Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z22100020
Project Number Z22100020
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 4
Notes
Date Text
2023-05-24 10:39:255/24/23 ??? FAILED
  
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING PROCESS COMMENTS WHEN
 RESUBMITTING:
 A. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
 B. PROVIDE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS AND REQUIRED
 MATERIALS AND 2 SETS OF FOLDED PHYSICAL PLANS, ALONG
 WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11 IN X 17 IN).
 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 CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN AND ANY FURTHER ACTION WILL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 ARE PERMITTED ONE (1)
 RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. A RESUBMITTAL FEE OF
 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE WILL BE ASSESSED
 AFTER THE FIRST RESUBMITTAL.
  
 REQUIRED MATERIALS MUST BE PROVIDED:
 F. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CITY
 OF WEST PALM BEACH ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
 CONFIRMING THAT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT HAS
 REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL FOR WATER, SEWAGE TREATMENT,
 STORM DRAINAGE, AND GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES.
 [SATISFIED]
 G. PLEASE PROVIDE A TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY/PERFORMANCE
 STANDARD REVIEW (TPS) LETTER FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY
 TRAFFIC DIVISION FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT. [SATISFIED]
 H. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHYSICAL HARDCOPY OF THE WARRANTY
 DEED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. [SATISFIED]
 I. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHYSICAL HARDCOPY OF THE ADDRESS
 REQUEST FORM. [SATISFIED]
 J. PLEASE PROVIDE REVISED PLANS ADDRESSING THE REVIEW
 COMMENTS BELOW. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED]
 K. PLEASE PROVIDE/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENT
 INFORMATION ON ALL THE DIFFERENT PLANS AND REQUIRED
 MATERIALS WITHIN THE APPLICATION PACKET RESUBMITTAL.
 [NOT SATISFIED]
 L. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED SIGN POSTING AFFIDAVITS
 WHEN SIGNS HAVE BEEN PUT UP/POSTED. [SATISFIED SUBJECT
 TO THESE BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINES FOR THE
 PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS]
  
 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED:
 1. PLEASE SUBMIT A REVISED JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND
 REVISED PLANS REFERENCING THE CURRENT PROPERTY
 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CENTREPARK COMMERCIAL
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CPD) PER RESOLUTION NO. 16-21.
 [SATISFIED]
 2. PLEASE SUBMIT A REVISED JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND
 REVISED PLANS IDENTIFYING/INDICATING/DEMONSTRATING
 CONSISTENT INFORMATION REGARDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
 THE EXISTING LOT AREA, PROPOSED USES(S), AND PROPOSED
 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. [SATISFIED]
 3. PLEASE EITHER SUBMIT REVISED ARCHITECTURAL SITE
 PLANS (OVERALL SITE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS, SITE
 PLAN, AND LEVEL 1 & 2 PLAN SHEETS) TO MATCH THE
 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1) OR REMOVE/DO
 NOT PROVIDE THE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANS (OVERALL SITE
 PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS, SITE PLAN, AND LEVEL 1 &
 2 PLAN SHEETS) IN YOUR RESUBMITTAL PACKET. [SATISFIED]
 4. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED
 EASEMENTS ON THE DIFFERENT PLANS, ACCORDINGLY.
 [SATISFIED]
 5. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED
 BUILDING SETBACK DIMENSION FROM THE NORTH (SIDE)
 PROPERTY LINE ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1
 OF 1). [SATISFIED]
 6. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE WIDTH
 DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED SIDEWALKS ON THE PRELIMINARY
 SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1). [SATISFIED]
 7. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO
 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER WIDTH REQUIREMENT PER RESOLUTION NO.
 16-21. THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE DIFFERENT PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 8. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT
 IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE CORRECT INFORMATION
 REGARDING THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING REQUIRED FOR
 THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE PER SECTION 94-486
 OF THE CITY???S ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
 (ZLDR). THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT AND REVISE THE PLANS, ACCORDINGLY.
 [SATISFIED]
 9. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT IN
 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-486 OF THE ZLDR FOR THE
 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED
 MEDICAL OFFICE USE. THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND REVISE THE PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [WITHDRAWN]
 10. BASED ON REVIEW COMMENTS NUMBER 9 AND 10 ABOVE AND
 PER SUBSECTIONS 94-485(O) AND (Q) OF THE ZLDR, PLEASE
 REVISE THE PLANS, ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REQUIRED AND
 PROPOSED NUMBER OF HANDICAP/ADA PARKING SPACES AND
 BICYCLE PARKING. [SATISFIED]
 11. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION
 OF ALL PROPOSED HANDICAP/ADA PARKING SPACES ON THE
 DIFFERENT PLANS, ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 12. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION
 OF A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) HANDICAP/ADA PARKING SPACE ON
 LEVEL 1. [SATISFIED]
 13. PER SUBSECTION 94-485(P) OF THE ZLDR PLEASE
 IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE
 PROPOSED LOADING SPACES ON THE DIFFERENT PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 14. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION,
 HEIGHT, AND INTENSITY OF ALL OUTDOOR ILLUMINATION ON
 THE DIFFERENT PLANS, ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 15. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE HEIGHT AND
 SIZE OF THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIZE ON THE DIFFERENT
 PLANS, ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 16. THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE
 WITH THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
 REQUIREMENT PER SUBSECTION 94-408(D)(2)(E)(2) OF THE
 ZLDR. THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE DIFFERENT PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 17. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION
 OF ALL PUBLIC ART PROPOSED ON THE DIFFERENT PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [RESPONSE PROVIDED]
 18. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTING
 AND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS (OR OPERATIONAL EQUIVALENTS)
 WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE(S) ON THE
 DIFFERENT PLANS, ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 19. PLEASE IDENTIFY/INDICATE/DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION
 OF ANY SPECIAL UTILITY STRUCTURES SUCH AS VALVES,
 METERS, BACKFLOW CONNECTIONS, PUMP STATIONS,
 TRANSFORMERS, AND ALL ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES ON THE
 DIFFERENT PLANS, ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 20. PLEASE PROVIDE THE STANDARD CITY DETAILS FOR
 DUMPSTERS AND SIGNS. [SATISFIED]
 21. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THERE IS AN
 INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE SITE TABULAR DATA TABLE AND
 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS TABLE ON THE
 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1), THEREFORE,
 PLEASE CORRECT ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 22. PLEASE CORRECT THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED
 TO 20% IN THE SITE TABULAR DATA TABLE ON THE
 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1) ACCORDING TO
 SECTION 94-243 OF THE ZLDR. [SATISFIED]
 23. PLEASE CORRECT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK TO
 FIVE (5) FEET IN THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
 TABLE ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1)
 ACCORDING TO SECTION 94-243 OF THE ZLDR. [SATISFIED]
 24. PLEASE REVISE THE WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED,
 ACCORDINGLY. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED]
 25. PER RESOLUTION NO. 16-21, PLEASE SUBMIT/PROVIDE
 SIGNED LETTERS FROM THE CENTREPARK PROPERTY OWNER???S
 ASSOCIATION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXPLICITLY
 STATING THAT THEY REVIEWED AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED
 PROJECT. [SATISFIED]
  
 ADDITIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED:
 M. PLEASE PROVIDE THE STANDARD OF COMPLIANCE RESPONSES
 TO THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY???S ZONING
 AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDR) SECTION 94-207.
 [WITHDRAWN]
 26. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 2., PLEASE
 SUBMIT A REVISED JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AND REVISED
 PLANS IDENTIFYING/INDICATING/DEMONSTRATING CONSISTENT
 INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING
 HEIGHT. [SATISFIED]
 27. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3., PLEASE
 SUBMIT REVISED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANS (OVERALL SITE
 PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS SHEETS) TO MATCH THE
 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET PSP-1 OF 1). [WITHDRAWN]
 28. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 10., PLEASE
 CORRECT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF BICYCLE PARKING
 INDICATED ON THE SITE TABULAR DATA. [SATISFIED]
 29. THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SUM
 TOTAL AREA ALLOWANCE PER SUBSECTION 94-408(D)(3)(B) OF
 THE ZLDR. THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE DIFFERENT PLANS,
 ACCORDINGLY. [SATISFIED]
 30. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 20., PLEASE
 PROVIDE THE STANDARD CITY DETAILS FOR DUMPSTERS.
 [SATISFIED]
 31. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 24., PLEASE
 REVISE THE WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED ACCORDING TO THE
 PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. [PARTIALLY SATISFIED]
 32. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 25., PLEASE
 SUBMIT/PROVIDE THE SIGNED LETTER FROM THE CENTREPARK
 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXPLICITLY STATING THAT THEY
 REVIEWED AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. [SATISFIED]
 33. IN REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT G., PLEASE
 PROVIDE THE UPDATED TPS LETTER WITH THE CORRECT SQUARE
 FOOTAGE. [SATISFIED]
 34. IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPOSAL EXCEEDS
 THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED ILLUMINATION PER SUBSECTION
 94-207(D)(8) OF THE ZLDR. THEREFORE, PLEASE REVISE THE
 SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRIC PROPOSAL, ACCORDINGLY.
 [SATISFIED]
  
  
 KEVIE DEFRANC
 SENIOR PLANNER - PLANNING DIVISION
 [email protected]
 561-822-1449
  
  Print


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