| Date |
Text |
| 2022-07-12 16:15:14 | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) SURVEY MUST BE DATED LESS THAN A YEAR OLD AND MUST |
| | BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY A FLORIDA REGISTERED LAND |
| | SURVEYOR. THE SUBMITTED SURVEY IS MORE THAN A YEAR OLD |
| | (2019) AND HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED AND SEALED. SEE SURVEY |
| | REQUIREMENTS ON PAGE 5 OF THE 2022 DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 2.) AS DISCUSSED DURING THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING, |
| | COORDINATION AND A REVISED PRE-DETERMINATION LETTER ON |
| | THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT SHALL |
| | BE REQUIRED FROM FDOT. |
| | |
| | 3.) A TPS LETTER FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC |
| | DIVISION IS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 4.) THE APPROVED PEDESTRIAN POCKET PLAZA LINKING PODS 1 |
| | AND 2 OF THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD), HAS |
| | BEEN ELIMINATED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO |
| | ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING GARAGE FOR THE HOTEL. THE |
| | POCKET PLAZA WAS A CRITICAL ELEMENT FOR |
| | HORIZONTAL-INTEGRATION AND THE APPROVAL OF THE CPD BACK |
| | IN 2020. THE POCKET PLAZA MUST REMAIN. |
| | |
| | 5.) THE PLAN REVIEW IS INCOMPLETE DUE TO MISSING |
| | PLANS/INFORMATION. REQUIRED AND PROVIDED FAR |
| | CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE VERIFIED FOR THE ENTIRE |
| | CPD (AND EACH DEVELOPMENT PARCEL). THERE SEEMS TO BE |
| | INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE NUMBERS AND CALCULATIONS IN |
| | THE SUBMITTED PLANS (VS. APPROVED PLANS). |
| | |
| | 6.) IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY HOW |
| | THE WAIVERS REQUESTED IN THIS MAJOR AMENDMENT WILL |
| | PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT THE PROJECT AND CITY. ALSO, |
| | WHAT ARE THE "TRADE-OFFS" FOR THE WAIVERS REQUESTED, |
| | AND MITIGATION MEASURES AS IT SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO |
| | THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CPD. |
| | |
| | 7.) THE HOTEL MARKET STUDY IDENTIFIES THE PROJECT AS A |
| | "FULL SERVICE HOTEL" ; HOWEVER, THE PLANS INDICATE THAT |
| | THE HOTEL IS A "LIMITED SERVICE HOTEL." PLEASE ADDRESS |
| | THIS DISCREPANCY. |
| | |
| | 8.) ALL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN HARD |
| | COPY AND DIGITAL FORMAT. NOT ALL DOCUMENTS/PLANS HAVE |
| | BEEN PROVIDED IN BOTH FORMATS (I.E. ARCHITECTURAL |
| | PLANS). |
| | |
| | 9.) CHANGES TO ANY PLANS WILL REQUIRE ALL PLANS TO |
| | MATCH FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | |
| | MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: |
| | |
| | 1.) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TRIGGERS CHANGES TO THE |
| | INFORMATION/OVERALL SITE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED IN THE |
| | APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SHEET MDP-1). THIS |
| | SHEET MUST BE REVISED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND |
| | INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PLAN PACKET. |
| | |
| | |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) PLEASE REESTABLISH THE PEDESTRIAN POCKET PLAZA. |
| | THIS IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FOR |
| | THE CPD. |
| | |
| | 2.) THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONS CANNOT BE |
| | VERIFIED. THE BUILDING CALCULATIONS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL |
| | POD AND HOTEL POD ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED |
| | AND SUBMITTED PLANS. PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY. |
| | THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PLANS THAT |
| | SHOW THE FAR CALCULATIONS BREAKDOWN FOR ACCURACY. |
| | |
| | 3.) WAIVER(S) REQUESTED TO THE BUILDING SETBACK(S) |
| | CANNOT BE VERIFIED. MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED ON THE |
| | BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS (I.E. IF HOTEL AND GARAGE |
| | ARE CONNECTED, THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE CONNECTED |
| | BUILDING WILL BE USED AS THE BUILDING HEIGHT. IF THE |
| | BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED, BOTH BUILDINGS MUST MEET THE |
| | MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH BUILDING HEIGHT |
| | OF THE ZLDRS). THE SETBACK CALCULATIONS PRESENTED IN |
| | THE WAIVER TABLE (IN THE PLANS) ARE ALSO INCORRECT |
| | BASED ON THE (INCORRECT) NUMBERS PROVIDED. |
| | INFORMATION MUST BE CORRECTED FOR ACCURACY. |
| | |
| | 4.) WHY ARE THERE MULTIPLE WAIVER REQUEST TABLES IN THE |
| | PLANS? PLEASE PRESENT WAIVER INFORMATION IN AN EASY TO |
| | READY FORMAT THAT CLEARLY DISTINGUISHES WHICH WAIVERS |
| | HAVE BEEN APPROVED/PROPOSED AND WHICH POD ARE THEY |
| | APPLICABLE TO. |
| | |
| | 5.) ARE ANY CHANGES BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL POD? IF SO, ALL CHANGES MUST BE CLEARLY |
| | IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS AND ALSO SPECIFIED IN THE |
| | JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT. THE SUBMITTED PLANS SEEM TO |
| | SHOW IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL POD THAT |
| | DIFFER FROM THE APPROVED PLANS. |
| | |
| | 6.) DID THE NUMBER OF TYPE OF UNITS WITHIN THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL POD CHANGE? THE TABULATION FOR THE TYPE OF |
| | UNITS DO NOT MATCH THE APPROVED PLANS FOR THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL POD. |
| | |
| | 7.) IN ADDITION TO ADDRESSING THE INTEGRATION |
| | REQUIREMENTS WITH THE OTHER PODS AS PART OF THE CPD, |
| | THE HOTEL PARCEL MUST BE ABLE TO MEET THE MINIMUM |
| | REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS AS A STAND-ALONE PARCEL, |
| | INCLUDING THE MINIMUM BUILDING, PARKING/LOADING, |
| | LANDSCAPING, LOT COVERAGE, ETC. THERE ARE ELEMENTS IN |
| | THE DESIGN (I.E. PROPOSED LOADING ZONE) THAT ARE NOT |
| | PROVIDED ON-SITE AND CANNOT COUNT TOWARDS MEETING THE |
| | MINIMUM REQUIREMENT(S) OF THE ZLDRS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL |
| | PARCEL. |
| | |
| | 8.) EXPLAIN HOW THE PROPOSED NEW LOADING ZONE LOCATED |
| | WITHIN THE NOW PROPOSED GATED RESIDENTIAL POD WILL |
| | FUNCTION. THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE AN APPROPRIATE |
| | LOCATION FOR THE LOADING ZONE AND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE |
| | LOADING ZONE REQUIREMENT FOR THE HOTEL. |
| | |
| | 9.) PROPOSED RESTAURANT CALCULATIONS MUST BE CLARIFIED. |
| | OUTDOOR SEATING FOR THE RESTAURANT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN |
| | THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE. IS THE PROPOSED |
| | BAR/LOUNGE PART OF THE RESTAURANT? IF SO, IT MUST ALSO |
| | BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS. REVISE CALCULATIONS |
| | FOR ACCURACY. |
| | |
| | 10.) BASED ON COMMENT ABOVE, THE PARKING CALCULATIONS |
| | PROVIDED ARE INCORRECT. |
| | |
| | 11.) PARKING CALCULATIONS DO NOT MATCH THE NUMBER OF |
| | SPACES PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN (I.E. THERE'S A |
| | DISCREPANCY IN THE NUMBER OF SURFACE SPACES COUNTED FOR |
| | THE HOTEL AND IT DOES NOT MATCH THE NUMBER PROVIDED IN |
| | THE PARKING CALCULATIONS, ETC.). PLEASE ADDRESS FOR |
| | CONSISTENCY. |
| | |
| | 12.) THE BUILDING SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL GARAGE |
| | IS 5 FT. FROM THE FRONT (WEST) PROPERTY LINE. PLEASE |
| | SPECIFY AND ILLUSTRATE WHAT DECORATIVE FEATURES, |
| | LANDSCAPING, ETC. ON/ALONG THE GARAGE STRUCTURE WILL BE |
| | PROVIDED TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE GARAGE |
| | STRUCTURE FROM THE WEST/I-95 VIEW. |
| | |
| | 13.) ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLANS, |
| | INCLUDING BUILDING SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL SETBACKS (I.E. |
| | LIGHT POLES, ETC.), DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS, PARKING STALL |
| | DIMENSIONS, ACCESS POINTS, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, ETC. |
| | DIMENSIONS ARE REQUIRED IN THE PLANS TO DEMONSTRATE |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS (ZLDRS). |
| | |
| | 14.) SOME OF THE BUILDING/STRUCTURAL SETBACKS HAVE |
| | CHANGED FROM THE APPROVED PLANS FOR THE OVERALL CPD |
| | (I.E. WEST MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN POD 1 - WAWA). |
| | |
| | 15.) ALONG WITH THE SITE/PARKING CALCULATIONS, SITE |
| | INFORMATION MUST ALSO BE UPDATED/CORRECTED (I.E. FUTURE |
| | LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS, TYPOS, ETC.). |
| | |
| | |
| | FREESTANDING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM: |
| | |
| | 1.) HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES TO THE INFORMATION AND |
| | LOCATION OF ANY FREESTANDING SIGNS (INCLUDING |
| | DIRECTIONAL/INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE) WITHIN THE APPROVED |
| | CPD/MASTER FREESTANDING SIGN PROGRAM? IF SO, THESE |
| | CHANGES MUST BE REFLECTED IN THE SIGN PROGRAM DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | |
| | ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE INCOMPLETE IN THE |
| | SUBMITTAL. THE FLOOR PLANS ARE MISSING AND SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | 2.) PLEASE SHOW BREAKDOWN OF FAR/NON-FAR CALCULATIONS |
| | FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 3.) SHOW SPACE CALCULATIONS THAT ILLUSTRATE THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED HOTEL IS A LIMITED SERVICE HOTEL (CANNOT |
| | EXCEED 7.5% OF GROSS BUILDING AREA DEVOTED TO GUEST |
| | AMENITIES). [ZLDR S.94-611] |
| | |
| | 4.) THE ELEVATIONS MUST CLEARLY SHOW THE EXACT HEIGHT |
| | OF THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING AND GARAGE STRUCTURE |
| | FROM GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 5.) PARKING SPACE (INCLUDING COMPACT, ADA), BICYCLE |
| | PARKING CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE FLOOR |
| | PLANS TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS THE |
| | MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-485] |
| | |
| | 6.) IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT DECORATIVE FEATURES |
| | BE INCORPORATED ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE WHERE HIGHLY |
| | VISIBLE (I.E. VIEW FROM THE WEST/I-95). THE PROPOSED |
| | SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE STRUCTURE IS ONLY 5 FT. FROM THE |
| | PROPERTY LINE AND ADDITIONAL MEASURES SHOULD BE |
| | INCORPORATED TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE |
| | FROM THE WEST. CONSIDERATION SHOULD ALSO BE MADE FOR |
| | THE RESIDENTIAL GARAGE STRUCTURE THAT IS CURRENTLY |
| | UNDER CONSTRUCTION. |
| | |
| | 7.) NO DIGITAL SUBMISSION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE. |
| | |
| | |
| | PHOTOMETRIC COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1.) LOCATION OF LIGHT POLES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL |
| | PLANS FOR CONSISTENCY AND TO DETERMINE IF THE PLACEMENT |
| | OF THE POLE FIXTURES WILL BE IN CONFLICT WITH OTHER |
| | SITE ELEMENTS/STRUCTURES. |
| | |
| | 2.) PROVIDE SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE POLE FIXTURES TO |
| | THE PROPERTY LINES. A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 5 FT. FROM THE |
| | POLE FIXTURE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS REQUIRED. [ZLDR |
| | S.94-145(2)] |
| | |
| | |
| | INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL: |
| | |
| | * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR |
| | (4) FULL COLORED PAPER COPIES, ONE (1) 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 PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | * CONTACT LINDA LOUIE @ (561) 822-1458 IF THERE ARE |
| | QUESTIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| |
Print |
