| Date |
Text |
| 2020-11-03 16:19:20 | CASE NO. PB 1824, 1824A & 1824B |
| | GRACE FELLOWSHIP ANNEXATION |
| | 8350 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG 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. ONCE STAFF HAS |
| | DETERMINED THAT THE COMMENTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY |
| | ADDRESSED, YOU WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE |
| | PLANNING BOARD MEETING. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU SUBMIT |
| | RESPONSES WHICH CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES BY TUESDAY, |
| | NOVEMBER 10, 2020, YOU WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED |
| | FOR THE DECEMBER 15, 2020 PLANNING BOARD. |
| | |
| | - 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. |
| | |
| | THE COMMENTS BELOW ARE ONLY FOR THE ANNEXATION AND THE |
| | INITIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING ASSIGNMENTS. THE |
| | PLANNING STAFF WILL ADDRESS THE SITE, LANDSCAPE, ETC. |
| | PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE |
| | SITE AT A FUTURE PPRC MEETING ONCE THE MAJOR PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN DEEMED SUFFICIENT. |
| | |
| | ANNEXATION - COMPLIES |
| | |
| | TOTAL ANNEXATION OF 27.44 ACRES. |
| | |
| | FUTURE LAND USE |
| | |
| | TO CS = 24.52 |
| | TO C = 2.925 (2.93) |
| | |
| | 1) UPDATED COMMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS |
| | |
| | THE FLU AMENDMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY PINDER |
| | TROUTMAN CONSULTING, INC. INCLUDES TWO VERSIONS OF |
| | EXHIBIT 2A- GRACE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH DAILY TRIP |
| | GENERATION COMPARISON. BOTH VERSIONS INCLUDE DIFFERENT |
| | ACREAGES FOR THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLU |
| | DESIGNATIONS, RESULTING IN DIFFERENT TRIP GENERATION |
| | FIGURES. UNDER THE "CONCLUSIONS" SECTION, THE TRAFFIC |
| | ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE |
| | DESIGNATION, ". MEETS THE TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS, |
| | WITH RESTRICTION TO THE PROPOSED INTENSITY". HOWEVER, |
| | THE STUDY WOULD APPEAR TO INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | AMENDMENT WOULD FAIL THE TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS IF |
| | THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE EVALUATED BASED ON THE MAXIMUM |
| | DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPOSED FLU |
| | DESIGNATIONS. THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE REVISED |
| | TO SHOW THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT |
| | BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATIONS IN ADDITION TO ANY PROPOSED |
| | RESTRICTIONS IN INTENSITY. PLEASE CONTACT ALEX HANSON, |
| | CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER, IF YOU NEED CLARIFICATION |
| | ON THIS COMMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE LEVEL |
| | OF SERVICE ANALYSIS IN A SUMMARY TABLE FORMAT; HOWEVER, |
| | THE ACREAGE USED FOR THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY SERVICE FLU |
| | DESIGNATION WAS NOT UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE REVISED |
| | ACREAGE (THE 40 FOOT STRIP). THE EXISTING FLU |
| | DESIGNATION CORRECTLY USES THE TOTAL OF 27.44 ACRES |
| | (18.38 ACRES WITH THE COUNTY'S INST/1 FLU AND 9.06 |
| | ACRES WITH THE COUNTY'S HR/8 DESIGNATION). THE PROPOSED |
| | FLU DESIGNATION, THE TABLE USES ONLY A TOTAL OF 24.51 |
| | ACRES (21.58 ACRES WITH THE CS FLU AND 2.93 ACRES WITH |
| | THE C FLU DESIGNATION). THE TOTAL ACREAGE FOR THE SITE |
| | IS 27.44 ACRES, WHICH IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON THE |
| | LOS SUMMARY TABLE. |
| | |
| | 3) THE LOS SUMMARY TABLE ALSO INCLUDES A SECTION FOR |
| | THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE AMENDMENT. THE TRAFFIC |
| | IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS TABLE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THOSE INCLUDED IN THE MOST RECENT FLU |
| | AMENDMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY PINDER TROUTMAN |
| | CONSULTING, INC. (EITHER VERSION OF EXHIBIT 2A). |
| | |
| | 4) THE APPLICATION CONTAINS A LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS |
| | FOR FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT PREPARED BY CAULFIELD & |
| | WHEELER, INC. SIMILAR TO THE LOS SUMMARY TABLE, THE |
| | PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER IMPACTS WERE CALCULATED BASED |
| | ON 24.51 ACRES AND NOT ON THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE SITE |
| | (27.44 ACRES). IN ADDITION, BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE |
| | PROPOSED ESTIMATED DRAINAGE FLOWS ARE BASED ON 25.34 |
| | ACRES. ALL OF THESE CALCULATIONS NEED TO BE PREPARED |
| | BASED ON 27.44 ACRES. |
| | |
| | 5) UPDATED COMMENT: THE RESPONSE STATES THAT YOU WOULD |
| | RATHER USE TRIPS INSTEAD OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE FLU |
| | RESTRICTION; HOWEVER, NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN |
| | THE FLU AMENDMENT APPLICATION INDICATES THAT THE |
| | APPLICATION IS BEING RESTRICTED TO A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF |
| | TRIPS, OR WHAT NUMBER OF TRIPS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT |
| | IS BEING RESTRICTED TO. THE NUMBER OF TRIPS NEEDS TO BE |
| | CLEARLY ENUMERATED. THIS WILL ALSO NEED TO BE INCLUDED |
| | ON THE FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. |
| | |
| | REZONING |
| | |
| | 6) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INCLUDES THAT THE |
| | COMMERCIAL PORTION WILL BE FURTHER REZONED TO CPD AS |
| | PART OF THIS APPLICATION. WITHOUT HAVING A MASTER |
| | DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL, STAFF WILL |
| | NOT MOVE FORWARD A REZONING TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | FOR THIS PORTION OF THE SITE. ONCE THERE IS A PROJECT |
| | READY TO BE DEVELOPED, IT CAN BE DETERMINED IF A |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS EVEN REQUIRED, OR IF THE PROJECT |
| | CAN BE BUILT BY RIGHT WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL |
| | ZONING DESIGNATION. |
| | |
| |
Print |
