| Date |
Text |
| 2014-11-12 15:11:15 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 11.12.2014 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z14100025 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1231E |
| | ADDRESS: 1101 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE |
| | APPLICANT/CONTACT: COLLENE WALTER |
| | TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100 |
| | SCOPE OF REVIEW: NEW PARKING LOT. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. LABEL THE 10 FOOT FPL EASEMENT THAT EXTENDS EAST |
| | FROM THE CHADBOURNE PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS. ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN THIS IS TO BE |
| | VACATED. |
| | |
| | 2. IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL EXISTING |
| | TREES/PALMS THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE TREE |
| | ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION AND/OR THE LANDSCAPE |
| | PLAN. IF THEY ARE TO REMAIN, THEY SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED |
| | ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS ?EXISTING? AND NEW PLANTINGS |
| | SHOULD NOT CONFLICT. IF THEY ARE TO BE REMOVED, THEY |
| | SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT |
| | APPLICATION. THE ONLY SPECIES THAT IS EXEMPT FROM THE |
| | TREE ALTERATION PERMIT ARE THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | A. SCHINUS TEREBINTHINFOLIUS (BRAZILIAN PEPPER TREE) |
| | |
| | B. MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRON (MELALEUCA) |
| | |
| | C. CASUARINA SPECIES (AUSTRALIAN PINE) |
| | |
| | D. BISCHOFIA JAVANICA (BISHOPWOOD) |
| | |
| | E. RODOMYRTUS TOMENTOSA (DOWNY ROSE MYRTLE) |
| | |
| | F. ACACIA AURICULAEFORMIS (EARLEAF ACACIA) |
| | |
| | 3. THERE IS A 12FT. X 76 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT (ORB |
| | 11961, PG 456) IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF CHADBOURNE PLACE |
| | THAT IS NOT REFLECTED ON THE PLANS. WHAT IS THE |
| | DISPOSITION OF THIS EASEMENT? IF IT IS TO REMAIN, |
| | PLANTINGS WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 4. THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE DATA TABLES NEED TO BE |
| | REVISED TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | A. THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDING IS 50 PERCENT, |
| | NOT 60. |
| | |
| | B. THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS |
| | 75 PERCENT, NOT 85 (THIS WILL REQUIRE SOME |
| | MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS AS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE |
| | PROPOSED IS TOO HIGH). |
| | |
| | C. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OPEN SPACE IS 50 PERCENT, NOT |
| | 40. |
| | |
| | 5. PLEASE EXPLAIN ?FUTURE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION?; THIS |
| | CONNECTION SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF |
| | CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING LOT. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE PROVIDE PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS AT THE PROPERTY |
| | LINES. LIGHTING LEVELS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 FOOTCANDLES |
| | AT OR BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 7. ARE THE PROPOSED LIGHTING FIXTURES FULL CUT-OFF? |
| | LIGHTING SHALL BE ARRANGED FOR DESIGNED TO REFLECT |
| | LIGHT OR GLARE AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC |
| | THOROUGHFARES. |
| | |
| | 8. THE NUMBER OF TREES/SHRUBS ?PROVIDED? IN THE |
| | LANDSCAPE DATA TABLE SHOULD MATCH THAT WHICH IS SHOWN |
| | IN THE PLANT LIST. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE VERIFY THAT THE ROYAL PALMS PROPOSED TO BE |
| | PLANTED ALONG SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE AS SPEC?D (HEIGHT AND |
| | SPACING) SUCH THAT THEY MATCH THE EXISTING ROYAL PALMS |
| | PLANTED ALONG THE STREET. |
| | |
| | 10. SHRUBS/HEDGES NEED TO BE PLANTED ON THE EAST END OF |
| | THE ROW OF PARKING IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE WORSHIP |
| | CENTER. CONSIDER DOING A PLANTING BE SIMILAR TO THAT |
| | WHICH IS NEAR THE DAYCARE DROP-OFF, WHICH WOULD |
| | INCORPORATE THE SHADE TREE NEARBY. |
| | |
| | 11. DOES THE PODOCARPUS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE |
| | SITE NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? |
| | AS PROPOSED IT APPEARS THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY |
| | DIFFICULT TO SEE SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC FROM THE LOCATION |
| | OF THE STOP BAR. |
| | |
| | 12. THE ?EXISTING DUMPSTER? WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A |
| | CODE-COMPLIANT ENCLOSURE. A HEDGE SHALL BE PROVIDED ON |
| | THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE. |
| | |
| | 13. IS ONE (1) DUMPSTER SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE |
| | CHURCH, DAYCARE, ETC.? |
| | |
| | 14. PLEASE PROVIDE THE CLEAR TRUNK SPECIFICATION FOR |
| | ALL SHADE, FLOWERING, AND FRUIT TREES. |
| | |
| | 15. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE TREE |
| | ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION: |
| | |
| | A. TREE MITIGATION IS BASED UPON NUMBER OF TREES OR |
| | TREE CANOPY, NOT CALIPER. TREES THAT ARE 35 FEET OR |
| | MORE IN CANOPY SIZE SHALL BE MITIGATED BASED UPON THE |
| | SIZE OF THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY (I.E., IF 100 FEET OF |
| | EXISTING CANOPY IS REMOVED, 100 FEET OF CANOPY SHALL BE |
| | PLANTED). EACH TREE WITH LESS THAN 35 FEET OF CANOPY |
| | SIZE IS TO BE REPLACED WITH AT LEAST ONE (1) TREE WITH |
| | EQUAL POTENTIAL. |
| | |
| | B. PALMS TREES SHALL BE MITIGATED ON A ONE FOR ONE |
| | BASIS. WHEN PALM TREES ARE SUBSTITUTED FOR SHADE TREES, |
| | TWO PALM TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH REQUIRED |
| | SHADE TREE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 94-442(4)(C), |
| | THIS 2:1 SUBSTITUTION SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR ROYAL |
| | PALM TREES AND SUCKERING PALM TREES SUCH AS THE ARECA |
| | PALM, PAUROTIS PALM AND THE SENEGAL DATE PALM. |
| | |
| | 16. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF |
| | AN ALTERNATIVE PAVING MATERIAL FOR THOSE PARKING AREAS |
| | THAT WILL BE USED ON AN INFREQUENT BASIS? |
| | |
| | 17. THE PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO BE REVISED TO REFLECT |
| | THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIRE TWO (2) SPACES PER |
| | UNITS, NOT ONE (1). |
| | |
| | 18. PLEASE NOTE ALL COMMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT OUR |
| | MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2014, REGARDING THE |
| | DESIGN OF THE 70-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG SOUTH |
| | FLAGLER DRIVE. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) 6 SETS OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED, ALONG WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11IN X |
| | 17IN), AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | C) PLEASE NOTE THAT RE-SUBMITTALS MAY BE SUBJECT TO |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | D) IF NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE |
| | ISSUANCE OF THESE COMMENTS, THE APPLICATION WILL BE |
| | CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN AND ANY FURTHER ACTION WILL |
| | REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | E) 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. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL PLANNER |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION |
| | 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147 |
| | WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 |
| | |
| | PHONE: 561.822.1448 |
| | FAX: 561.822.1460 |
| | |
| | EMAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | WWW.WPB.ORG |
| | |
| |
Print |
