Plan Review Details - Project Z20050013
Plan Review Stops For Project Z20050013
Review Stop AIPP ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Rev No 1 Status F Date 03-26-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By scwelter Date 03-26-2021 Time 13:59 Rev Time 0.00
Received By scwelter Date 03-26-2021 Time 13:59 Sent To  
Notes
2021-03-26 14:09:00PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: IF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF
 THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE OVER $500,000 IT WILL BE SUBJECT
 TO THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT AS PER CITY ORDINANCE.
 SECTION 78-129: ALL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS,
 INCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, OR THE RENOVATION OR
 IMPROVEMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, WHERE TOTAL
 CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
 $500,000 ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT.
 OPTION 1: INSTALL ARTWORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE
 VALUED IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE
 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS; OR
 OPTION 2: CONTRIBUTE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 75 PERCENT OF
 ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DEPOSIT
 TO THE PUBLIC ART ACCOUNT.
 A COMPLETED PUBLIC ART ASSESSMENT APPLICATION IS
 REQUIRED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.
  
 PLEASE CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER AT [email protected] OR
 561.822.1521 TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION AND REVIEW THE
 REQUIREMENTS.
  
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 5 Status P Date 05-12-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rbrown Date 05-12-2021 Time 19:12 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rbrown Date 05-12-2021 Time 19:12 Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-12 19:13:13DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
 COMMENTS:
  
 1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE
 SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE
 ADDRESSED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 2. BUILDING SIZE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,
 THE PLANS SHALL SHOW THAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
 THE BUILDINGS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT,
 AREA AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
  
 3. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS
 AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCING THE
 WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND FEES, ARE REQUIRED
 FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS, GAS SYSTEMS,
 GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE SPRINKLER AND
 OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS,
 SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE IRRIGATION, ETC.
  
 4. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT
 TO ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AIPP) ASSESSMENT. FOR ADVICE
 ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ARTWORK IN LIEU OF THE AIPP
 ASSESSMENT, CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ART IN PUBLIC
 PLACES COORDINATOR, AT (561) 822-1521, OR BY EMAIL:
 [email protected]
  
 ROBERT BROWN
 BUILDING OFFICIAL
 TEL: 561 805 6652
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 4 Status F Date 04-07-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rbrown Date 04-07-2021 Time 19:47 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rbrown Date 04-07-2021 Time 19:47 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-07 19:59:03DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
 COMMENTS:
  
 1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE
 SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE
 ADDRESSED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 2. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. SITE PLAN,
 SHEETSP-9, SHOWS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES, BUT ON ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN, SHEET
 A1-00, AND LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN, SHEET A1-01, TWO OF THE
 EIGHT ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE NOT LABELED. PER
 SECTION 208.3 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE, ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES ARE TO BE LOCATED ON THE SHORTEST
 POSSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL FROM ADJACENT PARKING TO AN
 ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE. THE DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING
 SPACES SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 502 OF FLORIDA
 ACCESSIBILITY CODE
  
 3. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. SITE PLAN, SHEET
 SP-9, SHOWS THAT FOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
 STATIONS ARE PROPOSED. IF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
 STATIONS ARE BEING PROVIDED, AT LEAST ONE MUST BE AN
 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
  
 4. BUILDING SIZE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,
 THE PLANS SHALL SHOW THAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
 THE BUILDINGS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT,
 AREA AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
  
 5. NORTH EXIT STAIR. THE LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN, SHEET
 1-01, SHOWS THE EXIT DISCHARGE DOOR FROM THE NORTH EXIT
 STAIR BEING BLOCKED BY THE PUMP ROOM DOOR.
  
 6. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS
 AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCING THE
 WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND FEES, ARE REQUIRED
 FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS, GAS SYSTEMS,
 GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE SPRINKLER AND
 OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS,
 SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE IRRIGATION, ETC.
  
 7. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT
 TO ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AIPP) ASSESSMENT. FOR ADVICE
 ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ARTWORK IN LIEU OF THE AIPP
 ASSESSMENT, CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ART IN PUBLIC
 PLACES COORDINATOR, AT (561) 822-1521, OR BY EMAIL:
 [email protected]
  
 ROBERT BROWN
 BUILDING OFFICIAL
 TEL: 561 805 6652
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 3 Status P Date 09-30-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rbrown Date 09-30-2020 Time 14:28 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rbrown Date 09-30-2020 Time 14:28 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-30 14:33:28DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
 COMMENTS:
  
  
 LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE SITE DATA
 TABLE SHOWS THAT 9 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WILL BE
 PROVIDED. SITE PLAN SHEET SP-9 SHOWS 5 ACCESSIBLE
 SPACES LOCATED NEAR ENTRANCES TO BUILDING A. THE 5TH OF
 THOSE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES IS ADJACENT TO THE
 NORTH-WEST END OF BUILDING A. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR
 PERMIT, THE PLAN SHALL SHOW THAT PARTICULAR ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACE TO BE THE CLOSEST PARKING SPACES TO THE
 THAT ENTRANCE TO BUILDING A.
  
 THE RESPONSE TO THE REMAINING COMMENTS IS NOTED.
  
 ROBERT BROWN
 BUILDING OFFICIAL
 TEL: 561 805 6652
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-18-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rbrown Date 09-18-2020 Time 19:41 Rev Time 0.00
Received By pleduc Date 09-18-2020 Time 19:41 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-18 19:48:47DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
 COMMENTS:
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENT NUMBERING IS CARRIED OVER FROM
 THE 6/10/20 COMMENTS:
  
 4. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE SITE DATA
 TABLE SHOWS THAT 9 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WILL BE
 PROVIDED. THE 8/17/20 COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER SAYS THAT
 THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN REDISTRIBUTED
 SO THAT 5 ARE LOCATED AT BUILDING A. HOWEVER, THE
 SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, SHEET SP-9 SHOWS ONLY 4 ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO BUILDING A. PLEASE REVISE
 THE PLAN SO THAT 5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE SHOWN,
 AND THEY MUST BE LOCATED SO THAT THEY ARE THE CLOSEST 5
 PARKING SPACES TO THE BUILDING B LOBBY ENTRANCE.
  
 THE RESPONSE TO THE REMAINING COMMENTS IS NOTED.
  
 ROBERT BROWN
 BUILDING OFFICIAL
 TEL: 561 805 6652
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
Review Stop B BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-10-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rbrown Date 06-10-2020 Time 17:43 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rbrown Date 06-10-2020 Time 17:43 Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-10 18:58:17DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION,
 COMMENTS:
  
 1. THIS REVIEW IS A CURSORY REVIEW AS IT RELATES TO THE
 SITE. IT IS NOT A REVIEW FOR FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE TO BE
 ADDRESSED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 2. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. SITE
 PLAN, SHEET SP-1, DOES NOT SHOW A WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE
 ROUTE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE WHEELCHAIR USER TO
 TRAVEL ALONG THE DRIVE LANES AND/OR PASS BEHIND PARKED
 VEHICLES IN ORDER TO GET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
 TO THE BUILDING B LOBBY ENTRANCE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR
 PERMIT, THE PLANS SHALL SHOW AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
 ROUTE, COMPLYING WITH FAIR HOUSING ACT/SECTIONS 206.2
 AND 402.2 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE, FROM THE
 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ALL ACCESSIBLE BUILDING OR
 FACILITY ENTRANCES.
  
 3. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. SITE PLAN, SHEET
 SP-1, DOES NOT SHOW A WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WHICH
 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE WHEELCHAIR USER TO TRAVEL ALONG
 THE DRIVE LANES AND/OR PASS BEHIND PARKED VEHICLES IN
 ORDER TO GET FROM BUILDING A TO THE BUILDING B LOBBY
 ENTRANCE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT, SHOW AT LEAST ONE
 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, COMPLYING WITH FAIR HOUSING
 ACT/SECTIONS 206.2 AND 402.2 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY
 CODE, CONNECTING ACCESSIBLE BUILDING OR FACILITY
 ENTRANCES WITH ALL ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND ELEMENTS
 WITHIN THE BUILDING OR FACILITY.
  
 4. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. SITE PLAN,
 SHEET SP-1, SITE DATA TABLE SHOWS THAT 9 ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED. THE PLAN SHOWS 6 OF
 THOSE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE LOCATED NEAR THE
 ENTRANCE OF BUILDING B (FOR 77 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) BUT
 ONLY 3 OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE SHOWN
 LOCATED NEAR THE ENTRANCE OF BUILIDNG A (FOR 120
 RESIDENTIAL UNITS) EVEN THOUGH BUILDING A HAS 43
 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND IS WHERE THE LEASING
 OFFICE, CLUB LOUNGE, FITNESS ROOM AND SWIMMING POOL ARE
 LOCATED. MUST PROVIDE ENOUGH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES
 NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO BUILDING A. PER FAIR HOUSING
 ACT/SECTION 208.3 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE,
 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE TO BE LOCATED ON THE
 SHORTEST POSSIBLE ROUTE OF TRAVEL FROM ADJACENT PARKING
 TO AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE AND DISPERSED ACCORDING TO
 NEED.
  
 5. VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING AT BUILDING B INCLUDES PARKING SPACES UNDER THE
 BUILIDING, BUT NONE ARE MARKED AS VAN ACCESSIBLE. PER
 FAIR HOUSING ACT/SECTION 208.2.4 OF FLORIDA
 ACCESSIBILITY CODE, ONE IN EVERY SIX REQUIRED
 ACCESSIBLE SPACES (AT LEAST ONE) IN A PARKING
 STRUCTURE, SHALL BE ?VAN ACCESSIBLE? AND DESIGNED IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION OF 502 OF FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY
 CODE (VERTICAL CLEARANCE NOT LESS THAN 98 INCHES AT
 SPACE AND VEHICULAR ACCESS ROUTE).
  
 6. BUILDING SIZE. WHEN SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT,
 THE PLANS SHALL SHOW THAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
 THE BUILDINGS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT,
 AREA AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE
 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
  
 7. EMERGENCY EGRESS FROM LEVEL 2 OF BUILDING A.
 BUILDING A FLOOR PLAN SHEET A1-01A SHOWS TWO EGRESS
 STAIRS. LEVEL 2 RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
 "2 STORY LEASING/CLUB/FITNESS" AREA TO GET TO THE NORTH
 STAIR. IF THAT AREA IS A DOULDE STORY HEIGHT SPACE THAT
 WILL NOT WORK, AND ANOTHER STAIR WOULD BE REQUIRED. IF
 THE "LEASING/CLUB/FITNES" AREA DOES HAVE A 2ND LEVEL,
 THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH DOORS THAT ARE
 SHOWN TO SWING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR NORTHWARD
 EGRESS, ANY ACCESS CONTROL ON THOSE DOES MUST ALLOW
 EGRESS UNDER ALL CONDITIONS, AND THE INTERIOR
 CONGURATION OF THE SPACE MUST BE SHOWN AS THE LAYOUT IS
 NOT CURRENTLY SHOWN. PER SECTION 1006.3.1 AND 1010.1.9
 OF FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, TWO MEANS OF EGRESS ARE
 REQUIRED AND EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPENABLE
 FROM THE EGRESS SIDE..
  
 8. SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS
 AND SUB-PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCING THE
 WORK. SEPARATE PERMITS, PLANS AND FEES, ARE REQUIRED
 FOR SIGNS, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS, GAS SYSTEMS,
 GENERATORS, FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS, FIRE SPRINKLER AND
 OTHER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, GREASE INTERCEPTORS,
 SITE LIGHTING, SITE LANDSCAPE, SITE IRRIGATION, ETC.
  
 9. PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER
 AND CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTY,
 INCLUDING VEHICLES, FROM DAMAGE OR DIRT CAUSED BY THE
 CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY THE OCCUPANTS OF
 NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ABOUT ALL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION
 THAT MAY AFFECT THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
  
 10. BUILDING ADDRESS. EACH SEPARATE BUILDING, AND UNIT
 WITH AN INDEPENDENT ENTRANCE FROM THE STREET, SHALL
 HAVE A SEPARATE ADDRESS. FOR STREET ADDRESSING, CONTACT
 CAROLINE PUELL, ADDRESSING COORDINATOR, AT (561) 805
 6659, OR BY EMAIL: [email protected]
  
 11. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT
 TO ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (AIPP) ASSESSMENT. FOR ADVICE
 ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ARTWORK IN LIEU OF THE AIPP
 ASSESSMENT, CONTACT SYBILLE WELTER, ART IN PUBLIC
 PLACES COORDINATOR, AT (561) 822-1521, OR BY EMAIL:
 [email protected]
  
 ROBERT BROWN
 BUILDING OFFICIAL
 TEL: 561 805 6652
 EMAIL: [email protected]
  
Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No 4 Status F Date 05-06-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rrossano Date 05-06-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By rrossano Date 05-06-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-06 12:27:02COMMENTS PER RICK ROSSANO, PROJ. COORD. WPB ENG.
 SERVICES, [email protected], 561-494-1098:
  
 1. THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH HAS A NUMBER OF
 REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WHICH DIRECTLY
 AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF WATER AND
 WASTEWATER UTILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. TO VIEW
 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER
 ENGINEERING RELATED DOCUMENTS, CLICK HERE OR GO TO: HTT
 PS://WWW.WPB.ORG/GOVERNMENT/ENGINEERING/ENGINEERING-FOR
 MS-PERMITS-AND-APPLICATIONS .
 2. CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH,
 FLORIDA, CODIFIED THROUGH ORD. NO. 4183-08, ADOPTED
 SEPT. 22, 2008. (SUPPLEMENT NO. 18) CHAPTER 90
 UTILITIES, ARTICLE I. SEC. 90-7.
 POLICY REGARDING EXTENSION OF WATER OR SEWER SERVICE
 FACILITIES OF THE CITY:
 THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND THE
 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ADDRESS RESERVATION OF CAPACITY
 BASED ON USAGE, METER SIZE AND FEES, DESIGN STANDARDS,
 BACKFLOW PREVENTION, FIRE SERVICE AND IRRIGATION.
 3. AS OF DECEMBER 20, 2015, THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL HAS BEEN REVISED,
 STATING "ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE LEAD-FREE". FOR
 MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE OR GO TO: HTTPS://WWW.WPB.
 ORG/GOVERNMENT/ENGINEERING/ENGINEERING-FORMS-PERMITS-AN
 D-APPLICATIONS .
 4. PLEASE SUBMIT A FORMAL AS-BUILT REQUEST FOR ALL CITY
 OF WEST PALM BEACH-OWNED UTILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC
 RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE LIMITS OF
 YOUR PROJECT. IDENTIFY TYPE OF UTILITY, LOCATION, PIPE
 MATERIAL, AGE AND SIZE. PLEASE CONTACT JANICE TARBILL
 IN THE WPB ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT
 [email protected] OR 561-494-1040 FOR FURTHER
 ASSISTANCE.
 5. PLANS SHALL SHOW PROPOSED LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
 OF ALL WATER, STORMWATER, AND SANITARY AND SEWER LINES,
 INCLUDING STUBS TO EACH PROPERTY LINE FOR WATER AND
 SANITARY SEWERS, THE MAKE AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES,
 METERS, AND OTHERS DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED ON THE
 SYSTEM, CATCH BASINS, CULVERTS, DITCHES INCLUDING
 GRADES, PIPES SIZES, MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS,
 ASSUMPTIONS, CALCULATIONS, INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ALL
 INLETS AND MANHOLES AND PROFILES OF SANITARY SEWER
 LINES. ALL AVAILABLE ELEVATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE
 PROFILE VIEW. DIRECTION OF FLOW SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLAN
 VIEW ON PLAN VIEW FOR ALL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS.
 PLEASE SHOW SLOPE % ON ALL SANITARY LINES AND CALL OUT
 MATERIAL. ADDITIONALLY, PLAN VIEW SHALL SHOW ALL
 EXISTING AND PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY LAYOUT,
 INCLUDING FIBER OPTIC, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION &
 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROVIDE PROFILE AND CLEARANCES AT ALL
 UTILITY CROSSINGS.
 6. CUT AND CAP UTILITIES NOT IN USE, AND REMOVE ANY
 ABANDONED UTILITY LINES LARGER THAN 2 INCHES FROM CITY
 ROW.
 7. PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE
 DIRECTLY TO ENGINEERING (SHEET 33 OF CITY OF WPB
 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION).
 8. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE, MAXIMUM
 AND PEAK) AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS. CALCULATIONS SHALL BE
 PER FAC 64E-8 FOR WATER AND PER FAC 64-E.008 FOR SEWER.
 9. SHOW VERTICAL DATUM AND DATUM CONVERSION INFORMATION
 (NAVD 88 AND NGVD 29).
 10. PROVIDE CCTV VIDEO OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND
 STORMWATER ALONG ENTIRE PROJECT FRONTAGE.
 11. PLEASE ADD NOTE TO PLANS SPECIFYING CITY?S
 DOWNSTREAM LIFT STATION NUMBER.
 12. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS OF REVISED PERVIOUS AND
 IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPACTED
 AREAS.
 13. PROVIDE ONSITE CLEANOUTS NEAR PROPERTY LINE FOR
 PROPOSED SANITARY LATERALS.
 14. PLEASE LABEL WATER LINES AS PRIVATE WHERE
 APPLICABLE.
 15. PLEASE PROVIDE ENLARGED VIEW ON PLANS OF PROPOSED
 LOCATION OF WATER METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION.
 16. COORDINATE WITH MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER SERVICE
 SUPERVISOR WITH CITY OF WPB PUBLIC UTILITIES, REGARDING
 PLACEMENT OF BACKFLOW DEVICES AND WATER METERS. CONTACT
 HIM AT 561-494-2262 OR [email protected]
 17. PROVIDE DEDICATED UTILITY EASEMENTS TO ALLOW ACCESS
 FOR CITY PERSONNEL TO PROPOSED UTILITY WATER METERS.
  
 FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER
 SERVICE SUPERVISOR, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PUBLIC
 UTILITIES, 561-822-2262 [email protected]
  
 BANYAN VIEW:
  
 -LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED WITH
 REGARD TO WATER METER AND BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY LAYOUT.
 SHOWS THEM POSITIONED DIFFERENTLY. PLEASE MAKE SURE
 LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOWS THEIR POSITIONING ACCURATELY, AND
 LANDSCAPING AND WATER UTILITIES DO NOT CONFLICT.
  
 -WATER PLAN SHOWS UTILITY MARKED IRR RUNNING ACROSS THE
 SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN UP AND ACROSS
 THE ROAD. PLEASE VERIFY THAT IT IS ACCURATELY SHOWN AND
 PRIVATELY OWNED.
  
 -ON WATER PLAN THERE IS A SMALL SYMBOL THAT LOOKS LIKE
 A BOX WITH A ?T? IN IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK
 NEAR THE STREET CROSSING. PLEASE IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS.
  
 -CIVIL PLANS ARE NOT ACCURATELY SHOWING THE EXISTING
 WATER METER BOX IN THE SIDEWALK JUST A FEW FEET WEST OF
 THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. PLEASE SHOW AND ADD LABEL METER
 BOX AND WATER SERVICE WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM.
 IT APPEARS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT HOLDER IS BANYAN CAY
 GOLF CLUB LLC.
  
 -CANNOT FIND PROPERTY ADDRESS ON CIVIL PLANS.
  
  
 BANYAN CAY RESIDENTIAL AREA:
  
 -THERE IS STILL A WATER SERVICE ISSUE THAT I DO NOT
 BELIEVE HAS BEEN RESOLVED WITH THE ISLAND AT THE
 ROUNDABOUT OF BANYAN CAY DRIVE. PLEASE PROVIDE CONTACT
 INFORMATION FOR PERSONS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION
 AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
  
  
 FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
 CONCERNS, THANKS.
  
 RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORDINATOR, ENGINEERING
 SERVICES, (561) 494-1098, CELL (561) 246-9525
 EMAIL: [email protected]
 WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING
  
Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-02-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rrossano Date 04-02-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By rrossano Date 04-02-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-02 08:10:171. PLEASE SUBMIT A FORMAL AS-BUILT REQUEST FOR ALL CITY
 OF WEST PALM BEACH-OWNED UTILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC
 RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE LIMITS OF
 YOUR PROJECT. IDENTIFY TYPE OF UTILITY, LOCATION, PIPE
 MATERIAL, AGE AND SIZE. PLEASE CONTACT JANICE TARBILL
 IN THE WPB ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT
 [email protected] OR 561-494-1079 FOR FURTHER
 ASSISTANCE. NOTE THAT FIELD RECORDS ARE FOR INFORMATION
 ONLY. FIELD VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS USING FIELD
 SURVEY, POT-HOLING, SOFT DIGS ETC.
 2. AS OF DECEMBER 20, 2015, THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL HAS BEEN REVISED,
 STATING "ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE LEAD-FREE". FOR
 MORE INFORMATION, REFER TO THE LINK BELOW:
 HTTP://WPB.ORG/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-UTILITIES/FORMS-PUBLI
 CATIONS/BACKFLOW-CROSS-CONNECTION-CONTROL-MANUAL
 3. PLEASE SUBMIT PRELIMINARY UTILITY ENGINEERING PLANS.
 PLANS SHALL SHOW PROPOSED LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
 ALL WATER, STORM WATER, AND SANITARY AND SEWER LINES,
 INCLUDING STUBS TO EACH PROPERTY LINE FOR WATER AND
 SANITARY SEWERS, THE MAKE AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES,
 METERS, AND OTHERS DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED ON THE
 SYSTEM, CATCH BASINS, CULVERTS, DITCHES INCLUDING
 GRADES, PIPES SIZES, MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS,
 ASSUMPTIONS, CALCULATIONS, INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ALL
 INLETS AND MANHOLES AND PROFILES OF SANITARY SEWER
 LINES. ALL AVAILABLE ELEVATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE
 PROFILE VIEW. DIRECTION OF FLOW SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLAN
 VIEW ON PLAN VIEW FOR ALL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS.
 ADDITIONALLY, PLAN VIEW SHALL SHOW ALL EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY LAYOUT, INCLUDING FIBER
 OPTIC, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION &
 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROVIDE PROFILE AND CLEARANCES AT ALL
 UTILITY CROSSINGS. CUT AND CAP UTILITIES NOT IN USE,
 AND REMOVE ANY ABANDONED UTILITY LINES LARGER THAN 2
 INCHES FROM CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
 4. PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE
 DIRECTLY TO ENGINEERING (SHEET 33 OF CITY OF WPB
 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION).
 5. SHOW PROPOSED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE PER CURRENT CITY OF
 WPB STANDARD DETAIL GC-7.
 6. CHECK TO SEE IF FDEP FORMS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY
 SEWER ARE REQUIRED.
 7. PLEASE CALLOUT DOMESTIC BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS RPPA
 AND FIRE BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS DCDA.
 8. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE, MAXIMUM
 AND PEAK) AND IRRIGATION AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS.
 CALCULATIONS SHALL BE PER FAC 64E-6 FOR SEWER AND PER
 FAC 64-E.008 FOR WATER.
 9. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE
 EASEMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF PROPOSED WATER METERS.
 10. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE
 ENLARGED VIEW ON PLANS OF PROPOSED LOCATION OF WATER
 METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION.
 11. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PROVIDE PROFILES
 OF WATER AND SEWER AND SHOW ANY CROSSINGS/CONFLICTS.
 12. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, WHEN SUBMITTING
 APPROVED MATERIALS LIST, PLEASE PROVIDE MATERIAL/CUT
 SHEETS FOR ALL PROPOSED BACKFLOW DEVICES SHOWING
 SPECIFIC MODEL NUMBER AND SPECIFYING USC APPROVED
 LEAD-FREE DESIGN.
 13. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL CLEARLY SHOW ROAD
 RIGHT OF WAY.
 14. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF SANITARY MAINS
 ARE PROPOSED IN ROW PLEASE SHOW ADJACENT SANITARY
 LATERAL LOCATIONS AND SHOW ADDRESSES OF ADJACENT
 PARCELS.
 15. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF WATER MAINS
 ARE BEING REPLACED IN ROW, SHOW ADJACENT PARCEL
 ADDRESSES.
 16. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, ADD NOTE TO
 PROVIDE 50 FT. PAVEMENT RESTORATION TRANSITION ON EACH
 SIDE OF PROPOSED TRENCH IN CITY MAINTAINED ROADWAY
 AREAS PER CITY OF WPB STANDARD DETAIL GC-9.
 17. PLEASE NOTE THAT A PRE-PPRC-SUBMITTAL MEETING WITH
 ENGINEERING SERVICES IS HIGHLY SUGGESTED.
 18. STANDARD DETAILS ARE ILLEGIBLE, PLEASE CONTACT
 [email protected] FOR CAD FILE VERSIONS TO USE.
 19. PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS IN WRITING.
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD
 CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PUBLIC UTILITIES, 561-822-2262
 [email protected]
  
 PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOW COMMENTS IN WRITING:
  
 -RETAINING WALL APPEARS TO ENCROACH ON LANDSCAPE BUFFER
 AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE?
  
 -DOES YARD DRAIN GO UNDER PICNIC AREA? IF SO, WHERE
 DOES IT TERMINATE AT?
  
 -WATER SERVICE MAY REQUIRE ROAD PAVEMENT RESTORATION.
  
 -IF DOMESTIC WATER METER IS 3 INCH OR LARGER IT NEEDS
 TO BE INSTALLED ABOVE-GROUND.
  
 -WILL THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAVE A COMMERCIAL OFFICE?
  
 -WILL A SEPARATE METERED IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE BE
 NEEDED?
  
 RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORDINATOR, ENGINEERING SERVICES
 DEPARTMENT
 401 CLEMATIS STREET, 4TH FLOOR, WEST PALM BEACH, FL
 33401
 (MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3366, ZIP 33402)
 DIRECT: (561) 494-1098
 MOBILE: (561) 246-9525
 FAX: (561) 494-1116
 EMAIL: [email protected]
 WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING
  
Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No 2 Status F Date 08-27-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rrossano Date 08-27-2020 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By rrossano Date 08-27-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-08-27 10:49:06COMMENTS PER RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORD., WPB ENG.
 SERVICES, [email protected] (561) 494-1098:
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE, MAXIMUM
 AND PEAK) AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS. CALCULATIONS SHALL BE
 PER FAC 64E-6 FOR SEWER AND PER FAC 64-E.008 FOR WATER.
  
 FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER
 SERVICE SUPERVISOR, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PUBLIC
 UTILITIES, 561-822-2262 [email protected]
  
 -ON CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN & DEMO PLAN THERE ARE TWO
 AREAS ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY THAT SAY ?SAWCUT REMOVE &
 REPLACE?. DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WORK THERE ANYMORE ?
 MAY BE ABLE TO ELIMINATE OR RELOCATE THOSE.
  
 -PAVEMENT RESTORATION MAY BE REQUIRED FOR NEW WATER
 SERVICE.
  
 -PLEASE SHOW AND LABEL ON PLANS ANY EXISTING WATER
 SERVICES AND METERS THAT WILL BE CUT BACK TO MAIN
 PURSUANT TO PRIOR COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THERE IS AT LEAST
 ONE METERED WATER SERVICE THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.
 THAT WORK MAY REQUIRE PAVEMENT RESTORATION.
  
 -PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSE WITH FINDINGS ON EXISTENCE OF
 UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR WATER MAINS RUNNING ALONG
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY AND PROPOSED WATER SERVICE LINE. PRIOR
 RESPONSE SAID APPLICANT IS IN PROCESS OF DETERMINING.
  
 -WILL A DEDICATED, METERED, IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE BE
 NEEDED FOR THE PROPERTY? IF SO, PLEASE ADD TO WATER
 PLAN.
  
 -WHEN DESIGNING ENLARGED VIEW PLAN OF WATER METER AND
 BACKFLOW PREVENTER LAYOUT, UTILITIES RECOMMENDS
 DUAL/PARALLEL BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES ON THE DOMESTIC WATER
 SERVICE TO REDUCE DOWNTIME DURING BACKFLOW MAINTENANCE.
  
  
Review Stop ENG - PPRC ENGINEERING - PPRC
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-04-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rrossano Date 06-04-2020 Time   Rev Time  
Received By rrossano Date 06-04-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-04 10:58:39Z20050013 BANYAN VIEW APTS - 2101 PRESIDENTIAL WAY
  
 COMMENT PER MANNY GONZALEZ, SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR,
 WPB ENG. SERVICES, [email protected], 561-494-1085:
  
 THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE SEWER CAPACITY FOR THIS PROJECT.
 WE URGE THE EOR AT SIMMONS AND WHITE AND DEVELOPER TO
 DISCUSS.
  
 COMMENTS PER RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORD., WPB ENG.
 SERVICES, [email protected] (561) 494-1098:
  
 1. PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS IN WRITING, AND
 INCLUDE PROJECT NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMIT NUMBER
 (Z-XXXXXXXX).
 2. THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH HAS A NUMBER OF
 REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WHICH DIRECTLY
 AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF WATER AND
 WASTEWATER UTILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. PLEASE SEE
 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AT THE LINK
 BELOW:
 HTTP://WPB.ORG/CMSPAGES/GETAMAZONFILE.ASPX?PATH=~\WPB_W
 EBSITE\MEDIA\ENGINEERING\DEVELOPMENT-APPLICATION-FULL-P
 ACKAGE_2016.PDF&HASH=7BD4DD7EB6115181D8C5977BCC02A97B19
 60045731D3658206F27451722716EF
 ALSO SEE: CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH,
 FLORIDA, CODIFIED THROUGH ORD. NO. 4183-08, ADOPTED
 SEPT. 22, 2008. (SUPPLEMENT NO. 18)
 CHAPTER 90 UTILITIES, ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL,
 SEC. 90-7. POLICY REGARDING EXTENSION OF WATER OR SEWER
 SERVICE FACILITIES OF THE CITY.
 3. THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND THE
 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ADDRESS RESERVATION OF CAPACITY
 BASED ON USAGE, METER SIZE AND FEES, DESIGN STANDARDS,
 BACKFLOW PREVENTION, FIRE SERVICE AND IRRIGATION.
 4. PLEASE SUBMIT A FORMAL AS-BUILT REQUEST FOR ALL CITY
 OF WEST PALM BEACH-OWNED UTILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC
 RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE LIMITS OF
 YOUR PROJECT. IDENTIFY TYPE OF UTILITY, LOCATION, PIPE
 MATERIAL, AGE AND SIZE. PLEASE CONTACT JANICE TARBILL
 IN THE WPB ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT
 [email protected] OR 561-494-1079 FOR FURTHER
 ASSISTANCE. NOTE THAT FIELD RECORDS ARE FOR INFORMATION
 ONLY. FIELD VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS USING FIELD
 SURVEY, POT-HOLING, SOFT DIGS ETC.
 5. AS OF DECEMBER 20, 2015, THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL MANUAL HAS BEEN REVISED,
 STATING "ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE LEAD-FREE". FOR
 MORE INFORMATION, REFER TO THE LINK BELOW:
 HTTP://WPB.ORG/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLIC-UTILITIES/FORMS-PUBLI
 CATIONS/BACKFLOW-CROSS-CONNECTION-CONTROL-MANUAL
 6. PLANS SHALL SHOW PROPOSED LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
 OF ALL WATER, STORM WATER, AND SANITARY AND SEWER
 LINES, INCLUDING STUBS TO EACH PROPERTY LINE FOR WATER
 AND SANITARY SEWERS, THE MAKE AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES,
 METERS, AND OTHERS DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED ON THE
 SYSTEM, CATCH BASINS, CULVERTS, DITCHES INCLUDING
 GRADES, PIPES SIZES, MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS,
 ASSUMPTIONS, CALCULATIONS, INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ALL
 INLETS AND MANHOLES AND PROFILES OF SANITARY SEWER
 LINES. ALL AVAILABLE ELEVATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE
 PROFILE VIEW. DIRECTION OF FLOW SHALL BE SHOWN ON PLAN
 VIEW ON PLAN VIEW FOR ALL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS.
 ADDITIONALLY, PLAN VIEW SHALL SHOW ALL EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY LAYOUT, INCLUDING FIBER
 OPTIC, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND CABLEVISION &
 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROVIDE PROFILE AND CLEARANCES AT ALL
 UTILITY CROSSINGS. CUT AND CAP UTILITIES NOT IN USE,
 AND REMOVE ANY ABANDONED UTILITY LINES LARGER THAN 2
 INCHES FROM CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
 7. PLEASE SUBMIT COMPLETED LOS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE
 DIRECTLY TO ENGINEERING (SHEET 33 OF CITY OF WPB
 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION).
 8. WHEN PROPOSED, WATER MAINS IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY
 SHALL BE MADE OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE (NOT PVC) AND
 SPECIFY PROPOSED LENGTH IN FEET.
 9. PLEASE CALLOUT DOMESTIC BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS RPPA
 AND FIRE BACKFLOW PREVENTER AS DCDA.
 10. PLEASE PROVIDE ENLARGED VIEW ON PLANS OF PROPOSED
 LOCATION OF WATER METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION.
 11. PROVIDE VERTICAL DATUM AND DATUM CONVERSION
 INFORMATION (NAVD 1988 AND NGVD 1929).
 12. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS ON PLANS OF EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR WATER & SEWER (AVERAGE, MAXIMUM
 AND PEAK) AND FIRE FLOW DEMANDS. CALCULATIONS SHALL BE
 PER FAC 64E-6 FOR SEWER AND PER FAC 64-E.008 FOR WATER.
 13. PROVIDE CCTV VIDEO OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND
 STORMWATER ALONG ENTIRE PROJECT FRONTAGE.
 14. CHECK TO SEE IF FDEP FORMS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY
 SEWER ARE REQUIRED.
 15. PLEASE PROVIDE CLEANOUTS FOR PROPOSED SANITARY LINE
 ONSITE JUST INSIDE PROPERTY LINE, AT JOINTS AND EVERY
 75 FEET.
 16. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, SFWMD ERP AND
 NPDES NOI REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED.
 - AN NOI IS REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS THAT:
 - 1) DISTURB ONE OF MORE ACRES OF LAND OR DISTURB LESS
 THAN ON ACRE OF LAND BUT ARE PART OF A COMMON PLAN OF
 DEVELOPMENT OR SALE;
 - 2) DISCHARGE STORMWATER TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE
 STATE OR TO SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE THROUGH A
 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4).
 - THE SFWMD ERP CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH A 10-2 SELF
 CERTIFICATION THROUGH FDEP OR AN ERP APPLICATION
 THROUGH SFWMD. EITHER WAY, THE DEVELOPER/ENGINEER SHALL
 SUBMIT A COPY OF THE ERP PERMIT OR FDEP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 OF THE 10-2 CERTIFICATION.
 17. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE
 EASEMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF PROPOSED WATER METERS.
 18. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PROVIDE PROFILES
 OF WATER AND SEWER AND SHOW ANY CROSSINGS/CONFLICTS.
 19. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, WHEN SUBMITTING
 APPROVED MATERIALS LIST, PLEASE PROVIDE MATERIAL/CUT
 SHEETS FOR ALL PROPOSED BACKFLOW DEVICES SHOWING
 SPECIFIC MODEL NUMBER AND SPECIFYING USC APPROVED
 LEAD-FREE DESIGN.
 20. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF SANITARY LINES
 ARE PROPOSED IN ROW PLEASE SHOW ADJACENT SANITARY
 LATERAL LOCATIONS AND SHOW ADDRESSES OF ADJACENT
 PARCELS.
 21. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, IF WATER LINES
 ARE BEING REPLACED IN ROW, SHOW ADJACENT PARCEL
 ADDRESSES.
 22. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, ADD NOTE TO
 PROVIDE 50 FT. PAVEMENT RESTORATION TRANSITION ON EACH
 SIDE OF PROPOSED TRENCH IN CITY MAINTAINED ROADWAY
 AREAS PER CITY OF WPB STANDARD DETAIL GC-8.
 23. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, SHOW DIMENSIONS
 OF PROPOSED DUMPSTER PER CURRENT CITY OF WPB STANDARD
 DETAIL GC-7.
 24. FOR FORMAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, PLEASE PROVIDE
 CALCULATIONS OF PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS AREAS FOR
 PROPOSED IMPROVED AREAS.
  
 FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM MARK HURLEY, FIELD CUSTOMER
 SERVICE SUPERVISOR, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH PUBLIC
 UTILITIES, 561-822-2262 [email protected]
  
 -DEMO PLAN SHOWS WATER MAINS RUNNING THROUGH PROPERTY,
 BUT CAN FIND NO RECORD OF THOSE. PLEASE VERIFY IF WATER
 MAINS ARE RUNNING THROUGH PROPERTY AND IF THEY ARE
 PRIVATELY OWNED.
 -DEMO PLAN DOES NOT SHOW CUT BACK AND REMOVAL OF
 EXISTING WATER SERVICES. PLANS NEED TO SHOW WATER IS
 HAPPENING TO EXISTING SMALL METERED WATER SERVICES.
 THEY MAY NOT CONTINUE TO BE LOCATED IN SIDEWALKS OR
 DRIVEWAYS.
 -IS THE LITTLE BUILDING ON SITE BEING DEMOLISHED? IF
 SO, PLEASE NOTE ON PLAN.
 -CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLANS NOTATE AN UNDERGROUND
 STORAGE CHAMBER. PLEASE DESCRIBE IN DETAIL WHAT IT IS
 FOR.
 -WATER METERS AND POINTS OF SERVICE NEED BE LOCATED
 ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LINE AT PRESIDENTIAL WAY. THEY
 SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED ON THE INTERIOR OF PROPERTY. IF
 WANT FIRE HYDRANTS ON THE SOUTHWEST AREA OF THE
 PROPERTY, THEN THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE DOWNSTREAM OF
 DCDA AND PRIVATELY OWNED/MAINTAINED.
 -PLAN DID NOT SHOW SIZES OF METERS AND BACKFLOW
 PREVENTERS. FOOTPRINT CAN CHANGE GREATLY DEPENDING ON
 SIZE NEEDED. PLEASE ADD SIZES TO LABEL AND ADJUST PLAN
 SIZING TO MATCH. ADD ENLARGED PLAN DRAWING OF
 METER/BACKFLOW AREAS.
 -IF BOTH BUILDINGS WILL BE SHARING THE POOL, FITNESS
 CLUB, AND LEASING CENTER, FIGURE OUT HOW MONTHLY
 UTILITY BILLING WILL BE ARRANGED AND WHERE WATER
 SERVICE WILL COME FROM. LOOKS LIKE IT ALL MAY BE FED
 FROM ONE BUILDING. SOME CURRENT COMMUNITIES IN OUR
 SERVICE AREA HAVE DIFFICULTLY DETERMINING AND PAYING
 FOR SHARED WATER BILLS OF COMMON AREAS. DETERMINE IF
 SEPARATE WATER SERVICES FOR THE COMMON AREAS MAY BE
 BENEFICIAL.
 -IS THE LARGE DIAMETER WATER MAIN IN ROAD ON
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY WHERE TAPS WOULD BE CONDUCTED
 CURRENTLY IN A UTILITY EASEMENT? IF NOT, UTILITY
 EASEMENT NEEDS TO BE CREATED FOR THE WATER MAIN AND
 SERVICES COMING OFF.
 -RECOMMEND NOT RUNNING WATER SERVICES NEAR/THROUGH
 DRIVEWAYS. DURING MAINTENANCE OF WATER SERVICE,
 DRIVEWAYS WOULD HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN WHICH WOULD BE
 PROBLEMATIC FOR TENANTS.
 -THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS
 DIRECTLY ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT INTERVALS. NOT SURE
 IF PLAN DESIGNER WAS AWARE OF THEM. PLEASE LABEL THOSE
 ON FUTURE UTILITY ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL.
  
 FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
 CONCERNS, THANKS.
  
 RICK ROSSANO, PROJECT COORDINATOR, ENGINEERING
 SERVICES, (561) 494-1098, CELL (561) 246-9525
 EMAIL: [email protected]
 WWW.WPB.ORG/ENGINEERING
  
Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No 4 Status P Date 04-29-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By pleduc Date 04-29-2021 Time 16:12 Rev Time 0.00
Received By pleduc Date 04-29-2021 Time 16:12 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-29 16:12:51FIRE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AND APPROVES.
  
 FIRE'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT DOES NOT
 CONSTITUTE IT'S FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.
  
 FIRE SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE
 CODES AND STANDARDS.
  
  
  
 PETER LEDUC
 FIRE MARSHAL
 561-804-4709
 [email protected]
Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No 3 Status P Date 04-01-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By pleduc Date 04-01-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By pleduc Date 04-01-2021 Time 16:16 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-01 16:18:42FIRE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AND APPROVES.
  
 THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT DOES
 NOT CONSTITUTE IT'S FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL.
  
 THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE
 CODES AND STANDARDS.
  
  
  
 PETER LEDUC
 FIRE MARSHAL
 561-804-4709
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No 2 Status P Date 09-23-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By pleduc Date 09-23-2020 Time 10:59 Rev Time 0.00
Received By pleduc Date 09-23-2020 Time 10:59 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-23 11:03:01THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS PROVIDED BY FIRE APPEAR TO HAVE
 BEEN ADDRESSED.
  
 HOWEVER, THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBMITTED
 PROJECT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ITS FINAL REVIEW OR
 APPROVAL.
  
 THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS AT
 THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
 REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS.
  
 PETER LEDUC
 FIRE MARSHAL
 WEST PALM BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
 561-804-4709
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-03-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By pleduc Date 06-03-2020 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By pleduc Date 06-03-2020 Time 12:29 Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-03 12:45:11THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY PETER LEDUC,
 FIRE MARSHAL, BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, WEST PALM
 BEACH FIRE RESCUE.
  
 THIS REVIEW CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AS THE
 DRAWINGS THAT WERE REVIEWED WERE NOT COMPLETE.
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAN BE EXPECTED WHEN FULL DRAWINGS
 ARE SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT.
  
 THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE
 PROPOSED PROJECT.
  
 1. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND RENOVATION TO COMPLY
 WITH NFPA 241. EXTRA ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE
 PERMITTING AND LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS. A
 PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER RELATED
 TO THIS PROJECT. SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM MAIN
 STRUCTURES AS WELL AS OTHER TRAILERS SHALL BE CLOSELY
 MONITORED FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF FIRE SPRINKLER
 PROTECTION.
  
 2. SITE ACCESS AND EXIT POINTS ARE TO BE CLEARLY
 IDENTIFIED AND MAINTAINED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES DURING
 ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
  
 2A. THE ENTRANCE IS INDICATED WITH A ROUND-ABOUT THAT
 MAY LIMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES ACCESS IN NAVIGATING
 THE TURNS. THE TURNING RADIUS SHOULD BE 30' MINIMUM,
 PLEASE PROVIDE AN AUTO- TURN FOR A 42' FIRE LADDER
 VEHICLE SHOWING THE APPLICABLE CLEARANCE.
  
 3. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM
 ALL ACCESS ROADWAYS, INCLUDING DURING CONSTRUCTION.
 ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND
 AND SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT
 WITH A ONE (1) INCH STROKE FOR ALL BUILDINGS.
  
 4. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRASH AND DEBRIS IS TO BE
 REMOVED FROM THE SITE DAILY OR MORE OFTEN TO REDUCE THE
 ACCUMULATION OF POTENTIAL LIFE AND FIRE SAFETY HAZARDS.
  
 5. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH
 THE 6TH EDITION OF THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE,
 INCLUDING NFPA 1 & 101, AND ALL ASSOCIATED FIRE CODES.
  
 6. FOR PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL, PLEASE INCLUDE THE
 OCCUPANCY TYPE, PER THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE,
 AND WHETHER IT IS MIXED OR SEPARATED OCCUPANCY.
  
 7. FOR PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL, PLEASE ENSURE THAT A FIRE
 LOAD CALCULATION IS INCLUDED AND THAT ADEQUATE WATER
 SUPPLY IS EXISTING OR WILL BE PROVIDED.
  
 8. ALL EXISTING AND NEW FIRE HYDRANTS PLANNED FOR THIS
 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CLEARLY INDICATED AND IDENTIFIED
 ON THE PLAN AND CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE BUREAU OF
 FIRE PREVENTION.
  
 THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND FDC'S
 ARE ACCEPTABLE WITH ANY CHANGES CLOSELY COORDINATED
 WITH THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION.
  
 8A. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING A 2ND FDC FOR EACH
 BUILDING IS REQUESTED TO BE LOCATED AT THE OPPOSITE
 ENDS OF THE BUILDINGS IN A LOCATION COORDINATED WITH
 THE OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL.
  
 ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS OF FIRE HYDRANT
 LOCATIONS ALONG PRESIDENTIAL WAY THAT COULD SUPPORT
 THESE ADDITIONAL FDC'S. PLEASE LOCATE THESE HYDRANTS
 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
  
 9. PROVIDE FOR A FIRE SPRINKLER AND/OR FIRE ALARM PER
 THE APPLICABLE OCCUPANCY CODE. FOR ANY LIFE SAFETY
 ENGINEERED SYSTEM, I.E FIRE SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM,
 ENSURE THEY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FS 61G AND
 SUBMITTED WITH THE MASTER PERMIT.
  
 9A) THE LOCATION OF ANY APPLICABLE DDCV AND FIRE LINE
 LOCATIONS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 24 AND
 SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OFFICE OF FIRE MARSHAL,
 THE CITY'S ENGINEERS OFFICE, THE LANDSCAPE PLANNER, AND
 THE CITY'S PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE.
  
 10. COMPLETE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR EACH OCCUPANCY SHALL
 BE PROVIDED THAT ILLUSTRATE OCCUPANT LOADS, TRAVEL
 DISTANCES, COMMON PATHS OF TRAVEL, DEAD-END CORRIDORS,
 EXIT SIGNS, EMERGENCY LIGHTING, EXITS LEADING TO A
 PUBLIC WAY, FIRE EXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS, AND ALL FIRE
 SAFETY FEATURES AND EQUIPMENT.
  
 11. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (REQUIRED WITH FIRE
 SPRINKLER SYSTEM) THAT A KNOX BOX WITH KEYS FOR ENTRY
 DOOR LOCKS BE PROVIDED FOR 24 HOUR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
  
 12. THE BUREAU'S REVIEW OF THIS SUBMITTED PROJECT DOES
 NOT CONSTITUTE ITS FINAL REVIEW.
  
 13. THE BUREAU SHALL REVIEW ALL RESUBMITTALS AND
 SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE
 CODES AND STANDARDS.
  
 PETER LEDUC
 FIRE MARSHAL
 561-804-4709
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop L LANDSCAPING
Rev No 4 Status F Date 05-06-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rcaranci Date 05-06-2021 Time 13:55 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rcaranci Date 05-06-2021 Time 13:55 Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-06 13:55:37FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER
 561-822-1462
 PROJECT: BANYAN CAY RPD/CPD
 MAY 5, 2021
 FLU AMENDMENT Z20050011 MF TO CE
 REZONING TO CPD Z20050012
 MAJOR PD AMENDMENT Z20050013
 I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND
 PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND BUILDING DESIGN HAVE
 BEEN CHANGED AND THIS REVIEW IS BASED ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS.
  
 1. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS REGARDING THE
 TREES AND PALMS ON SITE:
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A TREE SURVEY.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A NUMBERED TREE DISPOSITION LIST
 AND PLAN. SPECIFY EACH TREE OR PALM IF IT IS TO REMAIN,
 BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED. THERE ARE SEVERAL
 CONTRADICTIONS ON THE LIST SUBMITTED ON SHEET L-3.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CANOPY DIAMETER FOR ALL TREES.
 ALL TREES REQUIRING MITIGATION THAT ARE 20 FEET OR MORE
 IN TREE CANOPY DIAMETER ARE THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
 AND ALL LESS THAN 20 FEET ARE BY CATEGORY.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A COLUMN FOR THE TREE OR PALM
 CATEGORY.
 SUGGESTED TREE LIST THAT IDENTIFIES CATEGORIES CAN BE
 FORWARDED IF NEEDED.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CONDITION FOR ALL TREES AND
 PALMS.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR
 MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL IN A
 SEPARATE COLUMN AND PROVIDE TOTAL MITIGATION DUE.
 THE LIST OF CANOPY MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE DUE FOR
 REMOVED TREES OR PALMS IS NOT COMPLETE. EACH MUST HAVE
 A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE CATEGORY FOR ALL PALMS AND
 TREES BELOW 20 FEET IN CANOPY DIAMETER. CATEGORY 1 IS
 300 SQ FT, CATEGORY 2 IS 150 SQ FT, CATEGORY 3 IS 100
 SQ FT, CATEGORY 4 IS 50 SQ FT.
 4-6-21:
 1. ROYALS ARE CATEGORY 3 (THIS SHOULD MAKE TOTAL OF 4
 ON SUMMARY)
 2. 130289 BLACK OLIVE SHOULD BE 1320 SQ FT NOT 1300.
 3. 130240 FICUS SHOULD BE 3847 SQ FT NOT 3957
 4. THERE ARE 24 CATEGORY 4 PALMS, NOT 29
 5. TOTAL WILL BE 10,137
 IT IS MUCH EASIER TO REPLACE THE ?DROUGHT TOLERANT?
 COLUMN WITH ?MITIGATION DUE? AND PLACE THE SQUARE
 FOOTAGE DUE FOR EACH REMOVAL IN THAT COLUMN. THEN TOTAL
 THE COLUMN.
 ? SATISFIED. INCLUDE A CHART FOR TREE MITIGATION
 PROVIDED BASED ON THE PLANT LIST AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL
 FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL FOR ALL TREES BY CATEGORY THAT ARE
 ADDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
 TOTAL THE CANOPY CREDITS FOR ALL TREES ADDED ON THE
 PLANT LIST AND SHOW THIS NUMBER IN THE SUMMARY.
  
 2. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE
 TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON
 SITE OR RELOCATED. 17 LIVE OAK TREES, ROYAL AND SABAL
 PALMS ARE LISTED TO BE REMOVED. PROVIDE THE METHOD OF
 DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT, AND THE
 SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR RELOCATION.
  
  
 3. SATISFIED. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR MINIMUM SHADE
 TREE AND FLOWERING TREE REQUIREMENTS (MISSING) PER
 SECTION 94-443(C)(2)B. BASED ON OPEN SPACE AND ADD
 REQUIRED ONE TREE PER UNIT (197) TO ESTABLISH THE
 MINIMUM TREES REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. OPEN SPACE
 REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING INCLUDES SETBACKS,
 PARKING, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND BUILDING
 PERIMETER PLANTINGS. A SEPARATE OPEN SPACE PLAN MAY BE
 SUBMITTED SHOWING THE OPEN SPACE AREAS COUNTED. ONCE
 CORRECTED FOR THE ADDITION OF FLOWERING TREES AND ONE
 TREE PER UNIT REQUIREMENT, ADJUST ALL CALCULATIONS.
 RECALCULATE REQUIRED TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS
 BASED ON 40% REQUIRED OPEN SPACE, AS REQUIRED FOR CPD
 ZONING. STAFF CORRECTS THIS COMMENT TO REFLECT THE
 PROPOSED ZONING AND APOLOGIZES FOR THE ERROR. SHEET
 L-43 SHOULD USE 180677.3 X .4 EQUALS 72,271 SQ FT.
 REQUIRED; 49 TREES, 13 FLOWERING TREES AND 145 SHRUBS
 FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. ADDING 197 FOR MULTIFAMILY
 SHOULD RESULT IN TOTAL TREES REQUIRED OF 259.
 STAFF PRELIMINARY COUNT OF PROVIDED TREES AND PALMS
 APPEARS TO BE EQUAL TO 287 TREES, SO THE REQUIRED
 NUMBER HAS BEEN MET AND EXCEEDED.
  
 4/6/21:
 72,271 REQUIRED 40% OPEN SPACE.
 REQUIRED; 49 TREES, 13 FLOWERING TREES AND 145 SHRUBS
 FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. ADDING 191 FOR MULTIFAMILY
 SHOULD RESULT IN TOTAL TREES REQUIRED OF 253.
 18 EXISTING TREES, 178 NEW TREES, 16 ROYAL PALMS 1:1,
 (9) 28 EXISTING AND RELOCATED PALMS 3:1, 24 NEW PALMS
 1:1, (40) 120 NEW PALMS 3:1, FOR A TOTAL OF 285
 PROVIDED.
 HIBISCUS (51) CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARD TREES AS THEY DO
 NOT QUALIFY.
  
  
  
 4. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE OF PALM
 SUBSTITUTIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES NOT EXCEEDING 35% PER
 SECTION 94-442(D).
 253 TREES MAX 88 PALM SUBSTITUTIONS.
  
  
 5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTLY
 REQUIRE A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE PERIMETER OF
 THE PD AND SECTION 94-443(D) REQUIRES A10 FOOT
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR
 MULTIFAMILY USES THEREFORE REQUIRING ALL PERIMETER
 BUFFERS FOR THIS POD TO BE 10 FEET IN WIDTH. THE
 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE ALL THE LANDSCAPE
 BUFFERS TO 5 FEET AND NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TREES OR
 NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTE PALMS. IF THE BUFFER CANNOT BE
 PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS REQUIRED, INDICATE
 THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED TO PROVIDE COMPARABLE
 BUFFERING ON THE SITE.
  
 NO CHANGE WAS PROPOSED FOR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
 ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER FOR THE PERIMETER OF THE PD. NO JUSTIFICATION
 HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR SUCH A CHANGE.
  
 5-6-21 CHANGE WAS PROPOSED TO DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
 THIS PARCEL. PROVIDE A COMPELLING REASON JUSTIFYING
 THIS CHANGE.
  
  
 6. SATISFIED. INDICATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER LOCATIONS
 ON THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
 SHOW THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED BUFFERS ALONG ALL
 EXTERIOR PARCEL LINES.
  
 7. SATISFIED. CORRECT ALL CALCULATIONS FOR THE REQUIRED
 TREES FOR BUFFER SEGMENTS ON THE PERIMETER BUFFER
 REQUIREMENT CHART AND LIST LINEAR FOOTAGE OF EACH
 PROPERTY LINE SEGMENT MEASURED ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF
 EACH BUFFER CONTINUOUSLY. PRESIDENTIAL WAY IS ONE
 BUFFER LENGTH, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS ANOTHER SECTION,
 WEST PROPERTY LINE, THEN SOUTH SECTION, THEN WEST
 SECTION. DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE, EACH BUFFER LENGTH
 MAY BE DESIGNATED WITH A LETTER, THEN CALCULATIONS FOR
 REQUIRED TREES CALCULATED FOR EACH SEGMENT CALCULATED,
 ROUNDING UP FOR ANY PORTION LEFT OF THE 30 FOOT
 LENGTHS.
  
 C: WEST BUFFER REQUIRES 12 TREES. D: SOUTH BUFFER
 REQUIRES 10 TREES.
 PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF TREES AND PALMS PROVIDED FOR
 EACH BUFFER SEGMENT TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT IS PROVIDED IN
 RELATION TO THE WAIVER.
  
 8. SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATION FOR BUFFER ALONG
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY WITH ACCESS DRIVEWAYS TO SHOW THEY DO
 NOT EXCEED 20% INTERRUPTION FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AS
 REQUIRED BY SECTION 94-443(D)(1)A.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN.
  
 9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE
 AREA ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. PERCENTAGE IS SHOWN, BUT
 LENGTH PROVIDED IS MISSING.
  
  
 10. SATISFIED. SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS FOR TREES REQUIRES
 3:1 RATIO FOR SABAL PALMS AND MONTGOMERY PALMS. ADD UP
 ALL TRUNKS AT 3:1 AND THEN DIVIDE BY 3 TO GET TREE
 COUNT AND ADD ROYALS AND MEDJOOLS AS 1:1 PALMS.
 RECALCULATE TREES COUNT PROVIDED.
  
  
 11. SATISFIED. THERE ARE BLANK SPACES IN SOME COLUMNS
 FOR NATIVE PLANT AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE LEVELS THAT MUST
 BE FILLED.
  
 12. SATISFIED. ADD ANY RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO THE
 PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES.
 REMOVE THE OFFSITE TREES FROM THE PLANT LIST.
  
 13. NOT SATISFIED. SECTION 94-443(C)(3) REQUIRES THAT A
 MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT OF ALL TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
 BE PLANTED WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF AN OFF STREET PARKING
 AREA SHALL BE CATEGORY 1 SHADE TREES. SHOW THE
 PERCENTAGE OF CATEGORY 1 TREES PROVIDED FOR THE
 REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A
 WAIVER FOR SOME TERMINAL ISLAND TREES AND SUBSTITUTION
 OF PALMS IN SOME ISLANDS. THE LOCATIONS NEED TO BE
 CLARIFIED AND NOTED AS REQUESTING WAIVER. STAFF
 RECOMMENDS LOOKING AT SUBSTITUTION OF TRIPLE OR LARGE
 PALMS TO MEET THE TREE REQUIREMENT, THEN CALCULATE THE
 PERCENTAGE AND ADJUST WAIVER ACCORDINGLY.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN AFTER ADDING ALL
 MISSING TREES IN LANDSCAPE TERMINAL ISLANDS.
 STAFF COUNTS 39 TERMINAL AND INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
 THAT REQUIRE A SHADE TREE. THERE ARE 11 ISLANDS THAT
 CONTAIN PALMS. THAT IS 71.79%.
  
  
 14. SATISFIED. PROVIDE AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE PARKING
 AREA SURFACE CALCULATIONS, PARKING SPACE AREAS AND
 LANDSCAPE AREAS PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH
 SECTIONS 94-443 (C)(3) AND (4), FOLLOWING THE AREA
 CLASSIFICATIONS AS SHOWN IN FIGURE XIV-1.
 ? PARKING SPACES SHADED AS ONE AREA, SHOW TOTAL SPACES
 TIMES 10 SQ FT PER SPACE. PROVIDE TOTAL
 ? ALL OTHER PAVED AREAS SHADED DIFFERENTLY AND TOTAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE. DIVIDE BY 100 AND MULTIPLY BY 4 SQ FT.
 PROVIDE TOTAL.
 ? TOTAL THESE 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNTS FOR THE REQUIRED
 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 ? SHOW ALL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREAS AS A DIFFERENT
 SHADE AND SHOW PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE.
  
 15. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. UPDATE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY
 LANDSCAPE CHART TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM 50 POINTS BASED
 ON THE PLANT LIST AND ITEMS THAT QUALIFY. CREDIT CANNOT
 BE TAKEN TWICE IN THE SAME CATEGORY FOR THE SAME
 PLANTS. IF TAKING 51% OR MORE NATIVE TREES PROVIDED, OF
 THE REMAINING TREES THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE 25-50% DROUGHT
 TOLERANT.
 PROVIDE EXPLANATION AND CALCULATIONS TO BACK UP POINTS
 TAKEN FOR (1), (2) AND (6)A.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN.
 PROVIDE CALCULATIONS TO PROVE 6A. IF IT CANNOT BE
 DEMONSTRATED, REMOVE THE 5 POINTS AS THIS IS IN EXCESS
 TO THE 50 POINTS REQUIRED.
  
  
 16. SATISFIED. THERE APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTS IN SEVERAL
 LOCATIONS BETWEEN TREES AND WATER AND SEWER LINES ON
 THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. ADJUST LOCATIONS OF TREES OR
 UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH LANDSCAPING.
 HYDRANTS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND FDC CONNECTIONS
 CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS
 INTENDED FOR THE TREES.
  
 17. SATISFIED. PROVIDE LOCATIONS AND SCREENING FOR ALL
 ABOVE GROUND UTILITY VALVES, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, A/C
 UNITS, AND FPL TRANSFORMERS.
  
 18. SATISFIED. SHOW LOCATIONS OF ANY ROOT BARRIERS
 REQUIRED TO PROTECT UTILITY LINES AND PROVIDE A ROOT
 BARRIER DETAIL.
  
 19. SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L.
 PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT
 MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT
 TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE
 LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH
 FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH
 FLORIDA LANDSCAPES.
  
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFYING DROUGHT
 TOLERANT OR NATIVE PLANTS OF THE TOTAL ADDED PLANTS
 BASED ON THE PLANT LIST.
 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON
 THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE
 SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.
  
Review Stop L LANDSCAPING
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-06-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By rcaranci Date 04-06-2021 Time 16:26 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rcaranci Date 04-06-2021 Time 16:26 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-06 16:26:40FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER
 561-822-1462
 PROJECT: BANYAN CAY RPD/CPD
 APRIL 6, 2021
 FLU AMENDMENT Z20050011 MF TO CE
 REZONING TO CPD Z20050012
 MAJOR PD AMENDMENT Z20050013
 I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND
 PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND BUILDING DESIGN HAVE
 BEEN CHANGED AND THIS REVIEW IS BASED ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS.
  
 1. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS REGARDING THE
 TREES AND PALMS ON SITE:
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A TREE SURVEY.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A NUMBERED TREE DISPOSITION LIST
 AND PLAN. SPECIFY EACH TREE OR PALM IF IT IS TO REMAIN,
 BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED. THERE ARE SEVERAL
 CONTRADICTIONS ON THE LIST SUBMITTED ON SHEET L-3.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CANOPY DIAMETER FOR ALL TREES.
 ALL TREES REQUIRING MITIGATION THAT ARE 20 FEET OR MORE
 IN TREE CANOPY DIAMETER ARE THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
 AND ALL LESS THAN 20 FEET ARE BY CATEGORY.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A COLUMN FOR THE TREE OR PALM
 CATEGORY.
 SUGGESTED TREE LIST THAT IDENTIFIES CATEGORIES CAN BE
 FORWARDED IF NEEDED.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CONDITION FOR ALL TREES AND
 PALMS.
 ? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE
 FOR MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
 IN A SEPARATE COLUMN AND PROVIDE TOTAL MITIGATION DUE.
 THE LIST OF CANOPY MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE DUE FOR
 REMOVED TREES OR PALMS IS NOT COMPLETE. EACH MUST HAVE
 A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE CATEGORY FOR ALL PALMS AND
 TREES BELOW 20 FEET IN CANOPY DIAMETER. CATEGORY 1 IS
 300 SQ FT, CATEGORY 2 IS 150 SQ FT, CATEGORY 3 IS 100
 SQ FT, CATEGORY 4 IS 50 SQ FT.
 4-6-21:
 1. ROYALS ARE CATEGORY 3 (THIS SHOULD MAKE TOTAL OF 4
 ON SUMMARY)
 2. 130289 BLACK OLIVE SHOULD BE 1320 SQ FT NOT 1300.
 3. 130240 FICUS SHOULD BE 3847 SQ FT NOT 3957
 4. THERE ARE 24 CATEGORY 4 PALMS, NOT 29
 5. TOTAL WILL BE 10,137
 IT IS MUCH EASIER TO REPLACE THE ?DROUGHT TOLERANT?
 COLUMN WITH ?MITIGATION DUE? AND PLACE THE SQUARE
 FOOTAGE DUE FOR EACH REMOVAL IN THAT COLUMN. THEN TOTAL
 THE COLUMN.
 ? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. INCLUDE A CHART FOR TREE
 MITIGATION PROVIDED BASED ON THE PLANT LIST AND PROVIDE
 THE TOTAL FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL FOR ALL TREES BY CATEGORY THAT ARE
 ADDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
 TOTAL THE CANOPY CREDITS FOR ALL TREES ADDED ON THE
 PLANT LIST AND SHOW THIS NUMBER IN THE SUMMARY.
  
 2. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE
 TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON
 SITE OR RELOCATED. 17 LIVE OAK TREES, ROYAL AND SABAL
 PALMS ARE LISTED TO BE REMOVED. PROVIDE THE METHOD OF
 DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT, AND THE
 SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR RELOCATION.
  
  
 3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR
 MINIMUM SHADE TREE AND FLOWERING TREE REQUIREMENTS
 (MISSING) PER SECTION 94-443(C)(2)B. BASED ON OPEN
 SPACE AND ADD REQUIRED ONE TREE PER UNIT (197) TO
 ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM TREES REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. OPEN
 SPACE REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING INCLUDES
 SETBACKS, PARKING, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND
 BUILDING PERIMETER PLANTINGS. A SEPARATE OPEN SPACE
 PLAN MAY BE SUBMITTED SHOWING THE OPEN SPACE AREAS
 COUNTED. ONCE CORRECTED FOR THE ADDITION OF FLOWERING
 TREES AND ONE TREE PER UNIT REQUIREMENT, ADJUST ALL
 CALCULATIONS.
 RECALCULATE REQUIRED TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS
 BASED ON 40% REQUIRED OPEN SPACE, AS REQUIRED FOR CPD
 ZONING. STAFF CORRECTS THIS COMMENT TO REFLECT THE
 PROPOSED ZONING AND APOLOGIZES FOR THE ERROR. SHEET
 L-43 SHOULD USE 180677.3 X .4 EQUALS 72,271 SQ FT.
 REQUIRED; 49 TREES, 13 FLOWERING TREES AND 145 SHRUBS
 FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. ADDING 197 FOR MULTIFAMILY
 SHOULD RESULT IN TOTAL TREES REQUIRED OF 259.
 STAFF PRELIMINARY COUNT OF PROVIDED TREES AND PALMS
 APPEARS TO BE EQUAL TO 287 TREES, SO THE REQUIRED
 NUMBER HAS BEEN MET AND EXCEEDED.
  
 4/6/21:
 72,271 REQUIRED 40% OPEN SPACE.
 REQUIRED; 49 TREES, 13 FLOWERING TREES AND 145 SHRUBS
 FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. ADDING 191 FOR MULTIFAMILY
 SHOULD RESULT IN TOTAL TREES REQUIRED OF 253.
 18 EXISTING TREES, 178 NEW TREES, 16 ROYAL PALMS 1:1,
 (9) 28 EXISTING AND RELOCATED PALMS 3:1, 24 NEW PALMS
 1:1, (40) 120 NEW PALMS 3:1, FOR A TOTAL OF 285
 PROVIDED.
 HIBISCUS (51) CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARD TREES AS THEY DO
 NOT QUALIFY.
  
  
  
 4. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE OF PALM
 SUBSTITUTIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES NOT EXCEEDING 35% PER
 SECTION 94-442(D).
 253 TREES MAX 88 PALM SUBSTITUTIONS.
  
  
 5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTLY
 REQUIRE A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE PERIMETER OF
 THE PD AND SECTION 94-443(D) REQUIRES A10 FOOT
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR
 MULTIFAMILY USES THEREFORE REQUIRING ALL PERIMETER
 BUFFERS FOR THIS POD TO BE 10 FEET IN WIDTH. THE
 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE ALL THE LANDSCAPE
 BUFFERS TO 5 FEET AND NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TREES OR
 NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTE PALMS. IF THE BUFFER CANNOT BE
 PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS REQUIRED, INDICATE
 THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED TO PROVIDE COMPARABLE
 BUFFERING ON THE SITE.
 NO CHANGE WAS PROPOSED FOR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
 ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER FOR THE PERIMETER OF THE PD. NO JUSTIFICATION
 HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR SUCH A CHANGE.
  
  
 6. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. INDICATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER
 LOCATIONS ON THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
 SHOW THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED BUFFERS ALONG ALL
 EXTERIOR PARCEL LINES.
  
 7. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. CORRECT ALL CALCULATIONS FOR
 THE REQUIRED TREES FOR BUFFER SEGMENTS ON THE PERIMETER
 BUFFER REQUIREMENT CHART AND LIST LINEAR FOOTAGE OF
 EACH PROPERTY LINE SEGMENT MEASURED ALONG THE
 CENTERLINE OF EACH BUFFER CONTINUOUSLY. PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY IS ONE BUFFER LENGTH, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS
 ANOTHER SECTION, WEST PROPERTY LINE, THEN SOUTH
 SECTION, THEN WEST SECTION. DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE,
 EACH BUFFER LENGTH MAY BE DESIGNATED WITH A LETTER,
 THEN CALCULATIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES CALCULATED FOR
 EACH SEGMENT CALCULATED, ROUNDING UP FOR ANY PORTION
 LEFT OF THE 30 FOOT LENGTHS.
  
 C: WEST BUFFER REQUIRES 12 TREES. D: SOUTH BUFFER
 REQUIRES 10 TREES.
 PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF TREES AND PALMS PROVIDED FOR
 EACH BUFFER SEGMENT TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT IS PROVIDED IN
 RELATION TO THE WAIVER.
  
 8. PROVIDE CALCULATION FOR BUFFER ALONG PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY WITH ACCESS DRIVEWAYS TO SHOW THEY DO NOT EXCEED
 20% INTERRUPTION FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AS REQUIRED BY
 SECTION 94-443(D)(1)A.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN.
  
 9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE
 AREA ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING. PERCENTAGE IS SHOWN, BUT
 LENGTH PROVIDED IS MISSING.
  
  
 10. SATISFIED. SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS FOR TREES REQUIRES
 3:1 RATIO FOR SABAL PALMS AND MONTGOMERY PALMS. ADD UP
 ALL TRUNKS AT 3:1 AND THEN DIVIDE BY 3 TO GET TREE
 COUNT AND ADD ROYALS AND MEDJOOLS AS 1:1 PALMS.
 RECALCULATE TREES COUNT PROVIDED.
  
  
 11. THERE ARE BLANK SPACES IN SOME COLUMNS FOR NATIVE
 PLANT AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE LEVELS THAT MUST BE FILLED.
  
 12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ADD ANY RELOCATED TREES AND
 PALMS TO THE PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE
 REQUIRED TREES.
 REMOVE THE OFFSITE TREES FROM THE PLANT LIST.
  
 13. SECTION 94-443(C)(3) REQUIRES THAT A MINIMUM OF 75
 PERCENT OF ALL TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED
 WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF AN OFF STREET PARKING AREA SHALL
 BE CATEGORY 1 SHADE TREES. SHOW THE PERCENTAGE OF
 CATEGORY 1 TREES PROVIDED FOR THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
 AREAS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR SOME
 TERMINAL ISLAND TREES AND SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS IN SOME
 ISLANDS. THE LOCATIONS NEED TO BE CLARIFIED AND NOTED
 AS REQUESTING WAIVER. STAFF RECOMMENDS LOOKING AT
 SUBSTITUTION OF TRIPLE OR LARGE PALMS TO MEET THE TREE
 REQUIREMENT, THEN CALCULATE THE PERCENTAGE AND ADJUST
 WAIVER ACCORDINGLY.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN AFTER ADDING ALL
 MISSING TREES IN LANDSCAPE TERMINAL ISLANDS.
  
  
 14. SATISFIED. PROVIDE AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE PARKING
 AREA SURFACE CALCULATIONS, PARKING SPACE AREAS AND
 LANDSCAPE AREAS PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH
 SECTIONS 94-443 (C)(3) AND (4), FOLLOWING THE AREA
 CLASSIFICATIONS AS SHOWN IN FIGURE XIV-1.
 ? PARKING SPACES SHADED AS ONE AREA, SHOW TOTAL SPACES
 TIMES 10 SQ FT PER SPACE. PROVIDE TOTAL
 ? ALL OTHER PAVED AREAS SHADED DIFFERENTLY AND TOTAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE. DIVIDE BY 100 AND MULTIPLY BY 4 SQ FT.
 PROVIDE TOTAL.
 ? TOTAL THESE 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNTS FOR THE REQUIRED
 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 ? SHOW ALL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREAS AS A DIFFERENT
 SHADE AND SHOW PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE.
  
 15. UPDATE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE CHART TO
 PROVIDE THE MINIMUM 50 POINTS BASED ON THE PLANT LIST
 AND ITEMS THAT QUALIFY. CREDIT CANNOT BE TAKEN TWICE IN
 THE SAME CATEGORY FOR THE SAME PLANTS. IF TAKING 51% OR
 MORE NATIVE TREES PROVIDED, OF THE REMAINING TREES THE
 MAXIMUM WOULD BE 25-50% DROUGHT TOLERANT.
 PROVIDE EXPLANATION AND CALCULATIONS TO BACK UP POINTS
 TAKEN FOR (1), (2) AND (6)A.
 RECALCULATE FOR THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN.
  
  
 16. SATISFIED. THERE APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTS IN SEVERAL
 LOCATIONS BETWEEN TREES AND WATER AND SEWER LINES ON
 THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. ADJUST LOCATIONS OF TREES OR
 UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH LANDSCAPING.
 HYDRANTS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND FDC CONNECTIONS
 CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS
 INTENDED FOR THE TREES.
  
 17. SATISFIED. PROVIDE LOCATIONS AND SCREENING FOR ALL
 ABOVE GROUND UTILITY VALVES, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, A/C
 UNITS, AND FPL TRANSFORMERS.
  
 18. SATISFIED. SHOW LOCATIONS OF ANY ROOT BARRIERS
 REQUIRED TO PROTECT UTILITY LINES AND PROVIDE A ROOT
 BARRIER DETAIL.
  
 19. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L. PLANT
 SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT MATERIAL
 ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT
 SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE LIST OF
 SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH FLORIDA
 WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH FLORIDA
 LANDSCAPES.
  
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFYING DROUGHT
 TOLERANT OR NATIVE PLANTS OF THE TOTAL ADDED PLANTS
 BASED ON THE PLANT LIST.
 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON
 THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE
 SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.
  
Review Stop L LANDSCAPING
Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-23-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rcaranci Date 09-23-2020 Time 16:24 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rcaranci Date 09-23-2020 Time 11:30 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-23 16:24:18FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER
 561-822-1462
 PROJECT: BANYAN CAY RPD/CPD
 SEPTEMBER 23, 2020
 FLU AMENDMENT Z20050011 MF TO CE
 REZONING TO CPD Z20050012
 MAJOR PD AMENDMENT Z20050013
 I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND
 PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 1. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS REGARDING THE
 TREES AND PALMS ON SITE:
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A TREE SURVEY.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE A NUMBERED TREE DISPOSITION LIST
 AND PLAN. SPECIFY EACH TREE OR PALM IF IT IS TO REMAIN,
 BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED. THERE ARE SEVERAL
 CONTRADICTIONS ON THE LIST SUBMITTED ON SHEET L-3.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CANOPY DIAMETER FOR ALL TREES.
 ALL TREES REQUIRING MITIGATION THAT ARE 20 FEET OR MORE
 IN TREE CANOPY DIAMETER ARE THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
 AND ALL LESS THAN 20 FEET ARE BY CATEGORY.
 ? NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE A COLUMN FOR THE TREE OR PALM
 CATEGORY.
 SUGGESTED TREE LIST THAT IDENTIFIES CATEGORIES CAN BE
 FORWARDED IF NEEDED.
 ? SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE CONDITION FOR ALL TREES AND
 PALMS.
 ? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE
 FOR MITIGATION DUE FOR ANY TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
 IN A SEPARATE COLUMN AND PROVIDE TOTAL MITIGATION DUE.
 THE LIST OF CANOPY MITIGATION SQUARE FOOTAGE DUE FOR
 REMOVED TREES OR PALMS IS NOT COMPLETE. EACH MUST HAVE
 A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE CATEGORY FOR ALL PALMS AND
 TREES BELOW 20 FEET IN CANOPY DIAMETER. CATEGORY 1 IS
 300 SQ FT, CATEGORY 2 IS 150 SQ FT, CATEGORY 3 IS 100
 SQ FT, CATEGORY 4 IS 50 SQ FT.
 ? PARTIALLY SATISFIED. INCLUDE A CHART FOR TREE
 MITIGATION PROVIDED BASED ON THE PLANT LIST AND PROVIDE
 THE TOTAL FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL FOR ALL TREES BY CATEGORY THAT ARE
 ADDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
  
 2. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE
 TREES AND PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON
 SITE OR RELOCATED. 17 LIVE OAK TREES, ROYAL AND SABAL
 PALMS ARE LISTED TO BE REMOVED. PROVIDE THE METHOD OF
 DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT, AND THE
 SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR RELOCATION.
  
  
 3. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR
 MINIMUM SHADE TREE AND FLOWERING TREE REQUIREMENTS
 (MISSING) PER SECTION 94-443(C)(2)B. BASED ON OPEN
 SPACE AND ADD REQUIRED ONE TREE PER UNIT (197) TO
 ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM TREES REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. OPEN
 SPACE REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING INCLUDES
 SETBACKS, PARKING, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND
 BUILDING PERIMETER PLANTINGS. A SEPARATE OPEN SPACE
 PLAN MAY BE SUBMITTED SHOWING THE OPEN SPACE AREAS
 COUNTED. ONCE CORRECTED FOR THE ADDITION OF FLOWERING
 TREES AND ONE TREE PER UNIT REQUIREMENT, ADJUST ALL
 CALCULATIONS.
 RECALCULATE REQUIRED TREES, FLOWERING TREES AND SHRUBS
 BASED ON 40% REQUIRED OPEN SPACE, AS REQUIRED FOR CPD
 ZONING. STAFF CORRECTS THIS COMMENT TO REFLECT THE
 PROPOSED ZONING AND APOLOGIZES FOR THE ERROR. SHEET
 L-43 SHOULD USE 180677.3 X .4 EQUALS 72,271 SQ FT.
 REQUIRED; 49 TREES, 13 FLOWERING TREES AND 145 SHRUBS
 FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. ADDING 197 FOR MULTIFAMILY
 SHOULD RESULT IN TOTAL TREES REQUIRED OF 259.
 STAFF PRELIMINARY COUNT OF PROVIDED TREES AND PALMS
 APPEARS TO BE EQUAL TO 287 TREES, SO THE REQUIRED
 NUMBER HAS BEEN MET AND EXCEEDED.
  
  
 4. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE OF PALM
 SUBSTITUTIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES NOT EXCEEDING 35% PER
 SECTION 94-442(D).
  
  
 5. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTLY
 REQUIRE A 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE PERIMETER OF
 THE PD AND SECTION 94-443(D) REQUIRES A10 FOOT
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR
 MULTIFAMILY USES THEREFORE REQUIRING ALL PERIMETER
 BUFFERS FOR THIS POD TO BE 10 FEET IN WIDTH. THE
 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE ALL THE LANDSCAPE
 BUFFERS TO 5 FEET AND NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TREES OR
 NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTE PALMS. IF THE BUFFER CANNOT BE
 PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS REQUIRED, INDICATE
 THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED TO PROVIDE COMPARABLE
 BUFFERING ON THE SITE.
 NO CHANGE WAS PROPOSED FOR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
 ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 10 FOOT LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER FOR THE PERIMETER OF THE PD. NO JUSTIFICATION
 HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR SUCH A CHANGE.
  
  
 6. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. INDICATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER
 LOCATIONS ON THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
 SHOW THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED BUFFERS ALONG ALL
 EXTERIOR PARCEL LINES. ADD REQUIRED AND PROPOSED WIDTH
 TO BUFFER LIST AND NOTE THAT WAIVER IS REQUESTED.
  
 7. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. CORRECT ALL CALCULATIONS FOR
 THE REQUIRED TREES FOR BUFFER SEGMENTS ON THE PERIMETER
 BUFFER REQUIREMENT CHART AND LIST LINEAR FOOTAGE OF
 EACH PROPERTY LINE SEGMENT MEASURED ALONG THE
 CENTERLINE OF EACH BUFFER CONTINUOUSLY. PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY IS ONE BUFFER LENGTH, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS
 ANOTHER SECTION, WEST PROPERTY LINE, THEN SOUTH
 SECTION, THEN WEST SECTION. DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE,
 EACH BUFFER LENGTH MAY BE DESIGNATED WITH A LETTER,
 THEN CALCULATIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES CALCULATED FOR
 EACH SEGMENT CALCULATED, ROUNDING UP FOR ANY PORTION
 LEFT OF THE 30 FOOT LENGTHS.
  
 C: WEST BUFFER REQUIRES 12 TREES. D: SOUTH BUFFER
 REQUIRES 10 TREES.
 PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF TREES AND PALMS PROVIDED FOR
 EACH BUFFER SEGMENT TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT IS PROVIDED IN
 RELATION TO THE WAIVER.
  
 8. SATISFIED. PROVIDE CALCULATION FOR BUFFER ALONG
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY WITH ACCESS DRIVEWAYS TO SHOW THEY DO
 NOT EXCEED 20% INTERRUPTION FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AS
 REQUIRED BY SECTION 94-443(D)(1)A.
  
 9. SATISFIED. PROVIDE THE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE
 AREA ADJACENT TO EACH BUILDING. PERCENTAGE IS SHOWN,
 BUT LENGTH PROVIDED IS MISSING.
  
 10. SATISFIED. SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS FOR TREES REQUIRES
 3:1 RATIO FOR SABAL PALMS AND MONTGOMERY PALMS. ADD UP
 ALL TRUNKS AT 3:1 AND THEN DIVIDE BY 3 TO GET TREE
 COUNT AND ADD ROYALS AND MEDJOOLS AS 1:1 PALMS.
 RECALCULATE TREES COUNT PROVIDED.
  
  
 11. SATISFIED. MODIFY THE PLANT LIST TO ADD COLUMNS FOR
 NATIVE PLANT AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE LEVELS TO PROVIDE
 EASIER REFERENCE.
  
 12. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ADD ANY RELOCATED TREES AND
 PALMS TO THE PLANT LIST AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE
 REQUIRED TREES.
  
 REMOVE THE OFFSITE TREES FROM THE PLANT LIST.
  
 13. SATISFIED. SECTION 94-443(C)(3) REQUIRES THAT A
 MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT OF ALL TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
 BE PLANTED WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF AN OFF STREET PARKING
 AREA SHALL BE CATEGORY 1 SHADE TREES. SHOW THE
 PERCENTAGE OF CATEGORY 1 TREES PROVIDED FOR THE
 REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A
 WAIVER FOR SOME TERMINAL ISLAND TREES AND SUBSTITUTION
 OF PALMS IN SOME ISLANDS. THE LOCATIONS NEED TO BE
 CLARIFIED AND NOTED AS REQUESTING WAIVER. STAFF
 RECOMMENDS LOOKING AT SUBSTITUTION OF TRIPLE OR LARGE
 PALMS TO MEET THE TREE REQUIREMENT, THEN CALCULATE THE
 PERCENTAGE AND ADJUST WAIVER ACCORDINGLY.
  
 14. SATISFIED. PROVIDE AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE PARKING
 AREA SURFACE CALCULATIONS, PARKING SPACE AREAS AND
 LANDSCAPE AREAS PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH
 SECTIONS 94-443 (C)(3) AND (4), FOLLOWING THE AREA
 CLASSIFICATIONS AS SHOWN IN FIGURE XIV-1.
 ? PARKING SPACES SHADED AS ONE AREA, SHOW TOTAL SPACES
 TIMES 10 SQ FT PER SPACE. PROVIDE TOTAL
 ? ALL OTHER PAVED AREAS SHADED DIFFERENTLY AND TOTAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE. DIVIDE BY 100 AND MULTIPLY BY 4 SQ FT.
 PROVIDE TOTAL.
 ? TOTAL THESE 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNTS FOR THE REQUIRED
 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 ? SHOW ALL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREAS AS A DIFFERENT
 SHADE AND SHOW PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE.
  
 15. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. UPDATE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY
 LANDSCAPE CHART TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM 50 POINTS BASED
 ON THE PLANT LIST AND ITEMS THAT QUALIFY. CREDIT CANNOT
 BE TAKEN TWICE IN THE SAME CATEGORY FOR THE SAME
 PLANTS. IF TAKING 51% OR MORE NATIVE TREES PROVIDED, OF
 THE REMAINING TREES THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE 25-50% DROUGHT
 TOLERANT.
 PROVIDE EXPLANATION AND CALCULATIONS TO BACK UP POINTS
 TAKEN FOR (1), (2) AND (6)A.
  
  
 16. SATISFIED. THERE APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTS IN SEVERAL
 LOCATIONS BETWEEN TREES AND WATER AND SEWER LINES ON
 THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. ADJUST LOCATIONS OF TREES OR
 UTILITY LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH LANDSCAPING.
 HYDRANTS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND FDC CONNECTIONS
 CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS
 INTENDED FOR THE TREES.
  
 17. SATISFIED. PROVIDE LOCATIONS AND SCREENING FOR ALL
 ABOVE GROUND UTILITY VALVES, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, A/C
 UNITS, AND FPL TRANSFORMERS. THE SCREENING FOR THE FPL
 AND BACKFLOWS AT THE REAR OF BUILDING A IS INADEQUATE.
  
 18. SATISFIED. SHOW LOCATIONS OF ANY ROOT BARRIERS
 REQUIRED TO PROTECT UTILITY LINES AND PROVIDE A ROOT
 BARRIER DETAIL.
  
 19. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
 94-445 L. PLANT SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF
 PLANT MATERIAL ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT
 TOLERANT SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE
 LIST OF SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH
 FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH
 FLORIDA LANDSCAPES.
  
 PROVIDE THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF QUALIFYING DROUGHT
 TOLERANT OR NATIVE PLANTS OF THE TOTAL ADDED PLANTS
 BASED ON THE PLANT LIST.
  
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 9/23/20:
  
  
 20. THE WAIVER REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE 10 FOOT
 BUFFER REQUIREMENT ALONG PRESIDENTIAL WAY MAY BE
 MITIGATED BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL BUFFER TREES WITHIN
 THE 5 FOOT BUFFER. THERE SEEMS TO BE GAPS THAT MAY
 ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TREES.
  
 21. PROVIDE EXPLANATION OF THE 9 TREES THAT ARE NOT
 BEING PROVIDED IN THE SOUTH BUFFER TO IDENTIFY THE
 LOCATIONS AND SPECIES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED IN THE
 INTERIOR PARKING AREA. IDENTIFY IF THEY ARE IN EXCESS
 OF TREES REQUIRED BY OTHER SECTIONS AND HOW THEY
 DIRECTLY MEET THE INTENT OF THE BUFFER TREES.
  
  
  
  
 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON
 THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE
 SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.
  
Review Stop L LANDSCAPING
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-10-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By rcaranci Date 06-10-2020 Time 12:36 Rev Time 0.00
Received By rcaranci Date 06-10-2020 Time 12:36 Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-10 12:36:57FROM: RAY CARANCI, SENIOR LANDSCAPE PLANNER
 561-822-1462
 PROJECT: BANYAN CAY RPD/CPD
 JUNE 10, 2020
 FLU AMENDMENT Z20050011 MF TO CE
 REZONING TO CPD Z20050012
 MAJOR PD AMENDMENT Z20050013
 I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION, AND
 PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
  
 1. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS REGARDING THE
 TREES AND PALMS ON SITE:
 ? PROVIDE A TREE SURVEY.
 ? PROVIDE A NUMBERED TREE DISPOSITION LIST AND PLAN.
 SPECIFY EACH TREE OR PALM IF IT IS TO REMAIN, BE
 RELOCATED OR REMOVED. THERE ARE SEVERAL CONTRADICTIONS
 ON THE LIST SUBMITTED ON SHEET L-3.
 ? PROVIDE THE CANOPY DIAMETER FOR ALL TREES. ALL TREES
 REQUIRING MITIGATION THAT ARE 20 FEET OR MORE IN TREE
 CANOPY DIAMETER ARE THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALL
 LESS THAN 20 FEET ARE BY CATEGORY.
 ? PROVIDE A COLUMN FOR THE TREE OR PALM CATEGORY.
 ? PROVIDE THE CONDITION FOR ALL TREES AND PALMS.
 ? PROVIDE CANOPY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR MITIGATION DUE FOR
 ANY TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL IN A SEPARATE COLUMN AND
 PROVIDE TOTAL MITIGATION DUE.
 ? INCLUDE A CHART FOR TREE MITIGATION PROVIDED BASED ON
 THE PLANT LIST AND PROVIDE THE TOTAL FOR THE SQUARE
 FOOTAGE.
  
 2. SECTION 94-448 (D)(3) REQUIRES NATIVE TREES AND
 PALMS IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE PRESERVED ON SITE OR
 RELOCATED. 17 LIVE OAK TREES, ROYAL AND SABAL PALMS ARE
 LISTED TO BE REMOVED. PROVIDE THE METHOD OF
 DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT, AND THE
 SOURCE OF THE DETERMINATION FOR RELOCATION.
  
  
 3. SHOW THE CALCULATIONS FOR MINIMUM SHADE TREE AND
 FLOWERING TREE REQUIREMENTS (MISSING) PER SECTION
 94-443(C)(2)B. BASED ON OPEN SPACE AND ADD REQUIRED ONE
 TREE PER UNIT (197) TO ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM TREES
 REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. OPEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR
 RESIDENTIAL ZONING INCLUDES SETBACKS, PARKING,
 SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND BUILDING PERIMETER
 PLANTINGS. A SEPARATE OPEN SPACE PLAN MAY BE SUBMITTED
 SHOWING THE OPEN SPACE AREAS COUNTED. ONCE CORRECTED
 FOR THE ADDITION OF FLOWERING TREES AND ONE TREE PER
 UNIT REQUIREMENT, ADJUST ALL CALCULATIONS.
  
 4. PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE OF PALM SUBSTITUTIONS FOR
 REQUIRED TREES NOT EXCEEDING 35% PER SECTION 94-442(D).
  
  
 5. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTLY REQUIRE A 10 FOOT
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE PERIMETER OF THE PD AND SECTION
 94-443(D) REQUIRES A10 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT
 TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR MULTIFAMILY USES THEREFORE
 REQUIRING ALL PERIMETER BUFFERS FOR THIS POD TO BE 10
 FEET IN WIDTH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE
 ALL THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO 5 FEET AND NOT PROVIDE THE
 REQUIRED TREES OR NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTE PALMS. IF THE
 BUFFER CANNOT BE PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AS
 REQUIRED, INDICATE THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED TO
 PROVIDE COMPARABLE BUFFERING ON THE SITE.
  
 6. INDICATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER LOCATIONS ON THE SITE
 PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
  
 7. CORRECT ALL CALCULATIONS FOR THE REQUIRED TREES FOR
 BUFFER SEGMENTS ON THE PERIMETER BUFFER REQUIREMENT
 CHART AND LIST LINEAR FOOTAGE OF EACH PROPERTY LINE
 SEGMENT MEASURED ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF EACH BUFFER
 CONTINUOUSLY. PRESIDENTIAL WAY IS ONE BUFFER LENGTH,
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS ANOTHER SECTION, WEST PROPERTY
 LINE, THEN SOUTH SECTION, THEN WEST SECTION. DUE TO THE
 IRREGULAR SHAPE, EACH BUFFER LENGTH MAY BE DESIGNATED
 WITH A LETTER, THEN CALCULATIONS FOR REQUIRED TREES
 CALCULATED FOR EACH SEGMENT CALCULATED, ROUNDING UP FOR
 ANY PORTION LEFT OF THE 30 FOOT LENGTHS.
  
 8. PROVIDE CALCULATION FOR BUFFER ALONG PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY WITH ACCESS DRIVEWAYS TO SHOW THEY DO NOT EXCEED
 20% INTERRUPTION FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS AS REQUIRED BY
 SECTION 94-443(D)(1)A.
  
 9. PROVIDE THE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA
 ADJACENT TO EACH BUILDING. PERCENTAGE IS SHOWN, BUT
 LENGTH PROVIDED IS MISSING.
  
 10. SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS FOR TREES REQUIRES 3:1 RATIO
 FOR SABAL PALMS AND MONTGOMERY PALMS. ADD UP ALL TRUNKS
 AT 3:1 AND THEN DIVIDE BY 3 TO GET TREE COUNT AND ADD
 ROYALS AND MEDJOOLS AS 1:1 PALMS. RECALCULATE TREES
 COUNT PROVIDED.
  
  
 11. MODIFY THE PLANT LIST TO ADD COLUMNS FOR NATIVE
 PLANT AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE LEVELS TO PROVIDE EASIER
 REFERENCE.
  
 12. ADD ANY RELOCATED TREES AND PALMS TO THE PLANT LIST
 AND COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED TREES.
  
 13. SECTION 94-443(C)(3) REQUIRES THAT A MINIMUM OF 75
 PERCENT OF ALL TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED
 WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF AN OFF STREET PARKING AREA SHALL
 BE CATEGORY 1 SHADE TREES. SHOW THE PERCENTAGE OF
 CATEGORY 1 TREES PROVIDED FOR THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
 AREAS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER FOR SOME
 TERMINAL ISLAND TREES AND SUBSTITUTION OF PALMS IN SOME
 ISLANDS. THE LOCATIONS NEED TO BE CLARIFIED AND NOTED
 AS REQUESTING WAIVER. STAFF RECOMMENDS LOOKING AT
 SUBSTITUTION OF TRIPLE OR LARGE PALMS TO MEET THE TREE
 REQUIREMENT, THEN CALCULATE THE PERCENTAGE AND ADJUST
 WAIVER ACCORDINGLY.
  
 14. PROVIDE AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THE PARKING AREA SURFACE
 CALCULATIONS, PARKING SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPE AREAS
 PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 94-443
 (C)(3) AND (4), FOLLOWING THE AREA CLASSIFICATIONS AS
 SHOWN IN FIGURE XIV-1.
 ? PARKING SPACES SHADED AS ONE AREA, SHOW TOTAL SPACES
 TIMES 10 SQ FT PER SPACE. PROVIDE TOTAL
 ? ALL OTHER PAVED AREAS SHADED DIFFERENTLY AND TOTAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE. DIVIDE BY 100 AND MULTIPLY BY 4 SQ FT.
 PROVIDE TOTAL.
 ? TOTAL THESE 2 SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNTS FOR THE REQUIRED
 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
 ? SHOW ALL INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREAS AS A DIFFERENT
 SHADE AND SHOW PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE.
  
 15. UPDATE THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE CHART TO
 PROVIDE THE MINIMUM 50 POINTS BASED ON THE PLANT LIST
 AND ITEMS THAT QUALIFY. CREDIT CANNOT BE TAKEN TWICE IN
 THE SAME CATEGORY FOR THE SAME PLANTS. IF TAKING 51% OR
 MORE NATIVE TREES PROVIDED, OF THE REMAINING TREES THE
 MAXIMUM WOULD BE 25-50% DROUGHT TOLERANT.
  
  
 16. THERE APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTS IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS
 BETWEEN TREES AND WATER AND SEWER LINES ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLAN. ADJUST LOCATIONS OF TREES OR UTILITY
 LINES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH LANDSCAPING. HYDRANTS,
 BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND FDC CONNECTIONS CANNOT INFRINGE
 ON THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS INTENDED FOR THE TREES.
 .
 17. PROVIDE LOCATIONS AND SCREENING FOR ALL ABOVE
 GROUND UTILITY VALVES, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, A/C UNITS,
 AND FPL TRANSFORMERS. THE SCREENING FOR THE FPL AND
 BACKFLOWS AT THE REAR OF BUILDING A IS INADEQUATE.
  
 18. SHOW LOCATIONS OF ANY ROOT BARRIERS REQUIRED TO
 PROTECT UTILITY LINES AND PROVIDE A ROOT BARRIER
 DETAIL.
  
 19. SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 94-445 L. PLANT
 SPECIES. A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF PLANT MATERIAL
 ADDED SHALL BE FLORIDA NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT
 SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE CITY LIST OR THE LIST OF
 SPECIES IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF SOUTH FLORIDA
 WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATERWISE SOUTH FLORIDA
 LANDSCAPES.
  
  
 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 1. PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF ANY TREES ON
 THE PROPERTY, A TREE ALTERATION PERMIT SHALL BE
 SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION.
  
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 1 Status   Date   Cont ID  
Sent By   Date   Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
***NONE***
Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No 4 Status P Date 05-06-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 05-06-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 05-06-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-06 15:20:17NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
  
 MATT HEJAZI
 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
 [email protected]
Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-05-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 04-05-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 04-05-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-05 12:31:43PLEASE PROVIDE:
 1- REVISED SITE PLAN, SHEET SP-1, TO REFLECT THE LATEST
 REVISION OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH EXCEPTION OF STOP
 BAR AND GATES.
 2- COMPACTORS` CONTAINER TYPE (I.E. FRONT LOADER OR
 REAR LOADER).
  
 MATT HEJAZI
 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
 [email protected]
 561-822-2045
Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No 2 Status F Date 08-27-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 08-27-2020 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 08-27-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-08-27 13:45:37 
  
 1- PROVIDE REVISED SITE PLAN, SHEET SP-8, TO REFLECT
 THE CURRENT REVISION OF CITY`S DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE
 SPECIFICATION GC-7.
 2- PROVIDE REVISED THE BULK TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL,
 SHEET SP-9, TO REMOVE THE STOP BAR.
 3- THE COMPACTORS` CONTAINERS SHOULD BE CONFIGURED FOR
 FRONT-LOAD SANITATION COLLECTION VEHICLE IN ORDER FOR
 THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THEM.
  
 MATT HEJAZI
 [email protected]
 561-822-2045
Review Stop PW PUBLIC WORKS
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-04-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 06-04-2020 Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date 06-04-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-04 18:42:12 
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE:
 1- DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND TRASH ROOM SPEC. FOR BOTH
 BUILDINGS (A & B).
 2- AUTO TURN FOR THE SANITATION SERVICE, FRONT LOADER
 TRUCK WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECS:
 - TRUCK LENGTH: 35 FT
 - TRUCK WIDTH: 11 FT
 - TURNING RADIUS:
 - SAE TURNING RADIUS: 32.5 FT
 - CURB-TO-CURB DIAMETER: 74 FT
 - WALL-TO-WALL DIAMETER: 86.3 FT
 3- DESIGNATED LOCATION FOR THE BULK ITEM PICK UP AND
 RECYCLING CONTAINERS
  
 MATT HEJAZI
 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
 [email protected]
 561-822-2045
  
  
Review Stop STORM STORMWATER
Rev No 4 Status F Date 05-08-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By tward Date 05-08-2021 Time 23:18 Rev Time 0.00
Received By tward Date 05-08-2021 Time 23:20 Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-08 23:20:22THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL REVIEW. CONSTRUCTION LEVEL
 DETAILS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND THE POLLUTION
 PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE
 ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT
 APPLICATION PROCESSES.
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SITE
 PLAN APPROVAL:
  
 1. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND APPROVAL OF SWALE MAY BE
 NEEDED FOR SWALE CONSTRUCTION WEST OF THE WEST PROPERTY
 LINE AS DEPICTED ON TYPICAL SECTION B-B.
  
 2. WHERE DOES THE SWALE DEPICTED IN SECTION B-B DRAIN
 TO?
  
 3. WILL SOUTH DRIVEWAY PREVENT POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF THE
 SWALE NORTH OF THE DRIVEWAY FROM REACHING THE EXISTING
 STORM INLET?
  
 4. THE WEST MITERED END SECTION OF THE PROPOSED NORTH
 DRIVEWAY CULVERT APPEARS TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
 CART/PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK. THE MES? ARE DRAWN BACKWARDS.
  
 5. PROVIDE CROSS SECTIONS OF EACH DRIVEWAY FROM EDGE OF
 ROAD PAVEMENT TO 5 FEET BEYOND THE HIGHPOINT OF THE
 DRIVEWAY OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
  
 6. WILL THE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS CONTINUE THROUGH THE
 DRIVEWAYS?
  
 7. OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ROAD
 RIGHT OF WAY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO INSTALL DRAINAGE
 STRUCTURES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND CONNECT TO THE ROAD
 DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
  
 8. IDENTIFY WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE
 PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AND PIPES IN THE ROAD RIGHT
 OF WAY. THIS INCLUDES THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CULVERT AND
 THE PIPE CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING STORM INLET.
  
 9. INDICATE IF A PERIMETER BERM WILL BE REQUIRED TO
 CONTAIN STORMWATER RUNOFF UP TO THE 25-YEAR 3-DAY STORM
 EVENT.
  
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO
 ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION INCLUDING
 BUILDING PERMITS AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
  
 1. AN ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL APPLICATION MAY
 BE REQUIRED FROM THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
  
 2. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SFWMD ERP MODIFICATION WITH
 THE ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 3. EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED
 WITH THE ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 4. DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE
 ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 TRACY WARD, PE
 SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
 561-494-1120 (O)
 561-351-0510 (M)
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop STORM STORMWATER
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-08-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By tward Date 04-08-2021 Time 10:25 Rev Time 0.00
Received By tward Date 04-08-2021 Time 10:27 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-08 10:27:32A NEW SITE PLAN IS BEING PRESENTED FOR THIS
 DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL REVIEW.
 CONSTRUCTION LEVEL DETAILS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND THE
 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF
 THE ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND BUILDING
 PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSES.
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SITE
 PLAN APPROVAL:
  
 1. LIMITED DESIGN INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON THE
 CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLANS.
  
 2. CAN THE PROPOSED 2? HIGH RETAINING WALL AT THE SW
 CORNER OF THE SITE BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE 20? DRAINAGE
 EASEMENT?
  
 3. UPDATE THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 4. ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS USE THE NAVD-NGVD
 CONVERSION FACTOR PROVIDED ON THE SURVEY.
  
 5. PROVIDE A SWALE BETWEEN THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AND
 THE BACK OF CURB TO PREVENT DIRECT STORMWATER RUNOFF
 FROM THE PROPERTY. ALSO SHOW A SWALE BETWEEN THE FRONT
 OF SIDEWALK AND EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
 SHOW THE SWALES ON TYPICAL SECTION A-A.
  
 6. WHY IS THE SIDEWALK ALONG PRESIDENTIAL WAY BEING
 RELOCATED?
  
 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAY IS A PRIVATE ROAD, OWNED BY
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY ASSN INC. ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY
 PROPERTY APPRAISER?S WEBSITE. PERMISSION MAY BE NEEDED
 FROM THE OWNER FOR WORK WITHIN THE ROADWAY PARCEL.
  
 8. THE OVERALL MASTER DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS MAINTAINED BY
 BANYAN CAY DEVELOPMENT LLC ACCORDING TO SFWMD PERMIT
 50-07830-P (APPL. 161104-19). PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE
 ENTITY INDICATING ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE STORMWATER
 RUNOFF FROM THIS PROJECT INTO THE MASTER DRAINAGE
 SYSTEM.
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO
 ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION INCLUDING
 BUILDING PERMITS AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
  
 1. AN ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL APPLICATION MAY
 BE REQUIRED FROM THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
  
 2. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SFWMD ERP MODIFICATION WITH
 THE ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 3. EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED
 WITH THE ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 4. DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE
 ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 TRACY WARD, PE
 SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
 561-494-1120 (O)
 561-351-0510 (M)
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop STORM STORMWATER
Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-21-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By tward Date 09-21-2020 Time 23:48 Rev Time 0.00
Received By tward Date 09-21-2020 Time 23:58 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-21 23:58:05THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE
 8/26/2020 SUBMITTAL PACKAGE:
  
 1. CROSS SECTION A-A INDICATES THE RETAINING WALL AT
 THE PROPERTY LINE WILL VARY FROM 0' TO 8' IN HEIGHT
 ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE. THE CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLAN
 DOES NOT PROVIDE A PROPOSED GRADING PLAN TO COMFIRM THE
 NEED FOR THE RETAINING WALL.
  
 2. IF THE RETAINIANGE WALL IS NEEDED, IT SHALL BE
 DESIGNED SO AS TO NOT ENCROACH ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY
 INCLUDING ANY FOOTER.
  
 3. STAFF IS CONCERED THERE MAY BE 8 FEET OF FILL ADDED
 IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
  
 TRACY WARD, PE
 SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
 561-494-1120 (O)
 561-351-0510 (M)
 [email protected]
Review Stop STORM STORMWATER
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-11-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By tward Date 06-11-2020 Time 10:08 Rev Time 0.00
Received By tward Date 06-11-2020 Time 10:12 Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-11 10:12:15THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL REVIEW. CONSTRUCTION LEVEL
 DETAILS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND THE POLLUTION
 PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE
 ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT
 APPLICATION PROCESSES.
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO SITE
 PLAN APPROVAL:
  
 1. DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET SFWMD ERP
 REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND PEAK FLOW
 ATTENUATION. CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLAN SHOWS
 UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBERS, WHICH STAFF SUPPORTS IN
 LIEU OF EXFILTRATION TRENCHES.
  
 2. LABEL THE ROADWAY ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS.
  
 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAY IS A PRIVATE ROAD, OWNED BY
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY ASSN INC. ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY
 PROPERTY APPRAISER?S WEBSITE. PERMISSION MAY BE NEEDED
 FROM THE OWNER FOR WORK WITHIN THE ROADWAY PARCEL.
  
 4. THE OVERALL MASTER DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS MAINTAINED BY
 BANYAN CAY DEVELOPMENT LLC ACCORDING TO SFWMD PERMIT
 50-07830-P (APPL. 161104-19). PROVIDE A LETTER FROM THE
 ENTITY INDICATING ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE STORMWATER
 RUNOFF FROM THIS PROJECT INTO THE MASTER DRAINAGE
 SYSTEM.
  
 5. CONSIDER PROVIDING AN OUTFALL DIRECTLY INTO THE GOLF
 COURSE LAKE INSTEAD OF CONNECTING TO THE ROADWAY CATCH
 BASIN INLET. A DRAINAGE EASEMENT WILL LIKELY BE NEEDED
 IN EITHER DESIGN.
  
 6. THE BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED BY GEOPOINT SURVEYING,
 INC. PROVIDES A CONVERSION FACTOR OF 1.539 FEET BETWEEN
 NAVD1988 AND NGVD1929 VERTICAL DATUMS. THE CONCEPTUAL
 ENGINEERING PLANS PROVIDES A CONVERSION FACTOR OF 1.47
 FEET. PLEASE RECTIFY THIS DISCREPANCY.
  
 7. PROVIDE TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS FOR ALL PROPERTY
 LINES BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND BACK OF SIDEWALK OR
 BUILDING FACE. SHOW HOW THE PROJECT WILL TIE INTO THE
 EXISTING GRADE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. LABEL ROAD RIGHT
 OF WAY, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND ANY EASEMENTS ON THE
 CROSS SECTIONS.
  
  
  
 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO
 ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION INCLUDING
 BUILDING PERMITS AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
  
 1. AN ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL APPLICATION MAY
 BE REQUIRED FROM THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
  
 2. EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED
 WITH THE ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION.
  
 3. PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SFWMD ERP MODIFICATION PRIOR
 TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION.
  
 TRACY WARD, PE
 SENIOR STORMWATER ENGINEER
 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
 561-494-1120
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING
Rev No 4 Status P Date 05-11-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By vnoel Date 05-11-2021 Time 08:16 Rev Time 0.00
Received By vnoel Date   Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-11 08:16:29PASSED WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
  
 1. NEED GRANT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO POA FOR 20' DE
 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
 2. CITY WILL FILE DISCLAIMER TO 20' DE AFTER GRANT OF
 DE TO POA.
Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-07-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By vnoel Date 04-07-2021 Time 10:32 Rev Time 0.00
Received By vnoel Date 04-07-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-07 10:36:531. PREVIOUS COMMENTS STILL PERTAIN FROM 9/2/2020
 REVIEW..
 2. WHAT IS STATUS OF HOA ASSUMING THE DRAINAGE
 EASEMENT? WILL AFFECT PROPOSED RETAINING WALL AND
 LANDSCAPING.
 3. SANITARY TIE-IN NOT SHOWN. ON-SITE SANITARY WILL BE
 PRIVATE. REMOVE UE TO CITY.
 4. NOT ALL CORNERS SHOWN ON SURVEY OR LABELED AS TO
 FOUND OR SET.
  
Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING
Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-02-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By vnoel Date 09-02-2020 Time 11:54 Rev Time 0.00
Received By vnoel Date 09-02-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-02 12:09:421. 8" WATER MAIN APPEARS TO END AT LABEL OF
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
 2. NO TIE-IN TO EXISTING WATER MAIN SHOWN.
 3. NEED ENLARGEMENT OF METER AND BACK-FLOW AREA.
 4. PLAN NEEDS TO BE SPLIT INTO SEPARATE PAVING AND
 GRADING; WATER AND SEWER.
 5. IF CITY ABANDONS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, A
 REPLACEMENT DE WILL NEED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE POA.
Review Stop SURVEY SURVEYING
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-10-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By vnoel Date 06-10-2020 Time 07:46 Rev Time  
Received By vnoel Date 06-10-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-10 07:46:291. NO REPLAT NECESSARY, PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY
 PLATTED.
 2. EXISTING 8" WM NOT CLEARLY SHOWN ON ENG. PLAN.
 3. ANY EXISTING SERVICES TO BE VACATED NEED CUT BACK TO
 MAIN.
 4. UTILITIES DOES NOT WANT ADDITIONAL WATER LINES.
 EITHER MASTER METER OR PROVIDE SERVICES OFF OF
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
 5. ONSITE SANITARY TO BE PRIVATE. INSTALL MANHOLE AT
 RIGHT-OF-WAY AS POINT OF CONNECTION.
 6. WHERE IS THE GOLF CART PATH TO BE RELOCATED?
 7. CITY MAY WISH TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF 20' DE AS
 ROADWAY DRAINAGE IS PRIVATE. LOW RETAINING WALL IN DE
 MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.
Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No 4 Status P Date 05-03-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 05-03-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 05-03-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-03 18:43:36PASSED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED
 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
  
 1) AGREED TDM STRATEGIES NEED TO BE FURTHER ELABORATED
 AND AN ANNUAL REPORT PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST 5 YEARS OF
 OPERATION/IMPLEMENTATION
 2) PER THE BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM, PROVIDE A TIMELINE
 AND DETAILS PERTAINING NUMBER OF BIKES,
 PICK-UP/DROP-OFF/STORAGE LOCATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
 3) PER THE RIDESHARING, SHOWCASE AND LABEL THE
 DEDICATED PARKING SPACES ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN
 4) PER THE 4 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION,
 SHOWCASE AND LABEL THE DEDICATED SPACES ON THE FINAL
 SITE PLAN
  
 VALERIO ORICCHIO
 CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
 561-494-1092
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No 3 Status P Date 04-26-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 04-26-2021 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 04-26-2021 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-26 17:58:42CONDITIONS:
  
 1) PROPOSED TDM STRATEGIES NEED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND
 ACCEPTED BY DEVELOPER.
  
 VALERIO ORICCHIO
 CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
 561-494-1092
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No 2 Status P Date 09-18-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 09-18-2020 Time   Rev Time 0.00
Received By   Date 09-18-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-18 16:47:41NO FURTHER COMMENTS
  
 CONDITIONS:
  
 1) PROPOSED TDM STRATEGIES NEED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND
 ACCEPTED BY DEVELOPER.
  
 VALERIO ORICCHIO
 CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
 561-494-1092
 [email protected]
  
Review Stop TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-11-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By   Date 06-11-2020 Time   Rev Time  
Received By   Date 06-11-2020 Time   Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-11 14:04:29TRAFFIC STATEMENT COMMENTS:
 1. PER ARTICLE 12 CHAPTER I SECTION 3: TRAFFIC IMPACT
 STUDIES FOR MIXED USE PROJECTS MUST PROVIDE SEPARATE
 DISTRIBUTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND
 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS
 2. PROVIDE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 PER COUNTY'S METHODOLOGY, INCLUDING TEST 2 ANALYSIS.
 3. PROVIDE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE, QUEUING ANALYSIS AND
 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS AT PRESIDENTIAL WAY (NORTH) AND
 ALL DEVELOPMENT DRIVEWAYS WITH CONGRESS AVENUE PER
 DESIGN GUIDELINE SECTION XII.
 4. PROPOSE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
 MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
 A. NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS MENTIONED IN THE REDUCED PARKING
 STATEMENT, AND NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN ORDER
 TO VALIDATE THE PARKING WAIVER REQUEST
 5. THE LUPA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS NEEDS REVISION AS:
 A. RADIUS OF DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCE SHALL BE 5 MILES
 B. PER TABLE 4 PROJECT IMPACT WILL BE SIGNIFICANT AND
 LOS D CAPACITY IS NOT MET UNDER 2040 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
  
 SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
 1. PROVIDE NORTH GATE RELOCATION PLAN, AS MENTIONED IN
 THE TRAFFIC STUDY
 2. FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, INNOVATIVE ELEMENTS SHOULD
 BE USED TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPORTATION MODES OTHER THAN
 SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES. PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT
 INNOVATIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE USED IN THE PROPOSED
 DEVELOPMENT.
 3. IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE REQUIREMENT OF NEW URBANISM IS
 MET AS PART OF THE PARKING WAIVER. THE CLOSEST TRANSIT
 STOP IS MORE THAN 0.5 MILES AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED
 DEVELOPMENT; NO BIKE LANES ARE PROVIDED ON PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY; ONLY 4-FOOT SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED PER THE DESIGN
 GUIDELINES WHICH IS THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO MEET ADA
 REQUIREMENT; SHADE TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED
 WHICH FURTHER DISCOURAGES PEDESTRIANS; THE CITY TROLLEY
 WILL NO LONGER SERVE THE PALM BEACH OUTLETS.
 4. PLEASE CLARIFY IF RIDESHARING VEHICLES (E.G. LYFT,
 UBER) ARE ALLOWED TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT SINCE IT IS
 LOCATED IN A GATED COMMUNITY.
 5. PROVIDE 2-FOOT OVERHANG IN VEHICULAR PARKING SPACES,
 INDICATE AND DIMENSION SUCH FEATURE ON SITE PLANS, IF
 APPLICABLE.
 6. PER THE MANEUVERABILITY PLAN, CARS BACKING UP APPEAR
 TO ENCROACH PARKING SPACES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
 AISLE WHEN THE AISLE WIDTH IS REDUCED TO 22 FEET.
 PLEASE PROVIDE 24-FOOT PARKING AISLE.
 7. PROVIDE DEDICATED PULL-IN AREA EQUIVALENT TO ONE
 PARKING SPACE FOR TURNAROUND AT THE TERMINUS OF A
 DEAD-END AISLE NEAR THE POOL.
  
 CONDITION:
 1. TBD
  
  
  
  
 VALERIO ORICCHIO
 CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
 561-494-1092
 [email protected]
Review Stop Z ZONING
Rev No 4 Status F Date 05-13-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By jroach Date 05-13-2021 Time 11:32 Rev Time 0.00
Received By jroach Date 05-13-2021 Time 11:32 Sent To  
Notes
2021-05-13 11:32:03PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 05.13.2021
 PROJECT NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013
 CASE NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ ONGOING ] - PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP
 SEPARATELY WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 2. [ ONGOING ] - STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH
 EXTENDING THE COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE
 (FLU) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION
 ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED
 FROM THE BANYAN CAY COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS),
 PROJECTS WITHIN THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE
 FLU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE
 TO BE PART OF A MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE
 USES AND PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE
 CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE USES, ETC.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES
 NOT SHOW ANYTHING WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS
 WEST OF CONGRESS FALL WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS?
  
 4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS HAVE THE
 FOLLOWING ISSUES:
  
 4.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN
 ENCROACHING INTO THE SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT.
  
 4.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING
 OVER THE CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE.
  
 4.3. [ SATISFIED ] - NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
 SHOW THE TRUCK EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH.
  
 4.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR
 TRUCK ARE NOT SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED.
  
 4.5. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE
 COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE
 PROPERTY. DOES THEIR ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH
 AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE
 DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN?
  
 4.5.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS SHOW
 THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ENTERING LANDS OF THE PRESIDENTS AT
 THEIR NORTH GATE, TRAVELING SOUTH ALONG PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY, ENTERING THE SITE AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, EXITING
 AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE, AND THEN TRAVELING NORTH ON
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY TO THE NORTH GATE. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT
 THE ROUTE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S TRUCK MATCHES WHAT IS
 BEING SHOWN AND THAT IT DOES NOT ENTER LANDS OF THE
 PRESIDENTS FROM THE SOUTH GATE.
  
 4.5.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE PLANS STILL SHOW THE TRUCK
 ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE NORTH PWA GATE. PLEASE
 CONFIRM THAT THIS ROUTE ACCURATELY MATCHES THAT WHICH
 WILL BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S CREWS AND THAT NO OTHER
 PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH WILL BE SERVICED, NECESSITATING
 A DIFFERENT ROUTE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN.
  
 4.6. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION THAT
 THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE TRUCK
 ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN.
  
 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM:
  
 5.1. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
  
 5.1.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] ? UPDATED FPU LETTER HAS NOT
 BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 5.2. [ SATISFIED ] - CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
  
 5.3. [ SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
  
 5.3.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM FLORIDA POWER AND
 LIGHT INDICATES THAT LANDSCAPING IS ENCROACHING INTO
 THEIR EASEMENTS. WHAT PLANS ARE BEING MADE TO ADDRESS
 THIS ISSUE? IS THE EASEMENT BEING ABANDONED/RELOCATED?
 IS FPL GOING TO CONSENT TO THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
 EASEMENT?
  
 5.3.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] ? THE LETTER FROM FPL DOESN?T
 PROVIDE THE USUAL LANGUAGE WHICH STATE THAT THE PROJECT
 DOESN?T ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE
 INTERFERE WITH THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
  
 5.4. [ SATISFIED ] - COMCAST
  
 5.4.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM COMCAST IS FOR
 THE WRONG ADDRESS. ADDITIONALLY, IT SPEAKS TO THE
 ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS; PLEASE CLARIFY.
  
 5.4.2 [ SATISFIED ] ? UPDATED COMCAST LETTER HAS NOT
 BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 5.5. [ NOT SATISFIED ] ? UPDATED AT&T LETTER HAS NOT
 BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY:
  
 7.1. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE
 LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT
 PARCEL THAT IS BEING CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO
 ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT
 ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED.
  
 7.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY USE IS
 MID-RIDE CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE
 HIGHEST TRAFFIC GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT,
 WHATEVER CATEGORY GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD
 BE USED AS THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE
 REGARDING THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE
 PERMITTED.
  
 7.2.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE RESPONSES INDICATE THAT THE
 MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY IS THE MAXIMUM THAT ?CAN BE
 ACCOMMODATED? ON THE PROPERTY; THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 SHOULD BE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY
 THE FLU, NOT WHAT IS ?PROPOSED? OR WHAT CAN BE
 ?ACCOMMODATED?.
  
 7.2.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] ? NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED, AND
 THE STUDY IS STILL UTILIZING MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY
 BECAUSE IT IS WHAT ?CAN BE ACCOMMODATED?.
  
 7.3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY
 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IS INCORRECT. THE CURRENT
 MF FLU DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH
 WOULD ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132.
  
 7.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY
 (ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477
 ACRES.
  
 7.5. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514
 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE
 NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE
 BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CHANGING.
  
 7.6 [ SATISFIED ] - THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE
 FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE BASED ON THE
 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED FLU, NOT
 THE ACTUAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
  
 7.7 [ SATISFIED ] ? WHY WAS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
 REMOVED FROM THE ?PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE ? MAXIMUM
 POTENTIAL? CALCULATION?
  
 7.8 [ NEW COMMENT ] - STAFF SUPPORTS RESTRICTING THE
 TRIPS THAT CAN BE GENERATED ON THE SITE, BUT IT IS OUR
 POSITION THAT THE RESTRICTION NEEDS TO BE MORE IN-LINE
 WITH THE TRIP GENERATION OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT. AS
 PROPOSED, THE RESTRICTION WOULD BE MORE THEN 300% OF
 WHAT WILL ACTUALLY BE GENERATED.
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES
 THAT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS
 ATTACHED, BUT NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD
 APPLICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT
 TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED
 BY THE CITY AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO
 DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION
 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 9. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
 THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 9.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH
 WHAT WAS INCLUDED WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU
 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES
 ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 9.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN
 WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL
 WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC TO
 A CERTAIN POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 REGARDING THE REQUESTED PARKING WAVIER:
  
 10.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO COMPLY WITH SEC.
 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY MEETING THREE (3)
 OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE
 BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE
 SUPPORTING INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS
 BEEN PROVIDED, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE
 CRITERIA ARE BEING MET.
  
 10.1.1. [ ONGOING ] - WHILE JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN
 PROVIDED FOR THREE (3) OF THE CRITERIA, STAFF DOES NOT
 AGREE THAT SOME OF THE POINTS MADE CONSTITUTE NEW
 URBANISM.
  
 10.1.1.1. [ ONGOING ] ? STAFF IS STILL REVIEWING THE
 PROPOSED PARKING WAIVER AND HAS NOT DETERMINED SUPPORT
 OF SUCH REQUEST.
  
 10.2 [ SATISFIED ] ? THE PARKING CALCULATIONS SHOWN IN
 THE TABLE ON PAGE 14 OF THE JUSTIFICATION DO NOT MATCH
 THE SITE PLAN, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER
 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
  
 10.2. [ SATISFIED ] - WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR
 PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND
 AND ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
  
 11. [ SATISFIED ] - AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PBAS
 WITHIN BANYAN CAY, THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND
 LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN
 CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES
 TO THE EXISTING SHEETS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO
 ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 11.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBERS HAVE
 NOT BEEN UPDATED, THEY INDICATE SHEET # ?OF 8? BUT
 THERE ARE NOW 9 SHEETS.
  
 11.2 [ SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE
 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY NOT SHOWN ON THE COVER, SP-2,
 SP-5, ETC.?
  
 12. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS
 REGARDING THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM
 BEACH COUNTY:
  
 12.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER STATES THAT
 MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE
 PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY,
 IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NORTH GATE IS FOR
 EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL TRAFFIC
 STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC. PROPERTY REFLECT
 THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS.
  
 12.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE PLAN FOR RELATION OF THE
 NORTH ENTRY GATE DOES NOT REFLECT THE 300 FOOT SETBACK
 FROM CONGRESS AVENUE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC
 CONCURRENCY APPROVAL.
  
 12.1.2 [ SATISFIED ] - NOTHING WAS PROVIDED FROM THE
 PWA INDICATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
 IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
  
 13. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE
 CONFIRMATION FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S
 ASSOCIATION INDICATING THEIR APPROVAL OF THE
 IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 13.1 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - AS THE PROPOSED
 DEVELOPMENT IS RELIANT UPON, AND REQUIRED TO PROVIDE,
 THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVAL FROM THE
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING.
  
 13.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - THE LETTER FROM THE PWA
 INDICATES THAT THE GATE WILL BE STAFFED DURING
 CONSTRUCTION HOURS; WHAT ABOUT AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS
 COMPLETE? WILL THE GATEHOUSE BE STAFFED? IF THE GATE
 WILL NOT BE STAFFED UPON COPMLETION OF CONSTRUCTION,
 THE PROPOSED PLANS FOR PRESIDENTIAL WAY DO NOT INDICATE
 THE PROVISION FOR A CALL BOX, ETC.
  
 14. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
 ADJACENT TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE
 THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
 PARKING?
  
 15. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - ON THE SITE PLAN, IT
 APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE
 SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT
 PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN SHALL FALL WITHIN THE
 DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE AND BE LOCATED IN
 SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON THE ABILITY FOR
 CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED
 SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN AND THE
 STRIPING.
  
 15.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE DETAIL PROVIDED
 SHOWS THE PARKING SPACES UNDER THE BUILDING BEING
 SINGLE-STRIPED. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS, ALL
 PARKING SHALL BE DOUBLE-STRIPED. PLEASE ADJUST THE
 DETAIL ACCORDINGLY.
  
 16. [ SATISFIED ] - BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE
 PROVIDED AT THE ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS ENSURING
 THAT THEY ARE VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC.
  
 16.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW
 GUESTS ARRIVING TO BUILDING B WILL KNOW THAT THE
 BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING, PAST
 THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE LOBBY?
  
 17. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE
 REAR SETBACK FOR BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING
 THE MINIMUM SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT
 BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK.
 THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER
 TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE
 SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH END OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 19. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SPECIFIC INFORMATION
 NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE WAIVER REQUESTS:
  
 19.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BEGINNING OF THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE
 WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE? LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT
 IT APPEARS THAT THESE WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO
 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PLAN. IF THEY ARE
 LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN
 (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.).
  
 19.2. [ ONGOING ] - JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
 HOW THE IMPACT OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING MITIGATED.
  
 19.2.1 [ ONGOING ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION
 CONSTITUTES SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER (ESPECIALLY REGARDING
 LANDSCAPING).
  
 19.3. [ SATISFIED ] - SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING
 DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS;
 EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A
 BASIS FOR A WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL
 MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE
 ARGUMENTS HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT.
  
 21. [ ONGOING ] - THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES
 THAT INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BEING USED TO
 FOSTER INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE EXPAND ON THIS AND
 PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT. THE PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WAIVERS ARE BEING
 REQUESTED, IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH INNOVATIVE LAND
 PLANNING TECHNIQUES.
  
 21.1 [ ONGOING ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONSE
 CONSTITUTES INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AS REQUIRED BY THE
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
  
 22. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH
 THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE
 FOLLOWING:
  
 22.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE PROVISION OF
 BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY SURFACE
 PARKING, ESPECIALLY BUILDING B WITH THE PROVISION OF
 PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. BUILDING B INCLUDES
 EXPOSED PARKING ALONG THE FRONT FACADE THAT RESULTS IN
 NO LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT
 COULD ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
  
 22.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE
 PROPOSED SCREENING OF THE PARKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR
 (GARAGE DOORS, PRIVACY SCREEN, ETC.) WORK IN CONNECTION
 WITH THE BUILDING ABOVE. THE PLANS SHOW THE PARKING
 STRIPING EXTENDING OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE OF THE
 UPPER FLOORS BUT THAT PRIVACY SCREEN OR GARAGE DOORS
 ARE BEING PROVIDED. IS THERE AN OVERHANG ABOVE THE
 GARAGE DOOR? IT APPEARS SO ON THE ELEVATION, BUT
 NOTHING SHOWN ON THE PLAN VIEW OR SIDE ELEVATIONS.
  
 22.3 [ NOT SATISFIED ] ? STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH
 THE DESIGN TEAM REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
 BUILDING. THE STRUCTURE IS SIGNIFICANT IN SIZE, HAS
 LITTLE ARTICULATION VERTICALLY, ETC.
  
 22.4 [ NEW COMMENT ] - WHAT IS THE STATUS OF PROVIDING
 THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL RENDERINGS? AT THE APRIL 16,
 2021 MEETING IT WAS INDICATED TO STAFF THAT THE
 PRELIMINARY RENDERINGS/MODELS WOUDL BE PROVIDED WITHIN
 A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE FINAL
 RENDERINGS. TO DATE, NO DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 23. [ SATISFIED ] - PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE SHOWN
 AT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES.
  
 24. [ SATISFIED ] - THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF OVERHANG
 SHALL BE PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B AS IT IS
 LOCATED AT THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT TO THE
 CITY?S ZLDRS, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO
 EXTEND THREE (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED SETBACK.
  
 24.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE LOCATION OF THE
 OVERHANG DIMENSION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B
 APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SHOWING
 THE DIMENSION FROM THE OVERHANG TO THE EDGE OF THE
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 24.2 [ SATISFIED ] ? ROOF OVERHANG DIMENSIONS WERE NOT
 PROVIDED.
  
 25. [ SATISFIED ] - A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GOLF CART
 PATH IS BEING SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE SUBJECT
 PROPERTY. THIS PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO
 DIRECT CARTS TO THE NEW CONNECTION POINT.
  
 25.1 [ SATISFIED ] - PLANS ARE NOT CLEAR HOW THE CART
 PATH SHOWN ON THIS PROPERTY IS CONNECTING INTO THE
 EXISTING PATHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
  
 25.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE
 TWO (2) 90-DEGREE BENDS IN THE CART PATH WILL WORK ON
 THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B.
  
 26. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF
 BUILDING A HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
 HARDSCAPE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
  
 27. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD
 SHOW SQUARED CORNERS ON THE STRIPING.
  
 28. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS
 OR A CROSS SECTION REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL ALONG
 THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING
 THIS AREA AS NO TREES ARE PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE
 BUFFER, ETC. STAFF HAS ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM
 THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
  
 28.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 PROVIDE ON THE CIVIL PLANS DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN
 ON THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ETC. THE SITE PLAN
 SHOWS 7+ FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE
 RETAINING WALL; THE DETAIL SHOWS THE 2 FOOT OVERHANG
 BUTTING UP NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL/RAILING.
  
 28.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 INDICATES THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL VARIES
 FROM 0 TO 8 FEET, BUT THE SITE PLAN LEADS TO BELIEVE
 THAT THE WALL IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET IN HEIGHT; PLEASE
 CLARIFY.
  
 28.3 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED
 OF HAVING SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE
 RETAINING WALL TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT
 PROPERTY.
  
 28.3.1. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] ? IS A RETAINING WALL
 NO LONGER BEING PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH
 PROPERTY LINE? THERE IS A LINE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT
 APPEARS LIKE THE PREVIOUSLY-PROPOSED WALL, BUT THERE IS
 NO LABELING, ETC.
  
 29. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE
 DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON
 THEIR UNIT COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE
 FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES.
  
 30. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SURVEY DOES NOT LABEL THE
 EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
 SITE, RUNNING PARALLEL TO PRESIDENTIAL WAY. ACCORDING
 TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS THIS IS AN FPL EASEMENT.
  
 31. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE REAR
 SETBACK FROM THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 32. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] ? NO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
 WAS PROVIDED FOR THOSE COMMENTS ISSUED ON 09.17.2020.
  
 33. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] ? TWO (2) COPIES OF THE
 SITE PLAN WERE PROVIDED, EACH IS LABELED DIFFERENTLY;
 ONE IS LABELED PRELIMINARY WITH A DATE OF 2/5/21.
 PLEASE CLARIFY WHICH SITE PLAN IS ACCURATE AND WHICH
 SITE PLAN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SUBMITTAL.
  
 34. [ SATISFIED - SUBJECT TO EASEMENT
 ABANDONMENT/RELOCATION ] - THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
 WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN EXISTING
 EASEMENTS.
  
 34.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - AS LANDSCAPING /
 RETAINING WALL IS PROPOSED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
 ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, CONSENT FROM THE
 EASEMENT HOLDER SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 34.2. [ SATISFIED - SUBJECT TO EASEMENT
 ABANDONMENT/RELOCATION ] ? AS LANDSCAPING / LIGHT POLES
 ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THE FPL EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST
 CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, CONSENT FROM THE EASEMENT
 HOLDER SHALL BE PROVIDED.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES (PDF, WORD, ETC.) OF ALL REVISED
 PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 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.
  
 F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE JUNE 15, 2021,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE JUNE 15, 2021, PLANNING BOARD
 AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
 THAN MAY 31, 2021. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND BE
 INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH
 REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE.
  
 H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT
 DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE
 COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED.
 ________________________________________
  
 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING:
  
 JOHN P. ROACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147
 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
  
 P: 561.822.1448
 TTY: 800.955.8771
 E: [email protected]
  
 W: WPB.ORG
  
Review Stop Z ZONING
Rev No 3 Status F Date 04-08-2021 Cont ID  
Sent By jroach Date 04-08-2021 Time 10:31 Rev Time 0.00
Received By jroach Date 04-08-2021 Time 10:31 Sent To  
Notes
2021-04-08 10:32:03PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 04.08.2021
 PROJECT NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013
 CASE NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ ONGOING ] - PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP
 SEPARATELY WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 2. [ ONGOING ] - STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH
 EXTENDING THE COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE
 (FLU) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION
 ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED
 FROM THE BANYAN CAY COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS),
 PROJECTS WITHIN THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE
 FLU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE
 TO BE PART OF A MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE
 USES AND PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE
 CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE USES, ETC.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES
 NOT SHOW ANYTHING WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS
 WEST OF CONGRESS FALL WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS?
  
 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS
 HAVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
  
 4.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN
 ENCROACHING INTO THE SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT.
  
 4.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING
 OVER THE CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE.
  
 4.3. [ SATISFIED ] - NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
 SHOW THE TRUCK EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH.
  
 4.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR
 TRUCK ARE NOT SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED.
  
 4.5. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE
 COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE
 PROPERTY. DOES THEIR ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH
 AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE
 DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN?
  
 4.5.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS
 SHOW THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ENTERING LANDS OF THE
 PRESIDENTS AT THEIR NORTH GATE, TRAVELING SOUTH ALONG
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY, ENTERING THE SITE AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE, EXITING AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE, AND THEN
 TRAVELING NORTH ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY TO THE NORTH GATE.
 PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE ROUTE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S
 TRUCK MATCHES WHAT IS BEING SHOWN AND THAT IT DOES NOT
 ENTER LANDS OF THE PRESIDENTS FROM THE SOUTH GATE.
  
 4.5.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PLANS STILL SHOW THE
 TRUCK ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE NORTH PWA GATE.
 PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS ROUTE ACCURATELY MATCHES THAT
 WHICH WILL BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S CREWS AND THAT NO
 OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH WILL BE SERVICED,
 NECESSITATING A DIFFERENT ROUTE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN.
  
 4.6. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE
 TRUCK ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN.
  
 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM:
  
 5.1. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
  
 5.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED FPU LETTER HAS NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED.
  
 5.2. [ SATISFIED ] - CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
  
 5.3. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
  
 5.3.1 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM FLORIDA
 POWER AND LIGHT INDICATES THAT LANDSCAPING IS
 ENCROACHING INTO THEIR EASEMENTS. WHAT PLANS ARE BEING
 MADE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IS THE EASEMENT BEING
 ABANDONED/RELOCATED? IS FPL GOING TO CONSENT TO THE
 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EASEMENT?
  
 5.3.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE LETTER FROM FPL DOESN?T
 PROVIDE THE USUAL LANGUAGE WHICH STATE THAT THE PROJECT
 DOESN?T ENCROACH INTO THEIR EASEMENTS OR OTHERWISE
 INTERFERE WITH THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
  
 5.4. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - COMCAST
  
 5.4.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER FROM COMCAST IS
 FOR THE WRONG ADDRESS. ADDITIONALLY, IT SPEAKS TO THE
 ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS; PLEASE CLARIFY.
  
 5.4.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED COMCAST LETTER HAS NOT
 BEEN PROVIDED.
  
 5.5. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? UPDATED AT&T LETTER HAS NOT BEEN
 PROVIDED.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY:
  
 7.1. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE
 LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT
 PARCEL THAT IS BEING CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO
 ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT
 ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED.
  
 7.2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY
 USE IS MID-RIDE CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE
 HIGHEST TRAFFIC GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT,
 WHATEVER CATEGORY GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD
 BE USED AS THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE
 REGARDING THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE
 PERMITTED.
  
 7.2.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE RESPONSES INDICATE THAT
 THE MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY IS THE MAXIMUM THAT ?CAN BE
 ACCOMMODATED? ON THE PROPERTY; THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 SHOULD BE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY
 THE FLU, NOT WHAT IS ?PROPOSED? OR WHAT CAN BE
 ?ACCOMMODATED?.
  
 7.2.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED, AND
 THE STUDY IS STILL UTILIZING MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY
 BECAUSE IT IS WHAT ?CAN BE ACCOMMODATED?.
  
  
  
 7.3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY
 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IS INCORRECT. THE CURRENT
 MF FLU DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH
 WOULD ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132.
  
 7.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY
 (ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477
 ACRES.
  
 7.5. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514
 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE
 NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE
 BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CHANGING.
  
 7.6 [ SATISFIED ] - THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE
 FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE BASED ON THE
 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED FLU, NOT
 THE ACTUAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
  
 7.7 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? WHY WAS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
 REMOVED FROM THE ?PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE ? MAXIMUM
 POTENTIAL? CALCULATION?
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES
 THAT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS
 ATTACHED, BUT NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD
 APPLICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT
 TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED
 BY THE CITY AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO
 DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION
 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 9. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
 THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 9.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH
 WHAT WAS INCLUDED WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU
 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES
 ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 9.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN
 WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL
 WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC TO
 A CERTAIN POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 REGARDING THE REQUESTED PARKING WAVIER:
  
 10.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO COMPLY WITH SEC.
 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY MEETING THREE (3)
 OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE
 BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE
 SUPPORTING INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS
 BEEN PROVIDED, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE
 CRITERIA ARE BEING MET.
  
 10.1.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - WHILE JUSTIFICATION
 HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THREE (3) OF THE CRITERIA, STAFF
 DOES NOT AGREE THAT SOME OF THE POINTS MADE CONSTITUTE
 NEW URBANISM.
  
 10.1.1.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? STAFF IS STILL REVIEWING
 THE PROPOSED PARKING WAIVER AND HAS NOT DETERMINED
 SUPPORT OF SUCH REQUEST.
  
 10.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PARKING CALCULATIONS SHOWN
 IN THE TABLE ON PAGE 14 OF THE JUSTIFICATION DO NOT
 MATCH THE SITE PLAN, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER
 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
  
 10.2. [ SATISFIED ] - WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR
 PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND
 AND ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
  
 11. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER
 PBAS WITHIN BANYAN CAY, THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND
 LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN
 CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES
 TO THE EXISTING SHEETS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO
 ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 11.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBERS
 HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED, THEY INDICATE SHEET # ?OF 8? BUT
 THERE ARE NOW 9 SHEETS.
  
 11.2 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE
 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY NOT SHOWN ON THE COVER, SP-2,
 SP-5, ETC.?
  
 12. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM
 PALM BEACH COUNTY:
  
 12.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER STATES THAT
 MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE
 PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY,
 IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NORTH GATE IS FOR
 EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL TRAFFIC
 STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC. PROPERTY REFLECT
 THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS.
  
 12.1.1 [ SATISFIED ] - THE PLAN FOR RELATION OF THE
 NORTH ENTRY GATE DOES NOT REFLECT THE 300 FOOT SETBACK
 FROM CONGRESS AVENUE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC
 CONCURRENCY APPROVAL.
  
 12.1.2 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - NOTHING WAS PROVIDED FROM
 THE PWA INDICATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
 IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
  
 13. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION
 INDICATING THEIR APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
 WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 13.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS
 RELIANT UPON, AND REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, THE IMPROVEMENTS
 IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BEFORE
 PUBLIC HEARING.
  
 14. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
 ADJACENT TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE
 THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
 PARKING?
  
 15. [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - ON THE SITE PLAN, IT
 APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE
 SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT
 PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN SHALL FALL WITHIN THE
 DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE AND BE LOCATED IN
 SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON THE ABILITY FOR
 CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED
 SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN AND THE
 STRIPING.
  
 15.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE DETAIL PROVIDED
 SHOWS THE PARKING SPACES UNDER THE BUILDING BEING
 SINGLE-STRIPED. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS, ALL
 PARKING SHALL BE DOUBLE-STRIPED. PLEASE ADJUST THE
 DETAIL ACCORDINGLY.
  
 16. [ SATISFIED ] - BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE
 PROVIDED AT THE ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS ENSURING
 THAT THEY ARE VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC.
  
 16.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW
 GUESTS ARRIVING TO BUILDING B WILL KNOW THAT THE
 BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING, PAST
 THE MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE LOBBY?
  
 17. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE
 REAR SETBACK FOR BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING
 THE MINIMUM SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT
 BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK.
 THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER
 TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE
 SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH END OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 19. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SPECIFIC INFORMATION
 NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE WAIVER REQUESTS:
  
 19.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BEGINNING OF THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE
 WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE? LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT
 IT APPEARS THAT THESE WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO
 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PLAN. IF THEY ARE
 LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN
 (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.).
  
 19.2. [ ONGOING ] - JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
 HOW THE IMPACT OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING MITIGATED.
  
 19.2.1 [ ONGOING ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION
 CONSTITUTES SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER (ESPECIALLY REGARDING
 LANDSCAPING).
  
 19.3. [ SATISFIED ] - SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING
 DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS;
 EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A
 BASIS FOR A WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL
 MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE
 ARGUMENTS HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT.
  
 21. [ ONGOING ] - THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES
 THAT INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BEING USED TO
 FOSTER INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE EXPAND ON THIS AND
 PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT. THE PLANNED
 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WAIVERS ARE BEING
 REQUESTED, IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH INNOVATIVE LAND
 PLANNING TECHNIQUES.
  
 21.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONSE
 CONSTITUTES INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AS REQUIRED BY THE
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
  
 22. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH
 THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE
 FOLLOWING:
  
 22.1 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE PROVISION OF
 BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY SURFACE
 PARKING, ESPECIALLY BUILDING B WITH THE PROVISION OF
 PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. BUILDING B INCLUDES
 EXPOSED PARKING ALONG THE FRONT FACADE THAT RESULTS IN
 NO LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT
 COULD ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
  
 22.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE
 PROPOSED SCREENING OF THE PARKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR
 (GARAGE DOORS, PRIVACY SCREEN, ETC.) WORK IN CONNECTION
 WITH THE BUILDING ABOVE. THE PLANS SHOW THE PARKING
 STRIPING EXTENDING OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE OF THE
 UPPER FLOORS BUT THAT PRIVACY SCREEN OR GARAGE DOORS
 ARE BEING PROVIDED. IS THERE AN OVERHANG ABOVE THE
 GARAGE DOOR? IT APPEARS SO ON THE ELEVATION, BUT
 NOTHING SHOWN ON THE PLAN VIEW OR SIDE ELEVATIONS.
  
 22.3 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH
 THE DESIGN TEAM REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
 BUILDING. THE STRUCTURE IS SIGNIFICANT IN SIZE, HAS
 LITTLE ARTICULATION VERTICALLY, ETC.
  
 23. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE
 SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES.
  
 24. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF
 OVERHANG SHALL BE PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B
 AS IT IS LOCATED AT THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT
 TO THE CITY?S ZLDRS, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY
 ALLOWED TO EXTEND THREE (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED
 SETBACK.
  
 24.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE LOCATION OF THE
 OVERHANG DIMENSION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B
 APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SHOWING
 THE DIMENSION FROM THE OVERHANG TO THE EDGE OF THE
 LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 24.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? ROOF OVERHANG DIMENSIONS WERE
 NOT PROVIDED.
  
 25. [ SATISFIED ] - A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GOLF CART
 PATH IS BEING SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE SUBJECT
 PROPERTY. THIS PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO
 DIRECT CARTS TO THE NEW CONNECTION POINT.
  
 25.1 [ SATISFIED ] - PLANS ARE NOT CLEAR HOW THE CART
 PATH SHOWN ON THIS PROPERTY IS CONNECTING INTO THE
 EXISTING PATHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
  
 25.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE
 TWO (2) 90-DEGREE BENDS IN THE CART PATH WILL WORK ON
 THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B.
  
 26. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF
 BUILDING A HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
 HARDSCAPE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
  
 27. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD
 SHOW SQUARED CORNERS ON THE STRIPING.
  
 28. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OR
 A CROSS SECTION REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THIS
 AREA AS NO TREES ARE PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER,
 ETC. STAFF HAS ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM THE
 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
  
 28.1 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 PROVIDE ON THE CIVIL PLANS DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN
 ON THE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ETC. THE SITE PLAN
 SHOWS 7+ FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE
 RETAINING WALL; THE DETAIL SHOWS THE 2 FOOT OVERHANG
 BUTTING UP NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL/RAILING.
  
 28.2 [ NO LONGER APPLICABLE ] - THE CROSS SECTION
 INDICATES THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL VARIES
 FROM 0 TO 8 FEET, BUT THE SITE PLAN LEADS TO BELIEVE
 THAT THE WALL IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET IN HEIGHT; PLEASE
 CLARIFY.
  
 28.3 [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED
 OF HAVING SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE
 RETAINING WALL TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT
 PROPERTY.
  
 28.3.1. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IS A RETAINING WALL NO LONGER
 BEING PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE?
 THERE IS A LINE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT APPEARS LIKE THE
 PREVIOUSLY-PROPOSED WALL, BUT THERE IS NO LABELING,
 ETC.
  
 29. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE
 DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON
 THEIR UNIT COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE
 FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES.
  
 30. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SURVEY DOES NOT LABEL THE
 EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
 SITE, RUNNING PARALLEL TO PRESIDENTIAL WAY. ACCORDING
 TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS THIS IS AN FPL EASEMENT.
  
 31. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE REAR
 SETBACK FROM THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 32. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NO RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WAS
 PROVIDED FOR THOSE COMMENTS ISSUED ON 09.17.2020.
  
 33. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? TWO (2) COPIES OF THE SITE PLAN
 WERE PROVIDED, EACH IS LABELED DIFFERENTLY; ONE IS
 LABELED PRELIMINARY WITH A DATE OF 2/5/21. PLEASE
 CLARIFY WHICH SITE PLAN IS ACCURATE AND WHICH SITE PLAN
 SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SUBMITTAL.
  
 34. [ NEW COMMENT ] - THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
 WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN EXISTING
 EASEMENTS.
  
 34.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - AS LANDSCAPING / RETAINING WALL
 IS PROPOSED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, CONSENT FROM THE EASEMENT HOLDER
 SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 34.2. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? AS LANDSCAPING / LIGHT POLES
 ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THE FPL EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST
 CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, CONSENT FROM THE EASEMENT
 HOLDER SHALL BE PROVIDED.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES (PDF, WORD, ETC.) OF ALL REVISED
 PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 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.
  
 F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NOVEMBER 17, 2020,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 17, 2020, PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO
 LATER THAN NOVEMBER 2, 2020. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND
 BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 CITY?S ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH
 REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE.
  
 H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT
 DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE
 COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED.
 ________________________________________
  
 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING:
  
 JOHN P. ROACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147
 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
  
 P: 561.822.1448
 TTY: 800.955.8771
 E: [email protected]
  
 W: WPB.ORG
  
Review Stop Z ZONING
Rev No 2 Status F Date 09-17-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By jroach Date 09-17-2020 Time 15:31 Rev Time 0.00
Received By jroach Date 09-17-2020 Time 15:26 Sent To  
Notes
2020-09-17 15:31:16PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 09.17.2020
 PROJECT NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013
 CASE NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. [ ONGOING ] - PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP
 SEPARATELY WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE
 DESIGN GUIDELINES.
  
 2. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
 WITH EXTENDING THE COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE
 (FLU) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION
 ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED
 FROM THE BANYAN CAY COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 RIGHT-OF-WAY. PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS),
 PROJECTS WITHIN THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE
 FLU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE
 TO BE PART OF A MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE
 USES AND PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE
 CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE USES, ETC.
  
 3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES
 NOT SHOW ANYTHING WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS
 WEST OF CONGRESS FALL WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS?
  
 4. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS
 HAVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
  
 4.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN
 ENCROACHING INTO THE SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT.
  
 4.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING
 OVER THE CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH
 ENTRANCE.
  
 4.3. [ SATISFIED ] - NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
 SHOW THE TRUCK EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH.
  
 4.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR
 TRUCK ARE NOT SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED.
  
 4.5. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE
 COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE
 PROPERTY. DOES THEIR ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH
 AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE
 DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN?
  
 4.5.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS SHOW
 THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ENTERING LANDS OF THE PRESIDENTS AT
 THEIR NORTH GATE, TRAVELING SOUTH ALONG PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY, ENTERING THE SITE AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, EXITING
 AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE, AND THEN TRAVELING NORTH ON
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY TO THE NORTH GATE. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT
 THE ROUTE UTILIZED BY THE CITY?S TRUCK MATCHES WHAT IS
 BEING SHOWN AND THAT IT DOES NOT ENTER LANDS OF THE
 PRESIDENTS FROM THE SOUTH GATE.
  
 4.6. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE
 TRUCK ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN.
  
 5. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE
 PROVIDED FROM:
  
 5.1. [ SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
  
 5.2. [ SATISFIED ] - CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
  
 5.3. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
  
 5.3.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE LETTER FROM FLORIDA POWER
 AND LIGHT INDICATES THAT LANDSCAPING IS ENCROACHING
 INTO THEIR EASEMENTS. WHAT PLANS ARE BEING MADE TO
 ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IS THE EASEMENT BEING
 ABANDONED/RELOCATED? IS FPL GOING TO CONSENT TO THE
 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EASEMENT?
  
 5.4. [ NOT SATISFIED ] ? COMCAST
  
 5.4.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE LETTER FROM COMCAST IS FOR
 THE WRONG ADDRESS. ADDITIONALLY, IT SPEAKS TO THE
 ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS; PLEASE CLARIFY.
  
 6. [ SATISFIED ] - NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE
 LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 7. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY:
  
 7.1. [ SATISFIED ] - IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE
 LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT
 PARCEL THAT IS BEING CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO
 ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT
 ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED.
  
 7.2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY
 USE IS MID-RIDE CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE
 HIGHEST TRAFFIC GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT,
 WHATEVER CATEGORY GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD
 BE USED AS THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE
 REGARDING THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE
 PERMITTED.
  
 7.2.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE RESPONSES INDICATE THAT THE
 MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY IS THE MAXIMUM THAT ?CAN BE
 ACCOMMODATED? ON THE PROPERTY; THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
 SHOULD BE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY
 THE FLU, NOT WHAT IS ?PROPOSED? OR WHAT CAN BE
 ?ACCOMMODATED?.
  
 7.3. [ SATISFIED ] - THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY
 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IS INCORRECT. THE CURRENT
 MF FLU DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH
 WOULD ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132.
  
 7.4. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY
 (ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477
 ACRES.
  
 7.5. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514
 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE
 NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE
 BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL
 SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CHANGING.
  
 7.6 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF
 THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE BASED ON
 THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPOSED FLU,
 NOT THE ACTUAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
  
 8. [ SATISFIED ] - THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES
 THAT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS
 ATTACHED, BUT NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD
 APPLICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT
 TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED
 BY THE CITY AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO
 DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION
 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 9. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING
 THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 9.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH
 WHAT WAS INCLUDED WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU
 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES
 ARE ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT.
  
 9.2. [ SATISFIED ] - THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN
 WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL
 WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC TO
 A CERTAIN POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 REGARDING THE REQUESTED PARKING WAVIER:
  
 10.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO COMPLY WITH SEC.
 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY MEETING THREE (3)
 OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE
 BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE
 SUPPORTING INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS
 BEEN PROVIDED, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE
 CRITERIA ARE BEING MET.
  
 10.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? WHILE JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN
 PROVIDED FOR THREE (3) OF THE CRITERIA, STAFF DOES NOT
 AGREE THAT SOME OF THE POINTS MADE CONSTITUTE NEW
 URBANISM.
  
 10.2. [ SATISFIED ] - WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR
 PROPOSED TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND
 AND ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
  
 11. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER
 PBAS WITHIN BANYAN CAY, THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND
 LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN
 CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES
 TO THE EXISTING SHEETS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO
 ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED.
  
 11.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBERS HAVE
 NOT BEEN UPDATED, THEY INDICATE SHEET # ?OF 8? BUT
 THERE ARE NOW 9 SHEETS.
  
 11.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? WHY IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE
 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY NOT SHOWN ON THE COVER, SP-2,
 SP-5, ETC.?
  
 12. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
 COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM
 PALM BEACH COUNTY:
  
 12.1. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE LETTER STATES THAT
 MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE
 PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY,
 IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NORTH GATE IS FOR
 EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL TRAFFIC
 STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC. PROPERTY REFLECT
 THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS.
  
 12.1.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE PLAN FOR RELATION OF THE
 NORTH ENTRY GATE DOES NOT REFLECT THE 300 FOOT SETBACK
 FROM CONGRESS AVENUE THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC
 CONCURRENCY APPROVAL.
  
 12.1.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? NOTHING WAS PROVIDED FROM THE
 PWA INDICATING THAT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE
 IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
  
 13. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
 FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION
 INDICATING THEIR APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
 WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 13.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS
 RELIANT UPON, AND REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, THE IMPROVEMENTS
 IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY
 PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BEFORE
 PUBLIC HEARING.
  
 14. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS
 ADJACENT TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE
 THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
 PARKING?
  
 15. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - ON THE SITE PLAN, IT
 APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE
 SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT
 PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN SHALL FALL WITHIN THE
 DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE AND BE LOCATED IN
 SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON THE ABILITY FOR
 CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED
 SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN AND THE
 STRIPING.
  
 15.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE DETAIL PROVIDE SHOWS THE
 PARKING SPACES UNDER THE BUILDING BEING SINGLE-STRIPED.
 AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY?S ZLDRS, ALL PARKING SHALL BE
 DOUBLE-STRIPED. PLEASE ADJUST THE DETAIL ACCORDINGLY.
  
 16. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL
 BE PROVIDED AT THE ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS
 ENSURING THAT THEY ARE VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC.
  
 16.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW GUESTS
 ARRIVING TO BUILDING B WILL KNOW THAT THE BICYCLE
 FACILITIES ARE LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING, PAST THE
 MAIN ENTRANCE INTO THE LOBBY?
  
 17. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE
 REAR SETBACK FOR BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING
 THE MINIMUM SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT
 BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK.
 THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER
 TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK.
  
 18. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE
 SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH END OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 19. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - SPECIFIC INFORMATION
 NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE WAIVER REQUESTS:
  
 19.1. [ SATISFIED ] - THE BEGINNING OF THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE
 WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE? LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT
 IT APPEARS THAT THESE WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO
 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PLAN. IF THEY ARE
 LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN
 (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.).
  
 19.2. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE
 PROVIDED ON HOW THE IMPACT OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING
 MITIGATED.
  
 19.2.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION
 CONSTITUTES SUPPORT OF THE WAIVER (ESPECIALLY REGARDING
 LANDSCAPING).
  
 19.3. [ SATISFIED ] - SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING
 DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS;
 EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A
 BASIS FOR A WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20. [ SATISFIED ] - PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL
 MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE
 ARGUMENTS HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT.
  
 21. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE JUSTIFICATION
 STATEMENT INDICATES THAT INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES
 ARE BEING USED TO FOSTER INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE
 EXPAND ON THIS AND PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT.
 THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN
 WAIVERS ARE BEING REQUESTED, IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH
 INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING TECHNIQUES.
  
 21.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] - IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, BUT STAFF WILL NEED TO
 FURTHER CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONSE
 CONSTITUTES INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING AS REQUIRED BY THE
 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
  
 22. [ NOT SATISFIED ] STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH THE
 OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
  
 22.1 [ NOT SATISFIED ] - THE PROVISION OF BUILDINGS
 THAT ARE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY SURFACE PARKING,
 ESPECIALLY BUILDING B WITH THE PROVISION OF PARKING
 UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING. BUILDING B INCLUDES EXPOSED
 PARKING ALONG THE FRONT FACADE THAT RESULTS IN NO
 LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT COULD
 ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
  
 22.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IT IS UNCLEAR HOW THE PROPOSED
 SCREENING OF THE PARKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR (GARAGE
 DOORS, PRIVACY SCREEN, ETC.) WORK IN CONNECTION WITH
 THE BUILDING ABOVE. THE PLANS SHOW THE PARKING STRIPING
 EXTENDING OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE OF THE UPPER
 FLOORS BUT THAT PRIVACY SCREEN OR GARAGE DOORS ARE
 BEING PROVIDED. IS THERE AN OVERHANG ABOVE THE GARAGE
 DOOR? IT APPEARS SO ON THE ELEVATION, BUT NOTHING SHOWN
 ON THE PLAN VIEW OR SIDE ELEVATIONS.
  
 23. [ NOT SATISFIED ] - PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE
 SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0
 FOOTCANDLES.
  
 24. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF
 OVERHANG SHALL BE PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B
 AS IT IS LOCATED AT THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT
 TO THE CITY?S ZLDRS, STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY
 ALLOWED TO EXTEND THREE (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED
 SETBACK.
  
 24.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE LOCATION OF THE OVERHANG
 DIMENSION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B APPEARS TO BE
 INCORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SHOWING THE DIMENSION
 FROM THE OVERHANG TO THE EDGE OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
  
 25. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - A PORTION OF THE EXISTING
 GOLF CART PATH IS BEING SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE
 SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED
 TO DIRECT CARTS TO THE NEW CONNECTION POINT.
  
 25.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLANS ARE NOT CLEAR HOW THE CART
 PATH SHOWN ON THIS PROPERTY IS CONNECTING INTO THE
 EXISTING PATHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PRESIDENTIAL WAY.
  
 25.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE TWO (2)
 90-DEGREE BENDS IN THE CART PATH WILL WORK ON THE WEST
 SIDE OF BUILDING B.
  
 26. [ SATISFIED ] - WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF
 BUILDING A HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
 HARDSCAPE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
  
 27. [ SATISFIED ] - THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD
 SHOW SQUARED CORNERS ON THE STRIPING.
  
 28. [ PARTIALLY SATISFIED ] - PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OR
 A CROSS SECTION REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE
 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THIS
 AREA AS NO TREES ARE PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER,
 ETC. STAFF HAS ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM THE
 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
  
 28.1 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE CROSS SECTION PROVIDE ON
 THE CIVIL PLANS DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE
 SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ETC. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS 7+
 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE RETAINING
 WALL; THE DETAIL SHOWS THE 2 FOOT OVERHANG BUTTING UP
 NEXT TO THE RETAINING WALL/RAILING.
  
 28.2 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE CROSS SECTION INDICATES THAT
 THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL VARIES FROM 0 TO 8
 FEET, BUT THE SITE PLAN LEADS TO BELIEVE THAT THE WALL
 IS APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET IN HEIGHT; PLEASE CLARIFY.
  
 28.3 [ NEW COMMENT ] ? IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED OF HAVING
 SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE RETAINING
 WALL TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
  
 29. [ SATISFIED ] - THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE
 DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON
 THEIR UNIT COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE
 FEWEST NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE
 PARKING SPACES.
  
 30. [ NEW COMMENT ] ? THE SURVEY DOES NOT LABEL THE
 EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
 SITE, RUNNING PARALLEL TO PRESIDENTIAL WAY. ACCORDING
 TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS THIS IS AN FPL EASEMENT.
  
 31. [ NEW COMMENT ] - PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE REAR
 SETBACK FROM THE WEST SIDE OF BUILDING A IS BEING
 MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING
 AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES (PDF, WORD, ETC.) OF ALL REVISED
 PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 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.
  
 F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE NOVEMBER 17, 2020,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 17, 2020, PLANNING
 BOARD AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO
 LATER THAN NOVEMBER 2, 2020. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND
 BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 CITY?S ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH
 REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE.
  
 H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT
 DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE
 COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED.
 ________________________________________
  
 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING:
  
 JOHN P. ROACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION
 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147
 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
  
 P: 561.822.1448
 TTY: 800.955.8771
 E: [email protected]
  
 W: WPB.ORG
Review Stop Z ZONING
Rev No 1 Status F Date 06-11-2020 Cont ID  
Sent By jroach Date 06-11-2020 Time 11:32 Rev Time 0.00
Received By jroach Date 06-11-2020 Time 11:32 Sent To  
Notes
2020-06-11 11:33:09PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) ZONING REVIEW
 ________________________________________
  
 DATE OF REVIEW: 06.11.2020
 PROJECT NO.: PB 1624BB, CC AND DD
 CASE NO.: Z20050011, Z20050012 AND Z20050013
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
 REVIEW COMMENTS:
  
 1. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF WILL FOLLOW UP SEPARATELY
 WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE DESIGN
 GUIDELINES.
  
 2. STAFF HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH EXTENDING THE
 COMMERCIAL EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) AND GENERAL
 COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING DESIGNATION ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY. THIS PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM THE BANYAN CAY
 COMMUNITY BY THE PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
 PURSUANT TO SEC. 94-145.10. OF THE CITY?S ZONING AND
 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (ZLDRS), PROJECTS WITHIN
 THE GC ZONING DISTRICT WHICH HAVE A CE FLU ARE ALLOWED
 TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE TO BE PART OF A
 MULTIPLE-USE PROJECT WHERE ALL OF THE USES AND PARTS OF
 THE DEVELOPMENT ARE INTEGRATED, HAVE CONNECTIVITY
 BETWEEN THE USES, ETC.
  
 3. THE RADIUS MAP IS CUT OFF AND DOES NOT SHOW ANYTHING
 WEST OF CONGRESS. DID ANY PARCELS WEST OF CONGRESS FALL
 WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS?
  
 4. THE MANEUVERABILITY PLANS HAVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
  
 4.1. THE PASSENGER CAR IS SHOWN ENCROACHING INTO THE
 SPACE BEHIND IT WHEN BACKING OUT.
  
 4.2. THE SU-30 TRUCK IS SHOWN DRIVING OVER THE
 CURB/SWALE ON PRESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE.
  
 4.3. NONE OF THE SU-30 TRUCK MOVEMENTS SHOW THE TRUCK
 EXISTING THE PROPERTY AND HEADING SOUTH.
  
 4.4. THE MOVEMENTS FOR THE COMPACTOR TRUCK ARE NOW
 SHOWING HOW BUILDING A IS SERVICED.
  
 4.5. PLEASE CONFIRM THE ROUTE THE COMPACTOR TRUCK WILL
 BE USING TO ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY. DOES THEIR
 ROUTE BRING THEM FROM THE SOUTH AND HAVE THEM EXIT TO
 THE NORTH? OR IS THEIR ROUTE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS
 BEING SHOWN?
  
 4.6. PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION THAT THE FIRE
 DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTABLE OF THE FIRE TRUCK
 ACCESS/MOVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN.
  
 5. UTILITY LETTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM:
  
 5.1. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
  
 5.2. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
  
 5.3. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
  
 5.4. COMCAST
  
 6. NOT ALL EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.
  
 7. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REGARDING THE
 FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY:
  
 7.1. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE TRAFFIC
 STUDY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL THAT IS BEING
 CHANGED; THERE IS NO NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTING
 PORTIONS OF BANYAN CAY THAT ARE NOT BEING MODIFIED.
  
 7.2. THE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORY USE IS MID-RIDE
 CONSISTING OF 3-10 STORIES, IS THIS THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC
 GENERATOR FOR MULTIFAMILY? IF NOT, WHATEVER CATEGORY
 GENERATES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES SHOULD BE USED AS THERE
 IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE LAND USE REGARDING THE TYPE OF
 MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.
  
 7.3. THE NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
 UNITS PERMITTED INCORRECT. THE CURRENT MF FLU
 DESIGNATION ALLOWS 32.27 DU/ACRE (NOT 32), WHICH WOULD
 ALLOW FOR 133 DU, NOT 132.
  
 7.4. THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY (ACCORDING TO THE
 SURVEY) IS 4.148 ACRES, NOT 4.1477 ACRES.
  
 7.5. WHY DOES TABLE 1 SHOW 2,514 MULTIFAMILY UNITS,
 WHILE TABLE 2 SHOWS 2,516? THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY
 UNITS PERMITTED SHOULD NOT CHANGE BETWEEN EXISTING AND
 PROPOSED; ONLY THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE
 CHANGING.
  
 8. THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL
 CAPACITY AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION IS ATTACHED, BUT
 NOTHING WAS INCLUDED. THE ONLY SCAD APPLICATION THAT
 WAS PROVIDED WAS ONE THAT APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN
 SUBMITTED YET. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SIGNED BY THE CITY
 AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? NO DIRECTION WAS
 PROVIDED. AN APPROVED SCAD APPLICATION FROM THE SCHOOL
 DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 9. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN:
  
 9.1. THE ACREAGES SHOWN DO NOT MATCH WHAT WAS INCLUDED
 WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS,
 ETC.). ENSURE THAT ALL PLANS/STUDIES ARE ACCURATE AND
 CONSISTENT.
  
 9.2. THE WAIVERS ON THE MASTER PLAN WILL NEED TO BE
 UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL WAIVERS BEING
 REQUESTED. IF THE WAIVERS ARE SPECIFIC A CERTAIN
 POD/PBA, IT SHOULD BE NOTED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 10. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE REQUESTED
 PARKING WAVIER:
  
 10.1. PARKING WAIVERS WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS NEED
 TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 94-207.B.13. OF THE CITY?S ZLDRS BY
 MEETING THREE (3) OF THE FIVE (5) CRITERIA. THE
 JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT SHALL INDICATE WHICH OF THE
 THREE (3) CRITERIA ARE BEING MET AND INCLUDE OR
 REFERENCE THE APPLICABLE SUPPORTING
 INFORMATION/STUDIES. BASED UPON WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED,
 IT APPEARS THAT ONLY TWO (2) OF THE CRITERIA ARE BEING
 MET.
  
 10.2. WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE OR PROPOSED TO
 SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF VEHICULAR DEMAND AND ENCOURAGE
 ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
  
 11. AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PBAS WITHIN BANYAN CAY,
 THE NEWLY PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOULD BE
 INCORPORATED INTO THE BANYAN CAY SITE AND LANDSCAPE
 PLAN PACKAGES. WHATEVER UPDATES TO THE EXISTING SHEETS
 THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL
 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 12. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REGARDING THE
 TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY:
  
 12.1. THE LETTER STATES THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH
 ACCESS GATE ARE TO BE PROVIDED, HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED
 AT ALL? ADDITIONALLY, IT IS STAFF?S UNDERSTANDING THAT
 THE NORTH GATE IS FOR EGRESS ONLY. IF SO, PLEASE ENSURE
 THAT ALL TRAFFIC STUDIES, MANEUVERABILITY STUDIES, ETC.
 PROPERTY REFLECT THESE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS.
  
 13. PLEASE PROVIDE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL
 WAY PROPERTY OWNER?S ASSOCIATION INDICATING THEIR
 APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITH THE
 PRESIDENTIAL WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
  
 14. WHY AREN?T THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ADJACENT TO THE
 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WIDENED TO INCLUDE THE ADJACENT
 PAVEMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PARKING?
  
 15. ON THE SITE PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT IN SEVERAL
 LOCATION ON BUILDING B THAT THE SUPPORT COLUMNS ARE
 ENCROACHING INTO THE ADJACENT PARKING SPACE. THE COLUMN
 SHALL FALL WITHIN THE DOUBLE-STRIP OF THE PARKING SPACE
 AND BE LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON
 THE ABILITY FOR CAR DOORS TO BE OPENED. A DETAIL SHALL
 BE PROVIDED SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COLUMN
 AND THE STRIPING.
  
 16. BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE
 ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDINGS ENSURING THAT THEY ARE
 VISIBLE TO GUESTS, ETC.
  
 17. PLEASE CLARIFY THE WAIVER TO THE REAR SETBACK FOR
 BUILDING B. THE BUILDING IS MEETING THE MINIMUM
 SETBACK, BUT IS EXCEEDING THE 40 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT
 THAT IS PERMITTED WITH SUCH A SETBACK. THE APPLICATION
 SHALL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT A WAIVER TO THE BUILDING
 HEIGHT, NOT THE REAR SETBACK.
  
 18. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE SIDE SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH
 END OF BUILDING A IS BEING MEASURED AT THE SHORTEST
 DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
  
 19. SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED REGARDING
 THE WAIVER REQUESTS:
  
 19.1. THE BEGINNING OF THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE WAIVERS ARE TO ?ELIMINATE?
 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THESE
 WAIVERS MAY ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN AREAS OF THE
 PLAN. IF THEY ARE LOCATION-SPECIFIC THEY SHALL BE
 IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN (ASTERISKS, FOOTNOTES, ETC.).
  
 19.2. JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON HOW THE IMPACT
 OF EACH WAIVER IS BEING MITIGATED.
  
 19.3. SEVERAL TIMES THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
 INCLUDES REFERENCES TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN
 RESPONSE TO THE WAIVER STANDARDS; EXISTING
 NON-CONFORMITIES SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A BASIS FOR
 A WAIVER REQUEST.
  
 20. PLEASE REVIEW THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AS THERE
 ARE MULTIPLE TYPOS, GRAMMATICAL MISTAKES, AND TECHNICAL
 ERRORS THAT MAKE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS HARD TO
 UNDERSTAND OR INCORRECT.
  
 21. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT INDICATES THAT
 INNOVATIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BEING USED TO FOSTER
 INFILL DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE EXPAND ON THIS AND PROVIDE
 EXAMPLES FROM THE PROJECT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
 DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WAIVERS ARE BEING REQUESTED,
 IS TO BE UTILIZED WITH INNOVATIVE LAND PLANNING
 TECHNIQUES.
  
 22. STAFF HAS CONCERNS WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE
 PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
  
 22.1. THE PROVISION OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE ENTIRELY
 SURROUNDED BY SURFACE PARKING, ESPECIALLY BUILDING B
 WITH THE PROVISION OF PARKING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.
 BUILDING B INCLUDES EXPOSED PARKING ALONG THE FRONT
 FA?ADE THAT RESULTS IN NO LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT
 OF THE BUILDING THAT COULD ENHANCE ANY ARCHITECTURAL
 DESIGN.
  
 23. PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS SHALL BE SHOWN AT THE PROPERTY
 LINE, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 FOOTCANDLES.
  
 24. THE DIMENSION OF THE ROOF OVERHANG SHALL BE
 PROVIDED, ESPECIALLY FOR BUILDING B AS IT IS LOCATED AT
 THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK. PURSUANT TO THE CITY?S ZLDRS,
 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXTEND THREE
 (3) FEET INTO A REQUIRED SETBACK.
  
 25. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING GOLF CART PATH IS BEING
 SHOWN DEAD-ENDING INTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS
 PATHWAY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO DIRECT CARTS TO THE
 NEW CONNECTION POINT.
  
 26. WHY IS THE ENTIRE AREA NORTH OF BUILDING A
 HARDSCAPE? THIS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARDSCAPE DOES
 NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
  
 27. THE SMALL CAR PARKING DETAIL SHOULD SHOW SQUARED
 CORNERS ON THE STRIPING.
  
 28. PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OR A CROSS SECTION REGARDING
 THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. STAFF
 HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THIS AREA AS NO TREES ARE
 PROPOSED IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ETC. STAFF HAS
 ALREADY RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY
 OWNERS.
  
 29. THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED
 AMONGST THE TWO (2) BUILDINGS BASED UPON THEIR UNIT
 COUNTS. AS PROPOSED, THE BUILDING WITH THE FEWEST
 NUMBER OF UNITS HAS TWICE AS MANY ACCESSIBLE PARKING
 SPACES.
 ________________________________________
  
 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING:
  
 A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL
 DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION.
  
 B) ELECTRONIC COPIES OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS
 SHALL BE PROVIDED.
  
 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.
  
 F) IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE AUGUST 18, 2020,
 PLANNING BOARD AGENDA, ALL COMMENTS SHALL BE
 SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REVISED
 DOCUMENTS/PLANS NO LATER THAN JUNE 26, 2020.
  
 G) TO BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 18, 2020, PLANNING BOARD
 AGENDA, SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY NO LATER
 THAN AUGUST 3, 2020. SIGNAGE SHALL CONFORM, AND BE
 INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY?S
 ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SUCH
 REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
 APPLICATION. A SIGNED AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SHALL BE
 PROVIDED BY THE DEADLINE REFERENCED ABOVE.
  
 H) IF AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN ADVERTISED THE APPLICANT
 DESIRES TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, A FEE OF $50 PLUS THE
 COST OF ADVERTISING WILL BE CHARGED.
 ________________________________________
  
 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING:
  
 JOHN P. ROACH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION
 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3147
 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
  
 P: 561.822.1448
 TTY: 800.955.8771
 E: [email protected]
  
 W: WPB.ORG
  
  Print


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