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 Z22080012 Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Rev No 2 Status P Date 10-20-2022 Cont ID   Sent By swelter Date 10-20-2022 Time 17:13 Rev Time 0.00 Received By SWELTER Date 11-22-2022 Time 10:52 Sent To   Notes 2023-02-02 13:50:40     MISSING ART ASSESSMENT APPLICATION 3.13.23   ARTIST ALEXANDRE ARRECHEA SELECTED BY DEVELOPERS OF   SOLESTE PRESENTED HIS PUBLIC ART CONCEPTS FOR THE   DEVELOPMENT SITE. COMMITTEE NOTED THAT THE FINAL   PROPOSAL MET THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE CODE SECTION   78-125.   A. ARTIST???S SIGNATURE ORANGE INTERNATIONAL COLOR   B. ABSTRACT AND HIGHLY VISIBLE   C. DYNAMIC   D. ???SENSE/FEEL THE MUSIC COMING FROM THE IMAGE   E. REQUESTED IMAGES THAT DISPLAYED THE VIEWER   EXPERIENCE FORM VARIOUS ANGLES       F. MET LOCATION REQUIREMENT   G. MET ARTIST AND ART REQUIREMENT   H. DISTINCT ART FROM ANY ZONING AND LAND REGULATION   REQUIREMENTS   I. MUST PRESENT FOR FORMAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO   CITY COMMISSION ??? DATE TBD.       SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR IDENTIFIED AREA FOR THE   INCLUSION OF PUBLIC ART DOES NOT INCLUDE APPROVAL OF   ARTIST OR ARTWORK.   THE MEDIUM OF ART ON THE PROPOSED SITE BY A QUALIFIED   ARTIST MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE IN MEDIUM,   SCALE, AND MATERIALS.   ARTIST MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS   IN SECTION 78-122 NO LATER THAN BUILDING PERMIT   SUBMITTAL TO SYBILLE WELTER AT [email protected]     Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Rev No 1 Status F Date 08-25-2022 Cont ID   Sent By scwelter Date 08-25-2022 Time 15:54 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 08-25-2022 Time 16:04 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-25 16:03:57 PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT:       TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS OVER $500,000   SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT AS PER CITY   ORDINANCE.       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.   FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PUBLIC ART NEEDS TO BE   IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN.       OPTION 2: CONTRIBUTE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 75 PERCENT OF   ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DEPOSIT   TO THE PUBLIC ART ACCOUNT.       FOR EITHER OPTION A COMPLETED PUBLIC ART ASSESSMENT   APPLICATION ALONG WITH EITHER THE ESCROW OF THE 1% OR   IF CHOSEN OPTION 2 CONTRIBUTION INTO THE PUBLIC ART   FUND IS REQUIRED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.       CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC ART &   CULTURE AT [email protected] WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS.     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 4 Status P Date 03-09-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 03-09-2023 Time 19:35 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 03-09-2023 Time 19:35 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-09 19:36:09 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. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. IF ELECTRIC   VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST 1   IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE   REQUIREMENTS.       3. 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.       4. BUILDING LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND   OTHER STRUCTURES. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,   COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING SEPARATION, PERCENTAGE OF   OPENINGS AND OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF   CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE   VERIFIED.       5. 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.       6. 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.       7. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. PROPERTY OWNER AND   CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARKING OF   CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ALL   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       8. 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.       9. 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]       ROBERT BROWN   BUILDING OFFICIAL   TEL: 561 805 6652   EMAIL: [email protected]     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 3 Status F Date 02-22-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 02-22-2023 Time 19:26 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 02-22-2023 Time 19:26 Sent To   Notes 2023-02-22 19:30:01 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. ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES. THE ACCESSIBILITY RAMPS HAVE   BEEN REMOVED FROM THE 4TH STREET ENTRANCES TO THE MAIN   LOBBY AND THE SOUTH LOBBY. SHOW AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE   ROUTE, COMPLYING WITH SECTIONS 206.2 AND 402.2 OF   FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE, CONNECTING ACCESSIBLE   BUILDING OR FACILITY ENTRANCES WITH ALL ACCESSIBLE   SPACES AND ELEMENTS WITHIN THE BUILDING OR FACILITY       3. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. IF ELECTRIC   VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST 1   IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE   REQUIREMENTS.       4. 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.       5. BUILDING LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND   OTHER STRUCTURES. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,   COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING SEPARATION, PERCENTAGE OF   OPENINGS AND OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF   CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE   VERIFIED.       6. 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.       7. 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.       8. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. PROPERTY OWNER AND   CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARKING OF   CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ALL   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       9. 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.       10. 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]       ROBERT BROWN   BUILDING OFFICIAL   TEL: 561 805 6652   EMAIL: [email protected]     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 2 Status P Date 02-01-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 02-01-2023 Time 09:51 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 02-01-2023 Time 09:46 Sent To   Notes 2023-02-01 09:51:39 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. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. IF ELECTRIC   VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST 1   IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE   REQUIREMENTS.       3. 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.       4. BUILDING LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND   OTHER STRUCTURES. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,   COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING SEPARATION, PERCENTAGE OF   OPENINGS AND OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF   CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE   VERIFIED.       5. 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.       6. 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.       7. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. PROPERTY OWNER AND   CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARKING OF   CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ALL   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       8. 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.       9. 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]       ROBERT BROWN   BUILDING OFFICIAL   TEL: 561 805 6652   EMAIL: [email protected]     Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL) Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rbrown Date 09-07-2022 Time 12:17 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rbrown Date 09-07-2022 Time 12:17 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-07 12:47:42 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. EXIT DISCHARGE FROM STAIR. PLAN SHEET A2.1, GROUND   FLOOR PLAN, SHOWS THE SOUTH STAIR IN THE SOUTH TOWER   WITH NO WAY TO GET OUT OF THE STAIR AND EXIT THE   BUILDING WITHOUT PASSING ALONG THE PARKING GARAGE DRIVE   ACCESS ROAD OR PASSING THROUGH THE LOADING BAY. PER   SECTION 1028.1 OF FLORIDA BUILDING CODE THE EXIT SHALL   DISCHARGE DIRECTLY TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.       3. EXIT FROM SOUTH TOWER AMENITIES AREA. PLAN SHEET   A2.2, SECOND FLOOR PLAN, SHOWS THAT SOUTH TOWER   AMENITIES AREA WITHOUT 2 SEPARATE MEANS OF EGRESS. PER   SECTIONS 1006.2.1 AND 1007.1.1 OF FLORIDA BUILDING CODE   2 MEANS OF EGRESS ARE REQUIRED AND THEY MUST BE   SEPARATED BY 1/3 OF THE DIAGAONAL DIMENSION OF THE   ROOM.       4. VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE PLANS DO NOT SHOW   A VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE. 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)       5. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. IF ELECTRIC   VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST 1   IN 25 MUST COMPLY WITH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE   REQUIREMENTS.       6. 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.       7. BUILDING LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND   OTHER STRUCTURES. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,   COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING SEPARATION, PERCENTAGE OF   OPENINGS AND OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF   CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE   VERIFIED.       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. 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.       10. CONTRACTOR VEHICLE PARKING. PROPERTY OWNER AND   CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARKING OF   CONTRACTOR VEHICLES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ALL   NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.       11. 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.       12. 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]       13. 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 3 Status P Date 02-16-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 02-16-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 02-16-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes ***NONE*** Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 2 Status F Date 10-20-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 10-20-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 10-20-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-10-20 12:59:33 PROVISION OF CCTV VIDEO OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND   STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG ENTIRE PROJECT FRONTAGE   IS A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.     Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC Rev No 1 Status F Date 08-23-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rrossano Date 08-23-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By rrossano Date 08-23-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-23 13:00:15 COMMENTS FROM RICK ROSSANO, SR. PROJECT COORDINATOR,   ENGINEERING SERVICES AT 561-494-1098 [email protected]   GENERAL:   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 PROVIDE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS   DATA.       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 INCLUDING PIPE SIZE AND MATERIAL LOCATED IN   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. PLEASE   INCLUDE FIBER OPTIC, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION &   TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES INCLUDING PIPE SIZE AND   MATERIAL LOCATED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.   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   (CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL).   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.   O FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE   CALCULATIONS OF PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS AREAS FOR   PROPOSED IMPROVED AREAS.       QUESTIONS AND COORDINATION CONTACTS:   O MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR WITH   CITY OF WPB PUBLIC UTILITIES, REGARDING PLACEMENT OF   BACKFLOW DEVICES AND WATER METERS. CONTACT HIM AT   561-822-2262 OR [email protected]   O MIKE TECHNOW, PROJECT ENGINEER, PUBLIC UTILITIES   DEPARTMENT AT 561-494-1047 OR [email protected]   O TRACY WARD, SR. STORMWATER ENGINEER, ENGINEERING   SERVICES DEPT. AT 561-494-1120 OR [email protected]     Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT Rev No 1 Status P Date 08-29-2022 Cont ID   Sent By pleduc Date 08-29-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By pleduc Date 08-29-2022 Time 11:46 Sent To   Notes 2022-08-29 11:52:05 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY PETER LEDUC,   FIRE MARSHAL, BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, WEST PALM   BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.       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. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE INTENDED   TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL.       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(S) SHALL COMPLY   WITH THE 7TH EDITION OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION   CODE, INCLUDING NFPA 1 & 101, AND ALL ASSOCIATED FIRE   CODES.       6. FOR PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL, PLEASE INCLUDE THE   OCCUPANCY TYPE PER THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE.       7. FOR PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL, PLEASE ENSURE THAT A FIRE   LOAD CALCULATION IS INCLUDED, AND THAT ADEQUATE WATER   SUPPLY IS EXISTING OR WILL BE PROVIDED.       8. 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.       THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND FDC SHALL   BE WITHIN 100' OF EACH OTHER AND CLOSELY COORDINATED   WITH THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION.       9. PROVIDE FOR A FIRE SPRINKLER AND/OR FIRE ALARM PER   THE APPLICABLE OCCUPANCY CODE. FOR ANY LIFE SAFETY   ENGINEERED SYSTEM, I.E FIRE SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM,   ENSURE THEY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.A.C. 61G   AND SUBMITTED WITH THE MASTER PERMIT.       9A. THE LOCATION OF ANY APPLICABLE DDCV AND FIRE LINE   LOCATIONS SHALL MEET AND BE INSTALLED PER 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.       10. COMPLETE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR THE OCCUPANCY SHALL   BE PROVIDED THAT ILLUSTRATE OCCUPANT LOADS, TRAVEL   DISTANCES, EXIT SEPARATION 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.       PLEASE REVIEW THE AMENITY DECK OCCUPANCY LOAD TOTAL AND   ENSURE THAT THERE IS THE APPLICABLE REQUIRED NUMBER OF   EXITS AND EXIT WIDTH FOR THAT/THOSE AREA(S).       11. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (REQUIRED WITH FIRE   SPRINKLER SYSTEM) THAT A KNOX BOX WITH KEYS FOR ENTRY   DOOR LOCKS BE PROVIDED FOR 24 HOUR EMERGENCY ACCESS.       12. 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.       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.       CONTACT WILL NEED TO BE MADE TO 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. THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT   DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ITS FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.           15. 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 5 Status P Date 03-15-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 03-15-2023 Time 15:19 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 03-15-2023 Time 15:19 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-15 15:20:30 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: 410 N ROSEMARY Z22080012   MARCH 15, 2023   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.   THERE ARE 7 SABAL PALMS THAT ARE FLORIDA NATIVE SPECIES   INDICATED AS GOOD CONDITION ON THE TREE DISPOSITION   PLAN AND THE ARBORISTS REPORT. REVISE DISPOSITION PLAN   AND LIST TO SHOW AS RELOCATE.   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.   REMOVE MITIGATION DUE FROM SABAL PALMS FOR RELOCATION.   ALSO, SABAL PALMS ARE CATEGORY 3, AND IF REMOVED WOULD   REQUIRE 100 SQ FT CANOPY MITIGATION EACH.   3. MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE TREE   DISPOSITION PLAN:   ??? SATISFIED. BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT FINDINGS,   IDENTIFY TREE #504 SPECIES.   ??? SATISFIED. TREE #510 IS NOT LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT   PROPERTY. NEED TO VERIFY IF IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.       4. SATISFIED. PER SECTION 94-442(B)Q. SHOW TREES AND   PALMS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE   PROPERTY LINE.       5. SATISFIED. SHEET A1.4 SHOWS THE DIAGRAMS OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT NWD-8 BUT LACKS THE   INFORMATION OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE   AND HOW THE OPEN SPACE TYPES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS COURTYARD DO NOT   MEET SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN. 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.   11/3/22:   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- LABEL EACH OF THE   4 AREAS SHOWN AS COURTYARD.   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE TOTAL   REQUIRED AND TOTAL PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MATCHING SHEET A0.2   1/30/23 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED NEED TO BE CLEARLY SHOWN   FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.   ??? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES   COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH COURTYARD   SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 THE LIVE OAKS ARE BEING COUNTED AS TREE CANOPY   FOR THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BUT ARE NO LONGER INSIDE THE   PERIMETER OF THE OPEN SPACE.   SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE AREA   COUNTED TOWARD WALK UP GARDEN AND SHOW THE VEGETATED   AREA PROVIDED WITHIN THAT TO MEET THE 40% REQUIREMENT.   ??? SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT DEPTH ON THE   DIAGRAM.   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- SHOW THE AREA   COUNTED AND LABEL THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE   1/30/23 POOL DECK IS NOT AN OPEN SPACE TYPE. IS IT   ROOFTOP GARDEN?   ??? SATISFIED. SHOW THE VEGETATED AREA COUNTED TO MEET   THE REQUIREMENT   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.   ??? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES   COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.               6. SATISFIED. SITE PLAN SHEET A1.0 DOES NOT MATCH THE   LANDSCAPE PLAN.       7. 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.   SEE COMMENTS #1 AND #2.           8. 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 FOR THE   PROPOSED 4TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE SITE.   DISREGARD 94-116 REFERENCE. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR   THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SIDE OF THE   PROPOSED 4TH ST. IN THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT CHART.       9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT WIDE PLANTING   STRIP ALONG THE CURB FOR ALL STREETSCAPE SECTIONS AND   PROVIDE A DETAIL AND SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF THE REQUIRED   STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK OR   HARDSCAPE AREAS.   PROVIDE A SEPARATE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF   STRUCTURAL SOIL CLEARLY.           10. SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS   INSIDE ALL NON RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINES ON THE   LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN. BUFFER OF 5 FEET IS REQUIRED   ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH BUILDING AND AT THE NORTH   PROPERTY LINE WITH THE TREES SPACED AT 30 FOOT   INTERVALS. ADDRESS HOW THE STREETSCAPE WILL BE PLACED   INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED   FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH ST.   LANDSCAPING PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT   CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE LINES WOULD PREVENT   INSTALLATION.   1/30/23 STILL CONFLICTS AS THERE IS A SPACING   REQUIREMENT WITH ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED BY STORMWATER   ENGINEER, AND TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THE SECTION   ADJACENT TO THE LOADING AREA.   2/27/23 THE BUFFER AND BUFFER TREES NEED TO BE PLACED   ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR   THE SOUTH BUILDING AND THE EXFILTRATION DRAINAGE NEEDS   TO BE REMOVED AND PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE.       11. SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAIL ON HOW IMPROVEMENTS FOR   THE PROPOSED 4TH STREET WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE   ADJACENT PROPERTY, MODIFYING WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT   PROPERTY INCLUDING THE BUFFER AND STREETSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS.   STAFF NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN THE DESIGNED IMPROVEMENTS WILL   BE INSTALLED AND WHO WILL MAINTAIN THEM.       12. 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. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT BE PLACED IN   REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS.   THERE MUST BE A FENCE OR OTHER MEANS OF SCREENING   INDICATED FOR THE ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA SO IT IS NOT   VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD OR STREET. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT   DISPLACE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN THE 5 FOOT LANDSCAPE   BUFFER.   1/30/23 REMOVED FROM PLAN.       13. SATISFIED. THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION LINES   ALONG ROSEMARY AVE. WILL BE REMOVED AND PLACED   UNDERGROUND IN THE FUTURE AND THE STREETSCAPE DESIGNED.   THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE   STREETSCAPE SO A PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ACCOUNTS   FOR THE FUTURE DESIGN OF THE STREETSCAPE.   PER STAFF AND THE CRA, STREETSCAPE IS TO BE PROPOSED   THAT MEETS THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS ON ROSEMARY   AVE. TREES ARE TO BE LIVE OAKS MEETING THE 20 FOOT   HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITH THE 4 FOOT WIDTH PLANTING STRIP   ADJACENT TO THE CURB.       14. 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.   DRAINAGE LINES AND EXFILTRATION TRENCHES LOCATED ALONG   THE NORTH AND EAST BUFFER ARE IN CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED   LANDSCAPING AND MUST BE PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.   1/30/23 EXFILTRATION STILL IN CONFLICT WITH BUFFER   TREES, AND THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THE BACKFLOWS   RESTRICT THE SIDEWALK AND THE PLANTING AREAS FOR THE   TREES.   2/27/23 SEE COMMENT # 10.       15. 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.       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 11/3/22:       17. SATISFIED. THE AUSTRALIAN PINE 515D MAY BE   INDICATED AS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ADJACENT CITY OWNED   PARCEL. THIS IS A PROHIBITED INVASIVE EXOTIC SPECIES   AND MAY BE A SAFETY PROBLEM DURING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION   DUE TO ITS SIZE AND PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE.       18. SATISFIED. REVISE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY POINTS CHART   TO ADD 5 POINTS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED 50 POINTS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1/30/23:       19. SATISFIED. JAPANESE BLUEBERRY AND SIMPSONS STOPPERS   MUST MEET THE MINIMUM 12 FOOT REQUIRED SIZE, CORRECT   THE PLANT LIST SPECIFICATION.       20. SATISFIED. ADJUST STREET TREE SPACING ON ALL TREES   TO MEET THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.       21. SATISFIED. STREET TREES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO   ADJACENT TO THE CURB PER CODE REQUIREMENT, 4 FOOT WIDE   PLANTING STRIP NEEDS TO BE ADDED.                   ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 2/27/23:   22. SATISFIED. THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD POWER LINES ALONG   W. RAILROAD, SO THE STREET TREES CAN BE LIVE OAKS.       23. SATISFIED. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS ARE SHOWN IN THE   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON THE UPPER FLOORS, WHICH IS   ALLOWED, BUT THE AREAS CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARD   VEGETATED AREA.       24. CONDITIONALLY SATISFIED. PER SECTION 94-113(D)(3),   THE PLANTING STRIPS IN THE STREETSCAPE ARE REQUIRED TO   BE PLANTED WITH SHRUBS OR GROUNDCOVER, SOD IS NOT   ACCEPTABLE.       25. SATISFIED. PER THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 94-109,   WALK UP GARDENS ARE INTENDED TO BE DESIGNED AS A BUFFER   FOR GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE AREAS NEED TO   HAVE MORE PLANTINGS RATHER THAN SOD.       26. SATISFIED. SHEET A1.4A SHOWING THE PRIVATE OPEN   SPACE AREAS AND THE CALCULATIONS FOR VEGETATED AREA AND   TREE CANOPY ARE CORRECT, BUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET   L-2 DOES NOT MATCH THE DESIGNATED PERIMETER, THE   VEGETATED AREA OR TREE COUNT.       27. SATISFIED. SCREENING HEDGES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR   THE GROUND MOUNTED UTILITIES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF   THE NORTH BUILDING AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE   SOUTH BUILDING. THEY MUST BE SCREENED FROM N. ROSEMARY   AVE.           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. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT   SHALL SUBMIT FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS THAT INCORPORATE THE   TYPICAL PLANTING PLANS INTO THE OVERALL PLAN AND IN A   LARGER SCALE.     Review Stop L LANDSCAPING Rev No 4 Status F Date 02-27-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 02-27-2023 Time 16:47 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 02-27-2023 Time 16:47 Sent To   Notes 2023-02-27 16:48:04 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: 410 N ROSEMARY Z22080012   FEBRUARY 27, 2023   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.   THERE ARE 7 SABAL PALMS THAT ARE FLORIDA NATIVE SPECIES   INDICATED AS GOOD CONDITION ON THE TREE DISPOSITION   PLAN AND THE ARBORISTS REPORT. REVISE DISPOSITION PLAN   AND LIST TO SHOW AS RELOCATE.   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.   REMOVE MITIGATION DUE FROM SABAL PALMS FOR RELOCATION.   ALSO, SABAL PALMS ARE CATEGORY 3, AND IF REMOVED WOULD   REQUIRE 100 SQ FT CANOPY MITIGATION EACH.   3. MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE TREE   DISPOSITION PLAN:   ??? SATISFIED. BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT FINDINGS,   IDENTIFY TREE #504 SPECIES.   ??? SATISFIED. TREE #510 IS NOT LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT   PROPERTY. NEED TO VERIFY IF IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.       4. SATISFIED. PER SECTION 94-442(B)Q. SHOW TREES AND   PALMS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE   PROPERTY LINE.       5. SATISFIED. SHEET A1.4 SHOWS THE DIAGRAMS OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT NWD-8 BUT LACKS THE   INFORMATION OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE   AND HOW THE OPEN SPACE TYPES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS COURTYARD DO NOT   MEET SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN. 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.   11/3/22:   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- LABEL EACH OF THE   4 AREAS SHOWN AS COURTYARD.   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE TOTAL   REQUIRED AND TOTAL PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MATCHING SHEET A0.2   1/30/23 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED NEED TO BE CLEARLY SHOWN   FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.   ??? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES   COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH COURTYARD   SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 THE LIVE OAKS ARE BEING COUNTED AS TREE CANOPY   FOR THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BUT ARE NO LONGER INSIDE THE   PERIMETER OF THE OPEN SPACE.   SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE AREA   COUNTED TOWARD WALK UP GARDEN AND SHOW THE VEGETATED   AREA PROVIDED WITHIN THAT TO MEET THE 40% REQUIREMENT.   ??? SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT DEPTH ON THE   DIAGRAM.   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- SHOW THE AREA   COUNTED AND LABEL THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE   1/30/23 POOL DECK IS NOT AN OPEN SPACE TYPE. IS IT   ROOFTOP GARDEN?   ??? SATISFIED. SHOW THE VEGETATED AREA COUNTED TO MEET   THE REQUIREMENT   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.   ??? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES   COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.               6. SATISFIED. SITE PLAN SHEET A1.0 DOES NOT MATCH THE   LANDSCAPE PLAN.       7. 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.   SEE COMMENTS #1 AND #2.           8. 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 FOR THE   PROPOSED 4TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE SITE.   DISREGARD 94-116 REFERENCE. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR   THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SIDE OF THE   PROPOSED 4TH ST. IN THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT CHART.       9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT WIDE PLANTING   STRIP ALONG THE CURB FOR ALL STREETSCAPE SECTIONS AND   PROVIDE A DETAIL AND SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF THE REQUIRED   STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK OR   HARDSCAPE AREAS.   PROVIDE A SEPARATE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF   STRUCTURAL SOIL CLEARLY.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE   BUFFERS INSIDE ALL NON RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINES ON   THE LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN. BUFFER OF 5 FEET IS   REQUIRED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH BUILDING AND AT   THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH THE TREES SPACED AT 30   FOOT INTERVALS. ADDRESS HOW THE STREETSCAPE WILL BE   PLACED INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE   REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH ST.   LANDSCAPING PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT   CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE LINES WOULD PREVENT   INSTALLATION.   1/30/23 STILL CONFLICTS AS THERE IS A SPACING   REQUIREMENT WITH ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED BY STORMWATER   ENGINEER, AND TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THE SECTION   ADJACENT TO THE LOADING AREA.   2/27/23 THE BUFFER AND BUFFER TREES NEED TO BE PLACED   ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR   THE SOUTH BUILDING AND THE EXFILTRATION DRAINAGE NEEDS   TO BE REMOVED AND PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE.       11. SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAIL ON HOW IMPROVEMENTS FOR   THE PROPOSED 4TH STREET WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE   ADJACENT PROPERTY, MODIFYING WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT   PROPERTY INCLUDING THE BUFFER AND STREETSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS.   STAFF NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN THE DESIGNED IMPROVEMENTS WILL   BE INSTALLED AND WHO WILL MAINTAIN THEM.       12. 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. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT BE PLACED IN   REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS.   THERE MUST BE A FENCE OR OTHER MEANS OF SCREENING   INDICATED FOR THE ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA SO IT IS NOT   VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD OR STREET. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT   DISPLACE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN THE 5 FOOT LANDSCAPE   BUFFER.   1/30/23 REMOVED FROM PLAN.       13. SATISFIED. THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION LINES   ALONG ROSEMARY AVE. WILL BE REMOVED AND PLACED   UNDERGROUND IN THE FUTURE AND THE STREETSCAPE DESIGNED.   THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE   STREETSCAPE SO A PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ACCOUNTS   FOR THE FUTURE DESIGN OF THE STREETSCAPE.   PER STAFF AND THE CRA, STREETSCAPE IS TO BE PROPOSED   THAT MEETS THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS ON ROSEMARY   AVE. TREES ARE TO BE LIVE OAKS MEETING THE 20 FOOT   HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITH THE 4 FOOT WIDTH PLANTING STRIP   ADJACENT TO THE CURB.       14. 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.   DRAINAGE LINES AND EXFILTRATION TRENCHES LOCATED ALONG   THE NORTH AND EAST BUFFER ARE IN CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED   LANDSCAPING AND MUST BE PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.   1/30/23 EXFILTRATION STILL IN CONFLICT WITH BUFFER   TREES, AND THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THE BACKFLOWS   RESTRICT THE SIDEWALK AND THE PLANTING AREAS FOR THE   TREES.   2/27/23 SEE COMMENT # 10.       15. 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.       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 11/3/22:       17. SATISFIED. THE AUSTRALIAN PINE 515D MAY BE   INDICATED AS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ADJACENT CITY OWNED   PARCEL. THIS IS A PROHIBITED INVASIVE EXOTIC SPECIES   AND MAY BE A SAFETY PROBLEM DURING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION   DUE TO ITS SIZE AND PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE.       18. SATISFIED. REVISE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY POINTS CHART   TO ADD 5 POINTS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED 50 POINTS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1/30/23:       19. SATISFIED. JAPANESE BLUEBERRY AND SIMPSONS STOPPERS   MUST MEET THE MINIMUM 12 FOOT REQUIRED SIZE, CORRECT   THE PLANT LIST SPECIFICATION.       20. SATISFIED. ADJUST STREET TREE SPACING ON ALL TREES   TO MEET THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.       21. SATISFIED. STREET TREES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO   ADJACENT TO THE CURB PER CODE REQUIREMENT, 4 FOOT WIDE   PLANTING STRIP NEEDS TO BE ADDED.                   ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 2/27/23:   22. THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD POWER LINES ALONG W.   RAILROAD, SO THE STREET TREES CAN BE LIVE OAKS.       23. ARTIFICIAL TURF AREAS ARE SHOWN IN THE PRIVATE OPEN   SPACE ON THE UPPER FLOORS, WHICH IS ALLOWED, BUT THE   AREAS CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARD VEGETATED AREA.       24. PER SECTION 94-113(D)(3), THE PLANTING STRIPS IN   THE STREETSCAPE ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED WITH SHRUBS   OR GROUNDCOVER, SOD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.       25. PER THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 94-109, WALK UP   GARDENS ARE INTENDED TO BE DESIGNED AS A BUFFER FOR   GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE AREAS NEED TO HAVE   MORE PLANTINGS RATHER THAN SOD.       26. SHEET A1.4A SHOWING THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS   AND THE CALCULATIONS FOR VEGETATED AREA AND TREE CANOPY   ARE CORRECT, BUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L-2 DOES NOT   MATCH THE DESIGNATED PERIMETER, THE VEGETATED AREA OR   TREE COUNT.       27. SCREENING HEDGES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR THE GROUND   MOUNTED UTILITIES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH   BUILDING AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH   BUILDING. THEY MUST BE SCREENED FROM N. ROSEMARY AVE.           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 01-30-2023 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 01-30-2023 Time 13:10 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 01-30-2023 Time 13:10 Sent To   Notes 2023-01-30 13:11:12 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: 410 N ROSEMARY Z22080012   JANUARY 30, 2023   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.   THERE ARE 7 SABAL PALMS THAT ARE FLORIDA NATIVE SPECIES   INDICATED AS GOOD CONDITION ON THE TREE DISPOSITION   PLAN AND THE ARBORISTS REPORT. REVISE DISPOSITION PLAN   AND LIST TO SHOW AS RELOCATE.   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.   REMOVE MITIGATION DUE FROM SABAL PALMS FOR RELOCATION.   ALSO, SABAL PALMS ARE CATEGORY 3, AND IF REMOVED WOULD   REQUIRE 100 SQ FT CANOPY MITIGATION EACH.   3. MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE TREE   DISPOSITION PLAN:   ??? SATISFIED. BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT FINDINGS,   IDENTIFY TREE #504 SPECIES.   ??? SATISFIED. TREE #510 IS NOT LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT   PROPERTY. NEED TO VERIFY IF IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.       4. SATISFIED. PER SECTION 94-442(B)Q. SHOW TREES AND   PALMS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE   PROPERTY LINE.       5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHEET A1.4 SHOWS THE DIAGRAMS   OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN   SPACE AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT NWD-8 BUT LACKS THE   INFORMATION OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE   AND HOW THE OPEN SPACE TYPES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS COURTYARD DO NOT   MEET SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN. 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.   11/3/22:   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- LABEL EACH OF THE   4 AREAS SHOWN AS COURTYARD.   ??? NOT SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE TOTAL   REQUIRED AND TOTAL PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PUBLIC   OPEN SPACE MATCHING SHEET A0.2   1/30/23 REQUIRED AND PROVIDED NEED TO BE CLEARLY SHOWN   FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.   ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND   QUANTITIES COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH   COURTYARD SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 THE LIVE OAKS ARE BEING COUNTED AS TREE CANOPY   FOR THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BUT ARE NO LONGER INSIDE THE   PERIMETER OF THE OPEN SPACE.   SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE AREA   COUNTED TOWARD WALK UP GARDEN AND SHOW THE VEGETATED   AREA PROVIDED WITHIN THAT TO MEET THE 40% REQUIREMENT.   ??? SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT DEPTH ON THE   DIAGRAM.   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- SHOW   THE AREA COUNTED AND LABEL THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE   1/30/23 POOL DECK IS NOT AN OPEN SPACE TYPE. IS IT   ROOFTOP GARDEN?   ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE VEGETATED AREA   COUNTED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.   ??? NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND   QUANTITIES COUNTED TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON SHEET L-1   1/30/23 NOT SHOWN.               6. SATISFIED. SITE PLAN SHEET A1.0 DOES NOT MATCH THE   LANDSCAPE PLAN.       7. 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.   SEE COMMENTS #1 AND #2.           8. 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 FOR THE   PROPOSED 4TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE SITE.   DISREGARD 94-116 REFERENCE. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR   THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SIDE OF THE   PROPOSED 4TH ST. IN THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT CHART.       9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT WIDE PLANTING   STRIP ALONG THE CURB FOR ALL STREETSCAPE SECTIONS AND   PROVIDE A DETAIL AND SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF THE REQUIRED   STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK OR   HARDSCAPE AREAS.   PROVIDE A SEPARATE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF   STRUCTURAL SOIL CLEARLY.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE   BUFFERS INSIDE ALL NON RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINES ON   THE LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN. BUFFER OF 5 FEET IS   REQUIRED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH BUILDING AND AT   THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH THE TREES SPACED AT 30   FOOT INTERVALS. ADDRESS HOW THE STREETSCAPE WILL BE   PLACED INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE   REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH ST.   LANDSCAPING PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT   CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE LINES WOULD PREVENT   INSTALLATION.   1/30/23 STILL CONFLICTS AS THERE IS A SPACING   REQUIREMENT WITH ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED BY STORMWATER   ENGINEER, AND TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THE SECTION   ADJACENT TO THE LOADING AREA.       11. SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAIL ON HOW IMPROVEMENTS FOR   THE PROPOSED 4TH STREET WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE   ADJACENT PROPERTY, MODIFYING WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT   PROPERTY INCLUDING THE BUFFER AND STREETSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS.   STAFF NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN THE DESIGNED IMPROVEMENTS WILL   BE INSTALLED AND WHO WILL MAINTAIN THEM.       12. 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. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT BE PLACED IN   REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS.   THERE MUST BE A FENCE OR OTHER MEANS OF SCREENING   INDICATED FOR THE ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA SO IT IS NOT   VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD OR STREET. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT   DISPLACE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN THE 5 FOOT LANDSCAPE   BUFFER.   1/30/23 REMOVED FROM PLAN.       13. SATISFIED. THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION LINES   ALONG ROSEMARY AVE. WILL BE REMOVED AND PLACED   UNDERGROUND IN THE FUTURE AND THE STREETSCAPE DESIGNED.   THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE   STREETSCAPE SO A PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ACCOUNTS   FOR THE FUTURE DESIGN OF THE STREETSCAPE.   PER STAFF AND THE CRA, STREETSCAPE IS TO BE PROPOSED   THAT MEETS THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS ON ROSEMARY   AVE. TREES ARE TO BE LIVE OAKS MEETING THE 20 FOOT   HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITH THE 4 FOOT WIDTH PLANTING STRIP   ADJACENT TO THE CURB.       14. 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.   DRAINAGE LINES AND EXFILTRATION TRENCHES LOCATED ALONG   THE NORTH AND EAST BUFFER ARE IN CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED   LANDSCAPING AND MUST BE PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.   1/30/23 EXFILTRATION STILL IN CONFLICT WITH BUFFER   TREES, AND THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THE BACKFLOWS   RESTRICT THE SIDEWALK AND THE PLANTING AREAS FOR THE   TREES.       15. 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.       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 11/3/22:       17. SATISFIED. THE AUSTRALIAN PINE 515D MAY BE   INDICATED AS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ADJACENT CITY OWNED   PARCEL. THIS IS A PROHIBITED INVASIVE EXOTIC SPECIES   AND MAY BE A SAFETY PROBLEM DURING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION   DUE TO ITS SIZE AND PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE.       18. SATISFIED. REVISE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY POINTS CHART   TO ADD 5 POINTS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED 50 POINTS.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1/30/23:       19. JAPANESE BLUEBERRY AND SIMPSONS STOPPERS MUST MEET   THE MINIMUM 12 FOOT REQUIRED SIZE, CORRECT THE PLANT   LIST SPECIFICATION.       20. ADJUST STREET TREE SPACING ON ALL TREES TO MEET THE   30 FOOT MAXIMUM.       21. STREET TREES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO ADJACENT TO THE   CURB PER CODE REQUIREMENT, 4 FOOT WIDE PLANTING STRIP   NEEDS TO BE ADDED.   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 11-03-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 11-03-2022 Time 15:50 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 11-03-2022 Time 15:50 Sent To   Notes 2022-11-03 15:50:38 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: 410 N ROSEMARY Z22080012   OCTOBER 3, 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.   THERE ARE 7 SABAL PALMS THAT ARE FLORIDA NATIVE SPECIES   INDICATED AS GOOD CONDITION ON THE TREE DISPOSITION   PLAN AND THE ARBORISTS REPORT. REVISE DISPOSITION PLAN   AND LIST TO SHOW AS RELOCATE.   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.   REMOVE MITIGATION DUE FROM SABAL PALMS FOR RELOCATION.   ALSO, SABAL PALMS ARE CATEGORY 3, AND IF REMOVED WOULD   REQUIRE 100 SQ FT CANOPY MITIGATION EACH.   3. MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE TREE   DISPOSITION PLAN:   ??? SATISFIED. BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT FINDINGS,   IDENTIFY TREE #504 SPECIES.   ??? SATISFIED. TREE #510 IS NOT LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT   PROPERTY. NEED TO VERIFY IF IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.       4. SATISFIED. PER SECTION 94-442(B)Q. SHOW TREES AND   PALMS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE   PROPERTY LINE.       5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHEET A1.4 SHOWS THE DIAGRAMS   OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN   SPACE AREAS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT NWD-8 BUT LACKS THE   INFORMATION OF THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE   AND HOW THE OPEN SPACE TYPES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS COURTYARD DO NOT   MEET SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN. 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.   11/3/22:   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- LABEL EACH OF THE 4 AREAS   SHOWN AS COURTYARD.   ??? OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE TOTAL REQUIRED AND   TOTAL PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   MATCHING SHEET A0.2   ??? PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES COUNTED   TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH COURTYARD SPACE ON   SHEET L-1   SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ??? OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4-SHOW THE AREA COUNTED TOWARD   WALK UP GARDEN AND SHOW THE VEGETATED AREA PROVIDED   WITHIN THAT TO MEET THE 40% REQUIREMENT.   ??? SHOW THE REQUIRED 7 FOOT DEPTH ON THE DIAGRAM.   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   ??? OPEN SPACE SHEET A1.4- SHOW THE AREA COUNTED AND   LABEL THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE   ??? SHOW THE VEGETATED AREA COUNTED TO MEET THE   REQUIREMENT   ??? PROVIDE THE TREE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES COUNTED   TOWARD TREE CANOPY PROVIDED FOR EACH PRIVATE OPEN SPACE   ON SHEET L-1           6. SATISFIED. SITE PLAN SHEET A1.0 DOES NOT MATCH THE   LANDSCAPE PLAN.       7. NOT 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.   SEE COMMENTS #1 AND #2.           8. 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   FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE SITE.   DISREGARD 94-116 REFERENCE. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR   THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH SIDE OF THE   PROPOSED 4TH ST. IN THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT CHART.       9. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT   WIDE PLANTING STRIP ALONG THE CURB FOR ALL STREETSCAPE   SECTIONS AND PROVIDE A DETAIL AND SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF   THE REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE ADJACENT   SIDEWALK OR HARDSCAPE AREAS.   PROVIDE A SEPARATE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF   STRUCTURAL SOIL CLEARLY.           10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE   BUFFERS INSIDE ALL NON RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINES ON   THE LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN. BUFFER OF 5 FEET IS   REQUIRED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTH BUILDING AND AT   THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH THE TREES SPACED AT 30   FOOT INTERVALS. ADDRESS HOW THE STREETSCAPE WILL BE   PLACED INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE   REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH ST.   LANDSCAPING PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT   CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE LINES WOULD PREVENT   INSTALLATION.       11. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE DETAIL ON HOW   IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH STREET WILL BE   INSTALLED ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, MODIFYING WHAT IS   REQUIRED FOR THAT PROPERTY INCLUDING THE BUFFER AND   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.   STAFF NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN THE DESIGNED IMPROVEMENTS WILL   BE INSTALLED AND WHO WILL MAINTAIN THEM.       12. PARTIALLY 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. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT BE PLACED   IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS.   THERE MUST BE A FENCE OR OTHER MEANS OF SCREENING   INDICATED FOR THE ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA SO IT IS NOT   VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD OR STREET. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT   DISPLACE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IN THE 5 FOOT LANDSCAPE   BUFFER.           13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION   LINES ALONG ROSEMARY AVE. WILL BE REMOVED AND PLACED   UNDERGROUND IN THE FUTURE AND THE STREETSCAPE DESIGNED.   THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE   STREETSCAPE SO A PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ACCOUNTS   FOR THE FUTURE DESIGN OF THE STREETSCAPE.   PER STAFF AND THE CRA, STREETSCAPE IS TO BE PROPOSED   THAT MEETS THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS ON ROSEMARY   AVE. TREES ARE TO BE LIVE OAKS MEETING THE 20 FOOT   HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WITH THE 4 FOOT WIDTH PLANTING STRIP   ADJACENT TO THE CURB.       14. 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.   DRAINAGE LINES AND EXFILTRATION TRENCHES LOCATED ALONG   THE NORTH AND EAST BUFFER ARE IN CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED   LANDSCAPING AND MUST BE PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.       15. 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.       16. SATISFIED. PROVIDE SCREENING HEDGES FOR ALL GROUND   MOUNTED VALVES AND EQUIPMENT AND ADD A NOTE THAT ALL   EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED.       ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 11/3/22:       17. THE AUSTRALIAN PINE 515D MAY BE INDICATED AS TO BE   REMOVED FROM THE ADJACENT CITY OWNED PARCEL. THIS IS A   PROHIBITED INVASIVE EXOTIC SPECIES AND MAY BE A SAFETY   PROBLEM DURING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DUE TO ITS SIZE AND   PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY LINE.       18. REVISE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY POINTS CHART TO ADD 5   POINTS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED 50 POINTS.   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 09-06-2022 Cont ID   Sent By rcaranci Date 09-06-2022 Time 12:44 Rev Time 0.00 Received By rcaranci Date 09-06-2022 Time 12:43 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-06 12:45:26 FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER   561-822-1462   PROJECT: 410 N ROSEMARY Z22080012   SEPTEMBER 6, 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.   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. MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE TREE   DISPOSITION PLAN:   ? BASED ON THE ARBORIST REPORT FINDINGS, IDENTIFY TREE   #504 SPECIES.   ? TREE #510 IS NOT LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.   NEED TO VERIFY IF IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.       4. PER SECTION 94-442(B)Q. SHOW TREES AND PALMS ON THE   ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY   LINE.       5. SHEET A1.4 SHOWS THE DIAGRAMS OF THE REQUIRED AND   PROVIDED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THE   ZONING DISTRICT NWD-8 BUT LACKS THE INFORMATION OF THE   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HOW THE OPEN   SPACE TYPES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE PUBLIC OPEN   SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS COURTYARD DO NOT MEET SOME OF   THE REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN. 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.       6. SITE PLAN SHEET A1.0 DOES NOT MATCH THE LANDSCAPE   PLAN FOR THE       7. IDENTIFY RELOCATED TREES OR PALMS ON THE PLANT LIST   AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES IF THEY ARE TO   BE USED ON SITE.       8. 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 FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH   STREET ADJACENT TO THE SITE.       9. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT WIDE PLANTING STRIP   ALONG THE CURB FOR ALL STREETSCAPE SECTIONS AND PROVIDE   A DETAIL AND SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF THE REQUIRED   STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK OR   HARDSCAPE AREAS.       10. SHOW THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS INSIDE ALL NON   RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINES ON THE LANDSCAPE AND SITE   PLAN. BUFFER OF 5 FEET IS REQUIRED ON THE EAST SIDE OF   THE SOUTH BUILDING AND AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH   THE TREES SPACED AT 30 FOOT INTERVALS. ADDRESS HOW THE   STREETSCAPE WILL BE PLACED INSTEAD OF THE LANDSCAPE   BUFFER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED 4TH ST.       11. PROVIDE DETAIL ON HOW IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED   4TH STREET WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY,   MODIFYING WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT PROPERTY INCLUDING   THE BUFFER AND STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.       12. 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. ARTIFICIAL TURF CANNOT BE PLACED IN   REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS.       13. THE EXISTING FPL TRANSMISSION LINES ALONG ROSEMARY   AVE. WILL BE REMOVED AND PLACED UNDERGROUND IN THE   FUTURE AND THE STREETSCAPE DESIGNED. THE APPLICANT IS   REQUIRED TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE STREETSCAPE SO A   PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE FUTURE   DESIGN OF THE STREETSCAPE.       14. 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.       15. 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.       16. 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 PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 3 Status P Date 03-15-2023 Cont ID   Sent By relizond Date 03-15-2023 Time 13:18 Rev Time 0.00 Received By relizond Date 03-15-2023 Time 12:50 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-15 13:17:58 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS   DURING ENGINEERING REVIEW)       PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED   CONDITIONS FOR WATER AND SEWER   ALL INSTALLED WATER MAIN MUST BE DIP PER CITY   STANDARDS   DOUBLE VALVING AND JUMPER ASSEMBLY WILL BE NECESSARY   FOR TIE-INS TO EXISTING WATER MAIN FOR PIGGING AND   FLUSHING TESTING PER CITY DETAIL P-6   LABEL ALL FITTING THAT ARE TO BE INSTALLED   INCLUDE ALL DRY UTILITIES ON THE PLANS, INCLUDING THOSE   PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION   PROFILE 4 SHOWS PROPOSED WATER MAIN TO ONLY BE 9.5   INCHES ABOVE EXISTING 30" SEWER MAIN   HAVE AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN IN THE EVENT OF THE   30" SEWER MAIN COLLAPSING DURING CONSTRUCTION       MORE COMMENTS PENDING REVISIONS ON NEXT SUBMITTAL       RICKY ELIZONDO   [email protected]     Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 2 Status F Date 01-24-2023 Cont ID   Sent By relizond Date 01-24-2023 Time 10:21 Rev Time 0.00 Received By relizond Date 01-24-2023 Time 10:22 Sent To   Notes 2023-01-24 10:21:44 -MANHOLES WITH LATERALS BEING CORED INTO THEM WILL   REQUIRE REHABBING   -DENOTE ANY AND ALL WATER SERVICES THAT ARE TO BE   REMOVED AND CAPPED AT MAIN   -PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED   CONDITIONS FOR WATER AND SEWER   -ALL INSTALLED WATER MAIN MUST BE DIP PER CITY   STANDARDS   -DOUBLE VALVING AND JUMPER ASSEMBLY WILL BE NECESSARY   FOR TIE-INS TO EXISTING WATER MAIN FOR PIGGING AND   FLUSHING TESTING PER CITY DETAIL P-6   -LABEL ALL FITTING THAT ARE TO BE INSTALLED   -INCLUDE ALL DRY UTILITIES ON THE PLANS, INCLUDING   THOSE PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION   -PROFILE 4 SHOWS PROPOSED WATER MAIN TO ONLY BE 9.5   INCHES ABOVE EXISTING 30" SEWER MAIN   -HAVE AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN IN THE EVENT OF   THE 30" SEWER MAIN COLLAPSING DURING CONSTRUCTION       RICKY ELIZONDO [email protected]             Review Stop PU PUBLIC UTILITIES Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mtechnow Date 09-07-2022 Time 16:55 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mtechnow Date 09-07-2022 Time 16:28 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-07 16:55:54 -CALL FOR MANHOLE TO BE INSTALLED AT JUNCTION OF   PROPOSSED SANITARY LATERAL AND 30" GRAVITY MAIN PER   HEALTH DEPT STANDARDS.   -UPSIZE THE EXISITNG 8" WM ON ROSEMARY TO 12" WITHIN   PROJECT LIMITS (3RD ST TO 5TH ST).   -UPSIZE THE EXISTING 8" WM ON W RAILROAD AVE TO 10"   WITHIN PROJECT LIMIT. (3RD ST. TO 5TH ST.)   -FOR ENG SUBMITTAL PROVIDE LOS CALCULATIONS AND FIRE   FLOW CALCS ON PLAN SHEET.       MICHAEL TECHNOW [email protected] Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 3 Status P Date 01-06-2023 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 01-06-2023 Time 07:26 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-01-06 07:26:04 -ATTEMPT TO ATTAIN CLOSER TO 5 FEET HORIZONTAL   CLEARANCE BETWEEN NORTHWEST SEWER LATERAL AND TREE   TRUNK.   -AT ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL, CORRECT LEADER   LINES FOR UTILITY EASEMENTS.   -WATER SERVICES WILL NEED REVISION AT ENGINEERING   DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL. SEE PRIOR REVIEW COMMENTS   CONCERNING PIPE SIZING.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected] Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 2 Status F Date 10-24-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 10-24-2022 Time 14:04 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-10-24 14:04:13 PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING:   -C900 CANNOT BE USED FOR THE WATER MAINS AND LARGE   WATER SERVICES. SWITCH TO DIP.   -ADJUST BOUNDARIES OF PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS SO   THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THE DCDA FIRELINE BACKFLOW   ASSEMBLIES.   -4 INCH WATERMETER SHOULD HAVE 4 INCH PIPE FROM METER   TO WATER MAIN.   -6 INCH WATER METER SHOULD HAVE 6 INCH PIPE AND   FITTINGS INSTEAD OF 4 INCH.   -ADD PROFILE OF ENTIRE PROPOSE WATER MAIN WITH   SUBMITTAL PACKAGE AT ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL.   -LANDSCAPE PLAN SEEMS TO SHOW TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF   SIDEWALK AT THE SOUTHWEST AREA OF 4TH ST. IS THAT   INTENTIONAL AND WILL IT IMPEDE PEDESTRIAN OR ADA   MOVEMENT?   -ALSO ON LANDSCAPE PLAN DISTANCE BETWEEN TREE TRUNK AND   SEWER CLEANOUT NEAR THE NORTHWEST SIDE LOOKS TOO CLOSE.   IF UNDER 5 FEET NEED MORE HORIZTONAL CLEARANCE   DISTANCE.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected] Review Stop PU-CS PUBLIC UTILITIES CUSTOMER SRVC Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-03-2022 Cont ID   Sent By mhurley Date 09-03-2022 Time 08:41 Rev Time 0.00 Received By mhurley Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-03 08:41:42 PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING:   -DOMESTIC 8 INCH METER WOULD NEED TO BE ABOVE-GROUND   REFERENCING STANDARD DETAIL WS3. ADD WORDING   ABOVE-GROUND TO LABEL ALONG WITH STANDARD DETAIL   REFERENCE.   -PROPOSED 8 INCH METER CANNOT BE OBSTRUCTED BY   BUILDING, WALL, OR FENCE AND MUST BE NO GREATER THAN 15   FEET FROM STREET TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT WITH CITY CRANE   TRUCK.   -CITY DOES NOT STOCK 8 INCH METERS AND WOULD HAVE TO BE   ORDERED AFTER FORMAL QUOTE IS PAID AND UTILITY BILLING   ACCOUNTS SETUP. MAY EXPERIENCE LONG LEAD TIMES TILL   METER IS RECEIVED AFTER ORDER, AND PROJECT SHOULD ALSO   ANTICIPATE THE DELAY BETWEEN WATER SERVICE BUILDOUT AND   METER INSTALLATION.   -ADD SYMBOL FOR WATER METER ON LEGEND AND SHOW THEM ON   PLANS. RECOMMEND SHOWING METERS AT MORE REALISTIC SCALE   AS THE LARGER METERS AND BACKFLOWS CAN HAVE INCREASED   FOOTPRINT.   -SHEET C5. PROPOSED FIRELINE CANNOT BE UNDER OR NEAR   EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE.   -ENSURE THAT PROPOSED FIRELINE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY   LOCATIONS ARE NFPA COMPLIANT.   -SHEET C7 SHOWS EXISTING UTILITY POLE AND GUY WIRE IN   MIDDLE OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY.   -SHEET C6: FAR NORTHEAST DRIVEWAY FLARE SEEMS TO BE   EXTENDING ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY; EXISTING LIGHT   POLE IN PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON EAST SIDE; DIGITAL SIGN   AND SEAL NOT READABLE.   -IF FDC ARE NEEDED OR REQUIRED, SHOW AND LABEL ON PLANS   AND ENSURE ACCEPTABLE DISTANCE FROM FIRE HYDRANT.   -SHEET C6. NORTHWEST DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE SHOWS   CONFLICT WITH SOME KIND OF UTILITY IN SIDEWALK.   -ENGINEERING PLANS AND SURVEY SHOW GAS MARKER ON WEST   SIDE OF PROJECT. HISTORIC PICTURES ALSO SHOW GAS LINE   LOCATES. SHOW BETTER ALL EXISTING GAS UTILITIES, AND IF   REMAINING ENSURE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN PROJECT AND GAS   UTILITIES.   -CALLOUT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND   CLEANOUTS.   -SUBMIT SEPARATE LANDSCAPING SHEET THAT SHOWS ALL TREES   AND UTILITIES. ENSURE THAT UTILITIES AND TREES HAVE   APPROPRIATE CLEARANCE DISTANCE.   -CONSIDER PARALLEL/DUAL DOMESTIC BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES TO   MINIMIZE WATER OUTAGES DURING BACKFLOW MAINTENANCE.   -VERIFY PRIVATE FIRE SYSTEM WILL NOT HAVE ANY AUXILIARY   WATER SUPPLIES CONNECTED TO IT SUCH AS WELLS.   -WILL ACCESS EASEMENT INCLUDE USE OF BRIDGE AND   TERRACES?   -A2.1 SHOWS PROPOSED 4TH ST ALLEY AS ONE WAY. ON C7 ARE   ANY ONE WAY OR DO NOT ENTER SIGNS NEEDED?   -ON PGD PLAN NEAR THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, IS THE AREA   NEAR THE GENERATOR AND FPL ROOM DOORS CONCRETE? IF SO,   ADD CORRECT CONCRETE SHADING.   -A5.1 SHOWS AREA OF PROPOSED SOUTHWEST FIRELINE   BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TO BE ELEVATED. CITY UTILITY WORKERS   MUST HAVE SAFE AND EASY ACCESS TO ALL WATER METERS   INCLUDING FIRELINE DETECTOR METERS. ON WATER PLAN ADD   SPOT ELEVATIONS AROUND THAT AREA SHOWING HEIGHT   DIFFERENCE.   -ADD WATER AND SEWER DEMAND CALCULATIONS TO SHEET C6.   RESPECTFULLY,   MARK HURLEY [email protected] Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 4 Status P Date 03-15-2023 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 03-15-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 03-15-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-02-27 14:40:03 NO FURTHER COMMENTS.       MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected] Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 3 Status F Date 01-12-2023 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 01-12-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 01-12-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-01-12 10:05:14 IF THE INDOOR STAGING AREA DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM   HEIGHT CLEARANCE OF 21 FT, THE TRASH CONTAINERS SHALL   BE ROLLED OUT BY THE CURBSIDE ON THE SERVICE DAYS. THE   SITE PLAN SHOULD REFLECT THE STAGING AREA FOR THE   CONTAINERS, WHICH HAS TO BE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS.           MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045 Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 2 Status P Date 10-20-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 10-20-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 10-20-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-10-20 15:45:40 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:   1- THE TRASH CONTAINERS SHALL BE FRONT LOAD TYPE.   2- THE TRASH CONTAINERS SHALL BE ROLLED OUT BY THE   CURBSIDE ON THE SERVICE DAYS. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD   REFLECT THE STAGING AREA FOR THE CONTAINERS, WHICH HAS   TO BE APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS.       MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045 Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS Rev No 1 Status F Date 08-23-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 08-23-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 08-23-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-08-23 10:40:10     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).   7- ALL THE PARKING STALL PAINTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE   CITY`S MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 94-485 AND FLORIDA   STATUES [553.5041 F.S.].   8- SIGNAGE PLAN. ALL STRIPING AND SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY   WITH THE LATEST CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH STANDARD   DETAILS AND MEET THE M.U.T.C.D. LATEST EDITION.   9- ALL PAVEMENT MARKING , SIGNING AND SIDEWALK DAMAGED   DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED.               MATT HEJAZI   DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS   [email protected]   561-822-2045     Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 3 Status P Date 03-15-2023 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 03-15-2023 Time 11:30 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 03-15-2023 Time 11:40 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-15 11:39:47 THE CIVIL PLANS EMAILED TO T. WARD ON 3/14/23 ARE   SUFFICIENT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING   DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED. THESE CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH   THE ENGINEERING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.       1. EXISTING UTILITIES ARE MISSING FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY   ON SHEET C-5.       2. RUNOFF IN THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEM TO PASS   OVER A WEIR BEFORE FLOWING THROUGH A BLEEDER.       3. SUGGEST EXTENDING SIDEWALK BEHIND THE PARKWAY ON 3RD   ST. TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE EAST DRIVEWAY TO 3RD ST.   THIS WILL SHORTEN THE LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG THE EAST   PROPERTY LINE.       4. REMOVE OR MOVE THE DRAINAGE OUTFALL PIPE LABEL NECT   TO STRUCTURE NO. 11.       TRACY WARD, PE   SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT   561-494-1120 (O)   [email protected] Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 2 Status F Date 02-23-2023 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 02-23-2023 Time 11:32 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 02-23-2023 Time 11:42 Sent To   Notes 2023-02-23 11:39:40 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE   2/17/2023 SUBMITTAL:       1. [NOT SATISFIED] THE CITY'S OFFICIAL VERTICAL DATUM   IS NGVD1929. THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THE USE OF NAVD1988   AS LONG AS THE CONVERSION EQUATION TO NGVD1929 AT THE   PROJECT LOCATION IS PROVIDED. PROVIDE VERTICAL DATUM   CONVERSION TO NGVD1929 ON THE SURVEYS. SEVERAL OF THE   SURVEYS LIST NAVD1988 AS THE VERTICAL DATUM BUT THERE   MAY NOT BE ELEVATION DATA ON THE SURVEYS. EVERY SHEET   WITH ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOULD LIST THE VERTICAL   DATUM AND THE CONVERSION EQUATION TO NGVD1929.       2. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE SCALE BAR ON THE   ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THE LISTED SCALES (1/8 INCH = 1   FEET) ON THE FLOOR PLANS (SHEETS A2.2, ETC.) ARE DOUBLE   THE SCALE OF WHAT IS PRESENTED ON THE DRAWINGS.       3. [SATISFIED] SHOW UTILITIES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.       4. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING   UTILITY LINES (SIZE, MATERIAL, TYPE - STORM, SAN., WM,   ETC.) ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS.       5. [NOT SATISFIED - FENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED] PORTIONS   OF NORTH AND EAST EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCING IS ON   PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.       6. [SATISFIED] PORTION OF PROPOSED NORTH DRIVEWAY APRON   TO W. RAILROAD AVE WILL BE ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY   APPLICANT.       7. [SATISFIED] PORTION OF ROADWAY, SIDEWALK AND   DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS   LOCATED ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.       8. [NOT SATISFIED] PROPOSED SIDEWALK ON ADJACENT   PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ALONG W. RAILROAD AVE DOES NOT   ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.       9. [NOT SATISFIED - RESPONSE TO COMMENT NOT FOUND]   SIDEWALK EASEMENT WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED   SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES AND   POSSIBLY THE SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT ON THE WEST PROPERTY   LINE.       10. [SATISFIED] SHOW SIDEWALK CONNECTION AND CURB RAMP   TO THE CROSSWALK ON 3RD STREET.       11. [NOT SATISFIED] SIDEWALK EAST OF EAST DRIVEWAY TO   3RD STREET WILL BE ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE   APPLICANT NOR DOES THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK ALIGN WITH THE   EXISTING SIDEWALK.       12. [NOT SATISFIED] DRIVEWAY APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF   WAY SHOULD BE CONCRETE.       13. [NOT SATISFIED] DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WILL AFFECT   EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.       14. [NOT SATISFIED] PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS FOR THE   FOLLOWING. SHOW, IF APPLICABLE, RIGHT OF WAY LINE,   STREET NAME, GRADE BREAKS, SURFACE FEATURES, DIMENSIONS   FROM RIGHT OF WAY TO BACK OF SIDEWALK, FACE OF   BUILDING, HIGH POINTS OF DRIVEWAYS, BACK OF CURB, ETC.   A. ALL DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.   SECTION TO EXTEND FROM CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY TO 5   FEET BEYOND HIGH POINT OF DRIVEWAY.   B. NORTH-SOUTH SECTION ON THE 4TH STREET DRIVE   EXTENSION FROM FACE OF BUILDING TO FACE OF BUILDING.   C. FROM CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY TO EACH BUILDING   FACE.   D. FROM NORTH FACE OF NORTH BUILDING TO THE EXISTING   PARKING LOT ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE SECTION   TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE LONGER NORTH PROPERTY LINE.       15. [NOT SATISFIED] DRAW THE OUTLINE OF THE   EXFILTRATION TRENCH TO THE DESIGN WIDTH (EXFILTRATION   TRENCH DETAIL SHOWS 8 FEET WIDE TRENCH) ON THE PLANS.   FOR THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH ALONG W. RAILROAD AVE., THE   TRENCH WILL BE THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK AND EXTEND   FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE BUILDING FACE. FOR   THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH ALONG THE EXTENSION OF 4TH   STREET, THE CENTER OF THE PIPE IS LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM   THE SOUTH BUILDING. BUILDING FOUNDATIONS WILL NEED TO   BE DESIGNED SO THAT THE SLAB WILL NOT BE UNDERMINED   WHEN THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH WILL BE REPLACED WHEN IT   IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED. ANY SLAB OR TREE   ROOT BARRIER ADJACENT TO THE TRENCH WILL IMPEDE THE   FLOW OUT THAT SIDE OF THE TRENCH AND SHOULD BE   ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH EQUATION.       16. [NOT SATISFIED - RESPONSE TO COMMENT NOT FOUND]   CONSIDER THERE WILL BE PROPER VERTICAL CLEARANCE FOR   MAINTAINING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REPLACING THE   EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEM WHEN IT IS NO LONGER   FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED WITHIN THE ENCLOSED PARKING   AREAS OF THE BUILDING.       17. [NOT SATISFIED - RESPONSE TO COMMENT NOT FOUND.]   CONSIDER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN   LIEU OR IN COMBINATION WITH THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH   SYSTEM.       18. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED - SOME STRUCTURES ARE MISSING   RIM ELEVATIONS] NUMBER THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR EASE   OF REFERENCE. NO DESIGN INFORMATION (RIM, INVERT   ELEVATIONS) IS PROVIDED.       19. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED - LABEL WAS REMOVED. ADD THE   LABEL BACK TO THE PGD PLAN AND POINT TO THE RIGHT   CONNECTION] THE OUTFALL CONNECTION TO CITY DRAINAGE   SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE MISLABELED. IT IS SHOWN POINTING   TO THE FIRST NORTH-SOUTH PIPE SOUTH OF THE 4TH STREET   EXTENSION AND EAST OF THE BUILDING.       20. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SIGNING AND PAVEMENT   MARKINGS:   A. [NOT SHOWN] STOP BAR AND SIGN NEEDED FOR SERVICE   DRIVE DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO W.   RAILROAD AVE.   B. [NOT SHOWN] STOP BAR AND SIGN NEEDED FOR THE TWO   DRIVEWAYS TO 3RD STREET.   C. [SATISFIED] DO NOT ENTER AND ONE-WAY SIGNS AT EAST   END OF 4TH STREET EXTENSION DRIVE.   D. [NOT SHOWN] ONE WAY SIGN AT WEST END OF 4TH STREET   EXTENSION DRIVE.   E. [NOT SHOWN] SHARED BIKE LANE SIGNS FOR N. ROSEMARY.   F. [REVIEW COLOR OF CENTERLINE STRIPING] PROVIDE   STRIPING PLAN FOR N. ROSEMARY AVE. IS THE PLAN TO NOT   RESTORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MUSICAL THEME PAVEMENT   STRIPING?       21. [NOT SATISFIED] SHEET C-9 INCLUDES A VEHICULAR AREA   PAVER DETAIL. PLEASE IDENTIFY WHERE THESE AREAS ARE ON   THE PGD PLAN.   NEW COMMENTS (2/17/2023 SUBMITTAL)       22. JUSTIFY THE OUTFALL DIAMETER LARGER THAN 15 INCHES.       23. THE EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE THAT THE OUTFALL   PIPE CONNECTS INTO MAY NOT BE BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE   THE NEW PIPE CONNECTION.       24. IF THE PAVEMENT ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING CURB RAMP   IS MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER (INCLUDING MILL AND   RESURFACING), THE CURB RAMP IS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED TO   MEET CURRENT ADA CRITERIA IF THE RAMP DOES NOT MEET ADA   CRITERIA.       25. ALL ONSITE DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE SHALL NOT   ENCROACH INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.       CONDITIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL   A. LIST VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE AND CONVERSION   EQUATION TO NGVD1929 ON ALL SHEETS WITH ELEVATION   INFORMATION.       B. SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING UTILITY LINES (SIZE,   MATERIAL, TYPE ? STORM, SAN., WM, ETC.) ON THE   ENGINEERING PLANS.       C. SHOW THE PROPOSED SIDEWALKS BEHIND A LANDSCAPE STRIP   TRANSITIONING TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO THE   CURB AT ALL PROPERTY LINES.       D. DRIVEWAY APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO BE   CONCRETE PER CITY DETAILS GC-5 AND GC-6.       E. CALLOUT MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING DRAINAGE   STRUCTURES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.   VALLEY GUTTER MAY BE NEEDED ACROSS DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS   TO THE STREET.       F. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS PER COMMENT #14 ABOVE.   SIDEWALK AREA ACROSS DRIVEWAY APRONS TO BE MEET WIDTH   AND ADA CRITERIA.       G. COORDINATE LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER SYSTEM DESIGN.   THE PROPOSED WIDTH OF THE AXFILTRATION TRENCHES WILL   TAKE UP MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE PLANTING AREA WHERE SOME   OF THE EXFILTRATION TRENCHES ARE LOCATED.       H. EXFILTRATION TRENCHES LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING OR   UNDERNEATH BUILDING SUFFICIENT VERTICAL CLEARANCE FOR   MAINTENANCE VEHICLES TO CLEAN THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND   FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO REPLACE THE EXFILTRATION   TRENCHES WHEN THEY DO NOT FUNCTION AS DESIGNED.       I. PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE   WITH MUTCD. LABEL ALL PROPOSED MARKINGS AND SIGNS.       J. SHOULD THE 4TH STREET EXTENSION EASEMENT BECOME   PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE   DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE R/W SHALL BECOME THE   RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.           TRACY WARD, PE   SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER   ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT   561-494-1120 (O)   [email protected]     Review Stop STORM STORMWATER Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-08-2022 Cont ID   Sent By tward Date 09-08-2022 Time 12:48 Rev Time 0.00 Received By tward Date 09-08-2022 Time 12:49 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-08 12:49:38 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. THE CITY?S OFFICIAL VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD1929. THE   CITY HAS ALLOWED THE USE OF NAVD1988 AS LONG AS THE   CONVERSION EQUATION TO NGVD1929 AT THE PROJECT LOCATION   IS PROVIDED. PROVIDE VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION TO   NGVD1929 ON THE SURVEYS. SEVERAL OF THE SURVEYS LIST   NAVD1988 AS THE VERTICAL DATUM BUT THERE MAY NOT BE   ELEVATION DATA ON THE SURVEYS.       2. PROVIDE SCALE BAR ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. THE   LISTED SCALES (1/8? = 1 FEET) ON THE FLOOR PLANS   (SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, ETC.) ARE DOUBLE THE SCALE OF WHAT   IS PRESENTED ON THE DRAWINGS.       3. SHOW UTILITIES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.       4. SHOW AND LABEL ALL EXISTING UTILITY LINES (SIZE,   MATERIAL, TYPE ? STORM, SAN., WM, ETC.) ON THE   ENGINEERING PLANS.       5. PORTIONS OF NORTH AND EAST EXISTING CHAIN LINK   FENCING IS ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.       6. PORTION OF PROPOSED NORTH DRIVEWAY APRON TO W.   RAILROAD AVE WILL BE ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY   APPLICANT.       7. PORTION OF ROADWAY, SIDEWALK AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN   THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED ON PROPERTY   NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.       8. PROPOSED SIDEWALK ON ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH   ALONG W. RAILROAD AVE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING   SIDEWALK.       9. SIDEWALK EASEMENT WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED   SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES AND   POSSIBLY THE SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT ON THE WEST PROPERTY   LINE.       10. SHOW SIDEWALK CONNECTION AND CURB RAMP TO THE   CROSSWALK ON 3RD STREET.       11. SIDEWALK EAST OF EAST DRIVEWAY TO 3RD STREET WILL   BE ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT NOR DOES THE   PROPOSED SIDEWALK ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.       12. DRIVEWAY APRONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD BE   CONCRETE.       13. DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WILL AFFECT EXISTING DRAINAGE   STRUCTURES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.       14. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING. SHOW, IF   APPLICABLE, RIGHT OF WAY LINE, STREET NAME, GRADE   BREAKS, SURFACE FEATURES, DIMENSIONS FROM RIGHT OF WAY   TO BACK OF SIDEWALK, FACE OF BUILDING, HIGH POINTS OF   DRIVEWAYS, BACK OF CURB, ETC.   A. ALL DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.   SECTION TO EXTEND FROM CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY TO 5   FEET BEYOND HIGH POINT OF DRIVEWAY.   B. NORTH-SOUTH SECTION ON THE 4TH STREET DRIVE   EXTENSION FROM FACE OF BUILDING TO FACE OF BUILDING.   C. FROM CENTERLINE OF RIGHT OF WAY TO EACH BUILDING   FACE.   D. FROM NORTH FACE OF NORTH BUILDING TO THE EXISTING   PARKING LOT ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE SECTION   TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE LONGER NORTH PROPERTY LINE.       15. DRAW THE OUTLINE OF THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH TO THE   DESIGN WIDTH (EXFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL SHOWS 10 FEET   WIDE TRENCH) ON THE PLANS. FOR THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH   ALONG W. RAILROAD AVE., THE TRENCH WILL BE THE WIDTH OF   THE SIDEWALK AND EXTEND FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO   THE BUILDING FACE. FOR THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH ALONG   THE EXTENSION OF 4TH STREET, THE CENTER OF THE PIPE IS   LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM THE SOUTH BUILDING. BUILDING   FOUNDATIONS WILL NEED TO BE DESIGNED SO THAT THE SLAB   WILL NOT BE UNDERMINED WHEN THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH   WILL BE REPLACED WHEN IT IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING AS   DESIGNED. ANY SLAB ADJACENT TO THE TRENCH WILL IMPEDE   THE FLOW OUT THAT SIDE OF THE TRENCH AND SHOULD BE   ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH EQUATION.       16. CONSIDER THERE WILL BE PROPER VERTICAL CLEARANCE   FOR MAINTAINING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REPLACING THE   EXFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEM WHEN IT IS NO LONGER   FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED WITHIN THE ENCLOSED PARKING   AREAS OF THE BUILDING.       17. CONSIDER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN   LIEU OR IN COMBINATION WITH THE EXFILTRATION TRENCH   SYSTEM.       18. NUMBER THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR EASE OF   REFERENCE. NO DESIGN INFORMATION (RIM, INVERT   ELEVATIONS) IS PROVIDED.       19. THE OUTFALL CONNECTION TO CITY DRAINAGE SYSTEM   APPEARS TO BE MISLABELED. IT IS SHOWN POINTING TO THE   FIRST NORTH-SOUTH PIPE SOUTH OF THE 4TH STREET   EXTENSION AND EAST OF THE BUILDING.       20. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS:   A. STOP BAR AND SIGN NEEDED FOR SERVICE DRIVE DRIVEWAY   AND GARAGE ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO W. RAILROAD AVE.   B. STOP BAR AND SIGN NEEDED FOR THE TWO DRIVEWAYS TO   3RD STREET.   C. DO NOT ENTER AND ONE-WAY SIGNS AT EAST END OF 4TH   STREET EXTENSION DRIVE.   D. ONE WAY SIGN AT WEST END OF 4TH STREET EXTENSION   DRIVE.   E. SHARED BIKE LANE SIGNS FOR N. ROSEMARY.   F. PROVIDE STRIPING PLAN FOR N. ROSEMARY AVE. IS THE   PLAN TO NOT RESTORE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MUSICAL THEME   PAVEMENT STRIPING?       21. SHEET C-8 INCLUDES A VEHICULAR AREA PAVER DETAIL.   PLEASE IDENTIFY WHERE THESE AREAS ARE ON THE PGD PLAN.       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 COPY OF SFWMD ERP PERMIT BEFORE START OF   CONSTRUCTION.       3. PROVIDE EROSION AND SEDIMENT 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 2 Status P Date 03-06-2023 Cont ID   Sent By vnoel Date 03-06-2023 Time 12:17 Rev Time 0.00 Received By vnoel Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-03-06 12:22:31 PASSED WITH CONDITIONS:       1. RESPNOSE TO COMMENTS ON 10.14.2022 STATED THAT   REPLAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. NO REPLAT OR MINOR   SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED.   2. REPLAT WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO C.O.   3. EXISTING EASEMENT HAS BEEN SENT TO OUR LAW DEPT. FOR   REVIEW AS CITY WAS NOT A PARTY TO IT. Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By vnoel Date 09-07-2022 Time 10:24 Rev Time 0.00 Received By vnoel Date   Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-07 11:04:04 1. REPLAT WILL BE REQUIRED. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT WILL   BE REQUIRED OVER 4TH STREET.   2. NEED CONSENT FROM ADJACENT OWNER AS TO 4TH STREET   IMPROVEMENTS.   3. DOORWAY SHOULD NOT OPEN INTO SIDEWALK ALONG W.   RAILROAD AVE.   4. NORTH SERVICE ROAD TURNOUT CANNOT ENCROACH INTO   ADJOINING PROPERTY. MOVE ROADWAY OFF OF PROPERTY LINE.   5. NEED BLOW-UP OF PROPOSED METER/BACKFLOW/LANDSCAPE   AREAS.   6. R/W MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 5 Status P Date 03-06-2023 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 03-06-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 03-06-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-03-06 22:39:02 APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:   1) DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION AND THE   ROAD CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY ON 3RD ST SHOULD BE   RIGHT-IN ONLY, NO LEFT-TURNING INBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD   BE ALLOWED. PLEASE INSTALL AN ISLAND AT THE DRIVEWAY   DESIGNED TO ENFORCE SUCH VEHICULAR MOVEMENT   PROHIBITION.       PREVIOUS COMMENTS   1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A   METHODOLOGY MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO   DRAFTING THE ANALYSIS.   2) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PERTINENT SUMMARY TABLES   AND FIGURES WITHIN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT, SUCH AS   DRIVEWAY VOLUMES, SITE LOCATION, TRIP GENERATION, LOS   SUMMARY, ETC. APPENDIX SHOULD BE USED AND REFERENCED   FOR LARGE TABLES AND FIGURES SUCH AS SYNCHRO OUTPUTS,   SIGNAL PLANS, BACKGROUND VOLUMES, ETC. SEVERAL SAMPLE   TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE REFER TO   THOSE STUDIES FOR PROPER FORMATTING AND REFERENCING   3) SATISFIED. PLEASE NAME AND/OR NUMBER EACH TABLE,   FIGURE AND REFERENCED DOCUMENT   4) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERING THROUGHOUT   THE REPORT, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, AND UPDATE THE   TABLE OF CONTENT ACCORDINGLY   5) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGES   SHOULD BE PLACED MID-BLOCK AND PROPERLY ADD-UP. IT   SEEMS ONLY 50% OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING IN/OUT OF THE   SITE   6) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 3. TURNING MOVEMENTS   WITH NO VOLUMES SHOULD BE REMOVED, DAILY TRAFFIC   VOLUMES PROVIDED   7) SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCLUSION PARAGRAPH IN   THE TRAFFIC STUDY, SUMMARIZING ALL FINDINGS AND   HIGHLIGHTING ALL DEFICIENCIES AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,   TOGETHER WITH PROPOSED/POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES,   IF ANY   8) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC   SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING   TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS,   DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER,   DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE,   CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.)   PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD   BE NAMED T-1.0. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AS   REQUESTED. SHEET A1 AND C5 DO NOT PROPERLY DEPICT NOR   PROVIDE ALL THE REQUESTED ITEMS. MOREOVER, ITEMS   IMPACTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUCH AS PLANTERS AND   TRAFFIC/UTILITY POLES ALONG THE SIDEWALK AREAS MUST BE   SHOWN; BASED ON THOSE ITEMS AND ALONG CHOKE POINTS, THE   EFFECTIVE SIDEWALK WIDTH SHOULD BE PROPERLY SHOWN AND   DIMENSIONED   9) SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE   BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, PAVEMENT   MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, GARAGE ENTRANCES, ETC.) ON   THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION   SITE PLAN AS REQUESTED   10) SATISFIED. THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN IS   INCOMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL   THE ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE   CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND COULD   BE EITHER INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED T-1.2.   RESPONSE LETTER INDICATES SHEET C-7, CORRECT SHEET   WOULD BE C-8. NONETHELESS, INSTALL A ONE-WAY SIGN ON   THE EAST LEG OF THE ROSEMARY & 4TH ST INTERSECTION,   STOP SIGN AND STOP BARS SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT EACH   GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY EXITS, SERVICE DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE   INDICATED AD SIGNED AS SUCH, DEAD-END DRIVEWAYS SHOULD   BE SIGNED AS SUCH.   11) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR GARBAGE   TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC ENVELOPES AND   WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED IN DIFFERENT   COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE ANALYSIS SHOULD BE   CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED   ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2, T-3). ENGINEERING SERVICES CAN   PROVIDE SAMPLE AUTOTURN ANALYSES. LATEST AUTOTURN DOES   NOT PROVIDE THE REQUESTED FEATURES. RESPONSE AND   MATERIAL PROVIDED IS COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY.   ENGINEERING HAS OFFERED TO PROVIDE SAMPLE PROPER   AUTOTURN ANALYSES, WHICH WERE NOT REQUESTED BY THE   APPLICANT. MOREOVER, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT MAJOR   ENCROACHMENTS SHOWN; THUS, THE PROPOSED LOADING ZONES   ARE NOT FEASIBLE, NOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN COULD BE   CONDITIONALLY APPROVED UNTIL THIS ITEM IS FULLY AND   PROPERLY ADDRESSED. THE ANALYSIS MUST SHOW ALL POSSIBLE   OR ALLOWED ACCESS TRAVEL PATHS (I.E TO OR FROM THE   EAST/WEST AND THE NORTH/SOUTH FOR THE RAILROAD AVE AND   3RD ST LOADING ZONE DRIVEWAYS, RESPECTIVELY)   12) SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY   ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20   FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH   THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC)   TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V -   10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR   T-2 SITE PLAN   13) SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TRAFFIC   ANALYSIS, PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT   (TDM) MEASURES. PLEASE PROVIDE A NUMBERED AND SPECIFIC   LIST OF POTENTIAL TDMS IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. PLEASE   PROVIDE PAGE NUMBER WHERE THIS ITEM IS ADDRESSED. NO   NUMBERED LIST, NOR DETAILED TDM WERE PROVIDED IN THE   LATEST RESUBMISSION, JUST GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND   DESCRIPTIONS OF EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS. THE   MULTI-MODAL PARAGRAPH SEEMED A RUSHED EFFORT, AS IT   SHOULD BE MORE DETAILED AND EXHAUSTIVE: HAVE AN IMAGE   DEPICTING LOCATION AND DISTANCES TO EXISTING TRANSIT   ROUTES/FACILITIES, PROVIDE EXACT NUMBER OF BOTH SHORT   AND LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING (NOT PARING) STALLS,   PROPOSE ACTUAL MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH AS TRANSIT   DISCOUNTS OR SUBSIDIES FOR RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES,   INCENTIVES FOR CAR-POOLING AND SO ON   14) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE   NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES,   INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES   15) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN,   PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND   PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER   OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED,   IF ANY   16) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO,   CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE   FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK   17) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO,   PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY   MEETING   18) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A TURN-AROUND   SPACE/STALL AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. FROM SHEET   A2.1 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE AND IF THE LOADING ZONE IS   CONNECTED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NORTHERN GARAGE.   PLEASE CLARIFY, AS A TURN-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED AT   THAT LOCATION OTHERWISE. SEVERAL DEAD-ENDS ARE MISSING   OR THE TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPERLY MARKED   19) SATISFIED. IN THE GARAGE PLANS, ALL THE DRIVE   AISLES, RAMPS AND AT LEAST A SET OF PARKING SPACES IN   EACH FLOOR SHOULD BE DIMENSIONED   20) SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE SEC94-111(C)(1): ???IN   THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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.???   21) SATISFIED. HOW MANY GARAGE FLOORS ARE THERE? SHEET   A2.3 SHOWS TWO UP-RAMPS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR, IS THERE   A FOURTH? PLEASE CLARIFY OR CORRECT THE TEXT/ARROWS.   AWAITING NEXT ROUND OF PLANS TO CLEAR THIS COMMENT   22) SATISFIED. INSTALL CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTHERN AND   EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH ST INTERSECTION.   THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ONE-WAY DRIVE WITHIN PUBLIC   ROW; THUS, A CROSSWALK AND CORRESPONDING RAMPS ARE   WARRANTED. DRAWINGS CAN BE REVISED AT ENGINEERING   PERMITTING. HOWEVER, AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE   CROSSWALKS IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT THIS   STAGE   23) SATISFIED. SHEET C-8 POINTS AT GATE(S) AT THE   EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH INTERSECTION. ARE   THOSE PEDESTRIAN AND/OR VEHICULAR GATES? IF SO, THEY   MAY NEED TO BE MOVED FURTHER EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE   PEDESTRIAN CROSSING   24) SATISFIED. PROVIDE BIKE RACKS WITHIN OR NEARBY THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA   25) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.   PLEASE REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS   26) TO BE SATISFIED. DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE   INTERSECTION AND THE ROAD CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY   ON 3RD ST SHOULD BE RIGHT-IN ONLY, NO LEFT-TURNING   INBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. PLEASE INSTALL AN   ISLAND AT THE DRIVEWAY DESIGNED TO ENFORCE SUCH   VEHICULAR MOVEMENT PROHIBITION. NOTE: THE ONLY MOVEMENT   PROHIBITED IS THE LEFT-IN, AS VEHICLES DRIVING   EASTBOUND ON 3RD ST WANTING TO TURN LEFT INTO THE   GARAGE AND AWAITING FOR A GAP MAY CAUSE MAJOR   CONGESTION AND UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. AS A   COMPROMISE, THE LEFT-OUT TURNING MOVEMENT WOULD BE   ALLOWED, AS ANY QUEUE BACKUP WOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN   THE GARAGE       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 4 Status F Date 02-22-2023 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 02-22-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 02-22-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-02-22 21:48:28 TRAFFIC COMMENTS   1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A   METHODOLOGY MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO   DRAFTING THE ANALYSIS.   2) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PERTINENT SUMMARY TABLES   AND FIGURES WITHIN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT, SUCH AS   DRIVEWAY VOLUMES, SITE LOCATION, TRIP GENERATION, LOS   SUMMARY, ETC. APPENDIX SHOULD BE USED AND REFERENCED   FOR LARGE TABLES AND FIGURES SUCH AS SYNCHRO OUTPUTS,   SIGNAL PLANS, BACKGROUND VOLUMES, ETC. SEVERAL SAMPLE   TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE REFER TO   THOSE STUDIES FOR PROPER FORMATTING AND REFERENCING   3) SATISFIED. PLEASE NAME AND/OR NUMBER EACH TABLE,   FIGURE AND REFERENCED DOCUMENT   4) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERING THROUGHOUT   THE REPORT, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, AND UPDATE THE   TABLE OF CONTENT ACCORDINGLY   5) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGES   SHOULD BE PLACED MID-BLOCK AND PROPERLY ADD-UP. IT   SEEMS ONLY 50% OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING IN/OUT OF THE   SITE   6) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 3. TURNING MOVEMENTS   WITH NO VOLUMES SHOULD BE REMOVED, DAILY TRAFFIC   VOLUMES PROVIDED   7) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCLUSION   PARAGRAPH IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, SUMMARIZING ALL   FINDINGS AND HIGHLIGHTING ALL DEFICIENCIES AND   SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, TOGETHER WITH PROPOSED/POTENTIAL   MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY.       SITE COMMENTS   8) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC   SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING   TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS,   DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER,   DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE,   CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.)   PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD   BE NAMED T-1.0. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AS   REQUESTED. SHEET A1 AND C5 DO NOT PROPERLY DEPICT NOR   PROVIDE ALL THE REQUESTED ITEMS. MOREOVER, ITEMS   IMPACTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUCH AS PLANTERS AND   TRAFFIC/UTILITY POLES ALONG THE SIDEWALK AREAS MUST BE   SHOWN; BASED ON THOSE ITEMS AND ALONG CHOKE POINTS, THE   EFFECTIVE SIDEWALK WIDTH SHOULD BE PROPERLY SHOWN AND   DIMENSIONED   9) SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE   BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, PAVEMENT   MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, GARAGE ENTRANCES, ETC.) ON   THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION   SITE PLAN AS REQUESTED   10) SATISFIED. THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN IS   INCOMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL   THE ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE   CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND COULD   BE EITHER INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED T-1.2.   RESPONSE LETTER INDICATES SHEET C-7, CORRECT SHEET   WOULD BE C-8. NONETHELESS, INSTALL A ONE-WAY SIGN ON   THE EAST LEG OF THE ROSEMARY & 4TH ST INTERSECTION,   STOP SIGN AND STOP BARS SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT EACH   GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY EXITS, SERVICE DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE   INDICATED AD SIGNED AS SUCH, DEAD-END DRIVEWAYS SHOULD   BE SIGNED AS SUCH.   11) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR   GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND   OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED   IN DIFFERENT COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE   TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2,   T-3). ENGINEERING SERVICES CAN PROVIDE SAMPLE AUTOTURN   ANALYSES. LATEST AUTOTURN DOES NOT PROVIDE THE   REQUESTED FEATURES. RESPONSE AND MATERIAL PROVIDED IS   COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY. ENGINEERING HAS OFFERED TO   PROVIDE SAMPLE PROPER AUTOTURN ANALYSES, WHICH WERE NOT   REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. MOREOVER, THERE ARE   SIGNIFICANT MAJOR ENCROACHMENTS SHOWN; THUS, THE   PROPOSED LOADING ZONES ARE NOT FEASIBLE, NOR THE   PROPOSED SITE PLAN COULD BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED   UNTIL THIS ITEM IS FULLY AND PROPERLY ADDRESSED   12) SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY   ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20   FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH   THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC)   TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V -   10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR   T-2 SITE PLAN   13) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF   THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND   MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES. PLEASE PROVIDE A NUMBERED   AND SPECIFIC LIST OF POTENTIAL TDMS IN THE TRAFFIC   STUDY. PLEASE PROVIDE PAGE NUMBER WHERE THIS ITEM IS   ADDRESSED. NO NUMBERED LIST, NOR DETAILED TDM WERE   PROVIDED IN THE LATEST RESUBMISSION, JUST GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF EXISTING TRANSIT   OPERATIONS. THE MULTI-MODAL PARAGRAPH SEEMED A RUSHED   EFFORT, AS IT SHOULD BE MORE DETAILED AND EXHAUSTIVE:   HAVE AN IMAGE DEPICTING LOCATION AND DISTANCES TO   EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES/FACILITIES, PROVIDE EXACT   NUMBER OF BOTH SHORT AND LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING (NOT   PARING) STALLS, PROPOSE ACTUAL MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH   AS TRANSIT DISCOUNTS OR SUBSIDIES FOR RESIDENTS AND   EMPLOYEES, INCENTIVES FOR CAR-POOLING AND SO ON   14) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE   NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES,   INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES   15) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN,   PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND   PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER   OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED,   IF ANY   16) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO,   CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE   FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK   17) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO,   PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY   MEETING   18) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A TURN-AROUND   SPACE/STALL AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. FROM SHEET   A2.1 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE AND IF THE LOADING ZONE IS   CONNECTED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NORTHERN GARAGE.   PLEASE CLARIFY, AS A TURN-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED AT   THAT LOCATION OTHERWISE. SEVERAL DEAD-ENDS ARE MISSING   OR THE TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPERLY MARKED   19) SATISFIED. IN THE GARAGE PLANS, ALL THE DRIVE   AISLES, RAMPS AND AT LEAST A SET OF PARKING SPACES IN   EACH FLOOR SHOULD BE DIMENSIONED   20) SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE SEC94-111(C)(1): ???IN   THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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.???   21) SATISFIED. HOW MANY GARAGE FLOORS ARE THERE? SHEET   A2.3 SHOWS TWO UP-RAMPS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR, IS THERE   A FOURTH? PLEASE CLARIFY OR CORRECT THE TEXT/ARROWS.   AWAITING NEXT ROUND OF PLANS TO CLEAR THIS COMMENT   22) SATISFIED. INSTALL CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTHERN AND   EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH ST INTERSECTION.   THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ONE-WAY DRIVE WITHIN PUBLIC   ROW; THUS, A CROSSWALK AND CORRESPONDING RAMPS ARE   WARRANTED. DRAWINGS CAN BE REVISED AT ENGINEERING   PERMITTING. HOWEVER, AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE   CROSSWALKS IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT THIS   STAGE   23) SATISFIED. SHEET C-8 POINTS AT GATE(S) AT THE   EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH INTERSECTION. ARE   THOSE PEDESTRIAN AND/OR VEHICULAR GATES? IF SO, THEY   MAY NEED TO BE MOVED FURTHER EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE   PEDESTRIAN CROSSING   24) SATISFIED. PROVIDE BIKE RACKS WITHIN OR NEARBY THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA   25) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.   PLEASE REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS   26) NOT SATISFIED. DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE   INTERSECTION AND THE ROAD CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY   ON 3RD ST SHOULD BE RIGHT-IN ONLY, NO LEFT-TURNING   INBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. PLEASE INSTALL AN   ISLAND AT THE DRIVEWAY DESIGNED TO ENFORCE SUCH   VEHICULAR MOVEMENT PROHIBITION. NOTE: THE ONLY MOVEMENT   PROHIBITED IS THE LEFT-IN, AS VEHICLES DRIVING   EASTBOUND ON 3RD ST WANTING TO TURN LEFT INTO THE   GARAGE AND AWAITING FOR A GAP MAY CAUSE MAJOR   CONGESTION AND UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. AS A   COMPROMISE, THE LEFT-OUT TURNING MOVEMENT WOULD BE   ALLOWED, AS ANY QUEUE BACKUP WOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN   THE GARAGE       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 3 Status F Date 02-16-2023 Cont ID   Sent By voricchi Date 02-16-2023 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 02-16-2023 Time   Sent To   Notes 2023-02-16 17:01:49 TRAFFIC COMMENTS   1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A   METHODOLOGY MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO   DRAFTING THE ANALYSIS.   2) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PERTINENT SUMMARY TABLES   AND FIGURES WITHIN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT, SUCH AS   DRIVEWAY VOLUMES, SITE LOCATION, TRIP GENERATION, LOS   SUMMARY, ETC. APPENDIX SHOULD BE USED AND REFERENCED   FOR LARGE TABLES AND FIGURES SUCH AS SYNCHRO OUTPUTS,   SIGNAL PLANS, BACKGROUND VOLUMES, ETC. SEVERAL SAMPLE   TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE REFER TO   THOSE STUDIES FOR PROPER FORMATTING AND REFERENCING   3) SATISFIED. PLEASE NAME AND/OR NUMBER EACH TABLE,   FIGURE AND REFERENCED DOCUMENT   4) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERING THROUGHOUT   THE REPORT, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, AND UPDATE THE   TABLE OF CONTENT ACCORDINGLY   5) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGES   SHOULD BE PLACED MID-BLOCK AND PROPERLY ADD-UP. IT   SEEMS ONLY 50% OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING IN/OUT OF THE   SITE   6) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 3. TURNING MOVEMENTS   WITH NO VOLUMES SHOULD BE REMOVED, DAILY TRAFFIC   VOLUMES PROVIDED   7) PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCLUSION PARAGRAPH IN THE TRAFFIC   STUDY, SUMMARIZING ALL FINDINGS AND HIGHLIGHTING ALL   DEFICIENCIES AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, TOGETHER WITH   PROPOSED/POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY   SITE COMMENTS   8) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC   SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING   TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS,   DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER,   DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE,   CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.)   PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD   BE NAMED T-1.0. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AS   REQUESTED. SHEET A1 AND C5 DO NOT PROPERLY DEPICT NOR   PROVIDE ALL THE REQUESTED ITEMS. MOREOVER, ITEMS   IMPACTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUCH AS PLANTERS AND   TRAFFIC/UTILITY POLES ALONG THE SIDEWALK AREAS MUST BE   SHOWN; BASED ON THOSE ITEMS AND ALONG CHOKE POINTS, THE   EFFECTIVE SIDEWALK WIDTH SHOULD BE PROPERLY SHOWN AND   DIMENSIONED   9) SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE   BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, PAVEMENT   MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, GARAGE ENTRANCES, ETC.) ON   THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION   SITE PLAN AS REQUESTED   10) SATISFIED. THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN IS   INCOMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED   FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL   THE ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE   CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND COULD   BE EITHER INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED T-1.2.   RESPONSE LETTER INDICATES SHEET C-7, CORRECT SHEET   WOULD BE C-8. NONETHELESS, INSTALL A ONE-WAY SIGN ON   THE EAST LEG OF THE ROSEMARY & 4TH ST INTERSECTION,   STOP SIGN AND STOP BARS SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT EACH   GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY EXITS, SERVICE DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE   INDICATED AD SIGNED AS SUCH, DEAD-END DRIVEWAYS SHOULD   BE SIGNED AS SUCH.   11) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR   GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND   OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED   IN DIFFERENT COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE   TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2,   T-3). ENGINEERING SERVICES CAN PROVIDE SAMPLE AUTOTURN   ANALYSES. LATEST AUTOTURN DOES NOT PROVIDE THE   REQUESTED FEATURES.   12) SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY   ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20   FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH   THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC)   TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V -   10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR   T-2 SITE PLAN   13) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF   THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND   MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES. PLEASE PROVIDE A NUMBERED   AND SPECIFIC LIST OF POTENTIAL TDMS IN THE TRAFFIC   STUDY. PLEASE PROVIDE PAGE NUMBER WHERE THIS ITEM IS   ADDRESSED   14) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE   NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES,   INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES   15) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN,   PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND   PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER   OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED,   IF ANY   16) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO,   CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE   FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK   17) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO,   PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY   MEETING   18) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A TURN-AROUND   SPACE/STALL AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. FROM SHEET   A2.1 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE AND IF THE LOADING ZONE IS   CONNECTED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NORTHERN GARAGE.   PLEASE CLARIFY, AS A TURN-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED AT   THAT LOCATION OTHERWISE. SEVERAL DEAD-ENDS ARE MISSING   OR THE TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPERLY MARKED   19) SATISFIED. IN THE GARAGE PLANS, ALL THE DRIVE   AISLES, RAMPS AND AT LEAST A SET OF PARKING SPACES IN   EACH FLOOR SHOULD BE DIMENSIONED   20) SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE SEC94-111(C)(1): ???IN   THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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.???   21) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. HOW MANY GARAGE FLOORS ARE   THERE? SHEET A2.3 SHOWS TWO UP-RAMPS FROM THE THIRD   FLOOR, IS THERE A FOURTH? PLEASE CLARIFY OR CORRECT THE   TEXT/ARROWS. AWAITING NEXT ROUND OF PLANS TO CLEAR THIS   COMMENT   22) NOT SATISFIED. INSTALL CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTHERN   AND EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH ST   INTERSECTION. THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ONE-WAY DRIVE   WITHIN PUBLIC ROW; THUS, A CROSSWALK AND CORRESPONDING   RAMPS ARE WARRANTED. DRAWINGS CAN BE REVISED AT   ENGINEERING PERMITTING. HOWEVER, AGREEMENT AND   CONFIRMATION OF THE CROSSWALKS IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE   PROVIDED AT THIS STAGE   23) SATISFIED. SHEET C-8 POINTS AT GATE(S) AT THE   EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH INTERSECTION. ARE   THOSE PEDESTRIAN AND/OR VEHICULAR GATES? IF SO, THEY   MAY NEED TO BE MOVED FURTHER EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE   PEDESTRIAN CROSSING   24) SATISFIED. PROVIDE BIKE RACKS WITHIN OR NEARBY THE   PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA   25) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.   PLEASE REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS   26) DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION AND THE   ROAD CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY ON 3RD ST SHOULD BE   RIGHT-IN ONLY, NO LEFT-TURNING INBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD   BE ALLOWED. PLEASE INSTALL AN ISLAND AT THE DRIVEWAY   DESIGNED TO ENFORCE SUCH VEHICULAR MOVEMENT PROHIBITION               VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 2 Status F Date 11-11-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 11-11-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 11-11-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-11-11 02:42:02 TRAFFIC COMMENTS   1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A   METHODOLOGY MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO   DRAFTING THE ANALYSIS.   2) PLEASE INSERT PERTINENT SUMMARY TABLES AND FIGURES   WITHIN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT, SUCH AS DRIVEWAY   VOLUMES, SITE LOCATION, TRIP GENERATION, LOS SUMMARY,   ETC. APPENDIX SHOULD BE USED AND REFERENCED FOR LARGE   TABLES AND FIGURES SUCH AS SYNCHRO OUTPUTS, SIGNAL   PLANS, BACKGROUND VOLUMES, ETC. SEVERAL SAMPLE TRAFFIC   STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE REFER TO THOSE   STUDIES FOR PROPER FORMATTING AND REFERENCING   3) PLEASE NAME AND/OR NUMBER EACH TABLE, FIGURE AND   REFERENCED DOCUMENT   4) PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERING THROUGHOUT THE REPORT,   INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, AND UPDATE THE TABLE OF CONTENT   ACCORDINGLY   5) PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGES SHOULD BE PLACED   MID-BLOCK AND PROPERLY ADD-UP. IT SEEMS ONLY 50% OF THE   TRAFFIC IS COMING IN/OUT OF THE SITE   6) PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 3. TURNING MOVEMENTS WITH NO   VOLUMES SHOULD BE REMOVED, DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES   PROVIDED       SITE COMMENTS   7) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION   SPECIFIC SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING   TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS,   DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER,   DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE,   CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.)   PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD   BE NAMED T-1.0. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AS   REQUESTED. SHEET A1 AND C5 DO NOT PROPERLY DEPICT NOR   PROVIDE ALL THE REQUESTED ITEMS. MOREOVER, ITEMS   IMPACTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUCH AS PLANTERS AND   TRAFFIC/UTILITY POLES ALONG THE SIDEWALK AREAS MUST BE   SHOWN; BASED ON THOSE ITEMS AND ALONG CHOKE POINTS, THE   EFFECTIVE SIDEWALK WIDTH SHOULD BE PROPERLY SHOWN AND   DIMENSIONED   8) NOT SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE   SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS,   PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, GARAGE ENTRANCES,   ETC.) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC   TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN AS REQUESTED   9) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE   PLAN IS INCOMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND   PROPOSED FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND   ALONG ALL THE ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN   CAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND   COULD BE EITHER INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED   T-1.2. RESPONSE LETTER INDICATES SHEET C-7, CORRECT   SHEET WOULD BE C-8. NONETHELESS, INSTALL A ONE-WAY SIGN   ON THE EAST LEG OF THE ROSEMARY & 4TH ST INTERSECTION,   STOP SIGN AND STOP BARS SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT EACH   GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY EXITS, SERVICE DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE   INDICATED AD SIGNED AS SUCH, DEAD-END DRIVEWAYS SHOULD   BE SIGNED AS SUCH.   10) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR   GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND   OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC   ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED   IN DIFFERENT COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE   TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2,   T-3). ENGINEERING SERVICES CAN PROVIDE SAMPLE AUTOTURN   ANALYSES   11) SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY   ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20   FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH   THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC)   TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V -   10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR   T-2 SITE PLAN   12) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF   THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND   MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES. PLEASE PROVIDE A NUMBERED   AND SPECIFIC LIST OF POTENTIAL TDMS IN THE TRAFFIC   STUDY   13) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE   NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES,   INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES   14) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN,   PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND   PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER   OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED,   IF ANY   15) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO,   CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE   FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK   16) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO,   PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE   ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY   MEETING   17) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A   TURN-AROUND SPACE/STALL AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE.   FROM SHEET A2.1 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE AND IF THE   LOADING ZONE IS CONNECTED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE   NORTHERN GARAGE. PLEASE CLARIFY, AS A TURN-AROUND SPACE   MAY BE NEEDED AT THAT LOCATION OTHERWISE. SEVERAL   DEAD-ENDS ARE MISSING OR THE TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT   PROPERLY MARKED   18) IN THE GARAGE PLANS, ALL THE DRIVE AISLES, RAMPS   AND AT LEAST A SET OF PARKING SPACES IN EACH FLOOR   SHOULD BE DIMENSIONED   19) PER CITY CODE SEC94-111(C)(1): ???IN THOSE CASES   WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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.???   20) HOW MANY GARAGE FLOORS ARE THERE? SHEET A2.3 SHOWS   TWO UP-RAMPS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR, IS THERE A FOURTH?   PLEASE CLARIFY OR CORRECT THE TEXT/ARROWS   21) INSTALL CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN LEG   OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH ST INTERSECTION   22) SHEET C-8 POINTS AT GATE(S) AT THE EASTERN LEG OF   THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH INTERSECTION. ARE THOSE PEDESTRIAN   AND/OR VEHICULAR GATES? IF SO, THEY MAY NEED TO BE   MOVED FURTHER EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEDESTRIAN   CROSSING   23) PROVIDE BIKE RACKS WITHIN OR NEARBY THE PUBLIC OPEN   SPACE AREA   24) PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE   REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS.       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By   Date 09-07-2022 Time   Rev Time 0.00 Received By   Date 09-07-2022 Time   Sent To   Notes 2022-09-07 18:49:10     1) PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A METHODOLOGY   MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO DRAFTING THE   ANALYSIS   2) PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC SITE PLAN   FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING TRANSPORTATION RELATED   FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS, DRIVING AISLES, PARKING   STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY, GATES,   CROSSWALKS, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, CORNER & DRIVEWAY   SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.) PROPERLY LABELED   AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE NAMED T-1.0   3) IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE BASIC CURB   DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS,   PARKING STALLS, ETC.) ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS   SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT   4) THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN IS INCOMPLETE.   PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEATURES   WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL THE ROADS   FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE CONSIDERED   PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND COULD BE EITHER   INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED T-1.2   5) PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR   SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED   DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC ENVELOPES AND WHEEL   PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED IN DIFFERENT COLORS.   SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE ANALYSIS SHOULD BE   CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED   ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2, T-3)   6) IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE   MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20 FEET) AND   PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH THE   FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC) TO   THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V ?   10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR   T-2 SITE PLAN   7) DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS,   PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES   8) PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF   REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, INCLUSIVE OF ADA   AND BICYCLE ONES   9) IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN, PROVIDE A   TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED   ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF METERED   STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED, IF ANY   10) ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO, CLEARLY   SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE   BACK OF THE SIDEWALK   11) IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO, PROVIDE AN   OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE ANALYSIS SHOULD BE   DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY MEETING   12) PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A TURN-AROUND SPACE/STALL   AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE       VALERIO ORICCHIO   CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER   561-494-1092   [email protected]     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 5 Status P Date 03-23-2023 Cont ID   Sent By cibaven Date 03-23-2023 Time 12:53 Rev Time 0.00 Received By cibaven Date 03-23-2023 Time 12:53 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-23 12:53:21 ZONING AND PLANNING       PROJECT: SOLESTE FSPR 22-19   DATE: 03.23.23       CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT   561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected].   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:           ZONING DATA AND DIAGRAMS       1. ON SHEET A1.5, ACTIVE USE: PLEASE REVISE BOTH   DIMENSIONS AND TABLE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE   FOLLOWING:   - FACING N ROSEMARY AVE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE   'BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE' OF THE NORTH BUILDING SHOULD   BE FROM THE SETBACK TO THE SOUTH END OF THE OPEN SPACE.   ACTIVE USE DIMENSION (179FT) IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TABLE.       DIMENSIONS AND TABLE UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       - FACING N ROSEMARY AVE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE   'BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE' OF THE SOUTH BUILDING SHOULD   BE FROM THE SETBACK TO NORTH END OF OPEN SPACE.   COURTYARD SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS ACTIVE USE.       DIMENSIONS AND TABLE UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       - FACING W RAILROAD AVE, THE DIMENSION OF 'BUILDABLE   LOT FRONTAGE' OF 196FT AND 'ACTIVE USE' OF 77FT DO NOT   MATCH THE TABLE.   DIMENSIONS AND TABLE UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       - FACING 3RD STREET, PLEASE NOTE ENCLOSED STAIRS DO NOT   COUNT AS ACTIVE USE, PLEASE EXCLUDE FROM DIMENSIONS AND   CALCULATIONS.   DIMENSIONS AND TABLE UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED           2. ON SHEET A1.5, PLANAR BREAKS: THE COURTYARD ALSO IS   A PLANAR BREAK, PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR CALCULATIONS.       DIMENSIONS AND TABLE UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       3. ON SHEET A1.5, HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS: THERE ARE   DOTTED LINES THAT SEEM TO BE HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS BUT   ARE NOT COUNTED AS SUCH, PLEASE REVIEW. AND, PLEASE   MAKE SURE HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS MATCH OTHER PLANS AND   RENDERINGS.       DIMENSIONS AND GRAPHICS UPDATED       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       4. ON SHEET A1.4 - OPEN SPACE: PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO   BREAKDOWN SHOWING WHERE THE 2,270SQ.FT. OF SEMI-OPEN   SPACE IS COMING FROM. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME   WALK-UP GARDENS THAT LOOK DIFFERENT IN CONFIGURATION   FROM THE SAMPLES. AND SAMPLES ARE SHOWING OVERHEAD   COVERAGES DIFFERENT FROM FLOOR PLANS AND RENDERINGS.       SQUARE FOOTAGES OF THE THREE SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   ZONES ADDED. TOTAL SEMI-PUBLIC AREA UPDATED. FOUR   ADDITIONAL SAMPLE WALK-UP GARDEN DETAILS ADDED (SHEET   A1.4A). OVERHEAD COVERING GRAPHICS UPDATED.       Z 03.15.23 ??? NOT SATISFIED.       ON SHEETS A1.4 AND A1.4A, WALK-UP GARDENS:   ??? PLEASE REVISE ON TABLES, THE ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT   REQUIREMENTS       TABLES REVISED TO REFLECT REQUIREMENTS FROM ZONING   TABLE.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED. MINOR EDIT, COURTYARD FACING   ROSEMARY RD PROVIDES 2 SIDES ONLY, NOT 3. THE OTHER 2   ARE ROW AND CIRCULATION HALL THAT IS NOT ACTIVE USE.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       ??? WALK-UP GARDENS SQ.FT. TOTALS DO NOT MATCH WHEN   ADDING UP, PLEASE REVIEW AND REVISE CALCULATIONS.       ALL WALK UP GARDENS LABELED TO SHOW INDIVIDUAL AREAS.   TOTAL SEMI-PUBLIC AREA UPDATED.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED. MINOR EDIT, ON SHEET A1.4,   LABELS CALLING OUT SEMI???PUBLIC OPEN SPACE HAVE SOME   SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THEM THAT DOES NOT ADD UP, PLEASE   REMOVE THEM.       ??? WALK-UP GARDEN SECTION SHOWS A BALCONY PROJECTION   LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OF 3 FEET, PLEASE   REVISE, AND REVISE ANY CALCULATIONS ON YOUR PLANS.   PLEASE NOTE, ON SECTION IN SHEET L-1A, THE PROJECTION   MEASURES 3 FEET.       BALCONY PROJECTION IN SECTION REVISED TO 3 FEET.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       ??? AS SHOWN ON WALK-UP GARDEN SECTION, PLEASE CONSIDER   THE USE OF A FENCE INSTEAD OF A WALL SO PEDESTRIANS ON   SIDEWALK CAN SEE VEGETATED AREAS.       WE WILL EXPLORE, PRIOR TO DAC SUBMITTAL, INCORPORATING   MORE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE WALL UP GARDENS, WITH LOWER   WALLS AND/OR METAL RAILING.       Z 03.23.23 ??? ACKNOWLEDGED.       ??? NOTE, SHADING SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT AFFECT TREES   CANOPY ON OPEN SPACES.       SHADING SYSTEMS ADJUSTED TO CLEAR CANOPIES.       Z 03.23.23 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. COURTYARD FACING   ROSEMARY AVE HAS JAPANESE FERN TREES WITH A 12???   HEIGHT, THE DRAWINGS SHOW THAT THE OVERHEAD COVER (MIN.   10% REQUIRED) MIGHT LOWER IMPACTING THE TREES. PLEASE   REVISE.       NOTE, ON SHEET A1.4B, SOME AREAS OUTSIDE THE PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE DOTTED LINE ARE NOT SHADED.       HATCH GRAPHICS ADJUSTED ON SHEET A1.4B.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.           5. ON SHEET A1.6, PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE BUILDING'S   FACADE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT MATCHING OTHER PLANS,   EXAMPLE, ON SHEET A1.0 AND A1.5, THE NORTH BUILDING   FRONTAGE IS 150FT. PLEASE ALSO REVIEW, SEC. 94-109,   FIGURE IV-33 TO SEE TRANSPARENCY SAMPLE CALCULATION.       BUILDING FA??ADE DIMENSIONS UPDATED.       Z 03.15.23 ???NOT SATISFIED. ON SHEET A1.6:   ??? ON TABLE, REQUIRED SF DOES NOT MATCH THE DIMENSIONS   ??? GARAGE ENTRANCES CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS   TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS. ENCLOSED NON-ACTIVE USE CAN   BE EXCLUDE FROM TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS AS IT IS NOT   TECHNICALLY A ???STOREFRONT???. HOWEVER FOR ENCLOSED   NON-ACTIVE USE FACADES, PLEASE PROVIDE AN ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENT (SEE SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-4).       DIAGRAMS REVISED TO INCLUDE ONLY ???STOREFRONT???   AREAS. NON-ACTIVE USE AREAS HAVE BEEN IMPROVED TO   INCORPORATE ARTICULATION AND RHYTHM AND SHOW VARIATION   IN COLOR.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       6. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE 'MARKET ROOM' ON THE   NORTH BUILDING.   THE MARKET ROOM WILL BE A SMALL AMENITY SPACE FOR   SNACKS, COFFEE AND VENDING MACHINES. IT WILL BE   SELF-SERVICE FOR RESIDENTS ONLY.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO EXPLAIN   IN YOUR JUSTIFICATION LETTER.               PARKING       1. PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-111 (C) IN THOSE CASES   WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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. ON A2.2 SHEET, TANDEM PARKING   SPACES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST OF THE PARKING GARAGE   IN THE SOUTH BUILDING ARE SHOWING AGAINST WALLS   ENCLOSING STAIRS.       THE TWO AFFECTED TANDEM SPACES HAVE BEEN REMOVED.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED       2. PLEASE PROVIDE ADA RAMPS SHOWING SLOPE RATIO AND   DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MAKE SURE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED ON   ALL PLANS.       DIMENSIONS AND SLOPE ADDED TO ADA RAMPS.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED           3. PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE PARKING GARAGE GATES ARE NO   LONGER PROPOSED AND PARKING LOTS ARE ACCESSIBLE 24/7.   AND, WHAT SECURITY MEASURES WILL BE PROPOSED FOR   OPERATIONS?       PARKING ENTRANCES HAVE BEEN REVISED TO SHOW ROLL-UP   ACCESS GATES.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED           4. PER SEC. 94-111, ALL PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES   FACING A STREET FRONTAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TREAT THE   INTERIOR PORTION OF THE GARAGE ENTRY TO A DEPTH OF AT   LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE BUILDING FACADE. TREATMENT MAY   INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, STUCCO OR   PLASTER, FINISHED AND PAINTED COMPARABLE TO A HABITABLE   SPACE. ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS   SHALL BE COVERED OR SCREENED.       PARKING ENTRANCES WILL BE TREATED WITH SCORED STUCCO,   PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT ACTIVE USE AREAS. NOTE ALSO   ADDED TO SITE PLAN INDICATING EXTENT OF WALL TREATMENT.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED               STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE       1. OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS DO NOT MATCH LANDSCAPE PLANS AND   WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ON WHETHER THESE SPACES MEET   THE LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE NOTE,   LOADING AREAS AND TRAVEL ROUTES CANNOT GO OVER   LANDSCAPE, TREES, OR SIDEWALKS. SEE ALSO ZONING DATA   AND DIAGRAMS COMMENT #4.       LANDSCAPE LAYOUT UPDATED ON SITE PLAN. OPEN SPACE   DIAGRAMS UPDATED TO SHOW LANDSCAPE LAYOUT.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED. PLEASE NOTE, ON ANY PLAN   SUBMITTED AFTER 3.10.23, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO ADD   REVISION INFO ON THE TABLE (NO., DATE, REVISIONS).   PLEASE REVISE SHEET L-2 AND A1.4B.       2. ON SHEET A1.0, EXISTING CROSSING ON N ROSEMARY AND   4TH ST DOES NOT MEET SIDEWALK. CROSSWALK GRAPHICS   REVISED TO SHOW CONNECTION TO SIDEWALK.       Z 03.15.23 ??? NOT SATISFIED. CROSSWALKS SHOULD MATCH   SIDEWALK ON ROSEMARY AVE ON ROSEMARY AVE AND 3RD   STREET, SEE BELOW SKETCH:       CROSSWALKS UPDATED TO MATCH SIDEWALK.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.           3. PLEASE NOTE ON ENGINEERING PLANS YOU ARE SHOWING   CURB RAMPS ON CROSSINGS AND DRIVEWAYS, PLEASE MAKE SURE   TO ADD THOSE TO THE SITE PLAN.   CURB CUTS AND CROSSING ADDED TO SITE PLAN           Z 03.15.23 ??? NOT SATISFIED. ON ACCESS TO PARKING   GARAGES, SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPE WERE REMOVED. AND, L-1   AND L-3 DO NOT MATCH ARCH OR CIVIL PLANS. AS PER CODE,   CURB CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES, EXITS, AND DRIVEWAYS   SHALL NOT BE WIDER THAN 25 FEET AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO   THE STREET AT THE CURB. PLEASE REVISE SITE PLAN AND ALL   APPLICABLE PLANS.       ENTRANCES TO GARAGE REVISED SHOW SOW CURBS AND   LANDSCAPING.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       4. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE TYPE OF PAVEMENT   TREATMENT ON CROSSINGS, WALKWAYS, OPEN SPACES, ETC.,   SUCH AS STAMP CONCRETE, PAVERS, ETC.       SIDEWALKS AND OPEN SPACES WILL BE CONCRETE PAVERS. SEE   THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SITE PLAN FOR NOTES.       Z 03.15.23 ??? NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE ADD LABELS FOR   SIDEWALK, OPEN SPACES (COURTYARD, WALKUP GARDENS,   TERRACES), AND LOBBY ENTRANCES PAVEMENT TREATMENT IF   DIFFERENT FROM CONCRETE PAVERS. AS OF NOW, AREAS HAVE   DIFFERENT HATCHING AND COLORS THAT COULD INDICATE   DIFFERENT PAVEMENT MATERIALS.       LABELS UPDATED TO SHOW CONCRETE PAVERS FOR SIDEWALKS,   PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, AND ENTRANCES/WALK-UP GARDENS. EACH   COLOR ON THE SITE PLAN REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT CONCRETE   PAVING COLOR/SIZE/PATTERN.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       5. PLEASE SHOW LIGHTING POLES ON SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED   IN YOUR PHOTOMETRIC PLANS E1. PLEASE NOTE, YOU WILL   NEED TO UPDATE YOUR PHOTOMETRIC PLANS BASED ON CHANGES.       PHOTOMETRIC PLANS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT   SITE PLAN. LIGHT POLES ARE SHOWN ON SITE PLAN SHEET   A1.0.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED. MAKE SURE YOU LABEL THE LIGHT   POLES ON SITE PLAN.               ELEVATIONS       1. PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE SCREENING ON THE BRIDGE IS   DIFFERENT ON BOTH FACADES, NORTH AND SOUTH, AS SHOWN ON   ELEVATIONS. ALSO CLARIFY, IF COLUMNS ON BRIDGE ARE   DIFFERENT IN SIZE; ON THE WEST ELEVATION, COLUMNS LOOK   WIDER AND PAINTED BLUE, ON EAST ELEVATION, COLUMNS AND   ARE THINNER AND PAINTED WHITE.       BRIDGE SCREENING HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW WIDE COLUMNS,   PAINTED BLUE, ON BOTH SIDES.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.       2. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO ALSO POINT OUT PILASTERS ON   SHEET A3.2A OR ANY OTHER DECORATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSED   ON FACADES. AND, PLEASE ADD METAL RAILINGS DETAIL.       SAMPLE IMAGES ADDED FOR PILASTERS AND METAL RAILINGS.       Z 03.15.23 ??? NOT SATISFIED. SEE COMMENT ZONING DATA   AND DIAGRAMS #5, 3RD STREET AND RAILROAD ELEVATIONS   ENCLOSING NON-ACTIVE USE. AND, PLEASE NOTE, FOR THE DAC   PRESENTATION ELEVATIONS AND RENDERINGS WILL NEED TO BE   CLEANED UP.       ELEVATIONS UPDATED TO SHOW ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT FOR   NON-ACTIVE USE FACADES.       RENDERINGS/ELEVATIONS WILL BE CLEANED UP FOR DAC   PRESENTATION.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED.       3. PLEASE NOTE, SOME DOORS ON ELEVATIONS DO NOT MEET   THE SIDEWALK LEVEL AND HAVE NOT STEPS. SEE EAST   ELEVATION CLOSER TO THE NORTH AND ADD ELEVATION LEVEL   TO SIDEWALKS.       EAST ELEVATION REVISED TO SHOW CORRECT DOOR ELEVATIONS   AND/OR STEPS.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.           SECTIONS       1. PLEASE ADD ELEVATION LEVELS TO SIDEWALKS. SPOT   ELEVATIONS ADDED.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.       2. ON SHEET A4.1, SECTION A, SOME STAIRS ON LOBBIES ARE   NOT MEETING THE SIDEWALK LEVELS. SECTION GRAPHICS   UPDATED.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.       3. ON SHEET A4.2, SECTION C DOES NOT MATCH FLOOR PLAN   AS PARKING CLOSER TO THE WEST IS AT 6FT LEVEL. IN   ADDITION, THE MAIL ROOM SEEMS TO BE CONNECTED TO THE   PACKAGE ROOM AND MAIL ROOM LOOKS LIKE IT IS AT 6FT   LEVEL AND PACKAGE ROOM AT 3FT LEVEL. AND, UNITS ON   SECTION ARE NOT AT 6FT LEVEL AS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS.       YES, MAIL ROOM ACCESS IS CONNECTED TO PACKAGE ROOM.   PACKAGE ROOM ACCESS HAS BEEN UPDATED TO SHOW STEPS DOWN   TO LOWER LEVEL. SECTION GRAPHICS UPDATED TO SHOW UNITS   ON ELEV +6???.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.       4. ON SHEET A4.1 SECTION B AND SHEET A3.2, SOUTH   ELEVATION- 4TH ST. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE MAIN   ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDINGS ARE HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE   DESIGN. PERHAPS MORE TRANSPARENCY CAN BE ADDED OR USE   OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS OR COLORS. AS WELL AS   LANDSCAPING OR HARDSCAPE TO ELEVATE THE DESIGN.       LOBBY ENTRANCES UPDATED TO SHOW MORE GLAZING ON THE   FA??ADE AS WELL AS ACCENT COLORS AND STUCCO FRAMING   DETAILS.       Z 03.15.23 ??? SATISFIED.               RENDERS       1. PLEASE MAKE SURE RENDERS MATCH LANDSCAPING AND   STREETSCAPE. RENDERED VIEWS UPDATED.       Z 03.15.23 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. I DO NOT THINK   RENDERS SHOW ALL LANDSCAPING, SPECIALLY VEGETATED AREAS   ON OPEN SPACES AND LANDSCAPE STRIP ADJACENT TO THE   SIDEWALKS.       Z 03.23.23 ??? SATISFIED. MAKE SURE PROPOSED   LANDSCAPING IS REFLECTED ON RENDERS.           CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:   ??? PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT   SHALL SUBMIT FINAL SET OF PLANS.   ??? ALL TANDEM PARKING SPACES WITHOUT LIFTS PROVIDED IN   THE PARKING STRUCTURE SHALL BE DEDICATED TO RESIDENTIAL   USE ONLY AND TO THE SAME RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE   DEDICATION OF TANDEM PARKING SPACES TO THE SAME   RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND RECORDED IN A   RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON CITY APPROVED FORMS AND   RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF   FINAL C.O.   ??? TREES ADJACENT TO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WILL HAVE AN   8??? CLEAR TRUNK.   ??? THE PROJECT, AS IT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL   MICRO-UNITS, WILL CONTRIBUTE A TROLLEY FEE PER UNIT PER   MONTH TO SUPPORT THE OPERATION OF THE CITY'S TROLLEY   SYSTEM, AS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY   COMMISSION FROM TIME TO TIME.   ??? THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE   RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF   MICRO MOBILITY/BIKE SHARE STATION APPROVED WITH THIS   PETITION. INSTALLATION SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR T.C.O.   ??? ALL PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES FACING A STREET   FRONTAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TREAT THE INTERIOR   PORTION OF THE GARAGE ENTRY TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 20   FEET FROM THE BUILDING FA??ADE. TREATMENT MAY INCLUDE,   BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, STUCCO OR PLASTER,   FINISHED AND PAINTED COMPARABLE TO A HABITABLE SPACE.   ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS SHALL   BE COVERED OR SCREENED.     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 4 Status F Date 03-02-2023 Cont ID   Sent By cibaven Date 03-02-2023 Time 15:12 Rev Time 0.00 Received By cibaven Date 03-02-2023 Time 15:09 Sent To   Notes 2023-03-02 15:09:39 ZONING AND PLANNING   PROJECT: SOLESTE - 410 N. ROSEMARY AVE.   DATE: 03.01.23   CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT   561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected].   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:       ZONING DATA AND DIAGRAMS   1. ON SHEET A1.5, ACTIVE USE: PLEASE REVISE BOTH   DIMENSIONS AND TABLE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE   FOLLOWING:   - FACING N ROSEMARY AVE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE   'BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE' OF THE NORTH BUILDING SHOULD   BE FROM THE SETBACK TO THE SOUTH END OF THE OPEN SPACE.   ACTIVE USE DIMENSION (179FT) IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TABLE.   - FACING N ROSEMARY AVE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE   'BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE' OF THE SOUTH BUILDING SHOULD   BE FROM THE SETBACK TO NORTH END OF OPEN SPACE.   COURTYARD SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS ACTIVE USE.   - FACING W RAILROAD AVE, THE DIMENSION OF 'BUILDABLE   LOT FRONTAGE' OF 196FT AND 'ACTIVE USE' OF 77FT DO NOT   MATCH THE TABLE.   - FACING 3RD STREET, PLEASE NOTE ENCLOSED STAIRS DO NOT   COUNT AS ACTIVE USE, PLEASE EXCLUDE FROM DIMENSIONS AND   CALCULATIONS.       2. ON SHEET A1.5, PLANAR BREAKS: THE COURTYARD ALSO IS   A PLANAR BREAK, PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR CALCULATIONS.       3. ON SHEET A1.5, HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS: THERE ARE   DOTTED LINES THAT SEEM TO BE HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS BUT   ARE NOT COUNTED AS SUCH, PLEASE REVIEW. AND, PLEASE   MAKE SURE HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS MATCH OTHER PLANS AND   RENDERINGS.       4. ON SHEET A1.4 - OPEN SPACE: PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO   BREAKDOWN SHOWING WHERE THE 2,270SQ.FT. OF SEMI-OPEN   SPACE IS COMING FROM. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME   WALK-UP GARDENS THAT LOOK DIFFERENT IN CONFIGURATION   FROM THE SAMPLES. AND SAMPLES ARE SHOWING OVERHEAD   COVERAGES DIFFERENT FROM FLOOR PLANS AND RENDERINGS.       5. ON SHEET A1.6, PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE BUILDING'S   FACADE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT MATCHING OTHER PLANS,   EXAMPLE, ON SHEET A1.0 AND A1.5, THE NORTH BUILDING   FRONTAGE IS 150FT. PLEASE ALSO REVIEW, SEC. 94-109,   FIGURE IV-33 TO SEE TRANSPARENCY SAMPLE CALCULATION.       6. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE 'MARKET ROOM' ON THE   NORTH BUILDING.           PARKING   1. PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-111 (C) IN THOSE CASES   WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY 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. ON A2.2 SHEET, TANDEM PARKING   SPACES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST OF THE PARKING GARAGE   IN THE SOUTH BUILDING ARE SHOWING AGAINST WALLS   ENCLOSING STAIRS.       2. PLEASE PROVIDE ADA RAMPS SHOWING SLOPE RATIO AND   DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MAKE SURE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED ON   ALL PLANS.       3. PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE PARKING GARAGE GATES ARE NO   LONGER PROPOSED AND PARKING LOTS ARE ACCESSIBLE 24/7.   AND, WHAT SECURITY MEASURES WILL BE PROPOSED FOR   OPERATIONS?       4. PER SEC. 94-111, ALL PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCES   FACING A STREET FRONTAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TREAT THE   INTERIOR PORTION OF THE GARAGE ENTRY TO A DEPTH OF AT   LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE BUILDING FACADE. TREATMENT MAY   INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, STUCCO OR   PLASTER, FINISHED AND PAINTED COMPARABLE TO A HABITABLE   SPACE. ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS   SHALL BE COVERED OR SCREENED.               STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE   1. OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS DO NOT MATCH LANDSCAPE PLANS AND   WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ON WHETHER THESE SPACES MEET   THE LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE NOTE,   LOADING AREAS AND TRAVEL ROUTES CANNOT GO OVER   LANDSCAPE, TREES, OR SIDEWALKS. SEE ALSO ZONING DATA   AND DIAGRAMS COMMENT #4.       2. ON SHEET A1.0, EXISTING CROSSING ON N ROSEMARY AND   4TH ST DOES NOT MEET SIDEWALK.       3. PLEASE NOTE ON ENGINEERING PLANS YOU ARE SHOWING   CURB RAMPS ON CROSSINGS AND DRIVEWAYS, PLEASE MAKE SURE   TO ADD THOSE TO THE SITE PLAN.       4. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE TYPE OF PAVEMENT   TREATMENT ON CROSSINGS, WALKWAYS, OPEN SPACES, ETC.,   SUCH AS STAMP CONCRETE, PAVERS, ETC.       5. PLEASE SHOW LIGHTING POLES ON SITE PLAN AS PROPOSED   IN YOUR PHOTOMETRIC PLANS E1. PLEASE NOTE, YOU WILL   NEED TO UPDATE YOUR PHOTOMETRIC PLANS BASED ON CHANGES.           ELEVATIONS   1. PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE SCREENING ON THE BRIDGE IS   DIFFERENT ON BOTH FACADES, NORTH AND SOUTH, AS SHOWN ON   ELEVATIONS. ALSO CLARIFY, IF COLUMNS ON BRIDGE ARE   DIFFERENT IN SIZE; ON THE WEST ELEVATION, COLUMNS LOOK   WIDER AND PAINTED BLUE, ON EAST ELEVATION, COLUMNS AND   ARE THINNER AND PAINTED WHITE.       2. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO ALSO POINT OUT PILASTERS ON   SHEET A3.2A OR ANY OTHER DECORATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSED   ON FACADES. AND, PLEASE ADD METAL RAILINGS DETAIL.       3. PLEASE NOTE, SOME DOORS ON ELEVATIONS DO NOT MEET   THE SIDEWALK LEVEL AND HAVE NOT STEPS. SEE EAST   ELEVATION CLOSER TO THE NORTH AND ADD ELEVATION LEVEL   TO SIDEWALKS.           SECTIONS   1. PLEASE ADD ELEVATION LEVELS TO SIDEWALKS.       2. ON SHEET A4.1, SECTION A, SOME STAIRS ON LOBBIES ARE   NOT MEETING THE SIDEWALK LEVELS.       3. ON SHEET A4.2, SECTION C DOES NOT MATCH FLOOR PLAN   AS PARKING CLOSER TO THE WEST IS AT 6FT LEVEL. IN   ADDITION, THE MAIL ROOM SEEMS TO BE CONNECTED TO THE   PACKAGE ROOM AND MAIL ROOM LOOKS LIKE IT IS AT 6FT   LEVEL AND PACKAGE ROOM AT 3FT LEVEL. AND, UNITS ON   SECTION ARE NOT AT 6FT LEVEL AS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS.       4. ON SHEET A4.1 SECTION B AND SHEET A3.2, SOUTH   ELEVATION- 4TH ST. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THESE MAIN   ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDINGS ARE HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE   DESIGN. PERHAPS MORE TRANSPARENCY CAN BE ADDED OR USE   OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS OR COLORS. AS WELL AS   LANDSCAPING OR HARDSCAPE TO ELEVATE THE DESIGN.           RENDERS   1. PLEASE MAKE SURE RENDERS MATCH LANDSCAPING AND   STREETSCAPE.           OTHER COMMENTS:   PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-54 (A)(1), THE APPLICANT   SHALL ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OF THE PPRC AND SUBMIT A   REVISED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH   COMMENTS. FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS   WITHIN THE 60-DAY DEADLINE WILL DEEM THE APPLICATION AS   WITHDRAWN. AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF   THE 60-DAY REVISION PERIOD, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A   30-DAY EXTENSION. NO FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST IS   PERMITTED. COMMENTS RELATING TO REVISED APPLICATIONS   SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH   COMMENTS.       WHEN RESUBMITTING, WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NEED   TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) PAPER   COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG/.PDF FORMAT OF   ALL PLANS AND ALL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED IN THE   APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE   RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS   TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL   COMMENTS.       LASTLY, YOU WERE PERMITTED ONE (1) RESUBMITTAL AT NO   ADDITIONAL COST. AS 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.     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 3 Status F Date 01-30-2023 Cont ID   Sent By cibaven Date 01-30-2023 Time 14:21 Rev Time 0.00 Received By cibaven Date 01-30-2023 Time 14:21 Sent To   Notes 2023-01-30 14:09:47 ZONING AND PLANNING   PROJECT: SOLESTE ??? 410 N. ROSEMARY AVE.   DATE: JANUARY 27, 2023   CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT   561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected].   I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND   PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:       GENERAL COMMENTS:   PER SEC. 94-39 (J)(4) AND SEC. 94-54 (B)(3), THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED TO MEET PROCEDURES OF   NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.       THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF WPB'S ART LIFE   ASSESSMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE   PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.       AS PART OF THE APPLICATION CHECK LIST, ALL REQUIRED   DOCUMENTS WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED AND REVISED IN EACH   RESUBMITTAL. IF A DOCUMENT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REVISED   OR NEED TO BE UPDATED, PLEASE LIST THE DOCUMENT ON THE   WRITTEN RESPONSE. SEE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT WILL   NEED TO BE UPDATED/REVISE:   - PLEASE REVISE PROJECT DATA SHEET, ON CURRENT ZONING   EAST AND WEST ROWS.   - PLEASE UPDATE JUSTIFICATION LETTER DATED ON   08.04.2022 AND ADD TO RESUBMITTAL.   - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS   LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY TO REFLECT ANY NEW   DRIVEWAYS AND UNITS IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.           IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE A WORD DOC OF THE ZONING   AND PLANNING COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA IBAVEN   VIA EMAIL. PLEASE NOTE, I ADDED A 'Z' AT THE BEGINNING   OF A COMMENT COMING FROM ZONING OR 'A' AT THE BEGINNING   OF A COMMENT COMING FROM THE APPLICANT.           COMMENT 1:       Z - ACTIVE USE: PLEASE NOTE THAT ACTIVE USES ARE   REGULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDABLE LOT   FRONTAGE, NOT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PLEASE ADJUST   CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY. THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE 80%   OF THE ENTIRE N ROSEMARY AVE. PROPERTY LINE (60% FOR   LINERS 2-5), 30% OF THE 3RD ST. PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN   30% OF THE W. RAILROAD AVE. PROPERTY LINE.       A- SEE SHEET A1.5 FOR ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS AND   CALCULATIONS.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED.   TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A.1.5.   A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY. PLEASE ADJUST.       A - RESPONSE: SHEET A0.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE   CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED,   THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE USE WILL BE CALCULATED FROM   THE BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE AND NOT THE BUILDING   FRONTAGE. PLEASE REVISE 'MINIMUM ACTIVE USE' TABLE ON   SHEET A1.05, MAKE SURE ALL DIMENSIONS OF BUILDING LOT   FRONTAGE AND OTHERS ARE ON THE DRAWINGS. PLEASE ALSO   ADD CALCULATIONS FOR 4TH STREET FACADES. FOR MORE INFO   ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF 'ACTIVE USE' OR 'BUILDABLE LOT   FRONTAGE' AND WHAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS SEE   SEC. 94-109, AND FIGURE IV-14 SHOWING BUILDABLE LOT   FRONTAGE.           COMMENT 2:   Z - PLEASE PROVIDE OWNERS CONSENT OR PROOF OF AGREEMENT   BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OF 411 W   RAILROAD AVE. TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF 4TH ST.   OVER THEIR PROPERTY.       A- THE RECORDED EASEMENT PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO MAKE   THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SUBMITTAL.   NO ADDITIONAL CONSENT IS REQUIRED FROM THE ADJACENT   PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE EASEMENT ALLOWS EITHER PARTY THE   AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CONTEMPLATED IMPROVEMENTS DENOTED   WITHIN THE EASEMENT ITSELF.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED.   EASEMENT AGREE PROVIDED. EASEMENT EXHIBIT B SHOWS 50 FT   EASEMENT, PLANS SHOW 60 FEET. SHY THE ADDITIONAL 10 FT?       A - SHEET A1.0 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT 50 FT   EASEMENT WIDTH.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY THE CHANGES   MADE TO SHEET A1.0 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL.   THERE IS NO DIMENSION OR LABEL SHOWING THE 50FT   EASEMENT. ALSO NOTE, LANDSCAPE AREA IS SHOWING IN   LANDSCAPE SHEET L-1 WITH LIVE OAKS, PLEASE REVISE A1.0   TO MATCH L-1.           COMMENT 3:   Z - RADIUS OF THE CURB-CUT OR APRON FOR THE NORTHERN   SERVICE ACCESS ENCROACHES INTO CITY PROPERTY, PLEASE   ADJUST.       A - SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED CURB CUT.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ADJUSTMENT MADE,   HOWEVER PORTION OF CURB CUT RADIUS STILL SHOWN AS PART   OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ON NORTHERN SERVICE ROAD (WEST   RAILROAD AVE) AND EASTERN SERVICE ROAD (3RD STREET)       A- SEE SHEET A1.0. SERVICE ROAD RADII HAVE BEEN   ADJUSTED AS TO NOT ENCROACH INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.           COMMENT 4:   Z - THE SERVICE ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN   SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE REQUIRED 5 FT.   LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND TO SCREEN   THE VEHICULAR USES. SERVICE ROADS WILL HAVE TO BE   ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE BUFFER.       A - PREVIOUS RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED SERVICE   ACCESS AND BUFFER.       Z - 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED.   NORTHERN SERVICE ROAD (ADJACENT TO CITY PROPERTY)   INCLUDES LIVE OAK, GREEN BUTTONWOOD, AND COCOPLUM   GROUND COVER WHICH SATISFIES THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.   SUGGEST PLANTING HEDGES TO FURTHER SCREEN LOADING   BAY/OPERATION FROM ROSEMARY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.   SOUTHERN SERVICE ROAD (3RD ST.) INDICATES SYNTHETIC   TURF, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY LANDSCAPE BUFFER   REQUIREMENTS NOR IS IT PERMITTED IF SEEN FROM THE ROW   (4TH ST. EXT OR 3RD ST.) PLEASE ADJUST TO INCLUDE REAL   PLANT MATERIAL AND/OR GROUND COVER.       A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED - ON THE SITE PLAN,   SHEET A1.0, THERE IS THE LABEL 'DOG RUN' BUT ON   LANDSCAPE SHEET L-01 THERE IS VEGETATION AND TREES,   PLEASE REVISE. IN ADDITION, TREES SHOULD CONTINUE FROM   NORTH (4TH STREET) TO SOUTH (3RD ST) ON THE 5FT   LANDSCAPE BUFFER. LASTLY, MAKE SURE THAT THE SIDEWALK   ON 3RD STREET IS NOT INTERRUPTED WITH VEGETATION AREAS   AS SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE SHEET L-1.       COMMENT 5:   Z - SHEET A0.2, SITE INFORMATION TABLES REQUIRE   CORRECTIONS:   - IF LOT AREA IS 108,638; THEN WITH A 2.75 FAR MAXIMUM   ALLOWED IS 298,755 SF, NOT 298,729 SF.   - REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 25% IS 27,160 SF, NOT   27,158 SF.   - CONDITIONAL 50? SETBACK IS FROM ABOVE THE 5TH FLOOR,   NOT THE 6TH.   - GBA SHOULD MATCH FAR CALCULATION.   - PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK ALL CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS   OR CONSISTENCY ACROSS PLANS.       A- SHEET A0.2 SHOWS REVISED DATA.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. TABLE ON SHEET A0.2   DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5. A1.5 IS LABELED   CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST.       A - SHEET A0.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE   CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. CORRECT CALCULATIONS ON   TABLE 'MINIMUM ACTIVE USE', AS MENTIONED ON COMMENT #1.       IN ADDITION, ON SHEET A1.4, PLEASE ADD A TABLE SHOWING   TOTALS FOR REQUIRED VS PROPOSED FOR OPEN SPACE   CALCULATIONS. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS ARE   MISSING. NOTE, 'POOL DECK' IS NOT A TYPE OF PRIVATE   OPEN SPACE. ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TABLES, NOTE THE TYPE.   FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS PERMITTED BY DISTRICT   CHECK SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-6, OR CHECK SAME SECTION   FOR DEFINITIONS OF EACH TYPE. CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO   MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-7.           COMMENT 6:   Z 11.17.22 - OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. PARTIALLY   SATISFIED (SEE NEW COMMENT 5).       A - SEE NEW COMMENT 5 RESPONSE.       Z 01.27.23 NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE SEE COMMENT NO. 5.   AND PLEASE SHARE ANY UPDATES ON DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO   THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.       PER SEC. 94-113 (D) (1), PRIVATE SIDEWALKS WHICH SERVE   AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK SHALL COMPLY   WITH THE STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, SHALL MATCH THE   PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN DESIGN AND MATERIAL, AND SHALL   PROVIDE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO. ON 4TH   (NORTH AND SOUTH SIDEWALKS) STREET PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU   HAVE A CLEAR SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES ON A LANDSCAPE   STRIP ADJACENT TO THE CURB. STREET TREES SHOULD BE ON   4FT PLANTING BEDS, SIDEWALK WIDTH CAN BE A MINIMUM 5   FT. NOTE, STREET TREES SPACING IS 30FT MAX., SEE MORE   INFO ON SEC. 94-113 (D) (2) AND MAKE SURE ALL STREET   TREES MEET THE REQUIREMENT.       NOTE, PLEASE REFLECT ANY CHANGES ON ALL PLANS, AS NOTED   BEFORE SOME CHANGES IN LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE MISSING ON   ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.           COMMENT 7:   Z 11.17.22. SATISFIED.           COMMENT 8:   Z - SHEET A1.0 PLEASE PROVIDE ALL CURBCUT WIDTH   DIMENSIONS ALONG PROPERTY LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25.       A- SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR CURB CUT DIMENSIONS.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED MEASUREMENT FOR   CURBCUT WIDTH IS TO BE TAKEN FROM INTERSECTION OF   PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CURBCUT, PLEASE ADJUST.       A - SHEET A1.0 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO SHOW CURB CUT   DIMENSIONS AT PROPERTY LINES.       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.           COMMENT 9:   Z - ON SHEET L-1 AND A1.0 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS NOT MET:   A. STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJACENT TO THE   CURB, N ROSEMARY AVENUE SIDE ON FEATURES 5 (EXISTING)   TREES, REQUIREMENT IS TREES SPACED OUT AT A MAX. OF 30   FT. ON CENTER; APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N   ROSEMARY.       A - ALONG ROSEMARY AVE THE 8' SIDEWALK IS PROPOSED   ADJACENT TO THE CURB SO THE STREET TREES ARE PROVIDED   BETWEEN THE WALK AND THE BUILDING AT 30' O.C. THE 5   EXISTING TREES WILL BE REMOVED. CITY ALSO MENTIONED CRA   WOULD BE DEVELOPING A STREETSCAPE ALONG ROSEMARY AVE.   ONCE CRA PLANS ARE FINALIZED THE STREETSCAPE ALONG   ROSEMARY SHALL BE MODIFIED TO INCORPORATE CRA DESIGN.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED.   STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED ADJACENT TO THE   CURB PER SEC. 94-113. CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH CRA   THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE CITY   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, AS   FUTURE WORK AND DESIGN BY CRA/CITY NOT CONFIRMED.   APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N ROSEMARY   PLEASE ILLUSTRATE STREETSCAPE/LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS   (STREET TREES, ETC.) WITHIN THE SITE PLAN A1.0       A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON N ROSEMARY AVE,   SOME TREES ARE SPACED OUT MORE THAN 30 FT. PLEASE   ADJUST.       PLEASE NOTE, ON 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDEWALK GREEN AREAS   WHERE TREES ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BLOCK   ARE NOT SHOWING ON A1.0 JUST LIKE IT SHOWS ON L-1. ALSO   SEE COMMENT NO. 4 AND 6 AS RELATES TO LANDSCAPE.           COMMENT 10:   Z- PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON ALL ELEVATIONS.       A - SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED ELEVATIONS.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED   SETBACKS PROVIDED, SHEET A3.1 WEST ELEVATION DOES NOT   SHOW BRIDGE CONNECTING TWO BUILDINGS.       A - SHEET A3.1 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO SHOW BRIDGE.       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.           Z - SHEET A3.1 EAST ELEVATION SHOWS OPENINGS THROUGH   THE 2ND AND 3RD LEVELS, WHAT ARE THESE?       A - SHEET A3.1 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REMOVE OPENINGS IN   EAST ELEVATION.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON THE GROUND FLOOR,   ON THE ENTRANCE OF THE LOADING AREA ON THE NORTH   BUILDING, THERE IS STILL A BLUE OPENING. IN ADDITION,   ON THE 4 FLOOR, PARKING LEVEL AREA, IT SEEMS THAT THE   FACADE ARTICULATION IS NOT FINISH OR MEETING THE OTHER   BUILDING VOLUME TO THE NORTH.       Z - SHEET A3.2 SOUTH ELEVATION GROUND LEVEL SHOWS   GREYED OUT PORTION OVER ENTRY. PLEASE REVISE.       A - SHEET A3.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REVISE ELEVATION.   ELEVATION LABELS HAVE ALSO BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE   CORRECT ORIENTATION.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PERHAPS THE USE OF   SOLID FILL HATCH AND THE PRINTING IS CAUSING SLIGHTS   ERRORS ON THE ELEVATIONS, PLEASE SEE ON SOUTH   ELEVATION, THERE IS A GRAY VOLUME CROSSING THE   SETBACKS. THERE ARE ALSO SOME DOORS THAT ARE NOT   MEETING THE GROUND FLOOR AND IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THEY   HAVE ANY STEPS OR HOW PEDESTRIANS WILL ACCESS THE   BUILDING. PLEASE REVISE.       Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE MORE   INFORMATION ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS ABOUT FACADE   MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT DETAILS TO MEET   FACADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ON SEC. 94-109, TABLE   IV-4. NOTED THAT YOU HAVE A1.6 PROVIDING INFORMATION   ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. AND, A1.5 PROVIDING INFO ABOUT   PLANAR BREAKS AND HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS.           COMMENT 11:   Z - PLEASE PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS ON FACADE   ARTICULATION AND HOW THE PROJECT MEETS PLANAR BREAK   REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPARENCY/FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS,   AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR ANY PROJECTIONS,   SCREENING, OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.       A - SEE SHEETS A1.5 AND A1.6 FOR PLANAR BREAK AND   TRANSPARENCY DIAGRAMS.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED. CLARIFICATION FOR BUILDING   FRONTAGES OF 150 FT. OR MORE NO FACADE SHALL EXCEED 60%   OF FRONTAGE WITHOUT PROVIDING A PLANAR BREAK OF AT   LEAST 3 FT. IN DEPTH, TOTAL WIDTH OF PLANAR BREAKS   SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20% OF BUILDING   FRONTAGE. PLEASE PROVIDE PLANAR BREAK CALLOUTS AND   DIMENSIONS FOR THE W RAILROAD AVE. SIDE, THE GARAGE   ENTRY IS STILL PART OF THE OVERALL BUILDING AND PODIUM.       A - PLANAR BREAKS ADDED TO RAILROAD AVENUE AND TABLE   UPDATED.       Z - WIDTH REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET. PLEASE PROVIDE   DEPTH OF PLANAR BREAKS (MINIMUM OF 3FT.).       A - PLANAR BREAK DIMENSIONS ADDED.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON SHEET A1.5 PLANAR   BREAKS FOR RAILROAD AVE AND N ROSEMARY ARE MET. PLEASE   REVISE BUILDING FRONTAGE FOR 3RD STREET AS THE DRAWING   SHOWS A DIFFERENT NUMBER FROM THE TABLE. IN ADDITION,   PROVIDE PLANAR BREAKS FOR FACADES ON 4TH STREET.       ON SHEET A1.5, PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT 4TH   STREET AND HOW MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN   TABLES.MINIMUM ACTIVE USE CALCULATIONS NEED TO BE   REVISED AS MENTIONED BEFORE.       Z - PLEASE CLARIFY OR EXPLAIN THE FACADE PLANE   CALCULATIONS: GROUND FLOOR TABLE, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN   OR SHOW?       A - TABLE HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS INCLUDED IN ERROR.       Z -TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS MET.       Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: ON SHEET A1.6 FRONTAGE   DIAGRAMS, PLEASE CLEAN UP ELEVATIONS, THERE ARE LINES   BELOW GROUND LEVEL. IN ADDITION, PLEASE ADD ACTIVE USE   AND NON-ACTIVE USE DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN IN SEC. 94-109,   TABLE IV-33. IT SEEMS THAT CALCULATIONS ARE NOT   CORRECT, PLEASE REVISE. PLEASE ALSO ADD MINIMUM ACTIVE   USE LINER DEPTH REQUIRED AND PROPOSED, SEE SEC. 94-128,   TABLE IV-35A.       Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: AS MENTIONED ON PREVIOUS   COMMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON ELEVATIONS   DRAWINGS ABOUT FACADE MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENT DETAILS TO MEET FACADE ARTICULATION   REQUIREMENTS ON SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-4.           COMMENT 12:   Z - THE WALLS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   COURTYARD (BETWEEN 4TH AND 3RD) ARE BLANK, PLEASE   PROVIDE SOME FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR   FACADE ARTICULATION ON THESE WALLS. - NORTHERN FA??ADE   OF THE BUILDING (FACING SALVATION ARMY) APPEARS TO HAVE   A LARGE BLANK WALL (>20%) PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL   FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR FA??ADE   ARTICULATION TO THIS FRONTAGE. - WEST RAILROAD AVENUE,   GROUND LEVEL FACADE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL   ARTICULATION.       A - SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED ELEVATIONS.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED   INTERIOR WALLS OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE COURTYARD   APPEAR TO BE BLANK STILL WITHIN THE RENDERS PROVIDED.   PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON IF THERE ARE ANY   ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENESTRATION, OR TREATMENTS ON   THESE INSIDE WALLS. A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 SHOW   DIFFERENCES IN FENESTRATION. ALSO A3.3 SHOWS WINDOWS   AND FACADE ARTICULATION.       A - PUBLIC OPEN SPACE #4 HAS FENESTRATION, EYEBROWS AND   ACCENT COLORS AS SHOWN IN WEST ELEVATION (SHEET A3.1)   AND COVER PERSPECTIVE VIEW (SHEET A0.0). THE BACK   (WEST-FACING) WALL OF THE PUBLIC SPACE WILL HAVE A   SERIES OF WINDOWS ON ALL LEVELS. THE INTERIOR WALLS   WILL ALSO HAVE WINDOWS.           Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. FENESTRATION ON THE   OPEN SPACE #4 IS MET ON THE WALL FACING WEST, NOTE ON   THE WALLS FACING NORTH AND SOUTH, THE COVER SHEET A0.0   SHOW WINDOWS ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHICH ARE NOT   CONSISTENT WITH THE GROUND FLOOR PLANS A1.0, A1.4,   A2.1. PLEASE ALSO CLARIFY IF THERE ARE EYEBROWS ON   THESE WALLS.           COMMENT 13:   Z- BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRES 1 SPACE PER EVERY 100 FT.   OF FRONTAGE, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ALONG ROW/CURB (~5-6   SPACES ON ROSEMARY; ~2 SPACES ON 3RD; ~3 SPACES ON W   RAILROAD.)       A - SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING   BICYCLE PARKING SPACES.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED   PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED WITHIN   ROW TO ENSURE IT MEETS CITY STANDARDS.       A - A REFERENCE DETAIL IMAGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO SHEET   A0.2 TO CONVEY THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE PUBLICLY   ACCESSIBLE BIKE RACKS.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA   IBAVEN VIA EMAIL TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CITY'S BICYCLE   PARKING GUIDELINES. ONCE YOU REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES,   MAKE SURE THAT YOU PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE ARRANGEMENT   OF BIKE RACKS WITH DIMENSIONS AS NOTED IN THE   GUIDELINES. AND PLEASE REVIEW SEC. 94-485 FOR OTHER   BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.           COMMENT 14:   Z - PLEASE INDICATE LOCATION OF BIKE ROOM, PROVIDE   DETAILS OF HOW ROOM IS ACCESSED, AND PROVIDE THE TYPE   OF RACKS OR DETAIL HOW THE BIKES ARE SECURED WITHIN THE   ROOM.       A - SEE SHEET A1.0 DESIGNED BICYCLE ROOMS IN EACH   GARAGE. THE BICYCLE RACK DETAIL WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE   PERMIT SET OF PLANS.       Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED.   PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSION OF BIKE ROOM TO VERY SPACE IS   ADEQUATE FOR TYPE OF RACKS/SECURING METHODS PROPOSED.   PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO ENSURE IT   MEETS CITY STANDARDS.       A - SEE SHEET A2.1. BIKE STORAGE ROOMS HAVE BEEN   DIMENSIONED AND BIKE STORAGE GRAPHICS HAVE BEEN ADDED.   TOTAL BIKE STORAGE COUNT HAS BEEN UPDATED ON ZONING   DATA SHEET A0.2.       Z 01.27.23 PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY IF YOU   WILL BE USING THE SAME BIKE RACK SPECS FOR BIKE RACKS   LOCATED ADJACENT TO SIDEWALKS AND BIKE RACKS LOCATED   INSIDE THE BIKE ROOMS. PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA IBAVEN   VIA EMAIL TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CITY'S BICYCLE   PARKING GUIDELINES. ONCE YOU REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES,   MAKE SURE THAT YOU PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE ARRANGEMENT   OF BIKE RACKS WITH DIMENSIONS AS NOTED IN THE   GUIDELINES. AND PLEASE REVIEW SEC. 94-485 FOR OTHER   BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.           COMMENT 15:   Z - PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING STALL DETAILS, MAKE SURE THE   STRIPING AND DIMENSIONS MEET CITY STANDARD. PLEASE   PROVIDE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, REQUIRED 24FT. MINIMUM.   PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING RAMP SLOPES. PROVIDE DIMENSION   OF LOADING AREA.       A - SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR TYPICAL STALL AND AISLE   DIMENSIONS, PARKING SLOPES AND LOADING AREA SIZES.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED.   PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ADA SPACES AND INCLUDE   5FT ACCESS AISLE. PLEASE PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN   DRAWING SETS AND BE SURE THAT ALL ADA SPACES ARE   ACCURATELY REPRESENTED BETWEEN SHEETS, SOME DRAWINGS   HAVE THE SPACES MISSING.   PLEASE CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ADA SPACES FOR GROUND FLOOR.       A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO   SHOW ALL ADA SPACES AND ACCESS AISLES.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON SHEET A2.1, PLEASE   PROVIDE DIMENSIONS ON THE AREA WHERE AN ADA SPACE IS IN   PROXIMITY WITH THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING AS IT SEEMS   TO BE TOO SMALL.   ON SHEET A2.2, NORTH BUILDING, THERE IS A COLUMN IN   FRONT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE WHICH MIGHT NOT BE ADA   ACCESSIBLE, PLEASE REVISE.       PLEASE REVIEW SEC. SEC. 94-485 AND PROVIDE A PARKING   STANDARD DETAIL SHOWING DIMENSIONS, PAINTING DETAILS,   ETC., AS WELL AS FOR ADA PARKING SPACES.       PLEASE LABEL 'TANDEM PARKING' ON DRAWINGS. NOTE, AS PER   SEC. 94-111 (E)(2), TANDEM PARKING, IF PROVIDED, MAY   COUNT AS TWO SPACES, PROVIDED BOTH SPACES ARE DEDICATED   TO THE SAME RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND A RESTRICTIVE   COVENANT IS RECORDED ON CITY APPROVED FORMS, AND   RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. ALSO, ADD # OF TANDEM   PARKING SPACES ON TABLE 6 - PARKING AND LOADING ON   SHEET A0.2.       Z - ON SHEET A1.0, WHAT IS THE PATH OF ENTRY/EXIT FOR   AN ADA USER WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BUILDING? THERE IS NO   CLEAR ACCESS INTO THE BUILDING OR DIRECT CONNECTION TO   ELEVATORS, PLEASE ADJUST.       A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO   SHOW HATCHED AREAS INDICATING ACCESSIBLE PATHS FROM   PARKING SPACE TO BUILDING ENTRY.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED - SOME DOORS TO UNITS   SEEM TO BE MISSING IN PLANS. PLEASE CLARIFY IF INSIDE   THE PARKING LOT, PEOPLE CAN ONLY ACCESS THE BUILDING   UNITS THROUGH THE 'BUILDING ACCESS'.       Z - ARE ALL INTERNAL PARKING RAMPS 12% SLOPE?       A - SEE SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 FOR REVISED PARKING   RAMP SLOPES. TYPICAL SLOPES ARE 16% WITH 8% BLENDS AT   TOP AND BOTTOM.       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED       Z - ADA SPACE ON SHEET A2.3 DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCESS   AISLE OR CLEAR PATH TO ELEVATOR. CAN THIS BE RELOCATED?       A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO   SHOW HATCHED AREAS INDICATING ACCESSIBLE PATHS FROM   PARKING SPACE TO BUILDING ENTRY.       Z 01.27.23 - SAME COMMENT AS ABOVE, PARTIALLY   SATISFIED. ON SHEET A2.1, PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS ON   THE AREA WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS ADJACENT TO THE ADA AS   IT SEEMS TO BE TOO SMALL. ON SHEET A2.2, NORTH   BUILDING, THERE IS A COLUMN IN FRONT OF THE MAIN   ENTRANCE WHICH SEEMS TO BE NOT ADA ACCESSIBLE.       Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: PLEASE CLARIFY IF PARKING LOT   RAMPS ON THE SOUTH BUILDING CHANGE LOCATION. ON THE   GROUND FLOOR AND 2ND FLOOR ARE LOCATED ON THE SAME   AREA, ON 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR RAMP ON THE SOUTH CHANGED   LOCATIONS.           COMMENT 16: RENDERS       Z 11.17.22 SATISFIED               COMMENT 17: RETAIL SPACE   Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED   CAN A RETAIL SPACE BE ACCOMMODATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR   OF 4TH ST. FRONTAGE WHERE CURRENTLY THERE ARE LARGE   LOBBIES AND AMENITY ROOMS? BRINGS MORE ACTIVITY TO THE   BUILDING AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.       Z 01.27.23 NEW COMMENT. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, A   STUDY HAS BEEN PRODUCED, BY THE CITY AND CRA, TO   REDEVELOP N ROSEMARY AVE WITH THE GOAL OF ACTIVATING   THE STREETSCAPE. GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL USE IS   RECOMMENDED, AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY   INCORPORATING RETAIL USE ON GROUND FLOORS CHANGING THE   CURRENT STREETSCAPE CONDITIONS ON N ROSEMARY AVE,   ENCOURAGING MORE ACTIVITY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.   BUILDING CORNERS ON N ROSEMARY AVE AND 3RD STREET AND   4TH STREET CAN INCORPORATE NEW RETAIL AMENITIES TO   RESIDENTS, ATTRACT THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, AND ALIGN   WITH THE GOALS OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. PLEASE   EXPLORE INCORPORATING RETAIL IN THESE AREAS OR AT LEAST   IN THE CORNER OF N ROSEMARY AND 3RD STREET.           COMMENT 18:   Z - RECOMMEND EXPLORING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENTS, FACADE ARTICULATION, OR DESIGNS TO THE   CORNER/INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY. THIS IS A   FOCAL POINT AND SERVES AS A GATEWAY INTO THE NORTHWEST   NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STANDOUT OR   SPECIAL FRONTAGE.       A - SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED ELEVATIONS.   CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY SHOWS A MORE ARTICULATED   FA??ADE WITH RECESSED, DOUBLE-HEIGHT LIVE-WORK UNIT AND   WRAP-AROUND BALCONY.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED   LANDSCAPE REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE. PLEASE   INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OVER ROSEMARY AND 3RD   STREET. PLEASE CONSIDER OPENING THIS CORNER UP MORE.       A - CORNER PLAZA HAS BEEN OPENED UP MORE TO ALLOW FOR   MORE LANDSCAPING. REFER TO CIVIL SHEET C-8.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY CHANGES MADE   ON SHEET C-8 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL.       Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT   LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE CONSISTENT WITH   CHANGES ON SHEET C-8. ON SHEET C-8, THE 3RD STREET   CORNER, PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE EXISTING CROSSWALK WILL   BE REMOVED OR IF THE PROJECT WILL ADD SIDEWALK TO MEET   THE EXISTING CROSSWALK AS IT IS NOT SHOWING ON OTHER   ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. PLEASE SHOW ALL   EXISTING OR PROPOSED CROSSINGS ON A1.0 AND ADD   CROSSINGS ON 4TH STREET.       Z - RELOCATE MICROMOBILITY SPACE TO THE AREA UNDER THE   BRIDGE IN FRONT OF AMENITY SPACE ON 4TH STREET.   PROVIDES COVER AND FREES UP ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR   LANDSCAPE, ETC.       A - SEE SHEET A1.0. MICRO MOBILITY SPACE HAS BEEN   RELOCATED TO THE SUGGESTED LOCATION.       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.       Z- WILL THE LIVE-WORK UNIT PROVIDE ACCESS FROM 3RD   STREET NOW INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS ROSEMARY ENTRY?       A - STREET ACCESS TO LIVE/WORK UNIT WILL BE FROM   ROSEMARY.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED, PLEASE CLARIFY IF   FOLKS PARKING INSIDE THE LOT WILL HAVE TO GO OUT OF THE   BUILDING TO ACCESS THE UNIT. IN ADDITION, SEE COMMENT   NO. 17.           COMMENT 19:   Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED           COMMENT 20:   Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED           COMMENT 21:   Z- SHEET A4.1 & A4.2, PLEASE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY HOW THE   BRIDGE AND PARKING LEVELS RELATE TO THE OVERALL FLOOR   PLATES OF THE BUILDING, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE   LEVEL/LOOKS TO BE A HALF OR QUARTER-FLOOR DIFFERENCE IN   THE ALIGNMENT. HOW DOES THIS SPACE FUNCTION IN RELATION   TO THE OVERALL BUILDING? INTERNALLY RAMPS UP?           A - PARKING IS ORGANIZED IN A SPLIT-LEVEL ARRANGEMENT.   ONE PART OF THE GARAGE ALIGNED TO THE MAIN HABITABLE   LEVEL; THE OTHER PART IS MIDWAY BETWEEN MAIN HABITABLE   LEVELS. THE BRIDGE LEVELS HAVE BEEN REWORKED TO ALIGN   WITH THE MAIN HABITABLE LEVELS.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED   SECTION DRAWINGS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP OR CLARIFIED   FURTHER. THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES DOUBLE SLAB LINES,   WHERE THE SLAB UNDULATES OR VARIES BETWEEN LEVELS, AND   IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE SPACES RELATE TO THE FLOOR   PLANS.       SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO   BUILDINGS SHOWS A WHITE BOX/ROOM LABELED PARKING, BUT   THIS SPACE DOES NOT EXIST ON THE 3RD FLOOR PLAN, THIS   IS AN AMENITY SPACE. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO   PARKING LEVELS BETWEEN THE BRIDGE IS NOT CLEAR.       A - SECTION SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO SHOW   PARKING WITHIN THE BRIDGE ON LEVELS 3 AND 4.           Z - SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: DOES THE LOADING BAY RAMP   UP INTO THE GARAGE? THE CHANGE IN SLABS IS CONFUSING.   IT??? S UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE   PARKING STRUCTURE HAS A HALF LEVEL STEP DOWNWARD, BUT   IS THE REST OF THE PARKING AND LOADING ON A SLAB ABOVE   GRADE? WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS?       A- SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE   THE DOUBLE SLABS. THE LOADING BAYS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER   THAN THE ADJACENT PARKING DECKS. STAIRS/RAMPS HAVE BEEN   ADDED TO NEGOTIATE THIS LEVEL CHANGE. SEE GROUND FLOOR   PLAN (SHEET A2.1)       Z- SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLEAN UP OR CLARIFY   WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE 4TH STREET PORTION OF THE   SECTION, TWO SEPARATE LINES INDICATING THE FLOOR OF THE   BUILDING AND ROADWAY.       A- SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE   THE DOUBLE SLABS.       Z - SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLARIFY DOES THE   SOUTHERN BUILDING STEP DOWN IN THE PARKING GARAGE? TWO   DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS AND ELEVATIONS SHOW BETWEEN   PARKING LEVEL AND REST OF BUILDING/SIDEWALK.       A - THE LOADING BAYS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE   ADJACENT PARKING DECKS. STAIRS/RAMPS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO   NEGOTIATE THIS LEVEL CHANGE.       Z - SECTION B ON SHEET A4.1: CLARIFY THE TWO BOLDED   LINES FOR THE FLOOR ELEVATION/SLAB AND SIDEWALK/AT   GRADE LEVEL.       A - SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE   THE DOUBLE SLABS.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED: PLEASE ADD PROPERTY LINES   SETBACK LINES, AND DIMENSIONS TO PARAPET TO SECTIONS   JUST AS DONE ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS TO SHOW HIGHEST   POINT OF THE BUILDING.   ON SHEET A4.1, SECTION 1 - A IS NOT MATCHING GROUND   FLOOR PLAN, PLEASE REVISE. SECTION 2 - B IS CUTTING ON   THE STREET BUT NOT SHOWING ANY STEPS OR RAMP FOR   PEDESTRIANS ENTERING THE SOUTH LOBBY AMENITY SPACE.           Z - SECTION C AND D ON SHEET A4.2: PLEASE CLARIFY THE   GROUND LEVEL CONDITIONS, TWO SEPARATE BOLD LINES SHOWN   AGAIN, WHAT IS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND ARE   THERE ADDITIONAL STEPS DOWN/UP FOR THE GROUND LEVEL?   PLEASE PROVIDE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS, OR LEADERS ON   THE DRAWINGS AND INDICATE AREAS WITH ANY STEPS OR   RAMPS.       A - SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE   THE DOUBLE SLABS. SPOT ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO   SHEET A2.1, AS WELL AS STAIRS/RAMPS TO NEGOTIATE   CHANGES IN LEVEL. SEE GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET A2.1)       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED: PLEASE ADD PROPERTY LINES,   SETBACK LINES, AND DIMENSIONS TO PARAPET TO SECTIONS   JUST AS DONE ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS TO SHOW HIGHEST   POINT OF THE BUILDING.   ON SHEET A2.1 ON PARKING LOT THERE IS A RAMP WITH A 5%   SLOPE AND ON SHEET A4.2, SECTION 2-C, THIS IS NOT   REFLECTED IT. THE RAMP SEEMS TO GO DOWN TOWARDS   RAILROAD AVE TO MEET THE STREET LEVEL AND THE SECTION   DOES NOT MEET THE STREEL LEVEL. IN ADDITION, ACCORDING   TO THE SHEET A2.2 AND A2.3 THE PARKING LOT FLOOR LEVELS   ARE THE SAME AS THE UNIT'S FLOOR LEVELS AND THE SECTION   DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. SECTION 3-D, A SMALL RAMP ON THE   GROUND FLOOR DOES NOT MATCH THE FLOORPLAN. PLEASE   REVISE DRAWINGS.               COMMENT 22:   Z - UPDATED RENDERS PROVIDED ON 9.8.22 SHOW THE   GROUND-LEVEL WALKUP UNITS ENCLOSED BY A RAILING OR   FENCE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE WALL + RAILING?       A - THE HEIGHTS OF THE WALLS WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE   SIDEWALK???S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT WALK-UP   GARDEN FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION (A DIFFERENCE OF APPROX.   2??? ??? 3.5???). THE RAILING WILL BE 42??? ABOVE THE   TOP OF THE WALL.       Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED   PER SECTION 94-109 WALK-UP GARDEN: FENCES, WALLS OR   OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN   HEIGHT. PLEASE REFER TO FIGURE IV-34.       PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF THE WALK-UP UNITS SPECIFYING   THE DIMENSIONS OF THE DIFFERENT ELEVATION CHANGES,   FLOOR LEVELS, WALLS/FENCE, AND PROJECTIONS AS IS   APPLICABLE. BE SURE RENDERS ARE ACCURATE TO PLANS.       A - WALK UP GARDEN GATE, WALLS, AND STEPS HAVE BEEN   REVISED. SEE DETAIL SECTION AND PLAN ON SHEET A1.4       Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.           COMMENT 23:   Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED   RENDERS PROVIDED DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT CHANGES TO   SITE PLAN OR ELEVATIONS OR THE RENDER IN SHEET A5.1.   PLEASE ADDRESS PRIOR TO DAC.       A- RENDERINGS WILL BE UPDATED PRIOR TO DAC       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, RENDERS WILL NEED TO BE   PROVIDED AS PART OF THE RESUBMITTAL.               COMMENTS 11/18/22:       COMMENT 1:   Z - PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ALL ENTRY/EXIT AND DOORS ON THE   GROUND LEVEL AND UPPER FLOOR PLANS TO CLARIFY USER   CIRCULATION AND ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING.       A - BUILDING ACCESS DOORS HAVE BEEN LABELED ON GROUND   LEVEL, GARAGE LEVELS AND AMENITY LEVEL PLANS.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. AS MENTIONED ABOVE,   SOME FLOOR PLANS ARE MISSING DOORS TO UNITS, AND ON   SHEET A2.2 THERE IS A COLUMN IN FRONT OF ACCESS TO THE   BUILDING FROM THE NORTH BUILDING PARKING LOT.       COMMENT 2:   Z - MAX FOOTPRINT LENGTH PERMITTED FOR NWD-8   SUBDISTRICT IS 250???, PROPOSED SOUTH BUILDING EXCEEDS   MAX LENGTH AT 265???. PLEASE ADDRESS/ADJUST.       A - PER CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD   THAT THE FA??ADE LENGTH COULD EXCEED 250??? BY   PROVIDING A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO BREAK UP THE BUILDING   LENGTH.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PER SEC. 94-128, TABLE   IV-35A, THERE IS A MAXIMUM 250FT FOOTPRINT LENGTH ALONG   ROSEMARY AVE, THIS AFFECTS THE FOOTPRINT LENGTH ON THE   SOUTH BUILDING, PLEASE REVISE AS THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE   THAT CAN BE GRANTED. IN ADDITION, THERE IS THE 150FT   MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONTAGE ON ROSEMARY AVE   THAT CAN BE BROKEN BY ADDING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, THIS   REQUIREMENT AFFECTS THE NORTH BUILDING, PLEASE REVISE.   FOR 'BUILDING FRONTAGE' PLEASE SEE SEC. 94-109, FIGURE   IV-7. FOR 'FOOTPRINT LENGTH' SEE SEC. 94-109, FIGURE   IV-12.           COMMENT 3:   Z - SHEET A0.2 TABLE 5 NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. SHOULD   REFLECT SHEET A1.5 CALCULATIONS AND DESCRIPTION/LABEL.       A - SHEET A0.2, TABLE 5 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE   CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, REVISE MINIMUM ACTIVE USE   TABLE, AND SEE ABOVE COMMENTS RELATED TO CALCULATIONS   ON SHEET.           COMMENT 4:   Z - PLEASE MOVE THE TREES TO BE ADJACENT TO THE CURB   ALONG THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION, THESE SHALL SERVE AS THE   REQUIRED STREET TREES (MAX. 30 FT ON CENTER). PLEASE   ALSO INCLUDE TREES ON BOTH SIDES OF 4TH ST, CONTINUOUS   SHADE FOR PEDESTRIANS.       A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS.       Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SOME TREES ARE SPACED   OUT MORE THAN 30FT. PLEASE ADJUST. IN ADDITION, SOME   TREES SEEM TO BE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF LANDSCAPE AREA   AND ALMOST IN THE SIDEWALK.   PLEASE NOTE ON 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDEWALK GREEN AREAS   WHERE TREES ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BLOCK   ARE NOT SHOWING ON A1.0 JUST LIKE IT SHOWS ON L-1.   NOTE, MORE COMMENTS ABOVE FOR STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS.           COMMENT 5:   Z - THE TWO ADJACENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ALONG 4TH   STREET STILL LOOK AND READ AS ONE LINEAR SPACE. ISSUE   IS THAT NO PUBLIC SPACE CAN HAVE 1 SIDE 5X THE LENGTH   OF THE OTHERS. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ALSO SEEMS TO   SERVE THE GROUND LEVEL UNITS MORE THAN GENERAL PUBLIC,   MOVING THE TREES TO THE CURB MAY HELP OPEN THE SPACE   UP. STAFF ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE UNITS THAT ARE FACING   THE INTERSECTION OF W. RAILROAD AVE AND 4TH ST SHIFT   SLIGHTLY OR CHANGE IN DIMENSION. CREATE MORE OF AN OPEN   COURTYARD SPACE RATHER THAN A LINEAR ONE. ADDITIONALLY   A PORTION OF THE OPEN SPACE CAN BE UNDER THE OVERHEAD   BRIDGE (MAX. 20% OVERHEAD COVERAGE) TO PROVIDE   ADDITIONAL SEPARATION BETWEEN TWO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.       A - PUBLIC SPACES #1 AND #2 HAVE BEEN SEPARATED AS   SUGGESTED. TREES HAVE ALSO BEEN SHIFTED TO CURB AS   SUGGESTED.       Z 01.27.23 - OTHER COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OPEN   SPACE DIAGRAMS, LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPE ABOVE.           COMMENT 6:   Z - PLEASE PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND ADA RAMPS   ALONG THE INGRESS/EGRESS OF 4TH ST. EXTENSION. AS WELL   AS AT THE CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY.       A - PLEASE, REFER TO CIVIL SHEET C-5.       Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, AS MENTIONED BEFORE PLEASE   ADD CROSSINGS TO THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLANS TO   SHOW CONSISTENCY IN DESIGN. ALSO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN   CROSSINGS ON 4TH STREET.           COMMENT 7:   Z - PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT   SITE, REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS   MEASURED AT THE BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT   ABOVE THE SIDEWALK. ADDITIONALLY PLEASE PROVIDE A   DETAIL AND SPECS OF THE PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES. CITY   STANDARD FOR DECORATIVE STREET LAMPS IS THE LUMEC   S55-007)       A- UNDERSTOOD. PLEASE, SEE PROVIDED PHOTOMETRIC.       Z - 01.27.23 - SATISFIED.           OTHER COMMENTS:       PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-54 (A)(1), THE APPLICANT   SHALL ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OF THE PPRC AND SUBMIT A   REVISED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH   COMMENTS. FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS   WITHIN THE 60-DAY DEADLINE WILL DEEM THE APPLICATION AS   WITHDRAWN. AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF   THE 60-DAY REVISION PERIOD, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A   30-DAY EXTENSION. NO FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST IS   PERMITTED. COMMENTS RELATING TO REVISED APPLICATIONS   SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH   COMMENTS.       WHEN RESUBMITTING, WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NEED   TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) PAPER   COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG/.PDF FORMAT OF   ALL PLANS AND ALL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED IN THE   APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE   RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS   TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL   COMMENTS.       LASTLY, YOU WERE PERMITTED ONE (1) RESUBMITTAL AT NO   ADDITIONAL COST. AS 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.       --END OF COMMENTS---     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 2 Status F Date 11-22-2022 Cont ID   Sent By ckimmerl Date 11-22-2022 Time 11:02 Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 11-22-2022 Time 11:01 Sent To   Notes 2022-11-22 11:02:43 ZONING:       1. ACTIVE USE: PLEASE NOTE THAT ACTIVE USES ARE   REGULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDABLE LOT   FRONTAGE, NOT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PLEASE ADJUST   CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY.THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE 80%   OF THE ENTIRE N ROSEMARY AVE. PROPERTY LINE (60% FOR   LINERS 2-5), 30% OF THE 3RD ST. PROPERTY LINE, AND   THEN 30% OF THE W. RAILROAD AVE. PROPERTY LINE.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.5 FOR ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS AND   CALCULATIONS.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5   ??? A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST.       2. PLEASE PROVIDE OWNERS CONSENT OR PROOF OF AGREEMENT   BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OF 411 W   RAILROAD AVE. TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF 4TH ST.   OVER THEIR PROPERTY.       RESPONSE: THE RECORDED EASEMENT PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO   MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS   SUBMITTAL. NO ADDITIONAL CONSENT IS REQUIRED FROM THE   ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE EASEMENT ALLOWS EITHER   PARTY THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CONTEMPLATED   IMPROVEMENTS DENOTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT ITSELF.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   EASEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDED ??? EASEMENT EXHIBIT B   SHOWS A 50FT. EASEMENT, PLANS SHOW 60FT. WHY THE   ADDITIONAL 10 FT.?       3. RADIUS OF THE CURB-CUT OR APRON FOR THE NORTHERN   SERVICE ACCESS ENCROACHES INTO CITY PROPERTY, PLEASE   ADJUST.       RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED CURB CUT.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   ADJUSTMENT MADE, HOWEVER PORTION OF CURBCUT RADIUS   STILL SHOWN AS PART OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ON NORTHERN   SERVICE ROAD (WEST RAILROAD AVE) AND EASTERN SERVICE   ROAD (3RD ST).           4. THE SERVICE ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN   SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE REQUIRED 5 FT.   LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND TO SCREEN   THE VEHICULAR USES. SERVICE ROADS WILL HAVE TO BE   ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE BUFFER.       RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED SERVICE ACCESS AND   BUFFER.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   NORTHERN SERVICE ROAD (ADJACENT TO CITY PROPERTY)   INCLUDES LIVE OAK, GREEN BUTTONWOOD, AND COCOPLUM   GROUND COVER WHICH SATISFIES THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.   SUGGEST PLANTING HEDGES TO FURTHER SCREEN LOADING   BAY/OPERATION FROM ROSEMARY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.       SOUTHERN SERVICE ROAD (3RD ST.) INDICATES SYNTHETIC   TURF, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY LANDSCAPE BUFFER   REQUIREMENTS NOR IS IT PERMITTED IF SEEN FROM THE ROW   (4TH ST. EXT OR 3RD ST.) PLEASE ADJUST TO INCLUDE REAL   PLANT MATERIAL AND/OR GROUND COVER.       5. SHEET A0.2, SITE INFORMATION TABLES REQUIRE   CORRECTIONS:       - IF LOT AREA IS 108,638; THEN WITH A 2.75 FAR MAXIMUM   ALLOWED IS 298,755 SF, NOT 298,729 SF.       - REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 25% IS 27,160 SF, NOT   27,158 SF.       - CONDITIONAL 50? SETBACK IS FROM ABOVE THE 5TH FLOOR,   NOT THE 6TH.       - GBA SHOULD MATCH FAR CALCULATION.       - PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK ALL CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS   FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS PLANS.       RESPONSE: SHEET A0.2 SHOWS REVISED DATA.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5   ??? A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST.           6. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT:       A. PLEASE CLARIFY THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION. IS IT A   PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS AGREEMENT/EASEMENT?   DOES IT SERVE AS A PUBLIC ROW?       RESPONSE: 4TH STREET EXTENSION IS PROPOSED AS A   PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW   COMMENT #5)       B. IF 4TH ST. IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC ROW, THEN   IT REQUIRES A SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE AND SHOULD BE   DESIGNED WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN MIND. IF IT   IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC ROW, THEN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   #2 DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF A COURTYARD TO HAVE   PUBLIC ROW ABUTMENT. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES SHOULD NOT BE   LOCATED ALONG THE PRIVATE DRIVE AS THAT IS NOT THE   INTENTION OF THE CODE, SPACES SHOULD BE PUBLICLY   ACCESSIBLE AND VISIBLE; OTHERWISE, PEDESTRIANS WILL NOT   UTILIZE THE SPACE AS DESIGNED.       RESPONSE: AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, 4TH STREET IS   PROPOSED AS A PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.   IT IS DESIGNED WITH 8??? SIDEWALKS AND TREE GRATES. IT   WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WOULD BE ALLOWED   TO ABUT THE 4TH STREET EXTENSION.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW   COMMENT #5)       C. ON SHEET A1.4 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE #1 AND #2 SHOULD BE   COMBINED INTO A SINGLE SPACE, THE WALKWAY/SIDEWALK DOES   NOT DELINEATE SEPARATE SPACES, AS IT IS SHOWN THE OPEN   SPACE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ITS PROPORTIONS CHANGED AS NO   SINGLE SIDE CAN BE 5X THE LENGTH OF THE OTHER. THIS IS   A VERY LINEAR OPEN SPACE.       RESPONSE:   PER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, AREA WAS ADDED BETWEEN   OPEN SPACES #1 AND #2 TO INCREASE SEPARATION. SEE   ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR REVISED LAYOUT OF THIS AREA;   SHEET A1.0 SHOWS THIS CLEARLY.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW   COMMENT #5)       D. WHAT IS THE GROUND LEVEL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT THE   NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHEET L-1? IS THIS PART OF THE   REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COUNT? SUGGEST EXPANDING   2BR UNIT TO SCREEN LOADING/SERVICE ROAD FROM THE   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND N ROSEMARY.       RESPONSE: THIS AREA IS NO LONGER DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE.   SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED LAYOUT OF THIS AREA.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW   COMMENT #5)       RECOMMEND INCLUDING HEDGES ALONG ROSEMARY FRONTAGE TO   SCREEN LOADING OPERATION       E. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR HOW THE PROPOSED   OPEN SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE, ACTIVE USE   ABUTMENT, ROW ABUTMENT, SEATING, VEGETATION, OVERHEAD   COVER, ETC. AS IS APPLICABLE.       RESPONSE:   SEE SHEET A1.4 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW   COMMENT #5)       7. PLEASE ADJUST GROSS BUILDING AREA (GBA) CALCULATIONS   ON SHEET A0.2 AND A1.1:       - 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.       - THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE   OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS.       - SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2 SHOULD MATCH IN TERMS OF TOTALS.       RESPONSE:   BECAUSE GROSS BUILDING AREA AND FAR ARE ESSENTIALLY THE   SAME AREA DESIGNATION, TO CLARIFY AND REMOVE   REDUNDANCY, ONLY FAR DIAGRAMS ARE SHOWN.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED       8. SHEET A1.0 PLEASE PROVIDE ALL CURBCUT WIDTH   DIMENSIONS ALONG PROPERTY LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25???.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR CURB CUT DIMENSIONS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   MEASUREMENT FOR CURBCUT WIDTH IS TO BE TAKEN FROM   INTERSECTION OF PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CURBCUT, PLEASE   ADJUST.       9. ON SHEET L-1 AND A1.0 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS NOT MET:       A. STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJACENT TO THE   CURB, N ROSEMARY AVENUE SIDE ON FEATURES 5 (EXISTING)   TREES, REQUIREMENT IS TREES SPACED OUT AT A MAX. OF 30   FT. ON CENTER; APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N   ROSEMARY.       RESPONSE: ALONG ROSEMARY AVE THE 8' SIDEWALK IS   PROPOSED ADJACENT TO THE CURB SO THE STREET TREES ARE   PROVIDED BETWEEN THE WALK AND THE BUILDING AT 30' O.C.   THE 5 EXISTING TREES WILL BE REMOVED. CITY ALSO   MENTIONED CRA WOULD BE DEVELOPING A STREETSCAPE ALONG   ROSEMARY AVE. ONCE CRA PLANS ARE FINALIZED THE   STREETSCAPE ALONG ROSEMARY SHALL BE MODIFIED TO   INCORPORATE CRA DESIGN.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED ADJACENT TO THE   CURB PER SEC. 94-113. CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH CRA   THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE CITY   STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, AS   FUTURE WORK AND DESIGN BY CRA/CITY NOT CONFIRMED.   APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N ROSEMARY       PLEASE ILLUSTRATE STREETSCAPE/LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS   (STREET TREES, ETC.) WITHIN THE SITE PLAN A1.0       B. FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY WITH CRA AS THERE   ARE PLANS TO RECONFIGURE THE N ROSEMARY STREETSCAPE.       RESPONSE: MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CRA HAVE BEEN   HAD PRIOR TO FORMAL SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY. WE WILL   CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE CRA REGARDING TIMING   AND DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROSEMARY.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? ACKNOWLEDGED   CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH CRA THAT THE APPLICANT IS   RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE CITY STREETSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL       C. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES   FROM ALL INTERSECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.   94-305(E.) LANDSCAPE APPEARS TO IMPEDE.       RESPONSE: VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHOWN ON SHEET L-1.   TREES ADJACENT TO TRIANGLES SHALL HAVE AN 8??? CT.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   SHEET L-1 DOES NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE SITE VISIBILITY   TRIANGLES FOR 4TH ST. EXT ONTO WEST RAILROAD RD. OR FOR   THE TWO SERVICE DRIVES.       10. PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON ALL ELEVATIONS.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED   ELEVATIONS.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED       SETBACKS PROVIDED       SHEET A3.1 WEST ELEVATION DOES NOT SHOW BRIDGE   CONNECTING TWO BUILDINGS       SHEET A3.1 EAST ELEVATION SHOWS OPENINGS THROUGH THE   2ND AND 3RD LEVELS, WHAT ARE THESE?       SHEET A3.2 SOUTH ELEVATION GROUND LEVEL SHOWS GREYED   OUT PORTION OVER ENTRY. PLEASE REVISE.       11. PLEASE PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS ON FA??ADE   ARTICULATION AND HOW THE PROJECT MEETS PLANAR BREAK   REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPARENCY/FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS,   AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR ANY PROJECTIONS,   SCREENING, OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A1.5 AND A1.6 FOR PLANAR BREAK   AND TRANSPARENCY DIAGRAMS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   CLARIFICATION ??? FOR BUILDING FRONTAGES OF 150 FT. OR   MORE NO FA??ADE SHALL EXCEED 60% OF FRONTAGE WITHOUT   PROVIDING A PLANAR BREAK OF AT LEAST 3 FT. IN DEPTH,   TOTAL WIDTH OF PLANAR BREAKS SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR   EQUAL TO 20% OF BUILDING FRONTAGE.       PLEASE PROVIDE PLANAR BREAK CALLOUTS AND DIMENSIONS FOR   THE W RAILROAD AVE. SIDE, THE GARAGE ENTRY IS STILL   PART OF THE OVERALL BUILDING AND PODIUM.       WIDTH REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET. PLEASE PROVIDE   DEPTH OF PLANAR BREAKS (MINIMUM OF 3FT.)       PLEASE CLARIFY OR EXPLAIN THE FA??ADE PLANE   CALCULATIONS: GROUND FLOOR TABLE, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN   OR SHOW?       TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS MET.       12. THE WALLS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   COURTYARD (BETWEEN 4TH AND 3RD) ARE BLANK, PLEASE   PROVIDE SOME FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR   FACADE ARTICULATION ON THESE WALLS. - NORTHERN FACADE   OF THE BUILDING (FACING SALVATION ARMY) APPEARS TO HAVE   A LARGE BLANK WALL (>20%) PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL   FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR FACADE   ARTICULATION TO THIS FRONTAGE. - WEST RAILROAD AVENUE,   GROUND LEVEL FACADE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL   ARTICULATION.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED   ELEVATIONS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   INTERIOR WALLS OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE COURTYARD   APPEAR TO BE BLANK STILL WITHIN THE RENDERS PROVIDED.   PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON IF THERE ARE ANY   ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENESTRATION, OR TREATMENTS ON   THESE INSIDE WALLS. A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 SHOW   DIFFERENCES IN FENESTRATION. ALSO A3.3 SHOWS WINDOWS   AND FA??ADE ARTICULATION.       13. BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRES 1 SPACE PER EVERY 100 FT.   OF FRONTAGE, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ALONG ROW/CURB (~5-6   SPACES ON ROSEMARY; ~2 SPACES ON 3RD; ~3 SPACES ON W   RAILROAD.)       RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING   BICYCLE PARKING SPACES.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED WITHIN   ROW TO ENSURE IT MEETS CITY STANDARDS.       14. PLEASE INDICATE LOCATION OF BIKE ROOM, PROVIDE   DETAILS OF HOW ROOM IS ACCESSED, AND PROVIDE THE TYPE   OF RACKS OR DETAIL HOW THE BIKES ARE SECURED WITHIN THE   ROOM.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 DESIGNED BICYCLE ROOMS IN   EACH GARAGE. THE BICYCLE RACK DETAIL WILL BE PROVIDED   IN THE PERMIT SET OF PLANS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED   PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSION OF BIKE ROOM TO VERY SPACE IS   ADEQUATE FOR TYPE OF RACKS/SECURING METHODS PROPOSED.   PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO ENSURE IT   MEETS CITY STANDARDS.           15. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING STALL DETAILS, MAKE SURE   THE STRIPING AND DIMENSIONS MEET CITY STANDARD. PLEASE   PROVIDE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, REQUIRED 24FT. MINIMUM.   PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING RAMP SLOPES. PROVIDE DIMENSION   OF LOADING AREA.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR TYPICAL STALL AND AISLE   DIMENSIONS, PARKING SLOPES AND LOADING AREA SIZES.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ADA SPACES AND INCLUDE   5??? ACCESS AISLE. PLEASE PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN   DRAWING SETS AND BE SURE THAT ALL ADA SPACES ARE   ACCURATELY REPRESENTED BETWEEN SHEETS, SOME DRAWINGS   HAVE THE SPACES MISSING.       PLEASE CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ADA SPACES FOR GROUND FLOOR.       ON SHEET A1.0, WHAT IS THE PATH OF ENTRY/EXIT FOR AN   ADA USER WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BUILDING? THERE IS NO   CLEAR ACCESS INTO THE BUILDING OR DIRECT CONNECTION TO   ELEVATORS, PLEASE ADJUST.       ARE ALL INTERNAL PARKING RAMPS 12% SLOPE?       ADA SPACE ON SHEET A2.3 DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCESS AISLE   OR CLEAR PATH TO ELEVATOR. CAN THIS BE RELOCATED?       16. FOR DAC PLEASE PROVIDE ACCURATE AND FULL DETAIL   RENDERS OF THE PROJECT.       RESPONSE: ACKNOWLEDGED. RENDERING WILL BE PROVIDED.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED   BE ACCURATE TO THE FINAL DESIGN OR PROPOSED PLANS       17. CITY/CRA IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GEHL HAS PRODUCED A   STUDY TO REDEVELOP N ROSEMARY AVENUE AND ITS   STREETSCAPE, AS PART OF THIS STUDY N ROSEMARY IS TO BE   A MORE ACTIVE FRONTAGE.       A. CRA RECOMMEND INCORPORATING GROUND-LEVEL COMMERCIAL   USES ALONG THE PORTION OF N. ROSEMARY AND THE 3RD ST.   FRONTAGE OR CORNER. FROM 3RD ST. TO 4TH ST.   COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH THE PROJECT'S   RESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.       RESPONSE: AS WAS DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, WE HAVE CREATED   ACTIVE USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A DOUBLE-HEIGHT LIVE-WORK   UNIT ON THE CORNER OF N. ROSEMARY AVE AND 3RD STREET.   HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE   REQUEST TO ADD COMMERCIAL USES ALL ALONG ROSEMARY. THE   CONCERN STEMS FROM THE CURRENT REALITY THAT THE STORE   FRONTS WILL BE VACANT ??? PROVIDING NO VIBRANCY. TO THE   CONTRARY, AS DESIGNED, THERE WILL BE ACTIVE USES FROM   THE LIVE-WORK AS WELL AS CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS   ABUTTING ROSEMARY. AS DESIGNED, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL   PROVIDE MORE VIBRANCY THAN FORCED COMMERCIAL SPACES   WITH NO TENANTS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED   CAN A RETAIL SPACE BE ACCOMODATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR   OF 4TH ST. FRONTAGE WHERE CURRENTLY THERE ARE LARGE   LOBBIES AND AMENITY ROOMS? BRINGS MORE ACTIVITY TO THE   BUILDING AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.       B. PORTION FROM 4TH ST. UP TO THE SALVATION ARMY   PROPERTY LINE CAN REMAIN AS THE WALK-UP UNITS. HOWEVER   ADDITIONAL GROUND-LEVEL RETAIL IS ENCOURAGED BY CRA.       RESPONSE: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SEGMENT OF ROSEMARY   IS NOT YET READY FOR VIABLE COMMERCIAL USES. AS   DESIGNED, THE LIVE-WORK UNIT ALONG WITH WALK-UP UNITS   ALONG ROSEMARY WILL PROVIDE THE DESIRED AND MUCH NEED   VIBRANCY.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED   SEE PREVIOUS SUGGESTION       C. RELOCATE INTERIOR LOBBY TO THE INTERSECTION OF 4TH   AND N ROSEMARY, MIRROR THE CONDITION ON THE 2ND   BUILDING'S LOBBY.       RESPONSE: THE SOUTH CORNER OF 4TH AND ROSEMARY IS   CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY UNITS. RELOCATING THE LOBBY TO   THIS CORNER LOCATION WOULD, IN TURN, RELOCATE THOSE   CORNER UNITS UNDER THE BRIDGE ELEMENT. THIS WOULD LIMIT   NATURAL LIGHT FOR THOSE DWELLING UNITS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED   SEE PREVIOUS SUGGESTION       D. SUGGEST FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH CRA.       RESPONSE: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HAS AND   WILL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE CRA.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED       18. RECOMMEND EXPLORING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENTS, FACADE ARTICULATION, OR DESIGNS TO THE   CORNER/INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY. THIS IS A   FOCAL POINT AND SERVES AS A GATEWAY INTO THE NORTHWEST   NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STANDOUT OR   SPECIAL FRONTAGE.       RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED   ELEVATIONS. CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY SHOWS A MORE   ARTICULATED FA??ADE WITH RECESSED, DOUBLE-HEIGHT   LIVE-WORK UNIT AND WRAP-AROUND BALCONY.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   LANDSCAPE REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE.       PLEASE INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OVER ROSEMARY AND   3RD STREET. PLEASE CONSIDER OPENING THIS CORNER UP   MORE.       RELOCATE MICROMOBILITY SPACE TO THE AREA UNDER THE   BRIDGE IN FRONT OF AMENITY SPACE ON 4TH STREET.   PROVIDES COVER AND FREES UP ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR   LANDSCAPE, ETC.       WILL THE LIVE-WORK UNIT PROVIDE ACCESS FROM 3RD STREET   NOW INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS ROSEMARY ENTRY?       19. ON SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2, THE DIAGRAM FOR LEVEL 4   AND LEVEL 8 ARE MISSING, VALUES ARE SHOWN IN TABLE.       RESPONSE: DIAGRAM LABELS UPDATED TO INCLUDE MISSING   LEVELS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED       20. SHEET A2.3 THE BRIDGE SPANNING OVER 4TH ST. SHOWS   PARKING SPACES, HOWEVER THERE ARE SEVERAL WALLS DRAWN,   PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THIS BRIDGE/SPACE FUNCTIONS. WHAT IS   THE GREY ROOM TO THE LEFT OF THE BRIDGE PARKING; IS   THIS STORAGE?       RESPONSE: PARKING SPACES ACROSS 4TH STREET ON LEVELS 3   AND 4. SEE SHEET A2.3 FOR REVISED LAYOUT WITH WALLS   REMOVED.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED       21. SHEET A4.1 & A4.2, PLEASE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY HOW   THE BRIDGE AND PARKING LEVELS RELATE TO THE OVERALL   FLOOR PLATES OF THE BUILDING, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE   LEVEL/LOOKS TO BE A HALF OR QUARTER-FLOOR DIFFERENCE IN   THE ALIGNMENT. HOW DOES THIS SPACE FUNCTION IN RELATION   TO THE OVERALL BUILDING? INTERNALLY RAMPS UP?       RESPONSE: PARKING IS ORGANIZED IN A SPLIT-LEVEL   ARRANGEMENT. ONE PART OF THE GARAGE ALIGNED TO THE MAIN   HABITABLE LEVEL; THE OTHER PART IS MIDWAY BETWEEN MAIN   HABITABLE LEVELS. THE BRIDGE LEVELS HAVE BEEN REWORKED   TO ALIGN WITH THE MAIN HABITABLE LEVELS.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   SECTION DRAWINGS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP OR CLARIFIED   FURTHER. THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES DPOUBLE SLAB LINES,   WHERE THE SLAB UNDULATES OR VARIES BETWEEN LEVELS, AND   IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE SPACES RELATE TO THE FLOOR   PLANS.       SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO   BUILDINGS SHOWS A WHITE BOX/ROOM LABELED PARKING, BUT   THIS SPACE DOES NOT EXIST ON THE 3RD FLOOR PLAN, THIS   IS AN AMENITY SPACE. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO   PARKING LEVELS BETWEEN THE BRIDGE IS NOT CLEAR.       SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: DOES THE LOADING BAY RAMP UP   INTO THE GARAGE? THE CHANGE IN SLABS IS CONFUSING.   IT???S UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE   PARKING STRUCTURE HAS A HALF LEVEL STEP DOWNWARD, BUT   IS THE REST OF THE PARKING AND LOADING ON A SLAB ABOVE   GRADE? WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS?       SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLEAN UP OR CLARIFY   WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE 4TH STREET PORTION OF THE   SECTION, TWO SEPARATE LINES INDICATING THE FLOOR OF THE   BUILDING AND ROADWAY.       SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLARIFY DOES THE   SOUTHERN BUILDING STEP DOWN IN THE PARKING GARAGE? TWO   DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS AND ELEVATIONS SHOW BETWEEN   PARKING LEVEL AND REST OF BUILDING/SIDEWALK.       SECTION B ON SHEET A4.1: CLARIFY THE TWO BOLDED LINES   FOR THE FLOOR ELEVATION/SLAB AND SIDEWALK/AT GRADE   LEVEL.       SECTION C AND D ON SHEET A4.2: PLEASE CLARIFY THE   GROUND LEVEL CONDITIONS, TWO SEPARATE BOLD LINES SHOWN   AGAIN, WHAT IS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND ARE   THERE ADDITIONAL STEPS DOWN/UP FOR THE GROUND LEVEL?       PLEASE PROVIDE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS, OR LEADERS ON   THE DRAWINGS AND INDICATE AREAS WITH ANY STEPS OR   RAMPS.       22. UPDATED RENDERS PROVIDED ON 9.8.22 SHOW THE   GROUND-LEVEL WALKUP UNITS ENCLOSED BY A RAILING OR   FENCE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE WALL + RAILING?       RESPONSE: THE HEIGHTS OF THE WALLS WILL VARY DEPENDING   ON THE SIDEWALK???S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT   WALK-UP GARDEN FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION (A DIFFERENCE OF   APPROX. 2??? ??? 3.5???). THE RAILING WILL BE 42???   ABOVE THE TOP OF THE WALL.   ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED   PER SECTION 94-109 WALK-UP GARDEN: FENCES, WALLS OR   OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN   HEIGHT. PLEASE REFER TO FIGURE IV-34.       PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF THE WALK-UP UNITS SPECIFYING   THE DIMENSIONS OF THE DIFFERENT ELEVATION CHANGES,   FLOOR LEVELS, WALLS/FENCE, AND PROJECTIONS AS IS   APPLICABLE.       BE SURE RENDERS ARE ACCURATE TO PLANS.       23. PER CONVERSATION WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF,   WHILE THE PROJECT LIES OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR   THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF ENCOURAGES DESIGN   THAT PROVIDES RELATIONSHIP OR REFERENCE TO THE HISTORIC   NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THIS PROJECT FACES/OPENS TO.   ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER INCLUDE:   ANGLED CORNERS ON THE BALCONIES CONNECTING TO THE   BUILDING FACADE (CREATING A TRAPEZOID LOOK), CABLED   SUPPORTS FROM THE BALCONIES TO THE BUILDING FA??ADE   (MIMIC AWNING OR CANOPY SUPPORTS), A THICKER BALCONY   SLAB FOR THE BALCONY ABOVE THE 3RD ST. ACCESS ROAD   (CREATING MORE OF A MARQUEE ELEMENT), AND OPENING UP   THE CORNER OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY BY SETTING THE MASS   BACK AND CREATING A FOCAL POINT AT THE CORNER.       RESPONSE: THE TREATMENT OF THE CORNER OF 3RD AND   ROSEMARY HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW ADDITIONAL   WRAP-AROUND BALCONIES, A STRONG FRAMING ELEMENT, A   RECESSED VOLUME ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND MORE OPEN SPACE   IN FRONT.       ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED   RENDERS PROVIDED DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT CHANGES TO   SITE PLAN OR ELEVATIONS OR THE RENDER IN SHEET A5.1.   PLEASE ADDRESS PRIOR TO DAC.               NEW COMMENTS 11/18/22:       1. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ALL ENTRY/EXIT AND DOORS ON THE   GROUNDLEVEL AND UPPER FLOOR PLANS TO CLARIFY USER   CIRCULATION AND ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING.       2. MAX FOOTPRINT LENGTH PERMITTED FOR NWD-8 SUBDISTRICT   IS 250???, PROPOSED SOUTH BUILDING EXCEEDS MAX LENGTH   AT 265???. PLEASE ADDRESS/ADJUST.       3. SHEET A0.2 TABLE 5 NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. SHOULD   REFLECT SHEET A1.5 CALCULATIONS AND DESCRIPTION/LABEL.       4. PLEASE MOVE THE TREES TO BE ADJACENT TO THE CURB   ALONG THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION, THESE SHALL SERVE AS THE   REQUIRED STREET TREES (MAX. 30 FT ON CENTER). PLEASE   ALSO INCLUDE TREES ON BOTH SIDES OF 4TH ST, CONTINUOUS   SHADE FOR PEDESTRIANS.       5. THE TWO ADJACENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ALONG 4TH STREET   STILL LOOK AND READ AS ONE LINEAR SPACE. ISSUE IS THAT   NO PUBLIC SPACE CAN HAVE 1 SIDE 5X THE LENGTH OF THE   OTHERS. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ALSO SEEMS TO SERVE THE   GROUND LEVEL UNITS MORE THAN GENERAL PUBLIC, MOVING THE   TREES TO THE CURB MAY HELP OPEN THE SPACE UP. STAFF   ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE UNITS THAT ARE FACING THE   INTERSECTION OF W. RAILROAD AVE AND 4TH ST SHIFT   SLIGHTLY OR CHANGE IN DIMENSION. CREATE MORE OF AN OPEN   COURTYARD SPACE RATHER THAN A LINEAR ONE. ADDITIONALLY   A PORTION OF THE OPEN SPACE CAN BE UNDER THE OVERHEAD   BRIDGE (MAX. 20% OVERHEAD COVERAGE) TO PROVIDE   ADDITIONAL SEPARATION BETWEEN TWO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.       6. PLEASE PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND ADA RAMPS   ALONG THE INGRESS/EGRESS OF 4TH ST. EXTENSION. AS WELL   AS AT THE CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY.       7. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT   SITE, REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS   MEASURED AT THE BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT   ABOVE THE SIDEWALK. ADDITIONALLY PLEASE PROVIDE A   DETAIL AND SPECS OF THE PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES. CITY   STANDARD FOR DECORATIVE STREET LAMPS IS THE LUMEC   S55-007)               CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP   URBAN DESIGN PLANNER   822.1426 [email protected]     Review Stop Z ZONING Rev No 1 Status F Date 09-07-2022 Cont ID   Sent By ckimmerl Date 09-07-2022 Time 15:32 Rev Time 0.00 Received By ckimmerl Date 09-07-2022 Time 15:29 Sent To   Notes 2022-09-07 15:31:02 1. ACTIVE USE: PLEASE NOTE THAT ACTIVE USES ARE   REGULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDABLE LOT   FRONTAGE, NOT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PLEASE ADJUST   CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY. THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE 80%   OF THE ENTIRE N ROSEMARY AVE. PROPERTY LINE (60% FOR   LINERS 2-5), 30% OF THE 3RD ST. PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN   30% OF THE W. RAILROAD AVE. PROPERTY LINE.       2. PLEASE PROVIDE OWNERS CONSENT OR PROOF OF AGREEMENT   BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OF 411 W   RAILROAD AVE. TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF 4TH ST.   OVER THEIR PROPERTY.       3. RADIUS OF THE CURB-CUT OR APRON FOR THE NORTHERN   SERVICE ACCESS ENCROACHES INTO CITY PROPERTY, PLEASE   ADJUST.       4. THE SERVICE ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN   SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE REQUIRED 5 FT.   LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND TO SCREEN   THE VEHICULAR USES. SERVICE ROADS WILL HAVE TO BE   ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE BUFFER.       5. SHEET A0.2 ? SITE INFORMATION TABLES REQUIRE   CORRECTIONS:   - IF LOT AREA IS 108,638; THEN WITH A 2.75 FAR MAXIMUM   ALLOWED IS 298,755 SF, NOT 298,729 SF.   - REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 25% IS 27,160 SF, NOT   27,158 SF.   - CONDITIONAL 50? SETBACK IS FROM ABOVE THE 5TH FLOOR,   NOT THE 6TH.   - GBA SHOULD MATCH FAR CALCULATION.   - PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK ALL CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS   FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS PLANS.       6. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT:   - PLEASE CLARIFY THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION. IS IT A PRIVATE   ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS AGREEMENT/EASEMENT? DOES IT   SERVE AS A PUBLIC ROW?   - IF 4TH ST. IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC ROW, THEN IT   REQUIRES A SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE AND SHOULD BE   DESIGNED WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN MIND. IF IT   IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC ROW, THEN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   #2 DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF A COURTYARD TO HAVE   PUBLIC ROW ABUTMENT. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES SHOULD NOT BE   LOCATED ALONG THE PRIVATE DRIVE AS THAT IS NOT THE   INTENTION OF THE CODE, SPACES SHOULD BE PUBLICALLY   ACCESSIBLE AND VISIBLE; OTHERWISE, PEDESTRIANS WILL NOT   UTILIZE THE SPACE AS DESIGNED.   - ON SHEET A1.4 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE #1 AND #2 SHOULD BE   COMBINED INTO A SINGLE SPACE, THE WALKWAY/SIDEWALK DOES   NOT DELINEATE SEPARATE SPACES, AS IT IS SHOWN THE OPEN   SPACE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ITS PROPORTIONS CHANGED AS NO   SINGLE SIDE CAN BE 5X THE LENGTH OF THE OTHER. THIS IS   A VERY LINEAR OPEN SPACE.   - WHAT IS THE GROUND LEVEL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT THE   NORTH WEST CORNER OF SHEET L-1? IS THIS PART OF THE   REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COUNT? SUGGEST EXPANDING   2BR UNIT TO SCREEN LOADING/SERVICE ROAD FROM THE   PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND N ROSEMARY.   - PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR HOW THE PROPOSED OPEN   SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE, ACTIVE USE   ABUTMENT, ROW ABUTMENT, SEATING, VEGETATION, OVERHEAD   COVER, ETC. AS IS APPLICABLE.       7. PLEASE ADJUST GROSS BUILDING AREA (GBA) CALCULATIONS   ON SHEET A0.2 AND A1.1:   - 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.   - THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE   OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS.   - SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2 SHOULD MATCH IN TERMS OF TOTALS.       8. SHEET A1.0 PLEASE PROVIDE ALL CURBCUT WIDTH   DIMENSIONS ALONG PROPERTY LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25?.       9. ON SHEET L-1 AND A1.0 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE   REQUIREMENTS NOT MET:   - STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJACENT TO THE CURB,   N ROSEMARY AVENUE SIDE ON FEATURES 5 (EXISTING) TREES,   REQUIREMENT IS TREES SPACED OUT AT A MAX. OF 30 FT. ON   CENTER; APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N   ROSEMARY.   - FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY WITH CRA AS THERE ARE   PLANS TO RECONFIGURE THE N ROSEMARY STREETSCAPE.   - PLEASE ILLUSTRATE THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES FROM   ALL INTERSECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 94-305(E.) ?   LANDSCAPE APPEARS TO IMPEDE.       10. PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON ALL ELEVATIONS.       11. PLEASE PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS ON FACADE   ARTICULATION AND HOW THE PROJECT MEETS PLANAR BREAK   REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPARENCY/FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS,   AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR ANY PROJECTIONS,   SCREENING, OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.       12. THE WALLS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE   COURTYARD (BETWEEN 4TH AND 3RD) ARE BLANK, PLEASE   PROVIDE SOME FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR   FACADE ARTICULATION ON THESE WALLS.   - NORTHERN FA?ADE OF THE BUILDING (FACING SALVATION   ARMY) APPEARS TO HAVE A LARGE BLANK WALL (>20%) PLEASE   PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENT OR FACADE ARTICULATION TO THIS FRONTAGE.   - WEST RAILROAD AVENUE, GROUND LEVEL FACADE WOULD   BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION.       13. BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRES 1 SPACE PER EVERY 100 FT.   OF FRONTAGE, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ALONG ROW/CURB (~5-6   SPACES ON ROSEMARY; ~2 SPACES ON 3RD; ~3 SPACES ON W   RAILROAD.)       14. PLEASE INDICATE LOCATION OF BIKE ROOM, PROVIDE   DETAILS OF HOW ROOM IS ACCESSED, AND PROVIDE THE TYPE   OF RACKS OR DETAIL HOW THE BIKES ARE SECURED WITHIN THE   ROOM.       15. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING STALL DETAILS, MAKE SURE THE   STRIPING AND DIMENSIONS MEET CITY STANDARD. PLEASE   PROVIDE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, REQUIRED 24FT. MINIMUM.   PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING RAMP SLOPES. PROVIDE DIMENSION   OF LOADING AREA.       16. FOR DAC PLEASE PROVIDE ACCURATE AND FULL DETAIL   RENDERS OF THE PROJECT.       17. CITY/CRA IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GEHL HAS PRODUCED A   STUDY TO REDEVELOP N ROSEMARY AVENUE AND ITS   STREETSCAPE, AS PART OF THIS STUDY N ROSEMARY IS TO BE   A MORE ACTIVE FRONTAGE.   - CRA RECOMMEND INCORPORATING GROUND-LEVEL COMMERCIAL   USES ALONG THE PORTION OF N. ROSEMARY AND THE 3RD ST.   FRONTAGE OR CORNER. FROM 3RD ST. TO 4TH ST.   COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH THE PROJECT'S   RESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.   - PORTION FROM 4TH ST. UP TO THE SALVATION ARMY   PROPERTY LINE CAN REMAIN AS THE WALK-UP UNITS. HOWEVER   ADDITIONAL GROUND-LEVEL RETAIL IS ENCOURAGED BY CRA.   - RELOCATE INTERIOR LOBBY TO THE INTERSECTION OF 4TH   AND N ROSEMARY, MIRROR THE CONDITION ON THE 2ND   BUILDING'S LOBBY.   - SUGGEST FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH CRA.       18. RECOMMEND EXPLORING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL   TREATMENTS, FACADE ARTICULATION, OR DESIGNS TO THE   CORNER/INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY. THIS IS A   FOCAL POINT AND SERVES AS A GATEWAY INTO THE NORTHWEST   NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STANDOUT OR   SPECIAL FRONTAGE.       19. ON SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2, THE DIAGRAM FOR LEVEL 4 AND   LEVEL 8 ARE MISSING, VALUES ARE SHOWN IN TABLE.       20. SHEET A2.3 THE BRIDGE SPANNING OVER 4TH ST. SHOWS   PARKING SPACES, HOWEVER THERE ARE SEVERAL WALLS DRAWN,   PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THIS BRIDGE/SPACE FUNCTIONS. WHAT IS   THE GREY ROOM TO THE LEFT OF THE BRIDGE PARKING; IS   THIS STORAGE?       21. SHEET A4.1 & A4.2, PLEASE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY HOW   THE BRIDGE AND PARKING LEVELS RELATE TO THE OVERALL   FLOOR PLATES OF THE BUILDING, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE   LEVEL/LOOKS TO BE A HALF OR QUARTER-FLOOR DIFFERENCE IN   THE ALIGNMENT. HOW DOES THIS SPACE FUNCTION IN RELATION   TO THE OVERALL BUILDING? INTERNALLY RAMPS UP?       22. UPDATED RENDERS PROVIDED ON 9.8.22 SHOW THE   GROUND-LEVEL WALKUP UNITS ENCLOSED BY A RAILING OR   FENCE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE WALL + RAILING?       23. PER CONVERSATION WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF,   WHILE THE PROJECT LIES OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR   THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF ENCOURAGES DESIGN   THAT PROVIDES RELATIONSHIP OR REFERENCE TO THE HISTORIC   NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THIS PROJECT FACES/OPENS TO.   ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER INCLUDE:   ANGLED CORNERS ON THE BALCONIES CONNECTING TO THE   BUILDING FA?ADE (CREATING A TRAPEZOID LOOK), CABLED   SUPPORTS FROM THE BALCONIES TO THE BUILDING FA?ADE   (MIMIC AWNING OR CANOPY SUPPORTS), A THICKER BALCONY   SLAB FOR THE BALCONY ABOVE THE 3RD ST. ACCESS ROAD   (CREATING MORE OF A MARQUEE ELEMENT), AND OPENING UP   THE CORNER OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY BY SETTING THE MASS   BACK AND CREATING A FOCAL POINT AT THE CORNER.       CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP   URBAN DESIGN PLANNER   822.1426 [email protected]       Print Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved