| Date |
Text |
| 2019-06-12 11:20:07 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 06.12.2019 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19050026 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1086B |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED INDICATING NO |
| | OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. |
| | |
| | 2. THE SITE PLAN IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE |
| | EXISTING AND WHICH ONES ARE PROPOSED. AS SUCH, IT IS |
| | DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT IS NONCONFORMING AND MAY |
| | NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, ETC. |
| | |
| | 3. AS A FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS, WHAT IS THE |
| | LATEST REGARDING THE DESIGN OF THE FUTURE GROCER AND |
| | THE ACTIVATION OF THE SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR? |
| | |
| | 4. THE SITE PLAN IS UNCLEAR AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | RAMP THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE TOP OF THE PARKING |
| | DECK. IT SEEMS THAT THE RAMP MAY IMPEDE WITH MULTIPLE |
| | DRIVE AISLES AND OVERALL SITE CIRCULATION, IMPACTING |
| | EXISTING PARKING. |
| | |
| | 5. THE PROPOSED PARKING DECK APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH |
| | MULTIPLE UTILITY LINES, ESPECIALLY A WATER MAIN LOCATED |
| | WITHIN A 10-FOOT EASEMENT AND A SIX (6) FOOT |
| | UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT. |
| | |
| | 6. THE PARKING DECK SHOULD BE ADDED INTO THE SITE DATA |
| | TABLE FOR ALL APPLICABLE CALCULATIONS (LOT COVERAGE, |
| | IMPERVIOUS, BUILDING SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, ETC.). |
| | IT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME REGULATIONS AS |
| | OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING |
| | DISTRICT). |
| | |
| | 7. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145(7), THE MINIMUM BUILDING |
| | SEPARATION SHALL BE ZERO FEET, OR NOT LESS THAN TEN |
| | (10) FEET. ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, THE PARKING DECK |
| | IS ONLY 4.5 FEET FROM THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 8. BY DEFINITION, THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS ALONG |
| | BELVEDERE ROAD AND MONCEAUX ROAD; SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY |
| | IS CONSIDERED A CORNER-SIDE. |
| | |
| | 9. IN DISCUSSION AMONGST STAFF, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT |
| | SINCE A LINER BUILDING IS NOT BEING PROPOSED ALONG |
| | SOUTH DIXIE (IN FRONT OF THE PARKING DECK, ETC.) THAT |
| | SOME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OR DECORATIVE FEATURES |
| | (SUCH AS TRELLIS?, ETC.) COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO, OR |
| | IN PLACE OF, THE EASTERN MOST ROW OF PARKING. |
| | |
| | 10. THERE SEEMS TO BE A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL CAR |
| | SPACES CONCENTRATED IN SOME OF THE AREA WHERE PARKING |
| | DEMAND WILL BE HEAVIEST. PURSUANT TO SEC. |
| | 94-485(N)(1)E., SMALL CAR SPACES ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED. |
| | |
| | 11. YOU WILL NEED TO CONFIRM WITH THE BUILDING |
| | DIVISION, BUT ACCESSIBLE PARKING MAY NEED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED UNDER THE COVER OF THE PARKING DECK. |
| | |
| | 12. THE SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND PBC |
| | TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION DO NOT SEEM TO |
| | CORRESPOND WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT ARE SHOWN ON |
| | THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS, STUDIES, |
| | ETC. ARE CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 13. THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION LETTER FROM |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT IS TO |
| | ?MEET CRITERIA AS OUTLINED IN THE CITY?S TDM |
| | (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ORDINANCE.? PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE DETAILS AS THERE IS NO TDM ORDINANCE THAT HAS |
| | BEEN ADOPTED FOR THIS AREA. |
| | |
| | 14. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REFERENCES THAT THE |
| | PROJECT WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE CITY?S MOBILITY |
| | FUNDS PROGRAM; PLEASE NOTE THAT NO SUCH PROGRAM HAS |
| | BEEN ADOPTED, AND UNDER THE ?PROPOSED? PROGRAM, THE |
| | SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH |
| | PROGRAM. |
| | |
| | 15. PURSUANT TO THE PBC TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY |
| | DETERMINATION LETTER, AN FDOT CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY |
| | PRE-APPROVAL LETTER SHALL BE OBTAINED. SPECIAL |
| | ATTENTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE COUNTY?S |
| | SUGGESTION OF A CENTER LEFT TURN LANE. |
| | |
| | 16. SIDEWALKS/CROSSINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE |
| | PEDESTRIAN EXIT POINTS OF THE PARKING DECK TO BUILDINGS |
| | #1 AND #3. |
| | |
| | 17. SIGNAGE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL |
| | DRAWINGS AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED AS A SEPARATE SIGN |
| | PACKAGE. |
| | |
| | 18. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR |
| | REVIEW OF THE FREESTANDING SIGNS: |
| | |
| | 18.1. SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ALL FREESTANDING |
| | SIGNS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL COMPLY |
| | WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94-408(D)(2) AND |
| | (3). |
| | |
| | 18.2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FREESTANDING SIGN AREA SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE |
| | PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94-408(D)(2) AND (3). |
| | |
| | 19. SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE TRASH COMPACTOR |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 94-315(A). |
| | |
| | 20. IT IS STAFF?S POSITION THAT LANDSCAPING SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED ALONG THE OUTER PERIMETER OF THE PARKING DECK |
| | (SPECIFICALLY THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDES) TO SOFTEN THE |
| | APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND MAKE IT BLEND IN WITH |
| | THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 21. MULTIPLE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS FOR THE PARKING DECK |
| | ENCROACH INTO DRIVE AISLES, PARKING SPACES, ETC. ON THE |
| | GROUND LEVEL. |
| | |
| | 22. THE PARKING STALL DETAIL ON SHEET 12 OF THE |
| | ENGINEERING PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY?S MINIMUM |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 23. THE BICYCLE PARKING DETAIL REFERENCES THE SITE PLAN |
| | FOR DIMENSIONS, ETC., BUT NO DIMENSIONS WERE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 24. BICYCLE PARKING NEEDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT |
| | THE SITE BASED UPON THE USES ON THE PROPERTY, AND SHALL |
| | BE SITUATED IN PROXIMITY TO BUILDING ENTRANCE, ETC. SO |
| | AS TO BE VISIBLE TO PATRONS. THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | BICYCLE PARKING FOR BUILDING #1 IS OF GREATEST CONCERN. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) FOUR (4) 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. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | E: [email protected] |
| | |
| | W: WPB.ORG |
| | |
| |
Print |
