| Date |
Text |
| 2012-10-09 14:34:09 | CASE NO. ISPR 12-04 |
| | AUTO BUILDERS EXPANSION |
| | 5715 CORPORATE WAY |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF SIX |
| | (6) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (DECEMBER 9, 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| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 WILL BE 20% OF |
| | THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($200). |
| | |
| | 1) REPEAT COMMENT - THE UTILITY PROVIDER APPROVAL |
| | LETTERS WERE NOT PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 2) THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SUBMITTED REQUIRES A $50 |
| | APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | 3) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS NEED TO BE CORRECTED |
| | AS FOLLOWS: |
| | |
| | A. THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE DOES NOT SHOW THE |
| | EXISTING DOUBLE TRUNK PALM TREE. ADDITIONALLY, THIS |
| | AREA OF THE SITE REQUIRES TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TREES - |
| | ONE (1) BETWEEN THE PROPOSED GREEN BUTTONWOOD AND THE |
| | EXISTING DOUBLE PALM AND ONE (1) TREE EAST OF THE |
| | DOUBLE PALM (NEAR THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | B. THERE IS NO SIGN LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF |
| | THIS SITE AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. |
| | |
| | C. THERE ARE THREE (3) TIBOUCHINA GRANULOSA TREES AND |
| | ONE (1) WASHINGTONIA PALM THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE |
| | APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AROUND THE BUILDING THAT ARE NO |
| | LONGER ON THE SITE AND NOT SHOWN ON THE NEW LANDSCAPE |
| | PLAN. IF THESE TREES ARE PLANNED TO BE NOT REINSTALLED |
| | AND BE REPLACED BY THE NEW TREES, THEN THIS SHALL BE |
| | REFLECTED ON THE TREE RELOCATION PLAN. |
| | |
| | D. THE LANDSCAPE CALCULATION TABLE IS MISLEADING. IT |
| | DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE EXISTING PALMS AND |
| | TREES AND IT APPEARS TO EITHER COUNT OFF-SITE EXISTING |
| | TREES AS MEETING THE ON-SITE REQUIREMENT, COUNT |
| | INTERIOR TREES AS BUFFER TREES OR DOUBLE COUNT TREES |
| | TOWARD MEETING MULTIPLE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE |
| | NOTE THAT THE TYPES OF SOLITARY PALMS ON-SITE DO NOT |
| | COUNT TOWARD MEETING THE OPEN SPACE TREE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | E. PROVIDE THE PALM CONVERSION TABLE. |
| | |
| | 4) REPEAT COMMENT - PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM |
| | THE CITY'S SANITATION DEPARTMENT THAT THE DUMPSTER AREA |
| | CAN STILL BE SUFFICIENTLY ACCESSED WITH THE |
| | RECONFIGURED DRIVE AISLE. THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION |
| | ALLOWS A STRAIGHT ENTRY TO THE GATES, WHICH IS NOT |
| | MAINTAINED UNDER THE PROPOSED PLAN. - THIS COMMENT WAS |
| | ALSO MADE BY THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| | DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 5) REPEAT COMMENT - UPDATED PARKING SPACE DETAILS SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED ON THE PLANS TO SHOW THE ACCURATE |
| | CONDITIONS. - THIS COMMENT WAS ALSO MADE BY THE CITY'S |
| | PARKING DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 6) REPEAT COMMENT - PROVIDE AN ELEVATION DRAWING OF THE |
| | TRAILER. WILL IT BE ELEVATED? WHAT IS THE HEIGHT? WHAT |
| | TYPE OF AC AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED |
| | AND HOW WILL THIS BE SCREENED? |
| | |
| | 7) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED UPON THE |
| | SUBMITTAL OF THE REVISED PLANS. |
| | |
| | 8) PLEASE NOTE THAT UPON FINAL APPROVAL, THERE WILL BE |
| | A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF |
| | INFORMATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS |
| | MADE BY REVIEWERS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. |
| |
Print |
