Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22040014
Project Number Z22040014
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2022-07-06 13:36:51CASE NO. FSPR 22-05
 TRANSIT VILLAGE 2022
 150 CLEARWATER DRIVE
  
 - CONTACT CHRIS KIMMERLY @ (561) 822-1426,
 [email protected]
 - OR ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
 [email protected]
  
 - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 THANK YOU FOR THE EXCEL DOCUMENT FOR THE RESPONSES,
 PLEASE PROVIDE DIRECT RESPONSES ON RESUBMITTALS WITHIN
 A WORD OR SIMILAR FORMAT. (DISPLAY THE QUESTION ASKED
 BY REVIEWERS AND THE ANSWER/RESPONSE FROM APPLICANTS)
  
 - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE
 (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG AND
 .PDF 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. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,
 05/27/22, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE
 7/13/22 DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING. [COVID
 DELAYS NOT CAUSED BY APPLICANT]
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
 RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
 FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY AUGUST 12, 2022),
 THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE
 CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL
 REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 - 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% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($500).
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 1. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT
 THAN THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN; THEREFORE, IT IS
 NOT A ?MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN?
 AS STATED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, BUT RATHER A
 NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
 PLAN AND THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED DO NOT
 AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO THE NEW SITE PLAN. ANY VARIANCES
 THAT ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NEW BUILDING DESIGN AND
 SITE LAYOUT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE DOWNTOWN ACTION
 COMMITTEE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. [THE CURRENT
 SITE PLAN IS APPROVED AND VESTED BY MULTIPLE APPROVALS
 PROVIDED BY WPB AND PBC PURSUANT TO THE PSA. THESE
 VESTED ITC AND GROUND LEVEL FEATURES THAT CAN BE
 LEGALLY BUILT TODAY ARE INTENDED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD
 IN THE NEW APPROVAL AND WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY
 ADMINISTRATION THAT THE CITY WILL RECOGNIZE THESE
 VESTED FEATURE AND WILL BE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT
 TO CARRY THEM FORWARD IN THE NEW SITE PLAN APPROVAL
 BEING SOUGHT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE
 THE EXISTING VESTED APPROVAL WITH A NEW APPROVAL THAT
 REAFFIRMS THESE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE CONDITIONS.]
 PLEASE NOTE, THERE ARE NO ?VESTED? OR CARRIED OVER
 APPROVALS FOR THIS PROJECT, BEYOND THE ORIENTATION OF
 THE ITC/SFRTA FACILITIES, THE BUS/TRAIN OPERATIONS, AND
 THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY PSA FOR RESERVED ITC
 AND SFRTA PARKING SPACES. THE REST OF SITE, PROPOSED
 STRUCTURES, CIRCULATION, ETC. WILL BE REVIEWED AND
 TREATED AS A NEW SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. ANY PREVIOUSLY
 OBTAINED VARIANCES, WAIVERS, AND APPROVALS FROM
 DAC/STAFF MUST BE REACQUIRED/APPLIED FOR, AS THE
 OVERALL SITE CONDITIONS AND PLANS HAVE CHANGED
 SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR
 THIS PROPERTY.
  
 2. STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN,
 INCLUDING THE USE MIX, DIFFERS FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR
 PURCHASE AND SALE DATED AUGUST 12, 2012. SINCE THE
 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ESTABLISHES THAT
 MODIFICATIONS ARE PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO PALM BEACH
 COUNTY APPROVAL, PLEASE PROVIDE THE LATEST AMENDMENT OR
 VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE THAT
 AUTHORIZES THE CHANGES PRESENTED IN THE CURRENT
 SUBMITTAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
 [COPIES OF THE PSA AND ALL AMENDMENT PROVIDED. A COPY
 OF PBC WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE SUBMITTED PLAN PACKAGE
 WAS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE PSA AND COPIES OF ALL
 AGREEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED] [SATISFIED] THANK
 YOU FOR PROVIDING PSA DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL
 AMENDMENTS/AGREEMENTS.
  
 A. THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 40 PARKING SPACES FOR
 SFTRA/COUNTY STAFF AND 250 SFRTA PATRON PARKING SPACES
 (TOTAL 290 PARKING SPACES) TO 275 PARKING SPACES FOR
 THESE USERS.
 [THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. THE MODIFIED PSA REQUIRES
 25 SPACES TO THE COUNTY WHICH IS WHAT IS PROVIDED]
 [SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY PSA
 DOCUMENTATION WITH AMENDMENTS. THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO
 PSA (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITTAL
 STATES: 250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES
 FOR COUNTY.
  
 B. THE REMOVAL OF LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL/EDUCATION
 USES FROM THE PROJECT.
 [THIS USE WAS VOLUNTARY AND IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ANY
 APPROVAL]
 [NOT SATISFIED] SECTION 2.3.2 OF PSA (PG.14) STATES:
 ?THE SITE PLAN WILL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO,
 CIVIC USE (LEARNING CENTER/CULTURAL CENTER/EDUCATION),
 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE, HOTEL ROOMS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS
 (STUDENT/WORKFORCE/MARKET) INCLUDING WORKFORCE AND/OR
 AFFORDABLE UNITS? LUXURY RENTAL UNITS AND AMENITY
 RETAIL.?
 - APPEARS TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE PSA, HAS THIS BEEN
 AMENDED? IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT OR
 OUTLINE LOCATION, SO STAFF CAN VERIFY.
  
 C. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SITE DATA TABLE LISTS 42
 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AS BEING REQUIRED, WHILE THE
 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE ONLY REQUIRES 38. THE
 PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE
 WITH EITHER NUMBER.
 [THE 42 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS REQUIRED BY THE PSA ARE
 SHOWN IN THE SITE PLAN TABULAR. THEIR FINAL LOCATION
 HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, HOWEVER THE APPLICANT
 INTENDS TO PROVIDE THEM IN A MANNER SO AS TO NOT
 CLUSTER OR CONCENTRATE THEM IN ANY ONE LOCATION. THE
 PSA REQUIRES THEM TO BE ON SITE AND COMPLY WITH THE
 COUNTY HOUSING PROGRAM. THE APPLICANT WILL CONTINUE TO
 WORK WITH WPB AND PBC ON THE TERMS OF THE WFH UNITS.]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE
 NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR THE LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA
 (5C-5). THIS SHEET (5C-5) INCLUDES ADDITIONAL (4)
 WORKFORCE UNITS. DO NOT SEE THESE WFH UNITS CALLED OUT
 OR MENTIONED IN DATA TABLES OR SITE PLAN.
  
 D. SECTION 3E OF EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN OF
 THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE LIMITS THE NUMBER
 OF PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE 290
 PUBLIC USE PARKING SPACES AND, ??PROVIDE NOT MORE THAN
 THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF
 WEST PALM BEACH FOR THE MIX OF USES AND
 INTENSITIES/DENSITIES?AS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED??. AS
 WILL BE SHOWN LATER IN THESE COMMENTS, THE PROJECT
 EXCEEDS THIS STANDARD.
 [THESE SPACES ARE INTENDED TO SERVE THE TRANSIT USES
 REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THESE GOVERNMENTAL
 PROVIDERS. THESE PARKING SPACES ARE INCLUSIVE THE
 MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT AND ARE NOT IN
 EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITTED ON SITE. THE
 GARAGE COMPONENT IS BEING BUILT TO SERVE THE ENTIRE
 PROJECT AND THE PSA REQUIRES CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION OF
 THE PROJECT UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED]
  
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON
 THE PSA AND ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING
 BREAKDOWN; BASED UPON THIS:
  
 THE HOTEL ROOM/AMENITY, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE,
 GUEST AND SFRTA/COUNTY PARKING SPACES CHECK OUT WITH
 REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD REDUCTION.
  
 - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM
 PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY
 CAR-SHARE HAS 1/13 REQUIREMENT.
  
 - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU
 PROVIDING ONLY 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR
 ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND
 THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE
 CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER
 PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.
 PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL
 MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON
 A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
 CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE
 STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED
 BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE
 CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF
 THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE
 EXPANSION.
  
 3. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A PBC PARCEL AND AN
 SFTRA PARCEL.
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AMENDMENT 3 ? 2021 ? EXTENSTION
 TO AUG 2024, WHICH MENTIONED THAT THE SFRTA SPACES TO
 BE A CONDOMINUM. THIS INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT WILL
 BE UNDER CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP RATHER THAN SEPARATE
 PARCELS. IF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AND THERE WILL BE
 FEE SIMPLE PARCELS, THOSE PARCEL LINES NEED TO BE
 SHOWN/INDICATED NOW, SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT
 THERE ARE NO BUILDING SEPARATATION OR SETBACK ISSUES
 THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH BUILDING, ZONING, OR FIRE CODE,
 AND IF ANY VARIANCES ARE NEEDED AS PART OF THE
 APPROVAL.
  
 E. THE DECKS, COLUMNS AND A PORTION OF THE RETAIL
 BUILDING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SECOND FLOOR CROSS
 THIS PARCEL LINE, WHICH CREATE SETBACK AND BUILDING
 SEPARATION ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
 [CONFIRMED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENT ABOVE
  
 F. THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INDICATES THAT
 PALM BEACH COUNTY WILL RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE
 INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER TO A POINT 21 FEET IN THE
 AIR. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MENTION HOW THIS PROPOSED
 SUBDIVISION WILL OCCUR. [THESE PROPERTY LINES WILL BE
 ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS OR BY
 AGREEMENT]
 [NOT SATISFIED] SEE COMMENTS ABOVE
  
 G. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE
 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INCLUDES THE SFRTA, YET
 THEY ARE NOT SHOWN AS A PARTY TO STAFF?S COPY OF THE
 AGREEMENT. WILL THE SFRTA RETAIN ANY OWNERSHIP AND IF
 SO, HOW WILL THE PARCEL BE SUBDIVIDED? [LEGAL
 SUBDIVISION PROCESS I.E. VERTICAL SUB DIVISION, WILL BE
 PURSUED] [SFRTA USES THE PARKING LOT PURSUANT TO AN
 EASMENT FROM THE COUNTY. THE APPLICANT HAS AN AGREEMENT
 WITH SFRTA TO PROVIDE EITHER FEE SIMPLE OR AN EASEMENT
 FOR ANY USE OF THE SFRTA PROPERTY BORDERING THE
 TRACKS.]
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE COPY OF AGREEMENT.
  
 4. TRANSIT VILLAGE BOUNDARY DIAGRAM SHEET A0-03
 DIFFERENT FROM THE ?ITC PROPERTY MAP? AND ?REQUIRED
 MODIFICATIONS FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN OCT. 2011.
 CLEARLY SHOW THE ITC BOUNDARY ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND
 SECOND LEVEL OF THE VARIOUS PLANS. [THIS PLAN IS PART
 OF THE PSA AND THE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BY
 AMENDMENTS. THE CURRENT PLAN IS ACCURATE]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AN
 ADJUSTED BOUNDARY MAP FOR THE PROJECT.
  
 BASED ON THIS NEW MAP, PLEASE CLARIFY, DOES THE ITC OWN
 THE GROUND-LEVEL PORTION OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE? THE
 BOUNDARY SHEET A0-03 SHOWS RETAIL, FCC,
 ELEVATORS/STAIRS AND MOTOR LOBBY WITHIN THE ITC
 PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
  
 5. THERE ARE NUMEROUS UTILITY AND OTHER EASEMENTS SHOWN
 ON THE SURVEY. ALL OF THESE EASEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN ON
 THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (GROUND LEVEL AND SECOND
 LEVEL) TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE
 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. [PLANS REVISED TO REFLECT ALL
 EASEMENTS ON GROUND AND SECOND LEVELS.]
 [NOT SATISFIED]
  
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH
 EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND
 ITEMS:
 - RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE,
 DOES NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE
 CONDITIONS AND UPDATES. MISSING THE HARDENING DONE BY
 FPL TO THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES, THERE IS A NEW/LARGER
 POLE ON BANYAN. THE LINES FROM THIS POLE RUN THROUGH
 THE FUTURE BUILDING. TREE GRATES ON BANYAN SIDE NO
 LONGER EXIST. ROW INCLUDES BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN
 SIDEWALK.
 - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
 EASEMENT ALONG RAILROAD/EASTERN PORTION OF PROPERTY,
 NOT REFLECTED IN SITE PLANS. PLEASE PROVIDE FPL
 APPROVALS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THIS EASEMENT.
 - ARE THE FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT AND FPL EASEMENT, ON THE
 SOUTHERN END OF PROPERTY TO REMAIN OR ARE THEY TO BE
 MODIFIED/VACATED? PLEASE PROVIDE NECESSARY APPROVALS IF
 VACATING OR MODIFYING. THESE PORTIONS OF THE EASEMENTS
 LIKELY WON?T BE IMPACTED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOTE
 TREES/LANDSCAPING MAY CONFLICT.
 - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS 20? FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS
 EASEMENT, THIS WILL HAVE TO BE MODIFIED TO ALIGN WITH
 THE PROPOSED EGRESS. PLEASE PROVIDE APPROVALS FROM FIRE
 DEPT. TO ALTER THIS.
 - PROVIDED SURVEY SHOWS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE
 EASTERN BOUNDARY AS PART OF THE ITC, IS THIS TO REMAIN?
  
 6. PLEASE DOCUMENT AND IDENTIFY ALL REQUESTED VARIANCES
 AND WAIVERS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLANS. [1) EXISTING
 ENTRANCE WIDTH VARIANCE EXISTING APPROVED CONDITION TO
 BE CARRIED FORWARD 2) SAME VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED AS A PUBLIC PLAZA ON LEVEL 2]
 [NOT SATISFIED]
  
 BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED WITHIN THIS
 RESUBMITTAL, THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE/SEEK MORE THAN
 THE TWO PROPOSED VARIANCES. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS
 AND NOTE ANY DEVIATION FROM THE MINIMUM/MAXIMUM
 REQUIREMENTS AS THESE WILL CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL
 REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES/WAIVERS.
  
 - POTENTIALLY (4) VARIANCES ALONE FOR THE CURB-CUTS
 PRESENTED ALONG CLEARWATER DR. EACH INGRESS/EGRESS
 APPEARS TO EXCEED THE 25? WIDTH MAXIMUM.
 - OPEN SPACES NEED ADJUSTMENT AND CLARIFICATION IN
 TYPOLOGY AND HOW REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, MAY CONSTITUTE
 ADDITIONAL VARIANCES
 - PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON 2ND FLOOR, REQUIRES
 APPROVAL FROM BOARD, WILL SEEK IN THE FORM OF A
 VARIANCE.
 - MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25
 WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.
 - THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY
 EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY
 SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL
 REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.
 THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF PENDING VARIANCE
 REQUESTS, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE DEPENDENT ON MEETING
 OTHER REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THESE COMMENTS OR WITHIN
 THE CODE, UPON RESUBMITTAL.
  
 IT IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ALL REQUESTED
 VARIANCES TO PLANNING STAFF.
  
 PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL BE CHARGED $300 PER
 ADDITIONAL VARIANCE OR WAIVER.
  
 7. PLEASE PROVIDE AN UPDATED SURVEY CLEARLY DOCUMENTING
 THE CHANGES INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE RECENT BANYAN
 BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE PROJECT. ALL PLAN SHEETS MUST
 REFLECT THE ACCURATE BANYAN STREET CONFIGURATION. THIS
 IS CURRENTLY NOT REFLECTED ON ANY OF THE SUBMITTED PLAN
 SHEETS. [SURVEY UPDATED TO SHOW CHANGES TO BANYAN
 BOULEVARD GEOMETRY]
 [NOT SATISFIED]
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING REVISED SURVEY AND PLANS WITH
 EASEMENTS ILLUSTRATED. BASED UPON THESE SHEETS AND
 ITEMS:
  
 SEE COMMENT 5.
  
 RESUBMITTED SURVEY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE, DOES
 NOT FULLY REFLECT NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE CONDITIONS AND
 UPDATE. MISSING THE HARDENING DONE BY FPL TO THEIR
 TRANSMISSION LINES, THERE IS A NEW/LARGER POLE ON
 BANYAN. TREE GRATES ON BANYAN SIDE NO LONGER EXIST. ROW
 INCLUDES BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK.
  
 UPON REVIEW OF NEWLY SUBMITTED SURVEY, CURRENT
 CONDITIONS ARE NOT REFLECTED. FPL CURRENTLY HAS TWO
 DISTRIBUTION POLES ON THE BANYAN FRONTAGE, ONE OF WHICH
 IS A NEW POLE (ADDED WITH THE BANYAN STREETSCAPE
 IMPROVEMENTS); PLEASE PROVIDE A LETTER FROM FPL
 CONFIRMING/APPROVING OF THE RELOCATION OF THIS POLE AND
 THE VACATION/MODIFICATION OF THE EASEMENT.
  
 SITE PLANS AND CIVIL PLANS SHOW ON-STREET DROP-OFF,
 WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ON
 BANYAN.
  
 A. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN
 FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT. [THIS IS
 AN EXISTING VESTED FEATURE WHICH THE APPLICANT BELIEVES
 OFFERS A SAFE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF AWAY FOR
 RESIDENTS TO BE PICKED UP BY RIDE SHARE PROVIDERS.]
  
 [NOT SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
 ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED
 WITHIN TOD-25 DISTRICT.
  
 RESPECTFULLY NOTE, THERE ARE NO VESTED/CARRIED OVER
 APPROVALS, THIS IS A NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION
 94-111 TABLE IV-11: ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND
 DROP-OFF IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG
 AVENUE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).
  
 ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS
 WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE. CONFLICTING WITH THE
 IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT WITH THE BIKE
 LANE/SIDEWALK.
  
 8. SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB, NOT
 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. [PLANS REVISED TO SHOW SETBACK
 FROM BACK OF CURB]
 A. SETBACK ON BANYAN (GROUND ? 5) IS 16? MIN. AND 50?
 MAX. (AVENUE-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR
 PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 31? MIN. [THE PLANS PROVIDED
 MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK CRITERIA AND THE CONDITIONAL
 SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS COMPLIANT]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR THE REVISIONS,
 BASED UPON THESE: PLEASE PROVIDE MAX SETBACK AND ANY
 APPLICABLE CONDITIONAL SETBACK LINES ON SITE PLANS,
 ELEVATIONS, AND RELEVANT FLOOR PLANS, UPDATE DATA TABLE
 ON SHEET A0-02 ACCORDINGLY TO REFLECT ALL PROVIDED
 SETBACKS PER FRONTAGE.
  
 B. SETBACK ON CLEARWATER (GROUND ? 5) IS 12? MIN. AND
 60? MAX. (SECONDARY-CLASSIFICATION) CONDITIONAL SETBACK
 FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS 27? MIN. [THE PLANS
 PROVIDED MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK CRITERIA AND THE
 CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR PARKING ABOVE 5TH STORY IS
 COMPLIANT]
 [SEE ABOVE]
  
 C. ABUTTING CSX IS 15? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 D. REAR 5? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 E. SIDE INTERIOR 0? OR NFPA [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 F. SETBACKS INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY
 ITC, SFRTA, AND APPLICANT?S PROPERTIES WARRANT FURTHER
 DISCUSSION. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PROJECT SITE IS
 SPLIT BETWEEN 2 SEPARATE PARCELS, AND POTENTIAL
 VERTICAL SUBDIVISION. [SETBACK AND SEPARATION WILL BE
 HANDLED BY SEPARATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AFFECTED
 PARTIES]
 [NOT SATISFIED] FURTHER CLARIFICATION/DISCUSSIONS
 NEEDED WITH VERTICAL SUBDIVISION
  
 9. PARKING: THE PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO
 BETTER CONVEY THE PARKING COUNTS. PLEASE NOTE, WHILE
 NOT MANDATORY, STAFF HAS INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL
 ALLOWED 25% TOD PARKING SPACE REDUCTION.
 ["SEE PARKING BREAKDOWN AND MIN MAX COMPARISON
 PROVIDED. THE TOTAL MINIMUM PARKING PERMITTED IS 1,684
 OR (1,347 LESS 20% REDUCTION FOR TOD)
  
 TOTAL MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITTED IS 3,142 OR (2,514 LESS
 20% REDUCTION FOR TOD)
  
 STRAIGHT CODE TEST:
  
 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS
 1,684 TO 3,142 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED
 SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS
  
 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,347
 TO 2,514 SPACES. THEREFORE THE 2,003 PROPOSED SPACES IS
 COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE NON-MANDATORY 20%
 REDUCTION IMPOSED
  
 NON-CODE TEST EXCLUDING THE SFRTA AND COUNTY SPACES
 EVEN WITH THE SFRTA COUNTY SPACES COUNTED AS ALL BEING
 ABOVE MINIMUM THE PARKING PROVIDED WOULD STILL COMPLY
 WITH THE LDRS SEE BELOW:
  
 THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND COUNTY
 275 SPACES WOULD BE 1,409 SPACES OR (1,127 SPACES
 REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)
  
 THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM PARKING LESS THE SFRTA AND COUNTY
 275 SPACES WOULD BE 2,867 SPACES OR (2,294 SPACES
 REQUIRED IF THE 20% REDUCTION WAS APPLIED.)
  
 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITHOUT TOD REDUCTION IS
 1,409 TO 2,867 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003
 SPACES IS COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN IF THE 275 SPACES FOR
 THE SFRTA AND COUNTY WERE NOT RECOGNIZED AS A VALID
 PUBLIC USE.
  
 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RANGE WITH TOD REDUCTION IS 1,127
 TO 2,294 SPACE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 2,003 SPACES
 WOULD STILL BE COMPLIANT TO LDRS EVEN WITH THE
 NON-MANDATORY 20% REDUCTION IMPOSED WITHOUT THE 275
 SPACES FOR THE SFRTA AND COUNTY BEING RECOGNIZED AS A
 VALID PUBLIC USE.
  
 THE 2003 SPACES PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE STATED MINIMUM
 AND MAXIMUMS PERMITTED BY CODE NO MATTER THE APPROACH
 USED.?]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM (2.D.)
  
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ON
 THE PSA AND ITS AMENDMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING
 BREAKDOWN; BASED UPON THIS:
  
 THE HOTEL ROOM/AMENITY, RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE,
 GUEST AND SFRTA/COUNTY PARKING SPACES CHECK OUT WITH
 REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD REDUCTION.
  
 - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM
 PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY
 CAR-SHARE HAS 1/13 REQUIREMENT.
  
 - PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED, ARE YOU
 PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR ARE YOU
 ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND THEN
 ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE
 CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER
 PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.
 PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL
 MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON
 A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
 CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE
 STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED
 BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE
 CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF
 THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE
 EXPANSION.
  
 A. OFFICE: MIN. 2.5/1000SF = 457 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000SF
 = 731 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 343 REQUIRED;
 PROVIDING 365 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED] OFFICE
 PARKING FALLS WITHIN MIN/MAX. CLARIFICATION, OFFICE
 MINIMUM IS 2.5/1000 SF NOT 2/1000 SF.
  
 B. HOTEL: MIN. 1/4ROOMS = 27 SPACES, 1/800 SF = 11
 SPACES (MAX. 1/ROOM = 108 SPACES, 1/400 SF = 23
 SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 29 REQUIRED;
 PROVIDING 38 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]
  
 C. COMMERCIAL: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 110 SPACES (MAX. 4/1000
 SF = 219 SPACES) AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 83 REQUIRED;
 PROVIDING 110 SPACES [SEE ABOVE] [SATISFIED]
  
 D. RESIDENTIAL: MIN. 1/UNIT = 821 SPACE, 1/20 GUEST =
 41 GUEST (MAX. 2/UNIT = 1,642 SPACES, 41 GUEST) AFTER
 25% TOD REDUCTION, 661 REQUIRED; PROVIDING 896 SPACES
 TOTAL, NEED A CLEARER BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING DATA
 PROVIDED] [SATISFIED]
  
 E. MICRO-UNITS: MIN. 0/UNIT (MAX. 0.5/UNIT = 83 SPACES,
 1/20 GUEST = 8 SPACES); PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER
 BREAKDOWN. [SEE PARKING DATA PROVIDED] [PARTIALLY
 SATISFIED] PLEASE MAKE CLEAR FROM THE TABLE PROVIDED,
 ARE YOU PROVIDING ONLY 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS? OR
 ARE YOU ARE PROVIDING 13 SPACES FOR MICRO-UNITS AND
 THEN ADDITIONAL 13 CAR-SHARE SPACES (26 TOTAL)? THE
 CAR-SHARE SPACES WOULD BE INDEPENDENT FROM OTHER
 PARKING AND DESIGNATED/RESERVED AS SUCH.
 PER SECTION 94-106 (8.A) A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL
 MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON
 A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
 CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE
 STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED
 BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM DEMANDS, BUT A MINIMUM OF ONE
 CAR-SHARE STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE REMAINDER OF
 THE SPACES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE SERVICE
 EXPANSION.
  
 F. LIVE/WORK UNITS: MIN. 2/1000 SF = 534 SPACES (MAX.
 4/1000SF = 1068 SPACES); AFTER 25% TOD REDUCTION, 400
 REQUIRED; PROVIDING? NEED CLEARER BREAKDOWN. ALSO THERE
 ARE A TOTAL OF 12 LIVE/WORK UNITS FOR 267,000 SF,
 ASSUMING ~22,250 SF EACH? PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE UNITS.
 [THERE ARE NO LIVE WORK UNITS PROPOSED] [SATISFIED]
 JUSTIFICATION LETTER SPOKE TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL?S
 LIVE-WORK UNITS, THESE ARE NOT CARRIED OVER TO THE
 CURRENT PROJECT.
  
 G. SFRTA AND ITC PARKING: MIN. 290 SPACES (250 FOR
 SFRTA PATRONS AND 40 FOR SFRTA/COUNTY); PROVIDING 275?
 WHY THE SHORTAGE OF 15 SPACES PER THE PSA? [PSA (AS
 AMENDED) REQUIRES 275 SPACES 250 FOR SFRTA AND 25 FOR
 THE COUNTY] [SATISFIED] LATEST AMENDMENT TO PSA
 (EXHIBIT 2) THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH RESUBMITTAL STATES:
 250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES FOR
 COUNTY.
  
 H. TOTAL MIN REQUIRED: 1,467 SPACES (WITHOUT ANY FOR
 MICRO-UNITS AND NOT INCLUDING 534 FOR LIVE/WORK) 2001
 WITH LIVE/WORK INCLUDED; 2,291 WITH SFRTA/ITC PARKING.
 NOT COUNTING 25% REDUCTION. PROVIDING 2,003 SPACES WITH
 319 UNALLOCATED. EXPLAIN THE UNALLOCATED. [EVERY USE IS
 PARKED AT THE MINIMUM, ALL EXCESS SPACES HAVE BEEN
 POOLED TOGETHER IN THE UNALLOCATED CATEGORY SO THEY CAN
 BE USED AS FLEXIBLE OVER FLOW TO SERVE ENTIRE PROJECT
 WHEN NEEDED] [SATISFIED] PARKING TABLE/DATA PROVIDED.
  
 I. BIKE PARKING: MIN. 1/15 COMMERCIAL/HOTEL/OFFICE = 40
 SPACES REQUIRED, 1/15 RESIDENTIAL = 57 SPACES REQUIRED,
 ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE A SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITY WITHIN
 200 FT. OF BUILDING ENTRANCE. PROVIDING 116 COMMERCIAL,
 100 RESIDENTIAL. [COVERED BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT
 THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. THE REQUIRED SHOWERING
 CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE
 LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY 75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE
 AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE FACILITIES ARE ALSO
 ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR
 AND STAIR.] [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITTED
 PARKING DATA, REQUIRED SPACES ARE 1/15 SPACES
 (COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL) AND 1/1 SPACES
 (RESIDENTIAL). TOTALING 35 AND 59 REQUIRED BIKE SPACES
 RESPECTIVELY. PLEASE PROVIDE TOTAL COUNT OF BIKE SPACES
 INTERNAL TO BUILDING ON SHEET A0-02, DIAGRAM ON A5-02
 PROVIDES 72 SPACES (2 PER RACK), REQUIREMENT IS 94 FOR
 THESE PROJECT USES.
  
 MICRO-UNIT PROVISIONS (PER. SEC. 94-106 8.A.) REQUIRES
 0.5 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. REQUIRING ~ 83
 SPACES.
  
 BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE
 BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED WITHIN A SINGLE
 ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS HAVE TO TRAVEL
 OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING.
 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER SIDE HAVE
 TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO ACCESS SHOWERS.
 RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD ENTAIL A MORE
 APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE
 ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER TOWER.
  
 I. PROVIDE SECURE RESIDENT BICYCLE ROOMS. PROVIDE
 NON-RESIDENTIAL COVERED BICYCLE PARKING AREAS
 DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS
 FOR THE BICYCLE PARKING AREAS ON THE PLANS. [COVERED
 SECURE BIKE PARKING IS PROVIDED AT THE GROUND FLOOR
 LEVEL OF THE GARAGE] [DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS PROVIDED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] UPON REVIEW OF RESUBMITTED PARKING
 DATA; BIKE PARKING INTERNAL TO BUILDING NEEDS TO MEET
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF 94 SECURED SPACES, GROUND FLOOR
 ONLY SHOWS 72 SPACES. NOT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL 83
 SPACES DEDICATED TO MICRO-UNIT USE. ON SHEETS A1-03,
 A1-04, AND A1-05 ROOM INTERNAL TO GARAGE LABELED
 ?SCOOTER/BIKE PARKING? HOW ARE THESE ROOMS/SPACES
 ACCESSED, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL RACKS LOCATED HERE, AND
 WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS OF
 THESE AREAS.
  
 REPEAT FROM (9.I.I.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED
 AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED
 WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS
 HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE
 PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER
 SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO
 ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD
 ENTAIL A MORE APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION, RECOMMEND ONE
 ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER
 TOWER.
  
 ACCESS TO BIKE STORAGE LIMITED TO REAR ENTRANCE ON
 CSX/BANYAN CORNER OF THE SITE, NO INTERNAL ACCESS
 APPEARS TO BE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF CROSSING OVER THE
 ADA SPACES. PLEASE CONSIDER REVISIONS.
  
 II. WHERE ARE THE SHOWER/CHANGING FACILITIES LOCATED?
 [THE REQUIRED SHOWERING CHANGING FACILITY IS ALSO
 PROVIDED AND SHOWN ON THE LEVEL TWO PLAZA APPROXIMATELY
 75 FEET NORTH OF OFFICE AND HOTEL LOBBY ENTRANCE. THESE
 FACILITIES ARE ALSO ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PARKING GARAGE
 SOUTHEAST ELEVATOR AND STAIR.]
 [NOT SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SHOWER
 FACILITIES WITHIN THE PLAN, PLEASE LABEL AND INDICATE
 THESE CLEARLY. BASED UPON THE RESPONSE AND RESUBMITTAL:
  
 CLARIFICATION, ARE THESE THE THREE ORANGE ROOMS BETWEEN
 THE RETAIL BAYS ON SHEET A1-02? CAN THE SHOWER
 FACILITIES BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPOSED BIKE
 STORAGE ROOM OR BETTER DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE BUILDINGS?
  
 REPEAT FROM (9.I.I.) BIKE SPACES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED
 AMONGST THE BUILDINGS/VARIED USERS NOT CONCENTRATED
 WITHIN A SINGLE ROOM OR LOCATION. OFFICE/HOTEL USERS
 HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 600 FT. TO ACCESS ENCLOSED BIKE
 PARKING. RETAIL/COMMERCIAL USERS ON BANYAN/CLEARWATER
 SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+ FT. DISTANCE TO
 ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD
 ENTAIL A MORE APT RATIO OR DISTRIBUTION OF ONE
 ENCLOSED/SECURED BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITY PER
 TOWER.
  
 J. IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY PARKING STALL
 IS ADJACENT TO A WALL, FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER
 PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE
 INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN
 OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STALL, THE STALL
 WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED - WE WILL BE UTILIZING THE ALLOWABLE
 PARKING REDUCTIONS AND OR USING COMPACT SPACE
 PROVISIONS TO ENSURE PROPER SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OR DETAILS
 INDICATING SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED. PLEASE FOLLOW SEC.
 94-485 (N.)(1.) FOR SMALL CAR SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND
 OUTLINE PERCENTAGE/INDICATE ON DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.
  
 III. PARKING GARAGE HAS INSTANCES WHERE PARKING SPACES
 APPEAR TO BE NEXT TO WALLS OR STRUCTURE. [ADJUSTMENTS
 TO BE MADE AS INDICATED ABOVE ON FINAL PERMITS TO
 ENSURE COMPLIANCE] [NOT SATISFIED] SEE ABOVE
  
 IV. ADA PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED IN INEFFICIENT AND
 NOT OPTIMAL AREAS. ALL SPACES SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO A
 CURB RAMP OR CURB CUT, WHEN NECESSARY, TO ALLOW
 ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING SERVED. SPACES SHALL BE
 LOCATED SO THAT USERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO WALK OR
 OTHERWISE MOVE BEHIND PARKED VEHICLES, EXCLUDING OTHER
 VEHICLES PARKED IN ADJACENT PARKING SPACES FOR THE
 DISABLED. [ADA SPACES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE
 EFFICIENT ACCESS ROUTES TO AND FROM ENTRY POINTS OR
 ELEVATOR CORES] [NOT SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING
 ADJUSTMENTS AND ALTERING PLANS, BASED UPON THESE
 CHANGES:
  
 ADA DISTRIBUTION AFTER RECONFIGURATION STILL POSES
 QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.
  
 A) PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF HOW ADA PATRONS OF
 OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL SAFELY &
 EFFICIENTLY ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.
  
 B) CURRENT ADA SPACE DISTRIBUTION ON SHEET A1-02 (FOR
 SFRTA PATRONS AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES) FORCES ADA USERS TO
 TRAVEL THROUGH RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ELEVATORS TO ACCESS
 REST OF SITE. DISTRIBUTION OF ADA SPACES ON THIS LEVEL
 SHALL PROVIDE SHORTEST/MOST EFFICIENT PATH TO END USE,
 ADA SPACES SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT
 CONNECTED TO UPPER PLAZA AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFT CLOSEST
 TO THE TRI-RAIL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.
  
 C) IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC WITH ADA NEEDS
 TO ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE
 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?
  
 D) GROUND LEVEL, THE ADA VAN SPACE AT THE END OF THE
 ROW FORCES USERS TO WALK BEHIND OTHER PARKED CARS TO
 ACCESS DOORS TO BIKEROOM/OUTSIDE. ADA CODE LANGUAGE
 MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ZONING PROVISION. THIS SPACE IS
 NOT COMPLIANT AND WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED/REMOVED
 FROM HOW IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN.
  
 E) GROUND ITC ADA PATH FOR VANS, NOT THE CLOSEST/MOST
 EFFICIENT OR DIRECT ACCESS TO REST OF SITE, ONLY
 BENEFITS RETAIL SPACES ALONG THE CSX FRONTAGE. BETTER
 DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE AROUND UPPER LEVEL ELEVATOR
 SHAFTS.
  
 V. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING PAINTED STRIPING DETAILS THAT
 MEET THE CITY STANDARDS OF SEC. 94-485. [PLANS AMENDED
 TO INCLUDE DETAILS] [SATISFIED]
 VI. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL PARKING DIMENSIONS FOR DRIVE
 AISLE, PARKING RAMP SLOPE, PARKING STALLS, ETC. [PLANS
 AMENDED TO INCLUDE DETAIL AND DIMENSIONS] [SATISFIED]
  
 K. PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP SLOPES: INTERNAL RAMPS APPEAR
 15.8% AND 12.4%. PER SEC. 94-111 (Q.)(2.) IF THE RAMP
 IS GREATER THAN 14 PERCENT, A BREAK-OVER TRANSITION
 SHALL BE REQUIRED. [TYPICAL CODE COMPLAINT DIMENSIONS
 PROVIDED. RAMP SLOPE AMENDED TO PROVIDE COMPLAINT SLOPE
 OR BREAK-OVER TRANSITION] [SATISFIED]
  
 L. INTERNAL PARKING STRUCTURE POSES CONCERNS WITH
 INGRESS/EGRESS OF RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS, AND
 THE OPERATIONS OF LOADING AND BICYCLE USERS. LOADING
 SPACES AND BAYS ARE INEFFICIENT AND CAUSE CONFLICT
 ZONES/SAFETY CONCERNS. POTENTIAL SPILLBACK AND QUEUING
 ISSUES ONTO CLEARWATER. [WE DISAGREE. LOADING AND
 ACCESS IS EFFICIENT AND MEETS CODE THE CONCEPT TO
 CREATE A SINGULAR GARAGE TO SERVE THE ENTIRE
 DEVELOPMENT AS A TRANSIT FACILITY. THE IDEA IS TO NOT
 PARK THE SITE AS A TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT WITH GARAGES
 PROVIDED IN EACH BUILDING BUT RATHER A MORE URBAN
 CONCEPT THAT PARKS CARS CENTRALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT
 WITH PATRONS AND RESIDENTS WALKING THE SHORT DISTANCE
 TO AND FROM THE INTENDED END USE WITHOUT HAVING TO
 REPARK.]
  
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE
 INGRESS RAMP AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.
  
 GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR
 CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC/SAFETY HAZARD WITH
 INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE
 GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND
 SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.
  
 AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA
 AND OTHER OPERATIONS, INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.
  
 INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS
 WITH ONE-WAY/TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.
  
 IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF
 SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL
 TOWERS?
  
 REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE
 CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,
 HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY
 ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE CENTRALLY LOCATED
 GARAGE.
  
 M. THE PARKING GARAGE SHOULD BE PREWIRED FOR EV
 CHARGERS BOTH FOR RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS. THE
 ELECTRICAL ROOMS NEED TO BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT
 SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED ELECTRICAL PANELS AND
 AREAS NEED TO BE DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSFORMERS.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED] [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] IF YOU PLAN TO
 PROVIDE EV SPACES AT THIS TIME, PLEASE SHOW WHERE THESE
 ARE LOCATED.
  
 10. CURB-CUTS AND PASSENGER LOAD/DROP-OFF: PER SEC.
 94-111 TABLE IV-11 ? TOD DOES NOT PERMIT ON-STREET
 AND/OR PASSENGER DROP-OFF OR LOADING ON AVENUE
 (BANYAN). [ONE CURB CUT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
 BANYAN. ALL OTHER CURB CUTS AND PASSENGER PICK UP
 LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THEIR
 PRESENT LOCATIONS. ONE AND ONE PASSENGER DROP OFF CURB
 CUT WAS REMOVED ON BANYAN] [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON
 THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS:
 [REPEAT COMMENT] PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP
 OFF ON BANYAN FRONTAGE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25
 DISTRICT.
  
 THERE ARE NO VESTED/CARRIED OVER APPROVALS, THIS IS A
 NEW SITE PLAN/PROJECT. PER SECTION 94-111 TABLE IV-11:
 ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING AND DROP-OFF IS NOT
 PERMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ALONG AVENUE STREET
 CLASSIFICATIONS (BANYAN BOULEVARD).
  
 ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS
 WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE.
  
 CURB-CUT ON BANYAN FOR NONCOMPLIANT PASSENGER DROP-OFF
 IS STILL SHOWN ON ALL RESUBMITTED SITE PLANS, LANDSCAPE
 PLANS, AND ENGINEERING PLANS.
  
 STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF FOR THE
 MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER ALONG CLEARWATER. PROPOSED
 SEPARATE DROP-OFF ROADWAY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
 OPERATIONALLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A SAFE/PLEASANT
 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT UP URBAN CONTEXT.
 CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE WITH NARROW LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER, PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED BY 2 TRAVEL LANES.
 BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED CLOSER TOWARD
 CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE, WITH THE
 DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, IN PLACE
 OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA. PROVIDES THE
 MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR VALET SERVICES
 AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION.
 A TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE
 COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A
 DROP-OFF IS NEEDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE.
 SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC DROP-OFF IN FRONT OF
 HOTEL/OFFICE.
  
 THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY
 EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY
 SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL
 REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.
  
 WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWERS EXCEEDS
 PERMITTED 25FT. APPEARS TO BE 30 FT. + PLEASE PROVIDE
 DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.
  
 WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND
 HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25FT. APPEARS TO
 BE 30 FT. + PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB
 CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.
  
 WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE ITC BUS LOOP EXCEEDS
 PERMITTED 25 FT. INGRESS WIDTH NEARLY 60 FT. EGRESS
 APPROXIMATELY 40-45FT. PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL
 CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.
  
 WIDTH OF CURB-CUTS FOR THE GARAGE INGRESS/EGRESS
 EXCEEDS PERMITTED 25 FT. WIDTH NEARLY FT. PLEASE
 PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS/DRIVE ACCESS.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TURN ANALYSIS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP
 OPERATION.
  
 11. PLEASE PROVIDE AN FAR AND GBA DIAGRAM SHOWING THE
 BREAKDOWN OF THE PROJECT?S COUNTED/UNCOUNTED ROOMS AND
 SPACES. [PLANS UPDATED TO PROVIDE FAR GBA DIAGRAMS]
 A. GROSS BUILDING AREA MEANS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A
 BUILDING, INCLUDING AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED
 STORAGE SPACES, ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP, SUCH AS
 BATHROOMS AND LOBBIES, STAIRS AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND
 EXTERNAL UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE GROSS
 BUILDING AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS;
 UNENCLOSED COLONNADES, PORCHES AND BALCONIES;
 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES; AND TRASH ROOMS.
 STORAGE SPACES WITHOUT WINDOWS AND ENCLOSED BY SURFACES
 THAT ALLOW FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OR OUTSIDE AIR
 CIRCULATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] GROUND LEVEL A6-01, ENCLOSED BIKE
 STORAGE ROOM COUNTS TOWARD GBA/FAR.
  
 VII. GROSS BUILDING AREA REQUIREMENTS:
 1. ANY PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE
 MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
 CALCULATIONS OF GROSS BUILDING AREA. THIS SHALL INCLUDE
 STALLS AND ALL ASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS. [PROJECT
 PARKING PROVIDED IS WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
 RANGE PERMITTED AND DOES NOT COUNT TOWARD GBA OR THE
 FAR CALCULATIONS] [SATISFIED]
  
 2. PARKING LOCATED BELOW GRADE SHALL NOT BE COUNTED AS
 PART OF THE GROSS BUILDING AREA. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 [SATISFIED]
  
 3. THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE
 OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 [SATISFIED]
  
 12. PLEASE PROVIDE ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM AND CALCULATIONS
 FOR SITE FRONTAGES. [ACTIVE USE DIAGRAM PROVIDED ON
 REVISED PLANS] [SATISFIED]
  
 13. IT APPEARS THAT THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH
 THE GROUND LEVEL SITE PLAN. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST
 INCLUDE HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS FOR THE VARIOUS FEATURES
 SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE ELEVATIONS MATCH THE
 SITE PLAN BUT ALSO THAT THE SITE FRONTAGES COMPLY WITH
 THE VARIOUS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. [CHECKED FOR ACCURACY
 AND REVISE AS NEEDED] [NOT SATISFIED] AN EXAMPLE ON
 SHEET A2-01 DETAIL ON THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER SHOWS A
 SUPPORT COLUMN NOT ILLUSTRATED WITHIN THE SITE PLANS.
 ADDITIONAL COLUMN SHOWN IN ELEVATION ADJACENT TO THE
 SPIRAL STAIRCASE FEATURE, NOT SHOWN IN SITE PLAN.
 ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE PROVIDE ALL ENTRANCES, DOORS, ETC.
 ON GROUND-LEVEL SO STAFF CAN VERIFY ELEMENTS MATCH SITE
 PLAN. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW CONSISTENT AND ACCURATE
 INFORMATION.
  
 14. PLEASE SPECIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACES (PRIVATE &
 PUBLIC) PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS, REFERENCE SEC. 94-109
 AND TABLE IV-7. CLARIFY HOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH
 OPEN SPACE TYPE IS MET WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
 [TYPE OF OPEN SPACES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON THE
 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS SHEET.]
  
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING OPEN SPACES AND CALCULATIONS
 SHEET, BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED:
  
 [NOT SATISFIED] PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON CORNER OF
 CLEARWATER & BANYAN LABELED AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF
 PUBLIC SPACE IS NOT PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT.
 GARDEN COURTYARD CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED. (TABLE
 IV-6)
  
 SHEET L002 (LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS) MISLABELED
 COURTYARD IS ON GROUND LEVEL, GARDEN PLAZA IS ON 2ND
 LEVEL, CHECK SF DIMENSIONS.
 GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATED AREA, GARDEN
 COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% VEGETATED.
  
 GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY, GARDEN
 COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY.
  
 SPECIFY SEATING REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE MET
 WITHIN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES.
  
 L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE PLAN) OPEN SPACE 1A, 1B,
 1C LABELED AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SPACE IS
 NOT PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT. GARDEN COURTYARD
 CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED (TABLE IV-6).
  
 ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 2 SIDES OR
 75%. ROW ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 1 SIDE OR
 20%.
  
 OPEN SPACE 2A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE
 PLAN) IS INCORRECTLY LABELED AS INTERIOR COURTYARD,
 THIS IS A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION AND IS NOT
 PERMITTED WITHIN TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. PLEASE IDENTIFY
 THE CORRECT TYPE OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THIS IS. NOTE
 PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ARE TO BE ON THE GROUND LEVEL, WILL
 REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER FROM THE DAC.
  
 OPEN SPACE 4A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE
 PLAN) DOES NOT MEET THE ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT REQUIRED (1
 SIDE OR 20%).
  
 OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN
 SPACE PLAN) TERRACE VEGETATED AREA REQUIREMENT IS 20%
 (OKAY TO EXCEED REQUIREMENT, PLEASE ADJUST TABLE TO
 CORRECTLY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS)
  
 OPEN SPACE 4A AND 4B ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN
 SPACE PLAN) SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE REQUIRED ROOFTOP
 GARDEN. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE 50% VEGETATED AREA
 AND 50% TREE CANOPY.
  
 STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE UNTIL THE OPEN
 SPACES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DESIGNATED/IDENTIFIED AND
 PROPER REQUIREMENTS LISTED.
  
 A. PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTHERN TRIANGLE OF THE
 SITE DOES NOT MEET PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
 TYPOLOGY DUE TO LACK OF ABUTMENT TO AN ACTIVE USE.
 [THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE SFRTA
 AND ITC CUSTOMERS DURING OPERATING HOURS. THIS AREA
 ABUTS THE ACTIVE MASS TRANSIT USE TRAIN PLATFORM AND
 ITC FACILITY AND PROVIDES A SPACE FOR CUSTOMERS TO
 RELAX IN THE SUNNY LANDSCAPE PARKLIKE AREA WHILE
 WAITING TO MAKE THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTIONS.]
 [NOT SATISFIED]
 PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED
 ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND
 IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.
  
 B. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE SECOND LEVEL
 REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE, SIMILAR TO THE ONE
 APPROVED AS PART OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.
 [SEE ABOVE] [ACKNOWLEDGED. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SAME
 RAISED OPEN SPACE CONDITION TO OCCUR AS PREVIOUSLY
 APPROVED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE/WAIVER FROM THE
 DAC.
  
 15. STREET TREES: STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED AT 30
 FT. INTERVALS ALONG EACH STREET FRONTAGE. CLEARWATER
 FRONTAGE SHOULD HAVE APPROX. 46 TREES AND BANYAN
 FRONTAGE APPROX. 13. [NOTED. STREET TREE CALCULATIONS
 HAVE BEEN UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.]
 [SATISFIED]
  
 16. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF AND LOOP FOR
 RESIDENTIAL TOWER ON CLEARWATER IS OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY
 LINES AND ENCROACHES INTO CITY ROW. ADDITIONAL SMALLER
 DROP-OFF ADJACENT TO LOADING BAY/BACK-OF-HOUSE. WHY ARE
 THESE DROP-OFF SPACES NEEDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER?
 ADJACENT HOTEL/OFFICE ALSO INCLUDES A SMALL DROP-OFF,
 PRESENTS STACKING/QUEUING ISSUES AND SPILL OVER INTO
 CLEARWATER. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL
 DROP-OFF ROAD ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL TOWER/CLEARWATER
 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
 ENCROACHES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PER SEC.
 94-111 (N.)(3.) DESIGNATED PASSENGER LOADING AND
 DROP-OFF AREAS SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET
 FROM THE BACK OF CURB, SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE
 SIDEWALK BY A 5-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND SHALL BE
 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. PORTE
 COCHERES ARE SUBJECT TO MINIMUM STANDARDS DEPENDING ON
 SUBDISTRICT LOCATION AND ADJACENCY TO A STREET
 DESIGNATION AND ARE SEPARATED INTO TWO TYPES WHICH ARE
 ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE IV-22. ONLY A TYPE A PORTE
 COCHERE IS ALLOWED IN THE TOD-25 SUBDISTRICT. [THIS
 DROP OFF LOOP FEATURE HAS BEEN REVISED AND APPROVED BY
 PBC SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND
 ALSO TO ADD EXTRA SPACING FOR A VEGETATED BUFFER AND
 DROP OFF RELATED USES.]
 THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATIONS AND REVISIONS FROM THE
 PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL, BASED UPON THE NEW PLANS PROVIDED:
  
 STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF FOR THE
 MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL TOWER ALONG CLEARWATER. PROPOSED
 SEPARATE DROP-OFF ROADWAY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
 OPERATIONALLY AND DOES NOT REFLECT A SAFE/PLEASANT
 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR BUILT UP URBAN CONTEXT.
 CREATES A VEHICULAR-FOCUSED SPACE WITH NARROW LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER, PEDESTRIANS ARE BOUNDED BY 2 TRAVEL LANES.
 BUILDING WOULD BE BETTER ORIENTED CLOSER TOWARD
 CLEARWATER DR. ACTIVATING THE FRONTAGE, WITH THE
 DROP-OFF LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, IN PLACE
 OF OR ALONG THE PROPOSED LOADING AREA. PROVIDES THE
 MOST DIRECT ROUTE INTO THE GARAGE FOR VALET SERVICES
 AND AVOIDS ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION. NEW CONFIGURATION
 WITH REVERSAL IN DIRECTION NOT EFFICIENT OR OPTIMAL.
 A TYPE A PORTE-COCHERE OFF CLEARWATER IS MORE
 COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SPACE, IF A
 DROP-OFF IS NEEDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE.
 SIMILAR TO EXISTING ITC DROP-OFF IN FRONT OF
 HOTEL/OFFICE.
  
 A. INSTEAD, THE BUILDING FRONT SHOULD BE MOVED CLOSER
 TO CLEARWATER, AND RECONFIGURE LOADING AND
 BACK-OF-HOUSE TO INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY AND DROP OFF
 AREA. [SEE ABOVE COMMENT.] [REPEAT COMMENT] SEE ABOVE
  
 B. SEE ABOVE: PROPOSED LOADING SPACE ON RESIDENTIAL
 TOWER DOES NOT FUNCTION FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT.
 [LOADING AREA WAS REVISED TO PROVIDE IMPROVED LOADING
 VEHICLE ACCESSIBILITY. SEE SHEET C-03] [NOT SATISFIED]
 PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS OF THE REVISED LOADING
 SPACES, ADA SPACE PROPOSED INBETWEEN LOADING
 OPERATIONS?
  
 WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF
 CLEARWATER TO THE REVISED HOTEL/OFFICE DROP-OFF LOADING
 SPACE?
  
 17. ITC BUS LOOP IS NOW ENTIRELY COVERED OVERHEAD BY
 PLAZA AND BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS DESIGN HAD AN
 OPEN-AIR CORRIDOR TO PROVIDE LIGHT, LANDSCAPING, AND
 VENTILATION/OPEN-AIR ACCESS. HOW WILL THE REMOVAL OF
 THESE ELEMENTS BE MITIGATED OR COMPENSATED FOR,
 ESPECIALLY WHERE ANY MECHANICAL VENTING WILL BE
 LOCATED? [THE ITC IS NOW COMPLETELY ENCLOSED UNDER AND
 WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE. A NEW LANDSCAPED OPEN
 SPACE IS PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH END OF THE ITC.
 THIS AREA IS ACCESSIBLE TO TRANSIT PATRONS SO THEY CAN
 GET SUN OR SIT IN SHADE WITHIN A LANDSCAPE AREA WHILE
 WAITING FOR THEIR TRANSIT CONNECTION]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] NOTE, PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN
 SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON
 THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT
 SHALL BE DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN
 SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE
 PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.
  
 18. PLEASE PROVIDE SHEETS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFYING HOW
 THE FA?ADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE
 PROJECT. PLEASE REFERENCE SEC. 94-109 AND TABLE IV-4:
 FA?ADE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS. [PLANAR BREAKS AND
 BUILDING LENGTH DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] DIAGRAMS ARE PROVIDED
 A. ILLUSTRATE TRANSPARENCY CALCULATIONS, FENESTRATION
 CALCULATIONS, PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, PROJECTIONS,
 ETC. FOR ALL BUILDING FACADES. [TRANSPARENCY,
 FENESTRATION, PLANAR BREAK CALCULATIONS, FOR ALL
 BUILDING FACADES PROVIDED.]
 [NOT SATISFIED] FOR GROUND FLOOR TO PODIUM (UP TO 7TH
 FLOOR IN TOD-25 DISTRICT)
  
 SHEET A5-05, A5-06, BALCONIES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL
 BUILDINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AS PLANAR BREAKS, AS THESE
 ARE JUST ?PUNCH OUTS? ALONG THE SAME BUILDING FACE.
 PORTIONS OF THE FA?ADE ITSELF NEEDS TO BE RECESSED OR
 PROTRUDE TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 3FT.
  
 SHEET A-5-07 SATISFIES PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS
 THE GREEN-WALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND
 OF PLANTS ARE PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS
 MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE GREEN-WALL SECTIONS
 RECESSED FROM THE METAL SCREENING?
  
 TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET BASED UPON
 ELEVATIONS PROVIDED. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS WITHIN
 TABLE OR ON DRAWINGS.
  
  
 19. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AND MATERIALS OF THE GARAGE
 STRUCTURE, HOW IS IT BEING SCREENED, MATERIALS, PLANTS,
 ETC. [GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR GARAGE FACADE SCREENING
 MATERIALS ADDED TO ELEVATIONS]
 PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING. IS
 THE GREEN-WALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL; IF SO WHAT KIND
 OF PLANTS ARE PROVIDED/HOW IS THIS
 MAINTAINED/IRRIGATED? ARE THE GREEN-WALL SECTIONS
 RECESSED FROM THE METAL SCREENING? ARE THERE OTHER
 RECESSED PORTIONS/PLANAR BREAKS WITHIN THE SCREENING TO
 BREAK UP THE MASS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAIL INTO
 SCREENING GRAPHIC, COLOR, & TREATMENT.
  
 20. REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE TOWERS,
 HAS VARIED FACADES AND ELEMENTS BEEN EXPLORED OR IS
 THERE A REASON FOR UNVARIED/SIMILARLY DESIGNED TOWERS?
 [THE PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN WAS CREATED AND EXECUTED
 PERSONALLY BY ARCHITECT BERNARDO FORT-BRESCIA OF
 ARQUITECTONICA. THE PROJECT DESIGN IS EXTREMELY WELL
 BALANCED WHILE REPRESENTING ARQ'S SIGNATURE MODERN
 STYLIZATION THROUGHOUT THE COHESIVE DESIGN]
 NOTED. PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR TRANSIT VILLAGE HAD
 INCORPORATED FAR MORE VARIATION IN MASSING AND
 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT RESPECTED THE CONTEXT OF
 THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORIC ELEMENTS
 ADJACENT TO THE SITE.
  
 - GARAGE SCREENING PRESENTS A STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN
 THE HISTORIC SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND PRESENTS AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE COLOR SCHEMES,
 SCREENING/MESH, GRAPHICS, RECESSES/PROTRUSIONS, ETC.
 WITHIN ITS DESIGN. THE GARAGE SCREENING SHOULD RESPECT
 OR PRESENT THESE SPACES IN A MORE COHESIVE MANNER.
 CURRENTLY THE TRAIN-STATION SITS IN FRONT OF A MASSIVE
 BLOCKY BACKDROP AND GETS LOST.
 - THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ON BANYAN IS ALSO AN
 HISTORIC SITE WITHIN THE SHADOW OF THE RESIDENTIAL
 TOWER. PREVIOUS APPROVAL FEATURED A ?STEP-BACK? OR
 ?STAIRCASE? MASSING TO LOWER THE SCALE TOWARD
 BANYAN/WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, AND THE TRAIN STATION
 ALONG TAMARIND. RECOMMEND PURSUING A SIMILAR CONCEPT TO
 BETTER SCALE AND FRAME THE MASSINGS.
 - REGARDING THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER, PREVIOUS APPROVAL
 PROVIDED ADDITIONAL SPACING AND STEPPED BACK FURTHER
 FROM THE SEABOARD TRAIN STATION, PROVIDING A MORE
 APPROPRIATELY SCALED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT DIDN?T
 OVERSHADOW THE HISTORIC BUILDING BELOW. ADDITIONALLY,
 THE BLUE FA?ADE TREATMENT OR PAINTING IS ANOTHER STARK
 CONTRAST TO THE TRAIN STATION, PLEASE EXPLORE MORE
 COMPATIBLE COLOR SCHEMES (E.G. EARTH TONES)
  
 21. REGARDING THE TOWERS AND OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT,
 STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE BANYAN RESIDENTIAL TOWER IS THE
 TALLEST RATHER THAN THE CLEARWATER HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER.
 THIS IS BECAUSE BANYAN IS THE WIDEST ROADWAY AND IS
 MORE APPROPRIATELY FRAMED/CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TALLER
 MASS. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BANYAN
 RESIDENTIAL TOWER STEPS DOWN IN SOME CAPACITY TOWARD
 TAMARIND AVE. AS WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL SITE
 PLAN. THIS GIVES RESPECT TO THE SCALE OF THE SEABOARD
 TRAIN STATION AND PUBLIC REALM ALONG TAMARIND.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED
 DESIGN SUGGESTIONS]
 SEE PREVIOUS COMMENT
  
 22. BE COGNIZANT THAT THE EDGE 2 BUILDING LOCATED AT
 300 CLEARWATER IS APPROVED AND UNDERGOING BUILDING
 PERMITTING PROCESS, THIS PROJECT?S INGRESS/EGRESS FROM
 DRIVES MAY PRESENT CONFLICT POINTS. THE GROUND LEVEL
 PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE EDGE 2 CURB CUTS IN ORDER FOR
 STAFF TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE ACCESS POINTS TO
 CLEARWATER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
 FROM THE ?OASIS? PARK ELEMENT ACROSS CLEARWATER TO THE
 STAIRWELL/ELEVATOR FOR THE UPPER PLAZA WILL NEED
 RECONSIDERATION WITH THE INCOMING DEVELOPMENT. [WE WILL
 COORDINATE PROJECT FEATURES AS NEEDED]
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] THANK YOU FOR OVERLAYING PORTIONS
 OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES/ROW CONTEXT. THE CURB CUTS
 FOR EDGE 2 BUILDING ACROSS FROM SITE NEED TO BE REVISED
 AND REALIGNED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT CONDITIONS.
  
 23. PLEASE CLARIFY GROUND FLOOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
 WITH ITC, ACCESSING UPPER PLAZA SPACES, AND INTERNAL
 CIRCULATION BETWEEN RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. IS
 THE ITC BUS LOOP SEPARATED/CLOSED OFF IN THE EVENINGS
 WHEN BUS OPERATIONS HALT, HOW IS WAYFINDING ADDRESSED
 TO ACCESS THE UPPER PLAZA SPACES? [PATRONS WILL BE
 QUEUED BY FENCING, GATES, LIGHTING, AND WAY FINDING
 SIGNAGE]
  
 [NOT SATISFIED] IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO
 ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE
 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?
  
 REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE
 CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,
 HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY
 ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.
  
 DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK FROM THE SOUTHERN
 SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL EXISTS/WILL
 REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS ACCORDINGLY.
 PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION/CLARIFICATION OF WHY THIS
 CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE ELEVATIONS/RENDERS OF THE PROPOSED
 SPIRAL STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR ON CLEARWATER DR. FOR THE
 UPPER PLAZA. PUBLIC ACCESS TO UPPER PLAZA FROM THIS
 STAIRCASE IS NOT OBVIOUS; PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
 CONTEXT DISPLAYING THIS ENTRANCE.
  
 STAFF SUGGESTS AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT
 FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM
 THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION
 BETWEEN ITC/SFRTA AND UPPER PLAZA.
  
 A. THE ITC ADA PATH DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE
 APPLICATION SHOWS THE ADA ROUTE UTILIZING A CROSSWALK
 THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. [THIS ADA PATHWAY AND
 CROSSWALK WILL BE REMOVED PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY
 REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM.]
 [NOT SATISFIED] DRAWINGS INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-WALK
 FROM THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER STILL
 EXISTS/WILL REMAIN. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS/DRAWINGS
 ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION/CLARIFICATION
 OF WHY THIS CROSSWALK IS BEING REMOVED.
  
 B. THE ITC FENCE EXHIBIT SHOWS THE FENCE AROUND THE
 OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE AS A ?PRIVATE
 PARK FENCE?. THIS DOES NOT MATCH THIS AS BEING DEPICTED
 AS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ON OTHER PLANS. [THIS IS A BONUS
 OPEN SPACE AREA DESIGNED TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION
 WITH THE SFRTA PLATFORM AND ITC OPERATION. THIS AREA
 WILL BE CLOSED TO PUBLIC ACCESS WHEN THE ITC IS CLOSED]
 [NOT SATISFIED]
 PER SECTION 94-109 OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE - IF PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LOCATED
 ALONG THE LOT FRONTAGE, IT SHALL BE DESIGNED IN
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND
 IT SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.
  
 24. STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
 AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY TO TAMARIND AND THE
 DOWNTOWN AREA. AS A TOD PROJECT, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE
 HOW THE RELATION AND CONNECTIVITY IS IMPROVED TO THESE
 CORRIDORS INTO THE DOWNTOWN. RECOMMEND POTENTIAL: WORK
 WITH SFRTA TO IMPLEMENT AT-GRADE CONNECTION(S) ACROSS
 RAILS TO TAMARIND. IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
 CONNECTING SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE
 PROJECT. EXPLORE CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN
 BRIDGES OR CONNECTIONS. [THE REVISED PROJECT DESIGN
 PROVIDES ACCESSIBILITY TO THE GARAGE, RETAIL, BIKE
 STORAGE, ITC AND RAIL FACILITIES FROM BOTH BANYAN
 BOULEVARD AND CLEARWATER DRIVE. THESE ACCESS POINTS ARE
 PROVIDED UNDER COVERED WALKWAYS AND THEY HAVE ACTIVE
 USES PROVIDED ALONG THEIR FRONTAGES. THE NEW ACCESS
 POINT FROM BANYAN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE TRACKS NOW
 PROVIDES A DIRECT ROUTE BACK TOWARD BANYAN BOULEVARD]
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE CLARIFY OR MARK ON PLANS THE NEW
 ACCESS POINT FROM BANYAN. NOT UNDERSTANDING THE
 INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT
 DESCRIBED. ADDITIONALLY STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ADDITIONAL
 STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE
 OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE
 ADDITIONAL CIRCULATION BETWEEN ITC/SFRTA AND UPPER
 PLAZA.
  
 25. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT THE ?MOTOR
 LOBBY? IS. [IT IS SMALL LOBBY FOR THE OFFICE AND HOTEL
 AT THE GROUND LEVEL INTENDED TO PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR
 ACCESS TO VEHICLES PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF PATRONS,
 MAIL PACKAGES, LUGGAGE, ETC.] [SATISFIED]
  
 26. THE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED TO
 ENCROACH THE 20-FOOT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS EASEMENT.
 NOTE: EVEN WITHOUT THE BUILDING ENCROACHMENT, THIS DOES
 NOT FUNCTION. [THIS FIRE ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED AND IS
 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED]
  
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF EASEMENT
 REMOVAL AND FIRE DEPT. APPROVAL.
  
 27. PROVIDE TURNING DIAGRAMS FOR THE LOADING AREAS
 UNDER THE NORTH BUILDING, ENTRY POINTS TO THE SITE AND
 THE OTHER LOADING AREAS. [AUTO TURN EXHIBITS PROVIDED]
 BASED UPON THE AUTOTURNS PROVIDED:
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE
 INGRESS RAMP AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.
  
 GROUND LEVEL LOADING BAYS AND OPERATION CREATES CLEAR
 CONFLICT POINTS AND IS A TRAFFIC/SAFETY HAZARD WITH
 INGRESS/EGRESS OF PATRONS TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE
 GARAGE AND GROUND LEVEL ADA ACCESS. QUEUING AND
 SPILLBACK IS AN INEVITABILITY DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS.
  
 AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA
 AND OTHER OPERATIONS INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.
  
 INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS
 WITH ONE-WAY/TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.
  
 IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF
 SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL
 TOWERS?
  
 REPEAT COMMENT PORTION OF (9.J.IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE
 CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENERAL PUBLIC/USERS OF OFFICE,
 HOTEL, RETAIL, AND TRI-RAIL USERS WILL EFFICIENTLY
 ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR LOADING BAY ON THE GROUND
 FLOOR
  
 SHEET C-19 SHOWS ARROW IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF
 RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF TRAFFIC FLOW
  
 28. WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER
 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND HOW ARE THEY SCREENED IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS? [LABELED ON
 PLANS] [NOT SATISFIED]
 SHEET C-05 & C-04 SHOW FDC IN WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF BIKE
 RACKS, OR EXPOSED WITHIN ROW.
  
 PLEASE WALL-MOUNT ANY WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL
 VALVES, ETC. WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
  
 ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES
 SHALL BE SCREEENED FROM VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.
  
 29. PLEASE CONSIDER USING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
 SUCH AS ROOFTOP SOLAR OR RAINWATER CAPTURE/REUSE
 CISTERNS.
  
 NO RESPONSE PROVIDED. WHILE NOT REQUIRED, HAS THIS ITEM
 BEEN GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION?
  
 30. SHEET A6-01 SHOWS PUBLIC OPEN SPACES EXTENDING INTO
 THE BUS LANE. [LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE BEEN UPDATED
 REDUCING THE OPEN SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE BUS LANES.][
 PLANS REVISED TO REMOVE SIDEWALK SERVING BUS LANE FROM
 THE OPEN SPACE] [SATISFIED] LANDSCAPE NO LONGER
 ENCROACHES/OVERLAPS
  
 31. FOR THE EVENTUAL DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE (DAC)
 MEETING, PLEASE PROVIDE FULLY DETAILED RENDERINGS AND
 PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS OF THE FINAL PROJECT.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE NOTE, ALL PROVIDED
 RENDERINGS ARE ONLY OF THE TAMARIND AND BANYAN
 PERSPECTIVES. THERE ARE NO RENDERS SHOWN FOR CONDITIONS
 ALONG CLEARWATER DR.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS/RENDERS OF THE SPIRAL
 STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR SHAFT USED TO ACCESS THE UPPER
 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PLAZA.
  
 32. PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO SHOW HOW
 THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED WHILE MAINTAINING ITC
 OPERATIONS, TO INCLUDE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE
 THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONTRACTOR
 PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION. [THIS IS A PERMITTING
 ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE COORDINATION AND WILL
 BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED
 PLEASE CARRY FORWARD AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. NOTE
 THAT AS PART OF THE PSA, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE
 COUNTY WITH A CONTINUOUS OPERATONS PLAN. THE PLAN IS TO
 RELOCATE PALM TRAN TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE TRACKS, AS
 IS UNDER DISCUSSION AMONG THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND
 APPLICANT.]
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 THERE ARE COLUMN LOCATIONS THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH THE
 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ITC FENCE CREATE CHOKE POINTS
 FOR THE BUS PATRONS AS THEY CHANGE BETWEEN ROUTES.
 WHILE THEY ALL APPEAR TO COMPLY WITH ADA MINIMUMS, THEY
 DO NOT PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN WIDTHS FOR TWO
 USERS TO PASS SIDE-BY-SIDE. PLEASE REVIEW. [IN GENERAL
 THE PLAN IS TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THE NON ITC
 NORTHERN PORTION UNTIL THE ITC IS RELOCATED TO THE
 TAMARIND SIDE THEN BUILD THE ITC PORTION]
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 33. THE SITE, LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS ALL NEED TO
 SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE COMPLIANT CONDITIONS. [PLANS
 COORDINATED][NOT SATISFIED] ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE,
 AND CIVIL PLANS ALL FEATURE INCONSISTENCIES OR ELEMENTS
 NOT COMPLIANT WITH CODE, PLEASE REVISE.
  
 EXAMPLES INCLUDE:
 - BANYAN PEDESTRIAN DROP-OFF, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED,
 IS STILL SHOWN ACROSS ALL PLANS.
 - CROSSWALK AT THE ENTRANCE OF ITC STILL SHOWN ON
 PLANS, BUT COMMENTS/REFERENCES STATE IT IS TO BE
 REMOVED.
 - ELEVATIONS FEATURE COLUMNS NOT PRESENT IN GROUND
 FLOOR PLANS.
 - ETC.
  
 34. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE
 STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-113. THIS
 INCLUDES LIGHTING, SIDEWALK WIDTH, LANDSCAPE, BICYCLE
 PARKING, STREET FURNITURE, ETC. [NOTED][ THE PROJECT
 COMPLIES WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 94-113.]
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR SIDEWALK
 WIDTHS AND CLEAR PATHS, PLEASE PROVIDE A LOCATION
 CALLOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND COUNT OF BICYCLE RACKS
 PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS (REQUIREMENT IS 1 SPACE PER
 100 FT. OF STREET FRONTAGE).
  
 35. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 94-106 ? GENERAL USES
 WITH SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (8.A) MICRO-UNITS
 (A.-F.)[NOTES ADDED TO PLAN TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH
 MINIMUM AVERAGE AND OTHER DWELLING UNITS REQUIREMENTS]
 A. MICRO-UNIT MEANS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH A
 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN 300 SQUARE FEET AND 549
 SQUARE FEET, WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONING KITCHEN AND
 BATHROOM. [REGULAR UNITS WILL COMPLY TO ALL REGULATIONS
 THERE ARE ALSO COMPLAINT MICRO UNITS THAT ARE LESSED
 OUT FORM THE REGULAR UNIT AVERAGE CALCULATION ]
 B. SEC. 94-109 ?DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS
 VIII. DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 550 SQUARE
 FEET. IN MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS, THE
 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT BE
 LESS THAN 800 SQUARE FEET.
 IX. SMALLER DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ALLOWED AS
 MICRO-UNITS. THE CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE MINIMUM SHALL
 NOT BE APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDINGS
 WHERE MICRO-UNITS COMPOSE A MINIMUM OF 80 PERCENT OF
 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE
 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL NOT
 INCLUDE THE MICRO-UNITS IN SUCH CALCULATION. SEE
 MICRO-UNITS. [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 [NOT SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR THE
 PARKING PROVIDED FOR MICRO-UNITS, IF ITS 13 CAR-SHARE
 ALONE OR IF ITS 13 SPACES AND 13 CAR-SHARE (26 TOTAL).
 PLEASE PROVIDE FINAL COUNT AND LOCATION FOR THE
 REQUIRED 0.5 BIKE SPACES PER UNIT.
  
 PLEASE NOTE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR MICRO-UNITS WILL
 INVOLVE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY TROLLEY FEE PER UNIT
 PER MONTH.
  
  
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS,
 SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS: 7/5/22
  
 1. REVISE LIST OF VARIANCES BASED UPON CORRECTIONS TO
 OPEN SPACE, CURBCUT WIDTHS, PLANAR BREAKS/FA?ADE
 ARTICULATION, ETC. ANY DEVIATION FROM REQUIRED MINIMUMS
 OR MAXIMUMS CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.
  
 2. FA?ADE ARTICULATION ? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS
 FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING, GREEN-WALL, AND PLANAR
 BREAKS.
  
 3. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM FIRE
 DEPARTMENT, UTILITY PROVIDERS, FPL, ETC. FOR THE
 VACATING/MODIFICATION OF ANY EASEMENTS AND STRUCTURES.
  
 4. ON SITE PLANS, THE CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF
 CLEARWATER/BANYAN NOT REFLECTIVE OF EXISTING BANYAN
 STREETSCAPE, THERE ARE SEPARATE BIKELANE AND PEDESTRIAN
 CROSSING LANE
  
 5. SHOW SETBACK LINES ON THE ELEVATIONS
  
 6. PLEASE PROVIDE CIRCULATION DIAGRAM OR ILLUSTRATE ALL
 INTERIOR DOORS/ENTRYWAYS TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN ROOMS,
 ENCLOSURES, RETAIL SPACES, ETC. (GROUND FLOOR FOR
 EXAMPLE ONLY SHOWS DOORS TO TR, BIKE ROOM, AND
 EXTERNAL/FA?ADE ROOMS) HELPS CLARIFY INTERNAL
 CIRCULATION OF PATRONS.
  
 7. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR, REQUIRED TO BE
 DESIGNED TO MEET PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
  
 8. MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25
 WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.
  
  
 9. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, SITE ILLUMINATION
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS MEASURED AT
 THE BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE
 SIDEWALK.
  
 10. PLEASE FULLY DIMENSION SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS, OR
 PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS OF DIMENSIONED SITE PLANS AND
 DRAWINGS, VERY LITTLE SPATIAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
 WITHIN PLANS.
  
 SIDEWALK WIDTHS, CURB-CUTS, LANDSCAPE BEDS, PLANAR
 BREAK DEPTHS, FRONTAGES, SETBACKS, PROPERTY LINES, ETC.
  
 11. BASED UPON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND REVISED
 DRAWINGS, THE EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING ALONG
 CLEARWATER DRIVE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE REMOVAL OF
 METERED ON-STREET PARKING WILL INCUR A FEE. PLEASE
 CONTACT ED DAVIS FROM PARKING TO CLARIFY FEES
 ASSOCIATED WITH THESE SPACES. [email protected]
  
  Print


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved