| Date |
Text |
| 2022-08-25 12:27:40 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 08.25.2022 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z21120018 AND Z21120017 |
| | CASE NO.: ISPR 21-13 AND PB 1908 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | NO WRITTEN RESPONSES WERE PROVIDED WITH THE JULY 18, |
| | 2022, RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 1. SATISFIED - APPROVAL LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES |
| | WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (TRAFFIC |
| | CONCURRENCY). |
| | |
| | 2. SATISFIED (NOTE THEIR CONDITION OF APPROVAL - |
| | APPROVED SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM |
| | BEACH COUNTY. |
| | |
| | 3. SATISFIED (SUBJECT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL - |
| | EASEMENTS REQUIRED) - 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. SATISFIED - 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. SATISFIED (CONCERNS STILL EXIST BUT ALL CODE |
| | REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET) - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK |
| | WITH THE ARCHITECT ON THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL STYLING. CONCERNS INCLUDE: |
| | |
| | 5.1. SATISFIED (CONCERNS STILL EXIST BUT ALL CODE |
| | REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET) - 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. |
| | |
| | 5.1.1. SATISFIED - THE RENDERINGS PROVIDED DO NOT |
| | ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS, |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS, ETC. |
| | |
| | 5.1.2. SATISFIED - THE ELEVATIONS DO NOT CORRESPOND |
| | WITH WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE FLOOR PLAN |
| | (WINDOW/DOOR/STOREFRONT CONFIGURATIONS). |
| | |
| | 5.2. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 5.3. SATISFIED - GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS FACING |
| | TAMARIND AVENUE SHOULD INDIVIDUALLY READ AS WALK-UP |
| | UNITS WITH THEIR FRONT/MAIN ENTRANCE FACING THE |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY. |
| | |
| | 5.3.1. SATISFIED - ARE YOU SURE THAT IT IS DESIREABLE |
| | TO HAVE DOOR EXITING THE MASTER BEDROOM ONTO TAMARIND |
| | AVENUE? SHOULDN'T THE WALKWAY CONNECT DIRECTLY FROM THE |
| | TAMARIND AVENUE SIDEWALK TO THE DOORWAY LEADING TO THE |
| | LIVING AREA, WITH A SMALL PATIO OFF TO THE SIDE? IT |
| | SEEMS THAT SOME OF THE WALKWAYS LEAD UP TO THE BEDROOM. |
| | |
| | 6. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 7. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 8. SATISFIED - PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(5) ALL |
| | WINDOWS ARE TO BE VERTICAL OR SQUARE IN PROPORTION. |
| | |
| | 9. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 10. SATISFIED - PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(7) ALL |
| | WINDOWS ARE TO BE OPERABLE. PLEASE PROVIDE A |
| | DETAIL/NOTE. |
| | |
| | 11. SATISFIED - PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-222(H)(10) SLIDING |
| | DOORS ARE ONLY ALLOWED ON THE REAR FA?ADE. |
| | |
| | 12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - PURSUANT TO SEC. |
| | 94-231(C)(6)(B) THE MINIMUM CORNER SETBACK IS 5 FEET; |
| | BUILDING B DOES NOT COMPLY. |
| | |
| | 12.1 NEW COMMENT ? WHILE BUILDING B APPEARS TO MEET THE |
| | 5 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, THE NEW STAIRS ONTO |
| | TAMARIND AVENUE DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SETBACK |
| | DIMENSIONS. STAIRS THAT ARE LESS THAN 3 FEET IN HEIGHT |
| | ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK (UP TO 2 FEET |
| | FROM THE PROPERTY LINE) BUT THE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWING |
| | THE STAIRS AS BEING OVER 4 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THEREFORE |
| | ARE REQUIRED TO MEETING THE BUILDING SETBACKS. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE CIVIL PLANS ARE SHOWING DIFFERENT |
| | DIMENSIONS THAT WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | 13. NOT SATISFIED - THE FAR CALCULATION IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 14. SATISFIED - 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). |
| | |
| | 14.1 SATISFIED - WHILE THE DIMENSION IS NOW BEING SHOWN |
| | CORRECTLY, THE BUILDING DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET. |
| | |
| | 15. SATISFIED - PLEASE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF |
| | THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ALONG TAMARIND AVENUE (IF |
| | ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED). |
| | |
| | 16. SATISFIED - THE PROPERTY LINE ON TAMARIND AVENUE |
| | DOES NOT MATCH THE SURVEY. |
| | |
| | 17. SATISFIED - PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING COVERAGE NEEDS |
| | TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 18. SATISFIED - PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA |
| | CALCULATION IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 18.1 SATISFIED - WHILE THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS AREA |
| | CALCULATION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT, THE PERCENTAGE SHOWN |
| | FOR "PARKING, WALKWAY & MISC. IMPERVIOUS AREAS" IS |
| | IINCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 19. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 19.1 SATISFIED - PLEASE MARK THE TURNAROUND SPACE WITH |
| | A CROSS-HATCH INDICATING "NO PARKING". |
| | |
| | 20. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 94-485(Q). INDICATE |
| | ALL LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 20.1 NOT SATISFIED - BICYCLE PARKING IS ONLY BEING |
| | SHOWN FOR "BUILDING B". BICYCLE PARKING SHOULD ALSO BE |
| | PROVIDED FOR "BUILDING A" IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE |
| | RETAIL SPACE. |
| | |
| | 20.2 NOT SATISFIED - THE PAD FOR THE BIKE RACKS SHOULD |
| | BE A MINIMUM OF 72 INCHES IN LENGTH AND AT AT LEAST 24 |
| | INCHES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RACK. IF MORE THAN ONE |
| | RACK IS PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST 30 INCHES |
| | BETWEEN THE RACKS. |
| | |
| | 21. SATISFIED - SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT A UTILITY |
| | EASEMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE ABANDONED; HAS THIS |
| | APPLICATION BEEN SUBMITTED? |
| | |
| | 22. SATISFIED - ENSURE THAT PLANS SHOW ALL WALLS, |
| | FENCES, ETC. IF RETAINING WALLS ARE PROPOSED, |
| | DETAILS/CROSS SECTIONS NEED TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 22.1 SATISFIED - THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL IS SHOWN |
| | TO REMAIN TO THE EAST OF "BUILDING A" BUT APPEARS TO BE |
| | IN POOR CONDITION. REPAIR/REPLACEMENT MAY BE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 23. SATISFIED - PARKING STRIPING DETAIL DOES NOT |
| | CONFORM TO THE CITY?S MINIMUM STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 24. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 25. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 26. SATISFIED - SCREEN WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG |
| | THE EAST PROPERTY LINE SEPARATING THE PARKING FROM THE |
| | ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES [SEC. 94-443(A)(1)]. |
| | |
| | 27. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION THROUGH |
| | THE ENTIRE SITE TO SHOW THE ELEVATION PROFILE, ETC. AS |
| | THE PROPERTY SLOPES EAST/WEST. |
| | |
| | 28. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 29. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 30. SATISFIED (SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF APPRAISED VALUE |
| | UPON APPROVAL BY CITY COMMISSION) - 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. |
| | |
| | 31. SATISFIED - THE LEFT GATE OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE |
| | IMPEDES WITH THE INGRESS TRAVEL LANE FROM 19TH STREET. |
| | |
| | 32. SATISFIED - WHY ARE THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE |
| | PARKING LOT DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS? IF A STRIPE IS BEING |
| | PLACED BETWEEN THE TWO, SHOULDN'T IT BE PLACED IN THE |
| | MIDDLE OF THE 20-FOOT DRIVE AISLE? |
| | |
| | 33. SATISFIED - THE RESPONSE TO COMMENT PROVIDED DOES |
| | NOT MATCH UP WITH THE COMMENTS ISSUED ON 1/13/2022. |
| | |
| | 34. SATISFIED - THE PARKING CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE |
| | INCORRECT. ONLY 1 SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR THE RETAIL |
| | (ROUND TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER). AS SUCH, ONLY 11 |
| | SPACES ARE REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY, 11 SPACES SHOULD BE |
| | INDICATED AS PROVIDED AS ONLY 11 SPACES ARE SHOWN ON |
| | THE PLAN (THE TURNAROUND SPACE DOES NOT COUNT). |
| | |
| | 35. NOT SATISFIED - THE LANDSCAPE PLANS INDICATE THAT |
| | THE EAST/WEST UTILITY EASEMENT IS BEING ABANDONED, |
| | WHILE THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT IT IS TO REMAIN. |
| | WHICH IS CORRECT? IF PROPOSED TO REMAIN, WHY? IF |
| | PROPOSED TO REMAIN, THERE IS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL |
| | PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE EASEMENT THAT WILL |
| | REQUIRE EASEMENT CONSENT FROM THE APPLICABLE UTILITY |
| | COMPANIES. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
