Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22040026
Project Number Z22040026
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2022-10-12 09:36:23PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 10.12.2022
 PROJECT NO.: Z22040026
 CASE NO.: PB 1608C
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. SATISFIED - TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM
 BEACH COUNTY SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 2. SATISFIED - LETTERS FROM ALL UTILITY COMPANIES SHALL
 BE PROVIDED INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
 DO NOT ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE
 PREVENT THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES.
  
 2.1. SATISFIED - LETTERS ARE STILL OUTSTANDING.
  
 3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT NEEDS
 TO INCLUDE RESPONSES TO ALL OF THE REQUIRED ?STANDARDS
 FOR CODE COMPLIANCE? AS OUTLINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION.
  
 3.1. NOT SATISFIED - RESPONSES TO STANDARDS WAS
 PROVIDED FOR SEC. 94-35(C), WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO SITE
 PLAN REVIEWS. PER THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION,
 RESPONSES ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THOSE STANDARDS IN SEC.
 94-32(A), WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO MAJOR PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS.
  
 3.1.1. NEW COMMENT - RESPONSES STILL HAVE NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED FOR THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN SEC. 94-32(A).
  
 4. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE THE PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS AT
 THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES. IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY BE A COUPLE
 AREAS ALONG CONGRESS AVENUE WHERE THIS LEVEL MAY BE
 EXCEEDED AND WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 4.1. SATISFIED - REVISED PHOTOMETRIC PLANS WERE NOT
 INCLUDED IN THE RESUBMITTAL.
  
 5. SATISFIED - THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BETTER DELINEATE
 WHICH PARKING SPACES ARE ?STORAGE? AND WHICH SPACES ARE
 PART OF THE REQUIRED PARKING.
  
 5.1. SATISFIED - YOU'RE SHOWING STORAGE SPACES BEING
 BLOCKED BY NON-STORAGE SPACES. IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET
 A CAR FROM THE INVENTORY, IT COULDN'T BE ACCESSED IF
 SOMEONE IS PARKED BEHIND IT.
  
 5.2. SATISFIED - YOU HAVE LOCATIONS NORTH OF BUILDING
 #2 IDENTIFIED AS OUTDOOR STORAGE, BUT ALSO AS SERVICE
 PARKING. WHICH IS IT? ARE THE SPACES BEING RESERVED FOR
 INVENTORY, OR ARE THEY A PART OF THE PARKING PROVIDED?
  
 6. SATISFIED - THE LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE
 PERCENTAGES SHOULD TOTAL 100%; AS PROVIDED ON THE SITE
 PLAN THE TOTAL EQUALS 103.9%. ENSURE ALL CALCULATIONS
 ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 6.1. SATISFIED - THE NUMBERS STILL DO NOT ADD UP...THE
 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT COVERAGE PLUS THE SQUARE
 FOOTAGE OF THE OPEN SPACE DOES NOT EQUAL THE TOTAL LOT
 AREA.
  
 7. SATISFIED - IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WHEEL STOPS ARE NOT
 BEING USED AND VEHICLES ARE OVERHANGING INTO
 LANDSCAPING, ETC., THE OVERHANG SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE
 SITE PLAN AND DIMENSIONED. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS
 CONFIGURATION (ABSENCE OF WHEEL STOPS AND UTILIZATION
 OF CURBING) IS ENCOURAGED AS IT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
 PERVIOUS AREA AND REDUCES MAINTENANCE. IT APPEARS THAT
 THERE ARE ADDITIONAL AREAS WHERE THIS CONFIGURATION CAN
 BE IMPLEMENTED.
  
 8. SATISFIED - THE VEHICLE DISPLAY AREAS SHALL BE
 LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND
 SHALL NOT BE WITHIN THE SAFE SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR THE
 INGRESS/EGRESS.
  
 9. NOT SATISFIED - DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT CONTAIN
 THE NAME/LOGO OF THE BUSINESS. DOING SO WOULD QUALIFY
 THEM AS ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS, THEREBY EXCEEDING
 THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS PERMITTED.
  
 9.1. NOT SATISFIED - REVISED SIGN PLANS WERE NOT
 PROVIDED. UNLESS A SIGN PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE
 MAJOR AMENDMENT, ALL SIGNS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME
 OF PERMITTING AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE GENERAL
 COMMERCIAL (GC) SIGN REGULATIONS.
  
 10. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE CLARIFY THE MONUMENT SIGN
 PLANS; MULTIPLE SIGNS ARE SHOWN BUT THEN THERE IS ONE
 THAT IS OUTLINED IN RED. ONLY PROVIDE INFORMATION
 PERTAINING TO THE SIGNS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING
 PROPOSED.
  
 10.1. NOT SATISFIED - REVISED SIGN PLANS WERE NOT
 PROVIDED. UNLESS A SIGN PLAN IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE
 MAJOR AMENDMENT, ALL SIGNS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME
 OF PERMITTING AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE GENERAL
 COMMERCIAL (GC) SIGN REGULATIONS
  
 11. SATISFIED - THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY
 THE LOCATION OF ALL FREESTANDING SIGNS, SETBACKS FROM
 ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES, ETC. THE LABEL OF THE SIGN
 SHOULD CLEARLY IDENTIFY AND CORRESPOND TO THE SIGNS
 SHOWN ON THE SIGN PLANS.
  
 11.1. SATISFIED - SETBACKS FOR THE MONUMENT SIGNS ARE
 NOT SHOWN. HIGH FREESTANDING SIGNS ARE TO BE A MINIMUM
 OF 8 FEET FROM UTILITY POLES WHICH SUPPORT ELECTRICAL
 TRANSMISSION LINES, AND IF THERE A MULTIPLE HIGH
 FREESTANDING SIGNS, THEY ARE TO BE A SEPARATED BY AT
 LEAST 75 FEET.
  
 12. SATISFIED - MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED
 WITHIN THE SAFE SIGHT TRIANGLE FOR THE INGRESS/EGRESS.
  
 13. SATISFIED - PARKING DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AND
 CONFORM TO THE CITY?S MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS (CONTACT
 ME FOR A COPY).
  
 14. SATISFIED - DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE BIKE
 PARKING (PAD, RACK, ETC.).
  
 14.1. SATISFIED - THE BIKE RACK PROVIDED DOES NOT MEET
 THE CITY'S REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS.
  
 15. SATISFIED - THE PLACEMENT OF THE BIKE RACK DOES NOT
 APPEAR TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE. PLEASE CONTACT
 ME TO OBTAIN THE DETAIL SHOWING THE REQUIRED CLEARANCE
 AROUND THE RACK.
  
 15.1. SATISFIED - A DETAIL WAS NOT PROVIDED INDICATING
 THE DIMENSIONS/SPACING OF THE RACKS AND THE CLEARANCE
 AROUND THE RACK.
  
 16. SATISFIED - BIKE RACKS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
 ACCOMMODATE 7 BICYCLE SPACES (1 PER 20 PARKING SPACES
 PROVIDED); ONLY 4 ARE INDICATED IN THE DATA TABLE.
  
 17. SATISFIED - PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION AND
 OPERATIONS OF UNLOADING VEHICLES UPON DELIVERY.
  
 18. SATISFIED - THE PARKING CALCULATIONS APPEAR TO BE
 INCORRECT AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE ENCLOSED
 AREA, OUTDOOR STORAGE, ETC.
  
 18.1. SATISFIED - THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT
 THERE ARE 295 OUTDOOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE STORAGE
 SPACES...THIS DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF
 SPACES SHOWN ON THE PLAN
  
 19. SATISFIED - THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WHERE
 EXISTING/PROPOSED LIGHT POLES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
 CONFLICT WITH DRIVE AISLES, PARKING SPACES, ETC. PLEASE
 PROVIDE A DETAIL TO SHOW HOW THESE POLES ARE BEING
 INSTALLED IN RELATION TO THE ADJACENT DRIVE AISLES AND
 PARKING SPACES.
  
 20. SATISFIED - THE PARKING SPACE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF
 BUILDING #2 ARE TOO SHORT TO ACCOMMODATE TANDEM PARKING
 OF TWO (2) VEHICLES.
  
 21. SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE EXISTING, DEMO, AND
 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT
 ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMODELED OR EXPANDED. IT APPEARS
 THAT THE OPEN-AIR SERVICE CARPORT ALONG CONGRESS AVENUE
 IS BEING ENCLOSED, ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR SERVICE
 WRITERS, ETC. IS THIS ENCLOSED CARPORT BEING ACCOUNTED
 FOR IN THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS?
  
 22. SATISFIED - THE SITE DATA TABLE DOESN?T ACCOUNT FOR
 ALL OF THE SERVICE BAYS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN. BUILDING
 1 IS TO HAVE 29 BAYS (NOT 28), AND BUILDING 4 HAS 3
 BAYS. ADDITIONALLY, HOW MANY BAYS EXIST IN BUILDING #3?
  
 23. SATISFIED - THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES INDICATED
 IN THE SITE DATA TABLE DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH WHAT IS
 SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND ARE NOT TOTALED CORRECTLY.
  
 24. SATISFIED - THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING
 DESIGNATIONS IN THE SITE DATA TABLE ARE INCORRECT.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES 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.
 ________________________________________
  
 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