| Date |
Text |
| 2023-02-24 12:51:52 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 02.03.2023 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. SATISFIED - PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 2. NOT SATISFIED - OUTSTANDING PUBLIC UTILITY LETTERS |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 3. SATISFIED (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) - |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE PAYMENT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE LOSS OF SEVEN |
| | (7) METERED PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 4. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A |
| | SPECIFIC DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PARKING ANALYSIS THAT |
| | WAS SUBMITTED IN IN AUGUST 2022, AS WELL AS THE |
| | SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF |
| | THIS APPLICATION. SOME OF THE CONCERNS INCLUDE, BUT ARE |
| | NOT LIMITED TO: |
| | |
| | 4.1. SATISFIED - THE PARKING ANALYSIS PROVIDED |
| | INDICATES THAT ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES HAVE |
| | BEEN OBTAINED ON A LEASED BASIS (BOTH ADDITIONAL |
| | LOCATIONS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL SPACES AT EXISTING |
| | LOCATIONS). PURSUANT TO THE PBAU DEVELOPMENT ORDER, |
| | COPIES OF THE NEW/UPDATED LEASES OR AGREEMENTS SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 4.2. SATISFIED - THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SHOWN IN |
| | THE PARKING STUDY DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF |
| | SPACES SHOWN IN THE VARIOUS LOTS AS WELL AS THE NUMBERS |
| | IN THE MASTER PLAN DATA TABLE. |
| | |
| | 4.3. SATISFIED - THE METHODOLOGY APPEARS TO HAVE |
| | CHANGED SOMEWHAT SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE PARKING |
| | STUDY REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 4.4. NOT SATISFIED - LEASES APPEAR TO BE EXPIRED BUT |
| | ARE STILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE PARKING AVAILABILITY. |
| | |
| | 4.4.1. NEW COMMENT - THE LACK OF AN VALID LEASE |
| | PRESENTS CONCERNS AS IT APPEARS THAT THIS PARKING |
| | AVAILIABILITY COULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM PBAU'S USE AT ANY |
| | TIME, THEREBY LEAVING THE UNIVERSITY WITH FEWER PARKING |
| | SPACES THAN WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN THE REQUIRED STUDY, |
| | AND POTENTIALLY CREATING A VIOLATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT |
| | ORDER. |
| | |
| | 4.5. NOT SATISFIED - SPACES ARE BEING LEASED FROM |
| | LOCATIONS THAT APPEAR TO NOT HAVE EXCESS PARKING |
| | AVAILABLE. |
| | |
| | 4.5.1. NEW COMMENT ??? THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS |
| | INDICATES THAT THESE LOCATIONS EXPERIENCE DIFFERING |
| | PEAK TIME, HOWEVER NO ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION WAS |
| | PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT. THE NORTON WAS |
| | GRANTED A SUBSTANTIAL PARKING WAIVER AND EVEN UTILIZED |
| | THE JUSTIFICATION THAT OVERFLOW PARKING COULD BE |
| | ACCOMMODATED AT PBAU. IF DIFFERING PEAK TIMES IS |
| | UTILIZED AS A JUSTIFICATION, APPROPRIATE INFORMATION |
| | NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT SUCH ARGUMENT. |
| | |
| | 5. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION SHOWING |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN FAR |
| | REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 6. SATISFIED - GENERATOR ENCLOSURE. |
| | |
| | 7. SATISFIED - IRRIGATION PLANS DO NOT MATCH THE |
| | LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8. SATISFIED - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS INDICATE |
| | POTENTIAL BANNER SIGNAGE ??? THE MASTER SIGN PLAN WOULD |
| | HAVE TO BE AMENDED. |
| | |
| | 9. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE ELEVATION POINTS ON THE |
| | SITE PLAN AND/OR CROSS SECTIONS WITH ELEVATIONS |
| | SPECIFICALLY INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM |
| | ENCROACHMENT PERMITTED INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. |
| | STEPS, STAIRS, RAMPS, ETC. THAT ARE THREE (3) FEET OR |
| | LESS CAN ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK UP TO TWO (2) FEET |
| | FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. STEPS, STAIRS, RAMPS, ETC. IN |
| | EXCESS OF THREE (3) FEET HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE |
| | BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE |
| | DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SOUTH DROP OFF AREA, THE PINCH |
| | POINT IN THE SIDEWALK CREATED BETWEEN THE DROP OFF AND |
| | GRUBER PLACE, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER AREAS THAT ARE |
| | BEING SHOWN AS PAVER/SIDEWALK THAT DON???T SEEM |
| | FUNCTIONAL (I.E. AREA WEST OF DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES). |
| | |
| | 10.1. NEW COMMENT - THE LABEL FOR THE DROP-OFF AREA IS |
| | NOW POINTING TO THE SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 10.2. NEW COMMENT - WHERE THE SIDEWALK ABUTS |
| | WALLINGFORD PLACE, ESPECIALLY AT THE BEND, THERE SHOULD |
| | BE SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATION TO ENSURE THAT VEHICLES DO |
| | NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN UP ONTO THE SIDEWALK, |
| | ESPECIALLY IF THEY MISS THE TURN. |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
