| Date |
Text |
| 2022-07-20 15:43:08 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT HOLD OUTREACH |
| | MEETINGS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF ONE CITY PLAZA |
| | CONDOMINIUM, AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE A DIRECT |
| | IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL CONDO BUILDING. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: IN PROGRESS. ACCORDING TO THE |
| | APPLICANT?S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER (7/5/22), THE |
| | APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ENGAGE WITH |
| | THE NEIGHBORS PRIOR TO THE PROJECT PROCEEDING TO A DAC |
| | MEETING.] |
| | |
| | 2.) ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE TRAFFIC |
| | CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA (TCEA), A LETTER FROM THE |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION IS STILL REQUIRED. |
| | PLEASE CONTACT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION |
| | AT (561) 684-4030 FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO OBTAIN THE |
| | REQUIRED TRAFFIC LETTER. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: IN PROGRESS. ACCORDING TO THE |
| | APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER (7/5/22), THE TPS |
| | ANALYSIS IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AT PALM BEACH |
| | COUNTY. THIS LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE PROJECT |
| | PROCEEDING TO A DAC MEETING.) |
| | |
| | 3.) A PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM THE FLORIDA |
| | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) SHALL BE REQUIRED |
| | FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS AND/OR STREETSCAPE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HWY, LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD (FDOT CONTROLLED ROWS). THIS |
| | PREDETERMINATION LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE |
| | SCHEDULING OF THIS APPLICATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN ACTION |
| | COMMITTEE (DAC) TO ENSURE THE ACCESS POINTS AND |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE FEASIBLE. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: IN PROGRESS. ACCORDING TO THE |
| | APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER (7/5/22), A |
| | PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WITH FDOT WAS HELD ON 5/19/22 |
| | AND A LETTER WILL BE PROVIDED TO STAFF UPON RECEIPT. A |
| | LETTER FROM FDOT STATING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS |
| | ALONG THE FDOT CONTROLLED ROWS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE |
| | PROJECT PROCEEDING TO A DAC MEETING.] |
| | |
| | 4.) PLEASE ENSURE ALL PLAN SHEETS MATCH FOR CONSISTENCY |
| | (I.E. SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, CIVIL PLANS, ETC.) |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. THE ARCHITECT IS AWARE |
| | THAT THERE ARE STILL INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS |
| | WITHIN THE PLAN SET. THESE INCONSISTENCIES WILL BE |
| | ADDRESSED.] |
| | |
| | 5.) ALL BUILDING SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON SHEET |
| | A0.04 (BUILDING SETBACKS) TO DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY |
| | WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS. SOME |
| | BUILDING SETBACKS APPEAR TO BE REMOVED/NOT INCLUDED IN |
| | THE LATEST PLAN SET. |
| | |
| | 6.) IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN PACKET, ON THE COVER |
| | SHEET/TABLE OF CONTENTS: A) SHEETS FOR ARCHITECTURAL |
| | RENDERINGS ARE MISLABELED. B) CORRECT PLAN SHEET PAGES |
| | FOR LEVELS 19 THROUGH ROOFTOP LEVEL PLAN. |
| | |
| | 7.) AS DISCUSSED WITH THE ARCHITECT ON 7/19/2022, THE |
| | PROJECT CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE REVISED/CORRECTED |
| | THROUGHOUT THE PLAN SHEETS FOR ACCURACY. THE ARCHITECT |
| | ACKNOWLEDGES THESE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PROJECT |
| | NUMBERS AND WILL ADDRESS (THE ARCHITECT SHOULD ALSO |
| | SCHEDULE A TIME TO DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC INCONSISTENCIES |
| | WITH STAFF): A) BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS. B) FAR |
| | CALCULATIONS AND DIAGRAMS. C) ACTIVE USE CALCULATIONS. |
| | D) LANDSCAPE PLAN OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS AND DEPICTION |
| | VS. SITE PLANS. E) PARKING CALCULATIONS VS. SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8.) AS DISCUSSED WITH THE ARCHITECT ON 7/19/22, STAFF |
| | WILL NEED TO VERIFY WITH URBAN DESIGN IF THE DOG RUN |
| | AREA MEETS THE FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE DAC |
| | CODE. STAFF WILL LET THE APPLICANT KNOW AS SOON AS |
| | FEEDBACK IS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | WHERE THERE IS A PLANAR BREAK APPEARS TO BE OUTSIDE OF |
| | THE SETBACK RANGE. PLEASE ADDRESS OR REQUEST A VARIANCE |
| | FROM THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 2.) GROUND LEVEL ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT ALONG |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD HAS NOT BEEN MET. A MINIMUM OF |
| | 131.8 LINEAR FEET (65%) OF ACTIVE USE IS REQUIRED. ONLY |
| | 121.75 LINEAR FEET HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALONG OKEECHOBEE |
| | BLVD. [ZLDR S.94-135, TABLE IV-70] |
| | |
| | 3.) PROVIDE THE ROOFTOP STORAGE AREA CALCULATIONS |
| | (HURRICANE EMERGENCY STORAGE SPACE FOR ROOFTOP |
| | AMENITIES AS NOTED IN THE APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE |
| | LETTER - 7/5/22). PER S.94-109, THE STORAGE AREA IS |
| | PERMITTED AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT EXCEED 30%. PLEASE |
| | DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | |
| | PARKING REQUIREMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE CHECK THE PARKING CALCULATIONS. THERE SEEMS |
| | TO BE ERRORS IN THE CALCULATIONS (I.E. PARKING COUNT |
| | DOES NOT MATCH THE PARKING PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN). |
| | PLEASE CORRECT ANY ERRORS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. INCONSISTENCIES WITH |
| | THE PARKING CALCULATIONS AND PARKING DEPICTED IN THE |
| | PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. THE ARCHITECT IS |
| | REQUESTED TO CONTACT STAFF TO GO OVER THE SPECIFIC |
| | INCONSISTENCIES TO ENSURE THE ERRORS ARE ADDRESSED |
| | CORRECTLY.] |
| | |
| | 2.) THE APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER (7/5/22) |
| | STATES THAT A DELIVERY MANAGEMENT, CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT |
| | AND VALET QUEUING /OPERATIONS EVALUATION HAS BEEN |
| | PREPARED AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL PACKET; |
| | HOWEVER, THIS DOCUMENT CANNOT BE FOUND. PLEASE CLARIFY |
| | AND/OR PROVIDE AS THIS IS A REQUIRED DOCUMENT FOR THE |
| | PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 3.) THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM LOADING |
| | REQUIREMENTS IN ZLDR S.94-485. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. LOADING ZONE |
| | CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSION HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED IN |
| | THE PLANS. BASED ON STAFF?S CALCULATIONS, A MINIMUM OF |
| | THREE 10 FT. X 50 FT. LOADING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR |
| | THE PROJECT. IF THE APPLICANT BELIEVES LESS ARE |
| | REQUIRED, THE CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO |
| | DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE.] |
| | |
| | |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) A SIDEWALK WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 FT. CLEAR WIDTH |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PRIVATE |
| | SIDEWALK WHICH SERVE AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC |
| | SIDEWALK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STREETSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS, SHALL MATCH THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN DESIGN |
| | AND MATERIAL, AND SHALL PROVIDE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION |
| | BETWEEN THE TWO. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE IN THE PLANS AND |
| | PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: ALTHOUGH DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED |
| | IN SHEET C-100 OF THE CIVIL PLANS, STAFF IS REQUESTING |
| | THAT THE DIMENSIONS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN.] |
| | |
| | 2.) REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING IS NOW PROVIDED ALONG THE |
| | STREET FRONTAGE; HOWEVER, THE CALCULATIONS, THE |
| | DEPICTION IN THE PLANS AND THE DETAIL ARE ALL |
| | INCONSISTENT. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 3.) DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO |
| | MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN PATH OF |
| | TRAVEL. DRIVEWAYS SHALL MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK |
| | ELEVATION. PLEASE PROVIDE A SECTION PARALLEL TO THE |
| | STREET TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-113(D)(10)] |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. ALTHOUGH THE |
| | CIVIL PLAN SHOWS THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION AT THE |
| | DRIVEWAY IS CURBLESS, STAFF IS REQUESTING THE SAME |
| | CONSISTENCY IN THE SITE PLAN. ALSO, THE REQUESTED |
| | SECTION DETAIL WAS NOT PROVIDED.] |
| | |
| | 4.) CURB CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES, EXITS AND DRIVEWAYS |
| | SHALL BE SEPARATED AT LEAST 10 FT. TO MINIMIZE THE |
| | IMPACT OF A CONTIGUOUS CURB CUTS ON THE PEDESTRIAN |
| | ENVIRONMENT. THE DIMENSION FOR THE CURB CUT SEPARATION |
| | AT THE SOUTH INGRESS/EGRESS POINT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED |
| | TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-111(O)] |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IT IS NOTED IN THE APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER |
| | (7/5/22) THAT A "GREEN WALL TREATMENT" IS PROPOSED ON |
| | THE EAST WALLS. PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT THIS MEANS AND NOTE |
| | IN THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 2.) IT IS NOT CLEAR TO WHAT THE REQUESTED ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENT WILL BE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE |
| | NEIGHBORING ONE CITY PLAZA. THE PROJECT NOW PROPOSES A |
| | 7 FT. SETBACK BETWEEN BUILDINGS AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | AND LAKEVIEW AVENUE (MIDDLE INTERIOR PROPOSES A 0 FT. |
| | SETBACK). STAFF HAD SPOKE TO THE ARCHITECT AND |
| | SUGGESTED A FAUX FACADE/WALL THE HEIGHT OF THE ENTIRE |
| | PODIUM TO PROVIDE SOME CONTINUITY BETWEEN BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | |
| | SIGNAGE: |
| | |
| | 1.) WILL THERE BE ANY SIGNAGE PROPOSED FOR THIS |
| | PROJECT? IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE |
| | PROPOSED SIGNAGE. IF THE PROJECT SIGNAGE HAS YET TO BE |
| | DETERMINED, A NOTE STATING THAT ALL PROJECT SIGNAGE |
| | SHALL COMPLY WITH SEC. 94-110, OF THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS) WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE |
| | PLANS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: THE APPLICANT'S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER |
| | (7/5/22) STATES THAT A COMPLIANCE NOTE HAS BEEN ADDED |
| | IN THE PLANS; HOWEVER, THIS NOTE COULD NOT BE FOUND. |
| | THE RESPONSE LETTER ALSO STATES THAT THE NOTE COULD BE |
| | FOUND ON SHEET C-100 (ENGINEERING PLANS) ? THE NOTE IS |
| | MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR |
| | (4) PAPER COPIES, ONE REDUCED COPY IN 11 INCHES X 17 |
| | INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND |
| | DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED |
| | COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE. [STAFF |
| | NOTE: NO FEE IS REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL ? THE |
| | 7/5/22 PLANS SHOW THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH STAFF |
| | TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING COMMENTS.] |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | CONDITIONS: |
| | |
| | * THE PROJECT SHALL OBTAIN LEED CERTIFICATION FROM THE |
| | LEADERSHIP ON ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) OR A SIMILAR |
| | NATIONALLY ACCREDITED ORGANIZATION. ALL REQUIREMENTS |
| | AND TIMEFRAMES SHALL BE MET PURSUANT TO SEC. |
| | 94135(E.)(2.)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS (ZLDRS). |
| | |
| | * THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THE SOFT MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | PARKING (BUT NOT OVER 50%). A CONTRIBUTION TO THE |
| | TRANSIT OPERATION FUND WILL BE REQUIRED. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-111] |
| | |
| | * A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, OUTLINING THE OPERATION OF |
| | THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL PARKING SHALL BE EXECUTED ON |
| | CITY APPROVED FORMS AND RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |