Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z21080015
Project Number Z21080015
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2022-04-14 11:06:18CASE NO. 1895 - FEBRUARY 2022 RESUBMITTAL
 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,
 APRIL 29, 2022, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE
 JUNE 21, 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 JUNE 14, 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 CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN.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.
  
 THE DSI RESUBMITTAL COINCIDES WITH A CODE TEXT CHANGE
 TO THE NMUD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. STAFF HAS REVIEWED
 THE SUBMITTED PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH THE
 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES,
 WHERE APPLICABLE. THE APPLICANT?S STATED GOAL WAS TO
 AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO REFLECT THE DESIGN
 OF THE PLAN WHERE IT COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE
 REGULATIONS AND THUS AVOID VARIANCES/WAIVERS AT THE
 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THE SUBMITTED CODE REVISIONS
 DO NOT COVER ALL OF THE AREAS WHERE THE PLAN DOES NOT
 COMPLY WITH THE CODE. STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THESE
 DISCREPANCIES. FOR BOTH THE APPLICANT PROPOSED AND THE
 STAFF IDENTIFIED DISCREPANCIES, STAFF HAS INCLUDED IF
 STAFF WILL SUPPORT A CODE CHANGE OR NOT. NOTE: THE CODE
 REVISION CASE INCLUDES COMMENTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
 CODE CHANGES THAT DO NOT DIRECTLY IMPACT THE SITE PLAN.
  
 1) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE A TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE
 STANDARDS APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY
 TRAFFIC DIVISION FOR THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED
 DEVELOPMENT. *** THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SCHEDULING A
 PLANNING BOARD HEARING.
  
 2) UPDATED COMMENT: THE NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
 LISTED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DOES NOT MATCH
 THE SITE DATA ON THE PLANS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
 MUST REFLECT THE FULL SCOPE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
  
 3) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE A PREDETERMINATION LETTER
 FROM FDOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE FDOT
 RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF BROADWAY AND 24TH AND 25TH STREETS
 ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT. *** THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
 SCHEDULING A PLANNING BOARD HEARING.
  
 4) REPEAT COMMENT: 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. BUILDINGS B
 AND C DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FRONT
 ELEVATIONS FROM EACH OTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE
 REQUIREMENTS.
  
 5) THE MAXIMUM GROUND FLOOR STORY HEIGHT IN NMUD IS 20
 FEET. THE RETAIL AREAS ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF
 BUILDING A ARE SHOWN AT 26 FEET, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY.
 THE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED AS
 AN NMUD CORE SUBAREA REQUIREMENT. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT
 TO THIS ADDED CHANGE.
  
 6) THE MAXIMUM STORY HEIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR IN
 NMUD IS 12 FEET. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE 13-FOOT 4-INCH
 LEVEL SHOWN ON THE ELEVATIONS (LEVEL 3.5) FOR BUILDING
 A. IF IT IS IN EXCESS OF 12 FEET, IT DOES NOT COMPLY.
 THE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED AS
 AN NMUD CORE SUBAREA REQUIREMENT. STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT
 TO THIS ADDED CHANGE.
  
 7) BUILDING A: THE BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED WITHIN THE
 AREA SOUTH OF CORE PARCEL B IS 56 FEET. THE UNITS ON
 THE SOUTH END OF THE BUILDING, EAST OF PINEWOOD,
 STARTING AT RESIDENCE LEVEL 4 EXCEED THE PERMITTED.
 STAFF HAS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A CODE
 CHANGE TO MOVE THIS LINE; HOWEVER, STAFF DOES NOT
 SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED CHANGE. A SOLUTION IS TO MOVE
 THIS LEG OF THE TOWER NORTH, PREFERABLY TO ALIGN WITH
 24TH STREET TO PROVIDE A TERMINAL VISTA. THE SOUTH
 BOUNDARY OF CORE PARCEL B WAS SPECIFICALLY SET AT THIS
 LOCATION TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION TO THE NORTHWOOD ROAD
 HISTORIC DISTRICT. NOTE: SINCE PINEWOOD IS BEING
 ABANDONED, THE AREA OF THE ABANDONED ROADWAY NEEDS TO
 BE ASSIGNED A BUILDING HEIGHT DESIGNATION. STAFF DOES
 NOT OBJECT TO THE PARCEL A HEIGHT LINE MOVING EAST TO
 COVER THE ABANDONED PORTION OF PINEWOOD.
  
 8) BUILDING B: THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN THE
 NORTHWOOD ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT CONTINUES TO BE SHOWN
 IN PLAN AND ELEVATION (SHEET A404) EXCEEDING THE
 PERMITTED NUMBER OF STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT (3
 STORIES/44 FEET). NOTE: THE BUILDING IS CORRECTLY SHOWN
 ON SHEET A113. ALL DRAWINGS MUST SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE
 COMPLIANT CONDITIONS.
  
 9) BUILDING C: THERE IS A DISCREPANCY WITH BUILDING C
 IN PLAN AND IN ELEVATION. THE PLAN VIEW SHOWS THAT THE
 4TH STORY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ALLEY AND
 THUS OUTSIDE OF THE NORTHWOOD ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT
 BOUNDARY. HOWEVER, THE ELEVATION VIEW ON SHEET A405
 SHOWS THE 4TH STORY EXTENDING INTO THE NORTHWOOD ROAD
 HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHERE ONLY A 3-STORY BUILDING IS
 PERMITTED. ALL DRAWINGS MUST SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE
 COMPLIANT CONDITIONS.
  
 10) PROVIDE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE UNITS IN
 BUILDING B SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THE MINIMUM
 UNIT SIZE IS ACHIEVED.
  
 11) BUILDING B SHOWS FOUR 1,200 SF TOWNHOUSES. THIS
 UNIT'S SIZE/TYPE IS NOT LISTED ON THE UNIT MATRIX
 BREAKDOWN.
  
 12) BUILDING B IS NOT SHOWN IN THE SAME LOCATION IN
 RELATIONSHIP TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ON SHEETS A113
 (ZERO FEET), A404 (5 FEET) AND A301 (10 FEET). ALL
 DRAWINGS MUST SHOW CONSISTENT, CODE COMPLIANT
 CONDITIONS.
  
 13) THE WEST PROPERTY LINES DO NOT OVERLY THE SAME ON
 SHEET A301. THIS LEADS TO INCORRECT SETBACK DIMENSIONS.
 ADDITIONALLY, THE DIMENSION MUST BE FROM THE FURTHEST
 PROJECTION. THE SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE SHOWN ENCROACHING
 INTO THE REQUIRED 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 14) PROVIDE THE ROOF PLAN FOR THE TOWER PORTION OF
 BUILDING A.
  
 15) PROVIDE THE HEIGHTS OF THE ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
 EQUIPMENT AND THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING
 HEIGHTS FOR ALL THREE BUILDINGS SO THAT STAFF CAN
 VERIFY THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH THE NMUD REQUIREMENTS.
  
 16) PROVIDE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE INFORMATION SO
 STAFF CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CODE FOR ALL CORNERS,
 INCLUDING THE BROADWAY EXTENSION, THE ALLEY BETWEEN
 BUILDING C, THE GARAGE RAMP AT 25TH STREET, AND THE NW
 CORNER OF PINEWOOD AND NORTHWOOD ROAD.
  
 17) THE MAXIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR FLEX BUILDINGS IS 200
 FEET. THE LOT CONTAINING BUILDING B IS 231 FEET LONG.
  
 18) THE TOWER IS SHOWN ENCROACHING THE BROADWAY TOWER
 SETBACK FROM THE PODIUM. THE 15-FOOT SETBACK LINE
 DIMENSION TAG DOES NOT MATCH BLUE SETBACK LINE NOR DOES
 IT SCALE TO 15 FEET. THE LINE SCALES TO 15 FEET.
  
 19) SHEET A0.02 LISTS THE GROSS LAND AREA AS 144,250
 SQUARE FEET. SHEET L1.01 LISTS THE SITE AS HAVING
 88,595 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS NOT THE AREA COVERED BY
 BUILDING A. ALL PLANS MUST INCLUDE THE CORRECT AMOUNT
 OF AREA. EACH DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, BUILDING A, B AND C,
 MUST BE BROKEN DOWN SEPARATELY (INCLUDING THE ABANDONED
 RIGHTS-OF-WAY) AND SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERVIOUS
 AND IMPERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS. NOTE: THE LISTED 12,630
 SQUARE FEET OF PERVIOUS AREA WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
 PERVIOUS AREA REQUIRED BY THE NMUD REGULATIONS, EITHER
 INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY.
  
 20) THE SETBACKS AND BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG 23RD
 STREET AND THE REMAINING SECTION OF PINEWOOD FOR
 BUILDING A ARE NOT MET.
  
 21) THE NMUD REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE PRIMARY
 ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF A MIXED-USE BUILDING
 SHALL BE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHERE IS THE
 PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF BUILDING A? IT
 APPEARS THAT IT IS EITHER THE NORTH OR SOUTH LOBBY,
 NEITHER OF WHICH ACCESS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PUTTING
 THESE LOBBY ENTRANCES ADJACENT TO THE LOADING DOCKS AND
 INTERNAL TO THE BUILDING DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
 ATTRACTIVE, ACTIVE STREET PRESENCE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL
 TOWER. THE MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD BE PROMINENTLY ON
 BROADWAY OR NORTHWOOD ROAD.
  
 22) THE NMUD REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE PRIMARY
 ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF A MIXED-USE BUILDING
 SHALL BE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PRIMARY
 ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF BUILDING B IS SHOWN
 FROM THE PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENSION OF BROADWAY.
  
 23) BUILDING C IS A FLEX BUILDING. TABLE VII-7 REQUIRES
 THAT FLEX BUILDING THAT ABUTS A 15-FOOT WIDE ALLEY HAVE
 A 15-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE ALLEY. BUILDING
 C DOES NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. STAFF IS NOT PREPARED
 TO SUPPORT CHANGES TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OUTSIDE
 OF THE CORE SUB-DISTRICT SINCE THIS WILL AFFECT
 PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT NMUD.
  
 24) THE NMUD REGULATIONS CURRENTLY LIMIT THE TOWER
 FLOOR PLATE TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ANY SINGLE
 FLOORPLATE WITH AND AVERAGE FLOORPLATE OF UP TO 20,000
 SQUARE FEET. THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS REQUESTING THAT THE
 MAXIMUM FLOORPLATE CAN BE UP TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET.
 PLEASE PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE AVERAGE TOWER
 FLOORPLATE IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
  
 DESIGN STANDARDS
  
 25) REPEAT COMMENT: NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO
 VERIFY THE ACTIVE USE STANDARDS, THE FACADE
 ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS, THE ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
 STANDARDS OR THE FENESTRATION STANDARDS THAT ARE
 REQUIRED BY THE NMUD REGULATIONS. THIS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED IN TABULAR FORM AND SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION
 DRAWINGS.
  
 26) STAFF WILL NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT THAT WILL
 PERMIT THE BUILDING THAT IS ALMOST 400 FEET IN LENGTH
 ALONG BROADWAY AND 350 FEET IN LENGTH ALONG 25TH STREET
 WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF PLANAR BREAKS.
  
 27) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROJECTIONS AND
 ENCROACHMENTS (EX. BALCONIES AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL
 FEATURES) ON THE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS SO THAT STAFF CAN
 VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NMUD REGULATIONS.
  
 28) THE ROOF OF THE PASEO IS NOT RENDERED CORRECTLY.
 THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW HOLES IN THE
 PARKING DECK THAT ARE ACCENTUATED WITH LANDSCAPE.
 ADDITIONALLY, THE GRADE LEVEL LANDSCAPE THAT HAS BEEN
 ADDED DOES NOT MATCH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. YOU MAY NOT
 PROVIDE INACCURATE RENDERINGS THAT MAKE THE FINAL
 PRODUCT LOOK DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING IN THE
 PLANS.
  
 STREETSCAPE
  
 29) REPEAT COMMENT: NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED ON THE
 SITE LIGHTING TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NMUD
 REGULATIONS. *** THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SCHEDULING A
 PLANNING BOARD HEARING SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT
 THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
 THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT
 STREETLIGHTS BE PROVIDED ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
 ADJACENT TO THE SITE. CLEARLY SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN
 ORIENTED LIGHTING FOR THE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE SITE ON
 THE PLANS. THE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS INDICATE THAT
 SOME EXISTING LIGHTS WILL REMAIN, BUT NOT ALL OF THE
 SITE IS COVERED. ADDITIONALLY, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
 ALL OF THE EXISTING STREETLIGHT ORIENTATIONS ARE
 ACCURATELY DEPICTED. STAFF MUST BE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT
 THE LIGHTS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH PROPOSED TREE
 CANOPIES.
  
 30) PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT WHERE THE SIDEWALKS OR
 WALKWAYS CROSS THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES TO THE PARKING
 FACILITIES, LOADING AREAS, OR STREETS (BOTH PRIVATE AND
 PUBLIC), THE SIDEWALK OR WALKWAY IS CONTINUOUS AND
 REMAINS AT A CONSTANT LEVEL.
  
 31) VERIZON HAS APPROVAL TO INSTALL A WIRELESS
 COMMUNICATION FACILITY POLE WITHIN THE BROADWAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE SITE. SHOW THE POLE ON THE
 PLANS SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT YOUR PLANS ARE
 DESIGNED TO NOT HAVE CONFLICTS (EX. PROPOSED PARKING
 SPACES, TREES, ETC.).
  
 32) THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MUST SHOW THE MEDIANS IN
 BROADWAY THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
 PLANS. THE LANE WIDTH DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE PROVIDED AT
 THESE LOCATIONS.
  
 33) PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE PROPOSED ROADWAY CROSS
 SECTIONS DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE FIGURES VII-16 AND
 VII-18 STREET SECTIONS. THE STREET SECTIONS, COMBINED
 WITH THE BUILDING SETBACKS ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FOR
 WIDE, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY SIDEWALKS. THIS DOES NOT
 OCCUR ALONG PINEWOOD AND 25TH STREET. NO CROSS SECTION
 WAS PROVIDED FOR NORTHWOOD ROAD, 23RD STREET, THE
 BROADWAY EXTENSION AND THE PORTION OF PINEWOOD THAT IS
 REMAINING. ADDITIONALLY, PINEWOOD EXCEEDS THE NMUD
 MAXIMUM LANE WIDTH OF 10 FEET, WHICH UNLESS THE WIDER
 WIDTH IS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, REQUIRES A
 WAIVER.
  
 34) BENCHES NEED TO BE DESIGNED TO PREVENT SLEEPING.
  
 35) THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS WHERE SHEET 301 SHOWS
 THE LANDSCAPE PATTERN OVERLAID ON PAVEMENT. THE SITE
 PLAN NEEDS TO ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLAN.
  
 36) THE DESIGN OF THE PASEO NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED:
  
 A. THE 4.33-FOOT DIMENSION BETWEEN THE PLANTERS AND THE
 STOREFRONTS IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR PEDESTRIANS TO
 COMFORTABLY WINDOW SHOP.
 B. THE PROPOSED TEXT HAD CONTEMPLATED RESTAURANT
 OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE PASEO, YET BASED ON THE PLANTER
 LOCATIONS, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY OUTDOOR SEATING.
 C. THE MICRO MOBILITY STATION IS LOCATED DIRECTLY IN
 FRONT OF A DOORWAY. WHILE STAFF AGREES THAT A MICRO
 MOBILITY STATION NEEDS TO BE LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
 TO THE PASEO, THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IS NOT AN
 APPROPRIATE LOCATION. PROVIDE THE MICRO MOBILITY
 STATION DIMENSIONS ON THE PLANS.
  
 PARKING/LOADING
  
 38) NMUD ONLY PERMITS SURFACE PARKING LOTS TO THE SIDE
 OR THE REAR OF A PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT
 FRONTING ON 23RD STREET DOES NOT MEET THIS STANDARD.
 PLANNING STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT A CODE AMENDMENT TO
 PERMIT PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE BUILDING?S FRONT SETBACK
 AREA.
  
 39) THE SURFACE LOT, WHICH WHILE NOT PERMITTED BY THE
 REGULATIONS, ALSO FAILS TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED DIRECT
 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO A PUBLIC WALKWAY, NOR DOES IT
 PROVIDE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 40) THE ENTRANCE TO THE SURFACE AND GARAGE PARKING AREA
 FROM PINEWOOD EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED 24 FEET IN
 WIDTH DUE TO THE RADIUS STARTING INSIDE THE PROPERTY
 LINE. THE RADIUS/FLAIR MAY NOT WIDEN UNTIL IT IS WITHIN
 THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 41) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE LOADING ZONES ON THE
 PLANS SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY CODE COMPLIANCE. 70K SF
 OF COMMERCIAL USE REQUIRES TWO 10 X 50 FOOT SPACES. THE
 SPACES PROVIDED ON THE PLANS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE 50
 FEET IN LENGTH.
  
 42) ALL LEVELS OF THE PARKING GARAGE MUST BE SCREENED
 BY A LINER BUILDING CONTAINING A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 20
 FEET IF HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS NOT MET ALONG THE FULL
 LENGTH OF 25TH STREET, NORTHWOOD ROAD AND 23RD STREET
 AND PARTIALLY ALONG BROADWAY. THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE
 DID NOT ADDRESS THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SCREENING. STAFF
 WILL NOT SUPPORT BROADWAY NOT HAVING THE 20-FOOT DEPTH
 OF HABITABLE SPACE. IF THE CODE IS AMENDED ON THE OTHER
 FRONTAGES, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
 DEALING WITH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT AND THE PROVISION
 OF PLANAR BREAKS TO VARY THE FA?ADE IN ORDER TO CONCEAL
 THE NON-HABITABLE PARKING.
  
 43) REPEAT COMMENT: DEAD END PARKING ROWS FOR
 UNASSIGNED PARKING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT A
 TURNAROUND SPACE. THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES ON THE
 LOWER PARKING LEVEL MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON A DEAD-END
 AISLE WITHOUT A TURNAROUND SPACE. FIVE PARKING SPACES
 ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE GARAGE WILL NEED TO BE
 CONVERTED INTO TURN AROUND SPACES.
  
 44) UPDATED COMMENT: ALL PARKING GARAGES MUST HAVE
 DIRECT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO A PUBLIC WALKWAY. PROVIDE
 WHICH ELEVATORS ARE FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS THE
 GROUND FLOOR. ADDITIONALLY, SINCE ALL OF THE ELEVATOR
 ACCESS IS THROUGH SOME SORT OF LOBBY ON THE GROUND
 FLOOR, PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE PUBLIC WILL BE
 ABLE TO ACCESS THE LOBBY. THE SOUTH LOBBY, WHICH
 PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE SOUTHERN, LOWER PARKING LEVEL
 SEEMS TO BE A RESIDENT LOBBY.
  
 45) COLUMNS ARE SHOWN IN DRIVE AISLES ON NORTH PORTION
 OF THE LOWER LEVEL GARAGE.
  
 46) MOST OF THE ADA ACCESS AISLES ON THE BOTH PARKING
 LEVELS APPEAR TO HAVE A PORTION OF THE COLUMN
 ENCROACHING. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, YOU NEED TO CLEAN
 UP THE DRAWINGS TO SHOW NO ENCROACHMENTS.
  
 47) ADA SPACE NEXT TO STAIRS ON THE EASTERN WALL OF
 UPPER PARKING LEVEL HAS A COLUMN BLOCKING THE 5-FOOT
 WIDE ACCESS AISLE AND NEEDS TO HAVE AN EXTRA FOOT ALONG
 THE STAIRWELL WALL TO PERMIT ADEQUATE DOOR OPENING.
  
 48) ALL PARKING SPACES NEXT TO A WALL NEED TO PROVIDE
 AN EXTRA FOOT TO PERMIT ADEQUATE DOOR OPENING.
  
 49) THE PARKING SPACES THAT HEAD AGAINST WALLS NEED
 MORE CLARITY THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIRED 18-FOOT DEPTH.
 THE SPACES WITH DIMENSION TAGS SHOW THE END OF THE
 SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LINE SHOWING THE WALL, WHICH
 MAKES THEM TOO SHORT. IF THIS IS A LINE WEIGHT ISSUE ON
 THE PLAN VERSION, PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION THAT CLEARLY
 DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PARKING STALLS AND DRIVE AISLES
 HAVE SUFFICIENT DEPTH. THERE ARE SOME SPACES THAT THE
 PARKING SPACE BOX IS SHOWN IN THE WALL (EX OVERLOOKING
 THE RAMP ON THE LOWER PARKING LEVEL.
  
 50) 20 SPACES ALONG THE NORTH WALL AND 10 SPACES ALONG
 THE SOUTH WALL OF THE UPPER PARKING LEVEL AND 15 SPACES
 ALONG THE NORTH WALL AND 8 SPACES ALONG THE SOUTH WALL
 ON THE LOWER PARKING LEVEL DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
 18-FOOT STALL DEPTH. THIS IS 53 NON-COMPLIANT PARKING
 SPACES.
  
 51) THE PARKING RAMPS MAY NOT BE SHOWN ENCROACHING THE
 COLUMNS AND WALLS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
  
 52) THE STAIRWELLS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING
 ENCROACH INTO THE DRIVE AISLES RESULTING IN THE CODE
 REQUIRED 24-FOOT WIDTH NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
  
 53) PROVIDE THE DETAILS ON HOW PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED
 FROM THE EDGES OF THE PARKING RAMPS. THIS MAY AFFECT
 THE PARKING STALLS ADJACENT TO THE RAMPS.
  
 54) THE PARKING STALL DETAIL PROVIDED ON THE CIVIL PLAN
 DOES NOT MEET CITY STANDARDS. PROVIDE THE ACCURATE
 DETAIL.
  
 55) THE RESPONSE STATES THAT THE TANDEM SPACES ARE FOR
 RESIDENTS, WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT THE INSIDE SPACE TO BE
 COUNTED TOWARD MEETING THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
 SINCE THE NMUD REQUIRES ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. THE
 INSIDE SPACE CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO A UNIT THAT IS
 DIFFERENT FROM THE OUTSIDE SPACE, SO IT MAY NOT COUNT.
  
 56) THE PARKING PROVIDED TABLES SHALL CLEARLY SEPARATE
 THE PROVIDE ADA SPACES FROM THE TOTAL PROVIDED SPACES
 FOR EACH CATEGORY. THE CURRENT LINE ITEMS MAKE IT LOOK
 LIKE THERE ARE ADA SPACES IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR
 SPACES.
  
 57) 77,820 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL REQUIRES 156
 PARKING SPACES, NOT 152 OR 153 AS SHOWN ON DIFFERING
 PARKING TABLES. THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING IS 534
 SPACES.
  
 58) 53 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH CRA AND NEED TO BE REFLECTED ON
 THE PARKING TABLE AND THE PLANS.
  
 59) EVEN WHEN NOT REMOVING THE PARKING SPACES THAT DO
 NOT COMPLY WITH CODE DEPTH, WALL ADJACENCY OR DEAD-END
 ROWS, THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE CODE MINIMUM
 PARKING. THERE ARE 592 SPACES LISTED AS PROVIDED.
 REMOVING THE 18 TANDEM AND 53 REQUIRED PUBLIC CRA
 SPACES, RESULTS IN ONLY 521 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED,
 WHICH IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 534 SPACES.
  
 60) THE CRA AGREEMENT REQUIRES THAT THE DEVELOPER
 CONSTRUCT PUBLIC PARKING SPACES IN AN AMOUNT TO EQUAL
 10% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT (53 PARKING
 SPACES). WHILE THE PLANS DO NOT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE
 WHERE THE 53 CRA REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED,
 IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF THEM ARE INTENDED TO BE LOCATED
 WITHIN THE ON-STREET PARKING SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SINCE
 THE LANGUAGE REQUIRES THAT NEW PARKING SPACES BE
 CONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE CRA REQUIREMENT, PROVIDE AN
 EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY OF THE ON-STREET PARKING
 SPACES. EXISTING PARKING SPACES MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS
 NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SPACES, AND ANY SPACES BEING REMOVED,
 WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED AND MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS
 NEWLY CREATED PARKING SPACES.
  
 61) THE PROJECT REQUIRES 16 BICYCLE SPACES FOR THE
 COMMERCIAL PORTION AND 38 BICYCLE SPACES FOR THE
 RESIDENTIAL PORTION. THERE ARE 54 TOTAL REQUIRED
 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. THIS SHALL BE CORRECTLY
 REFLECTED ON THE PARKING TABLE.
  
 62) WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA ON THE
 UPPER PARKING LEVEL OF BUILDING A?
  
 63) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS AND DETAIL FOR THE RACKS,
 INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF SPACES, LOCATED IN THE BICYCLE
 STORAGE ROOM AS WELL AS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ROOM AND
 THE RACKS IN THE ROOM. THIS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ITS
 OWN BICYCLE ROOM DETAIL SHEET THAT THIS AT A LEGIBLE
 SCALE.
  
 64) WHERE IS THE REQUIRED SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITY
 FOR THE COMMERCIAL TENANTS OF BUILDING A?
  
 65) ALL ON-STREET BICYCLE PAD DIMENSIONS MUST BE
 CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY
 THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM AND THAT SIDEWALKS ARE
 NOT BLOCKED. NUMEROUS BICYCLES RACKS ARE CURRENTLY
 SHOWN BLOCKING SIDEWALKS. THE BICYCLE RACK DETAILS FOR
 THESE SPACES NEED TO BE PROVIDED.
  
 66) THE MICRO MOBILITY STATION NORTH OF BUILDING B MUST
 BE RELOCATED. IT INTERFERES WITH A PROPOSED BICYCLE
 RACK.
  
 LANDSCAPE
  
 67) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE
 REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER STRIP ALONG THE RAILROAD
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE SITE PLAN SEEMS TO SHOW COLUMNS
 ENCROACHING INTO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WHICH IS NOT
 PERMITTED. PLEASE REVIEW THE DRAWINGS FOR CLARITY SINCE
 THE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW AN
 ENCROACHMENT.
  
 68) PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS ON THE PLANS TO VERIFY THAT
 A LANDSCAPE STRIP, A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET IN WIDTH, IS
 PROVIDED ALONG THE CURBSIDE ALONG THE STREET EDGE. IF
 TREE GRATES ARE USED INSTEAD OF A LANDSCAPE STRIP, THEN
 THE REQUIRED DIMENSION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE
 PLAN. NOTE: THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE SITE FAILS TO
 MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE LANDSCAPE AREA ADJACENT TO
 THE PASEO ON BROADWAY ALSO FAILS TO MEET THIS
 REQUIREMENT.
  
 69) THE CODE STATES THAT A LANDSCAPE STRIP, NOT TREE
 GRATES IS THE PREFERRED OPTION WHEN NO ON-STREET
 PARKING IS PROVIDED. 23RD STREET AND 25TH STREET HAVE
 NOT ON-STREET PARKING, SO A LANDSCAPE STRIP IS
 REQUIRED.
  
 70) THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED 60-INCH
 AREA FOR THE SIDEWALK. THE SITE PLAN FAILS TO SHOW THE
 EXISTING UTILITY POLES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ALONG 23RD
 STREET ADJACENT TO BUILDING B. THEY ARE SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLAN ? ENCROACHING INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK
 WIDTH, OVERLAPPING THE TREE PITS AND IN CONFLICT WITH
 PROPOSED STREET TREE CANOPIES.
  
 71) THERE IS A TREE SHOWN WHERE THE EXISTING FIRE
 HYDRANT TO REMAIN IS SHOWN ON THE CIVIL PLAN IN FRONT
 OF BUILDING C.
  
 72) THERE ARE OAK TREES BEING SHOWN PLANTED ON TOP OF A
 GAS LINE ALONG NORTHWOOD ROAD. PLEASE PROVIDE THE DEPTH
 OF THE GAS LINE SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT THERE IS
 NO CONFLICT.
  
 HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
  
 73) THIS PROJECT IS UTILIZING THE CORE SUBDISTRICT
 HISTORIC PRESERVATION HEIGHT BONUS. PLEASE PROVIDE THE
 AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING PROVIDED ABOVE THE
 80-FOOT BASE ZONING HEIGHT.
  
 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
  
 74) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ? NO CALCULATIONS
 WERE PROVIDED. PRIVATE OPEN SPACES SHALL PROVIDE SHADED
 AREAS, AND THEIR GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE A COMBINATION
 OF PAVING MATERIALS, LAWN, OR GROUND COVER.
  
 75) BUILDING A IS A MIXED-USE TOWER BUILDING, SO IT IS
 REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 10% COMMON, PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE ON SITE. IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENT IS TO
 PROVIDE THE COMMON, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON THE ROOF OF
 THE PARKING DECK. PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT THE MINIMUM
 AREA IS PROVIDED.
  
 76) BUILDING B IS A MIXED-USE FLEX BUILDING, SO IT IS
 REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 10% COMMON, PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE ON SITE. THE PLANS SHOW NO COMMON, PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE PROVIDED FOR THIS BUILDING.
  
 77) BUILDING C IS A MIXED-USE FLEX BUILDING, SO IT IS
 REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 10% COMMON, PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE ON SITE. THE PLANS SHOW NO COMMON, PRIVATE
 OPEN SPACE PROVIDED FOR THIS BUILDING.
  
  
  Print


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