| Date |
Text |
| 2022-01-13 11:25:10 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 01.13.2022 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z21120018 AND Z21120017 |
| | CASE NO.: ISPR 21-13 AND PB 1908 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (TRAFFIC |
| | CONCURRENCY). |
| | |
| | 2. APPROVED SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM |
| | BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | 3. LETTERS FROM ALL UTILITY COMPANIES SHALL BE PROVIDED |
| | INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH |
| | INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THEIR |
| | ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES. |
| | |
| | 4. JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT IS TO INCLUDE RESPONSES |
| | INDICATING HOW THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH |
| | THE SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE |
| | [SEC. 94-35(C)]. |
| | |
| | 5. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE ARCHITECT ON THE |
| | VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLING. CONCERNS |
| | INCLUDE: |
| | |
| | 6. ALL OF THE PROJECTS IS EXACTLY THE SAME. ALTERNATIVE |
| | STYLES, OR VARIATIONS, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACROSS ALL |
| | OF THE PROJECTS AS THEY ARE SEPARATE SITES ALONG THE |
| | CORRIDOR AND READ INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER. |
| | |
| | 7. ADDITIONAL WINDOWS/OPENING ARE NEEDED ON THE |
| | SIDES/REAR OF THE BUILDING TO PROVIDE BETTER |
| | ARCHITECTURAL STYLING, NATURAL SURVEILLANCE, VISUAL |
| | ENHANCEMENT TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 8. GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS FACING TAMARIND |
| | AVENUE SHOULD INDIVIDUALLY READ AS WALK-UP UNITS WITH |
| | THEIR FRONT/MAIN ENTRANCE FACING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. |
| | |
| | 9. PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS NEED TO BE SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE. LEVELS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 FOOTCANDLES WHEN |
| | MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL |
| | ZONING DISTRICT. |
| | |
| | 10. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AREA TO BE ABANDONED |
| | SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WHAT IS |
| | DESCRIBED IN THE SKETCH/LEGAL OF THE ABANDONMENT. |
| | ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/DOCUMENTS ARE ACCURATE AND |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 11. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(5) ALL WINDOWS ARE TO BE |
| | VERTICAL OR SQUARE IN PROPORTION. |
| | |
| | 12. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(6) ALL WINDOWS ARE TO BE |
| | RECESSED A MINIMUM OF 2 INCHES FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE |
| | OF THE FA?ADE. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL. |
| | |
| | 13. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(7) ALL WINDOWS ARE TO BE |
| | OPERABLE. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL/NOTE. |
| | |
| | 14. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(10) SLIDING DOORS ARE |
| | ONLY ALLOWED ON THE REAR FA?ADE. |
| | |
| | 15. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-231(C)(6)(B) THE MINIMUM CORNER |
| | SETBACK IS 5 FEET; BUILDING B DOES NOT COMPLY. |
| | |
| | 16. THE FAR CALCULATION IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 17. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-231(C)(6)(A) THE MINIMUM FRONT |
| | SETBACK IS 10 FEET; BUILDING A DOES NOT COMPLY. SETBACK |
| | IS TO BE MEASURED TO THE CLOSEST POINT (EXTERIOR |
| | STAIRCASE). |
| | |
| | 18. PLEASE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE |
| | PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ALONG TAMARIND AVENUE (IF |
| | ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED). |
| | |
| | 19. THE PROPERTY LINE ON TAMARIND AVENUE DOES NOT MATCH |
| | THE SURVEY. |
| | |
| | 20. PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING COVERAGE NEEDS TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 21. PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CALCULATION |
| | IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 22. THE TURNAROUND SPACE AND THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE |
| | APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER AND NOT PROVIDE |
| | SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING. PLEASE PROVIDE AN AUTO-TURN |
| | ANALYSIS OR MODIFY ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 23. BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH SEC. 94-485(Q). INDICATE ALL LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 24. SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT A UTILITY EASEMENT IS |
| | PROPOSED TO BE ABANDONED; HAS THIS APPLICATION BEEN |
| | SUBMITTED? |
| | |
| | 25. ENSURE THAT PLANS SHOW ALL WALLS, FENCES, ETC. IF |
| | RETAINING WALLS ARE PROPOSED, DETAILS/CROSS SECTIONS |
| | NEED TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 26. PARKING STRIPING DETAIL DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE |
| | CITY?S MINIMUM STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 27. PLEASE CLARIFY THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAIL, IT |
| | LOOKS LIKE THE GATES CONSIST OF CHAIN LINK; SUCH |
| | MATERIAL IS NOT PERMITTED. THE GATE NEEDS TO BE A |
| | SOLID/OPAQUE MATERIAL. |
| | |
| | 28. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES (AS |
| | DEFINED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS) AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF |
| | THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY. NO OBJECTS WITHIN THE VISIBILITY |
| | TRIANGLE SHALL EXIST BETWEEN A HEIGHT OF 18 INCHES AND |
| | 8 FEET. |
| | |
| | 29. SCREEN WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE EAST |
| | PROPERTY LINE SEPARATING THE PARKING FROM THE ADJACENT |
| | RESIDENTIAL USES [SEC. 94-443(A)(1)]. |
| | |
| | 30. PLEASE PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION THROUGH THE ENTIRE |
| | SITE TO SHOW THE ELEVATION PROFILE, ETC. AS THE |
| | PROPERTY SLOPES EAST/WEST. |
| | |
| | 31. ALL BALCONIES, ROOF OVERHANGS, AWNINGS, ETC. NEED |
| | TO BE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED ON THE SITE PLAN. PURSUANT |
| | TO SEC. 94-305(B)(2) SUCH ENCROACHMENTS SHALL NOT |
| | EXTEND MORE THAN 3 FEET INTO A REQUIRED SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 32. CONFIRM THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGES OF THE |
| | NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT. THE |
| | SITE PLAN DOESN?T APPEAR TO MATCH THE FLOOR PLAN, DATA |
| | TABLE, ETC. |
| | |
| | 33. IT IS THE CITY?S POLICY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY |
| | ABANDONMENTS THAT THE PETITIONER PAY TO THE CITY THE |
| | APPRAISED VALUE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PLEASE COORDINATE |
| | WITH VINCE NOEL ON OBTAINING THE APPRAISAL, ETC. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED UPON RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 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. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
