| Date |
Text |
| 2021-05-13 11:53:36 | INFORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW 21-05 |
| | PUBLIX @ SOUTHDALE |
| | 804 SOUTHERN BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR |
| | (4) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS/THE PPRC MEETING (BY |
| | JULY 13, 2021), THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE |
| | APPLICANT THAT THE CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY |
| | FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - 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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($200). |
| | |
| | 1) PROVIDE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT VERIFYING THAT |
| | THE NEW DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT INCREASE VEHICLE TRIPS. IF |
| | THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THERE IS AN |
| | INCREASE IN TRAFFIC TRIPS, THEN YOU MUST PROVIDE A TPS |
| | APPROVAL LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | 2) PROVIDE A PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM FDOT |
| | APPROVING THE MODIFICATION TO THE INGRESS/EGRESS |
| | (REVERSAL) FROM SOUTHERN BOULEVARD AND THAT ACCESS WILL |
| | CONTINUE TO MEET THEIR STANDARDS WITH THE |
| | REDEVELOPMENT. THIS LETTER IS FROM FDOT ACCESS |
| | MANAGEMENT. |
| | |
| | 3) PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FROM FDOT INTERCHANGE |
| | DIVISION (HUMBERTO ARRIETA) THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WILL NOT |
| | IMPACT OR BE IMPACTED BY (EX: RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDENING) |
| | THE SOUTHERN BOULEVARD I-95 INTERCHANGE PROJECT. THIS |
| | IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LETTER IN #2 ABOVE. |
| | |
| | 4) PROVIDE AN ALTA SURVEY. A SKETCH OF BOUNDARY SURVEY |
| | DOES NOT MEET CITY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 5) PROVIDE THE FPL, FPU, COMCAST, AT&T AND WEST PALM |
| | BEACH UTILITY LETTER APPROVALS. |
| | |
| | 6) THE CITY HAS NO RECORD OF APPROVING A LOT SPLIT OR |
| | MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THE PARCEL ON WHICH WELLS |
| | FARGO EXISTS. A UNITY OF TITLE IS REQUIRED TO REJOIN |
| | THIS NOT LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED PARCEL WITH THE PARENT |
| | PARCEL. |
| | |
| | 7) THE PLANS SHOW THAT THE PARKING LOT IS BEING MILLED |
| | AND RESURFACED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING AND LAND |
| | DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THIS REQUIRES THE PARKING LOT, |
| | INCLUDING THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, TO BE |
| | BROUGHT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE PERIMETER |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE. THESE BUFFERS |
| | MUST BE AT LEAST FIVE (5) FEET IN WIDTH AND CONTAIN THE |
| | REQUIRED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. |
| | |
| | 8) A ROUGH CALCULATION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE |
| | BASED ON THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC), BUILDING |
| | VALUATION DATA (BVD) TABLE SHOWS THAT THE NEW |
| | CONSTRUCTION WILL EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE |
| | EXISTING STRUCTURE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING AND |
| | LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE ENTIRE SITE NEEDS BE |
| | BROUGHT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING FOUNDATION PLANTING AND, |
| | MINIMUM SITE LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE. |
| | |
| | 9) THE SITE DATA TABLE LISTS THE PROVIDED FAR AS 25.38, |
| | WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 10) THE PARKING DETAIL ON SHEET C-901 SHOWS A 60-DEGREE |
| | PARKING ANGLE, WHICH REQUIRES AN 18-FOOT PARKING AISLE |
| | WIDTH AND A 19 FOOT 10 INCH STALL DEPTH, NEITHER OF |
| | WHICH ARE SHOWN MEETING CODE ON THE SITE LAYOUT PLAN. |
| | NOTE: THE GENERIC PARKING LOT DESIGN ON C-902 DOES NOT |
| | MATCH THE SITE PLAN AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR SHOW |
| | CORRECT CONDITIONS. STAFF CANNOT VERIFY PARKING |
| | COMPLIANCE WITHOUT THE ACCURATE DATA. |
| | |
| | 11) THE CITY DOES NOT PERMIT DEAD END PARKING ROWS. |
| | BOTH PARKING AREAS AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING NEED TO |
| | HAVE A TURNAROUND SPACE. |
| | |
| | 12) THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT CLEARLY SHOW WHERE THE |
| | STOREFRONT BOLLARDS AND GUARD RAILS ARE LOCATED. |
| | |
| | 13) THERE ARE 20, NOT 18 ADA SPACES ON THE SITE. THE |
| | DATA TABLE NEEDS TO LIST THE CORRECT VALUE. |
| | |
| | 14) THE PLANS NEED TO SHOW DIMENSIONAL COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | THE CITY'S LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 15) PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE SCREENING OF THE STANDBY AND |
| | EMERGENCY GENERATORS THAT MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 16) THE SITE REQUIRES 19 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. THESE |
| | NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT |
| | THE SITE. PROVIDE THE DETAILS THAT COMPLY WITH CITY |
| | CODE. |
| | |
| | 17) PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE COMPACTOR SCREENING. IT |
| | IS NOT PERMITTED TO SIT ON A PAD UNSCREENED AS SHOWN IN |
| | PERSPECTIVE #2. |
| | |
| | 18) THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE |
| | PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS AND THE COLOR ELEVATIONS ON THE |
| | REAR PARAPET WALL. THE PERSPECTIVES CLEARLY SHOW A |
| | PARAPET THAT WILL HIDE THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT; HOWEVER, |
| | THE ELEVATIONS DO NOT SHOW A REAR PARAPET. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
