| Date |
Text |
| 2021-05-17 16:10:14 | COMMENTS TO 4/23/21 SET |
| | 1. NOT SATISFIED. THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR OFFICE IN THE |
| | DRI CAPACITY TABLE. BASED ON THE LATEST NUMBERS, A |
| | CONVERSION FROM OTHER CATEGORY WOULD BE NEEDED TO ALLOW |
| | 62,833 SF OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE. PLEASE SUBMIT |
| | CONVERSION ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE |
| | 4412-12.-PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE A GROSS |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION FOR EACH USE TO DETERMINE |
| | THE NEED FOR CONVERSION CAPACITY FROM THE CITYPLACE |
| | DRI. CURRENTLY THERE IS ONLY 383,429 SF OF OFFICE |
| | SPACE, AND 32,337 SF OR RETAIL AVAILABLE IN THE POOL. |
| | IT SEEMS THE GBA OF PROPOSED OFFICE MAY EXCEED THE |
| | AVAILABLE SF NECESSITATING A SF CONVERSION. |
| | 2. SATISFIED.- PLEASE REVIEW ORDINANCE NO. 4412-12 AND |
| | PROVIDE CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE FOR ALL APPLICABLE |
| | ITEMS. |
| | 3. NOT SATISFIED. STAFF UNDERSTAND WAIVERS ARE |
| | REQUESTED. PLEASE PROVIDE SCHEMATIC DRAWING INDICATING |
| | THE COMPLIANCE AT GROUND FLOOR AND THE WAIVERS |
| | REQUESTED FOR FLOORS 2ND-5TH. IF THE AREA OF THE PASEO |
| | MEETS THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, IT CAN BE |
| | COUNTED AS ACTIVE USE AS IT IS ADJACENT TO ACTIVE USES |
| | ON BOTH SIDES.- PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | GRAPHIC INFORMATION TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | 4. NOT SATISFIED. SOME SUGGESTIONS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER |
| | OF WAIVERS REQUESTED: |
| | A. AS IT SEEMS THE PROPOSED VALET PARKING SPACES ON THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR ARE NOT USABLE (DUE TO CIRCULATION |
| | PATTERNS) THE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USE ALONG DIXIE HWAY |
| | COULD BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE MINIMUM DEPTH REQUIRED. |
| | B. PLANAR BREAKS COULD BE MEASURED HORIZONTALLY WITH |
| | THE VARIATION ON THE BUILDING PLANE OF EACH PARKING |
| | LEVEL. |
| | C. CONSIDERING THE CANOPY AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS AT |
| | 33? IN HEIGHT, TREES MAY BE INSTALLED ALONG THE CURB TO |
| | COMPLY WITH TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENT. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PROJECT IS REQUESTING 22 DIFFERENT |
| | WAIVERS FROM REGULATIONS. PLEASE FURTHER STUDY OPTIONS |
| | TO COMPLY WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS OR REDUCE THE WAIVER |
| | REQUEST. SOME OF THE WAIVERS THAT CAN BE REDUCED |
| | INCLUDE: |
| | A. SATISFIED-PORTE COCHERE. CONSIDERING THE DROP-OFF |
| | AREA ON QUADRILLE CANNOT MEET THE PORTE COCHERE |
| | REQUIREMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDS UTILIZING A REGULAR |
| | ON-STREET DROP-OFF. |
| | B. SATISFIED-TOWER AND GARAGE SEPARATION ARE NOT |
| | APPLICABLE TO THIS DISTRICT. |
| | 5. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE SOME SECTIONS TO |
| | INDICATE THE RELATION BETWEEN THE OFFICE TOWER LEVELS |
| | AND THE GARAGE LEVELS. IF THE OFFICE LEVELS ARE USED, |
| | GARAGE LEVELS 8,9 AND 10 SEEM TO EXCEED TO MAXIMUM |
| | FOOTPRINT (TOWER LEVELS 6 AND 7).THE WAIVER REQUEST |
| | SHOULD BE FOR THOSE TWO FLOORS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM |
| | 55% BUILDING FOOTPRINT ALLOWED? PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PROJECT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT ALLOWED |
| | AT THE 6TH AND 7TH STORY (55%) AND ABOVE 8TH STORY |
| | (50%) DUE TO THE PARKING GOING UP 10 STORIES. |
| | JUSTIFICATION LIST THE WAIVER REQUEST TO EXCEED THE |
| | MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT FROM 6TH TO 24TH FLOOR. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT IS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT PROVIDED |
| | ABOVE THE 10TH LEVEL. THE PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO EXCEED |
| | MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ABOVE THE 5TH FLOOR, BUT IN |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONAL SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT |
| | PROVIDED AT THIS POINT. |
| | 6. NOT SATISFIED- PROPOSED PARKING EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM |
| | ALLOWED. |
| | MAXIMUM PARKING ALLOWED FOR THE PROJECT IS: |
| | SOFT MAXIMUM = 398,590 SF AT1.5/1,000 = 598 SPACES |
| | ADDITIONAL .75/1,000 WITH CONTRIBUTION TO TRANSIT = 299 |
| | SPACES |
| | ADDITIONAL WITH TDM STRATEGIES = 299 SPACES |
| | TOTAL ALLOWED = 1,196 SPACES |
| | PARKING PROPOSES ON APRIL 23, 21 VERSION = 1,213 SPACES |
| | TO INCREASE FROM THE SOFT MAXIMUM THE PROJECT CAN: |
| | A. CONTRIBUTE TO THE TRANSIT OPERATION FUND (EXACT |
| | AMOUNT TO BE CALCULATED). THAT WILL ALLOW 299 |
| | ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. |
| | B. THE ADDITIONAL SPACES REQUESTED UP TO THE HARD |
| | MAXIMUM WOULD REQUIRE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TDM |
| | STRATEGIES. PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH TDM STRATEGIES THE |
| | PROJECT IS GOING TO IMPLEMENT. |
| | |
| | 7. NOT SATISFIED. REFUGE AREA MENTIONED IN THE RESPONSE |
| | LETTER IS NOT SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PROPOSED CURB CUT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 25 FEET ALLOWED. |
| | FURTHER DISCUSSION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF THE |
| | SERVICE DRIVE CAN BE REDUCED, OR IF THERE ARE ANY |
| | MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS. |
| | 8. SATISFIED.- SIDEWALK ELEVATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED |
| | ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY. |
| | 9. NOT SATISFIED PLEASE PROVIDE PRE-APPROVAL LETTER |
| | FROM FDOT TO CONFIRM THEY WILL ACCEPT THE DROP OFF AREA |
| | ON QUADRILLE BLVD AND THE LOCATION OF THE CURB |
| | CUTS.-PREVIOUS COMMENT: TPS LETTER FROM COUNTY MENTIONS |
| | THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR DECELERATION LANES TO ACCESS |
| | GARAGE. PLEASE PROVIDE A PRE-DETERMINATION LETTER FROM |
| | FDOT CONFIRMING THE AGENCY APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | SIDE PLAN (DRIVEWAYS, TREES ETC.) |
| | 10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE NARRATIVE ON |
| | THE CURB SIDE MANAGEMENT OF ON-STREET DROP OFF/PICK UP |
| | AREA PROPOSED ON QUADRILLE BLVD.- PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE FOR A CURB SIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND A |
| | FREIGHT DELIVERY MANAGEMENT PLAN. |
| | 11.NOT SATISFIED. PROPOSED VALET LOCATION IS NOT |
| | FUNCTIONAL, THE VALET OPERATION IS BLOCKING THE TRAVEL |
| | LANES. A SEPARATE AREA FOR STACKING IS NEEDED. PLEASE |
| | INDICATE THE TRAVEL PATHS FOR CARS RECEIVED AT THE 2ND |
| | FLOOR VALET TO THE GROUND FLOOR VALET PARKING AREA. |
| | VALET CARS SHOULD NOT CIRCULATE IN THE PUBLIC ROW. ? |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING |
| | THE OPERATION OF THE VALET SERVICE FOR THE BUILDING. |
| | PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE VALET PARKING |
| | DROP-OFF /PICK UP AREA INSIDE THE GARAGE. |
| | 12. TO BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITON OF APPROVAL- DUE TO |
| | THE PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE TANDEM PARKING SPACES, VALET |
| | SERVICE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. A RESTRICTIVE |
| | COVENANT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 13. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. STAFF RECOMMENDS MORE |
| | REALISTIC RENDERINGS FOR THE PB AND CITY COMMISSION |
| | MEETING. CAN THE CONCRETE PARAPET THAT CREATES THE |
| | ILLUSION OF SLAB THICKNESS BE TALLER TO FURTHER SCREEN |
| | THE CARS FROM VIEW? WHAT ABOUT SOME VEGETATION IN SOME |
| | OF THE SLAB PROJECTIONS THAT COMPLEMENT THE ART |
| | INSTALLATION AND HELP SCREEN THE CARS?? PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | REGARDING THE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE PARKING GARAGE. |
| | STAFF RECOMMENDS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAILED SECTIONS |
| | TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE SPECIAL DESIGN OF THE GARAGE SLABS |
| | THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE LACK OF ACTIVE USES. REALISTIC |
| | RENDERING IMAGES ARE ALSO RECOMMENDED TO FULLY DEPICT |
| | THE IMAGE OF THE GARAGE AND ALLOW A COMPLETE |
| | UNDERSTANDING OF THE GARAGE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING. |
| | RENDERINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT |
| | VIEW POINTS OF THE GARAGE (DIXIE, LAKEVIEW, OKEECHOBEE) |
| | AND FROM STREET LEVEL PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS FROM UPPER |
| | LEVELS FROM SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. |
| | PLANS INDICATE SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES AT THE EDGE |
| | OF THE SLAB, ARE THE CARS VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE? |
| | 14. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SECTION IN A513 DOES NOT SEEM |
| | TO MATCH FLOOR PLANS BUT SEEMS TO INDICATE SOME |
| | ADDITIONAL SETBACK ABOVE FLOOR 6TH BEYOND THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIRED. PLEASE INDICATE THE MINIMUM SETBACK LINE AND |
| | THE CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR PARKING USES TO DETERMINE |
| | THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER IN EACH PARKING LEVEL. |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE INDICATE THE MINIMUM SETBACK |
| | IN THE GARAGE SECTIONS TO IDENTIFY THE EXTEND OF THE |
| | ENCROACHMENTS INDICATED IN THE FLOOR PLANS. ARE THE |
| | ENCROACHMENTS PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES? |
| | 15. NOT SATISFIED. SOME ADDITIONAL TREES CAN BE |
| | INSTALLED NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE CANOPY TO BRING THE |
| | PROJECT CLOSER INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | PLEASE SUGGEST WHERE THE REMAINING TREES CAN BE |
| | LOCATION AROUND THE PROJECT. PREVIOUS COMMENT: STREET |
| | TREES ARE REQUIRED ALONG THE QUADRILLE BOULEVARD |
| | FRONTAGE EVERY 30 FEET. |
| | 16. SATISFIED. SIDEWALK ALONG THE QUADRILLE FRONTAGE IS |
| | 10 FEET AT ITS NARROWEST POINT. PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | SIDEWALK ALONG QUADRILLE BOULEVARD BY THE BUILDING |
| | ENTRANCE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET IN WIDTH. |
| | 17. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A FA?ADE DETAIL |
| | DEPICTING THE TREATMENT OF THE FA?ADE TO ACCOMMODATE |
| | THE UTILITY ELEMENTS. ALSO PLEASE CLARIFY HOW IS THE |
| | ACCESS TO THE FIRE BACKFLOW. - PREVIOUS COMMENT: ALL |
| | BACKFLOW PREVENTORS AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY |
| | CONNECTIONS AT THE GROUND LEVEL NEED TO BE SCREENED |
| | FROM VIEW. FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE |
| | THE MOST APPROPRIATE LOCATION. LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS AND |
| | SITE PLAN DRAWINGS SHALL REFLECT THE PROPOSED LOCATION |
| | OF SUCH EQUIPMENT. |
| | 18. NOT SATISFIED. - A COMPLETE SIGNAGE PACKET SHALL BE |
| | SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AS PART OF THE LEVEL III SITE |
| | PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE CITY COMMISSION. |
| | 19. SATISFIED. BIKE PARKING REQUIRED IS 120 SPACES. - |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: THE BIKE STORAGE INDICATED ON THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR ALONG OKEECHOBEE BLVD DOES NOT SEEM ENOUGH |
| | TO ACCOMMODATE THE 120 BIKE SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | PROJECT (1/10 PARKING SPACES) |
| | 20. NOT SATISFIED. SHEET A112 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN |
| | SUBMITTED SET. BASED ON THE 382,211 SF OF NET OFFICE |
| | SPACE, THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 13 SHOWERS |
| | AND CHANGING FACILITIES. SHOWERS SHALL BE IN AREAS |
| | ACCESSIBLE TO ALL TENANTS. PLEASE INDICATE PRELIMINARY |
| | LOCATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS- PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT: PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE SHOWER AND |
| | CHANGING ROOMS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT (1 SHOWER AND |
| | CHANGING /30,000 SF OF OFFICE). |
| | 21. SATISFIED. PLEASE INCLUDE A NOTE CALLING OUT THE |
| | NON-REFLECTIVE NATURE OF THE GLASS IN THE FA?ADE. - |
| | PLEASE CONFIRM THE PROPOSED GLASS IS NOT A REFLECTIVE |
| | GLASS TO CAUSE IMPACT OF DRIVERS. |
| | 22. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE OBTAIN A PRE-APPROVAL LETTER |
| | FROM FDOT TO CONFIRM THEY WILL ALLOW THE PROPOSED |
| | PLACEMENT OF TREES ALONG THE CURB LINE. - PLEASE |
| | CONFIRM FDOT HAS APPROVED THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED |
| | TREES ALONG THE CURB. |
| | 23. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS SHOULD |
| | HAVE THERMOPLASTIC ZEBRA PATTERN AND ADA RAMPS. ? |
| | PREVIOUS COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONFIRM |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS |
| | AT ALL INTERSECTIONS. |
| | 24. NOT SATISFIED. BIKE PARKING FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC |
| | SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE PROJECT WITHIN THE PUBLIC |
| | REALM. PLEASE PROVIDE 1 BIKE SPACE PER EVERY 100 FEET |
| | OF STREET FRONTAGE. THE PROVIDED BIKE PARKING INSIDE |
| | THE BUILDING IS FOR THE BUILDING TENANTS. - PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT: PUBLIC BIKE RACKS ARE REQUIRED ALONG THE |
| | STREET FRONTAGE AT A RATIO OF ONE PARKING SPACE/100 |
| | LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. |
| | 25. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ANY CHANGES IN GRADE ELEVATION |
| | BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE FINISHED FLOOR SHALL BE |
| | ABSORBED INSIDE THE BUILDING. ? PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE STREET SECTIONS INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR |
| | ELEVATIONS TO CONFIRM EXISTING STREET AND SIDEWALK |
| | ELEVATIONS CAN BE MET WITH THE NEW PROJECT. |
| | 26. NOT SATISFIED. A MAXIMUM OF 30 % OF THE PARKING |
| | SPACES CAN BE COMPACT SPACES. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | INFORMATION TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE. ? PREVIOUS COMMENT: |
| | PLEASE CONFIRM YOU DO NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE |
| | COMPACT PARKING SPACES FOR THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | FOR RESUBMITTAL, PLEASE SUBMIT FOUR COPIES OF ALL |
| | DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND ONE CD WITH |
| | ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS. PLEASE |
| | INCLUDE A RESPONSE LETTER ADDRESSING EACH OF THE |
| | COMMENTS. THE DEADLINE FOR RESUBMITTAL IS 5/28/21 TO BE |
| | INCLUDED IN THE JULY 20 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA. |
| | |
| |
Print |
