Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19050026
Project Number Z19050026
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2020-01-13 14:20:14PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 01.13.2020
 PROJECT NO.: Z19050026
 CASE NO.: PB 1086B
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED
 INDICATING NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
  
 1.1. [ SATISFIED ] - LETTERS FROM FPL AND AT&T SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 2. [ 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ 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. [ SATISFIED ] - A PORTION OF THE PARKING DECK
 (NORTHEAST CORNER) STILL EXTENDS INTO THE SIX (6) FOOT
 UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT.
  
 5.1.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] ? EASEMENT WILL NEED
 TO BE ABANDONED PRIOR TO PERMITTING.
  
 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.
  
 5.3.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] ? EASEMENT WILL NEED
 TO BE ABANDONED PRIOR TO PERMITTING.
  
 5.4. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - WHAT WAS THE OBJECTION TO THE
 INSTALLATION OF A TRELLIS, ETC.?
  
 9.1.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? RESPONSE INDICATED THAT THIS
 WAS GOING TO BE FURTHER EXPLORED AS PART OF THE MAJOR
 AMENDMENT, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN THAT
 APPLICATION.
  
 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. [ 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. [ SATISFIED ] - THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
 SHOULD HAVEN BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO THE
 MOBILITY FUND AND TDM PROGRAM.
  
 15. [ 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - SIDEWALKS/CROSSINGS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM THE PEDESTRIAN EXIT POINTS OF THE PARKING
 DECK TO BUILDINGS #1 AND #3.
  
 16.1. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - 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.
  
 19.1.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE SITE HAS A LABEL FOR A
 TRASH COMPACTOR, BUT NOTHING IS SHOWN ON THE SITE
 PLAN?NO ENCLOSURE, NO LANDSCAPE SCREENING, ETC. AS
 SHOWN ON THE PLAN IT LOOKS LIKE THE TRASH COMPACTOR
 WOULD JUST BE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOADING
 AREA.
  
 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. [ SATISFIED ] - MULTIPLE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS FOR THE
 PARKING DECK ENCROACH INTO DRIVE AISLES, PARKING
 SPACES, ETC. ON THE GROUND LEVEL.
  
 21.1. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ 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. [ SATISFIED] - WITH THE CREATION OF THE DEAD-END
 DRIVE AISLE UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, A
 TURN-AROUND SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 26. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - WITH THE CREATION OF THE
 DEAD-END DRIVE AISLE UNDERNEATH THE PROPOSED PARKING
 DECK, A TURN-AROUND SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 27. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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.
  
 27.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? STAFF DOES NOT LIKE HOW THE
 PROPOSED BIKE RACKS ARE BEING INSTALLED AT THE SAME
 GRADE AS THE SURROUNDING PARKING/LOADING AREA. THE BIKE
 RACK AREA SHOULD BE RAISED ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE
 PARKING AND PROTECTED WITH CURBING, ETC.
  
 28. [ SATISFIED ] - LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BASE OF THE
 ENCLOSURE IS REQUIRED.
  
 29. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - 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.
  
 29.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE SITE PLAN HAS BECOME
 EXTREMELY UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT EACH LINE TYPE, THICKNESS,
 ETC. REPRESENTS.
  
 30. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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. [ SATISFIED ] - 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.
  
 34. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE CONFIGURATION OF THE DUMPSTER
 TO THE NORTHWEST OF BUILDING #1 DIFFERS FROM THAT WHICH
 WAS SHOWN ON THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS
 ARE CONSISTENT.
  
 35. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE TURNING MOVEMENTS SHOWN ON
 THE SITE PLAN FOR THE DUMPSTER TO THE NORTHWEST OF
 BUILDING #1 ONLYS SHOW THE TRUCK MOVEMENTS ENTERING TO
 PICK UP THE DUMPSTER; NO MOVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON HOW THE
 TRUCK IS EXITING THE SITE.
  
 36. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT THE
 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING #1 LEADS INTO A LANDSCAPE
 AREA; NO RAMP, SIDEWALK, ETC. IS SHOWN TO CONNECT THIS
 CROSSING TO THE SIDEWALK TO THE EAST OF BUILDING #1.
 ________________________________________
  
 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
 TTY: 800.955.8771
 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