City of West Palm Beach eGovPlus

Plan Review Details - Project Z13030017

Plan Review Stops For Project Z13030017

Review Stop	B			BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	06-27-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	rbrown			Date	06-27-2013	Time	15:26	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	rbrown			Date	06-27-2013	Time	15:26	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-27 16:02:06	ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS REVIEW HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. A
	FULL BUILDING CODE REVIEW FOR THE BUILDINGS WILL BE
	PERFORMED WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE
	SUBMITTED.

	ROBERT BROWN
	BUILDING OFFICIAL
	DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
	TEL: (561) 805 6652
	EMAIL: [email protected]

Review Stop	B			BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	06-12-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	lmartine			Date	06-12-2013	Time	09:18	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	lmartine			Date	06-12-2013	Time	09:18	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-12 10:20:28	BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS


	: SEE 2010 FBC SECTION 406, REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE
	PARKING GARAGES.

	: FAIR HOUSING WILL APPLY FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
	FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC AMENITIES.

	: A LICENSED THRESHOLD INSPECTOR WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
	BUILDING TYPES 'A' AND 'B'.

	: BUILDING TYPES 'A' AND 'B' REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLERS.

	: SEE SHEET A-5, AN OUTSWING DOOR IS REFERENCED FOR ONE
	OF THE ELEVATORS ?

	: THE PLANS PROVIDED ARE CONCEPTIONAL.

	: CHECK YOUR FLOOD ZONE REQUIREMENTS.

	LUIS MARTINEZ
	561-805-6710

Review Stop	ENG			ENGINEERING CSD
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	08-28-2013		Cont ID
Sent By	mgonzale			Date	08-28-2013	Time	Rev Time	1.00
Received By	mgonzale			Date	08-28-2013	Time	Sent To	I

Notes

2013-08-28 08:33:48

NO FURTHER COMMENTS 08/28/2013

Review Stop	ENG - PPRC			ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No	1	Status	P	Date	07-12-2013		Cont ID
Sent By	mgonzale			Date	07-12-2013	Time	Rev Time	1.00
Received By	mgonzale			Date	07-12-2013	Time	Sent To	TRAFFIC

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	FIRE		FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No	1	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	L		LANDSCAPING
Rev No	1	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	PARK		PARKING
Rev No	1	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	POLICE			POLICE
Rev No	3	Status	F	Date	09-09-2013			Cont ID
Sent By				Date		Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ktucker			Date	09-09-2013	Time	13:44	Sent To

Notes

2013-09-09 13:46:19	SOME ORGINAL COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED, AND NOTED ON
	PLAN, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS THEY SAY WILL BE
	ADDRESSED AT TIME OF PERMITTING.
	AT THAT TIME I WILL BE LOOKING FOR A CONSTRUCTION SITE
	SECURITY PLAN.

Review Stop	POLICE		POLICE
Rev No	2	Status	Date				Cont ID
Sent By			Date		Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ktucker		Date	06-26-2013	Time	13:26	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-26 13:31:18	SOME ORGINAL COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED, AND NOTED ON
	PLAN, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS THEY SAY WILL BE
	ADDRESSED AT TIME OF PERMITTING.
	AT THAT TIME I WILL BE LOOKING FOR A CONSTRUCTION SITE
	SECURITY PLAN, LIGHTING

Review Stop	POLICE			POLICE
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date				Cont ID
Sent By				Date		Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ktucker			Date	06-07-2013	Time	14:24	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-07 14:25:17	THESE ARE WHAT I WILL BE LOOKING FOR:

	* BUS SHELTER SHALL HAVE LIGHTING, DIVIDED BENCHES
	* GUARD HOUSE SHOULD HAVE A REAR WINDOW, WHAT HOURS?
	MANNED AT ALL TIME?
	* PLAYGROUND SHOULD BE ACCESS CONTROLLED, LIGHTING
	SHOWN APPEARS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE PARKING
	AREA, NOT SPECIFIC TO THE PLAYGROUND
	* LIGHTING AT THE TRASH COMPACTOR
	* MOVE BIKE RACKS NEAR THE FRONT OF BUILDINGS
	* SHOW LIGHTING AROUND POOL
	* VIEW FINDERS SHOULD BE IN THE SOLID CORE GARAGE
	DOOR LEADING INTO THE BREEZEWAYS
	* MAILROOM SHOULD BE ACCESS CONTROLLED IF OUTSIDE
	* CLUBHOUSE SHOULD BE ACCESS CONTROLLED FOR AFTER
	HOURS (FITNESS)
	CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
	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.

	LIGHTING
	A. LIGHT POLES 10 ? 15 FOOT HIGH FOR PEDESTRIAN-SCALE
	LIGHTING SHALL BE USED FOR ALL PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
	B. PARKING LOT LIGHTING SHALL USE 20 -25 FOOT POLES.
	C. LANDSCAPING SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT VIEW OF WINDOWS,
	BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, LIGHTING AND WALKWAYS.
	D. TIMER CLOCK OR PHOTOCELL SENSOR-ENGAGED LIGHTING FOR
	ABOVE OR NEAR ENTRYWAYS TO RESIDENCES PROVIDE FOR DUSK
	TO DAWN OPERATION.
	E. ENTRANCE SIGN LIGHTING SHALL BE PROVIDED. DIRECTORY
	SHOULD BE AT ALL ENTRANCES WITH LIGHTING.
	F. BUILDING LIGHTING (NON GLARE) SHALL BE AROUND
	PERIMETER ON ALL SIDES.
	NUMERICAL ADDRESS
	A. ILLUMINATION FOR NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY IS REQUIRED.
	ADDRESS SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER A LIGHT FIXTURE OR BE
	BACK LIT.
	B. ADDRESS NUMERALS SHALL BE OF A CONTRASTING COLOR TO
	THE BUILDING COLOR
	C. BI-DIRECTIONAL VISIBILITY FROM THE ROADWAY IS
	REQUIRED.
	D. ADDRESS NUMBERS ON DOORS OF MULTI-UNITS AND SINGLE
	FAMILY HOMES NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES HIGH.
	E. BUILDING NUMBERS FOR MULTI-UNIT BUILDINGS SHALL BE A
	MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES HIGH AND PLACED IN A CONSPICUOUS
	LOCATION ON ALL SIDES WITH PUBLIC ACCESS, AWAY FROM
	LANDSCAPING. NUMBERS SHOULD BE OF A CONTRASTING
	BACKGROUND.

	DOORS
	A. DOOR LEADING INTO A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, INCLUDING
	GARAGE, AND DETACHED GARAGE, SHALL BE SOLID CORE.
	B. IF FRONT DOOR HAS A 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.
	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.
	PICK PLATES SHOULD ALSO BE PLACED ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.

	MISCELLANEOUS
	A. STAIRWAYS (TO INCLUDE RISERS/BANISTERS) AND
	BALCONIES SHALL PROVIDE OPEN VIEWS.
	B. SALES CENTER, CLUBHOUSE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
	SHALL BE PRE-WIRED TO ALARM CENTER.
	C. RECREATION BUILDING AND POOL ACCESS SHALL BE
	RESTRICTED, BY KEY, KEY FOB, OR CARD ACCESS
	D. BICYCLE SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
	TO THE FRONT OF BUILDINGS AND NOT IN PARKING LOTS.
	E. MAILBOX LOCATIONS SHALL BE IN A WELL LIT, HIGH
	TRAFFIC LOCATION.

Review Stop	PW		PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No	1	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

***NONE***

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	3	Status	P	Date	08-20-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	tward			Date	08-20-2013	Time	19:20	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	tward			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2013-08-20 19:22:33	NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON 8/16/2013 RE-SUBMITTAL.

	TRACY L. WARD, P.E.
	SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER
	ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
	561-494-1120

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	2	Status	P	Date	06-22-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	tward			Date	06-22-2013	Time	10:39	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	tward			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2013-06-22 10:47:00	1. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WITH THE APPLICATION FOR
	ENGINEERING PERMIT:
	A. LWDD PERMIT.
	B. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
	C. PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

	2. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SFWMD ERP MODIFICATION BEFORE
	START OF CONSTRUCTION.

	TRACY L. WARD, P.E.
	SENIOR STORM WATER ENGINEER
	ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
	(561) 494-1120

Review Stop	STORM			STORMWATER
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	06-06-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	tward			Date	06-06-2013	Time	18:26	Rev Time
Received By	tward			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2013-06-06 18:25:48	1. PROVIDE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR CITY RECORDS.
	2. INDICATE CHANGES IN PERVIOUS/IMPERVIOUS BETWEEN
	OLDER DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
	3. SWPPP WILL BE NEEDED WITH ENGINEERING PERMIT
	APPLICATION.
	4. COPY OF SFWMD ERP PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.
	5. COPY OF LWDD PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.

	TRACY L. WARD, P.E.
	ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
	561-494-1120

Review Stop	SURVEY			SURVEYING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date	06-26-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	vnoel			Date	06-26-2013	Time	14:38	Rev Time	0.00
Received By	vnoel			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2013-06-26 14:40:28	1. SURVEY RESUBMITTED IS AN UNSIGNED JAN/05' BOUNDARY
	SURVEY SHOWING TREE LOCATIONS.

Review Stop	SURVEY			SURVEYING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date	06-10-2013			Cont ID
Sent By	vnoel			Date	06-10-2013	Time	09:21	Rev Time
Received By	vnoel			Date		Time		Sent To

Notes

2013-06-10 09:21:15	1. WATER AND SANITARY SERVICE WILL REMAIN WITH PALM
	BEACH COUNTY.
	2. SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED.
	3. ALL INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS WILL NEED TO BE LOCATED ON
	SURVEY FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
	4. TRASH COMPACTOR AND OPERATION WILL NEED APPROVAL
	FROM SANITATION.

Review Stop	TRAFFIC			TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	3	Status	F	Date				Cont ID
Sent By				Date	08-22-2013	Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	bcollins			Date	08-22-2013	Time	13:36	Sent To

Notes

2013-08-22 13:35:41	STOP BARS AND STOP SIGNS SHOULD BE PLACED AT END OF
	EACH AISLE.

Review Stop	TRAFFIC			TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	2	Status	F	Date				Cont ID
Sent By				Date	07-16-2013	Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	bcollins			Date	07-16-2013	Time	09:20	Sent To

Notes

2013-07-16 09:21:30

PREVIOUS COMMENTS DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

Review Stop	TRAFFIC			TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date				Cont ID
Sent By				Date		Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	bcollins			Date	06-12-2013	Time	08:45	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-12 08:48:02	SHOW TRAFFIC CONTROL ON SITE - STOP SIGNS AND STOP
	BARS. FDOT TO APPROVE DRIVEWAY. CONCURRENCY TRAFFIC
	REPORT?

Review Stop	Z		ZONING
Rev No	2	Status	Date		Cont ID
Sent By			Date	Time	Rev Time	0.00
Received By			Date	Time	Sent To

Notes

2013-07-11 17:54:44	ON 6/26/13 DENISE MALONE SPOKE WITH BRIAN TERRY OF LAND
	DESIGN SOUTH, INDICATING THAT A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF
	THE PLANS INDICATED THAT THE PLANS WOULD NEED TO BE
	REVISED DUE TO CONTINUING CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY
	EASEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING/TREES. MS MALONE ALSO
	INDICATED THAT ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS
	WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE UPCOMING DAYS.

	A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PLANS ON 7/11/13
	REFLECTS THE COMMENTS BELOW.

	CASE NO. 1633 A B C
	NAME OF CASE BELLA VITA ESTATES
	ADDRESS 8230 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD

	- CONTACT ALEX HANSEN @ (561) 822-1463

	- PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
	WRITTEN FORMAT.

	- WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN
	(10) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT
	OF ALL PLANS AND IN WORD OF ANY TEXT PORTIONS OF THE
	APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
	RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

	- THE COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
	SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY NOON ON JULY 19,
	2013, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE AUGUST 2013 PLANNING
	BOARD MEETING.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE REPEAT COMMENTS BELOW,
	THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL
	FEE OF $600 (20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE).

	- PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED
	IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO.
	4357-11.

	PLANNING:
	1. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ? PROPERTY HISTORY AND
	SITE CHARACTERISTICS PORTION OF THE APPLICATION (PAGE 1
	OF 9) STATES THAT ?CURRENTLY ALL OF THE UNDERGROUND
	UTILITIES, PRIMARY ROADWAY SYSTEM, AND RETENTION
	FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE.? THE
	EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PREPARED BY MICHAEL B.
	SCHORAH & ASSOCIATES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS
	THAT THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURRENTLY
	CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE ARE THE PRIMARY WATER AND SEWER
	INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SURVEY DOES NOT SHOW ANY OTHER
	EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (EG. TELEPHONE, CABLE,
	GAS, ELECTRICAL). THE APPLICANT SHOULD EITHER MODIFY
	THE CLAIM UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT TO INDICATE
	THAT WATER AND SEWER ARE THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
	ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE, OR THE EXISTING
	CONDITIONS SURVEY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT ANY
	OTHER UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WHICH ARE ALREADY BUILT.
	RESPONSE: ONLY WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS ON
	SITE. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	2. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ?CONFORMANCE WITH THE
	FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 9J-5.006.5.1 SECTION OF THE
	APPLICATION STATES THAT THE ?PROPOSED FLUA CHANGE TO
	COMMERCIAL (C) IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
	OF THE SURROUNDING AREA? (PAGE 2 OF 9). THE PROPOSED
	FLU AMENDMENT IS FROM A COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION
	TO A CITY MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
	DESIGNATION. PLEASE REVISE THIS SECTION ACCORDINGLY.
	RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	3. UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR
	CODE COMPLIANCE ? A. CHANGED PROJECTIONS (PAGES 3 OF 9
	AND 4 OF 9) THE APPLICANT REFERENCES FLU POLICIES
	1.1.5.1 AND 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 OF THE CITY?S
	COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS BEING PERTINENT TO THIS
	ANNEXATION AND FLU AMENDMENT. THERE IS NO FLU POLICY
	1.1.5.1 IN THE CITY?S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLU POLICY
	1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 DO NOT DEAL WITH THE
	ISSUES STATED IN THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REVISE
	ACCORDINGLY.
	RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED


	4. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR CODE
	COMPLIANCE ? B. CHANGED ASSUMPTIONS (PAGE 4 OF 9) THE
	APPLICANT PROVIDES ONE PARAGRAPH TO JUSTIFY THIS
	AMENDMENT BASED ON RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
	SURROUNDING AREA TO THE SUBJECT SITE. IF THE APPLICANT
	CHOOSES TO USE THIS CATEGORY TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED
	LAND USE AMENDMENT THEN IT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A MORE
	DETAILED JUSTIFICATION THAN THE ONE CURRENTLY INCLUDED
	IN THE APPLICATION.
	RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	5. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? D. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT
	WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES (PAGE 5 OF 9) THE
	APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE NATURE OF
	THE EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED SITE (E.G.
	THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, DENSITIES, APPROVALS, ETC.) IN
	ORDER TO PROPERLY DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
	PROPOSED USE IN RELATION TO ITS SURROUNDINGS.
	RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED


	6. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? E. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD EXCEED THE
	CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
	LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY, PARKS,
	FIRE, POLICE, DRAINAGE, SCHOOLS, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL
	FACILITIES (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT
	PUBLIC FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND ARE
	AVAILABLE TO THE SITE. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE A
	COMPLETE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SHOWING THE
	SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE
	LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM THE EXISTING HR-8 DESIGNATION
	TO THE PROPOSED MFMD DESIGNATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT
	THESE IMPACTS CAN BE MET BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IN
	ADDITION, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE SUMMARY
	TABLE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS FOR ALL SERVICE
	PROVIDERS.
	RESPONSE: SERVICE AVAILABILITY LETTERS FROM COMCAST,
	FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
	UTILITIES, AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES ARE
	PROVIDED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. ADDITIONALLY, SERVICE
	AVAILABILITY LETTER REQUESTS WERE SENT OUT TO AT&T AND
	FP&L AND WE ARE AWAITING A RESPONSE. ALSO, A LEVEL OF
	SERVICE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY TABLE ARE PROVIDED WITH
	THE RESUBMITTAL.

	CITY COMMENT: THERE ARE TWO TYPOS IN THE LOS ANALYSIS
	SUMMARY TABLE WHICH NEED TO BE CORRECTED: A) IN THE
	WASTE WATER OR SEWER CATEGORY, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
	UNITS FOR THE PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATION IS 179 AND NOT
	71 AS REFLECTED IN THE TABLE; AND B) UNDER THE TYPE OF
	FACILITY COLUMN, THE REFERENCE TO ?SOLID WATER? SHOULD
	INSTEAD READ ?SOLID WASTE?.

	7. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? F. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN
	SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
	(PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT STATES THAT ?THE SITE IS
	CURRENTLY CLEARED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED FOR THE PBC
	APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.? PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER
	THERE ARE ANY TREE/VEGETATION MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
	OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY
	AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CLEARING OF THE SITE UNDER THE
	PBC APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
	RESPONSE: THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY CLEARED UNDER A PALM
	BEACH COUNTY ERM STANDARD VEGETATION PERMIT
	(#C-0119-06) ISSUED ON DECEMBER 20, 2006 TO THE
	PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, 444 SABAL
	PALMS, 2 OAKS, AND 3 STRANGLER FIGS WERE RELOCATED. THE
	SABALS WERE PLACED INTO A TEMPORARY HOLDING AREA AT
	WHICH POINT THE PROJECT CAME TO A STOP AND THEY REMAIN
	IN THIS AREA.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	8. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ? WAIVER REQUESTS -
	THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS:
	THE FIRST REQUESTED WAIVER IS FOR SECTION 94-442
	SUBSTITUTION OF PALM TREES WHICH STATES THAT PALM TREES
	MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NOT MORE THAN 35% OF THE
	REQUIRED SHADE OF FLOWERING TREES. THE APPLICANT IS
	REQUESTING THAT APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE SHADE TREES BE
	SUBSTITUTED BY SABAL PALM TREES. CITY STAFF IS NOT
	SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. AS SUCH, THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION
	WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.
	RESPONSE: THIS WAIVER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
	REQUEST. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO ONLY
	PROVIDE 35% PALM TREES.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	THE SECOND WAIVER REQUEST PERTAINS TO SECTION
	94-76(A)(3) PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN
	RELATION TO REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING
	A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHICH WOULD EXCEED
	THE MAXIMUM CODE ALLOWANCE OF 40 FEET BASED ON THE
	PROPOSED SETBACKS. AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THE
	APPLICANT IS SEEKING A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
	MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY, AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF
	MULTIFAMILY 20 WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
	(RPD). THE CITY ALLOWS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN
	ORDER TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DESIGN. IT IS STAFF?S
	OPINION THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL DOES NOT
	INCORPORATE ANY INNOVATIVE DESIGN COMPONENTS. IN ORDER
	FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE HEIGHT/WAIVER REQUEST, THE
	PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DESIGN
	COMPONENTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE, SUCH AS
	THE FOLLOWING: A) ALL THE PERIMETER AND EXTERNAL ACCESS
	WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 5
	FEET (CURRENTLY SOME ARE ONLY 4 FEET WIDE); B) ADD
	ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS TO THE PROPOSED BIKE PARKING
	AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND,
	CLUBHOUSE, AND BUS SHELTER; AND C) PROVIDE AN 8 FOOT
	WIDE PAVED PATHWAY (PREFERABLY ASPHALT) AROUND THE
	EXISTING LAKE.
	RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN
	PROVIDED. THE PLAYGROUND HAS BEEN ENLARGED, ALL
	SIDEWALKS ARE NOW SHOWN AT 5 FT., ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS
	ARE PROVIDED, AND AN 8 FT. WIDE MULCH PATHWAY IS
	PROVIDED AROUND THE EXISTING LAKE. A MULCH PATH WAS
	CHOSEN IN LIEU OF AN ASPHALT PATHWAY TO REDUCE THE RISK
	OF INJURY BY FALLING INTO THE LAKE (E.G. A CHILD RIDING
	A BIKE ON THE ASPHALT PATH).

	CITY COMMENT: CITY STAFF AGREES THAT THE COMMENT
	PERTAINING TO THE WIDENING OF THE SIDEWALKS AND THE
	INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED;
	HOWEVER, STAFF IS NOT IN AGREEMENT THAT THE 8 FOOT WIDE
	PATHWAY AROUND THE LAKE BE COVERED WITH MULCH AS THE
	APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND STILL REQUIRES THAT IT BE
	CONSTRUCTED WITH A HARDENED SURFACE AND MEETS ADA
	REQUIREMENTS. IN STAFF?S OPINION, A MULCH PATH WOULD
	NOT REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURY BY FALLING INTO THE LAKE
	WHEN COMPARED TO A PATH CONSTRUCTED WITH A HARDENED
	SURFACE.

	9. LANDSCAPE PLAN (SHEET LP-1) ? PLEASE REVISE THE
	LANDSCAPE CODE COMPLIANCE CHART AS IT APPEARS TO
	UNDERCOUNT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES PER CODE.
	SPECIFICALLY, PER SECTIONS 94-443(C)3A TERMINAL ISLANDS
	AND 94-443(C)3B INTERIOR ISLANDS AT LEAST 49 SHADE OR
	FLOWERING TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
	THIS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WOULD REPLACE THE PARKING
	LOT REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 10 SF OF PARKING SPACE
	REFLECTED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN CHART INCLUDED IN THE
	APPLICATION. ALSO, PER SECTION 94-443(D)(2)A THIS
	PROJECT WOULD NEED 184 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE TREES.
	COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED 101 PERIMETER TREES, THE
	TOTAL REQUIRED TREES WOULD BE 334. PLEASE REVISE THE
	PLANS AND THE CHART ACCORDINGLY.
	RESPONSE: THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CODE COMPLIANCE CHART
	HAVE BEEN REVISED ACCORDINGLY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED

	10. LANDSCAPE PLAN ? PLEASE PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL TREE
	SURVEY USED TO DEVELOP THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN (TI.1)
	INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
	RESPONSE: THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WITH
	DATA GATHERED BY A SUB-METER ACCURATE GPS SYSTEM. THIS
	INFORMATION WAS USED TO AUGMENT AND UPDATE THE ORIGINAL
	TREE SURVEY PERFORMED PRIOR TO SITE CLEARING IN 2006.
	SEE THE ORIGINAL TREE SURVEY INCLUDED WITH THE
	RESUBMITTAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE TABULAR TREE LIST ON THE
	TREE INVENTORY PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH HEIGHTS OF
	ALL PALMS. ALSO, THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE JUNE 12, 2013
	PPRC WITH THE GROUPING OF SABALS (TEMPORARY HOLDING
	AREA) SHOWN ON THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN. RATHER THAN GPS
	THE HUNDREDS OF SABALS, THEY WERE COUNTED AND RECORDED
	IN A CLUMP WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-448.
	(D).(2).F OF THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH LAND
	DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED


	11. PER SECTION 94-443(C)(1) ?VEHICULAR USE AREAS
	SHALL BE SCREENED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND DISTRICTS
	BY A 36-INCH HIGH? DECORATIVE WALL. PLEASE REVISE THE
	PLANS ACCORDINGLY TO INCORPORATE THIS WALL AROUND THE
	VEHICULAR USE AREAS ON THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH SIDES
	OF THE PROJECT.
	RESPONSE: THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW A 36?
	HT. WALL ADJACENT TO ALL VEHICULAR USE AREAS.

	CITY COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
	WITH REGARDS TO THE 36 INCH DECORATIVE WALL, INCLUDING
	A GRAPHIC DETAIL OF THE WALL. IN ADDITION, IT APPEARS
	THAT THE LOCATION OF THIS WALL MAY CONFLICT WITH THE
	LOCATION OF SEVERAL TREES AND OTHER BUFFER LANDSCAPING
	AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE ADDRESS
	THIS APPARENT CONFLICT. FOR EXAMPLE, INCLUDE A CROSS
	SECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH TREES, WHICH
	INCLUDES THE WALL.

	12. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM OR
	PLAN THAT WILL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT. BE AWARE THAT
	THE CITY?S SANITATION DIVISION WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IN
	WRITING ANY GARBAGE COLLECTION PLAN.
	RESPONSE: IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 12, 2013 PPRC
	MEETING THAT THE CITY SANITATION SERVICE WILL NOT EMPTY
	THE COMPACTOR. SOME OTHER SANITATION SERVICE WILL HAVE
	TO BE UTILIZED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CURRENTLY
	LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES. ONCE A SERVICE PROVIDER HAS
	BEEN DETERMINED, THE PROPERTY WILL NOTIFY THE CITY.

	CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED


	13. WHILE THE TYPICAL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL INCLUDED ON
	RP.1 DOES INCLUDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BIKE PARKING
	PAD AND THE BIKE RACKS, THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) DOES NOT
	INCLUDE THOSE DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MODIFY THE SITE PLAN
	ACCORDINGLY.
	RESPONSE: THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO DIMENSION
	THE BIKE RACKS.

	CITY COMMENT: IT APPEARS THAT THE BIKE PARKING PADS
	LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CLUBHOUSE AND TO THE NORTH OF
	BUILDING 2 DO NOT INCLUDE THEIR DIMENSIONS. PLEASE
	REVISE ACCORDINGLY.

	14. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ADDRESS THE MANY APPARENT
	CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE
	SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. THESE
	CONFLICTS COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REDUCING THE WIDTH OF
	THE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT OR BY SHIFTING ITS
	LOCATION. IN ADDITION, A PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT IS
	IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS IN A TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
	PLEASE RELOCATE THE HYDRANT.
	RESPONSE: THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED AND ALL
	PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE EASEMENTS.
	ADDITIONALLY, THE FIRE HYDRANT IN THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND
	IS LOCATED WITH ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE REQUIRED
	LANDSCAPE ISLAND CANOPY TREE.

	CITY COMMENT: THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE
	WIDTH OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THERE
	ARE STILL SEVERAL POTENTIAL CONFLICT POINTS BETWEEN THE
	UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE SITE PLAN AND
	LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. PLEASE REVISE THE PLANS
	ACCORDINGLY.


	15. PER SECTION 94-130(D) ?ANY OPERATION OR ACTIVITY
	PRODUCING GLARE SHALL BE CONDUCTED SO THAT DIRECT OR
	INDIRECT LIGHT FROM THE SOURCE SHALL NOT CAUSE
	ILLUMINATION IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT CANDLES WHEN
	MEASURED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT?. THE PHOTOMETRIC
	PLANS PROVIDED DO NOT IDENTIFY ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR
	THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE WEST, SOUTH
	AND EAST RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
	FOR BELLA VITA. THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS NEED TO BE
	REVISED DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN
	WILL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO THE
	SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
	RESPONSE: THE PHOTOMETRY DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO
	INCORPORATE AND COMPLY WITH THE SPILLAGE REQUIREMENTS
	AT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES (WEST, EAST, SOUTH
	SIDES).

	CITY COMMENT: CITY STAFF NOTICED THAT THE REVISED
	PHOTOMETRIC PLANS INDICATED THAT ALL THE AREAS
	IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAD MEASUREMENTS
	OF 0.00 FOOT CANDLES, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE IF A
	HIGH WALL WERE TO BE PRESENT. WHEN SPEAKING WITH
	WILLIAM PINO, PE, WHO SIGNED AND SEALED THESE PLANS,
	MR. PINO INDICATED THAT HE WAS TOLD BY THE APPLICANT TO
	ASSUME A 6 FOOT PERIMETER WALL AROUND THE PROPERTY IN
	HIS ANALYSIS, AND THAT THE PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS FOR
	THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE
	DIFFERENT FROM THOSE REFLECTED IN THE REVISED PLANS
	WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THIS WALL. SINCE THERE IS NO 6
	FOOT PERIMETER WALL PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT,
	THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED
	ACCORDINGLY OR THE PLANS WOULD NOW NEED TO INCORPORATE
	A 6 FOOT PERIMETER WALL.

	16. IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED
	WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. LIGHT POLES ARE CONSIDERED
	STRUCTURES BY THE CODE AND NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED
	WITHIN THE SETBACK. THESE LIGHT POLES WOULD NEED TO BE
	RELOCATED OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR A
	WAIVER TO ALLOW THEM WITHIN THE SETBACK.
	IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHTING, THE LIGHT POLES
	ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACKS. FOR THIS REASON, A
	WAIVER HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE REQUEST.

	CITY COMMENT: ACKNOWLEDGED

Review Stop	Z			ZONING
Rev No	1	Status	F	Date				Cont ID
Sent By				Date		Time		Rev Time	0.00
Received By	ahansen			Date	06-07-2013	Time	16:37	Sent To

Notes

2013-06-07 16:38:15	CASE NO. 1633 A B C
	NAME OF CASE BELLA VITA ESTATES
	ADDRESS 8230 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD

	- CONTACT ALEX HANSEN @ (561) 822-1463

	- PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
	WRITTEN FORMAT.

	- WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN
	(10) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT
	OF ALL PLANS AND IN WORD OF ANY TEXT PORTIONS OF THE
	APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
	RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

	- THE PPRC COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
	SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY NOON ON JUNE 21,
	2013, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 2013 PLANNING BOARD
	MEETING.

	- PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT
	RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS
	FROM THE DATE OF THE PPRC MEETING (AUGUST 12, 2013),
	THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER
	ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

	- 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 OF THE
	DEFICIENT APPLICATION(S).

	- PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED
	IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO.
	4357-11.

	1. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - PROPERTY HISTORY AND
	SITE CHARACTERISTICS PORTION OF THE APPLICATION (PAGE 1
	OF 9) STATES THAT "CURRENTLY ALL OF THE UNDERGROUND
	UTILITIES, PRIMARY ROADWAY SYSTEM, AND RETENTION
	FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE." THE
	EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PREPARED BY MICHAEL B.
	SCHORAH & ASSOCIATES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS
	THAT THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURRENTLY
	CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE ARE THE PRIMARY WATER AND SEWER
	INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SURVEY DOES NOT SHOW ANY OTHER
	EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (EG. TELEPHONE, CABLE,
	GAS, ELECTRICAL). THE APPLICANT SHOULD EITHER MODIFY
	THE CLAIM UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT TO INDICATE
	THAT WATER AND SEWER ARE THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
	ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE, OR THE EXISTING
	CONDITIONS SURVEY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT ANY
	OTHER UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WHICH ARE ALREADY BUILT.

	2. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - CONFORMANCE WITH THE
	FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 9J-5.006.5.1 SECTION OF THE
	APPLICATION STATES THAT THE "PROPOSED FLUA CHANGE TO
	COMMERCIAL (C) IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
	OF THE SURROUNDING AREA" (PAGE 2 OF 9). THE PROPOSED
	FLU AMENDMENT IS FROM A COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION
	TO A CITY MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
	DESIGNATION. PLEASE REVISE THIS SECTION ACCORDINGLY.

	3. UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR
	CODE COMPLIANCE ? A. CHANGED PROJECTIONS (PAGES 3 OF 9
	AND 4 OF 9) THE APPLICANT REFERENCES FLU POLICIES
	1.1.5.1 AND 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 OF THE CITY'S
	COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS BEING PERTINENT TO THIS
	ANNEXATION AND FLU AMENDMENT. THERE IS NO FLU POLICY
	1.1.5.1 IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLU POLICY
	1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 DO NOT DEAL WITH THE
	ISSUES STATED IN THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REVISE
	ACCORDINGLY.

	4. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR CODE
	COMPLIANCE - B. CHANGED ASSUMPTIONS (PAGE 4 OF 9) THE
	APPLICANT PROVIDES ONE PARAGRAPH TO JUSTIFY THIS
	AMENDMENT BASED ON RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
	SURROUNDING AREA TO THE SUBJECT SITE. IF THE APPLICANT
	CHOSES TO USE THIS CATEGORY TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED
	LAND USE AMENDMENT THEN IT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A MORE
	DETAILED JUSTIFICATION THAN THE ONE CURRENTLY INCLUDED
	IN THE APPLICATION.

	5. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - D. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT
	WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES (PAGE 5 OF 9) THE
	APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE NATURE OF
	THE EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED SITE (E.G.
	THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, DENSITIES, APPROVALS, ETC.) IN
	ORDER TO PROPERLY DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
	PROPOSED USE IN RELATION TO ITS SURROUNDINGS.

	6. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - E. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD EXCEED THE
	CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
	LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY, PARKS,
	FIRE, POLICE, DRAINAGE, SCHOOLS, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL
	FACILITIES (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT
	PUBLIC FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND ARE
	AVAILABLE TO THE SITE. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE A
	COMPLETE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SHOWING THE
	SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE
	LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM THE EXISTING HR-8 DESIGNATION
	TO THE PROPOSED MFMD DESIGNATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT
	THESE IMPACTS CAN BE MET BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IN
	ADDITION, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE SUMMARY
	TABLE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS FOR ALL SERVICE
	PROVIDERS.

	7. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
	AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS - F. WHETHER AND THE
	EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN
	SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
	(PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT STATES THAT "THE SITE IS
	CURRENTLY CLEARED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED FOR THE PBC
	APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN." PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER
	THERE ARE ANY TREE/VEGETATION MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
	OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY
	AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CLEARING OF THE SITE UNDER THE
	PBC APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

	8. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - WAIVER REQUESTS -
	THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS:

	THE FIRST REQUESTED WAIVER IS FOR SECTION 94-442
	SUBSTITUTION OF PALM TREES WHICH STATES THAT PALM TREES
	MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NOT MORE THAN 35% OF THE
	REQUIRED SHADE OF FLOWERING TREES. THE APPLICANT IS
	REQUESTING THAT APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE SHADE TREES BE
	SUBSTITUTED BY SABAL PALM TREES. CITY STAFF IS NOT
	SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. AS SUCH, THE
	LANDSCAPE PLAN AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION
	WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.

	THE SECOND WAIVER REQUEST PERTAINS TO SECTION
	94-76(A)(3) PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN
	RELATION TO REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING
	A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHICH WOULD EXCEED
	THE MAXIMUM CODE ALLOWANCE OF 40 FEET BASED ON THE
	PROPOSED SETBACKS. AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THE
	APPLICANT IS SEEKING A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
	MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY, AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF
	MULTIFAMILY 20 WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
	(RPD). THE CITY ALLOWS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN
	ORDER TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DESIGN. IT IS STAFF'S
	OPINION THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL DOES NOT
	INCORPORATE ANY INNOVATIVE DESIGN COMPONENTS. IN ORDER
	FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE HEIGHT/WAIVER REQUEST, THE
	PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DESIGN
	COMPONENTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE, SUCH AS
	THE FOLLOWING: A) ALL THE PERIMETER AND EXTERNAL ACCESS
	WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 5
	FEET (CURRENTLY SOME ARE ONLY 4 FEET WIDE); B) ADD
	ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS TO THE PROPOSED BIKE PARKING
	AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND,
	CLUBHOUSE, AND BUS SHELTER; AND C) PROVIDE AN 8 FOOT
	WIDE PAVED PATHWAY (PREFERABLY ASPHALT) AROUND THE
	EXISTING LAKE.

	9. LANDSCAPE PLAN (SHEET LP-1) - PLEASE REVISE THE
	LANDSCAPE CODE COMPLIANCE CHART AS IT APPEARS TO
	UNDERCOUNT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES PER CODE.
	SPECIFICALLY, PER SECTIONS 94-443(C)3A TERMINAL ISLANDS
	AND 94-443(C)3B INTERIOR ISLANDS AT LEAST 49 SHADE OR
	FLOWERING TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
	THIS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WOULD REPLACE THE PARKING
	LOT REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 10 SF OF PARKING SPACE
	REFLECTED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN CHART INCLUDED IN THE
	APPLICATION. ALSO, PER SECTION 94-443(D)(2)A THIS
	PROJECT WOULD NEED 184 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE TREES.
	COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED 101 PERIMETER TREES, THE
	TOTAL REQUIRED TREES WOULD BE 334. PLEASE REVISE THE
	PLANS AND THE CHART ACCORDINGLY.

	10. LANDSCAPE PLAN - PLEASE PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL TREE
	SURVEY USED TO DEVELOP THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN (TI.1)
	INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.

	11. PER SECTION 94-443(C)(1) "VEHICULAR USE AREAS
	SHALL BE SCREENED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND DISTRICTS
	BY A 36-INCH HIGH" DECORATIVE WALL. PLEASE REVISE THE
	PLANS ACCORDINGLY TO INCORPORATE THIS WALL AROUND THE
	VEHICULAR USE AREAS ON THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH SIDES
	OF THE PROJECT.

	12. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM OR
	PLAN THAT WILL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT. BE AWARE THAT
	THE CITY'S SANITATION DIVISION WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IN
	WRITING ANY GARBAGE COLLECTION PLAN.

	13. WHILE THE TYPICAL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL INCLUDED ON
	RP.1 DOES INCLUDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BIKE PARKING
	PAD AND THE BIKE RACKS, THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) DOES NOT
	INCLUDE THOSE DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MODIFY THE SITE PLAN
	ACCORDINGLY.

	14. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ADDRESS THE MANY APPARENT
	CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE
	SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. THESE
	CONFLICTS COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REDUCING THE WIDTH OF
	THE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT OR BY SHIFTING ITS
	LOCATION. IN ADDITION, A PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT IS
	IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS IN A TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
	PLEASE RELOCATE THE HYDRANT.

	15. PER SECTION 94-130(D) "ANY OPERATION OR ACTIVITY
	PRODUCING GLARE SHALL BE CONDUCTED SO THAT DIRECT OR
	INDIRECT LIGHT FROM THE SOURCE SHALL NOT CAUSE
	ILLUMINATION IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT CANDLES WHEN
	MEASURED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT." THE PHOTOMETRIC
	PLANS PROVIDED DO NOT IDENTIFY ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR
	THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE WEST, SOUTH
	AND EAST RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
	FOR BELLA VITA. THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS NEED TO BE
	REVISED DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN
	WILL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO THE
	SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

	16. IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED
	WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. LIGHT POLES ARE CONSIDERED
	STRUCTURES BY THE CODE AND NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED
	WITHIN THE SETBACK. THESE LIGHT POLES WOULD NEED TO BE
	RELOCATED OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR A
	WAIVER TO ALLOW THEM WITHIN THE SETBACK.