HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Council Agenda 081999All 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
AUGUST 19,1999
7:00 P.M.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
H. ROLL CALL: Mayor Joseph R. Russo, Vice Mayor Lauren Furtado, Councilman Eric Jablin
Councilman David Clark and Councilman Carl Sabatello.
M. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
IV. PRESENTATIONS:
1. Employee Anniversary Recognition
2. Teamwork Awards
3. ALS Competition Recognition - Fire Department
4. Swearing in of 5 New Police Officers
V. XTY MANAGER REPORT:
Light Fixtures for New Municipal Complex
2. Presentation on Canal Right -Of -Way Maintenance
VI. AWARDING OF BIDS:
1. Awarding of a Bid for a Fire Rescue Truck
VII. COMMENTS�FROM THE PUBLIC: (For Items Not on the Agenda) (Please submit request
card to Clerk prior to this Item)
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
- 1. Resolution 70, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of a Waiver for Parcel 12.04 N.E. Northlake
J" Boulevard &MacArthur Boulevard Mixed Use Waiver.
Resolution 71, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of a Waiver for Parcel 12.05 N.W. L`i�
Northlake Boulevard &MacArthur Boulevard Mixed Use Waiver.
3. solution 99, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of Tennis Pro Contract.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Resolution 72, 1999 - Public Hearing re: Consideration of Approval of a Sign Variance for
Gardens Park Plaza (Public Hearing, adv. 6/7/99; Postponed from the 6/17/99 and 7/15/99
Regular Meetings; Requested to be postponed to 9/16/99 Regular Meeting).
2. Ordinance 32, 1999 - Providing for Annexation of .33 Acres of Land Located South of
Idlewild Road and Approximately 1/4 Mile East of Prosperity Farms Road (Public Hearing,
continued from 8/5/99 Meeting; Consideration of Second and Final Reading and Adoption)
3. Ordinance 34, 1999 - Providing for Amendment to Christ Fellowship Church Conditional
Use. (Public Hearing, adv. 8/5/99; Consideration of Second and Final Reading and Adoption)
X. RESOLUTIONS:
1. Resolution 77, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of Hampton Inn Sign Color Change
solution 86, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of a Site Plan to Existing Christ Fellowship
arch for Existing Second Story, Additional Parking, Time Extension for Existing Modular
�5 Units, Ground Sign and Other Site Plan Amendments.
3. Resolution 98, 1999 - Consideration of Approval of Appointments to the Education Advisory
Board.
5
M. ORDINANCES: (For Consideration of First Reading)
1. Ordinance 28, 1999 - Providing for Rezoning Approval for Catalina Lakes.
(Workshop /Consideration of First Reading)
2. Ordinance 33, 1999 - Providing for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City by
Changing the Land Use Designation on .33 Acres of Land Located South of Idlewild Road
and 1/4 Mile East of Prosperity Farms Road. (Workshop /Consideration of First Reading)
3. Ordinance 36, 1999 - Providing for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City for
Howell Lane Property. (Workshop /Consideration of First Reading)
_ j 0 Ordinance 38, 1999 - Providing for Curfews (Workshop /Consideration of First Reading)
. ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
'5,0A,-D Revised Tennis Membership Fees
�2. Revised Golf Fees
Upgrade and Move of 911 Equipment and Dispatch Center
4. Joint Meeting with Lake Park
5. Extending Contract Term for Solid Waste, Recycling, 'annd Vegetative Waste Services.
XM. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Labor Attorney
2. Discussion of Engineering Services Costs
XIV. ITEMS & REPORTS BY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
1. Issues & Priorities
XV. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:
XVI. 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 James Waldron, Jr., no later
than 5 days prior to the proceeding at telephone number (561) 775 -8255 for assistance; if hearing impaired,
telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955 -8771 (TDD) or (800) 955 -8700 (VOICE), for
assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Council, with respect to any matter
considered at such meeting or hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, they
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
A -9f
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNC
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 9, 1999
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Purchase of New Rescue Unit
Subject/Agenda Item
Staff recommends award of bid for the purchase of a new rescue unit to Emergency
Recommendation/Motion:
Vehicles, Inc. in the amount of $124,950 and authority to execute an agreement
for same.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: S 124,950
Council Action:
Fire - Rescue
(Total)
City Attorney
[ ] Approved
Finance K L) &
$125,000
[ ]Approved w/
ACM
Current FY
conditions
[ ]Denied
Advertised:
Other
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Date: ,rune 28, 1999
[ ] General Fund
Submitted by:
Attachments:
�rgel
Paper: The Post
[x] Other
Peter
Fire - Rescue Impact
Staff Report
Fire Chief
Fees
Bid Tabulation
[ Not Required
Department Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
13 -1200 - 522.6410
Approved by:
City Manager
[x ] Not required
[ ] None
BACKGROUND:
c
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
INTER OFFICE MEMO
DATE: August 9, 1999
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Peter T. Bergel, Fire Chiefte
RE: Awarding of Bid for New Rescue Vehicle
Background
Fire Rescue's Capital Improvement Plan for 1999 /2000 includes the purchase of a
rescue vehicle to equip Fire Station Three upon opening. This rescue is an addition
to our fleet in order to maintain spare equipment in the event of breakdowns or
scheduled maintenance.
Staff believes that this purchase should be awarded no later than September 1, 1999
in order for delivery, setup and testing to be complete by October 2000 when Fire
Station Three is scheduled to be operational.
Fire Rescue is proposing to award the bid to Emergency Vehicles, Incorporated
(EVI) as bid on July 27, 1999 for the purchase of this rescue vehicle.
Discussion
The City advertised in the Post an invitation to bid on June 28, 1999 for one 2000
Rescue Unit to be opened on July 27, 1999. We received three bids ranging in price
from $136,892.00 to $128,900.00. These bids were submitted by Wheeled Coach,
Aero Products and Emergency Vehicles, Incorporated.
Staff evaluated the bids and determined that two of the bidders, specifically Wheeled
Coach and Medic Master did not meet the bid specifications in relation to the
minimum size engine requirements. Therefore, the Wheeled Coach and Medic
Master bids were disq»?lified and the EVI bid was determined to best meet the
needs of our department at this time. Fire Rescue has further negotiated with EVI
to allow for some credits of equipment that will be supplied by the City in order to
further reduce costs. Also it is important to note that the vehicle in this partic»lar
bid is laid out and constructed almost identically to two of our existing rescue
vehicles. Awarding this bid to EVI will ensure that we continue to maintain
standardization of equipment from station to station.
The bid price for this piece of equipment is $124,950.00 and allows for a prepayment
discount of $2,550.00 for payment of the chassis 60 days prior to delivery of the
vehicle. The net cost would then be $122,400.00. This purchase would be made out
of Account # 13- 1200 - 522.6410 and the funding source will be Fire - Rescue Impact
Fees. Fire- Rescue has budgeted $125,000 for this specific purchase. I have
presented this information and process to Kent Olson and received his approval for
this purchase. The delivery time for this vehicle is estimated to be 180 -240 days with
an anticipated delivery of March 2000.
Recommendation
Staff recommends award of bid for the purchase of a new rescue vehicle to
Emergency Vehicles, Incorporated in the amount of $124,950.00 and authority to
execute an agreement for same.
enc.
cc: file
New Rescue Bid
BID TABULATION FORM
Dealer Name
Manufacturer
List Price
Wheeled Coach
$1361892.00
_
Emergency Vehicles, Inc
$1290900.00
Aero Products
Medic Master
$1281900.00
* No Dealer - Factory direct sales.
i
K7 EMERGENCY VEHICLES, INC.
MANUFACTURER OF QUALITYAPPARATUS - SERVING THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1971
July 28, 1999
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Attn: Chief Peter T. Bergel
RE: 2000 RESCUE UNIT
Dear Chief:
Below outlines the cost for the proposed Rescue Unit, utilizing the credits we discussed.
One (1) Year 2000 Rescue Unit .................. $ 124,950.00
Discount for payment of chassis, on or about 2/15/00 ........ $ < 2,550.00>
Net Cost to the City of Palm Beach Gardens ............... $ 122,400.00
Thank you for this opportunity to quote on this vehicle. We look forward to working with
you on this project.
Respectfully,
EMERGENCY VEHICLES, INC.
Dave M. Ta ' rcio
Vice President
DMTra
Encl.
Via Fax Transmission
P.O. BOX 12713 - LAKE PARK, FLORIDA 33403 -0713
TEL. (561) 848 -6652 - FAX (561) 848 -6658 - E -mail: evi@evi-fl.com - Web Site: www.evi- fl.com
Price Credits:
r
PALM BEACH GARDENS FIRE RESCUE
2000 RESCUE UNIT
■ Customer supplies Federal Q213 siren .......................... $ <2,000.00>
■ Customer supplies Roto -Ray warning light ...................... $ <650.00>
■ Delete stainless steel wheel inserts ............................ $ <753.00>
■ Delete stainless steel fenderettes ............................. $ <296.00>
■ Delete all Dri -Dek ........... ............................... $ <824.00>
■ Customer supplies (12) 9E Linear strobes ........ ................ $ <1,200.00>
■ 230 Horsepower DT466 engine ............................... $ <1,777.00>
TOTAL CREDITS .... ............................... Deduct $ <7,500.00>
• Net Bid Price with above credits ............................ $ 124,950.00
• Chassis Payment (on or about .2/15/00) ............... Deduct $ <2,550.00>
NET PRICE ............... ............................... $122,400.00
Respectfully Submitte
D e M. Tali rc o, Vice President
Date: 7 Z91�1
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: August 9, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Consent Agenda: Resolution 70, 1999 - Petition WV- 99 -03, Consideration of Waiver
from Residential Component - Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Criteria: "Catalfumo Parcel
12.04, northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard ".
Recommendation /Motion:
At Council's direction, Resolution 71, 1999 has been modified to include conditions of
approval for a residential waiver. (Staff had recommended denial of Resolution 71, 1999.)
Reviewed byti
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 0
Council Action:
U
Total
City Attorney
Planning Division
[ ] Approved
ACM
1� /�
$ O
[ ] Approved w1 conditions
` /�
Current FY
Other N/A
[ ]Denied
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
Resolution 70, 1999
Location Map
June 3, 1999 memo:
Urban Design Studio
Community Meeting Att.:
[ ] Not Required
Urban Design Studio
Submitted by:
Growth Mgt. Director
Affected parties
( ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
This is a request for a waiver from the mandatory residential requirement for a proposed
Mixed Use Development. The location of the proposed development is Catalfumo Parcel
12.04. The 5.2 acre parcel is located on the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and
Northlake Boulevard (43E- 42S -18)
At its August 5, 1999 meeting, the City Council directed staff to revise the resolution to add
conditions of approval and to place it on the next Consent Agenda. Conditions regarding
365- degree architectural treatments compatible with the adjacent residential area have
been added. Previously, at its April 15, 1999 meeting the City Council reviewed this
petition and has concerns regarding the proposal's consistency with the City's Vision Plan.
City Council requested that the petitioner come back with a more detailed analysis and
justification for their request, addressing especially the potential impact on the neighboring
residential uses.
The Vision Plan recommended that the parcel in question eventually be developed as a
Mixed Use Development with underlying Residential Medium use (up to 9 dwelling units
per acre). City Council members had questions concerning the origin of this designation
through the Vision Plan development process. Staff has reviewed the history of the Vision
Plan development process and provides the following synopsis:
The Vision Plan process was carried out with participants of the blue ribbon committee
designating the parcels in a forum setting. The reasoning behind designating these
parcels with underlying RM at the meeting was that they did not want to designate the
parcel as Commercial because of the proximity to Lake Catherine development. They
decided to go with RM instead of RL due to the proximity to Northlake Boulevard. In
addition, no one felt comfortable giving these parcels just commercial or professional
office land use. Part of this is because of the level of service on Northlake Blvd and
Council's desire not to adopt the CRALLS. Council feels that a higher /better LOS can be
achieved if everyone Teduces densities /intensities through land use changes - so MXD
with a residential component would be better from a traffic perspective than just non-
residential.
Per Council's request, the petitioner met with the Lake Catherine, Sun Terrace, Bedford
Estates, and the Plat 1 communities on July 21, 1999. A second meeting was held with the
Lake Catherine Homeowners Association on July 26, 1999. (see attachment) Some of the
concerns raised by the community included the following:
(1) Increased traffic along MacArthur and Northlake Boulevards.
(2) Conflicts with drop off pick -up hours at the Watkins Middle School.
(3) The safety of school children who ride bikes or walk to the Middle School.
The petitioner has responded to Council's inquiries and staff's concerns with a memo dated
June 6, 1999. The memorandum has been attached for your review. Staff does not concur
with all of the petitioner's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan and maintains the
following analysis for justification:
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation contains four criteria for allowing
a non - residential Mixed -Use Development. The petitioner must demonstrate that their
proposed site /development meets at least two of those four criteria to qualify for a waiver.
City Council must approve or deny a waiver based on compliance with these criteria. Staff
Agenda Cover Memorandum
August 19, 1999
Page 3
has determined that the petitioner has met only one of the following four criteria:
(1) The parcel represents in -fill development and is surrounded on three sides by non-
residential land uses including man -made and natural barriers such as canals and
major arterial roadways.
The petitioner has met this criterion. The parcel is located east of Interstate 95,
which complies with Eastward Ho! Development criteria and is not "leapfrog"
development to the west. The parcel is bounded on the north by Recreation and
Open Space land use, on the east by the C -17 Canal, on the south by Northlake
Boulevard and on the west by vacant land with a Mixed Use (MXD) land use
designation. It should be noted, however, that the project to the west will have a
residential component unless waived by the City Council.
(2) The densitylntensity of existing or future land uses immediately surrounding the
parcel are compatible with non - residential uses.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. Staff has a concern regarding the
compatibility of a retail /office development directly adjacent to this recreational area.
The parcel is bound to the north by Recreation and Open Space Land Use. This site
contains the existing Lake Catherine Sports Complex. The impact, aesthetic and
otherwise, of the back of a retail center and all the uses associated with this,
including noise and other nuisances, create an incompatible situation. A residential
use could act as a transition between these two uses.
(3) The adjacent surrounding planned and approved or existing built environment is
over 60% residential, and non - residential uses are determined to provide for greater
horizontal integration of uses.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. There is no adjacent surrounding
planned and approved or existing built environment which is residential.
(4) Due to the size or configuration of the parcel, the ability to provide and economically
feasible, sustainable, integrated residential component that functions to enhance
and complement the other MXD uses is limited.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. The petitioner has indicated that the site
is only 5.2 acres and it is therefore not feasible to provide for office, retail and
residential on this site. However, Staff has a concern that the petitioner has
provided insufficient information to support this determination. Other mixed use
development sites have been approved within the City which were comparable in
size and included residential, specifically the PGA Commons. Most of the PGA
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 4
Commons parcels are less than 500' deep, which is the depth of parcel 12.04. Staff
is recommending that the petitioner consider combining both the 5.2 acre parcel and
the adjacent 7.25 acre parcel into one project, which may reduce the residential
limitations perceived by the petitioner.
Staff has determined that the justification presented by the petitioner does not meet two
of the four criteria required by the Comprehensive Plan for a Non - residential Mixed Use
Development application. Staff therefore recommends denial of a waiver for the
residential component of a Mixed Use Development application.
GALong Range \wv9903.st.2wpd.wpd
ED
August 6, 1999
RESOLUTION 70,1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
APPROVAL OF A WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A 5.2 ACRE
PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND
NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the petitioner, Catalfumo Properties, is requesting a waiver from the residential
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Land Use Category for a 5.2 acre parcel of land
located at the northeast corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed petition meets the criteria
set forth in Policy 1.1.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves a waiver from the residential requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Land Use Category for a 5.2 acre parcel of land located at the
northeast corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard, as described in attachment
"A ", which is incorporated as part of this resolution, with the following conditions of approval:
1. Building(s) shall be designed so that upper stories (above the first floor), visible from
residential areas to the north, are residential in character.
2. Building design shall be unified with all sides maintaining a consistent level of architectural
treatment and detailing.
Section 2. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF '1999
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
VOTE:
COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO
COUNCILMEMBER FURTADO
COUNCILMEMBER JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBER CLARK
COUNCILMEMBER SABATELLO
G: \Short Range \wv9903.re.wpd
Resolution 70, 1999
Page 2
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
,::Ev 0 mo —1
-t.TA
T r-
0 0 --% 0 -.0. m!
00
> m
%<0r°A1p°
030
`
OiA
N A
o D
m r
r
a
,w
° , � cx rr
°,
0
-• m
Iv
a _. G o
A°
S
N
O 0
0 0
°
O '•, Co 7
- O O'r
°
-1 0-
-U
r-r. to
C 7
i
�A o��'caN
stn
O
Q M°
_ 1 r+
- 0
00
—a° O n°
3 °
3°0A
coy"
0 co
ox— o %<
A .
a (A
o -�
,
-j c� cn
ooa Jo M
c
°
:) '-J c:
rt.{
°
. ZE
to M
o O Z
C
O N
�7
°K0
J m -
a�7
co O
co
e
° CL s p
- 0(b
° in
a — to co
CL
—. `�0A
Q•rt
:o
z� c)
3�
ocrv,aw.
�aM
0 t
3Q-1 O� _
'%0
(p
o
O ,.� °
-�
rr m
—.0
° -. rr
-„ =�- m
AN
ASAP
C..
ca — m
ZOMM
O A r+ 0
_
Q
.°
r-
3-'
aip -% r-r
A 7
r-r O
C
p
to v `
co 0
7000*
Q.-,
�O W
-,. pC)
O
W
N3f T
W
O
z
0
H
r
0
r
r�
�Z
d
y
x
y �
� y
y �
l 1 �
O�
J
June 3, 1999
Roxanne Manning, Director
Growth Management Department
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33401
lox
of
r
RE: Parcel 12.04- Located on the Northeast corner of
Northlake Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard
Waiver from Mandatory Residential Component in a
MXD - Additional Justification
Dear RoxAnn_e:
�,6
urban
stuaio
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
In response to the staff comment (report dated April 9, 1999), the following information is
provided as further justification for our request for a waiver from the mandatory residential
requirement for a MXD at this location.
BACKGROUND
The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that two of the four conditions for a waiver be met in
order for the City Council to grant a waiver. The request was submitted based on the subject
parcel meeting three of the four criteria. The staff agreed that the parcel meets the infill condition
(Criteria 1) but failed to find sufficient information to conclude that the parcel met any of the
other criteria.
ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION
Criteria 2 requires that the densityrntensity of existing orfuture land uses immediately
surrounding the parcel are compatible with non - residential uses. The subject site fulfills this
requirement based on both the future land use designations and the existing development.
Currently, all but one side of the subject site is developed. This parcel is immediately surrounded
on the south by a major arterial, Northlake Boulevard, then Wendy's and Cosco across the street;
to the north is a lighted sports complex (Lake Catherine Complex); to the west lies a vacant
MXD site and commercial properties; and to east is a canal and more commercial properties
including Pep Boys Auto Center.
Based on the existing land uses all sides are non - residential uses, thus compatibilitytwith
adjacent land uses is maintained. The north side is intense recreational development which is
compatible with nonresidential uses. The parcel to the west is vacant but designated for mixed
use development which would require nonresidential uses and east is
a continuation of commercial uses along Northlake Boulevard.
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 -6582
661.689.0066 661.689.0551 fax
G:% OOMMONV* beeAtdf =oT*ft2A41P=dtetdmftt204.wpd
LOC35 Irvine, CA 714A$9.8131
i
Concerns for compatibility of office and retail uses adjacent to the recreational facility seem
inconsistent with current policy. As a MXD, the parcel is required to have non residential
components. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan designates Lake Catherine Complex as a
Community versus a Neighborhood recreational area. Community recreational areas are "for
more intense recreational activities" (page 7 -3 PBG Comprehensive Plan ROS Support
Document). Other existing community parks have nonresidential uses adjacent to-them. See
attached map 7 -1.
The future land use to the west is Palm Beach Gardens (PBG) MXD and then Palm Beach
County Commercial; PBG ROS (Recreation Open Space) lies to the north; to the east is PBG
Commercial and to the south across Norhhlake Boulevard is PBG Commercial. Four sides of the
subject site include future land uses which require nonresidential uses already. Please see
attached maps for confirmation of the Future Land Use Designations.
Criteria 3 requires that the adjacent surrounding planned and approved or built environment is
over 60% residential. Based on the above discussion, the petitioner concurs with staff that the
surrounding planned and approved or existing development does not represent over.60%
residential use in the area.
Criteria 4 states that due to size or configuration of the parcel, the ability to provide an
economically feasible, sustainable, integrated residential componenEthat functions to enhance
and complement the other MXD uses is limited. This parcel due to site constraints is limited in its
ability to provide economically feasible and sustainable residential units at this location.
The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the individuality of parcels and site conditions should
provide for flexibility in the design and development of MKD sites. The subject property is only
5.2 acres and has multiple development challenges that physically constrain development at this
location. The parcel abuts a major thoroughfare with a strong commercial character. The site is
also limited by the fact it is one of only two properties in the City subject to the provisions of the
Historic Banyan Tree Ordinance which requires extraordinary landscaping and tree protection
considerations in the site design.
The staff report suggests combining parcels 12.05 wide 12.04 to make the project more feasible.
These parcels are in separate ownership. In comparing the subject property to a residential mixed
use development like PGA Commons, the existing character of the two areas must be taken into
consideration. PGA Commons is located in an area with a mix of both residential and
commercial uses unlike the subject site on Norhtlake with its auto oriented commercial
character. In fact PGA Boulevard at this location has residential properties that front PGA and
PGA Boulevard provides a pedestrian friendly parkway. The Commons parcel is not subject to
the same existing conditions or the Banyan Tree Ordinance requirements which make it more
difficult to mitigate the negative externalities of the surrounding area on parcel 12.04.
The size of the site also effects economic feasibility and long term sustainability of residential
units at this location. Basic macro economics principles include supply and demand and the
G: MMMONVobW-AW mtd1Pat2AM8<i[[caadnftt204.wpd
LMS
value of an economy of scale in the market place. First, it is clearly recognized the existing auto
oriented Northlake corridor does not create a people friendly environment that lends itself to a
residential development on this site. The size of the subject site limits the amenities and
buffering opportunities to compensate for this fact. Thus demand would suffer and rents would
be deflated to below market levels required in order to sustain desirable development.
Further limiting economic feasibility is the fact the number of units would not provide an
economy of scale that would support site amenities, landscaping and property maintenance
considerations that would be required to compensate for the locational constraints and further the
intent of the Banyan, Tree Ordinance.
REQUEST
Based upon this additional information, it is requested that staff re- review our request for a
waiver from the residential requirement for a proposed hM. Should you have any questions
about this request, please feel free to contact me at 689 -0066.
Sincerely,
Urban Design Studio
{
J�
Hank Skokowski, Z0
Principal
cc: Ken Blair, Catalfumo
Steve Mathison
Q:Ao0rM0xvobW-&aafimTsrI2o BOId &AI2 a.%pd
LMS
FILE No-132 07/28 '99 08:31 I D :U RBM ik5 tutu FAX:561689Ub51 t'Nat 2i 8
MEMO
TO: File
FROM: Dodi Glas
DATE: July 17, 1999
RE: Parcel 12.04 and Parcel 12.05 Resident Meeting
Our Reference ##19023.00 and s#19024.00
RESIDENT MEETING held at the Palm Beach County Public
Library in Palm Beach Gardens on July 21, 1999 at 7pm.
ti
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
INVITEES included residents of the surrounding properties and those that live to the north and
west of the subject parcels. The hotreowner associations represented included Bedford at Lake
Catherine, Sun Terrace at Lake Catherine, and Sun Terrace at the Gardens. A map of the
communities and meeting attendance sheets are attached.
SUMMARY of comments:
There was a good turn out from the community. The group seemed pleased with the presentation
of the plans and the renderings. The residents expressed the most concerned for traffic
particularly along MacArthur Boulevard. Concerns included drive through traffic (from
Northlake north) increasing, traffiocongestion during. school drop-off/pick-up hours and safety of
school children, and congestion on Northlake Boulevard. Other comments included questions
about the buffering and a possible fence along the north property line of parcel 12.05, site
lighting, provisions for additional parking for the Lake Catherine Complex, and the type of uses,
tenants expected. There were also several comments regarding the existing conditions of the
subject parcels (maintaining the property and trimming the Banyan tree.)
PRESENTATION FORMAT:
Ken Blair ftom Catalfumo began the presentation with an overview of the project and the
anticipated approval process and timing. Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio walked
through the site plan and renderings and facilitated questions from the residents. The
presentation last about thirty minutes and then was followed with about forty minutes, of
questions and comments.
FOLLOW -UP:
Ken Blair suggested that residents should decide as a group what they would like to see as
landscaping and we would work with them. The residents should also he prepared to support the
landscape plan that is developed with their input before the City Council. Ken Blair also said he
would address the maintenance of the parcels. It was requested by a
board member of the i.ake Catherine Home Owners Association that
we bring the renderings to their meeting on Monday night , July 26, 2000 Palm Reach lakes eautevard
1999. Suite 60o The Concourse
West Palm Beeoh, Florida 33409 -6582
561.689.0066 561.689-0551 tax
C:K'0MM0W4ftvCrA1&1%e hr17.Q5W L1K�t�ikRet.WPl
Lcv)i Irvine, CA 714.489.8131
FILE No.132 0728 '99 08:32 IMMIN DESIGN
oy
i�
a.
19
w
r
�
CQi
M. A
m � Y
r S
« M 1 ® N
7-
lip
4n) w
j �KC qq 0-4
>
s • �] ii !Ct u_
1
W2
:f
ZVI
G
w
r
�
CQi
M. A
m � Y
r S
« M 1 ® N
7-
lip
4n) w
j �KC qq 0-4
>
s • �] ii !Ct u_
1
W2
:f
FILE No.1:32 0728 '99 08:33 ID:URSAN DESIGN FAX:5616890651
ell
72e
7d IC3. el r 41'
tj
P
re
re
4L
/0
r) V-45-
of
3 T-
103
t4
. 4("
7e- 13 t!�: Ulc t-JIVO I
FILE No.132 07/28 '99 08:33 ID :lR8Pfd DESIGN FAX 5616890651 PATE 5i 8
,�/a.r
o xsv4S
"�-n rc-t .�-. �A r<<a_� �.� � � � �' �`�'► �'n , 7� 7� � 3 a YD'S
iti�A .� y t,aJG
Ian( /�r� -�� /�� �,8� �L 33,`c3
J4 f{2' fA � F,�- 3 34-03
�!.Lt %
FILE No. 132 07/28 '99 0834 ID:LFd3PN DES;MN FAX:b6lb- d9LYO*l
� -]L -
Gc«c•t• ;r. ti-4-
0
VHL-i-- ti/ 8
al k, N <
�oQr :�ti
Ad
FILE NO-1:32 0728 '99 08:34 ID :LF PN DESIGN
MEMO
TO: File
FROM: Dodi Glas
DATE: July 27, 1999
• • .SCE. '•�'
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Communleatlon Graphics
RE: Parcel 12.04 and Parcel 12.05
Resident Meeting with Lake Catherine Horne Owners Association
Our Reference # 19023.00 and # 19024.00
RESIDENT MEETING held at the Palm Beach County Public Library in Palm Beach Gardens
on July 26, 1999 at 7pm. This was the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lake Catherine Home
Owners Association. An attendance sheet is attached.
SUMMARY of cotrtrnents:
Approximately fifteen residents were in attendance. The president of ithe association, Bill Kelly
who attended the previous meeting gave a review of the project and suggested that the Board
should take formal action orubc preferred landscaping along their property line (and parcel
12.05). He suggested they consider a ficus hedge. Dee Sabers, another Board member who
attended the previous meeting, went on to explain she had requested the renderings be shared at
tonight's meeting and that she would like the group to form a list of questions on the proposed
project. The meeting quickly began as open comments and questions from the attendees about
traffic concerns. Board member Dee Sabers requested that they first review the information and
requested that I. proceed to show the renderings. I briefly reviewed the projects and where the
projects are in the process. Several general questions were asked regarding access to the site and
what the back side of the buildings would look like. Several comments were made in favor of
the building design and preferences for smaller retail in the area and the accessibility to the
community (not having to get on Northlake to get some services). There was also a concern
expressed about the possible competition to other commercial properties in the area.
PRESENTATION FORMAT:
I was the only member of the development team in attendance. Following the board members
comments and introduction, I presented the renderings, briefly discussed the projects and
answered questions. The meeting lasted approximately an half an hour.
FOLLOW -UP:
I noted we would stay in touch as we proceed in the land
development processes with the City.
QVCMMQNMDadAfoRMATS MIGMo tAu Cephvdnc.WPO
LCC7s
2004 Palm Reach Lakas Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 -6582
661.689.0066 561.669.0551 tax
Irvine, CA 714.489.81$1
FILE No.132 07/28 '99 08:35 ID:U;?IaN 11tZ>LL-" r� uc:ooto a rrwaC ts/ g
n �
�j& 9 �
r--
L gr2a L GC cL.v4. 903 -< �.7� ti-L Gq..
sci r,� Til/�/f-c�
40 U 7 -X- 1. e- 4
3u r ` `
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: August 6, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Consent Agenda: Resolution 71, 1999 - Petition WV- 99 -04, Consideration of Waiver from
Residential Component - Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Criteria: "Catalfumo Parcel
12.05, northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard ".
Recommendation /Motion:
At Council's direction, Resolution 71, 1999 has been modified to include conditions of
approval for a residential waiver. (Staff had recommended denial of Resolution 71, 1999.)
Reviewed b
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Total
Council Action:
City Attorney _ fr'1%L,
ACM
Planning Division
$ 0
[ ] Approved
[ ] Approved -,/ conditions
Current FY
Other N/A
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
Location Map
Resolution 71, 1999
June 3, 1999 memo:
Urban Design Studio
Community Meeting Att.
[ ] Not Required
Urban Design Studio
Submitted by:
Growth Mgt. Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
This is a request for a waiver from the mandatory residential requirement for a proposed
Mixed Use Development. The location of the proposed development is Catalfumo Parcel
12.05. The 7.43 acre parcel is located on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard
and Northlake Boulevard (43E- 42S -18)
At its August 5, 1999 meeting, the City Council directed staff to revise the resolution to add
Agenda Cover Memorandum
August 19, 1999
Page 2
conditions of approval and to place it on the next Consent Agenda. Conditions regarding
365- degree architectural treatments compatible with the adjacent residential area have
been added. Previously, at its April 15, 1999 meeting the City Council reviewed this
petition and has concerns regarding the proposal's consistency with the City's Vision Plan.
City .Council requested that the petitioner come back with a more detailed analysis and
justification for their request, addressing especially the potential impact on the neighboring
residential uses.
The Vision Plan recommended that the parcel in question eventually be developed as a
Mixed Use development with Residential Medium (up to 9 dwelling units per acre)
underlying use. City Council members had questions concerning the origin of this
designation through the Vision Plan development process. Staff has reviewed the history
of the Vision Plan development process and provides the following synopsis:
The Vision Plan process was carried out with participants of the blue ribbon committee
designating the parcels in a forum setting. The reasoning behind designating these parcels
with underlying RM at the meeting was that they did not want to designate the parcel as
Commercial because of the proximity to Lake Catherine development. They decided to go
with RM instead of RL due to the proximity to Northlake Boulevard. In addition, no one felt
comfortable giving these parcels just commercial or professional office land use. Part of
this is because of the level of service on Northlake Blvd and Council's desire not to adopt
the CRALLS. Council feels that a higher /better LOS can be achieved if everyone reduces
densities /intensities through land use changes - so MXD with a residential component
would be better from a traffic perspective than just non - residential.
Per Council's request, the petitioner has met with the Lake Catherine, Sun Terrace,
Bedford Estates, and the Plat 1 communities on July 21, 1999. A second meeting was held
with the Lake Catherine Homeowners Association on July 26, 1999. '(see attachment)
Some of the concerns raised by the community included the following:
(1) Increased traffic along MacArthur and Northlake Boulevards.
(2) Conflicts with drop off pick -up hours at the Watkins Middle School.
(3) The safety of school children who ride bikes or walk to the Middle School.
The petitioner has responded to Council's inquiries and staff's concerns with a memo dated
June 6, 1999. The memorandum has been attached for your review. Staff does not concur
with all of the petitioner's interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan and maintains the
following analysis for justification:
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation contains four criteria for allowing
a non - residential Mixed -Use Development. The petitioner must demonstrate that their
proposed site /development meets at least two of those four criteria to qualify for a waiver.
Agenda Cover Memorandum
August 19, 1999
Page 3
City Council must approve or deny a waiver based on compliance with these criteria. Staff
has determined that the petitioner has not met any of the criteria:
(1) The parcel represents in -fill development and is surrounded on three sides by non-
residential land uses including man -made and natural barriers such as canals and
major arterial roadways.
The petitioner has not met this criterion: The parcel is located east of Interstate
95, which complies with Eastward Ho! Development criteria and is not "leapfrog"
development to the west. However, the petitioner has not met the second part of
this criterion. The parcel is bounded on only two sides by non- residential land use.
The north side is Residential Medium and contains the existing Lake Catherine
residential development. To the east is Mixed Use (MXD) land use. The Mixed Use
(MXD) land use designation is not considered a non - residential land use due to the
fact that this designation is required to have a residential component, unless a
waiver is granted by City Council.
(2) The densitylintensity of existing or future land uses immediately surrounding the
parcel are compatible with non - residential uses.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. Staff has a concern regarding the
compatibility of a retail /office development directly adjacent to a residential area.
The parcel is bound to the north by Residential Medium (RM) Land Use. This site
contains the existing Lake Catherine residential development. The impact, aesthetic
and otherwise, of the back of a retail center and all the uses associated with this,
including noise and other nuisances, could create an incompatible situation. A
residential component could act as a transition between these uses.
(3) The adjacent surrounding planned and approved or existing built environment is
over 60% residential, and non - residential uses are determined to provide for greater
horizontal integration of uses.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. The adjacent surrounding planned and
approved or existing built environment is not over 60% residential. The adjacent
residential land use consists of only 20.3% of the total adjacent properties to this
site.
(4) Due to the size or configuration of the parcel, the ability to provide and economically
feasible, sustainable, integrated residential component that functions to enhance
and complement the other MXD uses is limited.
The petitioner has not met this criterion. The petitioner has indicated that the site
Agenda Cover Memorandum
August 19, 1999
Page 4
is only 7.25 acres and it is therefore not feasible to provide for office, retail and
residential on this site. However, Staff has a concern that the petitioner has
provided insufficient information to support this determination. Other mixed use
development sites have been approved within the City which were comparable in
size and included residential, specifically the PGA Commons. Most of the PGA
Commons parcels are less than 500 feet deep, which is the depth of parcel 12.05.
Staff is recommending that the petitioner consider combining both the 7.25 acre and
5.2 acre parcels into one project, which may reduce the residential limitations
perceived by the petitioner.
Staff has determined that the justification presented by the petitioner does not meet two
of the four criteria required by the Comprehensive Plan for a Non- residential Mixed Use
Development application. Staff therefore recommends denial of a waiver for the
residential component of a mixed use development.
GALong Range \wv9904.st.wpd
v
ED
August 6, 1999
RESOLUTION 71, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
APPROVAL OF A WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A 7.43 ACRE
PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND
NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the petitioner, Catalfumo Properties, is requesting a waiver from the residential
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Land Use Category for a 7.43 acre parcel of
land located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed petition meets the criteria
set forth in Policy 1.1.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves a waiver from the residential requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Land Use Category for a 7.43 acre parcel of land located at the
northwest corner of the MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard, as described in attachment
"A ", which is incorporated as part of this resolution, with the following conditions of approval:
1. Building(s) shall be designed so that upper stories (above the first floor), visible from
residential areas to the north, are residential in character.
2. Building design shall be unified with all sides maintaining a consistent level of architectural
treatment and detailing.
Section 2. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
VOTE:
COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO
COUNCILMEMBER FURTADO
COUNCILMEMBER JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBER CLARK
COUNCILMEMBER SABATELLO
GAShort Range \wv9904.re.wpd
Resolution 71, 1999
Page 2
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
OA
a
EXf 1T "A"
o- S O Q D frrl
z p* -,�,o o a m
o w o CO r
-`n-a p O �- O n
p r+- o cn 00.
,•*• � rn n o
N
zA OLC `00 '
O � O n ° -..
,.. p --% + - 3 u
Or+. O \ 1
O ,, o °. coi Q. � 0 co
CO
CO Co o r
- v 3 o l"1
� O � Ia
z _ ° N /r
OA CO �O -• /r
a
0 0 C: = rn ?
0
o .o� to o
<.aoo °0 l 1
cn
o O=o m ° rn
.,"�< cu 0 Q l 1
to o r•
o -�
= o
p
:
ol 10 w :! 0 J
03 on•O (70
n' o }�
0- A.+ 00
O . o-,
N ,��
`i
June 3, 1999
Roxanne Manning, Director
Growth Management Department
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33401
RE: Parcel 12.04- Located on the Northeast corner of
Northlake Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard
Waiver from Mandatory Residential Component in a
MM - Additional Justification
Dear Roxanne:
NO
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
.Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
In response to the staff comment (report dated April 9, 1999), the following information is
provided as further justification for our request for a waiver from the mandatory residential
requirement for a MXD at this location.
BACKGROUND
The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that two of the four conditions for a waiver be met in
order for the City Council to grant a waiver. The request was submitted based on the subject
parcel meeting three of the four criteria. The staff agreed that the parcel meets the infill condition
(Criteria 1) but failed to find sufficient information to conclude that the parcel met any of the
other criteria.
ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION
Criteria 2 requires that the density /intensity of existing or future land uses immediately
surrounding the parcel are compatible with non - residential uses. The subject site falfills this
requirement based on both the future land use designations and the existing development.
Currently, all but one side of the subject site is developed. This parcel is immediately surrounded
on the south by a major arterial, Northlake Boulevard, then Wendy's and Cosco across the street;
to the north is a lighted sports complex (Lake Catherine Complex); to the west lies a vacant
MM site and commercial properties; and to east is a canal and morecommercial properties
including Pep Boys Auto Center.
Based on the existing land uses all sides are non - residential uses, thus compatibility with
adjacent land uses is maintained. The north side is intense recreational development which is
compatible with nonresidential uses. The parcel to the west is vacant but designated for mixed
use development which would require nonresidential uses and east is
a continuation of commercial uses along Northlake Boulevard.
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 -6582
661.689.0066 661.689.0551 fax
Q: �OOMMOMIa6s VCaeatfumolPat204tP8Qkttecd :aRl204.wpd
LCC3S Irvine, CA 714.489.8131
Concerns for compatibility of office and retail uses adjacent to the recreational facility seem
inconsistent with current policy. As a MXD, the parcel is required to have non residential
components. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan designates Lake Catherine Complex as a
Community versus a Neighborhood recreational area. Community recreational areas are "for
more intense recreational activities" (page 7 -3 PBG Comprehensive Plan ROS Support
Document). Other existing community parks have nonresidential uses adjacent to them. See
attached map 7 -1.
The future land use to the west is Palm Beach Gardens (PBG) MXD and then Palm Beach
County Commercial; PBG ROS (Recreation Open Space) lies to the,north; to the east is PBG
Commercial and to the south across Northlake Boulevard is PBG Commercial. Four sides of the
subject site include future land uses which require nonresidential uses: already. Please see
attached maps for confirmation of the Future Land Use Designations.
Criteria 3 requires that the adjacent surrounding planned and approved or built environment is
over 60% residential. Based on the above discussion, the petitioner concurs with staff that the
surrounding planned and approved or existing development does not represent over 60%
residential use in the area.
Criteria 4 states that due to size or configuration of the parcel, the ability to provide an
economically feasible, sustainable, integrated residential component that functions to enhance
and complement the other ADD uses is limited. This parcel due to site constraints is limited in its
ability to provide economically feasible and sustainable residential units at this location.
The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the individuality of parcels and site conditions should
provide for flexibility in the design and development of MXD sites. The subject property is only
5.2 acres and has multiple development challenges that physically constrain development at this
location. The parcel abuts a major thoroughfare with a strong commercial character. The site is
also limited by the fact it is one of only two properties in the City subject to the provisions of the
Historic Banyan Tree Ordinance which requires extraordinary landscaping and tree protection
considerations in the site design.
The staff report suggests combining parcels 12.05 with 12.04 to make the project more feasible.
These parcels are in separate ownership. In comparing the subject property. to a residential mixed
use development like PGA Commons, the existing character of the two areas must be taken into
consideration. PGA Commons is located in an area with a mix of both residential and
commercial uses unlike the subject site on Norhtlake with its auto oriented commercial
character. In fact PGA Boulevard at this location has residential properties that front PGA and
PGA Boulevard provides a pedestrian friendly parkway. The Commons parcel is not subject to
the same existing conditions or the Banyan Tree Ordinance requirements which make it more
difficult to mitigate the negative externalities of the surrounding area on parcel 12.04.
The size of the site also effects economic feasibility and long term sustainability of residential
units at this location. Basic macro economics principles include supply and demand and the
aroorcticorrro�wc�o�i� .os�ea��««�ftisas..�e
L=5
value of an economy of scale in the market place. First, it is clearly recognized the existing auto
oriented Northlake corridor does not create a people friendly environment that lends itself to a
residential development on this site. The size of the subject site limits the amenities and
buffering opportunities to compensate for this fact. Thus demand would suffer and rents would
be deflated to below market levels required in order to sustain desirable development.
Further limiting economic feasibility is the fact the number of units would not provide an
economy of scale that would support site amenities, landscaping and property maintenance
considerations that would be required to compensate for the locational constraints and further the
intent of the Banyan Tree Ordinance.
REQUEST
Based upon this additional information, it is requested that staff re-review our request for a
waiver from the residential requirement for a proposed MXD. Should you have any questions
about this request, please feel free to contact me at 689 -0066.
Sincerely,
Urban Design Studio
Hank Skokowski, C
Principal
cc: Ken Blair, Catalfumo
Steve Mathison
d: A00MM0WobW .&Wf=dTar12MV130IcaecduftI2".wo
L=5
FILE No .132 0728 '99 08:31 I D :URBM DESIGN FAX 5616890651 PAGE 2/ 8
MEMO,
TO: File
FROM: Dodi Glas
DATE: July 27, 1999
RE: Parcel 12.04 and Parcel 12.05 Resident Meeting
Our Reference ##19023.00 and #19024.00
RESIDENT MEETING held at the Palm Beach County Public
Library in Palm Beach Gardens on July 21, 1999 at 7pm.
Urban Design
Urban Planning -
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
INVITEFES included residents of the surrounding properties and those that live to the north and
west ofthe subject parcels. The homeowner associations represented included Bedford at Lake
Catherine, Sun Terrace at Lake Catherine, and Sun Terrace at the Gardens. A map of the
communities and meeting attendance sheets are attached.
SUMMARY of comments:
There was a good turn out from the community. The group seemed pleased with the presentation
of the plans and the renderings. The residents expressed the most concerned for trafc
particularly along MacArthur Boulevard. Concerns included drive through traffic (from
Northlake north) increasing, traffic congestion during school drop - off /pick -up hours and safety of
school children, and congestion on Northlake Boulevard. Other comments included questions
about the buffering and a possible fence along the north property line of parcel 12.05, site
lighting, provisions for additional parking for the Lake Catherine Complex, and the type of uses,
tenants expected. There were also several comments regarding the existing conditions of the
subject parcels (maintaining the property and trimming the Banyan tree.)
PRESENTATION FORMAT:
Ken Blair ftom Catalfutno began the presentation with an overview of the project and the
anticipated approval process and timing. Hank Skokowski of Urban. Design Studio walked
through the site plan and renderings and facilitated questions from the residents. The
presentation last about thirty minutes and then was followed with about forty minutes of
questions and comments.
FOLLOW -UP:
Ken Blair suggested that residents should decide as a group what they would like to see as
landscaping and we would work with them. The residents should also he prepared to support the
landscape plan that is developed with their input before the City Council. Ken Blair also said he
would address the maintenance of the parcels. It was requested by a
board member of the Lake Catherine Home Owners Association that
we bring the renderings to their meeting on Monday night, July 26, 2000 palm Reach lakes Boulevard
199y, Suite 600 The Concourse
y West Palm Reach, Florida 33409.6582
561.689.0066 561.689.0551 tax
l .:Y`UMMOMJut,sK'xultl,po!'�rl J.OSWthlvtC)tileRc�.Wpl1
u:rls Irvine, CA 714.489.8131
fl J
. _ � Jc;D • Gip , � ` °� t,..1:.
� •� ,�"z��✓,• -,=�� . _ y- - � Cc„ 9� ` •� �•�a` . cod 8
. �� r� �J. '��. �������� �'� a �= ,'elf. • �-
� `'� EE . �:Gd t• i -1 � `� ,7� •. �IIiQi1Jl1��
�i � -�.r� �.. j rIi� ?L�jG.DI{llkil�_�1�� ►.�v • . �III�R� L
mu
Mill
loss m
� 1r,
FILE No•132 0728 '99 08:33 IMR&PIN DESIGN FAX:5616890551 PAGE 4/ 8
c
A-t
tj
C,e
c
C)
C-.)01-5 OT4ef-L.t kV
•1 • 'e -3q irA Seta. CY -
A-13 J 2.
FILE No. 132 07/28 '99 08:33 I D :U EAN DESIGN FAX :5616890551 PAGE 5/ 8
'ey7lar /�� </Y,�rf��/.� �..f. Co•4%.c:� /mySo -- �i.�.co e � .l..E. '.t.f .�.tv45
F/ rrMe A— �l AT'KkiT
a�yA?s 7s �of�'1cZ► `�ri �r�J �G 33'1��
. U `r- m.•I_u,....i,�,, /!' a ��.:,�:�a•4i �L:�[. .
i
- 3:3 -03
Ak ., I,4 �: l.'= c t Cc ` Ali '�n �c , �„ ii c : �� �. �. i •i 1, r !' / <."
Jko ael -T y, p (3
FILE No. 132 Wled 't:PJ Ud: �4 IL):Lt<VM U--Z>lL-"
7 f- �-m s r. Ste, U. %
0(
cQ e
.Z Olt Ad ior:
FILE NO-132 07/28 '99 08:34 ID:URBAN DESIGN
MEMO
TO: File
FPX:5616890551 PAGE 7/ 8
Urban design
FROM: Dodi Glas Urban Planning
Land Planning
DATE: July 27, 1999 Landscape Archltecture
Communlcatlon Graphics
RE: Parcel 12-04 and Parcel 12.05
Resident Meeting -with Lake Catherine Home Owners Association
Our Reference #19023.00 and #19024.00
RESIDENT MEETING held at the Palm Beach County Public Library in Palm Beach Gardens
on July 26, 1999 at 7pm. This was the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lake Catherine Horne
Owners Association. An attendance sheet is attached.
SUMMARY of comments:
Approximately fifteen residents were in attendance. The president of the association, Bill Kelly
who attended the previous meeting gave a review of the project and suggested that the Board
should take formal action on the preferred landscaping along their property line (and parcel
12.05). He suggested they consider a ficus hedge. Dee Sabers, another Board member who
attended the previous meeting, went on to explain she had requested the renderings be shared at
tonight's meeting and that she would like the group to form a list of questions on the proposed
project. The meeting quickly began as open comments and questions from the attendees about
traffic concerns. Board member Dee Sabers requested that they first review the information and
requested that I proceed to show the renderings. I briefly reviewed the projects and where the
projects are in the process. Several general questions were asked regarding access to the site and
what the back side of the buildings would look like. Several comments were made in favor of
the building design and preferences for smaller retail in the area and the accessibility to the
community (not having to get on Northlake to get some services). There was also a concern
expressed about the possible competition to other commercial properties in the area.
PRESENTATION FORMAT:
I was the only member of the development team in attendance. Following the board members
comments and introduction, I presented the renderings, briefly discussed the projects and
answered questions. The meeting lasted approximately an half an hour.
FOLLOW -UP:
1 noted we would stay in touch its we proceed in the land
development processes with the City.
(MCOMMOMDad, \FORMATS -1tiNoLuko C,phrdnr.WPO
LC 5
2000 Palm Peach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-6582
561.689.0066 561.649.0551 tax
Irvine, CA 714.489.81$1
FILE No.132 07/28 '99 08:35 ID:UffiA1 DESIGN
• ..:O .
PAGE 8i $
.. � • .� '� � � �_ �•.� Cam-% 5' �.e��..✓ -�_ �cz
raze
....� � -. .. o�� �--... Lam- r,Qa.�� -�' •
C
..........��.se ������� .C�`: �0.�3. s.vh� ace•. . ��
_ .... .:C..Q V .. Jrt 7� �. r..4..!�. � ..... � 7d 3 L Ate,• -ti.c � -t'.... � 7' _ .. ..
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: August 5, 1999
Meeting Date:_ August 19, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item: Approval of one year contract for tennis professional to manage
the Municipal tennis Center
Recommendation /Motion: Authorize the Mayor to sign the one year agreement,
beginning October 1, 1999 and concluding September 30, 2000, with tennis professional,
Brenda Engle, to manage the Palm Beach Gardens Tennis Center, at a rate of $15,000
for the one year agreement.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.: Parks
Costs: $15,000
Council Action:
and Recreation
Total
City Attorney
[ ] Approved
Finance
$ 15,000
( ] Approved w/conditions
Current FY
ACM
[ ] Denied
Human Res.
Funding Source:
( ]Continued to:
Advertised:
Attachments:
Other
Date:
[ X ] Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other
1.Memo from Parks and
Recreation Director
2. Copy of Proposed
[ X] Not Required
Contract
Submitted by: Sue Miller
Department Director
Affected parties
( ] Notified
Budget Acct. #::
01- 2030 - 572.3310
( ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
The contract for the tennis professional, who manages the Municipal tennis complex is renewed each
year. The proposed contract reflects two minor changes from the current contract.
RESOLUTION 99, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH BRENDA ENGLE FOR
HER SERVICES AS A "TENNIS PROFESSIONAL" AND FOR
HER OPERATION OF A "TENNIS PRO SHOP ", SUBJECT TO
THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY PARKS AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZATION
TO THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SUCH
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; AND, PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, desires to
provide quality tennis services to the residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens has determined the
need to employ the services of a Tennis Professional.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves a contract with Brenda Engle for her
services as a "tennis professional" and for her operation of a "tennis pro shop" for the City of
Palm Beach Gardens, a copy of which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and is
incorporated as part of this resolution.
SECTION 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute
said contract on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1999.
JOSEPH R. RUSSO,MAYOR
RESOLUTION 99, 1999
PAGE 2 OF 2
ATTEST
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC
VOTE:
COUNCILMAN RUSSO
COUNCILWOMAN FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
MEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Sue Miller, Director, Parks & Recreation
DATE: August 5, 1999
RE: Annual contract for Tennis Professional
DISCUSSION:
The attached is a one year contract with tennis professional Brenda Engle, to manage the Palm
Beach Gardens Tennis Center from October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000.
With the exception of the following two changes, the contract is identical to the contract the
professional is currently working under.
SECTION 1
Previous wording:
In her employment in the foregoing capacity, the Professional shall be under the
supervision of and directly responsible to the City's Parks and Recreation
Director.
Recommended wording:
Delete entire sentence; conflict with section 2F.
SECTION 2, paragraph B:
Previous wording:,
B. To be the immediate supervisor of City employees working,part-time and full -time as
tennis facility recreation workers; to supervise, on behalf of the City, the maintenance of
the tennis courts in such a manner as to keep the courts in playable condition; and to act
as a consultant to the City concerning improving play on the tennis courts.
Recommended wording:
B. To assist in directing, through the Manager of Facilities and Grounds, the maintenance
staff who perform the daily maintenance on the courts.
Memo — Tennis Contract
August 5, 1999
Page 2
SECTION 3, paragraph B:
Previous wording:
To lease to the Professional space for a Tennis Pro shop. The lease payment shall be
$3,600 payable in equal monthly installments of $300, beginning January 1, 1999, or
when the new tennis facility is completed. The Professional agrees to enter into such
other agreements as may be necessary to facilitate this lease.
Recommended wording:
B. To lease to the Professional space for a Tennis Pro Shop. The lease payment shall be
$3,600 payable in bi- weekly installments of $138.46, beginning October 1, 1999. The
Professional agrees to enter into such other agreements as may be necessary to facilitate
this lease.
SECTION 3, paragraph H
Previous wording:
To grant the Professional full employee benefits, including medical and dental coverage.
Recommended wording:
To grant the employee benefits of medical and dental coverage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the contract with tennis professional Brenda Engle, in the amount
of $15,000 to manage the City of Palm Beach Gardens Tennis Center.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
TENNIS PROFESSIONAL
AND TENNIS PRO SHOP AGREEMENT
WITNESSETH this agreement made and entered into this day of 1999, between the City of
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter designated as "City" and Brenda
Engle, individually, hereinafter designated as "Professional ", that, in consideration of the mutual promises
herein contained, it is agreed as
follows:
SECTION I
The City shall employ the Professional as a "Tennis Professional" at the tennis facility operated by the City
Parks and Recreation Department, and the Professional shall accept such engagement and agree to act as an
independent contractor upon the terms and at the compensation hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2
THE PROFESSIONAL AGREES:
A. To organize and operate tennis programs for the City's tennis facility and for City
residents and their guests; to be in charge of and manage the court reservations; to
conduct and direct tournaments, clinics and lessons, and to be responsible for financial
reporting, and to promote good public relations with City residents and their guests in
a manner satisfactory to the City.
B. To assist in directing, through the Manager of Facilities and Grounds, the maintenance staff who
perform the daily maintenance on the courts.
C. To be responsible for having a "Tennis Pro Shop" open to the public and court controlled supervision
pursuant to Schedule "A" attached; and to post information at the Pro Shop regarding use of the tennis
facility.
D. To employ, at her own expense, any and all assistant professionals who may be needed to
assist in tennis instructions.
E. To abide by and carry out the policies of the City and the Parks and Recreation
Department as they apply to the tennis facility and the Professional; to advise the Parks
and Recreation Director regarding tennis fees and league fees; and to recommend any
change to such fees.
F. To work a full -time weekly schedule under the supervision of the Athletic Coordinator
with the approval of the Parks and Recreation Director.
SECTION 3
THE CITY AGREES %
A. To pay the Professional the sum of $15,000 to be paid in equal parts on a
bi- weekly basis beginning October 1, 1999, and ending on September 30, 2000.
B. To lease to the Professional space for a Tennis Pro Shop. The lease payment shall be
$3,600 payable in bi- weekly installments of $138.46, beginning October 1, 1999. The Professional
agrees to enter into such other agreements as may be necessary to facilitate this lease.
C. To allow the Professional the exclusive use of one tennis court at the tennis facility for
the purpose of giving instruction and to grant the Professional the exclusive privilege of
giving such instruction. This court shall be open for regular play when not in use by the
Professional for instructional purposes.
D. To allow the Professional to retain all fees from tennis instruction, clinics, and tournaments, provided
that such fees for individual instruction will be mutually agreed upon by the Parks and Recreation
Director and the Professional. Daily court fees and membership dues shall be collected by the
Professional and Pro Shop recreation workers and turned in daily to the City.
E. To employ full-time and part-time personnel known as "tennis facility recreation workers" under the
immediate supervision of the Professional. Tennis facility recreation workers shall not provide or assist
in tennis instruction.
F. To grant the Professional the exclusive right to sell merchandise, and to rent equipment and supplies at
the Tennis Pro Shop, provided that the prices charged shall be reasonable and shall not be in excess of
the prices charged at similar tennis facilities and pro shops within Palm Beach County. City reserves the
right to adjust prices within its discretion
G. To grant Professional authority to retain profit from the sale of tennis equipment and accessories from
the Tennis Pro Shop.
H. To grant the employee benefits of medical and dental coverage with option to purchase dependent
coverage at the City's cost. All costs associated with dependent coverage shall be the responsibility
I. of the Professional.
I. To grant the Professional up to three weeks personal leave as authorized by the Parks and Recreation
Director. Administrative Leave may be authorized by the Parks and Recreation Director to attend -
conferences, seminars and workshops at the Professional's expense. All personal leave and/or
administrative leave requests must be submitted by the Professional in writing to the Parks and
Recreation Director, at least 2 weeks in advance.
SECTION 4
It is further agreed that this contract shall be in full force and effect from the .1st day of October, 1999, until
September 30, 2000, but may be terminated by the City upon a thirty (30) day written notice to the Professional
that the City intends to withdraw from this contract. The notice must be in a form of a letter directed to the
Professional. The Professional shall give the City a sixty (60) day written notice of any intention to withdraw
from this contract. This notice must be in the form of a letter directed to the Parks and Recreation Director.
SECTION 5
It. is mutually agreed that this contract constitutes the sole and complete agreement between the City and the
Professional; that no verbal or other statements, inducements or representations have been made to or relied
upon by the Professional; and that no modification hereof shall be binding upon either parry unless in writing
and signed by an authorized representative of the City and the Professional.
SECTION 6
Indemnification. The Professional agrees to indemnify City and its officials, employees and agents (collectively
the "City) against, and to hold City harmless from and against, and to reimburse City on demand by City for any
liability, damage, loss, cost or expense (including attorneys' fees and cost of investigation incurred in defending
against and/or settling such liability, damage, loss, cost or expense or claim therefor and any amounts paid in
settlement thereof) (collectively, "Losses ") imposed on or reasonably incurred by City with respect to this
Agreement.
Insurance. The Professional agrees to provide documentation of adequate and appropriate insurance and liability
coverage which shall be determined to be satisfactory to the City in the City's reasonable discretion.
Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by the laws
of the State of Florida, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof
Jurisdiction and Venue. The parties acknowledge that a substantial portion of negotiations, anticipated
performance and execution of this Agreement occurred or shall occur in Palm Beach County, Florida, and that,
therefore, without limiting the jurisdiction of venue of any other federal or state courts, each of the parties
irrevocably and unconditionally (a) agrees that any suit, action or legal proceeding arising out of or relating to
this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of record of the State of Florida in Palm Beach County or the court
of the United States Southern
District of Florida; (b) consents to the jurisdiction of each such court in any suit, action or proceeding; (c)
waives any objection which it may have to the laying of venue of any such suit, action or proceeding in any of
such courts; and (d) agrees that service of any court paper may be effected on such parry as may be provided
under applicable laws or court rules in said state.
Enforcement Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the - enforcement of this Agreement, or
because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this
Agreement, the successful or prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees,
including allocated costs of in -house attorneys, court costs, and all expenses even if not taxable as court costs
(including, without limitation, all such fees, costs and expenses incident to appeals), incurred in that action
proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which such parry or parties may be entitled.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS TENNIS PROFESSIONAL
Joe Russo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda V. Kosier, CMC, City Clerk
Linda V. Kosier, City Clerk
Susan Miller, Director/Parks & Recreation
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney
Brenda Engle, Tennis professional
WITNESS AS TO TENNIS PROFESSIONAL
TENNIS FACILITY HOURS OF OPERATION
HOURS OF OPERATION:
Monday — Friday
7:30am — 10:00pm
Saturday & Sunday
7:30 am — 1:00pm and 5:00pm — 9:00pm
First court reservation
7:30am
Last court reservation
Monday — Friday — 9:00pm
Saturday & Sunday — 8:00pm
SCHEDULE A
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: August 5, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item: Petition VAR- 99 -02, sign variance application for Gardens Park
Plaza ground signs. The site is located at the southeast corner of Northlake Boulevard and
Military Trail. (24- 42S -42E)
Recommendation /Motion:
Staff is recommending continuation of the public hearing until September 16. 1999
Reviewed b}�% `
�Y \P
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Total
Council Action:
City Attorney A
Growth Management
[ ] Approved
t
Department
Finance N/A
$ 0
[ ] Approved w /conditions
ACM 2��
Current FY
[ ]Denied
Human Res. N/A
Advertised:
Other N/A
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
-
Date: May 5, 1999
[ )Operating
Paper: Palm Beach Post
[ ] Other N/A
August 2, 1999 petitioner
[ J Not Required
letter.
Submitted by:
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Department
[ X ] Notified
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ j Not required
BACKGROUND:
This hearing was continued from the July 1' meeting. Patrick Koenig, applicant, is
petitioning the City Council for a sign variance for five (5) existing ground signs located in
front of the Gardens Park Plaza Shopping Center. The petitioner has requested a
continuation of the public hearing until the September 16, 1999 City Council meeting. The
purpose of this continuation is to allow the petitioner time to provide supplemental materials
to help justify their variance request.
The signs have been determined by staff to be non - conforming due to the fact that the
right -of -way frontage allows for only three (3) ground signs per code. Five ground signs
would require that the property have 3,100 feet of right -of -way frontage, while the petitioner
has only 2,300 feet of right -of -way frontage. The signs were constructed to advertise
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Petition VAR -99 -02
Page 2
August 19, 1999
various businesses on -site, both within the "main -line" shopping center and three of the
"out- parcels ". All signs have been permitted by staff, either through building permit or site
plan approval. The applicant was notified that the signs were non- conforming through the
non - conforming signs notification procedure.
The oldest sign on site (Washington Mutual) was approved by building permit in 1978. The
second oldest sign (First Union) was approved in 1984. The RJ Gators sign was approved
as part of a Site Plan Approval process in 1991. The remaining two signs (advertising
Gardens Park Plaza's two major tenants, Winn Dixie and Eckerd Drugs) were approved
as part of a site plan amendment in 1995. These two signs were not constructed until
1998. At that time, staff administratively approved the minor relocation of one of the ground
signs. The 1991 and 1995 approvals replaced existing signs which were approved prior
to 1990 (Palm Beach Cafe and the two Gardens Park Plaza pole signs).
It should be noted that all signs except the Washington Mutual sign are dimensionally
conforming to the sign code. The petitioner is requesting only a variance for the number
of signs, not the dimensional non - conformities associated with the Washington Mutual sign.
The petitioner, who is the property manager for the shopping center, has left the
responsibility of obtaining variances for non - conforming dimensions to the tenant,
Washington Mutual. As of this date, staff has not received a variance application from this
tenant.
Five signs were located on site (three of which have since been replaced) at the time of
the 1990 code revision, which placed in effect the right -of -way requirements. However,
signs which were approved in 1991 and 1995 should not have been permitted, since the
signs they were replacing were non - conforming.
PROCEDURE:
The LDRs designate the authority of reviewing and granting sign variances directly to the
City Council. As with other variances, a petitioner must demonstrate hardship. Section 110-
72. Variances, states that "The hardship shall not be economics or natural obstructions on
adjacent land, but shall be a hardship whereby an applicant cannot reasonably enjoy and
utilize the intended benefits provided in this chapter." This should be the basis for which
the variance shall or shall not be granted.
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 3
August 19, 1999
The existing signs do not meet the following code requirements, as outlined in chapter 110
Dt the Ulty's Land Development Kegulations. I he tollowing chart illustrates this:
VAR -99 -02 GARDENS PARK PLAZA SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST
Present conditions not in compliance with the following requirements:
Code Requirement: Chapter 110 -36 (a) Ground Signs: "Any property with at least 300 feet of a property line
abutting a public right -of -way shall be allowed a ground sign. An additional ground sign shall be allowed for each
additional 700 feet of public right -of -way. The frontage of two or more public streets shall be additive to compute
frontage ".
Present Condition: Five (5) ground signs with 2,300 feet of right -of -way. (requires 3,100 feet of right -of way)
Proposed Condition: Five (5) existing ground signs to remain.
Proposed Condition Compliance with Code: No. Variance Requested
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that the applicant has demonstrated
a hardship whereby an applicant cannot reasonably enjoy and utilize the intended benefits
provided in this chapter. Also, it is staffs determination that the 'existing signage meets the
intent and purpose of the sign code. This determination is based on the following:
(1) The petitioner has made improvements to the signage on site so that he has
reduced the dimensional non - conformities of two of the sign and is requesting from
their tenant (Washington Mutual) that the last remaining dimensionally non-
conforming sign be brought into compliance.
(2) The hardship is not based on economics or natural obstructions on adjacent
property, but is based on location of the site. The petitioner would be restricted in
their ability to enjoy and utilize the intended benefits of the sign code without the
existing ground signs. The intersection of Northlake Boulevard and Military Trail is
extremely busy and the elimination of existing signs would hamper "business
opportunities ", as defined within Section 110 -1 Intent and purpose.
(3) Staff has reviewed the site and has found that the existing signage is consistent with
the criteria set forth in Section 110 -1 Intent and purpose, as follows:
(a) Due to the fact that four of the five signs conform dimensionally, the signs
facilitate easy and pleasant communication between people and their
environment. The fifth sign has minor dimensional non - conformities and the
petitioner has indicated that it will be brought into compliance.
(b) Due to the spacing of the sign locations, visual clutter is minimized.
(c) The sign locations have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer,
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 4
and are therefore not potentially harmful to traffic and pedestrian safety.
(d) The existing signs are well maintained and therefore are not harmful to
property values or community appearance.
Based on this analysis, staff is recommending approval of this variance.
GALong Range \var9902.st1.wpd
t- t 1-t IVo .1 W (kf, U • ei 10:16 1 D : UFBAN DES 1 GN FAX :5616890551 PAGE 1 1
} C' P3
August 2, 1990
Kiln Chas Castro, Principal Planner
Growth Management Departmerit.
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military 'Grail
Palm Beach Gardens, Fl. 33410
Via Facsimile
RE: — GARDENS PARK PLAZA - SIGN VARIANCE
.REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
Our Reference # 15063.02
Dear Kim;
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
Please accept this request for postponement of 30 days to the September 16, 1999 Council
Meeting for the sign variance request that was to be heard on August 19, 1999. This request is
based on the petitioner's desire to provide some supplemental material which will require
additional time to prepare. Additionally, the petitioner wants to ensure that this inforntation can
be prepared in time to meet the City scheduling time frames for package preparation.
Should you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact me at 689- 0066.
Sincerely,
Urb De 'gn Stud! /w
Dodi Glas, AICP
cc: Patrick Koenig
Hank Skokowski
GACOMMUh46 s' Ai" Wca Park
I• Ia�s�lignVxrtf `fltifcuerpcx�pcpce,wr!
1 •t'c m
� p$, tatdens
pU6 � 1999
�ppRjMENT
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach. Florida 334096582
561.689.0068 661.689.0581 fax
Irvine, CA 714A89.6131
fgg.. -am Mg a a ftgg� a a � 0 . .- mUggg'.0 Ug a -a a mgg�g me �oo`mgggu . -a.
V-
AZ
■ MZ m
r
>m
m
■
C: Li
u
■
Iggg wu�
■
MC
■ -40
■ 5io ■
mZ •
wo
A _01Vw
mo ■
■ (n
E r
0 Z
m K
A
•
Z
9
on ® an oggg a a uggg, a ;_a augg" a NA*mm go
NORTHLAKE BLVD. (S.R. 809-A)
MTMATE POW 100'
do-ss ffig�gg.mmgl
'Gardens Park Plaza
Palm .13 each Gardens, Florida
Existing Grotind Sign_ s
11441
w
111E
0
-4
i
- -i
11 PRO
fiff, I
I
-F
IS
Iggg wu�
■
MC
■ -40
■ 5io ■
mZ •
wo
A _01Vw
mo ■
■ (n
E r
0 Z
m K
A
•
Z
9
on ® an oggg a a uggg, a ;_a augg" a NA*mm go
NORTHLAKE BLVD. (S.R. 809-A)
MTMATE POW 100'
do-ss ffig�gg.mmgl
'Gardens Park Plaza
Palm .13 each Gardens, Florida
Existing Grotind Sign_ s
11441
w
111E
0
-4
i
- -i
11 PRO
fiff, I
I
June 28, 1999
RESOLUTION 72, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 110 -36:
"GROUND SIGNS" FOR FIVE (5) EXISTING GROUND
SIGNS LOCATED AT THE GARDENS PARK PLAZA
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MILITARY TRAIL AND
NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a variance for a sign per section 110 -36 would not
be adverse to the public interest.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this variance meets the standards established by code.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. A variance is hereby granted to the requirements of section 110 -36, "Ground
signs ", for five (5) existing ground signs located at Gardens Park Plaza located at the southeast
corner of Military Trail and Northlake Boulevard; said variances being defined as follows:
1. A variance from the number of ground signs permitted, where only three ground
signs are permitted, five ground signs exist.
Section 2. The aforementioned improvements shall be consistent with the following plans
on file with the Planning and Zoning Division:
1. June 7, 1999 Site Plan, Urban Design Studio, 1 sheet
2. April 27, 1999 Site Plan and Sign Elevations, Urban Design Studio, 1 sheet
Section 3. All resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
1
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF '1999.
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER SUFFICIENCY.
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
\eat
G: \Long Range \var9902.re.wpd
2
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: July 19, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item: Public Hearing /2nd Reading: An application for the annexation of
a parcel of land currently located within unincorporated Palm Beach County. The site is
located approximately 1/4 mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, on the south side of Idlewild
Drive.
Recommendation /Motion:
— Staff rPCnmmenris approval of Ordinance 32. 1999.
Reviewed b
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $ 0
Council Action:
Total
City Attomey (j
Growth Management
[ ] Approved
Finance N/A
\ n
$ 0
[ ]Approved W/ conditions
Y,f
Current FY
{ ] Denied
ACM
Human Res. N/A
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Advertised:
Attachments:
Other N/A
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
( x ] Not Required
[ ] Other N/A
Ordinance 32, 1999
Submitted by:
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Director
[ ]Notified
[ ] None
Approved b
PP Y�
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
This public hearing has been continued from the August 5, 1999 meeting. City Council
reviewed this petition at its July 15, 1999 meeting and had no concerns.
Hank Skokowski, agent, has requested the annexation of a .33 acre parcel of land
currently located within unincorporated Palm Beach County. The site is located
approximately 1/4 mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, on the south side of Idlewild Drive.
(5- 42S -43E) The parcel currently has a Palm Beach County Future Land Use Designation
of Low Residential - 3. The petitioner is proposing to change the land use designation to
City of Palm Beach Gardens Future Land Use Designation of Residential Medium (RM)
through a concurrent land use amendment application. This parcel is located within the
City's Future Annexation Area, as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has also
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Petition AX -99 -01
Page 2
entered into an interlocal agreement with the County regarding eventually annexing of all
unincorporated lands east of Prosperity Farms Road and north of PGA Boulevard.
Palm Beach County Planning Division had recommended annexing the remaining 1.18
acres to avoid creating an irregular boundary during the review of the Marina Gardens (fka
Soverel North) annexation. The subject annexation will reduce the size of this irregularity.
Since the unincorporated property maintains access to other unincorporated areas, it does
not violate Chapter 171, F.S. which regulates annexation procedures. The County
Attorney's Office concurred with this determination. The subject parcel will reduce the size
of the 1.81 acres left in the unincorporated area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 32, 1999. The voluntary annexation reduces the
size of an unincorporated pocket which is designated as the City's future annexation area.
GALong Range \ax9901.cc.2.st.wpd
X-
•
:• s b.
amp
��]M.Avltu hill
�: _�� .' �� tom: �t a +• _ ..'r
(jrj{ �• "�'�•_ �...► T i i • M^�'�r+ICyp e��=yyt(+�''�Ji i^
i~
"3
Yp
,:•:Irk .� ..,. �..,, :.['
;-Oat
CP
am
1.. • �� t' •.' - -
�•' 1. �•
Nor
. �_ .�' b !f.. .. •c.+ • : fit- 3
�. .�. C 'T yr- • �'.: y. �l.�i "�•
�^ .:� fa .. il: •�,• .1 :raj ••[. -_•�_ •tl:. �^ •.Sr -...
? ;. • *,7=R � :�` .�
PA
IN wl,
�.,. •`- qqq��'� der}}! ���`+ —�;: '., • j
�. �. .�•�.I. try t'� ��• % ° �y .. �K:S°: it +
. St
July 15, 1999
ORDINANCE 32,1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, ANNEXING INTO THE CITY .33
ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF IDLEWILD ROAD, 1/4 MILE EAST OF
PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD; AND, REDEFINING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID REAL
PROPERTY; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HERE`VITH; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application from Mutual Land
Development Co., Ltd. for the annexation of .33 acres of land south of Idlewild Drive and 1/4
mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto;
and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department (the "Department ") has reviewed said
application and determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby annexes into the City a
compact contiguous parcel of land known as "MARINA GARDENS LOT 8" described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. The boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida are hereby
redefined and shall include the real property described in exhibit "A" and said property is hereby
declared to be within the corporate limits of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Section 3. The land use regulations of Palm Beach County shall.remain in effect as same
pertains to the annexed lands, in accordance with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, until the City of
Palm Beach Gardens amends its Comprehensive Land Use Plan including said lands.
Section 4. The City Clerk is authorized to forward the adopted ordinance to the clerk of
the circuit court, the chief administrative officer of Palm Beach County, and the Department of
Ordinance 32, 1999
State within 7 days after the adoption of such ordinance.
Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section S. This Ordinance shall be effective upon date of passage.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS THE DAY OF '1999.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS THE DAY OF '1999.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF '1999.
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER SUFFICIENCY.
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
\GALong Range\ax990l.ordmpd
Ordinance 32, 1999
Page 2
Exhibit "A"
"MARINA GARDENS -
LOT 8"
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
February 23, 1999
BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR:
MUTUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT", CORP.
This survey is made specifically and only for the following parties for the purpose of a dosing on the surveyed
property. i
Mutual Land Development, Corp.
Attomeys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
No responsibility or liability is_ assumed by the undersigned surveyor for any other purpose or to any other party
other than stated above.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2326 Idlewild Road, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A parcel of land in the Northeast one - quarter of Section 5, Township 42 South, Range '43 East, Palm Beach
County; Florida, more particularly described as follows:
From the Northeast comer of said Section 5, run thence South 2" 01'47" West on the East line of said Section 5 a
distance of 1644.62 feet, thence run North 88° 31' 05" West a distance of 1673.93 feet; thence run South 1" 30'
54" West, a distance of 70.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein conveyed; thence continue
South 1° 30' 54" West a distance of 109.88 feet; thence run North 88° 29' 06" West a distance of 130.0 feet;
thence run North 1" 30' 54" East a distance of 111.45 feet; thence run South 87" 4T 42" East a distance of 130.01
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Subject to easement for utilities over the South 6 feet thereof, and easement
for road right of way over the West 30 feet and the North 5 feet thereof.
*xmmmmw
jr
*xmmmmw
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: July 29, 1999
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Public Hearing/ Second Reading of Ordinance 34, 1999: Petition CU -97 -04 - Christ Fellowship
South Conditional Use Amendment, a request by Dave Gregg, agent for Palm Beach Gardens Christ
Fellowship, Inc. to consider a petition for conditional use for the existing Christ Fellowship religious
facility to allow for the increase of the allowable number of seats from 300 to 768 (192 of which are
temporary).
Recommendation/Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance 34, 1999.
Reviewed by.
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Council Action:
Q�
lcf City Attorney °
Growth Management
T otal
[ ] Approved
Finance N/A
S 0
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
y
Current FY
ACM
[ J Denied
Human Res. N/A
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other N/A
Date: August 4, 1999
[ ] Operating
Paper: Palm Beach Post
[ ] Other N/A
City Engineer memo of
(] Not Required
June 22, 1999
Submitted by:
Growth Management Dir.
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #:
Kimley -Horn analysis of
June 15,1999
J
/ �
v
Reduced site plans,
�[,
landscape plans, and
drainage plans
Ordinance 34, 1999
Approved. by:
[ I Notified
[ J None
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
AIM
The Christ Fellowship Church. is located on a 5.43 acre parcel on the south side of Northlake
Boulevard, west of Military Trail. The site is zoned RL -1 (Residential Low Density-1). The subject
property was rezoned on December 20, 1990 by Ordinance 30, 1990, from Palm Beach County
zoning designation of AR (Agricultural Residential) with a special exception allowing expansion of
Commercial Horse stables to the City's zoning classification of RL -1 Single Family Residential
District with a conditional use for a church and an accessory use of a preschool. On February 7, 1991,
by Resolution 13, 199.1, the site plan proposing the improvements of the Christ Fellowship Church,
was approved by the City Council. This original approval provided for a 1 -story sanctuary building
containing 300 seats, a "caretaker's residence", and 92 parking spaces (80 grass and 12 paved). The
site plan showed 56% open space.
On January 2, 1997, the City Council granted a temporary conditional use approval for the placement
of three modular units at the site with an expiration date of July 2, 1998. The purpose of these
modular units was to help alleviate overcrowding. Part of this application is a request to extend the
life of that temporary conditional use; if this application is denied they will have to be removed
because the original date has expired.
In April of 1997 the petitioner requested additional modular units. This request has since been
withdrawn. However, in reviewing this request, the City eventually became aware that the use of this
property had greatly exceeded the scope of its original approval. After analysis of the situation and
discussions with the church, the City indicated that the violation of the original Development Order
had to be resolved either through Code Enforcement action or through an amendment to the original
conditional use and site plan approvals which would provide "retroactive" approval of the existing
conditions. After assurances from the representatives of the church that they would proceed with
good faith efforts, it was agreed to allow for "retroactive" approvals. Two years later, these
amendment requests are being processed as CU -97 -04 and SP- 97 -03.
During 1997, the project proceeded very slowly through the review process. The project did not
meet concurrency, for example, until August of 1997. During review of the petition, staff gradually
became aware that the scope of the project had greatly exceeded its original development order.
Finally in January of 1998 the applicant submitted a site plan which showed 800 seats rather than 300,
a sanctuary of 21,100 square feet, and a parking lot showing 229 spaces (with off -site parking).
Finally staff could undertake a realistic review of this project.
Staff spent 1998 trying to obtain enough information from the petitioner to conduct a thorough
review so that the project could be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Nearly every request for information resulted in slow responses, inadequate and/or conflicting plans
and documents, and a repeat of the same pattern when further information was requested. In May
and again in July 1998, Development Review Committee meetings were held, but serious problems
with the submitted data and information remained.
Finally, on January 12, 1999, this project was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Commission discussed the history of this project at length, especially in light of Christ Fellowship's
proposed expansion on its new site.on the north side of Northlake Boulevard. The Commission was
especially concerned with the intensity of use at this site, and with the resulting parking and traffic
circulation issues. Mr. Gregg, representing Christ Fellowship, indicated that the south property
would no longer be used for worship services once the north property is completed. Instead, the
south property would then be used as a chapel for weddings, smaller meetings and other functions.
As noted by Planner Bahareh Keshavarz to Mr. Gregg in a memo dated January 29, 1999, the
Commission had several other questions and concerns (see attached memo).
On April 27, 1999, the project was again reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff
presented what were considered to be the major issues: traffic concerns, drainage, parking, the
expansion of the use, and septic system concerns. Staff suggested a number of conditions of approval
to address this site's problems, including the elimination of 15 parking spaces which do not meet
code, the calculation of required parking at a rate of 1 space per 3 seats, and others. The petitioner's
agent recognized staff s concerns and even agreed to abide by staffs conditions of approval after the
north campus opens. In other words, the petitioner is proposing that the City not insist on the
immediate resolution of this site's code problems, but that we wait until the north campus opens, at
which point they will comply with all of our requests.
At the April 27 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission focused on several matters:
1. Simultaneous services on the north and south campuses
2. Was the sanctuary properly designed for 800- -i.e., are there enough toilets
3. Phasing was discussed at length, with phase 1 being what is there today and phase 2 being what
will occur when the north campus opens (approximately Christmas of 1999)
4. Should off -site parking continue
5. Should we impose a "date certain" for phase 2?
Ultimately the Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the petitioner's argument that we should
wait until the north campus opens and require the resolution of this site's problems after that opening,
on the assumption that the majority of the church's operations will shift to the new campus and the
old campus will be able to scale back. However the Commission was not willing to pass this matter
on to the City Council until they had a full site plan package to review, including landscape plans.
The Commission also wanted to see a phasing plan.
In response, the petitioner submitted phased site plans, landscape plans, and drainage plans. Phase
1 represents the site in its temporary configuration- -that is, after City Council approval but prior to
the opening of the north campus. The petitioner's revised plans have eliminated the 15 parking spaces
on the basketball court that are not code- compliant, and have added six spaces elsewhere, for a total
of 192 spaces. Phase 1 continues to calculate parking at 1 space per 4 seats. Therefore the plans
show 768 seats, the modular units, and a driveway connection to the Church of the Nazarene site to
the west.
Phase 2 represents the ultimate configuration after the opening of the new campus, and shows 576
seats, no modular units, and the same 192 parking spaces, and the closing of the cross access to the
neighboring church. Phase 2 accedes to staff's request to calculate parking at 1 space per 3 seats, thus
resulting in a reduction of 192 seats from Phase 1.
This project was again reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its June 22, 1999
meeting. At this meeting, the Commission again reviewed the project in depth, including a number
of revised documents submitted by the petitioner. These documents included a plumbing fixture
certification from the project architect, an analysis of the traffic and driveways on Northlake
Boulevard, phased site plans, phased landscape plans, and phased drainage plans. Based upon these
documents and a letter from the City's consulting engineers indicating that their concerns were all
satisfied or conditionally satisfied, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend
approval of these petitions to the City Council. The Commission also added two recommended
conditions of approval to those suggested by staff.
On July 15, 1999, the City Council considered this project in a workshop /first reading. The Council
reviewed the project in depth, ultimately deciding to send the project forward for a public
hearing/second reading subject to the prior resolution of the septic tank issue. The problem is that
the existing septic tank is not sufficient to support 800 seats. The City Engineer has proposed a new
condition to resolve the matter (see below).
DISCUSSION
A. Land Use and Zoning
The current land use designation for the subject site is Residential Low (RL) with a Residential Low
Density -1 (RL -1) zoning and conditional use for a church. For a complete listing of adjacent uses,
land use designations and zoning districts, see Table I.
B. Traffic Concurrency
The project was reviewed and approved for traffic concurrency as part of the original site plan
approval process for the church improvements. The petitioner has also submitted a traffic
statement indicating that the expanded use of the site still meets the County Traffic Performance
Standards.
C. Public and Private Services
The City's Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed the request at their May 7, 1998
and July 23, 1998 meetings. A listing of the various departmental comments is attached for your
review.
TABLE I
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & SITE ANALYSIS
EXISTING USE
ZONING
LAND USE
Subject Property
Church
Residential Low Density -1
Conditional Use
(RL -1)
Residential Low
(RL)
North
Vacant
Planned Development Area
(P.A.)
Residential Low
(RL)
South
Single Family Residences
Residential Estate
(RE)
Residential Low
(RL)
East
Single Family Residences
Residential Estate
(RE)
Residential Low
(RL)
West
Church
Residential Low Density -1
(RL -1)
Residential Low
(RL)
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CODE (Phase 1)
Consistent
Code Requirement
Proposed Plan
Yes
Residential Low Density -1
Conditional Use
Church
Yes
Lot Coverage (35 %)
13.8%
Yes
Parking 200 Spaces
201 spaces
Yes
Front Setback: 35'
250'
No*
Side Setback: 38' *
22'
Yes
Rear Setback: 25'
80' (30 feet to the top of the
bank)
Yes
Building Height: 36'
Max. 35'
Yes
Open Space (35 %)
35% not including the grass
parking
* Setback violation by a shed; to be relocated in Phase 2
D. Procedure
This is a request for a conditional use amendment. The request is reviewed by the Development
Review Committee, which forwards comments and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Acting in an advisory role, the Commission makes a recommendation on the
proposed request to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for conditional use
amendment for consideration of approval, approval with conditions or denial.
Please note that this petition, the expansion of the church use (number of seats) will be reviewed
by the City Council as an amendment to the conditional use as CU- 97 -04. The amendment to the
elevations, setbacks, signage, and other physical site plan changes, the signage, and the time
extension request for the modular units will apply to SP -97 -04 which is a separate petition.
E. Project Details
The petitioner is proposing to amend the approved conditional use and site plan for Christ
Fellowship Church to correct the inconsistencies between the approved project and the existing
situation at the current Christ Fellowship site. The site plan was approved in 1991 for a 15,825
square foot, 1 -story, 300 seat religious facility. Today Christ Fellowship site contains a 2 1, 100
square foot, 2 -story building with 800 seats, a driveway connection to the Church of the
Nazarene's parking lot, an exit (right out) at the northeast corner of the site, and a youth center
that was originally approved as a residence. The size of the approved residence building was
2,196 square feet, whereas, the existing building is 4,009 square feet in size. The proposed site
plan and use changes reflect the following:
Expansion of Conditional Use
Increasing the number of seats from 300 to 768 (192 of which are temporary).
Changing the use of the residence building to a youth center.
Site Plan Amendment (to be addressed in SP- 97 -03, Resolution 186,1999)
• Approving a driveway connection to the Church of the Nazarene and sharing parking with
the Church of the Nazarene.
• Approving a right turn only exit at the north east corner of the site.
• Approving additional parking to support the 768 seats.
• Approving a second story for the existing house of worship.
• Relocating the existing sheds to be consistent with the existing building setbacks on the
site.
• Approving a project identification sign at the entrance to the site.
Approving additional grass parking.
Time Extension
- Approving a time extension for the 3 modular units until the occupation of the north
campus.
As noted above, the applicant has now submitted phased plans as requested by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The first phase is an "as is" plan except that it shows 768 seats instead of
the 800 seats which actually exist now. Phase 1 represents their commitment to remove the 15
parking spaces, which are not code - compliant. The loss of parking requires a loss of seating.
Phase 2 represents the project as it will be after the opening of the north campus (currently
expected by Christmas of 1999), with the removal of the modulars and the scaling back of the
intensity of use on the site. Additional landscaping is called for in Phase 2 to bring the site into
compliance with today's code. Staff is proposing a condition of approval that will require the
installation of the new landscaping within 30 days of the approval of Phase 1, rather than waiting
for Phase 2.
ISSUES:
The illegal and unpermitted expansion of this project presents a number of issues, which need to
be considered by the City Council:
1. TRAFFIC
The applicant has submitted a traffic statement, which indicates that the expansion to 800 seats r
"will not cause the level of service standard for Northlake Boulevard to be exceeded ". However,
the nature of this use is such that the City should also consider peak hour trips as well as average
daily trips. Staff concern is that simultaneous use of the north and south properties for church
services could result in so many vehicles on Northlake Boulevard at the same time that traffic
control measures could be overwhelmed.
In response to this concern, the petitioner has submitted an operational analysis of the driveways
on Northlake Boulevard, which establishes that the site will demonstrate "very acceptable levels
of service" even after the opening of the north campus.
The petitioner has indicated to staff that, once the north campus is open, the south campus will no
longer be used for regular religious services. Staff recommends a condition of approval to this
effect.
2. DRAINAGE
The petitioner has given the City drainage plans for the site representing both current conditions
and the buildout of the Church of the Nazarene site. The drainage scheme relies on the use of an
off -site treatment facility on property owned by the Church of the Nazarene. In such cases a
formal drainage agreement should be secured between the two parties.
3. PARKING
Staff's parking concerns with this project fall into two areas: the overall number of spaces
provided, and technical problems with some of the spaces on the property.
Overall Numbers:
Current City code calls for 1 space per 4 seats in the principal building. The site currently
contains 800 seats (600 permanent, 200 temporary) which would require 200 spaces. The site has
201 spaces, of which 62 are paved and 139 are grass. Therefore the plan technically complies
with the code. However, 15 of the spaces are not code - compliant (see discussion below).
The petitioner also has a cross parking agreement with the Church of the Nazarene immediately to
the west, which allows them to use 104 of their spaces. These spaces are available for "overflow"
parking for Christ Fellowship, but the agreement between the two parties is subject to termination
at any time "upon written notification to the other ". Furthermore, Sec. 118 -421 of the City code
states that "off- street parking for non - residential uses as required by this article shall be located on
the same building site as the uses they serve ". Therefore these off -site spaces cannot be
considered in any examination of Christ Fellowship's parking situation.
City staff is in the process of re- evaluating the number of spaces required for churches, and is
currently recommending 1 space /3 seats. The north campus was approved at 1 space per 2 seats.
One space per 3 seats is the number used by Palm Beach County and many other governments for
churches. The need for more parking is also indicated by the September 1997 Traffic Study of
Christ Fellowship prepared by Miles Moss & Associates, Inc. which found that "vehicle
occupancy rates are lower than Code expectations of 4 people/vehicle, as observed rates range
from 1.92 to 2.13 people /vehicle ".
Observations also indicate that the "overflow" parking at the Church of the Nazarene is heavily
used. Indeed, the fact that Christ Fellowship felt the need to obtain the use of this extra parking
shows that the petitioner is not finding its on -site parking to be adequate. This may be due to the
fact that the church has multiple services on Sunday morning, and worshipers for just - concluded
services have not vacated the lot before worshipers for the next service arrive, leading to an
overlap.
All of the above factors support staffs request for a parking ratio lower than the current 1 space
per 4 seats. There is an extensive discussion of church parking needs in the staff report for
Resolution 86,1999 (Christ Fellowship's site plan amendment application) which is on the same
agenda as this item.
Technical Problems:
The great majority of the spaces on site (136 of 201) are grass parking. Grass parking is allowed
by Sec. 118 -478, subject to meeting technical criteria, submission of an application, and approval
by City Council. In all cases, aisles must be paved; only the spaces themselves can be grass.
Grass parking areas are subject to the same dimensional, landscape, and other code requirements
as regular spaces. The site currently contains 15 grass parking spaces in the area of the basketball
court between the existing modular buildings and a proposed drainage swale. These spaces do
not meet the technical requirements for dimension, back up area, access drive width, access drive
paving, and landscaping. Therefore the City Engineer and the planning staff have recommended
that they not be permitted unless they are improved to meet code.
As an alternative, the petitioner can request a variance to allow these spaces even though they do
not meet code.
Prior to the last Planning and Zoning meeting, the petitioner submitted plans, which call for the
removal of these 15 spaces. Six spaces have been added in other areas, so there will be a net loss
of nine spaces.
4. USE EXPANSION
The original conditional use and site plan applications were for 300 seats in a 15,825 square -foot,
1 -story building. The approval also included a separate "caretaker's residence" of 2,196 square
feet and parking for 92, cars.
Today the site contains 800 seats in a 2 -story building of 2 1, 100 square feet The "caretaker's
residence" has become a 4009 square -foot youth building. The site has also gained 3,336 square
feet in modular buildings and 915 square feet in sheds, for a total square footage of 29,360 (An
earlier request by the petitioner for 3,264 square feet of additional modular space has been
withdrawn.) As discussed above, the site now contains 201 parking spaces. This site is at, if not
over, capacity.
If the City Council approves this requested use expansion and site plan amendment, staff suggests
a condition that at least 192 of the seats be removed upon the opening of the north campus.
5. SEPTIC SYSTEM
This site is still serviced by a septic tank. Presumably it is the same system that was installed back
when the church had 300 seats. The City needs to be assured that this.system is functioning
properly and that it has enough capacity to service the current uses on this property.
Staff is suggesting a condition of approval (in Resolution 86, 1999) which will require the
petitioner to connect to public sewer soon after they move into their new campus on the north
side of Northlake Boulevard. The church is already required by a previous condition to tie into
public sewer once it becomes available. At their present capacity the church has crossed the
threshold for mandatory sewer hookup.
SUMMARY:
Staff is recommending the adoption of a parking standard of 1 space /3 seats for this project. The
effect of this change and the net loss of nine parking spaces would be to allow 192 parking spaces
at a rate of 3 seats per space for a total allowed capacity of 576 seats. Staff is also recommending
several other conditions of approval (see below).
Assistant City Engineer Tammy Jacobs has reviewed the project and has recommended that the
applicant pave the existing on -site stabilized crushed rock drive aisles. � She has also requested that
the drive aisles be properly dimensioned on the plans, and she wants to see a recorded cross
drainage agreement between Christ Fellowship and the Church of the Nazarene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CU -97 -04 with the following Conditions of Approval:
1. Simultaneous broadcasts of presentations, programs or sermons conducted on the
north campus to the south campus shall be prohibited. (Code Enforcement)
2. Immediately upon the issuance of the C.O. for the sanctuary on the north campus or by
January 2, 2000, whichever occurs first, parking on this site shall be calculated at a rate of 1 space
per 3 seats in the sanctuary. At that time, 192 of the seats in the sanctuary shall be permanently
removed, leaving a permanent occupancy of 576 seats, and the petitioner shall submit an affidavit
to the City verifying that the seating does not exceed 576. (Development Compliance Officer)
3. When determined to be necessary by the City of Palm Beach Gardens Police
Department, the petitioner or successor shall utilize police or equally trained officials in numbers
determined by the Police Department at all ingress and egress points along Northlake Boulevard
for the management of traffic flow and direction before and after events. (Code Enforcement)
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
PETITION CU -97 -04
ENGINEERING:
See staff report and attached.
BUILDING DIVISION:
No objections.
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION:
See staff report and City Forester memo.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
SEACOAST UTILITY AUTHORITY:
No objections.
g /short: sp9703.a:l.doc
/jn &jl
P P
• j °F� y�ti� j�`�iQ
'c
r
0
n
m
0
3
Ih
J t
J
\
\
.C-
/yam
I I
M
I I
I I
I I
I
I
r
f
"
aaI
� I �
I
I
mg
;m
i",
r
Z
• j °F� y�ti� j�`�iQ
'c
r
0
n
m
0
3
Ih
J t
J
\
.C-
NORTNLAKE BLVD.
-- l
y II
3 5 I
I
1 +7 t,..l , L� .• 1 � I ., I 1
0
II
I
II
'S I
II
II
ro ��� ; I •• o II
S II
f S' II
„Fi I
-- - -- -- -- - --- -- 0 " - - ---- J---'
CANAL
�Yt )IbY
Jilli
d M
D
D DDD
4 �.. � � � i [ � eaY»•nmle.nr
i Palm Beach Gardena
Christ Fellowship
4P
Ilk
CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION No. C001609
�a'u�eom�n Ywxwm °o nw. -411-11 M 1 a
J011T.r
amK M .G[ olUnA twill WD 1 ra
blX M `IK#MIIII N IKMRMt OM Wv�l.
& Associates P.A.
Planne s
Architects •
. P.a pPt .1Melf .enln n.n.:� nna... n. e7M16 . Me11 ne -eele
– ` I
Ozm
M I I Ii
I l'ii' I
I I jli
i
I I �• 'I I l
yy I
I, g
I A
- - '
------------- - - ---� ��II
... — I'
t=
I I
NORTHLAKE BLVD.
r — I, -------- —, 'I
N- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- i� o -� --
r
-u CANAL
b
------ - - - -WT IMN
T
R
U�
T
ce
v
/•
`-t
LO
(t 66
� p Q � cr
ti E
'Palm
beach Gardens
-
- —
�" Christ Fellowship _..A
&Associates, P.A.
Architects • Planners
nwe r.0ei o- Rowe. • 870 001 MSTA CT. . . Pfffk RON Sall • (961) 746 -7946
Fee {A
X j [
� by
�I
CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION No. COOI609
o�.°f�i en.�c axie n w ni r.�nw°n
ne ema rP wt aum, PlaaP wP e.¢em ro+
R K w COw[0iw�,0�T.0 H[0 �rq[m,
9M [W 0[90+1 MwuOIM N
M6e n a. 9rm+m n w. ena""icrna n� a
w� �m •vr .w�mn .man ti� .wrR.
JUN -22 -1999 17 =38 LBF&i — STUART 561 286 3925 P.02/03
LINOAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & 14ELLSTROM, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS 8 MAPPERS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Glas
FROM:
Tammy Jacobs
DATE:
June 22, 1999 (Supercedes comments dated June Is, 1999)
SUBJECT: Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship (LBFH File No. 90 -1033)
We have reviewed the revised Conceptual Drainage Plan prepared by Kenneth H. Kruger and
revised Site Plan prepared by Glenn Pate received June 18, 1999. We offer the following
comments:
1) Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has submitted a cross - section detail of the
proposed on -site stabilized rock drive aisles showing the overall width meeting LDR
Section 118 -475, asphalt, base and subgrade specifications meeting LDR Section 114-
206 and slopes to show the storm water runoff conveyance. Prior to City Council
approval, the applicant will need to revise the cross- section detail to show a minimum 24'
drive aisle width meeting the requirements of LDR Section 118475.
2) Conditionally Satisfied. The conceptual dr inAge plan does identify the standard grass
parking spaces as 10' x 18.5'. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant will need to
revise the cross- section detail to show a minimum 24' drive aisle width meeting the
requirements of LDR Section 118475 as previously stated in comment number 1.
3a) Conditionally Satisfied. It appears that there is a conflict between the proposed
"Ultimate build -out" of the dry detention area and the existing temporary modular unit.
As a condition of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the proposed Christ
Fellowship Church located north of Northlake Boulevard, the temporary modular unit
shall be removed.
3b) Satisfied. The applicant has removed the proposed "staff parking" spaces surrounding
the existing basketball court eliminating the conflict between the "staff parking" spaces
and dry detention area.
4) Previously Satisfied.
3550 S.W. CORPORATE PARKWAY • PALM G1TY.(1.ORIOA 34980 - MI) 2563883 • FAX. (561) 286 -3925
hupJ /WwwAAtcom • e•maa: Wo4DbOLCM
M M CITY WEST PALM MACH ITM PIERCE OKEEOiCME
TLW22 -1999 17:38 LBF&H - STUART 561 265 3925 P.03/03
Palm beach Gardens Christ Fellowship
LBFH FYlc No_ 90 -1033
Page 2 of 2
5) Conditionally Satisfied. The off -site drive aisles shall be abandoned and restored to the
satisfaction of the City prior to receiving the certificate of occupancy for the proposed Christ
Fellowship Church located north of Northlake Boulevard.
6) Conditionally Satisfie(L Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall provide a
copy of the approved PBC permit allowing the paved connection to the existing paved apron
at the right -only curb cut on Northlake Boulevard.
7) Satisfied. The applicant has eliminated the proposed 15 additional grassed parking spaces
(staff parking) around the basketball court.
8) Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has submitted certified water quality and quantity
calculations during the site plan review process. Engineering has performed a courtesy
review of the calculations but will perform a more in depth review of the calculations during
construction review. Prior to construction plan, all water quality and quantity calculations
shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the City Engineer.
9) The applicant has voluntarily submitted an operational analysis of the driveways accessing
the north and soirth Christ Fellowship Churches in response to City concerns. The analysis
has bee transmitted to the City's Traffic Consultant for a courtesy review. We will issue
comments once the review is completed and comments are received-
10) Conditionally Satisfied. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant is will need to submit
a recorded agreement with the property to the west, allowing the applicant to utilize the
offshe drainage canal located on the adjacent property.
ri
r.WBG?A Mot1033L.d=
c: Bobbie Herakovich
Roxanne Manning
TOTAL P.03
, 06 /1b /av 10:. reb bUJb8ZJ7UJ
lGmiey -Horn
►1 and Associates, Im
June 15, 1999 'IT., a v
Pastor Thomas D. Mullins
Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship Church
5212 Northlake Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship Church
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Dear Pastor Mullins:
As requested, Virnley- -Horn and Associ?tK, lac. hat performed an operational
analysis of the driveways acces�ng the north and south campuses of the Christ
Fellowship Church- An 800 seat church (600 per mnnent, 200 temporary)
currently exists south of Northlake Boulevard A 1,750 seat church is currently
under construction north of Northlake Boulevard, opposite the existing church.
When construction is completed the temporary seats in the south church will be
removed. It is assumed that the south church will remain in operation even_though
Christ Fellowship does not intend to operate the south campus with church
services_
Access to the south campus is provided via-two full- access driveways (west and
central driveways) and one right -out only driveway (east driveway) on Northlake
Boulevard. The central driveway is controlled by two off -duty police officers
during Sunday services. Access to the north campus willbe provided via one full
access driveway (across from the south campus' west driveway) and one right -in,
right -out driveway Gust west of the south campus' central driveway) on Northiake
Boulevard. The central and east driveways accessing the south campus will
remain open after completion of the north campus construction. The west
driveaway will bo closed to south campus traffic.
Existing conditions were Quantified for Northlalm Boulevard and the church
driveways. Machine counts were performed on Northlake Boulevard adjacent to
the church from Friday. May 21 through Sunday, May 23 to quantify traffic
volumes on Northlake Boulevard during the 6me periods when Christ Fellowship
is currently and will have Sunday church services_ Manual turning movement
counts were perfoi red at the church driveways on Sunday, May 30 to quantify
church traffic during the church's peak operating periods. The existing church
was found to generate approximately 665 trips during the peak operating hour on
Sunday morning.
Existing conditions werc eval!!ated using the signalized intersection methodology
set forth in the 1994 Kghway Capacity Manual. With traffic control being
performed by off-duty police offices, the driveways operate similar to demand
:L ash ens em
FAX 561 00 ens
WJ002 /010
R
4431 Emb&Wm Dice
West PAn Beach, FWea
kz4o7
I1
• ,06/15/89 16:55 rA1l X618823703
Z'�o fly Q b(a!lfaw Fw 1i.1�9.l.�c 2
lid end Assoafl %s, tic.
activated signalized intocsccdons. Iha c3dating driveways w= ,found to ba
operating at acceptable levels of service. This vms eonri -mad. during a visit to the
site diuiug the peak operating hour. Attached are intersection capacity analysis
worksheets which indicato vary acceptable levels of cc:rvicc on Sunday monuing.
BuaT,dont coudidans wcm eeti=tcd through iuuipolatiou of the existing cb=h
trmfFic. Church officials have agreed not to hold diuiultancous services, however.
to present a conservative analysis the proposed driveways were analyzed as if both
the uorth and south campuses operate at full capacity with the same schedule for
Oninch servlecs. It was found ti,-qt all proposed driveways will operate at
acceptable Icvcls of service based upon signalizod iutersectiou capacity analyses.
Attached are intdtseetion capacity anelyam wodmhects which indicate very
acccptable levels of sec vice on Sunday [noraings even if church acrvico9 occur on
both campuses at the same time.
We should note that the traffio eon curreacy issues for tiro south campus are
independent of concuwcncy issues for the north cam We Aould area note that
the eoncurrenay approval for the north campus did not awuwa that the south
---Tus ceased to fnncfiom In fact, the north campus =Me, was added to e=ting
traffic volumes which inoludc traffic from the south campus. Therefore, traffic
oonctu,.ivncy is not an issue.
It has been a pleasure working with you on t3,ip project. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
very truly yams,
Pladda Itcgisiratioa
XWMb,cr 19S62
Attwbmc its
0003/010
06/15/99 16:55 FAX 5618823703
@x004 /010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 'Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (N -S) West Driveway (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KEIA File Name: WAMEX.HC9
Area Type: other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
CC =��
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No - La-ies 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 0 3 < 0 1 3 0
Volumes 31 102 1259 10 7 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12_0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations -
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left * EB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right SB Right
Green. 6.OA Green -26.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0 Yellow /AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order_ #1 #5
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Plow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB LR 257 1467 0.545 0.175 11.6 B 11.6 B
EB TR 3767 5581 0.390 0.675 1.9 A 1.9 A-
WB L 186 276 0.038 0.675 1.4 A 1.7 A
T 3772 5588 0.314 0.675 1.7 A
Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec /veh Intersection LOS - A
Lost Time /Cycle, L 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) 0.422
�r
~101" 10:00. rAA Dt�1KtSL�YUJ
IM 0051010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (N -S) Central 'Driveway (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KRA File Name: C1AMEX.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 < 0 1 3 0
Volumes 22 97 1259 52 222 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
R.L'OR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left * ED Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right *�
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
ED Right NB Right
WB Right SB Right
Green S.OA Green 6.OA 16.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0 Yellow /AR 4 -0 4.0
Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 310 1770 0.074 0.175 8.9 B 9.6 B
R 277 1583 0.368 0.175 9.8 B
ED TR 2361 5555 0.643 0.425 6.3 B 6.3 -r B
WB L 496 1770 0.472 0.675 3.1 A 2.0 A
T 3772 5588 0.314 0.675 1.7 A
Intersection Delay - 4.4 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) I = 0.606
A_
VV. L.�i op yV.:7J ['AA :lVy00LJ(VJ
�uvu�UlU
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSJUCTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
ccC_� —...0 eC =_= .CC === FxC�C : G��e= �CCeC = =�= cCCC= =��ceeC�_...�. -.c cam..— _.�...- G� ►.- ...�lC��`.
Streets: (N -S) East Driveway (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: XHA File Name: EAMIX.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 `0
Volumes 123 1259 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 - 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.,00 3.00
Signal operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left EB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right SD Right
Green Green 6 O 26.OA
Yellow /AR Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
1M R 277 1583 0.466 0.175 10.5 B 10.5 B
EB i 3772 5588 0.387 0.675 1.9 A 1.9 A
WB T 5169 5588 0.229 0.925 0.1 A 0.1 _ A'
Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec /veh Intersection LOS - A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) 0.403
X
1
u6/1b/aa lb:bb FAA. 5618SX37u3
U007/010
TIC4: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMNBIRY Veraion 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc_
Streets: (N -S) West Driveway . (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KRA File Name: WAMkUT2 -HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 3< 0
Volumes 704 .77 136 1259 1022 167
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12:0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left EB Left
Thru Thy
Right Right `
Peds Peds
SB Left * WB Left
Th-ru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
EB Right N9 Right
WB Right SB Right
Green 16.OA Green 6.OA 26.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
SB L 1003 3539 0.761 0.283 15.1 C 14.7 B
R 449 1583 0.181 0.283 10.5 B _
EB L 330 1770 0.433 0.617 4.8 A 4.0 A
T 3446 5588 0.423 0.617 3.9 A
WB TR 2462 5470 0.559 0.450 8.1 B 8.1 B
Intersection Delay = 7.8 sec /veh Intersection LOS - B
Lost Time /Cycle, L c 9.0 sec - Critical v /c(x) 0.645
IM
06 /15iaa 16:56 FAX 5618823703
Q008/010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (N -S) Central Drive -North (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KHA File Name: C2AMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3< 0
Volumes 39 1259 1022 334
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left EB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right SB Right
Green Green 6.OA 46 -OA
Yellow /AR Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 6o secs Phase combination order: #)5 #6 _
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
SE R 185 1583 0.222 0.117 15.6 C 15.6 C
EB T 5309 5588 0.275 0.950 0.1 A 0.1 A -
WB TR 4216 5382 0.373 0.783 1.3 A 1.3.-3 A
Intersection Delay - 0.9 sec /veh Intersecti.an LOS - A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.353
M
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
ccL"^�.�CCCC�- ..•.CCU-- .r- c��- .- ..�.cC =��� -c ci�c�- CQeGG�- .- .�cC'C-- ��- ._-- �..�wC -��... r.G -�� �NM
Streets: (N -S) Central-Drive -South (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KHA File Name: CIAMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 < 0 1 3 0
Volumes 40 111 1259 47 172 1022
Lane W (£t) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
- - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left * EB Left
Thru Thru.
Right * Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right'
WB Right SB Right
Green 6.0A Green 6.OA 36.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 206 1770 0.203 0.117 15.6 C 19.6 C
R 185 1583 0.633 0.117 21.1 C
EB TR 3428 5558 0.441 0.617 4.0 A 4.0 A '
WB L 330 1770 0.548 0.783 4.3 A .1.6 A
T 4377 5588 0.270 0.783 1.2 A
Intersection Delay - 3.7 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.527
-t--j v�U, u4V
HCK: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (N -S) East Driveway (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KHA File Name: EAMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0
Volumes 130 1259 1022
Lane W. (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00
------------------------------------ — ---------------------------------
Signal operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left EB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds `
SB ;Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right SB. Right
.Green Green 11.0A 41.OA
Yellow /AR Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
M'Mts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
-
NB R - 317 1583 0.433 0.200 14.2 B 14.2 8
EB T 3912 5588 0.373 0.700 2.4 A 2.4 A
WB T 5309 5588 0.223 0.950 0.1 A 0.1 A'
Intersection Delay - 2.0 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L -- 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.386
1
c 2,-Z
June 24, 1999
June 30, 1999
July 2, 1999
August 2, 1999
ORDINANCE 34 , 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE 30, 1990 WHICH APPROVED A
CONDITIONAL USE, TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE
MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY AT THE SITE KNOWN AS
"CHRIST FELLOWSHIP" WHICH IS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTHLAKE
BOULEVARD WEST OF MILITARY TRAIL, AND TO
AMEND THE APPROVED USE OF THE RESIDENCE
BUILDING TO A YOUTH CENTER; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received an application from Christ Fellowship Inc. to amend
Ordinance 30, 1990 to allow an expansion of the conditional use and a change in use for the residence
to a youth center for a property more, particularly described in Exhibit "A" (attached), and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's conditional use was approved by Ordinance 30, 1990, and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's site plan was approved by Resolution 13, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's temporary modular units were approved by Resolution 4,
1997, and
WHEREAS, the City's 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 City's Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of this
request, with conditions,
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, approves an
amendment to Ordinance 30, 1990 to amend the conditional use to allow a temporary increase in the
maximum occupancy to 768 seats. This amendment shall be valid only until the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on Christ Fellowship's new campus on the north side of
Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended) or until January 1, 2000;
whichever occurs first.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, approves an
amendment to Ordinance 30, 1990 to amend the conditional use to allow a permanent increasein the
maximum occupancy to 576 seats. This expansion shall become effective immediately after the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary for Christ Fellowship's new campus on the
north side of Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended) or on January
2, 2000, whichever occurs first. "
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida approves an
amendment to Ordinance 30, 1990 to amend the approved use of the residence to a youth center.This
amendment shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 4. Said approval shall be subject to the following conditions, which shall be the
responsibility of the applicant, its successors and /or assigns:
1. Immediately upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new sanctuary for Christ
Fellowship on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as
amended) or by January 2, 2000, whichever occurs first, the minimum parking requirement on this
site shall be calculated at a rate of 1 space per 3 seats in the sanctuary. At that time, one hundred
and ninety -two of the seats in the sanctuary shall be permanently removed, leaving a, permanent
occupancy of 576 seats, and an affidavit shall be submitted to the City by the petitioner affirming that
the seating has been reduced to 576. (Development Compliance Officer)
2. Simultaneous broadcasts of presentations, programs or sermons conducted at any remote location
to this site shall be prohibited. (Code Enforcement)
3. When determined to be necessary by the City of Palm Beach Gardens Police Department, the
petitioner or successor shall utilize police or equally trained officials in numbers determined by the
Police Department at all ingress and egress points along Northlake Boulevard for the management
of traffic flow and direction before and after events.(Code Enforcement, Police Department)
SECTION 5. Said approval shall be consistent with plans and documents on file with the
City's Growth Management Department as follows:
i . June 7, 1999 Existing South Campus Site Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet SP 1.0
2. August 5, 1999 Future Phase 2 Site Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet SP 1.0
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1999
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 1999
INTRODUCED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1999
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO _
COUNCILMAN JABLIN _
COUNCILMAN CLARK
g/ hori: spMlor.doc;
/jn& jl
6 -09 -1997 0:ASAM ;FROM 1ST UNITED BANK S61 691 132 .,
± 6-09 -1997 1 : 17PM �. Si ! ST UNITEt7 SAW LW 1 407 433
N
Maim
IMI • - ORS 6679 P9 8 02
- • • PARCEL 1 i
A parcel of land lying and being In the Northeazt Qvarttt! of
5eatton�23� ?own0ty 42 SoVth. ttat�Qe II Eats, PW�Sfi 8teeh County.
Plorida, aoro partiCularly described as* foltawc:
trove the W:ort.htsst .*cation corner of easd Stetson 21. 1Townih$P 42
South. Mange Ix Easts thwatt: 5ovth 00 "gVets. 03 Hinutec, e,6
Seconds 'Wiest along the snot tint of said Scction-230 a distance .
of 107.0 rtet to a point lying On the SOU ACM Right-of-way lint
of Lake Park !test 'toad as now Isid out and in utt; thence Nett
along said Coother" Right -of -Kay tine a distance of 1606.00 feet
to- tht 'point of begirt" "q arcs the liarthcast t:orbor of tho
hcretnattar 4 *4cr1bed parcels .vNerKt coetinut wgVt along said
I Southeriv R1oc4f -vay lint a distance of n6.40 tort to a.pointl
thence South a'dittance of SS4.09 Lest to a points thence Last a
dirtanea of 15$.46 test to a Poit:t of Curve Concave to the
tWortbvtst: tlrthCa Northerly and Ctf%fr31 along tho are of *Aid
curve, having a radius of Soo feet ar4 a central any$e of 35
Oegrers. 0 Hinntwa 14. Eecands• a distance of 351.:3 fete to a
POtnt r twenet storth w distance of 154.6S suet to tht P010t Ot
btQsn4la9.
Lacs the Sovth $O feet thereof for canal Rigs►z -•of-Kay as conveyod
by Right -ot -Kay Decd recorded io Official ltecard aooic 1Et1, Page
211, and t.esa she north 30 feet thereof ss eonvtytd by 'tight -of-
ww y OV94 r :carded in Official 1<vavr4 Book •171, rago.II53.
PAACt i. 1i
Lot in "Nor 114Cl.0M' part of unrecorded plat of 110FSf.SX0E ACRES
•err particularly daaeri>sa1 as foliawat
comseneinq at the NOrthvest eorhtr of thq t•at ha]t of Section 23
In Township 42 South, A"Ve 42 Usto Vale► Stacb County, ricridas
• thenCt 5ovth a10n4 the :seat lihe of Said Ssst half Of Section 23
Of th asauhtd bearirq South 0 degrees, 01 sttndtes, 53 Sleondi
'test a distance of 107.45 feet to w point in the South Riq ?.t -of-
way Iine of Lakt 9azk Vest Road1 thence at bearing dap Last alohq
said. Right- ofpNay ItAt a 41it*A46 Of $67.96 ftlt to th* lror%Avect
corner of Ov parcel eoaeribed h cvla and the aoittt of Segianinq}
tht-not continua at bearthy due Last a diatattcfe 15o feet to :
points thenCt At be6riaq due South a distance SOO teat to & point
sn the North Right -of -star line at Cana$ No. Is thence at bearing
dve hest along the said Right -of -way line a distance, 350 feet to
a Point: thence Kt bEarinq dve North a distance soo ftet to the
Polat of ae9innins.
Less the north 20 fast thRrtv( as eonYeycd to Right -of -way W)ecd
recorded in Olfieial Record Boak 4171, Pagt 1 2S3.
r�ltISIr A*
P. 4
P. 4
• �CORd�rfatl�f0
.+.v.w•.�.tee�e.. R...UJB£AGaCOeMt�tr•FUl
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: 8/19/99
Date ]Prepared: 7/21/99
Ordinance #38 - Curfew Enforcement for Minors
Subject /Agenda Item:
Approval of Ordinance #38 regulating juvenile curfew
Recommendation/Motion:
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.: Police
Costs: S 0
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney
( ] Approved
Finance
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
Current FY
ACM
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Human Res.
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other
Date:
( J Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other
Ordinance #38
Chief s report on curfews
Curfew ordinance from
Dallas
Curfew ordinance from
Charlottesville, Virginia
[ X ] Not Required
Juvenile activity in PBG,1998
y.
J
d l
Director
Affected parties
[ X ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUNg:
July 21, 1999
. a e
ORDINANCE 38, 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF
THE PRESENCE OF MINORS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC
PLACES AND ESTABLISHMENTS DURING CERTAIN
HOURS; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING,
PROCEDURES FOR TAKING MINORS INTO
CUSTODY; PROVIDING FOR A LEGAL DUTY OF
PARENTS; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING
FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE BY MINORS AND /OR PARENTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL-•ITY; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, there has been a steady increase in the number of juveniles
congregating in public places and creating disturbances in the City of Palm Beach
Gardens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is enacted in
recognition of the peculiar vulnerability of juveniles as well as their frequent inability
to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that increasing juvenile delinquency and
juvenile criminal activity presents a clear and present danger to the citizenry, and to
the public order and safety; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of government to prevent crime,
delinquency, and juvenile victimization whenever and wherever it is foreseeable; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to promote the health, safety and general
welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection of juveniles from harm
constitutes a compelling governmental interest;
ORDINANCE 38, 1999
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to adopt this ordinance pursuant to
the provisions of sections 877.20- 877.25 Florida Statute (1997).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS:
Section 1. CHAPTER 62 OF THE CITY CODE OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
FLORIDA IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 62. Article VII
Section 62 — xx.
Definitions
For purposes of this article, the words and phrases that follow shall
have the meaning ascribed to them as follows:
(1) "Emergency" means an unforeseen combination of circumstances
which results in a situation that requires immediate attention to
care for or prevent serious bodily injury, loss of life, or significant
property loss. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, a
natural disaster, or an automobile accident.
(2) "Establishment" means a privately owned place of business to
which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, a place of
amusement or a place of entertainment.
(3) "Minor" means any person under 16 years of age.
(4) "Parent" means a person who has legal custody of a minor as a:
(a) Natural or adoptive parent.
(b) Legal guardian.
(c) Person who stands in loco parentis to the minor.
(d) Person who has legal custody of the minor by order of
the court.
(5) "Public place" means a place to which the public has access,
including, but not limited to, streets, highways, public parks, and
the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office
buildings, transportation facilities, and shops.
(6) "Remain" means to stay unnecessarily in a particular place.
Section 62 — xx. Curfew for minors.
A minor may not be or remain in a public place or
establishment between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. of
the following day, Sunday through Thursday, except in the case of
a legal holiday.
ORDINANCE 38, 1999
PAGE 3
(2) A minor may not be or remain in a public place or
establishment between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
(3) A minor who has been suspended or expelled from school may
not be or remain in a. public place, in an establishment, or
within 1,000 feet of a school during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. during any school day.
Section 62 — xx. Enforcement.
(1) A minor who violates this section shall receive a written
warning for her or his first violation. A minor who violates
this section after having received a prior written warning is
guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of $50 for each
violation.
(2) If a minor violates a curfew and is taken into custody, the
minor shall be transported immediately to a police station or to
a facility operated by a religious, charitable, or civic
organization that conducts a curfew program in cooperation
with the city's police department. After recording pertinent
information about the minor, the city's police department shall
attempt to contact the parent of the minor and, if successful,
shall request that the parent take custody of the minor and shall
release the minor to the parent. If the city's police department
is not able to contact the minor's parent within 2 hours after the
minor is taken into custody, or if the parent refuses to take
custody of the minor, the city's police department may
transport the minor to her or his residence or proceed as
authorized under part III of chapter 39 "of F.S.S.
Section 62 — xx. Legal duty of parent; penalty:
(1) The parent of a minor has a legal duty and responsibility to
ensure that the minor does not violate this ordinance.
(2) The parent of a minor has a legal duty and responsibility to
personally supervise, or arrange for a responsible adult to
supervise, the minor so that the minor does not violate this
ordinance.
(3) The parent of a minor who knowingly permits the minor to
violate this ordinance shall receive a written warning for a first
violation. A parent who knowingly permits the minor to
violate this ordinance after having received a prior written
warning is guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of
$50 for each violation.
ORDINANCE 38, 1999
PAGE 4
Section 62 — xx. Exceptions
This article shall not apply to a minor who is:
(1) Accompanied by his or her parent or by another adult
authorized by the minor's parent to have custody of the minor.
(2) Involved in an emergency or engaged, with his or her parent's
permission, in an emergency errand.
(3) Attending or traveling directly to or from an activity that
involves the exercise of rights protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(4) Going directly to or returning directly from lawful
employment, or who is in a public place or establishment in
connection with or as required by a business, trade, profession,
or occupation in which the minor is lawfully engaged.
(5) Returning directly home from a school - sponsored function, a
religious function, or a function sponsored by a civic
organization.
(6) On the property of, or on the sidewalk of, the place where the
minor resides, or who is on the property or sidewalk of an adult
next -door neighbor with that neighbor's permission.
(7) Engaged in interstate travel or bona fide intrastate travel with
the consent of the minor's parent.
(8) Attending an organized event held at and sponsored by a theme
park or entertainment complex as defined in s.509.013(9).
Section 2. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of sections 877.20 —
877.25 and by authority granted by section 877.25 Florida Statute (1997).
Section 3. Should any section, word, sentence, paragraph of this ordinance be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable,
such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, but
only that part declared to be invalid.
Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Clerk to codify the contents
of this ordinance as part of the City Code of Ordinances.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
ORDINANCE 38, 1999
PAGE 5
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
1999.
1999.
1999.
JOSEPH R. RUSSO, MAYOR
LAUREN FURTADO, VICE MAYOR
ERIC JABLIN, COUNCILMAN
DAVID CLARK, COUNCILMAN
CARL SABATELLO, COUNCILMAN
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK FORM AND SUFFICIENCY
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
PALM BEACH GARDENS POLICE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Chief of Police
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Chief James O. FitzGerald (4E)
DATE: July 22, 1999
SUBJECT: Juvenile Curfew
Traditionally, the determination of a minor's curfew as been considered to be a family_
issue, within the parental purview, rather than a matter to be determined by government.
Nevertheless, public curfews have been enacted and enforced throughout the nation's
history in reaction to increased juvenile delinquency, decreased parental supervision, and
other social trends.
Recent increases in juvenile crime and victimization have prompted local communities in
many states to once again consider evening curfews (e.g., from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on
school days) as a viable means to enhance the safety of the community and its children.
Although most curfew ordinances apply to juveniles under 16 year of age, some include
ages 16 and 17. This report explores developments in curfew ordinances and legal issues
related to curfews.
In a recent study of curfew ordinances in the 200 largest U.S. cities, there has been a
dramatic surge in curfew legislation during the first half of the 1990's. Of the 200 cities
surveyed, 93 (47 %) had curfews in effect on January 1, 1990. Between January 1990 and
the spring of 1995, an additional 53 of these 200 cities (27 %) enacted juvenile curfew
ordinances, bringing the total of those with curfew laws to 146 (73 %). During the same
period, 37 of the 93 cities with an existing curfew ordinance revised that legislation.
Leqal Challenqes
The question of curfews has raised a variety of legal issues and divided numerous
communities. Differences in opinion have led individuals and civil rights organizations in
many communities to challenge the legality of juvenile curfew ordinances. The American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the most vocal opponent, has challenged the constitutionality
of juvenile curfew ordinances in jurisdictions across the country, either directly or by
providing assistance to individuals who wish to test such laws in court.
The City of Palm Beach Gardens had a curfew ordinance on the books until we revised our
codes in 1996, at which time it was deleted. Municipal Code Corporation, who was hired
to do the revision, stated that "the curfew section was deleted because a similar curfew
had been declared unconstitutional in Florida. However, a curfew has been upheld by the
Supreme Court in a recent Dallas ordinance and Florida state law provides for guidelines
for establishing curfews for minors which may be adopted by the city." This Florida State
Statute is 877.22
Legal challenges to the constitutionality of curfew ordinances are most often based on the
1st, 4th, Stn, 91 , and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment
guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly. The Fourth
Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures and has been
interpreted to include protection against unreasonable stopping and detainment of
individuals. The Fifth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to due process under the
law. The Ninth Amendment has been interpreted to include a right to privacy, including
the right to family autonomy. The Fourteenth Amendment protects persons against the
deprivation of their liberty without due process of law and includes the right to travel, which
is embodied in the privileges and immunities clause.
In 1975, the first federal case concerning the constitutionality of juvenile curfews was
heard by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In Bykofsky v.
Borough of Middletown, the-court upheld a juvenile curfew that was challenged on the
grounds that it violated juveniles' 1st and 14th Amendment rights and encroached upon
parents' rights to raise their children, which is embodied in the 9t' Amendment and in the
due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. In its opinion, the court
found that the regulations on juveniles' 14th Amendment due process rights were
"constitutionally permissible ". The court further declared that the curfew ordinance did not
suppress or impermissibly regulate juveniles' right to freedom of speech or parents' rights
to raise their children as they saw fit. The court stated, "The parents' constitutionally
protected interest, which the ordinance infringes only minimally, is outweighed by the
Borough's interest in protecting immature minors...."
Fourteen years later, 1989, Simbi Waters challenged a juvenile curfew ordinance in the
District of Columbia on the grounds that it violated her First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment
rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in Waters v. Barry, found the
juvenile curfew law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First and Fifth
Amendment rights of juveniles in the District: "The right to walk the streets, or to meet
publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all — and to do so
whenever one pleases, is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society".
However, the court did not find that the curfew violated the Fourth Amendment right of
District juveniles: "So long as the officer could reasonably have believed that the
individuals looked young, the search, seizure or arrest would take place on the basis of
probably cause and no Fourth Amendment violation would occur." Although the District
Court invalidated this particular curfew, in July 1995 the District of Columbia enacted
another juvenile curfew ordinance modeled after one enacted in Dallas, Texas, that had
survived constitutional scrutiny by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1993.
The seminal issue of the State's authority to restrict the constitutional rights of minors is
consistently raised in juvenile curfew cases. In the Bykofsky case cited previously, the
court held that "The conduct of minors may be constitutionally regulated to a greater extent
than those of adults." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in upholding the
Dallas curfew, applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court 'of the United States in
Hodgson v. Minnesota, which held that a parental notification requirement of the State's
abortion statute passed constitutional muster because states have... "a strong and
legitimate interest in the welfare of (their), young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience,
and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely."
4
The Strict Scrutiny Test
In order to pass constitutional muster, laws that impinge on fundamental constitutional
rights must pass a two- pronged strict scrutiny test that requires jurisdictions to (1)
demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest and (2) narrowly tailor the means to
achieve the law's objective. The Dallas curfew provides an excellent example of an
ordinance that has been held by a federal court to satisfy both prongs of the strict scrutiny
test.
The Dallas City Council adopted its curfew ordinance in 1991, after hearings that included
testimony on increased incidences of late -night juvenile violence. Challenged by the
ACLU the Dallas' curfew ordinance was upheld in 1993 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit in Qutb v. Strauss. The Fifth Circuit held that the Dallas curfew satisfied
the strict scrutiny test because the city had demonstrated a compelling state interest in
reducing juvenile crime and victimization and because the ordinance was properly aimed,
that is, narrowly tailored to "... allow the city to meet its stated goals while respecting the
rights of the affected minors." A subsequent appeal was refused by the Supreme Court
of the United States without comment in May 1994. However, this ruling neither
guarantees protection from future constitutional legal challenges to curfews in other
circuits under the provision of the U.S. constitution or state constitutions, nor forecloses
challenges based on unconstitutional grounds.
If Palm Beach Gardens chooses to re -enact a curfew ordinance, then it is necessary to
examine how Dallas laid the groundwork to pass the strict scrutiny test. Dallas provided
statistical information which included:
• Juvenile delinquency increases proportionally with age between the ages of 10
and 16 years
• In 1989, Dallas recorded 5,160 juvenile arrests, and in 1990, 5,425 juvenile
arrests
The most likely time for the occurrence of murders by juveniles was between
10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. in a public place.
• Aggravated assaults by juveniles were most likely to occur between 11:00 p.m.
and 1:00 a.m.
• Rapes were most likely to occur between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., with 16%
occurring in a public place
• Thirty -one percent of robberies occurred on public streets
The court relied on these data in holding that the City of Dallas provided sufficient
evidence to establish that the ordinance was in keeping with the state's compelling interest
in reducing juvenile crime and victimization.
Second, the Dallas legislation was narrowly tailored to address the specific needs
enumerated by the jurisdiction by the least restrictive means possible. The Dallas curfew
was applied to youth under the age of 17 and was in effect from'11:00 p.m. through 6:00
a.m., Sunday through Thursday and midnight to 6:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The
statue exempted juveniles who were:
3
• Accompanied by an adult
• Engaged in activities related to interstate commerce or protected by the 1s'
Amendment
• Traveling to or from work
• Responding to an emergency
• Married
• Attending a supervised school, religious, or recreational activity
In 1998 another curfew was upheld by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That
curfew was enacted by the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. In Schliefer v. City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, No. 97 -1723 (Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Oct. 20, 1998),
the court found the curfew materially assisted important and compelling legislative goals:
"The Charlottesville curfew serves not only to head off crimes before they occur, but
also to protect a particularly vulnerable population from being lured into
participating in such activity. Contrary to the dissent's protestation, we do not hold
that every such curfew ordinance would pass constitutional muster. The means
adopted by a municipality must bear a substantial relationship to significant
governmental interests; the restrictiveness of those means remains the subject of
judicial review. As the District Court noted, however, the curfew law in
Charlottesville is "among the most modest and lenient of the myriad curfew laws
implemented nationwide." Charlottesville's curfew, compared to those in other
cities, is indeed a mild regulation: it covers a limited age group during only a few
hours of the night. Its various exceptions enable minors to participate in necessary
or worthwhile activities during this time. We hold that Charlottesville's juvenile
curfew ordinance comfortably satisfies constitutional standards."
Other challenges to juvenile curfews have been based on the concepts of vagueness and
overbreadth. A statute is void for vagueness if it is too general and its standards result in
erratic and arbitrary application based on individual impressions and personal
predilections. A statute that broadly restricts fundamental liberties when less restrictive
means are available may be void on the grounds of overbreadth. Therefore, when
constructing juvenile curfew ordinances, in addition to considering constitutional issues
that involve fundamental rights, jurisdictions should ensure the legislation is both precise
in its language and limited to necessary restrictions.
In addition to constitutional and structural challenges to juvenile curfews, we need to also
bear in mind the core requirement of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(JJDP) Act of 1974 which addresses the deinstitutionalization of status offender and non -
offender juveniles (DSO).
In general, this JJDP Act core requirement prohibits a status offender (i.e., a juvenile who
has committed an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, such as
truancy or curfew violations) or non - offender (i.e., a dependent or neglected child) from
being held in secure detention or confinement.
4
Status and non - offender juveniles cannot be detained or confined in an adult jail or lockup
for any length of time. To comply with the DSO core requirement of the JJDP Act Formula
Grants Program, and to reduce the burden on police, Dallas and many other cities have
established comprehensive, community -based curfew programs that provide local sites,
such as community and recreation centers, where police officers can bring curfew violators
for temporary detention pending release to their parents or other appropriate disposition.
These sites provide an atmosphere conducive to investigation, processing, pre - release
counseling, and planning for appropriate follow up services.
Curfew ordinances may have an effective impact on late evening crime. However, curfews
are also intended to protect youth from becoming victims of crime and encouraging
parental control and responsibility for their minor children and protect juveniles from
victimization and exposure to criminal activity.
If Palm Beach Gardens re- enacts a curfew ordinance, it must be in the context of a
comprehensive, community -based program, designed to protect both the community and
the juvenile from victimization and to serve as a constructive intervention against
developing patterns of delinquency.
The Police Department was not tracking some of the statistical data relative to curfew
criteria and this is why it took some time to assemble it. That data is also included in this
report for your review. I requested a report from Chief Kelly of the Palm Beach County
School District Police concerning the number of suspended students in the Palm Beach
Gardens area. I received a rather lengthy computer printout listing those students by zip
code data. Those are reflected in the attached report and include 33410 and 33418.
We do not have any data on how many suspended students have been arrested in our city
while on suspension. Of course, there may be other suspended students who live outside
the Palm Beach Gardens zip code area who visit us while suspended and commit crimes.
We will continue to encourage the School Board to implement some type of in- school
suspensions (i.e., suspended from normal classes but housed at some school facility).
Naturally, our city does not have the serious juvenile crime statistics as those of Dallas,
Texas, but I don't believe we want to wait for that level of juvenile crime and /or
victimization before we attempt preventative measures.
I believe that in Palm Beach Gardens we have two major goals in the implementation of
a curfew and those are:
1) The prevention of juveniles from becoming victims of crime or becoming involved
in criminal activity, and
2) The quality of life issue for our residents
Our data shows us that during the proposed curfew hours our juvenile trouble calls almost
double. That indicates to me that there are twice as many juveniles creating disturbances
in our neighborhoods, which has a detrimental effect on our citizens' quality of life.
It also seems to show that these young people are more likely to become either victims or
perpetrators of criminal activity. I have worked with curfews over my many years in law
enforcement and believe them to be an effective tool to prevent crime and to encourage
more parental involvement in the supervision of children. An excellent example of this
philosophy is the effectiveness of our Truancy Interdiction Program, which directly involves
the parents and the schools.
I am attaching a proposed draft of a curfew that mirrors the Florida State Statute (F.S.
877.22) and covers suspended students as well as other juvenile curfew concerns. lam
recommending the implementation of same.
JOF /amm
Attachments
cc: Richard Diamond, Asst. City Mgr.
Dennis O'Rourke, Asst. Police Chief
n
July 21, 1999
Q0
O
ORDINANCE , 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF
THE PRESENCE OF MINORS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC
PLACES AND ESTABLISMENTS DURING CERTAIN
HOURS; PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR TAKING
MINORS INTO CUSTODY; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS
AND DEFENSES UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROVIDING FOR
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE
BY MINORS AND /OR PARENTS.
WHEREAS, there has been a steady increase in the number of juveniles
congregating in public places and creating disturbances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is enacted in
recognition of the peculiar vulnerability of juveniles as well as their frequent inability
to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that increasing juvenile delinquency and
juvenile criminal activity presents a clear and present danger to the citizenry, and to
the public order and safety; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of government to prevent crime,
delinquency, and juvenile victimization whenever and wherever it is foreseeable; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to promote the health, safety and general
welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection of juveniles from harm
constitutes a compelling governmental interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS:
ORDINANCE , 1999
PAGE 2
THE CITY CODE OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA IS
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
Section. Curfew hours for minors:
a. Definitions
As used in this ordinance the words and phrases that follow shall have
the meaning ascribed to them as follows:
(1) "Emergency" means an unforeseen combination of circumstances
which results in a situation that requires immediate attention to
care for or prevent serious bodily injury, loss of life, or significant
property loss. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, a
natural disaster, or an automobile accident.
(2) "Establishment" means a privately owned place of business to
which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, a place of
amusement or a place of entertainment.
(3) "Minor" means any person under 16 years of age.
(4) "Parent" means a person who has legal custody of a minor as a:
(a) Natural or adoptive parent.
(b) Legal guardian.
(c) Person who stands in loco parentis to the minor.
(d) Person who has legal custody of the minor by order of
the court.
(5) "Public place" means a place to which the public has access,
including, but not limited to, streets, highways, public parks,
and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses,
office buildings, transportation facilities, and shops.
(6) "Remain" means to stay unnecessarily in a particular place.
b. Violations
Minors prohibited in public places and establishments during certain
hours; penalty; procedure:
(1) (a) A minor may not be or remain in a public place or
establishment between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00
a.m. of the following day, Sunday through Thursday,
except in the case of a legal holiday.
(b) A minor may not be or remain in a public place or
establishment between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00
a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
(2) A minor who has been suspended or expelled from school may
not be or remain in a public place, in an establishment, or
ORDINANCE, 1999
PAGE 3
within 1,000 feet of a school during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. during any school day.
(3) A minor who violates this section shall receive a written
warning for her or his first violation. A minor who violates
this section after having received a prior written warning is
guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of $50 for each
violation.
(4) If a minor violates a curfew and is taken into custody, the
minor shall be transported immediately to a police station or to
a facility operated by a religious, charitable, or civic
organization that conducts a curfew program in cooperation
with a local law enforcement agency. After recording pertinent
information about the minor, the law enforcement agency shall
attempt to contact the parent of the minor and, if successful,
shall request that the parent take custody of the minor and shall
release the minor to the parent. If the law enforcement agency
is not able to contact the minor's parent within 2 hours after the
minor is taken into custody, or if the parent refuses to take
custody of the minor, the law enforcement agency may
transport the minor to her or his residence or proceed as
authorized under part III of chapter 39 of F.S.S.
Legal duty of parent; penalty:
(1) The parent of a minor has a legal duty and responsibility to
ensure that the minor does not violate this ordinance.
(2) The parent of a minor has a legal duty and responsibility to
personally supervise, or arrange for a responsible adult to
supervise, the minor so that the minor does not violate this
ordinance.
(3) The parent of a minor who knowingly permits the minor to
violate this ordinance shall receive a written warning for a first
violation. A parent who knowingly permits the minor to
violate this ordinance after having received a prior written
warning is guilty of a civil infraction and shall pay a fine of
$50 for each violation.
Defenses/Exceptions
This ordinance does not apply to a minor who is:
(1) Accompanied by his or her parent or by another adult
authorized by the minor's parent to have custody of the minor.
ORDINANCE , 1999
PAGE 4
(2) Involved in an emergency or engaged, with his or her parent's
permission, in an emergency errand.
(3) Attending or traveling directly to or from an activity that
involves the exercise of rights protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
(4) Going directly to or returning directly from lawful
employment, or who is in a public place or establishment in
connection with or as required by a business, trade, profession,
or occupation in which the minor is lawfully engaged.
(5) Returning directly home from a school - sponsored function, a
religious function, or a function sponsored by a civic
organization.
(6) On the property of, or on the sidewalk of, the place where the
minor resides, or who is on the property or sidewalk of an adult
next -door neighbor with that neighbor's permission.
(7) Engaged in interstate travel or bona fide intrastate travel with
the consent of the minor's parent.
(8) Attending an organized event held at and sponsored by a theme
park or entertainment complex as defineddn s.509.013(9).
ORDINANCE 1999.
PAGE 5
INTRODUCED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF JULY 1999.
JOSEPH R RUSSO, MAYOR
LAUREN FURTADO, VICE MAYOR
ERIC JABLIN, COUNCILMAN
DAVID CLARK, COUNCILMAN
CARL SABATELLO, COUNCILMAN
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK FORM AND SUFFICIENCY
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SARATELLO
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
I'IUIV1l.lYHL 18El.VUC wi �c 77 IJ.J -r nv.wv v�
EDITORIAL POST CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
TO: Thomas J. Baird, City Attorney
FROM: Alyce A. Whitson, Municipal Code Corporation
SUBJECT: Editorial Post Conference Memorandum of Substantive Changes of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
DATE: August 21, 1996
The following memorandum specifies the major substantive changes, in the City .of Palm Beach
Gardens Code discussed at the editorial conference and those changes made pursuant to subsequent
correspondence or as mandated by state law. Not included as substantive changes were the deletion
of sections revised by later enactments, the general repealer clause, penalty clause and severability
clause of each ordinance. As agreed upon at the conference the general penalty in chapter. I of the
proposed Code will apply. over any specific penalty passed in any ordinance and will apply to the
entire proposed Code unless otherwise specified. Ordinances adopted through number 27 -1995,
adopted on September Z8, 1995, and the 1985 Code have been used as the basis for this codification.
Where it was deemed necessary, ordinances, code provisions and portions thereof were rearranged
and are split out in the new Code. Spelling, 1gammatical and diction errors have been corrected
without notation. The franchises of the c.ty will not be printed in the new Code. The Charter will
be printed as part I of this volume. The land development regulations will be included, as part H,
subpart B, as it appears in the most recent supplement of the 1985 Code. The Code will be prepared
and arranged by subject, alphabetically by chapter, substantially the same as that presented at the
conference in'the tentative table of contents. The term "city tax collector" will be changed to just
"City." All fees will be placed on file in the city clerk's office and will be deleted from the Code. AU
other changes will be as indicated in the following sections of this memorandum.
�J/ 1G 77 1.>:.D4 NV. -:100 US
SECTION
NUMBER
COMMENT
REFERENCE
134.11
This section on curfews will be deleted as it is of
F.S. § 877.22 et
questionable validity as a similar curfew law has been
seq.
declared unconstitutional in Florida. However, a
curfew has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a
recent Dallas ordinance and the state law provides for
guidelines for establishing curfews for minors which
may be adopted by the city.
134.12
This section on falsely impersonating a police office
F.S. § 843.08
will be deleted as adequately covered by the state law:
134.13
This section on resisting an officer will be deleted as
F.S. §§ 843.01,
adequately covered by the state law.
8.43.02
134.14
This section on escape. from custody or confinement
F.S. §§ 843. 1.1 et
will be deleted as adequately covered by the state law,
seq.
134.15
This section on assisting in escape will be deleted as
F.S. §§ 843.12 et
adequately covered by the state law:
seq.
Chapter 135.
Weapons Control
135.01
This section on possession of weapons will be deleted
F.S. Ch. 790
as the state. has preempted the regulation of sale,
possession and transportation of firearms and this
section should have been deleted.
l3 5.02
This section on concealed weapons has been
F.S. § 790.052
preempted . by the state and this section will be deleted.
135.03
This section on sale of weapons has been preempted
F.S. Ch. 790
by the state and will be deleted.
135.04
This section on forfeiture of weapons will be deleted
F.S. Ch. 790
as the state has preempted for a number of years the
regulation of weapons.
17
18
Palm Beach Gar+-ie?±s - Genenl Olfanmw
$ 134.10 AIRCRAFT PERFORMING STUNTS ABOVE,
AND LANDING WITHIN CITY PROHIBITED.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to perform
stunts or acrobatics in an airplane or other aircraft
above the city.
(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to land
any airplane or other aircraft either lighter than air or
heavier than air within the corporate limits of the city,
except for an emergency, unless the City Council has
given prior approval-
(70 Code, § 17 -1) .(Ord. 15 -1969, passed 8- 25-69; Am.
Ord. 12 -1973, passed 6- 1 -4 -73) Penalty, see § 134.99
v41 ` g 134.11 CURFEW FOR MINORS.
(A) It Is a curfew violation for a child 13, 14, 15,
16, or 17 years of age to be in a public place:
(1) Between 12:00 pm. and 5:00 a.m. on
Saturday or Sunday;
(2) After 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday; or
(3) Before 5:00 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.
(B) It is a curfew violation for a child under 13
years of age to be in a public place after 10:00 pm. or
before S:00 a.m. on any day.
(C) This section does not apply to a child who is:
(1) Accompanied by his parent, guardian, or
custodian;
(2) Accompanied by an adult specified by
his parent, guardian, or custodian; or
(3) Participating in or returning from lawful
employment or a lawful athletic, educational,
entertainment, religious, or social event.
(70 Code, §§ 17 -12, 17 -13) (Ord. 15 -1969, passed
8- 25-69) Penalty, see § 134.99
¢ 134.18 FALSELY PERSONATING POLICE OFFICER
OR OTHER CITY OFFICIAL.
It shall be unlawful for any person to hold himself
out as, or falsely to assume or impersonate himself to
be, a police officer or firefighter of the city or any other
city official or employee, or to assert falsely he has the
authority or right to exercise the powers of any such
officers or officials.
('70 Code, § 17 -25) (Ord. 15 -1969, passed 8- 25-69)
Penalty, see § 134.99
Statutory rR "ce:
Falsely personating an officer, see F.S. § 843.08
j 134.13 RESISTING OFFICER
It shall be unlawful to resist any police officer, any
member of the Police Department, or any person duly
empowered with police authority while in the discharge
or apparent discharge of his duty, or in any way to
interfere with or hinder him in the discharge of his duty.
('70 Code, § 22 -20) Penalty, see § 134.99
Statutory t ree:
Resisting officer, see F.S. §§ 843.01, 843.02
§ 134.14 ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY OR
CONFINEMENT.
It shall be unlawful for a prisoner in the city jail or
any other place where prisoners are confined, or
otherwise in custody of and confined by the city, to
escape, attempt to escape, assist others to escape, or
attempt to escape from custody or confinement.
('70 Code, § 22 -22) Penalty, see § 134.99
4 134.18 ASSISTING IN ESCAPE.
(A) It shall be unlawful to offer or endeavor to
assist any person in the custody of a police officer, a
member of the Police Department, or a person
empowered with police authority, to escape or to
attempt to escape from custody. ('70 Code, § 22 -21)
(B) It shall be unlawful to make available to,
present to, or place within the reach of any person
confined under authority of the city, any intoxicating or
malt liquors, or any tool, f nplement, or other thing
calculated to aid in the escape of the person so
confined or any other person confined under authority
of the city; or to in any manner assist, aid, or attempt to
assist or aid any person in the custody of or confined
under the authority of the city to escape from jai, place
of confinement, or custody. ('70 Code, § 22 -23)
Penalty, see § 134.99
Sxataloq►�: ..
Aiding in escape, see F.S. §§ 84311, 843.12
I
c
CITY OF DALLAS F£ ; I
February 11, 1999
Chief James Fitzgerald
Palm Beach Gardens Police Department
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Chief Fitzgerald,
I have enclosed a copy of our Curfew Ordinance. The ordinance went into effect May 1994 and has
not been changed since. This ordinance was challenged by the A.C.L.U. The U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld our right to have the ordinance. I have also included this decision in the
packet.
The ordinance allows us to write citations to juveniles as well as parent/guardians or issue a Field
Interrogation Report (FIR) to the juvenile instead of a citation. This decision is left up to the officers -
discretion. There is no court or monetary fine associated with the FIR but it does go on the juveniles
record. Our officers find that the curfew ordinance is an effective tool to help curb not only crime
committed by juvenile, but also our number of crimes committed against juveniles has decreased.
I have enclosed those statistics for you.
Another item which I have enclosed in the packet is a "Roll Call Training Bulletin" which is issued
by our academy. You might note in this bulletin that officers do not have to take the juvenile home,
but may send them home instead. We leave quite a bit of discretion to our field officers.
Hopefully the information provided in this package answers your question.. If you need any
additional information, feel free to contact Sergeant J.A. Katz of the Youth and Family Crimes
Division at (214) 670 -5382.
Sincerely,
BENNIE R. CLICK
CHIEF OF POLICE
.S. Muncy
Deputy Chief of Police
Youth and Family Crimes Division
Dallas Police Department
POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE AND COURTS BUILDING DALLAS. TEXAS 75201 -5203
�CLJO�tl
Memorandum
0 ��i
a,TE November 22, 1993 CITY OF DALLAS
,o The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SU JECT Teen Curfew Ordinance
Outb, et al. v. Bartlett, et al.
Appeal No. 92 -1707
This memorandum is to inform you that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion regarding the
constitutionality of the Dallas Curfew Ordinance. As you may
recall, in August 1992, the district court ruled that the curfew
ordinance adopted by the City of Dallas was unconstitutional. On
Friday, November 19, 1993, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district
court's opinion and ruled in favor of the City of Dallas. The
court concluded that the City demonstrated that the curfew ordinance
furthers a compelling state interest, mainly protecting juveniles
from the crime in the streets, and that the juvenile curfew
ordinance enacted by the City of Dallas was r-onstit.utional.
The Dallas City Council passed the juvenile curfew ordinance on June
12, 1991. The ordinance prohibits persons under seventeen years of
age from remaining in a public place or establishment - from 11:00
p.m. until 6:00 a.m. on week nights, and from 12:00 o'clock midnight
until 6:00 a.m. on weekends. Two weeks after the ordinance was
passed, Elizabeth Qutb and three other parents filed suit -
individually and as next friends of their teenage children - seeking
a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against
enforcement of the juvenile curfew ordinance on the basis that the
ordinance was unconstitutional: The case was tried on July 22 -23,
1991. The ordinance was not enforced pending the district court's
decision on the merits.
On July 12, 1992, the City of Dallas amended the curfew ordinance.
In response to the revised ordinance, the Plaintiffs amended their
complaint and filed an amended motion for permanent injunction
against enforcement of the curfew. The district court held a second
evidentiary hearing, where both parties presented additional
evidence and arguments concerning the validity of. the revised
ordinance. On August 10, 1992, the district court held that the
curfew ordinance impermissibly restricted minors' first amendment
right to associate, that it created impermissible classifications
unfairly distinguished between minors and adults that could not
withstand constitutional scrutiny, and permanently enjoined the
enforcement of the curfew ordinance.
s« 2tsr-04-019 -The Only Reason You And I Are Here Is To Serve The Ciumcns Of DaIIu" SUP-0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
November 22, 1993
Page Two
This is a landmark decision, which has national implications. This
is the first time a court at the federal circuit level has written a
definitive and comprehensive decision addressing the
constitutionality of juvenile curfews. Dallas is at the forefront
nationally on this extremely important issue. The opinion by the
Fifth Circuit will allow Dallas -to 'begin enforcing its curfew
ordinance. Many cities have delayed enacting an ordinance until the
court decided the constitutionality of our juvenile curfew
ordinance. I have attached a copy of the opinion for your
information and convenience.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Respectfully submitted,
SAM A. LIND
City Attorney
Encs. _
c: John L. Ware, City Manager
Cliff Keheley, First Assistant City Manager
Levi Davis, Assistant City Manager
Ted Benavides, Assistant City Manager
A.C. Gonzalez, Assistant City Manager
Mary Suhm, Assistant City Manager
Ben Click, Chief of Police
SAL:mk /4928F/1 -2
§ 3132 0f5anses —MS v_- 0nAnAons § 31-33
SEC. 3133. CURFEW HOURS FOR MINORS.
(a) Definitions. In this section:
(1) CURFEW HOURS means:
(A)r 11:00 pm. on any Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday until 6:00
a.m. of the following day; and
(B) 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 am. on any
Saturday or Sunday.
(2) EMERGENCY means an unforeseen
combination of circumstances or the resulting state
that calls for immediate action. The term includes,
but is not limited to, a fire, a natural disaster, an
automobile accident, or any situation requiring
immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or
loss of life.
(3) ESTABLISHMENT means any pri,6rately-
owned place of business operated for a profit to
which the public is invited, including but not limited
to any place of amusement or entertainment.
(4) GUARDIAN means:
(A) a person who, tinder court order,
is the guardian of the person of a manor; or
(B) a public or private agency with
whom a minor has been placed by a court.
(5) MINOR means any person under 17
years of age.
(6) OPERATOR means any individual, firm,
association, partnership, or corporation operating,
managing, or conducting any establishment. The
term includes the members or partners of an
association or partnership and the officers of a
corporation.
(7) PARENT means a person who is: -
(A) a natural parent, -adoptive parent,
or step - parent of another person; or
(B) at least 18 years of age and
authorized by a parent or guardian to.have the care
and custody of a minor.
(8) PUBLIC PLACE means any place to
which the public or a substantial group of the public
has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets,
highways, and the common areas of schools,
hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities,- and shops.
(9) REMAIN means to:
(A) linger or stay, or
(B) fail to leave premises when
requested to do so by a police officer or the owner,
operator, or other person in control of the premises.
(10) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY means
bodily Injury that creates a substantial risk of death or
that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement,
or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ.
DaUu City Code
6193 13
§ 31-33 Offenses-- Mocalt?gneous § 31-M
(b) Offenses.
(1) A minor commits an offense if he
remains in any public place or on the premises of any
establishment within the city during curfew hours.
(2) A parent or guardian of a minor
commits an offense if he knowingly permits, or by
insufficient control allows, the minor to remain in any
public place or on the premises of any establishment
within the city during curfew hours.
(3) The owner, operator, or any employee
of an establishment commits an offense if he
knowingly allows a minor to remain upon the
premises of the establishment during curfew hours.
(c) Defenses.
(1) It is a defense to prosecution under
Subsection (b) that the minor was:
(A) accompanied by the minor's
parent or guardian;
(B) on an errand at the direction of the
minor's parent or guardian, without any detour or
stop;
(C) in a motor vehicle involved in
interstate travel;
(D) engaged in an employment
activity, or going to or returning home from an
employment activity, without any detour or stop;
(E) involved in an emergency;
(F) on the sidewalk abutting the
minor's residence or abutting the residence of a next -
door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the
police department about the minor's presence;
(G) attending an official school,
religious, or other recreational activity supervised by
adults and sponsored by the city of D?tlas, a civic
organization, or another similar entity that takes
responsibility for the minor, or going to or returning
home from, without any detour or stop, an official
school, religious, or other recreational activity
supervised by adults and sponsored by the city of
Dallas, a civic organization, or another similar entity
that takes responsibility for the minor;
DaTta n Cff
14
(M exercising First Amendment rights
protected by the United States Constitution, such as
the free exercise of religion, freedom of sprcch, and
the right of assembly, or
m married or had been married or
had disabilities of minority removed in accordance
with Chapter 31 of the T--- Family Code.,
(2) It is a defense to prosecution under
Subsection (b)(3) that the owner, operator, or
employee of an establishment promptly notified the
police department that a minor was present on the
premises of the establishment during curfew hours
and refused to leave.
(d) jnforcement.
Before taking any enforcement action under this
section, a police officer shall ask the apparent
offender's age and' reason for being in the public
place.The officer shall not issue a citation or make an
arrest under this section unless the officer reasonably
believes that an offense has occurred and that, based
on any response and other circumstances, no defense
in Subsection (c) is present.
(e) Penalties.
(1) A person who violates a provision of
this chapter is guilty. of a separate offense for each
day or part of a day during which the violation is
comnutted, continued, or permitted. Each offense,
upon conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed
$500.
(2) When required by Section S1.08 of the
Texas Family Code, as amended, the municipal court
shall waive original jurisdiction over a minor who
violates Subsection (b)(1) of this section and shall
refer the minor to juvenile court. (Ord. Nos. 20966;
21309)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ll..S. COORT OF. AppF,4Lc
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT F1 L E 0
No. 92 -1707
ELIZABETH QUTB, Individually and as
next friend of Sabrina Qutb, ET AL.,
versus
ANNETTE STRAUSS, Mayor of the City of
Dallas, T%, ET AL.,
versus
STEVE BARTLETT, Mayor of the City of
Dallas, TB, ET Ate.,
NOV 19 1993
ARLIrS R HLBRUGE IIC
CLERK
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
r
Defendants,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
Before RING and JOLLY, Circuit Judges, and PARKER, District Judge.'
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judges
This appeal presents a challenge to the constitutionality of
a nocturnal juvenile curfew ordinance enacted by Dallas, Texas.
The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for persons under the age of
seventeen to use the city streets or to be present at other public
'Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
places within the city between certain hours.' Several plaintiffs
brought suit against the city to strike down the ordinance. The
district court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the ordinance
violated both the United States and the Texas Constitutions, and
permanently enjoined enforcement of the .ordinance. The city
appeals. Because we conclude that this ordinance does not violate
the United States or Texas Constitutions, we reverse the district
court.
I
On June 12, 1991, in response to citizens' demands for
protection of the city's youth, the Dallas City Council enacted a
I
juvenile curfew ordinance. This ordinance prohibits persons under
seventeen years of age' from remaining in a public place or
establishment from :1 p.m. until 6 a.m. on week nights, and from 12
midnight until 6 a.m. on weekends. As defined by the ordinance, a
"public place" is any place to which the public or a substantial
group of the public has access, and includes streets, highways, and
the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office
buildings, transport facilities, and shops. "Establishment" is
defined as "any privately -owned place of business operated for a
'A copy of the ordinance is attached. All references to the
ordinance concern the ordinance as it was amended in June 1992,
unless otherwise stated.
'The ordinance does not apply to persons under the age of
seventeen who are married, or who have been married, or who have
had the disability of minority removed in accordance with Chapter
31 of the Texas Family Code.
-2-
profit to which the public is invited, including but not limited to
any place of amusement or entertainment.•
Although the ordinance restricts the hours when minors are
allowed in public areas, the ordinance also contains a number of
exceptions, or defenses. A person under the age of seventeen in a
public place during curfew hours does not violate the ordinance if
he or she is accompanied by a parent3 or guardian, or is on an
errand for a parent or guardian. Likewise, minors would be allowed
in public places if they are in a motor vehicle travelling to or
from a place of employment, or if they are involved in employment
related activities. Affected minors could attend school,
r
religious, or civic organizational functions - -or generally exercise
their First Amendment speech and associational rights -- without
violating the ordinance. Nor is it a violation to engage in
interstate travel, or remain on a sidewalk in front of the minor's
home, or the home of a neighbor. And finally, the ordinance places
no restrictions on a minor's ability to move about during curfew
hours in the case of an emergency.
A minor violates the curfew if he or she remains in any public
place or on the premises of any establishment during curfew hours,
and if the minors' activities are not exempted from coverage. If
3Under the ordinance, the definition of "parent"" includes a
person who is "a natural parent, adoptive parent, or step- parent of
another person" and those persons who are "at least 18 years of age
and authorized by a parent or guardian to have care and custody of
a minor."
MIC
a minor is apparently violating the ordinance, the ordinance
requires police officers to ask the age of the apparent offender,
and to inquire into the reasons for being in a public place during
curfew hours before taking any enforcement action. An officer may
issue a citation or arrest the apparent offender only if the
officer reasonably believes that the person has violated the
ordinance and that no defenses apply. If convicted, an offending
party is subject to a fine not to exceed $500.00 for each separate
offense.
Like minors who have violated the offense, a parent of a
minor, or an owner, operator, or employee of a business
r
establishment is also subject to a fine not to exceed $500 for each
separate offense. A parent or guardian of a minor violates the
ordinance if he or she knowingly permits, or by insufficient
control allows, a minor child to remain in any public place or on
the premises of any establishment during curfew hours. An owner,
operator, or employee of a business establishment commits an
offense by knowingly allowing a minor to remain upon the premises
of the establishment during curfew hours.
II
On July 3, 1991, two weeks after the ordinance was enacted,
Elizabeth Qutb and three other parents filed suit - -both
individually and as next friends of their teenage children -- seeking
a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction against
the enforcement of the juvenile curfew ordinance on the basis that
-4-
the ordinance is unconstitutional. The district court certified
the plaintiffs as a class that consisted of two sub - classes:
persons under the age of seventeen, and parents of persons under
the age of seventeen. One week later, the court advanced the trial
on the merits, and consolidated the trial with the hearing on the
plaintiffs' request for temporary and permanent injunctions. The
case was tried on July 22 -23, and the district court denied the
plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction. The city, however,
voluntarily delayed enforcement of the curfew pending the district
court's decision on the merits.
On June 12, 1992, before the district court issued its final
r
order on the merits of the case, the city voluntarily amended the
curfew ordinance. The amended ordinance deleted or altered some of
the provisions of which the plaintiffs complained, while expanding
some of the defenses available to affected minors. In response to
the revised ordinance, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and an amended motion for a permanent injunction against
`Before the district court, the plaintiffs asserted several
grounds for holding the ordinance unconstitutional. First, they
argued that the ordinance impermissibly restricts First Amendment .
rights of free speech and free association. They also contended
that the ordinance violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the
ordinance divests them of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to a presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, and freedom against self - incrimination. Plaintiffs further
maintained that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause,
and implicates fundamental liberty and privacy interests protected
by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally,
plaintiffs argued that the ordinance is vague and overly broad.
-5-
enforcement of the curfew. The district court held a second
evidentiary hearing, where both parties presented additional
evidence and arguments concerning validity of the revised ordinance
under the United States and Texas constitutions. On August 10,
1992, the district court held that the curfew impermissibly
restricted minors' First Amendment right to associate, and that it
created classifications that could not withstand constitutional
scrutiny.' Accordingly, the district court permanently enjoined
enforcement of the curfew, and the city now appeals.
III
A
t
We review de novo the district court's conclusions of
constitutional law. Peyote Way Church. -of God, Inc. v. Thornburqh,
922 F.2d 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 1991); Shillingford v. Holmes, 634
F.2d 263, 266 (5th Cir. 1981). The minor plaintiffs argue, inter
alia, that the curfew ordinance violates 'the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause
"is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Livinq
Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313
(1985). Only if the challenged government action classifies or
distinguishes between two or more relevant groups must we conduct
'Because the district court held the ordinance
unconstitutional on the equal protection and free association
grounds, the district court did not reach the other arguments
presented by the plaintiffs.
-6-
an equal protection inquiry. Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248,
1257 (5th Cir. 1988). Here, it is clear that the curfew ordinance
distinguishes between classes of individuals on the basis on age,
treating those persons under the age. of seventeen differently from
those persons age seventeen and older. Because the curfew
ordinance distinguishes between two groups, we must analyze the
curfew ordinance under the Equal Protection Clause.
Under the Equal Protection analysis, we apply different
standards of review depending upon the right or classification
involved. If a classification disadvantages a "suspect class" or
impinges upon a "fundamental right," the ordinance is subject to
r
strict scrutiny. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 -17, 102 S.Ct.
2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). Under the strict scrutiny standard,
we accord the classification no presumption of constitutionality.
Town of Ball v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 746 F.2d 1049, 1059
(5th Cir. 1984). Instead, we ask whether the classification
promotes a compelling governmental interest and, if so, whether the
ordinance is narrowly tailored such that there are no less
restrictive means available to effectuate the desired end. Puqh v.
Rainwater, 557 F.2d 1189, 1195 (5th Cir. 1977), vacated on other
grounds, 572 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1978)
In this case, no one has argued, and correctly so, that a
classification based on age is a suspect classification. gge
Gregory v. Ashcroft, U.S. _, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406, 115
L.Ed.2d 410 (1991)(holding that age is not a suspect class). The
-7-
minor plaintiffs, however, have argued that the curfew ordinance
impinges upon their "fundamental right" to, move about freely in
public. For purposes of our analysis, we assume without deciding
that the right to move about freely is a fundamental right. We are
mindful, however, that this ordinance is directed solely at the
activities of juveniles and, under certain circumstances, minors
may be treated differently from adults.6
B
Because we assume that the curfew impinges upon a fundamental
right, we will now subject the ordinance to strict scrutiny review.
As stated earlier, to survive strict scrutiny, a classification
r
created by the ordinance must promote a compelling governmental
interest, and it must be narrowly tailored to achieve this
interest. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 216 -17. The city's stated
interest in enacting the ordinance is to reduce juvenile crime and
victimization, while promoting juvenile safety and well- being. The
Supreme Court has recognized that the state "has a strong and
legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens, whose
61n Bellotti v. Baird, the Court recognized that there were
three reasons that allows a court to treat the rights of minors
differently from rights of adults: the peculiar vulnerability of
children; their inability to make critical decisions in an
informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in
child rearing. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. at 634. This analysis
affects the balancing between of the state's interest against the
interests of the minor when determining whether the state's
interest is compelling. However, given the fact that the parties
and the district court all agree that the interest of the state in
this instance is compelling, it is unnecessary to conduct a full
Bellotti analysis.
-8-
immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair
their ability to exercise their rights wisely." Hodgson v.
Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 444, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 2942, 111 L.Ed.2d 344
(1990). In this case, the plaintiffs concede and the district
court held that the state's interest in this case is compelling.
Given the fact that the state's interest is elevated by the
minority .status of the affected persons, we have no difficulty
agreeing with the parties and with the district court.
C
In the light of the state's compelling interest in increasing
Juvenile safety and decreasing juvenile crime, we must now
determine whether the curfew ordinance is narrowly tailored to
achieve that interest. The district court held that the city
"totally failed to establish that the Ordinance's classification
between minors and non - minors is narrowly tailored to achieve the
stated goals of the curfew." We disagree.
To be narrowly tailored, there must be a nexus between the
stated government interest and the classification created by the
ordinance. City of Richmond v.,J.A. Croson, Co., 488 U.S. 469,
493, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989). This test "ensures
that the means chosen 'fit' this compelling goal so closely that
there is little or no possibility that the motive for the
classification was illegitimate. . . ." Id.
The articulated purpose of the curfew ordinance enacted by the
city of Dallas is to protect juveniles from harm, and to reduce
-9-
juvenile crime and violence occurring in the city. The ordinance's
distinction based upon age furthers these objectives. Before the
district court, the city presented the following statistical
information:
1. Juvenile crime increases proportionally with age between
ten years old and sixteen years old.
2. In 1989, Dallas recorded 5,160 juvenile arrests, while in
1990 there were 5,425 juvenile arrests. In 1990 there
were forty murders, ninety -one sex offenses, 233
robberies, and 230 aggravated assaults committed by
juveniles. From January 1991 through April 1991,
juveniles were arrested for twenty -one murders, thirty
sex offenses, 128 robberies, 107 aggravated assaults, and
1,042 crimes against property.
3.
Murders are most likely to occur between 10:00 p.m.
and
1:00 a.m. and most likely to occur in apartments
and
apartment parking lots and streets and highways.
4.
Aggravated assaults are most likely to occur between
11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
5.
Rapes are most likely to occur between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00
a.m. and sixteen percent of rapes occur on public streets
and highways.
6.
Thirty -one percent of robberies occur on streets
and
highways.
Although
the city was unable to provide precise data concerning
the
number of juveniles who commit crimes during the curfew hours,
or
the number
of juvenile victims of crimes committed during
the
curfew,
the city nonetheless provided sufficient data
to
-10-
juvenile crime and violence occurring in the city. The ordinance's
distinction based upon age furthers these objectives. Before the
district court, the city presented the following statistical
information:
1. Juvenile crime increases proportionally with age between
ten years old and sixteen years old.
2. In 1989, Dallas recorded 5,160 juvenile arrests, while in
1990 there were 5,425 juvenile arrests. In 1990 there
were forty murders, ninety -one sex offenses, 233
robberies, and 230 aggravated assaults committed by
juveniles. From January 1991 through April 1991,
juveniles were arrested for twenty -one murders, thirty
sex offenses, 128 robberies, 107 aggravated assaults, and
1,042 crimes against property.
3.
Murders are most likely to occur between 10:00 p.m.
and
1:00 a.m. and most likely to occur in apartments
arld
apartment parking lots and streets and highways.
4.
Aggravated assaults are most likely to occur between
11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
5.
Rapes are most likely to occur between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00
a.m. ::nd sixteen percent of rapes occur on public streets
and highways.
6.
Thirty -one percent of robberies occur on streets
and
highways.
Although
the city was unable to provide precise data concerning
the
number of juveniles who commit crimes during the curfew hours,
or
the number of juvenile victims of crimes committed during
the
curfew,
the city nonetheless provided sufficient data
to
-10-
demonstrate that the classification created by the ordinance "fits"
the state's compelling interest.'
Furthermore, we are convinced that this curfew ordinance also
employs the least restrictive means of accomplishing its goals.
The ordinance contains various "defenses" that allow affected
minors to remain in public areas during curfew hours. Although the
district court concluded that "[i]t is what the Ordinance restricts
. . . and not what it exempts that matters the most," it is clear
to us that neither the restrictions of the curfew ordinance nor its
defenses can be viewed in isolation from each other; the ordinance
can be examined fairly only when the defenses are considered as a
r
part of the whole. To be sure, the defenses are the most important
consideration in determining whether this ordinance is narrowly
tailored.
plaintiffs argue that because the city failed to offer
statistical evidence supporting the nocturnal juvenile crime
problem, the city failed to meet its burden of proving the
necessary "fit" between the compelling state interest and the
curfew. We will not, however, insist upon detailed studies of the
precise severity, nature, and characteristics of the juvenile crime
problem in analyzing whether the ordinance meets constitutional
muster when it is conceded that the juvenile crime problem in
Dallas constitutes a compelling state interest. In this same vein,
the plaintiffs arguments that the city has not produced proof of
the effectiveness of the ordinance in addressing the juvenile crime
problem are unavailing; indeed, such "proof" can hardly amount to
more than mere speculation. Federal courts have always been
reluctant to question the potential effectiveness of legislative
remedies designed to address societal problems. As we have held in
other contexts, we "do not demand of legislatures scientifically
certain criteria of legislation." Ginsberq v. New York, 390 U.S.
at 642 (internal quotes omitted).
-11-
In the past, curfew ordinances have been held unconstitutional
because of their broad general applications. In Johnson y. City of
Opelousas,, for example, we addressed a juvenile curfew ordinance
and declared it unconstitutional; our holding, however, was
"expressly limited to the unconstitutional overbreadth of the
ordinance." Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d at 1074.
Furthermore, we stated that "[w]e express no opinion on validity of
curfew ordinances narrowly drawn to accomplish proper social
objectives." Id,. at 1072. In declaring the Johnson ordinance to
be an undue burden on the rights of minors, we noted that:
[U]nder this curfew ordinance minors are prohibited from
attending associational activities such as religious or r
school meetings, organized dances, and theater and
sporting events, when reasonable and direct travel to or
from these activities has to be made during the curfew
period. The same inhibition prohibits parents from
urging and consenting to such protected associational
activity by their minor children. The curfew ordinance
also prohibits a minor during the curfew period from, for
example, being on the sidewalk in front of his house,
engaging in legitimate employment, or traveling through
[the city] even on an interstate trip. These implicit
prohibitions of the curfew ordinance overtly and
manifestly infringe upon the constitutional rights of
minors in (the city].
Id. We therefore concluded that the "curfew ordinance, however
valid might be a,narrowly_ drawn curfew to protect society's valid
interests, [swept] within its ambit a number of innocent activities
which are constitutionally protected." Id. at 1074 (emphasis
added). In Johnson, we further stated that
(r]egardless of the legitimacy of [the city's] stated
purposes of protecting youths, reducing nocturnal
juvenile crime, and promoting parental control over their
-12-
children, less drastic means are available for achieving
these goals. Since the absence of exceptions in the
curfew ordinance
„precludes a narrowing, construction, we
are. compelled to rule that the ordinance is
constitutionally overbroad.
Id. (emphasis added).
With the ordinance before us today, the city of Dallas has
created a nocturnal juvenile curfew that satisfies strict scrutiny.
By including the defenses to a violation of the ordinance, the city
has enacted a narrowly drawn ordinance that allows the city to meet
its stated goalse while respecting the rights of the affected
minors. As the city points out, a juvenile may move about freely
in Dallas if accompanied by a parent or a guardian, or a person at
least eighteen years of age who is authorized by a parent or
guardian to have custody of the minor. If the juvenile is
traveling interstate, returning from a school- sponsored function,
$According to the city, its goals in enacting the ordinance
are to (1) reduce the number of juvenile crime victims; (2) reduce
injury accidents involving juveniles; (3) reduce additional time
for officers in the field; (4) provide additional options for
dealing with gang problems; (5) reduce juvenile peer pressure to
stay out late; and (6) assist parents in the control of their
children. The aim of the ordinance is to deter criminal conduct
involving juveniles as well as penalize those individuals who
violate it. However, the city states that its intent is not to
penalize every youth found in public during curfew hours, but to
use the ordinance as a tool to help address other criminal activity
problems that involve or may potentially involve juveniles. The
curfew ordinance provides an officer with reasonable suspicion to
approach gangs to determine if any of them are juveniles. According
to the city, the curfew ordinance can help address Dallas's gang
problem because gang members often congregate in public and set up
an environment where criminal activities take place, such as drive -
by shootings, fights, and "turf" disputes.
-13-
a civic organization- sponsored function, or a religious function,
or going home after work, the ordinance does not apply. If the
juvenile is on an errand for his or her parent or guardian, the
ordinance does not apply. If the juvenile is involved in an
emergency, the ordinance does not apply. If the juvenile is on a
sidewalk in front of his or her home or the home of a neighbor, the
ordinance does not apply. Most notably, if the juvenile is
exercising his or her First Amendment rights, the curfew ordinance
does not apply.
Against the ordinance's an expansive list of defenses, the
district court attempted to provide examples of activities with
t
which the curfew ordinance would interfere. The district court
suggested the example of "a midnight basketball league aimed solely
at keeping juveniles off of the streets" to demonstrate that
participation in legitimate desirable activities would violate the
ordinance unless the activities were officially organized,
sponsored, or supervised by the city, a school, a civic
association, or some "other entity." In its effort to demonstrate
that the ordinance was overly broad, the district court referred to
concerts, movies, plays, study groups, or church activities that
may extend past curfew hours. The district court finally noted
that "every juvenile in the city could be arrested and fined up to
$500.00 upon conviction if he or she merely sought to take an
innocent stroll or 'gaze at the stars from a public park.'"
-14-
With due respect to the able district court, we are convinced
that upon examination its analysis collapses. It is true, of
course, that the curfew ordinance would restrict some late -night
activities of juveniles; if indeed it did not, then there would be
no purpose in enacting it. But when balanced with the compelling
interest sought to be addressed -- protecting juveniles and
preventing juvenile crime- -the impositions are minor. The district
court failed to observe that none of the activities it listed are
restricted if the juvenile is accompanied by a parent or a
guardian. Even if the child is unaccompanied by a parent or a
guardian, we can presume that most events such as a "midnight
e
basketball league" or a church youth group outing ordinarily would
be organized, sponsored or supervised by an adult or an
organization, and these are exceptions to the curfew. Although it
is true that in some situations unaccompanied juveniles may be
forced to attend early evening features of a movie or leave a play
or concert before its conclusion, this imposition is ameliorated by
several of the ordinance's defenses so that the juvenile is not
deprived of actually attending such cultural and entertainment
opportunities. Furthermore, a juvenile can take an "innocent
stroll" and stare at the stars until 11:00 on week - nights and until
12:00 midnight on weekends; indeed, a juvenile may stare at the
stars all night long from the front sidewalk of his or her home or
the home of a neighbor. Thus, after carefully examining the
juvenile curfew ordinance enacted by the city of Dallas, we
-15-
conclude that it is narrowly tailored to address the city's
compelling interest and any burden this ordinance places upon
minors' constitutional rights will be miniumal.9
0
In addition to the claims presented by the minor plaintiffs,
the parental plaintiffs argue that the curfew ordinance violates
their fundamental right of privacy because it dictates-the manner
in which their children must be raised. Although we recognize that
a parent's right to rear their children without undue governmental
interference is a fundamental component of due process, see, e.g.,
Ginsberq v. New York, 390 U.S. at 639, we are convinced that this
ordinance presents only a minimal intrusion into the parents'
rights. In fact, the only aspect of parenting that this ordinance
9The minor plaintiffs argued and the district court held that
the minors' first amendment rights of association are also
impermissibly impinged upon by the curfew ordinance. We disagree.
First, it is questionable whether a fundamental right of
association is implicated. The Supreme Court has held that there
is no "generalized right of social association," Dallas v.
Stanqlin, 490 U.S. 19, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed.2d 18
(1989) (internal quotes omitted), and, that seems to be precisely
the type of association we are primarily concerned with in this
case. Even in those instances when minors may, for example,
associate for political or religious reasons, the majority of those
situations will be exempted under one of the defenses to the curfew
ordinance. In any event, we have determined that this curfew
ordinance satisfies strict scrutiny, and any negligible burden on
the individual's right to associate is outweighed by the compelling
interests of the state.
We have also considered the minor plaintiffs' Equal Protection
argument in the light of the Texas Constitution. We find nothing
and we have been pointed to no authority - -other than an unrelated
defamation case- -that warrants a different treatment of this issue
under the state constitution.
-16-
bears upon is the parents' right to allow the minor to remain in
public places, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian or other
authorized person, during the hours restricted by the curfew
ordinance. Because of the broad exemptions included in the curfew
ordinance, the parent retains the right to make decisions regarding
his or her child in all other areas: the parent may allow the
minor to remain in public so long as the minor is accompanied by a
parent or guardian, or a person at least eighteen years of age who
is authorized by a parent or guardian to have custody of the minor.
The parent may allow the minor to attend all activities organized
by groups such as church groups, civic organizations, schools, or
the city of Dallas. The parent may still allow the child to hold
a job, to perform an errand for the parent, and to seek help in
emergency situations.
In this case, the parents have failed to convince us that the
ordinance will impermissibly impinge on their rights as parents.
The parents' only "evidence" to support their argument is the
testimony of the mother of one of the plaintiffs that her daughter
would soon be going to college, and the curfew ordinance -- applying
only between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.- -would somehow deprive her daughter
of the opportunity to learn to manage her time and make decisions
before going away to college. Certainly this testimony is
insufficient, to support the district court's finding that the
-17-
ordinance unconstitutionally infringed the liberty and privacy
interests of parents.lo
IV- ... - ..
In conclusion, we find that the state has demonstrated that
the curfew ordinance furthers a compelling state interest, i.e._,
protecting juveniles from crime on the streets. We further
conclude that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve this
compelling state interest.11 Accordingly, we hold that the
nocturnal juvenile curfew ordinance enacted by the city of Dallas
is constitutional. The judgment of the district court is therefore
R E V E R S E D.
I
"The parents also assert that the curfew ordinance is
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution based on an invasion
of parental privacy. We recognize that the Texas courts have
construed the Equal Protection Clause of the Texas Constitution
more expansively than that of the United States Constitution in the
area of homosexual rights. See State v. Morales, 826 S.W.2d 201,
204 (Tex. App. -- Austin, 1992, writ denied). We were unable,
however, to find any authority that supports the notion that the
Texas Constitution would provide more protection in the area of
parental privacy.
1we can also envision the constitutionality of a narrowly
drawn nocturnal juvenile curfew ordinance that applies only in a
municipality's high risk, high crime areas, or danger zones.
-18-
KING, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority without
expressing a view on the method by which the majority has reached
that result.
s
T
N
L
E
co
M
O co
0 co
r- r
N .-
co 4o
rn r
40 M
r• LO
vn o
C) Un
V!
c+i N
W N
L
Q Q
t6 f0
rn rn
o)
T Ln
rn rn
rn rn
T t'�
N cO
0 N N
N
C �
c9 Q
L
F- = i o
i. 3NO?
47 0 N r-
L
O U
7
Qm O
c = v r
S� rn
7
U
H
W cn (n
'^ Q Q
W C C
4) 4)
U > >
F- rn rn
zo)0)
UJ
._J " Lr)
O_ rn rn
rn rn
> T r
4
C
R
Q
r CD
e
Q1 CO
b
Q
M stds
Q LO I
;
sr-
. ...........
£
y
%%
C)
'O ;:
L O r co
F- T
A
>rs::
in o
Q1 r
i s
3 co V
p'•4.
;tY
a1.;Q
cn O�
Go
A..:.
co
m
N N
4) 4)
(
N fn
c C
d 4)
W O O
c c
".
O O
_ : :i%2 z
?
II C4
W N f9
?i: E73
0 0
J O O
>: iC
rnrn
Jz0)0)
�- �-
Q W
1.0
LL
4
C
R
Q
CIO
E
U_
N
' E
Cc
•M;� Cl ti
ti ? CO t�
E
CU
00!( (D �i
In ` _ 00 ' _ 00
�
_
r
0000
E E
Co R3
�1a.00 co N O
�- ' (O s- ti N
m co
OD C14 N:(D �'N
N (D
r
T- M
CO
(L7
M
W)
00 i M � ' M OOD 00
N
�
i
r- lc) , C) ; 0) O
N`c)
-
co
O
L,M.M Oil 0)
d IOD
00
O
ti M
M;I—;N;
Ci!
�..
cn
(D
N
N
E
`
C
�_
C
i I ~
i �( u ..
�
C) CU
X
ca
(6
ICI
d
.. (D
owm c�LL0�
o CL)
�wmi c�w0-a
:OC�•�_>
>
5 �v 0 L I Z
sy cNow IZ
N
lin I
Z
lO.
I
i
N
cD
: U)
J
Z.w
O
IQ
i
W
~
E N ce) N
�- �
:
0) O O Co .
�- �.
I ;�
.
�_''
ti
': ,q
Cl
CN
E
(o
cM
V:toiLO
tO M
C) CD N O.
(O ti M
fl :� p 0)
��
O C):
M.
CO N
Imo.
N
�'M
co
cu
�.
QOO.�S�:F
W;QmF-
-I OCWQ�—
QO�Sa:cn.zp;�p
cy
Q
>U:�F
I
Q
O
I
IW
0
rn
=i Olw
I
i _
i� 1UA i
'F-. I I w
� Un
I Z
lo: ;g I
(O
F- Z
: i0 W I
�'YIQIW �E:OI
o
.-
Q
L.
w:Q F- �',0,E= O
C`7 LLL!C: ,a cn O;U:
�:zIp;LLiQ u_,�jlp
r i �
N
� l � I
ce) I ' � . N
co N ! N
` c ; 0)
C) �
ti
N
co cO
. Uhj ill tf)
"r co
Q.IMI
O
I
N.
r
..
N
M �'•�.M.M'N CO V jMIN'p � O tn
(D.
O tf) : G : O M to : v cO I r� . r tf7 r-
�_ �t (D co C'i•0;t',M;
,
rn
� Q)
r-
N Q
d N
Cl) eY 'c
Cl) >
L
EI
N 1
C
N
> t
c / n,
(yHl� -'d y1.0 cD
I
V -1
:co co . co q r
I i 1T T
I
■ I■
!
lin I
Z
lO.
I Z
i
N
cD
: U)
J
Z.w
O
IQ
i
W
~
W
70
. Un
LL U) F- -Z
0
.
�_''
Z ,
;w'
>-cQn�
w w Q
E-![C;O.F- w O
'S Y;Q'w3iLL
0
M
oiwm C1w0W.a'�OU
:a m C7 W
w F-;= W':O x w—
z:0L
D
Qw.
z : z
w
p
QQ .b �0
�.
QOO.�S�:F
W;QmF-
-I OCWQ�—
QO�Sa:cn.zp;�p
Q
>U:�F
Q—
-�'=
Q
O
I
IW
0
rn
=i Olw
I
i _
i� 1UA i
'F-. I I w
� Un
I Z
lo: ;g I
U) O co , N to
N , V- ,, U7 M CD ; LO V cy) , ti "t I : In s- Nr . T : O
00 •- (D L r N (' r I L �: N r- . OO t- N co O I .� . O t- t N CD
i .M. i r i
i
S'tr0 V f0
77
co
O
C'4 C. -q- ;T M .� O .f- lr-,N (M �O IM :O'� or)
cD M r
CV
N
cD
cy
70
M�
�'�`ticD
a),[-- U-) p i-
��tiIt�DI�
co�tn:� (D ccj'tn OI�t) N.M
N'�:T�N,U)1N1��!�'��M
�M.
M
M
I
IW
rn
=i Olw
I
i _
i� 1UA i
'F-. I I w
� Un
I Z
lo: ;g I
F- Z
: i0 W I
�'YIQIW �E:OI
o
.-
Q
w:
p W.M
w:Q F- �',0,E= O
C`7 LLL!C: ,a cn O;U:
�:zIp;LLiQ u_,�jlp
N
_�
R U]„'(i]i(�.Q'
W'F —i=; O:x W.
�Iz;,W.z CY
C)
�'Q o0 F--:Q;Oi�:a U!� Z p:J.p;
>'U CL' I— =
O
I�
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
TEEN CURFEW ACTIVITY REPORT '
DECEMBER 1997 F L E
CE NE SE SW NW NC UNK TOTA
_ JUVENILES
FIELD INTERROGATION REPORTS 42 8 3 18 24 4 1 100
(warnings)
CITATIONS ISSUED' 37 9 8 18 29 3 37 141
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW ONLY 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW & OTHERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ADULTS
PARENTS CITED'
BUSINESS CITED'
*Source Court Services
JANUARY - DECEMBER 1997
YTD
TYPE
_ __ JUVENILES
FIELD INTERROGATION REPORT:
(warnings)
CITATIONS ISSUED'
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW ONLY
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW & OTHERS
ADULTS
PARENTS CITED
BUSINESS CITED
'Source Court Services
JANUARY - DECEMBER 1996
YTD
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CE
NE
SE
SW
NW
NC
UNK
TOTA
589
157
394
540
206
81
4
1971
711
356
457
601
413
85
832
3455
23
0
111
97
26
0
0
257
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
17
15 2 3 20 4 0 8 52
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TYPE
CE
NE
SE
SW
NW
NC
LINK
TOTAL
_ JUVENILES
613
223
166
499
334
92
110
2037
FIELD INTERROGATION REPORTS
(warnings)
CITATIONS ISSUED' .
697
423
239
687
575
104
486
3211
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW ONLY
75
21
24
47
84
8
0
259
IN CUSTODY /CURFEW & OTHERS
2
16
1
7
1
6
2
8
36
9
0
0
0
13
42
59
ADULTS
PARENTS CITED
BUSINESS CITED
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
'Source Court Services
M
z
m
m
V
ODD
W
J
D
r
D
m
A 1W V
(ND'v
00
I
N
CJl
uJ
3
fD
D
N
w
;U
c
N
O
::r
m
N
o
;v
O O
E is
m CD
� i'
C � O
fD
p
COD
1
O
� N
A
D
i
W
�O
l0
N
IO 'N
<
m
;o
i
r
0
o
O
N
A
C0 J1 O
W
Tn
CJ1
V
CND
W
N
N
N
i
O
m
J
r
f
O
J
A
00
W
CJ1
03
A : W
W
O
W
A
:...1
I
I
w
I
J
m
II
CAD
W
co
N
N . O
O
1 0
1111
1 A
1C0 I
A 1W V
(ND'v
00
I
N
CJl
A jW
W
I
1
j
Z
COD
1
O
O
A
D
i
W
�O
l0
� N
�A
IO 'N
<
m
;o
i
r
0
o
O
z
W
Tn
W
I W
p
i
m
m
J
m
.a
x
W
W
z
W
W
N
A
OO
Cp
m
W
C
:
V
(
I cQI
W
N
0
w
o'
w
�
w
1
N
I
o
W
<
w
J
�
0
0
! V
A
0
7
O
co
N
CJ�.
I O
I N
�
O
N
•*
7
' N
1
1
(D
N
:
N
In
W
N
i
i
N
�
N
N
o
II N
A
(D
W
A
W
w
V
Co
CND
00i
CWJ1
>.
Co
w
J
..1
CD
I
co
0
CT
1p�
N
W
W
C0D
N
J O
A 1W V
(ND'v
00
I
N
CJl
A jW
W
I
1
j
Z
COD
1
O
Cn
A
i
i
W
�O
l0
� N
�A
IO 'N
<
m
(0
i
A
0
O
CJ)
W
Co
W
I W
p
i
m
_'
J
-4
.a
Z
W
W
N
W
W
N
A
OO
Cp
CJI
W
' co
:
V
(
I cQI
W
N
CD
w
o'
1
N
I
W
Cn
J
cn
N
W
! V
A
N
O
co
CJ�.
I O
I N
0
N
' N
1
1
(D
:
N
In
W
i
i
N
N
o
II N
A
(D
W
A
'n
Cn
Co
CND
00i
A
>.
w
I
CT
N
N
I V
W
W
0
co
Ch
O
I N
W
co
V
N
j
I
_
1
ZA
Ui
W
0
W
NN
Q
(b
co .......
N
V
N
IO
_
v
cn
WO
co
W
CA
N
O
cn
00)
Cr
J
V
A
CJ)
O
i
i
A 1W V
(ND'v
00
I
N
CJl
A jW
W
I
1
j
Z
COD
1
O
Cn
A
i
i
W
�O
l0
� N
�A
IO 'N
<
m
i
0
W
r
NW
N
m
_'
CAD
-4
0
Z
W
I
--I
o
ico
:
C
I cQI
W
CD
w
o'
N
w
(D
A 1W V
(ND'v
00
I
N
CJl
A jW
W
I
1
j
W
COD
0)
O
Cn
A
i
i
W
�O
l0
� N
�A
IO 'N
W
m
CVO ..
0
A
W
Z Z
m
--I
ICf)
3
fl.
c0
A
W
I
1
W !{ A
i
CD
rn
V
p
A
A
i
j
V
CO
W
�O
l0
O
IO 'N
W
W
NW
N
_'
CAD
-4
0
W
v
W
CD
Z Z
m
--I
ICf)
3
fl.
c0
A
W
I
1
W !{ A
i
CD
rn
V
W
(OD
Z Z
m
--I
ICf)
3
fl.
c0
w Ito
W 10 A
CD Imo' IO IW IIw
co
V I0 I0 �0 11 in
to
N I V 10 I J II V
0
r
k
O I
W
I
1
W !{ A
i
CD
i i
I
CND '
V
1
;
W rn
(OD
I
I
V
i
j
V
!
!
!co
i 0
-
CD
N
�O
l0
1
10
IO 'N
COD
w Ito
W 10 A
CD Imo' IO IW IIw
co
V I0 I0 �0 11 in
to
N I V 10 I J II V
0
r
k
v
M.
CD
N
z = _
o - m
m - m
x - -�
C<
C (D
< _.
N N o
to w o
I v
.l
° .A. CY)
V
7r
co
co
03
S
C
:U
� <
n
�I
V -*
N
N N CD C-0
V A N
0o cfl p)
0
cNO - c'
4
°
CD O (p
p.,' V
0
C-
C:
m
Z
� r
.cam m
D
� C
CO r
0
m
cn
Field InterrogationReport
CITY OF DALLAS JUVENILE FIELD INTERROGATION
SCHOOL RELATED ❑
NON - SCHOOL RELATED ❑
GANG RELATED
CATION
BEAT
HAwE
L=LAST
OFFENSE
T
NO
Xt
E
rAG
0.0 %8
RACE
SEX
GRADE _..._
ADDRESS
PH.
IGHT
WEIGHT
EYES
HAIR
SURD -
DP
SCHOOL
OATi OF
TvE OF
'OFFENSE
OFFENSE
uE.ur or.O.OL,
MCI •40
OESNUPTI/G SCHOOL 000pomr TRUANCY ASSAT THEFT M,C CVrEw OTHER CHARGE
ACTTES p oo'ouc. O I UL
L7 0 [..O.Ana. CJ
M !CLASS c oNEn
PAAENTiGUAMAN - - - -_ - F;ELATIONSHIP �P ►10NE
NARRATIVE
oorr.CTIO
Ya0.0C
OHSP'OSRION
OFFICES pNG 1101 1 1 1 1 1 WMICIE 1CITATION a 1 _.
1ICV�
3 copies (1 to Youth Division; 1 mailed to Parent; 1 given
to juvenile)
o=N! dY:Xerox leieco
i
er 7c20 ;10 -21-54 2146707454 214 670 4581 ;u 2
\ °� "ROLL CATJ,
LI
ti
�r
TRAINING BULLETIN
k94 -5
DATE; April 23, 1994 DOCUMENT CONTROL 9 31 -94
ATMVM AUTDDRM& OaSw of YmM opwwBw
TEEN CURFEW ORDINANCE
The Curfew Ordinance is a tool established for the protection of the child. Discretion should be
used in enforcing this Ordinance.
Before taking any enforcement action under this Ordinance, the officer shall ask the apparent
offender the following information:
1. His/Her age.
2. The reason for being in the public place.
A citation shall NOT be issued or an arrest made under this ordinance unless:
1. The officer reasonably believes that an offense has occurred and that;
2. Based on any response and oche,.- circumstances, no defeW under this Ordinance
is present.
Juveniles who are contacted in violation of the Curfew Ordinance can be warned, issued a Field
Interrogation Report, directed to go to their home, may be taken to their home, issued a citation
or be taken into custody. The officer should choose an appropriate enforcement option based
upon the circumstances and the individual encountered.
Any enforcement action taken must be documented. Field Interrogation Reports issued for. a
violation of the Curfew Ordinance must fully describe the circumstances and location, as well as
the disposition of the contact, as well as the disposition of the juvenile, i.e., field release, citation
issued (including citation number), released to a responsible adult or released at home.
If a citation is issued to any naM (Juvenile, Parent, or Business Owner, etc.) for curfew
violation, a Field Interrogation Report will also be completed to document the contact. Citations
for violations of this Ordinance .will be handled by the Municipal Courts in the same manner as
any other Class C violation committed by Juveniles or Adults.
R MEMBER: The correct charge for violation of the Curfew Ordinance is: Dallas City Code
SEC. 31 -33. Curfew Hours for Minors.
Page 1 of 1
X]Cgal pUffiCt4l,
in
OATF June 20,1995 NUU8ER 95 -B
CURFEW VIOLATION CITATIONS
The purpose of this Legal Bulletin is to outline standard information that should be included
on citations issued for curfew violations.
Dallas City Code Section 31- 33(b)(1), "Curfew Hours for Minors," provides that a minor
commits an offense "if he remains in any public place or on the premises of any
establishment within the city during curfew Hours." Additionally, a parent or guardian, as
well as the owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment, commits an offense if he
allows a minor to violate the curfew.
As much information as possible should be included on the front of the citation or on the
back of the citation. Generally, it takes some time for cases to reach final disposition, and
many times officers cannot recall relevant facts surrounding the particular incident by the
trial date. To avoid this, officers should make detailed notes on each citation.
In addition to the information on the face of the citation, the officer should also include the
following information:
1. Record the juvenile's response when asked his or her age. Also, note the
minor's reason for being out past curfew.
2. Specify the person receiving the citation; i.e., the minor, parent, guardian,
owner of an establishment, operator of an establishment or employee of an
establishment.
3. Specify the particular day of the violation; i.e. Monday, Tuesday, etc. This
information is needed so that prosecutors can easily verify that the curfew
time for which the minor is accused of violating applies to the date of the
offense.
4. Indicate whether the adult receiving the citation (such as the parent or
operator of an establishment) either (1) knowingly allowed the minor to
violate the curfew, or (2) exercised insufficient control over the minor.
5. Specify the exact location where the minor was found. For example, it is a
defense to the ordinance if the minor was on the sidewalk abutting his or
her residence or a next door neighbor's residence, provided the neighbor
does not complain about the minor's presence. Therefore, it is important to
indicate exactly where the minor was located at the time of the offense.
Noting that a minor was walking or standing outside a residence probably
will not be sufficient unless the officer can recall that the sidewalk was not
abutting the minor's or the next door neighbor's residence.
Including the above - mentioned information on curfew violation 4itations will greatly increase
the successful prosecution of these cases. ,
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Bulletin, please contact an attorney in the
Criminal Law and Police Division at ext. 5471.
BACKGROUND
CURFEW ADOPTED JUNE, 1991
DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINED THE
CITY FROM
ENFORCEMENT AUGUST, 1992
OVERTURNED BY
COURT OF APPEAL,
FIFTH CIRCUIT APRIL, 1994
ENFORCEMENT
BEGAN MAY 19 1994
RULING ]LET STAND
BY U.S SUPREME
COURT MAY, 1994
JUVENILE
CURFEW BECAME
EFFECTIVE
MAY 1, 1994
SET CURFEW
HOURS
IIPM - 6AM
Sunday - Thursday
12AM - 6AM
Friday - Saturday
REQUIRES
AFFIRMATIVE
DECISION
REQUIRES OFFICER TO
ENSURE
NO DEFENSE PRESENT
PRIOR
TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
ENFORCEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
WARNED
* ISSUED A FIELD
INTERROGATION
REPORT
* SENT HOME
TAKEN HOME
* ISSUED CITATION
* TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY
* PARENTS CAN BE
ISSUED CITATION
TOR ALLOWING
MINOR TO VIOLATE
CURFEW
* BUSINESS OWNER,
OPERATOR, OR
EMPLOYEE MAY BE
ISSUED CITATION FOR
ALLOWING MINOR TO
REMAIN ON PREMISES
AFTER HOURS
VIOLENT
OFFENSES COMNHTTED AGAINST
JUVENILES DURING CURIFEW
FOURS
Assault
ABOVE 293 258 227 -23%
TOTALS
% FROM
OFD
1993
1994
1995
93 -95
Murder
5
1
7
+140%
Rape
61
.45
40
-34%
Robbery
41
34
.18
-56%
Agg.
186
178
162
-13%
Assault
ABOVE 293 258 227 -23%
TOTALS
UTY OF DALLAS
May 17, 1996
Mr. Sam Quattrochi
Administrator, Letot Center
10505 Denton Drive
Dallas, Texas 75220
Dear Mr. Quattrochi:
This is to once again request your assistance in a city Wide
curfew initiative scheduled for May 31. June 1. June 7. and June
8, 1996 from 12 :01 AM until 5:1 00 AM.
With your permission, those children whose parent or guardian can
not be located within six hours, will be transferred to Letot.
As in the past we will place one uniformed police officer for
,each_.three children in your facility. The officers will remain
with .the*cliildren until they are released from custody. -
The cooperation and assistance of your agency is greatly
,4Lppreciated. If you have any questions or concerns please call
;ae_ at 670 -5382.
Sincerely,
BENNIE R. CLICK
CHIEF OF POLICE
J. S. Muncy
Deputy Chief of Police
Youth and Family Crimes Division
CIVIL RIGHTS - -CITY CURFEW UPHELD AS PROTECTINC VULNERABLE YOUTH (POPULATION
FROM CRIME
SCHLEIFER V. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
No. 97 -1723 (Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Oct. 20, 1998)
ISSUE: Does a city ordinance setting a weekend nocturnal curfew on unemancipated minors under age 17
violate the civil rights of minors or their parents?
FACTS: The city of Charlottesville, Va., enacted a juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance. The legislative pur-
pose behind the ordinance was to reduce juvenile violence and crime within the city, protect juve-
niles from becoming involved in unlawful activities and becoming prey to older perpetrators of
crime, and strengthen parental responsibility for children. The ordinance generally prohibits mi-
nors, defined as unelnancipated persons under 17, from remaining in any public place, motor vehi-
cle or establishment within city limits during curfew hours,
The curfew takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on Monday through Friday and at 1 a.m, on Saturday and Sunday.
The curfew lifts at S a.m, each morning. The ordinance does not restrict minors' activities that fall under
one of its eight enumerated exceptions, including being accompanied by a parent, running errands at a
parent's direction so long as they have a note from a parent, working, or attending supervised activities
sponsored by a school, civic or religious organi7&ion, without running afoul of the curfew.
The ordinance also exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel, are on the sidewalk abut-
ting their parents' residence, or are involved in an emergency. Finally, the ordinance does not affect
minors who am "exercising First Amendment rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the
free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and the right of assembly." Violation of the ordinance
can result in misdemeanor charges.
Several minors and their parents challenged the ordinance. The minors claimed the ordinance pre-
vents them from engaging in other lawful activities with their parents' permission that would bring
them back during curfew hours, The parents claimed the ordinance interfered with their decisions on
which activities, at what times, are appropriate for their children. The plaintiffs claimed the ordl-
nance violated their First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court re-
jected their claims, and they appealed.
HELD: Affirmed.
A Fourth Circuit panel, with one dissent, applied intermediate level scrutiny to the ordinance and up-
held the measure, finding the curfew materially assisted important and compelling legislative goals:
The Charlottesville curfew serves not only to head off crimes before they occur, but also to pro-
tect a particularly vulnerable population from being lured into participating in such activity.
Contrary to the dissent's protestation, we do not hold that every such curfew ordinance would
pass constitutional muster. The means adopted by a municipality must bear a substantial rela-
tionship to significant governmental interests; the restrictiveness of those means remains the
subject of judicial review, As the district court noted, however, the curfew law in Charlottes-
ville is "among the most modest and lenient of the myriad curfew laws implemented nation-
wide." Charlottesville's curfew, compared to those in other cities, is indeed a mild regulation: it
covers a limited age group during only a few hours of the night. Its various exceptions enable
minors to participate in necessary or worthwhile activities during this time. We hold that Char-
lottesville's juvenile curfew ordinance comfortably satisfies constitutional standards.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY LAW DIGEST
_-ILW T4G: Xal4 11GI N peel AH Uo_S_lGJJW: (JJ oo: m W, ply
FROM CHVILLE POLICE DEPT
(THU) 07. 22' 99 12: 58//ST. 12: 57A0. 3560189096 P 2
OFFENSES— .MISCEW ANEOUS
Sec. 17 -1. Attempts; aiding and abetting-
It shall be unlawful for any person to attempt
to commit any act which is prohibited by this
Code or other city ordinance or by any rule,
regulation, order or notice duly promulgated or
given pursuant to authority thereof, and it shall
be unlawful for any person to aid or abet another
in the commission or attempted commission of
any act which is prohibited by this Code or other
ordinance or by any rule, regulation, order or
notice duly promulgated or given pursuant to
authority thereof_
(Code 1976, § 17 -4)
State Iaw reference—Atumpt co commit misdemeanor,
Code of Virginia, § 18.2 -27.
Sec. 17 -2. Sunday closing law not applica-
ble within city.
The provisions of Code of Virginia, section
18.2 -341, shall not be effective within the bound-
aries of the city.
(Code 1976, § 17 -28)
State law reference — Authority for ebove section, Code
of Virginia, 9 18.2.342.
See. 17 -3. Assault and battery,
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misde-
meanor for any person to commit a simple assault
or assault and battery upon any other person.
(Code 1976, § 17.3)
Cross reference— Qenalcy for Class 1 misdemeanor, t
1.11.
State law reference—Similar provieiont, Code of vir-
giaie, § 18.247_
Sec, 17 -4. Advertisements — Defacing or tear-
ing down.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misde-
meanor for any person to tear down or deface any
lawfully posted design, bill or advertisement, so
long as the same may be of any benefit to the
party posting it; provided, that nothing herein
shall prevent a person from tearing down adver-
tisements posted on that person's premises.
(Code 1976, § 17 -1)
Gross reference — Penalty for Class 1 misdemeanor, §
1 -11.
Supp. No, 1.1
1035
§ 17 -7
Sm 17 -5. Same — Dropping from aircraft.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misde-
meanor for any person in any airplane, dirigible,
blimp, balloon or other aircraft to drop any adver-
tising matter within the city, except by written
permission of the city manager.
(Code 1976, § 17 -2)
Cross reference Penalty for Clw 1 misdemeanor, §
1.17..
Sec. 17.6. Same — Unlawful posting.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to post
any show bill, notice or advertisement or brand,
write, marls or paint any sign, letters or charac-
ters upon a building, wall, whether interior or
exterior, tree, fence or any other property of
another person, without first obtaining the con-
sent of the owner or the agent of the owner of such
property.
(b) Any person violating the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1976, § 17 -24)
Cross referreace— Penalty for Clasa 1 miedemeanor, §
Bee. 17 -7. Curfew for minors.
The purpose of this section is to- (i) promote the
general welfare and protect the general public
through the reduction of juvenile violence and
crime within the city; (ii) promote the safety and
well -being of the city's youngest citizens, persons
under the age of seventeen (17), whose inexperi-
ence renders them particularly vulnerable to be-
coming participants in unlawful activities, partic-
ularly unlawful drug activities, and to being
victimized by older perpetrators of crime; and (i.ii)
foster and strengthen parental responsibility for
children.
(a) Definitions. As used within this section
17 -7, the following words and phrases shall have
the meanings ascribed to them below:
Curfew hours refers to the hours of 12:01 a.m.
through 5:00 a.m- on Monday through Friday, and
1:00 a.m. through 5:00 a.m. on Saturday and
Sunday.
Emergency refers to unforeseen circumstances,
or the status or condition resulting therefrom,
FROM CHVILLE POLICE DEPT
§ 17 -7
(THU) 07. 22' 99 12: 59 /ST, 12: 57/N0, 3560; 89096 P 3
CUARiA'1'i'ESVILLE CITY CODE
requiring immediate action to safeguard life, limb
or property. The term includes, but is not limited
to, fires, natural disasters, automobile accidents,
or other similar circumstances.
Establishment refers to any privately -owned
place of business within the city operated for a
profit, to which the public is invited, including,
but not limited to any place of amusement or
entertainment. With respect to such establish-
ment, the term "operator' shall rnean any person,
and any firm, association, partnership (arid the
members or partners thereof) and/or any corpora-
tion (and the officers thereof) conducting or man-
aging that establishment.
Minor refers to any person under seventeen
(17) years of age who has not been emancipated
by court order entered pursuant to Section 16.1-
333 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Officer refers to a police or other law enforce-
ment officer charged with the duty of enforcing
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and/or
the ordinances of the City of Charlottesville.
Parent refers to-
(1) A person who is a minor's biological or
adoptive parent and who has legal cus-
tody of a minor (including either parent, if
custody is shared under a court order or
agreement);
(2) A person who is the biological or adoptive
parent with whom a minor regularly re-
sides,
(3) A person judicially appointed as a legal
guardian of the minor; and/or
(4) A person eighteen (18) years of age or
older standing in loco parentis (as indi-
cated by the authorization of an individ-
ual listed in part(s) (1), (2) or (3) of this
definition, above, for the person to as-
sume the care or physical custody of the
child, or as indicated by any other circum-
stances).
Person refers to an individual, not to any
association, corporation, or any other legal entity.
Public place refers to any place to which the
public or a substantial group of the public has
Supp. No. 13 1036
access, including, but not limited to; streets, high-
ways, roads, Sidewalks, alleys, avenues, parks,
and/or the commons areas of schools, hospitals,
apartment houses, office buildings, transporta-
tion facilities and shops.
Remain refers to the following actions:
(1) 7b linger or stay at or upon a place; and/or
(2) To fail to leave a place when requested to
do so by an officer or by the owner, oper-
ator or other ' person in control of that
place.
Temporary care facility refers to a non - locked,
non - restrictive shelter at which minors may wait,
under visual supervision, to be retrieved by a
parent. No minors waiting in such facility shall be
handcuffed and/or secured (by handcuffs or other-
wise) to any stationary object.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a minor, during
curfew hours, to remain in or upon any public
place within the city, to remain in any motor
vehicle operating or parked therein or thereon,, or
to remain in or upon the premises of any estab-
lishment within the city, unless:
(1) The minor is accompanied by a parent; or
(2) The minor is involved in an emergency; or
(3) The minor is engaged in an employment
activity, or is going to or returning home
from such activity, without detour or stop;
or
(4) The minor is on the sidewalk directly
abutting a place where he or she resides
with a parent; or
(5) The minor is attending an activity spon-
sored by a school, religious, or civic orga-
nization, by a public organization or agency,
or by another similar organization or en-
tity, which activity is supervised by adults,
and/or the minor is going to or returning
from such an activity without detour or
stop; or
(6) The minor is on an errand -at the direction
of a parent, and the minor has in his or
her possession a writing signed by the
parent containing the following informa-
tion: the name, signature, address and
FROM C-MLLE POLICE DEFT
(THU) 07. 22' 99 13: 00'S T, 12: 5 7 iNO, 35601 09096 F 4
OFFENSES — MISCELLANEOUS
4 17.7
telephone number of the parent authoriz-
vehicle and/or establishment within the
i,ng the errand, the telephone number
city during curfew hours is in violation of
where the parent may be reached during
17 -7(b),
the errand, the name of the minor, and a
a. If such investigation reveals that the
brief description ofthe errand, the minor's
presence of such minor is in viola-
destination(s) and the hours the minor is
tion of 17 -7(b), then:
authorized to be engaged in the errand; or
1. If the minor has not previously
(7) The minor is involved in interstate travel
been issued. a warning for any
throuptb, or beginning or terminating in,
the Qx y or 4unariuLwaviiiG, va
such violation, then the officer
such vi
,
(8) The minor is exercising First Amendment
the minor, whicb shall be fol-
rights protected by the United States_Cou-
lowed by a written, warning
stitution, such as the free exercise of
mailed by the police depart-
religion, freedom of speech and the right
meat to the minor and his or
of assembly.
her parent(s), or
2. If the minor has previously been
(c) It shall be unlawful for a minor's parent to
issued a warning for any such
knowingly permit, allow or encourage such minor
violation, them the officer shall
to violate 17.7(b).
charge the minor with a viola-
tion of this ordinance and shall
(d) It shall be unlawful for a person who is the
issue a summons requiring the
owner or operator of any motor vehicle to know-
minor to appear in court (Ref,
ingly permit, allow or encourage a violation of
Va. Code ¢ 16- 1- 260(liXI ), and
17 -7(b),
b, M soon as practicable, the officer
shall:
(e) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any
1. Release the minor to his or her
establishment, or for any person wbo is an em-
parent(s); or
ployee thereof, to knowingly permit, allow or
2_ Place the minor in a temparary
encourage a minor to remain upon the premises of
care facility for a period not to
the establishment during curfew hours. It shall
exceed the remainder ofthe cur -
be a defense to prosecution under this subsection
few hours, so that his or ber
that the operator or employee of an establishment
parents) may retrieve the mi-
promptiy notified the police department that a
nor; or
minor was present at the establishment after
3. If a minor refuses to give an
curfew hours and refused to leave_
officer his or her name and ad-
dress, refuses to give the name
(f) It shall be unlawful for any person (includ-
and address of his or her par-
ing any minor) to give a false name, address, or
ent(s), or if no parent can be
telephone number to any officer investigating a
located prior to the end of the
possible violation of this section 1? -7.
applicable curfew hours, or if
located, no parent appears .to
accept custody of the minor, the
(g) Enforcement.
minor may be taken to a
(I) Minors. Before taking any enforcement
nonsecure crisis center or juve-
action hereunder, an officer shall make an
vile shelter and/or may be taken
immediate investigation for the purpose
to a judge or intake ollacer of
of ascertaining whether or not the pree-
the juvenile court to be dealt
ence of an minor in a public place, motor
with in the manner and pursu-
Svpp. Na. 13 1037
FROM CHVILLE POLICE DEPT CTHJ)17, 22' 9 13:01 ;'S1. 1:2:57i0. S560189096 r 5
§ 17.7 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE
ant to such procedures as re- Sec. 17 -10. Disorderly conduct in public
quired by law. (Ref. Va. Code §
places.
16.1- 260(H)(1); § 16.1 - 278.6; �$
16.1- 241(AX 1)).
(2) Others. If an investigation by an officer
A person i• guilty of disorderly conduct and a
reveals that a person has violated 17-
Class 1 misdemeanor if, with the intent to cause
7(c),(d) and/or (e), and if the person has
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or reck-
not previously been issued a waX..Iing with
lessly creating a risk thereof, he:
respect to any such violation, an officer
shall issue a verbal warning to the per-
(1) In any street, highway, public building, or
son, which shall be followed by a written
while in or on a public conveyance or
warning mailed by the police department
public place, engages in conduct having a
to the person; however, if any such warn.
direct tendency to cause acts of violence
ing has previously been issued to that
by the person or persons at whom, indi-
person then the officer shall charge the
vidually, such conduct is directed; pro.
person with a violation and shall issue a
vided, however, such conduct shall not be
summons directing the person to appear
deemed to include the utterance or dis-
ci. count.
play of any words or to include conduct
(h) Each violation. of this section 17 -7 shall
otherwise made punishable under this
constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor.
chapter; or
(Code 1976, H 17- 10- 17 -13; 12. 16-96, § 1)
reference—Penalty for Class 1 misdemeanor, §
ICross
+eelc. 1.
(2) Wilfully, or beix)g intoxicated, whether
17 -8. Trick or treat visitations; special
wilfully or not, disrupts any meeting of
curfew on. Halloween.
the city council or a department, division
(a) It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misde-
or agency thereof, or any school, literary
meanor for any person to appear on the streets,
society or place of religious worship, if
highways, public homes, private homes or public
such disruption prevents or interferes with
places in the city to make trick or treat visita-
the orderly conduct of such meeting or has
tions; except, that this subsection shall not apply
a direct tendency to cause acts of'violence
to chiIdrea twelve (12) years of age and under on
by the person or persons at whom, iudi-
Halloween night.
vidually, such disruption is directed; p:o-
(b) A special curfew boar of 10.00 p.m, on
vided, however, such conduct shall not be
Halloween night is hereby established for the
deemed to include the utterance or dis-
trick or treat visitations permitted by subsection
play of any words or to include conduct
(a) of this section.
otherwise made punishable under this
(Code 1976, § 17 -18)
chapter.
Cross reference-- Peealty for Class 1 misdemeanor, §
1 -11.
Sea 17 -9. Calling ambulance or rescue ap-
The person in charge of any such building, place,
paratus without cause.
conveyance or meeting may eject therefrom any
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misde-
meanor fcr any person without just cause to call
or summon, by telephone or otherwise, any am-
bulance or rescue apparatus.
(Code 1976, § 11 -4)
Cross references — Penalty for Class 1 rniedemeaaor, §
1.11; calling fire apparatus without cause, § 12 -3.
State Iaw reference—Similar provisions, Code of Vir-
ginia, § 18.2 -212.
5upp, No. 13 1038
SUSPENDED STUDENTS WITH
PALM BEACH GARDENS ZIP CODES
SEPTEMBER,1998 TO PRESENT
School
Male
Female
Qut/Sus
33410
33418
Jupiter High
1
0
1
1
0
Suncoast High
3
0
3
2
1
Dreyfoos School of Arts
2
2
4
1
3
Forest Hill High
3
0
3
3
0
Lake Worth High
1
0
1
1
0
PBG High
128
36
164
104
60
Palm Beach Lakes High
0
0
0
0
0
Dwyer High
150
29
179
86
93
Howell Watkins
115
8
123
123
0
Jupiter Middle
15
0
15
0
15
Duncan Middle
240
49
289
30
259
Allamanda Elem
0
0
0
0
0
Timber Trace Elem
2
0
2
2
0
Lighthouse Elem
3
0
3
0
3
Grove Park Elem
4
0
4
3
1
Eisenhower Elem
2
6
8
2
6
Indian Ridge
0
4
4
4
0
Data House II
1
0
1
0
1
Court School
0
2
2
2
0
Sabal Palm School
4
13
17
5
12
Gold Coast Community
7
0
7
6
1
North Tech Ed Center
2
0
2
0
2
Totals
683
149
832
375
457
Juvenile Victim /Arrest Information for P
Summary
Arrest Information
Total Number of Juvenile Arrests 1998
Total Number of Juvenile Arrests made
during proposed curfew hours
Perentage
Victim Information
roposed Curfew Ordinance
455
42
9.20%
Total Number of Juvenile Victims 1998 213
Total Number of Juvenile victims during
proposed curfew hours 10
Percentage 4.70%
Total Number of S/37 Juvenile Trouble Calls
23:00 - 24:00 hrs. 64
Total Number of S/37 Juvenile Trouble Calls
00:00 -06:59 hrs. 121
Total 1998
185
Juvenile Victim Information 1998
Offenses 00:00 -06:59 hrs. Number of Victims
Theft/Bicycle 1
Harrassment/ex- boyfriend 1
Sexual Battery/Burglary Exceptionally Cird 1
Assault/Domestic Ref. To HRS. 1
Criminal Mischief /Egg Throwing 2
Total 6
Offenses 23:00 - 24:00 hrs. Number of Victims
Criminal MischiefNehicle 1
Simple Assault/Domestic Arrest made 2
Sexual Battery Exceptionally Clyd 1
Total 4
Juvenile Arrest Information -1998
Case No.
Time
Offense
2576
23:15
Battery/Dom/Resist
4458
23:21
Pufod
11495
22:30
Auto Theft (2 juvenile arrests)
16678
22:00
Battery/Domestic
16820
23:27
Battery/Domestic
20752
23:50
Auto Theft
26509
23:30
Battery/Domestic
34448
23:36
Battery/Domestic
Total 9 Juvenile Arrests between 23:00 - 24:00 hrs. 1998
Total Juvenile Arrests 1998
Total Juvenile Arrests during
proposed curfew hrs
Percentage
455
42
9.20%
1536
0:04
Drugs
4461
0:30
Drugs
5519
1:07
Pufod
6894
1:50
Drugs
8103
6:00
Theft
8503
1:00
Auto Theft
13684
0:46
B &E/Res
16223
0:33
DUI
16355
3:46
Resist Arrest W/O Vio
19041
0:18
DUI
19151
0:40
Theft
19748
0:40
Drugs
19860
4:12
B &E/Auto
20408
1:58
DUI
20866
2:35
Stolen Veh /O Dept.
21991
1:45
Poss Alt. DL
21996
2:55
Trespassing /Prowling
22987
0:30
Auto Theft (2 juvenile arrests)
23240
5:22
B &E/Auto /Loitering & Prowling
16353
2:25
Abscond from House Arrest
25896
0:15
Shoplifting
26923
1:22
DYS pickup
29417
4:19
Loitering & Prowling /Poss of Burg Tools
31199
3:17
Stolen Veh /O Dept.
32790
2:13
Drugs
33460
0:11
Drugs
36300
0:13
Shoplifting
37288
5:55
Drugs
37636
0:59
Pufod
37926
6:40
Att B &EBus/Auto Theft/Poss of Burg. Tools (2 arrests)
39395
2:23
Drugs
Total
33 Juvenile
Arrests between 00:00 - 06:59 hrs. for 1998
d3=00 0C ,lve)
PAGE
INCIDENTS DATE.... ADDRESS .............................. NATURE........................ DISP
8883528
81/89/98
18888 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
886926
01/18/98
VISIONS
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8007687
01/20/98
TANGLEWOOD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8888588
81/22/98
11303 CAMPUS DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8811540
81/38/98
3968 RCA BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8811549
81/38/98
HOLLY DR /N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8019993
02/21/98
11125 THYME DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8821682
82/25/98
185 BALLENISLES DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8822355
82/27/98
PGA BV /NURSERY LN
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8024829
83/86/98
GARDENS EAST DR /BURNS RD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
HR
8825189
03/07/98
4388 ARBOR WY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8025111
03/87/98
GARDEN LAKES
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8827848
83/14/98
3258 NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8832978
63/27/98
18860 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
HR
8035638
04/83/98
PGA PARK
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8835648
84/83/98
1878 SIENNA OAKS CR E
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
1666
8838356
64/18/98
4462 HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8040589
04/16/98
2555 PGA BY
37- JWENILE
TROUBLE
UNF
8848939
84/17/98
3181 PGA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8840943
84/17/98
3289 GARDENS EAST DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8048958
04/17/98
6 SHELDRAKE LN
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
1866
8041244
84/18/98
4485 TANGLEWOOD E
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8043752
84/24/98
SANDTREE
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8046494
85/81/98
9988 ALT AIA
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8851849
85/15/98
3258 NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8852157
85/16/98
10097 RIVERSIDE DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
854485
85/22/98
4239 LINDEN AV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8056997
85/38/98
4328 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8059123
86185/98
TANGLEWOOD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8861264
86/11/98
MIRA FLORES
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8861922
06/13/98
GARDENS EAST APTS
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8864438
06/28/98
GARDENS EAST APTS
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8065082
06/22/98
GARDENS EAST APTS
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8865436
86/23/98
GARDENS OF WOODBERRY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8068174
07/81/98
4123 NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8874518
07/28/98
BALSAM WHOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8874512
87/28/98
4241 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8875562
87/23/98
508 IVY AV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
60A
8879290
88/83/98
558 RIO VISTA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8079716
88/84/98
9908 ALT AIA
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
'NR
8881632
88/67/98
18047 DAPHNE AV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8881997
88/18/98
APPLECREST DR/BIRDWOOD ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8083111
08/13/98
BEAUMONT LN /ELM ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8083427
88/14/98
PLANT DR /LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8884415
88/17/98
513 SANDTREE DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8884417
88/17/98
4320 TANGLEWOOD E
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8098347
88/31/98
18880 N MILITARY TR
'37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8892343
89/84/98
11178 CURRY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
UNF
8893114
89/06/98
9980 ALT AIA
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8895275
89/11/98
3181 PGA BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8897834
89/18/98
PGA BV /SHADY LAKES DR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
9899153
09/22/98
TANGLEWOOD
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
i ,188392
89/25/98
4176 BURNS RD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8188745
89/26/98
588 SANDTREE DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
UNF
8188746
89/26/98
4888 TANGLEWOOD E
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8189898
18/17/98
MARLWOOD
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
12:36:36 12 MAR 1999
PAGE
INCIDENTS DATE.... ADDRESS .............................. NATURE........................ DISP
8115168
18/31/98
1828
RAINTREE DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
,128475
11/13/98
5868
GOLDEN EAGLE CR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8128781
11/14/98
2281
SABAL RIDGE CT
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8128782
11/14/98
1185
DUNCAN CR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8123984
11/21/98
MIRA
FLORES
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8128188
12/81/98
4325
TANGLEWOOD S
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8138348
12/25/98
WESTWOOD GARDENS
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8148233
12/38/98
18888
N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
RPT
64 ITEMS LISTED.
12:36:37 12 MAR 1999
PAGE
INCIDENTS DATE.... ADDRESS .............................. NATURE........................ DISP
8088085
01/01/98
RIVERSIDE DR /HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
.882289
01/07/98
3204 MORNING GLORY CT
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8002666
01/08198
BENT TREE
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
MR
8003688
81/10/98
TANGLEWOOD E/N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8084995
81/14/98
3200 MORNING GLORY CT
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8006228
01/17/98
5021 .SESAME ST
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8088681
81/23/98
3368 BURNS RD
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8808982
81/24/98
NURSERY LH /PGA BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8008989
01/24/98
FGA NATIONAL
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
1066
8008996
81/24/98
BIRMINGHAM DR /HORTHVILLES
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8008999
01/24/98
KEATING DR /NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8809051
01/24/98
800 DEL LAGO CR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8011137
01/30/98
TANGLEWOOD S/H MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8011553
81/31/98
9488 MACARTHUR BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8011567
61/31/98
HOLLY DR /DASHEEN AV
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8811849
02/81/98
9890 ALT AIR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8816949
02/14/98
NURSERY LM/PGA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8017279
02/15/98
4085 TANGLEWOOD E
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
MR
8017283
02/15/98
9980 ALT AIR
37- JUVEMILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8019671
02/21/98
NURSERY LM/PGA BY
37�JUVENILE
TROUBLE
HR
8020043
02/22/98
H MILITARY TR /HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8828857
02/22/98
LIGHTHOUSE DR /BEGONIA ST
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8022364
02/28/98
5681 EAGLE LAKE DR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8022712
03/81/98
TANGLEWOOD
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8824873
83/07/98
521 PRESTWICK CR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
9025162
03/08/98
18880 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
830163
63/21/98
PGA BV /RCA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
HR
8038509
83/22/98
9908 ALT AIR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
MR
8833263
03/29/98
600 SANDTREE DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8035252
84/83/98
PGA BV /FAIRCHILD GARDENS AV
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
MR
8035658
04/04/98
OAKS PARK
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8036628
84/07/98
COVENTRY LH/RYDER CUP BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8837112
04/08/98
18913 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
108
8037116
84/88/98
506 RIO VISTA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8038895
04/10/98
NORTHLAKE BV /I 95
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8038993
84/13/98
LIGHTHOUSE DR/ALT AIR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8839424
04/14/98
59 DUNBAR RD
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
HR
8043781
84/25/98
4245 HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8844077
64/26/98
4431 PGA BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8044098
04/26/98
4431 PGA BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8047988
05/06/98
4109 NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
HR
8848763
05/88/98
9980 ALT AIR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8048792
05188/98
3937 HOLLY DR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8849131
05/09/98
LAKESPUR CR N /GARDENIA DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8049146
85/89/98
3880 NORTHLAKE BY
37-JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8049471
85/10/98
HOOD RD /CENTRAL BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8849488
05/10/98
9980 ALT AIR
37-JUVEMILE
TROUBLE
NR
8051870
85/16/98
GARDENS OF NOODBERRY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8052158
05/17/98
AVENUE OF THE PGA/PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
HR
8854439
05/23/98
4280 NORTHLAKE BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8056416
85/29/98
MORTHLAKE BV /E HIGHLAND PINES BY
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
HR
9856459
85/29/98
3937 HOLLY DR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
.057994
86/83/98
12516 NOODMILL DR
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8859714
06/88/98
4431 PGA BY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8868905
86/11/98
11566 US HY 1
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8062813
06/14/98
108 VISION CT
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
00 . o 0 - G-7 -, 0 0
12:43:47 12 MAR 1999
PAGE
INCIDENTS DATE.... ADDRESS .............................. NATURE........................ DISP
8863736
86/19/98 KEATING DR /CRESTDALE ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
.865887
86/23/98 BEELINE HWY /PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8866816
86/28/98 18132 PLANT DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
RPT
8878982
87/10/98 4185 TANGLEWOOD E
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8871565
87/12198 9980 ALT AIA
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8871581
87/12/98 3958 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8873987
87/19/98 N MILITARY TR /BURNS RD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8874899
07/22/98 4241 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8875244
87/23/98 4231 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8875574
87/24/98 4158 PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8075618
87/24/98 PGA BV /ALT AIA
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8875985
87/25/98
LILAC ST /PLANT DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8876876
07/28/98
3888 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8880273
08/86/98
PGA BV /ALT AIA
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8882788
88/13/98
KEATING DR /CRESTDALE ST
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
MR
8883437
08/15/98
CRESTDALE ST /APPLECREST DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8883468
88/15/98
4123 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8083772
08/16/98
THE OAKS EAST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8883779
08/16/98
4123 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8883796
08/16/98
4431 PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8886333
88/22/98
3968 RCA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8886749
08/23/98
GARDENS EAST APTS
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8887966
88/26/98
4288 TANGLEWOOD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8889291
88/29/98
4848 TANGLEWOOD N
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8889686
88/38/98
9868 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8894852
89/11/98
10888 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
895294
09/12/98
4388 TANGLEWOOD S
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8895637
89/13/98
7160 FAIRWAY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8897844
89/19/98
GARDENS OF WOODBERRY
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8097866
89/19/98
3937 HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8898182
89/28/98
1381 SUN TERRACE CT
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8099995
09/25/98
11684 US HY 1
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8188775
89/27/98
13681 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
MR
8181919
89/30/98
3888 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8181925
89/30/98
MIRA FLORES
37-JUVEMILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8181949
89/30/98
8924 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8183515
18/84/98
HILLTOP
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8188342
18/16/98
N MILITARY TR /TANGLEWOOD S
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
RPT
8188345
18/16/98
18625 H MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8112234
10/25/98
3368 BURNS RD
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8113393
18/28/98
4358 PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8113865
18/29/98
SUN TERRACE CT /SPRINGDALE CT
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8115164
11/81/98
18121 CAOBA ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8115418
11/02/98
2488 PGA BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8117695
11/87/98
18913 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8118880
11/18/98
4338 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8119283
11/11/98
OAKS PARK
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
UNF
8128183
11/13/98
4245 HOLLY DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8128486
11/14/98
3584 GARDENS EAST DR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8123715
11/21/98
9988 ALT AIA
37- JUVEHILE
TROUBLE
NR
8123717
11/21/98
4338 LILAC ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
9123999
11/22/98
24TH LANE/GARDENA LAKES
37- JUVENILE TROUBLE
NR
s124326
11/23/98
3896 GUAVA ST
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8126862
11/27/98
NORTHLAKE BV /I 95
37-JUVEHILE TROUBLE
MR
8126563
11/28/98
3889 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE TROUBLE
UNF
8126684
11/28/98
4108 PGA BV
37- JUVENILE TROUBLE
MR
12:43:48 12 MAR 1999
PAGE 3 12:43:48 12 MAR 1999
INCIDENTS DATE.... ADDRESS .............................. NATURE.................__.____ DIRD
8128253
12/02/98
11586 US HY 1
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
131439
12/09/98
BURNS RD /I 95
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8132383
12/11/98
10800 N MILITARY TR
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8133155
12/13/98
3800 NORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8135270
12/18/98
9900 ALT A1A
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8136383
12/21 /98.WESTWOOD
GARDENS
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
GOA
8137704
12/24/98
OAKS PARK
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8137711
12/24/98
GARDENIA DR /HONEYSUCKLE AV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
8139821
12/30/98
3800 HORTHLAKE BV
37- JUVENILE
TROUBLE
NR
121 ITEMS LISTED.
I
Alternative A
RESOLUTION 77, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 63,1998 APPROVING THE
SITE PLAN FOR LOT 1 OF RCA PARK CENTER TO
PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE TO THE COLOR OF THE WEST
ELEVATION BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING
INTERSTATE 95) AND THE SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING RCA BOULEVARD)
FROM BLUE TO # 2283 RED AND REMOVAL OF THE
MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF RCA BOULEVARD AND NORTHCORP
PARKWAY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens approved the site plan for
the construction of a 73,483 square foot hotel on 2.77 acres on, lot 1 of RCA Park Center within the
Northcorp Planned Community District by Resolution 63, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens has received an application
from Palm Beach Gardens Hospitality Ltd., to amend the approved building wall signage color for
the west elevation building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation building wall sign
(facing RCA Boulevard) from blue to #2283 red; and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Department has determined that approval of
said application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
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 an
amendment to the plans approved by Resolution 63, 1998 to change the color of the west elevation
building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation building wall sign (facing RCA
Boulevard) from blue to #2283 red and removal of the monument sign as specified on the March 8,
1999 site plan and located at the northeast corner of RCA Boulevard and Northcorp Parkway. The
building is located on 2.77 acres on lot 1 of RCA Park Center generally located at the northeast
corner of Northcorp Parkway and RCA Boulevard, within the Northcorp Planned Community
District.
Section 2. All previously approved plans or specifications in conflict with this resolution are
hereby superseded.
Section 3. Construction of said development shall be in accordance with the following
documents on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
1. June 18, 1999 Elevations, George F. White and Associates, Sheets A -9 and A -10
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1999.
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
351",
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
GAShort Range\misc9914.re.A.wpd
Resolution 77, 1999
Page 2
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: July 28, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Petition MISC- 99 -14. Consideration for Approval. Hampton Inn Signage Color Change.
Chip Carlson, petitioner, is requesting a change in the approved color for the Hannon Inn
wall and ground signs, approved by Resolution 63, 1998.
Recommendation /Motion:
Staff recommends approval of Alternative A of Resolution 77, 1999
Reviewed by:%
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Council Action:
Attorney City y
Growth Management
[ ]Approved
Finance N/A
�
$ 0
[ ]Approved W,ca,aa«s
Current FY
ACM
[ ] Denied
Human Res. N/A
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other N/A
Date:
[ ] Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
Resolution 77, 1999
[ x ] Not Required
July 28, 1999 memo
Submitted by:
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Director
[ ] Notified
( ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed this petition at its July 1, 1999 meeting. City Council had a concern
regarding the script style and "dark bronze" lettering color on the monument sign. The
Council had requested that the lettering be changed from a script style to a block lettering
style and "brass" color so that the monument sign is consistent with other approved
monument signs within the Northcorp PCD, including the Wackenhut Corporate
Headquarters. The petitioner has indicated that the Hampton Inn national office wo d,not
permit the requested style of block lettering. The petitioner has indicated that, should the
script style not be approved, then they will remove the monument sign. (see attached
letter)
Chip Carlson, petitioner, has requested an amendment to the two wall signs and ground
sign which were approved for the Hampton Inn hotel in RCA Park Center within the
Northcorp PCD. The subject wall signs are located on the west elevation wall, facing
Interstate 95 -and the south elevation, facing RCA Boulevard. The wall signs were
approved as "Hampton Inn Blue ". The petitioner is proposing to change both the south and
west facing wall sign color from blue to " #2283 Red ". The ground sign was approved at the
RCA Boulevard curb cut with "Hampton Inn Blue" lettering. The petitioner woLdd °alike to
change the color of the ground sign lettering to " #313 Bronze ". The subject property is
approximately 2.77 acres in size and was originally approved on September 3, 1998 by
Resolution 63, 1998. The Hampton Inn is located in the RCA Park Center, which is within
the Northcorp PCD. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Northcorp
Parkway and RCA Boulevard (1- 42E -42S & 6- 43E -42S)
The petitioner originally agreed to blue lettering during the site plan approval process, due
to Council's concern about maintaining uniform color within the Northcorp Planned
Community Development. The reason for the requested color change is derived from a
corporate decision regarding Hampton Inn's trademark colors.
The City Council has maintained the approval of a consistent color scheme of blue and
bronze for building signage for the past several projects within the Northcorp PCD.
However, there are no code requirements or requirements within the PCD development
order requiring such scheme. The discretion for allowing such a color change is therefore
left to the City Council. The proposed bronze colored lettering on the ground sign is similar
to other monument sign lettering within the Northcorp PCD.
It should also be noted that two nearby hotels with signage visible from Interstate 95 have
red lettering. These hotels include the Embassy Suites and the Marriott. Red sign color on
the Hampton Inn would be consistent with the nearby hotel signage, maintaining some
uniformity of color.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon Council direction to achieve uniformity of design within the Northcorp PCD,
staff is recommending that the City Council not take action on Alternative B of Resolution
77, 1999, which would approve the monument sign with script lettering and the color
change as proposed by Council. (It was this form of the Resolution which was presented
for consideration at the July 1St meeting)
Rather, staff is recommending that the City Council approve an Alternative A of�Resolution
77, 1999 to allow for only the wall signage color change from blue to #2283 red and
removal of the monument sign. The approval of Resolution 77, 1999 Alternative A shall
supercede the approval of the monument sign, as documented by the Site Plan dated
March 8, 1999.
GAShort Range \misc9914.st.wpd
Richard W. Carlson, Jr., Esq.
7,,377 Crawford Court
Lantana, ) lL 33462 -2511
Phone (561) 433 -0172
Telecopicr (561) 433 -0874
July 28, 1999
Ed Tombari,.Planner
Palm Beach Gardens Planning & Zoning
10500. N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -4698
4
& LNG
Iok/NG
Via Telecopier & US ?Mail
No. 775--1014
Re: Hampton Inn - .MonumOnt.Sign•Letter Style
Dear Ed:
. This is. to confirm our discussions this. week and two weeks ago
regarding the bronze colored script letters on the monument .sign of
the Hampton Inn at RCA Boulevard.
Promus - the franchisor for the Hampton. Inn-'at RCA Boulevard
has riot authorized block *letters. Although they have agreed to
bronze colored. lettering for the monument sign,-'they insist that
any letters on the monument sign be script. This is a trademarked
logo. and they cannot come to terms with block.letters.
Based on Council's decision of July 1,. 1999, -there are two
opt -ons.. Either allow the bronze script letters'-or deny the
monument sigh altogether.. The two red signs on..the west and south
side of the building will -remain in any case. Those. signs have
been ordered and will be'installed by-the middXe of August.
we look forward to the presentation to the Council on August
5, 1994 we will provide you photographs for consideration of theJ..
Council.
As always, I appreciate your and all of staff''s assistance on
the .Hampton Inn. During the time the building was being finished -
my client reported to me frequently that staff was very.helpful in
getting the hotel finalized for a timely opening. Should you have
any questions .or concerns, or need anything further, please advise.
G: Mike Panakos
TA �q",4
Richard W. Carlson, Jr., Esq.
Nnq-? . b/80PRbT.gq 7.q:T.7 FEET. //_7./L0
Alternative A
RESOLUTION 77,1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 63,1998 APPROVING THE
SITE PLAN FOR LOT 1 OF RCA PARK CENTER TO
PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE TO THE COLOR OF THE WEST zs
ELEVATION BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING
INTERSTATE 95) AND THE SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING RCA BOULEVARD)
-FROM BLUE TO # 2283 RED AND REMOVAL OF THE
MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF RCA BOULEVARD AND NORTHCORP
PARKWAY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens approved the site plan for
the construction of a 73,483 square foot hotel on 2.77 acres on, lot 1 of RCA Park Center within the
Northcorp Planned Community District by Resolution 63, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens has received an application
from Palm Beach Gardens Hospitality Ltd., to amend the approved building wall signage color for
the west elevation building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation building wall sign
(facing RCA Boulevard) from blue to #2283 red; and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Department has determined that approval of
said application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
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 an
amendment to the plans approved by Resolution 63, 1998 to change the color of the west elevation
building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation building wall sign (facing RCA
Boulevard) from blue to #2283 red and removal of the monument sign as specified on the March 8,
1999 site plan and located at the northeast corner of RCA Boulevard and Northcorp Parkway. The
building is located on 2.77 acres on lot 1 of RCA Park Center generally located at the northeast
corner of Northcorp Parkway and RCA Boulevard, within the Northcorp Planned Community
District.
Section 2. All previously approved plans or specifications in conflict with this resolution are
hereby superseded.
Section 3. Construction of said development shall be in accordance with the following
documents on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
1. June 18, 1999 Elevations, George F. White and Associates, Sheets A -9 and A -10
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1999.
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
I:
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
GAShort Range\[nisc9914.re.A.wpd
Resolution 77, 1999
Page 2
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
Alternative B
RESOLUTION 77,1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 63, 1998 APPROVING A
SITE PLAN FOR LOT 1 OF RCA PARK CENTER TO,z .,
PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE TO THE COLOR OF THE WEST
ELEVATION BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING
INTERSTATE 95) AND THE SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING WALL SIGN (FACING RCA BOULEVARD)
FROM BLUE TO #2283 RED AND LETTERING COLOR ON
THE MONUMENT SIGN FROM BLUE TO #313 BRONZE;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens approved the site plan for
the construction of a 73,483 square foot hotel on 2.77 acres on, lot 1 of RCA Park Center within the
Northcorp Planned Community District by Resolution 63, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens has received an application
from Palm Beach Gardens Hospitality, Ltd. to amend the approved building wall signage color for
the west elevation building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation (facing RCA
Boulevard) building wall sign from blue to #2283 red, and to change the approved monument sign
lettering from blue to # 313 bronze; and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Department has determined that approval of
said application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
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 an
amendment to the plans approved by Resolution 63, 1998 to change the color of the west elevation
building wall sign (facing Interstate 95) and the south elevation building wall sign (facing RCA
Boulevard) from blue to #2283 red, and to change the approved monument sign lettering from blue
to #313 bronze. The building is located on 2.77 acres on lot 1 of RCA Park Center generally located
at the northeast corner of Northcorp Parkway and RCA Boulevard, within the Northcorp Planned
Community District.
Section 3. All previously approved plans or specifications in conflict with this resolution are
hereby superseded.
Section 2. Construction of said development shall be in accordance with the following
docuents on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
1. June 18, 1999 Site Plan and Sign Elevation, George F. White and Assoc., Sheet A -2
2. June 18, 1999 Elevations, George F. White and Associates, Sheets A -9 and A -10
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1999.
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER SUFFICIENCY.
BY:
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
GAShort Rangelinisc9914.re.B.wpd
Resolution 77, 1999
Page 2
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
CITY OF PALM-BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: August 2, 1999
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Consideration of Approval: Resolution 86, 1999: ( SP- 97 -03): Christ Fellowship South Site Plan
Amendments, a request by Dave Gregg, agent for Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship, Inc. to
- consider a petition for site plan amendments for the existing Christ Fellowship religious facility to J
obtain site plan approval for the existing second story, to approve additional parking to support
additional seating, to obtain a time extension for the existing modular units, to receive approval for
a ground sign, and for other site plan amendments.
Recommendation/Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 86, 1999.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0^
Council Action:
On
LL
Total
City Attorney
Growth Management
[ J Approved
Finance N/A
f, t
4
S 0
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
'v/
Current FY
ACM �-
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Human Res., N/A
Funding Source:
[ l Continued to:
Other N/A
Date:
[ [ Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
City Engineer memo of
[ t ] Not Required
June 22, 1999
City Forester memo of June
Submitted by:
17,1999
Growth Management Dir.
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #:
Kimley -Horn analysis of
June 15, 1999
Reduced plans,
landscape plans, and
drainage plans
[ J Notified
Resolution 86, 1999
[ J None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ s J Not required
BACKGROUND:
The Christ Fellowship Church is located on a 5.43 -acre parcel on the south side of Northlake
Boulevard, west of Military Trail. The site is zoned RL-1 (Residential Low Density -1). The subject
property was rezoned on December 20, 1990 by Ordinance 30, 1990, from Palm Beach County
zoning designation of AR (Agricultural Residential) with a special exception allowing expansion of
Commercial- -41orse stables to the City's zoning classification of RL -1 Single Family Residential
District with a conditional use for a church and an accessory use of a preschool. On Fuary 7, 1991,
by Resolution 13, 1991, the site plan proposing the improvements of the Christ Fellowship Church,' "`'"
was approved by the City Council. This original approval provided for a 1 -story sanctuary building
containing 300 seats, a "caretaker's residence ", and 92 parking spaces (80 grass and 12 paved). The
site plan showed 56% open space.
On January 2, 1997, the City Council granted a temporary conditional use approval for the placement
of three modular units at the site with an expiration date of July 2, 1998. The purpose of these
modular units was to help alleviate overcrowding. Part of this application is a request to extend the
life of that temporary conditional use; if this application is denied they will have to be removed
because the original date has expired.
In April of 1997 the petitioner requested additional modular units. This request has since been
withdrawn. However, in reviewing this request, the City eventually became aware that the use of this
property had greatly exceeded the scope of its original approval. After analysis of the situation and
discussions with the church, the City indicated that the violation of the original Development Order
had to be resolved either through Code Enforcement action or through an amendment to the original
conditional use and site plan approvals which would provide "retroactive" approval of the existing
conditions. After assurances from the representatives of the church that they would proceed with
good faith efforts, it was agreed to allow for "retroactive" approvals. Two years later, these
amendment requests are being processed as CU -97 -04 and SP- 97 -03.
During 1997, the project proceeded very slowly through the review process. The project did not
meet concurrency, for example, until August of 1997. During review of the petition, staff gradually
became aware that the scope of the project had greatly exceeded its original development order.
Finally in January of 1998 the applicant submitted a site plan which showed 800 seats rather than 300,
a sanctuary of 2 1, 100 square feet, and a parking lot showing 229 spaces (with off -site parking).
Finally staff could undertake a realistic review of this project.
Staff spent 1998 trying to obtain enough information from the petitioner to conduct a thorough
review so that the project could be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Nearly every request for information resulted in slow responses, inadequate and/or conflicting plans
and documents, and a repeat of the same pattern when further information was requested. In May
and again in July 1998, Development Review Committee meetings were held, but serious problems
with the submitted data and information remained.
Finally, on January 12, 1999, this project was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Commission discussed the history of this project at length, especially in light of Christ FellowshipUs
proposed expansion on its new site on the north side of Northlake Boulevard. The Commission was
especially concerned with the intensity of use at this site, and with the resulting parking and traffic
circulation issues. Mr. Gregg, representing Christ Fellowship, indicated that the south property
would no longer be used for worship services once the north property is completed. Instead, the
south property would then be used as a chapel for weddings, smaller meetings and other functions.
As noted by Planner Bahareh Keshavarz to Mr. Gregg in a memo dated January 29, 1999, the
Commission had several other questions and concerns (see attached memo).`
On April 27, 1999, the project was again reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff
presented what were considered to be the major issues: traffic concerns, drainage, parking, the
expansion of the use, and septic system concerns. Staff suggested a number of conditions of approval
to address this site's problems, including the elimination of 15 parking spaces which do not meet
code, the calculation of required parking at a rate of 1 space per 3 seats, and others. The petitioner's
agent recognized staffs concerns and even agreed to abide by staff's conditions of approval after the
north campus opens. In other words, the petitioner is proposing that the City not insist on the
immediate resolution of this site's code problems, but that we wait until the north campus opens, at
which point they will comply with all of our requests.
At the April 27 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission focused on several matters:
1. Simultaneous services on the north and south campuses
2. Was the sanctuary properly designed for 800- -i.e., are there enough toilets
3. Phasing was discussed at length, with phase 1 being what is there today and phase 2 being what
will occur when the north campus opens (approximately Christmas of 1999)
4. Should off -site parking continue
5. Should we impose a "date certain" for phase 2
Ultimately the Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the petitioner's argument that we should
wait until the north campus opens and require the resolution of this site's problems after that opening,
on the assumption that the majority of the church's operations will shift to the new campus and the
old campus will be able to scale back. However the Commission was not willing to pass this matter
on to the City Council until they had a full site plan package to review, including landscape plans.
The Commission also wanted to see a phasing plan.
In response, the petitioner submitted phased site plans, landscape plans, and drainage ohlhs:° °Phase
I represents the site in its temporary configuration- -that is, after City Council approval but prior to
the opening of the north campus. The petitioner's revised plans have eliminated the 15 parking spaces
on the basketball court that are not code- compliant, and have added six spaces elsewhere, for a total
of 192 spaces. Phase 1 continues to calculate parking at 1 space per 4 seats. Therefore the plans
show 768 seats, the modular units, 'and a driveway connection to the Church of the Nazarene site
to the west.
Phase 2 represents the ultimate configuration after the opening of the new campus, and shows 576
seats, no modular units, and the same 192 parking spaces, and the closing of the cross access to the
neighboring church. Phase 2 accedes to staff's request to calculate parking at 1 space per 3 seats, thus
resulting in a reduction of 192 seats from Phase 1.
This project was again reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its June 22, 1999
meeting. At this meeting, the Commission again reviewed the project in depth, including a number
of revised documents submitted by the petitioner. These documents included a pluming fixture
certification from the project architect, an analysis of the traffic and driveways on Northlake
Boulevard, phased site plans, phased landscape plans, and phased drainage plans. Based upon these
documents and a letter from the City's consulting engineers indicating that their concerns were all
satisfied or conditionally satisfied, the Planning and• Zoning Commission voted to recommend
approval of these petitions to the City Council. The Commission also added two recommended
conditions of approval to those suggested by staff.
On July 15, 1999, the City Council reviewed Christ Fellowship in a workshop/ I' reading. Resolution
86, 1999, which specifically applies to the site plan for this project, was not reviewed since site plans
can only be approved after a conditional use has been granted.
DISCUSSION
A. Land Use and Zoning
The current land use designation for the subject site is Residential Low (RL) with a Residential Low
Density -I (RL -1) zoning and conditional use for a church. For a complete listing of adjacent uses,
land use designations and zoning districts, see Table I.
B. Traffic Concurrency
The project was reviewed and approved for traffic Concurrency as part of the original site plan
approval process for the church improvements. The petitioner has also submitted a traffic
statement indicating that the expanded use of the site still meets the County Traffic Performance
Standards.
C. Public and Private Services
The City's Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed the request at their May 7, 1998
and July 23, 1998 meetings. A listing of the various departmental comments is attached-for-your
review.
TABLE I
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & SITE ANALYSIS
EXISTING USE
ZONING
LAND USE
Subject Property
Residential Low Density -1
Residential Low
Church
Conditional Use
(RL -1)
North
: Planned Development Area
Residential Low
Vacant
(P.A.)
(RL)
South
Residential Estate
Residential Low
Single Family Residences
(RE)
(RL)
East
Residential Estate
Residential Low
Single Family Residences
(RE)
(RL)
West
Residential Low Density -1
Residential Low
Church
(RL -1)
(RL)
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CODE (Phase 1)
Consistent
Code Requirement
Proposed Plan
Yes
Residential Low Density -1
Church
Conditional Use
Yes
Lot Coverage (35 %)
13.8%
Yes
Parking 200 Spaces
201 spaces
Yes
Front Setback: 35'
250'
i
No *
Side Setback: 38' *
22'
Yes Rear Setback: 25' 80' (30 feet to the top of the
bank)
Yes Building Height: 36' Max. 35'
Yes Open Space (35 %) 35% not includingthe grass
parking
* A shed in the southwest corner which will be relocated in Phase 2.
D. Procedure
This is a request for a site plan amendment. The request is reviewed by the Development Review
Committee, which forwards comments and recommendations to the Site Plan and Appearance
Review Committee. Acting in an advisory role, the Committe makes a recommendation on the
proposed request to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for site plan for
consideration of approval, approval with conditions or denial.
Please note that this petition relies on the expansion of the church use (number of seats) which
will be reviewed by the City Council as an amendment to the conditional use (CU- 97 -04) by
consideration of Ordinance 34, 1999 found elsewhere on this meeting agenda. This petition
requires changes to the elevations, setbacks and other physical site plan changes and the signage,
and will be reviewed as a site plan amendment to SP- 97 -03. The time extension for the modular
units will amend SP- 97 -03.
E. Project Details
The petitioner is proposing to amend the approved conditional use and site plan for Christ
Fellowship Church to correct the inconsistencies between the approved project and the existing
situation at the current Christ Fellowship site. The site plan was approved in 1991 for a 15,825
square foot, I -story, 300 seat religious facility. Today Christ Fellowship site contains a 2 1, 100
square foot, 2- story building with 800 seats, a driveway connection to the Church of the
Nazarene's parking lot, an exit (right out) at the northeast corner of the site, and a youth center
that was originally approved as a residence. The size of the approved residence building was
2,196 square feet, whereas the existing building is 4,009 square feet in size. The proposed site
plan and use changes reflect the following:
Expansion of Conditional Use (to be reviewed as CU- 97 -04, Ordinance 34, 1999)
Increasing the number of seats from 300 to 768 (192 of which are temporary).._;
Changing the use of the residence building to a youth center.
Site Plan Amendment
• Approving a driveway connection to the Church of the Nazarene and sharing parking with
the Church of the Nazarene.
• Approving a right turn only exit at the north east corner of the site.
• Approving additional parking to support the 768 seats.
• Approving a second story for the existing house of worship.
• Relocating the existing sheds to be consistent with the existing building setbacks on the
site.
• Approving a project identification sign at the entrance to the site.
.Approving additional grass parking.
Time Extension
Approving a time extension for the 3 modular units until the occupation of the north
campus.
As noted above, the applicant has now submitted phased plans as requested by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The first phase is an "as is" plan except that it shows 768 sea g-instead of
the 800 seats which actually exist now. Phase 1 represents their commitment to remove the .15
parking spaces which are not code - compliant. The loss of parking requires a loss of seating.
- Phase 2 represents the project as it will be after the opening of the north campus (currently
expected by Christmas of 1999), with the removal of the modulars and the scaling back of the
intensity of use on the site. Additional landscaping is called for in Phase 2 to bring the site into
compliance with today's code. Staff is proposing a condition of approval that will require the
installation of the new landscaping within 30 days of the approval of Phase 1, :rather than waiting
for Phase 2.
ISSUES:
The illegal and unpermitted expansion of this project presents a number of issues which need to be
considered by the City Council:
1. TRAFFIC
The applicant has submitted a traffic statement which indicates that the expansion to 800 seats
'`will not cause the level of service standard for Northlake Boulevard to be exceeded ". However,
the nature of this use is such that the City should also consider peak hour trips as well as average
daily trips. Staff concern is that simultaneous use of the north and south properties for church
services could result in so many vehicles on Northlake Boulevard at the same time that traffic
control measures could be overwhelmed.
In response to this concern, the petitioner has submitted an operational analysis of the driveways
on Northlake Boulevard which establishes that the site will demonstrate "very acceptable levels of
set-vice" even after the opening of the north campus.
The petitioner has indicated to staff that, once the north campus is open, the south campus will no
longer be used for regular religious services. Staff recommends a condition of approval to this
effect.
2. DRAINAGE
The petitioner has given the City drainage plans for the site representing both current conditions
and the buildout of the Church of the Nazarene site. The drainage scheme relies on the use of an
off -site treatment facility on property owned by the Church of the Nazarene. In such cases a
formal drainage agreement should be secured between the two parties.
3. PARKING
Staff's parking concerns with this project fall into two areas: the overall number of spaces
provided, and technical problems with some of the spaces on the property.
Overall Numbers:
Current City code calls for 1 space per 4 seats in the principal building. The site currently
contains 800 seats (600 permanent, 200 temporary) which would require 200 spaces. The site
has 201 spaces, of which 62 are paved and 139 are grass. Therefore the plan technically complies
with the code. However, 15 of the spaces are not code - compliant (see discussion below).
The petitioner also has a cross parking agreement with the Church of the Nazarene immediately to
the west which allows them to use 104 of their spaces. These spaces are available for "overflow"
parking for Christ Fellowship, but the agreement between the two parties is subject to termination
at anv time "upon written notification to the other ". Furthermore, Sec. 118 -421 of the City code
states that "off-street parking for non - residential uses as required by this article shall be located on
the same building site as the uses they serve ". Therefore these off -site spaces cannot be
considered in any examination of Christ Fellowship's parking situation.
City staff is in the process of re- evaluating the number of spaces required for churches, and is
currently recommending I space /3 seats (see discussion below). The north campus was
approved at 1 space per 2 seats. One space per 3 seats is the number used by Palm Beach County
and many other governments for churches. The possible need for more parking is indicated by the
September 1997 Traffic Study of Christ Fellowship prepared by Miles Moss & Associates, Inc.
which found that "vehicle occupancy rates are lower than Code expectations of 4 people /vehicle,
as observed rates range from 1.92 to 2.13 people /vehicle ".
Observations also indicate that the "overflow" parking at the Church of the Nazarene is heavily
used. Indeed, the fact that Christ Fellowship felt the need to obtain the use of this extra parking
:shows that the petitioner is not finding its on -site parking to be adequate. This may be due to the
fact that the church has multiple services on Sunday morning, and worshipers for just - concluded
services have not vacated the lot before worshipers for the next service arrive, leading to an
overlap.
Parking Rate_
In the latter half of 1998, City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning staff did a
considerable amount of reseach concerning church parking rates as part of a proposed new church
ordinance. The following are some highlights from that research.
Staff reviewed a publication produced by the American Planning Association called Off- Street
Parking Requirements: A National Review of Standards (Planning Advisory Service Report
#432, ed. David Bergman). This study gathered and analyzed 127 zoning and parking ordinances
fi-om all over the country. For churches and other places of worship, standards ranged from I
space per 8 seats to 1 space per 2.5 seats. The most common standard was 1 space per 4 seats.
This conclusion is not altered when several of the smaller municipalities are deleted from the
analysis and only larger areas (such as Palm Beach Gardens) are left.
One possible flaw in the above study is that it was published in 1991 and hence may-not be
reflective of the " cnegachurch" phenomenon (assuming that larger churches have higher parking
demands than smaller ones, which may not be true). Therefore staff has reviewed a variety of
parking ordinances which have been prepared or revised since 1991:
Location
Hillsborough County, FL
Port Oi ange, FL
Collier County, FL
Fairfax, VA
Portland, OR
Selected North Carolina jurisdictions
Palo Alto, CA
St. Charles, LA
Parking Standard
0.3 spaces /seat
1 space /3 seats in main area (fixed)
1 space /30 s.f in main auditorium (removable)
3 spaces /7 seats in chapel or assembly area
(may be reduced to 1 space /4 seats by ZBA)
1 space /4 seats (may be reduced if off -site
parking available)
I space /100 s.f in main assembly area
range: 1 space /4 seats, to 1 /space /4 seats + 2
spaces /3 employees, to 1 space /8 seats
1 space /4 seats, based upon maximum use of
all facilities simultaneously
1 space /4 seats, or 1 space /72" of bench
seating
We also looked at our immediate neighbors. Palm Beach County uses a standard of 1 space /3
seats, with any schools or gymnasiums being calculated separately. West Palm Beach uses 1
space/ 100 s.f in the main assembly area, plus 1 space/ 1000 s. f. of any other assembly areas such
as Sunday schools.
Finally, we reviewed information from Jim Schwab, who is one of the editors of Zoning News and
is an authority on megachurches. In a communication to the former Growth Management
Director, he says "Overall, one parking space per 3.5 seats in the main sanctuary or auditorium
seems to be an emerging standard..." but the proper standard could be lower for churches that
are not "family- oriented ". Each church's demographics should be analyzed.
Incidentally, most of the larger existing and recently- approved churches and places of worship in
Palm Beach Gardens use a standard of 1 space /4 seats; including both the existing and proposed
Trinity United Methodist, Gardens Presbyterian, and Temple Beth David. St. Ignatius Loyola
(proposed) is about 1 space /3.3 seats. St. Marks is about 1 space /6 seats, but this ratio will
improve with the new ballfield addition with its associated parking.
Based upon all of the above research, and attempting to apply it to our local conditions and the.. .
particular circumstances of Christ Fellowship, staff is recommending a parking ratio of l space /3
seats in the sanctuary auditorium. This.standard is more conservative than our current rate of 1. .
space /4 seats and parallels national trends toward somewhat higher parking standards for
churches. This standard is the same that was recommended by former staff when they researched
this issue in 1998, except that they also recommended requiring additional spaces for "other
accessory uses ... when applicable ". By this they meant schools, day care, meeting halls, and
offices. However none of these uses should be taking place at the same time as church services,
except Sunday school, which should not generate the need for any additional parking. If the
church plans a significant youth program for young people old enough to drive, which would be
held simultaneously with the adult services during peak use times, additional parking for that use
could be appropriate.
Technical Problems:
The great majority of the spaces on site (136 of 201) are grass parking. Grass parking is allowed
by Sec. 118 -478, subject to meeting technical criteria, submission of an application, and approval
by City Council. In all cases, aisles must be paved; only the spaces themselves can be grass.
Grass parking areas are subject to the same dimensional, landscape, and other code requirements
as regular spaces. The site currently contains 15 grass parking spaces in the area of the basketball
court between the existing modular buildings and a proposed drainage swale. These spaces do
not meet the technical requirements for dimension, back up area, access drive width, access drive
paving, and landscaping. Therefore the City Engineer and the planning staff have recommended
that they not be permitted unless they are improved to meet code.
As an alternative, the petitioner can request a variance to allow these spaces even though they c'o
not meet code.
Prior to the last Planning and Zoning meeting, the petitioner submitted plans which call for the
removal of these 15 spaces. Six spaces have been added in other areas, so there will be a net loss
of nine spaces.
4. USE EXPANSION
The original conditional use and site plan applications were for 300 seats in a 15,825 square -foot,
1- story building. The approval also included a separate "caretaker's residence" of 2, 196 square
feet and parking for 92 cars.
Today the site contains 800 seats in a 2 -story building of 2 1, 100 square feet The "caretaker's
residence" has become a 4009 square -foot youth building. The site has also gained 3,336 square
feet in modular buildings and 915 square feet in sheds, for a total square footage of 29,360 (An
earlier request by the petitioner for 3,264 square feet of additional modular space has been
withdrawn.) As discussed above, the site now contains 201 parking spaces. This site is at, if not
over, capacity.
If the City Council approves this requested use expansion and site plan amendment, staff suggests
a condition that at least 192 of the seats be removed upon the opening of the north campus.
5. SEPTIC SYSTEM
This site is still serviced by a septic tank. Presumably it is the same system that was installed back
when the church had 300 seats. The City needs to be assured that this system is functioning
properly and that it has enough capacity to service the current uses on this property.
The City Engineer has determined that the present capacity of this site (800 seats) surpasses the
threshhold requiring the project to tie into public sewer if it is available. This will be true even
after the petitioner reduces the number of seats to 768 (phase 1) and then to 576 (phase 2).
Therefore staff is suggesting a condition of approval which will require the petitioner to tie into
the nearest public sewer, which is presently on the north side of Northlake Boulevard, within a
reasonable time period after their occupation of their new campus. Staff is not insisting upon
immediate hook -up because the sewer line will not become available until the completion of the
Christ Fellowship North project.
SUMMARY:
Staff is recommending the adoption of a parking standard of 1 space /3 seats for this project. The
effect of this change and the net loss of nine parking spaces would be to allow 192 parking spaces
at a rate of 3 seats per space for a total allowed capacity of 576 seats. Staff is also recommending
several other conditions of approval (see below).
Assistant City Engineer Tammy Jacobs has reviewed the project and has recommended that the
applicant pave the existing on -site stabilized crushed rock drive aisles. She has also requested that
the project's drive aisles be properly dimensioned, and she wants to see a recorded cross drainage
agreement between Christ Fellowship and the Church of the Nazarene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP -97 -03 with the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The Conditions of Approval of Resolution 13, 1991 remain in effect (most have been
fulfilled). (Development Compliance Officer)
2, Within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, the petitioner shall:
A. Pave all parking aisles per City code.
B. Install the new landscaping which is shown on the Phase 2 (Proposed Landscape)
Plan except for areas of the site which are subject to new construction for drainage
facilities. Landcsaping in drainage construction areas shall be installed within 30
days of the completion of that construction. (Development Compliance Officer)
3. Within 30 days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on
Christ Fellowship's new campus on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as
referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended) or on January 2,2000, whichever
occurs first, the petitioner shall:
A. Close the access point between this site and the Church of the Nazarene to the
west.
B. Complete all non- landscape site improvements and changes.
C. Remove the modular units from the property. (Development Compliance Officer)
4. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on
Christ Fellowship's new campus on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as
referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended), the petitioner shall extend the sewer
line from the north side of Northlake Boulevard to this property and tie this project
into the public sewer system.
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
PETITION SP -97 -03
ENGINEERING:
See staff report and attached.
BUILDING DIVISION:
No objections.
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION:
See staff report and City Forester memo..
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT:
No objections.
SEACOAST UTILITY AUTHORITY:
No objections.
-'short: ,p9701ce.sp.doc
�jnKjl
— — — — — — — — — — — ----
7—
NORTHLAKE BLVD.
- — -- — -- — --
TT
ozM
T
Ill 1-y- z
I Fa
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - —
M
CANAL
CD
S,
o ��� bpi � ��f
II
II
7T
; WRPOUT ERIN NP. C001609
V = L T Palm Beach .,d... =-M
ip
Ill chri8t Fellow8h AssociateS, P.A. i DE
kchitnt, • Plaw ON.
Jl J
NORTHLAKE BLVD.
-- - - - - -- —I. -.nom - sms can s's- t: s'• —cs I, - Ra•�. -�-vl v�ma- F -
5[ ,
� ) �\ ` `\ .'ill'... i I � I +•
� � � ♦ I : I �tA'�, . t iE �� 1�1 � 1 td i I I �a ' I ��
le
18 B' ��I
j a I I r I I I
I IIII I I�•t {� ;�� I : 1�4• Gj t,r l.: I Ci I I'I � '••I I •�II
I jj
IIw' rl•ISr :il•Iv— ' I � r D Ir
8 I
I �I
�'al Illl 20 ' I
77ppyyQ i 6 r - -- I II
��►I �g�
p
I
41 — _ _ _ __ —
I: : III �II� II
im — —
r —
CANAL
r _
b"
Z
i r-di a t o ill!
N
CIO
1! t � i t 7 Z _ -- vow.re wrrroniunoM Ne cooreos
Dolm Beech Gardena
Christ Fellowship _ &Assoca�es
Nenilecla • Plennere
JJ
P P P
...., �....
�.
i�................. �.�
_! !
_..
}i.......... i .....i ......:
...... . ...... ...... ...._� ......._ ........� '
7> r w s s* t .......... "G
.c aa• a
o
i. na Val
rN
n
rev.!\ � � - �-- '�() —• �� �-�"
_ 9
�,�y�! i .4 `
—
.. CANAL
�..
raore aL exonos no9rn9 s;'w� a ae•5ov® • +••r•'
.. —.. —. ._..�.....r..r
o z '
z ( rig I �
d Palm Beach Gardens
Christ Fellowship A & Associates, P.A.
"80uth campus" Amhaects • Planners
• P0. BOk Jlpp} .PoM &9cn OmC•m. Mb 39.}0.(107) }55 -1 }95 ;�
f
Z
�a
d
d
Ad A AAAAA
� I
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I
€RdslABis ;oil
E @GAs�aR�e "prssap
HIP
A
Dri
IN 0
s
8
ti~
4
.F
� N
90,1�
II II 3
9
A N....I wally -
%/ Palm Beach Gardeas
rist rellowghip _ - -
& Associates, P.A.
AmNilecls • .Planner
"80uth Campa" .P.0. BOM ]tl9p .Pa,. s..oy a„a.», iv�e. u�m•Iwr) 9s -n9s
i
P P
.�
4
K
%��� oc����
�ortnarxc nw.
O
zo
7 r
p
s� G
�ppA a
3 1 + y 0
z
Ilk "°
--
O
9
Q
ro
%��� oc����
�ortnarxc nw.
O
0
m
000
0 =_
Z 0M
n -n Fn
M .q -i
-� _ -n
Mm
c r
y zDr
r 0
v N:*
n rn=
Z z v
D m0
M
M e
X
cn
Z z
U)
mmq
m
ul
Q
n
2
Si
A
�
pO
D
xO
>
�
0
m
000
0 =_
Z 0M
n -n Fn
M .q -i
-� _ -n
Mm
c r
y zDr
r 0
v N:*
n rn=
Z z v
D m0
M
M e
X
cn
Z z
U)
mmq
m
1p,:
V."
NORTHLAKE BLVD.
m >
0
— __—•_— __— __— __— __ —__—. - — -- — - — -- — --
....................
....................... ........
GHLiRCH (un)
c DD
m
Z
m
m
......................... ......
>
nom
M z
M M
P
. .................................... ................... ........ .
ZRTHE7RN PALM BEACH ... COUN ..... 1•''•_11.1
TY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CANAL
CANAL NO. 1
z
m
0
ED
m
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH Ig '\ r M..
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE XENNM H. YIPUOEIZ, P.E.
(EAVINCI NAZARENE sm)
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN P,
0
O
1
A-
Y'FNNEM H. YlzuqEg, P.E.
• CONCEPTUAL DRAINAOE PLAN,
on
|
|
�
'
,
,
U
x
x
x
x
U
x
o
c
�
y
x
x
x
:
X
�
v/
�
x
n
'
:
k
�
�
x
x
:
:
U
|«
�
x
x�
�
x
x
«
U
x
�
o
�
,|
�
x
x
'
�
,|
�
x
x
:
x
X
x
u
x
:
�
x
v
;
�
x
o
x
:
X
o
x
:
:
|
/
x
;
�
�
~
^�
�
.|
l | I T— ���v�
|||||||||||||||||��� ' f l� Y1 �' u�18 � ��� 1� X|�| � ||�||�|1�1/||���| �� � u � u r
�
�
�
�
�
r
v
�
'
0
..
A
�
� K
u| u
—_r-
�—
M'
6
| |
i
|
|
|
/
c
/
------'
---
�—�—� �
�
[]
—
1
~---_-----_--
-- - -- -
-- - —_-----
^ -------__ -'~—
3
"3 3
x33
3
33
3 3
33
U
x
x
x
x
U
x
o
c
�
y
x
x
x
:
X
�
v/
�
x
n
'
:
k
�
�
x
x
:
:
U
|«
�
x
x�
�
x
x
«
U
x
�
o
�
,|
�
x
x
'
�
,|
�
x
x
:
x
X
x
u
x
:
�
x
v
;
�
x
o
x
:
X
o
x
:
:
|
/
x
;
�
�
~
^�
�
.|
l | I T— ���v�
|||||||||||||||||��� ' f l� Y1 �' u�18 � ��� 1� X|�| � ||�||�|1�1/||���| �� � u � u r
�
�
�
�
�
r
v
�
'
0
..
A
�
� K
u| u
F
r
Q'
M
®
� M
n
� rp
� � d
Dy «
9
oo� �
S TT
::iiiQQiSiiS D
O O 2
m m
A A
S S
o
2
m
9
2
C
m 9
S
TO
i
c
m
0
n =0
Oo=
Z -nm
0 .� tn
m = -q
rn -n
-�
cZ m r
>�r
NO
v
M cn
Drn=
Z �
Z rn -v
.-. 0
c) mn _
rn r cc
.o
r av
coo
Z C X
90
r
v
O
%am000
c
k
NORTHLAKE 8LVD.
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - --- C-.-
r- - - - - -
7
CH4RCH
(D
dim
i 0
Al. n
i rii
iz
I I1 1 51 t
; .......... .............
-Cal
im
Irn 7
----------
----------
--------------- T_>
................................ ....................
NORTHERN PALM BEACH COUNTY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CANAL
CANAL NO. 1
r-
0
0
m
I
m r 6- - --
m>
m I
r
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN
m
I
m r 6- - --
m>
m I
r
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN
KENNET74 R. KIZUQEIZI PX]
43=..A ,
ilp6
l
A
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
^�++
■■
p
tl
CXURC HUO`FB HNAZARENE
4
KENNM H. KRUC7rRe
^!0
r,
Q
11
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN
lo
ene ^[vei^elf eVlfe lOe
uMgo^M. no^io^ aaM
Ia+t+eeaon
�.
}..«nlwvn,a,
vrtnu «o.eu ro. v.<
t L
fill
I I
1 �
a, x
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP`
& AS=Gtes, A.I.A., P.A.
THOMAS MLILLM PASTon Architects • Planners
PALM BEACH OAnDENS. MOn.A >ot Cenra AtA)raWeNby . Sire lap . H.IWlwMle.Bdkb UppO Ip05)112.111
T i-
L ¢�
o 'j
IANc -
E
a
I I
1 �
a, x
CHRIST FELLOWSHIP`
& AS=Gtes, A.I.A., P.A.
THOMAS MLILLM PASTon Architects • Planners
PALM BEACH OAnDENS. MOn.A >ot Cenra AtA)raWeNby . Sire lap . H.IWlwMle.Bdkb UppO Ip05)112.111
T i-
L ¢�
o 'j
! 1g,
7 -1
i M
r,
M
5
z
II
it
Inah�l' CHRIST FELLOWSHIP
THOMA9 Mull M! PnlTOR
Fit
JUN -22 -1999 1 7:38 LBF&H - STUART 561286 3925 P.e2ie3
1
Ubfh
LINDAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC.
CONSOLTING £NGINEECiS, SURVEYORS 8 MAPPERS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Glas
PROM: Tammy Jacobs
DATE: June 22, 1999 (Supercedes comments dated June I$, 1999)
SUBJF,CT: Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship (LBFH File No. 90 -1033) _
We have reviewed the revised Conceptual Drainage Plan prepared by Kenneth H. Kruger and
revised Site Plan prepared by Glenn Pate received June 19, 1999. We offer the following
comments:
1) Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has submitted a cross - section detail of the
proposed on -site stabilized rock drive aisles showing the overall width meeting LDR
Section 118 -475, asphalt, base and subgrade specifications meeting LDR Section 114-
206 and slopes to show the storm water runoff conveyance. Prior to City Council
approval, the applicant will need to revise the cross- section detail to show a minimum 24'
drive aisle width mccting the requirements of LDR Section 118475.
2) Conditionally Satisfied. The conceptual drainage plan does identify the standard grass
parking spaces as 10' x 18.5'. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant will need to
revise the cross- section detail to show a minimum 24' drive aisle width meeting the
requirements of LDR Section 118475 as previously stated in comment number 1.
3a) Conditionally Satisfied. It appears that there is a conflict between the proposed
"ultimate build -out" of the dry detention area and the existing temporary modular unit.
As a condition of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the proposed Christ
Fellowship Church located north of Northlake Boulevard, the temporary modular unit
shall be removed.
3b) Satisfied. The applicant has removed the proposed "staff parking" spaces surrounding
the existing basketball court eliminating the conflict between the "staff parking" spaces
and dry detention area.
4) previously Satisfied.
3550 S.W. CQRPORATF PARKWAY • PALM Or Y, ft..0rMA34990 • (561) 2863E3Es3 • FAX: (561) 266.3925
mlpJ/wwwAAtc= • R -mari: lnfoEabflLOOM .
-- M M OTY WEST PALM 100.31 MAT PIERC . OKEEC HOOEE
JLN -22 -1999 17 =38 LBF&H — STUART 561 28S 3925 P.03iO3
Palm each Gardens Christ Fellowship
u3FH File No. 90 -1033
Page 2 of 2
5) Conditionally Satisfied. The off -site drive aisles shall be abandoned and restored to the
satisfaction of the City prior to receiving the certificate of occupancy. for the proposed Christ
Fellowship Church located north of Northlake Boulevard.
6) Conditionally Satisfied, Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall provide a
copy of the approved PBC permit allowing the paved connection to the existing paved apron
at the right -only curb out on Northlake Boulevard.
7) Satisfied. The applicant has eliminated the proposed 15 additional grassed parking spaces
(staff parking) around the basketball court.
8) Conditionally Satisfied. The applicant has submitted certified water quality and quantity
calculations during the site plan review process. Engineering has performed a courtesy
review of the calculations but will perform a more in depth review of the calculations during
construction review. Prior to construction plan, all water quality and quantity calculations
shall be reviewed and found acceptable by the City Engineer.
9) The applicant has voluntarily submitted an operational analysis of the driveways accessing
the north and south Christ Fellowship Churches in response to City concerns. The analysis
has bee transmitted to the City's Traffic Consultant for a courtesy review. We will issue
comments once the review is completed and comments are received.
10) Conditionally Satisfied. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant is will need to submit
a recorded agmement with the property to the west, allowing the applicant to utilize the
offsite drainage canal located on the adjacent property.
ri
P ;%PaGMEMa1033L.d0c
e: Bobbie Herakovich
Roxanne Manning
TOTAL P.03
n
Memo to File
Date:
From:
Re:
June 17, 1999
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester.
SP- 97 -03, Christ Fellowship
I have reviewed the above - referenced petition submitted June 17, 1999. The following are my
comments:
• There is an existing light along the eastern property line that should be removed and
replaced with a light similar to the new light pole design.
• The proposed drainage plan is in conflict with an existing Ficus tree, shed and fencing.
Based on the above comments, I recommend that after the trailers are gone, I will work with the
applicant and the engineers to save the Ficus tree and provide adequate drainage.
[
• 06/16/99 I0:54 FA.1..56188MU3 �UUL /OIO
'►'j � � IGmley -Hom '
`,.,] i• and Associates, tae.
old
June 15, 1999 a '� c,
�.
ear fi'
K
Pastor Thomas D. Mullins 4491 Embavalm trh,e
Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship Church hest Pam seam, FWA
5212 Norddake Boulevard k�o7
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418
Re: Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship Church
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Dear Pastor Mullins:
As requested, yimlcy- -Horn and Assoeiat. c, Inc. has performed an operational
analysis of the driveways accessing the north and south campuses of the Christ
Fellowship Church- An 800 seat church (600 permanent, 200 temporary)
currently exists south of Norti,lake Boulevard. A 1,750 seat church is currently
under construction north of Northlake Boulevard, opposite the existing church.
When construction is completed the temporary seats in the south church will be
removed. It is assumed that the south church will remain in operation even.though
Christ Fellowship does not intend to operate the south campus with church
services.
Access to the south campus is provided via-two full- access driveways (west and
central driveways) and one right -out only driveway (east driveway) on Northlake
Boulevar(L The central driveway is conuolled by two off -dusty police officers
during Sunday services. Access to the north campus will be provided via one full
access driveway (across from the south campus' west driveway) and one right -in,
right -out driveway Gust west of the south campus' central drivewway) on Northlake
Boulevard. The central and east driveways accessing the south campus an'll
remain open after completion of the north campus construction. 'The west
driveway will be closed to south campus traffic.
Existing conditions were quantified for Norihlalao Boulevard and the church
driveways. Machine counts were performed on Northlakc Boulevard adjacent to
the church from Friday. May 21 through Sunday, May 23 to quantify traffic
volumes on Nord - ake Boulevard during the time periods when Christ Fellowship
is currently and will have Sunday church services. Manual turning movement
counts were performed at the church driveways on Sunday, May 30 to quantify
church traffic during the church's peak operating periods. The existing church
was found to generate approximately 665 trips during the peak operating hour on
Sunday morning
Existing conditions were evaluatod using the signalized intersection methodology
set forth in the 1994 Highway Capaetty Maracal. SNidi traffic control being
performed by offduty police offices, the driveways operate similar to demud
:R
� RI MGM f
FAX WI 60 IM
• ,06/1S/99 16:55 FAX 5618823703
CIMMn KMay -{am
no and Associates, lac,
r•docit— s q k( ACLI,I— ts. Ws.T -V 2
activated signalizod intocseatione. 11= existing driYaways weed -found to ba
operating et acceptable levels of sorviee. Zlus was Con' jacd daring a visit to the
site during the peak operating hour. Attachcd are intersection capacity analysis
vtvrl,sheets which indicate vay ncecptable levehs of servicc on Sunday monri ng.
Btadoat couditims were cstimated tbrough iubCJWlation of the existing church
trAIMc• Bch officials have agreed, not to hold dimultancom a=vices, however.
to prescat a. conca native gnalydg the proposed driveways were analyzed as if both
the north and south ==qn aca operate at full capacity With the sazac schedule for
church services. It was found that all proposed driveways will operate at
acceptable lcvris of sen ioe based tgan, eigmlizod intemcliou capacity analyses.
Attachcd are intdtscafion capacity ttrtalyttis worlMhcets which indicate very
acceptable levels of service out Sunday mornings oven if church services occur on
bath campuses at tha same time. '
We should Date dw the traffio conctu=cy issues for the south campus are
indcpendeat of cmcu cxxucy issues for the north eau We Anuld ales u0tc that
the eoncurreney sppra'val far the north campus did not aamma fiat the south
campus ceased to fianetiom In fact.. the north campus two was added to e:dsling
traffic volumes which inoludc traffic fznm the south campus. Therefore, traffic
concua,.vncy is not an issue.
It has been a pleasure working with you on f6ln project. If you have any
questions. please do not hesitate to caU.
very truly yours.
Florida RCEAt aeon
Nmmber 19562
Aft C? tut8
:i ,^
(0003 /010
06/15/99 16:55 FAI 5618825703
Q004/010
IICM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999 fi;>
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc. ..r
CCC.- ..CCCC L•� =CCL'Cr=.C6'CC rCs sCL' ..t�Ot�.tGC�CJtCtCC��..C.�CCC L'L'.. r. =CCC =��i'. -G C�.�...�L�=
(E -W) Horthlake Boulevard
Streets: (N -S) West Driveway
File Name: WAMEX . HC9
Analyst: KT3A
Area Type: Other
6 -11 -99 AM•Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions, Sunday
AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T
R L T R L T R
No. Lanes -0 > 0 -< 0 0 0
0 0 3< 0 1 3 0'
Volumes 31 102
1259 10 7 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vola 0
0 0
Lost Time- 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
--- - - - - -r - - - - -- Signal Operations
.
Phase Combination * 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
NB Left
ED Left
Thru
Thru
Right *
Right
Peds
Peds
SB Left
WB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Pedn
Peds
'ED Right
NB Right
WE Right
SB Right
Green 6.OA
Green .26.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0
Yellow /AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
------------ - - - - --
Intersection Performance Summary
bane Group: Adj Sat v/c
g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Plow Ratio
Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
- --
NE LR 257 1467 O.S45
0.175 11.6 B 11.6 B
ED TR 3767 5581 0.390
0.675 1.9 A 1.9 A.
WE L 186 276 0.038
0.675 1.4 A 1.7 A
T 3772 5588 0.314
0.675 1.7 A
Intersection Delay -
2.3 sec /veh Intersection LOS A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 6.0 sec Critical v /C(x) - 0.422
I
11�
• •uoitaiba to:aa C'AA OtflKtfyylU�
10 005/010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTSRSECTToN SUMMARY
version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
CCC C��.r =CC CL'.T.aCCC. =C.SCL' ��R.ts =C.�..�t•�e s.lC =� = =CCQ L"L` �% =C� ��L'���.CCC = =�L�.CGl" —.ter
(E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Streets: (N -S) Central Driveway
Analyst: KRA
File Name: C3.AMP-X .HC9
Area Type: Other
6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions, Sunday
AM Peak
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L T R
L T
R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes 1 -0 -1
0 0
0
0 3< 0
1 3 0
volumes 22 97
12S9 52
222 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
Ri'OR Vols 0
0
0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00-
--- _----- J-- _ - - - - -^ Signal Operations
•
Phase Combination 1 2 3
4
5 6 7 8
NB Left
EB Left
Thru
Thru
Right *
Right *_
Peds
Peds
SB Left
WB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
EB Right
NB Right
WB Right
SB Right
Green 6.0A
Green 6.OA 16.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0
Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 40 secs Phase combination order: #1 45 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c
g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio
Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L - -- 310 1770 0.074
0.175 8.9 B 9.6 B
R 277 1583 0.368
0.175 9.8 B
EB TR 2361 5555 0.643
0.425 6.3 B 6.3 B
WB L 496 1770 0.472
0.675 3.1 A 2.0 A
T 3772 5588 0.314
0.675 1.7 A
Intersection Delay -
4.4 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 9.0 sec Critical v /c(X) - 0.606
/7
VVI /.41/ oo A.0. 4)U DKA
"�vutf /UlU
ECM: SIGN&LIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4f
06 -13 -1999
yimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
(E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Streets: (N -S) East
Driveway
P.nalyst: KHA
File Name: EAMEK.HC9
Area Type: Other
6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing
Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L
T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
0
-
0 1
0 0 0
0 3. 0
0 3 0
Volumes
123
1259
1022
Lane W (ft)
12.0
12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
-
0
0
Lost Time
3.00
3.00
3.00
------------ - - - - --
Signal Operations
.
Phase Combination.
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8
NB Left
EB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
SB Left
WB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
EB Right
NB Right
WB Right
SB Right
Green
Green 6-OA
26.OA
Yellow /AR
Yellow /AR 4.0
4.0
Cycle Length: 40
secs Phase combination order: #5 ##6
-------------- - - -
- --
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat v/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap
Flow Ratio Ratio Delay
- .S - - - - -----
LOS Delay Los
- - - ----- - - -
- - - - - - - - -
NB R 277
- - - - - - - - - - -
1583 0.466 0.175 10.5
B 10.5 B
E3 T 3772
5588 0.387 0.675 1.9
A 1.9 A
WB T 5169
5588 0.229 0.925 0.1
A 0.1 A
Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec /veh Intersection LOS c A
Lost Time /Cycle,
L - 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) -
0.403
�f
f�
• 00110/VV Mbb rAI 5(f188X�US --
10007/010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Version 2.4f
06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (H -S) West Driveway
(E -W) Northlake
Boulevard
Analyst: MM
File Name: WAMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: Other
6-11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday
AM Peak
= ccC�� .�iCGGL'•= .- ..¢GG =.�.. =cC�C �.:CC =_. --.0 �G C�._�..CGCr.' =�� =ccC =�_�. t..0 C= _� =Ce.0 =�.� -.CC �'L�_
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
L T R
L T
R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
-- _
0 0 0
2 0
1
1 3 0
0 3< 0
Volumes
704
77
136 1259
1022 167
Lane W (ft)
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
r - - -r Signal Operations
Phase combination 1 2 3
4
5
6 7 6
NB Left
EB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
SB Left *
WS Left
Thru
Thru
Right *
Right
Peds
; Peds
ED Right
N9 Right
WB Right
SB Right
Green 16.OA
Green 6.OA
2G.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0
Yellow /AR 4.0
4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
#6
- Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vjc
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS Delay LOS
SB L _ 1003 3539 0.761
0.283 15.1
C 14.7 B
R 449 1583 0.161
0.283 10.5
B
BB L 330 1770 0.433
0.617 4.8
A 4.0 A
T 3446 5588 0.423
0.617 3.9
A
WB TR 2462 5470 0.559
0.450 8.1
B 8.1 B
Intersection Delay =
7.8 sec /veh Intersection LOS B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) -
0.645
r�
06/15/11 16:56 FA.X 5618823,703
@1008 /010
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Vereion 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
Kimley -Horn. And Associates, Inc.
Streets: (N -S) Central Drive -North (E -W) Northlake Boulevard
Analyst: KRA File blame: C2AMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
go. Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 < 0
Volumes 39 1259 1022 334
Lane w (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time .. 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left EB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WE Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right S13 Right
Green Green 6.OA 46.OA
Yellow /AR Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: ##5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
S13 R 185 1583 0.222 0.117 15.6 C 15.6 C
EB T 5309 5588 0.275 0.950 0.1 A 0.1 A -
WB 2R 4216 5382 0.373 0.783 1.3 A 1.3 A
Intersection Delay = *0.9 eec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.353
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMRY Version 2.4f 06 -13 -1999
xi.mley -Horn And Associates, Inc.
GCL'•i� =c�c� =.r CSC=.....¢ cC= �C. C. Cr• G��% CCL�= �.._ C. �. a. tC-. �CGcer' CC�r= c¢t•...�`+.�...5'.C��- .r = =..��
Streets: (N -S) Central Drive -South (E -W) Worthlake Boulevard
Analyst: KHA File Name: CIAMFUT2.HC9
Area Type: Other 6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No Lanes ^ 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 < 0 1 3 0
Volumes 40 3.11 1259 47 172 1022
Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
RTOR Vols 0 0 0
Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NB Left * EB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
SB Left WB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
EB Right NB Right
WB Right SB Right
Green 6.OA Green 6.OA 36.OA
Yellow /AR 4.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: 41 45 46
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - --
NB L 206 1770 0.203 0.117 15.6 C 19.6 C
R 185 1583 0.633 0.117 21.1 C
EB TR 3428 5558 0.441 0.617 4.0 A 4.0 A
WB L 330 1770 O.S48 0.783 4.3 A 3_6 A
T 4377 5588 0.210 0.783 1.2 A
Intersection Delay - 3.7 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycle, L - 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) - 0.527
�f
*'tta VA., , uLV
iiCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUNARY Version 2.4f
06 -13 -1999
Kimley -morn And A.asociates, Inc.
�cC= �CCCL•' ��cCC��GGiCccL��P� ' =�CCCG =�C�a.aCC� =Q.e =._...CCC L"�.'.: =cGG��: G.- . = =:- .CG�� =C ...
Boulevard
Streets: (N -S) East
Driveway gEile)Namethllake
Analyst: IAA
Area Type: other
6 -11 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Buildout Conditions, Sunday AM Peak
cs. iG= GTE¢. CL^ �CCC=.': LCC= �= cCL "= �.FCGG_%.�cC.__��.cc =._...G CCL'L'�CCCC' =.�L^.ccCCG
Northbound Soutbbound Eastbound
=CCC�COc
Westbound
L T
R
L T R
L T R
L T R
No. Lanes
-- ---
0 0
--
1
---
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 3 0
Volumes
130
1259
1022
Lane W (ft)
12.0
12.0
12.0
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00
3.00
3.00
----------------- - -
- - -- Signal Operations
.
Phase Combination 1
2 3 4
5
6 7 8
NB Left
EB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
y
Peds
Pede
SB Left
[^iB Left
Thru
Thru �
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
EB eds
NB Right
WB Right
S8 Right
Green
Green 11.OA
41-OA
yellow /AR
Yellow /AR 4.0
4.0
_#5#6-----------
Cycle Length:--60- secs -- Phase - combination-order: - -
- - - - --
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat v/c g/C
Approach:
1AVmts Cap
Flow Ratio Ratio Delay
LOS Delay LOS
NB R - 317
-
1583 0.433 0.200 14.2
B 14.2 B
EB T 3912
5588 0.373 0.700 2.4
A 2.4 A
WS T 5309
5588 0.223 0.950 0.1
A 0.1 A•
Intersection Delay - 2.0 sec /veh Intersection LOS = A
Lost Time /Cycl"e, L-
sec Critical v /c(x) =0_386------
= --- 6_0 - -- - - - -
- - - -_ --
�f
7 z
June 24, 1999
June 30,1999
July 2, 1999
August 2, 1999
RESOLUTION 86, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION 13,1991 APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "CHRIST FELLOWSHIP"
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTHLAKE
BOULEVARD WEST OF MILITARY TRAIL, IN ORDER TO
APPROVE CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO
RESOLUTION 4, 1997 TO GRANT A TIME EXTENSION
FOR THE TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE FOR
MODULAR UNITS ; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received an application from Christ Fellowship Inc. for an
amendment to the approved site plan and other documents for the development known as "Christ
Fellowship" located approximately 3/4 mile west of Military Trail on the south side of Northlake
Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to allow the construction
of additional parking and other infrastructure improvements, and to extend the effective date of the
time extension for the modular units, and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's conditional use was approved by the City Council by
Ordinance 30, 1990 on December 20, 1990, and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's site plan was approved by the City Council by Resolution
13, 1991 on February 7, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Christ Fellowship's temporary modular units were approved by the City Council
by Resolution 4, 1997 on January 2, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and
determined that it is sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Department has determined that approval of
said application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
WHEREAS, the Site Plan Appearance & Review Committee of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens has recommended approval of said petition, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves
an amendment to Resolution 13, 1991 approving a site plan for the development known as "Christ
Fellowship" located on 5.43 acres approximately 3/4 mile west of Military Trail on the south side of
Northlake Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to construct
drainage facilities, additional parking, and other infrastructure improvements.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves
an amendment to Resolution 4, 1997 to extend the expiration date of the approval granted by that
resolution until the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on Christ Fellowship's
new campus on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in Ordinance 20, 1997 as
amended) or until January 1, 2000, whichever shall first occur.
SECTION 3. Said approval shall be subject to the following conditions, which shall be the
responsibility of the applicant, its successors and /or assigns:
1. The Conditions of Approval of Resolution, 13, 1991 remain in effect. (Development
Compliance Officer)
2. Within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, the petitioner shall:
A. Pave all parking aisles per City code.
B. Install the new landscaping which is shown on the Phase 2 (Proposed Landscape)
Plan except for areas of the site which are subject to new construction for drainage
facilities. Landscaping in drainage construction areas shall be installed within 30 days
of the completion of that construction. (Development Compliance Officer)
3. Within 30 days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on Christ
Fellowship's new campus on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in
Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended) or on January 2, 2000, whichever shall first occur, the
petitioner shall:
A. Close the access point between this site and the Church of the Nazarene to the
west.
B. Complete all non - landscape site improvements and changes.
C. Remove the modular units from the property. (Development Compliance Officer)
4. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary on Christ
Fellowship's new campus on the north side of Northlake Boulevard (as referenced in
Ordinance 20, 1997 as amended), the petitioner shall extend the sewer line from the north
side of Northlake Boulevard to this property and tie this project into the public sewer
system. (Development Compliance Officer)
SECTION 4. Construction of said development shall be consistent with plans and documents on
file with the City's Growth Management Department as follows:
1. June 7, 1999 Existing South Campus Site Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet SP 1.0
2. August 5,1999 Future Phase 2 Site Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet SP 1.0
3. June 16, 1999 Existing (as- built) Landscape Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet L -1
4. August 6, 1999 Proposed Landscape Plan, Glen Pate & Associates, Sheet L-2
5. July 8, 1999 (date stamp) Conceptual Drainage Plan (Existing Site), Kenneth H.
Kruger, P.E., Sheets 1 -3
6. July 8, 1999 (date stamp)Conceptual Drainage Plan (Full Buildout), Kenneth H.
Kruger, P.E., Sheets 1 -3
7. August 5, 1999 Future Phase 2 Photometric Site pale, Glenn Pate & Associates, Sheet
ESP 1.0
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER
BY:
g'short: sp9701res.doc
jnRjl
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
1999
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL. FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
6-09 -1997 0:45AM FR(X4 1ST UNITED BAN: SG 691 13
6 -Og -1997 1:17PM t� A 1ST UNITED 6AW LW 1 407 433
M!M �j
f,
DP. '
ORB 6679 Ps 802
AARCEL is
A parcel of 1404 lying and belnq to the Northeast Quanta! of
5aat1on,23# Toansltilp 42 SONi11. ieange Ij Eart, Ftlpq beach County,
rlorlda. ^ore particularly described **'follow&:
t'COOR the f:arthtase .section aornor of said b.ction 33. Tewn :hip 42
South. Ranpt 42 Easts thwat:t South 00 "great. 03 minutes, 46
Seeands West along the bast lihc of said Scction•23, a distance
of 107.45 rret to b point lying on the SouthecA Rinh.t•of -Way linty
of Lake Parst Nrot Road as nov laid out and in v {s; thence west
along said touthesn R171it- 01-1sty line a distance of 1606.00 feet
to- tlht 'point of beginning and the northeast Cortsor of tAo
hereinaltrr d «scribed pareslt twee continue west along a4p1c1
Southtrly m oc -tit -'Nay line a distance of )o6.4* cast to a. point,
thence South a'dittance of SS0.00 tent to a points thence Eaet a
distance of 155.46 feet to a point C! eurvt COAC41►C to the
ttorthUosts thchgv stdrtherly end ttttttrlY along %hQ are of *aid
curve, i+avinq a ra4lus of S00 feet &A a central �40f1e of 15
Oegrees. 41 Minut— 3: Fecands, a distooee of 35:..3 tttt to a
putr►t s• th *hCO North a Qia_ance of S3t.1SS taet to tbe molest of
beQSa�inp.
Lccs the South SO feet thereof tot' canal R1gr►t -of -way as convey**
by Right -ol -stay Geed reeordas in Official Record 80pic 1841, Page
2I1. an'd 11esa 04 North 30 tent tnettOf +s eanveyrd by Right -of-
w0y Oewd r*cardad :n Qftieisl RvCCid Book 4171, r&94 .1253.
FARM 2i
Lot in -NOT Tl1G1.t OEM— part of untrct;orded plat of flopsaSx01 ACRES
•brit particularly doscrilim4 as tollov4%
commanelhl at the Northwest corhvr of tNv =oat half of Section 23
In TOV"hip 42 South, RaAQe 42 Usti palm Leach, County, rivri4ei
thvneh South alonyl the :ftat 11he of 0614 S.ct half 6f $ectiOA 23
of an asituseed hearing South 0 Oegreet, 01 Ninotes, S1 Seconds
Wrst a dlatance of 107.45 feet to a point in the South Right -of-
way 11ne of Lake Park iitst Reads thence at b Aring duo cost alosi9
4414. RiQbt -o1 •Hay lint # 41$011k Of 567.46 fttc to the Nor"Woct
corner of the parcel Geaoribed herelA attd tha point of Segianings
thener COn=tssva at bearihq dur nett a dist&vcj 150 Lett to a
points thehcr at heerinq due South 6 distance Soo feet to s point
in the North Right•of -xaY itne vt Cana: Ito. 11 thence at bearing
dve Kest slang the Faid Right -of -Kay line a distance 150 feet to
A point: thence at bearing dve North a distance 500 stet to the
Point of beginning.
tesa Or North 30 fart thecev( as eonyeYcd to Alght- cf-Way Deed
reeor4ed In Official Record Book 4371, Page 1;S).
M1ISIT i1"
P. 4
P. 4
YJ4''
GOaO YtatftEO
&+v.r.rti �wNhen a.•t.�BFJ►G1tburvsir.fta,
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: August 10, 1999
Appointing Two Regular Members to the Education Advisory Board
Subject /Agenda Item
Consider a motion to approve Resolution 98, 1999, Appointing Two Regular Members, by inserting
the names Leslie Millar and Jan Porter in Section 1.
Recommendation/Motion:
Reviewed by: Originating Dept.:
Costs: $
Council Action:
Q. Administration
Total
City Attorney_ v
[ ] Approved
Finance
$
[ 1 Approved w/
Current FY
conditions
ACM
[ ]Denied
Human Res. Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other Date:
[ ] Operating
Resolution 98, 1999
[ ] Other
List of Current Members
Paper:
Submitted by: [ X ] Not Required
71�
Am
Asssss''t to City Manager Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Approved by: [ ] Notified
[ ] None
City Manager [ X ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Two members' terms have expired on the Education Advisory Board. The members, Leslie Millar
and Jan Porter, have expressed an interest in being reappointed to the Board. The members' terms
shall expire on March 4, 2001, which will complete the process of staggering the board members
terms, as recommended in March 1999.
Staff recommends the approval of Resolution 98, 1999, inserting the names Leslie Millar and Jan
Porter, which terms shall expire March 4, 2001.
August 10, 1999
RESOLUTION 98, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF TWO (2) REGULAR MEMBERS TO THE
EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 2 -132 of the Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances provides for
the appointment of members to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Education Advisory Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 2 -132 of the Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances,
and are hereby appointed as regular
members of the Education Advisory Board, which term of office shall expire on March 4, 2001.
Section 2. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST 1999.
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
l6-Nd
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILWOMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
JOSEPH R. RUSSO, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
CURRENT MEMBERS
EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD
(11 Regular Members — 2 Year Terms)
(4 Alternate Members — 2 Year Terms)
MEMBERS
PHONE NUMBERS
TERM EXPIRES
DATE APPOINTED
Millar, Leslie (Vice Chair)
H: 775 -1799
8/7/99
12/4/97
10252 Hunt Club Lane 33418
W: 640 -5086
Porter, Jan
H: 694 -9337
8/7/99
11/3/94
11 Kintyre Road 33418
W: 694 -2782
Gerber, Ilene
H: 624 -9494
2/15/2000
12/4/97
3674 Dijon Way 33410
Hanrahan, Judith (Alternate)
H: 627 -1546
2/15/2000
3/4/99
40 Edinburgh Drive 33418
Krause- Laurie, Nancy (Alternate)
H: 626 -0374
2/15/2000
3/4/99
220 Legendary Circle 33418
W: 561 -540 -6166
Panoch, James (Alternate)
H: 626 -1452
2/15/2000
3/4/99
501 -D Sabal Ridge Circle 33418
Sadaka, Ron
H: 624 -9911
2/15/2000
2/15/96
8145 Swaps Way 33418
W: 252 -0432
Gardner, John (Alternate)
H: 624 -8222
2/15/2000
4/8/99
5E Lexington Lane EA33418
W: 627 -1800
Anderson, Wayne (Chair)
H: 626 -9225
3/4/2001
2/15/96
10240 Allamanda Circle 33410
W: 881 -8050
Blake, Scott
H: 694 -9938
3/4/2001
4/20/95
1915 ISP Lane 33418
W: 694 -7300
Kakli, Murtaza
H: 622 -5031
3/4/2001
2/19/98
5270 Travelers Way 33418
W: 796 -4149
Berg, Anne S.
H: 622 -6827
3/4/2001
2/19/98
931 Augusta Pointe Drive 33418
Mastics, George
H: 624 -6147
3/4/2001
3/19/98
10109 Hunt Club Lane 33418
W: 286 -5212
Schiff, Charlotte
H: 627 -0520
3/4/2001
3/4/99
899 Augusta Pointe Drive 33418
Student(s) (Count as Regular Member)
Eric Jablin, Council Liaison
eabmembers.doc
05/11/99
CITY OF ]PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: August 13, 1999
Subject /Agenda Item
First Reading: Ordinance 28, 1999 - Catalina Lakes Townhomes. Proposal to rezone 44.54
acres from Planned Development Area to Planned Unit Development.
Recommendation/Motion:
Staff recommends approval of the First Reading of Ordinance 28, 1999
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $
Council Action:
O�
Total
City Attorney
Growth Management
[ ]
Finance NA
$
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
ACM V
OV41
Current FY
[ ]Denied
Advertised:
Human Res. NA
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Other NA
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other
Ordinance 28, 1999
Sign Detail
Site Plan
Landscape Plans
Elevations
City Engineer Comments
Letters from staff
[ ] Not Required
Applicant letter; 6/3/99
Submitted by:
,,,1—,i /� s'M M
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Director
[ ] Notified
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ) Not required
REQUEST:
Petition PUD- 98 -09, a request by Cotleur & Hearing, agent for DiVosta & Company, for
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for 262 townhome units on a 44.54 -acre parcel of
land located at the northeast corner of Alternate AlA and Burns Road. (07- 42E -43S)
'LOCATION MAP
CATALINA LAKES
,
N
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
This parcel was cleared prior to 1965 as a pasture for a dairy operation. This dairy operation has
been abandoned and the parcel has re- vegetated with invasive exotic vegetation. The site has not
been disturbed since then.
REVIEW PROCESS:
This is a request for re- zoning and PUD approval. The PUD request is reviewed by the
Development Review Committee, who forwards comments and recommendations to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. After review of the proposed PUD at a workshop meeting,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall schedule a public hearing for which the applicant
shall provide proper notice to surrounding property owners. At this meeting, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall prepare a record of the proceedings and transmit them to the City
Council, along with their recommendation. A First Reading is held, then the City Council shall
hold a public hearing after giving due public notice. The City Council reviews the request for
PUD approval for consideration of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
The City's Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed the request at their January 14,
1999 meeting. A listing of the various departmental comments is attached for your review.
LAND USE AND ZONING:
The current land use designation for the parcel is Residential Medium (RM). The subject
property is zoned as a Planned Development Area (PDA). For a complete list of adjacent
existing uses, land use designations and zoning districts, please see Table 1 on page 13.
GAShort Range \PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 3
PROJECT DETAILS:
Tra ffic Concurrency
August 19, 1999
The City Engineer has confirmed that this project has received traffic concurrency. Road access
will be provided along Alternate AlA at the main entrance. In addition, the applicant has
provided an emergency access point along Burns Road, as requested by staff.
_Site Location & Density
The subject property is 44.54 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Alternate AlA and
Burns Road. The proposed density for this project is 5.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which is
consistent with the City's Residential Medium zoning. The lots are typically 52' x 93' and will
each contain two -unit buildings.
Phasing
The applicant is proposing to construct the development in stages, as detailed below:
• First stage to include clearing of the land, earthwork, water management/retention lakes and
road and utilities infrastructure.
• Landscaping will be installed after the townhomes are constructed; however, all buffer walls
will be in place prior to housing construction.
• The housing construction will start with the building of the entry feature and the townhomes
in the northern section of the parcel.
• After this, the construction will proceed southward until total build -out.
• The applicant proposes to construct the recreation center after 50% of the development is
completed.
The phasing plan has been added as a condition of approval.
Entry Feature
The applicant is proposing an entry feature with a ground sign and a round -a -bout with a
fountain in the center. The ground sign, which is 7' high and 12.75' long, is located in the entry
median. The sign face area has 39 square feet on each face and contains the name of the project
"Catalina Lakes ". The proposed sign complies with the sign code.
GAShort Range\PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 4
Townhomes
Only one unit type is proposed for this project (see attached elevations for architectural details).
The townhomes are proposed to have the following features:
• Two -story buildings with approximately 1,528 square feet in each unit.
• Each unit will have three bedrooms, two and one -half bathrooms and a 234 - square foot, one-
car garage.
• Options include a six -foot privacy wall, a picket fence, a pool and two different screen
enclosure options.
• Units are connected by a decorative portico, which leads to the side entry doorway.
• Garage entry located on front elevations.
• All units are to be landscaped with various shrubs, ground cover and trees such as Hibiscus,
Live Oaks and Palms (see the Typical Unit Landscaping Plan)
Pedestrian Connections
The applicant has provided sidewalks--on both sides of the proposed streets throughout the
development, as requested by staff. The applicant has also proposed a pedestrian connection
from the parcel to Oaks Park, which is east of this site. Two additional pedestrian connections,
one onto RCA Boulevard and the other onto Burns Road, have been provided in response to staff
requests. These connections will be accessed by self - latching gates.
Recreation Center
The applicant has proposed a recreation center, which will include a 10' x 20' community
swimming pool and two tennis courts. There will also be a 700 ' square -foot building with
restrooms and storage facilities for residents of Catalina Lakes.
Temporary Sales Center
The applicant is proposing a temporary sales trailer, which will be located at the entrance to the
site. The applicant has provided details of this trailer, including elevations, as requested by staff.
Water Retention/Open Space
The South Florida Water Management District requires substantial water retention for storm
water runoff and aquifer recharge for this parcel. Therefore, the applicant has proposed four
lakes for a total of 6.13 acres. The applicant has also provided a 55 -foot landscape buffer along
Alternate AlA and a 15 -foot landscape buffer along all public right -of -ways, with the exception
GAShort Range \PUD9809.ccl.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 5
of the right -turn lane area into the project. Staff requests that the applicant revise the site plan to
comply with the required 55 -foot landscape buffer prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Environmental Assessment
The applicant conducted an environmental survey of the parcel, which was subsequently
reviewed by the City Environmental Consultant James Schnelle. Mr. Schnelle recommended
preserving some existing native vegetation and the applicant is working with the-City Forester
Mark Hendrickson to relocate suitable Cabbage Palm, Live Oak, and small Slash Pines. Mr.
Schnelle also recommended preserving the large Slash Pines located in the northwest corner of
the site. The applicant had proposed this prior to the City's review and is still proposing to do
so. Finally, the applicant is required to provide wetland mitigation off -site. The applicant is
working with the South Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers to
coordinate this effort. The permits from these entities will be provided to the City prior to final
construction plan approval.
Waivers from Code
The following is a list of requested waivers from code, which have been requested by the
applicant:
1. The setbacks for the project are indicated in Table 2 on page 14. The proposed setbacks
are consistent with other townhouse developments (The Commons: side setback between
5 and 6 feet; rear setback between 10 and 15 feet).
2. The building lot coverage per unit is 39 %, which is higher than the maximum allowed
35 %. In this type of development, it is common to find lot coverages that exceed the
35 %. For example, in Sun Terrace (The Oaks), the building lot coverage is 100% due to
the configuration of the lot lines.
3. The applicant is not proposing littoral zones in the proposed lakes. The applicant has
indicated that it is difficult and costly to maintain small littoral zones in the long term:
The applicant feels that this presents a burden to future homeowner associations of the
community. The applicant is planting water tolerant trees along the lake banks.
4. There is a point along an internal roadway where the corner of the property line and the
edge of the proposed right -of -way meet. (See attached Exhibit B.) Adjacent to this point
is the Bell South property. Due to the configuration of the site, the applicant is requesting
a waiver from the 8 -foot landscape buffer in this area. The applicant proposes to build a
6 foot concrete wall with a ficus pumila vine to provide additional buffering.
WAINSERVEMCOMPROGGShort Range\PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 6
August 19, 1999
5. The applicant is not proposing curbing around the planting areas in the driveways of the
townhouse lots. The applicant believes that since the townhomes will be sold in a fee
simple form of ownership, the residents will take greater care in maintaining their
property values and thus will not destroy their own landscaping.
In a Planned Unit Development, strict adherence to the code is often relaxed in exchange for
other benefits. In LDR Section 118 - 2130), PUD Districts — Waivers, it states: "A waiver is
considered for innovative design whereby other minimum standards are exceeded." The
applicant has exceeded the open space requirements of the entire site by 18.5% (35% required;
53.5% provided). They have provided a well - landscaped entrance to the site, which exceeds the
required 55' buffer along Alternate AIA. There are multiple pedestrian connections throughout
the site including sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways. The applicant has also
provided a sidewalk connection to nearby Oaks Park. Finally, they have provided more than the
required number of guest parking spaces throughout the site.
Staff has worked closely with the applicant to ensure that the site is functional and aesthetically
pleasing. Staff recommends approval of these waiver requests so that the applicant is able to
develop their product on the given site.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
January 26, 1999
On January 26, 1999, this petition was before the Planning & Zoning Commission for a
workshop meeting. Overall, the members felt that the site plan needed to be drastically
redesigned and that the townhomes needed additional architectural elements.
The applicant responded to the Commission member concerns and provided revisions on April 6,
1999. Staff reviewed the revised plans and subsequently requested additional revisions. The
applicant responded with revisions on May 12, 1999. These revisions included:
a) changing the configuration of the roadways and relocating the recreation facility to the
center of the community;
b) changing the facades of the townhomes with different-colors and three designs;
c) reducing the number of units;
d) increasing the width of roadway right -of -ways from 45' to 50' in most areas of the site plan;
e) providing additional landscaping in each lot
May 25, 1999
This petition came before the Planning & Zoning Commission as a workshop item due to the
extensive changes that were made. The Commission members discussed the elevations of the
townhomes. They were concerned that the facades did not contain enough variety. The
applicant proposed three different elevation types with three different portico design options. To
WAINSERVEMCOMPROG\,Short Range\PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 7
August 19, 1999
break up the potential uniformity of the facades, the Commission members requested that a
condition be added that no two adjacent homes have the same color combinations.
See attached letter from Don Hearing dated June 3, 1999 for more details of the items discussed
at this meeting.
July 13, 1999
At this Public Hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended this petition to City
Council with the following conditions:
1. Prior to scheduling this petition for consideration by the City Council, the applicant
shall meet all the requirements set forth by the City Engineer with respect to
drainage issues. (City Engineer)
2. Prior to scheduling this petition for City Council, the applicant shall provide a
landscape plan for Alt. AIA and Burns Road. (City Forester)
3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a revised site
plan that demonstrates a 55' Alt. AlA buffer at the narrowest point of the right turn lane
right -of -way. (Planning & Zoning)
4. The applicant shall work with staff and Southern Bell to move the Catalina Lakes buffer
wall and landscaping out of the Santa Barbara Drive right -of way when Southern Bell
amends their site and landscape plan. (Planning & Zoning)
5. Prior to the adoption of the Property Owner Association documents or the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit these
documents to the City, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City. (Legal)
6. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with the SFWMD master surface water
management permit 50- 010465. (City Engineer)
7. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter of
authorization from the appropriate utilities allowing landscaping and paving within the
utility easements. (City Engineer)
8. Within 8 months of construction plan approval, or within 30 days of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy of the model unit, whichever comes first, the temporary sales
center and its associated paving and landscaping shall be removed. (Planning & Zoning)
GAShort Range \PUD9809.ccl.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 8
August 19, 1999
9. The buildout date for the project shall be December 31, 2002. (Development Compliance
Officer)
10. No two adjacent homes shall have the same color combinations. (Development
Compliance Officer /Code Enforcement)
11. The construction of this project shall be in accordance with the following phasing
schedule: (Building Division)
A. First stage shall include clearing of the land, earthwork, water management/retention
lakes and road and utilities infrastructure.
B. Landscaping shall be installed as the townhomes are constructed; all buffer walls
shall be in place prior to housing construction.
C. Housing construction shall start with the building of the entry feature and the
townhomes in the northern section of the parcel.
D. After this, the construction shall proceed southward until total build -out.
E. The recreation center shall be constructed after at least 50% of the development is
completed.
12. The applicant shall install and maintain the landscaping to be located (a) in the median of
Alternate Al for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the site; and (b) in
the median of Burns Road for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the
site. Said maintenance shall be in accordance with City maintenance standards. In the
alternative, the applicant, or its successors, including a property owners' association shall
remit to the City the total cost associated with said maintenance. A reasonable fee shall
be determined annually, to be paid quarterly commencing on November 1 following
installation. Specific provisions for payment, and revisions thereto, may be addressed by
separate agreement between the City and applicant, his successors and/or assigns. (City
Forester)
13. The Alt. AlA, Burns Road, and perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed concurrent
with the construction of the adjacent interior roadways or townhouses, whichever occurs
first. (City Forester) -
14. All exterior buffer walls shall be maintained in a consistent manner, and repainting shall
be provided on both sides of the wall at the same time when repainting occurs. (Code
Enforcement)
GAShort Range \PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 9
August 19, 1999
NOTE: Condition Number 1 has since been modified (see below). Condition Number
2 has been satisfied and so has been deleted. Also, Planning & Zoning Commission
members recommended approval of the 5 requested waivers.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF COMMENTS
Drainage
This site is located directly west of the Oaks PUD, which is a residential development. The
residents of this development are concerned about additional storm water being routed through
their surface water management system. Following the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
for St. Marks Episcopal Church (which is south of the Oaks), the Commission members
requested that staff look at alternatives to address the residents' concerns.
City Engineer Len Lindahl has been working closely with the applicant to find the most efficient
drainage system possible. Mr. Lindahl's recommendation is that the drainage be directed to the
RCA drainage basin using recommended parameters outlined in the attached letter, bypassing
The Oaks drainage system. Mr. Lindahl recommends that a revised conceptual drainage plan be
submitted to the City by the applicant, and reviewed prior to final City Council approval. (See
attached memo and correspondence.)
Alternate AIA & Burns Road Landscape Plans
As requested, the applicant has submitted Landscape Plans for the medians along Alternate A 1 A
and Burns Road. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that these medians and
perimeter landscape buffers be installed concurrent with the construction of the adjacent interior
roadways. City Forester Mark Hendrickson has reviewed these plans and recommends approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Prior to final City Council approval, the applicant shall submit a revised conceptual
drainage plan for our review and approval demonstrating that the system can meet
the criteria oulined in the City Engineer letter addressed to Lawson, Noble & Webb
dated July 25, 1999.
2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a revised site
plan that demonstrates a 55' Alt. A 1 A buffer at the narrowest point of the right turn lane
right -of -way. (Planning & Zoning)
GAShort Range \PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 10
August 19, 1999
3. The applicant shall work with staff and Southern Bell to move the Catalina Lakes buffer
wall and landscaping out of the Santa Barbara Drive right -of way when Southern Bell
amends their site and landscape plan. (Planning & Zoning)
4. Prior to the adoption of the Property Owner Association documents or the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit these
documents to the City, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City. (Legal)
5. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with the SFWMD master surface water
management permit 50- 010465. (City Engineer)
6. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter of
authorization from the appropriate utilities allowing landscaping and paving within the
utility easements. (City Engineer)
7. Within 8 months of construction plan approval, or within 30 days of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy of the model unit, whichever comes first, the temporary sales
center and its associated paving and landscaping shall be removed. (Planning & Zoning)
8. The buildout date for the project shall be December 31, 2002. (Development Compliance
Officer)
9. No two adjacent homes shall have the same color combinations. (Development
Compliance Officer /Code Enforcement)
10. The construction of this project shall be in accordance with the following phasing
schedule: (Building Division)
A. First stage shall include clearing of the land, earthwork, water management/retention
lakes and road and utilities infrastructure.
B. Landscaping shall be installed as the townhomes are constructed; all buffer walls
shall be in place prior to housing construction.
C. Housing construction shall start with the building of the entry feature and the
townhomes in the northern section of the parcel.
D. After this, the construction shall proceed southward until total build -out.
E. The recreation center shall be constructed after at least 50% of the development is
completed.
11. The applicant shall install and maintain the landscaping to be located (a) in the median of
Alternate A I A for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the site; and (b) in
the median of Burns Road for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the
GAShort Range \PUD9809.ccl.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum August 19, 1999
Page 11
site. Said maintenance shall be in accordance with City maintenance standards. In the
alternative, the applicant, or its successors, including a property owners' association shall
remit to the City the total cost associated with said maintenance. A reasonable fee shall
be determined annually, to be paid quarterly commencing on November 1 following
installation. Specific provisions for payment, and revisions thereto, may be addressed by
separate agreement between the City and applicant, his successors and/or assigns. (City
Forester)
12. The Alt. AIA, Burns Road, and perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed concurrent
with the construction of the adjacent interior roadways or townhouses, whichever occurs
first. (City Forester)
13. The applicant shall maintain all landscaping associated with the approval of this
petition and /or as conditioned in this Development Order using the minimum
recommended turf management practices and horticultural practices as outlined in
the City's Maintenance Standards for Mowing and Landscaping, when said
standards are approved by the City. (City Forester)
14. All exterior buffer walls shall be maintained in a consistent manner, and repainting shall
be provided on both sides of the wall at the same time when repainting occurs. (Code
Enforcement)
NOTE: Condition Number 1 has been modified since the Planning & Zonin
Commission meeting of July 13, 1999. Condition Number 13 was added after the July 131
meeting. This condition is necessary to ensure that this development will comply with the
anticipated revised landscape codes.
GAShort Range \PUD9809.cc1.doc
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 12
DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
Planning & Zoning_ Division
See above.
Seacoast Utility Authority
See attached letter dated June 8, 1999
City Engineer
See attached letter dated July 25, 1999
City Forester
See attached memo dated July 26, 1999
Police Department
No further concerns
Fire Department
No further concerns
Building Division
No concerns.
GAShort RangeU'UD9809.ccl.doc
August 19, 1999
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 13
August 19, 1999
TABLE 1
EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS
Subject Property :
Planned Development Area
Residential Medium
Vacant
(PDA)
(RM)
Proposed. Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
North :
General Commercial
Commercial
Seacoast Utility Authority
(CG1)
(C)
South :
Planned Community Development
Residential Medium
Gardens East Apartments
(PCD)
(RM)
East:
Residential Medium
Residential Medium
The Oaks & St. Marks
(RM)
(RM)
Episcopal Church
West :
Planned Community Development
Industrial
South Park Center
(PCD)
(I)
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Page 14
TABLE 2
CODE COMPLIANCE:
August 19, 1999
Required/
Proposed
Compliance
Allowed
Land Use
Residential
Residential Medium
Yes
Medium (RM)
Zoning
Planned
Planned Unit
Re- zoning
Development
Development (PUD)
proposed
Area
Front
30'
Front Yard to Garage: 20'
Waiver
.Setback
Front Yard to Portico: 14'
Requested
Side
10'
5' with a 10' separation
Waiver
Setback
between buildings
Requested
Side
10'
With optional :pool: 3'
Waiver
Setback
With screen or patio: 0'
Requested
w /pools &
screens
Side
20'
20'
Yes
Facing
Street
Rear
20'
30'
Yes
Setback
Rear
20'
With optional pool: 3'
Waiver
Setback
With screen or patio: 0'
Requested
w /pools &
screens
Parking
3 Bedrooms x
850 Spaces
Yes
Spaces
262 units = 786
add 5% guest--39
add Recreation--8
TOTAL = 833
Handicap
2 Spaces
4 Spaces
Yes
Parking
Building
35% Maximum
39%
Waiver
Lot
Requested
Coverage
Open
35% Minimum
53.7%
Yes
Space
Littoral
All water bodies
Water tolerant trees in lieu
Waiver
Zones
require littoral
of littoral plantings
Requested
plantings
August 9, 1999
ORDINANCE 28, 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF DIVOSTA &
COMPANY FOR REZONING OF 44.54 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALTERNATE AlA
AND BURNS ROAD, FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AREA TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO BE KNOWN AS "CATALINA
LAKES ", IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT 262 TOWNHOME
UNITS; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application from DiVosta &
Company for rezoning 44.54 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Alternate AIA and
Burns Road, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, from Planned
Development Area to Residential Planned Unit Development;
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is presently zoned as Planned Development Area with a
land use designation of Residential Medium (RM);
WHEREAS, the City's 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 City's Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
recommended approval of "Catalina Lakes."
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 application of DiVosta & Company for rezoning 44.54 acres of land located at the
northeast corner of Alternate AIA and Burns Road, more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto, from Planned Development Area to Residential Planned Unit Development, to
construct 262 townhome units.
SECTION 2. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval:
A) Waiver from LDR Section 118- 201(g) "RM residential medium density districts —
minimum building setbacks required", which requires a 30' front setback, a 10'
side setback and a 20' rear setback to allow a 20' front setback to the garage and a
14' front setback to the portico, to allow:
1) a 5' side setback with a 10' separation between buildings; a 3' side
setback if a pool is installed and a 0' side setback if a screen or patio is
installed;
2) a 30' rear setback with a 3' rear setback if a pool is installed and a 0'
rear setback if a screen or patio is installed.
B) Waiver from LDR Section 118- 201(g) "RM residential medium density districts -
Building lot coverage ", which requires that the maximum building lot coverage
not exceed 35 %, to allow a maximum building lot coverage of 39 %.
C) Waiver from LDR Section 98 -106 "Littoral planting zones" which requires littoral
plantings on lakes whose water surface is larger than one acre in size, to allow
substitute plantings as exhibited in the Landscape Plans by Cotleur & Hearing
dated June 6, 1999, Sheets 1 -6.
D) Waiver from LDR Section 98 -72(a) "Planting ", which requires a minimum 8 foot
perimeter landscape buffer, to allow a reduction of the buffer at one point (where
the property line and the edge of the proposed right of way meet). (Exhibit B)
E) Waiver from LDR Section 98 -68(c) "Parking areas", which requires all landscape
areas to be protected from vehicular encroachment, to allow unit driveways to
have planting areas without curbing. This waiver does not apply to any other
parking area within the site.
SECTION 3. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following
conditions which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors and/or assigns:
1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a revised site
plan that demonstrates a 55' Alt. A I A buffer at the narrowest point of the right turn lane
right -of -way. (Planning & Zoning)
2. The applicant shall work with staff and Southern Bell to move the Catalina Lakes buffer
wall and landscaping out of the Santa Barbara Drive right -of way when Southern Bell
amends their site and landscape plan. (Planning & Zoning)
3. Prior to the adoption of the Property Owner Association documents or the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit these
documents to the City, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City. (Legal)
4. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation demonstrating compliance with the SFWMD master surface water
management permit 50- 010465. (City Engineer)
2
5. 'Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter of
authorization from the 'appropriate utilities allowing landscaping and paving within the
utility easements. (City Engineer)
6. Within 8 months of construction plan approval, or within 30 days of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy of the model unit, whichever occurs first, the temporary sales
center and its associated paving and landscaping shall be removed. (Planning & Zoning)
7. The buildout date for the project shall be December 31, 2002. (Development Compliance
Officer)
8. No two adjacent homes shall have the same color combinations. (Development
Compliance Officer /Code Enforcement)
9. The construction of this project shall be in accordance with the following phasing
schedule: (Building Division)
A. First stage shall include clearing of the land, earthwork, water management/retention
lakes and road and utilities infrastructure.
B. Landscaping shall be installed as the townhomes are constructed; all buffer walls shall be
in place prior to housing construction.
C. Housing construction shall start with the building of the entry feature and the townhomes
in the northern section of the parcel.
D. After this, the construction shall proceed southward until total build -out.
E. The recreation center shall be constructed after at least 50% of the development is
completed.
10. The applicant shall install and maintain the landscaping to be located (a) in the median of
Alternate A I A for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the site; and (b) in
the median of Burns Road for the length of the median located directly adjacent to the
site. Said maintenance shall be in accordance with City maintenance standards. In the
alternative, the applicant, or its successors, including a property owners' association shall
remit to the City the total cost associated with said maintenance. A reasonable fee shall
be determined annually, to be paid quarterly commencing on November 1 following
installation. Specific provisions for payment, and revisions thereto, may be addressed by
separate agreement between the City and applicant, its successors and/or assigns. (City
Forester)
11. The applicant shall maintain all landscaping associated with the approval of this petition
and/or as conditioned in this Development Order using the minimum recommended turf
management practices and horticultural practices as outlined in the City's Maintenance
Standards for Mowing and Landscaping, when said standards are approved by the City.
(City Forester)
12. 'Landscaping to be located in the median of Alt. AIA of Burns Road, and within the
perimeter landscape buffer areas shall be installed concurrently with the construction of
the respective adjacent interior roadways or townhouses. (City Forester)
13. All exterior buffer walls shall be maintained in a consistent manner, and repainting shall
be provided on both sides of the wall at the same time when repainting occurs. (Code
Enforcement)
SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Unit Development shall be in compliance with
the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
1. June 4, 1999 Overall Site Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1.
2. June 4, 1999 Site Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet SP -1, SP -2
3. June 4, 1999 Site Plan Detail Sheet by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1.
4. June 4, 1999 Landscape Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1 -6.
5. June 4, 1999 Lighting Details & Calculations by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1.
6. June 4, 1999 Typical Unit Landscape Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1.
7. July 2, 1999 Alternate AlA Project Layout, Landscape Plan and Planting Details by
Cotleur & Hearing, 4 Sheets.
8. July 2, 1999 Burns Road Project Layout, Landscape Plan and Planting Details by Cotleur
& Hearing, 3 Sheets.
9. June 4, 1999 Site Plan — Temporary Sales Trailer by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheet 1.
10. June 7, 1999 Sales Trailer Elevations by Sunco Building Corp., Sheet A -1.
11. October 29, 1998 Boundary Survey by Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc., Sheet 1 -3.
12. April 13, 1999 Site Lighting Plan by Cotleur & Hearing, Sheets 1 -3.
13. April 7, 1999 Model Site Plan by Sunco Building Corp., 1 Sheet.
14. April 7, 1999 Floor Plans and Elevations by Sunco Building Corp. 3 Sheets.
15. April 7, 1999 Poolhouse Floor Plan by Sunco Building Corp., Sheet A -1.
16. April 13, 1999 Building Color Samples.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
4
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
'1999.
'1999.
'1999.
MAYOR JOSEPH R. RUSSO COUNCILMAN CARL SABATELLO
VICE MAYOR LAUREN FURTADO
ATTEST:
LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK
BY:
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
GAShort Range\PUD9809.OR.doc
COUNCILMAN ERIC JABLIN
COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY.
CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
5
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARILY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF THE OAKS— SUN TERRACE PLAT 3,
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 68, PAGES 70 THROUGH 73, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY FLORIDA, THENCE NORTH 88 °34'14" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, A DISTANCE OF 257.45 FEET; THENCE TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15 041'19 ", A DISTANCE OF
104.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 01 °35'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
126.71 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 259.57 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE NORHT LINE OF BURNS ROAD, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 6438, PAGES 668
THROUGH 671, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 87 058'53"
WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 4.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH
83 051'24" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORHT RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 151.37
FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY (A RADIAL LINE PASSING THROUGH SAID
POINT BEARS NORTH 01 °01'28" EAST) HAVING A RADIUS OF 1912.85 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04 031'37", A DISTANCE OF
151.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86°29'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 53.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH
52 °43'35" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 51.60 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF ALTERNATE A-
1 -A; THENCE NORTH 15 °16'11' WEST, DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE AND ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
A DISTANCE OF 163.76 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF ALTERNATE A -1 -A, AS
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3578, AT PAGE 1026, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 14 005'26" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -0F -
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 2396.87 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF R.C.A. BOULEVARD (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS MONET ROAD) AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3578, AT PAGE 1026,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 40 040'02" EAST,
DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE AND ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 47.61 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 88 034'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 167.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 025'43" EAST, A DISTANCE
- -OF 20.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (NW %) OF SAID
SECTION 7; THENCE SOUTH 88 °34'17" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY
LINE AND SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 84.02 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PARCEL AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 1767, AT PAGES 126 AND 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 01025'43" WEST, DEPARTING SAID SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE AND
SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 340.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PARCEL, THENCE SOUTH 88 034'17"
EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN AMARA TEMPLE HOLDING CORPORATION, INC. PARCEL, AS
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2628, AT PAGES 1186 AND 1187, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 01025'43"
WEST, DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 377.50 FEET
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN AMARA TEMPLE HOLDING CORPORATION, INC.
PARCEL, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 8239, AT PAGE 558, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 88 034'17" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE NORTH 01 025'43" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 2.50
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 7527, AT PAGE 1642, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE SOUTH 88034'17- EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF
305.97 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF SAID OAKS — SUN TERRACE PLAT 3; THENCE
SOUTH 01 °35'32" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1075.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 44.54 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
LOCATION
The subject property is located approximately 0.00 miles from the intersection of Burns Road and Alternate
A -1 -A, on the the north side of Bums Road and the. east side of Alternate A -1 -A.
Property Control No. of the subject property: 52 43 42 07 00 000 3120
J
EXHIBIT R
Rea
d
•
1
tltit iS14 f' +
ui +r ttk: V
11Fi.i Jit'
-Itil ,
!II!f ! rill, ' fJ i
eJtIt 'r 1
i! {it i?litl t
tl:i FI!
IIJ:i ��s,+ti • �r,r
Itll+ rilfl
RiM
H Clot
[it'
i {Ity.. 11.1. � ••......:r. i
111{1:, litl i f.:
t7rt1 •; !. � 1
W
JUL -29 -1999 16:22 LBr8&H — STUART
561 286 3925 P.02/04
LINOAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
TO:
Kim Glas
FROM:
Tammy Jacobs
DATE: -
July 29,1999
SUBJECT: Catalina Lakes
(LBFH File No 984022)
We have completed a review of the Drainage Study of the Gardens East 1 Bums Road — RCA
Boulevard Drainage Basins (January 1990, LBFH), and the SFWMD surface water management
permit files for the Oaks project. We offer the following condition of approval for the above
referenced project:
1) Prior to final City Council approval, the applicant shall submit a revised conceptual
drainage plan for our review and approval demonstrating that the system cau meet
the criteria outlined in our letter to Lawson, Noble & Webb dated July 25,1999.
W/ Attachment
TJ
PAPBGMr- M0X4M.dm
cc: Roxanne Manning
City of P.B. Gardens
JUL 29 1999
GRUWTFI
MANAGEME141
DEPARTMEW
3550 S.W. COF970HAM. PAF4KVVAY • PALM CITY, FLOPMA 34090 • r56 1) 286,IPM • FAX (W) 206 -=5
ttW /wwwZftoom • c-ma: Intoftft om
PALM CITY WEST PALM BENCH FORT PIE= (MEC HOSES
J10... -29 -1999 16:23 LBF&H - STUART 561 266 3925 P.03/04
LINDAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC.
CONSULT,i,! V� t PAC!': cfiS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
July 25, 1999
Robert Lawson, P. E.
Lawson, Noble & Webb L'
420 Columbia Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Re: Catalina Lakes and St. Mark's Church - City of Palm Beach Gardens
Dear Mr. Lawson:
y
City of P.B. Gardens
'Ift 29 1999
GRVNTH
MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to the agreement reached at our breakfast meeting, Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari &
Hellstrom, Inc. has completed a review of the Drainage Study of the Gardens East / Bums Road
— RCA Boulevard Drainage Basins (January 1990, LBFH), and the SFWMD surface water
management permit files for the Oaks project.
The July 1992 Staff Report issued for the Oaks project confirms an allowable discharge of 47.7
cfs for the Oaks basin (254.2 acres), which includes the offsite inflow from the "west' basin
'-` (68.3 acres). This equates to 0.15 cfs/acre or 3.5" /day from the 322.5 -acre drainage area for the
25 -year 3-day storm. The calculations show that the west basin discharged 10 cfs into the Oaks
project, which also equates to 0.15 c£slacre.
The area of the Catalina Lakes / St. Mark's project included in the calculations provided by
Lawson, Noble & Webb, is 57.06 acres. Utilizing the 0.15 efs/acre discharge rate results in an
allowable discharge of 8.5 cfs for these projects.
Our calculations show the RCA Boulevard drainage system, with a few minor modifications
(including upsizing two driveway culverts and slightly lowering the invert of the western section
of the ditch), can handle an additional inflow of 8.5 cfs, without causing any adverse tailwater
impacts to the existing properties which drain into it Maria Clemente of SFWMD has verbally
agreed to allow this discharge into the RCA drainage system. The City plans to submit a request
for a letter of modification to the RCA Boulevard permit for the required modifications to the
system.
Accordingly, it is our recommendation to the City that the drainage lying west of Gardens East
Drive, north of Burns Road, south of RCA Boulevard and east of Alternate Al A be directed to
the RCA drainage basin utilizing the above stated parameters. We also suggest that you use a
conservative approach to computing soil storage for the project area.
&IM S.W CORPORATE PARKWAY • PALM CITY. F1.OM10A:y1�90 • M 1 280 -31WI • FAX (.=) 208.3925
htip:/ANww.I3ftcc t • 4 -ttwi: tnfoQ1bf %.com
PN \t tm WKST PALM BEACH ro rr fUrt flKtftlil xux
Lt k-8,N — ST"T
561 296 3925 P.04iO4
Please call if there are any questions as to our analysis and/or recommendation.
Ver ly Y /-2
U
i,evfw 9.bindahk P. E.
cc: Bo bic Hcrakovich, City Manager
Ro awe Manning
Jack l- Janson
Maria Clemente, SFWMD
P:�F'bgmemol4022q.Qac
i
TOTAL P.04
V
LINDAHL, BROWNING, FERRARI & HELLSTROM, INC.
&( 0
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Glas
FROM: Tammy Jacobs
DATE: July 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Catalina Lakes
(LBFH File No 98 -4022)
We have reviewed the revised Master Site Plan, Site Plan, Detail Sheet, Landscape Plan, Typical
Landscape Plan and Temporary Sales Site Plan prepared by Cotleur & Hearing received June 18,
1999 and revised Preliminary Engineering Plan prepared by Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc,
received June 18, 1999. We offer the following comments:
1) Conditionally Satisfied. The City Engineer has completed the RCA Drainage Basin analysis
with respect to the inclusion of the discharge from Catalina Lakes as an alternativelto the
proposed drainage plan and we are ready to issue our conclusions. We have also attended
meetings with SFWMD to discuss the drainage issues and arrive at a mutually agreeable
solution and will be ready to issue our comments simultaneously with SFWMD. We
recommend that the applicant be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission but that the
drainage issues be concluded to the satisfaction of both the City and SFWMD prior to
scheduling the first City Council meeting.
2) Satisfied. The applicant has revised the note on sheet 1 of 2 to include RCP under load
bearing surfaces.
3) Satisfied. The applicant has provided Typical Lot Drainage Details to sheet 2 of 2. Storm
water runoff from rear lots adjacent to the water management lakes will sheetflow directly into
the lakes. Storm water runoff from rear lots not adjacent to water management lakes will be
directed to the lakes utilizing pipe and catch basins. _r___
4) Previously Satisfied. c
5) Previously Satisfied. 001 00 .4
6) Previously Satisfied. tic
3550 S.W. CORPORATE PARKWAY • PALM CITY, FLORIDA 34990 • (561) 286 -3883 •
http: / /www.lbfh.com • e -mail: info @lbfh.com
PALM CITY WEST PALM BEACH FORT PIERCE
OKEECHOBEE
Catalina Lakes
(LBFH File No 984022)
7) Previously Satisfied.
8) Previously Satisfied.
9) Conditionally Satisfied. The entrance has been revised to provide 2 -12.5' ingress lanes and
2 -10' egress lanes. However, prior to scheduling the first City Council meeting, the ingress
lanes will need to be properly striped to narrow the two egress lanes to one egress lane as the
round a bout is approached.
10) Previously Satisfied.
11) Previously Satisfied.
12) Previously Satisfied.
13) Previously Satisfied.
14) Previously Satisfied.
15) Conditionally Satisfied. Prior to scheduling the first City Council meeting, the City requests
that a site inspection be arranged with the applicant to view established neighborhoods
utilizing unrestrained paver blocks within the residential areas. We -have concerns that the
unrestrained paver blocks will be not provide longevity and pose a maintenance problem.
16) Previously Satisfied.
17) Previously Satisfied.
18) Conditionally Satisfied. Prior to construction plan approval the applicant will need to
provide a letter of authorization from the appropriate utilities allowing landscaping and paving
with the utility easements.
19) Previously Satisfied.
20) Previously Satisfied.
21) Satisfied. The wheel stop note shown on the Lot Striping Detail sheet 2 of 2 has been
removed.
The applicant is requested to return a copy of our comments with the applicant's acknowledgment
of each comment and the response. Compliance will expedite the subsequent review.
Catalina Lakes
(LBFH File No 984022)
TJ
PAPBGMEMO \4022o.doc
cc: Bobbie Herakovich
Roxanne Manning
Fire — Rescue
Chief Peter T. Bergel
Life Safety Services
Division
• inspection Services
• Community Eduction
• Phns Review
• Fire Investip&n
(561) 775 -8260
Fax (561) 775 -8269
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4698
I June 22, 1999
To: Angela Csinsi, City Planner
Fr: Scott A. Fetterman, Asst Chief / Fire Marshal
RE: (PUD -98 -09) Catalina Lakes Townhomes.
The Fire Rescue Depaament has reviewed the revised site plan
for Catalina Lakes (06/07/99), and has no adverse comments or concerns
at this time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please
contact me if you have any questions or any future changes are proposed.
CITY.OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 8, 1999
To: Angela Csinsi, Planner I
From: Jack Hanson, Building O
Subject: PUD -98 -09 — Catalina Lakes ownhomes
I have examined the drawings and documents for the above project and I have no
concerns in terms of the building and sign codes.
I recommend approval.
Seacoast Utility Authority
EXECUTIVE OFFICE:
June 8, 1999
VIA FAX: 775 -1014
Ms. Angela Csinsi
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
RE: Catalina Lakes
Dear Ms. Csinsi:
MJ
Mailing Address.
P.O. Box 109602
Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida 33410 -9602
We offer the following comments on your transmittal dated June 7, 1999 concerning the
referenced project.
1. Due to the limited green areas available in this project, we are not able to comment
on the conceptual landscape plans at this time. Each area with water meters,
backflow preventers and the like will have to be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to
determine what landscaping will be acceptable in that area.
2. Once detailed water and sewer plans are submitted, we will be able to provide
further input on the landscape plans.
Please call if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
COAST UTIL AUTHORITY
Bruce Gregg
Director of Operations
ad
cc: Run Bishop
Jim Lance
Scott Serra
4200 Hood Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 -2198
Phone: Customer Service (561) 627 -2920 / Executive Office (561) 627 -2900 / FAX (561) 624 -2839
Jn
Qb
Cotleum
Hearing
Landscape Architects
Land Planners
Environmental Consultants
June 3, 1999
Mr. Jim Norquist
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -4698
Re: Catalina Lakes Planned Unit Development
MacArthur Foundation Parcel 7
CH Project 498 -0806
Dear Jim:
� pf p8. Garde "s Y':`t
GRU'M�
UE AR�MENS
This correspondence is in response to the May 25, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board
workshop in connection with the above referenced project. At the May25, 1999
workshop DiVosta and Company presented revised plans for the proposed Catalina Lakes
Neighborhood in response to the Planning and Zoning Board's January 19, 1999
workshop meeting.
The plans for the Catalina Lakes project have been modified to address the concerns
expressed by the Board during the May 25, 1999 workshop. To assist you in your review
please find below a response to xhe concerns identified by the Planning and Zoning
Board, together with the action or actions taken.
1) Several Planning and Zoning Board members ;requested that the applicant
consider providing some curvature to the roadway running along the eastern
boundary. To address this concern the applicant has incorporated a median
feature in the center portion of the road which': will act to provide diversity to the
street, provide traffic calming and provide a juxtapositioning of the townhome in
this area. This modification, we believe, substantially addresses the concern and
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Maplewood Professional Center
1934 Commerce Lane - Suite 1
Jupiter, Florida 33458
5617476336 FAX 561747 -1377
http: /www.codeur -heoring.com
Mr. Jim Norquist
Catalina Lakes PUD
June3, 1999
Page 2
2) Planning and Zoning Board requested that additional information concerning the
architectural details as reflected on the proposed elevations be provided on the
plans. The Architectural Plans have been modified to include an exterior finished
schedule and a materials legend to address this matter. The revised plans include
details concerning all the exterior finishes, the manufacturer and type of proposed
decorative architectural features, the thickness of proposed stucco banding and
the like. Additionally, enclosed with this correspondence is a brochure from the
proposed shutter manufacturer which provides information concerning the
cellwood premier composite material utilized for the shutters.
The applicant proposes to provide three different elevation types with three
difference portico design options. Three different two -tone color options will be
utilized with three different roof color blends. Intermixing these four components
will provide for the potential for 81 different variations of the exterior elevations.
A color board reflecting each of the proposed colors and roofing blends has been
previously provided to the Staff.
3) The Staff and Planning and Zoning Board have requested that the applicant
provide curbing for the planting strips between the driveways on private
residential lots. The applicant respectfully requests consideration of a waiver for
this requirement. The proposed townhomes will be a fee simple form of
ownership. It is the applicant's experience ownership in property makes a
significant difference in how people care for landscaping and other similar
features. In addition, the landscaping within the front yard of the homes will be
maintained by the homeowners association. In the applicant's extensive history,
they have not experienced a problem with homeowners destroying or damaging
the landscape strips between residential driveways. An additional justification is
provided in the summary of justification waivers attached hereto. As requested
by the Staff, the applicant has prepared a detail reflecting the proposed driveway
paver installation.
4) The Staff and Planning and Zoning Board directed the applicant to relocate the 16
townhome buildings located on the main entrance road east of the roundabout. As
directed, the applicant has revised the Site Plan to relocating all the homes to
other areas of the Site Plan. The subject portion of roadway now offers expansive
lakeviews where townhomes were previously proposed.
5) During the workshop the applicant offered a condition of approval committing to
buffering swimming pool screened enclosures. A note has been added to the Site
Plan indicating that no pool screened enclosures shall be visible from the public
streets abutting the Catalina Lakes community.
Mr. Jim Norquist
Catalina Lakes PUD
June 3, 1999
Page 3
6) The Planning and Zoning Board and the Staff have requested that additional guest
parking spaces be provided. To address this concern the applicant has provided
three guest parking spaces between lots 57 and 58. One additional guest parking
space has been provided between lots 68 and 69. These modifications bring the
total guest parking spaces to 47, which is 8 spaces more than required by the
Code. The total number of available parking spaces within the community is now
848 spaces with 833 being required.
In addition to the May 25, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board comments, please also find
below a response to the action or actions taken to remedy the outstanding Staff concerns.
Engineering issues — Lindahl, Browning, Ferrari & Helstrom May 19,1999
Memorandum
2) As requested, the preliminary Engineering Plans have been revised to include a
note stating that "All drainage pipe within the right -of -way and under low bearing
surfaces will be RCP."
3) As requested, the applicant has provided additional detail concerning the drainage
for the rear of the lots adjacent to the property boundary to reflect the method of
stromwater conveyance. The applicant's engineer has discussed this matter with
the City Engineer.
11) The applicant has revised the plans to remove the "Do Not Enter" and the "One
Way" signage on the eyebrow located on the street of the northern cul -de -sac.
21) The parking lot striping detail has been revised as requested.
Mark Hendrickson's May 11, 1999 Memorandum
The applicant's May 20, 1999 response addresses many of the issues outlined in Mark
Hendrickson's May 11, 1999 memorandum. As a follow -up to these responses, please
find below additional information concerning other actions taken to address the
Forester's concerns.
1) An additional narrative has been provided concerning the applicant's request for
not providing curbing within the landscape areas of private residential driveways.
2) The applicant has provided an additional waiver justification concerning the
reduction of the 15 -foot required buffer area at the southwest corner of the
BellSouth facility.
Buffer Cross - Sections
As requested by the City Forester, cross - sections of the proposed perimeter buffers of the
community have been provided. As previously expressed in our May 20, 1999
Mr. Jim Norquist
Catalina Lakes PUD
June 3, 1999
Page 4
correspondence the existing drainage ditch will likely be deeded to the City as a part of
the Record Plat for the Catalina Lakes community. The maintenance of the ditch will
continue to be the responsibility of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
Typical Elevation of Mailboxes
As requested, the typical elevation of the proposed CBU mailboxes have been provided
on the Detail Sheet. The applicant proposes to utilize combination box units that are
provided by the U.S Postal Service. These boxes will be conveniently distributed
throughout the community.
Please find enclosed eight (8) sets of revised 24" x 36" Plan Sheets together with one set
of 11" x IT' reductions for your convenience. We appreciate the Staff's continued
support and look forward to moving forward to the public hearing for this project.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
nicer yo
onaldson Hearing
DH:nt
Enclosures
cc: Rick Greene
Waiver Justification
aty of P.B. Gardens
Section 98 -72 (a) Plantings
The applicant is requesting approval for providing a 0' buffer at a single point, whkA" s at:
the southwest comer of the Bell South property. At this one point, the comer acid thAwgle of the'
internal road ROW become cotangent. This condition is necessary due to the unique and
narrow configuration of the property in this location and the constraints imposed by the'Land
Development Regulations to provide a 55' Buffer along Alternate Al A.
The applicant proposes to construct a 6' concrete wall, which will be planted withficus pumila
vine to create a green wall. Dense plantings of sabal palms and cocoplum are provided
throughout out the buffer with the exception of this one point. Additionally, large live oak street
trees are to be planted,- within the tree land area adjacent to the street. A tree has been
strategically placed at the subject comer to assist in mitigating this condition.
Section 98 -72 (a) of the LDR's and Landscape Code establishes a minimum of 8' perimeter
buffer around properties except where commercial or industrial properties abut residential or
less intense uses, where a 20' buffer is required. The subject project is a Planned Unit
Development and, as such, all setbacks are established by the City Council. LDR Section 118-
213 (PUD Districts) (h) "Setbacks Required" states that the City Council shall impose
appropriate setbacks along the external boundaries of the PUD to buffer the adjacent land
uses... ". The 8' perimeter buffer requirement of the Landscape Code serves as a guideline for
establishing PUD buffers. The primary intent of this code provision is to buffer adjacent
properties from the proposed PUD. In the case of the subject waiver request, the reduction in
buffer will not adversely impact the adjacent Bell South Facility, which is considered a light
industrial use. The site design for this area has been carefully considered. No homes back up to
the subject area, and a road right of way separates the homes located on the opposite side of
the street. A 6' concrete wall is provided in this area. Furthermore, the reduction of buffer
occurs at a single point.
Considering the uniqueness of this condition, the constraints imposed by providing by other.
LDR provisions, that fact that no homes front on the subject buffer and other measures
proposed by the applicant, we believe this request is justified.
Section 98-68 Parking Areas (c.)
The City Forester has requested the applicant seek a waiver from this provision of the LDR's.
Section 98-68 (c.) (" Parking ") relates to parking areas, and we believe is intended to regulate
parking lots and not residential driveways on fee simple lots.
Nonetheless, the City Forester has requested the applicant request a wavier from the
requirements for providing protective curbing around landscape areas separating residential
driveways between individual townhome units. The applicant is seeking the City's consideration
of this request due to the fact that thetownhomes will be sold in a fee simple form of ownership
and the landscaping will be maintained by the homeowners association. The applicant has
extensive experience developing similar product types throughout Palm Beach County. It is the
applicants experience when residents own their dwelling, greater care and concern is given to
protecting and maintain their property and, consequently, their property values. The applicant
has not experienced the concerns expressed by the City Forester to the landscape areas
between driveways. The applicant would encourage the Staff to evaluate other successful
communities completed by the applicant with similar conditions. These include thetownhomes
at Riverwalk, Charleston Court at Abaoca, Newhaven at Abacoa and Tequesta Oaks.
Memo to File
From: Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Subject: PUD- 98 -09, Catalina Lakes Townhomes
Date: July 26, 1999
I have reviewed the median landscaping plans submitted July 14, 1999. The following are my
comments for the August 19, 1999 City Council meeting:
In the north east portion of the site, the 45' wide road right -of -way (ROW) converges with
the 15' buffer area between this project and the existing Southern Bell project. Staff would
prefer that the 15' landscape buffer not be encumbered by a ROW. Southern Bell is
proposing an expansion to a two story building. Staff wants to have both property owners
buffered from each other to the greatest extent possible.
I recommend the following conditions for consideration:
1. The applicant shall work with staff and Southern Bell to move the Catalina Lakes buffer wall
and landscaping out of the Santa Barbara Drive right -of way when Southern Bell amends their site
and landscape plan.
2. The applicant shall install the Alt. AlA and Burns Road landscaping as approved by City
Council within one year of the first certificate of occupancy. The applicant, his successors and/or
assigns shall maintain the Alt. AlA and Burns Road landscaping per City maintenance standards,
or shall pay to the City, or special roadway maintenance district if one is adopted, the total cost of
maintenance. A reasonable fee shall be determined annually, paid in quarterly installments by the
applicant and his successors and/or assigns commencing on the first of November following the
installation. Specific provisions for payment, and revisions thereto, may be addressed by separate
agreement between the City and applicant, his successors and/or assigns.
3. The Alt. AIA, and Burns Road perimeter landscape buffers shall be installed concurrent with
the construction of the adjacent interior roadways or townhouse, whichever occurs first.
Q b 6 E C E � b x
wq Q F_Ag b ^.o a8 tls C
E $g3 �b� �� ob !•'3{
F rL
S Ra gr $ z.
s $ : a g
A a p
a Eli
$ Q r n
s Z
< v o a it
tTl
IT
0
n
CD TTV� ^1
CD
0 CD
(J�
a�
z
a
� ° �• Ep- s
'Ti cn o
W ° b va
`.°. ° g
S
S
b
f
s �
b E o
! N N
Ci
Y O
C bbb !e9��
O _
O
r
y
C
y
W -; 7k.
i
I
rf
b Ao
,
1
1
i
I
II
3
I
I
I
I
i
I
fa
I
I i
1 ,
r
rnl
I
I
I
I
t
I
O '
I
I
�
ob
I
I
L
I
I
11 -Z.
12,0.
I Xn
3
I
I
A�
IN �
"Ila
a_
0
r
1
i
I
I
I
I i
1 ,
O '
I
I
r
rn
r
m '
49
I
D
0 i I
i I
6 I.
i
I
1
I
I
i
I
I
11 -Z.
12,0.
I Xn
3
I
I
A�
IN �
"Ila
a_
0
H
a
a� b
0
1 M1II
o'
f
MUM
�R -T
.E.ni. ��E 5E F5�e6Ed
r
Catalina `
Lakes
a _ Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
z� m
�y_ y
VIV
f f
�f
f
. ;f will
I U
7.
S
�I
w'
I
e
!1
� 1 G
pa
99.0
f
1
v l�—A
maicnitne aee meet SY -1 UT Z
°
4
9
F�
E
s�
ZI
{pF
Catalina Lakes
CD o
fit N
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
a
;
r�
Ilk
g
RVO
r
9
4
Catalina Lakes
{if of I6�9 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
I
I
1�
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
f
I
I
I
9
a
k
a l
@ IT
Matchline See Sheet 3 Of 6
Catalina Lakes
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
N
_I
pp I if =
it I I I
I
� R
8
n^co!)
11151.1"
gi
E w:
F—+
Ifi`w ON
Burl's Road
Catalina Lakes
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
1 .
11
I
I�
�I
\ \— J \
.y
T
I
I,
I_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�.4
-4
r
Al A8 �s``�J
- � r
a
r 4
/ A
` !r
T ` !
a
b
® I a
Catalina Lakes fill
ins Rj6���I� Palm Beach Gardens, Florida f t
.. .... ..... .. . -...__ __..._- !- �= �.!wwa.� +mn.7ie48W�: .y ..:;::.; >.. .. •..'.,::_, N.. n::3��sfoS%�'"
Matchiine See
I
i Y �
i
e '\
I `
Y r11 Ix� CD
V
Ir
i
'
I R M
I
1 II'
II l l/
II yyy
' ►il�� � �4�$g�
Catalina Lakes C
I�f�3 Pt t� xn
14 ' g�p
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida e f P
/x
LJ
r � —
® I rn
r F+•
r
_.I � i� •_.. I CD
� ' a
I
a
i
a
r
I E
� v
r
r
I
/ I\
` I ,
v tl N
a a
U- 2
O Rz v
o
'Catalina Lakes, n®
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida E t
Tm n yAV'vvvn 0 > my 2• mAA3
•v OT 'oz �NDYnA00RZ3�vn vmAmc=iDAZ?2A ��mmfn ➢3<�00E
aD yy�- -TD mm2 Tm000 Avt� v(� 0 g1 ?0-I AA C
?�TAbANi OZ ���C m Rp nCO ,-2 OSSS2Sp 8 S� CC O
C CCO�AA COO A t➢i�p ,-000 OCC11 � O CO (i7mm OC
,- _2.003INE O THIPH . 2.( ymmm�mc C$ "1 .TlW y.�7��jZ
Omzm O.o mzZ ZZZ3z zz fn = -1222 2NtA 0 -m = n
cz o vcc5o mi 5c�o 9ORRR�Rzz xc z�c �r
z to �o33 =;3 O33TD0 7p7��� m G� Z z A� 2ZigE S fnNOsC
OCGi— t=iiyNO— CmOOm CDD <.O 0ms0 D•rtO1 �C=i C=7�C ➢°�OY'o�555M03
0 r T z— mm H� 0 3 CIAO m A;n r
pD�nc Orrtn �OSs OGmja oA tAt�� a m 1➢r1 � 0 5= �om�22HO
D�ca= �Cy y y� CD ?ymrnDAOzC F= m�
my G)C 3y m (nj rn� mmN�{ A
m �7 c: C y V ° D y z D
z� § m ;
8 ;
m
25 p N
G1Qmo �m5 5m
TIO�p}7D���'(yi7 aA�D�>�i ,-z <iCAZ� yyO O< m �A�CC mF flr5 �m OC
to < poXNPp mN °��vgy T`t=ii�00A =~ < ;O; CQS§V?� cz1"mOm Cb,mp=TF °O yO
POP �g����mOm� ZG�ic ����D N' f°nq�Z�v s�GZj ZQ`
�M= °� 0 3 °zD Agm ;
�c u mm =iig os?� m< ggg 0NC� im
"z m po y v�r iy nn o 5 °o
F �o �3
O y { C �' C z 2
A
II
N T
O
r
O Z
2C
m
3 �
HX�%�'JyJkKxin y °n°O5 O @OUtO.y -t . Y
yy°3 niyH yy y y -1c�o�
�3n: intniPg n2�wNwwNn2w iw�N aPaaaaaaaaaaa PaaaPaaaaaCDafaP y
o00000NO OOOyDO"popp L, NNtnNmmNNNNmmm yyymmy<n y, cn vNmma, y
yy
hpphppp ' lA 0 n n
rticccccccc3 ccccccccccccc ccCCCCc0CCCC C ccccccccccc A
yFFFFFFFFa FFFFFFFFFFFFF FF�FFFF�� FFFFFFFFFFFF
�R° awwwwW � R� W W WfroW W Nm 3• N
1 y y C O m
003$ 3"i
Z C c 1 S 0
33v 4v i
m °m oF;n FF -nib zzA50a
a
2
2 Z 2 A A
1 00 y 0 � 0 -1 2 yyC
Z « (mj fm,) m m C (A
m m
m
ccoc 3 3 zz 3
�
m
a Q.a
e
r-t-
v
Catalina Lakes
IiE e- Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
FF�F6;§�II
g .1 €11 �o
I
I
V
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date: August 19, 1999
Date Prepared: July 29, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item: Workshop/ 1st Reading, Ordinance 33, 1999: Marina Gardens Lot
8 Land Use Amendment application.
Recommendation /Motion:
Staff recommends aDDroval of Ordinance 33. 1999
Reviewed by:`
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Council Action:
Total
City City Attorney 00-0
Growth Management
[ ] Approved
Finance N/A
$ 0
[ ] Approved wiconditlons
ACM
Current FY
[ ]Denied
Human Res. N/A
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Advertised:
Other N/A
Date:
[ ] Operating
Attachments:
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
Ordinance 33, 1999
[ x ] Not Required
land use map
Location map
Submitted by:
Growth Management
Affected parties
Budget Acct. #::
Director
[ ] Notified
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ x ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Hank Skokowski, agent, has requested a land use amendment for a .33 acre site from
Palm Beach County Future Land Use Designation of Low Residential -3 to City of Palm
Beach Gardens Future Land Use Designation of Residential Medium (RM). The site is
located in unincorporated Palm Beach County, approximately 1/4 mile northeast of the
intersection of Prosperity Farms Road and PGA Boulevard. (5- 42S -43E)
Existing Land Use: Maximum Allowed
The existing land use is Palm Beach County Low Residential (LR -3). The maximum
development calculated under this designation is one dwelling unit.
Proposed Land Use: Maximum Allowed
The proposed land use designation is Palm Beach Gardens Residential Medium (RM).
With Planned Unit Development zoning, up to nine (9) dwelling units per acre is allowed.
Land Planning Agency
Petition LU -99 -01
Page 2
August 19, 1999
Therefore, the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation
would be three dwelling units.
Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed land use amendment would allow for the expansion of the approved Marina
Gardens Planned Unit Development with three (3) additional dwelling units Staff has
notified the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee
'(IPARC) about the proposed land use amendment. The proposed amendment has
received no objections through this forum. Due to concerns from County residents on the
north side of Idlewild Road during the initial approval of the Marina Gardens PUD, staff is
recommending that the petitioner meet with homeowners to explain the proposed
expansion.
The subject area is located within the High Hazard Coastal Area as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan. In the event of a hurricane, residents of this area will be required to
evacuate to shelter. The nearest designated red cross shelter is Palm Beach Gardens High
School with maximum capacity of 2,500 persons. The Comprehensive Plan estimates that
271 City residents will seek shelter in the event of a hurricane. With the addition of an
estimated '5 persons, the capacity should not be- negatively affected.
The subject site is. located within. the, City's future annexation area. The petitioner is
processing an annexation application simultaneously with this petition. The Vision Plan
does not address lands within the future annexation area.
Development Name
Land Use
North
Idlewild Road Subdivision
Palm Beach County LR -3
Single Family Residential
(Low Residential 3 dwelling units
per acre maximum)
South
Marina Gardens PUD
Palm Beach Gardens Residential
Medium (RM)
East
Idlewild Road Subdivision
Palm Beach County LR -3
Single Family Residential (lot 9)
(Low Residential 3 dwelling units
per acre maximum)
West
Marina Gardens PUD
Palm Beach Gardens Residential
Medium (RM)
The proposed land use amendment would allow for the expansion of the approved Marina
Gardens Planned Unit Development with three (3) additional dwelling units Staff has
notified the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee
'(IPARC) about the proposed land use amendment. The proposed amendment has
received no objections through this forum. Due to concerns from County residents on the
north side of Idlewild Road during the initial approval of the Marina Gardens PUD, staff is
recommending that the petitioner meet with homeowners to explain the proposed
expansion.
The subject area is located within the High Hazard Coastal Area as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan. In the event of a hurricane, residents of this area will be required to
evacuate to shelter. The nearest designated red cross shelter is Palm Beach Gardens High
School with maximum capacity of 2,500 persons. The Comprehensive Plan estimates that
271 City residents will seek shelter in the event of a hurricane. With the addition of an
estimated '5 persons, the capacity should not be- negatively affected.
The subject site is. located within. the, City's future annexation area. The petitioner is
processing an annexation application simultaneously with this petition. The Vision Plan
does not address lands within the future annexation area.
Land Planning Agency
Petition LU -99 -01
Page 3
Utilities
August 19, 1999
Seacoast has reviewed this petition and has commented that the water and sewer system
have the capacity to accommodate the additional demand which would be created by the
proposed land use amendment.
Northem
Northern PBC Improvement District has reviewed this petition and has commented that
they have no concerns.
School Board
Palm Beach County School Board has reviewed this petition and has commented that any
additional school aged children will negatively effect existing school capacities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
S
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 33, 1999.
SU BJEGT SITE
j(1, y i l •
u�
t f
ITS ~J
i
.r.
�,
.A
C � f�' ad•�
m. •:,M yi . >w°y%.• .�L2}•. .,� i.� �. .sr W+ �.a.R -� � � vii -�t- ?• -. Z
�� �r t f � - ' ".• � •_M1 {{J,�_�> ti`s -.. {t _ -� ..'W� .1 t
N Orap
T 4 S1te--,Data
1
�x Rjdkin .�
r
rli.• spy• .t.'`
JA
low
ti
• Y
I ,
� -� ...�; t•�
y ,
h.
,CI• •:
1I.�
f�
has �
'1is M^
H C
C � f�' ad•�
m. •:,M yi . >w°y%.• .�L2}•. .,� i.� �. .sr W+ �.a.R -� � � vii -�t- ?• -. Z
�� �r t f � - ' ".• � •_M1 {{J,�_�> ti`s -.. {t _ -� ..'W� .1 t
N Orap
T 4 S1te--,Data
1
�x Rjdkin .�
July 20, 1999
ORDINANCE 33, 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON .33 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
SOUTH OF IDLEWILD DRIVE AND 1/4 MILE EAST
OF PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD PALM BEACH
r COUNTY LOW RESIDENTIAL - 3 TO CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
(RM); PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application from Mutual Land
Development Co., Ltd. to amend the land use designation of .33 acres of land south of Idlewild
Drive and 1/4 mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit 'A'
attached hereto, from Palm Beach County Low Residential -3 to City of Palm Beach Gardens
Residential Medium (RM); and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department (the "Department ") has reviewed said
application and determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the land use amendment is internally consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the land use amendment is consistent with Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), F.S.
pertaining to small scale amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the duly constituted land planning
agency for the City which has recommended the land use amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that this land use amendment is subject to the
provisions of Chapter 163.3187(3)(c), F.S., and that the City shall maintain compliance with all
provisions thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The Future Land Use and Transportation Map Series of the
Ordinance 33, 1999
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan of the City is hereby amended to change the land use designation on .33
acres of land south of Idlewild Road and 1/4 mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, more
specifically described in Exhibit "A ", from Palm Beach County Low Residential -3 to City of
Palm Beach Gardens Residential Medium (RM).
SECTION 2. The City's Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure
that this ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs and, together with the City Clerk, to ensure that this ordinance is codified as
part of the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Chapter 163.3187(3)(c), F.S., this Ordinance shall
become effective 31 days after adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS 19' DAY OF JULY 1999.
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS
ATTEST BY:
LINDA V. KOSIER, CITY CLERK
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
g/long: 10901.ondoc
/kg/j1
DAY OF
DAY OF
JOSEPH RUSSO, MAYOR
1999.
1999.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
SUFFICIENCY:
CAROLE POST, CITY ATTORNEY
AYE NAY ABSENT
Exhibit "'A"
"MARINA GARDENS -
LOT 8"
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
February 23, 1999
BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR:
MUTUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT, CORP.
This survey is made specifically and only for the following parties for the purpose of a dosing on the surveyed .
Property
Mutual Land Development, Corp.
Attomeys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
No responsibility.or liability is assumed by the undersigned surveyor for any other purpose or to any other party
other than stated above. -
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 23261dlewild Road, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A parcel of land in the Northeast one - quarter of Section 5, Township 42 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach
County; Florida, more particularly described as follows:
From the Northeast comer of said Section 5, nun thence South 2.01' 47" West on the East line of said Section 5 a
distance of 1644.62 feet, thence run North 88' 31' 05" West a distance of 1673.93 feet; thence run South 1' 30'
54" West, a distance of 70.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein conveyed; thence continue
South 1' 30' 54" West a distance of 109.68 feet thence run North 88' 29' 06" West a distance of 130.0 feet;
thence nun North 1' 30' 54" East a distance of 111..45 feet; thence nun South 87' 4T 42" East a distance of 130.01
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.. Subject to easement for utrTitles over the South 6 feet thereof, and easement
for road right of way over the West 30 feet and the North 6 feet thereof.
a I a m a I OW
Xt
evil
a I a m a I OW
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
City Council
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: August 19, 1999
Subject/Agenda Item:
Consideration of First Reading: Ordinance 36, 1999 Howell Lane Property: Small -Scale
Land Use Change
Recommendation /Motion:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 36, 1999.
Reviewed by: , p
Originating Dept.:
Costs: $_0
Council Action:
,��u?3�i
Total
City AttorneynX=
Planning Division
[ ] Approved
ACM Q:?
$--Q.—
[ ] Approved V conditions
r
Current FY
Other N/A
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper:
[ ] Other N/A
Ordinance 36, 1999
PBPost
[ ] Not Required
Staff Report
Submitted by:
Growth Mgt. Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct #:
[ ] None
Approved by:
adjacent neighbors
City Manager
[ ] Not required
Request:
Staff is initiating a small -scale land use change on the 8 acres of City -owned property
located at Northlake Boulevard and Howell Lane. The current land use designation is
Recreation and Open Space (ROS). The proposed land use is Public /Institutional (P /1)
which will facilitate the location of Fire Station #3 on the property.
Background:
The property was dedicated to the City in 1989 as a requirement of the Ballenisles
development order. The development order condition ( #34) references the purpose of the
site as being `community facility' use, however, correspondence and application materials
in the project file refer to the site as a 'park'. The property was designated with Recreation
and Open Space land use in 1990 which further clarified its intended use as a future public
park.
The property has remained vacant since its dedication to the City and has not been utilized
in recreation and open space level of service (LOS) analyses. It has not been calculated
into the inventory of public park land for LOS purposes because it is unimproved and the
City's LOS for parks and recreation is measured by 'acres of improved neighborhood and
community park'.
The site has been selected by the City's Fire Rescue Department as an ideal location for
Station #3. In order to develop the property with a fire - station, a land use change is
needed. Therefore, staff is initiating a small -scale land use amendment to change the
designation from Recreation and Open Space to Public /Institutional.
Recommendation:
The Local Planning Agency, at its August 10`h public hearing, recommended approval of
the land use change.
Staff recommends approval of the small -scale amendment.
cdorm.howell
Location Ma
p
Howell Lane Property
�l
PUT WIN,
July 19, 1999
ORDINANCE 36,1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS BY CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON 8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
NORTH OF NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND EAST
OF HOWELL LANE FROM RECREATION AND
OPEN SPACE TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL LAND
USE; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens owns 8 acres of land located north of
Northlake Boulevard and east of Howell Lane, as more particularly described in Exhibit `A'
attached hereto, and desires to change the land use from Recreation and Open Space (ROS) to
Public/Institutional (P/I); and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department (the "Department ") has reviewed said
application and determined that it is sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the land use amendment is internally consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the land use amendment is consistent with Chapter 163.3187(1)(c), F.S.
pertaining to small scale amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the duly constituted land planning
agency for the City which has recommended the land use amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that this land use amendment is subject to the
provisions of Chapter 163.3187(3)(c), F.S., and that the City shall maintain compliance with all
provisions thereof;
Ordinance 36, 1999
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The Future Land Use and Transportation Map Series of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City is hereby amended to change the land use designation on 8 acres of land north of
Northlake Boulevard and east of Howell Lane, more specifically described in Exhibit "A ", from
Recreation and Open Space to Public/Institutional.
SECTION 2. The City's Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure that
this ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs and, together with the City Clerk, to ensure that this ordinance is codified as
part of the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Chapter 163.3187(3)(c), F.S., this Ordinance shall become
effective 31 days after adoption.
PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS THE
PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS THE
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS THE
JOSEPH R. RUSSO, MAYOR
LAUREN FURTADO, VICE MAYOR
Ordinance 36, 1999
Page 2
DAY OF
MISS
DAY OF , 1999.
DAY OF , 1999.
ERIC JABLIN, COUNCIL MEMBER
DAVID CLARK, COUNCIL MEMBER
CARL SABATELLO, COUNCIL
MEMBER
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND
LINDA V. KOSIER SUFFICIENCY.
BY:
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR FURTADO
COUNCILMAN JABLIN
COUNCILMAN CLARK
COUNCILMAN SABATELLO
GALong RangeTUchange.howell.wpd
Ordinance 36, 1999
Page 3
N
N 1'4G 3714E
/o•
Ef/sEM.ENT Tb
I �°/�•N QEAcH �
crw.vr�'un� /rigs "Di•
NooeT// U E SGY/jrNQGO. Gb
I W
-4 Ned•3o'P7NlV
—12C
�f,/65T GA/lE PA�2.�
R -- V /SEL7 MAY /, /9BJ
43o.ct�' SEC /¢
%, S414
,v _ /3
23 T 24
�v
NOTE- THIS DRAWING DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD
SURVEY AND 13 BASED ON OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY.
a
; u Zao14
Hutcheon Engineers
I �
o:o.�
Ei9SF�yENT
�
I O 1
L/T /L /T /E.5
I u a:;;taw.
C
N1/ CMOARCAOSPO GRIM. WIOT FACY MACK ftA1N1
I w.E.57- I-I E A
OL
4 CAST OiCLOIA. STUART. fl. 10f04
I
%Y6ST E//�c
x•7"
I W
-4 Ned•3o'P7NlV
—12C
�f,/65T GA/lE PA�2.�
R -- V /SEL7 MAY /, /9BJ
43o.ct�' SEC /¢
%, S414
,v _ /3
23 T 24
�v
NOTE- THIS DRAWING DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD
SURVEY AND 13 BASED ON OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY.
a
; u Zao14
Hutcheon Engineers
A OR/L, /9891
o:o.�
moG fppK
�• p•
CIVIL ENGINEERS l SURVEYORS
I u a:;;taw.
C
N1/ CMOARCAOSPO GRIM. WIOT FACY MACK ftA1N1
�J/4-
OL
4 CAST OiCLOIA. STUART. fl. 10f04
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Section 14, Township 42 South, Range 42 East in the
City of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida, described as
follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the North line of the South 460.00
feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section with the West line of the East 430.00 feet of said
Section; thence South 01'43'07" West along said West line a distance of
460.00 feet to the South line of said Northeast quarter of the Southeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter; thence-South 88'27'48" East along said
South line a distanceYof 98.79 feet to the West line of the East half of the
Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section; thence South 01044'52" West along said West line a distance of
664.68 feet to the South line of said Section; thence North 88'30'27" West
along said South line a distance of 331.55 feet to the West line of the East
quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section; thence North 01.46'37"
East along said West line a distance of 1,124.94 feet to said North line of
the South 460.00 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of
the Southeast quarter; thence continue North 01'46'37" East along said West
line a distance of 92.10 feet; thence South 88'27148" East a distance of
231.87 feet to said West line of the East 430.00 feet of said Section;
thence South 01'43'07" West along said West line a distance of 92.10 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 8.00 Acres, more or less.
CERTIFICATION
(NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH EMBOSSED SURVEYOR'S SEAL)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Description and Sketch of the roperty shown
hereon was completed under by direction on j,"X14 -"C-, /98" and that
said description is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DATE OF SIGNATURE:
kontooK
OaW. No. .o.
CJC _._.....
BETTY OU BLANKMAN
Registered Land Surveyor
Florida Certificate No. 4516
Hutcheon Engineers
ADAM
CIVIL [NOINEERS • SURVEYORS
FL.114
ant a 06W. W& /
4481 (MBAQC,AOCRO CHIVE. WEST PALM "CAM 0f
" {AST OSCCOLA. STVA117. /L. 141 *4
—•
Of 2
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared _August 16, 1999
Meeting Date _August 19, 1999
Subject[Agenda Item: Approval of annual membership tennis fees and daily fees at the
Municipal Tennis Center.
Recommendation/Motion: Staff recommends that the Council approve the requested
tennis fees to be charged at the Palm Beach Gardens Tennis Center.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept:
Costs: $_NIA
Council Action:
Parks and Recreation
Total
City Attorney
[ ] Approved
Finance
$
[ ] Approved w conditm
Current FY
ACM
v
[ ] Denied
Advertised:
Human Res.
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other
Date:
( ] Operating
Paper.
[ ] Other
1. Memo form Parks and
[ X ] Not Required
Recreation Director
Submitted by: Sue Mil
Department Dir r
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #::
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager .
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Approval of the annual membership fees and daily fees for the tennis center are submitted for council
approval. The proposed fees, which would be in effect beginning January 1, 2000, are proposed on
a nine month calendar (ending on September 30, 2000), in order that the fees can be adjusted in the
future in accordance with the fiscal year calendar.
MEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Sue Miller, Director, Parks& Recreatio
DATE: August 16, 1999
RE: Tennis Fees
*********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DISCUSSION:
The following chart represents stafPs recommendations for annual membership and daily fees at
the tennis center (Current fees are also listed).
The fees are projected at a nine month rate in order that the tennis center can begin, in October,
2000, to charge the fees in conjunction with the fiscal year.
Category
Current Rate
Proposed Annual Rate
Proposed Nine Month Rate
Resident Single
$115
$120
$90
Resident Family
$200
$210
$157.50
Resident Junior (under
18 years of e
$25
$25
$18.75
Non - Resident Single
$300
$330
$247.50
Non - Resident Family
$475
$520
$390
Non - Resident Junior
(under 18 years of
age)
$50
$50
$37.50
Both the guest fees and open court fees are proposed to remain the same.
Guest fees:
Open Court Fees:
One Hour:
One and one half hours:
Resident
$4
$8 (two players)
$16 (four players)
Non - Resident
$7
$14 (two players)
$28 (four players)
Memo — Tennis Fees
August 16, 1999
Page 2
The proposed increases for resident membership rates represent an approximate 5% increase,
while the non - resident increase is approximately 10 %. Staff was of the opinion that the non-
resident increase should represent the approximate percentage increase residents are facing with
their new property taxes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the requested rate increases.
MEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Sue Miller, Director, Parks & Recreation #,Irj
DATE: August 13, 1999
RE: Tennis Fees
*********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The following table reflects a staff survey regarding proposed tennis memberships fees for next
year.
If you have any questions regarding these fees, please advise.
Membership
Proposed
PBG
Proposed
9 month
North Palm
Boyton
Palm Beach * **
Boca
PBG
Beach*
Beach **
Raton * * **
Resident -
$120
$90
$282
$140
$200
$159
Single
Resident -
$210
$157.50
$367
$225
$400
$212
Family
Resident-
$25
$18.75
n/a
n/a
$50
n/a
Youth
Non Resident-
$330
$247.50
$367
$275
$375
$240
Single
Non - Resident-
$520
$390
$490
$385
n/a
$360
Family
I
I
Non - Resident -
$50
$37.50
n/a
n/a
$165
n/a
Youth
1
T i u Ciay Courts 6 Clay Courts, 2 Hard
** 16 Clay Courts, 5 Hard Courts * * * *17 hard Courts, No Clay
CC: Richard Diamond, Assistant City Manager
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: — August 16, 1999
Meeting Date: August 19,1999
Subject/Agenda Item: Approval of the Golf fee rate maximums for the 1999 — 2000 fiscal
year.
Recommendation/Motion: Staff recommends that the Council approve the requested
golf fee rate maximums to be charged at the Palm Beach Gardens Municipal Golf
Course for fiscal year 1999 - 2000.
Reviewed by:
Originating Dept:
Costs: $_n/a
Council Action:
Total
City Attorney
Parks and Recreation
[ ] Approved
Finance
$
[ ]Approved W, conamom
Current FY
ACM
[ ]Denied
Advertised:
Human Res.
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other
Date:
[ ] Operating
Paper.
[ ] Other
I. Memo from Parks and
Recreation Director.
2. Copy of proposed rate
[ X ] Not Required
maximums.
Submitted by: Sue Miller
Department Difect0
Affected parties
( ] Notified
Budget Acct #::
N/A
[ ] None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Meadowbrook Golf, Inc., the management firm contracted by the City of Palm Beach Gardens to
manage the municipal golf course, has submitted the golf fee rate maximums for fiscal year 1999-
2000. Staff is requesting the city council to approve these maximums.
MEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Sue Miller, Director, Parks & Recreation
DATE: August 16, 1999
RE: Golf fee rate maximums for fiscal year 1999 -2000
DISCUSSION:
Meadowbrook Golf Group has submitted their proposed golf fee rate maximums for fiscal year
1999 -2000 (see attached chart). The golf fee rate maximums are a management tool, used to
maximize revenues and improve future forecasting accuracy. The better the course can predict
volume changes and immediately implement the ideal rates (balanced, of course, with consumer
value perception), the greater the financial performance of the course.
These rates are presented at the maximum amount management believes the market will bear
during peak demand periods. Periodic rate adjustments, up or down, are allowed to take place at
management's discretion, based upon market demand and the course's competitive position.
Meadowbrook will notify the department of each rate increase, and all advance quoted rates to
guests will be honored at time of check in.
The golf fee rate maximums allows Meadowbrook to set rates on a periodic basis, generally
following the typical fluctuations in consumer demand. Meadowbrook will monitor the rates and
conditions of its closest competitors on a weekly basis, in order to maintain a realistic rate
structure compared to the market as a whole. In the same manner that airlines, hotels, and
retailers constantly run promotions and specials during lower volume periods, and charge
premium rates during peak demand periods, golf courses do the same, thus the need to establish a
schedule of rate maximums.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the requested rate increases.
PALM BEACH GARDENS GOLF CLUB
MAMIUM RATE SCHEDULE
OCTOBER 1, 1999 — SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
(These rates are noted as -s-i -mns — the rrutes may not reach the listed price)
Shoulder Season I
18 Hole — City Resident with a cart
18 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
9 Hole — Resident with a cart
9 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
9 Hole — City Resident — Walk
9 Hole — Non - Resident — Walk-
Winter Season
18 Hole — City Resident with a cart
18 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
9 Hole — Resident with a cart
9 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
9 Hole — City Resident — Walk
9 Hole — Non - Resident — Walk
Summer Season
18 Hole — City Resident with a cart
18 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
18 Hole — City Resident — Walk
18 Hole — Non- Resident - Walk
9 Hole — Resident with a cart
9 Hole — Non - Resident with a cart
9 Hole — City Resident — Walk
9 Hole - Non - Resident - Walk
Charity Cards
Memberships
Single Resident
Famihv Resident
Single Non - Resident
Family Non- Resident
Junior
October 1, 1999 — November 19, 1999
1998 -1999 Rate
1 1998 -1999 RAte
1999 -2000 Rate
IS14
X23
$30
IS11.50
$32
$42
$16
$22
$22
$25
$8
$18
$13.50
$20
November 20,1999 — April 23; 2000
1998 -1999 Rate
$35
$52
$22
T $32
T 13.50
I $22
April 24, 2000 — September 30, 2000
1.1998 -1999 Rate
$21
$26
Isli
$15
! $14
i $15
I $8
I $9
1S22
1 19984999 Rate
i $875
I $1,450
$1,085
I$1,775
$40
1999 -2000 Rate
$45
$65
$28
$38
$20
$28
1999 -2000 Rate
$28
$40
$25
$28
$18
$25
$16
$20
$30
1999 -2000 Rate
$900
$1,500
$1,125
$1,800
$75
18 Hole Cart Fee
1998 -1999 Rate
1999 -2000 Rate
October 1, 1999 — April 23, 2000
IS14
$17
April 24, 2000 — September 30, 2000
IS11.50
$15
1995 -1999 Rate 1999 -2000 Rate
Membership Walling (Permitted after 2:30) $2:50 $3.00
MEMO
PARKS AND RECREATION
TO: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
FROM: Sue Miller, Director, Parks & Recreation
DATE: August 13, 1999
RE: Golf Course Fee Comparison
***************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The following tables reflect a staff survey regarding proposed golf fees for next year.
If you have any questions regarding these fees, please advise.
PROPOSED GOLF FEES COMPARISON RATES
DAH.Y RATER
Dates
Category
PBG
Okeheelee
Village*
Delray
Beach
NPB
Abocoa
Oct. 1 — Nov. 19
18 Hole Resident
$30
$36
$27
$35
$32
$n/a
Family Non - Resident
18 Hole Non -
Resident
$42
$n/a
$n/a
$55
$54 -
$n/a
Nov. 20 — Apr. 23
18 Hole Resident
$45
$42
$53
$40
$40
$125
18 Hole Non-
Resident
$65
$55
$n/a
$60
$64
$n/a
Apr. 24 — Sept. 30
18 Hole Resident
$28
$37
$29
$28
$30
$75
18 Hole Non -
Resident
$40
$n/a
$n/a
$36
$42
$n/a
* - Located in Royal Palm Beach
Annual Memherchinc
Category
PBG
Delray
Beach
NPB
single Resident
$900
$900
$912
Family Resident
$1,500
N/a
$1,558
Single Non - Resident
$1,125
N/a
$1,530
Family Non - Resident
$1,800
N/a
$2,693
Junior
$40
N/a
$
- vKeeneelee does not otter annual memberships.
- Village Golf Club offers a $140 discount card that allows for a slight reduction in the
daily fee.
CC: Richard Diamond, Assistant City Manager
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Meeting Date: 8/19/99
Date Prepared: 8/9/99
Subject/Agenda Item: Upgrade and move of 911Equipment and Dispatch Center
Recommendation/Motion: Staff recommends approval of the Motorola Proposal to upgrade and
move 911 Equipment and Dispatch Center
Reviewed by:
OriginatindDepk: Police
Costs: $ 264,618.00
Council Action:
City Atto/meyj) j\
n
Total
[ ] Approved
Finance /� o
$ 250,000
Current FY
[ ] Approved w/ conditions
ACM
[ ) Denied
Advertised:
Human Res.
Funding Source:
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
Other
Date:
[ ] General Fund
Paper:
[ x ] Other
Bond $210,345
Grant $ 54,273
S nutt
�t
[ x ] Not Required
Department Director
Affected parties
[ ] Notified
Budget Acct. #:
[ ) None
Approved by:
City Manager
[ ] Not required
BACKGROUND:
Currently Palm Beach Gardens dispatches through WPB's analog trunked radio system. Two
(2) existing CRT(dispatcher) operator positions are located in the old PBG Police
Department, which connects to WPB through a channel bank over a leased T 1 line (managed
telephone lines). However, a new dispatch center is being constructed by Palm Beach
Gardens and will house the four, (4) proposed operator positions. Once the building is
complete the city will expand two (2) Elite operator (digital ready) positions and upgrade the
existing two (2) CRT positions to Elite.
Consoles / Network
A Motorola LAN configuration will connect four (4) Elite positions together at PBG, by a
network hub. The network hub will then route the console LAN traffic to a network bridge.
Accordingly, the network configuration at WPB requires a new network bridge to connect to
WPB's network hub.
Channel Bank
Additional Telco channel bank cards are required at PBG and WPB for the two (2) console
expansion and upgrade. Specific cards will transport LAN data, CIE data and console audio.
LAN Data
The LAN data will be transported by the PBG's Network Bridge, which connects to a new
V.35 card. This card requires one (1) Digital Slot (DSO) time slots to be open in a T1.
Identically, a new V.35 card will be installed at the WPB site. * Note: Motorola will use the
existing network bridge at WPB and install a new network bridge at PBG.
Console Interface Electronics (CIE) Data
The CIE data will be connected from the CIE to an asynchronous data card in the channel
bank. Each asynchronous data card will support two CIE connections. Therefore one (1) data
card is required at each location and will connect through 1 DSO time -slot.
Console Audio
The console audio at PBG will be routed from each of operator position to a channel bank
(4W E&M card). Therefore, two E&M cards are required at each end and use a total of four
(4) DSO timeslots. Additionally, two (2) Console Operator Interface Modules (COIM) will be
installed at the WPB Central Electronics Bank (CEB).
• Therefore, 6 DSO additional timeslots are required from the City of West Palm each for the
two additional operator positions and the Elite network. West Palm Beach has told us that
these time slots are available at no cost to our city (value $$$)
Implementation
In order to guarantee this installation, Motorola has set up a systematic process to verify
system implementation quality along the entire implementation process.for example:
• Internal system design review will be conducted before any equipment is ordered
• The Installation of all equipment will adhere to Motorola standards manual R56.
• Motorola will perform a test verifcation of equipment
• Motorola will perform a quality audit . This audit will confirm that the system expansion
meets Motorola's goal of Six -Sigma quality. Any errors found will be corrected to assure the
City of PBG a quality installation.
Project Test Plan
An ATP document with test, preparations and validation procedures will be provided for
acceptance of the system. The ATP will test as a minimum the operational features of the
system. This will consist of field testing on the console postions. The console ATP will occur
on all four console positons at PBG.
Motorola Site Responsibilities
• Coordinating the Installation of two Elite operator positons in the new, PBG dispatch Center.
• Will provide supervision when two existing Gold CRT postions are converted to Gold Elite.
These will be converted prior to being moved into the new PBG dispatch center.
• Will utilize the PBG's Provided external and/or internal Building site grounding.
• Will provide an update to exsting site cabling interconnect drawings.
• Will use the existing Network Brdige at WPB and install a new network bridge at PBG.
City Of Palm Beach Gardens Site Responsibilities
PBG is responsible for:
• Any additional UPS requirments necessary of the console expansion and upgrade.
• The purchase of the UPS system
• Lease a T1 line from PBG to WPB.
• Purchase and install the desktop furntiture from Motorola.
• Prepare the new Dispatch Center with all proper grounding and electrical system as per
Motorola quality Standards `
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting that Council approve the Motorola proposal for the relocation of 911
emergency equipment, Motorola radio equipment and the upgrade and expansion of dispatch
console equipment for the new police building. Motorola equipment and software is proprietary,
and can only be upgraded by Motorola. This is Motorola 's standardized pricing for radio
equipment which was also quoted to West Palm Beach on their proposed upgrade of the West
Palm Beach system, which will begin next month.
This purchase is supplemented by 911 grant funds for consoles in the amount of $49,273 and the
expansion of 911 CAD interface for $5,000. Staff requests that council approve the expenditure
for the Motorola move and upgrade in the amount of $264,618. Originally $250,000 was
budgeted, however grant funds were obtained to reduce our expense. The net expenditure to the
City is $210,345 $54,273 will be reimbursed by the County.
�A41
O
b+ 41 41
bA "4vo
U 14 o 0 41
13 O
0 go I
a
u •4a C4
V V O M
�u u ty �
+0�
a
4
•oi
u a41 a
LO 144
a
ONa
°
r4 0 M
� M 0 a 0
�
o b A a+ r-i w
43 �_ 0 41
A V
V • \ •r4
Lei
4j 4j
O
°H
0
IA rq
r-I b b •rl U 4! O O "q
P4 z U _ zi= xb No
v
u�
M �
u
u
a
�a
•
0
4A
41
0 10
u�
as
�A0M
V
tr 4+ 0
"4mO 0 4A
U 00 O d
0 Nu 0"q
V 04 'dam n4
�i 4.7 u
U 0 0 b 41
A
t000�
`\
0
�o w
got 0 Im •
N
QO'',, V '�
A= 4A
As U
Q� M
�- a•••
�.
0
�, �,
w �. �
•� ,
p� 4) tO 0 •
N IA U N
d! s � C M0 a • .
NMI
Ob♦• ua z A A
�baA
H
0
u
H O
au
41
pq
H0
"Z 0
Om
u
b
W
O
51
00
vm
I
dlUmm••
�a:5om
�O�q0
'ty •� •�1 m O
0 A
U�Ogm
m41
Oro q •rl
U O •�
,A 0 r-4 t
� 'a V
4 so
U IV A o
V °, 4' m
to 0 14 0
� O
L t�, l�0314 0
�+4) NH
V S b a 0r l mw
L� O U ,,
U .� P
O� v a o,mm
tv A .a •�
aA4J H��
4J 41� 0 2
44 H
O
w .. .. Vin m •
to to O O+ Fi !T 0
tA •• 0) 0) Gil 0•� S•d0
rt tU P 74 •n A p •A A:5
,� ro � ° am 10• u i a -A
N z 4 U to z= x10 0 0
O
V �
H O
papqq �
a 04
pq 41
E+ V
Ol
� N
O N
a$4
P4 41
go
to 04
R
41
O 0°
UN
N
a
N041d1..
,�•�AAM
4j r-I 0 ..
�0
N
.�ais°N
ON 0 0
• ,4b 9 0b
�J
°
is
U
p
Rt rf r-1
U bA4j
-�
V
4 N0 N
NW M O N
a
saa�av
0VO.WN
ONO
".0 rq w
A 41
vJ
y
��06t�
V E4
N
4.1
r
O
all
N `jam
4
OFNIo101
Nr.
uNi
b N
GNl
P
••
?i
0
•n
�4!rS•441
A •$4 Vf 0 O
r4 rt
�
0
(d 0)
N z
4
U
to
= xb 0 0
.j c
�
o
CL U
wZ�
HV
O�
L�
Z°
w *'
o � d
C'
0'..
N r
O d
� Q = •C
N +O+ d E
C N E �.
CD E
E 0 O "
V d
U
+ c N L �
CM CL
� m
jt
cif U U moo.
u M cu C1
ka E rn � •E
S�-_ �' " ca N m
Cl- z
�? C4 E�
.9 CL o
o v�
�. �o�._
o V r
a. yQUd
i6 (:�- �-:
ai 2 0
N � :3 d �+
Z Q O
I
m �
O
CL v
Lu Z'
H V
p aNi
LL
Z
UJ ~
G 3
U�
O>
e
cu E
0 cu
EL Z
F�j
t
'S'
1�
`J
-� SL
N U
� o
Q U �
N C
O d
s, 'C d
cn 0 0 E
N
E 3 O
E Q V d
UL 0 L
N+'C'��'
LH"o 0
a);
cNL
CL E
.�.LY�
CD
d
U' �t
N cm O v
s .` •r+ of
fNi1 -� d L
cu cuZ•E
'o
W.0 E
U N N
Er
0 0 •E ch
*-C- O_ .�
O'C O o
oU o
E
N d �'
�a.� o
2---o
OJO 3
o
(L L)
W ?,'
mU
N
O
L�
Z�
W
c
U
c
ci
N
N
m
N
Iu
C
Q
0
3
o
i
1V
`�l► nnom(
\t
rn�
4
Q
1� �h
U
N r
N C
m y
N r d
V d
L~ L�
C N •°- E
rn
d
U rn� s
'C3 d
d wo
'E
CU
_U Co N
12 E •_
o •�
•°
0
°,oUd
2 CL O
f
�
N
I
U
N
N
N
N r
N C
m y
N r d
V d
L~ L�
C N •°- E
rn
d
U rn� s
'C3 d
d wo
'E
CU
_U Co N
12 E •_
o •�
•°
0
°,oUd
2 CL O
f