| Date |
Text |
| 2021-11-15 16:16:45 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) ON THE COVER SHEET (SHEET C0.00), COMMISSIONER |
| | KELLY SHOAF'S NAME IS INCORRECTLY SPELLED. PLEASE |
| | CORRECT AS THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS |
| | LOCATED WITHIN COMMISSIONER SHOAF'S DISTRICT (DISTRICT |
| | 1). |
| | |
| | 2.) A TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY |
| | (TPS LETTER) IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 3.) PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE PUBLIC |
| | UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL FOR |
| | WATER, SEWAGE TREATMENT, STORM DRAINAGE AND GARBAGE |
| | COLLECTION SERVICES. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY'S |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT (561) 494-1040. |
| | |
| | 4.) PROVIDE LETTERS FROM THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH |
| | INTO THEIR UTILITY EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE |
| | WITH THE PROVISION OF THEIR SERVICES: AT&T, FPL, FPL |
| | AND COMCAST. |
| | |
| | 5.) ADDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER |
| | MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. |
| | SUCH APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY |
| | BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY |
| | IMPROVEMENTS. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS IN THE |
| | OVERALL SITE PLAN (SHEET C0.01): A) THE EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS COMMUNITY SERVICE |
| | (CS) - NOT FOREST/PARK/RECREATION. B) PLEASE CLARIFY |
| | THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES (RESILIENCY HUB AND CAFE) |
| | IN THE DATA TABULAR (DOES NOT SEEM TO MATCH NUMBERS |
| | PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS). C) |
| | INCLUDE BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS IN THE PARKING |
| | DATA TABULAR. |
| | |
| | 2.) THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF ON THE |
| | ALIGNMENT OF THE MAIN PARK ENTRANCE WITH THE NORTHWOOD |
| | ROAD EXTENSION. |
| | |
| | 3.) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT ALL |
| | INGRESS/EGRESS POINTS TO PROVIDE LINKAGES TO THE |
| | EXISTING SIDEWALK SYSTEM ALONG FLAGLER DRIVE. THE |
| | CROSSWALKS WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE WALKABILITY AND PROMOTE |
| | PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. |
| | |
| | 4.) THERE IS A LACK OF PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATION AND FLOW |
| | BETWEEN THE SPORTS COURTS TO THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE |
| | PARK (I.E. RESILIENCY HUB, CAFE, ETC.). BETTER |
| | PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS/CROSSOVER SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | (I.E. ADDITION OF DECORATIVE CROSSWALKS, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 5.) WHY DOES THE HARDSCAPE HAVE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF |
| | SHADING? IS THERE A COLOR COORDINATED PLAN THAT SHOWS |
| | THE TYPE OF HARDSCAPE MATERIAL FOR THE PROJECT? |
| | |
| | 6.) PLEASE CLARIFY HOW BOAT TRAILER TRAFFIC WILL ENTER |
| | AND CIRCULATE THROUGH THE PARK SITE. PER THE CHANGES TO |
| | THE CURRIE MIXED USE DISTRICT (CMUD) REGULATIONS AND |
| | VISION, THE INTENT IS TO KEEP BOAT TRAILER TRAFFIC OFF |
| | THE NORTHWOOD ROAD EXTENSION. |
| | |
| | 7.) AN AUTO-TURN DIAGRAM FOR LARGER VEHICLES/BOAT |
| | TRAILERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAFE |
| | MANEUVERING OF LARGER VEHICLES/TRAILERS THROUGH THE |
| | PARK SITE. |
| | |
| | 8.) THE NORTH PARKING AREA IS DESIGNED WITH A MIX OF |
| | REGULAR AND BOAT TRAILER PARKING SPACES. STAFF HAS |
| | CONCERNS WITH THE INTERMINGLING OF REGULAR VEHICLES |
| | WITH BOAT TRAILERS FOR SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRAFFIC |
| | CIRCULATION THROUGH THE AREA. CAN THE PARKING FOR THE |
| | DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES (I.E. REGULAR VEHICLES AND BOAT |
| | TRAILERS) BE SEPARATED TO PREVENT ANY CONFLICT WITH |
| | TRAFFIC AND SITE CIRCULATION? |
| | |
| | 9.) THE PARKING AREA NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BASKETBALL |
| | COURT REQUIRES A T-TURNAROUND/ADEQUATE |
| | TURNAROUND/CIRCULATION DESIGNED FOR THE END STALLS. |
| | |
| | 10.) PARKING STALL STRIPING DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | THE STRIPING DETAIL SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | STRIPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. [ZLDR S.94-485] |
| | |
| | 11.) THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 26TH STREET IS NEAR |
| | COMPLETION AND THE NEW LAYOUT OF 26TH STREET SHALL BE |
| | REFLECTED ACCURATELY IN THE PLANS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE |
| | IMPROVEMENT WILL IMPACT THE INGRESS/EGRESS POINT INTO |
| | THE NORTH PARKING LOT. |
| | |
| | 12.) BICYCLE RACKS SHALL BE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH |
| | THE PARK. CONSIDER ADDING ADDITIONAL RACKS NEAR THE |
| | SPORTS COURTS. |
| | |
| | 13.) A BICYCLE RACK DETAIL IS REQUIRED. THE RACK DETAIL |
| | SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S |
| | BICYCLE PARKING GUIDELINES. CONTACT PLANNING STAFF FOR |
| | THE BICYCLE PARKING GUIDELINES MANUAL. |
| | |
| | 14.) THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ART PLATFORM IS CURRENTLY |
| | LOCATED BETWEEN THE SPORTS COURTS AND RESILIENCY HUB. |
| | CONSIDER RELOCATING THE PLATFORM TO AN AREA THAT COULD |
| | GENERATE BETTER INTERACTION WITH PARK USERS OR CREATE |
| | SPACE AROUND THE PLATFORM THAT WOULD GENERATE |
| | PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY. |
| | |
| | 15.) ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, BISTRO/CAFE SEATING |
| | WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE EVENT |
| | LAWN. THE SEATING IS NOT LOCATED NEAR THE CAFE/BISTRO |
| | AND SEEMS TO BE ISOLATED. IT WOULD BE LOGICAL TO LOCATE |
| | THE SEATING NEAR THE CAFE/BISTRO USE. |
| | |
| | 16.) PLEASE EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE RESILIENCY HUB. IS |
| | IT ONLY OPEN TO PRIVATE EVENTS? |
| | |
| | 17.) CLEARLY SHOW THE SETBACK DISTANCE OF STRUCTURES, |
| | PARKING FACILITIES, ETC. TO THE PROPERTY LINE(S). PER |
| | ZLDR S.94-204(2)(F), THE REQUIRED SETBACKS SHALL NOT BE |
| | USED FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS TO SERVE |
| | PARKING FACILITIES CONTAINING FIVE (5) OR MORE PARKING |
| | SPACES. PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | COMPLIANCE. ALSO, THE SOUTHERN MOST PARKING LOT DOES |
| | NOT SEEM TO COMPLY WITH THIS ZONING REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 18.) WHAT IS THE BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN THE |
| | PROPOSED RESILIENCY HUB AND CAFE? PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | DIMENSION IN THE PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE MINIMUM 25 FT. BUILDING SEPARATION. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-204(2)(E)] |
| | |
| | 19.) BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE MEASURED FROM GRADE. PER |
| | ZLDR S.94-204(5), THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT |
| | IN THE ROS ZONING DISTRICT IS 35 FT. OR 1 FT. OF HEIGHT |
| | FOR EACH 1.5 FT. OF SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. |
| | CLEARLY PROVIDE THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE ELEVATIONS |
| | AND BUILDING SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES |
| | TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | 20.) IS THE "RESILIENCY HUB" REFERENCED ON SHEETS C0.01 |
| | AND IN THE SITE PLAN THE SAME AS THE "EVENT PAVILION" |
| | IN THE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS? PLEASE ADDRESS FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 21.) PER ZLDR S.94-312(1), ONLY ONE (1) ACCESS POINT IS |
| | PERMITTED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| | DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE. PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN |
| | CONFIRMATION THAT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS |
| | INTO THE SITE. [ZLDR S.94-312(3)] |
| | |
| | 22.) A ONE-WAY DRIVE AISLE/ACCESS POINT CANNOT EXCEED |
| | 12 FT. IN WIDTH; A TWO-WAY DRIVE AISLE/ACCESS POINT |
| | CANNOT EXCEED 24 FT. IN WIDTH, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE |
| | DESIGN. BASED ON STAFF'S REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE |
| | PROPOSED PLAN, THE ONE-WAY INGRESS/EGRESS FOR THE SOUTH |
| | PARKING LOT CAN BE REDUCED (~38 FT. WIDE). REDUCING THE |
| | WIDTH OF THE INGRESS/EGRESS POINTS WILL ALSO IMPROVE |
| | PEDESTRIAN SAFETY/WALKABILITY. [ZLDR S.94-312(3) AND |
| | S.94-485] |
| | |
| | 23.) PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ALL DRIVE AISLES |
| | (NOT ALL SHEETS PROVIDE INFORMATION). |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: |
| | |
| | 1.) CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED ON THE BUILDING SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED RESILIENCY HUB |
| | AND CAFE. THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES DO NOT ADD UP |
| | BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 2.) A NOTE ON THE ELEVATIONAL DRAWINGS STATING THAT |
| | "ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH ARTICLE XIII, |
| | SIGN REGULATIONS, OF THE CITY'S ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS)," SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * 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. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES TO THE RESUBMITTED 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 |
| | ($300.00). |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
