| Date |
Text |
| 2017-05-30 15:38:48 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 04.12.2017 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z17030017, Z17030018, Z17030030 AND |
| | Z17030031 |
| | CASE NO.: PB CASE NOS. 1624N, O, P AND Q |
| | ADDRESS: 3100-3200 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE |
| | APPLICANT/CONTACT: JONI BRINKMAN |
| | TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100 |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. REVISIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SHOULD BE MADE TO |
| | ACCOUNT FOR THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. A |
| | STRIKETHROUGH / UNDERLINE VERSION OF THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 2. SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILTY DETERMINATION (SCAD) |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE REZONING, FLU AMENDMENT, AND |
| | MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. |
| | |
| | 3. UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED TRACT BOUNDARY BETWEEN |
| | TRACT ?MF? AND TRACT ?D??THIS DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH |
| | THE MASTER PLAN, ETC. THIS BOUNDARY IS ALSO SHOW ON THE |
| | PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE MASTER |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5. THE GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS, ETC. FOR THE VILLAS DO NOT |
| | FUNCTION. THE DRIVEWAYS WILL NEED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT |
| | TURNING RADII AND BACK-OUT / TURN-AROUND AREAS. |
| | |
| | 6. FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDS TO OCCUR REGARDING THE |
| | PARKING CALCULATIONS AND TRIP GENERATION THAT IS |
| | PROPOSED, EVEN UPON EXPANSION OF THE RESORT HOTEL |
| | (PHASE II). |
| | |
| | 7. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT 616 PARKING SPACES ARE |
| | REQUIRED FOR PHASE I, BUT ONLY 503 ARE PROVIDED. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, PHASE II IS DEFICIENT. THE SHARED PARKING |
| | ANALYSIS SHOULD BE UPDATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CURRENT |
| | DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. |
| | |
| | 8. PLEASE RE-NUMBER THE LOTS IN PBA #3 TO 1 THROUGH 31. |
| | |
| | 9. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION/CAR ROOM SHOULD |
| | BE ENHANCED, ESPECIALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, WAS CONSIDERATION MADE WITH THE FACT THAT |
| | A PARKING DECK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT |
| | TO THIS STRUCTURE AS PART OF THE PHASE 2 OF THE |
| | PARKING? |
| | |
| | 10. WHAT IS THE BUILDING DIVISION?S POSITION REGARDING |
| | RELOCATING THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES FOR THE |
| | CLUBHOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROADWAY (BANYAN CAY |
| | ROAD)? |
| | |
| | 11. LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE DRIVING RANGE SHOULD INCLUDE |
| | ALL LANDSCAPING PROPOSED WITHIN POD D, NOT JUST THE |
| | BUFFER. |
| | |
| | 12. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE DRIVING RANGE BUFFER |
| | BEING REVIEWED / APPROVED BY THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL |
| | TOWER? |
| | |
| | 13. WERE ANY CONCERNS DISCUSSED REGARDING THE PLACEMENT |
| | OF THE LIFT STATION IN THE ?FRONT YARD? OF LOT 21? |
| | |
| | 14. THERE SHOULD BE CLEAR DELINEATION IN THE PLANS. THE |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE CLUBHOUSE / TENNIS /ADMIN AREA |
| | STATE ?SEE POD R FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS? FOR THE |
| | STREETSCAPE, BUT THERE IS STILL LANDSCAPING SHOWN IN |
| | THE ROADWAY TRACT BY THE CLUBHOUSE. |
| | |
| | 15. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WAS |
| | PROPOSED AROUND THE EAST END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC? THERE |
| | IS A REQUIRED BUFFER AS THIS IS THE ?PERIMETER? OF THE |
| | DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 16. LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AT |
| | 2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY REQUIRES AN EASEMENT / AGREEMENT. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE THE STATUS. |
| | |
| | 17. THE BUFFERS ALONG THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY ACCESS ROAD, |
| | AND BETWEEN THE TENNIS COURTS AND PRESIDENTIAL WAY DO |
| | NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED IN THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 18. THE PROPOSED VILLAS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT |
| | PERMITTED BY THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 19. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION |
| | REGARDING THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE |
| | VILLAS AS IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE |
| | DESIGN GUIDELINES NOR IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL |
| | COMMUNITIES. |
| | |
| | 20. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SETBACK DIMENSIONS FOR THE |
| | VILLAS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 21. WHAT IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PHASE I OF |
| | THE HOTEL? WHAT WILL THE LANDSCAPING CONSIST OF IN THE |
| | AREA THAT IS PLANNED FOR PHASE II? |
| | |
| | 22. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HOTEL |
| | PARKING STRUCTURE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 23. WHERE IS ALL OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PROPOSED |
| | TO BE INSTALLED? SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 24. LANDSCAPE PLANS STILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR THAT |
| | AREA BETWEEN LAKE LK2 AND THE ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY |
| | DEVELOPMENTS. |
| | |
| | 25. HAVE THE PROPOSED STREET NAMES BEEN |
| | REVIEWED/APPROVED BY THE CITY?S ADDRESSING PERSONNEL? |
| | |
| | 26. ANY CONSIDERATION OF PATHWAY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN |
| | THE VARIOUS PODS? FOR EXAMPLE, CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE |
| | VILLAS AND THE RESORT HOTEL, CONNECTION BETWEEN THE |
| | BANEBERRY LANE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE ADJACENT VILLAS, |
| | ETC.? THE ENTIRE SITE SHOULD BE INTERCONNECTED FOR |
| | PEDESTRIAN / CART CIRCULATION. |
| | |
| | 27. THE CONNECTION OF THE SIDEWALK FROM BANYAN CAY ROAD |
| | TO THE HOTEL PARKING STRUCTURE DOESN?T SEEM TO MAKE |
| | SENSE AS IT HAS NO LOGICAL CONNECTION INTO THE GARAGE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 28. THE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE PARKING STRUCTURE IS TO |
| | CONSIST OF SHADE/FLOWERING TREES OF AT LEAST TEN (10) |
| | FEET IN HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 29. WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE LARGE ?LAWN? AREA? ANY |
| | LANDSCAPING? IF SO, PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 JUNE 20, 2017, |
| | PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED |
| | DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN APRIL 28, 2017. |
| | |
| | G) TO BE PLACED ON THE JUNE 20, 2017, PLANNING BOARD |
| | AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER |
| | THAN JUNE 5, 2017. 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 |
