| Date |
Text |
| 2017-07-25 12:09:15 | CASE NO. PB 1069U - 1ST RESUBMITTAL |
| | KEISER UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL STADIUM |
| | 2600 N. MILITARY TRAIL |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ELEVEN |
| | (11) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE |
| | NUMBER OF COMMENTS, CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS OR |
| | THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS TO ADDRESS THE |
| | COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY, |
| | JULY 28, 2017, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE |
| | SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 PLANNING BOARD MEETING OR AUGUST 25, |
| | 2017, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER |
| | 17, 2017 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM |
| | THE DATE OF THE COMMENTS (BY SEPTEMBER 25, 2017), THE |
| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION |
| | SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED COMMENTS |
| | WERE NOT ADDRESSED, YOU ARE BEING ASSESSED A |
| | RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE IS 20% OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - 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) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY THAT THEY APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED |
| | IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT |
| | AREA RECORDED IN ORB 4723 PG 1643. |
| | |
| | 2) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM |
| | THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) THAT |
| | THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN WITHIN THE FDOT TRANSFER OF |
| | RESERVATION PARCEL NO. 801 DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR |
| | FUTURE NEED OF THE PARCEL. |
| | |
| | 3) STAFF REVIEWED THE SURVEY PROVIDED WITH THE BUILDING |
| | PERMIT FOR THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND PUTTING AREA. |
| | THAT SURVEY SHOWS A "COVENANT TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE" |
| | RECORDED IN ORB 2474 PG 687 WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED ON |
| | THE CURRENTLY PROVIDED SURVEY. DOES THIS COVENANT STILL |
| | EXIST ON THE SITE? IF SO, PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE |
| | COVENANT. |
| | |
| | 4) THE RELOCATED PARKING ADJACENT TO THE SOFTBALL FIELD |
| | IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH INTO DRAINAGE EASEMENTS |
| | RECORDED IN ORB 6230 PG 1357 AND ORB 5876 PG 1296 |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN |
| | |
| | 5) SHEET MP -1 SHOWS THE OVERLAP OF EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED CONDITIONS. THIS MAY BE USED AS A COMPARATIVE |
| | PLAN, BUT A FINAL "CLEAN" MASTER PLAN IS REQUIRED WHICH |
| | SHOWS ONLY THE CONDITIONS APPROVED AS PART OF THE |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 6) REVISED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT THERE |
| | ARE 62 DORM ROOMS ON CAMPUS. HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE |
| | HOUSED PER DORM ROOM? |
| | |
| | 7) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE SIDEWALK FROM MILITARY |
| | TRAIL TO THE STADIUM AND THEN TO THE INTERNAL SIDEWALK |
| | NETWORK. SAMANTHA HILL, BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER, WHO |
| | HAS REVIEWED THE MOST RECENT PERMITS FOR KEISER |
| | UNIVERSITY, PERFORMED A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED |
| | SIDEWALK AND NOTED THAT THE SIDEWALK IS NOT PERMITTED |
| | TO BE GATED AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. THE CURRENT |
| | CONFIGURATION WITH THE VEHICULAR GATE ALSO BLOCKING THE |
| | SIDEWALK PROHIBITS THE SIDEWALK FROM FUNCTIONING AS |
| | INTENDED. |
| | |
| | 8) REVISED COMMENT: THE PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE A NOTE |
| | REFERRING TO THE LIGHTS ALONG CECEILE AVENUE AS |
| | OPTIONAL AS STATED IN THE COMMENT RESPONSE. |
| | |
| | 9) REVISED COMMENT: THE VALUES FOR THE PHOTOMETRIC |
| | PLANS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES |
| | FOR THE WESTERN PARKING LOT LIGHTS AND ALONG THE SOUTH |
| | SIDE OF CECEILE AVENUE TO THE MILITARY TRAIL ROW TO |
| | VERIFY THAT THE LIGHT FIXTURES DO NOT CREATE GLARE (NO |
| | MORE THAN 0.5 FOOTCANDLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) |
| | ONTO THOSE PROPERTIES. PROVIDE THE VALUES ALONG CECEILE |
| | AVENUE AT A LARGER FONT. THEY ARE UNREADABLE ON THE |
| | SUBMITTED PLANS DUE TO THEIR TINY SIZE. |
| | |
| | 10) THE LIGHTING LEVELS ARE SHOWN IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT |
| | CANDLES AT THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE |
| | STADIUM (ADJACENT TO THE RETENTION AREA). THESE |
| | LIGHTING LEVELS NEED TO BE REDUCED. |
| | |
| | 11) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PROPOSED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE |
| | DOES NOT MEET CITY MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. WHILE THE |
| | DUMPSTER DETAIL ON SHEET RP 1 IS THE CITY'S STANDARD |
| | DETAIL, THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SHOWN ON SHEET SP 1 DOES |
| | NOT MATCH THE DETAIL (OR CITY MINIMUM SIZE). |
| | |
| | 12) REVISED COMMENT: THE APPLICATION IS REQUESTING A |
| | WAIVER FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT, "ALL SITES SHALL |
| | CONTAIN AT LEAST A 100-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPED, OPEN SPACE |
| | BUFFER ADJACENT TO ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS." |
| | WHILE THERE HAS BEEN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE INSTALLED |
| | WITHIN THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE WAIVER, STAFF DOES NOT |
| | FEEL THAT THE MATERIAL PROVIDES ENOUGH OF A BUFFER TO |
| | MITIGATE THE WAIVER REQUEST. SINCE THE PROPERTY HAS A |
| | RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND AN INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE, |
| | STAFF HAS TO REVIEW THE PARCEL AS HAVING A POTENTIAL |
| | RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH REQUIRES A HIGHER |
| | STANDARD OF BUFFERING. IN ADDITION TO THE ADDITIONAL |
| | LANDSCAPE, PLEASE CONSIDER A SOLID FENCE IN THIS |
| | LOCATION INSTEAD OF THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. THE |
| | LACK OF ADEQUATE BUFFERING IS VERIFIED BY THE LIGHT |
| | LEVELS IN THIS AREA COVERED IN COMMENT NO. 10. |
| | |
| | 13) REVISED COMMENT: NO JUSTIFICATION WAS SHOWN FOR THE |
| | FOLLOWING STANDARD THAT REQUIRES A WAIVER, "ALL OUTDOOR |
| | ACTIVITY AREAS: 100 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE." STAFF |
| | FEELS THAT ADDITIONAL BUFFERING IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE |
| | THIS WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 14) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FUTURE INSTALLATION OF |
| | CONCESSION AND MERCHANDISE STANDS OR BUILDINGS WILL |
| | REQUIRE THE PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE ZONING DIVISION IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE PLAN |
| | |
| | 15) REVISED COMMENT: STAFF IS CONFUSED BY THE |
| | INCONSISTENT LINE WORK AND THE LACK OF LABELS TO |
| | DIFFERENTIAL THE LANDSCAPED AREAS FROM PAVEMENT ON THE |
| | VARIOUS PLANS. THE PROVIDED PLANS DO NOT CLEARLY SHOW |
| | THAT THE LANDSCAPE AREAS PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR |
| | ENCROACHMENT BY A D-CURB. |
| | |
| | 16) REPEAT COMMENT: NO TREES ARE SHOWN IN THE TERMINAL |
| | ISLANDS AT EITHER SIDE OF THE REVISED DRIVEWAY BETWEEN |
| | THE DORM PARKING LOT AND THE STADIUM DRIVEWAY. |
| | |
| | 17) THE SOUTHERNMOST PARKING ROW OF THE EXISTING DORM |
| | PARKING HAS BEEN CHANGED AND HAS BECOME MORE |
| | NON-CONFORMING WITH THE REMOVAL OF ONE OF THE INTERIOR |
| | ISLANDS (INCREASE IN PARKING SPACES NOT INTERRUPTED BY |
| | AN INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ISLAND). PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS |
| | ISLAND, AND THE PARKING ADJACENT TO IT, WAS JUST REDONE |
| | AS PART OF THE GOLF FACILITIES PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY, |
| | THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR ADA SPACES AND THE PROPOSED |
| | PLAN DROPS THIS TO THREE ADA SPACES, WHICH NO LONGER |
| | APPEAR TO BE THE CLOSEST PARKING SPACES TO THE DORMS. |
| | |
| | 18) THE TREE SURVEY, TO INCLUDE THE TREE MITIGATION |
| | PLAN, NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE AREAS SUBJECT TO THE NEW |
| | PARKING FIELD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CAMPUS. |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 19) REVISED COMMENT: IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. |
| | 2-12, THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE CAMPUS NEEDS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE RESUBMITTED |
| | INFORMATION AND AGREES WITH THE RE-CALCULATION OF THE |
| | PLACES OF ASSEMBLY TO EXCLUDE THE STUDENT AND FACULTY |
| | AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE STUDENT |
| | STATION AND FACULTY PARKING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | A. WHILE STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT THE UNIVERSITY WISHES |
| | TO INCLUDE PARKING ONLY FOR THE STUDENTS THAT ARE |
| | CURRENTLY ENROLLED, STAFF IS CONCERNED THAT AN INCREASE |
| | IN ENROLLMENT FROM 580 (ESPECIALLY TO THE POTENTIAL |
| | 1,800 VESTED STUDENTS) WOULD CREATE A DEFICIENCY IN THE |
| | AMOUNT OF ON-SITE PARKING. STAFF IS NOT SATISFIED THAT |
| | THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. |
| | B. THE RESUBMITTAL MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACULTY |
| | AND ADJUNCT FACULTY. THIS NEEDS TO BE FURTHER DEFINED |
| | AS THE REQUEST IS TO COUNT ADJUNCT FACULTY AT HALF THE |
| | PARKING RATE. THE PARKING TABLE IN THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN |
| | FULL TIME AND PART TIME FACULTY OR STAFF SO THIS CHANGE |
| | MAY REQUIRE YOU TO APPLY FOR A CHANGE TO THE SCHOOLS, |
| | COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARKING |
| | CALCULATION IN THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 20) REVISED COMMENT: THE NEW STADIUM REQUIRES 133 |
| | PARKING SPACES (534 SEATS), YET ONLY 87 NEW PARKING |
| | SPACES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE STADIUM. WHERE ARE THE |
| | REMAINING 46 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REFERENCED IN THE |
| | RESPONSE? |
| | |
| | 21) STAFF CONFUSED WITH WHERE THE GRASS PARKING |
| | MENTIONED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT IS LOCATED. |
| | NONE OF THE PLANS ARE LABELED AS SUCH. |
| | |
| | 22) WAIVER REQUIRED: "ALL PARKING, LOADING, AND |
| | VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AREAS: 100 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY |
| | LINE." NOTE: WHILE STAFF RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO PROVIDE |
| | PARKING TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NEW ATHLETIC BUILDING, |
| | STAFF FEELS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A MORE SUBSTANTIAL |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO MITIGATE THE WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 23) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PARKING DETAIL ON SHEET RP 1 |
| | DOES NOT MEET THE CITY STANDARD. IT SHALL CLEARLY SHOW |
| | THE DIMENSION BETWEEN THE DOUBLE STRIPES. STAFF |
| | RECOMMENDS USING THE CITY STANDARD DETAIL AS THE BASE. |
| | |
| | 24) THE PARKING PLAN SHOWS NEW PARKING AREAS AS WELL AS |
| | THE EXISTING PARKING LOTS. |
| | |
| | A. PROVIDE THIS PLAN AT A LARGER SCALE WHICH INCLUDES |
| | DIMENSIONS OF THE PARKING AISLES AND SPACES SO THAT |
| | STAFF CAN VERIFY CODE COMPLIANCE OF BOTH EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED PARKING. |
| | B. A QUICK VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE SUBMITTAL INDICATES |
| | THAT MANY OF THE EXISTING ADA PARKING SPACES ARE |
| | NON-COMPLIANT. THESE WILL NEED TO BE CORRECTED ON THE |
| | REVISED PARKING PLAN. |
| | C. THE NEW PARKING FIELDS REQUIRE THE SUBMITTAL OF AN |
| | EXISTING SURVEY AND THE PROPOSED CIVIL, LANDSCAPE AND |
| | SITE PLAN. |
| | D. THE REQUIRED INTERIOR AND TERMINAL ISLAND LANDSCAPE |
| | NEEDS TO BE SHOWN FOR EXISTING PARKING AREAS AND |
| | INSTALLED IF MISSING. |
| | E. THE NEW NORTHERN PARKING FIELD REQUIRES ADA PARKING |
| | SPACES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE CLOSEST ROUTE TO |
| | BUILDING NO. 4. |
| | F. ADDING UP THE VALUES FOR THE VARIOUS PARKING FIELDS |
| | RESULTS IN A LARGER NUMBER THAN IS LISTED AS "TOTAL |
| | PARKING PROVIDED" ON THE PARKING TABLE. |
| | G. SHEET PP.1 SHOWS 13 PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO THE |
| | SOFTBALL FIELD; HOWEVER, THESE SPACES ARE NOT SHOWN ON |
| | ANY OTHER PLANS (CIVIL, LANDSCAPE, MASTER PLAN). |
| | COMPARING GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND THE SURVEY TO SHEET |
| | PP.1 INDICATES THAT THESE EXISTING PARKING SPACES ARE |
| | BEING RELOCATED (AND TREES BEING REMOVED THAT ARE NOT |
| | SHOWN ON THE TREE DISPOSITION PLAN), THEREFORE, THE |
| | SPACES MUST FULLY COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE AS TO |
| | MAXIMUM NUMBER IN A ROW (10) BEFORE AN INTERIOR |
| | LANDSCAPE ISLAND IS REQUIRED AND THE PROVISION OF |
| | TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLANDS. |
| | H. THE PARKING PLAN DOES NOT ACCURATELY SHOW THE |
| | FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING ADJACENT |
| | TO THE NEW PARKING SPACES THAT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF |
| | THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 25) THE AERIALS OF THE SITE SHOW THAT THE PARKING |
| | STRIPING FOR THE ENTIRE CAMPUS DOES NOT CONFORM TO CITY |
| | STANDARDS. AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE |
| | PARKING MUST BE BROUGHT INTO CODE CONFORMANCE. |
| | |
| | 26) BICYCLE PARKING |
| | |
| | A. THE CITY DOES NOT PERMIT THE WAVE TYPE BICYCLE RACK. |
| | PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED |
| | CITY MODELS. NOTE: THE CITY WILL ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE |
| | BICYCLE PARKING RACKS THAT ARE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE |
| | BUILDING USE IF THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ALLOW BICYCLES TO |
| | BE CORRECTLY SECURED TO THEM. IN THIS CASE, YOU COULD |
| | EXPLORE INSTALLING FOOTBALL SHAPED RACKS. |
| | B. THE PLANS SHALL CLEARLY SHOW THE BICYCLE PAD |
| | DIMENSIONS AND RACKS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS |
| | AS WELL AS PROVIDE A DETAIL SHEET SHOWING THE ACTUAL |
| | PAD AND RACK DIMENSIONS. |
| | |
| | 27) REVISED COMMENT: THE NEW ATHLETIC BUILDING REQUIRES |
| | ONE 10 FOOT BY 25 FOOT LOADING SPACE. THE DIMENSIONS |
| | ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAN. ADDITIONALLY, THE TEXT ON |
| | THE PLAN CALLS OUT A MINIMUM 10 FOOT BY 20 FOOT LOADING |
| | SPACE WHICH IS NOT THE CORRECT SIZE. |
| | |
| | 28) REVISED COMMENT: PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS DRAWINGS TO |
| | VERIFY THE BUSSES CAN ACCESS THE DROP OFF AREA AND THE |
| | TURN AROUND BY THE BUSS PARKING SPACES. SHOW THE ROUTE |
| | THE BUSSES WILL USE AND PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS DRAWINGS |
| | TO VERIFY THEY CAN MAKE ANY TIGHT RADIUS TURNS. |
| | |
| | TRAFFIC |
| | |
| | 29) REPEAT COMMENT: WHILE THE TRAFFIC STATEMENT |
| | INDICATES THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL PEAK HOUR |
| | VEHICLE TRIPS BASED ON THE NEW STADIUM, YOU ARE |
| | REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC APPROVAL |
| | LETTER WITH THE APPLICATION. PALM BEACH COUNTY MAKES |
| | THE DETERMINATION IF THE STADIUM IS INCLUDED IN THE |
| | APPROVAL OF THE 1,800 STUDENT CAMPUS. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
