Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19050024
Project Number Z19050024
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2019-06-11 14:47:28GENERAL COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED INFORMATION
 IN THE SUBMITTED 2019 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: PROJECT
 LOCATION: MISSING 2100 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY AS AN ADDRESS;
 309 BARCELONA ROAD IS LISTED IN THE PROJECT LOCATION.
 HOWEVER, THIS ADDRESS IS NOT A PART OF THE PROJECT
 SCOPE. PLEASE REMOVE THIS ADDRESS FROM THE APPLICATION;
 NEED SEPARATE SHEET IDENTIFYING ALL PARCEL CONTROL
 NUMBERS (PCNS) ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, PER THE
 APPLICATION; 2100 SDH, LLC IS MISSING AS A PROPERTY
 OWNER. A SIGNED OWNERS CONSENT FORM FROM THIS PROPERTY
 OWNER IS REQUIRED; APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED AND
 DATED BY THE APPLICANT; THE OWNERS CONSENT FORM FOR
 2000 SDH, LLC, MUST IDENTIFY ALL PCNS AND ATTACH LEGAL
 DESCRIPTION.
  
 2.) PLEASE REVISE THE JUSTIFICATION LETTER (DATED
 5/14/2019) TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING INCONSISTENCIES:
 THE INTRODUCTION ON PAGE 1 REFERENCES THE REQUEST FOR
 THE APPROVAL OF A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT
 (FLUMA). THE FLUMA DOES NOT APPLY; CHECK THE EXISTING
 USES IN THE USE TABLE ON PAGE 2. (SPECIFICALLY, THE
 EXISTING USES TO THE WEST I.E. GREENE SCHOOL); THE
 HISTORY SECTION ON PAGES 2 AND 3 DOES NOT SEEM TO
 REFLECT THE CORRECT OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT (OVERALL
 BUILDING HEIGHT IS NOT 69 FT. AS NOTED); IN THE
 VISIONING SECTION ON PAGES 3 AND 4, THE SUMMARY SEEMS
 TO EXCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF 2020 SOUTH DIXIE HWY. THIS
 PARCEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY, AS THE PARCEL
 IS PART OF THE PROPOSED CPD. ALSO, PLEASE CLARIFY IF
 ALL 58 UNITS (INCLUDING THE TOWNHOUSES) WILL BE
 RENTALS; IN THE CPD AND SITE PLAN SECTION ON PAGES 7
 AND 8: PLEASE ENSURE TOWNHOUSES ARE ALSO PROPOSED IN
 THE DEVELOPMENT (VERBIAGE SEEMS TO IMPLY ONLY APARTMENT
 UNITS); CHECK THE BREAKDOWN OF THE PROPOSED INTENSITY
 ON PAGE 8 (I.E. TABULATION FOR PARKING DOES NOT MATCH
 THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN); IN THE
 PARKING AND CIRCULATION SECTION ON PAGES 8 AND 9:
 PARKING NUMBERS DO NOT MATCH THE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN
 THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE CHECK CALCULATIONS. MORE
 INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR PARKING CIRCULATION AND HOW
 THAT FUNCTIONS WITH THE VALET PARKING. IT STATES IN THE
 LETTER THAT PARKING WILL BE OPEN TO THE NON-COMMERCIAL
 PUBLIC. WHAT ARE THE ASSURANCES THAT THE PROJECT WILL
 ALWAYS MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE USES WITHIN
 AND HAVING THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING
 FOR OTHERS; PER ZLDR S.94-207(B)(1), THE PROPOSED
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH S.94-35(C),
 S.94-33, ARTICLE XII AND ARTICLE XVII. PLEASE PROVIDE
 THE RESPONSES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZLDRS; IN THE
 COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) STANDARDS ON PAGES
 11 AND 12, #8 MAKES REFERENCES TO AN INDUSTRIAL PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. PLEASE CORRECT; THE WAIVERS
 SECTION ON PAGES 12-17 DOES NOT PROVIDE MUCH
 INFORMATION ON THE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EACH WAIVER
 REQUEST. STAFF NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT MEASURES ARE BEING
 MADE TO REDUCE THE IMPACT(S) OF EACH WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 3.) A TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (TPS) REVIEW LETTER
 FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION IS
 REQUIRED. THE LETTER SHALL STATE THAT THE PROPOSED
 PROJECT MEETS THE TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE
 COUNTY, PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE PROJECT FOR A PUBLIC
 HEARING.
  
 4.) A SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION (SCAD)
 LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY IS
 REQUIRED PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE PROJECT FOR A PUBLIC
 HEARING.
  
 5.) PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE CITY'S PUBLIC
 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL FOR
 WATER, SEWAGE TREATMENT, STORM DRAINAGE AND GARBAGE
 COLLECTION SERVICES.
  
 6.) PROVIDE LETTERS FROM THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC UTILITIES
 CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH
 INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE
 PROVISIONS OF THEIR SERVICES: AT&T, FPU, FPL AND
 COMCAST.
  
 7.) AN UPDATED ADDRESS LIST AND RADIUS MAP OF ALL
 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FT. OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
 IS MISSING FROM THE APPLICATION AND SHALL BE PROVIDED
 TO STAFF FOR THE FILE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THERE ARE
 OVER 50 ENVELOPES, THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
 FOR MAILING OUT THE REQUIRED NOTICES.
  
 8.) A MASSING STUDY AS WELL AS CROSS SECTIONS OF THE
 PROPOSED PROJECT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
 IMMEDIATE/SURROUNDING AREAS/BUILDINGS IS REQUIRED.
  
 9.) A PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM THE FLORIDA
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IS REQUIRED FOR THE
 PROPOSED CHANGES ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY.
  
 10.) PLANS HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF DATA AND NEEDS TO BE
 MADE CLEAR BY AVOIDING ANY TEXT OVERLAP, ETC.
  
 11.) PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE REVISION DATE TO THE
 REVISED SHEETS TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL CHANGES TO THE
 PROJECT.
  
  
 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PER ZLDR SECTION 94-145(11), THE FAR INCLUDES
 AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED STORAGE SPACES,
 ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP SUCH AS BATHROOMS AND
 LOBBIES, STAIRS AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND EXTERNAL
 UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
 (FAR) CALCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT APPEARS TO
 BE INCORRECT, AS CERTAIN SPACES (I.E. STAIRS,
 ELEVATORS, ETC.) HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE FAR (AS
 PROVIDED IN THE SITE DATA NOTES). THE FAR CANNOT EXCEED
 1.5. PLEASE ADDRESS. [ZLDR S.94-243, TABLE VIII-3]
  
 2.) WHAT IS THE SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE EXTENT OF THE
 UNDERGROUND GARAGE TO THE PROPERTY LINE? THE
 UNDERGROUND GARAGE SEEMS TO EXTEND CLOSER TO THE
 PROPERTY LINE THAN THE ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES FOR BOTH
 BUILDINGS AND NO DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THIS
 SETBACK. THE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE IS A PART OF THE
 BUILDING AND THEREFORE, THE SETBACKS SHALL BE MEASURED
 FROM THE EXTENT OF THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE (CLOSEST
 POINT) TO THE PROPERTY LINES.
  
 3.) PARKING/LOADING CONFIGURATION WHICH REQUIRE BACKING
 DIRECTLY ONTO A STREET FROM A PARKING OR LOADING SPACE
 FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ALL
 NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE PROHIBITED IN ALL
 RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE
 LOADING AREA WITHIN THE EL FLAMINGO BUILDING SEEM TO
 REQUIRE VEHICLES TO BACK OUT INTO THESE PROHIBITED
 ZONES. PLEASE ADDRESS. [ZLDR S.94-485(J)(1)]
  
 4.) ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
 CONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
 IMPROVEMENT PLAN? PLEASE MEET WITH THE CITY'S
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO COORDINATE AND
 ADDRESS.
  
 5.) STAFF IS REQUESTING THE APPLICANT ACCOMMODATE AN 8
 FT. HIGH CONCRETE WALL ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINES OF
 BOTH PARCELS (EL FLAMINGO AND EL CORDOVA) TO HELP
 MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT NEXT TO THE EXISTING
 RESIDENTIAL USES.
  
 6.) THE PROPOSED VALET BULLPEN SEEMS TO BE IN CONFLICT
 WITH THE DESIGNATED LANES FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION.
 PLEASE ADDRESS.
  
 7.) THE CIVIL PLAN SHOWS THE LOCATION OF WATER METERS
 NEAR THE ACCESS/EXIT POINTS OF THE BUILDINGS. PLEASE
 SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE WATER METERS IN THE PLAN AND
 PROVIDE A DETAIL. THE DETAIL IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT
 THE METER(S) WILL NOT IMPACT VISIBILITY AND APPROPRIATE
 SCREENING MEASURES ARE IMPLEMENTED.
  
 8.) HOW FAR DO THE BALCONIES EXTEND INTO THE
 SETBACK(S)? BALCONIES CANNOT ENCROACH MORE THAN 3 FT.
 INTO ANY SETBACK. PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO
 DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY. [ZLDR S.94-305(B)(2)]
  
 9.) ALL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E. HVAC
 EQUIPMENT) SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW. PLEASE PROVIDE
 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/ILLUSTRATION TO HOW THE PROJECT
 WILL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.
  
 10.) THE EXISTING USE WEST OF THE EL FLAMINGO BUILDING
 IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL (NOT AUTO SALES, AS SPECIFIED IN
 THE PLAN). PLEASE ADDRESS FOR ACCURACY.
  
 11.) THE EXISTING USES WEST OF THE EL CORDOVA BUILDING
 SEEMS TO BE AN ART GALLERY AND RESTAURANT, AND PARKING
 LOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE GREENE SCHOOL. PLEASE ADDRESS
 FOR ACCURACY.
  
 12.) PLEASE LABEL ALL BUILDING SETBACKS IN THE PLAN.
  
 13.) A STALL STRIPING DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE
 PLAN.
  
 14.) BICYCLE PARKING IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO ZLDR
 S.94-485(9). PLEASE ADDRESS. A BICYCLE PARKING DETAIL
 IS ALSO REQUIRED IN THE PLAN.
  
 15.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE SITE DATA
 TABULAR: APPLICATION NUMBER: PB 1712C/Z19050024;
 RECALCULATION OF FAR REQUIRED; PROPOSED NUMBER OF
 DWELLING UNITS FOR THE PROJECT IS 58 (NOT 56);
 RECALCULATION OF REQUIRED AND PROPOSED PARKING
 REQUIRED. THE PARKING CALCULATIONS SEEM TO BE
 INCORRECT. ADDITIONALLY, THE PARKING COUNT DOES NOT
 MATCH THE PARKING CALCULATIONS PROVIDED IN THE
 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS; PROPOSED PARKING SHOULD INCLUDE
 THE VALET PARKING CALCULATIONS (SINCE IT WILL NOT COUNT
 TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING); PROVIDE BICYCLE PARKING FOR
 THE PROJECT; PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPE/PERVIOUS SURFACE
 AREA CALCULATION (REQUIRED AND PROPOSED) IN SQUARE
 FEET; RECALCULATE LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENT. SEEMS TO
 BE INCORRECT; CHECK THE NUMBER OF BUILDING STORIES
 PROVIDED IN THE TABULAR (TABLE INDICATE 7 STORIES.
 HOWEVER, PLANS SEEM TO SHOW 4 STORIES ABOVE GROUND).
  
 16.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS TABULAR: PER ZLDR ARTICLE VIII, THE MINIMUM
 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT IS 85% (NOT 80%). THIS
 MAY IMPACT THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR THE IMPERVIOUS
 SURFACE REQUIREMENT; THE LANGUAGE IN THE NOTE AT THE
 BOTTOM OF THE TABLE IS NOT CONSISTENT.
  
 17.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE
 SETBACKS/SEPARATIONS TABULAR: REQUIRED SETBACK
 CALCULATIONS ARE INCORRECT. THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
 AS IT WILL IMPACT THE WAIVER REQUESTS TO THE REQUIRED
 SETBACKS; IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PROVIDE A LEGEND TO
 IDENTIFY WHAT "N" AND "S" MEANS.
  
 18.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE WAIVER CHART:
 REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE INCORRECT AND WILL NEED TO BE
 CORRECTED AS IT WILL IMPACT THE WAIVERS REQUESTED; THE
 REQUIRED MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA IS 85% (NOT
 80%). CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 19.) THE SITE DATA TABULAR INDICATES A TOTAL OF THREE
 (3) LOADING ZONES PROVIDED; HOWEVER, ONLY TWO (2) HAVE
 BEEN COUNTED IN THE PLAN. PLEASE ADDRESS.
  
 20.) SHOW THE WIDTH OF THE ROADWAY FOR ALL PUBLIC
 STREETS IN THE PLAN (I.E. FLAMINGO, BARCELONA, CORDOVA,
 ETC.)
  
  
 ARCHITECTURAL (FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS):
  
 1.) PROVIDE PLANS ILLUSTRATING WHAT SPACES IN THE
 PROPOSED BUILDINGS ARE COUNTED IN THE FAR CALCULATIONS
 (I.E. USE SHADING/HATCHING, ETC.); ALSO PROVIDE THE
 DETAILED CALCULATIONS FOR EACH FLOOR.
  
 2.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE PARKING GARAGE
 PLANS (SHEETS A-1.07 AND A-1.08): PARKING CALCULATIONS
 SEEM TO BE INCORRECT; DIMENSION OUT THE STALLS, AISLES,
 WALKWAYS AND DRIVE AISLES; THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE
 COMPACT PARKING SPACES COUNTED THEN NOTED IN THE PLANS;
 DIMENSION OUT THE 2 FT. CURB OVERHANG; ARE WHEEL STOPS
 PROVIDED FOR THE STALLS? IF SO, PLEASE ILLUSTRATE; PER
 ZLDR S.94-485(O), ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE
 LOCATED SO THAT USERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO WALK OR
 OTHERWISE MOVE BEHIND A PARKED VEHICLE. THE LOCATION OF
 THE PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE
 UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM THE
 BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
  
 3.) A DETAILED EXPLANATION IS NEEDED ON HOW THE PARKING
 GARAGE WILL FUNCTION FOR THE RESIDENTS AND
 NON-RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY: THERE ARE A
 NUMBER OF TANDEM PARKING SPACES WHICH SEEM ONLY
 REASONABLE FOR THE OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING(S) TO
 UTILIZE. HOW WILL THESE SPACES BE RESERVED/IDENTIFIED
 FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY, ETC.; PLEASE ENSURE THAT
 THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR EACH USE (I.E. THEATRE,
 RETAIL, RESTAURANT) THAT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE
 PATRONS/GENERAL PUBLIC (I.E. EXCESS TO THE TANDEM
 PARKING). STAFF?S PARKING CALCULATION SEEM TO INDICATE
 THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE COMMERCIAL
 USES.
  
 4.) WHAT IS THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE EL
 CORDOVA BUILDING? THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCREPANCY
 WITHIN THE PLANS (I.E. IS IT 64.67 FT. PER SHEET A-2.01
 OR IS IT 68.67 FT. PER SHEET A-3.01). PLEASE CLARIFY AS
 THE BUILDING HEIGHT MAY IMPACT THE REQUIRED SETBACKS
 FOR THE BUILDING.
  
 5.) WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED DECORATIVE
 FINIALS. DECORATIVE FEATURES MAY NOT EXCEED THE
 DISTRICT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BY 10%. [ZLDR S.94-306]
  
 6.) PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MOVING
 FORWARD TO A PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE SIGNED, DATED AND
 SEALED BY THE ARCHITECT.
  
  
 SIGNAGE COMMENTS:
  
 1.) NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ON SIGNAGE. PLEASE
 PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW SIGNAGE WILL BE HANDLED FOR
 THE PROJECT (I.E. SIGNAGE PROGRAM, ETC.).
  
  
 PHOTOMETRICS/LIGHTING PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) ANY SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION LOCATED WITHIN A
 COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) DISTRICT SHALL NOT
 EXCEED ONE-FOOT CANDLE AT OR BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF
 SUCH DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS
 REQUIREMENT. [ZLDR S.94-209(D)(8)]
  
 2.) THE PHOTOMETRICS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED ALONG ALL
 BOUNDARIES (INSIDE AND OUT) OF THE PROJECT. PLEASE
 ADDRESS SO THAT STAFF CAN EVALUATE THE ILLUMINATION FOR
 CONSISTENCY WITH THE ZLDRS.
  
 3.) ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED TO REDUCE
 GLARE AND SHALL BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT OR GLARE
 AWAY FROM ALL ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, ADJACENT
 RESIDENCES, OR PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE. PLEASE PROVIDE
 INFORMATION HOW THIS REQUIREMENT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
 [ZLDR S.94-309(A)]
  
  
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL:
  
 * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 * CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
  
 * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF
 FIFTEEN (15) PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 8.5
 INCHES X 11 INCHES, AND ONE (1) SET IN 11 INCHES X 17
 INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS.
  
 * 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 ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE
 WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($600.00).
  
 * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE
 QUESTIONS.
  
  
  Print


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