| Date |
Text |
| 2022-07-27 15:13:50 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 07.27.2022 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z22040026 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 1608C |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. SATISFIED - TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM |
| | BEACH COUNTY SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 2. NOT SATISFIED - LETTERS FROM ALL UTILITY COMPANIES |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED |
| | IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR |
| | OTHERWISE PREVENT THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES. |
| | |
| | 2.1. NEW COMMENT - LETTERS ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. |
| | |
| | 3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT NEEDS |
| | TO INCLUDE RESPONSES TO ALL OF THE REQUIRED ?STANDARDS |
| | FOR CODE COMPLIANCE? AS OUTLINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 3.1. NEW COMMENT - RESPONSES TO STANDARDS WAS PROVIDED |
| | FOR SEC. 94-35(C), WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO SITE PLAN |
| | REVIEWS. PER THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, RESPONSES ARE |
| | TO BE PROVIDED TO THOSE STANDARDS IN SEC. 94-32(A), |
| | WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 4. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE THE PHOTOMETRIC |
| | LEVELS AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 |
| | FOOTCANDLES. IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY BE A COUPLE |
| | AREAS ALONG CONGRESS AVENUE WHERE THIS LEVEL MAY BE |
| | EXCEEDED AND WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | 4.1. NEW COMMENT - REVISED PHOTOMETRIC PLANS WERE NOT |
| | INCLUDED IN THE RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | 5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BETTER |
| | DELINEATE WHICH PARKING SPACES ARE ?STORAGE? AND WHICH |
| | SPACES ARE PART OF THE REQUIRED PARKING. |
| | |
| | 5.1. NEW COMMENT - YOU'RE SHOWING STORAGE SPACES BEING |
| | BLOCKED BY NON-STORAGE SPACES. IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET |
| | A CAR FROM THE INVENTORY, IT COULDN'T BE ACCESSED IF |
| | SOMEONE IS PARKED BEHIND IT. |
| | |
| | 5.2. NEW COMMENT - YOU HAVE LOCATIONS NORTH OF BUILDING |
| | #2 IDENTIFIED AS OUTDOOR STORAGE, BUT ALSO AS SERVICE |
| | PARKING. WHICH IS IT? ARE THE SPACES BEING RESERVED FOR |
| | INVENTORY, OR ARE THEY A PART OF THE PARKING PROVIDED? |
| | |
| | 6. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - THE LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN |
| | SPACE PERCENTAGES SHOULD TOTAL 100%; AS PROVIDED ON THE |
| | SITE PLAN THE TOTAL EQUALS 103.9%. ENSURE ALL |
| | CALCULATIONS ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT. |
| | |
| | 6.1. NEW COMMENT - THE NUMBERS STILL DO NOT ADD |
| | UP...THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT COVERAGE PLUS THE |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE OPEN SPACE DOES NOT EQUAL THE |
| | TOTAL LOT AREA. |
| | |
| | 7. SATISFIED - IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WHEEL STOPS ARE NOT |
| | BEING USED AND VEHICLES ARE OVERHANGING INTO |
| | LANDSCAPING, ETC., THE OVERHANG SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE |
| | SITE PLAN AND DIMENSIONED. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS |
| | CONFIGURATION (ABSENCE OF WHEEL STOPS AND UTILIZATION |
| | OF CURBING) IS ENCOURAGED AS IT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF |
| | PERVIOUS AREA AND REDUCES MAINTENANCE. IT APPEARS THAT |
| | THERE ARE ADDITIONAL AREAS WHERE THIS CONFIGURATION CAN |
| | BE IMPLEMENTED. |
| | |
| | 8. SATISFIED - THE VEHICLE DISPLAY AREAS SHALL BE |
| | LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND |
| | SHALL NOT BE WITHIN THE SAFE SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR THE |
| | INGRESS/EGRESS. |
| | |
| | 9. NOT SATISFIED - DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT CONTAIN |
| | THE NAME/LOGO OF THE BUSINESS. DOING SO WOULD QUALIFY |
| | THEM AS ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS, THEREBY EXCEEDING |
| | THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS PERMITTED. |
| | |
| | 9.1. NEW COMMENT - REVISED SIGN PLANS WERE NOT |
| | PROVIDED. UNLESS A SIGN PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE |
| | MAJOR AMENDMENT, ALL SIGNS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME |
| | OF PERMITTING AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE GENERAL |
| | COMMERCIAL (GC) SIGN REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 10. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE CLARIFY THE MONUMENT SIGN |
| | PLANS; MULTIPLE SIGNS ARE SHOWN BUT THEN THERE IS ONE |
| | THAT IS OUTLINED IN RED. ONLY PROVIDE INFORMATION |
| | PERTAINING TO THE SIGNS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING |
| | PROPOSED. |
| | |
| | 10.1. NEW COMMENT - REVISED SIGN PLANS WERE NOT |
| | PROVIDED. UNLESS A SIGN PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE |
| | MAJOR AMENDMENT, ALL SIGNS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME |
| | OF PERMITTING AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE GENERAL |
| | COMMERCIAL (GC) SIGN REGULATIONS |
| | |
| | 11. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO |
| | CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL FREESTANDING |
| | SIGNS, SETBACKS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES, ETC. THE |
| | LABEL OF THE SIGN SHOULD CLEARLY IDENTIFY AND |
| | CORRESPOND TO THE SIGNS SHOWN ON THE SIGN PLANS. |
| | |
| | 11.1. NEW COMMENT - SETBACKS FOR THE MONUMENT SIGNS ARE |
| | NOT SHOWN. HIGH FREESTANDING SIGNS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM |
| | OF 8 FEET FROM UTILITY POLES WHICH SUPPORT ELECTRICAL |
| | TRANSMISSION LINES, AND IF THERE A MULTIPLE HIGH |
| | FREESTANDING SIGNS, THEY ARE TO BE A SEPARATED BY AT |
| | LEAST 75 FEET. |
| | |
| | 12. SATISFIED - MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED |
| | WITHIN THE SAFE SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR THE INGRESS/EGRESS. |
| | |
| | 13. SATISFIED - PARKING DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AND |
| | CONFORM TO THE CITY?S MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS (CONTACT |
| | ME FOR A COPY). |
| | |
| | 14. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR |
| | THE BIKE PARKING (PAD, RACK, ETC.). |
| | |
| | 14.1. NEW COMMENT - THE BIKE RACK PROVIDED DOES NOT |
| | MEET THE CITY'S REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS. |
| | |
| | 15. NOT SATISFIED - THE PLACEMENT OF THE BIKE RACK DOES |
| | NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE. PLEASE |
| | CONTACT ME TO OBTAIN THE DETAIL SHOWING THE REQUIRED |
| | CLEARANCE AROUND THE RACK. |
| | |
| | 15.1. NEW COMMENT - A DETAIL WAS NOT PROVIDED |
| | INDICATING THE DIMENSIONS/SPACING OF THE RACKS AND THE |
| | CLEARANCE AROUND THE RACK. |
| | |
| | 16. SATISFIED - BIKE RACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO |
| | ACCOMMODATE 7 BICYCLE SPACES (1 PER 20 PARKING SPACES |
| | PROVIDED); ONLY 4 ARE INDICATED IN THE DATA TABLE. |
| | |
| | 17. SATISFIED - PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION AND |
| | OPERATIONS OF UNLOADING VEHICLES UPON DELIVERY. |
| | |
| | 18. NOT SATISFIED - THE PARKING CALCULATIONS APPEAR TO |
| | BE INCORRECT AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE ENCLOSED |
| | AREA, OUTDOOR STORAGE, ETC. |
| | |
| | 18.1. NEW COMMENT - THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT |
| | THERE ARE 295 OUTDOOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE STORAGE |
| | SPACES...THIS DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF |
| | SPACES SHOWN ON THE PLAN |
| | |
| | 19. SATISFIED - THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WHERE |
| | EXISTING/PROPOSED LIGHT POLES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO |
| | CONFLICT WITH DRIVE AISLES, PARKING SPACES, ETC. PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE A DETAIL TO SHOW HOW THESE POLES ARE BEING |
| | INSTALLED IN RELATION TO THE ADJACENT DRIVE AISLES AND |
| | PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 20. SATISFIED - THE PARKING SPACE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF |
| | BUILDING #2 ARE TOO SHORT TO ACCOMMODATE TANDEM PARKING |
| | OF TWO (2) VEHICLES. |
| | |
| | 21. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE EXISTING, DEMO, AND |
| | PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT |
| | ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMODELED OR EXPANDED. IT APPEARS |
| | THAT THE OPEN-AIR SERVICE CARPORT ALONG CONGRESS AVENUE |
| | IS BEING ENCLOSED, ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR SERVICE |
| | WRITERS, ETC. IS THIS ENCLOSED CARPORT BEING ACCOUNTED |
| | FOR IN THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS? |
| | |
| | 22. SATISFIED - THE SITE DATA TABLE DOESN?T ACCOUNT FOR |
| | ALL OF THE SERVICE BAYS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN. BUILDING |
| | 1 IS TO HAVE 29 BAYS (NOT 28), AND BUILDING 4 HAS 3 |
| | BAYS. ADDITIONALLY, HOW MANY BAYS EXIST IN BUILDING #3? |
| | |
| | 23. SATISFIED - THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES INDICATED |
| | IN THE SITE DATA TABLE DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH WHAT IS |
| | SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND ARE NOT TOTALED CORRECTLY. |
| | |
| | 24. SATISFIED - THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING |
| | DESIGNATIONS IN THE SITE DATA TABLE ARE INCORRECT. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL 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. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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 |
