| Date |
Text |
| 2021-04-06 16:14:40 | *** THE COMMENTS BELOW APPLY TO THE RESUBMITTAL PACKAGE |
| | RECEIVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? |
| | PLANNING DIVISION ON 03/10/2021 *** |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) AS DISCUSSED IN THE 3/30/2021 CONFERENCE CALL |
| | BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, A SUPPORT LETTER FOR |
| | THE PROPOSED PROJECT FROM THE FLAMINGO PARK |
| | NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT IS |
| | ALSO ENCOURAGED TO OBTAIN A SUPPORT LETTER FROM THE |
| | GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. [2/10/2021 |
| | MODIFIED COMMENT: A SUPPORT LETTER FROM THE PINEAPPLE |
| | PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE |
| | RESUBMITTAL. AS ADVISED BY STAFF, IT WOULD ALSO BE |
| | ADVANTAGEOUS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL SUPPORT LETTERS FROM |
| | OTHER SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE PROJECT.] |
| | |
| | 2.) PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-207 OF THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS) THE INTENT OF A PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT IS TO ENCOURAGE THROUGH INCENTIVES, THE USE |
| | OF INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES |
| | TO CREATE A MORE DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT |
| | IN THE CITY. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT DOES NOT |
| | EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS BEING ACHIEVED IN THE SITE DESIGN |
| | FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (I.E. SEMI-PRIVATE |
| | PARK SPACE, ETC.). [2/10/2021 REPEAT COMMENT: THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE |
| | BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSED PD ARE TO THE CITY/SURROUNDING |
| | COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT MUST BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE IN |
| | TEXT AND IN THE PLANS WHAT THE "TRADE-OFFS" ARE TO THE |
| | CITY/COMMUNITY FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE WAIVERS |
| | REQUESTED. THIS WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE 3/30/2021 |
| | CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.] |
| | |
| | 3.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING COMMENTS |
| | IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT: A) ON SHEET 5/15, THE |
| | "MINIMUM LOT AREA" REQUIRED STILL STATES 5 ACRES. |
| | PLEASE CORRECT TO A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES REQUIRED FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZLDRS. B) ALTHOUGH THE CONSTRAINTS |
| | OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED, WHICH |
| | NECESSITATES THE WAIVERS, THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE "TRADE-OFFS" TO THE |
| | CITY/COMMUNITY AND MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) |
| | TO SUPPORT THE WAIVER REQUESTS. |
| | |
| | [2/10/2021 REPEAT COMMENT: AS DISCUSSED IN THE |
| | 3/31/2021 CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF AND THE |
| | APPLICANT, IT IS CRITICAL TO EXPLAIN THE "TRADE-OFFS" |
| | OF THE PROJECT FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS |
| | (I.E. EXAMPLES: INCORPORATION OF A SEMI-PUBLIC PARK |
| | SPACE, URBAN DESIGN AND WALKABILIT, ADDITIONAL |
| | LANDSCAPING THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF THE ZLDRS AND PURPOSE IT SERVES, ETC. PLEASE NOTE |
| | THAT THE WAIVERS FOR A PD CANNOT BE SUPPORTED SOLELY |
| | FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL/MARKET DRIVEN FACTORS. |
| | CLARIFICATION WAS ALSO PROVIDED ON THE ISSUE OF THE |
| | DEFINITION OF BUILDING TYPOLOGY.] |
| | |
| | 4.) ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING TELEPHONE, CABLE |
| | TELEVISION, AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE SYSTEM, SHALL BE |
| | INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. [2/10/2021 REPEAT COMMENT: |
| | ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE NOTE, STAFF |
| | IS REQUESTING THAT THE NOTE BE PROVIDED IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PD.] |
| | |
| | 5.) PROVIDE LETTERS FROM THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | CONFIRMING THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO |
| | THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE |
| | PROVISION OF THEIR SERVICES: COMCAST AND FPU. |
| | [2/10/2021 REPEAT COMMENT: LETTERS FROM COMCAST AND FPU |
| | NOT PROVIDED WITH THE 3/10/2021 RESUBMITTAL.] |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) AS DISCUSSED IN THE 3/30/2021 CONFERENCE CALL |
| | BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THE ISSUES AND |
| | CONCERNS WITH THE 20 FT. WIDE ACCESS DRIVE AT THE REAR |
| | OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. THE APPLICANT |
| | WILL PROVIDE A 24 FT. WIDE ACCESS DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE SITE DATA |
| | TABULAR: A) INFORMATION (I.E. SQ. FT. TO BE DEDICATED) |
| | FOR THE 5 FT. WIDE DEDICATION ALONG PARKER AVENUE SHALL |
| | BE INCLUDED IN THE TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE MORE |
| | INFORMATION ON THE DEDICATION IN THE JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENT (I.E. WHO IS REQUESTING THE ROW DEDICATION). |
| | B) FAR AND DENSITY CALCULATIONS SHALL BE CALCULATED |
| | USING THE NET SITE AREA (NOT THE GROSS SITE AREA). |
| | PLEASE CORRECT. C) THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT NOTED |
| | IN THE TABLE IS STILL INCONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHT |
| | PROVIDED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 3.) BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE 3/31/2021 |
| | CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, AND |
| | THE COMMENTS PROVIDED IN THIS REVIEW, PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | THE FOLLOWING IN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: |
| | PROPOSED LOT WIDTH, LOT FRONTAGE, REQUIRED LOT DEPTH, |
| | FAR CALCULATIONS, AND REQUIRED AND PROPOSED BUILDING |
| | SETBACKS SHALL BE CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY WITH THE ZLDRS |
| | AND REQUESTED WAIVERS. |
| | |
| | 4.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING |
| | INCONSISTENCIES IN THE WAIVER CHART. THERE ARE SOME |
| | WAIVERS THAT ARE DUPLICATED AND CONFUSED WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS AND CAN BE PRESENTED IN A |
| | MORE EFFICIENT MANNER: A) THE WAIVER TO THE REQUIRED |
| | LOT AREA IN THE SF14 ZONING DISTRICT HAS NOT BEEN |
| | INCLUDED IN THE WAIVER CHART AS NOTED IN THE RESPONSES |
| | TO STAFF'S COMMENTS. PER ZLDR S. 94-74(A)(1)(A.), THE |
| | REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 6,000 SQ. FT. THE PROPOSED |
| | FEE-SIMPLE LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | LOT SIZE. B) THE PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | MINIMUM LOT WIDTH STANDARD OF THE SF14 ZONING DISTRICT. |
| | AS NOTED IN THE SITE PLAN, THE PROPOSED LOT WIDTH SEEMS |
| | TO BE A MINIMUM OF 21.16 FT. AND DOES NOT MEET THE |
| | MINIMUM REQUIRED 60 FT. LOT WIDTH. C) PER ZLDR |
| | S.94-207(C)(4), THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS IN AN |
| | RPD IS 20 FT. FROM ANY OUTERMOST PERIMETER PROPERTY |
| | LINE OF THE PROPOSED RPD BOUNDARIES. THIS IMPACTS THE |
| | FRONT SETBACK (FOR LOTS 1-14) AND THE CORNER SIDE |
| | SETBACK (UNITS 1 AND 14). D) PLEASE EXPLAIN W4 AND W5 |
| | IN THE WAIVER CHART. STEPS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE |
| | REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SINCE THE |
| | STEPS ARE GREATER THAN 3 FT. IN HEIGHT. E) THE PROVIDED |
| | FRONT SETBACK IS NOT 15 FT. IT IS LESS THAN THAT SINCE |
| | THE ENTRANCE STEPS FOR EACH UNIT/LOT IS GREATER THAN 3 |
| | FT. ABOVE GRADE AND MUST MEET THE BUILDING SETBACK OF |
| | THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE PER S. 94-207(C)(4). F) THE SIDE |
| | CORNER SETBACK IS NOT 14 FT. AS NOTED IN THE SITE PLAN. |
| | THE ENTRANCE STEPS TO UNIT 1 IS GREATER THAN 3 FT. |
| | ABOVE GRADE AND MUST MEET THE REQUIRED 20 FT. SIDE |
| | CORNER SETBACK PER THE ZLDRS. ACCORDING TO THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, THE SETBACK OF THE PROPOSED |
| | ENTRANCE STEPS TO UNIT 1 IS 8 FT. FROM THE SIDE CORNER |
| | PROPERTY LINE. A WAIVER SHALL BE REQUESTED. IT IS ALSO |
| | IMPORTANT TO DIMENSION OUT THE SETBACK FROM THE STEPS |
| | TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE IN THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5.) THE BUILDING DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO |
| | GROUPINGS OF UNITS IS NOT MEASURED CORRECTLY. SINCE THE |
| | STEPS ARE GREATER THAN 3 FT. IN HEIGHT, THE SETBACK |
| | DISTANCE TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND BETWEEN UNITS |
| | SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE STEPS. [2/10/2021 REPEAT |
| | COMMENT: SETBACK DISTANCE STILL NOT MEASURED |
| | CORRECTLY.] |
| | |
| | 6.) THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED BICYCLE RACK IN THE |
| | OPEN SPACE AREA BY THE CANAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE. UNLESS |
| | THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITY AMENITIES THAT ARE PROPOSED |
| | WITHIN THE SPACE THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE USE FOR A |
| | RACK, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND REMOVING THE RACK FROM THE |
| | IDENTIFIED LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 7.) PLEASE LABEL THE 4 FT. HIGH ALUMINUM PRIVACY FENCE |
| | ALONG DOCK STREET FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 8.) WHAT IS THE SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED |
| | STEPS TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR UNITS 7 AND 8? |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT STEPS, OPEN UNCOVERED PORCHES OR |
| | STOOPS AND OPEN TERRACES WHICH ARE 3 FT. ABOVE GRADE |
| | SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PRINCIPAL |
| | STRUCTURE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. [2/10/2021 |
| | REPEAT/MODIFIED COMMENT: ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL |
| | DRAWINGS, THE HEIGHT OF THE STEPS IS ~ 6 FT.; NO |
| | SETBACK DIMENSIONS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 9) LIGHT POLE FIXTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN. INCLUDE SETBACK DIMENSIONS FROM THE POLE FIXTURES |
| | TO THE PROPERTY LINE(S). PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | POLE FIXTURES ALONG FLAMINGO DRIVE (AS NOTED IN THE |
| | PHOTOMETRIC PLAN) SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 5 FT. |
| | FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. [ZLDR S.94-304(B)] |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IT IS STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING FROM THE 3/31/2021 |
| | CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THAT |
| | THE ARCHITECT WILL ADDRESS THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (I.E. ADD ELEMENTS THAT WILL BLEND |
| | HE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THE SURROUNDING |
| | NEIGHBORHOODS. OR PROVIDE SUPPORT LETTERS FROM ADJACENT |
| | NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS STATING THAT THERE ARE NO |
| | ISSUES WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.) |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE MATERIALS |
| | LEGEND (SHEETS A2.0 AND A2.1): A) 002 AND 010 NOT |
| | IDENTIFIED/LOCATED IN THE ELEVATIONS. B) THE NOTE FOR |
| | THE ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE (012) STATES THAT THE HEIGHT |
| | OF THE FENCE WILL BE 5 FT. IN HEIGHT; HOWEVER, THE |
| | RESPONSE TO STAFF'S COMMENTS FOR THE SITE PLAN AND THE |
| | REVISED SITE PLAN DOCUMENT SEEMS TO SHOW THAT THE |
| | HEIGHT OF THE ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE WILL BE 4 FT. |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS THIS DISCREPANCY. ALSO, PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | THE SETBACK LOCATION FROM THE FENCE TO THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE(S) TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS. C) 018 CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED |
| | IN THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS. D) 020 IS SHOWN IN THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IDENTIFIED |
| | IN THE MATERIALS LEGEND. |
| | |
| | 3.) SHOW SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE POOL EQUIPMENT OF |
| | EACH UNIT TO THE PROPERTY LINE(S). ALL MECHANICAL |
| | EQUIPMENT MAY NOT PROJECT MORE THAN 4 FT. INTO A |
| | REQUIRED SETBACK. [ZLDR S.94-305(A)(4)] |
| | |
| | 4.) SHOW HEIGHT OF THE LADDER ALONG THE SIDE OF THE |
| | BUILDING FOR ROOF ACCESS. THE HEIGHT OF THE LADDER WILL |
| | BE SUBJECT TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF ZLDR S.94-306. |
| | |
| | 5.) WILL THE ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E. A/C |
| | COMPRESSOR UNITS) BE VISIBLE AT EYE LEVEL FROM THE |
| | STREET? IF SO, SCREENING FOR THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED (I.E. PARAPET, DECORATIVE SCREEN |
| | WALL, ETC.). ALSO NOTE THAT THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IS |
| | SUBJECT TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN ZLDR S.94-306. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | 6.) THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE BUILDING PARAPET SEEMS TO |
| | BE 27'-4" (VS. 28'-6" AS NOTED IN THE SITE PLAN). |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 7.) SINCE THE HEIGHT THE ENTRANCE STAIRS TO EACH UNIT |
| | IS GREATER THAN 3 FT. IT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE |
| | SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. IF |
| | THIS CANNOT BE MET, WAIVERS FOR THE SETBACKS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. [ZLDR S.94-305(A)(7)] |
| | |
| | 8.) PER THE DEFINITION PROVIDED IN THE ZLDRS (ARTICLE |
| | XIX), THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS THE VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM |
| | THE MEAN GRADE OF THE LOT AT THE FRONTAGE OF THE |
| | BUILDING TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE TOP OF THE |
| | STRUCTURE. THE HEIGHT SEEMS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH |
| | FLOOR ELEVATION, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | DEFINITION PER THE ZLDRS. [NOTE: THIS COMMENT WAS |
| | MISSED IN THE ORIGINAL REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTAL.] |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE LIGHTING (PHOTOMETRICS): |
| | |
| | 1.) ANY POLE FIXTURES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE |
| | PROJECT SITE SHALL BE ILLUSTRATED IN ALL PLANS (I.E. |
| | SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ETC.) WITH SETBACK |
| | DIMENSIONS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE(S) TO ENSURE THAT |
| | THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH EXISTING/PROPOSED SITE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. [2/10/2021 |
| | MODIFIED/REPEAT COMMENT: NOT ADDRESSED. POLE FIXTURES |
| | ILLUSTRATED IN THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN ARE NOT ILLUSTRATED |
| | AND DIMENSIONED OUT IN THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, |
| | CIVIL PLANS, ETC. FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF THE ZLDRS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF SIX |
| | (6) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5 INCHES X |
| | 11 INCHES AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17 INCHES, AND |
| | AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | * CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTAL PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * 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). |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| |
Print |
