Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z21070018
Project Number Z21070018
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2021-11-18 16:14:22SETBACKS:
 1. BANYAN BOULEVARD 16? SETBACK NOT MET, APPEARS TO BE
 14? IN DRAWINGS.
 [NOT SATISFIED] MINIMUM SETBACK SHALL BE 16? FROM NEW
 BACK OF CURB WITH BANYAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS,
 DRAWINGS SHOW ~ 15? SETBACK. SUGGEST SHORTENING THE
 WIDTH OF DROP-OFF TO ADJUST PROMINENT CURB LINE FROM
 WHICH THE SETBACK IS MEASURED OR MAKE THE DROP-OFF AREA
 NARROWER. ALTERNATIVE TO ASK FOR 5% VARIANCE ON
 SETBACK.
 2. PLEASE CLEARLY INDICATE SETBACK LINE IN ALL FLOOR
 PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE.
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] SHEET A-1 SITE PLAN COULD ALSO
 INCLUDE SETBACK LINES.
  
 OPEN SPACE:
 3. PLEASE UPDATE TABLE IN SHEET L4 TO REFLECT THAT THE
 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS CALCULATED FOR THE TWO SITES.
 [NOT SATISFIED] 25% OF THE LOT AREA MUST BE PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED TO BE ?OPEN
 TO THE SKY?. PLEASE PROVIDE BREAKDOWN OF 7TH FLOOR,
 10TH FLOOR, AND ROOFTOP TERRACES. CALCULATE WHAT
 PERCENTAGE OF THESE TERRACES CONSTITUTE AS PRIVATE OPEN
 SPACE THAT IS OPEN TO THE SKY. 20% OF EACH COMPONENT OF
 THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE MUST BE VEGETATED. MAY REQUIRE
 VARIANCE.
  
 ACTIVE USE:
 4. MINOR TEXT ERROR, BOTH BANYAN AND OLIVE ARE PRIMARY
 PEDESTRIAN STREETS IN THIS AREA (SHEET A-1 REFERS TO
 OLIVE AS AN AVENUE).
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] MINOR TEXT ERROR, BANYAN ACTIVE
 USE REQUIRED LINER (2-3 STORY) IS 60% NOT 50%.
 5. WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR GROUND LEVEL ACTIVE USE
 REQUIREMENT ALONG OLIVE; REQUIRED 80% OF FRONTAGE;
 PROVIDED 62% (VARIANCE OF 18% OR 48.75? DIFFERENCE)
 [SATISFIED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
 6. WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR GROUND LEVEL ACTIVE USE
 REQUIREMENT ALONG BANYAN; REQUIRED 65% OF FRONTAGE;
 PROVIDED 46% (VARIANCE OF 19% OR 30.92? DIFFERENCE)
 [SATISFIED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
 7. PLEASE INCLUDE GRAPHIC CALCULATIONS FOR THE ACTIVE
 USE REQUIREMENTS INDICATING IN THE FLOOR PLAN WHAT IS
 BEING COUNTED AND THE RESULTING PERCENTAGES. PLEASE
 REVISE THE CALCULATED FRONTAGES AND PERCENTAGES OF
 ACTIVE USE BASED ON THE BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE.
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] ALLEY SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS
 ACTIVE USE. PLEASE INDICATE OUTDOOR DINING/PATIO ALONG
 OLIVE AND BANYAN AS AN ACTIVE USE ALTERNATIVE.
 8. PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM
 LINER ACTIVE USES [2 TO 3 STORIES (44?)] WHICH REQUIRES
 60%.
 [SATISFIED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
 9. WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR 2ND AND 3RD STORY ACTIVE
 USE LINER REQUIREMENT ALONG OLIVE AVE AND BANYAN BLVD;
 REQUIRED 60%; PROVIDED 0% (VARIANCE OF 60%)
 [SATISFIED] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.
 10. THE 1ST STORY IS A DOUBLE HEIGHT AND IT WILL BE
 COUNTED AS ONE LEVEL.
 [SATISFIED]
 11. THE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED TREATMENT OF NORTH FACADE
 PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED
 DRAWINGS.
 [SATISFIED]
  
 STREETSCAPE:
 12. ONGOING COORDINATION IS STILL NEEDED (FOR BANYAN
 STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS).
 [NOT SATISFIED] ONGOING
 13. DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE
 DETERMINED (FOR SIDEWALK WIDENING).
 [SATISFIED] DETERMINED SIDEWALK EXTENSION ALONG OLIVE
 ON 301 IS NOT FEASIBLE.
 14. STAFF RECOMMENDS REDUCING THE DROP-OFF ON OLIVE
 AVE. TO 10? IN WIDTH. FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED WITH
 TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
 [SATISFIED] STREET TREE LOCATIONS WILL BE SLIGHTLY
 ADJUSTED AS PER OUR LAST DISCUSSION; REQUIRED NUMBER OF
 TREES IS MET. TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS OKAY WITH DROP OFF
 WIDTH KEPT AT 12?.
  
 BIKES, PARKING, & LOADING:
 15. DISTRIBUTE PUBLIC BIKE PARKING SPACES
 ALONG/THROUGHOUT THE FRONTAGE.
 [SATISFIED]
 16. SHEET A-1 APPEARS TO SHOW OLD DROP-OFF WITH
 PEDESTRIAN ISLAND AND TERRACE SEATING IN DROP-OFF ROW,
 AS OPPOSED TO NEW DROP-OFF CONFIGURATION SHOWN IN
 LANDSCAPE SHEETS.
 [SATISFIED]
 17. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO REDUCE DROP-OFF WIDTH TO 10?.
 TALK WITH VALERIO (TRAFFIC ENGINEER)
 [SATISFIED] TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS OKAY WITH PROPOSED DROP
 OFF WIDTH.
  
 FA?ADE ARTICULATION:
 18. B-21 HAS UPDATED ELEVATION (NOT B-18 AS RESPONSE
 INDICATES). WEST ELEVATION DRAWINGS INCLUDE A BLANK
 WALL NOT PERMITTED BY CODE. GARAGE FACADE IS MORE THAN
 20% OF OVERALL.
 [SATISFIED]
 19. WITHIN THE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS NOT SEEING THE
 ALTERNATE SCREENING AND FACADE/ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS
 DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS, DID PLANS REVERT TO PREVIOUS
 DESIGN? PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW IS THE PROJECT COMPLYING
 WITH THE PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS.
 [SATISFIED]
 20. OKAY WITH ALLEYWAY/NO CHANGE IN SOUTHERN
 GROUND-FLOOR FACADE. ALLEYWAY RENDERINGS SHOW A CANOPY
 NOT ILLUSTRATED OR SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, PLEASE PROVIDE
 MORE DETAILS IN DRAWINGS.
 [SATISFIED]
  
 GENERAL SITE:
 21. DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE
 DETERMINED (FOR TRASH COMPACTOR)
 [NOT SATISFIED] ONGOING
 22. DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE
 DETERMINED (ALLEY ORIENTATION DETERMINED EASTBOUND).
 SPEAK WITH VALERIO (TRAFFIC ENGINEER) EAST-WAY TRAFFIC
 FLOW MAY BE NEEDED FOR VALET OPERATIONS. EXPLORE
 OPENING IN GARAGE ON SOUTHWESTERN CORNER?
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] ONGOING
 23. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THE
 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CITY-OWNED ALLEY ARE
 VIABLE.
 [NOT SATISFIED] ONGOING
 24. PLEASE UPDATE TABLE TO INCLUDE SEPARATED
 INFORMATION FOR 301 CLEMATIS AND 300 BANYAN, THEN
 COMBINED TOTALS.
 [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] PLEASE PUT IN SHEET A-1. PROJECT
 DATA TABLE ALONG WITH PROPOSED GBA.
 TABLE TO INCLUDE:
 - SITE AREA
 - ZONING
 - FAR
 - ALLOWABLE GBA BY RIGHT __ SF
 - GBA WITH TDR __ SF
 - TOTAL ALLOWABLE __ SF
 - PROPOSED __ SF
 PLEASE CREATE TABLE FOR BOTH 300 BANYAN AND 301
 CLEMATIS.
  
 25. GROUND FLOOR CORRIDORS AND ENCLOSED STORAGE AREAS,
 ELEVATORS, AND STAIRS NEED TO BE INCLUDED. LABEL EACH
 SPACE TO CONFIRM THAT IT IS A MECHANICAL ROOM NOT
 INCLUDED WITHIN GBA. STAIR AT NW CORNER ONLY SERVING
 GARAGE MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM GBA, BUT IT SHALL NOT BE
 COUNTED AS ACTIVE USE ALONG BANYAN EITHER.
 [SATISFIED] PER OUR DISCUSSION, THE BACK OF HOUSE
 ?SERVICE CORRIDOR? AND ?PARKING LOBBY? WALLS SHALL BE
 REMOVED AND OPEN TO THE GARAGE (NOT UNDER AC), SPACE
 LABELED AS CAF? SUPPORT SHALL ALSO BE OPENED UP TO THE
 GARAGE (MAY BE FENCED IN FOR STORAGE PURPOSES). PLEASE
 LIST THE MECHANICAL SPACES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
 MEZZANINE.
 26. EXPLAIN THE ELEVATORS NOT COUNTED AS FAR; PARKING
 ELEVATORS? SERVICE ELEVATORS ONLY? WHAT IS WITHIN THE
 SERVICE ROOMS?
 [SATISFIED]
  
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
 27. SOME DRAWINGS STILL SHOW THE PORTE-COCHERE? PLEASE
 UPDATE AND VERIFY INFORMATION ACROSS DRAWINGS IS
 CONSISTENT.
 [SATISFIED]
 28. RENDERINGS SHOW PLANTERS ALONG OLIVE NEXT TO PATIO
 AREA BUT LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ANY. GROUND FLOOR
 PLANTERS DELINEATING PUBLIC WALKWAY AND RESTAURANT
 TERRACE NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION.
 [SATISFIED]
 29. CONTEXTUAL RENDERINGS AND SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS ARE
 NOT UPDATED OR CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE
 CURRENT PROPOSAL.
 [SATISFIED]
 30. MICRO-MOBILITY STATION SHOULD BE IN PUBLIC
 ROW/VISIBLE AS OPPOSED TO IN ALLEY.
 [SATISFIED]
 31. IF POWER LINES ALONG THE ALLEY ARE GOING TO BE
 BURIED, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE REQUIRED
 TRANSFORMERS.
 [NOT SATISFIED] DISCUSSION ONGOING
 32. PLEASE INCLUDE REFERENCE PHOTOS OF SPECIAL
 MATERIALS USED IN ELEVATIONS TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE
 FACADE TREATMENT.
 [SATISFIED]
  
 NEW COMMENTS 11/18/21:
 33. RENDERINGS:
 A. ACCURATELY REFLECT LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH TREES AND
 VEGETATION
 B. OLIVE AVE. ALONG 301 CLEMATIS DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALK
 WIDTH OR SPACE FOR TABLES AND POTTED PLANTS, NEEDS TO
 BE SHOWN WITH ACCURATE SIDEWALK DIMENSION.
 C. R-3 RENDERING NOT ACCURATE ? MISSING TREES ALONG
 STREET. SHOWS LANDSCAPE ON COLUMN AND BACK OF OPEN
 SPACE THAT IS NOT DEPICTED WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE
 DRAWINGS.
 D. R-4 SHOWS PLANTING NEXT TO BIKES ON BANYAN BUT NOT
 IN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
 E. WEST ELEVATION RENDERING ?PUNCH-OUT? WINDOWS ON
 FA?ADE SHALL REFLECT THE CORRECT DEPTH OF THE OPENINGS.
  
  Print


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