| Date |
Text |
| 2016-08-10 12:56:43 | PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 1000F |
| | KRAVIS CENTER LEVEL II SITE PLAN ? PARKING GARAGE RAMP |
| | TO IRIS STREET |
| | 701 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FIVE |
| | (5) 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. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY OCTOBER 10, |
| | 2016), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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) |
| | 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). |
| | |
| | 1) PLANNING STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RAMP TO IRIS |
| | STREET PORTION OF THE APPLICATION. NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT |
| | COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER |
| | PLAN (DMP), BUT STAFF FEELS THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS |
| | THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF |
| | A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SO PEOPLE COULD EXIT A GARAGE |
| | FASTER. |
| | |
| | 2) PROVIDE A REPORT FROM A CONSULTANT, WHO SPECIALIZES |
| | IN PARKING CONSULTING SERVICES WITH EXPERTISE IN |
| | PARKING GARAGE DESIGN, WHO HAS STUDIED THE GARAGE |
| | OPERATIONS AND EVALUATED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GARAGE |
| | FUNCTIONALITY. |
| | |
| | 3) STAFF STRONGLY ENCOURAGES THE ENTIRE SITE BEING |
| | BROUGHT UNDER ONE SET OF REGULATIONS, EITHER WITHIN THE |
| | CITYPLACE DRI OR THE DMP. |
| | |
| | 4) PLEASE NOTE THAT PB1000F IS A LEVEL II SITE PLAN |
| | REVIEW FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE RAMP WHICH IS LOCATED |
| | OUTSIDE OF THE CITYPLACE DRI AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF |
| | THE ENTRY DRIVE SOUTH OF THE COHEN PAVILION. THE SMALL |
| | PORTION OF THE RAMP WHICH IS PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO |
| | THE GARAGE IS WITHIN THE CITYPLACE DRI BOUNDARY AND |
| | REQUIRES CITY COMMISSION ACTION AS A LEVEL III SITE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5) A RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED |
| | TO REVIEW THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE IRIS STREET |
| | ABANDONMENT AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF TAMARIND AVENUE. |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS ARE |
| | DISCOURAGED WITHIN THE DMP AND ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL |
| | REVIEW BY THE DAC. THE ABANDONMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH |
| | CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE VII. THIS APPLICATION CANNOT BE |
| | FINALIZED UNLESS THE ROADWAY IS ABANDONED. |
| | |
| | 6) THE RAMP DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED CULTURAL |
| | ARTS DISTRICT SECONDARY STREET SETBACK OF 16 FEET FROM |
| | THE BACK OF THE CURB FOR IRIS STREET OR THE NUMBER OF |
| | CURB CUTS PERMITTED BY SECTION 94-313(1). THESE REQUIRE |
| | A VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM DAC ? NO APPLICATION |
| | SUBMITTED. THIS APPLICATION CANNOT BE FINALIZED UNLESS |
| | THE DAC APPROVES THE VARIANCE REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 7) PROVIDE FLOOR PLANS, WITH DIMENSIONS, FOR EACH LEVEL |
| | OF THE GARAGE, BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED. |
| | A. THE 3RD FLOOR PLAN SHALL SHOW HOW THE RAMP WILL |
| | ATTACH TO THE GARAGE WALL GIVEN THE EXISTING SUPPORT |
| | COLUMNS. |
| | B. THE PARKING LAYOUT SHOWN ON SHEET SP.1, INCLUDING |
| | DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW AND PARKING SPACE ANGLE, IS |
| | OPPOSITE THE WAY IT CURRENTLY EXISTS FOR THE OUTER |
| | PARKING SPACES. THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE RESTRIPE OF EACH |
| | FLOOR. |
| | C. THE PLANS SHALL NOT MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE RAMP IS |
| | COMING OFF OF THE 5TH FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 8) PROVIDE ELEVATIONS AND SECTION DRAWINGS, INCLUDING |
| | DIMENSIONS, FOR THE NEW GARAGE RAMP AND SCREENING. |
| | INSUFFICIENT DETAILS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR STAFF TO |
| | COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 9) PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STAFF VISITED THE SITE AND |
| | BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS, NOTED THAT THERE ARE SOME |
| | INTERNAL ITEMS THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN AN |
| | IMMEDIATE TIME FRAME THAT MAY IMPROVE OPERATIONS. |
| | A. INSTALL ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE IN THE |
| | GARAGE. THE "PARK" LIGHTING SHOULD ILLUMINATE WHEN THE |
| | GARAGE IS FILLING TO DIRECT FOLKS TO PARKING SPACES. |
| | THE "EXIT" LIGHTING SHOULD ILLUMINATE WHEN IT IS TIME |
| | TO EMPTY THE GARAGE TO DIRECT PATRONS TOWARD THE EXIT. |
| | B. RESTRIPE ALL PARKING SPACES TO BE 90 DEGREES AND THE |
| | CENTER RAMP COULD BECOME ALL DOWN AT TIME OF EXIT, WITH |
| | BOTH SIDE AISLES FEEDING INTO IT (THIS IS REVERSE FLOW |
| | ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF GARAGE). ILLUMINATED SIGNS |
| | WOULD DIRECT PEOPLE THE CORRECT WAY AS WELL AS IN |
| | GARAGE PERSONNEL. |
| | C. IMPROVE THE OVERALL LIGHTING WITHIN THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 10) IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THE INDICATED PROBLEM WAS THE |
| | POST SHOW FLUSH FROM THE GARAGE. WHY DOES THE RAMP NEED |
| | TO HAVE AN INGRESS DRIVE? |
| | |
| | 11) IF A RAMP IS TO BE USED, IT SHOULD COME OFF THE |
| | SOUTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE. THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT |
| | SHALL OCCUR ON-SITE AND NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE |
| | OFF-SITE ROADWAY NETWORK. SECTION 94-111(G)(3) STATES |
| | THAT WHERE POSSIBLE, CIRCULATION RAMPS SHALL BE |
| | INTERNALIZED TO AVOID VISIBILITY OF THE RAMPS FROM THE |
| | STREET OR PUBLIC AREAS. THE PROPOSED RAMP LOCATION IS |
| | SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTING THE PUBLIC REALM. VIEWS FROM |
| | BOTH EAST AND WEST DOWN IRIS STREET WILL BE OF A |
| | PARKING RAMP. |
| | |
| | 12) THE CHANNELIZED NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE OFF OF |
| | TAMARIND AVENUE IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. IF GIVES NO |
| | ABILITY FOR DRIVERS WHO ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA TO |
| | BE ABLE TO SAFELY TRANSITION BACK INTO THE NORTHBOUND |
| | TRAFFIC FLOW IF THEY MISTAKENLY GET INTO THE RAMP LANE. |
| | THIS IS A DE FACTO ABANDONMENT OF A LANE OF TAMARIND |
| | AVENUE FOR KRAVIS CENTER USE ONLY. |
| | |
| | 13) SAPODILLA AVENUE WAS DESIGNED AS A RESIDENTIAL |
| | STREET AS PART OF THE CITYPLACE DEVELOPMENT. THE |
| | CLOSING OF EASTBOUND IRIS STREET FORCES ALL TRUCKS THAT |
| | ACCESS THE IRIS STREET LOADING DOCKS ONTO SAPODILLA |
| | AVENUE, WHICH DOES NOT REINFORCE THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL |
| | STREET. |
| | |
| | 14) SINCE THERE ARE NO ACTIVE USES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | THE GARAGE, A LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED ALONG THE |
| | GARAGE FRONTAGE, TO INCLUDE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS AND |
| | TREES. |
| | |
| | 15) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLANTERS ON THE SIDE |
| | OF THE GARAGE SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPE REPLANTED. |
| | |
| | 16) NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ON THE "PARKING" SIGNS |
| | ON THE SCREEN WALL. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SIGNS DO NOT |
| | APPEAR TO CONFORM TO DMP REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 17) PROVIDE THE ELEVATIONS AT A BIGGER SCALE AND THE |
| | CROSS SECTIONS, INCLUDING DIMENSIONS, FOR THE COHEN |
| | PAVILION PORTE COCHERE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS SHALL |
| | PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEIGHT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. |
| | A. WHO IS ANTICIPATED TO USE THE LOADING SPACES |
| | ADJACENT TO THE PORTE COCHERE? |
| | B. PLEASE SHOW THE STACKING DIMENSION FOR THE DROP-OFF |
| | TO THE SITE ENTRANCE. |
| | C. WHY ARE THE ENTRY AND EXIT DRIVES 25 FEET WIDE FOR A |
| | SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC? 20 FOOT WIDE IS MORE THAN |
| | ADEQUATE. THE NARROWER DRIVE AISLE PROMOTES PEDESTRIAN |
| | SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY THE SITE DESIGN CRITERIA. |
| | D. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE EXIT TURNING RADIUS |
| | WORKS FOR THE CARS LEAVING THE PORTE COCHERE. |
| | E. HOW IS CONFLICT BETWEEN VALETS RETURNING CARS AND |
| | CARS LEAVING THE PORTE COCHERE HANDLED? |
| | F. WHY IS THE VALET RETURN LANE 15 FEET WIDE? |
| | G. PROVIDE THE AUTOTURN DRAWINGS TO SHOW THAT FULL |
| | SIZED BUSSES AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MAKE THE TURN |
| | TO BOTH ENTER THE SITE AND TO TRAVERSE THE SITE AND |
| | MAKE THE TURN TO REACH THE EXIT ONTO OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD. |
| | |
| | 18) PLEASE PROVIDE THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD TO THE COHEN PAVILION |
| | |
| | 19) PROVIDE THE FDOT PREDETERMINATION LETTER FOR THE |
| | MODIFICATIONS TO THE OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD TURN LANE AND |
| | ENTRANCES. |
| | |
| | 20) A CROSSWALK SHALL BE SHOWN AT TO CONNECT THE |
| | SOUTHERN SIDEWALK TO THE NORTHERN SIDEWALK AT THE |
| | EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE RAMP. |
| | |
| | 21) HAS THIS PLAN BEEN PRESENTED TO THE CITYPLACE |
| | COURTYARDS AND CONDO ASSOCIATIONS? |
| | |
| | 22) THE MONUMENT SIGNS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN ARE NOT |
| | PERMITTED AND SHALL NOT BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED |
| | FOR THE MONUMENT SIGNS; HOWEVER, UNTIL AN ORDINANCE IS |
| | ADOPTED TO PERMIT MONUMENT SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY THEY |
| | MAY NOT BE SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 23) THE FUTURE EXPANSION AREA BOX AND NOTE SHALL BE |
| | REMOVED FROM THE SITE PLAN AS THESE ARE NOT UNDER |
| | REVIEW AND THIS PROCESS DOES NOT VEST ANY FUTURE |
| | DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| |
Print |
