| Date |
Text |
| 2018-08-06 15:16:52 | CASE NO. PB1223H |
| | JFK NORTH HOSPITAL ER EXPANSION |
| | 2201 45TH STREET |
| | |
| | - 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 OCTOBER 8, 2018), |
| | THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER |
| | ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - 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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($300). |
| | |
| | 1) THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING A TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT |
| | WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC |
| | IMPACT FROM BASED ON THE EXPANSION. THE STATEMENT |
| | PERMITTED THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED TO THE PPRC FOR |
| | REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION. HOWEVER, YOU ARE |
| | STILL REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE |
| | STANDARDS LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY VERIFYING THE |
| | CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRAFFIC STATEMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) IF THE COUNTY TPS LETTER VERIFIES THAT THERE IS NO |
| | ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT, THEN THE CASE WILL NOT |
| | TRIGGER A CITY COMMISSION REVIEW AS A MAJOR PD |
| | AMENDMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE EXPANSION EXCEEDS 1,000 |
| | SQUARE FEET, IT REQUIRES A FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AS |
| | WELL AS THE MINOR PD AMENDMENT. BOTH APPLICATIONS |
| | REQUIRE THE SAME APPLICATION MATERIAL; HOWEVER, YOU ARE |
| | REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE $1,500 REVIEW FEE. NO ADDITIONAL |
| | ENGINEERING FEES ARE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 3) NO LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE |
| | APPLICATION. STAFF WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM A COMPLETE |
| | REVIEW WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED PLANS. |
| | |
| | 4) NO ELEVATIONS WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION. |
| | STAFF WAS UNABLE TO PERFORM A COMPLETE REVIEW WITHOUT |
| | ALL OF THE REQUIRED PLANS. |
| | |
| | 5) THE SITE DATA TABLE STATES THAT THERE ARE 628 |
| | PARKING SPACES BEING PROVIDED AFTER THE PARKING AREA IS |
| | RECONFIGURED BASED ON THE ER EXPANSION. FOR 628 PARKING |
| | SPACES, 13 ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADA PARKING SPACES. THE |
| | PARKING TABLE NEEDS TO STATE THAT 13 ADA PARKING SPACES |
| | ARE REQUIRED AND LIST THE NUMBER OF ADA PARKING SPACES |
| | PROVIDED ON THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 6) NO PARKING DETAIL WAS SUBMITTED. THE PLANS |
| | INCORRECTLY CALL OUT SINGLE STRIPING FOR THE NEW |
| | PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING THE REGULAR, ADA AND |
| | AMBULANCE SPACES. |
| | |
| | 7) THE MODIFIED PARKING ROW WHICH IS PROPOSED TO HAVE |
| | FIVE REGULAR AND THREE ADA PARKING SPACES HAS BEEN |
| | RESTRIPED FROM WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. PROVIDE THE |
| | DIMENSIONS OF THIS PARKING SPACES AND THE PLAN SO THAT |
| | STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE NEW SPACES CONFORM TO MINIMUM |
| | DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT APPEARS THAT |
| | THE DRIVE AISLE AT THIS LOCATION IS LESS THAN 24 FEET |
| | IN WIDTH. THE CHANGES TO THIS AREA REQUIRE BRINGING THE |
| | DRIVE AISLE INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIRED MINIMUM |
| | DIMENSIONAL STANDARD OF 24 FEET. |
| | |
| | 8) THE SIDEWALK THAT CONNECTED TO THE FRONT OF THE ADA |
| | SPACES REFERENCED IN COMMENT NO. 7 HAS BEEN REMOVED. |
| | THE CITY DOES NOT PERMIT WALKING BEHIND CARS AS PART OF |
| | THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. |
| | |
| | 9) THERE IS PAVED "LEFT OVER" AREA ADJACENT TO THE |
| | ACCESS AISLE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PARKING ROW |
| | CITED IN COMMENT NO. 7 THAT MAY NOT REMAIN. PLEASE |
| | WIDEN THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND AT THIS LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 10) THE SURVEY SHOWS A CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK WITH STRIPED |
| | CROSSWALKS FROM CONGRESS AVENUE TO THE NORTH SIDE OF |
| | THE ER BUILDING AND THE NORTHERN PART OF THE CAMPUS. |
| | THE PROPOSED PLAN FAILS TO SHOW THIS CONTINUOUS ROUTE. |
| | |
| | 11) THE NEW PARKING ROW CONTAINING 12 PARKING SPACES |
| | (TWO SIX SPACE BAYS) SHOWS AN 18 FOOT PARKING STALL |
| | WITH A D CURB AT ITS BASE. THIS DOES NOT MEET CITY |
| | STANDARDS. EITHER HAVE A 16 FOOT LONG STALL WITH A TWO |
| | FOOT OVERHANG OF A D CURB, OR USE WHEEL STOPS AT THE 16 |
| | FOOT POINT. |
| | |
| | 12) THE SIX NEW ADA PARKING SPACES NEED TO HAVE WHEEL |
| | STOPS OR CURBING TO PREVENT THEM FROM HITTING THE ADA |
| | SIGNS. |
| | |
| | 13) WHY DOES THE AMBULANCE PARKING AND DROP-OFF AREA |
| | DRIVE AISLE NEED TO BE 30 FEET WIDE FOR TWO TRAVEL |
| | LANES? |
| | |
| | 14) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE ROADWAY ADJACENT TO THE |
| | BUILDING IS 18 FEET WIDE, YET IT EXPANDS TO 19 FEET |
| | WIDE SOUTH OF THE DROP OFF AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF |
| | THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 15) PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION FOR THE RAISED SIDEWALK |
| | ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE ER DRIVEWAY. |
| | |
| | 16) THE NEW SIDEWALK ALONG THE EXISTING PARKING BAYS |
| | SOUTH OF THE BUILDING IS BEING SHOWN THROUGH THE |
| | REQUIRED TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND AND REMOVING |
| | REQUIRED TREES. |
| | |
| | 17) THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF |
| | THE BUILDING PORTE COCHERE IS BEING RELOCATED FURTHER |
| | WEST. THE PLAN NEEDS TO SHOW HOW THE RELOCATED SIDEWALK |
| | NETWORK, TO INCLUDE THE HATCHED CROSSWALKS, PROVIDES A |
| | CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK NETWORK. |
| | |
| | 18) THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO SHOW ANY NEW LOCATIONS FOR |
| | THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WITHIN THE AFFECTED AREA. THE |
| | SIGNS WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. |
| | |
| | 19) WHERE IS THE FIRE HYDRANT THAT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED |
| | SOUTH OF THE ER BEING RELOCATED TO? THE CURRENT |
| | LOCATION IS IN A PROPOSED DRIVE AISLE. |
| | |
| | 20) THERE IS CURB RELOCATION WORK SHOWN ON THE |
| | SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. YOU WILL |
| | NEED TO SUPPLY OWNER'S CONSENT FROM THE NEIGHBORING |
| | PROPERTY TO SHOW THIS ON THE JFK HOSPITAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 21) THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE PAVING THAN PREVIOUSLY |
| | APPROVED. PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWING THAT THE SITE STILL |
| | MEETS THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AND PERVIOUS SURFACE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 22) THE SURVEY SHOWS AN EXISTING RACK FOR EIGHT BICYCLE |
| | PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO THE ER. THE PROPOSED SITE |
| | PLAN FAILS TO SHOW THE REPLACEMENT BICYCLE PARKING |
| | SPACES MEETING CITY LOCATIONAL STANDARDS. PLEASE NOTE |
| | THAT THE CURRENT RACK DOES NOT CONFORM TO CITY |
| | STANDARDS, SO IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WITH A CITY |
| | APPROVED RACK MODEL. THE DIMENSIONED PAD AND RACKS NEED |
| | TO BOTH BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND IN A BICYCLE RACK |
| | DETAIL. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
