| Date |
Text |
| 2021-03-30 13:24:38 | COMMENTS TO THE 11-23-20 RESUBMITTAL |
| | 1. SATISFIED- |
| | 2. SATISFIED. |
| | 3. SATISFIED. |
| | 4. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE SECTION INDICATES A TRAVEL |
| | LANE ON 2ND AS 10 FEET BUT INCLUDING THE GUTTER. |
| | FURTHER DISCUSSSION WITH ENGINEERING STAFF NEEDED TO |
| | DETERMINE IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.PREVIOUS COMMENT:THE |
| | TRAVEL LANE ON 2ND STREET IS SHOWN AS 9 FEET IN WITH |
| | DUE TO THE PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING. FURTHER |
| | DISCUSSION WITH TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE |
| | IF THAT WIDTH IS ADEQUATE OR ADJUSTMENT ARE NEEDED. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE TRAVEL LANES |
| | ON 2ND STREET? IS IT CHANGE FROM CURRENT? |
| | 5. SATISFIED. PLEASE MODIFY TO FOLLOW THE ANGLE OF THE |
| | CURB OR PEOPLE WILL DESTROY THE LANDSCAPE FOLLOWING THE |
| | EASIER PATH OF TRAVEL. PREVIOUS COMMENT: SIDEWALK ON |
| | EAST SIDE OF 3RD STREET SHALL FOLLOW THE CURB |
| | ALIGNMENT. |
| | 6. SATISFIED. PLEASE UPDATE SHEET A-03 TO REFLECT |
| | CHANGES ALONG ROSEMARY. PREVIOUS COMMENT: PROPOSED |
| | ON-STREET PARKING ALONG ROSEMARY WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE, |
| | PLEASE REMOVE PROPOSED STRIPING. |
| | 7. NOT SATISFIED. THE SECTIONS PROVIDED INDICATE A |
| | POSSIBLE PROBLEM OF ELEVATION ON 2ND STREET AND |
| | ROSEMARY AVENUE. THE CROSS SLOPE INDICATED ON THE |
| | PLANTING AREA ALONG ROSEMARY AVENUE WILL CREATE A |
| | PROBLEMATIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE |
| | STREET. FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH STAFF IS NEEDED TO |
| | SOLVE THE ISSUE.- PREVIOUS COMMENT:PLEASE PREPARE SOME |
| | CROSS SECTIONS FOR 2ND STREET AND 3RD STREET. |
| | 8. SATISFIED. PLEASE JUSTIFY WHY THE FDC ON 2ND STREET |
| | CANNOT BE WALL MOUNTED. IF IT CANNOT BE WALL MOUNTED IT |
| | SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREA AND NOT ON |
| | THE SIDEWALK. PREVIOUS COMMENT: IF POSSIBLE FDC SHALL |
| | BE WALL MOUNTED. |
| | 9. NOT SATISFIED. IT SEEMS ALL THE ABOVE GROUND AND |
| | WATER AND IRRIGATION METERS ARE NOW LOCATED ALONG THE |
| | GARAGE FRONTAGE ON 2ND AND WITHIN THE MINIMUM SETBACK, |
| | SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING THE AREA FOR LANDSCAPING. PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY HOW THE UTILITIES ARE LOCATED. CAN THE |
| | CONNECTIONS BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GARAGE? |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE COORDINATE WITH ENGINEERING |
| | FOR THE LOCATION OF THE DCDA. VALVE SHALL BE LOCATED |
| | BEHIND THE MINIMUM SETBACK AND SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPE. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: DCDA INDICATED ON 2ND STREET EAST OF |
| | THE PARKING GARAGE IS LISTED TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND. |
| | VAULT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | DEPARTMENT. NEW DCDA LOCATION SHALL BE BEHIND THE |
| | MINIMUM SETBACK AND SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPE. |
| | 10. SATISFIED. PROPOSED EXFILTRATION TRENCH WILL |
| | CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIRED STRUCTURAL SOIL FOR THE |
| | STREET TREE. PLEASE DISCUSS WITH LANDSCAPE PLANNER IF |
| | THE CONTINUOUS PLANTING AREA WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR |
| | TREES AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR STRUCTURAL SOIL. |
| | 11. SATISFIED. PLEASE CORRECT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING |
| | FOOTPRINT TABLE TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REQUIREMENT |
| | FOR PROPERTIES LARGER THAN 80,000SF. |
| | 12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED CALCULATION FOR 60% ACTIVE USE |
| | REQUIREMENT NOT ACCURATELY SHOWN. ACTIVE USE % IS BASED |
| | ON THE BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE.-PREVIOUS COMMENT: BIKE |
| | STORAGE ALONG 2ND STREET CANNOT BE COUNTED AS ACTIVE |
| | USE. PLEASE REMOVE FROM CALCULATION. THE STREET |
| | FRONTAGE IS CALCULATED DISCOUNTING THE MINIMUM |
| | SETBACKS. PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE A GRAPHIC TO |
| | CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT AS |
| | LISTED IN TABLE WITHIN SHEET A-01. |
| | 13. SATISFIED. APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR A VARIANCE |
| | REQUEST. PREVIOUS COMMENT: CODE REQUIRES AN AVERAGE |
| | UNIT SIZE OF 800SF. PROJECT PROPOSED AVERAGE UNIT SIZE |
| | OF 765SF. A VARIANCE WILL BE NECESSARY IF NOT ADJUSTED |
| | TO MEET REQUIREMENT. |
| | 14. SATISFIED. ON THE 2ND FLOOR, THE AREA LISTED AS |
| | OPEN TO BELOW CAN BE DISCOUNTED FORM THE GBA |
| | CALCULATIONS. PREVIOUS COMMENT: THE SQUARE FOOTAGE |
| | TABLE LISTS TRASH WITHIN THE NON-LEASABLE AREA. THE |
| | TRASH CHUTE CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM GBA BUT THE ROOM WHERE |
| | THE TRASH CHUTE IS LOCATED WITHIN EACH FLOOR SHALL BE |
| | COUNTED AS GBA. |
| | 15. SATISFIED. PLEASE ADJUST THE TRANSPARENCY |
| | CALCULATION GRAPHIC IN SHEET A-03 TO INDICATE THE 10 |
| | FEET MARK AND CONFIRM THE CALCULATION IS BASED ON THAT |
| | DIMENSION. TRANSPARENCY IS ONLY REQUIRED FOR |
| | NON-RESIDENTIAL ACTIVE USES (LOBBY AND COMMERCIAL |
| | SPACE). |
| | 16. SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE GRAPHIC INFORMATION TO |
| | CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH PLANAR BREAK, HORIZONTAL |
| | PROJECTIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT FOR FACADES |
| | ENCLOSING NON-ACTIVE USES (GARAGE). PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | ALL THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY TABLE IV-4 FACADE |
| | ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS. |
| | 17. SATISFIED. PLEASE INCORPORATE THE CONDITIONS OF |
| | APPROVAL FROM THE HPB REVIEW AND REDESIGN THE WEST AND |
| | SOUTH PARKING GARAGE FACADES. PREVIOUS COMMENTS: |
| | FURTHER STUDY IS NECESSARY FOR THE WEST ELEVATION AS IT |
| | WILL BE HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE |
| | PARKING GARAGE FACADES NEED ADDITIONAL WORK TO COMPLY |
| | WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF |
| | NON-ACTIVE USES. THE WEST STAIR CAN INCORPORATE SOME |
| | WINDOWS OR TREATMENT TO IMPROVE THE FACADE. THE PARKING |
| | GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION WILL BE ALSO VISIBLE AND NEED |
| | SOME IMPROVEMENTS. |
| | 18. SATISFIED. PLEASE INDICATE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED |
| | GROUND SETBACK ON ALL FLOOR PLANS AND THE CONDITIONAL |
| | SETBACK LINE ON EACH OF THE REQUIRED LEVELS. ALSO |
| | CLEARLY INCLUDE THE PROPERTY LINE IN ALL DRAWINGS, |
| | INCLUDING CIVILS AND LANDSCAPE. |
| | 19. SATISFIED. IN SHEET A-02 PLEASE REFER TO MAXIMUM |
| | PROPOSED GBA, NOT FAR. |
| | 20. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. FENESTRATION TO COVER A |
| | MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE TOWNHOUSE EAST FACADE SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. PREVIOUS COMMENT:EASTERN MOST TOWN HOUSE UNIT |
| | SHALL BE SETBACK FOR THE SIDE INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE A |
| | MINIMUM OF 10 FEET. PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE A |
| | SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK FOR THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. |
| | 21. SATISFIED. PLEASE LIST THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING |
| | SPACES REQUIRED BY CODE, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BIKE |
| | SPACES REQUIRED BY CODE (WITHIN THE BUILDING FOR |
| | BUILDING TENANTS AT 1/15 PARKING SPACES, AND ALONG THE |
| | STREET FRONTAGE 1/100 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE). THE |
| | TABLE LISTING THE REQUIRED PARKING BY CODE IS NOT |
| | ACCURATE. PLEASE USE PROVISIONS IN SEC 94-111 OF THE |
| | ZLDRS. |
| | 22. SATISFIED. |
| | 23. SATISFIED. WHAT IS THE BACK OUT SPACE AT THE GROUND |
| | LEVEL PARKING GARAGE? |
| | 24. SATISFIED. PLEASE CHECK THE LABELING OF THE FACADES |
| | AS THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE. PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE |
| | LOCATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BLOCK THAT |
| | ARE NOT PART OF THE PROJECT FOR REFERENCE. |
| | 25. SATISFIED. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ARCADE |
| | REMOVAL IN RELATION TO POSSIBLE FUTURE TENANTS. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: STAFF WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE |
| | POSSIBLE RE-DESIGN OF THE RETAIL SPACE ALONG ROSEMARY |
| | AVENUE. ARCADES DO NOT HAVE A RECORD OF SUCCESS FOR |
| | COMMERCIAL SPACES. |
| | 26. SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE ELEVATIONS TO REFLECT THE |
| | CHANGE TO SWING DOOR FOR RESIDENTIAL WALK UP UNITS. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: WALK UP UNIT DOORS SHALL BE DESIGNED |
| | LIKE FRONT DOORS AND NOT SLIDERS. |
| | 27. SATISFIED. THE GARAGE ELEVATION NEEDS ENHANCEMENT |
| | TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT |
| | FOR NON-ACTIVE USES. ENHANCED DESIGN MAY INCORPORATE |
| | SOME OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THE HPB BOARD. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: GARAGE HAS BIG BLANK WALL ALONG 2ND |
| | STREET. OPTION COULD BE TO MOVE THE BIKE STORAGE THERE. |
| | 28. SATISFIED. THE GARAGE ELEVATION NEEDS ENHANCEMENT |
| | TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT |
| | FOR NON-ACTIVE USES. ENHANCED DESIGN MAY INCORPORATE |
| | SOME OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THE HPB BOARD. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: GARAGE ELEVATION ALONG 2ND STREET |
| | SHALL INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT. |
| | 28A SATISFIED. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE |
| | ON 2ND STREET TO BE HIGHLIGHTED TO BREAK THE CONTINUITY |
| | OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. |
| | 29. SATISFIED. ADDITIONAL WORK IS STILL NECESSARY IN |
| | COORDINATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THE |
| | PARKING GARAGE. PREVIOUS COMMENT: THE WEST ELEVATION OF |
| | THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SHALL BE ENHANCED TO PROJECT A |
| | GOOD FACADE TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE |
| | WEST HALLWAY FACADE SHALL INCORPORATE WINDOWS. |
| | 30. SATISFIED. STREETSCAPE DESIGN ALONG ROSEMARY AVENUE |
| | SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DANCE INTO THE |
| | SUNSET STREETSCAPE DESIGN. |
| | 31. SATISFIED. EXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTS ALONG 3RD |
| | STREET SHALL BE REPLACED FOR CURRENT DOWNTOWN STANDARD, |
| | AND NEW DECORATIVE FIXTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG |
| | 2ND STREET TO MEET THE MINIMUM 0.6 FOOTCANDLE REQUIRED. |
| | ALONG THE ROSEMARY FRONTAGE DECORATIVE LIGHTS MATCHING |
| | THE NEW LIGHT FIXTURES AND POLES BEING INSTALLED BY THE |
| | CITY SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE |
| | DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE TO |
| | MEET THE MINIMUM 0.6 FOOT-CANDLES REQUIRED. LIGHT |
| | FIXTURE SHALL MATCH CITY STANDARD. |
| | 32. SATISFIED. SEE HPB CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT: A PORTION OF THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE |
| | HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEREFORE HPB APPROVAL FOR A COA |
| | WILL BE REQUIRED. PLEASE CONTACT FRIEDERIKE MITTNER AT |
| | 561-822-1457 TO DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH |
| | APPLICATION. THE COA SHALL BE OBTAINED BEFORE |
| | PROCEEDING TO DAC FOR SPECIAL REVIEW. |
| | 33. ACKNOWLEDGED. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON |
| | SITE CANNOT OCCUR UNTIL BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW |
| | CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN APPROVED. |
| | 34. NOT SATISFIED. TO BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION IN |
| | SITE PLAN APPROVAL LETTER. PREVIOUS COMMENT: A PROPERTY |
| | RE-PLAT WILL BE REQUIRED. |
| | 35. SATISFIED. AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER |
| | 12, 2020. STAFF STARTED THE PROCESS FOR THE ALLEY |
| | ABANDONMENT AND WILL NOTIFY THE APPLICANT IF ADDITIONAL |
| | INFORMATION IS NEEDED. REQUEST WILL GO THE DAC AT THE |
| | SAME TIME THAN THE SPECIAL REVIEW, AND TO CITY |
| | COMMISSION AFTER THAT. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE OPEN |
| | SPACE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET BY THE PROJECT THROUGH |
| | THE ADDITIONAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED. A WAIVER |
| | WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. PREVIOUS COMMENT: AN APPLICATION |
| | SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT. THE ALLEY |
| | ABANDONMENT REQUIRES THAT A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE |
| | EQUIVALENT TO THE AREA OF THE ABANDONED ALLEY BE |
| | ALLOCATED ON SITE. ALLEY AREA = 15 X500=7,500SF. PLEASE |
| | INDICATE IF A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE EQUAL TO 7,500 SF CAN |
| | BE LOCATED ON SITE. IF NOT, A WAIVER OF SUCH PROVISION |
| | SHALL BE REQUESTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS PART OF |
| | THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT PROCESS. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY |
| | TO PROVIDE ANY PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON SITE TO COMPLY WITH |
| | THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT PROVISION? SMALLER THAN THE |
| | REQUIRED? |
| | 36. SATISFIED. HAS THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF |
| | THE ALLEY (NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT) CONFIRMED |
| | SUPPORT FOR ALLEY ABANDONMENT? |
| | 37. SATISFIED. THE PROJECT REQUIRES DAC APPROVAL FOR |
| | SPECIAL REVIEW. IN PREPARATION FOR THE DAC, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE COLORED ELEVATIONS IN CONTEXT FOR DAC SPECIAL |
| | REVIEW, MORE DETAILED COLORED ELEVATIONS WITH CALL OUT |
| | MATERIALS AND PICTURES OF PROPOSED MATERIALS, AND |
| | STREET LEVEL RENDERS. |
| | 38. ACKNOWLEDGED. EASEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN |
| | RE-PLAT. PREVIOUS COMMENT: PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO |
| | PROVIDE A SIDEWALK ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE SIDEWALK |
| | LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. |
| | 39. ACKNOWLEDGED. PROJECT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE |
| | MAINTENANCE OF ALL HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLED |
| | WITHIN THE ROW AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. A MAINTENANCE |
| | AGREEMENT SHALL BE SIGNED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE |
| | DEVELOPER BEFORE FINAL CO. |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: |
| | 40. SATISFIED. PLEASE CORRECT THE PARKING TABLE TO |
| | REFLECT THE ACCURATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL |
| | WITHIN THIS DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS: MIN-1/1,000SF; MAX |
| | 2/1,000SF. |
| | 41. SATISFIED.PLEASE RELOCATE AT LEAST TWO OF THE BIKE |
| | PARKING AT THE PEDESTRIAN EXIT ON 3RD STREET TO THE |
| | ROSEMARY AVENUE FRONTAGE, IN FRONT OF RETAIL AREA. |
| | 42. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE COORDINATE ALL THE DIFFERENT |
| | ISCIPLINES AS THE LANDSCAPE, CIVIL AND SITE PLAN DO NOT |
| | SEEM TO MATCH. IF THE ON-STREET PARKING IS ALLOWED TO |
| | COUNT THE GUTTER FOR THE MINIMUM 8 FEET IN WIDTH, THE |
| | GUTTER CLOSER TO THE TRAVEL LANE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN |
| | THE WIDTH OF THE LOADING PARKING SPACE.DRAWINGS C.2.3 |
| | SHOWS THE ON-STREET PARKING ON 3RD AS 8 FEET PLUS THE |
| | GUTTER. PREVIOUS COMMENT:PLEASE DISCUSS WITH |
| | ENGINEERING DEPT THE POSSIBILITY TO REDUCE THE PARKING |
| | SPACES TO 8 FEET INCLUDING THE GUTTER. THAT WILL ALLOW |
| | ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT TO THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 3RD STREET AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL |
| | PRIVACY FOR THE FIRST FLOOR UNITS. IN ADDITION, THE |
| | PLANTING AREA NEXT TO THE CURB CAN BE REDUCED TO 4 FEET |
| | IN WIDTH, ALSO PROVIDING ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT THAT CAN |
| | BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE FIRST |
| | FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 3RD STREET. |
| | 43. SATISFIED.PLEASE REDUCE THE PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE |
| | FROM SAPODILLA AVE AND 2ND STREET TO 20 FEET IN TOTAL |
| | WIDTH. |
| | 44. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SEE COMMENT NO. 42. PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT:THE PLANTING AREA NEXT TO THE CURB ALONG 3RD |
| | STREET MAY BE REDUCE TO 4 FEET IN WIDTH. THE SIDEWALK |
| | CAN BE MOVED 1 FOOT NORTH AND THE ADDITIONAL FOOT SHALL |
| | BE ALLOCATED TO THE FRONT PLATING AREA OF THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL UNITS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
