| Date |
Text |
| 2022-08-10 12:29:32 | CANNOT BE SUBMITTED UNDER ONE UMBRELLA AMENDMENT OR |
| | APPLICATION, AS THIS IS IMPACTING TWO SEPARATE PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENTS, THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE |
| | PLANS, AND A SEPARATE ROW OR STREETSCAPE. WILL HAVE TO |
| | PARTITION INTO 3 SEPARATE APPLICATIONS/AMENDMENTS: A |
| | PHILLIPS POINT MINOR, ESPERANTE MINOR, AND THE CHASE |
| | ST. FACE OF CITY. |
| | |
| | 1. IMPROVEMENTS ALONG LAKEVIEW AND OKEECHOBEE ARE |
| | WITHIN FDOT ROW, NEED APPROVALS FROM FDOT. PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM FDOT. |
| | [EMAILED COMMENT FROM FDOT] THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS |
| | FROM FDOT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE |
| | CONDUCTED WITHIN FDOT RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT CAN |
| | OBTAIN PERMIT INFORMATION AT THE FOLLOWING WEB SITE: HT |
| | TPS://OSP.FDOT.GOV/#/CONTENTPAGE/18CCF98B-9DBA-48A8-B5E |
| | A-A78E01198699. THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT?S ?ONE-STOP |
| | PERMITTING? WEB SITE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT MS. |
| | PATRICIA MOORE, THE FDOT PERMITS COORDINATOR FOR PALM |
| | BEACH COUNTY AT (954) 777-4372 IF YOU HAVE ANY PERMIT |
| | RELATED QUESTION. |
| | |
| | 2. DURING A SEPARATE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING THERE WERE |
| | DISCUSSIONS OF COORDINATION BETWEEN CITY, COUNTY, FDOT |
| | FOR REPAINTING/LIGHTS/RESURFACING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG |
| | LAKEVIEW AND OKEECHOBEE, IS THIS SUBMITTAL TIED INTO |
| | THOSE PLANS OR SEPARATE? |
| | |
| | 3. SIDEWALK WIDTH NEEDS TO MAINTAIN A 8FT. CLEAR PATH: |
| | - SHEET LH-1 AND LH-2 OF ESPERANTE SET SHOWS 7FT ALONG |
| | LAKEVIEW AVE. IS THIS THE EXISTING CONDITION? PLEASE |
| | EXTEND SIDEWALK AN ADDITIONAL 1FT. IN WIDTH, BY |
| | CONDENSING THE LANDSCAPE AREA. |
| | - SHEET C-4.02 OF CIVIL SET ALONG PHILLIPS POINT SHOWS |
| | 7FT ALONG LAKEVIEW AVE. SOUTH OF PORTE-COCHERE. IS THIS |
| | THE EXISTING CONDITION? PLEASE EXTEND SIDEWALK AN |
| | ADDITIONAL 1FT IN WIDTH, BY CONDENSING THE LANDSCAPE |
| | AREAS. |
| | |
| | 4. LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE FRONTAGE MEASUREMENTS AND TREE |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | - ESPERANTE: STREET TREES SPACED 30FT. ON CENTER, |
| | LAKEVIEW FRONTAGE PROVIDES 9 TREES, NEEDS APPROX. 15 |
| | TREES. PLEASE INCREASE # OF TREES TO REPLICATE THE |
| | COUNT AS SHOWN ALONG OKEECHOBEE FRONTAGE. LANDSCAPED |
| | AREAS WITH ASIAN JASMINE CAN ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL |
| | TREES. |
| | - PHILLIPS POINT GARAGE: STREET TREES SPACED 30FT. ON |
| | CENTER, TRINITY PL. FRONTAGE PROVIDES 8 TREES, NEEDS |
| | 11. PLEASE ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED SHADE TREES. |
| | - PHILLIPS POINT: STREET TREES SPACED 30FT. ON CENTER, |
| | LAKEVIEW FRONTAGE PROVIDES 12 TREES, NEEDS ~16-17. |
| | PLEASE ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED SHADE TREES. |
| | |
| | 5. IS THE CURB CONDITION ON THE EAST SIDE OF CHASE IN |
| | FRONT OF ONE FLAGLER, GOING TO CHANGE OR MATCH THE |
| | CURBLESS/VALLEY GUTTER DESIGN OF THE ESPERANTE SIDE? |
| | WILL APPLICANT COME IN FOR SEPARATE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT |
| | TO ONE FLAGLER? |
| | - IF THE CURBLESS STREETSCAPE IS IMPLEMENTED ALONG |
| | CHASE ST., WHAT IS PROTECTING THE LANDSCAPE BEDS AND |
| | STRIPS? PLEASE CLARIFY OR PROVIDE DETAILS. |
| | - WHAT IS THE REASONING FOR A CURBLESS STREET DESIGN |
| | ALONG CHASE ST? CONTEXT OF CHASE DOES NOT SEEM |
| | APPROPRIATE FOR A CURBLESS DESIGN WITH VERY LITTLE |
| | ACTIVE USES AND PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED SPACES FRONTING |
| | CHASE WHICH ENCOURAGES THE HEAVY FOOT-TRAFFIC OPTIMAL |
| | TO CURBLESS STREETS. EX. PHILLIPS POINT FRONTAGE ON |
| | CHASE ARE TWO UNLINED PARKING GARAGES. CHASE IS ALSO |
| | BETWEEN TWO HIGHER TRAFFIC/SPEED VEHICLE-ORIENTED |
| | ROADWAYS IN LAKEVIEW AND OKEECHOBEE AND OFTEN SERVES AS |
| | THE CUT-THRU FROM FLAGLER. CURBED STREET IS MORE |
| | PROTECTIVE OF PEDESTRIANS AND LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA. |
| | |
| | 6. CAN THE LIGHT POLES ALONG LAKEVIEW ADJACENT TO |
| | PHILLIPS POINT BE RELOCATED OUT OF THE 8 FT. SIDEWALK |
| | CLEAR PATH OR ALIGN WITH TREES? EXISTING CONDITION |
| | INTERRUPTS CONTINUITY OF SIDEWALK/PEDESTRIAN FLOW AND |
| | IMPEDES STAIR ACCESS. |
| | |
| | 7. ON-STREET PARKING |
| | - ARE THE NEW SPACES ON OKEECHOBEE COUNTING TOWARD |
| | ESPERANTE PROJECT?S MIN./MAX. REQUIREMENTS? |
| | - NEW SPACES ALONG OKEECHOBEE ARE VERY CLOSE TO |
| | INTERSECTIONS <50FT. DO NOT APPEAR TO MEET FDOT CORNER |
| | CLEARANCE NOR INTERSECTION MINIMUM DISTANCE |
| | REQUIREMENTS; POSES VISIBILITY ISSUES WHEN CARS ARE IN |
| | THE SPOTS OR PULLING IN/OUT. |
| | - STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, |
| | RECOMMENDS DEDICATING THE ADDITIONAL ROW SPACE FOR |
| | LANDSCAPING/PLANTS/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RATHER THAN |
| | VEHICULAR USES. |
| | |
| | 8. BICYCLE PARKING |
| | - 1 SPACE PER 100 FT. OF FRONTAGE. PLEASE INDICATE |
| | WHERE THE BIKE PARKING SPACES ALONG THE ROW ARE |
| | LOCATED, AND DEMONSTRATE/CALCULATE HOW THESE |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE PROVIDE PHOTOMETRICS FOR THE STREETS AND |
| | INCLUDE LIGHT FIXTURE AND POLE DETAILS. |
| | |
| | 10. MINOR PLAN CORRECTION, SHEET C4.03 STREET |
| | MISLABELED, SHOULD BE TANGLEWOOD CT. NOT TRINITY PL. |
| | |
| | CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP |
| | URBAN DESIGN PLANNER |
| | 822.1426 [email protected] |
| |
Print |
