| Date |
Text |
| 2018-01-05 15:58:00 | CASE NUMBER: PB 1773, 1773A, 1773B |
| | PROJECT NAME: 1701 CLARE AVE |
| | |
| | ZONING CONTACT: HEATHER M. TRIBOU |
| | (561) 822-1562 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | PROCESS COMMENTS |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ELEVEN |
| | (11) AND AN ELECTRONIC COPIES 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. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY, |
| | JANUARY 26, 2018, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE MARCH 20, |
| | 2018 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 THESE COMMENTS/THE PPRC MEETING (BY |
| | MARCH 12, 2018), 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| | WITHDRAWN.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. |
| | |
| | COMMENTS |
| | |
| | --THE APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY? SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY |
| | DETERMINATION. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | --A LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE (PAGE 38 OF THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION) SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR THE |
| | ENTIRE CPD (POD A AND POD B) AND IMPACTS SHOULD BE |
| | DISCUSSED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | --RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX DIFFERS IN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS |
| | FROM MASTER PLAN, FSP, JUSTIFICATION PLAN AND TRAFFIC |
| | STUDIES, PLEASE UPDATE TO MATCH UP. |
| | |
| | --RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE INCONSISTENT ON MASTER |
| | PLAN, FSP, JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND TRAFFIC STUDIES, |
| | PLEASE UPDATE TO MATCH UP. |
| | |
| | --COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TABLES ARE |
| | INCORRECTLY LABELED AS DWELLING UNITING FOR SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE TOTALS. |
| | |
| | --VOLUNTARY LIMITS ON COMMERCIAL MUST BE CLEARLY STATED |
| | ON ALL PLANS AND IN JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | --FLOOR AREA RATIOS MUST CLEARLY RELATE TO VOLUNTARY |
| | LIMITS ON COMMERCIAL ON ALL PLANS AND IN JUSTIFICATION |
| | STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | --JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT REFERENCES POPULATION DATA |
| | AND PROJECTIONS WHICH DIFFER FROM CITY?S; PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE REFERENCES. |
| | |
| | --JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT REFERENCES THE COMPREHENSIVE |
| | PLAN PROJECTIONS BEING FROM 2008, WHEN THE CITY?S |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS UPDATED IN 2015. |
| | |
| | --JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT DISREGARDS ANY PROSPECT FOR |
| | MASS TRANSIT IN THE AREA WHILE INDICATING A RESURGENCE |
| | OF BUSINESS IN THE AREA AND APPLICATION PROPOSES |
| | RESIDENTIAL, THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY?S |
| | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | --THE APPLICATION PROPOSES TO TAKE A PROPERTY |
| | HISTORICALLY USED AS INDUSTRIAL AND REPURPOSE IT AS |
| | RESIDENTIAL, TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, A PHASE |
| | I ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AND IF |
| | MITIGATION EFFORTS ARE NEEDED SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN |
| | THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | --THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SHOULD ADDRESS MEASURES |
| | TAKEN TO INCREASE BIKING ACCESSIBILITY TO THE SITE. |
| | |
| | --THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SHOULD ADDRESS POLICY |
| | 1.15 OF THE CITY?S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ADVISED ON |
| | PAGE 32 OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | --THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT (STANDARDS OF CODE |
| | COMPLIANCE) SHOULD INCLUDE MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON |
| | CHANGED CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | --WAIVER #1- SUBJECT SITE IS NOT ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, |
| | IT IS SEPARATED BY PUBLIC ROW AND THEREFORE IS NOT |
| | REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INCREASED SETBACK. |
| | |
| | --WAIVER #1- PLEASE VERIFY BUILDING HEIGHTS ON WAIVER |
| | WITH ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | --WAIVER #2- JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES GARAGE |
| | WAS CALCULATED. PLEASE CALCULATE % RESIDENTIAL AND % |
| | COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR AREA ONLY. |
| | |
| | --WAIVER #2- JUSTIFICATION STATES THE INCREASED |
| | RESIDENTIAL IS TO COMPLIMENT SURROUNDINGS. THREE SIDES |
| | OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ACROSS OF INDUSTRIAL AND ONE IS |
| | ACROSS FROM RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED APPLICATION |
| | PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL ACROSS FROM INDUSTRIAL ON TWO |
| | SIDE, PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN- LABELS ON PLAN AND IN KEY ARE |
| | INCONSISTENT FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN- PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS DO NOT MATCH |
| | WITH FSP. |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN (GENERAL NOTE #2)- PLEASE INDICATE THAT |
| | SEC. 94-312: SEPERATION OF ACCESS POINTS WILL BE MEET. |
| | |
| | -MASTERPLAN- CLEARLY INDICATE ALL OVERALL DATA WITH POD |
| | A AND POD B DATA. |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN (NOTE ON POD B)- SEC. 94-207(D)(9) |
| | PROHIBITS OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE PROPOSED ZONING, THIS |
| | MUST BE CLEARLY INDICATED. |
| | |
| | -- MASTERPLAN (NOTE ON POD B) - STAFF RESEARCHED ALL |
| | CURRENT LICENSED BUSINESS AS OF 1/5/17. USES OF |
| | LICENSED BUSINESS ARE PERMITTED IN THE GC ZONING |
| | DISTRICT. THIS NOTE IS VAGUE AND SHOULD BE REMOVED. |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN- STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT A 0?SETBACK |
| | WAIVER. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE |
| | APPLICATION, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AND THE |
| | GC DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | --LANDSCAPE PLANS- THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS INDICATES |
| | LARGE AMOUNTS OF LANDSCAPE ON THE BUILDING TO SOFTEN |
| | THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING. PLEASE UPDATE THE LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS TO SPECIFY THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON |
| | THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS. |
| | |
| | --LANDSCAPE PLANS- PROVIDE PLANS FOR AMENITIES ON 3RD |
| | LEVEL. |
| | |
| | --FSP AND LANDSCAPE PLAN- SEC.94-145(6) (B) MINIMUM |
| | LANDSCAPE AREA IS 15% |
| | |
| | --MASTERPLAN AND FSP- 94-305(E) INDICATE VISIBILITY |
| | TRIANGLE ON PLANS. |
| | |
| | --MASTER PLAN AND FSP- 94-145(3) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE |
| | IS 60% |
| | |
| | --MASTER PLAN AND FSP- 94-145(4) MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS |
| | SURFACE IS 85% |
| | |
| | --FSP-PROVIDE SIGNAGE PLAN OR NOTE WILL MEET SEC. |
| | 94-408. |
| | |
| | --FSP-2- PROVIDE DETAILS FOR FENCES. |
| | |
| | --FSP-2- PROVIDE DETAILS FOR SITE AMENITIES, INCLUDING |
| | BENCHES. |
| | |
| | --ARCHITECTURAL PLANS- RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX ON PLANS |
| | AND CHARTS TO NOT MATCH. |
| | |
| | --ARCHITECTURAL PLANS- PLEASE PROVIDE SAMPLES AND |
| | DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS BEING USED. |
| | |
| | --ARCHITECTURAL PLANS- PROVIDE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR |
| | PARKING SPACES IN GARAGE. NOTE COLUMNS MAY NOT ENCROACH |
| | ON MINIMUM SIZE PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| |
Print |
