| Date |
Text |
| 2015-11-20 10:36:56 | STAFF'S REVIEW HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO (2) 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); AND THE SECOND SECTION CONTAINS |
| | STAFF'S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BASED ON A TECHNICAL |
| | REVIEW OF THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | USE COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) 11/12/15 REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE 11/12/15 |
| | PPRC MEETING THAT A MARKET STUDY DEMONSTRATING THAT |
| | THERE IS A NEED FOR A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE IN |
| | THE AREA SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT; HOWEVER, |
| | NO MARKET STUDY AND/OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDING |
| | SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.) |
| | |
| | 2.) 11/12/15 REPEAT COMMENT: PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF HAS |
| | MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED USE |
| | WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF TWO (2) OTHER GAS |
| | STATION/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. |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE 11/12/15 |
| | PPRC MEETING THAT A MARKET STUDY DEMONSTRATING THAT |
| | THERE IS A NEED FOR A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE IN |
| | THE AREA SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT; HOWEVER, |
| | NO MARKET STUDY AND/OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDING |
| | SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.) |
| | |
| | 3.) ALTHOUGH THE WAIVERS ARE BEING SOUGHT FOR THE |
| | MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND |
| | SIZE OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE THROUGH THE PD AMENDMENT, |
| | THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO |
| | HOW THE WAIVERS WOULD BENEFIT (AND NOT BE A DETRIMENT |
| | TO) THE COMMUNITY. |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW: |
| | |
| | 1.) 10/13/15 REPEAT COMMENT: 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. AT PRESENT TIME, |
| | THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT EXHIBIT ANY INNOVATIVE LAND |
| | PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT |
| | THE PD AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED ON |
| | 11/12/15 DOES NOT EXHIBIT ANY CHANGES TO ADDRESS THIS |
| | COMMENT. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ORIENTATE THE |
| | BUILDINGS IN A MANNER THAT IS INNOVATIVE, NOR DOES THE |
| | PROJECT ENHANCE THE INTERSECTION OF PALM BEACH LAKES |
| | BOULEVARD AND AUSTRALIAN AVENUE. THE OVERALL SITE |
| | DESIGN REMAINS UNCHANGED AS A TYPICAL SITE DESIGN FOR A |
| | GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE ESTABLISHMENT.) |
| | |
| | 2.) 11/12/15 REPEAT COMMENT: EACH ROW OF PARKING SPACES |
| | SHALL BE TERMINATED BY LANDSCAPE ISLANDS OF NOT LESS |
| | THAN 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND NOT LESS THAN 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] |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: THE TERMINAL ISLAND AT THE SOUTHWEST |
| | CORNER OF THE PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE DOES NOT MEET |
| | THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS.) |
| | |
| | 3.) 11/12/15 REPEAT COMMENT: ALL PROPOSED SIGNAGE SHALL |
| | COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XIII OF THE |
| | ZLDR. THE PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGNAGE LOCATED AT ALL |
| | ACCESS POINTS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE |
| | CODE. |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: PURSUANT TO ZLDR S.94-408(D)(2), THE |
| | MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LOW FREESTANDING SIGNS PERMITTED ON |
| | THE LOT IS THREE (3). THERE ARE A TOTAL OF NINE (9) |
| | FREESTANDING SIGNS PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT, WHICH IS |
| | NOT PERMITTED.) |
| | |
| | 4.) THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED THAT A BICYCLE RACK HAS |
| | BEEN ADDED TO THE SITE (REFERENCE: 11/12/15 APPLICANT?S |
| | RESPONSE TO PPRC COMMENTS); HOWEVER, IT IS UNCLEAR TO |
| | WHERE THE RACK IS LOCATED. PLEASE NOTATE THE LOCATION |
| | OF THE BICYCLE RACK IN THE PLANS, AND INCLUDE A RACK |
| | DETAIL THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR |
| | BICYCLE PARKING. |
| | |
| | 5.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE SITE DATA |
| | CALCULATIONS: |
| | - ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, THE LOT AREA |
| | IS 74,052 SQ. FT. WHICH WAS CORRECT IN THE SITE DATA |
| | CALCULATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL. IT IS UNCLEAR |
| | TO WHY THIS NUMBER WAS INCORRECTLY CHANGED TO 73,506 |
| | SQ. FT. IN THE RESUBMITTAL. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | - THE ZLDR DEFINES THE FRONT LOT LINE FOR A CORNER LOT |
| | AS THE BOUNDARY OF A LOT WHICH POSSESSES THE NARROWEST |
| | LENGTH. THEREFORE, THE FRONTAGE LIES ON THE WEST SIDE |
| | OF THE PROPERTY (AUSTRALIAN AVENUE). PLEASE CORRECT THE |
| | MINIMUM SETBACKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE |
| | ACCORDINGLY. |
| | - CORRECT CALCULATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING: FAR, LOT |
| | FRONTAGE, LOT DEPTH, OPEN SPACE, CONVENIENCE STORE |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE PARKING DATA, AND ANY OTHER |
| | CALCULATIONS IMPACTED BY THE CORRECTIONS. |
| | - INCLUDE CALCULATIONS FOR BICYCLE PARKING. |
| | |
| | 6.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE SHEET INDEX: |
| | - ACTUAL SHEET CFG04.2 SHOULD BE LABELED "CONSTRUCTION |
| | DETAIL" AND NOT "PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE DETAIL." |
| | - ACTUAL SHEET CFG13.0, "SIGN PLAN" IS MISSING FROM THE |
| | PACKET OF PLANS. |
| | - LIGHT POLE FIXTURES SHALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST 5 FEET |
| | FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. [ZLDR S. 94-145(2)] |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) 11/12/15 REPEAT COMMENT: 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. |
| | |
| | (STAFF'S RESPONSE: STAFF HAS YET TO RECEIVE A TPS |
| | REVIEW LETTER FROM THE PBC TRAFFIC DIVISION INDICATING |
| | THAT THE TPS STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.) |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * 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 BY 11 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 ($600.00) OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | * CALL LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS |
| | MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| |
Print |
