| Date |
Text |
| 2016-12-02 08:29:14 | PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 1600G |
| | PALM BEACH DAY ACADEMY SITE PLAN AMENDMENT |
| | 1902 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE |
| | RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FIVE |
| | (5) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN.PDF 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. |
| | |
| | - 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 FEBRUARY 2, |
| | 2017), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY |
| | FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | ADDITIONAL 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 ($60). |
| | |
| | 1) REPEAT COMMENT: A SURVEY SHOWING THE EXISTING |
| | CONDITIONS WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 2) REPEAT COMMENT: THE SITE PLAN DATA TABLES SHALL USE |
| | AS A BASE THE INFORMATION APPROVED AS PART OF THE |
| | LATEST MINOR AMENDMENT DATED JUNE 28, 2016. THIS HAS |
| | BEEN A REPEATED COMMENT WITH THIS PROJECT THAT |
| | INCORRECT OR OBSOLETE BASE INFORMATION AND PLANS ARE |
| | USED ON NEW SUBMITTALS. |
| | |
| | A. EXISTING PBDA SCHOOL: THE NEW PLANS SHOW INCORRECT |
| | SETBACKS FOR THE FRONT (NORTH) AND REAR (SOUTH) SIDES |
| | OF THE BUILDING. THE BASE MAP AND THE BUILDING LOCATION |
| | DO NOT ALIGN AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY SUBMITTED AS PART |
| | OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPROVED ON JUNE 28, 2016. AS |
| | STATED IN COMMENT NO. 1, NO NEW SURVEY WAS SUBMITTED |
| | WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE CURRENT SITE PLAN MEASURES |
| | THE SIDE SETBACK (9.9 FEET) FROM A WING WALL, WHICH IS |
| | THE CORRECT SETBACK MEASURE POINT AND SHOULD CONTINUE |
| | TO BE USED AS THE PROVIDED SETBACK (NOT THE 15.6 FEET |
| | LISTED ON THE JUNE 28, 2016 PLAN). THE CURRENT PLAN |
| | SHALL SHOW THIS AS "SIDE" NOT "SIDE STREET". PLEASE |
| | NOTE THAT THE SETBACK DIMENSION TAG LINES DO NOT |
| | TERMINATE AT THE PROPERTY LINES. |
| | B. PROPOSED PBDA ACADEMIC BUILDING: THE NEW PLANS |
| | INCORRECTLY LIST THE SETBACK DIMENSION TO COCOANUT LANE |
| | IN THE DATA TABLE. IT SHOULD MIRROR THE DIMENSION SHOWN |
| | ON THE SITE PLAN. THE SIDE SETBACK (NORTH PROPERTY |
| | LINE) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE FURTHEST PROJECTION OF |
| | THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NEITHER OF THESE IS |
| | SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | C. PITT BUILDING: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUNE 28, 2016 |
| | SURVEY AND APPROVED PLAN, THE SIDE (SOUTH) SETBACK |
| | SHALL BE SHOWN AND LISTED AS 8 FEET. |
| | D. RELOCATED OUT BUILDING: THE SETBACKS SHALL BE SHOWN |
| | AS ON THE JUNE 28, 2016 APPROVED PLANS AND THE |
| | REFERENCE SHALL CORRECTLY BE TO RESOLUTION NO. 144-11. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CIVIL PLANS SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN |
| | WALKWAY ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE PLANS SHALL |
| | SHOW ACCURATE CONDITIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CIVIL PLAN |
| | SHALL SHOW CURRENT CONDITIONS, NOT "TO BE DEMOLISHED" |
| | FOR BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN |
| | REMOVED. NO NEW CIVIL PLANS WERE SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 4) REVISED COMMENT: THE LOW FREESTANDING SIGN APPEARS |
| | TO ENCROACH ON THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | AT TIME OF SIGN PERMITTING, THE CITY'S ENGINEERING |
| | SERVICES DIVISION MUST GRANT SPECIFIC APPROVAL FOR A |
| | SIGN DESIGN WITHIN THE EASEMENT THAT DOES NOT INTERRUPT |
| | THE FUNCTION OF THE EASEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE |
| | INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN FOUNDATION SHALL NOT DAMAGE |
| | THE ROOT SYSTEM OF THE ADJACENT, EXISTING TREE. THIS |
| | WILL BE A CONDITION AS PART OF THE ULTIMATE APPROVAL |
| | LETTER. THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE SIGN IS APPROVED. |
| | |
| | 5) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE DETAILS TO VERIFY THAT THE |
| | NEW LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE |
| | FIELD MATCH THE PARKING LOT LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES IN |
| | HEIGHT AND STYLE. LIGHT CUT OFF SHIELD SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED AS NEEDED. THE DETAILS OF THE EXISTING PARKING |
| | LOT LIGHTS ARE NOT PROVIDED ON THE SCHEDULE. NO CUT |
| | SHEETS FOR ANY LIGHTS ARE PROVIDED. NOTE: THE LIGHTS ON |
| | THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FIELD ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE |
| | LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE. |
| | |
| | 6) REPEAT COMMENT: THE BICYCLE RACK AND PAD DETAIL |
| | SHALL MATCH THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. THE |
| | DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 7) NEW COMMENT: THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THE PROPOSED |
| | SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURE LAYERS DO NOT ALIGN ALONG THE |
| | SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ON BOTH THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS. THERE IS A TWO FOOT OFF-SET. |
| | |
| |
Print |
