| Date |
Text |
| 2015-10-13 09:20:05 | ** STAFF'S REVIEW HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THREE (3) |
| | SECTIONS. THE FIRST SECTION PERTAINS TO THE REQUEST TO |
| | CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO ALLOW MOTOR VEHICLE |
| | FUEL SALES (NO SERVICE) AND ACCESSORY CONVENIENCE STORE |
| | AS A "USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT" WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD); THE SECOND SECTION CONTAINS |
| | STAFF'S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BASED ON A TECHNICAL |
| | REVIEW OF THE PLANS; AND THE THIRD SECTION ARE GENERAL |
| | COMMENTS/QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE REQUIRED |
| | MATERIAL FOR THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. ** |
| | |
| | USE COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT ORDER (ORDINANCE NO. 2721-94) OF THE |
| | COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) TO PERMIT MOTOR |
| | VEHICLE FUEL SALES (NO SERVICE) AND ACCESSORY |
| | CONVENIENCE STORE AS A "USE BY RIGHT" IN THE CPD. THE |
| | APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY JUSTIFICATION TO WHY A |
| | GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE |
| | FOR THIS LOCATION/CPD. |
| | |
| | 2.) PROVIDE RESPONSES TO ZLDR S.94-273(46.1), |
| | ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES (NO |
| | SERVICE AND ACCESSORY CONVENIENCE STORE). |
| | |
| | 3.) PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF HAS MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE |
| | LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED USE WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF TWO |
| | (2) OTHER GAS STATIONS/CONVENIENCE STORES AND THREE (3) |
| | GAS STATIONS/CONVENIENCE STORES WITHIN 0.5 MILE FROM |
| | THE PROPOSED LOCATION. THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO |
| | JUSTIFY WHY THE LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN ITS |
| | PROXIMITY TO THE OTHER GAS STATIONS/CONVENIENCE STORES |
| | IN THE AREA. |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW: |
| | |
| | 1.) PURSUANT TO ZLDR S.94-207(A), THE INTENT OF A PD |
| | DISTRICT IS TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF INNOVATIVE LAND |
| | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES TO CREATE MORE |
| | DESIRABLE AND ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. THE |
| | SITE PLAN DOES NOT EXHIBIT ANY INNOVATIVE LAND |
| | PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT |
| | THE PD AMENDMENT. [ZLDR S.94-207(A)] |
| | |
| | 2.) CHECK SITE DATA CALCULATIONS. CALCULATIONS FOR THE |
| | FAR, PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND OPEN SPACE NOT CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 3.) PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS AND STRIPING SHALL COMPLY |
| | WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN ZLDR S.94-485(J). THE STALL |
| | PAINTING DETAIL PROVIDED ON SHEET CFG04.1 DOES NOT |
| | CONFORM TO THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR PARKING STALLS. |
| | |
| | 4.) ONE (1) BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY |
| | TWENTY (20) AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES. THE DESIGN AND |
| | LOCATION OF BICYCLE PARKING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE |
| | CITY'S BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS. [ZLDR S.94-485(Q)] |
| | |
| | 5.) INDICATE IF WHEEL STOPS AND/OR A 2 FOOT CURB |
| | OVERHANG WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PARKING STALLS. |
| | |
| | 6.) EACH ROW OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE TERMINATED BY |
| | LANDSCAPE ISLANDS OF NOT LESS THAN 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND |
| | NOT LESS THAN THE LENGTH OF THE ADJACENT PARKING STALL. |
| | THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM RADIUS OF 2.5 |
| | FEET AT ITS END SO AS TO ALLOW CAR MANEUVERING. THE |
| | LANDSCAPED ISLAND SHALL CONTAIN AT LEAST ONE (1) SHADE |
| | OR FLOWERING TREE. [ZLDR S.94-443] |
| | |
| | 7.) THE WALLS OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SHALL BE |
| | LANDSCAPED WITH SHRUBS AND HEDGES PLANTED AT 2 FOOT |
| | INTERVALS. [ZLDR S.94-444(B)] |
| | |
| | 8.) ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XIII OF THE ZLDR. THE PROPOSED |
| | FREESTANDING SIGNS LOCATED AT ALL ACCESS POINTS DOES |
| | NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE CODE. |
| | |
| | 9.) THE CANOPY SIGN LEGEND ON SHEET CFG12.0 INDICATES |
| | THAT THERE IS A SIGN ON THE REAR ELEVATION. THE DETAILS |
| | AND DIMENSIONS ARE MISSING. |
| | |
| | 10.) SETBACK DIMENSIONS MISSING FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | FREESTANDING SIGNAGE. |
| | |
| | 11.) LABEL ELEVATIONS WITH DIRECTIONS (I.E. NORTH, |
| | SOUTH, EAST AND WEST) |
| | |
| | 12.) REFERENCE TO SHEET CFG04.2 MISSING FROM THE COVER |
| | SHEET. |
| | |
| | 13.) PHOTOMETRICS AND LIGHTING PLAN DETAILS (SHEETS |
| | CFG10.0 AND CFG 10.1) MISSING FROM THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) A TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (TSP) REVIEW LETTER |
| | FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND |
| | PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION, INDICATING |
| | THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS THE TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE |
| | STANDARDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE |
| | SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING. |
| | |
| | 2.) PROVIDE LETTERS FROM AT&T, FPU, FPL AND COMCAST |
| | CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH |
| | INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE |
| | PROVISIONS OF THEIR SERVICES. |
| | |
| | 3.) HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONTACT/COMMUNICATION WITH THE |
| | NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND SCHOOL IN THE AREA |
| | REGARDING THE PROPOSAL? |
| | |
| | |
| | NOTES FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF |
| | FIFTEEN (15) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5 |
| | INCHES X 11 INCHES AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17 |
| | INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE |
| | NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT |
| | IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * 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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20 PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | * PLEASE CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE |
| | ARE QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
