Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z20010013
Project Number Z20010013
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2020-06-11 10:59:58*** THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE
 PLANS RECEIVED/STAMPED BY STAFF ON 5/22/2020 ***
  
 GENERAL COMMENTS:
  
 1.) SINCE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED FOR AN OFFICE
 COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (OCPD), THE PROJECT
 SHOULD BE RENAMED "HOLIDAY INN PBI OFFICE COMMERCIAL
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (OCPD)."
  
 2.) ANY CHANGES TO ANY INFORMATION AND/OR CALCULATIONS
 ON THE PLAN SHEET(S) SHALL BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
 OTHER SHEETS IN THE PLAN SET.
  
 3.) BASED ON THE NUMBER OF WAIVERS THE APPLICATION IS
 SEEKING, THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO GENERATE DESIGN
 REGULATIONS (I.E. MINIMUM SETBACKS) FOR THE PROPOSED
 OCPD.
  
 4.) THERE STILL SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION WITH THE
 NUMBER OF ROOMS IN THE EXISTING HOTEL (I.E. 200 ROOMS
 VS. 199 ROOMS). STAFF HAS DOCUMENTATION THAT THERE ARE
 200 ROOMS IN THE EXISTING HOTEL, AND INFORMATION
 PROVIDED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, PARKING STUDY,
 SITE PLAN, ETC. SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT (I.E.
 INTERCHANGE BETWEEN 200 ROOMS AND 199 ROOMS IN THE
 SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS) . AT THIS POINT, STAFF IS
 REQUESTING DOCUMENTATION THAT THE NUMBER OF ROOMS HAD
 BEEN REDUCED FROM 200 ROOMS TO 199 ROOMS; OTHERWISE,
 PLEASE ENSURE THE INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS IS
 CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY.
  
 5.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT: A) SURROUNDING USES TABLE IS INACCURATE. B)
 THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE
 PORTIONS OF THE CITY CODE (OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO
 NEED TO REQUEST ANY WAIVERS!). C) MUST IDENTIFY ALL
 WAIVERS IN THE PROPOSED PD, INCLUDING ANY
 JUSTIFICATION, BENEFITS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (IF
 ANY) TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS. D)
 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PARKING WAIVER IS INSUFFICIENT.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS
 ADDRESSED THE MAJORITY OF STAFF'S ISSUES AND CONCERNS
 WITH THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, THE ABOVE ARE STILL
 OUTSTANDING.]
  
 6.) PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE DATE OF THE HOTEL MARKET
 FEASIBILITY STUDY IS CORRECT. THE MARKET FESIBILITY
 STUDY IS DATED APRIL 8, 2019.
  
  
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CRITERIA) COMMENTS:
  
 1.) THE PLANS SHOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE DIVIDED
 INTO SEPARATE PARCELS/TRACTS BY PROPERTY LINE. IF THE
 APPLICANT INTENDS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY, ALL
 EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES WITHIN EACH SUBDIVIDED
 PARCEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS, BUILDING SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING
 REQUIREMENTS, ETC., AS STAND-ALONE PARCELS AND AS A
 PARCEL AS A WHOLE. IF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 ZLDRS CANNOT BE MET, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO
 SEEK WAIVERS FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS. ALL WAIVERS MUST
 BE IDENTIFIED AND REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION. BASED
 ON STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PLANS/APPLICATION,
 ADDITIONAL WAIVERS WILL NEED TO BE REQUESTED.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: NOT ALL REQUIRED WAIVERS
 HAVE BEEN REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION (I.E. LOADING
 ZONE. THERE IS ALSO CONFLICTING INFORMATION REGARDING
 THE WAVIER REQUEST FROM THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS
 AND WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THE PLANS.]
  
 2.) COMMENTS ON THE REQUESTED PARKING WAIVER: A) FAILS
 TO MEET THE MINIMUM THREE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR A
 PARKING WAIVER. THEREFORE, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE
 PARKING WAIVER AT THIS TIME.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THE
 PROJECT HAS MADE ALL THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO
 ADDRESS THE CONCEPTS OF NEW URBANISM FOR PROJECT
 SUPPORT.]
  
 3.) THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS, ARCHITECTURAL
 STYLE/ELEMENTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) AND SITE DESIGN
 LACKS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREET AND CONNECTIVITY WITH
 ADJACENT/NEARBY USES, DESIRED ELEMENTS OF A PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT. MORE EFFORT IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS
 DESIGN DEFICIENCY.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: EMPHASIS ON THE
 ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND SITE DESIGN SHOULD BE ALONG
 BELVEDERE ROAD, SINCE THE PROJECT FRONTS AND IS HIGHLY
 VISIBLE ALONG THIS STREET FRONTAGE. ALSO, THE PROJECT
 LACKS THE CONNECTIVITY WITH THE PARCELS AND EXISTING
 STREET NETWORK OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
 ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREET.]
  
 4.) SINCE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING TO A
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT IS EXPECTED THAT AS PART OF THE
 APPLICATION FOR A PD THAT ALL PARCELS (PARCELS A AND B
 AND AS A PD AS A WHOLE) ARE IMPROVED/UPGRADED TO MEET
 AND/OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS.
 THE SUBMITTAL SUGGESTS THAT ONLY IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
 MADE TO PARCEL B (NEW HOTEL SITE), WHICH IS NOT
 ACCEPTABLE.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: FEW IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN
 MADE TO PARCEL A (EXISTING HOTEL SITE). ADDITIONAL
 IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ADDRESS BUILDING ENGAGEMENT
 WITH THE STREET AND CONNECTION WITH THE EXISTING STREET
 NETWORK.]
  
  
 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS (SHEET MP-1):
  
 1.) INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE (FLU)
 DESIGNATION, ZONING DESIGNATION AND EXISTING USES FOR
 THE ADJACENT USES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST TO
 DEMONSTRATE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE EXISTING USES AND
 THE PROPOSED USES WITHIN THE CPD.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: REQUESTED INFORMATION NOT
 PROVIDED IN THE 5/22 RESUBMITTAL PLANS.]
  
 2.) SHOW THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE OF ALL LAND WITH
 IN THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF
 ALL AREAS PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED OR RESERVED FOR
 COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC USE.
  
 [2/10/2020: REQUESTED INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED IN THE
 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.]
  
 3.) SHOW THE LOCATION AND SIZE AS APPROPRIATE OF ALL
 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE, WATER, SEWER AND OTHER
 UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS.
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: EXISTING LIFT STATION, FPL
 AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS PROVIDED IN THE SIGNED AND
 SEALED SURVEY ARE NOT DEPICTED AND/OR LABELED IN THE
 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.]
  
 4.) PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS FOR PARCELS A AND B
 HAVE BEEN ILLUSTRATED IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
 THE LOCATION OF SOME OF THE BUFFERS ARE IN CONFLICT
 WITH THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE REQUIRED BUFFERS.
 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS SHOULD ONLY BE ILLUSTRATED WHERE
 BUFFERS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
  
 5.) ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE MASTER
 PLAN, THE EXISTING BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PARCEL A
 (EXISTING HOTEL) IS 136,660 SQ. FT. BUT CAN BE
 INCREASED UP TO 158,981 SQ. FT. (DIFFERENCE OF +22,321
 SQ. FT.). SIMILAR BUILDING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR
 PARCEL B (PROPOSED HOTEL): THE PROPOSED HOTEL IS 60,634
 SQ. FT. BUT CAN BE INCREASED UP TO 101,063 SQ. FT.
 (DIFFERENCE OF +40,429 SQ. FT.). PLEASE EXPLAIN THE
 PURPOSE OF THE EXCESS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, AS STAFF
 HAS CONCERNS THAT THE PROPOSED CPD FALLS SHORT ON THE
 CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE APPLICATION IS
 SEEKING A PARKING REDUCTION TO ADDRESS THE PARKING
 NEEDS OF THE PROJECT.
  
 6.) PROPOSED INTERNAL ROADWAY SYSTEM AND CROSS ACCESS
 POINTS DEPICTED IN THE MASTER PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE INTERNAL ROADWAY SYSTEM AND CROSS ACCESS POINTS
 DEPICTED IN THE PLAT. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY.
  
 7.) A TWO-WAY INTERNAL DRIVE AISLE SHALL BE A MINIMUM
 OF 24 FT. WIDE. PLEASE DIMENSION OUT THE INTERNAL DRIVE
 AISLE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-485]
  
 8.) THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARCEL LAYOUTS SHALL BE
 SHOWN IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ILLUSTRATE HOW
 THE PARCELS AND USES WILL BE INTEGRATED WITHIN THE CPD.
  
 9.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE MASTER
 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT
 WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAT FOR
 CONSISTENCY.
  
 10.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "OVERALL
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DATA TABULAR": A) GROSS SITE AREA
 SHALL MATCH THE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN THE SIGNED AND
 SEALED SURVEY. B) PARCEL SIZE INFORMATION SHALL BE
 CORRECTED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE
 CALCULATIONS. C) THE PROPOSED CUMULATIVE FAR FOR
 PARCELS A AND B SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE APPROPRIATE
 UNIT MEASUREMENT (I.E. FAR IS NOT MEASURED IN SQUARE
 FEET). D) TABULAR IS MISSING MINIMUM REQUIRED/PROVIDED
 LOT SIZE INFORMATION. E) REQUIRED AND PROVIDED
 CALCULATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FOLLOWING:
 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, MAXIMUM IMPERMEABLE SURFACE,
 MINIMUM LANDSCAPING, MINIMUM OPEN SPACE, MINIMUM
 BUILDING SEPARATION. F) REQUIRED AND PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 11.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "PARCEL A SITE
 DATA TABULAR": A) LABEL COLUMNS FOR THE REQUIRED AND
 PROVIDED CALCULATIONS, AND VERIFY THE CALCULATIONS ARE
 PROVIDED IN THE CORRECT COLUMNS. B) PLEASE EXPLAIN THE
 PROPOSED 19.5 FT. LOT WIDTH. C) SOME OF THE
 INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE TABLE CAN BE MINIMIZED
 (I.E. FAR "ALLOWED" INFORMATION CAN BE ELIMINATED, AS
 IT IS ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
 TABULAR). D) "BUILDING NAME" SHALL BE CHANGED TO
 "BUILDING USE" WHICH IS MORE APPROPRIATE. E) IT IS
 UNNECESSARY TO STATE IF THE STANDARDS OF THE CODE HAVE
 BEEN MET (I.E. YES/NO). PLEASE ELIMINATE TO SIMPLIFY
 THE TABLE. F) PROVIDE THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING HOTEL
 IN FEET. G) CHECK CALCULATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, MAXIMUM IMPERMEABLE SURFACE,
 MINIMUM LANDSCAPING AND MINIMUM OPEN SPACE. H) CORRECT
 BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION (SOME SETBACKS PROVIDED IN
 THE TABULAR DO NOT SEEM TO THE BE SHORTEST DISTANCE
 FROM THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE). I) ASTERISKS
 SHALL ONLY BE PROVIDED BY THE WAIVER REQUEST (NOT
 REQUIRED STANDARDS). J) WAIVER REQUIRED FOR: FRONT
 SETBACK
  
 12.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE "PARCEL B SITE
 DATA TABULAR": A) LABEL COLUMNS FOR THE REQUIRED AND
 PROVIDED CALCULATIONS, AND VERIFY THE CALCULATIONS ARE
 PROVIDED IN THE CORRECT COLUMNS. B) THERE SHOULD BE NO
 CORNER SETBACK FOR PARCEL B ? PLEASE ADDRESS. C) SOME
 OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE TABLE CAN BE
 MINIMIZED (I.E. FAR ?ALLOWED? INFORMATION CAN BE
 ELIMINATED, AS IT IS ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE OVERALL
 DEVELOPMENT TABULAR). D) "BUILDING NAME" SHALL BE
 CHANGED TO "BUILDING USE" WHICH IS MORE APPROPRIATE. E)
 IT IS UNNECESSARY TO STATE IF THE STANDARDS OF THE CODE
 HAVE BEEN MET (I.E. YES/NO). PLEASE ELIMINATE TO
 SIMPLIFY THE TABLE. F) PROVIDE THE HEIGHT OF THE
 EXISTING HOTEL IN FEET. G) CHECK CALCULATIONS FOR THE
 FOLLOWING: MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, MAXIMUM IMPERMEABLE
 SURFACE, MINIMUM LANDSCAPING AND MINIMUM OPEN SPACE. H)
 CORRECT BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION (SOME SETBACKS
 PROVIDED IN THE TABULAR DO NOT SEEM TO THE BE SHORTEST
 DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE). I)
 ASTERISKS SHALL ONLY BE PROVIDED BY THE WAIVER REQUEST
 (NOT REQUIRED STANDARDS).
  
 13.) BUILDING SETBACKS SHALL BE MEASURED AS THE
 SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY
 LINES. SOME OF THE SETBACKS PROVIDED IN THE PLANS DO
 NOT SEEM TO BE THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE
 BUILDING(S) TO THE PROPERTY LINES.
  
  
 PARCEL A SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING
 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE 22 PARK N' FLY SPACES.
 STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT A
 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT EXISTS. THE LANGUAGE IN THE SITE
 PLAN SHALL BE CORRECTED FOR CONSISTENCY IF NO
 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE PARK N? FLY SPACES EXISTS.
  
 2.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS MISSING FOR PARCEL A. DIMENSIONS
 FOR THE PARCEL SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN AND SHALL
 BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE
 PROPOSED PLAT DOCUMENT.
  
 3.) DIMENSIONS (I.E. PARKING STALLS/CURB OVERHANGS (IF
 APPLICABLE), DRIVE AISLES, LOADING ZONES, ETC.) ARE
 MISSING FROM THE SITE PLAN. THE DIMENSIONS ARE
 NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM
 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE ZLDRS.
  
 4.) ARE WHEEL STOPS PROVIDED OR WILL THERE BE A 2 FT.
 CURB OVERHANG? WHEEL STOPS WILL NEED TO BE ILLUSTRATED
 IN THE PLAN IF PROVIDED.
  
 5.) SOME BUILDING SETBACKS DO NOT SEEM TO BE MEASURED
 FROM THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE
 PROPERTY LINE. PLEASE RECALCULATE FOR ACCURACY.
  
 6.) EXPLAIN THE WAIVER REQUEST TO THE MINIMUM LOT
 WIDTH. IF IS DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO VERIFY THE REQUEST
 WHEN THERE ARE NO DIMENSIONS IN THE PLANS.
  
 7.) WAIVERS SHALL BE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: A)
 FRONT SETBACK B) SIDE SETBACK C) LOADING ZONES D)
 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
  
 8.) HOW HIGH IS THE EXISTING WALL THAT CONNECTS TO THE
 PROPOSED 4 FT. HIGH DECORATIVE SECURITY FENCE? PLEASE
 NOTATE IN THE PLAN.
  
 9.) BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED. SHOW LOCATION OF BICYCLE
 RACKS AND CALCULATIONS IN THE PLANS.
  
 10.) ANY INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SITE DATA TABULAR FOR
 PARCEL A SHALL BE CORRECTED.
  
  
 PARCEL B SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PARCEL DIMENSIONS MISSING FOR PARCEL B. DIMENSIONS
 FOR THE PARCEL SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN AND SHALL
 BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE
 PROPOSED PLAT DOCUMENT.
  
 2.) DIMENSIONS (I.E. PARKING STALLS/CURB OVERHANGS (IF
 APPLICABLE), DRIVE AISLES, LOADING ZONES,
 WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS, ETC.) ARE MISSING FROM THE SITE
 PLAN. THE DIMENSIONS ARE NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF
 THE ZLDRS.
  
 3.) THERE IS A NEW SIDEWALK FROM THE MAIN FRONT
 ENTRANCE OF THE PROPOSED HOTEL THAT ENDS ALONG THE
 FRONTAGE ROAD. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE SIDEWALK SHALL
 CONNECT TO AN EXISTING/NEW SIDEWALK FOR CONTINUOUS
 CONNECTION AND INTEGRATION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
  
 4.) WAIVERS SHALL BE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: A)
 FRONT SETBACK B) LANDSCAPE BUFFERS C) LOADING ZONE
 REQUIREMENTS.
  
 5.) LOADING ZONE SEEMS TO BE MISSING FROM THE SITE
 PLAN.
  
 6.) THE WEST SIDE SETBACK SEEMS TO BE 52.97 FT. AND NOT
 67.70 FT. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS DISCREPANCY.
  
 7.) PARCEL B DOES NOT ABUT A CORNER, AND THEREFORE,
 THERE SHOULD BE NO CORNER SETBACK. PLEASE ADDRESS.
  
 8.) THE PARKING TABULAR INDICATES A TOTAL OF 6 COMPACT
 PARKING SPACES. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THESE
 COMPACT SPACES WITHIN THE PLAN.
  
 9.) PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING IN THE PARKING
 TABULAR: A) 114 PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN
 COUNTED/IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT (NOT 115 PARKING
 SPACES). B) A MAXIMUM OF 40 COMPACT SPACES ARE
 PERMITTED (NOT 41 COMPACT SPACES).
  
 10.) ANY INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SITE DATA TABULAR FOR
 PARCEL B SHALL BE CORRECTED.
  
  
 SITE PLAN DETAILS COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PARKING STALL DETAIL SHALL BE REVISED FOR
 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR STALL
 STRIPING.
  
 2.) PROVIDE A SITE-SPECIFIC DETAIL (WITH DIMENSIONS) OF
 THE BICYCLE RACKS. THE LOCATION AND RACK SEPARATION
 SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY?S BICYCLE PARKING
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
  
 ARCHITECTECTURAL COMMENTS:
  
 1.) IT IS REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL
 FEATURES BE PROVIDED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION SINCE IT IS
 THE ELEVATION THAT IS MOST VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
 ALSO, NOTE THAT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO PROVIDE COLORED
 ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL.
  
 2.) ALL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED
 FROM VIEW. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE/PROVIDE A NOTE
 IN THE PLAN.
  
  
 SIGNAGE COMMENTS:
  
 1.) THE MAXIMUM SUM TOTAL AREA OF ALL LOW FREESTANDING
 SIGNS ON FRONT STREET: 1 SQ. FT. FOR EACH 1 LINEAR FOOT
 OF FRONT STREET FRONTAGE OF THE LOT WHICH IT IS
 LOCATED. THERE ARE NO PARCEL DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE
 PLANS TO CALCULATE AND VERIFY THE SIGN AREA COMPLIANCE
 WITH THE ZLDRS. [ZLDR S.94-408(A)(2)]
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: PROPOSED SIGN AREA SQUARE
 FOOTAGE NOT PROVIDED.]
  
  
 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) ANY SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION LOCATED WITHIN THE
 PROPOSED PD SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE-FOOT CANDLE AT OR
 BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ILLUSTRATE
 FOOT CANDLE SPILLOVER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR
 S.94-309(A)]
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: SPILLOVER WAS NOT PROVIDED
 FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT (PARCELS A AND B)]
  
 2.) ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED TO REDUCE
 GLARE AND SHALL BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT OR GLARE
 AWAY FROM PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. [ZLDR S.94-309(A)]
  
 [2/10/2020 REPEAT COMMENT: AT MINIMUM, A NOTE SHALL BE
 PROVIDED IN THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE.]
  
  
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL:
  
 * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 * ANY 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
 RESUBMITTAL FEE WILL BE 20% ($600.00) OF THE ORIGINAL
 APPLICATION FEE.
  
 * 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