| Date |
Text |
| 2020-06-26 16:56:21 | CASE NO. PB 1824, 1824A & 1824B |
| | GRACE FELLOWSHIP ANNEXATION |
| | 8350 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG 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. |
| | |
| | - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND |
| | SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION. ONCE STAFF HAS |
| | DETERMINED THAT THE COMMENTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY |
| | ADDRESSED, YOU WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE |
| | 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 THESE COMMENTS (BY SEPTEMBER 26, 2020), THE |
| | CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION |
| | SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - 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. |
| | |
| | THE COMMENTS BELOW ARE ONLY FOR THE ANNEXATION AND THE |
| | INITIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING ASSIGNMENTS. THE |
| | PLANNING STAFF WILL ADDRESS THE SITE, LANDSCAPE, ETC. |
| | PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE |
| | SITE AT A FUTURE PPRC MEETING ONCE THE MAJOR PLANNED |
| | DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN DEEMED SUFFICIENT. |
| | |
| | ANNEXATION |
| | |
| | 1) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING |
| | THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED: |
| | |
| | UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE |
| | INFORMATION THAT THE CANAL AREA BETWEEN THE TWO GRACE |
| | PARCELS IS NOT OWNED BY THE CHURCH. THE CITY SURVEYOR |
| | HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS OWNED BY THE OWNED BY THE |
| | LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT (WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT |
| | THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER SHOWS). STAFF |
| | CANNOT FURTHER PROCESS THE ANNEXATION WITHOUT A |
| | CONCURRENT VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION APPLICATION BY THE LAKE |
| | WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION |
| | (AND PREFERABLE A SEPARATE PARCEL DESIGNATION) OF THE |
| | LAND BETWEEN THE TWO GRACE FELLOWSHIP PARCELS. SINCE |
| | YOU ARE REQUESTING THE ANNEXATION, IT IS YOUR |
| | RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THIS CORRECTED INFORMATION TO |
| | THE CITY, INCLUDING ANY CORRECTION THAT PAPA NEEDS TO |
| | DO TO THEIR MAPS. |
| | |
| | FUTURE LAND USE |
| | |
| | 1) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE AN UPDATED SKETCH AND |
| | DESCRIPTION FOR THE GRACE FELLOWSHIP BOUNDARY (LESS |
| | PHASE IV-HOTEL) BASED ON THE UPDATED ACREAGE (23.41 |
| | ACRES). |
| | |
| | 2) UPDATED COMMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS |
| | |
| | A. PROVIDE UPDATED EXISTING FLU ANALYSIS WHICH USES THE |
| | CORRECT 17.28 ACRES FOR PCN 00-42-43-27-03-001-0140. |
| | THE UPDATED ACREAGE IS BASED ON THE TITLE REVIEW AND |
| | LISTED ON THE SURVEY. |
| | B. PROVIDE UPDATED EXISTING FLU ANALYSIS WHICH USES THE |
| | CORRECT 9.06 ACRES FOR PCN 00-42-43-27-03-001-0151 |
| | LISTED ON THE SURVEY. |
| | C. PROVIDE UPDATED PROPOSED FLU MAXIMUM TRAFFIC |
| | INTENSITY FOR THE PROPOSED 23.41 ACRES OF WPB COMMUNITY |
| | SERVICE. |
| | |
| | 3) REPEAT COMMENT: THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR |
| | FUTURE LAND USE (NON-TRAFFIC) MUST SHOW THE MAXIMUM |
| | SERVICE DEMAND UNDER THE EXISTING PALM BEACH COUNTY FLU |
| | DESIGNATIONS (USING THE UPDATED ACREAGE) AND THEN THE |
| | MAXIMUM SERVICE DEMAND UNDER THE PROPOSED WEST PALM |
| | BEACH FLU DESIGNATIONS FOR THE SELF-IMPOSED MAXIMUM |
| | BUILDOUT (AS DETERMINED BY THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS). |
| | PROVIDE LETTERS FROM THE APPLICABLE SERVICE PROVIDERS |
| | THAT THEY HAVE CAPACITY TO SERVE ANY INCREASE IN |
| | SERVICE DEMAND. |
| | |
| | 4) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE |
| | ANALYSIS IN A SUMMARY TABLE FORMAT (PAGE 29 OF THE |
| | CITY'S DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION HAS AN EXAMPLE OF THE |
| | LOS TABLE FORMAT). |
| | |
| | 5) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE RESTRICTION |
| | ON THE INTENSITY CONTAINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN |
| | AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS. YOUR TEAM NEEDS TO |
| | DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO RESTRICT TO THE SPECIFIC |
| | USES/SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS LISTED IN THE TRAFFIC |
| | ANALYSIS OR IF THOSE USES/SQUARE FOOTAGES SHOULD BE |
| | CONVERTED TO A FIXED NUMBER OF TRIPS. PREVIOUS |
| | APPLICATIONS TYPICALLY USE THE TRIP METHOD SO THAT |
| | FUTURE DEVELOPMENT HAS MORE FLEXIBILITY. FOR EXAMPLE |
| | USING A 125 ROOM HOTEL WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL FLU |
| | AMENDMENT IF THE HOTEL IS NOT VIABLE AND AN ALTERNATIVE |
| | COMMERCIAL USE IS DESIRED. HOWEVER, USING 940 TRIPS AS |
| | SHOWN IN THE PROVIDED GENERATION TABLE, WOULD NOT |
| | REQUIRE THE ADDED STEP OF A FLU AMENDMENT UNLESS MORE |
| | THAN 940 TRIPS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE ALTERNATIVE |
| | COMMERCIAL USE. |
| | |
| |
Print |
