| 2010-06-08 13:43:11 | CASE NO. PB 1600 |
| | PALM BEACH DAY ACADEMY FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT |
| | 1901, 1925, 1957 S. FLAGLER & TUXEDO LANE PROPERTIES |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE AN ELECTRONIC COPY |
| | IN .PNG FORMAT OF ALL DOCUMENTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT |
| | CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED DOCUMENTS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 PM |
| | ON JUNE 18, 2010, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 20, 2010 |
| | PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING |
| | DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC |
| | COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS |
| | (AUGUST 7, 2010), THE CASE SHALL BE 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| | WITHDRAWN.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 ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | 1) IN PAGE 5 OF THE APPLICANT'S LAND USE AMENDMENT AND |
| | REZONING APPLICATION, UNDER ITEM B) CHANGED |
| | ASSUMPTIONS; THE EXPLANATION/JUSTIFICATION APPEARS TO |
| | BELONG TO A DIFFERENT LAND USE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL. |
| | PLEASE REVISE THIS SECTION TO REFLECT THIS SUBJECT |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) THE MAP FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PROPERTY |
| | APPRAISER SHOWING THE 400 FOOT NOTIFICATION AND A COPY |
| | OF THE ADDRESS LIST WAS NOT INCLUDED. |
| | |
| | 4) THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION DOES |
| | NOT INCLUDE EVALUATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE/PUBLIC |
| | FACILITIES LOS IMPACTS OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAXIMUM |
| | DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE CS FLU DESIGNATION. THE |
| | ANALYSIS PROVIDED ONLY PROVIDES AN LOS ANALYSIS FOR A |
| | 360 STUDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE APPLICATION ONLY STATES |
| | THAT LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IN |
| | ADDITION TO THE RESPONSE LETTERS FROM THE SERVICE |
| | PROVIDERS, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE |
| | INFRASTRUCTURE LOS EVALUATION THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT |
| | THE AMENDMENT FROM SF/MF TO CS WILL MEET THE CITY'S |
| | PUBLIC FACILITIES LOS REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 5) IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TRAFFIC |
| | ANALYSIS, ONLY EXHIBIT 2A EVALUATES THE MAXIMUM |
| | DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR BOTH THE CURRENT (SF & MF) |
| | AND THE PROPOSED (CS) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THE |
| | REST OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, INCLUDING THE LONG RANGE |
| | ANALYSIS, WAS PREPARED TO REFLECT ONLY THE IMPACTS OF A |
| | CHANGE FROM MULTIFAMILY TO A 360-STUDENT SCHOOL. SINCE |
| | THERE ARE NO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS |
| | ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CS, THEN THE |
| | ENTIRE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO EVALUATE |
| | THE IMPACTS OF THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL |
| | PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CS. |
| | |
