| Date |
Text |
| 2009-08-27 11:53:38 | FAILED |
| | REVIEWER ERIC SCHNEIDER (561) 822-1446. |
| | |
| | - 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 REVISED PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT RE-SUBMITTALS MAY |
| | BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE ALL TEXT DOCUMENTS IN WORD FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY |
| | ADDRESSED AN SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING |
| | DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER18, 2009, TO BE |
| | SCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER 20, 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 DATE STATED ABOVE, THE |
| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION |
| | SHALL REQUIRE RESUBMITTAL OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE REPEAT COMMENTS BELOW, |
| | THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL |
| | FEE OF $600 (20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE). |
| | |
| | 1. REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | - THE APPROVED VERSION WAS NOT SUBMITTED. NOTE THIS MAY |
| | BY 11"X14" SIZE. |
| | |
| | 2. REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | - SUBMITTED SHEETS SP1.1.1, A.1.1.0, A.1.1.1, L1, LP1 |
| | AND LU1 WERE NOT THE VERSION APPROVED BY THE ORDINANCE. |
| | THE APPROVED PLANS WERE DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2008 AND |
| | NOVEMBER 21, 2008. |
| | |
| | 3. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE APPROVED PALM BEACH |
| | COUNTY TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER, THE CITY SERVICE |
| | LETTER AND THE FPU LETTER. |
| | |
| | - FPU LETTER NOT SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 4. REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | - THE PARKING RACK DIMENSIONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED ON |
| | THE PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PHYSICAL DIAGRAM ON THE |
| | PLAN INCORRECTLY SHOWS THE BICYCLE RACK AND PARKED |
| | BICYCLES (STAFF REALIZES THE RACKS ON THE PARKING LEVEL |
| | PLAN WERE SHOWN INCORRECTLY - THESE SHALL BE CORRECTED |
| | AS WELL). |
| | |
| | 5. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE PARKING DETAILS ON THE |
| | PLANS. |
| | |
| | - THE PARKING DETAILS SHOW PARKING SPACES 9 FEET WIDE |
| | WHILE THE PLAN DIMENSION ALL THE SPACES AT 8.5 FEET |
| | WIDE. |
| | |
| | 6. REPEAT COMMENT: AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS REQUIRED FROM |
| | THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK TO THE NEW BUILDING. |
| | |
| | - ACCESSIBILITY WAS ALSO A CONSTRUCTION SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT COMMENT. STAFF DISCUSSED THE REVISED PLANS |
| | WITH ROBERT BROWN IN THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT AND HE HAS NOT APPROVED THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | NEW ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AS IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE MOST |
| | DIRECT ROUTE THROUGH THE PARKING LOT. |
| | |
| | 7. REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | - THE SITE PLAN AND CIVIL PLANS CONTINUE TO NOT SHOW A |
| | DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN PAVING AND LANDSCAPE ON THE |
| | NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 8. REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING AS DEFINED BY THE CITY CODE. |
| | |
| | - THE ELEVATIONS DO NOT PROPERLY SHOW THE HEIGHT OF THE |
| | BUILDING, NOR IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT LISTED ON THE SITE |
| | PLAN AS STATED IN THE PPRC RESPONSE. |
| | |
| | 9. REPEAT COMMENT: WHY HAVE THE WEST TOWER SETBACKS |
| | CHANGED YET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MODERN TOWER |
| | REMAINED THE SAME? |
| | |
| | - THERE IS A CHANGE TO AT LEAST ONE WEST DIMENSION LINE |
| | WHEN ADDED TO THE 1ST BAPTIST PARCEL DIMENSION. THERE |
| | IS AT LEAST ONE ELEMENT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE |
| | BUILDING THAT HAS CHANGED. |
| | |
| | 10. NEW COMMENT BASED ON PPRC RESPONSE: THE PPRC |
| | RESPONSE INDICATES THAT DR. MCCRANEL WILL OWN HIS LOT |
| | IN FEE. THIS NEW PROPERTY LINE IS REQUIRED SO THAT THE |
| | REAR SETBACK FOR THE MODERN CAN BE REVIEWED TO SEE IF |
| | IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. OTHERWISE A NEW MAJOR AMENDMENT |
| | WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION. |
| | |
| | 11. NEW COMMENT BASED ON PPRC RESPONSE: THE SUBMITTAL |
| | OF A SITE PLAN THAT IS TO SCALE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT |
| | THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTH PARKING LOT |
| | ADJACENT TO THE PARKING AREA BACK-OUT ASSIST IS NOT |
| | FIVE FEET IN WIDTH. |
| | |
| | 12. NEW COMMENT: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE |
| | PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT BY TYPE "D" |
| | CURBS. |
| | |
| | 13. NEW COMMENT: NOT ALL TERMINAL ISLANDS MEET THE |
| | REQUIRED CURB RADIUS STANDARDS (SECTION 94-443(C)(3)A.) |
| | |
| | 14. NEW COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE THE LOCATION AND |
| | SCREENING OF ALL GROUND LEVEL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR |
| | THE NEW BUILDING, INCLUDING BACKFLOW PREVENTER, AC |
| | UNITS, GENERATOR, ETC. |
| | |
| | 15. NEW COMMENT BASED ON PPRC RESPONSE: THE PRELIMINARY |
| | STORMWATER ITEMS SUBMITTED REFERENCE A PROJECT CALLED |
| | "GARDENS POINTE". PLEASE EXPLAIN. ALSO, THE ACREAGE IS |
| | ONLY 2.45 ACRES, NOT THE 2.67 OF THE NEW PROPOSAL. |
| |
Print |
