Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z19110010
Project Number Z19110010
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2020-07-09 11:07:03PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: JULY 9, 2020
 PROJECT NO.: Z19110010
 CASE NO.: PB 791II
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE
 METHODOLOGY REGARDING THE PARKING CALCULATION. A SHARED
 PARKING CALCULATION IS BEING USED, BUT A PARKING STUDY
 HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO JUSTIFY A FURTHER REDUCTION
 IN THE REQUIRED PARKING. AS SUCH, THE APPLICATION WOULD
 NEED TO BE AMENDED TO SHOW THAT A PARKING WAIVER IS
 BEING REQUESTED. PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN A PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH SEC. 94-207(B)(13) OF THE
 CITY?S ZLDRS.
  
 1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - STAFF WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION OR
 HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION TO UNDERSTAND THE SHARED
 PARKING CALCUALTION THAT IS BEING SHOWN.
  
 2. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION AS
 TO HOW THE CONFLICTS WITH FPL, AS STATED IN THEIR
 LETTER (NOVEMBER 5, 2019) WILL BE ADDRESSED.
  
 2.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - A PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS
 SHOWN ENROACHING INTO AN EXISTING FPL EASEMENT NEAR THE
 INTERSECTION.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - SITE PLAN SHALL IDENTIFY THE
 VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE CORNER OF CENTREPARK
 BOULEVARD AND CENTREPARK DRIVE EAST. NO ENCROACHMENTS
 BETWEEN 18 INCHES AND EIGHT (8) FEET SHALL BE WITHIN
 THIS AREA.
  
 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE
 CLARIFICATION ON HOW TRASH WILL BE MANAGED AND PICKED
 UP.
  
 4.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION FROM
 THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THAT PROVIDED
 PICK-UP WILL BE PERMITTED.
  
 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING DETAIL ON SHEET
 SP-1 IS INCORRECT.
  
 5.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE NOTE INDICATES TWO (2) FEET TO
 THE BACK OF THE WHEEL STOP, BUT THE DIMENSION LINE
 INDICATES THREE (3) FEET.
  
 5.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LENGTH OF THE STALL IS
 DIMENSIONED AT 28 FEET; THIS SHOULD BE 18 FEET.
  
 5.3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE WIDTH OF THE HANDICAP STALL IS
 DIMENSIONED AT 19 FEET; THIS SHOULD BE 12 FEET.
  
 5.4. [ SATISIFIED ] - THE WIDTH OF THE HANDICAP AISLE
 IS DIMENSIONED AT EIGHT (8) FEET; THIS SHOULD BE FIVE
 (5) FEET.
  
 5.5 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE STRIPING FOR THE HANDICAP
 ACCESS AISLE IS INCORRECT.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PARKING CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON
 THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
  
 7. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THERE APPEARS TO BE A NUMBER OF
 LOCATIONS WHERE THE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS ARE ENCROACHING
 INTO THE PARKING STALL. THE COLUMNS SHALL BE CONTAINED
 ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DOUBLE-STRIPE AND NOT IMPEDE ON THE
 MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE STALL. A DETAIL MAY NEED TO BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 7.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] - ENCROACHMENTS ARE STILL SHOWN. A
 DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 8. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE AMENITIES PROVIDED IN
 THE DETENTION AREA HAVE NO ACCESS TO RESIDENTS/PATRONS
 OF THE BUILDING. THE ONLY SIDEWALK THAT CONNECT TO THE
 PATHWAY IS THAT WHICH HAS ACCESS TO THE TRACH ROOM, FPL
 VAULT, FIRE PUMP, ETC. ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDE TO THE
 PUBLIC WALKWAY, CAF? AND/OR LOBBY AND LEASING AREA.
  
 9. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - TANDEM PARKING SPACES
 ONLY WORK IF THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC UNITS. AS
 SUCH, THESE SPACES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TOWARD THE
 SHARED PARKING CALCULATION AS THEY WOULD NOT BE
 AVAILABLE FOR USE BY MULTIPLE OWNERS/TENANTS.
  
 10. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - TANDEM PARKING SPACES
 SHALL NOT HAVE WHEEL STOPS IN BETWEEN THE TWO SPACES.
  
 11. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THERE'S SOME CONCERN
 WITH REGARDING THE SINGLE PARKING SPACE IMMEDIATELY
 ADJACENT TO THE LOADING AREA ON THE FIRST LEVEL AS IT
 SEEMS THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN CONFLICTS IN INCOMING
 VEHICLES AS THE SPACE IS CONCEALED BEHIND THE WALL.
  
 12. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THERE APPEARS TO BE
 INSUFFICIENT BACK-OUT SPACE OF THE FIRST PARKING SPACE
 AS YOU ENTER THE GARAGE ON THE FIRST LEVEL (NORTH
 SIDE).
  
 13. [ PARTIALLY SATISIFED ] - DIMENSIONS OF BALCONY
 ENCROACHMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED. BALCONIES SHALL NOT
 PROJECT MORE THAN THREE (3) FEET INTO ANY REQUIRED
 SETBACK.
  
 13.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE PROVIDED
 FOR ALL BALCONIES, ETC. THAT ARE ENCROACHING INTO A
 SETBACK.
  
 14. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - STAFF DOESN?T QUITE
 UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE ?PLAZA? DESIGN IN
 FRONT OF THE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONG
 CENTREPARK BLVD. WALK-UP UNIT DESIGNS SHOULD BE
 PROVIDED, BUT I BELIEVE SOME LEVEL OF PRIVACY NEEDS TO
 BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE DESIGN.
  
 15. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - WHAT ARE THE ELEVATION
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CENTREPARK BOULEVARD PLAZA AREA
 AND THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE GROUND FLOOR
 UNITS/RETAIL? ARE STEPS NEEDED? ACCESSIBLE ROUTES?
  
 16. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LOCATION OF THE BIKE STORAGE
 AREAS IN THE GARAGE DO NOT SEEM CONDUCIVE FOR USE BY
 THE RESIDENTS.
  
 17. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SETBACKS SHALL BE
 MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CLOSEST POINT OF
 THE BUILDING. AS THE FITNESS ROOM EXTEND BEYOND THE
 WALL OF THE PARKING GARAGE, THE SETBACK SHALL BE
 MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE FITNESS ROOM.
  
 17.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE BOLD LINE ON THE SITE PLAN
 DOES NOT APPEAR TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, AND
 THERE APPEARS TO BE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS EXTENDING INTO
 THE AREA THAT IS BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE SETBACK.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - THE FLOOR PLAN, SITE PLAN, AND
 ELEVATIONS DO NOT SEEM TO CORRESPOND, NOR SHOW ALL
 ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING. THERE IS INCONSISTENCIES IN
 THE GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN, DECORATIVE FA?ADE
 ELEMENTS, BALCONIES, STRUCTURAL COLUMNS, ETC.
  
 19. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - DOES STAIR #1 NEED TO
 HAVE DIRECT EGRESS TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING? THE
 SITE PLAN SHOWS A DOOR EXITING THE STAIRWELL TO THE
 CENTREPARK BLVD. PLAZA, BUT THE FLOOR PLAN SHOWS THE
 FIRE COMMAND CENTER IN THIS LOCATION WITH EGRESS ONLY
 THROUGH THE LOBBY.
  
 20. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS NEED TO
 BE MADE FOR THE FACADES OF THE GARAGE THAT FACE THE
 CANAL AND THE ADJACENT OFFICE BUILDING.
  
 20.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS DISCUSSED IN RECENT
 CONVERSATIONS, STAFF NEEDS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
 THE FACADE OF THE GARAGE, HOW THE LANDSCAPING PLAYS
 INTO ENHANCING THE FACADE, ETC. AN ARCHITECTURAL
 RENDERING SHOWING THE DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, ETC. SHALL
 BE PROVIDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW, AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE
 FACADE MAY BE REQUIRED.
  
 21. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
 BE SUBJECT TO THE CENTREPARK AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE
 HOUSING POLICY THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE ADOPTION OF
 RESOLUTION NO. 98-17. AS REQUIRED BY THE POLICY, THE
 APPLICATION SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION AS
 PART OF THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION IDENTIFYING WHICH
 UNITS WILL BE OFFERED AS WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS.
 PLEASE REFER TO THE POLICY FOR ALL UNIT RESTRICTIONS
 THAT ARE REQUIRED.
  
 22. [ NOT SATISIFED ] - PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO
 RESOLUTION NO. 98-17, UPON OBTAINING SITE PLAN
 APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTRIBUTE $150/UNIT TO
 THE WORKFORCE HOUSING TRUST FUND, UNLESS THE CITY
 CHOOSES TO USE IT TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSIT
 PLAN TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND
 CENTREPARK. IF THIS OPTION IS CHOSEN, THEN THE
 APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY ON THE DEVELOPMENT
 OF THIS PLAN.
  
 23. [ PARTIALLY SATISIFED ] - PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 5, CONDITION #11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 97-17,
 ALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED UTILIZING THE LAKES
 (NO POTABLE WATER SHALL BE UTILIZED). PLEASE PROVIDE A
 NOTE ON THE PLANS INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH
 PROVISION.
  
 23.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE IRRIGATION NOTE SHOULD BE
 ADDED TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AS WELL.
  
 24. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 5, CONDITION #13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 97-17,
 WATER-SAVING PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED
 THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. PLEASE PROVIDE A NOTE ON THE
 PLANS INDICATING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION.
  
 25. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE A TURNING RADIUS
 ANALYSIS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF THE LOADING AREA AND
 DUMPSTER/COMPACTOR.
  
 25.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AN ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED
 FOR ALL OF THE LOADING AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN (INSIDE THE
 GARAGE AS WELL AS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
 BUILDING). INGRESS/EGRESS INTO THESE AREAS APPEARS TO
 BE VERY DIFFICULT, IF EVEN POSSIBLE.
  
 26. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - INTERNAL CONNECTION
 SHOULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL
 LOBBY/LEASING AND THE PROPOSED CAFE/RETAIL.
  
 26.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - FOR OPTION B, IS THERE ANY WAY
 TO RELOCATE THE WESTERN ENTRANCE OF THE RETAIL SPACE SO
 THAT IT CONNECTS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY?
  
 27. [ NEW COMMENT ] - MULTIPLE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING
 SHOWN IN THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE
 RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 28. [ NEW COMMENT ] - ELEVATIONS INFORMATION NEEDS TO
 BE PROVIDED FOR ALL STAIRS THAT ARE ENCROACHING INTO A
 REQUIRED SETBACK.
  
 29. [ NEW COMMENT ] - BIKE PARKING FACILITIES SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FOR THE THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
  
 30. [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS DISCUSSED PREVIIOUSLY, THE
 COURTYARD NEEDS TO BE FURTHER DESIGNED AND
 CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE MADE ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF
 THE COURTYARD ADJACENT TO THE TRASH BIN HOLDING AREA,
 LOADING ZONE, PARKING GARAGE, ETC.
  
 31. [ NEW COMMENT ] - MORE DETAIL NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED
 FOR STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THE AREA AT THE NORTHEAST
 CORNER OF THE BUILDING (TRASH BIN HOLDING AREA, LOADING
 DOCKS, ROLLING GATE, ETC.). IT IS HARD TO DISTIGUISH
 WHAT IS WITHIN THE BUILDING VERSUS WHAT IS OUTSIDE.
  
 32. [ NEW COMMENT ] - ADDITIONAL DETIAL NEEDS TO BE
 PROVIDED REGARDING THE ROLLING GATE AT THE LOADING
 DOCKS. IT APPEARS THAT THE GATE BLOCKS A DOORWAY TO THE
 WEST. DOES THE GATE ROLL TO THE EAST? IF SO, IT MAY
 ENRCOACH INTO THE PARKING SPACES.
  
 33. [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, STAFF
 HAS CONCERNS WITH THE OPEN LOADING DOCKS ON THE NORTH
 SIDE OF THE BUILDING, FACING THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
  
 34. [ NEW COMMENT ] - CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE
 PROVIDED REGARDING THE SECONDARY VEHICULAR ENTRANCE
 INTO THE GARAGE...IT IS ONLY 15 FEET WIDE.
  
 35. [ NEW COMMENT ] - A TURN-AROUND SPACE NEEDS TO BE
 PROVIDED AT THE TOP LEVEL (DEAD-END) OF THE PARKING
 GARAGE.
  
 36. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE BUILDING DOES NOT MEET THE
 REQUIRED 20 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OFF OF CENTREPARK
 BOULEVARD, AND THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT DOES NOT
 APPEAR TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE WAIVERS/AMENDMENT.
  
 37. [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, GROUND
 FLOOR UNITS SHALL HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC
 WALKWAY, AS WELL AS THE OPEN SPACE TO THE WEST ALONG
 THE CANAL.
  
 38. [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, A
 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY OR RECREATION TRAIL WITH
 LANDSCAPING, SEATING AREAS, ETC. SHALL BE PROVIDED
 ALONG THE CANAL, CONNECTING CENTREPARK BOULEVARD WITH
 CENTREPARK DRIVE NORTH/EAST TO CREATE A NETWORK OF
 AMENITIES FOR USE BY RESIDENTS, ETC.
  
 39. [ NEW COMMENT ] - STAFF WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE
 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR THE SHADE
 TREE WAIVER. WHAT OFF-SITE LOCATIONS ARE PROPOSED? HAS
 ANY CONSIDERATION BEEN MADE TO ENHANCE THE MEDIAN IN
 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE AT CENTREPARK'S MAIN ENTRANCE?
 ________________________________________
  
 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 SEPTEMBER 15,
 2020, PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN JULY 24, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2020, PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO
 LATER THAN AUGUST 31, 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