| Date |
Text |
| 2013-06-07 16:38:15 | CASE NO. 1633 A B C |
| | NAME OF CASE BELLA VITA ESTATES |
| | ADDRESS 8230 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ALEX HANSEN @ (561) 822-1463 |
| | |
| | - 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 FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS AND IN WORD OF ANY TEXT PORTIONS OF THE |
| | APPLICATION. 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 NOON ON JUNE 21, |
| | 2013, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 2013 PLANNING BOARD |
| | MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (AUGUST 12, 2013), |
| | THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 OF THE |
| | DEFICIENT APPLICATION(S). |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO. |
| | 4357-11. |
| | |
| | 1. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - PROPERTY HISTORY AND |
| | SITE CHARACTERISTICS PORTION OF THE APPLICATION (PAGE 1 |
| | OF 9) STATES THAT "CURRENTLY ALL OF THE UNDERGROUND |
| | UTILITIES, PRIMARY ROADWAY SYSTEM, AND RETENTION |
| | FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE." THE |
| | EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PREPARED BY MICHAEL B. |
| | SCHORAH & ASSOCIATES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS |
| | THAT THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURRENTLY |
| | CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE ARE THE PRIMARY WATER AND SEWER |
| | INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SURVEY DOES NOT SHOW ANY OTHER |
| | EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (EG. TELEPHONE, CABLE, |
| | GAS, ELECTRICAL). THE APPLICANT SHOULD EITHER MODIFY |
| | THE CLAIM UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT TO INDICATE |
| | THAT WATER AND SEWER ARE THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES |
| | ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE, OR THE EXISTING |
| | CONDITIONS SURVEY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT ANY |
| | OTHER UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WHICH ARE ALREADY BUILT. |
| | |
| | 2. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - CONFORMANCE WITH THE |
| | FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 9J-5.006.5.1 SECTION OF THE |
| | APPLICATION STATES THAT THE "PROPOSED FLUA CHANGE TO |
| | COMMERCIAL (C) IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS |
| | OF THE SURROUNDING AREA" (PAGE 2 OF 9). THE PROPOSED |
| | FLU AMENDMENT IS FROM A COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION |
| | TO A CITY MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL |
| | DESIGNATION. PLEASE REVISE THIS SECTION ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 3. UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR |
| | CODE COMPLIANCE ? A. CHANGED PROJECTIONS (PAGES 3 OF 9 |
| | AND 4 OF 9) THE APPLICANT REFERENCES FLU POLICIES |
| | 1.1.5.1 AND 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 OF THE CITY'S |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS BEING PERTINENT TO THIS |
| | ANNEXATION AND FLU AMENDMENT. THERE IS NO FLU POLICY |
| | 1.1.5.1 IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLU POLICY |
| | 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 DO NOT DEAL WITH THE |
| | ISSUES STATED IN THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REVISE |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 4. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE - B. CHANGED ASSUMPTIONS (PAGE 4 OF 9) THE |
| | APPLICANT PROVIDES ONE PARAGRAPH TO JUSTIFY THIS |
| | AMENDMENT BASED ON RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE |
| | SURROUNDING AREA TO THE SUBJECT SITE. IF THE APPLICANT |
| | CHOSES TO USE THIS CATEGORY TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED |
| | LAND USE AMENDMENT THEN IT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A MORE |
| | DETAILED JUSTIFICATION THAN THE ONE CURRENTLY INCLUDED |
| | IN THE APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 5. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A) |
| | AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - D. WHETHER AND THE |
| | EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT |
| | WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES (PAGE 5 OF 9) THE |
| | APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE NATURE OF |
| | THE EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED SITE (E.G. |
| | THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, DENSITIES, APPROVALS, ETC.) IN |
| | ORDER TO PROPERLY DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE |
| | PROPOSED USE IN RELATION TO ITS SURROUNDINGS. |
| | |
| | 6. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A) |
| | AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - E. WHETHER AND THE |
| | EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD EXCEED THE |
| | CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT |
| | LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY, PARKS, |
| | FIRE, POLICE, DRAINAGE, SCHOOLS, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL |
| | FACILITIES (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT |
| | PUBLIC FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND ARE |
| | AVAILABLE TO THE SITE. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE A |
| | COMPLETE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SHOWING THE |
| | SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE |
| | LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM THE EXISTING HR-8 DESIGNATION |
| | TO THE PROPOSED MFMD DESIGNATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT |
| | THESE IMPACTS CAN BE MET BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IN |
| | ADDITION, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE SUMMARY |
| | TABLE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS FOR ALL SERVICE |
| | PROVIDERS. |
| | |
| | 7. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A) |
| | AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - F. WHETHER AND THE |
| | EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN |
| | SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT |
| | (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT STATES THAT "THE SITE IS |
| | CURRENTLY CLEARED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED FOR THE PBC |
| | APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN." PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER |
| | THERE ARE ANY TREE/VEGETATION MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS |
| | OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY |
| | AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CLEARING OF THE SITE UNDER THE |
| | PBC APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - WAIVER REQUESTS - |
| | THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS: |
| | |
| | THE FIRST REQUESTED WAIVER IS FOR SECTION 94-442 |
| | SUBSTITUTION OF PALM TREES WHICH STATES THAT PALM TREES |
| | MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NOT MORE THAN 35% OF THE |
| | REQUIRED SHADE OF FLOWERING TREES. THE APPLICANT IS |
| | REQUESTING THAT APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE SHADE TREES BE |
| | SUBSTITUTED BY SABAL PALM TREES. CITY STAFF IS NOT |
| | SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. AS SUCH, THE |
| | LANDSCAPE PLAN AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION |
| | WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | THE SECOND WAIVER REQUEST PERTAINS TO SECTION |
| | 94-76(A)(3) PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN |
| | RELATION TO REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING |
| | A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHICH WOULD EXCEED |
| | THE MAXIMUM CODE ALLOWANCE OF 40 FEET BASED ON THE |
| | PROPOSED SETBACKS. AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THE |
| | APPLICANT IS SEEKING A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF |
| | MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY, AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF |
| | MULTIFAMILY 20 WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | (RPD). THE CITY ALLOWS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN |
| | ORDER TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DESIGN. IT IS STAFF'S |
| | OPINION THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL DOES NOT |
| | INCORPORATE ANY INNOVATIVE DESIGN COMPONENTS. IN ORDER |
| | FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE HEIGHT/WAIVER REQUEST, THE |
| | PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DESIGN |
| | COMPONENTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE, SUCH AS |
| | THE FOLLOWING: A) ALL THE PERIMETER AND EXTERNAL ACCESS |
| | WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 5 |
| | FEET (CURRENTLY SOME ARE ONLY 4 FEET WIDE); B) ADD |
| | ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS TO THE PROPOSED BIKE PARKING |
| | AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND, |
| | CLUBHOUSE, AND BUS SHELTER; AND C) PROVIDE AN 8 FOOT |
| | WIDE PAVED PATHWAY (PREFERABLY ASPHALT) AROUND THE |
| | EXISTING LAKE. |
| | |
| | 9. LANDSCAPE PLAN (SHEET LP-1) - PLEASE REVISE THE |
| | LANDSCAPE CODE COMPLIANCE CHART AS IT APPEARS TO |
| | UNDERCOUNT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES PER CODE. |
| | SPECIFICALLY, PER SECTIONS 94-443(C)3A TERMINAL ISLANDS |
| | AND 94-443(C)3B INTERIOR ISLANDS AT LEAST 49 SHADE OR |
| | FLOWERING TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. |
| | THIS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WOULD REPLACE THE PARKING |
| | LOT REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 10 SF OF PARKING SPACE |
| | REFLECTED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN CHART INCLUDED IN THE |
| | APPLICATION. ALSO, PER SECTION 94-443(D)(2)A THIS |
| | PROJECT WOULD NEED 184 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE TREES. |
| | COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED 101 PERIMETER TREES, THE |
| | TOTAL REQUIRED TREES WOULD BE 334. PLEASE REVISE THE |
| | PLANS AND THE CHART ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 10. LANDSCAPE PLAN - PLEASE PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL TREE |
| | SURVEY USED TO DEVELOP THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN (TI.1) |
| | INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 11. PER SECTION 94-443(C)(1) "VEHICULAR USE AREAS |
| | SHALL BE SCREENED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND DISTRICTS |
| | BY A 36-INCH HIGH" DECORATIVE WALL. PLEASE REVISE THE |
| | PLANS ACCORDINGLY TO INCORPORATE THIS WALL AROUND THE |
| | VEHICULAR USE AREAS ON THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH SIDES |
| | OF THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | 12. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM OR |
| | PLAN THAT WILL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT. BE AWARE THAT |
| | THE CITY'S SANITATION DIVISION WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IN |
| | WRITING ANY GARBAGE COLLECTION PLAN. |
| | |
| | 13. WHILE THE TYPICAL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL INCLUDED ON |
| | RP.1 DOES INCLUDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BIKE PARKING |
| | PAD AND THE BIKE RACKS, THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) DOES NOT |
| | INCLUDE THOSE DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MODIFY THE SITE PLAN |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 14. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ADDRESS THE MANY APPARENT |
| | CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE |
| | SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. THESE |
| | CONFLICTS COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REDUCING THE WIDTH OF |
| | THE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT OR BY SHIFTING ITS |
| | LOCATION. IN ADDITION, A PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT IS |
| | IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS IN A TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND. |
| | PLEASE RELOCATE THE HYDRANT. |
| | |
| | 15. PER SECTION 94-130(D) "ANY OPERATION OR ACTIVITY |
| | PRODUCING GLARE SHALL BE CONDUCTED SO THAT DIRECT OR |
| | INDIRECT LIGHT FROM THE SOURCE SHALL NOT CAUSE |
| | ILLUMINATION IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT CANDLES WHEN |
| | MEASURED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT." THE PHOTOMETRIC |
| | PLANS PROVIDED DO NOT IDENTIFY ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR |
| | THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE WEST, SOUTH |
| | AND EAST RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN |
| | FOR BELLA VITA. THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS NEED TO BE |
| | REVISED DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN |
| | WILL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO THE |
| | SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. |
| | |
| | 16. IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED |
| | WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. LIGHT POLES ARE CONSIDERED |
| | STRUCTURES BY THE CODE AND NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED |
| | WITHIN THE SETBACK. THESE LIGHT POLES WOULD NEED TO BE |
| | RELOCATED OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR A |
| | WAIVER TO ALLOW THEM WITHIN THE SETBACK. |
| | |
| |
Print |
