| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-08 13:26:18 | CASE NO. FSPR 22-08 |
| | RESIDENCES OF PALM BEACH WEST |
| | 401 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG AND |
| | .PDF FORMAT OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON |
| | THE RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF |
| | INFORMATION/PLANS TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | RESUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION. STAFF WILL REVIEW |
| | THE APPLICATION AND IF SUFFICIENT WILL SCHEDULE YOU FOR |
| | THE NEXT AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING. |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT RESUBMITTALS MAY BE SCHEDULED FOR AN |
| | ADDITIONAL PPRC MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM |
| | THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY FEBRUARY 8, 2023), THE |
| | PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE |
| | CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL |
| | REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS |
| | WERE NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL |
| | BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF |
| | THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($500). |
| | |
| | 1) THE RESUBMITTAL FEE FOR THE CURRENT SUBMITTAL WAS |
| | NOT PROVIDED. PRIOR TO ANY FUTURE ACTION ON THIS |
| | SUBMITTAL, THE PREVIOUS $500 RESUBMITTAL FEE PLUS THE |
| | NEW RESUBMITTAL FEE IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED. TOTAL |
| | - $1,000. |
| | |
| | 2) REPEAT COMMENT: THE SURVEY SHOWS PROPERTY ALONG FERN |
| | STREET AND SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY |
| | MAINTENANCE MAPS BY THE CITY AND FDOT, RESPECTIVELY. |
| | THIS PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OVERALL |
| | PROPERTY CALCULATIONS FOR THE SITE, INCLUDING FAR AND |
| | OPEN SPACE. ALL DATA TABLES AND PLANS NEED TO BE |
| | UPDATED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 3) APPENDIX A OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TABLE X-1 CONTAINED IN SECTION |
| | 94-305.D OR THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS |
| | ARE THE LIST OF REQUIRED THOROUGHFARE RIGHT-OF-WAY |
| | SETBACKS. THE TABLES REQUIRE A ROADWAY SETBACK OF 100 |
| | FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF QUADRILLE BOULEVARD IN |
| | ADDITION TO THE SETBACKS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING |
| | DISTRICT. A PORTION OF THE BUILDING ALONG QUADRILLE |
| | BOULEVARD DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN |
| | AND ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION REQUIREMENT. |
| | REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE |
| | PLAN OR THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS |
| | WERE A SCRIVENER'S ERROR, THE LANGUAGE IS IN BOTH |
| | DOCUMENTS. THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE OPTIONS ARE 1) AMEND THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR 2) THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AND |
| | ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) NEEDS TO BE |
| | AMENDED. |
| | |
| | 4) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING |
| | ADDITIONAL ELEVATION DRAWINGS. STAFF HAS LISTED |
| | INCONSISTENCIES BELOW. ALL ELEVATIONS MUST SHOW |
| | CONSISTENT, ACCURATE CONDITIONS. STAFF WAS UNABLE TO |
| | PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW DUE TO THE INCONSISTENT |
| | ELEVATION DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | A. SHEET A2.01 - NORTH ELEVATION - DOES NOT CORRECTLY |
| | DEPICT THE QUADRILLE PROPERTY AND SETBACK LINES WHEN |
| | COMPARED TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE SHEET A2.06 ??? NORTH |
| | ELEVATION. |
| | B. SHEET A2.01 SHOWS THE 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING AS 43 |
| | FEET TALL WHILE SHEET A2.06 SHOWS THE BUILDING AS 33 |
| | FEET TALL. |
| | C. SHEET A2.01 AND SHEETS A2.06&07 SHOW THE ORIENTATION |
| | OF THE WOOD FINISH IN OPPOSING ORIENTATION (HORIZONTAL |
| | VS. VERTICAL). |
| | D. SHEET A2.08 SHOWS DIFFERING WIDTHS FOR THE PLANAR |
| | BREAKS AS COMPARED TO THE FLOOR PLAN AND PLANAR BREAK |
| | PLAN. |
| | E. SHEET A2.02 AND SHEET A2.08 - SOUTH ELEVATIONS DO |
| | NOT SHOW THE SAME SETBACK AND PROPERTY LINE CONDITIONS. |
| | SHEET A2.02 DOES NOT SHOW THE BUILDING ALONG S. DIXIE |
| | IN THE SAME LOCATION. |
| | F. SHEET A2.03 AND SHEET A2.10 SHOW 401 S. DIXIE AT |
| | DIFFERENT SETBACKS FROM FERN STREET. |
| | G. SHEET A2.03 SHOWS THE 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING AS 43 |
| | FEET TALL WHILE SHEET A2.10 SHOWS THE BUILDING AS 33 |
| | FEET TALL. |
| | H. SHEET A2.03 AND SHEETS A2.10&12 SHOW THE ORIENTATION |
| | OF THE WOOD FINISH IN OPPOSING ORIENTATION (HORIZONTAL |
| | VS. VERTICAL). |
| | I. SHEET A2.12 SHOWS THE BUILDING ENCROACHING THE |
| | REQUIRED FERN STREET SETBACK, WHICH DOES NOT MATCH THE |
| | SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5) THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING NUMEROUS VARIANCES FROM |
| | THE DMP REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE |
| | JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY STAFF SHOULD SUPPORT THE THEM. |
| | THE NEW PORTION OF THE PROJECT OCCUPIES ALMOST THE |
| | ENTIRETY OF A CITY BLOCK AFTER THE ABANDONMENT OF THE |
| | ALLEY, SO THE REQUESTS ARE VARIANCES OF CONVENIENCE AND |
| | DO NOT FOSTER A DESIRABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE |
| | SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE DMP. **** STAFF WILL |
| | AWAIT THE UPDATED VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION SUBSEQUENT TO |
| | THE PPRC COMMENTS BEING SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED. |
| | |
| | 6) CONDITION: VERIFICATION THAT THE 3-FOOT FPL UTILITY |
| | EASEMENT IS ABANDONED WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO |
| | ZONING APPROVING THE BUILDING PERMIT. |
| | |
| | 7) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE TPS |
| | LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY ENGINEERING; HOWEVER, IT |
| | DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PROJECT. THE TPS LETTER |
| | INCORRECTLY LISTS 400 DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF 413 AND |
| | GENERAL RETAIL OF 28,184 SF INSTEAD OF 29,121 SF AS |
| | PROPOSED IN THE NEW BUILDING. ADDITIONALLY, THE 410 S. |
| | DIXIE BUILDING IS PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT |
| | PROJECT SO IT MUST BE INCLUDED IN BOTH THE EXISTING USE |
| | AND THE PROPOSED USE LINE ITEMS. THE TPS LETTER WAS |
| | BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH INCLUDED THE INCORRECT |
| | UNIT COUNT AND NEW SF AS WELL AS DID NOT INCLUDE THE |
| | 410 S. DIXIE SQUARE FOOTAGE. |
| | |
| | 8) THE TRAFFIC STUDY INACCURATELY STATES THE SIDEWALKS |
| | ALONG GARDENIA AND S. DIXIE ARE 12 FEET IN WIDTH. THEY |
| | ARE LESS THAN 9 FEET IN WIDTH. |
| | |
| | 10) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE EITHER VERIFICATION THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED TOWER IS NOT WITHIN THE FLIGHT PATH, OR A |
| | LETTER FROM THE FAA OF NO OBJECTION/APPROVAL OF THE |
| | HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 9) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| | FDOT PRE-APPLICATION LETTER. PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF |
| | THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT INCLUDES THE INTERSECTION OF |
| | QUADRILLE BOULEVARD AND FERN STREET AND THE NEED (OF NO |
| | NEED) FOR A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE THAT WAS |
| | PROVIDED TO FDOT AS WELL AS THE FDOT RESPONSE TO THE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY. THE FDOT RESPONSE STATING NO TURN LANE |
| | IS REQUIRED MUST BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING |
| | THE APPLICATION FOR DAC SINCE IF A TURN LANE IS |
| | REQUIRED, THEN THE PLANS NEED TO CHANGE. **** THE |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWS NO |
| | NEED FOR A TURN LANE. THE TRAFFIC STUDY STATES NO TURN |
| | LANES ARE REQUIRED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES TO THE |
| | SITE. IT IS SILENT ON A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE AT |
| | QUADRILLE AND FERN. |
| | |
| | INCENTIVES |
| | |
| | 10) CONDITION: PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF ANY BUILDING |
| | PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE VERIFICATION TO |
| | THE PLANNING DIVISION THAT THE TDRS FOR THE FULL |
| | PROJECT HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 11) UPDATED COMMENT: THIS PROJECT IS UTILIZING TDRS AND |
| | CONTAINS MORE THAT 25% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN |
| | RESIDENTIAL USE. PLEASE PROVIDE HOW THE PROJECT |
| | COMPLIES WITH SECTION 94-134 DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN |
| | HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM. THE LOCATION OF THE INCOME |
| | RESTRICTED UNITS HAS A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE |
| | VARIANCES THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE SEEKING. FOR |
| | EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE UNITS IN THE BUILDING, |
| | CONDITIONAL SETBACKS FOR PARKING USES ARE WAIVED. |
| | |
| | 14) UPDATED COMMENT: AS PART OF RECEIVING THE TDRS AND |
| | FOLLOWING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN HOUSING INCENTIVE |
| | PROGRAM, THE BUILDING THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC |
| | DESIGNATION LOCATED AT 401 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY IS |
| | REQUIRED TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN A |
| | MANNER WHICH MAINTAINS THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC |
| | STRUCTURE. WHILE THE RESUBMITTAL CHANGES HAVE BROUGHT |
| | THE BUILDING CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE, THE CITY'S HISTORIC |
| | PRESERVATION PLANNER HAS REVIEWED THE RESUBMITTAL AND |
| | STILL DOES NOT FIND THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING IS |
| | INTEGRATED INTO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOT A |
| | REQUIREMENT FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | A. IN THE LAST DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND |
| | STAFF, THE CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER STATED |
| | THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TRANSITION |
| | BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, THE PORTION OF THE NEW |
| | BUILDING THAT EXTENDS EAST PAST THE PLANE OF THE 401 S. |
| | DIXIE BUILDING IS NOT TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE 401 |
| | S. DIXIE BUILDING. SHEET A2.01 REFLECTS THIS |
| | INTEGRATION BY SHOWING THE PORTION OF THE NEW BUILDING |
| | AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS 401 S. DIXIE. HOWEVER, AS |
| | PREVIOUSLY STATED THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE |
| | PROVIDED ELEVATIONS AS TO HOW TALL THE 401 S. DIXIE |
| | BUILDING IS WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED WITH THE CORRECTION |
| | GOVERNING HOW THIS COMMENT IS ADDRESSED. THE |
| | RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS SHOWN ON SHEET A2.06 |
| | IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO MEET THE INTEGRATION REQUIREMENT. |
| | B. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SHEET A2.10 ??? EAST |
| | ELEVATION ??? THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPE IN |
| | FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THE CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION |
| | PLANNER NOTED THAT NOW THAT STAFF HAS THE EAST |
| | ELEVATION TO REVIEW, THERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS |
| | THAT MUST BE ADDED TO CARRY OVER THE ARCHITECTURAL |
| | RHYTHM FROM THE 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING. THE CORNICE |
| | LINES THAT IS ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR ON THE 401 S. |
| | DIXIE BUILDING SHALL BE CONTINUED ON THE NEW BUILDING |
| | ACROSS THE MECHANICAL MEZZANINE LEVEL AND ALL THE |
| | LOUVERS SHALL BE BROUGHT DOWN TO THE MECHANICAL |
| | MEZZANINE LEVEL TO SIMULATE THE WINDOW PATTERN ON THE |
| | 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING. |
| | C. CONDITION: THE BUILDING AT 401 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY |
| | SHALL BE PAINTED A COMPATIBLE COLOR TO THE NEW |
| | BUILDING. |
| | |
| | ZONING COMPLIANCE |
| | |
| | 15) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THE PROJECT IS SHOWN AS |
| | CREATING A NEW INTERIOR PARCEL LINE BETWEEN THE |
| | EXISTING 401 SOUTH DIXIE BUILDING AND THE NEW BUILDING |
| | (ONLY SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN). THE QGD 10-25 REQUIRES A |
| | 20-FOOT SETBACK ABOVE THE 8TH STORY (104 FEET) FROM THE |
| | INTERIOR PARCEL LINE. THIS DOES NOT OCCUR ON EITHER |
| | PORTION OF THE NEW BUILDING THAT IS ABOVE THIS HEIGHT. |
| | STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS SETBACK VARIANCE. |
| | **** THE DIMENSION LINES FROM THE 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING |
| | TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE WERE PROVIDED; HOWEVER, |
| | THE DIMENSION FROM THE NEW PROPERTY LINE TO THE GARAGE |
| | ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 401 S. DIXIE WAS NOT. THE 20-FOOT |
| | INTERIOR SETBACK IS MET ON THE WEST OF THE 401 S. DIXIE |
| | BUILDING (38+ FEET). |
| | |
| | 16) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED ZERO SETBACK FROM THE INTERIOR PROPERTY |
| | LINES COMPLIES WITH NFPA REQUIREMENTS. **** THE |
| | ARCHITECT SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE |
| | DEMONSTRATING THAT THE EXISTING 401 S DIXIE BUILDING |
| | WITH ITS EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS AND OTHER NFPA |
| | REQUIREMENTS CAN BE LOCATED FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPOSED |
| | PROPERTY LINE AND THE NEW BUILDING WITH ITS OPENINGS |
| | CAN BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE |
| | PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 17) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT A |
| | SETBACK FROM SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY LESS THAN THE REQUIRED |
| | 27 FEET FOR THE PARKING USES ON LEVEL 6 AND THE 66 FEET |
| | FOR LEVEL 9 OF THE TOWER. **** THIS WAS NOT AMENDED ON |
| | THE CURRENT RESUBMITTAL; HOWEVER, STAFF IS AWAITING THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS BASED ON THE OCTOBER 12, 2022 MEETING |
| | TO RE-EVALUATE THIS COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 18) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT A |
| | SETBACK FROM GARDENIA LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 27 FEET |
| | FOR THE PARKING USES ON LEVEL 6. **** THIS WAS NOT |
| | AMENDED ON THE CURRENT RESUBMITTAL; HOWEVER, STAFF IS |
| | AWAITING THE RESUBMITTED PLANS BASED ON THE OCTOBER 12, |
| | 2022 MEETING TO RE-EVALUATE THIS COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 19) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CIVIL CROSS SECTIONS SHOW THE |
| | FOLLOWING ISSUES: |
| | |
| | A. SECTION A-A DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATION |
| | OF THE CROSS SECTION. THE PLAN VIEW SHOWS THE CROSS |
| | SECTION THROUGH THE PARALLEL PARKING SPACE WHILE THE |
| | SECTION VIEW SHOWS IT FROM THE TRAVEL LANE. BOTH |
| | DRAWINGS MUST SHOW THE SAME LOCATION. |
| | B. SECTION B-B SHOWS THE BUILDING NOT MEETING THE |
| | REQUIRED 12-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, IT SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE STRIP NOT MEETING |
| | THE 4-FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH AND OVERSTATES THE SIDEWALK |
| | WIDTH. NOTE: THESE DIMENSIONS DO NOT MEET WHAT IS SHOWN |
| | ON THE SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | C. SECTION C-C SHOWS THE BUILDING NOT MEETING THE |
| | REQUIRED 12-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, IT SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE STRIP NOT MEETING |
| | THE 4-FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH AND OVERSTATES THE SIDEWALK |
| | WIDTH. NOTE: THESE DIMENSIONS DO NOT MEET WHAT IS SHOWN |
| | ON THE SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | D. SECTION C-C OVERSTATES THE SIDEWALK WIDTH. NOTE: |
| | THESE DIMENSIONS DO NOT MEET WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 20) UPDATED COMMENT: LEVEL 6 (THIS WAS A TYPO AS LEVEL |
| | 3 IN LAST ROUND OF COMMENTS) IS SHOWN EXCEEDING THE |
| | PERMITTED MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT. AN INCREASE IN |
| | THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS NOT PERMITTED AS A VARIANCE, |
| | SO THE FOOTPRINT AREA MUST BE REDUCED. (NOTE: SITE |
| | AREAS NOT UPDATED TO EXCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED |
| | ROW, SO ALL VALUES WILL CHANGE) **** LEVEL 1 WILL ALSO |
| | NOT COMPLY WITH THE ROW AREA REMOVED. |
| | |
| | 21) UPDATED COMMENT: THE TABLES WITH THE ACTIVE USE |
| | DIAGRAMS ARE INCORRECT. NOTE: STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO |
| | SUPPORT WAIVERS FOR GROUND FLOOR OR LINER ACTIVE USES. |
| | |
| | A. THE UPDATED FERN STREET FRONTAGE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE |
| | USE DIAGRAM AND TABLE SHOW MORE AREA AS ACTIVE USE THAN |
| | ACTUALLY OCCURS. THE PREVIOUS PLAN SHOWED THIS |
| | CORRECTLY. THE MINIMUM ACTIVE USE IS NOT MET IN EITHER |
| | CASE |
| | B. SOUTH DIXIE GROUND FLOOR DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIRED ACTIVE USE. |
| | C. THE TABLE STATES THAT GARDENIA STREET GROUND FLOOR |
| | MEETS THE MINIMUM 30% ACTIVE USE; HOWEVER, THE TABLE |
| | SHOWS THAT 118 FEET 6 INCHES ARE REQUIRED, YET ONLY 113 |
| | FEET 10 INCHES ARE PROVIDED. THE MINIMUM ACTIVE USE IS |
| | NOT MET. |
| | D. THE MINIMUM ACTIVE USE IS NOT MET ON THE 2ND AND 3RD |
| | LEVELS FOR QUADRILLE OR SOUTH DIXIE. |
| | E. THE 401 S. DIXIE BUILDING PARCEL IS ONLY 3 STORIES |
| | SO THAT FRONTAGE IS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LEVEL 4 AND |
| | 5 ACTIVE USE CALCULATIONS FOR FERN AND SOUTH DIXIE. |
| | FERN APPEARS THAT IT STILL MAY MEET THE MINIMUM 60 |
| | PERCENT. SOUTH DIXIE HAS ZERO ACTIVE USE. |
| | |
| | 22) UPDATED REPEAT COMMENT: THE DRAWINGS SHOW THAT THE |
| | GARDENIA FRONTAGE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM |
| | PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS. STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO |
| | SUPPORT BUILDING DESIGNS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE THE |
| | REQUIRED PLANAR BREAKS. **** 20% PLANAR BREAK IS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | A. GARDENIA GROUND FLOOR - THE PLANAR BREAK DIAGRAM |
| | INCORRECTLY DEPICTS THE BUILDING FRONTAGE THAT IS USED |
| | TO DETERMINE THE PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANAR |
| | BREAK IS BASED ON THE PROVIDED BUILDING FRONTAGE |
| | (387.17 FEET) NOT THE BUILDABLE FRONTAGE AS LISTED. |
| | **** THE DRAWING INCORRECTLY SHOWS THE BUILDING |
| | EXTENDING TOO FAR TO THE WEST. |
| | B. THE TWO INSETS, GENERALLY 7 FEET IN WIDTH, DO NOT |
| | MEET THE MINIMUM 3-FOOT PLANAR BREAK DEPTH AND MAY NOT |
| | BE COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENT |
| | ON ANY FLOOR. PLEASE NOTE THAT HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS |
| | DO NOT QUALIFY AS PLANAR BREAK DEPTH. |
| | C. PROVIDE THE DEPTH DIMENSION FROM THE EASTERN STAIRS |
| | ALONG GARDENIA TO THE MAIN BUILDING FACADE SO STAFF CAN |
| | VERIFY THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE 3-FOOT DEPTH MINIMUM. |
| | STAFF HAS SCALED THE DRAWINGS AND IT SEEMS TO BE AT |
| | LEAST 3 FEET IN DEPTH. |
| | D. GARDENIA GROUND FLOOR - 77.43 FEET REQUIRED; 63.33 |
| | FEET PROVIDED. 14.1 FEET SHY |
| | E. GARDENIA GROUND FLOORS - 78.83 FEET REQUIRED; 70.75 |
| | FEET PROVIDED. 8.1 FEET SHY |
| | F. SOUTH DIXIE DOES NOT MEET THE PLANAR BREAK |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 23) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE CANOPY HEIGHT FROM |
| | GRADE. |
| | |
| | STREETSCAPE |
| | |
| | 24) INADEQUATE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO VERIFY THAT |
| | THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION |
| | 94-113. - LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. THIS |
| | INCLUDES: |
| | |
| | A. UPDATED COMMENT: EXTERIOR LIGHTING - NOT PROVIDED TO |
| | BACK OF CURB. **** THIS NEEDS TO BE FOR THE ENTIRE |
| | SITE, INCLUDING 401 SOUTH DIXIE, AND COMPLY WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 94-113.B. |
| | I. THE STREETLIGHTS DO NOT MEET THE CITY STANDARD FOR |
| | HEIGHT OR STYLE. **** STREET LIGHTING STILL UNDER |
| | REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 25) REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE TYPE OF |
| | BICYCLE RACK PROPOSED. THE PLANS DO NOT MEET THE |
| | MINIMUM DIMENSIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE PROVIDED |
| | INSTALLATION DETAIL. THE PLANS MUST SHOW THE CORRECT |
| | DIMENSIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE ORIENTATION OF THE |
| | BICYCLE RACKS DOES NOT PERMIT CONVENIENT PARKING OF THE |
| | BICYCLES. **** A BICYCLE LOCATION MARK UP PLAN WILL BE |
| | PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER. |
| | |
| | A. THERE ARE THREE CITY INSTALLED BICYCLE RACKS THAT |
| | EXIST ALONG FERN STREET IN FRONT OF THE 401 SOUTH DIXIE |
| | BUILDING THAT NO LONGER APPEAR ON THE PLANS. THESE |
| | SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED AND COUNT TOWARD MEETING THE |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENT. |
| | B. THE TWO RACKS SHOWN AT GARDENIA AND SOUTH DIXIE ARE |
| | NOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO A BUILDING ENTRANCE. THESE (IF |
| | MEETING THE REQUIRED NUMBERS) SHALL BE PLACED CLOSER TO |
| | A BUILDING ENTRANCE. |
| | C. THE TWO RACKS AT THE CORNER OF GARDENIA AND |
| | QUADRILLE SHALL BE RELOCATED TO AN AREA ALONG QUADRILLE |
| | THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE RETAIL. |
| | |
| | 26) CONDITION: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED |
| | FOR ALL LANDSCAPING, TREE GRATES, STRUCTURAL SOIL AND |
| | IRRIGATION. |
| | |
| | DESIGN/ARCHITECTURE |
| | |
| | 27) REPEAT COMMENT: THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE QUADRILLE |
| | GARDEN DISTRICT IS FOR PROJECTS TO HAVE A HIGH |
| | PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING AND TREE CANOPY. THE PROJECT |
| | AS PRESENTED DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET EITHER ONE OF |
| | THESE STANDARDS. **** THE OPEN SPACE TABLES SHOW THAT |
| | THE VEGETATION MINIMUMS ARE NOT MET, WHICH DIRECTLY |
| | CONTRADICTS THE DISTRICT DESIGN INTENT. STAFF WILL NOT |
| | SUPPORT A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE OPEN SPACE VEGETATED |
| | AREA MINIMUMS. SEE LANDSCAPE COMMENT. |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 28) BASED ON THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 12, |
| | 2022 MEETING AND NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS, STAFF WILL NOT |
| | BE PERFORMING A FULL PARKING REVIEW UNTIL THE UPDATED |
| | PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 29) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN |
| | REMOVES ALL OF THE CURRENT SURFACE PARKING FOR THE 401 |
| | SOUTH DIXIE BUILDING (NOTE - PART OF THE REQUIRED |
| | PARKING WAS ALREADY SOLD OFF, CREATING A PARKING |
| | DEFICIENCY, WHICH VIOLATES THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS). PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE WITH |
| | A BREAKDOWN OF THE USES WITHIN THE 401 SOUTH DIXIE |
| | BUILDING AND THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 30) CONDITION: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT THAT |
| | REMOVES PARKING FOR THE 401 SOUTH DIXIE BUILDING, A |
| | PARKING PLAN THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIRED PARKING FOR 401 SOUTH DIXIE IS PROVIDED MUST |
| | BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION. |
| | THE PARKING SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 31) THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING EV CHARGING SPACES. PLEASE |
| | REMEMBER THAT ADA SPACES WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED AT |
| | 1:25 WITH EV CAPABILITY. |
| | |
| | 32) REPEAT COMMENT: THERE ARE DEAD END PARKING ROWS ON |
| | MULTIPLE LEVELS, WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT A |
| | TURNAROUND SPACE OR IF ALL SPACES ON THAT LEVEL ARE |
| | ASSIGNED PARKING. **** THE RESPONSE STATES THAT ALL |
| | DEAD END ROWS HAVE A TURNAROUND SPACE. THIS DOES NOT |
| | OCCUR ON ANY OF THE PARKING LEVELS WITH DEAD END |
| | PARKING ROWS. THE PROVIDED TURN AROUND SPACES AS SHOWN |
| | DO NOT ACTUALLY FUNCTION TO TURN AROUND. A PARKING |
| | SPACE SIZED AREA THAT CAN BE USED TO PULL IN IS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 33) REPEAT COMMENT: ONE EXISTING METERED ON-STREET |
| | PARKING SPACES ON FERN STREET IS SHOWN AS BEING |
| | REMOVED. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE VERIFICATION FROM THE THE |
| | CITY'S PARKING ADMINISTRATOR OF HIS APPROVAL TO |
| | PERMANENTLY REMOVE THE PARKING SPACE AND ANY |
| | CONDITIONS, INCLUDING FEE, THAT ARE REQUIRED PRIOR |
| | SCHEDULING A HEARING BEFORE THE DAC. **** PLEASE NOTE |
| | THAT THE RESPONSE INCORRECTLY STATES THAT THERE ARE |
| | THREE ON-STREET PARKING SPACES ON SOUTH DIXIE. THE |
| | PLANS CORRECTLY SHOW THE TWO SPACES. |
| | |
| | 34) UPDATED COMMENT: THE FERN AND GARDENIA DRIVEWAY |
| | OPENING DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT CURB |
| | CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES, EXITS, AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL NOT |
| | BE WIDER THAN 25 FEET AS MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE |
| | STREET AT THE CURB. |
| | |
| | A. STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT THE TRUCK MANEUVERING MAY |
| | REQUIRE AN OPENING GREATER THAN 25 FEET; HOWEVER, STAFF |
| | IS NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE REDUCED OPENING WIDTH. |
| | B. STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT A WAIVER TO THE |
| | MAIN BUILDING ENTRY DRIVE WHICH IS SHOWN AROUND 40 FEET |
| | ON FERN STREET. FERN STREET IS CLASSIFIED AS A PRIMARY |
| | PEDESTRIAN STREET. THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WIDTH DOES NOT |
| | PROMOTE A FAVORABLE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. |
| | |
| | 35) REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE BICYCLE |
| | ROOMS SHOWN IN THE PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A LARGER |
| | SCALE; HOWEVER, NOT ALL DIMENSIONS WERE PROVIDED WITHIN |
| | THE ROOMS. |
| | |
| | 36) CONDITION: THE BUILD OUT OF THE RETAIL AREA |
| | REQUIRES THE PROVISION OF A SHOWER AND CHANGING |
| | FACILITY. |
| | |
| | 37) CONDITION: TRAFFIC CONTROL AIDES ARE REQUIRED AT |
| | THE BOTTOM OF THE FERN STREET RAMP AND THE SOUTH DIXIE |
| | EXIT TO STOP TRAFFIC PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING |
| | LOCATIONS AND AT THE SOUTH DIXIE ENTRANCE TO WARN |
| | DRIVERS TO SLOW WHEN ENTERING THE GARAGE DUE TO THE TWO |
| | PARKING SPACES THAT BACK AT THE ENTRANCE. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
