Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19050026
Project Number Z19050026
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2019-09-06 09:41:36PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 (RESUBMITTAL)
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 09.05.2019
 PROJECT NO.: Z19050026
 CASE NO.: PB1086B
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS WHICH WERE ISSUED PREVIOUSLY, AND HAVE
 NOT BEEN FULLY SATISFIED:
  
 1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED INDICATING NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED
 IMPROVEMENTS.
  
 1.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - LETTERS FROM FPL AND AT&T SHALL
 BE PROVIDED.
  
 2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN IS UNCLEAR
 AS TO WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE EXISTING AND WHICH ONES ARE
 PROPOSED. AS SUCH, IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT IS
 NONCONFORMING AND MAY NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO
 COMPLIANCE, ETC.
  
 2.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THERE APPEARS TO BE A NUMBER OF
 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WEST OF, AND UNDERNEATH, THE
 EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THAT ARE NOT SHOWN AS BEING
 INCLUDED IN THE ?AFFECTED AREA?. THE IMPROVEMENTS
 INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF BICYCLE PARKING, A DUMPSTER
 ENCLOSURE, TERMINATION OF THE PARKING DRIVE AISLE
 UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING DUE TO THE RAMP FOR THE PARKING
 DECK, ETC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE NEW COMMENTS
 PROVIDED THAT RELATE TO ADDITIONAL CONCERNS WITH THESE
 ITEMS.
  
 3. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - AS A FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS
 DISCUSSIONS, WHAT IS THE LATEST REGARDING THE DESIGN OF
 THE FUTURE GROCER AND THE ACTIVATION OF THE SOUTH DIXIE
 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR?
  
 3.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - A SMALL OUTDOOR SEATING AREA WAS
 ADDED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, BUT THIS IS NOT SHOWN
 ON THE SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLANS. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS
 UNCLEAR HOW THIS SEATING AREA CAN BE ACCESSED.
  
 4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN IS UNCLEAR AS TO THE
 LOCATION OF THE RAMP THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE TOP OF
 THE PARKING DECK. IT SEEMS THAT THE RAMP MAY IMPEDE
 WITH MULTIPLE DRIVE AISLES AND OVERALL SITE
 CIRCULATION, IMPACTING EXISTING PARKING.
  
 5. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE PROPOSED PARKING DECK
 APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH MULTIPLE UTILITY LINES,
 ESPECIALLY A WATER MAIN LOCATED WITHIN A 10-FOOT
 EASEMENT AND A SIX (6) FOOT UNDERGROUND UTILITY
 EASEMENT.
  
 5.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - A PORTION OF THE PARKING DECK
 (NORTHEAST CORNER) STILL EXTENDS INTO THE SIX (6) FOOT
 UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT.
  
 5.2. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A
 PROPOSED 10-FOOT WATER EASEMENT, BUT WHAT IS PROPOSED
 TO HAPPEN WITH THE EXISTING EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN
 UNDER THE PROPOSED PARKING DECK? THE ENGINEERING PLANS
 INDICATE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE ABANDONED. IF SO, THE
 UTILITY WORK, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE EASEMENT WILL BE
 REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR THE
 PARKING DECK.
  
 5.3. [ NEW COMMENT ] - A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE
 SHOWN IN THE 12-FOOT FPL EASEMENT IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF
 THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
  
 5.4. [ NEW COMMENT ] - A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE
 SHOWN IN THE FPL EASEMENT WEST OF THE EXISTING OFFICE
 BUILDING.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PARKING DECK SHOULD BE ADDED
 INTO THE SITE DATA TABLE FOR ALL APPLICABLE
 CALCULATIONS (LOT COVERAGE, IMPERVIOUS, BUILDING
 SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, ETC.). IT IS REQUIRED TO
 COMPLY WITH THE SAME REGULATIONS AS OTHER BUILDINGS IN
 THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DISTRICT.
  
 7. [ SATISFIED ] - PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145(7), THE
 MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION SHALL BE ZERO FEET, OR NOT
 LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET. ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN,
 THE PARKING DECK IS ONLY 4.5 FEET FROM THE EXISTING
 OFFICE BUILDING.
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - BY DEFINITION, THE FRONT OF THE
 PROPERTY IS ALONG BELVEDERE ROAD AND MONCEAUX ROAD;
 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY IS CONSIDERED A CORNER-SIDE.
  
 9. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL
 BELOW ] - IN DISCUSSION AMONGST STAFF, IT WAS SUGGESTED
 THAT SINCE A LINER BUILDING IS NOT BEING PROPOSED ALONG
 SOUTH DIXIE (IN FRONT OF THE PARKING DECK, ETC.) THAT
 SOME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OR DECORATIVE FEATURES
 (SUCH AS A TRELLIS, ETC.) COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO,
 OR IN PLACE OF, THE EASTERN MOST ROW OF PARKING.
  
 9.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - WHAT WAS THE OBJECTION TO THE
 INSTALLATION OF A TRELLIS, ETC.?
  
 9.2. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - THE PROVISION OF BUS
 SHELTER AND THE DESIGN OF SUCH SHALL BE INCLUDED AS
 PART OF THE FUTURE MAJOR AMENDMENT.
  
 10. [ SATISFIED ] - THERE SEEMS TO BE A LARGE NUMBER OF
 SMALL CAR SPACES CONCENTRATED IN SOME OF THE AREA WHERE
 PARKING DEMAND WILL BE HEAVIEST. PURSUANT TO SEC.
 94-485(N)(1)E., SMALL CAR SPACES ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED.
  
 11. [ SATISFIED ] - YOU WILL NEED TO CONFIRM WITH THE
 BUILDING DIVISION, BUT ACCESSIBLE PARKING MAY NEED TO
 BE PROVIDED UNDER THE COVER OF THE PARKING DECK.
  
 12. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 THE SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND PBC
 TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION DO NOT SEEM TO
 CORRESPOND WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT ARE SHOWN ON
 THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS, STUDIES,
 ETC. ARE CONSISTENT.
  
 12.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - A CONDITION OF
 APPROVAL WILL EXIST REGARDING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE
 FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED, AND THAT THE TRAFFIC
 ANALYSIS AND CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION BE UPDATED AS
 PART OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
  
 13. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION LETTER FROM PALM
 BEACH COUNTY INDICATES THAT THE PROJECT IS TO ?MEET
 CRITERIA AS OUTLINED IN THE CITY?S TDM (TRANSPORTATION
 DEMAND MANAGEMENT) ORDINANCE.? PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS
 AS THERE IS NO TDM ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR
 THIS AREA.
  
 13.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - A CONDITION OF
 APPROVAL WILL EXIST REGARDING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE
 FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED.
  
 14. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
 REFERENCES THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN
 THE CITY?S MOBILITY FUNDS PROGRAM; PLEASE NOTE THAT NO
 SUCH PROGRAM HAS BEEN ADOPTED, AND UNDER THE ?PROPOSED?
 PROGRAM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES
 OF SUCH PROGRAM.
  
 14.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
 SHOULD HAVEN BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO THE
 MOBILITY FUND AND TDM PROGRAM.
  
 15. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PURSUANT TO THE PBC
 TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION LETTER, AN FDOT
 CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY PRE-APPROVAL LETTER SHALL BE
 OBTAINED. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
 REGARDING THE COUNTY?S SUGGESTION OF A CENTER LEFT TURN
 LANE.
  
 15.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE LETTER FROM FDOT INDICATES
 THAT ALL OF THE DRIVEWAYS ARE RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT, BUT
 THE STRIPING AND DESIGN SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT
 INDICATE SUCH.
  
 16. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SIDEWALKS/CROSSINGS SHALL
 BE PROVIDED FROM THE PEDESTRIAN EXIT POINTS OF THE
 PARKING DECK TO BUILDINGS #1 AND #3.
  
 16.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THERE?S CONCERN REGARDING THE
 DESIGN OF THE CROSSWALK, STOP SIGN, ETC. THAT IS
 PROPOSED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARKING DECK.
 THE STOP SIGN APPEARS TO BE FLOATING IN THE DRIVE
 AISLE, PEDESTRIANS ARE DIRECTED TO WALK IN FRONT OF
 VEHICLES BEFORE CROSSING THE DRIVEWAY, ETC. THE
 ISLAND/LANDING AT THE BASE OF THE STAIRS SHOULD BE
 EXTENDED TO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVE AISLE, ALLOWING FOR
 PLACEMENT OF THE STOP SIGN, AND THE CROSS WALK CAN GO
 FROM THE SOUTH EDGE OF THE LANDING.
  
 17. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 SIGNAGE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL
 DRAWINGS AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED AS A SEPARATE SIGN
 PACKAGE.
  
 17.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - ALL SIGNAGE WILL BE
 REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING AND SHALL COMPLY
 WITH THE ZLDRS.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR
 REVIEW OF THE FREESTANDING SIGNS:
  
 18.1. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ALL FREESTANDING SIGNS
 TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH
 THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94-408(D)(2) AND (3).
  
 18.2. [ SATISFIED - SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL BELOW ] -
 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FREESTANDING SIGN AREA SHALL BE
 PROVIDED AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE
 PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94-408(D)(2) AND (3).
  
 18.3. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - ALL SIGNAGE WILL BE
 REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING AND SHALL COMPLY
 WITH THE ZLDRS.
  
 19. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
 THE TRASH COMPACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 94-315(A).
  
 19.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - STAFF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE
 RESPONSE THAT WAS PROVIDED. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THE
 TRASH COMPACTOR IS PROPOSED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITED
 PROVISION OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS STAFF'S POSITION THAT
 LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE OUTER PERIMETER
 OF THE PARKING DECK (SPECIFICALLY THE EAST AND SOUTH
 SIDES) TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE AND
 MAKE IT BLEND IN WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE.
  
 21. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - MULTIPLE STRUCTURAL
 COLUMNS FOR THE PARKING DECK ENCROACH INTO DRIVE
 AISLES, PARKING SPACES, ETC. ON THE GROUND LEVEL.
  
 21.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT NO COLUMNS
 ARE PROPOSED ON THE INTERIOR (GROUND LEVEL) OF THE
 PARKING DECK. IF COLUMNS ARE PROPOSED, THEY SHALL BE
 SHOWN ON THE PLAN TO INDICATE THAT THEY DO NOT CONFLICT
 WITH PARKING SPACES OR DRIVE AISLES AND/OR THAT THE
 STRIPING IS ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM.
  
 22. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE PARKING STALL DETAIL ON
 SHEET 12 OF THE ENGINEERING PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE
 CITY?S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
  
 23. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BICYCLE PARKING DETAIL
 REFERENCES THE SITE PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS, ETC., BUT NO
 DIMENSIONS WERE PROVIDED.
  
 24. [ SATISFIED ] - BICYCLE PARKING NEEDS TO BE
 DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE BASED UPON THE USES ON
 THE PROPERTY, AND SHALL BE SITUATED IN PROXIMITY TO
 BUILDING ENTRANCE, ETC. SO AS TO BE VISIBLE TO PATRONS.
 THE LOCATION OF THE BICYCLE PARKING FOR BUILDING #1 IS
 OF GREATEST CONCERN.
  
 25. [ NEW COMMENT ] - WITH THE CREATION OF THE DEAD-END
 DRIVE AISLE UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, A
 TURN-AROUND SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 26. [ NEW COMMENT ] - WITH THE CREATION OF THE DEAD-END
 DRIVE AISLE UNDERNEATH THE PROPOSED PARKING DECK, A
 TURN-AROUND SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 27. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED WEST
 OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING APPEARS TO BE
 ENCROACHING INTO THE DRIVE AISLE AND COULD EASILY BE
 DAMAGED BY PASSING VEHICLES, ETC.
  
 28. [ NEW COMMENT ] - LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BASE OF
 THE ENCLOSURE IS REQUIRED.
  
 29. [ NEW COMMENT ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE DESIGN
 PROPOSED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
 IS CURBING PROPOSED BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FRONT
 ENTRANCE? IF NOT, AND THE DRIVEWAY IS AT THE SAME
 ELEVATION AS THE ENTRY, SOME FORM OF
 PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY BARRIER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO
 KEEP VEHICLES FROM ENCROACHING INTO THE PEDESTRIAN
 AREA.
  
 30. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF
 UTILITY EQUIPMENT (WATER METERS, BACKFLOW, ETC.)
 IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED GROCER; SUCH
 EQUIPMENT NEEDS TO BE SCREENED.
  
 31. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW
 A DOOR EXITING THE FRONT OF THE GROCER WITH A SET OF
 STAIRS LEADING DOWN. PLEASE CLARIFY AS THIS IS NOT
 SHOWN ON ANY OTHER PLAN.
  
 32. [ NEW COMMENT ] - ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS IT
 APPEARS THAT THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT CLEAR WIDTH
 BETWEEN THE HANDICAP PARKING SIGNS, CAUSING THIS ROUTE
 TO NOT BE ADA COMPLIANT. PLEASE VERIFY.
  
 33. [ NEW COMMENT ] - ON THE SITE PLAN, THE DETAIL FOR
 THE SECOND LEVEL OF THE PARKING DECK HAS A LABEL FOR A
 TYPICAL LIGHT POLE THAT IS PLACED INCORRECTLY.
 ___________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) FOUR (4) 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.
 ___________________________________________
  
 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
 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