| Date |
Text |
| 2019-12-18 13:32:31 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 12.18.2019 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19090014 AND Z19090015 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1842 AND PB 1842A |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. APPROVAL LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE |
| | COUNTY TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 2. DID ALEX REVIEW THE UPDATED FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS? |
| | |
| | 3. UTILITY LETTER FROM COMCAST SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4. SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE REQUIRED AT THE PRIMARY |
| | RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE?WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING |
| | MEDIAN (TREES, ETC.)? WAS THIS REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGES |
| | POA? |
| | |
| | 5. THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INDICATES A VOLUNTARY |
| | RESTRICTION PROPOSED AT 30.5 DU/ACRE?WHAT IF THE FLU IS |
| | CHANGED TO MFMD (MAX 20 DU/ACRE) AND/OR THE RESTRICTION |
| | IS AT 14.52 DU/ACRE? THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE |
| | UNDERLYING MF14 ZONING DESIGNATION THAT IS PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | 6. WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS OF THE SPENCER LAKES HOA AND |
| | HOW ARE THEY BEING ADDRESSED? |
| | |
| | 7. THE ZONING MAP ON THE COVER SHEET OF THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOULD BE UPDATED TO THE CITY OF |
| | WEST PALM BEACH?S MAP; DO NOT USE PALM BEACH COUNTY?S |
| | AS THE CITY?S DESIGNATIONS ARE NOT SPECIFIED. |
| | |
| | 8. SHEET SP-1 WAS MISSING OUT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PDF. |
| | |
| | 9. THE SITE PLAN SHALL SHOW THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, |
| | INCLUDING THAT WHICH IS LAKE AREA. |
| | |
| | 10. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE AT A LARGER SCALE. IT?S OK |
| | TO HAVE THE OVERALL SITE PLAN AT SUCH A SMALL SCALE, |
| | BUT A LARGER SCALE (MULTIPLE SHEETS WITH MATCH LINES) |
| | NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 11. ALL DRIVE AISLES CONTAINING PARKING ROWS ARE TO BE |
| | A MINIMUM OF 24 FEET IN WIDTH; ONLY 22 FEET IS SHOWN. |
| | DRIVE AISLE THAT DO NOT HAVE PARKING BACKING INTO THEM |
| | CAN BE NARROWER. |
| | |
| | 12. FENCING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (25 FEET) SHALL |
| | NOT EXCEED 4 FEET IN HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 13. DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL FENCING. |
| | |
| | 14. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE THE REFERENCES FOR |
| | DETAILS THAT ARE PROVIDED. FOR EXAMPLE, SHEET SP-1 |
| | SHOULD REFERENCE DETAIL #1, SHEET LH-7 FOR THE MONUMENT |
| | SIGN AND DETAIL #2, SHEET LH-7 FOR THE TRELLIS FEATURE. |
| | |
| | 15. SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED TRELLIS |
| | FEATURE. |
| | |
| | 16. THE POOL NEEDS TO BE ENCLOSED BY A CONTINUOUS FENCE |
| | OF AT LEAST 4 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH |
| | SELF-CLOSING/SELF-LATCHING GATES. LATCHES SHALL BE AT |
| | LEAST 54 INCHES ABOVE GRADE. |
| | |
| | 17. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FUNCTION OF THE MAIL KIOSK. WILL |
| | USPS HAVE ACCESS INSIDE THE MAIN GATES AND BE ABLE TO |
| | PARK IN FRONT OF THE KIOSK, OR ARE THEY EXPECTED TO |
| | PARK AT THE CLUBHOUSE? |
| | |
| | 18. BIKE RACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR BUILDING #6 AND |
| | THE CLUBHOUSE. |
| | |
| | 19. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT THE |
| | NORTH DRIVEWAY (CROSS-ACCESS WITH THE CHURCH) IS |
| | EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY?BUT THE SITE PLAN INDICATES AN |
| | ENTRANCE AS WELL AS AN EXIT; PLEASE EXPLAIN. |
| | |
| | 20. IF THE INTENT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE |
| | COMPLETELY ENCLOSED BY FENCING, THERE ARE SEVERAL GAPS |
| | THAT DO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. |
| | |
| | 21. SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN |
| | PROXIMITY TO A PROPERTY LINE. SETBACKS WERE NOT SHOWN |
| | FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AND TRASH COMPACTOR. |
| | |
| | 22. SHEET TC-1 WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 23. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE SCREENING AROUND |
| | THE PROPOSED LIFT STATION. |
| | |
| | 24. THE AREA AROUND THE TRASH COMPACTOR NEEDS TO BE |
| | WORKED OUT IN MORE DETAIL. THERE SEEMS TO BE |
| | CONSTRAINTS IN ACCESSING THE TRASH COMPACTOR BASED UPON |
| | THE LOCATION OF THE LIFT STATION SCREENING, ETC. |
| | |
| | 25. A WALKWAY NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTHWEST |
| | SIDE OF THE DETACHED GARAGE NEAR BUILDING #3 SO THAT |
| | THERE IS A CONTINUOUS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO THE DOG PARK. |
| | |
| | 26. AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, ALL |
| | SIDEWALKS SHALL BE DIMENSIONED. PARTICULAR ATTENTION |
| | NEEDS TO OCCUR AT THOSE AREAS WHERE THE VEHICLE |
| | OVERHANG OCCURS OVER THE SIDEWALK. ENSURE THAT THE |
| | MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 27. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED OF THE PROPOSED MONUMENT |
| | SIGN AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. |
| | |
| | 28. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE TRASH |
| | COMPACTOR. THE MANEUVERABILITY PLAN SHOWS A |
| | FRONT-LOADING DUMP TRUCK?BUT IF THE COMPACTOR CONSISTS |
| | OF A LARGE ROLL-OFF DUMPSTER, THEN THE TRUCK |
| | INFORMATION IS INCORRECT AND REQUIRES THAT IT BE LOADED |
| | ONTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. |
| | |
| | 29. WHAT TYPE OF FIRE TRUCK WAS BEING USED FOR THE |
| | MANEUVERABILITY PLAN. THERE IS POSSIBLE CONCERN |
| | REGARDING THE ?CHICANE? THAT IS CREATED BY THE |
| | ALIGNMENT OF THE NON-VISITOR DRIVE WITH THE MAIN |
| | ENTRANCE GATE. |
| | |
| | 30. DETAIL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE |
| | SIGNAGE REQUIRED FOR THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WILL |
| | NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE REQUIRED OVERHANG, AND THAT IT |
| | WILL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE |
| | SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 31. A TURNAROUND SPACE NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED AT THE |
| | DEAD-END PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDING #4. |
| | |
| | 32. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT ONE OF |
| | THE ?INNOVATIVE? FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS |
| | THE USE OF CURBING (INSTEAD OF WHEEL STOPS) TO INCREASE |
| | THE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPE AREA. ACTUALLY, MOST OF THE |
| | AREAS WHERE THIS OCCURS, THE OVERHANG OCCURS OVER A |
| | SIDEWALK, NOT AN EXPANDED LANDSCAPE AREA. THERE ARE A |
| | LOT OF AREAS WHERE WHEEL STOPS ARE STILL BEING PROPOSED |
| | ADJACENT TO LANDSCAPING, AND IT DOESN?T APPEAR THAT |
| | THIS IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE DRAINAGE. |
| | |
| | 33. THE DIMENSIONS ON THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE |
| | INCORRECT. THE DIMENSIONS BETWEEN THE LEVELS DO NOT |
| | CORRESPOND WITH THE ELEVATION DIMENSIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, |
| | THE PLANS INDICATE 12? 8? BETWEEN THE TOP OF BEAM AND |
| | THE TOP OF RIDGE, BUT THE ELEVATIONS GIVEN SHOW A 13? |
| | 2? DIFFERENCE. |
| | |
| | 34. THE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT BICYCLE PARKING IS |
| | REQUIRED FOR EVERY 15 PARKING SPACES, BUT THE ZLDRS |
| | ONLY REQUIRE 1 BICYCLE SPACE FOR EVERY 20 PARKING |
| | SPACES. |
| | |
| | 35. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT 550 |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE BEING PROVIDED, BUT SHEET SP-1 |
| | INDICATES 556. ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS AND NARRATIVES ARE |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 36. PARKING DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 37. LANDSCAPE TERMINAL ISLAND NORTH OF BUILDING #6, AT |
| | THE WEST END OF THE 7 PARKING SPACES, DOES NOT MEET THE |
| | MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL/LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 38. TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND ARE TO BE PROVIDED |
| | BETWEEN THE GARAGES AND THE ADJACENT PARKING ROWS. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 JANUARY 10, 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 |
