| Date |
Text |
| 2012-07-06 20:04:09 | CASE NO. PB 891R |
| | PALM BEACH OUTLETS FORMAL SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| | 1801 PALM BEACH LAKES BOULEVARD |
| | 2ND SUBMITTAL |
| | |
| | - 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 |
| | 11, 2012), THE CASE SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY |
| | FURTHER ACTION SHALL REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT |
| | APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | -A RESUBMITTAL FEE OF $300 IS REQUIRED FOR ALL FUTURE |
| | RESUBMITTALS. |
| | |
| | 1) THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED PLANS WHICH DO |
| | NOT MEET THE PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES. ADDITIONALLY, |
| | THE FORMAL SITE PLAN CANNOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE CITY |
| | COMMISSION APPROVES THE MAJOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 2) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY BE FORTHCOMING WITH |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS. |
| | |
| | 3) STAFF HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF THE TREE |
| | SURVEY AND TREE ALTERATION PERMIT AND HOW THE |
| | PRESERVED/RELOCATED TREES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED |
| | LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS ANALYSIS WILL BE COMPLETED BEFORE |
| | THE END OF JULY. |
| | |
| | 4) THE LIGHT POSTS AND ALL UTILITY LINES SHALL BE SHOWN |
| | ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. |
| | |
| | 5) THE CONGRESS AVENUE/CHASE BANK BUFFER REQUIRES 53 |
| | TREES. PLANS STATE ONLY 43 TREES ARE PROVIDED. 10 MORE |
| | TREES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CODE. PLEASE REMEMBER |
| | YOUR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING MORE TREES THAN THE CODE |
| | REQUIRES ON-SITE. |
| | |
| | 6) THE PALM BEACH LAKE BUFFER REQUIRES 78 TREES. PLANS |
| | STATE ONLY 56 TREES ARE PROVIDED. 22 MORE TREES ARE |
| | REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CODE. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR |
| | COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING MORE TREES THAN THE CODE |
| | REQUIRES ON-SITE. |
| | |
| | '7) THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PADS MAY NOT COUNT TOWARD |
| | MEETING THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE OR PERVIOUS AREA |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 8) NO DATA WAS PROVIDED ON THE FOUNDATION PLANTING FOR |
| | THE OUTLET CENTER. ADDITIONALLY, NO DATA WAS PROVIDED |
| | AS TO HOW THE PLANTER BOXES AND POTTED PLANTS DO NOT |
| | EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS STATED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES |
| | FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE. |
| | |
| | 9) THE SILVER BUTTONWOODS ALONG I-95 THAT ARE NOW |
| | PROPOSED TO BE REPLACED DO NOT MEET THE 12-14 FOOT AT |
| | INSTALLATION REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 10) THE PALM HEIGHTS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED |
| | DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 11) REPEAT COMMENT - 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. - STAFF IS CONFUSED WHY |
| | UNIFORM PLANTING FOR THE SAME CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ALL THE ISLANDS |
| | FULLY PLANTED WITH GROUND COVER THAT DO NOT HAVE |
| | TREES/PALMS. THIS COMMENT ALSO APPLIES TO THE |
| | EXFILTRATION SHEET LP-4 |
| | |
| | 12) REPEAT COMMENT - PLEASE CHECK THE EXFILTRATION |
| | DRAIN VS. TREE PLACEMENT. NEW EX. SHEET LP-3 MONTGOMERY |
| | PALM ALONG THE ENTRY DRIVE SEEMS TO HAVE A CONFLICT. |
| | |
| | 13) SHEET LP-2 HAS A PALM TREE IN THE ACCESSIBLE AISLE |
| | WHICH GOES THROUGH A TREE ISLAND AND ON TOP OF WHAT |
| | APPEARS TO BE A FIRE HYDRANT. ALL PLANS SHALL BE |
| | VERIFIED TO ENSURE NO CONFLICTS. |
| | |
| | 14) 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. |
| | |
| | 15) THE SERVICE AREAS ARE NOT SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES. |
| | |
| | 16) WHY DON'T THE GRAND PEDESTRIAN ENTRY WALKWAYS LEAD |
| | TO THE PEDESTRIAN WAY BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS? GIVING UP |
| | THE VIEW CORRIDOR TO PARKING AISLES DOES NOT SEEM LIKE |
| | THE BEST SITE DESIGN STRATEGY. |
| | |
| | 17) THE AREA BETWEEN PBA #1 AND PBA #4 SHALL BE GRASSED |
| | UNTIL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | 18) THE 139 PALM CREDITS LISTED ON THE SHEET LP-C ARE |
| | INCORRECT AS NOT ALL REMAINING AND RELOCATED PALMS ARE |
| | A 1 TO 1 TRADE OUT - EX. SABAL PALMS. THE PALMS SHALL |
| | BE BROKEN DOWN BY TYPE - 1 FOR 1 VS. 2 FOR 1. |
| | |
| | 19) PROVIDE THE PERCENTAGE OF PALM SUBSTITUTION TABLE. |
| | |
| | 20) THE SIGN PROGRAM WILL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT ARE APPROVED AT FIRST |
| | READING BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON AUGUST 6, 2012. |
| | |
| | 21) THE BAYS OPPOSITE THE OPENINGS TO THE SERVICE BAYS |
| | SHALL HAVE THEIR DOORS PLACED SUCH THAT THEY ARE NOT |
| | LOCATED IN OPENING. THE DOOR PLACEMENT MAY NOT |
| | INTENTIONALLY CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIRED SERVICE ARE |
| | FOUNDATION PLANTING. THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND RENDERINGS |
| | SHOW DOORS AT A NUMBER OF SERVICE BAY OPENINGS. |
| | |
| | 22) THE WALLS ALONG THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH OF THE |
| | OUTLET CENTER (BOTH BUILDING AND SCREEN WALLS) DO NOT |
| | COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINE REQUIREMENT FOR NOT |
| | HAVING GREATER THAN 50 FEET OF BLANK WALL. SCORING |
| | LINES ARE NOT LISTED AS ONE OF THE EXTERIOR FA?ADE |
| | TREATMENTS. |
| | |
| | 23) THE REQUIRED MINOR AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE MASTER |
| | PLAN WAS NOT SUBMITTED. |
| | |
| | 24) THE BICYCLE RACKS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ON THE |
| | BUILDING ENDS BY THE SERVICE COURTS. THE CODE REQUIRES |
| | THEM TO BE LOCATED CONVENIENT, HIGHLY VISIBLE, ACTIVE |
| | AREAS NEAR PRINCIPAL ENTRANCES. |
| | |
| | 25) PROVIDE THE BICYCLE PAD DIMENSIONS ON THE PLANS FOR |
| | THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF RACKS ON THE PAD. |
| | |
| | 26) PROVIDE WRITTEN VERIFICATION FORM PALM TRAN THAT |
| | THE TRANSFER FACILITY IS ACCEPTABLE. |
| | |
| | 27) PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE FINAL BUS SHELTER LAYOUT, TO |
| | INCLUDE SETBACKS. |
| | |
| |
Print |
