| Date |
Text |
| 2020-01-30 10:01:49 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 01.29.2020 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19090013 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1841A |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR |
| | USING 9-FOOT PARKING SPACES? IF EACH SPACE WERE REDUCED |
| | TO THE CODE-REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 8 FEET 6 INCHES, A |
| | SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPE AREA COULD BE |
| | REINTRODUCED BACK INTO THE SITE. |
| | |
| | 1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND IS ATTEMPTING TO USE |
| | "LANDSCAPING" AS AN INNVOATE FEATURE, STAFF IS |
| | CONSIDERING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD PROVIDE |
| | FOR THE REDUCED SIZE OF THE PARKING STALLS. |
| | |
| | 2. [ SATISFIED ] - A 5-FOOT WIDE TERMINAL ISLAND IS |
| | REQUIRED AT THE NORTH END OF THE FIRST ROW OF PARKING |
| | (ROW OF 6 SPACES) THAT?S LOCATED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF |
| | THE SOUTH EAST ACCESS DRIVE. |
| | |
| | 3. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR |
| | HAVING TWO (2) DRIVE-AISLES (EACH 24-FEET WIDE) WITHIN |
| | SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE ANOTHER (NORTHEAST OF THE |
| | EXISTING LIFT STATION)? COULD ONE (1) OF THESE BE |
| | ELIMINATED OR OTHERWISE BE RECONFIGURED TO REDUCE THE |
| | AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT? |
| | |
| | 3.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - WHY IS SO MUCH PAVEMENT BEING |
| | PROVIDED FOR THE TURN-AROUND AREA? |
| | |
| | 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO |
| | DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING SOME OF THE PARKING |
| | BE CONSTRUCTED AS GRASS PARKING. |
| | |
| | 4.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND IS ATTEMPTING TO USE |
| | "LANDSCAPING" AS AN INNVOATE FEATURE, STAFF IS |
| | CONSIDERING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD PROVIDE |
| | FOR A PORTION OF THE PARKING BEING CONSTRUCTED AS GRASS |
| | PARKING. OTHER THAN A STATEMENT FROM THE CHURCH, NO |
| | STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED SHOWING HOW MUCH PARKING IS |
| | ACTUALLY BEING USED TODAY AT VARIOUS TIMES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE TURN-AROUND IN THE |
| | FIRST BAY OF DEAD-END PARKING IS DIMENSIONED AS ONLY |
| | BEING 8 FEET WIDE, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORM OF FLARE |
| | TO ALLOW MANEUVERABILITY OUT OF THE TURN-AROUND SPACE. |
| | |
| | 5.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - WHY IS SO MUCH PAVEMENT BEING |
| | PROVIDED FOR THE TURN-AROUND AREA? |
| | |
| | 6. [ SATISFIED ] - THE TURN-AROUND IN THE LAST BAY OF |
| | DEAD-END PARKING DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORM OF FLARE TO |
| | ALLOW MANEUVERABILITY OUT OF THE TURN-AROUND SPACE. |
| | |
| | 7. [ SATISFIED ] - A 5-FOOT WIDE TERMINAL ISLAND IS |
| | REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE FIRST BAY OF DEAD-END |
| | PARKING; THE PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK IS ENCROACHING |
| | INTO THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE ISLAND. |
| | |
| | 8. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE ROUTE SHOWN |
| | FOR THE GARBAGE TRUCK IS ACCURATE. AS SHOWN, THE TRUCK |
| | WOULD BE GOING SOUTHBOUND, BUT THEN HEAD NORTHBOUND |
| | AFTER SERVICING THE SITE. FOR THE TRUCK TO CONTINUE |
| | SOUTHBOUND, IT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A U-TURN. |
| | |
| | 9. [ SATISFIED ] - DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SHOWING THE STYLE OF THE PROPOSED RACK |
| | AS WELL AS DIMENSIONS FOR PLACEMENT, ETC. THE STYLE AND |
| | DIMENSIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY?S REQUIREMENTS |
| | (CONTACT ME FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF NECESSARY). |
| | RESPONSE STATES THAT A DETAIL WAS PROVIDED ON SHEET |
| | C-121, BUT NO DETAIL IS SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 10. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTER FROM COMCAST IS |
| | STILL OUTSTANDING. |
| | |
| | 11. [ NOT SATISIFED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE SITE |
| | PLAN INDICATES THAT ONLY 87 PARKING SPACES ARE |
| | REQUIRED. THE SITE DATA TABLE SHOULD SHOW THE |
| | CALCULATIONS (# OF SEATS, SQUARE FOOTAGE, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 11.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - SITE DATA TABLE HAS NOT BEEN |
| | UPDATED TO REFLECT REQUIRED PARKING CALCULATION (# OF |
| | SEATS, SQUARE FOOTAGET, ETC.) |
| | |
| | 12. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE WAIVER REQUEST TABLE |
| | INDICATES THAT A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK WAIVER IS |
| | PROPOSED. THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE 15 FOOT REAR SETBACK |
| | AND 10 FEET IS PROPOSED; THIS IS A 5 FOOT WAIVER, NOT |
| | 10 FOOT. |
| | |
| | 12.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE WAIVER TABLE HAS NOT BEEN |
| | UPDATED TO REFLECT A 5 FOOT WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 13. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BUILDING SETBACK TABLE ON SHEET |
| | C-120 INDICATES THAT A 15 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS |
| | REQUIRED; HOWEVER, SEC. 94-203 STATES THAT A 25 FOOT |
| | FRONT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. PLEASE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 14. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BUILDING SETBACK TABLE ON SHEET |
| | C-120 INDICATES THAT A 15 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED ON A |
| | SIDE STREET; HOWEVER, SEC. 94-203 STATES THAT A 25 FOOT |
| | CORNER SETBACK IS REQUIRED. PLEASE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 15. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE PROVIDED |
| | LOT COVERAGE IN THE SITE DATA TABLE ON SHEET C-120; IT |
| | SEEMS THAT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS LARGER THAN WHAT |
| | IS BEING INDICATED. |
| | |
| | 16. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PLANS INDICATE THAT THE |
| | EXISTING BUILDING IS TWO (2) STORIES IN HEIGHT, BUT THE |
| | FAR SHOWN IN THE SITE DATA TABLE MATCHES THE BUILDING |
| | COVERAGE THAT IS PROVIDED, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT IT |
| | IS A ONE (1) STORY BUILDING. PLEASE CLARIFY. |
| | |
| | 17. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PROPOSED CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT |
| | SHOWN ON SHEET C-120 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE SUFFICIENT |
| | WIDTH AT THE POINT WHERE IT TERMINATES AT THE NORTH |
| | GATE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 18. [ PARTIALLY SATISIFED ] - THE SITE DATA TABLE ON |
| | SHEET C-120 SHALL INDICATE THE NUMBER OF BICYCLE |
| | PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER |
| | PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | 18.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - DATA TABLE SHOULD INDICATE THE |
| | CALUCATION USED FOR BICYCLE PARKING (1 BICYCLE SPACE |
| | PER 20 PARKING SPACES). |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
