| Date |
Text |
| 2023-01-20 15:56:11 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 01.20.2023 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z22060006 |
| | CASE NO.: PB 791LL |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. NOT SATISFIED - THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT |
| | FIVE (5) BIKE RACKS ARE BEING PROPOSED ON THE EXTERIOR |
| | OF THE BUILDING; PLEASE IDENTIFY THEIR LOCATION AND |
| | ENSURE THAT PROPER CLEARANCE IS PROVIDED (AS SHOWN IN |
| | THE DETAIL) TO AVOID BLOCKING OF THE SIDEWALK, ETC. |
| | |
| | 1.1. NOT SATISFIED - THE BIKE RACKS SHOWN ALONG |
| | CENTREPARK BOULEVARD DO NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE THE |
| | PROPER CLEARANCE (AS INDICATED IN THE DETAIL) AND WOULD |
| | OBSTRUCT CIRCULATION ON THE SIDEWALK. PLEASE ENSURE |
| | THAT ALL BIKE RACK LOCATIONS PROVIDE THE PROPER |
| | CLEARANCE. |
| | |
| | 2. SATISFIED - THE WAIVER TABLE SHOULD BE REVISED TO |
| | INDICATE: |
| | 2.1. SATISFIED - REQUIRED |
| | 2.2. SATISFIED - ORIGINALLY PROVIDED |
| | 2.3. SATISFIED - APPROVED WAIVER |
| | 2.4. SATISFIED - CURRENT PROPOSAL |
| | |
| | 3. SATISFIED - WHY IS LOT 4N NOT SHOWING ANY PARKING |
| | REQUIRED IN THE ?REQUIRED (NON-SHARED) PARKING? TABLE? |
| | |
| | 4. SATISFIED - REVISED TPS LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 5. SATISFIED - REVISED SCAD APPROVAL REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 6. SATISFIED - WHY ARE THERE TWO (2) SITE PLANS LABELED |
| | SP1? ONE IS PREPARED BY SCHMIDT NICHOLS, THE OTHER IS |
| | PREPARED BY MSA. |
| | |
| | 6.1. SATISFIED - THERE ARE STILL TWO (2) SITE PLANS, |
| | BOTH ARE LABELED SP1. IT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THAT |
| | ONLY ONE SITE PLAN BE PROVIDED TO AVOID CONFLICTS, |
| | INCONSISTENCIES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 7. SATISFIED - FLOOR PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL |
| | LEVELS TO CONFIRM UNIT COUNTS, NUMBER OF PARKING |
| | SPACES, ETC. |
| | |
| | 7.1.. SATISFIED - NUMEROUS ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS THAT |
| | WERE PROVIDED ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT |
| | PROJECT - THE SHEETS ARE IDENTIFIED AS "THE TROPIC", A |
| | PROJECT ON S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY IN HOLLYWOOD. |
| | |
| | 8. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SYNTHETIC |
| | TURF IS BEING CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AS REQUIRED |
| | BY SECTION 94-451 OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | 8.1. SATISFIED - IS SYNTHETIC TURF NO LONGER PROPOSED? |
| | IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE LABELED ON ANY OF THE PLANS |
| | OTHER THAN THE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY MSA. PLEASE |
| | CONFIRM. |
| | |
| | 9. SATISFIED - MULTIPLE PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE |
| | EXTENDING INTO THE 20 FOOT CANAL BUFFER REQUIRED BY THE |
| | DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. PER RESOLUTION NO. 16-21, |
| | ?ANY AND ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE CENTREPARK |
| | DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS |
| | (ORB 5430 | PG 1548) SHALL BE COMPLETED AND RECORDED IN |
| | THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY? PRIOR TO THE |
| | ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. PLEASE PROVIDE A STATUS |
| | ON SUCH REVISIONS. |
| | |
| | 9.1. SATISFIED - THERE WAS NO CLEAR RESPONSE PROVIDED |
| | TO THIS COMMENT. YOU INDICATED "WE ALLOW PLANTING |
| | WITHIN THE CANAL BUFFER" HOWEVER THERE ARE PORTIONS OF |
| | THE BUILDING ENCROACHING INTO THE CANAL BUFFER, ETC. |
| | |
| | 10. SATISFIED - THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED IS |
| | INCORRECT IN THE SITE DATA TABLE?IT APPEARS NOT TO HAVE |
| | BEEN UPDATED. |
| | |
| | 11. SATISFIED - THE MONUMENT SIGN CANNOT EXCEED 4 FEET |
| | IN HEIGHT BUT SHALL OTHERWISE MEET THE PROVISIONS OF |
| | ARTICLE XIII OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | 11.1. SATISFIED - THE SIGN DETAIL INDICATES 200 SF PER |
| | SIGN FACE, BUT THEN ALSO HAS A NOT ABOUT NOT EXCEEDING |
| | 16 SF PER SIGN FACE. PER THE ZLDRS, PERMANENT |
| | IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE |
| | ALLOWED 48 SF PER SIGN FACE IF OVER 50 RESIDENTIAL |
| | UNITS. PLEASE CORRECT AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 12. SATISFIED - IT APPEARS THAT A NUMBER OF NOTES THAT |
| | WERE ON THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE PLAN RELATING TO |
| | IRRIGATION, PLUMBING FIXTURES, ETC. HAS BEEN REMOVED; |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY WHY. |
| | |
| | 13. NOT SATISFIED - THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SP-3 NEEDS |
| | TO BE REVISED. |
| | |
| | 13.1. NOT SATISFIED - THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS STATES |
| | THAT WITHOUT THE ALTERNATIVES, THIS SHEET IS NO LONGER |
| | NEEDED. PLEASE NOTE THAT SP-3 WAS AN OVERALL SITE PLAN |
| | SHOWING PARKING COMPLIANCE, ETC. FOR LOT 4 NORTH AND |
| | LOT 4 SOUTH AS A COLLECTIVE PARCEL. |
| | |
| | 14. SATISFIED - IS ALL OF THE INFORMATION ON THE |
| | PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SP-2 NOW LOCATED ON SP-1? |
| | |
| | 15. SATISFIED - A LABEL FOR THE ?5? LANDSCAPE BUFFER? |
| | IS POINTING TO A STAIRWELL IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF |
| | THE GARAGE. |
| | |
| | 16. SATISFIED - ADA STRIPING IS BEING SHOWN IN THE |
| | LOADING DOCK, GARAGE ENTRY, AND TWO (2) PARKING SPACES |
| | NORTH OF THE VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING. |
| | |
| | 16.1. SATISFIED - STRIPING IS STILL SHOWN CONFLICTING |
| | WITH THE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES NORTH OF THE |
| | VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING. |
| | |
| | 17. NOT SATISFIED - THE BUILDING OUTLINE DOES NOT MATCH |
| | THAT SHOWN ON THE FLOOR PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE |
| | SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 17.1. NOT SATISFIED - ARE THESE ROOF PROJECTIONS THAT |
| | ARE BEING SHOWN? THEY ARE NOT LABELED, DIMENSIONED, |
| | ETC. SEE COMMENT #20 BELOW. |
| | |
| | 18. SATISFIED - IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON LOT 2 NORTH |
| | (LANDSCAPING, PARKING MODIFICATIONS, ETC.) ? PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE AN APPROVAL BY THE PROPERTY OWNER? THE |
| | LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THIS PARCEL SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED |
| | TOWARD THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 19. SATISFIED - THE COLOR ELEVATIONS PROVIDED DO NOT |
| | MATCH THE PROPOSED BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 19.1. SATISFIED - THE COLOR ELEVATIONS PROVIDED WERE |
| | INDICATED AS EXHIBIT D WITHIN THE REPSONSE TO COMMENTS; |
| | THESE ARE TOO SMALL TO BE REVIEWED. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | FULL-SIZE PDFS, AS DONE PREVIOUSLY. |
| | |
| | 20. NOT SATISFIED - THERE APPEAR TO BE NUMEROUS |
| | ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH (CORNER SIDE) SETBACK. |
| | STRUCTURAL OVERHANGS, BALCONIES, ETC. ARE ALLOWED TO |
| | ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK, BUT NOT BY MORE THAN THREE |
| | (3) FEET. PLEASE DIMENSION ALL ENCROACHMENTS AND ENSURE |
| | THEY DO NOT EXCEED THREE (3) FEET. |
| | |
| | 21. SATISFIED - SHEET LP.2 OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS |
| | STATES THAT SHEET LP.4 SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR THE |
| | COURTYARD PLANTINGS, HOWEVER IT APPERS THAT THE |
| | COURTYARD IS BEING SHOWN ON SHEET LP.3. PLEASE ENSURE |
| | THAT ALL REFERENCES ARE CORRECT. |
| | |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) ELECTRONIC COPIES OF 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 |
