| Date |
Text |
| 2023-06-28 12:13:59 | CASE NO. FSPR 23-08 |
| | VITA NOVA EXPANSION |
| | 1330 ALPHA STREET |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ 561-822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO |
| | (2) 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. |
| | |
| | - AT SUCH TIME THAT THE PPRC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN |
| | RESUBMITTED AND BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED THE CASE |
| | WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE CITY |
| | COMMISSION 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 (BY SEPTEMBER 13, |
| | 2023), THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT |
| | THAT THE CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($300). |
| | |
| | - 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) THIS APPLICATION IS A SPECIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR |
| | AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | RESOLUTION NUMBER 306-22, WHICH REQUIRES CITY |
| | COMMISSION APPROVAL AND IS PROCESSED AS A FORMAL SITE |
| | PLAN REVIEW. THE PAYMENT SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION |
| | WAS ONLY FOR AN INFORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW. YOU ARE |
| | REQUIRED TO PAY AND ADDITIONAL $716 TO COVER THE |
| | DIFFERENCE IN THE SITE PLAN FEES ($500) AND THE |
| | ADVERTISING FEE FOR CITY COMMISSION ($216). |
| | |
| | 2) PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE DEED LISTS VITA NOVA OF |
| | RENAISSANCE VILLAGE, YET THE APPLICATION AND SUNBIZ |
| | SHOW IT AS VITA NOVA VILLAGE. |
| | |
| | 3) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE CONCURRENCY STATEMENT |
| | THAT THE APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE PBC TPS |
| | REQUIREMENTS; HOWEVER, THE CITY STILL REQUIRES THAT YOU |
| | PROVIDE A TPS LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | |
| | 4) THE LETTERS OF NO OBJECTION FOR FPL, FPU, AT&T AND |
| | COMCAST ARE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 5) THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER STATES THAT A UNITY OF |
| | TITLE WILL BE PROVIDED TO JOIN ALL THREE PROPERTIES IN |
| | ORDER TO UTILIZE THE FULL 0.77 ACRES FOR THE NUMBER OF |
| | UNITS PERMITTED UNDER RES. NO. 306-22. VINCE NOEL WILL |
| | DETERMINE IF THIS IS MAY BE DONE AS A UNITY OF TITLE OR |
| | IF A PLAT IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6) CLARIFY WHY JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT LISTS 1316 ALPHA |
| | STREET AS HAVING FIVE UNITS, WHILE THE CITY HAS IT |
| | LISTED AS SIX UNITS. IF THERE ARE SIX UNITS, THEN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, DATA TABLES AND WAIVERS NEED |
| | TO BE UPDATED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 7) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT MENTIONS THAT THERE ARE |
| | ON-SITE SUPPORT SERVICES. PLEASE LIST AND DESCRIBE WHAT |
| | THESE ON-SITE SERVICES ENTAIL. THIS MAY AFFECT THE USE |
| | CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | 8) THE ADDED UNITS PERMITTED BY RES. NO. 306-22 DO NOT |
| | REQUIRE A WAIVER TO THE SITE ACREAGE. PLEASE REMOVE |
| | THIS AS A WAIVER REQUEST FROM THE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 9) RES. NO. 306-22 REQUIRES STREET-LEVEL |
| | THREE-DIMENSIONAL RENDERINGS FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT AND ALL BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT SITES, PUBLIC |
| | SPACES AND STREETS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE NEW BUILDING |
| | RELATES TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROVIDED |
| | THREE-DIMENSIONAL RENDERINGS ONLY SHOW PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING AND NOT THE BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT SITES, |
| | PUBLIC SPACES AND STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 10) THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING A PARKING WAIVER TO |
| | PROVIDE NO PARKING SPACES FOR THE NEW UNITS (OVERALL |
| | 50% PARKING REDUCTION). THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | LISTS REASONS TO SUPPORT THE WAIVER AS THE CURRENT |
| | PARKING LOT IS VACANT ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND THAT |
| | VITA NOVA VILLAGE ASSISTS RESIDENTS WITH TRANSPORTATION |
| | NEEDS, YET NO DATA WAS PROVIDED ON THE PARKING USE AND |
| | NO INFORMATION ON WHAT FORM THE TRANSPORTATION |
| | ASSISTANCE TAKES. ADDITIONALLY, THIS SITE IS LOCATED |
| | WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO |
| | MAJOR EMPLOYERS OR TRANSIT LINES. PLEASE PROVIDE BETTER |
| | JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PARKING WAIVER. |
| | |
| | 11) BICYCLE PARKING IS REQUIRED AT A RATIO OF ONE SPACE |
| | FOR EVERY 20 AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES, OR FRACTION |
| | THEREOF, REQUIRED FOR THE USE. A TOTAL OF THREE BICYCLE |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED. THIS EQUATES TO TWO |
| | BICYCLE RACKS. THE TWO BICYCLE RACKS THAT ARE SHOWN |
| | ADJACENT TO THE NEW BUILDING DO NOT MATCH THE BICYCLE |
| | RACK DETAIL, NOR SO THEY SHOW ADEQUATE SPACE ADJACENT |
| | TO THE BUILDING OR ALONG THE WALKWAY TO THE BACK OF THE |
| | BUILDING. IT APPEARS THAT THE RACKS ARE ORIENTED THE |
| | WRONG WAY ON THE PLAN. SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT |
| | THERE ARE ANY BICYCLE RACKS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE, |
| | STAFF SUGGESTS PUTTING ONE RACK AT THE NEW BUILDING AND |
| | INSTALLING THE OTHER RACK ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE |
| | EXISTING BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT BICYCLE |
| | PARKING FOR MORE RESIDENTS. |
| | |
| | 12) IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REORIENT THE WINDOWS ON |
| | AT LEAST ONE OF THE FLOORS TO FACING ALPHA STREET |
| | INSTEAD OF THE INTERIOR/NEIGHBORING LOT? THIS WOULD |
| | BREAK UP THE BLANK WALL ALONG ALPHA STREET. |
| | |
| | 13) THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE CIVIL AND |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE NEW |
| | BUILDING. ALL PLANS MUST BE CONSISTENT AND CODE |
| | COMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | 14) THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING LISTED |
| | ON THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE |
| | LISTED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST BE |
| | CONSISTENT AND CODE COMPLIANT. |
| | |
| | 15) THE GRAVITY WALL AND GUIDERAIL EXCEED THE |
| | FENCE/WALL HEIGHT ALLOWANCE OF SIX (6) FEET WITHIN THE |
| | 11.5-FOOT REAR SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 16) THE GUIDERAIL MUST BE A DECORATIVE FENCE. PROVIDE A |
| | DETAIL SHOWING THE GUIDERAIL. |
| | |
| | 17) THE BUILDING CROSS-SECTION SHOWS THE TOP OF THE |
| | SLAB AND THE GRADE SET AT THE SAME HEIGHT, YET THE |
| | CIVIL CROSS-SECTIONS SHOW THE FINISHED FLOOR AT LEAST |
| | ONE (1) FOOT LOWER THAN THE FINISHED FLOOR. THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL CROSS-SECTION SHALL ACCURATELY DEPICT THE |
| | SITE CONDITIONS. NOTE: THIS MAY AFFECT THE HEIGHT OF |
| | THE STRUCTURE, SINCE IT IS MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED |
| | GRADE, NOT THE FINISHED FLOOR. |
| | |
| | 18) WHILE DIMENSIONS WERE NOT PROVIDED, THE SIGN SHOWN |
| | ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING APPEARS LARGER THAN |
| | PERMITTED BY THE SIGN CODE. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 19) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FAILS TO PROVIDE THE DISPOSITION |
| | OF WHAT IS LISTED AS TREE 34 ON THE SURVEY. |
| | |
| | 20) PROVIDE HOW THE TREES PROPOSED TO REMAIN ON THE |
| | SITE WILL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. NOTE: THE |
| | PALM TO BE RETAINED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE |
| | BUILDING APPEARS TO BE VERY CLOSE TO THE FOUNDATION AS |
| | WELL AS IN A LOCATION WHERE THE GRADE WILL BE CHANGED. |
| | |
| | 21) THE CITY BASES ITS TREE MITIGATION ON THE CANOPY |
| | SIZE NOT DBH. PLEASE PROVIDE THE MITIGATION TABLE IN |
| | THIS FORMAT. PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE OVERALL SITE IS |
| | DEFICIENT IN LANDSCAPE, THE MITIGATION SHALL OCCUR |
| | ON-SITE TO BRING THE SITE CLOSER TO CODE CONFORMITY AND |
| | NOT VIA PAYMENT INTO THE MITIGATION FUND. AN APPROVED |
| | TREE ALTERATION PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL |
| | OF ANY TREES. |
| | |
| | 22) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL SHOW THE PROPOSED WATER |
| | SERVICE, THE SANITARY LINE AND THE EXFILTRATION |
| | TRENCH/DRAINAGE LINES. THESE FEATURES SHALL NOT DISTURB |
| | THE EXISTING TREE ROOT SYSTEMS OR THE GROWTH POTENTIAL |
| | OF THE PROPOSED TREES. |
| | |
| | 23) PROVIDE A SECTION DRAWING, TO SCALE, OF THE |
| | SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE SHOWING HOW THE PROPOSED |
| | LANDSCAPE WILL BE INSTALLED IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE |
| | EXFILTRATION TRENCH, SWALE, FENCE AND GRAVITY WALL. THE |
| | VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SCALE SHALL BE THE SAME. |
| | |
| | 24) PROVIDE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE |
| | BUILDING. STAFF IS UNABLE TO VERIFY THE 2,760 SQUARE |
| | FEET OF OPEN SPACE LISTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATA |
| | TABLE. THE STAFF CALCULATION IS 3,463 SQUARE FEET OF |
| | OPEN SPACE. THIS DIFFERENCE AFFECTS THE REQUIRED AMOUNT |
| | OF LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | 25) PROVIDE THE LINEAR FEET AROUND THE NEW BUILDING SO |
| | THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THE AMOUNT OF FOUNDATION PLANTING |
| | THAT IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 26) WHILE THE PLAN IS TO JOIN THE DEVELOPMENT SITE INTO |
| | ONE LARGER PARCEL TO ALLOW MORE UNITS TO BE |
| | CONSTRUCTED, THE LANDSCAPE IS REQUIRED IF THIS IS A |
| | STAND-ALONE SITE. THIS INCLUDES THE EASTERN BUFFER |
| | LANDSCAPE AND THE 12 TREES REQUIRED BY THE NUMBER OF |
| | UNITS. IF THESE TREES CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT SITE, THEY SHALL BE SPREAD ACROSS THE |
| | LARGER SITE TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE |
| | DEFICIENCIES. |
| | |
| | 27) PROVIDE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LANDSCAPED |
| | AREA ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE |
| | THAT WILL BE SODDED SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE |
| | SODDED AREA IS LESS THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE |
| | AREA. NOTE: THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE IS NOT TO BE USED |
| | FOR THIS CALCULATION SINCE OPEN SPACE ALSO INCLUDES |
| | AREAS THAT ARE NOT LANDSCAPED. |
| | |
| | 28) THE PLANS SHOW OAK TREES WITHIN THE ALPHA STREET |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THERE ARE OVERHEAD LINES AT THIS |
| | LOCATION, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM TO COMPLY WITH THE FPL |
| | RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE STANDARD. |
| | |
| | 29) THE LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST ONE TREE |
| | SHALL BE PLANTED IN A REQUIRED BUFFER STRIP FOR EACH 30 |
| | LINEAR FEET OR PORTION THEREOF. REQUIRED STREET TREES |
| | MAY BE CLUSTERED OR PLANTED IRREGULARLY AS DEEMED |
| | APPROPRIATE. CLUSTERING OF ALL REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE |
| | SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL. THE PLANS SHOW THE CLUSTERING |
| | OF TREES ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, WITH A GAP OF |
| | 80 FEET BETWEEN TWO OF THE ORANGE GEIGER TREES. STAFF |
| | DOES NOT SUPPORT THE LARGE GAP AT THIS LOCATION. THE |
| | PROPOSED BUILDING, LOCATED FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE |
| | WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, WILL BE 40 FEET ABOVE THE GRADE |
| | OF THE NEIGHBORING ONE-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. |
| | THIS MASS NEEDS TO BE BROKEN UP BY LANDSCAPE SCREENING |
| | SINCE WITHOUT ADEQUATE SCREENING, THE PROPOSED BUILDING |
| | IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE ADJACENT USE. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
