HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102495•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 24, 1995
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chairman Carl Sabatello at 7:30 P.M. in the Assembly
Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and
opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The roll was called by Secretary Jackie Holloman:
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
Daniel Honig
Phillip Lyddon
William Mignogna
Thomas Pastore
To M ?" K:a
Christopher Jones, Alternate
Also res t at the meeting were Alternate Tom Paaanim City Council Liaison David Clark,
Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton, Principal
Planner Bristol Ellington, and Principal Planner Kim Glas- Castro. City Manager Bobbie
Herakovich arrived at 7 :50 P.M.
Planning and Zoning Director Walton reported that at the last meeting staff had been requested
to draft standards for screening roof - mounted equipment, however, since time constraints had
limited research, further direction was requested from the Commission. After ensuing
discussion, Mr. Glidden suggested including a line of sight definition, and Chairman Sabatello
commented that this was not a high priority item and could be accomplished as time allowed.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LUISON
City Council Liaison Clark stated he had no items to report.
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
Minutes of October 10. 1995 - Mr. Pastore made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mignogna. The motion was approved by a 6 -0 vote, with
abstention by Vice Chair Diane Carlino.
*_ -C _ : ;_ LN I JUN- it
Final ADDrOVAI: Petition P -95- 9, by Steve Doran is requesting site plan approval for the
construction of three attached multi - family units totaling 4,119 square feet. The site is
located east of Gardens East Plaza and north of Lighthouse Drive at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Gardens East Drive and Firetree Road. (18- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated October 20, 1995.
Petitioner Steve Doran stated he believed everything had been provided to staff and that the
recommendations could be worked out with staff.
Vice Chair Diane Carlino made a motion to grant final approval of Petition SP- 95 -19, subject
to the following conditions:
• 1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a boundary and
topographic survey. This survey shall include, but is not limited to, the location of the canal's top
of bank, existing easements, and topographic elevations. This information is required and shall
be utilized on the final construction plans to demonstrate positive drainage in accordance with the
City's Land Development Regulations.
2. Since this development is to be rental, a Unity of Title shall be executed to cover the entire parcel
prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
3. The turning radii at the entrances shall be identified on the final construction drawings.
4. The construction plans, at the turn around for Unit 1, shall provide for a minimum of a 24' turning
radius so that a larger car can exit without running over the edge of pavement.
5. In order to prevent a potential parking problem, the den shall be prohibited from being converted
into a third bedroom and shall not have a door installed at the den's entry.
6. The 5 -foot sidewalk adjacent to the subject property, within the Right -of -Way of Gardens East
Drive, shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Mignogna, and carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24,1995
Workshop: Petition SP-95-20, by Jeff Lis, agent for Daniel Catalfumo, to request site plan
approval for the construction of a one - story, 39,500 square -foot building. Located on Lot
2 of South Park Center Plat within the Northcorp Center Planned Community District.
(12- 42S -42E)
Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee member John Glidden stepped down due to
conflict of interest. Alternate Tom Paganini sat in for Mr. Glidden.
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated October 20, 1995.
Jeff Lis, agent for the Petitioner, described the operations of Decorators Unlimited as a
warehouse facility with ancillary private offices used by designers, none of which would be open
to the public. Mr. Lis explained that design materials would be shipped to the warehouse
directly from the manufacturers, and would then be delivered to job sites. Customers would
only visit the showroom located at another location within the community, allowing this facility
to be treated as light industrial and not general office when calculating the required parking.
Mr Lis clarified the Code violation in regard to removal of vegetation on the site by explaining
• that CTB Realty Ventures, the parent company from whom this parcel was purchased, had
cleared a 35 -foot swath through the property to install a drainage line, evidently without a
permit, before purchase of this parcel by Mr. Catalfiuno. Mr. Lis explained that discussions
with staff regarding the problem of storing fill generated from excavation for the lake within the
Northcorp Center PCD had resulted in a tree survey requirement. Because of dense
undergrowth, it had been necessary to push palmettos together in order to get into the area to
establish bearing points for the tree survey, which had violated one of the City's Codes. Mr. Lis
verified that no trees had been removed, and that his landscape architect had met with City
Forester Hendrickson to mitigate that situation by agreeing to relocate oak trees existing on the
site into the vegetative buffers.
Mr. Lis stated that Petitioner had responded in writing to the City Engineer's memo attached to
the staff report, and that it was his understanding that all of the items in the memo had been
addressed and resolved. Mr. Lis explained that representatives of CTB had delivered copies of
the contract within the past day or two for work being done in South Park Center, and stated he
would submit to staff a copy of the easement in question on the 35 feet which contained
recording information, as well as a construction schedule stating that construction on South Park
Center would be completed on March 4. Mr. Lis commented that the building was proposed to
be a tilt -up building with a simulated stucco finish, both smooth and ribbed, and provided color
samples. Mr. Lis discussed the proposed signage and stated that he would amend the sign
package to relocate Decorators Unlimited's signage to above the entrance on the west elevation
of the building. Mr. Lis described the docking bays and traffic circulation proposed for the
0 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
parcel.
Mr. Lyddon commented that the PCD amendment to reduce the open space from 28% to 20%
must move forward at the same time as this petition. Mr. Pastore questioned how the Police
Department's concern regarding lighting would be addressed. Mr. Lis responded that the
Petitioner would agree to a condition to adjust site lighting poles and that prior to obtaining a
Certificate of Occupancy that the Police Department must approve the installation. Mr. Lis
responded to Mr. Honig that the west, south, and east elevation parapets were sufficient to
screen the roof - mounted equipment, and that the equipment would be grouped and screening
provided to the height of the equipment on the remaining elevation. Mr. Lis commented the Art
in Public Places requirement would be paid in cash. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether the
screening of the roof - mounted equipment would provide screening from I -95, and requested that
language on screening approved with the Wackenhut building be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Honig requested that a line of sight view from I -95 looking at the building also be provided.
Chairman Sabatello raised a concern with not being able to review the landscape plan,
particularly along I -95. Mr. Lis explained that the existing streetscape had been approved for
that area, and it was his understanding that the City Forester had no concerns with the density.
Chairman Sabatello expressed concern that in comparison of the landscape plan and the site plan
that the sidewalks did not match, and requested the petitioner's attention to that matter.
• Chairman Sabatello received clarification that the irrigation source was a well, which would
utilize filters so that there would be no staining; and that the awnings were proposed on the west
elevation only. Mr. Lis explained that Decorators Unlimited would have an ownership interest
as well as being a tenant in the building and would therefore have an interest in maintaining the
awnings, which they had requested because of their western exposure. Chairman Sabatello
questioned the use of the south - facing loading zone, to which Mr. Lis responded that zone was
for drop -off only and would not be utilized by tractor trailer trucks. Chairman Sabatello
received clarification from the petitioner that the window frames would be bronze. Mr.
Mignogna expressed concern that I -95 south -bound traffic could view roof - mounted equipment
from the north elevation, and requested information as to whether the amount of trees on the I -95
property line would block the view. Mr. Mignogna questioned why a parapet was not proposed
on the east elevation, to which Mr. Lis responded that the building sloped. Mr. Mignogna noted
that scuppers could be designed into the parapet, which Mr. Lis agreed to consider. Mr. Honig
requested that Petitioner include a drawing of that section I -95 in his next presentation, and
expressed the opinion that I -95 might be wide enough at that point so that the roof could not be
viewed.
Planning and Zoning Director Walton requested a floor plan in order to address parking. Mr.
Lis stated he believed he had demonstrated the usage in regard to calculating parking by
explaining the way Decorators Unlimited operated and would have a problem providing a floor
plan for an interior design for a project that was not yet approved. Mr. Honig stated that the
tenant must have an idea of the square footage of his office space. Chairman Sabatello requested
0 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
this be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Pastore questioned whether construction of West Park
Drive was tied to this construction, to which Mr. Lis responded that it was, and that it was
scheduled to be completed by March 4, 1996, and that the Petitioner understood that road must
be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy could be obtained.
In summary, the Committee expressed the following comments and concerns:
1. Petitioner shall provide a floor plan for use in parking calculations.
2. Petitioner shall amend signage package to relocate Decorators Unlimited signage to above
the entrance on the west elevation of the building.
3. Staff recommended that this project not receive final site plan appproval until the PCD
has been amended and approved by City Council.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be contingent upon site adjustment of landscaping as
required by the Police Department.
5. Petitioner shall provide line of sight drawing of the view from I -95 looking toward the
• building, as well as existing landscaping along the I -95 property line; and shall consider
designing scuppers into the parapet on the east elevation. Language regarding screening
shall be provided from the approval of the Wackenhut building.
6. The landscape plan shall be consistent with the site plan.
7. Filters shall be required for the irrigation well in order to prevent staining.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing: Petition DRI- 95-01, by Hank Skokowski, agent for Martin Feat Interests,
Inc., for an amendment to the PGA National Resort Community DRI to change 20.815 acres
of the Commerce Park to residential land use for 298 apartments. (15- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Kim Glas- Castro explained that the Petitioner was no longer Martin Fein
Interests, Inc., but was now PGA National Ventures, and that the 298 apartments had been
reduced to 292, and reviewed the staff report dated October 18, 1995.
Mr. Honig questioned if either (a) the Comprehensive Plan were revised, or (b) density were
reduced, and the issue of unallocated units were resolved, whether staff would object to the
location of the apartments, to which Ms. Glas -Castro responded that would resolve the land use
. 6
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• October 24,1995
change to residential, and expressed concern that a traffic signal would probably never be
located at the ingress /egress Northlake Boulevard point because of the existing traffic light at
the Ryder Cup Boulevard/Northlake Boulevard intersection.
Hank Skokowski, agent for the Petitioner, reported two town meetings for the residents of PGA
National had been held regarding this petition, and one more meeting would be held on
November 13, and extensive coverage had appeared in the newsletter distributed to all
households in the development. Mr. Skokowski explained that Mr. Fein was no longer involved,
and that the Related Group of Florida, the largest multi- family rental housing builder in South
Florida, had taken Mr. Fein's place. Mr. Skokowski introduced Mr. Mike Hammond, a
representative of the Related Group. Mr. Skokowski explained that the petition had been
formally converted to the owner of the property, PGA National Venture, represented at the
meeting by Mr. Ecclestone. Mr. Skokowski explained that Mr. Hammond had spoken at the last
town meeting and invited PGA National residents to visit his company's other luxury apartment
projects in South Florida.
Frank Palen, Legal Counsel for the Petitioner, stated that the two points used by staff as their
primary reason for recommending denial of this petition were technical and could be resolved
during negotiation with staff. Attorney Palen discussed point one which dealt with assigning
• numbers of units to particular parcels, and commented that since the project was nearing
buildout, that the effect of assigning all of the parcels would be that the Petitioner would forfeit
some of the units they could otherwise use, and believed that there were sound reasons why
some flexibility should be kept for the buildout of the project. Attorney Palen provided copies
of Resolution 107, 1994 regarding Jog Road to the Commission, which he stated staff was using
to establish specifications for their position, and explained that Petitioner's position based on
the Resolution was that the City Council had the power to control how units are allocated.
Attorney Palen discussed the second point raised by staff regarding documenting the legal basis
for 15 du/ac, and explained that City Attorney Baird did not agree with Petitioner's basic
position in their interpretation of the Development Order and of the Comprehensive Plan.
Attorney Palen stated that the Comprehensive Plan discussed a maximum of 12 units per acre
but that applied to the overall PCD zoning district and not to subparcels within a Planned
Community District. Attorney Palen stated that all of the documentation during the 18 -year
history of approvals on this project was what controlled the development of PGA National, and
maximum densities, which had always been 15 du/ac; and explained that Petitioner was not
asking for 15 du/ac but was saying that the Comprehensive Plan did not prevent them from
asking for more than 12 units per acre. Therefore, Petitioner was not asking for anything
inconsistent with PGA National's history or the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Sabatello discussed the fact that these were technical matters which the Petitioner
must work out with staff and which were outside the scope of the Commission. Mr. Lyddon
requested clarification of whether the Commission's task was consideration of approval of a
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
change from industrial to residential as a land use or considering low, medium, or high densities.
Discussion ensued, and Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis commented that the City now
believed the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Development Regulations were inconsistent
and that up to 14 du/ac could be allowed, and that this matter would be discussed further. Mr.
Lyddon questioned whether language in the Resolution would limit the number of units to 5400.
Mr. Palen responded that a modification would need to be made. Mr. Skokowski addressed how
this petition differed from the previous petition on this project by citing previous bad timing
during the Jog Road issue, which was now gone; stating that density had been reduced; and
explaining that The Related Group was committed to the project and would have a minimum
one -year lease and 24 -hour gated security. Mr. Skokowski reviewed how the character of the
area would be changed if the request for residential land use was granted, discussed the fact that
direct vehicular access to the rest of PGA National would not be established, stated that the golf
membership opportunity would be removed from the parcel containing the apartment units,
discussed the compatibility of residential and industrial uses in this area, and explained that Mr.
Hammond did not plan to change the previous plans.
Mr. Kahart Pinder of David Plummer Associates, addressed the traffic which would be generated
in the overall project, and explained that a reduction of 100 trips per day was anticipated, and
pointed out that the morning and afternoon peak hours would each be reduced by 100 trips. Mr.
• Palen explained that Hiatt Drive traffic would increase on a daily basis with the residential
apartments, however volumes on Ryder Cup would be lower, peak hour trips would be reduced,
and there would be no change to traffic on Military Trail. Mr. Pinder responded to Mr. Glidden
that the number of peak outbound morning trips would be under 100.
Mr. Skokowski discussed the advantages of residential apartment units versus industrial land use
for this area of PGA National, commented that the types of renters in many cases would be
transitional homeowners and not transients, and that the assessed value of a residential parcel
would be approximately twice the amount that it would be for industrial and would be added to
the City's tax base within two years. Mr. Skokowski distributed copies of correspondence
supporting the Petitioner's position.
Chairman Sabatello opened the Public Hearing. Comments were made by the following
members of the public:
1. Bob Lauer opposed the amendment to the DRI, citing the scarcity of industrial land
within the City, increased traffic, impact on the already overcrowded school system and
increased police protection which would affect taxpayers, and a substantial increase in
units over the number agreed to in the Jog Road situation.
2. Bill Halprin, owner of a building in the industrial park, opposed the amendment to the
DRI, citing traffic access problems off Northlake Boulevard and safety concerns,
• 8
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
•
October 24, 1995
questioned the traffic figures as well as the assessed values provided by the Petitioner.
3. Harold Friedburg opposed the amendment on the basis that the developer was changing
what had been represented which had induced Mr. Friedburg to purchase his lot.
4. Milton Stem supported the amendment, explained that over 1,000 C.A.M.members
supported the amendment, agreed with the traffic figures, and listed advantages of
residential versus industrial uses.
5. Bulart Kastarlak supported the amendment from his perspective of working as a planner,
explained that today's standards were not the same as twenty years ago, that this location
was no longer desirable as an industrial location, and that changing to residential would
bring the master plan up to date.
6. Ruth Lavin opposed the amendment, citing density and her belief that rental apartments
would take away from the existing quality of life in PGA National, and took exception
to the comment regarding C.A.M., stating they did not have the authority to speak for all
the residents.
7. Mary Sandrini stated she had owned the Montessori Children's Center in PGA National
Commerce Park since 1990 and had lived in PGA National since 1987 and supported the
amendment because there had been no demand at the PGA National Commerce Park for
new light industry for ten years; there was a demand for rental housing by young
professionals; the apartments would be an extension of PGA National and the industrial
park would deter purchasers of nearby residential areas; that there was a glut on the
market for commercial buildings; other types of industries which could move in might
become a problem in keeping up the quality of the community; and other rental
complexes within PGA National had not been a problem, and traffic was not a problem.
8. Judy Raposh supported the amendment for aesthetic reasons, expressing concern that the
light industrial area would become unsightly.
9. Frank Fanello supported the amendment for reasons previously stated.
10. Burt Weiss opposed the amendment, citing misleading information provided by a video
which only depicted 10 units per acre, commented that C.A.M. did not represent the total
population of PGA National and that there was a lot of opposition to the proposed change
which would contribute to traffic problems on Ryder Cup Boulevard; and commented
that the increased assessed value would be offset by the increased services needed;
11. Josh Mendashon supported the amendment, citing the possible dangers which could
• 9
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24,1995
occur in connection with industrial uses and stated that he believed a residential
community would be safer and more consistent with PGA National.
12. Cal Swartz opposed the amendment, citing increased traffic and that the apartments
would have to be in excess of two stories.
13. Mack Gaither favored the amendment, and spoke from his experience in working with
commercial properties for several years and commented that this site would not have
been chosen for commercial development by his firm, and would probably eventually fill
with small service providers who would have difficulty maintaining the property. Mr.
Gaither described the rental community in which he had lived for a year in Boca Raton
which he believed was similar to the proposed project as occupied by many people
between homes and upscale tenants.
14. Llwyd Ecclestone, Developer of PGA National Resort Community stated he believed the
amendment was in the best interests of the community; explained he had never
covenanted not to make changes; described the changes that he had made; and
commented that his goal had been to make the resort community the best of its kind in
the City and the State of Florida. Mr. Ecclestone stated that he believed industrial use
is was not proper for the community; that the traffic numbers would be similar for both
uses, however, with industrial use the traffic would include many trucks and traffic going
through PGA National to exit on PGA Boulevard, while most residential traffic would
exit onto Northlake Boulevard.
There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello declared the Public
Hearing closed.
Mr. Skokowski apologized that the material provided to the residents at the last town meeting
had been misleading in that a lower number of units per acre was depicted, commented on tax
revenues generated from a real market versus an inflated market, and stressed that the quality
of the proposed apartments would be high.
Chairman Sabatello explained that this petition was only for change of usage up to a specified
density, and that the petitioner must return for approval of a project. Assistant City Attorney
Golis responded to Mr. Lyddon's question whether approval without conditions would entitle
the Petitioner to 292 units that it was the City Attorney's position that there was inconsistency
between the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Land Development Regulations. Mr. Lyddon
questioned if the approval went forward, whatever the unit count was, did the Petitioner have
the right to that number of units or would they have to further demonstrate that that number
should be given to them. The Assistant City Attorney stated they would be able to have up to
12 units per acre. Mr. Skokowski commented that the 12 units per acre would be subject to a
is 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
site plan. Mr. Honig clarified that the Petitioner would have no problem if the Commission
approved the use for up to 292 apartments subject to agreement with Planning and Zoning Staff.
Discussion ensued regarding capping the number at 292. Planning and Zoning Director Walton
commented that the Commission needed to make a recommendation regarding reallocation of
all the units, up to the total number and how they would fit on the parcels on the revised Master
Plan. Mr. Honig stated he felt there was inconsistency in the traffic problems, suggested that
a convenience store located in the commerce park would be helpful to the residents, and
questioned why apartment residents would not be allowed golf memberships. Mr. Pastore
expressed a major concern regarding additional City services which would need to be provided
when those services were already stressed; and the inconsistency between the Comprehensive
Plan and the Land Development Regulations and the densities. Mr. Pastore commented that he
was unsure that the 6- laning of Northlake Boulevard would improve marketability of an
industrial parcel and that traffic projections and economic impacts could be construed towards
either industrial or residential use. Mr. Mignogna questioned the type of lighting planned at the
recreation park to which Mr. Skokowski explained that the potential lighting of ball fields in the
park would be disclosed in the apartment lease. Mr. Mignogna questioned when a traffic light
might be placed at Haverhill Road at Steeplechase, to which Director Walton responded he had
seen no studies but believed it would be sometime after Ballenlsles had completed their 4 -way
intersection. Mr. Lyddon questioned whether marketing problems were anticipated for luxury
• apartments in that location. Mr. Mike Hammond responded that the property was considered
very marketable with the proper planning. Mr. Glidden questioned whether other developments
existed with the density proposed for this parcel to which Mr. Skokowski responded there were
a couple but the majority of higher density parcels had not been developed. Mr. Glidden
questioned whether a traffic light would definitely be unattainable at the Northlake intersection.
Mr. Pinder explained that the proximity of the Ryder Cup Boulevard would normally preclude
a traffic signal, however, a letter was on file from the County which stated the intersection could
be evaluated in the future if a safety problem was demonstrated. Mr. Skokowski stated that the
City had asked whether a site would be available for a fire station and a preliminary plan had
been submitted. Mr. Skokowski confirmed in response to Mr. Glidden's question that in
previous plan density was 342 units or 15 units per acre with all 2 -story buildings, while the
present plan called for 292 apartments or 14 units per acre. Mr. Skokowski discussed the
allocation of units and requested the right to maintain the 81 unallocated units. Director Walton
explained that increasing the number from 5400 units would be a policy decision of the City
Council, however, past experience during the Jog Road negotiations had indicated that an
increase could be perceived as not acting in good faith. Chairman Sabatello commented that the
Commission's decision was based on the proper use and planning of land, and when questions
were asked the Commission was trying to ascertain that the City was not doing something that
should not be done. Chairman Sabatello commented that the industrial use had not been
successful, and expressed concern that if the property did not market well enough in order for
the owner to complete PGA National within two years as he planned, that he might discount
prices which could attract the quality existing on Killian Drive. Director Walton explained that
is 11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
each project would have to be reviewed by the Commission, and that many uses were not
allowed. Chairman Sabatello verified with Mr. Skokowski that the apartments would not be
members of the Association, that their gated security would be at their own expense, that they
would be required o met the standards of the P. O. A. Architectural Review Board, and
questioned whether additional impact fees would be required if changed to residential.
Principal Planner Glas explained that would be researched at the time of site plan review.
Chairman Sabatello questioned whether a right turn only from Hiatt Drive would be better, to
which Mr. Pinder responded that was one of the things that the County had agreed to consider
in the event of a serious safety problem - -that they would allow a left turn in but not out.
Chairman Sabatello summarized the Commissions comments and concerns:
1. The number of units must be capped.
2. The apartment lease must contain disclosure of the lighting at the park.
3. The issue of 81 unallocated floating units must be clarified as well as the 5400 total units
as related to the Jog Road negotiations.
4. Conditions in the staff report must be worked out regarding. allocation of units and
documentation of legal basis for number of dwelling units per acre.
5. The apartment buildings must be limited to two stories in height.
• Chairman Sabatello clarified the procedures in regard to approval or denial of the petition. Mr.
Lyddon and Mr. Honig favored tabling the motion subject to a written motion. Discussion
ensued regarding how to handle this situation.
Mr. Mignogna made a motion to pass this on to City Council in a positive fashion to change it
from light industrial to residential with the following recommendations: 3
16A0
1. Clarification of the Master Plan to allocate all of the units;
2. Documentation of the legal basis for 14 units per acre;
3. Any residential use shall buffer itself from the planned improvements, lighting, or
additional ballfields in the park, as the City will not be providing additional buffer
treatments;
4. Disclosures shall be made in all leases pertaining to the ballfields and the lighting
5. Adequate infrastructure, facilities and services shall be provided to serve the residential
use. This shall include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities and bus stop /shelter
and vehicular access.
• 12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
6. Internal access from the subject parcel shall be maximized, including pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicular access.
7. The site design shall reflect consideration of mixing industrial and residential vehicular
and pedestrian traffic on Hiatt Drive.
8. The actual number of apartments constructed shall be based on site plan review and
approval.
9. Apartment buildings shall be limited to two stories in a 200 -foot buffer around the
perimeter of the project and up to three stories inside the project.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Glidden for discussion. Vice Chair Carlino made a motion to
amend the motion to delete any restriction on the two or three story buildings. Mr. Mignogna
accepted the amendment to the motion. After discussion, Chairman Sabatello clarified the
motion regarding the unallocated units (item 41) that the units could be left in their unallocated
state. Therefore, condition number 1 was changed to read as follows:
1. Clarification of the Master Plan to allow unallocated units to remain unallocated.
Mr. Mignogna agreed to the change in condition number 1, Vice Chair Carlino agreed, Mr.
Glidden agreed. The motion carried by a 5 -2 vote, with Mr. thmig and Mr. Lyddon opposed.
Workshop Petithio PU- W95 -03, by Robert A. Bentz, agent for Dr. Mark Damerau, to
rezone a 5.15 -acre tract to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for an executive office park
totaling 50,000 square feet. (8- 42S -43E) r
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated October 19, 1995.
Mr. Bentz explained that six of the ten deadends had been eliminated; that Petitioner had
submitted to staff P.O.A. documents for review to document architectural control and would
prefer not to return to the City for approval of the architectural styles of each individual
building; that the site plan had been revised to show the maximum building envelope per floor
of each of the buildings and that Petitioner requested that 50% of the square footage be allowed
on the second floor; that the sidewalk would be cost prohibitive, and that homeowner documents
would limit to a specified number the amount of spaces which could be allocated for medical
and the amount of spaces which could be allocated for professional offices.
During discussion regarding the sidewalk issue, Mr. Honig advised the Petitioner that he could
not vote to approve this project without the sidewalk Mr. Benz reported that the sidewalk cost
0 13
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
would be half the amount of the entire project and was therefore prohibitive; and that the
mangrove trees were required by the City Forester to remain, however, installing a sidewalk
would necessitate removing all of the mangroves. Mr. Glidden suggested that Mr. Honig look
at the property.
The Planning anda Zoning Commission directed staff to advertise for a Public Hearing.
Workshop: P i i n PCD- 95-0 2, by Domenick Lioce, agent for CTB Realty Ventures, Inc.,
to amend Ordinance 1,1990 for the Northcorp Center Planned Community District (PCD).
Located, in general, by RCA Boulevard to the north, Burns Road to the south, Interstate
95 to the west and the FEC Railway. (7- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated October 20, 1995.
Domenick Lioce, agent for the Petitioner, stated the Petitioner was basically in agreement with
staff except that the condition regarding uses and the community - serving open space needed
clarification as to language.
• Motion was made by Vice Chair Carlin to move this petition forward for public hearing. At
the next available opportunity. Motion was seconded by John Glidden and carried by
unanimous vote of 7 -0.
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
is 14
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 24, 1995
There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino, seconded by Mr. John
Glidden, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 P.M. The next meeting
will be held November 14, 1995.
APPROVED:
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
fig I� I I
n
Phillip Lyddon
4irmoi,?a
Thomas Pastore
Tom Paganini, Alternate
J ckie Holloman, Secretary
• 15
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
William Mignogna
(Absent)
Christopher Jones, Alternate
REINHOLD P WOLFF ECONOMIC RESEARCH. INC.
• R P 1591 E ATLANTIC BLVD., SUITE 102
POM?ANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33060-6746
PHONE
305-946 -0500
FAX 305-946 -0302
July 13, 1995
Hank Skokowski
Urban Design .Studio
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -6582
Dear Mr. Skokowski:
This brief letter is in response to your inquiry concerning the
general character of households which live in golf course oriented
rental communities.
Although -we have conducted numerous surveys of renter households
throughout Southeast. Florida, the-surveys have not been directed
specificall.y.towards golf course communities.
• I can tell you that our studies have indicated that renter
households in higher quality developments typically spend from 15%
to 25% of their income for rent. If a rental development were to
have monthly rents ranging from $800 to $1,100, for example, you
could anticipate the household incomes would primarily fall within
the $40,000 to $90,000 range. Clearly the incomes will be higher
than the median household income in Palm Beach County of about
$40,000.
We have observed several principal categories or market groups
which turn to renting in higher quality rental developments. One
large group consists of households newly arrived in the area for
employment purposes. Many of these households desire to rent until
they decide where they want to buy a home while others may have
transferred to the area for employment reasons and may not know how
long they will be in the area and may not wish to purchase a home.
In a study we conducted of households in several higher quality
rental developments, 74% indicated that they plan to purchase a
home_within.the. next two.years,:about 31%-within one year. This
,,Eudy :,also revealed -that 32% of the residents. had 1-ived outside of
Florida.. just. prior..to.renting.their dwelling and 56% had lived-in
the County: _
JUL I 0' 095
Page 2
Another significant group of renter households are persons recently
divorced. In the higher quality rental developments surveyed we
found that 38% had owned a dwelling just prior to renting their
apartment. While many of these were households newly locating in
the area, a number were from divorced households.
Our studies have shown that location is the most important factor
households take into account in selecting a specific rental
community within a quality group. A significant number of
households select a specific development because it is close to
their place of employment or near relatives and friends. Many of
the residents of a rental community in a larger community such as
PGA National may, therefore, be friends or relatives of people
already living in the PGA community.
I trust that I have answered your
character of renter households in
least in a general way. I will be
questions you may have.
With best regards, I am,
Sincerely,
< ;�
. K t e hite
President
LKW /ryb
question regarding the potential
a quality rental community at
pleased to answer any additional
Reinhold P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc.
Serving Florida Since 1961 -
•
ASSET MANAGEMENT
LEASING SERVICES
July 7, 1995
Yw�.6
Mr. Hank Skokowski
Urban Design Studio
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600
West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -6582
Re: P.G.A. Resort Community
Dear Mr. Skokowski:
You have asked me to review the market feasibility of
developing light industrial buildings on 20 +/- acres at the
southeast corner of PGA National. You have solicited my
opinion based upon my experience in such developments and my
familiarity with the overall community, since I have been a
resident of PGA since I moved to Florida thirteen years ago.
is Over the past twelve years, I have, in various capacities,
been associated with the development of over 1.2 million square
feet of industrial space in Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, and
Pompano Beach. These were high quality, institutional -grade
properties for clean, non- pol•luting,light industrial users,
similar to what one would want for the subject site.
My experience has taught me that access to Interstate 95
and the turnpike is essential for success. Sites with limited
or no access to either of these highways will result in a
property not being competitive and ultimately failing. Also,
experience has shown that a project that does not compete well
for the better, less obtrusive tenants will eventually fill its
space with users that are more likely to need outside storage
for trucks and materials. In my opinion, the subject site
cannot compete successfully against the high end sites at
Interstate 95 and PGA Boulevard or the heavier industrial sites
still available at Interstate 95 and Blue Heron Boulevard.
An industrial development at the subject site will also
increase truck traffic through PGA National to access the
Turnpike and future developments to the North. Although
converting the site to residential may increase automobile
traffic to the Shoppes on the Green and the turnpike, this is
certainly more desirable than increased truck traffic. Since
• viable retail alternatives, including Winn Dixie and a Publix
RJS /JACKSON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
1200 CORPORATE PLACE • 1200 N. FEDERAL HWY. • SUITE 111 • BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 • (407) 395 -1200 FAX (407) 395 -2094
Licensed Real Estate Broker
0
Mr. Hank Skokowski
July 7, 1995
Page 2
Superstore are within two to three miles to east on Northlake
Boulevard, it is my opinion that many of these shoppers will opt
for those centers instead of Shoppes on the Green. Personally,
as a resident of PGA National, I would prefer to see this site
developed into appropriate residential housing, compatible with
the overall community.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me.
Sincerely yours,
RJS /Jacks
A. ack Gaither
• Director of Marketing /Leasing
40
•
C O V E R
S H E E T
To: Rich Walton, Director of Planning, City of Palm Beach Gardens
Fax #: 775 -1014
Subject: Proposed Land Use Change, PGA National Industrial District
Date: October 24, 1995
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
COMMENTS:
Dear Mr. Walton:
[MAL"
I am writing as a resident of PGA National to register my support for the multifamily
rental land use proposed at Northlake Boulevard in the south end of PGA National. From what I
have read, the developer's proposal and subsequent concessions to the City and the PGA
Homeowners' Association will provide an attractive and well - planned facility which will be
• compatible with the remainder of PGA.
Further, as both a resident and an environmental consultant, I have not been particularly
pleased with the current industrial use at that location. Industrial uses, no matter how well -
regulated, introduce the potential for negative impacts on soil or groundwater, air quality or
noise levels, and ultimately, property values. PGA National has not experienced these effects
yet because development in that parcel is retail/office /public, not industrial.
I hope the City will support this proposed use.
Sincerely, Leb�
r
Mimi Howard, AICP, CFEA
31 Cambria Road West
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
•
From the desk of...
Mimi Howard
Principal
REP Associates, Inc.
11211 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 209C
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
407/627 -1810
Fax: 407/627 -7170
•
0
P.raft Inc.
Produa Dovalopmont Posourco3
October 23, 1995
Rich Walton
Planning Director
Palm Beach County Planning Department
Rich
As a concerned PGA National property owner and President of the Glengary HOA in
PGA National and as a concerned Steeplechase property owner and President of the
Steeplechase POA, I would like to encourage you to grant the necessary permits and
permission to proceed with the PGA National Apartments project. After personally
reviewing the issues and listening to both sides of the debate, I feel that the proposed
Apartment project is as good a land use as we have the right to expect. You may
contact me directly if you have questions or need further clarification.
Thank you for your concern for our community and county, I appreciate the quality of life
in Palm Beach County.
Sincerely
A&I-
Gary W. Yanik
President
7289 Garder3 road • Suite !075 • Rivie a Beach -, Ficrida 33404
407 844 -7602 . 407 844 -7863 {ax , c -i,I,ar,ikCn)ga ?,.Pet
a
a
x
W
O
V
td
b
oaf
as
0
0
z
e
0
0
0
U
w
b
0
y
r�
'�
� I
h � H
t
a
4-4 0 0
a� u
a
� a
a� N
A a �
� o �
� U w
o U
U �
a a
�a o
U � �
a
cul
� ao aoi
c
0
S�
o 0
y o
aa1' (3.
0 0
U
• j
•
•
T /� 6- I'VeSo . 10-7r f qq 4 ( �
(4) Any specific notice required by this condition shall be prov! ded by United
States Certified Mail, return receipt requested.
Section 3. A new Condition 16 is added to Resolution 43, 1978, as follows:
16. a. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 5400 residential
dwelling units. All references to a greater maximum number of residential
dwelling units contained in the Application for Development Approval, its
supporting documents and studies, plans describing the development and
past resolutions of the City of Palm Beach Gardens are hereby modified to
reflect this new maximum.
In revising the master plan of dcvelopment, Developer shall not increase the
residential densities of any development parcel above those shown on the
current approved master plan without the express approval of the City
Council.
Section 4. A new Condition 17 is added to Resolution 43, 1978, as follows:
a. Within six (6) months of adoption of the resolution approving this
Development Order, the developer shall submit to the City a revised master
plan of development showing the reallocation of units pursuant to Condition
16, above.
b. The revised master plan shall be submitted simultaneously to Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs for review pursuant to the provisions of $380.06(19) F.S.
(Substantial Deviations).
Section 5. Any provision of Resolution 43, 1978, s amended, not expressly modified herein
shall remain in full force and effect. All ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
Section . This resolution shall be effective upon date of passage.
Section 7. A copy of this resolution shall immediately be transmitted by certified U.S. Mail,
return receipt requested, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District, and Palm Beach
County.
8
•
October 12, 1995
Richard F. Walton, AICP, .Director
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Department of Planning and Zoning
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Re: PGA National DRI Master Plan Amendment (Petition DRI- 95 -01)
Maximum Density of Residential Parcels
Dear Rich:
`7
I am writing in response to Comment No. 2 in the Staff Report dated October 4, 1995 which
was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 10, 1995. I would also like to
respond to the comments of City Attorney Tom Baird in his memo to you dated October 10, 1995. Both
your Comment No. 2 and Tom Baird's memo suggest that our request for 14+ units per acre is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), which you believe limits residential parcel
densities to a maximum of 12 units per acre. Since there seems to be a misunderstanding about our
position regarding the maximum permitted density of residential parcels within PGA National, I
welcome an opportunity to clarify our view.
Contrary to the impression left by the Staff Report and Mr. Baird's memo, we do not assert a
"vested right" to 15 units per acre on the Commerce Park parcel. I agree with Mr. Baird that, lacking
a current residential development approval for the Commerce Park parcel, we cannot assert an absolute
right to develop it at the density we have requested. What we are seeking, however, is a Planned
Community District ( "PCD ") master plan amendment. At this highly conceptual level, we have asked
merely to change the land use designation and assign a maximum potential residential density to a
particular site within an existing PCD. As I understand Staff s position, we are prohibited from even
requesting amendment of the PCD master plan to show more than 12 units per acre on the Commerce
Park parcel because the Plan expressly forbids it. I believe that this position is incorrect.
I have reviewed both the Plan and the City's Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs "). We
have been told that the "intent" of the Plan is to limit residential density, but the "intent" of the Plan
is defined by its text. In my opinion, neither the Plan nor the LDRs limits the maximum residential
density of the Commerce Park parcel in the manner suggested in the Staff Report. My review of the
relevant texts of the Plan and of the LDRs follows.
In the first instance, the Plan does not expressly establish a 12 unit per acre ceiling or "cap" on
llll residential density. The density "cap" is limited to certain zoning districts located in an expressly
defined future land use category. Plan Policy 1.1.1.4.b states that the "overall density" of a PCD
located in an underl3dng "Residential High" land use categoly is limited to 12 units per g= acre. (The
ceiling may be increased to 15 units per g= acre as an incentive for natural area preservation, a
•
•
October 12, 1995
Richard F. Walton, AICP, .Director
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Department of Planning and Zoning
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Re: PGA National DRI Master Plan Amendment (Petition DRI- 95 -01)
Maximum Density of Residential Parcels
Dear Rich:
`7
I am writing in response to Comment No. 2 in the Staff Report dated October 4, 1995 which
was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 10, 1995. I would also like to
respond to the comments of City Attorney Tom Baird in his memo to you dated October 10, 1995. Both
your Comment No. 2 and Tom Baird's memo suggest that our request for 14+ units per acre is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), which you believe limits residential parcel
densities to a maximum of 12 units per acre. Since there seems to be a misunderstanding about our
position regarding the maximum permitted density of residential parcels within PGA National, I
welcome an opportunity to clarify our view.
Contrary to the impression left by the Staff Report and Mr. Baird's memo, we do not assert a
"vested right" to 15 units per acre on the Commerce Park parcel. I agree with Mr. Baird that, lacking
a current residential development approval for the Commerce Park parcel, we cannot assert an absolute
right to develop it at the density we have requested. What we are seeking, however, is a Planned
Community District ( "PCD ") master plan amendment. At this highly conceptual level, we have asked
merely to change the land use designation and assign a maximum potential residential density to a
particular site within an existing PCD. As I understand Staff s position, we are prohibited from even
requesting amendment of the PCD master plan to show more than 12 units per acre on the Commerce
Park parcel because the Plan expressly forbids it. I believe that this position is incorrect.
I have reviewed both the Plan and the City's Land Development Regulations (the "LDRs "). We
have been told that the "intent" of the Plan is to limit residential density, but the "intent" of the Plan
is defined by its text. In my opinion, neither the Plan nor the LDRs limits the maximum residential
density of the Commerce Park parcel in the manner suggested in the Staff Report. My review of the
relevant texts of the Plan and of the LDRs follows.
In the first instance, the Plan does not expressly establish a 12 unit per acre ceiling or "cap" on
llll residential density. The density "cap" is limited to certain zoning districts located in an expressly
defined future land use category. Plan Policy 1.1.1.4.b states that the "overall density" of a PCD
located in an underl3dng "Residential High" land use categoly is limited to 12 units per g= acre. (The
ceiling may be increased to 15 units per g= acre as an incentive for natural area preservation, a
IF
r'
• Letter to Mr. Walton, Continued
Re: PGA National DRI, Density Ceiling
October 10, 1995
Page 2
factor not at issue in our application).
By its terms, this provision does not apply to PGA National. PGA National is, indeed, a PCD,
but it is not "a PCD located within an underlying Future Land Use designation of 'RH'." Like
BallenIsles, and several other large projects, PGA National is shown on the Future Land Use Map as
being in a special overlay category identified by hatch marks as "PCD." If an underlying density had
been assigned in the Plan, PGA National's average density would place it in the Residential Low (RL)
category.
It is true that the Plan's Future Land Use Map identifies (at times inaccurately) certain sub -areas
within PGA National as having land use designations. As we were assured at the time of Plan adoption,
however, these designations were intended merely to be illustrative. The Plan does not expressly state
that sub -areas within PCDs are to be treated like conventional land use areas for the purpose of
determining maximum density. Nor have the designations been used to subject internal changes within
PCDs to the same rigorous consistency requirements applicable to a conventional rezoning. If they had,
several of the changes we have made in the PGA National would seem to have been inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Map. A Plan amendment would have been required every time we wanted to make
• a major internal land use change within the PCD. For example, the Future Land Use Map shows a
large area of central PGA National to be in the "Golf" land use category. But a large portion of this
"Golf" area has been approved for residential land use. Since residential densities within a PCD vary
across the range of several land use categories, a change in parcel density from 3 units per acre ( "low"
density) to 5.1 units per acre ( "medium" density) would seem to require a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. If the Plan shows a commercial parcel in a particular location, relocation to another site
on (or, as in our case, partial elimination from) the master plan would also seem to require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Plan has never been applied literally in this way, and would
certainly be inconsistent with the stated intent of the Plan to permit flexibility in master planning large
projects. As it clearly states, the Plan's land use categories were meant to be applied to the overall or
gross density and intensity of a PCD, not to the sub -areas within its boundaries.
Plan Policy 1.1.1.5.b places a similar density cap on Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ")
Districts and on PUDs located within PCDs. PGA National is not a PUD District. However, Plan
Policy 1.1.1.4.a recognizes that sub - parcels within a PCD may be developed as PUDs. To deal with
such a situation, Plan Policy 1.1.1.5.c expressly provides that PUDs within PCDs "shall be developed
according to the densities and intensities assigned to them under the [PCD] master plan documentation."
The only other reference to a 12 unit per acre cap may be implied from the Housing Element (Policy
3.1.3.1), which states that the City should designate sufficient high density land use areas to "facilitate
the construction" of housing for low and moderate income families.
The LDRs parallel, and reemphasize the limited nature of, the Plan's density cap. §159.046
(Zoning Districts), Sub- §(S)(2)(a) (PCD Districts; Permitted Uses) provides that "the density permitted
• in a PCD shall not exceed the allowable density permitted in the Comprehensive Plan." These
maximum densities are expressed as an average number of dwelling units per gross acre. That is, the
density referred to is an overall density for the entire PCD. For example, if PGA National were
presented today for initial approval, its overall density (2.3 units per acre) would be less than 5.0 units
• Letter to Mr. Walton, Continued
Re: PGA National DRI, Density Ceiling
October 10, 1995
Page 3
per gross acre, placing it, in effect, in the "low density" land use category. Sub- §(S)(2)(a)3 goes on to
provide for a density "bonus" of up to an additional 3 units per gross acre, permitting a PCD in a high
density land use category to reach a "net" density of 15 units per gross acre. This provision is clearly
inapplicable to PGA National's request, since we are not in a high density land use category.
LDR §159.046 (Zoning Districts), Sub - §(R) (PUD Districts) merely repeats the language
describing the density of PCD Districts. The density of a PUD is to be determined on a g=, or
parcel -wide, basis by reference to the Plan. The density "bonus" for affordable housing is available only
in PUD Districts or in PUD pods in the high density residential land use category.
As Plan Policy 1.1.1.4.a indicates, the development intensities of a PCD are determined by
reference both to its master plan and to its "supporting documentation ", which "describes the
development intensities assigned to each pod and any restrictions in use or site design requirements."
While the term "supporting documentation" is not defined, the reference is broad enough to include an
ordinance or resolution of approval, a DRI development order, a DRI Application for Development
Approval ( "ADA ") and any other official approvals which define the intensities permitted on sub -areas
within the overall PCD. In the case of PGA National, the maximum residential density is approximately
• 15 units per acre. As evidence that PGA National's "supporting documentation" includes a maximum
of 15 units per acre, please note that this density is currently assigned on the master plan to Parcels M-
22 (Devonshire) and to M -3 (Croquet Villas).
In summary:
(1) PGA National is a PCD, but it is not a PCD located in the "RH" future residential land
use category, as provided in Plan Policy LIA.4.c (and reiterated in LDR §159.046(5)(2)].
(2) PGA National's maximum overall density is determined by reference to Plan Policy
1.1.1.4.a, which refers one to an approved PCD Master plan and its "supporting documentation." PGA
National's maximum density is governed generally by the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs, neither
of which prohibit petitions to modify existing overall density.
(3) PGA National is not located in a PUD zoning district, therefore the provisions of Plan
Policy 1.1.1.5.b do not apply.
(4) The maximum density of parcels within PGA National are governed by the provisions
of Plan Policy 1.1.1.5.c (which is reiterated in LDR §159.046(R)(1)[a]), which incorporates the
"densities and intensities assigned to them under the PCD master plan documentation."
(5) PGA National's "supporting master plan documentation" consists of the DRI
• Development Order (which incorporates the DRI ADA and other official approvals), and the PGA
Master Plan. The master plan and its related "documentation" establish PGA National's maximum
residential density at 2.3 units per gross acre and its maximum parcel or sub -area density at 15 units
per acre.
• Letter to Mr. Walton, Continued
Re: PGA National DRI, Density Ceiling
October 10, 1995
Page 4
To reiterate our position, we do not assert a "vested" right to build 15 units per acre on any
parcel; we merely claim a right to rEquest a maximum density of up to 15 units per acre on the
Commerce Park parcel based on density standard established by PGA National's PCD master plan and
its "supporting documentation." The City Council has the ultimate authority to establish the actual
density of the Commerce Park parcel, just as it has on any other parcel within the PCD. However, this
decision should be based on the decision- making criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan, the
LDRs, the PCD Master Plan, and the "supporting documentation" of the PGA DRI approval. None of
these sources of inspiration limits the density of the Commerce Park parcel to 12 units per acre.
Based on this information, I respectfully request that Comment No. 2 be reexamined and deleted
from the Staff Report. If you have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Palen
Regulatory Counsel
Enclosures
CC. E. Llwyd Ecclestone, Jr.
Henry Skokowski, UDS
Thomas Baird, Esq.
fVn5.4 /pyacp2.1tr/3D.236
•
FROM URBAN DESIGN STUDIO Ids 18,18,19''- 18:13 N0, 3 P. 1
• Policy 1.1.1A: The City shall review, and revise where necessary, land development
regulations whieh as necessary W provide for a Planned Community Mtrict (PCD) which
shall implement the following concepts:
a. The intent of a Planned Community District (PCD) is to permit a large area to be
developed under one master plan that includes different land use types at several
different levels of intensity. Collector roads and development "pods" are shown as
part of the master development plan. Supporting documentation is also included
which describes the. development intensities assigned to each pod and any restrictions
in use or site design requirements. The pods are then developed as individual
Planned Unit Developments.
b. Although a variety of uses and use intensities may be approved as part of a
residential PCD, the overall density must be consistent with the underl in
Lan se desi nation o e a or a purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the
following densities shall apply to the Future Land Use categories described
previously in this element for areas developed as PCDs:
1��VTWMMMF W41W2NMOTT, i
Rural Residential 10 RRIM: Un to 0.1 units per grM s acre.
Residential Yea Low (RVt) :' Up to 1.0 units Fer gross am.
• Residential Low (RL)., U� to 5.0 units per gross acre.
Residential Medium (RM).- to 9.0 units per gross acre.
Residential High (RH): Up to 12.0 units per gross acre.
C. In addition to the above; PCDs with an underlying Future Land Use designation
of RH may have densities'permitted up to 15.0 units per gross acre, based on one
additional unit of density allowed for every IW5 of native ecological habitat put
into a preserve within the PCD up to a maximum of 15.0 units per gross acre. These
preserve areas would be over and above the minimum preservation and open space
areas provided in accordance with standard PCD requirements,. and must be
incorporated into the Pedestrian/ Nature Trailways system.
Policy 1.1.1.5.: The City shall review, and revise where necessary, land development
regulations which as ne�ary tq provide for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) technique
which shall implement the following concepts:
a. The intent of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to ensure the desired character
FUTURE LAND USE 12/93 1.10 #93 -2
`- ORD 11, 1993
C
0
FROM URBAN DESIGN STUDIO V'
18,18,19' 18:14 N0, 3 P. 2
of the community is furthered or enhanced on development sites within the City,
particularly on sites where the development proposed is rather intense. Master plans
for Planned Unit Developments include, at a minimum, site plans showing all local
roads and lacdscaping plans. Supporting documentation is also to be included which
indicates, at a minimum, development phasing and a list of permitted uses for
commercial and industrial PUDs.
b. In exchange, for the extra review requirements imposed by the PUD process,
developers may propose plans that would not otherwise be permitted under by -right
zoning districts. These may include a mixture of uses not found within any of the
by -right zoning districts and /or density bonuses. For the purposes of this
Comprebensive Plan, the following densities shall apply to the Future Land Use
Categories described previously in this element for areas developed as Planned Unit
Developments:
C.
WAST11110,74
-SSMa &V=T5WtZVA -- r
Residential Low (RL): Up to 5.0 units per gross acre.
Residential Medium (RM): Up to 9.0 units per gross acre.
Residential' High (RH): Up, to; i2.0 units per gross acre.
u
Unit
which
to the densities and intensities assigned to
istrict master plan documentation. -
Policy 1.1.1.5.: The City shall review, and revise where necessary, development regulations
which address the location and xtent of non- residential land uses in accordance with the
Future Land Use Map and th policies and descriptions of types, sizes, densities, and
intensities of land uses contained In this element.
Polley 1.1.1.71 The City shall ensure the availability of suitable land for public and
institutional uses (as defined on ,page 1 -3) necessary to support development by:
. ;:
o Designating land on the Future Land Use Map for public /institutional use;
o Allowing public /institutional uses in certain land use categories subject to Iimitations
and Iocattonal criteria asldentified In this Plan. Such locational criteria shalt include
FUTURA LAND USE 12/93
I -11
#93-2
ORD ii, t993
0
A
O
d
U c
o
�z
a�
w
[fir O
O�
� V
WU
U 'd
4
3
h
a
B
%5 �l -g
l
I
089
Cy
p� O
� u
u
OD
OD
40
u
V
u
.w :3
MUv
u
Z
N
d
a
U
rn
089
Cy
p� O
� u
u
OD
OD
40
u
V
u
.w :3
MUv
u
U�
a�
4
0
W
W�
a
�d
V
In
w
ru
oas
V
i�
� d
V W
R •�
s�
d
U � o
u
u
�xo
u
t
1
i
I
,
i
a
U
o o
�z
a�
0
0
v� U
WU
O�
Ud
3
h
a
cry
6
� of
0
�9
oss
0101
V
.s
�oo
•6 8 •t�
N
dlA
U� O
u
X49
m
� � O
V v
u
1�.
171
0
ddf
U c
� o
�z
a 8
0
W O
0
v� U
U 'o
H
0
IQ2
1
1522
.s
� o
w
ao
¢ ao
V � o
A4
�i
u
� � O
A
a
x
d
V
E
W
1522
.s
� o
w
ao
¢ ao
V � o
A4
�i
u
� � O
A
FORM $
t�(;UNTYj MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.AST NAME -FIRST NAME- MIDDIE NAME { @
OL, I ➢ " 3 Yid
MAILING ADDRESS
UA1E ON WHIG It VOIt (X'CUkkk1)
oe�/r 915-
�.I
NAME OI: BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
F2_ r
THE BOARD COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CI 1 Y COUNTY OTHER IAC'Al AGENCY
NAML OI- PUL ITICAL SUBVIV151UN:
MY POSI rION IS:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 6111
ELECTIVE
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presentee
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this fora
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
• A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING; TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure o
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recordin
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whic
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to 0
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whop) he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but mu
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, %hethl
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHIC1
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible f(
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of intere
1t11t%14B 111•MA P
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minute.
• of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I. ° " __ , hereby disclose that on �� , I9
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
V/ inured to the special gain of — .— — by
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
,arc". caNV )
C ^"� .Qy,�I:,.uvaY
Date Filed Signal
:l
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIN
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000.
E FORM so • tatty