| Date |
Text |
| 2019-06-12 11:28:28 | CASE NO. PB 950 OOOOO |
| | HIBISCUS TOWER |
| | 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE |
| | |
| | - 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 28, 2019, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE |
| | AUGUST 20, 2019 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 AUGUST 12, 2019), |
| | THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 ASSESSED 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) THE CITYPLACE CENTER SUBAREA BOUNDARY LINE IS NOT |
| | SHOWN IN THE SAME PLACE ON EVERY PLAN ALONG THE WEST |
| | SIDE OF 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY. ALL PLANS MUST BE |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 2) SHEET V-2 SHOWS A PORTION OF THE 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY |
| | BUILDING WITHIN THE CITYPLACE CENTER SUBAREA. THIS |
| | OVERLAPPING SQUARE FOOTAGE MUST BE COUNTED AS PART OF |
| | THE FAR CALCULATION. |
| | |
| | 3) THE 50 FOOT MAXIMUM PODIUM SETBACK LINE FOR ROSEMARY |
| | IS NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION. IT SCALES TO |
| | APPROXIMATELY 56 FEET FROM THE ROSEMARY CENTERLINE. |
| | |
| | 4) STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE FAR CALCULATIONS AND NOTED |
| | THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | A. ON THE GROUND LEVEL, THE TWO VESTIBULES, THE SHOP |
| | AND THE FIRE COMMAND ROOM ARE REQUIRED TO BE COUNTED IN |
| | THE FAR SQUARE FOOTAGE. |
| | B. ON THE RESIDENTIAL LEVELS, THE VESTIBULE FOR THE |
| | TRASH CHUTES IS REQUIRED TO BE COUNTED IN THE FAR |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE (THE TRASH CHUTES THEMSELVES ARE |
| | CORRECTLY NOT COUNTED). |
| | C. ON THE RESIDENTIAL LEVELS, PROVIDE INFORMATION ON |
| | WHAT THE ROOM ADJACENT TO THE TRASH CHUTE VESTIBULE IS. |
| | DEPENDING ON THE USE, THIS MAY NEED TO BE COUNTED IN |
| | THE FAR SQUARE FOOTAGE. |
| | |
| | 5) PROVIDE THE DIMENSION LINE SHOWING THE FULL HEIGHT |
| | OF THE PODIUM, PLUS THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE HEIGHT |
| | ENCROACHMENT, MUST BE SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION PLANS. |
| | STAFF MEASURES THE HIGHEST POINT OF PODIUM, INCLUDING |
| | VERTICAL ENCROACHMENTS, AT APPROXIMATELY 63 FEET, WHICH |
| | EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED PODIUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE. NOTE: |
| | INCLUDE THE CABANAS, WITH THE HEIGHT, ON THE ELEVATION |
| | DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 6) THE FACADE ARTICULATION DIAGRAMS AND MATRICES DO NOT |
| | PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE VARIOUS REQUIRED |
| | FEATURES. STAFF MUST BE ABLE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE REQUIREMENTS. NOTE: THE LETTERS ON THE DIAGRAMS ON |
| | SHEETS A0.01.1 AND A0.01.2 MUST KEY TO TEXT IN THE |
| | TABLE. |
| | |
| | 7) PLANAR BREAKS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL LEVELS OF THE |
| | PODIUM. THE PLANS DO NOT SHOW EVIDENCE THAT THIS |
| | OCCURS. |
| | |
| | 8) STAFF DOES NOT FEEL THAT THE TOWER HAS ENOUGH |
| | ARTICULATION GIVEN ITS SCALE, MASS AND FACADE LENGTH. |
| | |
| | 9) PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE MATERIALS FOR THE 30 |
| | FOOT ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT ALONG WEST STREET (THE |
| | PORTION THAT IS NOT FENESTRATION) WILL SATISFY THE |
| | REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 10) THE ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS CONTAIN INACCURACIES |
| | (INCONSISTENT FRONTAGES, INCORRECT TOTALS, AND |
| | INCORRECT MEASURE POINTS). PLEASE REVIEW THE DRAWINGS |
| | FOR ACCURACY. ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE REFLECTED ON THE |
| | ACTIVE USE SUMMARY TABLE ON SHEET A0.01 |
| | |
| | A. IT APPEARS THAT THE HIBISCUS FRONTAGE MEETS THE |
| | ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | B. LEVEL 3 DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 60% ACTIVE USE |
| | REQUIREMENT. THE OUTDOOR DINING AND PASSAGEWAY MAY NOT |
| | BE COUNTED AS ACTIVE USE ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR. |
| | |
| | 11) THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING ALONG ROSEMARY BEHIND |
| | THE OUTDOOR DINING DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACK |
| | REQUIREMENT THAT THE BUILDING BE BETWEEN 35 AND 50 FEET |
| | FROM THE CENTERLINE OF ROSEMARY. IF THE OUTDOOR DINING |
| | AREA IS DESIGNED AS A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, THEN THE |
| | BUILDING AS DESIGNED MEETS THE SETBACK ALLOWANCES. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE HOW THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA COMPLIES |
| | WITH ONE OF THE TYPES OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. |
| | |
| | 12) THE POOL DECK AND LEVEL 5 GREEN ROOF NEED TO HAVE |
| | NOTES AS TO WHICH TYPE OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE THEY ARE, |
| | SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRED |
| | STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 13) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS FOR THE USE OF THE BUILDING |
| | RESIDENTS. PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THE LEVEL 5 GREEN ROOF |
| | AND THE LEVEL 4 ROOFTOP GARDEN WILL BE USED BY THE |
| | RESIDENTS. |
| | |
| | 14) PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE ADJACENT |
| | TO BUILDING MECHANICAL SPACES, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICE |
| | AREAS, ETC. |
| | |
| | A. THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO |
| | WEST STREET IS ADJACENT TO TRANSFORMERS THAT ARE |
| | REMAINING FOR 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY. THE TRANSFORMERS MUST |
| | BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE, OR THE AREA MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE. |
| | B. THERE ARE AC UNITS MOUNTED ON RACKS THAT ARE ON THE |
| | BUILDING WALL OF 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY. THIS MECHANICAL |
| | EQUIPMENT MUST ALSO BE SCREENED FROM THE PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE. PLEASE NOTE: IT APPEARS THAT THIS MECHANICAL |
| | EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE PROPOSED TREES |
| | ALONG THE WALL. PROVIDE A DETAIL ON HOW THE WALL |
| | MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH |
| | THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AND ITS LONG TERM GROWTH. |
| | |
| | 15) PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS |
| | |
| | A. THE PASSAGE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET |
| | OPENING ON BOTH SIDES. |
| | B. A PASSAGEWAY IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TWO OR MORE |
| | PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC SPACES. WEST STREET IS |
| | NOT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (IT IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT) SO |
| | IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE PUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL |
| | IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW IT TO QUALIFY AS A PUBLIC SPACE. |
| | SEE COMMENT #29 FOR ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMENT #14 |
| | FOR VISUAL ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. |
| | C. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE NARROW POINTS SHOWN |
| | IN THE PASSAGEWAY. EX. WALL TO DECORATIVE POT, |
| | LANDSCAPE AREA TO COLUMNS, COLUMNS TO OFFICE ENTRANCE |
| | WALL, ETC. THESE ALL APPEAR TO BE CHOKE POINTS IN THE |
| | PASSAGEWAY. |
| | D. THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PASSAGEWAY IS COVERED BY |
| | THE UPPER RESIDENTIAL STORIES, INCLUDING BALCONIES. |
| | PROVIDE THE CALCULATION TO VERIFY THAT NO MORE THAN 25% |
| | OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE IS COVERED. |
| | |
| | 16) OPEN SPACE MEASUREMENTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE AREAS |
| | WITHIN THE MINIMUM SETBACK. PROVIDE THE SETBACK |
| | DIMENSION REQUIRED BY THE NFPA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE |
| | PORTIONS OF THE HIBISCUS TOWER LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE |
| | EXISTING 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY BUILDING. THIS SETBACK AREA |
| | MAY NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 17) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE AND |
| | THE PLANS SHOW DIFFERING VALUES FOR THE PROVIDED AMOUNT |
| | OF OPEN SPACE, BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC. |
| | |
| | 18) PROVIDE DIMENSION ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS FOR THE |
| | PROJECTING ELEMENTS. THIS INCLUDES CLEARANCE HEIGHT |
| | DIMENSIONS FOR THE AWNINGS AND THE TOWER BALCONIES. |
| | |
| | 19) THE ALUMINUM AWNING ALONG HIBISCUS HAS A 14 FOOT |
| | CLEARANCE AND WILL EXTEND INTO THE BLACK OLIVE TREES IN |
| | THE PLANTER AREAS ADJACENT TO THE DROP OFF. THE ZLDR DO |
| | NOT PERMIT HORIZONTAL ENCROACHMENTS THAT INTERFERE WITH |
| | NORMAL ENVELOP OF STREET TREE CANOPY. |
| | |
| | 20) A 24 INCH DEEP ALUMINUM AWNING IS NOT PERMITTED. |
| | AWNINGS ARE REQUIRED TO PROJECT A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET |
| | FROM THE BUILDING. THE ELEVATION PLANS LABEL THIS AS AN |
| | ALUMINUM SUNSHADE. SINCE ONLY ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES |
| | MAY EXTEND 2 FEET FROM THE BUILDING, THIS NEEDS TO BE |
| | LABELED AS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 21) PROVIDE THE STREET LEVEL ELEVATION BLOW-UPS WITHOUT |
| | THE LANDSCAPE LAYER. STAFF IS UNABLE TO SEE DETAILS. |
| | |
| | 22) THE DATA IN THE PARKING TABLE FOR THE RETAIL, |
| | RESTAURANT AND OFFICE LINES IS LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN |
| | WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PROJECT DATA TABLE. ALL VALUES |
| | SHALL BE CONSISTENT AND CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 23) PROVIDE NET AREA DRAWINGS FOR THE RESTAURANT, |
| | RETAIL AND OFFICE USES SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THE |
| | PARKING SQUARE FOOTAGE PRESENTED FOR THE PARKING |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 24) THE SHARED PARKING MAY ONLY BE USED IF THERE ARE NO |
| | PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR A PARTICULAR USE. THIS |
| | THEN DOES NOT PERMIT THE ABILITY TO HAVE DESIGNATED |
| | PARKING FOR EITHER THE RESIDENTIAL OR OFFICE USERS. |
| | |
| | 25) THE PROVIDED PARKING TABLE (RE-REVIEW ONCE COMMENT |
| | #S 22-24 ARE ADDRESSED) SHOWS 390 PARKING SPACES |
| | REQUIRED FOR THE NEW HIBISCUS TOWER VS. THE 222 PARKING |
| | SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE MACY?S. THE PARKING |
| | AVAILABILITY TABLE PROVIDED BY JORDAN RATHLEV NEEDS TO |
| | BE FURTHER BROKEN DOWN TO VERIFY THAT THE HIBISCUS |
| | TOWER, THE SAPODILLA RESIDENCES AND 477 S. ROSEMARY |
| | HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING SPACES IN THE GARAGE. NOTE: THE |
| | PARKING AVAILABILITY TABLE INDICATES THAT THERE IS |
| | EXCESS CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITYPLACE CPD. |
| | |
| | 26) PROVIDE THE GARAGE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL PARKING WILL OCCUR, TO INCLUDE ANY |
| | BARRIERS, AS WELL AS THE LOCATIONS OF THE REQUIRED |
| | CHARGING STATIONS AND CAR SHARE STATION. |
| | |
| | 27) THE GARAGE LAYOUT IS AFFECTED BY THE NEW BRIDGE |
| | LOCATION SO THIS WILL NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF |
| | THIS APPLICATION AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS REQUIRED AS |
| | PART OF #26. NOTE: A SETBACK WAIVER IS REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | BRIDGE. |
| | |
| | 28) SHOW THE ADA ROUTE FROM THE ADA PARKING SPACES IN |
| | THE GARAGE TO THE OFFICE AND RETAIL ENTRANCES. |
| | |
| | 29) THE WEST STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LOCATIONS, TO |
| | INCLUDE IN FRONT OF THE LOADING DOCKS, MUST BE CLEARLY |
| | DEFINED, PREFERABLY THROUGH THE USE OF A DIFFERENT |
| | PAVING MATERIAL THAN THE ROADWAY SURFACE. |
| | |
| | 30) YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WAY FINDING SIGNS |
| | FROM THE GARAGE TO THE OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL |
| | ENTRANCES. |
| | |
| | 31) EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DROP OFF. IS THE |
| | INTENTION TO HAVE A VALET FOR THE TOWER AT THIS |
| | LOCATION? IF SO, PROVIDE THE VALET OPERATION PLAN, TO |
| | INCLUDE WHERE THE VALET AREA IS IN THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 32) EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE OFFICE DROP OFF. IS THE |
| | INTENTION TO HAVE A VALET FOR THE OFFICE AT THIS |
| | LOCATION? IF SO, PROVIDE THE VALET OPERATION PLAN, TO |
| | INCLUDE WHERE THE VALET AREA IS IN THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 33) PROVIDE THE BICYCLE WALL INSTALLATION DETAIL AT A |
| | BIGGER SCALE. IT IS NOT LEGIBLE ON THE PAPER PLANS. |
| | |
| | 34) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BICYCLE STORAGE ROOMS |
| | ON THE PLANS. STAFF NEEDS TO VERIFY THE NUMBER OF |
| | BICYCLES THAT CAN BE STORED. |
| | 35) PROVIDE THE PASSAGEWAY BICYCLE PAD AND RACK DETAIL |
| | AND THE DIMENSIONS ON THE PLANS. THEY DO NOT APPEAR TO |
| | MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 36) PROVIDE BICYCLE RACKS ALONG ROSEMARY FOR THE RETAIL |
| | CUSTOMERS. ZONING STAFF HAS NOT SEEN THE PLANS FOR THE |
| | HIBISCUS OR ROSEMARY RECONSTRUCTION SO IF RACKS ARE |
| | INCLUDED IN THESE PLANS SHOW THEM ON THE HIBISCUS TOWER |
| | PLANS TO ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 37) THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW TRA, BUT THIS IS NOT |
| | LISTED ON THE PLANT LIST. |
| | |
| | 38) PROVIDE GREEN ROOF DETAILS FOR LEVELS 4 AND 5 AND |
| | THE TOWER ROOF. NOTE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE LEVEL 4 ROOF THAT DOES NOT |
| | INCLUDE THE MECHANICAL AND SKYLIGHT AREAS. IF SOLAR IS |
| | USED THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOWN. THE PLANS NEED TO FACTOR |
| | THIS IN NOW. |
| | |
| | 39) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SET LABELS BOLLARDS AT THE |
| | CORNER OF ROSEMARY AND HIBISCUS AS LIGHT POLES. |
| | |
| | 40) PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE FPL TRANSFORMERS |
| | BEING REMOVED DO NOT SERVICE 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY. NOTE: |
| | ANY TRANSFORMERS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE RELOCATED MUST |
| | BE SHOWN IN THEIR NEW LOCATION AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 41) THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET A1.01 MUST SHOW ALL |
| | THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. IT FAILS TO SHOW THE |
| | PROPOSED BACKFLOW AND GAS METERS ALONG THE WEST STREET |
| | SHOWN ON SHEET P1.01. NOTE: STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT THE |
| | PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IT IS |
| | BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK. ADDITIONALLY, THE CITYPLACE DRI |
| | REQUIRES THE SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, WHICH |
| | THE PROPOSED PLAN DOES NOT SHOW. |
| | |
| | 42) PROVIDE THE RENDERING OF THE BUILDING IN CONTEXT |
| | (SIMILAR TO R0.02) FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST |
| | |
| | 43) PROVIDE GROUND LEVEL RENDERINGS OF THE BUILDING |
| | FROM WEST ON HIBISCUS, AND NORTH AND SOUTH ALONG |
| | ROSEMARY. |
| | |
| | 44) PROVIDE A SHADOW STUDY. |
| | |
| | 45) THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS LIGHTING LEVELS AT THE |
| | CURB IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED ONE FOOT CANDLE. |
| | |
| | 46) WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN FOR THE |
| | BUILDING, ROSEMARY AND THE ALLEY? WILL THE HIBISCUS |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING THE SIDEWALK, BE COMPLETED |
| | PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING? HOW WILL |
| | ACCESS BE PROVIDED TO THE TOWNHOUSES AND THE SERVICE TO |
| | 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY DURING CONSTRUCTION? |
| | |
| | 47) EXPLAIN THE BAR IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY AREA. WHO |
| | DOES THIS SERVE? WHAT DOES IT SERVE? |
| | |
| | 48) TURN THE LIFE SAFETY DISTANCE LAYER OF ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 49) DESCRIBE HOW THE ROOFTOP RAINWATER WILL BE STORED |
| | ON-SITE. THE METHOD MAY IMPACT THE SITE PLAN. THE |
| | PAVING AND DRAINAGE PLAN DOES NOT SEEM TO COVER THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 50) THE PLAZA ON-SITE STORMWATER RETENTION NEEDS TO BE |
| | EXPLAINED SINCE THE DIFFERING METHODS AFFECT THE SITE |
| | PLAN. THE PAVING AND DRAINAGE PLAN DOES NOT SEEM TO |
| | COVER THIS REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 51) STAFF IS STILL ANALYZING THE VEHICLE TRIP |
| | GENERATION AS IT RELATES TO THE TROLLEY OPERATION |
| | CONTRIBUTION. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
