| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-07 12:43:51 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 12.07.2022 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z21120020 AND Z21120015 |
| | CASE NO.: ISPR 21-15 AND PB 1906 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 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 |
| | ACCURATE 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. SATISFIED - STAFF HAS CONCERN THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | RETAIL SPACE IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PROVIDE FOR A |
| | VIABLE/LEASABLE SPACE FOR A TENANT. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | INFORMATION INDICATING HOW THIS SPACE IS ENVISIONED TO |
| | BE UTILIZED AND LEASED SUCCESSFULLY. |
| | |
| | 13. SATISFIED - THE FAR CALCULATION IS INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 14. SATISFIED - THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ON-STREET |
| | PARKING IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY?S |
| | ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT. |
| | |
| | 14.1. SATISFIED - ONLY FIVE (5) OF THE PARKING SPACES |
| | ALONG TAMARIND AVENUE CAN BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE |
| | PROJECT'S TOTAL PROVIDED AS ONLY THOSE SPACES THAT ARE |
| | ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PROJECTS BOUNDARIES CAN BE COUNTED. |
| | |
| | 15. SATISFIED - PLEASE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF |
| | THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ALONG TAMARIND AVENUE (IF |
| | ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED). |
| | |
| | 16. SATISFIED - BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 94-485(Q). INDICATE ALL LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 16.1. SATISFIED - BICYCLE PARKING SHOULD ALSO BE |
| | PROVIDED IN A LOCATION THAT CAN EASILY BE FOUND AND |
| | UTILIZED BY THE RETAIL USERS. |
| | |
| | 16.2. 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. |
| | |
| | 17. SATISFIED - ENSURE THAT PLANS SHOW ALL WALLS, |
| | FENCES, ETC. IF RETAINING WALLS ARE PROPOSED, |
| | DETAILS/CROSS SECTIONS NEED TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 18. SATISFIED - PARKING STRIPING DETAIL DOES NOT |
| | CONFORM TO THE CITY?S MINIMUM STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 19. 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. |
| | |
| | 20. 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. |
| | |
| | 21. SATISFIED - SCREEN WALLS SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG |
| | THE EAST PROPERTY LINE SEPARATING THE PARKING FROM THE |
| | ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES [SEC. 94-443(A)(1)]. |
| | |
| | 22. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION THROUGH |
| | THE ENTIRE SITE TO SHOW THE ELEVATION PROFILE, ETC. AS |
| | THE PROPERTY SLOPES EAST/WEST. |
| | |
| | 23. 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. |
| | |
| | 24. 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. |
| | |
| | 25. SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 26. SATISFIED - PLEASE MARK THE TURNAROUND SPACE WITH A |
| | CROSS-HATCH INDICATING "NO PARKING". |
| | |
| | 27. SATISFIED - THE RIGHT GATE OF THE DUMPSTER |
| | ENCLOSURE IMPEDES WITH THE EGRESS TRAVEL LANE. |
| | |
| | 28. 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? |
| | |
| | 29. SATISFIED - ONLY FIVE (5) OF THE PARKING SPACES ON |
| | TAMARIND AVENUE CAN COUNT TOWARD THE PROJECTS "PARKING |
| | PROVIDED". PURSUANT TO THE ZLDRS, ONLY SPACES THAT ARE |
| | ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY |
| | CAN BE CONSIDERED. |
| | |
| | 30. SATISFIED - THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING EXCEEDS THE |
| | MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE |
| | BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO BE 30 FEET, WITH AN ADDITIONAL |
| | 10% FOR DECORATIVE ELEMENTS, PARAPETS, ETC. AS SUCH, |
| | THE TOP OF THE PARAPET IS NOT TO EXCEED 33 FEET. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
