| Date |
Text |
| 2012-05-09 13:03:36 | CASE NO. PB 891R |
| | PALM BEACH OUTLETS FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| | 1801 PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF SIX |
| | (6) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PDF FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE PPRC COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS |
| | FROM THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS/THE PPRC MEETING (JULY |
| | 9, 2012), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY |
| | FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE PERMITTED ONE (1) |
| | RESUBMITTAL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. IF PREVIOUSLY-ISSUED |
| | COMMENTS CONTINUE TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE |
| | APPLICANT WILL BE ACCESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE |
| | WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE ($300). |
| | |
| | 1) ZONING IS NOT PROVIDING A FULL REVIEW OF THE |
| | SUBMITTED PLANS AS IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT SOME REVISIONS |
| | TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE DISCUSSIONS WITH PALM |
| | TRAN WILL AFFECT THE SITE DESIGN. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT |
| | THE FORMAL SITE PLAN CANNOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE CITY |
| | COMMISSION APPROVES THE MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS SOME AREAS WHERE THE |
| | ILLUMINATION LEVEL IS IN EXCESS OF 0.5 FOOT CANDLES IN |
| | CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. |
| | PLEASE VERIFY THAT THE FOOT CANDLE MEASUREMENTS WITHIN |
| | THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DO NOT EXCEED CODE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE A FEW LOCATIONS |
| | ALONG PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD, AWAY FROM THE |
| | ENTRANCES, WHERE THE LIGHTING LEVELS EXCEED 1.0 FOOT |
| | CANDLES AT THE CPD BOUNDARY AND BEYOND. PLEASE EXPLAIN. |
| | |
| | 3) IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFLICT WITH THE |
| | PROPOSED OAK TREES AND THE LIGHT POLES ALONG THE |
| | NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. PLEASE CHECK THE SPACING OF THE |
| | LIGHT POLES FROM THE TREES SO THERE IS NO LONG TERM |
| | CONFLICT AS THE TREES GROW. |
| | |
| | 4) ARE THE LIGHT POSTS ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE |
| | EXISTING OR NEW? IF THESE ARE NEW POLES, THEN THEY |
| | SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY |
| | LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK |
| | REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE POLES SHALL COMPLY WITH |
| | THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING |
| | DISTRICTS (30 FEET). |
| | |
| | 5) PLEASE CHECK THE NOTATIONS ON THE PLANT LIST. SOME |
| | USE * OTHERS **. THERE IS NO ** ON THE KEY PLAN. |
| | |
| | 6) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPE |
| | MATERIAL ROUNDS UP, SO PLEASE ADJUST THE LANDSCAPE DATA |
| | TABLE, EX. 939 SHADE TREES REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 7) THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY |
| | TRIANGLES BE CLEAR FROM 18 INCHES, NOT 30 INCHES AS |
| | STATED ON LP-C. |
| | |
| | 8) THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE TREE RELOCATION |
| | PLAN AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS TO SAVED AND RELOCATED |
| | TREES. PLEASE SEE TREE 555 AS AN EXAMPLE. STAFF WOULD |
| | LIKE TO HAVE A SEPARATE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE TREE |
| | ALTERATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL BASED ON THE STAFF SITE |
| | VISIT. |
| | |
| | 9) PLEASE VERIFY YOUR TREE SEPARATION ALONG THE |
| | NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE CODE REQUIRES TREES EVERY |
| | 30 FEET, YET THE TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE |
| | AVERAGE 35 TO 40 FEET APART. AS THESE ARE NEW AND |
| | RELOCATED TREES, THE STANDARD SHALL BE MET. |
| | |
| | 10) PLEASE FILL IN THE LARGE GAPS ON THE NORTH AND WEST |
| | BUFFERS OF PDA 3 WITH A TREE OR PALM(S) - BETWEEN THE |
| | REMAINING SABAL PLAMS. |
| | |
| | 11) THE BUFFER ALONG PBA 5 REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL TREE. |
| | |
| | 12) THE SILVER BUTTONWOODS ALONG I-95 APPEAR TO BE |
| | SPACED IRREGULARLY AND SOME ARE IN EXCESS OF 30 FEET |
| | APART. PLEASE PROVIDE THE CALCULATION THAT THERE ARE |
| | THE SUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF TREES AS REQUIRED BY THE |
| | FRONTAGE. GROUPING IS ACCEPTABLE AS THERE ARE EXISTING |
| | TREES THAT ARE BEING AUGMENTED. |
| | |
| | 13) PLEASE VERIFY THAT THE INSIDE WITH OF THE PARKING |
| | ISLANDS IS FIVE (5) FEET. PLAN SCALE IS TOO SMALL TO |
| | MEASURE. |
| | |
| | 14) THERE ARE PARKING ISLANDS THAT DO NOT HAVE TREES IN |
| | THEM. CODE REQUIRES TREES TO TERMINATE EACH PARKING |
| | ROW. |
| | |
| | 15) THERE ARE MONTGOMERY PALMS AND A GUMBO LIMBO TREE |
| | SHOWN LOCATED ABOVE THE EASTERN DRAINAGE LINES. WHY ARE |
| | NO PALMS IN THE TERMINAL ISLANDS OVER THE EAST/WEST |
| | DRAINAGE PIPE? IT IS BURIED SUFFICIENT DEPTH FOR PALMS |
| | AND THEN THE TERMINAL ISLAND REQUIREMENT WOULD BE MET. |
| | |
| | 16) PLEASE CHECK THE EXFILTRATION DRAIN VS. TREE |
| | PLACEMENT. EX. NORTHEAST CORNER OF LP-7 SEEMS TO HAVE A |
| | CONFLICT. |
| | |
| | 17) PALM TREES USED FOR REQUIRED TREES, SUCH AS IN |
| | PARKING ISLANDS, SHALL BE CLUSTERED IN GROUPS OF THREE, |
| | NOT TWO OR SOLO AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, UNLESS THEY ARE |
| | ROYAL PALMS OR SUCKERING PALMS. |
| | |
| | 18) PLEASE CONSIDER GROUND COVER PLANTING INSTEAD OF |
| | SOD IN THE PARKING ISLANDS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
