| Date |
Text |
| 2019-10-10 12:36:32 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 10.10.2019 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19090006 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1086C |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. WITH ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL, NOTES, LABELS, |
| | ETC. THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED AT A LARGER |
| | SCALE. PROVIDE AN OVERALL SITE PLAN, BUT THEN DO |
| | ENLARGED SHEETS WITH MATCHLINES. |
| | |
| | 2. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO |
| | ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN DESIGNS THAT PRESENT A MORE URBAN |
| | FEEL WITH BUILDING PRESENCE ON THE STREET, PARKING |
| | BEHIND, PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLIC |
| | SIDEWALK INTO THE BUILDING, RELOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER |
| | AWAY FROM THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE, ETC. |
| | |
| | 3. AN APPROVAL TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | 4. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT NEEDS TO BE CLEARER |
| | ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN |
| | THE SECTION UNDER ?SITE DESIGN? IT IS DESCRIBING |
| | IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE A PART OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT, |
| | BUT THE DESCRIPTION MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THEY ARE |
| | PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 5. REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6. UNITY OF CONTROL WILL BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 7. ALL PLANS NEED TO REFLECT THE SCOPE OF WORK |
| | NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED TRUCK ROUTE. |
| | |
| | 8. UPDATED FDOT LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE UTILITY LETTERS PROVIDED |
| | REFLECT THEIR REVIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE MAJOR |
| | AMENDMENT; IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF THE LETTERS ARE |
| | DATED THE SAME AS THOSE THAT WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF |
| | THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 10. AT THE NEW DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT, PLEASE EXPLAIN |
| | WHY THERE ARE GATES ACROSS THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS. |
| | THE GATES SHALL BE REMOVED AND THERE SHALL BE CLEAR |
| | PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC WALKWAY AND |
| | THE BUSINESS. |
| | |
| | 11. IMPORTANT ? ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS RESULTING FROM |
| | COMMENTS/REVIEW OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT SHALL BE |
| | REFLECTED ON THE PLANS FOR THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 12. THE USES AND SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT |
| | STATEMENT DO NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SITE |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 13. SIZE, LOCATION, AND ORIENTATION OF THE DUMPSTER |
| | ENCLOSURE NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY?S PUBLIC |
| | WORKS DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 14. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR A BYPASS LANE ALONG THE |
| | ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE-THRU. |
| | |
| | 15. SETBACKS LISTED AS ?REQUIRED? IN THE SITE DATA |
| | TABLE APPEAR TO BE INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 16. THE SITE PLAN FOR THE DRIVE-THRU SHOWS PEDESTRIAN |
| | CONNECTIONS COMING OFF OF BELVEDERE ROAD AND SOUTH |
| | DIXIE HIGHWAY WITH NO CLEAR PASSAGE TO THE BUILDING. |
| | THE CONNECTIONS ARE SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO PARKING |
| | SPACES, RANDOM CROSSINGS AT THE DRIVE-THRU, ETC. |
| | |
| | 17. DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED OF THE PARKING AND |
| | DRIVE AISLES AT THE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT. |
| | |
| | 18. THE CIVIL PLANS SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ON |
| | BELVEDERE ROAD AS ASPHALT. PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD |
| | BE CLEARLY DELINEATED WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS, |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS, ETC. SO THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND |
| | SAFE ROUTE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC WALKWAY AND THE BUILDING. |
| | AS DESIGNED, THEY LOOK LIKE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES. |
| | |
| | 19. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT WHEN PARKING ROWS ABUT A |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THAT WHEEL STOPS NOT BE USED AND THAT |
| | THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BE WIDENED TO ACCOMMODATE THE |
| | VEHICLE OVERHANG. |
| | |
| | 20. THE CIVIL PLANS DO NOT APPEAR TO CORRECTLY DEPICT |
| | WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE PAVERS, CONCRETE, LANDSCAPE, |
| | ETC. |
| | |
| | 21. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND THE AREAS |
| | IDENTIFIED FOR PAVERS VERSUS THOSE AREAS WHERE ASPHALT |
| | IS BEING USED. |
| | |
| | 22. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM |
| | VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT THROUGH THE USE OF CURBING. |
| | |
| | 23. THE CIVIL PLANS SHOW THE PROPOSED BIKE RACKS IN |
| | WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LANDSCAPE AREA, BUT THIS IS SHOWN |
| | AS PAVERS ON OTHER PLANS. THE RACKS NEED TO BE |
| | INSTALLED ON A SOLID SURFACE (PAVERS, CONCRETE, ETC.) |
| | AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL AND ALL PLANS NEED TO BE |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 24. THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE |
| | OF THE DRIVE-THRU IS UNCLEAR. IS THE AREA BETWEEN THE |
| | TREES SOD? |
| | |
| | 25. STAFF WILL PROVIDE A SEPARATE SET OF REVIEW |
| | COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) 15 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. |
| | |
| | F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE DECEMBER 17, 2019, |
| | PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED |
| | DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2019. |
| | |
| | G) TO BE PLACED ON THE DECEMBER 17, 2019, PLANNING |
| | BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO |
| | LATER THAN DECEMBER 2, 2019. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND |
| | BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE |
| | CITY?S ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH |
| | REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE. |
| | |
| | H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT |
| | DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE |
| | COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | TTY: 800.955.8771 |
| | E: [email protected] |
| | |
| | W: WPB.ORG |
| | |
| |
Print |
