| Date |
Text |
| 2021-05-11 10:35:19 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 05.11.2021 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z20100012 & Z20100013 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1868 & 1869 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE |
| | FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION (REPLAT) ? IT APPEARS THAT |
| | MATERIALS SUBMITTED WERE THOSE REQUIRED FOR A LOT SPLIT |
| | ALONG EXISTING PLATTED LOT LINES. AS THE SUBDIVISION IS |
| | CREATING NEW LOT LINES, A REPLAT IT REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - NEED ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FOR |
| | MAILING. SEE SECTION G (PAGE 4) OF THE DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. NOTE THAT SIGN POSTING WILL ALSO BE |
| | REQUIRED, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 15 DAYS IN |
| | ADVANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION HEARING. LANGUAGE AND |
| | REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIGN WILL BE PROVIDED BY CITY |
| | STAFF ONCE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED WITH CITY COMMISSION |
| | AGENDA IT WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR. |
| | |
| | 2. [ SATISFIED ] - IT LOOKS LIKE A REPLAT WAS PREPARED |
| | (IN ADDITION TO THE LOT SPLIT DOCUMENTS) BUT ONLY PAGE |
| | 2 OF THE PLAT WAS PROVIDED. THE LOT SPLIT DOCUMENTS ARE |
| | NOT NEEDED, AND A FULL PLAT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH |
| | FLORIDA STATUTES NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 3. [ SATISFIED ] - THERE'S INCONSISTENCY IN THE LOT |
| | DIMENSIONS BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE |
| | HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND THE PROPOSED |
| | SUBDIVISION. ENSURE THAT THE SITE PLAN, PROPOSED PLAT, |
| | ETC. ARE ALL ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT, AND ENSURE THAT |
| | ALL ZONING AND HPB REQUIREMENTS CONTINUE TO BE MET. |
| | |
| | 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE PROPOSED PLAT SHALL |
| | NOT CREATE ANY NEW NONCONFORMITIES. ACCORDING TO THE |
| | PLAT, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 |
| | AND 2 WOULD RESULT IN THE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | REQUIRED POOL SETBACK ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING POOL |
| | ON LOT 1. THE SITE PLAN, HOWEVER, SHOWS THE EXISTING |
| | POOL MEETING THIS SETBACK REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 4.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE PLAT FOR |
| | APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING |
| | SHALL BE REMOVED: |
| | |
| | A) POOL AND POOL DECK ON CURRENT LOT 17 (TO COMPLY |
| | WITH SETBACK REQUIREDMENTS). |
| | B) POOL AND POOL DECK IN ITS ENTIRETY ON CURRENT LOTS |
| | 29-30 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NOT PERMITTED ON A LOT |
| | WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE). |
| | C) GREENHOUSE AND 1-STORY BUILDING ON LOT 29 |
| | (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NOT PERMITTED ON A LOT WITHOUT A |
| | PRIMARY STRUCTURE). |
| | |
| | 5. [ SATISFIED - SUBJECT TO REVIEW DURING PERMITTING ] |
| | - NOTE THAT FOR LOT 3, IF TWO (2) CURB-CUTS ARE |
| | PROPOSED, EACH OF THEM SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN (10) FEET |
| | IN WIDTH. ADDITIONALLY, A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT, OR |
| | 1,000 SQUARE FEET (WHICHEVER IS LESS) OF THE FRONT YARD |
| | SHALL CONSIST OF LANDSCAPING. |
| | |
| | 6. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - IT IS THE CITY?S POLICY |
| | THAT ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYS REQUIRE THE APPRAISAL OF THE |
| | LAND, THE VALUE OF WHICH IS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY |
| | IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ALLEY NO LONGER BEING AVAILABLE FOR |
| | USE BY THE PUBLIC. PLEASE COORDINATE WITH VINCE NOEL, |
| | ENGINEERING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. |
| | |
| | 6.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - PAYMENT OF THE APPRAISED VALUE |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR SCHEDULING THE PLAT FOR |
| | APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION |
| | |
| | 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM FPL |
| | INDICATES THAT EASEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO COVER |
| | EXISTING FACILITIES. PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF |
| | THE FACILITIES AND WHAT EASEMENTS WILL BE DEDICATED. |
| | DEPENDING UPON THE LOCATION OF THE FUTURE EASEMENTS, |
| | SOME OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MAY NEED TO BE |
| | RELOCATED. |
| | |
| | 7.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE FPL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE |
| | COVERED BY THE NEW UTILITY EASEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE |
| | CITY, SO NO FURTHER ACTION SHOULD BE NEEDED ON THIS |
| | MATTER. |
| | |
| | 8. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION STILL |
| | NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE CITY'S ENGINEERING |
| | SERVICES DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ABANDONMENT OF THE |
| | ALLEY. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) PDFS 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) 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 |
