| Date |
Text |
| 2023-03-24 16:35:13 | ZONING AND PLANNING |
| | PROJECT: ROXYS RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (Z22120027) |
| | DATE: MARCH 24, 2023 |
| | CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT |
| | 561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected]. |
| | I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND |
| | PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS |
| | |
| | 1. TPS LETTER RECEIVED. PLEASE NOTE, IF PROPOSED SQ.FT. |
| | CHANGES, THE LETTER WILL NEED TO BE REVISED AND |
| | SUBMITTED AGAIN. |
| | |
| | 2. PROJECT DATA SHEET SQ.FT. DIFFERS FROM SP-1 TABLE. |
| | PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | 3. ENGINEERING PLANS/DOCUMENTS. PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF |
| | THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE OK WITH PLANS NOT SUBMITTED |
| | EVEN IF THERE IS A NEW STRUCTURE GOING IN TO SUPPORT |
| | THE POOL AND A NEW FLOOR AND ROOF ARE BEING ADDED TO |
| | 313 CLEMATIS ST. |
| | |
| | 4. SIGNED AERIAL EASEMENTS WILL BE A CONDITION OF |
| | APPROVAL PRIOR C.O. |
| | |
| | 5. SATISFIED. PUBLIC UTILITIES WRITTEN CONFIRMATION. |
| | |
| | 6. SATISFIED. LETTERS FROM ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES. |
| | |
| | 7. SATISFIED. PUBLIC OUTREACH/ LETTERS OF SUPPORT. |
| | |
| | 8. ACKNOWLEDGED. PUBLIC NOTICE, APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: |
| | THE MOT PLAN WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 1. JUSTIFICATION LETTER: |
| | |
| | A. SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | B. SATISFIED. PLEASE MAKE SURE SQ.FT. MATCHES TABLE IN |
| | SHEETS. |
| | |
| | C. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: ACKNOWLEDGED BONA FIDE |
| | RESTAURANTS MEET THE CRITERIA ON THE CITY'S CODE OF |
| | ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 6, SEC. 6-1. |
| | |
| | D. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. REPEATED COMMENT, NOTE THAT |
| | THERE ARE SENTENCES THAT ARE NOT FULLY FLESHED, SEE |
| | RESPONSE TO STANDARD REVIEW (A); "...WHICH IS BOUND TO |
| | THE EAST BY" AND ON VARIANCE REQUEST #3, RESPONSE TO |
| | VARIANCE STANDARD (A) "...ENCLOSING THE DUMPSTER AND |
| | PROVIDING A...". PLEASE CAREFULLY REVISE. AND, ON (A) |
| | RESPONSE, PLEASE ALSO DESCRIBE HOW THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGN IN CONSIDERATION TO NEIGHBORING |
| | PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH, AND HOW IT IS |
| | IN LINE WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLEMATIS |
| | WATERFRONT DISTRICT. |
| | |
| | NOT SATISFIED. JUSTIFICATION LETTER, SPECIAL REVIEW |
| | STANDARD (C), DOES NOT PLEASE EXPLAIN FURTHER HOW THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE |
| | DEVELOPMENT, NOT ONLY FOR MASS, BULK AND PROPORTION, |
| | BUT ALSO THE INCORPORATION OF FENESTRATION, FACADE |
| | MATERIALS, OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS USE IN THE |
| | DESIGN. |
| | |
| | ON SPECIAL REVIEW STANDARD (D) PLEASE EXPLAIN FURTHER |
| | HOW THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALSO ALLOWS VISUAL INTERACTION |
| | WITH THE FLOORS ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL FRONTING |
| | CLEMATIS ST AND THE ALLEY. |
| | |
| | E. SATISFIED. PLEASE NOTE AS PER SEC. 94-38, 'A |
| | VARIANCE SHALL NOT BE GRANTED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF |
| | NONCONFORMITIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICTS OR ADJOINING |
| | DISTRICTS.' THIS VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY |
| | "MATCHING" OTHER NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. |
| | |
| | F. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON RESPONSE J), VARIANCE |
| | STANDARDS, PLEASE NOTE THE ACTUAL DEPARTURE FROM THE |
| | DIMENSIONAL OR NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS AND MAKE SURE |
| | THAT IN DRAWINGS IS CLEARLY SHOWN AS THE MIN SETBACK |
| | LINES AND THE ACTUAL SETBACK LINE OF THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | 2. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS: |
| | |
| | A. NOT SATISFIED. STREET-LEVEL THREE-DIMENSIONAL |
| | RENDERINGS: THERE ARE 3 LETTER-SIZE SHEETS WITH RENDERS |
| | IN THE SUBMITTAL THAT HAVE NO DRAWING SHEET FORMAT, |
| | DESCRIPTION, TITLE, ETC. IN ADDITION, THESE RENDERS DO |
| | NOT SHOW THE EXISTING AWNINGS ON 309 CLEMATIS, THE |
| | BALCONY ON THE 2ND FLOOR ON 313 CLEMATIS ST BUILDING, |
| | THE EXISTING SHADE STREET TREES AND SIDEWALK |
| | CONFIGURATION, AND THE PROPOSED CONTINUOUS PLANTER WITH |
| | FICUS VEGETATION ON THE TERRACE/ROOF LEVEL FRONTING |
| | CLEMATIS ST. PLEASE SUBMIT PROPER DRAWING SHEETS OF |
| | RENDERS AS PART OF YOUR ARCHITECTURAL SET OF PLANS. |
| | NOTE, EACH DRAWING SHEET WILL BE CALL OUT IN THE SITE |
| | PLAN APPROVAL PLAN LETTER, SO DRAWINGS SHEETS ARE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | B. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. COMBINED ARCHITECTURAL PLAN |
| | SHEETS. |
| | |
| | ON SHEET A-301, PLEASE CLARIFY THE INTENTION TO SHOW |
| | ALL LABELS AND DIMENSIONS AND WHY FURNITURE WAS |
| | EXCLUDED AS WELL AS THE SET OF STAIRS ON THE FRONT OF |
| | THE 313 CLEMATIS BUILDING. |
| | |
| | ON SHEETS A-302, A-303, A-304, AND A-305, MULTIPLE |
| | DOTTED LINES ARE SHOWN ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND |
| | SIDES, AS WELL AS SOME LABELS SUCH AS 50', CO, GT ON |
| | THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. PLEASE CLARIFY THE INTENTION |
| | OF SHOWING THEM AND ADD PROPER LABELS OR A LEGEND TO |
| | IDENTIFY EACH OR CLEAN THE DRAWINGS SO IT PROVIDES |
| | ACCURATE INFORMATION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO SHOW CLEARLY |
| | PROPERTY LINE, WHERE THE BALCONIES OR BUILDING |
| | STRUCTURE END AND DIMENSIONS ON HOW THEY PROJECT ONTO |
| | THE ROW. NOTE, HATCH USED IN SIDEWALK IS SHOWING ON |
| | BALCONY FLOORS. SCALE IS NOT ACCURATE ON DRAWINGS. |
| | PLEASE REVISE DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | ON SHEET A-303, PLEASE ADD A LEGEND TO EXPLAIN ANGULAR |
| | STRIPED HATCH SHOWN ON THE 309 CLEMATIS BUILDING, WHAT |
| | IS IT SHOWING? SAME HATCH IS USED ON SHEET A-302 TO |
| | IDENTIFY EXISTING FLOOR, IS THAT CORRECT FOR BOTH |
| | SHEETS? |
| | |
| | PLEASE EXPLAIN WHICH DRAWINGS YOU ARE SHOWING THE |
| | SETBACK LINES TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT |
| | MEETS THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | C. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SEE COMMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING |
| | SECTIONS RELATED TO SHEET A-103. |
| | |
| | D. NOT SATISFIED. DIAGRAM SHEETS. |
| | |
| | I. FLOOR RATIO AREA (FAR): THE FAR, IS THE RATIO OF THE |
| | GROSS BUILDING AREA (GBA) TO THE TOTAL LOT AREA, PLEASE |
| | SEC. 94-109, DEFINITION OF GBA AND REVISE SHEET A-102. |
| | YOU CAN EXCLUDE SOME AREAS SUCH AS MECHANICAL AND |
| | ELECTRICAL SPACES. IF SQ.FT. WILL BE REVISED SO ARE |
| | THESE DIAGRAMS TO SHOW ACCURATE NUMBERS. |
| | |
| | MAX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT: ON SHEET A-103 TABLE, SHOWS |
| | MAX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT ON GROUND FLOOR OF 88% AND ON |
| | SHEET SP-1 GROUND FLOOR MAX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 93%. |
| | 2ND FLOOR FOOTPRINT IS NOT PROVIDED ON SP-1 AND ON |
| | SHEET A-103 2ND FLOOR IS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED. |
| | ON SP-1, VIP/5TH FLOOR THERE IS A 6% PROPOSED FOOTPRINT |
| | AND ON SHEET A-103 IS 5%. PLEASE REVISE AND MAKE SURE |
| | PLANS ARE CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | IN ADDITION, EVEN THOUGH THE 2ND FLOOR BUILDING |
| | FOOTPRINT SHOWS THAT SQ. FT. HAS DECREASED FROM THE |
| | EXISTING SQ.FT WHICH REDUCES ITS NONCONFORMITY (PER |
| | SEC. 94-515.- NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE), THE NEW |
| | FOOTPRINT CONFIGURATION IS CAUSING ANOTHER |
| | NONCONFORMITY BY ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE REAR |
| | SETBACK WHICH IS DECREASING ITS COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | REGULATIONS AND IT IS NOT PERMITTED. PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | THIS ISSUE. |
| | |
| | ON SHEET A-103, 3RD FLOOR FOOTPRINT, PLEASE ADD TO YOUR |
| | FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONS THE AREA COVERED BY THE POOL. |
| | |
| | |
| | II. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY WHICH DRAWINGS SHOW |
| | SETBACK LINES. SP-1 DOES NOT SHOW MIN AND REQUIRED |
| | SETBACK LINES. |
| | |
| | IN REGARDS TO THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST: THE |
| | REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS NOT MET AT ANY LEVEL OF THE |
| | 313 CLEMATIS ST BUILDING AS BUILDING STRUCTURES, SUCH |
| | AS STAIRS, TRASH ROOM, COLUMN, AND RESTROOMS ARE WITHIN |
| | THE SETBACK. NOTE THAT AS PER SEC. 94-109, SETBACK |
| | DEFINITION, NO UPPER-LEVEL SETBACK SHALL BE SMALLER |
| | THAN THE MINIMUM GROUND FLOOR SETBACK OR CONDITIONAL |
| | SETBACK IF REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE |
| | 313 CLEMATIS ST BUILDING SHOWS ON ROOF DECK LEVEL THAT |
| | THERE IS NO SETBACK AND THEREFORE IS SMALLER THAN THE |
| | BELOW LEVELS. PLEASE REVISE DESIGN TO MEET THE |
| | REQUIREMENT AS THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE THAT CAN BE |
| | GRANTED. IN ADDITION, ON THE 309 CLEMATIS ST BUILDING, |
| | NEW STRUCTURES (BATHROOMS) HAS BEEN ADDED WITHIN THE |
| | SETBACK, WHICH THE DESIGN WILL NEED TO BE REVISED OR A |
| | VARIANCE WITH JUSTIFICATION WILL NEED TO BE ADDED. |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE, SETBACKS NUMBERS SHOWING ON SHEETS SP-1 |
| | AND A-103 ARE NOT CONSISTENT. ON SP-1, TABLE IV-26 |
| | SHOWS AS 0 FEET PROPOSED, ON THE SAME SHEET IN THE |
| | VARIANCE TABLE SHOWS VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 4 FEET AND |
| | 8 INCHES, AND ON SHEET A-103 SHOWS A PROVIDED SETBACK |
| | OF +/-4 FEET. PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL PLANS ARE |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | |
| | III. SATISFIED. MAX. HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | IV. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY IF THE 20% AREA OF OPEN SPACE IS COVERED AS |
| | THERE IS A MAXIMUM OF 30% OVERHEAD COVER REQUIREMENT. |
| | NOTE AS THIS AREA IS ON THE REAR SETBACK, IF DESIGN |
| | CHANGES, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS WILL NEED TO |
| | BE REVISED. |
| | |
| | NOT SATISFIED - ACTIVE USE: AS PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED, |
| | SECTION 94-109 NOTES THAT ACTIVE USE IS MEASURE AS THE |
| | PERCENTAGE OF THE 'BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE', ON SHEET |
| | A-101, THERE IS NO DIMENSION PROVIDED OF THE 'BUILDABLE |
| | LOT FRONTAGE' AND THE DIMENSIONS OF ACTIVE USE TO SHOW |
| | HOW THE PROJECT IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | PARTIALLY SATISFIED - TRANSPARENCY. AS PREVIOUSLY |
| | COMMENTED, PLEASE SEE SEC. 94-109, TRANSPARENCY |
| | DEFINITION TO SEE HOW TO CALCULATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR. THE REQUIREMENT IS TAKEN FROM THE |
| | 'STOREFRONT FACADE AREA' WHICH WILL BE THE STOREFRONT |
| | WIDTH BY THE STOREFRONT HEIGHT OF THE GROUND FLOOR, ON |
| | SHEET A-104, TABLE CALCULATIONS ARE NOT MATCHING THE |
| | DRAWING. |
| | |
| | SATISFIED. MINIMUM ACTIVE USE LINER DEPTH FOR THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR AND THE 2ND STORY IS MEET. |
| | |
| | |
| | E. CALCULATIONS TABLES AND DIAGRAMS OF THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | I. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. USE CALCULATIONS, ON SHEET |
| | SP-1, PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT IS THE 'OTHER COMMERCIAL' SQ |
| | FT ON THE ROOFTOP. PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL PLANS ARE |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THAT THEY |
| | MATCH THE PROJECT FACT SHEET AND ANYTHING MENTIONED ON |
| | THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER. |
| | |
| | II. NOT SATISFIED. FENESTRATION AND OTHER FACADE |
| | ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS PER SEC. 94-109, TABLEIV-4. |
| | SHEET A-104, TABLE 'FACADE ARTICULATION' SHOWS ONLY |
| | REQUIREMENTS BUT DOES NOT SHOW WHAT IS PROPOSED. FOR |
| | EXAMPLE, FENESTRATION, THERE IS A 15% OF THE FACADE |
| | AREA AS A REQUIREMENT, BUT THE TABLE OR DRAWING DO NOT |
| | SHOW DIMENSIONS TO SEE AREA OF THE FACADE AND WHAT IS |
| | BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE FENESTRATION PERCENTAGE. IN |
| | ADDITION, PLEASE ADD LABELS TO ELEVATIONS DESCRIBING |
| | ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, SUCH AS PILASTERS, EYEBROWS, |
| | ETC. AND ANY FACADE MATERIALS, SUCH AS STUCCO. |
| | |
| | III. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - PROJECTIONS ENCROACHING THE |
| | ROW. SECTION SHOWN ON SHEET A-105 IS NOT REFERENCED ON |
| | FLOOR PANS. THERE IS NO DIMENSION SHOWING FROM BUILDING |
| | FACADE TO THE END OF THE PROJECTION ON THE ROOF DECK |
| | FLOOR. AND, FLOOR PLANS DO NOT SHOW DIMENSIONS SHOWING |
| | HOW THE BALCONIES PROJECT OVER THE PROPERTY LINES. AS |
| | MENTIONED BEFORE, WITH ALL LINES IN THE FRONT OF THE |
| | BUILDING IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE PROPERTY |
| | LINES IS AND WHERE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE ENDS. |
| | |
| | IV. OPEN SPACE, SEE COMMENT 2. ARCHITECTURAL |
| | DRAWINGS(D)(IV). |
| | |
| | |
| | V. SATISFIED. AS THE PROJECT'S SCALE AND CHARACTER ARE |
| | IN LINE WITH OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE BLOCK OR IN FRONT |
| | OF THE BUILDING, SHEET A-401. |
| | |
| | |
| | 3. SITE PLAN: |
| | |
| | A. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SP-1 AND FLOOR PLANS SHOULD |
| | ONLY SHOW WHAT WILL REMAIN AND IS PROPOSED, THERE IS NO |
| | NEED TO ADD "(TO REMAIN)" ON LABELS. IN ADDITION, |
| | PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL ROOMS ON EACH FLOOR HAVE LABELS, |
| | SUCH AS KITCHEN, TRASH ROOM, MECHANICAL ROOM, OFFICE, |
| | KITCHEN, ETC. AND, ALL DATA INFO SHOULD MATCH DIAGRAMS |
| | SHEETS TABLES, AS WELL AS PROJECT FACT SHEET AND |
| | JUSTIFICATION LETTER. |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE, THE CONFIGURATION OF THE INTERIOR IS |
| | DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WITH THE USE OF GRAYS AND |
| | OVERLAPPING LINES OF WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE WALLS AS WELL |
| | AS THICKNESS OF PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | B. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE, DECREASE THE THICKNESS |
| | OF LINE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE |
| | WALLS OR ENTRANCES. NOTE, THE COLUMN ON THE REAR |
| | SETBACK IS ALSO MISSING ON THIS SHEET, AND TRASH |
| | ROOM/DUMPSTER IS SHOWING IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION |
| | COMPARE TO FLOOR PLAN. ALSO NOTE, THERE ARE SOME LABELS |
| | FROM WHAT I THINK IS THE SURVEY, SUCH AS WPP, HC, BOL, |
| | GT, CO, THAT NEED TO BE EXPLAIN WITH A LEGEND OR IF |
| | THOSE ARE NOT STRUCTURED TO REMAIN, PLEASE REMOVE. |
| | |
| | 4. LANDSCAPE PLANS, SEE COMMENT 2. ARCHITECTURAL |
| | DRAWINGS(D)(IV). LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD MATCH |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND RENDERS. |
| | |
| | |
| | 5. NOT SATISFIED. LOCATION, DIMENSIONS, AND SCREENING |
| | OF ALL GARBAGE RECEPTACLES, OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, AND |
| | GARBAGE COMPACTOR OR OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN SITE |
| | OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE. PLEASE SHOW HOW GARBAGE WILL |
| | BE MANAGED INSIDE THE PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | SHEET SP-1 DOES NOT MATCH WHERE TRASH |
| | RECEPTABLES/DUMPSTERS ARE LOCATED COMPARE WITH SHEET |
| | A-301. |
| | |
| | REAR ELEVATION SHEET A-406 SHOWS THAT POOL EQUIPMENT IS |
| | OPEN AND NOT SCREENED. |
| | |
| | 6. SECTIONS. THERE IS NO REFERENCE ON FLOOR PLANS THE |
| | SECTIONS ON SHEETS A-501 TO A-507 SHOWING SECTIONS. |
| | SHEET A-407 SEEMS TO BE A SECTION AND NOT AN ELEVATION |
| | ALSO NOT REFERENCE IN ANY FLOOR PLAN. PLEASE REVISE |
| | DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 7. AS SHOWN ON ELEVATION SHEET A-104, GUARDRAIL AND |
| | VEGETATED PLANTERS ON THE ROOF DECK FOR BOTH BUILDINGS |
| | ARE THE SAME AND CONTINUOUS PLEASE REVISE SHEETS AS |
| | SHEET A-404 DOES NOT MATCH A-407, A-504 AND A-507. |
| | HEIGHT ALSO IS NOT DIMENSION AND IT APPEARS THAT IS NOT |
| | MATCHING IN SOME SECTIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | OTHER COMMENTS: |
| | PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-54 (A)(1), THE APPLICANT |
| | SHALL ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OF THE PPRC AND SUBMIT A |
| | REVISED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH |
| | COMMENTS. FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS |
| | WITHIN THE 60-DAY DEADLINE WILL DEEM THE APPLICATION AS |
| | WITHDRAWN. AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF |
| | THE 60-DAY REVISION PERIOD, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A |
| | 30-DAY EXTENSION. NO FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST IS |
| | PERMITTED. COMMENTS RELATING TO REVISED APPLICATIONS |
| | SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING, WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NEED |
| | TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) PAPER |
| | COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG/.PDF FORMAT OF |
| | ALL PLANS AND ALL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED IN THE |
| | APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | LASTLY, YOU WERE PERMITTED ONE (1) RESUBMITTAL AT NO |
| | ADDITIONAL COST. AS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE |
| | TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE |
| | ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE |
| | ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE, WHICH IS $300. |
| | |
| | --END OF COMMENTS-- |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
