Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z14110031
Project Number Z14110031
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2014-12-11 10:58:27PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ___________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: DECEMBER 10, 2014
 PROJECT NO.: Z14110031 AND Z14110032
 CASE NO.: PB CASE NO. 1624E AND F
 ADDRESS: 3100-3200 CONGRESS AVENUE
 APPLICANT/CONTACT: JONI BRINKMAN, URBAN DESIGN KILDAY
 STUDIOS
 TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100
 SCOPE OF REVIEW: MAJOR PD AMENDMENT (HOTEL) AND MAJOR
 SUBDIVISION
 ___________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. AS A FOLLOW UP TO YOUR EMAIL, FEES WILL NEED TO BE
 PROVIDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS. IN THE
 END, I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE 3 TOTAL SUBDIVISION
 APPLICATIONS (1 FOR OVERALL PLAT + 1 FOR POD L1 + 1 FOR
 POD L2).
  
 2. WHAT HAS OCCURRED TO DATE, AND WHAT IS PLANNED,
 REGARDING OUTREACH TO THE SURROUNDING ASSOCIATIONS?
 PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING, THE PROPOSED PLAN SHALL BE
 PRESENTED TO THE SURROUNDING ASSOCIATIONS FOR COMMENT,
 QUESTIONS, ETC.
  
 3. A REVISED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY.
  
 4. PLEASE PROVIDE UPDATED LETTERS FROM ALL OF THE
 UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
  
 5. PLEASE PROVIDE A SIGNED/NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
 REGARDING THE MAILING LIST (SEE PAGE 20 OF THE
 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION).
  
 6. PLEASE PROVIDE A STRIKETHROUGH AND UNDERLINED
 VERSION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO INDICATE THOSE
 AREAS WHERE MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED.
  
 7. THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEARER DEFINITION IN THE PLANS
 BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PODS/PBAS. FOR CODE COMPLIANCE,
 ETC. A SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD BE PREPARED
 FOR EACH PBA, WITH EACH PBA MEETING THE MINIMUM CODE
 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS AND/OR THE DESIGN
 GUIDELINES. IF IT IS PREFERRED THAT EACH PBA NOT STAND
 ALONE AND MEET THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS, THEN AN
 OVERALL SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN WOULD HAVE TO BE
 PREPARED WHICH SHOWS COMPLIANCE ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE.
  
 8. SITE PLANS FOR EACH POD/PBA SHALL PROVIDE A SITE
 DATA TABLE INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY?S ZLDRS
 AND THE PD DESIGN GUIDELINES. FOR EXAMPLE, MAXIMUM FAR
 IS SHOWN, BUT IT IS NOT IDENTIFIED AS WHAT IS PROVIDED.
 WITHIN THE CPD, FAR SHALL INCLUDE ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL
 AND RESIDENTIAL USE SQUARE FOOTAGES.
  
 9. ARE THE SIGNS LABELED AT THE ENTRANCES TO EACH
 SINGLE FAMILY POD THE ENTRANCE SIGNS IDENTIFIED IN THE
 DETAIL ON SHEET SP-4? IF SO, PLEASE INDICATE SUCH ON
 THE SITE PLAN.
  
 10. THERE ARE A LOT OF AREAS WHERE PLANS WERE NOT
 PROVIDED FOR. EXAMPLES INCLUDE LANDSCAPING FOR THE
 TENNIS CENTER, THE PARKING IN POD C2, PERIMETER
 BUFFERS, ETC.
  
 11. THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE HOTEL SITE OVERLAP WHAT
 HAS BEEN DRAWN FOR THE ECO-VILLAS, AND THEY DON?T
 MATCH.
  
 12. THE POD LINES ON THE MASTER PLAN DO NOT APPEAR TO
 MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLANS. ENSURE THAT ALL
 PLANS ARE CONSISTENT.
  
 13. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CLARITY IN THE SITE PLANS.
 THERE ARE LINE TYPES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED,
 UNREADABLE, ETC. PROPERTY LINES AND PHYSICAL
 IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MOST PROMINENT (BUILDINGS,
 SIDEWALKS, PATHS, ROADWAYS, PARKING, ETC.). UTILITIES,
 EASEMENTS, PBA BOUNDARIES, ETC. SHOULD BE LESS
 PROMINENT.
  
 14. WHAT IS THE DASHED LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE
 DRIVING RANGE, CLUBHOUSE, PARKING LOT, AND TENNIS
 COURTS?
  
 15. THE 12 FOOT FPL EASEMENT CROSSING POD D, POD C1,
 POD R, AND POD C2 IS NOT SHOWN ON THE SITE/LANDSCAPE
 PLAN.
  
 16. THE PHASE 2 PARKING STRUCTURE IS SHOWN OVER A
 UTILITY EASEMENT.
  
 17. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR POD R, L1, AND L2 IS
 MISLABELED AS ?RESORT AND MULTIFAMILY STREETSCAPE?.
 THIS PLAN DOES INCLUDE STREETSCAPE FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
 ADDITIONALLY, THIS STREETSCAPE PLAN IS
 INSUFFICIENT/INCOMPLETE.
  
 18. STAFF CONTINUES TO HAVE ISSUES WITH THE DESIGN OF
 THE AREA AND PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC ADJACENT TO LOT 1 OF
 POD L2, AND THE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY.
  
 19. THE CLUBHOUSE IS SHOWN ON TOP OF AN FPL EASEMENT.
  
 20. SIDEWALKS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL
 STREETS. EXCEPTIONS MAY BE MADE FOR THE STREETS IN
 FRONT OF THE HOMES IN POD L2 (LOTS 19-30) AND POD L1.
 THE SIDEWALKS IN THESE AREAS NEED TO BE WITHIN THE
 DEDICATED STREET.
  
 21. CROSSWALKS SHALL BE PROVIDED ACROSS POD R TO
 CONNECT POD L2 TO POD L1.
  
 22. THE PLANS SHALL INDICATE PAVEMENT MARKINGS,
 SIGNAGE, DIMENSIONS OF ROADWAYS/DRIVEWAYS, ETC.
  
 23. I DON?T BELIEVE THE ECO-VILLAS (PBA #5) SHOULD BE
 SUBJECT TO THE ZERO-LOT LINE PROVISIONS PROVIDED WITHIN
 THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. PBA #5 HAS BEEN LISTED IN THE
 ZERO-LOT LINE REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS THE MULTIFAMILY
 REGULATIONS.
  
 24. 180 FEET SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN POD L3 AND
 THE WESTERN-MOST PLATTED LOT LINE OF THE EXISTING
 SINGLE FAMILY ON EMBASSY DRIVE. ADDITIONALLY, THE 230
 FEET OF SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS SHOULD BE
 MAINTAINED.
  
 25. A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED ON
 THE EAST SIDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY ACCESS DRIVE. THE
 INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT SHOULD BE RELOCATED TO
 ACCOMMODATE THIS LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND THE EASEMENT
 WILL NEED TO BE WIDENED TO MATCH THE WIDTH OF THE
 ACCESS DRIVE.
  
 26. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION FOR
 PODS L1 AND L2. DO THE LOTS FRONT ONTO A DEDICATED
 STREET? NO STREET NAMES AND NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN
 SHOWN ON THE PLATS. ADDITIONALLY, THE STREETS IN FRONT
 OF THE HOMES SHALL NOT DEAD-END UNLESS AN OPEN SPACE
 WITH A RADIUS OF 50 FEET IS PROVIDED. THE STREETS IN
 FRONT OF THE HOMES ARE TO HAVE A DEDICATION THAT IS AT
 LEAST 40 FEET IN WIDTH.
  
 27. LOT 1 ON PLAT L2 IS NOT LABELED.
  
 28. PROVIDE DETAILS REGARDING THE SCREENING AND THE
 LANDSCAPING AROUND THE LIFT STATION.
  
 29. STREET LIGHTS ARE SHOWN WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE
 PHASE 2 PARKING GARAGE.
  
 30. STREET LIGHTS ARE SHOWN UNDER PARKING STRUCTURE 1.
  
 31. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD REFLECT THE SHARED PARKING
 CALCULATION PROVIDED BY PINDER TROUTMAN CONSULTING,
 INC.
  
 32. PURSUANT TO THE PARKING CALCULATION PROVIDED BY
 PINDER TROUTMAN CONSULTING, INC., 407 PARKING SPACES
 SHALL BE PROVIDED (NOT INCLUDING THE 51 RESORT
 COTTAGES). ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, ONLY 400 PARKING
 SPACES ARE PROVIDED (NOT INCLUDING THE PHASE 2
 STRUCTURE). THEREFORE, THE PHASE 2 STRUCTURE NEEDS TO
 BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OR
 ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED.
  
 33. DETAILS NEED TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING ALL PROPOSED
 FENCING AND WALLS, INCLUDING THAT AT THE TENNIS COURTS.
  
 34. ALL POOLS ARE TO BE ENCLOSED BY A FENCE OR SIMILAR
 STRUCTURE THAT IS AT LEAST FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT.
 PLANS ARE UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROVISION
 IS BEING MET.
  
 35. ARE CARTS GOING TO BE UTILIZING SIDEWALKS? THERE
 ARE SEVERAL LOCATIONS WHERE THE SIDEWALKS ARE AT
 SIGNIFICANT ANGLES THAT PROBABLY COULD NOT BE
 MANEUVERED BY A GOLF CART. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE MADE
 REGARDING USAGE OF THE PATHS AND SIDEWALKS.
  
 36. BIKE RACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH FACILITY.
 PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL (CONTACT ME FOR ACCEPTABLE
 DESIGNS). PARKING FOR BIKES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A
 RATIO OF 1 SPACE PER 20 AUTOMOBILE SPACES.
  
 37. THE PARKING SPACES BY THE CLUBHOUSE NEED TO PROVIDE
 24 FEET OF BACK-OUT.
  
 38. THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AT THE NORTH END OF
 PARKING STRUCTURE 1 NEEDS TO PROVIDE 24 FEET OF
 BACK-OUT.
  
 39. PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURES.
 THE PARKING CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DOES
 NOT ACCOUNT FOR ANY RAMPS, ETC. ADDITIONALLY, THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES PROVIDE THAT THE UPPER LEVEL OF
 PARKING WILL BE COVERED AND LANDSCAPED OR OTHERWISE
 ENHANCED.
  
 40. THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE HOTEL SHOWS AN ADDITIONAL
 RESTAURANT OF ALMOST 4,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS WAS NOT
 ACCOUNTED FOR IN ANY OF THE CALCULATIONS.
  
 41. THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE RESTAURANT INDICATES THAT
 THERE IS MORE THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET. PLEASE NOTE THAT
 OUTDOOR DINING/BAR AREA SHALL COUNT TOWARDS ALL
 CALCULATIONS (PARKING, TRAFFIC, ETC.).
  
 42. THE PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES HAVE PBA #5
 (ECO-VILLAS) WITH A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.
 I THINK THIS SHOULD BE REDUCED TO REFLECT WHAT IS
 PROPOSED.
  
 43. THE PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES HAVE PBA #4 (HOTEL)
 AS BEING A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 3 STORIES.
 ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THE HOTEL IS
 PROPOSED TO BE 4 STORES.
  
 44. PLEASE PROVIDE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS OF ALL
 BUILDINGS, AS DEFINED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS.
  
 45. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN FOR THE ECO-VILLAS DO NOT
 MATCH THE FLOOR PLAN.
  
 46. BUILDING MATERIALS NEED TO BE SPECIFIED TO ENSURE
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 47. THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL IDENTIFY THE
 LOCATION OF ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR ALL BUILDINGS,
 AS WELL AS PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SCREENING.
  
 48. A SCREEN WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED AROUND THE
 PERIMETER OF THE SERVICE/LOADING AREA, AND SHALL BE
 DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 49. NO LIGHTING IS BEING PROVIDED ON THE TENNIS COURTS?
 IF SO, THIS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PHOTOMETRIC
 PLANS. LIGHTING LEVELS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL POINTS
 ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE RPD/CPD.
  
 50. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT ALL LIGHTS ARE FULL CUT-OFF.
  
 51. THERE NEEDS TO BE A 5 FOOT SIDEWALK CONNECTING THE
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY ACCESS POINT TO THE INTERNAL
 CIRCULATION NETWORK.
  
 52. THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE
 TENNIS CENTER AND THE REST OF THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION
 NETWORK.
  
 53. THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE
 CLUBHOUSE AND THE HOTEL.
  
 54. ALONG THE MAIN ROADS, THE SIDEWALK SHOULD BE PULLED
 AWAY FROM THE CURB AND CREATE A PARKWAY THAT PROVIDES
 THE LIGHTING, TREES, ETC.
  
 55. AN ENLARGED SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE
 GREAT LAWN AREA. THIS WAS ONLY SHOWN ON THE OVERALL
 SITE PLAN.
  
 56. IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE
 ECO-VILLAS SHOWS TREES BEING PLANTED ON TOP OF CART
 PATHS/SIDEWALKS.
  
 57. THERE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE MASTER
 PLAN CUTTING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOT SHOWN
 ON THE PLATS OR SITE PLANS.
 ___________________________________________
  
 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 JANUARY 21, 2015
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19,
 2014.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE JANUARY 21, 2015 PLANNING BOARD
 AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
 THAN JANUARY 6, 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 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