Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19050019
Project Number Z19050019
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2019-08-26 17:51:48CASE NO. PB 950 OOOOO - 1ST RESUBMITTAL REVIEW
 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 COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,
 AUGUST 30, 2019, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE
 OCTOBER 15, 2019 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED COMMENTS
 WERE NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL
 BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE IS 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 SCALE BAR ON SHEET A0.04.2 PRINTED MULTIPLE
 SCALES AND IS UNREADABLE. THIS OCCURS ON A FEW SHEETS,
 SO PLEASE CORRECT.
  
 2) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSION LINE SHOWING
 THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE PODIUM, PLUS THE HIGHEST POINT
 OF THE HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT ON THE ELEVATION PLANS. THE
 PODIUM HEIGHT DIMENSION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE
 HIBISCUS STREET FRONTAGE. THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE
 PODIUM ALONG HIBISCUS STREET (PRIMARILY THE PRIVATE
 TERRACE) SCALES TO EXCEED 60 FEET AND ADDITIONALLY HAS
 A VERTICAL ENCROACHMENT (RAILING) EXCEEDING THE 60 FOOT
 ALLOWANCE.
  
 3) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
 INFORMATION REGARDING THE FACADE ARTICULATION. BASED ON
 THE RESUBMITTED INFORMATION, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THE
 FOLLOWING ITEMS WHICH STILL MUST BE PROVIDED:
  
 A. THE AMOUNT OF GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY PROVIDED
 ALONG SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE AND HIBISCUS STREET IS NOT
 LISTED ON THE PLANS. THE ONLY CALCULATION LISTED IS HOW
 MUCH IS REQUIRED.
 B. THE AMOUNT OF FENESTRATION FOR THE PODIUM AND THE
 TOWER IS NOT LISTED ON THE PLANS. ONLY A STATEMENT THAT
 THE FENESTRATION EXCEEDS 15% IS LISTED ON THE PLANS.
 C. THE TAG LINES FOR THE WEST ELEVATIONS FOR MATERIAL
 01 AND 02 SEEM TO POINT TO THE WRONG MATERIAL.
 D. PLEASE CONSIDER ADDITIONAL WINDOWS OVERLOOKING THE
 OUTDOOR SEATING AREA FROM THE GROUND LEVEL RETAIL AND
 UPPER LEVEL OFFICE.
  
 4) UPDATED COMMENT: PLANAR BREAKS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL
 LEVELS OF THE PODIUM. THE PLANS DO NOT CLEARLY SHOW
 EVIDENCE THAT THIS OCCURS.
  
 A. THE SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE FRONTAGE (GROUND FLOOR)
 ADDED DOORWAYS THAT ARE BEING COUNTED TOWARD MEETING
 THE MINIMUM LINEAR FEET OF PLANAR BREAK. IN ORDER FOR
 DOORWAYS TO COUNT TOWARD MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT, THE
 DOORWAY RECESS (THE PLANER BREAK) NEEDS TO CONTINUE
 FROM GRADE FOR THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE GROUND FLOOR. THE
 DRAWINGS DO NOT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE DOORWAYS
 EXTEND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE GROUND FLOOR, AND IN FACT
 IT APPEARS THAT THE DOORWAYS ARE NOT THE FULL HEIGHT OF
 THE GROUND FLOOR.
 B. ON THE SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE FRONTAGE (2ND AND 3RD
 FLOOR), WHILE THE OUTDOOR SEATING RECESS AND THE OFFICE
 TERRACE COMBINE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PLANAR
 BREAK AND THE RETAIL ONE CONTINUES TO EXCEED THIS
 REQUIREMENT, PLEASE CHECK THE SECTION DRAWING ON SHEET
 A3.01 AS IS APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANAR BREAK IS
 NOT DEPICTED ACCURATELY.
 C. THE HIBISCUS STREET FRONTAGE (2ND FLOOR) ADDED A
 RECESS THAT IS BEING COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE MINIMUM
 LINEAR FEET OF PLANAR BREAK. IN ORDER FOR RECESS TO
 COUNT TOWARD MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT, THE IT (THE
 PLANER BREAK) NEEDS TO CONTINUE THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE
 2ND FLOOR. THE DRAWINGS DO NOT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT
 THE RECESS EXTENDS THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE 2ND FLOOR.
  
 5) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REVISED
 ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS FOR THE SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE
 FRONTAGE AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 A. THE MAINTENANCE OFFICE ADDED TO THE 3RD FLOOR DOES
 NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ADA ACCESSIBILITY. PLEASE DESCRIBE
 HOW THIS SPACE WILL MEET BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. IF
 THIS ROOM CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS,
 THEN IT WILL CAUSE ISSUES DURING THE PERMITTING
 PROCESS.
 B. THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE
 THAT ACTIVE USES HAVE A DIRECT VIEW TO THE ADJACENT
 STREETS OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. THIS DOES NOT OCCUR FOR
 THE 2ND STORY RETAIL ALONG SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE OR
 HIBISCUS STREETS SINCE THE PROPOSED FLUTED CHANNEL
 GLASS IS NOT TRANSPARENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE TWO
 MAINTENANCE OFFICES (BOTH COUNTED AS ACTIVE USE) HAVE
 NO DIRECT VIEW TO THE ADJACENT STREETS
  
 6) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PUBLIC OPEN
 SPACE COMPLIANCE TABLE FOR THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA
 ALONG SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE AND NOTED THAT IT
 INCORRECTLY INCLUDES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE AREA
 UNDER THE 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS OF THE BUILDING. THIS AREA
 DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF OVERHEAD COVER, WHICH
 INCLUDES AWNINGS, CANOPIES, COLONNADES, PERGOLAS,
 TRELLISES OR OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES. THE STAFF
 CALCULATES THE ACTUAL OPEN SPACE AREA AS APPROXIMATELY
 937 SF AND IT APPEARS THAT THE OPEN SPACE MINIMUMS HAVE
 BEEN MET AS SHOWN. UPDATE THE TABLE WITH THE ACCURATE
 OPEN SPACE AREA AND CORRESPONDING COMPLIANCE
 VERIFICATION. NOTE: THE LANDSCAPE UNDER THE BUILDING
 MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
 CALCULATION.
  
 7) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PRIVATE OPEN
 SPACE AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 A. LEVEL 4 OPEN SPACE AREA B DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
 MINIMUM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED A
 TERRACE. THIS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS MORE THAN 60 FEET
 FROM THE SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
 THE SEPARATION INCLUDES MECHANICAL ROOMS AND THE
 CHILLER ENCLOSURES. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT THIS LOCATION
 CAN ONLY BE A ROOFTOP GARDEN. PLEASE UPDATE THE TABLE
 AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
 B. LEVEL 4 OPEN SPACE AREA C DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
 MINIMUM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED A
 TERRACE. THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING ABUTS AN ACCESS
 EASEMENT, NOT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
 AT THIS LOCATION CAN ONLY BE A ROOFTOP GARDEN. PLEASE
 UPDATE THE TABLE AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
 C. LEVEL 5 OPEN SPACE INCORRECTLY CALCULATES THE AMOUNT
 OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTMENT. ONLY THE 96 FOOT 9
 INCH SECTION OF THE TERRACE MAY COUNT (AS PREVIOUSLY
 STATED THE ACCESS EASEMENT DOES NOT MEET THE PUBLIC
 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENT). WHILE THE MINIMUM 20% HAS
 BEEN MET, THE TABLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.
 NOTE: THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE MAY BE AFFECTED BY CORRECTING THE RAILING
 HEIGHT FROM COMMENT #2.
  
 8) UPDATED COMMENT: PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW THE LEVEL 4
 ROOFTOP GARDEN WILL BE USED (ACCESSED) BY THE RESIDENTS
 OR THE OFFICE TENANTS.
  
 9) PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS
  
 A. UPDATED COMMENT: A PASSAGEWAY IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT
 TWO OR MORE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC SPACES. THE
 ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS NOT
 A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THIS SIDE OF THE PASSAGEWAY
 NEEDS TO TERMINATE AT A PUBLIC SPACE (GENERALLY THE
 AREA UNDER THE BUILDING ALONG THE ACCESS EASEMENT). IN
 ORDER FOR THIS AREA TO BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC SPACE,
 IT WILL NEED A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED FOR IT
 AS WELL AS HAVE SEATING INSTALLED. THE PASSAGEWAY WILL
 END AT THE COVERED PUBLIC SPACE.
 B. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE
 NARROW POINTS SHOWN IN THE PASSAGEWAY. EX. BETWEEN THE
 BUILDING WALLS, THE EDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE AREAS AND THE
 COLUMNS. THESE ALL APPEAR TO BE CHOKE POINTS IN THE
 PASSAGEWAY.
 C. UPDATED COMMENT: THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE
 PASSAGEWAY IS COVERED BY THE UPPER RESIDENTIAL STORIES,
 INCLUDING BALCONIES. THIS AREA DOES NOT MEET THE
 DEFINITION OF OVERHEAD COVER, WHICH INCLUDES AWNINGS,
 CANOPIES, COLONNADES, PERGOLAS, TRELLISES OR OTHER
 SIMILAR STRUCTURES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AREA THAT
 HAS THE UPPER STORIES OF THE BUILDING. THE 1,460 SQUARE
 FEET OF COVERED AREA MAY NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING
 THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. UPDATE ALL TABLES
 ACCORDINGLY.
 D. UPDATED COMMENT: THE OPEN SPACE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE
 PASSAGEWAY MAY NOT INCLUDE AREAS WITHIN THE MINIMUM
 SETBACK. PROVIDE THE REQUIRED NFPA SETBACK DIMENSION
 FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY BUILDING
 WHERE IT ABUTS THE PASSAGEWAY. THIS SETBACK AREA MAY
 NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
 SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. ALTERNATIVELY, SINCE THE
 PLANS STATE THAT THE OPENINGS WILL BE PROTECTED,
 PROVIDE THE METHOD FOR THIS PROTECTION THAT WOULD
 PERMIT THE NEW 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY BUILDING TO BE BUILT
 TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NOTE: THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE
 EGRESS WALKWAY BEHIND THE TWO DOORS ON THE WEST SIDE OF
 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE
 PASSAGEWAY SINCE IT IS NOT PART OF THE PASSAGEWAY.
 UPDATE ALL TABLES ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE DIMENSION ON THE ELEVATION
 DRAWINGS FOR THE PROJECTING ELEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE THE
 BALCONIES, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, THE AWNINGS
 (EX. KEYNOTE 03 ON THE NORTH ELEVATION - TEMPERED GLASS
 AND ALUMINUM AWNING).
  
 11) NEW COMMENT: PROVIDE A SAMPLE FLOOR PLAN LEVEL
 WHICH SHOWS THE SHORT BALCONIS AND ON THAT SHOWS THE
 LONG BALCONIES FOR THAT SPECIFIC FLOOR.
  
 12) UPDATED COMMENT: THE NET AREA DRAWINGS FOR THE
 RESTAURANT, RETAIL AND OFFICE USES MUST INCLUDE THE
 FOLLOWING AREAS AND ALL THE PARKING TABLES NEED TO BE
 UPDATED ACCORDINGLY:
  
 A. RESTAURANT KITCHEN AND STORAGE - THESE AREAS ARE NOT
 INCLUDED IN THE EXEMPTIONS LISTED IN THE NET INTERIOR
 AREA DEFINITION OF SECTION 94-109 OF THE ZONING AND
 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
 B. DOCK MANAGER OFFICE - THE LOADING DOCKS SERVICE BOTH
 THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF
 THE BUILDING, SO DOCK MANAGER'S OFFICE NEEDS TO BE
 INCLUDED IN THE PARKING CALCULATION.
 C. SHOP BY THE LOADING DOCKS - IF THE SHOP ONLY
 SERVICES THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER, THEN IT IS EXEMPTED;
 HOWEVER, BY ITS LOCATION, IT APPEARS TO SERVICE THE
 ENTIRE BUILDING AND MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE NET AREA.
 D. MAINTENANCE OFFICES ON LOFT LEVEL 3 - MAINTENANCE
 OFFICES SERVING THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE
 BUILDING MUST BE INCLUDE IN THE NET AREA.
 E. RETAIL STORAGE - THESE AREAS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
 EXEMPTIONS LISTED IN THE NET INTERIOR AREA DEFINITION
 SECTION 94-109 OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS.
  
 13) UPDATED COMMENT: THE SHARED PARKING MAY ONLY BE
 USED IF THERE ARE NO PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR A
 PARTICULAR USE. THE RESPONSE STATES THAT THERE ARE NO
 DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES WITHIN GARAGE D, WHEN IN FACT
 THERE IS AT LEAST ONE AREA THAT IS GATED OFF FOR THE
 USE OF THE GARDENS RESIDENTS. HOW WILL OPERATIONALLY
 THE PARKING BE PROVIDED FOR THE USERS OF THE 575 SOUTH
 ROSEMARY BUILDING- EX: WILL THE RESIDENTIAL TENANTS
 HAVE AN AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR "575 TOWER
 RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY"? IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN
 THE SHARED PARKING MAY NOT BE USED. IF THERE WILL BE NO
 DESIGNATED PARKING, THEN THE LEVEL III SITE PLAN
 APPROVAL WILL CONTAIN THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION THAT
 NO LEASES CAN INCLUDE DESIGNATED PARKING IN THE D
 GARAGE AND THAT NO BARRIERS MAY BE INSTALLED IN THE
 GARAGE TO CREATE SEPARATED PARKING AREAS FOR SPECIFIC
 TENANTS.
  
 14) UPDATED COMMENT: THE RECENT PARKING TABLE PROVIDED
 BY JORDAN RATHLEV SHOWS 724 PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE IN
 GARAGE D. THIS TABLE NEEDS TO INCLUDE A SUB TABLE
 SHOWING HOW THE 724 PARKING SPACES (OR AS MODIFIED BY
 THE BUILDING DIVISION ADA COMMENT) ARE ALLOCATED TO THE
 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE USERS (379 SPACES IF NOT
 RESERVED), THE GARDENS RESIDENCES (33 + 2 GUEST), 477
 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE (RETAIL AND OFFICE - DO ANY
 OFFICE USERS HAVE RESERVED SPACES?), AND DESIGNATED
 VALET. NOTE: THE PARKING AVAILABILITY TABLE INDICATES
 THAT THERE IS EXCESS CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
 CITYPLACE CPD, BUT STAFF IS TRYING TO VERIFY THAT
 GARAGE D IS NOT OVER CAPACITY.
  
 15) UPDATED COMMENT: THE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE THE
 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT NEED TO BE A
 DIFFERENT PAVING MATERIAL THAN THE ACCESS EASEMENT
 SURFACE SO THAT IT IS A VISUAL CLUE TO DRIVERS TO SLOW
 DOWN. THIS CURRENTLY OCCURS THROUGH THE USE OF THE
 EXISTING PAVER CROSSWALK, WHICH IS STAFF'S PREFERRED
 OPTION. RAISED CROSSWALKS (EQUAL TO CURB LEVEL) SHOULD
 BE EXPLORED.
  
 16) NEW COMMENT: THE SIDEWALK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
 OF THE TOWER INCLUDES A LANDSCAPE BED TO THE EDGE OF
 THE BUILDING WHICH NARROWS THE SIDEWALK TO FIVE (5)
 FEET IN WIDTH. THE LANDSCAPE BED NEEDS TO BE SHORTENED
 SO THAT THE SIDEWALK AT THIS BLIND CORNER IS WIDER TO
 PREVENT SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE NEEDS TO STEP INTO THE
 ALLEY TO PASS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
  
 17) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED
 RESIDENTIAL TOWER VALET PLAN AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
 USE OF FERN STREET AND SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE TO RETURN
 THE VEHICLES. THIS PUTS ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS ON
 THESE TWO STREETS. AN ALTERNATIVE VALET PICK-UP IS
 REQUIRED. WHERE IS THE VALET AREA IN THE GARAGE?
  
 18) UPDATED COMMENT: THE PROPOSED OFFICE VALET PLAN IS
 NOT CLEAR (THE BLUE DASHED LINE STOPS ON FERN STREET.
 IT APPEARS THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THE VALETS DRIVE THE
 CARS AROUND THE BLOCK AND USE FERN STREET, SOUTH
 ROSEMARY AVENUE AND/OR SAPODILLA AVENUE. STAFF DOES NOT
 SUPPORT THE USE OF THESE STREETS FOR THE VALET AS THIS
 PUTS ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS ON THESE ROADWAYS. AN
 ALTERNATIVE IS TO HAVE THE VALETS USE ONE OF THE
 SERVICE AREA SPACES AS A TURNAROUND SPACE SO THEY CAN
 GET THE GARAGE WITHOUT USING THE STREET NETWORK.
  
 19) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE PASSAGEWAY BICYCLE PAD
 AND RACK DETAIL AND THE DIMENSIONS ON THE PLANS. THEY
 DO NOT APPEAR TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. NOTE: THE
 BICYCLE PARKING AREA ALONG THE PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE HAS 6
 RACKS, NOT 3 AS LISTED ON THE PLANS.
  
 20) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE BICYCLE RACKS ALONG
 ROSEMARY FOR THE RETAIL CUSTOMERS. THE HIBISCUS AND
 ROSEMARY RECONSTRUCTION PLANS DO NOT SHOW ANY BICYCLE
 RACKS ADJACENT TO 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY.
  
 21) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE GREEN ROOF DETAILS FOR
 LEVELS 4 AND 5 AND THE TOWER ROOF. NOTE: IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE LEVEL 4 AND 5 AND
 TOWER ROOF AREA THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE MECHANICAL AND
 SKYLIGHT AREAS MUST HAVE EITHER GREEN ROOF OR SOLAR. IF
 SOLAR IS USED THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOWN. THE PLANS NEED TO
 FACTOR THIS IN NOW.
  
 22) UPDATED COMMENT: PLEASE TURN ON THE FOREGROUND
 BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST RENDERINGS ON
 SHEET R0.01.
  
 23) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE A SHADOW STUDY. --- STAFF
 HAS NOT SEEN A SHADOW STUDY AND THE DISC WAS NOT
 INCLUDED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL.
  
 24) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS LIGHTING
 LEVELS AT THE CURB IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED ONE FOOT
 CANDLE. ---- RESUBMITTED SHEET E-0.1 STILL SHOWS LIGHT
 LEVELS AT THE CURB EXCEEDING ONE FOOTCANDLE.
  
 25) REPEAT COMMENT: 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? ----
 THE RESPONSE PRESENTED DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE
 QUESTION.
  
 26) REPEAT COMMENT: EXPLAIN THE BAR IN THE RESIDENTIAL
 LOBBY AREA. WHO DOES THIS SERVE? WHAT DOES IT SERVE?
 --- THE RESPONSE PRESENTED DOES NOT ADDRESS THE
 QUESTION. IF THIS IS A BAR, THAT IN ANYWAY COULD SERVE
 THE PUBLIC, THEN YOU HAVE A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE HERE.
  
 27) UPDATED COMMENT: RESOLUTION 304-18 REQUIRES THAT
 THE ROOFTOP RAINWATER IS RETAINED ON-SITE AND IF NOT
 USED THEN IT HAS ON-SITE INFILTRATION. USING AN
 EXFILTRATION TRENCH TO DISCHARGE THE WATER OFF-SITE IS
 NOT PERMITTED. 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.
  
 28) UPDATED COMMENT: RESOLUTION 304-18 REQUIRES THAT
 THE PLAZA AREAS OF THE SITE RETAIN THE STORMWATER
 ON-SITE. IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAZA AREA ALONG SOUTH
 ROSEMARY AVENUE IS DESIGNED TO FLOW OFF-SITE.
  
 CONDITION: THE AC UNITS MOUNTED ON RACKS ON THE WEST
 BUILDING WALL OF 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY MUST BE REMOVED
 PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY
 BUILDING.
  
 CONDITION: WAYFINDING SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO DIRECT
 PEDESTRIANS FROM THE GARAGE TO THE OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL
 AND RETAIL ENTRANCES.
  
  Print


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved