HomeMy WebLinkAbout050614 DRC - PGA WaterfrontCITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aries Page, GIS Division (w/attachments)
Bruce Gregg, Seacoast Utility Provider (w/attachments)
Commander Jack Schnur, Police Department (w/attachments)
Mark Hendrickson, Forestry Department (w/attachments)
Chief Dave DeRita, Fire Department (w/ attachments)
Scott Danielski, CBO, Building Department (w/attachments)
Todd Engle, P.E., Engineering (w/attachments)
John P. Kim, P.E., McMahon, Traffic Consultant (w/attachments)
Via PBG Email:
Patty Snider, City Clerk
Ray Ellis, Deputy City Clerk
Kenthia White, Municipal Services Coordinator
David Reyes, Director of Parks and Public Facilities
Jack Doughney, Deputy City Manager
Mike Morrow, Operations Director
R. Max Lohman, City Attorney
Angela Brown, Operations Manager
Bahareh Wolfs, Development Compliance and Zoning Manager
Via Email:
Alan Boaz, Florida Power and Light
Robert Lozano, Florida Power and Light
Brian Kane, Utility Arborist, Florida Power and Light
Gerald Gawaldo, Palm Beach County
Rick Kania, Waste Management
Ken Roundtree, North Palm Beach Improvement District
DATE: April 29, 2014
FROM: Dawn C. Sonneborn, AICP, Principal Planner
dsonneborn@pbfl.com
561-799-4219 (direct)
561-799-4281 (fax)
SUBJECT: Development Review Committee (DRC) Meeting for the following Petitions:
ANNX-13-12-000007 – Voluntary Annexation of 7.95 acres of land
CPTA-14-01-000027 – Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add a new Waterfront Mixed
Use designation
CPSS-14-01-000006 – Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Future Land
Use Map from Palm Beach County Future Land Use of High Density Residential (HR -12) and
Commercial High (CH/12) to WMXD
LDRA-14-01-000051 – Land Development Regulation Text Amendment to amend Section
78-157 Mixed Use Development District by adding a new subsection for Waterfront MXD
(WMXD/PUD)
PPUD-14-01-000034 – Request to rezone 7.95 acres of land to Planned Unit Development
Overlay with an underlying zoning designation of Waterfront Mixed Use (WMXD) and site
plan approval
Page 2 of 2
MEETING DATE:
A Development Review Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 10:30 AM in
the Palm Beach Gardens Lobby Conference Room to review the above referenced petitions.
Thank you for your ongoing cooperation and assistance. Please contact this office at (561) 799-4219
should you have any questions.
Attachment:
Staff Comments
cc: Dodi Glas, AICP, Gentile Glas Holloway O’Mahoney & Associates, Inc.
Natalie M. Crowley, Director of Planning & Zoning
TO: Dodi Glas, AICP, Gentile Glas Holloway O’Mahoney & Associates, Inc.
CC: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: April 29, 2014
FROM: Dawn C. Sonneborn, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: LDRA-14-01-000051 Staff Comments – PGA Waterfront – WMXD Land
Development Regulation Text Amendment
The following comments are based on the development application submitted to the City on
January 16, 2014 and found sufficient by the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Planning & Zoning
on January 31, 2014.
Please provide a written response for each comment, with corresponding highlighted text and/or
plans and clearly identify all changes to the plans, if applicable, by either “clouding” or
highlighting the location of all changes to further expedite the review.
Planning and Zoning
1. Under subsection e. and f., the language “or as maybe provided in the development order
approved by the City Council” is not acceptable. The proposed zoning category must include
specific measurable development standards.
2. Under subsection h. Minimum development standards. The Applicant is proposing the same
minimum development standards for the WMXD. Please provide further language
referencing the minimum standards, as provided in Section 78-157 (i) k.
3. Under subsection (i) Waterfront MXD (WMXD)/PUD general standards. Please revise the
sentence in this paragraph as follows: Such properties are generally smaller than the PCD
acreage threshold and are infill sites in need of redevelopment and reinvestment with
potential for redevelopment and reinvestment.
4. Under subsection (1) Purpose and intent: This new language generally follows similar
language of Section 78-157 (a) of the City’s LDRs. The applicant’s list a. through k. should
be consistent with existing Section 78-157 (a), please revise as follows:
e. Establish Aan overall architectural design
i. Provide Nneighborhood and community serving commercial uses and employment
opportunities; such as hotel, retail, restaurants, offices
j. Utilize Pproper site planning techniques to allow mixed uses…
k. Utilize Aa comprehensive approach to planning and redevelopment of
underutilized area of the City.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
LDRA-14-01-000051
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 2 of 3
5. Under subsection (4) WMXD specific development standards, a. Pedestrian orientation, the
Applicant has omitted a listing of “multi-modal transportation accesses”, which is included in
the existing MXD language in Section 78-157 (e) (2) d. The Applicant should address the
availability and/or provision for multi-modal access.
6. Under subsection (4) h. please provide minimum standards for the WMXD.
7. The Applicant is proposing the new section to be added as (i), under Sec. 78-157. As noted
in the comment above, there is an existing section (i) Community design, (j) PGA Boulevard
corridor overlay, (k) Minimum development standards, and (l) Waivers. Please provide
further text amendment language to change sections (i) through (l) to (j) through (m).
8. Under subsection (5), WMXD PUD intensity measures and special definitions, please add a
Lot Coverage column to Table 19b for consistency with the other tables in Section 78-157.
9. Proposed Table 19b is not consistent with the proposed WMXD future land use category
with respect to building height. A maximum of ten (10) floors for both non-residential and
residential is being proposed in the LDRA and a maximum of 12 floors is proposed in the
companion Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Please address.
10. The Applicant’s definition for Building Height is not consistent with the City’s LDR existing
definition. Please provide further explanation and justification for proposing a new building
height definition in the code.
11. The ranges of land allocation and building height in Table 19b are very broad. Please
consider using Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as unit of measure.
12. Note (3) of Table 19b provides a brief paragraph that pertains to the types of uses permitted
in the proposed WMXD/PUD, then under (i) (4) c. the applicant is providing permitted and
conditional uses with a WMXD are allowed as set forth in Section 78-159, Table 21. Is the
applicant modifying Table 21 to add a list of WMXD permitted uses? Please address. The
applicant can’t use the existing PUD process and established uses for the new WMXD.
13. Please revise Note (4) of Table 19b to remove the last sentence “Density shall be established
by the Comprehensive Plan and as approved by City Council.”
14. Under subsection (6) Community design, please provide the community design
standards/elements for the companion site plan application.
15. Under sub subsection (6) a. Waterfront design number 1, correct Pedestrian Linkages and
enhanced amenities.
16. Under subsubsection (6) b. 6. Overall design theme, number 7, the Applicant is proposing the
following: “Parking utilization to minimize excess parking through operational analysis that
is specific to the uses and function of the site to provide alternative parking requirements and
consideration of shared parking opportunities”. This is not consistent with the existing
LDRA-14-01-000051
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 3 of 3
MXD district which requires parking and loading to be provided as required in division 9 of
Article V. Please provide a separate subsection for parking that is consistent with City’s
code.
17. On the applicant’s Surrounding Property Information table, please add missing Future Land
Use and Zoning information for the area to the west, across from the Intracoastal. The
southern portion of the property is also adjacent to PBC LR-3 land use and PBC RS zoning.
Forestry
18. Forestry recommends new language added to paragraph (6) Community design, b. Overall
design theme, which promotes the protection of old large trees (heritage trees) within 200’ of
the waterfront and Mangroves.
Building
No comments.
Fire-Rescue Department
No comments.
Police Department
No comments.
Engineering
No comments.
Seacoast Utility Authority
19. No comments (see Seacoast comments for the companion PPUD 14-01-000034 application.
Geographic Information System
No comments.
TO: Dodi Glas, AICP, Gentile Glas Holloway O’Mahoney & Associates, Inc.
CC: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning
DATE: April 29, 2014
FROM: Peter Hofheinz, AICP, Principal Planner
Dawn Sonneborn, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: PPUD-14-01-000034 – Request to Rezone 7.95 acres of land to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Overlay with an underlying zoning designation of
Waterfront Mixed-Use (WMXD) and site plan approval
The following comments are in response to the development application received by the City on
January 16, 2014 and found sufficient on January 31, 2014.
Planning and Zoning Department
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element
1. Policy 5.1.1.5: This policy pertains to criteria to be applied to all proposed marinas during
the preparation of specific marina siting plans. Please provide compliance with the applicable
portions of this policy regarding the proposed marina use for the project.
2. Policy 5.1.3.1.: Drainage regulations shall ensure best management practices are used to
prevent surface run-off from degrading the water quality of Little Lake Worth or the
Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). The Applicant must adhere to this policy and the applicable
regulations to prevent any surface run-off from the project, from degrading the water quality
of the Intracoastal. Please address.
3. Policy 5.1.3.2.: This policy requires all new and existing marinas and docking facilities
located in the City to maintain and submit to the City a fuel spillage contingency plan.
Please provide a fuel spillage contingency plan.
4. Policy 5.1.3.4.: In order to reduce non-point source pollutant loadings and improve the
functioning of the City's drainage system, the City shall continue to enforce regulations to
prohibit dumping of debris of any kind, including yard clippings and trimmings, into
drainage ditches, stormwater control structures, the ICWW and Little Lake Worth. The
Applicant is advised that dumping or debris during construction, and after the new project is
built, is prohibited in the ICWW.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 2 of 11
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element
5. Objective 6.1.4.: Maintain land development regulations to ensure that all ecological
communities, wildlife, and marine life, especially endangered and rare speci es, are
identified, managed, and protected and Policy 6.1.4.2.: Development orders and permits for
development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if the protection and
conservation of wildlife, marine life and natural systems are ensured consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is advised of this
objective and policy with respect to marine life associated with the IWCC.
Site Plan Comments
6. Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Staff reserves the right to make additional
comments once property development standards have been proposed and incorporated into
the Applicant’s proposed PGA Waterfront Mixed Use zoning designation.
7. The Applicant shall provide a physical scaled model and/or similar media of the site plan
demonstrating its relationship and compatibility with the surrounding uses.
8. Please submit the required AutoCAD file(s) which shall include drawings for residential and
non-residential lot building coverage, residential lot walks, hardscapes, and driveways, and
residential and non-residential lot landscape areas for open space verification.
9. The Applicant is proposing 35,000 square feet of office space. The traffic and parking
analysis submitted do not include a calculation for medical office. Please be advised that the
proposed office use shall consist of business and professional office. Medical uses shall not
be permitted on site unless accounted for in the Applicant’s traffic and parking analysis.
10. The project is proposing a 30-slip marina that will provide public/transient and private slips
on a floating dock and dock master office, as provided by the Applicant. The City’s Code
defines marina as follows: Marina, commercial means any facility intended for the storage,
docking, fueling, construction, or repair of any type of marine craft. A marina as defined by
Code, allows more intensive uses which are not appropriate for this project. Please provide
further information on the marina use and provide restrictions from the more intensive uses.
11. Please include a Market Study to justify the need for the proposed project uses.
12. Please include a valet operational plan and stacking distance measurement. Include the
location for where valet vehicles will be parked and the where the valet kiosk will be located.
13. The Applicant should include site plan sheet references within the development
program/project narrative. For example, when the Applicant discusses the “…Grand Stair
and Waterwall…” the Applicant should include a statement “as depicted on Sheet __”. Please
revise accordingly.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 3 of 11
14. Please revise the site plan and tabular data to include building square footages on the
building footprints and in the site data table, a lot coverage calculation, an itemized
breakdown of proposed open space, building height in floors and feet, and the number of
dumpsters/waste collection areas.
15. The site tabular data indicates that are 150 residential dwelling units proposed, however the
proposed number of units adds up to 149. Please clarify the discrepancy and if the proposed
residential units are proposed to be condominiums or apartments.
16. Staff has concerns with proposed building heights and intensity/density and the compatibility
with the surrounding properties. For example, adjacent to the south of the subject site are one
(1) and two (2) story single family dwelling units, to the east is the City Centre project which
has a maximum height for Parcel F of six (6) stories but is comprised of mostly one (1) and
two (2) story buildings, and the remaining properties to the north consist of one (1) and two
(2) story office and restaurant buildings. There are no transitional buildings, components, or
design techniques to mitigate the impacts on surrounding properties being proposed within
the project site. Please address.
17. The project’s proposed building heights will cast shadows that will affect adjacent properties.
Please show specifically how the proposed property and adjacent properties will be affected.
18. The parking garage is proposing to utilize parking stalls that are 18 feet long by nine (9) feet
wide with a 24 foot wide drive aisle. Section 78-344, Table 32, requires that all parking stalls
are to be a minimum of 18.5 feet long in all drive aisle width scenarios (i.e. 26 feet, 25 feet,
and 24 feet). Specifically, retail use parking stalls are required to have a minimum 25 foot
drive aisle and have parking stalls that are 18.5 feet long by 9.5 feet wide. Staff is aware that
the Applicant has requested a waiver from the City’s parking stall requirements; however, at
this time, Staff does not support the Applicant’s waiver request.
19. Section 78-344 of the City’s Code contains criteria for a request in the reduction of parking
space dimensions. Staff is aware that the Applicant has requested a waiver from the City’s
parking stall size requirements, at a minimum the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance
with the City’s Code criteria for a reduction in parking space dimensions. Please address.
20. The proposed loading spaces/docks are located on the Promenade/Underground Parking
Level 00. It is unclear from Sheet A-201 the total amount of loading space being proposed.
Section 78-364 of the City’s Code requires a minimum two (2) loading spaces for the
proposed commercial uses and one (1) loading space for the proposed office use. In addition,
Section 78-365(b) requires the Applicant to provide a study that documents the number of
loading spaces required and to be provided for the hotel use. Please address accordingly.
21. Please include the minimum dimension measurements on Sheet A-201 for the loading zones
and maneuverability aprons.
22. Please revise all site plan sheets to contain number of parking space count totals at the end of
each row of parking spaces. Please revise accordingly.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 4 of 11
23. Sheet A-201 illustrates the loading area and trash room located on the
Promenade/Underground Parking Level 00 underneath the proposed residential building. It is
unclear from the drawing how access to the trash room is being provided. Please clarify and
include operational narrative on how the site will dispose of solid waste.
24. The loading area and loading docks illustrated on Sheet A-201 appear to service the
residential building and hotel. There are no loading areas or docks proposed for the restaurant
areas. Please clarify.
25. The height dimension lines included on Sheet A-208 are unclear with regards to the vehicle
clearance height for the loading/service corridor. Please add a height dimension measurement
to Sheet A-208. Loading areas are required to have a minimum overhead clearance of 15
feet.
26. Sheets A-208 through A-213 illustrates the proposed building heights. It is not clear from the
drawings the actual total height of the buildings as measured from average grade elevation
from the base of the building to the highest point of the buildings. Staff measures the height
of the hotel and residential building to be 152 feet and 146 feet respectively. These buildings
height are not consistent with the Applicant’s proposed Waterfront Mixed-Use Future Land
Use Category and Waterfront Mixed-Use Zoning Designation. Please address.
27. Please provide color architectural elevations of all buildings and structures per City Code
Section 78-46. The elevations shall be three-dimensional and illustrates the building
elevations at ground level. Include color samples or paint chips for all exterior colors,
including any proposed shade structures, canopies, and awnings.
28. There are notes referencing monument signs on the site plan. Please include color elevations
with dimensions for height, width, copy area, etc. and list sign construction materials. Please
be advised that ground signs are required to meet the standards in Sections 78-271 through
78-292 of the City’s Code.
29. The submitted plans do not include details for proposed signage. Please clarify the
Applicant’s intent with regards to signage and/or submit supplemental signage exhibits.
30. Sheets A-201, A-203, A-204, and A-208 depict “liners”. It is not clear from the proposed
plans on the intent of these “Liners”. Please clarify.
31. Please include roof materials for all buildings.
32. Please include all gutters and downspouts on the black and white and colored architectural
elevations.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 5 of 11
33. Additional architectural articulation and treatments should be considered for the east and
west elevations of the Office/Parking garage building. Treatments should be utilized to
minimize the visual impacts of parking structures and to conceal parked vehicles from public
view.
34. The Applicant is advised that further architectural review by Staff will be required as the
colored architectural elevations are submitted. Please provide additional architectural
elevations at a scale that illustrates increased detail.
35. The Applicant’s submittal includes an asterisk noting that the restaurant uses will include
outdoor seating. Please be advised that outdoor seating is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant and subject to the standards set forth in Section 78-191 of the City’s Code. Please
provide additional details with regards to the proposed outdoor seating consistent with the
City’s Code (i.e. square footage, number of tables, location, etc.). All proposed outdoor
seating square footage that will include service is required to be accounted for in the
submitted traffic analysis and vehicle parking calculation. Please address.
36. The site plan is including improvements (i.e. boat slips and public waterfront area) outside
the property boundaries for the subject site and the proposed annexation area. Please address.
37. The site and landscape plans depict private lift stations at the southwest corner of the site on
the amenity deck area. Please demonstrate that these lift stations are screen from public view.
38. Please submit a photometric plan and indicate if street lights will be installed along Ellison
Wilson Road.
39. A six (6) foot screening wall is being proposed along the south property line. Please provide
wall details.
40. The six (6) foot screening shall be landscaped in accordance with section 78-322 of the City
Code. Please clarify if the 10 foot ingress/egress easement will impact ability to provide the
required landscape along the outside of the wall.
41. The six (6) foot screening wall terminates along the east and west property lines. Please
address how the wall will transition to these terminating points (i.e., tapering).
42. The north service road and service court will be visible from public view along PGA
Boulevard. Please address the screening of these areas from public view.
43. Please clarify if the south entrance to the office/retail parking garage will provide a full
(enter/exit) access.
44. Sheet SP-2.0 depicts parking spaces that back into the loading/service road. Staff has
concerns with the potential for vehicular movement conflicts. Please address.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 6 of 11
45. Sheet SP-2.0 depicts elevators as part of the hotel lobby. It is unclear if these elevators have
access to the promenade level. Please clarify.
46. The Applicant has not included required setbacks and development standards in the
Waterfront Mixed Use zoning designation, please include and illustrate in the tabular data.
47. The proposed restaurant and retail buildings at some locations only have a five (5) to six (6)
foot building separation. Staff is concerned with the narrow corridors and site pinch points
which will become congested in an emergency evacuation situation. Please address.
48. The Applicant’s submitted Concurrency Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis of the
proposed project’s traffic impact based only on roadway capacity. The analysis does not
include the residential use due to the site’s location within the Palm Beach County Coastal
Residential Exception Area; and, does not include the impact of the PGA Boulevard
drawbridge openings. The intersection of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road becomes
extremely congested during peak travel times, and the drawbridge, when raised, further
exasperates this congestion. The project, as proposed, with 150 new residential units, 160
room hotel, and approximately 74,500 square feet of new restaurant, retail, and office space
would impact to the City’s ability to provide adequate fire, medical emergency, and police
protection response times.
Please address the project’s associated traffic impacts on the operation of the intersection of
PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson. Please be advised, Staff will need to further evaluate the
traffic impacts associated with the proposed project operationally.
49. Please be advised, the Applicant’s proposed mix of uses within the project will provide for a
higher than normal internal vehicle capture rate than the uses on a standalone basis.
However, the public waterfront promenade and use aspect of the project has the potential to
generate a significant amount of vehicle traffic that is difficult to quantify. The project has
the potential to be a significant traffic attractor which will have a larger impact on the
existing roadway infrastructure than which is being accounted for in the Applicant’s traffic
analysis. Please address concerns with the proposed project’s potential traffic impacts.
50. Palm Beach County has informed Staff of a Removal Agreement that requires the property
owners to provide right-of-way improvements. Palm Beach County stated that the Applicant
will dedicate right-of-way for a right turn lane into the project from Ellison Wilson Road and
continue that dedication along the west side of Ellison Wilson Road to the south property
line. The Applicant will also be dedicating right -of-way on PGA Boulevard to the Florida
Department of Transportation for a right turn lane onto Ellison Wilson Road from PGA
Boulevard. Please clarify and provide Staff with a copy of the Removal Agreement as
described by Palm Beach County. Please indicate the parties who the agreement is between,
what is required within the agreement, the individual party responsibilities, etc.
51. Waivers were requested by the Applicant. Staff will review the provided justifications and
make recommendations prior to a Public Hearing.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 7 of 11
52. The Applicant is proposing a remote island restaurant/bar to be located on the promenade
level. Please include the square footage for the restaurant/bar, a color elevation, and narrative
describing its use and operation.
53. Please provide a cross section detail plan sheet of the Promenade level.
54. The public waterfront and public access to the waterfront may be required to be platted as
public access easements.
55. Please provide roadway cross sections for Ellison Wilson Road, the main entrance along
Ellison Wilson Road, the residential entrance and drop off area, the Palm Court, and Service
road.
56. Please provide site details for all public amenities including but not limited to bike racks,
benches, swinging benches, pots (typical), light poles, bollards, etc.
57. The Applicant shall provide a clear narrative and list of all proposed roadway improvements
and if the proposed roadway improvements are permitable by the respective reviewing
agencies.
Forestry
58. The Applicant’s tree mitigation plan submitted pursuant to Section 78-313 (d), entitled
Specimen Trees, does not propose to protect/save any specimen trees. The Code requires a
minimum 25 percent of specimen trees to be protected or a payment in lieu of protecting
specimen trees. The Applicant shall clarify their intent regarding the existing specimen trees.
59. The Applicant is purposing to donate trees and palms. Please provide additional information
with regards to proposed tree donation proposal.
60. There are existing Mangroves present along the waterfront. Please advise what mitigation or
protection is required by other agencies.
61. Please provide a buffer cross-section for the south boundary and add a hedge that screens
50% or more of the south face of the wall.
62. Please provide a cross-section of the planting areas that are over the underground parking
areas.
63. On the site plan and landscape plan, please provide the location of a public access easement
along the Intracoastal waterway and a public access easement from PGA Boulevard and
Ellison Wilson Road to the waterfront, pursuant to the purposed Comprehensive and Land
Development code amendments.
64. Per Section 78-315(g), please provide trees on the top level of the parking garage.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 8 of 11
Geographic Information Systems
65. The Applicant shall submit a request for a Site Address Plan. The Addressing Committee
will not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has received
approval. There is a $200 fee to process the desired address plan.
66. The Applicant shall submit a request for a subdivision name. The Addressing Committee will
not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has received approval.
There is a $100 fee to process the desired name.
67. Please be advised that the current Address for the site is 11401 Ellison Wilson Rd.
Engineering Department
68. The Applicant shall provide a photometric plan of all exterior lighting, including parking
garages and waterfront as per Section 78-46 of the LDR’s.
69. Please modify existing note on sheet MP1.0 to read, “All pavement marking and striping,
excluding parking stalls, shall be installed with thermoplastic materials. Also, paver bricks of
appropriate color shall be used on paver brick areas, in lieu of paint or thermoplastic
material,” for conformance with Section 78-344 of the LDR. Please modify all applicable
details and notes as needed.
70. The Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way and provide for a right turn lane into
the project on Ellison Wilson Road and continue along the west side of Ellison Wilson Road
to the south property line.
71. There should be, at a minimum, a publicly owned (Seacoast) Fire Hydrant system running
along the south side of the property starting at Ellison Wilson Road to the boat docks.
72. Please clarify if there is a vehicle gate system proposed anywhere on the property. If so,
please provide information.
73. The City code requires parking spaces be 18.5 feet x 10 feet with a 24-foot drive isle. The
City will not support a waiver for 18 feet x 9 feet parking stalls with a 24-foot wide drive
aisle in the proposed parking garage.
74. Please clarify all roadway improvements being proposed (onsite or offsite) to help with the
traffic flow due to the impact of this project. Please provide further information.
75. Please modify the vehicle entrances to the residential tower to meet the City’s required
stacking distance. The City does not support the waiver request to reduce the stacking
distance from the right-of-way at the entrance to the residential tower which conflicts with
the other uses onsite and offsite traffic movements.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 9 of 11
76. Please provide the pre-development vs. post development drainage calculations.
Building Department
77. Please be advised that a demolition plan will be required.
78. Please be advised that approval from the Health Department will be required prior to
occupying the pool or pool areas.
79. All required and proper permits and approvals for the docks and seawalls being proposed will
be required.
80. Please provide a conceptual location for any proposed construction trailers.
81. Please include a construction phasing plan for preliminary review.
82. A construction fence with wind screen will be required to secure the site.
83. Please provide additional information on a possible sales and model center.
84. The building department reserves the right to make additional comments as the project
moves forward.
Seacoast Utility Authority
85. The hotel and residential elevation plans should show the elevations of Ellison Wilson Road
and the elevations of the ICCW water level in the background for reference.
86. The site plan will need to show the locations of the external sand/oil interceptors for the
elevator shaft sump pumps at each building.
87. The proposed force main needs to be shown and labeled on the site plan to ensure no
conflicts exist.
88. The Applicant is proposing the fire hydrants to be privately owned and maintained and shall
confirm this is acceptable to the fire department.
89. The Applicant needs to receive approval for conceptual water and sewer prior to review and
comment on proposed landscape plans.
90. The Applicant shall confirm the source of irrigation for landscaping ensuring source point
doe not conflict with the site plan.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 10 of 11
Police Department
91. The review of the building permits will include a series of target hardening and Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies amongst this diverse project.
The comprehensive review will provide suggestions of crime prevention recommendations
utilizing current crime trends and forecasting methods to deter criminal activity while
welcoming legitimate users throughout the life of the project and well into occupancy.
CPTED strategies will address design, designation and definition as well as target hardening
features inclusive of landscaping and lighting. Acute crime prevention recommendations
based on criminal activity will be offered and when appropriate; mandated as conditions of
approval. The site’s layout and overall plan will commence with a construction site security
plan and demolition security plan for the safe destruction of existing structures already on the
site which will give way to new buildings. The overall site plan will include a phasing plan
for the safety of the site as progress is made and how the site will be managed once
certificates of occupancy are issued.
Fire Department
92. The site plan shows a fire access around the perimeter. Of particular concern is the vertical
clearance. Will the proposed landscaping conflict with NFPA 1:18.2.3.4.1.2, which requires
a 13 foot 6 inch unobstructed vertical clearance?
93. Seacoast Utility Authority has met with Fire-Rescue and the City Engineer. Discussion is
ongoing with both parties for a proposal of SUA owned hydrants on the proposed site.
94. The proposed 30 boat slips will require standpipes at this location.
Traffic
Site Plan Comments
95. Additional right-of-way must be dedicated for Ellison Wilson Road by the property owner to
provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane at the project’s main driveway.
96. Please be advised, the City is reviewing the potential for the Applicant to provide a
northbound left-turn lane on Ellison Wilson Road for the project’s main driveway.
97. The southernmost driveway for the project on Ellison Wilson Road should provide a
minimum uninterrupted throat length of 100 feet, measured from the ultimate right-of-way
line for Ellison Wilson Road.
98. The driveway serving the residential building should be revised to provide a minimum
uninterrupted throat of 100 feet for the main entrance driveway, measured from the ultimate
right-of-way line for Ellison Wilson Road. The City is reviewing the potential for a longer
driveway throat length based on the project’s development program.
PPUD-14-02-000034
Staff Comments
04.29.2014
Page 11 of 11
99. One-way drives must be a minimum of 14 feet wide.
100. The northbound lane on the residential driveway connection from the service driveway
needs to be aligned and transitioned in advance of the median island.
101. Provide a midblock pedestrian crosswalk on the main driveway to service pedestrian
traffic between the residential and retail area.
102. Extend the median on the main driveway (north/south) south of the larger water feature to
channelize westbound to northbound movement and narrow the opening to a 14 foot wide
opening.
103. Provide two (2) pedestrian connections from the development to the existing sidewalk on
PGA Boulevard.
104. Clarify whether gate restricted access is planned for the residential use. If gates are
planned, a queuing analysis will be required to determine adequate stacking distance.
105. Indicate why eastbound through traffic is not permitted at the main entrance driveway on
Ellison Wilson Road. If a shared through lane will be provided, it must align with the
receiving lane of the opposite driveway.
Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division
106. Please revise the site existing and proposed trip generation forecasts and reduce internal
capture rates to more realistic quantities. In the past, the County has allowed 15 percent
(15%) internal capture rates for developments with ver y favorable interaction between uses.
107. The Build-Out date for this project is December 31, 2018.
The applicant shall provide a written response to all comments, indicating
acknowledgement of each comment and how each comment has been addressed.
Compliance will expedite the subsequent review. It is suggested that the applicant clearly
identify all changes to the plans by either “clouding”, or highlighting, the location of all
changes to further expedite the review.
City staff reserves the right to make additional comments throughout the review process.
TO: Dodi Glas, AICP, Gentile Glas Holloway O’Mahoney & Associates, Inc.
CC: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: April 29, 2014
FROM: Dawn C. Sonneborn, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: PGA Waterfront – Staff Comments
CPSS-14-01-000006 – Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPTA-14-01-000027 – Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
The following comments are based on the development applications (CPSS and CPTA) received
by the City on January 16, 2014 and found sufficient by the City on January 31, 2014.
Please provide a written response for each comment, with corresponding highlighted text and/or
plans and clearly identify all changes to the plans, if applicable, by either “clouding” or
highlighting the location of all changes to further expedite the review. Staff comments are
separated for each of the two applications.
CPSS-14-01-000006 SMALL-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
Planning and Zoning
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element
1. Goal 1.1.: CONTINUE TO ENSURE A HIGH QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT
THROUGH A MIXTURE OF LAND USES THAT WILL MAXIMIZE PALM
BEACH GARDENS' NATURAL AND MANMADE RESOURCES WHILE
MINIMIZING ANY THREAT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
THE CITY'S CITIZENS THAT IS CAUSED BY INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, BY MAINTAINING COMPATIBLE
LAND USES WHICH CONSIDER THE INTENSITIES AND DENSITIES OF LAND
USE ACTIVITIES, THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
AND THE PROPER TRANSITION OF LAND USES. Please provide further
information on how the project will maintain compatibility and consider the intensities and
densities of land use activities and their relationship to the surrounding properties. Staff
has concerns with the increase in density from 10 du/ac to 20 du/ac and the compatibility to
the existing single family uses that are immediately adjacent to the south. Please address.
2. Policy 1.2.4.11 This policy encourages infill and redevelopment of existing properties with
certain considerations, one of them being consistency with the character of the
neighborhood. Staff is concerned with the proposed 20 du/ac density and 130 foot
building height since this is not consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood,
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
CPSS-14-01-000006
CPTA-14-01-000027
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 2 of 5
with particular concern for the existing single family abutting to the south. Please address.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Public School Facility Element
3. Policy 11.1.2.2.: Level of Service (LOS) standards shall be met within the CSA for which a
development is proposed, or by using capacity from adjacent CSAs; otherwise mitigation
measures shall be required for development order approval. The applicant has received
approval of the Palm Beach County School District Concurrency Application. The
concurrency is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance on January 29, 2014.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Economic Element
4. Policy 13.1.1.3.: The City shall conserve and enhance the natural and recreational
resources that provide the foundation of the City’s retirement, recreation, and tourist based
economic sectors. Staff acknowledges the economic impact the proposed project will
provide to the City and the enhancement of recreational use the project provides at this
strategic location along the IWCC that both residents and tourists will enjoy. However,
consistency with this policy must be further coordinated between the applicant and the City
to overcome staff’s concerns of compatibility with the existing character of the area with
respect to density, height and traffic.
Parks, Recreation, Golf, & Public Facilities
5. The City's current recreation and open space acreages can meet the demand for the
proposed project.
Police Department
6. The Police Department has the capacity to service the proposed Small-Scale Amendment
site. Should any redevelopment take place within the proposed amendment site or general
vicinity, the Police Department may elect to revise an existing patrol zone to avoid
conflicts with the Intracoastal Waterway drawbridge on PGA Boulevard which is in close
proximity to the annexation site. This revised patrol zone may include areas specifically
east of the Intracoastal Waterway and encompass areas currently considered for future
growth, and those currently within the service area. Spatial analysis, intelligence led
policing, Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS), additional
traffic engineering studies, and predictive policing may be utilized when determining future
patrol zone boundaries addressing growth.
Fire-Rescue Department
7. At the current call levels, as of this memorandum and the automatic aid agreements
remaining in effect, the Palm Beach Gardens Fire-Rescue Department is able to serve this
response area. The increase in population and density proposed may impact Palm Beach
Gardens Fire-Rescue’s ability to service this proposed area at its accreditation standard.
CPSS-14-01-000006
CPTA-14-01-000027
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 3 of 5
Building
No comments.
Engineering
No comments.
Seacoast Utility Authority
8. There are no capacity concerns at this time.
Geographic Information System
No comments.
Traffic
9. The trip generation rate for the Hotel land use is not consistent with Palm Beach County
rates. Please revise the trip generation table accordingly.
10. The trip generation internalization rates should be based on rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers most recent Trip Generation Manual. The applicant should get
internalization rates approved by Palm Beach County and the City’s Traffic Engineer prior
to revising the analysis.
CPTA-14-01-0000027 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
Planning and Zoning
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element
11. Objective 1.1.1: Future Land Use Categories. In addition to the new future land use
category, the Applicant is proposing a new zoning district, PGA WMXD PUD. The text in
Table 1-1: Future Land Use – Zoning Consistency Chart of this policy must be amended to
include PGA WMXD PUD in the Consistent Zoning Districts(s) column for the Mixed Use
Future Land Use Category. Please address.
12. Policy 1.1.1.7: Commercial. The Applicant is requesting a new land use category with a
maximum height above ground of 12 floors or 130 feet and does not specify a maximum lot
coverage. Please provide maximum lot coverage in the proposed WMXD land use
category text amendment, or as an alternative, Floor Area Ratio’s (FARs) can be proposed
as measurable standards. Please provide additional justification to increase height.
CPSS-14-01-000006
CPTA-14-01-000027
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 4 of 5
13. Policy 1.1.1.15: Mixed Use Development. Please provide additional justification as to
why the existing MXD category is not able to be utilized. Currently the proposed WMXD
would be the most intense land use district in the entire Comprehensive Plan.
14. Applicant’s proposed new text for Section B. in Policy 1.1.1.15: The applicant is
proposing a new land use category for a site specific property. The following comments
are provided:
a. The opening paragraph referring to the City providing “added incentive and flexibility
to encourage waterfront mixed use development...” Please explain and clarify this
further.
b. The second paragraph refers to “a site specific property”. This new designation must
be available to other properties along the Intracoastal waterway.
c. The third paragraph pertains to development as a PUD and WMXD zoning. This
paragraph is too conversationally written and should be included under the minimum
criteria listing and not a stand-alone paragraph.
d. Under minimum criteria, number 4, the Applicant has listed some public amenities (a.
through c.). Please provide further clarification on these such as definitions,
minimum number of public dockage slips, etc.
e. The maximum proposed height of twelve floors or 130 feet is not consistent with the
Applicant’s companion Zoning Text Amendment, Table 19b, which states the
maximum building height is ten floors, please address this and clarify.
f. The maximum gross density of 20 du/ac is not consistent with Policy 1.1.1.15 or the
comparable Residential High category.
g. Minimum/maximum percentages need to be provided for the residential and non-
residential uses. (pertaining to Applicants #7). Please address.
h. Lot coverage is not provided. Please provide.
15. In addition to staff comments for g. and h. above, please provide further justification for the
project as it relates to height and density compatibility with the existing character of the
City.
16. Policy 1.2.1.8 This policy states the following: The City shall adopt regulations consistent
with the Boat Facility Siting Plan of the Palm Beach County Manatee Protection Plan
which restricts marine-oriented uses as follows: New multi-family projects with marina
facilities and new dry storage facilities are not permitted. The total number of new wetslips
per jurisdiction are limited to a maximum of 50 slips, provided that the local government
has demonstrated a need for additional public access in the comprehensive plan. One
additional single-lane public boat ramp with a limit of 15 parking spaces for vehicles
having a trailer may be permitted per jurisdiction, provided that the local government has
demonstrated a need for the additional public access in its comprehensive plan. The City’s
Data & Analysis, Coastal Management Element reports a total of 160 wetslips at the
Soverel Harbor-PGA Marina, 134 wetslips approved for the Frenchman’s Creek Marina,
and 2 wetslips approved for the Bridge Center, for a total of 296. The analysis further
CPSS-14-01-000006
CPTA-14-01-000027
Staff Comments
4.29.14
Page 5 of 5
reports there is insufficient coastal planning area in the City to satisfy a significant portion
of the estimated water-dependent recreation needs, with additional demands for water-
dependent and water-related facilities needing to be satisfied outside of the corporate limits
of the City or through future annexations. Please address.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Economic Element
17. Policy 13.1.1.3.: The City shall conserve and enhance the natural and recreational
resources that provide the foundation of the City’s retirement, recreation, and tourist based
economic sectors. As noted in comments for the CPSS, staff acknowledges the economic
impact the proposed project will provide to the City and the enhancement of recreational
use the project provides at this strategic location along the IWCC that both residents and
tourists will enjoy. However, consistency with this policy must be further coordinated
between the applicant and the City to overcome staff’s concerns of compatibility with the
existing character of the area with respect to density, height and traffic.
Forestry
18. Forestry recommends new language added to the new Section B. entitled “General Mixed
Use Land Use Component Intensity Measures for the Waterfront Mixed Use
Developments”, that recognizes the historic significance of the Intracoatal Waterway to
south Florida. It should be noted that this man-made waterway is a major transportation
route and the landward corridor on both sides may contain archaeologically significant
sites, remnant heritage trees and/or native habitat.
Building
No comments.
Engineering
No comments.
Seacoast Utility Authority
19. There are no capacity concerns at this time.
Geographic Information System
No comments.