| Date |
Text |
| 2016-05-11 10:39:45 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 05.11.2016 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z15120015, Z15120016 & Z15120017 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1693, 1693A & 1693B |
| | ADDRESS: 3111 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY |
| | APPLICANT/CONTACT: CHRISTOPHER BARRY, AICP CUD |
| | TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100 |
| | SCOPE OF REVIEW: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF |
| | 300 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 13,600 SQUARE FEET OF |
| | RETAIL; AND 5,600 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT (INCLUDES |
| | OUTDOOR SEATING). |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE |
| | FOLLOWING REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT: |
| | |
| | A. A LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION LETTER SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE DETERMINATION LETTER FROM THE |
| | SCHOOL DISTRICT INDICATES THAT THE MIDDLE AND HIGH |
| | SCHOOL UTILIZATIONS ARE PROJECTED TO EXCEED 100% AND |
| | THAT MITIGATION OR SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS MAY BE |
| | NECESSARY IN ORDER TO KEEP THE SCHOOL FROM BEING |
| | OVERCROWDED. HAS THERE BEEN ANY FOLLOW UP WITH THE |
| | SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THIS MATTER? A RESOLUTION WILL NEED |
| | TO BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING. |
| | |
| | B. A LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR |
| | PUBLIC PARKS. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THIS ANALYSIS STILL NEEDS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | C. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE |
| | VARIOUS SERVICE AGENCIES INDICATING THAT SUFFICIENT |
| | CAPACITY EXISTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASE IN DEMAND |
| | RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN DEMAND GENERATED BY THE |
| | BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATION. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THIS DOCUMENTATION STILL NEEDS TO |
| | BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4. THE LETTER FROM COMCAST INDICATES AN AERIAL VIEW |
| | THAT WAS ATTACHED; PLEASE PROVIDE SUCH. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I DID NOT SEE A COPY OF THIS |
| | LETTER/AERIAL IN THE RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ACREAGE DISCREPANCY CHART |
| | PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT C OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 7. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY APPROVAL SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: CONCURRENCY APPROVAL STILL HAS |
| | NOT BEEN PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 10. VERIFY THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY WITH THE |
| | VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FDOT. IT SEEMS THAT SOME |
| | OF THE ON-STREET PARKING AT THE SOUTH END OF THE |
| | PROJECT WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY CONCERNS. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: HAS ANY PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BEEN |
| | ISSUED BY FDOT? APPROVAL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED FOR ALL |
| | IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITHIN THE SOUTH DIXIE |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY. THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT SOME |
| | IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE WITHIN THE REQUIRED SITE DISTANCE |
| | AT THE INTERSECTIONS/DRIVEWAYS (I.E. BUS SHELTER, |
| | ON-STREET PARKING, SIGNAGE, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 13. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE FDOT |
| | INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED |
| | DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION, SEPARATION OF ACCESS POINTS, |
| | ON-STREET PARKING, ETC. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: SEE COMMENT #10. |
| | |
| | 15. PLEASE PROVIDE THE PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS FOR ALL PARTS |
| | OF THE PROPERTY AT THE PROPERTY LINE. PURSUANT TO SEC. |
| | 94-207(D)(8), ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 |
| | FOOTCANDLES AT THE OR BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS WERE NOT |
| | PROVIDED AT THE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 16. IT IS ENCOURAGED THAT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BE |
| | DEVELOPED SO AS TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE TENANTS COMPLY |
| | WITH THE VISION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE TYPE OF |
| | PROJECT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IF NO LIST OF PERMITTED |
| | USES IS PROVIDED, THE CPD WILL REVERT TO THE PERMITTED |
| | USE TABLE FOR THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING |
| | DISTRICT. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE |
| | PROPOSED PERMITTED USE LIST MAY BE NECESSARY ? ADDITION |
| | OF RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY; REMOVAL OF PARKING LOTS AS |
| | PRINCIPAL, ACCESSORY OR OFF-SITE USES; REMOVAL OF |
| | RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED. |
| | |
| | 17. ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL TOWER TO ACCOUNT FOR |
| | VISITORS. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: BIKE RACKS SHOULD BE PLACED IN |
| | CLOSE PROXIMITY / VISIBLE TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES |
| | ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND AT THE ENTRANCES TO THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL TOWERS, UNLESS THERE IS A WAY TO DIRECT |
| | GUESTS AND MAKE THEM AWARE OF THE RACKS IN THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 20. THERE IS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE SETBACK |
| | MEASUREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, |
| | SOME ARE MEASURED FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY TO THE EDGE OF THE |
| | BALCONY LINE, OTHERS ARE MEASURED TO THE CORER OF THE |
| | TOWER. PLEASE BE CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NORTHERNMOST |
| | RESIDENTIAL TOWER DOES NOT MEET THE 81 FOOT SETBACK. AS |
| | DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, PART OF YOUR JUSTIFICATION WAS |
| | THAT WHILE A WAIVER WAS BEING REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, |
| | THE NEED FOR THE WAIVER WAS BECAUSE OF THE |
| | PODIUM/PARKING GARAGE AND THAT ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL |
| | TOWERS COMPLIED WITH SETBACKS (IF MEASURED |
| | INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PARKING GARAGE). AS CURRENTLY |
| | PROPOSED, THE PLANS DO NOT SUPPORT THIS JUSTIFICATION. |
| | EITHER AMEND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVER, OR |
| | MODIFY THE SETBACKS FOR THE NORTH TOWER. |
| | |
| | 25. MORE DETAIL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THE FACADES OF THE BUILDING, |
| | ESPECIALLY THE PARKING GARAGE. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT |
| | PORTION OF THE GARAGE THAT FACES HAMPTON ROAD. |
| | |
| | 26. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SETBACK DIMENSIONS FOR ALL OF |
| | THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES FROM THE DIXIE HIGHWAY |
| | PROPERTY LINE. THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT 5 |
| | FEET IS BEING PROVIDED, BUT THE ONLY DIMENSION PROVIDED |
| | INDICATES THAT THERE IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ARE ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL |
| | BUILDINGS 8.5 FEET FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? A DIMENSION |
| | LINE WAS ONLY PROVIDE FOR THE NORTHERNMOST BUILDING; |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK DIMENSIONS FOR EACH BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 27. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL MONUMENT |
| | SIGN WILL IMPEDE WITH THE VISIBILITY ONTO SOUTH DIXIE |
| | HIGHWAY. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PLEASE SEE COMMENT #10. NOTE THAT |
| | AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE SHOULD BE |
| | PROVIDED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE OUTBOUND |
| | LANES; IMPROVEMENTS (I.E. PLANTINGS, SIGNAGE, ETC.) IN |
| | THE MEDIAN BETWEEN THE INBOUND AND OUTBOUND LANES |
| | SHOULD NOT ENCROACH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. |
| | |
| | 28. HAS ANY DOCUMENTATION BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FAA |
| | INDICATING THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING HEIGHT? |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DOCUMENTATION STILL NEEDS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 32. MORE AESTHETIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE |
| | MADE FOR THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, ETC. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PLEASE NOTE THAT IT APPEARS THAT |
| | THE PROPOSED 10 FOOT WIDE GATE OPENING DOES NOT MEET |
| | THE CITY?S MINIMUM STANDARD. PLEASE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY |
| | OR OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY?S PUBLIC WORKS |
| | DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 36. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AS TO HOW THE GATE SYSTEM IS |
| | PROPOSED TO WORK WITH THE PARKING GARAGE. ARE GUESTS |
| | PERMITTED IN THE GARAGE? HOW TO THEY GAIN ACCESS? IS |
| | THERE A CALL BOX? WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE IS DENIED |
| | ACCESS AT THE GATE? |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION NEEDS TO |
| | BE PROVIDED ON HOW THE GATES WILL OPERATE WITHOUT |
| | IMPEDING THE PARKING SPACES, DRIVE AISLES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 42. BIKE RACKS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE |
| | PROJECT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO VISITORS, |
| | RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, ETC. AT EACH OF THE BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: SEE COMMENT #17. |
| | |
| | 45. PLEASE PROVIDE A CROSS-SECTION OF THE SOUTH DIXIE |
| | HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE, SPECIFICALLY THAT AREA |
| | BETWEEN THE CURB LINE AND THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. |
| | STAFF WANTS TO ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT SIDEWALK WIDTH IS |
| | PROVIDED FOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ON THE COMMERCIAL |
| | CORRIDOR. |
| | |
| | 46. THE PARKING SPOT AT THE FAR SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE |
| | COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AS VEHICLES |
| | BACKING OUT OF THIS SPACE WILL ENCROACH INTO THE |
| | SIDEWALK, TRAFFIC WILL BE FORCED TO STACK IN THE |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY, ETC. |
| | |
| | GENERAL CONCERNS OR AREAS IN NEED OF FURTHER |
| | DISCUSSION: |
| | |
| | 4. PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS. |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THIS |
| | ITEM WILL LIKELY BE AN ON-GOING TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. |
| | |
| | 9. GLAZING OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON SOUTH DIXIE |
| | HIGHWAY. STAFF WANTS TO DISCUSS WAYS TO ENSURE THAT THE |
| | SOUTH DIXIE FRONTAGE CONSISTS OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF |
| | CLEAR GLAZING AND THAT IT DOES NOT BECOME A BLANK |
| | FRONTAGE WITH TINTED OR SPANDREL GLASS, BACK-OF-HOUSE |
| | OF THE INTERIOR USES, OR OTHERWISE BLOCKED FROM THE |
| | INSIDE. |
| | |
| | 10. ON-GOING DISCUSSION NEEDS TO OCCUR REGARDING |
| | POTENTIAL PHASING OF THE PROJECT AND HOW ELEMENTS OF |
| | THE SITE AND BUILDINGS WILL BE TREATED BETWEEN PHASES, |
| | WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF EACH PHASE, ETC. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) 15 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. |
| | |
| | F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE JULY 19, 2016 |
| | PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED |
| | DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN MAY 27, 2016. |
| | |
| | G) TO BE PLACED ON THE JULY 19, 2016 PLANNING BOARD |
| | AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER |
| | THAN JULY 4, 2016. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM AND BE |
| | INSTALLED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S ZONING |
| | AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AS ALSO PROVIDED IN |
| | THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED |
| | AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED |
| | ABOVE. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | JOHN P. ROACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION |
| | 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147 |
| | WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 |
| | |
| | P: 561.822.1448 |
| | F: 561.822.1460 |
| | |
| | E: [email protected] |
| | |
| | W: WPB.ORG |
| | |
| |
Print |
