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'