| Date |
Text |
| 2020-01-27 16:44:34 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 01.27.2020 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z19090014 AND Z19090015 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1842 AND PB 1842A |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - 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. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTER FROM COMCAST |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 5.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT REVISING |
| | THEIR REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO MFMD |
| | INSTEAD OF MF, THEN STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING A |
| | CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REFLECTS SUCH REQUIREMENT |
| | PRIOR TO SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY |
| | COMMISSION. |
| | |
| | 6. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS OF |
| | THE SPENCER LAKES HOA AND HOW ARE THEY BEING ADDRESSED? |
| | |
| | 6.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IS FURTHER OUTREACH PROPOSED? IS |
| | THE APPLICANT OF THE POSITION THAT THE RESIDENTS? |
| | CONCERNS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED? |
| | |
| | 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 7.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE ARCHITECT HAS PROVIDED FOR |
| | THE CORRECT ZONING MAP, BUT IDENTIFIED THE PROJECT SITE |
| | WITH ?MF-14?, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 8. [ SATISFIED ] - SHEET SP-1 WAS MISSING OUT OF THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PDF. |
| | |
| | 9. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN SHALL SHOW THE ENTIRE |
| | PROPERTY, INCLUDING THAT WHICH IS LAKE AREA. |
| | |
| | 10. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 11.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE SITE PLAN AND CIVIL PLANS |
| | ARE SHOWING DIFFERENT DIMENSION FOR THE DRIVE AISLES, |
| | ESPECIALLY AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE BEFORE THE GATES. IS |
| | THE APPLICANT CONFIDENT THAT THE VEHICLE USED FOR THE |
| | TURNING RADIUS ANALYSIS IS SUFFICIENT TO REPRESENT |
| | ACTUAL USE OF THE PARKING LOT WITH THE REDUCED DRIVE |
| | AISLES? |
| | |
| | 12. [ SATISFIED SUBJECT TO GRANTING OF WAIVER ] - |
| | FENCING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (25 FEET) SHALL NOT |
| | EXCEED 4 FEET IN HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | 13. [ SATISFIED ] - DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL |
| | FENCING. |
| | |
| | 14. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE |
| | PROPOSED TRELLIS FEATURE. |
| | |
| | 16. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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? |
| | |
| | 17.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THERE APPEARS TO BE NOT SIDEWALK |
| | ACCESSING THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS |
| | THE MAIL BOXES. THE OPENING IN THE BUILDING FRONTS INTO |
| | LANDSCAPE AREA. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. |
| | |
| | 18. [ SATISFIED ] - BIKE RACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR |
| | BUILDING #6 AND THE CLUBHOUSE. |
| | |
| | 19. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - IF THE INTENT IS THAT THE |
| | COMMUNITY WOULD BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED BY FENCING, |
| | THERE ARE SEVERAL GAPS THAT DO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED |
| | ACCESS. |
| | |
| | 20.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NOTE THAT SOMEONE CAN ACCESS THE |
| | PROPERTY BY WALKING AROUND THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE |
| | CLUBHOUSE (BY THE LAKE) AND CONTINUE ALONG THE LAKE |
| | EDGE INTO THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 21. [ SATISFIED ] - SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL |
| | BUILDINGS WITHIN PROXIMITY TO A PROPERTY LINE. SETBACKS |
| | WERE NOT SHOWN FOR THE CLUBHOUSE AND TRASH COMPACTOR. |
| | |
| | 22. [ SATISFIED ] - SHEET TC-1 WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 23. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | FOR THE SCREENING AROUND THE PROPOSED LIFT STATION. |
| | |
| | 23.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE CONFIGURATION OF THE |
| | COMPACTOR ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DOES NOT MATCH THAT |
| | WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLANS. ALL PLANS SHALL BE |
| | CONSISTENT. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH |
| | THE APPLICANT TO BETTER SCREEN THIS AREA AS THE |
| | PROPOSED DESIGN LEAVES AN AREA THAT IS WIDE OPEN AND |
| | NOT AESTHETICALLY DESIRABLE. |
| | |
| | 24. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 24.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? SEE COMMENT 23.1 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | 25. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | OF THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. |
| | |
| | 27.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS (CAPS ON |
| | THE COLUMNS) SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE |
| | MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE SIGN, WHICH IS 4 FEET. |
| | |
| | 28. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - A TURNAROUND SPACE NEEDS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED AT THE DEAD-END PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDING |
| | #4. |
| | |
| | 32. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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. |
| | |
| | 32.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE USE OF THE CURBS IS NOT |
| | REQUIRED, BUT STAFF IS JUST EMPHASIZING THAT IF THIS IS |
| | BEING USED AS AN ?INNOVATIVE? FEATURE, THERE ARE A |
| | NUMBER OF AREAS ON THE SITE WHERE THIS IS NOT BEING |
| | DONE, BUT COULD BE. |
| | |
| | 33. [ SATISFIED ] - 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 FEET 8 INCHES |
| | BETWEEN THE TOP OF BEAM AND THE TOP OF RIDGE, BUT THE |
| | ELEVATIONS GIVEN SHOW A 13 FOOT 2 INCH DIFFERENCE. |
| | |
| | 34. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING DETAIL SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 36.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? DETAIL SHALL PROVIDE THE |
| | DIMENSION OF THE STRIPING. |
| | |
| | 37. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND ARE TO BE |
| | PROVIDED BETWEEN THE GARAGES AND THE ADJACENT PARKING |
| | ROWS. |
| | |
| | 39. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THERE IS A LIGHT POLE IN THE |
| | MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK, JUST INSIDE THE TRELLIS BY THE |
| | CLUBHOUSE. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 FEBRUARY 3, 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 |
