Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19050019
Project Number Z19050019
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2019-09-24 15:52:02CASE NO. PB 950 OOOOO - 2ND RESUBMITTAL REVIEW
 HIBISCUS TOWER
 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE
  
 - 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 COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,
 SEPTEMBER 27, 2019, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR
 THE NOVEMBER 19, 2019 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT
 SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ASSESSED
 A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE IS 20% OF THE ORIGINAL
 APPLICATION FEE ($600).
  
 1) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE
 DIMENSION LINE SHOWING THE HEIGHT OF PODIUM ALONG
 HIBISCUS STREET.
  
 A. THE PLANS SHOW THE RAILING THAT WAS AT THE EDGE OF
 THE PODIUM HAS BEEN REMOVED. DOES THIS RESULT IN THE
 5TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS FACING HIBISCUS STREET NO
 LONGER HAVING A TERRACE? NO 5TH FLOOR PLAN WAS PROVIDED
 TO SHOW WHAT OCCURS UNDERNEATH THE BALCONIES. SINCE
 THIS AREA IS STILL THE TOP OF THE PODIUM, NO RAILING
 CAN BE PROVIDED TO CREATE TERRACES SINCE THIS WOULD
 EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PODIUM HEIGHT. IF A TERRACE IS
 DESIRED ON TOP OF THE PODIUM, THEN STAFF SUGGESTS
 LOWERING THE FLOOR HEIGHTS BY ENOUGH (BARRIER NEEDS TO
 BE 42 INCHES ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE PER ROBERT
 BROWN, BUILDING OFFICIAL) TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE
 TERRACE.
 B. THE COLUMNS THAT ARE SHOWN SUPPORTING THE UNDERSIDE
 OF THE BALCONIES EXTEND ABOVE THE 60 FOOT PODIUM
 MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THESE COLUMNS AT THE PODIUM LEVEL ARE
 NOT BALCONY ENCROACHMENTS (THE LOWEST LEVEL BALCONY
 SLAB MAY NOT HAVE COLUMNS UNDERNEATH IT), BUT RATHER
 PART OF THE TOWER; THEREFORE, THE TOWER DOES NOT MEET
 THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT TOWER SETBACK. NOTE: THE COLUMNS
 ARE PERMITTED ABOVE THE FIRST BALCONY SLAB.
  
  
 2) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REVISED
 ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS FOR THE SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE
 FRONTAGE AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 A. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE REQUIRED WINDOWS FOR THE
 TWO MAINTENANCE OFFICES. PLEASE LABEL THESE ON THE
 ELEVATIONS. THE REQUIRED DIRECT VIEW FOR THE RETAIL ON
 THE 2ND STORY NEEDS TO BE SHOWN WITH THIS SUBMITTAL AND
 NOT DELAYED UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT SO THAT AN
 ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF CODE COMPLIANCE CAN BE SHOWN
 AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
 B. THE ADDITION OF THE ADA RAMP TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO
 THE ROSEMARY AVENUE FACING MAINTENANCE ROOM INCLUDED
 THE EXPANSION OF THE TENANT STORAGE ROOM BY 50 SQUARE
 FEET (WALLS MOVED FROM ONE SIDE OF THE COLUMNS TO THE
 OTHER), YET THE STORAGE ROOM GSF CALCULATION DID NOT
 INCREASE. THE LEVEL 3 GROSS AREA DIAGRAM NEEDS TO BE
 UPDATED TO REFLECT THE EXPANDED STORAGE ROOM, THE ADA
 ACCESS RAMP AND THE REDUCTION OF THE MECHANICAL ROOM,
 WITH ALL TABLES UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 3) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PRIVATE OPEN
 SPACE AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 A. LEVEL 4 OPEN SPACE AREAS A & B ARE A ROOFTOP
 GARDENS, SO THEY DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
 ABUTMENT. REMOVE THAT LINE ITEM FROM THE TABLE.
 B. LEVEL 4 OPEN SPACE AREA C DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
 MINIMUM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED A
 TERRACE. THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING ABUTS AN ACCESS
 EASEMENT, NOT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
 AT THIS LOCATION CAN ONLY BE A ROOFTOP GARDEN. PLEASE
 UPDATE THE TABLE AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
 C. LEVEL 5 OPEN SPACE AREA A DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
 MINIMUM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED A
 TERRACE. THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING ABUTS AN ACCESS
 EASEMENT, NOT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
 AT THIS LOCATION CAN ONLY BE A ROOFTOP GARDEN. PLEASE
 UPDATE THE TABLE AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
  
 4) PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS
  
 A. UPDATED COMMENT: A PASSAGEWAY IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT
 TWO OR MORE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC SPACES. THE
 ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS NOT
 A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THIS SIDE OF THE PASSAGEWAY
 NEEDS TO TERMINATE AT A PUBLIC SPACE (GENERALLY THE
 AREA UNDER THE BUILDING ALONG THE ACCESS EASEMENT). IN
 ORDER FOR THIS AREA TO BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC SPACE,
 IT WILL NEED A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED FOR IT
 AS WELL AS HAVE SEATING INSTALLED. THE PASSAGEWAY WILL
 END AT THE COVERED PUBLIC SPACE. --- THE RESPONSE
 STATES THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO A PUBLIC ACCESS
 EASEMENT. THIS WILL BE INCLUDED AS A REQUIREMENT PRIOR
 TO THE FINAL INSPECTION FOR THE BUILDING. THE PLANS
 FAIL TO SHOW SEATING FOR THE PUBLIC SPACE.
  
 5) UPDATED COMMENT: THE ELEMENTS PROJECTING FROM THE
 ROSEMARY AVENUE AND HIBISCUS STREET FACADES CAN FALL
 UNDER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS:
 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, AWNING, BALCONY AND CANOPY.
  
 A. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE: THIS IS LISTED AS KEYNOTE 15
 ON THE ELEVATION KEY AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS AS EYEBROWS
 NO MORE THAN TWO FEET (SCALED) FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
 PODIUM BUILDING FACADE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
 ITEMS, KEYNOTE 3 GLASS AND ALUMINUM AWNINGS, LOCATED ON
 THE 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS OF THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL
 PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT ARE CALLED AWNINGS, BUT DO
 NOT MEET THE DMP DEFINITION OF AN AWNING. DUE TO THE
 DESIGN, LOCATION AND SIZE OF THESE ITEMS, THEY CAN ONLY
 BE CONSIDERED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND NEED TO BE
 DESIGNATED AS SUCH ON THE PLANS.
 B. AWNING: THERE ARE NO AWNINGS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS.
 C. BALCONY: THE BALCONY ALONG ROSEMARY AVENUE COMPLIES
 WITH THE PROJECTION STANDARDS.
 D. CANOPY: THERE ARE THREE PROJECTIONS WHICH ARE
 CONSIDERED CANOPIES (TWO ON HIBISCUS STREET AND ONE ON
 ROSEMARY AVENUE) OVER THE FIRST FLOOR ENTRIES TO THE
 RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL AREAS. THEY ARE LISTED AS
 KEYNOTE 3 GLASS AND ALUMINUM AWNINGS. THIS DESIGNATION
 NEEDS TO CHANGE AS THEY DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF
 AN AWNING (LOCATED BETWEEN, RATHER THAN ACROSS,
 SIGNIFICANT VERTICAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT MAKE
 UP THE COMPOSITION OF THE FACADE). SINCE THESE ITEMS
 ARE CANOPIES, THEY NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT (8)
 FEET IN DEPTH. THIS DIMENSION LINE NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON
 THE ELEVATION PLANS.
  
 6) UPDATED COMMENT: THE TYPICAL BALCONY PLAN DOES NOT
 MATCH THE ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE
 BUILDING. THE COLUMN WITHIN THE BALCONY AREA (EAST
 POINT AREA) IS SHOWN TWO FEET CLOSER TO THE BUILDING
 THAN IT IS ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. THE EAST
 ELEVATION SHOWS THE BALCONY EXTENDING TWO FEET LESS
 THAN THE FLOOR PLANS.
  
 7) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED
 RESIDENTIAL TOWER VALET PLAN AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
 USE OF FERN STREET AND SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE TO RETURN
 THE VEHICLES. THIS PUTS ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS ON
 THESE TWO STREETS. AN ALTERNATIVE VALET PICK-UP IS
 REQUIRED. WHERE IS THE VALET AREA IN THE GARAGE?
  
 8) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF
 FERN STREET AND SAPODILLA AVENUE FOR THE VALET AS THIS
 PUTS ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS ON THESE ROADWAYS. AN
 ALTERNATIVE IS TO HAVE THE VALETS USE ONE OF THE
 SERVICE AREA SPACES AS A TURNAROUND SPACE SO THEY CAN
 GET THE GARAGE WITHOUT USING THE STREET NETWORK.
  
 9) UPDATED COMMENT: THE PASSAGEWAY BICYCLE RACK DETAIL
 DOES NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE RACKS SHOWN ON THE
 INSTALLATION PLANS DO NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE MODELS
 SHOWN ON THE BIKE RACK REQUIREMENTS DETAIL. NOTE: WHILE
 STAFF FEELS IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO PROVIDE EXTRA SPACE
 FOR PARK BICYCLES, THE 13 FEET IS WIDER THAN IS
 REQUIRED FOR 6 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES.
  
 10) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE BICYCLE RACKS ALONG
 ROSEMARY FOR THE RETAIL CUSTOMERS. THE BICYCLE RACKS
 (AND THE OTHER ROSEMARY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS) MUST BE
 SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. NOTE: THE CITY COMMISSION DID NOT
 APPROVE 100% DRAWINGS AS PART OF THE FACE OF THE CITY
 RESOLUTION, SO THESE PLANS NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THIS SET
 OF DRAWINGS.
  
 11) UPDATED COMMENT: THE ROOF AREAS THAT ARE NOT
 INCLUDED AS OPEN SPACE OR HAVE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ARE
 REQUIRED TO HAVE GREEN ROOF OR SOLAR INSTALLATION. THE
 DETAILS WILL BE INCLUDED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT;
 HOWEVER, THE PLANS MUST STATE THAT GREEN ROOF OR SOLAR
 INSTALLATIONS ARE REQUIRED ON THE ROOVES. NOTE: THE
 COMMENT RESPONSE SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT DUE THE
 BUILDING HAVING DIFFERENT ROOF AREAS, ONLY ONE OF THESE
 AREAS NEEDS TO HAVE GREEN OR SOLAR INSTALLATION TO
 COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH IS NOT
 CORRECT. ALL ROOF AREAS NEED TO HAVE EITHER OPEN SPACE,
 MECHANICAL OR GREEN/SOLAR.
  
 12) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS LIGHTING
 LEVELS AT THE CURB IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED ONE FOOT
 CANDLE. ---- RESUBMITTED SHEET E-0.1 STILL SHOWS LIGHT
 LEVELS AT THE CURB EXCEEDING ONE FOOTCANDLE.
  
 CONDITION: THE AC UNITS MOUNTED ON RACKS ON THE WEST
 BUILDING WALL OF 477 SOUTH ROSEMARY MUST BE REMOVED
 PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 575 SOUTH ROSEMARY
 BUILDING.
  
 CONDITION: WAYFINDING SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO DIRECT
 PEDESTRIANS FROM THE GARAGE TO THE OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL
 AND RETAIL ENTRANCES.
  
 CONDITION: THE LEVEL III SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL
 CONTAIN THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION THAT NO LEASES CAN
 INCLUDE DESIGNATED PARKING IN THE D GARAGE AND THAT NO
 BARRIERS MAY BE INSTALLED IN THE GARAGE TO CREATE
 SEPARATED PARKING AREAS FOR SPECIFIC TENANTS UNLESS A
 MINOR AMENDMENT IS APPROVED THAT BOTH DESIGNATES THE
 LOCATION OF THE RESERVED PARKING SPACES AND THE
 BARRIERS AS WELL AS VERIFIES THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT
 PARKING WITHIN THE ROSEMARY SQUARE CONTROLLED GARAGES
 TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE ENTIRE
 PROJECT.
  
  Print


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