| Date |
Text |
| 2016-05-31 10:20:19 | CASE NO. PB 950WWWW |
| | RESTORATION HARDWARE CAFE MAJOR DSI |
| | 560 OKEECHOBEE BLVD. |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ELEVEN |
| | (11) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY, |
| | JUNE 17, 2016, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 19, 2016 |
| | PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMENTS (BY JULY 31, 2016), THE |
| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION |
| | SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | ADDITIONAL RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF |
| | PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE |
| | SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ACCESSED |
| | A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 1) NEW ITEM: STAFF HAS NOTICED THAT THE WALL AROUND THE |
| | WESTERN COURTYARD NO LONGER CONSISTS OF ANGLED SECTIONS |
| | THAT FOLLOW THE CONTOUR OF THE COURTYARD, BUT IS RATHER |
| | A FLAT PLANE OF 95 FEET. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS |
| | CHANGE. PLEASE PROVIDE A PLANAR BREAK(S) IN THE WALL TO |
| | PROVIDE ARTICULATION TO CREATE SHADOW AND VISUAL |
| | INTEREST AS STIPULATED IN THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES. REGARDLESS OF THE WALL LAYOUT YOU PROCEED |
| | WITH, PROVIDE A BETTER GRAPHIC TO VERIFY THAT THE NEW |
| | NORTHERN WALL OF THE WESTERN COURTYARD DOES NOT |
| | ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK. THE LINE WEIGHT ON |
| | THE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A |
| | PORTION OF THE WALL IS IN THE SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 2) OPEN ITEM: PLEASE PROVIDE A REVISED OPEN AREA |
| | CALCULATION EXHIBIT BASED ON THE RECONFIGURED COURTYARD |
| | TO VERIFY THAT THE MINIMUM PARK/OPEN SPACE IS STILL |
| | MET. |
| | |
| | - THE REVISED OPEN AREA CALCULATION INCLUDES 2,212 |
| | SQUARE FEET ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. WHILE |
| | STAFF HAD SUGGESTED THIS MIGHT BE AN AREA WHERE |
| | ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE COULD BE ACHIEVED, IT WAS TO BE |
| | FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE SUCH AS A PLAZA OR A PATHWAY THAT |
| | TERMINATES AT A BENCH. A BENCH IN THE MIDDLE OF A |
| | LANDSCAPE STRIP, 120 FEET FROM THE PEDESTRIAN WAY DOES |
| | NOT PERMIT THIS AREA TO BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE |
| | REQUIRED OPEN SPACE CALCULATION. FOR THE AREA TO THE |
| | BENCH TO COUNT, IT WOULD NEED TO BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A |
| | MANNER THAT ALLOWS FUNCTIONAL USE. STAFF WOULD |
| | RECOMMEND LOOKING AT LANDSCAPE TO BUFFER THE BENCH FROM |
| | THE RAILROAD TRACK AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE DESIGN. |
| | |
| | 3) REVISED COMMENT: PLEASE ADD SOME ARCHITECTURAL |
| | ENHANCEMENTS ON THE NEW LARGE, EAST WALL THAT IS BEING |
| | PROPOSED ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE FOURTH FLOOR. |
| | PREVIOUSLY THIS HAD GLAZING THAT BROKE UP THE MASS OF |
| | THE SMALLER WESTERN WALL. |
| | |
| | - STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT ONE OF THE PARAPET WALLS WAS |
| | LOWERED SO THAT THE SKYLIGHT ABOVE THE STAIR IS NOW |
| | EXPOSED. CONTRARY TO THE RESPONSE, STAFF DID NOT |
| | SUGGEST INSTALLING WINDOWS ON THE KITCHEN BACK OF |
| | HOUSE. THE ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS REFERENCED IN THE |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT CAN TAKE THE FORM OF SCORING LINES, |
| | MEDALLIONS, REPLICATING THE WINDOW GRILL WORK, ETC. |
| | ONTO THE BLANK AREAS. THE RESPONSE STATES THAT THERE |
| | WILL BE LANDSCAPE TO SOFTEN THE WALL. THE EAST |
| | ELEVATION IS MISLEADING THAT IT SHOWS NINE FOOT TALL |
| | PALM TREES INSTEAD OF THE SIX FOOT TALL JAMAICA CAPER |
| | TREE THAT IS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. GIVEN THE |
| | CONSTRAINTS WHERE THE TREES ARE PLANTED, THESE TREES |
| | ARE NOT EXPECTED TO GROW TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL, SO |
| | ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL TREES WOULD HELP TO SOFTEN THE |
| | FACADE. |
| | |
| | 4) NO RESPONSE PROVIDED TO THIS COMMENT: IS IT POSSIBLE |
| | TO SYMMETRICALLY LINE UP THE 4TH FLOOR DOOR ON THE |
| | NORTH AND SOUTH FACADES WITH THE SPANDREL GLASS |
| | "DOORWAYS" ON THE FIRST THREE FLOORS? |
| | |
| | 5) NEW COMMENT: THERE ARE MORE THAN 50 PARKING SPACES |
| | ON SITE, SO THREE ADA PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6) NEW COMMENT: SECTION 94-443(C)(3)A REQUIRES THAT |
| | TERMINAL PARKING ISLANDS BE NO LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET |
| | IN WIDTH FOR THE LENGTH OF THE ADJACENT PARKING SPACE. |
| | THE NEW CENTER PARKING SPACES DO NOT MEET THIS |
| | STANDARD. |
| | |
| | 7) NEW COMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT ACCEPT OAK TREES IN FIVE |
| | (5) FOOT WIDE PARKING LOT ISLANDS. THE NEW CENTER |
| | PARKING TERMINAL ISLAND TREES SHALL BE APPROPRIATE FOR |
| | THE PLANTING WIDTH OF THE ISLAND. NOTE: A TREE SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED FOR EACH ROW OF PARKING. |
| | |
| | 8) REPEAT COMMENT: THE AUTOTURN PLAN IN SHOWS THE |
| | GARBAGE TRUCK DRIVING UP ON CURBS AND SCRAPING THE |
| | PARKING LOT ENTRY COLUMN AND WALL. THE AUTOTURN PLAN |
| | OUT SHOWS THE GARBAGE TRUCK DRIVING OVER CURBS. NEITHER |
| | SITUATION IS PERMITTED. THE PLAN WILL BE AFFECTED BY |
| | ADDRESSING THE PREVIOUS COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 9) NEW COMMENT: THERE ARE OAK TREES SHOWN IN DIRECT |
| | CONFLICT WITH THE STORMWATER PIPES. THE TREES OR PIPES |
| | NEED TO BE RELOCATED AND HAVE ROOT BARRIERS INSTALLED |
| | TO ELIMINATE THE CONFLICT. |
| | |
| | 10) REMINDER: PLEASE PROVIDE THE ITEMS SO STAFF MAY |
| | CLOSE THE OPEN MINOR PD AMENDMENT. OUTSTANDING COMMENTS |
| | RELATED TO THE WALL CORNERS WHERE THE WAIVER WAS |
| | GRANTED, THE NUMBER OF PARKING LOT LIGHT POLES, AND THE |
| | DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SCREENING. THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION |
| | IN THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING OF INCLUDING SOME |
| | ROOFTOP FRAMING CHANGES TO FACILITATE BUILDING PERMIT |
| | REVISIONS PENDING THIS APPLICATION BEING APPROVED BY |
| | CITY COMMISSION. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
