Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z13080024
Project Number Z13080024
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2013-09-11 10:00:16ZONING PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) REVIEW
 ___________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 09.11.2013
 PROJECT NO.: Z13080022, Z13080023 AND Z13080024
 CASE NO.: PB 1445X, Y AND Z
 ADDRESS: 4200 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE
 APPLICANT/CONTACT: LYNDA HARRIS AND JOSEPH VERDONE
 TELEPHONE NO.: 561.659.7070
 ___________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED
 UTILIZATION OF THE PERMISSIBLE BUILDING AREAS (PBAS)
 AND DESIGN GUIDELINES GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
 THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE REQUIREMENTS SPELLED OUT ON
 THE MASTER PLAN AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES LEAVE A LOT
 OF UNKNOWN ABOUT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT WITHIN
 SUCH PARAMETERS. IN ORDER TO HAVE A COMFORT LEVEL WITH
 PBAS, THERE NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANT DETAIL IN THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS ULTIMATELY
 WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT COULD AND WILL LOOK LIKE. SOME
 EXAMPLES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
  
 A. NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS SPECIFIED, WITH THE EXCEPTION
 OF THE NUMBER OF STORIES. THEREFORE, A BUILDING COULD
 VARY IN HEIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY AND THE ONLY REQUIREMENT
 IS THAT IT BE 50-55 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 B. IF THE PRESCRIBED SIZE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS
 UTILIZED, WHAT DOES THIS TRANSLATE TO IN THE FINAL
 PRODUCT? HAVE 3-D MODELS BEEN PREPARED TO SHOW WHAT THE
 MAXIMUM BUILD-OUT COULD BE UNDER THE GUIDELINES
 PROPOSED?
  
 C. HOW ARE THE FACADES OF THE GARAGES ADDRESSED? THERE
 IS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT NEARLY ALL OF THE BUILDINGS
 ARE SHOWN AS UN-LINED GARAGES OPEN TO NORTH FLAGLER
 DRIVE, AS WELL AS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. IN
 COMBINATION WITH COMMENT D. BELOW, THIS DOES NOT
 POSITIVELY ADDRESS THE STREET AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO
 INTERACT WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
  
 D. CROSS SECTIONS HAVE ONLY BEEN PROVIDED FOR A PORTION
 OF THE NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE BUFFER. WHAT DOES THE
 REMAINDER LOOK LIKE? ADDITIONALLY, ELEVATING THE
 SIDEWALK, BUILDING A BERM, ETC. ?WALLS-OFF? THE PROJECT
 FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND IN CONNECTION WITH EXPOSED
 PARKING GARAGES, DOES NOT POSITIVELY ADDRESS THE STREET
 AND SURROUNDING AREA.
  
 E. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES INDICATE THAT 30% OF THE
 DENSITY/INTENSITY CAN BE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN PBAS; DOES
 THIS MEAN THAT MASSING, ETC. CAN BE TRANSFERRED AS WELL
 (I.E. SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT)? THIS LEAVE A
 SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THAT MAKES IT HARD TO
 DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL.
  
 F. BUILDINGS CAN BE PLACED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE PBA.
  
 STAFF WOULD REQUEST THAT A FOLLOW-UP MEETING BE HELD TO
 DISCUSS THESE ISSUES IN FURTHER DETAIL AND DETERMINE
 THE BEST SOLUTION. AS PROPOSED, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE
 TOO VAGUE AND THE IMPACT OF THE POTENTIAL BUILD-OUT
 CANNOT BE DETERMINED. AT THIS MEETING, MORE SPECIFIC
 COMMENTS CAN BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 2. A NEW TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY APPROVAL SHALL BE PROVIDED
 FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY.
  
 3. PROJECT FACT SHEET SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED.
  
 4. JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
  
 A. ON PAGE 2 IT INDICATES THAT RYBOVICH HAD PREVIOUSLY
 PROPOSED 488 UNITS?ONLY 448 UNITS WERE APPROVED.
  
 B. ON PAGE 4, UNDER THE ?FLU AMENDMENT? SECTION, IT
 INDICATES THAT THE TRG PROPERTY IS BEING CHANGED FROM
 MULTIFAMILY TO COMMERCIAL. OTHER DOCUMENTATION
 INDICATES THAT IT IS BEING CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL EAST
 (CE). PLEASE CLARIFY AND ENSURE ALL DOCUMENTATION,
 STUDIES, PLANS, ETC. ARE CONSISTENT.
  
 C. ON PAGE 4, IT INDICATES THAT NO OTHER COMMERCIAL
 USES ARE PROPOSED ON THE TRG PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED
 MASTER PLAN INDICATES THE BEACH CLUB IS PROPOSED.
 PLEASE CLARIFY AND ENSURE THAT ALL DOCUMENTATION AND
 PLANS ARE CONSISTENT. PLEASE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL DETAIL
 REGARDING THE BEACH CLUB?IS THIS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? IS
 IT RESTRICTED TO JUST RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT?
 WHAT DOES THE BEACH CLUB CONSIST OF?SPA?
  
 D. ON PAGE 8, NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED TO STANDARD #8
 OF THE REZONING REQUEST.
  
 E. ON PAGE 9, IT INDICATES THAT THE EXISTING LAND USE
 IS MULTIFAMILY 32?IT SHOULD ONLY READ MULTIFAMILY (MF).
  
 F. ON PAGE 9, IT INDICATES THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE
 AS COMMERCIAL. OTHER DOCUMENTATION INDICATES THAT
 COMMERCIAL EAST IS PROPOSED. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ENSURE
 ALL DOCUMENTATION, STUDIES, AND PLANS ARE CONSISTENT.
  
 G. ON PAGE 9, IT INDICATES THAT A MAXIMUM BUILDING
 HEIGHT OF 405 FEET IS PROPOSED. THIS IS NOT OUTLINED
 ANYWHERE ON THE MASTER PLAN OR WITHIN THE DESIGN
 GUIDELINES.
  
 H. ON PAGE 12, IT INDICATES THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS PROPOSED TO BE 21 FEET; HOWEVER,
 THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ONLY INDICATE 15 FEET ALONG THE
 NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. ADDITIONALLY, THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATES THAT A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER
 WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG NORTH FLAGLER; THE DESIGN
 GUIDELINES INDICATES ONLY 15 FEET IS REQUIRED. PLEASE
 ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION IS CONSISTENT.
  
 I. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PARKING WAIVER THAT IS DISCUSSED
 ON PAGES 13-14. WHAT WAIVER IS BEING REQUESTED?
  
 J. THE SECTION PERTAINING TO DOCKS ON PAGE 14 IS
 MISLEADING. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SHOULD DESCRIBE
 (IN ALL PART OF THE STATEMENT), WHAT IS ULTIMATELY
 PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON THE SITE. EXPLAINING WHAT
 EXISTS AND WHAT WILL BE ADDED CAN BE ADDITIONAL
 INFORMATION.
 K. ON PAGE 14 IT INDICATES THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT
 STUDY INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE
 CITY?S STANDARDS?THIS STUDY HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 L. NO DESCRIPTION REGARDING THE NEED FOR A DENSITY
 WAIVER? PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL WAIVERS ARE DESCRIBED
 AND JUSTIFIED. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A TABLE BE
 GENERATED INDICATING ALL REQUESTED WAIVERS.
  
 M. ON PAGE 17, IT INDICATES THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL
 BUILDINGS WILL BE SET BACK 90 FEET FROM NORTH FLAGLER
 DRIVE (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PBA #3). THIS IS NOT
 OUTLINED ANYWHERE IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 5. AFFIDAVIT FROM PAGE 19 OF THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 6. UTILITY LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE CITY?S
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
  
 7. APPROVED SCHOOL CONCURRENCY APPLICATION SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 8. FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, A LEVEL OF
 SERVICE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL SERVICES,
 NOT JUST TRAFFIC. THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SHALL
 COMPARE THE ?WORST-CASE? SCENARIO UNDER THE EXISTING
 FLU AND COMPARE IT TO THE ?WORST-CASE? SCENARIO UNDER
 THE PROPOSED FLU. THE ANALYSIS SHALL LOOK AT THE
 FOLLOWING:
  
 A. DRAINAGE
 B. POTABLE WATER
 C. WASTE WATER (SEWER)
 D. SOLID WASTE
 E. SCHOOLS
 F. PARKS
 G. TRAFFIC
  
 9. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UTILIZED FOR THE TRAFFIC
 EQUIVALENCY STATEMENT PREPARED BY KIMBLEY-HORN (DATED
 AUGUST 21, 2013) IS INCORRECT. THE LETTER INDICATES
 THAT ONLY 660 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE PROPOSED. FOR THE
 PURPOSES OF TRAFFIC EQUIVALENCY, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO
 COMPARE THE APPROVALS OF TRG AND RYBOVICH
 (COLLECTIVELY) VS. THE PROPOSED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
 (I.E. 1059 DWELLING UNITS, ETC.)
  
 10. PLEASE CLARIFY THE PROPOSED 40 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK
 FROM FLAGLER DRIVE. IS THIS THE SETBACK REQUIRED PER
 SECTION 94-305(D), AS MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF
 THE ROAD?
  
 11. MORE DETAIL NEEDS TO BE ADDED INTO THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 A. MAXIMUM # OF SLIPS THAT WILL BE PERMITTED INTO THE
 CMPD.
  
 B. MASTER PLAN SHOULD SHOW THE ENTIRE IN-WATER MARINA
 LAYOUT, SHOWING LOCATIONS OF DOCK, NUMBER OF SLIPS,
 ETC., AS DONE IN THE RYBOVICH MASTER PLAN, OR AT LEAST
 SHOW THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE MARINA BOUNDARIES.
  
 C. WHAT IS THE YELLOW LINE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY
 LINE?
  
 D. PLEASE TRY TO SIMPLIFY THE MASTER PLAN BY MAKING IT
 JUST A LINE DRAWING?REMOVING THE LANDSCAPING, ETC.
 ALSO, IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHERE THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS
 PROPOSED. IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE MASTER
 PLAN DOES NOT MATCH WHAT HAS BEEN CONCEPTUALLY SHOWN ON
 THE PAVING, GRADING, AND DRAINAGE PLAN.
  
 E. DOES THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SIZE INCLUDE THE PARKING
 GARAGES?
  
 12. CROSS SECTIONS SHOW THAT 20 FEET WORTH OF
 IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY?AND
 THEN A 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THERE
 SPACE FOR ALL OF THIS? HOW TO ALL OF THE CROSS SECTIONS
 RELATE TO THE MASTER PLAN? CROSS SECTIONS ARE NOT
 PROVIDED FOR ALL AREAS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ARE THE
 CROSS SECTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REGULATIONS?
  
 13. CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MASTER PLAN
  
 A. EXISTING ZONING SHOULD BE LABELED AS RPD AND CMPD.
  
 B. PROPOSED ZONING SHOULD ONLY BE CMPD?NO MF32 WILL
 EXIST.
  
 C. EXISTING LAND USE (FUTURE LAND USE) SHOULD BE MF AND
 C.
  
 D. PROPOSED LAND USE (FUTURE LAND USE) SHOULD BE C AND
 CE.
  
 E. IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND TABLE, IT INDICATES THAT OPEN
 SPACE IS A (BUILDING FOOTPRINT) +B (ON-GRADE PERVIOUS);
 OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT BUILDING.
  
 14. PBA #4 IS SHOWN ON LAND THAT IS CURRENTLY
 SUBMERGED?IS THIS PROPOSED TO BE FILLED IN? IS LAND ON
 WHAT IS NOW TRG PROPOSED TO BE FILLED?
  
 15. TRAFFIC STUDY SHALL BE PROVIDED SHOWING THE IMPACT
 OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (AT FULL BUILD-OUT) ON THE
 SURROUNDING ROAD NETWORK. STUDY SHALL INCLUDE EXISTING
 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, APPROVED AND UN-BUILT FUTURE
 DEVELOPMENTS, AS WELL AS BUILD-OUT OF OTHER PROPERTIES
 IN THE CORRIDOR.
  
 16. ALEX HANSEN, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, IS
 FURTHER REVIEWING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE
 FLU AMENDMENT. SOME INITIAL CONCERNS WERE:
  
 A. USE OF THE GREATER TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING
 MODEL. THE PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
 CURRENTLY SPECIFIES USE OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
 ORGANIZATION (MPO) MODEL. MR. HANSEN IS AWAITING
 RESPONSES FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY TO FURTHER ADDRESS
 THIS COMMENT.
  
 B. THE LONG RANGE CUMULATIVE IMPACT DID NOT APPEAR TO
 ACCOUNT FOR ADOPTED FLU AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
 APPROVED SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING MODEL.
 PER PALM BEACH COUNTY?S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE
 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR AMENDMENTS THAT
 HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE MODEL WAS ESTABLISHED. AGAIN,
 MR. HANSEN IS AWAITING INFORMATION FROM PALM BEACH
 COUNTY TO FURTHER ADDRESS THIS COMMENT.
  
 17. THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE TRG
 PROPERTY IS 5.11 ACRES, WHILE THE MASTER PLAN INDICATES
 THAT IT IS 5.09 ACRES. ALL DOCUMENTATION, ETC. NEEDS TO
 BE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 18. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PLANS, DESIGN GUIDELINES,
 ETC. SHALL BE PROVIDED.
 ___________________________________________
  
 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 NEXT PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20,
 2013, TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE OCTOBER 16, 2013,
 PLANNING BOARD HEARING.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE OCTOBER 16, 2013, PLANNING BOARD
 AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
 THAN OCTOBER 1, 2013. 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 ROACH, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION
 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147
 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
  
 PHONE: 561.822.1448
 FAX: 561.822.1460
  
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
 WWW.WPB.ORG
  
  Print


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved