Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z14090017
Project Number Z14090017
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2014-10-08 08:42:13CASE NO. PB 1559G
 FIFTEEN 15 RPD
 1515 S. FLAGLER DRIVE
  
 - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446
  
 - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ELEVEN
 (11) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT
 OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
 TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
 COMMENTS.
  
 - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,
 OCTOBER 17, 2014, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NOVEMBER 18,
 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
 RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
 FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY DECEMBER 8,
 2014), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY
 FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION.
  
 - 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 ($600).
  
 - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS (ZLDR).
  
 1) IS THE NAME OF THE FIFTEEN 15 OR 15 FIFTEEN? BOTH
 ARE USED.
  
 2) THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF 69.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
 IS INCONSISTENT WITH MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITY IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-207(A)(1)B OF THE ZLDR.
  
 3) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INCORRECTLY STATES THAT
 THE CURRENTLY APPROVED RPD INCLUDES 87 DWELLING UNITS.
 THERE ARE ONLY 84 DWELLING UNITS APPROVED. THE THREE
 GUEST UNITS MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS DWELLING UNITS AS
 THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM HAVING KITCHEN FACILITIES, AND
 THEREFORE ARE NOT DWELLING UNITS. ALL CALCULATIONS
 BASED ON 87 UNITS SHALL BE CORRECTED.
  
 4) THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INCORRECTLY STATES THAT
 THE ZLDR HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO NO LONGER REQUIRE A
 MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR RPDS.
  
 5) ANY EASEMENTS CONFLICTING WITH THE PROPOSED BUILDING
 WILL NEED TO BE ABANDONED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
  
 6) THE BASE CIVIL, ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS DO
 NOT ALL MATCH. EX. THE STAIRWELL NEXT TO THE BIKE
 STORAGE ROOM.
  
 7) PROVIDE DIMENSION LINES TO THE BALCONIES.
  
 8) THE APPLICATION IS REQUESTING A PARKING WAIVER. THE
 JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED FOR THE PARKING WAIVER IS
 INSUFFICIENT FOR THE CITY'S PLANNING DIVISION TO
 CONSIDER SUPPORTING A WAIVER. THE RESPONSE TO CRITERIA
 2 IMPLIES THAT THE PROVISION OF FEWER PARKING SPACES
 THAN ARE REQUIRED MAKES THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORM TO
 THE CONCEPTS OF NEW URBANISM, WHICH IS AN INACCURATE
 SUPPOSITION. THE RESPONSE TO CRITERIA 3 DOES NOT
 PROVIDE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR STUDIES, BUT RATHER STATES
 IN PARKING WAIVERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT PRESENTING
 WHERE AND FOR WHAT TYPE OF PROJECT THE WAIVERS WERE
 GRANTED. WHILE CRITERIA 4 AND 5 WERE NOT USED, THE
 APPLICATION INCORRECTLY STATES THAT THERE IS PARKING
 THAT COULD COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA.
  
 9) THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ESTIMATES THAT 8 FULL
 TIME WORKERS WILL BE NEEDED TO OPERATE THE RENTAL
 APARTMENT BUILDING. A PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED
 FOR EACH OF THESE WORKERS IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING
 REQUIRED FOR THE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS.
  
 10) THE REQUIRED PARKING TABLE SHALL BE BROKEN DOWN TO
 SHOW ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, GUEST, HC, ETC.
 REQUIREMENTS.
  
 11) THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ADA SPACES
 FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED.
  
 12) THE SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE PARKING NUMBER TAGS FOR
 EACH ROW OF PARKING AND DIMENSION LINES FOR EACH
 PARKING ROW (DEPTH AND LENGTH) AND DRIVE AISLE.
  
 13) THERE ARE EIGHT PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NOT USABLE
 DUE TO THE COLUMN PLACEMENT, TO INCLUDE ONE ADA SPACE.
  
 14) THE PARKING TABLE STATES THERE ARE FOUR COMPACT
 SPACES IN THE GARAGE. THESE SHALL BE CLEARLY DESIGNATED
 ON THE PLANS.
  
 15) PROVIDE A TURNING RADIUS DIAGRAM FOR THE RAMP TO
 THE SOUTH OLIVE ACCESS POINT AND ON EACH FLOOR. SOME OF
 THE PARKING SPACES LOOK LIKE THEY WILL NOT FUNCTION DUE
 TO PROXIMITY TO THE TURN.
  
 16) PROVIDE THE WIDTHS OF ALL OF THE DRIVE AISLES AND
 SITE INGRESS/EGRESS POINTS ON THE PLANS.
  
 17) WHEEL STOPS ARE REQUIRED AT THE HEAD OF ALL THE
 PARKING SPACES WHICH ABOUT THE BUILDING OR GARAGE
 WALLS, COLUMNS, ETC.
  
 18) USING A DIAGRAM, PLEASE SHOW HOW THE DROP OFF WILL
 WORK IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING GIVEN THE GEOMETRY OF THE
 AREA. ADDITIONALLY, HOW WILL FIRST TIME USERS BE
 STOPPED FROM DRIVING TOO FAR FORWARD AND THEN HAVING TO
 BACK DOWN THE ENTRY DRIVE TO PULL INTO THE MOTOR COURT?
  
 19) PLEASE CLEARLY DELINEATE THE PATH FROM THE ADA
 PARKING SPACE IN THE MOTOR COURT TO THE FRONT DOOR OF
 THE BUILDING.
  
 20) BICYCLE PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
 PROVIDE THE BICYCLE PARKING TABLE. SHOW THE BICYCLE
 PARKING LOCATIONS ON THE PLAN AND INCLUDE A BICYCLE
 PARKING DETAIL WHICH INCLUDES THE PAD AND THE TYPE OF
 RACK USED.
  
 21) IS IT CORRECT THAT RESIDENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR
 NEED TO WALK THROUGH THE ELEVATOR TO GET TO THEIR UNITS
 IF PARKED ON THE SECOND LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE?
 PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT TIMING WORKS.
  
 22) THE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ACCESS FROM THE TOP LEVEL OF
 THE GARAGE TO THE ELEVATORS.
  
 23) THE PLANS ARE DIFFICULT TO READ. THE HEDGE AND
 GROUND COVER LAYERS SHALL BE TURNED OFF ON THE SITE AND
 CIVIL PLANS AS BLACK OUT MANY OF THE FEATURES SUCH AS
 TREE AND UTILITY LOCATIONS.
  
 24) A SIDEWALK EASEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE
 PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG ARKONA CT. ON THE SITE.
  
 25) PLEASE CLEARLY DELINEATE THE ADA PATH FROM THE
 ARKONA COURT SIDEWALK TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE
 BUILDING.
  
 26) HOW DO RESIDENTS ACCESS FLAGLER DRIVE FROM THE BIKE
 STORAGE AREA WITH THEIR BICYCLES OR FROM THE FITNESS
 AREA IN THEIR WORKOUT ATTIRE? THERE IS NO DIRECT
 WALKWAY ACCESS FROM THESE AREAS TO FLAGLER DRIVE. THE
 EXIT DOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BIKE STORAGE AREA
 OPENS INTO A PLANTING BED. A LACK OF RESIDENT
 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALL OF THE SURROUNDING STREETS DOES
 NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT THIS PROJECT FOLLOWS NEW
 URBAN CONCEPTS.
  
 27) PLEASE CONSIDER A WALKWAY FROM THE DOORWAYS ALONG
 THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO FLAGLER DRIVE. A LACK
 OF RESIDENT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALL OF THE SURROUNDING
 STREETS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT THIS
 PROJECT FOLLOWS NEW URBAN CONCEPTS.
  
 28) PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR THE WALKWAYS SHOWN ON THE
 SITE PLAN.
  
 29) THE UPPER PARKING DECK SITE PLAN SHALL SHOW THE
 LIGHT POLE LOCATIONS.
  
 30) PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES.
 WHY DO THESE NEED TO BE SO TALL? THEY BADLY DETRACT
 FROM THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING.
  
 31) PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY
 REQUIREMENTS.
  
 32) HOW ARE THE TRASH RECEPTACLES PICKED UP?
  
 33) IS TRASH AREA COVERED?
  
 34) FENCE, WALL AND GATE DETAILS, TO INCLUDE HEIGHT.
 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WALLS LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACK
 ALONG ARKONA CT., FLAGLER DRIVE AND S. OLIVE AVENUE MAY
 NOT EXCEED SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT. A SIX (6) FOOT HIGH
 WALL ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGES DOES NOT FOLLOW NEW
 URBAN CONCEPTS.
  
 35) THE WALL ALONG VIKING ARMS IS LISTED AT SIX (6)
 FEET TALL, BUT EYEBALLS AT HIGHER THAN THIS ON SHEET
 C2.00. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE MEASURE IS FROM THE
 OUTSIDE GRADE.
  
 36) WHY IS THERE A GATE ALONG SOUTH OLIVE AVENUE AT THE
 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE, WHEN THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS
 15 FEET AWAY HAS NO GATE?
  
 37) THE SITE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY TABLE TAKES CREDIT FOR
 BERMS TO ACT AS SCREENING. NO CROSS SECTIONS WERE
 PROVIDED TO SHOW HOW THE BERMS FUNCTION. FURTHERMORE,
 IF BERMS ARE USED, THE PROJECT IS NOT ADHERING TO NEW
 URBAN CONCEPTS.
  
 38) PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATA TO VERIFY THE POINTS
 CLAIMED IN THE SITE FLEXIBILITY TABLE ON THE PLANS.
  
 39) THE TRANSFORMER PADS AND THE BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
 AND METERS NEED TO BE SCREENED FROM ARKONA COURT.
  
 40) THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL SHOW THE UTILITY LINES,
 BACKFLOW PREVENTER, ETC., AND THERE SHALL BE NO
 CONFLICTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BACKFLOW PREVENTER AND
 THE METERS APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTING WITH TREES.
  
 41) THE OPEN SPACE TABLE FOR SHADE TREES SHALL NOT
 INCLUDE THE FLOWERING TREES AS THESE ARE SEPARATE
 ITEMS.
  
 42) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NOT ALL THE TREES PROVIDED IN
 THE BUFFERS ARE COUNTED TO MEET THE BUFFER TREE
 REQUIREMENTS. A COUNT BY STAFF INDICATES THAT THE
 BUFFER TREE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET WITHOUT THE NEED TO
 COUNT ANY PALMS, OR AT WORST LESS THAN 35% OF ANY
 BUFFER IS PLANTED WITH PALMS.
  
 43) THE OPEN SPACE SHRUB REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDED
 TABLE IS NEEDED.
  
 44) THE SHRUBS USED AS HEDGE MATERIAL NEED TO BE CALLED
 OUT AS INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM OF 24 INCHES IN HEIGHT,
 NOT BY CONTAINER SIZE.
  
 45) HOW IS THE LANDSCAPE IN THE ENTRY DRIVE AND THE
 MOTOR COURT PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT?
  
 46) PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
 MULTIFAMILY FOUNDATION PLANTING REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN
 SECTION 94-443(D)(2) OF THE ZLDR.
  
 47) THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTH OLIVE
 AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS INTERRUPTED BY MORE THAN THE
 PERMITTED 20% AND THEREFOR REQUIRES A WAIVER.
  
 48) PROVIDE HOW THE SITE MEETS THE MITIGATION
 REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS FROM THE PREVIOUSLY
 APPROVED TREE ALTERATION PERMITS AND MITIGATES ANY
 TREES NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED.
  
 49) PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE SIGNAGE.
  
 50) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMENTS FROM THE
 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON
 HOW THE CARS ON THE ROOF WILL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW
 FROM ABOVE.
  
  Print


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