Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Council Agenda 101801
City of Palm Beach Gardens Council Agenda October 18, 2001 Council Chambers 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Mayor Russo Vice Mayor Jablin Council Member Clark Council Member Furtado Council Member Sabatello CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE H. ROLL CALL III. ANNOUNCEMENTS: a. Attorney - Client Session. IV. PRESENTATIONS: a. Proclamation — "United We Stand" Month — November 2001 V. ITEMS & REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL: a. Volunteer Committee to assist Staff with Budget Oversight. VI. CITY MANAGER REPORT: a. Public Information Report. b. Cultural Arts Coordinator Update. C. State Revenue Sharing Update. VII. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: For Items Not on the Agenda, please submit request form to the City Clerk prior to this Item) VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Consideration of approving Minutes from the 'September 6, 2001 Workshop City Council Meeting. b. Consideration of approving Minutes from the September 13, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting. Resolution 85, 2001 — PGA National Office Center Sidewalk. Consideration of approving an application from PGA of America for an amendment of a previously approved Site Plan by granting a waiver from Section 256 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRS), in order to delete portions of the approved sidewalk on Avenue of Champions, adjacent to the PGA Office Center, as more particularly described herein, and to delete condition #6 in Resolution 145, 1999, which requires the applicant to extend its sidewalk from the northern limit of its property to PGA Boulevard; providing for a'condition of approval; providing for a waiver. d. Resolution 149, 2001 — Regional Center Parcels 27.12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue Plat. Consideration of approving the Regional Center Parcels 27.12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue Plats. e. Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District. Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter requesting a third gate at the S -44 structure on the C -17 canal. f. Resolution 158, 2001 - Interlocal Agreement- Howell Lane Roadway Improvements and Annexation. Consideration of approving and executing an Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach County to share the costs of constructing Howell Lane roadway improvements and to annex Howell Lane into the City. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Ordinance 37, 2001 — Personnel Policy/Firefighters (Second Reading). Consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, amending Section 3 -53 of the City Code of Ordinances to provide increased personal leave accruals for the full -time employees assigned a 48 hour work week; providing for codification; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. b. Ordinance 23, 2001 - Parcel 31.01 Text Amendments — Roadway #18 and Portion of #12, Removal of Linkage (Second Reading). Consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, amending the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palm Beach Gardens by deleting Roadways #18 and #12 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan that traverses through Parcel 31.01 located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. C. Ordinance 24, 2001 - Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan Amendment at Parcel 4.06 (Second Reading). Consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, amending the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palm Beach Gardens by deleting Roadways #18 and #12 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan that traverses through Parcel 31.01 located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. d. Ordinance 20, 2001 - Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 Land Use Plan Amendment — MXD to RH (Second Reading). Consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, amending the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palm Beach Gardens by changing the Land -Use Designation for parcels known as 31.08 and 31.11, totaling approximately 80.5 acres, located at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and I -95, from Mixed Use to Residential High; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; 'and providing for an effective date. X. RESOLUTIONS: a. Resolution 148, 2001 — Parcel 27.05/.06 Sign Package /Conditions of Approval. Consideration of approving an application from Catalfumo Development Company for a sign program for Parcel 27.05/27.06 within the Regional Center Planned Community Development (PCD) near the northeast corner of Kew Gardens Avenue and PGA Boulevard, as more particularly described herein; providing for waivers. b. Resolution 145, 2001 - San Michele Clubhouse, Park, Guardhouse, Signage /Conditions of Approval. Consideration of approving an application from Forest Lake Associates, L.C. for approval of an approximately 3,428 square -foot clubhouse, a park, a guardhouse, and signage located in the San Michele Planned Unit Development (PUD) at the northwest corner of Central Boulevard and Hood Road, as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval. C. Resolution 153, 2001 - Northmil Plaza Site Plan Amendment to Out - Parcels 2 & 3. Consideration of approving an amendment to a site plan to provide for the development of two commercial out - parcels at the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center, as more particularly described herein; providing for an approximately 4,919 square foot retail building and an approximately 3,120 square foot drive- through restaurant; providing for a condition of approval; providing for a waiver. XI. ORDINANCES: (For Consideration on First Reading) XII. ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: a. City Manager Evaluation. XIII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: XIV. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: a. RA CO AMO, Inc. Proposed Settlement b. Clarification of "Conflict of Interest." (Backup Forthcoming) XV. ADJOURNMENT. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statute 86.26, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk's Department, no later than 5 days prior to the proceeding at telephone number (561) 799 -4120 for assistance, if hearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955 -8771 (TDD) or (800) 955 -8700 (VOICE), for assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Council, with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, they may ,need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. m "ITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL * PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410-4698 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS The City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, will be holding an Attorney - Client Session at 7:15 P.M., Thursday, October 18, 2001. The Regular City Council meeting will be called to order at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410. The regular meeting will then recess and those individuals listed below will attend the Attorney - Client Session. At the conclusion of the Attorney - Client Session, the Regular Meeting will be re- opened. Those attending the Attorney - Client Session are: Leonard Rubin and Stan HIett, City Attorneys Mayor Joseph R. Russo Vice Mayor Eric Jablin Council Members David Clark, Lauren Furtado and Carl Sabatello. City Manager Ronald M. Ferris Carol Gold, MC City Clerk CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked by terrorists who hijacked airplanes to crash into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in the City of New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as well as the terrorists hijacking of a plane that was diverted from its original target and crashed in the State of Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, people from all walks of life have been physically, emotionally and spiritually devastated by this senseless terrorist attack and will be forever impacted by the terrorist's acts of aggression and violence against the United States of America; and WHEREAS, offers of support have come from all over the world to the United States and its government officials; to the thousands of rescue and recovery personnel; to thousands of injured people, and have extended heartfelt sympathy to the families who have experienced tragic losses of loved ones; and WHEREAS, even in light of this devastating tragedy, we, the people of the United States of America will stand tall and united; we will show a force of strength by pulling together to help each other through the emotional and physical pain and devastation of the months ahead; and we will "Stand United" behind the greatest nation, our United States of America. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Joseph R. Russo, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor, of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, do hereby proclaim the month of November, 2001 "United We Stand Month" in commemoration of the tremendous rescue and recovery endeavors in the City of New York, Washington, D.C. and the State of Pennsylvania; extending heartfelt sympathy to families and business owners who must begin again to rebuild their lives and who will be forever impacted by this senseless and tragic act of terrorism; and urging all residents of the City to "Stand United ", to show a force of strength behind the greatest nation... our United States of America. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, to be affixed on this 18th day of October, Two Thousand and One. Mayor Joseph R. Russo Attest: Carol Gold, MMC, City Clerk V. ITEMS & REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL: a. Volunteer Committee to assist Staff with Budget Oversight. VI. CITY MANAGER REPORT: a. Public Information Report. 4 7 .a %mot, Public Information Monthly Report September 2001 Public Information Related Activities Some of the written coverage included: • Mayor Russo's Monthly PGA C.A.N. Article • Tanglewood renovation put on hold as owner appeals code enforcement fines (Weekday) • Gardens considering having county taking over fire- rescue services (Weekday) • Gardens Budget Hearing Tue. , Sept. 4 (Weekday) • Office Depot opens Gardens prototype store (Jupiter Courier) • Boy from Brazil excels at golf (Neighborhood Post) • Zoning aims for consistency on Northlake (Palm Beach Post) • Design for living can give comfort, help to patients with dementia (Palm Beach Post) • Seeds finally start to fall (Palm Beach Post) • Some Gardens officials displeased with district's handling of flood gate (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens council plans to reduce budget (Palm Beach Post) • World of Green photo (Neighborhood Post) • With father silent for now, words distinguish Williamses (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens residents critical of proposed 28 percent tax hike (Palm Beach Post) • The town has approved a settlement with former police officer Julius Barone (Palm Beach Post) • The city's fire - rescue Community Emergency Response Team will graduate (Palm Beach Post) • Venus, Serena must play like rivals, not siblings (Palm Beach Post) • Venus and Serena Williams will meet in historic match for U.S. Open championship (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens firm to launch stock - grading service (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens residents and council working together to resolve new budget and services (Weekday) • Gardens officials asking district to better handle 5 -44 flood gate (Weekday) • Stay Tuned by Lauren Furtado September 9 -15 issue (Weekday) • Venus triumphs at U.S. Open photo (Palm Beach Post) • Letter to editor Palm Beach Gardens needs PGA task force (Palm Beach Post) • Croquet challenges mind more than body (Neighborhood Post) • This 'stork' has a head for business, heart for children (Neighborhood Post) • Gardens trims budget, cuts proposed tax hike by 4 percent (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens residents speak out against proposed 28% tax increase (Weekday) • The city's Fire - Rescue Community Emergency Response Team will graduate at 6:30 p.m. Thursday (Palm Beach Post) • New Finance Director (PGA C.A.N.) • City Planners Certified (PGA C.A.N.) • Waste Management Requests (PGA C.A.N.) • PBG approves concurrency plan linked to school district (Gardens Neighborhood News) • 149 -acre preserve gives area another natural getaway (Palm Beach Post) • Gardens local mixes bikers, South Florida setting into her first novel (Neighborhood Post) • Magnet program pitches sports careers off field (Neighborhood Post) • Local charity Web site not cleared (Palm Beach Post) • Police will operate a safety and DUI checkpoint from 10 p.m. Saturday to 2 a.m. Sunday (Palm Beach Post) •. On Patrol in Boston Harbor photo (Palm Beach Post) • The city will be spraying for mosquitoes starting Monday (Palm Beach Post) • The PGA Boulevard bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway will be closed (Palm Beach Post) • BallenIsles fire does $1 million in damage (Palm Beach Post) Press Releases • The City of Palm Beach Gardens will be holding a budget workshop on September 6, 2001. • The City of Palm Beach Gardens will be spraying for mosquitoes beginning Monday, September 20, 2001 and concluding on September 28, 2001. • The PGA Boulevard Bridge will be closed intermittently during the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Friday September 21, 2001 for testing. Special Event Permits • Palm Beach Gardens High School Homecoming Parade October 5, 2001 • Nutrition S'Mart Health Fest September 15, October 20 and November 17, 2001 • Trinity Methodist Church Youth Pumpkin Patch October 3- October 31, 2001 • Community Party 3209 C and D Gardens East Drive September 23, 2001 • Quizno's Subs PGA Boulevard Grand Opening October 6, 2001 Public Information Projects • Published monthly edition of City Hall Gazette • Conducted monthly meeting of the Communication Team on September 26, 2001 • Continued preparations for Advisory Board/Volunteer Recognition Night October 11, 2001 • Organized a City team to participate in the American Cancer Society's Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk on September 29, 2001 • Attended two classes sponsored by the Florida Institute of Government on September 6, 2001 and September 18, 2001 • Attended the Chamber of Commerce monthly breakfast on September 19, 2001 • Assisted with the Florida League of Cities Meeting on September 26, 2001 Citizen Services Related Activities COMPLAINTS / ISSUES /SERVICE REQUESTSANQUIRIES • Received and processed 9 complaints through the "One Stop Shop" phone number, 5 have been fully resolved and 4 are still outstanding. • There are now a total of 21 outstanding complaints in the Citizen Services Division, broken down as follows: • Fire -1 • Administration —1 • Code Enforcement —3 • Parks & Rec. -1 • Public Works -14 • Police Dept. -1 • Processed, received, collated and filed 60 new (September) complaint forms forwarded from Public Works. Entered these complaints into CivicTracker database. • Processed 52 completed complaint forms from Public Works. • Maintained both complaint databases that included data entry for 69 new and completed complaints. NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM • Held one Gardens Neighborhood meeting on September 24,2001 BIG PROGRAM • Collected $100.00 for the BIG program and this brings the total collected to date for the BIG Program to $25,700.00. VOLUNTEER PROGRAM • Utilized 21 volunteers for a total of 181.50 hours at a savings to the City of $2,595.45. • Processed 2 new volunteer applications. • Printed and mailed 161 invitations for the Advisory Recognition event. VI. CITY MANAGER REPORT: b. Cultural Arts Coordinator Update. VI. CITY MANAGER REPORT: C. State. Revenue Sharing Update. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 The September 6, 2001 Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex located at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: The City Clerk called the roll and the following elected officials were in attendance: Mayor Joseph R. Russo, Councilmember Lauren Furtado, Councilmember David Clark, and Chair Pro Tern Carl Sabatello. Vice Mayor Eric Jablin was absent from the meeting. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 -2002 PROPOSED BUDGET: Mayor Russo responded to questions from Rich Sudder of Garden Woods that studies had shown growth did not pay for itself; however, this City was in a better position than most because of the high value of homes being constructed. Mr. Sudder suggested delaying the new fire station for another year. Councilmember Furtado questioned whether the station could be staffed only with rescue vehicles. The Fire Chief responded that the collective bargaining agreement required a minimum of 5 personnel, 3 for fire and 2 for medical. Robert Davis of BallenIsles requested a short summary of the reasons for the tax increase and expressed his opinion that unfunded mandates not be allowed. The Mayor explained that the information on the tax increase was provided on the City's web page and had been in the newsletter. Mayor Russo reported that a study was in progress to see if drainage dollars should be bonded so payment could be spread over several years. Norman Plotsky, Oaks East, read a letter he had written to the Mayor on August 28 expressing concern that residents living on fixed incomes could not cope with the proposed tax increase. Charlotte Plotsky, Oaks East, suggested bonding for capital expenditures such as the fire station, and spreading the line item for canal maintenance over more than one year. Discussion ensued. Staff was directed to bring back information on borrowing, and Councilmember Sabatello suggested drainage costs be included. Ms. Plotsky suggested a fixed weir be replaced with a moveable weir in her neighborhood, and suggested the homestead exemption be raised. Other suggestions were to pursue federal dollars for drainage and to let the lobbyist handle grants. Robin Weaver, Riverside Drive, was in favor of doing the drainage work on the canal to correct erosion, suggested each department be given 4% increase over their last year's budget, and pointed out advantages to contract over hiring personnel. Tom Sosey, Bent Tree, requested the City cut back to an increase of not more than 10% by making cuts across the board. Bob Kaplan suggested that presentations to the public begin with broad objectives, followed by enumerating where increases allocated, and end with a concise summary. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kaplan expressed his opinion that a police officer would be more important than a cultural arts employee would. The Police Chief indicated all positions were being looked at to best utilize staff and that the crime rate increase was approximately 5 %. Discussion ensued regarding the number of police officers in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. City Engineer Clark indicated he would provide a report on drainage concerns at the next meeting. Linda Hughey, Reed CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS WORKSHOP MEETING, 9/6/01 2 Drive, favored increasing police personnel and asked if NorthMil was paying for a crossing guard. The Police Chief was directed to look into the NorthMil situation. Ms. Hughey questioned the reason to fund accreditation before the fire station was built. Mayor Russo requested information explaining how accreditation was being done, and Councilmember Furtado requested the same explanation for the Police Department. Ms. Hughey indicated swales and canal work should be separated with the canal work being done now. It was pointed out that drainage from new developments would not flow through the older canals, and the developers were being required to make drainage improvements. The City Engineer explained the canals must be dredged. Councilmember Sabatello requested separate maintenance figures for canals and for swales; and noted the money being spent to reshape the banks must be spread over many years. Mike Martino, Balsam Street, indicated he had provided his budget comments at the last meeting, that he was impressed by the comments made by the residents, but that the City should have provided that information already. Mr. Martino expressed concern with the tax increase and concern that the reserve accounts had been depleted. Mayor Russo indicated the City would try their best to reduce the increase in taxes. Mr. Martino indicated past records would show that maintenance to the canals had been done in the past, and the budget should be specific as to canal maintenance and swale maintenance. Mayor Russo explained how overspending had happened. Response time calculations were clarified. Councilmember Furtado requested figures at the next meeting on the golf course deficit that was paid back each year and the cost of improvements to the recreation facilities because of flooding and air conditioner leaks. Joan Elias, PGA National, expressed disappointment that many of these residents had not been present at previous budget workshops since there had been information explaining the tax increases needed in the future and that then taxes would level off. Ms. Elias reported deplorable working conditions in the past due to lack of space, commented that the new facilities had been necessary, and indicated confidence in staff. Bulent Kastariak, Via Aurelia, suggested a 10 -year plan was needed for each department prepared by teams submitting capital expense budget items with linkages to other departments to determine how each affected the others' budgets. He said by doing this, the Council could accomplish the goals set in the Vision Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Russo summarized that the residents seemed to want more detail in future budget presentations. A resident asked how much money would be generated from raising recreation fees 5% for residents and 10% for non - residents; indicated she was not sure dropping the golf course management company would save money; and suggested new software for Growth Management was necessary. The City Manager explained that a plan was needed before purchasing the software was purchased. Golf course management was discussed. Councilmember Furtado requested more information on the group insurance and on the lease for computers. The City Manager responded changing the agent of record would save $84,000. Councilmember Furtado indicated she had a problem with changing the agent. John Louie asked if the revised budget would be available before the next meeting. Mayor Russo explained the budget would presented and voted on at the next meeting, which would be a public hearing. Harry DeChico, Oaks East, spoke about how Oaks East had flooded 3 years ago during the 20 -inch rain and the community drained to the Allamanda canal, which had overflowed and backed up. He related the problem to Bob Patty, the Public Works Director at that time and Mr. Patty responded that was a CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS WORKSHOP MEETING, 9/6/01 SFWMD problem that would be fixed in 3 -5 years. The City Engineer commented he knew of no plans but would investigate, and that some flow to the Allamanda canal had been diverted since that time. Discussion ensued. The City Engineer commented there would be future storms that could not be controlled and flooding would still occur no matter how much money was spent. The City Engineer verified that he was preparing a report assessing the whole system of the City including the outlets where the water went, prioritizing the most important problems, and providing an approximate cost to fix each problem. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, upon motion by Councilmember Sabatello, seconded by Councilmember Clark, carried 4 -0, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APPROVAL: MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN CHAIRMAN PRO TEM CARL SABATELLO COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO ATTEST: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 The September 13, 2001 Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex located at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a moment of silence, prayer, and comments by the Mayor regarding the terrorist acts which took place on September 11, 2001. ROLL CALL: The City Clerk called the roll and the following elected officials were in attendance: Mayor Joseph R. Russo, Councilmember Lauren Furtado, Councilmember David Clark, and Chair Pro Tem Carl Sabatello. Vice Mayor Eric Jablin was absent from the meeting. RE -ORDER AGENDA: Councilmember Furtado made a motion to re -order the agenda to move public hearings on the budget to be the first item; to pull Consent Agenda Item c, Resolution 132; to pull Consent Agenda Item i, Resolution 140; and to pull Consent Agenda Item k. Councilmember Clark seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING: Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 City of Palm Beach Gardens Budget - City Manager Ron Ferris reviewed the revised proposed budget under which the proposed 23% tax rate increase could be reduced to 17.16 %, and explained that adding $400,000 for canal work would bring the tax increase to 19 %. Mr. Ferris urged the residents to forget the past and give staff the resources to do their jobs. Ordinance 32, 2001 - Mayor Russo declared the public hearing open, held on the intent of Ordinance 32, 2001 - Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 Budget - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, affixing a total valuation of the real and personal property located within the corporate limits of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, for the year ending December 31, 2001; establishing a tax rate thereon for said year; levying a tax on said real and personal property for said year; adopting a fiscal budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2001 and ending on September 30, 2002, inclusive; appropriating funds for expenditures in accordance with said budget; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; and, providing for an effective date, for consideration of second reading. Mayor Russo reviewed what had happened in the past under a previous City Manager to deplete reserves, indicated that with this proposed budget reserves would be established at approximately $3.4 million, and by next year should be approximately $4 million, which was what the City needed. Mayor Russo stated he planned a Budget Review and Oversight Committee using successful corporate resident volunteers, and that the next budget process would be started immediately. The Mayor indicated the goal for next year would be a minimal tax increase, if any. Julia Byrd, Daffodil Circle South, said she had been concerned about the golf course management and recommended the golf course manager report directly to the City Manager. Ms. Byrd expressed concern with the agreement signed with Palm Beach County on the District Park, to which Mayor Russo responded he agreed and that would CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 2 be reviewed. Ms. Byrd expressed her opinion the City Manager's office should conduct the salary survey instead of hiring a consultant, that she felt the same about the lobbyist, and commented she believed the long- residents should not be penalized with additional taxes while waiting for completion of new developments. Ms. Byrd expressed her opinion the Council and Manager should oversee the budget, and not allow overspending. Mayor Russo explained that as soon as the overspending had been identified it had been addressed. Joe Wolf, Oaks East, questioned the large increase in the millage rate over the past 5 years, and expressed his opinion that services should be proportional to the number of people. John Zuerley, Applecrest Drive, asked if any bond issues would be considered. Mayor Russo responded all revenue resources would be explored for drainage, including federal funds. Funding for the new fire station was explained in response to this resident. Mr. Zuerley recommended using residents with corporate budget experience to oversee the budget. Harry DiChico, Oaks East, questioned the amount budgeted for engineering and the cost overrun, and suggested one person only be able to authorize the engineer to proceed with work. The City Manager indicated the recommended plan was to have the engineer on a monthly budget amount under the City Manager's control, to transition over a year to become in -house engineering. Ellen Finnerty, PGA National, expressed her opinion that six positions in the Human Resources Department was too many for the number of employees, and expressed her opinion that department should be able to do the salary survey. Ms. Finnerty indicated perhaps the number of HR positions could be reduced to allow hiring a needed police officer. Mayor Russo requested a full report on this at the next meeting. Bob Kaplan, Windward Drive, commented the Council and City Manager had tried to respond to all the suggestions and expressed his thanks. Mr. Kaplan questioned eliminating a grant writer, asked what was proposed for the canals, and again requested a simple budget summary explaining why changes were made. Mayor Russo explained next year's budget would be simplified along the lines suggested by Mr. Kaplan. The City Manager explained a grant writer would be in -house next year. Al Schultz, Lighthouse Drive, commented the millage rate had stayed level for years but had begun to go up in recent years. Mr. Schultz suggested taking the total that would be received in ad valorem taxes, dividing that amount up among the Departments, and having each Department live with that amount. Mayor Russo indicated that this year there were capital items that must be considered. Norman Plotsky, Kelsey Park Drive, suggested using the concept of deficit financing, so that new development would help pay for the fire station. It was explained the money had been borrowed and placed in reserves, so that using those funds would decrease reserves. David Benety, PGA National, commented that once the millage rate was increased it would not be brought down, observed mowing and landscaping had increased $300,000, stormwater increased $1 million, and facilities maintenance increased $250,000 all sizable percentages, and suggested revisiting those large increases. Staff members Holly Luzader and Hoyt Owens addressed items that made up those large increases. Lois Alcock, Althea Way, asked why money was borrowed for three items and then placed in CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 3 reserves and was not being used for those items, and indicated she wanted the money to be spent for what it was labeled to be spent for, and not to allow over spending. Carol Estrada, Riverside Drive, commented money for Riverside Drive improvements was spent for something else, and she believed drainage was the top priority. Ms. Estrada suggested obtaining an engineer with lower prices, explained how other communities had cut their budgets, and expressed concern that people were moving out of the City because of higher taxes. Ms. Estrada favored giving each Department a set amount that they must stay within. Ann Gott, Bent Tree, commented her neighbors had moved to Martin County because of the high taxes, and suggested turning the value of preserve areas into dollars for a fire station. Mayor Russo indicated developers in Golf Digest and Frenchman's Reserve would provide fire stations, but impact fees had not been in effect soon enough to pay for the current station. Development was continuing but no taxes could be collected yet. The Mayor responded the City had done everything they could legally do in regard to the developers. Charlotte Plotsky, Kelsey Park Drive, commented an idea presented in the last workshop was an across the board 10% cut, and asked if that had been considered. Mayor Russo responded $1.1 million had been cut which reduced the potential tax increase from 23% to 17.1 %. Hearing no further comments from the public, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Sabatello questioned the $100,000 line item for removing trees in canal areas, to which staff responded the trees would be a threat in a storm. Staff clarified canal restoration had been approximately $800,000 annually over the past four years and the 17% budget had not included canal restoration, swale rehabilitation, headwall work, pipe cleaning, and engineering; the 19% budget included canal restoration between Lighthouse Drive and Holly Drive, and the 23% budget included all of the items. Councilmember Sabatello asked how it could be guaranteed there would not be overspending in the new budget, to which the City Manager responded by describing procedures, which had already been established to prevent overspending. Councilmember Sabatello disagreed with the projections for the next five years, noted the expenses did not seem to be correctly projected, and indicated the City Manager would be accountable for correct budgeting in the future. Councilmember Sabatello indicated he did not want to put money into the budget without first having a report on the item, and requested a report on drainage during the last large rainfall. Staff reported the times the 5 -44 structure had been opened and that this structure could only release a certain amount of water. The City Engineer explained storage was important but conveyance was critical, and with the sediment in the canals the water could not be conveyed early enough in the rainstorm. Councilmember Sabatello asked why the gates could not be opened a day earlier to release more water, to which the City Engineer explained that there was only one foot of water in some areas of the canal so when one foot had drained off no more flow to the gates could occur until the water built up behind that area. Councilmember Furtado requested clarification regarding keeping engineering contractural when an in -house comparison in 1999 had recommended a part time position during transition to full time in -house engineering. Staff indicated keeping the engineering contractural would save money next year. Councilmember Furtado questioned hiring an in -house grant writer and expressed her opinion it would save more money to allow the lobbyist do that work, increasing his contract slightly. Councilmember Sabatello suggested a percentage of what the lobbyist brought in, instead CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 4 of increasing his contract. Discussion ensued. The City Manager stressed the importance of monitoring and control of the grants. Mayor Russo suggested pursuing this at a future meeting. Councilmember Furtado noted standing water at several locations as reported by residents, and stated she could not support taking the drainage money out of the budget. Councilmember Sabatello expressed his opinion all the drainage dollars should be spread over several years. Councilmember Furtado favored keeping the Cultural Arts Director a part-time position currently, with which Councilmember Sabatello agreed. Councilmember Furtado favored keeping a total of 97 police officers, which would mean hiring 6 officers; and reminded everyone that the repairs to the recreation building totaled almost $5 million, which had to be taken care of besides the day -to -day items. Councilmember Sabatello indicated he liked the way the police positions were being phased. Councilmember Clark commented residents and staff had developed a vision that was reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and the response times and number of police officers were requirements under the plan, and cost money. Councilmember Clark commented the City was still delivering quality services at a cost substantially below what residents paid in other towns, and the City would continue to look for ways to do better. Councilmember Clark favored keeping the money in the budget for restoration of the canal between Lighthouse Drive and Holly Drive. Discussion ensued regarding where money could come from for additional police officers, and that although an increase was unpalatable there were items, including drainage, that must be done in order to keep levels of service that had been promised to the residents. Councilmember Sabatello indicated he would favor the $400,000 drainage in the budget, so long as it was only spent for what the report indicated was top priority. Recalculating the budget was discussed. The City Manager indicated that a change of only $39,000 would not impact the percentage. The City Attorney advised that both a resolution and ordinance needed to be passed. Resolution 144, 2001 - Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 144, 2001 — A resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, adopting the final levying of ad valorem taxes for the City of Palm Beach Gardens for fiscal year 2001/2002; providing for an effective date, with the following amendments: In Section One to change the operating millage rate from 5.9771 mills down to 5.7765 mills which was greater than the rolled back rate of 4.35 mills by 27.38% in lieu of 31.8 %. Councilmember Sabatello seconded the motion. The City Attorney advised that the numbers were correct. The motion carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. Ordinance 32, 2001 — Councilmember Clark moved Ordinance 32, 2001 be placed on second reading by title only and approved with the following amendments: In Section Two, line one, change the millage rate from 6.3685 to 6.1679; and in line 2 change the rate for current operations from 5.9771 to 5.7765. Councilmember Sabatello seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. The City Clerk read Ordinance 32, 2001 on second reading by title only. Mayor Russo directed staff to bring back research on the following items to City Council: Cultural Arts position as part time, the engineer, human resources, and maintenance. Mayor Russo received consensus from the City Council to proceed with a Budget Oversight and Review Committee. The Mayor recommended an RFP for a new auditor. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Joel Brier, Executive Vice President, Professional Firefighters & Paramedics of Palm Beach County, announced a group drive CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 5 would be conducted to help the New York disaster victims, requested a one -time donation from payroll, announced a blood drive at Wellington, and stated that any help would be appreciated. RE -ORDER AGENDA: Councilmember Clark made a motion to pull from the Consent Agenda Resolution 127, 2001 to be heard immediately following the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Clark moved approval of the Consent Agenda with the following items removed: Items a, b, c, k, and I. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Furtado and carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. The following items were approved on the consent agenda: d. Resolution 135, 2001 — Sprint Communication Tower at Palm Beach Gardens Municipal Golf Course. Consideration of approving a site plan application from Sprint Telecommunication to allow for construction of a 100 foot high wireless telecommunication tower, to be located at the Palm Beach Gardens Municipal Golf Course located approximately 3.5 miles west of the intersection of Beeline Highway and Northlake Boulevard, as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for a waiver. e. Resolution 136, 2001 — Joinder and Acceptance/Mirasol. Consideration of executing a Joinder and Acceptance to the conveyance of easements and parcels within the Mirasol PCD. f. Resolution 137, 2001 — Mirabella at Mirasol Plat "A" Plat, Mirabella at Mirasol Plat `B" Plat and Mirabella at Mirasol Plat "C" Plat. Consideration of approving the Mirabella at Mirasol Plat "A" Plat, Mirabella at Mirasol Plat "B" Plat and Mirabella at Mirasol Plat "C" Plat. g. Resolution 138, 2001 — Mirasol Parcel Eight Plat, Mirasol Parcel Eighteen Plat and Mirasol Parcel 20 Plat. Consideration of approving the Mirasol Parcel Eight Plat, Mirasol Parcel Eighteen Plat, and Mirasol Parcel 20 Plat. h. Resolution 139, 2001 — Isles at Palm Gardens Plat. Consideration of approving the Isles at Palm Gardens Plat. j. Resolution 141, 2001 — Frenchman's Reserve PCD -Plat One Plat. Consideration of approving the Frenchman's Reserve PCD -Plat One Plat. 1. Resolution 142, 2001 — Agreement for Creation of Schematic Proposal. Consideration of executing agreements for the creation of schematic proposals with two artists selected by the Municipal Complex Art Task Force. M. Property and Casualty Insurance Program. Consideration of extending the City's property and casualty program with the Florida League of Cities through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: Resolution 127, 2001 — Horseshoe Acres Unmanned Entry Gates. Consideration of approving construction of an unmanned entry gate system located on Kelso Drive, approximately 187 feet south of Northlake Boulevard, providing for conditions of approval. Growth Management Director Charles Wu presented the project. Max Day, President of the Horseshoe Acres Homeowners Association, indicated 58% of the homeowners had voted in favor of the gates. James R. Gallaher, 8599 Damascus Drive, spoke against the gates. Mr. Day indicated there would be 50' for vehicles to turn CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 6 around and that school busses currently did not enter. Councilmember Clark moved approval of Resolution 127, 2001. Councilmember Furtado seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mayor Russo stated he was voting for this only because of the majority vote of the homeowners and requested staff verify with the School Board that busses could turn around outside the gates, and if not, that he would vote to reconsider this at the next meeting. Motion carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. i. Resolution 140, 2001 — Portofino at Mirasol Plat. Consideration of approving the Portofino at Mirasol Plat. Growth Management Director Charles Wu proposed an additional condition of approval, a new Section 2, stating "This approval is expressly conditioned upon the applicant providing recording information for all easements depicted on the plat within two weeks of the effective date of this resolution." Councilmember Clark moved approval of Resolution 140, 2001 with the addition of Section 2 as added by staff. Councilmember Sabatello seconded the motion. Councilmember Sabatello stated he was a homebuilder at Mirasol and had no interest in this property or any interest in anything that was on the consent agenda. The motion carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. k. Group Health Benefits. Consideration of extending the health contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and switching dental insurance and group life contracts to Jefferson Pilot for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. Staff indicated this would save $57,000 with better coverage. Councilmember Clark moved . approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Sabatello seconded the motion that carried 3 -1 with Councilmember Furtado opposed. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 36, 2001 — Mayor Russo declared the public hearing open, held on the intent of Ordinance 36, 2001 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of the application from Mutual Land Development Company for an amendment to the previously approved "Marina Gardens" Planned Unit Development (PUD) by revising the traffic analysis and the condition of approval referencing the build -out date for the 65 townhome units on the 7.6 -acre site located approximately 500 feet to the east of the intersection of Prosperity Farms Road and Idlewild Road, on the south side of Idlewild Road, more particularly described herein; providing for a condition of approval; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date, for consideration of second reading. Growth Management Director Charles Wu indicated there was no new information to be presented. Hearing no comments from the public, Mayor Russo declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Clark moved Ordinance 36, 2001 be placed on second reading by title only and approved. Councilmember Sabatello seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. The City Clerk read Ordinance 36, 2001 by title only on second reading. RESOLUTIONS: Resolution 143, 2001 — Reappointing two regular members and appointing one alternate member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Councilmember Clark moved Resolution 143, 2001 with the names Jim Mayner and Charles Tory inserted in the blanks in section one, and the name Wendy Walker in the second blank. Councilmember Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 7 ORDINANCES: Ordinance 35, 2001 — An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, rezoning 932 acres of land on the north side of PGA Boulevard, immediately east of the C -18 Canal, as described herein; amending the City of Palm Beach Gardens Official Zoning Map; approving a Master Plan for the FPL Ryder Substation; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date, for consideration of first reading. Growth Management Director Charles Wu presented the project. Henry Skokowski, agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Councilmember Sabatello requested the Police Department determine whether lighting was needed. A question had been raised as to health hazards of high voltage lines. Councilmember Clark reported this question had been extensively studied and no health hazards had been found. Ray Royce, attorney for the applicant, indicated that electrical substations in Florida were regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to Florida Statutes that set standards, rules, and regulations. Mayor Russo indicated the President of the POA at PGA National had no issues with this. Councilmember Clark moved Ordinance 35, 2001 be placed on first reading by title only. Councilmember Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. The City Clerk read Ordinance 35, 2001 on first reading by title only. Ordinance 37, 2001 — An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, amending Section 3 -53 of the City Code of Ordinances to provide increased personal leave accruals for the full -time employees assigned a 48 hour work week; providing for codification; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. Henry DuFour, Human Resources Director, presented the staff report. Councilmember Clark moved Ordinance 37, 2001 be placed on first reading by title only. Councilmember Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. The City Clerk read Ordinance 37, 2001 on first reading by title only. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The City Engineer reported 10 additional inches of rain were expected that evening since the hurricane had turned, which could result in problems. The City Manager explained that funding ideas for drainage improvements were under consideration. The City Manager explained that even a one word change in personnel policies required advertising and first and second reading of an ordinance, and proposed that this item be addressed when Charter revisions were considered CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: Sign Code Revisions - The City Attorney reported the billboard industry was aggressively pursuing sites, challenging each city's sign code. In Boynton Beach, their entire sign code was considered unconstitutional, effectively giving the billboard industry carte blanche to put up billboards at any location they could secure. Councilmember Furtado made a motion to authorize the City Attorney to review the City's sign code to make sure it was constitutional. Councilmember Clark seconded the motion. The City Attorney explained that with this motion any petition would be a zoning -in- progress issue. Motion carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REGULAR MEETING, 9/13/01 8 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, upon motion by Councilmember Sabatello, seconded by Councilmember Clark, carried 4 -0, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. APPROVAL: MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN CHAIRMAN PRO TEM CARL SABATELLO COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO ATTEST: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM MISC -00 -23 — PGA Office Center Sidewalk Consideration for Approval: Resolution 85, 2001, a request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Jr., for approval of a waiver from Section 256 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), in order to delete portions of the approved sidewalk on Avenue of Champions, adjacent to the PGA Office Center, at 300 Avenue of Champions. The applicant also seeks to delete condition #6 in Resolution 145, 1999, which requires the applicant to extend the sidewalk from its approved northern limit across the frontage of the adjacent property to PGA Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Denial of Resolution 85, 2001. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: FINANCE: NA P&Z Action: PIP Growth Management: [ ] Approved Principal Planner Costs: $ [ ]App. w/ conditions Karen M. Craver, /� Project n Mana er ! Total [ ] Denied Rec. approval: 4 City Attorney ( [X] =2 Leonard G. Rubin— John L,Wen, AICP $ [ ] Rec. app. w/ conds. Current FY [ ] Rec. Denial Finance NA [ ] Continued to: Human Res. NA Funding Source: [ ] Operating Submitted by: Advertised: Attachments: Growth Manag , I,,,, � U Date: Paper: [X] Other NA • Table 1 • Resolution 85, 2001 • Resolution 145, 1999 Directo Charles K. Wu, AICP v • Project narrative [X] Not Required Budget Acct. #: NA • PGA POA letters • Police memorandum Approved by: City Manag� Affected parties: a Engineering memo. Ronald M. Ferris [ ] Notified • Fax from P &Z Commissioner [X] Not Required • Aerial Map [ ] None City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 REQUEST Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Jr., is requesting approval of a waiver from Section 256 of the City's LDRs that requires sidewalks to be located on both sides of roadways. Granting of this waiver request will allow the applicant to delete portions of the approved sidewalk on Avenue of Champions, adjacent to the PGA Office Center. The applicant also seeks to delete condition #6 in Resolution 145, 1999, which requires the applicant to extend the sidewalk from its northern limit to PGA Boulevard. The 10.1 -acre site is located on the west side of Avenue of Champions, approximately' /4 mile south of PGA Boulevard. (10- 42S -42E) BACKGROUND The site was originally approved with the adoption of Resolution 93, 1979, and subsequently amended with the approval of Resolution 145, 1999 on December 2, 1999. The approved 60,000 square -foot PGA Office Center building on site has been constructed and received its final certificate of occupancy on February 5, 2001. LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is zoned Professional Office (PO) with a Planned Community District (PCD) overlay, and a future land -use designation of Professional Office (PO). CONCURRENCY The site is part of the PGA National PCD, and is therefore vested in terms of concurrency. PETITION DETAILS The applicant would like to delete most of the sidewalk along the western side of Avenue of Champions, adjacent to the PGA Office Center site and extending to PGA Boulevard. The applicant proposes to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by keeping a portion of the sidewalk, and connecting iit with a crosswalk to the sidewalk on the eastern side of Avenue of Champions. The applicant does not believe this sidewalk will be of any realistic use to the public, and has the written support of the PGA Property Owners Association (POA) for the removal of the sidewalk (see attached). COMMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) Planning & Zoning Division Based on the City's continued effort to encourage pedestrian and bicycle usage, thereby reducing the number of vehicular trips within the City, the Planning and Zoning Division 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 strongly opposes the deletion of the sidewalk along the western side of Avenue of Champions. Sidewalks on both sides of streets are necessary to promote safe pedestrian movement. City Forester Mark Hendrickson also does not support the applicant's request of removing the sidewalk (see attachment dated May 23, 2001). If the sidewalk on the western side of Avenue of Champions remains, it will connect to an existing sidewalk to the south of the site (which continues into PGA National), and will connect to the future sidewalk to the north along PGA Boulevard, which will be built when PGA Boulevard is widened from two lanes to four lanes. Police Department In a memorandum dated May 8, 2001 (see attached), Lt. Jay Spencer states that the Police Department opposes the elimination of the sidewalk, because removal of the sidewalk would reduce pedestrian safety. City Engineerinq In a memorandum dated May 9, 2001 (see attached), City Engineer Sean Donahue states that City Engineering does not support the removal of the sidewalk. To date, no objections have been received from the following departments and agencies: Building Division, Fire Department, Parks & Recreation Department, City Legal, Seacoast Utility Authority, Palm Beach County School District, Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, South Florida Water Management District, Waste Management, and Florida Power & Light. GROWTH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is the position of staff that the applicant has not provided adequate justification for the waiver. Staff is concerned that granting such a waiver will set a very undesirable precedent for other developments, and will not provide optimum pedestrian safety. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of the applicant's request for approval of a waiver from Section 256 of the City's LDRs, which would allow the applicant to remove a majority of the sidewalk along the western side of Avenue of Champions, where it abuts the PGA Office Center site, and extends to PGA Boulevard. PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATION At their June 12, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition to remove a majority of the approved sidewalk abutting the site and extending north to PGA Boulevard. The Commission voted 4 — 2 to recommend approval of the applicant's request to not provide most of the approved sidewalk. Commissioner John Glidden was unable to attend the meeting, but faxed his comments regarding the 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 applicant's request (see attachment). CITY COUNCIL At the August 2, 2001 City Council meeting, the applicant requested and was granted a continuance of this request to the August 16, 2001 City Council meeting. At their August 16, 2001 meeting, City Council stated that they did not object to the applicant's request; however, the Council wanted to make certain that the proposed crosswalk would be safe for pedestrian usage. Council directed Staff to investigate the safety of the proposed crosswalk, and if the crosswalk was found to be safe, to then bring this request back for Council approval. After investigating the safety of the proposed crosswalk, the Planning and Zoning Division, in conjunction with the Police Department and City Engineering, created the following condition to ensure pedestrian safety: • The applicant shall work with the City Engineer and the Police Department to develop a safe and pedestrian friendly crosswalk at a location south of the roundabout that conforms to applicable Palm Beach County and FDOT guidelines. At the September 13, 2001 City Council meeting, the applicant requested and was granted a continuance of this request so that the applicant could re- evaluate the path of the remaining portion of the sidewalk. The path of the remaining portion of sidewalk has been altered so that it runs along the parking area, and connects to the crosswalk to the south of the roundabout. Staff has reviewed the revised path of the sidewalk, and found the route to be technically acceptable. Furthermore, the route of the sidewalk complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). g /john: misc0023.cc4 E EXISTING USE I ,:�' ,ZONING Subject Property Professional Office (PO) PGA National Office with a Planned Community Center District (PCD) overlay North Golf (G) with a Planned Golf Course /Lake Community District (PCD) overlay South Golf (G) with a Planned Golf Course /Lake Community District (PCD) overlay West Golf (G) with a Planned Golf Course Community District (PCD) overlay East Shoppes on the Green Glenwood in PGA National City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 LAND USE Professional Office (PO) Golf (G) Golf (G) Golf (G) General Commercial Commercial (C) (CG -1) with a Planned Community District (PCD) overlay Residential Medium (RM) Residential — Medium Density (RM) with a Planned Community District (PCD) overlay 61 October 18, 2001 RESOLUTION 85, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM PGA OF AMERICA FOR AN AMENDMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED SITE PLAN BY GRANTING A WAIVER FROM SECTION 256 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS), IN ORDER TO DELETE PORTIONS OF THE APPROVED SIDEWALK ON AVENUE OF CHAMPIONS, ADJACENT TO THE PGA OFFICE CENTER, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND TO DELETE CONDITION #6 IN RESOLUTION 145, 1999, WHICH REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO EXTEND ITS SIDEWALK FROM THE NORTHERN LIMIT OF ITS PROPERTY TO PGA BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR A CONDITION OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (MISC -00- 23) from PGA of America for approval of an amendment to the previously- approved "PGA Office Center' site plan, located on the west side of Avenue of Champions, approximately'/ mile south of PGA Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, said amendment will grant a waiver from Section 256 of the City's Land Development Regulations, to delete portions of the approved sidewalk adjacent to the "PGA Office Center" site; and WHEREAS, said amendment will delete condition #6 in Resolution 145, 1999, Which requires the extension of the sidewalk from the northern limit of the "PGA Office Center" site, located at 300 Avenue of Champions, to PGA Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the 10.11 -acre "PGA Office Center" site is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) with a Planned Community District (PCD) overlay, and a future land use of Professional Office (PO); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and forwarded its recommendation the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said application and recommended that it be approved with the requested waiver. Resolution 85, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby approves an amendment to the "PGA Office Center" site plan, located on the west side of Avenue of Champions, approximately '/4 mile south of PGA Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, thereby granting a waiver from Section 256 of the City's Land Development Regulations, to delete portions of the approved sidewalk adjacent to the "PGA Office Center" site. SECTION 2. Condition #6 in Resolution 145, 1999, which requires the extension of the sidewalk from the northern limit of the "PGA Office Center' site, located at 300 Avenue of Champions, to PGA Boulevard, is hereby deleted. SECTION 3. Said development is approved subject to the following condition, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: 1. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer and the Police Department to develop a safe and pedestrian friendly crosswalk at a location south of the roundabout that conforms to applicable Palm Beach County and FDOT guidelines. (City Engineering) SECTION 4. The following waiver is hereby granted with this approval: 1. Sidewalks — Section 256, which requires sidewalks on both sides of streets, to allow for the removal of portions of the sidewalk on the west side of Avenue of Champions. SECTION 5. Construction of the site shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department: 1. Site Plan by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and date stamped (September 20, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet 2.1. 2. Tree Plan by Cotleur Hearing and date stamped (September 20, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet 1 of 3. 3. Ground Cover /Shrub Plan by Cotleur Hearing and date stamped (September 20, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet 2 of 3. 4. Contour Plan by Cotleur Hearing and date stamped (September 20, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet 3 of 3. 2 Resolution 85, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 SECTION 6. All resolutions or parts of resolutions of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this resolution are hereby repealed. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2001. ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO g /john: misc0023.res4 MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 3 Resolution 85, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared, September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -00 -23 EXHIBIT "A" NORTH PARCEL DESCRIPTION: (P.GA. OF AMERICA) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, CITY Of PALM BEACH GARDENS, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS LYING 418 FEET, MORE OR LESS, SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 10 (ALSO THE CENTERLINE Of PGA BOULEVARD) AS SHOWN ON P.G.A RESORT COMMUNITY PLAT NO. i AS RECORDED IN PUT 800K 36, PAGES 198 -200 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIL1k THENCE N01'30'41 T: ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF -WAY FOR 107.34 FEET: THENCE S24'58'381V FOR 51.42 FEET; THENCE $63'36'09'W FOR 39.79 FEET; THENCE N44'51'58 W FOR 66.61 FELT; THENCE NO6'24'18'E FOR 33.14 FEET; THENCE N6T3V35'W FOR 18.23 FEET; THENCE SBr28'IOIW FOR 159.86 FEET. THENCE S40- 19.21 -W FOR 144.92 FEET; THENCE S64'53'27'W FOR 120.32 FEET; THENCE N72'00'05'W FOR 3153 FEET; THENCE S76'I3'20'W FOR 29.01 FEET; THENCE S2512'06'W FOR 136.19 FEET; THENCE SI2'57'20'W FOR 83.89 FEET THENCE S3737 '40' FOR 66.27 FEET; THENCE SI1'29'32 E FOR 39.79 FEET TO A LINE 767.12 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 10; THENCE S88'27'03'£ ALONG SAID LINE FOR 518.82 FEET TO;A POINT ON A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 362.00 FEET, WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS S75'23'17'E; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'33'31' FOR 180.44 FEET TO A P01NT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE WITH A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19'52'50' FOR 40.25 FEET TO THE SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF -WAY OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS. BEING A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2640.00 FEET, WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS N84'53'53 W, THE UST TWO DESCRIBED COURSES BEING COINCIDENT WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL QUIT CLAIMED BY OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5027. PAGE 1497 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA. THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03'35'26' FOR 165.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.000 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SOUTH PARCEL DESCRIPTION: (PCA SALES CENTER) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 10. TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH. RANGE 42 EAST, CRY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TWT A -1 AS SHOWN ON 'P.GA RESORT COMMUNITY PUT N0, 1', AS RECORDED IN PUT BOOK 36, PAGES 198 THROUGH 200 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA, SAID POINT AM BEING COINCIDENT WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; THENCE SOT'30`41'W ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 91.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2640.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF -WAY. TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18721'58' FOR 846.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT A -1 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT A -1 FOR THE FOLLOWING COURSES: R8T43'55'W FOR 94.84 FEET; THENCE S874W24*W FOR 103.82 FEET; THENCE N45'00'00'W FOR 53.74 FEET. THENCE S76'56'411W FOR 80.38 FEET, TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING RADIUS OF 59.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF- 97 10' 11' FOR 94.91 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE 1410' 53' 08' FOR 83.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY KONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 83'30'36' FOR 42.27 FEET; THENCE N04'23'44'w FOR 334.65 FEET TO A LINE LYING 767.12 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION iQ THENCE KONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, AND DEPARTING SAND BOUNDARY OF TRACT A -1, S88'27'03'E FOR 486.08 FEET TO A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 362.00 FEET WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS S75 '23'17 -E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4'34'30' FOR 28.90 FIST TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE WITH A CURVE CONCAVE' 10 THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 346.00 FEET. THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT ItiROM A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18' 11' 42' FOR 109.88 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE WITH A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 146.00 FEET; THENCE SOUHERLY ALONG SAID OAK TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34'21'01' FOR 87.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, SAID POINT TIEING ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL DINT CLAIMED PER OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5027, PACE 1497 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5T22'28' FOR 50.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, WHOSE RADIUS BEARS N750eO2'W FROM SAID POINT, BUNG ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDW OF SAID (FACT A -1, THE LAST THREE DESCRIBED COURSES BEING COMMENT WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OUIIT CLAIMED PER OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5027, PAGE 1497 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5'00'41', FOR 230.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (CONTAINING 5.107 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.) SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BUNG IN PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA. SUBJECT TO ALL PERTINENT MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD, TOTAL ACREAGE: 10.107 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 4 11/12199 RESOLUTION 145, 1999 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 93, 1979 BY AMENDING THE SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A 60,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND THE DEMOLITION OF THE 5,495 SQUARE FOOT SALES CENTER, GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN PGA NATIONAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS, APPROXIMATELY '/4 MILE SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH PGA BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, PGA Headquarters was originally approved pursuant to Resolution 93, 1979 as a Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, PGA Headquarters was subsequently amended by Resolution 67, 1989 and Resolution 33, 1986 which approved the sales center and abandoned the requirement for a PGA Halt of Fame; and WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from PGA of America to approve a site plan amendment to allow for the addition of a 60,000 square foot office building and the demolition of the existing sales center, and WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Department has determined that approval of said application is consistent with the City's Land Development Regulations and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Citys Site Plan Appearance and Review Committee has recommended approval of the PGA Headquarters site plan amendment with several conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach hereby approves an amendment to Resolution 93, 1979 amending addition of a 60.000 square foot office building at the PGA of Amer plQV f9Qe Resolution 145, 1999 Page 2 of 5 located within PGA National on the west side of Avenue of the Champions, approximately 1/4 mile south of its intersection with PGA Boulevard. SECTION 2. Approval of the site plan amendment is based upon compliance with the following conditions of approval: Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit a letter of authorization from the utility owner allowing landscaping and paving over existing utility easements. (City Engineer, City Forester) 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall revise the site plan to include 8 (eight) handicapped parking spaces. (Development Compliance Officer) 3. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the berm and buffer landscaping associated with the western and southwestern perimeters shall be installed. (City Forester) 4. The applicant shall submit a parking phasing schedule for staff approval, to ensure that adequate parking will be available for all employees during constriction of the proposed office building. (Code Enforcement) 5. All roof -top mounted equipment shall be fully screened from the view of all public rights -of -way. (Code Enforcement) 6. The sidewalk'along the west side of the Avenue of the Champions shall be extended to PGA Boulevard in conformance with engineering and FDOT standards. (City Engineer) 7. Upon approval of the development order, the applicant shall secure a "Seacoast Utility Authority Capacity Allocation Commitment for Public Water and/or Sewer Service," which shall be verified by the delivery of a fully executed copy of the document to the Planning & Zoning Division within 30 days of granting of the development order. (Planning & Zoning) 8. No medical uses shall be permitted on this site (Planning & Zoning, Code Enforcement) 9. No exterior building lighting shall be used on the west side of posg 'ding. (Code Enforcement) �, ^ . V Resolution 145, 1999 Page 3 of 5 10. The applicant shall utilize Sherwin - Williams `Orange Blossom' (SW 2324) or equal as the exterior color on that portion of the building which is not white. (Development Compliance Officer) 11. The berm on the west side of the building shall be built at a minimum height of 22' NGVD ans shall be continuous. (City Forester) 12. The berm on the west side of the building shall be inspected by City staff both upon installation and planting. (City Forester) 13. The applicant shall provide to the PGA Property Owners Association a separate grading plan, shrub planting plan, and tree planting plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. (City Forester) 14. Additional buffer plants a minimum of 24" high at planting shall be added to the area between the berms near the southeast corner of the site. (City Forester) 15. If required by the property owners association, the applicant shall reduce the patio size by up to 20' to allow for an increase in the height of the berm on the west. (City Forester) 16. Any gaps in the shrub plantings near the southwest corner of the site shall be blocked by additional shrub plantings. (City Forester) 17. The applicant's landscape plans, shall be modified to reflect the changes referenced herein and to increase the spacing on the crotons to 2' o.c. and on the ilex to 18" o.c. (City Forester) SECTION 3. The following waivers are approved: 1. Waiver from Section 118 -569 "Number of loading spaces required ", which requires 3 loading spaces for businesses between 50,000 s.f. and 100,000, to allow 2 loading spaces for the proposed 60,000 s.f. building. 2. Waiver from Section 110 -2 "General regulations and restrictions and prohibitions ", which limits the number of flags and flag poles to three per site, to allow a total of seven flags. 3. Waiver from Section 98-66 "Non - residential districts" amount of sod in nonresidential districts to no mor an 40% landscape area, to permit 66% of the landscape area �, Resolution 145, 1999 Page 4 of S SECTION 4. Said approval shall be consistent with plans filed with the City's Growth Management Department as follows: 1. November 1, 1999 Site Plan by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 2.1. 2. November 1, 1999 Site Lighting Plan by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 2.2. 3. November 1, 1999 Phasing Plan by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 2.3. 4. November 1, 1999 First and Second Floor Plan by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 3.1, 3.2. 5. November 1, 1999 Exterior Elevations by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 4.1. 6. November 1, 1999 Roof Plan by by Alan Strassler Architects, Inc. and Ronald D. Schwab Design Architect, Sheet 3.1, 3.2. 7. May 25, 1999 Boundary Survey by Messler & Associates, Sheet 1. 8. November 22,, 1999 Landscape Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheets 1 & 2. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. OFC °iPpr, �HG llv� INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS -telllbz ATTESTED BY: �NOA . KOSIER, CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR FURTADO COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILMAN JABLIN COUNCILMAN CLARK g:�snort racWW9910.re2.doc awl Resolution 145, 1999 Page 5 of 5 I ,( v - H RUSSO, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: ANDREW PINEIRO,�CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT ti v QECI�ec �rati �g PROJECT NARRATIVE PGA NATIONAL OFFICE CENTER December 22, 2000 Request This is a request for approval of a Miscellaneous petition to grant a waiver from Section 256 of the City Code which requires a five -foot sidewalk on both sides of a subdivided street. This site is a 10.11 acre tract located on the west side of the Avenue of Champions, at the entrance into the PGA National Resort. The site plan was approved on December 2, 1999 by Resolution 145, 1999 and is near its construction completion. The petitioner requests to delete a portion of the approved sidewalk location and to provide connectivity to the south of the office center with the adjacent office and commercial uses, by proposing a sidewalk crossing on Avenue of Champions south of the rotary. As a result of this modificaion, there are no modifications to the buildings, landscape design, parking areas, or internal circulation on this site. The developer is in compliance will all conditions of the approval of the PGA National Resort PCD and the proposed modification is in compliance with all environmental ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. In addition, development of this parcel is in conformance with the approved Master Plan and this site is in full compliance with the existing Drainage Management System in place within the PCD. 'HONE Z? -2800 PGA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Shopper On The Green 7100 Fairway Drive, Suke 29 Palm Beach Gardens, Nlorida 33418 FACSIMILE (561) 622 -6324 November 8, 2000 Mr. Andrew Deitz VIA FACSIMILE: 686 -5553 RE: PGA OF AMERICA SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS Dear Andrew: As we discussed previously, PGA Property Owners Associations of4mis to the sidewalk being placed in front of the PGA of America Headquarter building. The Architectural Review Committee noted this objection when the plena were reviewed in September, 1999. The ARC's September 23, 1900 totter (item #$) states. "130A ARC is opposed to sidewalks along Avenue of the Champions, both north and south of the entry to PGA Headquartan?. The objections are a result of the following oonceme: > The sidewalk does not tie In to a sidewalk south of PGA of America's property, nor does it tie into a sidewalk along PGA Boulevard. D A sidewalk already odsts on the east side of Avenue of the Champions (which does tie into the PGA Blvd sidewalk). The POA feats that another sidewalk an the opposite side of Ave. of the Champions Is not neosssary. 3` A sidewalk exists we# south or the PGA of America property and mouth of the Communications Center rgusrdhousel on the west aide of Ave_ cf the Champion. this sidewalk allows pedeatrlens to Cross Ave. of the Champions man area where K Is safe to do so. It allows pedestrians to continue up Avenue of the Champions or down Fairway Drivc on existing sidewalks. >- A storm sewer (catch basin) eAsts In the path of the proposW sidewalk just past the south and or the PGA of America property. The catch basin Is between the street and the stone wag bridge, leaving inadequate space to bring the aldgwelk through that area. D• The proposed sidewalk shuts the street, and the POA is concerned that walkers could be in danger from vehicles traveling into PGA National and trying to merge with traft around the rotary (U m Mic drde), These drivers may not be pay'mg adequate attention to pedestrians in this area. D The irrigation main tine fbrthe common areas runs along the westidde of Ave*-!0*4 the Champions and the sidewalk would cause the relocation of the mainline In area which Is not wide enough to a000mmodete It. D There are no destina(lon pok tQ north of PGA of Anmwioa's buFAng which are already being served by an existing sidewalk. DO NOT REMOVE FILE COPY PLANNING & ZONING DMSION UJ C. Y t V Businesses are loosted to the east, across Ave. of the Champions, where ample sidewalks already exist. IF the conoam is for possible futum business access on the opposite aide of PGA Blvd, the existing sidewalk on the east aide of Ave. of the Champions would bettor serve pedestrians. 7F Finally, nowbare else in PGA National were sidewalks required on both sides of the street_ As stated over a year ago, PGA Property Owners Association is strongly opposed to s sidewalk On the west side of Avenue of the Champions. sincerely. Ralph Infand, Director, on behalf of PGA PmpwW Owners Association Board of Governors DO NOT REMOVE FILE COPY PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION t R 8 b PGA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. PHONE: (561) 627 -2800 7100 FAIRWAY DRIVE, SUITE 29 FAX: (561) 622 -6324 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 11, 2000 FROM: dawn Levinstein, CAM on i3ahait of tt►e PGA POA Board of Govemvre end Architectural Review Committee RE: PGA POA — PGA OF AMERICA SIDEWALK TD: J. Hanson — City of Palm Beach Gardens Via F9X 789 -4282 The Board and ARC of PGA Property Owners Association have asked me to contact you. When PGA of America submitted their application far a new building to the POA Architectural Review Committee, the ARC i+equested that they Aef contract the sidewalk in front of the site. It is our understanding that the City required the :idewalK: however, it would be a sidewalk to and from nowhere where there are already sidewalks on ffm opposite side of the street. Throughout PGA, sidewalks typically occur on one side of the street only. There is presently a walk along with west side of Avenue of the Champions but it is quite a ways aouth of the PGA of America property and it wvsaes to the east aide just south of the Comm Center (where pedestrians are saft from triaft at the rotary ). The aidewalk continues on the east side of Avenue of the Champions then goes easterly along the south side of Fairway Drive. The POA's kr[gailon main runs parallel to Avenue of the Champions in the area where the sidewalk is befog required. Movittfl the sidemik or the main fine would be difftcufi due to the berms and extensive landscaping in the area. There is also a atone bridge and catch basin alOri® thm very ndn-Ow Section oppOSM the Carom Center whom d would be difficult to 'tie in' the i dewacik from the and of PGA of America`s property to the rac8tfon where the present walk ends WW dace Ave. of the Champions. Because the aidewalk an the west aide of Champions ends south of the Comm Center, anyone wlahing to continue atraight would have to walk along the gam or in the street to continue north to the walk being required bit front of PGA of America. Thera is a side*ulk on the east side of Avenue of the Champions north of Fairway Drive which On lino the sidewalk an PGA Blvd (east of Ave of the Champion6) the owners of Fairway Owlce Park were required to construct.. Since there is no aldewalk on PGA Blvd west of Ave of the Charnplons, the walk in front of PGA of America would go nowhere. While we understand the Cittl'e requirement based an rnviawing only the plans, we believe that the Sold c ondwons do not juatif; a aidewalic in front of PGA of America. We therefore watspeaffulY =West that On MY negate the requirement for a sidewalk on the west side of Avenue of the Champions_ ff thus matter is now out of your jurisdiction, would you please forward this memorandum to the proper party or depertment? Thank you for your consideration. /dl A. 00M PGA PGA ARC & Board FILE COPY PLAtiNING & ZONING [)WMON 16 Mark Hendrickson, City Forester Sean Donahue, City Engineer Tracy Robb, NPBCID Paul Vandenberge, Waste Management Jeanne Mills, PBC School 'Board Bruce Gregg, Seacoast Utilities James Schnelle, City Environmental Consultant Jon Iles, Public Works Jack Doughney, Asst. to the City Manager Sheryl Stewart, Asst. to the City Manager Kelvin Wise, Code Enforcement Leonard Rubin, City Attorney Richard Huff, Florida Power & Light cc: Charles Wu, Growth Management Director Steve Cramer, Principal Planner Karen Craver, Principal Planner James FitzGerald, Police Chief Carol Gold, City Clerk Hoyt Owens, Public Works Director g/john: misc0(?d&dre.note.nomeet Page 2 of 2 Interoffice Memorandum To: Planner John Lindgren From: Lieutenant Spence Date: 5 -8 -01 Subject: PGA Office Center Sidewalk: Waiver From the Sidewalk Requirement To provide maximum pedestrian safety, the police department recommends that the approved site plan for the PGA Office Center Sidewalk adhere to city code. cc Chief FitzGerald CPD LLr hl N C 'SU MNG QV1L ENGINEERS, SLRVEYORS &MAPPERS (VII. AGRICULTURAL. WATERRESOURM ATER & WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY &MAPPING GIS "Partners For Results Value By Design" 3550 S.W. Corporate Pkwy. Nlf" Cky, FL 34990 (561) 286.3883 Fu 56 2864925 "vwwbaL0om MEMORANDUM TO: John Lindgren FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E. DATE: May 9, 2001 FILE NO. 99 -4074 SUBJECT: PGA National Headquarters Office Building- Sidewalk We have reviewed the miscellaneous approval application for the referenced project prepared by Urban Design Studio received on May 4, 2001. The applicant has proposed to delete a portion of a sidewalk from the project. The sidewalk originally was proposed to start from the northwest corner of the intersection of the project driveway and Avenue of the Champions and continue north along the west side of Avenue of the Champions. Section 256 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) requires 5 -feet wide sidewalks to be provided on both sides of all streets in a subdivision. We support the City's LDRs. SCD/ cc: Steve Cramer Karen Craver PAPR0JECTS\PBGMEM0\4074\4074u Jun 12 01 09:21a Lisa 561- 684 -6890 P.1 �k COY Of P.B. Ga anning &Zoning Commission Meeting Post -it" Fax Note 7671 bate( 1��! � 0 0( 0, ' pages JUN 12 rst2,2oo1 �T °C�n.� �F`""'�-rc;i�nG!caQC� GRuwtN _u� t f MENT two miles west of the Florida Tur Go./Dept. I C. P ��CS hone k /� Co. l Ji n� OE q MENT Project Manager Talal Benothm, [Ra (Phone k t J/ —/ _�.,� I I j�f (�j`r,5� Email Tbenothman @ci.palm -beac x" _ 7 1 ' Fax " 8. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -12: Mirasol Parcel 8. Anne Booth, of Urban Design Studio and as agent for Taylor - Woodrow Communities Inc., is requesting site plan approval for 35 custom single - family dwelling units in Parcel 8 of the Mirasol Planned Community District, with a proposed density of 3.08 dwelling units per acre. The 16.5 -acre site is located on the western edge of Mirasol, approximately one mile northwest of the intersection of Jog Road and PGA Boulevard. (4- 41S -42E) Project Manager - Ed Tombari (799 -4299) Email Etombari(a,ci.palm- beach - gardens.fl.us 9. Recommendation to City Council Petition MISC- 00 -23: PGA National Office Center Sidewalk Waiver Henry Skokowski, of Urban Design Studio and as agent for E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Jr., is requesting approval of a waiver from Section 256 of the City's LDRs that requires sidewalks to be located on both sides of roadways. The requested waiver is to delete portions of the approved sidewalk on Avenue of Champions, adjacent to the PGA Office Center. The 10.1 -acre site is on the west side of Avenue of Champions, approximately'/, mile south of PGA Boulevard. (10- 42S -42E) Project Manager - John Lindgren (7994235) Email Jlindgrent7a,ci.pahn- beach- gardens.fl.us 10. Workshop Petition CU -00-03: Temple Beth David Larry Winker, agent for Northern Palm Beach County Jewish Community Center, Inc., is requesting Conditional Use Amendment (CU) approval for Temple Beth David. The 5.0 -acre site contains an 8,308 square -foot facility. The applicant proposes to increase the square footage by 21,787 square feet. The proposed building is 1,991 square feet smaller than what was previously approved by the City Council in July 1997. The site is located on the north side of Hood Road, halfway between Military Trail and Central Boulevard (36-41 S -42E). Project Manager — Kara Irwin (799 -4236) Email Kirwin(@,ci.palm- beach- gardens.fl.us — As ( Vii I t tti be F66 )V'� M& a ,eo`- � off '� � �- N�Q P u,VuM lake -Iv PO)VAT ovx l96 amn2ohA bvlwe,�.lti pbP� �Ur��, �a�,s Wct►as -ia+rG�d ' trs- +..- �-- a't.�`"'- "it`+`si! ^oiieC:= "':``�'c.;�t.•n.•:i . .:.- ���_':��•::::::_..:��'' ..::. - - - �i�:i,.:••;. �'- o+ ^..�..: -✓- :....fit t.-i" _Jy' .�r..i r "�. +..ew +y t t f. •E .i •i . ' •,• - tt x , , 1, 7 � } ' � ,Jr., ir.d, ♦ ` v. � a � - irJ •per ' • t . .' • \ - �- - ,rr r 1 r ,.yam`• .��`t ���• °I��i' 7`�� � ' �' �" 7.-�' 'hliY. '°.s' �::+J''T+ '�'n1�J � � ��p .ar � tr r � e .'�Tyl• S _. t' +� - a} a .ski {�: '• '� '. �' � _ .a ;_ � 'j' _..'�... ;.�! � .t.• � 4 S �s-� J •' . � ' � zrf , �' : �F n � � �.? =, ` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- I � " "y ?g <? f �v, _mot 't �' ;a, is -.• :�; t f'r+4. K rr ao ..,�,5+ -•r• y E y prat b ..a.. PGANat'l tM1.hr -f <. r itI.t_: 5 1 �, f+e .c 3 ".,� y .j�,iaK �.t ♦ t 1 v Office 1 (.� , v .- � ;.3 + .7y � y,... .:�� YJ, '' i0. � "� _ F f - `•''f'xM �i• - . -�3{ -t '`'"t'Si' y Si ,.. `• y .-."¢ +-•:� t Jr - . <�,,,� ' ` t"" r ......• -� ', c� •�. � is S�,�. l ^•� J- .:..-•. ) i / `� P I `` $fie tl•�. -• per•- _ - N�`ji,r �+�.�� .T „'�f�i.+f. n y. 4.' ��!.'y�.+ jjf Y .•r• '1F+R -r. "1 `Y' r^:Z"+!+�'� _ - - „w,_.y.'U''s:.,.,j�' ' i''�+.. '.r'r _ , _ JS � � '� , X � ti k Zone: • , _ �1 �- J�""'`'+•�_. •�'•,- .�•,,;�` -'ta .�,c„�Y'�'"J” C !� ` irr y ~ y r li � •w.J fir. - - ` J � i -N T� �sq�.S�'���.r"�'y � � � c� � 1 -a f -s -�st— .7"iat- v�' ,° ,+'� 3 ♦ a` r .. � � -i' ti - � . ti. ra .� --''F: $ t 3 I I 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 l+ 1 1 the PGA Resort f �Y�L -�, • ���.� _.� �-�' �' 3 t �. � �.�`�" ate° � - -� x .� �; r , _ .` i `•s2...J�+;�,�`w �•l +Si_ ..•ri` :""'a, , i'a .� '- ` • f ' ' '� �' �" t� ..» trey' 1• ,,��. ..-r � % � !� i� �i }!, }L2y m i'+{- � s �� �� '_•s S.r�a��,•J �.� ' ..`� � r tc,tr Lee iti � �',� - �'�" R} t'y' _� '� S � '_.vuy�ll'�'.+n..J�'�•� y� 7 >� +j'�yi�y{��j{���'�'/ .. i N •ia 4F ; �f J•2y4� '-i �•,iY�r� IF11A ,I a1 1 � � ! t t l t ! •t ! � •E � ' so w a a_ 'F. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Date: October 8, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Subject/Agenda Item: Resolution 149, 2001- Regional Center Parcels 27.12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue -Plat Recommendation /Motion: There are no engineering concerns with this plat, therefore we recommend its approval. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ 0 Council Action: City Attorne Growth Management (Total) [ ] Approved $ 0 [ ] Approved w/ Finance Current FY conditions [ ] Denied ACM Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Advertised: Attachments: Other [ ] Operating [X ] Not Required [ ] Other Imit,led bl� Sean C. Donahue, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Affected parties [ ] Notified Budget Acct. #: [ ] None Approved by: City Ma age [X] Not required BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum. RESOLUTION 149, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE REGIONAL CENTER PARCELS 27.12, 27.14 AND LAKE VICTORIA GARDENS AVENUE PLAT AND, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City engineer has reviewed the Regional Center Parcels 27:12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue Plat; and WHEREAS, the City engineer has determined that the proposed plat meets all the technical requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations and Chapter 177, F.S. and recommends the approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the plat is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed and authorized to execute the Mylar of the Regional Center Parcels 27.12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue Plat consisting of three (3) sheets dated September 2001, prepared by Lidberg Land Surveying, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: This resolution shall be effective upon adoption. INTRODUCTED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 2001. ATTEST: CAROL GOLD, CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have approved this RESOLUTION as to form. LEONARD RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY day of , JOSEPH R. RUSSO MAYOR Resolution 149, 2001 Page 2of2 VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT Mayor Russo Vice Mayor Jablin Councilwoman Furtado Councilman Clark Councilman Sabatello L bf INC CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS &MAPPERS CIVIL AGRICULTURAL WATER RESOURCES WATER & WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION SURVEY & MAPPING GIS "Partners For Results Value By Design" 3550 S.W. Corporate Pkwy. Palm City, FL 34990 (561) 286 -3883 Fax (561) 286 -3925 www.lbfh.com MEMORANDUM TO: Carol Gold, City Clerk FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E. DATE: September 20, 2001 FILE NO. 01 -4191 SUBJECT: Regional Center - Parcels 27.12, 27.14 and Lake Victoria Gardens Avenue We have reviewed the plat for the referenced project prepared by Lidberg Land Surveying, Inc. The plat was reviewed for technical compliance with Chapter 177 of the Florida Statutes and the City of Palm Beach Gardens requirements. We have no engineering concerns with this plat. Therefore, we recommend its approval. SCD/ PAPR0JECTS\PBGMEM0\4191 \4191 j CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Subject/Agenda Item: Letter to the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District requesting a third stormwater gate at the S -44 structure on the C -17 canal to increase the flow of water resulting from storm events Recommendation /Motion: Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter requesting a third gate at the above control structure on the C -17 canal Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ N/A Council Action: Total City Attorney Planning Division [ ] Approved Finance $ N/A [ ] Approved w/ conditions Other Current FY [ ]Denied Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Advertised: Date: [ ] Operating Attachments: Paper: [ ] Other 1. Proposed letter to the Northern Palm Beach County [ X ] Not Required Improvement District rowth Mgt. Director Affected parties [ ] Notified Budget Acct. #: [ ] None Approv by: City Ma ager [ X ] Not required BACKGROUND: The citywide stormwater plan prepared by Lindahl, Browning Ferri and Hellstrom has identified the need for a third stormwater gate at the S -44 structure on the C -17 canal in order to increase the flow 1 of water resulting from storm events. As a result of the City's request for a third gate, the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District ( NPBCID) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) have been working on a study to document the need for a third gate at the above location. Some staff members of the SFWMD have recently submitted comments on the draft study indicating a strong opinion against the third gate. The Board of Directors for the NPBCID has scheduled a workshop for this coming October 24`x' to discuss this matter, and the staff of that agency has requested a letter from the City supporting the third gate and supporting the continued study to document the need for this additional gate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter for submission to the NPBID. g: \sc \txt \npbcid 100801 cc 0 Mr. Peter Pimentel, Executive Director Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District 357 Hiatt Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 Re: Need for a third stormwater gate at the 5 -44 structure on the C -17 canal to serve the City of Palm Beach Gardens Dear Mr. Pimentel: The City's consulting engineer, LBFH, Inc, has prepared a citywide stormwater plan for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The plan identifies the need for a third stormwater gate at the 5 -44 structure on the C -17 canal in order to increase the flow of water out of the City resulting from storm events. Based on the above, the City of Palm Beach Gardens respectfully requests the support of the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District in installing a third stormwater gate at the S- 44 structure and to continue the study of this additional gate to document its need. The continued assistance of the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District in helping the City of Palm Beach Gardens to address its drainage needs is greatly appreciated. You should contact City Manager Ron Ferris (799 -4110) or City Engineer Dan Clark (684 -3375) if any clarification or additional information is needed. Sincerely, Joseph Russo Mayor JR: SC: sc cc: City Council Ron Ferris, City Manager Charles Wu, Growth Management Director Hoyt Owens, Public Works Director Dan Clark, LBFH, City Engineer South Florida Water Management District G:\sc\letters\npbcidl00801 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Subject /Agenda Item Approval and execution of Interlocal Agreement Between Palm Beach County and the City of Palm Beach Gardens for Howell Lane Roadway Improvements and Annexation. Recommendation /Motion : Staff recommends City Council approval and execution of the Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County and the City of Palm Beach Gardens to share the costs of constructing Howell Lane roadway improvements and to annex Howell Lane into the City. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ 85,076.70 Council Action: Total City Attorne Fire Rescue [ ] Approved Finance $ 85,076.70 [ ] Approved w/ Current FY conditions ACM [ ]Denied Human Res. ' Advertised: Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Other Attachments: Date: [ ] Operating Paper: [ X ] Not Required [ X ] Other Gas Tax Staff Report Interlocal Agreement Submitted by: Peter T. Ber Survey Department Head Affected parties [—] Notified Budget Acct. #:: 16- 3000 - 539.5265 [ ] None App rov by: City Manager [ X ] Not required BACKGROUND: The funding for the Howell Lane roadway improvements has been previously approved by the City Council. The intent of the referenced Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City is to share the construction costs of the roadway improvements, and to annex the roadway into the City's boundaries. m �1 •� CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald M. Ferris, City Manager DATE: October 8, 2001 APPROVED: FROM: Peter T. Bergel, Fire Chie SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County and the City of Palm Beach Gardens for Howell Lane Roadway Improvements and Annexation. The Fire/Rescue Department is requesting City Council approval and execution of the attached Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County (County) and the City of Palm Beach Gardens (City) to share the costs of constructing Howell Lane roadway improvements, and to annex Howell Lane into the City. BACKGROUND: The City has previously approved the funding for the design and construction of the Fire Station No. 3, which includes Howell Lane roadway improvements, in the amount of $ 85,076.70. The project was designed and permitted by the City Engineers and Gee & Jenson Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc. Ahrens Construction was selected as the low bidder on August 2, 2001, and construction began on October 5, 2001. This project will be funded with monies available from Gas Taxes Account No. 16 -3000- 539 -5265. The County will reimburse the City for one half of the actual construction cost for the roadway improvements, not to exceed $60,000. DISCUSSION: The funding for the Howell Lane roadway improvements has been previously approved by City Council. The intent of the referenced Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City is to share the construction costs of the roadway improvements, and to annex the roadway into the City's boundaries. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approval and execution of the Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County and the City of Palm Beach Gardens to share the costs of constructing Howell Lane roadway improvements, and to annex Howell Lane into the City. CADocuments and Settings \peteb\My Documents \Council Agendas\Howell Lane Memo.doc CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA RESOLUTION 158, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY TO SHARE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON HOWELL LANE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County accepted a Quit -Claim Deed in 1974 to Howell Lane, with the understanding that it would remain a "courtesy maintained" shellrock road; and WHEREAS, in connection with the construction of City Fire Station No. 3, the City and County desire to improve Howell Lane and share in the cost of such road improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes ( "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act "), authorizes local governments to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage thereby providing services and facilities that will harmonize geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the execution of an Interlocal Agreement with Palm Beach County to share the cost of constructing road improvements on Howell Lane is in the best interests of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1: The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves the Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County and the City to share the cost of constructing road improvements on Howells Lane, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein, and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 3: All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4: If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2001. ATTEST: CAROL GOLD, MMC, CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have approved this Resolution as to form. LEONARD G. RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO AYE NAY ABSENT 2 19 0 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS TO SHARE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON HOWELL LANE. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter "COUNTY'), and the CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, a Florida municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY') WHEREAS, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act, authorizes local governments to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage thereby providing services and facilities that will harmonize geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY accepted a Quit - Claim Deed in 1974 to Howell Lane with the understanding that it would remain a "courtesy maintained" shellrock road; and WHEREAS, the CITY and the COUNTY have agreed that each shall fund one- half ('/2) of the cost of. improving that portion of Howell Lane described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto an incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter "Road "); and WHEREAS, the improvements shall consist of roadway construction and paving; pavement marking; the installation of signs, swales, drainage pipes and drainage structures; and the relocation of a utility pole and feeder lines (hereinafter "Improvements "); and -1- s• WHEREAS, upon completion of the Improvements, the COUNTY will convey the Road to the CITY and the CITY will assume the maintenance thereof. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and representations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein. Section 2. Responsibilities and Duties. A. The COUNTY agrees to: 1) Fund one half ('/2) of the cost of the Improvements to the Road, in a total amount not to exceed $60,000.00; and 2) Reimburse the CITY for actual costs of construction of the Improvements, as documented by invoices showing such expenses paid by the CITY. B. CITY agrees to: 1) Prepare engineering plans and receive construction bids; and 2) Notify the COUNTY of the CITY's intention to award a construction contract and of the total cost of the project based on actual engineering costs and the lowest responsive bid; and 3) Fund the remaining costs of the Improvements, in addition to all engineering, administrative and inspection costs; and 4) Obtain all appropriate permits, including any required COUNTY permits, and cover all costs associated with those permits and related conditions; and -2- 5) Be solely responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the Improvements and for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits, approvals and authorizations from any federal, state, regional or COUNTY agency which are required for the construction, installation and maintenance of the Improvements. Section 3. Payments /Invoicing and Reimbursement. CITY shall submit invoices to the COUNTY with no greater frequency than monthly, which will include a reference to the Agreement, identify the project, include the CITY'S total expenditure toward the cost of the Improvements, and identify the amount due and payable to the CITY. Invoices shall be itemized in sufficient detail for pre - payment audit thereof and shall be supported by copies of the corresponding paid vendor invoices and substantiated proof of payment and performance. The CITY shall supply any further documentation deemed necessary by the COUNTY. Invoices received from the CITY will be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer's Office within ten (10) days, indicating that expenditures have been made in conformity with the AGREEMENT and then will be sent to the COUNTY'S Finance Department for final approval and payment. Invoices will normally be paid within fifteen (15) days following approval. Section 4. Access and Audits. As it relates to this Agreement, the COUNTY may initiate a financial system analysis and /or internal fiscal control evaluation of the CITY by an independent auditing firm employed by the COUNTY or by the COUNTY's Internal Audit Department at any time the COUNTY deems necessary. The CITY shall maintain adequate records to -3- justify all payments, expenses and costs incurred for at least three (3) years after completion of the IMPROVEMENTS. If such audit or evaluation reveals that the CITY failed to expend funds reimbursed to the CITY by the COUNTY in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the CITY shall be obligated to reimburse the COUNTY for all such expenditures. Section 5. Repayment. A. The CITY shall repay the County for all unauthorized, illegal or unlawful expenditures of revenues, including those discovered after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. B. Funds which are to be repaid to the COUNTY are to be repaid by delivering to the COUNTY a certified check for the total amount due and payable to COUNTY, within ten (10) days of the COUNTY'S demand. C. Nothing contained herein shall act as a limitation of the COUNTY'S right to be repaid, as a waiver of any rights of the COUNTY'S, or preclude the COUNTY from pursuing any other remedy which may be available to it under law or equity. Section 6. Independent Contractor. The CITY recognizes that it is an independent contractor and not an agent or servant of COUNTY. No person employed by any party to this Agreement, shall in connection with the performance of this Agreement or any services or functions contemplated hereunder, at any time, be considered the employee of the other party, nor shall an employee claim any right in or entitlement to any pension, worker's compensation benefit, unemployment compensation, civil service, or other employee ME rights or privileges granted by operation of law of otherwise, except through and against the entity by whom they are employed. Section 7. Liability. The parties to this Agreement shall not be deemed to assume any liability for the negligent or wrongful acts, or omissions of the other party. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver, by either party, of the liability limits established in 768.28, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the CITY stipulates that the extent of the COUNTY'S liability shall be limited solely to its funding obligation. Liability for injury to personnel, and the loss or damage of equipment shall be borne by the party employing such personnel and owning such equipment. Section 8: Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law and without waiving the limitations of sovereign immunity, CITY shall indemnify COUNTY, its agents, officers, servants and employees harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, losses and /or causes of action which may arise from the negligent act or omission of CITY, its agents, officers, servants and employees in the performance of its obligations under this agreement. Additionally, the CITY shall require that all contracts or agreements with contractors relating to the construction of the IMPROVEMENTS require that the contractors indemnify the COUNTY, to the extent set forth herein, and name the COUNTY as an additional insured on all Certificates of Insurance. Section 9. Notice of Complaints or Suits. -5- Each party will promptly notify the other of any citizen complaint, claim, suit, or cause of action threatened or commenced against it which arises out of or relates, in any manner, to the performance of this Agreement. Section 10. Annual Appropriation. Each party's performance and obligation under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual budgetary appropriation by its respective governing body for the purposes hereunder. Section 11. Breach and Opportunity to Cure. The parties expressly covenant and agree that in the event either party is in default of its obligations under this Agreement, the party not in default shall provide to the defaulting party thirty (30) days written notice before exercising any of its rights. Section 12. Enforcement Costs. Any costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) associated with the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be borne by the respective parties; provided, however, that this clause pertains only to the parties to this Agreement. Section 13. Notice. All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and deemed sufficient to each party when sent by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: As to CITY: Ronald M. Ferris, City Manager City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Ile With a copy to: Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney Watterson, Hyland & Klett 4100 RCA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 As to COUNTY: George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer c/o Allen W. Webb, Street Improvement Coordinator Department of Engineering and Public Works Post Office Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -1229 With a copy to: Marlene R. Everitt Assistant County Attorney 301 North Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Section 14. Modification and Amendment. Except as expressly permitted herein to the contrary, no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and equality of dignity herewith. Section 15. Remedies. This Agreement shall be construed by and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be held in Palm Beach County. No remedy herein conferred upon any party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. No single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof. -7- Section 16. Joint Preparation. The preparation of this Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties, and the resulting document shall not, solely as a matter of judicial constraint, be construed more severely against one of the parties than the other. Section 17. Equal Opportunity. The COUNTY and the CITY agree that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, religion, ancestry, marital status, or sexual orientation be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to any form of discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. The CITY will ensure that all contracts let for the Project pursuant to the terms of this Agreement will contain a similar non - discrimination and equal opportunity clause. Section 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire contract between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior understandings, if any. There are no other oral or written promises, conditions, representations, understandings or terms of any kind as conditions of inducement to the execution hereof and none have been relied upon by either party. Any subsequent conditions, representations, warranties or agreements shall not be valid and binding upon the parties unless they are in writing and signed by both parties and executed in the same manner as this Agreement. Section 19. Severability. In the event any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, such invalid term or provision shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof and all such other terms and provisions hereof shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law as if such invalid term or provision had never been a part of this Agreement Section 20. Effective Date. This agreement shall take effect upon execution and the effective date shall be the date it is executed by the last part executing same. Section 21. Filing A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank] IN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Interlocal Agreement on the day and year first written above. ATTEST: Dorothy H. Wilkin, County Clerk Bv: Deputy Clerk Date: Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency By: County Attorney Approved as to Terms and Conditions By: ATTEST: By: City Clerk Date: Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency City Attorney PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Chairman Date: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS By: Date: PACPW in \H 1 STORY\010515A \442. CF (319.059)Ig r- doc207 -10- Mayor i ::CT. S. 2001 1C - 4-fatl -3F'H -WFE 1`10. 3E -I P. C!3 o�i � h I UNPLATT D w p O.R.R. 6441 y 1n PAGE 1404 SOUTH LINE OF THE N.E. 1/-+ CF THE I UNPLATTED r S.E. 1 E 1 4 F THE S. O z. z` LNORTH�LINE THIS IS NOT ASURVEY ylN. CORNER ORS 2840 ORNER S.E. 1 f 4 OF PG. 1825 2840 S.E. 1/4 PLAT O. 44,00' 182 BALLENISLES PODS 204 AND 20b (P.S. 83. FG. THE S.E. 1/4 40.00' 167170) t POINT OF QUIT CLAIM BEGINNING DEED S.W. CORNER ' S.F. CORNER ORB 2840 1.221 ± ACRES ORB 8441, PC. 1405 + ORB 6441 PG. 1825 NE MORTH LINE OF THE & S.E. CORNER PG. 1405 ' ^u. 1E325 41 SOUTH 460' OF THE CR8 2844, PC. 1825 PG. 1405 EAST 1/4 OF THE A hST LINE I� S.E. 1/4 a G 2840 EAST LINE 331.55' a °G. 1825 CR8 2840 PG. 1825 STATE OF FLORQA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT R/W MAP FOR ROAD 809 -A, SECTION NO. 9.368 -150 o�i � h I UNPLATT D w p O.R.R. 6441 y 1n PAGE 1404 SOUTH LINE OF THE N.E. 1/-+ CF THE I UNPLATTED r S.E. 1 E 1 4 F THE S. O z. z` n f ,� •� wEST LINE OF THE E. 1/4 OF THE S.E. 1/4 40.00' POINT OF N88'30'27 "W BEGINNING S.W. CORNER ' S.F. CORNER S'ff CORNER ORB 8441, PC. 1405 + ORB 6441 ORS 2840 & S.E. CORNER PG. 1405 ' ^u. 1E325 CR8 2844, PC. 1825 OUTH LINE ;EC 11ON 14 +. 331.55' 331.55' a 663,10' (PAC) N88`30'27 "W "--NORTH L,4" BOULEVARD STATE OF FLORQA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT R/W MAP FOR ROAD 809 -A, SECTION NO. 9.368 -150 �I Z. POINT OF �2 I COMMENCEMENT SOUTHEAST CORNER SECTION 14 I 14 PALM BEACH 2S 24 DISC U IN CONCRFTr EXHIBIT "A" SURVEYOR AND MAPPER'S SIGNATURE I! UNLESS IT BEARS THE SICNATIIRE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL CF A FLOROA UCENSED SURV R AND MAPPER, THIS MAP /REPORT IS FCR INFORMAM. NA- FURPOSES ON AND IS NOT VALID. 2( NO SEARC ,' �i� UCORD HAS BEEN MADE BY THIS Ofr =i:E. JOHN X WIPON,, OROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR dr. MAPPER 37A OF FLORIDA NO. 5157, LBF.H. CERTIIF•CATE NO. LB 959 ,1N L. BROWNING. FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC Sco1e CONSUL•nNC ENGINEERS, SURYIMRS & MAPPERS 1 " -200' I 3550 S.W. CORPORATC PARKWAI PAW Ctrl'. FLOROA 34990 Date i (560 2116 -3863 FAX. (561) 296 -3325 WM PAW an FORT PALM a FORT PIERCC OKEECHOULE 02 -01 -00 Fief❑ Y- 27-01 EXTENOEO PARCEL FARTHER NORTH, 9Y:JW 1 2 -1 -01 EXTENDED PARCEL NORTH 86', BY: DC I REVISIONS. PROACT NAME., CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS HOWELL LANE LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SKETCH Sheet Field Book 0 N/A 1 Of 2 P-3. N/A N/A Z in w to Computed dAW Growing Project No. No. 99-4056 Checked 01-10 °' C, '1 1 i" T. E .''2001 10'. 4. kl _3FH -bdFB f1 ! 12 r5 14 14 13 r : SITE jS.E. 114P -C CI 41A YS 14 S f4, 13 zz ' as NORTH LA" BL VD, 23' ! 2� i9I *19i:U209li' ilt). 3E7 P. 3,3 SURVEY NOTES 1) Ti-IIS IS NOT A SURVEY. 2) BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 14, TAKEN TO 8EAR NORTH 88'30'27" WEST, AND ALL OTHER BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE THERETO, 3) FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION, SEE BOUNDARY do TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY L.B.F.H.. INC.. TITLED: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS. HOWELL LANE —. 9 ACRES, DRAWING NO. 994056S02. SHEET 1 OF 1, DATED 9/16/99, LEGEND 1) R/'W - RIGHT —OF -WAY. 2) ORB OFFICIAL RECORDS 800K. 3) PG. = PAGE, 4) PBC PALM BEACH COUNTY. VICINITY SKETCH NOT TO SCALE ALL OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK (ORB) 2840, PAGE 1525 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA. SAID LANDS LI£ IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14, THENCE NORTH 88'30'27" WEST ALONG THE SCU H LINE OF SECTION 14, BEING ALSO THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD (107.45 FEET WIDE), A DISTANCE OF 66110 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN ORB 6441, PG, 14405, ACCORDING TC THE PLBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE AFORESAID ORB 2040, PG. 1825 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 8$'30'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ORB 2640, PG. 1825: THENCE NORTH 01'46'37' EAST ALONC THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN ORS 2840, PC. 1825, A DISTANCE OF 1329.92 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN ORB 2840, PG. 1825; THENCE SOUTH 88'25'09 EASY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN ORB 2840, PG, 1825, A DISTANCE OF 40,00 FEET TO THE NORTHERS' CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED 'N ORD 2840, PAGE '825; THENCE SOUTH 01'48'37" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN ORB 2840,, PG. 1629, A DISTANCE OF 1329.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINING 1.221 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY L.IA40AiiL. BROWNING. FERRARI do HMI RTROM. INC SCQIe. Lm11,181A.MAC ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS & mAPPERS N/A 3550 S.W. CORPORATE PA"AY I PALM C(SY, FLORIDA 34990 Date (S61) 2406 -3993 FAY: (561) 296 -3925 PALM BEAZH PALM Cn FORT PIERCE OKEECH09EE OZ -01 ��� I 3. -27 -01 EXTENDU PARCEL FARTHER NORTH, BY: JW I II 2 -1--01 EXTENOFO PARCEL NORTH 86', 6Y:DC REVISIONS: PROJECT NAME: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS HOWELL LANE LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SKETCH Sheet Fieid Book Mold N/A 2 Of 2 pg N N/A Ln Lo Li Computed JAW Drawing Project No. 0 No. 99 --4056 L °i C1lecked QH0 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Date: 10/04/01 Meeting Date: 10/18/01 Subject/Agenda Item Ordinance 37,2001 to amend Section 3 -53 of the City Code — Personnel Policy Recommendation /Motion: Public Hearing — Second Reading Staff recommends motion to adopt nrdinnncP 37 7M1 nn sPnnnri and final raariinrn Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: Council Action: City Attorney Human Resources [ ] Approved [ j Approved w/ Finance conditions [ ] Denied Human - resources Advertised: Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Other (1 Date: [ x] Operating Attachments: Paper: [X ] Not Required [ ] Other Memorandum Submitted by: Henry DuFour Department Director Affected parties [ ]Notified Budget Acct. #: [ ]None Approv d by:� City Manager [ ] Not required History: At the September 13th Council meeting, this proposed ordinance was approved unanimously on Ist reading. Staff recommends approval of the change to Section 3 -53 of the City personnel policy. This change will correct the disparity between personnel assigned a 40 -hour work week and those assigned a 48 -hour work week by increasing the personal leave accruals for employees assigned a 48 -hour work week. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS ORDINANCE NO. 37, 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3 -53 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE INCREASED' PERSONAL LEAVE ACCRUALS FOR FULL -TIME EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED A 48 HOUR WORK WEEK; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in order to correct a disparity between personnel assigned a 40 hour work week and those assigned a 48 hour work week, the City wishes to amend its Code of Ordinances to increase the personal leave accruals for those employees assigned a 48 hour work week; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the adoption of such an amendment is the best interests of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1: The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified as true and confirmed and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby amends Chapter 3, "Personnel Program," Article VI, "Benefits," Section 3 -53, "Personal leave," of the City Code of Ordinances to read as follows: Sec. 3-53. Personal leave. (c) Accrual (2) Personal leave is accrued monthly as follows for full time employees assigned as 48 hour work week: SECTION 3: If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the Ordinance. SECTION 4: All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF , 2001. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF , 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS I DAY OF , 2001. SIGNED: MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN ATTESTED BY: CITY CLERK 2 COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY ATTORNEY Monthly Accrual Annual Accrual Years of Service (hours) (hours per year) 0-4 44 15.4 168 184.8 5-8 16 17.8 1 92 213.6 9-12 48 20.2 2.6 242.4 13-16 2022.6 240 271.2 Over 17 2225 264 300 SECTION 3: If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the Ordinance. SECTION 4: All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF , 2001. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF , 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS I DAY OF , 2001. SIGNED: MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN ATTESTED BY: CITY CLERK 2 COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK P: \CPWin \HISTORY\010821A \43F. B 1(319.062)lgr -doc 115 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Prepared on: October 4, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 23, 2001, regarding an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan that seeks to delete a roadway segment and a portion of another from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). Also, the request seeks to delete a pedestrian link that traverses through Parcel 31.01 from the Conceptual Linkage Plan (Map 1). The subject parcel is located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard (Blvd.) and Central Blvd. and is bounded to the west by the Florida Turnpike. The City Council passed this ordinance on First Reading on July 5, 2001. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 23, 2001. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ Total Council Action: ,� City Attorney =4� Growth Management [ ] Approved Finance NA $ [ ] Approved w/ ACM Current FY conditions Human Res. NA [ ] Denied Other NA Advertised: Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Attachments: Date: 10/13/2001 -. [ ] Operating Paper: Palm Beach Post [ ] Other Ordinance 23, 2001 0 Staff Comments • Location Map • Traffic Narrative • Justification Statement • Letters from County Submitted by: [X] Required Letter dated 9 -21 -01 from the Florida Department of Community Affairs Growth Management Director Affected parties Xc Notified Budget Acct. #:: [ ] None Approved by: City Manager [] Not Required City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 4, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -05 Request: Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing map amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment seeks to delete a roadway segment and a portion of another from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). Also, a request to delete a pedestrian link that traverses through Parcel 31.01 from the Conceptual Linkage Plan (Map 1). The two roadway segments are roadway #18, Ballenlsles Drive extension north to 117th Court North extension and a portion of roadway #12, 117th Court North, from the Turnpike to Central Boulevard (Blvd.). Both roadways and the pedestrian link run through Parcel 31.01, which is proposed to be developed as one Planned Community District (PCD) comprising several parcels. The size of Parcel 31.01 is 470 acres. BACKGROUND: Parcel 31.01 is located along PGA Blvd. and is bounded by Central Blvd. to the east and the Turnpike to the west. It will be combined with other parcels to form one unified development of approximately 450 single - family residential homes. The parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped. Parcel 31.01 is also subject to the Forbearance Agreement executed by the City and affected property owners in 1999. The agreement limits the density and intensity of this parcel to three (3) dwelling units per acre and a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 25 %. The City's Traffic Engineer has recommended denial of the proposed deletion of both roadway segments on grounds that these links divert traffic away from PGA Blvd. in the future. Roadway #18, which runs north- south, would carry traffic from PGA to Roadway #12, which runs east -west, and distributes traffic to Shady Lakes extension east of the subject Parcel 31.01. Thus, serving as a reliever to PGA Blvd., which is operating below the adopted LOS standard D. The recommendation made by the City's traffic engineer is based on a narrative and that a traffic analysis of what is likely to occur and the potential number of trips that could be diverted from PGA Blvd. to Roadway #12 or Roadway #18 was not conducted. Staff has considered the basis of the recommendation made by the City's Traffic Engineer along with other factors, such as the actual function of the subject roadway segments based on their configuration and length, the effects on the unified plan of development of the proposed residential PCD, and the potential additional and substantial property tax revenues to the City First, the subject roadway segments proposed for deletion are meant to carry local traffic, provide connectivity between individual parcels, and facilitate short trips. They are not intended to carry large volumes of traffic or serve as relievers for PGA Blvd. Their configuration and length support this argument (please see letter from County Traffic Division attached). The length of Roadway #18 is approximately 4,000 feet and Roadway #12 is one mile. 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 4, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -05 The configuration of Roadway #12 starts at the Florida Turnpike at the western boundary of Parcel 31.01 and ends approximately less than one mile east of the subject parcel, from Central Blvd. to Shady Lakes extension (a residential community). Roadway #12 could not be extended any further west because the Florida Turnpike represents a physical barrier to any future extension westward. The fact that Roadway #12 has been planned to pass through and connect individual private properties indicates that the primary function of this road is to provide access and connectivity from one parcel to another. The configuration of Roadway #18 begins at PGA Blvd., at the southern boundary of the subject parcel, and extends northward to Roadway #12, approximately the midpoint of Parcel 31.01. Roadway #18 has been planned in its entirety to begin and end within Parcel 31.01. It is clear that its primary function is to provide access to the parcels that currently make up the larger parcel, Parcel 31.01, from PGA Blvd. If these roads were intended as relievers for PGA Blvd., then their length and configurations would have been planned as Hood and Donald Ross Roads'. Furthermore, trips from PGA Blvd. on Roadway #18 that do not terminate at Parcel 31.01 would end up on Central Blvd. through the western portion of Roadway #12. If both roadway segments were eliminated, then trips headed north would travel along Central Blvd. directly from PGA Blvd. Regardless of whether the roadway segments are eliminated or maintained such trips would be distributed to Central Blvd. within half a mile from PGA Blvd. This is because they could not go west, but to Central Blvd., since the Florida Turnpike serves as a barrier to the west, provided that the final destination of such trips is other than the subject parcel. Thus, eliminating Roadways #18 and #12 does not alter this situation dictated by the configurations of the two roadways and the Florida Turnpike. Second, the justification for deleting the two roadways and the pedestrian link is reasonable, since the subject parcel is planned to be combined with other parcels to form one unified residential PCD. Currently, the roadways and the link bisect Parcel 31.01 nearly into two equal portions, which would disrupt the proposed master plan for the PCD and may lead to generating through traffic within a residential community. General city planning principles discourage through traffic in residential communities. Third, the proposed residential PCD on Parcel 31.01 is a high -end development with a projected sale price of at least one million dollars per single - family residence. The developer proposes to develop 450 residential units. The estimated additional property tax revenues to the City from the proposed development is at least 1.7 million dollars per year, according to the City's Finance Department. Please note that none of the roadway segments proposed for deletion is part of the City Center Linkages Plan. They are links reflected on the Conceptual Linkage Plan (Map 1) and the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). Map I does not include roadways within the City Center Linkages Plan. It is only for trailways and the parkway buffer system along major thoroughfares within the City. However, Map O includes only one 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 4, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -05 roadway that is part of the City Center Linkages Plan, which is Gardens Parkway located immediately north of Gardens Mall. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS: The applicant has provided a narrative traffic analysis to support the proposed amendments. The information provided to staff indicates that the proposed amendments do not adversely impact or lower the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards on potentially impacted roadways. The City's traffic engineer has not indicated that the proposed amendments would result in lowering the adopted LOS standards for roadways within the identified zone of influence. NEARBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS /OBJECTIONS: The planning directors belonging to the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) have reviewed the proposed amendments and has raised no objections. The Palm Beach County Planning Director has commented in a letter dated 9 -10 -01 (copy attached) that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with the recommendations regarding connectivity from the Northern Palm Beach County Traffic Summit this year. Staff has not received any objections nor adverse comments regarding this proposed amendment from City residents. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION: On May 8, 2001, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) held a public hearing to consider the subject petition and recommended approval with a vote of 6 -1. STAFF COMMENTS: The justification for the elimination is adequately justified and reasonable. The provided information indicates that no negative impacts would result on other roadways segments or pedestrian links. The segments or links proposed for elimination are not part of the City Center Linkages Plan, and therefore do not affect the CRALLS designation for PGA Blvd. sought by the City from Palm Beach County. PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council passed Ordinance 23, 2001 on First Reading on July 5, 2001, by a unanimous vote of 4 -0, and directed staff to transmit these proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. COMMENTS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS: The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed these proposed comprehensive plan amendments for consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan, as required by Florida Statutes. The attached letter dated 4 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 4, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -05 September 21, 2001, indicates DCA has no objections to this request. The Florida Department of Transportation and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council have submitted objections and comments to DCA (attachments to above letter), which were not supported by DCA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O) and the Conceptual Linkage Plan (Map 1). G:Ta1a1\TXT- 00- 05- str1 -cc 5 Ordinance 23, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 ORDINANCE 23, 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY DELETING ROADWAYS #18 AND #12 FROM THE CONCEPTUAL THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND A PARKWAY LINK FROM THE CONCEPTUAL LINKAGE PLAN THAT TRAVERSES THROUGH PARCEL 31.01 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PGA BOULEVARD AND CENTRAL BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (TXT- 00 -05- Ord) from Communities Finance Company, LLC to delete Roadways #12 and #18 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan that traverses through Parcel 31.01, located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment is internally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment is consistent with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, recommended approval of the subject amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that this amendment is subject to the provisions of Sections 163.3184(9) and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and that the City shall maintain compliance with all provisions thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and the Conceptual Linkage Plan Ordinance 23, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 of the City's Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended to delete Roadways #12 and #18 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan that traverses through Parcel 31.01 located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. SECTION 2. The City's Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure that this ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other agencies as required by Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. SECTION 3. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the ordinance. SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS THE PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS THE DAY OF 2001. DAY OF 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK 2001. VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO 2 ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD, MMC CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO G: Ta l a l /TXT -0 0 -0 5 -Ord Ordinance 23, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 3 O Q _ M___ - W_ W�l -- �1 �otR>r� - DDLOEN w�a LA mvirr ECIRLE �KAM EAtiLELAKEOR 9� 1 r .. 31 ` "m �' m"'°' r PARCEL 31.11' •AND a,� a ® - - I N HOLIDAY RO P't a ouLL oe - - - - -- PARCEL 0' °PARCEL 31.08 y °FLORIDA° e�.`o ; i � j - a � EVERD _DES D Q ac16t I 1 31.01 < F FIRE OE~ a CATA- r 9 02 CAPR•Rr O H _ Ft 42 4 0 -E NO N�1V ATLANII P AV. 1; SHA - I SHA - ... 3: OUA .V N 117 CT N A HOR - �'`•. .. 4. QU NIOOES m - Vic. AV j•' _.``.- =` ;" S. PIN ILL T _ sn .:.. -- -, t '?' =] -_ ::- X AMR EH Q. WI R L LLO ST ?.W ERI V. NCHE9T 1. SPICE OR ..c.. {, i.NUTMEO OR-. ,S °1:- - - G. "_`:.: •,; 186' 3. PEPPERCORN ST GARDE .� - 1 >�• .... s:._ .•�•` i IL TARREOON LA n '�noo _ _:s _ �` _ •, xw •. PO L!O. • 3. CURRY OR -; - S. CELERY LA FJVf _ �,p, _ CIH '• " .`` -.,i a- :J T.TI/YME.OR -•- '"i , !.MARJORAM bR ! - - • + fF�� ii1 .a e>• C PARSLEY LA ! S 9 • •, - _ = W ' K ' R' •• '� '- �; o -'s 1MPAPRIKALA - .4 IE Y.. -•ws -r�� w ,flp� r 1d:CAYEIINE.LA.� r- _ .T 3 1 -. , ads �.• , i' -'l• : z 2 IM -- I"�7A BLyQ_� y �� 1Z:SESAME'ST'. - .Z' :�r"•.._.. t y y 1 7 D -_D sIC N6 E CK RI d� - IIPy _ - -- - - - - = _ — ' -_'_' •.a:: =�'' -- 6 %¢WOO _ -- - 'i -Palff �FJItAN� RWA g7R! a. _ Itl�r: • 3 • F _ "':i•' >O PLANTS !PF 4 .= , Dii -. Fir. =+ `...• • £ 1 _�- iV`� iii � •4qs 4 Y14 . w� _�s •�':,._ °. - ?.PNGlEW0003'+ - , -a' -f -_. -H- _ �• - wm PALK-11. E : ,:•� tii'••••r D III DICAL ' Y .;;;^ �•� . -•:.� f /S T ac. _ -j E V:TVlffi Bi'176 ". - •may s �.';� �.�!� .1 •� %��sf�:. 1..,,. " �_ L a�w—I� 4o G t y L :•..-, a _ � �' � earl. -1 •m ..-.� ;,�a:. SI � � W T : a°m 'Y ,•Q¢. a - a Oleo . r / t t w� �Y�;I ••} :2� / $r� i; �4.1'�� ;plc ! �� #�3!.i. -z-_ ���j. I'' + `c.'"^fY 6 ` • i 4.,.3�{� ��7.b.°.,�.- _ ,tom. �� \now.S�i.�'1 0 . z y -kd Tr� . C'1' DR ?..,Si.'r]L' 2i..;i -_t F-' "•:D - w NAiF HI AM An PARCELS 31.08 & 31.11 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT & "ARCEL 31.01 TEXT AMEND -ME_ NT ALM BEACH GARDENS, FL NTS UDS Job # =.10 LOCATION MAP Date: December 11, 2000 ,CA CO. =:.S 0 Map Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan City of Palm Bcwh Gardens -am- 25COM* Palm Beach Ir '11;1111w, Florida 621, dZmoogDivisian Z..* WIN, P.* 1 s .i P \1 Blue iib-&�n—Ce� m-- iiwe - IM 095 Rcvisod Doc. IW7 - wade 6-K 2-00 11 Rcvisod ow An�Lr TA-OOM I CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Planning and Zoning Division Growth Management Department CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 (561) 775 -8295 Fax (561) 775 -1014 Request ❑ Planned Community Development (PCD) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ Amendment to PCD, PUD or Site Plan ❑ Conditional Use ® Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ❑ Other (Explain) ❑ Annexation ❑ Rezoning ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Concurrency Certificate ❑ Time Extension Project Name: Parcels 1.11 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Amendment Parcel 3 1.0 1 IPQt Amendments Date: December 11, 2000 Site Information: General Location: Northeast and Northwest corner of Central Boulevard and Interstate 95 Address: See above. Township: 41S & (42S) Section: 35, 36 & (2) Range: 42E Acreage: 651 acres Current Zoning: PDA Requested Zoning: PCD (per concurrent petition) Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use, Residential Medium Existing Land Use: Vacant Requested Land Use: Residential /Golf Proposed Use(s) i.e. hotel, single family residence, etc.: N/A Proposed Sq. Footage by Use: Proposed Number and Type of Dwelling Unit(s) i.e. single family, multifamily, etc. (if applicable): N/A Al etition number: ees I pplication $ _ nfrineerino, $ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY' 1 Date & Time Received Receipt Number: Rote NiBlication C omnlete- 2 s Owner: Communities Finance Company, a subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc. Applicant (if not Owner): Agent: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO Agent's Mailing Address: 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 600, West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Agent's Telephone Number: (561) 689 -0066 Fax Number:, (561) 689 -0551 Architect: N/A Engineer: Kimley -Hom and Associates Planner. Urban Design Studio Landscape Architect: N/A Justification Explanation: Information concerning all requests (Attach additional sheets if needed) {Section 118 -50, Submission Requirements, City Code of Ordinances} 1. Explain the nature of the request: We are requesting to redesignate approximately 80.52 acres of land (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and Interstate 95 from the existing Future Land Use Plan designation of Mixed Use (MXD) to Residential High (RH). In addition, we are requesting the deletion of future roadway #18 and a section of future roadway #12, from Florida's Turnpike to Central Boulevard, from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map 0). We are also seeking the deletion of a pedestrian linkage which traverses through Parcel 31.01 from the City's Conceptual Linkage Plan. These amendments are requested in order to process a development application to provide for a low density, single - family, private golf course community within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. This project will be made up of Parcels 31.01, 31.08, 31.10, 31.11 and 31.12, hereby referenced as Parcel 31 Golf 3 Community, and consist of 450 single family homes on approximately 651 acres. 2. What will be the impact of the proposed change on the surrounding area? ; For the requested Future Land Use Plan Amendment for the redesignation of two NM parcels to RH, the subject 80.52 acres is bounded on the southern and western boundaries by vacant lands with the Residential High (RI) Future Land Use designation. The proposed Residential High Future Land Use designation will be consistent with the surrounding land use designations. On the northern and eastern boundary of the subject site is Interstate 95. It should be noted that the subject site, as well as the remaining portion of the Parcel 31 Golf Community site, is planned to be a high -end golf course community. Because the proposed development is much less than what is allowed under the current Future Land Use designation and the proposed Future Land Use designation, the overall impacts on public facilities and services will be less than what was anticipated under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development of the Parcel 31 Go], f Community as a golf course community is consistent with the traditional and preferred development residential pattern in the City. For the requested Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, we are requesting the deletion of the section of the future east/west road #12 from Florida's Turnpike to Central Boulevard and all of future roadway #18 on Map O of the Comprehensive Plan. This request is being made as the site , which is to be bisected by these roadways is proposed to be a low density, single family, golf course community. As an exclusive community, there is a desire to control the access to the site, similar to the adjacent BallenIsles community. If Parcel 31.01 was to be divided up into multiple tracts with multiple owners, the subject future public roadways may be desirable. Because all of the Parcel 31 Golf Community is proposed to be owned and developed by one entity, there is no public benefit in providing public access through this single neighborhood project: There will be numerous access 4 points to the project, which will include access points on PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. ,1fhere will also be a private roadway network which will service the future golf course community. Also, the concurrent request to change the Future Land Use designations on the adjacent Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 from Mixed Use to Residential High will reduce the possible traffic impact that could be created on the Parcel 31 South site. The request to eliminate the pedestrian link within Parcel 31.01 from the Conceptual Linkage Plan is consistent with the desire to provide a private golf course community. Additional pedestrian linkages will be provided as part of the parkway program along PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. 3. Describe how the rezoning request complies with the City's Vision Plan and the following elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Infrastructure, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement. This is not a request for rezoning. 4. How does the proposed project comply with City requirements for preservation of natural resources and native vegetation (Section 98 & Chapter 102, City Code)? This request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and it is not applicable to City's natural preservation regulations. 5. How will the proposed project comply with City requirements for Art in Public Places (Chapter 106, City Code)? Not applicable. 5 - _ HM 11 eM1 U'J: �b rK WU t -VHLM HUi GARDENS 5617751099 TO 7994281 P.02/05 SENT BY- NP LASERJET 9150; 5817994281;• APR-5.01 9:5OA11; PAGE 1 TO: MAN DESIGN AT: 9- 889.0551 4--e5 -201 18:1SAM FROM MTP GRMP INC WS FL ♦1 661 7 30 P.1 MTP Groups, Mo. 12788 Fom# HM BW. Suite M Titoft full 7254M WdMn&r, R 83416. M V the Fax I/I _- - - -- i..I -! -UIUiK - - 11 -U - - -._ - 0•u/Tirinr. • llp� 06, soot jTt1u) � 10:1p fiat. Na: Ta: Mr. gave Cramw Chy of i elm laaoh ftms". Rpc Na: 661.7MAU] No. of Papas: 4 (ta& We ofter) ' /Mons: Mula� fill. Ti�jota, RE: 104PW 91- Cofi*mtlafiiilfo AM Am11df110rd 1. IPM ._ - -- - • - - - _._ . p*IMi1t, �iM/a.«i.14rw.�f.�1ta.P�Mlwa �. A��trwM4w.ddriorlh. wlMM� 1rMw� wMMirlbwl.w/�wiY�w�w�tMi�MMMiw. MPwoft M1 *Abftwwa �-- - , w� „ , a •►.s..niii�i�wrMwvr.a b=%*p bmI& Mrwdon Attaof►ed7a a maslortwodum caac �)1e obov�e- �r+efireaoed a�bjea. Ifyou bm a y queaionm, piano calf to at 361. 795.0678. Tb&* yiolt. DOO Olt 90101 4 T• M A Mt/ ONd�■ APR a 6 >Ma i1NA0EMEEft1 I�MitiR . ce,eocu=c, Cot= C11.3 7jU"..WAM, DOO Olt 90101 4 T• M A Mt/ ONd�■ APR a 6 >Ma i1NA0EMEEft1 I�MitiR . ce,eocu=c, Cot= C11.3 � u,.,i c,� -,,�, r r. ,,.,. r r� • .,u r �,axc•�cr�.7 Jol r rJ1cr77 1 V r 77YG01 T. bJ�gJ SENT RY: NP LASEAJET 3150; 5617994281;• APA -5 -oi 9:50AU; PAGE 2/4 A-Wz-201 FR13M HYP QW INC WO F1- t1 561 736 230 P.2 13YU A S*fX&M OV"W/, sow =3 • w'i�A1�. R J.1IL� AW*vi 900) 7x0 -"70 TOISOsc NCO Uff -WOO MEMORANDUM To: Sewn C. Doaahue, PJ1- . . ,jr.BFH, Inc. . From: Marla M. Wet% P:E. Date: April 2, 2001 Subject: Parcel 31- Comprabensive Mm Ainandmeat We have reviewed a CompWORSIVO FW AsMas4MMI Rqueet for Parc4 31 prep med by Urban Dedgti Stadia and contained in a letter d&W Do=bcr 15, 2001. Th; latter indudea the follawieg request: a. Deletion of future roadway 18 and a portionaf future roadway 12 from the My's Conceptual Tbas+aughhm Pin b.' Ramval d a link from the City's Conceptual UnAle PUA c. Rbdeftmla appfoltltaately BO.S um of land in the Pub= Lead Ursa Plan from Mixed Use (MM) to Residential lsh (1�A We bavo evaluated caret request scp=Wy and our comments Now. Deladan of fuftw- adwev 19 and 1 nw6aa of 12 from the Genezntual Thorp Af c Pha 1GWW Host and Associates prep ucd•a report diced D% -v—n* r 21100 which contains it traffic analysis to support the propo:ad dciatkwr. of roadways hors+ the CoaoopW Thor ghhm Plan. 7lsomuthf= No. 12 is planned to tut► eadwta from FloridVs TungAte to Shady Lances a:tersion, while Thoroughfare No. 19 is planned to ton ttortl+ /south from asllonbles Drive ca+necting with 'I' emu jhbm No. 12. Bated on Policy 2.1.2:3 of the CRy's Comomhessaivo Plan. the Conceptual Thoroughfare P1= was • isnplmneesredto: . • 'Essure this then l; a netwark of public interns dp s;Pfidemtly move ttatrie within the City and serve as a backup system to the County thomughfarc roatdi. " APR 05 2001 13:04 5616890551 WK 11 4jul WTJ =Jb r K Wt- L -rHU'1 Dt-n Urtr%LAC1'1Z3 Jon r .Jac/JJ ... - BENT 8Y. HP LASERJET 3150; SOM94261; APR -5 -01 9:50AM; PAGE 914 air -Wl MOM 14TP GROLP 1NC WS FL +1 661 7960238 P. 3 Swn C Dow". RE Parcel 31- Caapelnansivs ranee /ylwpt � 2, soot Paps2 ot3 xhnley Horn nv"t indiatess Wa has mtt the intent of old City'a Goncoptual Thomughfane Plan. We diragsee with this statement. Tit: rqM indiem on -,rite madva rs will be provided which wM save Parcel 31 generatod Craft Rovw a. through traff will am be allowed. deletion of tiem roads from the thoroulhfiure plan will have as impact oa futtue traffic pattan in the surrounding roadway network. Tbaefore„ not nieadng die lntat of the Comprshftsivo Plan Policy 1.1.2.3. We agree that the section dn"ou jbfam Na.12 between Thamshfue !des 18 to the Florida's Tamplb will only save Parce131 tenoWed traffic since ties am no pins to eattepd this road to the west. Pttrdibrawre, Florida's Tung ire acts trice a barrier controMag foblre a itensiort of this road. However, both ThotmughfiM No. 19 and No. 12 to Ow ease am It7cay to have a dpi Wcant Impact on divuting trnttu from PGA HOWMM. Thera is a signifimt, amount of dovelapment rawatly &MMved and yet to be approved in the City. The m4origr of Huse developments wiU love traM lmpea on PGA 130111cmd. This roadway is pvcdeoted to caay loge volumes of aft. in many auctions racaefi g the adopted loud of services Any opportanitics to divot traffic to other roads should be gives proper ca►sideratlon. Roadways in rho City's Conceptual IUMUShtate Plan which proviQed this opM unity should riot be deleted. . Wit meartmend tW both 71koroMZon No. !2 o+rd J*'AOf be dt&W /Wo AN (3lcy's C#Xcq*W Tliorvulltfary Pho trkk fit t MP&A Of Off rflJMIN gfAOMMtkAM-No. 12 balwees thf jUdAa'j 21ampik fold AorousAfbm No. IB WW may be del ad t bUfa da#bxdmd rupees fa /Mrlt"tni,M passim in SW IWWU4dkt rMadwe Na wdrk. Rn mewl of a link from the eitvs Ceneeetual Unl=t Plan 'tic pwpoud amendment IddWas deletion of a psdeslriaa link which traverses through parer! 31.01. There is so wisp indi aft the location of the link being peddoaad for deMon. 'no City ftuld ceasnder the following ka w before raking a detanginaf m m delft tote reguestod link: a. PedesULM lima to the City have not boar prima ly used as a mean of transporudon. Pedeadae finks am mud mainly for recrea,dmal tictivides or e>rudge. However, this trail mq change in rho dense as taunt lxwrams• ie acUacaot midways. b. ' PedestriAn !mire otPa a way of rads6flmS Short lt9th *S without Uw use of tbo automobile. M mare trips are satisfied by pedetiorian litft, erail'{r volume are Odaaed from thea4scanf ro"Way syam. c.. Tho nwm p adestr6n Batt: am bulls to the City dw mate use thcy will get. Trey also provide vonnecdon between a4scons land uses. FV'K 11 G!A',l YJ7•Jf rR W..a -r nun u.w urw�+i. -•w w�. ... �.-..� •-. - -- • - -- SENT ®Y: NP LACERJET 3150; 5817694281; APR -6.6i 9:51AH; 4-Vs- -2131 1 e: 21 AM Fow+ mv Gmp me wm FL +1 561 79W23e PAGE 4/4 P. 4 Son Q DWAV^ P . • Pr+cW 91.Oartpr�eirn PlanAflNtid�wlt ' PON3013 �efemYilns_rey SD,� acres-of land in the Punms TAnd 11,ie Phn from Milved Via (kMI to lk#Adl ►tiol Hiiph MM - i IWay Ham ad Amos m prtWW t trltfl1c unlysis dated Dewjn er 18.20M which QORWAS a compuison of trip generation for the pardon of Pane! 31 ender consideration for a land use plan amendment. The traffic wW)Ws shows dig the pmpamd Residential Wish land use M9 the potential of $oaeradn8 slgmiFiwdy Im traffic"the current land use designation ofMuod Use. we a&= with this Conclusion. We bops *gaie oomn=u adds: your coomns. 'Should you lavo uldidarW questions, please 44 not bent= to 8ivo to a.Czlt 0 (561) 743.0678. ' . ' c :h,��phaolwctw�neatt,�n�aW..�pd CPR Ofd "01 11:01q r,F,t Kagpl5�i1 0 G2 a �ORI9� Department of Engineering and Public Works P.O. Box 21229 West Palm Beach. FL 33416 -1229 (561) 684 -4000 www.pbcgovcom ■ Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners warren H. Newell. Chairman Carol A. Roberts. Vice Chair Karen T. Marcus Mary McCarty Burt Aaronson Tony Masilotti Addie L. Greene County Administrator Robert weisman An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer' lKsi May 8, 2001 Mr. Talal Benthman Growth Management Department City of Palm Beach Garden 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 RE: DELETION OF ROADWAYS Dear Mr. Benthman: 1" Via Fax: 799 -4281 It has been brought to the attention of the Palm Beach County Traffic Division that the City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing the deletion of two roadways from its Thoroughfare Plan. Please consider the following comments regarding these two roadways. One roadway is identified as being located in Parcel 4.06. 1 assume that this is Parcel 4.03/4.06 as identified in the Palm Beach Gardens CRALLS study. The parcel is bounded on the north by Donald Ross Road, on the east by Alternate A1A, on the south by Hood Road, and on the west by Military Trail. We realize that permitting a new crossing at the FEC Railroad is unlikely, and for this reason, we do not object to the elimination of an access onto Alternate A1A. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access points on Donald Ross Road and Hood Road, and that the access on Military Trail align with the proposed Thoroughfare Roadway on the west side of Military Trail, so that project traffic can be dispersed. The other roadway is identified as being located in Parcel 31.01. 1 assume V. that this is Parcel 31A as identified in the Palm Beach Gardens CRALLS study. The parcel is bounded on the north by an existing townhouse development, on the east by Central Boulevard, on the south by PGA Boulevard, and on the west by the Florida Turnpike. We believe that this roadway will provide little diversion form the major roadways, and for this reason, we do not object to its elimination as a future public roadway. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access points on Central Boulevard and PGA Boulevard be maintained so that project traffic can be dispersed. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Dan Weisberg, P.E. Assistant Director - Traffic Division cc: Comm. Karen Marcus, Commissioner - District 1 George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer Frank Duke, Director - Planning Division File: Mun - City of Palm Beach Gardens F:\TRAFFICIDIW\Paula\PBG4.06- 31.1 -wpd 0 C�0 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION According to the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan, Map 2 -5 in the City's Comprehensive Plan, there are two thoroughfares that run through Parcel 31 in the northwest quadrant of PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard: ■ Thoroughfare No. 12 — 117th Court North extension from Florida's Turnpike to Shady Lakes extension. • Thoroughfare No. 18 — Ballenlsles Drive extension north to 117th Court North extension (also known as Thoroughfare No. 12). See Figure 1, which is a copy of a map from the Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with Policy 2.1.2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Palm Beach Gardens implemented the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan to: Ensure that there is an adequate network of public streets to efficiently move traffic within the City and serve as a backup system to the County thoroughfare roads. This analysis is prepared in support of eliminating the section of Thoroughfare No. 12 west of Central Boulevard and all of Thoroughfare No. 18 from the Plan. P.\0406L55000\Parcel 31 Comp Plan \1200.doc PM .` . tigL Towu oil DONALD R4 -- ROAD -- _ - _s +• ! �... am tf l 160 6 r ! i 17 �- -a-1:— i =a of 3 l �: J 1 111 ` 2 I l a NOT TO SCALE A i. f = t 1- a Js 1 1 J� p FIGURE 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN osoessoao s Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. PURPOSE OF THOROUGHFARES The County Thoroughfare roads in the area are PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. Both are multi -lane divided arterials planned to carry long trip lengths throughout the area. City Thoroughfares No. 12 and 18 are meant to cant' local traffic on short trips. They are not meant to carry large amounts of through traffic, and their configuration supports this. Thoroughfare No. 12 is only planned to be approximately one mile long with no potential for extending it because: ■ It starts at Florida's Turnpike but it is not planned to cross the Turnpike and there is no complimentary thoroughfare west of the Turnpike on the Golf Digest project. ■ It runs east past the schools to where it serves the City's tennis center and terminates at the Shady Lakes extension. Thoroughfare No. 18 is only planned to be approximately 4,000 feet long because: ■ It is planned start at PGA Boulevard and be an extension of BallenIsles Drive (which is not a City Thoroughfare). ■ It is planned to terminate at the 117th Court North extension (which is also known as Thoroughfare No. 12). Clearly these two City Thoroughfares are meant for local traffic and short trips. PA0406X550001Parccl 31 Comp Plan\1200.doc Pa 4 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. IMPLEMENTATION OF THOROUGHFARE PLANS According to Policy 2.1.2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan: Actual alignments for these public roadways will be established as a part of the development review process. The site planning done for Parcel 31incorporates on -site roadways consistent with the City's Thoroughfare. ■ An entrance is planned directly opposite BallenIsles Drive serving a street that runs north into the project serving the residents who live there. ■ Another connection is planned on Central Boulevard serving the club house and golf amenities of the project, as well as the residential areas. In this way, the function of Thoroughfares No. 12 and 18 has been provided. Local traffic to and from Parcel 31 is served by being able to access both PGA _ Boulevard and Central Boulevard via a continuous roadway through the site. Therefore, WCI has met the intent of the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan. The absence of a public roadway within Parcel 31 will not adversely impact the arterial network because of the inability to cross the Turnpike. Internal circulation roads will allow efficient and convenient circulation to these arterial roadways without impacting them with unnecessary local traffic movements. P.\0406\55000\Parcel 31 Comp Plan \1200.doc Pa� C]= Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS What is called Parcel 31 in this analysis is bounded by PGA Boulevard to the south, Central Boulevard to the east and Interstate 95 to the north and east. This area actually encompasses three parcels as defined by the McArthur Foundation. The current Future Land Use. Plan (FLUP) for these three parcels allows the following: i • Parcel 31.01 - 4,229 dwelling units (RM at 9 du/acre) • Parcel 31.10 - 746 dwelling units (RH at 12 du/acres) • Parcel 31.11 —approximately 445,000 square feet of commercial space and 182 dwelling units (M XD at 15 du/acre). Based on the traffic generation analysis presented in the Appendix this land use mix would generate in excess of 40,000 daily trips to the roadway network. The plan for Parcel 31 is a private golf course community with 450 single family homes arranged around a golf course. This would generate only 4,500 daily trips. The need for City Thoroughfares is significantly different in the two scenarios identified above. The dense multi -use development plan would require a network of local streets to support it. The very low density .single family golf course project does not. P:\0406\55000\Parcel 31 Comp Plan \1200.doc W__i375 C..O Kim(ey -Horn and Associates, Inc. CONCLUSION Therefore, the absence of public roadways (Thoroughfares No. 12 and 18) within the Parcel 31 project will not adversely impact the arterial network. P:\0406\55000\Parcel 31 Comp Plan \1200.doc Pa Kimley -Horn C. and Associates, Inc. APPENDIX Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 116ara /mhdf�noJau4pro10la611S000�parcd SI 0-p pl -vomc —pal IVIM 1J.S0 Copyright O "W. Kimky-Hom and Assod&c, 1W- 0 TABLE 1 PARCEL 31 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total I In I Out Land Use Intensity Trips Alternative A Multi Family Residential 5,175 d.u. 36,225 2,575 412 2,163 2,818 1,888 930 Commercial Retail 445,000 s.f. 17.967 389 237 152 1,682 807 875 Subtotal 54,192 2,964 649 2,315 4,500 2,695 1,805 Internal Capture Residential to Retail 10° /a 7,245 78 39 39 564 282 282 Pass -by Commercial Retail 35.09% 5,033 123 76 47 491 234 257 Net New External 41,914 2,763 534 2,229 3,445 2,179 1,266 Alternative B Single Family Detached 450 units 4,500 324 81 243 416 266 150 Net New External 4,500 324 81 243 416 266 150 Note: Trip generation was calculated using the following data: Daily Traffic Generation Multi Family Residential [P.B.C.] = T = 7 trips per d.u. Commercial Retail [P.B.C.] = Ln(l) = 0.625 • Ln(X) + 5.985 Single Family Detached [P.B.C.] = T =10 trips per d.u. AM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Multi Family Residential [1TE 220] = T = 0.497 (X) + 3.238; (160/. in, 84% out) Commercial Retail [ITE 820] = Ln(1) — 0.596 • Ln(X) + 2.329; (61% in, 390% out) Single Family Detached UM 2101 = T = 0.700 (X) + 9.477; (25% in, 75% out) PM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Multi Family Residential [PPE 2201 = T = 0.541(X) + 18.743; (67% in, 33% out) Commercial Retail [1TE 820] = Ln(l) = 0.660' Ln(X) + 3.403; (481/o in, 52a /o out) Single Family Detached UM 210] = Ln(T) = 0.901 • LaM + 0.527; (640/9 in, 3670 out) 116ara /mhdf�noJau4pro10la611S000�parcd SI 0-p pl -vomc —pal IVIM 1J.S0 Copyright O "W. Kimky-Hom and Assod&c, 1W- 0 DEPARTMENT JEB BUSH Govemor ITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" September 21, 2001 The Honorable Joseph Russo Mayor, City of Palm Beach Gardens City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -4698 Dear Mayor Russo: STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Palm Beach Gardens (DCA No. 01 -2), which was received on July 13, 2001. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review. The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative. Code (F.A.C.), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the adopted City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. The Department raises no objection to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010, F.A.C. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Palm Beach Gardens must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; t�1C1y0l�';, .: 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 -2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http: / /www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PLANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Mara 33050 2227 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 (305) 289 -2402 (850) 488 -2356 (850)413 -9%9 (850)488 -7956 The Honorable Joseph Russo September 21, 2001 Page Two A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8)(b) which are effective July 1,200 1, and providing a model sign -in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. Please contact Valerie M. James, Planner 11, or Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager, at (850) 487 -4545, if you need additional assistance. Sincerely, ike McDaniel 4� Growth Management Administrator MM/ vmj � cc: Mr. Charles K. Wu, AICP, Growth Management Director Mr. Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Florida Department of Transportation JEB BUSH 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD GOVERNOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 -3421 TELEPHONE: (954) 7774593; FAX: (954) 7774197 DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PRODUCTION Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: J � �aq q le , August 22, U 4 AM 242001 M BSP ai AU ESSING TEAM SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment ORC Review Local Government: City of Palm Beach Gardens DCA Amendment # 01 -2 THOMAS F. BARRY, JR. SECRETARY The Department has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Enclosed are objections, recommendations and comments regarding the proposed amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process. If you have any comments or questions about this letter, please contact me at (954) 777 -4490. Sincerely, Gerry O'Reill , P.E. Acting Director Planning & Production GO:ts Enclosures cc: B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R. Wilburn, DCA N. Bungo, FDOT 4 L. Hymowitz, FDOT 4 File: 4270.02 www.dot.state.fl.us ® RECYCLED PAPER DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: RULE DEFICIENCY Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) OBJECTION: This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non- residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. o The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. o The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 -25) have identified that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand for highways that have.exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed -use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) CONTINUED: RECOMMENDATION:' The City should maintain current allowable mixed land use designation that encourages an attractive, functional mix of uses and maximizes the use of existing and future public facilities and services. The City should arrange the future land uses surrounding the planned interchange at Central Boulevard and 1 -95 to provide the mixed -use neighborhoods and the preferred development form discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, and create a sense of community for its residents. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo 2 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) OBJECTION: The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low - density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.006(5)(h) through (5)0) provide the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low - intensity, low-density, or single -use; 2) . Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities.and services; -- 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMN LENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) Continued: RECOMMENDATION: The City should encourage community- oriented patterns of development and redevelopment that are characterized by a network of streets, configured in a grid pattern, with multiple routes for intra - community trips and alternate routes for external travel. Such patterns of development should foster a functional mix of uses that reduce vehicle trip lengths and increase internalization of traffic. The existing land use arrangement has the ability to result in a reduction of trip ends on both PGA Boulevard, and the PGA Boulevard/I -95 interchange, which are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the adopted LOS standard. I -95 and the PGA Boulevard interchange are facilities of critical State concern. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo 4 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: RULE DEFICIENCY: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) . 9J- 5.019(3)(d) COMMENT: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange that are both projected to contain volumes that` exceed capacity at the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low - density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on. the FIRS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the objective preparation of the IJR: REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 7774490 REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 5 DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 7ffice of the Secretary office of International Relations = D� Division of Elections _ Division of Corporations Division of Cultural Affairs Q Division of Historical Resources • Division of Library and Information Services ��D Division of Licensing we Division of Administrative services FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Katherine Harris Secretary of State DMSION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs f1 Bureau of State Planning +� MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET State Board of Education Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Administration Commission Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Siting Board Division of Bond Finance Department of Revenue Department of Law Enforcement Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Department of Veterans' Affairs August 21, 2001 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard y Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the City of Pa Beach Gardens (01 -2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request (Received by DHR on 07/20/01) Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the above document to decide if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. We have reviewed one proposed Future Land Use Map amendment in conjunction with two amendments to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Conceptual Linkages Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the city's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Palm Beach Gardens. In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets (although known and potential historic resources need to be carefully considered in the planning phases of proposed land use changes) the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J -5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing known and potentially significant historical resources in Palm Beach Gardens. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp or Laura Kammerer of the Division's Compliance. Review staff at.(850) 245 -6333. Sincerely, m F-, M 3 Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director Division of Historical Resources r oXM c TEAM A JSM/smh 500 S. Bronough Street •Tallahassee, FL 32399 - 0250 ww • http: / /w.flheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research I/ Historic Preservation O Historical Museums (850) 245 -6300 • FAX: 245 -6435 (850) 245 -6444 • FAX: 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333 • FAX: 245 -6437 (850) 245 -6400 • FAX: 245 -6433 O Palm Beach Regional Office O St. Augustine Regional Office O Tampa Regional Office (561) 279 -1475 • FAX: 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 825 -5044 (813) 272 -3843 • FAX: 272 -2340 leb Bush Governor Department of Environmental Protecti Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 August 23, 2001 IS 2 820(11 PLAN PM ZING TEAM David B. Struhs Secretary Re: Proposed Amendment to the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan, DCA 01 -2 Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above - referenced amendment under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 9J5 and 9J11, Florida Administrative Code. Our comments and recommendations are provided to assist your agency in developing the state's response. Comments: Parcels 31.08 and 31.11: It is recommended that the applicant consult with the FFWCC regarding the relocation of gopher tortoises. It is understood that the applicant is working with the South Florida Water Management District to secure the necessary Environmental Resource Permits and resolve mitigation issues with this project. Please call me at (850) 487 -2231 if you have any questions. regarding this response. Sincerely, Robert W. Hall Office of Intergovernmental Programs "More Protection, Less Process" Printed on recycled paper. Ni .1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 • (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1 -800- 432 -2045 TDD (561) 697 -2574 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 • www.sfwmd.g i n O nn I�r v AUG 2 d 2M1 GOV 08 -28 RPM BSP PLAN PROCESSING TEAM August 22, 2001 Ray Eubanks, Program Administrator 0�) Plan Review and DRI Processin g Team Department of Community Affairs Ilk 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments City of Palm Beach Gardens, DCA# 01 -2 The South Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document and we have no adverse comments. If you have any questions or I require additional information, please call me at (561) 682 -6779. Sincerely, P.K. Sharma, AICP Lead Planner Water Supply Planning & Development Department PKS /ml c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Charles Wu, Palm Beach Gardens Roger Wilburn, DCA .GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Trudi K. Williams, Chair Michael Collins Patrick J. Gleason, Ph.D., P.G. Henry Dean, Executive Director Lennart E. Lindahl, Vice -Owir Hugh M. English Nicolas J. Gutierrez, Jr., Esq. Pamela Brooks - Thomas Gerardo B. Fernandez Harklev R. Thornton TREASL7RE COAST R di N'Ai: ";PI:ANNING .C,O.UNCIL a" I'N -D_IA& RL-V_ ER-'-- _NIAR:TYN = PALM -BEACH - _. _ - - -- -- July 31, 2001 Mr. Charles Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: JQ� This is to acknowledge the receipt of materials pertaining to the above- referenced amendments on July 16, 2001. Staff anticipates presenting its report and recommended comments to Council at the regular meeting of August 17, 2001. Pursuant to Section. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, a written report including any objections, recommendations for modification, and comments will be submitted to you by August 22, 2001. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Terry L. ess, AICP Planning Director TLWgg "Bringing Communities Together" Est. 1976 301 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 300 - Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - SC 269 -4060 - Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - admin tcrne.ore 7L TREAS- LiAF -y0C —9 RR GI ✓�NAL- PLANJNING_._GO.UNGhZ y-. ITTDIA-N RIVER �'M1A�R'TY.N - BEACH_ S'h LLUCIE` —_ - f7 - - - -_ 10 p August 17, 2001 Mr. Charles. Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments — DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: Council has reviewed the above - referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Council's adopted plans, policies, and review procedures. Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by Council at its regular meeting on August 17, 2001 pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Please note that Council made revisions to the staff report at the August 17 meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Terry L. ess, AICP Planning Director TLIVwh Attachment "Bringing Communities Together" Est. 1976 3 0 1 E a s t O c e a n B o u l e v a r d - S u i t e 3 0 0 - Stuart, F l o r i d a 3 4 9 9 4 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - 20924060I Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - adminratcroc.ory TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Staff Date: August 17, 2001 Council Meeting COG 2 3 2001 AGENDA ITEM 8A Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests the DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then Council must provide the DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification, and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Background The City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment and text amendments to the Transportation Element of its comprehensive plan.. The: City has requested that the DCA prepare an ORC Report. Evaluation The FLUM amendment proposed by the City is for two parcels totaling 80.5 acres located along the west side of I -95, north and south of Central Boulevard (see attached maps in Exhibit A). The landowner seeking the FLUM amendment also requested and the City has proposed the following text/map amendments to the City's Transportation -- Element: 1) the deletion of the Roadway #18 (Ballen Isles Extension) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); 2) the deletion of a segment of Roadway #12 (117`' Court North) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); and 3) the deletion of a portion of a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan (see Exhibit B). Finally, in a location further to the north, the same landowner has requested and the City has proposed to delete a portion of Roadway #15 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit C). These amendments are summarized in more detail in the following. A. Future Land Use Map Amendment (Ordinance #20) This amendment is for two parcels of land ( #31.08, #31.11) that are part of a larger tract (Parcel #31) proposed for a Planned Community Development (PCD). The entire tract totals 656 acres, and is to be developed, according to the City, as a very low density single- family, project known as the "Parcel 31 Golf Course Community." The development is to have 450 luxury homes. The amendment parcels (31.9 and 48.6 acres respectively) are vacant, as are most of the surrounding lands. The current land use designation on the amendment parcels is Mixed Use. They are part of a large area in the vicinity of the Central Boulevard/1 -95 crossing envisioned. in the existing plan as a center for mixed -use and high and medium density residential development. The proposed FLUM designation is Residential High (RH), a designation that allows between 10 and 15 dwelling units per acre, depending on density bonus. The City defines the RH designation as one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens." It allows up to ten dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate mass transit facilities in the future." Surrounding properties are vacant, although the northern tip of Parcel #31.1 touches the Westwood Gardens residential subdivision that lies adjacent to and south of Hood Road: Surrounding FLUM designations are RH to the south and west and Mixed Use across I- 95 to the north and east. The ability of the City to permit development in this area is currently limited because of Level of Service constraints on PGA Boulevard. Otherwise, according to the City, public facilities are available to serve this site within adopted levels of service. As part of the materials submitted with the amendment package, the City included a copy of a Forbearance Agreement, dated April 15, 1999. This agreement, made between the City and a number of landowners, defines the terms under which development can occur. 2 As a result of the anticipated acceleration of development proposals due to of the sale of the MacArthur Foundation Lands, the City staff recommended the adoption of a six - month moratorium to allow the City to adequately address the effects of the anticipated acceleration of development. Communities Finance Company, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc. and new owner of much of the former MacArthur lands, took the initiative to draft a Forbearance Agreement in order to avoid a moratorium. This agreement, which has now expired, sets forth the terms for the timing of development review for the various properties of the signatories. An exhibit to the agreement also sets forth the limitation on development for each property, necessitated by the City's traffic level of service problems. Although the Forbearance Agreement has expired, City staff has indicated that the terms of the agreement continue as deed restrictions on the various properties. B. Text Amendments 1. Those relating directly to the FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #23) —There are three deletions proposed to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Linkage Plan. These Plans have been adopted by the City to identify where future streets and parkways are to be located in order to serve the future needs of the City. Since the proposed developed of Parcel 31 is to be as a, gated, private, golf - course community, the City proposes to make deletions to these plans. Roadway #18, intended to link PGA Boulevard to a future extension of 117`h Court North is to be deleted completely from the Thoroughfare Plan. A segment of Roadway #12 (117`" Court) from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted (both of these deletions are shown in Exhibit B). Lastly, since it is to be an exclusive, gated, private development, the parkway link from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted. The City traffic engineers recommended denial of the proposed deletion of both roadway segments because the links could direct traffic away from PGA Boulevard. However, the City Planning staff disagreed, characterizing the planned roadways as local connectors that wouldn't provide relief for PGA Boulevard, and that were never intended as significant city streets because they were not extended to Hood and Donald Ross Roads. The staff concludes that the elimination of these segments and link is justifiable and reasonable. No negative impacts are anticipated to other roadways or pedestrian links. Also, none of the segments are part of the Central City Linkage Plan and therefore do not affect the City's proposal to designate a portion of PGA Boulevard as a Constrainted Roadway at a Lower Level of Service (CRALLS). 2. Deletion of Segment of Roadway #15 (Ordinance #24) —On the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (MAP O), Roadway 15 is shown as a future connection between Donald Ross Road and Alternative AlA (see Exhibit_ C).____. _ The proposed amendment would delete the segment from Military Trail to 3 Alternate AlA.. The City gives two reasons for this proposed deletion. First; i- the roadway would bisect a 266 acre parcel in single ownership. The parcel is vacant, but a site plan for development of the property as a PCD has already been submitted to the City. Secondly, the City indicates that this segment is unlikely to be completed because it would require a crossing of the FEC Railline. A copy of a letter from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division is provided. by the City that concurs with this conclusion. The City staff concludes that this proposed amendment is reasonable and acceptable because the roadway would disrupt the proposed development and require future residents to cross a public road to reach some of the PCD amenities. Furthermore, the link is not part of the City Center Linkage Plan and would not affect level of service on any segment of the City's transportation network. Analysis Much of the land in northeastern Palm Beach County has been developed in the classic _pattern of suburban sprawl. Single -use, low density residential developments cover large areas. These developments are often gated and isolated from the rest of the community. These private, gated developments prevent the establishment of a complete and interconnected public street system. All traffic loads onto a few major arterials. Because the limited entry /exit points for these gated developments require traffic to funnel to one location, there are severe congestion points on the arterial roadways. Commercial . development is allowed at only a few locations and are typically only accessible from the arterial roadway network. These arterials also become traffic congestion problem areas. Building and servicing development in this fashion is entirely inconsistent with the pattern of development encouraged in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) that calls for a well connected assembly of neighborhoods and districts with a complete mix of land uses and a complete and interconnected public street system that provides for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic with accommodation for public transit. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recognized the problems created by this sprawling development pattern for some time. The City was instrumental in getting representatives from municipalities in the north county area to meet for a two day "North Palm Beach County /Southern Martin County Planning Forum,". held on :August 26 -28, 1993. At the conclusion of this forum, a non - binding policy statement was approved on future development patterns, transportation and other matters. Some of the conclusions made as part of the policy statement were 1) the need for additional modes of transit to supplement the auto; 2) the need for more of a modified corridor /multi- centers form of development; and 3) the need for regulatory and procedural changes to ensure that the pattern of development would change. The City took the initiative to follow up on this forum by holding several "visioning" sessions in 1994 in order to determine the preferred characteristics of the community. In 1995, the City appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to create a specific vision for the 2 future of the City. The Committee established a series of preferred land use scenarios for the future of the City. The final draft of the vision became "Our Vision - A Strategic Plan" adopted by the City on December 5, 1996. This document is now used as a policy statement and planning tool. Some of the policies from "Our Vision" are incorporated into the City Mission Statement in its comprehensive plan. The City staff is to use the "Vision" during the preparation of special studies, updates to the comprehensive plan and modifications to the land development regulations. A map was created as part of the "Vision" document. It shows the area of the subject FLUM amendment as one for mixed - use /residential development. In order to address the lack of capacity in part of its roadway system and because of the sense of urgency created as a result of the MacArthur property coming onto the market, the City took the initiative to organize a Traffic Summit that was held on March 30 and 31, 2001. According to the Report of Proceedings for the Summit, nearly 100 elected officials, local government staff, land owners, developers, state agency personnel, non- profit organization staff and others attended the summit. The summit was to "discuss traffic issues and identify planning tools for managing traffic and its related impacts," and to seek insights from across jurisdictional boundaries on broad -scale traffic problems and preferred solutions." Some of the results and key problems identified at the summit were that: 1) there are not enough roads and not enough interconnections between roads; 2) suburban sprawl is creating much longer trips; 3) we are allowing too much development despite level of service standards; 4) there is a lack of intergovernmental coordination; and 5) there are deficiencies in mass. transit. The Proceedings indicated that traffic problems identified at the summit fall into five categories. The. top problem in each category was: 1) lack of connectivity; 2) gated communities with single- entry; 3) connectivity problems; 4) use of a countywide level of service standard that encourages sprawl; and 5) a lack of funding for transit. The land use and transportation problems in the City of Palm Beach Gardens specifically and in the north county area in general have been clearly identified during the initiatives summarized above. They include land use imbalances, the lack of a complete, interconnected street system and the lack of alternatives to frequent, long- distance automobile trips. As the following objections and comments indicate, the City's proposed amendments are not consistent with the City's vision, not consistent with solutions identified for multijurisdictional problems, and not consistent with the SRPP. Eatrajuris diction al Impacts These amendments were reviewed, through the Palm Beach Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Process. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received regarding the proposed amendments. However, letters of concern were received from Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County and Mayor Golonka, Town of Jupiter (see attached). 5 Effects on Significant Regional Resources or Facilities An analysis of the proposed amendments indicates that as a result of the amendments there may be unnecessary impacts to the regional roadway system. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments A. Objections 1. None B. Comments FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #20) 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed -use overlay to. promote a mix of community - serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the. comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed-' use /residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses I -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi - family residential development. The effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 %2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mix of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SRPP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and . communities should contain a balanced, well - planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major, arterials to--- -- town-and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network-- to connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area. This would provide 2 services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury ($1 million and up) single- family detached golf course community for the entire 656 acre Parcel 31, to include the 80.5 acre subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall developed density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for this property would be the City's Residential Very Low (RVL), defi ed as "predominantly single- family detached residential development up to 1.0 d elling unit per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resourc s and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing units to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low income households through 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments which allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. According to the City plan, the provision of affordable housing' is entirely the responsibility of the private sector. In order to encourage the private sector to provide such housing, the City has designated certain areas as Mixed Use and High Density. The elimination of the Mixed Use designation from the subject properties, and the apparent abandonment of the entire area from its proposed use for high and medium density, multi - family housing (consistent with the City vision) will have a negative effect on the City's statutory responsibility to ensure that there is affordable housing in the City for its low and moderate income residents. Furthermore, many of the areas the City has designated for high density residential use (to address the affordable housing deficit) may now be developed at a much lower density, as a result of the Forbearance Agreement. The City should prepare an analysis of the effect this 7 amendment and other density reductions will have on its ability to ensure that a range of housing types and affordabilites is available to meet its needs (and projected deficits). Now that 2000 Census data is available, the City can determine if deficits have increased or decreased and if additional strategies are necessary to meet its goals. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. Text Amendments (Ordinance 23 and 24) 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of an adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic, Division Office indicating that they do„ not object because the roadways would t provide little diversion from the major roadways; no analysis has been provided of the - number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. 'The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP,p encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictably spaced and interconnected east -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local travel on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum recommended the creation of additional linkages and improved connectivity in the area. These amendments will reduce linkages and decrease connectivity. The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12, and 18 from the ' { conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the 0 Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of ; neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to .continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network becomes more dense, more - - interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It also should include the interconnection of 0 public streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the ability. of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the no impact conclusion based? 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been identified as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these elements with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a. mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods ' of development. Furthermore, the. City should recognize that areas proposed for low density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 9 %ffenerat Location Map City of Palm Beach Gardens v s � X- In" C"( -- , INDIANTOW >u PITER' ^ '""L9 )ILk( 8 R RE`rROLOS M A OF a `I J WE TNEATER L K PALM EACH ►AIMBEACn 1NTEPAE ION'. LI \ RANATtO COtNTY ��tt INDIAN FLO aim a o z 0 , 2 3 4 sMl Palm Beach r ®.1LD o ADC ,..°.�► ►-� L Gardens EE A --L. n cc) 19W DOLPH MAP CO.. INC. ry ^ f Z 1 r l I 1 r 011110. MACARTHUR \ ) ' STATE ►ARE A d. J \ " PALM ACH I 1 GAR NS _ ,s r� . No h Palm Beach "KE iAR^ ^YT1LA ^( InG 09 �1ALID t I ^A ^E , Lik rk I i R EAC m.YE )e bad ' IN ET V . JA! 1 Lahr Wonh -` [ LA: 111 tnki an Park F W ST LMT 1 CH NPA ROyii - - - -� 1 i A eR!uv�EE.L Bea h I r,T I a Bla Ch I > 1_ r•+ ,. I E M1Dol— . K CHO 0 ^ E• B RD i ENRY FLAGLER USEUM I O > ) I6AMTI.E • I 0 OYABEAY OF ART ■■ HnvrbRI ► M BE ACH' 7I {�}L 1' tear. f _.. ` 98 µ I IITNERN BLVD 98 [INT'L AIRPORTS (Yb NI i , 'LORIOA O STATE o Cr. Ri/Ar 1 _ t, F IR GROUNO I—IT I -IR R ►ARK 200P1 FOREST HI I BLVD ILBke a Shorp ►� 441 Pal I M t Spn gsAY GRE NACR CITY. LAKE E WORTH i WORTH J I 11 1 F.V �E I •n i -I p vALY 9 N I _ ,00011 (n 11 LANTANA Atlantis RD Ow(�AI ► ' PBEFe 11ABC� Lu ` I i' I QLO%AHATCHEE NATIONAL J C7 WILDLIFE REFUGE W W - W CONSERVATION AREA NO. I L2 EVERGLADES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA BOYNTON ] a V' 1 TON BEACH G I " D=u Ridp D '�pp 161111 ( RD . L r -- I > ir- arree.� L. A O rr'7 DELRAY w ATLANTIC' a BEACH pELRAYs J TRAINING uM*oH ) Air ,I CENT'cR OR!KAM! MCSEUJ, Or NJOPANEEE C:'TI, RE I c w . LINT MOORE RD 95 HiE61al$ eZaely - n Y A A 0" �S RD ® O DES lrrWORT rLO ! - NTIC UNIVERSITY .� PALM TT CAR. MD : RD BOCA RATOW 4 =_ e T EXHIBIT A Future Land- Use Map Amendment 27726 LLI Y CL Z Q: 2 C 0 -1 LL_ PGA BOULEVARD City of Palm Beach Gardens Proposed Amendment 2052001 NOT TO SCALE IL < ii W. < ii < it IL a O 1 C PR =HOOD c LA RD. 1` �ncLE w000quFSa CIR LA t L t` I EAGLE � sr� E LAKE OR 95 �I C P1AN7 `� 3Q � S•r•,,11 � _ MW MW II. Ong W" .36 :�i'A; 31 PARCEL 31.11. CAMPCRVUXD AiA I F1-� STAND I '!I MOII AY Rye? r. I PARCEL PARCEL 31.08 > OVLL RD Q rn d FIORIDAQ C b EVERGLADES (VO ? ` RiiE 31.01 �, _ F DUNES 2 QO y T LOU, �� •: x FIRE 42 E d cATA- Lly9� �. CAPRI o \pGE ^4 r- �^UNOEN AV- - 9 ATlANTi CI O M DA - J 9 P x sm. W I- ~ rii CA Av. RD la FLG ; E y ma AV -1 = 1 1. SHAD /= a t x , tw >.u. :¢CHE S CIR N _ _ U7_AV- _ 2. SHA t(,/ -S CIR 9EAUMONTa " NW 000 A 3. QUA . C E N 117 CT N 9 ^ GtRDEH •. .�, LA W ` S I 4. UA RIDGE AyF OR NE BEECH �.'.:. . j .0 PIN ILL T y T S• E�- AV L C TS OLIOW SPI 2. NUTMEG DR I 1 3 y. ' i�_PG r. 3. PEPPERCORN ST ,,Nqr ] �. Y GARDEN j110.` 4. TARgEQON lA CT '+•aco g ' 3. CURRY OR 0 E �2 �• CELERY LA UBENT ] 4 xWp PO CO. 7. THYM E.OR 1REE DR 7 LAK S CIR xQ a, COUA a.MARJORAM OR 9. PARSLE Y LA fi e pA EAI 10. PAPRIKA LA S 9 > = W KFe OR' c W I, 1 11.CAYENNE LA." , ] 1 1G p - o¢m CA$ Y..- O ~ CF PGA 13LVQ � t ^.CSESAME ST .. ' Z •..iZ 11 d - t p� SQi t 1' 1 �i w . Z o lu . sum az�w y O :. LOFAM-1 NE ""BE WI SNOPY - - ...� SI. RCA ..i.¢i.�:. CARLISLECT O� �• _ :PYy SU riH4 ND at \ ZAN61EW AIRWA PLA7a.SC... 1 �„ ANN fC DR y tom.:• 811 i I ^� is ff __�- ._ ...i... ��_j .. Pt a. 1•� G9. ,yE S. �l \per ^J. Q' q i _ JafF.' /� 1��D. ; Q K (NDUSDUAL a .� C2 a I COMMCAC[ > m - .7 _ .. �� A= BU.l 7 - 8 - "`�•, •. woo, E W CNEYE P.t[1N HFAC7L,. G �D _ qty ( G.4� �- R ..7� ARDSM OICAL IFIEJTYRE a� �� J -i:l:f S ' �D A` ENTE �J_/0.,"/?.a��e_.. W CI Eu FS fSC . 1151 P - IIL R J: .r� ••i`.'o �«.,,S. .+tf WCICAC� Ma Od pEt•\ 1LL., �(Q���� //• - - p Q •P W" \`j�- t �l WQ S W 4 L,a By .t,� ... SGA . 2 a• 0.. r REV. ` �� _ ate_ IB op _ < w - c i P _ 0 O \. T ]> `" f+� >.• c I \ - W �I ' ? c }� -, � 'ar OR` aXT. -' / •2S. 21.- I v?Y QR 5 JONq ;. CIR N \P�' QCS• � C" T. •-'Oat { °i \a•I9� .. - I CIRS Z Z LF• s1 � t � MBAR �` C m�19:• Aouau �. = a a ILEX- aIUEBECI LIGHTH U °E a o d o i< .c1R, - ;za �3• I �R LvERStner M, i d MPRE55 ST.�RODG ERS 01 E �-• ` CH O 1 jj :. • r Rr1 '. LAKE ECIR r WROWOOO '(F _A �� 3 W4i.< •C : 19: •, .. Clti�� _S - _ O LL 2: N1 N� ct u' a . ' Y q % \ ,� Z0. � .. ¢u,E o•/r nn. • ,�GDCfV pte4' ON •.. ASS PO -. .... / W V � - � a BEL EWOO tl VI L rS O w q. .• 9 /E<Y 9PO`�. 73 �7 W 92 PL �¢ C -: - a p �•- F tl O'Z m ccce °r+ CAI iuAY N_ OB N'O mE 9 �4 O: DR II'' 4.RCELS 31.08 & 31.11 COMPREHENSIVE _4ND USE .AMENDMENT & A RCEL 31.01 TEXT A M_ VND' MF N ,M BEACH GARDENS FL NTS UDS Job #: 99- 084.10 )CATION MAP Date: December 11 2000 Staff Rebuttal to FDOT and TCRPC FDOT Comments: 1. This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non - residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. • The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. • The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 — 25) have identified that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand for highways that have exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed - use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed land use amendment takes approximately 8,500 - 12,000 average daily trips off the road network. This proposed modification would in fact create fewer trips and lower the demand on highways which would offset any increases on auto dependency and vehicle miles traveled. If there were fewer vehicles on the road, the demand for more roads is reduced. The City has already established development patterns that encourage a mix of uses in key areas, so as it limit road trips on the network. Projects such as PGA Commons, Legacy Place and the Regional Center are all developments that encourage a localized arrangement of various uses. The City Center Linkage Plan has also been put in place to provide the alternate routing of traffic. Also, approximately 175 acres of land still remains mixed -use within the City. 2. The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.005(5)(h) through (5)(j) provided the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low- intensity, low- density, or single -use; 2) Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services; 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan does not create or indicate urban sprawl: 1) Parcel 31 only contains a total of 80 acres of mixed -use out of the total 650 -acre parcel. The mixed -use component is only 12% of this project. The parcel is also located within the Urban Service Boundary and will contain, residential, golf course and open space uses. The parcel is also deed restricted which allows a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre, which is compatible with the adjacent, existing development. 2) & 3) The proposed amendment will utilize the City's public facilities and services. In fact, the amendment will help to alleviate the demand on the City's public facilities and services by developing at a low density, which will serve to lessen the amount of City services. 4) The City has established a wide range of functional and mixed -uses across the street from this subject parcel by approving PGA Commons. Also, less than one mile from this property, there are two other mixed -use development that are approved. The City has done an outstanding job in mixing commercial uses with the residential developments that will be serving them. 3. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard interchange that are both 2 projected to contain volumes that exceed capacity a the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low- density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed -use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on the FIHS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the object preparation of the IJR. Staff Rebuttal: The development of this parcel is limited by the Forbearance Agreement and the available road capacity. The resulting reduction in trips will not interfere with the regional need for the interchange. TCRPC Recommendations: 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed use overlay to promote a mix of community - serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed -use residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high - density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses I -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi- family residential development. This effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 1/2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mix of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SRPP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and communities should contain a balanced, well - planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major arterials to town and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. 3 Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network to connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area. This would provide services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has approved and is in the process of approving a variety of mixed use and commercial developments to service the existing and future residents of the City. The Mixed -Use projects include PGA Commons, Legacy Place, Parcel 4.02/4.04 and substantial projects within the Regional Center which are less than a mile away from Parcel 31. In addition, there are existing commercial nodes, that are also in close proximity, that will service this project, such as PGA Commons, which has recently opened and is directly across the street from Parcel 31. The City has also implemented a City Center Linkage Plan that will help to distribute traffic off the major arterials and funnel traffic into the mixed use and commercial developments. The City is still in control of approximately _ acres, across from Parcel 31, that contains a mixed -use designation, which could also service this area. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has balanced and applied several mixed -use developments in key areas within the City. This land use change is consistent with the City's Vision Plan and Comprehensive Plan which provides the freedom and ability to allow the City to contain a variety of housing types, particularly the kinds of housing that serve to decrease the impact to the roadway network. This proposed change in land use will help to reduce the total impact by approximately 8,500- 12,000 trips. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat, misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury ($1 million and up) single - family subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall development density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH, FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment area or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for the property would be The City's Residential Very Low (RVL), defined as "predominantly single - family detached residential development up to 1.0 dwelling units per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resources and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. 4 Staff Rebuttal: When approached with the application, we contemplated the appropriate land use category for the amendment. Since the adjacent parcel consisted of a land use designation of Residential High, we felt it would be the most appropriate to make this subject area consistent with this residential land use category. Since the property contains a deed restriction that restricts the entire parcel to develop at a total of 3 dwelling units /acre, staff felt comfortable with the Residential High designation. Furthermore, since the reduction of trips, units and other impacts was decreased significantly with the Residential High designation, we felt that this land use category was the most appropriate. Therefore, choosing another land use category that had lower thresholds would not be consistent with the surrounding properties. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing needs to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low- income households though 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments which allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recently approved several developments which offer a broad range of housing types. Both fee simple, rental housing types and even an assisted and independent living facilities have been approved in recent months to provide for a wide range of income types. The proposed low- density development for Parcel 31 is also encouraged by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision Plan by adding to the range of housing type. This development is also compatible with the neighboring community of Ballen Isles, which offers a lifestyle option that is different than other communities within the City. Similar communities to Parcel 31, can also be found in the Town of Jupiter, such as the Bear's Club, which also offers a low density, golf course lifestyle. These developments help to create diversity to the marketplace and allow the City of Palm Beach Gardens to offer a broad range of housing options. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. 61 Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has Central Boulevard as a designated interchange within its Comprehensive Plan. Based on this, we acknowledge that there may be a future interchange in this area, however, the funding and design of such an interchange is done by FDOT. The Thoroughfare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan do not prevent the interchange. In addition, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division provided a letter of support to the Thoroughfare amendments. 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic Division Office indicating that they do not object because the roadways would provide little diversion from the major roadways, no analysis has been provided of the number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictability spaced and interconnected east -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local traffic on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum lead recommended the creation of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12 and 18 for the conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within the and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network becomes more dense, more interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It should include the interconnection of pubic streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. rol Staff Rebuttal: The City Engineer, a County Engineer and a traffic consultant has determined that the removal of Thoroughfare # 12, # 15 and # 18 does not effect the arterial road network. In fact, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has taken a proactive role in adopting several measures to alleviate impact to the road network. The City Center Linkage Plan, the Burns Road widening and the Alternate A I A joint developer agreement, are all ways the City has been a leader in the ensuring that the arterial road network has sufficient capacity. The proposed amendments face limitations to their ability to ability to make connection points. There are existing, physical barriers that prevent the roads from tying into other streets. Thoroughfare #12 and #18 are bound by the Florida Turnpike to the west and existing development to the east. Thoroughfare #15 is bound by the FEC Railroad to the east. The FEC Railroad will not allow a road crossing in this location. The likelihood of obtaining a crossing is virtually non - existent, since the position of the FEC is not to allow any new crossings, without removing existing crossings. This is evidenced by the Parcel 5A road which is currently attempting to get a replacement crossing for one that was removed by the PGA Flyover. The issues raised at the North County Traffic Forum are important, yet do not apply to the proposed amendments. The Forum discussed single - entry, gated communities as providing little diversion for traffic onto other arterial roads, thereby placing the burden of access on just one roadway. In both subject parcels, each community contains more than one entry point. In fact, Parcel 31 contains two entry points and Parcel 4 contains three. Both communities have provided these openings so that no one road is impacted with excess traffic. Finally, the alignment of Thoroughfare #15 at Parkside Drive can be accomplished at the time the development order is reviewed for that subject property (Brigger Tract). The City has reviewed the alignment of Parcel 4 and has required the western access point, along Military Trail to align with the adjacent development. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the ability of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. Staff Rebuttal: Thoroughfares #12 and #18 are roads without a destination. Thoroughfare #12 dead -ends into the Florida Turnpike, which will never connect. Thoroughfare #18 diverts traffic into the dead end roadway of Thoroughfare #12. The surrounding properties are either developed, planned or restricted. Therefore, the future densities and intensities are known, which helps to understand the future traffic conditions. Data provided by Kimley -Horn demonstrates that the absence of these roads will not adversely impact the arterial road network. 7 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the impact conclusion based? Staff Rebuttal: There is no current or future need to have a pedestrian link over the Florida Turnpike. The PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard parkways will be constructed and are intended for pedestrian linkages to connect to the areas west of the Turnpike. There is no impact to either the Thoroughfare or Linkage Plan by removing this pedestrian link from the Comprehensive Plan. Existing parkways will provide the pedestrian connection. 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been identified as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these element with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. Staff Rebuttal: These amendments, were forwarded to IPARC early in April of 2001. At that time, there were no adverse responses to the amendments. Public hearings were held in May and June of 2001, and no adverse comments were received. It was not until the City Council public hearing that we were informed that the Town of Jupiter had some concerns. In July of 2001, the City responded to them in order to address their concerns. The City of Palm Beach Gardens is also part of the North County Traffic Forum Task Group which was developed after the March forum, in order to help address some of the issues raised at that meeting. Furthermore, the City of Palm Beach Gardens entered into the interlocal agreement with the Town of Jupiter several years ago to encourage interlocal communication. We are happy to provide information to any local government on any of our proposed developments. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities 8 consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods of development. Furthermore, the City should recognize that areas proposed for low- density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Staff Rebuttal: The intent of the Forbearance Agreement was not to address failures of the road network or development approvals, but to establish a framework and schedule in order to plan for anticipated development. At the City Council's direction, the City Center Linkage Plan, the adoption of the citywide impact fee ordinance and the other scheduled road improvements are examples of the type of strategic planning that the City utilized in planning for the future. The City has been a leader in identifying traffic impacts and providing solutions to potential traffic problems. Furthermore, there is no basis that low- density development will someday be re- developed at higher densities. In fact, the deed restrictions that were established by the Forbearance Agreement ensure that the level of development of each parcel runs with the convenant of the land and not with the ownership of the property. Therefore, the City is assured of particular densities throughout the life of a particular development. .cu printed on recycled paper May 8, 2001 �L0 RI�4' Mr. Talal Benthman Growth Management Department`'�' City of Palm Beach Garden 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 - Department of Engineering and Public Works RE: DELETION OF ROADWAYS Via Fax: 799 -4281 P.O. Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -1229 Dear Mr. Benthman: (561) 684 -4000 www.pbcgov.com It has been brought to the attention of the Palm Beach County Traffic Division that the City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing the deletion of two roadways from its Thoroughfare Plan. Please consider the following ■ comments regarding these two roadways. One roadway is identified as being located i arcel 4.0 6. assume that this is Parcel 4.03/4.06 as identified in the Palm deacn Gardens CRALLS study. Palm Beach county The parcel is bounded on the north by Donald Ross Road, on the east by Board County Alternate Al A, on the south by Hood Road, and on the west by Military Trail. Commissioners We realize that permitting a new crossing at the FEC Railroad is unlikely, and Warren H. Newell, Chairman for this reason, we do not object to the elimination of an access onto Alternate A1A. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair points on Donald Ross Road and Hood Road, and that the access on Military Karen T. Marcus Trail align with the proposed Thoroughfare Roadway on the west side of Military Trail, so that project traffic can be dispersed. Mary McCarty Bur[ Aaronson The other roadway is identified as being located i re—a l 31.01. 1 assume that this is Parcel 31A as identified in the Palm ar ens GRACES To Masilotti study. The parcel is bounded on the north by an existing townhouse Addle L. Greene development, on the east by Central Boulevard, on the south by PGA Boulevard, and on the west by the Florida Turnpike. We believe that this roadway will provide little diversion form the major roadways, and for this reason, we do not object to its elimination as a future public roadway. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access points on County Administrator Central Boulevard and PGA Boulevard be maintained so that project traffic can be dispersed. Robert Weisman Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Dan Weisberg, P.E. Assistant Director - Traffic Division cc: Comm. Karen Marcus, Commissioner - District' 1 George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer Frank Duke, Director - Planning Division File: Mun - City of Palm Beach Gardens "An Equal Opportunity AJfinnative Action Employer" F:\ TRAFFIC \DIW\Paula\PBG4.06- 31.l.wpd .cu printed on recycled paper "LOR194' September 10, 2001 Department of Planning, VIA FAX and Mail Zoning & Building 100 Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Roger Wilburn (561) 233 -5000 Department of Community Affairs Planning Division 233 -5300 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Zoning Division 233 -5200 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Building Division 233 -5100 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City of Palm Beach Code Enforcement 233 -5500 Gardens - ontractors Certification 233 -5525 Administration Office 233 -5005 Dear Mr. Wilburn: Executive Office 233 -5003 www.pbcgov.comlpzb We have reviewed the comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Palm Beach Gardens through ordinance 23,2001 and 24, 2001 deleting roadways #18, #12, and #15 from the city's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan. Staff does not object to any of the amendments but offers the following comment for your consideration. Palm Beach County These deletions are inconsistent with the recommendations of the North Board of County County Traffic Summit held in March of this year at the City of Palm Beach Commissioners Gardens. That summit specifically calls for providing interconnectivity as Warren H. Newell, Chairman the utmost priority to improve the area transportation network. Staff believes that deletion of these roads will be counter to the efforts to provide an Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair interconnected network in the north county area. Karen T. Marcus Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review these proposed Mary McCarty municipal amendments. If you have any questions, please contact Khurshid Burt Aaronson MOhyuddin at 561 - 233 -5351. Tony Masilotti Sine ely Addie L. Greene Fa u e lanning Director County Administrator cc: Commissioner Karen T. Marcus, District 1 \ Robert Weisman ichael Busha, TCRPC �teve Cramer, City of Palm Beach Gardens George Webb, County Engineer Barbara Alterman, Executive Director a S�Q NON Khurshid Mohyuddin, Planning Division N`�G 'An Equal Opportunity}, Affirmative Action Employer- T :PLANNING \GRWTHMAN \IPARCIIetter ORC review PBG deletions.doc printed on recycled paper CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Prepared on: October 3, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 24, 2001, regarding a proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to delete a roadway segment from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan. This future link is planned to run east/west through Parcel 4.06, which is bounded by Hood Road to the south, the Alt. A -1 -A to the east, Military Trail to the west and Donald Ross Road to the north. The City Council passed this ordinance on First Reading on July 5, 2001. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 24, 2001 Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ Council Action: Total City Attorney Growth Management [ ] Approved Finance NA $ [ ] Approved w/ ACM Current FY conditions Human Res. NA [ ] Denied Other NA Advertised: Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Attachments: Date: 10/13/01 [ ] Operating Paper: Palm Beach [ ] Other Ordinance 24, 2001 Post Map O • Location Map • Justification Statement [X] Required • Letter from County Letter dated 9 -21- Submitted by: 01 from the Florida Department of C a( Community Affairs Growth Management Affected parties Budget Acct. #:: Director [X] Notified [ ] None Approved by: City Manager �, Il Not Required City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 3, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -06 Request: Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to delete a portion of roadway #15 from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). The segment to be deleted extends from Military Trail to Alt. A -1 -A. This future link is planned to run east/west through Parcel 4.06 and would bisect the parcel into two portions. Parcel 4.06 is also subject to the Forbearance Agreement executed by the City and affected property owners in 1999. The agreement limits the density of this parcel to three (3) units per acre. The size of the parcel is 366 acres. BACKGROUND: The proposed development plan for the subject parcel is a 366 -acre residential Planned Community District. The parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is bound by Hood Road to the south, Alt. A-1 -A to the east, Military Trail to the west and Donald Ross Road to the north. The proposed segment for deletion is intended to provide a future east/west connection between Alt. A-1 -A and Military Trail. The justification for proposing to delete the future segment is reasonable. The petitioner intends to develop Parcel 4.06 as one unified residential PCD with most of the amenities proposed on site located in the southern portion of the parcel. The subject future segment would bisect the site and isolate the northern portion of the development from the southern one and necessitate potential residents to cross a public road in order to access the rest of the development to the south. The subject, future roadway segment proposed for elimination is not part of and does not directly affect the City's Center Linkages Plan. The subject segment is reflected on the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). Map O includes only one roadway that is part of the City Center Linkages Plan, which is Gardens Parkway located immediately north of Gardens Mall. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS: The applicant has provided a traffic analysis in support of the proposed amendment. The analysis appears to demonstrate that the proposed elimination of the future segment does not adversely impact or lower the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards on any other roadway segment within the City's transportation network. Preliminary review of the traffic analysis indicates that the proposed elimination of the future segment does not negatively affect or lower the LOS of any segment within the City's transportation network, according to the information submitted to staff. The City's Traffic Engineer has not raised an objection to the amendment. City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 3, 2001 Petition: TXT -00 -06 NEARBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS /OBJECTIONS: The Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) has reviewed the proposed amendment and has raised no objections. Staff has not received any objections or adverse comments regarding this proposed amendment from any City residents as well. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION: On May 8, 2001, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) held a public hearing to consider the subject petition, and recommended approval with a vote of 6 -1. STAFF COMMENTS: The justification for the elimination is reasonable and acceptable, since the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) is not likely to grant a permit for a railroad crossing on Roadway #15. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division concurs with this conclusion (letter attached). The proposed amendment appears to be supported by adequate data and analysis. COMMENTS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS: The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed this proposed comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan, as required by Florida Statutes. The attached letter dated September 21, 2001, indicates DCA has no objections to this request. The Florida Department of Transportation and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council have submitted objections and comments to DCA (attachments to above letter), which were not supported by DCA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the proposed elimination of a portion of Roadway #15 from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). g: sc \txt \TXT- 00- 06 -str1 3 4: � r Ordinance 24, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 ORDINANCE 24, 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY DELETING A PORTION OF ROADWAY #15 FROM THE CONCEPTUAL THOROUGHFARE PLAN BETWEEN ALT. A -1 -A AND MILITARY TRAIL; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (TXT- 00 -06- Ord) from Communities Finance Company, LLC to delete a portion of Roadway #15 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan between Alt. A-1 -A and Military Trail; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment is internally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment is consistent with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, recommended approval of the subject amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that this amendment is subject to the provisions of Sections 163.3184(9) and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and that the City shall maintain compliance with all provisions thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to delete that portion of Roadway #15 located between Alt. A -1- A and Military Trail. t n Ordinance 24, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 SECTION 2. The City's Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure that this ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other agencies as required by Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. SECTION 3. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the ordinance. SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective in accordance with Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS THE �h DAY OF to,y 2001. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS THE DAY OF 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF 2001. MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO 74 s ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD, MMC CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO G: Ta I a I /TXT -00 -06 -Ord Ordinance 24, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 3 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Planning and Zoning Division Growth Management Department CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 (561) 775 -8295 Fax (561) 775 -1014 Request ❑ Planned Community Development (PCD) • Planned Unit Development (PUD) • Amendment to PCD, PUD or Site Plan • Conditional Use ® Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ❑ Other (Explain) ❑ Annexation • Rezoning • Site Plan Review • Concurrency Certificate ❑ Time Extension Project Name: Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan Amendment at Parcel 4.06 Date: December 18, 2000 Site Information: General Location: East of Military Trail, South of Donald Ross Road and north of Hood Road Address: See above. Township: 41 S Acreage: N/A Current Zoning: PDA Section: 25 Range: 42E Requested Zoning: PCD (per concurrent petition) Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Medium Existing Land Use: Vacant Requested Land Use: Residential Proposed Use(s) i.e. hotel, single family residence, etc.: N/A Proposed Sq. Footage by Use: Ay D Proposed Number and Type of Dwelling Unit(s) i.e. siiigl -e—fi , multif ly, ete (i N/A tion number: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date & Time Receiv $ Receipt Number: r a g W o � v� U Z C 2 Owner: Communities Finance Company, LLC Applicant (if not Owner): Agent: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO Agent's Mailing Address: 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 600, West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Agent's Telephone Number: (561) 689 -0066 Fax Number: (561) 689 -0551 Architect: N/A Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates Planner: Urban Design Studio Landscape Architect: N/A Justification Explanation: Information concerning all requests (Attach additional sheets if needed) { Section 118 -50, Submission Requirements, City Code of Ordinances } 1. Explain the nature of the request: This request is to modify the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O) and the accompanying table in the City's Comprehensive Plan to delete that segment of future roadway link # 15 between Military Trail and Alternate A 1 A. The attached Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map 2 -5) and the accompanying table (Table 2 -8) of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Support Documents have been revised to reflect the proposed change. 2. What will be the impact of the proposed change on the surrounding area? We are requesting the deletion of the section of the future east/west road #15 on Map O of the Comprehensive Plan from Military Trail to Alternate AIA. This request following reasons. k-1 H N z� ^y JV GJ C \ Lv the 1) The intent of this portion of Thoroughfare #15 is to connect Military Trail Road to Alt. AIA. In order for the road to reach Alternate A 1 A, a crossing of the FEC railway is required. Based on our research, a railroad crossing will not be permitted in this location. Existing railway crossings exist at Donald Ross Road and Hood Road, approximately 3,300 feet north and 3,400 feet south, respectively, of the potential crossing site. A new railroad crossing, which would adversely impact abutting residential properties, is highly unlikely and undesirable. 2) The PCD master plan for the 362 acre site, bounded by Donald Ross Road, Military Trail, Hood Road and Alternate AIA, would be bisected by this segment of Thoroughfare Plan Road #15. This site is proposed to provide for a family- oriented residential development. This project's primary amenity, a very large existing lake, and the development's Village Center are located in the southern half of the site. The construction of this segment of Thoroughfare Plan roadway #15 would split this residential community consisting mostly single family homes. This separation would require pedestrians, bicyclists and children to cross a public roadway which would unnecessarily create hazardous conditions. During a discussion of this project with the City Council in October, the Council did not express any concerns regarding this proposal. In addition, the proposed deletion of this roadway segment will not have any impact on the PGA Boulevard CRAALS designation. 3) The proposed residential community as designed, is planned to offer a unique character and sense of community. This community will offer a balance between interconnected open space corridors and traditional neighborhood living. The proposed not only compromise the character and quality of the fragment the sense of community expected as a result of the 2 ke,ad ofth c' a E: E 4) Due to the low - density, single - family, and unique nature of the proposed community plan, the property is designed for controlled access through the site. Limiting public access through this small parcel allows the lake and other site amenities to be used by the residents living in the community. At the October City Council meeting, the controlled access for this site was considered reasonable and appropriate by a majority of the council. 5) Finally, the elimination of this roadway section will not adversely affect the surrounding network of streets, according to the attached traffic impact analysis from Kimley -Horn and Associates. See the attached Traffic Study. 3. Describe how the rezoning request complies with the City's Vision Plan and the following elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Infrastructure, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement. This is not a request for rezoning. 4. How does the proposed project comply with City requirements for preservation of natural resources and native vegetation (Section 98 & Chapter 102, City Code)? Not applicable.. 5. How will the proposed project comply with City requirements for Art in Public Places (Chapter 106, City Code)? Not applicable. 6 M cc -zrQ �, Ca w p 6 tv -Seminole Pratt Whitney Road I cn (D 0 0 CL ..c Wpiloted on recycled paper w _ May 8, 2001 �L0 Ri94' Mr. Talal Benthman \ , V. Growth Management Department City of Palm Beach Garden'' 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Department of Engineering and Public Works RE: DELETION OF ROADWAYS Via Fax: 799 -4281 P.O. Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -1229 Dear Mr. Benthman: (561) 684 -4000 It has been brought to the attention of the Palm Beach County Traffic Division www.pbcgov.com that the City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing the deletion of two roadways from its Thoroughfare Plan. Please consider the following comments regarding these two roadways. One roadway is identified as being located i arcel 4.06. assume that this is Parcel 4.03/4.06 as identified in the Palm eacn Gardens CRALLS study. Palm Beach County The parcel is bounded on the north by Donald Ross Road, on the east by Board of County Alternate A1A, on the south by Hood Road, and on the west by Military Trail. Commissioners We realize that permitting a new crossing at the FEC Railroad is unlikely, and Warren H. Newell, Chairman for this reason, we do not object to the elimination of an access onto Alternate A1A. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair points on Donald Ross Road and Hood Road, and that the access on Military Karen T. Marcus Trail align with the proposed Thoroughfare Roadway on the west side of Military Trail, so that project traffic can be dispersed. Mary McCarty -- Burt Aaronson The other roadway is identified as being located i re—a l 31.01. 1 assume that this is Parcel 31A as identified in the Palm ar ens CRALLS Tony Masilotti study. The parcel is bounded on the north by an existing townhouse development, on the east by Central Boulevard, on the south by PGA Addie L. Greene Boulevard, and on the west by the Florida Turnpike. We believe that this roadway will provide little diversion form the major roadways, and for this reason, we do not object to its elimination as a future public roadway. However, we suggest that the project maintain the proposed access points on County Administrator Central Boulevard and PGA Boulevard be maintained so that project traffic can be dispersed. Robert Weisman Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER `&:J,' -x� Dan Weisberg, P.E. Assistant Director - Traffic Division cc: Comm. Karen Marcus, Commissioner - District 1 George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer Frank Duke, Director - Planning Division File: Mun - City of Palm Beach Gardens "An Equal Opportunity AffirmauveActionEmployer- F:\ TRAFFIC \DIW\Paula\PBG4.06- 31.1.wpd Wpiloted on recycled paper DEPARTMENT JEB BUSH Govemor N ITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" September 21, 2001 The Honorable Joseph Russo Mayor, City of Palm Beach Gardens City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -4698 Dear Mayor Russo: STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Palm Beach Gardens (DCA No. 01 -2), which was received on July 13, 2001. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review. The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative. Code (F.A.C.), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the adopted City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. The Department raises no objection to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010, F.A.C. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Palm Beach Gardens must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; CJy0// n , 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 -2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http: / /www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PLANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 279610, Hlghv2y, Suite 212 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Marathon, FL 33050 2227 Tallahassee, FL 32399.2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399.2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 (305)289.2402 (850) 488-2356 (850)413 -9969 (850) 488-7956 The Honorable Joseph Russo September 21, 2001 Page Two A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included. in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8)(b) which are effective July 1,200 1, and providing a model sign -in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. Please contact Valerie M. James, Planner II, or Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager, at (850) 487 -4545, if you need additional assistance. Sincerely, Gike McDaniel rowth Management Administrator MM/vmj i cc: Mr. Charles K. Wu, AICP, Growth Management Director Mr. Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council V, t Florida Department of Transportation JEB BUSH 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD THOMAS F. BARRY, JR. GOVERNOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 -3421 SECRETARY TELEPHONE: (954) 777 -4593; FAX: (954) 7774197 00 `! DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PRODUCTION August 22, 2 l5 U L ► n ' Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager UU AM 2 4 2001 Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning �� PM BSP 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard PUIN PROCESSING TI �M Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment ORC Review Local Government: City of Palm Beach Gardens DCA Amendment # 01 -2 The Department has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Enclosed are objections, recommendations and comments regarding the proposed amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process. If you have any comments or questions about this letter, please contact me at (954) 777 -4490. Sincerely, Gerry O'Reill , P:E. Acting Director Planning & Production GO:ts Enclosures cc: B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R Wilburn, DCA N. Bungo, FDOT 4 L. Hymowitz, FDOT 4 File: 4270.02 www.dot.state.fl.us ® RECYCLED PAPER DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONMUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) OBJECTION: This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and.31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non- residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. o The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. o The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 -25) have identified that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand for highways . that have.exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed -use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU:. Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) CONTINUED: RECOMMENDATION:' The City should maintain current allowable mixed land use designation that encourages an attractive, functional mix of uses and maximizes the use of existing and future public facilities and services. The City should arrange the future land uses surrounding the planned interchange at Central Boulevard and I -95 to provide the mixed -use neighborhoods and the preferred development form discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, and create a sense of community for its residents. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 2 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7 /16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) OBJECTION: The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low - density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.006(5)(h) through (5)0) provide the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low - intensity, low- density, or single -use; 2) Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities.and services; — 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) Continued: RECOMMENDATION: The City should encourage community- oriented patterns of development and redevelopment that are characterized by a network of streets, configured in a grid pattern, with multiple routes for intra - community trips and alternate routes for external travel. Such patterns of development should foster a functional mix of uses that reduce vehicle trip lengths and increase internalization of traffic. The existing land use arrangement has the ability to result in a reduction of trip ends on both P.GA Boulevard, and the PGA Boulevard/I -95 interchange, which are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the adopted LOS standard. I -95 and the PGA Boulevard interchange are facilities of critical State concern. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 4 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) . 9J- 5.019(3)(d) COMMENT: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange that are both projected to contain volumes that\exceed capacity at the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low - density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on. the FIRS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the objective preparation of the IJR. REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 Larry Hymowitz, AICP PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 Nancy Bungo PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 5 DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 'Write of the Secretary office of International Relations Division of Elections Division of Corporations Division of Cultural Affairs Division of Historical Resources Division of Library and Information Services Division of Licensing Division of Administrative services FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Katherine Harris Secretary of State DMSION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET State Board of Education Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Administration Commission Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Siting Board Division of Bond Finance Department of Revenue Department of Law Enforcement Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Department of Veterans' Affairs August 21, 2001 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the City of Pa Beach Gardens (01 -2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request (Received by DHR on 07/20/01) Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the above document to decide if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. We have reviewed one proposed Future Land Use Map amendment in conjunction with two amendments to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Conceptual Linkages Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the city's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Palm Beach Gardens. In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets (although known and potential historic resources need to be carefully considered in the planning phases of proposed land use changes) the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J -5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing known and potentially significant historical resources in Palm Beach Gardens. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp or Laura Kammerer of the Division's Compliance Review staffat.(850) 245 -6333. A Sincerely, J D AW 23201 Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director Division of Historical Resources ., t o *nrT M1 NG TEAM _ JSM/smh 500 S. Bronough Street •Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 http: / /W�v-vv.flheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research XAHistoric Preservation O Historical Museums (850) 245 -6300 • FAX: 245 -6435 (850) 245 -6444 • FAX: 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333 ^ FAX: 245 -6437 (850) 245 -6400 • FAX: 245 -6433 O Palm Beach Regional Office O St. Augustine Regional Office O Tampa Regional Office (561) 279 -1475 • FAX: 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 825 -5044 (813) 272 -3843 • FAX: 272 -2340 Jeb Bush Governor Department of Environmental Protecti Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 August 23, 2001 Re: Proposed Amendment to the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan, DCA 01 -2 Dear Mr. Eubanks: David B. Struhs Secretary The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above - referenced amendment under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 9J5 and 9J11, Florida Administrative Code. Our comments and recommendations are provided to assist your agency in developing the state's response. Comments: Parcels 31.08 and 31.11: It is recommended that the applicant consult with the FFWCC regarding the relocation of gopher tortoises. It is understood that the applicant is working with the South Florida Water Management District to secure the necessary Environmental Resource Permits and resolve mitigation issues with this project. Please call me at (850) 487 -2231 if you have any questions regarding this response. Sincerely, IkWL—j Robert W. Hall Office of Intergovernmental Programs "More Protection, Less Process" Printed on recycled paper. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33106 • (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1- 800 -432 -2045 TDD (561) 697 -2574 11%� Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 334164680 • www.sfwmd.g D 11f AUG 2 Q 2x11 GOV 08 -28 RPM BSP PLAN PROCESSING TEAM August 22, 2001 - W� Ray Eubanks, Program Administrator U .l Plan Review and DRI Processing Team �?j Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments City of Palm Beach Gardens, DCA# 01 -2 The South Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document and we. have no adverse comments. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (561) 682 -6779. Sincerely, P.K. Sharma, AICP Lead Planner Water Supply Planning & Development Department PKS /ml c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Charles Wu, Palm Beach Gardens Roger Wilburn, DCA GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Trudi K. Williams, Chair Michael Collins Patrick J. Gleason, Ph.D., P.G. Henry Dean, Executive Direch)r Lennart E. Lindahl, Vice -Chair Hugh M. English Nicolas J. Gutierrez, Jr., Esq. Pamela Brooks - Thomas Gerardo B. Fernandez Harkley R. Thornton TRit. IRE ¢COAST RE 'x NAI: �PLA ^NNING COUNCIL INDIAN =- RI -.VER �1VIA`RTY'N'-- -- %PWiA! - _.BE=ACH `_..ST I:_U_CIE -- July 31, 2001 Mr. Charles Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: P f `� This is to acknowledge the receipt of materials pertaining to the above- referenced amendments on July 16, 2001. Staff anticipates presenting its report and recommended comments to Council at the regular meeting of August 17, 2001. Pursuant to Section. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, a written report including any objections, recommendations for modification, and comments will be submitted to you by August 22, 2001. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, r G Terry ILess, AICP Planning Director TLH/gg "Bringing Communities Together" Est. 1976 301 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 300 - Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - SC 269 -4060 - Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - admi tcrpc.ore TREAS[JRE COAST RGIONAI;PLANN:ING _C,O.UNCI =L -_ 3... - IND.IA=1v Rh_VER iVIARTY -N PALM -BEACH S'I' LiJ -CIE August 17, 2001 Mr. Charles Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments — DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: Council has reviewed the above - referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Council's adopted plans, policies, and review procedures. Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by Council at its regular meeting on August 17, 2001 pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Please note that Council made revisions to the staff report at the August 17 meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Terry L. ess, AICP Planning Director TLH/wh Attachment "Bringing Communities Together" • Est. 1976 301 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 300 - Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - C�26.9r-:__06 Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - adminntcroc.ory TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AjpW)?',?, 2 3 2001 PLAN S N G TCAM MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 8A From: Staff Date: August 17, 2001 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests the DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then Council must provide the DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification, and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Background The City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment and text amendments to the Transportation Element of its comprehensive plan. The City has requested that the DCA prepare an ORC Report. Evaluation The FLUM amendment proposed by the City is for two parcels totaling 80.5 acres located along the west side of I -95, north and south of Central Boulevard (see attached maps in Exhibit A). The landowner seeking the FLUM amendment also requested and the City has proposed the following text/map amendments to the City's Transportation Element: 1) the deletion of the Roadway #18 (Ballen Isles Extension) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); 2) the deletion of a segment of Roadway #12 (117"' Court North) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); and 3) the deletion of a portion of a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan (see Exhibit B). Finally, in a location further to the north, the same landowner has requested and the City has proposed to delete a portion of Roadway #15 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit Q. These amendments are summarized in more detail in the following. A. Future Land Use Map Amendment (Ordinance #20) This amendment is for two parcels of land ( #31.08, #31.11) that are part of a larger tract (Parcel #31) proposed for a Planned Community Development (PCD). The entire tract totals 656 acres, and is to be developed, according to the City, as a very low density single- family project known as the "Parcel 31 Golf Course Community." The development is to have 450 luxury homes. The amendment parcels (31.9 and 48.6 acres respectively) are vacant, as are most of the surrounding lands. The current land use designation on the amendment parcels is Mixed Use. They are part of a large area in the vicinity of the Central Boulevard /I -95 crossing' envisioned. in the existing plan as a center for mixed -use and high and medium density residential development. The proposed FLUM designation is Residential High (RH), a designation that allows between 10 and 15 dwelling units per acre, depending on density bonus. The City defines the RH designation as one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens." It allows up to ten dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate mass transit facilities in the future." Surrounding properties are vacant, although the northern tip of Parcel #31.1 touches the Westwood Gardens residential subdivision that lies adjacent to and south of Hood Road: Surrounding FLUM designations are RH to the south and west and Mixed Use across I- 95 to the north and east. The ability of the City to permit development in this area is currently limited because of Level of Service constraints on PGA Boulevard. Otherwise, according to the City, public facilities are available to serve this site within adopted levels of service. As part of the materials submitted with the amendment package, the City included a copy of a Forbearance Agreement, dated April 15, 1999. This agreement, made between the City and a number of landowners, defines the terms under which development can occur. 2 As a result of the anticipated acceleration of development proposals due to of the sale of the MacArthur Foundation Lands, the City staff recommended the adoption of a six - month moratorium to allow the City to adequately address the effects of the anticipated acceleration of development. Communities Finance Company, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc. and new owner of much of the former MacArthur lands, took the initiative to draft a Forbearance Agreement in order to avoid a moratorium. This agreement, which has now expired, sets forth the terms for the timing of development review for the various properties of the signatories. An exhibit to the agreement also sets forth the limitation on development for each property, necessitated by the City's traffic level of service problems. Although the Forbearance Agreement has expired, City staff has indicated that the terms of the agreement continue as deed restrictions on the various properties. B. Text Amendments 1. Those relating directly to the FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #23) —There are three deletions proposed to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Linkage Plan. These Plans have been adopted by the City to identify where future streets and parkways are to be located in order to serve the future needs of the City. Since the proposed developed of Parcel 31 is to be as a, gated, private, golf - course community, the City proposes to make deletions to these plans. Roadway #18, intended to link PGA Boulevard to a future extension of 117`h Court North is to be deleted completely from the Thoroughfare Plan. A segment of Roadway #12 (117`h Court) from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted (both of these deletions are shown in Exhibit B). Lastly, since it is to be an exclusive, gated, private development, the parkway link from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted. The City traffic engineers recommended denial of the proposed deletion of both roadway segments because the links could direct traffic away from PGA Boulevard. However, the City Planning staff disagreed, characterizing the planned roadways as local connectors that wouldn't provide relief for PGA Boulevard, and that were never intended as significant city streets because they were not extended to Hood and Donald Ross Roads. The staff concludes that the elimination of these segments and link is justifiable and reasonable. No negative impacts are anticipated to other roadways or pedestrian links. Also, none of the segments are part of the Central City Linkage Plan and therefore do not affect the City's proposal to designate a portion of PGA Boulevard as a Constrainted Roadway at a Lower Level of Service (CRALLS). 2. Deletion of Segment of Roadway #15 (Ordinance 924) —On the City's ' Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (MAP O), Roadway 15 is shown as a future connection between Donald Ross Road and Alternative AIA (see Exhibit ._C).____ _ The proposed amendment would delete the segment from Military Trail to 3 Alternate AIA.. The City gives two reasons for this proposed deletion. First; °- the roadway would bisect a 266 acre parcel in single ownership. The parcel is vacant, but a site plan for development of the property as a PCD has already been submitted to the City. Secondly, the City indicates that this segment is unlikely to be completed because it would require a crossing of the FEC Railline. A copy of a letter from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division is provided by the City that concurs with this conclusion. The City staff concludes that this proposed amendment is reasonable and acceptable because the roadway would disrupt the proposed development and require future residents to cross a public road to reach some of the PCD amenities. Furthermore, the link is not part of the City Center Linkage Plan and would not affect level of service on any segment of the City's transportation network. Analysis Much of the land in northeastern Palm Beach County has been developed in the classic pattern of suburban sprawl. Single -use, low density residential developments cover large areas. These developments are often gated and isolated from the rest of the community. These private, gated developments prevent the establishment of a complete and interconnected public street system. All traffic loads onto a few major arterials. Because the limited entry/exit points for these gated developments require traffic to funnel to one location, there are severe congestion points on the arterial roadways. Commercial. development is allowed at only a few locations and are typically only accessible from the arterial roadway network. These arterials also become traffic congestion problem areas. Building and servicing development in this fashion is entirely inconsistent with the pattern of development encouraged in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) that calls for a well connected assembly of neighborhoods and districts with a complete mix of land uses and a complete and interconnected public street system that provides for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic with accommodation for public transit. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recognized the problems created by this sprawling development pattern for some time. The City was instrumental in getting representatives from municipalities in the north county area to meet for a two day "North Palm Beach County /Southern Martin County Planning Forum," on August 26 -28, 1993. At the . conclusion of this forum, a non- binding policy statement was approved on future development patterns, transportation and other matters. Some of the conclusions made as part of the policy statement were 1) the need for additional modes of transit to supplement the auto; 2) the need for more of a modified corridor /multi- centers form of development; and 3) the need for regulatory and procedural. changes to ensure that the pattern of development would change. The City took the initiative to follow up on this forum by holding several "visioning" sessions in 1994 in order to determine the preferred characteristics of the community. In 1995, the City appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to create a specific vision for the future of the City. The Committee established a series of preferred land use scenarios for the future of the City. The final draft of the vision became "Our Vision - A Strategic Plan" adopted by the City on December 5, 1996. This document is now used as a policy statement and planning tool. Some of the policies from "Our Vision" are incorporated into the City Mission Statement in its comprehensive plan. The City staff is to use the "Vision" during the preparation of special studies, updates to the comprehensive plan and modifications to the land development regulations. A map was created as . part of the "Vision" document. It shows the area of the subject FLUM amendment as one for mixed-use/residential development. In order to address the lack of capacity in part of its roadway system and because of the sense of urgency created as a result of the MacArthur property coming onto the market, the City took the initiative to organize a Traffic Summit that was held on March 30 and 31, 2001. According to the Report of Proceedings for the Summit, nearly 100 elected officials, local government staff, land owners, developers, state agency personnel, non- profit organization staff and others attended the summit. The summit was to "discuss traffic issues and identify planning tools for managing traffic and its related impacts," and to seek insights from across jurisdictional boundaries on broad -scale traffic problems and preferred solutions." Some of the results and key problems identified at the summit were that: 1) there are not enough roads and not enough interconnections between roads; 2) suburban sprawl is creating much longer trips; 3) we are allowing too much development despite level of service standards; 4) there is a lack of intergovernmental coordination; and 5) there are deficiencies in mass. transit. The Proceedings indicated that traffic problems identified at the summit fall into five categories. The. top problem in each category was: 1) lack of connectivity; 2) gated communities with single- entry; 3) connectivity problems; 4) use of a countywide level of service standard that encourages sprawl; and 5) a lack of funding for transit. The land use and transportation problems in the City of Palm Beach Gardens specifically and in the north county area in general have been clearly identified during the initiatives summarized above. They include land use imbalances, the lack of a complete, interconnected street system and the lack of alternatives to frequent, long-distance automobile trips. As the following objections and comments indicate, the City's proposed amendments are not consistent with the City's vision, not consistent with solutions identified for multijurisdictional problems, and not consistent'with the SRPP. Extrajurisdictional Impacts These amendments were reviewed . through the Palm Beach Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Process. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received regarding the proposed amendments. However, letters of concern were received from Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County and Mayor Golonka, Town of Jupiter (see attached). 5 Effects on Significant Regional Resources or Facilities An analysis of the proposed amendments indicates that as a result of the amendments there may be unnecessary impacts to the regional roadway system. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments A. Objections 1. None B. Comments FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #20) 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods.. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed -use overlay to promote a mix of community - serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the, comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed= use /residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses 1 -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi- family residential development. The effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 %2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mix of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SR.PP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and communities should contain a balanced, well - planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major arterials to_ town and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network--to--- connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area. This would provide G services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are. currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury (S1 million and up) single- family detached golf course community for the entire 656 acre Parcel 31, to / include the 80.5 acre subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall developed density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for this property would be the City's Residential Very Low (RVL), deft ed as "predominantly single- family detached residential development up to 1.0 d elling unit per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resourc s and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing units to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low income households through 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments which allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. According to the City plan, the provision of affordable housing' is entirely the responsibility of the private sector. In order to encourage the private sector to provide such housing, the City has designated certain areas as Mixed Use and High Density. The elimination of the Mixed Use designation from the subject properties, and the apparent abandonment of the entire area from its proposed use for high and medium density, multi - family housing (consistent with the City vision) will have a negative effect on the City's statutory responsibility to ensure that there is affordable housing in the City for its low and moderate income residents. Furthermore, many of the areas the City has designated for high density residential use (to address the affordable housing deficit) may now be developed at a much lower density, as a result of the Forbearance Agreement. The City should prepare an analysis of the effect this 7 amendment and other density reductions will have on its ability to ensure that a range of housing types and affordabilites is available to meet its needs (and projected deficits). Now that 2000 Census data is available, the City can determine if deficits have increased or decreased and if additional strategies are necessary to meet its goals. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are_ being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. Text Amendments (Ordinance 23 and 24) 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of an adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic Division Office indicating that they do not obiectbecause the roadways would ,n provide little diversion from the major roadways, no analysis has been provided of the `�" number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. 'The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for' the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the ! recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictably spaced and interconnected east -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local travel on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum recommended the creation of additional linkages and improved connectivity in the area. These amendments will reduce linkages and decrease connectivity. The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12, and 18 from the ' conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network .becomes more dense, more interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It also should include the interconnection of public streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the ability, of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the no impact conclusion based? 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been identified as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these elements with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods of development. Furthermore, the. City should recognize that areas proposed for low density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 0 t-wenerat -Location Map City of Palm Beach Gardens'>' ` $ v UKU Man C."Ay _6 INDIANTOWN .-� PITER JwptseP I'a't El " BJRT REYNOLOS M A OF NER TMEATEA PALM BEAt." [I PALM EACH NTERhAT LI C RTy\ CAEIK ELV FLO IDA \ °r,�I 9 ° D , 2 a , 5M1 Palm Beach Gardens E DONALD o Ao� s f ^ "° 'e'° n19W DOLPH MAP CO.. INC. n - - -!i <rtif n e r i 1 ONN O. VACARTNUR A Sy. T J \ STATEPARK 1 �►� PALM ACH A`w I GARLJIFNS ss T -No h Palm Beach UKf PARK I no I ti D I 1 ad 1 I' PA ■■ Lak rk I i R EAC - j � r J. TO a..ea • IN ET V {) L I JA. ' 14ke Worth . I L:: 111 : fnkt I S i W ST LM 0 D; - -j �TBE CH wP.e Palm Royal - - - -� j = A ...rOR!UEKEtn I x Pa�lm_L I i � 1 Beach Z Beach > •P E "M D"O"of''u �C K t K CMOB 0 RD ' ENRY FIAGIFR I6PrIYr A �.C` I B OYAWAY LM D VYDE -f AD O fal® YORTQM Hr rb Rl P EEACN-7L LL YOF ART w so µ ERN BLVD 98 [IN_T1 _AIR_PO RTC I• STATE ° GM- Ri1p - O Y. F IRGROUND - A Wellin On °iW1T I ZOR RPARKZ00^ �. [• I `l •FOREST MI LO BLVD I _� 1 1I IQ IL ke a Shore 441 Bog Paigi fs GRE NACR CITY LAKE YPORTN- ! Rp- E WORTH o At M D I 2 COUN Coe) LANTANA Atlantis 91 RD °CAI ► 1 PEba pEJ W AVE LOXAHATCHEE NATIONAL ��` MYPOLUxO ! RD 1 Q I ® M--ICP- .,,E t I [ C7 WILDLIFE REFUGE w I �I IBOYNTON r o B V I E TON BEACH W_ v Oma Ride � o i s no CONSERVATION AREA N0.1 A, I > /r arree.. LLI 2 I z n �` • DELRAY �E M ATLANTC' J a BEACH t 1 I pEIRAYs "ter TRAINING LINT 1 ( 41 CENTER E Dfl IKgM! ML;iEUft DI 0 JAPANESE CC' TUBE I w EVERGLADES CLINT MOORE RD BS - HioktEb' Betiels WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT I L_ I o _ V A AREA j RA ON A S RD ® O OES J�rIRPORT �-- ILO ! NTIC UNIVERSITY 9 � ►ALM n P PAR K = RD BOCA BATON �j LO�r � fHit(edo ! el rMO EXHIBIT A Future Land Use Map Amendment City of Palm Beach Gardens Prop_ osed Amendment 20, 2001 27726 NOT TO SCALE HOOD ROAD Lu It 1 CL Z OX o I PARCEL 31 < < LA_ PROJECT SITE 34 35 < 2 p f i 2 4v z Li PGA BOULEVARD 24 1 NOT TO SCALE f It 1 it I < < < z f PH LA 31,041 31 D St. , IR P. 0 CO. Pais lGai - 77 cor AkRCELS 31.08 & 31.11 COMPREHENSIVE A-ND USE AMENDMENT & kRCEL 31.01 TEXT AMENDMENT M BEACH GARDENS, FL NTS LTDS Job#: 99- 084.10 )CATION MAP Date: December 11, 2000 ..7 Staff Rebuttal to FDOT and TCRPC FDOT Comments: 1. This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non - residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. • The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 — 25) have identified that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand for highways that have exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed - use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed land use amendment takes approximately 8,500- 12,000 average daily trips off the road network. This proposed modification would in fact create fewer trips and lower the demand on highways which would offset any increases on auto dependency and vehicle miles traveled. If there were fewer vehicles on the road, the demand for more roads is reduced. The City has already established development patterns that encourage a mix of uses in key areas, so as it limit road trips on the network. Projects such as PGA Commons, Legacy Place and the Regional Center are all developments that encourage a localized arrangement of various uses. The City Center Linkage Plan has also been put in place to provide the alternate routing of traffic. Also, approximately 175 acres of land still remains mixed -use within the City. 2. The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.005(5)(h) through (5)(j) provided the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low- intensity, low- density, or single -use; 2) Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services; 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan does not create or indicate urban sprawl: 1) Parcel 31 only contains a total of 80 acres of mixed -use out of the total 650 -acre parcel. The mixed -use component is only 12% of this project. The parcel is also located within the Urban Service Boundary and will contain, residential, golf course and open space uses. The parcel is also deed restricted which allows a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre, which is compatible with the adjacent, existing development. 2) & 3) The proposed amendment will utilize the City's public facilities and services. In fact, the amendment will help to alleviate the demand on the City's public facilities and services by developing at a low density, which will serve to lessen the amount of City services. 4) The City has established a wide range of functional and mixed -uses across the street from this subject parcel by approving PGA Commons. Also, less than one mile from this property, there are two other mixed -use development that are approved. The City has done an outstanding job in mixing commercial uses with the residential developments that will be serving them. 3. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard interchange that are both 2 projected to contain volumes that exceed capacity a the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low- density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed -use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on the FIHS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the object preparation of the IJR. Staff Rebuttal: The development of this parcel is limited by the Forbearance Agreement and the available road capacity. The resulting reduction in trips will not interfere with the regional need for the interchange. TCRPC Recommendations: 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed use overlay to promote a mix of community - serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed -use residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high - density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses I -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi - family residential development. This effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 1/2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mix of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SRPP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and communities should contain a balanced, well- planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major arterials to town and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. 3 Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network to connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area. This would provide services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has approved and is in the process of approving a variety of mixed use and commercial developments to service the existing and future residents of the City. The Mixed -Use projects include PGA Commons, Legacy Place, Parcel 4.02/4.04 and substantial projects within the Regional Center which are less than a mile away from Parcel 31. In addition, there are existing commercial nodes, that are also in close proximity, that will service this project, such as PGA Commons, which has recently opened and is directly across the street from Parcel 31. The City has also implemented a City Center Linkage Plan that will help to distribute traffic off the major arterials and funnel traffic into the mixed use and commercial developments. The City is still in control of approximately acres, across from Parcel 31, that contains a mixed -use designation, which could also service this area. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has balanced and applied several mixed -use developments in key areas within the City. This land use change is consistent with the City's Vision Plan and Comprehensive Plan which provides the freedom and ability to allow the City to contain a variety of housing types, particularly the kinds of housing that serve to decrease the impact to the roadway network. This proposed change in land use will help to reduce the total impact by approximately 8,500 - 12,000 trips. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat, misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury ($1 million and up) single- family subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall development density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH, FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment area or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for the property would be The City's Residential Very Low (RVL), defined as "predominantly single - family detached residential development up to 1.0 dwelling units per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resources and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. 4 Staff Rebuttal: When approached with the application, we contemplated the appropriate land use category for the amendment. Since the adjacent parcel consisted of a land use designation of Residential High, we felt it would be the most appropriate to make this subject area consistent with this residential land use category. Since the property contains a deed restriction that restricts the entire parcel to develop at a total of 3 dwelling units /acre, staff felt comfortable with the Residential High designation. Furthermore, since the reduction of trips, units and other impacts was decreased significantly with the Residential High designation, we felt that this land use category was the most appropriate. Therefore, choosing another land use category that had lower thresholds would not be consistent with the surrounding properties. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing needs to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low- income households though 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments which allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recently approved several developments which offer a broad range of housing types. Both fee simple, rental housing types and even an assisted and independent living facilities have been approved in recent months to provide for a wide range of income types. The proposed low- density development for Parcel 31 is also encouraged by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision Plan by adding to the range of housing type. This development is also compatible with the neighboring community of Ballen Isles, which offers a lifestyle option that is different than other communities within the City. Similar communities to Parcel 31, can also be found in the Town of Jupiter, such as the Bear's Club, which also offers a low density, golf course lifestyle. These developments help to create diversity to the marketplace and allow the City of Palm Beach Gardens to offer a broad range of housing options. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has Central Boulevard as a designated interchange within its Comprehensive Plan. Based on this, we acknowledge that there may be a future interchange in this area, however, the funding and design of such an interchange is done by FDOT. The Thoroughfare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan do not prevent the interchange. In addition, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division provided a letter of support to the Thoroughfare amendments. 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic Division Office indicating that they do not object because the roadways would provide little diversion from the major roadways, no analysis has been provided of the number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictability spaced and interconnected east -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local traffic on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum lead recommended the creation of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12 and 18 for the conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within the and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network becomes more dense, more interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It should include the interconnection of pubic streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. 6 Staff Rebuttal: The City Engineer, a County Engineer and a traffic consultant has determined that the removal of Thoroughfare #12, #15 and #18 does not effect the arterial road network. In fact, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has taken a proactive role in adopting several measures to alleviate impact to the road network. The City Center Linkage Plan, the Burns Road widening and the Alternate A 1 A joint developer agreement, are all ways the City has been a leader in the ensuring that the arterial road network has sufficient capacity. The proposed amendments face limitations to their ability to ability to make connection points. There are existing, physical barriers that prevent the roads from tying into other streets. Thoroughfare #12 and #18 are bound by the Florida Turnpike to the west and existing development to the east. Thoroughfare #15 is bound by the FEC Railroad to the east. The FEC Railroad will not allow a road crossing in this location. The likelihood of obtaining a crossing is virtually non - existent, since the position of the FEC is not to allow any new crossings, without removing existing crossings. This is evidenced by the Parcel 5A road which is currently attempting to get a replacement crossing for one that was removed by the PGA Flyover. The issues raised at the North County Traffic Forum are important, yet do not apply to the proposed amendments. The Forum discussed single- entry, gated communities as providing little diversion for traffic onto other arterial roads, thereby placing the burden of access on just one roadway. In both subject parcels, each community contains more than one entry point. In fact, Parcel 31 contains two entry points and Parcel 4 contains three. Both communities have provided these openings so that no one road is impacted with excess traffic. Finally, the alignment of Thoroughfare #15 at Parkside Drive can be accomplished at the time the development order is reviewed for that subject property (Brigger Tract). The City has reviewed the alignment of Parcel 4 and has required the western access point, along Military Trail to align with the adjacent development. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the abbility of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. Staff Rebuttal: Thoroughfares #12 and 418 are roads without a destination. Thoroughfare #12 dead -ends into the Florida Turnpike, which will never connect. Thoroughfare #18 diverts traffic into the dead end roadway of Thoroughfare #12. The surrounding properties are either developed, planned or restricted. Therefore, the future densities and intensities are known, which helps to understand the future traffic conditions. Data provided by Kimley -Horn demonstrates that the absence of these roads will not adversely impact the arterial road network. 7 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the impact conclusion based? Staff Rebuttal: There is no current or future need to have a pedestrian link over the Florida Turnpike. The PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard parkways will be constructed and are intended for pedestrian linkages to connect to the areas west of the Turnpike. There is no impact to either the Thoroughfare or Linkage Plan by removing this pedestrian link from the Comprehensive Plan. Existing parkways will provide the pedestrian connection. 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been identified as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these element with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. Staff Rebuttal: These amendments, were forwarded to IPARC early in April of 2001. At that time, there were no adverse responses to the amendments. Public hearings were held in May and June of 2001, and no adverse comments were received. It was not until the City Council public hearing that we were informed that the Town of Jupiter had some concerns. In July of 2001, the City responded to them in order to address their concerns. The City of Palm Beach Gardens is also part of the North County Traffic Forum Task Group which was developed after the March forum, in order to help address some of the issues raised at that meeting. Furthermore, the City of Palm Beach Gardens entered into the interlocal agreement with the Town of Jupiter several years ago to encourage interlocal communication. We are happy to provide information to any local government on any of our proposed developments. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities 8 consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods of development. Furthermore, the City should recognize that areas proposed for low- density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Staff Rebuttal: The intent of the Forbearance Agreement was not to address failures of the road network or development approvals, but to establish a framework and schedule in order to plan for anticipated development. At the City Council's direction, the City Center Linkage Plan, the adoption of the citywide impact fee ordinance and the other scheduled road improvements are examples of the type of strategic planning that the City utilized in planning for the future. The City has been a leader in identifying traffic impacts and providing solutions to potential traffic problems. Furthermore, there is no basis that low - density development will someday be re- developed at higher densities. In fact, the deed restrictions that were established by the Forbearance Agreement ensure that the level of development of each parcel runs with the convenant of the land and not with the ownership of the property. Therefore, the City is assured of particular densities throughout the life of a particular development. 9 r` CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Prepared on: October 1, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 20, 2001, regarding an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map to change the future land -use designations of two parcels of land from Mixed Use to Residential High. The subject parcels, which have a combined acreage is approximately 80.5 acres, are known as Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 and are located at northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and 1 -95. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 20, 2001. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs: $ Council Action: Tota I City Attorney Growth M nagement [ ] Approved Finance N A $ [ ] Approved w/ — ACM Current FY conditions Human Res. NA [ ] Denied Other NA Advertised: Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Attachments: Date: 10 -13 -01 [ ] Operating Paper: Palm Beach [ ] Other Ordinance 20, 2001 Post 0 Applicant Justification Statement [X] Required • Location Map Letter dated 9 -21- Submitted by: 1 01 from the Florida Department of iak?,r, ak.- Community Affairs Growth Management Affected parties Budget Acct. #:: Director [X] Notified [ ] None Approved by: City Manage [] Not Required i City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 1, 2001 Petition: LU -00 -05 Request: Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing an amendment to the City's Future Land Use Map to change the future land -use designations of two parcels from Mixed Use to Residential High. The subject parcels are known as Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 and are located at northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and 1 -95. Their combined acreage is approximately 80.5 acres. The acreage of Parcel 31.08 and Parcel 31.11 is 31.9 and 48.6, respectively. Both parcels are subject to the Forbearance Agreement, which limits the density and intensity of each parcel to 3.0 units per acre and a 25% floor area ratio. However, the analysis of potential impacts for the land -use change conducted by the applicant is based on maximum density /intensity under the current and proposed land uses. BACKGROUND: The subject parcels are currently vacant and undeveloped and are part of a larger development comprising several parcels known as "Parcel 31 Golf Course Community" Planned Community District (PCD). The petitioner is requesting the land -use change to Residential High to allow the future development of the site, along with the other parcels, as a PCD of luxury single - family homes. The applicant has requested the Residential High land -use designation because some of the parcels that make up the proposed development site area contain parcels with land -use designations of Residential High. The maximum number of units allowed under the Residential High is 12 dwelling units per acre, whereas the maximum density allowed under the Mixed Use designation is 15 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the overall density of the two parcels will be reduced by 3.0 units per acre once the requested land use change is approved by the City. The current zoning classification of the parcel is Planned Development Area (PDA). The PDA classification is a holding zone that requires the development of the site as a PUD or Planned Community Development (PCD), depending on the size of the parcel. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA: The subject parcels are surrounded by properties whose land -use designations consist of Residential High to the south and west, and Mixed Use to the north and east. These uses are compatible with the proposed Residential High land -use change. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE VISION PLAN: The City's Vision Plan serves as a land -use guide to all land -use designation changes in the City. The Vision Plan designates the subject site as Residential Medium. The requested land -use change to Residential High is consistent with the intent and 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 1, 2001 Petition: LU -00 -05 objective of the Vision Plan, since the intent of the Plan is to have multifamily residential on the subject site and the surrounding area. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: No historical or archeological resources have been identified on site, according to the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND LAND SUITABILITY FOR PROPOSED LAND -USE: An environmental assessment of the site has identified the existence of gopher tortoises, a designated Species of Special Concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and pine flatwoods. The City's comprehensive plan identifies lands containing pine flatwoods as environmentally significant lands. The subject sites are subject to the provisions of Policy 6.1.5.6 of the City's Conservation Element, which require the protection or mitigation of negative impacts to environmentally significant lands and species on site at the site plan review stage. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL UNDER EXISTING LAND -USE DESIGNATION: The maximum development potential allowed under the existing land -use designation of Mixed Use is outlined below in the table. The analysis is based on the total acreage of the site, which is 80.5 acres, and a combination of land uses designated on the Future Land Use Map. The applicant has based the analysis on selecting four land uses, which consist of 15% Open Space, 30% Neighborhood Commercial, 30% Employment Center and 25% Residential High. The maximum lot coverage is 35 %. The potential impacts of development projected under the existing land -use designation are as follows: POTENTIAL IMPACTS UNDER CURRENT LAND USE OF MIXED USE Max. Max. Density External Recreation Sanitary Potable Solid Development or Intensity Trip /Parks Sewer Water Waste Potential 301 residential Up to 15 1,896 Daily 2.5 Acres Adequate Adequate Adequate units Du /acre trips capacity capacity capacity 368,282 sq. ft. 0.35 Lot 9,819 Daily N/A Adequate Adequate Adequate of retail coverage trips capacity capacity capacity 368,282 sq. ft. 0.35 Lot 3,549 Daily N/A Adequate Adequate Adequate of office coverage trips capacity capacity capacity Total 1 15,264 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 1, 2001 Petition: LU -00 -05 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL UNDER PROPOSED LAND USF DESIGNATION: The maximum development potential allowed under the proposed land use designation of Residential High is 966 dwelling units, based on a density of 12 dwelling units per acre for the 80.5 -acre site. The comparison between the potential impacts under the existing and proposed land uses is evident, especially when considering traffic impacts. The total number of net external trips to be generated by the development of the site under the proposed land use is only 44% of the number of external trips under the existing land -use designation. This represents a significant reduction in the number of trips on PGA Blvd. The applicant has not submitted a traffic analysis, but rather a trip generation analysis, since the number of trips under the proposed land use is lower than the number of trips under the existing land use. In such cases, applicants are not required to provide traffic analysis (traffic modeling). The potential impacts of development under the proposed land -use designation is projected to be as follows: POTENTIAL IMPACTS UNDER PROPOSED LAND -USE RESIDENTIAL HIGH Max. Max. External Recreation Sanitary Potable Solid Development Density /Intensity Trip /Parks Sewer Water Waste Potential 966 12 Du /ac 6,762 Daily 8.1 Acres Adequate Adequate Adequate Residential trips capacity capacity capacity units Total 6,762 Trips LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS: The petitioner's analysis demonstrates that there will be no direct, adverse impacts on the adopted level of service standards for water, sewer, solid waste, police and fire services, parks and recreation, and traffic. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS: The Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), consisting of the planning directors in the county, has reviewed the proposed amendment and has raised no objections. Staff has not received any objections or adverse comments regarding this proposed amendment from City residents as well. Staff has not received any objections or adverse comments regarding this proposed amendment from any local government. The School District of Palm Beach County has requested that the applicant post a notice on the property informing potential buyers of the School District's policy regarding assigning students to public schools. 4 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 1, 2001 Petition: LU -00 -05 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION: On May 8, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing to consider the subject petition and recommended approval with a vote of 7 -0. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed land -use map designation of Residential High is compatible with the surrounding land -uses of adjacent properties, does not negatively impact the adopted LOS standards of needed infrastructure, and the site is suitable for the proposed land - use change based on the environmental assessment provided by the applicant. PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council passed Ordinance 20, 2001 on First Reading on July 5, 2001, by a unanimous vote of 4 -0, and directed staff to transmit this proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment. COMMENTS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS: The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed this proposed amendment to the City's Future Land Use Map for consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan, as required by Florida Statutes. The attached letter dated September 21, 2001, indicates DCA has no objections to this request. The Florida Department of Transportation and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council have submitted objections and comments to DCA (attachments to above letter), which were not supported by DCA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the City's comprehensive plan to change the future land -use designations of Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 from Mixed Use to High Residential. g: sc \txt \LU- 00- 05- str1 -cc 5 Ordinance 20, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 ORDINANCE 20, 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY CHANGING THE LAND -USE DESIGNATIONS FOR PARCELS KNOWN AS 31.08 AND 31.11, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 80.5 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD AND 1 -95, FROM MIXED USE TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (LU- 00 -05- Ord) from Communities Finance Company, LLC to amend the land -use designations for Parcels known as 31.08 and 31.11, totaling approximately 80.5 acres, located at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and 1 -95, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from Mixed Use to Residential High; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the future land -use map amendment is internally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the future land -use map amendment is consistent with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, recommended approval of the future land -use map amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that this future land -use map amendment is subject to the provisions of Sections 163.3184(9) and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and that the City shall maintain compliance with all provisions thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan of the City Ordinance 20, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 is hereby amended to change the future land -use designations for two Parcels known as 31.08 and 31.11, totaling approximately 80.5 acres, located at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and 1 -95, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, from Mixed Use to Residential High. SECTION 2. The City's Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure that this ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other agencies as required by Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. SECTION 3. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the ordinance. SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS THE DAY OF 2001. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS THE DAY OF 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF 2001. MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO 2 Ordinance 20, 2001 Prepared On: May 31, 2001 ATTEST BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CAROL GOLD, MMC CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO CITY ATTORNEY wtmUTAt'_1:L9mIi!i7 3 �- G7 ;/ /i,/ 4 A parcel of land situate in Sections 35 and 36, Towns ii:P 41 South, Lange 42 East and Sections 1 f and 2, Township 42 South, Range 42 East; within the municipal Iimits of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach. County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at' the intersection of the West right -of -way line• of Interstate 5 -95 and the East right -of way line of Central Boulevard; thence South 30131'49" East, along said West right- of= way,line of Interstate I -95, a distance of 1,475.56 feet to a curve having a radial bearing of North 24* 22' 49" 'West, aradius of 1,669.35 feet, and a central �:.�le of 66° 51' 33 ". Thence, departing from said right =of -way line, proceed Westerly along the ,rc -of said curve, a distance of 1,947.99 feet to the East right -of -way line of Central Boulevard; thence North 43 ° 37 28" East, along said right - of way, a distance of 409.08 feet; thence South 46' 22'41 East, along said right -of -way, a distance of 35.03 feet; thence North. 46" 10'00" East, along- said. right -of -way, a distance of 450.44 feet; thence Forth 51P 13'00" East, along said right -of -way, a distance of 302.66 feet; thence North 4' :1 ° 37 19" East, aloe' g said right-of-way, a distance of 287.60 feet to the Point of Beginning of the herein described parcel. Z�A ; � ) �- 14. PARCEL 31.11 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST; WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 1 -95 AND THE EAST WEST QUARTER SECTION LINE IN SAID SECTION 35;THENCE SOUTH 28' 00'21" EAST, ALONG THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 411.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 24,688.05 FEET, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2'22'340. THENCE PROCEED SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND WEST RIGHT -OF -SWAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,023.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE NORTHWEST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD; THENCE SOUTH 43'37'190 WEST, ALONG SAID CENTRAL BOULEVARD RIGHT - OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 362.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40'34'08" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 751.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46'22'41" EAST, ALONG SAID RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43"37'28" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 407.16 FEET TO A CURVE HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 46'35'56" EAST, A RADIUS OF 1669.35 FEET, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 92'02'08 ". THENCE, DEPARTING SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, PROCEED NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 2,681.51 FEET TO THE EAST -WEST QUARTER SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH 87' 56' 03 EAST, ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE. A DISTANCE OF 210.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL. LESS AND EXCEPT THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR INTERSTATE 95 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BY THE DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 7481, PAGE 238. El LA A 31 v OARDERSN Pa I m -lGar ya "ill All III Iml 'ARCELS 31.08 & 31.11 COMPREHENSIVE El - - AND USE AMENDMENT & )ARCEL 31.01 TEXT AMENDMENT AiM BEACH GARDENS, FL ,OCATION MAP NTS UDS Job#: 99- 084.10 Date: December 11, 2000 alh . ens ° t. ZONING: V-UPTA ."P `. e iti,j °�� 3vb •?^ Na ` _. N• • ♦ �'., L 4� ' h _ / ♦ . . r, ' t • { tik "IF' �✓• 1 ate. ': / ��e +• ♦ � ♦ � � ��� F� 'l+ n � � S i �• � • 1 • 11 e Middle School .1 ZONING: is e: • ,y, Bent Tree / a j • • TUA • CVY¢vti• q i rk _ • • ¢ �■ _ �� r r. I.� t,f:: ` - .�•.eld '�j3e��g_t�''� a.�t�.t�J,i Sty hi: � ���',;: fda - ��.�' -.. ' �- ,� . 'F ,54 t 113 (�.•�.�J '��g' �I� ���ri ^at�A�' ' ♦ -.'„' - �� � i,'• ,;iii i. � - ^J---; - _ � a u. .3�' a�� � r ,. L • w '�L � � ��e _.I 1 �_ .t.. • }i.n.. ;.g .�. � - : � .. Owner: Communities Finance Company, a subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc. Applicant (if not Owner): Agent: URBAN DESIGN STUDIO Agent's Mailing Address: 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 600, West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Agent's Telephone Number: (561) 689 -0066 Fax Number: (561) 689 -0551 Architect: N/A Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates Planner: Urban Design Studio Landscape Architect: N/A Justification Explanation: Information concerning all requests (Attach additional sheets if needed) {Section 118 -50, Submission Requirements, City Code of Ordinances; 1. Explain the nature of the request: We are requesting to redesignate approximately 80.52 acres of land (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and Interstate 95 from the existing Future Land Use Plan designation of Mixed Use (MXD) to Residential High (RH). In addition, we are requesting the deletion of future roadway #18 and a section of future roadway #12, from Florida's Turnpike to Central Boulevard, from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map 0). We are also seeking the deletion of a pedestrian linkage which traverses through Parcel 31.01 from the City's Conceptual Linkage Plan. These amendments are requested in order to process a development application to provide for a low density, single- family, private golf course community within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. This project will be made up of Parcels 31.01, 31.08, 3 1.10, 3 1. 11 and 31.12, hereby referenced as Parcel 31 Golf Community., and consist of 450 single family homes on approximately 651 acres. 2. What will be the impact of the proposed change on the surrounding area? For the requested Future Land Use Plan Amendment for the redesignation of two N= parcels to RH, the subject 80.52 acres is bounded on the southern and western boundaries by vacant lands with the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use designation. The proposed Residential High Future Land Use designation will be consistent with the surrounding land use designations. On the northern and eastern boundary of the subject site is Interstate 95. It should be noted that the subject site, as well as the remaining portion of the Parcel 31 Golf Community site, is planned to be a high -end golf course community. Because the proposed development is much less than what is allowed under the current Future Land Use designation and the proposed Future Land Use designation, the overall impacts on public facilities and services will be less than what was anticipated under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development of the Parcel 31 Golf Community as a golf course community is consistent with the traditional and preferred development residential pattern in the City. For the requested Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, we are requesting the deletion of the section of the future east /west road #12 from Florida's Turnpike to Central Boulevard and all of future roadway #18 on Map O of the Comprehensive Plan. This request is being made as the site which is to be bisected by these roadways is proposed to be a low density, single family, golf course community. As an exclusive community, there is a desire to control the access to the site, similar to the adjacent Ballenlsles community. If Parcel 31.01 was to be divided up into multiple tracts with multiple owners, the subject future public roadways may be desirable. Because all of the Parcel 31 Golf Community is proposed to be owned and developed by one entity, there is no public benefit in providing public access through this single neighborhood project. There will be numerous access n ,; points to the project, which will include access points on PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. 'There will also be a private roadway network which will service the future golf course community. Also, the concurrent request to change the Future Land Use designations on the adjacent Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 from Mixed Use to Residential High will reduce the possible traffic impact that could be created on the Parcel 31 South site. The request to eliminate the pedestrian link within Parcel 31.01 from the Conceptual Linkage Plan is consistent with the desire to provide a private golf course community. Additional pedestrian linkages will be provided as part of the parkway program along PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. 3. Describe how the rezoning request complies with the City's Vision Plan and the following elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Infrastructure, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement. This is not a request for rezoning. 4. How does the proposed project comply with City requirements for preservation of natural resources and native vegetation (Section 98 & Chapter 102, City Code)? This request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and it is not applicable to City's natural preservation regulations. 5. How will the proposed project comply with City requirements for Art in Public Places (Chapter 106, City Code)? Not applicable. 5 .-Opt-,; STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" JEB BUSH STEVEN M. SEIBERT Govemor Secretary September 21, 2001 The Honorable Joseph Russo Mayor, City of Palm Beach Gardens City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -4698 Dear Mayor Russo: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Palm Beach Gardens (DCA No. 01 -2), which was received on July 13, 2001. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review. The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative. Code (F.A.C.), Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the adopted City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. The Department raises no objection to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010, F.A.C. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Palm Beach Gardens must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; • copy of the adoption ordinance; 10) • listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 -2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http: / /www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PLANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2796 Overseas Highvray, Suite 212 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Marathon. FL 33050 2227 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 (305)289.2402 (850)488.2356 (850)413.9969 (850)488 -7956 The Honorable Joseph Russo September 21, 2001 Page Two A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included. in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8)(b) which are effective July 1,200 1, and providing a model sign -in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. Please contact Valerie M. James, Planner H, or Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager, at (850) 487 -4545, if you need additional assistance. Sincerely, Q�Gike McDaniel owth Management Administrator MM/ vmj � cc: Mr. Charles K. Wu, AICP, Growth Management Director Mr. Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Florida Department of Transportation JEB BUSH 3400 WEST CONNIERCIAL BOULEVARD GOVERNOR FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 -3421 TELEPHONE: (954) 7774593; FAX: (954) 777 -4197 DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PRODUCTION Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 3 23 99-2 100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: ' D Pug J� q loe , August 22, l5 l� t5R d r., ; U -- AM 2Q2001 PM BSP t PLAN PROCESSING TEPM ! SUBJECT: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment ORC Review Local Government: City of Palm Beach Gardens DCA Amendment 9 01 -2 THOMAS F. BARRY, JR. SECRETARY The Department has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Enclosed are objections, recommendations and comments regarding the proposed amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process. If you have any comments or questions about this letter, please contact me at (954) 777 -4490. Sincerely, Gerry O'Reill , P:E. Acting Director Planning & Production GO:ts Enclosures cc: B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R Wilburn, DCA N. Bungo, FDOT 4 L. Hymowitz, FDOT 4 File: 4270.02 www.dot.state.fl.us ® RECYCLED PAPER DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) OBJECTION: This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and. 31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non- residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. o The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. o The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 -25) have identified. that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand f6r highways that have.exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed -use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.006(5) CONTINUED: RECOMMENDATION:' The City should maintain current allowable mixed land use designation that encourages an attractive, functional mix of uses and maximizes the use of existing and future public facilities and services. The City should arrange the future land uses surrounding the planned interchange at Central Boulevard and I -95 to provide the mixed -use neighborhoods and the preferred development form discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, and create a sense of community for its residents. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Larry H_ymowitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo 2 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: RULE DEFICIENCY Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) OBJECTION: The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low - density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.006(5)(h) through (5)0) provide the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low- intensity, low-density, or single -use; 2) . Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services; — 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. (Continued) DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: Planning Department NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Palm Beach Gardens DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 7/16/01 DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: 7/20/01 REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: 8/22/01 ELEMENT: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Element and Support Documentation DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J- 5.006(5)(b) 9J5.006(5)(k) 9J- 5.005(5)(a) Continued: RECOMMENDATION: The City should encourage community- oriented patterns of development and redevelopment that are characterized by a network of streets, configured in a grid pattern, with multiple routes for intra - community trips and alternate routes for external travel. Such patterns of development should foster a functional mix of uses that reduce vehicle trip lengths and increase internalization of traffic. The existing land use arrangement has the ability to result in a reduction of trip ends on both PGA Boulevard, and the PGA Boulevard/I -95 interchange, which are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the adopted LOS standard. I -95 and the PGA Boulevard interchange are facilities of critical State concern. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Larry_ Hymowitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo I.1 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: ELEMENT: RULE DEFICIENCY: Ordinance 20, 2001 Future Land Use Map DCA Amendment No. 01 -2 Planning Department City of Palm Beach Gardens 7/16/01 7/20/01 8/22/01 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b) . 9J- 5.019(3)(d) COMMENT: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard and the I- 95/PGA Boulevard interchange that are both projected to contain volumes that\exceed capacity at the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low - density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on. the FIRS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the objective preparation of the IJR. REVIEWED BY: Terry Scheckwitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Larry Hymowitz, AICP REVIEWED BY: Nancy Bungo PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 PHONE: 954- 777 -4490 DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 7ffice of the Secretary Office of International Relations 'r Division of Elections E Division of Corporationst Division of Cultural Affairs y� Division of Historical Resources •icon Division of Library and Information Services Division of Licensing wS Division of Administrative services FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Katherine Harris Secretary of State DMSION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET State Board of Education Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Administration Commission Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Siting Board Division of Bond Finance Department of Revenue Department of Law Enforcement Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Department of Veterans' Affairs Mr. Ray Eubanks August 21, 2001 Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard �� ,(� Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 ' Re: Historic Preservation Review of the City of Pa Beach Gardens (01 -2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request (Received by DHR on 07/20/01) Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the above document to decide if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. We have reviewed one proposed Future Land Use Map amendment in conjunction with two amendments to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Conceptual Linkages Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the city's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Palm Beach Gardens. In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets (although known and potential historic resources need to be carefully considered in the planning phases of proposed land use changes) the State of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J -5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing known and potentially significant historical resources in Palm Beach Gardens. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp or Laura Kammerer of the Division's Compliance Review staffat.(850) 245 -6333. Sincerely, D AM 3 20 Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director Division of Historical Resources . *, oNumr. � s TEAM A . JSM/smh 500 S. Bronough Street •Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 • http: / /wvvw.nheritage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research I/ Historic Preservation O Historical Museums (850) 245 -6300 • FAX: 245 -6435 (850) 245 -6444 - FAX: 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333 • FAX: 245 -6437 (850) 245 -6400 • FAX: 245 -6433 O Palm Beach Regional Office O St. Augustine Regional Office O Tampa Regional Mee (561) 279 -1475 • FAX: 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 825 -5044 (813) 272 -3843 • FAX: 272 -2340 Jeb Bush Governor Department of Environmental Protecti Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 August 23, 2001 p 9 W 9 U W g 282W1 I ■ M t., �i7inMr... Re: Proposed Amendment to the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan, DCA 01 -2 Dear Mr. Eubanks: David B. Struhs Secretary The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above - referenced amendment under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, . Florida Statutes, and Chapters 9J5 and 9J11, Florida Administrative Code. Our comments and recommendations are provided to assist your agency in developing the state's response. Comments: Parcels 31.08 and 31.11: It is recommended that the applicant consult with the FFWCC regarding the relocation of gopher tortoises. It is understood that the applicant is working with the South Florida Water Management District to secure the necessary Environmental Resource Permits and resolve mitigation issues with this project. Please call me at (850) 487 -2231 if you have any questions regarding this response. Sincerely, Robert W. Hall Office of Intergovernmental Programs "More Protection, Less Process" Printed on recycled paper. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 • (561) 686 -8800 FL WATS 1 -800- 432 -2045 TDD (561) 697 -2574 • -0�r Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 334164680 • www.sfwmd.g � M 9 W D U AUG 2 4 2001 GOV 08 -28 RPM BSP PLAN PROCESSING TEAM August 22, 2001 W Ray Eubanks, Program Administrator Plan Review and DRI Processing Team ?j'l Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments City of Palm Beach Gardens, DCA# 01 -2 The South Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document and we. have no adverse comments. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (561) 682 -6779. Sincerely, P.K. Sharma, AICP Lead Planner Water Supply Planning & Development Department PKS /ml c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Charles Wu, Palm Beach Gardens Roger Wilburn, DCA GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Trudi K. Williams, Chair Michael Collins Patrick J. Gleason, Ph.D., P.G. Henry Dean, Executive Director Lennart E. Lindahl, Vice -Chair Hugh M. English Nicol-As J. Gutierrez, Jr., Esq. Pamela Brooks - Thomas Gerardo B. Fernandez Harklev R. Thornton Fis TREAS=URE COAST REZNA: ;P I:A:NNING COUN CIL INDIAN = RI_yER M'A -RTY'N - PALM -BEACH - _._ST. `U-U -CIE` _ -- -- July 31, 2001 Mr. Charles Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: This is to acknowledge the receipt of materials pertaining to the above- referenced amendments on July 16, 2001. Staff anticipates presenting its report and recommended comments to Council at the regular meeting of August 17, 2001. Pursuant to Section. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, a written report including any objections, recommendations for modification, and comments will be submitted to you by August 22, 2001. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Terry L. ess, AICP Planning Director TLHIgg "Bringing Communities Together" Est. 1976 301 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 300 - Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - SC 269 -4060 - Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - adminQtctnc_.ore 1� As - TRE= ASTJRE_IC OAST RGI, „R � . Ai: „PLAN_NIN,O.UNCIL i - I7ND.IAN�. Rh - - BEACH' "SIB L'`UCIE August 17, 2001 J Mr. Charles Gauthier Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Subject: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments — DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Dear Mr. Gauthier: Council has reviewed the above - referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Council's adopted plans, policies, and review procedures. Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by Council at its regular meeting on August 17, 2001 pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Please note that Council made revisions to the staff report at the August 17 meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Terry L. ess, AICP Planning Director TLWwh Attachment "Bringing Communities Together” • Est. 1976 301 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 300 - Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone (561) 221 -4060 - rG b9__-�.,060;> Fax (561) 221 -4067 - E -mail - adminrtcr.oc,ora TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members From: Staff Date: August 17, 2001 Council Meeting u[1 AUG NL 2 3 2001 AGENDA ITEM 8A Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 01 -2 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests the DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then Council must provide the DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification, and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Background The City of Palm Beach Gardens is proposing one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment and text amendments to the Transportation Element of its comprehensive plan.. The City has requested that the DCA prepare an ORC Report. Evaluation The FLUM amendment proposed by the City is for two parcels totaling 80.5 acres located along the west side of I -95, north and south of Central Boulevard (see attached maps in Exhibit A). The landowner seeking the FLUM amendment also requested and the City has proposed the following text/map amendments to the City's Transportation - Element: 1) the deletion of the Roadway #18 (Ballen Isles Extension) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); 2) the deletion of a segment of Roadway #12 (117th Court North) from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit B); and 3) the deletion of a portion of a parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan (see Exhibit B). Finally, in a location further to the north, the same landowner has requested and the City has proposed to delete a portion of Roadway #15 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (see Exhibit C). These amendments are summarized in more detail in the following. A. Future Land Use Map Amendment (Ordinance #20) This amendment is for two parcels of land ( 01.08, #31.11) that are part of a larger tract (Parcel #31) proposed for a Planned Community Development (PCD). The entire tract totals 656 acres, and is to be developed, according to the City, as a very low density single- family project known as the "Parcel 31 Golf Course Community." The development is to have 450 luxury homes. The_ amendment parcels (31.9 and 48.6 acres respectively) are vacant, as are most of the surrounding lands. The current land use designation on the amendment parcels is Mixed Use. They are part of a large area in the vicinity of the Central Boulevard/1 -95 crossing' envisioned in the existing plan as a center for mixed -use and high and medium density residential development. The proposed FLUM designation is Residential High (RH), a designation that allows between 10 and 15 dwelling units per acre, depending on density bonus. The City defines the RH designation as one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens." It allows up to ten dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate mass transit facilities in the future." Surrounding properties are vacant, although the northern tip of Parcel #31.1 touches the Westwood Gardens residential subdivision that lies adjacent to and south of Hood Road. Surrounding FLUM designations are RH to the south and west and Mixed Use across I- 95 to the north and east. The ability of the City to permit development in this area is currently limited because of Level of Service constraints on PGA Boulevard. Otherwise, according to the City, public facilities are available to serve this site within adopted levels of service. As part of the materials submitted with the amendment package,--the City included a copy of a Forbearance Agreement, dated April 15, 1999. This agreement, made between the City and a number of landowners, defines the terms under which development can occur. 2 As a result of the anticipated acceleration of development proposals due to of the sale of the MacArthur Foundation Lands, the City staff recommended the adoption of a six - month moratorium to allow the City to adequately address the effects of the anticipated acceleration of development. Communities Finance Company, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc. and new owner of much of the former MacArthur lands, took the initiative to draft a Forbearance Agreement in order to avoid a moratorium. This agreement, which has now expired, sets forth the terms for the timing of development review for the various properties of the signatories. An exhibit to the agreement also sets forth the limitation on development for each property, necessitated by the City's traffic level of service problems. Although the Forbearance Agreement has expired, City staff has indicated that the terms of the agreement continue as deed restrictions on the various properties. B. Text Amendments 1. Those relating directly to the FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #23 )—There are three deletions proposed to the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and Linkage Plan. These Plans have been adopted by the City to identify where future streets and parkways are to be located in order to serve the future needs of the City. Since the proposed developed of Parcel 31 is to be as a, gated, private, golf - course community, the City proposes to make deletions to these plans. Roadway #18, intended to link PGA Boulevard to a future extension of 117`h Court North is to be deleted completely from the Thoroughfare Plan. A segment of Roadway #12 (117`h Court) from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted (both of these deletions are shown.in Exhibit B). Lastly, since it is to be an exclusive, gated, private development, the parkway link from Central Boulevard to the Florida Turnpike is also to be deleted. The City traffic engineers recommended denial of the proposed deletion of both roadway segments because the links could direct traffic away from PGA Boulevard. However, the City Planning staff disagreed, characterizing the planned roadways as local connectors that wouldn't provide relief for PGA Boulevard, and that were never intended as significant city streets because they were not extended to Hood and Donald Ross Roads. The staff concludes that the elimination of these segments and link is justifiable and reasonable. No negative impacts are anticipated to other roadways or pedestrian links. Also, none of the segments are part of the Central City Linkage Plan and therefore do not affect the City's proposal to designate a portion of PGA Boulevard as a Constrainted Roadway at a Lower Level of Service (CRALLS). 2. Deletion of Segment of Roadway 915 (Ordinance #24) —On the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (MAP O), Roadway 15 is shown as a future connection between Donald Ross Road and Alternative AlA (see Exhibit_ The proposed amendment would delete the segment from Military Trail to 3 Alternate AIA.. The City gives two reasons for this proposed deletion. First; the roadway would bisect a 266 acre parcel in single ownership. The parcel is vacant, but a site plan for development of the property as a PCD has already been submitted to the City. Secondly, the City indicates that this segment is unlikely to be completed because it would require a crossing of the FEC Railline. A copy of a letter from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division is provided by the City that concurs with this conclusion. The City staff concludes that this proposed amendment is reasonable and acceptable because the roadway would disrupt the proposed development and require future residents to cross a public road to reach some of the PCD amenities. Furthermore, the link is not part of the City Center Linkage Plan and would not affect level of service on any segment of the City's transportation network. Analysis Much of the land in northeastern Palm Beach County has been developed in the classic pattern of suburban sprawl. Single -use, low density residential developments cover large areas. These developments are often gated and isolated from the rest of the community. These private, gated developments prevent the establishment of a complete and interconnected public street system. All traffic loads onto a few major arterials. Because' the limited entry/exit points for these gated developments require traffic to funnel to one location, there are severe congestion points on the arterial roadways. Commercial development is allowed at only a few locations and are typically only accessible from the arterial roadway network. These arterials also become traffic congestion problem areas. Building and servicing development in this fashion is entirely inconsistent with the pattern of development encouraged in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) that calls for a well connected assembly of neighborhoods and districts with a complete mix of land uses and a complete and interconnected public street system that provides for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic with accommodation for public transit. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recognized the problems created by this sprawling development pattern for some time. The City was instrumental in getting representatives from municipalities in the north county area to meet for a two day "North Palm Beach County /Southern Martin County Planning Forum, ". held on :August 26 -28, 1993. At the. conclusion of this forum, a non- binding policy statement was approved on future development patterns, transportation and other matters. Some of the conclusions made as part of the policy statement were 1) the need for additional modes of transit to supplement the auto; 2) the need for more of a modified corridor /multi- centers form of development; and 3) the need for regulatory and procedural changes to ensure that the pattern of development would change. The City took the initiative to follow up on this forum by holding several "visioning" sessions in 1994 in order to determine the preferred characteristics of the community. In 1995, the City appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to create a specific vision for the El future of the City. The Committee established a series of preferred land use scenarios for the future of the City. The final draft of the vision became "Our Vision - A Strategic Plan" adopted by the City on December 5, 1996. This document is now used as a policy statement and planning tool. Some of the policies from "Our Vision" are incorporated into the City Mission Statement in its comprehensive plan. The City staff is to use the "Vision" during the preparation of special studies, updates to the comprehensive plan and modifications to the land development regulations. A map was created as part of the "Vision" document. It shows the area of the subject FLUM amendment as one for mixed - use /residential development. In order to address the lack of capacity in part of its roadway system and because of the sense of urgency created as a result of the MacArthur property coming onto the market, the City took the initiative to organize a Traffic Summit that was held on March 30 and 31, 2001. According to the Report of Proceedings for the Summit, nearly 100 elected officials, local government staff, land owners, developers, state agency personnel, non- profit organization staff and others attended the summit. The summit was to "discuss traffic issues and identify planning tools for managing traffic and its related impacts," and to seek insights from across jurisdictional boundaries on broad -scale traffic problems and preferred solutions." Some of the results and key problems identified at the summit were that: 1) there are not enough roads and not enough interconnections between roads; 2) suburban sprawl is creating much longer trips; 3) we are allowing too much development . despite level of service standards; 4) there is a lack of intergovernmental coordination; and 5) there are deficiencies in mass transit. The Proceedings indicated that traffic problems identified at the summit fall into five categories. The. top problem in each category was: 1) lack of connectivity; 2) gated communities with single- entry; 3) connectivity problems; 4) use of a countywide level of service standard that encourages sprawl; and 5) a lack of funding for transit. The land use and transportation problems in the City of Palm Beach Gardens specifically and in the north county area in general have been clearly identified during the initiatives summarized above. They include land use imbalances, the lack of a complete, interconnected street system and the lack of alternatives to frequent, long-distance automobile trips. As the following objections and comments indicate, the City's proposed amendments are not consistent with the City's vision, not consistent with solutions identified for multijurisdictional problems, and not consistent'with the SRPP. Extrajurisdictional Impacts These amendments were reviewed. through the Palm Beach Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Process. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received regarding the proposed amendments. However, letters of concern were received from Commissioner Marcus, Palm Beach County and Mayor Golonka, Town of Jupiter (see attached). W, Effects on Significant Regional Resources or Facilities An analysis of the proposed amendments indicates that as a result of the amendments there may be unnecessary impacts to the regional roadway system. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments A. Objections 1. None B. Comments FLUM Amendment (Ordinance #20) 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods.. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed -use overlay to. promote a mix of community - serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the. comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed use /residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses I -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi- family residential development. The effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 %2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mi -x of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SRPP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and communities should contain a balanced, well - planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major. arterials -to__ _ town and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network to connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area, This would provide C'1 services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury (S 1 million and up) single- family detached golf course community for the entire 656 acre Parcel 31, to include the 80.5 acre subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall developed density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment areas or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for this property would be the City's Residential Very Low (RVL), deft ed as "predominantly single - family detached residential development up to 1.0 d elling unit per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resourc s and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing units to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low income households through 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments. which allows a l maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. According to the City plan, the provision of affordable housing ' is entirely the responsibility of the private sector. In order to encourage the private sector to provide such housing, the City has designated certain areas as Mixed Use and High Density. The elimination of the Mixed Use designation from the subject properties, and the apparent abandonment of the entire area from its proposed use for high and medium density, multi - family housing (consistent with the City vision) will have a negative effect on the City's statutory responsibility to ensure that there is affordable housing in the City for its low and moderate income residents. Furthermore, many of the areas the City has designated for high density residential use (to address the affordable housing deficit) may now be developed at a much lower density, as a result of the Forbearance Agreement. The City should prepare an analysis of the effect this 7 amendment and other density reductions will have on its ability to ensure that a range of housing types and affordabilites is available to meet its needs (and projected deficits). Now that 2000 Census data is available, the City can determine if deficits have increased or decreased and if additional strategies are necessary to meet its goals. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. Text Amendments (Ordinance 23 and 24) 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of an adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan and a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic Division Office indicating that they do „not object because the roadways would provide little diversion from the major roadways; no analysis has been provided of the number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. 'The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for r the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the { recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictably spaced and interconnected east -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local travel on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum recommended the creation of additional linkages and improved connectivity in the area. These amendments will reduce.linkages and decrease connectivity. _ The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12, and 18 from the conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of :. neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network becomes more dense, more - interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It also should include the interconnection of r1 public streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the ability of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the no impact conclusion based? 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these elements with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a . mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods of development. Furthermore, the City should recognize that areas proposed for low density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 0 uenerat Location Map City of Palm Beach Gardens ' INOIANTDWN A PITER• " J&M)ue, 1A4r M A OF Y BJRT REYNOLDS I NEq THEATER PALM BEAC" �I PALM EACH NTERAATIDY•- �1 a 9 RAC_AtV C hTTY 11-SL GEfR SLY FLO IDA - \ ` ° 0 1 2 3 . 5MI Palm Beach _ ®.'LC o "� z h Gardens F '°°te' a n)996 DOLPH MAP CO.. INC. n c -- r -1 t, 1 1 & ONN 0. MACARTHUR \ A Q.. ) f \ STATE PARK PALM ACH BLVD I 1 GAR�NS. ss r" •No h Pslm Beach uct i•AR ( —�l 1 C •TNL•R( I o no i 0� 1 WL 0 E I I 1 "•AR Lak ,iI I I R EAC 111•V` I I I )0 a..a 1 IN ET V i L EAI I Lake WonA 111 y e L:: IAZer ° an i W ST LM P EI< f - -' rBE CH wP.6 Palm Royal - -- j �,.,egIUL'Rt(.L sa I Pelm . Beach s Beach P� ` E•L a ENRY iLAGLER Zvi ! ° • USFUM I O ) IORllree.e " ,�( 1 D °YMAY LM I, ` vE DtRt "o ° `Y1® rORTO)1 Heal F MIB EAC/tT {ALL OFART °yB t•{ I FERN BLVD (IMT'l Alq ?ORT STATE Cr Ri � epb 1 i "lOR10t O I• o Wellln F On ROUND S,_,T 1 IN R ►AR[ ZOO \. �, 1 FOREST HI ( BLVD I 1 I tO Make a Shores ul Dos Palr Is - L, Spn gs I ' GRE NACR CITY. � ! LAKE WORTH' E WORTH RD -"( o PAL YB N 1 _ ,000N en of LANTANA AUeaT6 RD ° All P I 1`11111,111 !•aei W `\ - 1`11111,111 tl \ Avg I La na LOXAHATCHEE NATIONAL `\ HvPOLUX0I RD 1 t C7 WILDLIFE REFUGE `\ $ � E,L A •I cc W > !BDVNTON 0 e V' t TON BEACH v Oma RwP W CONSERVATION AREA NO.1 L ~ ; _ DELRAY �f w ATLANT%S J 0 BEACH pELRArs T RAINING INT ) ' ( tl CENTER I ,\l t ORIKAMI M;;jFUjt of f E JA AN ESE C.' TURF I � W EVERGLADES E LINT MOORE RD Is Hia6lar F1aeh WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT I �� I D AREA — r WON A S RD ® GLADES �(111RP0 RT "Lo I NTICUNIVERSITT 9 � I'ALM TT Q ►ARMO = RD BOCA RATON iFe 6O�° z EXHIBIT A Future Land- Use Map Amendment City of Palm Beach Gardens Proposed Amendment 2032001 27726 -s72:. )57 zo A HOOD ROAD uj IS) A/ < PARCEL 31 cr_ H < _j 6- PROJECT SITE 34 355 6 21 1 Cf < % H H < (t F- LLJ I PGA BOULEVARD 11 12 NOT TO SCALE O - - a o C u no. x :A HOOD RD. 3 l+r" �ql '. � .� t• • - EAGLE WOODRVFI•a .� 9`.,g G A ®1j CIR LA • V[G.[T - C: ' EAGLE LAKE OR IL I r l PLtNT 34 MM ®. rss 95 O 36 5 PARCEL 31.111 CAMPCRULlYD A1A 37 `sA ISLAND ? HOLI AY RO C N ® � GULL AD 4p n PARCEL 1 $ PARCE L .OS 8 4 FLORIDA-( ad Q q •' ` EVERGLADES 31.01 �, _ DUN S Z R = > a N v: FIAE DEP CATA- f Lr,y d �" �• CAPq R o L a5 R 42 E ®a BAHAM4q Q DA = DOGE iNDENII--..AV- ATIANTiCI W R i 9 y P q= m W ~ Vl CA AV. m ED G 1 E N m j= ER 1 1- SHAD ! 2,5 CIR N a x 2. SHA "UiS CIR S 9EAUMONTa ?NW 01) A J. QUA . UE N 117 CT N s \ GAADENS •l� 4.1 A RIDGES W HORNE W BEECH I _ I S. PIN 1LLT ,:,I, _ Nm S AV> i. . Rp S�' U �p acv t .�::a;... 7. W ERINC' 75 \i;!'.�� LL �,OaPJ 1O .GARDEN. OLLOW 1 INCHES`f:A'¢ . �. SPICE OR _ tt 2. NUTMEG OR 7 S N'. _PG r. ]. PEPPERCORN 57 ,Iwtr. t j. S Y GARDEN _ I��'� 10b •�- j�lq` 4. TARREGON LAC? o • S. CURRY DR c - _ o 6. CELERY LA U BENT 2 4 z> P D CO. 1 7. THYME OR 7RFE Op , LAKES CIR <. COUR 4! 9.MARJORAM OR e Ian .OI{4(e" 9. PARSLEY LA 5 iyA OEI� 10. PAPRIKA LA t S e I0 > m w y(E6 OR F Oq. l'- - 11'- CAYENNE. LIT.. R 3 o a .11 I P w .-.CHT f . • BE PGA O BLVD LW a � l ^SESAME ST' SQ5 1 S I > 1 RC WICKFp S ..�. ON me !: H•7„ N CARLISLE Ci O'� el.� 6R EEy •••�� '- •• '-a- SANG7•F.•W0 y oac sri a P C SUTHERLAND _ 2 .. `'-� .. = _ \ •- . IAfAM -O AIR WA PIA7a. I • � 1 'Pal r PLANT I ��ftT��A},,.N�_GIEYV000 S n•KK +INDUSiR1A1, v- �Ga1 P• ti's :''p 1 I ti ,. •�� _ �LtlAN e[t Of CONlrLQC[ ' i Cw r. aQ P F`-: a 1 /- 1 .. - w r [Tr• ARJt.. T11 - - -- -r CLfNG .CORNS 11 7 `. I , B, -q�C� l4; r ��I/ %1 -� -/. - T�'a.Z? 9VCKEYE`\ P '`' ^�, —_ DO" '•. Au ENTE 6 - • . ...P: � -' �`1` e�l}( ,%1 - �• - �0. � tie:.. y� _ w _ cl• E. vnUnFS c 1 a' :' tv ^ IC R .i �_ 1�... ItI� .�.� J( �I(,.rtJ.1r, 9 •—\ W ¢ _ y y ,L Sdi1 . 2 ,r.. _ �. •:.r RD � �� \a7 A 1�\ �' t_�B =L�. � q.�``* • .,., Z Q w ? o � Z p 6� 00 DR � . +n ttsliiYi ---+ ORq IrrL�� -/'�' -i ^ { N ' Q I . \`• ••` -• 2i - HOL iA:. �.r^?� 4 a - •< a y . `� �• ` LAKES4 "AFINATI N IR ^� <• LG�P G CIR a SIR 5 rl• _ cc _ 3 �'� F.t i �" it; E►Gg 1 J FUV( » CIR S JON s '� O Z •'s�. c_ - 2 'j•r OR: .13 /. a25. zs.; I NbCINTH IR� tCIRN .p �P. 06, F' �. ..1. �' ,a ���. 'i.i , y, �/ a11. _• II�N HEAT• r 9 TTERC T AVE � Get'T P9 C uLUEDELL O i'OSMOS b; Y 4• 4 F.,< Z,•� Rr ` BAR \ . ��°`�, _ EIGHTH VSE a O a 1 � i tK P r 1-QQf " P�f`'C-''C�A1i 1 .. •17 � . uC�� - .. 2, L/29 .24 �� �3 M PR1 ESWS AY: CT B6GQN CY$A ,. L VE � F SI O El ST.fOpODOERS O_h- N�- �(T�'^•+.=egEOfORb �a`!`a �^• N'. - � S.. j �' AWNRID S Oq o • P ?ARKIANE a�� t � t R'ESTDALE ST w a' - H 9 O iE % 'vN Y`�i'9 i /�L. �vS� \2. 10 r°IZI 30 =0. �rl . CRFST N Rill RE S7 ¢ u,e otirTNrmr pa. .4iGDLFyr OF�,,;p 70N. -eSS 'Cdi 3AN OB •- W . q �N CIR l� Q OR Jss� < T N o 9 oR 3 3 Je w m, O e GRO ¢ p �E 7 COT° .," PALL I.CO( OSHA AVON O ' 9157 jSVnt 7 1.. 4i AXRCELS 31.08 & 31.11 CQMPIRIE [ENSIVE 4.ND USE AMENDMENT & kRCEL 31.01 TEXT AMENDMENT _M BEACH GARDENS, FL NTS UDS Job #: 99- 084.10 )CATION MAP Date: December 1 1 2000 Staff Rebuttal to FDOT and TCRPC FDOT Comments: 1. This proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map changes two parcels (Parcels 31.08 and 31.11) totaling 80 acres, from Mixed Use to Residential High land use designation. The proposed amendment changes 80 acres from a mixed land use category with requirements for non - residential uses, to a large single -use (residential, private golf course) development; thereby perpetuating the undesirable development pattern identified as unsustainable in the Transportation Element Data and Analysis (page 2 -17). The parcels are located on the north- and south -west quadrants of I -95 and Central Boulevard. The Department has identified inconsistencies between the proposed land use amendment and the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Element Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. The Future Land Use Support Documents (page 1 — 25) have identified that a regional growth pattern of low density, single use developments creates demand for highways that have exceeded government's ability to meet expanded capacity requirements. The City's analysis recognizes that mixed - use neighborhoods and development forms identified in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan are strategies to limit sprawl, promote efficient delivery of services, protect natural resources and create a sense of community. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed land use amendment takes approximately 8,500- 12,000 average daily trips off the road network. This proposed modification would in fact create fewer trips and lower the demand on highways which would offset any increases on auto dependency and vehicle miles traveled. If there were fewer vehicles on the road, the demand for more roads is reduced. The City has already established development patterns that encourage a mix of uses in key areas, so as it limit road trips on the network. Projects such as PGA Commons, Legacy Place and the Regional Center are all developments that encourage a localized arrangement of various uses. The City Center Linkage Plan has also been put in place to provide the alternate routing of traffic. Also, approximately 175 acres of land still remains mixed -use within the City. 2. The proposed amendment exacerbates the preexisting indicators of urban sprawl, which are recognized by the City in its Future Land Use Element data and analysis. A low density residential use on 80 acres furthers urban sprawl and is not effective or cost efficient for the provision of transportation or transit facilities. The Transportation Element, Support Documents (page 2 -17) indicate low density, scattered development patterns in the region aggravate the sprawl concerns by increasing auto dependency, vehicle trips, trip lengths, vehicle miles traveled, and ultimately, the demand for more and larger highways. In addition, the data and analysis provided in support of this proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map does not address whether the proposed plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl based on the standards contained in Subsection 9J- 5.006(5). Subsections 9J5.005(5)(h) through (5)(j) provided the methodology for determining the presence of urban sprawl indicators. To discourage urban sprawl accomplishes many related planning objectives. The Department is concerned the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing 80 acres from the MXD Land Use category to the RH Land Use category, exhibits the following urban sprawl indicators: 1) Designation of substantial areas of development as low- intensity, low - density, or single -use; 2) Fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services; 3) Fails to maximize the use of future public facilities and services; and 4) Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Staff Rebuttal: The proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan does not create or indicate urban sprawl: 1) Parcel 31 only contains a total of 80 acres of mixed -use out of the total 650 -acre parcel. The mixed -use component is only 12% of this project. The parcel is also located within the Urban Service Boundary and will contain, residential, golf course and open space uses. The parcel is also deed restricted which allows a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre, which is compatible with the adjacent, existing development. 2) & 3) The proposed amendment will utilize the City's public facilities and services. In fact, the amendment will help to alleviate the demand on the City's public facilities and services by developing at a low density, which will serve to lessen the amount of City services. 4) The City has established a wide range of functional and mixed -uses across the street from this subject parcel by approving PGA Commons. Also, less than one mile from this property, there are two other mixed -use development that are approved. The City has done an outstanding job in mixing commercial uses with the residential developments that will be serving them. 3. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and Palm Beach County have recently agreed to include the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) in a Settlement Agreement for the PGA CRALLS amendment that will attempt to provide a mitigation opportunity for the impacts of the PGA CRALLS amendment on PGA Boulevard and the I -95 /PGA Boulevard interchange. The interchange is a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), which is a facility of critical state concern. The intention of the IJR is to determine the feasibility of an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard to divert vehicular trips from PGA Boulevard interchange that are both PA projected to contain volumes that exceed capacity a the adopted level of service standard. The proposed land use amendment exacerbates adjacent low- density patterns of development in the vicinity of the area proposed to be studied in the IJR and will likely influence the feasibility outcome. The Department recommends that the City keep the current future land use arrangement on the Future Land Use Map to maintain the future possibility of allowing mixed -use development. This arrangement or pattern of land use enables vehicular trip attractions, trip diversion, and trip internalization to occur in proximity to the potential interchange, supports reduced impacts on the FIHS and PGA Boulevard, and does not impede the object preparation of the IJR. Staff Rebuttal: The development of this parcel is limited by the Forbearance Agreement and the available road capacity. The resulting reduction in trips will not interfere with the regional need for the interchange. TCRPC Recommendations: 1. According to its adopted vision, the City will encourage a mix of uses in the development of new neighborhoods. Strategies are to include: 1) utilization of a mixed use overlay to promote a mix of community- serving uses within the neighborhood, 2) the mixed -use overlay is to be applied to large, vacant tracts in the City's eastern area, and 3) the mixed -use overlay is to be implemented via the comprehensive plan and future land use map. The subject area of the FLUM amendment was specifically identified in the "Vision" as a location for mixed -use residential development. Subsequently, the City's FLUM was revised to include a node of mixed -use and high - density residential development where Central Boulevard crosses I -95. According to materials included with the amendment, this and surrounding areas are to include multi - family residential development. This effect of this FLUM amendment will be to create a 1 1/2 square mile enclave of residential development. The nearest commercial services to these units are along PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, requiring all residents to travel on a major arterial. Even with the proposed low density development (according to the City) of Parcel 31, there will be at least 3500 dwelling units in this enclave area that are not served by commercial development. This will add to the existing traffic problems in the area. The City appears to be abandoning a good plan that includes a compatible mix of land uses with the potential for neighborhoods to be connected to shopping without accessing the major arterial roadways. Council's SRPP encourages the formation of sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Policy 6.1.1.1 states, in part, that neighborhoods and communities should contain a balanced, well - planned, compatible mix of land uses. Also Policy 7.1.2.6 encourages the redirection of development patterns from major arterials to town and neighborhood centers along collectors and minor arterials. 3 Council believes that the mixed -use land use designation for these parcels should be maintained and efforts made by the City to develop a local roadway network to connect the residential neighborhoods to this mixed -use area. This would provide services to the area residents and may help reduce local trips on the major arterials within the area. The goal should be to create an integrated balanced mix of land uses that will promote the development of a more efficient and serviceable community and help alleviate traffic problems within the North County area. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has approved and is in the process of approving a variety of mixed use and commercial developments to service the existing and future residents of the City. The Mixed -Use projects include PGA Commons, Legacy Place, Parcel 4.02/4.04 and substantial projects within the Regional Center which are less than a mile away from Parcel 31. In addition, there are existing commercial nodes, that are also in close proximity, that will service this project, such as PGA Commons, which has recently opened and is directly across the street from Parcel 31. The City has also implemented a City Center Linkage Plan that will help to distribute traffic off the major arterials and funnel traffic into the mixed use and commercial developments. The City is still in control of approximately _ acres, across from Parcel 31, that contains a mixed -use designation, which could also service this area. The City of Palm Beach Gardens has balanced and applied several mixed -use developments in key areas within the City. This land use change is consistent with the City's Vision Plan and Comprehensive Plan which provides the freedom and ability to allow the City to contain a variety of housing types, particularly the kinds of housing that serve to decrease the impact to the roadway network. This proposed change in land use will help to reduce the total impact by approximately 8,500 - 12,000 trips. 2. The proposed RH designation is puzzling, somewhat, misleading, and inappropriate for the development proposed for Parcel 31. The City staff indicates that they are currently reviewing a development proposal for a 450 unit, luxury ($1 million and up) single- family subject FLUM amendment. Thus, the overall development density would be much less than one dwelling unit per acre. Yet, the City's definition of the RH, FLUM designation is one "intended to assist the private sector in providing affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens. It allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre and is primarily located adjacent to major employment area or contiguous to major arterials which may accommodate main transit facilities in the future." The City's rational for the RH designation is that it is consistent with adjacent lands, all of which are vacant. Council would suggest that a more appropriate and applicable designation for the property would be The City's Residential Very Low (RVL), defined as "predominantly single - family detached residential development up to 1.0 dwelling units per acre." Clustering is allowed to preserve open space and natural resources and large planned communities are permissible in RVL. The RH designation is not appropriate for the intended use of the property. Staff Rebuttal: When approached with the application, we contemplated the appropriate land use category for the amendment. Since the adjacent parcel consisted of a land use designation of Residential High, we felt it would be the most appropriate to make this subject area consistent with this residential land use category. Since the property contains a deed restriction that restricts the entire parcel to develop at a total of 3 dwelling units /acre, staff felt comfortable with the Residential High designation. Furthermore, since the reduction of trips, units and other impacts was decreased significantly with the Residential High designation, we felt that this land use category was the most appropriate. Therefore, choosing another land use category that had lower thresholds would not be consistent with the surrounding properties. 3. The Housing Element Support Document of the City of Palm Beach Garden's Comprehensive Plan projects a significant need for affordable housing needs to the year 2010 and beyond. The deficit estimates are derived from the University of Florida Shimberg Center Affordable Housing Needs Assessment updated with City building permit and personal and household income data. The City's Housing Element asserts that serious attention needs to be given to providing for affordable housing especially for very low and low- income households though 2015. City Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.3.5 provides for a density bonus program for Planned Community Development's and Planned Unit Developments which allows a maximum density of 15.0 dwelling units per acre. Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has recently approved several developments which offer a broad range of housing types. Both fee simple, rental housing types and even an assisted and independent living facilities have been approved in recent months to provide for a wide range of income types. The proposed low - density development for Parcel 31 is also encouraged by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision Plan by adding to the range of housing type. This development is also compatible with the neighboring community of Ballen Isles, which offers a lifestyle option that is different than other communities within the City. Similar communities to Parcel 31, can also be found in the Town of Jupiter, such as the Bear's Club, which also offers a low density, golf course lifestyle. These developments help to create diversity to the marketplace and allow the City of Palm Beach Gardens to offer a broad range of housing options. 4. According to information recently received by Council, long range plans are being considered for an I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard. During its review of development proposals in the interchange area, the City should consider the possibility that a future interchange may be necessary in this area. G Staff Rebuttal: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has Central Boulevard as a designated interchange within its Comprehensive Plan. Based on this, we acknowledge that there may be a future interchange in this area, however, the funding and design of such an interchange is done by FDOT. The Thoroughfare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan do not prevent the interchange. In addition, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division provided a letter of support to the Thoroughfare amendments. 5. In recognition of the problems that have occurred in some areas of the City because of the lack of adequate, interconnected street system, the City adopted both a Conceptual Linkage Plan so that these problems might be eliminated or at least reduced in areas of the City yet to be developed. The City defends the proposed deletions to these plans as being necessary because of the exclusive nature of the proposed developments where there is a single owner and access will be strictly controlled (developments to be gated). Furthermore, these deletions are to be made without alternatives added to the Plan to replace what is being deleted. Although the City provides a supporting letter from the County Traffic Division Office indicating that they do not object because the roadways would provide little diversion from the major roadways, no analysis has been provided of the number of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The deletion of roadways that are presently part of the proposed network of streets for the City is not consistent with the Council's SRPP and the recommendations of the recent North County Traffic Forum sponsored by the City. Policy 7.1.2.5 of the SRPP encourages the development of a regional roadway system of predictability spaced and interconnected cast -west, north -south streets. Ideally these streets should be spaced every one - quarter to one -half mile to offer multiple route choices, disperse traffic, and discourage local traffic on interstates and arterials. The North County Traffic Forum lead recommended the creation of additional trips that must load onto the arterial roads as a result of the elimination of the planned public street network in these areas. The City should not delete proposed roadway links 15, 12 and 18 for the conceptual thoroughfare map and table. These roadways should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan for the City to maintain the potential for future connectivity of neighborhoods and districts both within and outside the boundaries of the City. The City should make efforts to continue to develop a good local network of streets to provide for better connectivity within the and outside the City boundaries. This should include looking for opportunities to add more public collectors and local streets to the Thoroughfare Plan so that the City's street network becomes more dense, more interconnected and traffic is dispersed. It should include the interconnection of pubic streets in the City with those in adjoining Cities. An example of this would be aligning the northern terminus of roadway #15 at Donald Ross Road with Parkside Drive in the Town of Jupiter. 6 Staff Rebuttal: The City Engineer, a County Engineer and a traffic consultant has determined that the removal of Thoroughfare #12, #15 and #18 does not effect the arterial road network. In fact, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has taken a proactive role in adopting several measures to alleviate impact to the road network. The City Center Linkage Plan, the Burns Road widening and the Alternate A I A joint developer agreement, are all ways the City has been a leader in the ensuring that the arterial road network has sufficient capacity. The proposed amendments face limitations to their ability to ability to make connection points. There are existing, physical barriers that prevent the roads from tying into other streets. Thoroughfare #12 and #18 are bound by the Florida Turnpike to the west and existing development to the east. Thoroughfare #15 is bound by the FEC Railroad to the east. The FEC Railroad will not allow a road crossing in this location. The likelihood of obtaining a crossing is virtually non - existent, since the position of the FEC is not to allow any new crossings, without removing existing crossings. This is evidenced by the Parcel 5A road which is currently attempting to get a replacement crossing for one that was removed by the PGA Flyover. The issues raised at the North County Traffic Forum are important, yet do not apply to the proposed amendments. The Forum discussed single -entry, gated communities as providing little diversion for traffic onto other arterial roads, thereby placing the burden of access on just one roadway. In both subject parcels, each community contains more than one entry point. In fact, Parcel 31 contains two entry points and Parcel 4 contains three. Both communities have provided these openings so that no one road is impacted with excess traffic. Finally, the alignment of Thoroughfare #15 at Parkside Drive can be accomplished at the time the development order is reviewed for that subject property (Brigger Tract). The City has reviewed the alignment of Parcel 4 and has required the western access point, along Military Trail to align with the adjacent development. 6. The deletion of Roadway #18 and the segment of Roadway #12 connecting to Central Boulevard from the City's Thoroughfare Plan reduces the ability of the City to provide relief for traffic on Central Boulevard. Perhaps this link should remain on the Thoroughfare Plan, as future conditions may make it important. Staff Rebuttal: Thoroughfares #12 and #18 are roads without a destination. Thoroughfare #12 dead -ends into the Florida Turnpike, which will never connect. Thoroughfare #18 diverts traffic into the dead end roadway of Thoroughfare #12. The surrounding properties are either developed, planned or restricted. Therefore, the future densities and intensities are known, which helps to understand the future traffic conditions. Data provided by Kimley -Horn demonstrates that the absence of these roads will not adversely impact the arterial road network. 7 7. The deletion of the parkway link from the Conceptual Linkage Plan eliminates the potential connection to the link lying west of the Florida Turnpike. The City's amendment materials say the amendment will not result in negative impacts to the linkage plan. Will the link be relocated? If not, on what is the impact conclusion based? Staff Rebuttal: There is no current or future need to have a pedestrian link over the Florida Turnpike. The PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard parkways will be constructed and are intended for pedestrian linkages to connect to the areas west of the Turnpike. There is no impact to either the Thoroughfare or Linkage Plan by removing this pedestrian link from the Comprehensive Plan. Existing parkways will provide the pedestrian connection. 8. Because land use and connectivity issues have been identified as issues of special interjurisdictional significance in this area, the City should make a special effort to meet with and discuss these element with any local governments to be impacted. This was apparently not done prior to transmittal, although the City did file the amendments with the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee. Letters have been received from both Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter expressing some concerns about these and other amendments. Prior to adoption, the City should meet with all local governments that have expressed concerns with these amendments, consistent with existing interlocal agreements and the spirit of cooperation that has led to a great deal of coordination between local governments in the north county area. Staff Rebuttal: These amendments, were forwarded to IPARC early in April of 2001. At that time, there were no adverse responses to the amendments. Public hearings were held in May and June of 2001, and no adverse comments were received. It was not until the City Council public hearing that we were informed that the Town of Jupiter had some concerns. In July of 2001, the City responded to them in order to address their concerns. The City of Palm Beach Gardens is also part of the North County Traffic Forum Task Group which was developed after the March forum, in order to help address some of the issues raised at that meeting. Furthermore, the City of Palm Beach Gardens entered into the interlocal agreement with the Town of Jupiter several years ago to encourage interlocal communication. We are happy to provide information to any local government on any of our proposed developments. 9. According to the City, development in many areas north of PGA Boulevard has been limited by the terms of a Forbearance Agreement and related deed restrictions. The need for such restrictions is because of the failure to plan for and build a complete and integrated public street system. Furthermore, the decision by the City to voluntarily limit development density and intensity in certain areas at this time does not alter the need for the development of sustainable new neighborhoods and communities 8 consistent with Regional Goal 6.1. Such new neighborhoods should contain a balanced, well - planned compatible mix of land uses in a compact design, with a mix of building types. If new neighborhoods are planned wisely, they can become part of the existing City, rather than isolated pods of development. Furthermore, the City should recognize that areas proposed for low- density development today are likely to be proposed for higher density redevelopment in the future. Staff Rebuttal: The intent of the Forbearance Agreement was not to address failures of the road network or development approvals, but to establish a framework and schedule in order to plan for anticipated development. At the City Council's direction, the City Center Linkage Plan, the adoption of the citywide impact fee ordinance and the other scheduled road improvements are examples of the type of strategic planning that the City utilized in planning for the future. The City has been a leader in identifying traffic impacts and providing solutions to potential traffic problems. Furthermore, there is no basis that low - density development will someday be re- developed at higher densities. In fact, the deed restrictions that were established by the Forbearance Agreement ensure that the level of development of each parcel runs with the convenant of the land and not with the ownership of the property. Therefore, the City is assured of particular densities throughout the life of a particular development. 9 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM MISC -01 -15- PARCEL 27.05/06 Sign Program Consideration for Approval: Resolution 148, 2001, a request by Kenneth Blair, on behalf of Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., to consider and approve a sign package for Parcel 27.05/06. The site plan was previously approved by Resolution 26, 2000. The site is located within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) on the north side of PGA Boulevard (Blvd.), immediately west of the Meadows Mobile Home Park. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution 148, 2001, including approval of three waivers. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: FINANCE: NA P&Z Commission Growth Management: Action: Principal Planner Steven B. Crame CP Project i1'" j C Costs: $ Total Approved [ ] PP [ ] APP• w/ conditions City Attorney Manager U [ ] Denied Ed Tombar , P $ [ X] Rec. approval Finance NA Current FY Rec. a [ ] PP• w/ conds. Human Res. NA [ ] Rec. Denial Funding Source: [ l Continued to: Submitted by: Advertised: Attachments: Growth Manage Date: Paper: O [ ]Operating g • Resolution Director_ MI k. [ ] Required [ ] Other 148, 2001 Charles K. Wu, AICP [X] Not Required Legal Description Approved by: Affected parties: Budget Acct. #: • Site Plan Elevations City Manag [ ] Notified [X] Not Required 0 None City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -15 BACKGROUND Development on the subject site was previously approved by Resolution 26, 2000 on May 4, 2000, for 179,070 square feet of multi -use development on approximately 16 acres. The entire development was approved as one phase, and consists of two retail buildings with 25,000 square feet each, two office buildings with 24,500 square feet each, one bank building with 3,420 square feet of floor area, and a three -story hotel building (118 rooms) with a 76,650 square foot floor area. The applicant is proposing major amendments to several other buildings originally approved with this site plan, including the hotel building and retail buildings and 1 and 2. Due to timing issues with the bank opening, and the fact that both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission support waivers for additional signage on Office Buildings 1 and 2, staff is recommending that the City Council take action on the proposed sign program for Office Buildings 1 and 2, as well as for the bank building. The applicant shall be required by Condition of Approval to return to City Council with a sign program for the remaining buildings, which includes Retail Buildings 1 and 2, as well as the hotel. Access to the site will be from Minsk Gardens Avenue, which intersects with PGA Blvd. and continues into the Regional Center DRI to intersect with Kew Gardens Avenue. The setback of the closest building to PGA Blvd. is 55 feet, which is in compliance with the special setback requirement established for PGA Blvd. LAND USE AND ZONING The future land use designation of the subject site is Professional Office (PO), and the zoning classification is Planned Community District (PCD). The subject site's designation on the Master Plan of Development (Map H) of the DRI is Retail /Office /Hotel. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting two waivers from the City's Land Development Regulations; staff recommends approval of both. It is staff's professional opinion that the waivers requested are for signs which are not visible from PGA Boulevard and are necessary for the safe direction of vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site. 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -15 PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM Type of Sign Building Location Per- Re- In Waiver Staff P & Z mitted quested Compliance Rec. Rec. 7/24/00 Major tenant sign ;Bank South 1 1 Yes No Window sign East 1 1 Yes No v-'.& %, ., { Major tenant sign Offlcel 3 West 1 1 Yes No Ground floor /flat wall West 0 2 No (do not face Yes Support Support sign r -o -w or main From (Do not face entrance) Sec. 78- and are not 285 visible from PGA Blvd.)l Major tenant sign �ce2 West 1 1 Yes No Ground floor /flat wall South 3 3 Yes No sign West 0 1 No (do not face Yes Support Support r -o -w or main From (Do not face entrance) Sec. 78- and are not 285 visible from PGA Blvd. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the sign program for Parcel 27.05/06 with three of the requested five waivers (as indicated in the table). Staff recommends denial of the remaining two waivers. The Resolution, as written, does not include the waivers that staff has recommended denial of. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On July 24, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition, and by a vote of 5 -2, made a recommendation for approval to the City Council. The Commission also voted to recommend approval for all five waivers requested by the applicant. In addition, the Commission also requested that the applicant make the following amendments to the sign package: (1) The size of the maximum letter size on the main building sign on the center tower on the south elevation of retail one building be limited to 32 ". THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED. (2) The letters on the center office tower shall be limited to 32 ", and the tenant ID sign be moved to the far left of the elevation. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED. 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -15 (3) The applicant shall revise elevations to indicate wall signs at a maximum size of 125% of area shown, not to exceed the maximum allowed by code. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED. Shortrange /misc0015 4 September 21, 2001 October 8, 2001 RESOLUTION 148, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM CATALFUMO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A SIGN PROGRAM FOR PARCEL 27.05/27.06 WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PCD) NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF KEW GARDENS AVENUE AND PGA BOULEVARD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (MISC -01- 15) from Catalfumo Development Company for approval of a sign program for Parcel 27.05/27.06 within the Regional Center Planned Community Development Overlay District (PCD), as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the 16.19 -acre Parcel 27.05/27.06 at the Regional Center site is currently zoned Planned Community Development Overlay District (PCD) with a DRI Master Plan designation of Retail /Office /Hotel; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient and consistent with the Land Development Regulations and the Regional Center DRI Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended approval of the sign program for Parcel 27.05/27.06 at the Regional Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby approves a sign program for Parcel 27.05/27.06 within the Regional Center Planned Community Development Overlay District located near the northeast corner of Kew Gardens Avenue and PGA Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Resolution 148, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -15 SECTION 2. Said Sign Program is approved subject to the following condition, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permit for Hotel, Retail Building 1 and Retail Building 2, the applicant shall submit an additional sign program application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council for all remaining buildings that are not part of this sign program application (Planning and Zoning). SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval: Permitted Signs — Section 78 -285, which requires a maximum of one flat/wall sign per tenant, to allow for 2 additional tenant signs on Office Building 2. 2. Permitted Signs —Section 78 -285, which requires a maximum of one flat/wall sign per tenant, to allow for 1 additional tenant sign on Office Building 1. SECTION 4. Said approval shall be consistent with all representations made by the applicant or applicant's agents at any workshop or public hearing. SECTION 5. Construction of the site shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department (dates represent the date the plan was received and stamped in): 1. July 20, 2001 South Wall Elevation, Wachovia Bank, Sheet A -2 2. September 25, 2001 West Wall Elevation, Office Building 2, Sheet A -2 3. August 25, 2001 West Wall Elevation, Office Building 1, Sheet A -4 SECTION 6. If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 7. All Resolutions, or parts of Resolutions, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 8. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2001. ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO G: /shortrange /m isc0115res Resolution 148, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: October 8, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -15 MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Descritpion DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 27.06 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 5. TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST; WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 88 651'28" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 A DISTANCE OF 266.10 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 01 008'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PGA,BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4442, PAGE 856, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE SOUTH 88 °51'28" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 70.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH. 01 °08'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET: THENCE .CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY 'LINE SOUTH 88 051'28" EAST A DISTANCE OF 98.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE NORTH 43 051128" WEST A DISTANCE OF 56.57 FEET THENCE NORTH 01 008'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 505.13 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 053'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 391.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE NORTH 01 025'01" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 39.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE.OF THE NORTH 10.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 89 053'54" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 1326.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 51 THENCE SOUTH 01 005'58" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 595.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PGA BOULEVARD, SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE BEING 60.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5: THENCE NORTH 88 °51'28" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 555.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85 °35'14" WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PGA BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4442, PAGE 856, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 175.28 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE NORTH 88 °51'28" WEST A DISTANCE OF 165.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING IN ALL 13.07 ACRES MORE OR LESS. DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 27.05 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST; WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 88051'28" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 A DISTANCE OF 266.10 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 01 °08'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PGA BOULEVARD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4442. PAGE 856. PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 87042'31" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 251.80 FEET TO THE .SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT TRACT AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 5072. PAGE 354, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 01 008 32" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT A DISTANCE OF 469.81 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 88 053'53" EAST A DISTANCE OF 264.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43 °52'41" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 008'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 410.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44 044'41" WEST A DISTANCE OF 55.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING IN ALL 3.12 ACRES MORE OR LESS. tY REPORT 3 IS A BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 61G17- 6.002(8), FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. JRVEY BASED ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. :GAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY. LIDBERG . LAND SURVEYING, INC. TARING BASE: SEE SKETCH iE SUBJECT PROPERTY LES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE B, PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 1202210002 B, _FFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 17,1979. )TAL AREA - PARCEL 27.05 - 3.12 ACRES PARCEL 27.06 - 13.07 ACRES !IS SURVEY REFLECTS THOSE MATTERS OF RECORD THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS LISTED IN :HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT. OF TITLE, COMMITMENT NUMBER 99- 1232, REVISED FFECTIVE DATE MARCH 12, 1999 AT 8:00 A.M. iL EXPECTED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FALLS WITHIN HE..SUBURBAN CATEGORY AS CLASSIFIED IN CHAPTER 61G17- 6.003, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. ..L . f,IELD- MEASURED CONTROL MEASUREMENTS EXCEEDED THE ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS 1ASSIFICATION. :E CONTRACTED USE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO BE USED FOR TRANSFER OF TITLE, FINANCING AND AID IN FIGINEERING DESIGN. THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID FOR ANY OTHER USE. &VATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON N.G.V.D.OF 1929 AND ARE REFERENCED TO A PALM BEACH COUNTY _.:•NCHMARK AT THE CENTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, ELEVATION - 14.865. .CNh"UARKQ CPT nR FnI1Nn MP T411Q CIIRVFY ARP NnTrn nN TNF CKFTf:N }\) =rmp� ,\awa r\\ _ \\_,a , mm- -m a, !7$$m | {k§\ ' @G° > =q \m k\% ¥rm Mq /Q( / \§ ex CD r'1 r3 6 � O O f mo (, o N � n D r- D Dn-D o T G7 m D LO < D >00 rmC oZm C::U) < D o O D C� 1 O � J N o J ? o mo W � � o Cn T � r N ?J �!1D rn II m Jm >m° o z O o n n� Da N O O T T1 n 0 � O W m ml O � z� o C I/ 7 D D O 0 0 CE r 0 G-) N GO Z U) II 0 m C) -A 0 z 70 c C7 T_ z z z F- r fTl m z�r FA nmxc wm m ;F- nv -vlFV mn oo ova m n F'�c Fwzm �z2FOnz 'r"°cN 3z°m Atn zsr\s_tia� -tc -gym mrr xom�x o� __ y in tim wr ofzN zA VCiz mx mma nxm n"��noo ntzim �mz n>n �on n�oD oo�i, p������AO��oy F ponz m��o onvy n _ ayi"mzio .�c A mzo� n n r �yAZ OVA V' ��O r 2n0 Inn Om�NO pn n]]iv - -rniZ �z y m�z n - czipxo �ZA y�A z AZoz"� �o o✓r''~�z o _ oirno °pop Open �� nxz t oZ o Z,- NC Z ° xDO o_ ZZ mT m winjAm �x �om� rJnA!^m�Aw _vp cA�z -i c No obi = v!m r fp `F r, pn rtwil (> O_ zs `-f nn An ��Ar o Oamir '"?'� °Z, _ °ZO O ti y 3c - - -� oC on�vi o o � 3v I o In rn I z c� O- O O w I D ,IV rn Vz _m O r O r A m m S m m S Z -I -I - 0 0 x tNn x lG � ^ Z O O Q D 0 I�zc ciz D OZ tirl .� Zm ➢ m m � � r o m { G m O N Z A m N min xl" n n n nDZ� O �) 20(11 NO PUP. -10N DI THIS DP.AWING MAY BE COPIEU OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ATLAS LOCO GLEARL7 SHO`NN w3F m« >�y _ o _ vzi I�atiAO��oo wy on x _ y m _ ? W N Z O m U) C)- cD ➢tn Z D r z r Z m In-I g z Ln =lm r r D D Z O D SmG �Op n m Lo =�D D m N m gy m= D m r D Z O GO Z C7 _ _ _ m D � to 0 � o z? O W � � n U, O Cn m I � N 1. _ o C v n ° ➢ x 0 A n c m s n n ➢ � A A D r r O n z ED r" �' �^ r ED r O in ° O ➢ \ to in 0 C T O D n m TI L7 N m ➢ Ci -Z F- n n ^ � c r O n O O Z 0 D O N Z O c O o TI o c�zi o z_ Z ° \ U) G� � 0 v m v 0 0 � m m 6D p) D Z C) p! N J D v J 6D \ �D tD f O l0 > N ? O A m o O O 0 0 _I In U1 N Z ITt � ➢ A s Rl p- O O � � s `G d tD — � m o < U) O z o LI) D o m o F o - n F- K GD m DDS O =� D �DCo DSO F77 C zm o C D T1 C0 0E--0 M 70 D Crl O rn� O � o n _ O O� ❑ C 41 W � 6 � � n m 0 N" n m� V7n II mJ Duo Q z O o ❑ _ O D I 0 a Dn iA � DO Oz rT F= tiC- IVY �m Jz O �I /D V / mD D D J v J A n m C) 0 z 70 c Z Fli ZJ . �. m V o m ❑O O W I a o )2001 NO PORTION OF 1'IIIS DRFWIIIC MAY BE CO?IED OR RFPR00UCL0 WITHOUT THE ATL4S LOGO GLEAFLY SHOWN 7 �t-°��nFv °Emc�uzw °amzKOw- �p�' F A -mix o��m z� -mny z�ti °Z_ <c °a rrm-x xo x. sm v'A - vz mE� °or ocm�om ~ z+ °mF� <c'za°^r or�r`a �r m y'amn °mzW. ,Zmi� wF3pr ('J \tiA, -1�iO Vtn'A of ° Z� lo 3 � ,w- N ° ° mod x _ m ? W N z Ln z D r S D (n z - i �rq:7 u�izm r D D z r r z z z r I _ T F9 77 70 Gip T z — z CO m GO Z A 70 Z Fr1 U% m O f'l D cc � m r z O Z C7 S S S F D = Z i M O m r � Z ? W F7 3 O W � m O 1v � �1 ;k mC� -4, J rn In R, W N > o zD v 0 O O N m m \ D D O V' C ➢ G7 L/i r m O ID n C O ti O () C N p O O O. Z oN �0'�D O TI o Z = Z z r lIi " O 0 0 - 0 l rn z m D m rn 6� rn rn O J %P Vl J rn D I-I I O O W f O O N O N I N 0 n CO; N D GO m ❑ d s 5 � � 5 N N ❑ � � W Nm� -Wj2 TO 4 o v O D o O m mC23 Nz mo =N��r om mo cnT T N O O Z . - nmzcum m o�z�7,NfFim2 � 99 O�N m m m nf-mm? c AN N m,N m °gzizny o�ism� xOopoxp zi,mpoN y'!`m>mv_°miA w; M��oiso y °mo c�O yZ ZDOyn➢; I\-A)Opnf]nm LN ZODm 0 Nam --11➢N °�yF ➢1 OIZ m0 _Z p�VFI ° cAmonN -� -,IU' v ?� Rz % O 2 Q Z pO;D IZR N ZmONZ2 O 93rm_ °o mm Tn. mo ;Om 00 0 M. O Z \F zo ?Z -ml K ° -m m O� nM O \nmmmy N mi 2..p myANOZ� - ➢ FNnc AL_w p A4� vD ZZp ^ONE ;Z O n0 O OD ➢ 5 F - O O y 2 = \ p w N z 0 1 z I rz I c DDm n =rrrr, rr.. °*9n-TD =m =mz ZDrm NZ-i 1-4 or nor Am mmNmm E z Z r- �*I, -, FF= rZ O n m MZ z mxomsoc� r Z Z oy o� rttt�m�� = m ( D ?< ?< ENCZnm(N � AD ow -0� = -DNDz mNmOmm D Q1 - mN z F 0= D y W O N m O Z O N ? in m r , z m o D W Z A.ox C= 3 m N Z C zMM w O oc, m�x n -m N <�rm�. ocn ti 71 -m" n zAq - O m D 11 Iz °� To-- A�s iFr��co` mmD- Im�3o� C] �_� ➢Z ➢Z32 Zn y t� r➢O �Z � A 00'SZC� N mm �r i�C �Ca�Z FmA < A HE O °OONN ➢➢ s�soz� a- _mm��p za ?pa�y.� tp °� lium1 I Ali- t s V t ILLI h -_- 0 . 55 5555555!555y 5s arcel 27.051.06 m Beach Gardens, Florida; {;iii e PlantFjj yt u. ®q al.O %OQ Goo �� -"r i 11 , arce127.05I.06 ilm Beach Gardens, Florida indscane Plan S 11C, 011 re � ,J •a ET. f. all o= � MAI I^ _y a �. _.. c.. Till ;w rw z o r I Jc rinc an >� C) �S' o .,. cc •a �€ mN Om TS T!l CTti �� IilECEEEEG¢ �I II I c6 L G 666 C E a 1 1 1 6' iGGG GF'C CCCC Ct F'CG • IR Fee 6 CFGi' CCCC to �'6,c ei_ •C C retie I R ie "e k I GcGCC' k C C 1 g I •' c- e- Geeeeea • 6GG6ccc ee ee CD 1 ��� ( gE gg �- E fffff R11Idi •� ggee g g e e M R c e i g I Jill R o �R csFCC � i 'F• LG CG -_ skcc 6 t G G FC I i °l531 R Gcc •c6 a -- eC •c P� g 1 ®: Ra" I eEEt T� EECLa[•C _- e6i6tt eG6itk EC I x�_c� 1 a I If •• - - FF e Fe k� ............. i6 LE EC ILa iGi cC6CCGCt� I E f I CGG G G4G G liCiii',I c � GG6 1 eY E- �••i•a y R. • -GG¢Ca e• e'p a e G i 66 ee F G FFIFF F _ 6LG 1 �5 ] 1110 g.. S 11C, 011 re � ,J •a ET. f. all o= � MAI I^ _y a �. _.. c.. Till ;w rw N 3 X�A �! mn o 2=2 � z o r I Jc rinc an >� C) �S' o �€ mN Om TS w,w CD CD N N 3 X�A �! mn o 2=2 � z o r I Jc rinc an >� C) N 3 X�A �! mn o 2=2 � CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM MISC -01 -06 — San Michele Clubhouse, Park, Guardhouse, and Signage Consideration of Resolution 145, 2001: A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Forest Lake Associates, L.C., for approval of a 3,428 square -foot clubhouse, a park, a guardhouse, and signage in the San Michele Planned Unit Development (fka: Frankel). The 64.5 -acre site is located at the northwest corner of Central Boulevard and Hood Road. (25/36-41S-42E) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution 145, 2001, subject to conditions. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: FINANCE: NA P&Z Commission Growth Management: Action: Principal Planner Costs: $ [ ] Approved Karen M. Craver, AICP Project Total [ ] App. w/ conditions City AttornCRubin Managed [ ] Denied Leonard G John Li�idgr&n -AICP $ [X] Rec. approval 7 — 0 Finance Current FY [ ] Rec. app. w/ conds. [ ] Rec. Denial Human Res. NA Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Submitted by: Advertised: Attachments: Growth Date: [ ] Operating • Ordinance 145, 2001 Manag nt �/ � � [ ]Other • Ordinance 4, 2000 Directo ay(,��; _ VV Paper: a E -Mail from Jeanne _ Charles K. Wu, AICP Mills of the Palm Not Required Beach County School District Approved &rAffected Budget Acct. #: parties: City Manag 4Feris • 11" x 17" Set of Ronald M. Notified Proposed Plans Not Required [ ] None City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 BACKGROUND The San Michele development was approved on June 1, 2000, by Ordinance 4, 2000, and will include 90 single - family homes. Condition #8 in Section 2 of Ordinance 4, 2000 requires the applicant to come back for City approval of the clubhouse, park, and signage. The applicant is also seeking approval of the guardhouse with this application. To date, 90 custom single - family homes have been platted; however, no building permits have been issued. LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is zoned Residential Low Density — 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, and a future land -use designation of Residential Low (RL). CONCURRENCY The proposed project received concurrency certification on September 7, 1999, which included concurrency for traffic, drainage, solid waste, sewer and water. PROJECT DETAILS Clubhouse The 3,428 square -foot clubhouse building will be constructed with a smooth stucco finish and accented with various architectural amenities including precast moldings, decorative wood outriggers, and decorative columns. The roof will be constructed of concrete "S" tile. The clubhouse will feature a gathering room, an exercise room and restrooms. The major landscaping within the clubhouse site will be live oaks, coconut palms and cabbage palms. The clubhouse site will also include two tennis courts, a pool, a "tot lot ", and a Seacoast Utility Authority lift station. The applicant is proposing a 6 -foot high Brush Cherry hedge to screen the lift station. Park The passive park will supplement the existing native vegetation with additional live oak trees; however, the focus of the park will be the large open area that will be suitable for a variety of recreational activities. Signa_ge Although the Planned Unit Development approval granted three (3) ground sign locations (at the project entrance, at the northwest corner of Hood Road and Central Boulevard, and at the northeast corner of the site), the applicant is only proposing ground signs at the project entrance and at the Hood Road /Central Boulevard intersection. The ground sign 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 at the project entrance will feature 24 -inch letters on a 7' -9" X 15' sign. The corner ground sign will feature 21 -inch letters on a 7'X 13' sign. Both signs, which are in compliance with the Land Development Regulations, will be incorporated into a wall design featuring stucco sign face and simulated cast stone columns and stone caps. Guardhouse The guardhouse will provide a covered driveway for visitors to the site, and will feature a decorative second story feature, designed with the Mediterranean architectural style. The fountain feature in front of the guardhouse will feature a cast stone rosette, which will spray water into the fountain basin. School Bus Stop A school bus stop and bench are shown at the entrance along the access drive into the site, off of Central Boulevard. Jeanne Mills of the Palm Beach County School District has reviewed and approved the proposed school bus stop (see attachment). OUTSTANDING ISSUES There are no significant outstanding issues with this petition. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval of petition MISC -01 -06 with the following nine (9) original conditions of approval. The three (3) conditions not yet satisfied have been incorporated into the approving resolution. 1. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall remove the flag from the top of the guardhouse (shown on sheet A3). (Planning & Zoning) SATISFIED 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall resubmit sheets H -2, H -3, and H -4 certified by a structural enqineer licensed in the State of Florida. (City Engineering) SATISFIED 9/10/01 PENDING ENGINEERING REVIEW 3. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall provide a letter from the utility owners authorizing landscaping and hardscape within the proposed 12 -foot utility easement. (City Engineering) AGREED TO COMPLY 4. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall revise the Entrance Hardscape Plan to relocate the stop bar and stop sign, located at the egress to Central Boulevard, approximately 4 feet in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to approaching traffic. (City Engineering) SATISFIED 9110/01 5. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01-06 revise the Entrance Hardscape Plan, the Construction Plans and the "Typical Section 84' R/W" detail so that they are consistent with one another. (City Engineering) AGREED TO REVISE CONSTRUCTION PLANS 6. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall submit a Conceptual Drainage Plan for the Park Site that demonstrates how the site and access drive will drain through use of flow arrows and illustrated high /low points. (City Engineering) SATISFIED 9/10/01 PENDING ENGINEERING REVIEW 7. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall revise the Park Site and Landscape Plans and the Construction Plans so that they are consistent with one another. (City Engineering) SATISFIED 9/10/01 PENDING ENGINEERING REVIEW 8. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by City Council, the applicant shall revise the Buffer. Sections, the Constructions Plans, and the West Perimeter Elevation Detail so that they are consistent with one another. (City Engineering) AGREED TO REVISE CONSTRUCTION PLANS 9. All conditions and requirements from Ordinance 4, 2000 shall remain in effect. (Development Compliance Officer) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION At its August 28, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition for approval of a 3,428 square -foot clubhouse, a park, a guardhouse, and signage in the San Michele Planned Unit Development. The Commission voiced no concerns and voted 7 — 0 to recommend approval of the applicant's request. g /john: misc0106.cc2 4 E; •. _tee .. - �,�� °_ k mss. City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 EXISTING USE ZONING LAND USE Subject Property Residential Residential — Low Density Low Density - 3 (RL) 90 single - family homes w/ (RL -3) clubhouse, park, and guardhouse North Public or Institutional Residential — Low Density (P /I) (RL) Benjamin High School South Planned Development Residential — High Density Area (RH) Vacant/Undeveloped (PDA) West Planned Development Residential — Low Density Area (RL) Vacant/Undeveloped Land (PDA) & Single Family Homes East Planned Development Residential — High Density Area (PDA) & Residential (RH) Vacant/Undeveloped Land — High Density (RH) & Gardens Presbyterian Church 5 October 18, 2001 RESOLUTION 145, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM FOREST LAKE ASSOCIATES, L.C. FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,428 SQUARE -FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A PARK, A GUARDHOUSE, AND SIGNAGE LOCATED IN THE SAN MICHELE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD AND HOOD ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (MISC -01- 06) from Forest Lake Associates, L.C. for approval of an approximately 3,428 square -foot clubhouse, a park, a guardhouse, and signage located in the 64.5 -acre "San Michele" site at the northwest corner of Central Boulevard and Hood Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the "San Michele" site is currently zoned Residential Low Density — 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, and a future land use of Residential Low (RL); and . WHEREAS, the "San Michele" PUD was previously approved on June 1, 2000, with the adoption of Ordinance 4, 2000, and includes 90 single- family homes; and WHEREAS, condition #8 in Section 2 of Ordinance 4, 2000 requires that the applicant attain City approval of the clubhouse, park and signage; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended approval of said application; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2001, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed said application and recommended that it be approved subject to certain conditions stated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby approves an approximately 3,428 square -foot clubhouse, a park, a guardhouse, and signage in the "San Michele" site at the northwest corner of Central Boulevard and Hood Resolution 145, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: 1. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall resubmit sheets H -2, H -3, and H -4 certified by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Florida. (City Engineering) 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall provide a letter from the utility owners authorizing landscaping and hardscape within the proposed 12 -foot utility easement. (City Engineering) 3. All conditions and requirements from Ordinance 4, 2000 shall remain in effect. (Development Compliance Officer) SECTION 3. Construction of the site shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department (dates represent the date the plan was received and stamped in): 1. Recreation Area Landscape /Site Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet SP -1. 2. Recreation Area Landscape /Site Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 21, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -4. 3. Recreation Area Lighting Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -4. 4. Clubhouse Construction Notes and Specifications by Randall E. Stoffit Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet T1. 5. Clubhouse Foundation Plan by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet Al. 6. Clubhouse Floor Plan by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet A2. 7. Clubhouse Roof Plan by Randall E. StofftArchitects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet A3. 8. Clubhouse Elevations by Randall E. Stof t Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet A4. 9. Clubhouse Elevations Plan by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet A5. 10. Clubhouse Section A -A by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet D1. 2 Resolution 145, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01-06 11. Clubhouse Electrical Plan by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (May 24, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet E1. 12. Entrance Landscape Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -1. 13. Entrance Landscape Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -2. 14. Plant List, Specifications and Details by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (February 23, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -3. 15. Plant List, Details and Specifications by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 21, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet L -5. 16. Entrance Hardscape Plan by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet H -1. 17. Trellis, Wall Planter, Median Wall, Entrance Wall and Sign Elevations by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet H -2. 18. Guardhouse, Fountain, Trellis and Wall Planter Elevations by Parker Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet H -3. 19. Construction Details by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet H -4. 20. Corner Sign Layout and Elevation by Parker & Yannette Design Group, and date stamped (February 23, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet H -5. 21. Guardhouse Elevations by Randall E. Stofft Architects, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, sheet A3. 22. Park Site Plan and Landscape Plan by Urban Design Studio, and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, 1 sheet. 23. Park Conceptual Drainage Plan by Schaefer and Fagan, Consulting Engineers, Inc., and date stamped (September 10, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, 1 sheet. 24. Buffer Section with 25' FPL Easement B -B' by Urban Design Studio, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, 1 sheet. 25. 3' Buffer Plan with 25' Proposed FPL Easement B -B' by Urban Design Studio, and date stamped (July 3, 2001) into the Planning and Zoning Division, 1 sheet. SECTION 4. If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. 3 Resolution 145, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2001. ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO g /john: misc0106.res2 MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 4 Resolution 145, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 24, 2001 Petition MISC -01 -06 EXHIBIT "A" A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 25 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE OF DONALD ROSS ROAD WITH THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD; THENCE, SOUTH 00 °48'04" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 3605.06 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE, CONTINUE SOUTH 00 °48'04" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1557.97 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE, CONTINUE SOUTH 00 °48'04" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1392.07 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE OF HOOD ROAD; THENCE, NORTH 88 °08'02" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 958.57 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE, NORTH 00 °48'04" EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 1362.92 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; SAID NORTHWEST CORNER ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE, NORTH 01 °17'32" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1569.36 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89 °11'56" EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 944.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 5 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 ORDINANCE 4, 2000 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF FOREST LAKE ASSOCIATES, L.C. FOR REZONING OF 64.47 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD AND HOOD ROAD AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) TO RESIDENTIAL — LOW DENSITY 3 (RL-3) WITH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT 90 SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application from Forest Lake Associates, L.C. for approval for rezoning of 64.47 acres of land located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Central Boulevard and Hood Road, to Residential — Low Density 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; WHEREAS, the 64.47 -acre site is currently zoned Planned Development Area (PDA); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended approval of the planned unit development (PUD) known as "San Michele "; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said application and recommended that it be approved with the requested waivers and subject to certain conditions. 15 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby rezones 64.47 acres of land owned by Forest Lake Associates, L.C. located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Central Boulevard and Hood Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Residential — Low Density (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, in order to allow the construction of 90 single - family homes. The PUD will be known as "San Michele." SECTION 2. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following conditions which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: 1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit a gopher tortoise relocation and management plan that is acceptable to the City and the City's Consulting Environmental Consultant. (Planning & Zoning) 2. Prior to the issuance of the 45t' house building permit, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install and maintain in perpetuity, the Parkway System (including landscaping and related amenities to City specifications, in the road shoulders and median within the right -of -way) along Hood Road and Central Boulevard, except for the portion of Central Boulevard which Gardens Presbyterian Church is required to install. (City Forester) 3. Prior to the issuance of the 45t�' house building permit, the clubhouse and pool recreation area shall be completed. (Planning & Zoning) 4. Prior to the adjacent lot wall /fence being installed or constructed on the northern and western boundaries of the site, all perimeter buffer landscaping or preserve restoration, exotic plant removal and /or enhancement work shall be completed. (City Forester) 5. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit the Homeowners Association (HOA) documents to the City for review by the City's legal counsel and the City Forester. The open space/landscape maintenance and environmental preserve management plan will also have to be found sufficient by the City Forester prior 16 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 to final approval of construction drawings or commencement of land alteration. The City shall review the HOA documents for maintenance and management language that meets or exceeds the City's guidelines included in the City's Landscape Handbook and City Codes. (Planning & Zoning) 6. The Home Owners Association (HOA), as required by the HOA documents, shall maintain landscaping and irrigation within the medians and road shoulders along the entire length of the development of Hood Road, Central Boulevard and the future road along the northern boundary, in perpetuity, except for the portion of Central Boulevard which Gardens Presbyterian Church is required to install. The applicant, successors and assigns shall be responsible for one half of the maintenance obligation for the portion of the median installed by Gardens Presbyterian Church. The City shall require, as a condition of approval of any new project located on the north, south or east of these adjacent road systems, that they bear their proportionate share of the cost of the continued maintenance thereof. In the event a Special Parkway District is formed by the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity, pertaining to the roadway maintenance around this project, the HOA shall automatically become a member of said District. This condition shall also be made a part of the HOA documents. (City Forester) 7. The security gates shall be equipped with a Knox key switch to provide the Fire Rescue Department with emergency access (Standard Fire Prevention Code 602.6.7). (Fire Department) 8. The applicant shall return to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, for approval of the site plan and building elevations for the proposed clubhouse, the landscaping details for the clubhouse, detailed park site and landscaping plans, and the elevations of the all signs. This approval shall be done as a miscellaneous petition, and shall not require public hearings. (Planning & Zoning) 9. Prior to construction plan approval, $62,500 (the money in lieu of parkland) shall be paid to the City. (Parks & Recreation) 10. There shall not be any man -made berming or non - native vegetation within the perimeter open spaces /parkway areas that are platted as preserves. (City Forester) 11. No land clearing, other than exotic invasive vegetation, shall occur prior to the posting of a surety bond for the preserves and off -site landscaping. The amount of said surety bond shall 17 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 be determined prior to said land clearing. (City Forester) 12. Pursuant to Article III, Section 114 -71, entitled "Required Subdivision Improvements ", prior to the issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the applicant shall be required to post a bond for the project landscaping /buffer and entry feature. In order to determine the cost estimate for the bond, detailed landscape plans shall be completed, reviewed and approved by the City Staff, including the City's Environmental Consultant. Where wetlands are being converted to upland forest, and where poor quality uplands are being restored (as in the 0.42 area B), typical minimum - planting plans for a specific area may be approved. The applicant shall relocate native vegetation from on site to, and /or install native nursery stock in the north, south and east parkway /preserve areas to screen (at a minimum) 50% of the eight -foot interior wall around the project. (Planning & Zoning) 13. Prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the applicant, successors or assigns shall provide a bus stop pull - off and shelter completely out of the right -of -way or a bus stop turn around in front of the access control point. The size and location of the school bus stop shall be coordinated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, and the School District. The applicant shall be relieved of this responsibility if the Palm Beach County School Board will allow their buses to enter this community to pick up students at the community center. (Planning & Zoning) 14. The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of annual school boundary assignments for students from this development in a manner required by the Palm Beach County School District. (Planning & Zoning) 15. The HOA shall maintain all lakes on the site. (Planning & Zoning) 16. Upon approval of the development order, the applicant shall secure a "Seacoast Utility Authority Capacity Allocation Commitment for Public Water and /or Sewer Service," which shall be verified by the delivery of a fully executed copy of the document to the Planning & Zoning Division within 30 days of granting of the development order. (Planning & Zoning) 17. Rear elevations of all units located along public rights -of -way shall be enhanced with the use of stucco banding, window treatments, and architectural detailing compatible with the architectural characteristics of the front elevations of the 18 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 homes. (Development Compliance Officer) 18. No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be issued until a revised Surface Water Management System for Unit 2 has received final approval from the City of Palm Beach Gardens and all other applicable governments and agencies, including a schedule for implementing the plan and a definitive commitment for funding the required improvements. (City Engineer) 19. The build -out date of this project is December 31, 2004 as referenced in the March 29, 1999 traffic impact analysis. For the purposes of this condition, the project shall be considered built -out if all building permits have been issued and the applicant is actively engaged in the development of the site. (Planning & Zoning) 20. Prior to issuance of the permit for site drainage, the City shall review and approve construction details for littoral zones, including their location, slopes and vegetation. As a requirement, at least 50% of the shoreline shall be planted within wetland trees and/or aquatic plants at ten square feet of littoral zone for every one linear foot of shoreline. There shall be a minimum of one tree for every 80 square feet and plants shall be on three -foot centers, minimum. A sum total of area(s) constituting no less than 15% nor more than 25% of the total shoreline distance shall be constructed as littoral shelf at the ratio of 10 square feet of shelf per running foot of shoreline. (City Engineer and Planning & Zoning) . SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval: 1. Maximum building lot coverage — Section 118- 200(e), which allows a maximum building lot coverage of 35 %, to allow for up to 40% building lot coverage. 2. Minimum width for parking spaces — Section 118- 475(a), which requires 10 -foot wide parking, spaces, to allow for 9 -foot wide parking spaces at the recreation facility. 3. Maximum height for walls — Section 118- 279(f)(1) which allows a maximum wall height of 6 feet, to allow for an 8 -foot wall. 4. Minimum side setback facing a street — Section 118- 200(g)(3) which requires a minimum setback of 20 feet for structures facing a street, to allow for a 10 -foot setback. 5. Minimum side setback — Section 118 - 200(8)(2) which requires 19 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 a minimum setback of 7.5 feet for the 75 -foot wide lots on site and 9 feet for the 90 -foot wide lots on the site, to allow for a 5- foot setback. 6. Minimum rear setback — Section 118- 200(g)(4) which requires a minimum setback of 10 feet for all vertical structures, to allow for a 5 -foot setback. M A The use of specialty pavers — the code does not address the use of specialty pavers which means that they are not permitted; therefore the applicant requests a waiver for the use of specialty pavers in certain areas of the site, in place of the City's regular pavement requirement. SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Unit Development shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department: 1. May 19, 2000 Master Plan PUD, Urban Design Studio, Sheet SP -1 (1 sheet total). 2. May 19, 2000 Master Plan PUD, Urban Design Studio, Sheet SP -2 (1 sheet total). 3. May 19, 2000 Master Plan PUD, Urban Design Studio, Sheet SP -3 (1 sheet total). 4. November 24, 1999 Entrance Landscape Plan, Parker . Yannette Design Group, Sheet L -1 (1 sheet total). 5. May 19, 2000 Recreation Area Landscape Plan, Parker • Yannette Design Group, Sheet L -2 (1 sheet total). 6. October 29, 1999 Plant List, Specifications and Details, Parker • Yannette Design Group, Sheet L -3 (1 sheet total). 7. October 29, 1999 Median Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L-4 (1 sheet total). 8. October 29, 1999 Median Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -5 (1 sheet total). 9. October 29, 1999 Median Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -6 (1 sheet total). 10. May 19, 2000 Plant List, Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 11. May 19, 2000 Streetscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -7 (1 sheet total). 12. May 19, 2000 Streetscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -8 (1 sheet total). 20 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 13. October 29, 1999 Median Legend & Detail Sheet, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -9 (1 sheet total). 14. May 19, 2000 Recreation Center Lighting Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -10 (1 sheet total). 15. November 24, 1999 Entrance Hardscape Plan, Parker • Yannette Design Group, Sheet H -1 (1 sheet total). 16. October 29, 1999 Entrance Hardscape Plan, Parker Yannette Design Group, Sheet H -2 (1 sheet total). 17. November 23, 1999 Guard House Elevations, Wessel Associates AIA, Sheet Al (1 sheet total). 18. May 19, 2000 Upland Preserve Map, Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 19. February 19, 1999 Boundary and Topographic Survey, Bench Mark Land Surveying & Mapping, Inc., (2 sheets total). 20 March 3, 2000 90' Parkway /Upland Preservation Plan A —A', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 21. March 3, 2000 90' Parkway /Upland Preservation Section A —A', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 22. March 3, 2000 8' Buffer Plan with 20' Proposed FPL Easement B -B', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 23. March 3, 2000 20' Buffer Section B -B', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 24. March 6, 2000 60' Central Boulevard Buffer Plan C-C', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 25. March 6, 2000 60' Central Boulevard Buffer Section C -C', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 26. March 6, 2000 100' Upland Preservation Plan D -D', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 27. March 6, 2000 100' Upland Preservation Section D -D', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 28. March 6, 2000 90' Parkway /Upland Preservation Plan E -E', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 29. March 6, 2000 90' Parkway /Upland Preservation Section E -E', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 30. March 6, 2000 100' Upland Preservation Plan F -F', Urban Design Studio. (1 sheet total). 31. March 6, 2000 100' Upland Preservation Section F -F', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 32. March 6, 2000 10' Buffer Plan with 20' FPL Easement G -G', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 33. March 6, 200010' Buffer Section with 20' FPL Easement G -G', Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 21 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 34. May 19, 2000 Wall and Fence Location Map, Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 35. March 6, 2000 Typical Cul -De -Sac Planting (North End), Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 36. March 6, 2000 Typical Cul -De -Sac Planting (South End), Urban Design Studio, (1 sheet total). 37. March 29, 1999 Traffic Impact Analysis for Frankel Residential (Parcel 4.08), Kimley -Horn and Associates. 38. May 19, 2000 Conceptual Parks and Landscape Enhancement Plans, (1 sheet total). SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THE 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS PASSED AND ADOPT D T S I DAY O M `J'OS'H R. RUSSO VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN p_ �o� �A) 429 COU ILWOMANLAU E FURTADO I.VUNCILMAN DA CL RK COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO DAY OF/k, , 2000. 0 OF (D PErSe 61 22 ATTEST Y: CAROL GOLD Q INTERIM CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: AYE MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO ✓ COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO g /john: pud9903.or6 23 Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 NAY ABSENT Ordinance 4, 2000 Date Prepared: May 22, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" T.F -GAL- DESCRIP1710N PARCEL ON CENTRAL BOULEVARD A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 25 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF DONALD ROSS ROAD WITH THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD; THENCE, SOUTH 004 48'04" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 3605.06 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE, CONTINUE SOUTH 00 °48104" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1557.97 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE, CONTINUE SOUTH 00°48'04" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT- OF-�WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 139207 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF HOOD ROAD; THENCE, NORTH 88 °08'02" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 958.57 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE, NORTH 00 °48`04" EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 136292 FFFTTO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; SAID NORTHWEST CORNER ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE, NORTH 01111MI EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1569.36 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89°11'56" EAST, DEPARTING SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 26, A DISTANCE QF 944.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 24 John Lindgren From: Jeanne M. Mills [mills_j3 @popmail.firn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:10 PM To: John Lindgren Subject: Re: MISC -01 -06 -San Michele Clubhouse, Park, Guardhouse, and Sig nage Yes we are fine with this. Thanks. John Lindgren wrote: > Have y'all signed -off on this yet? > > - - - -- Original Message---- - > > From: Jeanne M. Mills [SMTP:mills_j3 @popmail.firn.edu] > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 8:58 AM > > To: John Lindgren > > Subject: Re: MISC -01 -06 - San Michele Clubhouse, Park, Guardhouse, > > and Signage > > This is curious, John. I have put a call into my transportation person, » Ann > > Skandany. She will tell us if we can accept this. Sherry claims we gave it > > already. Yes, it will be required to be shown on the plan. I'll be back > > with > > you. > > John Lindgren wrote: > > > Jeanne, > > > As I told you before, the San Michele development is required to provide >>a > > > bus stop pull -off and shelter completely out of the right -of -way or a > > bus > > > stop turn around in front of the access control point. This requirement » is > > > found in condition #13 of Ordinance 4, 2000. The applicant can be > > relieved > > > of this requirement if the School Board grants permission for their > > school > > > buses to enter the community and pick up the students at the community > > > center. Apparently the applicant didn't get permission to do this, >> because > > > they (the applicant) are showing a bus stop outside of the development > > > (shown on sheets H -1 and L -1). My question to you is: Does the School > > > Board (you) need to review the plans for the pull -off? Please let me > > know > > > when you have a chance. Thanks. > > > John > > > PS: They haven't provided a shelter detail; is that something you would > > > need to review also? �HRuayg -7 1..�1 Ca n,.,rapv,N.ml,r.s VdS 401946 °jfs f _ and NV Id 1131SVW 3 � � ' = � - eppOj_q =SuepmE) 43ees Wled ca 10318d 598 �JF�5:� g��: • i [„i $� � a 6.Y! ` Zz ZZ —25 114 n lii I OAF zo o a Nil > n 3 CL 3 ,q90 a AD LLI k > � K I1p ygf9 • O =€ O 3 [[z 7� = W 2� € Q y2 2513, jN U �a I J_. Q q € Z f a+5 $ 6g$ gpl a age® $ Jig ■ was miss ■■m ■ . . I IL w . s_ Wed �-�� gb 46 If If I I or Mu W€ LU $ W IL 1 aF.ohil S o NVId 311S / 38VOSONtlI V321V NOIlV380321 o u �W2 ' V(1180-IA `SN3021VJ HOtl39 WIVd rn z JJ!!81&1 S IgHDIPV Nvs b � 3 b I � E � I \` (O �+f ai 1 w � I w w N � O ' Z I I I >3 ai Z z 7 aN�(gN0 W f 1,6 s f a. V A9Ffm'a = ITL — - - --,� 4-0- I a m I t s dim Jai ,•;}111 1 C 0 ts, }• 7 Cali] l iit !X11 i cr F Z Q L� �j U QQ N 'Qo`e@N �aJa OR 1! v C IV a ��-� 05 n°tLv) f00- m Q U e C CL n U) m O U z ue1d adeospue-1 pue ue1d a }fig s epIJOW `suapJe!D 43888 WlBd k 80'-P 103 -Wd ° K" 1g. F9allh In'lo � �1 0, 111 }� I III ca Fx aao• \_ 12 to °// Ra cj 111 111111 ��'I �,� _ ��� �'► ii iii �1• 4 _____- __— _________ ___- __ o F- ? ? a O a Oa zt D $ IL m. 'Q m co N e m tu E Lp Z x $$ -5 c W C 3a�,I IS r= a a M. $+ m t3 ul F Q Of ISO Oi i� N L� �j U QQ N 'Qo`e@N �aJa OR 1! v C IV a ��-� 05 n°tLv) f00- m Q U e C CL n U) m O U z ue1d adeospue-1 pue ue1d a }fig s epIJOW `suapJe!D 43888 WlBd k 80'-P 103 -Wd ° K" 1g. F9allh In'lo � �1 0, 111 }� I III ca Fx aao• \_ 12 to °// Ra cj 111 111111 ��'I �,� _ ��� �'► ii iii �1• 4 _____- __— _________ ___- __ 16b2Q-1;h3-1% r".Lo-tiZ-19,j 31E3H:D1w NIVS il"U -tJ "Pu-9 r'P11-a '1 -11-9 '—IV —1-1-9 'N Z11 Spaqu FWS 9 1110FU-101.1 - 6 E- = 0 X 0 M < na. CL) Pw cm PIMA Milo 1 Vail I 1i lea % ,, In La is It g', I z I L is Pl- P-4 ;;.f Pan LON Al 01 1 A 1- 1? 1 t i: �: - 4j,"11i Him I d" I I SE 19, 11, 1 I!- i6b !16�1111 IIII111 P6111 5,11 1140 N111101 11111. 119, 11A, 04 1 Man 11.11! .,11.1i 11511,1111 J1 0 1, -1 alh� i me, jjrlq•__ __,» �. M 9Q g s i #1 2 � � §gnoHgn]o ' \ k ) � �E | +i \ � �+7 �. ! � +7 !,§ § \ d 5is ! I ■ . 3 + 3 � § �■ � |� � � f , a ± | ■ � �, r §,{ \Jm � � ■\ § ]§ "J CC'lj %PPoEd 5vgaa'I »ung 'a AV uo7uln N ZY.. __.. . k .10 l(3 guolelAsrc!j S3SIZldd�1N� �3>IN'v'Zld T'116A91lC}1 asnoHamo s as iq d� ��3 �S '� IIB CIE Z � � � a 0 N', t s z r a ®®gg a a a A Till❑ Z? q s J 1 1 11' E n � r y 9 c� S�SIJdJ�1N3 ��IN�� o E313hi:)Iw N'V'S o f !�I �a �I I I 1 I D C� �a i� a 21 1 figp adm I 9biffV'N'e°9 Rehad'1 - 109'-y_ e_ °wl^5 "N L4 s Pa to av UJ IS 'a 1118 luu 1 00 m: _,.� I 1 I I I I I I o ' o F° I Y rlk&m� 'la suo�s7na� 66L0-£4L-195 49t'Ef 'W '4�o�9 Fw�aa '� aph5 'arumnp uotuimno N L4 S�SIZld�31N� 7�IN'd�� � E1 13HDIW Nb`S S o3 iu IV lH lS asno� ®mom 9 0 °a= a e i 't �9 i i i i i i Q l SIR 0 � s Mill pu 5`5° o O l Q YI j �tl �{ u Y° GSL0-E4L-195 "PEE'IJ'4 - -9 6e -0aO'I - IMS'—YV WImS'N L4 s�is2NdZG1N�3 1Ul>N9'Z!4:i LO 3 13HOIw Nds s as to dpi ��� �S '� IE U— E rsn ®r��n1a = a o '7d euols7na� ° O i p4 jc�'s o Bi 8y6i �i ! I FI LLI 0 9 d 0 8d 6iEi ~I I I 1 c J 0 66L0-f6L -195 4Ybff 'U '4�eag fi¢�lad y ating 'arunny uo�ulmg N Z4 S�1SR!4dJ31Na 3-GNOIW NVG s as TT IV UJ IS 'R I18 uE •� ,a 9UOj9jAGr,1j vigaiiil tENO flI I is Gam= s a 4 H @R 111A q4 [gk ,pp O v N J L A v I I 1 I I I �a I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 TaaSa u Ril NOR 011.9 }1S; Eli $� � 7 � R. gg� :RA ii 1 a 1E $t :9111$8 3s �I V O v N J L A v I I 1 I I I �a I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 TaaSa u MINNOW I 1 �I � . � 11L• F; U' Wr �u 0 MINNOW I 1 �I � 1 1 . � 11L• F; U' Wr �u 0 66L0- E4Z-195 b44£E 'IJ '4�ea0 fie��aO 'I c7R+S 'srvcny uo7ulm5 'N Z> SaSl�d�alN9 ��{Nb'�d ItlgNi,4N�l.Nlla a-1 AHOIW Nb'S �� r� asnoH�n�a zoo w "7d SUOISInay p d row Gb- al CI / \ \ o D I I I I W cl I �u ; ------------------ goo IiI I 1 ii I 1 u i J \ N L----------------- J �0 Li II �� !� g � �� ��� � # • • •I•I•I I I!I•i!I•I I!I � g g� $� ��� a � �� � � 3: ,• � �� >I3IlIlIlIII I I•I•I•I•I 131 ° � �§ � �� a; �� �: :� �'! �t �! ��� o I>; I•I °I °I °I °I I I•I•I•I•I I ; g� _ � > m � m�� � o- > � a �sygi� "I�I•I =IAIaI =I I ICI =I�lal I � ®� J �z�s It I 65 5 d i CE �� C IBI'Idl`Ixl l °I I�I I I�III 3 � a �ln vet do as` e j I I m I I I I I NVId 3dVOSONVI 33NVN1N3 3 a 2 i $Z4 VOILIOIj 'SN3021VO HOV3a WIVd QJ �1 iZVF N all IF,D Jill m o V(9- W A 3 � a ca J ;i m o U � " Vi c o F Ntlld 3dtlOSONtlI 30Ntl2J1N3 � 6 a, o, 8 i � valmo13 'SN3a8VJ HOV38 WIVd ® ° m aN� J I SlItl130 ONtl SNOIltl01j103dS '1 S11 1NVld g -- VOIHOl3 'SN3(]HVD HOV38 WIVd y as oa o a s a I�HJIn ITS 11,12 1 His y y all c till I I It �ill 6 all 0 11 FL F if a i o ;•5 i� =III � - - -tE . �� i I a fue, t y �ii a� ; r B a}} !1t Rig 131 fill'!I= j I �' ppfll8� ElEs 7�sfllfl ga59flfl9 5 !g ^��� � �4i�;'.F F }���flgflflflafl�ii�gi� $E }t rS i) } 1b .. flflj 1 m a4! i1 m t ii all 5 § 3 co 8f ° +� 11t`mp_ 5g8 {yg �p +t`: ttppf; a! Lir 3 E } �i t Ra pel=i # fill ._4 12AIE „fq iy �+ ' ;Tll ai! tii} i' E� Sol Ijl j, 11 i � T _,� a:.xea.x �e_qa pp ��'a «e «.eg_ 3 RQaxaaasB� �i;tit t =iE1lm�l, iajiipii}9 i }S " � :R �TT�a �a� s yegta a �� a�aaeggag�a�asa3a�4s _ t6ti � iggi = l�+gilrtTEEi}Tit o 51 hill 3 115 w A erg Tia2 E �E F z a�� a.; ■# | ■ ■ NVI a 311 S/3 7ar V38 ¥ _i a H 9Aa' «a mq6 m& - - - -�■ � k |CL z } ! \ + § § 7. i E E| \ )k\\ 2 ,� . . � | ■ �. I ■ � � | \ |� | � � | e � �. 2 - ■� | z || ■�� ■ .. ■# | ■ ■ NVI a 311 S/3 7ar V38 ¥ _i a H 9Aa' «a mq6 m& - - - -�■ � k |CL z } ! \ + § § 7. Q yy C d NVId ONUHJII V321V NOI1V3210311 C!5 g a g m a 5 4 c_ u VOINOIJ 'SN30avO HOtl39 Wltld R e 4 grlgHJIPV ITS a 4 e 888 FBI V A u d E T� m g .•i �� E hefi.J �3 f 9 0 J: a 9 i SNOIlV313133dS 0NV SlIV130 `1SI1 1NVld V0180IJ 'SN308VO HOV30 n]Vd I'IHHOIN ITS Y m a n dl a a w rm n na r� J Q a w . r . - a "! . ".a- 3$aaIa= $aAssYsA � a 4 g 5- -- a_ �s 69t 4 8 � ig F if pj BIN LL I co 1 11 MR, co �y E 9 3i E SS { Sm.o{ � •�'$ ��� +� iy Fi $s Sgg{{ _F � iE..�3 f Y55 � 56 E �5 s $ $€ g 3g iE Sl ti ibC 3 .2.1h erg 3 g rf i�m 33 c 4 i� Ef si 6 €13 S S_r� db cc t.' U� °3; [�� 1�a3t �a n t �asa $ as $E $ ��'$�6 sf��•`g $c s � mil mi ¢. 3!$ s zas£gL t ky' "l co i E6g'S In J c o 3� NVId 3dVOS08VH 33NVUIN3 . 21H�V38 NIVd tl01N01A 'SN30tl9 - c rr�Tr7r►Ti�1TiAT 1,T� -T � � _ va � -g 7 n �7. 1�7 r1�.J1Y V. 1V. V .� a k I. ►, aaai...�+ i�lll�4� + oil R IOU 4 11 1 1. f N' IV, ............\ �- _IIIIIII� II /, IIIIIII. / /'`Illl it �I�IIIIII�IIIyIII N \� /, � i�lll�4� + oil R IOU 4 11 1 1. f N' IV, a - e SNOIlVn3l3 NJIS ONV IIVM 30NVb1N3 oc� F a 'IIVM NVI031N '831NV1d IIVM `SIll3Nl a d rn ��� VOINOl3 'SN30NVO HOV36 WIVd a _ N 8. �o ds<a V w mm Y I4z -II i � SNOIlVA3l3 831NV1d IIVM 014V SIll3Nl 'NIV1Nfl03 '3Sf1OHa8vn0 g d o� g V018013 'SN308VO HOV38 NIIVd ¢ ` asap _ �n q'fgHDIY1I NVS f i l l I g 3 K a Si IIII tY kD y� qdqZ ba . I 1 ad I Rrr Q� u as � a� �o ; r7 Q d d E c o L c IS I 3a SlIV130 NOi.Lon81SN00 I g g vOlao-Ia 'SN30aVJ HOV39 w� 9 vd z Lg`IHHDIPV ITS NO o� U A� 5 3 , j a E U � I � I 3 .eel >��aY In fig% IMOU if F gg gg �j4 e 12 n U 1 I S � 3 I I � II (� wx 6 ! 1 gg3 y\ ��giRRCYddaS5 �6 W A w� � E J a NOI-LVA313 aNV inO),Vl NOIS 131111 V018013 'SN308VO HOV38 VilVd LqlllqHjin ITS EJAZ!!IEGEjZ4al CIN'Vic=in –1001 -JllVm>Zl-llVC=l —,OG. .91 II -- ---------- ----------------- -------- ---- ---- ---------- --------------------- nQ (O'VO�!4 (000H ■ 171 ac > OQ -A A IL 0 ME Lf) N p � N M\., O Y � V •0 co AL um low La i . .r Aw 4 , 1 A O � � o isr O o a Z a w a N p � N M\., O Y � V •0 co AL um low La i . .r Aw 4 , 1 A e a i I ` CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 26, 2001 SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM Petition SP- 01 -19- Northmil Plaza Out - parcels Two and Three. Consideration for Approval: Resolution 153, 2001 A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Northmil Partners, L.C, for a site plan amendment to the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center, to allow for site plan and architectural review of previously approved square footage on two out - parcels, at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Northlake Boulevard (13- 42S -42E). RECOMMENDATION Staff recomiinends approval of Resolution 153, 2001, subject to conditions of approval. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: FINANCE: NA P&Z Commission Growth Management: Action: Principal Planner nner Karen M. Craver Costs: $ [ l Approved Project n�.- Total [X ] App. w/ conditions City Attorne C Manager [ ] Denied Edward Tom i, $ [ ) Rec. approval Finance NA AICP Current FY [ ] Rec. app. w/ conds. Human Res. NA [ ] Rec. Denial Funding Source: N/A [ ] Continued to: Submitted by: Advertised: Attachments: Growth Manag¢il t Date: O eratin [ ) p g • Code Comparison • Zoning and Land Use Directo Ot - Paper: [ ]Other • Resolution 153, 2001 Charles K. Wu, AICP [X] Not Required • Legal Description • Site /Landscape Plan Approved by: City Manager • Aerial Photo Affected ies: Budget Acct. #: [ ] None otified N/A G� [x ]Not Required City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 26, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 BACKGROUND On March 3, 1999, City Council adopted Resolution 47,1999, approving the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center, which included a 90,363 square foot "mainline" Shopping Center and three "out- parcels ". Out - parcel one was approved for a 3,600 square foot financial institution with drive -thru, out - parcel two was approved for a 4,800 square foot "general retail" building, and out - parcel three was approved for a 3,500 square foot "Restaurant with drive - thru." To date, the applicant has completed the "mainline center', which is nearly fully occupied. All landscaping and infrastructure have been completed with the exception of the three out - parcel areas. LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is zoned General Commercial (CG -1), and has a future land use designation of Commercial (C). Due to the fact that this is a "straight- zoning" site, the proposed development must meet all standards within the City's Land Development Regulations, or the applicant must request a variance from code requirements to pursue development not in compliance with the code. CONCURRENCY The proposed site plan amendment includes the deletion of 36 square feet from the original concurrency reservation for this site, and is therefore vested. PROJECT DETAILS Building Architecture For both out - parcels, the applicant has proposed architecture consistent with the architecture of the existing "mainline" shopping center. The 400 Building (out - parcel two) will be a continuation of the architecture of the mainline center, and similar color and tile blends found within the mainline building will be used on the 400 building and on Wendy's. Square Footage Allocation The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved square footage allocations by increasing out - parcel two from 4,800 square feet to 4,919 square feet; decreasing out - parcel three from 3,500 square feet to 3,120 square feet; and, increasing out - parcel one from 3,600 square feet to 3,825 square feet. 2 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 26, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 Site Access There is no direct access from either out - parcel to Military Trail or Northlake Boulevard. Access to both out - parcels is internal from the parking areas within the shopping center. Signage The LDRs permit one wall sign per tenant, in addition to a "building name ". The applicant is proposing a building name on the west elevation of the "400 Building ", in addition to tenant signage, and one wall sign on Wendy's facing the south elevation. Tenant wall signs for the 400 building shall match the color requirements (blue) consistent with the tenant sign program within the "mainline" center. The LDRs do not permit additional ground signs within the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center, based on inadequate right -of -way frontage. Landscaping/Buffering The applicant has provided additional landscaping, approved by the City Forester, within the expanded parking areas required for the out - parcels. Existing landscaping along the edge of the out - parcels will be relocated within the parking area. The City Forester has requested that the applicant enhance the existing landscape buffer along Northlake Boulevard, particularly in front of the existing "main -line" center building. The applicant has revised the landscape plan to provide for additional myrtle trees along Northlake Boulevard, in front of the "main -line" center building. Parking The initial resolution approving Northmil Plaza (Resolution 42, 1999) required parking for the future out - parcels based on the parking requirements in effect prior to the latest code revisions. The applicant has provided this parking in addition to the required parking for the "mainline" shopping center, as required by Resolution 42, 1999. Drainage The applicant shall utilize the existing Northmil Plaza drainage system for on and off -site drainage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of petition SP -01 -19 with the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall restrict the use of the loading zone at the Wendy's Restaurant site to off -peak hours (9 P.M. to 9 A.M.) operation only (Code Enforcement). 3 City Council Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 26, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at its August 28, 2001, meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of this project to City Council, given that the following concerns are satisfied: Amend the Wendy's elevations to provide for more architectural detailing on the rear walk in coolers and storage buildings. The applicant has added stucco, banding and treatments to the metal exterior of these structures so that they are better integrated into the overall building architecture. GAShort Range \sp0119st.doc 4 EXIpiT N ZONING SAND LAND USE ®E�SIGNATIO`NS EXISTING USE ZONING: LAND USE Subject Property Northmil Plaza Shopping Center General Commercial CG -1 Commercial North Residential Low RL -3 Residential — Low (RL) Palm Beach Square Residential Neighborhood South General Commercial CG -1 Commercial (C ) Amoco /Gibson's Market/ N. County Plumbing East Palm Beach Square Residential Residential Low — 3 Residential — Low (RL) Neighborhood (RL -3) West Hess Gasoline Station General Commercial CG -1 Commercial (C ) Sunny Plaza � C(JN:SISTENCY WITH THECODE 3 . � _ Code Requirement Proposed Plan consistent General Commercial CG -1' Out-parcel 2 — 400 Building Site = CG -1 General Shopping Center, General Yes Commercial Retail Minimum Building Site Area None Minimum Site Width 100 feet Yes 100 feet Maximum Building Lot 23% - stand alone Yes Coverage 18% - Total buildings on site 35% (Out- parcels 2, 3 and mainline bldg.) Maximum Building Height 18 feet Yes 36 feet Front Setback 50 feet Yes 50 feet Side Setback 15 feet Yes 15 feet Side Setback Facing a Street N/A N/A 40 feet Rear Setback N/A N/A 15 feet Signs Tenant wall One tenant sign per tenant plus Yes One per tenant and building sign (western wall One per building elevation) Parking Requirements: (Per Resolution 47, 1999) Yes 1 space per 250 seats 4,919 sf @ 1/250 20 spaces = 20 spaces required. Out - parcel 3 — Wendy's Restaurant Site = CG -1 General Shopping Center, General Yes Commercial Retail Minimum Building Site Area N/A N/A None Minimum Site Width 190 feet Yes 100 feet Maximum Building Lot 16% - stand alone Yes Coverage 18% - Total buildings on site 35% Out- parcels 2, 3 and mainline bldg.) Maximum Building Height 23 feet Yes 36 feet CodeRequirem ent Proposed Plan consistent a Genera {E Cammercia CG n re "I � x ... i -1 Front Setback 60 feet Yes 50 feet Side Setback for 50 feet Yes Side Setback Facing a Street N/A N/A 40 feet Rear Setback N/A N/A 15 feet Signs Drive -thru menu; 19.76 square feet in area Yes Maximum 20 square feet maximum height of 5 feet 5 feet in height Tenant wall One per tenant and One building sign Yes One per building Parking Requirements: (Per Resolution 47, 1999) 28 spaces total based on 5 Yes 1 space per 3 seats +1 space employees at peak shift. per employee on maximum shift September 25, 2001 October 4, 2001 RESOLUTION 153, 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO COMMERCIAL OUT - PARCELS AT THE NORTHMIL PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 4,919 SQUARE -FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND AN APPROXIMATELY 3,120 SQUARE -FOOT DRIVE - THROUGH RESTAURANT; PROVIDING FOR A CONDITION OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received a site plan amendment application (SP- 01 -19) from Northmil Partners, L.C., for approval of a site plan amendment to provide for the development of two commercial out - parcels at the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center, as more particularly described herein, providing for an approximately 4,919 square -foot retail building and an approximately 3,120 square -foot drive - through restaurant; and WHEREAS, the 11.5 acre "Northmil Plaza" Shopping Center is currently zoned General Commercial (CG -1), with a future land use of Commercial (C); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient and that it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the site plan amendment application known as Northmil Plaza Out - parcels 2 and 3, subject to a condition stated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby approves an amendment to the "Northmil Plaza" site plan, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to provide the development of two commercial out - parcels at the Northmil Plaza Shopping Center providing for an approximately 4,919 square -foot retail building and an approximately 3,120 square -foot drive - through restaurant. Resolution 153, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: Ocotber 4, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 SECTION 2. Said Site Plan Amendment is approved subject to the following condition, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: (1) The applicant shall restrict the use of the loading zone at the Drive - Through Restaurant site to off -peak hours (9 P.M. to 9 A.M.) operation only (Code Enforcement). SECTION 3. Said approval shall be consistent with all representations made by the applicant or applicant's agents at any workshop or public hearing. SECTION 4. Construction of the site shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department: 1. July 20, 2001, Site Plan, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 2. Date Stamped August 1, 2001, Detail Sheet, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 3. Date Stamped August 1, 2001, Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 4. Date Stamped August 1, 2001, Landscape Development Area #2, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 5. Date Stamped August 1, 2001, Landscape Development Area #3, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 6. Date Stamped August 1, 2001, Plant Detail Sheet, Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet 7. June 30, 2001, Building 400 Floor Plans and Elevations, Ted Davis Associates, Sheet A -1 8. September 6, 2001, Wendy's Floor Plans and Elevations, CKE Group, Sheets A -2 and A -3 9. September 26, 2001, Photometric Plan, Garrison - Frohlich, Sheets E -1 through E -3 10. April 27, 2001, Wendy's Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan, Hollyce Hoover, PE, Sheets C2, C2 and C6. 11. April 17, 2001, Out - parcel 2 Conceptual Drainage Plan, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Sheet C4. 12. November 1999, Northmil Plaza Plat, Wallace Surveying, 2 Sheets SECTION 5. If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 6. All Resolutions, or parts of Resolutions, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2001. ATTEST BY: CAROL GOLD CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO COUNCILMAN CLARK COUNCILMAN SABATELLO G /shortrange /sp0119res Resolution 153, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: Ocotber 4, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY 3 ABSENT Resolution 153, 2001 Meeting Date: October 18, 2001 Date Prepared: September 25, 2001 Petition SP -01 -19 EXHIBIT "A" 4 DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that NorthMd Partners, L. C., a Florida I mited liability company, boonsod to do business in Fonda, owner of the land shown hereon being in Section 13, Township 42 South, Range 42 East, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida, shown hereon as Northmd Plaza Peat, being more parbcularty described as follows: DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 42 South, Range 42 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCE at the Quarter Section corner on the South kne of said Section 13; thence North 00' 18' 30" East along the West kne of the said Southeast Quarter (said West line is assumed to bear North 00' 18' 30" East and all other bearings are relative thereto) a distance of 749.24 beet; thence departing said West lane, North 90' 00' 00' East a distance of 53.00 fleet to a point on the existing Easterty Right -of -Way line ofAUtary Trai as recorded in OftQ/ Record Book 2797, Page 1530 Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, said point also lying on the Southerly line of Palm Beach Square Unit 4, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 27, Page 15, said Public Records, said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the hereinafter described parcel of land; thence continue North 90' 00'00* East, along said Southerly line, a distance of 758.41 feet to a point on the Westerty line of said Plat; thence South 00' 19'45' West, along said Westerly line, a distance of 376.77 feet; thence continue along said Westerty fine, South 410 28' 52' East a distance o(30. 00 feet to a point on the Southerty fine of said Plat and the Westerly extension of the Southerty line of Palm Bead, Square Unit 3, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 233, said Public Records; thence continue along said Southerly lines and Westerly extension thereof, North 90' 00' 00" East, a distance of 335.86 feat; thence departing sail Southerly lines, South 00' 19'30* West a distance of 174.99 feet; thence South 90' 00'000 West a distance of 355.92 feet; thence South 00' 18'30" West a distance of 119.00 feet; thence South 90' 00'00' West, along a line 6.00 feet Northerty of and parallel with the Northerty Right -of -Way kne of Northlake Boulevard as recorded in Deed Book 946, Page 453, said Pub�c rvcorrls, atdistance of 46-1-15-feet; thence North 00' 18'30* East a distance of 294.00 feet; thence South 90' 00'00' West, a distance of 287.00 feet to a point on a kne lying 10.00 feet Easterty of and paralel with said Easterty Right -of -Way kne of Military Trail, thence North 00' 18'30* East, along sand parallel kne, a distance of 163.92 feet; thence South 90' 00'00' West a distance of 10.00 feet to a point on the existing Easterty Right -of -Way kne of said Military Trail; thence North 00' 18' 30" East, a.bog said Right -of -Way line, a distance of 235.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Ild!I L —off 6 II I'. I li II II II II II F II 3 Ili II � IIII ----------------------------- -- _-- - -_- -- -� -- -_ — �--- -"- - -- - F k a - � � IIIII 111111 Vill iJ I I g I I R-� I I 33i - I ; g I I 1 I -- ' -- -- -I tfil_itl® o l u I � / e rl Y"M_ 8 � I a I . .1 . I I lit LIN I I a e- d zl L' ii�o i II� I _ I � I r —� I I I f E-- I I_ r-- I I I I �o r -I- I 1 - I 1 I' I' — —LI rj L _ =_ r — , In L -_ il' - I_III I @@ I J L - - -- I SJ I L - - - - -' I I I 3 L C uvi N ^ap $ m a�° a -s vi gs I m znpr_ 8a dP� 914 f s . 55 $il$$¢� a$ 3 dm zi I a o L ------ J ad�da e I. II I I m v y _ v v � I I i i �I �f� �y 'z L- - - - -- r p >m� mr+m �m�mrn uMS _________J " m ° 8 1x3' , I I I NorthMil Plaza a�fr £fg =bass ;s; eg:�a CA C $ . Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Petition# PUD -96 -05 S13, T42, R429x t �ge :GHQ s F7� ° Site Plan I,, ------------------- ............ W lh� 14 pill PI to Ell iti .... ...... . 4 61 ... . .... ... __ � � i, i'i'i � ii', !II1lll 11111 lllllllllllllllllllll - -�'�_ - - - --' 'i "i'i" �i "' 111111 llllllllllllllllllll ___ - -� -T - - -� - - - - -- 9 I - 3 r ------- - - - - -- 7 - EL-=------ - - - - -- -° _____________ __-'a —n w d m C w f < MILITARY w N m D C EXIST. W000 P.P. ___ -- 'a 4• P.L. SBT CABLES IN DUCT E RELOCAT€B. -- - �Bk OTHERS) a - - 4• -- -- --- IN Ducr MILI ARY T -- ----- o - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- -- 12• vIN - -;�I °2 -------------------- ' � -- — — — — — — — — — - - - -- -- `�•-------------------------------------------------- - - - - - -- - ------ - -- ---------- --- ----------------- - - - - -- -- __ ---------------- - - - - -- — ---------------- - - - - -- - 2••faY- ou =A=5Ji - -- ---------------- - - - - -- - - o <6 ° C r 41 II • ti 7 Space 401 ;A7 M Space 402 D �n� sk dI C) A1I � UzJ Space 403 bkr • DCM (7 M • CO - -- - -- , N al Spare 404 space 405 41 II • ti 7 oe®� ®®a�i� ®• (D (D o m CL N O rt h M i' Plaza Palm Beach Gardens, Florida � ill 11 Future Development Area #2 Landscape Plan[;; s�; > �n� sk dI A1I � bkr • b9 i • "t i ,� • Y , I • � ` j • r �0 • .� I • l lI r tt1 • IiR <Y�' �tr'•,Gi 1 � • aid • oe®� ®®a�i� ®• (D (D o m CL N O rt h M i' Plaza Palm Beach Gardens, Florida � ill 11 Future Development Area #2 Landscape Plan[;; s�; > I I II� I II Y� II Y I I I I I 5 I I III I I I�I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I � I I i JI�� I I I III i I II , II I I l i i l l I i I I I f'l I ix I I � CIL I I , I I I I Im I Xl I I i i I I� III 1 i I I o)1 , 0II I D I I I I I I I I I I I I it I 1 II I 1 I� II III I II ;a I II I r I II; to I I Y II 1� II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I n F 5 �F 4 00 M I X X I D g o o 'fin Z I G7 G% I D �9 °a rDS mm i 1 A 3g3 I I x I I I I I m mC I — 15' L N 00'18'30" E � f \ — \_ / a 31[106 3ali IN 300.00' o-: r 5 a -� ' �iw.y �l I'oi01 \` \ #ii .ire."+vorrR "s!f F� u b V ®I �,y ®���I �� •ia e" ,1M�r 1 co Ca I g � Q � $� � 19 °�l` a ie�� � "4�.i NorthM I Plaza al } '11.1 } Mal e � Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Future Development Area #3 Landscape Plan U10 7 7 OfDIG •'� �..PVa4 irl• �a 8 3 I os 1 O01 _ M /i'I -- 9 t: Q Y 11111 m m m M 8 — t H I " I H l l H 1 H I ll i is +l M M ll l �Y if +l IM o Ali �7 _ 11 i ' l , 1!N• /1 {\ - oRn. ids- Rmrmcu A ®nom NORTHMIL PLAZA o BUILDING 400 o THEODORE E. DAVIS ARCfarECTS AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. JUI •n• mm Pahn Beach Gordon Pro■ 6ri-7"7718 M1•LNb 111•lyF.. 1817 n6 Florida \Served \projects \Wendys \North Lake \ARCH \A1.dwg Wed Apr 25 12:43:20 2001 A4 �.y ggly protect no. e14 aC0181 AS Ntl tlat0. 410-7001 drawn by, pr- rev[alone 15500 NEW BARN ROAD �y E R g = =111 dQada J (° G � �Aa A { P FP P• P N.• A P P All T9 a�R If I 4 flail p a 0 '� q L .r INCORPORAT • architecture • I !Iplannll I • 13051 , 58 -4 • SUITE 106 • MIAMI LAKES, FLORIDA 33014 \ \Serverl \projects \Wendys \North Lake \ARCH \A2.dwg Wed Apr 25 12:43:50 2001 I.-AD DO 'lax protect no. M4 � r = GROUP D ecalelmwT v r 9 0 mRm- aorNawn y ratm w¢ avn. 1 �arrwtr nrw date. +ro-soa ...m, �, ..m„., v.m.�N6'wO�•�pR�� INCORPORATED drawn by, va revlelons BUILDING ELEVATIONS engineering • architecture • planning 15500 NEW BARN ROAD • SUITE 106 • MIAMI LAKES, FLORIDA 33014 • 13051 558-4124 i \ \Served \projects \Wendys \North Lake \ARCH \A3.dwg Wed Apr 25 12:42:47 2001 z D r o lla , Jillrn 6 a � w S lit _� F ,A 4 i fi r Fen - ........ Ti • Imo— .. - O........ S ' i m 0 D 0 t f' w 1 a �A em All Jill �Rj ��� lip �1 14, 1 j lie ' Ea��Protect no. ow �d s®CKE GF�OUP cale, as raim �rHw.ar wx aw. �mnNer rwa date, 4- -zoa rAl,+��ca swroera.rt.wvw INCORPORATED o '. am drawn by. vF revielone ROOF PLAN engineering • architecture • planning 15500 NEW BARN ROAD • SUITE 106 • MIAMI LAKES, FLORIDA 33014 • 13051 558 -4124 m� �o om �m ro tit 1° � A I'1 G C 16 S J J so Q o - 'a __ - - - -- - ----- :--------- ---- - - - - -- ------ T -'- - -- - --_----===== r_____________________ ________�________________ =I - - -- - - a--------------- - - - - -- s ------- - - - - -- - -- o 13 +00 14 +00 --------------- ----------- 1 --- __---------- - ---------- -�- MILITAIY _SAIL o _ -_ + 1 1J lS S _----- ____ _ - T _ __ re L s _ _ i i d In o I= I 1 r I II• 1 Q\ s�we 1 I II I I ill I I "(9 I I I Al III 1 I� I I I I� I 'I I II. III I ' II 1 III . _J III JII III I -011 m�a I fj I'1 G C 16 S J J so Q o - 'a __ - - - -- - ----- :--------- ---- - - - - -- ------ T -'- - -- - --_----===== r_____________________ ________�________________ =I - - -- - - a--------------- - - - - -- s ------- - - - - -- - -- o 13 +00 14 +00 --------------- ----------- 1 --- __---------- - ---------- -�- MILITAIY _SAIL o _ -_ + 1 1J lS S _----- ____ _ - T _ __ re L s _ _ i i d In o I= I 1 r I II• 1 Q\ s�we 1 I II I I ill I I "(9 I I I Al III 1 I� I I I I� I 'I I II. III I ' II 1 III . _J III JII III I -011 m�a S I 1 Ii I I I I III I - L� III L »vova _J 4 J ICI I I I I'x'I I I III I 1 31 I AI I CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN re �� OUTPARCEL 2�ao AT NORTHMIL PLAZA Palm Beach Gardens, FL ; 4 0, iLORI�A R60 HN 94789 i � - S = l IDp a /1i/ i i 4 A fj U I.I II I 1 ,... f8 m a ... I I I II,I 1 FT, a octi a II.I �. I I to IRI¢1 S I 1 Ii I I I I III I - L� III L »vova _J 4 J ICI I I I I'x'I I I III I 1 31 I AI I CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN re �� OUTPARCEL 2�ao AT NORTHMIL PLAZA Palm Beach Gardens, FL ; 4 0, iLORI�A R60 HN 94789 i � - S = l IDp a /1i/ i i 4 A CIS a� yo 5-y 05 mri R 8� z A 1 D m m D DM � a z v -� n yym vu o C N�o y aap 8 ,$ I Il �� I'I Igp�I � m ICI e � II � II il I ,I I I I I F I •'` ®gs ©i I i III III I I �- I 4 °s1 I �� N � r ❑ IQ'° ®Bs to III I so f a ®£2° a£hiA a5mm @2RQI=P °- Eg�'�� o rg I $y m m $ - .,mmma�aa a��z�5`3 - 1 o >° mNaSlCPPoo��E,� pA�'£gzA,�o�nmm��a i32n�amz m 9 F 6� 2 F£ G ��F£ 319 gill I aA O P y F I om N 6 =g `" r -zo -a CONSULTING onrt: a/za CONSUG CIVI o �W��a�� `fir � °�_ 1 ciu`a•�wcorismucna u.w rol l ENGI EER ;,a0 acaewn�t'timo �"inse ncpxsm: w °^ — £ m o rM•ard+m t aae.a. lnco> rxs �� �m HOLLYCE SOYTH LANGE HOOVER, PE 175 SOUTN SEWALL'S POINT ROAD n R >9 s� ei SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA 34996 N r z (561) 219 -1769 FAX: 1(561) 219 -1757 HUI I PAVING & DRAINAGE PLAN I ° •'` ®gs ©i I i III III I I �- I 4 °s1 I �� N � r ❑ IQ'° ®Bs ©e III I ��t I oOl�sts3lmo l.o III I 0 Fri 71 m 9 F 6� 2 F£ G ��F£ 319 gill I aA O m � h fi - om N 6 =g `" r -zo -a CONSULTING onrt: a/za CONSUG CIVI o �W��a�� `fir � °�_ 1 ciu`a•�wcorismucna u.w rol l ENGI EER ;,a0 acaewn�t'timo �"inse ncpxsm: w °^ — £ m o rM•ard+m t aae.a. lnco> rxs �� �m HOLLYCE SOYTH LANGE HOOVER, PE 175 SOUTN SEWALL'S POINT ROAD n R >9 s� ei SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA 34996 N r z (561) 219 -1769 FAX: 1(561) 219 -1757 HUI I PAVING & DRAINAGE PLAN I ° s� mg a� �A o�o �m In - -- -- - - -� � -= -m a a•�: � ��� ���� o=DA 4A9 T A = =� s. m E. m 4z o �g xwr0'JVE t¢s0 C) Ill I A ICI D ICI � m ICI , •' , II w � I za I° I I £ �� ai- - z :q ^A�6�om e�m yn >yoaogo g=K "gN:n oa �g�o� , V g R ef� C4�'n m m ma 4 3 6 rrt m I �l o o S ry o M r—o� p J (�) 1/jJ��' G pxwccr coxsmrcnox uaxa oars rRrNi §� A e O n Aim � czi� LIL.� ¢ BOwJ CV marl RA o � 4 N � _ = rswarw,'a�awor msvma earl y _ ..y. wrde.e x.Een.. caoo >> = -s Hui WATER & WASTEWATER D1 ^en A - I 1l � IIml<3mmmmlm CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER HOLLYCE LANG E HOOVER, PE 175 SOUTH 6EWA"L POINT ROAO SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA 34996 (561) 219 -1769 FAX: (561) 219 -1757 VI m n O r A 0 z y m r m D O m O D A O ?R m� sa S D _ _ I0 o n _ mn 6s "c' �`� ate. IE RA pp N F� D W^m fill r I - g �� gm o. �• a � 6mN m„ inP P. IV n° '3c °� z A aua,[ci uasnvcnm u.ws� O X z��o c' y cuauw.ife. R°moR� �]A ° 5S `: � � � ��• m y� �� (BOO7 ns -saes nnI 111TAII IZ D Z Y ev -o I 0 —I D m z O O m Z S¢ �4 W\ ■�■� ■m■� 6� f -- - - - - -- I m m -- I I CONSULTING 1I41L ENGINEER 9 175 -1 1 LANGEI HOOVER. PE 175 SOUTH SEWALL'$ POINT ROAD $ SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA 34996 (561) 219 -1759 FA %: (551) 219 -1757 �■ ■�IIIIIIII ■sue/ - ■Illl��i�l� ■Ifi��i�7�■ IV n° '3c °� z A aua,[ci uasnvcnm u.ws� O X z��o c' y cuauw.ife. R°moR� �]A ° 5S `: � � � ��• m y� �� (BOO7 ns -saes nnI 111TAII IZ D Z Y ev -o I 0 —I D m z O O m Z S¢ �4 W\ ■�■� ■m■� 6� f -- - - - - -- I m m -- I I CONSULTING 1I41L ENGINEER 9 175 -1 1 LANGEI HOOVER. PE 175 SOUTH SEWALL'$ POINT ROAD $ SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA 34996 (561) 219 -1759 FA %: (551) 219 -1757 { � 3 t �{ Palm Beach Square Residential Neighborhood Zoning: RL-3 Land Use: Residential Low y t y .3 j °i 1�� - iVp .dr �• � A M .i , ` iititary Trait s T rte:. ` I > OUTPARCEL 2 400 Building: OUTPARCEL 3 �•a.�. -`– Restaurant _ - - — _ �--= �N Ttl����.c �� General CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Date: 10/9101 Meeting Date: 10/18/01 Subject/Agenda Item City Manager Performance Evaluation Recommendation /Motion: Items for Council Action - Performance Evaluation due under the terms of the City Manager employment Agreement. Reviewed by: Originating Dept: Costs: $ Council Action: (Total) City Attorney Human Resources [ ] Approved $ [ ] Approved w/ Finance Current FY conditions [ ] Denied ACM Funding Source: [ ] Continued to: Advertised: Attachments: Other [ IOperating [X ] Not Required [ X ] Other Submitted by: Department Director Affected parties [ ] Notified Budget Acct #: [ ] None Approved by: City Manager [ ] Not required BACKGROUND: Under the terms of the City Manager's employment agreement executed on February 15, 2001, the City Manager's performance evaluation was due to prior to August 3, 2001. Since the majority of our time has been consumed with the budget, we have not been able to satisfy this timeline. The City Manager may receive a zero to six (0 -6 %) percent increase of his base salary. M E M O R A N D U M WATTERSON, HYLAND & KLETT, P.A. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney Subject: Proposed Settlement Agreement with RA CO AMO, INC. Date: October 5, 2001 This is a request for approval of a settlement with RA CO AMO, INC. of the eminent domain proceedings initiated bythe City in connection with the widening of Burns Road. This settlement is the product of numerous discussions between the City's experts and those retained by the property owner. During the course of such discussions, the City was represented by Paul Golis, its special legal counsel for eminent domain matters. The settlement requires the City to pay RA CO AMO a total of $35,000, representing full compensation for the cost of the land and landscaping actually taken by the City and severance damages forthe loss of additional property due to the required reconfiguration of the site. The City will also be required to pay an additional sum of $10,000 in attorney's fees to counsel for RA CO AMO, as mandated by statute. The sums set forth above are exclusive of RA CO AMO's expert witness fees, which are also required by statute. The settlement amount, in addition to all of the fees and costs, are well within the budget established by the City for the Burns Road project and will be paid with bond funds. Please be advised that the settlement with RA CO AMO is contingent upon the grant of certain variances by the City's Board of Zoning Appeals and the construction of site modifications. If the variances are not granted, or the parties cannot agree as to the cost of the site modifications, RA CO AMO may reopen the case by filing a Supplemental Claim for additional damages. City staff, including legal and engineering, is extremely supportive of the proposed settlement. Dan Clark will be available at the meeting to provide whatever sketches or drawings the Council may wish to view. Hon. Mayor and City Council Page 2 October 5, 2001 Should you have any questions relative to the foregoing, orwish to discuss the matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact this office. cc: Ronald Ferris, City Manager Dan Clark, City Engineer Paul Golis, Esquire P: \C P W i n \History\000306A \446.23 (scw) (319.055) XIV. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: b. Clarification of "Conflict of Interest." (Backup Forthcoming) r CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS MEMORANDUM , ` t.: TO: Ron Ferris, City Manager DATE: October 18, 2001 FROM: Allan Owens, Finance Director SUBJECT: State General Revenue Forecast The State's Revenue Estimating Conference convened on October 15, 2001 to re- evaluate their revenue estimates for the current and coming fiscal years. The new estimate of General Revenue collections, when combined with the revised estimates from the estimating conference held September 15�', totals $1.3 billion less than the original estimate used to develop this year's appropriations act, which amounts to a 6.61o� reduction. By applying this estimate to our budget projections for State Sales Tax Municipal Revenue Sharing, we could possibly be looking at combined reductions of approximately $156,000, as follows: Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Original State Estimates $2,553,648 $705,155 Less: Reduction (6.6 %) (168,540) (46,540) Revised State Estimates $2,385,108 $658,615 City Budget Estimates 2,550,000 650,000 Estimated (Shortage) Surplus $ (164,892) $ 8,615 Due to a very conservative budget estimate for State Revenue Sharing, the revised estimate is still above our budget amount, by $8,615. However, the revised estimate for Sales Tax revenue is $164,892 below our budget amount, for a combined shortage of approximately $156,000. It is important to remember, however, that the estimated 6.6% reduction is a State -wide estimate, and the actual effect on each county will vary, depending on many factors in each area, such as tourism, employment, consumer spending, etc. In addition, approximately $940 million in the State's Budget Stabilization Account is not taken into account in their revised projections. This will be discussed by the Legislature in a special session beginning October 22, 2001. Accordingly, we will be monitoring our revenues closely this year, and will be prepared to re -assess our available funding and the allocation of those resources, should the need arise. 7 Some of the options that could be used to offset the potential lost revenue include freezing or deferring current vacant positions, and deferral of major capital expenditures. However, we will not know the true effect on our revenue stream until the end of the calendar year, when the State has actually begun to receive collections for September. At that time, we will better be able to assess what actions are needed. If you have any questions, please let me know. M E M O R A N D U M WATTERSON, HYLAND & KLEfT, P.A. To: Hon. Mayor and City Council From: Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney Subject: Voting Requirements and Conflicts Date: October 18, 2001 cc: Ronald Ferris, City Manager Carol Gold, City Clerk At its October 5, 2001 meeting, the City Council requested clarification and confirmation from this office regarding a Council Member's obligation to vote on an item before the City Council. 1. A Council member must vote in the absence of a voting conflict or conflict of interest. Section 28.012, Florida Statutes, requires a member of the City Council, who is present at a meeting, to vote on an item before the Council unless there is, or appears to be, a conflict of interest or voting conflict pursuant to the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. 2. A voting conflict arises when the vote inures to the Council member's own special private gain or loss or the special private gain or loss of the Council member's principal, family member or business associate. Pursuant to section 112.3143(a), Florida Statutes, a voting conflict arises when a public official is called upon to vote upon: any measure which inure the officer's special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom the officer is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which the officer is retained; or which the officer knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer. The phrase "principal by whom the officer is retained" includes the officer's employer, a client of the officer's professional practice and a corporation for which the officer serves as a compensated director. Situations where the person or entity in question has not been found to be a principal by whom the officer is retained include the officer's church, the officer's landlord, a homeowner's association of which the officer is a member, a non - profit corporation Hon. Mayor and City Council October 18, 2001 Page 2 of which the officer is an uncompensated director, a hospital where the officer is on medical staff, and customers of the officer's retail store. For purposes of determining whether a voting conflict exists, a "relative" is defined to include only the public officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law and daughter -in -law. This definition of relative is much narrower than the definition utilized for the anti - nepotism law. Finally, under the terms of the statute, a business associate is defined to mean any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with a public officer "as a partner, joint venturer, corporate shareholder where the shares of such corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange, or coowner of property." 3. The special private gain to the Council member depends on the size of the class of persons affected and is fact - specific. The requisite special private gain to the public official is essentially a financial one. However, not all measures that work to the financial benefit or detriment of the public official qualify under the terms of the statute. Specifically, the gain or loss of the public officer must not be the same gain or loss garnered by members of the general public. For example, a measure to reduce taxes would inure to the private gain of each taxpayer, including the public officials who are to vote on the proposal. The Commission on Ethics is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the voting conflicts law. The Commission has expressly recognized that the concept of "special" gain must relate to the number of persons affected: Whether a measure inures to the special private gain of an officer or his principal will turn in part on the size of the class of persons who stand to benefit from the measure. Where the class of persons is large, a special gain will result only if there are circumstances unique to the officer or principal under which he stands to gain more than other members of the class. Where the class of persons benefitting from the measure is extremely small, the possibility of special gain is much more likely. Clearly, where the official is the only beneficiary of the measure, there would be "special" private gain to that official. There are circumstances, however, where the financial effect is too indirect to constitute such special gain. For example, a Council member would not be prohibited from voting on a proposed sign ordinance where he orshe owned an art shop that produced signs or an advertising company that purchased billboard space because the Hon. Mayor and City Council October 18, 2001 Page 3 financial effect is indirect and the Council memberwould not be impacted by the ordinance to a significantly greater or lesser degree than the owners of other businesses within the City. Opinions issued by the Commission on Ethics indicate that the threshold for "special gain" occurs when the official constitutes approximately 1 -2% of the size of the class of persons affected. By way of example: • A city councilman was prohibited from voting on an ordinance limiting the number of wrecker businesses on a city wrecker rotation from 18 to 11 when he worked for one of the 11 companies. • A county commissioner should have been prohibited from voting to pave the road to his residence, where his was one of 13 residences on the paved portion and he owned the majority of the land abutting one side of the paved portion of the road. • A council memberwas prohibited from voting on a measure to resolve a real property ownership dispute between the town and 43 property owners, including the council member. • A city commissioner was prohibited from voting on a renovation project that would benefit property in which he owned an interest, where part of the cost of the project would be assessed against the property owners and the commissioner owned 50% of one of 55 parcels. • A county planning commissionerwas prohibited from voting on a comprehensive plan amendment affecting the designation of 1,200 acres of property owned by the planning commission, his relatives and business associates where the measure would have affected a total of approximately 32,000 acres. • A county commissioner should not have voted on the extension of a road along the boundary of her property where the commissioner owned 260 acres, was one of 32 property owners along the proposed road extension, and was the fifth largest landowner along the road extension. Where the class of persons affected is sufficiently large, the Commission has found that no "special" gain was deemed to occur. For example: A city mayor could vote on measures involving the proposed expansion and renovation of a private club where he was one of 2,000 members. A planning commissioner could vote on a comprehensive plan amendment that would have affected 29,000 acres where his principal was leasing 300 acres. Hon. Mayor and City Council October 18, 2001 Page 4 4. The special private gain to the Council member must be direct and proximate. In some situations, the Commission on Ethics has concluded thatdespite some potential for financial benefit, any gain or loss resulting from the measure would be so remote or speculative that it could not be said to create a voting conflict: A city commissioner could vote on rent increases fora mobile home park owned by the city and located near a proposed recreational vehicle park he owned, because the possibility that he could in the future justify charging higher rent for his park if the city's park had higher rent was too speculative. A city commissioner could vote on the rezoning of property that was being sold contingent upon rezoning, where the commissioner supported another group that was interested in purchasing the same property and the commissioner probably would have been the building contractor for that group in the event the group were to purchase the property. The failure of the rezoning measure would not be the only contingency that would have to occur for the commissioner to benefit from the development of the property. Please be advised that the Florida Statutes specifically authorize public officials to vote on matters affecting their salary, expenses, or other compensation as a public officer. 5. In the event of a voting conflict, a Council member must disclose the nature of the conflict and abstain from voting. If there is, or appears to be, a voting conflict under the terms of the statute, the member of the City Council must: (1) abstain from voting on the measure; (2) before the vote, publicly state to the persons assembled the nature of his or her interest in the matter; and (3) within 15 days of the vote, file a memorandum of voting conflict (Form 813) with the City Clerk. This office will gladly consult with any Council member who believes that he or she may have a voting conflict with regard to any item before the City Council. Under certain circumstances and where the timing permits, we may seek an opinion from the Commission on Ethics prior to the vote taking place. Hon. Mayor and City Council October 18, 2001 Page 5 I hope this memorandum has provided some additional clarification and guidance. Should you have any questions relative to the foregoing or wish to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. P: \C P W i n \H I STO RY\010928A\446.82 (319.055) I V � � a� *' E +t•' N 0 N 0 C Q C 0 N E U •U U�c m t N E O r C 0 0 3 C V LU F- L F- 3 0 r E 2 4- 20 O L U O a4-1 LL � 1 s 3 Co LU � � •L L G MM� � V �o � 0 o cq ri CL L L '0 � C +' FL Z Q ' � 0 � aU 3 N P U cnn I U �c a O WV �U Om L. L� Q Z *� W aNi � 3 �a O cr U U m a� *' E 4J W. v C E o E U c �m °CEu C C V 3 •U �pM U a4J '=Lo z CL 0 co c t � m? E J o 4,- 'L 4 d N L O E N N N O = p p CL Z Q U N aU FF U m 'V �c a O WV �U 0 a LL a (0 O Z +, W aNi G � O U a C CL O O co E a z a U N Ron., o X f a' C 4) m 4a E N •'0 0 O a c r O 0 y V U � c .ca: C C 3 V N 0 M U Q 4-1 0 U L � _ U 0 N a U E C .N •0 'L at•, L 0 N O O � E N6E L m .D o ' N 0 0 t CL P U �c ao U 2 Z% F— U N a� LL Q Cl) o W3 OLL U i N N N N N E a z a U U Cl) 9V E t L 4-1 N Q 0 a) m� E a N o :cup E p Cl) L Q) i O N Co a+j _ o a. rnV N C - •L � L co %W co C :Lj r N E o E o 'u E N o H Y` READ AT COURT HOUSE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING HONORABLE PALM BEACH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS My name is Roger Blangy. I live in Garden Woods Palm Beach Gardens and I am the principal representative of that neighborhood. I think MPO is doing a great job in planning transportation well ahead of time. I would like to say a few words on the situation here in Garden Woods. As you will see on the enclosed map, this residential community will be the only one in Palm Beach Gardens affected by the proposed at -grade railroad crossing and the future railroad station. For the last 2 years this community sent 3 petitions to the City of Palm Beach Gardens and FDOT against a proposed at -grade railroad crossing at Kyoto Drive, planned by FDOT in April 1999. Myself and Ms Sharon Long spoke at the linkage meeting in this court house on Dec 06, 2000. This at -grade railroad crossing will only be 500 Feet away and will increase the noise to about 100 homes in Garden Woods, from 80 to 90 decibels. FEC Railway in a letter to Palm Beach Gardens and FDOT dated May 29, 2001 will not give the authorization for the new railroad crossing due to safety. Commissioner Karen Marcus was advised of the situation. As an alternative, the residents of Garden Woods and FEC Railway suggested a 2 lane roadway overpass instead of an at -grade railroad crossing but FDOT is not taking the matter in consideration. It would only need a small change in the construction of the PGA Flyover SW ramp in order to accommodate an roadway overpass at Kyoto Drive at a later date. At the City Hall meeting of Oct 04, 2001, the City Council said that they are powerless about a change because it was FDOT that made the decision on the crossing. With an at -grade railroad crossing so near the railroad station, it will not be safe for passengers crossing Alt Al and the FEC Railway tracks at a last minute rush to take the train. Because of the at -grade railroad crossing, the trains entering and leaving the railroad station would have to whistle, making the area even more noisy. I believe the residents of this community will not be against the proposed railroad station as long as it is whistle free and safe. I think a meeting with Commissioner Karen Marcus, MPO, Tri-Rail, FEC Railway, FDOT, the City of Palm Beach Gardens, the property owner of parcel 5A and the representative of Garden Woods should take place. The purpose of the meeting would be to arrive at a solution with FDOT for a possible change in the construction of the PGA Flyover SW ramp in order to accept a roadway overpass. Hop;w5;;; his situation I thank you for your attention. Rog 1165Hree Palm Beach Gardens F133410 Oct 18, 2001 9; cc: Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor Thomas F. Barry, FDOT Secretary Rick Chesser, FDOT District 4 Secretary Joe Russo, Palm Beach Gardens Mayor, Council & City Manager Dominic M. Calabro, President & Chief Executive Officer Florida Tax Watch John McPherson, FEC Railway President & Chief Operating Officer Leslie Schonder, FEC Railway Manager- Engineer Randy Whitfield, Director Metropolitan Planning Organization Dennis Newjahr, Tri-Rail Director of Planning and Capitol Development George Webb, County Engineer Dan Weisberg, Asst. Director traffic Division Gerry O'Reilly, FDOT Acting Director of Planning & Production Charles K. Wu, Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Director Kenneth A. Blair, Executive Government Liaison Catalfumo Company Steven B. Cramer, Palm Beach Gardens Principal Planner Daniel P. Clark, Palm Beach Gardens City Engineer Patrick Glass, FDOT Project Manager Howard Webb, FDOT Design Engineer Janice Bordelon, FDOT Central Rail Office Tallahassee Nadir Rodrigues, FDOT District 4 Railroad Coordinator Ian N. Biava, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc Project Manager �• a X \ 1 o � , C e m11 1, N m g g3; r ns ,TV 11 1 1 h"101 is t: I � , mI FA _j r� A AA #E - I I � s Parcel 5A PCD Palm Beach Gardens, Flo e PCD Master Plan c U. OI r" � C17 O � IS _a e gg� fig � � `•� l�Ibi 1'O �uoP1PPd jf m� NIV wspq ?�g � mN V•• C i ���tw0a ano r ° H �• a X \ 1 o � , C e m11 1, N m g g3; r ns ,TV 11 1 1 h"101 is t: I � , mI FA _j r� A AA #E - I I � s Parcel 5A PCD Palm Beach Gardens, Flo e PCD Master Plan c U. OI r" � C17 O � V a P� � f^ on a� :m IJ d >W 1 P 1 18� m N ° fp �m ° I _ O F D � r oil b 10 ty f MITI qq all N g°oi 112 6 c �> nc � aaaing fD N Fl I v at t 3 IC'4P4 a � N 'seogo $oho Q CAP t I t OD w�?Yc N iii ° or, � m a. N O o 4. i r m� da ���tw0a O O R r H � -2. H »• C O o z �s� ° O < �a �m ° I _ O F D � r oil b 10 ty f MITI qq all N g°oi 112 6 c �> nc � aaaing fD N Fl I v at t 3 IC'4P4 a � N 'seogo $oho Q CAP t I t OD w�?Yc N iii ° or, � m a. N O o 4. i r CITY OF PAI M BEACH GARDENS SELF EVALUATION PERFORMANCE REPORT. ADMINISTRATION Employees Narne: po `1 1'1L ti r— 1 „ , Employee #: Tide (:. T/y M !r ' r'� Division DOH /Promotioim: Pay Grade: Current Salary: p Type: Probation (3), (6) Annual Rating Period: From �' ' l . to G 3 0 i F1~Ient Weight Score Total1 ELEMENT L• APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE: Professional knowledge is sufficient to enable employee to perform duties without assistance; recognizes issues and circumstances which require attention and assistance of higher authority; demonstrates knowledge of Federal, State and local laws, regulations and procedures pertaining to area of responsibility; assumes personal and ultimate responsibility for •10 RT -FMENT 2- cRES " provisi cr mnletion of work. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS STANDARD: Is families *with traditional and current research procedures and methods of analysis including computer based data soturces, etc.; collects raw data from .05 appropriate sources, analyzes data, reaches conclusions, prepares and explains alternative recommendations and anririnated results in logical, inuiomtandahle and dPfPneihlP manner; recognizes and reports data trends. ELEMENT 3: COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION STANDARD: Maintains effective comn-p —Ation with and between divisions within department, strives to share relevant information with departmental staff, other departments, citizens and various groups; ensures all interested parties are aware of goals and activities and provides necessary information to accomplish assigned tacks; maintains professional .10 V i reladonsbips with consultants, associates, and other professionals and has critical listening skills. i ELEMENT 4: SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS STANDARD: Prepares and /or reviews work programs and schedules of subordinates; encourages punctuality; ensures that work ,10 is accomplished on schedule and according to requirements; provides feedback, information and guidance to emplovees as performance indicates; ensures subordinates follow City and departrmental SDP's. , ELEMENT 5: PLANNING AND ORGAN14A I ION 51 "ANIM": tieveiops goals ana oulcuirves, staffing and budget needs; helps maintain desired service levels; anticipates financial needs, potential problems and .15 emergency situations; develops and maintains efficient and functional process for achieving work prog —n; V recommends necessary organization changes as worst load and service needs demand. ELEMENT 6: FISCAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD: Plans and prioritizes budget and financial responsibilities to accomplish assigned tasks. Exercises sound financial judgement and uses realistic .fir t assumptions in long range financial plans budget preparation and administration. ELEMENT 7: SAFETY AND PERSONAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD: Perform duties with concern for safety of self and others. Ensures personnel use appropriate safety procedures, keeps work station ,05 clean and free of debris, unrelated work material and unsafe obstructions; promotes safety to associates and subordinates. ELEMENT 8: LEADERSHIP STANDARD: Motivator and organizer, prepares subordinates to substitute in his /her absence. Leadership achievements dramatically further City's mission. Perseveres .10 through tough challenges Consistently decisive and calm under stressful situations. ELEMENT 9: DECISION MAKMG STANDARD: Displays analytical and ethical skills to make sound judgement and timely decisions and does not react without thinking through potential .10 consequences of the actions. Exercises proper authority to makes decisions without deferring up the hierarchy. ELEMENT 10: PROJECT COMPLETION STANDARD: Takes initiative for departmental and interdepartmental issues and develops innovative approaches to assist in project completion. ,10 Plans/prioritizes with skill and foresight Meets project deadlines and goal e ctations. OUTSTANDING ABOVE SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY 5.0 -4.6 45 -3.6 3.5 -2.6 NEEDSIMPROVEMENT UNSATISFACTORY jAt� 2.5-1.6 t5-1 / Goals and Objectives for next year attached: Yes _ No TOTAL SCORE Date reviewed with Employee I understand if I disagree with tha I am fled to appeal to the City Manager in writing, ce may include any rebuttal m said exaltation in writing. This rep been wi iris I have received a copy. I agree with tmry rating ( )• I disagree ( )• I UNDERS�9ND THAT P OF SG MUST BE MADE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF MY RATING REVIEW. Date: City Manager Sign CITY OF PALM. BEACH GARDENS -�, EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL. REPORT . ADMINISTRATION Employee Name: Employee #- Tide: Division-. DOH /Promotion: Pay Grade: Current Salary: Type: Probation (3) (6) _ Annual Rating Period: From to -. �-- Element W ' Score Total ELEMENT 1: APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE: Professional knowledge is Sufficient to enable employee to perform duties without assistance, recognizes issues and circumstances which require attention and assistance of higher authority; Amionstrates kao fledge of Federal, State and local laws, regulations and procedures perta"ng to area of responsibility; assumes personal and ultimate responsibility for V 3 provision of service and compktion of work. I ELEMENT 2: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS STANDARD: Is familiar with traditional and current research procedures and methods of analysis including computer based data sources, etc.; collects raw data from appropriate sources, analyzes data, reaches conclusions, and explains alternative recommendations and prepares anticipated results in logical, understandable and def —isle n -mler, recognizes and reports data treads. ELEMENT 3: COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION STANDARD: Maintain effeciivc cccnmmication with and between divisions within department, strives to share relevant info —tion with departmental staff, other departments, citizens and various groups; ensures aU interested parties are aware of goals and at-fivides and provides necessary information to accomplish assigned taslrs; maintains professional relationships with consultants, associates, and other fessionals and has critical liste-tig- skills. ELEMENT 4: SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT SKIT -i_ A STANDARD: Prepares and/or reviews work programs and schedules of subordinates; enconrug s punctuality; ensures that work is accomplished on schedule and according to requirements; provides feedback, information and guidance to 16 fm!Aoyves as - rice indicates, ensures subordinates follow City and _ _ = - -tal SDP's. ELEMENT 5: PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION STANDARD: Develops goals and objecuves, staffing and budget needs; helps maintain desired service levels; anticipates financial needs, pot -tial problems and emergency situations; develops and maintain efficient and functional process for achieving work prog --; / a recommends necessary m7ation clywnges as work load and service needs demand. !� ELEMENT 6: FISCAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD: Plans and prioritizes budget and financial responsibilities to accomplish assigned tasks. Exercises sound financial judgement and uses realistic assumptions in IoM range financial plans, budget preparation and administration. ELEMENT 7: SAFETY AND PERSONAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD- Performs duties with concern for safety of self and others. Ensures personnel use appropriate safety procedures, !Deeps work station clean and free of debris, unrelated work material and unsafe obstructions; promotes safety to associates and suborn rotes. lJ ELEMENT 8: LEADERSHIP STANDARD: Motivator and organizer, prepares subordinates to substitute in his /her absence. Leadership achievements dramatically further City's mission. Perseveres through tough challenges. Consistently decisive and calm under stressful situations. ELEMENT 9: DECISION MAKING STANDARD: Displays analytical and ethical skills to make sound judgement and timely decisions and does not react without thinking through potential consequences of the actions. Exercises proper authority to makes decisions without deferring up the /fl (J hierarchy. ELEMENT 10: PROJECT COMPLETION STANDARD: Takes initiative for departmental and interdepartmental issues and develops innovative approaches to assist in in ra lesion. nn Plans/ rioritizes with skill and foresight. Meets project deadiin ale ctations. V OUTSTANDING ABOVE SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY 5.0 -4.6 4.5-3.6 'X5-2.6 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT UNSATISFACT 2.5 -1.6 L5-1 Goals and Objectives for next year attached: Yes No TOTAL SCORE Date reviewed with Employee: I understand if I disagree with my rating that I am entitled to appeal to the City Manager in wrinn& or may include any rebuttal to said evaluation in writing. This report has been discussed with me and I have received a copy. I agree with my rating ( ). I disagree ( ). I UNDERSTAND THAT MY APPEAL OF THIS RATING MUST BE MADE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF MY RATING REVIEW. F- Tloyee Signature: Date: a City Manager Sign: t•:xe: Date / b 04:19P Patty Snider (561) 799 -4111 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS SP-1F EVALUATION PERFORMANCE REPORT ADMINISTRATION Employee #: fiide: C'} Divisions_ -,a.n a.y! DOH /Promotion. v..., Pay Grade: Current Salary: Type: Probation (3) , (6) - Annual _ Rating Period: From to P.3 Element Wcight Score Tour) ELEMENT k APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE: Professional knowledge is sufficient to enable effTloyee to perform duties without assistance; recognizes Issues and circumstances which require attention and assistance of higher authority; orates knaaaledge of Federal. State and local laws, regulations and procedures pert' ; -i o to area of responsibility; assumes personal and ultimate respo--4+'1+'ty for .10 PfMiSiCln Of service and completion. of work. ELEMENT 2: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS STANDARD: Is fa—T -r with traditional and current research procr &--cs and methods of analysis including computer based data sources, etc.; collects raw data f om L�• appropriate sources, anslozes data,, reaches co"tti+rioas, prepares and explains ahet*tative reco— nditions and .05 anticipated results is unders-42ble and defensible ±*inn and reports data trends. ELEMENT 3: COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION STANDARD: Maintains effective cntnmunirntion with and between divisions within department, staves to share relevant information with departmental staff, other departments, cwzeas and various groups; ensures aII interested parties ace aware of goals and ac`s des and provides necessary information to accoawpLsh assigned taeke; maintains professional .10 relations ' with consultants, associates, and other professionals and has critical lis;ng skills. ELEMENT 4: SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS STANDARD: Prepares and/or reviews work programs and schedules of subordinates; encourages punctual % ensures that work .i0 is accomplished on schedule and according to roquirmtentg provides feedback, information and guidance to employees as nce indicates; ensures subordinates follow City and cal SOP's. ELEMENT 5: PIANNING AND ORGANIZATION STANDARD: Develops goals and objectives, staffing and budget needs; helps maintain desired service levels; anticipates fit --A-Al needs, potential problems and ^ - emergency situations; develops and .,vainr�ns efficient and functional process for achieving work prog --; .15 T recommends needs don changes as work load and service needs demand. l F1- Etv(ENT 6: FISCAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD: Plans and prioritizes budget and financial responsibilities to accomplish assigned tasks. Exercises sound financial judgement and uses realistic .15 JC assumptions in long range finAncial plans, budget preparation and administration. ELEMENT 1: SAFETY AND PERSONAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD: Performs duties with concern for safety of self and others. Ensures personnel use appropriate safety procedures, keeps work station .05 4 clean and tree of debris, unrelated work material and unsafe obstructions; promotes safety to associates and subordinates. ELEMENT & 1 FADERSHIP STANDARD: Motivator and organizer, prepares subordinates to substitute in his /her absence. Leadership achievements dramatically further City's mission- Perseveres .10 through tough challenges. Consistently decisive and calm under stressful situations. ELEMENT 9: DECISION MAKING STANDARD: Displays analytical and ethical skills to retake sound judgement and timely decisions and does not react without thinking through potential .10 S consequences of the actions. Exercises proper authority to makes decisions without defer ing up the hierarchy. ELEMENT 10: PROJECT COMPLETION STANDARD: Takes initiative for departmental and interdepartmental issues and develops innovative approaches to assist in project completion. ,10 L4 Plans / rioritizcs with skill and fores L Meets ro" t deadlines and al expectations. OUTSTANDING ABOVE SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY 5.0 -4.6 4.5-3.6 3.5 -2.6 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT UNSATISFACTORY 2.5-L6 L5 -1 Goals and Objectives for next year attached: Yes No TOTAL SCORE Date reviewed with Employee: I understand if I disagree with my rating that I am entitled to appeal to the City Ma —aer in w*;a; ,, or umy include any rebuttal M said evaluation in writing. 'Kris report has been discussed with me and I have received a copy. I ag = with airy rating ( ). I disagree ( ). I UNDERSTAND THAT MY APP I�FP s RATING MUST BE MADE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF MY RATING REVIEW- Einployee Sivmtum; ... . _ Date ., City Manager Sign ::-.:_-�: O °z b 0 q f �j �r f i fl i ❑ ry Iii 1 M l l l 11 t�l if�gf{gqtif{ rr r1 N•r N•�•rry srtE PLAN �. Parcel 27.05/.06 po• • M E M O R A N D U M WATTERSON, HYLAND & KLETT, P.A. To: Hon. Mayor and City Council From: Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorne Subject: Interlocal Agreement for the Con ruction of Howell Lane Date: October 16, 2001 cc: Ron Ferris, City Manager Carol Gold, City Clerk Pete Bergel, Fire Chief Melanie Straub, P.E. (via facsimile) Attached please find a revised version of the Interlocal Agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for the construction of roadway improvements on Howell Lane. This agreement is on the consent agenda (item f) for the October 18, 2001 City Council meeting. The agreement was revised at the request of the County to include additional requirements for contractors retained by the City. The new language is set forth in Section 2(B)(6) on page 3 of the Agreement. • When considering the adoption of Resolution 158, 2001 (authorizing the execution of the Interlocal Agreement), staff requests that the City Council approve this revised Agreement in lieu of the Agreement set forth in your agenda packet. The item can remain on consent agenda. It is anticipated that the Agreement will be approved by Palm Beach County the first week in November. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. P: \CPWin\ HISTORY \010928A\446.83(319.055)( #131) • INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS TO SHARE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON HOWELL LANE. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of .1 2001, by and between PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter "COUNTY "), and the CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, a Florida municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY "). WHEREAS, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act, authorizes local governments to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage thereby providing services and facilities that will harmonize geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY accepted a Quit -Claim Deed in 1974 to Howell Lane with the understanding that it would remain a "courtesy maintained" shellrock road; and WHEREAS, the CITY and the COUNTY have agreed that each shall fund one -half ('h) of the cost of improving that portion of Howell Lane described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto an incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter "Road "); and WHEREAS, the improvements shall consist of roadway construction and paving; pavement marking; the installation of signs, swales, drainage pipes and drainage structures; and the relocation of a utility pole and feeder lines (hereinafter "Improvements "); and • -1- 0 WHEREAS, upon completion of the Improvements, the COUNTY will convey the Road to the CITY and the CITY will assume the maintenance thereof. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and representations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein. Section 2. Responsibilities and Duties. A. The COUNTY agrees to: 1) Fund one half (' /z) of the cost of the Improvements to the Road, in a total amount not to exceed $60,000.00; and 2) Reimburse the CITY for actual costs of construction of the Improvements, as • documented by invoices showing such expenses paid by the CITY. B. CITY agrees to: 1) Prepare engineering plans and receive construction bids; and 2) Notify the COUNTY of the CITY's intention to award a construction contract and of the total cost of the project based on actual engineering costs and the lowest responsive bid; and 3) Fund the remaining cost of the Improvements, in addition to all engineering, administrative and inspection costs; and 4) Obtain all appropriate permits, including any required COUNTY permits, and cover all costs associated with those permits and related conditions; and •-2- �J documentation deemed necessary by the COUNTY. Invoices received from the CITY will be reviewed and approved by the County Engineers Office within ten (10) days, indicating that expenditures have been made in conformity with the AGREEMENT and then will be sent to the COUNTY'S Finance Department for final approval and payment. Invoices will normally be paid within fifteen (15) days following approval. Section 4. Access and Audits. As it relates to this Agreement, the COUNTY may initiate a financial system analysis and /or internal fiscal control evaluation of the CITY by an independent auditing firm employed by the COUNTY or by the COUNTY's Internal Audit Department at any time the COUNTY deems necessary. The CITY shall maintain adequate records to justify all payments, expenses and costs incurred for at least three (3) years after completion of the IMPROVEMENTS. If such auditor evaluation reveals that the CITY failed to expend funds reimbursed to the CITY by the COUNTY in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the CITY shall be obligated to reimburse the COUNTY for all such expenditures. Section 5. Repayment. A. The CITY shall repay the County for all unauthorized, illegal or unlawful expenditures of revenues, including those discovered after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. B. Funds which are to be repaid to the COUNTY are to be repaid by delivering to the COUNTY a certified check for the total amount due and payable to COUNTY, within ten (10) days of the COUNTY'S demand. -4- C. Nothing contained herein shall act as a limitation of the COUNTY'S right to be repaid, as a waiver of any rights of the COUNTY'S, or preclude the COUNTY from pursuing any other remedy which may be available to it under law or equity. Section 6. Independent Contractor. The CITY recognizes that it is an independent contractor and not an agent or servant of COUNTY. No person employed by any party to this Agreement, shall in connection with the performance of this Agreement or any services or functions contemplated hereunder, at any time, be considered the employee of the other party, nor shall an employee claim any right in or entitlement to any pension, worker's compensation benefit, unemployment compensation, civil service, or other employee rights or privileges granted by operation of law of otherwise, except through and against the entity by whom they are employed. • Section 7. Liability. The parties to this Agreement shall not be deemed to assume any liability for the negligent or wrongful acts, or omissions of the other party. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver, by either party, of the liability limits established in 768.28, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the CITY stipulates that the extent of the COUNTY'S liability shall be limited solely to its funding obligation. Liability for injury to personnel, and the loss or damage of equipment shall be borne by the party employing such personnel and owning such equipment. 0 -5 Section 8: Indemnification. • To the extent permitted by law and without waiving the limitations of sovereign immunity, CITY shall indemnify COUNTY, its agents, officers, servants and employees harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, losses and /or causes of action which may arise from the negligent act or omission of CITY, its agents, officers, servants and employees in the performance of its obligations under this agreement. Additionally, the CITY shall require that all contracts or agreements with contractors relating to the construction of the IMPROVEMENTS require that the contractors indemnify the COUNTY, to the extent set forth herein, and name the COUNTY as an additional insured on all Certificates of Insurance. Section 9. Notice of Complaints or Suits. • Each party will promptly notify the other of any citizen complaint, claim, suit, or cause of action threatened or commenced against it which arises out of or relates, in any manner, to the performance of this Agreement. Section 10. Annual Appropriation. Each party's performance and obligation under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual budgetary appropriation by its respective governing body for the purposes hereunder. Section 11. Breach and Opportunity to Cure. The parties expressly covenant and agree that in the event either party is in default of its obligations under this Agreement, the party not in default shall provide to the defaulting party thirty (30) days written notice before exercising any of its rights. 0 -6- Section 12. Enforcement Costs. Any costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) associated with the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be borne by the respective parties; provided, however, that this clause pertains only to the parties to this Agreement. Section 13. Notice. All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and deemed sufficient to each party when sent by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: As to CITY: Ronald M. Ferris, City Manager City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 • With a copy to: Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney Watterson, Hyland & Klett 4100 RCA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 As to COUNTY: George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer c/o Allen W. Webb, Street Improvement Coordinator Department of Engineering and Public Works Post Office Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -1229 With a copy to: Marlene R. Everitt Assistant County Attorney 301 North Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 •-7- Section 14. Modification and Amendment. • Except as expressly permitted herein to the contrary, no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and equality of dignity herewith. Section 15. Remedies. This Agreement shall be construed by and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be held in Palm Beach County. No remedy herein conferred upon any party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. No single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof. • Section 16. Joint Preparation. The preparation of this Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties, and the resulting document shall not, solely as a matter of judicial constraint, be construed more severely against one of the parties than the other. Section 17. Equal Opportunity. The COUNTY and the CITY agree that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, religion, ancestry, marital status, or sexual orientation be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to any form of discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. The CITY will ensure that all • -- 8 contracts let for the Project pursuant to the terms of this Agreement will contain a similar • non - discrimination and equal opportunity clause. Section 18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire contract between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior understandings, if any. There are no other oral or written promises, conditions, representations, understandings or terms of any kind as conditions of inducement to the execution hereof and none have been relied upon by either party. Any subsequent conditions, representations, warranties or agreements shall not be valid and binding upon the parties unless they are in writing and signed by both parties and executed in the same manner as this Agreement. Section 19. Severability. 0 In the event any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, such invalid term or provision shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof and all such other terms and provisions hereof shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law as if such invalid term or provision had never been a part of this Agreement. Section 20. Effective Date. This agreement shall take effect upon execution and the effective date shall be the date it is executed by the last part executing same. Section 21. Filing A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. •-9- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Interlocal Agreement on the day and year first written above. ATTEST: Dorothy H. Wilkin, County Clerk By: Deputy Clerk Date: Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency By: County Attorney Approved as to Terms and Conditions 0 By. ATTEST: By: City Clerk Date: Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency By: City Attorney PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Bv: Chairman Date: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS By:_ Date: P: \CPWin \HI STORY\ 010515A \442.CF(319.059)Igr- doc207 0 -10- Mayor • • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked by terrorists who hijacked airplanes to crash into the Twin Towers ofthe World Trade Center in the City of New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as well as the terrorists hijacking of a plane that was diverted from its original target and crashed in the State of Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, people from all walks of life have been physically, emotionally and spiritually devastated by this s enseless terrorist attack and will be forever impacted by the terrorist's acts of aggression and vi olence against the United States of America; and WHEREAS, offers of support have come from all over the world to the United States and its government officials; to the thousands of rescue and recovery personnel; to thousands of injured people, and have extended heartfelt sympathy to the families who have experienced tragic losses of loved ones; and WHEREAS, even in light of this devastating tragedy, we, the people of the United States of America will stand tall and united; we will show a force of strength by pulling together to help each other through the emotional and physical pain and devastation of the months ahead; and we will ((Stand United" behind the greatest nation, our United States of America. NOW, THEREFORE, I, J oseph R. Russo, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor, of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, do hereby proclaim the month of November, 2001 "United We Stand Month" in commemoration of the tremendou s rescue and recovery endeavors in the City of New York, Washington, D. C. and the State of Pennsylvania; extending heartfelt sympathy to families and business owners who must begin again to rebuild their lives and who will be forever impacted by this senseless and tragic act of terrorism; and urging all residents of the City to «Stand United", to show of strength behind the greatest nation ... our United States of America. Attest: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, to be affixed on this 18th day of October, Two Thousand and One. 1/ / ) / I I~ Mayf'>r Joseph R. Russo I