| Date |
Text |
| 2021-05-26 15:03:51 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED COMMON OPEN SPACE SEEMS |
| | TO BE DISCONNECTED FROM THE PROJECT AND COULD BE |
| | DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE BETTER WITH THE PROJECT AND |
| | SURROUNDING AREA. [2/10/2021 AND 4/6/2021 REPEAT |
| | COMMENT (COMBINE GENERAL COMMENT #2 AND #3): IT WAS |
| | DISCUSSED AT THE 3/30/20 CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF |
| | AND THE APPLICANT THAT THE OPEN SPACE WOULD BE IMPROVED |
| | TO BE MORE FUNCTIONAL AND INTEGRATED (SIMILAR TO THE |
| | PROJECTS IN THE DMP AREA). IT IS IN STAFF?S OPINION |
| | THAT THE SPACE HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED, AND THE BICYCLE |
| | RACK STILL SEEMS OUT OF PLACE IN A LOCATION THAT WILL |
| | NOT MAXIMIZE USE/VISIBILITY. STAFF IS ENCOURAGING THE |
| | USE OF BENCHES, PEDESTRIAN TRAILS/PATHWAYS, PEDESTRIAN |
| | ACCESS FROM THE SIDEWALK AND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT |
| | THAT WOULD INTEGRATE THE SPACE WITH THE OVERALL |
| | DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO PROVIDE BENEFITS WITHIN THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. DEPENDING ON |
| | THE DESIGN OF THE INTEGRATED OPEN SPACE, IT MAY BE USED |
| | TO EXPLAIN THE ?TRADE-OFFS? TO THE CITY/COMMUNITY, |
| | WHICH IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT IN THE REQUEST FOR THE |
| | RPD.] |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING COMMENTS |
| | IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT (LAST REVISED |
| | 5/11/2021): A) CHECK NUMBER OF WAIVERS REQUESTED. EIGHT |
| | WAIVERS REQUESTED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT STILL |
| | SEEMS TO BE INACCURATE. B) EXPLAIN AND CLARIFY THE 10 |
| | FT. WIDE MULTI-USE PATHWAY ON PARKER AVENUE AS |
| | MENTIONED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. A |
| | MULTI-PURPOSE PATHWAY IS A SINGLE PATHWAY THAT CAN |
| | ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ONE PATHWAY |
| | ON THE SAME SURFACE (WALK, BIKE, STROLLERS, ROLLER |
| | BLADING, ETC.). THE 10 FT. WIDE MULTI-PURPOSE PATHWAY |
| | DOES NOT SEEM TO EXIST. ALSO, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY |
| | DEDICATION THAT IS NEEDED FOR A BICYCLE LANE IS NOT THE |
| | RESULT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (IT IS PART OF THE |
| | CITY'S VISION PER THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN) AND CANNOT |
| | BE CLAIMED AS AN IMPROVEMENT/BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY |
| | AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS IMPLIED IN |
| | THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. C) DISCREPANCY IN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION LETTER (4 FT. HIGH PVC FENCE) VS. |
| | SITE/ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (4 FT. HIGH ALUMINUM PICKET |
| | FENCE. ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. D) REFERENCE MADE TO |
| | THE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND THE BENEFITS IT WILL PROVIDE |
| | TO THE PUBLIC SPHERE IS NOT EVIDENT IN THE DESIGN. THE |
| | DESIGN OF THE COMMON OPEN SPACE IS CRITICAL TO THE |
| | REQUEST OF THE RPD AND MUST BE INTEGRATED (NOT |
| | DISCONNECTED) WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING |
| | AREA. E) IN RESPONSES TO ZLDR S.94-32, THE NUMBERS |
| | PROVIDED IN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS |
| | SECTION ARE NOT ALL ACCURATE. PLEASE REFER TO THE SITE |
| | PLAN COMMENTS FOR SPECIFIC INACCURACIES IN THE NUMBERS. |
| | F) ADDRESS THE INACCURACIES WITH THE NUMBERS IN THE |
| | WAIVER CHART PROVIDED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | (SEE SITE PLAN COMMENTS). G) WAIVER 8 WILL BE CHANGED |
| | AS DISCUSSED IN THE 5/26/21 CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN |
| | STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN: |
| | |
| | 1.) AS DISCUSSED IN THE 5/26/2021 CONFERENCE CALL |
| | BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THE 20 FT. WIDE ACCESS |
| | EASEMENT WILL BE MAINTAINED, BUT THE APPLICANT WILL |
| | SEEK A WAIVER TO THE WIDTH OF THE ACCESS DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE SITE DATA |
| | TABULAR: THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT NOTED IN THE |
| | TABLE IS STILL INCONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHT PROVIDED IN |
| | THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. [4/6/2021 REPEAT COMMENT: |
| | NOT SATISFIED. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS |
| | 33 FT., AND THIS INCLUDES THE 10% HEIGHT EXCEPTION.] |
| | |
| | 3.) THE FOLLOWING OUTSTANDING COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | ADDRESSED IN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS |
| | TABLE: A) INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR PROPOSED LOT WIDTH, |
| | FRONT SETBACK AND SIDE CORNER SETBACK ARE INCORRECT, AS |
| | THEY DO NOT REFLECT THE SHORTEST DIMENSION PROVIDED. B) |
| | FLOATING WAIVER BOXES BELOW THE TABLE SHOULD BE REMOVED |
| | TO CLEAN UP THE SITE PLAN SHEET. [RESPONSE TO 4/6/21 |
| | STAFF COMMENT: ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL REQUESTED |
| | INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, SEVERAL NUMBERS ARE |
| | STILL INACCURATE AND MUST BE CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY. |
| | ALSO, GENERAL CLEAN UP OF THE TABLE NEEDED TO MAKE |
| | TABLES EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. PLEASE CONTACT STAFF TO |
| | ASSIST WITH THE CLEAN UP OF THE TABLE.] |
| | |
| | 4.) THE COMMON OPEN SPACE AREA SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO BE |
| | MORE FUNCTIONAL AND INTEGRATED WITH THE PROJECT AND |
| | SURROUNDINGS. THE OPEN SPACE SEEMS TO BE DISCONNECTED |
| | IN THE LATEST PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. [4/6/2021 |
| | REPEAT COMMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE |
| | APPLICANT'S 5/11/2021 (RECEIVED 5/13/2021) COMMENT. |
| | STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE OPEN SPACE AERA SHOULD BE |
| | DESIGNED TO BE MORE FUNCTIONAL AND INTEGRATED WITH THE |
| | PROJECT AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THE BICYCLE RACK |
| | SHOULD BE STRATEGICALLY PLACED IN THE INTEGRATED DESIGN |
| | OF THE OPEN SPACE.] |
| | |
| | 5.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE WAIVER CHART: |
| | A) PROVIDED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE SF14 ZONING |
| | DISTRICT (W2) IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING AREA AND NOT THE |
| | ACTUAL LOT AREA. B) THE PROVIDED FRONT SETBACK IS NOT |
| | 11 FT. MEASUREMENTS CANNOT BE TAKEN FOR A PORTION OF |
| | THE STEPS (SETBACK IS ~ 6FT.) C) THE PROVIDED CORNER |
| | SIDE SETBACK IS NOT CORRECT. THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK |
| | FOR LOT 14 SEEMS TO BE A LOT CLOSER THAN 8 FT. D) NOT |
| | NECESSARY TO PROVIDE "STEPS WHICH ARE 3 FT. ABOVE |
| | GRADE" AS IT IS CLEAR IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT |
| | THE STEPS EXCEED 3 FT. IN HEIGHT. E) AS DISCUSSED IN |
| | THE 5/26/2021 CONFERENCE CALL BETWEEN STAFF AND THE |
| | APPLICANT WAIVER #8 WILL CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 6.) THE LIGHT POLE FIXTURE ALONG FLAMINGO DRIVE SHALL |
| | BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 12.5 FT. THE 5 FT. CORNER SIDE |
| | SETBACK STAFF HAD PROVIDED IN THE COMMENTS FROM |
| | 4/6/2021 WAS INCORRECT AND MUST BE CORRECTED FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY WITH ZLDR S.94-74(A)(3)(B.) AND |
| | S.94-304(B)(2). |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE FRONT SETBACK HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY MEASURED (IT |
| | IS LESS THAN 11 FT. AS NOTED IN PLANS). THE FRONT |
| | SETBACK SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS |
| | TO THE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSION FOR THE JULIETTE BALCONY |
| | ON SHEET A1.1. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE LIGHTING (PHOTOMETRICS): |
| | |
| | 1.) THE LIGHT POLE FIXTURE ALONG FLAMINGO DRIVE SHALL |
| | BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 12.5 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE. THE 5 FT. SETBACK NOTED IN STAFF'S PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT WAS AN ERROR. [ZLDR S.94-74(A)(3) AND |
| | S.94-304(B)(2)] |
| | |
| | 2.) SETBACK FOR THE LIGHT POLE FIXTURE CLOSEST TO |
| | PARKER AVENUE SEEMS TO BE INCORRECTLY ILLUSTRATED ON |
| | SHEET E-1.2. PLEASE CORRECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH 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 11 INCHES X |
| | 17 INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND |
| | DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES TO THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458. |
| |
Print |
