| Date |
Text |
| 2021-08-19 12:16:46 | CASE NO. PB 1857B - 2ND RESUBMITTAL REVIEW 8/19/21 |
| | FLAGLER TOWERS |
| | 1315 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG 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 ISSUANCE (BY OCTOBER 19, 2021), THE |
| | PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE |
| | CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL |
| | REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ON ADDITIONAL |
| | SUBMITTAL. IF COMMENTS ARE NOT ADDRESSED YOU WILL BE |
| | ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE IS 20% OF THE |
| | ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 1) UPDATED COMMENT: THE CITY OWNED PARCEL SOUTH OF THE |
| | PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A DEED RESTRICTION. IN ORDER TO |
| | ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT IMPACT THE DEED |
| | RESTRICTION, PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE APPLICATION FOR |
| | THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, YOU MUST PROVIDE WRITTEN |
| | CONSENT/NO OBJECTION FROM THE LAKE WORTH PIONEERS |
| | ASSOCIATION TO THE CITY. |
| | |
| | 2) REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE FAA |
| | APPLICATION NUMBERS. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE FAA |
| | APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER PRIOR TO SCHEDULING |
| | THIS CASE FOR PLANNING BOARD. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT THE BUILDING |
| | IN EXCESS OF 300 FEET IN HEIGHT. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU |
| | ARE WELCOME TO PROCEED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING |
| | PROCESS TO CITY COMMISSION; HOWEVER, STAFF WILL BE |
| | RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AS CURRENTLY |
| | PROPOSED. THE LATEST ROUND OF RESPONSES INCLUDES ITEMS |
| | WHICH MUST BE PROVIDED AND CORRECTED PRIOR TO BEING |
| | SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING BOARD, REGARDLESS OF THE |
| | BUILDING DESIGN (EXAMPLE: PARKING LOT CORRECTIONS). |
| | |
| | BUILDING PLACEMENT |
| | |
| | 4) THERE IS A DIMENSION TAG ON SHEET G-201 THAT NOW |
| | SHOWS A 14-FOOT 8-INCH SETBACK ALONG DIANA PLACE. THE |
| | BUILDING MAY NOT BE CLOSER THAN 15 FEET TO THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE. |
| | |
| | 5) CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE LATEST SIDEWALK AND |
| | LANDSCAPE CONFIGURATION ALONG DIANA PLACE. THANK YOU |
| | FOR SHOWING THE PARALLEL PARKING CONFIGURATION. |
| | A. THE SIDEWALK NEEDS TO BE MOVED CLOSER TO THE |
| | TOWNHOUSES TO PROVIDE FOR A LARGER LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG |
| | THE CURB TO PROVIDE A LARGER AREA FOR ROOT GROWTH AS |
| | WELL AS TO MOVE THE TREES FURTHER AWAY FROM THE DOOR |
| | SWING. |
| | B. THE WESTERNMOST TOWNHOUSES, WITH A FFE OF 9 FEET ARE |
| | BELOW THE ROADWAY ELEVATION, WHICH IS A PROBLEM. |
| | C. SOME OF THE GRADE CHANGE BETWEEN THE TOWNHOUSE |
| | COURTYARDS BEING SET AT CLOSE TO THE 9-FOOT FFE AND THE |
| | ROADWAY ARE VERY STEEP. IT MAY BE BEST TO HAVE STEPS |
| | DOWN FROM THE TOWNHOUSES TO A LOWER COURTYARD IN ORDER |
| | TO MAKE UP THE GRADE CHANGE, SIMILAR TO HOW THE FLAGLER |
| | TERRACE AND DOG PARK ARE HANDLED. |
| | |
| | 6) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE, IS IT POSSIBLE |
| | TO CONNECT THE EXISTING CROSSWALK DIRECTLY TO THE NEW |
| | EAST/WEST SIDEWALK? IS THE STEEP SWALE NECESSARY? |
| | |
| | 7) UPDATED COMMENT: THE TWO NEW TREES PROVIDED ADJACENT |
| | TO THE CANOPY AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, INCLUDING SPECIES |
| | AND SIZE, ARE NOT SHOWN ON SHEET LG-3.1. SINCE THESE |
| | TREES ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE |
| | INCLUDED ON SHEET LG-3.2, THE DIANA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. |
| | STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY THAT THE 10-FOOT DEPTH WILL |
| | NOT INTERFERE THE TREES, NOR IF THE SPECIES IS |
| | APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE INSTALLED. |
| | |
| | 8) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE HEIGHTS OF THE CAFE |
| | AWNINGS FROM GRADE. |
| | |
| | ELEVATIONS |
| | |
| | 9) REPEAT COMMENT: THE EAST ELEVATION AT THE PARK IS |
| | NOT ACCURATE. THE GREEN WALL SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION |
| | DOES NOT HAVE THE STEPS UP TO THE TERRACE ACCURATELY |
| | SHOWN. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF IS UNABLE TO MATCH UP HOW IT |
| | ALIGNS WITH THE SITE PLAN. THE ELEVATION MAKES THIS |
| | WALL APPEAR TO BE CURVING, YET THIS IS NOT REFLECTED ON |
| | THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 10) REPEAT COMMENT: THE ADA PARKING SPACE DETAIL |
| | (ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESSIBLE) ON SHEET A-054 DO NOT |
| | CONFORM TO CITY STRIPING STANDARDS. THE CITY STANDARD |
| | DETAIL HAS BEEN SENT TO TYLER WOOLSEY. THE CITY |
| | REQUIRES 16 INCHES BETWEEN STALL DEMARCATION LINES FOR |
| | ALL SPACES. |
| | |
| | 11) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE |
| | BICYCLE RACK PAD ALONG SOUTH OLIVE. THE DEPTH MUST BE |
| | AT LEAST SIX FEET AND THE WIDTH IS BASED ON THE NUMBER |
| | OF RACK ELEMENTS. THE DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE SHOWN ON A |
| | PLAN (SITE, CIVIL, OR HARDSCAPE) AND THE DETAIL FOR THE |
| | SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT NEEDS TO BE ON A DETAIL SHEET. THE |
| | GENERIC DETAIL IS NOT SUFFICIENT. NOTE: THE BICYCLE |
| | PARKING AT THE CAFE IS NOT SHOWN ON THE HARDSCAPE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 12) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE BICYCLE |
| | RACKS THAT WILL BE USED WITHIN THE BICYCLE STORAGE |
| | ROOMS. THE BICYCLE STORAGE ROOMS MUST SHOW THE ACCURATE |
| | RACKS AND THE DIMENSIONS REQUIRED BASED ON THE TYPE OF |
| | RACKS. |
| | |
| | 13) REPEAT COMMENT: YOU MUST HAVE BICYCLE PARKING FOR |
| | GUESTS (VISITORS) NEAR ONE OF THE GUEST ACCESSIBLE |
| | ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING. THE BICYCLE RACK BY THE CAFE |
| | IS NOT NEAR AN ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF |
| | THE BUILDING THAT A GUEST CAN USE. IDENTIFY THE |
| | ENTRANCE(S) THAT ARE GUEST ACCESSIBLE AND PROVIDE AT |
| | LEAST ONE BICYCLE RACK, WITH PAD DIMENSIONS, ADJACENT |
| | TO THAT ENTRANCE. THE PLANS DO NOT INDICATE WHICH |
| | ENTRANCES ARE GUEST ACCESSIBLE. |
| | |
| | 14) THERE ARE ONLY 108, NOT 109 RESIDENTIAL EV SPACES |
| | SHOWN. THERE IS TO BE ONE PER DWELLING UNIT. |
| | |
| | 15) THE GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT EVERY UNIT OWNER HAS EV |
| | CAPABILITY. WHILE YOU HAVE SHOWN 108 (SHORT 1) |
| | RESIDENTIAL EV STATIONS, HOW WILL YOU ENSURE THAT |
| | PARKING IS ASSIGNED SO THAT EACH UNIT GETS AN EV |
| | RECEPTACLE? IT WOULD SEEM STRANGE THAT IF A UNIT OWNER |
| | HAS TWO SPACES, THEY WOULD BE ON DIFFERENT FLOORS, |
| | WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE THE CASE SINCE SHEET A-100 SHOWS |
| | NO SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL EV. |
| | |
| | LOADING/ACCESS |
| | |
| | 16) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO APPROVE THE USE OF CURRIE CRESCENT |
| | FOR MANEUVERING PRIOR TO THE CASE PROCEEDING THROUGH |
| | THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. CALL TO DISCUSS IS |
| | SCHEDULED. |
| | |
| | 17) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO APPROVE THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS |
| | TO CURRIE CRESCENT AND THE SEPARATION OF ACCESS POINTS |
| | TO THE CASE PROCEEDING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING |
| | PROCESS. CALL TO DISCUSS IS SCHEDULED. |
| | |
| | WALLS |
| | |
| | 18) UPDATED COMMENT: THE PLANS SHOW A FENCE ALONG DIANA |
| | PLACE AT THE TOWNHOUSE COURTYARDS. |
| | A. NO DETAILS ON THE MATERIAL OF THE CONCEALED FENCE |
| | WERE PROVIDED. |
| | B. THE MAXIMUM 5-FOOT HEIGHT OF THE DECORATIVE METAL, |
| | PICKET GATE IS NOT STATED ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 19) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PLANS DO NOT CALL OUT WHAT |
| | HEDGE MATERIAL WILL SCREEN THE 4-FOOT-TALL FENCE. THE |
| | RESPONSE STATES THAT THE MATERIAL WILL BE A PODOCARPUS |
| | HEDGE; HOWEVER, NO TAGS ON SHEET LG-3.1 DO NOT POINT TO |
| | THE HEDGE OR ANY FEATURE WITH HE SAME HATCHING PATTERN |
| | AS THE HEDGE. SHEET G-201 NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO |
| | STATE MAXIMUM 5-FOOT HEDGE ALONG THE SOUTH COURTYARDS. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 20) REPEAT COMMENT: SHEET LG-3.1 SHOWS PLANTING BEDS |
| | AGAINST THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHICH ARE NOT |
| | REFLECTED ON THE CIVIL SHEETS OR SITE PLAN. ALL PLANS |
| | MUST SHOW THE SAME, ACCURATE CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATION: FPL EASEMENT WHICH BISECTS THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION WILL NEED TO BE RELEASED BY |
| | FPL AND ALL OVERHEAD LINES MUST BE REMOVED. ANY NEW |
| | UTILITY LINES MUST BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND. |
| | |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATION: THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY |
| | OWNED PARCEL SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE |
| | SIDEWALK, WALKWAYS AND LANDSCAPE, WILL BE THE |
| | MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FLAGLER TOWERS |
| | PROJECT. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS AND EASEMENTS WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| |
Print |
