REVIEW COMMENTS
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Develooment of Rel!ional Imoact
Project name: Motorola
File number: DRIA 02-002
Reference: I "review plans identified as Development of Regional Impact Amendment with a September 18,
2002 Plannin~ and Zonin~ Department date stamp markin~
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
1. In the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) provided with the DR! application the
introduction does not address the planned land use re-designation of a
portion of the DR! from Industrial to Residential. Accordingly the TIA
shall be revised which properly addresses all of the proposed land use
changes.
2. The TIA provided has been forwarded to Palm Beach County Traffic
Engineerin~ for review. No response has been received at this time.
UTILITIES
Comments:
3. Water and wastewater service are available to the site. Future specific uses
as set forth in Exhibit "0" (to be refined) for service to the retail and multi-
family designated areas will have to be analyzed on an area by area basis.
FIRE
Comments:
4. The site plan and master plan design documents shall adhere to Chapter 9 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach entitled "Fire
Protection and Prevention." This ordinance adopts NFP A I, Fire
Prevention Code, 2000 edition, and NFP A 10 I. Life Safety Code, 2000
edition. (these codes, as amended are identified as the Florida Fire
Prevention Code)
5. Design documents shall demonstrate compliance with LOR Chapter 6,
Section 16, which provides requirements for hydrants. Hydrants in
commercial applications shall be no more than 300 ft. apart and the remotest
part of any structure shall be no more than 200 ft. from a hydrant.
Connections shall be to mains no less than 6 inches in diameter. In addition
to domestic requirements at a residual pressure of not less than 20 psi, a fire
flow of at least 1500 gpm is required.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
12/29/03
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
6. Design documents where underground water mains and hydrants are to be
provided, must demonstrate that they will be installed, completed, and in
service prior to construction work per the Florida Fire Prevention Code,
(2000) Section 29-2.3.2.
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
7. No comments at this time - future specific uses as set forth in Exhibit "D"
(to be refined) for the retail and multi-family designated areas will be
analyzed on a case by case basis
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
8. The notice mentions 500 residential units to be added to the development.
These units would be subject to the Park and Recreation Impact Fee based
on the type of units involved.
Single Family, detached ~ $940 ea
Single Family, attached = $771 ea
Multi-family = $656 ea
9. The fee is due at the time of the first applicable building permit.
10. Our department would be interested in exploring the possibility of a
green way / bikeway easement along the east and south sides of this property
especially along the E-4 canal.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
II. EXHIBIT "D"
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
12/29/03
3
DEPARTMENTS
INCLUDE REJECT
The are existing active Burrowing Owl nests on the two areas shown on the
above exhibit "D" noted as:
1. Industrial (Office / Warehouse / Manufacturing, 40.09 acres)
2. Multi-Family / Retail (34.00 acres)
The applicant must have an environmental assessment of these two areas and
obtain a Burrowing Owl permit through the Florida Wildlife Commission
(FWC). This information should be included with the DR! notice of
ro osed chan e a lication.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
\3.
a
of
zon
to
Ice, Warehouse
ess warehouse or manufacturing
~
Provide the Master Plan at 24"x36" size. Include the amount of vested trips
for the DR! in a note on the plan.
ec ub tial on art fo
acreage figure is 40.09 not 49.09 as shown.
~
Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
change.
~
Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands for the proposed change.
~
Project must address school concurrency. Submit school concurrency
application to Palm Beach County School Board for approval.
e t
orther .
la
d availabi .
cessible to
Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) S.a. and (19)(e) S.c. the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This
resum tion may be rebutted b clear and convincing evidence.
MWR/sc S;IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIMotorola DRIIDRI11ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
'j...i'.~r
.,\ "
1':'1)::';'
The City of Boynton Beach
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Aorida 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742-6259
www.boynton-beach.org
July 14, 2004
Ms. Donna Harris
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: Motorola - DRI - Amendment No.1
(Our Ref. No. DRIA 02-002)
Dear Ms. Harris:
Margaret-Ray Kemper, Esq. Of Ruden McClosky, counsel for the master
developer, reviewed the Department's DRI files for Motorola and did
not find a copy of the amended development order. Based on her
conversation with Department staff, we are providing a certified
copy of the ordinance for your files indicating that it had been
rendered to the Department in January, 2003.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (561) 742-6260.
Sincerely,
~
Ed Breese
Principal Planner
cc. Kim Glas-Castro, Ruden McClosky
The Citt] of Bot]nton Beach
. ct.
City Clerk', QIjlce
100 E BOYNTON BEACH BLVD
BOYNTON BEACH FI..33435
(561)742--6060
PAX: (561)742-6090
e-mail: prainitoj@cihoqnton-heachllus
www.boynton-beach.org
CERTIFICATION
I, JANET M. PRAINITO, CITY CLERK of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida,
do hereby certify that the attached copy of a "CERTIFICATION" dated December 20,
2002, Ordinance No. 02-061 including Exhibits "A" and "B", (consisting of 12 pages),
Exhibit "C", Conditions of Approval, (consisting of four (4) pages), and a transmittal
letter regarding the Notification of a Proposed Change - Motorola - DRI - Amendment
No.1, dated January 2, 2003 to Mr. Bob Cambricare from Michael Rumpf, Planning &
Zoning Director, are true and correct copies as they appear in the records of the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida.
WITNESS, my hand and the corporate seal of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA, dated this 9th day of July, 2004.
~ 'tn. ~
ANET M. PRAINITO, CMC
CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
'. ficabon - Ordinance 02.061 - 7.09-04.doc
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
/VJA-5r6r<, ~.j
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Develooment of Rel!ional Imoact
1-27-04-
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: 1 st review plans identified as a Development of Relrional Impact with a November 12. 2003 Planning
da ki
~A)
and ZOnml! Department te stamn mar n".
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 1 0) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access /
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County ~
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and V
Gatewav) shall be bv protected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DRI site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration V
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right tum
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DRI will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the /'
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to detennine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the vi
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right tum lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be vi
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R. >/
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal V
descriotions, that will require abandonment for review and aooroval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the ./
LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show ./
all utilities on or adiacent to the project.
12. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the ./
aoorooriate agencies. This statement is lackin" on the submitted olans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide V
soecific justification for the high. values aoolied to office and industrial uses
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include V
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed ,;
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area,
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. /
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. Include the amount /
of vested trios for the DRI in a note on the olan.
18. Provide a letter from the South_FloridaWater Management District /
regardin' s 10 ground and surface water as a result ~ol)sed
ch~Prl'o-(t ~ / s~ elF A.... ~ evll...A,~ ft;;rUA,"R> .
19. Provi~sed pr.<J.il:ction of average daily potable ann "lOtiible water
demands as a result of the proposed change. V
20. Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency /
aoplication to Palm Beach County School Board for approval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (l9)(e) 5.a. and (l9)(e) 5.c. the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This V
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWRIsc
S;\planningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslDRIA 03-00111 ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Develoument of Reeional Imuact
K~ H
1.27.0Lf
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: I "review olans identified as a Develooment ofRegjonal Imoact with a November 12.2003 Plannimr
ki
and Zoninl> Deoartment date stamo mar nl>.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gatewav) shall be bv orotected left turn lane( s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be orovided at the time of olat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
imorovements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will reauire abandonment for review and annroval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the hil>h values annlied to office and industrial uses
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpdl sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd! sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.0 I dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area,
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. Include the amount
of vested trios for the DR! in a note on the olan.
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
chanl!e.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change.
20. Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency
aoolication to Palm Beach County School Board for approval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) S.c. the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWR/sc
S:\PlanninglSHAREDIWPlPROJECTSlRenaissance CommonslDRIA 03.()(J1\1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Develoument of Re!!ional Imuact
l~ fJA~VI V
'- ~I/l 7)1
-./1 .
/.5~il.-^-')
f,K.- J
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: 1 "review plans identified as a Development ofRegjonal Impact with a November 12.2003 Planning
and Zonint> Denartment date stamn markint>.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
I. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gatewav) shall be bv protected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
imnrovements necessary to suooort the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descrintions, that will reouire abandonment for review and approval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the nroiec!.
12. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
annronriate al!encies. This statement is lackim! on the submitted plans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
snecific iustification for the hil!h values annlied to office and industrial uses
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Piau for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. Include the amount
of vested trins for the DR! in a note on the ulan.
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
chanlre.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change.
20. Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency
annlication to Palm Beach County School Board for aooroval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWR/sc
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslORIA OJ-001\lST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Development of Rel!ional Impact
() 0~.
~//
Ytl&/ '" (0 t-{
t ;.-1
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001 '
Reference: I "review plans identified as a Development of Relrional Impact with a November 12. 2003 Planninl!
dZ . D d b
an Olllnl!! enartment ate stamn mar nO'.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (Le. Congress and
Gateway) shall be by protected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descrintions, that will reauire abandonment for review and annroval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
11. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the nroiect.
12. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
annronriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted nlans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
snecific justification for the hil!h values annlied to office and industrial uses
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area,
FIRE
Comments: NONE 1//
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Conunents: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Conunents: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Conunents: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Conunents:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. fuclude the amount
of vested trips for the DR! in a note on the plan.
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
chanl!e.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change.
20. Project must address school concurrency. Subrrrit a school concurrency
application to Palm Beach County School Board for approval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWR/sc
S;IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslDRIA 03-00111 ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
If, REVIEW COMMENTS
Development of Re2ional Impact
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: l;t review olans identified as a Develooment of Regional Impact with a November 12. 2003 Planning
and Zonino Deoartment date stamo marking
-
I I
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
I. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made b7
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access II'
associated with this site plan. The level of detail provided with the request
for a NOPC is not sufficient to adequately review solid waste disposal.
Access for solid waste disposal can and will be reviewed with the site plan
applications.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County l~\ .. ~
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division. Please see
Pinder Troutman letter dated 1-26-04 \\; I
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gateway) shall be by protected left turn lane(s). We acknowledge that all
access points with left turn access will be by designated left turn.
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DRI site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn \
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal. We acknowledge that
all access points will contain right turn lanes and the dedication of right-of- I
way will occur with the plat I
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DRI will generate less \
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service. Please see Pinder
Troutman letter dated 1-26-04 in addition please see Traffic letter from
Palm Beach County Engineer dated December 30'h 2003. ( Exhibit "a") ,
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on ,
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any \{
new building permits. Please see Pinder Troutman letter dated 1-26-04. If
necessary Developer will post a letter of Credit.
: ~
',. .
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS DRl.ldoc.doc
01/26/04
2
, u
DEPARTMENTS INCLUOE REJECT
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer I.-~- .._-.
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane. ,
Furthennore. the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to detennine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary. the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes.
at the time of plat submittal. The developer agrees to dedicate an additional
12 feet of right-of-way on Congress Avenue south of Gateway Boulevard.
Based upon the engineer's review of the survey and field conditions there
appears to be adequate room to allow for a third eastbound travel lane.
Additional right-of way would be required for the right turn lanes into the
site.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months. providing the content ~\
required in the LOR. Chapter 3, Article IV. Section 3.A-R. A survey with -
\. /,
the requirements is attached to this suhmission
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal Lt.\.
descriotions that will require abandonment for review and aooroval. \ \J
10. Provide a master stonn water management plan in accordance with the L:. \.
LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, and Section 3.T. A pre-application meeting- -\ . I.
II
was held with SFWMD on January 21. 2004 to discuss a conceptual \
Environmental Resource Pennit that is inclusive of the entire 85 acre site. ,
A master storm water management plan is currently being prepared to
submit to SFWMO in support of that application. This plan will be
presented with the next site plan submittal.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show li
all utilities on or adjacent to the project. The final locations of the services \ "
will be detennined by the actual uses and identified during the site specific
site plan review. Enclosed and attached hereto are the will serve letter from
the soeci fic agencies
12. The LOR. Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be \. ~-',
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the " I
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans. This
.... statement has been added to the NOPC master olan.
13.J Justifv the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those Ii~*"
""'" \'
. t_ ,....,;.4
1
,I
1
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS DRI.Idoe.doe
01/26/04
:1
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses
.Ruden Mclosky has revised there report. Please see Nopc #1 & Nopc #2
flow calculations which will identify additional capacity reserved in Nopc
#1 and the quantities necessary for Nopc #2.(See Exhibit "B" and "C")
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is hf'
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for .'
development with a high percentage of restaurants. and should not include \
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again.
more justification is needed. Please see revised submission from Ruden
Mclosky. The conversion factor is based on what was actually reserved in
NOPC #1
~
'.;j Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept). the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units ~\
'"1'" I
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re.study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area. We don dot agree that a study is necessary. The city
of Boynton can review the revised quantities necessary in Nopc # 2 and
specifically identify either by model simulation or actual simulation whether
or not infrastructure improvements are necessary.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
I ST REVIEW COMMENTS DR!. 1 doc.doc
01/26/04
4
, "
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. Enclosed
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. Include the amount
of vested trips for the DRI in a note on the plan. Enclosed
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
change. A permit modification will be necessary to the cxisting SFWMD
permit for surface water management issues and a new water use permit will
be necessary for irrigation water withdrawal from the groundwater. These
SFWMD permits will be provided to the City prior to a building permit in
the subject phase.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change. Please see attached Nope # 2
Calculations for what will be required (Exhibit C)
20. Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency
application to Palm Beach County School Board for approval. See attached
board approval letter dated December 19"' 2003 (exhibit" 0")
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) S.c. the application for a
proposed change IS presumed to ~ a substantial deviation. This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Both
residential and commercial are allowed in C3 and PID. While this may be
considered a change the changes are Staff Supported & initiated in an effort
to clean up the conglomeration of uses and zomng categories which
presently exists today as a result of NOPC #1. There is conclusive support
from a traffic standpoint (Exhibit "A")
MWRlsc
S:IPlannlngISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslDRIA 03-00111 ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a January 27,2004 Planning &
d ki
Zoning ate stamp mar ng.
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments:
1. The LDR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adjacent to the proiect.
2. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses.
3. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
4. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
5. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing
their compliance with access requirements within the code.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
I 1. To be determined. I I I
S :\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Renaissance Commons\MPMD 03-002\COA.doc
, 1st REVIEW COMMENTS
Master Plan Modification
:'-""'"",
JAH 2 7 trJ04
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002 _
Reference: I" review Dlans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a November 12. 2003 Planning and
Zoning Deoartment date stamo markincr
-.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
I. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made \
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan. The level of detail provided with the request Ii"
for a NOPC is not sufficient to adequately review solid waste disposal.
Access for solid waste disposal can and will be reviewed with the site plan
applications.
1.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County l-'
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division .Please see ~.
--\, -~ f
Pinder Troutman letter dated 1-26-04 ' t: .
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gateway) shall be by protected left tum lane(s). Wc acknowledge that all
access points with left tum access will be by designated left turn.
4. At a minimum, all right tum access to the DRI site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal. We acknowledge that
all access points will contain right turn lanes and the dedication of right-of-
way will occur with the plat
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DRI will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979. it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service. Please see Pinder
Troutman lettcr dated 1-26-04 in addition please see Traffic letter from
Palm Beach County Engineer dated December 30th 2003.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to detennine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County. then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110% \,-{
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any ..
new building permits. Please see Pinder Troutman letter dated 1-26-04. If
necessary Developer will post a letter of Credit.
. :t
..;.1
,
I ST REVIEW COMMENTS master plan.ldoc.doc
01/26/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane. 1.1'1- ~,
Furthennore. the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions ' Ii "
along Gateway Boulevard to detennine if additional right of way would be \
,
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If ,
necessary. the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane. and the required deceleration lanes.
at the time of plat submittal.
The developer agrees to dedicate an additional 12 feet of right-of-way on
Congrcss Avenue south of Gateway Boulevard. Based upon the civil engineer'~
review of the survey and field conditions there appears to be adequate room to
allow for a third eastbound travel lane. Additional right-of-way would be
required for the right turn lanes into the site.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content \,"\ ..
required in the LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.A-R. A survey with
the requirements is attached to this submission \: I
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s). including legal 1
descriptions, that will require abandonment for review and approval.
SeeExhibit "E"
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR. Chapter 3, Article IV. Section 3.T. L'
'..
, \
A pre-application meeting was held with SFWMO on January 21. 2004 to discuss \~ ' ,
a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit that is inclusive of the entire 85 acre
site. A master storm water management plan is currently being prepared to
submit to SFWMD in support of that application. This plan will be presented
with the next site plan submittal.
UTILITIES
Comments:
11. The LDR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show k'
The final locations of the services ~, - i
all utilities on or adjacent to the project. \ . . ;li
,,\1.
will be determined by the actual uses and identified during the site specific ,
site plan review. Enclosed and attached hereto are the will serve letters
r-- from the specific agencies (exhibt "F")
~~ l The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be kr~~'
" included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the I
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans. This
statement has been added to the master plan.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS master plan. I doc.doc
01/26/04
'\
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
13.! Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
~-' numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide \.~ ...
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial ~\'r /. . ,)
uses.Ruden Mclosky has revised there report. Please see N opc # I & N opc .,
#2 flow calculations which will identify additional capacity reserved in \
Nope #] and the quantites necessary for Nope #2.(Sce attached
spreadsheets) (see Exhibit B & C)
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. fl. which is
(, '
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. fl., but too low for ~/ \ "
f
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include \~ :
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed. Please see revised submission from Ruden
Mclosky. The conversion factor is based on what was actually re~erved in
NOPC #1 (see Exhibit B & C)
t.' Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
~
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units .__,_~:'C~"' _'
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed I
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to \
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater \
in the affected area. We dcm dot agree that a study is necessary. The city
of Boynton can review the revised quantities necessary in Nope # 2 and
specifically idendify either by model simulation or actual simulation
wheather or not infrastructure improvements are necessary. (see Exhibit B
&C)
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
1
I ST REVIEW COMMENTS master plan. I doc.doc
01/26/04
4
, ,
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size Encloscd
17. Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size Enclosed
18. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing
their comoliance with access reauirements within the code. So noted
19. Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. This statement has been added to the master plan.
MWRlsc
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslMPMD 03.00211ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1lI~ Ruden
~IIMcClosky
222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE
SUITE 800
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-6112
(5611 838-4542
FAX: (561) 514 3442
KIM .GLASCASTRO@RUDEN.COM
January 22. 2004
Renaissance Commons DRI
File Numbers: DRIA 03-001 and MPMD 03-002
WATER-SEWER USAGE RATE
Based on discussions with Pete Mazzella, Utility Director, the Use Conversion Analysis
for Water/Sewer Flow has been revised as follows:
I) the office flow rate has been revised to 100 gpdJlooo sf, consistent with City standards;
2) the multi-family residential rate has been reduced to 374 gpdJunit, which represents the
average of the flowage rates for 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units;
3) based on the water and sewer flow calculations prepared by Compson Associates, the
water and sewer conversion analysis has been revised. The commercial rate of 271
gpdJlOOO sf is being utilized as a blended rate; this rate was derived based on the
following:
Assumptions:
30,000 sf restaurant
183,000 sf commercial
792 seats @ 44 gpd
@ .125
34,848 gpd
22.875 g:od
57723 gpd
271 gpdJlOOO sf
WP8:172544.2
RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSElL, P.A.
CARACAS . fT. LAUDERDALE. MIAMI. NAPlES. ORLANDO. PORT ST. LUCIE. SARASOTA. ST. PETERSBURG. T41.1.AHAS5EE . TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH
Page 2
USE CONVERSION MATRIX
Industrial use has been eliminated from the conversion analyses and the proposed Use
Conversion Matrix since it is unlikely that it will be utilized in this mixed-use setting. If
industrial use is desired in the future, and NOPC will be filed to modify the approved uses for the
Renaissance Commons DR!.
The conversion analysis for water-sewer flow has been revised, as outlined previously.
The modified conversion table for water-sewer is depicted on the attached Analyses document.
Based on the revised analyses and comments from TCRPC, the proposed Use Conversion Matrix
has been modified as presented below. This table represents the conversion factor from each
analyses that generates the least amount of converted use.
Office
Multi-Familv
Commercial
1000 sf office
.36 du
392 sf
1 multi-family du 416 sf
188 sf
1000 sf commercial 650 sf
.68 du
WPB:172544:2
Affordable Housing:
Very Low Income = $31,400
Low Income = $50,250
(4 person household - 7/10/03, PBC-HCD)
Commercial:
1.83 employees at Very Low Income level per 1,000 s.1.
0.10 employees at Low Income leyel per 1,000 sJ.
Office:
2.83 employees at Very Low Income level per 1,000 s.f.
0.14 employees at Low Income level per 1.000 sJ.
Employee-Income Based (Very Low Income) Conversion Matrix:
Office
Multi-Family
Commercial
1000 sf office
1546 sf
I multi-family du
1000 sf commercial 650 sf
Employee-Income Based (Low Income) Conversion Matrix:
Office
Multi-Family
Commercial
1000 sf office
1400 sf
I multi-family du
1000 sf commercial 714 sf
WPB:16425l:8
RENAISSANCE COMMONS (fka Motorola) DRI
USE CONVERSION
ANALYSES
Total Water/Sewer Flow:
1000 sf office
1 multi-family du
1000 sf commercial
100 gallons/day
374 gallons/day
271 gallons/day
Water/Sewer-Based Conversion Matrix:
Office
Multi-Familv
Commercial
1000 sf office
,26dul
369 sf
1 multi-family du 3740 sf
1380 sf
1000 sf commercial 2710 sf
.73du
Total Trips: (max = 13,020 daily trips and 1,634 peak hour trips)
Trips-Based Conversion Matrix: (based on PM peak hour trip generation rates)
Office
Multi-Familv2
Commercial
1000 sf office
2.4 du
451 sf
I multi-family du 416 sf
188 sf
1000 sf commercial 2216 sf
5.33 du
I Bold figures are those utilized in Use Conversion Matrix
2 Conversion to residential use is based on PM peak hour trip generation rate for apartments.
WPB:164251:B
MOTOROLA DRI NOPC
Current Uses:
500 multi-family residential units
63,500 s.f. retail
450,000 s.L office
128,000 s.L industrial (warehouse) use
Proposed Uses:
213,000 s.L retail (includes 15,000 s.c. daycare)
247,800 s.c. office
1551 multi-family residential units
and establishment of a Use Conversion Matrix:
Office
Multi-Familv
1000 sf office
.26 du
I multi-family du 416 sf
1000 sf commercial 650 sf
.73 du
WPB:164603:5
Commercial
369 sf
188 sf
01/05/2004 08:47
.
.
'.
~.eiI~
~~.
Dr ut....., If ....
-.... -
"0._21219
_...... BelCh. PL!!4If>ol229
(561)-
Mow.pb<p.com
.
.... _ ea..,
.-.,-.
c . 1 J In
_T........"ClIalr
lllJIy _. Vlca C1Wrman
JeIf-
.
_H._U
Mary McCan)'
1Iun_
Addle L GIW*Io
C08II*J'..... .. 1 1 r
__1lW1
.~""""'~
~-...".....
5614341663
PINDER TROUTMAN
PAGE 02
II^ '"
'C.x4\; 11 r'l'
'~(-2-~ R~~D
Deoember 30, 2003
Mr. MIchMI Rumpf
DII1CIDr Pllnnlng . Zoning
CIty or Bv,I"" BIlICh
100 EMt IOynlDn Belch BouIeY8td
BoynIDn BIIIch, FL 33426-0310
RI: MOIaroll DRI- RH.....noe CoIll1/16. - NOPe n
TMPflC I'ERPCJIIlMANCE BTANDARDI ~
D8It Mr. Rumpf;
The Nm Beal County TIlIfIIc DlvIIIon _ ,....,...11 .. nmc .. got far the
prevIauIIr...,AG'" DRl_.....; Mok.....DRI-.... .I....-Ca ...MIa-NOPe"
pUl'llMllt tD the TI'IIIIc PwrfarrMnce 8IIIncIIRIa In MIdI 15 or.. PIIIm Be8Ch COunty
U1nd ~IllpnwntCocle. The prajIIct Ia ~ . faIIawa: ,.
LDUlon:
SouthelIIt comer of COIIIIU" Avenue II1d oatIway
BoVlr_d IIlW1eGtion.
""'~ ElNctl
13,020 DllII1, 1,834 ,.. Hour Tripe.
1,&61 MF Rellde,,1W UnIa. 247,100 SF Qener8I OIIoe,
1.,011O SF S.n.... ....... n 15,000 SF ~
c.nter.
1,21. AM 1lI1CI1,830 PM ,.. Hour TriPI
2006
lIu",clp_:
V...... DR! ,.,..:
P. 'r 'lid u..:
""I!'H ,.,..:
lulkkul:
.... an our reWlw, the TI1IfIIc DIvtIIon h8I dIWmInId th8t IIlI nwIMd DR! II
pI1IjaclM III e-- .... pMk hour trIplI thin wh1It... ~ 1lIlIIRMd. MIl
It";... ,.. the TrItIIc PeIl",.Wla ~ fA PR1I a.ch County. .... on
the peIk Ilaur ~ provided by the conauItImt, It II hallMVW IIUIIIIIIIJlItlIiI the
following proJC _ clrI\lIl.iIIIYB tul'l1411W (. ....1r1Id In NOPe '1) III be pnMded:
. SOuthbound Ieft-tum 18r-.eIong Conrlrllt A~, ontollll northernlnCl
lhe m~ drivftIIY8.
. NorIhbound r1ght-tum _.rang CClIIIII'. AV8I1l1B,llIltlllh81lOU1h11m and
the mIdcIIe dnv.w.y..
. Weatbound IelMUm 11M along Glda.ny 1IouIeY8Ird, ontD the I..tam
d~'.
. S:atlbouncl rIgtlt-tum '-lie 81On8 Gate._/ EIouIlMIrd, onto the MIt8tn
~. ,;
JAN-l!I5-20lil4 08:~ FAX:5614341663
ID: CI.lMPSlJN ASSOCIATES
PFlGE:0B2 R=l00%
01/05/2064 08:47
5614341663
PINDER TROUTMAN
t-'A\:j~ ~3
fflr' 2-
.
~
Furthennonl. due 10 the lIUb8t8n'" chqe& In "nd Ulel)'pell. in coml**m IIll whit
_ approved In NOPe &11, there may be a 8hlft fit proJect gen...eed tratIIc IIll 0Iher
clrt\.w8y hlcIIIIonl. hence. requiring lIddlllarlllllllldulllVe turn IIn8llllt -- 1ocrIlIon..
TheM new requIremenbIlNY be IdenlIfled upon oomplellan of tile pRIjeot IIle pIlIn, Ind
1U"-qI l8I1t IbIK8lt of peIk hWr tripe.
If you h8Ye IIIIY qlKllllona reganllng this clelerminlltiOn. pIeQI contaot me.. 884-4030.
SIIlC1ll1!y .
/V).
MaIoUd AIIll.
Sr. Engl_.
ec: PlndIr TlllUlIm COneuIllnG InC.
fie: o.n..I. TPS - Mun . T'" Study ~
1':\T1W'Flc:IIMW~122li.dIIo
".
JAN-05-20lil4 lil8.32AM FAX. 5614341663
10' COMPSON RSSOCIATES
PAGE. l2l03 R=ll!l0x
.,tlYNTON BCH UTILITIES FAX NO. : 5617426298
Jul. 17 2003 03:17PM P3
~"'N I~ml i~
II mil
r
IllIn .
~II .1
~I
II I I~ I
~ I I
~ "'.... ~~e;'~c I
II "IiII:" I
I ' imm m~~~~~ . ..
I ~ F= I
..
; I
iii If
lU .. Q~ m iG1
ffiJ 1 ~
....- ~, i ~; ~t~ iI
i..
)1, 1 1 ~ ~ I
I
, 1
IS
r I
.1 I t4!1!l !l. "liiU II
. I!I I ['
f ')<.
,'.' . :5
rffiJ 8. -
i1i I 3':'all ~1"W~aI I~ I C>
=\
,I 1
II Ilill mil I ~ c;
1il'1I. ....
I I ('
, ,
'+-
I h~m i -
0
,
I'
'.
...~ BCH UTILITIES FAX NU.
; ::>b:L(4':::b.c::-:lI1:I
~........ .... ---- -
t[ ^ll 1.'1 I f (l~ II
,..'<1
1"" ?- L,
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT NO. 03-101 i\l'-'f( il (
..a t.
TO:
Diane Reese, FT
P..- V. Mazzella, ty Utilities Director
July 8, 2003
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Capital Facilities .Charge Tnmsmittal - Motorola Site . Rellal..ance
Conuaou. '
Tho developer 11IIl olectecl to pre-pay tbe capital faeiUties charSll8 for . POrtloll of tbiI
project ra1her than pay the caplCity rMerVation fee, as allowed by section 26-34(B) oftbe
City's code.
The capital faDillt:iel abarge iI baaed \!pOll the UDit Iizo uu1 count as IhoWD on the
attacbed sheet. Paymat of this fee was a condition of the purcha8e OOI1trICt for the lad.
which is why we are reooiviDS IUCh ,large 8DJQ1JDt at this tidlO. Tho p18DI for the project
are stlI1 beiDa reviIod. 80 we cazmOt aseOJ'tain exact builtU". - unit ~ or
addreInI at tbia time. W. wID, ..lftr, ....._t . breaJrdowa of bat"""'" milt
Il...... far .... eapUal faeUltlas ....... froIa the __per. uul tra:a--U tlaat
iDlanDatloD to itae ....ctllll D1v1don .0 that da.. IIDOP" ....., be pl'OJIIIlJ
endItecl.
Tho attac~ cheekDO. 1601 in the IJI]OUI1t; ofS447,693.8S ~cl be credited u foUOWI:
Water Capltll FICilit:lea ChIrge
Sewer Capital FacUitill8 Charp
Amount $ 380,092.08
AmountS~
Total ~
, 1
P10ue deposit tbiI check in the "9tdopriate C:'lP fee 1lCCO\U1lB. Tb- you.
Tho tel<<Vat101l fee for the ballDCO of this project is being sent to you UDder .eparato
cover.
Attlr-"-t
PVM ' .
Xc: Peter Ma.......'J.. (w/oopy of .~o"-en~)
Tim L8rgc, Buildin. DiWion. Dept. ofDovolopa1O"t (w/C/JPY of a~)
John pqlianJlo, BuildiDa Divilion (w/eopy of aua~1._....~) .'
Pile
o
6
o
n
"
3
'"
"
In
..
"
0.
m
~
~.
fi
..
"-
><
CD
."
."
!!l
'--
::>
~
~
"
3
'"
~
6
,...
o
o
g
c
;::
m
z
i
o
s
a
~
~
a
..
f)
~
Q
f
"
z
~
Il!i
"'~
zz
ss.
'" '"
o~
;::."
ffia
." !S.
" 3
-a~
&1~
!X 81
am
2 #-
no
" -
~i
0",
" 0
~~
~~
0.",
.. 0
",-
gm
0.-
8 ~
3 ..
;;I
~. m
-'"
0' Cir
2 2
on
" "
i>>![
or",
_0.
i5i
~~.
-~
=..
~ ;
a."
.c '"
" ~
a' ~
3 ..
"'-!i-
~
if
g
'"
."
.2.
~
-
~
:IJ
i
i!.
..
z
o
."
n
..
-
m:;;
! ~
~ ~
"''''
"''''
"'..
1:oi\>
O>~
"''''
z
o
Il
..
'"
~~
'"-"Co
"'0>
"'....
~
0.
,.
or
"
..
"'&lo
~P-tl
"'......
~ ~ Q.
-<!
z
m
0.
'"
0.
O:IJ:IJO
b CD ctl ~
3 ~~. g
3 l>> a. (1)
CD ~ ~
Q. ~ ~
~--
~ '"
~~~~
88~~
00.....0
ocao;o
OI\)~O
(J)OOC:C/)
.c IE 2'-!i-
'''_In
o
i\)t8~
'"
Gl Gl
"mGl"
S2CD"'tIS2
cnel.orn
-!i- -!i-
~....,j:-",I\)
-lSg:~
8 ~ex>
'"
~
co
'"
~'i15l~
_ _ tn_
~~~~
c
'"
'"
'"
c
"
,.
~
!!l
"
~
1::
g-
ill.
o
"
z
o
So
C
"
iJf
"
~
Gl
"
o
O::IJJJO
~t!~.g
3 l>> Co Cll
"''' '"
~ "
9. ~ g.
~--
c
'"
'"
'"
~ '"
~~.....~
g8ffi~
00.....0
8..... cct~ o~
"'~o::+
J!1m"",
",a~-!i-
:;;
~
~
o Jl
:....~Sd......~
[)l~.Jlo.O'I>
[
~r
Gl Gl
"mGl"
0..,,0
iao~
~ Z
ex> ~ 0
~~~~s.
~N......Q)3=
~ ,.
..
~
'"
~
"
~~~~~
~'fE3:::;Gl
O'ICXl~O~
"
~
o
~
n
"
a
o'
"
m
."
a
..
0.
'"
::r
e
......z
,0
......
0')"'0
,C)
~=II:
N
~
,
<:
(
U\OOL 01.0
"5 "--'
f.JJ . C?
i5, ~" ,Q
~\"~d
~~~u~~
, ,
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT
. 3320 FOREST HILL BLVD" G-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 334lJ6.5613
(561) 434-8020 FAX: (561) 434-8187
ARTHURC, JOHNSON, Ph.D.
SUPERINTENDENT
"\. )( ~ Ii; f
~( 1.1
[)
December 19,2003
Dick Hudson, AICP
Senior Planner. Planning Department
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
RE: CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION - CASE #03120301C - RENAISSANCE
COMMONS DRI (FKA MOTOROLA) PHASE III
Dear Mr, Hudson:
The Palm Beach County School District has reviewed the above referenced project for a
Concurrency Determination for 1001 multi-family units,
Attached please find the approved Palm Beach County School District Concurrency
Application and Service Provider Fonn for Renaissance Commons DRI Phase III, This
concurrency detennination is valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance, Once a
Development Order has been issued for the project, the concurrency determination will be
valid for the life of the Development Order,
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact me at
(561) 434-7343,
Sincerely,
cc: Ruden McClosky
enc.
S:\Planning\Public\lNTERGOV\Concurrency\Concurrency Detennination letters\concurrency\C03120301 C.doc
AN EQUAl OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
t. X It I () T
NO,995 P001/003
~ ( \ I I
~ I U~~
@ 8ELLSOUTH
06/09/03 09:07
BellSoulh r...............lou.. I....
E....eerhII Deplrl....,
u,," Mils
3211E2"'SIrIII
Deny 1loIch. Fl33483
om..: ~'-9II-6!I12
VII: S61-2'~
06-09.2003
Carl E. Klepper lr.
Compaon associates Inc
910 North Federal Hwy suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Re: ReniusllJlCe Commons
Dear Carl:
This letter is to continn that BeIlSouth Telecommunications, Inc. will be the source of
supply for telephone service with adequate capacity to the above referenced project,
provided we are granted a means for our facilities to get to each individual unit (by
recorded easement or conduit). It should be noted that BellSouth Telecommunications,
Inc, may require exclusive easemenlS for structures that house electronic switching
equipment. (See attached Easement Docwnent).
The BellSoutb representative who will be working with you and members of your
organization on this Development is Lance Mills - OSPE . Engineering. He can be
reached at (561) 988-6512, Please contact the Engineer to schedule a Pre-CODStrIlCtion
Meeting at your earliest convenience.
Durins the Pre-CoDslrUetion Meeting, various topics will be discussed to ensure
successful and timely construc:1ion of telecommunications facilities within the
Subdivision. These topics will include scheduling of service dates for differeDt residcntial
building construction phases. procedures for damage prevention. damalcs to faeilities
and easemenlS and righlS1Jf-way required for placement of8ellSouth facilities within the
Development.
Additional infonnation regarding ~&hts.of-way and easementS in the Development is
provided below to facilitate BeUSoutb's placement offaciUties.
06/1219/1213 09:1217
NO.995 P12I12I2/1211213
t' 'I
f L
Florida Puplic Service Commission Rule 25-4.090(2) provides that the Utility does not
have any responsibility to provide local exchange service via underground facilities
unless rights-of-way and easements suitable to the utility arc furnished by the applicant in
reasonable time to moet servico requirements and, at no cost, cleared oftrees, tree
stumps, paving and other obstructions, stated to show propeny lines and final grade, and
must be graded to within six (6) inches of final gTade by the applicant all at no cost to the
utility.
The clearing and grading must be maintained by the applicant during construction by the
utility. (See attached Certificate of Final Grade Document).
Under the Rule, rights-of-way and easements must be cleared ofpavini and other
obstructions, and the clearing mUlit be maintained during construction by the utility.
BellSouth cable is generally placed behind the curb in a utility easement, however, in
certain places within the Development, it will be necessary for the cable 10 cross the
roadway.
Irroads, driveways and sidewalks arc placed in advance of Bell South cable placement,
the following alternatives exist to provide and maintain a cleared right-of-way or
casement area as required by the Rule: (I) placement of conduit for BellSouth where it
will be necessary for BellSouth ,cable to cross the paved roadway, driveway and
sidcwalks or (2) maintaining gaps in the paved roadways and driveways and/or removing
the paving in those areas for BellSouth when it commences c:onstn1etion to place cable.
Note that conduit is not required for the cable, which can be direct buried in easements or
rights-of-way provided by the developer. But, ifpaving occurs prior to placement of the
cable, the conduit essentially maintains a "clear" area for cable placement
notwithstanding the obstr\lCtiOn created by the paving,
,
If you choose to place conduit, BellSouth will work with'you to provide crossing
locations. BellSouth win attempt to call for CTOSiinga at locations wbere the electric:
company is crossing to minimize expease to the developer but requires infonnation from
the electric company on a timcly basis to accomplish this aoal, Bcl1Soutb will also, upon
request when feasible, work with you on site when conduit crossings arc placed and
provide" clectronic markenl" 10 be placed lUbe appropriate locations.
"
NO.995 P003/003
06/09/03 09:07
, ,
'I .\
f 3
If placed, tJ:te conduit should be 2. 4" schedule 40 PVC sleeves at the road and driveway
crossing locations, placed at a minimum 24" depth, bul not to exceed 30" below tinal
grade, and should extend behind the cuIb 4' into the utility easement. The sleeves should
tenoinate under a future grass area, not under a sidewalk or other obstruction. The ends
of the sleeves are to be marked above ground or using "electronic markers" provided by
BellSouth.
Below is a list of documentation and information that must be provided to the BellSoulh
representative associated with this project,
CADD tile ofthe project (overall site plan in either Microslalion or AutoCadd format)
Full size hud copy of overall site plan
Full size copy ofplaltod drawings
Full size hard copy of water and sewer drawings
Full size bard copy ofelectricaJ drawings (if multi-family or commercial buildings)
Completed Easement Documents
Property Control #
Address of each unit
This information must be provided to the Be1ISouth representative a minimum of 4
months prior to the rust expected service request. If temporary service to a construction
trailer/office is requested prior to permanent service to the development, a charge for
special construction may be required.
The company shall have no responsibility to provide service unless these conditions are
met,
As always, we win work with you individually and help to resolve any particular issues
you may have regarding these requirements.
If you have any other SIl8gestions regarding bow our companies can work together to
accomplished the desired and required ends. plll8Se let \IS know. If you bave any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us,
Sincerely, ~
e~~
OSPE - Engineering
d H
r=
MaY-SO-OS 02:S0pm
Received 05/30/~_' 03:13PM in 04:26 on line [5] for RMACfARl" ; 3/5
Fr....COMPSON ASSOCIATES 5513912423 T-m P,03/05 F-m
~
.
P:PL
Acrido p."....& LIQhl Compony
May 8, 2003
Mr;' Carl E. Klepper
Managing Membolr
compllan Assoc'-
980 Nollll Flderal Highway
8ub ZOO
Boca RatOll. FI 33432
Re: Renall5Hnee Commons
Dear Mr. Klepper.
This is to con1lrm thlt. at the present time, FPL has lIUfIiolent ClIpac!ty to provtde electric service to the
above captioned property. This service Will be fumished in _llIanee with applicable rates, RIles and
regulations.
Pleue provide the f1l11lllle plan, stte sulVe}' and elllCllicalloed data al soon IS possible so the necessary
engineering can begin.
EarlY DOllUllll WIth FPL Is essentiBl 50 that reeouroes mllY be scI1eduled to facilitate availability of ..lVice
when required,
~ncfrJ ",,/
(j.j.. ~
V.L. Nocera
Large ClIIllomer PrQi8Cll Manager
on ~PL Group Oompony
T''''''''''l.~~';'l~:!'? '
,:~,,",,"_'~Yl~~,-;t".' :;y,'" ,:}\",::,:,:- .
Receivod 05/30/2003 03:13PM in 04:26 on line [5] for RMACFARL *'...( 2/5
Fr..-COM.SON ASSOCIATES 5613l12m HIS P.02I05 F-TIS
~ ~ . ,
f
r;
02:80pm
F10dda
PUlIe
oJ UUIII:I8a
Company
Carl E. Klepper
Compson Associates of Boynton
980 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
P,Q. Box 3395
West Palm Beach
FL 33402.3395
(:i61)832.2461
-'- -'--May 13,2003
R.E: Renaislanllce Commons
Dear Mr. Klepper:
Per your request, we have reviewed referenced project and have determined that HoridA
Public Utilities presently has no natural gas facilities within this area. However, our company
may be able to provide your project with natural gas or propane facilities to meet your
specifications.
Our Marketing Depamnenl will be happy to provide information about the availability Ilnd
advantages of using natural or propane gas. I will forward II copy of your inlbrmation to
them, You can contact them directly by calling Rob Long at (561}838-1753.
We would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this project, If you need any
admtloiiill' filiormation oi'I can be 01 any' furiner- lIssistarice. plellSe COTltlCt me at - ..,
(561)838-1768.
.--" .'-
~~~
FI1\III' Studenski
Engineering Tech
cc:
C.C. Canino
FPUC Marketing
1\.... 1 A _rn..~WIII_
...... -
...-..aW77.
...,.......no__
FROM: CITY OF BOYNTON BCH UTILITIES FAX NO. : 5617426298
rla~. 1<11 ,,1<I1<I.:l 1<1,,: 4::>1-'1" ....1
, "
2h
"r--" 0
The City of Boynton Beach
"'-/
(( )
, ,
\
j
Uf1/.J'1'/ES IJXPAtmlBNT
l:U 5. Waolbrlght Road
Bo/ln"," Boa"'" JI'/orldd SS4S5
OJ1loe: (561) 743~1
FAX: (661) 74:NS298
W.bsl.:WIUIU.oI. bo/lnllln-beach.ft. WI
May t, 2003
Mr. Cut B. Klepper, Managing Member
Campson Al800iatea
980 North FcdcnU Highway, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Via Fax 561 391.2423
RB: RenailllllnllC Commons - 29 acre vacant plltCol on south sido of Motorola PllIperIy along
Congress Ave" Boynton BeaCh
DllIr Mr. Klepper:
P1cue acoopt this latter IS contlnnation that the City of Boynton Beach Utilities Dqlartment will be
rhe water and ewer .ervice provider for the referenClCld project, and that both potable water and
S8IIitary ewer maina III'C available adjacent ill the site. Adequate capacity CU1TCIltly Oldsta for the
intended IIU, but a JeIClI'VlItion fee for any additional capllCity has not bOCDl paid Il8 of this date. This
letter, therefore, is not to be COIl8trucd IS a certification of conc:umncy,
I trust thlsletter mCICIt8 your needs. PIllll80 direct any further qutllltiolll on this matter to me at your
_liest convenience.
8711;7
.~
Peter V. Muzolla
Deputy Director ofUtilities
Attachment
PVM
Xc: Dale Suamnan
PellI' Mazzol1a
File
~"",.,.,,~ Oa/ftlOY I. tIrI Chtlli_..
Exhibit "E"
I. The access easement (ORB 7738, page 1865) to the day care center will likely
need to be modified because of the different configuration of the entrance road;
2. Abandon 10 foot FPL easement (ORB 3819, page 1724);
3. Abandon at least a portion of the access easement (ORB 10876, page 816 and
ORB 11099, page 1769) that leads to the cell tower lease parcel. It may be easier
to just abandon the entire access easement since the area will be the subject of a
replat;
4. Possibly abandon the 20' x 30' FPL easement along the east property line-
depends on what it is for. It is adjacent to the 4 acre lake - it could stay if
necessary;
PI"DER TROUTMfi" CO"SULTI"G. I"c.
-
"-,,
Transportation Planners and Engineers
RENAISSANCE COMMONS
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
2324 South Congress Avenue, Suite 1 H
West Palm Beach, FL ::U40h
15(,11434-1644 Fax 434-1661
www.pindertroutm;m.com
The layout of this response is that the comment has been summarized and the response follows.
Public Works - Traffic
2.
Comment:
Response:
3. Comment:
Response:
4. Comment:
Response:
5. Comment:
Response:
Show off-site improvements as requested by Palm Beach County.
The turn lanes requested by Palm Beach County have been shown on the site plan.
In additional to the County request for turn lanes, it is recommended that
northbound right turn lanes be provided at all driveways on Congress Avenue and
eastbound right turn lanes be provided at all driveways on Gateway Boulevard,
Provide left turn lanes at all left turn locations.
Left turn lanes will be provided at all left turn access locations on Congress Avenue
and Gateway Boulevard,
Provide right turn deceleration lanes at all driveways on arterial roadways.
Right turn deceleration lanes will be provided at all driveway locations on Congress
Avenue and Gateway Boulevard,
It is the responsibility of the developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all
access points.
Driveway intersection analyses are attached showing acceptable levels of service.
6. Comment: Provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on Congress Avenue to
determine if a signal is warranted.
Response: A preliminary Peak Hour Warrant 3 analysis indicates that signalization will not be
warranted. Typically, FDOT and Palm Beach County require that Warrant 1
Minimum Vehicular Volume, which looks at 8 hours of traffic, be met before
approving a signal installation. This condition has to be met in the field, not based
~/-
drea M: TrOl~(~~J~c; /4
lorida Registrationf'45409 >' / ~
Response 03 75 1 26-04
Pi
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHEET
MOTOROLA 29
CATAIINNMOTOROI A & CONGRFSS AVF
(Existing Counts/Geometries wi Project)
Growth Rate (1 )
Peak Sea>un ~
Buildoul Year =
1.00%
1.07
2008
8
Years =
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT IT Thru RT
ExislinR Volume (10/261 203 1237 109 25 1153 53 75 12 188 34 6 10
Peak Season Volume 217 1,324 117 27 1,234 57 80 13 201 36 6 11
Badq;1ound 235 1,433 121 28 1,336 61 87 13 218 38 7 11
Motorola Reduction 0 0 (61) (14) 0 0 0 (7) 0 (19) (4) (6)
Project Traffic 0 105 90 93 10 0 0 6 0 240 4 60
IolaI 23.5 1,.538 1.51 107 1,346 61 87 13 218 2.';9 8 66
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 3 I 1 1 I 3 I < 0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1
ADoroarn Volume 1924 1,514 318 333
Per Lane Volume 235 513 151 107 469 nla 87 13 218 259 8 66
% Turns from exd. lane 12% 80% 8% 7% 89% 0% 27% 4% 69% 78% 2% 20%
E/W Effective file - - - - - - - -0.01 - - -0.02 -
North-South Critical N8LT+SBTI-l 694 SBLT+NBTI-l 610
East-West Critical EB LT+WBTH- 85 WB LT + EB TH- 262
Maximum Critical Sum 694 + 262 956
STATUS?
UNDER
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT
Existing Volume (10/26/ 208 2193 28 17 1358 68 85 0 137 73 2 21
Peak Season Volume 223 2,347 30 18 1,453 73 91 0 147 78 2 22
Background 241 2,541 31 19 1,573 79 98 0 159 81 2 23
Motorola Reduction 0 0 (16) (19) 0 0 0 0 0 (81) (1) (12)
Project Traffic 0 199 139 90 29 0 0 10 0 275 10 123
Total 241 2740 155 90 1602 79 98 10 159 275 11 135
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 3 I 1 1 3 <0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1
APproach Volume 3136 1771 267 421
Per lane Volume 241 914 155 90 561 n/a 98 10 159 275 11 135
% Turns from exd. lane 8% 87% 5% 5% 90% 0% 37% 4% 60% 65% 3% 32%
E/W Effective file - - - - - - - -0.02 - - -0.02 -
North-South Critical NB IT+SBTI-l 792 SB LT+NBTI-l 994
East-West Critical EB LT+WBTH 99 WB IT+EBTH 275
Maximum Critical Sum 994 + 275 - 1,269
STATUS?
NEAR
1/26/04 16:12
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHEET
MOTOROLA 29
NORTH DRIVfWAY & CONGRFSS AVF
(Existing Counts/Geometries wi Project:)
Growth Rate (1)
Pe.k SeilSOll =
Buildout Year =
Ye.ars=
1.00%
1.W
2008
5
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound ';;outhbound Eastbound Westl>ound
LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT
Existing Volume (2003) 0 892 0 0 1703 24 0 0 33 0 0 0
Peak Season Volume 0 954 0 0 1,822 26 0 0 35 0 0 0
Background 23 1,003 0 0 1,915 27 12 0 37 0 0 0
Project T r<lffic 0 116 95 1-' 65 0 0 2 0 20 1 60
Total 23 1,149 95 41 1,980 27 12 2 37 20 1 60
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 3 I 1 1 I 3 I < 0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1
Aoorwch Volume 1.267 2048 51 81
Per lane Volume 23 383 95 41 669 n/a 12 2 37 20 1 60
% T umsfrom exd. -lanes 2% 91'% 7% 2% 'l7% 0% 24% 4% 73-% 25% 1% 74%
tjw Effective eic - - - - - - - -0.02 - - -V.UJ -
Nortb,South (:ritir.;;l NJ3 LJ +.Sll JH - 6B2 Sll LJ + NB lH - 414
East-West Critical EB L T + WB TH = 3 WB LT + EB TH ~ 12
Maximum Critical Sum 682 + 12 - 694
STATUS?
UNDfR
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound 5outlWound fastbound W<lstbound
LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT
ExistinJ: Volume (2003) 0 2433 0 0 1358 75 0 0 122 0 0 0
Peak Season Volume 0 2,603 0 0 1,453 80 0 0 131 0 0 0
Background 35 2,736 0 0 1,527 65 24 0 112 0 0 0
Project T raffle {) 227 153 97 100 {) 0 5 0 40 2 55
Total 35 2963 153 97 1627 65 24 5 112 40 2 55
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 3 I 1 1 I 3 I < 0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1
ADDrOarn Volume 3151 1789 141 97
Per Lane Volume 35 988 153 97 564 n/a 24 5 112 40 2 55
% Turn< ffQm ""d. lilne5l 1% 94% 5% 5% 91% 0% 17% 4% 79% 41% 2% 57%
EJW Effective flic - - - - - - - -0.02 - - -0.03 -
North-South Critical NB LT+SBTH- 589 SB LT+ NBTH- 1075
EilSt-Wesl Critical EB LT + WB TH- 16 WB LT + EB TH - 35
Maximum Critical Sum 1075 + 35 1,110
STATUS?
UNDfR
1/26/04 16:12
Growth Rate (1)
Peak Season =
B uildout Year =
Years =
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHEET
MOTOROLA 29
WEST DRIVEWAY & GATEWAY BLVD,
{Existing Counts/Geometries wi Project:}
1.00%
1,00
2008
5
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound fastbound Westbound
IT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT IT Thru RT
ExistinR Volume (2003) 0 0 0 5 0 7 21 1525 0 0 949 33
Peak Season Volume 0 0 0 5 0 7 21 1,632 0 0 1,015 35
Backwound 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 1,715 0 0 1,067 0
Motorola Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (858) 0 0 (534) 0
Project T raffie 12 5 46 0 2 0 39 0 31 39 45 0
Total 12 5 46 0 2 7 51 2,573 31 39 579 0
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 1 I <0 1 I 1 I <0 1 T 2 1 1 I 2 I 1
ADDroach Volume 63 9 2655 618
Per Lane Volume 12 51 nla 0 9 nla 51 1287 31 39 290 0
% Turns from excl. Lane 19% 8% 0% I 0% 22% I 0% 2% 97% 1% 6% 94% 0%
UW Effective WC - - - I - - - - 0.64 - - 01Q -
North-South Critical NB LT + SB TH - 11 SB IT + NB TH - 41
fast-West Critical EB IT+WBTH 331 WB IT+fBTH 1316
Maximum Critical Sum 41 + 1316 - 1,357
STATUS ?
NEAR
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
IT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT
Existing Volume 00(3) 0 0 0 50 0 35 22 1132 0 0 1870 5
Peak Season Volume 0 0 0 54 0 35 22 1,211 0 0 2,001 5
Background 0 0 0 56 0 65 24 1,260 112 0 2,082 6
Motorola Reduction 0 0 0 (56) 0 0 0 (630) 0 0 (1,041) (3)
Project Traffic 18 1 64 0 2 0 0 65 47 65 66 0
Total 18 1 64 0 2 65 24 695 159 65 1107 3
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of lanes 1 I 1 I <0 1 I 1 I <0 1 I 2 I 1 1 I 2 I 1
~roach Volume 83 67 878 1175
Per Lane Volume 18 65 nla 0 67 nla 24 348 159 65 554 3
% Turns from excl. Lane 22% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 79% 18% 6% 94% 0%
UW Effective wc - - - - - - - 0.51 - - 0.64 -
North-South Critical NB LT+SBTH '75 SllLT+NllTH 55
fast-West Critical EB IT + WB TH- 568 WB IT + fB TH - 403
Maximum Critical Sum 75 + 568 - 643
STATUS?
UNDER
1/26/04 16:2Q
Growth Rate (1)
Pedk Sed':>UfJ =
Buildout Year =
Years =
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHEET
MOTOROLA 29
FAST ORIVFWAY & GATEWAY BI VO
(Existing Counts/Geometries wI Project)
1.00%
1.00
2008
5
AM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
IT Thru RT IT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT
ExistinR Volume (2003) 0 0 0 2 0 5 15 1530 0 0 944 27
Peak Season Volume 0 0 0 2 0 5 15 1,637 0 0 1,010 29
Background 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0
Motorola Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T Qtal Major ProjfrtS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Traffic 45 5 137 0 2 0 0 0 39 119 0 0
T"ta1 45 5 137 0 :2 5 12 0 3'1 119 0 0
Critical Volume Analys;s
No. of lanes 1 I 1 I <0 1 I 1 1 < 0 1 I 2 I 1 1 I 2 I 1
~oach Volume 187 7 51 119
Per lane Volume 45 142 nla 0 7 nla 12 0 39 119 0 0
% Turns from exd. la-;;:: 24% 3% 0% 0% 29% 0% 24% 0% 76% 100% 0% 0%
E/W Effediv~ - - - - - - - -0.03 - - -0.03 -
North-South Critical NB LT+ SBTH 42 SB IT+NBTH 132
East-West Critical EB LT+WBTH= 2 WB IT+EBTH= 109
Maximum Critical Sum 132 + 109 - 241
STATUS?
UNDER
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Volume Development
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
LT Thru RT LT Thru RT LT Thru RT IT Thru RT
ExistioR Volume (2003) 0 0 0 50 0 35 2.2 1152 .0 0 1835 5
Peak Season Volume 0 0 0 54 0 35 22 1,233 0 0 1,963 5
Background 0 0 0 56 0 65 24 1,283 112 0 2,043 6
Motorola Reduction 0 0 0 (56) 0 0 0 (642) 0 0 (1,022) (3)
Project Traffic 66 1 212 0 0 0 0 65 65 190 52 0
Total 66 1 212 0 0 65 24 707 177 190 1074 3
Critical Volume Analysis
No. of Lanes 1 I 1 I < 0 1 1 1 I <0 1 I 2 I 1 1 I 2 I 1
Aonroach Volume 279 65 908 1 267
Per lane Volume 66 213 nla 0 65 nla 24 354 177 190 537 3
% Tur".from""d. I:;;;;; 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 78% 19% 15% 85% 0%
E/W Effediv€dc - - - - - - - 0.44 - - 0.64 -
North-South Critical N8 IT + SB TH 121 SB LT + NB TH 203
East-West Critical EB IT + W8 TH 551 WB LT+ EBTH 534
Maximum Critical Sum 203 + 551 - 754
STATUS?
UNDER
7/24/04 16:29
600
:r:
0 400
t-<{
Wo
Wa:
a:(L 300
t-(L
w<{
a:W
0::>, 200
~:>
::>'-'
0
> 100
:r:
eJ
:r:
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
'150
'100
400 500
800
1500 1600 1700 1800
R STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROA
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
"Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane_
Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS TIIAN 10.000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km!h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET)
:r:
(L
>
:r: 400
t-~
Wo
Wa: 300
a:(L
t-(L
w""
a:w
0::>, 200
~::>
::>'-'
0
> 100
:r:
eJ
:r:
.100
.75 80 (if!) 97
300 400
500
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume lor a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume jor a minor-street approach with one lane.
J ~
1 0
::c
I H
I
) 1-'"
I Ul
.
<:
ill
. Ul
.. rt
~ ill
.. 0.
.,.
~" H1
.~ 0
:Jl '1
ll> ~
'1 '"
ill w
....
ll>
<: '"
ll> ill
1-" ll>
.....""
ll>
cr::r
.....0
ill C
'1
ll>
::sl rt
o.:"t-;
1-'"
~, '"
Ul
.....
.....
cr
ill
'"
'1
0
<:
1-"
0.
ill
0.
cr
'<
rt
::r
ill
ll>
'"
'"
'1
0
'"
'1
1-'"
ll>
rt
ill
ll>
\0
ill
::s
()
1-'"
ill
Ul
_...-....~...__.....-.
0
" ~ ~ i!P ~
I 1i
" ~ ~ '< m m
". I I p :;:
f. ~
. j
::~
I-
'" 5 e U~
..
g ~
~~
:
.--
.. l222I ~
I ~
-
," 0 ~
.; ~
,
,II
~~~
J~~
lilltJl
~~~
~ ~
I
6
8iF ~
liism li1
~~~
2-<-<
Ill!!
2J
~
.~ ~ II
.-.'.." . ,. ...!........--......-...
.
-,
Imt
t A'lfMiL1.'tf.)
r
1m
Olly^=nnoe
a&.. MOURIZ
..,., ~~~
i
~
-.--
a!t.:-'l:"- .EH.tU'~C8 COIIIIOHS ...
-_ MAS1'S~fUH
~ A$SOClAlIi!S f;l-1J01MCH..u.c
~~~:"\..-=r:r:'.:to"_""""~~~":='
~
~
,.
i;;
'<
~
:i!
"
~
~
Cl
o,
"
'"
11
C)
-;
,
~;.-
"
'"
.i
.,.Ri'F~~'.,;~jtt~~
~P:_j "~~:. ,_.. I ,; W
. ,'~2-~:~'\'.,:;J : n'. ,.' ri"l":
~t;,L,. :",DE:-$;~c
UQ"I , Ii '.j"
~J:' '~,\,'~- ,11_ !' ",:;' 'j i
,"i"'~. "''''''e
l ~ __1'IU-l~ '_~A~<L-..'_Tf't;1
tC;:~~iirJ,L..,j
"'.
I,,',
7.:,..-.1-"
,>t".
13
c
f'
'"
z
Cl
C)
~
,.
C-
o,
j.
}
'.
i,
.(
~~
n>
>~
r-.;
"''''
~~
11"'"
..r
0>
Oz
UMV A31008 A V M31 va
~~
'H-.) lVNYJ NOlNA08
-: :f,,-;.,:tr
.; , ,~
'.j'::~ri
hQ:.<
ST no.,
L,",'-) ,~
~""?~b - ,r ,.--
.~S(':T.~~ 1:
"":'"I'!
L"",'
L2L}r)~~
. j ~ ..1 ~
~~ '"10
C'
f-.
~~
'!Irl'
~.
" ,
.}~
,
J""'"
-1'-
""
~t
.if' --~ l
r':,"'.:'l(
~ '1L. .)
'-t~~
}j-')~~L I
.~ ;,!.--- < 'i
I ~ r;;..
ri
"-. ,',
~'}- ~:
~.---:t
~~ ;:
r~,; j~
.'i' ;.
...~j
''''';-r ....",.
." )d
---i-
, (~'
,
Ii' '.,:.
,
!
"
",.."
z
o
"
-;
:r
n
Cl
z
.Cl
"
d:1
~
>
~
hi
~
".~
: ~~ Ii i!!P ~ Renai~:~~~~,~~~mmons Hi! I_i"
- . I .. C()mpWIlA~.\u([(Jle::' ofBOllllo LLL ~ ~!i .:
__ "'" an'I/Ral"" fill"!,,
02lllM~~____""""....1IlI""""" ..,.tfl......-'-. ......,...............~ ..,~...................__ ___fl'*"'~~,."..,.....
M A--..5WC CtrP;j
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Master Plan Modification
/-27-04
~p~
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002
Reference: I st review olans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a November 12, 2003 Planning and
lei
Zonin!! Denartment date stamn mar .ng,
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access ./
associated with this site olan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2, Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County ./
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and V
Gateway) shall be by orotected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn V
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the /
arterial roadways. Therefore. the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110% .;
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions /
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of olat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3.A-R. 1/
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal 1/
descriptions, that will reauire abandonment for review and approval.
to. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the ,/
LDR, Chapter 3. Article N, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
11. The LDR, Chapter 3. Article N, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show ./
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the /
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans.
13, Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix, Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide /
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses,
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpdl sq, ft, which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpdl sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include /
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed /
change, A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16, Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size V-
17. Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size V
18. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing -/
their compliance with access requirements within the code
19. Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. /
MWRlsc
S:IPlanningISHAREDIWPlPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslMPMD oa-00211ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Master Plan Modification
~H
/.27.0L(
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002
Reference: I "review olans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a November 12. 2003 Planning and
Z'D da kin
omn" Jenartment te stamn mar n".
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE. Chapter I 0) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan,
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Deoartment ofEmrineering & Public Works - Traffic Division
3, At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gateway) shall be by protected left turn lane(s).
4, At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore. the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to detennine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits,
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to detennine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of olat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey. not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3,A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will require abandonment for review and approval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3,T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article N, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans,
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix, Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date, Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses.
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq, ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15, Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16, Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
17. Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
18. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing
their comoliance with access requirements within the code
19, Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies.
MWR/sc
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPlPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslMPMD 03-Q02\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1st REVIEW COMMENTS
Master Plan Modification
, .,
jL ;-1.~ }..Jt..~ .
J II? 7 It) 'I
-") .
(JiU.J.JLj
l/I-
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002
Reference: I "review olans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a November 12.2003 Planning and
Zonincr D~artment date stamn markincr.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site nlan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Denartment ofEmrineering & Public Works - Traffic Division
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gatewav) shall be bv orotected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes, All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and iIlustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service,
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7, The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane,
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane. and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of olat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will reQuire abandonment for review and approval.
10, Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
11. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV. Section 3,0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12, The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3,P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans.
)3, JustifY the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses.
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of O,I25gpd/ sq. ft" but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care. which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed,
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area,
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
17. Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
18. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing
their compliance with access reauirements within the code
19. Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies.
MWRIsc
S:IPlannlngISHARED\WPlPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslMPMD 03-o0211ST REVIEW COMMENTS,doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Master Plan Modification
R~~~
,-:;('~'" I J
I i /1---1 0-'
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: MPMD 03-002 '
Reference: I "review olans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a November 12, 2003 Planning and
Zoninn Denartment date starnn markin",
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site nlan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Denartment ofEnoineerinl> & Public Works - Traffic Division
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gatewav) shall be bv orotected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted, If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane.
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of olat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will reQuire abandonment for review and annroval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR, Chanter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
11. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3,0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12, The LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies, This statement is lacking on the submitted plans.
13, Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses.
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of O,125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE /
POLICE
Comments: NONE
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16, Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
17, Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size
18, Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City
code. Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing
their comoliance with access reCluirements within the code
19. Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies.
MWR/sc
S:\PlannlngISHAREDlWPlPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslMPMD oa-Q0211ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Development of Re2ional Impact
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: I "review plans identified as a Development of Relrional Impact with a November 12.2003 Plannine
d Z . D artm t dat t k:i
an omnl! Jena en e s amn mar Ol!.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2, Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gateway) shall be bv protected left turn lane( s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways, Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
improvements necessary to support the level of service,
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane,
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard, If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8, Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will require abandonment for review and approval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3,0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adjacent to the project.
12. The LOR, Chapter 3. Article IV, Section 3.P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on the submitted plans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
specific justification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses
14, The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0,255 gpd/ sq, ft. which is
higher than our normal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq. ft., but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care. which a totally different category and use factor, Once again.
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitnde would require the applicant to
fund a re-stndy of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size, Include the amount
of vested trios for the DR! in a note on the olan,
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
chanl!e.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change,
20. Project must address school concurrency, Submit a school concurrency
annlication to Palm Beach County School Board for aooroval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c, the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWR/sc
S:IPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIRenaissance CommonslORIA 03-001\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Development of Rel!ional Impact
Project name: Renaissance Commons
File number: DRIA 03-001
Reference: I "review plans identified as a Development of Relrional Impact with a November 12, 2003 Planning
dZ . D d ki
an omng Jeoartment ate stamp mar nu,
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments:
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made
with the Public Works Department for waste disposal and site access
associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
2, Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County
Department of Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division.
3. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gatewav) shall be bvprotected left turn lane(s).
4. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DR! site from arterial roadways
(i.e. Congress and Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration
lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of way to provide the right turn
lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
5. Although the County has opined that the revised DR! will generate less
traffic than originally approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the
developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at all access points to the
arterial roadways, Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the
imorovements necessary to support the level of service.
6. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on
Congress to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is
warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach County, then the
developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110%
of the engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any
new building permits.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast comer
of Congress and Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane,
Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall evaluate right of way conditions
along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way would be
necessary to add an additional traffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If
necessary, the developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary
to support a third eastbound travel lane, and the required deceleration lanes,
at the time of plat submittal.
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01109/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content
required in the LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
9. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal
descriptions, that will reQuire abandonment for review and annroval.
10. Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the
LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.T.
UTILITIES
Comments:
II. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show
all utilities on or adiacent to the proiect.
12. The LDR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3,P requires a statement to be
included that other support utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate al!encies, This statement is lackinl! on the submitted plans.
13. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those
numbers should relate to what actually has been purchased to date. Provide
snecific iustification for the high values applied to office and industrial uses
14. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq. ft, which is
higher than our nonnal "retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq, ft" but too low for
development with a high percentage of restaurants, and should not include
day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again,
more justification is needed.
15. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the
site exhibits an increase from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units
(equivalent) to 3281.0 I dwelling units (equivalent) with the proposed
change. A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to
fund a re-study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater
in the affected area.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS
01/09/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
16. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
17. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size. fuclude the amount
of vested trins for the DRI in a note on the plan.
18. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District
regarding impacts to ground and surface water as a result of the proposed
change.
19. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water
demands as a result of the proposed change.
20. Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency
annlication to Palm Beach County School Board for approval
21. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c, the application for a
proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation, This
presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
MWRlsc
S:IPlanningISHAREOIWPIPROJECTSlRenaissance CommonslDRIA 03-001\1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
TO:
Page 1 of 1
Coale, Sherie
From: Breese, Ed
Sent: Monday, January 05,20042:46 PM
To: Coale, Sherie
Subject: COMMENTS re: Renaissance Commons DRIA
PLANNING AND ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sherie Coale, Senior Office Assistant
FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner
DATE: December 30, 2003
SUBJECT: Renaissance Commons (DRIA 03-001)
Please include the following comments in the TRC review of the above-mentioned project:
1. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
2. Provide the master plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size, Include the amount of vested trips for
the DRI in a note on the plan.
3. Provide a letter from the South Florida Water Management District regarding impacts to ground
and surface water as a result of the proposed change.
4. Provide a revised projection of average daily potable and non-potable water demands as a result
of the proposed change.
5, Project must address school concurrency. Submit a school concurrency application to Palm
Beach County School Board for approval.
6. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a proposed change is
presumed to be a substantial deviation, This presumption may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence.
1/812004
~
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 04-001
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning
RE:
Review Comments
Renaissance Commons DRI
Master Plan - 1st Review
File No, DRIA 03-001 and MPMD 03-002
FROM:
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer
DATE:
January 6, 2004
The above referenced Site Plans, received on December 23, 2003, were reviewed against the Master
Plan requirements. Following are our comments with the appropriate Code and Land Development
Regulations (LOR) referenced.
PUBLIC WORKS - GENERAL
1. City Ordinance (CODE, Chapter 10) requires that arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department for waste disposal and site access associated with this site plan.
PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC
2. Show off-site roadway improvements as requested by Palm Beach County Department of
Engineering & Public Works - Traffic Division,
3, The provided Traffic Study does not contain all the referenced attachments. Please provide a full
copy of the Traffic Study.
4. At a minimum, all left turn access from arterial roadways (i.e, Congress and Gateway) shall be by
protected left turn lane(s),
5. At a minimum, all right turn access to the DRI site from arterial roadways (i.e. Congress and
Gateway) shall be by protected right turn deceleration lanes. All necessary dedication of rights of
way to provide the right turn lanes shall be provided at the time of plat submittal.
6, Although the County has opined that the revised DRI will generate less traffic than originally
approved in 1979, it is the responsibility of the developer to maintain acceptable levels of service at
all access points to the arterial roadways. Therefore, the developer will be required to show
proposed levels of service at the access intersections and illustrate the improvements necessary to
support the level of service.
7. The developer shall provide a traffic analysis of the northerly driveway on Congress to determine if a
traffic signal is warranted. If a signal is warranted and subsequently approved by Palm Beach
County, then the developer shall be required to post a letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the
engineer's estimate of the signal's cost prior to the issuance of any new building permits.
Oef>artment of Public Works, Engineering Division Memo No, 04-001
Renaissance Commons DRI, Master Plan - 1st Review
January 6, 2004
Page 2
8. The developer shall dedicate additional right of way on the southeast corner of Congress and
Gateway to provide for a future second right turn lane, Furthermore, the developer's engineer shall
evaluate right of way conditions along Gateway Boulevard to determine if additional right of way
would be necessary to add an additional lraffic lane on Gateway Boulevard. If necessary, the
developer shall dedicate the amount of right of way necessary to support a third eastbound travel
lane, and the required deceleration lanes, at the time of plat submittal.
ENGINEERING
9. Provide a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months, providing the content required in the LOR,
Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.A-R.
10. Provide a list of any easements within the project(s), including legal descriptions, that will require
abandonment for review and approval.
11, Provide a master storm water management plan in accordance with the LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV,
Section 3,T.
UTILITIES
12. The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.0 requires Master Plans to show all utilities on or adjacent
to the project.
13, The LOR, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3,P requires a statement to be included that other support
utilities are available and will be provided by the appropriate agencies. This statement is lacking on
the submitted plans,
14. Justify the water and sewer values used in the conversion matrix. Those numbers should relate to
what actually has been purchased to date. Provide specific justification for the high values applied to
office and industrial uses.
15. The proposed usage rate for commercial equals 0.255 gpd/ sq, ft. which is higher than our normal
"retail" rate of 0.125gpd/ sq, ft" but too low for development with a high percentage of restaurants,
and should not include day care, which a totally different category and use factor. Once again, more
justification is needed.
16. Based upon the applicant's conversion matrix (which we do not accept), the site exhibits an increase
from the current use of 2161.66 dwelling units (equivalent) to 3281.01 dwelling units (equivalent) with
the proposed change, A change of this magnitude would require the applicant to fund a re-
study of the Utilities Master Plan for water and wastewater in the affected area.
LUck
Cc: Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Peter V, Mazzella. Deputy Utility Director, Utilities
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Glenda Hall, Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works/Forestry & Grounds Division
Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Public Works/Solid Waste
Kenneth Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
S:\Engineering\Kribs\Renaissance Commons DRI, Master Plan 1st Review.doc
PLANNING AND ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sherie Coale, Senior Office Assistant
FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner
DATE: December 30, 2003
SUBJECT: Renaissance Commons (MPMD 03-002)
Please include the following comments in the TRC reVIew of the above-mentioned
project:
I. Provide a survey at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
2. Provide a plot plan at 24 inches by 36 inches in size.
3. Indicate the width of all access points to ensure their compliance with City code.
Also show the access points to collector and arterial streets showing their
compliance with access requirements within the code.
4. Provide a statement that all utilities are available and will be provided by the
appropriate agencies.
~.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO, 03-284
TO: Ed Breese
Principal Planner
FROM: Timothy K. Large ~
TRC Member/Building DiV~
DATE: December 29,2003
SUBJECT: Project - Renaissance Commons DRI
File No. - DRIA 03-001 MPMD 03-002
The Building Division has no issues with this master plan modification.
TKL:bf
S:\Deve/opmentIBui/dingl TRC\ TRC 2003\Renaissane Commons DR/-NOPC 03-0ot
Page 1 of 1
TRC Memorandum
Page I ofl
/
Coale, Sherie
From: Hallahan, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:10 PM
To: Breese, Ed
Cc: Coale, Sherie
Subject: Renaissance Commons DRI- MPMD 03-002
Planning Memorandum: Forester / Environmentalist
To:
Ed Breese, Principal Planner
From:
Kevin 1. Hallahan, Forester / Environmentalist
Subject:
Renaissance Commons DRI
Development of Regional Impact / NOPC 03-001
Master Plan Modification - I5t Review
DRIA 03-001 MPMD 03-002
Date:
January 6, 2004
I do not have any comments on the proposed master plan modification.
Kjh
File
1/6/2004
/
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Fire and Life Safety Division
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
For review of:
DRIA 03-001 MPMD 03-002 1st review
Reviewed by:
Renaissance Commons
1500 W, Gateway Blvd,
~ Rodqer Kemmer, Fire Protection Enqineer
Project Name and Address:
Department:
Fire and Life Safety
Phone:
(561) 742-6753
Comments to:
Sherie Coale by email on 12/31/03
Code Requirements
No comments regarding proposed changes.
cc: Steve Gale
Bob Borden
Ch Y OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf DATE:
Dir. of Planning & Zoning
1/8/04
FILE: DRIA 03-001
MPMD 03-002
FROM:
Off. John Huntington
Police Department
CPTED Practitioner
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
Renaissance Commons D.Jli
Site Plan
ENCLOSURES:
I have viewed the above building plans and have the following comments:
No Comments
Coale, Sherie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wildner, John
Thursday, January 08, 2004 4: 1 0 PM
Coale, Sherie
RE: Renaissance Commons DRIA & MPMD
Comments previously submitted should remain in effect.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Coale, Sherie
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:15 PM
To: Huntington, John; Wildner, John
Subject: Renaissance Commons DRIA & MPMD
I am looking for comments, if any, for the above plan. I realize that you may have none but would you please let
me know by email or phone. Thanks Sherie
1