| Date |
Text |
| 2021-01-04 12:33:05 | MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SHEET MP-1): |
| | |
| | 1.) THE APPROVED BUILDING (111,502 SQ. FT.) FOR THE |
| | SELF-STORAGE FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED IN THE |
| | CONCURRENCY SUMMARY TABLE. [12/9/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: |
| | NOT ADDRESSED. CONCURRENCY SUMMARY STILL SHOWS 115,000 |
| | SQ. FT. FOR THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE TPS APPROVAL LETTER.] |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE ELIMINATE ANY REPETITIVE CALCULATIONS IN THE |
| | SITE DATA TABULAR (CONTACT STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION). |
| | |
| | 2.) THE BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS INDICATE THAT 3 |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED AND THE BICYCLE |
| | RACK DETAIL ON SHEET A1.2 INDICATES A "WAVE STYLE BIKE |
| | RACK (IN GROUND)' TO BE INSTALLED. WAVE STYLE RACKS ARE |
| | NOT PERMITTED PER THE CITY'S BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS. |
| | IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN INVERTED U RACK IS INSTALLED |
| | FOR THE PROJECT (ACCOMMODATES A MAXIMUM OF 2 BICYCLES). |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S |
| | STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 3.) THERE SEEMS TO BE TWO SHEET A1.2 IN THE PLAN SET. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY. |
| | |
| | 4.) WHY IS THERE A "SITE DETAILS 2" SHEET? IS THERE |
| | SUPPOSED TO BE A "SITE DETAILS 1" SHEET? |
| | |
| | 5.) A DETAIL ON SHEET A1.2 SHOWS THAT THE VACUUM AREA |
| | "MAY" HAVE AN AWNING. A DECISION MUST BE MADE AT THIS |
| | POINT, AS THE DETAILS SHEET MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | SITE PLAN (I.E. SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN OR ELIMINATE |
| | DETAIL ON SHEET A1.2). |
| | |
| | 6.) THERE IS A NOTE ON SHEET A1.2, DUMPSTER AND VACUUM |
| | ENCLOSURE THAT MAKES A REFERENCE TO SHEET A3.0; |
| | HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHEET A3.0 IN THE SITE PLAN SET. |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 7.) THE PARKING STRIPING DETAIL FOR THE EMPLOYEE |
| | PARKING ON SHEET A1.2 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PARKING |
| | STALL STRIPING REQUIREMENTS OF ZLDR S.94-485 (I.E. |
| | STRIPING DIMENSIONS DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIREMENTS). PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 8.) A STALL STRIPING AND SIGNAGE DETAIL FOR ACCESSIBLE |
| | PARKING IS REQUIRED ON SHEET A1.2. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS: |
| | |
| | 1.) REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH) INDICATES A SIGN AND A METAL |
| | SCUPPER; HOWEVER, THESE DETAILS ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ON SHEET A7.1. |
| | |
| | |
| | SIGNAGE COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) SIGN CALCULATIONS SEEM TO BE INCORRECT AND EXCEED |
| | THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE XIII OF THE ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | 2.) PER ZLDR SEC. 94-405, THE SIGN AREA SHALL BE |
| | CALCULATED BY THE SMALLEST AREA WHICH CONTAINS ALL |
| | CONTENT, BACKGROUND, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE SIGN. |
| | ACCORDING TO SHEET A7.0 AND SHEET A7.1, THE SIGN AREA |
| | SEEMS TO BE BROKEN INTO THREE COMPONENTS ON THE NORTH |
| | ELEVATION WHICH IS INCORRECT AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR |
| | THE FLAMINGO LOGO WHICH IS PART OF THE SIGN AREA. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE SIGN AREA SEEMS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM |
| | ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE PLAN: |
| | |
| | 1.) LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS SEEM TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH |
| | THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN |
| | |
| | |
| | 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 FIVE |
| | (5) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 11 INCHES X |
| | 17 INCHES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND |
| | DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | * 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 PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE |
| | ($600.00). |
| | |
| |
Print |
