| Date |
Text |
| 2020-01-13 12:30:26 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 01.13.2020 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19090006 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1086C |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 2.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF WILL |
| | LIKELY DISCUSS THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, ETC. AS PART OF |
| | THE FUTURE STAFF REPORT. |
| | |
| | 3. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - AN APPROVAL TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY |
| | LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | 4. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 5.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE A |
| | CONDITION OF APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 6. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - UNITY OF CONTROL WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UNITY OF CONTROL WILL BE A |
| | CONDITION OF APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 7. [ SATISFIED ] - ALL PLANS NEED TO REFLECT THE SCOPE |
| | OF WORK NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED TRUCK |
| | ROUTE. |
| | |
| | 8. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - UPDATED FDOT LETTER SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 9. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 9.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? RESPONSES TO YOUR AUGUST 21, |
| | 2019, REQUESTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM EACH OF THE |
| | UTILITY COMPANIES. |
| | |
| | 10. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS |
| | RESULTING FROM COMMENTS/REVIEW OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT |
| | SHALL BE REFLECTED ON THE PLANS FOR THE MAJOR |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 12. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? AS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN |
| | PROVIDED FOR THE MINOR AMENDMENT, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO |
| | THE PLAN RESULTING FROM SUCH WILL NEED TO BE |
| | INCORPORATED INTO THE MAJOR AMENDMENT PLANS. |
| | |
| | 13. [ SATISFIED ] - THE USES AND SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE |
| | TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT DO NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS |
| | SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 14. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SIZE, LOCATION, AND |
| | ORIENTATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NEEDS TO BE |
| | APPROVED BY THE CITY?S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 14.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE TURNING MOVEMENTS SHOWN ON |
| | THE SITE PLAN AND IN THE EXHIBIT ONLY SHOW THE TRUCK |
| | MOVEMENTS ENTERING TO PICK UP THE DUMPSTER; NO |
| | MOVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON HOW THE TRUCK IS EXITING THE |
| | SITE. THIS COMMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THE DUMPSTER |
| | NORTHWEST OF BUILDING 2, AS WELL AS NORTHWEST OF |
| | BUILDING 1. |
| | |
| | 15. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR A |
| | BYPASS LANE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE-THRU. |
| | |
| | 16. [ SATISFIED ] - SETBACKS LISTED AS ?REQUIRED? IN |
| | THE SITE DATA TABLE APPEAR TO BE INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 17. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 17.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? APPROPRIATE PAVEMENT MARKINGS |
| | SHOULD BE PROVIDED WHERE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CROSSES THE |
| | DRIVE-THRU AND DRIVE AISLES. |
| | |
| | 18. [ NEW COMMENT ] - DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED OF |
| | THE PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES AT THE DRIVE-THRU |
| | RESTAURANT. |
| | |
| | 19. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 19.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? SEE COMMENT 16.1 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | 20. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 20.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NOTE THAT IMPLEMENTING THE |
| | COMMENT ABOVE WOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE OVERALL LENGTH |
| | OF THE SPACE, IT WOULD HAVE SIMPLY ALLOWED THE VEHICLE |
| | TO OVERHANG LANDSCAPE AREA AS OPPOSED TO ADDITIONAL |
| | ASPHALT/PAVERS. AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, ALL SPACES WILL |
| | BE REQUIRED TO HAVE WHEEL STOPS. |
| | |
| | 21. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE CIVIL PLANS DO NOT |
| | APPEAR TO CORRECTLY DEPICT WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE |
| | PAVERS, CONCRETE, LANDSCAPE, ETC. |
| | |
| | 21.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THERE IS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN |
| | THE SITE PLAN AND THE CIVIL PLANS AS TO THE LOCATION OF |
| | CURBING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE |
| | NORTHEASTERN ROW OF THE STARBUCK?S PARKING. |
| | |
| | 22. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND THE |
| | AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR PAVERS VERSUS THOSE AREAS WHERE |
| | ASPHALT IS BEING USED. |
| | |
| | 23. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL |
| | BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT THROUGH THE |
| | USE OF CURBING. |
| | |
| | 23.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IT IS UNCLEAR OF THE PROPOSED |
| | GRADES/CURBING THAT ARE BEING SHOWN TO THE EAST OF |
| | STARBUCKS WHERE THE WALKWAY CONNECTS TO THE SOUTH DIXIE |
| | HIGHWAY SIDEWALK. IS THE WALKWAY AT THE SAME GRADE AS |
| | THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPING, OR IS IT AT THE SAME GRADE OF |
| | THE PARKING LOT? |
| | |
| | 24. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 25. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EAST |
| | PROPERTY LINE OF THE DRIVE-THRU IS UNCLEAR. IS THE AREA |
| | BETWEEN THE TREES SOD? |
| | |
| | 26. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF WILL PROVIDE A |
| | SEPARATE SET OF REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED SIGN |
| | PROGRAM. |
| | |
| | 27. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE NOTE |
| | REGARDING COMMITTED AND NON-USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR |
| | BUILDING #1 IS STILL BEING SHOWN ON THE MAJOR |
| | AMENDMENT? |
| | |
| | 28. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? WHY IS LANDSCAPING BEING SHOWN IN |
| | THE LOCATION OF THE BIKE RACKS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER |
| | OF BUILDING #1? THERE IS CONFLICT. |
| | |
| | 29. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE DUMPSTER CONFIGURATION TO THE |
| | NORTHWEST OF BUILDING #1 SHOULD MATCH BETWEEN THE MINOR |
| | AMENDMENT AND THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 30. [ NEW COMMENT ] - JUST A REMINDER THAT THERE WILL |
| | BE CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE PERCENTAGE OF |
| | LANDSCAPE AREA. AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY: |
| | - THE AFFECTED AREAS NEED TO MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING REQUIRED (15%); AND |
| | |
| | - THE OVERALL SITE SHOULD SHOW A DECREASE IN THE |
| | NON-CONFORMITY (MEANING AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE |
| | OF LANDSCAPING FROM WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS); AND |
| | |
| | - THE REMAINING LANDSCAPING TO BRING THE ENTIRE SITE |
| | INTO CONFORMITY WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REDEVELOPMENT OF |
| | THE PARKING LOT WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. |
| | |
| | 31. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR THE |
| | SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BOLLARD AROUND THE PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING #2 (STARBUCK?S). IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE IS |
| | CURBING (I.E. ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVE-THRU, IN |
| | THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, ETC.) BOLLARDS SEEM UNNECESSARY. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2020, |
| | PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED |
| | DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, |
| | 2020. |
| | |
| | G) TO BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 18, 2020, PLANNING |
| | BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO |
| | LATER THAN FEBRUARY 3, 2020. 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 |
