| Date |
Text |
| 2022-06-09 09:50:32 | CASE NO. PB 1857C |
| | 1315 S. FLAGLER |
| | FLAGLER TOWERS REVISIONS |
| | |
| | - 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 .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. |
| | |
| | - 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 9, 2022), |
| | 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| | CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 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 SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| | APPLICATION FEE ($300). |
| | |
| | 1) THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF |
| | MORE THAN 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING |
| | BUILDING, SO IN ADDITION TO THE MINOR PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT A SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED. |
| | SINCE THIS IS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE REQUEST |
| | REQUIRES A FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW. PLEASE PROVIDE THE |
| | FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE OF $1,500. |
| | |
| | 2) THE INITIAL STAFF REVIEW HAS NOT DISCOVERED ANYTHING |
| | THAT TRIGGERS A MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT; |
| | HOWEVER, SOME OF THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REQUIRE THE |
| | PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT STAFF WILL |
| | NEED TO COMPARE TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO |
| | DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT RESULT IN |
| | WAIVERS OR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT |
| | WOULD NECESSITATE A MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 3) PROVIDE THE DIMENSION FROM THE WALL FOR ALL BAY |
| | WINDOWS, TERRACES (BALCONIES), AWNINGS, CANOPIES, ETC., |
| | THAT EXTEND FROM THE BUILDING WALL (PODIUM AND TOWERS). |
| | THESE DIMENSIONS WERE PROVIDED ON THE APPROVED PLAN |
| | SET, BUT IN MANY INSTANCES WERE LEFT OFF THE NEW PLANS |
| | FOR FEATURES THAT DID NOT CHANGE. SINCE THIS PLAN SET |
| | WILL REPLACE THE PREVIOUS PLANS, THE DIMENSIONS FOR |
| | CURRENT AND PROPOSED FEATURES NEED TO BE INCLUDED. ONCE |
| | THE DIMENSIONS ARE PROVIDED, STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT |
| | THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT |
| | ORDER. |
| | |
| | 4) STAFF NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE DIMENSION FOR THE TOWERS |
| | WAS NOT PROVIDED ON SHEETS A-124, A-126 AND A-128. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THE ENTIRE DIMENSION ON EACH PLANS SHEET |
| | SO THAT THE VERIFICATION THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE |
| | TOWERS IS STILL THE SAME AS APPROVED WITHOUT REQUIRING |
| | STAFF TO ADD UP THE INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONS OR TO SCALE |
| | THE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5) THE APPROVED PLANS HAVE WHAT APPEAR TO BE FAUX |
| | WINDOWS ON THE WEST TOWER MECHANICAL PARAPET WALL (EAST |
| | AND WEST FACADES). THESE SHALL BE RETAINED AS THEY HELP |
| | TO DEFINE THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE TOP OF THE |
| | BUILDING THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, |
| | WHICH IS LOST WITH THE PROPOSED BLANK PARAPET WALL. |
| | |
| | 6) PROVIDE THE BICYCLE PARKING ROOMS ON A SHEET AT A |
| | LARGER SCALE BASED ON THE NEW BICYCLE PARKING MODEL |
| | PROPOSED. THE BICYCLE ROOM DETAIL SHALL INCLUDE THE |
| | DIMENSIONS OF THE ROOM AND THE PARKING RACKS TO MATCH |
| | THE MODEL SHOWN ON SHEET A-054. NOTE: THE BICYCLE ROOMS |
| | AS SHOWN ON THE FLOOR PLANS DO NOT ACCURATELY SHOW THE |
| | RACKS. |
| | |
| | 7) THE STANDARD PARKING STALL DETAIL ON SHEET A-054 |
| | NEEDS TO SHOW 12 INCHES BETWEEN THE PAINTED STRIPES, |
| | NOT 16 INCHES (THIS IS CORRECTLY SHOWN ON THE ADA |
| | DETAIL). |
| | |
| | 8) PROVIDE THE DEPTH DIMENSION FOR ALL PARKING ROWS, |
| | INCLUDING THE COMPACT SPACES, AND THE DRIVE AISLES. |
| | |
| | 9) YOU MUST VERIFY WITH THE BUILDING DIVISION THAT THE |
| | GUEST ADA SPACE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EV EQUIPPED AS |
| | SHOWN. SINCE THIS IS A DISTINCT USER GROUP FROM YOUR |
| | OTHER EV ADA SPACES, IT MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE EV |
| | EQUIPPED. |
| | |
| | 10) PROVIDE THE CIVIL CROSS SECTIONS, TO SCALE BOTH |
| | HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY, ALONG THE SOUTH PART OF |
| | THE SITE FROM THE BUILDING FACE TO THE PARALLEL PARKING |
| | FOR THE WORST-CASE GRADE CHANGE SCENARIO. YOU LIST A |
| | MAXIMUM 4:1 SLOPE YET BASED ON THE ELEVATION TAGS |
| | PROVIDED THERE IS NO 4:1 SLOPE. THE MAXIMUM SLOPES YOU |
| | SHOW ARE AT 3:1. ADDITIONALLY, VERIFY THAT THE |
| | ELEVATIONS PROVIDED FOR THE CROSS SECTIONS MATCH WHAT |
| | IS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN - IT APPEARS THAT SECTION |
| | G-G DOES NOT USE THE SAME ELEVATIONS IN BOTH LOCATIONS. |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT RAISING THE GRADE (OR ADDING STEPS) TO |
| | ADDRESS THE HIGHER BASE FLOOR ELEVATION MUST OCCUR |
| | WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FLAGLER TOWERS RPD AND NOT |
| | WITHIN THE CITY'S PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IF IT RESULTS IN |
| | EXTREME SLOPES ADJACENT TO THE WALKWAY OR THE PARALLEL |
| | PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 11) PROVIDE THE ELEVATION TAG FOR THE TOP OF EACH |
| | PROPOSED 4-FOOT TALL GRANITE PIER ALONG THE NORTHERN |
| | DRIVEWAY SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THEY DO NOT |
| | EXCEED THE GRANTED WALL HEIGHT WAIVERS WITHIN THE |
| | SETBACKS. |
| | |
| | 12) THE GROUND LEVEL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG DIANA DOES |
| | NOT MATCH THE GROUND LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL |
| | PLANS. IT APPEARS THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DID NOT USE |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR BASE, BUT RATHER A PLAN THAT SHOWS |
| | HIGHER UP THE BUILDING WHICH INCLUDES THE BALCONIES, |
| | BAY WINDOWS, ETC. |
| | |
| |
Print |
