| Date |
Text |
| 2020-06-11 11:33:09 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 06.11.2020 |
| | PROJECT NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD |
| | CASE NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP SEPARATELY |
| | WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 2. STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH EXTENDING THE |
| | COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) AND GENERAL |
| | COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL |
| | WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM THE BANYAN CAY |
| | COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. |
| | PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S ZONING AND |
| | LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS), PROJECTS WITHIN |
| | THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE FLU ARE ALLOWED |
| | TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE TO BE PART OF A |
| | MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE USES AND PARTS OF |
| | THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE CONNECTIVITY |
| | BETWEEN THE USES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 3. THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES NOT SHOW ANYTHING |
| | WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS WEST OF CONGRESS FALL |
| | WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS? |
| | |
| | 4. THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS HAVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: |
| | |
| | 4.1. THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN ENCROACHING INTO THE |
| | SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT. |
| | |
| | 4.2. THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING OVER THE |
| | CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE. |
| | |
| | 4.3. NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS SHOW THE TRUCK |
| | EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH. |
| | |
| | 4.4. THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ARE NOW |
| | SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED. |
| | |
| | 4.5. PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL |
| | BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY. DOES THEIR |
| | ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO |
| | THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS |
| | BEING SHOWN? |
| | |
| | 4.6. PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION THAT THE FIRE |
| | DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE TRUCK |
| | ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN. |
| | |
| | 5. UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM: |
| | |
| | 5.1. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | |
| | 5.2. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | |
| | 5.3. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT |
| | |
| | 5.4. COMCAST |
| | |
| | 6. NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | |
| | 7. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REGARDING THE |
| | FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY: |
| | |
| | 7.1. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL THAT IS BEING |
| | CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING |
| | PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED. |
| | |
| | 7.2. THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY USE IS MID-RIDE |
| | CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC |
| | GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT, WHATEVER CATEGORY |
| | GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD BE USED AS THERE |
| | IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE REGARDING THE TYPE OF |
| | MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | 7.3. THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL |
| | UNITS PERMITTED INCORRECT. THE CURRENT MF FLU |
| | DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH WOULD |
| | ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132. |
| | |
| | 7.4. THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY (ACCORDING TO THE |
| | SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477 ACRES. |
| | |
| | 7.5. WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, |
| | WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY |
| | UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE BETWEEN EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE |
| | CHANGING. |
| | |
| | 8. THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL |
| | CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS ATTACHED, BUT |
| | NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD APPLICATION THAT |
| | WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN |
| | SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED BY THE CITY |
| | AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO DIRECTION WAS |
| | PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION FROM THE SCHOOL |
| | DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN: |
| | |
| | 9.1. THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH WHAT WAS INCLUDED |
| | WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, |
| | ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES ARE ACCURATE AND |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 9.2. THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN WILL NEED TO BE |
| | UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL WAIVERS BEING |
| | REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC A CERTAIN |
| | POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 10. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE REQUESTED |
| | PARKING WAVIER: |
| | |
| | 10.1. PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED |
| | TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY |
| | MEETING THREE (3) OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE |
| | THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR |
| | REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE SUPPORTING |
| | INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, |
| | IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE CRITERIA ARE BEING |
| | MET. |
| | |
| | 10.2. WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR PROPOSED TO |
| | SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND AND ENCOURAGE |
| | ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION? |
| | |
| | 11. AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PBAS WITHIN BANYAN CAY, |
| | THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE |
| | INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE |
| | PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES TO THE EXISTING SHEETS |
| | THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL |
| | DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 12. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REGARDING THE |
| | TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY: |
| | |
| | 12.1. THE LETTER STATES THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH |
| | ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED |
| | AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY, IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT |
| | THE NORTH GATE IS FOR EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE |
| | THAT ALL TRAFFIC STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC. |
| | PROPERTY REFLECT THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS. |
| | |
| | 13. PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL |
| | WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION INDICATING THEIR |
| | APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITH THE |
| | PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. |
| | |
| | 14. WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ADJACENT TO THE |
| | DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE THE ADJACENT |
| | PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PARKING? |
| | |
| | 15. ON THE SITE PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL |
| | LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE |
| | ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN |
| | SHALL FALL WITHIN THE DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE |
| | AND BE LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON |
| | THE ABILITY FOR CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN |
| | AND THE STRIPING. |
| | |
| | 16. BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE |
| | ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS ENSURING THAT THEY ARE |
| | VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC. |
| | |
| | 17. PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE REAR SETBACK FOR |
| | BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING THE MINIMUM |
| | SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT |
| | THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK. THE APPLICATION |
| | SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER TO THE BUILDING |
| | HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 18. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH |
| | END OF BUILDING A IS BEING MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST |
| | DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 19. SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING |
| | THE WAIVER REQUESTS: |
| | |
| | 19.1. THE BEGINNING OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE? |
| | LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THESE |
| | WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN AREAS OF THE |
| | PLAN. IF THEY ARE LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE |
| | IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 19.2. JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON HOW THE IMPACT |
| | OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING MITIGATED. |
| | |
| | 19.3. SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT |
| | INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN |
| | RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS; EXISTING |
| | NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A BASIS FOR |
| | A WAIVER REQUEST. |
| | |
| | 20. PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AS THERE |
| | ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL |
| | ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS HARD TO |
| | UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 21. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT |
| | INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BEING USED TO FOSTER |
| | INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE EXPAND ON THIS AND PROVIDE |
| | EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WAIVERS ARE BEING REQUESTED, |
| | IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING |
| | TECHNIQUES. |
| | |
| | 22. STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE |
| | PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | 22.1. THE PROVISION OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY |
| | SURROUNDED BY SURFACE PARKING, ESPECIALLY BUILDING B |
| | WITH THE PROVISION OF PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. |
| | BUILDING B INCLUDES EXPOSED PARKING ALONG THE FRONT |
| | FA?ADE THAT RESULTS IN NO LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT |
| | OF THE BUILDING THAT COULD ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL |
| | DESIGN. |
| | |
| | 23. PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 FOOTCANDLES. |
| | |
| | 24. THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF OVERHANG SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B AS IT IS LOCATED AT |
| | THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT TO THE CITY?S ZLDRS, |
| | STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXTEND THREE |
| | (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 25. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GOLF CART PATH IS BEING |
| | SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS |
| | PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO DIRECT CARTS TO THE |
| | NEW CONNECTION POINT. |
| | |
| | 26. WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF BUILDING A |
| | HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARDSCAPE DOES |
| | NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA. |
| | |
| | 27. THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD SHOW SQUARED |
| | CORNERS ON THE STRIPING. |
| | |
| | 28. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OR A CROSS SECTION REGARDING |
| | THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF |
| | HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THIS AREA AS NO TREES ARE |
| | PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ETC. STAFF HAS |
| | ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY |
| | OWNERS. |
| | |
| | 29. THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED |
| | AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON THEIR UNIT |
| | COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE FEWEST |
| | NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE PARKING |
| | SPACES. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) ELECTRONIC COPIES OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 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 AUGUST 18, 2020, |
| | PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE |
| | SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED |
| | DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN JUNE 26, 2020. |
| | |
| | G) TO BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 18, 2020, PLANNING BOARD |
| | AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER |
| | THAN AUGUST 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 |
