Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22070008
Project Number Z22070008
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2022-09-15 11:15:29GENERAL COMMENTS:
  
 1.) AS MENTIONED BY STAFF DURING THE PRE-APPLICATION
 MEETING(S) WITH THE APPLICANT, PUBLIC OUTREACH ON THE
 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICAL (AND PRIOR TO THE
 FORMAL SUBMITTAL OF THE PROJECT). HAS THIS BEEN
 ACCOMPLISHED?
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. PER THE
 APPLICANT'S 8/26 RESPONSE LETTER TO PPRC COMMENTS, TWO
 MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD (ONE IN PERSON ON 8/3/22 AND
 ONE VIRTUALLY ON 8/3/22). STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY
 DETAILED INFORMATION (I.E. NUMBER OF ATTENDEES,
 FEEDBACK/RESULTS, SIGN-IN SHEETS, ETC.) ON THE MEETINGS
 (PARTIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST PUBLIC
 OUTREACH). PLEASE SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO STAFF. ALSO,
 ARE THERE ANY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE FROM
 THE FIRST PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING?]
  
  
 2.) A SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION (SCAD)
 IS REQUIRED. PLEASE CONTACT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY
 SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THE PROCESS TO OBTAIN THE SCAD
 LETTER.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THE SCAD LETTER WAS NOT PROVIDED.
 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S 8/26/22 RESPONSE LETTER,
 THE SCAD LETTER WILL BE PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO THE ZONING
 DEPARTMENT WHEN RECEIVED. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROJECT
 WILL NOT PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING STAGE UNTIL THE
 SCAD LETTER IS PROVIDED TO STAFF.]
  
  
 3.) A TPS LETTER FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY- TRAFFIC
 DIVISION IS REQUIRED.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THE TPS LETTER WAS NOT PROVIDED.
 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S 8/26/22 RESPONSE LETTER,
 THE TPS LETTER WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE OBTAINED. PLEASE
 NOTE THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC
 HEARING STAGE UNTIL THE TPS LETTER IS PROVIDED TO
 STAFF.]
  
  
 4.) PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE PUBLIC
 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL FOR
 WATER, SEWAGE TREATMENT, STORM DRAINAGE AND GARBAGE
 COLLECTION SERVICES.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. ACCORDING TO THE
 APPLICANT'S 8/26/22 RESPONSE LETTER, COORDINATION WITH
 THE UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS IS ONGOING.
 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT PROCEED TO THE
 PUBLIC HEARING STAGE UNTIL WRITTEN CONFIRMATION STATING
 THAT THERE IS SERVICE AVAILABILITY IS PROVIDED TO
 STAFF.]
  
  
 5.) PROVIDE LETTERS FROM ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES
 CONFIRMING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT ENCROACH
 INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE
 PROVISIONS OF THEIR SERVICES: AT&T, FPU, FPL AND
 COMCAST.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED AND NO EXPLANATION
 PROVIDED IN THE 8/26/22 RESPONSE LETTER TO THE STAFF'S
 COMMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE THE REQUIRED LETTERS AT YOUR
 EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.]
  
  
 6.) THE ADDRESS LIST AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
 SUBMITTAL. PLEASE PROVIDE.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. ALTHOUGH THE 8/26/22
 RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE ADDRESS LIST HAS BEEN
 INCLUDED IN THE RESUBMITTAL PACKET, THE REQUIRED
 EXECUTED ADDRESS LIST AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE FOUND
 ANYWHERE IN THE RESUBMITTAL.]
  
  
 7.) ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THIS COMMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
 MISSED. A MINIMUM, STAFF EXPECTS TO SEE A NOTE PROVIDED
 IN THE PLANS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZLDRS.]
  
  
 8.) THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN THE UNIT TYPE
 CALCULATIONS FOR 2BR+D AND 3 BR UNITS IN THE
 RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX TABULAR AND THE PARKING
 RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX TABULAR FOR THE EAST TOWER (SHEET
 A0.06). THIS WILL ALSO IMPACT THE PARKING CALCULATIONS.
 PLEASE ADDRESS FOR CONSISTENCY.
  
  
  
 FLAGLER DRIVE PARKWAY SYSTEM:
  
 1.) AS MENTIONED IN THE SITE PLAN COMMENTS, THERE
 SHOULD BE A MASTER SITE PLAN SHOWING ALL CRITICAL
 DIMENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. THE INFORMATION TO THE
 PARKWAY SYSTEM SPEARS TO BE PIECEMEAL (ON-GOING ISSUE),
 THAT CREATES A LOT OF CONFUSION AND INCONSISTENCY.
 STAFF WILL CONTACT THE ARCHITECT TO DISCUSS AND
 RESOLVE.
  
 2.) CAN THE LANDSCAPED RAISED PLANTERS INCORPORATE
 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY WITHIN THE RAISED ELEVATIONS TO
 EXTEND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE
 PARKWAY? ADDITIONAL COORDINATION MAY BE REQUIRED WITH
 THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE PLANNER AND THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE
 ARCHITECT AND ARCHITECT.
  
 3.) IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE ART (I.E.
 SLAB, SPACE RESERVED FOR THE ART). ALSO, HAS THIS BEEN
 BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ART IN PUBLIC SPACES
 COORDINATOR?
  
 4.) ALTHOUGH THE 8/26/22 RESPONSE TO PPRC COMMENTS
 STATES THAT LIGHTING IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THIS
 PROJECT, NO LIGHTING PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS PART OF
 THE RESUBMITTAL PACKET. BASED ON THE RESPONSE, A
 LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED ONCE THE FINAL PLANTING
 LAYOUT IS COORDINATED. PLEASE PROVIDE A LIGHTING PLAN.
 THE LIGHTING PLANS MUST INCLUDE THE LOCATION OF ALL
 FIXTURES AND ILLUMINATION.
  
 5.) PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE RETAINING
 WALL (I.E. HEIGHT, ETC.). AS NOTED ABOVE, IT WOULD BE
 IDEAL TO ACTIVATE THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE PARKWAY. THE
 ELEVATIONAL CHANGES SHOULD ALSO BE DEPICTED
 CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE PLANS.
  
  
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT:
  
 IN THE REVISED 8/29/2022 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT:
  
 1.) CONFIRM THE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
 33,205 (PLANS INDICATE 32,180 SQ. FT.).
  
 2.) CONFIRM SIZE OF THE SITE (EMAIL SENT TO JLONG ON
 8/31/22 REQUESTING CLARIFICATION; AWAITING RESPONSE).
  
 3.) IN THE LAND USE AND ZONING TABLE: EAST ALSO
 CONTAINS CMUD-CORE I/OFFICE BUILDING (1923/1925 N.
 FLAGLER DR.)
  
 4.) CHECK RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND CORRECT NUMBERS (IF
 NECESSARY) FOR CONSISTENCY. STATEMENT SHOWS 28440 SQ.
 FT. AND PLANS INDICATE 27,415 SQ. FT.
  
 5.) BUILDING HEIGHT STATEMENT WITHIN THE
 CMUD-TRANSITION SUB-DISTRICT (172 FT.) EXCEEDS THE
 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR THE SUB-DISTRICT (163 FT.
 PER ZLDRS).
  
  
 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
  
 1.) THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS MUST BE
 SHOWN ALONG FLAGLER DRIVE AND THE BUILDING SETBACK
 ALONG FLAGLER DRIVE MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN THIS RANGE
 AT THE PODIUM/GROUND LEVEL. THE PROPOSED BUILDING
 SETBACK INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUND. [ZLDR S.94-215]
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: WHAT IS THE SETBACK OF THE WALL OF THE
 GROUND LEVEL TO THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG FLAGLER DRIVE?
 IS IT WITHIN THE 45 FT. MAXIMUM SETBACK? STAFF DID NOT
 SEE ANY DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE PLANS.]
  
  
 2.) IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE 8/17/22 MEETING BETWEEN THE
 APPLICANT'S DESIGN TEAM AND STAFF THAT THE DROP OFF
 LOCATIONS CANNOT BE LOCATED WITHIN A PUBLIC
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ON PINE
 STREET; HOWEVER, THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE ALONG BUTLER
 STREET (AND IT ALSO CREATES AN ADDITIONAL CURB CUT -
 WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS
 FOR THE PROJECT). THIS CAN EASILY BE RESOLVED AND WILL
 PROVIDE FOR A BETTER DESIGN BY INCORPORATING ON-STREET
 PARKING WITH A WIDER SIDEWALK ALONG BUTLER STREET.
  
 3.) IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE 8/17/22 MEETING BETWEEN THE
 APPLICANT'S DESIGN TEAM AND STAFF THAT THE CROSSWALKS
 AT THE VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS (INTO THE PROJECT
 GARAGE) SHOULD HAVE A CHANGE OF TACTILE SURFACE TEXTURE
 TO EMPHASIZE THE CROSSWALK AND ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN
 SAFETY. THIS MUST BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND THE
 MATERIAL PROPOSED MUST BE IDENTIFIED. ALL PLANS MUST BE
 MADE CONSISTENT (NOT ALL PLANS ARE CONSISTENT).
  
 4.) PLANS APPEAR TO INDICATE THAT THERE ARE BICYCLE
 RACKS AT THE STREET LEVEL (SEE SHEET L34-01 DETAIL);
 HOWEVER, THE LOCATION OF THESE RACKS ARE NOT PROVIDED
 IN THE SITE PLAN. ALSO, IF THESE RACKS ARE PROVIDED, A
 DETAIL THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S BICYCLE
 PARKING STANDARDS IS REQUIRED.
  
 5.) AS MENTIONED BY STAFF IN THE PREAPPLICATION
 MEETING, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REACH OUT TO THE PUBLIC
 WORKS DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE IF THE EXISTING ALLEY IS
 A SERVICE ALLEY AND IF IT IS NECESSARY TO BE MAINTAINED
 AND/OR IF OTHER ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO
 MAINTAIN SERVICE WITHIN THE ALLEY (IF APPLICABLE). HAS
 THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BEEN CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE
 FORMAL SUBMITTAL OF THIS APPLICATION?
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT RESOLVED. THE APPLICANT???S 8/26
 /22 RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT COORDINATION WITH THE
 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS ONGOING. PLANNING STAFF WILL
 REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT STATING THAT
 CONCERNS/ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED FOR THE PROJECT TO
 PROCEED.]
  
  
 6.) ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM
 WIDTH OF 24 FT. AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IT APPEARS THAT
 THIS MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN EXCEEDED.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. THE ACCESS POINT ALONG
 FLAGLER DRIVE EXCEEDS THE 24 FT. WIDTH LIMITATION AT
 THE PROPERTY LINE.]
  
  
 7.) A SITE PLAN SHEET, CONTAINING ALL REQUIRED
 INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
 (REFERENCE: PAGE 16 OF THE 2022 DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION) SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ALL REQUIRED ZONING
 INFORMATION AND ALL NECESSARY DIMENSIONS ILLUSTRATED IN
 THE PLANS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM
 REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS (NOT PIECEMEAL OVER VARIOUS
 SHEETS). ADDITIONAL SHEETS MAY BE REQUIRED TO CLEARLY
 ILLUSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THIS COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED TO
 STAFF'S SATISFACTION. A MASTER SITE PLAN SHEET
 CONTAINING ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SITE
 PLAN CHECKLIST SHALL BE PROVIDED, WITH ALL REQUIRED
 ZONING INFORMATION AND ALL NECESSARY DIMENSIONS
 ILLUSTRATED IN THE SITE PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE
 WITH THE ZLDRS AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT WITH THE
 ABUTTING PUBLIC REALM. THE INFORMATION STILL APPEARS TO
 BE PIECEMEAL ON MULTIPLE SHEETS. STAFF IS REQUESTING A
 MEETING BETWEEN ZONING AND
  
  
 8.) LANDSCAPING STAFF AND THE ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE
 ARCHITECT TO DISCUSS THE ELEMENTS OF THE REQUIRED SITE
 PLAN AND HOW THIS COMMENT CAN BE RESOLVED.]
  
 9.) THE BREAKDOWN OF THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS SHALL
 BE PROVIDED. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC
 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CORE I AND TRANSITION
 SUB-DISTRICTS. [SPEAK TO RAY C]
  
  
 10.) PLEASE CLARIFY/CORRECT THE OVERALL LOT SIZE OF THE
 PROJECT. THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCREPANCY WITH THE
 NUMBERS.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. EMAIL SENT TO THE
 APPLICANT (JLONG) ON 8/31/22 REQUESTING VERIFICATION ON
 THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SURVEY,
 AS THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN THE SURVEY THAT WILL
 IMPACT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT PLANS.
 STAFF IS STILL AWAITING ON THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.]
  
  
 11.) PLEASE CLARIFY THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
 PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. THE NUMBERS ARE INCONSISTENT
 IN THE PLAN SHEETS (I.E. 28,605 SQ. FT. VS. 28,500 SQ.
 FT.).
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE
 FOOTAGE HAS ALSO CHANGED AND DO NOT MATCH INFORMATION
 PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT'S 8/26/22
 RESPONSE LETTER PROVIDES 33,205 SQ. FT. AND THE
 INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PLANS SHOW 32,180 SQ. FT.
 OF COMMERCIAL. PLEASE PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE
 COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS AND ENSURE THE
 NUMBERS ARE CONSISTENT.]
  
  
 12.) A MINIMUM OF ONE SHOWER AND CHANGE FACILITY SHALL
 BE PROVIDED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL TENANTS AND SHALL
 BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING, OR WITHIN 200 FT. OF
 THE BUILDING ENTRANCE FOR DEVELOPMENTS GREATER THAN
 50,000 SQ. FT. IN GROSS BUILDING AREA. THIS FACILITY IS
 NOT PRESENT IN THE DESIGN.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: NOT ADDRESSED. IT IS NOTED IN THE
 8/26/22 RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE SHOWER AND
 CHANGE ROOM FACILITY IS PROVIDED ON SHEET A101 (GROUND
 LEVEL) HOWEVER, THE FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN FOUND.]
  
  
 13..) THERE APPEARS TO BE RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE
 PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE
 INFORMATION (I.E. HEIGHT, LOCATION, INTERACTION WITH
 SURROUNDING PUBLIC SPACES, ETC.) AND CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE
 IN THE PLANS HOW THE WALLS WILL MAINTAIN ACTIVITY AND
 INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC SPACE(S). ALSO, IT APPEARS
 THE RETAINING WALL GOES INTO THE FLAGLER DRIVE PARKWAY
 WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE PARKWAY AS IT
 PROVIDES A DIVISION FROM THE USE OF PUBLIC SPACE.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: PLEASE SEE STAFF'S COMMENT REGARDING
 THE FLAGLER DRIVE PARKWAY.]
  
  
 14.) CLEARLY SHOW THE SIDEWALK/PEDESTRIAN PATH ALONG
 THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT. PER THE CMUD REGULATIONS,
 A MINIMUM SIDEWALK WIDTH OF 5 FT. SHALL BE PROVIDED
 ADJACENT TO THE REQUIRED 5 FT. WIDE LANDSCAPED AREA
 ALONG THE STREET EDGE. TREE GRATES MAY BE PROVIDED IN
 LIEU OF LANDSCAPED AREA IF ON-STREET PARKING IS
 PROVIDED.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. IT IS IMPORTANT
 TO PROVIDE A MASTER SITE PLAN SHEET WITH ALL THE
 CRITICAL DIMENSIONS. SHEETS APPEAR TO BE PIECEMEAL (AN
 ONGOING ISSUE) THAT CREATES A LOT OF CONFUSION (A LONG
 WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLAN SHEETS). THE
 MASTER SITE PLAN IS ALSO REQUIRED TO SHOW THE
 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO THE PUBLIC REALM. STAFF
 WILL SCHEDULE A CALL ASAP WITH THE ARCHITECT AND/OR
 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO DISCUSS AND RESOLVE.]
  
  
 15.) ARE THERE ANY IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ALONG THE EAST
 SIDE OF FLAGLER DRIVE AT THIS TIME?
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: A CONCRETE PAD IS NOW SHOWN WITHIN THE
 PARCEL ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FLAGLER DRIVE. STAFF WAS
 REFERRING TO ANY LANDSCAPE OR SIDEWALK/CONNECTION
 IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE PROJECT IN THE PREVIOUS ROUND OF
 COMMENTS. IF THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR THE
 CONCRETE PAD, STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT CONCRETE
 PAD IS REMOVED UNTIL PLANS FOR THE SPACE IS CLEAR AND
 READY TO PROCEED. ELECTRICAL SUPPORT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
 CONCRETE PAD OF THE SIZE PROPOSED.]
  
  
 16.) THERE APPEARS TO BE ISSUES WITH THE LAYERING OF
 DATA IN THE BUILDING SETBACKS SHEET (A0.04), WHICH HAS
 CREATED ERRORS/INCONSISTENCIES ((WITH OTHER PLAN
 SHEETS). PLEASE ADDRESS AND ENSURE ALL PLAN SHEETS
 MATCH THE DATA PROVIDED: PINE STREET IS CLASSIFIED AS A
 TERTIARY STREET. THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 10
 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE SETBACK ALONG THIS
 ROADWAY APPEARS TO BE 7 FT. WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
 MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT. OTHER SHEETS APPEAR TO
 MEET THE MINIMUM 10 FT. SETBACK.
  
  
 PARKING COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PLANS NEED TO DIMENSION OUT BACKOUT AREAS WITHIN
 THE PARKING GARAGE. DIMENSIONS ARE NECESSARY TO
 DETERMINE IF THERE IS ADEQUATE DEPTH FOR BACKING OUT.
  
 2.) PARKING STALL DETAIL PROVIDED IN THE PLAN SET IS
 NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS/DIMENSIONS OF THE
 ZLDRS. PLEASE PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DIMENSIONS WITHIN
 THE DETAIL TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-485]
  
 3.) PARKING STALL DETAIL PROVIDED IN THE PLAN SET
 INDICATES THAT THERE MAY BE COMPACT PARKING SPACES FOR
 THE PROJECT. IF COMPACT PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED,
 COMPACT PARKING SPACES WILL NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN
 THE PLAN SET AND THE CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO BE
 PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPACT
 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZLDRS (I.E. THERE'S A
 LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES THAT CAN
 BE PROVIDED FOR A PROJECT BASED ON THE PARKING COUNT).
 [ZLDR S.94-485]
  
 4.) FOR THE COMMERCIAL LOADING CALCULATIONS (SHEET
 A0.06), PLEASE NOTE THE PROVIDED 60 FT. X 15 FT.
 LOADING ZONE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZLDRS.
  
  
  
 ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS:
  
 1.) PLEASE CLEARLY SHOW AND LABEL THE FEMA APPROVED
 BASE ELEVATION + THE 2 FT. REQUIRED ELEVATION PER THE
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH BUILDING CODE. THE HEIGHT OF
 THE BUILDING SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THIS POINT TO THE
 TOP OF THE BUILDING. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PER
 THE CMUD REGULATIONS SHALL NOT BE EXCEEDED.
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THE FEMA ELEVATION APPEARS TO BE
 INCORRECT. PLEASE CHECK AND CORRECT THE ELEVATION FOR
 CONSISTENCY.]
  
  
 2.) PLANER BREAK CALCULATIONS ARE INCORRECTLY MEASURED
 ALONG PINE STREET AT THE GROUND LEVEL. PLEASE ADDRESS
 FOR CONSISTENCY.
  
 3.) DIMENSION OUT THE DEPTH OF ALL PLANAR BREAKS TO
 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BREAKS MEET THE MINIMUM 3 FT.
 DEPTH REQUIREMENT. NO ALL PLANAR BREAKS HAVE BEEN
 DIMENSIONED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. [ZLDR S.94-209]
  
  
 4.) THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES/ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
 PROVIDED ON THE ROOFTOP HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
 DRAWINGS. PLEASE NOTE THAT PROJECTIONS AND
 ENCROACHMENTS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MAXIMUM
 ALLOWANCES PROVIDED IN ZLDR S.94-209, TABLE VII-1]
  
 [STAFF RESPONSE: THE PLAN SHOWS THE HEIGHT OF THE
 ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE ROOF/FEATURES AND
 MECHANICAL ROOM/EQUIPMENT AT A HEIGHT OF 22.17 FT. THIS
 ELEMENT CANNOT ENCROACH MORE THAN 15 FT. ABOVE THE
 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE SUBDISTRICT.]
  
  
 5.) CORRECTION OF THE NUMBERING OF THE NOTES REQUIRED
 ON SHEETS A-500 THROUGH A-502 AND A-600.
  
  
 6.) DIMENSION OUT THE DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN
 TOWERS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE 60 FT.
 SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN TOWERS. [ZLDR
 S.94-209(2)(J)]
  
  
 VARIANCES REQUESTED:
  
 * MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DIMENSION OF A BUILDING. [ZLDR
 S.94-209]
  
 * ACTIVE USE LINER REQUIREMENT ALONG BUTLER STREET
 (SECONDARY A STREET). [ZLDR S.94-209]
  
  
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESUBMITTAL:
  
 * PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 * WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE MINIMUM OF FOUR (4)
 PAPER COPIES (IN COLOR) AND ONE (1) REDUCED COPY IN 11
 INCHES X 17 INCHES, AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS
 AND DOCUMENTS.
  
 * CHANGES ON THE RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
  
 * ALL FINAL PLANS MOVING FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC HEARING
 STAGE SHALL BE SIGNED AND SEALED.
  
 * ALL PLAN SHEETS SHALL MATCH FOR CONSISTENCY.
  
 * 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.
  
  
 NOTES:
  
 * PROJECT ALSO CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ROW
 ABANDONMENT.
  
 * A REPLAT OF THE PROJECT SITE WILL BE REQUIRED.
  
 * USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMITTED USE TABLE
 FOR CMUD. STAFF WILL NEED TO ADDRESS CODE LANGUAGE FOR
 USES.
  
 * THE PROJECT SHALL OBTAIN LEED SILVER CERTIFICATION OR
 EQUIVALENT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY 20 FT.
 HEIGHT INCENTIVE FOR THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT MUST
 ADHERE TO THE TIMEFRAMES AND DIRECTIONS SPECIFIED IN
 SEC. 94-215(K)(2)(VII) OF THE ZLDRS.
  
 * THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ONGOING
 MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKWAY EASEMENT. THE PARKWAY
 EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF PALM BEACH
 COUNTY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING
 PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT.
  
 * DETAILS ON ALLEYWAY CONNECTION WILL NEED TO BE WORKED
 OUT WITH ENGINEERING/CITY SURVEYOR.
  Print


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