Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 091902CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING September 19, 2002 MINUTES The Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning and Zoning meeting: Present Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Vice Chairman Barry Present Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden Dick Ansay Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Alternate Douglas Pennell Absent Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Ed Tombari, and City Attorney Len Rubin. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Petition PUD- 01 -03: Rezoning and Master Plan Approval for The Borland Center A request by Cotleur and Hearing, as agent for The Borland Center and RAM Development, for a property rezoning from Planned DevelopmentArea (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MXD /PUD) to allow for the development of 218,500 square feet for a cultural center and church offices; 85,500 square feet for retail space; 12,000 square feet for restaurant space; 9,300 square feet Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 for office space; and 217 apartments on 47.1 acres of land. The site is located along the north side of PGA Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive. Growth Management Director Wu submitted correspondence from the PGA Corridor Residents Coalition in response to Mr. Wu's letter to them, both of which have been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Chair Kunkle announced the format for the meeting and invited comments. Attorney Raymond Royce, representing the petitioner, commented he understood this workshop had been called to address traffic, and introduced traffic consultant Kayhart Pinder, who provided a presentation. Mr. Pinder addressed concurrency, indicating that conditional concurrency had been received from Palm Beach County based on his analysis of traffic in the area, and that approval had been received from the City. Mr. Pinder explained that a traffic management plan had been prepared which included three major issues and goals: safety, minimization of impacts to the community, and simple and efficient access for patrons. Event entering and exiting plans were described. Distribution of parking on the site had been designed to facilitate traffic movement. A total of seven police officers for traffic control were to be used during events as an interim plan until warrants were met for a traffic signal. Mr. Pinder explained the parking lots would exit in different directions to help facilitate exiting the site, with the parking lot on the west exiting onto Shady Lakes Drive to go onto PGA Boulevard, and the parking garage exiting towards Garden Lakes to go onto Military Trail. It was proposed that the Borland Center Management Team would meet with the City for each large event to work out traffic details. Traffic volumes for specific links of roadways during peak hours were shown on graphics which illustrated that this use would not generate a large volume of traffic during normal daytime peak hours. Mr. Pinder used a sample project to illustrate that more traffic during peak hours could be generated from a different use which could get concurrency. Mr. Pinder discussed the amount of time that would be needed to get traffic out of Shady Lakes Drive. Mr. Pinder confirmed that Shady Lakes Drive was a city street and was on the city comprehensive plan to be extended to 117`' Street. Mr. Wu confirmed that the decision to extend the road was at the city's discretion and this would help connectivity in this area, but resident concerns and traffic near the schools would need to be considered. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that two exits out to Shady Lakes would not work well and a controlled device to close one exit after events could be the answer. Widening Shady Lakes Drive to 3 lanes with 2 outbound and extending to 117" was discussed. Mr. Glidden favored the roadway extension if this project was built. The first phase of the project was projected to be built out in 2003, which the applicant indicated they believed could be extended. Other projects approved for concurrency since this one were not taken into account in the traffic calculations. Mr. Glidden asked staff to provide information whether it was worth considering additional traffic from other projects if buildout was changed to 2004. Mr. Pinder indicated it would need to be a condition of approval that events not be held during the day. Raymond Underwood indicated people did not attend theater during the day. Mr. Pinder noted that some daytime events had been included in the traffic calculations. Mr. Glidden discussed peak hour traffic from 5 to 6 p.m. with or without the Borland Center. Mr. Glidden related his experience with traffic at Christ Fellowship Church, and requested analysis of traffic during arrival to events. Mr. Pinder explained that before each 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 major event the petitioner would meet with the Police Department to work out details. The number of trips needed to warrant a traffic light and the likely time it would take to get one at Shady Lakes Drive were discussed. A future additional light at Garden Lakes and Military Trail was also discussed. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that exiting from the valet parking area could be a problem, which was discussed. The City Engineer indicated the city's traffic consultant had reviewed the information on this project. Mr. Pinder indicated the banquet hall would not be used on Sundays because there would not be enough room for parking. Mr. Charming indicated the entire project had not been analyzed, to which Mr. Pinder responded that had been done for the concurrency submittal but this presentation had been based on certain assumptions. Mr. Charming asked what traffic would be generated by adding the church, which Mr. Pinder indicated he could provide at the next workshop. Mr. Charming questioned the assumptions of the hypothetical project used for comparison purposes. Mr. Pinder explained that the project was also mixed use, with a.4 FAR which had been calculated using only commercial but it had been compared to the whole site. Mr. Charming requested staff's opinion on whether that provided a realistic picture. Mr. Pinder indicated the petitioner would work with staff to make sure they agreed. Mr. Royce indicated the forbearance agreement had limited the FAR to .4 even though the code would allow more intensity than that. Mr. Wu confirmed the comparison project should also have .4 FAR for non residential and .12 for residential so the areas needed to be calculated separately and then added together. The petitioner agreed to double check their calculations. Mr. Charming agreed with Mr. Glidden on the internal circulation but expressed concern that a project this large had only one 2 -way roadway to provide access from one side of the project to the other. The City Engineer indicated he would look into that. Mr. Solomon commented this was a good presentation, and asked how development on the east side of Alternate AlA would impact this project. Mr. Pinder indicated that traffic generated from that development had been included in the calculations provided. Mr. Solomon asked if traffic exiting to the north could exit by the residential units, to which Mr. Pinder responded that the applicant would look at whether something could be done to expedite traffic going to the east. Mr. Underwood advised that not exiting by the residential units had been done to accommodate the residents. Mr. Solomon suggested revisiting this issue for the greater good unless the applicant wanted to move the residential units next to Shady Lakes Drive. Mr. Solomon asked if this were a non - residential mixed use project whether the traffic would be very different, to which Mr. Hearing responded that it would not make a difference because the FAR and intensities would be the same, and the applicant would make sure not to double count in figuring the FAR. Mr. Pinder confirmed that a traffic signal at PGA Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive would replace only two police officers. Discussion ensued regarding how the sample project's uses affected traffic calculations. Mr. Present recommended avoiding any conditions of approval that would be hard to manage and cause the applicant to request changes, and asked what improvements were proposed to Garden Lakes Drive. Mr. Pinder responded that no improvements to that area were proposed, that the biggest problem was people trying to get out in the mornings, and future signalization plus the proposed I -95 exchange would help. Mr. Present encouraged the applicant to consider a redesign for the alley, since that could help get more people out faster. Mr. Present indicated to staff that this was a good opportunity to extend Shady Lakes Drive to 117`h in order to provide inter - connectivity, that he would support the extension, and requested that this matter be studied. Mr. Present requested that staff contact the School Board to discuss their plans since 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 he believed their planners would support two ways out for school purposes. Mr. Wu advised the district park would also have an impact, and that connectivity would be needed because of neighborhood interest; however, staff had received correspondence suggesting otherwise, which would be included for the future public hearing. Mr. Ansay questioned the effect of Kyoto Drive, to which Mr. Pinder responded there was a condition of approval for concurrency that a portion of this project was dependent on that roadway, and he could provide the concurrency letter later, and explained that this project was not conditioned to the Central Boulevard /I -95 exchange. Mr. Ansay questioned whether the event and traffic management plan had been approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Pinder explained that conceptual approval had been indicated, that the applicant had met with Sgt. Brown from the Police Department, who wanted the applicant to meet with the Police to work out details before each major event, but there was nothing in writing from the Police Department. Mr. Pinder confirmed that the policemen would be reimbursed for their services. Attorney Royce advised that the custom was to use off -duty police officers for traffic control, that the applicant was billed by the city, and there was no cost to the taxpayers or to the city, and the number of police officers on duty was not reduced. Mr. Ansay questioned if Mr. Pander's study was predicated on existing projects. Mr. Pinder explained that the study did include such projects as Legacy Place, Parcel 5A, The Commons, the Gardens Mall project, Evergrene, and the Isles, and that the only thing that might not be included was Old Palm. Mr. Ansay stated he also supported extending Shady Lakes Drive to 117`h to create connectivity. Mr. Tarr indicated the Commission should not lose sight of the reason for this meeting, which was the impact of a 3,000 -seat theatre on the residents of the area. Mr. Tarr commented he used the alley from Gardens Lakes and it was difficult to get to 1 -95 since it was almost impossible to make a left there or from Garden Lakes onto Military. Mr. Tarr discussed the number of projected major events, which would cause a huge impact on residents, and indicated he had found much of the information provided to be inaccurate and incomplete since it did not clarify the impacts during events. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that city traffic people should have verified what they agreed on, that the use might change in the future, and questioned the calculations for residential and commercial which he indicated did not take into account mixed used. Mr. Tarr commented Christ Fellowship was a 1,700 seat church, that traffic to their 9/11 service had backed up on Northlake almost to Costco, and the applicant's calculations showed 2,000 attending a Sunday service. Mr. Pinder responded that Christ Fellowship had one entrance on Northlake Boulevard while this project had three on PGA Boulevard and one on Military Trail. Mr. Tarr commented he was just talking about the number of cars coming to a certain area and the impact on people; that this project was completely surrounded by homes and he believed the impact would be huge. Mr. Tarr indicated he would not discuss compatibility since that would probably be discussed at another workshop. Mr. Tarr commented he had a problem with this location being the right spot, and that he believed police patrol was also needed for traffic coming to events, to which the applicant responded that would be studied. Mr. Pennell predicted whatever was built, Shady Lakes Drive would be extended, and there would be signal lights at both the PGA Boulevard and Shady Lakes intersection and the exit from Garden Lakes onto Military Trail. Mr. Pennell indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's commitment to the public must be to do what was best for Palm Beach Gardens, that the theater would be used during the daytime also, that the north end would be built out, and the PGA Boulevard and Military Trail intersection could not be widened - -so the concern was whether this intersection would be impacted more 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 by this project than by whatever else could be built on the site. Mr. Pennell expressed his opinion that with the off hours of most major events this project could be compatible from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Volonte asked if the PGA Corridor Coalition's claim that the LDR's did not allow traffic ingress and egress between an institutional facility and a local roadway was true. Ms. Irwin indicated she would have the answer at the next meeting. Chair Kunkle commented that he was against tying the hands of the applicant operationally and they should be able to run their business. Chair. Kunkle commented that in the report provided, there were some differences between the calculations for numbers attending certain events and the proposed calendar; that the analysis should reflect how successful the center would be, and that sellouts should be anticipated, and the charts should be updated to reflect that success. Chair Kunkle asked how traffic at Sunday services of 1,200 cars in and out in an hour would be handled, and asked the applicant to address that at the next meeting. Chair Kunkle questioned how many cars the valet service could handle in bad weather, to which Mr. Pinder responded that would be dependent on the number of runners provided by the valet company, and agreed to provide a stacking calculation from the valet area assuming two lanes out to PGA Boulevard. Mr. Pinder indicated Exhibits 2A and 4A in tab one were based on the three halls being 100% full, and explained that the numbers in 4A were actual driveway volumes but those when assigned to the street segment were different because there was always a portion of pass -by traffic. Chair Kunkle discussed calculations for chart 2A, which Mr. Pinder agreed to check and provide an explanation. Mr. Kunkle indicated he did not think the alternate use would realistically be built, and requested a sketch to show the alternate use versus proposed use. A 5- minute break was declared at 8:50 p.m. Upon reconvening the meeting, written questions from the audience were reviewed. The written questions from the public have been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Vito DeFrancesco, 1049 Shady Lakes Circle, indicated that Shady Lakes Drive is private property with a 50 -ft. easement on either side of the section line and the 50 ft. on the Borland side was being counted for their open space requirement, to which Attorney Steve Cohen responded 50' east of the section line was owned by the Community Church, which the applicant believed would be dedicated to the city as a condition of approval and was currently encumbered by a right -of -way easement as well as a landscape easement. The 50' on the west side of the section line was believed by the applicant to be a public right -of -way and Attorney Cohen indicated he would like evidence from somebody at Shady Lakes to the contrary, since he had discussed this with the City Attorney and they had concluded that it was a public right -of -way. Mr. DeFrancesco indicated that the traffic study had been based on a small number for employees /entertainers, which did not sound adequate. Chair Kunkle recalled that the employment percentage was 10% of seats with 167 in the main hall, 50 remaining for the small and 30 for the banquet hall. Mr. DeFrancesco asked why the Borland Center ratio was lower than for the Kravis Center. Chair Kunkle advised the applicant that questions needing research could be answered at the next meeting. Mr. Pinder noted in the traffic concurrency report the number of trips had been increased to provide for staff, depending on the type of event. Chair Kunkle read another question from Mr. DeFrancesco, which asked for an analysis for Shady Lakes without a traffic light. Chair Kunkle commented he believed that referred to the wait time to get out, which had already been discussed, and the applicant's projections showed the traffic light would be an eventuality. In response to the question of people to car ratios for 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Kravis Center main theater events, Hank Gonzales responded that three people per car came from their theater management and also a study done by Palm Beach County Cultural Council; and that Kravis Center personnel had advised this had not been a problem so they were not tracking the number of people per car or exiting times. In response to Mr. DeFrancesco's questions about the traffic analysis being different from traffic concurrency, Chair Kunkle commented this referred to questions he had asked and the response would be provided at a subsequent meeting. In response to Mr. DeFrancesco's questions on the FAR calculations, the applicant indicated that Shady Lakes Drive right -of -way was allowed to be used in calculating the FAR. Mr. DeFrancesco had noted the comprehensive plan listed Shady Lakes as a possible neighborhood collector road, which was only allowed to be two lanes. Mr. Wu responded the three lanes would only become an issue if they covered the full length of Shady Lakes Drive; however, if only on a portion used for ingress /egress, that became a traffic operation situation. Mr. DeFrancesco had questioned why Shady Lakes Drive and Garden Square should be allowed LOS "F" when the comprehensive plan goal required a roadway LOS of "D ". Mr. Pinder noted the concurrency report did not address level of service. Mr. DeFrancesco had indicated the slide of what was analyzed for concurrency was not the same as submitted in the traffic plan and concurrency did not mention restaurants, the bank, etc. Mr. Pinder responded that the original concurrency had been supplemented by a subsequent equivalency analysis that matched the numbers, plus the original concurrency had included a hotel that was no longer planned. Mr. DeFrancesco indicated that traffic data in a document dated 9/12/02 did not show restaurant or employee /performer traffic or 68,000 s.f. of office space inside Borland Center which would impact peak hours. Mr. Pinder responded that those trips were included in the traffic for Borland Center which was shown in Exhibit 3C. Discussion ensued. Mr. Glidden noted many of the questions were regarding the validity of calculations for various things and he would like a consensus on how the conclusions were reached, and requested that the City's traffic consultant review the questions that had been raised. Mr. Glidden commented the most relevant piece of information presented tonight was what would happen to traffic numbers if Borland Center were not a part of this project, and the numbers had been staggering in terms of additional peak hour trips, but that whether the FAR could be calculated at .4 on top of the residential number remained a question, and he believed the applicant was double dipping. Mr. Glidden noted this must be determined to see what the true numbers were, and if the City's traffic consultant agreed with them, that would tell him if the project should be built with or without the Borland Center. Mr. Pinder indicated the applicant would work with the City to come to agreement on the calculations. Mr. Channing asked what would happen if the Borland Center did not get built, to which the applicant responded it was one of five uses, and in the first phase a theater would be built. Mr. Charming agreed it was not practical to restrict the operations, noting that a lot of things agreed to with Christ Fellowship did not seem that practical later on, so care must be taken not to create an unworkable situation that needed to be changed later. Mr. Channing asked if a traffic signal was assumed in the applicant's presentation, to which Mr. Pinder responded no traffic signals were assumed, and why Maria Colombo had made a comment that seemed to assume signalization was unknown. Mr. Channing commented one side had been seen tonight and he felt strongly that there must be another session that included presentation by the City's traffic consultant. Chair Kunkle pointed out a reference in the applicant's presentation where signalization had been i! Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 included, to which Mr. Pinder responded that was a specific instance and signalization had not been included in calculations for the entire report. Mr. Pennell commented that on August 6 at the first presentation he had formed an opinion against the lake on the north end of the property but since then had come to the conclusion it actually protected the adjacent community more than if there was only a road. Mr. Pennell commented that the off -peak use seemed to make more sense than a project with a lot of office use that would affect peak times; and he understood that the adjacent roads were intended to take traffic off PGA Boulevard, with which the off -peak usage seemed to be compatible. Mr. Tarr agreed with Mr. Channing's comments that the City needed a presentation to confirm the applicant's figures were accurate. Mr. Tarr cautioned not to lose sight of the fact that traffic was only one of six major issues and he did not believe the traffic issue had been resolved tonight but more questions had been raised, and that he thought discussing traffic at this point was placing the cart before the horse, and commented on items that were still unknown. Mr. Tarr indicated he thought it should first be determined what could be built on this land, which should be the subject of the next workshop, and then to discuss traffic. Mr. Kunkle disagreed, indicating he wanted to learn as much as possible about the proposed project in order to take a position on the waiver, which he understood was up to City Council to decide, so he would be as informed as possible when time came to vote on this matter. Mr. Tarr agreed this Board must make a determination before it proceeded to City Council. Mr. Ansay requested the applicant and the City traffic consultant resolve the traffic issues to the understanding of the Commission. Mr. Ansay asked the status of funding for this project, to which Pastor Underwood responded the applicant could proceed immediately with Phase One - -which included a small 500 -seat theatre, a banquet facility, office space, retail, and residential. Pastor Underwood indicated that a major fundraising effort could not be undertaken until the project was approved, but to date in excess of $1 million had been raised. Mr. Present thanked the applicant for their presentation. Mr. Solomon indicated the presentation was worthwhile, and that of overall importance was to extend Shady Lakes Drive, to improve east to west flow of traffic on the site, and to upgrade Gardens Drive. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that a condition of approval should be that if ownership of a portion of the project changed in the future a cross - parking agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney should be required. Mr. Solomon questioned the phasing of three lanes on Shady Lakes Drive and if phase one would provide improvements to drive over the property to Shady Lakes. Mr. Hearing responded the construction on Shady Lakes could be discussed with the City, and that the first phase would include the southern road running across the site to provide access to Shady Lakes Drive, plus access onto PGA Boulevard, as well as the lake on the north end. Mr. Kunkle commented that carry - forward issues would be what additional projects had been approved since concurrency was granted and how that affected calculations; an incoming traffic management plan; projected timing of when warrants for a light would be met at Shady Lakes Drive and PGA Boulevard; a chart with all total trips on it including Borland Center; an analysis of the north side roadway; valet stacking in bad weather; a sketch showing the 800,000 and whether the applicant had double - dipped in calculating FAR, and land use waivers, which should be at the top of the list at the next workshop. Mr. Channing commented one workshop would not be enough, that another was needed on traffic alone, and he wanted to clearly understand landscaping, architecture, and parking, and not rush this project through because it was an important project on the City's main street. Attorney Royce requested a copy of the written questions from tonight's meeting %/ Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 and requested being moved forward as soon as possible. It was suggested that workshops be scheduled between regular meetings of the Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held September 24, 2002. APPROVED: Steven Tarr Dick Ansav 0 etty Laur 8ecretary for the Meeting D PGA CORRIDOR RESIDENTS COALITION Mission: To ensure that the quality of life of the residents in communities along the PGA Boulevard Corridor is preserved ana protected rrom any adverse impact in the process or general development of the area August 29, 2002 City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL33410 Attn: Charles K. Wu, Growth Management Director Re: Proposed Borland Center planned development on PGA Boulevard in Palm Beach Gardens Dear Mr. Wu: In a recent contact with Kara Irwin, newly assigned senior planner for the above referenced project, we have come to learn that a Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop is planned for September 19. Further, we were led to understand that this Workshop was requested by the applicant for the purpose of addressing matters pertaining to traffic as relates to this proposed project. We hereby request reconsideration of this request for any such Workshop by the applicant for the reason that it is premature and inappropriate to consider traffic issues in advance of a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on the basic issue of land use and specifically waiver WAV- 00 -03. The site in question is presently designated "Residential Mixed Use" per the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDR). The outcome of this waiver request is critical as according to the Staff report itself, "the requested waiver is necessary to allow the uses proposed for this project "; without the waiver, the project can not proceed as submitted. The Coalition has previously submitted (Coalition Presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission, August 6, 2002) documentation indicating that this waiver petition does not meet the necessary criteria established under the Comprehensive Plan for consideration as a non- residential mixed use. The Coalition has also indicated.in said submitted documentation that if this waiver were to be considered, granting the waiver is not justified as doing so would be in direct conflict with the City's own Comprehensive Plan, LDR, as well as the PGA Corridor Overlay, and Florida Statute 163.3194. city of PAI. Gardens SEP 3 ?o-)2 - U'o i,Iii MANAGEi,1ENT ��� _. DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 33508 * Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 • (561) 626 -9983 f k PGA CORRIDOR RESIDENTS COALITION Mission: To ensure that the quality of life of the residents in communities along the PGA Boulevard Corridor is preservect and protected From any adverse impact in Ine process or general development of the area If anything, a Workshop should next be held to further address the matter of the consistency of this project with said plans, regulations, and statutes, and we respectfully request that such a workshop be held, and that any Workshop pertaining to traffic or any other site planning issues be deferred until such time as the paramount land use issue is decided. We ask that in consultation with the Planning and Zoning Commission, you review this request and respond in writing as to your decision in this matter as soon as possible. We request that this letter be entered into the record of the proceedings regarding the above referenced proposed development. Sincerely, 7 P ,Corri R ents Coalition i o DeFrancesco, President cc: Ron Ferris, City Manager Kara Irwin, Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Commission: Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Barry Present, Vice Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern Dennis Solomon Joel Channing Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Ernest Volonte, Alternate C. Douglas Pennell, Alternate City Council: Eric Jablin, Mayor Carl Sabatello, Vice Mayor David Clark, Mayor Pro-Tern Annie Marie Delgado Joseph Russo Gary Fields, Coalition Counsel Post Office Box 33508 9 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 • (561) 626 -9983 r CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4698 September 9, 2002 Vito DeFrancesco, President PGA Corridor Residents Coalition P.0 Box 33508 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 SUBJECT: PROPOSED BORLAND CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. DeFrancesco: I am responding to your letter to me dated August 29, 2002, regarding the above topic. In your letter, you requested that City staff reconsider conducting a workshop for the Borland Center Planned Unit Development (PUD). Please be advised that the scheduled workshop was requested by the Planning & Zoning Commission to review the Traffic Operations Evaluation submitted by the applicant for the proposed project. As you are aware, the previous workshop was lengthy, so the Commission requested that an additional workshop be held to concentrate on the issue of traffic operations. The applicant has requested, at their own risk, that the applications, which include the Waiver and the Planned Unit Development (PUD), be reviewed concurrently. The Mixed - Use (v=) Residential Waiver and the PUD were scheduled for a workshop on August 6, 2002. The MD(D Waiver and the PUD were both discussed at the previous workshop, but time did not allow for an in depth discussion of the traffic operations analysis. It is staff's intent that the workshop scheduled for September 19, 2002, is a mere mrninuation of the previous workshop discussions. Staff understands your concerns about the workshop, but feels compelled to provide the Commission with all pertinent information relating to the site plan and waiver prior to scheduling a public hearing and making a recommendation on the proposed project. While City Staff appreciates your input on the review of the project, it will be City Council's decision as to whether or not the proposed waiver petition meets the necessary criteria established under the Comprehensive Plan for consideration as a non - residential mixed -use planned unit development. -2- September 9, 2042 Regardless, staff will emphasize to the P&Z that the discussions on the Waiver should center on land use issues and not on the site plan or traffic operation issue. Should you have any additional comments or concerns, please feel free to contact the project manager, Kara Irwin at (561) 799 -4299. Sincerely, lop, Charles K. Wu, AICP Growth Management Administrator City of Palm Beach Gardens cc: Ron Ferris, City Manager Talal Benothman, Principal Planner Kara Irwin, Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Commissioners City Council PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciallWorkshop - %fleeting BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 1 9, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address :�,)& 4 r'.1 e�41 L410 (6 qq Question: k� I (40-1 )q -.'.� �c2,� hl 16� -efl L, 0 (l 5.5 � r i�. l l S �o 'G � i - 1:*174y, /.5; At-Go Jzrw Fw, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION �pSpeciaC Workshop Meeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC \ l Name Address V G9 1 Question: ;47 Question: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaC Workshop Meeting HE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address s Question: i LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaC`Workshgy .wleeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THK PUBLIC Name Address rl C-0 4-r l - : oo P,4 W I -i d 014L-1 1. I ,l I-t, I e- 120..Pir M,4 _ kk,4di S ()A ! UJ�O� c,-1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION S eciaC1Norksho -"Meeting .p .p g THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address \moo � c7 Question: Question: to) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaC`Workshop .Meeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address Gc� I P, i MR 5 R es O�-- d sf-5 . A-, '4rP rA R . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaC'Workshop Meeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 1 9, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address 1t Question: UA z.. z . �_ ►�7 SV A 0`1 L4odk4 4e� F, & 2 F—,J v A 3GILD -UUT w it JA,• ,- � �o %3� � 1f nlc, LJU� rho v Ln (6=1c s B� 4 "0 C-) Az). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Special ' Workshop .Meeting BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address l� Question: • _� �'' Lies. 0— W.1.. , i f ► PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaClWorkshop .Meeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address ", 'a a Question: �V 9) KA Ck7 t%A f� � � i� A, -4 (. o V -4n t, o K� _ tr v.5 i v A-11, i�A r,.l ? i'. e- NNING & ZONING COMMISSION SyeciaC`Workshgy Meeting (L:ORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 1 9, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address �0 2 Question: e , /0 A 4 LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SpeciaC^Vorkshgy Meeting THE BORLAND CENTER ♦ SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 ♦ 6:30 P.M. WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Name Address Question: �� e���,�rt-c �%A� 1� -&OS 1 �llt , vs �R tG t 7�4. vL &-ASt. t xpe of l )�L'