Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19090006
Project Number Z19090006
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2020-01-27 14:56:13PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 01.27.2020
 PROJECT NO.: Z19090006
 CASE NO.: PB 1086C
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ SATISFIED ] - WITH ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL,
 NOTES, LABELS, ETC. THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED
 AT A LARGER SCALE. PROVIDE AN OVERALL SITE PLAN, BUT
 THEN DO ENLARGED SHEETS WITH MATCHLINES.
  
 2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO
 CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN DESIGNS
 THAT PRESENT A MORE URBAN FEEL WITH BUILDING PRESENCE
 ON THE STREET, PARKING BEHIND, PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES
 DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK INTO THE BUILDING,
 RELOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER AWAY FROM THE MAIN
 THOROUGHFARE, ETC.
  
 2.1. [ FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ] - PLEASE NOTE THAT
 STAFF WILL LIKELY DISCUSS THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, ETC.
 AS PART OF THE FUTURE STAFF REPORT.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - AN APPROVAL TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY
 LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY.
  
 4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT NEEDS TO
 BE CLEARER ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. FOR
 EXAMPLE, IN THE SECTION UNDER ?SITE DESIGN? IT IS
 DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE A PART OF THE MINOR
 AMENDMENT, BUT THE DESCRIPTION MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THEY
 ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
  
 5. [ SATISFIED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - REPLAT OF
 THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - UNITY OF
 CONTROL WILL BE REQUIRED.
  
 7. [ SATISFIED ] - ALL PLANS NEED TO REFLECT THE SCOPE
 OF WORK NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED TRUCK
 ROUTE.
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - UPDATED FDOT LETTER SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 9. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE UTILITY
 LETTERS PROVIDED REFLECT THEIR REVIEW OF THE SCOPE OF
 THE MAJOR AMENDMENT; IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF THE
 LETTERS ARE DATED THE SAME AS THOSE THAT WERE PROVIDED
 AS PART OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
  
 9.1. [ SATISFIED ] - RESPONSES TO YOUR AUGUST 21, 2019,
 REQUESTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM EACH OF THE UTILITY
 COMPANIES.
  
 10. [ SATISFIED ] - AT THE NEW DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT,
 PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THERE ARE GATES ACROSS THE
 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS. THE GATES SHALL BE REMOVED AND
 THERE SHALL BE CLEAR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN
 THE PUBLIC WALKWAY AND THE BUSINESS.
  
 11. [ SATISFIED ] - ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS RESULTING
 FROM COMMENTS/REVIEW OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT SHALL BE
 REFLECTED ON THE PLANS FOR THE MAJOR AMENDMENT.
  
 12. [ SATISFIED ] - AS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN
 PROVIDED FOR THE MINOR AMENDMENT, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO
 THE PLAN RESULTING FROM SUCH WILL NEED TO BE
 INCORPORATED INTO THE MAJOR AMENDMENT PLANS.
  
 13. [ SATISFIED ] - THE USES AND SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE
 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT DO NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS
 SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
  
 14. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SIZE, LOCATION, AND
 ORIENTATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NEEDS TO BE
 APPROVED BY THE CITY?S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  
 14.1. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE TURNING MOVEMENTS SHOWN
 ON THE SITE PLAN AND IN THE EXHIBIT ONLY SHOW THE TRUCK
 MOVEMENTS ENTERING TO PICK UP THE DUMPSTER; NO
 MOVEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON HOW THE TRUCK IS EXITING THE
 SITE. THIS COMMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THE DUMPSTER
 NORTHWEST OF BUILDING 2, AS WELL AS NORTHWEST OF
 BUILDING 1.
  
 14.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE TURNING STUDY EXHIBIT
 STILL DOES NOT SHOW MOVEMENTS FOR THE TRUCK AFTER
 PICKING UP THE DUMPSTER AT BUILDING 2. I DO NOT BELIEVE
 THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL APPROVE THE TRUCK
 BACKING UP THE ENTIRE WAY. PLEASE PROVIDE WRITTEN
 CONFIRMATION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THAT SUCH
 MOVEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTABLE, AND THAT THE PROPOSED
 MOVEMENTS AND CLEARANCES FOR BUILDING 1 ARE ACCEPTABLE.
  
 15. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR A
 BYPASS LANE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE-THRU.
  
 16. [ SATISFIED ] - SETBACKS LISTED AS ?REQUIRED? IN
 THE SITE DATA TABLE APPEAR TO BE INCORRECT.
  
 17. [ SATISFIED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - THE SITE
 PLAN FOR THE DRIVE-THRU SHOWS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
 COMING OFF OF BELVEDERE ROAD AND SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
 WITH NO CLEAR PASSAGE TO THE BUILDING. THE CONNECTIONS
 ARE SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO PARKING SPACES, RANDOM
 CROSSINGS AT THE DRIVE-THRU, ETC.
  
 17.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - APPROPRIATE PAVEMENT
 MARKINGS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WHERE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
 CROSSES THE DRIVE-THRU AND DRIVE AISLES.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED OF THE
 PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES AT THE DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT.
  
 19. [ SATISFIED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - THE CIVIL
 PLANS SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ON BELVEDERE ROAD
 AS ASPHALT. PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD BE CLEARLY
 DELINEATED WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS,
 ETC. SO THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND SAFE ROUTE BETWEEN
 THE PUBLIC WALKWAY AND THE BUILDING. AS DESIGNED, THEY
 LOOK LIKE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES.
  
 19.1. [ CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - SEE COMMENT 17.1
 ABOVE.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT WHEN PARKING
 ROWS ABUT A LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THAT WHEEL STOPS NOT BE
 USED AND THAT THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BE WIDENED TO
 ACCOMMODATE THE VEHICLE OVERHANG.
  
 20.1. [ SATISFIED ] - NOTE THAT IMPLEMENTING THE
 COMMENT ABOVE WOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE OVERALL LENGTH
 OF THE SPACE, IT WOULD HAVE SIMPLY ALLOWED THE VEHICLE
 TO OVERHANG LANDSCAPE AREA AS OPPOSED TO ADDITIONAL
 ASPHALT/PAVERS. AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, ALL SPACES WILL
 BE REQUIRED TO HAVE WHEEL STOPS.
  
 21. [ SATISFIED ] - THE CIVIL PLANS DO NOT APPEAR TO
 CORRECTLY DEPICT WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE PAVERS,
 CONCRETE, LANDSCAPE, ETC.
  
 21.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THERE IS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN
 THE SITE PLAN AND THE CIVIL PLANS AS TO THE LOCATION OF
 CURBING, SPECIFICALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
 NORTHEASTERN ROW OF THE STARBUCKS? PARKING.
  
 22. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC BEHIND THE
 AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR PAVERS VERSUS THOSE AREAS WHERE
 ASPHALT IS BEING USED.
  
 23. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL
 BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT THROUGH THE
 USE OF CURBING.
  
 23.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - IT IS UNCLEAR OF THE
 PROPOSED GRADES/CURBING THAT ARE BEING SHOWN TO THE
 EAST OF STARBUCKS WHERE THE WALKWAY CONNECTS TO THE
 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY SIDEWALK. IS THE WALKWAY AT THE
 SAME GRADE AS THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPING, OR IS IT AT THE
 SAME GRADE OF THE PARKING LOT?
  
 23.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
 WALKWAY FROM SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY TO THE BUILDING
 ENTRANCE BEING AT THE SAME GRADE AS THE ADJACENT
 PARKING, WITHOUT USE OF A PROTECTIVE BARRIER. AS
 DESIGNED, THERE IS NOTHING PROHIBITING THE VEHICLE FROM
 PARKING ON TOP OF THE WALKWAY, BLOCKING THE ACCESSIBLE
 ROUTE TO THE BUILDING AND VIOLATING ADA ACCESSIBILITY.
  
 24. [ SATISFIED ] - THE CIVIL PLANS SHOW THE PROPOSED
 BIKE RACKS IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LANDSCAPE AREA, BUT
 THIS IS SHOWN AS PAVERS ON OTHER PLANS. THE RACKS NEED
 TO BE INSTALLED ON A SOLID SURFACE (PAVERS, CONCRETE,
 ETC.) AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL AND ALL PLANS NEED TO BE
 CONSISTENT.
  
 25. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EAST
 PROPERTY LINE OF THE DRIVE-THRU IS UNCLEAR. IS THE AREA
 BETWEEN THE TREES SOD?
  
 26. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF WILL PROVIDE A
 SEPARATE SET OF REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED SIGN
 PROGRAM.
  
 27. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE NOTE
 REGARDING COMMITTED AND NON-USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR
 BUILDING #1 IS STILL BEING SHOWN ON THE MAJOR
 AMENDMENT?
  
 28. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - WHY IS LANDSCAPING BEING SHOWN
 IN THE LOCATION OF THE BIKE RACKS AT THE SOUTHEAST
 CORNER OF BUILDING #1? THERE IS CONFLICT.
  
 29. [ SATISFIED ] - THE DUMPSTER CONFIGURATION TO THE
 NORTHWEST OF BUILDING #1 SHOULD MATCH BETWEEN THE MINOR
 AMENDMENT AND THE MAJOR AMENDMENT.
  
 30. [ SATISFIED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ] - JUST A
 REMINDER THAT THERE WILL BE CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL
 REGARDING THE PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA. AS
 DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY:
 - THE AFFECTED AREAS NEED TO MEET THE MINIMUM
 PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING REQUIRED (15%); AND
  
 - THE OVERALL SITE SHOULD SHOW A DECREASE IN THE
 NON-CONFORMITY (MEANING AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE
 OF LANDSCAPING FROM WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS); AND
  
 - THE REMAINING LANDSCAPING TO BRING THE ENTIRE SITE
 INTO CONFORMITY WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REDEVELOPMENT OF
 THE PARKING LOT WEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
  
 31. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR THE
 SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF BOLLARD AROUND THE PROPOSED
 BUILDING #2 (STARBUCKS). IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE IS
 CURBING (I.E. ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVE-THRU, IN
 THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, ETC.) BOLLARDS SEEM UNNECESSARY.
  
 31.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? SUPPORTS FOR THE OVERHANG ARE
 UNDERSTOOD, BUT SHOULD BE MINIMIZED TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT
 OF VERTICAL ?INTERRUPTION? IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING
 FA?ADE. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE EXCESSIVE USE OF THE
 BOLLARDS AS THIS PRESENTS AN APPEARANCE OF
 FORTIFICATION AND NOT ATTRACTIVE URBAN DESIGN. IF THE
 APPLICANT IS INSISTING THAT THE BOLLARDS ARE TO REMAIN,
 STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT
 THEY BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PLAN.
 ________________________________________
  
 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 18, 2020,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 18, 2020, PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO
 LATER THAN FEBRUARY 3, 2020. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND
 BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 CITY?S ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH
 REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE.
  
 H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT
 DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE
 COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED.
 ________________________________________
  
 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