HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Council Agenda 1005006
•
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Council Agenda
October 5, 2000
Council Chambers
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
r
Mayor Russo
Vice Mayor Jablin ,./
Council Member Clark /
Council Member Furtado
Council Member Sabatello f
AlinrJ A lj ivy �C=RR ► V� A rtTr/� a� /4 '
O'C'n, f�- --
e,xl�
0
0
6
bach
All those wishing to address the City Council need to complete the necessary form
(supply located in back of Council Chambers) and submit same to the City Clerk prior
to the meeting being called to order.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2000
7:00 P.M.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ROLL CALL
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
IV. PRESENTATIONS:
a. Cancer Survivor Park
b. Discussion on the Modification to Community Center on Burns Road Di¢w Ot4g/, -
V. CITY MANAGER REPORT:
U,= t'c��S
a. Public Information Report
b. Construction Update '4—Ac r, A Vos o►o -
C. Growth Management Report , =C- CRS rnca�
VI. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: (For Items Not on the Agenda) (Please
submit request card to Clerk prior to this Item)
VII. CONSENT AGENDA: 160a k — /I B
a. Consideration of approving Minutes from the September 7, 2000 Regular
City Council Meeting.
Minutes from the September 14 2000
b. Consideration of approving p ,
5 Workshop City Council Meeting.
C. Consideration of awarding contract for Planning Consultant.
d. Consideration of awarding bid for Grant Writing Services. ak'- �- 1-6,0.
' `�a d_ �
i'Lh�r
6
e. Consideration of refurbishing Rescue Unit.
• f. Resolution 87, 2000- Consideration of approving the Engineering
Agreement. i(1� c�„� 1� 52.E �� �,,� v - L -`� ► c S _ C)
g. Resolution 89, 2000 - Authorization to Execute Joinder to Drainage i
Easement. 6&A_k� <---w5 ( I _
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Ordinance 21, 2000 - Hibiscus Restaurant Outdoor Seating.
Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for an amendment to the existing
Planned Unit Development known as "Hibiscus Restaurant" (formerly
Bridge Center PUD) located at the Northwest Corner of PGA Boulevard 4-f
and Ellison Wilson Road, as originally approved by Ordinance 11, 1995,
to allow outdoor seating and service adjacent to the waterway; providing
for conditions of approval; providing for severability; providing for
conflicts; and providing for an effective date. (Continued from August 17,
2000 City Council meeting. Consideration on second and final reading)
b. Ordinance 27, 2000 - Capital Project Assessment. Consideration of an
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
• relating to capital improvements providing a special benefit to local areas
within the City; providing definitions and findings; providing for title and
citation; providing for the creation of assessment areas; authorizing the
imposition and collection of special assessments to fund the cost of capital
improvements providing a special benefit to local areas within the City;
establishing procedures for notice and adoption of assessment rolls and for .5-0
correction of errors and omissions; providing that assessments constitute a
lien on assessed property upon adoption of the assessment rolls;
establishing procedures and methods for collection of assessments;
authorizing the issuance of obligations secured by assessments; providing
for various rights and remedies of the holders of such obligations;
providing that such obligations will not create a general debt or obligation
of the City; providing for codification; providing for severability;
providing for conflicts; and providing an effective date.
IX. RESOLUTIONS:
a. Resolution 76, 2000 - Northcorp Lot 10 /11 SP- 00 -08. Consideration of
approving a Major Site Plan Amendment for construction of 115 parking
spaces and two covered parking areas on a portion of Lot 10 of South Park
Center; providing for waivers and conditions.
0
s
b. Resolution 86, 2000 - Initial Assessment Resolution for PGA Flyover
• X. ORDINANCES: (For Consideration on First Reading)
a. Ordinance 22, 2000 - Impact Fee Revisions. Consideration of an
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
providing for the amendment of Division IV of Article III of the City's
Land Development Regulations, entitled "Citywide Impact Fees," to
update the Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services, Police
Protection and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedules, amend the (?o independent calculation formulas, clarify the lien provisions, and make
other minor revisions; providing for codification; providing for
severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date.
b. Ordinance 28, 2000 - The Isles - Parcel 4.05. Consideration to rezone a
site from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Residential - Low Density
3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district to _
construct 379 residential units.
XI. ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: - C>
a. Appointment of Interim City Manager.
r � 0( H -,q -
XII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
• �ONI.i
a. WCI Parcel 4.03 /4.06.
XIII. ITEMS & REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
XIV. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:
XV. ADJOURNMENT.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statute 86.26,
persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this
proceeding should contact the Human Resources Department, no later than S days
prior to the proceeding at telephone number (561) 799 -4200 for assistance; if hearing
impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955 -8771 (TDD) or (800)
955 -8700 (VOICE), for assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by
the Council, with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, they will
need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, they may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal
0
M M-1- - W�
q,-taf Lc- 0--A 66-t,�
zo
•
•
0
0
•
±yea ^h GRrdens
PUBLIC INF( ON REPORT
Oct! 5, 2 00
Public Information Related Activities
0. Written coverage included (approximately 40 articles from Sept. 1 to Sept. 21, 2000):
Newspaper Articles
• Monthly PGA C.A.N. Article
• PBG police undergoing re- accreditation review (Jupiter Courier)
• Gardens in bind to balance traffic on PGA, growth (Jupiter Courier)
• Reviewing the ranks photos (Jupiter Courier)
• Students injured in Gardens High fray (Palm Beach Post)
• Gardens to begin soccer field cleanup (Palm Beach Post)
• Ten students suspended, three injured in melee (Jupiter Courier)
• Art exhibits displayed in Palm Beach Gardens (Palm Beach Post 150 Plus Lifestyles)
• Into the city photo (Jupiter Courier)
• Patty becomes 5th key PBG resignation under the new manager (Jupiter Courier)
• Resident challenges drainage improvement plan (Jupiter Courier)
• Gardens police recommended for national re- accreditation (Jupiter Courier))
• Gardens Police Athletic League hosting golf tournament to benefit youth (Weekday)
• Cleanup of polluted land begins (Jupiter Courier)
• Officer's son dies of infection (Jupiter Courier)
• Fire inspection fee on council agenda (Jupiter Courier)
• Gardens to hold 1St hearing on 19.4% tax hike (Jupiter Courier)
• PBG: People aren't threatened by contamination (Courier)
• Police tell neighbors of sexual offender (Jupiter Courier)
• Oaks resident honored by mayor (Jupiter Courier)
• Fire inspection fee gets final OK (Jupiter Courier)
• Budget cuts not enough for some PBG residents (Jupiter Courier)
• Palm Beach Gardens urban planner moonlights as Internet music reviewer (Neigh. Post)
• Officer out wrestles injury, wins gold medal (Neighborhood Post)
• Gardens, N. Palm plan muckraking projects for canals (Neighborhood Post)
• P.B. Gardens' PAL to host annual golf tournament (Neighborhood Post)
• Meeting to discuss Burns Widening (Courier)
• Little Leaguers to play on fields of dreams (Neighborhood Post)
• Gardens cuts sweeper, other items from budget (Jupiter Courier)
• Gardens Soccer Report Disputed (Palm Beach Post)
• Hearing on PBG budget postponed (Jupiter Courier)
• Budget Hearing set for Monday (Courier)
• PBG holding special meeting to discuss 2000 -2001 (Weekday)
Television Reports
• Channel 5 report on Cleanup of Contamination on Soccer fields September 18, 2000
• Channel 12 report on Cleanup of Contamination on Soccer Fields September 21, 2000
• Channel 25 coverage of September 25, 2000 City Council meeting
0
Is
Public Information Related Activities Continued
► Press Releases Included:
• Resident Budget Meeting to be held September 14, 2000
• Upcoming Candidate Forum
• Cancellation of Candidate Forum
■ Burns Road Widening Project Display and Information Meeting
► Special Event Permits: 3
• Amara Shrine Temple Annual Barbeque, October 8, 2000
• Dwyer High School Homecoming Parade, October 12, 2000
• Palm Beach County Hamfest, Amara Shrine Temple, October 21, 2000
► Special Projects
• Public Info /IS Division have completed City Website and will demo at the October 19,
2000 City Council meeting
• Held Advisory BoardNolunteer Annual Recognition
• Coordinated Florida League of Cities Meeting
• Attended Palm Beach County Media Co -op meeting — State Attorney's Office
Notifications
► Sent approximately 1,000 Public Notices regarding Public Information on Burns
Road Widening.
► Sent 360 notices to Plat 4 residents regarding Neighborhood Sign program.
► Sent notices to businesses, schools, etc. regarding FEC's closure of PGA
Boulevard at RR tracks.
Citizen Services Related Activities
■ Requests for service (from September 1 to September 23, 2000: 164.
■ Neighborhood Meetings Held:
s Plat 4 Neighborhood Sign Discussion
® PGA Golf Club Estates (south) on drainage project
■ Held Gardens Neighborhood Association meeting
• "Buy Into the Gardens" Program:
® Total Purchases for the month of September (up to September 22, 2000): $350
® Total to date: $21,575.00
(From September 1 to September 23, 2000)
• Total hours: 176.4
• Current National Rate: $14.30
• Total savings to the City: $2,472.47
• Number of Volunteers currently referred to Departments for interviews: 1
Employee- Related Communications
® Published monthly employee newsletter, City Hall Gazette
® Provided presentation to new employees at Employee Orientation
0
Upcoming in October
• Grand Opening, October 22, 2000
• Gateway Sign Project: corner of PGA Boulevard and Fairway Drive
• Findings from Customer Service Mystery Shopper Program to be presented to Council
• Training to Department contacts in Civic Tracker database, the system the City purchased for
the tracking of all Citizen Requests for Service.
0
IV. PRESENTATIONS:
a. Cancer Survivor Park
IV. PRESENTATIONS:
b. Discussion on the Modification to
Community Center on Burns Road
r
V. CITY MANAGER REPORT:
0 b. Construction Update
•
V. CITY MANAGER REPORT:
c. Growth Management Report
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
September 7, 2000
The September 7, 2000, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex located
at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: The City Clerk called the roll and the following elected officials were found to be
in attendance: Mayor Joseph R. Russo, Vice Mayor Eric Jablin, Councilmember David Clark,
Councilmember Lauren Furtado, and Councilmember Carl Sabatello.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:
Public Information Report - Public Information Officer Beth Ingold Love highlighted items
presented in her written report and noted dates of events to be upcoming in September.
Construction Update - Building Official Jack Hanson reported many of the construction items had
been completed within the prior two -week period and highlighted remaining items which were in
various stages of completion. Mr. Hanson was requested to research possible modification to the
audio system to provide devices to assist those who were hard of hearing, and to coordinate with
the Finance Director to obtain a financial update on the new building.
Growth Management Report - Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning announced that a
new employee, Kelvin Wise, had joined the Growth Management Department, and described some
of the projects for>which he would be responsible.
Transportation Issues - City Engineer Dan Clark reported on Unit 19 Drainage Study and Burns
Road Widening. Councilman Sabatello requested sidewalks be placed as far from the curbs as
possible. Councilman Clark expressed concern regarding the visibility of the Fire Department exit
and entrance to City Hall for cars to stop for emergency vehicles coming through. Mayor Russo
stressed the importance of obtaining a 2015 transportation model.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Sam Carsillo - Mr. Carsillo discussed differences in numbers reported in different traffic reports;
recommended that funds from traffic tickets be placed in a trust fund to provide bonuses for patrol
personnel; Mr. Carsillo noted that he would provide a list to staff of the many hazard conditions
throughout the City.
Judy Amsler - Ms. Amsler expressed support for the Citizens Police Academy.
Jackie O'Neill - Ms. O'Neill also expressed support for the Citizens Police Academy.
Linda Hughey - Ms. Hughey expressed accolades to the Police in handling a recent incident at Palm
Beach Gardens High School rapidly and efficiently.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Clark moved approval of the Consent Agenda minus (f)
Resolution 78, 2000, which Mayor Russo had requested be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Vice
Chair Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. The following items were
approved on the Consent Agenda:
1. Consideration of approving Minutes from the August 3, 2000 Regular City Council
Meeting.
2. Consideration of awarding bid for City auction.
3. Resolution 74, 2000 - Consideration of supporting Underground Installation �of
Electric Transmission and Distribution Lines.
4. Resolution 75, 2000 - Consideration of approving the Lone Pine Plat.
5. Resolution 77, 2000 - Consideration of approving contract for Tennis Pro.
7. Proclamation - Ruth Mead, Centenarian
Councilwoman Furtado called attention to the 100th birthday of Ms. Mead, and Mayor
Russo reported he had attended her birthday party that evening and had presented her
with the proclamation. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ordinance 25, 2000 - Fire Inspection Fee Ordinance - Mayor Russo declared the public hearing open,
held on the intent of Ordinance 25, 2000 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, amending Chapter 38, "Fire Prevention and Protection," "Article III,
"Standards," Section 34 -94, "Fire Code Inspection and Special Details Fee Schedule," and Section
38 -95, "Approval Required for Construction Plans, Fire Suppression and Detection Systems, and
Alterations," of the City Code of Ordinances to provide for fire inspections of commercial premises
on at least an annual basis and authorize the collection of a fee at the time of Occupational License
renewal; providing for severability; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; and providing
for an effective date - for consideration on second and final reading. There were no comments from
the public. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Ordinance 25, 2000 on second reading by
title only. Councilwoman Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. The
City Clerk read Ordinance 25, 2000 by title only.
Ordinance 26, 2000 - Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 Annual Budget - Mayor Russo declared the public
hearing open, held on the intent of Ordinance 26, 2000 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida affixing a total valuation of the real and personal property
located within the corporate limits of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, for the year ending
December 31, 2000; establishing a tax rate thereon for said year; levying a tax on said real and
personal property for said year; adopting a fiscal budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1,
2000 and ending on September 30, 2001, inclusive; appropriating funds for expenditures in
accordance with said budget; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict herewith; and,
providing for an effective date -i for consideration of first reading. Staff reviewed the proposed
budget and recommended adoption of the tentative millage rate, tentative budget, and approval of
Ordinance 26, 2000 on first reading. Sidney Forman noted concerns regarding the percentage of
increase for police, fire, and education. Joan Elias urged the City Council to find more budget cuts,
stating the proposed figures were! not acceptable. Robert Mandeville requested further budget cuts,
stating his tax increase would be 33 %, to which the response was that the new budget figures would
reduce that increase by 10 %. Lee Lev commented on the excellent courses provided by the police
department and stated that although he did not want taxes increased he felt it better to be safe than
sorry. Kevin Van Dyke opposed the proposed 19% tax rate increase and stated he would favor a
moderate increase. John Zearley commented he was seeing figures for the first time, and Mayor
Russo indicated that he would be happy to meet with residents during the next two weeks to go over
the figures with the public. Tory Buckley expressed appreciation for the new budget process ,
pointed out there had been no tax increases for five years, and commented the City Council was
doing a great job. Sam Testa ;expressed his opinion that City Manager Martinez had been a
welcome addition and thanked him for the time he had spent helping the kids, and indicated he
thought the City Council was going a great job and that taxes to provide needed services should be
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/7/2000
approved. Joel Brier, International Association of Firefighters, stated he was speaking on behalf of
the firefighters, described hazards handled by the firefighters, and explained there were not currently
enough funds in the firefighters reserve budget to provide sufficient decontamination equipment for
the firefighters. Mr. Brier spoke in favor of funding for a wellness program to reduce workers
compensation claims. Bob Kaplin requested additional information for comparison to indicate
whether the proposed increases were reasonable. Mayor Russo commented he could be available
the next Thursday for an informal meeting with residents, and requested hard copies of information
to be available on Monday before! the meeting. Cecil Wagner complimented City Manager. Martinez
on his professionalism, thanked him for appointing a budget committee which considered the needs
of all employees rather than only senior staff, requested that the 29% budget increase be adopted in
order to provide proper safety gear for the firefighters and to make up for no tax increases in the past
by now bringing services current with the City's growth. David Smith commented the tax increases
calculations provided by the City, and the property appraiser did not match which was explained by
the Finance Director. Police Chief FitzGerald commented the four officers which were requested
were only to meet current needs and really more were needed, and more would be needed in coming
years. A resident expressed concern regarding the amount being spent to correct construction
mistakes and not having proper safety gear for firefighters, to which Mayor Russo responded that
the safety gear issue would be worked out and that the City Attorney was working on getting money
back from the parties who made; construction mistakes. The resident requested that in the future
parties be held responsible for their actions from day one rather than at the end of their contracts.
Hearing no further comments fr om the public, Mayor Russo declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Clark favored removing the street sweeper as well as other items. Councilmember
Sabatello favored continuing to tighten the budget but not at the expense of losing items for which
residents would feel a loss. Councilwoman Furtado agreed; reported that the first Monday of street
cleanup had resulted in 1,100 bags of trash, and now there were only 30 -35 bags each Monday; that
a standard was being set and a great deal had been accomplished in the past few years over and
above just running the City; and favored continuing to look for budget cuts but not to cut any safety
items or items that would affect the quality of life in the City. A staff member spoke regarding the
need for a street sweeper. Councilman Clark indicated he was thinking of deferring such items until
possibly next year when there would not be so many other necessary items. The City Manager
reported developer contributions to Growth Management budget were being finalized and would be
presented at the next meeting. Mayor Russo noted more people had spoken against the increase than
for it. The City Manager suggested that he could reduce the budget in departments except Police and
Fire and Public Works. Mayor Russo recommended City Council members meet with the City
Manager to discuss proposed changes, and Councilman Clark expressed his opinion that no
departments should be excepted from the process but that items in any department which could be
phased in the following year should be cut from this year's budget. Councilman Clark made a
motion to adopt a tentative millage rate of 4.7736 mills, an increase of 23.72% over the rolled back
rate. Vice Chair Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Councilman
Clark made a motion to adopt; the tentative Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 budget in the amount of
$41,442,813.00. Vice Chair Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Councilman Clark made a motion to place Ordinance 26, 2000 on First Reading by title only. Vice
Chair Jablin seconded the motion, which carved by unanimous 5 -0 vote. The City Clerk read
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/7/2000
Ordinance 26, 2000 by title only on First Reading.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution 54, 2000 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Right -of -Way Use Agreement with Metricom,
Inc. and providing for an effective date, for the installation of radios to facilitate a wireless Internet
network. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 54, 2000. Councilwoman
Furtado seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Resolution 57, 2000 - BallenIsles Parcel 23 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval of a site plan for the construction of 112 multi- family
units on the 22.84 acres on Parcel 23 in the BallenIsles within a Planned Community District'
providing for a condition of approval and waivers; and providing for an effective date. Principal
Planner Jim Norquest and agent for the petitioner Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, each provided
an update on changes since the last meeting. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve
Resolution 57, 2000. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Resolution 70, 2000 - Application Fee Schedule Update. A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, repealing Resolution 132, 1999, providing for the
establishment of an updated fee schedule for the review of development applications and for the
administration of certain Land Development Regulations, and providing an effective date..
Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Resolution 70, 2000. Councilwoman Furtado
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Resolution 71, 2000 - Golf Digest (Mirasol) Planned Community Development Parcels 1 -5. A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for approval
of a site plan of development for Parcels 1 through 5, with a total of 114 zero lot line single - family
home lots and 85 single - family custom home lots within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located
along PGA Boulevard and as more particularly described herein; providing for five waivers to allow
for reductions in the side interior setback, an increase in lot coverage, the placement of pools, screen
enclosures, and accessory structures within the side interior and rear setbacks, and a reduction in the
minimum lot width requirement; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective
date. Principal Planner Jim Norquest presented the project. The City Council was assured by the
petitioner that an architectural committee with proper requirements had been established. Ann
Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, described the project. Landscaping themes for
different parcels were described by the landscape architect. Councilman Clark made a motion to
approve Resolution 71, 2000. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
5 -0 vote.
Resolution 72, 2000 - Golf Digest (Mirasol) Planned Community Development Parcels E, F, & G.
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for
approval of a site plan of development for Parcels E, F, and G with 35, 39, and 67 zero lot line
single - family home lots within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) PCD, located along PGA Boulevard and
as more particularly described herein; providing for five waivers to allow for reductions in the side
interior setback, an increase in lot coverage, the placement of pools, screen enclosures, and accessory
structures within the side interior and rear setbacks, and a reduction in the minimum lot width
requirement; providing for conditions of approval; and providing for an effective date. Principal
Planner Jim Norquest presented the project. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/7/2000
petitioner, described the project as consistent with Parcels 1 -5 previously described. Direction to
the petitioner was to bring this project back for further consideration since three members of the City
Council felt that there were too many homes in the space provided for Parcels E and G with
insufficient recreational open space.
Resolution 78, 2000 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
Providing for the approval and ratification of an agreement between the Service Employees
International Union and the City of Palm Beach Gardens for General Maintenance, Maintenance I,
Maintenance II, Maintenance III, Maintenance/Lead/Specialty, Light Equipment Operators, Heavy
Equipment Operators, Irrigation Technicians, Chemical Spray Technicians, Traffic Maintenance
Technicians and Air Conditioning Technicians employed by the City of Palm Beach Gardens Public
Works and Parks and Recreation Departments for the Fiscal Years 2000/2001, 2001/2002, and
2002/2003, authorizing and directing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement, and,
providing for an effective date. Staff explained that a study had been done and all positions had been
raised to minimum salary and to make the salaries of certain positions competitive. Some members
of the City Council expressed concern that the process had changed from first discussing union items
in executive session, and favored going back to that process in the future. Councilman Clark made
a motion to approve Resolution 78, 2000. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
ORDINANCES:
Ordinance 27, 2000 - Capital Project Assessment. Consideration of an Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, relating to capital improvements providing a special
benefit to local areas within the City; providing definitions and findings; providing for title and
citation; providing for the creation of assessment areas; authorizing the imposition and collection
of special assessments to fund the cost of capital improvements providing a special benefit to local
areas within the City; establishing procedures for notice and adoption of assessment rolls and for
correction of errors and omissions; providing that assessments constitute a lien on assessed property
upon adoption of the assessment rolls; establishing procedures and methods for collection of
assessments; authorizing the issuance of obligations secured by assessments; providing for various
rights and remedies of the holders of such obligations; providing that such obligations will not create
a general debt or obligation of the City; providing for codification; providing for severability;
providing for conflicts; and providing an effective date. Mayor Russo expressed concern that more
than 50% of the tax revenue from a project would be needed for the flyover assessment, which staff
advised could be changed later. Councilwoman Furtado indicated she would request impact fees to
help with flyover costs. Councilman Clark made a motion to approve Ordinance 27, 2000. Vice
Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. The City Clerk read
Ordinance 27, 2000 by title only on first reading.
ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Revisiting votes to deny proposals for Grant Writing Services - Councilwoman Furtado made a
motion to reconsider the ordinance to revisit the RFP for Grant Funds. Councilman Clark seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Councilwoman Furtado made a motion to have
Mr. Dorita's company bring the RFP's to FAU for independent review. Councilman Clark
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/7/2000
Mayor Russo recommended a study to be handled by Attorney Watterson to resolve the issue of
employees leaving the City because of the new City Manager, as reported in recent newspaper
articles and anonymous letters. City Manager Martinez indicated he welcomed the study so long as
it was fair and equitable and pointed out accomplishments which had been made during his term of
office. Councilman Sabatello expressed his opinion that the City Council should stand behind the
City Manager; that the City Manager should be given at least a year before being critiqued; that a
study was a waste of time and would not resolve the issue; and that Mr. Martinez's performance to
date had proved he was a quality City Manager and should be supported by the City Council. Mayor
Russo expressed concern regarding legal aspects and whether the City would have any exposure if
they took no action following receipt of anonymous letters. City Attorney Rubin commented that
there were two separate issues, the City Manager's performance and the work environment, and
recommended a study of the work environment. Vice Mayor Jablin favored a study which would
be fair and would protect anyone coming forward with information. Councilwoman Furtado did not
support a study. City Attorney Rubin clarified that the proposed study would be done by an outside
source. Mayor Russo expressed his opinion that steps should be taken to unify the City Council.
Councilman Clark favored a study to put this matter to rest but. expressed concern that
confidentiality could be assured. Vice Mayor Jablin and Councilman Clark expressed concern that
the accomplishments made under the present management were at the expense of the employees.
Councilman Sabatello expressed concern that the City Council was not consistent since they had
done nothing when employees had left under the previous management. Mayor Russo stated he was
requesting the study in order to provide an endorsement for the City Manager, and that the City
Manager had the support of the City Council at this point. City Manager Martinez commented that
according to the City's history, there had been a division in the City Council under the previous
management and that some of the better politicians in this organization were employees, who were
driving this process. Mayor Russo requested the City Attorney to come back with recommendation
of what should be done to protect the City and that he wanted the evaluation based on the services
to the residents. Councilmember Sabatello requested that parameters for the study be established.
Mayor Russo requested clarification before signing a letter to former employee Kim Glas Castro
prohibiting her from working in the City for twelve months. Growth Management Director Manning
explained that the ethics code of AICP did not allow working in a lobbying position for twelve
months.
Ann Booth requested that Golf Digest be placed on the next agenda.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:
City Attorney Rubin presented a proposed settlement agreement for former employees Vicki
Anthony and Dawn Simmons. Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve the settlement
agreement as proposed. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0
vote.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/7/2000
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, upon motion by
Councilman Clark, seconded by Vice Mayor Jablin, carried 5 -0,
the meeting was adjourned at p.m.
APPROVAL:
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM CARL SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD
CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING, 8/14/2000
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP
September 14, 2000
The September 14, 2000, Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the .City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex located
at 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: The City Clerk called the roll and the following elected officials were found to be
in attendance: Mayor Joseph R. Russo, Vice Mayor Eric Jablin, Councilmember David Clark,
Councilmember Lauren Furtado, and Councilmember Carl Sabatello.
PURPOSE: Mayor Russo explained that this is an informal meeting to discuss, with interested
residents, areas of concern related to the FY 2000/01 Budget.
Finance Director Kent Olson gave a presentation on the proposed budget, reviewing budget
reductions, reallocation to other funds from the General Fund, revised tax rates, and comparison with
tax rates of other communities. The following residents addressed Council.
Richard Orman — supported the proposed budget but expressed concerns about flooding.
Joe Wolf — requested an explanation of his proposed tax notice and spoke of the City's growth rate.
Kevin Van Dyke — spoke of determining priorities and planning for the future.
Julia Byrd — expressed concern about engineering fees, attorney fees and money that is being spent
to repair or correct previous projects.
Adrian Salee — asked that mandated expenditures be listed separately.
Robin Cassio — supported the purchase of additional bunker gear for Firefighters.
John Zearley — discussed canal improvements.
Jim Bossa — spoke about various aspects of the budget.
Gina Spadaforce — asked questions about budgeting.
Council Member Furtado requested a study on the cost difference for privatizing fleet management
versus in -house fleet management and a study of the total cost leasing large equipment as opposed
to purchasing.
It was the consensus of Council to consider the following changes to the proposed budget:
Information Kiosk
Customer Service Training
Street Sweeper
PGA Blvd. Sprinkler
Sr. HR Analyst
Purchasing Coordinator
Bunker Gear
from $ 9,000 to $4,500
from $30,000 to $10,000
from $50,000 to $0
from $125,000 to $50,000
from $26,950 to $0
from $18,074 to $0
from $0 to $32,895
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING, 8/14/2000 2
Fitness Equipment from $0 to $3,000
Storm Water Monitoring from $0 to $50,000
Mayor Russo requested a presentation on the correctional office contract for maintenance workers.
He also asked for the number of additional employees that were hired this year and expenditures for
engineering and attorney services.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, meeting was adjourned at 9:55
p.m.
APPROVAL:
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM CARL SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD, CMC
CITY CLERK
i
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 28, 2000
Subject/Agenda Item: Acceptance of a proposal from the Her Planning Group for
professional planning services to review selected large development projects
Recommendation /Motion: Motion to authorize the execution an agreement with the
Iler Planning Group
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 27,500
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney
Planning Division
[ ] Approved
Finance
$ 27,500
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
Other
Current FY
[ ]Denied
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Advertised:
Date: July 7, 2000
[ X ] Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Other
1. Proposed agreement
The Palm Beach Post
between the Her
Planning Group and the
City of Palm Beach
[ ] Not Required
Gardens
Submitted by:
Growth Mgt. Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
01- 1420 - 515.3150
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager liw
[ X ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
The City staff is proposing to hire a planning and zoning consultant to review a limited number
of large development projects with complex technical issues. The selected consultant will be
expected to process assigned development applications through the City's development review
process, including making presentations and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and to the City Council.
The initial proposals received by the City were rejected by the City Council. A second Request
for Proposals (RFP) was advertised on July 7, 2000. Proposals from the following three firms
were received in response to the RFP:
1. Iler Planning Group (Palm Beach Gardens)
2. Gee and Jenson (West Palm Beach)
3. McMahon Associates (Boynton Beach)
All three proposals contain hourly rates based on review times and number of meetings.
Each proposal was reviewed for a strong background in planning and zoning, with an emphasis
on design.
Staff is recommending that the Iler Planning Group be retained to review the proposed Legacy
Place mixed -use development at the intersection of Alternate AIA and PGA Boulevard. Their
proposal indicates a broad base of experience in reviewing development applications. The
proposal also indicates that Michael Redd and Associates, of North Palm Beach, will be part of
the review team and will be responsible for reviewing design and landscaping plans. The
proposed not -to- exceed fee is $27,500, which is to be paid from the Professional Services
accounts for the Growth Management Department.
Attached is a proposed agreement to retain the Iler Planning Group.
Staff is recommending authorization to execute the agreement.
g: \sc \txt \plgconsult092600
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of October, 2000, by and between ILER
PLANNING GROUP (hereinafter the "Consultant "), and the CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
FLORIDA (hereinafter the "City ");
WHEREAS, the Consultant (IPG) has been selected by a City staff selection committee to
provide development review services following an open public bid process consistent with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant and the City, through mutual negotiation, have agreed upon a scope
of services and fee for limited technical analysis and administration of the development review process
for certain development petitions (hereinafter the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to perform the services specified in the
approved Scope of Services under the terms of this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter
provided, the Consultant and the City agree as follows.
1. Professional Services. The Consultant shall furnish services to the City in the
performance of the Scope of Services contained in Exhibit "A."
2. Period of Service. The Consultant shall begin work promptly after receipt of a fully -
executed copy of this Agreement from the City. The Consultant's receipt of a fully executed copy of this
Agreement shall constitute written notice to proceed with the Scope of Services.
3. Compensation. For the completion of Phase I of the Scope of Services described in
Exhibit "A ", the Consultant will be paid total compensation not -to- exceed $27,500.00 by the City.
Consultant will conduct the Phase I review process, in coordination with City staff, and invoice the City
on a monthly basis for time and materials expended in the review process. If and when the Consultant's
expenses for this Project reach 90% of the above - specified "not -to- exceed" compensation figure,
Consultant and City will monitor the Project status closely to ensure the subject figure is not exceeded.
If it appears that the "not -to- exceed" compensation figure of $27,500.00 will be inadequate to complete
the Phase I review process, City will either advise the Consultant to stop work at or before the "not -to-
exceed" compensation figure is reached, or allocate additional Agreement funding to complete the review
process. Phase II of the Scope of Services will be conducted on a similar project basis, utilizing either
a "not -to exceed "compensation figure of $31,750.00 or a lower figure, for any future City development
petitions assigned to the Consultant upon specific written direction of the City Manager. Invoice
payments shall be remitted to the Consultant within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the invoice
by the City.
4. Conflict -of- Interest. To avoid any conflicts of interest, or any appearance thereof,
Consultant, for the term of this Agreement, agrees that it will not represent any other private sector entities
(developers, corporations, real estate investors, etc.), with regard to comprehensive planning or zoning
issues in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, without first notifying the City of the services to be performed.
If after such notification both parties mutually agree that a material conflict exists, Consultant will not
perform such conflicting work. The conditions and requirements of this paragraph will also apply to any
subcontractors utilized by the Consultant and approved by the City.
5. Subcontractors. The Consultant will utilize the services of Michael Redd and Associates
(MRA) as a subcontractor for professional urban design, signnage and landscape review services related
to the subject Project. MRA is approved by the City for work on this Project. If other subcontractors are
necessary to be utilized to accomplish the work scope of this Project, Consultant will obtain written
approval prior to such utilization.
6. Term. The term of this Agreement shall extend for two (2) years from the date of
Agreement execution, unless the Agreement is terminated by either party pursuant to Paragraph 7 below.
7. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated prior to final Project completion by
either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice. In the event of termination by the City, the Consultant
will be paid as hereinafter provided, for all authorized services rendered to the date of such termination.
The amount payable to the Consultant in the event of termination will be a pro rata amount determined
on the basis of the amount and value of the work performed, prior to the Consultant's receipt of notice
of termination, for the applicable work tasks described in Exhibit "A ".
8. Insurance. The Consultant will hold in full force during the term of the Agreement all
types and amounts of insurance required under the laws of the State of Florida applicable to the services
specified this, Agreement. In addition to the insurance required by State law, the Consultant shall
specifically maintain a minimum of $500,000 in automobile liability coverage.
9. Non - discrimination. The Consultant pledges that he does not, and will not during the
term of this Agreement, discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because
of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to abide by all Federal and State laws regarding
non - discrimination. Any violation of such provisions shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
10. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of Florida,
and venue shall rest solely in Palm Beach County, Florida.
11. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits thereof shall inure to, the
respective parties hereto, their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
12. Amendments and Modification. No amendments and/or modifications of this Agreement
shall be valid unless in writing and signed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
13. Merger; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
Consultant and the City, and all negotiations and oral understandings between the parties are merged
-2-
i
herein. This Agreement may be supplemented and/or amended only by a written document executed by
both the Consultant and the City.
14. Nonassignability. Neither party shall assign any rights or delegate any duties arising under
this Agreement without prior written consent of the other party.
15. Severability. Any provision in this Agreement that is prohibited or unenforceable under
Florida or federal law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or unenforceability, without
invalidating the remaining provisions hereof. Also, the non - enforcement of any provision by either party
to this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that provision nor shall it effect the enforceability of
that provision or the remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Consultant and the City have caused this instrument to be signed
by their respective duly authorized officers and their respective corporate seals to be hereto affixed, all
on the day and year first above written.
Attest:
Attest:
ILER PLANNING GROUP
By: Henry B. Iler, President
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
By:
City Clerk Joseph Russo, Mayor
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency:
City Attorney
-3-
i
EXHIBIT A
Development Review Services Agreement
Palm Beach Gardens
Scope of Services
Introduction
9 -26 -00
The Scope of Services for the subject Project will be divided into two (2) distinct phases. Phase I
will involve the limited technical analysis and administration of the City's development review
process by the Consultant for the Legacy Place development petition which is currently filed with
the City. Phase II will entail similar services for any other projects specified in writing by the City
Manager during the term of the subject Agreement.
Phase I: Legacy Place
The Consultant will assume the development review administration and analysis role for the Legacy
Place development petition currently filed with the City. City staff will thoroughly brief the
Consultant on all aspects of the current petition status and provide at least three (3) copies of all
petition documents filed with the City. The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will
administer the development review process from its current status through to final City Council
approval or as otherwise specified in the Agreement. During the review process City staff will be
responsible for the following analysis, review and administrative activities:
Meeting and hearing scheduling, agenda packet collation and mail -out, staff and public
notices, recording and minutes (when necessary), and provision of audio - visual equipment;
and
Written analysis and recommendations, on a timely basis, for traffic, transit, stormwater
management, park and recreation, environmental, potable water, sanitary sewer, and legal
requirements and issues involved in review of the subject application.
City staff will also attend all DRC meetings, Planning and Zoning Board and/or City Council
meetings where issues relevant to their areas of expertise are likely to be discussed. The City will
be responsible for all reproduction and postage costs associated with Project meetings and hearings.
The Consultant will act as the City's Project Coordinator in administering the entire petition review
process by coordinating all other technical aspects of the petition review, conducting DRC meetings
(up to 2), coordinating and meeting with the Project applicant (as necessary), preparing the staff
report, recommendations and conditions of approval, and making public presentations before the
Planning and Zoning Board (up to 4 meetings) and the City Council (up to 4 meetings).
Phase II: Other Development Petitions
Consultant will conduct a similar development review process to that specified above in Phase I for
any other development petition filed with the City, upon specific written authorization of the City
Manager. Project review and coordination details and compensation will be negotiated and mutually
agreed upon prior to authorization under this Phase, subject to any applicable conditions and
restrictions contained in the Agreement. !
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: 09/26/00
Meeting Date: 10/06/00
Subject/Agenda Item
Grant Writing Services
Recommendation /Motion:
Consider a motion to award the contract to Langton Associates in the amount of $62,500.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 62,500
Council Action:
(Total)
City Attorney
Finance
[ ] Approved
Finance MO
$ 40,000
Current FY
[ ] Approved w/
conditions
[ ].Denied
ACM
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other
Date: May 24, 2000
[X] Operating
Attachments:
Paper: Palm Beach Post
[ X ] Not Required
[ ] Other
Memorandum
Submitted by:
Thomas DeRita, Jr.
Resource Group
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
01- 0600 - 513.3150
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ X ] Not required
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 26, 2000
APPROVED: Len Rubin, Acting Interim City Manager
FROM: Thomas DeRita, Jr.
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Grant Writing Services
�I
BACKGROUND
As instructed by former City Manager Nabar Martinez, the Resource Group N.A. has
thoroughly reviewed the submitted proposals in response to the City's RFP for grant
writing services. We received and reviewed proposals from In Rem Solutions, Inc.,
Langton Associates, Berryman & Henigar and Rosalind Helene Fischel.
DISCUSSION
We rated each proposal on the following criteria:
1. Qualifications and history of firm;
2. Success of obtaining local, state and federal grants for local governments;
3. Cost of services;
4. References;
5. Education;
6. Samples of grant requests; and
7. Knowledge /understanding of City and Palm Beach County.
Based upon these criteria it is our recommendation that the City Council contracts
with Langton Associates, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida for granting writing services.
Langton Associates, Inc. specializes in grant writing and grant administration and has
been serving clients statewide and nationally for nearly twenty years. Since 1981
Langton Associates has procured more than $85 million in state and federal funding
for its clients in the areas of housing and community development, transportation,
recreation, environmental land acquisition, historic preservation, economic
development, human services, environmental planning and juvenile justice.
• Page 1
I
I
Langton Associates is currently working with several governmental entities in South
Florida including Palm Beach County, Broward County, Village of Wellington, City of
Boca Raton and the City of Lake Park. Langton Associates is highly recommended '
by County Commissioner Mary McCarty. Langton Associates has a strong working
relationship with Palm Beach County Lobbyist Kathy Daley.
Michael Langton, President of Langton Associates, is a former member of the Florida
House of Representatives and a former aide to the Mayor of Jacksonville. He
Langton understands the importance of working with City staff and with the City's
lobbying firm to enhance the chances of securing governmental funds. I
COST OF SERVICES
Langton Associates
$62,500
In -Rem Solutions, Inc.
$50,000
Rosalind Helene Fischel
$45,600
Berryman & Henigar
$45,000
RECOMMENDATION
Although Langton Associates' cost of services is the highest at $62,500, it is the
Resource Group's opinion that this is the best - qualified firm to develop and manage
the City's grant writing activities.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 12, 2000
Subject/Agenda Item:
Refurbishment of Rescue Unit
Recommendation/Motion:
Staff recommends award of bid for the refurbishment of one rescue unit to Emergency Vehicles,
Inc. by "piggy backing" off the Palm Beach Gardens Bid in the amount of $79,600.00 and
authority to execute an agreement for same.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 79,600.00
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney
FIRE- RESCUE
[ ] Approved
Finance
$ 80.000
[ ] Approved w/
Current FY
conditions
ACM
[ ] Denied
Human Res.
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
[ X ] Not Required
( X ] Other Impact Fees
Staff Report
Bid Letter
Submitted by:
Peter T. Berge
Department Head
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #::
13- 1200 - 522.6410
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ X ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
See Attached Staff Report
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nabar Enrique Martinez, City Manager DATE: September 12,2000
APPROVED:
FROM: Peter T. Bergel, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Refurbishment of Rescue Unit
Background
Fire Rescue's Budget for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 includes the refurbishment of Rescue
63. This rescue, originally manufactured in 1995, is an existing piece of our fleet and is
maintained as spare equipment in the event of breakdowns or scheduled maintenance.
Staff believes that this refurbishment should be awarded no later than November 1, 2000
in order for delivery, setup and testing to be complete by mid -year 2001. Fire Rescue is
proposing to piggyback a prior bid award by Emergency Vehicles, Inc. (EVI) honoring
the price bid last year for the refurbishment of this rescue unit.
Discussion
Staff has evaluated the EVI Bid and determined that this particular rescue will best meet
the needs of our department at this time. This particular rescue is laid out and
constructed identically to two of our existing rescue units. Purchasing off of this bid will
ensure that we continue to maintain standardization of equipment from station to station.
The bid price for the refurbishment of this equipment is $79,600.00, which is the same
cost as last year. This purchase would be made out of Account # 13- 1200 - 522.6410 and
the funding source will be impact fees. I have presented this information and process to
Kent Olson and he is in agreement with this award of bid.
Recommendation
Staff recommends award of bid for the refurbishment of one rescue unit to Emergency
Vehicles, Inc. by "piggy backing" off the Palm Beach Gardens Bid in the amount of
$79,600.00 and authority to execute an agreement for same.
enc.
cc: file
EMERGENCY VEHICLES, INC.
MANUFACTURER OF QUALITYAPPARATUS • SERVING THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1971
September 8, 2000
Peter T. Bergel, Fire Chief
Palm Beach Gardens Fire Rescue
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
RE: REFURBISHMENT OF RESCUE UNIT
Dear Chief:
We hereby agree to honor the quoted price of $79,600.00 to refurbish your second EVI
Freightliner Rescue Unit, as long as the order is received by November 1, 2000.
This is based on our original bid of March 2, 2000 which resulted in your Purchase Order
#2293.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
EMERGENC V HICLES, INC.
Dfave . T iercio
Vice Presi ent
DMT /ja
Enclosure
P.O. BOX 12713 - LAKE PARK, FLORIDA 33403 -0713
TEL. (561) 848 -6652 • FAX (561) 848 -6658 • E -mail: evi0evi- fl.com • Web Site: www.evi - fl.com
I
RESOLUTION 87, 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH THE FIRM OF
LINDAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI AND HELLSTROM, INC. FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2000 AND ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30,2001; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens desires to employ an engineering firm
to provide engineering services on behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has negotiated an agreement with the engineering
firm of Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari and Hellstom, Inc. to perform such services as may be
directed by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves an agreement for engineering
services for the firm of Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari and Hellstrom, Inc. for the fiscal year
commencing October 1, 2000 and ending September 30, 2001. A copy of said agreement
is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2000.
ATTESTED BY:
CITY CLERK
-1-
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
�v
7
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO �I
COUNCILMAN CLARK I
-2-
Lbf
Memorandum '
INC.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,
SURVEYORS &MAPPERS
To: Carol Gold
City Clerk
From: Lennart E. Lind
City Engineer
Date: September 25, 2000
RE: Continuing Contract for Engineering Services '
Transmitted herewith is a clean copy of our Agreement for Professional
CIVIL
Services as part of our Continuing Contract with the City. Please note that ±I
WATER RESOURCES
the word "all" has been deleted from Section 1 — Scope of Services — !
WATER & WASTEWATER
Paragraph F. This is being changed to conform with the planned "in-
TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY & MAPPING
I
house" engineering staff to support Growth Management. This change
GIS
was discussed and agreed upon with both Nabar and Roxanne. j
Len Rubin will be supplying the resolution for approval, which is
scheduled for the October 5 council meeting.
"Partners For Results
i
Value By Design"
Enclosure
cc: Len Rubin
G:\Chris-K\LEL\Gardens\CGold9-25.doc
2090 Pahn Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
(561) 684 -3375
Fax (561) 689-8531
www.lbfh.c lbfh.com
1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS AND
LBFH, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this , 2000 between the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida (hereinafter called the CITY) and LBFH, Inc. (LBFH)
(hereinafter called the ENGINEER), a corporation licensed by the Department of
Business and Professional Regulations to practice professional engineering in the State of
Florida.
SECTION 1 — SCOPE
A. ENGINEER shall perform professional engineering services and render
consultation to the CITY consistent with the CITY'S Mission Statement, Goals
and Objectives for the Engineering Department (a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein).
B. ENGINEER shall make its services available to the CITY in .a manner satisfactory
to the City Manager and City Council including in -house hours agreed upon
between the City Manager and the ENGINEER.
C. ENGINEER will represent the CITY in engineering matters, as directed by the
City Manager.
D. ENGINEER shall attend regular, special or workshop meetings of the City
Council and meetings of the CITY advisory Boards as directed by the City
Manager.
E. ENGINEER shall make such technical investigations as the City Manager deems
necessary and submit its findings and recommendations to the City Manager.
F. ENGINEER shall, as requested by the City Manager, review land development
applications submitted to the CITY for compliance and consistency with
applicable codes and make such recommendations as are necessary regarding
engineering, surveying and other technical matters.
G. ENGINEER shall, as directed by the City Manager, review the construction of
capital improvements and site improvements by persons or entities other than the
CITY.
H. ENGINEER shall perform professional engineering services for design,
preparation of construction plans and specifications, permitting, bidding and
services during construction for capital improvements undertaken by the CITY.
-I-
33
I. ENGINEER shall assist CITY in dealing with issues of regulatory / permitting
compliance, including occurrences of hazardous waste and pollution of natural
resources within the CITY'S jurisdiction.
J. ENGINER shall provide support services to the CITY for surveying and mapping,
including Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
SECTION 2 — TERM: TERMINATION
This Agreement shall become effective on the date of the execution of this Agreement
and continue through September 30, 2001; provided however, that either party may
terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days
advance written notice to the other party. ENGINEER shall be paid for performance of
services rendered to the CITY in accordance wit this AGREEMENT through the date of
termination.
SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION
A. CITY shall pay ENGINEER for services rendered under this contract on an
hourly basis at a rate not to exceed $130.00 per hour.
B. CITY shall compensate ENGINEER for reimbursable expenses including but not
limited to printing, photocopies, long distance and cellular telephone calls,
facsimile, blueprints, computer utilization, courier services, out of County travel,
and outside contractual services.
C. ENGINEER shall submit invoices to the CITY on a monthly basis and CITY shall
pay ENGINEER monthly.
SECTION 4 — GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. At the request of the CITY, ENGINEER shall supply copies of ENGINEER'S
original documents prepared pursuant to this agreement.
B. ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual project
costs will not vary from ENGINEER'S judgment and opinion of possible costs.
C. For the term of this agreement, ENGINEER shall carry Professional Liability
Insurance in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Evidence of
said insurance shall be supplied to the CITY.
-2-
SECTION 5 — IN -HOUSE SUPPORT
A. Engineer shall work with the City Council, City Manager and Growth
Management Director at formulating and implementing a plan to provide "in-
house" engineering to the Growth Management Department. However, the
ENGINEER shall continue to provide oversight and support to the in -house
engineer and the Growth Management Department.
B. Effective immediately, and until such time as services are no longer necessary,
ENGINEER shall provide a minimum, one (1) engineering consultant to perform
services on -site at the City for a minimum of 24 hours / week; with schedules and
locations to be agreed to by Growth Management Director.
CITY shall provide adequate work facilities to enable the consultant to perform
his / her duties.
SECTION 6 — AMENDMENTS
A. This Agreement shall only be amended in writing upon execution by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed'this Agreement on the date
set forth above.
THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
L
OR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
TTEST:
CAROL GOLD, CITY CLERK
\ \pc\projeas \79- 0050\Agreemem for Prof &S Smimdoc
-3-
LBFH, Inc.
LENNART E. LINDAHL
N
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 26, 2000
SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of approval of Resolution 89, 2000, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a Joinder to a Drainage Easement executed by Mall Properties, Ltd. in favor of the
MacArthur Center Property Owner's Association, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Resolution 89, 2000
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept:
Costs:
Council Action:
City Attorney
City Attome
Not Applicable
[ ] Approved
[ J Approved with
conditions
( ] Denied
Funding Source:
[ J Continued to:
Advertised:
Submitted by:
City Attorney
Date:
Not applicable
Paper:
[ X] Not Required
Attachments:
Approved by:
Affected parties:
Resolution 89, 2000
City Manager
Drainage Easement
[ ]Notified
[ X] Not Required
Explanation:
Execution of this Joinder is required due to the fact that the City retains the right to approve
the landscaping installed on a berm located within the easement area, in addition to the
right to correct any deficiencies in the maintenance of said berm and landscaping. The
landscaping and berm are required by the development order for Parcels 27.05 and 27.06
(Resolution 26, 2000).
RESOLUTION 89, 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERKTO
EXECUTE A JOINDER TO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT EXECUTED BY
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD. IN FAVOR OF THE MACARTHUR CENTER
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Mall Properties, Ltd. has requested that the City execute a joinder to
a drainage easement executed by Mall Properties, Ltd. in favor of the MacArthur Center
Property Owner's Association, Inc. relating to the approval of a development order for
Parcels 27.05 and 27.06 (Resolution 26, 2000); and
WHEREAS, the City's joinder is necessary due to the fact that the easement
requires the approval of the City Engineer and City Forester prior to the installation of
landscaping along the berm located within the easement area and grants the City the right
to take any remedial or corrective actions within the easement area should the Property
Owner's Association fail to maintain the landscaping and berm properly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a Joinder to the Drainage Easement executed by Mall Properties, Ltd. in favor of
the MacArthur Center Property Owner's Association, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED AND ADOPTED THIS
ATTESTED BY:
CITY CLERK
-1-
DAY OF
, 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
-2-
Quality from the ground up.
Construction and Development. Inc. CONS'IIHucnoN - DEVELOPMENT - MANAGEMENT
September 19, 2000
Via Hand Delivery
Watterson, Hyland & Klett, P.A.
Attn: Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire
4100 RCA Boulevard, Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Mall Properties, Ltd. - Parcel 27.06 Drainage Easement to benefit NPBCID Unit of
Development No. 19
Dear Len:
Enclosed for joinder and signature by the City of Palm Beach Gardens is the captioned Drainage
Easement, in form approved by Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District at its
September 13, 2000 board meeting. Please have the mayor execute the joinder where indicated,
and return the original document to me; upon receipt of all necessary counterpart signatures, I
will provide you with a fully executed copy of this instrument. If you have any questions, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
4 ifer L. Seidman
Assistant General Counsel
4300 Catalfumo Way - Palm Beach Gar-dens, Florida 33410 -15811 694 -3000 - (BBB) 524 -9697 - Fax (561) 691-5260 - www.catatfumo.com
Prepared by and return to:
Catalfumo Construction and Developmen
Attn: Jennifer L. Seidman, Esq.
4300 Catalfumo Way
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
This Drainage Easement is dated
limited partnership with an address at 4300 Q
33410, and its successors and assigns ( "Owner
Owners Association, Inc., a Florida not for pr(
Center Drive, Suite 300, Bonita Springs, Flori
Beach County Improvement District, an indep
an address at 357 Hiatt Drive, Palm Beach Ga
Palm Beach Gardens, a municipality of the St;
Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 3
EASEMENT
, 2000 by Mall Properties, Ltd., a Florida
.fumo Way, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
in favor of The MacArthur Center Property
corporation with an address at 24301 Walden
34134 ( "POA" ), joined by the Northern Palm
dent special district of the State of Florida, with
=, Florida 33418 ("Northern") and the City of
of Florida with an address at 10500 North
10 ( "City ").
A. Owner is the fee simple owner of an approximately thirty five foot (35') wide parcel
located in Palm Beach County, Floridai and legally described on Exhibit "A" ( "Easement
Area ").
B. Northern previously established Unit
boundaries of which the Easement A
management of the real property loca
C. Owner desires to grant to the POA an
Area to benefit Unit 19, and to preven
flowing outside the boundaries of suc:
For Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable
sufficient, the parties agree:
Grant of Easement. Owner grants and
for the use and benefit of Unit 19, a pe
stormwater runoff purposes ( "Easemet
which Easement includes the right of i
maintenance and inspection in accord
reserves the right to use the Easement
Easement as long as such use does not
uses herein.
Development No. 19 ( "Unit 19 "), within the
is located, in order to facilitate surface water
within Unit 19.
asement for drainage purposes over the Easement
stormwater runoff generated by Unit 19 from
unit, upon the following terms and conditions.
acknowledged as received and
veys to the POA and its successors and assigns,
ual, non - exclusive easement for drainage and
over, across and through the Easement Area,
;ss to and egress from the Easement Area for
with the terms of paragraph 3. Owner
a for all purposes not inconsistent with the
easonably interfere with the POA's permitted
2. Berm and Landscaping. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of all required permits from
Northern and any other governmental entity, Owner shall construct within and along the
length of the Easement Area a berm with a minimum elevation equivalent to the 100
year /3 day storm stage plus six inches (6 ") (`Berm "), in accordance with the conceptual
permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District Permit No. 50- 01480 -S,
and as required by the City. Owner shall be responsible for providing the necessary
landscaping of and irrigation facilities for the Berm in accordance with the Landscape
Plan by Urban Design Studio dated February 1, 2000 previously approved by the City
under Resolution 26, 2000; provided, however, all such landscaping shall be approved by
both the City engineer and the City forester prior to installation.
3. Maintenance. The POA, at its sole cost and expense, agrees to perform and be responsible
for all maintenance and repair necessary to sustain the Easement Area, the Berm and the
landscaping located thereon, in good order and in an aesthetically pleasing condition, in
accordance with the requirements of all governmental entities with jurisdiction over the
Easement Area. If the POA fails to perform its obligations as set forth in this paragraph,
Northern or the City may notify the POA in writing of such failure and if, after fifteen.
(15) calender days following receipt of such notice, the POA has not cured the deficiency,
Northern or the City shall, as third party beneficiaries of this Easement have the right of
ingress to and egress from the Easement Area as well as the right, but not the obligation,
to inspect and correct the deficiency and take any remedial or curative action required,
and the POA shall reimburse Northern or the City, as applicable, for such reasonable
remedial or curative costs within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of an invoice
evidencing such costs.
4. Indemnity. The POA releases and indemnifies Owner, the City and Northern from and
against all claims, demands, losses and costs of any kind, including attorneys' fees and
costs, for personal injury or property damage incurred by the POA or any other persons or
entity in connection with the use of or access to the Easement Area for the purposes
described herein.
No Dedication. This Easement shall not be deemed or constitute a dedication of any
portion of the Easement Area to the general public or for any public purpose. The
Easement shall be appurtenant to and benefit only the POA, Northern and Unit 19 strictly
for the purposes stated in this instrument.
6. Default. If any party to this instrument fails to perform any covenant or obligation
imposed hereunder, any non - defaulting party (including, for the purpose of enforcement,
the City and Northern) is entitled to exercise all rights and remedies available at law or in
equity, including injunction or specific performance.
7. Miscellaneous. The Easement is perpetual, and may not be changed, modified or
terminated except in writing, executed by Owner, the POA, the City, Northern and any
mortgagees of any portion of the Easement Area. If any provision of this instrument is
deemed invalid or illegal, this instrument shall be construed as if such provision had been
stricken and excluded. The conveyance of any interest in the Easement Area shall be
subject to the burdens and benefits of the Easement. The Easement shall run with the
land and bind and benefit the POA, Owner, and their respective successors, assigns,
agents and invitees.
The parties have executed this Easement as of the date set forth above.
OWNER:
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD., a Florida
limited partnership
By: Catalfumo Management and Investment,
Inc., a Florida corporation, its general
partner
By:
Daniel S. Catalfumo, President
POA:
THE MACARTHUR CENTER
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., a Florida not - for - profit corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , 2000 by Daniel S.
Catalfumo, President of Catalfumo Management and Investment, Inc., general partner of Mall
Properties, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and the partnership,
who is personally known to me.
(Notary Seal) Name: 1.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , 2000 by ,
the of The MacArthur Center Property Owners Association, Inc., a Florida not -for-
profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation, who is personally known to me or produced
as identification
(Notary Seal) Name:
JOINDER BY THE CITY
The City of Palm Beach Gardens joins in the execution of this Easement for the purpose of
consenting to each of its terms.
THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
By:
Joseph Russo, Mayor
ATTEST:
BY:
Name:
City Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , 2000 by Joseph Russo
and , the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, on
behalf of the city, who is personally known to me or produced as identification. .
(Notary Seal) Name;
(ADDITIONAL JOINDER ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE)
JOINDER BY NORTHERN
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, an independent special district of the State
of Florida, joins in the execution of this Easement solely for the purpose of acknowledging the
contents and understandings contained herein.
(District Seal)
Dated: , 2000
NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ATTEST:
BY:
By: Tesula N. Stewart
Peter L. Pimentel, Secretary President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me , 2000 by Tesula N.
Stewart, the President of the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, on behalf of the
district, who is personally known to me or produced as identification.
(Notary Seal)
Name:
EXHIBIT "A"
EASEMENT AREA
The North thirty-five feet (35') and the East thirty-five feet (35') of Parcel 27.06 of the Plat of
Regional Center Parcels 27.05, 27.06 & 27R02 recorded in Plat Book 88, Pages 1.04 and 105 of
the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
i
• 'c
s
i
s'
3
1
r
i
}
1
Z_IM
` =m
7X
.3eQSiso_�oN�_ --
------- 1 __
i
IS,oat
u'sa N"C.90d0s
------- ._._.— .— .—
s0 0u 3-zc.90.40H
�n
h
0
N
W
v
a
a
v..zp.An .I nN
eo
n I °o
o;
� C
I'_ t — I
I C
I�
Cc
s
p ~xc i
°at Cv 7; '
1 {tot
1 t m
tl
I t
t
I t
t
I t
C
1 C
C
m'09
f'C
1 y
ylo C
I s
s C
t
b6vt I
In
C �
�
4
e t c
1 p
p U
U
0 1
I L
L 6
6
1 g
g `
I
`
I
4. `
.9f'S6S --------------------------- ------------ -
o
---------------------------------------- -
- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -
-- -t
I
I
I �
y,� n
�
I R
R2 1
1 to
( uo
1•I 7
7�
1 �
�
I �
�
Iq i
}
IS,oat
u'sa N"C.90d0s
------- ._._.— .— .—
s0 0u 3-zc.90.40H
�n
h
0
N
W
v
a
a
v..zp.An .I nN
eo
n I °o
o;
� C
I'_ t — I
I C
I�
Cc
s
p ~xc i
°at Cv 7; '
1 {tot
1 t m
tl
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING: ORDINANCE 21, 2000
HIBISCUS RESTAURANT PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 21, 2000, with several conditions of approval.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney
Growth Management/
j ) Approved
Finance NA
$
( ] Approved Wiwndaions
ACM
NNN
40/
Current FY
( ]Denied
Human Res. NA
Funding Source:
[ ]Continued to:
Advertised:
Other NA
Date: August 2, 2000
[ ] Operating
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance 21, 2600
Paper: Palm Beach Post
[ ) Other
Ordinance 11, 1995
Ordinance 11, 1997
Submitted by:
Not Re uired
( 1 9
Location Map
Site Plan
Fire Dept. Memo
PBC Commissioner Letter
/
Attorney Rossow Letter
!/
Code Section 106. Outdoor
Seating
Growth Management Dire for
Affected parties
[ x ] Notified
Budget Acct. #::
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ] Not required
REQUEST
Attorney Lawrence W. Smith, agent for PGA - Summers Associates, is requesting an amendment to
the development order to allow outdoor seating with service for the Hibiscus Restaurant located at
the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road. (5- 42S -43E)
BACKGROUND
City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens originally approved "The Bridge Center" Planned
Unit Development by Ordinance 12, 1986, which approval was subsequently amended by Ordinance
27, 1991. City Council later approved a Planned Unit Development for the construction of a 395 -
seat restaurant located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road by
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
adoption of Ordinance 11, 1995. Since that time, the development order for this project has been
amended four times. Ordinance 11, 1997, granted a two -year time extension for the construction of
the restaurant, which was completed in March of 1999. The site plan and landscape plan were
amended by the adoption of Ordinance 37, 1997; and the landscape plan, exterior color change, and
wall sign colors were amended by the adoption of Ordinance 19, 1998. An administrative approval
in March of 1998 allowed a stairway addition to the north elevation of the restaurant.
LAND USE & ZONING
The subject site is zoned PUD with an underlying zoning of Professional Office (PO). The property
lies within the PGA Corridor Overlay District. The original application for this site (The Bridge
Center) featured a two -story office building and a restaurant. The final approval, however, eliminated
the office building and retained the restaurant. The future land -use designation is Commercial and
is listed as Commercial on the Vision Plan. For a complete listing of adjacent uses, land -use
designations, and zoning districts, see Table 1 below.
TABLE I - CODE
CO?�(}MPLIANCE AND SITE
ANALYSIS
t
Is, I�TSE
ZOl®TING i
...
�
Professional Office
w5
Commercial
Subject Property:
Hibiscus Restaurant PUD
w/PUD overlay
C
North:
Residential Medium
Residential Medium
Palm Beach County
RM 12
RM
Residential
South:
General Commercial
Commercial
PGA Boulevard &
CG1
C
Palm Beach County
Panama Hattie's Restaurant
East:
Professional Office
Commercial
Professional Office
w/PUD overlay
C
West:
General Commercial
Commercial
Intracoastal Waterway
CG1 w/PUD Overlay
C
Riverhouse Restaurant
2
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
CONCURRENCY
Because no new seats are being added to the restaurant, a determination of concurrency is not
necessary.
PROCEDURE
This is a request for outdoor seating at a restaurant in a Planned Unit Development, which will
require an amendment to the development order for this project because the original development
order contained a condition disallowing outdoor seating. The request was reviewed by City Staff
and members of the Development Review Committee, and comments and recommendations were
forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acting in an advisory role, the Planning and
Zoning Commission considered the recommendations of the Development Review Committee and
City staff, conducted a workshop, held a public hearing at a subsequent meeting, and then made a
recommendation of denial to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the petition at a workshop
on June 29, 2000, and unanimously voted to place Ordinance 21, 2000, on First Reading by title
only. The next action required by City Council will be to hold a public hearing prior to making a
final determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
PROJECT DETAILS
The petitioner, PGA - Summers Associates, is requesting an amendment to the development order to
allow outdoor seating and service on the existing restaurant patio adjacent to the Intracoastal
Waterway. There is currently no outdoor seating at the restaurant.
This site was approved for a 395 -seat restaurant in a Planned Unit Development by Ordinance 11,
1995. Condition No. 1, Section 3 of Ordinance 11, 1995, specifically, prohibited outdoor seating
at this site. At that time, several residents had expressed concern that the proposed Ale House, a
sports bar, would be a noisy restaurant. However, the Hibiscus Restaurant, an upscale dining
establishment, was approved for construction with the adoption of Ordinances 11 and 37, 1997.
Please note that all original conditions of the Development Order (Ordinance 11, 1995) will be
continued, as amended, and will remain in effect and unchanged with this request, including
Conditions 14 and 15. Condition 14 states, "Entertainment, music or loud speakers shall not be
permitted on the outside of the building. If entertainment occurs inside the building, all windows
and doors shall remain closed." Condition 15 states, "Sounds emanating from the restaurant site
shall not exceed the standards set forth in Section 159.078 entitled "Performance Standards," of the
City's Code of Ordinances, as amended." Section 159.078 has been renumbered to Section 306 in
the new City Code.
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
The site plan approved per Ordinance 37, 1997, allowed 395 seats in the restaurant (265 on the first
floor and 130 on the second floor). The applicant proposes to place 13 tables for seating 52 patrons
on the patio. Fifty -two of the existing seats in the first -floor restaurant will be relocated to the patio
area. No additional seating is being requested. No additional parking will be required since the total
number of seats will not change, but simply be relocated to the outside patio.
Regarding handicap access to the patio seating, the main indoor dining area is flush with the patio
level on which the proposed patio seating is located. There is direct access from the main dining
area to the patio, as shown on the revised site plan dated August 16, 2000.
The existing outdoor lighting will not be changed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Fire Department
The Fire Rescue Department has reviewed this petition and has no adverse comments or concerns.
To date, no objections or other comments have been received from other members of the
Development Review Committee.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Workshop Meeting of April 25, 2000
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a workshop to discuss this petition at its meeting of
April 25, 2000. The agent, Attorney Lawrence Smith, answered questions from the Commission and
explained that a concrete wall had been erected between the restaurant site and the neighboring
properties when the site was developed. He finther stated that two conditions regarding noise level
from the original approval would still apply: (1) that the noise level must be maintained to that
required by code; (2) that no music or entertainment could take place outside; and (3) that the doors
must be kept closed if there was music or entertainment inside. Mr. Smith also explained that the
outdoor seating was needed to provide a staging area for diners waiting for their meal and that 52
permanent seats would be moved from the inside to the outside patio area as shown on the plan. At
that time, there were no significant comments or concerns from the Commission.
Public Hearing of May 23, 2000
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 23, 2000, where it was reported
that letters of opposition had been received from Attorney Gerald Rossow, who represents nearby
homeowners, and also from County Commissioner Karen Marcus.
4
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
The agent, Attorney Lawrence Smith, explained that Flagler Systems, who also operates the Breakers
Hotel, was interested in obtaining this restaurant and that outdoor seating was important to them.
Mr. Smith again reviewed other conditions of the original development order that would remain in
effect, including no outside entertainment, keeping windows and doors closed, and keeping the noise
level down to code requirements.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting, four neighboring property owners expressed their
opposition to the outdoor seating because of potential noise problems, their being visible to the
restaurant patrons when using their yard and dock, and the possibility that property values would be
affected. Other comments pertained to being able to hear restaurant staff conversing on the other
side of the wall, and that light shields and shrubs needed to be installed. Mr. Smith commented that
people living in Florida liked to dine on the water, and it was natural for the restaurant to want to seat
their patrons on the water. He further stated he was not taking lightly the neighbors' concerns;
however, he believed there were adequate safeguards in the development order.
The Commissioners commented the restaurant had not made a compelling argument as to why the
tables should be moved outside, and the neighbors had the right to enjoy their property. There was
a concern that the noise risk had not been properly addressed. Other comments by the
Commissioners included it was unfair at this stage to permit the outdoor seating, since a decision had
been made in the past to not allow it, and the applicant should have tried to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the neighbors that it was possible to have outdoor seating without creating a
disturbance.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously 5 -0 to recommend denial of the petition
to City Council at this time, but without prejudice for the petitioner to come back at a later date.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
First Reading/Workshop Meeting of June 29, 2000
Following presentation of the petition by Principal Planner Jim Norquest, the agent, Attorney
Lawrence Smith, reported on efforts to work with the neighbors and staff regarding the neighbors'
concerns. Mr. Smith proposed trying the outdoor seating, and if there were complaints, to bring the
issue back before the City Council for evaluation. He further proposed a condition that would
require the restaurant owner or operator to bring the matter back to City Council in May, 2001, for
a status report on what had transpired since the onset of outdoor seating. Attorney James Brindell
spoke on behalf of The Breakers Hotel, potential owners of Hibiscus, and requested the opportunity
to meet with the neighbors to work out any concerns. Mayor Russo urged the petitioner to work with
the neighbors, and Councilman Clark made a motion to place Ordinance 21, 2000, on First Reading
by title only. Vice Mayor Jablin seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. The
second reading was set for August 17. The Council made it clear to the petitioner that they mM
5
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
work to obtain the neighbors' support.
Attorney Smith has reported he held a cordial meeting with the neighbors on August 3, 2000, and
will report at the September 21, 2000, meeting on the progress made. In response to the neighbor's
concern that their deck would be visible to the diners, the applicant decided to place potted plants
along that line of sight which will serve as a screen. Attached is the revised site plan dated August
16, 2000, showing the location of nine 30" planter pots containing eight -foot high ficus trees which
will be permanently affixed to the deck and walkway per City Forester's approval.
(City Council Comments Continued)
Second Reading/Public Hearing Meeting of August 17, 2000
At the request of the agent and with concurrence of the neighbors' attorney, the City Council voted
to continue the Public Hearing to the September 21, 2000, meeting.
Second Reading/Public Hearing Meeting of September 21, 2000
Because of a full agenda, City Council voted to continue the public hearing to the October 5, 2000,
meeting.
OTHER COMMENTS
At the City Council meeting of June 29, 2000, Mr. Richard Arnold, adjacent neighbor, described
the proximity of his home to the restaurant, and stated opposition to the outdoor seating which he
believed would impact his quality of life and property values.
Attached is a letter dated May 10, 2000, from Attorney Gerald Z. Rossow who states he represents
some parties within 500 feet of this project who are opposed to any change to the original
development order that would allow outdoor seating. There are 73 property owners within 500 feet
of this project who were notified of the public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council. Four property owners spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission public
hearing on May 23, 2000, in opposition to the outdoor seating.
A letter dated August 7, was received from Attorney Rossow, who also requested a continuance of
the Public Hearing scheduled for August 17, 2000, because some of the adjacent property owners
were out of town and unable to attend the meeting.
Attached also is a letter of concern dated July 27, 2000, from Palm Beach County Commissioner
Karen Marcus who stated, "When this site was approved for a restaurant in 1995, several residents
expressed their opposition to the outdoor seating because of noise. The Gardens' City Council
specifically prohibited outdoor seating in response to their concerns." Further, Commissioner
Marcus believes the outdoor seating will generate noise, and that the adjacent residents will lose th
6 M
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
privacy, and the noise will be an infringement on their quality of life. She also stated,
"Establishments with outdoor seating become a code enforcement problem when they are directly
adjacent to residential uses for both the city and the county."
CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code, which was adopted originally by City Council per
Ordinance 5, 1998, on May 7, 1998, permits outdoor seating as an accessory use to a restaurant,
business, or institution serving food or beverages in an enclosed area, subject to the standards listed,
in part, below.
Access. The outdoor seating is adjacent to, and has direct access through a doorway to that portion
of the business or institution which is enclosed.
Location. The outdoor seating is located directly adjacent to the restaurant or food service
establishment and is owned or leased for this purpose.
General Circulation. The outdoor seating can be accommodated without impeding the access of
the general public to one or more of the following:
a. the enclosed portion of the restaurant or food service establishment;
b. any other use located within the same building or structure; or
c. any common elements shared by the restaurant or food service establishment and any
other users of the same building or structure.
Safety. Outdoor seating shall comply with all building, fire, and safety code requirements.
Parking. (As stated earlier, parking is not affected by this amendment.)
Walkways. Outdoor seating shall be arranged, when in use, in a manner that provides a pedestrian
walkway of not less than six feet in width adjacent to each table.
Location. Outdoor seating shall be located only along the frontage of the affected restaurant or food
service establishment, and shall not be located in front of or adjacent to any other user or tenant.
Prohibited location. Outdoor seating shall not occupy any area designated for parking.
Fencing or screening. Unless located within an inner court, outdoor seating shall provide fencing
or screening as a means to physically and visually separate such use from any adjacent public
passageway or walkway. Fencing and screening shall be at least three feet in height, and may include
7
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00-02
planter boxes or other dividers. Fencing and screening shall not be provided through the use of
tables, chairs, or other seating.
Compatibility. Outdoor seating shall be compatible in color and style with the exterior of the
building and shall not contain or have affixed to it any sign, lettering, or advertising of any kind,
except for menu boards and small, labels permanently affixed to the furnishings in order to identify
ownership for security purposes.
Storage. Outdoor seating and furnishings shall be stored in a secure manner when not in use.
Hours of operation. Excluding outdoor seating located in inner courtyards, outdoor seating service
shall comply with the hours of operation noted below:
a. Sunday through Thursday. All sales and service of food and beverages are
prohibited between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. Friday through Saturday. All sales and service of food and beverages are
prohibited between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Please see attached Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code for complete details of this
ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Section 104, Outdoor Seating, originally adopted per Ordinance 5, 1998, on May 7, 1998, and
amended on July 20, 2000, by adoption of the new City Code, sets out the requirements for outdoor
seating. The Hibiscus restaurant application meets all these conditions, requirements, and
circumstances. Therefore, the addition of outdoor seating is appropriate, provided Condition No.
1 of the original development order (Ordinance 11, 1995) is amended by City Council to allow
outdoor seating.
Staff recommends approval of Petition MISC- 00 -02, Hibiscus Restaurant Outdoor Seating, with
conditions as noted below, based on the Code requirements in Section 104, of the City's Code of
Ordinances.
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
Conditions ofApproval
1. Condition No. 1 of Ordinance 11, 1995, shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with the
following condition:
Outdoor seating and /or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel docked
on the Intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the patio or in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. (Code Enforcement)
2. All conditions of Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code shall be applicable.
(Code Enforcement)
3. All existing ordinances and resolutions concerning this project shall remain in full force
and effect unless specifically modified herein. (Development Compliance)
4. The outdoor seating areas shall be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance
regulations. (Code Enforcement)
5. Nine 30" planter pots with eight -foot high ficus trees shall be installed permanently as a
screen on deck and walkway according to site plan dated August 16, 2000. (City Forester)
6. This approval shall remain valid so long as the primary use remains a food service
establishment. At such time as the use changes, a new approval shall be required. (Code
Enforcement)
The petitioner's agent has suggested the following revised language for Condition No. 1:
"Outdoor seating and/or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel docked
on the Intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the patio or in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. This approval may be revoked, if complaints
from adjacent property owners to the effect that the noise from the outdoor seating and /or
service is interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property(s) are
determined to be valid. Prior to such determination, the restaurant operator shall be given
an opportunity to respond to the complaints. A review of the impacts of the outdoor seating
and /or service operations shall be made by the City in May of 2001." (Code Enforcement,
Planning and Zoning)
6
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 25, 2000
Petition: MISC -00 -02
Staff is not endorsing the above language because we feel that it would be difficult.to enforce.
Should Council choose to adopt this revised language, the City Attorney would recommend
the following changes:
"Outdoor seating and/or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel
docked on the Intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the
patio or in the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. This approval may be revoked by
the City Council in its absolute discretion and without recourse by the petitioner, its
applicants, successors, or assigns based on, if complaints from adjacent property
owners to the c"�` that the noise rom the outdoor seating and /or service is interfering
rr��� f g g
with the : casonab!c use and enjoyment of their property(ies) arc to be :ah *zL
:a:ic :, The City Council shall grant the restaurant operator shall
be —."-ran opportunity to respond to the complaints prior to revoking such approval. A
review of the impacts of the outdoor seating and /or service operations shall be made by
the City in May of 2001. " (Code Enforcement, Planning and Zoning)
Three different versions of Ordinance 21, 2000, are attached which show the language of
Condition No. 1 as proposed by staff, the agent, and the City Attorney's revision to the agent's
language, should Council choose to adopt the revised language.
Attachments
gtshortMISC0002.stfcc public hearing 2°d reading
jh
10
September 25, 2000
StaWs proposed language
ORDINANCE 21, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "HIBISCUS RESTAURANT"
(FORMERLY BRIDGE CENTER PUD) LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PGA BOULEVARD AND
ELLISON WILSON ROAD, AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE 11, 1995, TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING
AND SERVICE ADJACENT TO THE WATERWAY;
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens originally approved "The
Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development by Ordinance 12, 1986, which approval was subsequently
amended by Ordinance 27, 1991;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the construction of a 395 -seat restaurant located at
the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road by adoption of Ordinance 11,
1995; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from PGA - Summers Associates to amend
Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998, by repealing and
replacing Condition No. 1 in Section 3 of Ordinance 11, 1995 to allow outdoor seating and service;
and
WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves
an amendment to Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998,
to allow outdoor seating and service at the Hibiscus Restaurant.
SECTION 2. Said amendment to the Planned Unit Development is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions that shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors and/or
assigns:
Ordinance 21, 2000
September 25, 2000
Page 2 of 3
1. Condition No. 1 of Ordinance 11, 1995, shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with
the following condition:
Outdoor seating and /or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel docked
on the intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the patio or in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. (Code Enforcement) ,
2. All conditions of Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code shall be applicable.
(Code Enforcement)
3. All existing ordinances and resolutions concerning this project shall remain in full force
and effect unless specifically modified herein. (Development Compliance)
4. The outdoor seating areas shall be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance
regulations. (Code Enforcement)
5. Nine 30" planter pots with eight -foot high ficus trees shall be installed permanently as a
screen on deck and walkway according to site plan dated August 16, 2000. (City Forester)
6. This approval shall remain valid so long as the primary use remains a food service
establishment. At such time as the use changes, a new approval shall be required. (Code
Enforcement)
SECTION 3. This outdoor seating amendment shall be in compliance with the following
plan on file with the City's Growth Management Department. This plan shall supercede the plan
with the same title approved by Ordinance 11, 1995 (all other plans remain unchanged):
1. August 16, 2000, Site Plan for The Hibiscus Restaurant, by Michael Redd &
Associates, P.A., 1 sheet.
SECTION 4. This approval expressly incorporates and is contingent upon representations
made by the applicant or applicant's agents at all workshops or public hearings pertaining to this
project.
SECTION 5. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance
is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted that are in conflict
herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Ordinance 21, 2000
September 25, 2000
Page 3 of 3
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon date of adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS 29' DAY OF JUNE, 2000.
PLACE ON SECOND READING THIS 50i DAY OF OCTOBER, 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD
BY:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
g:short range: M1SC0002.ord No 1 god reading
jh
COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY:
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
September 25, 2000
Agent's Language
ORDINANCE 21, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "HIBISCUS RESTAURANT"
(FORMERLY BRIDGE CENTER PUD) LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PGA BOULEVARD AND
ELLISON WILSON ROAD, AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE 11, 1995, TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING
AND SERVICE ADJACENT TO THE WATERWAY;
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens originally approved "The
Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development by Ordinance 12, 1986, which approval was subsequently
amended by Ordinance 27, 1991;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the construction of a 395 -seat restaurant located at
the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road by adoption of Ordinance 11,
1995; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from PGA - Summers Associates to amend
Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998, by repealing and
replacing Condition No. 1 in Section 3 of Ordinance 11, 1995 to allow outdoor seating and service;
and
WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves
an amendment to Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998,
to allow outdoor seating and service at the Hibiscus Restaurant.
SECTION 2. Said amendment to the Planned Unit Development is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions that shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors and/or
assigns:
Ordinance 21, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 2 of 4
1. Condition No. 1 of Ordinance 11, 1995, shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with
the following condition:
Outdoor seating and /or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel docked
on the Intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the patio or in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. This approval may be revoked, if complaints
from adjacent property owners to the effect that the noise from the outdoor seating and /or
service is interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property(s) are
determined to be valid. Prior to such determination, the restaurant operator shall be given
an opportunity to respond to the complaints. A review of the impacts of the outdoor seating
and /or service operations shall be made by the City in May of 2001. (Code Enforcement,
Planning and Zoning)
2. All conditions of Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code shall be applicable.
(Code Enforcement)
3. All existing ordinances and resolutions concerning this project shall remain in full force
and effect unless specifically modified herein. (Development Compliance)
4. The outdoor seating areas shall be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance
regulations. (Code Enforcement)
5. Nine 30" planter pots with eight -foot high ficus trees shall be installed permanently as a
screen on deck and walkway according to site plan dated August 16, 2000. (City Forester)
6. This approval shall remain valid so long as the primary use remains a food service
establishment. At such time as the use changes, a new approval shall be required. (Code
Enforcement)
SECTION 3. This outdoor seating amendment shall be in compliance with the following
plan on file with the City's Growth Management Department. This plan shall supercede the plan
with the same title approved by Ordinance 11, 1995 (all other plans remain unchanged):
August 16, 2000, Site Plan for The Hibiscus Restaurant, by Michael Redd &
Associates, P.A., 1 sheet.
SECTION 4. This approval expressly incorporates and is contingent upon representations
made by the applicant or applicant's agents at all workshops or public hearings pertaining to this
project.
Ordinance 21, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 3 of 4
SECTION 5. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance
is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted that are in conflict
herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon date of adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS 29`s DAY OF JUNE, 2000.
PLACE ON SECOND READING THIS 5t' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH RUSSO
COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD
mm
CITY CLERK
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY:
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
g:short range: MISC0002.ord god reading
jh
Ordinance 21, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 4 of 4
September 25, 2000
City Attorney's Language
ORDINANCE 21, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "HIBISCUS RESTAURANT"
(FORMERLY BRIDGE CENTER PUD) LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PGA BOULEVARD AND
ELLISON WILSON ROAD, AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE 11, 1995, TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING
AND SERVICE ADJACENT TO THE WATERWAY;
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens originally approved "The
Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development by Ordinance 12, 1986, which approval was subsequently
amended by Ordinance 27, 1991;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the construction of a 395 -seat restaurant located at
the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road by adoption of Ordinance 11,
1995; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from PGA - Summers Associates to amend
Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998, by repealing and
replacing Condition No. 1 in Section 3 of Ordinance 11, 1995 to allow outdoor seating and service;
and
WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves
an amendment to Ordinance 11, 1995, as amended by Ordinance 37, 1997, and Ordinance 19, 1998,
to allow outdoor seating and service at the Hibiscus Restaurant.
SECTION 2. Said amendment to the Planned Unit Development is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions that shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors and/or
assigns:
Ordinance 21, 2000
September 25, 2000
Page 2 of 4
1. Condition No. 1 of Ordinance 11, 1995, shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with
the following condition:
Outdoor seating and /or service with 52 seats at 13 tables shall be allowed only on the
westernmost patio adjacent to the waterway, but shall not be allowed for any vessel docked
on the Intracoastal waterway. This provision shall not preclude service on the patio or in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat. This approval may be revoked by the City
Council in its absolute discretion and without recourse by the petitioner, its applicants,
successors, or assigns based on complaints from adjacent property owners that the noise
from the outdoor seating and /or service is interfering with the use and enjoyment of their
property(ies). The City Council shall grant the restaurant operator an opportunity to
respond to the complaintsprior to revoking such approval. A review of the impacts of the
outdoor seating and/or service operations shall be made by the City in May of 2001. (Code
Enforcement, Planning and Zoning)
2. All conditions of Section 104, Outdoor Seating, of the City Code shall be applicable.
(Code Enforcement)
3. All existing ordinances and resolutions concerning this project shall remain in full force
and effect unless specifically modified herein. (Development Compliance)
4. The outdoor seating areas shall be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance
regulations. (Code Enforcement)
5. Nine 30" planter pots with eight -foot high ficus trees shall be installed permanently as a
screen on deck and walkway according to site plan dated August 16, 2000. (City Forester)
6. This approval shall remain valid so long as the primary use remains a food service
establishment. At such time as the use changes, a new approval shall be required. (Code
Enforcement)
SECTION 3. This outdoor seating amendment shall be in compliance with the following
plan on file with the City's Growth Management Department. This plan shall supercede the plan
with the same title approved by Ordinance 11, 1995 (all other plans remain unchanged):
1. August 16, 2000, Site Plan for The Hibiscus Restaurant, by Michael Redd &
Associates, P.A., 1 sheet.
SECTION 4. This approval expressly incorporates and is contingent upon representations
made by the applicant or applicant's agents at all workshops or public hearings pertaining to this
project.
Ordinance 21, 2000
September 25, 2000
Page 3 of 4
SECTION 5. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance
is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not
affect the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted that are in conflict
herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon date of adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS 29`h DAY OF JUNE, 2000.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS 215L DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD
r.",
CITY CLERK
COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY:
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
g:short range: MISC0002.ord tad rdng a clean
jh
Ordinance 21, 2000
September 25, 2000
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE 11, 1995
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A RESTAURANT BUILDING ON A 2.946 ACRE SITE
LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
PGA BOULEVARD AND ELLISON WILSON ROAD ;PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a
Planned Unit Development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens hereby approves a Planned Unit Development for the
construction of a restaurant building on a 2.946 acre site located
generally at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison
Wilson Road (site of the former "Bridge Center" PUD).
SECTION 2. The development of the Planned Unit Development
shall be in accordance with the plans on file with the
City's Plarining and Zoning Department. However, the approval of
the plans herein shall not be construed to be an approval of the
signage.
1. August 20, 1995 Site Plan of 2.639 -acre Parcel by Team Plan,
Inc. Sheet 1 of 7.
2. August 20, 1995 Site Plan of 0.307 -acre Parcel by Team Plan,
Inc. Sheet 2 of 7.
3. August 20, 1995 Landscape Plan of 2.639 - acre Parcel by Team
Plan, Inc. Sheet 3 of 7.
4. August 20, 1995 Landscape Plan of 0.307 -acre Parcel by Team
Plan, Inc. Sheet 4 of 7.
5. August 20, 1995 Irrigation /Lighting Plan of 2.639 -acre Parcel
by Team Plan, Inc. Sheet 5 of 7.
6. August 20, 1995 Irrigation/ Lighting Plan of 0.307 -acre Parcel
by Team Plan, Inc. Sheet 6 of 7.
7. July 21, 1995 Details Plan by Team Plan, Inc. Sheet 7 of 7.
8. August 23, 1995 First and Second Floor Plans by Florida Design
Professionals, Inc. Sheet A2.
9. August 23, 1995 Exterior Elevations Plan by Florida Design
Professionals, Inc. Sheet A3.
SECTION 3.. The following conditions shall also apply:
r--� 1. Outdoor seating and /or service shall not be allowed on or
adjacent to the-waterway, which shall include_.seating,
and /or service on'any vessel docked on the intracoastal
waterway. This provision shall not preclude service'in
the restaurant to patrons arriving by boat.
2. No more than 316:'seats shall be allowed on the first
floor and -75;, seats allowed on the second floor of-the,
restaurant, plus or minus 15 seats between floors.
3. The first floor and second floor dining areas shall
operate in the capacity as one restaurant.
4. Outdoor seating, assembly or food service shall not be
allowed on any of the balconies of the restaurant
building. However, this provision does not preclude
access to the west balcony from the office for limited
periods of time not to exceed one half hour and emergency
purposes.
5. The restaurant's kitchen and garbage enclosure exhaust
system shall be filtered. Pollution and odor generated
from the restaurant shall comply with Section 159.078
entitled "Performance Standards", Subsections (B)
entitled "Odor" and (F) entitled, "Smoke ", of the City's
Land Development Regulations.
6. The restaurant shall comply with the parking requirements
as set forth in Section 159.110(F) entitled, "Nil -her of
Parking Spaces Required ", of the city's Land Development
Regulations. If the operations of the restaurant has.an
adverse impact on the off - street parking in the adjacent
residential neighborhoods, the City shall monitor the
seating and employee ratios of the restaurant to
determine compliance with said section.
0
7. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a
signed and sealed boundary survey and horizontal control
sheet shall be submitted identifying the envelopes of all
proposed buildings in proximity to the existing utility
and maintenance easements of record with written approval
from the utility companies.
8. Prior to the issuance of the first building Certificate
of Occupancy, a plat of the subject property shall be
recorded. Written approval of the Plat shall be obtained
by the utility companies prior to submission of the Plat
for Council approval.
9. Smith Drive shall be paved (to Palm Beach County
standards) from Ellison Wilson Road to the eastern
property line of the 0.307 -acre tract, completed and
open to the public prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant.
10. The improvements to Ellison Wilson Road shall be
completed and open to the public prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant.
11. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a
a permit shall be submitted to the City to enable the
City (as the applicant) to obtain a permit from the
Florida Department of Transportation for the proposed
landscaping within the 10 -foot maintenance easement
along PGA Boulevard. It shall be the property owners,
obligation to maintain the landscaping within the 10
foot maintenance easement in perpetuity.
12. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all
permits shall be submitted to the City from all
applicable regulatory agencies for the construction of
the seawall.
13. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
all permits shall be submitted to the City from all
applicable regulatory agencies to utilize the docks for
public /commercial purposes.
14. Entertainment, music or loud speakers shall not be
permitted on the outside of the building. If
entertainment occurs inside the building, all windows
and doors shall remain closed.
15. Sounds emanating from the restaurant site shall not
exceed the standards set forth in Section 159.078
entitled "Performance Standards", of the City's Code of
Ordinances, as amended.
16. All windows on the second floor office as shown on
the north elevation shall be of obscure glass or glass
block. All windows on the north elevation shall be
non - operable.
17. All roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from line
of sight view.
18. Areas that have been allowed to have vegetation or
ground cover removed pursuant to the approved site plan,
and subsequently abandoned for any reason for more than
three months, shall be seeded with a ground cover or
grass immediately upon request by the City or the City
shall have the work done at the owner's expense.
19. Construction of walls between the site and the adjacent
residential neighborhoods shall commence on or before
the commencement of construction requiring earth
moving equipment other than for the construction of the
walls of any other portion of the development.
Construction of the wall to its full height shall be
completed prior to the commencement of any site work
which generates excessive dust and noise.
20. No deliveries to the restaurant shall occur prior to
7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.
21. Project shall abide by Resolution 2, 1993, which
requires, prior to filing of the plat, the petitioner
shall post a bond for the installation of the
infrastructure including the common and project
landscaping /buffer and entry feature.
22. The applicant shall convey to Palm Beach County seven
(7) feet of additional right -of -way on the east side of
Ellison Wilson Road at the employee parking lot and shall
provide a 15 -foot corner clip view easement at the
southeast corner of the Smith Drive and Ellison Wilson
Road prior to the issuance of the first building permit
for the project.
23. All windows and doors shall be closed by 12:00 P.M.
Midnight and the hours of operation of the restaurant
shall cease operation an or before 2:00 A.M.
24. Petitioner shall return to the City Council for approval
of the sign package.
SECTION 4. The planned unit development shall be completed by
December 31, 1996.
SECTION-5. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict
herewith shall be repealed.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF , 1995.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY O 1995.
PASSED AND ADOPTED TUIS ' DAY OF 1995.
VICE MAYOR
R. RUSSO
lallw:
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
BY: v '
COUNCILM MER 'DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO r,FGAL AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
t—THROMAS J. B CITY RNBY
ORDINANCE 11, 1997
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO "THE BRIDGE CENTER" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO
CONSTRUCT A 14,945 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AND
4,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens previously approved
"The Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development by Ordinance 12, 1986, which approval was .
subsequently amended by Ordinance 27, 1991;
WHEREAS, a one -year time extension for "The Bridge Center" PUD was approved by
the City Council by Resolution 85, 1992 and an additional one year time extension was approved
by the City Council by Resolution 18, 1994;
expire;
WHEREAS, the approval of "The Bridge Center" PUD, as amended and extended, did
WHEREAS, the "Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development was approved by the City
Council by Ordinance 11, 1995;
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for a two year time extension to construct a
14,945 square foot restaurant and 4,000 square feet of office space;
WHEREAS the City's Planning and Zoning staff has reviewed the petition and
recommends approval for a time extension; and
WHEREAS, the City council has determined that the proposed petition to amend the
Planned Unit Development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE 1l. 1997
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens hereby approves a
time extension for two years for the development of "The Bridge Center" Planned Unit
Development on the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and. Ellison Wilson Road and the
southeast comer of Ellison Wilson Road and Smith Drive.
SECTION 2. This approval is based upon the petitioner's compliance with the following
conditions of approval:
1. All conditions of the Development Order and the Site Plan Approval shall
continue as amended, with this time extension approval.
2. Employees shall be required to park in the lot across the street.
3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a northbound left turn lane
on Ellison Wilson Road leading into the project shall be constructed. - - .
4. All applicable impact and inspection fees shall be provided to the City prior to the
issuance of the first building permit.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS .OH- PAY OF MARCH .1997.
PLACED ON SECOND READING S /71 OF _ —AeA .& .1997.
PASSED AND THIS .j'!7-1-"AY OF 1997.
�---/yc
MAYOP49SEPH R. RUSSO
VICE MAYOR LAUREN FURTADO
LINDA MONROE
I
DAVID CLARK
I
ORDINANCE 11, 1997
PAGE 3
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO ✓
VICE MAYOR FURTADO ✓
COUNCILWOMAN MONROE ✓
COUNCILMAN JABLIN 7
COUNCILMAN CLARK V
t
ORDINANCE 37, 1997
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALNI BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA, APPROVING IN
P WI' AN AMENDMENT TO "THE BRIDGE CENTER"
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR
ELEVATION, LANDSCAPING AND BUILDING
FOOTPRINT MODIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT A 18,170 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELLISON WILSON
ROAD AND PGA BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received a petition to amend The Bridge
Center Planned (.snit Development located on 3.01 acres at the northeast corner of Ellison Wilson
Road and PGA Boulevard and the southeast corner of Ellison Wilson Road and Smith Drive;
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said petition and
determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land
l Iu Plan.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH.GARDENS, FLORIDA:
_$FCTIO'v 1.. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby
approves in hart the petition to amend "The Bridge Center" Planned Unit Development to allow
for elevation, landscaping and building footprint modifications for the construction of a 18,170
square foot restaurant.
SECTION ?. Said Planned Unit Development amendment is approved subject to the
following_ condition:
Ail conditions of the Development Order and the Site Plan Approval contained in
Ordinance 11. 1995 shall continue as amended.
SEQ-TION 3. Construction of the said amended Planned Unit Development shall be in
accordance with the following plan on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
I . Aus,ust 11, 1997 Site Plan by Robert Currie Partnership, Inc. Sheet A1.00
2. May 30, 1997 Floor Plan by Robert Currie Partnership, Inc. Sheets A2.00 and
A2.01.
+. May 19, 1997 and April 23, 1997 Elevations by Robert Currie Partnership, Inc.
Sheets A3.00 and A3.01.
4. July 25, 1997 Landscape Plan by TeamPlan, Inc. Sheets LP -1 and LP -2.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS 74 DAY OF . 1997.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS -9 DAY OF 1997.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1997
M YOwbSEPt I R. RUSSO
-�C-
t' 1) - d it
110E MAYOR LAUREN FURTADO
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
i
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILWOMAN MONROE
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
Ordinance 37. 1997
Page 2
LINDA MONROE
W K-;� %- or r .
OILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
l
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
v-
)lVMU91VM -lVIS`dOOVU N1
ml
Petition MISC -00 -02
HIBISCUS RESTAURANT PUD AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING
S.Palm C'
Len Dr.
'
an
Rodbank
'� uzanne
nd
Wisor Dr.
;•, Cove La.
'
Holman Dr.
Wheeler La.
: 4 Kathy
..._ ista
0000 Dr.
o
:.
... .
..:
.0000
..
e.: ate
0000
0000...
Do f r La.
4akbr k
..
...0.0
•..0
Dr.
•
0000
Squar .:.
PG
B Ord;
Bohn Dr.
004
-
...
pG *00
0000
0000
d'.
...
0000
0000
...
•...
0000
Sh_ y
0000
0000
00
...
.0.
..
.0.
•
00.0
.00.
0000
000
•-1
00.0
..0000.
0000
0000...
.
0000 rend
0000...
0000
`
V`
00000000
. 0000
0000. elod
...............
.
..0000.00
..........
............
..
........
............
..
0000
..............
.
.000.
....
...............
................
0000.
•••.
Carolinda
0 000.000000000000
....•.•••••.••••••.
0000
..................
0000
..................
....
...................
sk
. ... .....
lam
m
kru
T.A
Al.
W
4r S
W?
n
JY
.............
A
i4 c
m
nsom
C.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
AL-27-20M 16 04
-arid of Cooa+ey Coraatissioaers
laude Ford Leo, Chair
Jca ice. R Newell. vice Chairman
'area T Marcus
',arol A. Roberts
darn Mccatty
f;aF
Couaq Mmielsamoor
Robert vml men
July L/, cwv
The Honorable Joe Russo, Mayor
and City Council Members
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410.4698
Dear Mayor Russo & Council Members:
lljl �
�..tr
On August 17, 2000 you will be discussing an amendment to the Hibiscus
Restaurant Planned Unit Development to allow outdoor seating. As the District 1
County Commissioner, representing the unincorporated residential neighborhood
directly to the north of the restaurant, I would like to voice my concern to the
proposed amendment.
When this site was approved fora restaurant in 1995, several residents expressed
their opposition to the outdoor seating because of noise. The Gardens' City Council
specifically prohibited outdoor seating in response to their concerns. While the
Hibiscus Restaurant is not a "sports bar,' the addition of outdoor seating will still
generate noise, not only from the patrons at the tables, but every time the doors to
the restaurant are opened. While the conditions pertaining to noise will remain in
effect, it will be hard to enforce and noise will be emanate from inside the restaurant
when there is entertainment. The residents adjacent to the outdoor seating will lose
their privacy and the noise will be an infringement on their quality of life.
Establishments with outdoor seating become a code enforcement problem
when they are directly adjacent to residential uses for both the city and the county.
You may recall the problems the city and county had with waterway Cafe. Eventually,
the restaurant was forced to purchase the homes because of so many complaints and
It is very difficult to coordinate the code enforcement since these were
unincorporated residents also.
hope that you will give my concerns your serious consideration.
Sin
KTWPW
Mar US
V mi
V mssioner
"An Equal oWorturtiity Affirmative Action Employer"'
P.O Box 1989 West Palm Beady Florida &UM- -1989 (561) 3W2= Fare (567) 355.3990
F'Wfid- NeXdedwr- www.00 palmfieaddLus
GERALD Z. ROSSOW
Lawyer
4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 700
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
TeL +561.630.0335 Fax +561.624.3709
May 10, 2000
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Petition MISC -00 -02
hibiscus Restaurant
Attn: Chairman and members
Ladies and Gentlemen:
!'_+! 2 .
I represent parties who own property within 500 feet of the PUD for which an
amendment has been proposed to permit outdoor seating. We offer the following
comments in opposition to the amendment.
Ordinance 11, 1995, applicable and in force as to this restaurant, -was approved by the
City Council on a 3 -2 vote after a lengthy approval process and often spirited debate by
adjacent property owners in opposition to its passage. Despite approval for building a
restaurant next to residential property, the City Council was clear in their intention to
protect the property rights of the restaurant's neighbors by including in Section 3 of
Ordinance 11 some 23 conditions, among them nine conditions on behalf of adjacent
property owners that prohibited outside eating and drinking, outside entertainment and
closed windows and doors for entertainment within the premises as well as other matters
(see conditions 1, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 23). These conditions were carried forth in
subsequent ordinances and were applicable to original owner and are applicable to
successors, including PGA - Summers Associates.
The primary issue here is the right to enjoyment of property by nearby property owners
without infringement and not outdoor food service. The existing conditions applicable to
the PUD make it so.
Applicant bases its claim to outside seating (eating, drinking and entertainment) on
Sections 118 -311 of an ordinance relating to outdoor seating enacted years after passage
of Ordinance 11, 1995. Petitioner seeks 52 outdoor seats through a general amendment
to a development order (ordinance) that includes the 23 conditions cited above.
This PUD is not subordinate to the more recent ordinance or in any way affected by it
because the restrictive conditions of the PUD were already in place and the purpose of
the conditions can be distinguished from the general ordinance.
Applicant has not met procedural requirements for amendment of the PUD development
order as: (1) the number and range of conditions were enacted to protect adjoining
property owners; (2) those conditions are in force today as to this particular PUD; and (3)
those conditions are not negated by subsequent passage of a general outdoor seating
ordinance.
Procedurally, applicant must first propose amendments to strike or delete those specific
conditions from a standing ordinance that prohibits outdoor seating. Any resolution must
bear in mind the City Councils' desire to protect the right of nearby owners to enjoy their
property. They occupied property there for many years before a restaurant PJJD was
even contemplated.
PGA-Summers Associates was fully aware of the 23 conditions applicable to its PUD
before they bought the property. Legal counsel for the owner is the same legal counsel
retained by previous owners and other previously proposed occupants. The present
owner has occupied the property for quite some time. These facts lead to the question:
why now? Perhaps the owner intends to sell, assign or transfer the property to another
party who demands outside seating as a condition of sale.
It is reasonable to ask that the City of Palm Beach Gardens establish a way to avoid
periodic intrusion into the lives of nearby property owners. Many have resisted
unreasonable development demands of PUD owners for years. The answer remains
clear. Simply stay with the present PUD conditions as written.
truly yours,
;; ,000
i
Gerald Z. Rossow
Sec. 104. Outdoor seating.
(a) Applicability. Outdoor seating shall be permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant, business, or
institution serving food or beverages in an enclosed area, subject to the standards listed below.
(1) Access. The outdoor seating area is adjacent to, and has direct access through a doorway
to that portion of the business or institution which is enclosed.
(2) Location. The outdoor seating is located directly adjacent to the restaurant or food service
establishment and is owned or leased for this purpose.
(3) General circulation. The outdoor seating can be accommodated without impeding the
access of the general public to one or more of the following:
a. the enclosed portion of the restaurant or food service establishment;
b. any other use located within the same building or structure; or
C. any common elements shared by the restaurant or food service establishment and
any other users of the same building or structure.
(4) Safety. Outdoor seating shall comply with all building, fire, and safety code requirements.
(5) Parking. Parking for areas utilized for outdoor seating shall be calculated and provided as
required in division VIII of article V. Outdoor seating shall not be established if required
parking cannot be provided onsite or if a nonconformity is created.
(6) Benches. Businesses, institutions, or uses that do not serve food or beverages, excluding
vending machines, may be approved for outdoor bench seating.
(b) Review. Outdoor seating may be included as an element of an overall application for development
order approval, or as an amendment to an existing development order. In addition to any other
requirements contained herein, each application for approval of outdoor seating shall include the
information listed below.
(1) Affected properties. A list of the names and addresses of all occupants of the building for
which the outdoor seating is proposed, and a list of each tenant and property owner within
500 feet of the property for which the seating is proposed.
(2) Notice. An affidavit which certifies a notice was mailed to each affected property, as
defined in this section, which states an application for outdoor seating has been made to the
city. The affidavit shall be provided in a form acceptable to the city attorney.
(3) Site plan. A site plan, at a scale acceptable to the city, which indicates the following:
a. the building for which the outdoor seating is proposed;
b. the location of the restaurant or food service establishment;
C. the proposed location of the outdoor seating, including any fencing, screening or
materials to separate the seating area: and
d. the location of any sidewalks or other pedestrian walkways or passageways adjacent
to or affected by the proposed outdoor seating; and the location of all existing or
additional parking to be provided for the seating.
(4) Consent. A copy of the written consent of the individual, corporation, or other entity that
owns the property upon which the outdoor seating will be located.
(5) Indemnification. The applicant shall provide, in a form acceptable to the city attorney,
indemnification of the city for any liability for personal injury and property damage due to the
approval or existence of the outdoor seating.
(6) Renderings. Photographs, renderings, elevations, samples, and other materials as may be
required by the city which illustrate the following: the style and color or all furnishings and
menu boards, and the color, style, and materials fencing, screening, or otherwise separating
the outdoor seating.
(c) Minimum standards. Outdoor seating shall, at a minimum, comply with the standard listed
below.
(1) Walkways. Outdoor seating shall be arranged, when in use, in a manner that provides a
pedestrian walkway of not less than six feet in width adjacent -to each table.
(2) Multiple tenants. Outdoor seating located on a pedestrian walkway which provides
access to more than one occupant of a building shall provide an unobstructed passageway
of at least six feet in width. The unobstructed passageway shall be located adjacent to, but
not through, the outdoor seating area.
(3) Location. Outdoor seating shall be located only along the frontage of the affected
restaurant or food service establishment, and shall not be located in front of or adjacent to
any other user or tenant.
(4) Prohibited location. Outdoor seating shall not be located within any area designated for
parking.
(5) Fencing or screening. Unless located within an inner court, outdoor seating shall
provide fencing or screening as a means to physically and visually separate such use from any
adjacent public passageway or walkway. Fencing and screening shall be at least three feet in
height, and may include planter boxes or other dividers. Fencing and screening shall not be
provided through the use of tables, chairs, or other seating.
(6) Compatibility. Outdoor seating, including fencing and screening materials, shall be
compatible in color and style with the exterior of the building. Signs, lettering, or
advertising, excluding permitted menu board, shall not be attached to outdoor seating.
Small labels may be permanently attached to the furnishing to identify ownership for security
purposes.
(7) Storage. Outdoor seating and furnishings shall be stored in a secure manner when not in
use.
(8) Hours of operation. Excluding outdoor seating located in inner courtyards, outdoor
seating service shall comply with the hours of operation noted below.
a. Sunday through Thursday. Al sales and service of food and beverages are
prohibited between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m.
b. Friday through Saturday. All sales and service of food and beverages are
prohibited between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
.r - � �+C [ -y_f�c +^r -+�t �q.: ....- f �"�'iw` -yam • ,�, -.*rv; f !`r< :i ` } S .- :y
+�: � ' ..�- h.�i.�x.,Y•�s�.. ,. t ,•SGIX4'li3x f
yr. --wa N i t" R+.>,t�• � _ � '�`' � w .�� �,r _ ^
-r
1 � �. � � i Y`•._ � ..iii r�°E��{o'` !ti'
,, ;:�z,. �- $ > �h • 3 xP� Lea�.,
� •„ L".rc2.a(✓7 w ir„,•va.d \ �-%. '! 1 y{ �,,.. fi :d. '�+•L•y ,�-�- '''C.
w 7ri i L(
t. u �. { ��' ` °"' ��� t '< r'5 '" � i.-. `' � �t f os: i S .•,, -r1 l L Y` x d
J � s•,
rl
-• tea, r� - •3"��'S'.- ti` is
- i � � f «ate ,`, • • • -y,
. 1 .. A.� '• �'� Cam•. L 211 _
iw
87
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: 09/26/00
Meeting Date: 10/05/00
Subject/Agenda Item
Ordinance 27, 2000, Providing Authorization to Create a Capital Assessment Area.
Recommendation /Motion:
Consider a motion to adopt Ordinance 27, 2000 on second reading.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 0
Council Action:
City Attorney
ey�
Finance
Total)
[ ]Approved
$ 0
[ ] Approved w/
Finance
Current FY
conditions
[ ] Denied
ACM
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other
Date:
[ ]Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Not Required
[ ] Other
Memorandum
Submitted by:
Kent R. Olson Kb
Department Director
Affected parties
[ I Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager I
[ X ] Not required
BACKGROUND: Approved Ordinance 27, 2000 on first reading on September 7, 2000. See
attached memorandum.
�3j��yyy�ry
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 26, 2000
APPROVED: Len Rubin, Acting Interim City Manager
FROM: Kent R. Olson, Finance Director 11 \0
SUBJECT: Ordinance 27, 2000 — Capital Project Assessment
BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Beach Gardens hired Government Services Group and Nabors,
Giblin & Nickerson at the May 18, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting to devise a plan
for funding the PGA Flyover enhancements. The consultants recommended and the
Council agreed to move forward with a Special Assessment Area overlayed with a Tax
Increment Financing District. Ordinance 27, 2000 begins the process of implementing
this funding mechanism. Ordinance 27, 2000 was approved on first reading at the City
Council's September 7 Regular meeting.
DISCUSSION
The passage of Ordinance 27, 2000 provides the City with the legal authorization
to create special assessment areas utilizing the City's home rule powers. The Ordinance
outlines the method of collection and provides for flexibility to assess and finance a
proposed special assessment. The Ordinance was prepared by George Nickerson of
Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, one of the foremost experts in the State regarding special
assessment financing. Resolution 86, 2000, also on the October 5 agenda, provides for
the specific details for the PGA Flyover special assessment area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 27, 2000 on second reading, providing
for a capital project assessment program.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
CAPITAL PROJECT
ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PAGE
ARTICLE I
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.01. DEFINITIONS . .............. ............................... 2
SECTION 1.02. INTERPRETATION; TITLE AND CITATION . ................... 4
SECTION 1.03. GENERAL FINDINGS ......... ............................... 4
ARTICLE II
ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 2.01.
CREATION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS . ........................ 5
SECTION 2.02.
ASSESSMENTS .............. ............................... 5
SECTION 2.03.
INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION . ........................ 5
SECTION 2.04.
ASSESSMENT ROLL . ........ ............................... 6
SECTION 2.05.
NOTICE BY PUBLICATION . .. ............................... 6
SECTION 2.06.
NOTICE BY MAIL . .......... ............................... 6
SECTION 2.07.
ADOPTION OF FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ............. 7
SECTION 2.08.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ........................ 7
SECTION 2.09.
EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS ..................... 7
SECTION 2.10.
LIEN OF ASSESSMENTS ...... ............................... 8
SECTION 2.11.
REVISIONS TO ASSESSMENTS ............................... 8
SECTION 2.12.
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES ............................. 8
SECTION 2.13.
CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS . ................. 9
ARTICLE III
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 3.01. METHOD OF COLLECTION . .. ............................... 9
SECTION 3.02. ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF COLLECTION ................... 10
SECTION 3.03. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT . ..................... I 1
SECTION 3.04. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY .. ............................... 1 I
i
ARTICLE IV
ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS
SECTION 4.01.
GENERAL AUTHORITY . .... ...............................
12
SECTION 4.02.
TERMS OF THE OBLIGATIONS ..............................
12
SECTION 4.03.
VARIABLE RATE OBLIGATIONS . ...........................
12
SECTION 4.04.
TEMPORARY OBLIGATIONS . ..............................
12
SECTION 4.05.
ANTICIPATION NOTES ...... ...............................
13
SECTION 4.06.
TAXING POWER NOT PLEDGED . ...........................
13
SECTION 4.07.
TRUST FUNDS . ............ ...............................
13
SECTION 4.08.
REMEDIES OF HOLDERS .... ...............................
13
SECTION 4.09.
REFUNDING OBLIGATIONS . ...............................
13
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION
5.01.
ALTERNATIVE METHOD .... ...............................
14
SECTION
5.02
CODIFICATION . ........... ...............................
14
SECTION
5.03.
SEVERABILITY ............ ................:..............
14
SECTION
5.04.
CONFLICTS ............... ...............................
14
SECTION
5.05
EFFECTIVE DATE . ......... ...............................
15
u
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
ORDINANCE NO. 27, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, RELATING TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDING A SPECIAL BENEFIT TO
LOCAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS
AND FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR TITLE AND CITATION;
PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS;
AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE COST OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDING A SPECIAL BENEFIT TO
LOCAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY; ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES FOR NOTICE AND ADOPTION OF
ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS
AND OMISSIONS; PROVIDING THAT ASSESSMENTS
CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON ASSESSED PROPERTY UPON
ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS; ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES AND METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR VARIOUS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS
OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS; PROVIDING THAT SUCH
OBLIGATIONS WILL NOT CREATE A GENERAL DEBT OR
OBLIGATION OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
ARTICLE I
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.01. DEFINITIONS. When used in this Ordinance, the following terms
shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
"Annual Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Section 2.08 hereof,
approving an Assessment Roll for a specific Fiscal Year.
"Assessment" means a special assessment imposed by the City pursuant to this Ordinance
to fund the Project Cost of Local Improvements.
"Assessment Area" means any of the areas created by resolution of the Council pursuant
to Section 2.01 hereof, that specially benefit from a Local Improvement.
"Assessment Roll" means the special assessment roll relating to Local Improvements,
approved by a Final Assessment Resolution pursuant to Section 2.07 hereof or an Annual
Assessment Resolution pursuant to Section 2.08 hereof.
"Assessment Unit" means the unit or criteria utilized to determine the Assessment for each
parcel of property, as set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution. "Assessment Units" may
include, by way of example only and not limitation, one or a combination of the following: front
footage, platted lots or parcels of record, land area, improvement area, equivalent residential
connections, permitted land use, trip generation rates, rights to future trip generation capacity under
applicable concurrency management regulations, property value or any other physical characteristic
or reasonably expected use of the property that is related to the Local Improvement to be funded
from proceeds of the Assessment.
"Capital Cost" means all or any portion of the expenses that are properly attributable to the
acquisition, design, construction, installation, reconstruction, renewal or replacement (including
demolition, environmental mitigation and relocation) of Local Improvements and imposition of the
related Assessments under generally accepted accounting principles; and including reimbursement
to the City for any funds advanced for Capital Cost and interest on any interfund or intrafund loan
for such purposes.
"City" means the City of Palm Beach Gardens, a municipal corporation duly organized and
validly existing under the laws of the State of Florida.
"City Clerk" shall mean the official custodian of all City records and papers of an official
character, or such person's designee.
"City Council" means the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
2
"City Manager" means the City's Manager, or such person's designee.
.'Director of Finance" means the Director of Finance of the City, or such person's designee.
"Final Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Section 2.07 hereof,
which shall confirm, modify or repeal the Initial Assessment Resolution and which shall be the final
proceeding for the imposition of an Assessment.
"Fiscal Year" means the period commencing on October 1 of each year and continuing
through the next succeeding September 30, or such other period as may be prescribed by law as the
fiscal year for the City.
"Government Property" means property owned by the United States of America, the State
of Florida, a county, a special district, a municipal corporation, or any of their respective agencies
or political subdivisions.
"Initial Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Section 2.03 hereof,
which shall be the initial proceeding for the imposition of an Assessment.
"Local Improvement" means a capital improvement constructed or installed by the City for
the special benefit of a neighborhood or other local area.
"Obligations" means bonds or other evidence of indebtedness including but not limited to,
notes, commercial paper, capital leases, reimbursable advances by the City, or any other obligation
issued or incurred to finance any portion of the Project Cost of Local Improvements and secured, in
whole or in part, by proceeds of the Assessments.
"Ordinance" means this Capital Project Assessment Ordinance.
"Pledged Revenue" means, as to any series of Obligations, (A) the proceeds of such
Obligations, including investment earnings, (B) proceeds of the Assessments pledged to secure the
payment of such Obligations, and (C) any other legally available non -ad valorem revenue pledged,
at the City Council's sole option, to secure the payment of such Obligations, as specified by the
ordinance and resolution authorizing such Obligations.
"Project Cost" means (A) the Capital Cost of a Local Improvement, (B) the Transaction
Cost associated with the Obligations which financed the Local Improvement, (C) interest accruing
on such Obligations for such period of time as the City deems appropriate, (D) the debt service
reserve fund or account, if any, established for the Obligations which financed the Local
Improvement, and (E) any other costs or expenses related thereto.
"Property Appraiser" means the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser.
3
"Resolution of Intent" means the resolution expressing the City Council's intent to collect
Assessments on the ad valorem tax bill required by the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
"Tax Collector" means the Palm Beach County Tax Collector.
"Tax Roll" means the real property ad valorem tax assessment roll maintained by the
Property Appraiser for the purpose of the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes.
"Transaction Cost" means the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the City in connection
with the issuance and sale of any series of Obligations, including but not limited to (A) rating agency
and other financing fees; (B) the fees and disbursements of bond counsel; (C) the underwriters'
discount; (D) the fees and disbursements of the City's financial advisor; (E) the costs of preparing
and printing the Obligations, the preliminary official statement, the final official statement, and all
other documentation supporting issuance of the Obligations; (F) the fees payable in respect of any
municipal bond insurance policy; (G) administrative, development, credit review, and all other fees
associated with any pooled commercial paper or similar interim financing program; and (H) any
other costs of a similar nature incurred in connection with issuance of such Obligations.
"Uniform Assessment Collection Act" means Sections 197.3632 and 197.3635, Florida
Statutes, or any successor statutes authorizing the collection of non -ad valorem assessments on the
same bill as ad valorem taxes, and any applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
SECTION 1.02. INTERPRETATION; TITLE AND CITATION.
(A) Unless the context indicates otherwise, words importing the singular number include
the plural number and vice versa; the terms "hereof," "hereby," "herein," "hereto," "hereunder" and
similar terms refer to this Ordinance; and the term "hereafter" means after, and the term "heretofore"
means before, the effective date of this Ordinance. Words of any gender include the correlative
words of the other gender, unless the sense indicates otherwise.
(B) This Ordinance, being necessary for the welfare of the inhabitants of the City,
particularly the owners of property located within the Assessment Areas, shall be liberally construed
to effect the purposes hereof.
(C) This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Capital Project Assessment
Ordinance."
SECTION 1.03. GENERAL FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and
declared that:
(A) Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and Sections
166.021 and 166.041, Florida Statutes, the City Council has governmental, corporate and proprietary
powers to enable it to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render
municipal services. The City Council is permitted to exercise any power for municipal purposes
4
except as otherwise provided by law and such powers may be exercised by the enactment of
legislation in the form of municipal ordinances.
(B) The City Council may exercise any governmental, corporate, or proprietary power for
a municipal purpose except when expressly prohibited by law, and the City Council may legislate
on any subject matter on which the Florida Legislature may act, except those subjects described in
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes. The subject matter of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), and (d) of section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes, are not relevant to the imposition of
Assessments to fund the Project Cost of Local Improvements.
(C) The Assessments imposed pursuant to this Ordinance will be imposed by the City
Council, not the Property Appraiser or Tax Collector. Any activity of the Property Appraiser or Tax
Collector under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be construed solely as ministerial.
ARTICLE II
ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 2.01. CREATION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS. The City Council is
hereby authorized to create assessment areas in accordance with the procedures set forth herein.
Each Assessment Area shall encompass only that property specially benefitted by the Local
Improvements proposed for funding from the proceeds of Assessments to be imposed therein. Either
the Initial Assessment Resolution proposing each Assessment Area or the Final Assessment
Resolution creating each Assessment Area shall include brief descriptions of the proposed Local
Improvements, a description of the property to be included within the Assessment Area, and specific
legislative findings that recognize the special benefit to be provided by each proposed Local
Improvement to property within the Assessment Area.
SECTION 2.02. ASSESSMENTS. The City Council is hereby authorized to impose
Assessments against property located within an Assessment Area to fund the Project Cost of Local
Improvements. The Assessment shall be computed in a manner that fairly and reasonably apportions
the Project Cost among the parcels of property within the Assessment Area, based upon objectively
determinable Assessment Units.
SECTION 2.03. INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION. The initial proceeding
for creation of an Assessment Area and imposition of an Assessment shall be the City Council's
adoption of an Initial Assessment Resolution. The Initial Assessment Resolution shall (A) describe
the property to be located within the proposed Assessment Area; (B) describe the Local Improvement
proposed for funding from proceeds of the Assessments; (C) estimate the Capital Cost or Project
Cost; (D) describe with particularity the proposed method of apportioning the Capital Cost or Project
Cost among the parcels of property located within the proposed Assessment Area, such that the
owner of any parcel of property can objectively determine the number of Assessment Units and the
amount of the Assessment; (E) describe the provisions, if any, for acceleration and prepayment of
5
the Assessment; (F) describe the provisions, if any, for reallocating the Assessment upon future
subdivision; and (G) include specific legislative findings that recognize the fairness provided by the
apportionment methodology.
SECTION 2.04. ASSESSMENT ROLL.
(A) The City Manager shall prepare a preliminary Assessment Roll that contains the
following information:
(1) a summary description of each parcel of property (conforming to the
description contained on the Tax Roll) subject to the Assessment;
Roll;
(2) the name of the owner of record of each parcel, as shown on the Tax
(3) the number of Assessment Units attributable to each parcel;
(4) the estimated maximum annual Assessment to become due in any
Fiscal Year for each Assessment Unit; and
(5) the estimated maximum annual Assessment to become due in any
Fiscal Year for each parcel.
(B) Copies of the Initial Assessment Resolution and the preliminary Assessment Roll
shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection. The foregoing shall not
be construed to require that the Assessment Roll be in printed form if the amount of the Assessment
for each parcel of property can be determined by use of a computer terminal available to the public.
SECTION 2.05. NOTICE BY PUBLICATION. After filing the Assessment Roll in
the office of the City Clerk, as required by Section 2.04(B) hereof, the City Clerk shall publish once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City a notice stating that at a public hearing of the
City Council will be held on a certain day and hour, not earlier than 20 calendar days from such
publication, at which hearing the City Council will receive written comments and hear testimony
from all interested persons regarding creation of the Assessment Area and adoption of the Final
Assessment Resolution. The published notice shall conform to the requirements set forth in the
Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
SECTION 2.06. NOTICE BY MAIL. In addition to the published notice required by
Section 2.05, the City Clerk shall provide notice of the proposed Assessment by first class mail to
the owner of each parcel of property subject to the Assessment. The mailed notice shall conform to
the requirements set forth in the Uniform Assessment Collection Act. Notice shall be mailed at least
20 calendar days prior to the hearing to each property owner at such address as is shown on the Tax
Roll within ninety (90) days prior to the date of mailing. Notice shall be deemed mailed upon
2
delivery thereof to the possession of the U.S. Postal Service. The City Clerk may provide proof of
such notice by affidavit. Failure ofthe owner to receive such notice due to mistake or inadvertence
shall not affect the validity of the Assessment Roll nor release or discharge any obligation for the
payment of an Assessment imposed by the City Council pursuant to this Ordinance.
SECTION 2.07. ADOPTION OF FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION. At the
time named in such notice, or such time to which an adjournment or continuance may be taken, the
City Council shall receive written objections and hear testimony of interested persons and may then,
or at any subsequent meeting of the City Council, adopt the Final Assessment Resolution which shall
(A) create the Assessment Area; (B) confirm, modify or repeal the Initial Assessment Resolution
with such amendments, if any, as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council; (C) establish the
maximum amount of the Assessment for each Assessment Unit; (D) approve the Assessment Roll,
with such amendments as it deems just and right; and (E) determine the method of collection.
Following adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution but prior to the date on which the
Assessment Roll is certified for collection pursuant to Article III hereof, the City Council may obtain
a written legal opinion that the Assessments have been validly imposed from the Office of the City
Attorney, an attorney -at -law or firm of attorneys of recognized standing in matters pertaining to local
government law; provided however, that the failure to obtain such opinion shall not invalidate the
Assessments or affect the factual findings made by the City Council in connection therewith.
SECTION 2.08. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION. During its budget
adoption process and prior to September 15 of each year, the City Council shall adopt an Annual
Assessment Resolution for each Fiscal Year in which Assessments will be imposed to approve the
Assessment Roll for such Fiscal Year. The Final Assessment Resolution shall constitute the Annual
Assessment Resolution for the initial Fiscal Year. The Assessment Roll shall be prepared in
accordance with the Initial Assessment Resolution, as confirmed or amended by the Final
Assessment Resolution. If the proposed Assessment for any parcel of property exceeds the
maximum amount established in the notice provided pursuant Section 2.06 hereof or if an
Assessment is imposed against property not previously subject thereto, the City Council shall
provide notice to the owner of such property in accordance with Sections 2.05 and 2.06 hereof and
conduct a public hearing prior to adoption of the Annual Assessment Resolution. Failure to adopt
an Annual Assessment Resolution during the budget adoption process for a Fiscal Year may be cured
at any time.
SECTION 2.09. EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS. The adoption of
the Final Assessment Resolution shall be the final adjudication of the issues presented (including,
but not limited to, the apportionment methodology, the rate of assessment, the adoption of the
Assessment Roll and the levy and lien of the Assessments), unless proper steps are initiated in a
court of competent jurisdiction to secure relief within 20 days from the date of City Council adoption
of the Final Assessment Resolution. The Assessments for each Fiscal Year shall be established upon
adoption of the Annual Assessment Resolution. The Assessment Roll, as approved by the Annual
Assessment Resolution, shall be certified to the Tax Collector, or such other official as the City
Council by resolution deems appropriate.
7
SECTION 2.10. LIEN OF ASSESSMENTS.
(A) Upon adoption of the Annual Assessment Resolution for each Fiscal Year,
Assessments to be collected under the Uniform Assessment Collection Act shall constitute a lien
against assessed property equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all state, county, district or
municipal taxes and other non -ad valorem assessments. Except as otherwise provided by law, such
lien shall be superior in dignity to all other liens, titles and claims, until paid. The lien shall be
deemed perfected upon adoption by the City Council of the Annual Assessment Resolution and shall
attach to the property included on the Assessment Roll as of the prior January 1, the lien date for ad
valorem taxes.
(B) Upon adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution, Assessments to be collected
under any alternative method of collection provided in Section 3.02 hereof shall constitute a lien
against assessed property equal in rank and dignity with the liens of all state, county, district or
municipal taxes and other non -ad valorem assessments. Except as otherwise provided by law, such
lien shall be superior in dignity to all other liens, titles and claims, until paid. The lien shall be
deemed perfected on the date notice thereof is recorded in the Official Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida.
SECTION 2.11. REVISIONS TO ASSESSMENTS. If any Assessment made under
the provisions of this Ordinance is either in whole or in part annulled, vacated or set aside by the
judgment of any court, or if the City Council is satisfied that any such Assessment is so irregular or
defective that the same cannot be enforced or collected, or if the City Council has failed to include
any property on the Assessment Roll which property should have been so included, the City Council
may take all necessary steps to impose a new Assessment against any property benefitted by the
Local Improvement, following as nearly as may be practicable, the provisions of this Ordinance and
in case such second Assessment is annulled, the City Council may obtain and impose other
Assessments until a valid Assessment is imposed.
SECTION 2.12. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES. Any irregularity in the
proceedings in connection with the levy of any Assessment under the provisions of this Ordinance
shall not affect the validity of the same after the approval thereof, and any Assessment as finally
approved shall be competent and sufficient evidence that such Assessment was duly levied, that the
Assessment was duly made and adopted, and that all other proceedings adequate to such Assessment
were duly had, taken and performed as required by this Ordinance; and no variance from the
directions hereunder shall be held material unless it be clearly shown that the party objecting was
materially injured thereby. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 2.12, any party objecting
to an Assessment imposed pursuant to this Ordinance must file an objection with a court of
competent jurisdiction within the time periods prescribed herein.
SECTION 2.13. CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
(A) No act of error or omission on the part of the City Council, Director of Finance, City
Manager, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, City Clerk, or their respective deputies or employees,
shall operate to release or discharge any obligation for payment of any Assessment imposed by the
City Council under the provisions of this Ordinance.
(B) The number of Assessment Units attributed to a parcel of property may be corrected
at any time by the City Manager. Any such correction which reduces an Assessment shall be
considered valid from the date on which the Assessment was imposed and shall in no way affect the
enforcement of the Assessment imposed under the provisions of this Ordinance. Any such
correction which increases an Assessment or imposes an assessment on omitted property shall first
require notice to the affected owner in the manner described in Section 2.06 hereof, providing the
date, time and place that the City Council will consider confirming the correction and offering the
owner an opportunity to be heard.
(C) After the Assessment Roll has been delivered to the Tax Collector in accordance with
the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, any changes, modifications or corrections thereto shall be
made in accordance with the procedures applicable to errors and insolvencies for ad valorem taxes.
ARTICLE III
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 3.01. METHOD OF COLLECTION.
(A) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, Assessments (other than Assessments
imposed against Government Property) shall be collected pursuant to the Uniform Assessment
Collection Act, and the City shall comply with all applicable provisions thereof. The Resolution of
Intent required by the Uniform Assessment Collection Act may be adopted either prior to or
following the Initial Assessment Resolution; provided however, that the Resolution of Intent must
be adopted prior to January 1 (or March 1 with consent of the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector)
of the year in which the Assessments are first collected on the ad valorem tax bill. Any hearing or
notice required by this Ordinance may be combined with any other hearing or notice required by the
Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
(B) The amount of an Assessment to be collected using the uniform method pursuant to
the Uniform Assessment Collection Act for any specific tax parcel may include an amount
equivalent to the payment delinquency, delinquency fees and recording costs for a prior year's
Assessment for a comparable service, facility, or program provided, (1) the collection method used
in connection with the prior year's Assessment was not made pursuant to the Uniform Assessment
Collection Act, (2) notice is provided to the owner as required under the Uniform Assessment
Collection Act, and (3) any lien on the affected tax parcel for the prior year's Assessment is
0
supplanted and transferred to such current year's Assessment upon certification of the Assessment
Roll to the Tax Collector by the City.
SECTION 3.02. ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF COLLECTION. In lieu of using
the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, the City may elect to collect the Assessment by any other
method which is authorized by law or provided by this Section 3.02 as follows:
(A) The City shall provide Assessment bills by first class mail to the owner of each
affected parcel of property, other than Government Property. The bill or accompanying explanatory
material shall include (1) a brief explanation of the Assessment, (2) a description of the Assessment
Units used to determine the amount of the Assessment, (3) the number of Assessment Units
attributable to the parcel, (4) the total amount of the parcel's Assessment for the appropriate period,
(5) the location at which payment will be accepted, (6) the date on which the Assessment is due, and
(7) a statement that the Assessment constitutes a lien against assessed property equal in rank and
dignity with the liens of all state, county, district or municipal taxes and other non -ad valorem
assessments.
(B) A general notice of the lien resulting from imposition of the Assessments shall be
recorded in the Official Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Nothing herein shall be construed
to require that individual liens or releases be filed in the Official Records.
(C) The City shall have the right to appoint or retain an agent to foreclose and collect all
delinquent Assessments in the manner provided by law. An Assessment shall become delinquent
if it is not paid within 30 days from the due date. The City or its agent shall notify any property
owner who is delinquent in payment of an Assessment within 60 days from the date such Assessment
was due. Such notice shall state in effect that the City or its agent will initiate a foreclosure action
and cause the foreclosure of such property subject to a delinquent Assessment in a method now or
hereafter provided by law for foreclosure of mortgages on real estate, or otherwise as provided by
law.
(D) All costs, fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and title search
expenses, related to any foreclosure action as described herein shall be included in any judgment or
decree rendered therein. At the sale pursuant to decree in any such action, the City may be the
purchaser to the same extent as an individual person or corporation. The City may join in one
foreclosure action the collection of Assessments against any or all property assessed in accordance
with the provisions hereof. All delinquent property owners whose property is foreclosed shall be
liable for an apportioned amount of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City and its
agents, including reasonable attorney fees, in collection of such delinquent Assessments and any
other costs incurred by the City as a result of such delinquent Assessments including, but not limited
to, costs paid for draws on a credit facility and the same shall be collectible as a part of or in addition
to, the costs of the action.
10
(E) In lieu of foreclosure, any delinquent Assessment and the costs, fees and expenses
attributable thereto, may be collected pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act; provided
however, that (1) notice is provided to the owner in the manner required by law and this Ordinance,
and (2) any existing lien of record on the affected parcel for the delinquent Assessment is supplanted
by the lien resulting from certification of the Assessment Roll to the Tax Collector.
SECTION 3.03. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT. The City and its
agent, if any, shall maintain the duty to enforce the prompt collection of Assessments by the means
provided herein. The duties related to collection of Assessments may be enforced at the suit of any
holder of Obligations in a court of competent jurisdiction by mandamus or other appropriate
proceedings or actions.
SECTION 3.04. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
(A) If Assessments are imposed against Government Property, the City shall provide
Assessment bills by first class mail to the owner of each affected parcel of Government Property.
The bill or accompanying explanatory material shall include (1 ) a brief explanation of the
Assessment, (2) a description of the Assessment Units used to determine the amount of the
Assessment, (3) the number of Assessment Units attributable to the parcel, (4) the total amount of
the parcel's Assessment for the appropriate period, (5) the location at which payment will be
accepted, and (6) the date on which the Assessment is due.
(B) Assessments imposed against Governmental Property shall be due on the same date
as Assessments against other property within the Assessment Area and, if applicable, shall be subject
to the same discounts for early payment.
(C) An Assessment shall become delinquent if it is not paid within 30 days from the due
date. The City shall notify the owner of any Government Property that is delinquent in payment of
its Assessment within 60 days from the date such Assessment was due. Such notice shall state in
effect that the City will initiate a mandamus or other appropriate judicial action to compel payment.
(D) All costs, fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and title search
expenses, related to any mandamus or other action as described herein shall be included in any
judgment or decree rendered therein. All delinquent owners of Government Property against which
a mandamus or other appropriate action is filed shall be liable for an apportioned amount of
reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City, including reasonable attorney fees, in collection
of such delinquent Assessments and any other costs incurred by the City as a result of such
delinquent Assessments including, but not limited to, costs paid for draws on a credit facility and the
same shall be collectible as a part of or in addition to, the costs of the action.
(E) As an alternative to the foregoing, an Assessment imposed against Government
Property may be collected on the bill for any utility service provided to such Governmental Property.
The City Council may contract for such billing services with any utility provider.
11
ARTICLE IV
ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS
SECTION 4.01. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(A) Upon adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution imposing Assessments to fund
a Local Improvement or at any time thereafter, the City Council shall have the power and is hereby
authorized to provide by resolution, at one time or from time to time in series, for the issuance of
Obligations to fund the Project Cost thereof.
(B) The principal of and interest on each series of Obligations shall be payable from
Pledged Revenue. At the option of the City Council, the City may agree, by resolution, to budget
and appropriate funds to make up any deficiency in the reserve account established for the
Obligations or in the payment of the Obligations, from other non -ad valorem revenue sources. The
City Council may also provide, by resolution, for a pledge of or lien upon proceeds of such non -ad
valorem revenue sources for the benefit of the holders of the Obligations. Any such resolution shall
determine the nature and extent of any pledge of or lien upon proceeds of such non -ad valorem
revenue sources.
SECTION 4.02. TERMS OF THE OBLIGATIONS. The Obligations shall be dated,
shall bear interest at such rate or rates, shall mature at such times as may be determined by resolution
of the City Council, and may be made redeemable before maturity, at the option of the City, at such
price or prices and under such terms and conditions, all as may be fixed by the City Council. Said
Obligations shall mature not later than 40 years after their issuance. The City Council shall
determine by resolution the form of the Obligations, the manner of executing such Obligations, and
shall fix the denominations of such Obligations, the place or places of payment of the principal and
interest, which may be at any bank or trust company within or outside of the State of Florida, and
such other terms and provisions of the Obligations as it deems appropriate. The Obligations may
be sold at public or private sale for such price or prices as the City Council shall determine by
resolution. The Obligations may be delivered to any contractor to pay for construction of the Local
Improvements or may be sold in such manner and for such price as the City Council may determine
by'resolution to be for the best interests of the City.
SECTION 4.03. VARIABLE RATE OBLIGATIONS. At the option of the City
Council, Obligations may bear interest at a variable rate.
SECTION 4.04. TEMPORARY OBLIGATIONS. Prior to the preparation of
definitive Obligations of any series, the City Council may, under like restrictions, issue interim
receipts, interim certificates, or temporary Obligations, exchangeable for definitive Obligations when
such Obligations have been executed and are available for delivery. The City Council may also
provide for the replacement of any Obligations which shall become mutilated, destroyed or lost.
Obligations may be issued without any other proceedings or the happening of any other conditions
12
or things than those proceedings, conditions or things which are specifically required by this
Ordinance.
SECTION 4.05. ANTICIPATION NOTES. In anticipation of the sale of Obligations,
the City Council may, by resolution, issue notes and may renew the same from time to time. Such
notes may be paid from the proceeds of the Obligations, the proceeds of the Assessments, the
proceeds of the notes and such other legally available moneys as the City Council deems appropriate
by resolution. Said notes shall mature within five years of their issuance and shall bear interest at
a rate not exceeding the maximum rate provided by law. The City Council may issue Obligations
or renewal notes to repay the notes. The notes shall be issued in the same manner as the Obligations.
SECTION 4.06. TAXING POWER NOT PLEDGED. Obligations issued under the
provisions of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation or pledge of the
full faith and credit of the City within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of Florida, but
such Obligations shall be payable only from Pledged Revenue in the manner provided herein and by
the resolution authorizing the Obligations. The issuance of Obligations under the provisions of this
Ordinance shall not directly or indirectly obligate the City to levy or to pledge any form of ad
valorem taxation whatever therefor. No holder of any such Obligations shall ever have the right to
compel any exercise of the ad valorem taxing power on the part of the City to pay any such
Obligations or the interest thereon or to enforce payment of such Obligations or the interest thereon
against any property of the City, nor shall such Obligations constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the Pledged Revenue.
SECTION 4.07. TRUST FUNDS. The Pledged Revenue received pursuant to the
authority of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be trust funds, to be held and applied solely as
provided in this Ordinance and in the resolution authorizing issuance of the Obligations. Such
Pledged Revenue may be invested by the City, or its designee, in the manner provided by the
resolution authorizing issuance of the Obligations. The Pledged Revenue upon receipt thereof by
the City shall be subject to the lien and pledge of the holders of any Obligations or any entity other
than the City providing credit enhancement on the Obligations.
SECTION 4.08. REMEDIES OF HOLDERS. Any holder of Obligations, except to
the extent the rights herein given may be restricted by the resolution authorizing issuance of the
Obligations, may, whether at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceedings,
protect and enforce any and all rights under the laws of the State of Florida or granted hereunder or
under such resolution, and may enforce and compel the performance of all duties required by this
part, or by such resolution, to be performed by the City.
SECTION 4.09. REFUNDING OBLIGATIONS. The City may, by resolution of the
City Council, issue Obligations to refund any Obligations issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or any
other obligations of the City theretofore issued to finance the Project Cost of a Local Improvement,
and provide for the rights of the holders hereof. Such refunding Obligations may be issued in an
amount sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and
13
interest on the outstanding Obligations to be refunded. If the issuance of such refunding Obligations
results in an annual Assessment that exceeds the estimated maximum annual Assessments set forth
in the notice provided pursuant to Section 2.06 hereof, the City Council shall provide notice to the
affected property owners and conduct a public hearing in the manner required by Article II of this
Ordinance.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 5.01. ALTERNATIVE METHOD. This Ordinance shall be deemed to
provide an additional and alternative method for the imposition and collection of Assessments and
shall be regarded as supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other laws, and shall not
be regarded as in derogation of any powers now existing or which may hereafter come into existence.
SECTION 5.02 CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the City Council that the
provisions of this Ordinance shall become a part of the City's Code of Ordinances, as amended. The
provisions of this Ordinance maybe renumbered or.relettered and that the word "ordinance" maybe
changed to "section," "article" or other appropriate word to accomplish such intention.
SECTION 5.03. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. If this Ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be
inapplicable to any person, property or circumstances, such holding shall not affect its applicability
to any other person, property or circumstances.
SECTION 5.04. CONFLICTS. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances previously
adopted which are in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5.05. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in force and take
effect immediately upon adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 2000.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF , 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2000.
SIGNED:
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
ATTESTED BY:
CITY CLERK
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
L:\Kent\ Ordinances& Resolutions\ ordinance272000 .wpd(319.062)lgr -doc57
15
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM
Consideration of Approval: (SP- 00 -08) Resolution 76, 2000, a request to approve the
additional 115 parking spaces and the waivers relative to the additional parking and two
covered parking areas and associated waivers.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 76, 2000, which contains conditions of approval.
Reviewed by�
originating Dept.:
Costs: $
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney _
Growth Management
[ ] Approved
Finance NA
$
[ ] Approved w/
ACM
D �Y .) lie'd
Current FY
conditions
Human Res. NA
Other NA
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Date:
Funding Source:
[ ] Operating
[ ] Continued to:
Submitted by:
Attachments:
�� • d 7- 00
Paper:
[ ] Other
• Resolution 76, 2000
/
Site Plan (reduced)
• Landscape Plan
�
Altem. Parking
Growth Management Dire for
• Paving & Drainage
i
Approved by:
• Lighting Plan
• Canopy sketches
j City Manager
• Parking
Comparison
Tabular
[X] Not Required
• Waiver Justification
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #::
[ ] None_
[X] Not required
V,
N
"N
Alternate -AIA
.............
...........
Ifig-ragd". I,
'q
All
Drive*
MfIllmmol MEN RM m Rm 0 W
109
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
BACKGROUND
Lots 10 and 11 are part of the Northcorp PCD, which was originally approved on January
18, 1990, with the adoption of Ordinance 1, 1990. Ordinance 1, 1990 united all lands
comprising the former RCA site into one development order. The original ordinance
provided for an approval mechanism for future petitions for lots within the PCD, assigned
site - specific restrictions to certain lots, established maximum trip generations for the
development, and established time - certain conditions of approval for certain road and
drainage improvements.
On June 18, 1998, Resolution 46, 1998 was adopted for the construction of South Park
Center, a three -story office building (69,208 s.f.) in the Northcorp PCD. This original
approval encompassed a portion of Lot 10 and all of Lot 11, totaling 4.68 acres, with a total
of 258 provided parking spaces (3.7/1,000 s.f.). With the modification of parking lot entry
points and open space provided around existing trees, 10 parking spaces were lost,
bringing the provided number of parking spaces to 248. The current petition is adding the
balance of Lot 10, 1.36 acres, making the total acreage for the office complex 6.04 acres.
With the addition of 115 proposed parking spaces, the net total of parking spaces is 363.
LDR Section 180(d)(4) specifies that the petitioner shall provide additional open space for
each additional square foot of paved parking and vehicular circulation over the maximum
number of spaces allowed. The additional open space required for the 109 spaces
amounts to 1.47 acres. The petitioner has provided 1.98 acres of total open space (33%
of the site); 5% more open space than required. The excess open space has been
provided adjacent to existing trees and within the parking areas.
LAND USE & ZONING
The subject site is zoned M1 -PCD (Planned Community District); has a future land -use
designation of "I" (Industrial) and is listed as "CT" (Commerce and Trade) on the Vision
Plan. For a complete listing of adjacent uses, land -use designations and zoning districts,
see Table 1 on the following page. Table 2 on page 4 examines how consistent the
proposed project is with the City Code and future land -use designation for the site.
CONCURRENCY
The project is located within Northcorp Planned Community District. The proposed project
is in compliance with Conditions 14, 16, and 17 of Ordinance 1, 1990, pertaining to
3
110
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
drainage and traffic at the Northcorp PCD, and no new traffic will be added. Therefore this
petition is in compliance with the City's concurrency requirements.
PROCEDURE
This is a request for a major site plan amendment and expansion. The request is
reviewed by City Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, who forwards comments
and recommendations to the City Council. Because the site is greater than three (3) acres,
the request is considered a major site plan approval, an amendment to the original site
plan approval. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the request for a
major site plan amendment, and makes a recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to the City Council.
4
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
5
Subject Property
Exist. Office/Vacant
PCD
I
Planned Community
Industrial
District
North
i
Vacant
PCD
I
Planned Community
Industrial
Balance of Lot 9
District
South
PCD
1
Vacant
Planned Community
I
Lot 5
District
Industrial
West
PCD
Implant Innovation, Inc.
Planned Community
I
Industrial
District
Industrial
East
Vacant
PCD
I
Lot 12
Planned Community
Industrial
District
5
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00-08
C
R A
s Gode Requirment i?roposedPfan
Giinsis #ent?
f
Minimum Building Site
Area
6.04 Acres
Yes
15,000 s.f.
Minimum Site Width
100'
290'
Yes
Maximum Building Lot
Coverage
11.3%
Yes
40%
Maximum Bldg.
Height Limit
3 Stories
Yes
10 Stories
50' -6" Building Height
Min. Front Setback
25'
44'- 9 -3/4"
Yes
Min. Side Setback
15'
53'
Yes
Min. Side Setback Facing
a Street
NA
N/A
40'
Min. Rear Setback
15'
88' -9"
Yes
PROJECT DETAILS
Site
The existing office building at 4600 East Park Drive is located + -1200 feet south of RCA
Boulevard, % mile north of Burns Road. 1 -95 is located to the west; Alternate A.I.A. and
the Florida East Coast Railroad are located to the east of the project.
tJ
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
Site Access
The existing office complex entry is located along East Park Drive and remains in the
original location. The new parking area access is directly north of the featured entry
approximately 170' to the north of the existing building.
Landscapinq/Bufferinq
Proposed landscaping and berming along the northeast portion of East Park Drive is in
keeping with planting that is existing south of the main entry. Every effort will be made to
preserve the existing cypress trees within the expanded parking area. Existing or relocated
shade trees are shown on the landscape plan. All sabal palms will be relocated into the
eastern perimeter buffer. Please refer to the attached comment from the City Forester
regarding the conflict between light poles and trees.
Parkinq
LDR Section 118 -476 specifies that, for office use, one parking space per 300 square feet
is required. For the existing office building, the required parking is 231 spaces, which is
3.3 / 1,000 s.f. The petitioner has provided 363 spaces (5.2 / 1,000 s.f.), including 8
spaces for the disabled, which meets Florida's ADA standards.
The petitioner has requested a waiver to allow 9' instead of 10' wide parking spaces in the
balance of lot 10 to continue with what was originally approved. An alternative parking lot
plan of the 1.36 acres for the additional parking spaces has been provided by the
petitioner. The petitioner has also provided pedestrian connections through the parking
lot to the main entry as well as additional open space adjacent to the large preserved trees.
A second waiver has been requested due to the fact that the total number of parking
provided is greater than the 10% maximum allowable. The total number of parking spaces
provided is 363, an excess of 132 spaces over the required 231 spaces. 10% maximum
allowed above the required spaces is 23 spaces; therefore 109 spaces is the waiver
request. The petitioner feels that in order to attract top quality office tenants and
employers to the City an increase in parking for the office market is justifiable.
Covered Parkinq
A third waiver has been requested to allow a covered parking structure to be located 95'
from the R.O.W. The City Code requires the covered parking to be a minimum of 100'
from the R.O.W. The waiver request is for 5'. Please see attached Sec. 190 of the City
Code regarding covered parking.
7
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
The petitioner is requesting two areas for covered parking. The proposed structures are
18' in width, 54' in length and house six parking spaces each; 12 total parking spaces. The
structures consist of a metal framework with an emerald green vinyl covering. The
framework and pole structures will be painted to match the vinyl covering.
The petitioner has submitted color photos of three developments that have been previously
approved with awnings; two such properties have the same awnings as proposed for this
project. Per City staff request, the petitioner has also included an approved wind load
certificate for the proposed structure and canopy cover. See attached photocopies.
In the past, the City Council has indicated opposition to non - permanent, vinyl covered
parking structures, although the City's development regulations allow vinyl covered parking.
Staff solicited the Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion on this and will be requesting
definitive direction from the City Council on whether vinyl will be welcome in the future.
Pedestrian Connection
The petitioner has provided pedestrian connections from the proposed parking area to the
main entry of the office building.
Liqhtinq
The petitioner has submitted an additional lighting plan depicting the entire site lighting
photometrics and also a separate lighting plan for the two proposed canopy areas.
Waivers
The applicant has submitted waiver requests and justification statements (see
attachments) for the following waivers:
8
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00-08
PETITION SP -00 -08: REQUESTED WAIVERS
Required
Proposed
Waiver Requested
100' Min. Distance of Covered
South covered parking area
5' waiver
parking structures from ROW
18'x 54'; six (6) parking
(Section 190 (h))
spaces ,Located 95' from
ROW
Minimum parking stall size of
9'X 18.5' parking stall size
1' in width
10'X 18.5'
(Section 179 (L) (1) (b))
Increase in parking spaces
equal to or greater than 10%
°
57% more parking than
Note: 231 required spaces
° q p
of required parking
required (includes the 10%
plus 10 /° totals to 254 spaces
(Section 180 (d) (1))
max. allowed)
°
132 spaces is 57 /° in excess
Required Parking: 231
Provided parking: 363 spaces
of required parking; 109
spaces
I
I spaces is the waiver request
STAFF COMMENTS
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District
No adverse comments, see attached.
Planninq & Zoninq Division
The City Engineer as well as the City Forester have requested that the light poles be
shown on the site and landscape plans and to resolve any conflicts with the tree
placement.
To date, no objections have been received from the following departments and agencies:
City Legal, South Florida Water Management District, Waste Management, and Florida
Power & Light.
Z
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00 -08
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
1sT Workshop
The Planning and Zoning Commission held the first workshop on July 25, and the
determination was made that three of five members present were not in favor of the
proposed vinyl covered parking. It was also determined that the City's commercial parking
ratio should be reviewed to clarify if the minimum parking requirements should be
increased. There was discussion that the individual petitioner's needs should be reviewed
and that the City Code has been developed as a minimum not as a maximum guideline.
2nd Workshop
The Planning and Zoning Commission held the second workshop on August 8, to discuss
the staff findings of the parking ratios for similar municipalities (see attached tabular
comparison), and to discuss the vinyl covered parking. It was determined that the excess
parking would be acceptable and in the future staff should revisit the 10% rule. There were
three out of seven board members in opposition to the vinyl covered parking.
Recommendation to City Council
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a third meeting on August 22, to discuss the
requests for vinyl covered parking and additional parking. The Commission members
approved the petition and all the waivers 6 to 1, although several were not comfortable with
allowing the vinyl covered parking.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the additional 115 parking spaces request and the waivers
relative to the additional parking for Petition SP- 00 -08. Staff recommends denial of the
covered parking request due to the fact that permanence of the structure is of concern and
long term visual appearance would be undesirable.
Conditions
Staff recommends approval of petition SP -00 -08 as noted above with the following
conditions of approval:
1. Prior to the construction review process, the following items will need to be
addressed or provided to staff:
a) Proposed and existing site lighting locations need to be provided on the.
10
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 14, 2000
Petition SP -00-08
Site and Landscape Plans
b) Resolve any conflicts with the placement of proposed light poles with the
proposed tree planting within the parking lot expansion.
Waivers
• City Code Section 179 Parking Stalls (L) (1) b. Regarding Minimum Dimensions
10'x 18.5' parking stall size reduced to 9'x 18.5'
• City Code Section 180 (d)(1) Number of Parking Spaces Provided greater than 10%
57% more parking provided than required
If the City Council elects to allow the covered parking, the following additional waiver will
be needed:
• City Code Section 190 (h) pertaining to setback from R.O.W. for covered parking
100' minimum setback from R.O.W. reduced to 95' setback;
5' waiver request
grjcommoNdNsp -00- 08.cc..doc
11
September 25, 2000
RESOLUTION 76, 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF 115 PARKING SPACES AND
TWO COVERED PARKING AREAS ON A PORTION OF LOT
10 OF SOUTH PARK CENTER A/K/A 4600 EAST PARK
DRIVE WITHIN THE NORTHCORP PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application
from Urban Design Studio to approve a site plan for the construction of 115
parking spaces on a portion of lot 10 of South Park Center a /k/a 4600 East
Park Drive within the Northcorp Planned Community District, in addition to
three waivers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens originally approved the
construction of a 69,208 s.f. building, South Park Center, encompassing a
portion of Lot 10 and all of Lot 11, through the adoption of Resolution 46,
1998; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from Urban Design
Studio to amend Resolution 46, 1998, as amended by Resolution 76, 2000,
to allow 115 parking spaces and two covered parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has determined
that approval of said application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said
petition and determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and
approved said petition and determined that it is sufficient; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA;
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens
hereby approves a site plan for the construction of 115 parking spaces on
Resolution 76, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 2 of 4
1.36 acres on a portion of lot 10 and for the construction of two covered
parking areas of South Park Center a /k/a 4600 East Park Drive, generally
located % mile north of the intersection of Burns Road and East Park Drive,
within the Northcorp Planned Community Development District,
Section 2. Said amendment to the Planned Unit Development is
hereby approved subject to the following conditions that shall be the
responsibility of the applicant, its successors and /or assigns:
Prior to construction review process, the following items will need to
be addressed and /or provided to staff:
a) Proposed and existing site lighting locations must be shown
on the Site and Landscape Plans, and
b) All conflicts between the placement of proposed light poles
with the proposed tree plantings within the parking lot
expansion must be resolved.
Section 3. Construction of said development shall be in
accordance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth
Management Department:
1. June 30, 2000, Site Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet S -1
1. June 30, 2000, Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, Sheet L -2
2. July 10, 2000, Alternate Parking Plan, Urban Design Studio
3. July 10, 2000, Grading, Paving and Drainage System Plan, Sheet
3, Keshavarz & Associates, Inc.
4. August 16, 2000, Site Lighting Photometrics Plan SPh, by D.
William Beebe, Architect
Section 4. This approval expressly incorporates and is contingent
upon representations made by the applicant's agents at all workshops and
public hearings pertaining to this project.
Section 5. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens
hereby grants the following three waivers with this approval:
a. Waiver of the requirement pertaining to the dimensions of
the parking stalls to allow for 9 -foot wide spaces instead of
10 -foot wide spaces (Section 179(L)(1)b.), and;
b. Waiver of the requirement pertaining to the number of
parking spaces to allow more than 10% above the required
spaces for a total of 109 additional spaces, or a 43%
increase in parking above what is permitted by City Code.
Resolution 76, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 3 of 4
(Section 180(d)(1) and;
c. Waiver of the requirement pertaining to the covered parking
that it be setback 95 feet from the R.O.W. to allow for a
90 -foot setback (Section 190 (h)).
Section 6. All resolutions or parts of resolutions previously adopted
that are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
Section 7. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH RUSSO COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILWOMANLAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
ATTEST BY:
CAROL GOLD
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY:
LEONARD RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
GACOM MONIDMSP00 -0B.RES.DOC
NAY
Resolution 76, 2000
October 5, 2000
Page 4 of 4
ABSENT
n_
b
10 Q .
4600 EAST PARK DRIVE
,� I � � I '� �arnwc� atwosanNniwuertet
r�►yee�o�a.aaa awes
D, "L.LIAM BEEBE a' t
I
1
A
,Ii
'i
,N
p • 44* a
t
e
Im
D. "LLM BEEB9
APOWECf sw�swe�
EAST PARK DRIVE
,N
l,rii4600
I i
I
'
twnwoAM"=CP ff %8CM►�asrrew
�
►wreuoiow�oe+�erna sww
kd.�ws�va
Im
D. "LLM BEEB9
APOWECf sw�swe�
Sec. 190. Covered parking structures.
Construction and maintenance. Covered parking structures shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the specifications listed below.
(a) Maintenance. A covered parking structure shall be clean and well- maintained.
Disrepair, including but not limited to rips, tears, holes, rust, and discoloration, shall be
remedied immediately or shall be subject to code enforcement procedures as set forth in
article VII.
(b) Style. The appearance and material of covered parking shall be compatible with the
architecture, style, and color of the principal structure project.
(c) Materials.
(1) Canvas shall be a prohibited material for covered parking structures. Vinyl
coverings shall be a permitted material, provided a minimum 17 -ounce reinforced
grade or equivalent shall be used.
(2) Metal coverings shall be constructed of a solid material, such as nonferrous
aluminum, copper, or steel.
(d) Building codes. Al covered parking structures shall comply with applicable
requirements of the building code. Covered parking structures shall not be constructed or
installed without a building permit.
(e) Zoning. Covered parking structures shall comply with all zoning regulations.
Q) Landscaping. The installation of the covered parking structure shall not interfere with
the natural growth of the required landscaping.
(g) Maximum amount. Covered parking structures shall not exceed five percent (5961) of
total required parking spaces for a site.
(h) Location. Covered parking structures shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
public right -of -way and 50 feet from any residential district. Unless otherwise approved
by the city council, covered parking structures shall be located in the rear of the principal
building to which the parking structure is accessory. The location of covered parking
structures shall be subject to city approval during the development review or site plan
review process, or as an amendment to an approved site plan.
(i) Lighting. The construction of covered parking shall not impede or alter the security
lighting of the surrounding area.
125
i
,y
ft. et Fovea 1 -0`7 S Sp ddw Pp. a Fp
9H Fo ..OA P .j , . 9—
I NTwo Pp I (:wew� Fa➢w Sia
F.K FgF8w ' R.R. Pk. LAP "b— I Mir C—T—Rt m 8'FW
FOUNDCD 1925
a '
� 1 .✓fsalaC
we c "•c�.s�.
ammcan
awning
P— 9r N 061) ul.?m salPbFT.-
Fbdb WM;.0004 / MM Wl" Pob ft* h
F-rAj Ma4M Fb"35"
�1d
3
PALM BEACH COUNTY
PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
10
DESIGN - CERTIFICATION FOR BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE
i ri!S FORRNITO BE USED FORCERi7F1CATION OFALL BUILDINGS AND ST RUCiUR°_S. FORM IS NOT rZECUIRED FOR PRODUCTS.
COtA?ONENTS, AND CLADDING LISTED. LA?ErLEDOR CERTIFIED B YRECO GNIZDMODELC OOEOREVALUATIONAGENCY.
ROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS:
PAdJL n•P P.R. NUMBER
CCUPANCY (SFD; MULTI-FAMILY: COi.IMERC!AL; INDUSTRIAL - DESCRIBE): \ f' Vas tl (0 t�
TATEMENT 'L -' oTEP 471 AND 481 PLOP!DA STr7:17c:1:
I�
I certify that. !a the best u my knowiedge and belief, these plans and specifications have been designed to comply with the
app9cable s:. ^uctural perions of the Eudding Codes as amended. adopted, and enlor-ed by the ?elm Beech Counry Planning. (I
Zoning L Buildin;, D arttnent Building Oh lion. 1 also certify that the srruc:ural c--npcnents, sylterns. and related elements
-mvide ade: crate resisfpnce to wind lids and 'ores scacifled by the cur:en! Ccde provisions.
jESIGN PARWETERS & ASSUINIPTIONS (check all aoo!)•-able): - -- -
COCiE E1I 10i: SPC 1957, AS AMENLIHO aY PSC KASCS 7-35: i EXPOSURE CONDI, ION. INDICATE 1
BUILOING DESiC-- ED ;c' 0 PARTIALLY ENCLOSED 0 .N C LOSE) PE.. ! 0; TEST =O Tv`Hc!:II
(:•nr. ;I
4
BUILDING 1-'�iG� + }z� S 60 f;. iuAy USE LOV.1 RISE PROVISIONS OF SEC 1606.21 CI > 50 ft I.MUST USE ASCE 'r
G I ;
MEAN ROOF HElGN T . (FOB; LOW RISE BLDG. VOTH SLOPED ROO -S1
IMPORTANCE FACTOR JDE'TERMINE D BY BUILDING USE/OCCUPANCY � • 05 j
R =_FER T O SSSC FABLE 16.06. OR ASCE TABLE 5-2
BASIC WIND VEL OCI ,' Y PRESSURES:
VERIFY APP ROPMA i E POSITIVEINEGATIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO MAIN WINO FORCE
! RESISTING SYS TEM. OR BUILDING ENVELOPE COMPONENTS AND CLADDING. AS APPLICABLE:
! •� 1:0 �nf t t 1••�lo c.'T' GoYC -12) 'I�
'. SSCG 1605 VAND SPEED �5 (FASTEST MILE) BASIC VELOCITY PRESSURE 17— PSF
jj
I ASCE' 95 WIND SPEED _ (r .cC:. (�`IjT1 c?S*C VE_GCITY rRESSLIRE __ - -- PSF i
NOTE: ACTUAL DESIGN PRESSURES FOR ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS, DOORS, GARAGE DOORS. ANO SIMILAR
I - HVELOP == CLEMENTS htUST BE INDICA T ED O:; COkSTRUCTION PL.aNS.
,ROOF DEAD LOAD (ACTUAL DEAD LOAD OF MATERIAL USED FOR 3E-= R&41N1 NG U =LIF -II R-= .% i IONS) _? PS=
SOIL REAP IG C"%PACITY ts/A: FSF & `
REVIEWED FOR SHEAR WALL REQUIRENIENTS G YES j IJO r NO. INDICT REASONI :
IMPACT PRJTEC T ION SPECIFIED c Y -s )QUM N I ��
ItAUST !s:. INOICAT =D ON PERMfT D UMENTS FOR ALL t•1
- RES(DENTIAUCIMM -RCIAL BUILDINGS, ALTERATIONS. AND PEN01.'A I NS)
A3 v- *.,essed f r.y Secl, l hereby certiry that the above iniorT3tion i5 lire -
ert- coreci lo .'.'e best of my knowledge and belief. � �
14,Mv. E . , t,co ►� ��fl —► y ��A .� n_ P' �. DATA
(1/30/0 1 / lt�
gut IUN
�:w.:CT"cRNJ1TtvF :•��:J� : ?-r- -.�.i5, -.... __ �' I j j
( ) 23a-s'. ctl
3Y ti.:.Ll.It1G Sot AVE + ✓
.3-'9 :UST�LW+ E 1
VEST PALSA SE XCti. FL 33-06 FORM = 100 PUQ.055
IKOXE '(6611 227- 6100 -':Ax 2= -S7 :D (PCF s 00? {.A) REVISED 4199 \
tXQM:'tnil I &*('AN I I R >.
CIVIL
AGRIC'UIX URAI..
WAII:R RESOURCES
'VIER % WASrIAVATER
TRANSP )RT TION
01;
- Partners For Results
V.11W try oesign'
!SO S.W. Corporate Pkwy.
Pa(rn Cdy, fl. 34990
(5611286 -3863
fax: CS611266 -3925
www Af xom
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Debra L. Northsea, RLA
FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E. 9'0
DATE: June 7, 2000
FILE NO. 98 -0073
SUBJECT: Northcorp PCD — South Center Lot 10 /11
Parking Lot Amendment
We have reviewed the following ptans and information received on June 5,
2000:
• Urban Design Studio — Project Narrative, Wavier Requests, Aerial, Site
Plan, Landscape Plan.
• Keshavarz & Associates, Inc. — Boundary Survey, Construction Plans.
• American Awning Company, Inc. — Covered Parking Elevations.
• Statement of Ownership, Warranty Deed, Resolution 46, 1998.
We have a following Comments:
The applicant needs to submit a Lighting Plan for the entire site, which
includes the covered parking area, all of the parking spaces, and meets
the iJDR 118 -474 requirements for the minimum and maximum foot -
candles.
2. The Site Plan and Landscape Plan needs to be revised to show the
location of all proposed light poles.
3. Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has requested a waiver for the
excess number of parking spaces, which is greater than 10- percent of
the required parking spaces.
4. The applicant has requested a waiver for the 9 -foot wide parking spaces,
however, we support the LDR requirement of 10 -foot wide parking
spaces.
5. The applicant needs to submit an Alternative Parking Plan with 10 -foot
wide parking space, which will be implemented if the wavier request is
denied. - - Gpd4
Northcorp PCD — South Center Lot 10 111 Page 2 of 2
Parking Lot Amendment
LBFH File No. 98 -0073
.6. The sidewalk located parallel to East Park Drive needs to be extended
along the site.
7. A pedestrian walkway needs to be located from the northern most
parking spaces to the office building.
8. There is a 20 -foot drainage easement on the property that runs parallel
with East Park Drive: Landscaping is shown within this easement,
however, no vertical construction/plantings are allowed within a
drainage easement. .PtO -tj
9. The applicant needs to identify the meandering lines that are located on
the Landscape Plan, north of the entranceway, which overlaps the dry
detention area and the proposed parking spaces to the east. Lv„"c 4r,,
10. There is a black circle located in a parking space, 3, rows to the south of
the north property line on the Landscape Plan. The applicant needs to
identify what this symbol represents.
11. The applicant needs to revise the plans to include internal signage, such
as stop signs and stop bars in all necessary areas.
12. We have reviewed the Construction Plans on a conceptual basis only.
Complete review of these plans will be continued during the
Construction Plan Review Phase.
13. There appears to be a potential collision hazard between the two parking
spaces in the northeast comer of the parking tot. We recommend that
the applicant either adjusts the nn_ale of the parkng space, or removes
one of the two spaces and extends the landscape island.
The applicant is requested to return a copy of our comments with the
applicant's acknowledgement of each comment and the response.
Compliance will expedite the subsequent review.
scwun
cc: Roxanne Manning
Tim Norquest
P: PROJECIWEIGMEMOL10T W73p.doc
Memo to File
From: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester In/ a-
Subject: SP- 00 -08, Northcorp PCD — South Park Lot 10 and I 1
Date: June 19, 2000 (revised June 26, 2000)
I have reviewed the above referenced petition and have the following comments for the
DCR meeting:
• Because of the anticipated grade change near the large Oak tree near to the western
property line, I recommend eliminating one or two parking spaces in the general
area.
• The drainage plan is not consistent with the site plan, specifically in the location of
the Cypress tree to be saved. The drainage plan has fewer parking spaces, and allows
more open space for the tree. I prefer the plan with more open space. Please make the
plans consistent.
• Please indicate the large back flow preventer on Lot 11 near the lift station and put a
hedge around it for screening.
• Please indicate the parking lot lights on the site plan and landscape plan. There
appears to be conflicts between proposed trees and light poles. Please correct.
• There is a conflict with the new lighting plan for the previously approved plan with
landscaping. Please change this landscape plan to correct the lighting conflict.
• The sidewalk just ends like a drafting error. Please revise the landscape and site
plans to show the full extent of the sidewalk.
• Due to the fact that staff' can review the entire previously approved Lot 10 /11(a.k.a.
4600 Bldg.) site and landscape plan because of the type of amendment proposed, and
since staff is recommending some landscaping improvements on the previously
approved site, I recommend incorporating the revised landscape modifications
submitted as administrative petition ADMIN-00-15 into this petition. Please
withdraw ADMIN- 00 -15, and have the L.A. submit a revised landscape plan for the
amendment, which included all of the above - mentioned changes and the changes
requested previously in ADMIN-00-15.
I have no problem approving the DRC certification, if the above comments are addressed
prior to scheduling for SP &ARC meeting.
Memo to File
From: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester 1,n114—
Subject: SP- 00 -08, Northcorp PCD — South Park Lot 10 and 11
Date: July 20, 2000
I have reviewed the above referenced petition revised plans submitted July 10, 2000 and
have the following comment and recommendation:
• There are conflicts with the lighting plan and tress. I recommend the landscape plan
be changed to correct the lighting conflict, prior to approval.
WAIVER RE(
AND JUSTIFICATIOD
FOR
LOT 10 1I1 SITE PLAN
April 28, 2(
Revised May 21
For your review and information are th
justification statement for the Lot 10 /1:
Nine -foot wide parking spaces (Secti
re
tics
We are requesting a waiver to allow 9 -foot wide parking spaces within the new parking area
created with this application. The City Code calls for 10 -foot wide spaces, but allows for 9 -foot
wide spaces with the approval of City Council. The 9 -foot wide spaces are consistent with the
width of the parking spaces approved for the existing office building on Lot 10 /11, which was
approved by City Council through the adoption of Resolution 46, 1998. The Moot wide spaces
are also consistent with other office projects within the City.
Covered Parking structures - distance from public right -of -Way (Section 118 - 571(9))
We are requesting a waiver to allow a covered parking structure to be located 95 feet from the
East Park Drive right -of -way. The City Code requires that covered parking structures be located
100 feet from a public right -of -way. The proposed southern location of the covered parking
structure is located near an employee entrance to the existing building. The covered parking
structure is also shielded from East Park Drive by landscaping. Although East Park Drive is a
public right -of -way, it is a local road within a business park, where such structures are not
unusual. The covered parking structures will not be seen from public collector or arterial
roadways.
Increase in Parking Spaces - (Draft LDR Section 180(d)(3)
The draft Land Development Regulations require that "any request for an increase of parking
equal to or greater than ten percent or required parking which affects a PUD, PCD or hM shall
only be considered as an application for approval of a waiver by the city council." The approved
69,208 square foot office building has a parking requirement of 231 parking spaces. On the
approved site plan, 248 parking spaces were provided. The applicant is requesting to add the
remaining portion of Lot 10 (1.36 acres) to the approved project in order to provide 118
additional parking spaces. For several years, the office market has demanded extra parking
spaces in addition to the parking requirements for office uses found
in most governmental zoning codes. This is true for the office
building at 4600 East Park Drive. The additional parking spaces will
help rio to quality office tenants and employers to the City. Suit Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
p g P Q r5' tY• Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-6582
661MSA066 561.689.0551 tax
a:%00M tCrlvoiuwonhCo[pv otlol l\PwkWg LaAP& &i- !cotWaivcr.052600.wpd
ICC 2S Wine, CA 131
John C.
BILLS
3910 RCA Boulevard • Suite 1011
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 627 -4000 • Fax (561) 694 -8709
August 2, 2000
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens; FL .'33410
Re: Demand for Increased Parking
Gentlemen,
In recent years, we have experienced a constantly increasing demand from prospective
office tenants, for a more generous provision of parking spaces.
The majority of brokers and tenants in the market, will readily confirm that the current
trend in office space, is toward flexible, more efficient plans, that utilize groupings of modular
furniture, and fewer private offices. The stated objective is to reduce the over -all amount of
space that is leased, resulting in real savings on monthly occupancy costs, including: Rent,
Common Area Maintenance, HVAC, Utilities, and Janitorial Expense. The smaller, more open
office plans, also result in a lower initial buildout expense, some of which is frequently borne by
the tenant.
Current City Code, provides for a minimum of 1 parking space per 330 s/f of office
building, or approximately 3 spaces per 1,000 s/£ Since the parking code is expressed in terms of
minimum requirements, there is very little discussion about desirable or market- driven numbers,
when projects are being considered for approval.
Recent projects approved and constructed in Palm Beach Gardens, with a targeted
minimum of 4 spaces per 1,000 s/f include: 4800 Riverside Drive; 4600 East Park Drive; 3399
PGA Blvd. (Stiles); and the new Fairways Office Center at PGA
The dedication of additional land for parking, represents an added financial burden to the
developers. However, to remain competitive in a changing marketplace, all of us have had to
acknowledge the need to meet this demand.
MY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
AUG 0 7 2000
PLANNING & MNING DEPT.
My hdonnation given herewith is obtained Gom sources we consider reliable. However, we are not revons6le for
misshter>rerrts of fact, a �� omissions, Prior to sale. withdrawal from market, or change In price widarrt notice.
PARKING COMPARISONS
MUNICIPALITY
Town of North Palm Beach
PARKING REQUIREMENT
Medical Office 1 per 150 s.f. / 6.67 per 1,000 s.f.
General Office 1 per 200 s.f. / 5 per 1,000 s.f.
Town of Jupiter
Office: 1 per 250 s.f. / 4 per 1,000 s.f.
Palm Beach County
Office: 1 per 200 s.f. / 5 per 1,000 s.f.
City of Boca Raton
Doctor and Retail: 1 per 175 / 5.7 per 1,000 s.f.
Office: 1 per 200 s.f. / 5 per 1,000
Coral Springs
Office: 1 per 300 s.f. / 3.3 per 1,000 s.f.
Riviera Beach
Office: 1 per 300 s.f. / 3.3 per 1,000 s.f.
City of West Palm Beach
Office: 1 per 350 s.f. / 2.86 per 1,000 s.f.
Medical Office: 1 per 250 s.f. / 4 per 1,000 s.f.
Downtown: MedicaWeterinary: 1 per 300 s.f.
Downtown: Office: 1 per 350 s.f. / 2.86 per 1,000 s.f.
City of Stuart
Office: 1 per 300 s.f. / 3.3 per 1,000 s.f.
Martin County
Office: 1 per 300 s.f. / 3.3 per 1,000 s.f.
Wellington
Office: 1 per 200 s.f. / 5 per 1,000 s.f.
There does not seem to be a standard parking ratio nationwide, but rather a
broad range from 1 space per 400 s.f. (2.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f.) to 1 space per
200 s.f. (5 spaces per 1,000 s.f.)
The national norm is approximately 4 spaces per 1000 s.f. or 1 space per 250
s.f., accordingy to Martin Hodgkins of Duncan and Associates.
The ITE Manual (International Traffic Engineering Manual) suggests 1 space per
300 s.f. or 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. which is what our City Code requires.
zzt
yi
fl,"b
Am
A
19J;
.Ar%.
135
41
zzt
yi
fl,"b
Am
A
19J;
.Ar%.
135
f
`
T
tit
3,
r � {
: g?`
s
a
r
-
• yti4
� a � y
T J
?,x.,t
t
F
a '
�r •P^
El`.
s t
.'i�#:IYFS T��'.. .��'SS..�x1 .'��i r_e•.
Z�r. --Rt•• '�.LJ•_.�u !, ' iY,.:i�
f
`
T
3,
r � {
a
s
a
r
-
1
T J
F
f
7
3,
r � {
a
s
a
r
-
1
T J
F
a '
i
8r
s t
a�
1 gg 7 •
136
r � {
r
-
1
a�
1 gg 7 •
136
iii\ •y � ,
• .. i, ms`s~f A
�4.y
t
\;
0+ S
i
•
3
�g.
er f
•L ~CX�
�...
1
N. -T. �.r' tea"..: `�
• �
f
F
a,� g
F
rt'
138
�G
0+ S
�g.
F
a,� g
F
rt'
138
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: 09127/00
Meeting Date: 10/05/00
Subject/Agenda Item
Resolution 86, 2000, Authorizing the Initial Assessment Resolution for the PGA Flyover
Assessment Area.
Recommendation /Motion:
Consider a motion to approve Resolution 86, 2000.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 0
Council Action:
(Total)
City Attorney AQ�;,
Finance
[ ] Approved
$--.Q—
[ ] Approved w/
Finance
Current FY
conditions
[ ] Denied
ACM
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other
Date:
[ ] Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ X ] Not Required
[ ] Other
Memorandum
Submitted by:
Kent R. Olson Kb
Department Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
I X ] Not required
BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 27, 2000
APPROVED: Len Rubin, Acting Interim City Manager
FROM: Kent R. Olson, Finance Director KA b
SUBJECT: Resolution 86, 2000 — Initial Assessment Resolution
BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Beach Gardens hired Government Services Group and Nabors,
Giblin & Nickerson at the May 18, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting to devise a plan
for funding the PGA Flyover enhancements. As you may recall, the City of Palm Beach
Gardens will be issuing debt to fund these improvements, paying our share of the cost
directly to the Florida Department of Transportation. The consultants recommended and
the Council agreed to move forward with a Special Assessment Area overlayed with a
Tax Increment Financing District. Ordinance 27, 2000 provides the City with the
authority to levy a special assessment. Resolution 86, 2000 specifies, among other
things, the area to be included in the assessment as well as how the assessment will be
distributed. A final assessment resolution will be prepared for the November 2 Council
Meeting. At that meeting, the final resolution will subject to a public hearing before it is
adopted.
DISCUSSION
Resolution 86, 2000 provides the specifics for the assessment area and the Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) District that will fund the amenities for the PGA Flyover. The
assessment area will include only commercial properties along the PGA Boulevard
corridor from I -95 to the Intracoastal waterway. The TIF will contribute 50% of the
growth in existing properties toward the repayment of the debt for the project. However,
the TIF will be adjusted to exclude the first year new improvements come on the tax
rolls. The remainder of the annual debt service will be distributed among the assessment
area properties. Based upon historical trends, these assessments will decline annually,
likely going down to zero after four years.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 86, 2000, providing for an assessment
area for the PGA Flyover project.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
PGA FLYOVER ASSESSMENT AREA
INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION
ADOPTED OCTOBER 5, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION 1.01. DEFINITIONS ........ ............................... 1
SECTION 1.02. INTERPRETATION .... ............................... 8
SECTION 1.03. GENERAL FINDINGS . . ............................... 8
ARTICLE II
NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING
SECTION 2.01. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST .......................... 12
SECTION 2.02. ASSESSMENT ROLL . ............................... 12
SECTION 2.03. PUBLIC HEARING ... ............................... 12
SECTION 2.04. NOTICE BY PUBLICATION ........................... 12
SECTION 2.05. NOTICE BY MAIL ... ............................... 13
ARTICLE III
ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 3.01. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREA ...... 14
SECTION 3.02. PGA FLYOVER ENHANCEMENT FUNDING ............ 14
SECTION 3.03. IMPOSITION OF ASSESSMENTS ...................... 15
SECTION 3.04. COMPUTATION OF ASSESSMENTS ................... 16
SECTION 3.05. APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS ............ 18
ARTICLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 4.01. METHOD OF COLLECTION .......................... 19
SECTION 4.02. SEVERABILITY ..... ............................... 19
SECTION 4.03. INTENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM BOND PROCEEDS. 19
SECTION 4.04. EFFECTIVE DATE ... ............................... 20
i
APPENDIX A
MAP OF PGA FLYOVER ASSESSMENT AREA
APPENDIX B
MAP OF TAX INCREMENT AREA
APPENDIX C
FORM OF PUBLISHED NOTICE
APPENDIX D
FORM OF MAILED NOTICE
ii
RESOLUTION 86, 2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PGA
FLYOVER ASSESSMENT AREA; DETERMINING THE
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF THE PGA FLYOVER
ENHANCEMENTS; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED
ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR
COLLECTION; DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF
NOTICE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION 1.01. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Resolution, the following
terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context hereof otherwise requires.
"Adjusted Tax Increment" means the amount computed each Fiscal Year
pursuant to Section 3.04(B) hereof.
"Annual Debt Service Component" means the amount computed for each Tax
Parcel pursuant to Section 3.04(F) hereof.
1
"Annual Debt Service Factor" means the factor computed pursuant to Section
3.04(E) hereof.
"Assessment" means an annual special assessment imposed against certain property
located within the PGA Flyover Assessment Area to fund the Project Cost of the PGA
Flyover Enhancements, and related expenses, computed in the manner described in Section
3.04 hereof.
"Assessment Area" means the proposed PGA Flyover Assessment Area described
in Section 3.01 hereof.
"Assessment Roll" means a non -ad valorem assessment roll relating to the Project
Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements, and related expenses.
"Base Year" means the calendar year commencing January 1, 2001, the year in
which construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements will commence.
"Capital Cost" means all or any portion of the expenses that are properly attributable
to the acquisition, design and construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements and imposition
of the Assessments under generally accepted accounting principles; and including
reimbursement to the City for any funds advanced for Capital Cost and interest on any
interfund or intrafund loan for such purposes.
"City" means the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
"City Council" means the City Council for the City.
K
"City Clerk" means the official custodian of all City records and papers of an official
character, or such person's designee.
"City Manager" means the City's Manager, or such person's designee.
"Collection Cost" means the estimated cost to be incurred by the City during any
Fiscal Year in connection with the collection of Assessments.
"Collection Cost Component" means the amount computed for each Tax Parcel
pursuant to Section 3.04(G) hereof.
i
"Commercial Property" means commercial property within the Assessment Area
for which the PGA Flyover Enhancements will provide enhanced commercial viability.
"Commercial Property" will include Tax Parcels to which the Property Appraiser has
assigned DOR Codes of 10 through 49 (commercial and industrial).
"Commercial Property Percentage" means the percentage of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements' Capital Cost that is attributable to Commercial Property, as determined
pursuant to Section 3.02(A)(2) hereof.
"Debt Service Amount" means the amount computed pursuant to Section 3.04(A)
hereof.
"DOR Code" means a property use code established in Rule 12D- 8.008, Florida
Administrative Code, as applied by the Property Appraiser.
3
"Final Assessment Resolution" means the resolution described in Section 2.07 of
the Ordinance which shall confirm, modify or repeal this Resolution and which shall be the
final proceeding for the imposition of the Assessments within the Assessment Area.
"Fiscal Year" means the period commencing on October 1 of each year and
continuing through the next succeeding September 30, or such other period as may be
prescribed by law as the fiscal year for the City.
"Funding Agreement" means the agreement pursuant to which the City agrees to
deliver the Obligations against payment therefor by the purchaser or underwriter of such
Obligations.
"Government Property" means the property owned by the United States of America,
the State of Florida, a county, a special district, a municipal corporation, or any of their
respective agencies or political subdivisions.
"Government Property Percentage" means the percentage of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements' Capital Cost that is attributable to Government Property, as determined
pursuant to Section 3.02(A)(1) hereof.
"Grant" means any sum of money received by the City from any public or private
agency as or on account of a grant or contribution for construction of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements, that is restricted as to use and not repayable by the City.
4
"Local Improvement" means a capital improvement program or plan for the
construction or installation by the City for the special benefit of a neighborhood or other
local area, for which special assessments may be imposed pursuant to the Ordinance.
"Modified Debt Service Amount" means the amount computed pursuant to Section
3.04(D) hereof.
"Obligations" means Original Obligations or Refunding Obligations.
"Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 27, 2000, the Capital Project Assessment
Ordinance.
"Original Obligations" means bonds or other evidence of indebtedness including but
not limited to, notes, commercial paper, capital leases or any other obligation issued or
incurred to finance a portion of the Project Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements and
secured, in whole or in part, by proceeds of the Improvement Assessments.
"PGA Flyover Enhancements" means the additional improvements to the flyover
at the intersection of AlA and PGA Boulevard that are expected to enhance the commercial
identity of the surrounding area and improve the unattractive appearance of a standard
elevated road structure including, but not limited to, decorative pylons, streetlights and
railings, bridge facade, planter walls, fountain, additional landscaping and irrigation as more
particularly described in the Joint Participation Agreement between the City and the Florida
Department of Transportation.
5
"Project Cost" means (A) the Capital Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements, (B)
the Transaction Cost associated with the Obligations attributable to the PGA Flyover
Enhancements, (C) interest accruing on such Obligations for such period of time as the City
deems appropriate, (D) the debt service reserve fund or account, if any, established for the
Obligations attributable to the PGA Flyover Enhancements, and (E) any other costs or
expenses related thereto.
"Property Appraiser" means the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser.
"Refunding Obligations" means a series of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness
including but not limited to, notes, commercial paper, capital leases or any other obligations
of the City issued or incurred to refund all or any portion of the Original Obligations or any
indebtedness issued to refinance the Original Obligations.
"Statutory Discount Amount" means the amount computed for each Tax Parcel
pursuant to Section 3.04(H) hereof.
"Tax Increment Area" means the property located in the current predominantly
developed area of the City, as more specifically identified in Appendix B attached hereto.
"Tax Increment Credit" means the amount computed each Fiscal Year pursuant to
Section 3.04(C) hereof.
"Taxable Value" means the value used to compute ad valorem taxes for any Tax
Parcel, as shown on the Tax Roll used by the Property Appraiser to certify the taxable value
of real property not exempt from taxation within the City pursuant to Section 200.065(1),
M
Florida Statutes; provided, however, the "Taxable Value" for Government Property shall be
the value for such property as listed in the Tax Roll.
"Tax Parcel" means a parcel of property to which the Property Appraiser has
assigned a distinct ad valorem property tax identification number.
"Tax Roll" means the real property ad valorem tax assessment roll maintained by the
Property Appraiser for the purpose of the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes.
"Transaction Cost" means the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the City in
connection with the issuance and sale of any series of Obligations, including but not limited
to (A) rating agency and other financing fees; (B) the fees and disbursements of bond
counsel; (C) the underwriters' discount; (D) the fees and disbursements of the City's financial
advisor; (E) the costs of preparing and printing the Obligations, the preliminary official
statement, the final official statement, and all other documentation supporting issuance of the
Obligations; (F) the fees payable in respect of any municipal bond insurance policy; (G)
i
administrative, development, credit review, and all other fees associated with any pooled
commercial paper or similar interim financing program; and (H) any other costs of a similar
nature incurred in connection with issuance of such Obligations.
"Uniform Assessment Collection Act" means Sections 197.3632 and 197.3635,
Florida Statutes, or any successor statutes authorizing the collection of non -ad valorem
assessments on the same bill as ad valorem taxes, and any applicable regulations
promulgated thereunder.
7
SECTION 1.02. INTERPRETATION. Unless the context indicates otherwise,
words importing the singular number include the plural number, and vice versa; the terms
"hereof," "hereby," "herein," "hereto," "hereunder" and similar terms refer to this Resolution;
and the term "hereafter" means after, and the term "heretofore" means before, the effective
date of this Resolution. Words of any gender include the correlative words of the other
gender, unless the sense indicates otherwise.
SECTION 1.03. GENERAL FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined
and declared that:
(A) Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, and Sections
166.021 and 166.041, Florida Statutes, the City Council has all powers of local self -
government to perform municipal functions and to render municipal services except when
prohibited by law and such power may be exercised by the enactment of legislation in the
form of City ordinances.
(B) The City Council may exercise any governmental, corporate, or proprietary
power for a municipal purpose except when expressly prohibited by law, and the City
Council may legislate on any subject matter on which the Legislature may act, except those
subjects described in (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes. The
subject matter of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Section 166.021(3), Florida Statutes, is
not relevant to imposition of assessments related to Local Improvements within the City.
(C) The City Council has enacted the Ordinance to provide for the creation of
Assessment Areas (as defined in the Ordinance) and authorize the imposition of assessments
to fund the construction of Local Improvements to benefit the certain property located
therein.
(D) The City Council desires to create the PGA Flyover Assessment Area as an
Assessment Area under the Ordinance to fund the Project Cost of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements. The PGA Flyover Enhancements constitute a Local Improvement, as defined
in the Ordinance and herein.
(E) Construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements will provide a special benefit
to Commercial Property located within the Assessment Area by enhancing their commercial
identity as the commercial center for the City, thus promoting the desirability of the
Assessment Area as a place to conduct commerce and trade.
(F) Enhancing the Assessment Area's identity as a commercial center is expected
to result in additional business for commercial enterprises, thus increasing the marketability
and increasing the value of Commercial Property located in the Assessment Area.
(G) Based upon the foregoing, Commercial Property located within the Assessment
Area will derive a special benefit from construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements.
Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds it reasonable to allocate the Capital Cost to each
Tax Parcel containing Commercial Property based on each Tax Parcel's relative value
compared to the aggregate value of the Assessment Area.
0
(H) Since the PGA Flyover Enhancements are intended to enhance the commercial
viability of Commercial Property located in the Assessment Area, special assessments will
be imposed only against Commercial Property.
(I) The boundaries of the Assessment Area are based upon natural boundaries or
major roadways separating the predominately commercial area from predominately
residential areas. All Commercial Property located within the Assessment Area will derive
a special benefit from construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements. Commercial
Property located adjacent to the Assessment Area but outside of its boundaries is different
in character and does not derive a special benefit from construction of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements.
(J) The City acknowledges that the Assessment Area includes property owned by
public bodies that cannot be compelled to pay special assessments. The City intends to fund
the Government Property Percentage of the debt service on the Obligations issued to fund
the Capital Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements and impose Assessments to fund the
Commercial Property Percentage of debt service on such Obligations.
(K) The City recognizes that enhancing the Assessment Area's identity as the
commercial center for the City and surrounding areas, thus increasing the marketability and
increasing the value of Commercial Property located in the Assessment Area, will provide
a secondary benefit to the City as a whole by increasing the tax base attributable to the
Assessment and fostering additional development, which will increase the tax base in the Tax
Increment Area.
10
(L) In recognition of these secondary benefits and the City's obligation to pay the
Government Property Percentage of debt service on the Obligations, the City has determined
that it would be equitable to provide a Tax Increment Credit equal to fifty percent (50 %) of
the Adjusted Tax Increment, first to fund the City's obligations and second to reduce the
special assessments that would otherwise be payable by the owners of Commercial Property
within the Assessment Area.
(M) Since the City will be required to provide its regular municipal services to
improvements appearing on the ad valorem tax roll for the first time in years following the
Base Year, it is reasonable to add the initial year value of such improvements to the
aggregate Taxable Value for the Base Year for purposes of computing the Adjusted Tax
Increment, thus excluding such value from the Tax Increment Credit.
(N) The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Assessments, to be
imposed in accordance with this Resolution, provide an equitable method of funding
construction of the PGA Flyover Enhancements by fairly and reasonably allocating the cost
based on the special benefit derived by Commercial Property, in the manner hereinafter
described.
11
ARTICLE H
NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING
SECTION 2.01. . ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST. The estimated Capital Cost
for the PGA Flyover Enhancements is $3,500,000. The Project Cost of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements will be funded through the imposition of Assessments against Commercial
Property located in the Assessment Area.
SECTION 2.02. ASSESSMENT ROLL. The City Manager is hereby directed
to prepare a final estimate of the Capital Cost for the PGA Flyover Enhancements and to
prepare the preliminary Assessment Roll in the manner provided in the Ordinance. The City
Manager shall apportion the Project Cost among the parcels of Commercial Property within
the Assessment Area as reflected on the Tax Roll in conformity with Article IV hereof. The
estimate of Capital Cost and the Assessment Roll shall be maintained on file in the offices
of the City Clerk and open to public inspection.
SECTION 2.03. PUBLIC HEARING. A public hearing will be conducted by
the City Council at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, on November
2, 2000, in the City Council Chambers at 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, to consider (A) creation of the Assessment Area, (B) imposition of the Assessments,
and (C) collection of the Assessments pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
SECTION 2.04. NOTICE BY PUBLICATION. Upon completion of the
Assessment Roll, the City Clerk shall publish a notice of the public hearing authorized by
12
Section 2.03 hereof in the manner and the time provided in Section 2.05 of the Ordinance.
Such notice shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Appendix C.
SECTION 2.05. NOTICE BY MAIL. Upon completion of the Assessment Roll,
the City Clerk shall, at the time and in the manner specified in Section 2.06 of the Ordinance,
provide first class mailed notice of the public hearing authorized by Section 2.03 hereof to
each property owner proposed to be assessed at the address indicated on the Tax Roll. Such
notice shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Appendix D.
13
ARTICLE III
ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 3.01. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREA.
The proposed Assessment Area shall include certain property located in the City Center
Overlay Planning District, as more specifically identified in Appendix A attached hereto.
The Assessment Area is proposed for the purpose of enhancing the business value of
Commercial Property located therein by funding construction of the PGA Flyover
Enhancements.
SECTION 3.02. PGA FLYOVER ENHANCEMENT FUNDING.
(A) The City acknowledges that there is a significant amount of Government
Property located within the Assessment Area that may derive some benefit from construction
of the PGA Flyover Enhancements. The City intends to fund the Government Property
Percentage of the debt service on Obligations issued to fund the Capital Cost of the PGA
Flyover Enhancements and impose Assessments to fund the Commercial Property Percentage
of debt service on such Obligations.
(1) The "Government Property Percentage" shall be 12.75 %, which was
computed by dividing (a) the aggregate Taxable Value of Government Property in the
Assessment Area on the date of this Resolution by (b) the sum of (i) the aggregate
Taxable Value of Government Property in the Assessment Area on the date of this
14
i
i
Resolution and (ii) the aggregate Taxable Value of Commercial Property in the
Assessment Area on the date of this Resolution.
(2) The "Commercial Property Percentage" shall be 87.25 %, which was
computed by dividing (a) the aggregate Taxable Value of Commercial Property in the
Assessment Area on the date of this Resolution by (b) the sum of (i) the aggregate
Taxable Value of Government Property in the Assessment Area on the date of this
Resolution and (ii) the aggregate Taxable Value of Commercial Property in the
Assessment Area on the date of this Resolution.
(B) In addition to contributing the Government Property Percentage of debt service
on the Obligations, the City will contribute 50% of the Adjusted Tax Increment to reduce the
Assessments against Commercial Property; provided however, th,
50% of the Adjusted Tax Increment shall be applied first to pa;
Property Percentage of debt service on the Obligations. The Tax
applied and Assessments computed in the manner set forth in Se
(C) The proceeds of any Grant received by the City sl
Capital Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements if received
Obligations. After the issuance of the Obligations, proceeds of
redeem Obligations.
SECTION 3.03. IMPOSITION OF ASSES
be imposed against all Tax Parcels containing Commercial Pro
Assessment Area for each Fiscal Year in which the Obligations
15
amount generated by
t of the Government
Credit shall be
ion 3.04 hereof.
be used to reduce the
to the issuance of
Grant shall be used to
The Assessments shall
located within the
in outstanding, the
amount of which shall be computed in accordance with this Articl6 IV. When imposed, the
Assessment for each Fiscal Year shall constitute a lien upon such ITax Parcels, pursuant to
the Ordinance.
SECTION 3.04. COMPUTATION OF ASSESSMENTS. The Assessments will
be imposed for each Fiscal Year in which Obligations remain outstanding and collected on
the ad valorem tax bill in the manner authorized by the Uniform Assessment Collection Act.
The annual Improvement Assessment shall be computed for each Tax Parcel containing
Commercial Property in the manner set forth in this Section 3.04.
(A) DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT. A "Debt Service Amoount" shall be computed
for each Fiscal Year as the amount which would be payable in respect of the Obligations in
accordance with a debt service schedule prepared under the following assumptions: (1) the
principal installments equal those established in the Funding Agreement, and (2) the
Obligations bear interest at a rate one full percentage point in excess of the actual rates;
provided, however, that the "Debt Service Amount" for any Fiscal iear shall not exceed the
principal amount of Obligations then outstanding plus interest thereon. In the first Fiscal
Year the Assessments are imposed, the City may use an estimate) debt service schedule,
provided that the Funding Agreement will be executed before the end of such Fiscal Year.
(B) ADJUSTED TAX INCREMENT. An "Adjusted Tax Increment" shall be
computed for each Fiscal Year by dividing (1) the amount computed by subtracting (a) the
amount of ad valorem taxes which would have been levied within the Tax Increment Area
by applying the same millage rate to the sum of (i) the aggregate Taxable Value of
16
I
i
i
i
Commercial Property in the Assessment Area for the Base Year, and (ii) the initial year
value of improvements appearing on the ad valorem Tax Roll for the first time in years
following the Base Year, from (b) the amount of ad valorem taxes levied by the City within
the Tax Increment Area for such Fiscal Year, exclusive of any amount from any debt service
millage, by (2) the factor of 0.95.
(C) TAX INCREMENT CREDIT. A "Tax Increment Credit" shall be computed
for each Fiscal year by (1) multiplying (a) the Adjusted Tax Increment by (b) the factor of
0.50, and (2) deducting the Government Property Percentage of the Debt Service Amount.
If the Government Property Percentage of the Debt Service Amhint exceeds the amount
computed by multiplying the Adjusted Tax Increment by the factor of 0.50, the "Tax
Increment Credit" shall be zero.
(D) MODIFIED DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT. A "Modifil d Debt Service Amount"
shall be computed for each Fiscal Year by subtracting (1) the Tax Increment Credit, from
(2) the Commercial Property Percentage of the Debt Service Amount.
(E) ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE FACTOR. An "Annual Debt Service Factor"
I
shall be computed for each Tax Parcel by dividing (1) the Taxable Value for such Tax Parcel
by (2) the aggregate Taxable Value of Commercial Property in the Assessment Area.
(F) ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE COMPONENT. The "Annual Debt Service
Component" shall be computed for each Fiscal Year for each Tax I arcel by multiplying (1)
the Modified Debt Service Amount by (2) the Annual Debt Service Factor for such Tax
Parcel.
17
(G) COLLECTION COST COMPONENT. The "Collection Cost Component"
shall be computed each Fiscal Year for each Tax Parcel by (1) ! 'viding (a) the Taxable
Value for such Tax Parcel by (b) the aggregate Taxable Value of Commercial Property in
the Assessment Area, and (2) multiplying the result by the Collection Cost.
(H) STATUTORY DISCOUNT AMOUNT. The "Statutory Discount Amount"
shall be computed for each Tax Parcel as the amount allowed >! y law as the maximum
discount for early payment of ad valorem taxes and non -ad va rem assessments, such
amount to be calculated by deducting (1) the sum of (a) the Annual Debt Service Component
and (b) the Collection Cost Component, from (2) the amount computed by dividing (a) the
I
sum of (i) the Annual Debt Service Component and (ii) the Collection Cost Component, by
I
(b) the factor of 0.96.
(I) ASSESSMENT. The annual Assessment for each Tax Parcel shall be
computed as the sum of (1) the Annual Debt Service Component, (2) the Collection Cost
Component and (3) the Statutory Discount Amount.
SECTION 3.05. APPLICATION OF ASSES PROCEEDS. Proceeds
from the Assessments received during each Fiscal Year shall bE
payment of the Collection Costs, payment of any Transaction
proceeds of the Obligations, payment of interest due on the Obl:
principal due on the Obligations. Any remaining proceeds will the
of the Obligations.
W
applied by the City for
Costs not funded from
rations, and payment of
be used for prepayment
ARTICLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS j
SECTION 4.01. METHOD OF COLLECTION. The Assessments shall be
collected pursuant to the Uniform Assessment Collection Act, pr Ivided however, that any
i
Assessments imposed against Government Property shall be collected pursuant to Section
3.04 of the Ordinance.
SECTION 4.02. SEVERABILITY. If any clause, section or provision of this
Resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for ariy reason or cause, the
remaining portion of said Resolution shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such
invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated herein.
SECTION 4.03. INTENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM BOND
PROCEEDS. The City is hereby authorized to temporarily advance funds for the payment
of the Capital Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements, such advances to be reimbursed from
proceeds of tax- exempt Obligations. The City intends this Section 4.03 to satisfy the
"Official Intent Requirement" described in U. S. Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 -2 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Internal Revenue Code "). The City
declares that it reasonably expects that the Capital Cost for the PGA Flyover Enhancements
will be reimbursed with the proceeds of bonds (as defined in Se( tion 150 of the Internal
Revenue Code). The maximum principal amount of bonds expected to be issued for the
Capital Cost of the PGA Flyover Enhancements is $4,000,000.
19
I
SECTION 4.04. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective upon
i
adoption. {
{
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
I
i
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY
CAROL GOLD, CMC, CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBER FURTADO {
COUNCILMEMBER CLARK {
COUNCILMEMBER SABATELLO
20 i
APPENDIX A
MAP OF PGA FLYOVER
ASSESSMENT AREA
[TO BE ATTACHED]
APPENDIX B
MAP OF TAX INCREMENT AREA
[TO BE ATTACHED]
APPENDIX C
FORM OF NOTICE TO BE
To Be Published , 2000
[MAP OF PGA FLYOVER ASSESSMENT AREA]
NOTICE OF HEARING TO IMPOSE AND
PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION OF NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
I
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, will
conduct a public hearing to consider creation of the PGA Flyover Assessment Area, as
shown above, and to impose non -ad valorem assessments against,certain property located
therein and collecting the assessments on the ad valorem tax bill. The hearing will be held
at 7:00 P.M. on November 2, 2000 in the City Council Chambers at+ 10500 N. Military Trail,
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
persons needing a special accommodation or an interpreter to participate in thisproceeding
should contact the City Clerk's office at (561) 775 -8250 at least 48 hours prior to the date of
the hearing. All affected property owners have a right to appear at the hearing and to file
written objections with the City Council within 20 days of this notice. Any person wishing
to appeal any decision of the City Council with respect to any matter considered will need
a record and may wish to ensure that a verbatim record is made.
The assessments have been proposed to fund capital costs for construction of flyover
enhancements to the AIA/PGA Boulevard flyover to serve the PGA Flyover Assessment
Area. The assessment for each parcel of commercial property within the PGA Flyover
Assessment Area will be based upon the taxable value of the parcel'. Each year the City will
calculate a credit equal to fifty percent of the annual growth in the surrounding area. In
determining the credit, annual growth would not include the initial year value of
improvements added to the tax roll in subsequent years. The City will apply this credit first
to pay the assessment attributable to government property located in the assessment area and
second to reduce the assessment payable by commercial property located in the assessment
area. A more specific description is set forth in the Initial Assessment Resolution adopted
by the City Council on October 5, 2000. Copies of the Initial Assessment Resolution, the
plans and specifications for the project, and the preliminary assessment rolls are available
for inspection at the offices of the City Clerk, located at 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida.
Annual capital assessments to fund the PGA Flyover Enhancements will be collected
on the ad valorem tax bill for a period of 20 years, commencing with the tax bill to be mailed
in November 2002. Failure to pay the assessments will cause a tax certificate to be issued
against the property which may result in a loss of title.
If you have any questions, please contact the Director of Finance at (561) 799 -4163.
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
I
C -1
I
i
i
i
APPENDIX D
FORM OF NOTICE TO BE MAILED
I
* * * ** THIS IS NOT A BILL * * * ** E
NOTICE OF HEARING TO IMPOSE!
AND PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION O
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN THE PGA FLT
ASSESSMENT AREA
_, 2000
[Property Owner Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State and zip]
Re: Tax Parcel Number [Insert Number]
PGA Flyover Assessment Area
Dear Property Owner:
VER
The PGA Flyover Assessment Area is being created to construct enhancements to the
AIA/PGA Boulevard flyover (the "PGA Flyover Enhancements ") The construction costs
of the PGA Flyover Enhancements will be funded by assessments against commercial
property located within the PGA Flyover Assessment Area. The assessments for each parcel
of property are based on the taxable value of the parcel. Each year the City will calculate
a credit equal to fifty percent of the annual growth in the surrounding area. In determining
the credit, annual growth would not include the initial year value of improvements added to
the tax roll in subsequent years. The City will apply this credit first to pay the assessment
attributable to government property located in the assessment area and second to reduce the
assessment payable by commercial property located in the assessment area. A more specific
description of the assessment program is set forth in the Initial l Assessment Resolution
adopted by the City Council on October 5, 2000. Copies ofd the Initial Assessment
Resolution, the plans and specification for the PGA Flyover Assessment Area, and the
preliminary assessment rolls including the special assessments are available for your review
at the offices of the City Clerk, located at 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida. Information regarding the assessment for your specifics property, including the
taxable value and frontage assigned to your property, is attached to this letter.
The City intends to issue bonds to finance the capital costs
In order to reduce the total borrowing cost, the City will initially
issuing variable rate bonds. At a later time, the City intends to cc
rate anticipating that interest rates will be lower than those
financing plan will permit the capital cost attributable to your prc
a period of 20 years.
D -1
this assessment project.
ance the capital cost by
ert the bonds to a fixed -
- sently available. This
rtv to be amortized over
The annual assessment will include:
your share of the principal and interest on the bonds (after application of the
annual credit);
your share of the collection cost of the assessments; and
the maximum discount allowed for early payment under the Uniform
Assessment Collection Act.
The City expects to collect approximately $ p r year for the purposes
described in this notice. The City intends to include annual assessments on your ad valorem
tax bill, commencing with the tax bill to be mailed in November 2602. Failure to pay your
assessments will cause a tax certificate to be issued against the pri perty which may result
in a loss of title. i
The City Council will hold a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. onlNovember 2, in the City
Council Chambers at 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens!, Florida, for the purpose
of receiving comments on the proposed assessments, including collection on the ad valorem
tax bill. You are invited to attend and participate in the hearing. You may also file written
objections with the City Council prior to or during the hearing. If you decide to appeal any
decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at the hearing, you
will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record is made,
including the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be made. In accordance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a special accommodation or an
interpreter to participate in this proceeding, please contact the City Clerk's office at (561)
775 -8250 at least 48 hours prior to the date of the hearing.
If you have any questions, please contact the Director of Finance at (561) 799 -4163.
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
D -2
* * * * * SEND NO MONEY NOW. THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE *
i
I
PGA FLYOVER ASSESSMENT AREA
i
[PROPERTY OWNER NAME]
Tax Parcel Number [INSERT NUMBER]
Taxable Value attributed to property:
Annual Assessment:
Number of annual payments:
Expected date of first bill:
Total amount of annual payments:
[INSERT NUMBER]
$[ i SERT AMOUNT]
201
2002
vSERT AMOUNT]
II
* * * * * SEND NO MONEY NOW. THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE
t �
i
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: September 21, 2000
Date Prepared: I September 11, 2000
Subject/Agenda Item:
Ordinance 22, 2000, updating City impact fee schedules for fire and emergency medical
services (EMS), parks and recreation, and police protection
Recommendation /Motion:
Motion to approve Ordinance 22, 2000, on First Reading to update city impact fees for
fire /EMS, police and park facilities
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ N/A
Council Action:
Total
City Attorn N
Finance
Planning ivision
X
$ N/A
[ ] Approved
[ ] Approved w / conditions
Other
Current FY
t? --.Y/,
[ ] Denied
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Advertised:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Other
1. Ordinance 22, 2000
2. Current impact fee
schedules for
Fire /EMS, Police
and Park facilities
3. Impact Fee Update
dated June 2000
from Duncan
I] Not Required
Associates
Submitted by:
Gr M
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #.
Approved by
[ ]Notified
[ ] None
City Manager
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Section 50 (copy attached) in the City's land development regulations, as adopted by Ordinance 17,
2000, contains impact fee schedules for fire and emergency medical services, police protection, and
parks and recreation facilities. These citywide impact fees apply, to all new development,
redevelopment, and building expansions. The impact fees for police an d fire/EMS were adopted in
1993 and updated in 1997. The impact fees for parks were adopted in 1997. All the current impact
fees were adopted by Ordinance 39, 1997, in September 1997.
Impact fees are paid at the time of building permit issuance. City impact fees are in addition to the
Palm Beach County impact fees that are collected for county facilities, such as county roads and
county parks. The City has been collecting about $75,000 and $140,000 annually in impact fees for
police and fire, respectively. The City has been collecting about $350,000 annually in park impact
fees.
Section 53 in the City's land development regulations requires the review of City impact fees to
update costs, credits and generation rates. The consulting firm on Duncan Associates has been
retained for this purpose. The attached report, entitled "Impact Fee Update" (June 2000), from
Duncan Associates evaluates City impact fees and proposes updated fee schedules. These new fee
schedules are contained in the attached Ordinance 22, 2000. This ordinance indicates that almost
all the City impact fees for various land -use categories (e.g., residential!, commercial, etc.) are to be
increased. The proposed impact fee schedules are to become effective on the first day of the month
following adoption.
A representative from Duncan Associates is to attend the City Council meeting on September 7' to
present the methodology report and findings, and to address any questions or comments.
Duncan Associates is also preparing a citywide road impact fee for local roads in the City. The
proposed road impact fee will be in addition to the countywide road impact fee for county and state
roads. That study is being done separately, and is to be completed in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 22, 2000, establishing new
schedules for fire /EMS, police and park facilities.
g:\sc\txt\ccimpactfess08l8OO
2
impact fee
September 11, 2000
t
ORDINANCE 22, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF DIVISION IV OF
ARTICLE III OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,
ENTITLED "CITYWIDE IMPACT FEES," TO UPDATE THE FIRE
PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, POLICE
PROTECTION AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULES, AMEND THE INDEPENDENT CALCULATION
FORMULAS, CLARIFY THE LIEN PROVISIONS, AND MAKE OTHER
MINOR REVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan provides that land
development shall not be permitted unless adequate capital facilities exist or are assured; and
WHEREAS, the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan mandates that land
development bear a proportionate share of the cost of the provision of1the new or expanded
capital facilities required by such development; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature, through the enactment of Section 163.3202, Florida
Statutes, has encouraged local governments to collect impact fees as plait of their land
development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens has determined that, in
order to maintain its current level of service standards, public safety, police protection, fire
protection, emergency medical services (EMS), and parks and recreation facilities must be
expanded to accommodate new development and redevelopment, and
WHEREAS, having reviewed the Impact Fee Update prepared by Duncan Associates,
dated June 2000, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to update the impact fee
schedules and make other minor revisions to its impact fee ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AS FOI
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach
amends Article III, Division IV in the City of Palm Beach Gardens
Regulations, entitled "Citywide Impact Fees," as adopted by Ordin
follows, with underlining to indicate text to be added and strike -thr
deleted:
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 1
COUNCIL OF THE
ens, Florida, hereby
l Development
17, 2000, to read as
to indicate text to be
September 11, 2000
Division IV.
Citywide Impact Fees
Sec. 49. Applicability.
(a) Applicability. This division shall apply to the incorporated portions of the city.
(b) Intent and purpose. This division shall implement the city's comprehensive plan. The
purpose of this division is to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of
the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide public safety, police, and
fire /emergency medical service protection services in the city as established by the
comprehensive plan.
(c) Rules of construction. The provisions of this division shall be liberally construed so as
to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. For
purposes of administration and enforcement of this division, unless otherwise stated in
this division, the rules of construction listed below shall apply to the text of this division.
(1) If there is any difference of meaning or implication between the text of this
division and any caption, illustration, summary table, or illustrative table, the text
shall control.
(2) The term "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the term "may" is
permissive.
(3) Words used in the present tense shall include the future, and words used in the
singular number shall include the plural, and the plural the singular, unless the
context clearly indicates the contrary.
(4) The phrase "used for" includes "arranged for," "designed for," "maintained for," or
"occupied for."
(5) The term "person" includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an
incorporated association, or any other similar entity.
(6) Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two
-or more items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the conjunction
"and," "or," or "either ... or," the conjunction shall be interpreted as follows:
a. "and" indicates that all the connected items, conditions, provisions or
events shall apply;
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 2
September 11, 2000
b. "or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events
may apply singly or in any combination; and
C. "either ... or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions,
or events shall apply singly but not in combination.
(7) The term "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example, but is intended
to extend its meaning to all other instances or circumstances of like kind or
character.
(8) Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, the terms "public safety,"
"police protection," "fire protection," "emergency medical services (EMS)," and
"parks and recreation" shall have the same meanings given those terms in the
city's comprehensive plan.
(9) The land use types listed in section 50 shall have the same meaning as in article
IV pertaining to zoning.
(d) Imposition of fees.
(1) Fees required. Any person who, after September 23, 1993, seeks to develop land
by applying for the issuance of a building permit for one of the land use types
specified in section 50, shall be required to pay an impact fee for the following
services: police protection, fire protection/EMS, and parks and recreation in the
manner and amount set forth in this division.
(2) Building permits. A building permit shall not be issued until all applicable impact
fees required have been paid. The amount of the impact fees shall be as set forth
in the schedules provided herein or as otherwise established pursuant to a
city- approved independent calculation. The feepayer shall have the option of
using the fee schedule or the independent calculation method.
(3) Existing uses. When change of use, redevelopment, or modification of an existing
use requires the issuance of a building permit, the impact fees shall be based upon
the net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the previous use.
Sec. 50. Fees.
Amount. The amount of the impact fees shall be determined by the schedules contained herein,
unless established by an independent calculation pursuant to section 51 .
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 3
September 11, 2000
Ca,1.Cd-_ -1., 1
L':..", P :—CfC.C6Dn and EMC !''"- ` CCt.C.141C
ccst
Tl,,.,.,1.,......,..+
1.. »...2 .,..
1V.,+ C=_
YU :! C=a ! a,..
-Re-olf- -population
PeF
Land TTY., T....a,
Unit
T ..,,..1 Us T.....,
TT..:+
TT..;+
A 1.. »...
TT..;+
N�:
iinbl� Fa11., Tlo +.,..L,o.l
2,
Q1 A0�.2G
,yl nK ✓✓
c;...te - Q_;t,, Detached
Pwelliag
n 1 3A
S2,577.31
Q3A5 36
aaaba.. - wa j
$558 34
..,.
. a....�
W- ✓ ✓.,.✓
>` r„ 1+;f
Dwelling
0.053
S2,577.31
W A� c1
.wa.- w.aaa,
a»1a
.,
..,.✓ a
MAWIA Heine
Dwelling
n 007
vv,
n 577 3A
...., ✓. ,. ✓.
W 1 4 n.
W iv n.
D , ,,,,
n non
Q7 G'77 IA
CIA) ')7
wyaaa
vi .
Way,✓ , . ✓ .
Wi, .v .+,
vvaauaava a
1 nnn Q ,,, , «a coe+
Feet
n 1 �1
Q7 Z77 ZA
QA7n 11
�v .»au vvaaaaaava va»a
.,vvv y.l »wv
.av✓
y,a.e, ✓. ..✓ .
$176.31
C
1 nnn Q ,,,� «o coo+
n I nn
$2 577 ZA
TI71 1A
,00
0.93
T.,rl „� + «:.1 /xxl
1 nnn Q„•.., «a, Vo
n n27
C7 477 1
Q nG IK
aa»»✓aa_.au ,. wva _w
a,vvv .✓.luwv A v
.v✓ ,
Wi., ✓, , .✓ - .
W ✓• ✓v
ccst
Para° and n,.,,..a,.,+;,... T'..,a.;1;4 �, r,.a.+ e„ l.,,a..la,
Net Cost P
N_+
-Re-olf- -population
PeF
Land TTY., T....a,
Unit
Land Usc T'
Un-
TT..;+
1-1 ..11
Un-+
N�:
iinbl� Fa11., Tlo +.,..L,o.l
2,
Q1 A0�.2G
,yl nK ✓✓
S. .lo c .,,;1,. ll + 1,0A
Detached
�3g
1 An
n� 4o
Q1 2C �G
aaaba.. - wa j
$558 34
..,.
. a....�
W- ✓ ✓.,.✓
1\ f„1 +:� m..Iy
�g
n A4
Wn� oo
W A� c1
.wa.- w.aaa,
a»1a
.,
..,.✓ a
Mobile Upmo
44.7
0.5^
i
$ 52.37
n��.,,
11.12
Q1no cn
-- -----
1,000 cqu_=, coo+
w v Feet
n 1Q
a v
9,
Q711 n�
Wa.. a. i..a...
vvaauaava a
nM on..s +;,,, +: 0 ,t
!,000 square ceo+
1.82
@al< 49
$176.31
C
cvo+
0.93
as »»vaa - »u ,. wvaav »vv
a,vvv v,ux=
—6 .99
w
Para° and n,.,,..a,.,+;,... T'..,a.;1;4 �, r,.a.+ e„ l.,,a..la,
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 4
Net Cost P
N_+
-Re-olf- -population
PeF
Land TTY., T....a,
Unit
Resident
Tl....,ll:..a. TT..;+
PeF
iinbl� Fa11., Tlo +.,..L,o.l
2,
Q1 A0�.2G
,yl nK ✓✓
✓va »vaavu
I-A
Smglc rami!� n,+, l,0 1
�g
$558 34
Q 1 1 nc c1
1,av ✓.✓_
a asa»
WW
44-9
$558.34
993.85
a»1a
Mobile Upmo
44.7
$558.34
Q own '7K
W
] r`
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 4
SCHEDULE 2
POLICE PROTECTION COST SCHEDULE
Land Use
Development
Functional
September 11, 2000
Net Cost/
SCHEDULE 1
Unit
Pop./Unit
Func. Pop.
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMS COST
SCHEDULE
Dwelling
Land Use
Development
Calls/
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
1.08
Unit
Unit
Call
Unit
Single - Family Detached*
Dwelling
0.126
$3,078.50
$388
Single - Family Attached
Dwelling
0.055
$3,078.50
$169
Multifamily **
Dwelling
0.055
$3,078.50
$169
Mobile Home/RV Park
Pad Site
0.028
$3,078.50
$86
Hotel/Motel
Room
0.088
$3,078.50
$271
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
0.137
$3,078.50
$422
Office/Institutional
1,000 sq. ft.
0.199
$3,078.50
$613
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
0.077
$3,078.50
$237
SCHEDULE 2
POLICE PROTECTION COST SCHEDULE
Land Use
Development
Functional
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Unit
Pop./Unit
Func. Pop.
Unit
Single- Family Detached*
Dwelling
1.46
$118.16
$173
Single - Family Attached
Dwelling
1.08
$118.16
$128
Multifamily **
Dwelling
0.97
$118.16
$115
Mobile Home/RV Park
Pad Site
0.80
$118.16
$95
Hotel/Motel
Room
2.21
$118.16
$261
Retail/Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
3.25
$118.16
$384
Office/Institutional
1,000 sq. ft.
1.96
$118.16
$232
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
1.16
$118.16
$137
SCHEDULE 3
PARKS AND RECREATION COST SCHEDULE
Housing _Type
Development
Peak
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Unit
Population/
Person
Unit
Unit
Single - Family Detached*
Dwelling
2.91
$689.27
$2,006
Single- Family Attached
Dwelling
2.15
$689.27
$1,482
Multifamily **
Dwelling
1.94
$689.27
$1,337
Mobile Home/RV Park
Pad Site
1.60
$689.27
$1,103
Hotel/Motel
Room
1.40
$689.27
$965
* includes mobile home on separate platted lot outside of mobile home park
** includes apartment, duplex, or residential condominium, excluding townhouses (single -
family attached)
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 5
September 11, 2000
Sec. 51. Independent calculations.
(a) Method of independent calculations. The feepayer has the option of submitting
evidence to the growth management director indicating the impact fees as established in
the schedules set forth in section 50 are not appropriate for the particular development or
that the feepayer or developer is entitled to additional credit. The growth management
director shall adjust the impact fee if substantial evidence is submitted that clearly
demonstrates an adjustment is necessary under the methodology upon which the impact
fee is based. The burden shall be upon the feepayer to provide all relevant data, analyses,
and reports which would assist the growth management director in making a
determination. The analysis and report must be based on generally accepted practices and
methodologies and the formulas set forth in this section.
(b) Independent calculation formulas. Any independent calculation shall use the formulas
listed below.
(1) Police protection.
a. Cost per unit = wise -call Functional population per unit x Cost per
Functional population.
b. Credit per unit = Cost per unit x 0.0345 0.029 plus functional population
per unit x debt service credit per functional population.
C. Net cost per unit = Cost per unit - Credit per unit.
(2) Fire protection.
a. Cost per unit = Fire/EMS calls a'.=- per unit x Cost per
a'.:.::' fire/EMS call.
b. Credit per unit = Cost per unit x 0.0345 0.029 plus fire/EMS calls per
unit x debt service credit per fire/EMS call.
C. Net cost per unit = Cost per unit - Credit per unit.
(3) Parks and recreation facilities.
a. Cost per unit = Peak population per unit x Cost per Person
b. Credit per unit = Cost per unit x 0.03S5 0.029 plus debt service credit per
person plus grant credit per person.
C. Net cost per unit = cost per unit - credit per unit.
Sec. 52. In -kind contributions.
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 6
September 11, 2000
(a) Independent calculations. Independent calculations for credits for in -kind contributions
made after the effective date of the ordinance from which this division derives shall be
submitted to and approved by the growth management director prior to effecting the
contribution.
(b) Decision. The growth management director's action in adjusting or refusing to adjust the
impact fee pursuant to an independent calculation shall be in writing and must be
transmitted by certified mail to the feepayer.
(c) Covenant for reduced impact. The growth management director shall require that a
covenant running with the land be executed and recorded on the subject property where
the following factors apply:
(1) the independent calculation is based on a use of land having a lesser impact than
that upon which the schedule is based, as applicable;
(2) the property could be put to a use having a greater impact than that proposed with
such greater use not requiring future approval by the city; or
(3) for such other reasons necessary to ensure compliance with this division.
The covenant for reduced impact shall indicate the name and address of the person or
entity who holds the fee simple interest in the land, and the name and address of the
mortgagee, as appropriate. The covenant shall recite the applicability of this division, and
the facts and reasons underlying its execution. It shall set forth the restrictions on the
property, the terms and conditions under which it may be released, and shall be
enforceable by the city. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the city
attorney prior to execution and recordation. The covenant shall not be amended without
prior approval of the city attorney.
Sec. 53. Review.
(a) Biennial update. Under this division, the schedule of each impact fee shall be reviewed
at least once every two years to update costs, credits and generation rates. Where the
review warrants changed impact fees, this division shall be amended.
(b) Level of service analysis. The review shall include an analysis of the level of service for
each impact fee. If the average level of service is not consistent with the level of service
upon which the respective impact fee amount is based, the amount shall be adjusted based
upon the then - existing average level of service. Where the city desires to charge impact
fees for a level of service higher than the existing level of service, non - impact fee trust
funds will be used to offset existing deficiencies. The city shall fund such deficiencies in
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 7
September 11, 2000
a reasonable amount of time, but no later that five years from imposition of such fees.
Sec. 54. Trust funds.
(a) Trust funds established. There are established three impact fee trust funds, one for
police protection, one for fire protection and EMS, and one for parks and recreation
facilities.
(1) Police protection trust fund. The police protection impact fees shall be deposited
in the police protection impact fee trust fund.
(2) Fire and EMS trust fund. The fire protection and EMS impact fees shall be
deposited in the fire protection impact fee trust fund.
(3) Parks and recreation facilities trust fund. The parks and recreation facilities
impact fees shall be deposited in the parks and recreation facilities impact fee trust
fund.
(b) Investment, use and budgeting.
(1) Investment. The trust funds shall be invested by the city in interest - bearing
sources, and all income derived shall accrue to the applicable trust fund.
(2) Use. The funds shall be used only for capital improvement costs for which the
impact fee was levied and which would add capacity needed to serve new
development.
(3) Budgeting. The city manager shall identify in the city's annual budget those new
capital improvements for which the police protection, fire protection, and parks
and recreation facilities impact fees will be spent. The funds shall remain
restricted to their respective trust funds and the requirements of this division, and
the city manager shall ensure that the funds are expended and accounted for in
accordance with this division.
(4) Audit. The city manager shall maintain such records and documentation
necessary to allow the effective audit of the use of the police protection, fire
protection/EMS, and parks and recreation facilities impact fees.
Sec. 55. Collection and administrative fees.
(a) Time of payment. The feepayer shall pay the police protection, fire protection/EMS, and
parks and recreation facilities impact fees to the city prior to the issuance of a building
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 8
September 11, 2000
permit which may be required for development listed in the schedules in section 50. A
building permit shall not be issued for any development, unless exempt from such fees as
provided herein, until such fees have been paid or until the city has accepted title to land
area meeting the standards set out in this section. For land uses not requiring a building
permit, the authorization to develop shall not be granted until the impact fees have been
paid.
(b) Alternative payment. In lieu of all or part of the impact fees, the city council may
accept an offer by a feepayer to dedicate land or construct all or part of a police
protection, fire protection/EMS, or parks and recreation facilities project. Such
construction must be in accordance with state, county, or city design standards,
whichever is applicable.
(1) Project construction. The feepayer shall submit a project description in sufficient
detail to allow the city to prepare an engineering and construction cost estimate.
(2) Land value. The manner of establishing fair market value of land to be dedicated
shall be determined by the city council. Costs to determine the land value, such as
an appraisal, shall be paid by the feepayer.
(c) Acceptance. If the city council accepts alternative payment, the city manager shall credit
the cost of this construction against the police protection, fire protection/EMS, or parks
and recreation facilities impact fees otherwise due. The portion of the fee represented by
facilities construction shall be deemed paid as follows:
(1) when the construction is completed and accepted by the city; or
(2) when the feepayer posts security, as provided herein, for the costs of such
construction; or
(3) when the city has accepted title to land dedicated by the feepayer as full or partial
credit for a required impact fee payment.
Land dedicated to the city shall be conveyed free of any liens, and the costs of
conveyance shall be paid by the feepayer. Title insurance in favor of the city or an
attorney's opinion of title shall be provided in a manner acceptable to the city attorney.
(d) Surety or security. Security shall be posted with the city council, made payable to the
city in an amount approved by the city manager equal to 110 percent of the full cost of
such construction. If the construction project will not be constructed within one year of
the acceptance of the offer by the city council, the amount of the security shall be
increased by ten percent compounded, for each year of the life of the security. The type
and form of the security shall be reviewed and approved by the city manager's office prior
to acceptance of the security by city council.
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 9
September 11, 2000
(e) Deposit of funds. All funds collected pursuant to this division shall be promptly
transferred for deposit into the appropriate trust fund to be held in separate accounts as
determined in section 54. Impact fee collections shall be used exclusively for land
acquisition, capital improvements, or expansion related to the public purpose for which
such fees were collected, with the exception of impact fee administrative costs pursuant
to paragraph (f) below. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected.
(f) Administrative fee. The city shall be entitled to retain up to four percent of the impact
fees it collects as an administrative fee to offset the costs of administering this division.
If impact fee funds which were paid by check, draft, or other negotiable instrument, do
not clear, the building permit or development order authorizing the development for
which the impact fees were paid shall be suspended. The city shall send to the feepayer
by certified mail notice of the suspension of a development order. If the impact fees,
together with any charges for the funds not clearing, are not paid within ten business days
following mailing of the notice, the building permit or development order shall be of no
further force and effect for purposes of this division and a stop work order shall be issued.
The stop work order shall not lifted until such time as the impact fees are paid.
Sec. 56. Refund.
(a) Expiration of building permit. If a building permit expires and no construction has
been commenced, the feepayer shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fees paid as a
condition for its issuance, less the four percent of the fee retained as an administrative fee
by the city. The feepayer shall be entitled to a refund equal to 96 percent of the impact fee
paid. No interest will be paid to the feepayer on refunds due to noncommencement.
Refunds resulting from the city's miscalculation of impact fees shall not be charged the
administrative fees on the amount refunded.
(b) Change in status. No refunds shall be given for a change in land use or structure after
occupancy has occurred.
(c) Return of fees. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar
quarter immediately following six years from the date the impact fee was paid shall, upon
application of the feepayer within 180 days of that date, be returned to the feepayer with
interest at the rate of six percent per annum.
Sec. 57. Exemptions and credits.
(a) Exemptions. Exemptions from payment of impact fees are established below.
(1) No additional demand. Alteration or expansion of an existing building or use of
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 10
September 11, 2000
land where no additional living units are created, where the use is not changed,
and where no additional demand for police or fire protection services will be
produced over and above that produced by the existing use.
(2) No additional living or dwelling units. The construction of accessory buildings or
structures which will not produce additional living units over and above those
located in the principal building or use of the land.
(3) Replacement. The replacement of a building, mobile home, or structure that was
in place on the effective date of the ordinance from which this division derives or
the replacement of a building, mobile home or structure that was constructed
subsequent thereto and for which the correct impact fee had been paid or
otherwise provided for, with a new building, mobile home, or structure of the
same use, provided that no additional impact will be produced over and above that
produced by the original use of the land.
(4) Public facilities. The construction of publicly -owned governmental buildings or
facilities.
(5) Abandonments. A use of a structure or land which has been abandoned for a
period of more than five years shall not be considered an existing or ongoing use
for purposes of exemptions or credits. Any previous payment of impact fees
under this division shall be credited against the appropriate impact fees owed as a
result of the change. The burden of demonstrating the existence of a use or
structure or previous payment of impact fees shall be upon the feepayer. When a
use is existing, any additional fees shall be based upon the alteration to the
existing use or structure.
(b) Credit.
(1) Improvements.
a. All improvements to and/or land dedications for police protection, fire
protection and EMS, or parks and recreation facilities required under city
development approval shall be credited against impact fees up to the total
of the impact fees due. A feepayer proposing credit for land dedication
shall present property appraisals prepared by qualified professionals and a
certified copy of the most recent assessment of the property for tax
purposes to be used in determining the amount of the credit. However, the
city retains the right to determine the amount to be credited by preparing
engineering and construction cost estimates and/or property appraisals for
those improvements and/or land dedications.
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 11
September 11, 2000
b. Feepayers claiming credits for construction and/or land dedication shall
submit documentation sufficient to permit the growth management
director to determine whether such credits are due and, if so, the amount of
such credits.
(2) Alteration, expansion or replacement. Where alteration, expansion or replacement
of a building or unit, or a change in land use existing on September 23, 1993, or
presently existing which involves an increase in the number of units or square
footage or a change in use resulting in new impacts on police, fire and EMS, or
parks and recreation capital facilities for which the impact fee is assessed, credit
shall be allowed as provided herein. Credit shall be given for the number of
existing units or square feet based upon the existing or previous land use, and
impact fees shall only be assessed on the increased level of impact resulting from
such alteration, expansion, or replacement.
(3) Residential buildings. For an addition to an existing residential building in which
additional living units are created, the feepayer shall provide to the city manager a
certification of an architect setting forth the square footage of the existing
building. For an addition to an existing residential building, the feepayer, at his
sole option, may pay the impact fee for the addition as if it alone was a new
building rather than provide the certification of an architect setting forth the
square footage of the existing building.
(c) Failure to claim. Exemptions or credits must be claimed by the feepayer at the time of
the application for a building permit. Any exemptions or credits not so claimed shall be
deemed waived by the feepayer.
Sec. 58. Appeals.
Any decision made by the city manager or designee in the course of administering this division,
may be appealed in accordance with those procedures set forth in this division for appeals of
administrative decisions.
Sec. 59. Liens and withholding of permits for nonpayment.
(a) Liens. If through error, omission, or intent the impact fees imposed under this division
are not paid in full, the amount unpaid, together with statutory interest accruing from 30
days following the date written notice by certified mail return receipt requested is sent to
the then - present owner, shall constitute a lien against the property for which the impact
fees are due. Notice of the lien shall be recorded in the official records of the clerk of the
circuit court in and for Palm Beach County. The lien shall have priority over all liens,
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 12
September 11, 2000
mortgages, and encumbrances, except taxes. If the notice of lien is not recorded within
three years following the date the building permit is issued for the development for which
the impact fees are owed, the lien shall be of no force and effect,-; ahh'. Lgh the ::Yec: fee
aFe- owed, although the impact fee debt shall remain. If the lien remains unpaid for more
than 30 days following the recording of the notice, it may be foreclosed in the manner
provided by state law for the foreclosure of mortgages on real property.
(b) Building permits. If impact fees remain unpaid, no further building permits of any type
shall be issued on the property for which the impact fees remain unpaid. Building
permits, certificates of occupancy, or occupancy permits may be issued only upon full
payment of any previously owed impact fees, together with any interest owing, and
current impact fees, if any.
Sec. 60. Violations and relief.
It shall be unlawful to violate this division, and any violation shall be punishable according to
law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the city or any feepayer shall
have the power to sue for relief in civil court to enforce the provisions of this division.
Knowingly furnishing false information to the growth management director or other city official
for any matter relating to the administration of this division shall constitute a violation thereof.
SECTION 2. The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the
code of laws and ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The sections of this
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may
be changed to "section," article" or any other appropriate word.
SECTION 3. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this
ordinance is for any reason held by the court to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such
holding shall not affect the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances previously adopted that are in
conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the first day of the month following
the date of adoption.
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 13
September 11, 2000
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 2000.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
JOSEPH R. RUSSO, MAYOR
ERIC JABLIN, VICE MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL GOLD, CITY CLERK
VOTE:
MAYRO RUSSO
VICE MAYRO JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBER CLARK
COUNCILMEMBER FURTADO
COUNDILMEMBER SABATELLO
G ASC\ORDUMPACTFEE 5082100
Ordinance 22, 2000
Page 14
DAVID CLARK,
COUNCILMEMBER
LAUREN FURTADO,
COUNCILMEMBER
CARL SABATELLO,
COUNCILMEMBER
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
LEONARD G. RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY
ABSENT
(d)
PIan
(9) The land use types listed in section 50 shall have the same meaning as in article IV
pertaining to zoning.
Imposition of fees.
(1) Fees required. Any person who, after September 23, 1993, seeks to develop land
by applying for the issuance of a building permit for one of the land use types specified
in section 50, shall be required to pay an impact fee for the following services: police
protection, fire protection/EMS, and parks and recreation in the manner and amount
set forth in this chapter.
(2) Building permits. A building permit shall not be issued until all applicable impact fees
required have been paid. The amount of the impact fees shall be as set forth in the
schedules provided herein or as otherwise established pursuant to a city- approved
independent calculation. The feepayer shall have the option of using the fee schedule
or the independent calculation method.
(3) Existing uses. When change of use, redevelopment, or modification of an existing
use requires the issuance of a building permit, the impact fees shall be based upon the
net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the previous use.
Sec. 50. Fees.
Amount. The amount of the impact fees shall be determined by the schedules contained herein,
unless established by an independent calculation pursuant to section5 I .
Schedule I.
Fire Protection and EMS Cost Schedule
Land Use Type
Development
Unit
Alarms per
Unit
Net Cost per
Alarm
Net Cost per
Unit
Single Family -
Detached
Dwelling
0.134
$2,577.34
$345.36
Multifamily
Dwelling
0.053
$2,577.34
$136.60
Mobile Home
Dwelling
0.007
$2,577.34
$ 18.04
Hotel/Motel
Room
0.094
$2,577.34
$242.27
City of Palm Beach Gardens/Land Development Regulations
Adopted July 20, 2000 68
Schedule 2.
Police Protection Cost Schedule
Land Use Type
Development
Alarms per
Net Cost per
Net Cost per
Land Use Type
Unit
Unit
Alarm
Unit
Retail/
1,000 Square
0.48
$96.89
$ 46.51
Commercial
Feet
0.163
$2,577.34
$420.11
Office/
1,000 Square
1.12
$96.89
$108.52
Institutional
Feet
0.144
$2,577.34
$371.14
Industrial/
1,000 Square
1.82
$2,577.34
$ 95.36
Warehouse
Feet
0.037
$96.89
$ 90.11
Schedule 2.
Police Protection Cost Schedule
Land Use Type
Development
Unit
Calls per Unit
Net Cost per
Call
Net Cost per
Unit
Single Family -
Detached
Dwelling
1.40
$96.89
$135.65
Multifamily
Dwelling
0.48
$96.89
$ 46.51
Mobile Home
Dwelling
0.54
$96.89
$ 52.32
Hotel/Motel
Room
1.12
$96.89
$108.52
Retail/
Commercial
1,000 Square
Feet
2.18
$96.89
$211.22
Office/
Institutional
1,000 Square
Feet
1.82
$96.89
$176.34
Industrial/
Warehouse
1,000 Square
Feet
0.93
$96.89
$ 90.11
City of Palm Beach GardensA and Development Regulations
Adopted July 20, 2000 69
Schedule 3.
Parks and Recreation Facility Cost Schedule
Land Use Type
Peak Population
per Unit
Net Cost per Peak
Resident
Net Cost per
Dwelling Unit
Single Family -
Detached
2.68
$558.34
$1,496.35
Single Family -
Attached
1.98
$558.34
$1,105.51
Multifamily
1.78
$558.34
$ 993.85
Mobile Home
1.47
$558.34
$ 820.76
Hotel/Motel
1.09
$558.34
$ 608.59
Sec. 51. Independent calculations.
(a) Method of independent calculations. The feepayer has the option of submitting
evidence to the growth management director indicating the impact fees as established in the
schedules set forth in section 50 are not appropriate for the particular development or that the
feepayer or developer is entitled to additional credit. The growth management director shall
adjust the impact fee if substantial evidence is submitted that clearly demonstrates an
adjustment is necessary under the methodology upon which the impact fee is based. The
burden shall be upon the feepayer to provide all relevant data, analyses, and reports which
would assist the growth management director in making a determination. The analysis and
report must be based on generally accepted practices and methodologies and the formulas set
forth in this division.
(b) Independent calculation formulas. Any independent calculation shall use the formulas
listed below.
(1) Police protection.
a. Cost per unit = Service call per unit x Cost per call.
b. Credit = Cost per unit x 0.0385.
C. Net cost = Cost per unit - Credit.
(2) Fire protection.
a. Cost per unit = Fire /emergency alarms per unit x Cost per alarm.
City of Palm Beach Gardens/Land Development Regulations
Adopted July 20, 2000 70
c
IMPACT FEE UPDATE
prepared for I PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
prepared by I duncanl associates
September 2000
Contents
INTRODUCTION................... ............................... 1
Legal Framework .............. ............................... 1
Benefit Districts ............... ............................... 3
Summaryof Findings ........... ............................... 4
PARKS............................. ............................... 5
ServiceUnit ................... ............................... 5
Cost per Service Unit ........... ............................... 6
Revenue Credits ............... ............................... 9
Maximum Fee Schedule ........ ............................... 11
POLICE.......................................................... 13
ServiceUnit .................. ............................... 13
Cost per Service Unit .......... ............................... 13
Revenue Credits .............. ............................... 15
Maximum Fee Schedule ....................................... 16
FIRE /EMS ......................... ............................... 18
ServiceUnit .................. ............................... 18
Costper Service Unit .......... ............................... 20
Revenue Credits .............. ............................... 21
Maximum Fee Schedule ........ ............................... 23
APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC DATA .............................. 24
APPENDIX B: FUNCIIONAL POPULATION ........................ 25
APPENDIX G TAX CREDITS ........ ............................... 28
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, PagW
List of Tables
Table 1:
POPULATION GROWTH 1990 -2015 ..... ...............................
1
Table 2:
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY ............... ...............................
4
Table 3:
PEAK POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000 .. ...............................
6
Table 4:
EXISTING PARK FACILITIES ........... ...............................
6
Table 5:
PARK REPLACEMENT COSTS .......... ...............................
8
Table 6:
PARK COST PER PERSON .............. ...............................
9
Table 7:
PARK DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ........ ...............................
10
Table 8:
PARK GRANT CREDIT ................ ...............................
10
Table 9:
PARK NET COST PER PERSON ........ ...............................
11
Table 10:
PARK MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE ..... ...............................
11
Table 11:
COMPARATIVE PARK IMPACT FEES .. ...............................
12
Table 12:
POLICE BUILDING COST ............. ...............................
13
Table 13:
POLICE VEHICT -F COST .............. ...............................
14
Table 14:
POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT ..... ...............................
14
Table 15:
POLICE DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ...... ...............................
15
Table 16:
POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ...............................
16
Table 17:
POLICE MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE ... ...............................
16
Table 18:
COMPARATIVE POLICE IMPACT FEES ...............................
17
Table 19:
FIRE /EMS ANNUAL CALLS FOR SERVICE ......................
18
Table 20:
FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT COST . ...............................
20
Table 21:
FIRE /EMS VEHICI -F COST ............ ...............................
20
Table 22:
FIRE /EMS COST PER SERVICE UNIT .. ...............................
21
Table 23:
FIRE /EMS DEBT SERVICE CREDIT .... ...............................
22
Table 24:
FIRE /EMS NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ............................
22
Table 25:
FIRE /EMS MA}CiMUM FEE SCHEDULE ...............................
23
Table 26:
COMPARATIVE FIRE /EMS IMPACT FEES .............................
23
Table 27:
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1990 ... ...............................
24
Table 28:
DWET.T TTNG UNITS BY TYPE, 2000 ..... ...............................
24
Table 29:
RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULIPT F.RS ............
25
Table 30:
NONRESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS .......
26
Table 31:
TOTAL FUNCIIONAL POPULATION, 2000 ............................
27
Table 32:
GENERAL FUND REVENUES ......... ...............................
28
Table 33:
PROPERTY TAXES FROM VACANT LAND ............................
28
Table 34:
VACANT LAND TAX CREDIT ......... ...............................
29
Table 35:
OUTSTANDING DEBT BY FACILITY TYPE ............................
29
Table 36:
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE ........... ...............................
30
List of Figures
Figure 1:
LOCATION MAP ....................... ...............................
1
Figure 2:
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ......... ...............................
3
Figure 3:
LOCATION OF EXISTING QTY PARKS . ...............................
7
Figure 4:
FIRE STATION LOCATIONS ........... ...............................
19
Figure 5:
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA ..............................
26
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, PIM
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to update the City of Palm
Beach Garden's fire/EMS, police and park impact fees.
The fire /EMS and police impact fees were originally
adopted in 1993 and were updated in 1997. At the time
of the 1997 update, the City also adopted a new park
impact fee. The current impact fee schedules are based
on the consultant study prepared in 19972 The
purpose of the current study is to update all three
impact fees.
Palm Beach Gardens is a growing municipality located
in northem Palm Beach County in southeastern Florida.
Between 1970 and 1996, the city's population and land
area both increased more than five -fold. Today, the
atycovers over 34,000 acres, the majority of which is
undeveloped!
Figure 1
LOCATION MAP
The city has historically grown faster than Palm Beach
County as a whole, and this trend is expected to continue. In the last ten years, the city's share of county
population increased from 2.7 to 3.8 percent, and is expected to be 52 percent fifteen years from now.
During the peak tourist season, the city's population is estimated to be 20 percent higher than the permanent,
year -round population. Permanent population projections for the county and permanent and peak
population projections for the city are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
POPULATION GROWTH, 1990 -2015
Jurisdiction
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010 2015
Permanent County Population
863,518
997,889
1,067,900
1,170,300
1,271,100 1,373,800
Permanent City Population
22,965
31,011
40,369
50,944
61,519 72,094
City Share of County Population
2.7%
3.1%
3.8 %,
4.4%
4.8% 5.2%
Source: City of Palm Beach Gardens. Comprehensive Plan Support Documents, Future Land Use Support Document, June
1999, page 1 -2.
Legal Framework
Impact fees are charges that are assessed on new development to help pay for the capital facility costs they
impose on the community. Unlike other types of developer exactions, impact fees are based on a standard
formula and a pre - determined fee schedule. Essentially, impact fees require that each new residential or
commercial project pay its pro-rata share of the cost of new facilities required to serve that development.
Since impact fees were pioneered in states like Florida that lacked specific enabling legislation, such fees have
generally been legally defended as an exercise of local government's broad "police power" to protect the
'Duncan Associates, fire /EMS, Police and Park impact Fee Study, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, May 1997.
City of Palm Beach Gardens, Comprehensive Plan Support Documents, Future Land Use Support Document, June
1999, page 1 -1.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
INTRODUCTION
health, safety and welfare of the community. The courts have gradually developed guidelines for
constitutionally valid impact fees, based on a "rational nexus" that must exist between the regulatory fee or
exaction and the development activity that is being regulated' The standards set by court cases generally
require that an impact fee meet a three -part test:
The need for new facilities must be created by new development;
2) The amount of fee charged must not exceed a proportional fair share of the cost to serve new
development; and
3) All fee revenues must be spent within a reasonable period of time and benefit the fee - paying
development.
These principles have some important corollaries, which maybe broadly categorized under the headings of
"proportionality," "credits" and "benefit." The proportionality rules require that the fees cover only those
costs that can be attributed to new development. In addition, applicants roust have the option of attempting
to demonstrate that their development will have less impact on the need for public facilities than is indicated
bythe fee schedule.
The credit rules are designed to ensure that new development is not overcharged. These rules address both
revenue credits, which are calculated up -front in the preparation of the fee schedule, and construction credits,
which are determined on a case -by -case basis prior to fee payment. Revenue credits reduce the impact fee
schedules to account for any other revenues that will be generated by new development and used to retire
debt for existing facilities or to construct new facilities. Construction credits are used to offset an individual
development's impact fees by the value of required land dedications or other developer improvements or
contributions for the same types of facilities.
Finally, the benefit rules require that the fee revenues be spent within a reasonable period of time and within
a reasonable proximity to the fee - paying development. The Florida courts have ruled that earmarking of
funds for expenditure in the area in which they were collected is generally sufficient to establish reasonable
benefit.
While impact fees in Florida are primarily governed by case law, there are some statutory provisions that do
apply. Section 235.26(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that public schools are exempt from impact fees:
... all public educational and ancillary plants constructed by a district school board or a
community college district board of trustees shall conform to the State Uniform Building
Code for Public Educational Facilities Construction, and such plants are exempt from all
other state, county, district, n„inicipal, or local building codes, interpretations, building
permits, and assessments of fees for building permits, ordinances, road closures, and impact
fees or service availability fees...
'There are six Florida cases that have guided the development of impact fees in the state: Contractors and Builders
Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1976); Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606
(Fla. 1976); Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Palm
Beach County, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Seminole County v. City of Casselberry, 541 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989);
City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, 535 So.2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); and St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida
Builders Association, 16 FLW S264 (April 18, 1991).
Palm Beach Gardens\IMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, PM
INTRODUCTION
Benefit Districts
Impact fee case law states that impact fees must be spent so as to provide a reasonable benefit to the
fee - paying development. One way of ensuring reasonable benefit is to create multiple benefit districts within
which the fees collected must be spent. Multiple benefit districts ensure that the unpact fees paid by a
development are spent closer to the development than would be the case under a jurisdiction -wide benefit
district. On the other hand, the larger the number of benefit districts, the more difficult it is to accumulate
sufficient funds in anyone district to make any significant improvements. Deciding on the appropriate
number and location of benefit districts requires balancing the need to show reasonable benefit to fee payers
with the need to maintain sufficient flexibility in impact fee expenditures to address priority improvement
needs.
Currently, the entire corporate area of the city is designated as a single benefit district for fire/EMS, police
and park impact fees. This is a standard approach for fire/EMS and police impact fees, since public safety
services tend to function as an integrated system for the delivery of services. For example, fire - fighting
apparatus and ambulances located in one fire station may respond to the primary service area of another
station if the equipment at the neighboring station is already responding to an incident. And both fire/EMS
and police facilities include some that serve a centralized, city-wide function, such as trn+ning, dispatch or
central administration. In contrast, local jurisdictions are often divided into multiple benefit districts for park
impact fees.
The City's Comprehensive Plan divides the city into two distinct service areas by the Urban Growth
Boundary. This boundary, which follows Loxahatchee Slough, divides the city into the "urban' area to the
east and the "rural' area to the west, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
y
t
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEEUPDATE
01O- AM
September 7, 2000, Pag=
INTRODUCTION
Different levels of service (LOS) have been established for the urban and rural areas. However, these
differential LOS standards do not necessarily translate into different capital costs to serve new development
in the two areas. For example, the fire/EMS LOS standard is a five - minute response time to 90% of all calls
(on a district basis) in the urban area, and an eight - minute average response time in the rural area. However,
the lower LOS provided in the rural area does not mean that fewer stations and equipment are required per
housing unit, but rather that the less compact development pattern in the rural area makes it impossible to
provide the same response tirne. The police LOS standard in the urban area is 1,150 service calls per officer
per year using the community policing philosophy, compared to the use of zone patrol based on rural crime
control strategies in the rural area. Thus, while the police LOS standard is different in the two areas, this
does not necessarily translate into differential capital costs to serve new development in the two areas.
Finally, the level of service for recreation and open space states that "park and recreation facilities will be
located to serve the entire citypopulation, and in most cases will be in the urban area. "' While the city
encompasses a large land area, much of its area has significant development constraints and the area where
most development will occur is relatively compact. For these reasons, it is recommended that the single, city
wide benefit district for park impact fees be — intained.
Summary of Findings
Palm Beach Gardens' current impact fees and the maximum fees calculated in this update are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Parks $510 $343 $282 $356
Single-
Multi-
Mobile
Hotel/
Retail
Office
Industrial
Fire /EMS $43 $32 $68 $29
Family
Family
Home
Motel
(per 1000
(per 1000
(per 1000
Potential Percent Increase 30% 38% 44% 56%
(per unit)
(per unit)
(per unit)
(per room)
sq. ft.)
sq. ft.)
sq. ft.)
Parks
$1,496
$994
$821
$609
$0
$0
$0
Police
$136
$47
$52
$109
$211
$176
$90
Fire /EMS
$345
$137
$18
$242
$420
$371
$95
Total Existing Fees
$1,977
$1,178
$891
$960
$631
$547
$185
Parks
$2,006
$1,337
$1,103
$965
$0
$0
$0
Police
$173
$115
$95
$261
$384
$232
$137
Fire /EMS
$388
$169
$86
$271
$422
$613
$237
Total Potential Fees
$2,567
$1,621
$1,284
$1,497
$806
$845
$374
Parks $510 $343 $282 $356
$0
$0
$0
Police $37 $68 $43 $152
$173
$56
$47
Fire /EMS $43 $32 $68 $29
$2
$242
$142
Total Potential Increase $590 $443 $393 $537
$175
$298
$189
Potential Percent Increase 30% 38% 44% 56%
28%
54%
102%
• existing fee for parks is for apartment, duplex or condominium (townhouse fee is higher);
same for potential park
and
fire/EMS fees.
Source: Potential fees are maximum fees calculated in this report in Tables 10, 17 and 25.
"City of Palm Beach Gardens, Comprehensive Plan Support Documents, Capital Improvement Element Support
Document. June 1998, page 9-3.
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, P=
PARKS
The Cityof Palm Beach Gardens operates and maintninq a varietyof parks and recreational facilities for the
benefit of city residents and visitors. The City adopted park impact fees on September 18, 1997 (Ordinance
No. 39- 1997), based on a consultant study prepared in May 1997.5 The current study is intended to provide
basis for updating the park impact fees.
The City has been collecting about $350,000 annually in park impact fees. The Fize Year Qrprtal lrrpmu ?rtt
Plan for FY 2000 -2004 has programmed park impact fee funds to construct a skate park and rest room/
concession building at Plant Drive Park, construct a restroom/storage building on the soccer fields on the
Klock property, help purchase land for a district park and help develop the Nature Center. In addition to
park impact fees, the City's subdivision regulations require residential developers to dedicate land for parks or
pay a fee in lieu of land dedication prior to final plat. The amount of the dedication requirement is 600
square feet per dwelling unit. The fee in lieu of dedication is based on the amount that would be required to
be dedicated and the appraised value of the property. The value of the land to be dedicated or the in-lieu
payment is not to exceed the amount of the park impact fees, "unless the dedication is necessary to maintain
adopted level of service standards established in the comprehensive plan.""
The calculation of the park impact fees includes the cost of both park land acquisition and park development.
Consequently, credit against the park impact fees is given for the value of prior park land subdivision
exactions. The value of any park land dedication or cash payment is deducted from the park impact fees that
would otherwise be due at time of building permit issuance.
Service Unit
Park impact fees are generally assessed only on new residential development. However, Palm Beach
Gardens' park impact fees, like those of manyFlorida communities, are also assessed on hotels and motels,
under the theory that visitors, as well as residents, use and generate demand for park facilities.
The Palm Beach Gardens Carrfirelaereciw Plan uses the ratio of acres of City -owned park land per 1,000 year -
round residents as the park level of service (LOS) standard. The adopted LOS is 3.7 acres per 1,000
residents, although the Plan notes that the goal is to increase the LOS to 4.2 acres/ 1,000 over the next several
years. The 1997 park impact fee study did not use a ratio of acres to population in the fee calculations.
Instead, the ratio of the total replacement costs of existing City -owned park land and facilities to the
estimated peak population was used in the park impact fee calculations. This approach essent611y uses the
existing LOS rather than any formally adopted LOS in the fee calculations, and thus does not charge new
development for a higher standard that existing development has provided This approach will continue to
be used in this update of the park impact fees.
Year 2000 estimates of dwelling units in Palm Beach Gardens yield estimates of the total peak population
when multiplied by the average household size multipliers derived from the 1990 census, as shown in Table
3. Note that peak season population assumes that all dwelling units are occupied, and also includes transients
occupying tourist accommodations. The peak season population estimate is somewhat lower than the 48,443
projection for the year 2000 contained in the Co ?pm miw Plan. Nevertheless, the peak population estimate
calculated here will be used in the park impact fee calculations, since it is more consistent with the dwelling
unit and average household size estimates.
5Duncan Associates. Fire /EMS, Police and Park Impact Fee Study, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, May 1997.
6Palm Beach Gardens Code, § 114 -421 and § 114 -423.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Paget
PARKS
Table 3
PEAK POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2000
Year 2000 Average
Dwellings/ Household Peak Season
Land Use Type Units Rooms Size Population
Single - Family Dwelling 8,764 2.91 25,503
Multi - Family Dwelling 7,626 2.03 15,481
Mobile Home Dwelling 618 1.60 989
Hotel /Motel Rooms 1,354 1.40 1,896
Total 43,869
Source: Year 2000 dwelling units from Table 28; hotel rooms is 1996 estimate from
1997 impact fee study plus building permits since 1997 for 117 additional rooms per
Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Department, February 23, 2000
memorandum; average household size for dwelling units from Table 27; average
hotel room occupancy is one -half average vehicle occupancy on vacation trips from
U.S. Department of Transportation, Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 1995.
Cost per Service Unit
The cost per service unit used in the park impact fee calculations is the replacement cost of existing City
owned parks facilities divided by peak season population. The City's parks are concentrated in the eastern,
"urban" part of the city, as illustrated in Figure 3. While a portion of the Palm Beach Gardens District Park
is owned by Palm Beach County, the City has a 75 -3ear lease on the County land and has sole responsibility
for district park improvement and maintenance. Consequently, the entire district park is considered a City
facility. Excluding the 15 -mile long Riverside i.inear Park, the City's existing parks total almost 267 acres and
include a broad array of recreational facilities, as summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
EXISTING PARK FACILITIES
E
_
C O tV 7 N Y C
d
� °E o 2 ° xm °
; o uyi
a -22 E U ° o
u-
rn
V m c R N
0
�m -
eN
V
3 a) Q d cc w o r
Park Acres o ;0> m a m m om = 0 ;> a cc w cc m 0- V) V)
a s
Gardens Comm Ctr 12.0 2 2 3 1 1.0 1 1 1
1 120
Riverside Comm Ctr 1.0 1
49
Gardens Park Sports 20.0 2 2 8 3 8 1
130
L. Catherine Sports 26.0 1 0.5 4 1
110
Lake Catherine 6.3
Lilac 9.5
PGA National Park 36.0 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 1
1 127
Plant Drive Park 8.0 2 1 1 1 2 1
9E
Oaks Park 11.0 0.5 1 1 2
1 3E
Soccer Complex 16.9
8E
Gardens Dist Park 115.0 1 8
5f
Twin Parks 1.0
Westminster 4.0
Total 266.7 2 2 4 9 1 2.0 1 6 1 1 1 9 6 10 4 6 12 3 1 2 3
3 81i
Source: Palm Beach Gardens Parks and Recreation Department, November 30, 1999 and March 1, 2000 memoranda.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, P=
Figure 3
LOCATION OF EXISTING CITY PARKS
-0: J
_4
M.
PRO P.M.)
_ _ .. ,��.
rrL
i�JM455; �7�
QQ
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE
11RHO
1!��4
vI
"M
I
M TM
FRA
PARKS
PARKS
The park impact fee calculations are based on the net cost to maintain the existing level of service. While
park levels of service are often expressed in terms of a simple ratio of park land to population, the City of
Palm Beach Gardens provides a wide range of facilities in its parks that, in total, are about one and one -half
times as costly as the land value alone. For the purpose of impact fees, a better measure of the amount of
park facilities provided is the total replacement cost of these facilities. The quantities, unit costs and total
replacement value of the City's existing park facilities are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
PARK REPLACEMENT COSTS
Facility
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Park Land (acres)
266.7
$60,000
$16,002,000
Tennis Courts (hard surface)
4
$20,000
$80,000
Tennis Courts (clay)
8
$35,000
$280,000
Volleyball Courts
2
$32,000
$64,000
Basketball Courts, Outdoor
4
$20,000
$80,000
Basketball Courts, Indoor
2
$50,000
$100,000
Soccer Fields
10
$125,000
$1,250,000
Softball Fields
6
$150,000
$900,000
T -Ball Fields
4
$72,000
$288,000
Baseball Fields
9
$200,000
$1,800,000
Roller Hockey Rinks
2
$175,000
$350,000
Pavilions
6
$50,000
$300,000
Picnic Areas
3
$2,000
$6,000
Disc Golf Course*
1
$5,000
$5,000
Vita Course
1
$25,000
$25,000
Jogging Trails (miles)
2
$15,000
$30,000
Playgrounds/Tot Lots
6
$50,000
$300,000
Fishing Areas
2
$15,000
$30,000
Swimming Pools
1
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Recreation Center, Large
1
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
Recreation Center, Medium
1
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Recreation Center, Small
1
$750,000
$750,000
Food Concessions, Large
2
$250,000
$500,000
Food Concessions, Small
1
$75,000
$75,000
Restrooms
9
$50,000
$450,000
Parking Spaces
817
$200
$163,400
Total
$34,328,400
Source: Quantities from Table 4;
unit costs from Palm Beach Gardens Parks and Recreation
Department. June 16, 2000 memorandum.
The park facility replacement costs can be divided by total peak population to derive the cost per person. As
shown in Table 6, it costs approximately $783 in current dollars to provide a new peak season resident with
parks at the City's current level of service.
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pm
1
PARKS
Table 6
PARK COST PER PERSON
Total Park Facility Replacement Cost $34,328,400
Total Peak Season Population, 2000 43,869
Cost per Peak Season Resident $782.52
Source: Total replacement cost from Table 5; peak season
population from Table 3.
Revenue Credits
In calculating park impact fees. the cost per person to maintain the current level of service should be reduced
to account for three Lands of revenue credits. The first is the property taxes that have been paid by vacant
land that have been used to pay for existing park facilities. The second is the stream of future property tax
payments that will be made by new residential development and used to retire bonds used to construct
existing park facilities. The third is outside grant funding that will be available on a per capita basis to help
fund the costs of growth-related parks improvements. The first of these, the propertytaxes paid byvacant
land, is addressed in Appendix C The other two are calculated in this section.
As described in Appendix C, almost 30 percent of the Municipal Complex bond issue was used for
improvements to Palm Beach Gardens Park sports complex and the purchase of the Westminster Church
site for future recreational facilities. The park share of the outstanding principal on that bond issue totals
about $7.8 million. Approximately 75 percent of this will be repaid by residential development. As shown in
Table 7, the net present value of future park debt service payments by future residential development is $62
per peak season resident.
The City has received some state and county grant funding over the last several years to help pay for park
capital costs. Over the past five years, the City received $150,000 from the Palm Beach CountyRecreation
Assistance Program for the development of Oaks Park and Lake Catherine Park It is likely that the Gty will
continue to receive additional grant funding in the future. For example, the City has been notified of an
award of a $100,000 grant from the Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program to be used in
developing the Gardens Park baseball complex. Based on the grant funding received over the last five years,
new residential development will be helping to generate a future revenue stream that is the equivalent of
about $8 per person in grant funds that can be used for capacity-expanding park improvements, as shown in
Table 8.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000,
PARKS
Table 7
PARK DEBT SERVICE CREDIT
Table 8
PARK GRANT CREDIT
Total Park Grants, Last Five Years $150,000
Annual Grant Funding $30,000
Peak Season Population, 2000 43,869
Annual Grant Funding per Person $0.68
Net Present Value Factor (20 years at 5% discount) $12.46
Park Grant Credit per Person $8.47,,,
Source: Grant amounts from Palm Beach Gardens Parks and Recreation
Department, November 23, 1999 memorandum; peak season population from
Table 3; 5% discount rate used in net present value calculation is approximate
interest rate on City bond issues.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
1
Total
Park
Residential
Peak
Credit/
Year
Debt Service
Share
Share
Population
Person
2000
$1,424,320
$420,174
$315,131
43,869
$7.18
2001
$1,404,829
$414,425
$310,819
46,168
$6.73
2002
$1,401,925
$413,568
$310,176
48,587
$6.38
2003
$1,397,766
$412,341
$309,256
51,133
$6.05
2004
$1,402,127
$413,627
$310,220
53,812
$5.76
2005
$1,400,599
$413,177
$309,883
56,632
$5.47
2006
$1,401,652
$413,487
$310,115
58,982
$5.26
2007
$1,395,935
$411,801
$308,851
61,430
$5.03
2008
$1,399,400
$412,823
$309,617
63,979
$4.84
2009
$1,400,683
$413,201
$309,901
66,634
$4.65
2010
$1,399,028
$412,713
$309,535
69,399
$4.46
2011
$1,395,919
$411,796
$308,847
71,786
$4.30
2012
$1,400,715
$413,211
$309,908
74,255
$4.17
2013
$1,407,470
$415,204
$311,403
76,809
$4.05
2014
$1,401,635
$413,482
$310,112
79,451
$3.90
2015
$1,413,309
$416,926
$312,695
82,184
$3.80
2016
$1,411,554
$416,408
$312,306
84,650
$3.69
2017
$1,417,806
$418,253
$313,690
87,190
$3.60
2016
$678,725
$200,224
$150,168
89,806
$1.67
2019
$336,575
$99,290
$74,468
92,500
$0.81
Total
$26,291,972
$7,756,131
$5,817,101
$91.80
Net Present Value (5% Discount Rate)
$62.09
Source: Principal debt service payments from Table 36; park share
is percent of total debt
service
from Table 35; residential share
is 75% of park share, based on share of total property taxes from
developed land from Palm Beach
County Property
Appraiser, November 1999 memorandum; year
2000 peak population
from Table 3; peak population projections based
on projected increase in
permanent population from Table 1; 5% discount
rate used in net
present value calculation is
approximate interest rate on
City bond issues.
Table 8
PARK GRANT CREDIT
Total Park Grants, Last Five Years $150,000
Annual Grant Funding $30,000
Peak Season Population, 2000 43,869
Annual Grant Funding per Person $0.68
Net Present Value Factor (20 years at 5% discount) $12.46
Park Grant Credit per Person $8.47,,,
Source: Grant amounts from Palm Beach Gardens Parks and Recreation
Department, November 23, 1999 memorandum; peak season population from
Table 3; 5% discount rate used in net present value calculation is approximate
interest rate on City bond issues.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
1
In summary, the park cost per person is reduced by three kinds of revenue credits to determine the park net
cost per person. First, it has been determined in Appendix C that vacant land has funded 2.9 percent of
existing general fund facilities, and the park cost per person is reduced by that percentage to account for the
contribution from the formerlyvacant land that is now being developed for residential use. Second, the cost
is reduced by the current lump sum payment that is the equivalent of the future stream of property tax
payments that new residential development will be mnicing to retire the outstanding debt for existing park
facilities. Finally, the park cost per person is reduced by the equivalent of potential future grant funAng per
person that maybe available to help pay for growth - related park costs. The result is the net cost per person
to maintain the current level of service for parks. As shown in Table 9, this net cost is about $689 per
person.
Table 9
PARK NET COST PER PERSON
Park Cost per Person
$782.52
Past Property Tax Credit per Person (2.9 %)
$22.69
Debt Service Credit per Person
$62.09
Grant Funding Credit per Person
$8.47
Net Cost per Person
$689.27
Source: Park cost per person from Table 6; past property tax credit
is percentage from Table 34 times cost per person; debt service
credit from Table 7; grant funding credit from Table 8.
$689.27
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum park impact fees that maybe adopted by Palm Beach Gardens can be calculated by
multiplying the average household size (or persons per hotel room associated with various housing types by
the net cost per peak season resident of maintaining the existing level of park facilities. Based on the
calculations in Table 10, the maximum park impact fees range from $965 per hotel room to $2,006 per single -
family dwelling unit.
Table 10
PARK MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE
If adopted at 100 percent of the maximum fees, the park impact fees would increase 34 percent for dwelling
units, and would increase by 59 percent for hotels and motel rooms, as shown in Table 11.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page
Average
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Housing Type
Unit
Household Size
Person
Unit
Single- Family Detached*
Dwelling
2.91
$689.27
$2,006
Single- Family Attached
Dwelling
2.15
$689.27
$1,482
Duplex, Apartment or Condominium
Dwelling
1.94
$689.27
$1,337
Mobile Home /RV Park
Pad Site
1.60
$689.27
$1,103
Hotel /Motel
Room
1.40
$689.27
$965
* includes mobile home on individual platted lot
Source: Average household size by housing type
from Table 3;
net cost per person from
Table 9.
If adopted at 100 percent of the maximum fees, the park impact fees would increase 34 percent for dwelling
units, and would increase by 59 percent for hotels and motel rooms, as shown in Table 11.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page
PARKS
Table 11
COMPARATIVE PARK IMPACT FEES
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
1
Existing
Maximum
Potential
Housing Type
Unit
Fee
Fee
Change
Single - Family Detached" .
Dwelling
$1,496.35
$2,006
34%
Single - Family Attached
Dwelling
$1,105.51
$1,482
34%
Duplex, Apartment or Condominium
Dwelling
$993.85
$1,337
35%
Mobile Home /RV Park
Pad Site
$820.76
$1,103
34%
Hotel /Motel
Room
$608.59
$965
59%
" includes mobile home on individual platted lot
Source: Existing fees from § 82 -30. Palm Beach Gardens Code; maximum fees from Table 10.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
1
POLICE
The City's police impact fees were originally adopted in
based on a consultant study prepared in May 1997 (" 19'
adopted on September 18, 1997. This study is intended
fees.
1993, and were updated in 1997. The current fees are
17 update ")! The ordinance (No. 39 -1997) was
to provide a basis for updating the police impact
The City has been collecting about $75,000 annually in police impact fees. The City has been accumulating
the fee revenues for several years, and the FY 1999/2000 budget proposes to spend $150,000 on a building
for radio equipment and $368,000 on mobile data terminals.
Service Unit
The approach that was used in the original 1993 study and the 1997 update used calls for service as the
service unit. The cost of police facilities to serve different types of new development was based upon the
capital cost per service call and the expected number of calls per unit of each land use type per year.
However, due to changes in the waythe Citytracks police calls for service, it is no longer possible to
determine calls for service by land use type. Consequently, this update will use an alternative approach,
known in impact fee literature as "functional population." This approach is based on the assumption that
demand for these types of facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people. The functional
population concept is analogous to the concept of "full-time equivalent" employees. It represents the
number of "full time equivalent" people present at the site of a land use. Functional population multipliers
for various land use categories, as well as total functional population estimated to exist in the city in the base
year 2000, are calculated in Appendix B.
Cost per Service Unit
The City's Comprehensive Plan notes that, although "the [Police] Department responds to calls on vacant
property (trespassing, disabled vehicles, illegal hunting), future development of land within the City will
require additional patrolling and enforcement of laws. "' To support that higher level of law enforcement,
additional capital facilities will be required. The capital facilities utili74d by the Police Department include the
police station, a training center, vehicles and communication and other equipment. The buildings and land
that support the City's police protection capability have a replacement value of about $6.0 million, as
summarized in Table 12.
Table 12
POLICE BUILDING COST
Facilities Building Land Total
Police Station $5,779,252 $250,000 $6,029,252
Training Center (leased) na na na
Total Building Cost $5,779,252 $250,000 $6,029,252
Source: Police station building cost from Table 35; police station land cost
from Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Department, February 25,
2000 memorandum; DARE office costs from 1997 update report.
'Duncan Associates, Fire /EMS Police and Park Impact fee Study, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, May 1997.
'City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan, Public Safety Element Support Document, June 1998, p. 10-7.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
1.
POLICE
In addition to buildings, a significant amount of capital equipment is required to support police protection
service. The Police Department's existing inventory of patrol and other vehicles has a total current
replacement value of $1.4 million, as shown in Table 13. The Department has initiated a "take home" vehicle
policy that will require the acquisition of approximately 45 additional patrol vehicles over the next several
years. It is premature to include the cost of this policy in the current impact fee update, although it should be
addressed in the next impact fee update.
Table 13
POLICE VEHICLE COST
Manufacturer
Model
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Chevrolet
1 Ton Truck
1
$30,000
$30,000
Chevrolet
'/z Ton Truck
2
$23,504
$47,008
Chevrolet
3/4 Ton Truck
1
$20,000
$20,000
Chevrolet
Astro
3
$18,200
$54,600
Chevrolet
Blazer
1
$21,512
$21,512
Chevrolet
Caprice
14
$18,500
$259,000
Chevrolet
Corsica
3
$17,100
$51,300
Chevrolet
Lumina
3
$17,887
$53,661
Chevrolet
Suburban
1
$38,000
$38,000
Dodge
Van 150
1
$17,900
$17,900
Ford
Crown Victoria*
21
$26,900
$564,900
Ford
Expedition
2
$35,771
$71,542
Ford
Ranger
1
$11,300
$11,300
Harley
Motorcycle
9
$12,500
$112,500
Toyota
Pick -Up
1
$11,700
$11,700
Total Vehicle Cost
$1x364,923
* excludes one DUI
vehicle paid for with grant funds
Source: Vehicle descriptions and quantities from Palm
Beach Gardens Police
Department, 12/17/99
memorandum; unit
replacement costs from 2/4/00 memo.
The Police Department utilizes another $1.2 million in equipment with a unit cost of $500 or more to the
building, land and vehicle costs identified in the previous two tables results in a total capital cost of $8.6
million, this total capital cost by total existing service units yields a cost of $182 per functional
population, as summarized in Table 14.
Table 14
POLICE COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Building Replacement Cost
$6,029,252
Vehicle Replacement Cost
$1,364,923
Equipment Cost
$1,205,252
Existing Police Facility Cost
$8,599,427
Total Functional Population, 2000
47,318
Police Cost per Functional Population
$181.74
Source: Building replacement cost from Table 12; vehicle cost from Table
13; equipment cost is original cost from City's fixed
asset listings;
functional population from Table 31.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page
1
POLICE
Revenue Credits
In calculating police impact fees. the cost per service unit to maintain the current level of service should be
reduced to account for two kinds of revenue credits. The fast is the property taxes that have been paid by
vacant land that have been used to pay for existing police facilities. The second is the stream of future
property tax payments that will be made by new development and use to retire bonds used to construct the
new police station. A revenue credit would also be due if the City could anticipate significant outside grant
funding that would be available to help fund the costs of growth - related police facilities. However, over the
past three years, the City has only received grant funding sufficient to purchase a single vehicle, and that
vehicle has been left out of the facilities used to calculate the cost of the existing level of service (see note to
Table 13).
The percent of property taxes paid by vacant land is addressed in Appendix C. Over 20 percent of the
Municipal Complex bond issue was used for the expansion of the police station (a portion of the cost of the
new 34,919 square foot police station is attributable to replacing/rehabilitating the old 9,000 square foot
station, and this portion is not subject to the credit). As shown in Table 15, the net present value of future
police - related debt service payments is $58 per service unit.
Table 15
POLICE DEBT SERVICE CREDIT
Fiscal
Total
Police
Functional
Payment/
Year
Debt Service
Share
Population
Func. Pop.
2000
$1,424,320
$319,048
47,318
$6.74
2001
$1,404,829
$314,682
49,797
$6.32
2002
$1,401,925
$314,031
52,406
$5.99
2003
$1,397,766
$313,100
55,152
$5.68
2004
$1,402,127
$314,076
58,042
$5.41
2005
$1,400,599
$313,734
61,083
$5.14
2006
$1,401,652
$313,970
63,618
$4.94
2007
$1,395,935
$312,689
66,258
$4.72
2008
$1,399,400
$313,466
69,008
$4.54
2009
$1,400,683
$313,753
71,872
$4.37
2010
$1,399,028
$313,382
74,855
$4.19
2011
$1,395,919
$312,686
77,430
$4.04
2012
$1,400,715
$313,760
80,094
$3.92
2013
$1,407,470
$315,273
82,849
$3.81
2014
$1,401,635
$313,966
85,699
$3.66
2015
$1,413,309
$316,581
88,647
$3.57
2016
$1,411,554
$316,188
91,306
$3.46
2017
$1,417,806
$317,589
94,045
$3.38
2018
$678,725
$152,034
96,866
$1.57
2019
$336,575
$75,393
99,772
$0.76
Total
$26,291,972
$5,889,401
$86.21
Net Present Value Payment l5% discount rate)
$58.31
Source:
Total debt service
payments from
Table 36; police share is
percent of total debt service from Table 35; year 2000 functional
population from Table 31; functional population projections based on
projected increase in permanent
population
from Table 1; 5% discount
rate used in net present value
calculation is approximate interest rate on
City bond issues.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page®
1:
The police cost per service unit is reduced by two kinds of revenue credits to determine the net cost per
service unit. It has been determined in Appendix C that vacant land has funded 2.9 percent of existing
general fund facilities, and the police cost per service unit is reduced by that percentage to account for the
contribution from the formerly vacant land that is now being developed. Next, the cost is reduced by the
current lump sum payment that is the equivalent of the future stream of property tax payments that new
development will be making to retire the outstanding debt for the new police station. The result is the net
cost per service unit to maintain the current level of service for police facilities. As shown in Table 16, this
net cost is $118 per functional population.
Table 16
POLICE NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Cost per Functional Population $181.74
Past Property Tax Credit per Functional Population (2.9 %) $5.27
Debt Service Credit per Functional Population $58.31
Net Cost per Functional Population $118.16
Source: Cost from Table 14; past property tax credit based on percent from Table 34
times cost per functional population; debt service credit from Table 15.
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum police impact fees that maybe adopted by Palm Beach Gardens, based on current, available
data and the methodologies used in this analysis, are calculated by multiplying the functional population per
unit associated with various land uses bythe net cost per functional population of mainta;ning the existing
level of service. The impact fee calculations are shown in Table 17.
Table 17
POLICE MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE
September 7, 2000, Pag�
1'
Functional
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Land Use
Unit
Pop. /Unit
Func. Pop.
Unit
Single- Family Detached*
Dwelling
1.46
$118.16
$173
Single - Family Attached
Dwelling
1.08
$118.16
$128
Duplex, Apartment, or Condominium
Dwelling
0.97
$118.16
$115
Mobile Home /RV Park
Pad Site
0.80
$118.16
$95
Hotel /Motel
Room
2.21
$118.16
$261
Retail /Commercial
1000 sq. ft.
3.25
$118.16
$384
Office /Institutional
1000 sq. ft.
1.96
$118.16
$232
Industrial/Warehouse
1000 sq. ft.
1.16
$118.16
$137
* includes mobile home on individual platted lot
Source: Functional population per unit from
Tables 29 and 30; cost per functional population from Table 16.
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE
September 7, 2000, Pag�
1'
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page®
1
POLICE
The maximum fees calculated in this report are compared with the current fees in Table 18.
The increase
would be a maximum of $81 per residential unit and up to 20 cents per square foot for nonresidential
developments.
Table 18
COMPARATIVE POLICE IMPACT FEES
Current Maximum
Potential
Percent
Land Use Unit Fees Fees
Change
Change
Single Family Detached* Dwelling $135.65 $173
$37
28%
Single - Family Attached Dwelling $46.51 $128
$81
175%
Duplex, Apartment or Condominium Dwelling $46.51 $115
$68
147%
Mobile Home Park Site $52.32 $95
$43
82%
Hotel /Motel Room $108.52 $261
$152
141%
Retail /Commercial 1,000 sf $211.22 $384
$173
82%
Office/Institutional 1,000 sf $176.34 $232
$56
32%
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sf $90.11 $137
$47
52%
* includes mobile home on individual platted lot
Source: Current fees from 4 82 -30, Palm Beach Gardens Code; maximum fees from Table 17.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page®
1
FIRE /EMS
The Gt/s fire/EMS impact fees were originally adopted in 1993, and were updated in 1997. The fees were
based on a consultant study prepared in May 1997 C 1997 update ") 9 The ordinance (No. 39 -1997) was
adopted on September 18, 1997. The current study is intended to provide a basis for updating the fire/EMS
impact fees.
The Gtyhas been collecting about $140,000 annually in fire /EMS impact fees. The Gty's FY 2000 -2004 Fite
Yezr Capitallrrgbmrwvt Plan has programmed fire/EMS impact fees to purchase a $125,000 rescue vehicle in
2000 and 2001 and to purchase a $250,000 fire engine in 2002.
Service Unit
The cost of fire/EMS facilities to serve different types of new development is determined based upon the
cost per fire/EMS call for service and the expected number of calls per unit per year for various land use
types. falls for service include medical calls, fires, emergencies, hazardous conditions and false alarms.
As noted above, the cost of fire/EMS facilities to serve different types of new development is based upon
the expected n,imher of calls for service per unit per year. Dividing the n,,-her of annual fire/EMS calls
received from each land use category by the existing amount of development yields the service units required
per development unit (dwelling unit, hotel room or 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building area). The
annual number of calls for service per unit for six land categories ranging from single - family dwellings to
industrial square footage in thousands is presented in Table 19.
Table 19
FIRE /EMS ANNUAL CALLS FOR SERVICE
Annual 2000
Calls/
Land Use Type Unit Calls Units
Unit
Single - Family Detached/Mobile Homes Dwelling 1,183 9,382
0.126
Multi - Family Dwelling 423 7,626
0.055
Hotel /Motel Room 119 1,354
0.088
Retail /Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. 595 4,329
0.137
Office /Institutional 1,000 sq. ft. 844 4,231
0.199
Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. 65 839
0.077
Total 3,229
Source: Annual calls includes medical, fire alarm, fire and other calls, excluding those on roadways and
other calls not associated with a land use, for the period January 1998 through October 1999, adjusted
by ratio of 12 out of 22 months, from Palm Beach Gardens Fire Department, November 4, 1999
memorandum; year 2000 residential units from Table 28, nonresidential units from Table 31.
9Duncan Associates, Fire /EMS Police and Park Impact Fee Study, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, May 1997.
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Paget
Figure 4
FIRE STATION LOCATIONS
\• 'p
ORI
It
�.
\ _.a1'd,:.•.c. -- DON .A055 ` A t
,
l
` \Future Fire 8tatlor -
_. _y �.� •:,:;. ,,�;: � ,� .*,,,_ �_��� �.� {111
`, Iy
_
c ar
N
AAA_
•, r
�7
y.__
tatlon
:i, -� C .,i Yom.. `• .% R ` l: tatio
#Z
Ll
.7
� PNm
/.�"� . • ; ,�•. �. 1.�.J .._ 1! %!t it i ?:y C
[ri i
r
Future Station #3 --
_ 1
ii -Al -
=
-t _ --
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACTFEE UPDATE
September 7, 2000, Pag=
FIRE/EMS
Cost per Service Unit
The capital facilities that are used to support the provision of fire/EMS services in Palm Beach Gardens
include fire stations, the training tower, firefighting apparatus and vehicles, and other equipment including
communications equipment, breathing systems and specialized extrication equipment. The City recently
completed the expansion of the main fire station and headquarters building in the municipal complex (the
location of each station is shown in Figure 4 on the preceding page). The total replacement cost of the
existing fire stations and fire station sites is about $5.3 million, as shown in Table 20. The Cityplans to
complete construction of Station # 3 in 2001. Station /i 3 and future stations will include about 1,800 square
feet for offices and a meeting room to be used by the Police Department as a substation. The Fire
Department's current inventory of vehicles has a total replacement cost of $4.5 million, as shown in Table 21.
Table 20
FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT COST
Table 21
FIRE /EMS VEHICLE COST
Description
Land
Building
Total Cost
Replacement Cost
1
Facility
(acres)
Sq. Ft.
Building
Land
Total
Station #1 /HQ
4.00
21,000
$2,247,613
$450,000
$2,697,613
Station #2
2.51
5,950
$750,000
$450,000
$1,200,000
Station #4
0.70
4,650
$600,000
$500,000
$1,100,000
Training Tower
na
na
$350,000
na
$350,000
Total
7.21
31,600
$3,947,613
$1,400,000
$5,347,613
scheduled for construction in 2001
$30,000
Special Events
1
$30,000
$30,000
Source: Fire station #1 building cost
from Table 35; other data from Palm Beach Gardens Office of the Fire
Chief,
November 4, 1999 memorandum.
Staff 4x4
3
$36,667
$110,001
Staff Car
Table 21
FIRE /EMS VEHICLE COST
Description
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Fire Engine 1500 GPM/1000 GWT /50
1
$350,000
$350,000
Fire Engine 1250 GPM/500 GWT /25
2
$450,000
$900,000
Fire Engine 1250 GPM /1000 GWT 150
3
$325,000
$975,000
Fire Truck 1500 GPM /200 GWT 1100
1
$700,000
$700,000
Rescue Vehicle
5
$150,000
$750,000
Utility Vehicle
1
$200,000
$200,000
Brush Truck
3
$60,000
$180,000
Commander
1
$42,007
$42,007
EMS Captain
1
$42,000
$42,000'.
Boat
1
$30,000
$30,000
Special Events
1
$30,000
$30,000
Pick -Up
4
$30,000
$120,000
Staff 4x4
3
$36,667
$110,001
Staff Car
3
$29,000
$87,000
Public Education Van
1
$30,000
$30,000
Total Vehicle Cost
$4,546,008
Source: Palm Beach Gardens Office of the Fire Chief, November 4, 1999 memorandum.
Palm Beach GardenSVMPACT FEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page
Based on original acquisition costs from the City's fixed asset listings, the total cost of the City's other
fire/ENE equipment with a value of more than $500 is about $0.8 million. Adding that to the fire station
and vehicle replacement costs calculated above results in a total fire facility cost of about $10.7 million.
Dividing this bythe average number of annual fire/EMS calls for service yields a cost of $3,299 per
fire/EMS call to maintain the existing level of service, as shown in Table 22.
Table 22
FIRE /EMS COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Fire Station Replacement Cost $5,347,613
Vehicles and Apparatus $4,546,008
Other Equipment $760,276
Total Facility and Equipment Cost $10,653,897
Annual Fire /EMS Calls 3,229
Cost per Fire /EMS Call $3,299.44
Source: Firestation replacement cost from Table 20 :fire /EMSvehicle
cost from Table 21: other equipment with unit cost of more than
$500 is original cost from City's fixed asset listings, September 30,
1999: annual fire/EMS calls from Table 19.
Revenue Credits
In calculating fire/EMS impact fees. the cost per service unit to maintain the current level of service should
be reduced to account for two lands of revenue credits. The first is the propertytaxes that have been paid by
vacant land that have been used to pay for existing fire /EMS facilities. The second is the stream of future
property tax payments that will be made by new development and use to retire bonds used to expand the
main fire station. A revenue credit would also be due if the City could anticipate outside grant funding that
will be available to help fund the costs of growth - related fire/EMS facilities. However, over the past three
years, the City has not received any grant funding for fire/EMS facilities, and does not anticipate any
significant grant funds in the future.
The percent of property taxes paid by vacant land is addressed in Appendix C Of the Municipal Complex
bond issue, about $2.2 million was used for the expansion of the fire station. The expanded fire station is
21,000 square feet, but the majority of it is the refurbished existing 15,000 square feet, which was essent;nlly
replaced with the improvement. Impact fees cannot be used to replace existing facilities, and consequently
credit is due only for the percent of the cost applicable to the net addition in square footage, which amounts
to about 3 percent of the total bond issue. The net present value of future fire - related debt service payments
is $125 per service unit (see Table 23).
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE
September 7, 2000, Page
FIRE/EMS
Table 23
FIRE /EMS DEBT SERVICE CREDIT
Fiscal
Total
Fire /EMS
Annual
Payment/
Year
Debt Service
Share
Calls
Call
2000
$1,424,320
$47,003
3,229
$14.56
2001
$1,404,829
$46,359
3,398
$13.64
2002
$1,401,925
$46,264
3,576
$12.94
2003
$1,397,766
$46,126
3,763
$12.26
2004
$1,402,127
$46,270
3,960
$11.68
2005
$1,400,599
$46,220
4,168
$11.09
2006
$1,401,652
$46,255
4,341
$10.66
2007
$1,395,935
$46,066
4,521
$10.19
2008
$1,399,400
$46,180
4,709
$9.81
2009
$1,400,683
$46,223
4,904
$9.43
2010
$1,399,028
$46,168
5,108
$9.04
2011
$1,395,919
$46,065
5,284
$8.72
2012
$1,400,715
$46,224
5,466
$8.46
2013
$1,407,470
$46,447
5,654
$8.21
2014
$1,401,635
$46,254
5,848
$7.91
2015
$1,413,309
$46,639
6,049
$7.71
2016
$1,411,554
$46,581
6,230
$7.48
2017
$1,417,806
$46,788
6,417
$7.29
2018
$678,725
$22,398
6,610
$3.39
2019
$336,575
$11,107
6,808
$1.63
Total
$26,291,972
$867,637
$186.10
Net Present Value Payment
(5% discount rate)
$125.26
Source:
Total debt service from Table 36; fire
/EMS share based on
percent
from Table 35; annual calls for year
2000 include only those calls
attributable to' a land use per
Table 19; calls
for future years estimated
based on projected population growth from
Table 1; 5% discount rate
used in
net present value calculation is approximate interest rate on City
bond issues.
Deducting the past propertytax credit and the debt service credit per service unit from the cost per service
unit yields a net cost per service unit of $3,079 per fire/EMS call, as shown in Table 24.
Table 24
FIRE /EMS NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Cost per Fire /EMS Call- for - Service
$3,299.44
Past Property Tax Credit per Fire /EMS Call- for - Service (2.9 %)
$95.68
Debt Service Credit per Fire /EMS Call- for - Service
$125.26
Net Cost per Fire /EMS Call- for - Service
$3,078.50
Source: Cost per call from Table 22; past property tax credit based on percent from Table
34 times cost per call; debt service credit from Table 15.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
FIRE/EMS
Maximum Fee Schedule
The maximum fire/EMS impact fees that maybe adopted by Palm Beach Gardens can be calculated by
multiplying the calls per unit associated with various land uses bythe cost per call of maintaining the existing
level of service. The fire/EMS impact fee calculations are presented in Table 25.
Table 25
FIRE /EMS MAXIMUM FEE SCHEDULE
The maximum fees calculated in this report are compared with the current fees in Table 26. In absolute dollar
amounts, the increases are highest for hotel/motels and office /institutional uses, although the percentage
change is greatest for mobile home parks, which pay very nominal fees under the current ordinance.
Table 26
Calls/
Net Cost/
Net Cost/
Land Use
Unit
Unit
Call
Unit
Single - Family Detached*
Dwelling
0.126
$3,078.50
$388
Multi - Family
Dwelling
0.055
$3,078.50
$169
Mobile Home /RV Park
Pad Site
0.028
$3;078.50
$86
Hotel /Motel
Room
0.088
$3,078.50
$271
Retail /Commercial
1000 sq. ft.
0.137
$3;078.50
$422
Office /Institutional
1000 sq. ft.
0.199
$3;078.50
$613
Industrial/Warehouse
1000 sq. ft.
0.077
$3',078.50
$237
* includes mobile home on individual platted lot
$420.11
$422
$2
Source: Calls per unit from Table 19 (mobile
home assumed '/z multi - family rate); cost per call from Table 22.
The maximum fees calculated in this report are compared with the current fees in Table 26. In absolute dollar
amounts, the increases are highest for hotel/motels and office /institutional uses, although the percentage
change is greatest for mobile home parks, which pay very nominal fees under the current ordinance.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page®
Table 26
COMPARATIVE FIRE /EMS IMPACT FEES
Current
Maximum
Potential
Percent
Land Use
Unit
Fees
Fees
Change
Change
Single Family Detached
Dwelling
$345.36
$388
$43
12%
Multi - Family
Dwelling
$136.60
$169
$32
24%
Mobile Home Park
Site
$18.04
$86
$68
377%
Hotel /Motel
Room
$242.27
$271
$29
12%
Retail /Commercial
1,000 sf
$420.11
$422
$2
0%
Office /Institutional
1,000 sf
$371.14
$613
$242
65%
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sf
$95.36
$237
$142
149%
Source: Current fees from § 82 -30. Palm Beach Gardens Code; maximum fees from
Table 25.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page®
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
An important input into the impact fee calculations is the number of persons associated with dwelling units
of various housing types. These residential multipliers will be used in developing the impact fees for park
facilities, which are assessed solely on residential development. The level of service for parks will be
expressed in terms of peak seasonal population. The peak season population multipliers should be based on
the assumption that all units will be occupied. For this reason, average household size (household population
divided by occupied units) should be used for the residential multipliers for the park fee. The population per
unit multipliers for Palm Beach Gardens from the 1990 Census are presented in Table 27.
Table 27
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1990
Household Occupied Average
H Po ulation Units Household Size
T
ousin8 ype p
3,737
Single - Family Detached 12,149 4,172
2.91
Single - Family Attached 4,511 2,097
2.15
Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 5,638 2,901
1.94
Mobile Home 620 387
1.60
Total Dwelling Units 22,918 9,557
2.40
Multi - Family* 10,149 4,998
2.03
* sum of single - family attached and duplex/epartment /condominium
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Summary Tape File 1 (100% count for basic
demographic variables), from website ( http: /tvenus.census.gov /CdromAookup).
The base year for the determination of existing levels of service is the year 2000. Dwelling unit estimates for
the year 2000 were based on total housing counts from the 1990 census and building permits issued for the
ten -year period 1990 -1999. As shown in Table 28, it is estimated that there are approximately 17,000
dwelling units in the city in the year 2000.
Table 28
DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE, 2000
1990 1990 -1999
Housing Type Total Units Permits
Single - Family Detached
Multi - Family*
Mobile Home
Total
5,027
3,737
6,642
984
498
120
12,167
4,841
2000
Units
8,764
7,626
618
17,008
* includes single - family attached
Source: 1990 units U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Summary Tape File 1 (100%
count for basic demographic variables), from website
( http: //venus.census.gov /cdrom/lookup); units permitted during 1990 -1999 calendar
years from Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Department, February 8,
2000 memorandum.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pagum
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
A common approach used in impact fee studies for estimating the service demands of various land use types
on police facilities is known in impact fee literature as "functional population." This approach is based on
the assumption that demand for police facilities is generally proportional to the presence of people.
The functional population concept is analogous to the concept of "full-time equivalent" employees. It
represents the number of "full-time equivalent" people present at the site of a land use. Since the use of a 24-
hour day would result in only residential development being charged for the night -time hours, when police
services are also being provided to protect vacant nonresidential property, the functional population
calculations are based on a 16 -hour day, rather than on a 24 -hour day.
Suppose, for example, that a retail establishment has four employees who work eight hour shifts, and on a
typical weekday has 160 visitors, including shoppers and delivery people. Assuming each visitor spends one
hour per visit, on an average day employees and visitors spend 192 hours at the site. Dividing by the 16 -hour
day described above, the retail establishment has functional population of 12.
The residential functional population is considerably simpler than the nonresidential component. Of the 16-
hour day used in the functional population calculations, it is assumed that people spend eight hours, or one-
half of their waking hours, at home. The other half of the day spent away from home accounts for working,
shopping and other away -from home activities. This factor for residential development essentially distributes
the cost of police facilities evenly between residential and nonresidential development. For residential uses,
then, functional population is calculated by dividing the number of persons per dwelling unit calculated in
Appendix A above in half. The resulting functional population for single - family detached, single- family
attached (townhouse), multi - family and mobile home units is shown in Table 29.
Table 29
RESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS
Average Occupancy
Functional
Housing Type Household Size Factor
Pop. /Unit
Single - Family Detached 2.91 0.50
1.46
Single- Family Attached 2.15 0.50
1.08
Duplex/Apartment/Condominium 1.94 0.50
0.97
Multi- Family" 2.03 0.50
1.01
Mobile Home /RV 1.60 0.50
0.80
. includes single - family attached and duplex/apartment /condominium
Source: Average household size from Table 27; occupancy factor assumed.
The functional population methodology for nonresidential uses is based on national trip generation data
compiled bythe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Functional population per 1,000 square feet is
derived by dividing the total number of hours spent by employees and visitors during a day by 16 hours.
Employees are assumed to spend eight hours a day at their place of employment. Visitors are generally
assumed to spend one hour per visit (this may vary for some uses). The formula used to derive the
nonresidential functional population estimates is summarized in Figure 5.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Page
C
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
Figure 5
FUNCTIONAL POPULATION FORMULA
Functional population /1000 sf = (employee hours /1000 sf + visitor hours /1000 sf) + 16 hours /day
Where:
Employee hours /1000 sf = employees /1000 sf x 8 hours /day
Visitor hours /1000 sf = visitors /1000 sf x hours /visit
Visitors /1000 sf = weekday ADT /1000 sf x avg. vehicle occupancy - employees /1000 sf
Weekday ADT 11000 sf = one -way average daily trips (total trip ends + 2)
Using this formula and information on trip generation rates from the ITE Manual, nonresidential functional
population estimates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (or other applicable unit) were calculated.
Table 30 presents the results of these calculations.
Table 30
NONRESIDENTIAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION MULTIPLIERS
Trip Persons/ Employees/ Visitors/ Hours/ Functional
Land Use (ITE Code) Unit Rate Trip Unit Unit Visitor Pop. /Unit
Hotel /Motel (310/320) Room 4.56 1.78 0.71 7.41 4.00 2.21
Retail /Commercial (820) 1000 sq. ft. 21.46 1.78 1.96 36.24 1.00 3.25
Office, /Institutional (710) 1000 sq. ft. 5.51 1.47 3.32 4.78 1.00 1.96
Industrial/Warehouse j130) 1000 sq. ft. 3.48 1.16 2.08 1.96 1.00 1.16
Source: Average daily trip rates (1/2 of trip ends) from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. Sixth Edition,
1997; persons per trip are average vehicle occupancies from US Department of Transportation, 1995 National Personal
Transportation Survey; employees per 1,000 sq. ft. from ITE manual (ADT per 1,000 sf divided by ADT per employee - retail rate
from National Association of Office and Industrial Parks, America's Future Office Space Needs, 1990 p. 22); visitors /unit and
functional population calculated based on formula in Figure 5; hours per visitor assumed.
Total functional population for Palm Beach Gardens can be determined based on land use data and
functional population multipliers for various land use categories. The base year for the deter- ination of
existing levels of service is the year 2000. As shown in Table 31, the total functional population of the city is
estimated to be about 47,000, which is somewhat higher than the peak population estunate of about 43,000
calculated in the park section of this report.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACT FEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
APPENDIX B: FUNCTIONAL POPULATION
Table 31
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL POPULATION, 2000
2000 Functional Functional
Land Use
Unit
Units
Pop. /Unit
Population
Single - Family Detached
Dwelling
8,764
1.46
12,795
Multi - Family
Dwelling
7,626
1.01
7,702
Mobile Homes
Dwelling
618
0.80
494
Hotel /Motel
Room
1,354
2.21
2,992
Retail /Commercial
1,000 sq. ft.
4,329
3.25
14,069
Office /Institutional
1,000 sq. ft.
4,231
1.96
8,293
Industrial/Warehouse
1,000 sq. ft.
839
1.16
973
Total
47,318
Source: Dwelling units and hotel rooms from Table 3: nonresidential square footage from Palm Beach
County Property Appraiser, November 1999: residential functional population multipliers from Table
29; nonresidential multipliers from Table 30.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000,Pag=
1
APPENDIX C: TAX CREDITS
Two types of credits against the impact fees are appropriate: revenue credits and exaction credits. This
section calculates the credits that should be factored into the impact fee calculations to acknowledge past or
future tax revenues contributed by new development toward existing capital facilities.
In contrast to revenue credits, credits for developer exactions are not reflected in the impact fee schedules.
Instead, such credits are calculated on a case- by-case basis to reflect the value of developer contributions of
fire/EMS, police or park facilities. The impact fees for such developments should be reduced by the value of
prior land dedications, facility construction or monetary payments for the type of facility for which the fee is
charged.
Prior to development, vacant land has generated property tax revenues that have been used, in part, to fund
existing capital facilities. As shown in Table 32, property taxes currently comprise 52.6 percent of the City's
annual general fund revenues.
Table 32
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Revenue Source
Amount
Percent
Property Taxes
$12,977,641
52.60%
Other Taxes
$2,949,698
11.96%
Intergovernmental
$3,373,253
13.67%
Other
$5,371,917
21.77%
Total
$24,672,509
100.00%
Source: City of Palm Beach
Gardens, 199912000 Annual
Budget, October 1, 1999.
Vacant land, however, generates only 5.5 percent of property tax revenues, as shown in Table 33.
Table 33
PROPERTY TAXES FROM VACANT LAND
Land Use Taxable Value
Percent
Developed $3,065,702,457
94.5%
Undeveloped /Agricultural $179,289,556
5.5%
Total $3,244,992,013
100.0%
Source: Assessed values for City of Palm Beach Gardens from
Palm
Beach County Property Appraiser, November 1999.
Because vacant land generates so little property tax revenue for the City, even if all existing infrastructure had
been financed with general fund revenues, new development would have contributed only 2.9 percent of the
cost of its share of existing capital facilities, as summarized in Table 34. The impact fees will be reduced by
this percentage to account for past property tax revenues generated by newly developing properties and used
to construct existing capital facilities.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
APPENDIX C: DEBT SERVICE CREDITS
Table 34
VACANT LAND TAX CREDIT
Property Tax Percent of General Fund 52.6%
Percent Property Taxes Paid by Vacant Land 5.5%
Percent General Fund Paid by Vacant Land 2.9%
Source: Property tax percent of general fund from Table 32; percent
of property taxes paid by vacant land from Table 33.
While new development contributed toward the creation of the City's existing level of service through past
propertytaxes, in the future the existing level of service will be maintained primarilythrough impact fees. To
the extent that the City spends some general fund revenues to expand fire/EMS, police and park facilities in
the future, the effect will be to increase the level of service. Development that has paid impact fees will be
paying for this increased level of service, but on the same footing with existing development that did not pay
impact fees. Consequently, no credit is due for future tax revenues that will be paid by new development and
used to increase the level of service for fire/EMS, police and park facilities.
There are circumstances under which, if there is outstanding debt on existing fire /EMS and police protection
and parks and recreation facilities, new development would help retire such bonds and might deserve credits
for such payments against its impact fees. Voters authorized a $19 million municipal complex bond issue in
1997 that was used to reconstruct and expand the police station and the main fire station, purchase the
Westminster Church across the street, which will be used for recreation activities, improve the park facilities
within the municipal complex, and build a new city hall.
The portion of the bond issue that was used to reconstruct and replace the existing police and fine stations
are not subject to credits, since rehabilitation and replacement costs are not included in the impact fee but are
the obligation of all residents and taxpayers, new and existing development alike. As shown in Table 35
below, the percentages of the total bond issue attributable to capital facility expansion are about 22 percent
for police, 3 percent for fire/EIZ and 30 percent for parks. The remainder of the bond issue was used for
replacement/rehabilitation of the existing police and fire stations and for the city hall.
Table 35
OUTSTANDING DEBT BY FACILITY TYPE
Police Fire /EMS Parks City Hall Total
Construction /Acquisition $4,522,830 $1,847,558 $4,459,316 $4,265,580 $15,095,284
Site Preparation $436,050 $145,350 $436,050 $436,050 $1,453,500
Demolition $56,250 $0 $0 $18,750 $75,000
Architectural/Engineering Fees $255,454 $85,150 $255,454 $255,454 $851,512
Bond Issuance Costs $52,500 $17,500 $52,500 $52,500 $175,000
Art in Public Places $36,494 $12,165 $36,494 $36,494 $121,647
Construction Management $237,207 $79,068 $237,207 $237,207 $790,689
Miscellaneous /Contingency $182,467 $60,822 $182,467 $182,467 $608,223
Total Cost $5,779,252 $2,247,613 $5,659,488 $5,484,502 $19,170,855
Capital Expansion Portion $4,289,711 $642,175 $5,659,488
Capital Percent of Total Issue 22.4% 3.3% 29.5%
Source: Breakdown of total bond issue costs and construction /acquisition costs by facility type from City of Palm Beach Gardens.
"Municipal Complex Improvements," July 21, 1997; demolition costs allocated 75% to police and 25% to city hall and remaining
costs prorated among facility types on the basis of 30% each for police, parks and city hall and 10% for fire, according to City of
Palm Beach Gardens Finance Director, March 14, 2000 telephone conversation; capital expansion portion of police is the net
25.919 square feet expansion over the total 34,919 square foot police station; capital expansion portion of the fire station is the
6,000 square foot expansion of the expanded 21,000 square foot station.
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pag=
APPENDIX C: DEBT SERVICE CREDITS
The Otyhas used some interest earnings and has received some donations that it has used instead of bond
proceeds to finance some of the costs. To-date, the Cityhas issued $17,225,000 in bonds and estimates that
it will need to issue $545,000 more for a total of $17.8 million. Approximately $0.6 million has already been
retired. The remaining debt service ('including the estimated debt service for the remaining $0.5 million yet to
be issued) for the municipal complex is summarized in Table 36.
Table 36
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pages
Principal
Interest
Total
Year
Payments
Payments
Debt Service
2000
$614,149
$810,171
$1,424,320
2001
$622,676
$782,153
$1,404,829
2002
$648,412
$753,513
$1,401,925
2003
$674,149
$723,617
$1,397,766
2004
$709,885
$692,242
$1,402,127
2005
$741,358
$659,241
$1,400,599
2006
$777,095
$624,557
$1,401,652
2007
$807,831
$588,104
$1,395,935
2008
$849,304
$550,096
$1,399,400
2009
$890,777
$509,906
$1,400,683
2010
$931,514
$467,514
$1,399,028
2011
$972,986
$422,933
$1,395,919
2012
$1,024,459
$376,256
$1,400,715
2013
$1,080,932
$326,538
$1,407,470
2014
$1,127,405
$274,230
$1,401,635
2015
$1,193,878
$219,431
$1,413,309
2016
$1,250,351
$161,203
$1,411,554
2017
$1,317,561
$100,245
$1,417,806
2018
$634,034
$44,691
$678,725
2019
$321,244
$15,331
$336,57E
Total
$17,190,000
$9,101,972
X26,291,972
Source: Debt service for Series 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 bonds
from City of Palm Beach Gardens, Comprehensive Annual
Financial
Report, Year Ended September 30, 1999 (debt service
schedule for $545,000 unissued
debt estimated
based on Series
1999 bonds).
Palm Beach GardensVMPACTFEE UPDATE September 7, 2000, Pages
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
SUBJECT /AGENDA ITEM
First Reading: Ordinance 28, 2000, a request to rezone a site from Planned Development
Area (PDA) to Residential — Low Density 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
overlay district to construct 379 residential units.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 28, 2000, which contains conditions of approval.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney Q
Growth Management
[ ] Approved
Finance NA
1
$
[ ] Approved w/
ACM
Q /y
JI "
Current FY
conditions
Human Res. NA
[ ]Denied
Other NA
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
• Ordinance 28, 2000
Paper:
[X] Not Required
[ ]Other
•
Submitted by:
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Director
[ ]Notified
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Mana r
[X] Not required
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
REQUEST
Cotleur & Hearing, agent for DiVosta & Company, is requesting a rezoning from Planned
Development Area (PDA) to Residential — Low Density 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay district to construct 379 residential units. The 180 -acre site
is located on the southeast corner of Military Trail and Hood Road, on the west side of
Alternate All A. The site will contain a 5,300 square -foot town center, a 1,600 square -foot
swimming pool, 4 tennis courts, and a 400 square -foot maintenance building.
(7- 42S -43E)
BACKGROUND
To the north of the site, across Hood Road, is vacant land proposed to be developed as
a mixture of low, medium, and high density residential (Parcel 4.03 and 4.06), and the
Church of Jesus Christ. To the south of the site is Plat 4 (aka: Garden Woods). To the
east, across the FEC Railroad tracks and Alternate A1A, is Cabana Colony. To the west,
across Military Trail, is vacant land. The Seacoast Utility Authority headquarters and water
treatment facility is located adjacent to the northeast corner of the site.
DiVosta & Company owns the property. The owners are proposing to develop the site as
a residential neighborhood with 379 single - family model homes, which would be 2.11
dwelling units per acre. It is estimated that the project will have 985 residents. As an
amenity to the neighborhood, a fitness center, town hall, pool, and four tennis courts are
planned. The proposed development will be built in a single phase.
LAND USE & ZONING,
The subject site is zoned Planned Development Area (PDA), has a future land -use
designation of Residential Low (RL), and is listed as Residential Medium (RM) on the
Vision Plan. The applicant wishes to rezone the site to Residential — Low Density 3 (RL -3),
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. For a complete listing of adjacent uses,
land -use designations and zoning districts, see Table 1 on the following page. Table 2 on
page four (4) examines how consistent the proposed project is with the City Code and
future land -use designation for the site.
CONCURRENCY
The proposed project received concurrency certification on April 10, 2000, which included
concurrency for traffic, drainage, solid waste, sewer and water. The traffic concurrency is
contingent upon several conditions (see attachments).
EXISTING.'US.t.;,
Subject Property
Vacant/Undeveloped
North
Vacant/Undeveloped
I Church of Jesus Christ
Seacoast Water Tower
South
Garden Woods
(aka: Plat 4)
West
Vacant/Undeveloped
East
Cabana Colony
(Palm Beach County)
ZONING
Planned Development
Area (PDA)
Planned Development
Area (PDA)
Residential — Low Density
1 (RL-1)
Public/Institutional (P/1)
1 Residential — Low Density
3 (RL-3)
Planned Development
Area (PDA)
Residential — Medium
Density (RM)
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD-99-08
LAND.,U$.E
Residential — Low Density
(RL)
Residential — Medium
Density (RM)
Residential — Medium
Density (RM)
Public (P)
IResidential — Low Density
(RL) I
Residential — Medium
Density (RM)
Residential — Medium
Density (RM)
PROCEDURE
This is a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The request is
reviewed by City Staff and the Development Review Committee, who forward comments
and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acting in an advisory role,
the Commission considers the recommendations of the DRC and City Staff and makes a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for PUD
approval, and makes a final determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
� " � � ��® Sy1STE, •G�1rWl� H�TH� E
C�DE�
Code Requirement
XPlroposed Plan k` , Y ' Consistent?
Site = Residential — Low
Residential — Low Density
Yes
Density RL )
3 RL -3
Minimum Building Site
4,250 square feet
No
Area for RL 73:
(waiver)
6,500 square feet
Maximum Density for RL-
2.11 dwelling units /acre
Yes
dwelling 3*: 5 dwe g units /acre
'only 3 dwelling units /acre are
permitted by the Forbearance
Agreement for this site
Minimum Site Width for
36 feet
No
RL -3: 65 feet
waiver
Maximum Building Lot
50%
No
Coverage for RL -3: 35%
(waiver)
Maximum Building Height
42 feet
No
for RL -3: 36 feet
(waiver)
Minimum Amount of Open
53.2%
Yes
Space in RL -3: 40%
Front Setback for RL -3:
14 feet
No
25 feet
(waiver)
Side Setback for RL -3:
3 feet 1 inch
No
7.5 feet
(waiver)
Side Setback Facing a
20 feet
Yes
Street for RL -3:
20 feet
Rear Setback for RL -3:
5 feet
No
10 feet
(waiver)
PROCEDURE
This is a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The request is
reviewed by City Staff and the Development Review Committee, who forward comments
and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acting in an advisory role,
the Commission considers the recommendations of the DRC and City Staff and makes a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for PUD
approval, and makes a final determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
PROJECT DETAILS
Buildinq Site
The building site totals approximately 180 acres. The proposed plan will create 379 single -
family model homes, a 5,300 square -foot town center with a 1,500 square -foot fitness
center, a 1,600 square -foot swimming pool, 4 tennis courts, and a 400 square -foot
maintenance building. The town hall will provide a multi - purpose room, a post office, and
a fitness center.
There will be three home model types available: the Capri 111, the Oakmont, and the
Carlyle. The Capri 111 model is an attached single - family unit (duplex) providing 2,122
square feet of total area on a 36 -foot X 130 -foot lot with two bedrooms, two bathrooms,
and a two car garage. The Oakmont model is a single - family zero -lot line unit providing
2,681 square feet of total area on a 50 -foot X 130 -foot lot with three bedrooms, two
bathrooms, and a two -car garage. The Carlyle is a single - family zero -lot line unit providing
3,376 square feet of total area on a 60 -foot X 130 -foot lot with four bedrooms, three
bathrooms, and a two -car garage. There are 150 Capri 111 models, 174 Oakmont models,
and 55 Carlyle models proposed for the site. The majority of these homes will have
frontage on one of the seven lakes on the site. The homes will not have large building
separations; in fact, some homes will only have approximately 10 -foot separations. The
Carlyle model will have 10 -foot separations, but there will also be pool equipment and air
conditioning equipment within the building separations for this model.
Site Access and Roadways
Access to the site is available from Military Trail, which is contiguous with the western
boundary of the site. A future access to Alternate A1A from Military Trail is planned for
within the layout of the roadways in the site. As required by our Comprehensive Plan, this
linkage provides an 80 -foot right -of -way, which will allow for an increase in the Level of
Service demand once this access is utilized (although this linkage could only occur if
the Florida East Coast Railroad Company granted a crossing over their rail line). The
remaining roadways within the proposed development are 50 -foot rights -of -way. All
roadways provide curvilinear designs. Cul -de -sacs and round - abouts are also utilized to
minimize the speeds of vehicles throughout the site. An emergency access point is located
in the southeast corner of the site, along Military Trail. The project also has an elaborate
pedestrian system throughout the site. No gates are proposed for the project (note: Staff
would not support the use of gates on public roadways, nor would Staff support the
privatization of public roadways shown on the City's Thoroughfare Plan).
Staff was recently notified that the vehicular connection between the Isles and Plat 4 will
be eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan, therefore Staff will not be supporting any type
of motor vehicle connection between Plat 4 and this project.
5
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5. 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
Siqnaqe
One project identification ground sign is being proposed for this project; it will be located
at the entrance to the site along Military Trail. It should also be noted that a very large v-
shaped billboard is located immediately to the east of the project site, in the FEC Railroad
right -of -way; the size, shape, and height of this sign does not meet the requirements of the
City's Code of Ordinances.
Landsca pin,q/Bufferin,q
The site will have a 55 -foot landscape buffer (including a berm) along Military Trail and
Hood Road. There will also be a six -foot concrete wall along the boundary of the site
adjacent to the FEC Railroad tracks. landscaping for each home will not be installed until
after the completion of the home. All landscaping shall be fully irrigated with an automatic
irrigation system providing 100% coverage. The applicant shall be responsible for the
landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance of the medians on Hood Road and Military Trail
adjacent to the project. The homeowners association documents shall provide language
providing for the long -term maintenance responsibility.
Environmental Issues
Because there are very few critical uplands on site, the critical upland set -aside is only
slightly more than 1 acre. The applicant wishes to provide the set -aside off -site and /or pay
money in- lieu -of, because the set -aside is so small. Staff supports this proposal, and has
included a condition of approval regarding the amount of money to be paid and the timing
of this payment, or the amount of off -site set -aside to be given.
Phasing
The proposed project will be built in one phase, beginning with the town center. Housing
construction will begin in the northwest section of the site and proceed to the southeastern
section. Construction will then proceed to the northeastern section and the southwestern
section will be developed last.
Drainage
There are seven retention lakes provided on -site to deal with stormwater run -off; these
lakes total 58.66 acres. The flood zone designation for this site is B. The project will be
subject to the standard Unit 19 drainage condition.
Waivers
The applicant has submitted waiver requests, including justification statements (see
attachment), for the following:
1) minimum building site area
2) minimum lot width
3) maximum building lot coverage
6
City council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
4) maximum building height
5) minimum front setback
6) minimum side setback
7) minimum rear setback
8) providing littoral planting zones
The applicant has justified the waivers regarding lot intensity (waivers #1 through #7) by
submitting a chart (see attached letter from Rick Greene dated July 24, 2000) detailing how
the proposed development compares to other existing developments in the City. City
Forester Mark Hendrickson details the requested waiver of the littoral planting zones in his
July 31, 2000 memorandum (see attachment). The applicant is requesting the waiver so
they can provide more water storage on their site, and help improve the drainage on the
site and the surrounding area.
COMMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC)
Planninq & Zoninq Division
The Planning and Zoning Division has recommended to the applicant that traffic calming
measures be used on the site, particularly on the southeast and southwest boundaries of
the site. Staff recommends that traffic circles and speed humps (in paver bricks) be added
to these roads. Staff also suggests that guest parking be provided throughout the site
(though the code does not require guest parking in single- family residential developments).
It should be noted that City policy has been to require a minimum of 6 feet for a side
setback (as stated in the supplemental submittal requirements).
City Forester Mark Hendrickson has provided several comments regarding this petition
(see attachments).
Principal Planner Jim Norquest has raised concerns in a letter dated June 14, 2000 (see
attachment) that Seacoast Utility Authority easements may exist along Hood Road (50 -foot
easement) and along the eastern boundary of the site (35 -foot easement). The City
Attorney has determined that what actually exists are rights to easements, not actual
easements. Staff is coordinating a resolution of this matter.
City Engineerinq
City Engineer Sean Donahue has made several comments regarding this petition; his
comments (letters dated May 9, 2000 and August 24, 2000) are attached to this report.
Public Works Department
Jon Iles has reviewed the plans for Public Works. Mr. Iles has stated in a letter dated June
12, 2000 (see attachment) that the applicant will:
1) Be responsible for the Hood Road improvements, including mastarm lighting,
7
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
crosswalk pavers, and overhead power. The applicant can relieve himself or
herself of this responsibility if he or she provide documentation that some other
entity will be responsible for these improvements.
2) Provide uplighting in the Military Trail and Hood Road landscaped medians, if
permitted by FDOT. The applicant will also use shields in these medians to
deflect light from oncoming traffic.
Seacoast Utility Authority
Seacoast Utility Authority has stated that the site plan needs to be amended to show two
50 -foot X 50 -foot water supply well sites, one in the southeast corner and one in the
northwest corner of the site (see attachment). To date, the applicant has not agreed to
provide these well sites.
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (NPBCID)
NPBCID has stated that the site is located within Unit of Development Number 2, and that
the applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a NPBCID Standard Permit (see
attachment).
Palm Beach County School District
The Palm Beach County School District has stated that the applicant will need to provide
a bus pull -off and shelter completely out of the road right of way (see attachment).
To date, no objections have been received from the following departments and agencies:
Building Division, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation Department
City Legal, South Florida Water Management District, Waste Management, and Florida
Power & Light.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this petition as a workshop on June 27, 2000.
The Commission had the following comments:
1) The site should have a right -in and right -out only ingresslegress along Hood
Road.
2) More information should be provided regarding any proposed commercial
operations on the site.
3) A neighborhood park should be included.
4) Guest parking should be included.
5) More clubhouse detail should be provided, including a roof plan.
6) The Capri 111 and the Carlyle should be as architecturally pleasing as the
Oakmont model home.
7) A color coded (by product type) site plan needs to be provided.
8
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
8) A table needs to be submitted that compares the proposed waivers with what
is in place at existing /approved sites in the City.
9) How long will it take a vehicle to turn left, out of the site.
10) The number of each type of unit should be more evenly distributed (reduce the
number of Capri /it units).
11) A sample designation plan showing the mix of roof colors, building colors,
elevations, garages, and shutter colors needs to be provided for a typical parcel
within the development.
12) Unit roof plans need to be submitted for review.
13) The T -roads may not work.
14) There is not enough variety in the color mix, project types, etc.
In general, the Planning and Zoning Commission was uneasy with the project's small .
setbacks and separations, and high lot coverage.
On July 24, 2000 the applicant responded to the comments raised at the June 27, 2000
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The applicant's response included a narrative
letter (see attachment) detailing the changes and additional information they provided.
These changes and additional information include:
1) The removal of all commercial aspects of the town center.
2) A table that compares the proposed waivers with what is in place at
existing /approved sites in the City.
3) Plans detailing the town center, including floor plan, elevations, and a roof plan.
4) The number of Capri III units were reduced (as well as the overall number of
units).
5) The site plan has been revised by including shading to indicate which products
will be built on each parcel.
6) A sample designation plan was provided for Parcel O within the development
showing the mix of roof colors, building colors, elevations, garages, and shutter
colors.
CITY COUNCIL
Because of additional drainage requests arising from the ongoing Unit 2 drainage study,
this project is providing more lakes on site than initially planned and consequently has lost
units. The applicant addressed the City Council regarding this issue on August 3, 2000.
The applicant used the loss of units to improve the drainage situation as a justification for
zero -lot line homes on the site. Some of the Council members supported this (as long as
the lot intensity did not increase); other members had no comments.
e✓
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this petition as a second workshop on August
8, 2000. The Commission had the following comments:
1) The connection to Plat 4 should remain.
2) There should be an ingress /egress from the site onto Hood Road.
3) The "T" cul -du -sacs seem to be hazardous and should be redesigned.
4) Small parks should be incorporated throughout the site.
5) Guest parking should also be included on the site.
6) There should be a condition of approval that the applicant, successors, or
assigns shall pay their fair share for a traffic light when one is warranted and
approved by Palm Beach County (for the entrance along Military Trail).
7) The applicant needs to provide a sidewalk along Hood Road.
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing for this petition on August
22, 2000. The applicant gave a short presentation summarizing the project, after which
the public hearing was opened. No one from the public voiced concerns regarding the
project and several voiced support. Because the surrounding property owners within 500
feet of the site were not noticed in writing at least 10 days before the meeting, however,
the public hearing had to be continued to the September 12, 2000 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
At their September 12, 2000 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reopened the
public hearing for this petition. No major concerns from audience members were voiced.
The Commission voted 4 — 2 to recommend approval of this petition with the 8 waivers
requested by the applicant, and with the conditions recommended by Staff (with some
modifications). The modifications recommended by the Commission were:
1. That the applicant continue to work with Staff to resolve the issue of who will
be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the Hood Road
median and road shoulder landscaping. Ultimately, the applicant will be
responsible for their "fair share" (approximately 22 %).
2. The condition that requires guest parking should be removed.
3. The applicant should be responsible for the maintenance of the East -West
public road until this road is granted a railroad crossing and connects to
Alternate Al A.
One of the two dissenting Commission members voted against recommending approval
because:
He did not like the "T" or "hammerhead" drives leading to some of the units on the
10
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
site. He felt these designs would make it difficult to provide waste pick -up for some
of the homes.
2. He felt a few small parks should be incorporated into the site design.
3. He also felt guest parking should be provided.
The second dissenting Commission member voted against recommending approval
because there was no ingress /egress to the site from Hood Road.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The significant issues are:
1) The 2 Seacoast well sites.
2) The Seacoast easement rights along the boundary of the site.
3) The 8 requested waivers, and the individual lot intensity, including side setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on Development Review Committee comments and Planning and Zoning
Commission comments, Staff recommends approval of petition PUD -99 -08 with the
following conditions and waivers:
Conditions
1) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for their proportionate
share of the installation and maintenance of the landscaping in the medians and
road shoulders along Hood Road and Military Trail adjacent to their site, and the
homeowners association documents shall provide language providing for this long-
term responsibility. This responsibility includes the installation of mastarm lighting,
crosswalk pavers, and overhead power. The applicant shall be responsible for said
installation unless the Hood Road widening has not been completed before the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, in which case the applicant shall
establish an escrow account (based on the City's landscape median plan) for the
purchase and installation of landscaping and other improvements in the Hood Road
right -of -way; the amount of money placed in said escrow account shall be subject
to City approval. (Planning & Zoning)
2) The applicant shall bear the cost of two (2) appraisals for the value of the upland
that will not be preserved on site. Members of the appraisal institute (MAI) shall
conduct both appraisals. The applicant shall select one of the appraisers, and the
City shall appoint the other appraiser. These appraisal's shall be analyzed to
determine the amount of money in- lieu -of upland preserve that will be paid to the
City. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit to
the City the money in- lieu -of the upland preserve. (Planning and Zoning & Finance)
11
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
3) Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install the meandering
sidewalk along Hood Road that is adjacent to the site. (Planning & Zoning)
4) Access to this site along Military Trail and Alternate Al shall not be impeded in any
manner; the use of gates at the Military Trail entrance and at the future Alternate
A1A entrance shall not be permitted. The east -west public roadway through the site,
as shown on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, shall not be privatized. (Planning &
Zoning)
5) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the roadway
maintenance of the east -west public road through the site, including landscaping.
The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be relieved of this responsibility if and
when this road connects to Alternate Al A. (Public Works)
6) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for providing uplighting
in the Military Trail and Hood Road landscaped medians, if permitted by FDOT. The
applicant shall also use shields in these medians to deflect light from oncoming
traffic. (Public Works)
7) Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan so
that the trees around the lakes are clustered in threes (no more than 15 feet in
width), the clusters are 40 feet apart, and the clusters are no closer than 75 feet to
any structure, including drainage structures. (City Engineer & City Forester)
8) The Military Trail right -of -way plantings shall be completed within one year of the
issuance of the first land development permit for the site. (Planning & Zoning)
9) No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be issued until
a revised Surface Water Management System for Unit (2) has received final
approval from the City of Palm Beach Gardens and all other applicable
governments and /or agencies, including a schedule for implementing the plan and
a definitive commitment for funding the required improvements. (City Engineer)
10) The applicant shall field locate all trees to prevent any conflicts with the existing
drainage system. (City Engineer and City Forester)
11) Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit written authorization
from the utility owners for horizontal construction /plantings within the utility
easements. (City Engineer)
12) All required site directional signage shall be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. (City Engineer)
13) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall apply for, obtain,
and submit to the City, a Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District
Standard Permit. (Planning & Zoning)
14) Prior to the issuance of the 190ti' building permit, the applicant, successors or
assigns shall provide a bus stop pull -off and shelter completely out of the right -of-
way. The size and location of the bus stop pull -off and shelter shall be coordinated
with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, and the School District.
The applicant shall be relieved of this responsibility if the Palm Beach County
School Board will allow their buses to enter this community to pick up students at
12
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99-08
the community center. (Planning & Zoning)
15) The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of annual school boundary
assignments for students from this development in a manner required by the Palm
Beach County School District. (Planning & Zoning)
16) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall conduct three biennial signal warrant
studies of the Hood Road and Military Trail intersection beginning at the issuance
of the 50th certificate of occupancy. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall pay
their fair share for a traffic light when one is warranted and approved by Palm Beach
County (for the entrance along Military Trail). (Planning & Zoning)
17) Upon approval of the development order, the applicant shall secure a "Seacoast
Utility Authority Capacity Allocation Commitment for Public Water and /or Sewer
Service," which shall be verified by the delivery of a fully executed copy of the
document to the Planning & Zoning Division within 30 days of granting of the
development order. (Planning & Zoning)
18) No building permits for more than 194 single - family dwelling units shall be issued
until construction begins for the widening of Alternate A1A (State Road 811) from
Hood Road to Gardens Boulevard from 4 -lanes to 6- lanes. (City Engineer)
19) No building permits shall be issued for more than 282 single - family dwelling units
or after December 31, 2002, whichever occurs first, unless construction begins for
a third east approach left turn lane at the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Military
Trail. (City Engineer)
20) If and when the proposed north /south road between the south property line and the
east/west Thoroughfare road is removed from the City's Thoroughfare Plan, then
that road can be platted as a private road. (Planning & Zoning)
21) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall landscape and maintain the southern
"stub -out" that was previously to be used as a linkage to Plat 4. (Planning & Zoning)
22) The applicant shall be required to bury all power lines along the southern boundary
of the site. (Planning & Zoning)
23) The build -out date of this project is December 31, 2003 as referenced in the
February 25, 2000 traffic impact analysis. For the purposes of this condition, the
project shall be considered built -out if all building permits have been issued and the
applicant is actively engaged in the development of the site. (Planning & Zoning)
Waivers
1. Minimum building site area — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which require a
minimum building site area of 6,500 square feet, to allow for as little as a 4,250
square -foot building site area.
2. Minimum building lot width — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which require a minimum
building lot width of 65 feet, to allow for as little as a 36 -foot wide building lot.
3. Maximum building lot coverage — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which allows a
maximum building lot coverage of 35 %, to allow for up to 50% building lot coverage.
13
City Council
Meeting Date: October 5. 2000
Date Prepared: September 13. 2000
Petition PUD -99-08 .
4. Maximum building height - Section 71(c) and Section 75, which allows a maximum
building height of 36 feet, to allow for a portion of the community center (the clock
tower feature) to be 42 feet in height.
5. Minimum front setback - Section 71(c) and Section 75, which require a minimum
front setback of 25 feet, to allow for as little as a 14 -foot front setback.
6. Minimum side setback — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which require a minimum
side setback of 7.5 feet, to allow for as little as a 3 -foot 1 -inch side setback.
7. Minimum rear setback — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which require a minimum
rear setback of 10 feet, to allow for as little as a 5 -foot rear setback.
8. Littoral planting zones — Section 173 which requires littoral planting in the lakes on
the site, to not require littoral plantings in any of the lakes, except for the two (2)
lakes located at the entrance off of Military Trail.
gfjohn: pud9908.cc
14
September 15, 2000
ORDINANCE 28, 2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM DIVOSTA AND
COMPANY FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY
APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF 379 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, A 5,300 SQUARE -FOOT TOWN CENTER, A 1,600
SQUARE -FOOT SWIMMING POOL, 4 TENNIS COURTS,
AND A 400 SQUARE -FOOT MAINTENANCE BUILDING
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILITARY
TRAIL AND HOOD ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application
from DiVosta and Company for approval of a planned unit development
located at the southeast corner of Military Trail and Hood Road, in order to
construct 379 residential units, a 5,300 square -foot town center, a 1,600
square -foot swimming pool, 4 tennis courts, and a 400 square -foot
maintenance building on the 180 -acre site, as more particularly described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the 180 -acre "Isles" site is currently zoned Planned
Development Area (PDA); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the site to be rezoned to
Residential Low Density 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
overlay; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said
application and determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said
application and determined that it is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended
approval of the planned unit development (PUD) known as the Isles; and
W
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
WHEREAS, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission has
reviewed said application and recommended that it be approved with the
requested waivers and subject to certain conditions stated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida hereby approves the "Isles" PUD at the southeast corner of Military
Trail and Hood Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to permit the construction
of 379 residential units, a 5,300 square -foot town center, a 1,600 square -foot
swimming pool, 4 tennis pools, and a 400 square -foot maintenance building.
SECTION 2. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to
the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its
successors or assigns:
1) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for
their proportionate share of the installation and maintenance
of the landscaping in the medians and road shoulders along
Hood Road and Military Trail adjacent to their site, and the
homeowners association documents shall provide language
providing for this long -term responsibility. This responsibility
includes the installation of mastarm lighting, crosswalk pavers,
and overhead power. The applicant shall be responsible for
said installation unless the Hood Road widening has not been
completed before the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy, in which case the applicant shall establish an
escrow account (based on the City's landscape median plan)
for the purchase and installation of landscaping and other
improvements in the Hood Road right -of -way. The amount of
money placed in said escrow account shall be based on an
estimate of the costs of such improvements and subject to City
approval. (Planning & Zoning)
2) The applicant shall bear the cost of two (2) appraisals for the
value of the upland that will not be preserved on site.
Members of the appraisal institute (MAI) shall conduct both
appraisals. The applicant shall select one of the appraisers,
and the City shall appoint the other appraiser. These
appraisals shall be analyzed to determine the amount of
money in- lieu -of upland preserve that will be paid to the City.
16
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition-PUD -99 -08
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant
shall submit to the City the money in- lieu -of the upland
preserve. (Planning and Zoning & Finance)
3) Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
install the meandering sidewalk along Hood Road that is
adjacent to the site. (Planning & Zoning)
4) Access to this site along Military Trail and Alternate Al shall
not be impeded in any manner; the use of gates at the Military
Trail entrance and at the future Alternate Al entrance shall
not be permitted. The east -west public roadway through the
site, as shown on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, shall not be
privatized. (Planning & Zoning)
5) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for
the roadway maintenance of the east -west public road through
the site, including landscaping. The applicant, successors, or
assigns shall be relieved of this responsibility if and when this
road connects to Alternate A1A. (Public Works)
6) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for
providing uplighting in the Military Trail and Hood Road
landscaped medians, if permitted by FDOT. The applicant
shall also use shields in these medians to deflect light from
oncoming traffic. (Public Works)
7) Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall revise
the landscape plan so that the trees around the lakes are
clustered in threes (no more than 15 feet in width), the clusters
are 40 feet apart, and the clusters are no closer than 75 feet
to any structure, including drainage structures. (City Engineer
& City Forester)
8) The Military Trail right -of -way plantings shall be completed
within one year of the issuance of the first land development
permit for the site. (Planning & Zoning)
9) No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation
shall be issued until a revised Surface Water Management
System for Unit (2) has received final approval from the City of
Palm Beach Gardens and all other applicable governments
and /or agencies, including a schedule for implementing the
plan and a definitive commitment for funding the required
improvements. (City Engineer)
10) The applicant shall field locate all trees to prevent any conflicts
with the existing drainage system. (City Engineer and City
Forester)
11) Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit
17
ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
written authorization from the utility owners for horizontal
construction /plantings within the utility easements. (City
Engineer)
12) All required site directional signage shall be reviewed and
approved prior to the issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy. (City Engineer)
13) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant
shall apply for, obtain, and submit to the City, a Northern Palm
Beach County Improvement District Standard Permit.
(Planning & Zoning)
14) Prior to the issuance of the 190"' building permit, the applicant,
successors or assigns shall provide a bus stop pull -off and
shelter completely out of the right -of -way. The size and
location of the bus stop pull -off and shelter shall be
coordinated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach
County, and the School District. The applicant shall be relieved
of this responsibility if the Palm Beach County School Board
will allow their buses to enter this community to pick up
students at the community center. (Planning & Zoning)
15) The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of
annual school boundary assignments for students from this
development in a manner required by the Palm Beach County
School District. (Planning & Zoning)
16) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall conduct three
biennial signal warrant studies of the Hood Road and Milita%
Trail intersection beginning at the issuance of the 50
certificate of occupancy. The applicant, successors, or
assigns shall pay their fair share for a traffic light when one is
warranted and approved by Palm Beach County (for the
entrance along Military Trail). (Planning & Zoning)
17) Upon approval of the development order, the applicant shall
secure a "Seacoast Utility Authority Capacity Allocation
Commitment for Public Water and /or Sewer Service," which
shall be verified by the delivery of a fully executed copy of the
document to the Planning & Zoning Division within 30 days of
granting of the development order. (Planning & Zoning)
18) No building permits for more than 194 single - family dwelling
units shall be issued until construction begins for the widening
of Alternate A1A (State Road 811) from Hood Road to
Gardens Boulevard from 4 -lanes to 6- lanes. (City Engineer)
19) No building permits shall be issued for more than 282 single -
family dwelling units or after December 31, 2002, whichever
18
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
occurs first, unless construction begins for a third east
approach left turn lane at the intersection of PGA Boulevard
and Military Trail. (City Engineer)
20) If and when the proposed north /south road between the south
property line and the east/west Thoroughfare road is removed
from the City's Thoroughfare Plan, then that road can be
platted as a private road. (Planning & Zoning)
21) The applicant, successors, or assigns shall landscape and
maintain the southern "stub -out" that was previously to be used
as a linkage to Plat 4. (Planning & Zoning)
22) The applicant shall be required to bury all power lines along the
southern boundary of the site. (Planning & Zoning)
23) The build -out date of this project is December 31, 2003 as
referenced in the February 25, 2000 traffic impact analysis.
For the purposes of this condition, the project shall be
considered built -out if all building permits have been issued
and the applicant is actively engaged in the development of the
site. (Planning & Zoning)
SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this
approval:
1. Minimum building site area — Section 71(c) and Section 75,
which require a minimum building site area of 6,500 square
feet, to allow for as little as a 4,250 square -foot building site
area.
2. Minimum building lot width — Section 71(c) and Section 75,
which require a minimum building lot width of 65 feet, to allow
for as little as a 36 -foot wide building lot.
3. Maximum building lot coverage — Section 71(c) and Section 75,
which allows a maximum building lot coverage of 35 %, to allow
for up to 50% building lot coverage.
4. Maximum building height - Section 71(c) and Section 75, which
allows a maximum building height of 36 feet, to allow for a
portion of the community center (the clock tower feature) to be
42 feet in height.
5. Minimum front setback - Section 71(c) and Section 75, which
require a minimum front setback of 25 feet, to allow for as little
as a 14 -foot front setback.
6. Minimum side setback — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which
require a minimum side setback of 7.5 feet, to allow for as little
as a 3 -foot 1 -inch side setback.
19
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
7. Minimum rear setback — Section 71(c) and Section 75, which
require a minimum rear setback of 10 feet, to allow for as little
as a 5 -foot rear setback.
8. Littoral planting pones — Section 173 which requires littoral
planting in the lakes on the site, to not require littoral plantings
in any of the lakes, except for the two (2) lakes located at the
entrance off of Military Trail.
SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Unit Development shall be
in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth
Management Department:
Exhibits (dates represent date received and stamped in):
1. September 15, 2000 Master Site Plan, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 1
of 7 (1 sheet total).
2. September 6, 2000 Site Plan, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheets 2 of 7
through 6 of 7 (5 sheets total).
3. September 6, 2000 Recreation & Town Center Plan, Cotleur Hearing,
Inc., Sheet 7 of 7 (1 sheet total).
4. September 6, 2000 Site Details, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheets 1 of 2
and 2 of 2 (2 sheets total).
5. September 6, 2000 Typical Setback Plan and Matrix, Cotleur Hearing,
Inc., Sheet 1 of 2 (1 sheet total).
6. September 6, 2000 Designation Plan, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 1
of 1 (1 sheet total).
7. September 6, 2000 Wetland Map, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 1 of 1
(1 sheet total).
8. September 15, 2000 Landscape Cover Sheet, Cotleur Hearing, Inc.,
(1 sheet total).
9. July 24, 2000 Landscape Plan, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 1 of 16
(1 sheet total).
10. September 6, 2000 Landscape Plan; Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheets 2
of 16 through 15 of 16 (14 sheets total).
11. September 6, 2000 Landscape Details, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet
16 of 16 (1 sheet total).
12. September 6, 2000 Typical Landscape Plan — Carlyle Homes, Cotleur
Hearing, Inc., Sheet 1 of 1 (1 sheet total).
13. September 6, 2000 Typical Landscape Plan — Oakmont Homes
Homes, Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 2 of 3 (1 sheet total).
14. September 6, 2000 Typical Landscape Plan — Capri Homes Homes,
20
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 3 of 3 (1 sheet total).
15. September 6, 2000 Landscape Plan — Military Trail Medians, Cotleur
Hearing, Inc., Sheets 1 of 5 through 4 of 5 (4 sheets total)..
16. September 6, 2000 Specifications & Details — Military Trail Medians,
Cotleur Hearing, Inc., Sheet 5 of 5 (1 sheet total).
17. June 21, 2000 Recreation & Town Center Landscape Plan, Cotleur
Hearing, Inc., Sheet 16 of 17 (1 sheet total).
18. September 15, 2000 Site Plan — Temporary Sales, Cotleur Hearing,
Inc., Sheet 1 of 1 (1 sheet total).
19. September 6, 2000 Town Center Plans, Bloodgood Sharp Buster, (2
sheets total).
20. September 6, 2000 Capri III Modal Cover Sheet, Floor Plan, and
Elevations, Sunco Building Corp., Sheets: Cover, A -1, & A -3 (3
sheets total).
21. September 6, 2000 Oakmont Model Cover Sheet, Floor Plan, and
Elevations, Sunco Building Corp., Sheets: Cover, A -1, A -3, & A-4 (4
sheets total).
22. September 6, 2000 Carlyle Model Cover Sheet, Floor Plan, and
Elevations, Sunco Building Corp., Sheets: Cover, A -1, A -3, A-4, A -5
& A -6 (6 sheets total).
23. September 6, 2000 Preliminary Engineering Plan, Lawson, Noble &
Webb, Inc., Sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 (2 sheets total).
24. September 6, 2000 Preliminary Engineering Plan, Lawson, Noble &
Webb, Inc., Sheets 2 of 7 through 6 of 7 (5 sheets total).
25. April 8, 1999 Topographic Survey, Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc.,
Sheets 1 of 3 through 3 of 3 (3 sheets total).
26. May 24, 2000 Boundary Survey, Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc., Sheet
1 of 1 (1 sheet total).
27. February 25, 2000 DiVosta Property (Parcel 4.05) Traffic Impact
Analysis, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
SECTION 5. The approval expressly incorporates and is contingent
upon all representations made by the applicant or applicant's agents at any
workshop or public hearing.
SECTION 6. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or
word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not
affect the remainder of the Ordinance.
21
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
SECTION 7. All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 2000.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO
VICE MAYOR ERIC JABLIN
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
ATTEST BY:
CAROL GOLD
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
22
Ordinance 28,2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
g /john: pud9908.or
23
Ordinance 28, 2000
Meeting Date: October 5, 2000
Date Prepared: September 13, 2000
Petition PUD -99 -08
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST
AND SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF (1/2) OF SAID SECTION 36 LYING SOUTHERLY OF
THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF HOOD ROAD; LESS AND EXCPTING
THEREFROM AN PORTION THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF THE WEST RIGHT -OF-
WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD; ALSO LESS THE RIGHT -OF-
WAY OF MILITARY TRAIL; ALSO LESS THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 5668, AT PAGE 1095, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
TOGETHER WITH TRACT A, PLAT NO. 4 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, AT PAGE 4,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING 7,835,657 SQUARE FEET OR 179.882 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
24
�cu
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL - PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4698
DATE: April 10, 2000
TO: Donaldson Hearing
Cotleur & Hearing
747 -6336 fax: 747 -1377
FROM: John Lindgren
City Planner
phone: 799 -4243 fax: 7994281
RE: CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCY CERTIFICATION for:
CON -99 -02 w The Isles (Parcel 4.05)
Based on the attached memoranda from Assistant City Engineer Sean C. Donahue, P.E.
(dated April 4, 2000), Palm Beach County Assistant Director — Traffic Division Dan Weisberg,
P.E. (dated March 30, 2000), and Maria T. Palombo, P.E. (dated March 29, 2000), the above
referenced project is hereby granted conditional concurrency certification. This
certification is contingent upon the applicant satisfying the attached two items ( #1 and #2)
from the memorandum from Sean C. Donahue, P.E. (dated April 4, 2000), AND the issuance
of a development order from City Council. If these items listed by Mr. Donahue are not
satisfied within the appropriate time frame, OR a development order is not issued by City
Council for the above referenced project, then this conditional concurrency certification shall
immediately become null and void. If the conditions are satisfied within the appropriate time
frame AND a development order is issued, then this conditional concurrency certification shall
not expire until after the build -out date of December 31, 2003, which is referenced in the
February 25, 2000 Traffic Impact Analysis — DiVosta Property (Parcel 4.05) prepared by
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 799 -4243.
Cc: Sean Donahue, Assistant City Engineer
Jim Norquest, Principal Planner
g1john: con9902.con.cert
!1
Six (6) sheets total in fax.
11)NC.
( "( )NSOUING CIVIL EN('INI.ER.S.
SURVEYORS K MAPPERS
CIVIL
AGRICULTURAL
WATER RESOURCES
%WATER & WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION
SURVEYING K MAPPING
GIs
"Partners For Results
Value by Design"
y
Cn1 � PB
M��jMj,43R
3550 S.W. Corporate Pkwy.
Palm City, FL 34990
(561) 286 -3883
Fax: (561) 286 -3925
www.lb(h.com
r U 4 1§X_�11 NT
TO: Kim Glas
FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E. �:V_
DATE: April 4, 2000
FILE NO.: 994037
SUBJECT: DiVosta Parcel 4.05 -The Isles CQON - qq - ba)
We have received the joint traffic impact analysis review letter prepared by
the Palm Beach County Traffic Division and the City's traffic consultant
(MTP Group, Inc.), and an additional recommendation letter from MTP
Group, Incorporated. We have the following comments regarding
concurrency:
1. Conditional Traffic Concurrency: The Palm Beach County Traffic
Division and MTP Group, Inc. have determined that the following
conditions must be included in the Development Order for this
project:
a. No building permits for more than 194 single - family
dwelling units until construction begins for the widening of
Alternate Al (State Road 811) from Hood Road to Gardens
Boulevard from 4 -lanes to 6- lanes. This improvement is a
requirement of the Regional Center DRI and the Abocoa
DRI. Performance Security has been posted for this
improvement.
b. No building permits for more than 282 single - family
dwelling units, and no building permits after December 31,
2002, whichever occurs first, until construction begins for a
third east approach left turn lane at the intersection of PGA
Boulevard and Military Trail. Performance Security has not
been posted for this improvement.
In addition, periodic signal warrant studies of the Hood Road and
Alternate AlA intersection will be a condition in the Development
Order.
Based on their review, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division and
MTP Group have determined that this project meets the Traffic
DiVosta I ...eel 4.05 -The Isles Page 2 of 2
h 1LBFH File No. 99 -4037
Performance Standards of Palm Beach County and the City of Palm
Beach Gardens. Provided however, this is expressly conditioned
and contingent upon the receipt of a signed Public Facilities
Agreement by Palm Beach County from the developer. This
Public Facilities Agreement shall be in a form and substance
acceptable to the County Engineer and the County Attorney.
Receipt of this signed Public Facilities Agreement must be within
30 days from the date of the Palm Beach County letter. The
Public Facilities Agreemen4 executed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Palm Beach County, and the phasing.conditions
as set forth in the Public Facilities Agreemen4 shall be included in
the Development Order. In the event that these items do not occur,
this conditional traffic concurrency shall be null and void
As the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates, the project needs the
installation of a northbound right turn lane and a southbound left
turn lane in Military Trail at the project entrance. These exclusive
lanes will need to be shown on the Site Plan. Appropriate storage
lengths will need to be included to assure proper stacking of project
traffic.
Copies of the joint review letters are attached.
2. Drainage Concurrency: Drainage concurrency is established.
Provided, however, that the specific design of the project's surface
water management system must be consistent with Northern Palm
Beach County Improvement District's formulating, permitting and
funding the implementation of an amended drainage plan for their
Unit #2 that is acceptable to the City and achieves the City's Level
of Service and Performance Standards for Surface Water
Management Systems.
3. Water and Sewer Concurrency: The letter confirming available
capacity for sewer and water received March 23, 1999 signed by
Dee Giles, Developer Agreement Coordinator, of Seacoast Utility
Authority (SUA) establishes sewer and water concurrency.
4. Solid Waste Concurrency: The letter confirming available capacity
for solid waste disposal dated January 6, 1999 signed by Marc C.
Bruner, Ph.D. establishes solid waste Concurrency.
SCD!
cc: Roxanne Manning
Jim Norquest
John Lindgren
P;iPR0JEC1S\PBGMEM014037L4037k
qq -�ag7
P �1� AP? 0 1 2000 .E
LBFi- PALM CITY
Department of Engineering
March 30, 2000 '
and Public works
P.O. Box 21229
Sean Donahue, P.E. .
Atst Palm Beach, FL 33416 -1229
Llndahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc.
3550 S.W. Corporate Parkway
(561) 684 -4000
Palm City, FL 34990
www_co, palm- beach.il.us
RE: Divosta Property Parcel 4.05
Traffic Performance. Standards Review
■
Mr. Donahue: '
Palm Bean, county
The Palm Beach County .Traffic Division and MTP Group, Inc. have completed a
Board of County
Coordinated Review- of the revised traffic study (dated February 16, 2000) for the project
Commissioners
entitled Divosta Property Parcel 4.05 pursuant to the Traffic Performance Standards in
Article 15 ofthe Palm Beach County Land Development Code. The project is summarized
Maude Ford Lee Chair
as follows:
Warren H. Newell, Vice Chairman
Location: southwest comer of Hood Road and Military Trail)
Karen T Manus
Municipality: Palm Beach Gardens
Carol A. Roberts
Proposed Uses: 423 single - family dwelling units
New Trips: 4,230 total trips per day
Mary McCarty
Buildout: 2003
Burt Aaronson
The project is subject to the following conditions which must be included in the
Tony Masilotti
development order:
1. No building permits for more than 194 single - family dwelling units until construction
begins for the widening of Alternate AIA (State Route 811) from Hood Road to Gardens
Boulevard from 4 -lanes to 6- lanes. This improvement is a requirement of the Regional
County Administrator
center DRI and the Abacoa DRI. Performance Security has been posted for this
Robert Weisman
improvement.
2. No building permits for more than 282 single -f unily dwelling units, and no building
permits after December 31, 2002, whichever occurs first, until construction begins for a
third cast approach left turn lane at the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Military Trail.
Performance Security has not been posted for this improvement.
Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the project meets the Traffic
Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. Provided, however, this is expressly
conditionedandcontingent upon receipt ofa signedPublic Facilities Agreement byPalm
Beach County from the developer. This Public Facilities Agreement shall be in a form
and substance acceptable to the County Engineer and the County Attorney. Receipt of
this signed public facilities agreement must be within 30 dayfrom the date of this letter.
The Public Facilities Agreement, executed by the Board of County Commissioners of
'An F.qual Opportunity
,r-,,e Acdon E,,,pbya.
Palm Beach County, and the phasing conditions as set forth in the Public Facilities
Agreement, shall be included in the Development Order. In the event these items do not
occur, this letter shall be null and void.
t% aWee an tecydsd Asper
Sean Donahue, P.E.
Divosta Property Parcel 4.05
March 30, 2000
Page 2 of 2
The study identifies the need for a right turn ingress lane and a left turn ingress lane on
Military Trail (the project entrance) based, on Palm Beach County access design
guidelines. These improvements are recommended.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
Dan Weisberg, P.E.
Assistant Director - Traffic Division
DW:DM
cc: George T. Webb, P.E., County Engineer
Joe Pollock, P.E., Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Maria Palombo, P.E. - MTP Group, Inc.
Marlene Everitt - Assistant County Attorney
Steve Morales - Palm Beach County Planning
File: General - TPS - Mun - Tmff c Study Review
F : \TR.AFFIC\apf\tps\89017app.wpd - TAZ 888
f
4- 04-200 11 : 44AM h -kur•i M I M GROUG iNl: WPB FL +', 5b I /Jb101jd F', I -
qr7 -4v37-
MTP Group, Inc.
12798 Forest RX Boulevard, Suits 303
West Palm Beach, At 33414.4704
Phone: (5611 795 -0678 Ts /dsx: (561) 795 -0 +130
March 29, 2000
Sean'C. Donahue, P.E.
Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Hellstrom, Inc.
3550 SW Corporate Parkway
Palm City, Florida 34990
Re: DiVosta Property (Parcel 4.05)
Traffic Performance Standards Review
Dear Mr. Donahue:
MTP Group, Inc. has completed a review of the revised traffic study (dated February 25, 2000) for the
project entitled DiVosta Property (Parcel 4.05) pursuant to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Traffic
Performance Standards. The-project is summarized as follows:
Location: Southeast quadrant of the Intersection of Hood Rd. and Military Tr.
Proposed Use: 423 single - family dwelling units
New Trips: 4,230 trips- p8r day
Buildout: 2003
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division hag prepared a letter to indicate compliance with the Traffic
Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. In addition to the conditions recommended by Palm Beach
County, we recommend a signal warrant analysis to be done at the Intersection of Flood Road and
Alternate ALA. Ile project may be phased to the installation of a signal at such time as the signal is
warranted. We understand there are other projects in the area either approved or applying for approval
which will also have an Impact to this intersection. The City should discuss venues to either collect
moneys from the relevant projects or distribute the cost of installation among the interested parties to
assure the signal is installed as needed.
As the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates, the project needs the Installation of a northbound right -turn lane
and a southbound left-turn lane on Military Trail at the project entrance. 'These exclusive lanes should be
shown in the site plan. Appropriate storage length should be included to assure proper staking. of project
traffic.
Should you have any que*tions or comments about this letter, do not hesitate to give me a call
Sincerely,
MTP G,tdtld, Inc.
Marta Tejera Palombo, P.E.
President
c:%e[p%rcRrciPeWarod4.oswppmv.twrpe
Cotleur&
Hearing -.
Landscape Architects
Land Pbnners �+
Environmental Consultants �Q
Request for waivers as part of The Isles PUD
A. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 75, Table 18, Minimum Site Area
Section 75, Table 18 (RL -3) of the Land Development regulations requires a minimum site area
of 6,500 square feet (sf) for a single - family dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting a waiver -
from this requirement. Three homes are proposed within The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens:
The Capri, a 2,122 sf attached zero lot -line single family home is proposed with a minimum site
area of 4,250 sf and a typical lot size of 4,680 sf. The Oakmont, a 2,681 sf zero lot -line single
family home is proposed with a minimum site area of 5,750sf and a typical lot size of 6,500 sf.
The Carlyle, a 3,376 sf zero lot -line single family home is proposed with a minimum site area of
7,000 sf and a typical lot size of 7,800 sf, and does not require a waiver from the property
development regulations.
Justification
According to Section 88 (a) of the Land Development Regulations, the purpose and intent of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to encourage more efficient and creative development; to
encourage an economical and efficient arrangement of buildings; to provide maximum
opportunity for application of innovative concepts of development in the creation of aesthetically
pleasing living, shopping and working environs and to preserve natural amenities and
environmental assets of the land by encouraging the preservation and improvement of scenic
and functional open areas. As proposed, The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens meets the purpose
and intent of the PUD Overlay District. Approval of the requested waivers will allow a more
efficient use of the land and a more creative community.
The requested waivers will allow clustering of units in order to provide large tracts of water
bodies and open space and also a community town center that provides a post office, service
station, and other community serving commercial uses. This creative concept will provide a
since of community where neighbors will have the opportunity to get to know each other and
build a strong sense of community. Residents will be able to walk or ride a bicycle to the town
center and pick up mail or for other needs, without having to leave the community. Children will
play at the town center and the applicant is exploring the possibility of having school buses
enter the community and pick up /drop -off children at the town center. This provides a safe
place for children and families to congregate, shop, work and play.
Approval of this request will allow the site to be developed as a compact and integrated
residential community consistent with Eastward Ho! policy, thereby, reducing urban sprawl and
concentrating development east of 1 -95. Additionally, these requests are similar to other
Maplewood Professional Center
1934 Commerce Lane - Suite 1
Jupiter, Florida 33458
Lic.# LC- 0000239
561 - 747 -6336 FAX 561.747 -1377
http:/www.cofleur-hearing.com
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 2
requests previously approved by the City of Palm Beach Gardens and other municipalities
throughout Palm Beach County. The overall intent of The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens
community development plan is to provide a maximum amount of open space similar to the
successful Riverwalk Residential Planned Development located in West Palm Beach. The
majority of homes are located on waterfront lots, and those few that do not have direct access to
water are provided large tracts of open space abutting their property. In addition to the
waterfront and open space provided, a town center with neighborhood serving commercial uses
is planned within the community.
Each of the requested property development waivers is necessary in order to provide such
spacious tracts of lakes, open space and a sense of community focused around the town
center. Also, the RL -3 District permits a maximum gross density of 6.7 dwelling units to the
acre. The applicant is proposing a maximum gross density of 2.35 dwelling units per acre, -
substantially below the allowable density.
B. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 75, Table 18, Minimum Lot Width
Section 75, Table 18 (RL -3) of the Land Development Regulations requires a 65' minimum lot
width for all properties. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement. The Capri
home is designed with a 36' minimum lot width, the Oakmont is designed with a minimum 50' lot
width and the Carlyle is designed with a minimum 60' lot width.
Justification
Please see justification for Item A above. Justification for this requested waiver is the same as
that of Item A.
C. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 75, Table 18, Maximum Lot Coverage
Section 75, Table 18 (RL -3) of the Land Development Regulations permits .a maximum lot
coverage of 35 %. The applicant is requesting a .waiver from the maximum lot coverage
requirement. The Capri home lot will require 50% maximum building lot coverage, the Oakmont
home lot will require 47% maximum building lot coverage and the Carlyle home lot will require
48% building maximum lot coverage.
Justification
Please see justification for Item A above. Justification for this requested waiver is the same as
that of Item A.
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 3
D. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 75, Table 18, Minimum Building and Accessory Structure Setback
Section 75, Table 18 (RL -3) of the Land Development Regulations requires setbacks for all
structures located in the RL -3 zoning district. The applicant is requesting setback waivers for
each of the three proposed models in The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens. The Typical Setback
Plan and Matrix located on the site plan outlines the proposed primary building setbacks for the
three models within The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens. The proposed Matrix for yard setbacks
is as follows:
Required
Proposed
Proposed
for Homes
for Screens
Capri Home
Front
25'
20'
N/A
Side
7' -6"
7'-6"
5'
Side Corner
20'
15'
10'
Common PL
7" -6"
0'
0'
Rear
10'
10'
5'
Oakmont Home
Front
25'
20'
N/A
Front Side Load
25'
14'
N/A
Garage
Side left (ZZL)
7' -6"
3' -1"
3' -1"
Side Right
7' -6"
6' -11"
5'
Side Corner
20'
15'
10'
Rear
10"
10'
5'
The Carlyle
Front
25'
20'
N/A
Front Side Load
25'
14'
N/A
Garage
Side left (ZZL)
7' -6"
3' -1"
3' -1"
Side Right
7' -6"
6' -11"
5'
Side Corner
20'
15'
10'
Rear
1011
10'
5'
* Zero lot line
criteria are not provided in the Palm Beach Gardens Land Development
Regulations.
* There are no
property development standards for pools or decks without vertical height
provided in the
Palm Beach Gardens
Land Development regulations.
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 4
Justification
Please see justification for Item A above. Justification for this requested waiver is the same as
that of Item A.
E. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 75, Table 18, Maximum Building Height
Section 75, Table 18 (RL -3) of the Land Development Regulations permits a maximum building
height of two stories /36 feet in the RL -3 zoning district. However, Article V, Section 97(B)
"Height of Buildings" permits certain exceptions to the Section 75, Table 18 requirement.
All proposed homes will meet the maximum height requirement of the zoning - district. Also, the
proposed Town Center building is a one -story structure that meets the code's maximum height
requirement. However, proposed within the one -story Town Center structure is a 42'
architectural tower feature. A waiver, if required, is requested to permit this architectural feature
to be constructed at 42' in height.
Justification
Section 97(B) states that height limitations imposed by the land development regulations shall
not apply to church spires, barns, silos. etc. The proposed architectural feature located at the
town center functions as a church spire, in that it is a community focal point that provides visual
direction to the town center and also the heart of the community. It is the applicant's opinion
that this request should fall under the exception provisions of this section of the code.
The Town Center architectural tower is a feature that the applicant has placed in the center of
the community to provide direction for pedestrians and visual identity to the center of the
community. Pedestrians can use this architectural visual cue to gage direction and distance to
the Town Center. This feature also serves as a terminating vista for themain community entry
access road. The requested height is necessary for the feature to be visible from all points
within the community.
F. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 173, Littoral Planting Zones
Section 173 requires littoral planting on lakes whose surface area is greater than one acre. The
applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement of Section 173.
Justification
The requirement to provide lake littoral zones was added to the Land Development Regulations
at such time as the South Florida Water Management District required similar lake littoral
plantings. Due to maintenance and other concerns, the Water Management District no longer
requires planted lake littoral zones. It is the applicant's experience and opinion that lake littoral
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 5
zones are costly and difficult to maintain and become a long -term burden of the homeowner's
association. Often homeowners are concerned with the aesthetic appearance of lake littoral
plantings and the perception that snakes and other aggressive water dependent wildlife inhabit
them. The applicant will be providing trees and other plantings around the perimeter of the lakes
and littoral zones in areas where they are visual from public streets and away from homes.
Additionally, the applicant is providing a number of public improvements. These improvements
include placing the existing overhead powerlines at the south portion of the property
underground, and providing landscape and irrigation within medians, and removing and
replacing sidewalks along Military Trail.
G. Code Requirement and Requested Waiver
Section 88(g)(3)(b&c), Commercial Development in Residential PUD's
Section 88(g)(3)(b&c) defines the development standards for commercial uses within residential
PUD's. Item b. "Building Permits" states that permits shall not be issued for any portion of a
commercial structure within a residential PUD until at least 50% of the total number of dwelling
units are under construction. Item c. "Location" states that commercial development in
residential PUD's shall not be located within one - quarter mile of any arterial or collector road
abutting the perimeter of the PUD. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the
construction of the commercial structure without limitation and to locate the commercial property
within approximately 800' of Military Trail, at the center of the community.
Justification
Section 88(g)(3)(b)
The town center is an amenity that residents expect to have available to them once they move
into the community. The applicant has typically used the community town center, with its
community serving residential commercial uses, to promote the livability of the community.
Furthermore, the applicant has typically built the town center within the first phase of
development of a site. Delaying the town center until 50% of the residential units are
constructed would unnecessarily deprive the residents of one of the many amenities of this site;
the use and convenience of the town center and the post office, gas' station, bank, etc. The
applicant requests a wavier from this requirement in order, to provide the residents of The Isles
with every amenity as quickly as possible.
Section 88(g)(3)(c)
As proposed, the community town center is centrally located in relation to the overall community
development plan. The intent of this location is not to attract customers from outside of the
community's boundaries, but to provide a central location to each resident. Furthermore,the
parcel is bounded on the east and west by Alternate A -1 -A and Military Trail, respectively. The
subject parcel is 1,347 feet in width. A quarter mile is 1,320 feet, thereby, effectively excluding
this parcel from a commercial town center without approval of this request.
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 6
Section 88 (g)(16) Criteria for a PUD Waiver
A preponderance of 11 criteria for a PUD Waiver must be met for approval of all PUD waivers.
Section 88 (g)(16)(a -k) outlines these criteria and an analysis for each is provided in italics
below.
a. The request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
According to Policy 1.1.1.1. (1) of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, the City shall promote urban infill and redevelopment, direct public investment to
existing urban areas and encourage mixed -use and clustering requirements. Approval
of these requested waivers will fulfill this requirement in providing a compact
development that promotes community, infill development -and preservation of open
space and natural resources.
b. The request is consistent with the purpose and intent of this section.
The requested waivers are the minimum necessary in order to make this project a
community oriented plan that provides large tracts of water bodies and open space while
at the same time providing a town center and desirable residential community for living.
The overall purpose of this code section is to provide a sustainable community where
residents work, live, and play and also protect the natural environment. This plan
accomplishes each of these objectives.
C. The request is in support of and furthers the city's goals, objectives and policies to
establish development possessing architectural significance, pedestrian amenities and
linkages, employment opportunities, reductions in vehicle trips, and a sense of place.
The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens satisties this requirement. The community is a
positive architectural addition to the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Town Center
incorporates mission architectural design while the homes are well thought out and
provide many interesting features such as .tile roofs, arched entries to front porches and
elongated windows. The rooflines . are sloped and offset, which adds depth to the
elevation. The town center provides a tower feature that is reminiscent of a Spanish
church bell tower.
Pedestrian amenities include sidewalks, extensive waterfront lots (approximately 20% of
the site), a town center with four tennis courts, pool, recreation center and limited
community serving commercial uses such as a post office and bank, all with extensive
landscaping. Additionally, each of these amenities provide.a sense of community and
place while reducing vehicle trips internally and externally to the site. Residents can
safely walk or ride a bicycle to the town center and swim, play tennis, pick up mail or
purchase some needed items for the home.
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 7
d. The request demonstrates that the granting of the waiver will result in a development
that exceeds one or more of the minimum requirements for PUD's.
The Isles of Palm Beach Gardens project exceeds the minimum required open space
and landscaping requirements. Additionally, the applicant is providing landscaping,
sidewalks and irrigation in and along Military Trail, and also is developing the site at a
density significantly less than that permitted.
e. The request for on or more of the waivers results from innovative design in which other
minimum standards are exceeded.
The requests for each of the waivers to the property development standards is the result
of a design that will provide a maximum amount of waterfront lots and open space in
excess of code, while simultaneously providing a community town center that will
provide many resident amenities.
f. The request demonstrates that the granting .of the waiver will result in preservation of
valuable natural resources, including environmentally sensitive lands, drainage and
recharge areas, and coastal areas.
By the provision of approximately 37 acres of water on -site, a valuable resource is being
preserved and conserved. The creation of lakes also provides recharge of underground
aquifers.
g. The request clearly demonstrates public benefit to be derived, including but not limited to
such benefits as no -cost dedication of rights -of -way, extensions of pedestrian linkages
outside of the project boundaries, preservation of important natural resources, and use
of desirable architectural, building, and site design techniques.
Internal roads to the site will be constructed by the applicant according to city standards
and then dedicated to the city. Also, the creation of approximately 37 acres of lakes is
preservation of natural resources and these lakes will help recharge underground
aquifers. The proposed architecture provides significant detailing in the homes and a
mission style town center with a unique bell or look out tower feature as a focal point for
the entire community.
h. Sufficient screening and buffering, if required, is provided to screen adjacent. uses from
impacts caused by a waiver.
No buffering or screening is required by approval of any of these requested waivers.
The request is not based solely or predominately on economic reasons.
The Isles
PUD Waiver Requests
Page 8
The requested waivers are not based predominately on economic reasons. The
applicant has built similar communities with success. People love these communities
and there is great demand by people to live in them. Demand is created by proving
waterfront lots, open space and amenities that people want and need. A strong sense of
safety and community are created in this innovative design. The applicant encourages
the city personnel to visit the Riverwalk community in West Palm Beach. The Riverwalk.
community has been very successful and is similar in design to The Isles of Palm Beach
Gardens.
J. The request will be compatible with existing and potential land uses adjacent to the
developed site.
The site is bounded by residential property on each side. However, the Seacoast Utility
Water Authority Water Plant is located at the northeast corner of the site. -The water
plant is a benign use and does not create any adverse impacts to residential uses.
k. The request demonstrates the development will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this section, and that such waivers will not be injurious to the area involved
or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
The requested waivers will allow compact environmentally conscious development
consistent with the land development regulation of the code and that of the
comprehensive plan. Additionally, these requests will promote the Governor's Eastward
Hol policy of in>rll development east of 1 -95 that does not promote urban sprawl.
Furthermore, the requested waivers will not create any detrimental impacts to the
immediate community nor the City of Palm Beach Gardens at large.
Memo to File
From: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester/n/4
Subject: PUD- 99 -08, The Isles (Parcel 4.05)
Date: July 31, 2000
I have reviewed the revised plans submitted July 24, 2000 for the above- reference petition and provide the
following comments for the City Council meeting:
• Roadway beautification plans for all of Hood Road should be a future requirement for WCI Parcel 4 in
a written agreement to the City, or the Isles PUD should produce the beautification plan now.
• The Isles development should be responsible for roadway maintenance as a condition of approval for
Military Trail, Hood Road and the internal City road.
• The Isles should provide a "future" meandering sidewalk within their 55' Hood Road parkway.
• The petitioner is requesting the partial waiver for littoral plantings. They are proposing planting only
trees around the lakes and putting the existing powerlines along the southern boundary underground.
City Council will need to approve this trade -off, and it should be brought to the attention of the P & Z
Commission for their opinion. If agreeable to the Commission, I will suggest a condition for the
timing of the powerlines being put underground. The City Engineer and myself are proposing
standards for the lake tree planting, which will be different than proposed (see engineering
comments).
All the lakes are for drainage and Northern is requesting even more. Littoral shelves for vegetation
may be very difficult to accomplish considering the water storage needed. An environmental trade
off would be more preferred, rather than putting the FP &L lines underground. The trees around the
lakes should be clustered in threes, the clusters should be 40' apart and no closer that 75' to any
drainage structure.
• The petitioner suggests a condition of approval for the timing of the Military Trail right -of -way
plantings completion to be one year from the issuance of the first land development permit for the
project.
D
1M�
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4689
Mr. Rick Green
DiVosta and Company
4500 PGA Blvd., Suite 400
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Re: The Isles Environmental Lands
Dear Mr. Green:
The Isles Planned Unit Development (PUD) is pursuing the "payment in lieu of
preservation" option noted in Section118 of the City's Land Development Regulations.
While ultimately, City Council will make the final determination, the value of the upland
in question will be established by two (2) appraisers. Both of the property appraisers
shall be members of the appraisal institute (MAI). One of the property appraisers shall be
appointed by the City and the other by the developer. The developer shall bear the
expense of both appraisers. The appraisals shall meet all applicable City standards, and
the amount of money paid shall be an average of the two appraisals.
As conditions of approval are generated for the Isles PUD, the timing for the "payment"
will be agreed upon. At this time, I will be recommending that payment shall be prior to
the first certificate of occupancy.
Please feel free to contact me or my staff, if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
/"cnt/.
Alt
Roxanne Manning
Growth Management Director
Cc: Kent Olson, Finance Director
./dams Norquest, Principal Planner
.-John Lindgren, Planner
D
e
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Len Lindahl, City Engineer
Len Rubin, City Attorney
John Lindgren, City Planner
DATE: June 14, 2000
APPROVED:
FROM: Jim Norquest, Principal Planner J
SUBJECT: The Isles
Bruce Gregg at Seacoast Utilities has made me aware that MacArthur recorded deeds on
all of the Forbearance properties which have the effect of allowing Seacoast to request
easements for their use. These easements can be used for water /sewer lines, well sites,
etc.
In the case of The Isles, there evidently is a 50' easement along Hood Road and a 35'
easement along the east side of the property.
I am concerned about these easements on The Isles and other parcels. Shouldn't they be
shown and accounted for on surveys and site plans? Do they give Seacoast the right to
put well sites and utilities anywhere the easement runs? Can landscaping and other
improvements be placed in them?
I am requesting some documentation from Bruce Gregg regarding these easements. Len
Lindahl, do you have any knowledge of them? Lets discuss.
t�
INC.
I 1-;CIVII
1
.L,RN IN4116N MA11111 111.11
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Lindgren
FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E.
CIVIL DATE: May 9, 2000
A0\1CULTURAL
0, \TFK R1:Y.W1N'('F< FILE NO. 99-4037 (City Petition # PUD-99-08)
V: L: WA< P WAI 1Y,
SUBJECT: The Isles (DiVosta Parcel 4.05)
We have reviewed our files for the reference project. We offer the
following comment:
• No Building Permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be
issued until a revised Surface Water Management System for Unit (2)'
has received final approval from the City of Palm Beach Gardens and
all other applicable governments and /or agencies, including a schedule
for implementing the plan and a definitive commitment for funding the
required improvements.
SCD/ffis
"I'JI-NIVI-S FIX RVSL11tS cc: Roxanne Manning
Jim Norquest
PAPROJECTSTBOMEMOW37m.doc
14 C'tY0fP8-Gardens
GR()V
VIH
MANAGEMENT EP
ID MIMENT
3,1) SA V. ( wpitalc- Pkwy.
Valin City, FL 34990
(561) 280-388.3
Fax: (S01) 286-1925
INC.
„NSi ;I IN( ;C'i\at EN(ANURS.
.w\mus
CIVlt.
: \G \IC.ULTURAL
WATER RESOURCES
\VNI -ER & \• ASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION
SURVEYING & MAPPING
GIS
"Partners For Results
Value by Design"
3550 S.W. Corporate Pkwy.
Palm City, FL :34990
(561) 286 - :388:3
Fax: (561) 286- 3925
\V\,\ %VAI)lh.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Lindgren
FROM: Sean C. Donahue, P.E. —610.1)
DATE: August 24, 2000
FILE NO. 99 -4037 (City Petition No. PUD- 99 -08)
SUBJECT: The Isles (Divosta- Parcel 4.05)
Crty of P.B.
Gardens
A116 25
MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
We have reviewed the following plans and information received on August
24, 2000:
• Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc - Preliminary Engineering Plan A372, 2
Sheets.
We have the following comments:
1. Not Satisfied. The site plan shows a 12' x 35' loading zone; however,
per LDR Sections 183 – 186, a 12' x 35' maneuvering apron is also
required. The applicant needs to indicate the maneuvering apron on the
Town Center site plan.
2. Previously Satisfied.
3. Satisfied. The applicant has indicated 10 bicycle parking spaces.
4. Previously Satisfied.
5. Satisfied. The applicant has moved the conflicting items.
6. Previously Satisfied.
7. Previously Satisfied.
8. Previously Satisfied.
9. Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has revised the landscape plan
to resolve some of the conflicts between trees and adjacent items. Since
there remain some potential conflicts between the sidewalks, curbs, and
some indicated landscape tree locations, we recommend that the
applicant field locate all trees to prevent any conflicts with the existing
drainage system
The Isles (Divosta Parcel 4.05) Page 2 of 3
LBFH File No. 99-4037
10. Not Satisfied. To provide sufficient room to maneuver heavy
equipment for lake maintenance, the landscape plants in the area below
the Lake Maintenance Easement should be planted in clusters no wider
than 15 feet. The clusters should be at least 40 feet apart, and at least 75
feet from any structure, including drainage structures. The applicant
needs to revise the landscape plans to reflect these spacings.
11. Conditionally Satisfied. Prior to Construction Plan approval, the
applicant will need to submit written authorization from the utility
owners, for horizontal construction/plantings within the utility
easements.
12. Satisfied. The plans have been revised to provide a 20 -foot lake
maintenance easement around the lake perimeters.
13. Previously Satisfied.
14. Previously Satisfied.
15. Previously Satisfied.
16. Previously Satisfied.
17. Satisfied. 20' of asphalt pavement is adequate for a local road.
18. Previously Satisfied.
19. Previously Satisfied.
20. Conditionally Satisfied. We will review the required site signage
during the Construction Plan review phase.
21. Previously Satisfied.
22. Previously Satisfied.
23. Not Satisfied. The applicant has revised the site plan (Sheet 3) to locate
trees outside of the road right -of -way; however, it was the intent of the
previous comment that the trees be positively located within (not
outside) the right of way. The applicant needs to revise the site plan so
that the tree locations are consistent with the illustrated cross section
(Site Details, Sheet 2); i.e., within the road right of way.
24. Satisfied. The applicant has removed the drawing from the submission.
25. The applicant has provided a special modified site plan for the Town
Center. The applicant needs to revise the Site Plan for the subdivision
showing the changes on the special Town Center site plan.
The Isles (Divosta Parcel 4.05) Page 3 of 3
LBFH File No. 994037
The applicant is requested to return a copy of our comments with the
applicant's acknowledgement of each comment and the response.
Compliance will expedite the subsequent review.
SCD /Wd
cc: Roxanne Manning
Jim Norquest
PAPROJEC MPHOMEMOM37W037c
TO:
7N
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
Mr. John Lindgren, City Planner, DATE: June 12, 2000
APPROVED:
FROM: Jonathan Iles, Supervisor
SUBJECT: The Isles — Parcel 4.05
I have reviewed the plans and comments forwarded to Department dated May 10, 2000.
1.) Page 3, Item #1: Re: Mastarm lighting, crosswalk pavers, and overhead power.
Applicant indicated that WCI will be responsible for the Hood Road
improvements. Public Works is satisfied this condition has been met provided
documentation is on file with Growth Management identifying WCI's
responsibilities.
2.) Page 3, Item # 2: The Public Works Department concern for "up lighting" of
landscaping within the median islands is in conjunction with the strategic plan
document developed in January 2000. If this is not prohibited by F.D.O.T.
regulations, the Department requests the Applicant to research utilizing shields
(such as in place in Abacoa) to deflect light for on coming traffic.
The Department looks forward to reviewing the landscape plans for Military Trail
median. The Department is also in agreement with the reimbursement request
from the adjacent landowner to the west for a pro rata share for improvements
requested within the road right of way.
3.) Page 4, Item # 3: No additional comments.
4.) Page 4, -Item # 4: Maintenance of the sidewalk is still being researched.
5.) Page 4, Item # 5: No additional comments.
6.) Page 4, Item # 6: No additional comments.
7.) Page 4, Item # 7: The Department acknowledges the efforts provided by the
Applicant in providing egress and sufficient room for maintenance of the canal on
the east side of the parcel. The Department is satisfied that future concerns,
regarding this item, if any, will be favorably resolved between both parties.
/I
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Seacoast Utility Authority
August 29, 2000
VIA FAX: 799 -4281
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 109602
Palm Beach Gardens.
Florida 33410 -9602
Mr. John C. Lindgren, II
Planning and Zoning Division
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -
RE: The Isles
Dear Mr. Lindgren:
We offer the following comment on your transmittal dated
August 23, 2000 concerning the referenced project. The site
plan needs to be modified to show two 50X50 water supply
well sites, one in the southeast corner and one in the northwest
corner.
Please call if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
S OAST UTILITY A THORITY
Bruce Gregg
Director of Operations
ad
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
cc: Rim Bishop AUG Sean Donahue 3 0 7900
Jim Lance
Scott Serra' &I' Dom'
4200 Hood Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -2174
Phom: Customer Service (561) 627 -2920 / Executive Office (561) 627 -2900 / FAX (561) 624 -2839
N.P.B.C. IMPROVEMENT DIST 561 624 7839 P.01i02
N HERN PALM BEACH COON. .MPROVEMENT DISTRICT
357 rt,nrT DRIVE. IFALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA 53418 • 561- 624 -7830 - FAX 561- 624 -7839
May 1, 2000
John Lindgren, City Planner VIA FAX ONLY 799 -4281
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -4698
Re: Development Review Committee
PUD -99 -08 -11e Isles (Parcel 4.05)
Unit of Development No. 02
Dear Mr. Lindgren:
GG:�tJ
We are in receipt of your memorandum dated April 27, 2000 to the Development Review
Committee members regarding the referenced site plan application. The referenced project is
located within Unit of Development No. 02 and will be required to apply for and obtain a
Northern Standard Permit.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you for
your cooperation. -- - —
TCR:vbl
"'o y�
CL D /s; -4
' H
May 8, 2000
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLANNING 6 REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C -331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406 -5813
(561) 4344020 FAX (561) 434 -8187
Mr. John Lindgren
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
DR. H. BENJAMIN MARLIN
suPeWENDort
RE: PUD 99 -08 The Isles / SP 00 -01 Burma Road Commerce Park
Dear Mr. Lindgren:
The School District Planning and Real Estate Department reviewed the subject requests.
PUD 99 -08 Request. for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to construct 423 residential units.
The construction of 423 units may impact the public school system by additional 63 elementary school
students, 51 middle school students, and 93 high school students.
The schools serving this area are:
Schools Membership Capacity
Timber Trace Elementary School 840 825
Watson B. Duncan Middle School 1444 1188
William T. Dwyer High School 2081 1920
The opening of new elementary school 96A will provide enrollment relief to Timber Trace Elementary
School, and middle school "FF" will provide enrollment relief to Watson B. Duncan Middle School.
A bus turnaround/bus stop/bus shelter shall be provided before the gates to the PUD if it. is to. be a
gated community with a bus turnaround atleast-110'feetdiatneter. If not -a gated community a bus pull
off completely out of the road right of way must be provided.
SP 00 -01 No Impact on the Public School System.
If there are any questions, please call me at 434 -8800.
Slicere ly, 12SUL'
g 1 . Usher, AICP
Planning Specialist (Educational)
c: Linda H. Hines, Palm Beach County School District
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
JUL. -19' 001WED) 15:12
July 19, 2000
Mr. Jim Norquest
City of Palm Beach
10500 North Nfilita
Palm Beach Garden
DIVOSTA & COWANY
TEL:561 715 9121
"d\►l 1.1.1SA�W^
I A N P c a M P A N V
Gardens Planning Department
y Trail
s, Florida 33410 -4695
RE: The 14es (Parcel 4.05)
Dear Jim:
Per our discussio earlier today, please be advised that we would respectfully request that we be
permitted to discu s our proposed Isles development with the City Council at the August 3, 2000
meeting. As you aware, the development commur ty has been working with the Northern Palm
Beach Improveme t District and the City of Palm Beach Gardens on a drainage study for the Unit
2 area which inelu es this site. As a result of certain requests that have been made by Northern as
part of our ongoing discussions, we feel it would be appropriate to seek Council direction on certain
matters as it affect; this site and the surrounding area.
I recognize that thi meeting is simply a workshop and 1 have no objections to postponing our August
8, 2000 workshop " the Planning and Zoning Commission to August 22, 2000 if any major issues
arise from our dis ussions with the City Council.
I thank you for yc ar consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely yours,
6 � co 4--�
Rick Greene, AI
Vice President
c: Chuck Hatha•
Don Hearing
isle,jim
4500 PGA Blvd. , Supce 400
Palm Beach Garden$. FL 33418
P. 002
12�
Executive Offices 561 -62
Fax 561 -7790
i
i
JUL. -19' 00 (WED) 15:12
DIVOSTA & COMPANY
Mr. Nabar Martinez
City Manager
City of Palm Beach
10500 North Mlita
Palm Beach Garden ,
RE; The
Dear ltiir. Martinez:
Pursuant to
be permitted to add
The Isles developme
had our first works;
to discuss this 423 -
Commission asked
(note that the Palm
We would b
study currently und(
the additional story
asked by Northern
lakes we are alreac
impact this will hai
385'units - a loss
Department as soo
Please let m
Council and then r
assistance and t loc
T£L:561 115 9121
... 1114ma-'r"�.
A N D C O M P A N Y
July 13, 2000
ardens
Trail
Florida 33410 -4698
(Parcel 4.05)
ur recent discussion, T would request on behalfI of Divosta & Company that we
ess the City Council on August 3, 2000 to utfprmally discuss our proposal for
Lt located at the corner of Hood Road and Milit Trail. As you are aware, we
op with the Planning and Zoning Commission�on June 27, 2000 (PUD- 99 -08)
nit development. The response was, for the most part, favorable although the
or additional information concerning the setb Ick waivers for the development
Peach Gardens Zoning Code does not addres zero lot line development).
:e to meet with Council to discuss this project jn relation to the Unit 2 drainage
way by Northern Palm Beach Improvement District. In order to accommodate
;e required by the Plat 4 development immediLtely to our south, we have been
to provide an additional 6.6 acres of lakes on top of the more than 36 acres of
y providing. We are in the process of revisin our site plan to determine what
e and we expect to reduce our unit count fro 423 units to somewhere around
3f 38 units. A new site plan will be forwar4ed to the Growth Management
L as it is completed.
s if the August 3 date is possible. Our hope ise could get some direction from
:turn to an August 8 Planning and Zoning Ci rnmission. Thank you for your
k forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours, ;
Rick Greene,
Vice Presiden
c: Ms. Roxanne Al. Manning, AICP
Mr. Chuck Hat way, DiVosta and Company
pbgnahar
4500 PGA Blvd.. Su to 400
Palm Beach Garden Ft- 3341 8
P. 003
IZ9
Executive Offices 5-6
Fax 561 51 -7
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4689
July 24, 2000
Mr. Rick Greene
DiVosta and Company
4500 PGA Boulevard, Suite 400
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Re: The Isles (Parcel 4.05)
Dear Mr. Greene,
We have received your request for a "workshop" with City Council for The Isles. It is our understanding that
you want to seek Council input regarding issues relating to drainage and the project's site plan.
The City's Land Development Regulations establish a clear process for development review. This process
requires that projects such as The Isles cannot be reviewed by the City Council until they have been considered
by the Planning and Zoning Commission in at least one workshop and in an advertised public hearing. The
process also requires that both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission transmit recommendations to the
City Council.
Since The Isles has not yet finished with its Planning and Zoning Commission review, you cannot request a
general project review by the City Council. However, you do have the right to request Council input on a
specific issue if that issue is within Council's purview. It is our understanding that you wish to address Council
regarding the potential effects of Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District's ongoing Unit 2 basin
study on your project. We will place your request on the August 3`d City Council agenda as an Item for
Discussion.
Please be aware that the City will not allow you to seek Council "pre- approval" of The Isles site plan. You must
confine your presentation and dialog with Council to the drainage issue. Further, please be aware that any
guidance offered by Council will not be binding on staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or Council.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
V a,
s K. Norquest, AIC
Principal Planner
JKN /cml
CC: Mayor /Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Nabar Enrique Martinez, City Manager
Roxanne Manning, Growth Management Director
Len Rubin, City Attorney
Len Lindahl, City Engineer
Carol Gold, City Clerk
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District
G: N Rick Greene The Isles (Parcel 4.05)
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
DATE: July 24, 2000
APPROVED:
FROM: Jim Nor quest, Principal Planner Jl"
SUBJECT: The Isles Parcel 4.05 Item for Discussion
This proposed project, which lies south of Hood Road between Military Trail and
Alternate A -I -A, is currently proceeding through the zoning review process and has had a
workshop with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The developer, DiVosta and
Company, proposes 423 residential dwelling units.
Recently a new issue has arisen which the developer believes could significantly affect
the site plan. The Unit 2 drainage study currently being undertaken by Northern Palm
Beach Improvement District calls for DiVosta to provide an additional 6.6 acres of lakes
over and above the 36 acres of lakes they are already providing, to help with Plat 4's
drainage problems. This petitioner has requested permission to address the City Council
about this issue.
Because this petition has not yet been completely reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and has not had a public hearing with that body, the petitioner is not
requesting a complete review of the project by the City Council and a staff report has not
been prepared. The discussion will be confined to the drainage issue and its potential
effect on the site plan.
A N D C O M P A N Y
July 24, 2000
Mr. John Lindgren
City Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning Department
10500 North Military Trail
Paln,,Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -4698
RE: The Isles (Parcel 4.05)
Dear John:
In response to the comments made at the June 27, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission workshop,
please be advised that we have modified our plans and provided additional information as requested
by the Board. Eight (8) sets of plans are included. The specific items requested are shown below:
1) A comparison of the setbacks approved for other zero lot line developments in Palm
Beach Gardens should be reflected in tabular form.
RESPONSE: A table showing the Catalina Lakes, The Oaks and Lake Catherine's approved
setbacks has been provided. Please keep in mind that the Palm Beach Gardens Zoning Code does
not have any specific setback requirements for zero lot line developments therefore it appears as
though the number of waiver requests is considerable. As reflected on the attached table, the
setbacks. requested- for. the Isles are not as great or the same as the other developments mentioned
above.
- 2) Details of the Town Center.
RESPONSE: Details including the floor plan, elevations and roof plan of the Town Center are
included. The entire building is approximately 5,300 square feet within a building footprint of
approximately 77 feet by 120 feet.
3) Consider reducing the percentage of Capri III (duplex) units.
RESPONSE: The percentage of Capri III units has been reduced from 51.1% to 39.6 %. This
translates to a reduction from 216 units to 150 units - a loss of 66 units!
UN of Y g Gardens
V,
4500 PGA Blvd., Suite 400 t'akGE► ENZ
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 U w9kA Nt
Executive Offices 561-6
Fax 561-7
Mr. John Lindgren
July 24, 2000
Page 2
4) A color coded plan of the products within the development.
RESPONSE: The site plan has been shaded and a color coded copy of the plan provided to indicate
which products would be built on each parcel.
5) A sample designation plan showing the mix of roof colors, building colors, elevations,
garages and shutter colors should be provided for a typical parcel within the development.
RESPONSE: A sample designation plan has been provided for Parcel O within the development.
Each of these homes would have a variety of two building footprints (front or side loaded garages),
three elevations (boston hip, hip and gable), three building colors (peach, yellow, beige), three roof
colors (charleston blend, desert blend, brandy blend), three shutter colors (black, green, white) and
three landscape palettes for a total of 162 possible combinations. As demonstrated on this parcel, no
two homes are the same.
6) A plan showing the details of the elevations.
RESPONSE: Another set of these plans has been provided for the Commission's review.
7) Meet with Seacoast Utilities to discuss their request to place two wells on opposite corners
of the development.
RESPONSE: A meeting was held on July 21, 2000 with representatives of DiVosta and Mr. Rim
Bishop, the Executive Director of Seacoast Utilities. DiVosta is not interested in providing two
additional wells on the property. Nonetheless, a copy of the revised site plan was forwarded to
Seacoast in order for their consultant to run a hydrologic model to determine the drawdown impacts
on our lake system. If the drawdown impacts are negligible, we may reconsider our position.
On a related matter, please be advised that our office, along with many other members of the
development community, has been working with the Northern Palm Beach Improvement District and
the City of Palm Beach Gardens to resolve drainage issues within the Unit 2 study area. This area
includes the property bounded by PGA Boulevard to the south, Alternate Al A to the east, Donald
Ross Road to the north and the Florida Turnpike to the west. These discussions began subsequent
to our filing of The Isles development application and in effort to address the flooding issues
occurring in Plat 4, located immediately to the south of our project, and Westwood Gardens located
west on Hood Road.
Recently, it was brought to our attention after some exhaustive drainage modeling work was
completed by Mock Roos, the consultant to the Northern Palm Beach Improvement District, that the
flooding problems occurring in Plat 4 to our south could be remedied by us providing an additional
6.6 acres of lakes within our development over and above the 36.8 acres of lakes already being
provided. This translates to a loss of approximately 25 units which is of great concern to us and the
reason we requested a workshop with the City Council on August 3, 2000. We have revised our plan
Mr. John Lindgren
July 24, 2000
Page 3
to reflect this loss and will discuss this in the spirit of cooperation with the City. As shown below,
we are now at only 42% of the Gardens allowable density and 70% of the allowable density permitted
through our contract with Watermark Communities.
Permitted by Zoning - 900 units
Permitted by WCI - 540 units
Original Proposal - 423 units
Revised Proposal - 379 units
The major differences between the original and revised proposals are reflected on the following page.
In summary, the decrease in units (44) results in a decrease of the project's density from 2.35
units /acre to 2.11 units /acre. The percentage mix of products is also more similar in the revised
proposal (from 14% to 46 %).
The loss of units now makes the gas station and grocery store economically unfeasible as part of the
Town Center. The architecture of the building remains intact and that floor space is replaced by
additional meeting rooms for the community's residents.
I trust that we have addressed all of the Planning and Zoning Commission's requests from our first
workshop. Please let me know if any other information is required at this time and I look forward
to discussing this project further with the Commission on August 8, 2000.
Sincerely yours,
Rick Greene, AICP
Vice President
c: Chuck Hathaway
Don Hearing
islesres
TIE ISLES DEVELOPMENT
COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED PLANS
Original
Revised
Number of Units
423
379
Mix of Products
_ Capri III
216(51.1%)
150(39.6%)
Oakmonts
148(35.0%)
174(45.9%)
Carlyle
59(13.9%)
55(14.5%)
Density
2.35
2.11
Town Center
Deleted gas station & grocery due to
reduced number of units. Waiver
for commercial construction no
longer required.
J
Site Plan
Parcel A units changed (Capri to Oak.)
Parcel cul-de -sac eliminated ( -.14 units)
Parcel C units changed (Oak. to Capri)
Parcel E units changed (Capri to Oak.)
-
Parcel I units changed (Capri to Oak.)
Parcel J cul- de-sac shortened ( -3 units)
Parcel K cul-de -sac shortened (4 units)
Parcel N cul- de-sac eliminated ( -10 units)
Lakes
36.79 acres
58.66 acres
Buildable Lot. Coverage
33.3%
13.55%
(59.7 acres)
(24.36 acres)
c
r `v '^
gz
c
cn w
'ty�C�vs�ncnticf -'rfi
x
A Z
°o
'vC
e O
p. N R FRI ?. cao
O L'n C*' y N O o
rZ
o y
►�i
Cn
=
�O
W
+
~-.
y
cn
to"- E.
�y
w
CD
O
t:+
y�
N
m f9
� H
v
U
cr
N
N
A
yr
.t co
O p,
to
O
CD
O. O
v
f9 e•r
I
•w
v
to p
tali
C.
--d a
p A
o Ct .4
C
�i y
A
W
0o
O
=
Ca
h
O�J
yy
c
VIP
.,
ft C
y
A
C y
O CCD
A
ci d
n H
O to
C
� t�D
A `h
c
r `v '^
gz
c
cn w
'ty�C�vs�ncnticf -'rfi
CL
CD
r4
p. N R FRI ?. cao
O L'n C*' y N O o
rZ
\O
ice.
►�i
Cn
=
�O
W
+
~-.
y
cn
to"- E.
�y
w
CD
O
O
N N 0 fn
O
v
U
LA
N
N
LA C C
v
by
I
•w
rOn � A ff �
�
R°i tNi� VNi
tali
C.
}
o Ct .4
rn
O trJ
r
0o
ww
Ca
LA
cCt o
yy
VI y
r-91
w v w
� � b
O�
Ap
.-. a. � a
d
VJ
H
r�
b �
VL
z
t�
z
O
O L'n C*' y N O o
rZ
\O
ice.
►�i
Cn
=
�O
W
+
~-.
y
cn
to"- E.
�y
w
CD
O
O
N N 0 fn
O
o
U
LA
N
N
LA C C
I
D
r
0o
ww
Ca
LA
cCt o
yy
VI y
r-91
M F,y
z
y
A
d
VJ
H
r�
b �
VL
z
t�
z
O L'n C*' y N O o
rZ
\O
ice.
►�i
Cn
=
�O
W
W
to"- E.
>
e
r� Ci7
d
VJ
H
r�
b �
VL
z
t�
z
.Vqt
FIB&P
I
Jl�
........... ........ . .... .......... .
-l/
x epuoi3 `suOPIRD uc)eag WPM
x
SOISI OqJL
�y i 0i I� Jol
�
:x:i xR^ I Al Sa' "l
1.5
pp J 9 Yi Y
a JIB
ti VJ {J I
x8 C/)
It file ,
4f fir'.
o
a.
0
s�
01-1
all
IR�69if5?.�7C ^EE =B
19IA
- RRRRAAA4RRARAA
'� ixil Ai RA999Ait St9
XI. ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
a. Appointment of Interim City Manager
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
DATE: September 25, 2000
APPROVED:
FROM: Jim Norquest, Principal Planner JV/
SUBJECT: WCI Parcel 4.03 /4.06 Item for Discussion
This proposed project, which lies south of Donald Ross Road and north of Hood Road
between Military Trail and Alternate A -1 -A, is about to begin the zoning review process.
The petitioner has submitted for Concurrency and has also submitted a PCD Master Plan
for review. They have also submitted a site plan for several of the parcels on the south
end of the site. The developer, WCI, proposes 1040 residential dwelling units on 363
acres.
WCI is proposing to build several housing types in this project, ranging from traditional
detached single family to duplexes to cluster homes to `mansion' triplexes. Because they
are requesting some housing products that are not currently represented in the City, their
project will not look like a traditional Gardens single family site. The unusual housing
types will also require a number of development waivers. Therefore the applicant has
requested a preliminary review of their concept by the City Council before they get too
far down the road with the site plans.
Because this petition has not yet been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and has not had a public hearing with that body, the petitioner is not requesting a
complete review of the project by the City Council, and a staff report has not been
prepared. The discussion will be confined to the housing type concepts and their
potential effect on the site plan.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA 33410-4698
12, 2000
Ms. Nancy Graham
Watermark Communities, Inc.
4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 900
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Re: Evergrene WCI Parcel 4.03 /4.06
Dear Ms. Graham:
We have received your request for a "workshop" with the City Council for Evergrene. It
is our understanding that you want to seek Council input regarding issues relating to the
project's development concept and site plan.
The City's Land Development Regulations establish a clear process for development
review. This process requires that projects such as Evergrene cannot be officially
reviewed by the City Council until they have first been reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in at least one workshop and in an advertised public hearing. The
process also requires that both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are to
transmit recommendations to the City Council prior to project review.
Since Evergrene has not yet finished with its Planning and Zoning Commission .review,
you cannot request a general project review by the City Council. However, you do have
the right to request Council input on a specific issue if that issue is within Council's
purview. It is our understanding that you wish to address Council regarding the site
planning implications of the unusual residential units you are proposing. We will
tentatively schedule your request on the October 50s City Council agenda as an Item for
Discussion.
Please also note the following:
The discussion with Council must be focused on a specific issue or issues. Please
send us a written clarification of exactly which aspects of your project you desire
Council to look at.
2. A fee of $350.00 is required.
3. Prior to the workshop, the applicant needs to meet with staff to review the request.
Ms. Nancy Graham
Evergrene WCI Parcel 4.03 /4.06
September 11, 2000
Page Two
4. Your presentation to the Council should be clear and brief. PowerPoint
presentations are preferred. The entire workshop, including questions and
answers, should not exceed 45 minutes.
Please be aware that the City will not allow you to seek Council "pre - approval' of your
master or site plan. Further, please be aware that any comments offered by Council will
not be binding on staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission or Council.
Please feel free to call me with any questions. We look forward to seeing your project.
Sincerel
Y� V
N
es K. Norquest, AICP
rincipal Planner
JKN /cml
CC: Mayor /Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Nabar Enrique Martinez, City Manager
Roxanne Manning, Growth Management Director
Len Rubin, City Attorney
Len Lindahl, City Engineer
Carol Gold, City Clerk
File
G: JN EveWene WCI Parcel 4.03 4.06
i
I
U
�c
(L 0 :1
U
�U
LL a
Cl) O
Z *�
W
G �
O °C
r+�
U
CL
m
E
a z
Q U N
1
�
U •}c-,
a r aa))
a) *' E
l+L+ y a)
N � O
� Q C
O a)
E E
U C
6
t
E m
C 0
� c E
V 0 0 M
c M
0 Q.
1
=tea
p 0
cmgE
aEi o 0
CL 0
U
m •�
�c
(L 0 :3
U
2 Z%
�U
O 4)
LL
L
N O
Z
wa
3
a
o
U
V � �
�
a's
N � O
C Q �
� 0 0
U �
�
°C m
L H
0 E
•• V � p M
Na41
UE
co
E O m N
cu
+'
}r
C `�
C
O *' E
L
a y
%- _
L O E O
N
N �,
C
�O =E
0
0 r
(u
FL Z Q U
3
co
0 p
2 a H
U
J_
� •C
a O
LU
U
N
OL-
LL
N 0
I— }'
Z *'
W 0)
c 7
G �
O °C
U
C
a
a
E
Z
IMAW161
�T
I�
VI
V
Cl)
a s �
N � 0
C Q =
O N
U � c
� N gn
ow
C C U
C
•V N 0 M
C
a�
r 3 U J
N a v E
C N
�N O ro
E 0 N
U co j t
N O
41
N p C
N �
E C '++
N
� 0 H
U
J_
•c
a. 00
WV
N
Om L
LL
Cl) o
H41
z *'
W�
2Q)
OLL
U
c
a
N
N
a) 0
FL z
L
f�
N
m
N
L
U cn'
V 6)
a' =0
m *' E
4 0
C Q
E0
E E
U c
6 �
C C V 7
•V (M O M
C
U a c
a� c
NaU �
ro
N OL
� a U F-
U
m '
�c
ao
o
U
I— U
a�
LL Q
U) O
W�
cr
G W
O °C
U
C
IL
N
a
n
Sl
v J
M
Z Q
�tl
r
U
\b
Jam.
i (1
J
ti
U
N
:a
N
U c
a t
a) 4' E
+s+ y N
N O
N Q C
E0
U c
E N
E m
c L U C
~cE
V N O M
0) c
U c) a C
a)
o
V L 4J
a)
Z U �
N a U E
N N
'L C
4- L
0 tt
C 70 a)
E0
U M j
fl.N -0 N
N L-
0 ro o
Z., a
0 E
N p E
L
a) C 'V E
O
C 4
o p r
� aU H
J
mZ
a 0
WV
o
E— U
L Q
0
ZN
LU
3
0•
O L:
U
C
a
m
0
a
J
nJ
I�jx
ai aa)i a)
E L
�° H
Z Q U N
m
U 41
a)
E
N N
N
� 0
Q =
O a)
N a)
6 a)
a)
N p 41
r c
_ E
N Q �
_ lie 0
.0
� U �
a U �
N N
C c
'L L
0
a�
� � o
L �
7 ,
O � N
o
m
QU H
i
�l
U
J_
co •C
ao
WV
F— U
O °'
cc
L
Q
U) O
Z *'
W
G �
o
U
'L
IL
a�
a
�I
�t-
va
N V
N
Z Q U N
U c
a'r (D
N m
J O
= Q C
EO
U � c
Q N
zw (r a
C L V
din oM
rn
3 '� 0 N
V L o
r U J
N a V E
W _
_ N
t
'o 0 -lie
0 L N
•00 o
E:-
a�
� 0 ~
U
J_
m �V
ao
w�
2 +�
CO)
N
LL Q
U) O
Z *'
wa
G N
o °C
U
V
'L
a z a U N
V � �
a s w
N o
N O
C Q
E 0 N
E
U c
Q N
ISP a: E N
r C V 3
4-J�
o�
O 'C 1 1.
CL
L �
Nav �
CL
N 0 �
c +�
a�ioor
� aU H
J_
.0
ao
U
I... N
U)
L.
cc 10
LL Q
Cl) O
z *'
W
C �
O
U
V � �
6
y Q c
E N
U
E N
E a�
r N V
C L �
~ c E
V N 0 M
Z r
U co a
�=Lo
Nav E
v 41
'L L
0
E 0 0
c o;E
�L �F
co
a z Q U cc aU
J_
ca
ao
WV
I- v
a
U. a
Cl) 0
ZN
a
O
U
U � �
a s o
� o
� o �
Q
O 7
�J 'C 0 N
O 0.
t
a
0 (D L fA
V > U
c
.L N _
0 0 0 C E
E :n E t a�
a Z Q U N 0.0 F�-