Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22040014
Project Number Z22040014
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2022-08-19 09:03:01PLEASE 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
 COMMENT. [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 CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 ARE OR 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
 HE 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV HAS AGREED TO PROCEED TO
 RESPONSIVELY RESPOND TO THESE PPRC COMMENTS WITHOUT
 WAIVING ANY RIGHTS THAT IT MAY HAVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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 RESUBMITIAL
 STATES: 250 PARKING SPACES FOR TRI-RAIL, AND 25 SPACES
 FPOR THE 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. IT 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ALTHOUGH ANY ISSUE WITHIN THE
 PSA IS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, THE TERMS OF THE PSA
 HAVE BEEN MET. THE PSA ALLOWS FOR A CHANGE IN USES AS
 DETERMINED BY TV (PLEASE SEE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 2.3.2
 OF THE PSA).
  
 FURTHER, AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO PERMITTED IF APPROVED BY
 THE COUNTY DURING ITS SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.
  
 IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS, THE AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT HAS
 BEEN APPROVED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THEIR EXPLICIT
 CONSENT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED.
  
 NEVERTHELESS, TV WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMENDED
 SITE PLAN CONTINUES TO PROVIDE CIVIC USES INCLUDING,
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PLAZA AND CONNECTION FROM THE
 PROJECT TO THE TRI-RAIL CROSSOVER AND THE TRI-RAIL
 PARKING.
  
 SEE ATTACHED EMAIL (?MCCLELLAN EMAIL?) DATED JULY 13,
 2022 FROM ERIC MCCLELLAN FROM THE COUNTY CONFIRMING
 TV?S COMPLIANCE WITH THE PSA AND SPECIFICALLY THE
 AMENDED SITE PLAN.
 [SATISFIED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: 42 WFH UNITS REQUIRED BY PSA ARE
 SHOWN IN TABULAR FORMAT ON SHEET A0-02. THE LOCATION TO
 BE DETERMINED AT A LATER TIME. WE WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE
 OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROVISION WHEN PROVIDED TO THE
 COUNTY UNDER THE PSA. THIS IS NOT A CITY REQUIREMENT.
  
 SEE MCCLELLAN EMAIL.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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 THESES
 GOVERNMENTAL PROVIDERS. THESE PARKING SPACES ARE
 INCLUSIVE TO THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE
 PROJECT AND ARE NOT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PARKING
 PERMITIED ON SITE. THE GARAGE COMPONENT IS BEING BUILT
 TO SERVE THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND THE PSA REQUIRES
 CONTINUOUS C[O]NSTRTUCTION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL IT IS
 COMPLETED.] [PARTIALLY STATISFIED] 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, RESINDENTIAL,
 RETAIL, OFFICE, GUEST AND SFRTA / COUNTY PARK[G]ING
 SPACES CHECKOUT WITH THE REQUIRED MINIMUMS AND 25% TOD
 REDUCTION.
  
 - CLARIFICATION, TABLE IV-9: MICRO-UNITS MINIMUM
 PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ZERO, NOT 1/13 UNITS. ONLY
 CF.\R?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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: MICRO UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE
 PARKED TO CODE WITH 0 SPACES PER UNIT, 13 SHARED CAR
 SPACES, AND 8 GUEST SPACES WITH 83 BIKE SPACES. TABULAR
 DATA ON SHEET A0-02 HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE
 PARKING RESERVATION FOR MICRO USES.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 3. THE SITE CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF A PBC PARCEL AND A
 SFTRA PARCEL. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING AMENDMENT 3 AND
 2021 EXTENSTION TO AUG 2024, WHICH MENTIONED THAT THE
 SFRTA BE UNDER CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP RATHER THAN
 SEPARATE SPACES TO BE A CONDOMINUM. THIS INDICATES THAT
 THE PROJECT WILL 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV NOTES THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF
 THIS AGREEMENT BY SFRTA IS NOT BEFORE THE PHYSICAL
 COMPLETION OF THE SFRTA/TRI-RAIL PARKING SPACES AND
 THAT THE SFRTA AGREEMENT IS STILL PRINCIPALLY EXECUTORY
 AS IT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PERFORMED BY THE SFRTA AT THIS
 TIME.
  
 TV?S HAS NO CURRENT INTENT TO HAVE SEPARATELY OWNED
 LAND PARCELS AND THAT AN EASEMENT OR OTHER
 AGREEMENT/INSTRUMENT WILL BE UTILIZED TO RESERVE THE
 SFRTA/TRI-RAIL PARKING.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GREEN/BLUE COLORS ON SHEET
 A0-03 WERE FIRST AGREED UPON IN 2012 IN CONNECTION WITH
 THE EXECUTION OF THE PSA AND WERE CONCEPTUAL AT THAT
 TIME AS TO THE FINAL PROPERTY LINES. ACCORDINGLY, THE
 PSA REQUIRES TV TO PREPARE THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE
 TITLE TO BE CONVEYED AND PROVIDES FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
 THE PROPERTY LINES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY?S
 APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED SITE PLAN. THE COUNTY HAS
 APPROVED THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND TRANSIT VILLAGE WILL
 OBTAIN FEE SIMPLE TO THIS PROPERTY. SEE MCCLELLAN EMAIL
 . SEE ALSO SECTION 5.9 AND EXHIBIT A TO THE PSA WHICH
 PROVIDE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE PROPERTY LINES.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS MAY BE ACHIEVED WITH A
 VERTICAL SUBDIVISION OR AN AIR RIGHT EASEMENT OR OTHER
 LEGAL INSTRUMENT TO BE DETERMINED LATER WITH
 COORDINATION WITH STAFF AND THE COUNTY. THERE IS NO
 NEED FOR RESOLUTION OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AT THIS TIME
 AS THE PSA CONTEMPLATES THE EQUITABLE DISCUSSION OF
 PERMANENTLY RELOCATING THE ITC WHICH DISCUSSIONS ARE
 ONGOING AND INCLUDE THE CITY AND CRA. FUTURE
 DISPOSITIONS WILL BE PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 G. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE
 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE INCLUDES THE SFRTA, YET
 THEY ARE NOT SHOWN AS A PARTY TO STAFFS 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: COPIES OF THE SFRTA AGREEMENTS
 HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY.
  
 ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SFRTA WAS A PARTNER IN THE
 RFP AND PARTICIPATED WITH THE CITY AND OTHERS IN THE
 RFP SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVED THE PSA ALONG WITH
 THE CITY AND OTHERS.
  
 THERE IS ALSO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH SFRTA FOR THE
 PURCHASE OF THE 250 TRI-RAIL PARKING SPACES AND WHICH
 ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT UPON THE SFRTA
 PROPERTY BY TV. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SFRTA HAS PROVIDED
 A CONSENT TO TV TO FILE THIS AMENDED SITE PLAN.
  
 THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TV AND THE SFRTA ALSO CONTAINS
 PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN PROPERTY ALONG THE
 TRACKS AND THE ITC OWNED BY THE SFRTA. THE FEE
 OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT BEING CHANGED AND THE
 SFRTA APPROVED THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND THE AGREEMENTS
 PROVIDE FOR THE SFRTA TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS/S/OR OTHER
 AGREEMENTS MEMORIALIZING THE PEDESTRIAN PATH FROM THE
 RAILROAD PLATFORM TO BANYAN, AND AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED
 AS PER THE AMENDED SITE PLAN (CONNECTING STAIRS,
 CONNECTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, SUPPORT COLUMNS). COPIES
 OF THE TRANSIT VILLAGE-SFRTA AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN
 SEPARATELY PROVIDED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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
 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?
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SURVEY HAS BEEN REVISED TO
 SHOW ALL EASEMENTS (SEE SHEETS C03 AND C20). TRANSIT
 VILLAGE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH FPL ON RELOCATION OF THE
 LINES, INCLUDING ANY LINES THAT MAY BE WITHIN ANY
 PROPOSED BUILDING AREA FOR WHICH NO EASEMENT HAS BEEN
 GRANTED.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED] HAS FPL GRANTED ANY APPROVALS OR
 PROVIDED WRITTEN CONSENT OR SUPPORT FOR THE VACATING OF
 EASEMENTS OR MODIFICATION OF POLE LOCATIONS? MANY OF
 THE EXISTING CONCRETE HARDENING POLES LIE WITHIN THE
 PROPOSED BUILDING?S AREA OR THE MODIFIED ITC LOOP.
 PLEASE PROVIDE FPL CONSENT TO THIS ITEM.
  
 THE FIBER OPTIC AND FPL EASEMENTS ON THE SOUTHERN END
 ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 THE 20? FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT IS WITHIN THE
 AREA SHOWN ON SHEETS A1-01 AND C-03 AND WILL CONTINUE
 TO ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS. FIRE
 DEPARTMENT APPROVAL WILL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OBTAINING
 A BUILDING PERMIT. THE EASEMENT HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED
 FROM THE PRIOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. ZONING 8.19 -
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 THE SURVEY SHOWS A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE EASTERN
 BOUNDARY AS PART OF THE ITC THAT IS TO REMAIN.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
  
 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.
  - 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 THE COMMENTS OR WITHIN
 THE CODE, UPON RESBMITTAL.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE ANTICIPATE NEEDING VARIANCES
 RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING:
 ? MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT.
 ? THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO CLEARWATER EXCEEDS
 THE 2 PERMITTED VIA SEC. 94-312.
 ? CURB CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES AND DRIVEWAYS WIDTHS
 ? PLANAR BREAKS GROUND FLOOR
 ? PLANAR BREAKS PODIUM LEVELS 2-7
  
 WE BELIEVE THAT THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS MET ON
 THE GROUND FLOOR WITHOUT USING LEVEL 2 AND THE LEVEL 2
 OPEN SPACE IS BONUS SPACE, SO NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] DUE TO THE UNRESOLVED
 COMMENTS WITHIN THIS REVIEW, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES MAY
 BE REQUIRED OR EXISTING REQUESTS MAY HAVE TO BE
 MODIFIED.
  
 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
 CHNAGES TO BANYAN BOULEVARD GEOMETTRY] [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 INCLUIDES A BIKE PARTH
 AND PEDESTRAIN SIDEWALK.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE. THESE
 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 CURRENT SITE PLAN APPROVAL ARE ONGOING. TO ADDRESS THIS
 COMMENT, WE HAVE INCORPORATED THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON
 THE BANYAN AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PLAN PROVIDED BY WPB
 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THE PROPOSED PLANS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] RESUBMITTED SURVEY APPEARS TO
 ACCURATELY REFLECT SITE CONDITIONS, SURROUNDING
 CONTEXT, AND BANYAN STREETSCAPE. VACATING/MODIFYING THE
 FPL EASEMENT ACROSS THE SITE AND RELOCATING CONCRETE
 POWER POLES POSES MAJOR CONCERNS TO LOCATION OF
 PROPOSED STRUCTURES OR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SITE
 PLAN.
  
 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
 IMPROVEMEN TS); 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 PE RMITTED WITHIN THE TOD DISTRICT ON BANYAN.
  
 A. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET DROP OFF ON BANYAN
 FRONTAGE NOT PERMITIED 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 HERE 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE. AS TO
 THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BANYAN STREET DROP-OFF, TV HAS
 REMOVED THIS FROM ITS AMENDED SITE PLAN SUBMISSION.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 8. SETBACKS ARE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF CURB, NOT
 FROM THE PROPEORTY 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,
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PROVIDED ON PLANS (SEE SHEETS
 A0-01,??) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CONDITIONAL SETBACK FOR
 PARKING IS MET AS THE ENTIRE GARAGE IS SET BACK FARTHER
 THAN THE STATED MINIMUM.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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]
  
 C. ABUTIING CSX IS 15? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 D. REAR 5? MIN. [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 E. SIDE INTERIOR O? OR NFPA [ACKNOWLEDGED] [SATISFIED]
  
 F. SETBACKS INTERNALTO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY ITC,
 SFRTA, AND APPLICANTS 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
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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 PERMITIED IS 1,684 OR (1,347 LESS 20%
 REDUCTION FOR TOD)
  
  TOTAL MAXIMUM PARKING PERMITIED 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%
 REDCUTION 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 CONTY
 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 VWITHINTHE 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 SECTIONS 94-106(8.A) A
 PROJECT WITH RESIDENTAIL MICRO UNIT SHALL PROVIDE ON
 SIOTE 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
 KDEMANDS BUT A MINIMUM OF ONECAR-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 /R000 = 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. 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); PROVIDED 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: MICRO UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE
 PARKED TO CODE WITH 0 SPACES PER UNIT, 13 SHARED CAR
 SPACES, AND 8 GUEST SPACES WITH 83 BIKES TABULAR DATA
 ON SHEET A0-02 HAS BEEN UPDATED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] PLEASE INCLUDE THE TABULAR
 DATA FOR THE PARKING BREAKDOWN ON SHEET A0-02.
  
 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]
  
 PRIOR TV RESPONSE: JUSTIFICATION LETTER SPOKE TO
 PREVIOUS APPROVAL LIVE-WORK UNITS, THESE ARE NOT
 CARRIED OVER TO THE CURRENT PROJECT. ZONING 8.19 -
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
  
 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 RESUBMITIAL STATES:
 250 PARKING SP??CES 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)
 2001WITH 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 RESUBMITIED
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A PUBLIC SHOWER AREA IS NOW
 PROVIDED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN PUBLIC
 BIKE ROOM.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] NEW SHOWER FACILITY PROVIDED.
 PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE
 ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05
  
 1. 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 RESUBMITIED 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 DETAIL OF
 THESE AREAS.
  
 REPEAT FROM (9.1.1.) 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 ENCLOSED BIKE PARKGIN. RETAIL / COMMERCAIL USERS
 ON BANYAN; CLEARWATER SIDE HAVE TO TRAVEL THE SAME 600+
 FT DISTANCE TO ACCESS SHOWERS. RECOMMEND THAT THE
 DISTRUCBUTION SHOULD ENTIAL A MORE APT RATIO OR
 DISTRIBUTION, RECOMMEND ONE ENCLOSED / SECURE BIKE ROOM
 AND SHOWER FACILITY PER TOWER.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL SECURE BIKE ROOMS
 HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE SOUTHERN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
 AND THE HOTEL/OFFICE BUILDING (SEE SHEETS A1-02, A1-03,
 A1-04 AND A1-05. SHOWERS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL
 SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE
 ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A CORRIDOR WAS ADDED TO ACCESS
 THE BIKE ROOM AND SHOWER FROM THE EASTERN COVERED
 WALKWAY AND NOT THROUGH THE ADA SPACES.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL
 SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE
 ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05
  
 2. 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 RESUBMITIAL:
  
 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 BETIER DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE BUILDINGS?
  
 REPEAT FROM (9.1.1.) 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: AN ADDITIONAL SHOWER LOCATION IS
 PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN GROUND FLOOR BIKE ROOM
 SO THERE ARE NOW 2 SEPARATE SHOWER FACILITIES.
 ADDITIONAL BIKE ROOMS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED ON SITE AND
 PROVIDED FOR EACH USE (SEE SHEETS A1-02, A1-03, A1-04
 AND A1-05).
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT: PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL
 SHEET SIMILAR TO A5-02 FOR THE ADDITIONAL RACKS/BIKE
 ROOMS SHOWN ON A1.01-A1.05
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PARKING DETAILS HAVE BEEN
 PROVIDED TO SHOW MINIMUM DIMENSION FOR ALL PARKING
 SPACES INCLUDING DETAILS DESCRIBING REQUIRED DIMENSIONS
 WHEN ADJACENT TO A WALL OR COLUMN (SEE SHEETS C-12,
 C-13).
  ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 3. 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
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE; SEE ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] IF COMPACT SPACES ARE TO BE
 USED DUE TO CONSTRAINTS OF WALLS, COLUMNS, OR
 STRUCTURES, PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ON PLANS AND
 DESIGNATE/STRIPE ACCORDINGLY PER SEC. 94-485.
  
 4. 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SFRTA AND THEIR ADA PATRONS
 WILL ACCESS THE ELEVATOR CORES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
 CORNERS OF THE GARAGE OR FROM THE DESIGNATED HC VAN
 ACCESSIBLE SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE PLANS HAVE
 BEEN AMENDED TO RELOCATE THE ADA SPACES CLOSER TO THE
 ELEVATOR AND SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE MOST CONVENIENT
 ADA SPACES WITH THE SHORTEST ROUTES TO ACCESS THE
 GROUND FLOOR AND OTHER USES ON SITE (SEE SHEET A0-04).
  ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA SPACES RELOCATED TO
 APPROPRIATE ELEVATOR CORRIDORS.
  
 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. DISTRCBUTION OF ADA SPACES ONTHIS LEVEL
 SHALL PROVIDE SHORTEST / MOST EFFICENT PATH TO END USE,
 ADA SAPCES SHOLD BE LOCATED AT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT
 CONNECTED TO UPPER PLAZA AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFT CLOSEST
 TO THE TRI RAIL PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA SPACES RELOCATED TO
 APPROPRIATE ELEVATOR CORRIDORS.
  
 C) IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC WITH ADA NEEDS
 TO ACCESS REST OF SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE
 RESIDENTIAL TOWERS?
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] GENERAL PATRONS OF THE
 SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL, VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK
 ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO
 NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE
 OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE
  ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] ADA PATH/CORRIDOR PROVIDED
 IN FRONT OF SPACES.
  
 D) 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 DIMENSION FOR DRIVE
 ISLES PARKING RAMPS SLOPES, PARKGIN STALL 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 S
 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] [NOT SATISFIED]
 PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR DOUBLE INGRESS RAMP
 AND DOUBLE EGRESS RAMP.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE CODE REQUIRES ALL TRAFFIC
 MOVEMENTS, INCLUDING STACKING, TO BE INTERNALIZED. THE
 CODE DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE NUMBER OF LANES.
 THE TWO LANES ARE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THE CAPACITY OF
 THE GARAGE AND SO AS TO MINIMIZE STACKING ON
 CLEARWATER. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF DUAL RAMPS ON
 LARGER PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY (I.E. KRAVIS CENTER,
 PHILLIPS POINT). THE APPLICANT HAS MODIFIED THE PLANS
 TO TAPER THE DUAL UP RAMP TO ONE LANE PRIOR TO VEHICLES
 GETTING TO LEVEL 02. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED A LANE
 SEPARATOR AS REQUESTED. (SEE SHEET A1-01)
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL BE
 PROPOSED AND A DOCK MASTER WILL BE ON SITE TO CONTROL
 TRAFFIC WHEN DELIVERY OR ADA VEHICLES ENTER THE LOADING
 AREA.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE PROVIDE THIS
 PLAN OR OPERATIONS DETAIL TO PLANNING & CITY TRAFFIC
 ENGINEERS PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
  
 AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA
 AND OTHER OPERATIONS, INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A NEW AUTO TURN STUDY IS
 PROVIDED AND THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO ELIMINATE
 THE CONFLICT POINT AT THE END OF THE DOWN RAMP (SEE
 SHEET C-18) ALSO SEE ABOVE.
 [SATISFIED]
  
 INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS
 WITH ONE-WAY/ TWO WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE
 RAMPING TO LEVEL 02 ARE BEING MERGED TO ONE LANE AND
 ABOVE LEVEL 02 THERE ARE INTERNAL TWO WAY (SINGLE LANE)
 RAMPS TO ACCESS PARKING ABOVE. TWO LANES GOING UP TO
 LEVEL 02 ARE NECESSARY TO AVOID STACKING ON CLEARWATER.
 IN ORDER TO CONTROL TURNING MOVEMENTS AND TO ELIMINATE
 INTERSECTION CONFLICT ON LEVEL 02, THE TWO LANES HAVE
 PREVIOUSLY MERGE INTO ONE LANE. A DIAGRAM SHOWING THE
 TRAFFIC FLOW IS SHOWN ON SHEET A1-01, A1-02, A1-03,
 A1-04 AND A1-05.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 IS THE INTENTION FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO ACCESS REST OF
 SITE/RETAIL VIA ELEVATORS THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL
 TOWERS?
  
 REPEAT COMMENT OF (9.J. IV.A.) PLEASE PROVIDE
 CLARIFICATION OF HOW GENRAL PUBLIC / USERS OF OFFICE,
 HOTEL RETAIL A GENERAL PUBLIC / USERS OF OFFICE HOTEL,
 RETAIL, AND TRIRAIL USERSWILL EFFIECNTELY ACCESS THESE
 FACILITIES FROM THE CENTRALLY LOCATED GARAGE.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ACCESS
 THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER. THE INTENT IS FOR SFRTA
 AND THEIR ADA PATRONS TO ACCESS THE FACILITY FROM THE
 ELEVATOR CORES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF THE
 GARAGE OR FROM THE DESIGNATED HC VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACES
 ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO
 RELOCATE THE ADA SPACES CLOSER TO THE ELEVATOR AND SHOW
 THE LOCATION OF THE MOST CONVENIENT ADA SPACES WITH THE
 SHORTEST ROUTES TO ACCESS THE GROUND FLOOR AND OTHER
 USES ON SITE. THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAY ALSO ACCESS THE
 PLAZA THROUGH THE EASTERN STAIRWAY, GARAGE ELEVATORS OR
 FROM THE PROMINENT SPIRAL STAIRWAY AND ELEVATOR TO THE
 PLAZA.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM
 4.(C.) GENERAL PATRONS OF THE SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL,
 VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT
 HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND
 CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS
 SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS NOT CODE REQUIREMENT;
 HOWEVER, WE ANTICIPATE HAVING SUBSTANTIAL EV CHARGING
 CAPABILITY AND WILL INSURE THAT ELECTRICAL CAPACITY IS
 SUFFICIENT AND WILL PROVIDE CONDUITS. THE EV TOTALS AND
 LOCATION WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER AMENDED SITE PLAN
 APPROVAL BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND PROVIDED IN TV
 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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 RESENT 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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  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).
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DROP-OFF DIRECTLY CONFLICTS
 WITH THE NEW BANYAN STREETSCAPE.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  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
 DOES NOT MAKE SIENSE OPRATIONALLY AND DOPES NOPT
 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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE ALSO
 TV HAS REVISED THE CIRCULATION TO ELIMINATE THE WESTERN
 OUTSIDE DRIVE LANE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS COMMENT AND
 REPLACED IT WITH LANDSCAPED IMPROVEMENTS (SEE SHEET
 A1-01).
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  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 THE HOTEL
 OFFICE.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE WE
 HAVE ALSO REVISED THE PLAN TO HAVE LOBBY ENTRANCES BOTH
 FACING CLEARWATER AND EASTERN INTERNAL DRIVE WITH A
 DROP-OFF ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER
 (SEE SHEET A1-01).
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO EACH RIGHT OF WAY
 EXCEEDS THE 2 PERMIITED VIA SEC. 94-312 AND NO PROPERTY
 SHALL HAVE A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 4 ACCESS POINTS. WILL
 REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS SITE INCORPORATES ACCESS
 (DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP POINTS FOR PALM TRAN, TRI-RAIL
 AND AMTRAK AS WELL AS THE TV DEVELOPMENT AND WERE PART
 OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN, NEVERTHELESS, TV
 WILL SEEK VARIANCES FOR EACH OF THESE ACCESS POINTS TO
 REMAIN AS INDICATED ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE
  
  WIDTH OF CURB-CUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TOWERS EXCEEDS
 PERMITTED 25 FT APPEARS TO BE 30 FEET PLEASE PROVIDE
 DIMENSIONS OF ALL CURB CUTS / DRIVE ACCESS
  
  RESPONSE: THE PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW THE
 DIMENSIONS OF THE CURB CUT (SEE SHEETS C-10 AND C-11)
 AS THESE ARE RADIAL DRIVEWAYS DUE TO BUSES AND DELIVERY
 VEHICLES ACCESSING THE SITE AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF
 TRIPS UTILIZING THE DRIVEWAYS, THE WIDTHS ARE WIDER
 THAN THE 25? REQUIREMENT AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. THE
 CITY STANDARD FLARED DRIVEWAY IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT
 THESE LOCATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL BE APPLYING FOR A
 VARIANCE FOR THESE CURB CUTS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND
 C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE
 INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,
 NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF
 THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION
 ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
  
  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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW
 THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CURB CUT (SEE SHEETS C-10 AND
 C-11) REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE REQUESTED.
  
  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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW
 DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED CURB CUT/DRIVE ACCESS AND IS
 58.16 FEET FOR THE INGRESS AND 50.25 FEET FOR THE
 EGRESS. THESE OPENINGS WERE PART OF THE COUNTY?S
 APPROVED ITC SITE PLANS. REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE
 REQUESTED
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND
 C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE
 INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,
 NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF
 THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION
 ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
  
  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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PLANS HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW
 THESE DIMENSIONS. REQUIRED VARIANCES WILL BE REQUESTED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REQUESTED VARIANCE.
 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING DIMENSIONS ON SHEETS C-10 AND
 C-11. TO CLARIFY, CURB CUT WIDTH IS CALCULATED FROM THE
 INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE PROPERTY LINE,
 NOT NECESSARILY THE RADIUS OR INTERNAL THROAT WIDTH OF
 THE DRIVEWAY. PLEASE BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE DIMENSION
 ACROSS THE PROPERTY-LINE WITHIN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
  
  PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TURN ANALYSIS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP
 OPERATION.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TRANSIT VILLAGE IS NOT MAKING
 ANY CHANGES TO THE ITC/BUS LOOP OPERATION AND IT IS NOT
 UNDER TRANSIT VILLAGE CONTROL.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] TRANSIT VILLAGE IS MAKING
 CHANGES; THE LOCATION, CONFIGURATION, AND SIZE OF THE
 INGRESS/EGRESS FOR THE ITC/BUS LOOP IS CHANGING FROM
 THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. HOWEVER SINCE ITC/SFRTA IS IN
 CONTROL, OPERATIONS LOGISTICS SHALL BE ASSESSED BY
 THOSE ENTITIES.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: GBA CALCULATION UPDATED TO
 INCLUDED BIKE ROOM AREA (SEE TABULAR SHEET A0-02)
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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]
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] BASED UPON RESUBMITTED
 AND REVISED PLANS; PLEASE NOTE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT
 ALONG CLEARWATER (SECONDARY) IS 30% OF THE BUILDABLE
 LOT FRONTAGE, NOT 30% OF EACH BUILDING?S FRONTAGE.
 PLEASE RECALCULATE ACTIVE USE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE
 WHOLE CLEARWATER FRONTAGE/PROPERTY LINE. ALSO, NOTE IN
 THOSE CASES WHERE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS PROVIDED ALONG
 THE FRONTAGE LINE, THE OPEN SPACE MAY BE COUNTED AS
 ACTIVE USE AS LONG AS ACTIVE USES ARE PROVIDED ON THE
 FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ADJOINING THE PUBLIC OPEN
 SPACE. ON SHEET A0-06 PLEASE ADJUST CALCULATIONS TO
 REFLECT ACTIVE USE OF THE ENTIRE CLEARWATER FRONTAGE IN
 TOTAL (I.E. PROVIDE AT LEAST 30% OF THE APPROX. 1,400
 FT. PROPERTY LINE; NEED TO HAVE APPROX. 420 FT. OF
 ACTIVE USE.)
  
  BANYAN (AVENUE) ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT IS 60% OF THE
 BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE, NOT 30% OF THE BUILDING?S
 FRONTAGE. PLEASE RECALCULATE ACTIVE USE AS A PERCENTAGE
 OF THE WHOLE BANYAN FRONTAGE/PROPERTY LINE. ALSO, NOTE
 IN THOSE CASES WHERE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS PROVIDED
 ALONG THE FRONTAGE LINE, THE OPEN SPACE MAY BE COUNTED
 AS ACTIVE USE AS LONG AS ACTIVE USES ARE PROVIDED ON
 THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ADJOINING THE PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE. ON SHEET A0-06 PLEASE ADJUST CALCULATIONS
 TO REFLECT ACTIVE USE OF THE ENTIRE BANYAN FRONTAGE IN
 TOTAL (I.E. PROVIDE AT LEAST 60% OF THE APPROX. 375 FT.
 PROPERTY LINE; NEED TO HAVE APPROX. 225 FT. OF ACTIVE
 USE.)
  
  THE MIN. REQUIRED LINEAR LENGTH OF ACTIVE USE APPEARS
 TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT PLEASE ILLUSTRATE AND
 RECALCULATE THE TABULAR VALUES/PERCENTAGES TO BE SURE.
  
 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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO
 PROVIDE THE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DETAIL, SETBACKS, AND
 DIMENSIONS ADDED TO PROVIDE CLARITY.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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)
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEET A0-04, A0-05,
 A1-01, A4-02, L110 SHOWS SPACE STILL LABELED
 INCORRECTLY AS A COURTYARD, PLEASE COORDINATE ALL PLAN
 SETS ARCH, CIVIL, AND LANDSCAPE TO MATCH AND BE
 CONSISTENTLY LABELED. CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD
 ON SHEET L005 APPEAR TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY. SHEET L002
 LABELS VEGETATED AREA UNDER GARDEN PLAZA (LEVEL 01 OPEN
 SPACE), THERE IS NO GARDEN PLAZA PRESENTED ON GROUND
 LEVEL. REQUIREMENT FOR VEGETATED AREA IS 50% NOT 25%.
 ON SHEET L002 THE VEGETATED AREA NEEDS TO BE CALCULATED
 PER DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE (I.E. OPEN SPACE 1A NEEDS
 50%, 1B NEEDS 50%, 4A NEEDS 20%, ETC.) PLEASE MAKE SURE
 EACH INDIVIDUAL SPACE MEETS ITS REQUIREMENTS.
  
  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.
 ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT
  
  GARDEN PLAZA HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY, GARDEN
 COURTYARD HAS A MINIMUM 50% TREE CANOPY.
 ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT
  
  SPECIFY SEATING REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE MET
 WITHIN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES. L005 (GROUND
 LEVEL OPEN SPACE PLAN) OPEN SPACE 1A, 1 B, 1C LABELED
 AS COURTYARD, THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC SPACE IS NOT
 PERMITTED IN TOD-25 DISTRICT. GARDEN COURTYARD
 CLASSIFICATION IS PERMITTED (TABLE IV-6).
 ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT
 SEATING CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD ON SHEET L005
 APPEARS TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY.
  
  ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 2 SIDES OR
 75%. ROW ABUTMENT FOR GARDEN COURTYARD IS 1 SIDE OR
 20%.
 ZONING 8.19 - REPEAT PREVIOUS COMMENT
 ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT CALCULATIONS FOR GARDEN COURTYARD
 ON SHEET L005 APPEARS TO BE CORRECT, SATISFY.
  
  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.
 ZONING 8.19 - IF OPEN SPACE A2 IS NOT COUNTING TOWARD
 REQUIRED PRIVATE OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, DOES NOT NEED TO
 BE SHOWN ON L005.
  
  OPEN SPACE 4A ON SHEET L005 (GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE
 PLAN) DOES NOT MEET THE ACTIVE USE ABUTMENT REQUIRED
 (1SIDE OR 20%)
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] RAILROAD ROW COUNTS TOWARD
 PUBLIC ROW ABUTMENT/OFFICE/RETAIL SATISFIES ACTIVE USE
 ABUTMENT
  
  OPEN SPACE 4A AND 48 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)
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  OPEN SPACE 4A AND 48 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.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] 4A AND 4B ARE TERRACES ON
 RESUBMITTED PLANS.
  
  STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE UNTIL THE OPEN
 SPACES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DESIGNATED / IDENTIFIED AND
 PROPER REQUIREMTNS LISTED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] GROUND-LEVEL OPEN
 SPACES 1A, 1B, 1C CORRECTLY LABELED.
  
 ON SHEET L005, ROOF DECK IS NOT THE PROPER LABELING.
 ROOFTOP GARDEN IS A REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TYPE ON
 TABLE IV-6 FOR TOD-25 DISTRICT. PLEASE RELABEL
 ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRES 50% VEGETATED AND 50% TREE
 CANOPY.
  
 A. PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTHERN TRIANGLE OF THE
 ITE 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACES
 HAVE BEEN RELABELED AS GARDEN COURTYARD (SEE SHEETS
 L002 AND L005). THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS MET ON
 THE GROUND LEVEL (SEE SHEETS L002, L005 AND L006). THE
 REMAINING OPEN SPACE IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA AND IS
 NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS
 FOR REQUIRED OPEN SPACE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON
 SHEET L005.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA
 AND IS NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE
 REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (SEE SHEETS L002,
 L005 AND L006).
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON
 SHEET L005.
  
 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 TREES CALCULATIONS
 HAVE BEEN UPDATED ACCORDINGLY] [SATISFIED]
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] BASED ON THE CHANGED SITE
 CONDITIONS AND PLANS WITHIN THE RESUBMITTED DRAWINGS,
 CLEARWATER DR. STREETSCAPE REQUIRES ~10 MORE STREET
 TREES ALONG THE SIDEWALK. PLACES TO ADD TREES INCLUDE
 ALONG ITC DROP-OFF, IN FRONT OF SPIRAL STAIRCASE, AND
 IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL LOBBY.
  
 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. 4-111 (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
 COCEHRES 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 CLEAR WATER. 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] 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 IN BETWEEN LOADING OPERATIONS
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TV HAS REVISED THE PLANS TO
 ELIMINATE THE WESTERN OUTSIDE DRIVE LANE TO ACCOMMODATE
 THESE COMMENTS. THERE WILL BE A PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE
 ALONG CLEARWATER AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE DROPOFF AT
 THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. SEE SHEET A4-01 FOR NEW
 DESIGN.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF
 CLEARWATER TO THE REVISED HOTEL/OFFICE DROP-OFF LOADING
 SPACE?
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE DISTANCE IS 50.88 FEET.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] 50FT. MINIMUM MAINTAINED
  
 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 OR 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS IS A BONUS OPEN SPACE AREA
 AND IS NOT BEING USED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CODE
 REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ITC IS NOT
 COMPLETELY ENCLOSED, AND IS OPEN TO THE EAST, WEST AND
 SOUTH.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] MIN. REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE MET WITH GARDEN COURTYARDS ON 1A, 1B, 1C ON
 SHEET L005.
  
 18. PLEASE PROVIDE SHEETS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFYING HOW
 THE FACADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE
 PROJECT. PLEASE REFERENCE SEC. 94-109 AND TABLE IV-4:
 FACADE 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
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PLANAR BREAKS DIAGRAMS HAVE
 BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE
 REQUEST FOR GROUND TO LEVEL 7 TO MATCH ARTICULATION OF
 TOWER ABOVE (SEE SHEETS A5-04, A5-05, A5-06 AND A5-07).
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] PLANAR BREAKS ARE
 REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING FRONTAGES (SIDE FACING STREET
 OR ROW) FOR BUILDINGS THAT EXCEED 150 LINEAR FT. THE
 REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE A PROJECTION, PROTRUSION, OR
 RECESS IN THE FA?ADE THAT IS AT LEAST 3FT. IN DEPTH.
 THE CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL LENGTH OF THE PLANAR BREAKS,
 PER BUILDING FRONTAGE, SHALL BE GREATER OR EQUAL TO 20%
 OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE.
  
 SHEET A5-04 PLANAR BREAK NEEDED FOR 243FT. BANYAN
 FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS
 TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 48.5 FT.)
  
 PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS
 UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT
 4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? BANYAN
 FRONTAGE ALSO DOES NOT HAVE A RECESSED GROUND FLOOR.
 WHAT TOWERS ARE MIDDLE & WEST?
  
  
 SHEET A5-05 PLANAR BREAK NEEDED FOR 223FT. CLEARWATER
 FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS
 TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 44.5 FT.)
  
 PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS
 UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT
 4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? CLEARWATER
 FRONTAGE ALSO DOES NOT HAVE A RECESSED GROUND FLOOR.
 WHAT TOWERS ARE MIDDLE & WEST?
  
  
 SHEET A5-06 PLANAR BREAK FOR THE GROUND LEVEL NEEDED
 FOR 204?-10?FT. CLEARWATER FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL
 TOTAL FOR PLANAR BREAK NEEDS TO BE GREATER THAN OR
 EQUAL TO 41 FT.)
  
 SHEET A5-06 PLANAR BREAK FOR THE PODIUM NEEDED FOR
 223FT. CLEARWATER FRONTAGE (20% HORIZONTAL TOTAL FOR
 PLANAR BREAK NEEDS TO BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 44.5
 FT.)
  
 PLEASE CLARIFY VARIANCE REQUEST, JUSTIFICATION IS
 UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FROM OR FOR. WHAT
 4FT. PLANAR BREAKS ARE BEING ELIMINATED? WHAT TOWERS
 ARE MIDDLE & WEST?
  
 SHEET A5-07 BUILDING FRONTAGE AND MASS FOR THE
 OFFICE/HOTEL DOES NOT CREATE A CONTINUOUS 150 FT.
 FA?ADE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A PLANAR BREAK. THE BUILDING
 IS ALREADY BROKEN UP INTO THREE SEPARATE PLANES/FACES.
  
 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 FACADE ITSELF NEEDS TO BE RECESSED OR
 PROTRUDE TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 3 FT.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ACKNOWLEDGED
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [REPEAT FROM ABOVE]
  
 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?
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GARAGE SCREENING HAS BEEN
 REVISED AND IS A COMBINATION OF METAL SCREENING WITH AN
 ETCHED DESIGN AND WITH LIVING PLANT MATERIAL. SEE
 SHEETS A5-08.
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEETS ARE NOT REVISED.
 REPEAT OF PREVIOUS COMMENT.
  
 TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET BASED UPON
 ELEVATIONS PROVIDED. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS WITHIN
 TABLE OR ON DRAWINGS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE GROUND FLOOR IS
 SUBSTANTIALLY ALL GLASS. SEE SHEETS A4-22, A4-23,
 A4-24, A4-25, A4-26 AND A4-27.
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] REPEAT OF PREVIOUS
 COMMENT. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE GROUNDFLOOR IS
 SUBSTANTIALLY GLASS, HOWEVER PERCENTAGES SHOULD BE
 PROVIDED SHOWING COMPLIANCE.
  
 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 REAK UP THE MASS? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE
 DETAIL INTO SCREENING GRAPHIC, COLOR, & TREATMENT.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSE ABOVE
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SHEETS ARE NOT REVISED.
 REPEAT OF PREVIOUS COMMENT.
  
 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
 MASSIVELOCKY 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 MASSING.
  
 -REGARDING THE HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER, PREVIOUS
 APPROVALPROVIDED 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 FACADE TREATMENT OR PAINTING IS
 ANOTHER STARK CONTRAST TO THE TRAIN STATION, PLEASE
 EXPLORE MORE OMPATIBLE COLOR SCHEMES (E.G. EARTH TONES)
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE HAVE REVISED THE COLOR
 SCHEME. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE
 TRAIN STATION BUILDING AND NOTE THAT ALL OF THE TV
 TOWERS ARE AT LEAST 250 FEET FROM THE TRAIN STATION
 BUILDING. GIVEN THE ODD SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND OUR
 LIMITATIONS WITH SETBACKS, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE
 DESIGNED A PROJECT THAT WORKS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE WITH
 THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOTE THAT CONTRASTING COLORS ARE
 OFTEN UTILIZED NEXT TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A
 COLOR SCHEME CHANGE. CONTRASTING COLORS ARE OFTEN
 UTILIZED IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT FEATURES OR TO
 DIFFERENTIATE STRUCTURES OR ELEMENTS AS SEPARATE
 ENTITIES; IN THIS CASE, THE HISTORIC TRAIN STATION IS
 IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE AND
 ITS GROUND LEVEL, HENCE THE ASK FOR A MORE COMPATIBLE
 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES WITH MASSING, MATERIAL, COLOR, ETC.
 BETWEEN THESE ELEMENTS.
  
 DESIGN IS GENERALLY WITHIN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND
 REGULATORY PARAMETERS, STAFF RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTED
 DESIGN ALTERATIONS TO KEEP WITH THE DISTRICTS INTENT OF
 EXEMPLARY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIVE
 BUILDINGS/INFRASTRUCTURE; AS WELL AS THE TWO SPECIFIC
 CONDITIONS OF DAC SPECIAL REVIEW: (A.) RELATIONSHIP OF
 BUILDING TO SITE AND SURROUNDINGS; AND (C.) BUILDING
 DESIGN.
  
 PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF RESPECTFULLY
 ASKS AGAIN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE
 SCREENING AND TREATMENT OF THE GARAGE, AS THIS IS A
 SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROJECT?S PODIUM AND IS
 VISIBLE FROM ALL SIDES. WILL THE SCREENING BE LIVING
 PLANT MATERIAL? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS WITHIN A
 SEPARATE LANDSCAPE SHEET OR AS PART OF A5-08. PLEASE
 CLARIFY HOW THIS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND IRRIGATED; ARE
 THE SCREEN SECTIONS FLUSH TO THE GREEN WALL SECTIONS,
 ARE THERE RECESSES OR PROJECTIONS? WITH THE METAL
 SCREENING, HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT DESIGN
 WILL BE PRINTED/ETCHED ONTO THE FA?ADE? HAVE MATERIAL
 ALTERNATIVES, FENESTRATION, FA?ADE ARTICULATION,
 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS, OR LININGS THAT ARE MORE
 ACTIVE BEEN EXPLORED? PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAD
 SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SCREENING FOR A HIGHER PARKING
 STRUCTURE.
  
 REGARDING THE NORTHERN/BANYAN OFFICE TOWER, PLANNING
 AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF ARE STILL CONCERNED
 WITH THE GENERAL MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE IN
 RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT SITE, HISTORIC TRAIN
 STATION/TREATMENT FACILITY, AND BANYAN INTERSECTION.
 THE BUILDING?S GENERAL HEIGHT AND MASS IS AN IMPOSING
 STRUCTURE FOR THIS PORTION OF THE SITE. THE CURRENT
 DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE RENDER ON SHEET A9-03 PRESENTS A
 BUILDING FRONTAGE THAT CREATES A WALL-LIKE CONDITION,
 ESPECIALLY WITH A FA?ADE THAT CONTAINS NO FA?ADE
 ARTICULATION OR PLANAR BREAKS. WITHOUT THE REQUESTED
 STEP-BACKS, THE FRONTAGE ALONG BANYAN IS A VERY STARK
 CONTRAST FROM LOW-SCALE TO HIGH. STAFF REFERENCES THE
 PREVIOUS APPROVAL, AS IT HAD FEATURED A STEP-BACK OR
 TIERED ?STAIRCASE? MASSING TO PROGRESSIVELY LOWER THE
 SCALE TOWARD BANYAN AND RESPECT THE WATER TREATMENT
 FACILITY AND TRAIN STATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS PURSUING A
 SIMILAR DESIGN CONCEPT TO MORE APPROPRIATELY SCALE THE
 BUILDING AND FRAME THE SITE.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: EACH TOWER IS WITHIN THE ALLOWED
 HEIGHT AND WE NOTE THAT THE SOUTHERN HOTEL/OFFICE TOWER
 ALIGNS WITH FERN AND EVERNIA, OVER THREE BLOCKS FROM
 BANYAN.
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] 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 PEDESTR.IAN 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 OR EDGE
 2 BUILDING ACROSS FROM SITE NEED TO BE REVISED AND
 REALIGNED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT CONDITIONS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE 350 AND EDGE CURB CUTS ARE
 ACCURATELY PROVIDED ON THE PLANS, WE NOTE THAT THE
 APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR TV PREDATED THE RECENT APPROVAL
 FOR 300 CLEARWATER/EDGE 2.
  ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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 EFFICENTLY
 ACCESS THESE FACILITIES FROM THE GARAGE.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE ABOVE.
  
  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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: CROSS WALKS ARE NOT TO BE
 REMOVED AND TO REMAIN AS IS. THE LABELING HAS BEEN
 REVISED TO PROVIDE THIS CLARIFICATION.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DETAIL IS PROVIDED ON
 SHEET A5-11.
  ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  STAFF SUGGESTS AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL OR ACCESS POINT
 FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE OFFICE/HOTEL TOWER FROM
 THE DECK/PLAZA TO PROVIDE ADDITION CIRCULATION BETWEEN
 ITC / SFRTA AND UPPER PLAZA.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE AND
 ELEVATOR ON CLEARWATER PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL PROMINENCE
 AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PLAZA. THE PLAZA ALSO IS
 ACCESSED FROM THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND A NEW STAIRWAY
 TO THE TRI-RAIL AMTRAK PLATFORM . THERE IS NO
 CONNECTION POINT FOR AN ADDITIONAL STAIRWELL AT THE
 SOUTHERN END OF THE PLAZA AS THERE IS NO GROUND PUBLIC
 ACCESS POINT BELOW .
  ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 A. THE ITC ADA PATH DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE
 APPLICATION SHOWS THE ADA ROUTE UTILIZING A CROSSWALK
 THAT IS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. [THE ADA PATHWAY AND
 CROSSWALK WILL BE REMOVED PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY
 REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE ITC.] [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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: CORRECTING THE PRIOR RESPONSE,
 THIS CROSSWALK IS NOT BEING REMOVED AND TO REMAIN AS IS
 AT THE ELECTION OF PALM TRAN. THE LABELING HAS BEEN
 REVISED TO ELIMINATE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT REMOVAL.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: TO CORRECT OUR PRIOR RESPONSE,
 THIS SPACE WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE
 TRAIN PLATFORM OR THE ITC AS ACCESS WILL ONLY BE FROM
 CLEARWATER. THE SPACE WILL NOT BE OPERATED IN
 CONJUNCTION WITH MASS TRANSIT BUT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY
 THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] WILL THE GATES BE OPEN 24/7
 OR CLOSE DURING CERTAIN HOURS?
  
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSES ABOVE. THE BANYAN
 ACCESS IS DIRECTLY WEST OF THE TRACKS. PLEASE NOTE THAT
 THE AMENDED SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SFRTA
 (TRI-RAIL), THE COUNTY (PALM TRAN) AND THAT THE PSA WAS
 APPROVED BY THE FTA. TV BELIEVES THAT IT IS VERY
 SUPPORTIVE OF THE TOD CONCEPT AS IT HAS ELEMENTS
 CONTAINING LIVE/WORK/PLAY/SHOP DIRECTLY ABOVE MASS
 TRANSIT AND CONNECTS THE SEABOARD TRAIN STATION AND
 TRI-RAIL, AMTRAK, PALM TRAN, GREYHOUND AND THE CITY
 TROLLEY TO THE AMENITY RETAIL 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: EASEMENTS WILL EITHER BE
 ABANDONED OR RELOCATED PRIOR TO PERMIT. FIRE ACCESS
 WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
 LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO SITE PLAN
 APPROVAL.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
 LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION OF SITE
 PLAN APPROVAL.
  
 AUTOTURN FOR DELIVERIES POSES CONFLICT POINTS WITH ADA
 AND OTHER OPERATIONS INTERSECTS WITH DOWNWARD RAMP.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
 LOADING/ACCESS TO BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO SITE PLAN
 APPROVAL.
  
 INTERNAL GARAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATING ACROSS LEVELS
 WITH ONE-WAY /TWO-WAY AISLES POSES CONCERNS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] REPEAT COMMENT FROM
 ABOVE. GENERAL PATRONS OF THE SITE (OFFICE, HOTEL,
 VISITORS) WITH ADA NEEDS THAT PARK ON FLOORS 3-8 DO NOT
 HAVE SPACES ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS AND
 CORRIDORS. REDISTRIBUTE OR INCLUDE SPACES IN THE AREAS
 SIMILAR TO LEVEL 2.
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR LOADING BAY ON THE GROUND
 FLOOR
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: PROVIDED (SEE SHEET A1-01 AND
 A4-02)
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] LOADING BAYS WITHIN THE
 GROUND LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE ARE NOT DIMENSIONED,
 PLEASE PROVIDE THESE DETAILS.
  
 SHEET C-19 SHOWS ARROW IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF
 RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF TRAFFIC FLOW
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS HAS BEEN CORRECTED (SEE
 SHEET C-19)
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
  
 28. WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS TRANFORMERS, 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.
  
  TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: IN THE ROOM LABELED ?TV?
 (TRANSFORMER VAULT) SHOWN ON PLANS, PLEASE SEE SHEETS
 A1-01 AND A4-02.
  ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] MECHANICAL ROOMS,
 GENERATORS, AND TRANSFORMERS ARE OKAY. REPEAT COMMENT:
 SHEET C-05 & C-04 SHOWS THE FDC VALVE LOCATED IN WITHIN
 THE MIDDLE OF BIKE RACK ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE
 HOTEL/OFFICE. PLEASE ADJUST PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
  
  PLEASE WALL-MOUNT ANY WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL
 VALVES, ETC. WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WATER METERS, FIRE/CHECK/CONTROL
 VALVES, ETC., WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WILL BE MOUNTED.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
  ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES
 SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ANY EXPOSED MECHANICAL
 EQUIPMENT, METERS, OR VALVES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
 VIEW WITH LANDSCAPING.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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?
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN
 DEVELOPING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL RENDERS WILL BE
 TIMELY PROVIDED
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS/RENDERS OF THE SPIRAL
 STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR SHAFT USED TO ACCESS THE UPPER
 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/PLAZA
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DETAIL OF THE SPIRAL
 STAIRCASE/ELEVATOR IS PROVIDED ON SHEET A5-10.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] TREE IN RENDERING
 NOT REPRESENTED IN LANDSCAPE PLANS OR ACCURATE TO
 PLANS. PLEASE ADJUST, SEE COMMENT #15 FOR INCLUSION OF
 ADDITIONAL STREET TREES.
  
 32. PROVIDE A PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO SHOW HOW
 HE 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.
 [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ACCESS
 MEETS CODE AND ADA REQUIREMENTS AS DESIGNED AND HAS
 BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY/PALMTRAN.
 ZONING 8.19 - [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 DROPOFF, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED,
 IS STILL SHOWN ACROSS ALL PLAN
 - 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
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: WE HAVE MADE CHANGES TO MAKE THE
 PLANS CONSISTENT AND CODE-COMPLIANT.
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] CHANGES HAVE BEEN
 MADE TO PLANS; HOWEVER INCONSISTENCIES STILL EXIST
 BETWEEN THE ARCH, CIVIL, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN SETS
 REGARDING LABELING.
  
  
 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).
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: DIMENSIONS FOR SIDEWALK WIDTHS
 AND CLEAR PATHS ARE PROVIDED ON SHEETS C-10 AND C-11.
 CALLOUT, DIMENSIONS, AND COUNT OF BICYCLE RACKS
 PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS ARE PROVIDED ON SHEETS C-10,
 C-11, A0-02 AND L111.
  
 ZONING 8.19 - [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SEE COMMENT #15.
 INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL STREET TREES ON THE CLEARWATER
 FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED.
  
 SHEET A0-02 ? THE TABULAR DATA SHOWS 160 GROUND LEVEL
 SPACES AND 122 UNALLOCATED BIKE SPACES. WITH THE TOTAL
 PROVIDED BIKE SPACES AT 606, PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE IS
 THIS TOTAL COMING FROM? CAN YOU PLEASE SPECIFY HOW MANY
 SPACES ARE ALONG THE GROUND LEVEL/ADJACENT TO ROW?
 THESE BIKES SATISFY THE 1 SPACE PER 100 FT. OF STREET
 FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT.
  
 35. PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 94?106 7 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 FOOT8GE 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 FROM 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE
 REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR THE MICRO UNITS PARKING.
 SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE FINAL COUNT OF BIKE SPACES.
 SHEET A0-02 PROVIDES THE CALCULATION FOR THE AVERAGE
 SIZE OF ALL DWELLING UNITS (NOT INCLUDING MICRO UNITS)
 [SATISFIED]
  
 ADITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
 SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS: 7/5/22
  
 1. REVISE LIST OF VARIANCES BASED UPON CORRECTIONS TO
 OPEN SPACE, CURB CUT WIDTHS, PLANAR BREAKS/FACADE
 ARTICULATION, ETC. ANY DEVIATION FROM REQUIRED MINIMUMS
 OR MAXIMUMS CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.
  
 TV JULY RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - DUE TO THE UNRESOLVED COMMENTS WITHIN
 THIS REVIEW, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES MAY BE REQUIRED OR
 EXISTING REQUESTS MAY HAVE TO BE MODIFIED.
  
 2. FACADE ARTICULATION? PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS FOR
 THE GARAGE SCREENING, GREEN-WALL, AND PLANAR BREAKS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 ? REPEAT COMMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE
  
 3. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM FIRE
 DEPARTMENT, UTILITY PROVIDERS, FPL, ETC. FOR THE
 VACATING/MODIFICATION OF ANY EASEMENTS AND STRUCTURES.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 ? REPEAT OF RESPONSES ABOVE
  
 4. ON SITE PLANS, THE CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF
 CLEARWATER / BANYAN NOT REFLECTIVE OF EXISTING BANYAN
 STREETSCAPE, THERE ARE SEPARATE BIKE LANE AND
 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LANE
  
 TV JULY RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 ? [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] BIKELANE/CROSS WALK
 SHOWN ON CIVIL SET BUT NOT LANDSCAPE/ARCHITECTURE,
 PLEASE ADJUST
  
 5. SHOW SETBACK LINES ON THE ELEVATIONS
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE SETBACK LINES HAVE BEEN
 ADDED TO THE ELEVATIONS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 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/FACADE ROOMS) HELPS CLARIFY INTERNAL
 CIRCULATION OF PATRONS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: INTERIOR DOORS HAVE BEEN ADDED
 TO THE DRAWINGS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND LEVEL 02 SO
 THAT CIRCULATION CAN BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED]
  
 7. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR REQUIRED TO BE
 DESIGNED TO MEET PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [SATISFIED] REPEAT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
 OPEN SPACE COMMENTS ABOVE.
  
  
 8. MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT LENGTH EXCEEDS 350 FT. FOR TOD-25
 WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
  ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
  
 9. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, SITE ILLUMINATION
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS MEASURED ATHE
 BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE SIDEWALK.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WILL BE
 PROVIDED WITH THE PERMIT DRAWINGS.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED] WILL INCLUDE CONDITION TO
 PROVIDE PHOTOMETRICS BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT.
  
 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.
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: REPEAT SEE RESPONSES ABOVE.
 ZONING 8.19 - [NOT SATISFIED] SEE RESPONSES ABOVE. CURB
 CUT WIDTHS NEED TO BE RE-MEASURED, AND PLANAR BREAK
 DEPTHS NEED TO BE PROVIDED.
  
 11. BASED UPON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND REVISED
 DRAWINGS, THE EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING ALONGLEARWATER
 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]
  
 TV JULY 19TH RESPONSE: THE EXISTING TAX INCENTIVE
 AGREEMENT WITH THE CRA AND APPROVED BY THE CITY
 COMMISSION ADDRESSES THE REMOVAL OF THE METERED
 ON-STREET PARKING. WE WILL CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE CITY
 PERSONNEL TO DISCUSS REMOVAL.
 ZONING 8.19 - [ACKNOWLEDGED]
  
  
  
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
 SHEETS, AND REVISED PLANS OF 7/25/22: 8-18-22
  
 1. PLEASE CLARIFY, ON SHEET A1-01 A ?WALL MURAL? IS
 SHOWN BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ITC, IS THERE A
 SEPARATION WALL BEING INSTALLED HERE? MURAL WILL
 REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT.
  
 2. PLEASE PROVIDE FAR DIAGRAMS FOR ALL FLOORS. WHILE
 PROJECT IS WELL WITHIN ITS PERMITTED FAR, DIAGRAMS
 NEEDED TO DOCUMENT FAR SHOULD FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR
 REVISIONS OCCUR ON SITE.
  
  
 CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP
 URBAN DESIGN PLANNER
 822.1426 [email protected]
  Print


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