| Date |
Text |
| 2019-11-27 17:07:36 | FLU AMENDMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS COMMENTS: |
| | 1. THE GENERALIZED SERVICE VOLUMES FOR VILLAGE |
| | BOULEVARD SHOWN IN TABLE 8 ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | VOLUMES PUBLISHED IN PALM BEACH COUNTY?S TPS. PLEASE |
| | VERIFY AND REVISE. ALSO, PLEASE USE THE LATEST ADOPTED |
| | 2040 COST FEASIBLE MODEL VOLUMES (SERPM 7.0 ADJUSTED |
| | VOLUMES) FROM PALM BEACH TPA DATED 8/17/2016. |
| | 2. IN TABLE 6, THE COMMITTED TRAFFIC SHOWN DOES NOT |
| | APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED |
| | IN THE APPENDIX. PLEASE VERIFY. IF COMMITTED |
| | INFORMATION ON VILLAGE BOULEVARD FROM THE COUNTY?S TPS |
| | DATABASE IS USED, PLEASE INCLUDE IN THE APPENDIX. |
| | 3. PLEASE REVISE THE TYPO IN THE TABLE ENTRY ?MAX |
| | PROPOSED FLU - EXISTING FLU (SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS)? |
| | WHICH SHOULD SAY ?LONG-TERM ANALYSIS? IN TABLE 3. |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | 4. INCLUDE THE REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING IN THE SITE |
| | DATA TABLE AND INDICATE THE NUMBER OF BICYCLE PARKING |
| | SPACES REQUIRED. |
| | 5. THE RESPONSE INDICATED THAT THE EXISTING SHADE TREES |
| | AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ARE INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS FOR |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) IN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. |
| | HOWEVER, THESE SHADE TREES AND SIDEWALK ON VILLAGE |
| | BOULEVARD ARE EXISTING ELEMENTS. PD IS INTENDED FOR |
| | DEVELOPMENTS WITH INNOVATIVE DESIGNS AND IS REQUIRED TO |
| | BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL ELEMENTS OF CITY?S COMPREHENSIVE |
| | PLAN. PLEASE IDENTIFY INNOVATIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS |
| | ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CSPD. |
| | 6. CONSTRUCT 12-FOOT SIDEWALK WITH 6-FOOT LANDSCAPE |
| | BUFFER AND SHADE TREES ON VILLAGE BOULEVARD ALONG SITE |
| | FRONTAGE. IT APPEARS THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | RELOCATED SHADE TREES ARE SET BACK APPROXIMATELY 22 |
| | FEET FROM THE CURB. ALSO, CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE |
| | SIDEWALK AROUND THE SHADE TREES AND UTILITIES AS IT |
| | APPEARS THERE ARE 24 FEET OF SPACE BETWEEN THE PARKING |
| | SPACES AND SHADE TREES |
| | CONDITIONS: |
| | 1. THE FLU AMENDMENT WILL BE VOLUNTARILY RESTRICTED TO |
| | A FAR OF 0.317 PER THE FLU AMENDMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS |
| | OR AS REVISED BASED ON THE REVISED FLU AMENDMENT |
| | TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. |
| | |
| | |
| | SHING TSOI |
| | CITY IN-HOUSE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT |
| | 561-494-1141 |
| | [email protected] |
| | (IN-HOUSE ON TUESDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS) |
| |
Print |
