| Date |
Text |
| 2017-11-17 13:06:37 | PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 1000E - NOVEMBER 3, 2017 |
| | RESUBMITTAL |
| | 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 MONDAY, |
| | NOVEMBER 27, 2017, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR |
| | THE JANUARY 16, 2018 PLANNING BOARD MEETING OR FRIDAY, |
| | DECEMBER 29, 2017, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR |
| | THE FEBRUARY 20, 2018 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 THESE COMMENTS (BY FEBRUARY 17, 2018), |
| | THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 VALET GARAGE |
| | PORTION OF 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 LINER, 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. |
| | |
| | OUTSTANDING ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO SCHEDULING |
| | FOR PLANNING BOARD |
| | |
| | 3) REVISED COMMENT: THE FDOT PREDETERMINATION LETTER |
| | DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MODIFICATION (WIDENING) OF |
| | SAPODILLA AVENUE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD. |
| | |
| | NOTE: THE FDOT PREDETERMINATION LETTER APPROVES THE TWO |
| | DRIVEWAYS ON OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD, WITH THE CONDITION |
| | THAT THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 16 FEET. THE |
| | SITE AND CIVIL PLANS SHOW DRIVEWAY NO. 1 WITH A WIDTH |
| | OF 20 FEET. SINCE DRIVEWAY NO. 1 IS LOCATED WITHIN THE |
| | DMP PORTION OF THE SITE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE |
| | CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF THE |
| | APPLICATION; HOWEVER, SINCE OTHER SITE PLAN CORRECTIONS |
| | ARE REQUIRED, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THE NEXT |
| | RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 4) 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). |
| | SECTION 94-111(O)(3) ALSO LIMITS CURB CUTS, PARKING |
| | ENTRANCES, EXITS AND DRIVEWAYS TO NO WIDER THAN 25 |
| | FEET. REDUCE THE OPENING WIDTH TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY |
| | REQUIREMENT. - THE RESUBMITTED PLANS SHOW THE DRIVE |
| | AISLE AT TEN (10) FEET INTO THE PROPERTY WITH A MEASURE |
| | OF 25 FEET WIDTH. THE APRON FLAIR IS CLEARLY VISIBLE ON |
| | THE PLANS AS WIDER THAN 25 FEET AND SCALES AT |
| | APPROXIMATELY 27 FEET IN WIDTH. THE MEASURE POINT NEEDS |
| | TO BE THE CURB FACE TO CURB FACE. |
| | |
| | B. NEW COMMENT: THE RESUBMITTED PLANS HAVE REMOVED THE |
| | REQUIRED FIVE (5) FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT |
| | TO THE BACKUP ASSIST AREA IN THE SURFACE VALET LOT AND |
| | REPLACED WITH A RETAINING WALL. IF A RETAINING WALL IS |
| | REQUIRED, IT NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON THE INSIDE OF THE |
| | REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER (IE. THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, |
| | WITH A HEDGE, IS REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED ADJOINING THE |
| | SIDEWALK). NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED REGARDING |
| | THE RETAINING WALL, TO INCLUDE HEIGHT, MATERIAL OR |
| | DESIGN. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL IS |
| | NOT SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. ALL PLANS MUST |
| | SHOW THE SAME CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | 5) THE SAPODILLA VALET GARAGE |
| | |
| | A. REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE |
| | ADDITIONAL CURB CUT FOR THE VALET INGRESS/EGRESS ON |
| | IRIS STREET (STAFF NOTES THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING A |
| | WAIVER). 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 WAIVER JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATE THAT THIS ACCESS POINT IS FOR INGRESS ON |
| | SAPODILLA AVENUE AND EGRESS ON IRIS STREET, AS WELL AS |
| | EMERGENCY INGRESS/EGRESS TO THE VALET ENTRANCE SHOULD |
| | THE PRIMARY ACCESS BE BLOCKED. THIS PRESENTS THREE |
| | ISSUES: |
| | 1. DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 94-485(M) - ALL |
| | VEHICULAR MOVEMENT AND MANEUVERING THAT MAY BE REQUIRED |
| | TO UTILIZE OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES SHALL BE |
| | RETAINED ON-SITE. PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL NOT BE |
| | UTILIZED TO ALLOW OR ENHANCE MOVEMENT OR MANEUVERING. |
| | IF A VALET IS DRIVING IN OFF OF IRIS STREET, THEN THE |
| | GARAGE IS USING CITY STREETS FOR MANEUVERING. GIVEN THE |
| | TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE ARRIVING/DEPARTING SHOWS, ADDING |
| | VALETS TO THE CITY STREET NETWORK IS NOT A SAFE, |
| | DESIRABLE SITUATION. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT STATES |
| | THE NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO "MAINTAIN |
| | EFFICIENT VALET FUNCTIONS". CITY STREETS ARE NOT |
| | INTENDED TO MAKE VALET FUNCTIONS EFFICIENT, THIS |
| | OPERATION IS TO BE KEPT ON-SITE. |
| | 2. REPEAT COMMENT: THIS THEN WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE |
| | PATRON PICKING UP THE VEHICLE TO DRIVE THROUGH THE |
| | GARAGE AND EXIT ONTO IRIS STREET. THIS IS LEFT OUT OF |
| | ALL THE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS. MIXING VALET AND PATRON, |
| | ESPECIALLY ELDERLY (62 YEAR OLD AVERAGE AGE), VEHICLE |
| | OPERATION IN A PARKING GARAGE IS NOT A SAFE SITUATION. |
| | A CIRCULATION PLAN IS REQUIRED. NO CIRCULATION PLAN TO |
| | SHOW HOW VALET AND PATRON CAN SAFELY SHARE THE VALET |
| | GARAGE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, EITHER IN THE RESPONSE OR IN |
| | THE WAIVER JUSTIFICATION. |
| | 3. NEW COMMENT: THE CITY EMS WILL NOT DRIVE INTO A |
| | GARAGE TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES. THEY WILL PARK |
| | THE VEHICLE(S) OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE AND PROVIDE |
| | EMERGENCY SERVICES. |
| | |
| | 6) REPEAT COMMENT: SHOW THE BICYCLE PAD DIMENSIONS ON |
| | THE SITE PLAN, NOT JUST THE DETAIL. |
| | |
| | 7) REPEAT COMMENT: THE DIMENSIONS AND FENESTRATION |
| | CALCULATIONS FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRYFOOS HALL WERE |
| | NOT PROVIDED IN TABULAR FORM OR ON THE SITE OR |
| | ELEVATION PLANS, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THE |
| | INFORMATION PRESENTED SUCH AS THE FACADES MEETING THE |
| | FENESTRATION PERCENTAGES. |
| | |
| | 8) REVISED COMMENT: THE RESPONSE COMMENTS STATE THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED VALET AND OTHER DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WILL |
| | MATCH THE EXISTING SIGNS; HOWEVER, THE PLANS STATE THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED SIGNS WILL BE CUSTOM SIZED. THE ZONING AND |
| | LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LIMIT PARKING AREA |
| | IDENTIFICATION SIGNS TO FOUR (4) SQUARE FEET PER SIGN |
| | FACE WHILE PARKING AREA INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNS MAY BE |
| | LARGER, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY |
| | THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AUTHORITY. THE SIZES LISTED FOR |
| | THE EXISTING SIGNS ARE LARGER THAN FOUR (4) SQUARE |
| | FEET. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE EXISTING SIGNS |
| | (SIZE, LOCATION AND TEXT) SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE |
| | EXISTING CONDITIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED SIGNS |
| | MUST SHOW SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS SO THAT STAFF CAN |
| | DETERMINE IF THEY REPLACE EXISTING SIGNS, OR REQUIRE |
| | THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A WAIVER FOR THE SIGNS FROM |
| | THE CITY COMMISSION. PLEASE NOTE THAT SPECIFIC SIGNS |
| | SIZES ARE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE |
| | AMENDMENT SO THAT NO ISSUES ARISE AT THE TIME OF SIGN |
| | PERMITTING. |
| | |
| | 9) IN THE LAST MEETING THAT STAFF HAD WITH THE |
| | CONSULTANT, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE LIGHTING NEEDED TO |
| | BE CARRIED AROUND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE BY THE |
| | TROLLEY STOP AND REWORED PARALLEL PARKING SPACES. THIS |
| | IS NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 10) THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN DOES NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE 0.6 FOOTCANDLE MINIMUM AT THE CURB ONE FOOT ABOVE |
| | THE SIDEWALK LEVEL ALONG ALL FRONTAGES. |
| | |
| | CONDITIONS IF REQUEST IS APPROVED |
| | |
| | 11) CONDITION, IF APPROVED: GIVEN THAT THE PARKING |
| | DEMAND ANALYSIS CONCLUSION AND THE JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENT INDICATE THAT NEW VALET PARKING GARAGE AND |
| | ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE |
| | THE VEHICLE FLOW IN AND AROUND THE SITE, THE TWO VALET |
| | AREAS MAY NOT BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME TO |
| | MINIMIZE THE DISRUPTION TO THE USERS OF THE SURROUNDING |
| | ROADWAY NETWORK. |
| | |
| | 12) CONDITION: THE KRAVIS CENTER MUST PAY THE CITY FOR |
| | THE REMOVAL OF ANY STANDARD PARKING SPACES ALONG IRIS |
| | STREET. THE TWO ADA SPACES ARE BEING REPLACED BY THE |
| | RELOCATED TROLLEY STOP AND THUS NO COMPENSATION IS |
| | REQUIRED FOR THESE SPACES. |
| | |
| | 13) CONDITION: 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. THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE (PROPOSED DREYFOOS HALL |
| | PLAZA) IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL ADA |
| | REQUIREMENTS AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT IN ORDER TO |
| | MEET THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS. IF THE DREYFOOS HALL |
| | PLAZA DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS AT THAT |
| | TIME, THEN THE GARAGE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE |
| | ACTIVE USES. |
| | |
| | 14) CONDITION: THE SITE PLAN CALLS OUT THE SIGNAL POLE |
| | AT THE CORNER OF SAPODILLA AVENUE AND OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD AS BEING RELOCATED. PROVIDE APPROVAL FROM |
| | FDOT OR PALM BEACH COUNTY THAT THIS SIGNAL POLE MAY BE |
| | RELOCATED. |
| | |
| |
Print |