| Date |
Text |
| 2020-04-14 11:09:26 | CASE NO. PB 950UUUUU 1ST RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| | OKEECHOBEE SIDEWALK |
| | 700 S. ROSEMARY |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO |
| | (2) PAPER COPIES (MAY BE MAILED/FEDEX) AND AN |
| | ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF 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. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM |
| | THE DATE OF THE COMMENTS (BY JUNE 14, 2020), THE CASE |
| | SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL |
| | REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | ADDITIONAL 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 ($60). |
| | |
| | ENTIRE PROJECT LENGTH |
| | |
| | 1) NEW COMMENT: THE OKEECHOBEE SIDEWALK DESIGN IN FRONT |
| | OF ROSEMARY SQUARE IS TO CONTINUE THE DESIGN THAT WAS |
| | ESTABLISHED WITH THE RECENTLY COMPLETED VALET DROP OFF |
| | PROJECT. THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL MIRRORED THIS DESIGN IN |
| | THE VALET PARKING LOT SECTION OF THE PLAN AND PROVIDED |
| | JUST THE ONE ROW OF ROYAL PALMS IN THE LUCID SECTION OF |
| | THE PLAN (STAFF COMMENT WAS TO ADD A SECOND ROW OF |
| | ROYAL PALMS AT THIS LOCATION). NOT LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS |
| | SUBMITTED FOR THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR THE RUTH CHRIS |
| | SECTION. THE CURRENT PLANS REMOVE THE ROYAL PALMS |
| | BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET. THE RESPONSE |
| | LETTER STATES, "FDOT LIMITS OF CLEAR SIGHT REQUIREMENTS |
| | AND OWNER/TENANT PREFERENCES" PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION |
| | OF THESE ROYAL PALM TREES. |
| | |
| | A. PROVIDE THE FDOT LIMITS OF CLEAR SIGHT FOR ROYAL |
| | PALM TREES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SO THAT STAFF CAN |
| | VERIFY WHERE FDOT WILL NOT PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF |
| | ROYAL PALM TREES. |
| | |
| | B. THE USE OF THE SINGLE ROW OF ROYAL PALMS DOES NOT |
| | MEET THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS NOR DOES IT |
| | PROVIDE FOR A UNIFORM STREETSCAPE ALONG THIS SECTION OF |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD. THE OWNER/TENANT PREFERENCES |
| | STILL NEED TO MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2) NEW COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE LIGHT POLES |
| | (INCLUDING HEIGHT) SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THE |
| | REQUIRED SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED TREES |
| | AND THE PROPOSED LIGHTS. |
| | |
| | 3) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAD NOTED, "SHEET L2.01 SHOWS |
| | A NEW LIGHT POLE BEING INSTALLED WITHIN FIVE FEET OF |
| | THE ONE ROYAL PALM SLATED TO REMAIN. WHY IS THE LIGHT |
| | POLE BEING INSTALLED SO CLOSE TO THE TREE"? THE |
| | RESPONSE WAS THAT THE ROYAL PALM NEAR THE PROPOSED |
| | LIGHT POLE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED. THE LIGHT POLES NEED |
| | TO BE DESIGNED AROUND THE TREES, NOT VICE VERSA. |
| | |
| | RUTH CHRIS SECTION |
| | |
| | 4) NEW COMMENT: THE BICYCLE PATH/SIDEWALK IS NOW SHOWN |
| | JOGGING NORTH AT THE SAPODILLA INTERSECTION AND THUS |
| | THE PATH IS NO LONGER IN LINE WITH THE CROSSWALK OR THE |
| | PATH ON THE WEST SIDE OF SAPODILLA. WHILE STAFF |
| | REALIZES THAT THE KRAVIS MAST ARM INSTALLATION INCLUDED |
| | NEW POLES WITHIN THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, THE PROPOSED |
| | ROUTE FORCES USERS FAR FROM THE CROSSWALK AND THE |
| | BICYCLE PATH DIRECTS USERS DIRECTLY INTO THE EXISTING |
| | FIRE HYDRANT. THE PLANS SHOW THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST 10 |
| | FEET BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN OF THE TWO METAL LIGHT POLES |
| | AND THE TRAFFIC POLE. THE BICYCLE PATH/SIDEWALK NEEDS |
| | TO BE DESIGNED SO THAT IT TRAVERSES BETWEEN THESE TWO |
| | POLES. NOTE: THE BICYCLE PATH/SIDEWALK NEEDS TO PROVIDE |
| | A MINIMALLY CURVILINEAR ROUTE, SO THE TRANSITION |
| | BETWEEN THE STRAIGHT PORTION OF THE BICYCLE |
| | PATH/SIDEWALK AND ITS TERMINUS AT THE INTERSECTION |
| | NEEDS TO START FURTHER EAST THAN CURRENTLY SHOWN. THIS |
| | WILL REQUIRE A RECONFIGURATION OF THE LANDSCAPE AREAS. |
| | |
| | 5) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR SHOWING A BICYCLE |
| | RACK ON THE PLAN; HOWEVER, THIS LOCATION IS NOT NEAR |
| | THE ENTRANCE TO RUTH CHRIS (OR THE CITYPLACE |
| | CONDOMINIUM). THE BICYCLE RACK NEEDS TO BE LOCATED OFF |
| | THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE WALKWAY ADJACENT TO THE |
| | VALET PARKING AREA. THIS BOTH BRINGS THE PARKING CLOSER |
| | THE ENTRANCES TO RUTH CHRIS AND THE CONDOMINIUMS AND |
| | ALLOWS SURVEILLANCE FROM BOTH ENTRIES AND THE VALET |
| | LOT. |
| | |
| | VALET PARKING LOT SECTION |
| | |
| | 6) THE PARKING LOT STRIPING DETAIL ON SHEET C3.10 DOES |
| | NOT MEET CITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WITH |
| | ONE THAT DOES. |
| | |
| | LUCID SECTION |
| | |
| | 7) THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF INCLUDING AN EXPANDED |
| | PATIO CANOPY DESIGN. IF THIS IS THE CASE IT NEEDS TO BE |
| | SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST BE |
| | PROVIDED AS WELL. |
| | |
| | APPROVAL CONDITIONS |
| | |
| | 8) AMEND THE MMOA FOR OKEECHOBEE TO INCLUDE THE NEW |
| | WORK. |
| | |
| | 9) CITYPLACE RETAIL WILL NEED TO SIGN A MAINTENANCE |
| | AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR THE AREA COVERED BY THE |
| | MMOA. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
