| Date |
Text |
| 2022-09-07 16:48:01 | CASE NO. PB 1857C RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| | 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 NOVEMBER 8, |
| | 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| | THAT THE CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 FOLLOWING SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS OCCUR IN |
| | VIOLATION OF THE WAIVERS THAT WERE GRANTED BY |
| | RESOLUTION NO. 310-21. AMENDING THE WAIVERS IS ONLY |
| | PERMITTED AS PART OF A MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENT. NOTE: YOU NEED TO REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. |
| | 310-21 TO VERIFY THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENTS |
| | THAT EXCEED THE APPROVED AMOUNT. |
| | |
| | LEVEL 2 CANOPY OVER THE DOOR TO THE BICYCLE ROOM ? ONLY |
| | 3 FEET PERMITTED. |
| | LEVELS 6, 8, 23 TERRACES ON NORTH SIDE OF EAST BUILDING |
| | ? ONLY 3 FEET PERMITTED. |
| | LEVELS 8, 23 TERRACES ON NORTH SIDE OF WEST BUILDING ? |
| | ONLY 3 FEET PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | 2) RESOLUTION NO. 310-21 REQUIRES THAT EACH UNIT HAVE |
| | AT LEAST ONE EV PARKING SPACE. THE PROJECT HAS 109 |
| | UNITS, SO AT LEAST 109 RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES ARE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 3) THE FOLLOWING PARKING SPACES SHOW CHANGES FROM |
| | PREVIOUS PLAN AND NOW CREATE DOOR OPENING AND ACCESS |
| | ISSUES: |
| | |
| | 181 - THE WIDENED EASTERN COLUMN ENCROACHES ON THE |
| | REQUIRED 8.5-FOOT SPALL WIDTH AT THE END OF THE STALL. |
| | CONVERT TO COMPACT SPACE. |
| | 240 - SHIFT SPACE TO THE SOUTH AND CONVERT TO COMPACT |
| | SPACE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL ROOM ALONG THE WALL AND FOR |
| | ACCESS TO THE SPACE. |
| | 288 - SHIFT TO THE SOUTH TO HAVE AT LEAST A FOOT ALONG |
| | THE WALL. NOTE: THERE SEEMS TO BE ADEQUATE ROOM FOR A |
| | REGULAR PARKING SPACE HERE. |
| | |
| | 4) THE ROW OF 9 CAFE/VALET SPACES IS ONLY 15 FEET 4 |
| | INCHES IN DEPTH, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIRED PARKING STALL DEPTH. |
| | |
| | 5) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING UPDATED CIVIL CROSS |
| | SECTIONS. NOT ALL THE CROSS SECTIONS APPEAR TO |
| | ACCURATELY DEPICT THE HORIZONTAL SCALE ACCURATELY. |
| | |
| | SECTION I-I LISTS THE ELEVATION AT THE BUILDING WALL AS |
| | 11 FEET AND THE DIANA PLACE SIDEWALK AT 10.80 FEET, YET |
| | THE SIDEWALK IS DEPICTED AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN THE |
| | GRADE AT THE WALL. THE VERTICAL RELATIONSHIP NEEDS TO |
| | BE ACCURATELY DEPICTED. |
| | |
| | SECTION B-B HAS THIS SAME ISSUE, BUT TO A LESSER |
| | DEGREE. PLEASE REVIEW. |
| | |
| | 6) THE PLANS ARE SHOWING THE EASTERN PATIO AREAS AS |
| | BEING ELEVATED WITH A RETAINING WALL UP TO THREE FEET |
| | IN HEIGHT FOR THE EASTERNMOST PATIO. PLEASE REMEMBER |
| | THAT THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IS FIVE FEET, INCLUDING |
| | THE RETAINING WALL HEIGHT IF THAT IS WHERE IT WILL BE |
| | MOUNTED. NOTE: THIS WILL ALSO APPLY TO THE DOG PARK |
| | AREA. |
| | |
| | 7) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE ELEVATION TAG FOR THE |
| | TOP OF EACH PROPOSED 4-FOOT TALL GRANITE PIER ALONG THE |
| | NORTHERN DRIVEWAY. THE WESTERN PIER COMPLIES WITH THE |
| | GRANTED HEIGHT WAIVER. THE EASTERN PIER EXCEEDS THE |
| | WAIVER GRANTED FOR THE WALL HEIGHT. BASED ON THE |
| | DRIVEWAY SLOPE AND THE ELEVATION TAG INCLUDED IN |
| | SECTION KEY PLAN, THE TOP OF THE PIER COULD NOT EXCEED |
| | AT MOST 12 FEET 9 INCHES. |
| | |
| | 8) REPEAT COMMENT: THE GROUND LEVEL LANDSCAPE PLAN |
| | ALONG DIANA DOES NOT MATCH THE GROUND LEVEL |
| | ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 9) UPDATED COMMENT: BASED ON RECENT BUILDING DIVISION |
| | DETERMINATIONS, THE GUEST ADA SPACE NEEDS TO BE EV |
| | EQUIPPED SINCE THERE ARE NON-ADA GUEST SPACES THAT ARE |
| | EV EQUIPPED. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
