| Date |
Text |
| 2020-07-29 14:56:15 | ** STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE APPLICANT SET UP A |
| | PHONE/TELECONFERENCE WITH CITY STAFF TO DISCUSS THE |
| | LATEST COMMENTS. THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A SETBACK IN |
| | ADDRESSING STAFF'S COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FROM THE LAST |
| | SUBMITTAL. ** |
| | |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) A DRAFT CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED |
| | TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE PROJECT FOR |
| | THE PUBLIC HEARING STAGE. THE CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT |
| | SHALL COVER (BUT WILL NOT BE LIMITED TO) MAINTENANCE OF |
| | THE PARKING AREA, PROVISION FOR SHARED LOADING ZONE, |
| | ETC. |
| | |
| | 2.) AS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENTS, THERE IS |
| | LITIGATION LANGUAGE PROVIDED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION |
| | OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE AGENTS |
| | RESOLVE THE MATTER SO THAT THE PENDING LITIGATION |
| | LANGUAGE CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. |
| | THIS WAS NOT ADDRESSED, AS THE LITIGATION LANGUAGE IS |
| | STILL REFERENCED IN THE SURVEY. THIS MAY IMPACT THE |
| | SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | 3.) STAFF HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AGENTS ON |
| | ELIMINATING THE PARK N' FLY SPACES TO SUPPORT THE |
| | PARKING WAIVER REQUEST. HOWEVER, THE PLANS AND |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT STILL REFERENCE THE PARK N' FLY |
| | SPACES AS PART OF THE PROJECT AND THAT THERE IS A |
| | RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THESE SPACES (NO EVIDENCE). |
| | STAFF IS REQUESTING CLARIFICATION ON THE MATTER. PLEASE |
| | NOTE THAT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE |
| | REQUEST FOR A PARKING WAIVER WHEN PARK N' FLY SPACES |
| | (WHICH COULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE REQUIRED PARKING |
| | NEEDS OF THE PROJECT) IS REMOVED FROM THE REQUIRED |
| | PARKING CALCULATIONS SO THAT THE SPACES CAN BE LEASED |
| | TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY FOR PROFIT. |
| | |
| | 4.) THERE STILL SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION WITH THE |
| | NUMBER OF ROOMS IN THE EXISTING HOTEL (I.E. 200 ROOMS |
| | VS. 199 ROOMS). STAFF HAS DOCUMENTATION THAT THERE ARE |
| | 200 ROOMS IN THE EXISTING HOTEL, AND INFORMATION |
| | PROVIDED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, PARKING STUDY, |
| | SITE PLAN, ETC., SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT (I.E. |
| | INTERCHANGE BETWEEN 200 ROOMS AND 199 ROOMS IN THE |
| | SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS). AT THIS POINT, STAFF IS |
| | REQUESTING DOCUMENTATION THAT THE NUMBER OF ROOMS HAD |
| | BEEN REDUCED FROM 200 ROOMS TO 199 ROOMS; ALSO, PLEASE |
| | ENSURE THE INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS IS |
| | CORRECTED IN ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: NOT ADDRESSED. APPLICANT HAS |
| | NOT PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THE TRUE ROOM |
| | COUNT FOR THE EXISTING HOTEL, AND THE NUMBERS HAVE NOT |
| | BEEN CLARIFIED IN ALL DOCUMENTS (I.E. JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENT)] |
| | |
| | 5.) IN ADDITION TO THE COMMENTS PROVIDED ABOVE, PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY AND/OR CORRECT THE FOLLOWING IN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT: A) THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT |
| | SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE (1) RESTAURANT FOR |
| | THE PROJECT. PLEASE CLARIFY. B) CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED |
| | ON THE DINING TERRACE. WHAT USE DOES IT SERVE WITHIN |
| | THE PROJECT, AS THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A RESTAURANT |
| | PROPOSED ON PARCEL B. C) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT |
| | IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE |
| | ZLDRS. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR WAIVERS. |
| | D) MITIGATION MEASURES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR ALL |
| | REQUESTED WAIVERS. E.) LOADING ZONE WAIVER MISSING FROM |
| | THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT . |
| | |
| | 6.) PLEASE CHECK THE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED IN THE |
| | REDUCED PARKING STATEMENT DOCUMENT AND IN THE SITE DATA |
| | TABULARS. THE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT |
| | MATCH THE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN THE PLANS. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 7.) STAFF HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE AGENT WRITING INTO THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT TO ALLOW HOTELS/MOTELS BY RIGHT |
| | WITHIN THE PROPOSED PD. THIS LANGUAGE SEEMS TO BE |
| | MISSING FROM THE JUSTIFICATION. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT |
| | THIS LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST, AS |
| | HOTELS/MOTELS ARE PERMITTED IN THE OC ZONING DISTRICT |
| | AS A PXR. ALSO, FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT (IF |
| | NECESSARY), A LIST OF PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE |
| | PROPOSED PD SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED INTO THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES AT THIS TIME. |
| | |
| | 8.) ANY CHANGES TO ANY INFORMATION AND/OR CALCULATIONS |
| | ON THE PLAN SHEET(S) SHALL BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH ALL |
| | OTHER SHEETS IN THE PLAN SET. [6/11/2020 REPEAT |
| | COMMENT: INCONSISTENCIES DETECTED IN THE PARCEL LINES |
| | AND BUILDING SETBACKS, NUMBER OF CROSSWALKS, ETC.] |
| | |
| | 9.) STAFF HAD DISCUSSED MINIMIZING THE NUMBER OF PLAN |
| | SHEETS WITHIN THE PLAN SET WITH THE AGENT, AS SOME OF |
| | THE PLAN SHEETS ARE UNNECESSARY AND EXCESSIVE (I.E. THE |
| | OVERALL SITE PLAN SHOULD DEPICT THE SITE LAYOUT FOR |
| | BOTH PARCELS A AND B - NO HATCHED AREAS; SEPARATE SITE |
| | PLANS FOR PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, CONSOLIDATE ALL |
| | REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DIMENSION ON ONE SHEET, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 10.) THERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING TO |
| | FORMULATING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPOSED PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. STAFF IS REQUESTING A TELECONFERENCE WITH |
| | THE AGENT(S)/ARCHITECT(S) TO DISCUSS THE |
| | APPROACH/PURPOSE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 11.) AFTER SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE P&Z ADMINISTRATOR, |
| | IT WAS DETERMINED THAT EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES (I.E. |
| | FRONT SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE ISLAND, LOADING ZONES) ARE |
| | NOT REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON PARCEL A. |
| | ANY NEWLY CREATED NON-CONFORMITIES (I.E. SIDE SETBACKS, |
| | INTERIOR BUFFERS, ETC.) WILL NEED WAIVERS. |
| | |
| | |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CRITERIA) COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS, ARCHITECTURAL |
| | STYLE/ELEMENTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) AND SITE DESIGN |
| | LACKS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREET AND CONNECTIVITY WITH |
| | ADJACENT/NEARBY USES, DESIRED ELEMENTS OF A PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. MORE EFFORT IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS |
| | DESIGN DEFICIENCY. [2/10/2020 AND 6/11/2020 REPEAT |
| | COMMENT: STAFF BELIEVES MORE EFFORT COULD BE MADE TO |
| | ADDRESSING THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPOSED PD, WHICH IS |
| | MOST VISIBLE FROM THE STREET VIEW (I.E. WATER FEATURE, |
| | ADDITIONAL AND COLORFUL LANDSCAPING, ETC.). LATEST |
| | MODIFICATIONS ARE BLAND WITH VERY LITTLE IMPROVEMENT. |
| | IT IS STRONGLY ADVISED THAT THE AGENT/ARCHITECT SET UP |
| | A TELECONFERENCE TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS |
| | WITH STAFF TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA.] |
| | |
| | |
| | MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS (SHEET MP-1): |
| | |
| | 1.) THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS NOT SHOWN CLEARLY IN THE |
| | PLAN. PROPERTY LINES IN THE PLAN SHOULD BE CLEARLY |
| | DEFINED, WITH BUILDING/STRUCTURAL SETBACKS CLEARLY |
| | SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 2.) PARCEL LINE BETWEEN PARCEL A AND PARCEL B IS |
| | INCONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PLAN SHEETS AND NEEDS TO BE |
| | CLARIFIED TO MATCH ALL PLAN SHEETS AND WITH THE |
| | PROPOSED PLAT DOCUMENT. THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN |
| | SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THE BUILDING (EXISTING HOTEL) |
| | SETBACK FOR PARCEL A ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE IS |
| | 5.17 FT.; HOWEVER, IT IS ILLUSTRATED IN OTHER PLAN |
| | SHEETS THAT THE BUILDING SETBACK OF THE EXISTING HOTEL |
| | TO THE PROPOSED EAST PARCEL PROPERTY LINE IS 0 FT. |
| | |
| | 3.) ACCORDING TO THE PLAN, THE GFA OF PARCEL A CAN BE |
| | INCREASED UP TO 158,981 SQ. FT. (DIFFERENCE OF 22,321 |
| | SQ. FT. FROM THE EXISTING PARCEL A HOTEL) AND THE GFA |
| | OF PARCEL B CAN BE INCREASED UP TO 101,063 SQ. FT. |
| | (DIFFERENCE OF 40,429 SQ. FT. FROM THE PROPOSED PARCEL |
| | B HOTEL). THIS IMPLIES THAT 62,750 SQ. FT. MAY BE ADDED |
| | TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. PLEASE PROVIDE AN |
| | EXPLANATION TO HOW THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CAN |
| | ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL BUILDING AND HOW THE |
| | ADDITIONAL BUILDING WILL MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE |
| | ZLDRS SINCE THE SITE IS ALREADY SHORT ON THE MINIMUM |
| | PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES AND |
| | ROOM NUMBERS SHOULD MATCH WHAT IS EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED. [6/11/2020 MODIFIED/REPEAT COMMENT: PLEASE |
| | SEE MODIFIED COMMENT ABOVE.] |
| | |
| | 4.) INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) |
| | DESIGNATION, ZONING DESIGNATION AND EXISTING USES FOR |
| | THE ADJACENT USES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST TO |
| | DEMONSTRATE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE EXISTING USES AND |
| | THE PROPOSED USES WITHIN THE CPD. [2/10/2020 AND |
| | 6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: ZONING INFORMATION IS STILL |
| | MISSING FROM THE PLAN; SOME EXISTING USES ARE INCORRECT |
| | AND MUST BE CORRECTED FOR CONSISTENCY.] |
| | |
| | 5.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE MASTER |
| | DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAT AND |
| | SURVEY FOR CONSISTENCY. [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: |
| | PARCEL DIMENSIONS IN THE PLAT AND IN THE PLAN ARE STILL |
| | INCONSISTENT WITH THE PARCEL DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE |
| | SURVEY. PLEASE CLARIFY AND/OR ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY.] |
| | |
| | 6.) THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK ON PARCEL A IS |
| | INCORRECTLY MEASURED (IT IS NOT 165.8 FT.). PLEASE |
| | CORRECT. THE REAR SETBACK IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM |
| | THE REAR OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE). |
| | |
| | 7.) BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL ON PARCEL |
| | B ARE NOT ILLUSTRATED IN THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "OVERALL |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DATA" TABULAR: A) REQUIRED LOT |
| | COVERAGE, IMPERMEABLE SURFACE, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN |
| | SPACE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS ARE INCORRECT. B) |
| | PROVIDED PERCENTAGES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE |
| | ARE INCORRECT. C) PROVIDED BUILDING SEPARATION IS |
| | MISSING. D) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FAR INFORMATION IS STILL |
| | MISSING. E) PARKING DATA IS MISSING. |
| | |
| | 9.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "PARCEL A SITE |
| | DATA" TABULAR: A) WHERE DID THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF |
| | 19.5 FT. COME FROM? THIS IS INCORRECT. B) PROVIDED |
| | INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 5.17 FT. IN THE TABLE, |
| | HOWEVER, OTHER PLAN SHEETS INDICATE THAT THE SETBACK IS |
| | 0 FT. PLEASE CLARIFY. C) THE PROVIDED REAR SETBACK IS |
| | NOT 165.80 FT. (AS NOTED IN THE TABLE). D) THE PROVIDED |
| | LOT COVERAGE IS 19,590 SQ. FT. IN THE TABLE (DOES NOT |
| | MATCH SURVEY BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 15,928 SQ. FT.). |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY. E) PROVIDED PERCENTAGES FOR LOT |
| | COVERAGE, IMPERMEABLE SURFACE, LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE |
| | ARE INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 10.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "PARCEL B SITE |
| | DATA" TABULAR: A) PARCEL SIZE OF PARCEL B IS 2.32 ACRES |
| | (NOT 2.31 ACRES). PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. B) |
| | WHERE DID THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 66.10 FT. COME FROM? |
| | C) PROVIDE BREAKDOWN OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE BY PAVED |
| | AREA AND BUILDING GROUND FLOOR AREA. D) REQUIRED SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS FOR LOT COVERAGE, IMPERMEABLE |
| | SURFACE, LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE ARE INCORRECT. E) |
| | PROVIDED OPEN SPACE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PERCENTAGE IS |
| | INCORRECT. F) BUILDING HEIGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | HEIGHT IN THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (46'-8"). |
| | |
| | 11.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING WAIVER NOTES: A) |
| | WAIVER #1: CLARIFICATION/EXPLANATION REQUIRED. HOW DOES |
| | THE WAIVER TO FRONT SETBACKS FOR BOTH PARCELS A AND B |
| | FIT INTO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE OVERALL CPD? |
| | (I.E. MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FOR BOTH PARCELS). B) |
| | WAIVER #2: CLARIFICATION AND/OR CORRECTION REQUIRED. |
| | WAIVER STATES A MINIMUM 5'-2" SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING |
| | TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, HOWEVER, OTHER PLAN SHEETS |
| | INDICATE A 0 FT. SETBACK. C) WAIVER #4: LANGUAGE IS |
| | CONFUSING. PLEASE CLARIFY/SIMPLIFY. D) WAIVER #5: |
| | IDENTIFY BUFFER WAIVER FOR EACH APPLICABLE SIDE (USE |
| | PALMS GATEWAY CPD MASTER PLAN AS AN EXAMPLE). |
| | |
| | |
| | PARCEL A SITE PLAN COMMENTS (SHEET OSP-1): |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE REFER TO SHEET MP-1 FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE |
| | SITE DATA TABULAR. |
| | |
| | 2.) SOME INFORMATION ON THE ADJACENT EXISTING USES AND |
| | FLU ARE INCORRECT IN THE PLAN. ALSO, ZONING INFORMATION |
| | IS STILL MISSING. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 3.) CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED ON THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PARCELS A AND B AND PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING HOTEL ON PARCEL A. |
| | THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE OTHER PLAN SHEETS ARE |
| | UNCLEAR AND INCONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 4.) STAFF HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE AGENT THE POSSIBILITY |
| | OF CONSOLIDATING THE INFORMATION ON PARCEL A TO SIMPLY |
| | THE INFORMATION, AS THERE SEEMS TO BE PIECEMEAL |
| | INFORMATION ON THE VARIOUS SHEETS (I.E. ELIMINATE THE |
| | ENLARGEMENT SHEETS). THIS WAS NOT ADDRESSED. PLEASE |
| | SPEAK TO STAFF IF THERE IS A REASON FOR NOT |
| | CONSOLIDATING THE INFORMATION ON A SINGLE SHEET, AS |
| | STAFF IS ONLY MAKING SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE AND |
| | SIMPLIFY THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 5.) THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK FOR PARCEL A IS |
| | INCORRECTLY MEASURED (IT IS NOT 165.8 FT.). PLEASE |
| | CORRECT. THE REAR SETBACK IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM |
| | THE REAR OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE). |
| | [6/11/2020 MODIFIED/REPEAT COMMENT: REFERENCE COMMENT |
| | #5 FROM 6/11/2020. NOT ADDRESSED CORRECTLY.] |
| | |
| | 6.) EXPLAIN THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE MINIMUM LOT |
| | WIDTH. [6/11/2020 MODIFIED/REPEAT COMMENT: REFERENCE |
| | COMMENT #6. INCORRECTLY ADDRESSED BY THE AGENT. MINIMUM |
| | LOT WIDTH IS MEASURED BY THE LOT FRONTAGE. PLEASE |
| | ADDRESS.] |
| | |
| | 7.) BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS IS INCORRECT. ONE (1) |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 20 |
| | AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES, OR FRACTION THEREOF, |
| | REQUIRED FOR THE USE. [ZLDR S.94-485(Q)] |
| | |
| | 8.) PLACEMENT OF BICYCLE PARKING ON THE SUBJECT |
| | PROPERTY SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF |
| | S.94-485(Q). RACKS MUST BE PLACED IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE |
| | AREA (NOT NEXT TO THE LOADING ZONE) AND BE LOCATED NEAR |
| | THE PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING AS PRACTICABLE. |
| | [ZLDR S.94-485(Q)] |
| | |
| | 9.) CLARIFY THE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED LOADING ZONES FOR |
| | PARCEL A, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: NUMBER OF |
| | LOADING ZONES PROVIDED (THERE SEEMS TO BE 2 NOT 1) AND |
| | DIMENSIONS (REQUIRED AND PROVIDED). PLAN SHOULD ALSO |
| | DIMENSION OUT THE LOADING ZONE(S) IN THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 10.) PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE 136,660 SQ. FT. GROSS FLOOR |
| | AREA INCLUDES THE EXISTING RESTAURANT AND MEETING AREAS |
| | WITHIN THE HOTEL BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 11.) CLARIFY WHERE THE 170 PARKING SPACES FOR THE |
| | REQUIRED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER PARKING STUDY CAME |
| | FROM. THIS CALCULATION IS NOT FOUND IN THE REDUCED |
| | PARKING STATEMENT DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | 12.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAT AND SURVEY. |
| | [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: ALTHOUGH DIMENSIONS HAVE |
| | BEEN PROVIDED. THE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT CONSISTENT |
| | BETWEEN THE SURVEY, PLAT AND SITE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY.] |
| | |
| | |
| | PARCEL B SITE PLAN COMMENTS (SHEET OSP-2): |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE REFER TO SHEET MP-1 FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE |
| | SITE DATA TABULAR. |
| | |
| | 2.) SOME INFORMATION ON THE ADJACENT EXISTING USES AND |
| | FLU ARE INCORRECT IN THE PLAN. ALSO, ZONING INFORMATION |
| | IS STILL MISSING. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 3.) CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED ON THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PARCELS A AND B AND PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING HOTEL ON PARCEL A. |
| | THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE OTHER PLAN SHEETS ARE |
| | UNCLEAR AND INCONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 4.) STAFF HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE AGENT THE POSSIBILITY |
| | OF CONSOLIDATING THE INFORMATION ON PARCEL B TO SIMPLY |
| | THE INFORMATION, AS THERE SEEMS TO BE PIECEMEAL |
| | INFORMATION ON THE VARIOUS SHEETS (I.E. ELIMINATE THE |
| | ENLARGEMENT SHEETS). THIS WAS NOT ADDRESSED. PLEASE |
| | SPEAK TO STAFF IF THERE IS A REASON FOR NOT |
| | CONSOLIDATING THE INFORMATION ON A SINGLE SHEET, AS |
| | STAFF IS ONLY MAKING SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE AND |
| | SIMPLIFY THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 5.) A WAIVER IS REQUIRED FOR THE EAST PERIMETER |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER, SINCE THE BUFFER DOES NOT COVER THE |
| | ENTIRE EAST PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 6.) PROVIDE SETBACK DIMENSIONS OF THE LIGHT POLES TO |
| | THE PROPERTY LINES. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL POLE FIXTURES |
| | MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF |
| | ZLDR S.94-143. |
| | |
| | 7.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE PARKING TABLE: |
| | A) CHECK PARKING CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROVIDED PARKING |
| | (DOES NOT MATCH NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN). B) CLARIFY WHERE THE 87 PARKING SPACES FOR THE |
| | REQUIRED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER PARKING STUDY CAME |
| | FROM. THIS CALCULATION IS NOT FOUND IN THE REDUCED |
| | PARKING STATEMENT DOCUMENT. C) CLARIFY THE REQUIRED AND |
| | PROVIDED LOADING ZONES FOR PARCEL B, INCLUDING, BUT NOT |
| | LIMITED TO: DIMENSIONS (REQUIRED AND PROVIDED.). D) |
| | TABLE INDICATES COMPACT PARKING SPACES WILL BE |
| | PROVIDED. WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED IN THE SITE PLAN? E) |
| | THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES SHALL BE |
| | BASED ON THE REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 8.) IDENTIFY THE TRELLIS (BY NOTATION) IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN. ALSO NOTE THAT THE DETAIL ON SHEET SPD-1 DOES NOT |
| | MATCH THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 9.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAT AND SURVEY. |
| | [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: ALTHOUGH DIMENSIONS HAVE |
| | BEEN PROVIDED. THE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT CONSISTENT |
| | BETWEEN THE SURVEY, PLAT AND SITE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY.] |
| | |
| | 10.) WAIVERS SHALL BE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: A) |
| | FRONT SETBACK B) LANDSCAPE BUFFERS C) LOADING ZONES. |
| | [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: NOT ALL REQUIRED WAIVERS |
| | HAVE BEEN NOTATED IN THE PLAN.] |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN DETAILS COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PARKING STALL DETAIL SHALL BE REVISED FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR STALL |
| | STRIPING. [6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: DETAIL PROVIDED IN |
| | SHEET SPD-1 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY?S STANDARDS |
| | FOR STRIPING. ALSO MISSING IS THE COMPACT PARKING STALL |
| | DETAIL, AND STALL DETAIL FOR THOSE SPACES WITH A 2 FT. |
| | CURB OVERHANG WITHIN LANDSCAPE ISLANDS/BUFFERS]. |
| | |
| | 2.) BICYCLE RACK DETAIL AND PLACEMENT IS INCONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IT IS REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL |
| | FEATURES BE PROVIDED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION SINCE IT IS |
| | THE ELEVATION THAT IS MOST VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. |
| | ALSO, NOTE THAT IT MAY BE HELPFUL O PROVIDE COLORED |
| | ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL. [6/11/2020 REPEAT |
| | COMMENT: BASED ON STAFF?S REVIEW OF THE REVISED |
| | ELEVATIONS AND SITE ELEMENTS, STAFF BELIEVES GREATER |
| | EFFORT CAN BE MADE TO IMPROVE THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE |
| | BUILDING TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE AND INVITING.] |
| | |
| | 2.) SHEET A101 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DRIVEWAY |
| | LAYOUT. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | PHOTOMETRIC PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PHOTOMETRIC SPILLOVER NOT PROVIDED ON THE SOUTH |
| | SIDE OF PARCEL B. ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT EXCEED |
| | ONE-FOOT CANDLE AT OR BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE FOOT CANDLE SPILLOVER |
| | ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARCEL B TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | COMPLIANCE. [2/10/2020 AND 6/11/2020 MODIFIED/REPEAT |
| | COMMENT: NOT ADDRESSED. STAFF WAS EXPECTING THE |
| | PHOTOMETRIC SPILLOVER ALONG ALL SIDES NOT PART OF THE |
| | PROPOSED PD FOR PARCEL B (I.E. SOUTH SIDE ABUTTING THE |
| | FRONTAGE ROAD).] |
| | |
| | 2.) ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED TO REDUCE |
| | GLARE AND SHALL BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT OR GLARE |
| | AWAY FROM PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. [ZLDR S.94-309(A)] |
| | [2/10/2020 AND 6/11/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: AT MINIMUM, A |
| | NOTE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR |
| | COMPLIANCE. THIS NOTE IS STILL MISSING FROM THE PLANS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5 INCHES BY |
| | 11 INCHES AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17 INCHES, AND |
| | AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | * 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 |
| | RESUBMITTAL FEE WILL BE 20% ($600.00) OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE. THE $600.00 PENALTY FEE WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| |
Print |
