Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 072704Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT "A" July 27, 2004 Page 16 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 24, 2004 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chair Kunkle announced that a good friend had been lost when Hank Skokowski, Urban Design Studio, had been killed in a traffic accident while on vacation in Australia, and extended condolences on behalf of the Commission to his son and daughter and the rest of the family. Mr. Skokowski was frequently in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, and would be missed. Chair Kunkle announced that a Hank Skokowski Art in Public Places Memorial Fund had been established, administered by Boose, Casey, Ciklin, and for more information any member of the staff could be contacted. Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing spoke in tribute to Mr. Skokowski, after which there was a 5- minute break. The meeting reconvened at 6:45 p.m. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2004 meeting as submitted. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning & Zoning Commission: Present Absent Chairman Craig Kunkle Vice Chairman Barry Present Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT "A" July 27, 2004 Page 17 project which includes 64,533 square feet (500 -seat small theater, and 300 -seat banquet hall, Sunday School and accessory facilities) for a cultural center and church offices, 64,025 square feet for retail space, 19,950 square feet for restaurant space, 10,900 square feet for office space, and 225 rental units on an approximately 47 -acre site. The subject property is located along the north side of PGA Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. Mr. Hansen asked if on the conditional use the cultural center, theater, and church were all the same element. Ms. Irwin responded that the uses were a 500 -seat theater and cultural center, and a 300 -seat banquet facility was separate. Mr. Hansen questioned since the drawings indicated 533 seats, whether the applicant was limited to 500. Ms. Irwin responded they could build up to 1,000 so they could build 533. Mr. Channing commented the presentation had been great and questioned the on -site mitigation. Ms. Irwin responded that the site plan showed a proposed mitigation area and proposed buffers. Mr. Glidden stated the presentation was great, and asked if staff was recommending all mitigation be on site. Ms. Irwin responded that at least 50% mitigation must be on site, which had been policy for recent projects, and anything less was unacceptable. The other 50% could be off -site as had been done by Legends of the Gardens. Discussion ensued regarding other projects that had provided both on and off -site mitigation. Ms. Irwin explained that staff would prefer 100% on -site but under present policy 50% was required. Casey Cummings, Ram Development, spoke on behalf of the applicant and highlighted some of the changes made in response to comments made at the January 13th meeting. The applicant agreed with staff recommendation regarding the MXD question, with Mr. Cummings stating they believed they had met three criteria but only two were required; they agreed with the conditional use. Ed LeBlanc, Architect for Palm Beach Community Church portion of the Borland Center, described changes made to architectural details and described proposed materials. Mr. Cummings reported the applicant had responded to comments that the drawings were hard to refer from one to another. Mark Weiner, Architect for the residential and retail portions, described details they had added. Donaldson Hearing commented on issues regarding the site plan and explained they had provided similar landscape treatments at both the eastern and western entrances; advised that the western buffer would be added to this phase of the project, and a 30' buffer added to the 50' right -of -way would make a total of 80' buffered. Transportation Planner Kayhart Pinder reported that installation of a traffic signal at Shady Lakes Drive and PGA Boulevard was governed by the Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County and they would not give approval until traffic volumes met their warrants. Mr. Pinder advised the applicant would monitor volumes and when they were met would go to the appropriate agencies for their approval. If Shady Lakes Drive were extended to Central Boulevard, this street would become part of the City's street plan, but now it was more like a private driveway. Mr. Cummings commented on conditions of approval 6 and 15 that the applicant was not prepared to provide pedestrian scale lighting along all rights -of -way. Condition 8: Palm Tran had indicated no interest in a transit stop and shelter along PGA Boulevard so the applicant was not willing to erect a shelter until transit became available but would then proceed with designating a suitable area within the project for a covered area. The applicant did not agree with "on site preserve" at the end of conditions 13 and 14. Mr. Cummings commented on "roadway maintenance" in condition 16: that the applicant was not willing to provide maintenance to all adjacent roadways; and in condition 17 the applicant was only willing to maintain their side of the landscaping along Shady Lakes Drive and PGA Boulevard. Conditions 19 and 20 regarding converting reclaimed irrigation pertained to agreement between the applicant and Seacoast Utilities, but if reclaimed water was available they would like to use it. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT "A" July 27, 2004 Page 18 natural environment, discussed planned unit development, and his opinion that allowing the applicant to go forward with a large green area on which development would be determined later did not comply with the intent of a PUD. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Alternate Michael Panczak left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The public hearing being still open, the next speaker was Cameron Carnegie, who requested the sidewalks remain accessible during construction. Paul Auerback, resident and attorney for PGA Corridor Coalition, questioned the number of seats allowed and requested the whole plan be approved at one time, stating the project with 2300 seats would not be compatible with the surrounding area. Paul Connealy spoke in support of The Borland Center and requested approval. Micah Simpson asked that the dangerous traffic situation on PGA Boulevard be considered. Doug Frevert spoke in favor of the project and encouraged approval with the mitigation waiver. Sally Benson favored approval of the project, which she believed would bring a traffic light. Deborah Hoeft supported the project and urged its approval. Diane Worthington requested to yield her time and stated she resented not being able to do so. Gary Kendall expressed excitement over the project and encouraged approval. Robert Davis expressed concern that a 3,000 -seat auditorium would be added later where the large green space was shown and expressed his opinion that the whole plan should be laid out at once. Nick Van Nice spoke in favor of the project and felt property values in Shady Lakes would go up as a result of the project. Eileen Tucker was opposed to the project, feeling it would lower property values in Shady Lakes and that this large project did not belong on PGA & Military. Judy Steinbauer, manager of Garden Lakes Homeowners Association, expressed concern that the project was being considered with the large green space and with 4 -story apartment buildings. Tommy Keidis spoke in favor of the project and requested approval. Chris Siggins expressed appreciation for the work done by the Planning and Zoning Commission and his opinion that the project was important for the City. Bulent Kastarlak expressed his opinion a PUD must be considered all at once, that the large green space could become an outparcel, and a large 3,000 theatre should be a regional facility - -and urged the City to find an appropriate location for a regional facility rather than in this project and to consider the impact of Scripps. Carolyn Chaplik expressed concern there would be an over supply of luxury apartments. Vito DeFrancesco commented the City was considering the property in The Commons residential when it was mixed use, and that would change the 83 percent used for residential in the staff report. Mr. DeFrancesco expressed his opinion this was not a complete submittal, and recommended calling this project residential mixed use, and giving a conditional use for the church, which would negate issues such as why the whole project was not considered in the beginning and the 83 percent not really being 83 percent. This would take a lot of pressure off everyone. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Talal Benothman clarified that the county would install a traffic light when warranted. Mr. Benothman clarified the issue of the number of seats —that the applicant was only requesting 500 seats for the church, which had a dual use —to function as a church or as a small theater; plus a 300 seat banquet facility. The total requested seats was therefore 800. Mr. Cummings clarified that the second story residential units would have parking spaces in the garage and they would be designed to condo quality but could be apartments or condos, whatever code provided. Mr. Benothman commented regarding the unity issue that Mr. DeFrancesco was asking about a phased PUD but the City could only act on what was proposed by an applicant, and what had been submitted was approval for the whole PUD as one phase, and if the applicant chose to show open space because they did not know what would go there, staff could not compel them to do anything else. Chair Kunkle verified with Mr. Benothman that in staff's opinion this was a complete submittal that did warrant being before the Commission, and everything proposed was shown on the site plan. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT "A" July 27, 2004 Page 19 would have to be revisited to assure the four criteria were met. Mr. Pennell stated he had confidence there would be a traffic signal and Shady Lakes Drive would be extended, and these issues would be ironed out in the future. Mr. Present expressed concern about traffic, and commented he had stated before that he wanted to see Shady Lakes Drive connected to 117th Court North as a condition of approval, otherwise he would not support the project, and asked if the applicant would consider that as an additional condition. Mr. Cummings responded the applicant had been consistent in saying they would designate their traffic impact fees toward that effort, and the fees would come close to covering it, but he thought road building was the City's job because he did not know how the applicant could control it, and he would encourage the City to do so. Mr. Wu commented it was the City's position that Shady Lakes Drive was part of the thoroughfare plan, and current status was that City Council had asked staff to revisit that link of the thoroughfare plan. If City Council decided to keep it on the plan, Mr. Wu advised that the Commission or Mr. Present could recommend to City Council that its construction should be high priority in light of the Borland Center plan. Mr. Cummings commented it should not be understated that the landowner would be dedicating 3 acres of right -of -way and wanted to encourage construction of the roadway. Mr. Solomon commented there was vesting in terms of concurrency because of the forbearance agreement and if the City were to require the applicant to do something more, by extending Shady Lakes Drive, that would be like doing away with the concurrency and he did not think it would be fair. Mr. Solomon requested the City's position on the applicant's objections to the conditions. Mr. Benothman explained that regarding conditions 19 and 20 - -the gray water / non -gray water issue which the applicant felt should be between them and Seacoast Utility — that previous owner WCI had a deed restriction that they could take the reclaimed water, and they were using it to irrigate golf courses in Old Palm. Mr. Benothman indicated the City wanted to be sure there was a viable water source to irrigate any landscaping they approved. Mr. Cummings indicated the applicant understood it was their responsibility to irrigate, but wanted to be free to negotiate with WCI or Seacoast. Mr. Solomon confirmed with Mr. Benothman that from the City's point of view, the important thing was that there be water available whether reclaimed or not, from Seacoast or any other source. Mr. Benothman confirmed if this were approved to go forward to City Council tonight that suitable language could be worked out for conditions 19, 20 and 17. Mr. Cummings clarified that in Condition 17a he wanted it to say the applicant was responsible for 50% of the cost, to which Mr. Benothman agreed. Mr. Solomon indicated that Condition 16 should state the applicant was responsible for lighting, landscaping, and irrigation maintenance on their site, which was agreeable. Mr. Benothman advised that condition 17b would be discussed with the applicant and something would be worked out. Mr. Solomon asked in condition 8, transit stop, if the language "in the future and internally on site" would be acceptable, to which Mr. Benothman responded that applicants met with Palm Tran to see where they would like a transit stop, and there was a plan already approved by City Council for such a shelter, but he doubted Palm Tran would find it feasible in the future to place a bus shelter internally on site instead of along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Solomon asked if the engineering conditions were in addition to the conditions in the staff report, which Ms. Irwin confirmed. Mr. Solomon indicated he thought this project was a reasonable use of the land, it was a good project overall and had been improved at every step, for which the Commission, staff, and the applicant deserved credit. Mr. Solomon commented everyone wanted the traffic light, and suggested calling the Department of Transportation, but it was really based on traffic counts, and speeding was a law enforcement issue. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the project would benefit the community; the vacant open space was basically not a part of the plan, and if sold, a new owner would have to come back to the City. Approval was not giving anything to the applicant for a future plan. Capacity and fire codes would limit additional seating. Mr. Solomon commented he could see the mitigation either on or off -site and that was not a strong issue with him Mr. Solomon stated he would support this project subject to language modifications Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes EXHIBIT "A" July 27, 2004 Page 20 Mr. Glidden commented everyone had worked long and hard on this and he wanted to move it forward. Regarding the outstanding issue of the large open space, the developer intended to build there but was not ready to decide right now, and would be required to come back for full review. Mr. Glidden stated the issue he felt strongest about was the traffic light, but that was not up to the Commission; but he believed any motion should have a comment to strongly recommend to the City to take the initiative to use whatever monies the developer had contributed, including any impact fees, and move forward with Shady Lakes Boulevard, because he believed that was the only way there would be enough trips to get the warrants for the traffic light. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that without the roadway extension, the City would be putting themselves in a precarious position, and the extension must be made a priority. Mr. Glidden stated no problems with the comments on the conditions of approval but did feel a commitment should be made to a specific design and location for a bus stop, but not required to be built yet, and felt staff should decide that before this went to City Council. Mr. Glidden indicated agreement with Mr. Channing regarding the roof pitches. Mr. Cummings agreed to raise the upper roof pitches to the same pitch as the lower roofs, across the board. It was clarified that the 30' landscape buffer would stand whether or not there was preserve on -site. City Forester Mark Hendrickson explained minimum width for a preserve would be 100' wide. Discussion ensued. Mr. Glidden indicated his position would be a compromise somewhere between the zero proposed by the applicant and the 100% proposed by staff, but he could not get his hands around it. Chair Kunkle recommended that be left for City Council to decide. Chair Kunkle stated his only concern about this project was its success and he thought it would be hugely successful— greater than projected —which would bring more traffic. Chair Kunkle asked Mr. Benothman to provide a projection before it went to City Council of how much traffic this project would generate, and after the project was built to provide actual counts before this applicant returned with any plans for the open space, compared to what the projection had been. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -01 -03 with the seven waivers recommended to be approved in the staff report, denying the request for the off -site upland mitigation, and with the condition that staff and the applicant work out in the interim before City Council the language changes discussed during the discussion portion of this hearing, and including the applicant's agreement to make the adjustments to the roof pitches on the upper level consistent with Mr. Channing's discussion earlier. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. Mr. Present asked if the maker of the motion would consider adding the extension of the road. Chair Kunkle suggested that Mr. Wu prepare a note before City Council for Chair Kunkle's signature outlining this Commission's concern regarding the roadway extension and the traffic light to take post haste action, to go concurrently with this application but not be tied to this application. Mr. Hansen asked if the motion included staffs recommendation for denial on the uplands, which Mr. Solomon confirmed. Motion carried by 5 -2 vote with Mr. Present and Mr. Channing opposed. Mr. Channing stated he was opposed because for three years he had been asking this applicant to design the project as an integral part of PGA Boulevard and not to move Main Street where they had moved it— everything else had been done, but this was the most important thing, and lie knew his vote would not make or break the project. Mr. Present stated he also knew his vote would not break the project, he supported the project but felt very strong and off -site improvements were not unusual if someone felt strong about it— which he did about the traffic. Mr. Present stated he was still going to push for the City to concurrently go with it and wished the applicant good luck at City Council. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING July 27, 2004 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Acting Chair Barry Present at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported Weiss School had been approved by City Council on July 13 by a 3 -0 vote with new conditions to limit the student count to 384, to stagger the time for school to let out in three shifts, and if there was traffic backup the school must get off -duty officers to control traffic. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Solomon moved approval of the July 13, 2004 minutes as submitted. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board: Present Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Michael Panczak Absent Chairman Craig Kunkle Randolph Hansen Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Senior Planners Natalie Wong, Kara Irwin, and Michael Panczak, Planners Brad Wiseman and Autumn Sorrow, City Engineer Dan Clark, Delores Key, City Attorney Christine Tatum, and other staff members. Agenda items 1, 2, 4, and 5 were presented together: Workshop: Petition CP- 04 -02• Gardens Science and Technology Community Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 2 A city- initiated requestfor transmittal of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, and a Future Land Use Map amendment modifying the land -use designation of a 2000 -acre parcel located approximately 1 mile east of Seminole Pratt - Whitney Road and approximately 1 mile north of Northlake Boulevard from Rural Residential 10 (RRIO) and Rural Residential 20 (RR20) to Gardens Science and Technology Community Satellite District (GSTCSD) on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendments are related to the Gardens Science and Technology Community Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Workshop: Petition: CP- 04 -06: Gardens Science and Technology Community Capital Improvement Element (CIE) A city- initiated requestfor the transmittal of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) related primarily to the Gardens Science and Technology Community Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Workshop: Petition: CP- 04 -09: Gardens Science and Technology Community- Transportation Element A city- initiated requestfor the transmittal of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and Transportation maps related to the Gardens Science and Technology Community Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Workshop: Petition: CP- 04 -10: Gardens Science and Technology Community- Conservation Element A city - initiated requestfor the transmittal of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element and Transportation maps related to the Gardens Science and Technology Community Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Senior Planner Natalie Wong presented the staff reports and made the following announcements: A planning charrette for Scripps set for August 19 through 21 had been postponed indefinitely. CRALLS application to the County was in process and would go to the Board of County Commissioners in September after the LAUB hearing. RPC Council hearing date for DRI was scheduled for September 17. Mr. Panczak asked if under CRALLS the proposal was that PGA Boulevard remain 4 lanes west of the turnpike, to which City Engineer Dan Clark responded the section from Avenue of the Champions to Beeline was proposed to remain 4 lanes under the City's CRALLS; the County was proposing 6 lanes the entire length, but the City felt the level of service was acceptable. Mr. Pennell asked if rules and regulations for mitigation could be built in at the beginning, to which Ms. Wong responded there had been a number of environmentally protected lands maintained and a number of jurisdictional wetlands would still be Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 3 required to be mitigated. The City was working with environmental permitting agencies to come up with a plan. Mr. Solomon asked the current owner of the property on Map H. Ms. Wong responded the owner was Charles Vavrus, who also owned 2,700 acres to the south, which was not part of this project. Ms. Wong explained that the interlocal agreement with the county would be the joint planning agreement. Mr. Solomon asked if at this point staff could tell if development of this project would be consistent with existing land use regulations of the City. Ms. Wong responded yes, but there would be changes, and there might be a special zoning district. Ms. Wong indicated there would not be PUD areas within the DRI. Ms. Wong explained the process and items that would come before this board. Mr. Clark explained that utilities provided by Seacoast Utilities would go in with the first building. Development money for roads, etc., would come primarily from impact fees paid by developers. Mr. Channing asked if wetland preserves were now known, to which Ms. Wong responded very thorough surveying had been done and wetlands had been flagged. Preserve areas were identified on Map H. A mitigation plan had not yet been finalized for the wetlands on site that were to be mitigated. Density was being assigned with these comp plan amendments. Average density would be approximately 9 -10 units. Mr. Channing commented it would have been nice to leave the wetlands in their natural state instead of so much mitigation. Connector roads between pods were discussed. Mr. Channing suggested having more of the large lake exposed to public roads as a public amenity. Zoning would allow satellite businesses within the mixed use areas but not within residential areas. Mr. Channing commented this was a unique opportunity and he would like to establish a character now so that the development would be world - class. Acting Chair Present asked to have the exhibits blown up and placed in the lobby so the public could have meaningful input during public hearings. Mr. Present requested more information about workforce housing and affordable housing, suggested an exhibit depicting an overview of all the preserve systems, asked how front end costs of utilities and development would be paid. Mr. Present asked if impacts of all the land surrounding the DRI had been considered. Mr. Clark indicated traffic impacts had been considered for every project to date. Mr. Present requested clarification regarding location in proximity to a major airport —if that referred to the north county airport to change the wording. Mr. Present recommended school sites be dedicated. Mr. Present indicated he would like to hear alternatives to roadway transportation. Mr. Clark advised a 260 -foot right -of -way had been requested for PGA Boulevard, which would allow for some type of light tri-rail connection in the future. Mr. Present requested wetlands be addressed more in depth later. Mr. Clark advised the project would be one stormwater drainage basin, draining into the C -18 canal. Mr. Solomon asked if the connecting links from Northlake Boulevard were existing or would be condemned. Ms. Wong advised Cocoanut would have to be extended. Mr. Solomon noted civic use was in more than one category in the legend, Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 4 which Ms. Wong indicated might be a scrivner's area. Mr. Solomon requested a breakdown of the number of acres in each use. Ms. Wong advised it had not been finalized whether there would be a master overall DRI. Workshop: Petition: CP- 04 -07: Gardens Science and Technolow Community- Economic Development Element A city- initiated request for the transmittal of a new Economic Development Element to be included within the City's Comprehensive Plan related primarily to the Gardens Science and Technology Community Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Dolores Key, Economic Development Administrator, presented the staff report. A website, www.ob,- science.com had been created to document progress on the creation of a scientific community for Scripps. Mr. Panczak asked about the anticipated revenues from Scripps. Ms. Key responded that revenues depended upon whether the City could annex the Mecca site, and if it did $6.1 billion was anticipated over the next 30 years, with creation of 44,000 jobs. Mr. Pennell expressed his opinion that workforce housing and affordable housing might not be accomplished and asked if it were realistic to annex Scripps if it started in the county. Branding was discussed. Ms. Key explained that Scripps might prefer the City's police and fire protection to that of the county, and might also want the association with the name Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Present confirmed with Ms. Wong locations for incubator companies, that the two civic sites were for police and fire substations and some outdoor recreation, and that churches would be allowed in any of the residential zoning districts. Public Hearing Petition: VAR- 04 -04: Plant Drive Park - Flagpole Variance A request by Mike Kelly, Parks Director, of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, for approval of a variance from Section 78 -287 to allow for the installation of a 40 foot high flagpole at the City's Plant Drive Park. Plant Drive Park is located at the southwest corner of Plant Drive and Lilac Street. No board members reported any ex -parte communication. Attorney Tatum swore in all those intending to testify on any of the cases on the rest of the agenda. Planner Brad Wiseman presented the staff report. Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing closed. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 5 MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition VAR- 04 -04. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition: SP- 04 -12: Gardens Mall Remodel and Expansion A request by Mr. Rick Warner of Warner Real Estate Advisors, Inc, on behalf of The Gardens Venture, LLC, for approval of a site plan amendment to the Gardens Mall property to allow for (1) the construction of a 144, 000 square foot Nordstrom department store in the location of the axisting Burdines building, (2) the expansion of Macy's department store by 90,000 square feet; (3) the expansion of the Saks Fifth Avenue department store by 35,000 square feet; (4) the expansion of the Gardens Mall by 32,000 square feet of gross leasable area; (5) a reduction in the parking ratio for the Gardens Mall site; and (6) minor modifications to portions of the Gardens Mall parking lot. The approximately 100 -acre Gardens Mall property is generally located -mile east of Alternate AIA on the north side of PGA Boulevard The following ex -parte communication was reported: Mr. Channing advised he spoke to the principal of this project but not about this project. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the project. Applicant Rick Warner spoke and introduced others present who were part of the project team and were available to answer questions. Mr. Pennell commented this was a very nice project, which would improve the City, and asked if there was a plan for employees to park on the north side of the mall, which the applicant confirmed. Mr. Panczak asked if there was a shared parking agreement with Downtown at the Gardens, to which the response was no. Mr. Panczak asked if the furniture gallery was being treated as a subtenant for signage, to which Mr. Sanchez responded he had not thought of it that way but had believed it prudent to place another sign to identify the furniture gallery. Mr. Channing confirmed with Mr. Warner that the largest letter size for the sign would be no larger than existing, and the exterior would be brick. Mr. Solomon confirmed with Mr. Warner that rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened. The square footage was discussed and clarified. Mr. Panczak confirmed that the signage would be raised letters. Acting Chair Present noted that in 1984 there was a national competition and Forbes Cohen had been selected. MOTION: Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Solomon moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -04 -12 as submitted, including waivers. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Public Hearim, and Recommendation to City Council Petition: PUD- 04 -05: Paloma Planned Unit Development (aka Parcel 31B) A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for MII Homes of West Palm Beach, LL C, for a property rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay with an underlying Residential Low zoning designation to allow for the development of 200 single-family dwelling units and 196 multi family townhomes on 156.47 acres of land. The site is located south of Hood Road, west of Military Trail, east of Central Boulevard; Parcel 31.04 (MXD); Interstate Highway 95, and north of the Sabal Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD). The following ex -parte communication was reported: Mr. Panczak reported he had spoken to the applicant; Mr. Present reported he had spoken to the applicant; Mr. Solomon reported he had a call from someone saying this project was coming up. Mr. Channing reported since the last meeting Ms. Booth had e- mailed changes and he had called to tell her they were very well done and that he was pleased. Senior Kara Irwin presented the project. Anne Booth advised the applicant had taken the board's comments into consideration. Mr. Panczak asked if the roundabouts were just to facilitate access to those homes, which was confirmed. Mr. Pennell thanked the applicant for the changes. Mr. Solomon commented everyone understood that the first waiver was relating to the plat to allow permits for a certain number of dry units before platting. The applicant was asking for the temporary sales trailer, one townhome with 4 units, and 3 single- family homes; and Ms. Booth explained the waivers for sidewalks and littorals had been eliminated. Acting Chair Present asked if there were lake access easements. Ms. Booth pointed out access points on the site plan. Ms. Irwin explained if fences were added in the easements, the property owners were required to acknowledge they were in access points and if the fences had to be removed to allow access it was the property owners' responsibility to pay to have the fences replaced. Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Speakers who had not been sworn in were sworn by the City Attorney. Carolyn Chaplik, 715 Hudson Bay Drive, indicated The Isles, located across the street from this project, only had one access and discussed resulting traffic problems and the additional problems the traffic from this project would cause. Ms. Chaplik referenced Ordinance 27, 2003 regarding traffic, and requested the roadway entrance be moved south or a traffic light installed. Linda Monroe, 619 Hudson Bay Drive in The Isles, asked staff to follow up on the reason for the clearing, and commented ingress /egress was her number one concern. Ms. Monroe read condition 13 and asked the meaning of build -out date, the determination of pro -rata share, which condition was referred to regarding funding, asked why traffic was related Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 7 to square footage of residential units, and asked about surety being posted for a traffic light before homeowners took over the association. Ms. Monroe referenced page 7 of the staff report regarding median landscaping maintenance, since The Isles already maintained it and was to share maintenance with the developer. Ms. Monroe requested the developer replace the trees in the median that were not doing well. Ms. Monroe expressed disappointment that natural vegetation was not required to be maintained in the roadway buffer. Curt Shankman, Bent Tree resident, asked about pedestrian access in this community and expressed concern regarding connectivity to the schools, park, and shopping center, and sidewalk access along Hood Road, and expressed hope this project could make these connections safer. Loli Cooper, Sabal Ridge resident, was sworn in and expressed relief that access was not going to be at Elm Avenue, and expressed concern about traffic from the new development. Hearing no further comments from the public, Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing closed. Anne Booth addressed questions raised by Ms. Monroe regarding traffic and when a light would be warranted; and advised that the clearing was being done by the county. A condition addressed replacement of the ribbon palm trees in the median. Mr. Solomon recommended in condition 13 the language read, "until the buildout date of December 31, 2007 ", and clarified with Ms. Booth that the City Engineer would determine the pro rata share to be paid by the developer. Mr. Clark indicated the language regarding paying for the traffic light had been used in other projects and there had been no problems. Ms. Irwin clarified the meaning of items in the conditions. Mr. Channing confirmed that Military Trail was a county road. Mr. Clark indicated the City would do their best to get a traffic light in early and have it flashing yellow. Mr. Present asked if monies were put aside for offsite improvements from developers for connectivity. Mr. Wu indicated it would need to be included in the budget and would be a major project to be addressed by City Council to have connectivity in this case to the mall. Mr. Present asked if a major vote of the HOA would be required if The Isles wanted to have a second entrance on Hood Road. Mr. Wu indicated discussions would be held with the HOA who would then consult their residents and then petition the City, who might approve it administratively or take it through the process. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of PUD -04 -05 with the waivers requested, with clarification of dry permits required prior to platting to have a temporary sales trailer, one 4 -unit multifamily and 3 single family, with the 5 waivers listed for multifamily townhomes and the 5 waivers listed single family homes, with correction to condition 13 having to do with every 6 months review to the buildout date of December 31, 2007, and correction to condition 17 where 90% was to intended to apply toward number of residential units and not square footage. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Mr. Channing left at this point in the meeting at 9:22 p.m. since he was not feeling well. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 8 The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition: SP- 03 -23: Site Plan and Conditional Use Approval — Seacoast Utility Authority Water Treatment Plant A request by Anne Booth of Urban Design Studio, agent for Seacoast Utility Authority, for approval of an expansion to a previously approved Conditional Use to allow the existing Seacoast Utility Authority Water Treatment Plan facility at Hood Road to upgrade and expand its current operations. The 40 -acre site is generally located at the intersection of Hood Road and Alternate A-]-A. There were no ex -parte communications reported by members of the board except Mr. Pennell who reported a conversation with Don Hearing. Planner Autumn Sorrow presented the project. Anne Booth spoke on behalf of the applicant and showed the design agreed upon with The Isles residents for the new water tower. Ms. Booth presented another design preferred by the applicant, which did not have signage. Mr. Panczak asked if there would be any interruption in water service when switching to the new tank, to which the response was no. Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Carolyn Chaplik, 715 Hudson Bay Drive, The Isles, indicated she was on the board at The Isles and was speaking for the residents. The residents did not want the new design with the waves, and requested to keep the one they had agreed upon with the applicant. Hearing no further comments from the public, Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing closed. Discussion ensued regarding the design. Several suggestions were made. A suggestion was made to leave the tower white. One suggestion was to use the design preferred by the residents, leaving the three logos and omitting the wording, and to leave the base of the tower white. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 03-23, with the petitioner to work with The Isles on a design acceptable to the residents. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Petition PUD- 01 -03: Non - Residential MXD Waiver, Rezoning, Master Plan, and Conditional Use Approval for the Borland Center /Palm Beach Community Church A request by Cotleur and Hearing, agent for The Borland Center and RAM Development, for a non - residential MXD waiver, a property rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MXD /PUD), master plan approval, and conditional use approvals to allow for the development of 64,533 square feet (500 -seat small theater, and 300 -seat banquet hall, Sunday School and accessory facilities) for a cultural center and church facilities, 64,025 square feet Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 9 for retail space, 19,950 square feet for restaurant space, 10,900 square feet for office space, and 22S rental units on an approximately 47 acre site. The subject property is located along the north side of PGA Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive. Senior Planner Kara Irwin advised that this public hearing was being held at the request of the applicant, that the Board had heard this case on February 24, 2004, and the minutes of that hearing were being made a part of the minutes of this hearing. The February 24, 2004 minutes are attached as Exhibit "A ". At the conclusion of that hearing, the board had voted 5 -2 to recommend approval to City Council. Staff had reviewed the audio and the minutes of that hearing and had made the following findings: no ex -parte communication was disclosed by the board members, no witnesses were sworn, no one attending the meeting requested the opportunity to cross examine any witnesses, no one objected to the failure to disclose or the failure to swear in witnesses. It was the city's position these items were non - substantive and did not affect the requirements of law relating to quasi-judicial matters, as the board's authority is only recommendation, and is not a final quasi-judicial action. However, in an abundance of caution, the applicant had requested to reconvene before this board at a duly advertised and noticed meeting to address any possible procedural issues. The City Attorney reviewed the steps that would be followed tonight. City Attorney Tatum requested the opportunity to swear in anyone who had arrived since the swearing in earlier. Attorney Tatum requested disclosure of ex -parte communication, then the Chair would open the public hearing. Any witness who previously testified at the February 24 hearing would be given the opportunity to reaffirm the truth and accuracy of their previous testimony, subject to the board's normal time limit. Any new witnesses would then be given opportunity to testify, within the board's normal time limit. After all witnesses had testified, opportunity would be given for cross examination, following which the Chair would close the public hearing, there would be board discussion and another vote, which would be transmitted to City Council. Attorney Tatum swore in all those not previously sworn. The following ex -parte communications were reported: Mr. Panczak reported he met with the applicant, Mr. Hearing and Mr. Gonzales approximately two months ago in Mr. Panczak's office. Mr. Pennell reported he spoke to Don Hearing by telephone on July 26, 2004 for about five minutes. Mr. Solomon disclosed he had spoken to Steve Cohen, attorney for the applicant, that day and several other times. Mr. Present disclosed he had spoken to Don Hearing, Hank Gonzalez, and Steve Cohen over the past two years on different occasions for clarification as the project evolved. Acting Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Ms. Irwin presented the staff report and offered the entire project file into the record. Ms. Irwin presented a condensed version of the project, including the previous approvals. Staff now supported the requested off -site mitigation since the applicant had now also provided on -site preservation. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, approval of the non - residential waiver request, approval of the conditional uses, approval of the master site plan, approval of the eight waivers, and 50 conditions of approval had been provided. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 10 Attorney Raymond Royce, for the applicant, indicated a large number of workshop meetings had been held, and a public hearing was held February 24, 2004 and apparently there had been no ex -parte communications and the witnesses had not been sworn. Attorney Royce stated his belief that was purely inadvertent, that the untimely death of Hank Skokowski had been discussed and the meeting had been recessed and then reconvened, and he believed those things had simply been overlooked. Attorney Royce agreed with the City Attorney that the hearing might not really have been quasi judicial and therefore did not require disclosure of ex -parte communication or swearing of witnesses. Although the applicant had reached an agreement with the people who alleged they had not received notice of the hearing, Mr. Royce explained that the applicant wanted to be sure the process had not been flawed in any way, so they did send out a new notice of this meeting and the proposed meeting of the City Council August 5 which would be given to the clerk to be made part of the record; they had provided an affidavit by Brian Cheguis from Mr. Hearing's office indicating he had posted the public signs and sent out the notices; and the testimony and all of the presentation made February 24 were to be made a part of the record. The applicant had agreed to remove the large theater from the application and reached a settlement with a great number of people, that the project would be subject to the PGA Boulevard Overlay which would limit theaters to 500 seats, and which was entered into the record. Attorney Royce read the names of the organizations and individuals who had participated in the agreement. Attorney Raymond Royce, for the applicant, asked Donaldson Hearing if he had been sworn in tonight. Mr. Hearing responded yes, and confirmed that his testimony on February 24, 2004 was true and correct, and asked that testimony to be adopted and approved. Attorney Royce asked Casey Cummings if he had been sworn in. Mr. Cummings responded yes, confirmed that his testimony on February 24, 2004 was true and correct, and asked that testimony to be adopted and approved. Doug Frevert, Dasheen Avenue, expressed his opinion this was a great project and should be approved as is. Vito DeFrancesco, Shady Lakes Circle, requested cross examination of Kara Irwin and distributed a handout. Mr. Royce objected that the applicant did not receive a copy, and was given a copy. Mr. DeFrancesco asked for clarification of the definition of nonresidential subdivision. Attorney Tatum clarified that the purpose of cross examination was to ask questions directly related to Ms. Irwin's testimony at the February 24 hearing or this hearing and was not an opportunity to ask random testimony. Mr. DeFrancesco commented a planned unit development had to either be phased or single unit entity, and Ms. Irwin stated this was a single entity although they were saying there was additional open space which would come to the board at a later date, and one of the waivers asked for tonight was additional open space and therefore allowed. Mr. DeFrancesco stated his question was whether this was a single unit entity or phased, and if phased you had to declare what was in the second phase. Ms. Irwin responded that this was a single unit entity controlled planned unit development. Mr. DeFrancesco advised he had provided a handout of the LDR section for residential and non - residential MXD's Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 11 which put this into the comprehensive plan, and discussed density. Attorney Tatum objected that Mr. DeFrancesco was apparently testifying, not cross examining Ms. Irwin. Mr. DeFrancesco asked how she had determined the criteria for residential mixed use to have residential in it. Ms. Irwin stated she did not understand the question. Mr. DeFrancesco stated the comprehensive plan does not allow residential in a non- residential MXD and how did she determine there had to be a minimum 20% residential high in there. Ms. Irwin asked that the question be stated again because Mr. DeFrancesco was making assumptions before he asked the questions and she wanted to be sure his assumptions were true. Mr. DeFrancesco stated in non - residential MXD in the comprehensive plan, there was no measurement for residential; in her staff report Ms. Irwin stated that there was a requirement to have 20% residential high in this development. Ms. Irwin stated she disagreed with his second statement, and what was the question. Mr. DeFrancesco stated the question was how had she determined there was a 20% requirement. Ms. Irwin stated that the statement did not say that they had a 20% requirement; residential MXD's have a 20% minimum for residential high land use; this project is a non - residential MXD so did not have the 20% mandatory requirement for residential high land use allocation, so she did not understand the question. Mr. DeFrancesco stated that differed with the staff report. Ms. Irwin stated she disagreed. Chair Present asked if Mr. DeFrancesco was a part of the PGA Corridor group that had agreed to a settlement. Mr. DeFrancesco responded he was a member but he had not agreed to the settlement and was here tonight as a homeowner living in Shady Lakes development. Mr. DeFrancesco asked how Ms. Irwin had determined that 4 stories were acceptable for residential in a non - residential MXD, because the comprehensive plan does not list it. Ms. Irwin stated the comprehensive plan talks about land uses but also set forth criteria for development; the land uses had zoning categories and she was talking about zoning categories when talking about residential. Ms. Irwin stated Mr. DeFrancesco was talking about land uses in the comprehensive plan; the land use or type of use was limited to 4 floors in a non - residential MXD, so that had been continued to the zoning for residential, which was 4 stories also. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if there was a measurement in the comprehensive plan for residential in non - residential MXD. Ms. Irwin stated it is our determination that residential zoning, residential use, is allowed within the institutional land use, so, yes, there are measurements for it. Mr. DeFrancesco indicated he had supplied the board and Ms. Irwin with a copy of definitions of public and institutional, and asked if the word "residential" showed up in that definition. Ms. Irwin stated, does the word "residential" show up in the definition of public institutional uses in land use categories, no. Mr. DeFrancesco stated under the comprehensive plan where you have the criteria, Ms. Irwin said that the major contributor to number 3 —there was a two -part question for the number 3 criteria —one was 60% residential and the other was horizontal integration; in the staff report it stated that horizontal integration was taken care of by the fact that they had tertiary roads going through there and it was going to be a linkage, and asked if that were true. Ms. Irwin stated she did not believe she used the term tertiary roadways, so would say no. Mr. DeFrancesco asked what type of roadways they were. Ms. Irwin responded they were roadways within a PUD; access roadways for the PUD. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if they were local or neighborhood roadways. Ms. Irwin responded she had not classified them as either of those, so, no. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 12 Mr. DeFrancesco stated according to the comprehensive plan, a neighborhood collector roadway is 80' right -of -way and a local road was either 60' with swale or 50' with curb and gutter; which one is it? Ms. Irwin stated she had already answered his question. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if the city encouraged parking lots to go into roadways that were linkages between two points. Ms. Irwin stated she did not understand the question how it pertained to this project. Mr. DeFrancesco stated in this project there were many, many parking lots that backed right up into the roadway that she considered a linkage roadway. Chair Present interrupted, indicating that Mr. DeFrancesco was to ask questions to cross examine and he did not want this back and forth to continue. Mr. DeFrancesco stated she testified this was a roadway that was a linkage between two points. Ms. Irwin stated she did not testify to that. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if Ms. Irwin could explain how this project meets the horizontal integration. Ms. Irwin responded she explained horizontal integration in the staff report and what question did Mr. DeFrancesco have pertaining to her explanation in the staff report. Mr. DeFrancesco stated the staff report said it was because of the roadway linkages. Ms. Irwin asked that he ask a question that related to what she said, that she did not identify these roadways as linkage roadways or as local roadways or as collectors, and asked that the question be phrased appropriately. Acting Chair Present asked how many more questions Mr. DeFrancesco had, to which the response was he was almost at the end. Mr. DeFrancesco stated that in the staff report it stated there was going to be 2.37 acres of land mitigated and what they were going to do was .94 acres on site; and in the staff report there was a letter from Don Hearing to Mr. Hendrickson of the City, which said that they were requiring 4.2 acres of preservation, and read that portion verbatim. Question: How did the City determine 2.37 acres if Don Hearing himself said he has 4.32? Ms. Irwin responded it was her understanding the requirement was 2.37 acres for upland mitigation and the applicant was mitigating a larger parcel, which was the 4.6 acres proposed off Beeline Highway - -but they were only required to have 2.37. Mr. DeFrancesco stated, this is a copy that came right out of the staff report, Mr. Don Hearing to Mr. Hendrickson, and what he had read was verbatim out of there, and he would still like the answer to that. Attorney Tatum stated Ms. Irwin had answered the question. Acting Chair Present advised that what Mr. DeFrancesco had could be submitted into the record. Mr. DeFrancesco stated it appears that this has not been met according to the very document that they submitted; he believed it had been overlooked; and he provided it to the board, he did not create these but was only reading them. Acting Chair Present stated the board had the copies and Mr. DeFrancesco's questions and the answers were part of the record, and if he wanted to submit his documents they would be a part of the record also. Mr. DeFrancesco submitted his documents. Attorney Royce stated by nature of rebuttal testimony he would like to have Mr. Michael Morrell, who represented the PGA Coalition organization, address the board. Attorney Tatum asked Ms. Irwin a question regarding the cross examination testimony she just gave, that she was asked a question regarding public institutional land use category in the comprehensive plan and asked if that was the land use category for this property. Ms. Irwin responded no, it is not. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 13 Michael Morrell advised he had represented the PGA Corridor Residents Coalition, the three individual associations, and the 17 individual members. All the associations and most of the individual members had signed the agreement. Mr. DeFrancesco had represented that he was a member of the coalition, insinuating there was a portion of the coalition not in agreement, and he wished to correct that. The coalition had met and discussed the settlement agreement for three hours before accepting the settlement agreement. They had heard from two attorneys and from Mr. DeFrancesco for about 2- 1/2 hours and at the end of that time the coalition felt that the existing conditions protected the community with regard to when the applicant comes back to finish the open space, if they ever do, but in addition to that the settlement agreement itself provides that there will never be greater than a 500 -seat theater on this property. Mr. Morrell recalled that the vote of the coalition had been unanimous and did not believe Mr. DeFrancesco was recorded as voting in the negative, although the minutes would be a better reflection of that. After the coalition met, the Shady Lakes Homeowners Association, Mr. DeFrancesco's neighborhood, convened a special meeting of their Board of Directors and after a 2 -hour discussion there was a unanimous vote to support and sign the agreement. Mr. Morrell suggested his clients were pleased with where this project was at this time. Acting Chair Present verified that Mr. Morrell had been sworn in, and advised he had asked Mr. DeFrancesco if he was speaking on behalf of the coalition but he had indicated he was speaking as a property owner on his own. Mr. Morrell expressed thanks for that clarification since his clients strongly supported this project at this time. Mr. Solomon asked on the road right -of -way for Shady Lakes Drive if Ms. Irwin had indicated it was 55'. Ms. Irwin clarified it was a 50' right -of -way with a 20' FPL easement and an additional 80', for a total of 150'. Mr. Solomon commented at the February 24 hearing when this board approved the project, it was approved with 7 waivers but not with the upland waiver situation, but now that was changed because the City was now satisfied and that was documented by the recommendations in the staff report, which Ms. Irwin verified was correct. Acting Chair Present advised he had voted against this but was now satisfied and supported it. Mr. Royce thanked the board for going through this project again. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of PUD -01 -13 with specific inclusion of fact that the Board had found that findings of fact as submitted by Ms. Kara Irwin as stated in her report to be true and correct with respect to the history of what went on in this project, and that this approval includes all of the recommendations and conditions of approval, including approval of the requested non - residential MXD waiver based upon the master site plan, based upon the approval for the 500 -seat theater, 500 -seat church, 300 -seat banquet facility, approval of the PUD overlay ordinance, the underlying mixed use zoning through adoption of Ordinance 13, 2004, waivers adopted through Resolution 92, 2004, approval of Resolution 156, 2004 regarding the off -site mitigation, and the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 14 conditions of approval. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wu announced a public hearing for comprehensive plan changes heard tonight to be held Tuesday, August 3, 2004. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held August 10, 04. APPROVED: Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting LDR SECTION 78 -751, Definitions Nonresidential subdivision means a subdivision whose intended use is other than residential, such as commercial or industrial. Planned unit development (PUD) means a land area under unified control, utilizing creative design techniques to preserve natural resources, encourage efficient use of land, and benefit the community, designed and planned to be developed or redeveloped in a single operation or by a series of prescheduled development phases according to an officially approved final development plan that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Open space means an exterior open area, including open water bodies, clear from the ground upward and devoid of residential and commercial buildings, accessory structures, and impervious areas, except, however, those buildings and structures used exclusively for recreational purposes. Mixed use means two or more different land uses located on the same parcel, and to be developed and operated as a single - entity. "Tertiary street" means a street providing local or neighborhood serving roads. LDR SECTION 78 -157, Residential MXD f) Residential MXD intensity measures and special definitions. Residential MXDs shall comply with the intensity measures indicated in Table 18, unless one or more intensity measures are waived by the city council. Table 18: Residential MXD Intensity Measures and Special Definitions TABLE INSET: Land Lot Building Special Land Use Allocation overage (1) Height Definitions Not Not Open Space Min: 15% Applicable Applicable None Neighborhood Min: 2% Min: 2 Floors Commercial Max: 30% Max' 70% Max: 4 Floors 2) Residential High Min: 20% Min: 2 Floors Density Max: 60% Max: 50% Max: 4 Floors 3) Residential Low Min: 0% Density Max: 60% Max: 50% Max: 2.5 Floors Employment Min: 2% enter Max: 30% Max 70% Max: 4 Floors 4) LDR SECTION 78 -157, Non - Residential MXD Table 19: Nonresidential MXD Intensity Measures TABLE INSET: [vote: * Excluding the land allocation formula, lot coverage, and building height limits, land uses are defined as established in the Future Land Use Element of the city's comprehensive plan. Land Lot Building (location Coverage Height Land Use Open Space Min: 15% Not Applicable Not Applicable Commercial Min: 0% Min: 2 Floors Recreation Max: 30% Max: 50% Max: 4 Floors Min: 0% Min: 2 Floors Commercial Max: 60% Max: 50% Max: None Min: 0% Min: 2 Floors Industrial Max: 60% Max: 50% Max: 4 Floors Min: 0% Min: 2 Floors Institutional Max: 60% Max: 50% Max: 4 Floors Professional Min: 2% Min: 2 Floors ffice Max: 60% 0% Max: None [vote: * Excluding the land allocation formula, lot coverage, and building height limits, land uses are defined as established in the Future Land Use Element of the city's comprehensive plan. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.1.1.3 Residential MXD B. General Mixed Use Future Laud Use Category Intensity Measures for Residential MXps Land Use Land Allocation Lot Coverage Height Open Space Min 15% Neighborhood Min 2% Max 70% Max 4 Commercial Max 300Jp F1 Residential High Min 20% Max 50% Max 4 F1 Max 60%0 Residential Low Min 0% Max 50% Max 3 Fl Max 60% Employment Center Min 2% Max 709/6 Max 4 Fl Max 30% Public/Institutional (P): The P land use category designates existing and proposed public and institutional facilities such as schools, libraries, fire stations and government offices. These uses shall be limited in intensity to a maximum lot coverage of 40% of the site and a maximum building height of 50 feet. Among the sites designated are the existing City Hall at the intersection ofMilitary Trail and Burns Road, existing school sites, and the Palm Beach Community College and North County Courthouse on PGA Boulevard. Public and institutional uses are allowed in all land use categories subject to limitations and locational criteria identified in this Plan and/or outlined in the Palm Beach Gardens Zoning code. These uses will be delineated on the Future Land Use Map at the next subsequent amendment process. Public/institutional uses will be approved as conditional uses pursuant to the Palm Beach Gardens Zoning Code if the specific rules and locational criteria governing individual conditional uses are complied with. Certain intensive public/institutional uses will not be allowed in residential areas, such as land fills, airports and wastewater treatment plants. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.1.1.3, Non - Residential MXD C. General Mixed Use Future Land Use Category Intensity Measures for Non - Residential MXDs Land Use Land Allocation Lot Coverage Height Open Space Min 15% Commercial Min 4° /a Max 50% Max 4 Recreation Max 30% F1 Commercial Min 0% Max 50% Max 4 Fl Max 60% Industrial Min 00 /o Max 60% Max 4 F1 MAX 6n°/a Institutional Allin Oa /a Max 50% Max 4 F1 Max 60%6 Professional Office Min 2% Max 70% Max 4 Fl Max 6U° /a Land Uses are defined as set forth in the Future Land Use Element, with the exception of special land allocation, lot coverage and height requirements specified for Non - Residential MXD developments. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.1.1.3, Non - Residential MXD A. Critiera for a Non - Residential MXD: The City Council may waive the mandatory residential requirement for any MXD that meets any two of the following conditions: 1. The parcel represents in -fill development and is surrounded on three sides by non - residential land uses including man -made and natural barriers such as canals and major arterial roadways. 2. The density /intensity of existing or future land uses immediately surroundin&tbe parcel are compatible with non - residential uses. 3. The adjacent surrounding planned and approved or existing built environment is over 6010/a residential, and non - residential uses are determined to provide for greater horizontal integration of uses. 4. Due to size or configuration' of the parcel, the ability to provide an economically feasible, sustainable, integrated residential component that functions to enhance and complement the other MXD uses is limited. LDR SECTION 78 -157, MXD Tertiary streets. Local- and residential- serving streets, utilizing the following: 1. Adoption of specific street cross sections to define width of streets, parking, sidewalks, and building lines; 2. Neighborhood serving commercial; 3. Strong pedestrian links; 4. On- street parking; 5. Limited or no parking between sidewalks and building facades; 6. Nonresidential building height of two stories, with one or two more additional stories for residential uses; and 7. Maximum size of users. Secondary streets. Major mover of traffic to and through area, including the following characteristics: 1. Minimum setback from front roads; 2. "Build to" line to achieve uniformity; 3. Ground floor retail or commercial with pedestrian orientation; 4. No parking in front of building; 5. Direct pedestrian connections between buildings; 6. On- street parking; 7. Limited parking between sidewalks and building facades; and 8. Establish maximum separation between buildings. Comprehensive Plan, Policy 2.1.2 Policy 2.1.2.1.: The hierarchy of City streets and their functions shall be as follows: Neighborhood Collectors - (example Holly Drive) collect and distribute traffic within Planned Unit Development or from limited access subdivisions, will be maintained as low speed, two lane public roads (unless designated a private road pursuant to PUD or PCD approval prior to the construction of the road) suitable for fronting residential development, institutional, or neighborhood commercial development. Local Roads - (example Buttercup) all other City roads, may be public or private. Policy 2.1.2.2.: Minimum right -of -way requirements for new roadways shall be: • Neighborhood Collector roadways - 80' right -of -way • Local roads - 60' right -of -way (swale drainage); or 50' right -of -way (curb and gutter). Dear Gentlemen On behalf of Ram Development Company and the Borland Center for Community Enrichment, please accept this as the applicant's official submittal to the City to provide 4.33 acres of pine flatwood upland "set aside" to mitigate for Impacts to similar habitation on the Borland Center site. The applicant's Environmental Assessment for the Borland Center, submitted and accepted by the City, identified 17.29 acres of pine flatwood habitat (FLUCCS code 411) on site thus requiring 4.32 acres of preservation. While applicant will make every effort to preserve individual trees, particularly those adjacent to the PGA corridor, the development of the site, does not facilitate preservation. As documented in our June 12, 2002 submittal to the City and our Engineering Reports, the Unit 2 drainage requirements and the existing grades of the site require an average of 2 to 2 -1/2 feet of fill. This creates a condition far less than optimal for the preservation of slash pine (flatwood) habitat. Recognizing that the required upland "set aside" [LDR 78 -250 (3)(b &c)] represent only 43% of the 10 acre size threshold recognized by the comprehensive plan to be a sustainable / viable "set aside" area, the applicant has requested the City Council's approval to provide offsite mitigation in accordance with the Land Development Regulations [LDR 78 -249 (b)(2)]. The applicant proposal includes 4.34 acres of pine flatwood habitat, together with approximately 7.77 acres of high quality wetlands. In total, the applicant proposes to place approximately 12.11 acres of native habitat into Perpetual Conservation Easement In favor of the City of Palm Beach. J SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement ") is made and entered into this day of June, 2004, by and between Palm Beach Community Church, Inc., and RAM Development Company ("Applicants ") and PGA Corridor Residents Coalition, Inc., Garden Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc., Gardens of Woodberry Homeowners' Association, Inc., Shady Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc., Dawn Marie Corrigan, Joseph Gallino and Jane Gallino, Walter K. Schmidt and P. Wendy Schmidt, George Gehl and Linda Gehl, James A. Massinello and Maria Massinello, Marlene McFarland, Joseph Aloia, Robert M. Stimac and Joanne M. Stimac, -and raehael- -More their legal eounse4, and Vito de Francisco, Richard Orman, and Richard Brumback (collectively the "Objectors ")_ WHEREAS, the Applicants have heretofore filed a petition with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida ("City"), Petition No. PUD- 01- 131WAV -00 -03 Non Residential MXD Waiver, Rezoning, Master Plan, and Conditional Use Approval which has been amended and supplemented ( "Application") for a mixed use development (`Borland Center); and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved on first reading Ordinance 13, 2004 ( "Ordinance "), which would grant the requested rezoning, and has held a pubic hearing on proposed Resolution 92, 2004 ( "R.esolution"), which would grant the requested waiver for a non - residential MXD, approve the requested PUD, approve the requested Site Plan and approve the tequested Conditional Uses. The terms "Ordinance" and "Resolution" as used in this Agreement shall include any and all amendments to the drafts prepared by the City, provided that such amendments are not contrary to the terms of this agreement; and WHEREAS, the Objectors have heretofore objected to the approval of the Application and the adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution by the City; and WHEREAS, the Applicants and Objectors have agreed to resolve their differences as set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties to this Agreement, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 1. All of the recitations set forth above are true and correct. 2. The Applicants agree as follows: A. The walls and benches shown in the 55 foot PGA Parkway buffer as shown on the Application and exhibits thereto are to be bench height. B. The Applicants will maintain, until further development occurs, the existing vegetation, other than exotics, in the area between the west PGA Boulevard entrance of the Borland Center and the Florida Power & Light substation, recognizing that grade issues may require some vegetation to be removed. C. The Applicants will cooperate with the Objectors and the City to create a pedestrian connection between the Borland Center and the PGA Commons development located on the south side of PGA Boulevard, possibly to include a place 2 for pedestrians to pause in the PGA median, to the extent permitted by safety considerations. D. The Applicants agree that the proposed amendment to the PGA Corridor Overlay district presently scheduled to be considered by the City during July, 2004, shall contain a provision limiting the theaters to not more than 500 seats, and that the Ordinance and Resolution and the approval of the Application shall be subject to such amendment and limitation. The Applicants agree that Section 78- 158(d) of the City Land Development Regulations prohibits waivers from the requirements of the PGA Overlay district, including use waivers and intensity waivers for theaters greater than 500 - seats. E. The Applicants agree that at the June 17, 2004 meeting of the City Council, they will request that the City postpone or continue the second reading of the rezoning ordinance and consideration of the purposed Resolution, until and after the proposed PGA Overlay district amendments are approved by the City, and have become effective, provided however, that the Applicant's agreement to postpone further action on the Application shall not exceed a period of sixty days from the date of this Agreement. In the event that the PGA Corridor Overlay district amendments are not approved by the City and become effective within sixty days of the date of this Agreement, the Applicants may elect to proceed forward with the Application, the Objectors may elect to object, oppose and legally challenge the Application, Ordinance and/or Resolution and this Settlement Agreement shall then be null and void. The parties agree that if, at the expiration of the sixty day 3 period, it is apparent that the PGA Overlay district amendments will be approved within a reasonably short period of time thereafter, the parties will cooperate with each other and agree to a reasonable extension of the sixty day period. 3. In consideration of the Applicant's undertakings and agreements set forth above, and subject to the conditions set forth above, the Objectors hereby agree as follows: A. The Objectors hereby waive and withdraw any comments, objections, claims, or allegations that they have made relating to the Application, Ordinance, Resolution, the City staff report, and/or the approval of the Borland Center by the City. B. The Objectors hereby waive and withdraw any objections, claims or allegations regarding any alleged notice, procedural, or due process issue or defect in the approval process of the Application, Ordinance, and/or Resolution. T i !XUIAI M-1 U MW C. The Objectors agree not to participate in, directly or indirectly, any effort of any kind whatsoever, to hinder, delay, impede, or otherwise interfere with the consideration and/or approval by the City of the Application, Ordinance and/or Resolution. D. The Objectors agree not to take any appeal or file, or cause to be appealed or filed, any administrative action or lawsuit relating to or objecting to the approval of the Application, Ordinance, and/or Resolution at any time. E. The Objectors agree that they will not, directly or indirectly, participate with, encourage, or give aid or support of any kind, to any person or party who might wish or intend to make or actually make any objection to or file any administrative action or lawsuit pertaining to the Application, Ordinance, and/or Resolution. F. The Objectors agree that, if and when requested by the Applicants, they will confirm to the City of Palm Beach Gardens that they support and do not object to the approval of the Application, Ordinance, and/or Resolution approving the Borland Center on the terms set forth in this Agreement. G. The Objectors agree that the PGA Overlay district amendment limiting theaters to a maximum of 500 seats does not apply to churches. 4. All of the parties hereto agree to cooperate fully with each other and the City in adopting the PGA Overlay district amendments and agree not to, directly or indirectly impede, delay, or hinder the approval of the PGA Corridor Overlay district amendments by the City. 5. All of the parties hereto agree to cooperate fully with each other and the City in good faith in implementing the terms and conditions of this Agreement and agree not to take any action, or fail to take any action, which would directly or indirectly violate any of the terms and conditions or the spirit and intent of this Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive the rights of objectors to enforce, or encourage the City to enforce, the conditions of development approval 5 accompanying the Application, Ordinance and/or Resolution approving the Borland Center. 7. Each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys fees and costs. 8. A copy of this Agreement may be delivered to the City Council and staff by any party hereto. 111111 11 Muni IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above first written. Witness: �r Palm Beach Community Church, In . By: RAM f%_ op Company By: ,CvNtA1146,5 , •� � lO��rJ'� PGA Coalition, Inc. By Garden Lakes omeowner's Associatio , Inc,. �. 1'1 - - p 1 Gardens of Woodberry Homeowner's Association, I By. dit r Shady Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc. By. jEi1atnTVakt,r1 Dawn Marie Corrigan jjWphAa1hnj4 � a .. Q�cj G Walter K. chmidt YATO T41 M1 q.�,.. . George Gehl - Skad�,t,4�.sRrsdur�' Linda Gehl,. S h a d, {. k4a (4s 14W- ' James A. Massinello - $h-td), L4cs �,:;c(*% Maria Massinello -Shady L e, 45 iks,4<4 Marlene McFarland- S WIL4Ar R6al-t Joseph Aloia- CveieA% - -kk icAvy Ue tde,-t Robert M. Stimac - ShRA7, 4(45. (kr,do,t Joanne M. Stimac , S he.&V -4 6 (26(4w(t . Vito De 11'ranc3.sco Richard Orman Richard Brumback Exhibit "A' Mr. Charles Wu Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 1050 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu: As you are aware, Palm Beach Community Church, RAM Development Company, PGA Corridor Residents Coalition, Inc. and other parties have reached a Settlement Agreement with respect to the Borland Center project. As a part of the Settlement Agreement the Borland Center project will be subject to the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay amendments currently being processed by the City (Ordinance 18, 2004). We are jointly requesting that the City include in Ordinance 18, 2004 the following clarification to Section 78 -221 (b)(4) Waivers. (4) Waivers. The City shall not grant any waiver which permits the establishment of a use not authorized by this Division, or which allows an increase in intensity of a use that is permitted. We strongly urge you to approve Ordinance 18, 2004 with this requested change,as scheduled on July 15, 2004. Very truly yours, -�; �-- /"1/04'JJ-Z�J — 160e - Dr. Raymond Underwo d Palm Beach Community Church Dr. Richard Orman PGA Residents Coalition * 2011875 vl PGA Residents Coalition# 2011875Y1 CITY OF PALM BRACH GARDENS, FLORIDA AFFIDAVIT of Posting of Public Notice Sign and Certified Mail Notice STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF -CALM BEACH Petition No_: PUD 0143 'Petition Name: BORLAND CENTER (PUD) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared BRIAN CREGUIS, Lho, after having first duly sworn and p u t upon oath, says as follows: 4. That he is Agent for the Owner of the property identified in the above - referenced petition to be heard before the PLANNING AND ZONING COWAISSION JULY 27, 2004 and is authorized to execute and make this Affidavit and is familiar with the matters as set forth herein and they are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. �. That on JULY 16, 2004, the required and existing 3' x 3' signs were modified on the property identified in said petition, readily visible to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, ` stating THIS SITE I5 BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUESTED 3i. That he is aware of and understands that failure to adhere to the foregoing provisions, including submittal of this Affidavit, a minimum of 10 days prior to the first Public Hearing, may cause the above - identified petition and any public heaving held thereon to be ineffective and a nullity. 41 That certified mailed notice has been provided to the owners of surrounding property within 500 feet by mail at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing by way of Certified mail. (1# eguis) Legal signature of o er la gent for owner S ORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME ON THIS 16`' Day of July 2004. Ndtary Public Mt Commission Expires. I I 10Z -t ZO /Z0 d W -1 Sandra Bruorton *-. ommiys(on N DD 063620 9 2005 n gadd T!v'u PII nx -maj wdoo :Zo do —u —mr �1` Noff"'r" CITY OF PALM BRACH GARDENS, FLORIDA AFFIDAVIT of Posting of Public Notice Sign and Certified Mail Notice STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF -CALM BEACH Petition No_: PUD 0143 'Petition Name: BORLAND CENTER (PUD) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared BRIAN CREGUIS, Lho, after having first duly sworn and p u t upon oath, says as follows: 4. That he is Agent for the Owner of the property identified in the above - referenced petition to be heard before the PLANNING AND ZONING COWAISSION JULY 27, 2004 and is authorized to execute and make this Affidavit and is familiar with the matters as set forth herein and they are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. �. That on JULY 16, 2004, the required and existing 3' x 3' signs were modified on the property identified in said petition, readily visible to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, ` stating THIS SITE I5 BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL REQUESTED 3i. That he is aware of and understands that failure to adhere to the foregoing provisions, including submittal of this Affidavit, a minimum of 10 days prior to the first Public Hearing, may cause the above - identified petition and any public heaving held thereon to be ineffective and a nullity. 41 That certified mailed notice has been provided to the owners of surrounding property within 500 feet by mail at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing by way of Certified mail. (1# eguis) Legal signature of o er la gent for owner S ORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME ON THIS 16`' Day of July 2004. Ndtary Public Mt Commission Expires. I I 10Z -t ZO /Z0 d W -1 Sandra Bruorton *-. ommiys(on N DD 063620 9 2005 n gadd T!v'u PII nx -maj wdoo :Zo do —u —mr Notice of Public Hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens PUD 01 -13 Applicant: Donaldson Hearing / Brian Cheguis Project Name: Borland Center for Community Enrichment July 15, 2004 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, to consider the following petition: • Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council for the following: PUD -01 -13 Rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MXD PUD) for the Borland Center PUD -01 -13 Conditional Use approval for a Church, Banquet Facility & Theatre Uses A request by Cotleur and Hearing, agent for The Borland Center and RAM Development, for a non - residential MXD waiver, a property rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MXD /PUD), master plan, and a conditional use approval to allow for the development of the project which includes 64,533 square feet (500 -seat small theater, and 300 -seat banquet hall, Sunday School and accessory facilities) for a cultural center and church offices, 64,025 square feet for retail space, 19,950 square feet for restaurant space, 10,900 square feet for office space, and 205 rental apartments and 20 residential loft units integrated into the non- residential use area of an approximately 47 -acre site. The subject property is located along the north side of PGA Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive. This item was previously heard and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 24, 2004. The Applicant is requesting that this item be reheard by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure that full and proper notice is given and that all procedural requirements are observed. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, will also hold a Public Hearing on this matter on Thursday, August S. 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At that public hearing, the City Council will consider final approval of the petition. All documents pertaining to the above petition are available in the Growth Management Department, at the above address, and may be reviewed by the public during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone 561 -799- 4243. THIS NOTICE CORRECTS A PRIOR NOTICE. THE CORRECT DATE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IS SET FORTH ABOVE