| Date |
Text |
| 2009-08-07 16:42:39 | FAILED |
| | REVIEWER ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1435 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN |
| | (10) COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT OF |
| | ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT RE-SUBMITTALS MAY BE |
| | SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE SUPPLY ALL TEXT DOCUMENTS IN WORD FORMAT. THIS |
| | INCLUDES THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARCEL. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT BY NOON |
| | ON AUGUST 21, 2009, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE SEPTEMBER |
| | 15, 2009 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 PPRC MEETING, THE CASE |
| | SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL |
| | REQUIRE RESUBMITTAL OF 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. |
| | |
| | 1. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE APPROVED SITE AND LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS WITH ALL REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS FOR |
| | THIS APPLICATION FILE. THESE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE THE |
| | PARKING AND UTILITY SERVICE LEVEL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 2. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) COPIES OF THE EACH OF |
| | THE SIGNED AND SEALED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS APPROVED |
| | BY ORDINANCE NO. 4195-09. |
| | |
| | 3. PROVIDE THE APPROVED PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC |
| | CONCURRENCY LETTER, THE CITY SERVICE LETTER AND THE FPU |
| | LETTER. |
| | |
| | 4. STAFF OPPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING |
| | STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDS REHABILITATING THE EXISTING |
| | STRUCTURE IF THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES OFFICE USE |
| | FOR THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 5. THE TRAFFIC STATEMENT DOES NOT MENTION THE IMPACT OF |
| | THE NEW OFFICE TRIPS ON SOUTH OLIVE AVENUE AND ANY |
| | MITIGATION, IF ANY, THAT IS REQUIRED BY THAT IMPACT. |
| | |
| | 6. THE SITE PLAN WITH THE PARKING LOT ON SOUTH OLIVE |
| | AVENUE AND THE BUILDING TO THE EAST OF THE PARKING IS |
| | NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ALONG |
| | SOUTH OLIVE AND SHALL BE REVISED. |
| | |
| | 7. THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOW THE NEW BUILDING |
| | CONTAINING 4,387 SQUARE FEET, WHILE THE SITE PLAN AND |
| | PARKING TABLE STATE THAT THE BUILDING CONTAINS 4,397 |
| | SQUARE FEET. ALL PLANS SHALL SHOW SAME CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | 8. NO BICYCLE PARKING HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE NEW |
| | BUILDING. THE DETAILS OF THE BICYCLE RACK AS WELL AS |
| | THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PAD SHALL BE PROVIDED AND |
| | ACCURATELY DEPICTED ON ALL PLANS. THE BICYCLE RACK AND |
| | ITS PLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY ALEX HANSEN, SENIOR |
| | TRANSPORTATION PLANNER. |
| | |
| | 9. THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE FOR THE NEW SITE DOES NOT |
| | MEET MINIMUM SIZE STANDARDS. PROVIDE THE CITY STANDARD |
| | DETAIL ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 10. PROVIDE THE PARKING DETAILS ON THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 11. PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM THE CITY???S |
| | SANITATION DIVISION THAT THE DUMPSTER LOCATION AND |
| | ORIENTATION IS ACCEPTABLE. |
| | |
| | 12. THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTH |
| | PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 13. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS REQUIRED FROM THE PUBLIC |
| | SIDEWALK TO THE NEW BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 14. THE DOORWAYS SHOWN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING DO NOT ALIGN WITH APPROPRIATELY SHOWN |
| | LANDINGS/SIDEWALKS ON THE SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 15. PROVIDE THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AS |
| | DEFINED BY THE CITY CODE. |
| | |
| | 16. THE SCALE ON THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH TO |
| | DIMENSIONS PRINTED ON THE SITE PLAN. THE SITE PLAN |
| | SHALL BE DRAWN TO EASY TO VERIFY SCALE. |
| | |
| | 17. PROVIDE CROSS-SECTIONS OF THE GRADE OF THE NEW SITE |
| | IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXISTING GRAD ON THE VIKING ARMS |
| | AND THE SMITH AND MOORE PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | 18. THE SITE EXCEEDS THE ALLOWED TWO ACCESS POINTS. |
| | |
| | 19. WHY HAVE THE WEST TOWER SETBACKS CHANGED YET THE |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MODERN TOWER REMAINED THE SAME? |
| | |
| | 20. THE APPROVED PARKING ZONE FOR THE TEMPORARY |
| | DUMPSTER STAGING HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A SIZE THAT CAN NO |
| | LONGER ACCOMMODATE A GARBAGE TRUCK ON A FLAT SURFACE. |
| | THE NEW CONFIGURATION REQUIRES THE TRUCK TO STAGE ON |
| | THE RAMP. ENLARGE THE DUMPSTER STAGING AREA TO A SIZE |
| | APPROVED BY THE SANITATION DIVISION AND PROVIDE ALL |
| | DIMENSIONS ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 21. SECTION A-A ON SHEET C-1 DOES NOT ACCURATELY |
| | REFLECT THE PROPOSED PLAN. REVISE THE SECTION. |
| | |
| | 22. SECTION B-B ON SHEET C-1 DOES NOT SHOW THE |
| | CONDITION WHERE THE SECTION LINE IS SHOWN ON THE SITE |
| | PLAN. REVISE. |
| | |
| | 23. IT IS ZONING STAFF UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WESTERN |
| | STAIRWAY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN IS REQUIRED AS A |
| | LIFE SAFETY MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE UNDERGROUND |
| | PARKING. PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM THE |
| | CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT THE PARKING |
| | STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT WITH ONLY THE REMAINING |
| | STAIRWELLS AT THE CENTER OF THE TOWER. |
| | |
| | 24. THE DEAD END PARKING ROW REQUIRES A DEDICATED TURN |
| | AROUND SPACE AT THE END OF THE ROW. |
| | |
| | 25. PROVIDE THE LOCATION FOR THE FREE STANDING SIGN. |
| | |
| | 26. PROVIDE THE LOCATION OF ALL LIGHTING. NOTE THAT IT |
| | MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | 27. WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR OWNERSHIP OF THE NEW OFFICE? |
| | IS A SUBDIVISION PLANNED? |
| | |
| | 28. THE DEFAULT MODERN RPD SETBACKS ARE BASED ON THE |
| | MF32 ZONING DISTRICT, NOT THE GENERAL RPD SETBACKS AS |
| | STATED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. ADJUST |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 29. A WALL IS REQUIRED TO SCREEN THE VEHICULAR USE |
| | AREAS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE |
| | NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 30. A WALL IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO VIKING ARMS AND |
| | SMITH AND MOORE UNLESS THEY HAVE WAIVED THE WALL IN A |
| | NOTARIZED WAIVER. |
| | |
| | 31. WHAT ARE THE LONG TERM ALLOWED USES FOR THE |
| | ADDITIONAL OFFICE? |
| | |
| | 32. PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED COMPLETELY ON ONE |
| | SPECIFIC PROPERTY WITH PROPER TERMINAL ISLANDS. THE |
| | PROPOSED SHARED PARKING DOES NOT MEET THE CODE |
| | REQUIREMENT THAT ENTRANCES AND EXITS TO PARKING SPACES |
| | BE LOCATED IN THE SAME OF LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING |
| | DISTRICT. BASED ON THE WAIVERS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED AND |
| | THE WAIVERS REQUESTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, THE |
| | MF32 ZONING DISTRICT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE |
| | MODERN RPD. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
