Plan Review Notes
Plan Review Notes For Project Z13030017
Project Number Z13030017
Review Stop Z
Sequence Number 2
Notes
Date Text
2013-07-11 17:54:44ON 6/26/13 DENISE MALONE SPOKE WITH BRIAN TERRY OF LAND
 DESIGN SOUTH, INDICATING THAT A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF
 THE PLANS INDICATED THAT THE PLANS WOULD NEED TO BE
 REVISED DUE TO CONTINUING CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY
 EASEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING/TREES. MS MALONE ALSO
 INDICATED THAT ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS
 WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE UPCOMING DAYS.
  
 A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PLANS ON 7/11/13
 REFLECTS THE COMMENTS BELOW.
  
 CASE NO. 1633 A B C
 NAME OF CASE BELLA VITA ESTATES
 ADDRESS 8230 OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD
  
 - CONTACT ALEX HANSEN @ (561) 822-1463
  
 - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN
 WRITTEN FORMAT.
  
 - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TEN
 (10) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT
 OF ALL PLANS AND IN WORD OF ANY TEXT PORTIONS OF THE
 APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE
 RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
  
 - THE COMMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED AND
 SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY NOON ON JULY 19,
 2013, TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE AUGUST 2013 PLANNING
 BOARD MEETING.
  
 - PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE REPEAT COMMENTS BELOW,
 THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL
 FEE OF $600 (20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE).
  
 - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE NO.
 4357-11.
  
 PLANNING:
 1. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ? PROPERTY HISTORY AND
 SITE CHARACTERISTICS PORTION OF THE APPLICATION (PAGE 1
 OF 9) STATES THAT ?CURRENTLY ALL OF THE UNDERGROUND
 UTILITIES, PRIMARY ROADWAY SYSTEM, AND RETENTION
 FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE.? THE
 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PREPARED BY MICHAEL B.
 SCHORAH & ASSOCIATES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS
 THAT THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURRENTLY
 CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE ARE THE PRIMARY WATER AND SEWER
 INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SURVEY DOES NOT SHOW ANY OTHER
 EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (EG. TELEPHONE, CABLE,
 GAS, ELECTRICAL). THE APPLICANT SHOULD EITHER MODIFY
 THE CLAIM UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT TO INDICATE
 THAT WATER AND SEWER ARE THE ONLY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
 ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE, OR THE EXISTING
 CONDITIONS SURVEY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT ANY
 OTHER UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WHICH ARE ALREADY BUILT.
 RESPONSE: ONLY WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS ON
 SITE. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 2. THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ?CONFORMANCE WITH THE
 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 9J-5.006.5.1 SECTION OF THE
 APPLICATION STATES THAT THE ?PROPOSED FLUA CHANGE TO
 COMMERCIAL (C) IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
 OF THE SURROUNDING AREA? (PAGE 2 OF 9). THE PROPOSED
 FLU AMENDMENT IS FROM A COUNTY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION
 TO A CITY MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
 DESIGNATION. PLEASE REVISE THIS SECTION ACCORDINGLY.
 RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 3. UNDER THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR
 CODE COMPLIANCE ? A. CHANGED PROJECTIONS (PAGES 3 OF 9
 AND 4 OF 9) THE APPLICANT REFERENCES FLU POLICIES
 1.1.5.1 AND 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 OF THE CITY?S
 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS BEING PERTINENT TO THIS
 ANNEXATION AND FLU AMENDMENT. THERE IS NO FLU POLICY
 1.1.5.1 IN THE CITY?S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLU POLICY
 1.8.2 AND FLU OBJECTIVE 1.10 DO NOT DEAL WITH THE
 ISSUES STATED IN THE APPLICATION. PLEASE REVISE
 ACCORDINGLY.
 RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
  
 4. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT- STANDARDS FOR CODE
 COMPLIANCE ? B. CHANGED ASSUMPTIONS (PAGE 4 OF 9) THE
 APPLICANT PROVIDES ONE PARAGRAPH TO JUSTIFY THIS
 AMENDMENT BASED ON RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
 SURROUNDING AREA TO THE SUBJECT SITE. IF THE APPLICANT
 CHOOSES TO USE THIS CATEGORY TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED
 LAND USE AMENDMENT THEN IT WILL NEED TO PROVIDE A MORE
 DETAILED JUSTIFICATION THAN THE ONE CURRENTLY INCLUDED
 IN THE APPLICATION.
 RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 5. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
 AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? D. WHETHER AND THE
 EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT
 WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES (PAGE 5 OF 9) THE
 APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE NATURE OF
 THE EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED SITE (E.G.
 THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, DENSITIES, APPROVALS, ETC.) IN
 ORDER TO PROPERLY DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE
 PROPOSED USE IN RELATION TO ITS SURROUNDINGS.
 RESPONSE: THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT HAS BEEN REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
  
 6. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
 AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? E. WHETHER AND THE
 EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD EXCEED THE
 CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
 LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION, SEWAGE, WATER SUPPLY, PARKS,
 FIRE, POLICE, DRAINAGE, SCHOOLS, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL
 FACILITIES (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT
 PUBLIC FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND ARE
 AVAILABLE TO THE SITE. THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE A
 COMPLETE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SHOWING THE
 SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE
 LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM THE EXISTING HR-8 DESIGNATION
 TO THE PROPOSED MFMD DESIGNATION AND CONFIRMATION THAT
 THESE IMPACTS CAN BE MET BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. IN
 ADDITION, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE SUMMARY
 TABLE OF LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS FOR ALL SERVICE
 PROVIDERS.
 RESPONSE: SERVICE AVAILABILITY LETTERS FROM COMCAST,
 FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES, CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
 UTILITIES, AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES ARE
 PROVIDED WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. ADDITIONALLY, SERVICE
 AVAILABILITY LETTER REQUESTS WERE SENT OUT TO AT&T AND
 FP&L AND WE ARE AWAITING A RESPONSE. ALSO, A LEVEL OF
 SERVICE ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY TABLE ARE PROVIDED WITH
 THE RESUBMITTAL.
  
 CITY COMMENT: THERE ARE TWO TYPOS IN THE LOS ANALYSIS
 SUMMARY TABLE WHICH NEED TO BE CORRECTED: A) IN THE
 WASTE WATER OR SEWER CATEGORY, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
 UNITS FOR THE PROPOSED FLU DESIGNATION IS 179 AND NOT
 71 AS REFLECTED IN THE TABLE; AND B) UNDER THE TYPE OF
 FACILITY COLUMN, THE REFERENCE TO ?SOLID WATER? SHOULD
 INSTEAD READ ?SOLID WASTE?.
  
 7. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT - SECTION 94-32(A)
 AMENDMENT AND REZONING STANDARDS ? F. WHETHER AND THE
 EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN
 SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
 (PAGE 6 OF 9) THE APPLICANT STATES THAT ?THE SITE IS
 CURRENTLY CLEARED AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED FOR THE PBC
 APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.? PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER
 THERE ARE ANY TREE/VEGETATION MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
 OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY
 AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CLEARING OF THE SITE UNDER THE
 PBC APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
 RESPONSE: THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY CLEARED UNDER A PALM
 BEACH COUNTY ERM STANDARD VEGETATION PERMIT
 (#C-0119-06) ISSUED ON DECEMBER 20, 2006 TO THE
 PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, 444 SABAL
 PALMS, 2 OAKS, AND 3 STRANGLER FIGS WERE RELOCATED. THE
 SABALS WERE PLACED INTO A TEMPORARY HOLDING AREA AT
 WHICH POINT THE PROJECT CAME TO A STOP AND THEY REMAIN
 IN THIS AREA.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 8. UNDER JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT ? WAIVER REQUESTS -
 THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS:
 THE FIRST REQUESTED WAIVER IS FOR SECTION 94-442
 SUBSTITUTION OF PALM TREES WHICH STATES THAT PALM TREES
 MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NOT MORE THAN 35% OF THE
 REQUIRED SHADE OF FLOWERING TREES. THE APPLICANT IS
 REQUESTING THAT APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE SHADE TREES BE
 SUBSTITUTED BY SABAL PALM TREES. CITY STAFF IS NOT
 SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST. AS SUCH, THE
 LANDSCAPE PLAN AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION
 WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.
 RESPONSE: THIS WAIVER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
 REQUEST. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO ONLY
 PROVIDE 35% PALM TREES.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 THE SECOND WAIVER REQUEST PERTAINS TO SECTION
 94-76(A)(3) PERTAINING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN
 RELATION TO REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING
 A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHICH WOULD EXCEED
 THE MAXIMUM CODE ALLOWANCE OF 40 FEET BASED ON THE
 PROPOSED SETBACKS. AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THE
 APPLICANT IS SEEKING A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
 MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY, AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF
 MULTIFAMILY 20 WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
 (RPD). THE CITY ALLOWS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN
 ORDER TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DESIGN. IT IS STAFF?S
 OPINION THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL DOES NOT
 INCORPORATE ANY INNOVATIVE DESIGN COMPONENTS. IN ORDER
 FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE HEIGHT/WAIVER REQUEST, THE
 PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DESIGN
 COMPONENTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE, SUCH AS
 THE FOLLOWING: A) ALL THE PERIMETER AND EXTERNAL ACCESS
 WALKWAYS/SIDEWALKS SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 5
 FEET (CURRENTLY SOME ARE ONLY 4 FEET WIDE); B) ADD
 ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS TO THE PROPOSED BIKE PARKING
 AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND,
 CLUBHOUSE, AND BUS SHELTER; AND C) PROVIDE AN 8 FOOT
 WIDE PAVED PATHWAY (PREFERABLY ASPHALT) AROUND THE
 EXISTING LAKE.
 RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DESIGN COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN
 PROVIDED. THE PLAYGROUND HAS BEEN ENLARGED, ALL
 SIDEWALKS ARE NOW SHOWN AT 5 FT., ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS
 ARE PROVIDED, AND AN 8 FT. WIDE MULCH PATHWAY IS
 PROVIDED AROUND THE EXISTING LAKE. A MULCH PATH WAS
 CHOSEN IN LIEU OF AN ASPHALT PATHWAY TO REDUCE THE RISK
 OF INJURY BY FALLING INTO THE LAKE (E.G. A CHILD RIDING
 A BIKE ON THE ASPHALT PATH).
  
 CITY COMMENT: CITY STAFF AGREES THAT THE COMMENT
 PERTAINING TO THE WIDENING OF THE SIDEWALKS AND THE
 INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL BIKE RACKS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED;
 HOWEVER, STAFF IS NOT IN AGREEMENT THAT THE 8 FOOT WIDE
 PATHWAY AROUND THE LAKE BE COVERED WITH MULCH AS THE
 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND STILL REQUIRES THAT IT BE
 CONSTRUCTED WITH A HARDENED SURFACE AND MEETS ADA
 REQUIREMENTS. IN STAFF?S OPINION, A MULCH PATH WOULD
 NOT REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURY BY FALLING INTO THE LAKE
 WHEN COMPARED TO A PATH CONSTRUCTED WITH A HARDENED
 SURFACE.
  
 9. LANDSCAPE PLAN (SHEET LP-1) ? PLEASE REVISE THE
 LANDSCAPE CODE COMPLIANCE CHART AS IT APPEARS TO
 UNDERCOUNT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES PER CODE.
 SPECIFICALLY, PER SECTIONS 94-443(C)3A TERMINAL ISLANDS
 AND 94-443(C)3B INTERIOR ISLANDS AT LEAST 49 SHADE OR
 FLOWERING TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
 THIS LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WOULD REPLACE THE PARKING
 LOT REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 10 SF OF PARKING SPACE
 REFLECTED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN CHART INCLUDED IN THE
 APPLICATION. ALSO, PER SECTION 94-443(D)(2)A THIS
 PROJECT WOULD NEED 184 EXTERIOR STRUCTURE TREES.
 COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED 101 PERIMETER TREES, THE
 TOTAL REQUIRED TREES WOULD BE 334. PLEASE REVISE THE
 PLANS AND THE CHART ACCORDINGLY.
 RESPONSE: THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CODE COMPLIANCE CHART
 HAVE BEEN REVISED ACCORDINGLY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
 10. LANDSCAPE PLAN ? PLEASE PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL TREE
 SURVEY USED TO DEVELOP THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN (TI.1)
 INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
 RESPONSE: THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WITH
 DATA GATHERED BY A SUB-METER ACCURATE GPS SYSTEM. THIS
 INFORMATION WAS USED TO AUGMENT AND UPDATE THE ORIGINAL
 TREE SURVEY PERFORMED PRIOR TO SITE CLEARING IN 2006.
 SEE THE ORIGINAL TREE SURVEY INCLUDED WITH THE
 RESUBMITTAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE TABULAR TREE LIST ON THE
 TREE INVENTORY PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH HEIGHTS OF
 ALL PALMS. ALSO, THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE JUNE 12, 2013
 PPRC WITH THE GROUPING OF SABALS (TEMPORARY HOLDING
 AREA) SHOWN ON THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN. RATHER THAN GPS
 THE HUNDREDS OF SABALS, THEY WERE COUNTED AND RECORDED
 IN A CLUMP WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 94-448.
 (D).(2).F OF THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH LAND
 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
  
 11. PER SECTION 94-443(C)(1) ?VEHICULAR USE AREAS
 SHALL BE SCREENED FROM RESIDENTIAL USES AND DISTRICTS
 BY A 36-INCH HIGH? DECORATIVE WALL. PLEASE REVISE THE
 PLANS ACCORDINGLY TO INCORPORATE THIS WALL AROUND THE
 VEHICULAR USE AREAS ON THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH SIDES
 OF THE PROJECT.
 RESPONSE: THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW A 36?
 HT. WALL ADJACENT TO ALL VEHICULAR USE AREAS.
  
 CITY COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
 WITH REGARDS TO THE 36 INCH DECORATIVE WALL, INCLUDING
 A GRAPHIC DETAIL OF THE WALL. IN ADDITION, IT APPEARS
 THAT THE LOCATION OF THIS WALL MAY CONFLICT WITH THE
 LOCATION OF SEVERAL TREES AND OTHER BUFFER LANDSCAPING
 AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE ADDRESS
 THIS APPARENT CONFLICT. FOR EXAMPLE, INCLUDE A CROSS
 SECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH TREES, WHICH
 INCLUDES THE WALL.
  
 12. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM OR
 PLAN THAT WILL BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT. BE AWARE THAT
 THE CITY?S SANITATION DIVISION WOULD NEED TO APPROVE IN
 WRITING ANY GARBAGE COLLECTION PLAN.
 RESPONSE: IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 12, 2013 PPRC
 MEETING THAT THE CITY SANITATION SERVICE WILL NOT EMPTY
 THE COMPACTOR. SOME OTHER SANITATION SERVICE WILL HAVE
 TO BE UTILIZED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CURRENTLY
 LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES. ONCE A SERVICE PROVIDER HAS
 BEEN DETERMINED, THE PROPERTY WILL NOTIFY THE CITY.
  
 CITY COMMENT: COMMENT ADDRESSED
  
  
 13. WHILE THE TYPICAL BICYCLE RACK DETAIL INCLUDED ON
 RP.1 DOES INCLUDE THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE BIKE PARKING
 PAD AND THE BIKE RACKS, THE SITE PLAN (SP.1) DOES NOT
 INCLUDE THOSE DIMENSIONS. PLEASE MODIFY THE SITE PLAN
 ACCORDINGLY.
 RESPONSE: THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED TO DIMENSION
 THE BIKE RACKS.
  
 CITY COMMENT: IT APPEARS THAT THE BIKE PARKING PADS
 LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CLUBHOUSE AND TO THE NORTH OF
 BUILDING 2 DO NOT INCLUDE THEIR DIMENSIONS. PLEASE
 REVISE ACCORDINGLY.
  
 14. PLEASE CLARIFY AND ADDRESS THE MANY APPARENT
 CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE
 SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. THESE
 CONFLICTS COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REDUCING THE WIDTH OF
 THE PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT OR BY SHIFTING ITS
 LOCATION. IN ADDITION, A PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT IS
 IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS IN A TERMINAL LANDSCAPE ISLAND.
 PLEASE RELOCATE THE HYDRANT.
 RESPONSE: THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED AND ALL
 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE EASEMENTS.
 ADDITIONALLY, THE FIRE HYDRANT IN THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND
 IS LOCATED WITH ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE REQUIRED
 LANDSCAPE ISLAND CANOPY TREE.
  
 CITY COMMENT: THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE
 WIDTH OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THERE
 ARE STILL SEVERAL POTENTIAL CONFLICT POINTS BETWEEN THE
 UTILITY EASEMENTS REFLECTED IN THE SITE PLAN AND
 LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ELEMENTS. PLEASE REVISE THE PLANS
 ACCORDINGLY.
  
  
 15. PER SECTION 94-130(D) ?ANY OPERATION OR ACTIVITY
 PRODUCING GLARE SHALL BE CONDUCTED SO THAT DIRECT OR
 INDIRECT LIGHT FROM THE SOURCE SHALL NOT CAUSE
 ILLUMINATION IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT CANDLES WHEN
 MEASURED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT?. THE PHOTOMETRIC
 PLANS PROVIDED DO NOT IDENTIFY ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR
 THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE WEST, SOUTH
 AND EAST RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
 FOR BELLA VITA. THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS NEED TO BE
 REVISED DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN
 WILL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO THE
 SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
 RESPONSE: THE PHOTOMETRY DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO
 INCORPORATE AND COMPLY WITH THE SPILLAGE REQUIREMENTS
 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES (WEST, EAST, SOUTH
 SIDES).
  
 CITY COMMENT: CITY STAFF NOTICED THAT THE REVISED
 PHOTOMETRIC PLANS INDICATED THAT ALL THE AREAS
 IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAD MEASUREMENTS
 OF 0.00 FOOT CANDLES, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE IF A
 HIGH WALL WERE TO BE PRESENT. WHEN SPEAKING WITH
 WILLIAM PINO, PE, WHO SIGNED AND SEALED THESE PLANS,
 MR. PINO INDICATED THAT HE WAS TOLD BY THE APPLICANT TO
 ASSUME A 6 FOOT PERIMETER WALL AROUND THE PROPERTY IN
 HIS ANALYSIS, AND THAT THE PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS FOR
 THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE
 DIFFERENT FROM THOSE REFLECTED IN THE REVISED PLANS
 WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THIS WALL. SINCE THERE IS NO 6
 FOOT PERIMETER WALL PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT,
 THE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED
 ACCORDINGLY OR THE PLANS WOULD NOW NEED TO INCORPORATE
 A 6 FOOT PERIMETER WALL.
  
 16. IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL LIGHT POLES ARE LOCATED
 WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. LIGHT POLES ARE CONSIDERED
 STRUCTURES BY THE CODE AND NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED
 WITHIN THE SETBACK. THESE LIGHT POLES WOULD NEED TO BE
 RELOCATED OR THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR A
 WAIVER TO ALLOW THEM WITHIN THE SETBACK.
 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHTING, THE LIGHT POLES
 ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACKS. FOR THIS REASON, A
 WAIVER HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE REQUEST.
  
 CITY COMMENT: ACKNOWLEDGED
  
  Print


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