Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z21050015
Project Number Z21050015
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2021-07-26 17:14:29CASE NO. PB 1857B -1ST RESUBMITTAL REVIEW
 FLAGLER TOWERS
 1315 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE
  
 - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
 [email protected]
  
 - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE
 (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT
 OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
 TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
 COMMENTS.
  
 - THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY 5 PM ON FRIDAY,
 JULY 30, 2021, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE
 SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
 RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM
 THE DATE OF ISSUANCE (BY AUGUST 10, 2021), THE PLANNING
 DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE CASE IS
 CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE
 A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL
 FEE. SUCH FEE IS 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE
 ($600).
  
 - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS.
  
 1) REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE TRAFFIC
 STUDY THAT STATES THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT GENERATE A
 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. HOWEVER, YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO
 PROVIDE A PALM BEACH COUNTY TPS APPROVAL LETTER.
  
 2) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE
 PROPOSED SIDEWALK AND WALKWAYS TO THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS
 BEING INSTALLED AND THE TREES BEING REPLACED ON THE
 CITY OWNED PARCEL SOUTH OF THE PROJECT. THE PARCEL IS
 SUBJECT TO A DEED RESTRICTION. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT
 THE PROPOSED CHANGES DO NOT IMPACT THE DEED
 RESTRICTION, PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE APPLICATION FOR
 THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, YOU MUST PROVIDE WRITTEN
 CONSENT/NO OBJECTION FROM THE LAKE WORTH PIONEERS
 ASSOCIATION AND THE NORTON GALLERY AND SCHOOL OF ART,
 INC., TO THE CITY.
  
 3) REPEAT COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE FAA
 APPLICATION NUMBERS. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE FAA
 APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER PRIOR TO SCHEDULING
 THIS CASE FOR PLANNING BOARD.
  
 4) REPEAT COMMENT: STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT THE BUILDING
 IN EXCESS OF 300 FEET IN HEIGHT. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU
 ARE WELCOME TO PROCEED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING
 PROCESS TO CITY COMMISSION; HOWEVER, STAFF WILL BE
 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AS CURRENTLY
 PROPOSED. THE LATEST ROUND OF RESPONSES INCLUDES ITEMS
 WHICH MUST BE PROVIDED AND CORRECTED PRIOR TO BEING
 SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING BOARD, REGARDLESS OF THE
 BUILDING DESIGN (EXAMPLE: PARKING LOT CORRECTIONS).
  
 BUILDING PLACEMENT
  
 5) STAFF HAS REASSESSED THE MEASURE POINTS TO DETERMINE
 BASIS FOR THE NORTHERN SETBACK WAIVERS. LEVEL WILL BE
 15 FEET, LEVELS 2 THROUGH 4 (PODIUM) WILL BE 41 FEET
 AND THE NORTHERN TOWER WILL BE 41 FEET.
  
 6) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE TWO CROSS SECTIONS EAST
 OF THE RESIDENT ENTRANCE ALONG DIANA PLACE. PLEASE
 PROVIDE ONE THAT INCLUDES THE ANGLED PARKING SPACES AND
 ONE THAT INCLUDES THE EASTERNMOST TOWNHOUSE SO THAT
 STAFF CAN SEE WHAT THE IMPACT OF CHANGING THE GRADE HAS
 AT THESE TWO LOCATIONS.
  
 7) STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT
 REGARDING PUSHING THE SOUTHERN TOWER BACK FROM THE
 FACADE OF THE PODIUM. PROVIDE A CONTEXT ELEVATION FROM
 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE FACING EAST WHICH SHOWS HOW THE
 PROPOSED BUILDING INTERACTS WITH THE PARK AND THE
 NORTON MUSEUM. STAFF HAS INCLUDED THE VIEWPOINT IN THE
 COMMENT ADDENDUM SENT AS A SEPARATE FILE.
  
 8) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT THE
 FIVE (5) FOOT BALCONY ENCROACHMENT IS ONLY ON LEVEL 26
 AND 27. THIS WILL BE THE SPECIFIC WAIVER. STAFF WILL
 NOT SUPPORT A BLANKET WAIVER FOR ALL THE BALCONIES ON
 THE SOUTH FA?ADE TO EXTEND FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE
 BUILDING SINCE THIS IS NOT HOW THE DRAWINGS ARE BEING
 PRESENTED. THE WEST COLOR ELEVATION FAILS TO SHOW THE
 BALCONY. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST MATCH THE FLOOR
 PLANS.
  
 9) PROVIDE THE DEPTH OF THE TERRACE ON THE SOUTH SIDE
 OF THE TOWER ON LEVEL 10. THIS TERRACE ENCROACHES
 FURTHER INTO THE SOUTHERN SETBACK THAN THE OTHER
 TERRACES FOR WHICH DIMENSIONS WERE PROVIDED.
  
 10) PROVIDE THE DEPTH OF THE TRELLIS FEATURES THAT
 OVERHANG THE BUILDING EDGES.
  
 11) UPDATED COMMENT: EVEN THOUGH THE CANOPY AT THE
 SOUTH ENTRANCE WAS REDUCED IN SIZE, IT STILL INTERFERES
 WITH THE SPECIMEN OAK TREE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AT
 THIS LOCATION. THE 10-FOOT DEPTH WILL INTERFERE WITH
 ANY TREE INSTALLED AS SHOWN.
  
 12) PROVIDE THE HEIGHTS OF THE CANOPIES AND AWNINGS
 FROM GRADE.
  
 13) REPEAT COMMENT: THE SITE OPEN SPACE IS INCORRECTLY
 CALCULATED. THE AREAS SUCH AS THE MOTOR COURT AND THE
 DRIVE WHERE IT IS ABOVE THE FIRST LEVEL OF THE BUILDING
 IS NOT OPEN SPACE IT IS THE BUILDING ROOF OF THE
 FIRST-FLOOR PARKING.
  
 14) WHAT DOES THE 3-FOOT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT NOTE AT
 THE FLAGLER DRIVE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE REFER TOO?
  
 15) WHAT OCCURS IN THE ROOM BEHIND THE TERRACE TO THE
 WEST OF THE FLAGLER DRIVE RESIDENT PARK? IS THERE AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS AS A ROOM THAT RESIDENTS CAN
 USE TO ENTERTAIN AS IT OVERLOOKS THE TERRACE AND THE
 PARK? IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE WINDOWS? SEE
 ADDENDUM FOR LOCATION.
  
 16) THE SIDEWALK ALONG FLAGLER DRIVE WHERE IT MEETS
 FORTE MUST BE THE SAME WIDTH AS THE SIDEWALK THAT FORTE
 IS INSTALLING, NOT FIVE FEET AS PROPOSED. THIS NEEDS TO
 BE CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
  
 17) EXPLAIN THE ENTRANCES TO THE TOWNHOUSES. ONE UNIT
 APPEARS TO HAVE TWO MAIN ENTRANCES AND OTHERS SEEM TO
 HAVE THE INTERNAL WALKWAYS THAT CROSS BETWEEN UNIT
 COURTYARDS. PROVIDE ACCURATE CONFIGURATIONS. SEE
 ADDENDUM FOR LOCATION.
  
 ELEVATIONS
  
 18) PROVIDE THE ELEVATION DIMENSION LINES ON THE ACTUAL
 ELEVATION DRAWINGS. THE STACKING DIAGRAM DOES NOT
 PROVIDE THE DETAILS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE ELEVATIONS.
  
 19) THE EAST ELEVATION AT THE PARK IS NOT ACCURATE. THE
 PARKING RAMP NOT SHOWN, AND THE DOORS AND WALLS DO NOT
 SEEM ACCURATE WHEN COMPARED TO THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE
 PLANS.
  
 PARKING
  
 20) THE PROJECT NOW CONTAINS EXCESS PARKING SPACES;
 HOWEVER, STAFF REQUIRES A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE
 SPACES IN EACH GARAGE WILL BE ACCESSED AND WHO HAS
 ACCESS TO THE SPACES (VALET VS. SELF-PARK). UNTIL STAFF
 HAS A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PARKING WILL
 FUNCTION, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR
 QUESTION, "CAN WE COUNT THE TANDEM SPACES ON THE SECOND
 GARAGE LEVEL TOWARDS MEETING OUR CODE REQUIREMENT IF WE
 PROVIDE A VALET PARKING PLAN AND THE SPACES ARE USED
 FOR VALETING THE STAFF, VISITORS, AND CAFE PARKING?"
 PLEASE PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN LIKE THE TABLE PROVIDED IN
 THE ADDENDUM. NOTE: IT DOES NOT NEED TO REPLACE ANY
 TABLES YOU CURRENTLY PROVIDE.
  
 21) REPEAT COMMENT: WHERE ARE THE GUEST PARKING SPACES
 AND HOW ARE THEY ACCESSED (ARE THEY REQUIRED TO BE
 VALET OR MAY THEY SELF-PARK)? THE 11 REQUIRED GUEST
 PARKING SPACES MUST BE LABELED ON THE ON THE PLANS.
  
 22) ADDITIONAL ADA COMMENTS FROM ROBERT BROWN REGARDING
 THE SECOND LEVEL PARKING (ONLY AS CAFE CUSTOMERS) AND
 GUEST PARKING:
  
 A. SINCE A TOTAL OF 67 PARKING SPACES ARE BEING
 PROVIDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR CAFE CUSTOMERS, NO MATTER
 WHETHER THOSE ARE SELF-PARKING OR VALET, 3 ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR CAF? CUSTOMERS AND
 THE USERS MUST BE ABLE TO SELF-PARK IF THEY WANT TO.
 THEIR VEHICLE MAY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO THE POINT WHERE
 A VALET CANNOT OPERATE IT.
 B. SINCE THE SPACES ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR CAFE CUSTOMERS,
 ONE OF THE ACCESSIBLE SPACES MUST BE VAN ACCESSIBLE.
 C. THE USERS OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST BE
 ABLE TO SELF-PARK IF THEY WANT TO. THEIR VEHICLE MAY
 HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO THE POINT WHERE A VALET CANNOT
 OPERATE IT.
 D. WHEN THE GUEST PARKING SPACES ARE DESIGNATED ON THE
 PLANS, IF THEY ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR GUESTS, THEY MUST
 INCLUDE ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING IN
 NUMBERS ACCORDING TO HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE
 DESIGNATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR GUEST PARKING.
  
 23) THE COMMENT RESPONSE STATES THAT THE LEVEL 3
 PARKING AREA IS ONLY FOR RESIDENTS. DOES THIS MEAN THAT
 THIS IS A SELF-PARK ONLY PARKING AREA?
  
 24) TANDEM PARKING SPACES ARE SHOWN ON LEVEL 3. WHO
 USES THESE TANDEM SPACES?
  
 25) ON THE RESIDENT PARKING LEVELS, DO UNIT OWNERS OWN
 DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES?
  
 26) REPEAT COMMENT: THE ADA PARKING SPACE DETAIL
 (ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESSIBLE) ON SHEET A-054 DO NOT
 CONFORM TO CITY STRIPING STANDARDS. IF YOU REQUIRE THE
 CITY STANDARD DETAIL, PLEASE LET STAFF KNOW AND IT WILL
 BE PROVIDED.
  
 PARKING COUNTS:
  
 27) SHEET A-100 BASEMENT LEVEL - CORRECT THE ERRORS
 IDENTIFIED BELOW:
  
 A. THE TABLE LISTS 168 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, YET THE
 PARKING TAGS SHOW 169 PARKING SPACES, WHICH VERIFIES
 STAFF'S COUNT OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
 THERE ARE ONLY 14 COMPACT SPACES PROVIDED, NOT 15 AS
 STATED IN THE TABLE.
 THERE ARE 147 STANDARD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, NOT 145
 AS STATED IN THE TABLE.
  
 B. THE PARKING BY TYPE TABLE LISTS 277 STANDARD PARKING
 SPACES, YET STAFF HAS COUNTED 325 STANDARD PARKING
 SPACES.
  
 28) SHEET A-102 LOBBY LEVEL - CORRECT THE ERRORS
 IDENTIFIED BELOW:
  
 A. THE TABLE LISTS 43 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, YET STAFF
 HAS COUNTED 68 PARKING SPACES.
 THERE ARE 42 STANDARD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, NOT 17
 AS STATED IN THE TABLE.
  
 B. THE BACK-UP DISTANCE BETWEEN SPACES 325 AND 344 ON
 LEVEL 2 PARKING DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE MINIMUM 24
 FEET AISLE, SO ONE OF THE SPACES MUST BE REMOVED (OR
 CONVERTED TO A COMPACT SPADE).
  
 29) SHEET A-103 LEVEL 3 - CORRECT THE ERRORS IDENTIFIED
 BELOW:
  
 A. THE TABLE LISTS 62 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, YET STAFF
 HAS COUNTED 84 PARKING SPACES.
 THERE ARE 61 STANDARD PARKING SPACES PROVIDED, NOT 40
 AS STATED IN THE TABLE.
 THERE IS 1 COMPACT PARKING SPACE PROVIDED THAT IS NOT
 ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE TABLE.
  
 B. THE PARKING SPACE NUMBERING ON SHEET A-103 STARTS AT
 351 INSTEAD OF 347 (NEXT NUMBER IN SEQUENCE FROM SHEET
 A-102) AND THUS THE BUILDING IS SHOWN TO HAVE 434
 PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE.
  
 30) THERE ARE 430 TOTAL PARKING SPACES SHOWN ON THE
 PLANS (INCLUDES 49 TANDEM SPACES). NOTE: THE VARIOUS
 TABLES ALTERNATE BETWEEN COUNTING AND NOT COUNTING THE
 TANDEM SPACES IN THE TOTAL. IT MAY BE BEST TO HAVE A
 TOTAL OF THE SPACES THAT COUNT TOWARD THE PARKING
 REQUIREMENT AND THEN LIST THE TANDEM SPACES ON EACH
 FLOOR BELOW THE TOTAL AS ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE PARKING.
  
 31) THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING BICYCLE PARKING; HOWEVER:
  
 A. PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BICYCLE RACK PAD
 ALONG SOUTH OLIVE. THE DEPTH MUST BE AT LEAST SIX FEET
 AND THE WIDTH IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF RACK ELEMENTS.
 B. PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE BICYCLE RACKS THAT WILL
 BE USED WITHIN THE BICYCLE STORAGE ROOMS. THE BICYCLE
 STORAGE ROOMS MUST SHOW THE ACCURATE RACKS AND THE
 DIMENSIONS REQUIRED BASED ON THE TYPE OF RACKS.
 C. REPEAT COMMENT: YOU MUST HAVE BICYCLE PARKING FOR
 GUESTS (VISITORS) NEAR ONE OF THE GUEST ACCESSIBLE
 ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING. THE BICYCLE RACK BY THE CAFE
 IS NOT NEAR AN ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF
 THE BUILDING THAT A GUEST CAN USE. IDENTIFY THE
 ENTRANCE(S) THAT ARE GUEST ACCESSIBLE AND PROVIDE AT
 LEAST ONE BICYCLE RACK, WITH PAD DIMENSIONS, ADJACENT
 TO THAT ENTRANCE.
  
 32) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE
 PROPOSED PRE-WIRING OF THE BUILDING FOR EV CHARGER
 INSTALLATION. WHILE STAFF APPRECIATES THAT YOU HAVE
 SHOWN 4 EV SPACES, NO DETAILS ON HOW THESE ACTUALLY
 FUNCTION WERE PROVIDED, TO INCLUDE WHERE THE CHARGING
 UNITS WOULD BE PLACED. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT AT LEAST
 ONE ADA PARKING SPACE WILL NEED TO BE EV COMPATIBLE.
 BELOW ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EV FACILITIES BASED ON
 THE FORTE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND ARE THE EXPECTATIONS
 FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT MAKES AVAILABLE
 LEVEL I CHARGING FOR EVERY UNIT OWNER WITH THE
 FACILITIES IN PLACE TO UPGRADE TO A LEVEL 2 CHARGER.
  
 CHARGING STATIONS: ELECTRONIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
 MUST BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERMITS ISSUED BY
 THE CITY?S BUILDING DIVISION AS FOLLOWS:
  
 A. ONE LEVEL 1 FULL CIRCUIT INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED
 FOR EACH UNIT'S REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (109 TOTAL).
 EACH CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED TO BE A 20 AMP, 120 VOLT
 CIRCUIT, WITH RACEWAY/CONDUIT, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND
 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION TO CODE. THE DEVELOPER SHALL
 INSTALL OVERSIZED RACEWAY/CONDUIT OR ADDITIONAL
 RACEWAY/CONDUIT, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY'S BUILDING
 DIVISION, THAT WILL PROVIDE THE ABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL
 UNIT OWNERS OR THE HOMEOWNERS? ASSOCIATION TO INSTALL
 THE WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND OVERCURRENT PROTECTION TO
 CODE TO ALLOW PARKING SPACES TO BE UPGRADED TO A LEVEL
 2, 40 AMP, 208/240 VOLT CIRCUIT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL
 PROVIDE SPACE TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL PANEL
 TO ACCOMMODATE LEVEL 2 FULL CIRCUIT UPGRADES.
  
 B. TWO LEVEL 2 FULL CIRCUIT INSTALLATIONS ARE REQUIRED
 FOR THE GUEST PARKING SPACES. EACH CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED
 TO BE A 40 AMP, 208/240 VOLT CIRCUIT, WITH
 RACEWAY/CONDUIT, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND OVERCURRENT
 PROTECTION TO CODE. ONE DUAL PORT ELECTRIC VEHICLE
 CHARGER MUST BE INSTALLED FOR THE GUEST PARKING SPACES
 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
 FOR THE BUILDING.
  
 C. ONE LEVEL 1 FULL CIRCUIT INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED
 FOR FOUR (4) OF THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES. EACH
 CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED TO BE A 20 AMP, 120 VOLT CIRCUIT,
 WITH RACEWAY/CONDUIT, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND
 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION TO CODE.
  
 D. FOUR LEVEL 2 FULL CIRCUIT INSTALLATIONS ARE REQUIRED
 FOR THE VALET PARKING SPACES. EACH CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED
 TO BE A 40 AMP, 208/240 VOLT CIRCUIT, WITH
 RACEWAY/CONDUIT, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND OVERCURRENT
 PROTECTION TO CODE. TWO DUAL PORT ELECTRIC VEHICLE
 CHARGERS MUST BE INSTALLED FOR THE VALET PARKING SPACES
 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
 FOR THE BUILDING. THE VALET SPACES CONTAINING THE
 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS MAY NOT BE SOLD OR LEASED TO
 RESIDENTS AND MUST REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR CHARGING
 VEHICLES.
  
 LOADING/ACCESS
  
 33) UPDATED COMMENT: THE NORTH SIDE OF CURRIE CRESCENT
 HAS ON-STREET PARALLEL PARKING SPACES. THE TRUCK
 TURNING DIAGRAM SHOWS THE TRUCK USING THE FULL WIDTH OF
 CURRIE CRESCENT, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE IF A CAR IS PARKED
 IN THE PARALLEL SPACES. THE CITY'S PARKING DEPARTMENT
 DOES NOT SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACES IN THIS
 AREA AS THE PARKING SPACES SEE SIGNIFICANT USAGE. THE
 PARKING DIVISION WILL SUPPORT THE RELOCATION OF THE
 FIVE EXISTING PARKING SPACES TO THE NORTH SIDE OF DIANA
 PLACE. YOU NEED TO SHOW THE RELOCATED PARKING SPACES
 ALONG DIANA PLACE. SUGGESTION: RECONFIGURE THE PARKING
 ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DIANA PLACE TO BE A PARALLEL
 CONFIGURATION. THIS WOULD ALLOW MORE ROOM FOR TREES AT
 THE WEST END OF ROAD (WHERE THE ANGLE PARKING CURRENTLY
 EXISTS), PUSH CARS (AND THEIR HEADLIGHTS AT NIGHT)
 FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS ON THE WEST END
 OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD PROVIDE PARKING SPACES IN
 FRONT OF ALL OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS THAT COULD BE
 UTILIZED BY UNIT OWNER GUESTS WHO DO NOT WANT TO PARK
 IN THE GARAGE.
  
 34) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SERVICES
 DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO APPROVE THE USE OF CURRIE CRESCENT
 FOR MANEUVERING PRIOR TO THE CASE PROCEEDING THROUGH
 THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. CALL TO DISCUSS IS
 SCHEDULED.
  
 35) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SERVICES
 DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO APPROVE THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS
 TO CURRIE CRESCENT AND THE SEPARATION OF ACCESS POINTS
 TO THE CASE PROCEEDING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING
 PROCESS. CALL TO DISCUSS IS SCHEDULED.
  
 WALLS
  
 36) PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE DECORATIVE THREE-FOOT
 WALL ALONG THE VEHICULAR USE AREA ON THE NORTH PROPERTY
 LINE AND THE RETAINING WALLS.
  
 37) THE PLANS SHOW A FENCE ALONG DIANA PLACE AT THE
 TOWNHOUSE COURTYARDS. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE
 TYPE OF FENCE AND THE COLUMNS AND GATES. SHEET LG-1.1
 CALLS OUT THE COLUMNS AND GATES AS MAXIMUM 6 FEET. THE
 PLANS DO NOT CALL OUT WHAT HEDGE MATERIAL WILL SCREEN
 THE 4-FOOT-TALL FENCE. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A
 COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG THE NEW DIANA
 PLACE WALKWAY, THE GATES NEED TO BE A PICKET STYLE AND
 THE HEDGE AND GATES SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET IN HEIGHT.
  
 38) PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE STONE PLINTH WITH
 DECORATIVE FENCE LISTED ON THE HARDSCAPE PLAN.
  
 SIGNAGE
  
 39) ONE OF THE COMMENT RESPONSES STATED THAT THERE
 WOULD BE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE TO GUIDE DRIVING CUSTOMERS
 TO THE CAFE PARKING. PLEASE REVIEW THE SIGNAGE
 ALLOWANCE FOR PARKING AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS TO
 VERIFY WHAT SIZE AND SETBACKS ARE PERMITTED. PLEASE
 NOTE THAT A BUSINESS NAME/LOGO IS NOT PERMITTED ON
 PARKING AREA DIRECTIONAL SIGNS BY RIGHT. IF A SIGN THAT
 DOES NOT CONFORM THE BY RIGHT ALLOWANCE IS BEING
 CONTEMPLATED, THEN A SIGN PROGRAM THAT WAIVES THE CODE
 PROVISIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
 EITHER AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION OR A SEPARATE FUTURE
 MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT. IF IT WILL BE
 REVIEWED NOW, THE DETAILS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF
 REVIEW.
  
 40) WHILE REVIEWING THE RESPONSE THAT GENERATED THE
 PREVIOUS COMMENT, STAFF NOTED THAT NO SIGNAGE HAS BEEN
 PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT YOU
 PROVIDE SIGN PLANS WITH THE APPLICATION; HOWEVER, THE
 FUTURE SIGN PLANS MUST THEN COMPLY WITH ALL CODE
 PROVISIONS. ANY WAIVERS OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE
 PROVISIONS WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
 COMMISSION AS A FUTURE MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
 AMENDMENT. ADDITIONALLY, EVEN CODE COMPLIANT
 FREE-STANDING SIGNS ARE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN, SO
 THEIR LOCATION WILL REQUIRE A FUTURE MINOR PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT.
  
 LANDSCAPE
  
 41) THE LANDSCAPE PLANS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP TO SHOW
 THE FINAL CONDITIONS ONLY. THE CURRENT PLANS INCLUDE
 TREES THAT WILL NO LONGER REMAIN WHEN THE PROJECT IS
 COMPLETED AND STRAY LINEWORK FROM THE EXISTING SITE
 FEATURES (EX. CURBING IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
 PLAN WHICH MAKES IT APPEAR THAT THERE IS A WALL ACROSS
 THE ENTRY DRIVE FROM FLAGLER).
  
 42) SHEET LG-3.1 SHOWS THE STORMWATER LINE ALONG THE
 LENGTH OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHILE SHEET
 C-500 DOES NOT SHOW THE STORMWATER LINE IN THE SAME
 CONFIGURATION. ALL PLANS MUST SHOW THE SAME, ACCURATE
 CONDITIONS.
  
 43) THE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW AN FPL LINE
 ALONG THE FLAGLER DRIVE FRONTAGE. PROVIDE A CROSS
 SECTION SHOWING THE DUCT BANK AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
 THE ROOT ZONES FOR THE OAK TREES PROPOSED ALONG FLAGLER
 DRIVE.
  
 44) SHEET LG-3.1 SHOWS PLANTING BEDS AGAINST THE WEST
 SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHICH ARE NOT REFLECTED ON THE
 CIVIL SHEETS OR SITE PLAN. ALL PLANS MUST SHOW THE
 SAME, ACCURATE CONDITIONS.
  
 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION: FPL EASEMENT WHICH BISECTS THE
 PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION WILL NEED TO BE RELEASED BY
 FPL AND ALL OVERHEAD LINES MUST BE REMOVED. ANY NEW
 UTILITY LINES MUST BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND.
  
 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION: THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY
 OWNED PARCEL SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE
 SIDEWALK, WALKWAYS AND LANDSCAPE, WILL BE THE
 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FLAGLER TOWERS
 PROJECT. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS AND EASEMENTS WILL BE
 REQUIRED.
  
  
  
  Print


Account Summary | Usage Policy | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2005 – 2014, SunGard Pentamation, Inc & City of West Palm Beach, FL – All Rights Reserved