| Date |
Text |
| 2020-02-26 10:08:50 | *** COMMENTS PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ZONING REVIEW |
| | DATED 2/18/20 *** |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) A TRAFFIC PERFORMANT STANDARDS (TPS) REVIEW LETTER |
| | FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING - |
| | TRAFFIC DIVISION, INDICATING THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE |
| | TPS STANDARDS OF THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 2.) WHERE IS THE SURVEYOR GETTING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION |
| | FROM? THE LEGAL DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ACCURATE (I.E. |
| | BLOCK REFERENCE, PLAT BOOK AND PAGE NUMBER REFERENCE, |
| | ETC.). PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 3.) WHAT IS THE GENERAL TIMELINE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR |
| | BOTH PHASE I AND PHASE II? |
| | |
| | 4.) ANY CHANGES TO THE PROJECT DATA TABLE (SHEET A1.0) |
| | SHALL BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES TO THE |
| | PROJECT DATA TABLE ON THE COVER SHEET AND IN THE TABLES |
| | IN THE PHASING SITE PLAN (SHEET A1.1). |
| | |
| | 5.) A SIDEWALK EASEMENT FOR THE 3 FT. SIDEWALK |
| | ENCROACHMENT ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL BE REQUIRED |
| | PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY |
| | (C.O.). |
| | |
| | 6.) TO DATE, THE SIGNED LETTER FROM THE OLD NORTHWOOD |
| | HISTORIC DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS NOT BEEN |
| | RECEIVED. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENT: |
| | |
| | 1.) SURFACE PARKING AREA SHALL BE CONCEALED WITH A |
| | STREET WALL ALONG ALL STREET FRONTAGES. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-220(F)(3)] [11/7/19 REPEAT COMMENT - PER ZLDR |
| | S.94-219(C), THE APPLICANT MAY SEEK A WAIVER FROM THIS |
| | DESIGN STANDARD TO BE APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF |
| | APPEALS.] |
| | |
| | 2.) OPEN-AIR PORCHES AND STOOPS, STAIRS AND RAMPS MAY |
| | ENCROACH INTO ANY REQUIRED SETBACK TO A POINT NOT |
| | CLOSER THAN 3 FT. TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROJECT |
| | DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | [ZLDR S.94-220(B)(5)] [11/07/19 REPEAT COMMENT - |
| | ALTHOUGH THE STEPS ALONG BROADWAY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO |
| | MEET CODE, THE RAMP ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE |
| | PROPERTY STILL SEEMS TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 3 |
| | FT. SETBACK] |
| | |
| | 3.) RAMP DETAIL PROVIDED ON SHEET A1.2 SHALL BE |
| | MODIFIED TO MATCH ANY CORRECTION MADE WITH THE |
| | PLACEMENT/LOCATION IN THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 4.) WHAT IS THE COMBINED HEIGHT OF THE METAL PICKET |
| | FENCE AND THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY |
| | LINE? THE FENCE/WALL CANNOT EXCEED 6 FT. IN HEIGHT |
| | (OVERALL). ALSO, PROVIDE A DETAIL TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-220(D)(2) AND (3)] [11/7/19 |
| | REPEAT/MODIFIED COMMENT] |
| | |
| | 5.) DETAIL OF THE FENCE/GATE ON BROADWAY IS MISSING. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE. [11/7/19 REPEAT/MODIFIED COMMENT - |
| | ALTHOUGH RESPONSES TO STAFF'S COMMENTS IMPLIES THAT A |
| | DETAIL HAD BEEN PROVIDED, IT SEEMS TO BE MISSING FROM |
| | THE PLAN.] |
| | |
| | 6.) METAL PICKET FENCE IN THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DO |
| | NOT MATCH THE DETAIL PROVIDED ON SHEET A1.2. PLEASE |
| | ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 7.) ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL PLANS, A LIGHT POLE FIXTURE |
| | ALONG BROADWAY WILL BE RELOCATED. THIS SHOULD BE |
| | REFERENCED IN ALL OTHER PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY. ALSO, |
| | NOTE THAT THE LOCATION OF THE "EXISTING" POLE FIXTURE |
| | IS INCONSISTENT (I.E. SHIFTED). ADDRESS FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 8.) PARKING STALL STRIPING DETAIL SHALL BE CONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE CITY'S STALL STRIPING STANDARDS PER ZLDR |
| | S.94-485. THE DETAIL PROVIDED ON SHEETS A1.2 AND PD6 IS |
| | INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 9.) FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS IN THE PROJECT DATA TABULAR |
| | REQUIRED: A) CHECK THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IT SEEMS TO |
| | BE INCORRECT (SEE GENERAL COMMENTS NOTE ON SURVEY); B) |
| | CHECK LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE |
| | CALCULATIONS (THE NUMBERS SEEM TO BE OFF); C) SHOW THAT |
| | THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK ALONG BROADWAY IS 15 FT. (NOT |
| | 5 FT.); D) CHECK UNIT CALCULATIONS IN THE RESIDENTIAL |
| | DENSITY BREAKDOWN (PHASE I COUNT IS INCORRECT). |
| | |
| | 10.) COVER PAGE TITLE STATES THAT THE PROJECT IS A "24 |
| | RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT" (NOT 23). PLEASE CORRECT |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL (FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS) COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) FLAT ROOFS SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY A PARAPET NO LESS |
| | THAN 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE |
| | BY PROVIDING DIMENSIONS IN THE ELEVATIONAL DRAWINGS. |
| | [ZLDR S.94-220(D)(9)] [11/7/19 - REPEAT COMMENT - PER |
| | ZLDR S.94-219(C), THE APPLICANT MAY SEEK A WAIVER FROM |
| | THIS DESIGN STANDARD TO BE APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD |
| | OF APPEALS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWELVE |
| | (12) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5 INCHES X |
| | 11 INCHES AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17 INCHES, AND |
| | AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | * PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY |
| | RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * 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 PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE |
| | ($200.00). |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
