| Date |
Text |
| 2017-07-12 09:28:46 | PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 1000E - 2ND PPRC REVIEW |
| | KRAVIS CENTER LEVEL III SITE PLAN - DREYFOOS HALL AND |
| | VALET GARAGE |
| | 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 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, |
| | JULY 28, 2017, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE |
| | SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY SEPTEMBER 12, |
| | 2017), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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). |
| | |
| | - 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) PLANNING STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION IN |
| | ITS CURRENT DESIGN AS THE PRESENTED PLANS DO NOT COMPLY |
| | WITH THE ALL OF THE SITE DESIGN QUALITATIVE DEVELOPMENT |
| | STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 2) SAPODILLA AVENUE HAS BEEN DESIGNED AS A RESIDENTIAL |
| | STREET FRONTED BY ACTIVE USES WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF |
| | THE CITYPLACE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE METROPOLITAN AND |
| | THE EVERNIA PLACE DEVELOPMENTS. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A |
| | VALET GARAGE WITH NO ACTIVE USE LINED, THE CONSTRUCTION |
| | OF A SURFACE VALET PARKING LOT AND THE WIDENING OF |
| | SAPODILLA AVENUE TO ACCOMMODATE THE VALET ENTRANCE AND |
| | ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST ON |
| | SAPODILLA IS EXPECTED TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE |
| | SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE FDOT PREDETERMINATION |
| | LETTER FOR THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SAPODILLA AVENUE |
| | INTERSECTION MODIFICATION AND ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND |
| | RIGHT TURN LANE. CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY FDOT MAY RESULT |
| | IN MODIFIED OR NEW COMMENTS. PLEASE REVIEW THE COMMENTS |
| | PROVIDED BY THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION |
| | REGARDING THE ON AND OFF SITE CIRCULATION BOTH FOR |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD AND SAPODILLA AVENUE AS THESE MAY |
| | AFFECT THE FDOT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 4) PROVIDE A STUDY OR ANALYSIS DESIGNED BY A CERTIFIED |
| | PARKING EXPERT TO SHOW THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NEED |
| | OF 278 ADDITIONAL VALET PARKING SPACES. |
| | A. HOW MANY TOTAL VALET SPACES ARE THERE GOING TO BE |
| | AFTER THE NEW SPACES ARE ADDED WHEN COMBINED WITH THE |
| | SPACES WHICH ALREADY EXIST? |
| | B. HOW OFTEN IS A SHOW AT THE COHEN PAVILION AND AT THE |
| | DREYFOOS HALL WHICH REQUIRE UTILIZATION OF TWO VALET |
| | FIELDS? |
| | 5) WHAT IS THE PLANNED CONSTRUCTION PHASING OF THE |
| | ITEMS COVERED BY THE LEVEL II AND LEVEL III |
| | APPLICATIONS? |
| | |
| | 6) THE PORTION OF THE ENTRY DRIVE AND BUS DROP OFF THAT |
| | IS LOCATED SOUTH WEST OF THE DRYFOOS HALL, THE DRYFOOS |
| | HALL EXTENSION, THE ARTIST ENTRANCE PORTE CORCHERE AND |
| | THE NEW VALET PARKING STRUCTURE ARE CURRENTLY COMBINED |
| | AS PART OF THE LEVEL III SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. |
| | WHILE THESE MAY BE PROCESSED AS A LEVEL III, IF THESE |
| | VARIOUS ELEMENTS ARE PLANNED TO BE PART OF PHASED |
| | CONSTRUCTION, IT MAY BE BETTER TO REMOVE SOME OF THE |
| | ITEMS AND PROCESS THEM AS A MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENT SO THAT THE REVIEW PROCESS DOES NOT DELAY THE |
| | START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENTRY DRIVE |
| | AND BUS DROP OFF RECONFIGURATION IS DIRECTLY TIED TO |
| | THE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED SOUTH OF THE COHEN |
| | PAVILION AS PART OF THE LEVEL II REVIEW. UNDER THE |
| | CURRENT APPLICATION PROCESS, THE LEVEL II IMPROVEMENTS |
| | MAY NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THE LEVEL III SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| | IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AFTER A PUBLIC |
| | HEARING. |
| | |
| | 7) PLAZA AREA |
| | |
| | A. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE NEW BASEMENT AREA IS THAT IS |
| | SHOWN ON THE CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET AE121. |
| | B. THE CROSS SECTION DETAIL PAGE IS MISLABELED ON SHEET |
| | AE120 AS SHEET AE120 NOT AE121. |
| | C. THE LOWER PLAZA LEVEL FAILS TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED |
| | STREET TREES ADJACENT TO THE CURB AT 30 FOOT ON CENTER |
| | FOR ALL STREETS. |
| | |
| | 8) LOBBY EXPANSION |
| | |
| | A. THE SITE PLAN AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOW |
| | DIFFERING NUMBERS FOR THE LOBBY EXPANSION. ALL PLANS |
| | MUST SHOW THE SAME VALUES. |
| | |
| | 9) DRYFOOS HALL ENTRY DRIVE AND BUS DROP OFF PORTE |
| | COCHERE - PLEASE REVIEW THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING |
| | COMMENTS FOR CITY CONCERNS REGARDING THE LAYOUT AND |
| | CIRCULATION CONFLICTS FOR THE ENTRY DRIVE AND BUS DROP |
| | OFF. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO ITEMS NOTED |
| | BY THE PLANNING STAFF WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED IF THEY |
| | REMAIN ON THE PLANS AFTER SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSING THE |
| | TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | A. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE AUTOTURN DRAWINGS TO |
| | SHOW THAT FULL SIZED BUSSES AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN |
| | ENTER AND EXIT THIS AREA. --- THE ONLY AUTOTURN DRAWING |
| | THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS FOR A 45 FOOT BUS. THE PROVIDED |
| | AUTOTURN EXHIBIT DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT BUSSES CAN |
| | NEGOTIATE THE SITE. IT REQUIRES UNNATURAL DRIVING AND |
| | NOT A SMOOTH TRANSITION AROUND CURVES AS WELL AS |
| | CLIPPING THE BOX OFFICE PARKING SPACES SOUTH OF THE |
| | PORTE COCHERE. |
| | B. WILL THE BOX OFFICE PARKING BE SIGNED AS "BOX OFFICE |
| | ONLY" OR DOES THIS PARKING BECOME OPEN PARKING DURING |
| | PERFORMANCES? |
| | C. 60 DEGREE STANDARD PARKING SPACES (8.5 FEET WIDE) |
| | REQUIRE A STALL DEPTH OF 19 FEET 10 INCHES NOT THE 18 |
| | FOOT DEPTH PROVIDED. YOU ARE PROPOSING 9 FOOT WIDE |
| | PARKING SPACES AND THE ADA PARKING SPACE IS 12 FEET |
| | WIDE. THESE WIDER SPACES REQUIRE AN EVEN DEEPER STALL |
| | DEPTH TO KEEP A PORTION OF THE CAR FROM EXTENDING INTO |
| | THE DRIVE AISLE. CORRECT THE DIMENSIONS AND PROVIDE |
| | PARKING DETAILS FOR THE 60 DEGREE BOX OFFICE PARKING |
| | SPACES AT THE WIDTHS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | D. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEW CANOPIES BEING PROPOSED AS |
| | PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THERE ARE EXISTING CANOPIES |
| | THAT WILL REMAIN BETWEEN THE COHEN PAVILION AND THE |
| | DRYFOOS HALL. THE PLANS DO NOT SEEM TO MIRROR THE |
| | EXISTING CANOPIES IN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BOTH THE ROOF |
| | AND THE COLUMNS. PLEASE ADDRESS AND INDICATE ON THE |
| | PLANS THAT THE NEW CANOPIES WILL MATCH THE EXISTING |
| | CANOPIES AND THE CLADDING OF THE BUILDING. |
| | E. THE DRYFOOS HALL ENTRY DRIVE AND BUS DROP OFF PORTE |
| | COCHERE FAILS TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED STREET TREES |
| | ADJACENT TO THE CURB AT 30 FOOT ON CENTER ALONG |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD. |
| | |
| | 10) SECTION 94-113(D)(1) OF THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRES THAT SIDEWALKS BE A |
| | MINIMUM OF EIGHT (8) FEET IN WIDTH. THE NEW SIDEWALKS |
| | ALONG OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD, IRIS STREET AND SAPODILLA |
| | AVENUE ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS STANDARD. |
| | |
| | 11) PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE CONSTRUCTION |
| | SERVICES DIVISION THAT AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS ONLY |
| | REQUIRED FROM SAPODILLA AVENUE TO THE DRYFOOS HALL AND |
| | NOT FROM OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD AS WELL. |
| | |
| | 12) SAPODILLA AVENUE VALET DROP-OFF |
| | |
| | A. REPEAT COMMENT: THE DOWNTOWN REGULATIONS LIMIT THE |
| | WIDTH OF DRIVE AISLES FOR PORTE COCHERES TO 25 FEET IN |
| | WIDTH AT THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK (FIGURE IV-22) NOT 40 |
| | FEET AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. REDUCE THE OPENING |
| | WIDTH TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENT. |
| | B. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM |
| | THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DIVISION THAT THIS PARKING |
| | AREA DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ADA PARKING SPACE. |
| | C. THE REVISED PLANS SHOW AN EXIT TO THE SURFACE VALET |
| | LOT TO SAPODILLA AVENUE. NO EXIT IS PERMITTED. THE |
| | ALLOWANCE FOR A DROP OFF PORTE COCHERE FROM SAPODILLA |
| | AVENUE REQUIRES THAT THE NEXT DRIVEWAY BE LOCATED A |
| | MINIMUM OF 100 FEET FROM THE DROP OFF DRIVE (FIGURE |
| | IV-22). |
| | |
| | 13) THE SAPODILLA VALET GARAGE |
| | |
| | A. THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES TO RECONFIGURE IRIS STREET |
| | DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED VALET GARAGE BY ADDING |
| | BULBOUTS TO FRAME SOME OF THE EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING |
| | SPACES. THE BULBOUTS REMOVE TWO METERED PARALLEL |
| | PARKING SPACES AND ONE PARALLEL ADA PARKING SPACE. |
| | PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM THE CITY'S PARKING |
| | DIVISION APPROVING THAT THE SPACES MAY BE REMOVED, |
| | INCLUDING WHAT THE COST FOR THE PERMANENT REMOVAL IS. |
| | IF THE PARKING DIVISION WILL PERMIT THE SPACES TO BE |
| | REMOVED, THEN YOU MUST PROVIDE A NOTORIZED AGREEMENT TO |
| | PAY ANY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMANENT REMOVAL OF |
| | THE SPACES. |
| | B. THE CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT REQUIRES BUILDINGS ON |
| | SECONDARY STREETS TO BE SETBACK 16 FEET FROM THE BACK |
| | OF THE CURB. THE PROPOSED BULBOUTS DO NOT SET THE CURB |
| | LINE. THE CURB LINE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE PREDOMINANT |
| | CURB ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF IRIS STREET. PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE THE SETBACK DIMENSION (MINIMUM 16 FEET) FROM |
| | THIS CURB LINE TO THE FACE OF THE PANELS MOUNTED TO THE |
| | PROPOSED GARAGE ON IRIS STREET. THE SAPODILLA AVENUE |
| | SETBACK |
| | C. THE CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT REQUIRES BUILDINGS ON |
| | SECONDARY STREETS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 30 PERCENT OF |
| | THE BUILDING BE ACTIVE USE (REQ. 132.3 FEET). THE |
| | ACTIVE USE ALONG SAPODILLA AVENUE (PROVIDED 134 FEET) |
| | IS PREDICATED ON THE KRAVIS CENTER ABUTTING PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 94-109 OF THE ZLDR. PROVIDE |
| | WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES |
| | DIVISION THAT THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE (PROPOSED |
| | DREYFOOS HALL PLAZA) COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL ADA |
| | REQUIREMENTS. IF IT MEETS THE ADA REQUIREMENTS, THEN |
| | THE SAPODILLA AVENUE FRONTAGE HAS MET THE ACTIVE USE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | D. PROVIDE ELEVATIONS WITH THE HEIGHT DIMENSIONS OF THE |
| | GARAGE. THE GARAGE ELEVATIONS SHALL BE CALCULATED FROM |
| | THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE EXTERIOR OR EACH FA?ADE. |
| | E. PROVIDE THE CALCULATIONS TO VERIFY THAT THE ROOFTOP |
| | CANOPY PROVIDES AT LEAST 30 PERCENT COVERAGE OF THE |
| | ROOFTOP DECK. |
| | F. PROVIDE THE OVERHANG DIMENSION OF THE ROOFTOP |
| | CANOPY. THIS MAY NOT EXCEED THE HORIZONTAL ENCROACHMENT |
| | ALLOWANCES. |
| | G. THE MAXIMUM PARKING RAMP SLOPE IS PERMITTED AT SIX |
| | PERCENT. SHEET AE301 SHOWS A 6.2 PERCENT SLOPE, WHICH |
| | IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| | H. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL CURB CUT FOR |
| | THE VALET INGRESS/EGRESS ON IRIS STREET. THIS |
| | ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT FAILS TO ADHERE TO THE SITE |
| | DESIGN STANDARDS OF IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SINCE |
| | MORE CURB CUTS CREATE MORE POSSIBLE VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN |
| | CONFLICTS. THE KRAVIS CENTER NEEDS TO MANAGE THEIR |
| | SHOWS AND NOT USE IRIS STREET, A PUBLIC ROAD FOR THEIR |
| | VALET OPERATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, EVEN IN THE EVENT THAT |
| | THE USE OF IRIS STREET WAS PERMITTED FOR USE BY THE |
| | VALET TO EXIT THE GARAGE TO RETURN IT INBOUND FROM |
| | SAPODILLA AVENUE (AS STATED IN THE RESPONSE) THERE IS |
| | NO SCENARIO WHERE THE VALET SHOULD BE ACCESSING THE |
| | GARAGE FROM IRIS STREET, SO A 24 FOOT OPENING IS NOT |
| | SUPPORTABLE. |
| | I. THE PROPOSED GARAGE NEEDS TO MIRROR THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS OF THE KRAVIS CENTER, FOR EXAMPLE |
| | THE STONE CLADDING AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING (THIS |
| | CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE BUILDING PROPOSED FOR |
| | DEMOLITION). |
| | J. PROVIDE A TABLE ON THE ELEVATION PLANS TO VERIFY HOW |
| | THE REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE IV-4, FACADE ARTICULATION |
| | REQUIREMENTS, OF THE ZLDR ARE MET FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 14) ARTIST DROP-OFF |
| | |
| | A. PROVIDE THE SETBACK FROM THE CURB TO THE ARTIST |
| | DROP-OFF PORTE COCHERE. REMEMBER THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO |
| | MEET THE 16 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. |
| | |
| | 15) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE HOW THE PROPOSED NEW |
| | DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ENERGY CONSERVATION |
| | MEASURES REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 4412-12, EXHIBIT D. |
| | THERE IS A SPECIFIC LIST OF REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN |
| | THE ORDINANCE WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 16) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE LIGHTING AND PHOTOMETRIC |
| | PLANS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. ANY PROPOSED LIGHT POLES |
| | MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF TREES. |
| | |
| | 17) BICYCLE PARKING |
| | |
| | A. THE CITY DOES NOT PERMIT THE WAVE TYPE BICYCLE RACK. |
| | PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED |
| | CITY MODELS. NOTE: THE CITY WILL ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE |
| | BICYCLE PARKING RACKS THAT ARE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE |
| | BUILDING USE IF THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ALLOW BICYCLES TO |
| | BE CORRECTLY SECURED TO THEM. ALTERNATIVE RACKS COULD |
| | BE IN THE SHAPE OF A MUSIC INSTRUMENT, THE |
| | THALIA/MELPOMENE MASKS, OR A MUSIC NOTE. STAFF IS |
| | WILLING TO DISCUSS CREATIVE BICYCLE RACK OPTIONS. |
| | B. BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE |
| | SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-485(Q)(2), NOT |
| | HIDDEN AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. |
| | C. THE PLANS SHALL CLEARLY SHOW THE BICYCLE PAD |
| | DIMENSIONS AND RACKS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS |
| | AS WELL AS PROVIDE A DETAIL SHEET SHOWING THE ACTUAL |
| | PAD AND RACK DIMENSIONS. |
| | |
| | 18) REPEAT COMMENT: THE SITE DATA TABLE IS INADEQUATE. |
| | IT FAILS TO PROVIDE SUCH AS TOTAL BUILDING AREA, LOT |
| | COVERAGE, OPEN SPACE, ETC. FOR THE DRI PORTION OF THE |
| | SITE INDEPENDENT OF THE DMP PORTION OF THE SITE. THE |
| | ADDITIONAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS TABLE FAILS TO PROVIDE |
| | THE INFORMATION FOR ALL FRONTAGES. ADDITIONALLY, THE |
| | TABLE MUST INCLUDE THE CALCULATIONS SO THAT STAFF CAN |
| | VERIFY THE INFORMATION PRESENTED SUCH AS THE FACADES |
| | MEETING THE FENESTRATION PERCENTAGES. |
| | |
| | 19) CITY STAFF HAS CONTACTED THE TROLLEY OPERATOR TO |
| | DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF USING THE ARTIST DROP-OFF |
| | AS A TURNAROUND LOCATION. STAFF WILL NOT BE MOVING THE |
| | APPLICATION FORWARD WITHOUT A SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION |
| | TO THE TROLLEY TURNAROUND. |
| | |
| | 20) ACCESS EASEMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR SIDEWALKS AND |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY PROVIDED ON THE KRAVIS CENTER PROPERTY |
| | UNLESS THE ROADWAY AUTHORITY REQUIRES THAT THE |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED TO THE AUTHORITY. |
| | |
| | 21) THE SITE PLAN CALLS OUT THE SIGNAL POLE AT THE |
| | CORNER OF SAPODILLA AVENUE AND OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD AS |
| | BEING RELOCATED. WHERE WILL THIS BE RELOCATED TOO? |
| | PROVIDE APPROVAL FROM FDOT OR PALM BEACH COUNTY THAT |
| | THIS SIGNAL POLE MAY BE RELOCATED. |
| | |
| | 22) REPEAT COMMENT: NO OVERALL DETAILED OVERALL SIGNAGE |
| | PLAN WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE AREA WITHIN THE DRI. |
| | |
| | A. PROVIDE GRAPHICS, WITH DIMENSIONS, ON THE PLANS TO |
| | SHOW THE DREYFOOS HALL PLAZA SIGN. |
| | B. THE SIGN CALCULATIONS FOR THE ARTIST ENTRANCE SIGN |
| | WERE NOT PROVIDED. THE SIGN BAND MAY OCCUPY A MAXIMUM |
| | OF 60 PERCENT OF THE NORTH DRYFOOS HALL BUILDING FACADE |
| | (DIMENSION NOT PROVIDED). |
| | C. PROVIDE LOCATIONS AND DETAILS OF THE SAPODILLA VALET |
| | DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. THESE SIGNS MUST BE SITED TO AVOID |
| | THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 23) THE DRI PERMITS WAIVERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION |
| | 94-207 OF THE ZLDR. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THE |
| | REQUESTED WAIVERS PROVIDE FOR INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING |
| | AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES THAT CREATE MORE DESIRABLE |
| | AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. |
| | |
| | 24) REPEAT COMMENT: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRI ADOPTING |
| | ORDINANCE, THE KRAVIS CENTER PROPERTY SHALL BE PLATTED. |
| | THE PREVIOUS OVERSIGHT OF THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT |
| | RESOLVE THE PLATTING REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 25) THE PLAN MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE CITYPLACE |
| | COURTYARDS AND CONDO ASSOCIATIONS PRIOR TO STAFF |
| | SCHEDULING THE CASE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF MUST BE |
| | MADE AWARE OF THE MEETING SO THAT A REPRESENTATIVE CAN |
| | ATTEND. |
| | |
| | 26) HAS CONSIDERATION BEEN MADE TO PROVIDING CHARGING |
| | STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC CARS ON SITE? |
| | |
| | 27) YOU MAY NOT RESERVE DRI CAPACITY FOR THE OUTDOOR |
| | THEATER THAT IS BEING DEMOLISHED. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |