Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z21080015
Project Number Z21080015
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 1
Notes
Date Text
2021-11-17 20:39:37CASE NO. 1895
 NORTHWOOD COMMONS - NMUD ANCHOR SITE
 BROADWAY & 24TH STREET
  
 - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446,
 [email protected]
  
 - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR
 (4) 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,
 DECEMBER 3, 2021, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR
 THE JANUARY 18, 2022 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
 RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
 FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (BY JANUARY 18,
 2022), 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 THAT THE CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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 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 FEE
 WILL BE 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.
  
 PLANNING STAFF BEGAN A REVIEW OF THE PLANS AND BEGAN TO
 LIST DISCREPANCIES WITH THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
 REGULATIONS AND GENERAL ISSUES WITH THE QUALITY OF THE
 INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE PLANS. AFTER IDENTIFYING
 OVER 30 COMMENTS, MANY WHICH WILL REQUIRE A REDESIGN OF
 THE PLANS, PLANNING STOPPED THE REVIEW. THE PLANS NEED
 TO BE CORRECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND THE
 INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THE PLAN SHEETS. STAFF
 DID NOT FULLY VET OPEN SPACE, SETBACKS, STREETSCAPE,
 MECHANICAL SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE COMPLIANCE TO NAME A
 FEW, SO JUST BECAUSE COMMENTS WERE NOT ISSUED ABOUT A
 PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE PLAN, DO NOT ASSUME IT
 COMPLIES. BASED ON WHAT STAFF HAS LISTED BELOW, STAFF
 IS CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CODE
 REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT MET.
  
 1) THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS NOT BEING MEASURED CORRECTLY.
 IT DOES NOT START AT THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION.
  
 2) BUILDING A DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM NUMBER
 OF STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED.
  
 A. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES PERMITTED WITHIN CORE
 PARCELS A & B IS 8 STORIES (WITH THE HEIGHT BONUS). THE
 BUILDING HAS 9 STORIES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
 94-209.B.5., EACH PARKING GARAGE LEVEL AT THE FRONTAGE
 LINE(S) SHALL EQUAL ONE STORY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
 MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT. THE PARKING GARAGE LEVEL
 THAT YOU ARE DESIGNATING AS A MEZZANINE IS NOT A
 MEZZANINE, IT IS A STORY SINCE IT IS ALONG MULTIPLE
 FRONTAGE LINES.
 B. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES/BUILDING HEIGHT
 PERMITTED WITHIN THE AREA SOUTH OF CORE PARCEL B IS 4
 STORIES/56 FEET. THE ENTIRE ROW OF UNITS ON THE SOUTH
 END OF THE BUILDING STARTING AT RESIDENCE LEVEL 4
 EXCEED THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF STORIES AND HEIGHT
 PERMITTED.
  
 3) BUILDING B DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NUMBER OF
 STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED.
  
 A. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES/BUILDING HEIGHT
 PERMITTED WITHIN THE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED PORTION OF
 THE TRANSITION SUBDISTRICT IS 3 STORIES/44 FEET. THE
 BUILDING IN THIS AREA EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF
 STORIES AND HEIGHT. IF THE GROUND LEVEL IS INTENDED TO
 CONTAIN A MEZZANINE THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS A STORY,
 THEN COMPLETE FLOOR PLANS SHOWING HOW THIS IS IN
 REALITY A MEZZANINE MUST BE PROVIDED. THE CURRENT PLANS
 SHOW THIS AS A FULL FLOOR.
 B. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES PERMITTED WITHIN THE
 AREA SOUTH OF CORE PARCEL B IS 4 STORIES FEET. THE
 BUILDING IN THIS AREA EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF
 STORIES. IF THE GROUND LEVEL IS INTENDED TO CONTAIN A
 MEZZANINE THAT WOULD NOT COUNT AS A STORY, THEN
 COMPLETE FLOOR PLANS SHOWING HOW THIS IS IN REALITY A
 MEZZANINE MUST BE PROVIDED. THE CURRENT PLANS SHOW THIS
 AS A FULL FLOOR.
  
 4) BUILDING C DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NUMBER OF
 STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED.
  
 A. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES/BUILDING HEIGHT
 PERMITTED WITHIN THE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED PORTION OF
 THE TRANSITION SUBDISTRICT IS 3 STORIES/44 FEET. THE
 BUILDING IN THIS AREA EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF
 STORIES AND HEIGHT. THE PLANS CLEARLY CALL OUT A
 2-STORY GROUND LEVEL.
 B. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES PERMITTED WITHIN THE
 AREA SOUTH OF CORE PARCEL B IS 4 STORIES FEET. THE
 BUILDING IN THIS AREA EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF
 STORIES. THE PLANS CLEARLY CALL OUT A 2-STORY GROUND
 LEVEL.
  
 5) THERE ARE PLAN SHEETS THAT CONTINUE TO SHOW BUILDING
 C ENCROACHING INTO THE BROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IS
 NOT PERMITTED.
  
 6) THE GROUND FLOOR UNIT THAT WAS "CUT" TO AVOID
 ENCROACHING INTO THE BROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS NOT
 UPDATED TO SHOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR THAT IT EVEN
 FUNCTIONS.
  
 7) THE BUILDING A UNIT PLANS ARE INCOMPLETE. THERE ARE
 UNITS THAT HAVE NOT INFORMATION PROVIDED.
  
 8) THE ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDINGS B AND C DO NOT MATCH
 THE FLOOR PLANS.
  
 9) FULL FLOOR PLANS FOR BUILDINGS B AND C ARE REQUIRED
 FOR STAFF TO SEE HOW THE BUILDINGS FUNCTION AS SHOWN.
  
 10) PROVIDE A TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVAL
 LETTER FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION FOR
 THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
  
 11) THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE
 FOOTAGE LISTED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DO NOT
 MATCH THE SITE DATA ON THE PLANS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT
 ANALYSIS MUST REFLECT THE FULL SCOPE OF THE
 DEVELOPMENT.
  
 12) PROVIDE A PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM FDOT FOR THE
 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE FDOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF BROADWAY
 AND 25TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT.
  
 13) PROVIDE THE LETTER FROM COMCAST CONFIRMING THAT THE
 PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS
 OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THEIR
 SERVICES.
  
 14) SECTION 94-209.J.1.C REQUIRES THAT PROJECTS WITH
 THREE OR MORE DISTINCTLY SEPARATE BUILDINGS HAVE
 SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FRONT ELEVATIONS. SUBSTANTIALLY
 DIFFERENT FRONT ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE
 LIMITED TO VARIATIONS IN FENESTRATION, MATERIAL,
 MASSING AND COLOR. THE PLANS AND NARRATIVE MUST VERIFY
 THAT THE BUILDINGS COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.
  
 15) SHEET A404 SHOWS BUILDING C AS HAVING 4 EAST
 ELEVATIONS. WHAT SHOULD BE LABELED AS THE NORTH AND
 SOUTH ELEVATIONS DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE KEY PLAN.
  
 16) SHEET A405 SHOWS BUILDING B AS HAVING 4 SOUTH
 ELEVATIONS.
  
 17) THE CITY'S MIXED USE DISTRICT DEFINES OPEN SPACE AS
 AN IMPROVED OUTDOOR AREA OPEN TO THE SKY. FIGURE VII-3
 DESIGNATED PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND GREENWAY REGULATING
 PLAN REQUIRES PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WHERE 24TH STREET IS
 PROPOSED FOR ABANDONMENT. THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
 DOES NOT HAVE THIS AREA COMPLY WITH THE OPEN SPACE
 DEFINITION; THEREFORE, THIS AREA DOES NOT COMPLY WITH
 THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
  
 18) THE ENTRANCES TO THE SURFACE AND GARAGE PARKING
 AREAS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED 24 FEET IN WIDTH.
  
 19) ALL LEVELS OF THE PARKING GARAGE MUST BE SCREENED
 BY A LINER BUILDING CONTAINING A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
 HABITABLE SPACE. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT A VARIANCE TO
 THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF DOES NOT
 SUPPORT THE WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20) PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE PARKING GARAGE HAS
 DIRECT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO A PUBLIC WALKWAY.
  
 21) SECTION 94-209.F.1.E REQUIRES A LANDSCAPE BUFFER
 STRIP OF AT LEAST FIVE FEET WIDE SHALL BE PROVIDED
 ALONG THE ENTIRE EDGE OF A PROPERTY ABUTTING A RAILROAD
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE REQUIRED BUFFER HAS NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED. PLANNING STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT A WAIVER OF
 THIS REQUIREMENT.
  
 22) NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED ON THE SITE LIGHTING TO
 VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NMUD REGULATIONS.
  
 23) PROVIDE HOW THE STOREFRONTS AT THE ABANDONED
 PORTION OF 24TH STREET ARE BE DIRECTLY ACCESSIBLE FROM
 A STREET FRONTAGE, URBAN GREENWAY OR PUBLIC,
 SEMI-PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, GIVEN THAT THE
 ABANDONED PORTION OF 24TH STREET DOES NOT MEET ANY OF
 THESE DEFINITIONS.
  
 24) NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO VERIFY THE ACTIVE
 USE STANDARDS, THE FACADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS,
 THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT STANDARDS OR THE
 FENESTRATION STANDARDS.
  
 25) NMUD DOES NOT PERMIT DWELLING UNITS CONTAINING LESS
 THAN 550 SQUARE FEET, YET THE UNIT MATRIX SHOWS AT
 LEAST 36 UNITS FAILING TO MEET THIS STANDARD.
  
 26) DEAD END PARKING ROWS ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT A
 TURNAROUND SPACE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS THROUGHOUT THE
 GARAGE.
  
 27) THE PARKING SPACES AT THE TOP OF THE RAMPS ARE
 UNSAFE GIVEN THE SLOPE OF THE RAMPS.
  
 28) DESCRIBE WHO WILL USE THE TANDEM SPACES.
  
 29) THERE ARE MISLABELED DIMENSION TAGS IN THE GARAGE.
  
 30) THERE ARE STAIRS THAT DIRECTLY ENCROACH PARKING
 SPACES AND DOORWAYS THAT CANNOT BE ACCESSED IF A CAR IS
 PARKED IN THE SPACE IN FRONT OF THE DOOR.
  
 31) NO DETAILS ON THE BICYCLE PARKING WAS PROVIDED,
 BOTH FOR THE BICYCLE STORAGE ROOM AND THE STREET
 BICYCLE PARKING.
  
 32) THE VEHICLE LOADING/SERVICE AREAS MAY NOT USE CITY
 RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR MANEUVERING.
  
 33) THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOW SUPPORT COLUMNS
 LOCATED WITHIN PINEWOOD AVENUE, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED.
 PROVIDE PLANS THAT SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF THE STRUCTURAL
 COLUMNS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE SPANS ACROSS
 PINEWOOD AVENUE AND THE ABANDONED PORTION OF 25TH
 STREET SO THAT STAFF CAN EVALUATE THE IMPACTS ON THE AT
 GRADE LAYOUT.
  
 34) THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE FOR THIS PROJECT
 INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, "TRIRAIL COASTAL LINK
 THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (SFRTA),
 ALONG WITH STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL PARTNERS, IS
 PLANNING THE CREATION OF A TRIRAIL COASTAL LINK RAIL
 CONNECTION ALONG THE FEC RAILWAY FROM MIAMI TO JUPITER.
 IN PREVIOUS PLANS THE ANCHOR SITE WAS CONSIDERED AS ONE
 OF THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR A FUTURE TRI-RAIL STOP.
 CURRENT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE THE ANCHOR SITE IN "PHASE
 1"? OF THE RAIL CONNECTION; HOWEVER, DEVELOPMENT ON
 THIS SITE SHOULD CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A FUTURE
 STOP AND DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO SUPPORT THE
 RAIL CONNECTION AT THIS LOCATION. THE CRA'S NORTH END
 VISION CONSIDERS THE ANCHOR SITE AS A PRIME RAIL STOP
 LOCATION. CURRENT LOCATIONS AND STUDIES CAN BE LOCATED
 AT HTTP://TRI-RAILCOASTALLINK.COM/." EXPLAIN HOW THE
 PLANS PROVIDE A CONNECTION AT THIS LOCATION.
  
  Print


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