City of West Palm Beach eGovPlus

Plan Review Details - Project Z15030025

Plan Review Stops For Project Z15030025

Review Stop	B			BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	04-28-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	rbrown			Date	04-28-2015	Time	19:33	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rbrown			Date	04-28-2015	Time	19:32	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	B			BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-08-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	rbrown			Date	04-08-2015	Time	11:01	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rbrown			Date	04-08-2015	Time	11:01	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-08 11:07:34	DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
	COMMENTS:

	1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE
	SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
	FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE
	ADDRESSED FOR PERMITTING.

	2. SHEET L-102 DOES NOT SHOW ANY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM
	THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
	WHEN SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT, THE PLANS SHALL SHOW AT
	LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, COMPLYING WITH SECTIONS
	206.2 AND 402.2 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE, FROM THE
	PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ALL ACCESSIBLE BUILDING OR
	FACILITY ENTRANCES.

	3. SHOW AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, COMPLYING WITH
	SECTIONS 206.2 AND 402.2 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE,
	CONNECTING ACCESSIBLE BUILDING OR FACILITY ENTRANCES
	WITH ALL ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND ELEMENTS WITHIN THE
	BUILDING OR FACILITY.

	4. SHEET L-102 DOES NOT SHOW THE ACCESS AISLES FOR THE
	ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE
	ACCESS AISLES ARE REQUIRED TO BE THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
	THE PARKING SPACE AND COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF
	SECTION OF 502.3 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE.

	5. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT, THE PLANS SHALL
	SHOW THAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BUILDINGS
	WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT, AREA AND
	OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE FLORIDA
	BUILDING CODE

	6. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT, COMPLIANCE WITH
	ALL BUILDING SEPARATION, PERCENTAGE OF OPENINGS AND
	OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTERS 6 AND 7 OF
	THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE VERIFIED.

	7. THE ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING IS COVERED BY
	CHAPTER 10 OF THE FLORIDA EXISTING BUILDING CODE. THE
	HEIGHT AND/OR AREA INCREASE DUE TO THE PROPOSED
	ADDITION SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT
	AND/OR AREA BEYOND THAT ALLOWED UNDER THE APPLICABLE
	PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE
	FOR THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION USED.

	8. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS
	AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCING THE
	WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND FEES, ARE REQUIRED
	FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS, GAS SYSTEMS,
	GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE SPRINKLER AND
	OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS,
	SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE IRRIGATION, ETC.

	ROBERT BROWN
	BUILDING OFFICIAL
	TEL: 561 805 6652
	EMAIL: [email protected]

Review Stop	ENG - PPRC		ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	ENG - PPRC			ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-07-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	09:06	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	08:00	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-07 08:34:13	PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.

	THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL REVIEW. CONSTRUCTION LEVEL
	DETAILS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND THE POLLUTION
	PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE
	ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT
	APPLICATION PROCESSES. THE ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT
	APPROVAL APPLICATION FORMS CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT
	HTTP://WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING/FORMS-AND-PUBLICATIONS/

	1. PLEASE SEE SURVEY COMMENTS FOR REVIEW OF SUBMITTED
	BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

	2. PLEASE SEE TRAFFIC ENGINEER COMMENTS FOR REVIEW OF
	SUBMITTED TRAFFIC STUDY.

	3. WORK WITHIN DIXIE RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL REQUIRE FDOT
	APPROVAL.

	4. PLEASE REVISE PLANS TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF WEST PALM
	BEACH GARBAGE RECEPTACLE DETAIL. THE SHOWN DETAIL DOES
	NOT MEET THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF CODE
	OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 94-444(B), ALSO SEE FIGURE XIV-3
	OF THE SAME SECTION. CITY STANDARD DETAIL GC-8 MAY BE
	DOWNLOADED AT HTTP://WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING/ENGINEERING-SE
	RVICES/ENGINEERING-STANDARDS/

	5. THE OWNER WILL BE REQUIRED TO MILL AND RESURFACE
	JEFFERSON AVENUE FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY TO SOUTH OLIVE
	AVENUE.

	6. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES RESULTING FROM THE
	CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL NEED TO BE REPAIRED AT THE
	APPLICANT'S EXPENSE.

	7. PLEASE REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SHOW LOCATIONS
	OF ALL WATER METERS, VALVES, CLEAN-OUTS, LIGHT POLES,
	ETC. ROOT BARRIERS MAY BE REQUIRED WHERE PLANTINGS ARE
	NEAR UNDERGROUND STORMWATER, SANITARY, OR POTABLE WATER
	LINES.

	8. PLEASE SHOW THE SIGHT TRIANGLES ON THE GROUND FLOOR
	LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE INTERSECTIONS AND VEHICULAR
	EXITS. (SECTION 94-305E, CODE OF ORDINANCES)

	KELLY CRANFORD, PE
	CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER
	[email protected]
	561-494-1098 (OFFICE)

	VINCE NOEL, PSM
	CITY SURVEYOR / REAL ESTATE SUPERVISOR
	[email protected]
	561-494-1096

	BRIAN COLLINS, PE
	CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
	[email protected]
	561-494-1040

	FERDINAND RIVERA
	PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MANAGER
	[email protected]
	561-822-2076

	TRACY WARD, PE
	CITY STORMWATER ENGINEER
	561-494-1120
	[email protected]

Review Stop	FIRE			FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	04-24-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	pleduc			Date	04-24-2015	Time	12:13	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	pleduc			Date	04-24-2015	Time	12:13	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-24 12:25:11	AFTER A REVIEW OF THE PPRC RESPONSE LETTER DATED APRIL
	17, 2015, FROM JOSH I. LONG, AICP, TO JOHN ROACH,
	PRINCIPAL PLANNER, THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED FIRE
	PREVENTION BUREAU COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

	HOWEVER, ONE COMMENT NEEDS FURTHER REVIEW REGARDING THE
	LOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND FDC AT THE SERVICE
	ROAD. THE BUREAU IS REQUESTING THAT FIRE HYDRANT AND
	FDC BE MOVED CLOSER TO CRANESNEST WAY TO BE USED BY
	FIRE TRUCKS FROM THAT ROADWAY. A FIRE TRUCK WILL NOT BE
	COMMITTED TO THAT DEAD-END ROAD IN THE EVENT OF FIRE
	EMRGENCY.

	THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT DOES
	NOT CONSTITUTE IT'S FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.

	THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS AT
	THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
	REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS.

Review Stop	FIRE			FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	04-06-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	pleduc			Date	04-06-2015	Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	pleduc			Date	04-06-2015	Time	14:53	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-06 16:36:10	THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY PETER LEDUC,
	FIRE MARSHAL, BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, WEST PALM
	BEACH FIRE RESCUE.

	THIS REVIEW CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AS THE
	DRAWINGS THAT WERE REVIEWED WERE NOT COMPLETE.
	ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAN BE EXPECTED WHEN FULL DRAWINGS
	ARE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT.

	THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE
	PROPOSED PROJECT.

	1. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND RENOVATION TO COMPLY
	WITH NFPA 241.

	2. SITE ACCESS AND EXIT POINTS ARE TO BE CLEARLY
	IDENTIFIED AND MAINTAINED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES DURING
	ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

	3. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM
	ALL ACCESS ROADWAYS, INCLUDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.
	ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND
	AND SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT
	WITH A ONE (1) INCH STROKE FOR ALL BUILDINGS.

	4. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRASH AND DEBRIS IS TO BE
	REMOVED FROM THE SITE DAILY OR MORE OFTEN TO REDUCE THE
	ACCUMULATION OF POTENTIAL LIFE AND FIRE SAFETY HAZARDS.

	5. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH
	THE NFPA 1, FIRE CODE, 2012 EDITION; FLORIDA FIRE
	PREVENTION CODE, 2012 EDITION, INCLUDING MORE
	SPECIFICALLY, CHAPTER 12, NEW ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY AND
	ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CODES BASED ON THE PROPOSED USE.

	6. A NFPA 13 COMPLAINT FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS
	REQUIRED FOR THIS PORPOSED PROJECT. SEPARATE SHOP
	DRAWINGS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND
	APPROVED BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PRIOR TO ANY
	INSTALLATION.

	7. A MONITORED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS REQUIRED FOR THIS
	STRUCTURE. SEPARATE SHOP DRAWINGS, ARE REQUIRED TO BE
	SUBMITTED,

	8. ALL FIRE RATED OPENING PROTECTIONS (FIRE DOORS AND
	HARDWARE) SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND INDICATED IN
	THE DOOR SCHEDULE. ALL DOORS THAT OPEN ONTO EXIT ACCESS
	CORRIDORS SHALL BE AT LEAST 20 MINUTE FIRE RATED AND BE
	EQUIPPED WITH SELF-CLOSING DEVICES THAT CAUSE THE DOOR
	TO POSITIVELY LATCH WHEN CLOSED. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL
	BE CLEARLY INDICATED AND ILLUSTRATED ON THE DOOR
	SCHEDULE.

	9. COMPLETE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR EACH OCCUPANCY SHALL
	BE PROVIDED THAT ILLUSTRATE OCCUPANT LOADS, TRAVEL
	DISTANCES, COMMON PATHS OF TRAVEL, DEAD-END CORRIDORS,
	EXIT SIGNS, EMERGENCY LIGHTING, EXITS LEADING TO A
	PUBLIC WAY, FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND ALL FIRE
	SAFETY FEATURES AND EQUIPMENT.

	10. ALL EXISTING AND NEW FIRE HYDRANTS PLANNED FOR THIS
	DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CLEARLY INDICATED AND IDENTIFIED
	ON THE PLAN AND CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE BUREAU OF
	FIRE PREVENTION.

	11. ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER SYSTEM CONNECTIONS
	(FDC,S) FOR THE PROJECT SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND
	COORDINATED WITH THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION.

	12. ALL FIRE WATER MAINS, SIZES AND THEIR VALVE
	ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND ILLUSTRATED
	ON THE PLAN.

	13. PER FLORIDA 69A-60.0081; NOTICE SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED
	FOR STRUCTURES WITH LIGHT-FRAME TRUSS-TYPE
	CONSTRUCTION. ANY COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY
	MULTIUNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OF THREE UNITS OR MORE
	WHICH USES HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL LIGHT-FRAME
	TRUSS-TYPE CONSTRUCTION IN ANY PORTION SHALL BE MARKED
	WITH A MALTESE CROSS SIGN MEASURING 8 INCHES
	HORIZONTALLY AND 8 INCHES VERTICALLY, OF A BRIGHT RED
	REFLECTIVE COLOR. THE APPROVED SYMBOL SHALL BE PLACED
	WITHIN 24 INCHES TO THE LEFT OF THE MAIN ENTRY DOOR.

	14. THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT
	DOES NOT CONSTITUTE IT'S FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.

	15. THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING
	PLANS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
	THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS.

Review Stop	L			LANDSCAPING
Rev No	3	Status	F	Date	05-27-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	rcaranci			Date	05-27-2015	Time	11:56	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rcaranci			Date	05-27-2015	Time	11:56	Sent To

Notes

2015-05-27 11:58:13	1. SATISFIED. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES NEAR THE BANYAN
	TREE APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY.
	HOW WILL CONFLICTS WITH THE TREE BE RESOLVED? IF THE
	BANYAN IS CONSIDERED A HISTORIC TREE THROUGH THIS
	PETITION IT MUST BE PROTECTED FROM ENCROACHMENT THAT
	WOULD AFFECT THE CANOPY OR ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE. STAFF
	HAS MET WITH THE ARBORIST THAT DEVELOPED THE PLAN FOR
	THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE TREE.
	PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SHOWS THE TREE ROOT ZONE AND
	CANOPY ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION, BUT A
	PLAN IS PROPOSED THAT WILL MONITOR AND MANAGE THE ROOT
	SYSTEM AND CANOPY. FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE REQUIRED
	AS THE DESIGN PROCESS CONTINUES. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE
	BANYAN TREE BE DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC TREE BY THE
	CITY COMMISSION. SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

	2. SATISFIED. PLEASE SUBMIT A DETAIL THE PAVED AREA OF
	THE ENTRANCE PLAZA THAT COVERS THE ROOT ZONE OF THE
	BANYAN, AND HOW IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID ANY
	NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE TREE. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS ON
	THE PEDESTAL PAVING SYSTEM AND FOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION TO
	BE PLACED IN THE ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE. SEE CONDITION
	OF APPROVAL.

	3. SATISFIED. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-442 (G)
	FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE
	VERIFIED FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHEN A
	COMPLETE PLANT LIST IS SUBMITTED. THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY
	CHART HAS BEEN INCLUDED ON SHEET L-402, BUT LACKS ANY
	INFORMATION ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. PLEASE ADD THE
	CORRECT CODE SECTION 94-442 (G) TO THE CHART FOR
	REFERENCE.

	4. NOT SATISFIED. THE WEST LANDSCAPE BUFFER DOES NOT
	MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-443 (A)(2) ALONG
	THE ENTRANCE PLAZA. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE IF THIS AREA
	MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-444 FOR PLAZAS.
	MORE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SUPPLIED TO VERIFY
	COMPLIANCE WITH CODE. DUE TO THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE
	PD, THERE ARE THREE AREAS OF THE BUFFER THAT DO NOT
	MEET THE CODE FOR REQUIRED TREES THAT WOULD REQUIRE A
	WAIVER, SPECIFICALLY AREAS OF THE EAST BUFFER, WEST
	BUFFER AND SOUTH BUFFER.

	5. SATISFIED. THE NUMBER OF TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND
	SHRUBS REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-442 MUST BE CALCULATED
	ON 50 PERCENT OPEN SPACE REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-203.
	PLEASE REVISE THE DATA TABLE TO REFLECT THE CORRECT
	QUANTITIES.

	6. SATISFIED. IF THE LANDSCAPING IS TO BE COMPLETED IN
	PHASES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW MANY TREES AND SHRUBS ARE
	GOING TO BE PROVIDED PER PHASE. IF THE PLANS ARE TO BE
	COMPLETED IN PHASES, THE APPLICANT COULD SPECIFY HOW
	MANY REQUIRED TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS ARE TO
	BE LOCATED WITHIN EACH PHASE IF THE INTENT IS TO SUBMIT
	AN APPLICATION FOR EACH PHASE WHEN THE EXACT DESIGN IS
	ESTABLISHED.

	7. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILED
	INFORMATION ON HOW THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MEETS THE
	CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN OPTIONS OF SECTION 94-442(E).
	THE CHART HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT IS LABELED
	INCORRECTLY. PLEASE ADD THE CORRECT LABEL ?SITE DESIGN
	FLEXIBILITY PER CODE SECTION 94-442 (E)? TO THE CHART
	FOR REFERENCE. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE AND DETAILS
	ON HOW EACH DESIGN OPTION IS MET. DUE TO THE UNIQUE
	NATURE OF THE PD, THERE ARE THREE AREAS OF THE BUFFER
	THAT DO NOT MEET THE CODE FOR REQUIRED TREES THAT WOULD
	REQUIRE A WAIVER, SPECIFICALLY AREAS OF THE EAST
	BUFFER, WEST BUFFER AND SOUTH BUFFER.

	8. SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAILED PLANT LIST WITH
	SPECIES, SIZES AND QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIAL
	PROPOSED. A PLANT LIST HAS BEEN INCLUDED, BUT LACKS
	DETAILS AS TO QUANTITIES PROVIDED TO MEET CODE
	REQUIREMENTS.

	9. SATISFIED. THE TREE SURVEY INCLUDED WITH THIS
	PETITION NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AS TO WHICH TREES WILL
	BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED. THE LIST OF TREES TO BE
	REMOVED MUST CONTAIN THE CANOPY DIAMETER IN ORDER TO
	DETERMINE THE MITIGATION REQUIRED, EXCLUDING INVASIVE
	EXOTICS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR REMOVING RATHER
	THAN RELOCATING THE ROYAL PALMS AND SABAL PALMS THAT
	ARE LISTED AS BEING IN ?GOOD? CONDITION.

	10. SATISFIED. THE LIGHTING PLAN CONFLICTS WITH THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN IN MANY AREAS. PLEASE REVISE TO AVOID
	CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. THE
	LIGHTING PLAN SHOWS MANY CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND
	PROPOSED TREES. PLEASE REVISE PLANS TO RESOLVE
	CONFLICTS.

	11. SATISFIED. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT ALL AREAS
	WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CSPD ZONING AS ONE PROJECT AND
	BECOME PART OF ANY LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED FOR THE
	PROJECT. ALL LANDSCAPING MUST BE INCLUDED, EVEN IF
	EXISTING, IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
	LANDSCAPE CODE. PLEASE INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE
	RESIDENCES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN. PLEASE SHOW THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
	THAT WILL STAY AS PART OF THE PLAN AT THIS TIME.

	12. NOT SATISFIED. THE NARRATIVE MENTIONS RIGHT OF WAY
	LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT NO PLANS OR DETAILS WERE
	SUBMITTED. PLEASE SUBMIT PROPOSED PLANS FOR DIXIE
	LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PLAN LACKS DETAIL FOR THE
	TYPES OF PLANTS PROPOSED. SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

	13. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE SHOW LOCATIONS OF GROUND
	MOUNTED SIGNAGE, LIGHTING FIXTURES AND UTILITIES ON THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO AVOID CONFLICTS
	WITH LANDSCAPING. PLEASE SHOW ROOT BARRIERS ON THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN TO PROTECT UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE LINES.
	ALSO PROVIDE A ROOT BARRIER DETAIL WITH THE LANDSCAPE
	DETAILS. ROOT BARRIER DETAIL HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT
	LOCATION OF ROOT BARRIERS HAS NOT.

	14. SATISFIED. THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION
	SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS PETITION WILL BE
	REVIEWED CONCURRENTLY, AND ALL COMMENTS WILL BE
	INCLUDED AS PART OF THE REVIEW OF THIS PETITION.

	ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 5/26:
	15. PLEASE PROVIDE A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN FOR THE WEST
	PARKING LOT.

	16. PLEASE CORRECT THE TREE DISPOSITION PLAN SHEET
	L-421 TO INDICATE THE DISPOSITION OF TREE 156, AND
	ADJUST TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS TO AVOID RIGHT OF WAY
	AREAS.

	17. PLEASE SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF RELOCATED TREES AND
	PALMS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. TREES TO REMAIN ARE
	INDICATED, BUT THERE IS NOT AN ACCOUNTING OR SYMBOL FOR
	TREES AND PALMS SHOWN AS RELOCATED ON THE TREE
	DISPOSITION PLAN.

	18. PLEASE PROVIDE A TREE AS REQUIRED IN THE TERMINAL
	ISLAND OF THE WESTERNMOST PARKING LOT ALONG JEFFERSON.

	CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
	1. THE BANYAN TREE LOCATED IN THE ENTRANCE PLAZA TO THE
	MUSEUM, ADJACENT TO SOUTH DIXIE SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS
	A HISTORIC TREE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MUSEUM AND
	THE COMMUNITY.

	2. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS FOR
	ANY COMPONENTS OF THE ENTRANCE PLAZA, THE PERMITS SHALL
	BE REVIEWED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF THE ROOT ZONE AND
	CANOPY OF THE BANYAN TREE.

	3. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, A
	LANDSCAPE PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FINALIZE THE
	SPECIES AND PLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPING, AND PLACEMENT OF
	ROOT BARRIERS MEETING THE INTENT AND SPECIFICATIONS OF
	THE APPROVAL.

	4. ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN ROAD
	RIGHT OF WAYS SHALL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT FROM THE
	CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH OR FDOT AS APPLICABLE.

	5. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
	INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION IN THE ROAD
	RIGHT OF WAYS ADJACENT TO THE CSPD AS APPROVED, SUBJECT
	TO OBTAINING A PERMIT FROM THE APPLICABLE AGENCY.

	6. THE APPLICANT, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL BE
	RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND
	IRRIGATION IN ALL ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS ADJACENT TO THE
	CSPD.

Review Stop	L			LANDSCAPING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date	04-27-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	rcaranci			Date	04-27-2015	Time	16:37	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rcaranci			Date	04-27-2015	Time	16:37	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-28 15:42:10	APRIL 27, 2015

	1. NOT SATISFIED. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES NEAR THE
	BANYAN TREE APPEAR TO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING TREE
	CANOPY. HOW WILL CONFLICTS WITH THE TREE BE RESOLVED?
	IF THE BANYAN IS CONSIDERED A HISTORIC TREE THROUGH
	THIS PETITION IT MUST BE PROTECTED FROM ENCROACHMENT
	THAT WOULD AFFECT THE CANOPY OR ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE.
	STAFF HAS MET WITH THE ARBORIST THAT DEVELOPED THE PLAN
	FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE TREE.
	PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SHOWS THE TREE ROOT ZONE AND
	CANOPY ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION, BUT A
	PLAN IS PROPOSED THAT WILL MONITOR AND MANAGE THE ROOT
	SYSTEM AND CANOPY. FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE REQUIRED
	AS THE DESIGN PROCESS CONTINUES. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE
	BANYAN TREE BE DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC TREE BY THE
	CITY COMMISSION.

	2. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE SUBMIT A DETAIL THE PAVED AREA
	OF THE ENTRANCE PLAZA THAT COVERS THE ROOT ZONE OF THE
	BANYAN, AND HOW IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID ANY
	NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE TREE. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS ON
	THE PEDESTAL PAVING SYSTEM AND FOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION TO
	BE PLACED IN THE ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE.

	3. NOT SATISFIED. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-442 (G)
	FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE
	VERIFIED FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHEN A
	COMPLETE PLANT LIST IS SUBMITTED. THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY
	CHART HAS BEEN INCLUDED ON SHEET L-402, BUT LACKS ANY
	INFORMATION ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. PLEASE ADD THE
	CORRECT CODE SECTION 94-442 (G) TO THE CHART FOR
	REFERENCE.

	4. NOT SATISFIED. THE WEST LANDSCAPE BUFFER DOES NOT
	MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-443 (A)(2) ALONG
	THE ENTRANCE PLAZA. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE IF THIS AREA
	MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-444 FOR PLAZAS.
	MORE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SUPPLIED TO VERIFY
	COMPLIANCE WITH CODE.

	5. SATISFIED. THE NUMBER OF TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND
	SHRUBS REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-442 MUST BE CALCULATED
	ON 50 PERCENT OPEN SPACE REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-203.
	PLEASE REVISE THE DATA TABLE TO REFLECT THE CORRECT
	QUANTITIES.

	6. NOT SATISFIED. IF THE LANDSCAPING IS TO BE COMPLETED
	IN PHASES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW MANY TREES AND SHRUBS
	ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED PER PHASE. IF THE PLANS ARE TO
	BE COMPLETED IN PHASES, THE APPLICANT COULD SPECIFY HOW
	MANY REQUIRED TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS ARE TO
	BE LOCATED WITHIN EACH PHASE IF THE INTENT IS TO SUBMIT
	AN APPLICATION FOR EACH PHASE WHEN THE EXACT DESIGN IS
	ESTABLISHED.

	7. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILED
	INFORMATION ON HOW THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MEETS THE
	CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN OPTIONS OF SECTION 94-442(E).
	THE CHART HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT IS LABELED
	INCORRECTLY. PLEASE ADD THE CORRECT LABEL ?SITE DESIGN
	FLEXIBILITY PER CODE SECTION 94-442 (E)? TO THE CHART
	FOR REFERENCE. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE AND DETAILS
	ON HOW EACH DESIGN OPTION IS MET.

	8. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAILED PLANT LIST
	WITH SPECIES, SIZES AND QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIAL
	PROPOSED. A PLANT LIST HAS BEEN INCLUDED, BUT LACKS
	DETAILS AS TO QUANTITIES PROVIDED TO MEET CODE
	REQUIREMENTS.

	9. NOT SATISFIED. THE TREE SURVEY INCLUDED WITH THIS
	PETITION NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AS TO WHICH TREES WILL
	BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED. THE LIST OF TREES TO BE
	REMOVED MUST CONTAIN THE CANOPY DIAMETER IN ORDER TO
	DETERMINE THE MITIGATION REQUIRED, EXCLUDING INVASIVE
	EXOTICS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR REMOVING RATHER
	THAN RELOCATING THE ROYAL PALMS AND SABAL PALMS THAT
	ARE LISTED AS BEING IN ?GOOD? CONDITION.

	10. NOT SATISFIED. THE LIGHTING PLAN CONFLICTS WITH THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN IN MANY AREAS. PLEASE REVISE TO AVOID
	CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. THE
	LIGHTING PLAN SHOWS MANY CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING AND
	PROPOSED TREES. PLEASE REVISE PLANS TO RESOLVE
	CONFLICTS.

	11. NOT SATISFIED. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT ALL
	AREAS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CSPD ZONING AS ONE
	PROJECT AND BECOME PART OF ANY LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED
	FOR THE PROJECT. ALL LANDSCAPING MUST BE INCLUDED, EVEN
	IF EXISTING, IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
	LANDSCAPE CODE. PLEASE INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE
	RESIDENCES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN. PLEASE SHOW THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
	THAT WILL STAY AS PART OF THE PLAN AT THIS TIME.

	12. NOT SATISFIED. THE NARRATIVE MENTIONS RIGHT OF WAY
	LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT NO PLANS OR DETAILS WERE
	SUBMITTED. PLEASE SUBMIT PROPOSED PLANS FOR DIXIE
	LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PLAN LACK DETAIL FOR THE
	TYPES OF PLANTS PROPOSED.

	13. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE SHOW LOCATIONS OF GROUND
	MOUNTED SIGNAGE, LIGHTING FIXTURES AND UTILITIES ON THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO AVOID CONFLICTS
	WITH LANDSCAPING. PLEASE SHOW ROOT BARRIERS ON THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN TO PROTECT UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE LINES.
	ALSO PROVIDE A ROOT BARRIER DETAIL WITH THE LANDSCAPE
	DETAILS.

	14. SATISFIED. THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION
	SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS PETITION WILL BE
	REVIEWED CONCURRENTLY, AND ALL COMMENTS WILL BE
	INCLUDED AS PART OF THE REVIEW OF THIS PETITION.

	RAY CARANCI, LANDSCAPE PLANNER
	561-822-1462
	[email protected]

Review Stop	L			LANDSCAPING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-07-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	rcaranci			Date	04-07-2015	Time	17:07	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rcaranci			Date	04-07-2015	Time	17:07	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-07 17:09:29

	1. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES NEAR THE BANYAN TREE APPEAR
	TO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY. HOW WILL
	CONFLICTS WITH THE TREE BE RESOLVED? IF THE BANYAN IS
	CONSIDERED A HISTORIC TREE THROUGH THIS PETITION IT
	MUST BE PROTECTED FROM ENCROACHMENT THAT WOULD AFFECT
	THE CANOPY OR ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE.

	2. PLEASE SUBMIT A DETAIL THE PAVED AREA OF THE
	ENTRANCE PLAZA THAT COVERS THE ROOT ZONE OF THE BANYAN,
	AND HOW IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID ANY NEGATIVE
	IMPACTS TO THE TREE.

	3. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-442 (G) FLORIDA FRIENDLY
	LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE VERIFIED FOR THE
	PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHEN A COMPLETE PLANT LIST
	IS SUBMITTED.

	4. THE WEST LANDSCAPE BUFFER DOES NOT MEET THE
	REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-443 (A)(2) ALONG THE
	ENTRANCE PLAZA. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE IF THIS AREA MEETS
	THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-444 FOR PLAZAS.

	5. THE NUMBER OF TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS
	REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-442 MUST BE CALCULATED ON 50
	PERCENT OPEN SPACE REQUIRED PER SECTION 94-203. PLEASE
	REVISE THE DATA TABLE TO REFLECT THE CORRECT
	QUANTITIES.

	6. IF THE LANDSCAPING IS TO BE COMPLETED IN PHASES,
	PLEASE INDICATE HOW MANY TREES AND SHRUBS ARE GOING TO
	BE PROVIDED PER PHASE.

	7. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON HOW THE
	PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN
	OPTIONS OF SECTION 94-442(E).

	8. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAILED PLANT LIST WITH SPECIES,
	SIZES AND QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIAL PROPOSED.

	9. THE TREE SURVEY INCLUDED WITH THIS PETITION NEEDS TO
	BE CLARIFIED AS TO WHICH TREES WILL BE REMOVED OR
	RELOCATED.

	10. THE LIGHTING PLAN CONFLICTS WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN
	IN MANY AREAS. PLEASE REVISE TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH
	EXISTING OR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING.

	11. THE APPLICATION INDICATES THAT ALL AREAS WILL BE
	INCLUDED IN THE CSPD ZONING AS ONE PROJECT AND BECOME
	PART OF ANY LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT.
	ALL LANDSCAPING MUST BE INCLUDED, EVEN IF EXISTING, IN
	ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE CODE.
	PLEASE INCLUDE THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE RESIDENCES ALONG
	THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THE LANDSCAPER PLAN.

	12. THE NARRATIVE MENTIONS RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPE
	IMPROVEMENTS, BUT NO PLANS OR DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED.
	PLEASE SUBMIT PROPOSED PLANS FOR DIXIE LANDSCAPE
	IMPROVEMENTS.

	13. PLEASE SHOW LOCATIONS OF GROUND MOUNTED SIGNAGE,
	LIGHTING FIXTURES AND UTILITIES ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN
	AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH
	LANDSCAPING.

	14. THE TREE ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED
	CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS PETITION WILL BE REVIEWED
	CONCURRENTLY, AND ALL COMMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED AS PART
	OF THE REVIEW OF THIS PETITION.


	RAY CARANCI, LANDSCAPE PLANNER
	561-822-1462

Review Stop	PARK		PARKING
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	PARK			PARKING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-08-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	ssamuels			Date	04-08-2015	Time	12:12	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ssamuels			Date	04-08-2015	Time	12:12	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-08 12:18:04	SEAN SAMUELS
	PARKING DEPARTMENT

	NEED MORE DETAIL TO MAKE PROPER DETERMINATION PARKING.
	PLEASE GET SPECIFICATION ON PARKING DETAIL FROM CITY
	PLANNER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT.

Review Stop	POLICE		POLICE
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	POLICE			POLICE
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-24-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	04-24-2015	Time	15:31	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	04-24-2015	Time	15:31	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-28 15:33:23	THE FOLLOWING IS FROM AN EMAIL RECEIVED FROM OFFICER
	SETH BUXTON, DATED 04.24.2015:

	"REGARDING THIS PROJECT, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THE
	CROSSWALK. IT'S CURRENTLY POORLY MARKED AND A
	PEDESTRIAN SAFETY HAZARD. I OFTEN WITNESS ELDERLY
	PEOPLE TRYING TO CROSS S DIXIE HWY BETWEEN THE MUSEUM
	AND THE WEST LOT UNDER DANGEROUS CONDITIONS. AT THE
	LAST MEETING, THE BUILDER REQUESTED TO DEFER CHANGING
	THE CROSSWALK DUE TO FUTURE S DIXIE HWY UPGRADES.
	HOWEVER, THAT MAY BE YEARS OFF? MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS
	PROJECT IS TO BETTER MARK THE CROSSWALK AND POSSIBLY
	INSTALLING AN AUDIBLE MECHANISM SIMILAR TO THAT AT
	FOREST HILL AND DIXIE."

	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
	F: 561.822.1460

	E: [email protected]

	WWW.WPB.ORG

Review Stop	PW		PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	PW			PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-07-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	09:07	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	09:07	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-07 09:07:43

PLEASE SEE ENGINEERING PPRC COMMENTS

Review Stop	STORM		STORMWATER
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	04-07-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	09:09	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	cranford			Date	04-07-2015	Time	09:07	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-07 09:09:04	PLEASE SEE ENGINEERING PPRC COMMENTS

	PROPOSED YARD DRAINS IN INTERIOR COURT YARD WILL NEED
	TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS.

Review Stop	SURVEY		SURVEYING
Rev No	3	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	SURVEY			SURVEYING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date	04-27-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	vnoel			Date	04-27-2015	Time	13:44	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	vnoel			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2015-04-27 14:01:40	1. ORIGINAL COMMENTS 1-3,7,9,10 AND 12 STILL APPLY.
	WILL BE REVIEWED UPON RECEIPT OF TITLE WORK AND REVISED
	SURVEY.

Review Stop	SURVEY			SURVEYING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-02-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	vnoel			Date	04-02-2015	Time	09:41	Rev Time
Received By	vnoel			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2015-04-02 10:31:38	1. LAW DEPT. WILL NEED TO REVIEW EXISTING LEASE FOR ANY
	MODIFICATIONS.
	2. PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE RE-PLATTED.
	3. SURVEY NEEDS TO BE BASED ON A TITLE SEARCH. NEED ALL
	EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 5 & 6
	MENTIONED IN PARKING LOT PARCEL.
	4. SURVEYOR'S NOTE #8 IS MISSING INFORMATION.
	5. BEARINGS OF MAIN PARCEL'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION DO NOT
	MATCH DRAWING.
	6. CORRECT TYPOS IN DESCRIPTIONS FOR PARCELS 1 AND 2.
	7. SHOW LIMITS OF FDOT MAINTENANCE MAPS FOR DIXIE AND
	OLIVE AVE.
	8. PROPERTY CORNERS MISSING FOR MAIN PARCEL AND SE
	CORNER OF PARKING PARCEL.
	9. SITE/CIVIL PLANS WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL
	TO ENGINEERING SERVICES.
	10. ENTRANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS IN DIXIE WILL REQUIRE
	FDOT APPROVAL PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
	11. DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE EXISTING VS. PROPOSED
	IMPROVEMENTS.
	12. LABEL PARCEL NUMBERS AND DESCRIPTION CALLS IN
	PARKING LOT PARCEL.
	13. LABEL ADJOINING LOTS AND/OR PLATS.

Review Stop	TRAFFIC		TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	TRAFFIC		TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	1	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	Z		ZONING
Rev No	3	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date	04-28-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	04-28-2015	Time	16:12	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	04-28-2015	Time	16:12	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-28 16:16:15	PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
	___________________________________________

	DATE OF REVIEW: 04.27.2015
	PROJECT NO.: Z15030023, Z15030024, Z15030025
	CASE NO.: PB 1674, 1674A, AND 1674B
	ADDRESS: 1508 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
	APPLICANT/CONTACT: BRIAN SEYMOUR, ESQ. AND JOSHUA I.
	LONG, AICP
	TELEPHONE NO.: 561.650.0621
	SCOPE OF REVIEW: ADDITION TO EXISTING MUSEUM.
	___________________________________________

	PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
	REVIEW COMMENTS (THE ORGINAL COMMENT AND RESPONSE IS
	PROVIDED, WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY CITY STAFF SHOWN
	IN ALL CAPS):

	1. PLEASE PROVIDE BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION REGARD THE
	NORTON'S RIGHTS TO SIGN AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN
	THOUGH IT IS SHOWN AS A LEASE FROM THE CITY OF WEST
	PALM BEACH.

	RESPONSE: THE NORTON WILL WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT
	TO DETERMINE AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY SIGNATURES FOR
	THE APPLICATION. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	3. APPROVED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER SHALL BE
	PROVIDED FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
	ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC DIVISION.

	RESPONSE: THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE THIS LETTER UPON
	ISSUANCE FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION.
	COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	4. PURSUANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, THE SURVEY
	SHALL BE AN ALTNACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, SHALL INCLUDE
	ALL ITEMS LISTED IN SECTION K OF THE DEVELOPMENT
	APPLICATION, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CURRENT
	OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE (O&E) REPORT, OR A CURRENT
	TITLE POLICY.

	RESPONSE: AN O&E HAS BEEN ORDERED. COMMENT STILL
	OUTSTANDING.

	6. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED,
	INCLUDING IN A WORD DOCUMENT:

	THE PROPOSED OVERALL COMMUNITY SERVICE PLANNED
	DEVELOPMENT (CSPD);
	THOSE PARCELS THAT AR CHANGING FROM A C/SIZ FUTURE
	LAND USE (FLU} DESIGNATION TO CS;
	THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A CE/SIZ FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;
	THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A CE FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;
	THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A MF FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;
	THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A GC ZONING
	DESIGNATION TO CS; AND
	THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A MF32-CL ZONING
	DESIGNATION TO CS.

	RESPONSE: A TITLE SEARCH HAS BEEN ORDERED. THE REVISED
	LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER THE TITLE
	SEARCH HAS BEEN RECEIVED. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	7. THE SITE PLAN SHALL INDICATE THE FOLLOWING:

	B. SETBACKS OF EACH BUILDING FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY
	LINES.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS L-201 AND L-202. THE
	SETBACK FROM SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY DOES NOT MEET THE
	MINIMUM CORNER SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. ON SHEET L-201
	THE REQUIRED SETBACKS SHOULD BE 25 FEET FROM SOUTH
	OLIVE AVENUE, 25 FEET FROM CRANESNEST (NO INCLUDING
	RESIDENTIAL BLDGS.), AND 25 FEET FROM SOUTH DIXIE
	HIGHWAY.

	C. ALL PERTINENT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED (PARKING
	SPACES, DRIVE AISLES, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, PROPERTY
	LINES, ETC.). THERE WERE NO DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON
	PLAN.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS L-201AND L-202. NO
	DIMENSIONS PROVIDED FOR PARKING IN NORTHWEST CORNER OF
	THE PROPERTY. DIMENSIONS OF THE PARKING LOT IN THE
	NORTH CENTRAL PART OF THE SITE DO NOT ADD UP CORRECTLY.
	DISTANCE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND PARKING LOT IN
	NORTHWEST CORNER NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED. DUMPSTER
	ENCLOSURE.

	E. THE NUMBER OF STORIES OF EACH BUILDING AND THE
	HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING (AS DEFINED BY THE ZLDRS).

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS L-101AND L-102. THE
	HEIGHT OF EACH BUILDING (IN FEET) SHALL BE PROVIDED.

	G. DIMENSIONS OF ALL PERIMETER TREATMENTS, INCLUDING
	SIDEWALKS AND ANY FENCES, WALLS, OR BERMS.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS L-201AND L-202. WHAT
	IS THE FENCE AROUND THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH SIDES OF
	THE PROPERTY? HEIGHT? DETAILS? DETAILS OF GATES ACROSS
	SERVICE DRIVE.

	I. LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES
	(DETAIL SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED).

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO L-101, L-201, L-901. THE
	NORTON DOES NOT USE WPB GARBAGE COLLECTING SERVICES,
	THEY CURRENTLY USE AND WILL CONTINUE TO USE A PRIVATE
	PROVIDER FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES. CHAINLINK
	WITH SLATS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED AS A GATE ON THE
	DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.

	K. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDE FOR PARKING SPACES (SMALL
	CAR, HANDICAP, STANDARD SPACE), AS WELL AS HANDICAP
	RAMPS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO L-901. THE PARKING DETAILS
	PROVIDED DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
	CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH.

	10. HOW IS THE SERVICE YARD PLANNED TO BE SCREENED FROM
	THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY?

	RESPONSE: A PROPOSED LIST OF PLANT OPTIONS HAS BEEN
	INCLUDED ON SHEET L-402. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING

	11. PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TUM ANALYSIS FOR ALL SERVICE
	AREAS, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, ETC. THE PUBLIC
	RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED FOR MANEUVERING OR
	BACKING INTO A LOADING AREA.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS C-106 AND C-107,
	"AUTOTURN EXHIBIT". DELIVERY VEHICLES ACCESSING THE
	PROPERTY FROM SOUTH OLIVE AVENUE? ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
	THE BACKING VEHICLE ONTO CRANESNEST WAY. SIZE OF THE
	DELIVERY VEHICLE INADEQUATE?

	13. PLEASE CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE MECHANICAL
	EQUIPMENT. WILL IT BE ROOF-MOUNTED? GROUND-MOUNTED?
	APPROPRIATE SCREENING WILL BE REQUIRED.

	RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE NO ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL
	EQUIPMENT. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
	WILL BE CONFINED WITHIN THE BUILDING.

	16. WHAT IS THE WATER FEATURE PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF?

	RESPONSE: THE WATER FEATURE IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A
	SHALLOW (1/4") SCRIM OF WATER FLOWING IN TWO {2)
	DIRECTIONS OVER STONE PAVING INTO A CAST IRON SLOT
	DRAIN. SUBTLE ACCENT LIGHTING WILL BE ADDED TO PROMOTE
	LIGHT REFLECTION AND EFFECTS INTO THE PLAZA SPACE.
	STAFF IS STILL REVIEWING THIS RESPONSE AND MAY REQUEST
	ADDITIONAL DETAIL.

	17. WHAT DOES THE ENTRANCE PLAZA CONSIST OF? THERE IS
	NO DELINEATION BETWEEN HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE, ETC.

	RESPONSE: THE ENTRY PLAZA IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A
	SHALLOW SCRIM WATER FEATURE, STONE PAVING, ACCENT
	LIGHTING, PERMANENT TIMBER AND STONE SEATING BENCHES,
	AND MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS FOR EVENTS. STAFF IS STILL
	REVIEWING THIS RESPONSE AND MAY REQUEST ADDITIONAL
	DETAIL.

	18. WHAT IS THE AREA NORTHWEST OF THE LABEL LOADING
	DOCK?

	RESPONSE: IT IS ONE OF THREE 10'X50' LOADING SPACES.
	ENCROACHES INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

	21. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-305(B)(2), ROOF OVERHANGS
	AND OTHER STRUCTURAL INTRUSIONS SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE
	THAN THREE (3) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEET L-101. ALL NEW BUILDING
	WALLS ARE OUTSIDE OF REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE PROPOSED
	ROOF ENCROACHES 2'-9" INTO THE SETBACK, LESS THAN THE
	ALLOWED 3'. ONLY THE EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSES ON
	CRANESNEST WAY AND 411 PALM STREET BUILDING ENCROACH
	INTO SETBACKS. THESE ARE EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING
	STRUCTURES NOT MODIFIED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE
	CORNER SIDE SETBACK FROM SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY IS 25
	FEET, NOT 15 FEET. THEREFORE, THE BUILDING AND ROOF
	OVERHANG ARE ENCORACHING INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

	25. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) FEET IN
	HEIGHT.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO NEW NORTON SIGN PROGRAM
	INCLUDED WITH THIS RESUBMITTAL. NEED TO DISCUSS SIGN
	PROGRAM IN MORE DETAIL.

	26. SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM EACH SIGN THE
	ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEET L-201. COMMENT STILL
	OUTSTANDING.

	27. PARKING AREA INSTRUCTIONAL AND RELATED SIGNS SHALL
	NOT INCLUDE THE NAME OR LOGO OF THE BUSINESS. IF SUCH
	LOGO OR BUSINESS NAME IS PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE
	CONSIDERED A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND SUBJECT TO THE
	MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERMITTED SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA,
	ETC.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO NEW NORTON SIGN PROGRAM
	INCLUDED WITH THIS RESUBMITTAL. NEED TO DISCUSS SIGN
	PROGRAM IN MORE DETAIL.

	31. FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN (10) FEET
	IN HEIGHT.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO NEW NORTON SIGN PROGRAM
	INCLUDED WITH THIS RESUBMITTAL. NEED TO DISCUSS SIGN
	PROGRAM IN MORE DETAIL.

	32. FREESTANDING SIGNS ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY SHALL NOT
	TOTAL MORE THAN 272 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO NEW NORTON SIGN PROGRAM
	INCLUDED WITH THIS RESUBMITTAL. NEED TO DISCUSS SIGN
	PROGRAM IN MORE DETAIL.

	33. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION THAT IS ANTICIPATED TO
	BE UTILIZED AS BUS PARKING AND PROVIDE AUTO-TUM
	ANALYSIS FOR THE BUS PARKING, DROP-OFF, ETC.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEETS C-106 AND C-107,
	"AUTOTURN EXHIBIT". PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY BUSSES ARE BEING
	SHOWN HEADING EAST ON JEFFERSON ROAD.

	34. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-408(F)(2)D., THE MAXIMUM
	NUMBERS OF FREESTANDING SIGNS IS ONE (1) FOR EACH
	BUSINESS.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO NEW NORTON SIGN PROGRAM
	INCLUDED WITH THIS RESUBMITTAL. NEED TO DISCUSS SIGN
	PROGRAM IN MORE DETAIL.

	36. THERE SHOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN'S
	EXPERIENCE AS THEY LEAVE THE PARKING AREA, CROSS THE
	STREET, AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE ENTRANCE. DESIGN
	ELEMENTS SHOULD BE INTRODUCED THAT INTERACT WITH THE
	PEDESTRIAN AS SOON AS THEY CROSS THE STREET AND LEADS
	THEM TO THE ENTRANCE, SUCH AS EXTENDING THE WATER
	FEATURE, INTRODUCING WATER, ETC. INTO THE WALL AT THE
	SOUTHWEST COMER OF THE BUILDING, ETC.

	RESPONSE: THE APPLICANT AND DESIGN TEAM IS CONTINUING
	TO CONSIDER THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE FOR PEOPLE
	CROSSING THE STREET FROM THE WEST PARKING AREA, AS WELL
	AS PEOPLE APPROACHING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS ALONG THE
	SIDEWALKS OF SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE PROPOSAL OF
	BUILDING SIGNAGE (AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IN RESPONSE TO
	#20) IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF EXPERIENCE WE ARE
	PURSUING. PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH DIXIE
	HIGHWAY ROW ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF THIS EFFORT.
	STAFF IS STILL REVIEWING THIS RESPONSE AND MAY REQUEST
	ADDITIONAL DETAIL.

	37. ALL ON-STREET PARKING WILL REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF
	THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
	COORDINATION MAY BE NECESSARY REGARDING OLIVE AVENUE AS
	THE ROUND-ABOUT WILL BE MODIFIED FROM ITS CURRENT
	CONFIGURATION.

	RESPONSE: THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING
	AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED
	CREATION OF ADDITIONAL ON-STREET PARKING SPACES,
	ESPECIALLY AS THOSE SPACES RELATE TO THE MODIFICATION
	OF THE OLIVE AVENUE ROUNDABOUT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
	THAT ADDITIONAL INFOMRAITON HAS BEEN REQUESTED OF THE
	TRAFFIC CONSULTANT BY THE CITY?S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

	39. BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF ONE
	(1) BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER 20 AUTOMOBILE PARKING
	SPACES. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.

	RESPONSE: A DETAIL AND LOCATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT A
	LATER DATE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FINAL LANDSCAPE
	PLAN. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	40. THE COLOR WEST ELEVATION INDICATES A TALL HEDGE
	BEING PLANTED ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE
	BUILDING, HOWEVER THIS IS NOT REFLECTED ON THE SITE OR
	LANDSCAPE PLANS. PLEASE ENSURE ALL PLANS ARE AN
	ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT IS PROPOSED.

	RESPONSE: ALL PLANS WILL BE COORDINATED AND ACCURATE
	REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN. COMMENT STILL
	OUTSTANDING.

	41. ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS MAY BE NEEDED REGARDING
	THE AMOUNT OF PARKING. PARTICULARLY, IT MAY NEED TO BE
	ADDRESSED AS TO HOW PARKING WILL BE HANDLED DURING
	LARGER EVENTS WHEN ATTENDANCE IS GREATER AND FOCUSED ON
	A VERY NARROW WINDOW OF TIME.

	RESPONSE: COMMENT NOTED. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	42. THE PARKING STUDY INDICATES THAT 281 SPACES ARE
	PROPOSED. PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE THAT NUMBER IS DERIVED
	FROM.

	RESPONSE: PLEASE REFER TO SHEET L-102. THE NUMBER OF
	PARKING SPACES IN THE TABLE DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS
	SHOWN ON THE PLAN, OR IN THE STUDY.

	51. INDICATE THE LOCATION AND OF ALL PARKING
	INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNAGE. FOR EXAMPLE, ?DO NOT ENTER?
	SIGNS WILL NEED TO BE INSTALLED INSIDE THE PARKING LOT
	IN THE NORTHWEST COMER OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT TRAFFIC
	DOES NOT GO INTO THE DROP-OFF AREA AND TRY TO EXIT ONTO
	SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE ACCESS POINT OFF OF SOUTH
	DIXIE HIGHWAY IS ONLY WIDE ENOUGH FOR ONE-WAY TRAFFIC
	(ENTER ONLY}.

	RESPONSE: THE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO INCLUDE THIS
	SIGNAGE. COMMENT STILL OUTSTANDING.

	52. A TUM-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED IN THE PARKING LOT
	EAST OF THE LOADING DOCK.

	RESPONSE: THE PARKING LOT EAST OF THE LOADING DOCK IS A
	RESERVED, GATED PARKING LOT FOR MUSEUM EMPLOYEES; A
	TURNAROUND SPOT IS NOT REQUIRED. THIS AREA IS BEING
	GATED? ADDITIONAL DETAILS NEEDED FOR GATE.

	53. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICLE
	ENCROACHMENT THROUGH THE USE OF CURBING.

	RESPONSE: CURBING AND WHEEL STOPS HAVE BEEN ADDED. IT
	IS RECOMMENDED THAT WHEEL STOPS NOT BE UTILIZED AND
	THAT THE CURBING BE MOVED IN, ALLOWING THE CAR TO
	OVERHANG LANDSCAPE OR SIDEWALK.

	ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY STAFF ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS?

	1. WHAT IS THE FENCE AROUND THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH
	SIDES OF THE PROPERTY? HEIGHT? DETAILS? STAFF DOES NOT
	SUPPORT THIS PERIMETER FENCE/HEDGE.

	2. DETAILS OF GATES ACROSS SERVICE DRIVE.

	3. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR SOUTH DIXIE LANDSCAPE
	BUFFER.

	4. STORAGE SHED?

	5. CONCERN REGARDING REMOVAL OF ALL ON-STREET PARKING
	FROM SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY.

	6. CONCERNED THAT NO DETAILED PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED
	FOR THE LANDSCAPING TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY?S
	ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

	7. ADDITIONAL SCRENING OF THE SERVICE YARD NEEDED.

	8. THERE ARE SEVERAL LOCATIONS WHERE EXITS FROM THE
	BUILDING OPEN INTO A LANDSCAPED AREA?NO WALKWAY, ETC.
	___________________________________________

	PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:

	A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
	DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.

	B) 15 SETS OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
	PROVIDED, ALONG WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11IN X
	17IN), AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS.

	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.

	F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE JUNE 16, 2015,
	PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
	SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
	DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2015.

	G) TO BE PLACED ON THE JUNE 16, 2015, PLANNING BOARD
	AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
	THAN JUNE 1, 2015. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM AND BE
	INSTALLED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S ZONING
	AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AS ALSO PROVIDED IN
	THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED
	AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED
	ABOVE.
	___________________________________________

	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
	F: 561.822.1460

	E: [email protected]

	WWW.WPB.ORG

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	04-08-2015			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	04-08-2015	Time	11:26	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	04-08-2015	Time	11:26	Sent To

Notes

2015-04-08 11:27:26	PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
	___________________________________________

	DATE OF REVIEW: 04.08.2015
	PROJECT NO.: Z15030023, Z15030024, AND Z15030025
	CASE NO.: PB 1674, 1674A, AND 1674B
	ADDRESS: 1508 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
	APPLICANT/CONTACT: BRIAN SEYMOUR, ESQ. AND JOSHUA I.
	LONG, AICP
	TELEPHONE NO.: 561.650.0621
	SCOPE OF REVIEW: ADDITION TO EXISTING MUSEUM.
	___________________________________________

	PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
	REVIEW COMMENTS:

	1. PLEASE PROVIDE BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION REGARD THE
	NORTON?S RIGHTS TO SIGN AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN
	THOUGH IT IS SHOWN AS A LEASE FROM THE CITY OF WEST
	PALM BEACH.

	2. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC OUTREACH
	THAT HAS OCCURRED, OR IS PROPOSED, REGARDING THE
	PROPOSED PROJECT. STAFF ENCOURAGES ALL PROJECTS TO
	COORDINATE OUTREACH WITH ADJACENT OR AFFECTED
	NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, ETC. CONTACT INFORMATION MAY BE
	OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS.

	3. APPROVED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER SHALL BE
	PROVIDED FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
	ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS ? TRAFFIC DIVISION.

	4. PURSUANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, THE SURVEY
	SHALL BE AN ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, SHALL INCLUDE
	ALL ITEMS LISTED IN SECTION K OF THE DEVELOPMENT
	APPLICATION, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CURRENT
	OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE (O&E) REPORT, OR A CURRENT
	TITLE POLICY.

	5. OUTSTANDING PUBLIC UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
	PROVIDED.

	6. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED,
	INCLUDING IN A WORD DOCUMENT:

	A. THE PROPOSED OVERALL COMMUNITY SERVICE PLANNED
	DEVELOPMENT (CSPD);

	B. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A C/SIZ FUTURE
	LAND USE (FLU) DESIGNATION TO CS;

	C. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A CE/SIZ FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;

	D. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A CE FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;

	E. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A MF FLU
	DESIGNATION TO CS;

	F. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A GC ZONING
	DESIGNATION TO CS; AND

	G. THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM A MF32-C1
	ZONING DESIGNATION TO CS.

	7. THE SITE PLAN SHALL INDICATE THE FOLLOWING:

	A. USE OF EACH BUILDING.

	B. SETBACKS OF EACH BUILDING FROM THE ADJACENT
	PROPERTY LINES.

	C. ALL PERTINENT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED (PARKING
	SPACES, DRIVE AISLES, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, PROPERTY
	LINES, ETC.). THERE WERE NO DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON
	PLAN.

	D. THE FLOOR AREA OF EACH BUILDING.

	E. THE NUMBER OF STORIES OF EACH BUILDING AND THE
	HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING (AS DEFINED BY THE ZLDRS).

	F. LABELS TO IDENTIFY THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, LINE
	TYPES, ROOF OVERHANGS, HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS, ETC.

	G. DIMENSIONS OF ALL PERIMETER TREATMENTS, INCLUDING
	SIDEWALKS AND ANY FENCES, WALLS, OR BERMS.

	H. THE LOCATION, HEIGHT, AND SIZE OF ALL FREESTANDING
	SIGNS.

	I. LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES
	(DETAIL SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED).

	J. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED.

	K. DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDE FOR PARKING SPACES (SMALL
	CAR, HANDICAP, STANDARD SPACE), AS WELL AS HANDICAP
	RAMPS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC.

	L. LOCATIONS OF FIRE HYDRANTS.

	8. THE SITE DATA TABLE SHALL INCLUDE THE PERCENTAGE OF
	BUILDING COVERAGE, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE AREA, BUILDING
	COVERAGE, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

	9. PLEASE REMOVE THE LANDSCAPING OFF OF THE SITE PLAN.

	10. HOW IS THE SERVICE YARD PLANNED TO BE SCREENED FROM
	THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY?

	11. PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO-TURN ANALYSIS FOR ALL SERVICE
	AREAS, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, ETC. THE PUBLIC
	RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED FOR MANEUVERING OR
	BACKING INTO A LOADING AREA.

	12. PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 FOOTCANDLES
	WHEN MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE.

	13. PLEASE CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE MECHANICAL
	EQUIPMENT. WILL IT BE ROOF-MOUNTED? GROUND-MOUNTED?
	APPROPRIATE SCREENING WILL BE REQUIRED.

	14. ELEVATIONS SHALL IDENTIFY MATERIALS, TREATMENTS,
	ETC. IT IS REQUESTED THAT 3-DIMENSIONAL RENDERINGS BE
	PROVIDED TO ENSURE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED
	DESIGN.

	15. THERE APPEARS TO BE DISCREPANCY IN THE
	ELEVATIONS?THE WEST ELEVATION SHOWS THE SOUTHWEST
	CORNER OF THE BUILDING BEING 57 FEET 9 INCHES IN
	HEIGHT, WHILE THE SOUTH ELEVATION INDICATES THAT THE
	SAME CORNER IS ONLY 57 FEET 5 INCHES IN HEIGHT. ENSURE
	THAT ALL PLANS ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.

	16. WHAT IS THE WATER FEATURE PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF?

	17. WHAT DOES THE ENTRANCE PLAZA CONSIST OF? THERE IS
	NO DELINEATION BETWEEN HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE, ETC.

	18. WHAT IS THE AREA NORTHWEST OF THE LABEL ?LOADING
	DOCK??

	19. THE PLANS SHOULD NOT UTILIZE THE SAME SYMBOLOGY FOR
	TREES THAT ARE ?TO REMAIN? AS IS BEING USED FOR TREES
	?TO BE RELOCATED?.

	20. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ?FOCAL POINT?.

	21. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-305(B)(2), ROOF OVERHANGS
	AND OTHER STRUCTURAL INTRUSIONS SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE
	THAN THREE (3) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.

	22. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT ALL
	INTERSECTIONS ON THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. NOTHING
	SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BETWEEN
	18 INCHES AND 8 FEET IN HEIGHT.

	23. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-313(2), THE MINIMUM DISTANCE
	BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE 125 FEET ON A
	NON-THOROUGHFARE.

	24. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-313(2), ACCESS POINTS SHALL
	BE A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE CORNER ON A
	NON-THOROUGHFARE.

	25. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) FEET IN
	HEIGHT.

	26. SETBACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM EACH SIGN THE
	ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES.

	27. PARKING AREA INSTRUCTIONAL AND RELATED SIGNS SHALL
	NOT INCLUDE THE NAME OR LOGO OF THE BUSINESS. IF SUCH
	LOGO OR BUSINESS NAME IS PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE
	CONSIDERED A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND SUBJECT TO THE
	MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERMITTED SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA,
	ETC.

	28. THE SIGN PROPOSED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
	PROPERTY IS SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

	29. SIGNS #8 AND #9 SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
	PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

	30. DETAILS/DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE
	EXISTING WALL SIGNAGE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
	BUILDING.

	31. FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN (10) FEET
	IN HEIGHT.

	32. FREESTANDING SIGNS ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY SHALL NOT
	TOTAL MORE THAN 272 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

	33. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION THAT IS ANTICIPATED TO
	BE UTILIZED AS BUS PARKING AND PROVIDE AUTO-TURN
	ANALYSIS FOR THE BUS PARKING, DROP-OFF, ETC.

	34. PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-408(F)(2)D., THE MAXIMUM
	NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS IS ONE (1) FOR EACH
	BUSINESS.

	35. ALL FREESTANDING SIGNS SHALL BE FIVE (5) FEET FROM
	THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN
	THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

	36. THERE SHOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN?S
	EXPERIENCE AS THEY LEAVE THE PARKING AREA, CROSS THE
	STREET, AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE ENTRANCE. DESIGN
	ELEMENTS SHOULD BE INTRODUCED THAT INTERACT WITH THE
	PEDESTRIAN AS SOON AS THEY CROSS THE STREET AND LEADS
	THEM TO THE ENTRANCE, SUCH AS EXTENDING THE WATER
	FEATURE, INTRODUCING WATER, ETC. INTO THE WALL AT THE
	SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING, ETC.

	37. ALL ON-STREET PARKING WILL REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF
	THE CITY?S ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
	COORDINATION MAY BE NECESSARY REGARDING OLIVE AVENUE AS
	THE ROUND-ABOUT WILL BE MODIFIED FROM ITS CURRENT
	CONFIGURATION.

	38. THERE APPEARS TO BE A DRIVEWAY DRAWN FROM SOUTH
	OLIVE AVENUE, AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
	THAT IS CONFLICTING WITH THE PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING
	SPACES.

	39. BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A RATIO OF ONE
	(1) BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER 20 AUTOMOBILE PARKING
	SPACES. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE PLANS.

	40. THE COLOR WEST ELEVATION INDICATES A TALL HEDGE
	BEING PLANTED ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE
	BUILDING, HOWEVER THIS IS NOT REFLECTED ON THE SITE OR
	LANDSCAPE PLANS. PLEASE ENSURE ALL PLANS ARE AN
	ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT IS PROPOSED.

	41. ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS MAY BE NEEDED REGARDING
	THE AMOUNT OF PARKING. PARTICULARLY, IT MAY NEED TO BE
	ADDRESSED AS TO HOW PARKING WILL BE HANDLED DURING
	LARGER EVENTS WHEN ATTENDANCE IS GREATER AND FOCUSED ON
	A VERY NARROW WINDOW OF TIME.

	42. THE PARKING STUDY INDICATES THAT 281 SPACES ARE
	PROPOSED. PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE THAT NUMBER IS DERIVED
	FROM.

	43. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT THERE ARE 20 PARKING
	SPACES ON CRANESNEST WAY, THIS APPEARS TO BE A LARGER
	NUMBER THAN WHAT COULD OCCUR GIVEN THE LOCATIONS OF
	DRIVEWAYS, ETC.

	44. THE SITE PLAN LABELS 4 SPACES AND 11 SPACES ON
	SOUTH OLIVE AVENUE, BUT ONLY 11 TOTAL ARE DRAWN. PLEASE
	CLARIFY.

	45. THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT THERE ARE 50
	OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES ON THE MUSEUM PROPERTY, BUT
	ONLY 30 ARE DRAWN. PLEASE CLARIFY.

	46. THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PARKING LOT ON THE WEST SIDE
	OF SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY IS NOT DRAWN COMPLETELY.

	47. THE PARKING CALCULATIONS TABLE SHALL INDICATE THE
	NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND
	PROVIDED.

	48. THE SITE PLAN SHALL IDENTIFY THE LOADING AREAS.
	PURSUANT TO SECTION 94-485(P), THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM
	OF THREE (3) SPACES THAT ARE 10 FEET X 50 FEET IN SIZE.

	49. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
	RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
	APPLICABLE AGENCIES (I.E. FDOT).

	50. STAFF HAS SOME OBJECTION TO THE PARKING LOT IN THE
	NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE BEING BROUGHT SO CLOSE TO
	THE SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PARKING LOT
	SHOULD BE PUSHED AWAY FROM THE SIDEWALK AND/OR DETAILS
	OF SCREENING OF THIS AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED.

	51. INDICATE THE LOCATION AND OF ALL PARKING
	INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNAGE. FOR EXAMPLE, ?DO NOT ENTER?
	SIGNS WILL NEED TO BE INSTALLED INSIDE THE PARKING LOT
	IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT TRAFFIC
	DOES NOT GO INTO THE DROP-OFF AREA AND TRY TO EXIT ONTO
	SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE ACCESS POINT OFF OF SOUTH
	DIXIE HIGHWAY IS ONLY WIDE ENOUGH FOR ONE-WAY TRAFFIC
	(ENTER ONLY).

	52. A TURN-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED IN THE PARKING
	LOT EAST OF THE LOADING DOCK.

	53. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICLE
	ENCROACHMENT THROUGH THE USE OF CURBING.
	___________________________________________

	PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:

	A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
	DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.

	B) 15 SETS OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
	PROVIDED, ALONG WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11IN X
	17IN), AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS.

	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.

	F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE MAY 19, 2015,
	PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
	SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
	DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2015.

	G) TO BE PLACED ON THE MAY 19, 2015, PLANNING BOARD
	AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
	THAN MAY 4, 2015. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM AND BE
	INSTALLED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S ZONING
	AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AS ALSO PROVIDED IN
	THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED
	AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED
	ABOVE.
	___________________________________________

	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
	F: 561.822.1460

	E: [email protected]

	WWW.WPB.ORG