Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z15120017
Project Number Z15120017
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2016-01-13 12:30:23PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ___________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 01.13.2016
 PROJECT NO.: Z15120015, Z15120016 & Z15120017
 CASE NO.: PB 1693, 1693A & 1693B
 ADDRESS: 3111 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
 APPLICANT/CONTACT: CHRISTOPHER BARRY, AICP CUD
 TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100
 SCOPE OF REVIEW: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF
 300 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 14,400 SQUARE FEET OF
 RETAIL; AND 4,400 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT.
 ___________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE
 FOLLOWING REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT:
  
  A. A LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION LETTER SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
  
  B. A LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
 PUBLIC PARKS.
  
  C. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE
 VARIOUS SERVICE AGENCIES INDICATING THAT SUFFICIENT
 CAPACITY EXISTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASE IN DEMAND
 RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN DEMAND GENERATED BY THE
 BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATION.
  
 2. SURVEYS AND SEPARATE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WILL NEED TO
 BE PROVIDED FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:
  
  A. THE 6.02 ACRES BEING CHANGED FROM COMMERCIAL (C) TO
 COMMERCIAL EAST (CE);
  
  B. THE 0.99 ACRES BEING CHANGED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
 COMMERCIAL (NC) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC); AND
  
  C. THE 8.33 ACRES BEING CHANGED FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL
 (OC) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC).
  
 3. TABLE 3 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIES BOTH SCENARIOS AS ?PROPOSED
 FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT?. THE FIRST SCENARIO SHOULD
 BE ?EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT?.
  
 4. THE LETTER FROM COMCAST INDICATES AN AERIAL VIEW
 THAT WAS ATTACHED; PLEASE PROVIDE SUCH.
  
 5. PAGES 26 AND 31 OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 INDICATES THAT 18,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE IS
 BEING PROVIDED; THE PLANS INDICATES 18,800 SQUARE FEET
 OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT. PLEASE ENSURE ALL DOCUMENTS
 MATCH.
  
 6. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ACREAGE DISCREPANCY CHART
 PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT C OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
  
 7. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY APPROVAL SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM
 PALM BEACH COUNTY.
  
 8. PLEASE PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION INDICATING
 THAT TWO (2) OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONALS
 WERE UTILIZED:
  
  A. URBAN PLANNER (AICP)
  
  B. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (ASLA)
  
  C. CIVIL ENGINEER (LICENSED BY STATE OF FLORIDA)
  
  D. ARCHITECT (LICENSED BY STATE OF FLORIDA)
  
 9. WAS A MARKET STUDY DONE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT?
  
 10. VERIFY THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY WITH THE
 VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FDOT. IT SEEM THAT SOME
 OF THE ON-STREET PARKING AT THE SOUTH END OF THE
 PROJECT WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY CONCERNS.
  
 11. SHOULD THE END SPOTS OF THE ON-STREET PARKING JUST
 NORTH OF HAMPTON ROAD HAVE ANGLED CURBING?
  
 12. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM PALM TRAN
 INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION WITH THE
 PROPOSED LOCATION/DESIGN OF THE BUS STOP (FUTURE
 SHELTER).
  
 13. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE FDOT
 INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED
 DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION, SEPARATION OF ACCESS POINTS,
 ON-STREET PARKING, ETC.
  
 14. TO PROVIDE BETTER CLARITY WITH REGARD TO THE
 ARCHITECTURE, PLEASE PROVIDE THE COLOR ELEVATIONS AND
 RENDERINGS.
  
 15. PLEASE PROVIDE THE PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS FOR ALL PARTS
 OF THE PROPERTY AT THE PROPERTY LINE. PURSUANT TO SEC.
 94-207(D)(8), ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES AT THE OR BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF THE
 DEVELOPMENT.
  
 16. IT IS ENCOURAGED THAT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BE
 DEVELOPED SO AS TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE TENANTS COMPLY
 WITH THE VISION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE TYPE OF
 PROJECT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IF NO LIST OF PERMITTED
 USES IS PROVIDED, THE CPD WILL REVERT TO THE PERMITTED
 USE TABLE FOR THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING
 DISTRICT.
  
 17. ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED
 ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL TOWER TO ACCOUNT FOR
 VISITORS.
  
 18. LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL
 UTILITY CONNECTION, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, METERS, ETC.
 IT APPEARS THAT MANY OF THESE COMPONENTS ARE PLACED IN
 THE MIDDLE OF (CONCRETE?) OPEN PLAZAS.
  
 19. PLANS NEED TO PROVIDE BETTER DEFINITION BETWEEN THE
 VARIOUS HARDSCAPE MATERIALS. IS THE ENTIRE ?COURTYARD
 PLAZA AREA? CONCRETE?
  
 20. THERE IS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE SETBACK
 MEASUREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. FOR EXAMPLE,
 SOME ARE MEASURED FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY TO THE EDGE OF THE
 BALCONY LINE, OTHERS ARE MEASURED TO THE CORER OF THE
 TOWER. PLEASE BE CONSISTENT.
  
 21. THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL
 SETBACK FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY IS 135.8 FEET; NEITHER OF
 THE DIMENSIONS ON THE SITE PLAN SHOW THAT DISTANCE.
  
 22. AS THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS
 ARE ALL CONSIDERED ONE (1) STRUCTURE (AS THEY ARE
 CONNECTED AND FULLY INTEGRATED), THE REQUIRED SETBACKS
 FOR EVERYTHING IS BASED UPON THE 170 FOOT HEIGHT OF THE
 TOWERS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE NORTH
 PROPERTY IS 81 FEET FOR BOTH THE TOWER AND THE PARKING
 GARAGE.
  
 23. IN THE SITE DATA TABLE, LIST THE REQUIRED REAR
 SETBACK AS FIVE (5) FEET, AND MOVE THE ** TO THE
 DIMENSION LISTED UNDER ?PROPOSED?.
  
 24. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AS TO HOW FENCING, ETC. WILL
 BE INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENITY DECK TO ADDRESS THE
 TENNIS COURTS, ENCLOSURE OF THE POOLS, ETC. ARE THE
 PLANS CORRECT IN THAT THEY SHOW AN 11 FOOT HIGH GLASS
 PANEL AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE AMENITY DECK?
  
 25. MORE DETAIL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE
 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THE FACADES OF THE BUILDING,
 ESPECIALLY THE PARKING GARAGE.
  
 26. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SETBACK DIMENSIONS FOR ALL OF
 THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES FROM THE DIXIE HIGHWAY
 PROPERTY LINE. THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT 5
 FEET IS BEING PROVIDED, BUT THE ONLY DIMENSION PROVIDED
 INDICATES THAT THERE IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK.
  
 27. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL MONUMENT
 SIGN WILL IMPEDE WITH THE VISIBILITY ONTO SOUTH DIXIE
 HIGHWAY.
  
 28. HAS ANY DOCUMENTATION BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FAA
 INDICATING THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED
 BUILDING HEIGHT?
  
 29. NEED TO ADDRESS THE SERVICE AREA AT THE SOUTHWEST
 CORNER OF THE PARKING GARAGE. WOULD LIKE TO MINIMIZE
 THIS AREA TO ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
 LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FA?ADE OF THE BUILDING, MINIMIZE
 THE IMPACT ON THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG HAMPTON
 ROAD, ETC.
  
 30. PLEASE NOTE THE ANGLE OF THE PARKING SPACES
 PROVIDED WEST OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
  
 31. THE ROW OF PARKING IN THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF
 THE COMMERCIAL PARKING AREA IS MISLABELED AS HAVING 10
 SPACES, WHEN ONLY 9 ARE PROVIDED.
  
 32. MORE AESTHETIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE
 MADE FOR THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, ETC.
  
 33. THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA SHOWN NEAR THE NORTH END
 OF THE PROPERTY (ALONG DIXIE HIGHWAY) NEEDS TO BE
 FACTORED INTO THE PARKING CALCULATION.
  
 34. PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF HOW COMMERCIAL
 DELIVERIES ARE ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR TO EACH OF THE
 RETAIL/RESTAURANT BUILDINGS. ONLY ONE LOADING SPACE IS
 PROVIDED AT THE FAR NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY, AND ANY
 DELIVERY TRUCK THAT PARKS IN THE DRIVE AISLE OF THE
 PARKING LOT WILL COMPLETELY BLOCK TRAFFIC FLOW.
  
 35. THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT 5 ACCESSIBLE
 SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, BUT
 THE PLANS INDICATE 6.
  
 36. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS AS TO HOW THE GATE SYSTEM IS
 PROPOSED TO WORK WITH THE PARKING GARAGE. ARE GUESTS
 PERMITTED IN THE GARAGE? HOW TO THEY GAIN ACCESS? IS
 THERE A CALL BOX? WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE IS DENIED
 ACCESS AT THE GATE?
  
 37. TURNAROUND SPACES WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED AT THE
 EASTERN END OF EACH ROW OF PARKING THAT OCCURS WITHIN
 THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER.
  
 38. PLEASE DIMENSION THE PARKING, DRIVE AISLES, ETC.
 FOR THE PARKING GARAGE (ALL LEVELS).
  
 39. THE PARKING COUNT FOR THE GARAGE DOES NOT SEEM TO
 MATCH THE NUMBER OF SPACES DRAWN; PLEASE CONFIRM.
  
 40. THERE ARE NUMEROUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHEETS FSP-1
 AND SP-1. PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS ARE CONSISTENT.
 SP-1 SHOWS A LOT MORE OUTDOOR DINING AREA, DIFFERENT
 CONFIGURATIONS FOR THE PLANTERS, ETC.
  
 41. THE NUMBER OF BICYCLE PARKING SPACES SHOULD BE
 DETERMINED BY THE OVERALL PARKING COUNT PROVIDED
 (COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL). THE SITE DATA TABLE ONLY
 ACCOUNTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARKING.
  
 42. BIKE RACKS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE
 PROJECT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY TO VISITORS,
 RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, ETC. AT EACH OF THE BUILDINGS.
  
 43. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS REGARDING THE GREENSCREEN
 THAT IS PROPOSED ALONG THE WEST FACADE OF THE PARKING
 GARAGE.
  
 44. HOW DOES A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THE RESIDENTIAL
 PORTION OF THE PROJECT FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY IF THE
 PEDESTRIAN GATES ARE CLOSED? PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THE
 REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE ROUTES THAT ARE NECESSARY
 THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, INCLUDING FROM THE PUBLIC
 RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUS STOP, ETC.
  
 BELOW ARE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY ALEX HANSEN, SENIOR
 TRANSPORTATION PLANNER:
  
 1. THE TRIP DISTRIBUTION OF 47% NORTH AND 53% SOUTH
 SEEMS TO BE COUNTER INTUITIVE. I DON'T SEE WHY MOST OF
 THE TRIPS WOULD BE GOING SOUTH CONSIDERING THAT BOTH
 DOWNTOWN AND I-95 (THROUGH BELVEDERE) ARE ACCESSIBLE TO
 THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT.
  
 2. THE ANALYSIS IS SHOWING THAT OVER 1,070 DAILY TRIPS
 ARE USING HAMPTON ROAD TO ENTER OR EXIT THE PROJECT.
 HAMPTON IS A SMALL ROAD WITH AN UNSIGNALIZED
 INTERSECTION WITH DIXIE WHICH ALSO HAS SOME VISIBILITY
 ISSUES DUE TO THE PLACEMENT OF A DENTAL OFFICE ON THE
 SOUTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION. I AM CONCERNED THAT
 THIS INTERSECTION (AND HAMPTON IN GENERAL) MAY BE
 OVERBURDENED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. INSTALLING A
 TRAFFIC LIGHT AT DIXIE AND HAMPTON IS NOT AN OPTION
 GIVEN THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING LIGHT AT ALBEMARLE AND
 DIXIE ABOUT 300 FEET TO THE NORTH OF HAMPTON.
  
 3. THE STUDY CLAIMS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR
 TRIPS FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BE LESS THAN 7.5% OF THE
 TOTAL DAILY TRIPS. THIS PERCENT OF PEAK HOUR TRIPS IS
 QUITE LOW FOR A PROJECT WHICH IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL
 IN NATURE.
  
 GENERAL CONCERNS OR AREAS IN NEED OF FURTHER
 DISCUSSION:
  
 1. INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PARKING AREAS
 (NORTH AND SOUTH). PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF SEC.
 94-313(2)(C).
  
 2. LINING OF THE TOWERS ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH AN
 ACTIVE USE THAT FRONTS ONTO THE PARK SPACE.
  
 3. DESIGN OF THE PARK SPACE SO THAT IT IS INTEGRATED
 WITH BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
 COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT.
  
 4. PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS.
  
 5. DESIGN OF THE PARK SPACE DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO
 INTEGRATION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE
 PROJECT (TALL FENCE AND HEDGE, ETC.). THERE ARE
 MULTIPLE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED
 REGARDING THIS INTERCONNECTIVITY AND HOW IT ALSO
 AFFECTS THE SAFETY AND POLICING OF THE SPACE.
  
 6. PLACEMENT OF FENCING.
  
 7. DESIGN OF THE PLAZA AREA BETWEEN AND AROUDN THE
 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
  
 8. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATION REGARDING FUTURE
 INSTALLATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
 ON THE TOP OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS? IF SO, I WOULD
 LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OF THESE
 ELEMENTS.
 ___________________________________________
  
 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 FEBRUARY 17, 2016
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 17, 2016 PLANNING BOARD
 AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
 THAN FEBRUARY 2, 2016. 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]
  
 W: WPB.ORG
  
  Print


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