| Date |
Text |
| 2015-11-05 13:31:58 | CASE NO. PB 950UUUU |
| | RESTORATION HARDWARE CONSTRUCTION MINOR AMENDMENT |
| | 650 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FIVE |
| | (5) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF |
| | THESE COMMENTS (BY JANUARY 4, 2016), 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| | CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 ($60). |
| | |
| | 1) THE ROOFTOP LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL |
| | ROOF PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE ROOFTOP LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON |
| | THE LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 206-15. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE ROOFTOP LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON THE |
| | BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE RH BUILDING DOES NOT MATCH |
| | EITHER PLAN. IF THE BUILDING PERMIT LAYOUT IS PLANNED |
| | AS THE FINAL LAYOUT, PLEASE SUBMIT REVISED PLANS WITH |
| | THIS MINOR AMENDMENT THAT ALL SHOW THE FINAL CONDITION. |
| | |
| | 2) THE GROUND LEVEL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS DIFFERENT |
| | CONDITIONS THAN THE PERMIT SET. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE |
| | PERMIT SET LISTS 24 REQUIRED SHADE TREES, YET PROVIDES |
| | ONLY 21. IF THE PALM CONVERSION IS PLANNED TO BE USED |
| | TO MAKE UP THE 3 TREES, THEN THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY |
| | STATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS |
| | ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE MINOR PD AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 3) THE MINOR AMENDMENT AND PERMIT SET ARCHITECTURAL |
| | SITE PLANS DIFFER. EX. THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE GATE VS. |
| | BOLLARDS. ALL PLANS SHALL SHOW SAME CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | 4) THE MINOR AMENDMENT AND PERMIT SET FIRST FLOOR PLANS |
| | DIFFER. ALL PLANS SHALL SHOW SAME CONDITIONS. STAFF |
| | RECOMMENDS USING THE BUILDING PERMIT VERSIONS OF THE |
| | DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 5) THE AMOUNT OF GLAZING VISIBLE AT THE DOORWAY/TRANSOM |
| | WINDOWS AND THE METAL AWNINGS COVERING THE |
| | DOORWAY/TRANSOM WINDOWS HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS |
| | ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 206-15. THESE |
| | PLANS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS SHOW LESS |
| | GLAZING THAN WAS APPROVED. SOME OF THE GLAZING IS |
| | COVERED BY LARGER OR RELOCATED METAL AWNINGS, WHILE |
| | OTHER GLAZING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED BY SOLID |
| | WALL. STAFF WILL NOT APPROVE THE REDUCTION OR COVERING |
| | OF ADDITIONAL GLAZING SINCE PROVIDING MAXIMUM GLAZING |
| | WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CITY?S SUPPORT AND APPROVAL |
| | OF THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| |
Print |
