Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z20050013
Project Number Z20050013
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2021-04-08 10:32:03PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 04.08.2021
 PROJECT NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013
 CASE NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ ONGOING ] - PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP
 SEPARATELY WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 2. [ ONGOING ] - STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH
 EXTENDING THE COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE
 (FLU) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION
 ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED
 FROM THE BANYAN CAY COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS),
 PROJECTS WITHIN THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE
 FLU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE
 TO BE PART OF A MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE
 USES AND PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE
 CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE USES, ETC.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES
 NOT SHOW ANYTHING WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS
 WEST OF CONGRESS FALL WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS?
  
 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS
 HAVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
  
 4.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN
 ENCROACHING INTO THE SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT.
  
 4.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING
 OVER THE CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE.
  
 4.3. [ SATISFIED ] - NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
 SHOW THE TRUCK EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH.
  
 4.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR
 TRUCK ARE NOT SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED.
  
 4.5. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE
 COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE
 PROPERTY. DOES THEIR ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH
 AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE
 DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN?
  
 4.5.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS
 SHOW THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ENTERING LANDS OF THE
 PRESIDENTS AT THEIR NORTH GATE, TRAVELING SOUTH ALONG
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY, ENTERING THE SITE AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE, EXITING AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE, AND THEN
 TRAVELING NORTH ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY TO THE NORTH GATE.
 PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE ROUTE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S
 TRUCK MATCHES WHAT IS BEING SHOWN AND THAT IT DOES NOT
 ENTER LANDS OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM THE SOUTH GATE.
  
 4.5.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PLANS STILL SHOW THE
 TRUCK ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE NORTH PWA GATE.
 PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS ROUTE ACCURATELY MATCHES THAT
 WHICH WILL BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S CREWS AND THAT NO
 OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH WILL BE SERVICED,
 NECESSITATING A DIFFERENT ROUTE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN.
  
 4.6. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE
 TRUCK ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN.
  
 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM:
  
 5.1. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
  
 5.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED FPU LETTER HAS NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED.
  
 5.2. [ SATISFIED ] - CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
  
 5.3. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
  
 5.3.1 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM FLORIDA
 POWER AND LIGHT INDICATES THAT LANDSCAPING IS
 ENCROACHING INTO THEIR EASEMENTS. WHAT PLANS ARE BEING
 MADE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IS THE EASEMENT BEING
 ABANDONED/RELOCATED? IS FPL GOING TO CONSENT TO THE
 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EASEMENT?
  
 5.3.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE LETTER FROM FPL DOESN?T
 PROVIDE THE USUAL LANGUAGE WHICH STATE THAT THE PROJECT
 DOESN?T ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE
 INTERFERE WITH THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
  
 5.4. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - COMCAST
  
 5.4.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM COMCAST IS
 FOR THE WRONG ADDRESS. ADDITIONALLY, IT SPEAKS TO THE
 ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS; PLEASE CLARIFY.
  
 5.4.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED COMCAST LETTER HAS NOT
 BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 5.5. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED AT&T LETTER HAS NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY:
  
 7.1. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE
 LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT
 PARCEL THAT IS BEING CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO
 ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT
 ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED.
  
 7.2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY
 USE IS MID-RIDE CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE
 HIGHEST TRAFFIC GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT,
 WHATEVER CATEGORY GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD
 BE USED AS THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE
 REGARDING THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE
 PERMITTED.
  
 7.2.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE RESPONSES INDICATE THAT
 THE MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY IS THE MAXIMUM THAT ?CAN BE
 ACCOMMODATED? ON THE PROPERTY; THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 SHOULD BE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY
 THE FLU, NOT WHAT IS ?PROPOSED? OR WHAT CAN BE
 ?ACCOMMODATED?.
  
 7.2.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED, AND
 THE STUDY IS STILL UTILIZING MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY
 BECAUSE IT IS WHAT ?CAN BE ACCOMMODATED?.
  
  
  
 7.3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY
 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IS INCORRECT. THE CURRENT
 MF FLU DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH
 WOULD ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132.
  
 7.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY
 (ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477
 ACRES.
  
 7.5. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514
 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE
 NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE
 BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CHANGING.
  
 7.6 [ SATISFIED ] - THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE
 FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE BASED ON THE
 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED FLU, NOT
 THE ACTUAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
  
 7.7 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? WHY WAS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
 REMOVED FROM THE ?PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE ? MAXIMUM
 POTENTIAL? CALCULATION?
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES
 THAT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS
 ATTACHED, BUT NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD
 APPLICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT
 TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED
 BY THE CITY AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO
 DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION
 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 9. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
 THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 9.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH
 WHAT WAS INCLUDED WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU
 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES
 ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 9.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN
 WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL
 WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC TO
 A CERTAIN POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 REGARDING THE REQUESTED PARKING WAVIER:
  
 10.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO COMPLY WITH SEC.
 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY MEETING THREE (3)
 OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE
 BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE
 SUPPORTING INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS
 BEEN PROVIDED, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE
 CRITERIA ARE BEING MET.
  
 10.1.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - WHILE JUSTIFICATION
 HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THREE (3) OF THE CRITERIA, STAFF
 DOES NOT AGREE THAT SOME OF THE POINTS MADE CONSTITUTE
 NEW URBANISM.
  
 10.1.1.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? STAFF IS STILL REVIEWING
 THE PROPOSED PARKING WAIVER AND HAS NOT DETERMINED
 SUPPORT OF SUCH REQUEST.
  
 10.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PARKING CALCULATIONS SHOWN
 IN THE TABLE ON PAGE 14 OF THE JUSTIFICATION DO NOT
 MATCH THE SITE PLAN, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER
 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
  
 10.2. [ SATISFIED ] - WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR
 PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND
 AND ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
  
 11. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER
 PBAS WITHIN BANYAN CAY, THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND
 LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN
 CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES
 TO THE EXISTING SHEETS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO
 ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 11.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBERS
 HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED, THEY INDICATE SHEET # ?OF 8? BUT
 THERE ARE NOW 9 SHEETS.
  
 11.2 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE
 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY NOT SHOWN ON THE COVER, SP-2,
 SP-5, ETC.?
  
 12. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM
 PALM BEACH COUNTY:
  
 12.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER STATES THAT
 MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE
 PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY,
 IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NORTH GATE IS FOR
 EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL TRAFFIC
 STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC. PROPERTY REFLECT
 THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS.
  
 12.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE PLAN FOR RELATION OF THE
 NORTH ENTRY GATE DOES NOT REFLECT THE 300 FOOT SETBACK
 FROM CONGRESS AVENUE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC
 CONCURRENCY APPROVAL.
  
 12.1.2 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - NOTHING WAS PROVIDED FROM
 THE PWA INDICATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
 IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
  
 13. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION
 INDICATING THEIR APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
 WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 13.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS
 RELIANT UPON, AND REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, THE IMPROVEMENTS
 IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BEFORE
 PUBLIC HEARING.
  
 14. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
 ADJACENT TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE
 THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
 PARKING?
  
 15. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - ON THE SITE PLAN, IT
 APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE
 SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT
 PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN SHALL FALL WITHIN THE
 DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE AND BE LOCATED IN
 SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON THE ABILITY FOR
 CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED
 SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN AND THE
 STRIPING.
  
 15.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE DETAIL PROVIDED
 SHOWS THE PARKING SPACES UNDER THE BUILDING BEING
 SINGLE-STRIPED. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS, ALL
 PARKING SHALL BE DOUBLE-STRIPED. PLEASE ADJUST THE
 DETAIL ACCORDINGLY.
  
 16. [ SATISFIED ] - BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE
 PROVIDED AT THE ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS ENSURING
 THAT THEY ARE VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC.
  
 16.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW
 GUESTS ARRIVING TO BUILDING B WILL KNOW THAT THE
 BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING, PAST
 THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE LOBBY?
  
 17. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE
 REAR SETBACK FOR BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING
 THE MINIMUM SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT
 BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK.
 THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER
 TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE
 SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH END OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 19. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SPECIFIC INFORMATION
 NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE WAIVER REQUESTS:
  
 19.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BEGINNING OF THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE
 WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE? LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT
 IT APPEARS THAT THESE WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO
 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PLAN. IF THEY ARE
 LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN
 (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.).
  
 19.2. [ ONGOING ] - JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
 HOW THE IMPACT OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING MITIGATED.
  
 19.2.1 [ ONGOING ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION
 CONSTITUTES SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER (ESPECIALLY REGARDING
 LANDSCAPING).
  
 19.3. [ SATISFIED ] - SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING
 DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS;
 EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A
 BASIS FOR A WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL
 MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE
 ARGUMENTS HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT.
  
 21. [ ONGOING ] - THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES
 THAT INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BEING USED TO
 FOSTER INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE EXPAND ON THIS AND
 PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT. THE PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WAIVERS ARE BEING
 REQUESTED, IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH INNOVATIVE LAND
 PLANNING TECHNIQUES.
  
 21.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONSE
 CONSTITUTES INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AS REQUIRED BY THE
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
  
 22. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH
 THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE
 FOLLOWING:
  
 22.1 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE PROVISION OF
 BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY SURFACE
 PARKING, ESPECIALLY BUILDING B WITH THE PROVISION OF
 PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. BUILDING B INCLUDES
 EXPOSED PARKING ALONG THE FRONT FACADE THAT RESULTS IN
 NO LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT
 COULD ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
  
 22.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE
 PROPOSED SCREENING OF THE PARKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR
 (GARAGE DOORS, PRIVACY SCREEN, ETC.) WORK IN CONNECTION
 WITH THE BUILDING ABOVE. THE PLANS SHOW THE PARKING
 STRIPING EXTENDING OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE OF THE
 UPPER FLOORS BUT THAT PRIVACY SCREEN OR GARAGE DOORS
 ARE BEING PROVIDED. IS THERE AN OVERHANG ABOVE THE
 GARAGE DOOR? IT APPEARS SO ON THE ELEVATION, BUT
 NOTHING SHOWN ON THE PLAN VIEW OR SIDE ELEVATIONS.
  
 22.3 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH
 THE DESIGN TEAM REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
 BUILDING. THE STRUCTURE IS SIGNIFICANT IN SIZE, HAS
 LITTLE ARTICULATION VERTICALLY, ETC.
  
 23. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE
 SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES.
  
 24. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF
 OVERHANG SHALL BE PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B
 AS IT IS LOCATED AT THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT
 TO THE CITY?S ZLDRS, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY
 ALLOWED TO EXTEND THREE (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED
 SETBACK.
  
 24.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE LOCATION OF THE
 OVERHANG DIMENSION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B
 APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SHOWING
 THE DIMENSION FROM THE OVERHANG TO THE EDGE OF THE
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 24.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? ROOF OVERHANG DIMENSIONS WERE
 NOT PROVIDED.
  
 25. [ SATISFIED ] - A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GOLF CART
 PATH IS BEING SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE SUBJECT
 PROPERTY. THIS PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO
 DIRECT CARTS TO THE NEW CONNECTION POINT.
  
 25.1 [ SATISFIED ] - PLANS ARE NOT CLEAR HOW THE CART
 PATH SHOWN ON THIS PROPERTY IS CONNECTING INTO THE
 EXISTING PATHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
  
 25.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE
 TWO (2) 90-DEGREE BENDS IN THE CART PATH WILL WORK ON
 THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B.
  
 26. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF
 BUILDING A HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
 HARDSCAPE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
  
 27. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD
 SHOW SQUARED CORNERS ON THE STRIPING.
  
 28. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OR
 A CROSS SECTION REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THIS
 AREA AS NO TREES ARE PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER,
 ETC. STAFF HAS ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM THE
 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
  
 28.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 PROVIDE ON THE CIVIL PLANS DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN
 ON THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ETC. THE SITE PLAN
 SHOWS 7+ FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE
 RETAINING WALL; THE DETAIL SHOWS THE 2 FOOT OVERHANG
 BUTTING UP NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL/RAILING.
  
 28.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 INDICATES THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL VARIES
 FROM 0 TO 8 FEET, BUT THE SITE PLAN LEADS TO BELIEVE
 THAT THE WALL IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET IN HEIGHT; PLEASE
 CLARIFY.
  
 28.3 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED
 OF HAVING SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE
 RETAINING WALL TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT
 PROPERTY.
  
 28.3.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IS A RETAINING WALL NO LONGER
 BEING PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE?
 THERE IS A LINE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT APPEARS LIKE THE
 PREVIOUSLY-PROPOSED WALL, BUT THERE IS NO LABELING,
 ETC.
  
 29. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE
 DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON
 THEIR UNIT COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE
 FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES.
  
 30. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SURVEY DOES NOT LABEL THE
 EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
 SITE, RUNNING PARALLEL TO PRESIDENTIAL WAY. ACCORDING
 TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS THIS IS AN FPL EASEMENT.
  
 31. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE REAR
 SETBACK FROM THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 32. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WAS
 PROVIDED FOR THOSE COMMENTS ISSUED ON 09.17.2020.
  
 33. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? TWO (2) COPIES OF THE SITE PLAN
 WERE PROVIDED, EACH IS LABELED DIFFERENTLY; ONE IS
 LABELED PRELIMINARY WITH A DATE OF 2/5/21. PLEASE
 CLARIFY WHICH SITE PLAN IS ACCURATE AND WHICH SITE PLAN
 SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SUBMITTAL.
  
 34. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
 WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN EXISTING
 EASEMENTS.
  
 34.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS LANDSCAPING / RETAINING WALL
 IS PROPOSED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, CONSENT FROM THE EASEMENT HOLDER
 SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 34.2. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? AS LANDSCAPING / LIGHT POLES
 ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THE FPL EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST
 CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, CONSENT FROM THE EASEMENT
 HOLDER SHALL BE PROVIDED.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES (PDF, WORD, ETC.) OF ALL REVISED
 PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 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 NOVEMBER 17, 2020,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 17, 2020, PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO
 LATER THAN NOVEMBER 2, 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