| Date |
Text |
| 2017-02-07 10:33:34 | CASE NO. 1633E |
| | NAME OF CASE BELLA VITA ESTATES MAJOR PD AMENDMENT |
| | 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 ELEVEN |
| | (11)/FIVE (5) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN |
| | .PNG/.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. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FEBRUARY |
| | 24, 2017, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL 2017 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 (APRIL 10, 2017), 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| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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. |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1. APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE AN ALTA SURVEY WITH THE |
| | APPLICATION. THE ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY SHALL BE |
| | PREPARED AND SIGNED/SEALED BY A FLORIDA REGISTERED |
| | SURVEYOR. THE ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY MUST MEET THE |
| | ?MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM |
| | LAND TITLE SURVEYS? AS ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN LAND |
| | TITLE ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN CONGRESS ON SURVEYING AND |
| | MAPPING, AND THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL |
| | SURVEYORS. |
| | |
| | 2. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - WAIVER REQUESTS - |
| | THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE WAIVER: |
| | THE REQUESTED WAIVER IS FOR SECTION 94-207.C.4 |
| | RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS WHICH |
| | REQUIRES THAT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BE LOCATED AT LEAST |
| | 20 FEET FROM ANY OUTERMOST PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE OR |
| | ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A |
| | 13-FOOT MINIMUM PERIMETER PROPERTY LINE SETBACK, ONLY |
| | FOR TOWNHOME UNITS ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH PERIMETER |
| | OF THE PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | EARLIER IN THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY |
| | IDENTIFIES THAT THE INTERNAL TOWNHOMES HAVE TO COMPLY |
| | WITH THE STANDARDS OF CITY CODE SECTION 94-309.G., |
| | WHICH UNDER 94-309.G(6)D.3 INCLUDES REAR SETBACK |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF 15 FEET OR TEN PERCENT OF LOTH DEPTH, |
| | WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED TOWNHOME LOTS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 84 FEET |
| | DEEP, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE 8.4 FEET MINIMUM REAR |
| | SETBACK. THE APPLICATION ALSO INDICATES THAT "ALL OF |
| | THE INTERNAL TOWNHOMES HAVE A REAR SETBACK OF 10 FEET |
| | MINIMUM AND THEREFORE EXCEED THE CALCULATED REAR |
| | SETBACK." STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY IN THE SITE PLAN |
| | WHETHER THE PROPOSED TOWNHOMES LOCATED AT THE NORTH END |
| | OF THE PROJECT, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE EXISTING LAKE |
| | (IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE PLAN AS BUILDING GROUPS 11 AND |
| | 12) MEET THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS THE SITE PLAN |
| | DOES NOT SHOW THEIR PROPERTY LINE OR THE DISTANCE FROM |
| | THE STRUCTURES TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE(S). IN |
| | ADDITION, STAFF IS ALSO UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE REAR |
| | SETBACKS FOR THE TOWNHOMES LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET |
| | (IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE PLAN AS BUILDING GROUP 10) AS |
| | THE SITE PLAN DOES NO SHOW THE DISTANCE FROM THE |
| | STRUCTURES TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE(S). IT IS POSSIBLE |
| | THAT SOME OF THESE UNITS MAY ALSO REQUIRE A REAR |
| | SETBACK WAIVER, ALTHOUGH A DIFFERENT ONE FROM THE ONE |
| | REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE EXTERNAL TOWNHOMES. |
| | THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE REVISED TO SHOW ALL PROPERTY |
| | LINES FOR ALL PROPOSED TOWNHOMES AND IT SHOULD INCLUDE |
| | ALL SETBACKS. |
| | |
| | 3. 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 WAIVER(S) REQUEST(S), THE PROPOSAL WOULD |
| | NEED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DESIGN COMPONENTS THAT COULD BE |
| | CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE, SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING: A) ALL |
| | THE INTERNAL ACCESS SIDEWALKS SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM |
| | WIDTH OF 5 FEET (CURRENTLY THEY ARE ONLY 4 FEET WIDE); |
| | B) ADD SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF ALL THE UNITS (CURRENTLY |
| | ONLY 46 OF THE PROPOSED 98 UNITS HAVE SIDEWALKS IN |
| | FRONT ON THEM). WHILE THE APPLICATION STATES THAT THERE |
| | ARE PROPOSED WALKWAYS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD "DUE TO |
| | THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE RESTRICTIONS |
| | BASED UPON EXISTING ROADWAYS", STAFF BELIEVES THAT |
| | ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR SIDEWALKS COULD BE PROVIDED IF THE |
| | GARAGES WERE TO BE RECESSED A FEW FEET OR IF TOWNHOMES |
| | WERE TO BE BUILT AS 3-STORY UNITS. |
| | |
| | 4. THE PLANS IDENTIFY A PROPOSED 5-FOOT TRAIL AROUND |
| | THE LAKE; HOWEVER THE PLANS PROVIDE NO ADDITIONAL |
| | DETAIL ON THIS TRAIL, INCLUDING MATERIAL TO BE USED. |
| | PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TRAIL SHOULD BE PAVED, PREFERABLY |
| | WITH EITHER ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. PLEASE REVISE THE |
| | PLANS BY IDENTIFYING PAVING SURFACE AND DETAILS FOR THE |
| | TRAIL. |
| | |
| | 5. THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THIS SITE |
| | INCLUDES A 35-FOOT X 30-FOOT FUTURE PALM TRAN BOARDING |
| | AND ALIGHTING EASEMENT ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY |
| | RIGHT NEXT TO THE OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD RIGHT OF WAY. |
| | THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION DOES |
| | NOT INCLUDE THIS EASEMENT. IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE |
| | EASEMENT FROM THE PLAN, PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN |
| | CONFIRMATION FROM PALM TRAN THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE |
| | EASEMENT REMOVAL. |
| | |
| | 6. THE PARKING DETAIL INCLUDED IN DET.1/SP.2 IS NOT |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THE PARKING STALL PAINTING REQUIREMENTS |
| | OF SECTION 94-485. ALSO, PROVIDE DIMENSIONS ON SP.1 AND |
| | ON THE DETAIL PAGE FOR THE PARKING AREA LOCATED |
| | ADJACENT TO THE MAIL BOXES AS THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE |
| | SPACES IN THIS AREA APPEAR TO FLUCTUATE IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 7. PER SECTION 94-485, THE MINIMUM LENGTH FOR STANDARD |
| | 0 DEGREE (PARALLEL) PARKING STALLS IS 22 FEET. THE |
| | LENGTH OF THE PARALLEL GUEST PARKING SPACES SHOWN IN |
| | THE PLAN IS 20 FEET. WHILE THE CODE DOES ALLOW FOR |
| | SMALL CAR SPACES WITH A LENGTH OF 20 FEET FOR PARALLEL |
| | PARKING, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT |
| | BE ABLE TO USE THE SMALL CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED |
| | ON THE LIMITATIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION 94-485(N)(1). |
| | ALSO NOTE THAT THE CURB LINE FOR THE END SPACES OF |
| | PARALLEL PARKING ROWS SHALL HAVE A 45 DEGREE ANGLE |
| | BEYOND THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LENGTH OF THE SPACES. |
| | |
| | 8. THE PARKING SITE DATA ON SP.1 INDICATES THAT THE |
| | GUEST SPACES REQUIRED ARE 10 SPACES (1 SPACES/PER 10 |
| | REQUIRED SPACES). SINCE 196 SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL PARKING, THEN THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED GUEST |
| | SPACES SHOULD BE 20 (19.6) INSTEAD OF THE 10 INDICATED |
| | IN THE TABLE. AS A RESULT, THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING |
| | SHOULD BE 216 SPACES INSTEAD OF THE 206 SHOWN IN THE |
| | TABLE. ALSO, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THAT ONLY 18 GUEST |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE BEING PROVIDED, WHICH IS SHORT OF |
| | THE 20 SPACES REQUIRED PER CODE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE |
| | CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PARKING WAIVERS FOR PROPERTIES |
| | WEST OF I-95. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM THE CITY?S |
| | BUILDING DIVISION THAT THE PARALLEL ADA PARKING SPACE |
| | SHOWN NEAR THE PASSIVE RECREATION/TOT LOT AREA MEETS |
| | ADA REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 10. 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. |
| | |
| | 11. THE SITE PLAN IDENTIFIES NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER |
| | OF THE SITE THE PRESENCE OF A WOOD BARN WHICH |
| | ENCROACHES 6.5 FEET INTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS |
| | ENCROACHMENT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND THE DIFFERENT |
| | PLANS NEED TO BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 12. THIS PROPOSED MAJOR PD AMENDMENT TO A FEE SIMPLE |
| | RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY WILL REQUIRE AN |
| | APPLICATION FOR REPLAT TO CREATE THE FEE SIMPLE LOTS. |
| | THE APPLICATION FOR THE PD AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE TAKEN |
| | TO CITY COMMISSION UNTIL THE REPLAT APPLICATION HAS |
| | BEEN SUBMITTED AND STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT IT MEETS |
| | ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS AND IS READY FOR CITY COMMISSION |
| | ACTION. |
| | |
| | 13. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER ANY SCREEN ENCLOSURES OR |
| | FENCES WILL BE EITHER CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER IN |
| | THE REAR OF THE UNITS OR WHETHER THE FUTURE OWNERS OF |
| | THE UNITS WILL BE PERMITTED TO BUILD SUCH ENCLOSURES OR |
| | FENCES. IF SO, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED AS |
| | PART OF THIS AMENDMENT AND ADDITIONAL WAIVERS MAY BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 14. THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) IDENTIFIES A PASSIVE |
| | RECREATION/TOT LOT AND AN ADJACENT BENCH. HOWEVER, THE |
| | SITE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE A DETAIL, INCLUDING |
| | ELEVATIONS OF EITHER THE TOT LOT OR OF THE BENCH. |
| | PLEASE MODIFY THE SITE PLAN BY ADDING THESE DETAILS, |
| | INCLUDING INFORMATION ON THE MATERIALS OF THE TOT LOT |
| | HARDSCAPE SURFACE(S). |
| | |
| | 15. THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) IDENTIFIES A BIKE RACK NEXT TO |
| | THE PROPOSED PASSIVE RECREATION/TOT LOT. HOWEVER, THE |
| | SITE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE A BICYCLE RACK DETAIL, WITH |
| | AN ELEVATION OF THE BIKE RACK AND WITH THE DIMENSIONS |
| | FOR THE BIKE PARKING PAD AND THE BIKE RACK. PLEASE |
| | MODIFY THE SITE PLAN BY ADDING THESE DETAILS. |
| | |
| | 16. THE SITE PLAN DETAIL NEEDS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION |
| | REGARDING THE TYPE OF MATERIAL BEING PROPOSED FOR THE |
| | CROSSWALKS DEPICTED IN THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 17. SHEET DETAIL 1/SITE PLAN PAGE 2 IDENTIFIES THE |
| | "INTERNAL VEHICULAR ACCESSWAY STREET LIGHT DETAIL" |
| | FIXTURE PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT. IN ADDITION, PAGE 8 |
| | OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT/PROJECT NARRATIVE UNDER |
| | (13) EXTERIOR LIGHTING STATES THAT "ALL PROPOSED |
| | LIGHTING WILL BE INTERNAL TO THE COMMUNITY ALONG THE |
| | INTERNAL VEHICULAR ACCESS TRACT". NEITHER ONE OF THE |
| | PLANS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO SHOW ANY |
| | LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. ALL OF |
| | THE PLANS NEED TO BE REVISED TO IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED |
| | LOCATION OF THE LIGHT POLES. PLEASE NOTE THAT LIGHT |
| | POLES ARE CONSIDERED STRUCTURES BY THE CODE AND NO |
| | STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SETBACK. AS A RESULT, |
| | ALL PROPOSED LIGHT POLES WOULD NEED TO BE LOCATED |
| | OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACKS OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO |
| | APPLY FOR A WAIVER TO ALLOW THEM WITHIN THE SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 18. 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". IN ORDER TO |
| | CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, ONCE THE |
| | PROPOSED LIGHT POLES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PLANS, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL NEED TO SUBMIT PHOTOMETRIC PLANS WHICH |
| | 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 WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | THAT THE PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL |
| | DISTRICTS. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
