Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22060006
Project Number Z22060006
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2022-11-18 12:26:50PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 11.18.2022
 PROJECT NO.: Z22060006
 CASE NO.: PB 791LL
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 IMPORTANT: THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PROVIDED DOES NOT
 APPEAR TO CORRESPOND EXACTLY WITH THE COMMENTS ISSUED.
 THE COMMENT NUMBERS DIFFER, THERE ARE RESPONSES TO
 COMMENTS THAT AREN'T EVEN INCLUDED IN MY 8/1/22 PLAN
 REVIEW, ETC. PLEASE CLARIFY. THE RESPONSES SHOULD
 CLEARLY MATCH THE COMMENTS ISSUED INCLUDING COMMENT
 NUMBERS.
  
 1. NOT SATISFIED - THE SITE DATA TABLE INDICATES THAT
 FIVE (5) BIKE RACKS ARE BEING PROPOSED ON THE EXTERIOR
 OF THE BUILDING; PLEASE IDENTIFY THEIR LOCATION AND
 ENSURE THAT PROPER CLEARANCE IS PROVIDED (AS SHOWN IN
 THE DETAIL) TO AVOID BLOCKING OF THE SIDEWALK, ETC.
  
 1.1. NEW COMMENT - THE BIKE RACKS SHOWN ALONG
 CENTREPARK BOULEVARD DO NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE THE
 PROPER CLEARANCE (AS INDICATED IN THE DETAIL) AND WOULD
 OBSTRUCT CIRCULATION ON THE SIDEWALK. PLEASE ENSURE
 THAT ALL BIKE RACK LOCATIONS PROVIDE THE PROPER
 CLEARANCE.
  
 2. SATISFIED - THE WAIVER TABLE SHOULD BE REVISED TO
 INDICATE:
 2.1. SATISFIED - REQUIRED
 2.2. SATISFIED - ORIGINALLY PROVIDED
 2.3. SATISFIED - APPROVED WAIVER
 2.4. SATISFIED - CURRENT PROPOSAL
  
 3. SATISFIED - WHY IS LOT 4N NOT SHOWING ANY PARKING
 REQUIRED IN THE ?REQUIRED (NON-SHARED) PARKING? TABLE?
  
 4. SATISFIED - REVISED TPS LETTER SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 5. SATISFIED - REVISED SCAD APPROVAL REQUIRED.
  
 6. NOT SATISFIED - WHY ARE THERE TWO (2) SITE PLANS
 LABELED SP1? ONE IS PREPARED BY SCHMIDT NICHOLS, THE
 OTHER IS PREPARED BY MSA.
  
 6.1. NEW COMMENT - THERE ARE STILL TWO (2) SITE PLANS,
 BOTH ARE LABELED SP1. IT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THAT
 ONLY ONE SITE PLAN BE PROVIDED TO AVOID CONFLICTS,
 INCONSISTENCIES, ETC.
  
 7. NOT SATISFIED - FLOOR PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
 ALL LEVELS TO CONFIRM UNIT COUNTS, NUMBER OF PARKING
 SPACES, ETC.
  
 7.1.. NEW COMMENT - NUMEROUS ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS THAT
 WERE PROVIDED ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT
 PROJECT - THE SHEETS ARE IDENTIFIED AS "THE TROPIC", A
 PROJECT ON S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY IN HOLLYWOOD.
  
 8. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SYNTHETIC
 TURF IS BEING CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AS REQUIRED
 BY SECTION 94-451 OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS.
  
 8.1. NEW COMMENT - IS SYNTHETIC TURF NO LONGER
 PROPOSED? IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE LABELED ON ANY OF
 THE PLANS OTHER THAN THE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY MSA.
 PLEASE CONFIRM.
  
 9. NOT SATISFIED - MULTIPLE PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING
 ARE EXTENDING INTO THE 20 FOOT CANAL BUFFER REQUIRED BY
 THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. PER RESOLUTION NO. 16-21,
 ?ANY AND ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE CENTREPARK
 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
 (ORB 5430 | PG 1548) SHALL BE COMPLETED AND RECORDED IN
 THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY? PRIOR TO THE
 ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. PLEASE PROVIDE A STATUS
 ON SUCH REVISIONS.
  
 9.1. NEW COMMENT - THERE WAS NO CLEAR RESPONSE PROVIDED
 TO THIS COMMENT. YOU INDICATED "WE ALLOW PLANTING
 WITHIN THE CANAL BUFFER" HOWEVER THERE ARE PORTIONS OF
 THE BUILDING ENCROACHING INTO THE CANAL BUFFER, ETC.
  
 10. SATISFIED - THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED IS
 INCORRECT IN THE SITE DATA TABLE?IT APPEARS NOT TO HAVE
 BEEN UPDATED.
  
 11. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - THE MONUMENT SIGN CANNOT
 EXCEED 4 FEET IN HEIGHT BUT SHALL OTHERWISE MEET THE
 PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE XIII OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS.
  
 11.1. NEW COMMENT - THE SIGN DETAIL INDICATES 200 SF
 PER SIGN FACE, BUT THEN ALSO HAS A NOT ABOUT NOT
 EXCEEDING 16 SF PER SIGN FACE. PER THE ZLDRS, PERMANENT
 IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE
 ALLOWED 48 SF PER SIGN FACE IF OVER 50 RESIDENTIAL
 UNITS. PLEASE CORRECT AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY.
  
 12. SATISFIED - IT APPEARS THAT A NUMBER OF NOTES THAT
 WERE ON THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE PLAN RELATING TO
 IRRIGATION, PLUMBING FIXTURES, ETC. HAS BEEN REMOVED;
 PLEASE CLARIFY WHY.
  
 13. NOT SATISFIED - THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SP-3 NEEDS
 TO BE REVISED.
  
 13.1. NEW COMMENT - THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS STATES
 THAT WITHOUT THE ALTERNATIVES, THIS SHEET IS NO LONGER
 NEEDED. PLEASE NOTE THAT SP-3 WAS AN OVERALL SITE PLAN
 SHOWING PARKING COMPLIANCE, ETC. FOR LOT 4 NORTH AND
 LOT 4 SOUTH AS A COLLECTIVE PARCEL.
  
 14. SATISFIED - IS ALL OF THE INFORMATION ON THE
 PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SP-2 NOW LOCATED ON SP-1?
  
 15. SATISFIED - A LABEL FOR THE ?5? LANDSCAPE BUFFER?
 IS POINTING TO A STAIRWELL IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
 THE GARAGE.
  
 16. NOT SATISFIED - ADA STRIPING IS BEING SHOWN IN THE
 LOADING DOCK, GARAGE ENTRY, AND TWO (2) PARKING SPACES
 NORTH OF THE VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
  
 16.1. NEW COMMENT - STRIPING IS STILL SHOWN CONFLICTING
 WITH THE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES NORTH OF THE
 VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
  
 17. NOT SATISFIED - THE BUILDING OUTLINE DOES NOT MATCH
 THAT SHOWN ON THE FLOOR PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE
 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING.
  
 17.1. NEW COMMENT - ARE THESE ROOF PROJECTIONS THAT ARE
 BEING SHOWN? THEY ARE NOT LABELED, DIMENSIONED, ETC.
 SEE COMMENT #20 BELOW.
  
 18. SATISFIED - IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON LOT 2 NORTH
 (LANDSCAPING, PARKING MODIFICATIONS, ETC.) ? PLEASE
 PROVIDE AN APPROVAL BY THE PROPERTY OWNER? THE
 LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THIS PARCEL SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED
 TOWARD THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPOSED
 DEVELOPMENT.
  
 19. NOT SATISFIED - THE COLOR ELEVATIONS PROVIDED DO
 NOT MATCH THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
  
 19.1. NEW COMMENT - THE COLOR ELEVATIONS PROVIDED WERE
 INDICATED AS EXHIBIT D WITHIN THE REPSONSE TO COMMENTS;
 THESE ARE TOO SMALL TO BE REVIEWED. PLEASE PROVIDE
 FULL-SIZE PDFS, AS DONE PREVIOUSLY.
  
 20. NOT SATISFIED - THERE APPEAR TO BE NUMEROUS
 ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH (CORNER SIDE) SETBACK.
 STRUCTURAL OVERHANGS, BALCONIES, ETC. ARE ALLOWED TO
 ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK, BUT NOT BY MORE THAN THREE
 (3) FEET. PLEASE DIMENSION ALL ENCROACHMENTS AND ENSURE
 THEY DO NOT EXCEED THREE (3) FEET.
  
 21. NEW COMMENT - SHEET LP.2 OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS
 STATES THAT SHEET LP.4 SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR THE
 COURTYARD PLANTINGS, HOWEVER IT APPERS THAT THE
 COURTYARD IS BEING SHOWN ON SHEET LP.3. PLEASE ENSURE
 THAT ALL REFERENCES ARE CORRECT.
  
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES OF 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