| Date |
Text |
| 2012-02-02 11:16:59 | CASE NO. PB 1594A - 1ST RESUBMITTAL |
| | HULETT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CPD BUILDING B MAJOR |
| | AMENDMENT |
| | 7640 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN |
| | (10) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG AND |
| | .PDF FORMAT OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON |
| | THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FEBRUARY |
| | 21, 2012, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE MARCH 20, 2012 |
| | PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS WITHIN |
| | 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMENTS (APRIL 2, 2012), |
| | THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER |
| | ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED COMMENTS WERE NOT |
| | SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED; THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT WILL |
| | BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE IS 20% OF THE |
| | ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4357-11. |
| | |
| | 1) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION TO |
| | THE PARKING, CURBING, ETC. IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE |
| | SOUTHERN ACCESS ROAD FROM THE EASEMENT HOLDERS. THE |
| | INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT WAS DEDICATED TO THE GOLDEN |
| | LAKES PLAZA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR THE |
| | PURPOSE OF ACCESS TO AND FROM PARCEL 4 (WHICH WAS |
| | REPLATTED WITH THE EASEMENT IN PLACE TO THE OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD M.U.P.D.) BY THE OWNERS THEREOF, THEIR |
| | LESSEES, INVITEES, HEIRS OR ASSIGNS AND MAY BE USED BY |
| | THE U.S. POSTAL AUTHORITY, FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS |
| | AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR QUASI GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION TO THE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN ACCESS ROAD FROM THE |
| | GOLDEN LAKES PLAZA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE |
| | OWNERS OF THE REMAINING PARCELS WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE |
| | M.U.P.D. IF THE NEWLY PROPOSED GATES ARE TO REMAIN, |
| | THEN PROVIDE LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION FROM THE GOLDEN |
| | LAKES PLAZA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ALL THE |
| | PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE M.U.P.D,, ALL OF |
| | THE LESSEES WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE M.U.P.D., THE CITY'S |
| | POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS, THE PALM BEACH COUNTY |
| | UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, AND THE POST OFFICE. OTHERWISE, |
| | REMOVE THE GATES FROM THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 2) THE PARALLEL PARKING SPACE DETAIL DOES NOT APPEAR TO |
| | HAVE ALL OF THE LAYERS TURNED ON AS IT IS MISSING THE |
| | CURBING. THIS ALSO OCCURRED ON THE TYPICAL PARKING |
| | SPACE DETAIL. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DETAILS, INCLUDING |
| | DIMENSIONS, FOR THE ACTUAL BICYCLE PADS WITH RACKS ON |
| | THE DETAIL SHEET AND THE SITE PLAN. THE DIMENSIONS FOR |
| | THE BICYCLE PAD WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN (THEY |
| | DO SCALE CORRECTLY). OF MORE IMPORTANCE, IS THAT THE |
| | PAVING PLAN FAILS TO SHOW THE BICYCLE PAD FOR BUILDING |
| | "A" AND IT DOES NOT SHOW THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE PAD FOR |
| | BUILDING "B". THE PAD SHOWN ON THE PAVING PLAN DOES NOT |
| | SCALE TO THE REQUIRED SIZE AS SHOWN ON THE BICYCLE RACK |
| | DETAIL - PLEASE CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 4) REPEAT COMMENT: THE LANDSCAPE AREA TO THE EAST OF |
| | BUILDING A HAS BEEN WIDENED. PLEASE CENTER THE NEW |
| | TREES IN THIS AREA SO THAT THEY HAVE MORE SPACE TO GROW |
| | AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SUBMITTED |
| | ON JANUARY 20, 2012, SHOWS THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE |
| | LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEWED FOR PPRC COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 5) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CODE COMPLIANCE CHART ON THE |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS LIST 206 PARKING SPACES WHILE THE |
| | PARKING TABLE ON THE SITE PLAN LISTS ONLY 205. PLEASE |
| | CORRECT. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN STILL SHOWS 206 PARKING |
| | SPACES ON THE TABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE PARKING COUNT HAS |
| | BEEN FURTHER REDUCED TO 203 (INCLUDES STORAGE PARKING |
| | SPACES). NOTE THIS WILL CHANGE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED |
| | PARKING LOT TREES. |
| | |
| | 6) THE PLAN SHOWS THE "EXISTING COCOPLUM HEDGE" SOUTH |
| | OF THE STORAGE SPACES. PLEASE ADD THE WORDS "TO BE |
| | REMOVED" AFTER" HEDGE". |
| | |
| | 7) THE NEW PARKING SPACES ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD REQUIRE |
| | THE INSTALLATION PARKING LOT SCREENING IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH SECTION 94-443(C)(2). THE STAFF SITE VISIT |
| | CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL TO THE SOUTH |
| | OF THE ACCESS ROAD, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON THE |
| | SITE PLAN SO THAT CODE COMPLIANCE CAN BE VERIFIED, AND |
| | SO THAT THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL BECOMES PART OF THE |
| | RECORD DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 8) REPEAT COMMENT: THE HIP ROOF ON THE NORTH ELEVATION |
| | SHALL BE CHANGED SO THAT IT IS NOT TRUNCATED ON THE |
| | REAR SIDE. THIS RESULTS IN AN UNACCEPTABLE ELEVATION. |
| | THE RESPONSE STATED THAT RENDERINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED |
| | TO ADDRESS THIS COMMENT. NO RENDERINGS WERE SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 9) THE SCREENING OF THE ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT |
| | WILL BE A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 10) THE DIVIDER MEDIAN (CONTAINS THE OVERHEAD WATER |
| | LINE) SHOWS TWO LESS TREES ON THE JANUARY 20 LANDSCAPE |
| | PLAN WHEN COMPARED TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS REVIEWED FOR |
| | PPRC. THE CODE REQUIRES ONE TREE FOR EVERY 30 FEET, |
| | WHICH WOULD REQUIRE FIVE TREES. ONLY FOUR TREES (TWO |
| | BUTTONWOOD AND FOUR RELOCATED SABAL PALMS = TWO TREE |
| | EQUIVALENT) ARE IN THE DIVIDER MEDIAN. |
| | |
| | 11) THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, |
| | SECTION 94-445(4)E REQUIRE THAT HEDGES REACH A MATURITY |
| | HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 40 INCHES; THEREFORE, THE NOTE IN |
| | RESPONSE TO THE POLICE COMMENT SHALL BE AMENDED TO 40 |
| | INCHES INSTEAD OF THREE (3) FEET. THE PODOCARPUS SHALL |
| | BE ALLOWED TO GROW AS A SCREEN AS STATED. |
| |
Print |
