City of West Palm Beach eGovPlus

Plan Review Details - Project Z12060014

Plan Review Stops For Project Z12060014

Review Stop	B			BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	07-11-2012			Cont ID
Sent By	lmartine			Date	07-11-2012	Time	09:43	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	lmartine			Date	07-11-2012	Time	09:43	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-11 09:44:37	NO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS PROVIDED, NO
	COMMENTS.

Review Stop	ENG - PPRC			ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	10-08-2012			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	10:50	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	10:50	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 10:50:50	ALL COMMENTS FROM THE JULY 2012 PPRC MEETING HAVE
	EITHER BEEN ADDRESSED OR ARE BEING ADDED AS A CONDITION
	WITHIN THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	ENG - PPRC			ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	07-11-2012			Cont ID
Sent By	bmoree			Date	07-11-2012	Time	11:39	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	bmoree			Date	07-11-2012	Time	11:38	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-11 11:38:31
	1. SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR COMPREHENSIVE
	INFRASTRUCTURE COMMENTS.
	2. AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT FOR SFWMD WILL BE
	REQUIRED.
	3. AN PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT IS
	REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FORMAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
	CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW.
	4. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREVIOUS USE OF THE SITE,
	THE CITY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE
	ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL, WHICH MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE
	LIMITED TO, ENVIRONMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING,
	DEWATERING CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION STORMAWATER CONVEYANCE
	MANAGEMENT, PARTICULATE ABATEMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
	HAZARD ABATEMENT.
	5. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) AND
	STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
	6.PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING
	CONCURRENCY.
	7. PALM BEACH COUNTY RIGHT-OF-PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED
	FOR WORK WITHIN CONGRESS AVENUE.
	8. A SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ENGINEERING
	EVALUATION WILL BE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FORMAL
	SITE DEVELOPMENT CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW.
	9. A WATER DISTRIBUTION SYS EVALUATION WILL BE REQUIRED
	IN CONJUNCTION WITH FORMAL SITE DEVELOPMENT CIVIL
	INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW.
	10. UTILITY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR
	EXPANSION MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
	DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,
	WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, SANITARY SEWER
	SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, AND STORMWATER CONVENIENCE SYSTEM
	IMPROVEMENTS.
	11. RECOMMEND INDEPENDENT UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
	MEETING BE SCHEDULED WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND
	ENGINEERING SERVICES.

	BRIAN R. MOREE, MPA, FCHP
	ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
	CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
	ENGINEERING SERVICES & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
	401 CLEMATIS STREET
	FOURTH FLOOR
	WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
	OFFICE: 561-494-1098
	MOBILE: 561-644-7270
	EMAIL: [email protected]
	WEB: WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING

Review Stop	FIRE			FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 08:41:13	NO COMMENTS WERE ISSUED AT THE PPRC MEETING.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	L			LANDSCAPING
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 08:41:30	NO COMMENTS WERE ISSUED AT THE PPRC MEETING.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	PARK			PARKING
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:39	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:39	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 08:40:30	NO COMMENTS WERE ISSUED AT THE PPRC MEETING.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	POLICE			POLICE
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-10-2012			Cont ID
Sent By				Date	08-10-2012	Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ktucker			Date	08-10-2012	Time	09:12	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-05 09:56:01	NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AT THIS TIME, WILL WAIT FOR THE
	PLAN SUBMITTAL, HOWEVER, KEEP THE FOLLOWING IN MIND:

	CONSTRUCTION SITE SECURITY PLAN
	PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT, THE
	APPLICANT SHALL PREPARE A CONSTRUCTION SITE SECURITY
	AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF WEST
	PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT CPTED OFFICIAL.
	A.AFTER SITE CLEARING AND PLACEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
	TRAILERS, THE DEVELOPER/PROJECT MANAGER SHALL INSTITUTE
	SECURITY MEASURES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE OPPORTUNITIES
	FOR THEFT. THE MANAGEMENT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT
	BE LIMITED TO, TEMPORARY LIGHTING, SECURITY PERSONNEL,
	VEHICLE BARRIERS, CONSTRUCTION/VISITOR PASS,
	REDUCE/MINIMIZE ENTRY/EXIT POINTS, ENCOURAGE
	SUBCONTRACTORS TO SECURE MACHINERY, TOOLS AT END OF
	WORK DAY, FENCING WITH SCREENING AND OR ANY OTHER
	MEASURE DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND SECURE
	WORKING ENVIRONMENT.
	B.THE SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED
	THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT.
	NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLAN SHALL RESULT IN A
	STOP-WORK ORDER FOR THE ENTIRE PLANNED UNIT
	DEVELOPMENT.
	C.PROPERTY SHALL BE POST ?NO TRESPASSING? SIGNS EVERY
	500 FEET AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.


	HOTELS/MOTEL/RESORT

	8.3 GUESTROOMS
	A. GUESTROOMS ALL NEED TO HAVE ELECTRONIC CARD ACCESS
	VERSUS MECHANICAL LOCKING SYSTEM.
	B. DOORS SHALL BE SOLID-CORE WOOD OR METAL, AND BE
	SELF-CLOSING AND SELF-LOCKING. THE DOOR LOCK MUST
	CONSIST OF A HIGH QUALITY DEADBOLT WITH AT LEAST A
	ONE-INCH BOLT. THE LOCK STRIKE-PLATE MUST BE BOLTED
	SECURELY TO THE METAL DOORFRAME OR BY USING THREE-INCH
	SCREWS WHEN ATTACHED TO A WOOD DOORJAMB. ACCESSIBLE
	SLIDING WINDOWS MUST HAVE SECONDARY SECURITY DEVICES
	ATTACHED TO PREVENT FORCED ENTRY OR LIFTING OUT OF THE
	FRAME.
	C. EACH GUESTROOM SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH IN-ROOM
	ELECTRONIC SAFES.
	D. GUESTROOMS SHALL NOT BE ACCESSIBLE FROM OUTSIDE
	UNLESS BY ELECTRONIC ACCESS.
	EXTERIOR
	A. EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL
	EXIT WAY, EMERGENCY ACCESS, STAIRWAY AND UTILITY ROOM
	DOORS.
	B. SECONDARY ACCESS, OTHER THAN MAIN LOBBY, SHALL BE
	AVAILABLE BY CONTROLLED ACCESS.
	C. POOL AREA RESTRICTED ACCESS HELPS PREVENT
	UNAUTHORIZED USE, CURBS POTENTIAL VANDALISM AND
	PROVIDES GREATER SECURITY AND PROTECTION TO POOL USERS,
	ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.
	D. MAIN ENTRANCE SHALL LEAD DIRECTLY TO THE FRONT LOBBY
	AREA WITH VISIBLE SIGNAGE INDICATING SO.
	E. TRAFFIC LEADING TO LOBBY OVERHANG AND/OR CIRCULAR
	DRIVE SHALL BE ONE WAY WITH SIGNAGE STATING SAME.

	SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSIDERATIONS:

	LIGHTING
	A. EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE PLACED ABOVE OR NEAR
	ENTRYWAYS AND GARAGES.
	B. LANDSCAPING SHALL NOT CONFLICT WITH LIGHTING (TO
	INCLUDE LONG-TERM TREE CANOPY GROWTH).
	C. LANDSCAPING SHALL NOT COVER VIEW OF WINDOWS,
	BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, WALKWAYS.
	D. PHOTOCELL SENSOR-ENGAGED LIGHTING SHALL BE UTILIZED
	FOR DUSK TO DAWN OPERATION.
	E. 10-15 FOOT PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING SHALL BE USED
	FOR ALL PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
	F. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT 25-FOOT LIGHT POLES BE USED FOR
	THE STREET LIGHTING.
	1.2 NUMERICAL ADDRESS
	A. ILLUMINATION FOR NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY IS REQUIRED.
	B. BI-DIRECTIONAL VISIBILITY FROM THE ROADWAY IS
	REQUIRED.
	1.3 DOORS
	A. DOORS LEADING INTO A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, INCLUDING
	INTERIOR GARAGE, OR DETACHED GARAGES, SHALL BE SOLID
	CORE.
	B. FRONT DOOR SIDE PANE WINDOW SHALL BE PLACED ON THE
	OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DOOR HANDLE AND LOCK MAKING THEM
	UNREACHABLE.
	C. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A 180-DEGREE
	PEEPHOLE AND NON-REMOVABLE SECURITY HINGES.
	1.4 LOCKS
	A. ANTI-LIFTING AUXILIARY LOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON
	SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS.
	B. ALL DOORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE CYLINDER
	DEAD BOLT LOCK WITH A MINIMUM THROW OF ONE INCH AND AN
	EMBEDMENT OF NOT LESS 5/8 INCH INTO THE HOLDING DEVICE.
	C. PICK PLATES SHOULD BE PLACED ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.
	1.5 ALARM SYSTEMS
	A. HOMES SHALL BE PRE-WIRED FOR ALARM SYSTEM.
	B. TELEPHONE LINES SHALL BE RUN UNDERGROUND WITH BOX
	HOOK-UP ON INSIDE OF BUILDING VERSUS THE EXTERIOR OF
	BUILDING WHERE TELEPHONE LINES CAN BE CUT MAKING ALARM
	SYSTEM INOPERABLE.

Review Stop	PW			PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:40	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:40	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 08:40:50	NO COMMENTS WERE ISSUED AT THE PPRC MEETING.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	10:49	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	10:49	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 10:49:48	ALL COMMENTS FROM THE JULY 2012 PPRC MEETING HAVE
	EITHER BEEN ADDRESSED OR ARE BEING ADDED AS A CONDITION
	WITHIN THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	07-10-2012		Cont ID
Sent By				Date	07-10-2012	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By				Date	07-10-2012	Time	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-10 09:00:31	1. EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE FROM ADJACENT
	DEVELOPMENT TO BE ACCOMMODATED/ACCOUNTED FOR IN ONSITE
	DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
	2. SFWMD ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PERMIT TO BE OBTAINED
	BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
	3. NO CIVIL PLANS OR CALCULATIONS PROVIDED.
	4. NO BUILDINGS/LANDSCAPING ALLOWED WITHIN EXISTING
	DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.

	TRACY L. WARD, P.E.
	SENIOR STORM WATER ENGINEER
	ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
	561-494-1120

Review Stop	SURVEY			SURVEYING
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	07-09-2012		Cont ID
Sent By				Date	07-09-2012	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By				Date	07-09-2012	Time	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-09 08:42:27	PASSED, BUT PLEASE NOTE:

	1. PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REPLATTED AT TIME OF
	SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
	2. DUE TO THE INCREASED IMPACTS TO THE WATER, SEWER AND
	STORMWATER SYSTEMS, INDEPENDENT STUDIES WILL NEED TO BE
	PREPARED
	AND FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPER.

Review Stop	TRAFFIC			TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-08-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	08-08-2013	Time	08:41	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 08:41:50	NO COMMENTS WERE ISSUED AT THE PPRC MEETING.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	10-08-2012		Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	10-08-2012	Time	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-08 10:48:57	ALL COMMENTS FROM THE JULY 2012 PPRC MEETING HAVE
	EITHER BEEN ADDRESSED OR ARE BEING ADDED AS A CONDITION
	WITHIN THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT.

	QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, CONTACT JOHN ROACH, PRINCIPAL
	PLANNER, AT (561) 822-1448.

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	07-11-2012			Cont ID
Sent By	jroach			Date	07-11-2012	Time	16:27	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	jroach			Date	07-11-2012	Time	16:27	Sent To

Notes

2012-07-11 16:27:06	ZONING PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) REVIEW
	___________________________________________

	DATE OF REVIEW: 07.11.2012
	PROJECT NO.: Z12060014 & Z12060015
	CASE NO.: PB CASE NOS. 1624 & 1624A
	ADDRESS: 2300 PRESIDENTIAL WAY &3100 CONGRESS AVENUE
	APPLICANT/CONTACT: KIEREN KILDAY, URBAN DESIGN KILDAY
	STUDIOS
	TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100
	SCOPE OF REVIEW: FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND
	REZONING FOR PROPOSED RESORT COUNTRY CLUB.
	___________________________________________

	PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
	REVIEW COMMENTS:

	1. AN APPROVED SCHOOL CONCURRENCY APPLICATION SHALL BE
	PROVIDED.

	2. APPROVED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM
	PALM BEACH COUNTY ? DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND
	PUBLIC WORKS ? TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION.

	3. FOR THE FLU MAP AMENDMENT, A LEVEL OF SERVICE
	ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FOLLOWING USING THE
	"WORST-CASE" SCENARIO:
	A. WATER
	B. WASTE WATER
	C. SOLID WASTE
	D. SCHOOLS

	4. UTILITY LETTERS WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE
	FOLLOWING:
	A. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
	B. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
	C. COMCAST

	5. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPOSED FUEL PUMP
	STATION BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CPD INSTEAD OF THE RPD.

	6. COPIES OF ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, ETC.
	REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT B OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT THAT
	MAY AFFECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED.

	7. THE ACREAGE SHOWN ON THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DOES
	NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED MASTER
	PLAN.

	8. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THE TRAFFIC FOR THE SPA AND THE
	CONVENTION CENTER SPACE IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR; IT IS
	NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS.

	9. PLEASE CLARIFY, DOES THE 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE
	REFERENCED IN THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS ACCOUNT
	FOR THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE AND DRIVING RANGE?
	IF SO, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT A FOOTNOTE BE ADDED TO
	THE STUDY SO THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT BEING
	EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY.

	10. CONSIDERATIONS NEED TO BE MADE REGARDING THE
	POSSIBILITY OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS AND THE
	RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE IF LOCATED WITHIN
	AN RPD.

	11. COMMENTS REGARDING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE AS
	FOLLOWS:

	GENERAL COMMENTS:
	- CONSIDER PROVIDING FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE
	RESORT COMMUNITY WILL FUNCTION (I.E. MEMBERSHIPS,
	AMENITIES, ETC.).

	- FOR PURPOSES OF INCORPORATION INTO THE FUTURE
	ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION, PLEASE REMOVE THE BLACK
	BACKGROUND FROM THE DOCUMENT.

	- CONSIDER ORGANIZING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SUCH THAT
	THE FIRST PART EXPLAINS AND PROVIDES THE CRITERIA
	APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE RPD AND THE CPD. THEN PROVIDE
	ALL REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE RPD. THEN PROVIDE ALL
	REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CPD. THIS WOULD BE BETTER
	ORGANIZED AND EASIER TO IMPLEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO
	JUMPING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE RPD AND THE CPD.

	- CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE MADE AS WHAT WILL MADE THIS
	DEVELOPMENT "CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE" TO JUSTIFY THE
	RPD AND CPD. WILL THERE BE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
	"ABOVE AND BEYOND" WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE PERMITTED BY
	RIGHT? FOR EXAMPLE, WILL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BE
	GREATER; WILL THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BE ENHANCED;
	ETC.?

	PAGE 3:
	- IS THERE A NEED FOR A DEFINITIONS SECTION? THERE DOES
	NOT APPEAR TO BE A NEED TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF
	SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED WITHIN THE ZLDRS.
	ADDITIONALLY, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CANNOT MODIFY OR
	WAIVE THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS
	WITHIN THE ZLDRS. IF NECESSARY, DEFINITIONS CAN BE
	PROVIDED ON ELEMENTS, TERMS, ETC. THAT ARE NOT
	OTHERWISE DEFINED AND WOULD PROVIDE BETTER EXPLANATION
	TO THE MATERIAL WITHIN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.

	PAGE 4:
	- THE DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY ARE
	ALREADY DEFINED IN THE ZLDRS, AND THE DEFINITION FOR
	DENSITY SHOWN DIFFERS.

	PAGE 5:
	- THERE IS A MISSPELLING OF THE WORD "FEET" IN THE
	DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.

	- THE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE DIFFERS FROM THAT
	PROVIDED WITHIN THE ZLDRS.

	- I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CODIFICATION DATE NOT BE
	PROVIDED FOR THE ZLDRS AS ANY FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE
	ZLDRS MAY BE APPLICABLE.

	PAGE 6:
	- THE PROJECT NARRATIVE ONLY REFERENCES 67.63 ACRES,
	BUT APPEARS TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE RPD AND THE CPD
	COMBINED, WHICH IS 119.15 ACRES.

	- DISCUSSION IS MADE IN THE NARRATIVE REGARDING
	NON-HOTEL GUESTS. I THINK THIS MAY NEED TO BE EXPLAINED
	AS PART OF THE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE
	PREVIOUSLY IN THAT THE RESORT COMMUNITY IS NOT STRICTLY
	LIMITED TO GUESTS OF THE HOTEL, ETC. AND THAT THE
	GENERAL PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THE FACILITIES IF THEY HAVE A
	MEMBERSHIP. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ENSURE THAT THE TRAFFIC
	IMPACT STUDY ACCOUNTS FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.

	PAGE 7:
	- RESTAURANTS AND LOUNGES ARE REFERENCED HERE, BUT
	NOWHERE ELSE. AS INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, CLARIFICATION
	MAY NEED TO BE PROVIDED IN THE OTHER STUDIES AND IT
	NEEDS TO BE ASSURED THAT THESE USES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR,
	ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES INDICATE THAT
	THESE ARE OPEN TO THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC.

	PAGE 11:
	- SPECIAL CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE MADE REGARDING THE
	LIST OF PERMITTED USES. THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN
	GUIDELINES INDICATE THAT ONLY USES THAT ARE PERMITTED
	BY RIGHT ARE ALLOWED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE
	LISTED. SOME OF THOSE LISTED AS EXCLUSIONS ARE PXR,
	WHICH WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ANYWAY BASED UPON THE
	PROPOSED WORDING. ADDITIONALLY, IF THE MASTER PLAN ONLY
	SHOWS HOTEL ROOMS, ETC., HOW CAN THESE OTHER USES BE
	ACCOUNTED FOR IN TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY, ETC. WITHOUT
	REQUIRING A MAJOR PD AMENDMENT,ETC.

	PAGE 15:
	- THE CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT SHOWS THE MAINTENANCE
	FACILITY WITHIN, OR ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING
	RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE BOUNDARIES
	OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE BOUNDARIES OF
	THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

	PAGE 19:
	- CONCERNED WITH LEAVING THE BUFFER AROUND THE EXISTING
	MAINTENANCE FACILITY "AS-IS". THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED
	TO BE UPGRADED TO AT LEAST MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF
	THE ZLDRS, IF NOT EXCEED SUCH REQUIREMENTS. THIS SHOULD
	CERTAINLY HAPPEN WHEN CONVERTED TO THE FUEL-PUMP AREA.

	- CONCERNED WITH HAVING A ZERO FOOT SETBACK ALONG
	PRESIDENTIAL WAY.

	- BASED UPON PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THE SECTION TALKING
	ABOUT THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE NEEDS
	TO BE REVISED AND THIS LAKE IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
	BUFFERING WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED.

	PAGE 20:
	- A MINIMUM LAKE WIDTH NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE ANY
	LANDSCAPE BUFFER CAN BE EXEMPTED ADJACENT TO
	RESIDENTIAL.

	PAGE 21:
	- IS IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SEPARATE PARKING
	REGULATIONS? IT APPEARS THAT EVERYTHING SHOWN MATCHES
	THE CURRENT ZLDRS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED OF PROVIDING A
	STATEMENT THAT ALL APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
	WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF THE
	ZLDRS, UNLESS A PARKING STUDY CAN BE PROVIDED
	INDICATING THAT AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING RATIO WILL BE
	SUFFICIENT.

	- THE PARKING FOR THE GOLF CLUB FACILITY DOES NOT
	ACCOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES; PLEASE CLARIFY.

	PAGE 22:
	- WILL THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS APPLY TO ALL
	BUILDINGS, WITHIN BOTH THE RPD AND THE CPD? PLEASE MAKE
	CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THAT UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE,
	THE GUIDELINES WILL BE APPLICABLE ACROSS BOTH PDS.

	___________________________________________

	PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:

	A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
	DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.

	B) 15 SETS OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
	PROVIDED, ALONG WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11IN X
	17IN), AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS.

	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 ROACH, SENIOR PLANNER
	CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
	DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION
	401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3366
	WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402

	PHONE: 561.822.1435
	FAX: 561.822.1459

	EMAIL: [email protected]

	WWW.CITYOFWPB.COM

2012-06-29 12:20:52	THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE ISSUED BY ALEX HANSEN,
	SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER - (561) 822-1463:

	- THE LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED BY THE
	APPLICANT DOES NOT REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE COMMERCIAL
	EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS A MAXIMUM
	DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF 1.5 FAR FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
	USES AND A MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 32.27
	DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDS TO BE
	AMENDED TO REFLECT THIS.

	- THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLINES THAT THE
	PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY (SFLD) FUTURE LAND
	USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 3 DWELLING UNITS
	PER ACRE WITH NO ALLOWANCES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
	THE PROJECT'S BUBBLE SITE PLAN DEPICTS A PROPOSED GAS
	STATION IN THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SFLD DESIGNATION.
	A GAS STATION IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SFLD
	DESIGNATION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS AREA OF THE
	PROJECT BE DESIGNATED WITH THE PROPOSED CE DESIGNATION.

	- THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
	LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY AND THE BUBBLE SITE
	PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE NUMBER OF
	ACRES IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROPOSED CE AND SFLD FUTURE
	LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THESE DISCREPANCIES NEED TO BE
	CORRECTED.