| Date |
Text |
| 2012-07-11 16:27:06 | ZONING PLANS AND PLATS REVIEW COMMITTEE (PPRC) REVIEW |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | DATE OF REVIEW: 07.11.2012 |
| | PROJECT NO.: Z12060014 & Z12060015 |
| | CASE NO.: PB CASE NOS. 1624 & 1624A |
| | ADDRESS: 2300 PRESIDENTIAL WAY &3100 CONGRESS AVENUE |
| | APPLICANT/CONTACT: KIEREN KILDAY, URBAN DESIGN KILDAY |
| | STUDIOS |
| | TELEPHONE NO.: 561.366.1100 |
| | SCOPE OF REVIEW: FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND |
| | REZONING FOR PROPOSED RESORT COUNTRY CLUB. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING |
| | REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. AN APPROVED SCHOOL CONCURRENCY APPLICATION SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 2. APPROVED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM |
| | PALM BEACH COUNTY ? DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND |
| | PUBLIC WORKS ? TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION. |
| | |
| | 3. FOR THE FLU MAP AMENDMENT, A LEVEL OF SERVICE |
| | ANALYSIS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FOLLOWING USING THE |
| | "WORST-CASE" SCENARIO: |
| | A. WATER |
| | B. WASTE WATER |
| | C. SOLID WASTE |
| | D. SCHOOLS |
| | |
| | 4. UTILITY LETTERS WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE |
| | FOLLOWING: |
| | A. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES |
| | B. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT |
| | C. COMCAST |
| | |
| | 5. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPOSED FUEL PUMP |
| | STATION BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CPD INSTEAD OF THE RPD. |
| | |
| | 6. COPIES OF ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, ETC. |
| | REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT B OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT THAT |
| | MAY AFFECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 7. THE ACREAGE SHOWN ON THE FLU TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DOES |
| | NOT MATCH THAT WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED MASTER |
| | PLAN. |
| | |
| | 8. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THE TRAFFIC FOR THE SPA AND THE |
| | CONVENTION CENTER SPACE IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR; IT IS |
| | NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE CLARIFY, DOES THE 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE |
| | REFERENCED IN THE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS ACCOUNT |
| | FOR THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE AND DRIVING RANGE? |
| | IF SO, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT A FOOTNOTE BE ADDED TO |
| | THE STUDY SO THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT BEING |
| | EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY. |
| | |
| | 10. CONSIDERATIONS NEED TO BE MADE REGARDING THE |
| | POSSIBILITY OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS AND THE |
| | RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE IF LOCATED WITHIN |
| | AN RPD. |
| | |
| | 11. COMMENTS REGARDING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE AS |
| | FOLLOWS: |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | - CONSIDER PROVIDING FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE |
| | RESORT COMMUNITY WILL FUNCTION (I.E. MEMBERSHIPS, |
| | AMENITIES, ETC.). |
| | |
| | - FOR PURPOSES OF INCORPORATION INTO THE FUTURE |
| | ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION, PLEASE REMOVE THE BLACK |
| | BACKGROUND FROM THE DOCUMENT. |
| | |
| | - CONSIDER ORGANIZING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SUCH THAT |
| | THE FIRST PART EXPLAINS AND PROVIDES THE CRITERIA |
| | APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE RPD AND THE CPD. THEN PROVIDE |
| | ALL REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE RPD. THEN PROVIDE ALL |
| | REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CPD. THIS WOULD BE BETTER |
| | ORGANIZED AND EASIER TO IMPLEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO |
| | JUMPING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE RPD AND THE CPD. |
| | |
| | - CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE MADE AS WHAT WILL MADE THIS |
| | DEVELOPMENT "CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE" TO JUSTIFY THE |
| | RPD AND CPD. WILL THERE BE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS |
| | "ABOVE AND BEYOND" WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE PERMITTED BY |
| | RIGHT? FOR EXAMPLE, WILL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BE |
| | GREATER; WILL THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BE ENHANCED; |
| | ETC.? |
| | |
| | PAGE 3: |
| | - IS THERE A NEED FOR A DEFINITIONS SECTION? THERE DOES |
| | NOT APPEAR TO BE A NEED TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF |
| | SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED WITHIN THE ZLDRS. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CANNOT MODIFY OR |
| | WAIVE THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS |
| | WITHIN THE ZLDRS. IF NECESSARY, DEFINITIONS CAN BE |
| | PROVIDED ON ELEMENTS, TERMS, ETC. THAT ARE NOT |
| | OTHERWISE DEFINED AND WOULD PROVIDE BETTER EXPLANATION |
| | TO THE MATERIAL WITHIN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | PAGE 4: |
| | - THE DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY ARE |
| | ALREADY DEFINED IN THE ZLDRS, AND THE DEFINITION FOR |
| | DENSITY SHOWN DIFFERS. |
| | |
| | PAGE 5: |
| | - THERE IS A MISSPELLING OF THE WORD "FEET" IN THE |
| | DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. |
| | |
| | - THE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE DIFFERS FROM THAT |
| | PROVIDED WITHIN THE ZLDRS. |
| | |
| | - I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CODIFICATION DATE NOT BE |
| | PROVIDED FOR THE ZLDRS AS ANY FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE |
| | ZLDRS MAY BE APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | PAGE 6: |
| | - THE PROJECT NARRATIVE ONLY REFERENCES 67.63 ACRES, |
| | BUT APPEARS TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE RPD AND THE CPD |
| | COMBINED, WHICH IS 119.15 ACRES. |
| | |
| | - DISCUSSION IS MADE IN THE NARRATIVE REGARDING |
| | NON-HOTEL GUESTS. I THINK THIS MAY NEED TO BE EXPLAINED |
| | AS PART OF THE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE |
| | PREVIOUSLY IN THAT THE RESORT COMMUNITY IS NOT STRICTLY |
| | LIMITED TO GUESTS OF THE HOTEL, ETC. AND THAT THE |
| | GENERAL PUBLIC MAY ACCESS THE FACILITIES IF THEY HAVE A |
| | MEMBERSHIP. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ENSURE THAT THE TRAFFIC |
| | IMPACT STUDY ACCOUNTS FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. |
| | |
| | PAGE 7: |
| | - RESTAURANTS AND LOUNGES ARE REFERENCED HERE, BUT |
| | NOWHERE ELSE. AS INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, CLARIFICATION |
| | MAY NEED TO BE PROVIDED IN THE OTHER STUDIES AND IT |
| | NEEDS TO BE ASSURED THAT THESE USES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, |
| | ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES INDICATE THAT |
| | THESE ARE OPEN TO THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. |
| | |
| | PAGE 11: |
| | - SPECIAL CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE MADE REGARDING THE |
| | LIST OF PERMITTED USES. THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN |
| | GUIDELINES INDICATE THAT ONLY USES THAT ARE PERMITTED |
| | BY RIGHT ARE ALLOWED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE |
| | LISTED. SOME OF THOSE LISTED AS EXCLUSIONS ARE PXR, |
| | WHICH WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ANYWAY BASED UPON THE |
| | PROPOSED WORDING. ADDITIONALLY, IF THE MASTER PLAN ONLY |
| | SHOWS HOTEL ROOMS, ETC., HOW CAN THESE OTHER USES BE |
| | ACCOUNTED FOR IN TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY, ETC. WITHOUT |
| | REQUIRING A MAJOR PD AMENDMENT,ETC. |
| | |
| | PAGE 15: |
| | - THE CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT SHOWS THE MAINTENANCE |
| | FACILITY WITHIN, OR ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING |
| | RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE BOUNDARIES |
| | OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE BOUNDARIES OF |
| | THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | PAGE 19: |
| | - CONCERNED WITH LEAVING THE BUFFER AROUND THE EXISTING |
| | MAINTENANCE FACILITY "AS-IS". THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED |
| | TO BE UPGRADED TO AT LEAST MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF |
| | THE ZLDRS, IF NOT EXCEED SUCH REQUIREMENTS. THIS SHOULD |
| | CERTAINLY HAPPEN WHEN CONVERTED TO THE FUEL-PUMP AREA. |
| | |
| | - CONCERNED WITH HAVING A ZERO FOOT SETBACK ALONG |
| | PRESIDENTIAL WAY. |
| | |
| | - BASED UPON PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THE SECTION TALKING |
| | ABOUT THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSE NEEDS |
| | TO BE REVISED AND THIS LAKE IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. |
| | BUFFERING WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | PAGE 20: |
| | - A MINIMUM LAKE WIDTH NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE ANY |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER CAN BE EXEMPTED ADJACENT TO |
| | RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | PAGE 21: |
| | - IS IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SEPARATE PARKING |
| | REGULATIONS? IT APPEARS THAT EVERYTHING SHOWN MATCHES |
| | THE CURRENT ZLDRS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED OF PROVIDING A |
| | STATEMENT THAT ALL APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| | WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF THE |
| | ZLDRS, UNLESS A PARKING STUDY CAN BE PROVIDED |
| | INDICATING THAT AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING RATIO WILL BE |
| | SUFFICIENT. |
| | |
| | - THE PARKING FOR THE GOLF CLUB FACILITY DOES NOT |
| | ACCOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES; PLEASE CLARIFY. |
| | |
| | PAGE 22: |
| | - WILL THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS APPLY TO ALL |
| | BUILDINGS, WITHIN BOTH THE RPD AND THE CPD? PLEASE MAKE |
| | CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THAT UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE, |
| | THE GUIDELINES WILL BE APPLICABLE ACROSS BOTH PDS. |
| | |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING WHEN RESUBMITTING: |
| | |
| | A) WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY ALL |
| | DEPARTMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED UPON RESUBMISSION. |
| | |
| | B) 15 SETS OF REVISED PLANS AND/OR DOCUMENTS SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED, ALONG WITH ONE (1) REDUCED COPY (11IN X |
| | 17IN), AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF ALL PLANS. |
| | |
| | C) PLEASE NOTE THAT RE-SUBMITTALS MAY BE SUBJECT TO |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | D) IF NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE |
| | ISSUANCE OF THESE COMMENTS, THE APPLICATION WILL BE |
| | CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN AND ANY FURTHER ACTION WILL |
| | REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | E) PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED |
| | COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE. |
| | ___________________________________________ |
| | |
| | QUESTIONS/COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING: |
| | |
| | JOHN ROACH, SENIOR PLANNER |
| | CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ? PLANNING DIVISION |
| | 401 CLEMATIS STREET - P.O. BOX 3366 |
| | WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 |
| | |
| | PHONE: 561.822.1435 |
| | FAX: 561.822.1459 |
| | |
| | EMAIL: [email protected] |
| | |
| | WWW.CITYOFWPB.COM |
| | |
| 2012-06-29 12:20:52 | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE ISSUED BY ALEX HANSEN, |
| | SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNER - (561) 822-1463: |
| | |
| | - THE LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED BY THE |
| | APPLICANT DOES NOT REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE COMMERCIAL |
| | EAST (CE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS A MAXIMUM |
| | DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF 1.5 FAR FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL |
| | USES AND A MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 32.27 |
| | DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDS TO BE |
| | AMENDED TO REFLECT THIS. |
| | |
| | - THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLINES THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY (SFLD) FUTURE LAND |
| | USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 3 DWELLING UNITS |
| | PER ACRE WITH NO ALLOWANCES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. |
| | THE PROJECT'S BUBBLE SITE PLAN DEPICTS A PROPOSED GAS |
| | STATION IN THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SFLD DESIGNATION. |
| | A GAS STATION IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SFLD |
| | DESIGNATION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS AREA OF THE |
| | PROJECT BE DESIGNATED WITH THE PROPOSED CE DESIGNATION. |
| | |
| | - THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE |
| | LAND USE AMENDMENT TRAFFIC STUDY AND THE BUBBLE SITE |
| | PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE NUMBER OF |
| | ACRES IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROPOSED CE AND SFLD FUTURE |
| | LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THESE DISCREPANCIES NEED TO BE |
| | CORRECTED. |
| |
Print |
