Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22090016
Project Number Z22090016
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 3
Notes
Date Text
2023-04-18 15:59:19PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
 PROJECT: VIANA HOTEL & SPA 609 EVERNIA STREET
 (Z22090016)
 DATE: APRIL 18, 2023
 CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT
 561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected].
 I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND
 PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
  
 GENRAL COMMENTS
 1. PENDING TO RECEIVED SCAD AND FAA LETTERS. ALL PUBLIC
 UTILITIES LETTERS RECEIVED. TPS RECEIVED.
 2. ALLEY UTILITY POLE CLOSER TO DRIVEWAY AND LOADING
 ZONE WILL NEED TO BE RELOCATED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS.
 PLEASE UPDATE ANY APPROPRIATE PLANS.
 3. MINOR EDIT ON THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT, AS THIS
 DEVELOPMENT IS USING TDR???S THE REQUIREMENTS TO MEET
 ARE FOR THE QBD ??? 8-12 SUBDISTRICT AND NOT QBD 8
 SUBDISTRICT, PLEASE REVISE.
 4. RENDERINGS NEED TO MATCH DRAWINGS, SOME PALM TREES
 ARE SHOWN COMPARED TO SHADE TREES ON THE STREET
 PROPOSED, STREET STRIPPING IS NOT SHOWN ON RENDERINGS,
 SOME FRONT FACADE TREATMENTS ARE SHOWN ON RENDERING BUT
 DO NOT MATCH THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, A
 GREEN WALL IS PROPOSED ON SHEET B7, BUT RENDERING DO
 NOT SHOW IT. PLEASE REVISE RENDERINGS TO ACCURATELY
 MATCH DRAWINGS. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE PROVIDE
 RENDERINGS SHOWING PRIVATE OPEN SPACES AS THEY SEEM TO
 BE IMPORTANT OF THE OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT.
 5. THE TITLE OF ALL PROPERTY ON WHICH REQUIRED PARKING
 AND LOADING IS PROVIDED SHALL BE UNIFIED WITH THE TITLE
 OF ALL PROPERTY ON WHICH THE USES SERVED ARE LOCATED. A
 CONDITION OF APPROVAL WILL BE THAT A UNITY OF TITLE IS
 REQUIRED PRIOR T.C.O.
 6. JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT WILL NEED TO BE REVISE IF
 ANOTHER VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. CRITERIA FOR GRANTING
 VARIANCE, SEC. 94-38 (D)(6), WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESS
 FOR EACH VARIANCE.
  
  
  
 ZONING DIAGRAMS AND CALCULATIONS
 1. PLEASE CLARIFY WHY ON SHEET Z-1, LEVEL MEZZANINE
 THERE ARE 'PLANTING AREAS' THAT ARE EXCLUDED FROM YOUR
 FAR CALCULATIONS.
 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE HEIGHT
 REQUIREMENT.
 3. RELATED TO PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, PLEASE REVISE THE
 FOLLOWING MINOR EDITS TO SHEETS: PLEASE REFERENCE ON
 SHEET A1, OTHER SHEETS LIKE B20 AND LANDSCAPE SHEETS AS
 THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT.
 SHEET B20 ONLY PROVIDES AREA OF OPEN SPACES AND
 OVERHEAD CALCULATIONS, AND LANDSCAPE SHEETS PROVIDE
 INFORMATION VEGETATION AND TREE CANOPY CALCULATIONS.
 NOTE, ON LANDSCAPE PLANS YOU LABELED SPACES AS ???OPEN
 SPACE A???, B, AND C, PLEASE DO THE SAME ON SHEET B20
 FOR CONSISTENCY.
 4. ACTIVE USE ON GROUND FLOOR 30 PERCENT REQUIREMENT,
 AS YOU REDESIGNED THE SPACE IN-FRONT OF THE LOBBY AND
 CREATED A BETTER CONNECTION TO THE STREET, YOU CAN
 COUNT IT AS ACTIVE USE. PLEASE REMOVE THE SPACE WITH
 THE RAMP BETWEEN THE SALON AND PLANTERS FROM ACTIVE USE
 CALCULATIONS.
 5. ACTIVE USE LINER DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE REVISE
 ACCORDINGLY SINCE PLANS WILL CHANGE BASED ON COMMENT
 NO. 4.
 6. TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT, PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY
 SINCE PLANS WILL CHANGE BASED ON COMMENT NO. 4.
 7. PLEASE NOTE, SHEET B18 ONLY SHOWS FLOOR PLANS WITH
 NO ELEVATION TO SHOW ANY TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS AS
 APPLICANT MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS RESPONSES.
 8. PLEASE NOTE, REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPARENCY,
 FENESTRATION AND FACADE ARTICULATION FOR THE HISTORIC
 BUILDING WILL NOT NEED TO BE MET IF THE FACADES ARE
 BEING PRESERVE. IF AN ALTERATION IS PROPOSED, THEN
 FACADES WILL NEED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE
 CLARIFY IF ALL FACADES ARE BEING PRESERVED, AND IF
 ALTERED, PROVIDE ANY CALCULATIONS AND DIAGRAMS ON HOW
 THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
 9. PLEASE PROVIDE HOW THE GROUND FLOOR AND PODIUM
 (ACTIVE USE) MEETS AT LEAST 15% OF FENESTRATION PER
 SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-4.
 10. PLEASE REVISE REAR SETBACK LINES SHOWN ON SHEETS
 B4, B5, B6, B8 B9, B12, AND B13 SHOULD BE 5 FEET FROM
 GROUND TO THE 12 FLOORS.
 11. PLEASE REVISE MINOR TYPO ON SHEET A1, MAX. BUILDING
 FOOTPRINT FROM "TOWER: 6 TO 12 (155FEET)" TO "TOWER:6
 TO 12 (152 FEET)".
 12. PLEASE REVISE DIAGRAMS AND CALCULATIONS FOR MAX.
 BUILDING FOOTPRINT INFORMATION SHOWN ON SHEET B19. SEE
 DEFINITION OF FOOTPRINT PER SEC. 94-109, FOOTPRINT
 CALCULATIONS SHALL EXCLUDE BALCONIES, AND OTHER AREAS.
  
  
 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
 1. REPEATED COMMENT, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE RETAIL SQUARE
 FOOTAGE IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN SHEETS. SHEET A1.2 HAS
 736SF, SHEET T1, Z1, B1, B12, AND B18 HAVE 786SF. AND
 NOTE, ON REVISED TPS LETTER RETAIL IS SHOWING AS 788SF.
 2. REPEATED COMMENT, INFORMATION IS NEEDED ABOUT THE
 GREEN WALL MATERIAL BEING USED ON THE FRONT FACADE,
 ESPECIALLY IF THIS IS PROPOSED AS AN ARCHITECTURAL
 TREATMENT, AND WILL NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
 DRAWINGS. NOTE, RENDERINGS WILL NEED TO MATCH DRAWINGS.
 3. ON SHEET B14, PLANE B, PLEASE CLARIFY WITH
 CALCULATIONS IF THIS AREA IS LESS THAN 20 PERCENT OF
 THE ENTIRE FACADE ELEVATION TO NOT BE CONSIDERED A
 'BLANK WALL' PER DEFINITION IN SEC. 94-109. IF GREATER
 THAN 20 PERCENT, FACADE ARTICULATION WILL NEED TO BE
 PROVIDED.
 4. PLEASE NOTE, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT REQUIREMENT YOU ARE
 SHOWING ON SHEETS B14-B17. ON SHEET B7, YOU SHOW THE
 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT THAT IS GIVEN TO FACADES
 ENCLOSING PARKING SPACES (NON-ACTIVE USE). SO, SHEETS
 B14-B17 SEEM TO BE SHOWING FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS
 BUT SOME PERCENTAGES ARE LESS THAN 15 PERCENT WHICH DO
 NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
 5. THE PLANTER WALL ON THE EAST SIDE WILL NEED TO BE
 LOWERED, SEE SHEET R1 SHOWING A HIGHER WALL COMPARED TO
 ELEVATION ON SHEET B14 WHERE THE WALL IS 2 FEET 8
 INCHES FEET WHICH WORKS BETTER FROM THE STREET LEVEL.
  
  
 PARKING
 1. NOTE - PENDING CONFIRMATION FROM THE TRAFFIC
 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT ON-STREET PARKING CAN BE
 COUNTED TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING.
 2. PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL WITH DIMENSIONS OF YOUR BIKE
 STORAGE ROOM. AS REQUIRED PER SEC. 94-111(I), THE ROOM
 WILL NEED ACCOMMODATE 4 BICYCLES. SEE THE CITY'S
 BICYCLE PARKING GUIDELINES PAGE 4 FOR MORE INFO ABOUT
 DIMENSIONS AND AREA. YOU CAN ADD DETAIL TO SHEET A1.2.
 3. IN ADDITION TO THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED ON THE
 COMMENT 2, PER SEC. 94-113(D)(9), BICYCLE PARKING FOR 2
 BICYCLES IS REQUIRED ON STREET. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO
 ACKNOWLEDGE THIS REQUIREMENT IN YOUR TABLES ON SHEETS
 A1.2 AND A1. NOTE, BIKE RACKS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH
 LANDSCAPING AREA, PLEASE REVISE.
 4. SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES FACING EVERNIA STREET WILL
 NEED TO BE MOVE TO THE LINE WHERE THE STREET R/W
 STARTS. SEE SEC. 94-305(E), FIGURE X-1.
 5. PLEASE CLARIFY IF A GATE IS PROPOSED ON THE
 EXITS/ENTRANCES TO PARKING ON THE STREET LEVEL.
 6. PLEASE UPDATE AUTORUN ANALYSIS BASED ON DISCUSSIONS
 REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF THE UTILITY POLE BETWEEN
 LOADING ZONE AND DRIVEWAY, AND ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
 SHEETS.
 7. PLEASE ADD SLOPE PERCENTAGE ON ADA RAMP ACCESSING
 THE SALON.
  
  
 LANSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE
 1. IF THE MAX. SPACING BETWEEN ON-STREET TREES IS
 GREATER THAN 30 FEET, A VARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE
 REQUESTED. THE TWO TREES FRAMING THE DRIVEWAY DO NOT
 MEET THE REQUIREMENT, PLEASE REVISE.
 2. BICYCLE RACKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT ARE IN
 CONFLICT WITH LANDSCAPING PROPOSED, PLEASE REVISE TO
 ENSURE THAT ENOUGH SPACE CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO BICYCLES
 ON EACH SIDE. IF SPACE ALLOWS, BIKE RACKS CAN MOVE
 CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK SO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER CAN BE
 ADDED PARALLEL TO THE STREET, BETWEEN PARKING AND BIKE
 RACK TO BETTER SCREEN PARKING.
 3. THE PROPOSED ON-STREET TREE IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC
 BUILDING CONFLICTS WITH THE AWNING, PLEASE REVISE.
 4. PLEASE NOTE, STREET LIGHTS FIXTURES ARE NOT SHOWN ON
 LANDSCAPE SHEET LP.1. PLEASE ADD TO ENSURE TREES ARE
 NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PLACEMENT. NOTE, CITY STANDARD FOR
 DECORATIVE STREETLAMPS IS LUMEC (S55-007).
 5. ON ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS, DRIVEWAYS' APRONS AND CURB
 RADIUS DO NOT MATCH LANDSCAPE AND ENGINEERING SHEETS,
 PLEASE REVISE. ALL PLANS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN
 DESIGN.
 6. PLEASE NOTE VEGETATED AREAS, PER DEFINITION FOUND IN
 SEC. 94-109, NEED TO BE OCCUPIED BY PLANT MATERIAL.
 PLANT MATERIAL MEANS NATURAL GRASS, GROUND COVER,
 SHRUBS, HEDGES, VINES AND TREES. YOU ARE PROPOSING
 ARTIFICIAL TURF ON OPEN SPACES AREAS, THESE ARTIFICIAL
 TURF AREAS CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE MIN.
 PERCENTAGE REQUIRED OF VEGETATION AREA OF OPEN SPACES,
 PLEASE REVISE.
 7. ANY ARTIFICIAL TURF AREA PROPOSED MUST MEET THE
 REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 94-451.
  
  
 OTHER COMMENTS
 1. A SIGNAGE PERMIT WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO
 APPROVE THE 'VIANA' SIGN.
 2. PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-54 (A)(1), THE APPLICANT
 SHALL ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OF THE PPRC AND SUBMIT A
 REVISED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH
 COMMENTS. FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
 WITHIN THE 60-DAY DEADLINE WILL DEEM THE APPLICATION AS
 WITHDRAWN. AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF
 THE 60-DAY REVISION PERIOD, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A
 30-DAY EXTENSION. NO FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST IS
 PERMITTED. COMMENTS RELATING TO REVISED APPLICATIONS
 SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH
 COMMENTS.
 3. WHEN RESUBMITTING, WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
 NEED TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS A MINIMUM OF TWO (2)
 PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG/.PDF FORMAT
 OF ALL PLANS AND ALL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED IN THE
 APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS
 TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
 COMMENTS.
 4. LASTLY, YOU WERE PERMITTED ONE (1) RESUBMITTAL AT NO
 ADDITIONAL COST. AS 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, WHICH IS $300.
  
  Print


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