| Date |
Text |
| 2022-08-23 08:45:41 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT HOLD OUTREACH |
| | MEETINGS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF ONE CITY PLAZA |
| | CONDOMINIUM, AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE A DIRECT |
| | IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL CONDO BUILDING. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: REPEAT COMMENT - IN PROGRESS. |
| | ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT?S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER |
| | (8/12/22), THE APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT IT IS NECESSARY |
| | TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBOR PRIOR TO THE PROJECT |
| | PROCEEDING TO A DAC MEETING. THIS IS STILL IN PROGRESS. |
| | ONCE THE MEETING(S) HAVE BEEN HELD, THE APPLICANT WILL |
| | BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION/NECESSARY |
| | CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE MEETING(S).] |
| | |
| | |
| | 2.) ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE TRAFFIC |
| | CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA (TCEA), A LETTER FROM THE |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION IS STILL REQUIRED. |
| | PLEASE CONTACT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION |
| | AT (561) 684-4030 FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO OBTAIN THE |
| | REQUIRED TRAFFIC LETTER. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: REPEAT COMMENT - IN PROGRESS. |
| | ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT?S PPRC RESPONSE LETTER |
| | (8/12/22), THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES THE COMMENT AND |
| | HAS NOTED THAT THE TPS ANALYSIS IS CURRENTLY UNDER |
| | REVIEW AT PALM BEACH COUNTY. THIS LETTER IS REQUIRED |
| | PRIOR TO THE PROJECT PROCEEDING TO A DAC MEETING.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 3.) A PREDETERMINATION LETTER FROM THE FLORIDA |
| | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) SHALL BE REQUIRED |
| | FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS AND/OR STREETSCAPE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HWY, LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD (FDOT CONTROLLED ROWS). THIS |
| | PREDETERMINATION LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE |
| | SCHEDULING OF THIS APPLICATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN ACTION |
| | COMMITTEE (DAC) TO ENSURE THE ACCESS POINTS AND |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE FEASIBLE. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE FDOT |
| | PREDETERMINATION LETTER; HOWEVER, THE LETTER FROM FDOT, |
| | DATED 8/4/2022, HAS INCORRECT INFORMATION ON THE UNIT |
| | COUNT AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR THE |
| | PROJECT. THIS MUST BE CORRECTED FOR CONSISTENCY. PLEASE |
| | CONTACT FDOT TO REVISE LETTER WITH THE CORRECT |
| | BUILDING/UNIT CALCULATIONS. THE LETTER FROM FDOT IS |
| | REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE PROJECT PROCEEDING TO A DAC |
| | MEETING.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 4.) PROVIDE A LETTER ENSURING FAA COMPLIANCE (A |
| | DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD) IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF |
| | ANY TOWERS OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DESIGNATED FLIGHT |
| | PATHS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: IT WAS BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION |
| | THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN THE FAA COMPLIANCE |
| | LETTER. AN EMAIL TO THE APPLICANT WENT OUT ON 8/11/2022 |
| | TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THE LETTER REQUIREMENT. |
| | APPLICANT IS AWARE THE PROCESS TO OBTAIN THE COMPLIANCE |
| | LETTER IS REQUIRED. PLEASE START PROCESS AND/OR |
| | FOLLOW-UP WITH FAA ASAP.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 5.) PLEASE ENSURE ALL PLAN SHEETS MATCH FOR CONSISTENCY |
| | (I.E. SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, CIVIL PLANS, ETC.) |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT FULLY ADDRESSED. THERE ARE STILL |
| | INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PLAN SET. ANY CHANGES MADE TO |
| | THE PLANS REQUIRES ALL PLAN SHEETS TO BE UPDATED FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY. PLANNING STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE |
| | ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IDENTIFY/ADDRESS |
| | THESE INCONSISTENCIES.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 6.) AS DISCUSSED WITH THE ARCHITECT ON 7/19/2022, THE |
| | PROJECT CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE REVISED/CORRECTED |
| | THROUGHOUT THE PLAN SHEETS FOR ACCURACY. THE ARCHITECT |
| | ACKNOWLEDGES THESE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PROJECT |
| | NUMBERS AND WILL ADDRESS (THE ARCHITECT SHOULD ALSO |
| | SCHEDULE A TIME TO DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC INCONSISTENCIES |
| | WITH STAFF): A) BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS. B) FAR |
| | CALCULATIONS AND DIAGRAMS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: PLEASE HAVE THE ARCHITECT CONTACT |
| | STAFF DIRECTLY TO CLARIFY THE CALCULATIONS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 7.) PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON WHICH OPTION THE |
| | PROJECT WILL SATISFY PER S.94-111(T)(5) OF THE ZLDRS, |
| | SINCE THE PROJECT WILL EXCEED THE SOFT MAXIMUM (BUT AT |
| | UNDER 50%). IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL |
| | COMPLY WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) |
| | REQUIREMENTS, BUT STAFF WILL NEED THE INFORMATION ON |
| | HOW THE PROJECT WILL ?EARN? THE ADDITIONAL PARKING |
| | SPACES (ABOVE THE SOFT MAX). IT APPEARS THAT THE |
| | PROJECT EXCEEDS THE SOFT MAXIMUM BY 60 PARKING SPACES |
| | (PLEASE CHECK CALCULATIONS). THERE MUST BE A CLEAR |
| | UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WILL BE ACHIEVED BY DAC. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) A SIDEWALK WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 FT. CLEAR WIDTH |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PRIVATE |
| | SIDEWALK WHICH SERVE AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC |
| | SIDEWALK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STREETSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS, SHALL MATCH THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN DESIGN |
| | AND MATERIAL, AND SHALL PROVIDE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION |
| | BETWEEN THE TWO. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE IN THE PLANS AND |
| | PROVIDE DIMENSIONS TO ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: DIMENSIONS ARE NOW PROVIDED IN THE |
| | SITE PLAN (SHEET C-103); HOWEVER, THE 8 FT. CLEAR |
| | SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MET |
| | ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY. A LANDSCAPE PLANTER SEEMS TO |
| | INTERRUPT THE 8 FT. CLEARANCE. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF |
| | THE PLANTER ALONG SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY? CAN THIS BE |
| | SHIFTED OR ELIMINATED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE? |
| | ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE CHECK DIMENSIONS, THE SIDEWALK |
| | DIMENSIONS ALSO CONFLICT WITH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED |
| | IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN (WHICH SHOWS THE 8 FT. CLEARANCE |
| | HAS BEEN MET).). |
| | |
| | |
| | 2.) REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING IS NOW PROVIDED ALONG THE |
| | STREET FRONTAGE; HOWEVER, THE CALCULATIONS, THE |
| | DEPICTION IN THE PLANS AND THE DETAIL ARE ALL |
| | INCONSISTENT. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: THERE ARE STILL ISSUES WITH THE |
| | BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS. STAFF WOULD NEED TO SEE A |
| | BREAKDOWN OF PARKING PROVIDED FOR COMMERCIAL (INCLUDING |
| | HOTEL) AND RESIDENTIAL USES SEPARATELY TO DETERMINE IF |
| | THE CALCULATIONS AND REQUIREMENT CORRECTLY AND |
| | INCOMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE PARKING IN |
| | S.94-111 OF THE ZLDRS. ADDITIONALLY, WHERE IS THE |
| | BICYCLE RACK DETAIL(S) FOR THE PROJECT? THE DETAIL MUST |
| | BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN SET, AS THE CITY HAS DESIGN |
| | STANDARDS FOR BICYCLE PARKING. PLEASE PROVIDE TO |
| | DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZLDRS.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 3.) DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO |
| | MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN PATH OF |
| | TRAVEL. DRIVEWAYS SHALL MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK |
| | ELEVATION. PLEASE PROVIDE A SECTION PARALLEL TO THE |
| | STREET TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-113(D)(10)] |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. ALL PLANS SHALL |
| | MATCH FOR CONSISTENCY. CURBS ARE STILL SHOWN ALONG |
| | LAKEVIEW AVENUE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY MEETS THE SIDEWALK |
| | ELEVATION.] |
| | |
| | |
| | 4.) CURB CUTS, PARKING ENTRANCES, EXITS AND DRIVEWAYS |
| | SHALL BE SEPARATED AT LEAST 10 FT. TO MINIMIZE THE |
| | IMPACT OF A CONTIGUOUS CURB CUTS ON THE PEDESTRIAN |
| | ENVIRONMENT. THE DIMENSION FOR THE CURB CUT SEPARATION |
| | AT THE SOUTH INGRESS/EGRESS POINT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED |
| | TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-111(O)] |
| | |
| | [STAFF RESPONSE: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. CURB CUT |
| | SEPARATION MUST EXTEND INTO THE DRIVEWAY APRON TO |
| | PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS (PURPOSE OF THE |
| | SEPARATION)]. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE MATERIAL USED ON THE BUILDING IS NOW NOTED IN |
| | THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT PER |
| | TABLE IV-4, TINTED OR REFLECTIVE GLASS IS NOT |
| | PERMITTED. THE ELEVATIONS INDICATE THAT REFLECTIVE |
| | GLASS WILL BE USED. PLEASE ADDRESS. |
| | |
| | 2.) STAFF IS REQUESTING A PHONE CONVERSATION TO DISCUSS |
| | THE PROPOSED WALL TREATMENT ON THE BLANK FA?ADE ALONG |
| | THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK. THE PROPOSED TREATMENT DOES |
| | NOT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DMP CODE FOR BLANK |
| | WALL FA?ADE TREATMENT. PLEASE WORK WITH STAFF TO |
| | ADDRESS THIS CONCERN. |
| | |
| | 3.) PER HISTORIC'S EMAIL DATED 8/9/22, PLEASE SHOW |
| | DETAIL AND/OR LOCATION OF THE PILASTERS AND WOOD BEANS |
| | IN THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR |
| | (4) PAPER COPIES - 2 SETS IN FULL COLOR, ONE REDUCED |
| | COPY IN 11 INCHES X 17 INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY |
| | OF ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS. |
| | |
| | * ANY CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | * 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. [STAFF |
| | NOTE: NO FEE IS REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL ? THE |
| | 7/5/22 PLANS SHOW THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH STAFF |
| | TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING COMMENTS.] |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | CONDITIONS: |
| | |
| | * THE PROJECT SHALL OBTAIN LEED CERTIFICATION FROM THE |
| | LEADERSHIP ON ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) OR A SIMILAR |
| | NATIONALLY ACCREDITED ORGANIZATION. ALL REQUIREMENTS |
| | AND TIMEFRAMES SHALL BE MET PURSUANT TO SEC. |
| | 94135(E.)(2.)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS (ZLDRS). |
| | |
| | * THE PROJECT EXCEEDS THE SOFT MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR |
| | PARKING (BUT NOT OVER 50%). A CONTRIBUTION TO THE |
| | TRANSIT OPERATION FUND WILL BE REQUIRED. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-111] |
| | |
| | * A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, OUTLINING THE OPERATION OF |
| | THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL PARKING SHALL BE EXECUTED ON |
| | CITY APPROVED FORMS AND RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. |
| | |
| | * THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DELIVERY/SERVICE |
| | VEHICLES OPERATION, OVERALL CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT AND |
| | VALET OPERATIONS ONSITE PER THE ?320 LAKEVIEW - |
| | DELIVERY MANAGEMENT AND VALET OPERATIONS SUMMARY, WEST |
| | PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, KIMLEY-HORN #140998000,? PREPARED |
| | ON AUGUST 12, 2022, BY CHRISTOPHER W. HEGGEN, P.E., OF |
| | KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES. |
| | |
| |
Print |