCATIONS FOR PUBLIC ART WILL REQUIRE AN   AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN TO VERIFY ALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.         Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 5 Status F Date 11-29-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 11-29-2022 Time 13:10 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 11-29-2022 Time 13:10 Sent To   Notes 2022-11-29 13:11:03 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   NOVEMBER 28, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES   NATIVE TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE   PRESERVED ON SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5)   STANDARDS SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF   GOOD, MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN   ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION   POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE   DISPOSITION MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE   PRESERVED, RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.   8/17/22 L100 NEEDS TO HAVE THE BACKGROUND LAYERS   REMOVED TO MAKE THE TREE LOCATIONS AND LABELS EASILY   LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.   LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO FULFILL THE   STREET TREE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH   SPECIFIC TREES INDICATED THAT WILL MEET THE QUALITY,   SIZE AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION   AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS   THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE DISPOSITION CHART   AND PLAN. THE RESUBMITTAL NOW INDICATES A NUMBER OF   NATIVE TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.   11/29/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE   CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES   AND PALMS THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE   DISPOSITION CHART AND PLAN.           2. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY   MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20   FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE   CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS   THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE   CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.   CHART HAS CHANGED, SO STATUS OF COMMENT CHANGED.   THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE ON SHEET   L601:   ??? ILEX CASSINE IS A CATEGORY 2 TREE WITH 150 SQ FT OF   MITIGATION DUE. CORRECT ON CHART FOR #006, 097, 098,   190, AND 191.   ??? CORRECT #125 TO SHOW ABOVE 20???   ??? CORRECT #108 TO 300 SQ FT MITIGATION DUE FOR LIVE   OAK CATEGORY 1.       3. SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE REQUIRED AND   PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THE   ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE AS   ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN SECTION   94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF OPEN   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 GARDEN COURTYARD IS SPECIFIED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   1B REQUIRED VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE   THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE CHART. OVERALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART   MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR   VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 RENAMED GARDEN PLAZA, BUT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED   AS THIS UNLESS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING   BEING ON GROUND LEVEL.   9/1/22 THESE AREAS ARE NOW SHOWN AS ADDITIONAL ON SHEET   L008 AND NOT COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS,   BUT IF NOT ON GROUND LEVEL CANNOT BE CALLED GARDEN   PLAZA.               OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.   8/17/22 CORRECTED ON SHEET L005. SHEET L002 IS   INCOMPLETE.   9/1/22 NOW SHOWN ON SHEET L006. SHOW THE PERIMETER OF   EACH AREA SPECIFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE   TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS.   HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN   EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY. OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT   CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW   HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED   AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.   8/17/22 NOT CORRECTED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH   OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY. 9A   DOES NOT MEET THE VEGETATED AREA REQUIRED.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.   8/17/22 SHEET L002 SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL AREAS, SHEET   L005 CHART MUST SHOW THE BREAKDOWN FOR EACH AREA FOR   THE VEGETATED AREA LOCATIONS, TREE CANOPY, ETC. AS   SHOWN ON L002.   9/1/22 SHEET NUMBERS HAVE BEEN REVISED.           4. SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING TREE   CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR   TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.   8/17/22 TREES MUST BE SHOWN THAT ARE BEING USED FOR   CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT AND THE   CREDITS ASSIGNED SHOWN WITH TOTAL. THIS IS BEST   ACCOMPLISHED WITH A PLANT LIST AND AREA SHOWN FOR EACH   OPEN SPACE.   9/1/22 AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, PROVIDE THE   TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN   VERIFY THE CREDITS.                   5. SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE   PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF   THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE   SHEETS REFERENCED.   IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS FOR THE TREES AND PALMS TO BE   RELOCATED. THE ROYAL PALMS ARE THE ONLY RELOCATES   MARKED AS GOING TO OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY ON THE   DISPOSITION LIST.               6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO SMALL A SCALE   TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL. NEED TO BE   SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 THE SCALE IS STILL TOO SMALL TO SUFFICIENTLY   REVIEW THE PLANS. THE COLOR EASEMENTS NEED TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. INDIVIDUAL SHEETS OF THE   SEPARATE OPEN SPACE AREAS NEED TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED   AND UNNECESSARY INFORMATION REMOVED.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR   REQUIRED STREET TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET   OR PORTION THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND   SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED   ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT   WITH THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.   8/17/22 THERE IS A LARGE GAP WITH NO STREET TREES   ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 1A. THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA   ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED   STREET TREES.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   9/1/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF THE   SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113.       11/29/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF   THE SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   SATISFIED. BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND   SHOWS PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113. DETAIL IS NOT CORRECT.               11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   WATER AND SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. SHOW LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS   OF UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND   PROPOSED TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT EVIDENT ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER, SEWER   AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH   REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS FOR   SCREENING.       11/29/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER,   SEWER AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS   WITH REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS   FOR SCREENING.           13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE   MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 PLANT LIST NOT FOUND ON L004 AS INDICATED IN   THE RESPONSE MEMO.       11/29/22 PROVIDE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST FOR THE PROJECT   ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.               14. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION   94-445 L. PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF   PLANT MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET.   11/29/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET. SHEET L603 IS NOT A   COMPLETE PLANT LIST.           15. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY   MITIGATION PROVIDED FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT   LIST.   9/1/22 RESPONSES INDICATE THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED   ON SHEET L112,   BUT WAS NOT FOUND.       17. SATISFIED. THE PALM SUBSTITUTION INFORMATION   PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CHART ON SHEET   L002 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.   REVISE.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 9/1/22:   18. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. LOCATIONS IN REQUIRED PUBLIC   OPEN SPACES FOR POSSIBLE AIPP ON SHEET L008 AND L010 DO   NOT SHOW DETAIL OF HOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING WOULD   BE AFFECTED.   11/29/22: THE NOTE PLACED ON SHEET L008 DOES NOT   ADDRESS THE COMMENT. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT BE   AFFECTED BY ART PLACEMENT.           CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 4 Status F Date 09-15-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 09-15-2022 Time 16:46 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 09-01-2022 Time 16:45 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-15 16:46:32 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   SEPTEMBER 1, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES   NATIVE TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE   PRESERVED ON SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5)   STANDARDS SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF   GOOD, MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN   ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION   POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE   DISPOSITION MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE   PRESERVED, RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.   8/17/22 L100 NEEDS TO HAVE THE BACKGROUND LAYERS   REMOVED TO MAKE THE TREE LOCATIONS AND LABELS EASILY   LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.   LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO FULFILL THE   STREET TREE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH   SPECIFIC TREES INDICATED THAT WILL MEET THE QUALITY,   SIZE AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION   AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS   THAT ARE SHOWN TO BE REMOVED ON THE DISPOSITION CHART   AND PLAN. THE RESUBMITTAL NOW INDICATES A NUMBER OF   NATIVE TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.       2. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY   MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20   FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE   CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS   THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE   CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.   CHART HAS CHANGED, SO STATUS OF COMMENT CHANGED.   THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE ON SHEET   L601:   ??? ILEX CASSINE IS A CATEGORY 2 TREE WITH 150 SQ FT OF   MITIGATION DUE. CORRECT ON CHART FOR #006, 097, 098,   190, AND 191.   ??? CORRECT #125 TO SHOW ABOVE 20???   ??? CORRECT #108 TO 300 SQ FT MITIGATION DUE FOR LIVE   OAK CATEGORY 1.       3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF   OPEN SPACE AS ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN   SECTION 94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF   OPEN SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 GARDEN COURTYARD IS SPECIFIED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   1B REQUIRED VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE   THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE CHART. OVERALL LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART   MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR   VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 RENAMED GARDEN PLAZA, BUT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED   AS THIS UNLESS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING   BEING ON GROUND LEVEL.   9/1/22 THESE AREAS ARE NOW SHOWN AS ADDITIONAL ON SHEET   L008 AND NOT COUNTED TOWARD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS,   BUT IF NOT ON GROUND LEVEL CANNOT BE CALLED GARDEN   PLAZA.               OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.   8/17/22 CORRECTED ON SHEET L005. SHEET L002 IS   INCOMPLETE.   9/1/22 NOW SHOWN ON SHEET L006. SHOW THE PERIMETER OF   EACH AREA SPECIFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE   TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS.   HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN   EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY. OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT   CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW   HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED   AREA AND TREE CANOPY.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.   8/17/22 NOT CORRECTED.   9/1/22 SHOW THE PERIMETER OF EACH AREA SPECIFIED.   PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO   STAFF CAN VERIFY THE CREDITS. HIGHLIGHT THE VEGETATED   AREA THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN EACH OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY.   OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CHART IS NOT NEEDED, EACH   OPEN SPACE CHART MUST SHOW HOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT   SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY. 9A   DOES NOT MEET THE VEGETATED AREA REQUIRED.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.   8/17/22 SHEET L002 SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL AREAS, SHEET   L005 CHART MUST SHOW THE BREAKDOWN FOR EACH AREA FOR   THE VEGETATED AREA LOCATIONS, TREE CANOPY, ETC. AS   SHOWN ON L002.   9/1/22 SHEET NUMBERS HAVE BEEN REVISED.           4. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING   TREE CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE   FOR TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE   TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.   8/17/22 TREES MUST BE SHOWN THAT ARE BEING USED FOR   CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT AND THE   CREDITS ASSIGNED SHOWN WITH TOTAL. THIS IS BEST   ACCOMPLISHED WITH A PLANT LIST AND AREA SHOWN FOR EACH   OPEN SPACE.   9/1/22 AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, PROVIDE THE   TREE SPECIES ON THE TREE CANOPY CHART SO STAFF CAN   VERIFY THE CREDITS.                   5. SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE   PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF   THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE   SHEETS REFERENCED.   IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS FOR THE TREES AND PALMS TO BE   RELOCATED. THE ROYAL PALMS ARE THE ONLY RELOCATES   MARKED AS GOING TO OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY ON THE   DISPOSITION LIST.               6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO SMALL A SCALE   TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL. NEED TO BE   SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 THE SCALE IS STILL TOO SMALL TO SUFFICIENTLY   REVIEW THE PLANS. THE COLOR EASEMENTS NEED TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. INDIVIDUAL SHEETS OF THE   SEPARATE OPEN SPACE AREAS NEED TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED   AND UNNECESSARY INFORMATION REMOVED.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR   REQUIRED STREET TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET   OR PORTION THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND   SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED   ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT   WITH THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.   8/17/22 THERE IS A LARGE GAP WITH NO STREET TREES   ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 1A. THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA   ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED   STREET TREES.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   9/1/22 THERE IS A GAP WITH NO STREET TREES NORTH OF THE   SECOND DRIVEWAY FROM BANYAN.   THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT   DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED STREET TREES AT THE 30 FOOT   MAXIMUM SPACING.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.   THE STREET TREES ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ARE NOT   LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB IN THE 4 FOOT PLANTING   STRIP AS REQUIRED. THERE IS ALSO A GAP IN THE STREET   TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE THIRD DRIVEWAY.   STRUCTURAL SOIL LOCATIONS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND   TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL ADDED TO MEET THE CODE   REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 94-113.       11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   WATER AND SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. SHOW LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS   OF UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND   PROPOSED TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT EVIDENT ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW THE WATER, SEWER   AND FIRE LINES TO ASSURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH   REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AND PROVIDE FINAL LOCATIONS FOR   SCREENING.       13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE   MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 PLANT LIST NOT FOUND ON L004 AS INDICATED IN   THE RESPONSE MEMO.   9/1/22 PROVIDE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST FOR THE PROJECT ON   ONE SHEET.       14. NOT SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445   L. PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT   MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.   9/1/22 PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   COMPLETE PLANT LIST ON ONE SHEET.               15. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.           ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY   MITIGATION PROVIDED FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT   LIST.   9/1/22 RESPONSES INDICATE THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED   ON SHEET L112, BUT WAS NOT FOUND.       17. SATISFIED. THE PALM SUBSTITUTION INFORMATION   PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CHART ON SHEET   L002 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.   REVISE.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 9/1/22:   18. LOCATIONS IN REQUIRED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES FOR   POSSIBLE AIPP ON SHEET L008 AND L010 DO NOT SHOW DETAIL   OF HOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING WOULD BE AFFECTED.           CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 3 Status F Date 08-18-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 08-18-2022 Time 12:14 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 08-18-2022 Time 12:14 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-18 12:14:32 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   AUGUST 17, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES   NATIVE TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE   PRESERVED ON SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5)   STANDARDS SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF   GOOD, MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN   ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION   POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE   DISPOSITION MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE   PRESERVED, RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.   8/17/22 L100 NEEDS TO HAVE THE BACKGROUND LAYERS   REMOVED TO MAKE THE TREE LOCATIONS AND LABELS EASILY   LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN.   LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO FULFILL THE   STREET TREE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH   SPECIFIC TREES INDICATED THAT WILL MEET THE QUALITY,   SIZE AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.       2. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND   TOTAL CANOPY MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS.   TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF   20 FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE   FOOTAGE CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES   LESS THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW   THE CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.   CHART HAS CHANGED, SO STATUS OF COMMENT CHANGED.   THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE ON SHEET   L601:   ? ILEX CASSINE IS A CATEGORY 2 TREE WITH 150 SQ FT OF   MITIGATION DUE. CORRECT ON CHART FOR #006, 097, 098,   190, AND 191.   ? CORRECT #125 TO SHOW ABOVE 20?   ? CORRECT #108 TO 300 SQ FT MITIGATION DUE FOR LIVE OAK   CATEGORY 1.       3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF   OPEN SPACE AS ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN   SECTION 94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF   OPEN SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 GARDEN COURTYARD IS SPECIFIED.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.   8/17/22 RENAMED GARDEN PLAZA, BUT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED   AS THIS UNLESS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING   BEING ON GROUND LEVEL.       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.   8/17/22 CORRECTED ON SHEET L005. SHEET L002 IS   INCOMPLETE.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.   8/17/22 NOT CORRECTED.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.   8/17/22 SHEET L002 SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL AREAS, SHEET   L005 CHART MUST SHOW THE BREAKDOWN FOR EACH AREA FOR   THE VEGETATED AREA LOCATIONS, TREE CANOPY, ETC. AS   SHOWN ON L002.           4. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING   TREE CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE   FOR TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE   TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.   8/17/22 TREES MUST BE SHOWN THAT ARE BEING USED FOR   CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENT AND THE   CREDITS ASSIGNED SHOWN WITH TOTAL. THIS IS BEST   ACCOMPLISHED WITH A PLANT LIST AND AREA SHOWN FOR EACH   OPEN SPACE.               5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR   PALMS ON THE PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE   REQUIRED TREES IF THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE   SHEETS REFERENCED.   IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS FOR THE TREES AND PALMS TO BE   RELOCATED. THE ROYAL PALMS ARE THE ONLY RELOCATES   MARKED AS GOING TO OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY ON THE   DISPOSITION LIST.               6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO   SMALL A SCALE TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL.   NEED TO BE SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 THE SCALE IS STILL TOO SMALL TO SUFFICIENTLY   REVIEW THE PLANS. THE COLOR EASEMENTS NEED TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE PLANS. INDIVIDUAL SHEETS OF THE   SEPARATE OPEN SPACE AREAS NEED TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED   AND UNNECESSARY INFORMATION REMOVED.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR   REQUIRED STREET TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET   OR PORTION THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND   SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED   ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT   WITH THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.   8/17/22 THERE IS A LARGE GAP WITH NO STREET TREES   ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 1A. THERE IS A DROP OFF AREA   ALONG CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED   STREET TREES.   BANYAN STREETSCAPE SHOWN IS NOT ACCURATE AND SHOWS   PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT.       11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   WATER AND SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. SHOW LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS   OF UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND   PROPOSED TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT EVIDENT ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.       13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE   MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 PLANT LIST NOT FOUND ON L004 AS INDICATED IN   THE RESPONSE MEMO.       14. NOT SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445   L. PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT   MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.               15. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR   ALL GROUND MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE   THAT ALL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.   8/17/22 DETAIL STILL NOT INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLANS.           ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY MITIGATION PROVIDED   FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT LIST.       17. THE PALM SUBSTITUTION INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE   LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CHART ON SHEET L002 IS NOT   CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. REVISE.                   CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-08-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 07-08-2022 Time 16:42 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 07-08-2022 Time 16:42 Sent To   Notes 2022-07-08 16:42:59 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   JULY 8, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES   NATIVE TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE   PRESERVED ON SITE OR RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5)   STANDARDS SPECIFY EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF   GOOD, MODERATE, OR POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN   ARBORISTS REPORT RATING THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION   POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE   DISPOSITION MUST INDICATE WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE   PRESERVED, RELOCATED OR REMOVED.   PROVIDE CLEAR TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHEETS L100, L101,   L412, AND L403, WITHOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOWN.   THIS SHOULD BE AN OVERLAY OF THE CURRENT SURVEY   RESEMBLING SHEET L003 CLEARLY SHOWING LOCATIONS AND   DISPOSITION OF EXISTING TREES TO BE VERIFIED.       2. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY   MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20   FEET OR MORE SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE   CALCULATED BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS   THAN 20 FEET CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE   CATEGORY MITIGATION DUE.       3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF   OPEN SPACE AS ALLOWED BY TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN   SECTION 94-109. SHOW HOW THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF   OPEN SPACE ARE MET FOR VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY   SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL   PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN   DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.       PER SHEET L005.   OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B, AND 1C. COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO   VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.       OPEN SPACE 2A. INTERIOR COURTYARD IS NOT AN ALLOWED   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE IN TOD, SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE   TO VERIFY THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY REQUIREMENTS.       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B, TERRACE IS AN ALLOWED PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE TYPE, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH TERRACE REQUIREMENTS.   TERRACE REQUIRES 20% VEGETATED AREA AND MUST ABUT A   RIGHT OF WAY ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE.       OPEN SPACE 9A AND 9B. SHOULD BE ROOFTOP GARDEN AS   REQUIRED BY TOD. THE VEGETATED AND TREE CANOPY   REQUIREMENTS ARE 50% EACH FOR TOD.       ALL SHEETS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH LABELING OF OPEN   SPACES.   SHEET L002 DOES NOT MATCH L005.               4. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING   TREE CANOPY MUST SHOW THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE   FOR TREE TYPES BASED ON TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE   TOTAL.       TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT, MUST BE   CALCULATED PER TABLE IV-8 WHICH WOULD BE ROUND NUMBERS.               5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR   PALMS ON THE PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE   REQUIRED TREES IF THEY ARE TO BE USED ON SITE.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.           6. SATISFIED. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF   THE GREEN SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY   COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL   APPROVAL AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE   STRUCTURE AND THE PLANT MATERIAL.       7. SATISFIED. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED   TO HAVE MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS   ORIGINALLY APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL   BE IMPROVED WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO   SMALL A SCALE TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL.   NEED TO BE SHOWN ON SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       1:20 SCALE WILL BE NEEDED TO CLEARLY SEE ALL DETAIL.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.           9. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET   THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR   REQUIRED STREET TREES AT MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET   OR PORTION THEREOF FOR EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND   SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED   ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT   WITH THE STREETSCAPE.   THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE MUST BE SHOWN AS APPROVED.   THERE ARE LARGE GAPS IN THE STREET TREE PLACEMENT ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE THAT DO NOT HAVE TREE CANOPY PROVIDED   FOR PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALK. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM   SPACING MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND STREETSCAPE IS REQUIRED   ADJACENT TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND DROP OFFS.       11. SATISFIED. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES WILL STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   WATER AND SEWER AND DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN. SHOW LOCATIONS OF BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS   OF UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND   PROPOSED TREES AND LANDSCAPING.   WATERLINE EASEMENT SHOWN, BUT OTHER FIRE LINES, WATER   AND SEWER SERVICE WERE NOT FOUND. NEED FURTHER DETAIL   PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.       13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE   MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.   COULD NOT LOCATE A COMPLETE PLANT LIST.       14. NOT SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445   L. PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT   MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT   TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE   LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH   FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH   FLORIDA LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED   ON THE PLANT LIST.   SHOW THE PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE FINAL PLANT LIST.           15. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR   ALL GROUND MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE   THAT ALL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.   NEED FURTHER DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7/8/22:       16. PROVIDE THE TOTAL TREE CANOPY MITIGATION PROVIDED   FROM THE ADDED TREES ON THE PLANT LIST.                   CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-10-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 05-10-2022 Time 17:13 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 05-10-2022 Time 17:13 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-10 17:13:46 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: TRANSIT VILLAGE Z22040014   MAY 10, 2022   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           1. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE TREES AND   PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON SITE OR   RELOCATED. ANSI A 300 (PART 5) STANDARDS SPECIFY   EXAMPLES OF SUITABILITY RATINGS OF GOOD, MODERATE, OR   POOR FOR RELOCATION. PROVIDE AN ARBORISTS REPORT RATING   THE CONDITION AND RELOCATION POTENTIAL FOR THE NATIVE   TREES AND PALMS. THE TREE DISPOSITION MUST INDICATE   WHETHER THE TREE WILL BE PRESERVED, RELOCATED OR   REMOVED.   2. PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CANOPY MITIGATION   DUE FOR ANY PROPOSED REMOVALS. TREES PROPOSED TO BE   REMOVED WITH A CANOPY DIAMETER OF 20 FEET OR MORE   SHOULD HAVE THE MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED   BASED ON THE ACTUAL DIAMETER. TREES LESS THAN 20 FEET   CANOPY DIAMETER AND PALMS SHOULD SHOW THE CATEGORY   MITIGATION DUE.       3. PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED   PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THE ZONING   DISTRICT. IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE AS ALLOWED BY   TABLE IV-7 AND DEFINITIONS IN SECTION 94-109. SHOW HOW   THE STANDARDS FOR THE TYPES OF OPEN SPACE ARE MET FOR   VEGETATED AREAS AND TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON   TABLE IV-8 ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLANS MUST   MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE   OPEN SPACE TYPE THEN DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REQUIREMENTS   OF THAT TYPE ARE MET.   TERRACE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   SHEET L002, BUT OTHER LABELS LIKE PLAZA FOR LEVEL 2 AND   ROOFTOP PLAZA FOR LEVEL 4 APPEAR ON THE OTHER SHEETS.   LEVEL 9 IS LABELED AS TERRACE BUT HAS THE   CHARACTERISTICS OF ROOFTOP GARDEN.   IN SUMMARY, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NEEDS TO BE   QUANTIFIED, IDENTIFIED AS TO THE TYPE, AND ALL   REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE SHOWN FOR THAT OPEN SPACE TYPE.           4. ALL OPEN SPACE TYPES REQUIRING TREE CANOPY MUST SHOW   THE TREE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR TREE TYPES BASED ON   TABLE IV-8 AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL.           5. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE PLANT LIST   AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF THEY ARE TO   BE USED ON SITE.       6. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF THE GREEN   SCREEN AREA FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED BY COMPARISON OF THE   SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND WHAT IS   PROPOSED. PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE STRUCTURE AND THE   PLANT MATERIAL.       7. THE AREA WITHIN THE BUS LOOP IS PROPOSED TO HAVE   MOSAIC TILE RATHER THAN THE PLANTINGS ORIGINALLY   APPROVED. DESCRIBE HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE IMPROVED   WITHIN THE BUS LOOP.       8. LANDSCAPE SHEETS ARE IN TOO SMALL A SCALE TO CLEARLY   IDENTIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL. NEED TO BE SHOWN ON   SEPARATE SHEETS AT A LARGER SCALE.       9. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS PROPOSED MUST MEET THE   REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451, INCLUDING ALL AREAS   THAT ARE ALLOWED BY CODE MUST NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A   ROAD OR STREET.           10. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR REQUIRED STREET TREES AT   MAXIMUM SPACING EVERY 30 FEET OR PORTION THEREOF FOR   EACH STREETSCAPE LENGTH, AND SHOW THE NUMBER PROVIDED   PER SECTION 94-113 AND 94-116. THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE   IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON THE PLANS TO SHOW   THE INTEGRATION OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE STREETSCAPE.       11. EXPLAIN IF THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION LINES WILL   STAY IN PLACE OR BE RELOCATED.       12. SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER AND   DRAINAGE LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. SHOW LOCATIONS OF   BACKFLOWS AND ADJUST LOCATIONS OF UTILITY LINES TO   RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES AND   LANDSCAPING.       13. PLANT LIST NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE ALL   PLANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT,   AND SEPARATE PLANT LIST FOR EACH OPEN SPACE AREA   PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN   SPACE TYPE REQUIREMENTS.       14. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L. PLANT   SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT MATERIAL   ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT   SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE LIST OF   SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH FLORIDA   WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH FLORIDA   LANDSCAPES. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE   PLANT LIST.           15. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND MOUNTED   VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL EQUIPMENT   WILL BE SCREENED.       CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL   1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON   THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE   SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT   SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.   2. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE   STREET TREES AND RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND   IRRIGATION APPROVED WITH THIS PETITION.   3. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STREET TREES AND   RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THIS WILL BE   THROUGH A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.     Review Stop PARK PARKING Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time   Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 4 Status P Date 01-13-2023 Cont ID   Sent By relizond Date 01-13-2023 Time 14:46 Rev Time 0.00 Received By relizond Date 01-13-2023 Time 14:21 Sent To   Notes 2023-01-13 14:40:44 -SEVERAL REVIEW COMMENTS FROM PRIOR SUBMITTALS HAVE YET   TO BE ADDRESSED.   -THE SITE PLAN CAN BE APPROVED ON PUBLIC UTILITIES   ENGINEERING'S END WITH THE CONDITION OF OUTSTANDING   COMMENTS BEING ADRESSED AS PART OF THE ENGINEERING   REVIEW, WHICH INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE   FOLLOWING:   -ELABORATE ON THE SANITARY IMPROVEMENTS (ADDITION OF   GRAVITY MAIN, AND SECTIONAL REPLACEMENT OF FORCE MAIN)   -NORTHERN WATER MAIN CONNECTION MUST BE TO 12 IN MAIN,   NOT JUNCTION BETWEEN 12" AND 36"   -PER DETAILS WS-1 AND WS-4, SEPARATE CONNECTIONS MUST   BE MADE FOR FIRE LINE AND POTABLE WATER   -PROFILE NEEDED FOR ALL UTILITIES FROM TAP TO POINT OF   SERVICE (WATER, GRAVITY, AND FORCE MAIN)   -PROXIMITY BETWEEN PIPES IS TOO CLOSE (PROPOSED STORM,   FORCE MAIN, AND EXISTING DRY UTILITIES)   -APPROPRIATELY LABEL ALL EXISTING VALVES AND EXISTING   UTILITY ASSESTS ON PLANS   -LABEL ALL PROPOSED FITTINGS FOR BOTH WATER AND FORCE   MAIN   -DENOTE THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF   LIFT STATION 41   -SIZE AND MATERIAL NEEDS TO BE NOTED FOR ALL PROPOSED   UTILITIES (SEWER)   -PER PRIOR CONVERSATION, THE PRIVATE LIFT STATION CAN   NOT BE TIED INTO THE EXISTING FORCE MAIN ON CLEARWATER   DR.   -FIRE FLOW TEST DATA FOR EXISTING SYSTEM NEEDED   -A LEGEND NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED   -CLEANOUTS NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE NEED TO BE DENOTED AS   THE CITY'S POINT OF SERVICE   -SEPARATE TAPS FOR WATER AND FIRE REQUIRED PER WS-1 AND   WS-4   -EXISTING SERVICES (WATER AND SEWER) THAT RUN TO THE   PROPERTY BUT ARE NOT TO BE USED MUST BE CUT AND CAPPED   AT THE MAIN   -SERVICES LARGER THAN 2" IN DIAMETER MUST BE REMOVED   -CLARIFY THE HYDRANT RELOCATIONS (NORTHERN RELOCATION   NOT FULLY SHOWN ON PLANS, SOUTHERN RELOCATION IS NEAR   350 PROJECT   -EXISTING FORCE MAIN ON CLEARWATER DRIVE MUST BE   REPLACED ENTIRELY (NOT IN SECTIONS)   -SHOW STATIONING AND HORIZONTAL SEPARATION CLEARANCE   BETWEEN PROPOSED UTILITIES AND EXISTING UTILITIES   -SHOW SLOPE PERCENTAGE AND FLOW DIRECTION FOR ALL   SANITARY LINES, AND CALL OUT MATERIAL FOR BOTH EXISTING   AND PROPOSED   -SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINES 8" OR GREATER MUST BE   TIED INTO SEWER SYSTEM VIA MANHOLE     Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 3 Status F Date 08-31-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mtechnow Date 08-31-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 08-31-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-31 20:43:40 -CONNECT TO THE GRAVITY SYSTEM ON CLEARWATER. WILL MOST   LIKELY NEED TO UPSIZE THE GRAVITY MAIN, FORCE MAIN AND   LIFT STATION.   -ADD LANGUAGE FOR WORK DONE NEAR THE 36? RCP/PCCP WM??   PROVIDE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR ANY WORK BEING DONE   IN THE AREA OF THE 36? WM? OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.       MIKE TECHNOW, PE, PUBLIC UTILITIES   [email protected]     Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 2 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 1 Status F Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By mtechnow Date 05-11-2022 Time 15:25 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-11 15:25:20 -NO ISSUES WITH THE CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN. SOME   STANDARD COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ATTACHED BELOW:   -REVISE BANYAN ST TO BANYAN BLVD.   -SHOW ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHING CITY   ROW ( BANYAN AND CLEARWATER). CALL OUT SIZE/TYPE.   -CALL OUT THE EXISTING FM ON CLEARWATER DR AS 6? DIP.   -CALL OUT THE LOCATION OF THE CAP AND LOCATION OF THE   PROPOSED TAP ON THE 6? DIP FM. MAINTAIN A MIN. OF 10?   DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.   -ADD NOTE FOR ALL EXISTING LATERALS: ?REHAB/REPLACE AS   REQUIRED?   -PROFILE OF SERVICE TAPS WILL BE NEEDED FOR ENGINEERING   SUBMITTAL AS WELL AS LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCS. SEE LIST   OF STANDARD COMMENTS.     Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 4 Status P Date 01-06-2023 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 01-06-2023 Time 16:58 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-01-06 16:58:24 -ON L400A SHOW EXISTING WATER SERVICE LINE FOR PARK   WATER METER AS SHOWN ON C03. ENSURE ANY PROPOSED TREES   OR POLES ARE DISTANCED APPROX. 5 FEET FROM EXISTING   WATER SERVICE.   -WATER SERVICE DESIGN MAY NEED REVISION UPON FURTHER   REVIEW AT ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL.   -BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY LOCATIONS MAY NEED ADJUSTMENT UPON   FURTHER REVIEW AT ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected] Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 3 Status F Date 12-12-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 12-12-2022 Time 09:08 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-12-12 09:07:57 PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING:   -SHEET L400B SHOWS TREES TOO CLOSE TO FIRE HYDRANT,   WATER SERVICE LINE, AND BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY.   -SHEETS C03 AND L400B SHOW PROPOSED BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY   IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SHOULD BE LOCATED ON PRIVATE   PROPERTY.   -SHEET L400A DOES NOT SHOW UPSTREAM WATER SERVICE LINE   FOR WATER METER NEAR PARK AS SHOWN ON C03. LOOKS LIKE   IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO POLE AND TREE. PLEASE SHOW   WATER SERVICE LINE ON L400A AND ENSURE ANY PROPOSED   TREES OR POLES ARE DISTANCED FROM EXISTING WATER   SERVICE.   -SHOW ALL WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES ON LANDSCAPING   PLANS INCLUDING THE LARGE DIAMETER WATER MAIN AND 15   FOOT WATERLINE EASEMENT THAT RUNS ACROSS THE NORTHWEST   AREA OF PROPERTY. CANNOT CURRENTLY SEE IT ON L400C.   -WATER SERVICE DESIGN MAY NEED REVISION UPON FURTHER   REVIEW AT ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected] Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 09-02-2022 Time 14:35 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-02 14:33:32 PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING:   -LANDSCAPING TREES APPEAR TO BE PROPOSED AT THE SAME   LOCATION METERED WATER SERVICES ARE PROPOSED, BUT   DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LANDSCAPING AND   ENGINEERING PLAN SETS. PLEASE PROVIDE LANDSCAPING   PLANTING SHEET THAT SHOWS ALL PLANTS, BUSHES, AND   UTILITIES AROUND THE BUILDING AND NEAR THE PROPERTY   LINES. MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN   LANDSCAPING AND UTILITIES. ALSO SPECIFICALLY SHOW THE   15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AND LARGE WATER MAIN NEAR   NORTHWEST AREA OF PROPERTY.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected]     Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 1 Status P Date 07-21-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 07-21-2022 Time 10:02 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-21 10:01:49 CONDITION OF APPROVAL:       -PROPOSED TREES SEEM TO CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THE   PROPOSED WATER SERVICES, METERS, AND BACKFLOW   ASSEMBLIES IN TERMS OF LOCATION/DISTANCING. CONFLICTS   NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY CONCLUSION OF ENGINEERING   DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL. Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 4 Status P Date 09-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 09-02-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 09-02-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-02 09:30:23 NO FURTHER COMMENTS.       MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045 Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 3 Status F Date 08-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 08-02-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 08-02-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-02 11:08:17 PLEASE PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE PRIVATE SANITATION   SERVICE PROVIDER (FOR BOTH GARBAGE AND BULK WASTE)   CONFIRMING THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE THE SANITATION   COLLECTION SERVICE FOR THE TRANSIT VILLAGE WITH THE   PROPOSED SITE PLAN.       MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045 Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 07-07-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 07-07-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-07 15:14:49     PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWINGS:   1- LOS (LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS) TO REFLECT THE SOLID   WASTE VOLUME PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE SIZE, TYPE AND   QUANTITY OF THE CONTAINER (I.E. DUMPSTER/COMPACTOR)   THAT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE SANITATION SERVICE.   2- DETAILS FOR SANITATION SERVICE (I.E. SOLID WASTE   CONTAINER(S) TYPE, COLLECTION LOCATION, ETC.).   3- HEIGHT CLEARANCE OF THE LOADING AREAS FOR THE BULK   ITEM PICK UP AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS   4- UPDATED SOLID WASTE TURNING PLAN USING THE SPECS   PROVIDED REFLECTING THE DYNAMIC ENVELOPEE AND THE   VEHICLE`S WHEEL PATH.   - DUAL AXLES   - TRUCK LENGTH: 35 FT   - TRUCK WIDTH: 11 FT   - TURNING RADIUS:   - SAE TURNING RADIUS: 32.5 FT   - CURB-TO-CURB DIAMETER: 74 FT   - WALL-TO-WALL DIAMETER: 86.3 FT           MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045     Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-03-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 05-03-2022 Time   Rev Time   Received By   Date 05-03-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-05-03 13:23:21     PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWINGS:   1- LOS (LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS) TO REFLECT THE SOLID   WASTE VOLUME PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE SIZE, TYPE AND   QUANTITY OF THE CONTAINER (I.E. DUMPSTER/COMPACTOR)   THAT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE SANITATION SERVICE.       2- DETAILS FOR SANITATION SERVICE (I.E. SOLID WASTE   CONTAINER(S) TYPE, COLLECTION LOCATION, ETC.). FOR A   FREESTANDING SITE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, THE ENCLOSURE   SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST REVISION OF CITY OF WEST   PALM BEACH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION-GARBAGE ENCLOSURE   STANDARD, GC-7. (LINK TO THE LATEST REVISION OF THE   GC-7 DOCUMENT: HTTPS://WWW.WPB.ORG/HOME/SHOWPUBLISHEDDO   CUMENT/3690/637629060422100000)       3- AUTOTURN EXHIBIT (DYNAMIC ENVELOPE AND THE VEHICLE?S   WHEEL PATH) FOR THE SANITATION SERVICE, FRONT LOADER   TRUCK WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECS:   - DUAL AXLES   - TRUCK LENGTH: 35 FT   - TRUCK WIDTH: 11 FT   - TURNING RADIUS:   - SAE TURNING RADIUS: 32.5 FT   - CURB-TO-CURB DIAMETER: 74 FT   - WALL-TO-WALL DIAMETER: 86.3 FT       4- DESIGNATED LOCATION FOR THE BULK ITEM PICK UP AND   RECYCLING CONTAINERS   5- OWNERS AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF PROPERTY THAT REQUIRE   GREASE HAULING SERVICES SHALL ENSURE THAT THEIR GREASE   TANKS OR CONTAINERS REMAIN CLEAN, AND ARE ENCLOSED AND   NOT IN PUBLIC VIEW.       6- IN CASE OF PROPOSING ADDITION OF ANY NEW CAN(S) IN   THE CITY`S RIGHT-OF-WAY , THE LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF   THE CAN(S) SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY PUBLIC   WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE CAN(S) SHALL BE TYPE, SIZE AND   COLOR APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE BUILDING   MAINTENANCE IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN AND SERVICE THE   CAN(S).           MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045     Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 4 Status F Date 09-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 09-02-2022 Time 18:02 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 09-02-2022 Time 18:18 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-02 18:18:34 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE   8/30/2022 SUBMITTAL:       1. [SATISFIED] DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, EXFILTRATION   TRENCHES, ETC. ARE NOT TO CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.       2. [SATISFIED] THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF   BLEEDERS WITH EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEMS.       3. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ? SEE COMMENT #15 BELOW]   VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE (NAVD OR NGVD) NOT CONSISTENT   ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS. PLEASE PROVIDE CONVERSION   EQUATION BETWEEN THE VERTICAL DATUM USED ON THE PLANS   (NGVD1929) TO NAVD1988.       4. [SATISFIED] REVIEW BANYAN BLVD AS-BUILT DRAWINGS (OR   DESIGN DRAWINGS) FOR STORM PIPE CONNECTIVITY. SHOW   CURRENT LAYOUT OF BANYAN BLVD.       5. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE FLOW ARROWS SHOWING DIRECTION OF   SURFACE RUNOFF.       6. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ? SEE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS   BELOW] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS (EXTEND   TO HIGH POINT) AND ON-STREET PARKING AREAS SHOWING HOW   PAVEMENT WITH SLOPE. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FROM EDGE OF   TRAVEL LANE TO ALL CURBING, BREAK POINTS AND RIGHT OF   WAY LINE.       7. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS AT EACH PROPERTY   LINE FROM CENTERLINE OF ROAD TO FACE OF BUILDING.   PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO SURFACE FEATURES AND BREAK POINTS   IN SURFACE SLOPES. LABEL THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE   STREET NAME.       8. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ? IT?S REVIEWER?S OPINION THERE   IS NOT AN EXISTING PIPE BETWEEN THE EXISTING CATCH   BASINS AT THE NORTH END OF CLEARWATER] DEMO. PLANS DO   NOT INDICATE WHETHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM ON CLEARWATER   DEMOLITION PLAN INDICATES THE CURB INLETS ON CLEARWATER   DRIVE ARE TO REMAIN BUT THE PGD PLAN CALLS FOR THEM TO   BE REMOVED. EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT REMAIN IF   THE EXISTING PIPE CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE NEW   STRUCTURES.       9. [SATISFIED] BUILDINGS OVER EXFILTRATION TRENCHES   SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT VERTICAL CLEARANCE BELOW THE   BUILDING FOR MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FOR THE EXFILTRATION   TRENCH AND FOR REPLACING THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH IN THE   FUTURE WHEN IT NO LONGER IS FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED.       10. [SATISFIED] STREETS SHALL BE PROPERLY SHOWN ON THE   PLAN VIEWS.       11. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THESE   COMMENTS.       12. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE EXFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL.       13. [SATISFIED] PROVIDE CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL.       14. [SATISFIED] IT APPEARS A COLUMN IS PROPOSED OVER   EXISTING STORM PIPE APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET NORTH OF   MATCHLINE C-07 AND 16 FEET WEST OF THE EAST PROPERTY   LINE ON SHEET C-06.       15. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED ? SEE COMMENTS FOR COVER, C-01   AND C-02] SHEETS COVER, C-12 AND C-13 INDICATE THE   VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE IS NAVD1988. SHEETS C-06   THROUGH C-09 INDICATE THE VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE IS   NGVD1929. SHEETS C-01 AND C-02 NEED TO LIST THE   VERTTICAL DATUM REFERENCE AND CONVERSION EQUATION. THE   COVER NEEDS THE CONVERSION EQUATION.       16. [SATISFIED] WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND PEAK FLOW   ATTENUATION WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL   IMPERVIOUS AREA IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.       17. [SATISFIED] SEPARATE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR   CLEARWATER DRIVE WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE ENGINEERING   PERMIT SUBMITTAL. A BASELINE ON CLEARWATER DRIVE WILL   NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE ENGINEERING PERMIT   SUBMITTAL.       NEW COMMENTS (8/30/22 CIVIL SUBMITTAL)       18. NUMBER THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES FOR   EASE OF REFERENCE.       19. AVOID LOCATING MANHOLE COVERS WITHIN SIDEWALKS.       20. LEADER ARROW FOR LABEL PROPOSED STORM MH (TYP)   (SHEET C-07 NORTH OF THE MIDDLE DRIVEWAY) NEEDS   ADJUSTING.       21. PROVIDE FLOW ARROW FOR ON-STREET KISS AND RIDE AREA   ON SHEET C-07. ADJUST DIMENSION OF THE AREA ON SHEET   C-04.       22. CONCRETE APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.       23. WHY IS SIDEWALK WIDER THAN THE CROSS WALKS ACROSS   THE TWO SOUTHERN DRIVEWAYS?       24. PROVIDE VALLEY GUTTER/DROP CURB ACROSS DRIVEWAYS.       25. SECTION A-A ? PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM R/W TO THE   VALLEY GUTTER OR PAVEMENT FLOW LINE.       26. SECTION B-B ? PROVIDE DIMENSION FROM R/W TO HIGH   POINT OF DRIVEWAY.       27. SECTION D-D ? INCREASE THE 5% SLOPE TO REDUCE, TO   THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAY   AREA FLOWING TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.       28. SECTION E-E ? FLIP SYMBOLS ON SHEET C-06 TO POINT   TO THE EAST. CONFIRM MULTI-USE PATH EXTENDS OUTSIDE THE   RIGHT OF WAY.       29. SECTION F-F ? WHAT DOES THE 11.6 FT DIMENSION REFER   TO? PROVIDE SOUTHBOUND PAVEMENT WIDTH.       30. JUSTIFY THE SIZE OF THE OUTFALL PIPE DIAMETER   BETWEEN THE CONTROL STRUCTURE AND THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM   WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. FLOW IS LIMITED TO THE 8? X 8?   ORIFICE.       TRACY WARD, PE   SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT   561-494-1120 (O)   561-351-0510 (M)   [email protected]     Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 3 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-18-2022 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 07-18-2022 Time 16:28 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 07-18-2022 Time 16:29 Sent To   Notes 2022-07-18 16:28:46 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE   6/15/2022 SUBMITTAL:       1. [SATISFIED] DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, EXFILTRATION   TRENCHES, ETC. ARE NOT TO CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.       2. [SATISFIED] THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF   BLEEDERS WITH EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEMS.       3. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED - VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE   (NAVD OR NGVD) NOT CONSISTENT ON THE ENGINEERING   PLANS.]PLEASE PROVIDE CONVERSION EQUATION BETWEEN THE   VERTICAL DATUM USED ON THE PLANS (NGVD1929) TO   NAVD1988.       4. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED - REVIEW BANYAN BLVD AS-BUILT   DRAWINGS (OR DESIGN DRAWINGS) FOR STORM PIPE   CONNECTIVITY.] SHOW CURRENT LAYOUT OF BANYAN BLVD.       5. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE FLOW ARROWS SHOWING   DIRECTION OF SURFACE RUNOFF.       6. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS FOR THE   DRIVEWAYS (EXTEND TO HIGH POINT) AND ON-STREET PARKING   AREAS SHOWING HOW PAVEMENT WITH SLOPE. PROVIDE   DIMENSIONS FROM EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE TO ALL CURBING,   BREAK POINTS AND RIGHT OF WAY LINE.       7. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS AT EACH   PROPERTY LINE FROM CENTERLINE OF ROAD TO FACE OF   BUILDING. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO SURFACE FEATURES AND   BREAK POINTS IN SURFACE SLOPES. LABEL THE RIGHT OF WAY   WITH THE STREET NAME.       8. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED - DEMO. PLANS DO NOT INDICATE   WHETHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM ON CLEARWATER DEMOLITION PLAN   INDICATES THE CURB INLETS ON CLEARWATER DRIVE ARE TO   REMAIN BUT THE PGD PLAN CALLS FOR THEM TO BE REMOVED.   EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT REMAIN IF THE EXISTING   PIPE CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE NEW STRUCTURES.       9. [NOT SATISFIED] BUILDINGS OVER EXFILTRATION TRENCHES   SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT VERTICAL CLEARANCE BELOW THE   BUILDING FOR MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FOR THE EXFILTRATION   TRENCH AND FOR REPLACING THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH IN THE   FUTURE WHEN IT NO LONGER IS FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED.       10. [SATISFIED] STREETS SHALL BE PROPERLY SHOWN ON THE   PLAN VIEWS.       NEW COMMENTS:       11. PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS.       12. PROVIDE EXFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL.       13. PROVIDE CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL.       14. IT APPEARS A COLUMN IS PROPOSED OVER EXISTING STORM   PIPE APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET NORTH OF MATCHLINE C-07 AND   16 FEET WEST OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ON SHEET C-06.       15. SHEETS COVER, C-12 AND C-13 INDICATE THE VERTICAL   DATUM REFERENCE IS NAVD1988. SHEETS C-06 THROUGH C-09   INDICATE THE VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE IS NGVD1929.   SHEETS C-01 AND C-02 NEED TO LIST THE VERTTICAL DATUM   REFERENCE AND CONVERSION EQUATION. THE COVER NEEDS THE   CONVERSION EQUATION.       16. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION   WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA IN   THE RIGHT OF WAY.       17. SEPARATE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR CLEARWATER   DRIVE WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE ENGINEERING PERMIT   SUBMITTAL. A BASELINE ON CLEARWATER DRIVE WILL NEED TO   BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.       TRACY WARD, PE   SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT   561-494-1120 (O)   561-351-0510 (M)   [email protected]     Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-12-2022 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 05-12-2022 Time 13:09 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 05-12-2022 Time 13:09 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-12 13:09:43 THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL REVIEW. CONSTRUCTION LEVEL   DETAILS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND THE POLLUTION   PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE   ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT   APPLICATION PROCESSES.   THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SITE   PLAN APPROVAL:       1. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, EXFILTRATION TRENCHES, ETC. ARE   NOT TO CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.       2. THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF BLEEDERS WITH   EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEMS.       3. PLEASE PROVIDE CONVERSION EQUATION BETWEEN THE   VERTICAL DATUM USED ON THE PLANS (NGVD1929) TO   NAVD1988.       4. SHOW CURRENT LAYOUT OF BANYAN BLVD.       5. PROVIDE FLOW ARROWS SHOWING DIRECTION OF SURFACE   RUNOFF.       6. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS (EXTEND TO   HIGH POINT) AND ON-STREET PARKING AREAS SHOWING HOW   PAVEMENT WITH SLOPE. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FROM EDGE OF   TRAVEL LANE TO ALL CURBING, BREAK POINTS AND RIGHT OF   WAY LINE.       7. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS AT EACH PROPERTY LINE FROM   CENTERLINE OF ROAD TO FACE OF BUILDING. PROVIDE   DIMENSIONS TO SURFACE FEATURES AND BREAK POINTS IN   SURFACE SLOPES. LABEL THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE STREET   NAME.       8. DEMOLITION PLAN INDICATES THE CURB INLETS ON   CLEARWATER DRIVE ARE TO REMAIN BUT THE PGD PLAN CALLS   FOR THEM TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT   REMAIN IF THE EXISTING PIPE CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE NEW   STRUCTURES.       9. BUILDINGS OVER EXFILTRATION TRENCHES SHOULD HAVE   SUFFICIENT VERTICAL CLEARANCE BELOW THE BUILDING FOR   MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FOR THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH AND   FOR REPLACING THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH IN THE FUTURE   WHEN IT NO LONGER IS FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED.       10. STREETS SHALL BE PROPERLY SHOWN ON THE PLAN VIEWS.       THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO   ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION INCLUDING   BUILDING PERMITS AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.       1. DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET SFWMD ERP   CRITERIA. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED WITH   THE ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.       2. PROVIDE SPREAD CALCULATIONS FOR THE INLETS ON   CLEARWATER DRIVE.       2. PROVIDE COPY OF SFWMD ERP PERMIT BEFORE START OF   CONSTRUCTION.       3. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WITH THE ENGINEERING   PERMIT SUBMITTAL.           TRACY WARD, PE   SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT   561-494-1120 (O)   561-351-0510 (M)   [email protected]     Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING Rev No 3 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-21-2022 Cont ID   Sent By vnoel Date 07-21-2022 Time 10:11 Rev Time 0.00 Received By vnoel Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-21 11:04:24 PREVIOUS ANSWERS TO THESE COMMENTS MADE NO SENSE.       UNITY OF CONTROL/TITLE WILL BE REQUIRED   LANDSCAPE TREES WITHIN THE CITY?S UTILITY EASEMENT WILL   NOT BE ALLOWED.   NEED TO SEE WHERE RELOCATED FPL POLES ARE IN RELATION   TO EXISTING 36" WATER MAIN.   36" WATER MAIN NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY LABELED FOR   POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.   PROPOSED FPL POLES ALONG WEST R/W OF CLEARWATER MAY   CONFLICT WITH EXISTING SANITARY SEWER. CCTV WILL BE   REQUIRED FOR ENTIRE LENGTH.   WHAT TYPE OF OWNERSHIP IS PROPOSED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS   ABOVE 21' 4"       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7.21.2022       1. NEED PROFILE OF 36" WM AND ALL UTILITIES IN NW   CORNER OF PROJECT.   2. FPL POLE 1D16 SHOWN ON TOP OF WATER MAIN. REFER TO   PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOVE.   3. IS A VERTICAL SUBDIVISION PROPOSED? IF SO, NEED   APPROVAL FROM BUILDING DEPT.   4. RELOCATE SEWER VALVE FROM UNDER CURB IN VICINITY OF   EXISTING FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS. Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-12-2022 Cont ID   Sent By vnoel Date 05-12-2022 Time 07:19 Rev Time   Received By vnoel Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-05-12 09:37:44 1. UNITY OF CONTROL/TITLE WILL BE REQUIRED.   2. LANDSCAPE TREES WITHIN THE CITY'S UTILITY EASEMENT   WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.   3. NEED TO SEE WHERE RELOCATED FPL POLES ARE IN   RELATION TO EXISTING 36" WATER MAIN.   4. 36" WATER MAIN NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY LABELED FOR   POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.   5. PROPOSED FPL POLES ALONG WEST R/W OF CLEARWATER MAY   CONFLICT WITH EXISTING SANITARY SEWER. CCTV WILL BE   REQUIRED FOR ENTIRE LENGTH.   6, WHAT TYPE OF OWNERSHIP IS PROPOSED FOR THE   IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE 21' 4"?       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL BE FORTHCOMING UPON FURTHER   REVIEW. Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 4 Status P Date 09-02-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 09-02-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 09-02-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-02 13:38:57 TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS       THE FOLLOWING ENGINEERING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE   COMMENT RESPONSES BELOW. SUCH CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY AS   A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR   THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SPECIFICALLY:       1) SETUP A METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH ENGINEERING   SERVICES AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC   STUDY   2) BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, IN   CASE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE EXISTING   TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT   (TDM) MEASURES INCLUSIVE OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO   TRANSIT OR MICROMOBILITY SERVICES MUST BE NEGOTIATED   3) ALL PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL FEATURES (I.E. STOP,   YIELD, SIGNAL) AFFECTING PUBLIC ROW MUST BE SUPPORTED   BY A TRAFFIC STUDY OR WARRANT ANALYSIS PRIOR TO   APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION   4) A TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC SITE PLAN MUST BE   PROVIDED, PLEASE CONTACT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ANY   QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER   5) PROPOSED ROADWAY CONFIGURATION MUST CONFORM TO   EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS (I.E. BANYAN STREETSCAPE   IMPROVEMENT PROJECT)   6) PROVIDE A REVISED AND PROPER AUTOTURN ANALYIS.   PLEASE CONTACT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ANY QUESTIONS   OR SAMPLE ANALYSES   7) EXPLAIN THE REASONING FOR LOCATING THE ADA STALLS ON   THE GROUND FLOOR BY THE GARAGE RAMP. SHOWCASE THE PATH   FROM SUCH STALLS TO THE NEAREST EXIT OR PEDESTRIAN   ACCESS POINT(S). IN CASE OF SAFETY CONCERNS SUCH STALLS   SHALL BE RELOCATED.   8) AT LEAST TWO (2) SETS OF RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING   BEACONS (RRFB) SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT PEDESTRIAN   CROSSINGS ALONG SITE FRONTAGE   9) NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) TAKING SHOULD BE   ALLOWED ALONG CLEARWATER DR, UNLESS AN ACCEPTABLE   MULTI-USE PATH IS INSTALLED ALONG SITE FRONTAGE               1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUSIVE   OF THE REFERENCED EXHIBIT D. PLEASE PROVIDE FILE NAME,   AS IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE LATEST SUBMISSION. NOTE: THE   REVISION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO DATED MAY 19, 2015 IS   NOT VALID, AS IT PROVIDES A MERE REALLOCATION OF   TURNING VOLUMES FROM THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT   UPDATING THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE   PROPOSED AND NEARBY EXISTING/FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS       2) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC   STUDY, ROADWAYS GEOMETRY AND NEARBY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS   HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE INITIAL SITE PLANS   APPROVAL. REASONING PROVIDED FOR NOT CONDUCTING A NEW   STUDY DO NOT SUBSIST; AS THERE IS NO FAILURE FROM THE   CITY, NOR THE DEVELOPER, MOREOVER, VESTED TRIPS DO NOT   HAVE ANY MEANING ON THIS REQUEST. THE SITE BEING WITHIN   A TCEA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CITY TO REQUEST A REVISED   STUDY OR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE CASE OF POTENTIAL   SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE EXISTING AND FUTURE   TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. A METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH THE   CITY IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE   AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO   WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS   FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A   REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.           3) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF   THE TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS, TDM MEASURES MAY NEED TO BE   NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT IS   TRANSIT ORIENTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS PRECLUDED   FROM IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION MEASUREMENTS. NEGATIVE   IMPACTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND/OR COMMERCIAL.   COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DO NOT GET A   FREE PASS BY BEING PART OF A TRANSIT PROJECT. EVEN IF   THE OVERALL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT ARE FEWER THAN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION,   THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTDATED,   AS THEY WERE PERFORMED MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO.   MOREOVER, THE SHIFT IN LAND USE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND   RESIDENTIAL, THE CHANGE OF BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL   ROAD GEOMETRIES, AND THE CHANGE OF EXISTING AND ASSUMED   BACKGROUND VOLUMES COULD BRING A NEW SET OF SIGNIFICANT   NEGATIVE IMPACTS, WHICH CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED NOR   ADDRESSED TILL A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY IS PROVIDED       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE   AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO   WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS   FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A   REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.           4) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER       5) SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAILS PERTAINING THE TRANSITION   FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES, IN TERMS OF   LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS. COMMENT WILL BE SATISFIED   ONCE DETAILS FROM PBC ARE PROVIDED.       SITE PLAN COMMENTS       6) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED, PROVIDE A SEPARATE SITE   PLAN SHOWCASING ONLY BASIC TRANSPORTATION FEATURES AND   THEIR DIMENSIONS. SPECIFICALLY: SIDEWALK, CURB, PARKING   STALLS, CROSSINGS, WALKWAY, ROADWAY, DRIVE ISLES,   DRIVEWAYS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE. C-10 AND C-11   ARE NOT PROPER, AS THEY ARE MISSING MOST OF THE   DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS. PLEASE NAME THE   TRANSPORTATION SITE PLANS T-01, T-02 AND HAVE THEM   SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER SET OF SITE PLANS (I.E. CIVIL,   ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS C-22 AND C-23       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: A SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION SITE   PLAN WAS PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME   DETAILS CONTAINED IN THE PROVIDED SITE PLANS THAT WILL   NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.           7) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE   SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (I.E, DRIVEWAY AND PARKING   STALLS) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING   THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME   AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURES. THE   APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED   TRANSPORTATION-SPECIFIC-PLANS SO THAT THE REVIEWER CAN   PROPERLY ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION   COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.   PLEASE APPLY SUCH CRITERIA TO THE T-SERIES   TRANSPORTATION PLANS       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SITE PLANS AND TRAFFIC FEATURE   SHEETS C-4, C-5, C-22, C-23       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: A SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION SITE   PLAN WAS PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME   DETAILS CONTAINED IN THIS SITE PLAN THAT WILL NEED TO   BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION TO APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.           8) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS   FOR GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN   AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE   DYNAMIC ENVELOPES CLEARLY DEFINED. ANALYSIS SHOULD BE   PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE PROVIDE   DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS.   LATEST RESPONSE DID NOT PROVIDE FILE NAME AND SHEET   NUMBER, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. LATEST ANALYSIS DOES NOT   SHOW THE WHEEL PATHS AND THERE ARE INSTANCES OF PARTIAL   ENCROACHMENTS. USE DIFFERENT COLORS FOR VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPE AND WHEEL PATHS. CITY CAN PROVIDE SAMPLES OF   PROPER ANALYSIS IF NEEDED / REQUESTED       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS C-17 AND C-18       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: AUTO TURN ANALYSIS WAS   PARTIALLY PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DETAILS   CONTAINED IN THIS AUTO TURN ANALYSIS THAT NEED TO BE   MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING   PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO THE   ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.       9) SATISFIED. SEVERAL ADA PARKING. STALLS IN THE GARAGE   MUST BE RELOCATED TO THE NEAREST ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL   UNIT AND ELEVATORS, SPECIFICALLY: 10, 11, 33, 34, 63,   64       10) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. REDUCE GARAGE RAMPS TO ONE   SINGLE LANE, INSTALL CHEVRON MARKINGS ON THE SIDE OF   THE RAMP FOR SUCH REDUCTION. IF TWO LANES ARE KEPT, A   CONTINUOUS DIVIDING ELEMENT MUST BE INSTALLED (I.E.   RAISED CURB WITH FLEXIBLE POLES). PROVIDE A TRAFFIC OR   QUEUING ANALYSIS TO PROVE THAT DOUBLE ENTRY LANES ARE   NECESSARY TO AVOID VEHICULAR SPILLBACK INTO CLEARWATER.   PROVIDE THE CODE REFERENCE REQUIRING AMPLE STACKING OF   EXISTING VEHICLES WITHIN THE SITE.       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: LANES DIVIDER AND AUTO- TURNS   PROVIDED. SEE SHEETS C-19 AND A5-10       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THERE ARE SOME DETAILS   CONTAINED IN THESE REVISIONS TO SHEETS C-19 AND A5-10   THAT NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF   AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT           11) SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONTACT PERSON THAT   WOULD RECEIVE MARKED UP SITE PLANS. THERE ARE SEVERAL   COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DESIGN THAT WOULD BE   BETTER CONVENED WITH SITE PLAN MARK-UPS THAN COMMENTS   HERE       12) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE   IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DOES NOT ALLOW LEFT TURNS FROM   CLEARWATER TO BANYAN. PLEASE UPDATE THE SITE PLANS   ACCORDINGLY. A LEFT-TURN APPROVAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT   MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. THUS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO REDUCE   THE NORTHBOUND LANES TO A SINGLE ONE AT THE   INTERSECTION OF CLEARWATER AND BANYAN. MOREOVER, IT IS   SUGGESTED TO CONVERT THE CURRENT PROPOSED NORTHBOUND   RIGHT-MOST LANE ON CLEARWATER DR TO A MERGE/   ACCELERATION ONE.       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE   AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO   WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS   FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A   REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.           13) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON   CLEARWATER MUST BE HIGH EMPHASIS ONES WITH INSTALLATION   OF RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS. STOP BARS AND   SIGNAGE MUST BE REPLACED/REALLOCATED ACCORDINGLY. THE   OPERATION WITHIN THE ITC ARE WITHIN COUNTY?S CONTROL.   HOWEVER, CLEARWATER DR IS OUTSIDE OF THE ITC AND A CITY   ROAD; THUS, COUNTY HAS NO CONTROL. MOREOVER, STOP BARS   IN THE VICINITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS WERE   ALREADY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEPICTED IN PRIOR   SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS.       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE   AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO   WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT; HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS   FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER DISPOSITION OF THIS   COMMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME IT WILL BE DETERMINED AS A   CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS   PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL   LIST.       14) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SUMMARY TABLE   CAPTURING THE NUMBER OF METERED PARKING REMOVED OR   RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH PARKING DEPARTMENT   PERTAINING SUCH REMOVAL AND RELOCATION.       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: TV?S CURRENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT   WITH THE CITY (SECTION 9.1) REQUIRES THE CITY TO REMOVE   THE PARKING METERS ON CLEARWATER DRIVE.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION   CONTAINING SUCH INCENTIVE AGREEMENT       15) CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. REMOVE THE STOP BARS ALONG   CLEARWATER DR BY THE GARAGE ENTRANCE OR PROVIDE A   TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WARRANTING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION.       TV 8/30/22 RESPONSE: CITY ADMINISTRATION AND TV HAVE   AGREED TO WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT AT THIS TIME.       CITY 9/2/2022 RESPONSE: THE CITY DID NOT AGREE TO   WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS BEING REVISED AS   FOLLOWS: THE CITY AGREES TO DEFER THE SUBMITTAL OF A   REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF AN   ENGINEERING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REFER TO   THE ENGINEERING CONDITIONAL LIST.       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]             Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 3 Status F Date 08-19-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 08-19-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 08-19-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-19 16:37:28 TRAFFIC STUDY COMMENTS   1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUSIVE   OF THE REFERENCED EXHIBIT D. PLEASE PROVIDE FILE NAME,   AS IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE LATEST SUBMISSION. NOTE: THE   REVISION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO DATED MAY 19, 2015 IS   NOT VALID, AS IT PROVIDES A MERE RE-ALLOCATION OF   TURNING VOLUMES FROM THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT   UPDATING THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE   PROPOSED AND NEARBY EXISTING/FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS   2) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY.   ROADWAYS GEOMETRY AND NEARBY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS HAVE   CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE INITIAL SITE PLANS   APPROVAL. REASONING PROVIDED FOR NOT CONDUCTING A NEW   STUDY DO NOT SUBSIST; AS THERE IS NO FAILURE FROM THE   CITY, NOR THE DEVELOPER. MOREOVER, VESTED TRIPS DO NOT   HAVE ANY MEANING ON THIS REQUEST. THE SITE BEING WITHIN   A TCEA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CITY TO REQUEST A REVISED   STUDY OR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE CASE OF POTENTIAL   SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE EXISTING AND FUTURE   TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. A METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH THE   CITY IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED   3) NOT SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE   TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, TDM MEASURES MAY NEED TO BE   NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED. THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT   IS TRANSIT ORIENTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS PRECLUDED   FROM IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION MEASUREMENTS. NEGATIVE   IMPACTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND/OR COMMERCIAL   COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DO NOT GET A   FREE PASS BY BEING PART OF A TRANSIT PROJECT. EVEN IF   THE OVERALL NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT ARE FEWER THAN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION,   THE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTDATED,   AS THEY WERE PERFORMED MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO.   MOREOVER, THE SHIFT IN LAND USE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND   RESIDENTIAL, THE CHANGE OF BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL   ROAD GEOMETRIES, AND THE CHANGE OF EXISTING AND ASSUMED   BACKGROUND VOLUMES COULD BRING A NEW SET OF SIGNIFICANT   NEGATIVE IMPACTS, WHICH CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED NOR   ADDRESSED TILL A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY IS PROVIDED   4) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER   5) SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAILS PERTAINING THE TRANSITION   FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES, IN TERMS OF   LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS. COMMENT WILL BE SATISFIED   ONCE DETAILS FROM PBC ARE PROVIDED.       SITE PLAN COMMENTS   6) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SEPARATE SITE PLAN   SHOWCASING ONLY BASIC TRANSPORTATION FEATURES AND THEIR   DIMENSIONS. SPECIFICALLY: SIDEWALK, CURB, PARKING   STALLS, CROSSINGS, WALKWAY, ROADWAY, DRIVE ISLES,   DRIVEWAYS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE. C-10 AND C-11   ARE NOT PROPER, AS THEY ARE MISSING MOST OF THE   DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS. PLEASE NAME THE   TRANSPORTATION SITE PLANS T-01, T-02 AND HAVE THEM   SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER SET OF SITE PLANS (I.E. CIVIL,   ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE)   7) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE   SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (I.E. DRIVEWAY AND PARKING   STALLS) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING   THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME   AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURES. THE   APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED   TRANSPORTATION-SPECIFIC-PLANS SO THAT THE REVIEWER CAN   PROPERLY ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION   COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.   PLEASE APPLY SUCH CRITERIA TO THE T-SERIES   TRANSPORTATION PLANS   8) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR   GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND   OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPES CLEARLY DEFINED. ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PROVIDED   IN A SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT   NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS. LATEST   RESPONSE DID NOT PROVIDE FILE NAME AND SHEET NUMBER,   PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. LATEST ANALYSIS DOES NOT SHOW THE   WHEEL PATHS AND THERE ARE INSTANCES OF PARTIAL   ENCROACHMENTS. USE DIFFERENT COLORS FOR VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPE AND WHEEL PATHS. CITY CAN PROVIDE SAMPLES OF   PROPER ANALYSIS IF NEEDED/REQUESTED   9) SATISFIED. SEVERAL ADA PARKING STALLS IN THE GARAGE   MUST BE RELOCATED TO THE NEAREST ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL   UNIT AND ELEVATORS, SPECIFICALLY: 10, 11, 33, 34, 63,   64   10) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. REDUCE GARAGE RAMPS TO ONE   SINGLE LANE, INSTALL CHEVRON MARKINGS ON THE SIDE OF   THE RAMP FOR SUCH REDUCTION. IF TWO LANES ARE KEPT, A   CONTINUOUS DIVIDING ELEMENT MUST BE INSTALLED (I.E.   RAISED CURB WITH FLEXIBLE POLES). PROVIDE A TRAFFIC OR   QUEUING ANALYSIS TO PROVE THAT DOUBLE ENTRY LANES ARE   NECESSARY TO AVOID VEHICULAR SPILLBACK INTO CLEARWATER.   PROVIDE THE CODE REFERENCE REQUIRING ?AMPLE? STACKING   OF EXISTING VEHICLES WITHIN THE SITE.   11) SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONTACT PERSON THAT   WOULD RECEIVE MARKED UP SITE PLANS. THERE ARE SEVERAL   COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DESIGN THAT WOULD BE   BETTER CONVENED WITH SITE PLAN MARK-UPS THAN COMMENTS   HERE   12) NOT SATISFIED. THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS   PROJECT DOES NOT ALLOW LEFT TURNS FROM CLEARWATER TO   BANYAN. PLEASE UPDATE THE SITE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. A   LEFT-TURN APPROVAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MUST BE   IMPLEMENTED. THUS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO REDUCE THE   NORTHBOUND LANES TO A SINGLE ONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF   CLEARWATER AND BANYAN. MOREOVER, IT IS SUGGESTED TO   CONVERT THE CURRENT PROPOSED NORTHBOUND RIGHT-MOST LANE   ON CLEARWATER DR TO A MERGE/ACCELERATION ONE.   13) NOT SATISFIED. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON CLEARWATER   MUST BE HIGH EMPHASIS ONES WITH INSTALLATION OF   RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS. STOP BARS AND   SIGNAGE MUST BE REPLACED/REALLOCATED ACCORDINGLY. THE   OPERATION WITHIN THE ITC ARE WITHIN COUNTY?S CONTROL.   HOWEVER, CLEARWATER DR IS OUTSIDE OF THE ITC AND A CITY   ROAD; THUS, COUNTY HAS NO CONTROL. MOREOVER, STOP BARS   IN THE VICINITY OF THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS WERE   ALREADY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND DEPICTED IN PRIOR   SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS   14) PROVIDE A SUMMARY TABLE CAPTURING THE NUMBER OF   METERED PARKING REMOVED OR RELOCATED. COORDINATE WITH   PARKING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING SUCH REMOVAL AND   RELOCATION   15) REMOVE THE STOP BARS ALONG CLEARWATER DR BY THE   GARAGE ENTRANCE OR PROVIDE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS   WARRANTING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]         Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-08-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 07-08-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 07-08-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-07-08 17:28:29 TRAFFIC COMMENTS   1) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY   INCLUSIVE OF THE REFERENCED EXHIBIT D. PLEASE PROVIDE   FILE NAME, AS IT WAS NOT FOUND IN THE LATEST SUBMISSION   2) NOT SATISFIED. CONDUCT A FULL DETAILED TRAFFIC   STUDY. ROADWAYS GEOMETRY AND NEARBY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS   HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE INITIAL SITE PLANS   APPROVAL. REASONING PROVIDED FOR NOT CONDUCTING A NEW   STUDY DO NOT SUBSIST; AS THERE IS NO FAILURE FROM THE   CITY, NOR THE DEVELOPER. MOREOVER, VESTED TRIPS DO NOT   HAVE ANY MEANING ON THIS REQUEST.   3) NOT SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE   TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, TDM MEASURES MAY NEED TO BE   NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED. THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT   IS TRANSIT ORIENTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS PRECLUDED   FROM IMPLEMENTING MITIGATION MEASUREMENTS. NEGATIVE   IMPACTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND/OR COMMERCIAL   COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DO NOT GET A   FREE PASS BY BEING PART OF A TRANSIT PROJECT.   4) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER   5) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAILS PERTAINING THE   TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES, IN   TERMS OF LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS. COMMENT WILL BE   SATISFIED ONCE DETAILS FROM PBC ARE PROVIDED.       SITE COMMENTS   6) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A SEPARATE SITE PLAN   SHOWCASING ONLY BASIC TRANSPORTATION FEATURES AND THEIR   DIMENSIONS. SPECIFICALLY: SIDEWALK, CURB, PARKING   STALLS, CROSSINGS, WALKWAY, ROADWAY, DRIVE ISLES,   DRIVEWAYS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE. C-10 AND C-11   ARE NOT PROPER, AS THEY ARE MISSING MOST OF THE   DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS.   7) NOT SATISFIED. ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE   BASIC CURB DETAILS (I.E. DRIVEWAY AND PARKING STALLS)   ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND   SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURES. THE APPLICANT   MUST PROVIDE THE REQUESTED   TRANSPORTATION-SPECIFIC-PLANS SO THAT THE REVIEWER CAN   PROPERLY ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION   COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.   8) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR GARBAGE   TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC ENVELOPES   CLEARLY DEFINED. ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A   SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND   SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS. LATEST RESPONSE   DID NOT PROVIDE FILE NAME AND SHEET NUMBER, PLEASE BE   SPECIFIC.   9) SEVERAL ADA PARKING STALLS IN THE GARAGE MUST BE   RELOCATED TO THE NEAREST ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND   ELEVATORS, SPECIFICALLY: 10, 11, 33, 34, 63, 64   10) REDUCE GARAGE RAMPS TO ONE SINGLE LANE, INSTALL   CHEVRON MARKINGS ON THE SIDE OF THE RAMP FOR SUCH   REDUCTION. IF TWO LANES ARE KEPT, A CONTINUOUS DIVIDING   ELEMENT MUST BE INSTALLED (I.E. RAISED CURB WITH   FLEXIBLE POLES)   11) PLEASE PROVIDE A CONTACT PERSON THAT WOULD RECEIVE   MARKED UP SITE PLANS. THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR   THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DESIGN THAT WOULD BE BETTER   CONVENED WITH SITE PLAN MARK-UPS THAN COMMENTS HERE   12) THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE PROJECT DOES NOT ALLOW LEFT   TURNS FROM CLEARWATER TO BANYAN. PLEASE UPDATE THE SITE   PLANS ACCORDINGLY   13) PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON CLEARWATER MUST BE HIGH   EMPHASIS ONES WITH INSTALLATION OF RECTANGULAR RAPID   FLASHING BEACONS. STOP BARS AND SIGNAGE MUST BE   RE-PLACED ACCORDINGLY       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-10-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 05-10-2022 Time   Rev Time   Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-05-10 11:21:47 TRAFFIC COMMENTS   1) PROVIDE ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUSIVE OF THE   REFERENCED EXHIBIT D   2) CONDUCT A FULL DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. ROADWAYS   GEOMETRY AND NEARBY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED   SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE INITIAL SITE PLANS APPROVAL   3) DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS,   TDM MEASURES MAY NEED TO BE NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED   4) PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER   5) PROVIDE DETAILS PERTAINING THE TRANSITION FROM   EXISTING TO FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES, IN TERMS OF   LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS       SITE COMMENTS   6) PROVIDE A SEPARATE SITE PLAN SHOWCASING ONLY BASIC   TRANSPORTATION FEATURES AND THEIR DIMENSIONS.   SPECIFICALLY: SIDEWALK, CURB, PARKING STALLS,   CROSSINGS, WALKWAY, ROADWAY, DRIVE ISLES, DRIVEWAYS,   PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE   7) ON THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS   (I.E. DRIVEWAY AND PARKING STALLS) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE   OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.   PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER   SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURES.   8) PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR   SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC ENVELOPES CLEARLY   DEFINED. ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE   FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET   NUMBER SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS.       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop X PERMIT EXTENSION Rev No 1 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date   Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 4 Status   Date   Cont ID   Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 12-20-2022 Time 13:11 Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 3 Status F Date 08-19-2022 Cont ID   Sent By ckimmerl Date 08-19-2022 Time 09:03 Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 08-19-2022 Time 09:02 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-19 09:03:01 PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN WRITTEN   FORMAT. [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THANK YOU FOR THE EXCEL DOCUMENT FOR THE RESPONSES,   PLEASE PROVIDE DIRECT RESPONSES ON RESUBMITTALS WITHIN   A WORD OR SIMILAR FORMAT. (DISPLAY THE QUESTION ASKED   BY REVIEWERS AND THE ANSWER/RESPONSE FROM APPLICANTS)       WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE   (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG AND 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   COMMENT. [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND   SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY   05/27 /22, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE   7/13/22 DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING. [COVID   DELAYS NOT CAUSED BY APPLICANT]       PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT   RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS   FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY AUGUST 12, 2022),   THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE   CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL   REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. [ACKNOWLEDGED]       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 ($500).   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       1. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT   THAN THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN; THEREFORE, IT IS   NOT A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN   AS STATED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, BUT RATHER A   NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE   PLAN AND THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED DO NOT   AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE NEW SITE PLAN. ANY VARIANCES   THAT ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NEW BUILDING DESIGN AND   SITE LAYOUT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE DOWNTOWN ACTION   COMMITTEE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. [THE CURRENT   SITE PLAN IS APPROVED AND VESTED BY MULTIPLE APPROVALS   PROVIDED BY WPB AND PBC PURSUANT TO THE PSA. THESE   VESTED ITC AND GROUND LEVEL FEATURES THAT ARE OR CAN BE   LEGALLY BUILT TODAY ARE INTENDED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD   IN THE NEW APPROVAL AND WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY   ADMINISTRATION THAT THE CITY WILL RECOGNIZE THESE   VESTED FEATURE AND WILL BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT   TO CARRY THEM FORWARD IN THE NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL   BEING SOUGHT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE   HE EXISTING VESTED APPROVAL WITH A NEW APPROVAL THAT   REAFFIRMS THESE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE CONDITIONS.]   PLEASE NOTE, THERE ARE NO VESTED OR CARRIED OVER   APPROVALS FOR THIS PROJECT, BEYOND THE ORIENTATION OF   THE ITC/SFRTA FACILITIES, THE BUS/TRAIN OPERATIONS, AND   THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY PSA FOR RESERVED ITC   AND SFRTA PARKING SPACES. THE REST OF SITE, PROPOSED   STRUCTURES, CIRCULATION, ETC. WILL BE REVIEWED AND   TREATED AS A NEW SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. ANY PREVIOUSLY   OBTAINED VARIANCES, WAIVERS, AND APPROVALS FROM   DAC/STAFF MUST BE REACQUIRED/ APPLIED FOR, AS THE   OVERALL SITE CONDITIONS AND PLANS HAVE CHANGED   SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR   THIS PROPERTY.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV HAS AGREED TO PROCEED TO   RESPONSIVELY RESPOND TO THESE PPRC COMMENTS WITHOUT   WAIVING ANY RIGHTS THAT IT MAY HAVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       2. STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN,   INCLUDING THE USE MIX, DIFFERS FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR   PURCHASE AND SALE DATED AUGUST 12, 2012. SINCE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ESTABLISHES THAT   MODIFICATIONS ARE PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO PALM BEACH   COUNTY APPROVAL, PLEASE PROVIDE THE LATEST AMENDMENT OR   VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE THAT   AUTHORIZES THE CHANGES PRESENTED IN THE CURRENT   SUBMITTAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: [COPIES OF   THE PSA AND ALL AMENDMENT PROVIDED. A COPY OF PBC   WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE SUBMITTED PLAN PACKAGE WAS   PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE PSA AND COPIES OF ALL   AGREEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED] [SATISFIED] THANK   YOU FOR PROVIDING PSA DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL   AMENDMENTS/ AGREEMENTS.       A. THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 40 PARKING SPACES FOR   SFTRA / COUNTY STAFF AND 250 SFRTA PATRON PARKING   SPACES TOTAL 290 PARKING SPACES) TO 275 PARKING SPACES   FOR THESE USERS.   [THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. THE MODIFIED PSA REQUIRES   25 SPACES TO THE COUNTY WHICH IS WHAT IS PROVIDED]   [SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY PSA   DOCUMENTATION WITH AMENDMENTS. THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO   PSA (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITIAL   STATES: 250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES   FPOR THE COUNTY       B. THE REMOVAL OF LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL/EDUCATION   USES FROM THE PROJECT. [THIS USE WAS VOLUNTARY AND IS   NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ANY APPROVAL] [NOT SATISFIED]   SECTION 2.3.2 OF PSA (PG.14) STATES:   THE SITE PLAN WILL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO,   CIVIC USE (LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL CENTER/EDUCATION),   COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, HOTEL ROOMS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS   (STUDENT /WORKFORCE/MARKET) INCLUDING WORKFORCE AND/OR   AFFORDABLE UNITS? LUXURY RENTAL UNITS AND AMENITY   RETAIL. IT APPEARS TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE PSA, HAS   THIS BEEN AMENDED? IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC   DOCUMENT OR OUTLINE LOCATION, SO STAFF CAN VERIFY.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ALTHOUGH ANY ISSUE WITHIN THE   PSA IS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, THE TERMS OF THE PSA   HAVE BEEN MET. THE PSA ALLOWS FOR A CHANGE IN USES AS   DETERMINED BY TV (PLEASE SEE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 2.3.2   OF THE PSA).       FURTHER, AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO PERMITTED IF APPROVED BY   THE COUNTY DURING ITS SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.       IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS, THE AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT HAS   BEEN APPROVED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THEIR EXPLICIT   CONSENT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.       NEVERTHELESS, TV WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMENDED   SITE PLAN CONTINUES TO PROVIDE CIVIC USES INCLUDING,   BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PLAZA AND CONNECTION FROM THE   PROJECT TO THE TRI-RAIL CROSSOVER AND THE TRI-RAIL   PARKING.       SEE ATTACHED EMAIL (?MCCLELLAN EMAIL?) DATED JULY 13,   2022 FROM ERIC MCCLELLAN FROM THE COUNTY CONFIRMING   TV?S COMPLIANCE WITH THE PSA AND SPECIFICALLY THE   AMENDED SITE PLAN.   [SATISFIED]       C. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SITE DATA TABLE LISTS 42   WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AS BEING REQUIRED, WHILE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ONLY REQUIRES 38. THE   PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE   WITH EITHER NUMBER. [THE 42 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS   REQUIRED BY THE PSA ARE SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN TABULAR.   THEIR FINAL LOCATION HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED,   HOWEVER THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PROVIDE THEM IN A   MANNER SO AS TO NOT CLUSTER OR CONCENTRATE THEM IN ANY   ONE LOCATION. THE PSA REQUIRES THEM TO BE ON SITE AND   COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY HOUSING PROGRAM. THE APPLICANT   WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH WPB AND PBC ON THE TERMS OF   THE WFH UNITS.]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE   NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA   (5C-5). THIS SHEET (5C-5) INCLUDES ADDITIONAL (4)   WORKFORCE UNITS. ?- DO NOT SEE THESE WFH UNITS CALLED   OUT OR MENTIONED IN DATA TABLES OR SITE PLAN.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: 42 WFH UNITS REQUIRED BY PSA ARE   SHOWN IN TABULAR FORMAT ON SHEET A0-02. THE LOCATION TO   BE DETERMINED AT A LATER TIME. WE WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE   OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROVISION WHEN PROVIDED TO THE   COUNTY UNDER THE PSA. THIS IS NOT A CITY REQUIREMENT.       SEE MCCLELLAN EMAIL.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       D. SECTION 3E OF EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN OF   THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE LIMITS THE NUMBER   OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE 290   PUBLIC USE PARKING SPACES AND, PROVIDE NOT MORE THAN   THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF   WEST PALM BEACH FOR THE MIX OF USES AND INTENSITIES /   DENSITIES AS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED. AS WILL BE SHOWN   LATER IN THESE COMMENTS, THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THIS   STANDARD. [THESE SPACES ARE INTENDED TO SERVE THE   TRANSIT USES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THESES   GOVERNMENTAL PROVIDERS. THESE PARKING SPACES ARE   INCLUSIVE TO THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE   PROJECT AND ARE NOT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PARKING   PERMITIED ON SITE. THE GARAGE COMPONENT IS BEING BUILT   TO SERVE THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND THE PSA REQUIRES   CONTINUOUS C[O]NSTRTUCTION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL IT IS   COMPLETED.] [PARTIALLY STATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR   PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON THE PSA AND   ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING BREAKDOWN;   BASED UPON THIS: THE HOTEL ROOM/ AMENITY, RESINDENTIAL,   RETAIL, OFFICE, GUEST AND SFRTA / COUNTY PARK[G]ING   SPACES CHECKOUT WITH THE REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD   REDUCTION.       - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM   PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY   CF.\R?SHARE HAS 1/13 REQUIREMENT.   - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU   PROVIDING. ONLY 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES FOR -MICRO-UNITS?   OR ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND   THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE   CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER   PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.   - PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL   MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON   A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF   CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE   STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED   BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE   CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF   THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE   EXPANSION.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: MICRO UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE   PARKED TO CODE WITH 0 SPACES PER UNIT, 13 SHARED CAR   SPACES, AND 8 GUEST SPACES WITH 83 BIKE SPACES. TABULAR   DATA ON SHEET A0-02 HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE   PARKING RESERVATION FOR MICRO USES.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       3. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A PBC PARCEL AND A   SFTRA PARCEL. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AMENDMENT 3 AND   2021 EXTENSTION TO AUG 2024, WHICH MENTIONED THAT THE   SFRTA BE UNDER CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP RATHER THAN   SEPARATE SPACES TO BE A CONDOMINUM. THIS INDICATES THAT   THE PROJECT WILL PARCELS. IF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED   AND THERE WILL BE FEE SIMPLE PARCELS, THOSE PARCEL   LINES NEED TO BE SHOWN / INDICATED NOW, SO THAT STAFF   CAN VERIFY THAT THERE ARE NO BUILDING SEPARATATION OR   SETBACK ISSUES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH BUILDING,ZONING,   OR FIRE CODE, AND IF ANY VARIANCES ARE NEEDED AS PART   OF THE APPROVAL.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV NOTES THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF   THIS AGREEMENT BY SFRTA IS NOT BEFORE THE PHYSICAL   COMPLETION OF THE SFRTA/TRI-RAIL PARKING SPACES AND   THAT THE SFRTA AGREEMENT IS STILL PRINCIPALLY EXECUTORY   AS IT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PERFORMED BY THE SFRTA AT THIS   TIME.       TV?S HAS NO CURRENT INTENT TO HAVE SEPARATELY OWNED   LAND PARCELS AND THAT AN EASEMENT OR OTHER   AGREEMENT/INSTRUMENT WILL BE UTILIZED TO RESERVE THE   SFRTA/TRI-RAIL PARKING.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]   E. THE DECKS, COLUMNS AND A PORTION OF THE RETAIL   BUILDING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SECOND FLOOR CROSS   THIS PARCEL LINE, WHICH CREATE SETBACK AND BUILDING   SEPARATION ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.   [CONFIRMED] [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENT ABOVE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GREEN/BLUE COLORS ON SHEET   A0-03 WERE FIRST AGREED UPON IN 2012 IN CONNECTION WITH   THE EXECUTION OF THE PSA AND WERE CONCEPTUAL AT THAT   TIME AS TO THE FINAL PROPERTY LINES. ACCORDINGLY, THE   PSA REQUIRES TV TO PREPARE THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE   TITLE TO BE CONVEYED AND PROVIDES FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF   THE PROPERTY LINES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY?S   APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED SITE PLAN. THE COUNTY HAS   APPROVED THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND TRANSIT VILLAGE WILL   OBTAIN FEE SIMPLE TO THIS PROPERTY. SEE MCCLELLAN EMAIL   . SEE ALSO SECTION 5.9 AND EXHIBIT A TO THE PSA WHICH   PROVIDE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE PROPERTY LINES.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       F. THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INDICATES THAT   PALM BEACH COUNTY WILL RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE   INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER TO A POINT 21 FEET IN THE   AIR. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MENTION HOW THIS PROPOSED   SUBDIVISION WILL OCCUR. [THESE PROPERTY LINES WILL BE   ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS OR BY   AGREEMENT]   [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENTS ABOVE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS MAY BE ACHIEVED WITH A   VERTICAL SUBDIVISION OR AN AIR RIGHT EASEMENT OR OTHER   LEGAL INSTRUMENT TO BE DETERMINED LATER WITH   COORDINATION WITH STAFF AND THE COUNTY. THERE IS NO   NEED FOR RESOLUTION OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AT THIS TIME   AS THE PSA CONTEMPLATES THE EQUITABLE DISCUSSION OF   PERMANENTLY RELOCATING THE ITC WHICH DISCUSSIONS ARE   ONGOING AND INCLUDE THE CITY AND CRA. FUTURE   DISPOSITIONS WILL BE PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       G. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INCLUDES THE SFRTA, YET   THEY ARE NOT SHOWN AS A PARTY TO STAFFS COPY OF THE   AGREEMENT. WILL THE SFRTA RETAIN ANY OWNERSHIP AND IF   SO, HOW WILL THE PARCEL BE SUBDIVIDED? [LEGAL   SUBDIVISION PROCESS I.E. VERTICAL SUB DIVISION, WILL BE   PURSUED] [SFRTA USES THE PARKING LOT PURSUANT TO AN   EASMENT FROM THE COUNTY. THE APPLICANT HAS AN AGREEMENT   WITH SFRTA TO PROVIDE EITHER FEE SIMPLE OR AN EASEMENT   FOR ANY USE OF THE SFRTA PROPERTY BORDERING THE   TRACKS.]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE COPY OF AGREEMENT.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: COPIES OF THE SFRTA AGREEMENTS   HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY.       ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SFRTA WAS A PARTNER IN THE   RFP AND PARTICIPATED WITH THE CITY AND OTHERS IN THE   RFP SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVED THE PSA ALONG WITH   THE CITY AND OTHERS.       THERE IS ALSO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH SFRTA FOR THE   PURCHASE OF THE 250 TRI-RAIL PARKING SPACES AND WHICH   ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT UPON THE SFRTA   PROPERTY BY TV. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SFRTA HAS PROVIDED   A CONSENT TO TV TO FILE THIS AMENDED SITE PLAN.       THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TV AND THE SFRTA ALSO CONTAINS   PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN PROPERTY ALONG THE   TRACKS AND THE ITC OWNED BY THE SFRTA. THE FEE   OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT BEING CHANGED AND THE   SFRTA APPROVED THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND THE AGREEMENTS   PROVIDE FOR THE SFRTA TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS/S/OR OTHER   AGREEMENTS MEMORIALIZING THE PEDESTRIAN PATH FROM THE   RAILROAD PLATFORM TO BANYAN, AND AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED   AS PER THE AMENDED SITE PLAN (CONNECTING STAIRS,   CONNECTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, SUPPORT COLUMNS). COPIES   OF THE TRANSIT VILLAGE-SFRTA AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN   SEPARATELY PROVIDED.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       4. TRANSIT VILLAGE BOUNDARY DIAGRAM SHEET A0-03   DIFFERENT FROM THE ?ITC PROPERTY MAP? AND REQUIRED   MODIFICATIONS FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN OCT. 2011.   CLEARLY SHOW THE ITC BOUNDARY ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND   SECOND LEVEL OF THE VARIOUS PLANS. [THIS PLAN IS PART   OF THE PSA AND THE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BY   AMENDMENTS. THE CURRENT PLAN IS ACCURATE] [PARTIALLY   SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AN ADJUSTED BOUNDARY   MAP FOR THE PROJECT. BASED ON THIS NEW MAP, PLEASE   CLARIFY, DOES THE ITC OWN THE GROUND-LEVEL PORTION OF   THE HOTEL/OFFICE? THE BOUNDARY SHEET A0-03 SHOWS   RETAIL, FCC, ELEVATORS/STAIRS AND MOTOR LOBBY WITHIN   THE ITC PROPERTY BOUNDARY.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       5. THERE ARE NUMEROUS UTILITY AND OTHER EASEMENTS SHOWN   ON THE SURVEY. ALL OF THESE EASEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN ON   THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (GROUND LEVEL AND SECOND   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. [PLANS REVISED TO REFLECT ALL   EASEMENTS ON GROUND AND SECOND LEVELS.] [NOT SATISFIED]   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH   EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND   ITEMS:       - RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE,   DOES NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE   CONDITIONS AND UPDATES. MISSING THE HARDENING DONE BY   FPL TO THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES, THERE IS A NEW/LARGER   POLE ON BANYAN. THE LINES FROM THIS POLE RUN THROUGH   THE FUTURE BUILDING. TREE GRATES ON BANYAN SIDE NO   LONGER EXIST. ROW INCLUDES BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN   SIDEWALK.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE   EASEMENT ALONG RAILROAD/EASTERN PORTION OF PROPERTY,   NOT REFLECTED IN SITE PLANS. PLEASE PROVIDE FPL   APPROVALS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THIS EASEMENT.   - ARE THE FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT AND FPL EASEMENT, ON THE   SOUTHERN END OF PROPERTY TO REMAIN OR ARE THEY TO BE   MODIFIED/VACATED? PLEASE PROVIDE NECESSARY APPROVALS IF   VACATING OR MODIFYING. THESE PORTIONS OF THE EASEMENTS   LIKELY WON?T BE IMPACTED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOTE   TREES/LANDSCAPING MAY CONFLICT.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS   EASEMENT. THIS WILL HAVE TO BE MODIFIED TO ALIGN WITH   THE PROPOSED EGRESS. PLEASE PROVIDE APPROVALS FROM FIRE   DEPT. TO ALTER THIS.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE   EASTERN BOUNDARY AS PART OF THE ITC, IS THIS TO REMAIN?       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SURVEY HAS BEEN REVISED TO   SHOW ALL EASEMENTS (SEE SHEETS C03 AND C20). TRANSIT   VILLAGE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH FPL ON RELOCATION OF THE   LINES, INCLUDING ANY LINES THAT MAY BE WITHIN ANY   PROPOSED BUILDING AREA FOR WHICH NO EASEMENT HAS BEEN   GRANTED.   [ACKNOWLEDGED] HAS FPL GRANTED ANY APPROVALS OR   PROVIDED WRITTEN CONSENT OR SUPPORT FOR THE VACATING OF   EASEMENTS OR MODIFICATION OF POLE LOCATIONS? MANY OF   THE EXISTING CONCRETE HARDENING POLES LIE WITHIN THE   PROPOSED BUILDING?S AREA OR THE MODIFIED ITC LOOP.   PLEASE PROVIDE FPL CONSENT TO THIS ITEM.       THE FIBER OPTIC AND FPL EASEMENTS ON THE SOUTHERN END   ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THE 20? FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT IS WITHIN THE   AREA SHOWN ON SHEETS A1-01 AND C-03 AND WILL CONTINUE   TO ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS. FIRE   DEPARTMENT APPROVAL WILL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OBTAINING   A BUILDING PERMIT. THE EASEMENT HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED   FROM THE PRIOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. ZONING 8.19 -   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THE SURVEY SHOWS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE EASTERN   BOUNDARY AS PART OF THE ITC THAT IS TO REMAIN.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]           6. PLEASE DOCUMENT AND IDENTIFY ALL REQUESTED   VARIANCES AND WAIVERS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLANS. [1)   EXISTING ENTRANCE WIDTH VARIANCE EXISTING APPROVED   CONDITION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD 2) SAME VARIANCE TO   ALLOW THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED AS A PUBLIC   PLAZA ON LEVEL 2] [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON THE   DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED WITHIN THIS RESUBMITTAL, THE   PROJECT WILL REQUIRE/SEEK MORE THAN THE TWO PROPOSED   VARIANCES. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS AND NOTE ANY   DEVIATION FROM THE MINIMUM / MAXIMUM.   - OPEN SPACES NEED ADJUSTMENT AND CLARIFICATION IN   TYPOLOGY AND HOW REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, MAY CONSTITUTE   ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.   -PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON 2ND FLOOR, REQUIRES   APPROVAL FROM BOARD, WILL SEEK IN THE FORM OF A   VARIANCE.   - MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25   WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.   - THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY   EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY   SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL   REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.   THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF PENDING VARIANCE   REQUESTS, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE DEPENDENT ON MEETING   OTHER REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE COMMENTS OR WITHIN   THE CODE, UPON RESBMITTAL.       IT IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ALL REQUESTED   VARIANCES TO PLANNING STAFF. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU   WILL BE CHARGED $300 PER ADDITIONAL VARIANCE OR WAIVER.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE ANTICIPATE NEEDING VARIANCES   RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING:   ? MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT.   ? THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO CLEARWATER EXCEEDS   THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312.   ? CURB CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES AND DRIVEWAYS WIDTHS   ? PLANAR BREAKS GROUND FLOOR   ? PLANAR BREAKS PODIUM LEVELS 2-7       WE BELIEVE THAT THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS MET ON   THE GROUND FLOOR WITHOUT USING LEVEL 2 AND THE LEVEL 2   OPEN SPACE IS BONUS SPACE, SO NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.       ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] DUE TO THE UNRESOLVED   COMMENTS WITHIN THIS REVIEW, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES MAY   BE REQUIRED OR EXISTING REQUESTS MAY HAVE TO BE   MODIFIED.       7. PLEASE PROVIDE AN UPDATED SURVEY CLEARLY   DOCUMENTING THE CHANGES INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE   RECENT BANYAN-BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE PROJECT. ALL PLAN   SHEETS MUST REFLECT THE ACCURATE BANYAN STREET   CONFIGURATION. THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT REFLECTED ON ANY   OF THE SUBMITTED PLAN SHEETS. [SURVEY UPDATED TO SHOW   CHNAGES TO BANYAN BOULEVARD GEOMETTRY] [NOT SATISFIED]   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH   EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND   ITEMS:       SEE COMMENT 5. RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO   BE ACCURATE, DOES NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN   STREETSCAPE CONDITIONS AND UPDATE. MISSING THE   HARDENING DONE BY FPL TO THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES,   THERE IS A NEW / LARGER POLE ON BANYAN. TREE GRATES ON   BANYAN SIDE NO LONGER EXIST. ROW INCLUIDES A BIKE PARTH   AND PEDESTRAIN SIDEWALK.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE. THESE   ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE   CURRENT SITE PLAN APPROVAL ARE ONGOING. TO ADDRESS THIS   COMMENT, WE HAVE INCORPORATED THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON   THE BANYAN AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PLAN PROVIDED BY WPB   ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THE PROPOSED PLANS.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] RESUBMITTED SURVEY APPEARS TO   ACCURATELY REFLECT SITE CONDITIONS, SURROUNDING   CONTEXT, AND BANYAN STREETSCAPE. VACATING/MODIFYING THE   FPL EASEMENT ACROSS THE SITE AND RELOCATING CONCRETE   POWER POLES POSES MAJOR CONCERNS TO LOCATION OF   PROPOSED STRUCTURES OR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SITE   PLAN.       UPON REVIEW OF NEWLY SUBMITTED SURVEY, CURRENT   CONDITIONS ARE NOT REFLECTED. FPL CURRENTLY HAS TWO   DISTRIBUTION POLES ON THE BANYAN FRONTAGE, ONE OF WHICH   IS A NEW POLE (ADDED WITH THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE   IMPROVEMEN TS); PLEASE PROVIDE A LETTER FROM FPL   CONFIRMING/ APPROVING OF THE RELOCATION OF THIS POLE   AND THE VACATION/MODIFICATION OF THE EASEMENT. SITE   PLANS AND CIVIL PLANS SHOW ON-STREET DROP-OFF, WHICH IS   NOT PE RMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ON BANYAN.       A. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN   FRONTAGE NOT PERMITIED WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT. [THIS IS   AN EXISTING VESTED FEATURE WHICH THE APPLICANT BELIEVES   OFFERS A SAFE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF AWAY FOR   RESIDENTS TO BE PICKED UP BY RIDE SHARE PROVIDERS.]   [NOT SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL   ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED   WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT       RESPECTFULLY NOTE HERE ARE NO VESTED / CARRIED OVER   APPROVALS, THIS IS A NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION   94-111 TABLE IV-11: ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND   DROP-OFF IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG   AVENUE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).       ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS   WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE. CONFLICTING WITH THE   IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT WITH THE BIKE LANE /   SIDEWALK.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE. AS TO   THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BANYAN STREET DROP-OFF, TV HAS   REMOVED THIS FROM ITS AMENDED SITE PLAN SUBMISSION.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       8. SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB, NOT   FROM THE PROPEORTY LINE. [PLANS REVISED TO SHOW SETBACK   FROM BACK OF CURB]       A. SETBACK ON BANYAN (GROUND 5) IS 16? MIN. AND 50?   MAX. (AVENUE-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR   PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 31? MIN. [THE PLANS PROVIDED   MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK_CRITERIA AND THE CONDITIONAL   SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS COMPLIANT]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR THE REVISIONS,   BASED UPON THESE: PLEASE PROVIDE MAX SETBACK AND ANY   APPLICABLE CONDITIONAL SETBACK LINES ON SITE PLANS,   BASED UPON THESE: PLEASE PROVIDE MAX SETBACK AND ANY   APPLICABLE CONDITIONAL SETBACK LINES ON SITE PLANS,   ELEVATIONS, AND RELEVANT FLOOR PLANS, UPDATE DATA TABLE   ON SHEET A0-02 ACCORDINGLY TO REFLECT ALL PROVIDED   SETBACKS PER FRONTAGE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PROVIDED ON PLANS (SEE SHEETS   A0-01,??) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR   PARKING IS MET AS THE ENTIRE GARAGE IS SET BACK FARTHER   THAN THE STATED MINIMUM.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       B. SETBACK ON CLEARWATER (GROUND ? 5) IS 12? MIN. AND   60? MAX. (SECONDARY-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK   FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 27? MIN. [THE PLANS   PROVIDED MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK CRITERIA AND THE   CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS   COMPLIANT]       C. ABUTIING CSX IS 15? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       D. REAR 5? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       E. SIDE INTERIOR O? OR NFPA [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       F. SETBACKS INTERNALTO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY ITC,   SFRTA, AND APPLICANTS PROPERTIES WARRANT FURTHER   DISCUSSION. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PROJECT SITE IS   SPLIT BETWEEN 2 SEPARATE PARCELS, AND POTENTIAL   VERTICAL SUBDIVISION. [SETBACK AND SEPARATION WILL BE   HANDLED BY SEPARATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED   PARTIES] [NOT SATISFIED] FURTHER CLARIFICATION /   DISCUSSIONS NEEDED WITH VERTICAL SUBDIVISION       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       9. PARKING: THE PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO   BETTER CONVEY THE PARKING COUNTS. PLEASE NOTE, WHILE   NOT MANDATORY, STAFF HAS INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL   ALLOWED 25% TOD PARKING SPACE REDUCTION. [SEE PARKING   BREAKDOWN AND MIN MAX COMPARISON PROVIDED. THE TOTAL   MINIMUM PARKING PERMITIED IS 1,684 OR (1,347 LESS 20%   REDUCTION FOR TOD)       TOTAL MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITIED IS 3,142 OR (2,514   LESS 20% REDUCTION FOR TOD)       STRAIGHT CODE TEST:       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS   1,684 TO 3,142 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED   SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,347   TO 2,514 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED SPACES IS   COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE NON MANDATORY 20%   REDCUTION IMPOSED       NON-CODE TEST EXCLUDING THE SFRTA AND COUNTY SPACES   EVEN WITH THE SFRTA COUNTY SPACES COUNTED AS ALL BEING   ABOVE MINIMUM THE PARKING PROVIDED WOULD STILL COMPLY   WITH THE LDRS SEE BELOW:       THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND CONTY   275 SPACES WOULD BE 1,409 SPACES OR (1,127 SPACES   REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)       THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND COUNTY   275 SPACES WOULD BE 2,867 SPACES OR (2,294 SPACES   REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS   1,409 TO 2,867 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003   SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN IF THE 275 SPACES FOR   THE SFRTA AND COUNTY WERE NOT RECOGNIZED AS A VALID   PUBLIC USE.       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,127   TO 2,294 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003 SPACES   WOULD STILL BE COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE   NON-MANDATORY 20% REDUCTION IMPOSED WITHOUT THE 275   SPACES FOR THE SFRTA AND COUNTY BEING RECOGNIZED AS A   VALID PUBLIC USE.       THE 2003 SPACES PROVIDED IS VWITHINTHE STATED MINIMUM   AND MAXIMUMS PERMITTED BY CODE NO MATTER THE APPROACH   USED] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM (2.D.)       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON   THE PSA AND ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING   BREAKDOWN; BASED UPON THIS:       -THE HOTEL ROOM/ AMENITY, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE,   GUEST AND SFRTA/COUNTY PARKING SPACES CHECK OUT WITH   REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD REDUCTION.   - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM   PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1 /13 UNITS. ONLY   CAR-SHARE HAS 1 /13 REQUIREMENT.   - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU   PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR ARE YOU   ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND THEN   ADDITIONAL 13 CAR?SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL) THE CAR-SHARE   SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER PARKING AND   DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH. PER SECTIONS 94-106(8.A) A   PROJECT WITH RESIDENTAIL MICRO UNIT SHALL PROVIDE ON   SIOTE CAR SHARE STATIONS ON A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13   UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE   REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE   PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE   STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM   KDEMANDS BUT A MINIMUM OF ONECAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE   PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED   FOR FUTURE SERVICE EXPANSION.       A. OFFICE: MIN. 2.5/1000SF = 457 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000SF   = 731 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 343 REQUIRED   PROVIDING 365 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED] OFFICE   PARKING FALLS WITHIN MIN/MAX. CLARIFICATION, OFFICE   MINIMUM IS 2.5/1000 SF NOT 2/1000 SF.   B. HOTEL: MIN. 1 /4ROOMS = 27 SPACES, 1 /800 SF= 11   SPACES (MAX. 1 /R000 = 108 SPACES, 1 /400 SF= 23   SPACES);_AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 29 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 38 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]   C. COMMERCIAL: MIN. 2/1000 SF= 110 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000   SF= 219 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 83 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 110 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]   D. D. RESIDENTIAL: MIN. 1 /UNIT= 821 SPACE, 1 /20   GUEST= 41 GUEST (MAX. 2/UNIT = 1,642 SPACES, 41 GUEST)   AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 661 REQUIRED; PROVIDING 896   SPACES TOTAL, NEED A CLEARER BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING   DATA PROVIDED] SATISFIED]   E. MICRO-UNITS: MIN. 0/UNIT (MAX.0.5/UNIT = 83 SPACES,   1 /20 GUEST= 8 SPACES); PROVIDED NEED CLEARER   BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING DATA PROVIDED] [PARTIALLY   SATISFIED] PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED,   ARE YOU PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR   ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND   THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE   CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER   PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH. PER SECTION   94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL MICRO-UNITS   SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON A RATIO OF   ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CAR-SHARE   STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE STATION PER   EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. THE TOTAL   NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED ON   CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE CAR-SHARE   STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF THE SPACES   SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE EXPANSION.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: MICRO UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE   PARKED TO CODE WITH 0 SPACES PER UNIT, 13 SHARED CAR   SPACES, AND 8 GUEST SPACES WITH 83 BIKES TABULAR DATA   ON SHEET A0-02 HAS BEEN UPDATED.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] PLEASE INCLUDE THE TABULAR   DATA FOR THE PARKING BREAKDOWN ON SHEET A0-02.       F. LIVE/WORK UNITS: MIN. 2/1000 SF= 534 SPACES (MAX.   4/1000SF = 1068 SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 400   REQUIRED; PROVIDING NEED CLEARER BREAKDOWN. ALSO THERE   ARE A TOTAL OF 12 LIVE/WORK UNITS FOR 267,000 SF,   ASSUMING -22,250 SF EACH? PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE UNITS.   [THERE ARE NO LIVE WORK UNITS PROPOSED] [SATISFIED]       PRIOR TV RESPONSE: JUSTIFICATION LETTER SPOKE TO   PREVIOUS APPROVAL LIVE-WORK UNITS, THESE ARE NOT   CARRIED OVER TO THE CURRENT PROJECT. ZONING 8.19 -   [ACKNOWLEDGED]           G. SFRTA AND ITC PARKING: MIN . 290 SPACES (250 FOR   SFRTA PATRONS AND 40 FOR SFRTA/COUNTY); PROVIDING 275?   WHY THE SHORTAGE OF 15 SPACES PER THE PSA? [PSA (AS   AMENDED) REQUIRES 275 SPACES 250 FOR SFRTA AND 25 FOR   THE COUNTY] [SATISFIED] LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA   (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITIAL STATES:   250 PARKING SP??CES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES FOR   COUNTY.       H. TOTAL MIN REQUIRED: 1,467 SPACES (WITHOUT ANY FOR   MICRO-UNITS AND NOT INCLUDING 534 FOR LIVE/WORK)   2001WITH LIVE/WORK INCLUDED; 2,291 WITH SFRTA/ITC   PARKING. NOT COUNTING 25% REDUCTION. PROVIDING 2,003   SPACES WITH 319 UNALLOCATED. EXPLAIN THE UNALLOCATED.   [EVERY USE IS PARKED AT THE MINIMUM, ALL EXCESS SPACES   HAVE BEEN POOLED TOGETHER IN THE UNALLOCATED CATEGORY   SO THEY ? CAN BE USED AS FLEXIBLE OVER FLOW TO SERVE   ENTIRE PROJECT WHEN NEEDED] [SATISFIED] PARKING   TABLE/DATA PROVIDED.       I. BIKE PARKING: MIN. 1/15 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL/OFFICE= 40   SPACES REQUIRED, 1 /15 RESIDENTIAL= 57 SPACES REQUIRED,   ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE A SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITY WITHIN   200 FT. OF BUILDING ENTRANCE. PROVIDING 116 COMMERCIAL,   100 RESIDENTIAL. [COVERED BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT   THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. THE REQUIRED SHOWERING   CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE   LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY 75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE   AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE FACILITIES ARE ALSO   ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR   AND STAIR.] [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITIED   PARKING DATA, REQUIRED SPACES ARE 1 /15 SPACES   (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL) AND 1 /1 SPACES   (RESIDENTIAL). TOTALING 35 AND 59 REQUIRED BIKE SPACES   RESPECTIVELY. PLEASE PROVIDE TOTAL COUNT OF BIKE SPACES   INTERNAL TO BUILDING ON SHEET A0-02, DIAGRAM ON A5-02   PROVIDES 72 SPACES (2 PER RACK), REQUIREMENT IS 94 FOR   THESE PROJECT USES.       MICRO-UNIT PROVISIONS (PER. SEC. 94-106 8.A.) REQUIRES   0.5 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. REQUIRING 83   SPACES       BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE   BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED WITHIN A SINGLE   ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS HAVE TO TRAVEL   OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING.   RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER SIDE HAVE   TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO ACCESS SHOWERS.   RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD ENTAIL A MORE   APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE   ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER TOWER.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A PUBLIC SHOWER AREA IS NOW   PROVIDED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN PUBLIC   BIKE ROOM.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] NEW SHOWER FACILITY PROVIDED.   PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE   ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05       1. PROVIDE SECURE RESIDENT BICYCLE ROOMS. PROVIDE   NON-RESIDENTIAL COVERED BICYCLE PARKING "AREAS   DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS   FOR THE BICYCLE PARKING AREAS ON THE PLANS. [COVERED   SECURE BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT THE GROUND FLOOR   LEVEL OF THE GARAGE] [DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS PROVIDED]   [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITIED PARKING   \DATA; BIKE PARKING INTERNAL TO BUILDING NEEDS TO MEET   MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF 94 SECURED SPACES, GROUND FLOOR   ONLY SHOWS 72 SPACES. NOT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL 83   SPACES DEDICATED TO MICRO-UNIT USE. ON SHEETS A1-03,   A1-04, AND A1-05 ROOM INTERNAL TO GARAGE LABELED   SCOOTER/BIKE PARKING? HOW ARE THESE ROOMS / SPACES   ACCESSED, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL RACKS LOCATED HERE, AND   WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL OF   THESE AREAS.       REPEAT FROM (9.1.1.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED   AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED   WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS   HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE   PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER   SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO   ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE PARKGIN. RETAIL / COMMERCAIL USERS   ON BANYAN; CLEARWATER SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+   FT DISTANCE TO ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE   DISTRUCBUTION SHOULD ENTIAL A MORE APT RATIO OR   DISTRIBUTION, RECOMMEND ONE ENCLOSED / SECURE BIKE ROOM   AND SHOWER FACILITY PER TOWER.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL SECURE BIKE ROOMS   HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE SOUTHERN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING   AND THE HOTEL/OFFICE BUILDING (SEE SHEETS A1-02, A1-03,   A1-04 AND A1-05. SHOWERS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE   RESIDENTIAL TOWERS.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL   SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE   ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05       ACCESS TO BIKE STORAGE LIMITED TO REAR ENTRANCE ON CSX   / BANYAN CORNER OF THE SITE, NO INTERNAL ACCESS APPEARS   TO BE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF CROSSING OVER THE ADA   SPACES. PLEASE CONSIDER REVISIONS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A CORRIDOR WAS ADDED TO ACCESS   THE BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FROM THE EASTERN COVERED   WALKWAY AND NOT THROUGH THE ADA SPACES.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL   SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE   ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05       2. WHERE ARE THE SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITIES LOCATED?   [THE REQUIRED SHOWERING CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO   PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY   75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE   FACILITIES ARE ALSO ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE   SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR AND STAIR.] [NOT SATISFIED] THANK   YOU FOR PROVIDING SHOWER FACILITIES WITHIN THE PLAN,   PLEASE LABEL AND INDICATE THESE CLEARLY. BASED UPON THE   RESPONSE AND RESUBMITIAL:       CLARIFICATION, ARE THESE THE THREE ORANGE ROOMS BETWEEN   THE RETAIL BAYS ON SHEET A1-02? CAN THE SHOWER   FACILITIES BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPOSED BIKE   STORAGE ROOM OR BETIER DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE BUILDINGS?       REPEAT FROM (9.1.1.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED   AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED   WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS   HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE   PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER   SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO   ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD   ENTAIL A MORE APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE   ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER   TOWER.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: AN ADDITIONAL SHOWER LOCATION IS   PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN GROUND FLOOR BIKE ROOM   SO THERE ARE NOW 2 SEPARATE SHOWER FACILITIES.   ADDITIONAL BIKE ROOMS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED ON SITE AND   PROVIDED FOR EACH USE (SEE SHEETS A1-02, A1-03, A1-04   AND A1-05).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL   SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE   ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05       J. IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY PARKING STALL   IS ADJACENT TO A WALL, FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER   PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE   INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN   OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STALL, THE STALL   WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET.   [ACKNOWLEDGED ? WE WILL BE UTILIZING THE ALLOWABLE   PARKING REDUCTIONS AND OR USING COMPACT SPACE   PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PROPER SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED]   (NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OR DETAILS   INDICATING SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED. PLEASE FOLLOW SEC.   94-485 (N. )(1.) FOR SMALL CAR SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND   OUTLINE PERCENTAGE/INDICATE ON DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PARKING DETAILS HAVE BEEN   PROVIDED TO SHOW MINIMUM DIMENSION FOR ALL PARKING   SPACES INCLUDING DETAILS DESCRIBING REQUIRED DIMENSIONS   WHEN ADJACENT TO A WALL OR COLUMN (SEE SHEETS C-12,   C-13).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       3. PARKING GARAGE HAS INSTANCES WHERE PARKING SPACES   APPEAR TO BE NEXT TO WALLS OR STRUCTURE. [ADJUSTMENTS   TO BE MADE AS INDICATED ABOVE ON FINAL PERMITS TO   ENSURE COMPLIANCE] [NOT SATISFIED] SEE ABOVE       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE; SEE ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] IF COMPACT SPACES ARE TO BE   USED DUE TO CONSTRAINTS OF WALLS, COLUMNS, OR   STRUCTURES, PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ON PLANS AND   DESIGNATE/STRIPE ACCORDINGLY PER SEC. 94-485.       4. ADA PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED IN INEFFICIENT AND   NOT OPTIMAL AREAS. ALL SPACES SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A   CURB RAMP OR CURB CUT, WHEN NECESSARY, TO ALLOW   ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING SERVED. SPACES SHALL BE   LOCATED SO THAT USERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO WALK OR   OTHERWISE MOVE BEHIND PARKED VEHICLES, EXCLUDING OTHER   VEHICLES PARKED IN ADJACENT PARKING SPACES FOR THE   DISABLED. [ADA SPACES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE   EFFICIENT ACCESS ROUTES TO AND FROM ENTRY POINTS OR   ELEVATOR CORES] [NOT SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING   ADJUSTMENTS AND ALTERING PLANS, BASED UPON THESE   CHANGES:       ADA DISTRIBUTION AFTER RECONFIGURATION STILL POSES   QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.   A) PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF HOW ADA PATRONS OF   OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL SAFELY &   EFFICIENTLY ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SFRTA AND THEIR ADA PATRONS   WILL ACCESS THE ELEVATOR CORES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST   CORNERS OF THE GARAGE OR FROM THE DESIGNATED HC VAN   ACCESSIBLE SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE PLANS HAVE   BEEN AMENDED TO RELOCATE THE ADA SPACES CLOSER TO THE   ELEVATOR AND SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE MOST CONVENIENT   ADA SPACES WITH THE SHORTEST ROUTES TO ACCESS THE   GROUND FLOOR AND OTHER USES ON SITE (SEE SHEET A0-04).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA SPACES RELOCATED TO   APPROPRIATE ELEVATOR CORRIDORS.       B) CURRENT ADA SPACE DISTRIBUTION ON SHEET A1-02 (FOR   SFRTA PATRONS AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES) FORCES ADA USERS TO   TRAVEL THROUGH RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ELEVATORS TO ACCESS   REST OF SITE. DISTRCBUTION OF ADA SPACES ONTHIS LEVEL   SHALL PROVIDE SHORTEST / MOST EFFICENT PATH TO END USE,   ADA SAPCES SHOLD BE LOCATED AT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT   CONNECTED TO UPPER PLAZA AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFT CLOSEST   TO THE TRI RAIL PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA SPACES RELOCATED TO   APPROPRIATE ELEVATOR CORRIDORS.       C) IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC WITH ADA NEEDS   TO ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE   RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] GENERAL PATRONS OF THE   SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL, VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK   ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO   NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE   OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.       GROUND LEVEL, THE ADA VAN SPACE AT THE END OF THE ROW   FORCES USERS TO WALK BEHIND OTHER PARKED CARS TO ACCESS   DOORS TO BIKEROOM/OUTSIDE. ADA CODE LANGUAGE MORE   RESTRICTIVE THAN ZONING PROVISION. THIS SPACE IS NOT   COMPLIANT AND WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED / REMOVED FROM   HOW IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA PATH/CORRIDOR PROVIDED   IN FRONT OF SPACES.       D) GROUND ITC ADA PATH FOR VANS, NOT THE CLOSEST /MOST   EFFICIENT OR DIRECT ACCESS TO REST OF SITE, ONLY   BENEFITS RETAIL SPACES ALONG THE CSX FRONTAGE. BETTER   DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE AROUND UPPER LEVEL ELEVATOR   SHAFTS.   V. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING PAINTED STRIPING DETAILS THAT   MEET THE CITY STANDARDS OF SEC. 94-485. [PLANS AMENDED   TO INCLUDE DETAILS] [SATISFIED]   VI. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL PARKING DIMENSION FOR DRIVE   ISLES PARKING RAMPS SLOPES, PARKGIN STALL ETC. {PLANS   AMENDED TO INCLUDE DETAIL AND DIMENSIONS][SATISFIED]       K. PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP SLOPES: INTERNAL RAMPS APPEAR   15.8% AND 12.4%. PER SEC. 94-111 (Q.)(2.) IF THE RAMP S   GREATER THAN 14 PERCENT, A BREAK-OVER TRANSITION SHALL   BE REQUIRED. [TYPICAL CODE COMPLAINT DIMENSIONS   PROVIDED. RAMP SLOPE AMENDED TO PROVIDE COMPLAINT SLOPE   OR BREAK-OVER TRANSITION] [SATISFIED]       L. INTERNAL PARKING STRUCTURE POSES CONCERNS WITH   INGRESS / EGRESS OF RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS, AND   THE OPERATIONS OF LOADING AND BICYCLE USERS. LOADING   SPACES AND BAYS ARE INEFFICIENT AND CAUSE CONFLICT   ZONES/SAFETY CONCERNS. POTENTIAL SPILLBACK AND QUEUING   ISSUES ONTO CLEARWATER. [WE DISAGREE. LOADING AND   ACCESS IS EFFICIENT AND MEETS CODE THE CONCEPT TO   CREATE A SINGULAR GARAGE TO SERVE THE ENTIRE   DEVELOPMENT AS A TRANSIT FACILITY. THE IDEA IS TO NOT   PARK THE SITE AS A TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT WITH GARAGES   PROVIDED IN EACH BUILDING BUT RATHER A MORE URBAN   CONCEPT THAT PARKS CARS CENTRALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT   WITH PATRONS AND RESIDENTS WALKING THE SHORT DISTANCE   TO AND FROM THE INTENDED END USE] [NOT SATISFIED]   PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE INGRESS RAMP   AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE CODE REQUIRES ALL TRAFFIC   MOVEMENTS, INCLUDING STACKING, TO BE INTERNALIZED. THE   CODE DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE NUMBER OF LANES.   THE TWO LANES ARE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THE CAPACITY OF   THE GARAGE AND SO AS TO MINIMIZE STACKING ON   CLEARWATER. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF DUAL RAMPS ON   LARGER PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY (I.E. KRAVIS CENTER,   PHILLIPS POINT). THE APPLICANT HAS MODIFIED THE PLANS   TO TAPER THE DUAL UP RAMP TO ONE LANE PRIOR TO VEHICLES   GETTING TO LEVEL 02. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED A LANE   SEPARATOR AS REQUESTED. (SEE SHEET A1-01)   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR   CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC / SAFETY HAZARD WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE   GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND   SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL BE   PROPOSED AND A DOCK MASTER WILL BE ON SITE TO CONTROL   TRAFFIC WHEN DELIVERY OR ADA VEHICLES ENTER THE LOADING   AREA.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE THIS   PLAN OR OPERATIONS DETAIL TO PLANNING & CITY TRAFFIC   ENGINEERS PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.       AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA   AND OTHER OPERATIONS, INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A NEW AUTO TURN STUDY IS   PROVIDED AND THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO ELIMINATE   THE CONFLICT POINT AT THE END OF THE DOWN RAMP (SEE   SHEET C-18) ALSO SEE ABOVE.   [SATISFIED]       INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS   WITH ONE-WAY/ TWO WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE   RAMPING TO LEVEL 02 ARE BEING MERGED TO ONE LANE AND   ABOVE LEVEL 02 THERE ARE INTERNAL TWO WAY (SINGLE LANE)   RAMPS TO ACCESS PARKING ABOVE. TWO LANES GOING UP TO   LEVEL 02 ARE NECESSARY TO AVOID STACKING ON CLEARWATER.   IN ORDER TO CONTROL TURNING MOVEMENTS AND TO ELIMINATE   INTERSECTION CONFLICT ON LEVEL 02, THE TWO LANES HAVE   PREVIOUSLY MERGE INTO ONE LANE. A DIAGRAM SHOWING THE   TRAFFIC FLOW IS SHOWN ON SHEET A1-01, A1-02, A1-03,   A1-04 AND A1-05.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF   SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWERS?       REPEAT COMMENT OF (9.J. IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE   CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENRAL PUBLIC / USERS OF OFFICE,   HOTEL RETAIL A GENERAL PUBLIC / USERS OF OFFICE HOTEL,   RETAIL, AND TRIRAIL USERSWILL EFFIECNTELY ACCESS THESE   FACILITIES FROM THE CENTRALLY LOCATED GARAGE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ACCESS   THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER. THE INTENT IS FOR SFRTA   AND THEIR ADA PATRONS TO ACCESS THE FACILITY FROM THE   ELEVATOR CORES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF THE   GARAGE OR FROM THE DESIGNATED HC VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACES   ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO   RELOCATE THE ADA SPACES CLOSER TO THE ELEVATOR AND SHOW   THE LOCATION OF THE MOST CONVENIENT ADA SPACES WITH THE   SHORTEST ROUTES TO ACCESS THE GROUND FLOOR AND OTHER   USES ON SITE. THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAY ALSO ACCESS THE   PLAZA THROUGH THE EASTERN STAIRWAY, GARAGE ELEVATORS OR   FROM THE PROMINENT SPIRAL STAIRWAY AND ELEVATOR TO THE   PLAZA.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM   4.(C.) GENERAL PATRONS OF THE SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL,   VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT   HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND   CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS   SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.       M. THE PARKING GARAGE SHOULD BE PREWIRED FOR EV   CHARGERS BOTH FOR RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS. THE   ELECTRICAL ROOMS NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT   SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL PANELS AND   AREAS NEED TO BE DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSFORMERS.   [ACKNOWLEDGED] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] IF YOU PLAN TO   PROVIDE EV SPACES AT THIS TIME, PLEASE SHOW WHERE THESE   ARE LOCATED.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS NOT CODE REQUIREMENT;   HOWEVER, WE ANTICIPATE HAVING SUBSTANTIAL EV CHARGING   CAPABILITY AND WILL INSURE THAT ELECTRICAL CAPACITY IS   SUFFICIENT AND WILL PROVIDE CONDUITS. THE EV TOTALS AND   LOCATION WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER AMENDED SITE PLAN   APPROVAL BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND PROVIDED IN TV   CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       10. CURB-CUTS AND PASSENGER LOAD/DROP-OFF: PER SEC.   94-111 TABLE IV-11 TOD DOES NOT PERMIT ON-STREET AND/OR   PASSENGER DROP-OFF OR LOADING ON AVENUE (BANYAN). [ONE   CURB CUT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BANYAN. ALL OTHER   CURB CUTS AND PASSENGER PICK UP LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN   PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THEIR RESENT LOCATIONS. ONE AND   ONE PASSENGER DROP OFF CURB CUT WAS REMOVED ON BANYAN]   [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS:   [REPEAT COMMENT] PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP   OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25   DISTRICT.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       THERE ARE NO VESTED/CARRIED OVER APPROVALS, THIS IS A   NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION 94-111 TABLE IV-11:   ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND DROP-OFF IS NOT   PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG AVENUE STREET   CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS   WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       CURB-CUT ON BANYAN FOR NONCOMPLIANT PASSENGER DROP-OFF   IS STILL SHOWN ON ALL RESUBMITTED SITE PLANS, LANDSCAPE   PLANS, AND ENGINEERING PLANS.       STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF FOR   THE MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER ALONG CLEARWATER. PROPOSED   DOES NOT MAKE SIENSE OPRATIONALLY AND DOPES NOPT   REFLECT A SAFE PLEASANT PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT   UP URBAN CONTEXT. CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE   WITH NARROW LANDSCAPE BUFFER, PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED   BY 2 TRAVEL LANES. BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED   CLOSER TOWARD CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE,   WITH THE DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING,   IN PLACE OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA.   PROVIDES THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR   VALET SERVICES AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE ALSO   TV HAS REVISED THE CIRCULATION TO ELIMINATE THE WESTERN   OUTSIDE DRIVE LANE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS COMMENT AND   REPLACED IT WITH LANDSCAPED IMPROVEMENTS (SEE SHEET   A1-01).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       A TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE   COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A   DROP-OFF IS NEEDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE.   SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC DROP- OFF IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL   OFFICE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE WE   HAVE ALSO REVISED THE PLAN TO HAVE LOBBY ENTRANCES BOTH   FACING CLEARWATER AND EASTERN INTERNAL DRIVE WITH A   DROP-OFF ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER   (SEE SHEET A1-01).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY   EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMIITED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY   SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL   REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS SITE INCORPORATES ACCESS   (DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP POINTS FOR PALM TRAN, TRI-RAIL   AND AMTRAK AS WELL AS THE TV DEVELOPMENT AND WERE PART   OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN, NEVERTHELESS, TV   WILL SEEK VARIANCES FOR EACH OF THESE ACCESS POINTS TO   REMAIN AS INDICATED ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE       WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWERS EXCEEDS   PERMITTED 25 FT APPEARS TO BE 30 FEET PLEASE PROVIDE   DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS / DRIVE ACCESS       RESPONSE: THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW THE   DIMENSIONS OF THE CURB CUT (SEE SHEETS C-10 AND C-11)   AS THESE ARE RADIAL DRIVEWAYS DUE TO BUSES AND DELIVERY   VEHICLES ACCESSING THE SITE AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF   TRIPS UTILIZING THE DRIVEWAYS, THE WIDTHS ARE WIDER   THAN THE 25? REQUIREMENT AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. THE   CITY STANDARD FLARED DRIVEWAY IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT   THESE LOCATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL BE APPLYING FOR A   VARIANCE FOR THESE CURB CUTS.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND   C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE   INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,   NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF   THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION   ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND   HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25FT. APPEARS TO   BE 30 FT. + PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB   CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW   THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CURB CUT (SEE SHEETS C-10 AND   C-11) REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE REQUESTED.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE ITC BUS LOOP EXCEEDS   PERMITTED 25 FT. INGRESS WIDTH NEARLY 60 FT. EGRESS   APPROXIMATELY 40-45FT. PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL   CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW   DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED CURB CUT/DRIVE ACCESS AND IS   58.16 FEET FOR THE INGRESS AND 50.25 FEET FOR THE   EGRESS. THESE OPENINGS WERE PART OF THE COUNTY?S   APPROVED ITC SITE PLANS. REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE   REQUESTED   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND   C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE   INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,   NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF   THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION   ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE GARAGE INGRESS/EGRESS   EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25 FT. WIDTH NEARLY FT. PLEASE   PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW   THESE DIMENSIONS. REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE REQUESTED.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND   C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE   INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,   NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF   THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION   ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.       PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TURN ANALYSIS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP   OPERATION.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TRANSIT VILLAGE IS NOT MAKING   ANY CHANGES TO THE ITC/BUS LOOP OPERATION AND IT IS NOT   UNDER TRANSIT VILLAGE CONTROL.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] TRANSIT VILLAGE IS MAKING   CHANGES; THE LOCATION, CONFIGURATION, AND SIZE OF THE   INGRESS/EGRESS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP IS CHANGING FROM   THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. HOWEVER SINCE ITC/SFRTA IS IN   CONTROL, OPERATIONS LOGISTICS SHALL BE ASSESSED BY   THOSE ENTITIES.       11. PLEASE PROVIDE AN FAR AND GBA DIAGRAM SHOWING THE   BREAKDOWN OF THE PROJECT?S COUNTED/UNCOUNTED ROOMS AND   SPACES. [PLANS UPDATED TO PROVIDE FAR GBA DIAGRAMS)       A. GROSS BUILDING AREA MEANS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A   BUILDING, INCLUDING AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED   STORAGE SPACES, ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP, SUCH AS   BATHROOMS AND LOBBIES, STAIRS .AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND   EXTERNAL UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE GROSS   BUILDING AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS;   UNENCLOSED COLONNADES, PORCHES AND BALCONIES;   MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES; AND TRASH ROOMS.   STORAGE SPACES WITHOUT WINDOWS AND ENCLOSED BY SURFACES   THAT ALLOW FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OR OUTSIDE AIR   CIRCULATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [NOT   SATISFIED] GROUND LEVEL A6-01, ENCLOSED BIKE STORAGE   ROOM COUNTS TOWARD GBA/FAR.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: GBA CALCULATION UPDATED TO   INCLUDED BIKE ROOM AREA (SEE TABULAR SHEET A0-02)   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       VII. GROSS BUILDING AREA REQUIREMENTS:       1. ANY PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE   MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE   CALCULATIONS OF GROSS BUILDING AREA. THIS SHALL INCLUDE   STALLS AND ALL ASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS. [PROJECT   PARKING PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM   RANGE PERMITTED AND DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD GBA OR THE   FAR CALCULATIONS] [SATISFIED]   2. PARKING LOCATED BELOW GRADE SHALL NOT BE COUNTED AS   PART OF THE GROSS BUILDING AREA. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [SATISFIED]   3. THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE   OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [SATISFIED]       12. PLEASE PROVIDE ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM AND CALCULATIONS   FOR SITE FRONTAGES. [ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM PROVIDED ON   REVISED PLANS] [SATISFIED]   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON RESUBMITTED   AND REVISED PLANS; PLEASE NOTE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT   ALONG CLEARWATER (SECONDARY) IS 30% OF THE BUILDABLE   LOT FRONTAGE, NOT 30% OF EACH BUILDING?S FRONTAGE.   PLEASE RECALCULATE ACTIVE USE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE   WHOLE CLEARWATER FRONTAGE/PROPERTY LINE. ALSO, NOTE IN   THOSE CASES WHERE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS PROVIDED ALONG   THE FRONTAGE LINE, THE OPEN SPACE MAY BE COUNTED AS   ACTIVE USE AS LONG AS ACTIVE USES ARE PROVIDED ON THE   FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ADJOINING THE PUBLIC OPEN   SPACE. ON SHEET A0-06 PLEASE ADJUST CALCULATIONS TO   REFLECT ACTIVE USE OF THE ENTIRE CLEARWATER FRONTAGE IN   TOTAL (I.E. PROVIDE AT LEAST 30% OF THE APPROX. 1,400   FT. PROPERTY LINE; NEED TO HAVE APPROX. 420 FT. OF   ACTIVE USE.)       BANYAN (AVENUE) ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT IS 60% OF THE   BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE, NOT 30% OF THE BUILDING?S   FRONTAGE. PLEASE RECALCULATE ACTIVE USE AS A PERCENTAGE   OF THE WHOLE BANYAN FRONTAGE/PROPERTY LINE. ALSO, NOTE   IN THOSE CASES WHERE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS PROVIDED   ALONG THE FRONTAGE LINE, THE OPEN SPACE MAY BE COUNTED   AS ACTIVE USE AS LONG AS ACTIVE USES ARE PROVIDED ON   THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ADJOINING THE PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE. ON SHEET A0-06 PLEASE ADJUST CALCULATIONS   TO REFLECT ACTIVE USE OF THE ENTIRE BANYAN FRONTAGE IN   TOTAL (I.E. PROVIDE AT LEAST 60% OF THE APPROX. 375 FT.   PROPERTY LINE; NEED TO HAVE APPROX. 225 FT. OF ACTIVE   USE.)       THE MIN. REQUIRED LINEAR LENGTH OF ACTIVE USE APPEARS   TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT PLEASE ILLUSTRATE AND   RECALCULATE THE TABULAR VALUES/PERCENTAGES TO BE SURE.       13. IT APPEARS THAT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH   THE GROUND LEVEL SITE PLAN. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST   INCLUDE HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE VARIOUS FEATURES   SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE ELEVATIONS MATCH THE   SITE PLAN BUT ALSO THAT THE SITE FRONTAGES COMPLY WITH   THE VARIOUS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. [CHECKED FOR ACCURACY   AND REVISE AS NEEDED] [NOT SATISFIED] AN EXAMPLE ON   SHEET A2-01 DETAIL ON THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER SHOWS A   SUPPORT COLUMN NOT ILLUSTRATED WITHIN THE SITE PLANS.   ADDITIONAL COLUMN SHOWN IN ELEVATION ADJACENT TO THE   SPIRAL STAIRCASE FEATURE, NOT SHOWN IN SITE PLAN.   ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL ENTRANCES, DOORS, ETC.   ON GROUND-LEVEL SO STAFF CAN VERIFY ELEMENTS MATCH SITE   PLAN. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW CONSISTENT AND ACCURATE   INFORMATION.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO   PROVIDE THE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DETAIL, SETBACKS, AND   DIMENSIONS ADDED TO PROVIDE CLARITY.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       14. PLEASE SPECIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACES (PRIVATE&   PUBLIC) PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS, REFERENCE SEC. 94-109   AND TABLE IV?7. CLARIFY HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH   OPEN SPACE TYPE IS MET WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.   [TYPE OF OPEN SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON THE   LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS SHEET.]       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING OPEN SPACES AND CALCULATIONS   SHEET, BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED:       [NOT SATISFIED] PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON CORNER OF   CLEARWATER & BANYAN LABELED AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF   PUBLIC SPACE IS NOT PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT.   GARDEN COURTYARD CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED. (TABLE   -IV-6)   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEET A0-04, A0-05,   A1-01, A4-02, L110 SHOWS SPACE STILL LABELED   INCORRECTLY AS A COURTYARD, PLEASE COORDINATE ALL PLAN   SETS ARCH, CIVIL, AND LANDSCAPE TO MATCH AND BE   CONSISTENTLY LABELED. CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD   ON SHEET L005 APPEAR TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY. SHEET L002   LABELS VEGETATED AREA UNDER GARDEN PLAZA (LEVEL 01 OPEN   SPACE), THERE IS NO GARDEN PLAZA PRESENTED ON GROUND   LEVEL. REQUIREMENT FOR VEGETATED AREA IS 50% NOT 25%.   ON SHEET L002 THE VEGETATED AREA NEEDS TO BE CALCULATED   PER DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE (I.E. OPEN SPACE 1A NEEDS   50%, 1B NEEDS 50%, 4A NEEDS 20%, ETC.) PLEASE MAKE SURE   EACH INDIVIDUAL SPACE MEETS ITS REQUIREMENTS.       SHEET L002 (LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS) MISLABELED   COURTYARD IS ON GROUND LEVEL, GARDEN PLAZA IS ON 2ND   LEVEL, CHECK SF DIMENSIONS. GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM   50% VEGETATED AREA, GARDEN COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50%   VEGETATED.   ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT       GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY, GARDEN   COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY.   ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT       SPECIFY SEATING REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE MET   WITHIN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES. L005 (GROUND   LEVEL OPEN SPACE PLAN) OPEN SPACE 1A, 1 B, 1C LABELED   AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SPACE IS NOT   PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT. GARDEN COURTYARD   CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED (TABLE IV-6).   ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT   SEATING CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD ON SHEET L005   APPEARS TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY.       ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 2 SIDES OR   75%. ROW ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 1 SIDE OR   20%.   ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT   ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD   ON SHEET L005 APPEARS TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY.       OPEN SPACE 2A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE   PLAN) IS INCORRECTLY LABELED AS INTERIOR COURTYARD,   THIS IS A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION AND IS NOT   PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. PLEASE IDENTIFY   THE CORRECT TYPE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THIS IS. NOTE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ARE TO BE ON THE GROUND LEVEL, WILL   REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER FROM THE DAC.   ZONING 8.19 - IF OPEN SPACE A2 IS NOT COUNTING TOWARD   REQUIRED PRIVATE OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, DOES NOT NEED TO   BE SHOWN ON L005.       OPEN SPACE 4A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE   PLAN) DOES NOT MEET THE ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT REQUIRED   (1SIDE OR 20%)   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] RAILROAD ROW COUNTS TOWARD   PUBLIC ROW ABUTMENT/OFFICE/RETAIL SATISFIES ACTIVE USE   ABUTMENT       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 48 ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN   SPACE PLAN) TERRACE VEGETATED AREA REQUIREMENT IS 20%   (OKAY TO EXCEED REQUIREMENT, PLEASE ADJUST TABLE TO   CORRECTLY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS)   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 48 ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN   SPACE PLAN) SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE REQUIRED ROOFTOP   GARDEN. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE 50% VEGETATED AREA   AND 50% TREE CANOPY.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] 4A AND 4B ARE TERRACES ON   RESUBMITTED PLANS.       STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE UNTIL THE OPEN   SPACES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DESIGNATED / IDENTIFIED AND   PROPER REQUIREMTNS LISTED.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] GROUND-LEVEL OPEN   SPACES 1A, 1B, 1C CORRECTLY LABELED.       ON SHEET L005, ROOF DECK IS NOT THE PROPER LABELING.   ROOFTOP GARDEN IS A REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON   TABLE IV-6 FOR TOD-25 DISTRICT. PLEASE RELABEL   ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRES 50% VEGETATED AND 50% TREE   CANOPY.       A. PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTHERN TRIANGLE OF THE   ITE DOES NOT MEET PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPOLOGY   DUE TO LACK OF ABUTMENT TO AN ACTIVE USE [THIS IS A   BONUS OPEN SPACE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE SFRTA AND ITC   CUSTOMERS DURING OPERATING HOURS. THIS AREA ABUTS THE   ACTIVE MASS TRANSIT USE TRAIN PLATFORM AND ITC FACILITY   AND PROVIDES A SPACE FOR CUSTOMERS TO RELAX IN THE   SUNNY LANDSCAPE PARKLIKE AREA WHILE WAITING TO MAKE   THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTIONS.] [NOT SATISFIED]       PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE? IF PRIVATE OPEN   SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED ALONG   THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE   WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT SHALL   BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACES   HAVE BEEN RELABELED AS GARDEN COURTYARD (SEE SHEETS   L002 AND L005). THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS MET ON   THE GROUND LEVEL (SEE SHEETS L002, L005 AND L006). THE   REMAINING OPEN SPACE IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA AND IS   NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS   FOR REQUIRED OPEN SPACE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON   SHEET L005.       B. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE SECOND LEVEL   REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SIMILAR TO THE ONE   APPROVED AS PART OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.   [SEE ABOVE] [ACKNOWLEDGED. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SAME   RAISED OPEN SPACE CONDITION TO OCCUR AS PREVIOUSLY   APPROVED] [NOT SATISFIED] WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER   FROM THE DAC.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA   AND IS NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE   REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (SEE SHEETS L002,   L005 AND L006).   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON   SHEET L005.       15. STREET TREES: STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AT 30   FT. INTERVALS ALONG EACH STREET FRONTAGE. CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE SHOULD HAVE APPROX. 46 TREES AND BANYAN   FRONTAGE APPROX. 13 [NOTED STREET TREES CALCULATIONS   HAVE BEEN UPDATED ACCORDINGLY] [SATISFIED]   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] BASED ON THE CHANGED SITE   CONDITIONS AND PLANS WITHIN THE RESUBMITTED DRAWINGS,   CLEARWATER DR. STREETSCAPE REQUIRES ~10 MORE STREET   TREES ALONG THE SIDEWALK. PLACES TO ADD TREES INCLUDE   ALONG ITC DROP-OFF, IN FRONT OF SPIRAL STAIRCASE, AND   IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL LOBBY.       16. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF AND LOOP FOR   RESIDENTIAL TOWER ON CLEARWATER IS OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY   LINES AND ENCROACHES INTO CITY ROW. ADDITIONAL SMALLER   DROP-OFF ADJACENT TO LOADING BAY /BACK-OF-HOUSE. WHY   ARE THESE DROP-OFF SPACES NEEDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWER? ADJACENT HOTEL/OFFICE ALSO INCLUDES A SMALL   DROP-OFF, PRESENTS STACKING/QUEUING ISSUES AND SPILL   OVER INTO CLEARWATER. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE   RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF ROAD ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL   TOWER/CLEARWATER PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF NOT IN   COMPLIANCE. ENCROACHES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND   PER SEC. 4-111 (N. )(3.) DESIGNATED PASSENGER LOADING   AND DROP-OFF AREAS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 16   FEET FROM THE BACK OF CURB, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE   SIDEWALK BY A 5 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND SHALL BE   SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. PORTE   COCEHRES ARE SUBJECT TO MINIMUM STANDARDS DEPENDING ON   SUBDISTRICT LOCATION AND ADJACENCY TO A STREET   DESIGNATION AND ARE SEPARATED INTO TWO TYPES WHICH ARE   ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE IV-22. ONLY A TYPE A PORTE   COCHERE IS ALLOWED IN THE TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. [THIS   DROP OFF LOOP FEATURE HAS BEEN REVISED AND APPROVED BY   PBC SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND   ALSO TO ADD EXTRA SPACING FOR A VEGETATED BUFFER AND   DROP OFF RELATED USES.] THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATIONS   AND REVISIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL, BASED UPON   THE NEW PLANS PROVIDED: STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE   RESIDENTIAL DROP OFF FOR THE MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER   ALONG CLEAR WATER. PROPOSED SEPARATE DROP OFF ROADWAY   DOES NOT MAKE SENSE OPERATIONALLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT   A SAFE / PLEASANT PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT UP   URBAN CONTEXT. CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE WITH   NARROW LANDSCAPE BUFFER PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED BY 2   TRAVEL LANES. BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED CLOSER   TOWARD CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE, WITH THE   DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, IN PLACE   OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA. PROVIDES THE   MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR VALET SERVICES   AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION. NEW CONFIGURATION   WITH REVERSAL IN DIRECTION NOT EFFICIENT OR OPTIMAL. A   TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE COMPATIBLE   AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A DROP-OFF IS NEEDED   ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE. SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC   DROP-OFF IN FRONT OF HOTEL / OFFICE.       A. INSTEAD, THE BUILDING FRONT SHOULD BE MOVED CLOSER   TO CLEARWATER, AND RECONFIGURE LOADING AND BACK OF   HOUSE TO INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY AND DROP OFF AREA [SEE   ABOVE COMMENT] SEE ABOVE.   B. SEE ABOVE: PROPOSED LOADING SPACE ON RESIDENTIAL   TOWER DOES NOT FUNCTION FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT. LOADING   AREA WAS REVISED TO PROVIDE IMPROVED LOADING VEHICLE   ACCESSIBILITY. SEE SHEET C-03] [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE   PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF THE REVISED LOADING SPACES, ADA   SPACE PROPOSED IN BETWEEN LOADING OPERATIONS       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV HAS REVISED THE PLANS TO   ELIMINATE THE WESTERN OUTSIDE DRIVE LANE TO ACCOMMODATE   THESE COMMENTS. THERE WILL BE A PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE   ALONG CLEARWATER AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE DROPOFF AT   THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. SEE SHEET A4-01 FOR NEW   DESIGN.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF   CLEARWATER TO THE REVISED HOTEL/OFFICE DROP-OFF LOADING   SPACE?       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE DISTANCE IS 50.88 FEET.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] 50FT. MINIMUM MAINTAINED       17. ITC BUS LOOP IS NOW ENTIRELY COVERED OVERHEAD BY   PLAZA AND BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD AN   OPEN AIR CORRIDOR TO PROVIDE LIGHT, LANDSCAPING, AND   VENTILATION / OPEN AIR ACCESS. HOW WILL THE REMOVAL OF   THESE ELEMENTS BE MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED FOR OR TO   PROVIDE LIGHT, LANDSCAPING, AND VENTILATION /OPEN-AIR   ACCESS. HOW WILL THE REMOVAL OF THESE ELEMENTS BE   MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED FOR ESPECIALLY WHERE ANY   MECHANICAL VENTING WILL BE LOCATED? [THE ITC IS NOW   COMPLETELY ENCLOSED UNDER AND WITHIN THE PARKING   STRUCTURE. A NEW LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE IS PROVIDED   ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH END OF THE ITC. THIS AREA IS   ACCESSIBLE TO TRANSIT PATRONS SO THEY CAN GET SUN OR   SIT IN SHADE WITHIN A LANDSCAPE AREA WHILE WAITING FOR   THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTION] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] NOTE,   PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE ? IF PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND_ FLOOR AND LOCATED   ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN   COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND   IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA   AND IS NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE   REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ITC IS NOT   COMPLETELY ENCLOSED, AND IS OPEN TO THE EAST, WEST AND   SOUTH.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON   SHEET L005.       18. PLEASE PROVIDE SHEETS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFYING HOW   THE FACADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE   PROJECT. PLEASE REFERENCE SEC. 94-109 AND TABLE IV-4:   FACADE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS. [PLANAR BREAKS AND   BUILDING LENGTH DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED] [PARTIALLY   SATISFIED] DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED A. ILLUSTRATE   TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS, FENESTRATION CALCULATIONS,   PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, PROJECTIONS, ETC. FOR ALL   BUILDING FACADES. [TRANSPARENCY, FENESTRATION, PLANAR   BREAK CALCULATIONS, FOR ALL BUILDING FACADES PROVIDED.]   [NOT SATISFIED] FOR GROUND FLOOR TO PODIUM (UP TO 7TH   FLOOR IN TOD-25 DISTRICT       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PLANAR BREAKS DIAGRAMS HAVE   BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE   REQUEST FOR GROUND TO LEVEL 7 TO MATCH ARTICULATION OF   TOWER ABOVE (SEE SHEETS A5-04, A5-05, A5-06 AND A5-07).       ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] PLANAR BREAKS ARE   REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING FRONTAGES (SIDE FACING STREET   OR ROW) FOR BUILDINGS THAT EXCEED 150 LINEAR FT. THE   REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE A PROJECTION, PROTRUSION, OR   RECESS IN THE FA?ADE THAT IS AT LEAST 3FT. IN DEPTH.   THE CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL LENGTH OF THE PLANAR BREAKS,   PER BUILDING FRONTAGE, SHALL BE GREATER OR EQUAL TO 20%   OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE.       SHEET A5-04 PLANAR BREAK NEEDED FOR 243FT. BANYAN   FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS   TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 48.5 FT.)       PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS   UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT   4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? BANYAN   FRONTAGE ALSO DOES NOT HAVE A RECESSED GROUND FLOOR.   WHAT TOWERS ARE MIDDLE & WEST?           SHEET A5-05 PLANAR BREAK NEEDED FOR 223FT. CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS   TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 44.5 FT.)       PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS   UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT   4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE ALSO DOES NOT HAVE A RECESSED GROUND FLOOR.   WHAT TOWERS ARE MIDDLE & WEST?           SHEET A5-06 PLANAR BREAK FOR THE GROUND LEVEL NEEDED   FOR 204?-10?FT. CLEARWATER FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL   TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS TO BE GREATER THAN OR   EQUAL TO 41 FT.)       SHEET A5-06 PLANAR BREAK FOR THE PODIUM NEEDED FOR   223FT. CLEARWATER FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR   PLANAR BREAK NEEDS TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 44.5   FT.)       PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS   UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT   4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? WHAT TOWERS   ARE MIDDLE & WEST?       SHEET A5-07 BUILDING FRONTAGE AND MASS FOR THE   OFFICE/HOTEL DOES NOT CREATE A CONTINUOUS 150 FT.   FA?ADE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A PLANAR BREAK. THE BUILDING   IS ALREADY BROKEN UP INTO THREE SEPARATE PLANES/FACES.       SHEET A5-05, A5-06, BALCONIES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL   BUILDINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AS PLANAR BREAKS, AS THESE   ARE JUST PUNCH OUTS ALONG THE SAME BUILDING FACE.   PORTIONS OF THE FACADE ITSELF NEEDS TO BE RECESSED OR   PROTRUDE TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 3 FT.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ACKNOWLEDGED       ZONING 8.19 - [REPEAT FROM ABOVE]       SHEET A-5-07 SATISFIES PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS.       PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS   THE GREEN-WALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND   OF PLANTS ARE PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS   MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE GREEN-WALL SECTIONS   RECESSED.FROM THE METAL SCREENING?       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GARAGE SCREENING HAS BEEN   REVISED AND IS A COMBINATION OF METAL SCREENING WITH AN   ETCHED DESIGN AND WITH LIVING PLANT MATERIAL. SEE   SHEETS A5-08.       ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEETS ARE NOT REVISED.   REPEAT OF PREVIOUS COMMENT.       TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET BASED UPON   ELEVATIONS PROVIDED. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS WITHIN   TABLE OR ON DRAWINGS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GROUND FLOOR IS   SUBSTANTIALLY ALL GLASS. SEE SHEETS A4-22, A4-23,   A4-24, A4-25, A4-26 AND A4-27.   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] REPEAT OF PREVIOUS   COMMENT. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE GROUNDFLOOR IS   SUBSTANTIALLY GLASS, HOWEVER PERCENTAGES SHOULD BE   PROVIDED SHOWING COMPLIANCE.       19. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AND MATERIALS OF THE GARAGE   STRUCTURE, HOW IS IT BEING SCREENED, MATERIALS, PLANTS,   ETC. [GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR GARAGE FACADE SCREENING   MATERIALS ADDED TO ELEVATIONS] PLEASE PROVIDE MORE   DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS THE GREEN WALL   LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND OF PLANTS ARE   PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE   GREEN-WALL SECTIONS RECESSED FROM THE METAL SCREENING?   ARE THERE OTHER RECESSED PORTIONS/PLANAR BREAKS WITHIN   THE SCREENING TO REAK UP THE MASS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE   DETAIL INTO SCREENING GRAPHIC, COLOR, & TREATMENT.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEETS ARE NOT REVISED.   REPEAT OF PREVIOUS COMMENT.       20. REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE TOWERS,   HAS VARIED FACADES AND ELEMENTS BEEN EXPLORED OR IS   THERE A REASON FOR UNVARIED/SIMILARLY DESIGNED TOWERS?   [THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN WAS CREATED AND EXECUTED   PERSONALLY BY ARCHITECT BERNARDO FORT-BRESCIA OF   ARQUITECTONICA. THE PROJECT DESIGN IS EXTREMELY WELL   BALANCED WHILE REPRESENTING ARQ'S SIGNATURE MODERN   STYLIZATION THROUGHOUT THE COHESIVE DESIGN] NOTED.   PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR TRANSIT VILLAGE HAD INCORPORATED   FAR MORE VARIATION IN MASSING AND ARCHITECTURAL   FEATURES THAT RESPECTED THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING   BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORIC ELEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE   SITE.       -GARAGE SCREENING PRESENTS A STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN   THE HISTORIC SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND PRESENTS AN   OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE COLOR SCHEMES,   SCREENING/MESH, GRAPHICS, RECESSES/PROTRUSIONS, ETC.   WITHIN ITS DESIGN. THE GARAGE SCREENING SHOULD RESPECT   OR PRESENT THESE SPACES IN A MORE COHESIVE MANNER.   CURRENTLY THE TRAIN-STATION SITS IN FRONT OF A   MASSIVELOCKY BACKDROP AND GETS LOST.       -THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ON BANYAN IS ALSO AN   HISTORIC SITE WITHIN THE SHADOW OF THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWER. PREVIOUS APPROVAL FEATURED A STEP-BACK OR   STAIRCASE MASSING TO LOWER THE SCALE TOWARD   BANYAN/WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, AND THE TRAIN STATION   ALONG TAMARIND. RECOMMEND PURSUING A SIMILAR CONCEPT TO   BETTER SCALE AND FRAME THE MASSING.       -REGARDING THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER, PREVIOUS   APPROVALPROVIDED ADDITIONAL SPACING AND STEPPED BACK   FURTHER FROM THE SEABOARD TRAIN STATION, PROVIDING A   MORE APPROPRIATELY SCALED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT   DIDN?T OVERSHADOW THE HISTORIC BUILDING BELOW.   ADDITIONALLY, THE BLUE FACADE TREATMENT OR PAINTING IS   ANOTHER STARK CONTRAST TO THE TRAIN STATION, PLEASE   EXPLORE MORE OMPATIBLE COLOR SCHEMES (E.G. EARTH TONES)       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE HAVE REVISED THE COLOR   SCHEME. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE   TRAIN STATION BUILDING AND NOTE THAT ALL OF THE TV   TOWERS ARE AT LEAST 250 FEET FROM THE TRAIN STATION   BUILDING. GIVEN THE ODD SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND OUR   LIMITATIONS WITH SETBACKS, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE   DESIGNED A PROJECT THAT WORKS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE WITH   THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOTE THAT CONTRASTING COLORS ARE   OFTEN UTILIZED NEXT TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES.       ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A   COLOR SCHEME CHANGE. CONTRASTING COLORS ARE OFTEN   UTILIZED IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT FEATURES OR TO   DIFFERENTIATE STRUCTURES OR ELEMENTS AS SEPARATE   ENTITIES; IN THIS CASE, THE HISTORIC TRAIN STATION IS   IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE AND   ITS GROUND LEVEL, HENCE THE ASK FOR A MORE COMPATIBLE   DESIGN ALTERNATIVES WITH MASSING, MATERIAL, COLOR, ETC.   BETWEEN THESE ELEMENTS.       DESIGN IS GENERALLY WITHIN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND   REGULATORY PARAMETERS, STAFF RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTED   DESIGN ALTERATIONS TO KEEP WITH THE DISTRICTS INTENT OF   EXEMPLARY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIVE   BUILDINGS/INFRASTRUCTURE; AS WELL AS THE TWO SPECIFIC   CONDITIONS OF DAC SPECIAL REVIEW: (A.) RELATIONSHIP OF   BUILDING TO SITE AND SURROUNDINGS; AND (C.) BUILDING   DESIGN.       PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF RESPECTFULLY   ASKS AGAIN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE   SCREENING AND TREATMENT OF THE GARAGE, AS THIS IS A   SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROJECT?S PODIUM AND IS   VISIBLE FROM ALL SIDES. WILL THE SCREENING BE LIVING   PLANT MATERIAL? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS WITHIN A   SEPARATE LANDSCAPE SHEET OR AS PART OF A5-08. PLEASE   CLARIFY HOW THIS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND IRRIGATED; ARE   THE SCREEN SECTIONS FLUSH TO THE GREEN WALL SECTIONS,   ARE THERE RECESSES OR PROJECTIONS? WITH THE METAL   SCREENING, HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT DESIGN   WILL BE PRINTED/ETCHED ONTO THE FA?ADE? HAVE MATERIAL   ALTERNATIVES, FENESTRATION, FA?ADE ARTICULATION,   ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS, OR LININGS THAT ARE MORE   ACTIVE BEEN EXPLORED? PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAD   SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SCREENING FOR A HIGHER PARKING   STRUCTURE.       REGARDING THE NORTHERN/BANYAN OFFICE TOWER, PLANNING   AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF ARE STILL CONCERNED   WITH THE GENERAL MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE IN   RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT SITE, HISTORIC TRAIN   STATION/TREATMENT FACILITY, AND BANYAN INTERSECTION.   THE BUILDING?S GENERAL HEIGHT AND MASS IS AN IMPOSING   STRUCTURE FOR THIS PORTION OF THE SITE. THE CURRENT   DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE RENDER ON SHEET A9-03 PRESENTS A   BUILDING FRONTAGE THAT CREATES A WALL-LIKE CONDITION,   ESPECIALLY WITH A FA?ADE THAT CONTAINS NO FA?ADE   ARTICULATION OR PLANAR BREAKS. WITHOUT THE REQUESTED   STEP-BACKS, THE FRONTAGE ALONG BANYAN IS A VERY STARK   CONTRAST FROM LOW-SCALE TO HIGH. STAFF REFERENCES THE   PREVIOUS APPROVAL, AS IT HAD FEATURED A STEP-BACK OR   TIERED ?STAIRCASE? MASSING TO PROGRESSIVELY LOWER THE   SCALE TOWARD BANYAN AND RESPECT THE WATER TREATMENT   FACILITY AND TRAIN STATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS PURSUING A   SIMILAR DESIGN CONCEPT TO MORE APPROPRIATELY SCALE THE   BUILDING AND FRAME THE SITE.       21. REGARDING THE TOWERS AND OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT,   STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE BANYAN RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS THE   TALLEST RATHER THAN THE CLEARWATER HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER.   THIS IS BECAUSE BANYAN IS THE WIDEST ROADWAY AND IS   MORE APPROPRIATELY FRAMED/CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TALLER   MASS. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BANYAN   RESIDENTIAL TOWER STEPS DOWN IN SOME CAPACITY TOWARD   TAMARIND AVE. AS WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL SITE   PLAN. THIS GIVES RESPECT TO THE SCALE OF THE SEABOARD   TRAIN STATION AND PUBLIC REALM ALONG TAMARIND.   [ACKNOWLEDGED BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED   DESIGN SUGGESTIONS] SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: EACH TOWER IS WITHIN THE ALLOWED   HEIGHT AND WE NOTE THAT THE SOUTHERN HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER   ALIGNS WITH FERN AND EVERNIA, OVER THREE BLOCKS FROM   BANYAN.       ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT.       22. BE COGNIZANT THAT THE EDGE 2 BUILDING LOCATED AT   300 CLEARWATER IS APPROVED AND UNDERGOING BUILDING   PERMITTING PROCESS, THIS PROJECT?S INGRESS/EGRESS FROM   DRIVES MAY PRESENT CONFLICT POINTS. THE GROUND LEVEL   PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE EDGE 2 CURB CUTS IN ORDER FOR   STAFF TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE ACCESS POINTS TO   CLEARWATER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PEDESTR.IAN CONNECTION   FROM THE OASIS PARK ELEMENT ACROSS CLEARWATER TO THE   STAIRWELL/ELEVATOR FOR THE UPPER PLAZA WILL NEED   RECONSIDERATION WITH THE INCOMING DEVELOPMENT. [WE WILL   COORDINATE PROJECT FEATURES AS NEEDED] [PARTIALLY   SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR OVERLAYING PORTIONS OF THE   ADJACENT PROPERTIES/ROW CONTEXT. THE CURB CUTS OR EDGE   2 BUILDING ACROSS FROM SITE NEED TO BE REVISED AND   REALIGNED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT CONDITIONS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE 350 AND EDGE CURB CUTS ARE   ACCURATELY PROVIDED ON THE PLANS, WE NOTE THAT THE   APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR TV PREDATED THE RECENT APPROVAL   FOR 300 CLEARWATER/EDGE 2.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       23. PLEASE CLARIFY GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION   WITH ITC, ACCESSING UPPER PLAZA SPACES, AND INTERNAL   CIRCULATION BETWEEN RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. IS   THE ITC BUS LOOP SEPARATED/CLOSED OFF IN THE EVENINGS   WHEN BUS OPERATIONS HALT, HOW IS WAYFINDING ADDRESSED   TO ACCESS THE UPPER PLAZA SPACES? [PATRONS WILL BE   QUEUED BY FENCING, GATES, LIGHTING, AND WAY FINDING   SIGNAGE] [NOT SATISFIED] IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL   PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS   THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?       REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE   CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,   HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICENTLY   ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.       DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK FROM THE   SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL   EXISTS/WILL REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS   ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION /   CLARIFICATION OF WHY THIS CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: CROSS WALKS ARE NOT TO BE   REMOVED AND TO REMAIN AS IS. THE LABELING HAS BEEN   REVISED TO PROVIDE THIS CLARIFICATION.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       PLEASE PROVIDE ELEVATIONS / RENDERS OF THE PROPOSED   SPIRAL STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR ON CLEARWATER DR. FOR THE   UPPER PLAZA. PUBLIC ACCESS TO UPPER PLAZA FROM THIS   STAIRCASE IS NOT OBVIOUS; PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL   CONTEXT DISPLAYING THIS ENTRANCE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DETAIL IS PROVIDED ON   SHEET A5-11.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       STAFF SUGGESTS AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT   FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM   THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE ADDITION CIRCULATION BETWEEN   ITC / SFRTA AND UPPER PLAZA.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE AND   ELEVATOR ON CLEARWATER PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL PROMINENCE   AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PLAZA. THE PLAZA ALSO IS   ACCESSED FROM THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND A NEW STAIRWAY   TO THE TRI-RAIL AMTRAK PLATFORM . THERE IS NO   CONNECTION POINT FOR AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL AT THE   SOUTHERN END OF THE PLAZA AS THERE IS NO GROUND PUBLIC   ACCESS POINT BELOW .   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       A. THE ITC ADA PATH DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE   APPLICATION SHOWS THE ADA ROUTE UTILIZING A CROSSWALK   THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. [THE ADA PATHWAY AND   CROSSWALK WILL BE REMOVED PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY   REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE ITC.] [NOT SATISFIED]   DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK FROM THE SOUTHERN   SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL EXISTS/WILL   REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.   PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION/CLARIFICATION OF WHY THIS   CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: CORRECTING THE PRIOR RESPONSE,   THIS CROSSWALK IS NOT BEING REMOVED AND TO REMAIN AS IS   AT THE ELECTION OF PALM TRAN. THE LABELING HAS BEEN   REVISED TO ELIMINATE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT REMOVAL.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       B. THE ITC FENCE EXHIBIT SHOWS THE FENCE AROUND THE   OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE AS A PRIVATE   PARK FENCE. THIS DOES NOT MATCH THIS AS BEING DEPICTED   AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON OTHER PLANS. [THIS IS A BONUS   OPEN SPACE AREA DESIGNED TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION   WITH THE SFRTA PLATFORM AND ITC OPERATION. THIS AREA   WILL BE CLOSED TO PUBLIC ACCESS WHEN THE ITC IS CLOSED]   [NOT SATISFIED] PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE.   IF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR   AND LOCATED ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE   DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   REQUIREMENTS, AND IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC   FOR PUBLIC USE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TO CORRECT OUR PRIOR RESPONSE,   THIS SPACE WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE   TRAIN PLATFORM OR THE ITC AS ACCESS WILL ONLY BE FROM   CLEARWATER. THE SPACE WILL NOT BE OPERATED IN   CONJUNCTION WITH MASS TRANSIT BUT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY   THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] WILL THE GATES BE OPEN 24/7   OR CLOSE DURING CERTAIN HOURS?           24. STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS   AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY TO TAMARIND AND THE   DOWNTOWN AREA. AS A TOD PROJECT, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE   HOW THE RELATION AND CONNECTIVITY IS IMPROVED TO THESE   CORRIDORS INTO THE DOWNTOWN. RECOMMEND POTENTIAL: WORK   WITH SFRTA TO IMPLEMENT AT-GRADE CONNECTION(S) ACROSS   RAILS TO TAMARIND. IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE   CONNECTING SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE   PROJECT. EXPLORE CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN   BRIDGES OR CONNECTIONS. [THE REVISED PROJECT DESIGN   PROVIDES ACCESSIBILITY TO THE GARAGE, RETAIL, BIKE   STORAGE, ITC AND RAIL FACILITIES FROM BOTH BANYAN   BOULEVARD AND CLEARWATER DRIVE. THESE ACCESS POINTS ARE   PROVIDED UNDER COVERED WALKWAYS AND THEY HAVE ACTIVE   USES PROVIDED ALONG THEIR FRONTAGES. THE NEW ACCESS   POINT FROM BANYAN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE TRACKS NOW   PROVIDES A DIRECT ROUTE BACK TOWARD BANYAN BOULEVARD]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE CLARIFY OR MARK ON PLANS THE NEW   ACCESS POINT FROM BANYAN. NOT UNDERSTANDING THE   INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT   DESCRIBED. ADDITIONALLY STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ADDITIONAL   STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE   OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE   ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION BETWEEN ITC/SFRTA AND UPPER   PLAZA.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSES ABOVE. THE BANYAN   ACCESS IS DIRECTLY WEST OF THE TRACKS. PLEASE NOTE THAT   THE AMENDED SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SFRTA   (TRI-RAIL), THE COUNTY (PALM TRAN) AND THAT THE PSA WAS   APPROVED BY THE FTA. TV BELIEVES THAT IT IS VERY   SUPPORTIVE OF THE TOD CONCEPT AS IT HAS ELEMENTS   CONTAINING LIVE/WORK/PLAY/SHOP DIRECTLY ABOVE MASS   TRANSIT AND CONNECTS THE SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND   TRI-RAIL, AMTRAK, PALM TRAN, GREYHOUND AND THE CITY   TROLLEY TO THE AMENITY RETAIL PLAZA.       25. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE MOTOR LOBBY?   IS. [IT IS SMALL LOBBY FOR THE OFFICE AND HOTEL AT THE   GROUND LEVEL INTENDED TO PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR ACCESS TO   VEHICLES PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF PATRONS, MAIL   PACKAGES, LUGGAGE, ETC.] [SATISFIED]       26. THE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED TO   ENCROACH THE 20-FOOT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS EASEMENT.   NOTE: EVEN WITHOUT THE BUILDING ENCROACHMENT, THIS DOES   NOT FUNCTION. [THIS FIRE ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED AND IS   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED] [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE   EVIDENCE OF EASEMENT REMOVAL AND FIRE DEPT. APPROVAL.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: EASEMENTS WILL EITHER BE   ABANDONED OR RELOCATED PRIOR TO PERMIT. FIRE ACCESS   WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED HAVE BEEN REMOVED.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       27. PROVIDE TURNING DIAGRAMS FOR THE LOADING AREAS   UNDER THE NORTH BUILDING, ENTRY POINTS TO THE SITE AND   THE OTHER LOADING AREAS. [AUTO TURN EXHIBITS PROVIDED]   BASED UPON THE AUTOTURNS PROVIDED:   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE   INGRESS RAMP AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR   LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO SITE PLAN   APPROVAL.       GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR   CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC/SAFETY HAZARD WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE   GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND   SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR   LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION OF SITE   PLAN APPROVAL.       AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA   AND OTHER OPERATIONS INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR   LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO SITE PLAN   APPROVAL.       INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS   WITH ONE-WAY /TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF   SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWERS? REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE   PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF   OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL   EFFICIENTLY ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM   ABOVE. GENERAL PATRONS OF THE SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL,   VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT   HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND   CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS   SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.       PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR LOADING BAY ON THE GROUND   FLOOR       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PROVIDED (SEE SHEET A1-01 AND   A4-02)   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] LOADING BAYS WITHIN THE   GROUND LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE ARE NOT DIMENSIONED,   PLEASE PROVIDE THESE DETAILS.       SHEET C-19 SHOWS ARROW IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF   RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF TRAFFIC FLOW       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS HAS BEEN CORRECTED (SEE   SHEET C-19)   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]           28. WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS TRANFORMERS, AND OTHER   MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND HOW ARE THEY SCREENED IN   ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS? [LABELED ON   PLANS] [NOT SATISFIED] SHEET C-05 & C-04 SHOW FDC IN   WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF BIKE RACKS, OR EXPOSED WITHIN ROW.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: IN THE ROOM LABELED ?TV?   (TRANSFORMER VAULT) SHOWN ON PLANS, PLEASE SEE SHEETS   A1-01 AND A4-02.   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] MECHANICAL ROOMS,   GENERATORS, AND TRANSFORMERS ARE OKAY. REPEAT COMMENT:   SHEET C-05 & C-04 SHOWS THE FDC VALVE LOCATED IN WITHIN   THE MIDDLE OF BIKE RACK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE   HOTEL/OFFICE. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS ACCORDINGLY.       PLEASE WALL-MOUNT ANY WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL   VALVES, ETC. WHENEVER POSSIBLE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL   VALVES, ETC., WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WILL BE MOUNTED.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES   SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL   EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM   VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       29. PLEASE CONSIDER USING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE   SUCH AS ROOFTOP SOLAR OR RAINWATER CAPTURE/REUSE   CISTERNS. NO RESPONSE PROVIDED. WHILE NOT REQUIRED, HAS   THIS ITEM BEEN GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION?       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN   DEVELOPING CONSTRUCTION PLANS   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       30. SHEET A6-01 SHOWS PUBLIC OPEN SPACES EXTENDING INTO   THE BUS LANE. [LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE BEEN UPDATED   REDUCING THE OPEN SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE BUS LANES   [PLANS REVISED TO REMOVE SIDEWALK SERVING BUS LANE FROM   THE OPEN SPACE] [SATISFIED] LANDSCAPE NO LONGER   ENCROACHES/OVERLAPS       31. FOR THE EVENTUAL DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE (DAC)   MEETING, PLEASE PROVIDE FULLY DETAILED RENDERINGS AND   PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS OF THE FINAL PROJECT.   [ACKNOWLEDGED] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE NOTE, ALL   PROVIDED RENDERINGS ARE ONLY OF THE TAMARIND AND BANYAN   PERSPECTIVES. THERE ARE NO RENDERS SHOWN FOR CONDITIONS   ALONG CLEARWATER DR.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL RENDERS WILL BE   TIMELY PROVIDED   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS/RENDERS OF THE SPIRAL   STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR SHAFT USED TO ACCESS THE UPPER   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PLAZA       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DETAIL OF THE SPIRAL   STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR IS PROVIDED ON SHEET A5-10.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] TREE IN RENDERING   NOT REPRESENTED IN LANDSCAPE PLANS OR ACCURATE TO   PLANS. PLEASE ADJUST, SEE COMMENT #15 FOR INCLUSION OF   ADDITIONAL STREET TREES.       32. PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO SHOW HOW   HE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED WHILE MAINTAINING ITC   OPERATIONS, TO INCLUDE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE   THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONTRACTOR   PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION. [THIS IS A PERMITTING   ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE COORDINATION AND WILL   BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED   PLEASE CARRY FORWARD AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. NOTE   THAT AS PART OF THE PSA, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE   COUNTY WITH A CONTINUOUS OPERATONS PLAN. THE PLAN IS TO   RELOCATE PALM TRAN TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE TRACKS, AS   IS UNDER DISCUSSION AMONG THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND   APPLICANT.] [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THERE ARE COLUMN LOCATIONS THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH THE   LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ITC FENCE CREATE CHOKE POINTS   FOR THE BUS PATRONS AS THEY CHANGE BETWEEN ROUTES.   WHILE THEY ALL APPEAR TO COMPLY WITH ADA MINIMUMS, THEY   DO NOT PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN WIDTHS FOR TWO   USERS TO PASS SIDE-BY-SIDE. PLEASE REVIEW.   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ACCESS   MEETS CODE AND ADA REQUIREMENTS AS DESIGNED AND HAS   BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY/PALMTRAN.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]       33. THE SITE, LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS ALL NEED TO   SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE COMPLIANT CONDITIONS. [PLANS   COORDINATED [NOT SATISFIED] ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE,   AND CIVIL PLANS ALL FEATURE INCONSISTENCIES OR ELEMENTS   NOT COMPLIANT WITH CODE, PLEASE REVISE.       EXAMPLES INCLUDE:       - BANYAN PEDESTRIAN DROPOFF, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED,   IS STILL SHOWN ACROSS ALL PLAN   - CROSSWALK AT THE ENTRANCE OF ITC STILL SHOWN ON   PLANS, BUT COMMENTS/REFERENCES STATE IT IS TO BE   REMOVED.   - ELEVATIONS FEATURE COLUMNS NOT PRESENT IN GROUND   FLOOR PLANS.   - ETC       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE HAVE MADE CHANGES TO MAKE THE   PLANS CONSISTENT AND CODE-COMPLIANT.   ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] CHANGES HAVE BEEN   MADE TO PLANS; HOWEVER INCONSISTENCIES STILL EXIST   BETWEEN THE ARCH, CIVIL, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN SETS   REGARDING LABELING.           34. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-113. THIS   INCLUDES LIGHTING, SIDEWALK WIDTH, LANDSCAPE, BICYCLE   PARKING, STREET FURNITURE, ETC. [NOTED] [THE PROJECT   COMPLIES WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION   94-113.] [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR   SIDEWALK WIDTHS AND CLEAR PATHS, PLEASE PROVIDE A   LOCATION CALLOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND COUNT OF BICYCLE   RACKS PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS (REQUIREMENT IS 1   SPACE PER 100 FT. OF STREET FRONTAGE).       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: DIMENSIONS FOR SIDEWALK WIDTHS   AND CLEAR PATHS ARE PROVIDED ON SHEETS C-10 AND C-11.   CALLOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND COUNT OF BICYCLE RACKS   PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS ARE PROVIDED ON SHEETS C-10,   C-11, A0-02 AND L111.       ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SEE COMMENT #15.   INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL STREET TREES ON THE CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED.       SHEET A0-02 ? THE TABULAR DATA SHOWS 160 GROUND LEVEL   SPACES AND 122 UNALLOCATED BIKE SPACES. WITH THE TOTAL   PROVIDED BIKE SPACES AT 606, PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE IS   THIS TOTAL COMING FROM? CAN YOU PLEASE SPECIFY HOW MANY   SPACES ARE ALONG THE GROUND LEVEL/ADJACENT TO ROW?   THESE BIKES SATISFY THE 1 SPACE PER 100 FT. OF STREET   FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT.       35. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 94?106 7 GENERAL USES   WITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (8.A) MICRO-UNITS   (A.-F.)[NOTES ADDED TO PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH   MINIMUM AVERAGE AND OTHER DWELLING UNITS REQUIREMENTS]       A. MICRO-UNIT MEANS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL ?UNIT WITH A   TOTAL SQUARE FOOT8GE BETWEEN 300 SQUARE FEET AND 549   SQUARE FEET, WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONING KITCHEN AND   BATHROOM. [REGULAR UNITS_WILL COMPLY TO ALL REGULATIONS   THERE ARE ALSO COMPLAINT MICRO UNITS THAT ARE LESSED   OUT FROM THE REGULAR UNIT AVERAGE CALCULATION]   B. SEC. 94-109 DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS   VIII. DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 550 SQUARE   FEET. IN MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE   LESS THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.   IX. SMALLER DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ALLOWED AS   MICRO-UNITS. THE CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE MINIMUM SHALL   NOT BE APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS   WHERE MICRO-UNITS COMPOSE A MINIMUM OF 80 PERCENT OF   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT   INCLUDE THE MICRO-UNITS IN SUCH CALCULATION. SEE   MICRO-UNITS. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE   PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR THE PARKING PROVIDED FOR   MICRO-UNITS, IF ITS 13 CAR-SHARE ALONE OR IF ITS 13   SPACES AND 13 CAR-SHARE (26 TOTAL). PLEASE PROVIDE   FINAL COUNT AND LOCATION FOR THE REQUIRED 0.5 BIKE   SPACES PER UNIT. PLEASE NOTE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR   MICRO-UNITS WILL INVOLVE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY   TROLLEY FEE PER UNIT PER MONTH.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE   REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR THE MICRO UNITS PARKING.   SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE FINAL COUNT OF BIKE SPACES.   SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE CALCULATION FOR THE AVERAGE   SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS (NOT INCLUDING MICRO UNITS)   [SATISFIED]       ADITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS   SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS: 7/5/22       1. REVISE LIST OF VARIANCES BASED UPON CORRECTIONS TO   OPEN SPACE, CURB CUT WIDTHS, PLANAR BREAKS/FACADE   ARTICULATION, ETC. ANY DEVIATION FROM REQUIRED MINIMUMS   OR MAXIMUMS CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.       TV JULY RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - DUE TO THE UNRESOLVED COMMENTS WITHIN   THIS REVIEW, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES MAY BE REQUIRED OR   EXISTING REQUESTS MAY HAVE TO BE MODIFIED.       2. FACADE ARTICULATION? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS FOR   THE GARAGE SCREENING, GREEN-WALL, AND PLANAR BREAKS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 ? REPEAT COMMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE       3. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM FIRE   DEPARTMENT, UTILITY PROVIDERS, FPL, ETC. FOR THE   VACATING/MODIFICATION OF ANY EASEMENTS AND STRUCTURES.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 ? REPEAT OF RESPONSES ABOVE       4. ON SITE PLANS, THE CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF   CLEARWATER / BANYAN NOT REFLECTIVE OF EXISTING BANYAN   STREETSCAPE, THERE ARE SEPARATE BIKE LANE AND   PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LANE       TV JULY RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 ? [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] BIKELANE/CROSS WALK   SHOWN ON CIVIL SET BUT NOT LANDSCAPE/ARCHITECTURE,   PLEASE ADJUST       5. SHOW SETBACK LINES ON THE ELEVATIONS       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SETBACK LINES HAVE BEEN   ADDED TO THE ELEVATIONS.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       6. PLEASE PROVIDE CIRCULATION DIAGRAM OR ILLUSTRATE ALL   INTERIOR DOORS/ENTRYWAYS TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN ROOMS,   ENCLOSURES, RETAIL SPACES, ETC. (GROUND FLOOR FOR   EXAMPLE ONLY SHOWS DOORS TO TR, BIKE ROOM, AND   EXTERNAL/FACADE ROOMS) HELPS CLARIFY INTERNAL   CIRCULATION OF PATRONS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: INTERIOR DOORS HAVE BEEN ADDED   TO THE DRAWINGS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LEVEL 02 SO   THAT CIRCULATION CAN BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]       7. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR REQUIRED TO BE   DESIGNED TO MEET PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE COMMENTS ABOVE.           8. MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25   WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.       9. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, SITE ILLUMINATION   MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS MEASURED ATHE   BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE SIDEWALK.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WILL BE   PROVIDED WITH THE PERMIT DRAWINGS.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] WILL INCLUDE CONDITION TO   PROVIDE PHOTOMETRICS BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT.       10. PLEASE FULLY DIMENSION SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS, OR   PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS OF DIMENSIONED SITE PLANS AND   DRAWINGS, VERY LITTLE SPATIAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED   WITHIN PLANS.       SIDEWALK WIDTHS, CURB-CUTS, LANDSCAPE BEDS, PLANAR   BREAK DEPTHS, FRONTAGES, SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES, ETC.       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.   ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SEE RESPONSES ABOVE. CURB   CUT WIDTHS NEED TO BE RE-MEASURED, AND PLANAR BREAK   DEPTHS NEED TO BE PROVIDED.       11. BASED UPON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND REVISED   DRAWINGS, THE EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING ALONGLEARWATER   DRIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE REMOVAL OF METERED   ON-STREET PARKING WILL INCUR A FEE. PLEASE CONTACT ED   DAVIS FROM PARKING TO CLARIFY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH   THESE SPACES. [email protected]       TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE EXISTING TAX INCENTIVE   AGREEMENT WITH THE CRA AND APPROVED BY THE CITY   COMMISSION ADDRESSES THE REMOVAL OF THE METERED   ON-STREET PARKING. WE WILL CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE CITY   PERSONNEL TO DISCUSS REMOVAL.   ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]               ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS   SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS OF 7/25/22: 8-18-22       1. PLEASE CLARIFY, ON SHEET A1-01 A ?WALL MURAL? IS   SHOWN BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ITC, IS THERE A   SEPARATION WALL BEING INSTALLED HERE? MURAL WILL   REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT.       2. PLEASE PROVIDE FAR DIAGRAMS FOR ALL FLOORS. WHILE   PROJECT IS WELL WITHIN ITS PERMITTED FAR, DIAGRAMS   NEEDED TO DOCUMENT FAR SHOULD FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR   REVISIONS OCCUR ON SITE.           CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP   URBAN DESIGN PLANNER   822.1426 [email protected] Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 2 Status F Date 07-06-2022 Cont ID   Sent By ckimmerl Date 07-06-2022 Time 13:36 Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 07-06-2022 Time 13:36 Sent To   Notes 2022-07-06 13:36:51 CASE NO. FSPR 22-05   TRANSIT VILLAGE 2022   150 CLEARWATER DRIVE       - CONTACT CHRIS KIMMERLY @ (561) 822-1426,   [email protected]   - OR ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,   [email protected]       - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN   WRITTEN FORMAT. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   THANK YOU FOR THE EXCEL DOCUMENT FOR THE RESPONSES,   PLEASE PROVIDE DIRECT RESPONSES ON RESUBMITTALS WITHIN   A WORD OR SIMILAR FORMAT. (DISPLAY THE QUESTION ASKED   BY REVIEWERS AND THE ANSWER/RESPONSE FROM APPLICANTS)       - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE   (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG AND   .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. [ACKNOWLEDGED]       - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND   SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,   05/27/22, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE   7/13/22 DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING. [COVID   DELAYS NOT CAUSED BY APPLICANT]       - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT   RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS   FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY AUGUST 12, 2022),   THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE   CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL   REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. [ACKNOWLEDGED]       - 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 ($500).   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       1. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT   THAN THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN; THEREFORE, IT IS   NOT A ?MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN?   AS STATED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, BUT RATHER A   NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE   PLAN AND THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED DO NOT   AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE NEW SITE PLAN. ANY VARIANCES   THAT ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NEW BUILDING DESIGN AND   SITE LAYOUT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE DOWNTOWN ACTION   COMMITTEE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. [THE CURRENT   SITE PLAN IS APPROVED AND VESTED BY MULTIPLE APPROVALS   PROVIDED BY WPB AND PBC PURSUANT TO THE PSA. THESE   VESTED ITC AND GROUND LEVEL FEATURES THAT CAN BE   LEGALLY BUILT TODAY ARE INTENDED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD   IN THE NEW APPROVAL AND WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY   ADMINISTRATION THAT THE CITY WILL RECOGNIZE THESE   VESTED FEATURE AND WILL BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT   TO CARRY THEM FORWARD IN THE NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL   BEING SOUGHT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE   THE EXISTING VESTED APPROVAL WITH A NEW APPROVAL THAT   REAFFIRMS THESE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE CONDITIONS.]   PLEASE NOTE, THERE ARE NO ?VESTED? OR CARRIED OVER   APPROVALS FOR THIS PROJECT, BEYOND THE ORIENTATION OF   THE ITC/SFRTA FACILITIES, THE BUS/TRAIN OPERATIONS, AND   THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY PSA FOR RESERVED ITC   AND SFRTA PARKING SPACES. THE REST OF SITE, PROPOSED   STRUCTURES, CIRCULATION, ETC. WILL BE REVIEWED AND   TREATED AS A NEW SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. ANY PREVIOUSLY   OBTAINED VARIANCES, WAIVERS, AND APPROVALS FROM   DAC/STAFF MUST BE REACQUIRED/APPLIED FOR, AS THE   OVERALL SITE CONDITIONS AND PLANS HAVE CHANGED   SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR   THIS PROPERTY.       2. STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN,   INCLUDING THE USE MIX, DIFFERS FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR   PURCHASE AND SALE DATED AUGUST 12, 2012. SINCE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ESTABLISHES THAT   MODIFICATIONS ARE PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO PALM BEACH   COUNTY APPROVAL, PLEASE PROVIDE THE LATEST AMENDMENT OR   VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE THAT   AUTHORIZES THE CHANGES PRESENTED IN THE CURRENT   SUBMITTAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:   [COPIES OF THE PSA AND ALL AMENDMENT PROVIDED. A COPY   OF PBC WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE SUBMITTED PLAN PACKAGE   WAS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE PSA AND COPIES OF ALL   AGREEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED] [SATISFIED] THANK   YOU FOR PROVIDING PSA DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL   AMENDMENTS/AGREEMENTS.       A. THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 40 PARKING SPACES FOR   SFTRA/COUNTY STAFF AND 250 SFRTA PATRON PARKING SPACES   (TOTAL 290 PARKING SPACES) TO 275 PARKING SPACES FOR   THESE USERS.   [THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. THE MODIFIED PSA REQUIRES   25 SPACES TO THE COUNTY WHICH IS WHAT IS PROVIDED]   [SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY PSA   DOCUMENTATION WITH AMENDMENTS. THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO   PSA (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITTAL   STATES: 250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES   FOR COUNTY.       B. THE REMOVAL OF LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL/EDUCATION   USES FROM THE PROJECT.   [THIS USE WAS VOLUNTARY AND IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ANY   APPROVAL]   [NOT SATISFIED] SECTION 2.3.2 OF PSA (PG.14) STATES:   ?THE SITE PLAN WILL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO,   CIVIC USE (LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL CENTER/EDUCATION),   COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, HOTEL ROOMS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS   (STUDENT/WORKFORCE/MARKET) INCLUDING WORKFORCE AND/OR   AFFORDABLE UNITS? LUXURY RENTAL UNITS AND AMENITY   RETAIL.?   - APPEARS TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE PSA, HAS THIS BEEN   AMENDED? IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT OR   OUTLINE LOCATION, SO STAFF CAN VERIFY.       C. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SITE DATA TABLE LISTS 42   WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AS BEING REQUIRED, WHILE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ONLY REQUIRES 38. THE   PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE   WITH EITHER NUMBER.   [THE 42 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED BY THE PSA ARE   SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN TABULAR. THEIR FINAL LOCATION   HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, HOWEVER THE APPLICANT   INTENDS TO PROVIDE THEM IN A MANNER SO AS TO NOT   CLUSTER OR CONCENTRATE THEM IN ANY ONE LOCATION. THE   PSA REQUIRES THEM TO BE ON SITE AND COMPLY WITH THE   COUNTY HOUSING PROGRAM. THE APPLICANT WILL CONTINUE TO   WORK WITH WPB AND PBC ON THE TERMS OF THE WFH UNITS.]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE   NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA   (5C-5). THIS SHEET (5C-5) INCLUDES ADDITIONAL (4)   WORKFORCE UNITS. DO NOT SEE THESE WFH UNITS CALLED OUT   OR MENTIONED IN DATA TABLES OR SITE PLAN.       D. SECTION 3E OF EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN OF   THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE LIMITS THE NUMBER   OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE 290   PUBLIC USE PARKING SPACES AND, ??PROVIDE NOT MORE THAN   THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF   WEST PALM BEACH FOR THE MIX OF USES AND   INTENSITIES/DENSITIES?AS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED??. AS   WILL BE SHOWN LATER IN THESE COMMENTS, THE PROJECT   EXCEEDS THIS STANDARD.   [THESE SPACES ARE INTENDED TO SERVE THE TRANSIT USES   REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THESE GOVERNMENTAL   PROVIDERS. THESE PARKING SPACES ARE INCLUSIVE THE   MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT AND ARE NOT IN   EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITTED ON SITE. THE   GARAGE COMPONENT IS BEING BUILT TO SERVE THE ENTIRE   PROJECT AND THE PSA REQUIRES CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION OF   THE PROJECT UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED]       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON   THE PSA AND ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING   BREAKDOWN; BASED UPON THIS:       THE HOTEL ROOM/AMENITY, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE,   GUEST AND SFRTA/COUNTY PARKING SPACES CHECK OUT WITH   REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD REDUCTION.       - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM   PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY   CAR-SHARE HAS 1/13 REQUIREMENT.       - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU   PROVIDING ONLY 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR   ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND   THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE   CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER   PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.   PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL   MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON   A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF   CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE   STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED   BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE   CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF   THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE   EXPANSION.       3. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A PBC PARCEL AND AN   SFTRA PARCEL.   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AMENDMENT 3 ? 2021 ? EXTENSTION   TO AUG 2024, WHICH MENTIONED THAT THE SFRTA SPACES TO   BE A CONDOMINUM. THIS INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT WILL   BE UNDER CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP RATHER THAN SEPARATE   PARCELS. IF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AND THERE WILL BE   FEE SIMPLE PARCELS, THOSE PARCEL LINES NEED TO BE   SHOWN/INDICATED NOW, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT   THERE ARE NO BUILDING SEPARATATION OR SETBACK ISSUES   THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH BUILDING, ZONING, OR FIRE CODE,   AND IF ANY VARIANCES ARE NEEDED AS PART OF THE   APPROVAL.       E. THE DECKS, COLUMNS AND A PORTION OF THE RETAIL   BUILDING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SECOND FLOOR CROSS   THIS PARCEL LINE, WHICH CREATE SETBACK AND BUILDING   SEPARATION ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.   [CONFIRMED]   [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENT ABOVE       F. THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INDICATES THAT   PALM BEACH COUNTY WILL RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE   INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER TO A POINT 21 FEET IN THE   AIR. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MENTION HOW THIS PROPOSED   SUBDIVISION WILL OCCUR. [THESE PROPERTY LINES WILL BE   ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS OR BY   AGREEMENT]   [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENTS ABOVE       G. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INCLUDES THE SFRTA, YET   THEY ARE NOT SHOWN AS A PARTY TO STAFF?S COPY OF THE   AGREEMENT. WILL THE SFRTA RETAIN ANY OWNERSHIP AND IF   SO, HOW WILL THE PARCEL BE SUBDIVIDED? [LEGAL   SUBDIVISION PROCESS I.E. VERTICAL SUB DIVISION, WILL BE   PURSUED] [SFRTA USES THE PARKING LOT PURSUANT TO AN   EASMENT FROM THE COUNTY. THE APPLICANT HAS AN AGREEMENT   WITH SFRTA TO PROVIDE EITHER FEE SIMPLE OR AN EASEMENT   FOR ANY USE OF THE SFRTA PROPERTY BORDERING THE   TRACKS.]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE COPY OF AGREEMENT.       4. TRANSIT VILLAGE BOUNDARY DIAGRAM SHEET A0-03   DIFFERENT FROM THE ?ITC PROPERTY MAP? AND ?REQUIRED   MODIFICATIONS FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN OCT. 2011.   CLEARLY SHOW THE ITC BOUNDARY ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND   SECOND LEVEL OF THE VARIOUS PLANS. [THIS PLAN IS PART   OF THE PSA AND THE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BY   AMENDMENTS. THE CURRENT PLAN IS ACCURATE]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AN   ADJUSTED BOUNDARY MAP FOR THE PROJECT.       BASED ON THIS NEW MAP, PLEASE CLARIFY, DOES THE ITC OWN   THE GROUND-LEVEL PORTION OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE? THE   BOUNDARY SHEET A0-03 SHOWS RETAIL, FCC,   ELEVATORS/STAIRS AND MOTOR LOBBY WITHIN THE ITC   PROPERTY BOUNDARY.       5. THERE ARE NUMEROUS UTILITY AND OTHER EASEMENTS SHOWN   ON THE SURVEY. ALL OF THESE EASEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN ON   THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (GROUND LEVEL AND SECOND   LEVEL) TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. [PLANS REVISED TO REFLECT ALL   EASEMENTS ON GROUND AND SECOND LEVELS.]   [NOT SATISFIED]       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH   EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND   ITEMS:   - RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE,   DOES NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE   CONDITIONS AND UPDATES. MISSING THE HARDENING DONE BY   FPL TO THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES, THERE IS A NEW/LARGER   POLE ON BANYAN. THE LINES FROM THIS POLE RUN THROUGH   THE FUTURE BUILDING. TREE GRATES ON BANYAN SIDE NO   LONGER EXIST. ROW INCLUDES BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN   SIDEWALK.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE   EASEMENT ALONG RAILROAD/EASTERN PORTION OF PROPERTY,   NOT REFLECTED IN SITE PLANS. PLEASE PROVIDE FPL   APPROVALS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THIS EASEMENT.   - ARE THE FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT AND FPL EASEMENT, ON THE   SOUTHERN END OF PROPERTY TO REMAIN OR ARE THEY TO BE   MODIFIED/VACATED? PLEASE PROVIDE NECESSARY APPROVALS IF   VACATING OR MODIFYING. THESE PORTIONS OF THE EASEMENTS   LIKELY WON?T BE IMPACTED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOTE   TREES/LANDSCAPING MAY CONFLICT.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS   EASEMENT, THIS WILL HAVE TO BE MODIFIED TO ALIGN WITH   THE PROPOSED EGRESS. PLEASE PROVIDE APPROVALS FROM FIRE   DEPT. TO ALTER THIS.   - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE   EASTERN BOUNDARY AS PART OF THE ITC, IS THIS TO REMAIN?       6. PLEASE DOCUMENT AND IDENTIFY ALL REQUESTED VARIANCES   AND WAIVERS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLANS. [1) EXISTING   ENTRANCE WIDTH VARIANCE EXISTING APPROVED CONDITION TO   BE CARRIED FORWARD 2) SAME VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED AS A PUBLIC PLAZA ON LEVEL 2]   [NOT SATISFIED]       BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED WITHIN THIS   RESUBMITTAL, THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE/SEEK MORE THAN   THE TWO PROPOSED VARIANCES. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS   AND NOTE ANY DEVIATION FROM THE MINIMUM/MAXIMUM   REQUIREMENTS AS THESE WILL CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL   REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES/WAIVERS.       - POTENTIALLY (4) VARIANCES ALONE FOR THE CURB-CUTS   PRESENTED ALONG CLEARWATER DR. EACH INGRESS/EGRESS   APPEARS TO EXCEED THE 25? WIDTH MAXIMUM.   - OPEN SPACES NEED ADJUSTMENT AND CLARIFICATION IN   TYPOLOGY AND HOW REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, MAY CONSTITUTE   ADDITIONAL VARIANCES   - PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON 2ND FLOOR, REQUIRES   APPROVAL FROM BOARD, WILL SEEK IN THE FORM OF A   VARIANCE.   - MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25   WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.   - THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY   EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY   SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL   REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.   THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF PENDING VARIANCE   REQUESTS, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE DEPENDENT ON MEETING   OTHER REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THESE COMMENTS OR WITHIN   THE CODE, UPON RESUBMITTAL.       IT IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ALL REQUESTED   VARIANCES TO PLANNING STAFF.       PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL BE CHARGED $300 PER   ADDITIONAL VARIANCE OR WAIVER.       7. PLEASE PROVIDE AN UPDATED SURVEY CLEARLY DOCUMENTING   THE CHANGES INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE RECENT BANYAN   BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE PROJECT. ALL PLAN SHEETS MUST   REFLECT THE ACCURATE BANYAN STREET CONFIGURATION. THIS   IS CURRENTLY NOT REFLECTED ON ANY OF THE SUBMITTED PLAN   SHEETS. [SURVEY UPDATED TO SHOW CHANGES TO BANYAN   BOULEVARD GEOMETRY]   [NOT SATISFIED]   THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH   EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND   ITEMS:       SEE COMMENT 5.       RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE, DOES   NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE CONDITIONS AND   UPDATE. MISSING THE HARDENING DONE BY FPL TO THEIR   TRANSMISSION LINES, THERE IS A NEW/LARGER POLE ON   BANYAN. TREE GRATES ON BANYAN SIDE NO LONGER EXIST. ROW   INCLUDES BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK.       UPON REVIEW OF NEWLY SUBMITTED SURVEY, CURRENT   CONDITIONS ARE NOT REFLECTED. FPL CURRENTLY HAS TWO   DISTRIBUTION POLES ON THE BANYAN FRONTAGE, ONE OF WHICH   IS A NEW POLE (ADDED WITH THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE   IMPROVEMENTS); PLEASE PROVIDE A LETTER FROM FPL   CONFIRMING/APPROVING OF THE RELOCATION OF THIS POLE AND   THE VACATION/MODIFICATION OF THE EASEMENT.       SITE PLANS AND CIVIL PLANS SHOW ON-STREET DROP-OFF,   WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ON   BANYAN.       A. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN   FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT. [THIS IS   AN EXISTING VESTED FEATURE WHICH THE APPLICANT BELIEVES   OFFERS A SAFE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF AWAY FOR   RESIDENTS TO BE PICKED UP BY RIDE SHARE PROVIDERS.]       [NOT SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL   ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED   WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT.       RESPECTFULLY NOTE, THERE ARE NO VESTED/CARRIED OVER   APPROVALS, THIS IS A NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION   94-111 TABLE IV-11: ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND   DROP-OFF IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG   AVENUE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).       ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS   WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE. CONFLICTING WITH THE   IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT WITH THE BIKE   LANE/SIDEWALK.       8. SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB, NOT   FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. [PLANS REVISED TO SHOW SETBACK   FROM BACK OF CURB]   A. SETBACK ON BANYAN (GROUND ? 5) IS 16? MIN. AND 50?   MAX. (AVENUE-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR   PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 31? MIN. [THE PLANS PROVIDED   MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK CRITERIA AND THE CONDITIONAL   SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS COMPLIANT]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR THE REVISIONS,   BASED UPON THESE: PLEASE PROVIDE MAX SETBACK AND ANY   APPLICABLE CONDITIONAL SETBACK LINES ON SITE PLANS,   ELEVATIONS, AND RELEVANT FLOOR PLANS, UPDATE DATA TABLE   ON SHEET A0-02 ACCORDINGLY TO REFLECT ALL PROVIDED   SETBACKS PER FRONTAGE.       B. SETBACK ON CLEARWATER (GROUND ? 5) IS 12? MIN. AND   60? MAX. (SECONDARY-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK   FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 27? MIN. [THE PLANS   PROVIDED MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK CRITERIA AND THE   CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS   COMPLIANT]   [SEE ABOVE]       C. ABUTTING CSX IS 15? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       D. REAR 5? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       E. SIDE INTERIOR 0? OR NFPA [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]       F. SETBACKS INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY   ITC, SFRTA, AND APPLICANT?S PROPERTIES WARRANT FURTHER   DISCUSSION. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PROJECT SITE IS   SPLIT BETWEEN 2 SEPARATE PARCELS, AND POTENTIAL   VERTICAL SUBDIVISION. [SETBACK AND SEPARATION WILL BE   HANDLED BY SEPARATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED   PARTIES]   [NOT SATISFIED] FURTHER CLARIFICATION/DISCUSSIONS   NEEDED WITH VERTICAL SUBDIVISION       9. PARKING: THE PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO   BETTER CONVEY THE PARKING COUNTS. PLEASE NOTE, WHILE   NOT MANDATORY, STAFF HAS INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL   ALLOWED 25% TOD PARKING SPACE REDUCTION.   ["SEE PARKING BREAKDOWN AND MIN MAX COMPARISON   PROVIDED. THE TOTAL MINIMUM PARKING PERMITTED IS 1,684   OR (1,347 LESS 20% REDUCTION FOR TOD)       TOTAL MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITTED IS 3,142 OR (2,514 LESS   20% REDUCTION FOR TOD)       STRAIGHT CODE TEST:       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS   1,684 TO 3,142 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED   SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,347   TO 2,514 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED SPACES IS   COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE NON-MANDATORY 20%   REDUCTION IMPOSED       NON-CODE TEST EXCLUDING THE SFRTA AND COUNTY SPACES   EVEN WITH THE SFRTA COUNTY SPACES COUNTED AS ALL BEING   ABOVE MINIMUM THE PARKING PROVIDED WOULD STILL COMPLY   WITH THE LDRS SEE BELOW:       THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND COUNTY   275 SPACES WOULD BE 1,409 SPACES OR (1,127 SPACES   REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)       THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND COUNTY   275 SPACES WOULD BE 2,867 SPACES OR (2,294 SPACES   REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS   1,409 TO 2,867 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003   SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN IF THE 275 SPACES FOR   THE SFRTA AND COUNTY WERE NOT RECOGNIZED AS A VALID   PUBLIC USE.       MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,127   TO 2,294 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003 SPACES   WOULD STILL BE COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE   NON-MANDATORY 20% REDUCTION IMPOSED WITHOUT THE 275   SPACES FOR THE SFRTA AND COUNTY BEING RECOGNIZED AS A   VALID PUBLIC USE.       THE 2003 SPACES PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE STATED MINIMUM   AND MAXIMUMS PERMITTED BY CODE NO MATTER THE APPROACH   USED.?]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM (2.D.)       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON   THE PSA AND ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING   BREAKDOWN; BASED UPON THIS:       THE HOTEL ROOM/AMENITY, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE,   GUEST AND SFRTA/COUNTY PARKING SPACES CHECK OUT WITH   REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD REDUCTION.       - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM   PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY   CAR-SHARE HAS 1/13 REQUIREMENT.       - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU   PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR ARE YOU   ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND THEN   ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE   CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER   PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.   PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL   MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON   A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF   CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE   STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED   BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE   CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF   THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE   EXPANSION.       A. OFFICE: MIN. 2.5/1000SF = 457 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000SF   = 731 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 343 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 365 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED] OFFICE   PARKING FALLS WITHIN MIN/MAX. CLARIFICATION, OFFICE   MINIMUM IS 2.5/1000 SF NOT 2/1000 SF.       B. HOTEL: MIN. 1/4ROOMS = 27 SPACES, 1/800 SF = 11   SPACES (MAX. 1/ROOM = 108 SPACES, 1/400 SF = 23   SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 29 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 38 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]       C. COMMERCIAL: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 110 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000   SF = 219 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 83 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 110 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]       D. RESIDENTIAL: MIN. 1/UNIT = 821 SPACE, 1/20 GUEST =   41 GUEST (MAX. 2/UNIT = 1,642 SPACES, 41 GUEST) AFTER   25% TOD REDUCTION, 661 REQUIRED; PROVIDING 896 SPACES   TOTAL, NEED A CLEARER BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING DATA   PROVIDED] [SATISFIED]       E. MICRO-UNITS: MIN. 0/UNIT (MAX. 0.5/UNIT = 83 SPACES,   1/20 GUEST = 8 SPACES); PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER   BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING DATA PROVIDED] [PARTIALLY   SATISFIED] PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED,   ARE YOU PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR   ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND   THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE   CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER   PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.   PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL   MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON   A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF   CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE   STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED   BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE   CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF   THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE   EXPANSION.       F. LIVE/WORK UNITS: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 534 SPACES (MAX.   4/1000SF = 1068 SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 400   REQUIRED; PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER BREAKDOWN. ALSO THERE   ARE A TOTAL OF 12 LIVE/WORK UNITS FOR 267,000 SF,   ASSUMING ~22,250 SF EACH? PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE UNITS.   [THERE ARE NO LIVE WORK UNITS PROPOSED] [SATISFIED]   JUSTIFICATION LETTER SPOKE TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL?S   LIVE-WORK UNITS, THESE ARE NOT CARRIED OVER TO THE   CURRENT PROJECT.       G. SFRTA AND ITC PARKING: MIN. 290 SPACES (250 FOR   SFRTA PATRONS AND 40 FOR SFRTA/COUNTY); PROVIDING 275?   WHY THE SHORTAGE OF 15 SPACES PER THE PSA? [PSA (AS   AMENDED) REQUIRES 275 SPACES 250 FOR SFRTA AND 25 FOR   THE COUNTY] [SATISFIED] LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA   (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITTAL STATES:   250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES FOR   COUNTY.       H. TOTAL MIN REQUIRED: 1,467 SPACES (WITHOUT ANY FOR   MICRO-UNITS AND NOT INCLUDING 534 FOR LIVE/WORK) 2001   WITH LIVE/WORK INCLUDED; 2,291 WITH SFRTA/ITC PARKING.   NOT COUNTING 25% REDUCTION. PROVIDING 2,003 SPACES WITH   319 UNALLOCATED. EXPLAIN THE UNALLOCATED. [EVERY USE IS   PARKED AT THE MINIMUM, ALL EXCESS SPACES HAVE BEEN   POOLED TOGETHER IN THE UNALLOCATED CATEGORY SO THEY CAN   BE USED AS FLEXIBLE OVER FLOW TO SERVE ENTIRE PROJECT   WHEN NEEDED] [SATISFIED] PARKING TABLE/DATA PROVIDED.       I. BIKE PARKING: MIN. 1/15 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL/OFFICE = 40   SPACES REQUIRED, 1/15 RESIDENTIAL = 57 SPACES REQUIRED,   ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE A SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITY WITHIN   200 FT. OF BUILDING ENTRANCE. PROVIDING 116 COMMERCIAL,   100 RESIDENTIAL. [COVERED BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT   THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. THE REQUIRED SHOWERING   CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE   LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY 75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE   AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE FACILITIES ARE ALSO   ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR   AND STAIR.] [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITTED   PARKING DATA, REQUIRED SPACES ARE 1/15 SPACES   (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL) AND 1/1 SPACES   (RESIDENTIAL). TOTALING 35 AND 59 REQUIRED BIKE SPACES   RESPECTIVELY. PLEASE PROVIDE TOTAL COUNT OF BIKE SPACES   INTERNAL TO BUILDING ON SHEET A0-02, DIAGRAM ON A5-02   PROVIDES 72 SPACES (2 PER RACK), REQUIREMENT IS 94 FOR   THESE PROJECT USES.       MICRO-UNIT PROVISIONS (PER. SEC. 94-106 8.A.) REQUIRES   0.5 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. REQUIRING ~ 83   SPACES.       BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE   BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED WITHIN A SINGLE   ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS HAVE TO TRAVEL   OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING.   RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER SIDE HAVE   TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO ACCESS SHOWERS.   RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD ENTAIL A MORE   APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE   ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER TOWER.       I. PROVIDE SECURE RESIDENT BICYCLE ROOMS. PROVIDE   NON-RESIDENTIAL COVERED BICYCLE PARKING AREAS   DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS   FOR THE BICYCLE PARKING AREAS ON THE PLANS. [COVERED   SECURE BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT THE GROUND FLOOR   LEVEL OF THE GARAGE] [DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS PROVIDED]   [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITTED PARKING   DATA; BIKE PARKING INTERNAL TO BUILDING NEEDS TO MEET   MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF 94 SECURED SPACES, GROUND FLOOR   ONLY SHOWS 72 SPACES. NOT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL 83   SPACES DEDICATED TO MICRO-UNIT USE. ON SHEETS A1-03,   A1-04, AND A1-05 ROOM INTERNAL TO GARAGE LABELED   ?SCOOTER/BIKE PARKING? HOW ARE THESE ROOMS/SPACES   ACCESSED, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL RACKS LOCATED HERE, AND   WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS OF   THESE AREAS.       REPEAT FROM (9.I.I.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED   AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED   WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS   HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE   PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER   SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO   ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD   ENTAIL A MORE APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION, RECOMMEND ONE   ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER   TOWER.       ACCESS TO BIKE STORAGE LIMITED TO REAR ENTRANCE ON   CSX/BANYAN CORNER OF THE SITE, NO INTERNAL ACCESS   APPEARS TO BE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF CROSSING OVER THE   ADA SPACES. PLEASE CONSIDER REVISIONS.       II. WHERE ARE THE SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITIES LOCATED?   [THE REQUIRED SHOWERING CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO   PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY   75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE   FACILITIES ARE ALSO ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE   SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR AND STAIR.]   [NOT SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SHOWER   FACILITIES WITHIN THE PLAN, PLEASE LABEL AND INDICATE   THESE CLEARLY. BASED UPON THE RESPONSE AND RESUBMITTAL:       CLARIFICATION, ARE THESE THE THREE ORANGE ROOMS BETWEEN   THE RETAIL BAYS ON SHEET A1-02? CAN THE SHOWER   FACILITIES BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPOSED BIKE   STORAGE ROOM OR BETTER DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE BUILDINGS?       REPEAT FROM (9.I.I.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED   AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED   WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS   HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE   PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER   SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO   ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD   ENTAIL A MORE APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE   ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER   TOWER.       J. IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY PARKING STALL   IS ADJACENT TO A WALL, FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER   PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE   INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN   OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STALL, THE STALL   WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET.   [ACKNOWLEDGED - WE WILL BE UTILIZING THE ALLOWABLE   PARKING REDUCTIONS AND OR USING COMPACT SPACE   PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PROPER SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OR DETAILS   INDICATING SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED. PLEASE FOLLOW SEC.   94-485 (N.)(1.) FOR SMALL CAR SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND   OUTLINE PERCENTAGE/INDICATE ON DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.       III. PARKING GARAGE HAS INSTANCES WHERE PARKING SPACES   APPEAR TO BE NEXT TO WALLS OR STRUCTURE. [ADJUSTMENTS   TO BE MADE AS INDICATED ABOVE ON FINAL PERMITS TO   ENSURE COMPLIANCE] [NOT SATISFIED] SEE ABOVE       IV. ADA PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED IN INEFFICIENT AND   NOT OPTIMAL AREAS. ALL SPACES SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A   CURB RAMP OR CURB CUT, WHEN NECESSARY, TO ALLOW   ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING SERVED. SPACES SHALL BE   LOCATED SO THAT USERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO WALK OR   OTHERWISE MOVE BEHIND PARKED VEHICLES, EXCLUDING OTHER   VEHICLES PARKED IN ADJACENT PARKING SPACES FOR THE   DISABLED. [ADA SPACES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE   EFFICIENT ACCESS ROUTES TO AND FROM ENTRY POINTS OR   ELEVATOR CORES] [NOT SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING   ADJUSTMENTS AND ALTERING PLANS, BASED UPON THESE   CHANGES:       ADA DISTRIBUTION AFTER RECONFIGURATION STILL POSES   QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.       A) PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF HOW ADA PATRONS OF   OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL SAFELY &   EFFICIENTLY ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       B) CURRENT ADA SPACE DISTRIBUTION ON SHEET A1-02 (FOR   SFRTA PATRONS AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES) FORCES ADA USERS TO   TRAVEL THROUGH RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ELEVATORS TO ACCESS   REST OF SITE. DISTRIBUTION OF ADA SPACES ON THIS LEVEL   SHALL PROVIDE SHORTEST/MOST EFFICIENT PATH TO END USE,   ADA SPACES SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT   CONNECTED TO UPPER PLAZA AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFT CLOSEST   TO THE TRI-RAIL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.       C) IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC WITH ADA NEEDS   TO ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE   RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?       D) GROUND LEVEL, THE ADA VAN SPACE AT THE END OF THE   ROW FORCES USERS TO WALK BEHIND OTHER PARKED CARS TO   ACCESS DOORS TO BIKEROOM/OUTSIDE. ADA CODE LANGUAGE   MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ZONING PROVISION. THIS SPACE IS   NOT COMPLIANT AND WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED/REMOVED   FROM HOW IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN.       E) GROUND ITC ADA PATH FOR VANS, NOT THE CLOSEST/MOST   EFFICIENT OR DIRECT ACCESS TO REST OF SITE, ONLY   BENEFITS RETAIL SPACES ALONG THE CSX FRONTAGE. BETTER   DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE AROUND UPPER LEVEL ELEVATOR   SHAFTS.       V. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING PAINTED STRIPING DETAILS THAT   MEET THE CITY STANDARDS OF SEC. 94-485. [PLANS AMENDED   TO INCLUDE DETAILS] [SATISFIED]   VI. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR DRIVE   AISLE, PARKING RAMP SLOPE, PARKING STALLS, ETC. [PLANS   AMENDED TO INCLUDE DETAIL AND DIMENSIONS] [SATISFIED]       K. PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP SLOPES: INTERNAL RAMPS APPEAR   15.8% AND 12.4%. PER SEC. 94-111 (Q.)(2.) IF THE RAMP   IS GREATER THAN 14 PERCENT, A BREAK-OVER TRANSITION   SHALL BE REQUIRED. [TYPICAL CODE COMPLAINT DIMENSIONS   PROVIDED. RAMP SLOPE AMENDED TO PROVIDE COMPLAINT SLOPE   OR BREAK-OVER TRANSITION] [SATISFIED]       L. INTERNAL PARKING STRUCTURE POSES CONCERNS WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS, AND   THE OPERATIONS OF LOADING AND BICYCLE USERS. LOADING   SPACES AND BAYS ARE INEFFICIENT AND CAUSE CONFLICT   ZONES/SAFETY CONCERNS. POTENTIAL SPILLBACK AND QUEUING   ISSUES ONTO CLEARWATER. [WE DISAGREE. LOADING AND   ACCESS IS EFFICIENT AND MEETS CODE THE CONCEPT TO   CREATE A SINGULAR GARAGE TO SERVE THE ENTIRE   DEVELOPMENT AS A TRANSIT FACILITY. THE IDEA IS TO NOT   PARK THE SITE AS A TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT WITH GARAGES   PROVIDED IN EACH BUILDING BUT RATHER A MORE URBAN   CONCEPT THAT PARKS CARS CENTRALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT   WITH PATRONS AND RESIDENTS WALKING THE SHORT DISTANCE   TO AND FROM THE INTENDED END USE WITHOUT HAVING TO   REPARK.]       [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE   INGRESS RAMP AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.       GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR   CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC/SAFETY HAZARD WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE   GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND   SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.       AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA   AND OTHER OPERATIONS, INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.       INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS   WITH ONE-WAY/TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.       IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF   SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWERS?       REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE   CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,   HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY   ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE CENTRALLY LOCATED   GARAGE.       M. THE PARKING GARAGE SHOULD BE PREWIRED FOR EV   CHARGERS BOTH FOR RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS. THE   ELECTRICAL ROOMS NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT   SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL PANELS AND   AREAS NEED TO BE DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSFORMERS.   [ACKNOWLEDGED] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] IF YOU PLAN TO   PROVIDE EV SPACES AT THIS TIME, PLEASE SHOW WHERE THESE   ARE LOCATED.       10. CURB-CUTS AND PASSENGER LOAD/DROP-OFF: PER SEC.   94-111 TABLE IV-11 ? TOD DOES NOT PERMIT ON-STREET   AND/OR PASSENGER DROP-OFF OR LOADING ON AVENUE   (BANYAN). [ONE CURB CUT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE   BANYAN. ALL OTHER CURB CUTS AND PASSENGER PICK UP   LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THEIR   PRESENT LOCATIONS. ONE AND ONE PASSENGER DROP OFF CURB   CUT WAS REMOVED ON BANYAN] [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON   THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS:   [REPEAT COMMENT] PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP   OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25   DISTRICT.       THERE ARE NO VESTED/CARRIED OVER APPROVALS, THIS IS A   NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION 94-111 TABLE IV-11:   ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND DROP-OFF IS NOT   PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG AVENUE STREET   CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).       ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS   WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE.       CURB-CUT ON BANYAN FOR NONCOMPLIANT PASSENGER DROP-OFF   IS STILL SHOWN ON ALL RESUBMITTED SITE PLANS, LANDSCAPE   PLANS, AND ENGINEERING PLANS.       STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF FOR THE   MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER ALONG CLEARWATER. PROPOSED   SEPARATE DROP-OFF ROADWAY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE   OPERATIONALLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A SAFE/PLEASANT   PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT UP URBAN CONTEXT.   CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE WITH NARROW LANDSCAPE   BUFFER, PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED BY 2 TRAVEL LANES.   BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED CLOSER TOWARD   CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE, WITH THE   DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, IN PLACE   OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA. PROVIDES THE   MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR VALET SERVICES   AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION.   A TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE   COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A   DROP-OFF IS NEEDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE.   SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC DROP-OFF IN FRONT OF   HOTEL/OFFICE.       THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY   EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY   SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL   REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWERS EXCEEDS   PERMITTED 25FT. APPEARS TO BE 30 FT. + PLEASE PROVIDE   DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND   HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25FT. APPEARS TO   BE 30 FT. + PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB   CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE ITC BUS LOOP EXCEEDS   PERMITTED 25 FT. INGRESS WIDTH NEARLY 60 FT. EGRESS   APPROXIMATELY 40-45FT. PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL   CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE GARAGE INGRESS/EGRESS   EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25 FT. WIDTH NEARLY FT. PLEASE   PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.       PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TURN ANALYSIS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP   OPERATION.       11. PLEASE PROVIDE AN FAR AND GBA DIAGRAM SHOWING THE   BREAKDOWN OF THE PROJECT?S COUNTED/UNCOUNTED ROOMS AND   SPACES. [PLANS UPDATED TO PROVIDE FAR GBA DIAGRAMS]   A. GROSS BUILDING AREA MEANS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A   BUILDING, INCLUDING AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED   STORAGE SPACES, ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP, SUCH AS   BATHROOMS AND LOBBIES, STAIRS AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND   EXTERNAL UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE GROSS   BUILDING AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS;   UNENCLOSED COLONNADES, PORCHES AND BALCONIES;   MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES; AND TRASH ROOMS.   STORAGE SPACES WITHOUT WINDOWS AND ENCLOSED BY SURFACES   THAT ALLOW FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OR OUTSIDE AIR   CIRCULATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [NOT SATISFIED] GROUND LEVEL A6-01, ENCLOSED BIKE   STORAGE ROOM COUNTS TOWARD GBA/FAR.       VII. GROSS BUILDING AREA REQUIREMENTS:   1. ANY PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE   MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE   CALCULATIONS OF GROSS BUILDING AREA. THIS SHALL INCLUDE   STALLS AND ALL ASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS. [PROJECT   PARKING PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM   RANGE PERMITTED AND DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD GBA OR THE   FAR CALCULATIONS] [SATISFIED]       2. PARKING LOCATED BELOW GRADE SHALL NOT BE COUNTED AS   PART OF THE GROSS BUILDING AREA. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [SATISFIED]       3. THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE   OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [SATISFIED]       12. PLEASE PROVIDE ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM AND CALCULATIONS   FOR SITE FRONTAGES. [ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM PROVIDED ON   REVISED PLANS] [SATISFIED]       13. IT APPEARS THAT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH   THE GROUND LEVEL SITE PLAN. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST   INCLUDE HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE VARIOUS FEATURES   SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE ELEVATIONS MATCH THE   SITE PLAN BUT ALSO THAT THE SITE FRONTAGES COMPLY WITH   THE VARIOUS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. [CHECKED FOR ACCURACY   AND REVISE AS NEEDED] [NOT SATISFIED] AN EXAMPLE ON   SHEET A2-01 DETAIL ON THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER SHOWS A   SUPPORT COLUMN NOT ILLUSTRATED WITHIN THE SITE PLANS.   ADDITIONAL COLUMN SHOWN IN ELEVATION ADJACENT TO THE   SPIRAL STAIRCASE FEATURE, NOT SHOWN IN SITE PLAN.   ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL ENTRANCES, DOORS, ETC.   ON GROUND-LEVEL SO STAFF CAN VERIFY ELEMENTS MATCH SITE   PLAN. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW CONSISTENT AND ACCURATE   INFORMATION.       14. PLEASE SPECIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACES (PRIVATE &   PUBLIC) PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS, REFERENCE SEC. 94-109   AND TABLE IV-7. CLARIFY HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH   OPEN SPACE TYPE IS MET WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.   [TYPE OF OPEN SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON THE   LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS SHEET.]       THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING OPEN SPACES AND CALCULATIONS   SHEET, BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED:       [NOT SATISFIED] PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON CORNER OF   CLEARWATER & BANYAN LABELED AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF   PUBLIC SPACE IS NOT PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT.   GARDEN COURTYARD CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED. (TABLE   IV-6)       SHEET L002 (LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS) MISLABELED   COURTYARD IS ON GROUND LEVEL, GARDEN PLAZA IS ON 2ND   LEVEL, CHECK SF DIMENSIONS.   GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATED AREA, GARDEN   COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATED.       GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY, GARDEN   COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY.       SPECIFY SEATING REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE MET   WITHIN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.       L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE PLAN) OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B,   1C LABELED AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SPACE IS   NOT PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT. GARDEN COURTYARD   CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED (TABLE IV-6).       ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 2 SIDES OR   75%. ROW ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 1 SIDE OR   20%.       OPEN SPACE 2A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE   PLAN) IS INCORRECTLY LABELED AS INTERIOR COURTYARD,   THIS IS A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION AND IS NOT   PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. PLEASE IDENTIFY   THE CORRECT TYPE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THIS IS. NOTE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ARE TO BE ON THE GROUND LEVEL, WILL   REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER FROM THE DAC.       OPEN SPACE 4A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE   PLAN) DOES NOT MEET THE ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT REQUIRED (1   SIDE OR 20%).       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN   SPACE PLAN) TERRACE VEGETATED AREA REQUIREMENT IS 20%   (OKAY TO EXCEED REQUIREMENT, PLEASE ADJUST TABLE TO   CORRECTLY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS)       OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN   SPACE PLAN) SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE REQUIRED ROOFTOP   GARDEN. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE 50% VEGETATED AREA   AND 50% TREE CANOPY.       STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE UNTIL THE OPEN   SPACES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DESIGNATED/IDENTIFIED AND   PROPER REQUIREMENTS LISTED.       A. PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTHERN TRIANGLE OF THE   SITE DOES NOT MEET PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   TYPOLOGY DUE TO LACK OF ABUTMENT TO AN ACTIVE USE.   [THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE SFRTA   AND ITC CUSTOMERS DURING OPERATING HOURS. THIS AREA   ABUTS THE ACTIVE MASS TRANSIT USE TRAIN PLATFORM AND   ITC FACILITY AND PROVIDES A SPACE FOR CUSTOMERS TO   RELAX IN THE SUNNY LANDSCAPE PARKLIKE AREA WHILE   WAITING TO MAKE THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTIONS.]   [NOT SATISFIED]   PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED   ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN   COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND   IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.       B. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE SECOND LEVEL   REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SIMILAR TO THE ONE   APPROVED AS PART OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.   [SEE ABOVE] [ACKNOWLEDGED. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SAME   RAISED OPEN SPACE CONDITION TO OCCUR AS PREVIOUSLY   APPROVED]   [NOT SATISFIED] WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER FROM THE   DAC.       15. STREET TREES: STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AT 30   FT. INTERVALS ALONG EACH STREET FRONTAGE. CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE SHOULD HAVE APPROX. 46 TREES AND BANYAN   FRONTAGE APPROX. 13. [NOTED. STREET TREE CALCULATIONS   HAVE BEEN UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.]   [SATISFIED]       16. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF AND LOOP FOR   RESIDENTIAL TOWER ON CLEARWATER IS OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY   LINES AND ENCROACHES INTO CITY ROW. ADDITIONAL SMALLER   DROP-OFF ADJACENT TO LOADING BAY/BACK-OF-HOUSE. WHY ARE   THESE DROP-OFF SPACES NEEDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER?   ADJACENT HOTEL/OFFICE ALSO INCLUDES A SMALL DROP-OFF,   PRESENTS STACKING/QUEUING ISSUES AND SPILL OVER INTO   CLEARWATER. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL   DROP-OFF ROAD ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL TOWER/CLEARWATER   PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF NOT IN COMPLIANCE.   ENCROACHES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PER SEC.   94-111 (N.)(3.) DESIGNATED PASSENGER LOADING AND   DROP-OFF AREAS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET   FROM THE BACK OF CURB, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE   SIDEWALK BY A 5-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND SHALL BE   SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. PORTE   COCHERES ARE SUBJECT TO MINIMUM STANDARDS DEPENDING ON   SUBDISTRICT LOCATION AND ADJACENCY TO A STREET   DESIGNATION AND ARE SEPARATED INTO TWO TYPES WHICH ARE   ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE IV-22. ONLY A TYPE A PORTE   COCHERE IS ALLOWED IN THE TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. [THIS   DROP OFF LOOP FEATURE HAS BEEN REVISED AND APPROVED BY   PBC SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND   ALSO TO ADD EXTRA SPACING FOR A VEGETATED BUFFER AND   DROP OFF RELATED USES.]   THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATIONS AND REVISIONS FROM THE   PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL, BASED UPON THE NEW PLANS PROVIDED:       STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF FOR THE   MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER ALONG CLEARWATER. PROPOSED   SEPARATE DROP-OFF ROADWAY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE   OPERATIONALLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A SAFE/PLEASANT   PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT UP URBAN CONTEXT.   CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE WITH NARROW LANDSCAPE   BUFFER, PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED BY 2 TRAVEL LANES.   BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED CLOSER TOWARD   CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE, WITH THE   DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, IN PLACE   OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA. PROVIDES THE   MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR VALET SERVICES   AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION. NEW CONFIGURATION   WITH REVERSAL IN DIRECTION NOT EFFICIENT OR OPTIMAL.   A TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE   COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A   DROP-OFF IS NEEDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE.   SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC DROP-OFF IN FRONT OF   HOTEL/OFFICE.       A. INSTEAD, THE BUILDING FRONT SHOULD BE MOVED CLOSER   TO CLEARWATER, AND RECONFIGURE LOADING AND   BACK-OF-HOUSE TO INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY AND DROP OFF   AREA. [SEE ABOVE COMMENT.] [REPEAT COMMENT] SEE ABOVE       B. SEE ABOVE: PROPOSED LOADING SPACE ON RESIDENTIAL   TOWER DOES NOT FUNCTION FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT.   [LOADING AREA WAS REVISED TO PROVIDE IMPROVED LOADING   VEHICLE ACCESSIBILITY. SEE SHEET C-03] [NOT SATISFIED]   PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF THE REVISED LOADING   SPACES, ADA SPACE PROPOSED INBETWEEN LOADING   OPERATIONS?       WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF   CLEARWATER TO THE REVISED HOTEL/OFFICE DROP-OFF LOADING   SPACE?       17. ITC BUS LOOP IS NOW ENTIRELY COVERED OVERHEAD BY   PLAZA AND BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD AN   OPEN-AIR CORRIDOR TO PROVIDE LIGHT, LANDSCAPING, AND   VENTILATION/OPEN-AIR ACCESS. HOW WILL THE REMOVAL OF   THESE ELEMENTS BE MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED FOR,   ESPECIALLY WHERE ANY MECHANICAL VENTING WILL BE   LOCATED? [THE ITC IS NOW COMPLETELY ENCLOSED UNDER AND   WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE. A NEW LANDSCAPED OPEN   SPACE IS PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH END OF THE ITC.   THIS AREA IS ACCESSIBLE TO TRANSIT PATRONS SO THEY CAN   GET SUN OR SIT IN SHADE WITHIN A LANDSCAPE AREA WHILE   WAITING FOR THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTION]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] NOTE, PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN   SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON   THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT   SHALL BE DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN   SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE   PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.       18. PLEASE PROVIDE SHEETS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFYING HOW   THE FA?ADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE   PROJECT. PLEASE REFERENCE SEC. 94-109 AND TABLE IV-4:   FA?ADE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS. [PLANAR BREAKS AND   BUILDING LENGTH DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED   A. ILLUSTRATE TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS, FENESTRATION   CALCULATIONS, PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, PROJECTIONS,   ETC. FOR ALL BUILDING FACADES. [TRANSPARENCY,   FENESTRATION, PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, FOR ALL   BUILDING FACADES PROVIDED.]   [NOT SATISFIED] FOR GROUND FLOOR TO PODIUM (UP TO 7TH   FLOOR IN TOD-25 DISTRICT)       SHEET A5-05, A5-06, BALCONIES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL   BUILDINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AS PLANAR BREAKS, AS THESE   ARE JUST ?PUNCH OUTS? ALONG THE SAME BUILDING FACE.   PORTIONS OF THE FA?ADE ITSELF NEEDS TO BE RECESSED OR   PROTRUDE TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 3FT.       SHEET A-5-07 SATISFIES PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS.       PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS   THE GREEN-WALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND   OF PLANTS ARE PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS   MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE GREEN-WALL SECTIONS   RECESSED FROM THE METAL SCREENING?       TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET BASED UPON   ELEVATIONS PROVIDED. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS WITHIN   TABLE OR ON DRAWINGS.           19. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AND MATERIALS OF THE GARAGE   STRUCTURE, HOW IS IT BEING SCREENED, MATERIALS, PLANTS,   ETC. [GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR GARAGE FACADE SCREENING   MATERIALS ADDED TO ELEVATIONS]   PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS   THE GREEN-WALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND   OF PLANTS ARE PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS   MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE GREEN-WALL SECTIONS   RECESSED FROM THE METAL SCREENING? ARE THERE OTHER   RECESSED PORTIONS/PLANAR BREAKS WITHIN THE SCREENING TO   BREAK UP THE MASS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL INTO   SCREENING GRAPHIC, COLOR, & TREATMENT.       20. REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE TOWERS,   HAS VARIED FACADES AND ELEMENTS BEEN EXPLORED OR IS   THERE A REASON FOR UNVARIED/SIMILARLY DESIGNED TOWERS?   [THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN WAS CREATED AND EXECUTED   PERSONALLY BY ARCHITECT BERNARDO FORT-BRESCIA OF   ARQUITECTONICA. THE PROJECT DESIGN IS EXTREMELY WELL   BALANCED WHILE REPRESENTING ARQ'S SIGNATURE MODERN   STYLIZATION THROUGHOUT THE COHESIVE DESIGN]   NOTED. PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR TRANSIT VILLAGE HAD   INCORPORATED FAR MORE VARIATION IN MASSING AND   ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT RESPECTED THE CONTEXT OF   THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORIC ELEMENTS   ADJACENT TO THE SITE.       - GARAGE SCREENING PRESENTS A STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN   THE HISTORIC SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND PRESENTS AN   OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE COLOR SCHEMES,   SCREENING/MESH, GRAPHICS, RECESSES/PROTRUSIONS, ETC.   WITHIN ITS DESIGN. THE GARAGE SCREENING SHOULD RESPECT   OR PRESENT THESE SPACES IN A MORE COHESIVE MANNER.   CURRENTLY THE TRAIN-STATION SITS IN FRONT OF A MASSIVE   BLOCKY BACKDROP AND GETS LOST.   - THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ON BANYAN IS ALSO AN   HISTORIC SITE WITHIN THE SHADOW OF THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWER. PREVIOUS APPROVAL FEATURED A ?STEP-BACK? OR   ?STAIRCASE? MASSING TO LOWER THE SCALE TOWARD   BANYAN/WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, AND THE TRAIN STATION   ALONG TAMARIND. RECOMMEND PURSUING A SIMILAR CONCEPT TO   BETTER SCALE AND FRAME THE MASSINGS.   - REGARDING THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER, PREVIOUS APPROVAL   PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SPACING AND STEPPED BACK FURTHER   FROM THE SEABOARD TRAIN STATION, PROVIDING A MORE   APPROPRIATELY SCALED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT DIDN?T   OVERSHADOW THE HISTORIC BUILDING BELOW. ADDITIONALLY,   THE BLUE FA?ADE TREATMENT OR PAINTING IS ANOTHER STARK   CONTRAST TO THE TRAIN STATION, PLEASE EXPLORE MORE   COMPATIBLE COLOR SCHEMES (E.G. EARTH TONES)       21. REGARDING THE TOWERS AND OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT,   STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE BANYAN RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS THE   TALLEST RATHER THAN THE CLEARWATER HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER.   THIS IS BECAUSE BANYAN IS THE WIDEST ROADWAY AND IS   MORE APPROPRIATELY FRAMED/CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TALLER   MASS. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BANYAN   RESIDENTIAL TOWER STEPS DOWN IN SOME CAPACITY TOWARD   TAMARIND AVE. AS WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL SITE   PLAN. THIS GIVES RESPECT TO THE SCALE OF THE SEABOARD   TRAIN STATION AND PUBLIC REALM ALONG TAMARIND.   [ACKNOWLEDGED BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED   DESIGN SUGGESTIONS]   SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT       22. BE COGNIZANT THAT THE EDGE 2 BUILDING LOCATED AT   300 CLEARWATER IS APPROVED AND UNDERGOING BUILDING   PERMITTING PROCESS, THIS PROJECT?S INGRESS/EGRESS FROM   DRIVES MAY PRESENT CONFLICT POINTS. THE GROUND LEVEL   PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE EDGE 2 CURB CUTS IN ORDER FOR   STAFF TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE ACCESS POINTS TO   CLEARWATER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION   FROM THE ?OASIS? PARK ELEMENT ACROSS CLEARWATER TO THE   STAIRWELL/ELEVATOR FOR THE UPPER PLAZA WILL NEED   RECONSIDERATION WITH THE INCOMING DEVELOPMENT. [WE WILL   COORDINATE PROJECT FEATURES AS NEEDED]   [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR OVERLAYING PORTIONS   OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES/ROW CONTEXT. THE CURB CUTS   FOR EDGE 2 BUILDING ACROSS FROM SITE NEED TO BE REVISED   AND REALIGNED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT CONDITIONS.       23. PLEASE CLARIFY GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION   WITH ITC, ACCESSING UPPER PLAZA SPACES, AND INTERNAL   CIRCULATION BETWEEN RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. IS   THE ITC BUS LOOP SEPARATED/CLOSED OFF IN THE EVENINGS   WHEN BUS OPERATIONS HALT, HOW IS WAYFINDING ADDRESSED   TO ACCESS THE UPPER PLAZA SPACES? [PATRONS WILL BE   QUEUED BY FENCING, GATES, LIGHTING, AND WAY FINDING   SIGNAGE]       [NOT SATISFIED] IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO   ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE   RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?       REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE   CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,   HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY   ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK FROM THE SOUTHERN   SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL EXISTS/WILL   REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.   PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION/CLARIFICATION OF WHY THIS   CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.       PLEASE PROVIDE ELEVATIONS/RENDERS OF THE PROPOSED   SPIRAL STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR ON CLEARWATER DR. FOR THE   UPPER PLAZA. PUBLIC ACCESS TO UPPER PLAZA FROM THIS   STAIRCASE IS NOT OBVIOUS; PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL   CONTEXT DISPLAYING THIS ENTRANCE.       STAFF SUGGESTS AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT   FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM   THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION   BETWEEN ITC/SFRTA AND UPPER PLAZA.       A. THE ITC ADA PATH DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE   APPLICATION SHOWS THE ADA ROUTE UTILIZING A CROSSWALK   THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. [THIS ADA PATHWAY AND   CROSSWALK WILL BE REMOVED PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY   REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM.]   [NOT SATISFIED] DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK   FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL   EXISTS/WILL REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS   ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION/CLARIFICATION   OF WHY THIS CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.       B. THE ITC FENCE EXHIBIT SHOWS THE FENCE AROUND THE   OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE AS A ?PRIVATE   PARK FENCE?. THIS DOES NOT MATCH THIS AS BEING DEPICTED   AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON OTHER PLANS. [THIS IS A BONUS   OPEN SPACE AREA DESIGNED TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION   WITH THE SFRTA PLATFORM AND ITC OPERATION. THIS AREA   WILL BE CLOSED TO PUBLIC ACCESS WHEN THE ITC IS CLOSED]   [NOT SATISFIED]   PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED   ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN   COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND   IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.       24. STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS   AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY TO TAMARIND AND THE   DOWNTOWN AREA. AS A TOD PROJECT, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE   HOW THE RELATION AND CONNECTIVITY IS IMPROVED TO THESE   CORRIDORS INTO THE DOWNTOWN. RECOMMEND POTENTIAL: WORK   WITH SFRTA TO IMPLEMENT AT-GRADE CONNECTION(S) ACROSS   RAILS TO TAMARIND. IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE   CONNECTING SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE   PROJECT. EXPLORE CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN   BRIDGES OR CONNECTIONS. [THE REVISED PROJECT DESIGN   PROVIDES ACCESSIBILITY TO THE GARAGE, RETAIL, BIKE   STORAGE, ITC AND RAIL FACILITIES FROM BOTH BANYAN   BOULEVARD AND CLEARWATER DRIVE. THESE ACCESS POINTS ARE   PROVIDED UNDER COVERED WALKWAYS AND THEY HAVE ACTIVE   USES PROVIDED ALONG THEIR FRONTAGES. THE NEW ACCESS   POINT FROM BANYAN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE TRACKS NOW   PROVIDES A DIRECT ROUTE BACK TOWARD BANYAN BOULEVARD]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE CLARIFY OR MARK ON PLANS THE NEW   ACCESS POINT FROM BANYAN. NOT UNDERSTANDING THE   INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT   DESCRIBED. ADDITIONALLY STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ADDITIONAL   STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE   OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE   ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION BETWEEN ITC/SFRTA AND UPPER   PLAZA.       25. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE ?MOTOR   LOBBY? IS. [IT IS SMALL LOBBY FOR THE OFFICE AND HOTEL   AT THE GROUND LEVEL INTENDED TO PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR   ACCESS TO VEHICLES PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF PATRONS,   MAIL PACKAGES, LUGGAGE, ETC.] [SATISFIED]       26. THE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED TO   ENCROACH THE 20-FOOT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS EASEMENT.   NOTE: EVEN WITHOUT THE BUILDING ENCROACHMENT, THIS DOES   NOT FUNCTION. [THIS FIRE ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED AND IS   PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED]       [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF EASEMENT   REMOVAL AND FIRE DEPT. APPROVAL.       27. PROVIDE TURNING DIAGRAMS FOR THE LOADING AREAS   UNDER THE NORTH BUILDING, ENTRY POINTS TO THE SITE AND   THE OTHER LOADING AREAS. [AUTO TURN EXHIBITS PROVIDED]   BASED UPON THE AUTOTURNS PROVIDED:   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE   INGRESS RAMP AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.       GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR   CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC/SAFETY HAZARD WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE   GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND   SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.       AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA   AND OTHER OPERATIONS INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.       INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS   WITH ONE-WAY/TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.       IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF   SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL   TOWERS?       REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE   CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,   HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY   ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.       PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR LOADING BAY ON THE GROUND   FLOOR       SHEET C-19 SHOWS ARROW IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF   RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF TRAFFIC FLOW       28. WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER   MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND HOW ARE THEY SCREENED IN   ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS? [LABELED ON   PLANS] [NOT SATISFIED]   SHEET C-05 & C-04 SHOW FDC IN WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF BIKE   RACKS, OR EXPOSED WITHIN ROW.       PLEASE WALL-MOUNT ANY WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL   VALVES, ETC. WHENEVER POSSIBLE.       ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES   SHALL BE SCREEENED FROM VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.       29. PLEASE CONSIDER USING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE   SUCH AS ROOFTOP SOLAR OR RAINWATER CAPTURE/REUSE   CISTERNS.       NO RESPONSE PROVIDED. WHILE NOT REQUIRED, HAS THIS ITEM   BEEN GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION?       30. SHEET A6-01 SHOWS PUBLIC OPEN SPACES EXTENDING INTO   THE BUS LANE. [LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE BEEN UPDATED   REDUCING THE OPEN SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE BUS LANES.][   PLANS REVISED TO REMOVE SIDEWALK SERVING BUS LANE FROM   THE OPEN SPACE] [SATISFIED] LANDSCAPE NO LONGER   ENCROACHES/OVERLAPS       31. FOR THE EVENTUAL DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE (DAC)   MEETING, PLEASE PROVIDE FULLY DETAILED RENDERINGS AND   PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS OF THE FINAL PROJECT.   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE NOTE, ALL PROVIDED   RENDERINGS ARE ONLY OF THE TAMARIND AND BANYAN   PERSPECTIVES. THERE ARE NO RENDERS SHOWN FOR CONDITIONS   ALONG CLEARWATER DR.       PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS/RENDERS OF THE SPIRAL   STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR SHAFT USED TO ACCESS THE UPPER   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PLAZA.       32. PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO SHOW HOW   THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED WHILE MAINTAINING ITC   OPERATIONS, TO INCLUDE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE   THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONTRACTOR   PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION. [THIS IS A PERMITTING   ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE COORDINATION AND WILL   BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED   PLEASE CARRY FORWARD AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. NOTE   THAT AS PART OF THE PSA, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE   COUNTY WITH A CONTINUOUS OPERATONS PLAN. THE PLAN IS TO   RELOCATE PALM TRAN TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE TRACKS, AS   IS UNDER DISCUSSION AMONG THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND   APPLICANT.]   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       THERE ARE COLUMN LOCATIONS THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH THE   LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ITC FENCE CREATE CHOKE POINTS   FOR THE BUS PATRONS AS THEY CHANGE BETWEEN ROUTES.   WHILE THEY ALL APPEAR TO COMPLY WITH ADA MINIMUMS, THEY   DO NOT PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN WIDTHS FOR TWO   USERS TO PASS SIDE-BY-SIDE. PLEASE REVIEW. [IN GENERAL   THE PLAN IS TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THE NON ITC   NORTHERN PORTION UNTIL THE ITC IS RELOCATED TO THE   TAMARIND SIDE THEN BUILD THE ITC PORTION]   [ACKNOWLEDGED]       33. THE SITE, LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS ALL NEED TO   SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE COMPLIANT CONDITIONS. [PLANS   COORDINATED][NOT SATISFIED] ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE,   AND CIVIL PLANS ALL FEATURE INCONSISTENCIES OR ELEMENTS   NOT COMPLIANT WITH CODE, PLEASE REVISE.       EXAMPLES INCLUDE:   - BANYAN PEDESTRIAN DROP-OFF, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED,   IS STILL SHOWN ACROSS ALL PLANS.   - CROSSWALK AT THE ENTRANCE OF ITC STILL SHOWN ON   PLANS, BUT COMMENTS/REFERENCES STATE IT IS TO BE   REMOVED.   - ELEVATIONS FEATURE COLUMNS NOT PRESENT IN GROUND   FLOOR PLANS.   - ETC.       34. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-113. THIS   INCLUDES LIGHTING, SIDEWALK WIDTH, LANDSCAPE, BICYCLE   PARKING, STREET FURNITURE, ETC. [NOTED][ THE PROJECT   COMPLIES WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION   94-113.]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR SIDEWALK   WIDTHS AND CLEAR PATHS, PLEASE PROVIDE A LOCATION   CALLOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND COUNT OF BICYCLE RACKS   PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS (REQUIREMENT IS 1 SPACE PER   100 FT. OF STREET FRONTAGE).       35. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 94-106 ? GENERAL USES   WITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (8.A) MICRO-UNITS   (A.-F.)[NOTES ADDED TO PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH   MINIMUM AVERAGE AND OTHER DWELLING UNITS REQUIREMENTS]   A. MICRO-UNIT MEANS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH A   TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN 300 SQUARE FEET AND 549   SQUARE FEET, WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONING KITCHEN AND   BATHROOM. [REGULAR UNITS WILL COMPLY TO ALL REGULATIONS   THERE ARE ALSO COMPLAINT MICRO UNITS THAT ARE LESSED   OUT FORM THE REGULAR UNIT AVERAGE CALCULATION ]   B. SEC. 94-109 ?DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS   VIII. DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 550 SQUARE   FEET. IN MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE   LESS THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.   IX. SMALLER DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ALLOWED AS   MICRO-UNITS. THE CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE MINIMUM SHALL   NOT BE APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS   WHERE MICRO-UNITS COMPOSE A MINIMUM OF 80 PERCENT OF   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT   INCLUDE THE MICRO-UNITS IN SUCH CALCULATION. SEE   MICRO-UNITS. [ACKNOWLEDGED]   [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR THE   PARKING PROVIDED FOR MICRO-UNITS, IF ITS 13 CAR-SHARE   ALONE OR IF ITS 13 SPACES AND 13 CAR-SHARE (26 TOTAL).   PLEASE PROVIDE FINAL COUNT AND LOCATION FOR THE   REQUIRED 0.5 BIKE SPACES PER UNIT.       PLEASE NOTE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR MICRO-UNITS WILL   INVOLVE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY TROLLEY FEE PER UNIT   PER MONTH.           ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS,   SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS: 7/5/22       1. REVISE LIST OF VARIANCES BASED UPON CORRECTIONS TO   OPEN SPACE, CURBCUT WIDTHS, PLANAR BREAKS/FA?ADE   ARTICULATION, ETC. ANY DEVIATION FROM REQUIRED MINIMUMS   OR MAXIMUMS CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.       2. FA?ADE ARTICULATION ? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS   FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING, GREEN-WALL, AND PLANAR   BREAKS.       3. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM FIRE   DEPARTMENT, UTILITY PROVIDERS, FPL, ETC. FOR THE   VACATING/MODIFICATION OF ANY EASEMENTS AND STRUCTURES.       4. ON SITE PLANS, THE CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF   CLEARWATER/BANYAN NOT REFLECTIVE OF EXISTING BANYAN   STREETSCAPE, THERE ARE SEPARATE BIKELANE AND PEDESTRIAN   CROSSING LANE       5. SHOW SETBACK LINES ON THE ELEVATIONS       6. PLEASE PROVIDE CIRCULATION DIAGRAM OR ILLUSTRATE ALL   INTERIOR DOORS/ENTRYWAYS TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN ROOMS,   ENCLOSURES, RETAIL SPACES, ETC. (GROUND FLOOR FOR   EXAMPLE ONLY SHOWS DOORS TO TR, BIKE ROOM, AND   EXTERNAL/FA?ADE ROOMS) HELPS CLARIFY INTERNAL   CIRCULATION OF PATRONS.       7. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR, REQUIRED TO BE   DESIGNED TO MEET PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.       8. MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25   WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.           9. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, SITE ILLUMINATION   MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS MEASURED AT   THE BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE   SIDEWALK.       10. PLEASE FULLY DIMENSION SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS, OR   PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS OF DIMENSIONED SITE PLANS AND   DRAWINGS, VERY LITTLE SPATIAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED   WITHIN PLANS.       SIDEWALK WIDTHS, CURB-CUTS, LANDSCAPE BEDS, PLANAR   BREAK DEPTHS, FRONTAGES, SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES, ETC.       11. BASED UPON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND REVISED   DRAWINGS, THE EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING ALONG   CLEARWATER DRIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE REMOVAL OF   METERED ON-STREET PARKING WILL INCUR A FEE. PLEASE   CONTACT ED DAVIS FROM PARKING TO CLARIFY FEES   ASSOCIATED WITH THESE SPACES. [email protected]     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 1 Status F Date 05-12-2022 Cont ID   Sent By ckimmerl Date 05-12-2022 Time 12:41 Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 05-12-2022 Time 12:40 Sent To   Notes 2022-05-12 12:41:22 CASE NO. FSPR 22-05   TRANSIT VILLAGE 2022   150 CLEARWATER DRIVE       - CONTACT CHRIS KIMMERLY @ (561) 822-1426,   [email protected]   - OR 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 .PNG AND   .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.       - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND   SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,   05/27/22, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE   7/13/22 DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING.       - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT   RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS   FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY AUGUST 12, 2022),   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 ($500).       1. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT   THAN THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN; THEREFORE, IT IS   NOT A ?MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN?   AS STATED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, BUT RATHER A   NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE   PLAN AND THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED DO NOT   AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE NEW SITE PLAN. ANY VARIANCES   THAT ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NEW BUILDING DESIGN AND   SITE LAYOUT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE DOWNTOWN ACTION   COMMITTEE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.       2. STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN,   INCLUDING THE USE MIX, DIFFERS FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR   PURCHASE AND SALE DATED AUGUST 12, 2012. SINCE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ESTABLISHES THAT   MODIFICATIONS ARE PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO PALM BEACH   COUNTY APPROVAL, PLEASE PROVIDE THE LATEST AMENDMENT OR   VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE THAT   AUTHORIZES THE CHANGES PRESENTED IN THE CURRENT   SUBMITTAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:       A. THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 40 PARKING SPACES FOR   SFTRA/COUNTY STAFF AND 250 SFRTA PATRON PARKING SPACES   (TOTAL 290 PARKING SPACES) TO 275 PARKING SPACES FOR   THESE USERS.   B. THE REMOVAL OF LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL/EDUCATION   USES FROM THE PROJECT.   C. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SITE DATA TABLE LISTS 42   WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AS BEING REQUIRED, WHILE THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ONLY REQUIRES 38. THE   PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE   WITH EITHER NUMBER.   D. SECTION 3E OF EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN OF   THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE LIMITS THE NUMBER   OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE 290   PUBLIC USE PARKING SPACES AND, ??PROVIDE NOT MORE THAN   THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF   WEST PALM BEACH FOR THE MIX OF USES AND   INTENSITIES/DENSITIES?AS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED??. AS   WILL BE SHOWN LATER IN THESE COMMENTS, THE PROJECT   EXCEEDS THIS STANDARD.       3. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A PBC PARCEL AND AN   SFTRA PARCEL.   A. THE DECKS, COLUMNS AND A PORTION OF THE RETAIL   BUILDING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SECOND FLOOR CROSS   THIS PARCEL LINE, WHICH CREATE SETBACK AND BUILDING   SEPARATION ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.   B. THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INDICATES THAT   PALM BEACH COUNTY WILL RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE   INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER TO A POINT 21 FEET IN THE   AIR. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MENTION HOW THIS PROPOSED   SUBDIVISION WILL OCCUR.   C. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE   AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INCLUDES THE SFRTA, YET   THEY ARE NOT SHOWN AS A PARTY TO STAFF?S COPY OF THE   AGREEMENT. WILL THE SFRTA RETAIN ANY OWNERSHIP AND IF   SO, HOW WILL THE PARCEL BE SUBDIVIDED?       4. TRANSIT VILLAGE BOUNDARY DIAGRAM SHEET A0-03   DIFFERENT FROM THE ?ITC PROPERTY MAP? AND ?REQUIRED   MODIFICATIONS FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN OCT. 2011.   CLEARLY SHOW THE ITC BOUNDARY ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND   SECOND LEVEL OF THE VARIOUS PLANS.       5. THERE ARE NUMEROUS UTILITY AND OTHER EASEMENTS SHOWN   ON THE SURVEY. ALL OF THESE EASEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN ON   THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (GROUND LEVEL AND SECOND   LEVEL) TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.       6. PLEASE DOCUMENT AND IDENTIFY ALL REQUESTED VARIANCES   AND WAIVERS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLANS.       7. PLEASE PROVIDE AN UPDATED SURVEY CLEARLY DOCUMENTING   THE CHANGES INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE RECENT BANYAN   BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE PROJECT. ALL PLAN SHEETS MUST   REFLECT THE ACCURATE BANYAN STREET CONFIGURATION. THIS   IS CURRENTLY NOT REFLECTED ON ANY OF THE SUBMITTED PLAN   SHEETS.   A. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN   FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT.       8. SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB, NOT   FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.   A. SETBACK ON BANYAN (GROUND ? 5) IS 16? MIN. AND 50?   MAX. (AVENUE-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR   PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 31? MIN.   B. SETBACK ON CLEARWATER (GROUND ? 5) IS 12? MIN. AND   60? MAX. (SECONDARY-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK   FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 27? MIN.   C. ABUTTING CSX IS 15? MIN.   D. REAR 5? MIN.   E. SIDE INTERIOR 0? OR NFPA   F. SETBACKS INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY   ITC, SFRTA, AND APPLICANT?S PROPERTIES WARRANT FURTHER   DISCUSSION. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PROJECT SITE IS   SPLIT BETWEEN 2 SEPARATE PARCELS, AND POTENTIAL   VERTICAL SUBDIVISION.   9. PARKING: THE PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO   BETTER CONVEY THE PARKING COUNTS. PLEASE NOTE, WHILE   NOT MANDATORY, STAFF HAS INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL   ALLOWED 25% TOD PARKING SPACE REDUCTION.   A. OFFICE: MIN. 2.5/1000SF = 457 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000SF   = 731 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 343 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 365 SPACES   B. HOTEL: MIN. 1/4ROOMS = 27 SPACES, 1/800 SF = 11   SPACES (MAX. 1/ROOM = 108 SPACES, 1/400 SF = 23   SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 29 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 38 SPACES   C. COMMERCIAL: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 110 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000   SF = 219 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 83 REQUIRED;   PROVIDING 110 SPACES   D. RESIDENTIAL: MIN. 1/UNIT = 821 SPACE, 1/20 GUEST =   41 GUEST (MAX. 2/UNIT = 1,642 SPACES, 41 GUEST) AFTER   25% TOD REDUCTION, 661 REQUIRED; PROVIDING 896 SPACES   TOTAL, NEED A CLEARER BREAKDOWN.   E. MICRO-UNITS: MIN. 0/UNIT (MAX. 0.5/UNIT = 83 SPACES,   1/20 GUEST = 8 SPACES); PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER   BREAKDOWN.   F. LIVE/WORK UNITS: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 534 SPACES (MAX.   4/1000SF = 1068 SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 400   REQUIRED; PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER BREAKDOWN. ALSO THERE   ARE A TOTAL OF 12 LIVE/WORK UNITS FOR 267,000 SF,   ASSUMING ~22,250 SF EACH? PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE UNITS.   G. SFRTA AND ITC PARKING: MIN. 290 SPACES (250 FOR   SFRTA PATRONS AND 40 FOR SFRTA/COUNTY); PROVIDING 275?   WHY THE SHORTAGE OF 15 SPACES PER THE PSA?   H. TOTAL MIN REQUIRED: 1,467 SPACES (WITHOUT ANY FOR   MICRO-UNITS AND NOT INCLUDING 534 FOR LIVE/WORK) 2001   WITH LIVE/WORK INCLUDED; 2,291 WITH SFRTA/ITC PARKING.   NOT COUNTING 25% REDUCTION. PROVIDING 2,003 SPACES WITH   319 UNALLOCATED. EXPLAIN THE UNALLOCATED.   I. BIKE PARKING: MIN. 1/15 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL/OFFICE = 40   SPACES REQUIRED, 1/15 RESIDENTIAL = 57 SPACES REQUIRED,   ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE A SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITY WITHIN   200 FT. OF BUILDING ENTRANCE. PROVIDING 116 COMMERCIAL,   100 RESIDENTIAL.   I. PROVIDE SECURE RESIDENT BICYCLE ROOMS. PROVIDE   NON-RESIDENTIAL COVERED BICYCLE PARKING AREAS   DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS   FOR THE BICYCLE PARKING AREAS ON THE PLANS.   II. WHERE ARE THE SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITIES LOCATED?   J. IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY PARKING STALL   IS ADJACENT TO A WALL, FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER   PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE   INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN   OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STALL, THE STALL   WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET.   III. PARKING GARAGE HAS INSTANCES WHERE PARKING SPACES   APPEAR TO BE NEXT TO WALLS OR STRUCTURE.   IV. ADA PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED IN INEFFICIENT AND   NOT OPTIMAL AREAS. ALL SPACES SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A   CURB RAMP OR CURB CUT, WHEN NECESSARY, TO ALLOW   ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING SERVED. SPACES SHALL BE   LOCATED SO THAT USERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO WALK OR   OTHERWISE MOVE BEHIND PARKED VEHICLES, EXCLUDING OTHER   VEHICLES PARKED IN ADJACENT PARKING SPACES FOR THE   DISABLED.   V. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING PAINTED STRIPING DETAILS THAT   MEET THE CITY STANDARDS OF SEC. 94-485.   VI. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR DRIVE   AISLE, PARKING RAMP SLOPE, PARKING STALLS, ETC.   K. PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP SLOPES: INTERNAL RAMPS APPEAR   15.8% AND 12.4%. PER SEC. 94-111 (Q.)(2.) IF THE RAMP   IS GREATER THAN 14 PERCENT, A BREAK-OVER TRANSITION   SHALL BE REQUIRED.   L. INTERNAL PARKING STRUCTURE POSES CONCERNS WITH   INGRESS/EGRESS OF RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS, AND   THE OPERATIONS OF LOADING AND BICYCLE USERS. LOADING   SPACES AND BAYS ARE INEFFICIENT AND CAUSE CONFLICT   ZONES/SAFETY CONCERNS. POTENTIAL SPILLBACK AND QUEUING   ISSUES ONTO CLEARWATER.   M. THE PARKING GARAGE SHOULD BE PREWIRED FOR EV   CHARGERS BOTH FOR RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS. THE   ELECTRICAL ROOMS NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT   SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL PANELS AND   AREAS NEED TO BE DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSFORMERS.       10. CURB-CUTS AND PASSENGER LOAD/DROP-OFF: PER SEC.   94-111 TABLE IV-11 ? TOD DOES NOT PERMIT ON-STREET   AND/OR PASSENGER DROP-OFF OR LOADING ON AVENUE   (BANYAN).       11. PLEASE PROVIDE AN FAR AND GBA DIAGRAM SHOWING THE   BREAKDOWN OF THE PROJECT?S COUNTED/UNCOUNTED ROOMS AND   SPACES.   A. GROSS BUILDING AREA MEANS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A   BUILDING, INCLUDING AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED   STORAGE SPACES, ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP, SUCH AS   BATHROOMS AND LOBBIES, STAIRS AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND   EXTERNAL UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE GROSS   BUILDING AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS;   UNENCLOSED COLONNADES, PORCHES AND BALCONIES;   MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES; AND TRASH ROOMS.   STORAGE SPACES WITHOUT WINDOWS AND ENCLOSED BY SURFACES   THAT ALLOW FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OR OUTSIDE AIR   CIRCULATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED.   VII. GROSS BUILDING AREA REQUIREMENTS:   1. ANY PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE   MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE   CALCULATIONS OF GROSS BUILDING AREA. THIS SHALL INCLUDE   STALLS AND ALL ASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS.   2. PARKING LOCATED BELOW GRADE SHALL NOT BE COUNTED AS   PART OF THE GROSS BUILDING AREA.   3. THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE   OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS.       12. PLEASE PROVIDE ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM AND CALCULATIONS   FOR SITE FRONTAGES.       13. IT APPEARS THAT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH   THE GROUND LEVEL SITE PLAN. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST   INCLUDE HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE VARIOUS FEATURES   SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE ELEVATIONS MATCH THE   SITE PLAN BUT ALSO THAT THE SITE FRONTAGES COMPLY WITH   THE VARIOUS ZONING REQUIREMENTS.       14. PLEASE SPECIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACES (PRIVATE &   PUBLIC) PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS, REFERENCE SEC. 94-109   AND TABLE IV-7. CLARIFY HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH   OPEN SPACE TYPE IS MET WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.   A. PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTHERN TRIANGLE OF THE   SITE DOES NOT MEET PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   TYPOLOGY DUE TO LACK OF ABUTMENT TO AN ACTIVE USE.   B. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE SECOND LEVEL   REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SIMILAR TO THE ONE   APPROVED AS PART OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.       15. STREET TREES: STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AT 30   FT. INTERVALS ALONG EACH STREET FRONTAGE. CLEARWATER   FRONTAGE SHOULD HAVE APPROX. 46 TREES AND BANYAN   FRONTAGE APPROX. 13.       16. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF AND LOOP FOR   RESIDENTIAL TOWER ON CLEARWATER IS OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY   LINES AND ENCROACHES INTO CITY ROW. ADDITIONAL SMALLER   DROP-OFF ADJACENT TO LOADING BAY/BACK-OF-HOUSE. WHY ARE   THESE DROP-OFF SPACES NEEDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER?   ADJACENT HOTEL/OFFICE ALSO INCLUDES A SMALL DROP-OFF,   PRESENTS STACKING/QUEUING ISSUES AND SPILL OVER INTO   CLEARWATER. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL   DROP-OFF ROAD ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL TOWER/CLEARWATER   PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF NOT IN COMPLIANCE.   ENCROACHES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PER SEC.   94-111 (N.)(3.) DESIGNATED PASSENGER LOADING AND   DROP-OFF AREAS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET   FROM THE BACK OF CURB, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE   SIDEWALK BY A 5-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND SHALL BE   SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. PORTE   COCHERES ARE SUBJECT TO MINIMUM STANDARDS DEPENDING ON   SUBDISTRICT LOCATION AND ADJACENCY TO A STREET   DESIGNATION AND ARE SEPARATED INTO TWO TYPES WHICH ARE   ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE IV-22. ONLY A TYPE A PORTE   COCHERE IS ALLOWED IN THE TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT.   A. INSTEAD, THE BUILDING FRONT SHOULD BE MOVED CLOSER   TO CLEARWATER, AND RECONFIGURE LOADING AND   BACK-OF-HOUSE TO INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY AND DROP OFF   AREA.   B. SEE ABOVE: PROPOSED LOADING SPACE ON RESIDENTIAL   TOWER DOES NOT FUNCTION FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT.       17. ITC BUS LOOP IS NOW ENTIRELY COVERED OVERHEAD BY   PLAZA AND BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD AN   OPEN-AIR CORRIDOR TO PROVIDE LIGHT, LANDSCAPING, AND   VENTILATION/OPEN-AIR ACCESS. HOW WILL THE REMOVAL OF   THESE ELEMENTS BE MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED FOR,   ESPECIALLY WHERE ANY MECHANICAL VENTING WILL BE   LOCATED?       18. PLEASE PROVIDE SHEETS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFYING HOW   THE FA?ADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE   PROJECT. PLEASE REFERENCE SEC. 94-109 AND TABLE IV-4:   FA?ADE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS.   A. ILLUSTRATE TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS, FENESTRATION   CALCULATIONS, PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, PROJECTIONS,   ETC. FOR ALL BUILDING FACADES.       19. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AND MATERIALS OF THE GARAGE   STRUCTURE, HOW IS IT BEING SCREENED, MATERIALS, PLANTS,   ETC.       20. REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE TOWERS,   HAS VARIED FACADES AND ELEMENTS BEEN EXPLORED OR IS   THERE A REASON FOR UNVARIED/SIMILARLY DESIGNED TOWERS?       21. REGARDING THE TOWERS AND OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT,   STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE BANYAN RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS THE   TALLEST RATHER THAN THE CLEARWATER HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER.   THIS IS BECAUSE BANYAN IS THE WIDEST ROADWAY AND IS   MORE APPROPRIATELY FRAMED/CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TALLER   MASS. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BANYAN   RESIDENTIAL TOWER STEPS DOWN IN SOME CAPACITY TOWARD   TAMARIND AVE. AS WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL SITE   PLAN. THIS GIVES RESPECT TO THE SCALE OF THE SEABOARD   TRAIN STATION AND PUBLIC REALM ALONG TAMARIND.       22. BE COGNIZANT THAT THE EDGE 2 BUILDING LOCATED AT   300 CLEARWATER IS APPROVED AND UNDERGOING BUILDING   PERMITTING PROCESS, THIS PROJECT?S INGRESS/EGRESS FROM   DRIVES MAY PRESENT CONFLICT POINTS. THE GROUND LEVEL   PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE EDGE 2 CURB CUTS IN ORDER FOR   STAFF TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE ACCESS POINTS TO   CLEARWATER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION   FROM THE ?OASIS? PARK ELEMENT ACROSS CLEARWATER TO THE   STAIRWELL/ELEVATOR FOR THE UPPER PLAZA WILL NEED   RECONSIDERATION WITH THE INCOMING DEVELOPMENT.       23. PLEASE CLARIFY GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION   WITH ITC, ACCESSING UPPER PLAZA SPACES, AND INTERNAL   CIRCULATION BETWEEN RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. IS   THE ITC BUS LOOP SEPARATED/CLOSED OFF IN THE EVENINGS   WHEN BUS OPERATIONS HALT, HOW IS WAYFINDING ADDRESSED   TO ACCESS THE UPPER PLAZA SPACES?   A. THE ITC ADA PATH DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE   APPLICATION SHOWS THE ADA ROUTE UTILIZING A CROSSWALK   THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL.   B. THE ITC FENCE EXHIBIT SHOWS THE FENCE AROUND THE   OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE AS A ?PRIVATE   PARK FENCE?. THIS DOES NOT MATCH THIS AS BEING DEPICTED   AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON OTHER PLANS.       24. STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS   AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY TO TAMARIND AND THE   DOWNTOWN AREA. AS A TOD PROJECT, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE   HOW THE RELATION AND CONNECTIVITY IS IMPROVED TO THESE   CORRIDORS INTO THE DOWNTOWN. RECOMMEND POTENTIAL: WORK   WITH SFRTA TO IMPLEMENT AT-GRADE CONNECTION(S) ACROSS   RAILS TO TAMARIND. IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE   CONNECTING SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE   PROJECT. EXPLORE CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN   BRIDGES OR CONNECTIONS.       25. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE ?MOTOR   LOBBY? IS.       26. THE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED TO   ENCROACH THE 20-FOOT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS EASEMENT.   NOTE: EVEN WITHOUT THE BUILDING ENCROACHMENT, THIS DOES   NOT FUNCTION.       27. PROVIDE TURNING DIAGRAMS FOR THE LOADING AREAS   UNDER THE NORTH BUILDING, ENTRY POINTS TO THE SITE AND   THE OTHER LOADING AREAS.       28. WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER   MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND HOW ARE THEY SCREENED IN   ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS?       29. PLEASE CONSIDER USING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE   SUCH AS ROOFTOP SOLAR OR RAINWATER CAPTURE/REUSE   CISTERNS.       30. SHEET A6-01 SHOWS PUBLIC OPEN SPACES EXTENDING INTO   THE BUS LANE.       31. FOR THE EVENTUAL DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE (DAC)   MEETING, PLEASE PROVIDE FULLY DETAILED RENDERINGS AND   PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS OF THE FINAL PROJECT.   32. PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO SHOW HOW   THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED WHILE MAINTAINING ITC   OPERATIONS, TO INCLUDE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE   THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONTRACTOR   PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION.       33. THERE ARE COLUMN LOCATIONS THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH   THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ITC FENCE CREATE CHOKE   POINTS FOR THE BUS PATRONS AS THEY CHANGE BETWEEN   ROUTES. WHILE THEY ALL APPEAR TO COMPLY WITH ADA   MINIMUMS, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN   WIDTHS FOR TWO USERS TO PASS SIDE-BY-SIDE. PLEASE   REVIEW.       34. THE SITE, LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS ALL NEED TO   SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE COMPLIANT CONDITIONS.       35. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-113. THIS   INCLUDES LIGHTING, SIDEWALK WIDTH, LANDSCAPE, BICYCLE   PARKING, STREET FURNITURE, ETC.       36. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 94-106 ? GENERAL USES   WITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (8.A) MICRO-UNITS (A.-F.)   A. MICRO-UNIT MEANS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH A   TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN 300 SQUARE FEET AND 549   SQUARE FEET, WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONING KITCHEN AND   BATHROOM.   B. SEC. 94-109 ?DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS   VIII. DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 550 SQUARE   FEET. IN MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE   LESS THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.   IX. SMALLER DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ALLOWED AS   MICRO-UNITS. THE CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE MINIMUM SHALL   NOT BE APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS   WHERE MICRO-UNITS COMPOSE A MINIMUM OF 80 PERCENT OF   THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE   CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT   INCLUDE THE MICRO-UNITS IN SUCH CALCULATION. SEE   MICRO-UNITS.       Print Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved