| Date |
Text |
| 2023-03-10 15:51:14 | PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 03.10.2023 |
| | ________________________________________ |
| | |
| | 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. NOT SATISFIED - 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| | AVAILIABILITY COULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM PBAU'S USE AT ANY |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. NOT SATISFIED - 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. |
| | |
| | 4.6. NEW COMMENT ??? IT IS NOTED IN THE 2022 CAMPUS |
| | PARKING STUDY THAT SHUTTLE SERVICE WILL BE DEPLOYED IN |
| | THE 2022/2023 ACADEMIC YEAR; HOWEVER, NO DETAILS ARE |
| | PROVIDED ON THE OPERATIONS/SERVICE. SINCE SOME OF THE |
| | PARKING FACILITIES ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CSPD AND |
| | ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN A REASONABLE WALKING DISTANCE |
| | (YET THESE FACILITIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PARKING |
| | INVENTORY TO MEET DEMAND), IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE |
| | INFORMATION HOW STUDENTS WILL GET FROM THESE PARKING |
| | FACILITIES TO THE MAIN CAMPUS. |
| | |
| | 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. 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. SATISFIED - THE LABEL FOR THE DROP-OFF AREA IS |
| | NOW POINTING TO THE SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | 10.2. SATISFIED - 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 |
