HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda PZAB 102406alm Beach Gardens J
OctoGer 24,2006
!RudoCph Hamen
Dennis Sohon
Craig Xunklk
NichaeCPanczak
~uuglhs mnneCC
Barry Present
Jonathan D. au6in.s
Joy Hecht (is, AaCt.)
dmir xaneC(F AaCt..)
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 24,2006
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Members
Growth Management Department
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting
Tuesday, October 24,2006 - 6:30 P.M.
Enclosed is the agenda containing the items to be presented on Tuesday, October 24,
2006. This meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, Palm Beach Gardens
Municipal Building, 10500 North Military Trail, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
Enclosed with this memorandum are the following items:
1. An agenda for the meeting; and
2. A compact disc containing Powerpoint presentations with user instructions; and
3. A Growth Management Department staff report for the items to be heard.
As always, the respective Project Managers’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses
have been provided in case you have any questions or require additional information on
any petition. This will help us offer better staff support in the review of these
applications.
Nina Sorenson, Administrative Specialist 11, will call to confirm your attendance.
,
Kdra Irwin, AICP
Growth Management Administrator
AGENDA
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24,2006, AT 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
0 CALLTOORDER
0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
0 REPORT BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR: KARA IRWIN
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
Remlar Members: Alternates:
Craig Kunkle (Chair)
Bany Present (Vice Chair)
Randolph Hansen
Dennis Solomon
Michael Panczak
Douglas Pennell
Jonathan D. Rubins
Joy Hecht (1" Alt.)
Amir Kanel (2nd Alt.)
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition PUD-03-04 - DoubleTree North PUD Amendment 1.
0
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. Marty Minor,
of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of E & J Properties LLC, to allow for the development
of a 12,900 square-foot pharmacy with two drive-thru lanes and a major conditional use
for a 154,191 square-foot self-storage building on the 5.5-acre vacant portion of the
13.46-acre Doubletree Planned Unit Development (PUD), generally located at the
northeast corner of Military Trail and PGA Boulevard.
Project Manager: Brad Wiseman, Planning Manager bwisernan6bbafl.com (799-4243)
2. Petition CPTA-05-12-000001 - Text Amendment to the Capital Improvements
Element (CIE)
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A city-initiated request for the
adoption of amendments to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan to update the CIE to be consistent with the current
City budget in accordance with Chapter 163.3 177, Florida Statutes.
Project Manager: Stephen Mayer, Senior Planner smaver@pbafl.com (799-4243)
3. Petition LDRA-06-09-000009 - LDR Amendment - Section 78-86: Proportionate
Fair Share Program & Section 78-751: Definitions 0
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A City-initiated request for
approval of a text amendment to the Land Development Regulations creating Section 78-
86, Proportionate Fair Share Program, Code of Ordinances. This City Code amendment
allows for “proportionate share” contributions from developers toward traffic
concurrency requirements as mandated by the 2005 amendments to the State of Florida’s
growth management legislation.
Project Manager: Brad Wiseman, Planning Manager bwiseman@,ubefl.com (799-4243)
4. OLD BUSINESS
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statute 286.26. persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to
participate in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk’s Ofice, no later than jive days prior to the proceeding, at telephone number (561)
799-4120 for assistance; Yhearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955-8771 (TDD) or (800) 955-8770 (VOICE),
for assistance. If a person decides io appeal any decision made by the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board, Local Planning Agenq? or Land
Development Regulations Commission, with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing. they will need a record of the
proceedings; and for such, 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. Exact legal description and/or survey for the cases may be obtainedjkom the files in the Growth
Management Department.
Comrnon/pz agenda 10-24-06.doc 0
2
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
October 24,2006
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM
Petition PUD-03-04: Doubletree PUD Amendment
Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. Marty Minor, of Urban
Design Studio, on behalf of E & J Properties LLC, to allow for the development of a 12,900 square-
foot pharmacy with two drive-thru lanes and a major conditional use for a 154,191 square-foot self-
storage building on the 5.5-acre vacant portion of the 13.46-acre Doubletree Planned Unit
Development (PUD), generally located at the northeast corner of Military Trail and PGA
Boulevard.
1x1 Recommendation to APPROVE with 4 waivers
Y1 Recommendation to DENY 1 waiver
Reviewed bv: A
City Attorney
Christine Tatum, Esq.
Development Compliance L Bahareh Keshavarz, AICP
Growth Management
Administrator
Kara Irwin, AICP
Approved By:
Ronald M. Ferris
City Manager
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
Brad Wiseman
Planning Manager
[XI Quasi-Judicial
[ 3 Legislative
[XI Public Hearing
Advertised:
Date: 10/13/06
Paper: PB Post
[XI Required
Affected parties:
[XI Notified
[ ] Not Required
FINANCE:
Costs: $-NIA
Total
$N/A-
Current FY
Funding Source:
[ ] Operating
[XI Other N/A
Budget Acct.#:
NA
PZAB Action:
[NIA] Approved
[N/A] App. w/ conditions
[N/A] Denied
[ 3 Rec. approval
[ ] Rec. app. w/ conds.
[ 3 Rec. Denial
[N/A] Continued
to:
Attachments:
0 Project Narrative
0 Reduced Plans
BACKGROUND
The Doubletree Hotel PUD was originally approved as a Holiday Inn/MacArthur’s Vineyard in
1968. The development order was amended in 1997 by way of Ordinance 14, 1997 to allow for a
rezoning to PUD, and an expansiodrenovation of the hotel. Subsequently, on May 4, 2000, the
PUD was amended to allow for a 25,000 square-foot retail building and an 8,115 square-foot
restaurant on the 5.5-acre northern portion of the site. The retail and restaurant buildings have not
been constructed and the site plan approval remains valid. However, the subject petition proposes to
supersede the existing site plan approval for said 5.5-acre site to allow for a 12,900 square-foot
pharmacy with two drive-thru lanes, a 154,191 square-foot self-storage building, and a S6-acre
preserve.
LAND USE & ZONING
The subject site has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay with an
underlying zoning of General Commercial (CG-1). The future land use designation is Commercial
(C). There are no zoning or land use designations amendments being proposed with the subject
petition.
CONCURRENCY
Traffic
A traffic equivalency analysis has been reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer and Palm
Beach County.
Drainage
The Doubletree PUD is under the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), the Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (NPBCID), and the City for
drainage purposes. The proposed storm water management system will be comprised of a system of
catch basins, storm drainage pipes, exfiltration trenches, and a dry detention area to meet on-site
drainage requirements. A drainage statement has been reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer.
PROJECT DETAILS
The PUD has three vehicular access points; two of which are located off of Military Trail and the
other off of PGA Boulevard. The existing vehicular entrance for the hotel on Military Trail does not
comply with the 100-foot stacking guideline provided for in the LDRs. However, the applicant is
proposing to modify this entrance in order to provide the 100-foot stacking distance. Therefore, all
PUD vehicular entrances will meet the 100-foot stacking distance provided for in the LDRs.
2
Site Access
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24, 2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Site Plan
The site plan incorporates vehicular and pedestrian interconnectivity for all three uses. Pedestrian
accessibility has been provided through a linear brick paver pathway that connects the northern
buildings to the hotel. A pedestrian pathway has been provided north of the northernmost vehicular
entrance connecting the subject site to Military Trail. The vehicular entrance incorporates a
noticeable landscaped median area accenting this main entry. In addition, a prominent pedestrian
plaza with seating areas has been provided adjacent to the pharmacy building.
The self-storage building is located at the point of the subject site adjacent to the preserve. The self-
storage building provides indoor storage, office, and a reception area. Outdoor self-storage is not
permitted on-site and has not been requested. Please note Section 78-159 requires specific
architectural standards that have been incorporated into the design of the self-storage building.
According to the List of Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses, provided for in the PGA
Boulevard Corridor Overlay, self-storage is a major conditional use. Therefore, the applicant has
submitted a conditional use analysis based on the criteria provided for in the LDRs. This analysis
has been reviewed and accepted by staff (please see attached).
Architecture
Each of the buildings incorporate a Spanish Mediterranean architectural style utilizing compatible
design features such as towers, pre-cast bandings, scoring, and Bahama shutters. The color palette
for the buildings consists of earth tones such as off-whites, dull oranges, and olive. The design of
the proposed buildings provides architectural compatibility without creating the appearance of
duplicate buildings. Both buildings consist of four-sided architecture as required by the PGA
Boulevard Corridor Overlay.
Landscapinn & Buffering
The proposed site plan includes a 57-foot wide preserve/landscape buffer and a 15-foot wide
minimum landscape buffer adjacent to Military Trail (55-foot required); and a minimum 10-foot
wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to Interstate-95 (25-foot required) (Please see waiver
section). Please note a waiver was previously approved for the subject site to allow for a 15-foot
wide landscape buffer adjacent to Military Trail and an 8-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to
Interstate-95.
Each buffer is landscaped with various groundcovers and trees such as Live Oaks, Pink Tabebuia,
Tree Ligustrums, Fakahatchee Grass, and Red-Tip Cocoplums. Landscape islands utilize Live Oaks
and Pink Tabebuia.
Each building has provided foundation landscaping on all four sides, which includes specimen trees
such as Live Oaks, Washington Palms, Mejool Date Palms, Florida Slash Pines, and Shower Trees.
Other plantings include Alexander Palms, Pygmy Date Palms, and Crinums. The like landscape
material has also been proposed in the 1-95 right-of-way, subject to FDOT approval. Tree
Ligustrums have been incorporated in the pedestrian plaza area to provide shade at maturity. The
landscape plan provides for 14,356 landscape points and 9,220 are required.
3
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: Octobm 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Preserve
City Code Section 78-247, provides an exemption from the 25% preserve set-aside for
developments that have maintained a valid development order as of May 3, 1990. Since the
Doubletree Hotel site has maintained a valid development order as of 1968, the site has been
deemed exempt from the preserve area requirement and was not required to provide any preserve
area as part of the previous development order approval. This exemption remains in effect with the
subject petition. Nevertheless, the developer proposes to incorporate a S6-acre preserve as
justification for the waiver requests (Please see waiver section).
Although not applicable in this case, City Code Section 78-250 requires a minimum preserve length
or width of 100 feet. Please note that the proposed preserve area maintains the 100-foot length
requirement.
Parkinz
The applicant is required to provide 479 total parking spaces for the PUD and 526 spaces have been
provided. Please note that the existing development order includes a valid parking waiver to allow
for a reduction of 15 parking spaces. Therefore, the subject petition will eliminate this waiver,
providing an additional 47 on-site parking spaces.
Sianage
The applicant is proposing two monument signs on Military Trail and two on PGA Boulevard;
whereas a total five monument signs are allowed by code. Each sign is consistent with City Code
Section 78-285 in terms of length, height, and copy area.
The applicant is proposing a total of three tenant signs per building (Please see waiver section). The
applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow for all three signs on the self-storage building to be
located above the second-floor. All tenant signs will consist of the same color, red.
Site L inh ting
The applicant is required to provide staff with a photometric plan consistent with City Code Section
78-182. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide metal halide
lighting consistent with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
recommendations.
CPTED Comuliance
The petitioner shall comply with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
principles recommended by the Police Department (Please see conditions of approval).
4
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
78-153: Building
Height: Lesser of 36
feet and Two Stories
78-285: Signs shall
not be located above
the Znd Floor Line
Waivers
The applicant is requesting the following 5 waivers:
Self-storage
Building at 64’ &
Five Stories
Three signs above
the Znd Floor line on
the Self-storage
Building
78-285: One sign per
building
foot Landscape Buffer
Adjacent to Military
Trail
78-186: Yards: 55-
Three signs per
building
15-foot wide buffer
in narrowest section
Adjacent to 1-95 r-0-w 95 r-o-w in
narrowest section
28’ & Three
Stories
4 stories for each
of the 3 signs
2 additional signs
40 feet
15 Feet
(1)
Approval
Approval
1
(4) Approval
(5) Approval
1) The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Code Section 78-153, Nonresidential Zoning
Districts, to allow for a building height of 64’ for the self-storage building. It is staffs
professional opinion that this building height request is appropriate when taking into account
the adjacent 92-foot high Doubletree Hotel. As such, the self-storage building will provide
adequate scale for the PUD and thus not negatively impacting the surrounding area.
Furthermore, the applicant has achieved optimum design by locating the building at the point
of the site and utilized a 57-foot preserve/landscaped area to buffer the building from Military
Trail. In addition, the applicant has provided a direct public benefit as a justification for this
waiver by allocating a .56-acre on-site preserve, which is not required by City Code. For
reference purposes, please see the below table indicating previous City Council approvals for
buildings that have a building height greater than 36 feet. Stag recommends approval.
5
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Building
Admiralty I1
(not built)
Admiralty I
Taylor Woodrow)
W achovia
Building
Fairway Office
Center
[Univ of Phoenix)
Divosta Office
Building
(SunTrust Bank)
Gardens Plaza
(Merrill Lynch)
Mirasol Town
Square Building D
MacArthur Center
(Bank One)
Palm Beach
Gardens Medical
Pavilion
Medical Mall
(UBSPaine
Webber)
3ardens Corporate
Center
Golden Bear Plaza
The Pointe PUD
The Doubletree
Hotel PUD
Zoning
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
(CG-1)
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
PCD with
underlying
Professional Office
(CG-1)
(CG-I)
(PO)
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
(CG-I)
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
PCD with and
underlying
Residential Low -3
PCD with
underlying of
Professional Office
(CG-1)
(RL-3)
(PO)
PCD with
underlying of
Professional Office
(PO)
PCD with
underlying of
Professional Office
(PO)
PCD with
underlying of
Professional Office
(PO)
PUD with an
underlying
Professional Office
(PO)
PUD with an
underlying
Professional Office
PUD with
underlying General
Commercial
(PO)
(CG-I)
Location
Southeast comer of
Military Trail and PGA
Blvd., east of Admiralty
Phase I
Southeast comer of
Military Trail and PGA
Blvd., east of Wachovia
Southeast comer of
Military Trail and PGA
Blvd., west of Admiralty
Phase I
Southwest comer of PGA
Boulevard and Florida
Turnpike
Southwest comer of
Military Trail and PGA
Blvd.
’ Southeast comer of
Fairchild Gardens Avenue
and PGA Blvd.
Northwest comer of PGA
Blvd. and FL Turnpike,
Immediately north of
Mirasol Walk PUD
Northeast Comer of
Fairchild Gardens Avenue
and PGA Boulevard
Northwest Comer of PGA
Boulevard & Fairchild
Gardens Ave
Northeast comer of PGA
Boulevard and Alternate
AIA
Northeast Comer of PGA
Boulevard and Alternate
AlA
East side of US. Highway
I, immediately north of
Oakbrook Square
The point of Interstate-95
and Military Trail
NE Comer of PGA Blvd
and Military Trail
Square Footage
82,389 sq A
82,265 sq A
48,600 sq A
2 Buildings
88,300 sq A
each
48,700 sq A
88,150 sq A
44,000 sq A
75,920 sq A
87,500 sq ft
184,057 sq ft
2 Buildings
11 1,971 sq ft
each
3 Buildings
45,744
44,506
49,613
2 Buildings
75,000 Square
Feet Each
329,691 Square
Feet
Building Height
& Stories
82’ & 5 Stories
148’ & 10 Stories
70’ & 6 Stories
62’ & 4 stories
each
52’ & 4 stories
112’ & 9 stories
58’ & 4 stories
62’ & 4 stories
77’ & 6 stories
124’ & IO stories
including 4-story
parking garage
92’ & 6 Stories
Detached Parking
Garage is 54’
All Buildings 109’
& 7 Stories
including I level
of parking garage
68’ & 4 Stories
92’ & 6 Stories
Development Order
Ordinance 14,2000
(approved June 5,2000)
Site Plan & Appearance
Review Committee
(approved June 27,
1978)
Site Plan & Appearance
Review Committee
(approved June 27,
1978)
Resolution 55,1998
(approved July 16,
1998)
Resolution 159, 1990
(approved December
18,1990)
Ordinance 3, 1985
(approved March 21,
1985)
Resolution 194,2003
(approved November 6,
2003)
Resolution 21, 1998
(approved March 19,
1998)
Resolution 134, 1993
(approved November 4,
1993)
Resolution 1 18, I994
(approved Sept. 1,
1994)
Ordinance 42,2001
(approved December 6,
2001)
Ordinance 7, 1984
(approved April 5,
1984)
Resolution 175,2005
(approved December
15,2005)
Site Plan Approval
1968
6
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Code Section 78-285, Permitted Signs, to allow
for the three self-storage identification signs to be located on the building parapet. The
applicant is requesting to locate a building identification sign at the top floor on the east, west,
and south elevations. It is staffs professional opinion that this waiver will provide adequate
sign visibility for motorists, taking in to account long-term tree growth; and will not negatively
impact the surrounding area. Furthermore, a clearly visible sign may prevent traffic problems
that may arise from motorists attempting to locate the building. However, please note staff
only supports a maximum of two signs, which is discussed in waiver number three. For
reference purposes, a waiver was granted for the Fairway Office Center, Wachovia Bank
building, Divosta Office building, Doubletree Hotel, Marriott Hotel, Office Building D in
Mirasol Town Square, Bank One, Embassy Suites, Wackenhut building, Palm Beach Gardens
Medical Pavilion, UBS Building, Grand Bank, and Golden Bear Plaza to allow for signs on the
building parapet. Staff recommends approval.
3) The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Code Section 78-285, Permitted Signs, to allow
for two additional signs for the pharmacy and self-storage buildings. It is staffs professional
opinion that two additional tenant signs per building is unnecessary and that this waiver
request has not been adequately justified. Staff realizes the need for a sign on the Military Trail
and 1-95 elevations. However, it is staffs professional opinion that three signs per tenant is
excessive and would negatively impact the aesthetic character of the development. Staff
recommends denial.
4) The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Code Section 78-1 86, Yards, to allow for a 15-
foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to Military Trail. Please note that the existing
site plan approval includes a waiver to allow for a 15-foot wide continuous landscape buffer.
Conversely, the proposed site plan also incorporates a 57-foot wide preserve/landscape buffer
and a 40-foot wide landscapeberm area adjacent to Military Trail. Therefore, the proposed site
plan is a vast improvement over the approved plan. Staffrecommends approval.
5) The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Code Section 78-319, Minimum Landscape
Buffer and Planting Requirements, to allow for a 10-foot wide minimum landscape buffer
adjacent to 1-95. Please note that the existing site plan approval includes a waiver to allow for
an eight-foot wide landscape buffer. Conversely, the majority of the landscape buffer on the
proposed plan ranges from 18 to 25 feet in width. The narrowest point of the landscape buffer
is adjacent to the dry detention area; yet the banks of the detention area are planted up to 10
feet. Its staffs professional opinion that like the Military Trail landscape buffer, the 1-95 buffer
is a vast improvement from the previous plan. Staff recommends approval.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
It is staffs professional opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the overall intent
of the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. An example of some of the
goals, objectives and policies, which are consistent with and furthered by the proposed PUD
amendment, are listed below.
7
Future Land Use Element
Goal 1.1.: Continue to ensure a high quality living environment through a mixture of land
uses that will maximize Palm Beach Gardens’ Natural and Manmade Resources while
minimizing any threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s citizens that is caused by
incompatible land uses and environmental degradation.
Objective 1.1.7.: The City shall maintain land development regulations containing standards
and provisions which encourage the elimination or reduction of uses inconsistent with the
City’s character and future land uses.
Policy 1.1.6.1 .: Development orders and permits for future development and redevelopment
activities shall be issued only in areas possessing the appropriate Future Land Use designation
and that are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development is consistent with the subject site’s zoning and hture land use
designations, which are commercial. The proposed uses are permitted (pharmacy) and a major
conditional use (self-storage) in the City’s Land Development Regulations. A self-storage facility
and a pharmacy provides an appropriate transition for the adjacent commercial developments,
Military Trail, and 1-95. Furthermore, the PUD has been designed to minimize any negative impacts
by including an upland preserve adjacent to Military Trail and the placement of the architecturally
enhanced self-storage building next to 1-95.
Policy 1.1.1.5. (b): In exchange, for the extra review requirements imposed by the PUD
process, developers may propose plans that would not otherwise be permitted under by-right
zoning districts. These may include a mixture of uses not found within any of the by-right
zoning districts and/or density bonuses and/or waivers to non-residential intensities described
previously.
The proposed site plan includes a self-storage building that exceeds the City Code requirement of
36 feet, which is the standard included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. However, the applicant is
requesting a waiver from this requirement, which is allowed by this policy. This policy is
implemented by City Code Section 78-158 (f), Table 20, which specifically allows City Council to
waive building height requirements. Please also note that City Code Section 78-158 (d) includes
regulations that may not be waived by the City Council and building height is not included.
Objective 1.1.5.: Future growth, development, and redevelopment shall be directed to areas
as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, consistent with sound planning principles; minimal
natural limitations; the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this Comprehensive
Plan; and the desired community character.
The Future Land Use Map has designated the subject site as Commercial (C). The site has been
designed with sound planning principles, which minimize any impacts on the surrounding area. The
height of the self-storage building has been mitigated by its placement between 1-95 and the
preserve area. The site design also incorporates additional landscaping (14,356 landscape points
proposed, 9,220 are required) and over twice the required open space (15% required vs. 35%
proposed), which achieves the City’s desired community character. Additionally, the applicant has
8
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
proposed a prominent pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the pharmacy building that is not required
by code.
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
The Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board (PZAB) reviewed the subject petition at a public
workshop on July 25,2006. The PZAB commended the design of the proposed project and issued
the following comments:
1 .) The PZAB raised a concern relative to the amount of signs proposed for the pharmacy.
The applicant is still proposing three signs for each building.
2.) The PZAB requested the applicant to bring additional perspectives of the self-storage building
at the public hearing.
The applicant has informed staff that additional perspectives will be provided at the PUB public
hearing.
3.) The PZAB commented that the architecture of the pharmacy should be improved.
The applicant has revised the elevations of the pharmacy accordingly.
4.) The PZAB raised a concern relative to the appearance of mechanical equipment on the
pharmacy building fiom 1-95.
Please note that staff has included a condition of approval requiring the mechanical equipment to
be screened from view.
5.) The PZAB stated that all parking spaces immediately adjacent to the building should have a 10-
foot minimum width.
The applicant has revised the plans accordingly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of Petition PUD-03-04, denial of the waiver for two additional
signs per tenant, and the following conditions of approval:
Planning & Zoning
1 .) Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall post escrow or make payment in-
lieu for Art in Public Places in accordance with City Code. If the Applicant is proposing art on-site, an
application for art approval shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first building permit and the art
shall be approved prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. If the art is not approved prior
to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the City shall have the option of withdrawing the
escrow. (Planning & Zoning)
2.) Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building, all roof top mechanical
equipment shall be screened fiom view, including views from 1-95, (Planning & Zoning)
9
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
3.) At no time shall staging of construction vehicles andor service vehicles occur within a public
right-of-way. All vehicular construction activities shall use a construction access off of Military Trail.
(Planning & Zoning)
4.) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall install a
six-foot tall construction fence with a privacy tarp adjacent to Military Trail. (Planning & Zoning)
5.) Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall convert eight (8)
pedestrian crossing signals located at the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Military Trail fiom the
existing “Walk & Don’t Walk’ indicator to a “Countdown-type Pedestrian Signal” indicator, as
approved by the City Engineer and subject to FDOT approval. (Planning & Zoning)
6.) All wall and monument sign identifications for the pharmacy and self-storage building shall be red
in color. (Planning & Zoning)
City Forester
7.) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall submit
FP&L and SUA approved landscape plans for review and approval by the City. (City Forester)
8.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install all landscape
buffers and road shoulder and off-ramp landscaping, including irrigation, for 1-95 (subject to FDOT
approval). (City Forester)
9.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install an electrical
pipe sleeve for the Military Trail median, if deemed necessary by the Growth Management
Administrator. (City Forester)
10.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall eliminate all
invasive non-native vegetation within the Interstate Highway 95 right-of-way and adjacent to the
site. (City Forester)
12.) The Applicant shall maintain all roadway (medians and shoulders) landscaping around the
PUD. This condition may be amended at anytime by a mutual agreement between the City and the
applicant. (City Forester)
13.) Prior to issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall install barriers to protect
the preserve area and on-site vegetation. (City Forester)
14.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall remove all
prohibited and invasive non-native plants from the site. Once all removal work has been completed,
the applicant shall work with the City Forester to install native material within the preserve to
reasonably fill-in gaps left from the removal of exotic vegetation. (City Forester),
10
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
City Engineer
15.) Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide a signed and
sealed pavement marking and signage plan. (City Engineer)
16.) Within 30 days of development order approval, the applicant shall contribute 40% of the total
cost for the installation of the traffic signal at Military Trail and Garden Lakes Drive, which the City
shall use to reimburse the Midtown (f.k.a. Borland Center) PUD. The Applicant shall coordinate with
said development and complete all required on-site improvements in order for the traffic signal to be
installed by February 14,2007. (City Engineer)
17.) The Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with copies of all correspondences to and from
regulatory agencies regarding issues on the Doubletree PUD. (City Engineer)
18.) Prior to the commencement of construction, the Applicant shall provide all necessary construction
zone signage and fencing as required by the City Engineer. (City Engineer)
19.) Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide surety for
public infrastructure, landscaping, and irrigation. The surety shall be based on a cost estimate that is
signed and sealed by an engineer and landscape architect licensed in the State of Florida. The surety
shall be based on 1 10% of the total combined approved cost estimates and shall be posted with the City
prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (City Engineer)
20.) Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide a cost estimate
for all other on-site improvements which do not include public infrastructure, landscaping, and
irrigation costs. The cost estimate shall be signed and sealed by an engineer licensed in the State of
Florida and shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (City
Engineer)
2 1 .) The Applicant shall comply with all Federal Environmental Protection Agency and State of
Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit requirements for construction activities. (City
Engineer)
22.) Prior to construction plan approval, the Applicant shall schedule a pre-permit meeting with City
staff. (City Engineer)
23.) Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide construction
plans including but not limited to paving, grading, and drainage plans along with surface water
management calculations and hydraulic pipe calculations for City review and approval. The paving,
grading, and drainage plan and calculations shall be signed and sealed by an engineer licensed in the
State of Florida. (City Engineer)
24.) Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide a letter of
authorization from the utility companies allowing landscaping within their easements. (City Engineer)
25.) The construction, operation, and/or maintenance of any elements of the Doubletree Hotel PUD
shall not negatively impact the existing drainage of the surrounding areas. If at any time during
11
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
development it is determined by City staff that any of the surrounding areas are experiencing negative
drainage impacts caused by the development of Doubletree, it shall be the Applicant’s responsibility to
resolve said impacts in a period of time and a manner acceptable to the City. If said impacts are not
remedied in a time period and manner acceptable to the City, the City may cease issuing building
permits andor Certificates of Occupancy until all drainage concerns are resolved. (City Engineer)
26.) The build-out date for The Doubletree Hotel PUD shall be December 31, 2007, unless
extended in accordance with City Code Section 78-61. (City Engineer)
27.) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall re-plat
the entire PUD. The replat shall include the creation of a property owner’s association for the
project that will be responsible for the maintenance and care of all open space and landscaping on
the PUD site. (City Engineer)
Police Department
28.) Metal halide lighting shall be used for all street, walkways, and parking garage lighting. (Police
Department)
29.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for each building, lighting locations and
building addresses shall not conflict with landscaping, including long-term tree canopy growth.
(Police Department)
30.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the self-storage building, the
Applicant shall provide a timer clock or photocell sensor engaged lighting above or near entryways
and adjacent sidewalks for said building. (Police Department)
3 1 .) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a street address system
depicting street names and numerical addresses for emergency response purposes. Address system
depiction shall be in 8.5” X 1 1” map format. (Police Department)
32.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the self-storage building all entry
doors shall be equipped with a metal plate over threshold of locking mechanism and case hardened
deadbolt locks on all exterior doors with minimum one-inch throw; door hinges on the interior side
of each door; and the main entries to the self-storage building shall be wired for closed circuit
digital camera surveillance system. (Police Department)
33.) Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction site
security and management plan for review and approval by the Police Department. Non-compliance
with the approved security and management plan may result in a stop-work order for the PUD.
(Police Department)
34.) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for each building, all numerical addresses
shall be placed at the front of each building. Each numerical address shall be illuminated for
nighttime visibility, shall provide bi-directional visibility from the roadway (when applicable), shall
consist o,f 8 inches in height and shall be a different color than the color of the surface to which they
are attached. (Police Department)
12
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Miscellaneous
35.) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each phase, digital files of the approved plat
shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division, and approved civil design andakhitectkal
drawings, including floor plans, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for each phase. (GIs Manager, Development Compliance Officer)
36.) The Applicant shall be required to notify the City’s Public Works Division via fax at least 10
working days prior to the commencement of any worklconstruction activity within any public right-
of-way within the City. In the case of a City right-of-way, the property owner has at least five
working days to obtain a right-of-way permit. Right-of-way permits may be obtained at the
Building Division. Failure to comply with this condition may result in a stop-work order of all
worklconstruction activity within the public right-of-way and the subject site. (Public Works)
13
e
NIA
(PUD) (CG-1)
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
NIA
(C)
e
Subi ect Property
Vacant
Doubletree Hotel
North
Interstate-95
South
PGA Boulevard
Admiralty
- East
Military Trail
Gardens Square Shops
(PUD) (CG-1)
Planned Unit Development
General Commercial
(C) Commercial
NIA NIA
NIA
(PUD) (CG-1)
NIA NIA
14
Date Prepared: September 15,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Petition: PUD-03-04
Site =
Minimum PUD Development 13.46 Acres Yes
Size for Properties South of
Donald Ross Road &
Between Central Boulevard
& Alternate A1A: None
Maximum Building Height: 64’ for the Self-storage No, Waiver Requested
Lesser of Two Stores & 36
Feet
32’ for the pharmacy for S elf-S torage
Minimum Open Space: 15% 35% Yes
Maximum Lot 16%
Coverage:
Yes
35%
Landscape Buffers:
1-95: 25 feet
Military Trail: 55 feet
1-95: 10-25 feet
Military Trail: 15-57 feet
No, waiver Requested
I I
Parking Required:
479 Spaces
Front Setback: 50’
Side Setback: 40’
Rear Setback: 15’
526 spaces Yes
I
57 Feet
110 Feet
25 Feet
Yes
15
urban dean
0 PROJECT NARRATIVE stu 0
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
DOUBLETREE NORTH PUD
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
September 14,2006
Request
The 13.46 acre subject site located north of PGA Boulevard, east of Military Trail and west of
Interstate 95 was originally approved by the City for a Holiday Inn/MacArthur’s Vineyard in 1968.
The hotel complex was expanded in 1997, when the entire 13.46 acre site was rezoned to a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) under Ordinance 14, 1997. The 13.46 acre site became known as the
DoubleTree Planned Unit Development (DoubleTree PUD). Today the southern 7.96 acres is
developed with a 28O-room DoubleTree Hotel, which is vested for an additional 138 rooms and a
34,000 square foot conference center, while the northern 5.5 acres remains vacant.
As part of the overall PUD amendment, the vacant 5.5 acres (also known as DoubleTree North) was
approved on May 4,2000 through the adoption of Ordinance 10,2000 to include 25,000 square feet
of retail space and 8,115 square feet of restaurant space.
Since 2000, several amendments have been requested for the northern portion of the DoubleTree
PUD. With the currently proposed amendment, the applicant proposes to develop the site with a
12,900 square foot pharmacy with two drive-thru lanes, and a 154,191 square foot air-conditioned
self-storage facility. The site is within the PGA Boulevard Overlay Corridor. The City Commission
recently approved a text amendment to the PGA Boulevard Overlay Corridor to permit self-storage
facilities in the Overlay as long as they are fhnctionally-oriented away from PGA Boulevard and do
not provide any outdoor storage. The text amendment also specified that drive-thru lanes associated
with pharmacies are permitted in the Overlay as long as the pharmacy does not front on PGA
Boulevard and the drive-thru lanes are oriented away from PGA Boulevard. The proposed self-
storage building on the DoubleTree North portion of the site is over 900 feet from PGA Boulevard
and will not provide outdoor storage. The proposed pharmacy fronts on Military Trail and the drive-
thru lanes associated with the drug store are a minimum of 700 feet from PGA Boulevard, and
oriented away from PGA Boulevard.
0
Conditional Use Analysis - Self Storarre Building
The criteria, as listed in Section 78-52 of the City Code, is being provided to demonstrate and
support the proposed air-conditioned self storage facility as a
conditional use within the DoubleTree North PUD.
477 S. Rosemary Avenue
Suite 225 - The Lofts at City Place
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
www.UDSonline.com
cfy OF PALM BCH GDNS
G UobsDoublcIree NonhPUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submilled Plans\Septem ~~~,fO~~~t~~ativeSept0~6~d366.1100 LCC3S
561.366.1111 fax
LCC35
PLANNING ZONING OW
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006 0 Page2
1. Comprehensive plan. The proposed use is consistent with comprehensive plan,
The proposed use of a self storage facility is permitted as a conditional use within the CG-I
zoning district. The location of the proposed self storage facility has a Future Land Use
Designation of Commercial. As the Commereial future land use designation allows for the CG-
1 zoning district and the self storage facility is a conditional use within the CG-1 district, the self
storage facility is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
2. Chapter requirements. The proposed use is consistent with all applicable requirements of
this chapter.
All requirements of Chapter 78 of the City of Palm Beach Gardens’ Land Development Code
have been complied with.
3. Standards. The proposed use is consistent with the standards for such use as provided in
section 78-159.
The applicant understands and agrees with all the requirements found in Section 78-1 59 (j) (44)
Self Service Storage.
0 4. Public welfare. The proposed use provides for the public health, safety, and welfare by:
a. Providing for a safe and effective means of pedestrian access;
Pedestrian access is provided throughout the proposed DoubleTree North PUD. The
proposed self storage facility has pedestrian connections to the other buildings in the project,
to Military Trail and to the adjacent Doub!eTree Hstei.
b. Providing for a safe and effective means of vehicular ingress and egress;
Vehicular access is provided directly off Military Trail in two locations. An additional
vehicular connection will be from PGA Boulevard through the adjacent and interconnected
DoubleTree Hotel portion of the site.
c. Providing for an adequate roadway system adjacent to and in front of the site;
The site is directly accessed from Military Trail. There are also vehicular access to the site
from the adjacent DoubleTree Hotel, which fronts and has an access from PGA Boulevard.
d. Providing for safe and efficient onsite traffic circulation, parking, and overall control;
G:Uobs\Doublctrcc NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submined Plans\September 14. 2006\ProjeclNarralive Sept 06.wpd
LCC3S
0
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page3
As stated above, in addition to the direct access to the site from Military Trail, there are
several safe and efficient vehicular access points to the site. The site has the required parking
in its immediate location and is located adjacent to more parking within the project.
e. Providing adequate access for public safety purposes, including fire and police
protection.
Adequate site access for public safety has been established through the DRC process.
5. Screening and buffering. The proposed use utilizes such techniques as landscaping,
screening, buffering, site or building design, or business operation procedures to mitigate
impacts on surrounding properties, including such impact as:
a. Noise;
The proposed self storage facility is buffered from the adjacent Military Trail right-of-way
by an upland preserve. The self storage facility is oriented toward the upland preserve to its
north and west. The facility is also adjacent to Interstate 95 and is shielded by a minimum
1 8-foot landscape buffer and adjacent landscaping within the 1-95 right-of-way proposed by
the applicant. As there will be no outdoor storage with this facility, it is anticipated that this
air-conditioned facility will not create any adverse noise.
b. Glare;
Any glare associated with this use (which is not anticipated) will be shielded by the location
of the self storage facility and the adjacent upland preserve.
c. Odor;
As the proposed use will be an enclosed, air-conditioned self storage facility. No odor
associated with this use is anticipated.
d. Ground-, wall-, or roof-mounted mechanical equipment;
Consistent with City Codes, all mechanical equipment will be screened.
e. Perimeter, interior, and security lighting;
The proposed use will meet all City lighting standards.
G.Uobs\Doublelree NorIhVUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\SubmiIled Plans\Septernber 14,2006WrojeclNarrai1ve Sept O6.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page4
f. Signs;
The applicant is requesting waivers to allow three building identification signs for the
single user drug store building, and to allow two tenant identification signs and one
building identification sign on the self-storage building, to be located on the fifth floor
elevation. The size of the signs will be consistent with City codes.
g. Waste disposal and recycling;
A letter from Waste Management, Inc. which confirms the self storage facility will be
able to be serviced was provided to the City.
h. Outdoor storage of merchandise and vehicles;
There is no proposed outdoor storage of merchandise or vehicles.
i. Visual impact; and
The site will be buffered from adjacent roadways by an upland preserve and
landscaping.
j. Hours of operation.
The hours of operation will be consistent with all City Codes.
5. Utilities. The proposed iise ixihihizes or eliminates the ispact G€ iitility histd%itimi,
including underground and overhead utilities, on adjacent properties,
. The proposed self storage facility does not require any additional utility installations on adjacent
properties.
7. Dimensional standards. The proposed use meets or exceeds all dimensional requirements
required by the chapter.
The self storage facility is located within the DoubleTree PUD, which meets or exceeds all
dimensional requirements.
8. Neighborhood plans. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and
standards of neighborhood plans.
This criteria is not applicable. However, the proposed use is consistent with the existing
Commercial (CG-I) zoning designation, the existing Commercial future land use plan
designation and the City’s Vision document for this location.
0
G:Uobsbubletrce NonhWUD Amendment 4 ~ March 2006\Subrnitled Plans\Seplernber 14. 2006\ProjeclNarrative Scpc 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page5
9. Compatibility. The overall compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent and
area uses, and character of area development,
As stated above, the proposed self storage facility is located within a Commercial Future Land
Use designation. The subject site is bordered by the Interstate 95 right-of-way on the eastern and
northern boundaries and PGA Boulevard to the south. West of the site is the Gardens Square
shopping center and Garden Lake multi-family community. The proposed self-storage facility,
with an attractive, office-like elevation, is compatible with the surrounding uses,
10. Patterns of development. The proposed use will result in logical, timely, and orderly
development patterns.
The self storage facility has been designed to be integrated within the DoubleTree PUD. The use
has been located as to be easily accessible from the surrounding roadways and from the interior
of the project and the adjacent hotel.
11. Purpose and intent. The proposed use will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of this chapter and the goals, objectives, and policies of the city.
The proposed use is in harmony with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City which
advocate high standards of service and quality of life to its residents. 0
12. Adverse impact. The design of the proposed use and structures will minimize any adverse
visual impacts or impacts caused by the intensity of the use.
The proposed self-storage building has four-sided architecture and is designed to look like a
quality office building. This is consistent with the surrounding commercial buildings in the area.
In addition, the north and west elevations of the self-storage building will be shielded by an
upland preserve.
13. Environmental impact. The design of the proposed use minimizes any adverse impacts that
may be created, including impacts on environmental and natural resources including air,
water stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, and wetlands.
The proposed self storage building will meet or exceed all applicable environmental regulations.
Maior Conditional Use Request:
Below is an analysis on how this request meets all of the standards for air-conditioned self-storage
facilities outlined in Ordinance 6,2005:
1. Individual storage areas shall not exceed 400 square feet.
A range of storage areas will be provided within the air-conditioned self-storage buildings, but
G:Vobs\Doublctree NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submined Plans\Sepiember 14, 2006\ProjecINanative Sept 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page6
there will be no individual storage areas in excess of 400 square feet in size.
2. Security or caretakers quarters may be established as an accessary use, shall not exceed
1,000 square feet, and shall be utilized only by an employee of the facility.
No caretaker quarters are proposed with this air-conditioned self-storage building.
3. Storage of boats and recreational vehicles may be allowed, subject to the following:
a. Storage shall occur only within a designated area, approved as part of the overall site
plan;
b, Storage area shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area of the site;
c. Boats shall be stored on trailers with wheels; and
d. Storage areas shall be completely screened from public rights-of-way or adjacent
residential zoning districts, utilizing either the buildings associated with the storage
facility or by an opaque masonry wall, or equivalent approved by the city, at least six
feet in height.
The proposed 154,191 square foot facility accounts for less than 4% of the of the 13.46 acre
site. A circular entrance drive will be provided which leads from the ingress/egress point off
Military Trail to the rear of the self storage building. Patrons will enter the rear of the
building through a secured gated. Once inside the building, a secure area is provided where
patrons may load and unload. Within the building, patrons take their items via elevator to
their completely secure interior storage space. Because the loading and unloading takes place
inside of the building, all activities associated with the self-storage facility will be screened
from the public rights-of-way. Furthermore, all storage will occur only within the buildings
designzted on the site p!an. The qqdicant is not proposing afiy outdoor storagc space.
4. Self storage buildings shall have architectural features and patterns that provide visual
interest. Facades shall be designed to reduce the masshcale of the self storage building.
Building wall articulation, including fenestrations, projections, recesses, and changes in
floor level shall be used to add architectural interest and variety, and to relieve the visual
effect of blank walls or large areas of a plain appearance.
The submitted architectural elevations for the air-conditioned, self-storage building provides for
architectural articulation, Bahama shutters, varied roofline, faux windows and other treatments,
Additionally, the interior loading and unloading area eliminates the visual distraction of patrons
unloading in sight ofthe other buildings and traffic. As a result, the proposed self-storage facility
resembles an attractive office building.
5. If other building(s) exist on site, or are proposed to be located on site, the self storage
building shall provide massing elements to provide a transition between the existing
architectural style of the existing, or proposed building(s). 0
G:Vobs\Doubletrec NonhWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submitted Plans\Sepiember 14.2006VrojectNarraiive Sepi 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page7
The air-conditioned self-storage building is located on the northern tip of the property adjacent
to the elevated Interstate 95 right-of-way and the existing Military Trail right-of-way. The
location of the self-storage building “book ends” the site with the existing DoubleTree Hotel.
With these multi-storied “book ends,” the site is interconnected with pedestrian and vehicle
connections, on which a one-story building is proposed. The design of the air-conditioned self-
storage building is consistent with architecture of the proposed drugstore.
6. Variations in roofline shall be required to reduce the mass of the self storage building. Roof
features shall be in scale with the mass of the building and complement the character of
adjoining and/or adjacent buildings and neighborhoods.
The submitted elevations for the air-conditioned self-storage building feature a variety of roof
lines and roof types. The hip roofs provided will feature a terra cotta blend barrel tile roof which
is consistent with the adjacent Gardens Square Shopping Center.
7. Gutters and downspouts, ifutilized, shall be painted to match the surface to which they are
attached.
Gutters and downspouts, if needed and visible, we be painted to match the adjacent wall color.
8. Self storage buildings shall meet a minimum of five of the following design treatments:
a. Canopies or porticos, integrated with the buildings massing styles;
b. Overhangs proportional in size to the mass of the building;
c. Arcades, with a minimum eight-foot width;
d. Pitched roof forms over substantial portions of the building’s perimeter including gable
and hip roofs;
e. Ornamental aod stmctura! architect.wd detal!~;
f. Decorative tower features;
g. Appreciable vertical and horizontal breaks of the plane of the building; and
h. Exterior arched treatment on at least two sides of the building.
The proposed air-conditioned self-storage building meets the above-criteria as it provides the
following design treatments: several hip roof features; Bahama shutters; faux windows, niches,
bandings and other architectural details; several tower features; and several vertical and
horizontal breaks in the architecture of the building.
9. All self storage bays shall be 100% indoor. Outdoor storage is prohibited within CG-1 and
CG-2 zoning districts.
No outdoor storage is requested or proposed. All storage associated with the air-conditioned
self-storage building will be interior.
G:Uobs\Doubletree NorthVUD Amendment 4 . March 2006\Submilted Plans\September 14,2006WrojectNarralive Sept 06 wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
EXISTING USE ZONING FUTURE LAND USE
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Hotel and Vacant PUD (CG-1) C
TO THE NORTH: Interstate Highway/PDA/M 1 Interstate Highway/ROS/T
Interstate 95 and Vacant
Lands
TO THE EAST: Interstate HighwayM 1 Interstate Highway/I
September 14,2006 0 Page 8
Location
The 13.46 acre subject property is located north of PGA Boulevard, east of Military Trail and west
of Interstate 95, The 13.46 acre site was approved by Ordinance 14, 1997 and is known as the
DoubleTree Planned Unit Development (DoubleTree PUD). Today the southern 7.96 acres are
developed with a DoubleTree Hotel and known as the DoubleTree Hotel PUD, while the northern
5.5 acres remains vacant and is known as the DoubleTree North PUD. While this amendment
application is being filed on the entire 13.46 acres, the southern 7.96 acres is proposed to remain the
same. The focus of this application, or affected area, is the development of the northen 5.5 acres.
The site has an Zoning designation of PUD (CG-I) with a Future Land Use Designation of
Commercial. To the north and east of the subject site is Interstate 95. A Shell Gas Station exists to
the south of the parcel. To the south, across PGA Boulevard, is the Embassy Suites Hotel and
Admiralty Office Building. The Gardens Square Shops and Garden Lakes multi-family residential
community are to the west of the site, across Military Trail.
ComDlianceLand Use
The subject site has a Commercial land use designation.
0 Access
Three vehicular and three pedestrian access points will be provided for the site: one on PGA
Boulevard, and two on Military Trail. The access point on PGA Boulevard already exists. The
applicant is not proposing to alter this access point. One access point on Military Trail currently
exists in the central portion of the Military Trail frontage. The applicant proposes to enhance this
access point by providing a IO0 foot stacking area, which alleviates apotcntial vehicular safety issue.
The applicant is proposing a second access on Military trail at the northern tip of the DoubleTree
North site.
ExistinP Zoning and Land Use Designations & Site Analvsis
G:Uobs\Doubletrce NotlhWJD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submi11ed Plans\September I4.2006\ProjectNarrative Scpi 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page 9
TO THE SOUTH:
PGA BoulevardAdmiralty
Office BuildingEmbassy
Suites Hotel.
TO THE WEST:
Gardens Square Shoppes and
Garden Lakes residential
community
CG-1PUD (CG-I) C
PUD (CG-1) and PUD (RM) C & RM
Comparison Proposed Consistent
to CG-1 district
regulations
(Section 78-147)
Maximum Height Limit 36 feet 64 feet (five stories) No, Waiver Requested
Minimum Site Area
Open Space
Maximum Lot
Coverage
Setbacks
Front
SideKorner
1 acre 1 3.46 acres
15% 35%
35% 16%
55 feet, per PGA Overlay
Corridor District
40 feet along PGA Blvd.
40 feet 57 feet
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, Waiver approved
with Ord 14, 1997
Yes
Side
Rear
Parking
Number (required by
LDRs)
Parking Space Size
15 feet 25 feet Yes
~ ~~
15 feet N/A Yes
480 spaces for 526 spaces Yes
DoubleTree North and
DoubleTree Hotel sites
IO' x 18.5' 9.5' x 18.5' and Yes.
9.5' X 16.0' w/ 2.5' overhang
and 10' x 16.0 ~12.5
overhang
G:Uobs\Doublctrec NorthWUD Amendmeni 4 - March 2006\Submitted Plans\Seplember 14. 2006\ProjeclNarralive Sept 06.wpd
LCC3S
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
Bufers
September 14,2006
Page 10
Comparison
to CG1 district
regulations
(Section 78-147)
25' along Interstate 95
55' along Military Trail
SITE A
DoubleTree Nor
VAL YSIS:
'h PUD Amendment
Proposed Consistent
Hotel Portion of PUD
(existing conditions)
5' along Interstate 95
0' along Military Trail
0' along PGA Blvd.
Northern Portion of PUD
18' along Interstate 95
15' along Military Trail
n/a
No, Waivers requested
Architectural Style and SDecial Features
The air-conditioned self-storage building proposed for the northern portion of the subject site
features a variety of aesthetically-pleasing architectural features, such as Bahama shutters, niches,
banding and columns. The building also features barrel-tile roof with a color mix that matches the
adjacent Gardens Square Shopping Center. 0
Parking
With the exception of the eleven standard parking spaces directly adjacent to the pharmacy, the
applicant is providing reduced parking stall widths of 9.5' (1 0' in width standard by code), which is
permitted under Section 78-344 (l)(l)(c) with City Council approval. Please note that we are
providing 35% open space on the site, which is more than double the 15% open space required by
code. The DoubleTree Hotel portion of the site previously received a waiver of parking stall
dimensions with Ordinance 14, 1997, which was reaffirmed with Ordinance 10, 2000, to allow a
portion of the parking stalls on that portion of the site to have a width of 9 feet.
The following are the calculations indicating additional open space area provided through the
reduction of the parking space width within the DoubleTree North site.
172 reduced parking spaces x 9.25 square feet (5 feet x 1 8.5 feet) (reduction of paved area per
parking space) = 1,591 square feet
1,591 square feet of total reduced paved area x 1.5 code required ratio = 2,386.5 square feet or
0.055 acres of required additional open space.
The additional 0.055 acres of open space required for the reduction of the parking space dimension
is located within the plaza in front of the proposed drug store.
G:Uobs\Doublatrcc NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submitted Plans\Septernber 14. 2006\ProjectNarrat1ve Sept 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page 11
Waivers
As a Planned Unit Development, the applicant is permitted to request waivers. The applicant is
requesting the following waivers with this petition. Several of the waivers were previously granted
for this site with the approval of Ordinance 14, 1997 and/or Ordinance 10,2000,
Section 78-186 of the City Code - Waiver to allow a nominal landscape buffer along
Military Trail, and to allow a 5 foot wide landscape buffer along Interstate 95. (Please note
that this application proposes to provide a minimum 15 foot wide buffer along Military
Trail and a minimum 18 foot wide buffer along Interstate 95, on the DoubleTree North
portion of the site)
The waiver request for the buffer width along Military Trail is a continuation of the waiver
granted with Ordinance 14, 1997 and reaffirmed with Ordinance 10,2000. The City Code
requires a 55-foot special yard buffer along Military Trail north of PGA Boulevard. Currently,
the DoubleTree Hotel portion of the site has a negligible buffer between its existing parking lot
and the Military Trail right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to increase that buffer in the
DoubleTree North portion of the site to a 15-foot wide buffer with a three-foot berm landscaped
with oak trees. The bermed frontage area will comprise approximately half of the DoubleTree
North’s Military Tail frontage. The other half of the DoubleTree North portion of the site’s
Military Trail frontage will comprise of 0.56 acre upland preserve. Furthermore, as agreed as
part of Ordinance 10,2000, the applicant is providing off-site landscaping at the 1-95 off ramp
onto Military Trail. The applicant is also exceeding the landscape points required for the
DoubleTree North site.
The waiver request is for the buffer along 1-95 is also a continuation of the waiver granted with
Ordinance 14, 1997 and reaffirmed with Ordinance 10,2000. The City Code requires a 25 foot
buffer along 1-95. The existing parking lot on the DoubleTree Hotel site is within five feet of the
1-95 right-of-way. The applicant was proposing to continue that parking lot, and the existing
buffer, for approximately 50 feet to allow for the creation parking spaces and a drive aisle. At
the request of the DRC, the applicant has removed seven proposed parking spaces in this area to
allow for a continuos minimum buffer of 18 feet on the DoubleTree North site. It should be
noted that the currently approved site plan for the northern portion of the site only provided 8 feet
of buffer width along the 1-95 right-of-way. Because 1-95 is elevated as it parallels the subject
site, it is difficult for motorists to view the site. However, despite this, the applicant is proposing
to provide,plantings within the 1-95 right-of-way along the subject property. Further, the
applicant is providing a one foot high heavily landscaped berm on the DoubleTree North portion
of the site along the property’s 1-95 boundary in order to mitigate the effects of the reduced
buffer. In addition, there will be a landscape buffer between the parking lot and the dry detention
area, which will create a second line of landscape buffer for the site from 1-95.
G:WobsV)oubletrec NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submitted PlansSeptember 14,2006WrojectNa1~ative Sept 06.wpd
LCC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14, 2006 @ Page 12
Section 78-145, Table 12, of the City Code - Wavier to allow for an increase in the overall
building height to 64'-0" from the permitted 36'.
The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the height of the building to exceed the 36 foot/two
story limitation and to allow a 64'-0"/five-story self-storage building. The design of the
structures incorporates many of the design elements included in the City's suggested Design
Guidelines for Non-residential Development, which enhances the aesthetic value of the
structures. Further, these architectural details, which include several hip roof features, Bahama
shutters, faux windows, metal railings, bandings, and several vertical and horizontal breaks in the
architecture of the building, provide visual interest and help to reduce the perceived mass and
height of the building. It should also be noted that although the applicant is requesting to go from
two to five stories (an increase of three stories), the proposed building height is more reflective of
a three and a half story building (an increase of only 1 % stories). This is a result of the lesser
floor to ceiling ratio utilized by self-storage facilities. Moreover, the height of the proposed self-
storage building is consistent with or lower than the height of many of the existing buildings
within the city's 1-95 corridor. If fact the DoubleTree Hotel received a height waiver to allow a
92 foot tall building. The proposed buildings are also consistent with other buildings in the City
that have a similar high profile location.
The site plan and the architecture have been designed to minimize the effects of the development
of this site on the surrounding properties. By consolidating the square footage into taller
structures, less lot coverage is required and more open space can be provided. 0
The design of the site plan has taken into account the conflicting relationship of 1-95 and the
overpass to the existing DoubleTree Hotel. The overall design of the site plan was a challenge
due to the parcels unusual configuration, however, we believe that the redesign of the existing
parking areas for the hotel and the addition of the proposed new development accomplishes a
relationship that will benefit both portions of the site.
Section 78-285 Table 24 - Waiver to allow Three (3) Tenant Identification Signs (24 inch
letters) on the proposed drug store.
Section 78-285 Table 24 - Waiver to allow Two (2) Tenant Identification Signs (24 inch
letters) and One (1) Building Identification Sign (36 inch letters) on the proposed Self-
Storage Building, all to be located above the second floor.
Both of the buildings proposed for the DoubleTree North portion of the site will be occupied by a
single tenant; therefore, per the City Sign Code, each building is permitted one sign, whether it
be a building identification or tenant identification sign. The City Sign Code does not provide a
height restriction for the placement of building identification and/or tenant identification signs;
however, City staff has stated that City Council made the determination that building 0
identification signs and/or tenant identification signs can not be placed higher than the second 0 floor of a building.
G.Uobs\Doubletrce NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March ZOO6\Submined Plans\Seplember 14, 2006\Pro~eclNarrat1ve Sepi 06 wpd
LCC3S
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page 13
Building
Admiralty 11
The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow more than one building identification signs and/or
tenant identification signs for the self-storage building and for the drug store. The applicant is
also requesting a waiver from the limitations on the height of the building identification sign
and/or tenant identification sign for the self-storage building only.
Zoning Location Required Provided Development
Order
PUD with underlying Southeast corner of Maximum Top parapet wall Ordinance 14, 2000
General Commercial Military Trail and height Znd floor above the IO* (Approved June 5,
The applicant is requesting a wavier to allow three (3) tenant identification signs on the drug
store, one on the west elevation (facing Military Trail), one on the south elevation, and one on
the east elevation (facing 1-95 to the northeast).
The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow two (2) tenant identification signs and one (1)
building identification sign on the self-storage building. The two (2) tenant identification signs
will be located on the west elevation (facing Military Trail) and on the south elevation. The one
(1) building identification sign Will be located on the east elevation (facing 1-95). The applicant
is requesting a waiver to allow proposed building signage for the self-storage building to be
placed on the fifth floor.
The northern portion of the PUD is a 5.5 acre infill property, located in the “triangle” created by
1-95 and Military Trail. This configuration provides for various challenges to achieving the most
efficient use of the site and also results in reduced visibility of any buildings located on the site.
In order to maintain safe vehicular movements and good communication with the public, it is
important that the building signs be visible. The intent of the city sign code is “ to facilitate an
easy and pleasant communication between people and their environment”. The intent of the
requested waivers is to provide easy identification for the building and its retail tenants. The
signage requested by the applicant creates building identity and corporate image and for
buildings that sit at a major intersection in the City. Although the buildings are at a major
intersection, the visibility is blocked by the DoubleTree Hotel and encumbered by the elevated I-
95 overpass. Furthermore, the proposed locations of the requcsted signs are consistent with
several buildings (i.e. Admiralty 11, Sun-Trust Bank, Embassy Suites) in the surrounding area, as
well as several other buildings in the City of Palm Beach Gardens that have the principal tenant
wall signs on the top floor. Such signs were approved through waivers or variances.
The development regulations that have allowed others within the City to be granted waivers for
these wall sign locations have evolved over time. Many of the buildings around the PGA
Boulevard and Interstate 95 intersection have been granted approvals to raise the height of their
signs for the best visibility.
The following Table summarizes similar approvals for the placement of wall signs:
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006
Page 14
(CG-I)
PUD with underlying
General Commercial
(CG-I)
PGA Blvd.,
immediately east of
Wachovia building
Northeast comer of
Military Trail and
PGA Blvd.
Maximum
height Znd floor
line
Maximum 1 height 2ns floor
I line
,
I
Required I Location I Zoning Building Provided Development
Order
Ordinance 14, 1997
(approved April 3,
1997)
line ~~~
floor (waiver
provided)
DoubleTree
Hotel
Maximum
height 2"d floor
line
Top parapet wall
above the 6" floor
(waiver
provided)
Top parapet wall
above the 1 I*
floor (waiver
provided in PUD
approval)
Top parapet wall
above the 5Ih floor
(waiver
provided)
Top parapet wall
above the IO"
floor (waiver
provided)
above 2" floor
line (waiver
provided)
Mat-riott Hotel Maximum
General Commercial
PUD with underlying
95 and PGA Blvd. I height 2"6 floor
Southeast comer of 1- I Ordinance 20, 1987 I
I (CG-I) line I-
Sun-Trust
Bank
PUD with underlying
General Commercial
(CG-I)
Southwest comer of
Military Trail and
PGA Blvd.
Maximum
height 2"d floor
line
Resolution 159, I990
(approved Dec. 18,
1990)
Ordinance 14, 2000
(approved June 5,
2000)
Embassy
Suites
PUD with underlying
General Commercial
(CG-I)
Immediately east of
Admiralty I1 building
south side of PGA
Maximum
height 2"6 floor
line ! Blvd. I
Boston Steak
and Seafood
PUD with underlying
General Commercial
(CG-I)
Admiralty I1
(Embassy Suites),
south side of PGA
Maximum
height 2"d floor
line
Resolution 90, 1992
(approved Oct. 13,
1992)
(approved Mar. 19,
1998)
I Blvd. I
Planned Community
District (PCD) with
underlying of PO
Northeast comer of
Fairchild Gardens
Ave. And PGA Blvd.
Maximum
height 2& floor
line
Bank One
(a.k.a.
MacArthur
Center Rldg.
Palm Beach
Gardens
Medical
Pavilion
Virtual Bank
(a.k.a.
Medical Mall)
Top parapet wall
above the 4'h floor
(waiver
provided)
Top parapet wall
above the 2"' floor
(waiver
provided)
above top floor
(I OLh floor)
(waiver provided
with PUD
approval)
above top floor
(Yd floor) (waiver
provided)
Top parapet wall
above the 6" floor
(waiver
provided)
PUD/PCD with
underlying of PO
Northwest comer of
PGA Blvd. And
Fairchild Gardens
Maximum
height 2"d floor
line
Resolution 172, 2004
(approved Sept. 14,
2004)
PUDPCD with
underlying of PO
Northeast comer of
PGA Blvd. And
Alternate AIA
Maximum
height Zd floor
line
Resolution 1 18, 1994
(approved Sept. I,
1984)
Grand Bank
Building
Resolution 50, 2000
(approved July 6,
2000)
Planned Community
District (PCD) with
underlying of PO
PUD with an
underlying
Professional Office
(PO)
Northeast comer of
Lake Victoria and
PGA Blvd.
East side of U.S.
Highway 1,
immediately north of
the Oakbrooke Square
Golden Bear
Plaza
~
Resolution 16, 1990
(approved Feb. I,
2000) & Ordinance
29, I989 (approved
Oct. 18, 1989)
G:Uobs\Doiiblctrec NorthWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submined Plans\Septernber 14, 2006VrojeclNarralive Scpt 06.wpd
L.CC35
Project Narrative
DoubleTree North PUD
September 14,2006 0 page 15
The applicant believes that the requested waivers meet the purpose and intent of the Sign Code
by providing “easy and pleasant” communication that is compatible with its surroundings, and
promotes the safety, health and welfare of the community. The requested signs are consistent
with other signage approvals, the minimum size sign requested is appropriate to its activity and
expressive of the main tenant’s identity, and, with the placement on the top floor, visible.
G:Uobs\Doubletree NorlhWUD Amendment 4 - March 2006\Submirted Plans\Seprember 14,2006\ProjeclNarrativc Sepi 06.wpd
LCC35
July 19,2006
Mr. Joel Channing
Channbg Corporation
5520 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 3341 8
Re: DOUBLETREE NORTH PUD
Dear Joel:
Thank you for meeting with us again and sharing your vision for the development of the
land across from our entrance on Military Trail.
To reiterate, we liked all that we saw on the preliminary drawings. The mix of businesses
is good and will not overburden our area with traffic or any oiher problems.
Our concern (for 2.5 years actually) has been your entrance across from Garden Lakes
Drive. As it has been and continues to be, our entrance on Military Trail is dangerous.
Your complex using that place for ingresdegress will only make it worse. We have
requested that a traffic light be placed at Garden Lakes Drive and Military Trail many
times. We now understand that there will be a traffic light ihstalled, so we are happy to
hear about this.
We thank you for your creative and thoughtful plan for Doubletree North PUD. We
heartily approve of the plan you presented to us.
'Sincerely yours,
FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
W. K. Schmidt
President
cc: File
Board of Directors
Dan Clark, Interim Growth Management Administrator
~ -. . . . . .. . . . . ..I ~ . .. ... .... ... .. -_ .
z 0 1: '1
T; td I
I I I
I D
5
il 'I
#I 'I
i'
d
V c I!
4 8 c
e
L
h
I
I
?
DoubleTree PUD
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Master Site Plan
r
s
I
11
I il II
I! 'i i I
11 I I-
t
i t
P) -1 1
DoubleTree PUD
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Master Site Plan
Q
I
I
ilil
.".. .-
.&:I
I ii I= Doul-:>Tree North PUD
zdWBeach Gardens, Florida
scape Plan
0
4
1
e
I f 3 I I DoubleTree North PUD
e; Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
Landscape Plan
e
\
I DoubleTree North PUD
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
J Landscape Plan
I
:g
z =! 2:
G) m rn 0 rn
rn x
f
I 3( i/ I f 14
1 n f 2 a c 6 m b
i
' %,$
4
I DoubleTree North
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida I Planting Details
c c 1
n
e
0
i
n
If) I8
"4 f)
$;' E 5 Q
4
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida I Planting Details
. k
#
. ..
. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I I 1
I
I i
i
i
1 I
I
r)
e% I
I I
I I :Pi '1,
lh .
If-
P
CP C rl 1
8
c
. . , . . , ,..
1
"
.....A ... ~
A
I! I !I
-I I If +
I
I A
I
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 7--- --
\
I rl i I
-. .,.I.- * : .--
-1
;: Ill:
z
I
lg 1 I i I I
I I
e
> z
e
I!
I
I-------- -
f I
w
I
f
---T+
I
!
I
I
Y
i
,. I llllll
I IIIIII
@ I I 0
I
J
(D
C
"4
11
4
18 I
I . .
w .
37.0.
f 3oQK. c I
0
i
m
A \ f
4
i
* .
ri I
p
L
- ll I'
C
I
'- i
c II
ii
b I
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING & APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Sub j ecff Agenda I tem:
Ordinance 30,2006: Text Amendment to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE)
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A city-initiated request for the adoption
of amendments to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the City of Palm Beach Gardens
Comprehensive Plan to update the CIE to be consistent with the current City budget in accordance
with ChaDter 163.3 177. Florida Statutes.
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE
] Recommendation ta
Reviewed by:
PBigjManager
, Brad Wiseman
ngt. Ahn.
ara Irwin, AICP
an Clark, P.E.
Approved By:
Ronald M. Ferris
City Manager
DENY
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
Project
Manager sn/l
Stephen Mayer
Sr. Planner
[ 3 Quasi-Judicial
[ X ] Legislative
[ X 3 Public Hearing
Advertised:
Date: 10/13/06
Paper: PB Post
[XI Required
Affected parties:
[ ]Notified
[XI Not Required
FINANCE:
istrator -
Allan Owens
Costs: $NIA
Total
s- NIA-
Current FY
Funding Source:
[ 3 Operating
[XIOther NIA
Budget Acct.#:
NA
~~ PZAB Action:
PIA] Approved
WIA] App. wl conditions
[NIA] Denied
[ X ] Rec. approval
[ 3 Rec. app. w/ conds.
[ ] Rec. Denial
[NIA] Continued
to:
Attachments:
0 Ordinance 30, 2006
0 Data and Analysis
0 Resolution 180,2002
0 Resolution 196, 2004
0 Resolution 2 16, 2004
0 Resolution 166, 2004
0 Ordinance 8,2005
0 Line Item Descriptions
Other Reviewers:
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Page 2 of 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed petition is a City-initiated request to update the Capital Improvements Element (CIE)
to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements and Summary
of Capital Improvements Program, Tables 9A and 9B of the CIE are required to be updated annually
in accordance with Florida Statutes.
BACKGROUND
The proposed amendments to the CIE have been revised to be consistent with the recently approved
Capital Improvement Program in accordance with Chapter 163.3177, Florida Statutes. Staff has
attached the most recently approved CIE update to the staff report (please see attachment Ordinance
8,2005).
The City is required by Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes to maintain an updated Capital
Improvements Element well-coordinated with the rest of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Furthermore, staff must include the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements that are needed to
implement the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards are
achieved or maintained. Staff is also impelled to analyze the new mandatory general components of
the Schedule: fiscal responsibility and identification of proportionate fair share projects for
transportation.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT AMENDMENTS
Table 9A: This Table has been updated to be consistent with the current Capital Improvement Plan.
(Attached in Ordinance 30,2006)
Table 9B: This Table has been updated to support Objective 9.1.4 concerning Palm Beach County
School District Level of Service (LOS) and proposed school construction schedules.
(Attached in Ordinance 30,2006)
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff analyzed the following additional requirements of the annual CIE update and the consistency
with the City’s, County’s and State Comprehensive Plans, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
Fiscal Responsibility
The City is required to provide the revenue sources that will be used to fund each project and
supporting data must demonstrate that sufficient revenues are currently available or will be available
from committed funding sources for projects included in the first three years of the schedule. Staff
has indicated the funding sources as part of the schedule (Table 9A). The City has transportation
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Page 3 of 6
projects that are not funded by expected funding sources, such as developer agreements or impact
fees. The City has attached the Development Order for those development projects that will be the
expected funding source of those road improvement projects (see attached “Data and Analysis”). The
City demonstrates the anticipated funding sources and expenditures (Attached “Five Year
Projection”), which illustrates that the City maintains excess revenues for every year within the
planning period. Those projects funded by expected funding sources (such as ad valorem taxes) are
identified as being funded by general hds or impact fees and have been demonstrated to be
financially feasible.
Proportionate Fair Share
The City is expected to identify any project that utilizes a proportionate-share process with regard to
transportation concurrency. Currently, the City does not have any projects listed in the Schedule
utilizing a proportionate fair share process. Please by advised that staffis proposing a concurrent text
amendment to the Land Development Regulations in order to adopt a proportionate-share program as
required by Florida Statutes (please see Ordinance 3 1 , 2006).
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies contained
within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These changes described below provide for internal
consistency between the amended CIE and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation Element:
GOAL 2.1.1.: TO MAINTAIN SPECIFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ON THE
ROADWAYS.
Staff Comment:
Table 9A of the CIEproposed amendment describes several roadway links to be constructed within
the next 5 years to maintain the City’s LOS as growth occurs.
Recreation and Open Space Element:
Objective 7.1.1.: The City shall provide active and passive recreation facilities and areas for
residents of Palm Beach Gardens in a timely manner so as to comply with the LOS standards set
forth by this element and to maintain such compliance in subsequent years.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment fulf;lls the objective to provide Recreation and Open Space by defining the
year of the construction of certain infrastructure.
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Page 4 of 6
Future Land Use Element:
Objective 1.1.6.: The City’s economic base shall be expanded by promoting commercial and
industrial activities as planned and illustrated on the Future Land Use Map, and by ensuring adequate
sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment fuIJills the objective to provide utilities and services by defining the year of
the construction of certain infrastructure.
Public Safety Element
Objective 10.1.2.1 The City shall provide an initial emergency fire and rescue response to all of the
urban service area in an average time of 5.0 minutes or less. This standard shall be met in 90% of all
calls and shall be measured on a district basis. The rural service area shall have an average 8.0
minute response time.
Objective 10.1.2.2 The City shall maintain an acceptable service standardindex not to exceed 1,150
calls per officer per year to serve the urban area. Community policing philosophy shall be utilized in
the urban area and rural crime control strategies shall be utilized in the rural area.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment fuljlls the objective to provide emergenqfire, rescue andpolice response
by defining the year of the construction of certain infrastructure that facilitates those objectives.
CONSISTENCY WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with certain Goals and Objectives within the Palm
Beach County Comprehensive Plan as demonstrated by the following listed examples from that
Plan:
Trailsportation Element Goal 1. A Level of Service
It is the GOAL of Palm Beach County is to provide an interconnected multimodal transportation
system which moves people, goods, and services in a safe, efficient, convenient and economical
manner with minimal adverse impact to the environment.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with Palm Beach County’s goal. The CIE defnes the
year of the construction of certain roadway segments which allow the City and County to meet LOS
while having the development community pay its pro-rata share.
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Page 5 of 6
Capital Improvement Element Goal 1. Uses of the Capital Improvement Program
It is the GOAT., of Palm Beach County to utilize a capital improvements program to coordinate the
timing and to prioritize the delivery of public facilities and other capital projects; a program that
supports the growth management Goal, Objectives and Policies of the Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient utilization of its public facilities and financial
resources.
Staff Com m ent :
The proposed CIE amendment will allow the City to coordinate with the County on the timing of
facility, infrastructure and service improvements.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the overall Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan as demonstrated by the following listed goals:
Regional Goal 7.3 - Reduce vulnerability to disasters and increased public safety.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment includes the scheduled construction of a City thoroughfare roadway
which will allow for an additional arterial to the state designated evacuation roadways. The
proposed CIE also has ident$ed a schedule for certain public safety improvements to improve the
Police and Fire Departments.
Regional Goal 5.1 - Lives and Property which are less susceptible to disasters.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment includes scheduled improvements to the City j. drainage system to
reduce the number of high water and flooding incidents.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 187, Florida
Statiites)
The proposed land-use amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the State
Comprehensive Plan. The following State Goals and Policies are specific examples of that
consis ten cy:
Public Facilities - Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already
exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient
manner.
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Page 6 of 6
Staff Comment:
The CIE amendment is consistent with the State’s public facilities goal because we have developed
and will implement a schedule of public facility and infrastructure needs which includes the
anticipatedpnancing sources.
Transportation -Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management
of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and
other transportation modes.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment has scheduled the construction of local roadways that allow for
alternate routes to major attractors and act as reliever roads to Military Trail and PGA Boulevard,
both of which are state roads; thus reducing the need to expand either roadway.
NEARBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS:
On September 20, 2006,
Committee (IPARC) was
the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review
notified of the proposed amendment as a courtesy to our neighboring
communities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance 30,2006 based on the following:
0
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan; and
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies
of Palm Beach County’s Comprehensive Plan; and
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies
of Florida State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes.)
Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance 30, 2006, which provides for the adoption of the
proposed amendments to the Capital Improvements Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
ORDINANCE 30,2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City of Palm Beach Gardens
Comprehensive Plan on January 4,1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 8, 2005 on June 16, 2005, which
required an annual update of the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.31 77(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the Capital
Improvements Element to be reviewed on a yearly basis to make corrections, updates,
and modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, acceptance of facilities pursuant to
dedications, or changes to the date of construction of public facilities related to adopted
level-of-service standards; and
WHEREAS, changes to the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section
163.31 77(3)(b), Florida Statutes, are, for procedural purposes, not deemed to be
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Policy 9.1 .I .I. of the City’s Comprehensive Plan requires all capital
facility projects (renewal and replacement) needed to achieve and maintain the adopted
level of service and which are over $50,000 in estimated costs to be included in the Five-
Year Schedule of Capital Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to replace Table 9A and Table 9B of the Capital
Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Improvements
Element consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.1 .I .I. and Section 163.31 77(3)(b),
Florida Statutes: and
WHEREAS, on -,- , 2006, the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board, sitting as the
duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, recommended approval of this
amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this amendment is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan; and
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30, 2006
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Q 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
0
WHEREAS, the City has received public input and participation through public
hearings before the Local Planning Agency and the City Council in accordance with
Section 163.31 81, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Ordinance is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. The Capital Improvements Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan is hereby amended to replace existing Tables 9A and 9B with the following:
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
2
Date Prepared: October 3, 2006
Ordinance 30, 2006
Land 8 Improvements
Total
3
4
5
6
$400,000 $400,000 $350,000 Impact Fees
$1,061,600 $1,585,000 $602,000 $620,000 $470,000
Table 9A
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
(This replaces the existing Table 9A)
FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
- ~-
TRANSPORTATION
3
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
DRAINAGE
Stormwater Debt Payments $367,600
rota/ $367,600
-1 Table 9A continued ...
General
$368,700 $369,300 $369,200 $368,400 Fund
$368,700 $369,300 $369,200 $368,400 -
FIRE RESCUE
, SCBAEquipment $20,000 $65,000
Commander Simulator $so,000
Shop Equipment - $so,000
Fleet Maintenance Equipment $50,000
Brush TNck $175,000
Total $723,800 $2,678,800 $773,800 $618,800 $78,800
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Municipal Complex Soccer field replacement
Vehicles
rota/
General
General
G.F.llmpact
FeeS
G.F/lmoact
Faci/ifies
Maintenance
General
- $500,000 - Fund
Fleet
$470,Mx) $744,000 $748,000 $752,000 $756,000 Fund
Fleet Maint.
$470,000 $744,000 $1,248,000 $752,000 $756,000 ,
G.FAmpact
General
Funds
4
Date Prepared: October 3, 2006
Ordinance 30, 2006
Lake Catherine Dugouts
BRCRC Art Room
Oak Park Playground Replacement
Mirasol Park Courts Renovation
IKS (L RECREATION
$so,OoO
$100,000
$65,000
$2,899,000 I $3,685,000 I $4,045,000 $2,960,000 I
Slo0,OoO
$250,000
$75,000
$420,000
$2,000,000
$3,495,000
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
GoH C. Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
General
Fund
Impact Fees
General
Fund
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Grand Total All Elements $16,148,900 $9,707,900 $7,610,900 $7,326,700 $1 5,797,6011
5
Date Prepared: October 3, 2006
Ordinance 30, 2006
4
Table 9B
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
Summary of Capital Improvements Program
(This replaces the existing Table 9B)
N N .5 I
4 !
N N
0 '0
VI07 8s
00 00
6
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
.I Table 9B continued ...
...
0
P N
m
0
N
w N
w
0
0
0
0
P w
m N
-J
w A
N
VI
0
0
m
2
7
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
01 Table 9B continued ...
VI
N
0 P
0
W
W
0
2 m .E
0
u)
0
0
0 x
N
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
-J
N
N
N
m
2
a
Date Prepared: October 3, 2006
Ordinance 30,2006
.I Table 99 continued
-0
j!
s m
2
I I
9 j.
? L i t
I
2
9
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30. 2006
Table 9B continued.. .
2
10
.I Table 9B continued ...
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30, 2006
2
11
Date Prepared: October 3, 2006
Ordinance 30,2006
Table 9B continued.
2
? i i I
? E
A a
D
j: a
.I
U
i! s 8 J c%
3
8 U
W
w
e P
ol 5
L.!
N
N
U
I b
h
v .
U
h -$
k
N 0'
A. a
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30.2006
SECTION 3. The City’s Growth Management Administrator is hereby directed to
ensure that this Ordinance and all other necessary documents are forwarded to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs and other agencies in accordance with
Section 163.31 87( l)(c)2.b., Florida Statutes.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
13
Date Prepared: October 3,2006
Ordinance 30,2006
6 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
PASS ED this day of , 2006, upon first reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2006, upon
second and final reading.
ClN OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
BY:
Joseph R. Russo, Mayor
Jody Barnett, Vice Mayor
Eric Jablin, Councilmember
David Levy, Councilmember
Hal R. Valeche, Councilmember
ATTEST:
BY:
Patricia Snider, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
Christine P. Tatum, City Attorney
FOR AGAINST ABSENT
G:bttorney-share\ORDI"NCES\CIE - ord 30 2006-FI NAL.doc
14
DATA AND ANALYSIS
Staff analyzed the following additional requirements of the annual CIE update and the
consistency with the City’s, County’s and State Comprehensive Plans, and the Strategic
Regional Policy Plan.
Fiscal Responsibility
The City is required to provide the revenue sources that will be used to fund each project
and supporting data must demonstrate that sufficient revenues are currently available or
will be available from committed funding sources for projects included in the first three
years of the schedule. Staff has indicated the funding sources as part of the schedule
(Table 9A). The City has some transportation projects that are not funded by expected
funding sources, such as ad valorem taxes or impact fees. The City has attached the
Development Order for those development projects that will be the expected funding
source of those road improvement projects.
Staff demonstrates that the following roadway projects funded by developers are
financially feasible through conditions requiring surety or other instruments:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kyoto Gardens Drive, through Resolution 2 16,2004 and Resolution 180,2002
Parcel 5A N/S Segment, through Resolution 166,2005
Parcel 5B N/S Segment, through Resolution 2 16, 2004
Parcel 5B EN Segment, through Resolution 216, 2004
Parcel 3 1B - Military Trail to Central Blvd., through Resolution 196,2004
Parcel 3 1 B - EPB3c to Hood Road, through Resolution 196, 2004
The City demonstrates the anticipated funding sources and expenditures (Attached “Five
Year Projection”), which illustrates that the City maintains excess revenues for every
year within the planning period. Those projects funded by expected funding sources, or
those identified as being funded by general funds or impact fees, have been demonstrated
to be financially feasible.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies
contained within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These changes described below
provide for internal consistency between the amended CIE and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation Element:
GOAL 2.1.1.: TO MAINTAIN SPECIFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ON
THE ROADWAYS. a
Staff Comment:
Table 9A of the CIE proposed amendment describes several roadway links
constructed within the next 5 years to maintain the City’s LOS as growth occurs.
to be
Recreation and Open Space Element:
Objective 7.1.1.: The City shall provide active and passive recreation facilities and areas
for residents of Palm Beach Gardens in a timely manner so as to comply with the LOS
standards set forth by this element and to maintain such compliance in subsequent years.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment fulf;ls the objective to provide Recreation and Open Space by
dejning the year of the construction of certain infrastructure.
Future Land Use Element:
Objective 1.1.6.: The City’s economic base shall be expanded by promoting commercial
and industrial activities as planned and illustrated on the Future Land Use Map, and by
ensuring adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate
such growth.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment furflls the objective to provide utilities and services by dejhing
the year of the construction of certain infrastructure. e
Public Safety Element
Objective 10.1.2.1 The City shall provide an initial emergency fire and rescue response
to all of the urban service area in an average time of 5.0 minutes or less. This standard
shall be met in 90% of all calls and shall be measured on a district basis. The rural service
area shall have an average 8.0 minute response time.
Objective 10.1.2.2 The City shall maintain an acceptable service standard index not to
exceed 1,150 calls per officer per year to serve the urban area. Community policing
philosophy shall be utilized in the urban area and rural crime control strategies shall be
utilized in the rural area.
Staff comment:
The proposed amendment fulf;lls the objective to provide emergency fire, rescue and
police response by defining the year of the construction of certain infrastructure that
,facilitates those objectives.
CONSISTENCY WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with certain Goals and Objectives e
with& the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan as demonstrated by the
following listed examples from that Plan:
Transportation Element Goal 1. A Level of Service
It is the GOAL of Palm Beach County is to provide an interconnected multimodal
transportation system which moves people, goods, and services in a safe, efficient,
convenient and economical manner with minimal adverse impact to the environment.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with Palm Beach County’s goal. The CIE
defines the year of the construction of certain roadway segments which allow the City
and County to meet LOS while having the development community pay its pro-rata share.
Capital Improvement Element Goal 1. Uses of the Capital Improvement Program
It is the GOAL of Palm Beach County to utilize a capital improvements program to
coordinate the timing and to prioritize the delivery of public facilities and other capital
projects; a program that supports the growth management Goal, Objectives and Policies
of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan and encourages efficient utilization of its
public facilities and financial resources.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment will allow the City to coordinate with the County on the
timing of facility, infrastructure and service improvements.
e
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
The proposed CIE amendment is consistent with the overall Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan as demonstrated by the
following listed goals:
Regional Goal 7.3 - Reduce vulnerability to disasters and increased public safety.
Staff Co mm en t :
The proposed CIE amendment includes the scheduled construction of a City thoroughfare
roadway which will allow for an additional arterial to the state designated evacuation
roadways. The proposed CIE also has identified a schedule for certain public safety
improvements to improve the Police and Fire Department.
Regional Goal 5.1 - Lives and Property which are less susceptible to disasters.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment includes scheduled improvements to the City’s drainage
system to reduce the number of high water andjlooding incidents.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 187,
Florida Statutes)
The proposed land-use amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the State
Comprehensive Plan. The following State Goals and Policies are specific examples
of that consistency:
Public Facilities - Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that
already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely,
orderly, and efficient manner.
Staff Comment:
The CIE amendment is consistent with the State’s public facilities goal because we have
developed and will implement a schedule ofpublic facility and infrastructure needs which
includes the anticipated Jinancing sources
Transportation - Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the
management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates
highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes.
Staff Comment:
The proposed CIE amendment has scheduled the construction of local roadways that
allow for alternate routes to major attractors and act as reliever roads to Military Trail
and PGA Boulevard, both of which are state roads; thus reducing the need to expand
either roadway,
FIVE YEAR PROJECTION
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
Locally Levied Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeitures
Miscellaneous
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenue
EXPENDITURES
General Government
Public Safety
Physical Environment
Culture/Recreation
Capital Outlay
Debt Service
Operating Transfers
913012007 913 0120 0 8 913012009 913012010 91301201 1
$ 55,687,994 $ 58,897,903 $ 61,655,520 $ 66,081,787 $ 68,929,568
4,156,266 4,280,954 4,409,383 4,541,664 4,677,914
5,672,595 5,842,773 6,018,056 6,198,598 6,384,556
1,736,376 1,788,467 1,842,121 1,897,385 1,954,306
302,860 31 1,946 321,304 330,943 340,872
2,374,543 2,445,779 231 9,153 2,594,727 2,672,569
78,762 81,125 83,559 86,065 88,647
70,009,396 73,648,947 76,849,095 81,731,170 85,048,432
14,446,836 15,250,274 16,136,826 17,080,156 18,084,309
35,517,242 38,316,685 40,850,200 43,397,848 46,060,444
8,361,422 8,828,752 9,324,796 9,851,493 10,410,930
2,444,052 2,580,659 2,725,546 2,879,253 3,041,903
1,64931 1 4,365,643 2,923,918 3,601,030 2,438,541
3,379,194 3,289,899 3,284,168 3,294,840 3,291,605
629,584 654,767 680,958 708,196 736,524
tal Expenditures 66,427,841 73,286,679 75,926,412 80,812,816 84,064,256
ess Revenues (Expenditures) 3,581,554 362,268 922,683 918,353 984,177
Undesignated Fund Balance - Beginning 7,722,478 9,971,785 10,334,054 11,256,737 12,175,090
Reserved for Future Economic Incentive
Undesignated Fund Balance - Ending $ 9,971,785 $ 10,334,054 $ 11,256,737 $ 12,175,090 $ 13,159,267
(1,332,247)
(0
Fund Balance % of Expenditures 15.01% 14.10% 14.83% 15.07% 15.65%
Projected Operating Millage
Projected Deb t Millage
5.495 5.595 5.450 5.445 5.300
0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12
Projected Total Millage 5.655 5.745 5.59 5.575 5.42
Original Projections From 2005-06 6. I 5.905 5.97 6.11 N/A
2008 2009 2010 201 1 201 2
Total Commercial Impact Fees
Total Residential Impact Fees 2,614,787.00 2,614,787.00 2,614,787.00 2,617,926.00 257,398.00
Total Impact Fee Revenue 2,614,787.00 2,614,787.00 2,614,787.00 2,617,926.00 257,398.00
Capital Projects 1,593,000 3,520,000 2,100,000 2,820,000
Balance Carryforward 436.00 1,022,223.00 ’ 117,010.00 631,797.00 429,723.00
Current Year Change 1,021,787.00 (905,213.00) 514,787.00 (202,074.00) 257.398.00
Ending Balance 1,022,223.00 117,010.00 631,797.00 429,723.00 687,121 .OO
2008 2009 201 0 201 1 201 2
62,016.17 3731 8.72 18,666.48 Total Commercial Impact Fees
Total Residential Impact Fees 348,727.12 348,727.12 348,727.12 349,145.76 34,328.48
Total Impact Fee Revenue 410,743.29 386,245.84 348,727.12 349,145.76 52,994.96
Capital Projects 650,000 175,000 200,000 500,000
Balance Carryforward (239,256.71) (28,010.87) 120,716.25 (30,137.99)
Current Year Change (239,256.71) 21 1,245.84 148,727.12 (150,854.24) 52,994.96
Ending Balance (239,256.71) (28,010.87) 120,716.25 (30,137.99) 22,856.97
2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012
Total Commercial Impact Fees 141,619.27 89,764.50 83,336.12
Total Residential Impact Fees 400,673.00 400,673.00 400,673.00 401,154.00 39,442.00
Total Impact Fee Revenue 542,292.27 490,437.50 400,673.00 401,154.00 122,778.12
Capital Projects 1,270,000.00 180,000.00 500,000.00
Debt Service 75,659.00 74,270.00
Total Expenditures 1,345,659.00 254,270.00 500,000.00
Balance Carwfoward 470.1 10.00 1333,256.73) 197.089.23) (196.416.23) 204.737.77
Current Year Change
Ending Balance
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Impact Fee Analysis by Fund
5 Year Projections
.. I.
(803i366.73) ‘2361167.50’ (99,327.00) 401,154.00’ i22:778.12
(333,256.73) (97,089.23) (196,416.23) 204,737.77 327,515.89
2008 2009 201 0 201 1 201 2
Total Commercial Impact Fees 610,679.14 326,578.50 170,720.36
Total Residential Impact Fees 1,225,343.00 1,225,343.00 1,225,343.00 1,226,814.00 120,622.00
Total Impact Fee Revenue 1,836,022.14 1,551,921.50 1,225,343.00 1,226,814.00 291,342.36
Capital Projects 500,000.00
Debt Service 702,372.00 702,802.00 691,677.00 699,440.00 700,490.00
Total Expenditures 1,202,372.00 702,802.00 691,677.00 699,440.00 700,490.00
Balance Carryforward 6,956,433.00 7,590,083.14 8,439,202.64 8,972,868.64 9,500,242.64
Current Year Change
Ending Balance
633,650.14 849,119.50 533,666.00 527,374.00 (409,147.64)
7,590,083.1 4 8,439,202.64 8,972,868.64 9,500,242.64 9,091,095.00
E 0
0
u) c
I- *
2 *
1 IN co
OW I loco Nul
om ' loco Nlo
om ' loco Nlo
om I loco Nlo
a a,
rl 3
6 3
3 3 0
0 0 0
9 9 0
&&&& aaaa
Y
N
N z
r r 0 N
0
0 N
r
0) 0 0 N
(D 0 0 N
In U
p: 8
2 ii
Q 0
0
.- -
n
5 '3 :t a:
Lp:
IY
0- v)
maas mcoou
oooc oooc
te
moor ~mor
d a- 0- . omrnu
m--u
te
e
Palm Beach County, Florida
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION 180,2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND MALL PROPERTIES, LTD., PGA GATEWAY, LTD., RCA
CENTER If OF FLORIDA, CLC AND PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA, LLC
FOR THE ASSURED CONSTRUCTION OF LINKAGE ROADS AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO EXECUTE SAME;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILIW, AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Mall Properties, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, PGA Gateway, Ltd., a
Florida limited partnership, RCA Center II of Florida, LLC. a Florida limited liability
company, and PGA North II of Florida, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Owners")
are the Owners of certain parcels of property within the City ("Properties"): and
WHEREAS, in lieu of paying all or portion of the City's road impact fee, Owners seek to
construct roadways depicted on the City Center Linkages Plan running through or
immedlately adjacent to the Properties ("Linkage Roadways") and to receive credit against
the amount of road impact fees that would otherwise be due to the City; and
WHEREAS, through the enactment of Resolution 25,2001, the City Council approved the
pooling of road impact fees for the Properties; and
WHEREAS, the City and Qwners wish to provide for a method by which the pooled impact
fees will be credited and for the assured construction of all the Linkage Roadways within
a time frame established by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the adoption of this Resolution tobe in the best interests
of the residents and citizens of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ClTYCOUNClLOFTHECtTYOF PALM
B€ACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT:
SECTION 1: The foregoing 'WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confinned as
being true and correct and are hereby made a sp.ecific part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens hereby approves the
Agreement for Assured Construction of Linkage Roads between the City and Owners
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and authorizes the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City and take all action
necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement.
I
I
I
I I
i
I i
t
i
i
-1-
. . . .. - . z. . ... !
2
813oK 15893 PcKiE 1448
SECTION 3: All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4 : If any clause, section, other part or application bf this Resolution is held by
any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application,
it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution.
.. Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
AND APPROVED THIS
_. ,. ; . V@iat I have approved
VOTE: AYE NAY ABSENT
W MAYOR JABLIN ---
/ VICE MAYOR SABATELLO ---
COUNCILMEMBER CLARK I/
COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO v
COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO
Date prepared: September 23,2002
I
-2-
. .. ....
BOW 15893 PAGE 1449
Meeting Date: October 3,2002
Resolution: 180,2002
EXHIBIT A
__ ... . - -. .... . .. . .. , ...._ . . ~ . .._._.,_____ __ .
. - ,
L
.a 0 PGREFMENT FOR ASSURED CONSTRUCTION Of
LINKAGE ROADS
("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the$& day
2002, by and between the City of Palm Beach Gardens, a Florida
Gateway, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, RCA Center II of Florida, LLC; a Florida limited
liability company, and PGA North II of Florida, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
(collectively "Owners").
and Mall Properties, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, PGA
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in lieu of paying all or portion of the City's road impact fee, section 78-
99(d)(l) of the City Code of Ordinances allows a property owner seeking to develop its
property to construct certain road improvements identified in the City Center Linkages Plan,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'V'! and incorporated herein; and
Exhibit "2" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property" or "Properties"); and
,
/ WHEREAS, Owners own certain properties located in the City, as described on
#
WHEREAS, in lieu of paying City road impact .fees for development of the
Properties, Owners seek to construct the roadways depicted on the City Center Linkages
Plan running through or immediately adjacent to the Properties, as listed on Exhibit "3"
attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Linkage Roadways"), and, to receive credit
against the amount of road impact fees that would othewise be due to the City; and
WHEREAS, in circumstances where the cost of the improvements exceeds the total
amount of road impact fees due, section 78-99(6)(5) of the City Code of Ordinances
authorizes the City Council to allow property owners constructing such road improvements
to pool impact fees for multiple developments; and
0
WHEREAS, through the enactment of Resolution No. 25,2001, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and incorporated herein, the City Council approved the
pooling of impact fees for the Properties; and
WHEREAS, the City and Owners wish to provide for a method by which the pooled
impact fees will be credited and for the assured construction of all the Linkage Roadways
to be constructed by Owners; and
WHEREAS, in order to effectuate the timely construction of the Linkage Roadways
without regard to the actual date of development of each Property, the Owner of Parcel 5k
has agreed to dedicate to the City the right-of-way for the construction of the Kyoto
Gardens Drive extension, and, in exchange, the City has agreed to convey to the Owner
-1-
i
i I i i
I
i I i I
BOOK 15893 PAGE 1451
of Parcel 27.12 the right-of-way for the construction of the Lake Victoria Gardens Drive
extension to effectuate the dedication of a perpetual public easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual terms
and conditions set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and Owners hefeby covenant and
agree as follows:
A. Recitals.
The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. lmoact Fee Credits.
1. Owners shall apply for City road impact fee credits for construction of each
Ordinances. These credits shall apply collectively to the Properties specifically identified
, of the Linkage Roadways in accordance with section 78-90(~)(3) of the City Code of
in Resolution 25, 2001 and more particularly described in Exhibit "2." r
#
/
2. The City shall establish a road impact fee credit bank ("Credit Bank") based
on the total amount of creditable costs for the construction of each of the Linkage
Roadways, as certified by the City Engineer in accordance with sections 78-99(c) and 78-
99(d) of the City Code of Ordinances. Once the City Engineer certifies the cost of a
Linkage Roadway, the certified cost shall be added to the Credit Bank. At the time building
permits are issued for the Properties, the road impact fees due for each permit shall be
deducted from the Credit Bank.
3. The City acknowledges that road impact fees for development of the
Properties have been or will be paid to the City prior to the establishment of the Credit
Bank. The City and Owners agree that any City road impact fees paid with respect to the
Properties prior to the establishment of the Credit Bank shall be deemed to have been paid
to the City in escrow and shall be available for reimbursement to Owners to pay toward the
certified cost of the Linkage Roadways. Any sums to be reimbursed to the Owners shall
be reimbursed at the time of building permit for the Linkage Roadway improvements.
4. Owners acknowledge and agree that the total impact fee credits available
shall not exceed the amount established by the Credit Bank. If the total amount of City
road impact fee credits available, as established by the Credit Bank, is less than the total
amount of impact fees due from the Properties in the aggregate, Owners shall be
responslble for the balance of any City road impact fees in accordance with all City Code
requirements. Once all impact fees have been paid for the Properties, the balance in the
Credit Bank shall be reduced to zero and the City shall have no additional obligation to
Owners.
-2- !
I
, BOOK 15893 PCwjE I452
5. Owners shall not assign any portion of the Credit Bank to persons or entities
not a party to this Agreement without prior written approval of the City Manager or his/her e designee.
6. Owners shall provide surety to the City to ensure the completion of ail
Linkage Roadways in accordance with the schedule established by the City Engineer as
fully set forth in Section C below.
C. Construction Schedule.
1. In accordance with section 78-99(d)(3) of the City Code of Ordinances, and
as a condition precedent to the utilization of road impact fee credits by Owners, the City
Engineer has established a timetable for the commencement of construction for the
Linkage Roadways. These fixed dates are established in Exhibit "1." Owners shall
commence construction of the Linkage Roadways by the first day of the month and year
I identified on the Linkages Plan.
t-
# a. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "comrhence construction" shall /
mean the actual installation of infrastructure.
b. The City Engineer may extend the commencement of construction date for
any Linkage Roadway for a period not to exceed six (6) months, provided
that Owners demonstrate that they have proceeded in good faith to obtain
all necessary permits and approvals and have encountered non self-imposed
delay. Owners must request any such extension in writing at least one (1)
months prior to the commencement of construction date established by the
City Engineer or Owners' ability to make such a request shall be waived.
e
2. As an additional condition precedent to the utilization of road impact fee
credits, Owners shall, within thirty (30) days of the certification of the total cost of each
Linkage Roadway by the City Engineer, provide surety to ensure that construction of the
Linkage Roadway commences in accordance with the timetable established in Exhibit "1"
and in an amount equal to one hundred and ten percent (110%) of the certified cost
estimate established by the City Engineer for each Linkage Roadway.
a. The City shall be entitled to draw down on the surety if Owners: fail to
commence construction of any Linkage Roadway within the established time
frame, subject to any time extensions granted by the City Engineer in
accordance with section C.l .b; fail to complete construction within twelve
(I 2) months of commencement; or are in material breach and default of this
Agreement and fail to cure same within fifteen (15) days,
-3-
a-
f
r
/ *
BOOK 15893 PRGE l4S3
b. The form of surety provided by Owners to the City pursuant to this
Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City and in the same format
as surety generally required for infrastructure improvements in accordance
with section 78-461 of the City Code of Ordinances.
D. Convevance of ProPerty.
1. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the City shall
transfer to the Owner of Parcel 27.12, by quit-claim deed, the right-of-way for Lake Victoria
Gardens Avenue, as conveyed to the City by Northern Palm Beach County Improvement
District ("Northern").
a. The City makes no warranties whatsoever with respect to the Property or the
existence of any encumbrances.
The City and Owners acknowledge that the right-of-way to be conveyed by
the City is subject to an easement granted to Seacoast Utility Authority
immediately prior to the conveyance by Northern to the City.
b.
2. Within sixty (60) days of the execution of this Agreement, Owners shall
dedicate to the City by plat a one hundred and ten foot (1 10') wide right-of-way traversing
Parcel 5A, to be utilized for the extension of Kyoto Gardens Drive from Alternate A-1-A to
Military Trail.
a. The City shall work with Owners to determine the precise location for the
roadway and shall make every effort to accommodate such alignment during
the development approval process for Parcel 5A. However, the City and
Owners acknowledge that the final decision with respect to the ultimate
alignment of the right-of-way is within the discretion of the City Council.
Should it be necessary to alter the alignment of the roadway, Owners shall
be responsible for the cost of any replat.
b. To the extent necessary, Owners shall accommodate the drainage for such
roadway within Parcel 5A and grant to the City whatever easements are
necessary to effectuate such drainage.
Upon dedication of the roadway to the City, Owners shall have use of such
roadway for the development of Parcel 5A in accordance with all applicable
City requirements and regulations for the construction of all improvements
thereon and the installation of utilities.
c.
-4 -
. .+ '
..
-: ..:. .< . . . .. ::. ... . :. : ..... .. . . : .. .. .I..
,>; .:...:. ''.'A,;.:, ~ .. .. , .. ~.. . . . . , __ .. ': .. ..' ., .. . , <. .% . . .. , ... .-..;.. ' . .:.<- . , . . .. . ... A-.
BOOK 15893 PcKjE 1454
E. nment.
1. This Agreement may be assigned by Owners to successors in title to the
Properties.
2. Owners shall notify the City in writing of any change in ownership of the
Properties within thirty (30) days ofconveyance. Any assignnlent of Owners' rights and
obligations pursuant ta the terms of this Agreement shall not be effective until Owners
provide the City with written notification of such assignment.
F. Miscellaneous irovisions.
1. The provisions of this Agreement may not be amended, supplemented,
waived, or changed orally. Any such amendment, supplement, waiver, or change shall be
in writing signed by each party to this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
All of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, whether so expressed or
not, shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties and
their respective legal representatives, successors, and permitted assigns.
8 r hereof.
1
# 2.
3. All notices or other communications required, contemplated or permitted
under this Agreement shall be in wilting and shall be hand delivered or mailed via overnight
delivery to the following addresses:
A s to the City:
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Attention: Ron Ferris, City Manager
copy to:
,
Watterson & Hyland, P.A.
4100 RCA Boulevard, Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Attention: Len Rubin, City Attorney
-5-
As to the Owners:
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.,
4300 Catalfumo Way
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Attention: Daniel S. Catalfumo
PGA Gateway, Ltd.
a Florida limited partnership
Attention: Daniel S. Catalfumo
4300 Catalfumo Way
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
. ._ . -.- -- ... ... BOW la93 PFwiE 1455
LBFH, Inc.
2090 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Attention: Dan Clark, City Engineer
RCA Center II of Florida, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
Attention: Daniel S. Catalfumo
4300 Catalfumo Way
Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410
PGA North II of Florida, LLC
a Florida limited liability company
Attention: Daniel S. Catalfumo
4300 Catalfumo Way
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Any party may change an address by sending written notice of such to the other parties,
in which case that new address shall be utilized.
This Agreebent shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State of
Beach County, Florida. No remedy conferred upon any party is intended to be exclusive;
any other remedy, and each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in
addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or
equity or by statute or otherwise. No single or partial exercise by any party of any right
power, or remedy hereunder shall preclude any other or-further exercise thereof.
I
r 4.
t Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be in Palm /
5. If any part of this Agreement is contrary to, prohibited by or deemed invalid
under applicable law or regulation, such provision shall be inapplicable and deemed
omitted to the extent so contrary, prohibited or invalid, but the remainder hereof shall not
be invalidated thereby and shall be given full force and effect so far as possible.
6. The effective date of this Agreement shall be as of the date it has been
executed by all parties hereto.
7. A party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be
construed as a waiver of the right to later enforce that or any other provision of this
Agreement.
8. Only the parties to this Agreement shall have standing to enforce it.
9. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an Original, and all of which together shall constitute one (1) and the same
instrument.
-6-
... . . ' : :. ... .... ., . .... ... .:,; ../. ..... i ,- ,&..'A . . _. ' . .L. I; ... . ... .... .... . .... -. - .. .. .. .. .. ,. *.. ~
*..-,; i..::?$:. ..> ',.: .?&tis ; ....wy
.
I
BOOK 15893 PRGf 1556 I
IO. The parties acknowledge that each has shared equally in the drafting and
preparation of this Agreement and, accordingly, no Court or Administrative Hearing Officer
construing this Agreement shall construe it more strictly against one party than the other
and every covenant, term and provision of this Agreement shall be construed simply
according to its fair meaning. The headings contained in this Agreement are for
convenience of reference only, and shall not limit or otherwise affect in any way the
meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
1 I. Failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement shall be considered
a material breach and a default which shall entitle the parties to all rights and remedies at
law or equity. Prior to initiating any action for an alleged breach, an initiating party shall
notify all other parties of the alleged breach at least fifteen (1 5) days prior to initiating such
action.
12. It is hereby understood and agreed that in the went any lawsuit in the judicial
system, federal or state, is brdught to ehforce compliance with this Agreement or interpret
same, or if any administrative proceeding is brought for the same purposes, the non-
prevailing party pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including
appellate fees and costs.
I
.
r
/
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
the day and year first above written.
.s .&?.
undersigned have hereunto set their hand and seals
ARDENS, a Florida
-7-
I
.. . ..,
, ,, ,.,, ';> .. i. . .. ..:: " i... L..' .. .2-2.2_L-I. -
... . ..:. . . . .. I . . ,. ,_ .. .... :. . , ... . ,.- ,... .. ."' ._ ..... .&. . -
. . . .. -.- I
I BOOK is893 PRGE i457
Owners:
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.,
a Florida limited partnership
By: Catatfumo Management and Investments, Inc.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNN OF PALM BEACH
BEFORE ME, a person authorized to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
Daniel S. Catalfumo, as president of Catalfumo Management and Investment, Inc., as
b
PGA GATEWAY, LTD.1
a Florida limited partnership
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
Diver Management, Inc., as general partner
I I
foregoing instrum 3 day of
personally known or produced
I I
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
BOOK 15893 WE 1458
RCA CENTER II OF FLORIDA, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
STATE OF FLORIDA
PGA NORTH WOF FLORIDA, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
By: PGA Gateway, Ltd., role member
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
take acknowledgments, personally appeared
of Diver Management, Inc., as general partner
o executed the
rumentthis 3 day0 e is peCsaRaHy
of POA Gateway, Ltd., as sole memb
~~~i~~~ produced as identification.
I1 of Florida, LLC,
-
i
I
I
i
, I
!
;
I
I !
!
?
.... _.
BOOK 15893 PW 1459
EXHIBIT 2
City Center Linkages Plan and Timetable
..
. ...
..
i
I
I i
I
i
i
I
1
I I
i
I
i
I
I i
I I
e
e
-l.
Ill 111
19fl XXId Ebffil wx)B
BOOK 15893 Pa 1462 I
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 2
Legal Descriptions of Properties
Parcel 28.01 , according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 90, Page 119-121 of the
Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Parcel 27.03, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 88, Pages 1 16-1 17 of the
Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Parcel 27.04, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 90, Page 1-2 of the
Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. .
par- and parceL27.0$ according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 88,
Page 104-1 05 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Parcel 37.10Q, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 88, Pages 118-1 19 of
the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Parcel 27.12 I inclwa rcel27.141, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book
94, Pages 40-42 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
parcel 5A (attached) ..
Parcel 5B (attached)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM is executed this 39 day of December, 2004 by and
between PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC, a florida limited liability company, RCA
CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PGA GATEWAY,
LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and MALL PROPERTIES, LTD. a Florida limited
partnership (sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Catalfumo Entities") and the
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
("City").
1. The Catalfumo Entities and the City entered into a certain Agreement for Assured
Construction of Linkage Roads dated October 3, 2002 (the "Assured
Construction Agreement"). The City previously sued the Catalfumo Entities for
specific performance of the Assured Construction Agreement, which lawsuit will
be stayed pending completion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements described below.
2. RCA Center I1 of Florida LLC has obtained from the City, Site Plan Approval
pursuant to Resolution 216, 2004 (the "PUD Approval") for a certain planned unit
development also known as Parcel 5B.
3. Pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations and the PUD Approval, the
Catalfumo Entities are required to construct a 2-lane road from Alternate AIA to
Military Trail known as Kyoto Gardens Drive Extension ("Kyoto Drive
Improvements"). The City has requested that Kyoto Drive Improvements be
constructed as a 4-lane road to provide for future road capacity and the City has
agreed to fund the difference in cost between a 2-lane road and a 4-lane road
concurrently with the construction of the Kyoto Drive Improvements as set forth
on Exhibit "A" attached hereto
0
4. Catalfumo Entities and City agree that it is critical that construction of the Kyoto
Drive Improvements commence on or before March 31 , 2005 I The understanding of the parties is as follows:
1. Catalfumo Entities will contract separately for the construction of the bridge
portion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements and the road portion of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements located within the City's Road Right-of-way in order to expedite the
commencement of construction, it being understood that the bridge portion of the
construction will be able to commence most expeditiously in this fashion. Catalfumo
Entities shall commence construction of the bridge portion of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements on or before March 31, 2005 and shall use its best efforts to complete
the Kyoto Drive Improvements prior to December 31,2005 and in any event as soon as
practicable thereafter. In order to assist Catalfumo Entities in completing the Kyoto
Drih Improvements and the other linkage roads through Parcels 5A and 5B, City shall
use its best efforts to review and permitt road plans submitted by Catalfumo Entities in
connection with said road work and as soon as practicable issue work permits as
necessary to allow Catalfumo Entities to meet the required time schedules.
2. Catalfumo Entities shall be responsible for the cost of constructing a 2-lane
divided (similar to the 5B Roadway approved by Resolution 216, 2004 PUD Approval)
road only with the City obligated to pay the increased costs caused by the City's
requirement that the Kyoto Drive Improvements provide 4 lanes when first constructed.
City shall also be obligated to pay for the cost of the FEC railroad crossing and related
improvements. The City agrees to reimburse the Catalfumo Entities its share of the
monthly contractor invoice in accordance with the Estimates attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" (as contemplated by Paragraph 13a of Resolution 216) exclusive of the City's
payments to the FEC.
I
3. Catalfumo Entities shall provide a Bond satisfactory to the City Manager in the
estimated amount required to construct its 2-lane share of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements in a format acceptable to the City Attorney and as required in PUD
Approval. Catalfumo Entities hereby agrees that Should the City call the bond and
assume the responsibility for construction of the roadway; the City may use a two
square acre area of land immediately north of the north Kyoto Gardens Drive Right-of-
Way line (in the vicinity of the bridge) for the purposes of draining the road. Further, this
agreement maybe used to demonstrate to permitting agencies that water quality
requirements maybe met within that two acre area and that the City has the legal rights
to excavate and use that acreage for drainage purposes.
4. Catalfumo Entities and its contractors shall Comply with all aspects of the
construction requirements as set forth in the Stipulated Final Order and other related
documents for Kyoto Gardens Drive on both the east and west sides of the FEC
trackbed. All correspondence with FEC will be copied to the City Attorney and all phone
calls to FEC will be logged and a call log will be forwarded to the City with each request
for reimbursement of construction costs.
5. Catalfumo Entities shall be entitled to impact fee reimbursements and credits
which shall be pooled and credited in accordance with the Assured Construction
Agreement for both the bridge and road improvements provided the projects are
completed within the times established in this agreement.
6. City shall be entitled to a right of approval of the contractors selected for
construction of the Kyoto brive Improvements. If possible, the contractors selected
shall be ones that have current, ongoing, public construction projects that the City can
"piggy-back' onto in order to satisfy the waiver requirements for the public bidding of the
City's portion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements. It is acknowledged that, in any event, it
is not practicable to obtain separate contractors to bid on the expansion of the Kyoto
Drive Improvements from 2-lane road improvements required to be constructed by the
Catalfumo Entities to the 4 lanes requested by the City. I
!
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum of
Understanding as of the date set forth above. a
Witness PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC,
By: Diver Management, Inc.,
Its general partner
Daniel S. Cat mol President
Witness RCA CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.
a
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
- Estimate -
Kvob Gardens D&e Construction Costa Siunmarv
IlBM
2-Lane Road Construction Cost
2-Lane Bridge eonStruction Cost
Landscaping Q Irrigation
rc2sT
$ 2,490,000
$ 360,475
ti 1,094,875
Total %Lane Option Cost: $ 3,945,350
4-Lane Road Construction Cost
4-Lane Bridge Conskudion Cost
Landscaping Q Irrigation
ToW4-LureOptionCoet: $ 4,838,301
Upgrade of Road to Four Lanes Construction C6st $ 142,951
Upgrade of Bridge to Pour Lanes Construction Cost $ 750,000
Sub-Total Construction Cost of Upgrade to 4 Lanes: $ $92,951 0 Upgrade to 4 Lanes Engineering/Survey/Geotech Costs $ 21,982 112 of item costs
Upgrade to 4 Lanes Clearing Cost $ 16,425 t/2ofitemmst
Upgrade to Pour Lanes Military Trail Signalization Cost $ 225,000 112 of item cost ..
Sub-Total Design, Clearing & Signal Upgrade Cost: $ 263,407
Sub-Total Design & Construction Upgrade Cost! $ 1,156,358
15% Contigency: $ 173,454
15%Administtation: $ 173,454
Bond Cost (2%): $ 30,065
Total Cost of Upgrade to 4 Lancs: $ 1633,331
s -
Notes: 1. 'Ihe above figures do not include the Cost of design and construction
of the FEC railroad crossing and related improvements which ate to be
paid 100% by the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
2.-==w-wl-q- wv
3. Estimated costs are based on 2004 materials and labor &.
EXHIBIT "A"
PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BC,.D
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETION I
Know all men by these presents:
That we, PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florlda limlted liability company, RCA
CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PGA GATEWAY
LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and MALL PROPERTIES, LTD., a Florida limited
partnership (hereinafter called “PRINCIPAL“), and Liberty Mutual Insurance‘Company,
authorized to do business in the State of Florida, (herelnafter referred to as “SUR€lY)
are held and firmly bound unto the Clty of Palm Beach Gardens (herelnafter called the
“CITY”), a politicat’ subdivision of the State of Florida, in the full and just sum of
Dollars ($ 4,734,420.00
Four Hillion Seven Hundred Thiity Four Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty and OO/lOO---
) lawful money of the United
States of America, to be paid to the CITY to which payment will and truly be made, we
a
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, adrnini6trator6, successors and assigns, jointly and
severally, flrmly by these presents:
WHEREAS, the above bound PRINCIPAL has executed an agreement for
Assured Construction of Linkage Roads with the City dated October 3, 2002 (“Assured
Construction Agreement) and RCA CENTER I1 OF FLORIDA LLC, has obtained from
the CITY, Site Plan approval pursuant to Resolution 216 , 2004 (hereinafter called the
"PUD Approval") for a certain planned unit development known as Parcel 5B and has
agreed as a condition of the Assured Construction Agreement at the PUD Approval to
complete the Required Improvements (as hereinafter defined).
Required Improvements consist of constructing a two-lane portion of a four-lane road
known as the Kyoto Gardens Drive Extension (Resolution 216, Section 4 Engineering
Item 14a.).
WHEREAS, the
MHERWS, this Payment and Performance Bond for Infrastructure Completion -
Four Hilllon Seven Hundred Thirty Four Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty and OO/lOO--
(herelnafter called the 'Bond") Is iq the full and just sum of
Dollars ($ 4 *734 ~420900 ) lawful money of the United States of America, &id sum
being the estimated cost to complete the responsiblllty of PRINCIPAL for its share of
the construction of the Required Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the SURETY agrees as follows:
1.
2,
The foregolng recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
The condition of this obligation of SURETY is such that if the PRiNClPAL
shall, in all respects, fully comply with, carry out, construct, erect and build
its share of the Required Improvements in substantial conformity with the
plans, specifications and schedules covering said work and such
approved additions, amendments or alterations as may be made in the
plans, specifications and schedules for said work (it being understood that
the SURETY shall remain bound under this Bond although not informed of
any such additions, amendments or alternations), and shall commence
and complete all of said work in accordance with the Contract for
construction of the work and, provided it receives prompt payment from
the City for the City's share of the cost of the work, or is otherwise
compensated by the Clty as the parties may subsequently mutually agree
In writing may promptly make payment to all persons supplying the
PRINCIPAL, Ita contractors or subcontractors with any labor, services,
material and/or supplies used directly or indirectly by them or some or any
of them in the prosecution of said work, then this obllgation has be void,
otherwlse remaining in full force and effect.
WREN, for conslderation recelved, hereby stipulates and agrees that no
changes, extenglons of tlme, alterations or addltlons to the work or the
plans, specifications and schedules covering the same, or in the term or
mode of payment for-the same, shall In anywise affect liability or.payment
under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notlce of any and all such
changes, extenslons of time, alterations and additions to the work or to
the plans, spscfflcatlons and schedules covering said work.
The principal amount of this Bond will be reduced, from time to tlme, only
3.
4.
as and when (a) the PRINCIPAL provides the CITY with evidence of
partial completion and payment costs and ekpenses of the Project
reasonably satisfactory to the CITY, such as by way of example, release
of lien and certlflcation of payment, and (b) the PRINCIPAL provides the
CITY an engineering estimate of costs to complete the Required
Improvements, or (c) CITY draw8 down payments from SURETY under
this Bond in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5c below. The
PRINCIPAL shell provide the CITY wlth a list of all contractors,
subcontractors and material contractors, subcontractors and material
suppliers, together with a certificate of the general contractor certifying
such list is complete. The CITY shall not have the obligation to reduce the
prlnclpal amount of this SURETY, if it ha8 reasonably concluded the costs
of completion wlll exceed the originel cost estlmate or evidence of
payment and partial completion is not satisfactory to the CITY. To obtain
a reduction in the principal sum of the Bond, the PRINCIPAL shall obtain
from the CITY authorization for a reduction, which shall be forwarded to
the SURETY. Any reduction in Bond value shall be considered effected
and binding agalnst CITY.
5. Whenever the PRINCIPAL shall have failed or refused to commence or
complete the said work by the dates set forth In the Contracts for the
work, the CITY may declare the PRINCIPAL'to be in default and the
SURElY may remedy the default within thirty days, or shall within thirty
days!
a. Complete or begin completion of the said work in accordance with
the specificatlons and schedules covering said work and such
approved additions, amendments or alterations as may be made in
the plans, specifications and schedules covering said work,
completing the work in a prompt manner, or
Obtain a bid or bids for submlssiorl to the CITY for completion of
said work in accordance with the plans, specfficatlons and
schedules covering said work, and such approved additions,
amendments or alterations as may be made in the plans,
specifications and schedules for said work, and upon determination
by the CITY and the SURETY of the lowest responsible bidder,
arrange for a contract between such bidder and the SURETY, and
pay to such bidder as work progresses (event should there be 8
default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts
of completion arranged under this paragraph) the funds required to
b.
..
.I
pay the costs of completion of said repair or maintenance work as
herein described.
Alternathrely, the parties hereto understand that upon default by
PRINCIPAL, CITY may elect to assume the contracts for the
construction of the work, in which event CITY shall be entitled to
draw from SURETY the amounts due on a monthly basis in order
for CITY to cover PRINCIPAL‘S share of the cost of the work
regardless of the fact that the cost of the Required Improvements
may exceed the amount of thls Bond, If City elects to assume the
contracts for construction of the Requlred Improvements, this Bond
shall be modified as necessary to comply with the provisions of
F.S. 255.05.
c.
6. The CITY shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs In
any action at law dr equity, including appellate court actlons, to enforce
the CITY’S rights under this Bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PRINCIPAL and SUREN have executed these
presents this 28th day of December, 2004.
Witness PQA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC,
By: Diver Management, Inc.,
RCA CEWOF FLORIDA LLC
Witness PGA GATEWAY, LTD,
witness
W
- MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.
SURElY
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Countersigned by; Brett Rosenhaus
Address: 4000 South 57th Ave. Ste. 201
Lake Worth, FL 33463
L:~ORMS\PaymontAndPorformenceREDLINE.wpd
Brett Rosenhaus, Attorncy in Fact/FL Rehideht Agent
" .
b .. I
.1
Liberty Mutual Surety Bond Number qd oot'a 3.Y
NOTICE FROM SURETY REQUIRED BY
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002
In accordance with the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (referred to
herelnafter as the "Act"), this disclosure notice is provided for surety bonds on
which one or more of the following companies is the issuing surety: Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; LM
Insurance Corporation; The hst Liberty Insurance Corporation; Liberty
Insurance Corporation; Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (formerly
"EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU A Mutual Company"); Peerless
Insurance Company; and any other company that is a part of or added to the
Liberty Mutual Group for which surety business is underwritten by Liberty Mutual
Surety (referred to collectively hereinafter as the "Issuing Sureties").
NOTICE FORMS PART OF BOND
This notice forms part of surety bonds issued by any one or more of the issuing
Sureties.
DISCLOSURE OF PREMIUM
The premium attributable to any bond coverage for "acts of terrorism" as defined
in SectiQn 102(1) of the Act is Zero Dollars ($0.00).
DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
IN PAYMENT OF TERRORISM LOSSES
The United States will reimburse the Issuing Sureties for ninety percent (90%) of
any covered losses from terrorist acts certified under the Act exceeding the
applicable surety deductible.
LMIC-6539 11/15/04
- 'I ..
THIS POWER OF A7lORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT Is PRINTED ON RED BACKGROUND. 1486470
This Power of Attorney limb the acts of those named herein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except in the manner and to
the extent hemin stated.
UBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: Thet Liberty Mutual insurance Company (the 'Company'), a Massachusetts stock insurance company, puwnt to and by euthorlty of the By-law and AuthorLation hereinafter set forth. does hereby name, constitute and appoint
RICHARD M. BUTIN, KAREN L DEBARDAS, BR€IT ROSENHAUS, MELINDA ROSENHAUS, ALL OF THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, SATE OF FLaRlDA .......................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. "..*............~..........................................,....
, each Whrkfudiy If there be more than ont named, its true and lam attorney-in-fact to make, execute. seal. admowledge and deliver, for and on its
behalf 88 sue end as Ils ad and deed end ell underlaldngs, bonds, recbgnlzances and ot er sure OM tions in the penal sum not exceeding FIRY MILU~N AND WOO***^**^* ) each, and the
axskution of cwch undertakings, bonds. recognlzanoes end other surety obligations, in purzwance of these presents, shall be as binding upon the
Company as if they had been duly signed by the presldent and attested by the secretary of the Company in thelr awn proper persons.
That this poww Is mede and executed pursuant to end by authority of the following By-law end Authorizauon:
DOLLARS ($ %,do.&*M -I**
ARTICLE Xlll - Exeartkn of Contracts: Section 5. Surety &nds and Undertakings.
Any officer d the Compsny authotized ku that purpose h wrftlng by the chairman or the president and subjed to such limitations as the
chalm or the president mey prescribe, shall appolnt such attorneys-ln-fact, as may be necessary b act In behaif of he Company to make,
exewte, seal, aclolowledge and dehrer as surety any end all undertakings, bonds. recognizances and other surety oblgations. Such
ettomeys-lrrIact. ahject to the IMthtlOns Mt forth in their respeclive powers of eflomey. shall have hdl power to blnd the Company by thelr
slgnature ad execution of any such Mrurnents and to attach thereto he seal of the Company. When so executed such brstrumenss shall be
as bindlng as H rlgnd by tho proeldent and attested by the secretary.
By the followln~ hstfument the chaiiman or the presldent has auuIorlzed Ihe officer or other official named therein lo appoint attorneys-in-iact:
Pursuant to Artlcle XIII. Sectlon 5 of the By-Laws, Garnet W. Elliott Assistant Secretary d Liberty Mutuel Insurance Company. is hereby
aulhorlzed to appdnt such attomeys-ln-fact as may be necessary to act In behalf of the Company to make. execute, seal, acknowledge and
deltver as sutety my and al undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations.
That the By-law and the Authorization ?et forth above are true copies thereof and @re now in fwil force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thls Power of Attorney has been subscribed by an authorized officer or oMdal of he Company and the corporate seal of ube Mutual lnwranoe Campany ha6 been affixed thereto In PiymWn Meeting, Pennsylvania thls 23* day of March
LIEERTY MUTUAL INWRANCE COMPANY
L.
I
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 8s
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
On this day of March . 2QQ4, belore me, a Notw Public, personally came -, to me know, and adolowledged that he Is an Assistant Secretary 01 Uberty Mutual Insurance Company; that he knows the seal of said corporation; and that he executed the above
nto subscribed my name and affixed my notarial seal at Plymouth Meeting, Panruylvanla, on the day and year
PIynuul)) fnp, tJon!gcimty County
is a fuH, true and oprrect copy, is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that he otficer or olfidal who executed tM sakl power of Womey Is an Asststant Secretary specially authorized by the chalrman or the president lo went attorneys-in-fact as provided In Article
XIII. Section 5 of the By-laws of Liberty Mutual lnwrahce Company.
TMs mrtlflcete and the abwr power of attomey may be signed by facslmlle or mechanically reProduced sbtures under and by authority d the
folkwlng vote of the board of dlractors of Uberty Mutual insurance Company at a rneetlng duly called and held on the 12th day of March, 1980.
VOTEb that the facsimile or meohrdcaly reproduced signature of any kssstmt secretary of the company, wherever appearing upon a
certlfied copy of qny power of ettomey Issued by the company in connection with surety bonds, shdl be valid and binding upon the compeny
wlth the same force and effect as though marmaily amxed.
0l nw
hereunto subscribed my name and amxed ttw corporate seai of the sa^ pmpany, th~s di5' day ,of
A /
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
RESOLUTION 166,2005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA APPROVING THE MASTER
CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PCD)
MILITARY TRAIL TO THE WEST, THE WINCHESTER COURTS
AND GARDEN WOODS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE
NORTH, ALTERNATE AIA TO THE EAST, AND PGA BOULEVARD
TO THE SOUTH, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN,
TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 240,000 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE USE AND 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
USE, INCLUDING A MAXIMUM OF 42,000 SQUARE FEET OF
ANCILLARY COMMERCIAL USE, ON 17 INDIVIDUAL PARCELS;
PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 78.96-ACRE PGA CORPORATE
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 95 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Mr. Ryan Johnston of
Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., on behalf of PGA North II of Florida,
LLC, for approval of a master development plan for the 78.96-acre PGA Corporate
Center Planned Community Development (PCD) generally bounded by Interstate 95
right-of-way and Military Trail to the west, the Winchester Courts and Garden Woods
residential developments to the north, Alternate AIA to the east, and PGA Boulevard to
the south, as more particularly described herein, to allow the development of 240,000
square feet of office use and 600,000 square feet of light industrial use, including a
maximum of 42,000 square feet of ancillary commercial use, on 17 individual parcels;
and
WHEREAS, the subject site has a Planned Community District Overlay (PCD)
zoning designation with an underlying zoning designation of Research and Light
Industrial Park (Ml) and has a land-use designation of Industrial (I); and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application,
has determined that it is sufficient and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulations, and has recommended its approval; and
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board reviewed said petition at
its October 11 , 2005, meeting and recommended its approval by a vote of 7-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence and testimony
presented by the Applicant and other interested parties and the recommendations of the
various City of Palm Beach Gardens review agencies and staff; and
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
As Amended December 1,2005
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
a
ia
6:
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Resolution is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that:
SECTION I. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified,
SECTION 2. The master development plan application of Mr. Ryan Johnston, of
Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., on behalf of PGA North II of Florida,
LLC, is hereby APPROVED on the following described real property, to permit the
development of 240,000 square feet of office use and 600,000 square feet of light
industrial use, including a maximum of 42,000 square feet of ancillary commercial use,
on 17 individual parcels within the 78.96-acre PGA Corporate Center PCD generally
bounded by Interstate 95 right-of-way and Military Trail to the west, the Winchester
Courts and Garden Woods residential developments to the north, Alternate A1A to the
east and PGA Boulevard to the south, subject to the conditions of approval contained
herein, which are in addition to the general requirements othewise provided by ordinance:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST
AND SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LYING SOUTHERLY OF PLAT NO. 4 OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGES 4 THROUGH 6, AND ALSO
SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF WINCHESTER COURTS, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 37, PAGES 153 THROUGH 155, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 1-95; AND LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
NORTHERLY LIMITED ACCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR SAID INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY 1-95 AND NORTHERLY OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PGA
BOULEVARD; AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD.
LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PARCEL AS IDENTIFIED
AS PARCEL 100, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 10839, PAGE 1477,
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 17322, PAGE 1841, AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK
18372, PAGE 1906, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED RECORDED IN
CONTAINING 3,439,345 SQUARE FEET OR 78.956 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
2
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby
approves the following two (2) waivers:
1. Section 78-506, Sidewalks, to allow a sidewalk on only the south side of
Kyoto Gardens Drive.
2. Section 78-563, Lake maintenance tracts, to allow for landscaping within the
Lake Maintenance Easement (LME) on the south side of the lake as
reflected on the approved site plan.
SECTION 4. Said approval is subject to the following conditions, which shall be
the responsibility of the Applicant, its successors, or assigns:
Plannins and Zoning
1. At the time of platting, the Applicant shall dedicate a 10’ x 30’ easement
along Kyoto Gardens Drive for a busltrolley shelter. Within sixty (60) days
of a written determination from Palm Tran or the City Council that a
busltrolley shelter will be utilized on the subject site, the Applicant, its
successors, or assigns shall submit an application for an administrative
approval to allow for review and approval of the site plan, landscape plan,
and building elevations for the bus shelter. The bus shelter design shall be
consistent with the City Council’s previous approval of such shelters. The
Applicant, its successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the
construction of a bus shelter in a timely manner to accommodate Palm
Tran’s or the City’s needs for the bus shelter. The bus shelter shall be
constructed within six (6) months of the approval of the administrative
amendment, unless another time frame is established in the administrative
approval. (Planning & Zoning)
2. Prior to the issuance of each permit for vertical construction, the Applicant
shall contribute one percent (1%) of the construction cost of the building(s)
towards art in public places regardless of whether or not said building(s)
exceeds the $1,000,000 threshold for vertical construction costs. Prior to
the issuance of each permit for vertical construction, the Applicant shall
submit to the City documentation showing that a deposit was made with the
developer’s attorney into an escrow account in an amount of money equal
to the art fee. All of the art in public places funds collected on the Property
shall be utilized to create an art piece or series of art pieces that satisfy the
art in public places requirements for all buildings on site. Said art shall be
approved by the City in accordance with the provisions of the LDRs; shall be
installed at the intersection of Kyoto Gardens Drive and RCA Center Drive,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Forester, unless
othewise determined by the Art in Public Places Advisory Board and the
City Council; and shall be installed prior to the last Certificate of Occupancy
on site. The parcels adjacent to the intersection shall dedicate an easement
3
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
on each lot for art in public places at the corners of the intersection during
the replat process for the parcels. The size of the easement shall be
determined during the site plan review process. Should the Applicant
choose not to provide the art on site, the Applicant shall instead contribute
the required funds to the City's art account. If the Applicant chooses the
option of providing art funds, (1) the Applicant shall provide notification to
the City in writing that it has chosen the art funds option prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction; (2) the
Applicant will have no input in the use of such funds; and (3) the art in public
places easements shall be abandoned. (Planning & Zoning)
Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy on site, the
Applicant shall obtain approval of a Master Signage Program for the
Property. (Planning & Zoning)
The Applicant shall provide vehicular connections between sites, where
appropriate and feasible, to the satisfaction of the Growth Management
Administrator and City Engineer, so that vehicles parked within the site that
wish to access RCA Center Drive may do so without having to utilize Kyoto
Gardens Drive. (Planning & Zoning)
The development on site shall be limited to a maximum of 600,000 square
feet of light industrial use and a maximum of 240,000 square feet of office
use. Any proposed increase in the office square footage that is determined
by staff to meet the thresholds established in the Florida Statutes for
Development of Regional Impact review shall be accompanied by a Letter of
Interpretation from the Florida Department of Community Affairs confirming
that the project is not required to undergo Development of Regional Impact
review. Any increase in the office square footage shall also be subject to
review by the City Council. (Planning & Zoning)
Prior to the issuance of each occupational license or building permit for
interior improvements to tenant spaces, the Applicant, its successors, or
assigns shall submit a breakdown, by use (office, industrial, and any
ancillary commercial), of the gross square footage within the PCD for
approval by the Planning and Zoning Division. (Planning & Zoning)
Retail sales and consumer services establishments are allowed only as
accessory uses to any permitted or conditional use within the MI zoning
district. However, the commercial uses shall not occupy more than five
percent (5%) of the gross floor area of all buildings within the development.
(Planning & Zoning)
p"
4
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
a.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 IO.
17
18
19
20 11.
21
22
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
During the period of effectiveness of this development order, the Applicant
shall annually provide the City with a status report on all the approved
elements of the PCD, including a summary of completed construction, a
schedule of proposed construction over the remaining life of the
development order, and verification of compliance with all conditions of
approval. The annual report should be provided each year prior to the
anniversary date of the approval of this Resolution. (Planning & Zoning)
Prior to the issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy on site or within sixty
(60) days of the acceptance of the Kyoto Gardens Drive construction by the
City, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall install at least two (2)
fountains within the lake, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, at locations
approved by the Growth Management Administrator. (Planning & Zoning,
City Engineer)
The Public Access Easements that provide access to certain parcels from
Kyoto Gardens Drive shall have sidewalks on both sides, with a minimum
width of five (5) feet. (Planning & Zoning)
Applicants requesting site plan approval for the individual parcels within the
PCD shall send public notices via regular mail to all property owners within
500 feet of the PCD boundaries at least ten (10) days prior to any Planning,
Zoning, and Appeals Board or City Council meeting at which said site plan
application will be heard. (Planning & Zoning)
Landscaping
12. By January 30, 2006 (sixty (60) days from the date of this approval), the
Applicant shall submit a landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the City
Forester, for (1) the supplemental landscaping within the ten (10) acre
preserve and the landscape buffer on the north side of Kyoto Gardens
Drive; (2) the portion of RCA Center Drive extending from the Property to
the northern boundary of the RCA Center PUD located to the south of the
Property; (3) the western road shoulder of Alternate A1A from PGA
Boulevard to the northern boundary of the Property; and (4) the Alternate
A1A median from PGA Boulevard to Kyoto Gardens Drive. (City Forester)
13. Within six (6) months of the acceptance of the Kyoto Gardens Drive
construction by the City, the Applicant shall remove the exotics from and
install the supplemental landscaping within the ten (10) acre preserve in
accordance with the landscape plan for the same approved by the City
Forester. (City f'orester)
5
.:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 6:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
14. Within sixty (60) days of the acceptance of the Kyoto Gardens Drive
construction by the City, the Applicant shall remove the exotics from and
install the supplemental landscaping within the buffer on the north side of
Kyoto Gardens Drive adjacent to the lake in accordance with the landscape
plan for the same approved by the City Forester. (City Forester)
15. Prior to any clearing within the individual development parcels within the
Property, the Applicant shall obtain a Clearing Permit from the City Forester.
The clearing of the individual parcels shall not occur until such time when
the site plan and plat for the specific parcel are approved by the City
Council, and infrastructure construction plans for the parcel are approved by
the City Engineer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant may obtain
a Clearing Permit from the City Forester to clear portions of the individual
parcels prior to the approval of the site plan and plat for the specific parcel,
which clearing shall be strictly for the purposes of road and/or public
infrastructure construction. (City Forester)
16. The Applicant, its successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the
maintenance of the landscaping within (1) the portion of Kyoto Gardens
Drive from Military Trail to Alternate A1A; (2) the western road shoulder and
one-half (1/2) of the median of Alternate AIA from PGA Boulevard to the
northern boundary of the Property; and (3) the northern road shoulder and
one-half (1/2) of the median of PGA Boulevard from Alternate AIA to
Interstate 95. (City Forester)
17. The landscaping within the road shoulder and medians of Kyoto Gardens
Drive and RCA Center Drive located within the Property, as well as the
portion of RCA Center Drive extending from the Property to the northern
boundary of the RCA Center PUD located to the south of the Property, shall
be completed when the construction of said roads are accepted by the City.
The landscaping within the western road shoulder of Alternate A1A from
PGA Boulevard to the northern boundary of the Property and the Alternate
AIA median from PGA Boulevard to Kyoto Gardens Drive shall be installed
within six (6) months of the issuance of the first clearing permit for an
individual parcel within the PCD. (City Forester)
18. In the event the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity, forms a
special district pertaining to the landscape maintenance of contiguous
rights-of-way, then the PGA Corporate Center Property Owners Association,
its successors, or assigns shall automatically become a member of such
special district. This condition may be amended at any time by separate
agreement between the Applicant and the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
(City Forester)
6
01 2
7
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 e: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Engineering
19. The build-out date for this project is December 31 , 2005. (City Engineer)
20. Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall
provide written authorization from all appropriate utility agencies for the
constructionAandscapingllighting within the respective utility easements.
(City Engineer).
21. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, reflectors per
FDOT Index 17349 shall be constructed at the temporary dead end of the
north-south roadway within Parcel 5A (if the roadway construction is not
fully completed to the south). (City Engineer)
22. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant
shall construct littoral zones at the locations shown on the PCD Master
Plans. Fifty percent (50%) of the littoral zones, based on linear feet of lake
bank, shall be a shelf with a slope no steeper than one (1) foot vertical to
ten (10) feet horizontal (1:lO) to a distance no deeper than two (2) feet
below the control elevation. (City Engineer)
23. All trees planted within the littoral zone areas shall be restricted to the 1O:l
littoral shelves and must be approved by the City Forester. Trees shall be
planted in clusters no greater than 30 feet wide; and cluster trees cannot be
closer than 40 feet to another cluster; and single or cluster trees shall not be
planted closer than 75 feet to a drainage structure. (City Engineer)
24. By April 17, 2006 (four (4) months from the approval of this Resolution), the
Applicant shall plat the Property. No site plan applications for the individual
parcels within the PCD will be reviewed by the City's Development Review
Committee until such time when the plat for the Property is approved by the
City Council. (City Engineer)
25. Within one hundred twenty (120) days from the issuance of each building
permit for vertical construction for an individual parcel, the parcel shall be
replatted. (City Engineer)
26. The Applicant shall copy to the City all permit and permit applications,
certifications, and approvals. (City Engineer)
27. The Applicant shall provide all necessary construction zone signage and
fencing as required by the City Engineer. (City Engineer)
7
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
28. The Applicant shall comply with the following:
a. No building permits shall be issued for more than 3,137 daily external
trips until the provision of exclusive northbound dual left-turn lanes and
eastbound right-turn lane has commenced at the intersection of
Alternate A1A and Hood Road. This roadway improvement is not an
assured construction. Any approval above the 3,137 trips limit will be
contingent on the execution of a public facilities agreement for the
funding of this roadway improvement. (PBC Traffic Division)
b. No building permits shall be issued for more than 3,644 daily external
trips until the linkage roadway segment between Military Trail and
Alternate A1A (Kyoto Gardens Drive Extension), and the segment
running underneath the PGA flyover (RCA Center Drive) west of
Alternate A1A connecting Kyoto Gardens Drive to RCA Boulevard has
commenced. (PBC Traffic Division)
c. No building permits shall be issued for more than 4,100 daily external
trips until the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane, westbound right-
turn lane, and northbound right-turn lane has commenced at the
intersection of Alternate AIA and RCA Boulevard. (PBC Traffic
Division)
d. No building permits shall be issued for more than 4,562 daily external
trips until the widening of Alternate AIA to six (6) lanes from PGA
Boulevard to RCA Boulevard has commenced. This roadway
improvement is not an assured construction. Any approval above the
4,562 trips limit will be contingent on the execution of a public facilities
agreement for the funding of this roadway improvement. (PBC Traffic
Division)
e. No building permits shall be issued for more than 4,948 daily external
trips until the addition of a southbound through lane has commenced at
the intersection of Alternate AIA and Donald Ross Road. This roadway
improvement is not an assured construction. Any approval above the
4,948 trips limit will be contingent on the execution of a public facilities
agreement for the funding of this roadway improvement. (PBC Traffic
Division)
f. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for vertical construction for
any parcel, the Applicant shall submit a trip generation analysis
identifying the number of trips generated by all existing development
within the PCD and the trips generated by the parcel under development
consideration. (City Engineer)
a
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 s: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
29. Prior to construction plan approval or the issuance of the first land alteration
permit, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide surety for public
infrastructure and all landscaping and irrigation costs for the overall project
infrastructure which are not included in the previously-submitted bonds for
the public roads within the Property (Bond No. 964004234). The required
surety shall be based on a cost estimate for the project, including public
infrastructure and all landscaping and irrigation costs, that shall be reviewed
and approved by the City in order to establish surety. The cost estimate
shall be signed and sealed by an engineer and landscape architect
registered in the State of Florida. Surety will be based on 110% of the total
combined approved cost estimates and shall be posted with the City prior to
the issuance of the first building permit. This surety is separate from that
which will be required for each individual lot as each is developed. (City
Engineer)
30. Prior to construction plan approval or the issuance of the first land alteration
permit, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide a cost estimate for
the on-site project improvements for the overall project, not including public
infrastructure, landscaping, and irrigation costs, for review and approval by
the City. Said cost estimate is separate from those cost estimates which will
be required for each individual lot as each is developed. The cost estimate
shall be signed and sealed by an engineer and shall be posted with the City
prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (City Engineer)
31. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal EPA and State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection NPDES permit requirements,
including, but not limited to, preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention
plan and identification of appropriate Best Management Practices, as
generally accepted by the Environmental Planning Agency (EPA) and/or
local regulatory agencies, for construction activities, submission of a Notice
of Intent to EPA or its designee, implementation of the approved plans,
inspection and maintenance of controls during construction, and submission
of a Notice of Termination. (City Engineer)
32. Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the Applicant shall
provide a construction plan for review and approval. All plans and support
documentation, submitted by the Applicant for review by the City Engineer,
shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State
of Florida. (City Engineer)
33. Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, the Applicant shall provide a paving, grading, and drainage
plan along with surface water management calculations and hydraulic pipe
calculations for City review and approval. The paving, grading, and
drainage plan and calculations shall be signed and sealed by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Florida. (City Engineer)
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 $" 4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
34. Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first building
permit, the Applicant shall schedule a pre-permit meeting with City staff.
(City Engineer)
35. Whenever possible, development application submittals made to the Growth
Management Department for the individual parcels within the PCD shall
include both electronic and hard copies of all documents submitted to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and Growth Management Administrator.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CAD files of the areas designated on a site
as open space shall be included in all development submittals to the
satisfaction of the City Forester. (City Engineer)
Miscellaneous
36. Required digital files of the approved PCD master plan and plat shall be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division prior to the issuance of the
first Certificate of Occupancy, and approved civil design and architectural
drawings for each site shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for each site. (GIs Manager, Development
Compliance Officer)
37. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the master
property owners association documents and restrictions, which shall include
disclosure language regarding the potential widening of the RCA Center
Drive to four (4) lanes, shall be furnished by the Applicant to the City
Attorney for review and approval prior to such documents being recorded in
the Public Records of Palm Beach County. (City Attorney)
38. Any office space within an individual parcel that is ancillary to a principal
industrial use on the parcel shall be limited to a maximum of 40% of the
square footage on site in order to be classified as being ancillary to the
industrial use. Any office space beyond said threshold shall be required to
count towards the office use on site. (Planning & Zoning)
SECTION 5. This Planned Community Development shall be constructed in
compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management
Department:
1. Sheets 2 of 6 through 6 of 6: Site Plans and Details, prepared by Cotleur
Hearing, last sealed on November 18, 2005, and received and stamped by
the City on November 18,2005.
2. Sheets 1 of 4 through 4 of 4: Roadway Landscape Plans and Details,
prepared by Cotleur Hearing, last sealed on November 18, 2005, and
received and stamped by the City on November 18,2005.
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a;:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: October 19,2005
Resolution 166,2005
SECTION 6. This approval shall be consistent with all representations made by
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
the Applicant or Applicant’s agents at any workshop or public hearing.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this lz day of Datclm gCnC ,2005.
ATTEST: L/
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBER LEVY
COUNCILMEMBER VALECHE
COUNCILMEMBER BARNETT
-- AYE NAY ABSENT
\\Pbgsle\A~omeybtney_share\RESOLUTIONS\5A - reso 166 2005-as amended-1 2-1 -05.d~~
11
. . .. .. .. ..
.. .
r
n
8
'U a
!
V
. J.' ,
li
..___
.................
a
e
e
0
E
r
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Resolution is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens; and
As Amended by Council: January 6,2005
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
RESOLUTION 196,2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA APPROVING THE MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PALOMA PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF HOOD
ROAD, WEST OF MILITARY TRAIL, EAST OF CENTRAL
BOULEVARD, PARCEL 31.04 (MXD), AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
95, AND NORTH OF THE SABAL RIDGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY
HEREIN, TO ALLOW FOR 199 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,
196 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES I USES; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING
FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council, as the governing body of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, pursuant to the authority in Chapter 163 and Chapter 166, Florida
Statutes, and the City’s Land Development Regulations, is authorized and empowered
to consider petitions related to zoning and land development orders; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (PUD-04-
05) for a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with an underlying zoning district
of Residential Low (RL-3) and approval for a master site plan for 199 single-family units
and 196 multi-family units on an approximately 156.46-acre site, generally located at the
southwest corner of Hood Road and Military Trail, which lies within the municipal
boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, as more particularly described herein;
and
WHEREAS, the subject site has been zoned to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay with an underlying zoning of Residential Low (RL-3); and
WHEREAS, the Master Development Plan was reviewed by the Planning,
Zoning, and Appeals Board at a public hearing conducted on July 27, 2004, which
recommended approval of the Master Development Plans to the City Council with a
vote of 5-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence and testimony
presented by the Petitioner and other interested parties and the recommendations of
the various City of Palm Beach Gardens review agencies and staff; and
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 3d 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: September 17,2004 Resolutlon 196,2004
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this Resolution is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings of fact:
1. The applicant has met the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the
proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the City's Land
Development Regulations.
3. The proposed use is not a detriment to the public safety and welfare within
the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
4. The applicant has provided adequate screening and buffering in order to
mitigate the impact of the proposed development.
5. The proposed uses and site plan are in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. The Master Development Plan application for Paloma Planned Unit
Development (a.k.a. Parcel 316) is hereby APPROVED on the following described real
property to permit the development of 199 single-family dwelling units and 196 multi-
family townhomes, with accessory structures, on a 156.46-acre site located at the
southwest comer of Hood Road and Military Trail, subject to the conditions of approval
contained herein, which are in addition to the general requirements otherwise provided by
ordinance:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 31.03
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 42
EAST, WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 1; THENCE SOUTH 88"34'52" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE
LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 484.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31'40'34" EAST,
OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 694.49 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 30"31'49 EAST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-
CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF Ill 99.30 FEET
2
-Tv---
.:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
TO A CURVE HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 58'19'26 EAST, A RADIUS
OF 3,180.04 FEET, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1'05'46"; THENCE PROCEED
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 60.84 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE
DISTANCE OF 280.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01'43'40 I' EAST, A DISTANCE OF
1,466.97 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH
88'34'52" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,233.20 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL.
SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-
SOUTH 88'32'1 8" EAST, DEPARTING FROM SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A
TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF PARCELS 31.04 AND 31.05;
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42
EAST, WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 36, THENCE NORTH 88"34'52''WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAlD SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 107.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. THENCE NORTH 88'34'52" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A
95 AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 5805, PAGE 181 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 30'31'49"
DISTANCE OF 456.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01'25'08 WEST, A DISTANCE OF
341.92 FEET TO A POINT ON A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST
HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,100.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'25'31";
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF
726.38 FEET TO A POINT OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,146.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'21'19';
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF
567.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16'20'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 957.79 FEET TO A
RADIUS OF 1,149.42 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 15"07'32" EAST AND A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'27'21"; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 189.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66'38'32" WEST, A
CENTRAL BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON ROAD PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 88 AND AS
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 5104, PAGE 945 OF SAID PUBLIC
RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF
NORTH 62'01'30" WEST, A RADIUS OF 1,969.86 FEET, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE
DISTANCE OF 1,827.08 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE
WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 30.29 FEET; THENCE
DEPARTING SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE NORTH 88'34'52" WEST, A
POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A
DISTANCE OF 316.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
OF 27'11'16"~ THENCE PROCEED ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 934.73 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
THENCE NORTH 00'47'1 5" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 217.50 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
HOOD ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 1083, PAGE 141 OF SAID PUBLIC
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 @ 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 88'08'02" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,476.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF MILITARY TRAIL AS DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 815, PAGE 581,
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2353, PAGE 1542, AND OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 7483,
PAGE 1746 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 43'26'57" EAST,
7483, PAGE 1746, A DISTANCE OF 56.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'18'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 250.03 FEET TO A
IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2353, PAGE 1542; THENCE SOUTH 01'13'53" WEST
THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 22,858.31 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02'34'09"; THENCE
DISTANCE OF 1,025.00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 22,978.31 FEET AND A
WAY LINE AND ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 832.17 FEET TO THE
POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH OI"43'37" WEST A DISTANCE OF 200.84
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SOUTH 01'13'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 261.11
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MILITARY TRAIL AS DESCRIBED
ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,252.43 FEET TO
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND ARC OF SAID CURVE A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02'04'30"; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-
CONTAINING 6,815,592.28 SQUARE FEET OR 156.46 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby
approves the following waivers:
1.
2.
' 3.
4.
Waiver to Section 78-441 (c), Plat, to allow issuance of permits for model
homes for the project prior to adoption of the Plat. The City's Land
Development Regulations require adoption of a project plat prior to issuance
of permits for development.
Waiver to Section 78-141, Minimum lot area, to allow a reduction in the
minimum lot area to 3,220 square feet for the townhomes and 6,000 square
feet for the single-family homes. The City's Land Development Regulations
require a minimum lot area of 6,500 square feet.
Waiver to Section 78-141, Minimum lot width, to allow a reduction in the
minimum lot width to 28 feet for the townhomes and 50 feet for the single-
family homes. The City's Land Development Regulations require a
minimum lot width of 65 feet.
Waiver to Section 78-141, Minimum lot coverage, to allow an increase in the
maximum lot coverage to 50% for the townhomes and 45% for the single-
family homes. The City's Land Development Regulations require minimum
lot coverage of 35%.
4
.:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
5. Waiver to Section 78-141, Minimum side setback, to allow a reduction in the
minimum side setback to 7.5’10’ feet for the townhomes and 5 feet for the
single-family homes. The City’s Land Development Regulations require a
minimum side setback of 7.5’ or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater.
6. Waiver to Section 78-141, Minimum rear setback, to allow a reduction in the
minimum rear setback to 5 feet (screenddecks) for the townhomes and 5
feet (screens/decks) / 7 feet (pool) setbacks for the single-family homes.
The City’s Land Development Regulations require a minimum rear setback
of IO feet.
7. Waiver to Section 78-285, Signs for residential development, to allow a
double-faced sign within the entry median to each residential parcel. The
City’s Land Development Regulations allow one sign face.
SECTION 4. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the
following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors, or
assigns:
LandscaDinn and Maintenance
1.
2.
3.
Landscaping and irrigation within medians and adjacent roadway shoulders
for Military Trail, Central Boulevard, and Hood Road shall be installed within
six (6) months of the issuance of the first clearing permit. A one-time six (6)
month extension to complete buffer and improvements may be granted by
the Growth Management Director upon review of sufficient justification. The
Growth Management Department shall inspect the supplemental planting for
the preserve areas and buffers where voids in groundcover and shrubs
occur in order to screen the project. The City Forester and Landscape
Architect of Record shall work together on a plan, if necessary, to fill any
voids with additional landscaping, as required, achieving said screening for
the preserve area. (City Forester)
Landscaping and irrigation within medians and adjacent roadway shoulders
for the East-West Roadway and the North-South Roadway shall be installed
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. A one-time six (6)
month extension to complete buffer improvements may be granted by the
Growth Management Director upon review of sufficient justification. (City
Forester)
The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the landscape
maintenance of the medians (including irrigation) and road shoulders, as
well as maintenance of lighting and hardscape within those sections of
public rights-of-way adjacent and/or contiguous to the Paloma Planned Unit
Development (PUD), including:
5
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4.
5.
6.
7.
0.
9.
(a) Military Trail from the southern terminus of the site to Hood Road. The
applicant shall pay the City its pro-rata share of the total cost of
maintenance of the median.
(b) Hood Road from Military Trail to Central Boulevard. The applicant shall
pay the City its pro-rata share of the total cost of maintenance of the
median.
(c) The internal East-West Roadway and North-South Roadway within the
internal limits of the Planned Unit Development.
(d) Central Boulevard from Hood Road to the southern terminus of the site.
(City Forester)
The applicant shall be required to provide pedestrian scale (maximum
fourteen foot (14') height) lighting along the pedestrian pathways along
Military Trail, Hood Road, and Central Boulevard. The lighting plan for the
meandering pedestrian sidewalk within the parkway/preserve area shall be
submitted within thirty (30) days of approval. (Planning & Zoning)
The applicant shall place all utility lines underground along Military Trail and
any utility lines along Central Boulevard that cross City roadways. (City
Forester, Planning & Zoning)
Development Order Condition No. 3 may be amended by separate
agreement with the City. (City Forester)
Within six (6) months of issuance of the clearing permit, the applicant shall
replace all existing Ribbon Palms with Sabal Palms within the adjacent
Military Trail medians. (Planning & Zoning)
The recreation area in Parcel B (including, but not limited to, building
facilities, pool, landscaping, hardscape, and accessory structures) and the
entry road landscaping for Parcels A and B (pod of development) shall be
completed and Certified for Occupancy prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the ninety-eighth (98'") residential unit within Parcels A and B
combined. The recreation area and entryway improvements in Parcel C
shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
the one hundredth (100') residential unit in Parcel C. (City Forester)
Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall
remove all exotic vegetation from the preserve areas. No non-native plant
may be established in a preserve area. (City Forester)
6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 od
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
c- - ._ _. -- - F
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
Transportation I Traffic Concurrency
I
I
I
1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The project build-out date is December 31,2007. (City Engineer)
Applicant shall comply with any and all Palm Beach County Traffic
Division Concurrency conditions as outlined in the PBC Traffic Concurrency
approval. (City Engineer)
No more than 3,260 net new external daily trips shall be permitted until the
contract has been let for the construction of Kyoto Gardens Drive from
Military Trail to Alternate A1A. (City Engineer)
The applicant, successors, or assigns shall monitor traffic operations studies
(supplemental operations analysis) of the East-West Roadway and Military
Trail intersection beginning during peak season after the issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy and every six (6) months thereafter until the
build-out date. Should the study indicate a need for any
roadway/intersection improvements as determined by the City Engineer, the
applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible. The City shall
reimburse the applicant for the cost of any roadway improvements to the
extent that the City collects pro-rata funds from other developments having
an impact on the intersections as determined in their development orders.
(City Engineer)
For ail improvements that are not assured construction, the developer shall
enter into a Public Facility Agreement (PFA) with Palm Beach County for
funding of the roadway improvements in a form acceptable to the County
Engineer, within six (6) months of the issuance of the development order
and before the first permit is issued. (Palm Beach County)
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any structure, the
applicant shall provide surety, acceptable to the City, for the construction of
the public improvements. The applicant shall provide an annual evaluation
and adjustment of the surety for the public improvements to account for
inflation and fluctuations of construction costs. The annual evaluation and
adjustment shall be performed prior to the anniversary of the Development
Order approval of each year. (City Engineer)
Upon receipt of this development order and continuing through substantial
completion of construction, the petitioner shall bi-annually provide the City
with a status report on all the approved elements of the PUD, including, but
not limited to, the compliance or status of any conditions of approval placed
on the project by this approval and any future approval until the project is
completed, as well as a summary of completed construction and schedule
of proposed construction over the remaining life of the development order.
(Planning & Zoning, City Engineer)
7
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 198,2004
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 e 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
17. Commencing after the issuance of certificates of occupancy for fifty percent
(50%) (197 dwelling units) of the residential units, the applicant shall
perform and submit an annual Signal Warrant Study for the intersection of
the East-West Roadway and Military Trail. The methodology of the traffic
analysis shall be determined by the City Engineer. The annual traffic
analysis shall be conducted until such time as signals are warranted at the
above-described intersections or until two (2) years after issuance of
certificates of occupancy for ninety percent (90%) or 355 dwelling units of
the project. Should the warrant indicate a need for a signal at the East-
West Roadway and Military Trail, the applicant, successors, or assigns shall
be required to install the signal. The signal shall be installed to be fully
operational, including all appropriate lane geometry (as determined by Palm
Beach County and the Florida Department of Transportation), pavement
markings, signage, and lighting. The City shall reimburse the applicant for
the cost of the signal and installation to the extent that the City collects pro-
rata funds, as determined by the City Engineer, from other developments
having an impact on the intersections as determined in their development
orders. (City Engineer)
18. The plats for Paloma, the North-South thoroughfare, and the East-West
thoroughfare, including the dedications for the drainage easements and
roadway easements, shall be submitted to and approved by the City and
placed in the official record books of Palm Beach County prior to the
issuance of the first building permit, excluding clearing permits and model
homes. (City Engineer)
19. The applicant, successors, or assigns shall pay their fair share (pro-rata
share) for a traffic light as determined by the City Engineer when one is
warranted and approved by Palm Beach County for the intersection of the
East-West roadway and Central Boulevard. (Planning & Zoning)
20. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the East-West
thoroughfare (from Military Trail to Central Boulevard) and the North-South
thoroughfare (from Hood Road south to the southern terminus of the
western entrance of Parcel C) must be completed (including irrigation,
hardscape, and landscaping) and accepted by the City. (City Engineer, City
Forester)
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
21. The applicant shall provide metal halide lighting within the entire amenity
(recreation) area and along the entryway leading into the recreation area.
The applicant may provide high-pressure sodium lighting within the
remainder of the residential community. (Police)
8
- --
.:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 oi:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
22. The applicant shall construct the development in accordance with Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, which
consist of the following:
(a) Landscaping shall not conflict with lighting, including long-term tree
growth.
(b) A timer clock or photocell sensor engaged lighting shall be installed
above or near entryways to residences and all sidewalks.
(c) Pedestrian walkways shall use lighting that is no greater than fourteen
(14) feet in height.
(d) Numerical addresses shall be illuminated for nighttime visibility, shall
have bidirectional visibility from the roadway, and shall be a minimum of
six (6) inches in height. (Police)
Miscellaneous
23. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall:
(a) Provide a street address system depicting street names and residential
numericals for emergency response purposes. Address system
depiction shall be in 8.5" X 11" map format. (Police)
(b) Install and have operational temporary roadways and fire hydrants
approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department for all of the dry
models. (Engineering, Fire).
24. Required digital files of the approved plat shall be submitted to the Planning
and Zoning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit, and
approved civil design and architectural drawings shall be submitted prior to
the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (GIS Manager,
Development Compliance Officer)
25. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy of a residential
unit, the applicant shall submit the Master Property Owners Association and
Homeowners Association documents to the City Attorney for review and
approval prior to such documents being recorded in the Public Records of
Palm Beach County. (City Attorney)
26. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the petitioner shall submit to the
City Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Division documents
demonstrating unity of control by the petitioner or the property owners
association over the entire PUD. (City Attorney)
9
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
27. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant,
successors, or assigns shall install an aeration system within all lakes
located within the subject project and shall bear the perpetual responsibility
of maintenance of such system. (Planning & Zoning)
Ennineerinq
28. Six (6) months after issuance of the first residential building permit and
semiannually thereafter until issuance of the final certificate of occupancy
the applicant, successors, or assigns shall submit a report showing the
number of approved permits and certificates of occupancy issued to date.
(City Engineer)
29. The applicant shall provide all necessary construction zone signage and
fencing as required by the City Engineer. (City Engineer)
30. The applicant shall submit construction plans for City review and approval
and surety for demolition and lien protection prior to the issuance of the
building permit for any dry models. Prior to occupancy, the plat shall be
approved and construction of a stabilized emergency access drive shall be
completed and accepted by the City Engineer and City's Fire Department.
The following standard dry model conditions of approval apply:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
(a) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall post
a letter of credit for the model units in the amount of one-third (113) the
construction cost per model for the purposes of demolition and lien
protection, to be determined by the City Engineer, to remain in effect
until the plat is recorded. (City Engineer)
(b) No access by the general public shall be allowed to a model home until
the Certificate of Completion is issued. (Code Enforcement)
(c) No individual lots shall be allowed to transfer title until the plat has been
recorded. (City Engineer)
(d) The applicant acknowledges that the waiver granted from the
platting requirement is at the applicant's risk and that any potential
construction changes to the model homes due to the eventual plat
recordation is the sole responsibility of the applicant. (City Engineer)
(e) Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the model
units, the applicant shall construct accessible and operational fire
hydrants and a stabilized road base, subject to City standards, for
firelemergency access, both of which shall be approved by the City
Engineer and Fire Department. (City Engineer, Fire Rescue)
10
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
31. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide
construction plans of the Temporary Sales Center and Temporary
Construction Center for review, and shall provide a cost estimate for City
review and approval for demolition and lien protection. (City Engineer)
32. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide a
pavement marking and signage plan for review and approval. (City
Engineer)
33. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, including the building permit for
clearing and grubbing, the applicant shall provide drainage calculations and
design data, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for the suitability of the
20-foot and 25-foot pass-through drainage easements from lands lying
south of Sable Ridge subdivision to the canal right-of-way. (City Engineer)
34. Prior to Construction Plan review, the applicant shall provide a Paver Block I
Concrete Ribbon detail for review meeting the City's structural number
requirements in accordance with LDR Section 78-499. (City Engineer)
SECTION 5. Said Planned Unit Development shall be constructed in compliance
with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department:
1. Paloma Overall Site Plan, Site Data & Details, 08.02.2004, UDS, Sheets 1
through 7.
25
26 2. Paloma Gateway & Entrance Details, 08.02.2004, UDS, Sheets SD-1
27 through SD-10.
28
29 3. Paloma Parcel A, B & C Entrance Planting Plan, Common Area, &
30 Prototype Landscaping/Planting Plans, 08.02.2004, Sheets L1 through L21.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4. Buffer Plans, 06.1 1.2004, UDS, Sheets L-01 through L-14.
5. Single-Family Product Design 2142, 11.10.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
6. Single-Family Product Design 2790, 11.10.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
7. Single-Family Product Design 2641, 11.10.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
8. Single-Family Product Design 3017, 11 A0.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
9. Single-Family Product Design 3325, 11.10.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
10. Single-Family Product Design 3521, 11.10.04, Harrington, 4 sheets.
11. Townhome Product Design "A", 11.01.04, Harrington, 8 sheets.
11
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
12. Townhome Product Design “B”, 11.01.04, Harrington, 8 sheets.
13. Townhome Product Design “C”.
2
3
4
5 14. Design Guidelines for Paloma Single-Family Homes, 2 pages.
6
7 15. Design Guidelines for Paloma Townhomes, 1 page.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0
SECTION 0. Said approval shall be consistent with all representations made by
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
the applicant or applicant‘s agents at any workshop or public hearing.
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
12
Date Prepared: September 17,2004
Resolution 196,2004
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 6; 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6.w day of Ziuw ,2005.
ATTEST: -
e
GARDENS, FLORIDA
BY:
W U
BY: -Mk
Patricia Snider, City lerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
VOTE:
MAYOR JABLIN
VICE MAYOR RUSSO
COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO
COUNCILMEMBER LEVY
COUNCILMEMBER VALECHE
-- AYE NAY ABSENT
J ---
13
I
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a:
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Resolution is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. The Master Development Plan application of Mr. William D. Waters
of REG Architects, Inc., on behalf of RCA Center II, LLC, is hereby APPROVED on the
following real described property, to permit the development of 150,000 square feet of
retail use, 100,000 square feet of office use, and 50,000 square feet of industrial use on
an approximately 30-acre parcel of land, known as "Parcel 5B," generally located on the
southwest corner of Alternate AIA and PGA Boulevard, subject to the conditions of
approval contained herein, which are in addition to the general requirements othennrise
provided by ordinance:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ALL OF THE PLAT OF THE MACARTHUR PARCEL 58, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
96, PAGE 79, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CONTAINING IN ALL 1,308,146 SQUARE FEET OR 30.03 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby
approves the following eight (8) waivers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Section 78-563, Lake maintenance tracts, to allow encumbrances with
certain Lake Maintenance Easements (LME) in specific areas identified on
the approved development plan.
Section 78-285, Permitted signs, to allow for certain retail tenants in
buildings containing multiple street frontages to have two (2) signs per
tenant, and buildings containing multiple street frontages to have two (2)
principal tenanvbuilding ID signs, subject to the conditions relating to the
same contained herein.
Section 78-285, Permitted signs, to allow for principal tenantlbuilding ID
signs to be located above the first story.
Section 78-508, Intersections, to allow for street intersections with a
centerline separation of less than 150 feet.
2
I I
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
5. Section 78-306(d), Easement encroachment, to allow for 12 feet of a
required 20-foot landscape buffer along the easternmost property line to be
encumbered by a utility easement.
Section 78-374(h), Location, to allow for 13 covered parking spaces to be
located within 100 feet of PGA Boulevard.
Section 78-287(8), General standards, to allow for tenants having federally
registered trademark signs to use their registered color scheme on signs
facing the parking areas.
Section 78-344(1)( 1 ), Minimum dimensions, to allow 9.5-foot-wide parking
spaces at certain locations at reflected on the approved site plan.
SECTION 4. Said approval is subject to the following conditions, which shall be
6.
7.
8.
the responsibility of the applicant, its successors, or assigns:
Enaineerinq
19
20 1.
21
22
25 2.
26
27
28
29 3.
30
31
32
33
34
35 4.
36
37
38
39
40
41 ~ 5.
42
43
44
45
Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, the applicant shall provide written authorization from utility
owners allowing landscaping within their existing and/or proposed utility
easements. (City Engineer)
Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the applicant shall
provide a Roadway Signage and Marking Plan for review and approval,
(City Engineer)
Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the applicant shall
provide a Photometric Plan, signed, and sealed by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Florida, meeting the requirements of LDR Section
78-182. Said plan shall provide pedestrian scale lighting along all walkways
and thoroughfares, including PGA Boulevard. (City Engineer)
Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the applicant shall
provide a construction plan for review and approval. All plans and support
documentation, submitted by the applicant for review by the City Engineer,
shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State
of Florida in accordance with Section 78-448 of the LDR. (City Engineer)
Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, the applicant shall provide a paving, grading, and drainage
plan along with surface water management calculations and hydraulic pipe
calculations for City review and approval. The paving, grading, and
drainage plan and calculations shall be signed and sealed by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Florida. (City Engineer)
3
I
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004 e1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 e: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
Prior to construction plan approval and the issuance of the first land
alteration permit, the applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the project,
including public infrastructure and all landscaping and irrigation costs for
review and approval by the City in order to establish surety. The cost
estimate shall be signed and sealed by an engineer and landscape architect
registered in the State of Florida. Surety will be based on 110% of the total
combined approved cost estimates and shall be posted with the City prior to
the issuance of the first land alteration permit. (City Engineer)
The applicant shall provide all necessary construction zone signage and
fencing as required by the City Engineer. (City Engineer)
The applicant shall provide the City copies of all permit applications and
approvals. (City Engineer)
The applicant shall comply with all Federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
NPDES permit requirements, including, but not limited to, preparation of a
stormwater pollution prevention plan and identification of appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMP) for construction activities, submission of a
Notice of Intent to EPA or their designee, implementation of the approved
plan, inspection and maintenance of controls during construction, and
submission of a stormwater Notice of Termination. (City Engineer)
The construction, operation, andlor maintenance of any elements of the
subject project shall have no negative impacts on the existing drainage of
surrounding areas. If, at any time during the project development, it is
determined by the City that any of the surrounding areas are experiencing
negative drainage impacts caused by the project, it shall be the applicant's
responsibility to cure said impacts in a period of time and a manner
acceptable to the City prior to additional construction activities. (City
Engineer)
11. The applicant shall comply with any and all Palm Beach County Traffic
Division conditions as outlined in the PBC Traffic Division concurrency
approval letter issued for this property. (City Engineer)
12. Prior to the issuance of the first land alteration permit, the applicant shall
schedule a pre-permit meeting with City staff. (City Engineer)
4
d t
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
13. Kyoto Gardens Drive
a. The applicant shall deliver to the City surety in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, which surety shall ensure the construction of the Kyoto
Gardens Drive Extension. The Kyoto Gardens Drive Extension shall
consist of a four (4) lane divided roadway with landscaped medians,
approximately 2,300 feet in length, connecting Military Trail to Alternate
AIA, including an at-grade crossing of the FEC trackbed. The applicant
shall be responsible for the costs of design and construction of this
roadway as a two (2) lane roadway, and the City shall be responsible for
reimbursing the applicant for the costs of design and construction of the
additional two (2) lanes, as set forth in the engineering estimate attached
as Exhibit "A" to the Memorandum of Agreement. Said construction shall
commence no later than March 31, 2005, and completion of said
improvements as set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement. As
additional assurance, the applicant shall submit, no later than December
30, 2004, a Memorandum of Agreement in a format acceptable to the
City Attorney on behalf of the City, and the following entities: RCA
Center II of Florida LLC, PGA Gateway LTD., and Mall Properties, LTD
to further define the obligations relating to the roadway design and
construction.
b. The applicant shall continuously and diligently work with the City and the
required outside agencies in order to obtain the issuance of all
necessary permits in order to begin construction of Kyoto Gardens Drive
on or before March 31.2005.
c. The applicant shall, upon the request of the City, deliver assurances, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, from the owners of Parcel 5A that
the City will be permitted to expand the existing lake north of the Kyoto
Gardens Drive right-of-way for the purposes of providing drainage for the
Kyoto Gardens Drive roadway and to provide the fill for construction of
the roadway at no cost and without restriction.
d. The applicant shall, upon the request of the City, deliver assurances, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, from the owners of Parcel 5A that
they will sign and support all permit applications as required to design
and build Kyoto Gardens Drive.
e. All contracts for design and construction of the Kyoto Gardens Drive
extension shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the
City Engineer and City Attorney. Said construction contracts shall
contain a provision that makes such contracts fully assignable to the
City.
5
e 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ai
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
T
I b
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
14. 5BRoad
a.
b.
The applicant shall, prior to December 30, 2004, deliver a deed in a
format acceptable to the City Attorney conveying an 80-foot right-of-way
for that portion of RCA Center Drive that is shown on the Linkage Plan
between the present northern terminus of said road and the north
boundary of Parcel 5B. This parcel and all other portions of the
North/South Road owned by FDOT and NPBCID are hereinafter referred
to as the "5B Road."
The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for Parcel 58, design, build, and construct the "5B Road" as
a two (2) lane divided roadway with landscaped median within a fifty (50)
foot right-of-way. The east 15 feet and the west 15 feet of the 8O-foot
right-of-way may be utilized for landscape buffer calculations and
setback requirements.
15. 5ARoad
a.
b.
C.
The applicant shall, prior to December 30, 2004, deliver a deed in a
format acceptable to the City Attorney conveying an 80-foot right-of-way
for that portion of RCA Center Drive that is shown on the Linkage Plan
connecting the 58 Road to Kyoto Gardens Drive, hereinafter referred to
the "5A Road."
The applicant shall, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for Parcel 5B, design, build, and construct the "5A Road" as
a two (2) lane divided roadway with landscaped median within a 5O-fOOt
right-of-way. The east 15 feet and the west 15 feet of the 8O-foot right of
way may be utilized for landscape buffer calculations and setback
requirements.
The applicant shall deliver to the City surety, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, to ensure the construction of the 5A Road at the time the
surety described in Condition 6 is submitted to the City.
6
, .
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
LandscaDinq
16. Within six (6) months of the issuance of the first clearing permit, the
landscaping shall be installed within: (1) the medians and adjacent road
shoulders within the portions of PGA Boulevard and RCA Boulevard
adjacent to the property, unless landscaping is installed in said areas by the
FDOT as part of the PGA Flyover project; and (2) the landscape buffers
along PGA Boulevard, RCA Boulevard, and Alternate AlA. The Growth
Management Administrator shall be authorized to grant up to two (2), three
(3) month extensions to this requirement upon demonstration by the
applicant of a good-faith effort to satisfy the same in a timely manner. (City
Forester)
17. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping
shall be installed within the medians and road shoulders within both the
north/south and the eastlwest thoroughfares within the property. (City
Forester)
18. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the
maintenance of the landscaping within: (1) the medians and adjacent road
shoulders within the portions of PGA Boulevard and RCA Boulevard
adjacent to the property; and (2) the medians and road shoulders within
both the north/south and the eastlwest thoroughfares within the property.
(City Forester)
19. In the event the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity, forms a
special district pertaining to the landscape maintenance of contiguous
rights-of-way, then the RCA Center Property Owners Association, its
successors, or assigns shall automatically become a member of such
special district. This condition may be amended at any time by separate
agreement between the applicant and the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
(City Forester)
20. The installation of the covered parking structures, if approved by the City
Council, shall not conflict with landscaping, including long-term tree growth.
(City Forester)
Police
21. Lighting shall not conflict with landscaping, including long-term tree growth.
(Police)
7
, .
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 4: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 4"
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
2
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
All lighting for streets, parking lots, parking garages, and pedestrian
walkways shall be metal halide. Metal halide lighting shall be used for the
multi-use pathways and sidewalks within the site and shall be lit at a
minimum of 0.6-foot candles. (Police)
Non-glare building lighting shall be installed around the entire building
perimeter and on pedestrian walkways. (Police)
Entry signage shall be lighted. (Police)
Timer clock or photocell lighting shall be provided for nighttime use above or
near entryways and all exits, including emergency exits. (Police)
Numerical addresses shall: (1) be illuminated for nighttime visibility and be
unobstructed; (2) have bidirectional visibility from the roadway; and (3) be
placed at the front and rear of each business. (Police)
All structures shall use the following target hardening techniques:
a. Buildings shall be pre-wired for an alarm system.
b. Doors shall be equipped with metal plates over the threshold of the
locking mechanism.
c. Glass perimeter doors shall be equipped with case hardened guard
rings to protect the mortise lock cylinder.
d. Rear doors shall have 180-degree peephole viewers.
e. All perimeter doors shall be equipped with hinges that utilize non-
removable hinge pins. (Police)
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction, the
applicant shall work with the Police Department to develop a high-resolution
color digital closed-circuit security surveillance system with monitoring and
photo printout capabilities. The Police Chief shall have final approval on the
required number of cameras and locations thereof within the site. (Police)
Planning and Zoning
29. Within 90 days of (the effective date of this Resolution), the applicant
shall submit revised development plans to include the items listed below.
Said development plans shall be approved administratively by staff as long
as: (1) all items listed below are included on the development plans to the
satisfaction of the Growth Management Administrator; and (2) any exterior
building modification(s) is architecturally consistent with the approved
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 & 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
buildings. Should any of the aforesaid not be adequately satisfied, the
revised development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Council by way of an amendment to the PUD’s master plan of development.
No building or land clearing permits shall be issued until revised plans have
been approved.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
The applicant shall revise the building elevations to include three (3)
color palette combinations for the buildings on site.
The applicant shall revise the easternmost landscape buffer adjacent to
the parking area so that a maximum of 12 feet of the buffer is
encumbered by utility easements.
The applicant shall revise the building elevations to clearly reflect all
exterior building colors and materials.
The applicant shall submit an amenities package that includes
illustrations and details of project-wide shared elements, including
common hardscape themes, street furniture, lighting fixtures, special
intersections, plazas, fountains, decorative trellises, and thoroughfare
enhancements. A “Key Plan” depicting the location of the amenities on
site shall also be included.
The applicant shall submit a lighting plan, signed and sealed by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, that includes
pedestrian scale lighting along all pedestrian walkways and
thoroughfares, including PGA Boulevard.
The applicant shall provide additional landscaping within the vacant area
north of Building #2 to the satisfaction of the City Forester.
The applicant shall provide additional pedestrian linkages between the
buildings along RCA Boulevard and the sidewalk along said roadway.
At a minimum, sidewalks shall be included at every building entrance
along RCA Boulevard, as reflected on the building elevations.
The applicant shall provide at least 20 additional pedestrian benches
throughout the site and label them on the plan accordingly.
The applicant shall include a bus shelter easement on the site plan in a
location consistent with the Palm Tran letter dated May 18, 2004,
relating to the same, which is on file with the Growth Management
Department.
9
.I 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 a
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
j. The applicant shall submit a revised signage program that adequately
reflects the signage requirements approved by the City Council for the
subject property through the adoption of this Resolution.
30. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. (Planning &
Zoning)
31. Within sixty (60) days of a written determination from Palm Tran that a bus
shelter will be utilized on the subject site, the applicant, its successors, or
assigns shall submit an application for an administrative approval to allow
for review and approval of the site plan, landscape plan, and building
elevations for the bus shelter. The bus shelter design shall be consistent
with the City Council’s previous approval of such shelters. The applicant, its
successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the construction of a bus
shelter in a timely manner to accommodate Palm Tran’s needs for the
same. (Planning & Zoning)
32. Each building shall be allowed two (2) building identification or principal
tenant signs, so long as (1) said signs are not located on the same building
elevation; and (2) the second of the two signs has a copy area of no more
than 75% of the first sign. (Planning & Zoning)
33. Retail ground floor users shall be allowed a maximum of two (2) signs per
tenant, only if (1) any two signs for the same tenant are not located on the
same building elevation; and (2) said signage is affixed directly to the
elevation of the tenant bay it identifies. (Planning & Zoning)
34. Tenants having federally registered trademark signs and logos shall be
allowed to use their registered color scheme on signs facing the parking
areas. Signs and logos facing the adjacent and internal rights-of-way shall
be consistent with the color approved in the master sign program.
(Planning & Zoning)
35. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the property shall
be replatted. Said replat shall dedicate the thoroughfares within the
property to the City. (Planning & Zoning)
36. Wall signs shall not exceed 70% of the immediate vertical and horizontal
surface area to which they are attached. (Planning & Zoning)
37. Medical or Dental Office use is not allowed unless the applicant submits a
traffic equivalency analysis for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall also be required to demonstrate compliance with parking
requirements of the City Code. (Planning & Zoning)
10
--
,
a 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 or: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
38. Prior to the issuance of each occupational license or building permit for
interior renovations of tenant spaces, the applicant or its agent shall submit
a breakdown by use (retail, office, and industrial) of the gross square
footage for lease for approval by the Planning and Zoning Division to ensure
compliance with the City’s Nonresidential Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development intensity measures. (Planning & Zoning)
39. Outdoor storage within the site is prohibited. (Planning & Zoning)
40. Uses on site shall be limited to those uses allowed within the PGA
Boulevard Corridor Overlay, as may be amended from time to time.
(Planning & Zoning)
41. No striped awnings shall be permitted on site. (Planning & Zoning)
42. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall comply with
Section 78-262 of the City Code relative to Art in Public Places. The
applicant shall provide art on site or make a payment in lieu thereof. The
Art in Public Places Advisory Board shall review and make a
recommendation to the City Council on any proposed art on site. If the
applicant is providing public art on site, the art shall be installed prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, with the exception of the art
located east of the North/South Road, which shall be installed prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any buildings located east
of the NorthISouth Road. (Planning & Zoning)
43 Within 90 days of the effective date of this Resolution, the applicant shall
work in conjunction with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC), the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA),
and the City to make any and all necessary modifications to the
development plans for the portion of land lying east of the North/South Road
to accommodate the potential of a Tri-Rail transit station. Said modifications
shall be approved administratively by staff so long as any exterior elevation
changes are architecturally consistent with the approved buildings. Should
the final results of the Jupiter Corridor Alternatives Analysis determine that a
Tri-Rail station will be constructed on the subject property, the applicant, its
successors, or assigns shall work cooperatively with the SFTRA and the
City to facilitate the construction of said station and all ancillary
uses/structures in a timely manner. Said modifications shall be approved by
the City prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (Planning
& Zoning)
44. The applicant shall, within 30 days of the effective date of this Resolution,
submit an easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, with the
property owner for the Gardens Station property to the south. The
easement agreement shall provide for the right of use, construction, and
11
! ’.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 ii 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
maintenance of the shared vehicular access from RCA Boulevard, as well
as of the vehicular connections between the two (2) parcels, and shall
include provisions for cost recovery. The costs for constructing and
maintaining the access from RCA shall be equally shared by Gardens
Station and the subject property. Said easement shall be recorded in the
Public Records of Palm Beach County within 90 days of the effective date of
this Resolution. (Planning & Zoning, City Attorney)
Miscellaneous
45. Required digital files of the approved replat shall be submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Division prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy, and approved civil design and architectural drawings shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (GIs
Manager, Development Compliance Officer)
46. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the master
property owners association documents and restrictions, which shall include
disclosure language regarding the potential transit station and the widening
of the RCA Center Drive to four (4) lanes, shall be furnished by the applicant
to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to such documents being
recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County. (City Attorney)
SECTION 5. Said Planned Unit Development shall be constructed in compliance
with the following plans on file with the City’s Growth Management Department:
1. Sheets 1 through 12 of 12: Site Plan and Landscape Plan, prepared by
Cotleur Hearing, last revised on December 9, 2004, and received and
stamped by the City on December 10, 2004.
2. RCA Center Architectural Package, prepared by REG Architects, Inc., last
revised on July 1, 2004, and received and stamped by the City on
November 9,2004.
3. RCA Center Signage Package, prepared by REG Architects, Inc., last
revised on November 9, 2004, and received and stamped by the City on
November 10,2004.
SECTION 6. Said approval shall be consistent with all representations made by
the applicant or applicant’s agents at any workshop or public hearing.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon receipt by
the City of all of the following items: the surety described in Condition 13(a) and the
deeds described in Conditions 14(a) and 15(a).
12
*b
.1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date Prepared: November 9,2004
Resolution 216,2004
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16- l’ day of gyr ,2004.
AUEST:
BY:
Patricia St@hr, City erk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
Christine P. Tatum, City Attorney
VOTE:
MAYOR JABLIN
VICE MAYOR RUSSO
COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO
COUNCILMEMBER LEVY
COUNCILMEMBER VALECHE
-- AYE NAY ABSENT
/ ---
A
\\P~flle\Attomey\attmey-share\RESOLUTIONS\Reso 21 6 2004 final clean.doc
13
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM is executed this 3i> day of December, 2004 by and
between PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, RCA
CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PGA GATEWAY,
LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and MALL PROPERTIES, LTD. a Florida limited
partnership (sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Catalfumo Entities”) and the
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
(“City”).
Background
1. The Catalfumo Entities and the City entered into a certain Agreement for Assured
Construction of Linkage Roads dated October 3, 2002 (the “Assured
Construction Agreement“). The City previously sued the Catalfumo Entities for
specific performance of the Assured Construction Agreement, which lawsuit will
be stayed pending completion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements described below.
2. RCA Center II of Florida LLC has obtained from the City, Site Plan Approval
pursuant to Resolution 216, 2004 (the “PUD Approval”) for a certain planned unit
development also known as Parcel 58.
3. Pursuant to the City’s Land Development Regulations and the PUD Approval, the
Catalfumo Entities are required to construct a 2-lane road from Alternate AIA to
Military Trail known as Kyoto Gardens Drive Extension (“Kyoto Drive
Improvements”). The City has requested that Kyoto Drive Improvements be
constructed as a 4-lane road to provide for future road capacity and the City has
agreed to fund the difference in cost between a 2-lane road and a 4-lane road
concurrently with the construction of the Kyoto Drive Improvements as set forth
on Exhibit “A attached hereto
4. Catalfumo Entities and City agree that it is critical that construction of the Kyoto
Drive Improvements commence on or before March 31 , 2005
The understanding of the parties is as follows:
1. Catalfumo Entities will contract separately for the construction of the bridge
portion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements and thi? road portion of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements located within the City’s Road Right-of-way in order to expedite the
commencement of construction, it being understood that the bridge portion of the
construction will be able to commence most expeditiously in this fashion. Catalfumo
Entities shall commence construction of the bridge portion of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements on or before March 31, 2005 and shall use its best efforts to complete
the Kyoto Drive Improvements prior to December 31, 2005 and in any event as soon as
practicable thereafter. In order to assist Catalfumo Entities in completing the Kyoto
Drive Improvements and the other linkage roads through Parcels 5A and 5B, City shall
use its best efforts to review and permitt road plans submitted by Catalfumo Entities in
connection with said road work and as soon as practicable issue work permits as
necessary to allow Catalfumo Entities to meet the required time schedules.
2. Catalfumo Entities shall be responsible for the cost of constructing a 2-lane
divided (similar to the 5B Roadway approved by Resolution 216, 2004 PUD Approval)
road only with the City obligated to pay the increased costs caused by the City’s
requirement that the Kyoto Drive Improvements provide 4 lanes when first constructed.
City shall also be obligated to pay for the cost of the FEC railroad crossing and related
improvements. The City agrees to reimburse the Catalfumo Entities its share of the
monthly contractor invoice in accordance with the Estimates attached hereto as Exhibit
“A” (as contemplated by Paragraph 13a of Resolution 216) exclusive of the City’s
payments to the FEC.
I
3. Catalfumo Entities shall provide a Bond satisfactory to the City Manager in the
estimated amount required to construct its 2-lane share of the Kyoto Drive
Improvements in a format acceptable to the City Attorney and as required in PUD
Approval. Catalfumo Entities hereby agrees that should the City call the bond and
assume the responsibility for construction of the roadway; the City may use a two
square acre area of land immediately north of the north Kyoto Gardens Drive Right-of-
Way line (in the vicinity of the bridge) for the purposes of draining the road. Further, this
agreement maybe used to demonstrate to permitting agencies that water quality
requirements maybe met within that two acre area and that the City has the legal rights
to excavate and use that acreage for drainage purposes.
4. Catalfumo Entities and its contractors shall comply with all aspects of the
construction requirements as set forth in the Stipulated Final Order and other related
documents for Kyoto Gardens Drive on both the east and west sides of the FEC
trackbed. All correspondence with FEC will be copied to the City Attorney and all phone
calls to FEC will be logged and a call log will be forwarded to the City with each request
for reimbursement of construction costs.
5. Catalfumo Entities shall be entitled to impact fee reimbursements and credits
which shall be pooled and credited in accordance with the Assured Construction
Agreement for both the bridge and road improvements provided the projects are
completed within the times established in this agreement.
6. City shall be entitled to a right of approval of the contractors selected for
construction of the Kyoto Drive Improvements. If possible, the contractors selected
shall be ones that have current, ongoing, public construction projects that the City can
“piggy-back” onto in order to satisfy the waiver requirements for the public bidding of the
City’s portion of the Kyoto Drive Improvements. It is acknowledged that, in any event, it
is not practicable to obtain separate contractors to bid on the expansion of the Kyoto
Drive Improvements from 2-lane road improvements required to be constructed by the
Catalfumo Entities to the 4 lanes requested by the City. ’ 01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum of
Understanding as of the date set forth above.
a
Witness PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC,
By: Diver Management, Inc.,
Its general partner
Witness RCA CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC
Danieplfumo, President a
MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.
By: Catalfurno Management and
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
By:
e 12/28/2004
- Estimate -
Kvoto Gar dens Drive Co nstruction Costs Summarv
13EM
2-Lane Road Construction Cost
2-Lane Bridge Construction Cost
Landscaping & Irrigation
f!xr
$ 1,094,875
$ 2,490,000
$ 360,475
Total 2-Lane Option Cost: $ 3,945,350
4-Lane Road Construction Cost
4Lane Bridge Construction Cost
Landscaping & Irrigation
$ 1,237,826
$ 3,240,000
$ 360,475
Total &Lane Option Cost: $ 4,838,301
Upgrade of Road to Four Lanes Construction Cost $ 142,951
Upgrade of Bridge to Four Lanes Construction Cost $ 750,000
Sub-Total Construction Cost of Upgrade to 4 Lanes: $ 892,951
Upgrade to 4 Lanes EngineeringlSurvey/Geotech Costs $ 21,982 112 of item costs e
Upgrade to 4 Lanes Clearing Cost $ 16,425 112 of item cost
Upgrade to Four Lanes Military Trail Signalization Cost $ 225,000 1/2 of item cost
Sub-Total Design, Clearing 6 Signal Upgrade Cost: $ 263,407
Sub-Total Design & Construction Upgrade Cost: $ 1,156,358
15% Contigency: $ 173,454
15% Administration: $ 173,454
Bond Cost (2%): $ 30,065
Total Cost of Upgrade to 4 Lanes: $ 1,533,331
Notes: 1. The above figures do not include the cost of design and construction
of the FEC railroad crossing and related improvements which are to be
paid 100% by the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
2.~m!P=--*-W---v- VF
3. Estimated costs are based on 2004 materials and labor costs.
EXHIBIT "A"
PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETION 8
Know all men by these presents:
That we, PGA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company, RCA
CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liablllty company, PGA GATEWAY
LTD., a Florlda limited partnership, and MALL PROPERTIES, LTD., a Florida limited
partnership (herelnafter called "PRINCIPAL"), and Liberty Mutual Insurance'Company,
authorized to do business in the State of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "SURETY")
are held and firmly bound unto the City of Palm Beach Gardens (hereinafter called the
"ClN"), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, In the full and just sum of
Dollars ($ 4,734,420.00
0
Four Million Seven Hundred Thai-ty Four Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty and OO/lOO---
) lawful money of the United
States of America, to be paid to the CITY to which payment will and truly be made, we
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and
severally, flrmly by these presents:
WHEREAS, the above bound PRINCIPAL has executed an agreement for
Assured Construction of Linkage Roads with the City dated October 3, 2002 ("Assured
Construction Agreement') and RCA CENTER II OF FLORIDA LLC, has obtained from
the CITY, Site Plan approval pursuant to Resolution 216 , 2004 (hereinafter called the
"PUD Approval") for a certain planned unit development known as Parcel 56 and has
agreed as a condition of the Assured Construction Agreement at the PUD Approval to
complete the Required Improvements (as hereinafter defined).
Required Improvements consist of constructing a two-lane portlon of a four-lane road
known as the Kyoto Gardens Driie Extension (Resolution 216, Section 4 Engineering
WHEREAS, the
Item 14a.).
WHEREAS, this Payment and Performance Bond for Infrastructure Completion *
Four Million Seven Hundred Thirty Four Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty and OO/lOO--
(hereinafter called the "Bond') is in the full and just sum of
I Dollars ($ 4,7343420 -00 ) lawful money of the United States of America, said sum
being the estimated cost to complete the responsibility of PRINCIPAL for its share of
the construction of the Required Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the SURETY agrees as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
2, The condition of this obligation of SURETY is such that if the PRINCIPAL
shall, in all respects, fully comply with, carry out, construct, erect and build
its share of the Required Improvements in substantial conformity with the
plans, specifications and schedules covering said work and such
approved additions, amendments or alterations as may be made in the
plans, specifications and schedules for said work (it being understood that
the SURETY shall remain bound under this Bond although not informed of
any such additions, amendments or alternations), and shall commence
and complete all of said work in accordance with the Contract for
construction of the work and, provided it receives prompt payment from
the City for the City’s share of the cost of the work, or is otherwise
compensated by the City as the parties may subsequently mutually agree
In wrltlng may promptly make payment to all persons supplying the
PRINCIPAL, Its contractors or subcontractors with any labor, services,
material and/or supplies used directly or indirectly by them or some or any
of them in the prosecution of said work, then this obllgatlon has be void,
otherwise remaining in full force and effect.
SURETY, for consideration received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no
changes, extensions of time, alterations or additions to the work or the
plans, specifications and schedules covering the same, or in the term or
mode of payment forthe same, shall in anywise affect liability or.payment
under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any and all such
changes, extensions of time, alterations and additions to the work or to
the plans, specificatlons and schedules covering said work.
The principal amount of this Bond will be reduced, from time to time, only
3,
4.
as and when (a) the PRINCIPAL provides the CIlY with evidence of
partial completion and payment costs and eicpenses of the Project
reasonably satisfactory to the CITY, such as by way of example, release
of lien and certification of payment, and (b) the PRINCIPAL provides the
CITY an engineering estimate of costs to complete the Required
Improvements, or (c) CITY draws down payments from SURETY under
this Bond in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5c below. The
PRINCIPAL shall provide the CITY wlth a list of all contractors,
subcontractors and material contractors, subcontractors and material .
suppliers, together wlth a certificate of the general contractor certifying
such list is complete. The CITY shall not have the obligation to reduce the
princlpal amount of this SURETY, If it has reasonably concluded the costs
of completion will exceed the original cost estimate or evidence of
payment and partial completion is not satisfactory to the CITY. To obtain
a reduction in the principal sum of the Bond, the PRINCIPAL shall obtain
from the CITY authorization for a reduction, which shall be forwarded to
the SURETY. Any reduction in Bond value shall be considered effected
and binding against CITY.
Whenever the PRINCIPAL shall have failed or refused to commence or 5.
complete the said work by the dates set forth in the Contracts for the
work, the CITY may deciare the PRINCIPAL'to be in default and the
SURETY may remedy the default within thirty days, or shall within thirty
days:
a. Complete or begin completion of the said work in accordance with
the specifications and schedules covering said work and such
approved additions, amendments or alterations as may be made in
the plans, speclflcatlons and schedules covering said work,
completing the work in a prompt manner, or
Obtain a bid or bids for submission to the CITY for completion of
said work in accordance with the plans, specifications and
schedules covering said work, and such approved additions,
amendments or alterations as may be made in the plans,
specifications and schedules for said work, and upon determination
by the CITY and the SURETY of the lowest responsible bidder,
arrange for a contract between such bidder and the SUREN, and
pay to such bidder as work progresses (event should there be a
default or a successlon of defaults under the contract or contracts
of completion arranged under this paragraph) the funds required to
b.
. *.
.I
pay the costs of completion of said repair or maintenance work as
herein described.
Alternatively, the parties hereto understand that upon default by
PRINCIPAL, CITY may elect to assume the contracts for the
construction of the work, in which event CITY shall be entitled to
draw from SURETY the amounts due on a monthly basis in order
for CITY to cover PRINCIPAL'S share of the cost of the work
regardless of the fact that the cost of the Required Improvements
may exceed the amount of this Bond, If City elects to assume the
contracts for construction of the Required Improvements, this Bond
shall be modified as necessary to comply with the provisions of
F.S. 255.05.
*
c.
6. The CITY shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs in
any action at law or equity, including appellate court actions, to enforce
the CITY'S rights under this Bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY have executed these
presents this 28th day of December, 2004.
.. I *,
.I
witness POA NORTH II OF FLORIDA LLC, By: Diver Management, Inc.,
OF FLORIDA LLC
PGA GATEWAY, LTD,
n
Witness n MALL PROPERTIES, LTD.
SURETY:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Countersigned by: Brett Rosenhaus
Address: 4000 South 57th Ave. Ste. 201
Lake Worth. FL 33463
Brett Rosenhaus, Attorney in Fact/Fi Resrideht Agent
L:\FORMSWayrnentAndPerfonnanceREDLI".wpd
..
I I ., I.
Liberty Mutual Surety Bond Number qhc, ooq a 3 y
NOTICE FROM SURETY REQUIRED BY
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002
In accordance with the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (referred to
hereinafter as the “Act”), this disclosure notice is provided for surety bonds on
which one or more of the following companies is the issuing surety: Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; LM
Insurance Corporation; The First Liberty Insurance Corporation; Liberty
Insurance Corporation; Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (formerly
“EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU A Mutual Company”); Peerless
Insurance Company; and any other company that is a part of or added to the
Liberty Mutual Group for which surety business is undenvritten by Liberty Mutual
Surety (referred to collectively hereinafter as the “Issuing Sureties”).
NOTICE FORMS PART OF BOND
This notice forms part of surety bonds issued by any one or more of the lssuing
Sureties.
DISCLOSURE OF PREMIUM
The premium attributable to any bond coverage for “acts of terrorism” as defined 0
in Section ’lO2(1) of the Act is Zero Dollars ($0.00).
DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
IN PAYMENT OF TERRORISM LOSSES
The United States will reimburse the Issuing Sureties for ninety percent (90%) of
any covered losses from terrorist acts certified under the Act exceeding the
applicable surety deductible.
LMIC-6539 11/15/04
-
... ----
a. I,
65 0s c
F $
* 1486470 THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT IS PRINTED ON RED BACKGROUND.
Thlr Power of Anmey Mmttl the act8 of those named herein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except In the manner and to
the extent herein stated.
UBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS a POWER OF AlTORNEY
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Liberty Mutual insurance Company (the 'Company'), a Massachusetts stock insurance
company, pursuant to and by authority of the By-law and Authorlzatbn hereinafter set forth, does hereby name, constltute and appoint
RICHARD M. BUTIN, KAREN L DEBARDAS, BRElT ROSENHAUS, MELINDA ROSENHAUS, ALL OF THE CITY OF
WEST PALM BEACH, STATE OF FLORIDA ..........................................................................................................................
, each indhrldualiy if there be me than one named, its true and lawful attorney-in-fact to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver, for and on its
be#~f~~N~N; i&?tata,~~$ar~,~$.$Il undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other suretJ&abI~s in the penal sum not exceeding DOLLARS($ %,O~I . ) each, and the
execution of wdr undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations, in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon the
Company as if they had been duly signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the Company in their own proper persons.
That this power is made and executed pursuant to and by authority of the following By-law and Authorization:
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANiA ss
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
ARTICLE Xill - Execution of Contracts: Section 5. Surety Bonds and Undertaklngs.
Any officer of the Company authwized for that purpose in writing by the chairman or the president, and subject to such limitations as the
chalrman 01 the presklent may prescribe, shall appoint such attorneys-in-fact, as may be necessary to act in behalf of the Company to make,
execute, seal, acknowledge and dellver as surety any and aH undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. Such
attorneys-In-fact, subject to the limltatbns set forth in their respective powers of attorney, shell have full power to bind the Company by their
slgnatura and execution of any such instruments and to attach thereto the seal of the Company. When bo executed such instruments shall be
as binding as if signed by the president and attested by the secretary.
$3
E 2 k*
B
Y ' By the following instrument the chairman or the president has authorized the officer or other official named therein to appoint attorneys-in-fact
nc Pursuant to Attiile XiII, Section 5 of the By-Laws, Garnet W. Elliott, Assistant Secretary of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, is hereby
authorized to appolnt such attorneys-in-fact as may be necessary to act in behalf of the Company to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and
dellver as surety any and an undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obllgatlons.
Q) That the By-law and the Authorization set forth above are true copies thereof and are now in full force and effect.
tual Insurance Company has been affixed thereto in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania this 23rd day of
SI
ITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been subscribed by an authorized officer or official of the Company and the corporate seal 01
March
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
On this 28rd day of March ,2004, before me, a Notary Public, personally came iiion, to me known, and acknowledgec
that he is an Assistant Secretary of Liberty Mutual insurance Company; that he knows the seal of%:zp;ation; and that he executed the abovc
Power of Attorney and aflix-rporate seal of Liberty Mutual insurance Company thereto with the authority and at the direction of said corporation.
Garnet W. Elliott, Assistant Secretary
subscribed my name and affixed my notarial seal at Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, on the day and yea!
BY Terba Pastella, Notaw Public
1. the undersigned, Assls&k6ry of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the original power of attorney of which the foregoin{
is a full, true and correct copy, is in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that the officer or official who executed thc
said power of altomey is an Assistant Secretary specialty authorized by the chairman or the president to appoint attorneys-in-fact as provided in Article
XIII, Section 5 of the By-laws of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
This certificate and the above power of attorney may be signed by facsimile or mechanically reproduced signatures under and by authority of the
following vote of the board of directors of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company at a meeting duly called and held on the 12th day of March, 1980.
VOTED that the facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any assistant secretary of the company, wherever appearing upon a
cettlfled copy of any power of attorney Issued by the company in connection with surety bonds, shall be valid and binding upon the company
day of
wlth th. mnw force and effect as though manually affixed.
hereunto subscribed my name and aftixed the corporate seal of the said company, thls
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 e 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
ORDINANCE 8,2005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH
GARDENS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE PROJECTS
WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO MEET
ITS ADOPTED LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City of Palm 'Beach Gardens
Comprehensive Plan on January 4,1990; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing certain amendments to the Goals, Policies,
and Objectives of the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan to
include projects which are necessary for the City to continue to meet its adopted level-
of-service standards; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2005, the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board,
sitting as the duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, recommended
approval of said amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject amendment is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has received public input and participation through public
hearings before the Local Planning Agency and the City Council in accordance with
Section 163.31 81 , Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Ordinance is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
~ ~~ ~
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
GOAL 9.1.: PALM BEACH GARDENS SHALL USE SOUND FISCAL POLICIES TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE A? T-
-PUBLIC FACILITIES TO ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION. FISCAL POLICIES MUST -PROTECT INVESTMENTS IN
EXISTING FACILITIES, MAXIMIZE THE USE OF EXISTING FACILITIES, AND
PROMOTE ORDERLY, COMPACT DEVELOPMENT.
Objective9.1.1.: The City of Palm Beach Gardens shall use the Capital
Improvements Element of this Comprehensive Plan as a means to ensure the
constructlon, replacement, and maintenance of Capital Facilities,-
) which are necessary to achieve and maintain the
levels of service in the Comwehensive Plan.
.. .
Policy 9.1 .I .I .: The City shall include in mFive-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements all capital facility projects-(renewal and replacement) needed fe+&
achieve and maintain the adopted level of service maWmwx+ - and which are over
$50,000 in estimated costs. zwd-#e-mCity shall review dd-the Five-Year Schedule
during the preparation of the annual budget.
Policy 9.1 .I .2.:
ranked in order of priority according to the following guidelines:
Proposed capital improvement projects shall be evaluated and
1)
2)
31 I
33 I 3)
35 I 4)
32
34
36
37 38 I
39
40
41 5)
42
43
Whether the project is financially feasible and is needed to protect public health
and safety, to fulfill the city's legal commitment to provide facilities and services,
or to preserve or achieve full use of existing facilities or to eliminate existing
capacity deficits;
Whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities, prevents or
reduces future improvement cost, provides service to developed areas lacking
full service, or promotes infill development+mdA
Whether the project represents a logical extension of facilities and services;7
Whether the project is consistent with the > projected
growth patterns, the accommodation of new development and redevelopment
facility needs, and the plans of governmental sWe-agencies
3that provide public facilities within the
City's jurisdiction; and
..
Whether the project is consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary philosophy of
urban vs. rural characteristics and service provision.
44
45
Objective 9.1.2.: Future development shall bear a proportionate cost of facility
improvements necessitated by the development in order to maintain adopted 0 I LOSstandards.
2
.I 1 Policy9,1.2.1.:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
1) The City shall continue to collect a countywide transportation impact fee to
assess new development a pro rata share of the costs required to finance
transportation improvements necessitated by such development. ax4
21
2) The CitLshall -p * city road impact fees for
-roads of City responsibility.
3) The roadways within the City Center Linkages Plan shall be constructed and
financed by individual landowners whose developments will have a direct benefit
these roadways. The timing and construction of the Linkages Plan roadways
coincide with development of individual sites. The development approval for the
affected parcels will be conditioned on the construction of the roadways
coinciding with the development of these parcels.
Policy 9.1.2.2.: The City shall continue its program of mandatory dedications or
fees-in-lieu of dedication as a condition of development approval inrto ensure the 18
19 I timely provision of recreation and open space.
20
21 Policy 9.1.2.3.:
22
The City shall periodically review the adequacy of impact fees
levied to fund the following capital facilities needed to support new growth:
I 1) Park and recreation sites and facilities; ami4
~~ ~ - __
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
2) Roadways;[
3) Law enforcement; and
4) Emerqencv facilities.
Policy 9.1.2.4.:
allow for the construction of new City buildinas.
The City shall consider adoptins a Public Facilitv Imp ct Fee t l
32 Objective 9.1.4.: The City of Palm Beach Gardens has established a
minimum level of service for-, traffic circulation, potable water and
34 sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, recreation and open space, and public
safety as defined in the applicable elements. Decisions regarding the issuance of 33 I
deveiopment orders and- permits shall be based upon coordination of the
development requirements included in this Plan, the land development
regulations, and the availability of necessary public facilities concurrent with the
impact of developments. The School District of Palm Beach County shall
maintain minimum level of service standards for public school facilities, as
defined in the Public School Facilities Element. In the case of public school
facilities, the issuance of Development Orders, Development Permits or
development approvals shall be based upon the School District of Palm Beach
County’s ability to maintain the minimum level of service standards.
3
3
4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
.. Policy9.1.4.l(a): The City of Palm Beach Gardens has established fxwta+w a
minimum level of service for- , traffic circulation, potable water and sanitary
sewer, solid waste. drainaqe. recreation and open space, and public safety. The
School District of Palm Beach County shall maintain minimum level of service
5 standards for public school facilities, in accordance with the adopted Interlocal
6 Agreement. To ensure that the minimum levels of service for these public facilities and
7 services are maintained as new development occurs, the City of Palm Beach Gardens
8 follows a concurrency management system. The concurrency management system
9 requires all new development applications, subject to concurrency certification, to
10 submit an application which indicates impacts on the Level of Service for the
11 concurrency item. The application identifies the impacts that the proposed
12 development would have on the City's ability, or in the instance of public school
13 facilities, the School District of Palm Beach County's ability, to maintain the adopted
14 minimum levels of service. The concurrency management system shall be consistent
15 I with Section 163.3202 (I), Florida Statutes.
16
17 Policy 9.1.4.2.(b): Public safety level of service standards are not a formal component
18. of the concurrency management system required by Rule 95-5.0055, FAC. The City,
19 I however, &&Xy-will monitor -public safetv level of service standards
20 during the development review process. Any project that necessitates expansion of
21 public safety services beyond those provided in any given fiscal year shall be required
22 1 to participate in the cost lwfckw-of expanding police and firelEMS services to serve the
subject property, or shall be phased consistent with City plans to expand such services.
Public safety facilities and/or capital equipment that will provide the proposed
development sufficient services based on the LOS for police and firelEMS facilities may
be required pursuant to a Developer's Agreement. Public safety facilities and/or capital
equipment dedicated to the City pursuant to a Developer's Agreement shall be credited
against impact fees.
I
Policy 9.1.4.2.(d): With a super-majority vote of the City Council, alternative service
mechanisms or provision of services at urban levels may be approved in the rural
service area.
Policy 9.1.4.3.: The City shall, consistent with Section 163.3202 (1 ), F.S., maintain
regulations that will allow phasing of a development and issuing of a development order
for projects that are phased to ensure that the necessary public facilities and services are available prior to the completion of the proposed development.
Policy 9.1.4.4.:
facilities needed to meet the adopted level of service standards are in place.
Certificates of occupancy will be issued only after all required public
4
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005 m 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6i
25
Policy 9.1.4.5.: If a Dreviouslv-scheduled capital improvement which was the basis
for approval of a development order is rescheduled to a later fiscal vear. the affected
develoDment mav Proceed only if adequate surety has been Dosted with the City to
ensure that the public facilities are constructed.& =: r;
Policy 9.1.4.6: The City shall limit its total debt service expenditures to no more
than 20% of total revenue and limit total outstanding indebtedness to no more than
10% of its property tax base.
Pollcy 9.1.4.7.: The City shall evaluate proposed ComDrehensive Plan
amendments and 1 3: mh&qmM4 eveloDment
amlication according to the following guidelines;;
4wkw
26 I
28 I 2)
27
29
30
31
32
34
36
38
40
33 I
35 I 3)
37 I
39 I 4)
41 I 42
43
44
45
Will the DroDosed amendment or develODment order €&ontribute to a condition
of public hazard as may be described in the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Recharge (Infrastructure)
Element, and Coastal Management Element of this Comprehensive Plan?+
Will the proposed amendment or development order €gxacerbate any existing or
projected condition of public facility capacity deficits, as may be described in the
support documents of the Transportation Element; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Recharge (Infrastructure)
Element; Public Safety Element; and Recreation and Open Space Element of
this Comprehensive Plan?;
Will the Proposed amendment or development order Ggenerate public facility
demands that may be accommodated by capacity increases planned in the
5-Year Schedule of Improvements~: att$i
Does the Proposed amendment or development order eonform with future land
uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of
this Comprehensive Planz:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION
The Schedule of Capital Improvements in Table 9A is herebv adopted as the City’s
Five-Year Capital ImDrovement Plan.
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Other Programs: Other principal proqrams that will implement this Element are:
1. Continued annual capital Droarammina and budaetina, includins use of the
proiect selection criteria contained in Policv 9.1.1 .I.
2. Continued annual review and revision of this Element.
3. Enactment and enforcement of land develooment regulations provisions to
assure conformance to the concurrencv requirements relative to development
orders. levels of service. and public facilitv timina as outlined below.
The Citv will annuallv prepare an updated five-vear schedule of caDital improvements.
As Dart of the annual Drocess, it shall include a review and analvsis of the Citv’s
financial condition and an updated Droiection of revenues which takes into account any
chanaes in potential revenue sources that had been anticipated to fund scheduled
irnDrovements. In addition. it will incorporate any new capital improvement needs that
have arisen since the last update. The analvsis shall also include a discussion of any
change in improvement prioritization.
The rewired Evaluation and Appraisal ReDort (EAR) shall address the implementation
of the aoals. objectives, and policies of the Capital Improvement Element.
.. .
6
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 6 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
7
-7
01 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 ai
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
8
e 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 at
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
9
Date Prepared January 31,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
10
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Research Parkway Easl and South of Grandh
Total
e1 2
3
4
2,800,000 - Devebper
$8,173,000 $8,839,000 53,277,000 5219,000 $225,000
Table 9A
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
n
e
POLICE
a
11
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
WorkstaUon Replenishment
SANS Network Backup and Storage Solution
Tote/
FIRE RESCUE
General
GeWd
76,050 82,249 92,134 96,200 104,041 Fund
112,551 Fund
$76,050 $82,249 $92,734 $96,200 $276,592
DWGE I General
Canal Rashtion 400,000 3,090,000 1,697,440 - Fund
Swale Restorah I 150,m I 154,500 I 159,135 I 163,909 I 168,826 I GasTax I I I I I I
1 TOtd I $550,000 I $3,244,500 I $1,856,575 I $763,909 I $168,826 I 1
PUBLIC WORKS
12
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
BRCRC - FRDAP Grant 400,000
~,OOO Tmnb Cenler Expansbn
Pm-Shop Expansion 212,180
Total ~~a7s,o00 53,677,100 52,717,792 ~~993,gia
General
General
General
Gnnd Total All Elemenfs $13,686,748 $18,218,748 $9,815,422 $6,128,853 $4,296,077
13
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Table 9B
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
Summary of Capital Improvements Program
Praject Total
NewConrtrucUon
Newschods
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
&reagekeaHgh(02."N) 57,852,875
Boacon Care Ocm (SA) 12,475,356
Benoid hc Elem p&o) 13,004,l10
BiJrs Fmd Elem (96-E) 11,127,460
BoyntDn Area Oem (03v) 17,i62,M
BoynEDn Beah Hii (91-111) 51,919,225
~BlBCUllpound 44-
Chdss Lake Elem (9740 15,012,952
CrotWe Dem (981) 12,832,510
Diamond Viw Elem (014) 13,768,801
Dkcwary Key Rem (961) 12,822,084
Don Edridge h4ddle d SSTC' (SBGG) 2S,730,l82
Dr.MaryMcLwdBelhuneBw(W) 12,302,191
Freedom Shares Uem (974) 13,096,092
honber Dem (96B) 13,373,855
Grassy Walers Ekm (02-T) 13,663,m
Greenacres Area Middle (03KK) 28,051,894
Heritage Elem (5F) 11,982,482
EquedrianTrailsElem (024) 13,533,584
Independence Midde (96-FF) 21,559,210
Jeaga Mddle (SEE4 22,157,115
Lake Worth Area thgh (OSOOO) 82,833J95
Odyssey Commnity Mdde (96W) 21,011,955
Osceda Oeek Wde (99.") 23,980,835
Pahokee Area Mdde School (OSMM) 24,675,W
~-
2,500,000 80,333,795
23,136,538
14
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Pdorto Fy.Xlo05.
2005 :
Table 9B continued ...
M FY PI M M
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Project Total
p;lmEleachcanb.11Hph(98u] 50,619,476
Palm Beach CIardens kea Elem (034
pprk Mda Hi (QMEE)
Fierce Hamock Elam (004)
*wclyEww
PdOMuMdO(964C)
Rk#r Beachkea !4@ (01MMM)
Rqal Pdrn kh Area Elem (03w)
Royal PJn Beach Rem (64
Scf$~pajardam Area School (OCA)
SWkgka Elem (os?/)
$wise Park Rem (96-H)
TndeMnds EMda (984)
Wage Academy PK-3 pap)
%h@on Area Elem (024)
Welliton Area Midde (024)
Wed Boca Ralon Hi@ (01Ul)
19,269,660
64,762,771
14,362,240
9,402,144
19,756,m
75jl237
19,269,660
12,112,364
VJWooo
19,847,750
11,65637U
24,580,510
7,792,211
18,682,W
30,958,62[
53,059,07L
wed WnlM Area h (W) 19,269,661
Subktd New SEhools 1,028,9118,7M
Wed Pdm Beach ha Ms (Ocoo) 2,000,00(
NodemizaUwo and Replacements
Almada Rem Modmat#n 20,545,E
Ahlc Hph Mod~Cn 63,026,SR
Bak Mde School ofthe Arlo Modwnization 36,144,2@
Mon Elem Modernization 19,317,52i
Belvedere Om Modemeabbn
Berkohie Elem Modemizdim
Bocl Raton Elem Mpdemizafim
Boca Raton High Modernhaion
Boca Ralon Midde Modernization
12,090,06t
18,729,37!
10,299,1&
51,388,M
33,165,04'
Cqress kb'ddle Modemealion 33,343,70; 2
12112,364
18,682,808
28,012,384
53,69,075
t,692,(17 17,577,223
1,m,Ooo
1,000,000 16,847,750
1
2U,54$#3 1,361,918 19,183,615
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
e Table 9B continued ...
Project Total
cornidon Mdde Modenipdon 25,900,571
3,200
2S0,m
149,676
13,732,l6l
50J74,W
19,922,746
l,WO,OoD
Gnenlaet Elem thdmkah 11,935,727
HI Watkinr Mde Schod ModeminSon
J CMilcheU Elem Modemhaion
25,645,391
20,525,734
J F Kennedy W Modrrmizalian 33,303,571
Jekon Dnrk Mdde Modmkdnn
John 1 Leonard H@ Modsrrizatiin
hpiler Elm Modemizaion
hp4e1 Hi@ Modembalion
Like Fab Elem Mademeah
LI shm Mddle Replacement
LMltana Elem Modernization
Lntpru Mid& Replacered
Meadow Pad Oem Modernization
Naih Oak Modernization
Norlh Palm Beach Elem Maderrizabon
Mbom Elem Moderntaban
Norlhmcre Uemedary Replacemeri
Palrn Beach Gardens Hem Modembairn
35,14294
n,852,7n
12,608,611
54,,SaO,l30
11,115,837
28,420,122
13,W8,039
20,756,788
16,270,245
11,517,US
21 ,186,403
21,186,403
14,878,361
19,922,746
Palm Beach Gardens High Modernization 79,ezem
Palm Beach hblii Modemizdion 15,129,831
Pam Springs Elem Modernization 17,903,095
Palmello hew Modembation
PIunOsa Elem Moderrizatiin 2
17,888,635
20,545,533
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Priorto W'200b.1 M FY M PI M
3m
250,ooO
149,676
13,732J61
50,8743534
IS&W
1
ll,Q3127
25,1145,391
20,525134
3,025,276 30,270p8
3,66091 31,7OQ,N3
5,758987 72,083,792
12,604,617
54,880,130
11,115,637
28,420,122
2a;lss~ee
13,oOe,039
16,278,245
11,517,825
14,878,361
15,129,831
17,903,095
17,888,635
1,807,045 18,115,701
1,361,918 19,824,485
1,361,918 19,824,405
1,863,882 18,058,864
3,942,649 15,885,120
833,127 19,712,406
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
16
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8.2005
Table 96 continued ...
Project Total
Rdng Green Elem ModerrinCm 19,317,527
Roorevet Elm MOM 19,sosJoe
Suncomtmn 2,000,000
U B ICj~yWmii Elem Modemizdim 13,129,735
~ctWElem€dayModemhdion 13,664,039
wedwudam~odemiza(i~n 19,317,527
SUwDtrl Modehff on8 nd Replrcernantn
Addiff on8 and Remodeling Prajoctr
ijnp~,ta
A W Dreyfoa, Sa Addlim 6,383,046
Acadenlie¶at~schods 7,321,411
Acreage kea If@ (02-NNH) Buldd 5580,086
AtMm Mzner Elemenlq Remodelmg 2,116,952
Altemahe Schook Milder Plan 75,w
Bdc Midde School of the Arts - Audhnum 5,500,OoE
Banyin creek Clawwin Addin 10,640,m
Barton Elm K3 CSRAddition
Bele Glade El Classrcom Addh for Re-K -
Benokt Farms Clamom Pddilion
Boca Aat~ High SU. sldg ad Academy
Boca R~M Hi& Stadivm
Buynbn Beach Hiuh Academy
Boynton Beach tlgh Sladi
Cwer Classroom Addiion
Wee lake Classroom Addn kr ProK
Ch Cove Classmom Addtjon
ccrd Sunset Hem Addition
Covered Raygrounds
Crerhvaod Classroom Addtion
Qdal Lakes CSR Addlion 2
1,029,311
2,5633
795,H
10,111,x
1,887,dN
5,425,35(
732,m
2,893,47!
795,924
4,804,021
10,470y
192,86
9,317,42(
3,720,K
19,sosJoe
15,616943
13,351,380
13,129,735
13,661,039
2,000,000
2,116,952
~8poo 75,m
n2,w
10,470,200
192,869
3,720,067
5,580,085
10,640,868
2,563,253
2,893,479
9,317,426
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Table 9B continued,..
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Project Total
Dr.MMmeClass.AddhforPrs-K 795m
GladesCenbaltQlAcaderny
Gove Ciwroan AUm
Hammock Ride Ekun Addlion
lndnFineraarlmamAddtian
lndn Finer Rsm AMm
bdanRidgeCkmmAddition
Jtq Thoma Hem Addtian
~ohn I ie~nard w. ia haoms
h@er H* sladun
w~dieatwrocm~ddtim
lake Worth Hgh Addilion ph 3
lob Worth H@ Addiins ph ?
Lske Woih Mde Classm Addbm
Liberty Park Em Adddon
limeslone Oeek Bern Addh
MrnaleeClassrmMlion
NOIUI Bade Classroom Addition
U(eeheelee Classroom AddSon
qmpic tki*ts Hi$ Addition
Pdmkee Elementary Phase 2 OCR
Pabkee High Stadurn
Pah Beach LAes Audiloriun
Paim Beach Likes Classrwm Addbn
Parlher Rm ES Addhon
Pine Qove K3 CSR Addtm
Rdocatabks - Code Cornprice
Ralocdabler -Master Pian
Rdocdables -Walkway Canopies
Relocalabler & Modulan - Replacemd
pdm Beach ldtes Academy
5,wm
795,930
14,333,183
847,530
10,461,937
3,97530
8,4%,126
2,970,021
1,724,506
3,774,053
4,420,537
30,493,791
5,@1,453
13,249,382
8,usjn
3,945,096
795,930
3,716,561
4$5211
7,300,534
1,881,480
5,853,015
6,667,093
9,207,481
12,774,92[
1,027,654
29,500,001
1,500,00(
~50OpoC
50,997,w
9,soo,ooo 1o,m,o0O 10,000,ooo
43,997500 7,W,QW 7,000,000
3,975,290
3/74,053
5,024,453
3,945,096
9,207,481
18
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Bear lakes Classroom Addilioo 7,153,581
MIS Forest El CSR Addtion 3,5116,591
Table 9B continued.. .
1
7,153,581
3,546,591
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Subtotd Additions and Remodeling Prdects
Site Acquisition
~U,~OS,~SI
SuUotd Site Acquisition 170,659,20
Subtotal New Constructicn 2,7&mt&
Priorto FYZOO~.-I M M FY M FY
2005 W20pB21 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1,794,092
795,930
6,234113 1,720,079
4,351,443
fl,343$8
224,129
8,460,712
5,632,406
6,702,113
5,915,047
1
13,792,440 $$@,OC4 5,000,000 l,O00,600 1,000,000 1,000,ooO 1,000,000
Class Size Reduction
Clara Sue Reduction
19
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
mu Items
Miintenonce
Banyan Creek HVAC Replacement 2,065,437
01 Table 9B continued ...
2,065,437
3
4,335,399
2,667J56
361,672$90
4,901,500
104,488
3,500,000
500,ow)
1,013,391
11,452,743
Project Total
BoynlonIDdrayAreaMddle(03U) 34,041m
1,335,399
2,667J56
4,901,500
104,488
3,wfl00
m,ooo 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
1,013,391
5,753,911 5,698,832 1,021,456 1,090,797 1,164,991 1,124,072 1,297,516
171,551,974 ,021, 36,000,boO 36,122,014 37,205,671 30,321,841 39,471,498
Class Size Reduction
coral Reef Elem CSRAddtion
F& hk K-3 CSR Addh
GIaWbUMCSRAlMh
Gpve K-3 CSR AWcn
Hiiand CSR Addh
Jlpitec Fams Area Mdde (OINN)
anni class Sie Reductim
Pahokes Ekm K-3 CSR Addilion
RWabkr 6 Wn - be
Sandpiper Sharer CSR Ad6Cm
SMgN Cove CSR AddSon
Tmber Trace CSR Addih
Welwlon hdnpo Class See Redvction
K E -ham K-3 CSRAdditii
368,719,367
4,970,719
1,183,861
05?,32
1,036,819
1,776,ln
34,041,957
1,010,799
2,92WQ ww
21,000,000
1,716,M
4,85b,2aa
4,072,601
3,331,119
~ SuMotd am SIZ~ Reduden iW,33ijM
Subtotal Class Size Reduction 501,333,484
0 7,470,400 93,133,281 166,726,851 101989,229
4,970,?19
1,183,861
857,372
1,036,819
I,l76,113
1,orOJSs
2,922~00
l,oS4,2eS
4,716,aoO
4J54280
1,373,143 32,668,814
7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Bear lakes HVAC Replacemed
Calusa HVAC Replacement wtal Lbidenance Transkr
Chiski KcAuliffe HVAC Replacement
COBl Payments
Cryrtd lakes WAC Replacement
Facilities Management Msc. Projects
FadQ Suppal
Fwe 6 Life SafQ Systems
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
Date Prepared January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Table 9B continued ...
I Priorto Ma4 PI M PI M M
Project Total 2005 E1@&( 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
H 1 Jchrwan WAC Replaced 3,166,740 3,166,740
lox&a!chee Groves WAC Replamed 2,l63,547 I 2,983,547
Mnorfvqe&
Omni WAC Replamed
PEcbMdntemw hjedt
Revenhe Maintenance
Ray4 Pam Sdwd HVAC Replacement
SandgPor Shores HVAC Replacement
limb Tnce HVAC Repbcemed
AppWon Systems
&sinees c)peratimg Systems
Business System Replacemed
Cumty-wide Technology
Data Warehwse Integrd#nProjed
Electronic Imaging Storage 6 Rebieval
bldN&nd TKhncby h %hook
lratrudional Tectmlqy Hgh schols
krsbuctiond Techndogy Mddle Schools
0n.litwAssessmeh
Shod Center Admiiisbalive Techndogy
Student Sydem Replacemad
Tech Prep, Hifi
Tech Prep, Mae Schools
28,784,586
24,230,470
20,676,450
349,899
9j9~,M
691,710
sr,a8,019
38,070,664
40,sss~Ss
14,293,380
79,986,169
11,262,358
447,045
556,617
9,36,iM
7,350240
76,450
349,899
4441,045
556,617
3,3w
2,921,705
4,120,000
2,428,400
5,005,335
3,osa,sos
3,746NI
3,413,000
8,977,066
2,815,567
3,902,270
3,424,272
4,l20,000
2,428,400
5,522,340
3,488,882
4,l68,964
3,413,000
10,904,458
2,815,657
4,050,361
3,561,243
4,i20,000
lJ56,4M)
6,743,233
4,628,437
5,356,522
3,413,000
13,387,058
2,815,567
4,261,279
3339,305
4,l20,000
1,356,400
9,000,395
6,859,859
7,031,710
341,300
16,056,411
2,815,567
21
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
Table 9B continued.. .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Pro'ed J Total I
T&commicalionr 931,251
WAreaW 442
Subtotd Technolow 323,00:,srw
[kbt Senice
Mrage Rem b IRS
Cops Lease Paymenb
Relocaables - Leasing
Reldables - ReJccaCm
Restricted Reserve
Sthod Cenler Security
SIT Award Transfers fw Charter
WWJ
12,366,oei
2p19,oM
2,129,095
5,030,737
6,582,320
5,610,583
199,311
1,W@
2,822,030
11,208,058
101,090,799
28,271,923
5,904,761
2,177,236
Subtotd Other Items 264,902,555
Subtotal Other hems 2,o3t,os~roo
49,089 7e;2arLm 10,635,W 16,993,704 i,167,256 17,601,484 16m-6
8,316,081 4,&0,0@ 350,WQ W,OW W0,OW 900,000 Z,OW,WJO
400,m w,m 124,360 441,334 463,401
240,000 240,000 254,616 264,801 278,041
400,OOO 400,OOO 424,360 441,334 463,401
3sopOO 360,WQ 301,924 397,201 411,061
I50,fJon 150,OOO 150,OOo 150,000 150,OOo
1,190,iW 1,203,700 177,610 186,491 195,816
3,994,953 12,8T1J09 14,821,015 l5,827,0ll 18721,464
4,000,000 4,000,000 4,226,037
410,~ 418,945 444,459 46237 485,~
Total Projects 5,325,551,1138 1 2,531,707,052 &713,844,8& I 728,386,010 442,700,394 658,525,187 548,695,900 415,55?,0!5
SECTION 3. The City's Growth Management Administrator is hereby directed to
transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and supporting data, analysis,
and other relevant material, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, to the Department of
Community Affairs of the State of Florida and other appropriate public agencies, and
upon adoption of this Ordinance is further directed to ensure that this Ordinance and all
other necessary documents are forwarded to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and other agencies in accordance with Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes.
22
.I 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 s 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
SECTION 4. The effective date of this plan amendment shall be the date a final
order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.31 84(l)(b),
Florida Statutes, whichever is applicable. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by
the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective
by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall
be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community
Planning, Plan Processing Team. An adopted amendment whose effective date is
delayed by law shall be considered part of the adopted plan until determined to be not
in compliance by final order of the Administration Commission. Then, it shall no longer
be part of the adopted plan unless the local government adopts a resolution affirming its
effectiveness in the manner provided by law.
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
23
Date Prepared: January 3,2005
Ordinance 8,2005
PASSED this /fZday of Fo7lrcuWY I 2005, upon first reading.
3
4 second and final reading.
5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this /bw day of -J;ue 2005, upon
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Hal R. Valech&ouncilmetp& fl Jody Barne o cilmember
25
26 ATTEST:
CICt LI
28
29 BY:
30
31 City Clerk
32
33
34
35 LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
36
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
FOR
/
AGAINST ABSENT
/
J
J
/
39
40
41
42
43
44
\\PbqsRle\Attorney\attomey_share\ORDl~NCES\COMP PLAN ' CIE - ord 8 2005.doc
24
d
C m
0 0
v) W t9
0-
0 0
v) d
69
0-
T-
0 0
0 In t9
0-
0 0
0 0 v)
tF)
0-
0 0
0 0
t9
9
T-
0 0
0 0
69
0-
7
0 0
0 In N t9
0-
0 0
0 In Ce
0-
0
0 N
7
t
cn 0 0 N t
0
O N
T-
t
cn 0 0 N t
0
0 N
T-
t
r- 0 0 N t
a 0 0 N t:
a3 0 0 N t
a 0 0 N t t
- mv) g2 $2
mv) $2 $2
v)
3
0
?
2 65
c
a, U m 1
v) *
a m
Q)
v)
Q) Y m -I
z
0 a,
LL
a, 0 0 0
v)
.-
L - 0 0 a
E 0
U C 3
cn
(0
?
ii +
a m
v) Y d Q) Y m 4
0 0 6
b 0 0 N t
c C
a, 0 m n a, IY
C 0
-
.- - .- 5 a @
fn Y 8
0 0
cn d fa
2
b 0 0 N t
0
0 N
7
t
E E e a
0)
0 0
0 0
fa
0-
7
0
0 hl
LL
r
>
e 2
2 m a
a, m Y
v)
Y
00000 00000
00000 00000 e***- Be363fatf3
9 9 0" 0" 9
DbCoOO 3ooor 30000 NNhlNhl Xttt ~
b 0 0 N > U
I
D 3 3 N
t L
a 0 0 N t
b 0 0 hl t
Q) 5 z
5 4
b E
- Lo
m 5
0 C m
Q) 0 m c
v)
(u P :
-
3 3
?9 E3
3-
3 3
3 n ?9 E3
3
0 0
0 0
0-
2
3 3
3 0
3-
\ 3 3 N
2- L
0-l 0 0 N t
b 0 0 N > U
\
3 3 N
2- L
W 0 0
(v t
b 0 0 N
k
a3 0 0 N t
TI 3 3 N
2- L
0, 0 0 N t
L L 0
> m a
K
Q)
m
3
.- - - .-
Y
E
E
E
8
8
0)
3 E
Y-
Y K a,
.- k
3 0- w
K 0
v) c m a X W
0 1
0 I-
.
.-
Y
Y
W
C 0
> m
v,
a,
LL
Y V 0
.- - .-
a
z .-
E
I 2 a
a,
c 8
h 3 3 N > L
0
0 N
r
t
r- 0 0 N t
I
boJ 00 00 NN tt
v) Q 0 I- -0 t m 9)
0 -
a
0
-0 .-
d
g
i!
.ad C
8
p!
m
Q
m
-
0 0
0 v) e3
0-
0 0
0
(3) e3
0-
0 0
m
(D
tf)
0- m-
(v * tf)
a 0 0
(v t
03 0 0 N t
b 0 0
(v t
co 0 0
(v t
b 0 0
(v t
a 0 0
(v t
b 0 0
(v t
(D 0 0
(v >- LL
tn 0 0
(v t > LL
c om xg - ELI
v) C 0 .- Y 9
2
0 C
N
0 Z
C 0
m .- c. z
2 ii
Y k E a
3 .-
w" a e:
Q) S w
.-
E .- L
m E!
0
U c m
E
Y- O
(D 0 0 N > LL
c. a a ii
(0 0 0 hl t
Y 0 2
2 m
t-
L
v)
LL
cL3 0 0 N t
L P
P
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
Subj ect/Agenda Item:
Ordinance 31,2006: LDR Amendment - Section 78-86: Proportionate Fair Share Program &
Section 78-751: Definitions
Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council: A City-initiated request for approval of a
text amendment to the Land Development Regulations creating Section 78-86, Proportionate Fair
Share Program, Code of Ordinances. This City Code amendment allows for “proportionate share”
contributions from developers toward traffic concurrency requirements as mandated by the 2005
amendments to the State of Florida’s growth management legislation.
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE
[ 1 Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
City Attorney
Christine Tatum, Esq.
Development Compliance
NA
Bahareh Keshavarz, AICP
Administrator
Kara Irwin, AICP
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
EZerAU
Brad Wiseman
Planning Manager
[ ] Quasi-Judicial
[XI Legislative
[XI Public Hearing
Approved By:
Ronald M. Ferris
City Manager
Advertised:
Date: 10/13/06
Paper: PB Post
[XI Required
Affected parties:
[ ]Notified
[XI Not Required
FINANCE:
Costs: $-N/A
Total
$-N/A-
Current FY
Fun1 ig Source:
[ 3 Operating
[XI Other-N/A
Budget Acct.#:
NA
PZAB Action:
IN/A] Approved
:N/A] App. wl conditions
:N/A] Denied
] Rec. approval
[ 3 Rec. app. w/ conds.
3 Rec. Denial
;N/A] Continued
to:
Attachments:
0 Ordinance 3 1,2006
0 163.3180, F.S.
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject petition is a City-initiated request in response to the 2005 amendments to the State of
Florida’s growth management legislation requiring local governments to adopt a proportionate fair
share ordinance by December 1, 2006. The purpose and intent of this amendment is to provide
applicants for development order approval an opportunity to proceed under certain conditions,
notwithstanding the failure of transportation concurrency, by contributing their share of the cost of
improving the impacted transportation facility. The concurrency definition of Section 78-75 1 is also
being amended consistent with statutes. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3 1,2006.
BACKGROUND
Concurrency is a growth management concept intended to ensure that the necessary public facilities
and services are available concurrent with the impacts of development. To carry out transportation
concurrency, local governments define what constitutes an adequate level of service (LOS) and
measure whether the service needs of a new development outrun existing capacity and any scheduled
improvements in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). If adequate capacity is not available, the
local government cannot permit development unless certain conditions apply as provided for in
statute.
The 2005 amendments to the State of Florida’s Growth Management legislation directed local
governments to enact concurrency management ordinances by December 1, 2006, that allow for
“proportionate share” contributions fkom developers toward concurrency requirements. Also
included in the amendments was a requirement for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
to develop a model fair-share ordinance to assist local governments in adopting proportionate fair
share programs. The subject code amendment is a proportionate fair share program in response to
the recently adopted amendments to the Florida Statutes, which is consistent with the FDOT model
ordinance and Palm Beach County’s fair share program.
0
CITY CODE AMENDMENT
This City Code amendment provides for the adoption of the proportionate fair share program
consistent with Florida Statutes.
Section 7 8 - 8 6. Proportionate Fair-S hare Program
(a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish a method whereby the impacts
of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public
and private sectors, to be known as the Proportionate Fair-Share Program, as required by and in a
manner consistent with Section 163.3 180( 16), Florida Statutes. Proportionate Fair-Share payments
shall be distinct and separate payments from and shall not be considered the same as impact fee
payments. Impact fees are imposed by the City to replace capacity utilized by growth and to provide
funding for long-range transportation plans. Proportionate fair-share is assessed to pay for specific
deficiencies to the transportation network resulting from development and enabling development to
meet level of service (LOS) concurrency requirements. Proportionate Fair Share enables
2
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
development to meet concurrency requirements by proportionately paying for improvement projects.
(b) Applicability. The Proportionate Fair-Share Program shall apply to all developments that fail
to meet the standards of this division on a roadway within the City that is not the responsibility of
Palm Beach County or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The Proportionate Fair-
Share Program does not apply to Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) using proportionate fair
share under Section 163.3 180(12), Florida Statutes, projects exempted from this division, or for
projects that received traffic concurrency approval prior to December 1,2006.
Staff Comment:
The purpose of this code amendment is to provide a mechanism that allows petitioners to proceed
with development by mitigating traffic impacts through fair share contributions. This code section
will apply to all developments that fail to meet traffic concurrency standards for roads that are not the
responsibility of Palm Beach County or FDOT. All Palm Beach County and FDOT roads are subject
to the Proportionate Fair Share ordinance adopted by the county. However, projects that have
previously received traffic concurrency will not be eligible to retroactively apply for a proportionate
fair-share agreement. This section also clarifies that proportionate fair share payments are separate
from impact fees.
(c) General Requirements. An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation concurrency
requirements by making a proportionate fair-share contribution for impacts of new development on
City roads that have or will have an LOS deficiency as defined in this division, pursuant to the
following requirements:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land
development regulations.
2. Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer’s fair-share obligation shall
meet the City’s design standards for locally-maintained roadways.
3. The scope of the project shall provide for no less than the capacity necessary to address
the transportation concurrency needs for the next five years after the execution of the fair
share agreement
4. The road improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS is specifically identified
for construction in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the Capital
Improvements Element (CIE) of the Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of subsection
4. a. may apply if a transportation project or projects are needed to satisfy concurrency
and are not presently included within the City’s CIE.
a. If an applicant meets the criteria contained in subsection (c), and the City’s CIE does
not include the transportation improvements necessary to satisfy the LOS deficiency, then
the City may allow transportation concurrency improvements and funding for the project
through the proportionate fair-share upon compliance with the following criteria:
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
(1) The improvement shall not be contained in the first three years of the
City’s five-year schedule of capital improvements in the CIE;
(2) The City adopts by resolution a commitment to add the improvement
funded by the developer’s proportionate share assessment to the five-year
schedule of capital improvements in the CIE at a point no later than the
next scheduled annual update. To qualify for consideration under this
section, the developer shall be required to submit for review and obtain the
City’s approval of the financial feasibility of the proposed improvement
pursuant to Section 163.3 180, Florida Statutes, consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and in compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
(3) The City agrees to enter into a binding proportionate fair share
agreement;
(4) The City agrees to amend the five-year schedule of capital
improvements in the City’s CE at the next annual review or if the funds
allocated for the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the City’s
CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a transportation
improvement required by the CMS to make the project concurrent, the City
may still enter into a binding proportionate fair-share agreement with the
applicant; provided, however, that the proportionate fair-share amount in
such agreement is sufficient to pay for one or more improvements which
shall, in the opinion of the City Council, alleviate the concurrency concern
and the CIE is amended accordingly at the next annual review.
Staff Comment:
Petitioners proposing to utilize the proportionate fair share program shall design a project that is
consistent with the City’s development regulations; fund improvements that are only required to
maintain LOS; earmark the road improvement within the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of
the Comprehensive Plan; and ensure that the roadway improvement meet the City’s roadway design
criteria.
Under the provisions of subsection 4. a. the required roadway improvements shall be added to the
CIE at the next annual update. However, it will be included in the final two years of the schedule,
which will provide the City with adequate time, as allowed by Florida Statutes, to financially plan for
the project.
As an example, a proportionate fair share project may involve widening and/or reconstructing a
roadway or where the primary roadway is constrained or widening is no longer desired, this could
involve creating a new reliever road, new network additions, or new transit capital facilities.
Applying this code provision allows applicants to contribute their fair share of the cost of mitigating
4
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
the impacted transportation facility.
(d) Intergovernmental Coordination. Pursuant to policies in the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the City shall coordinate with Palm Beach County and other
affected jurisdictions, such as FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities not under the
jurisdiction of the local government receiving the application for proportionate fair-share mitigation.
An interlocal agreement may be established with other affected jurisdictions for this purpose.
Staff Comment:
This provision is consistent with the existing interlocal agreement and Comprehensive Plan goals,
objectives, and policies relative to intergovernmental coordination between the City and Palm Beach
County for traffic concurrency purposes.
(e) Application Process.
1. In the event of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the applicant shall
have the opportunity to satisfy transportation concurrency through the Proportionate Fair-
Share Program pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c).
2. Prior to the submittal of an application, eligible applicants shall schedule a pre-
application meeting with the Growth Management Department. Subsequent to the pre-
application meeting, eligible applicants shall submit a completed development
application and all documentation requested by the City. The City shall establish
applicable application fees for the cost of reviewing the application. If the impacted
facility affects the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), then FDOT will be notified and
invited to participate in the pre-application meeting. The City shall also have the option
of notifying and inviting Palm Beach County.
3. The Growth Management Department shall review the application and certify that the
application is sufficient and complete within 14 working days. If an application is
determined to be insufficient, incomplete, or inconsistent with the general requirements
of the Proportionate Fair-Share Program as indicated in subsection (c), then the applicant
will be notified in writing of the reasons for such deficiencies. If such deficiencies are
not remedied by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the written notification, then
the application will be deemed withdrawn and all fees forfeited to the City.
4. Pursuant to Section 163.3 180( 16) (e), Florida Statutes, proposed proportionate fair-share
mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the SIS requires the concurrency of
the FDOT. The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement between the applicant
and the FDOT for inclusion in the proportionate fair-share agreement.
5. When an application is deemed sufficient, complete, and eligible, the applicant shall be
advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair-share obligation and binding
agreement will be prepared by the applicant and delivered to the appropriate parties for
5
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
review, including a copy to the FDOT for any proposed proportionate fair-share
mitigation on a SIS facility, no later than 60 days fiom the date at which the applicant
received the notification of a sufficient, complete, and eligible application. If the
agreement is not received by the City within these 60 days, then the application will be
deemed withdrawn and all fees forfeited to the City.
6. No proportionate fair-share agreement will be effective until approved by the City
Council through a miscellaneous petition.
Staff Comment:
An applicant for development order approval that utilizes the proportionate fair share program will
be required to follow the aforementioned application process. The application process is consistent
with Florida Statutes and the City’s land development regulations. Statutes allow local governments
to adopt fair share ordinances consistent with their individual processes. Therefore, staff has
mirrored the requirements for staff review time for fair share applications that are currently codified
for development applications. In addition, each proportionate fare share agreement will require City
Council approval through a miscellaneous application. This approval process is consistent with
similar agreements, such as concurrent processing agreements, which are reviewed and approved by
the City Council.
(f) Determining Proportionate Fair-Share Obligation.
1. Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include, without
limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of land, and
construction and contribution of facilities.
2. A development eligible for participation under the Proportionate Fair-Share Program shall
not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair share. The fair market value ofthe
proportionate fair-share mitigation for the impacted facilities shall not differ regardless of
the method of mitigation.
3. The methodology used to calculate a development’s proportionate fair-share obligation
shall be as provided for in Section 163.3 180( 12), Florida Statutes, as follows:
The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development expected to
reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build out of a stage or phase
being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service
volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement
necessary to maintain the adopted LOS, multiplied by the construction cost, at the
time of developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the
adopted LOS.
6
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
OR
4.
5.
6.
Proportionate Fair-Share=C[ [(Development TripSi)/(SV Increasei)] x Cost,]
Where:
Development Tripsi = Those trips from the stage or phase of development
under review that are assigned to roadway segment “i” and have triggered a
deficiency per TPS;
SV Increasei =
to roadway segment “i” per Section 3;
Service volume increase provided by the eligible improvement
Costi = Adjusted cost of the improvement to segment “i”. Cost shall include
all improvements and associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition,
planning, engineering review, inspection, administration, and physical
development costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost,
including contingencies, in the year it will be incurred.
For the purposes of determining proportionate fair-share obligations, the City Engineer
shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual and/or anticipated cost of the
improvement in the year that construction will occur.
If an improvement is proposed by the applicant, then the value of the improvement shall
be based on an engineer’s certified cost estimate provided by the applicant and reviewed
by the City Engineer or other method approved by the City Engineer.
If the City has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-share payment,
credit for the dedication of the right-of-way shall be valued on the date of the dedication
at 115 percent of the most recent assessed value by the Property Appraiser, or at the
option of the applicant and in-lieu of the 1 15 percent of assessed value option, by fair
market value established by an independent appraisal approved by the City at no expense
to the City. This appraisal shall assume no approved development plan for the site. All
right-of-way dedicated shall be part of a roadway segment that triggered the deficiency
per TPS and shall not be site-related. The applicant shall supply a drawing and legal
description of the land and a certificate of title or title search of the land to the City at no
expense to the City. If the estimated value of the right-of-way dedication proposed by
the applicant is less than the City-estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for
that development, then the applicant shall also pay the difference. Prior to purchase or
acquisition of any real estate or acceptance of donations of real estate intended to be used
for the proportionate fair share, public or private partners should contact the FDOT for
essential information about compliance with federal law and regulations. The City shall
also have the option of requiring an environmental assessment for right-of-way
dedication.
7
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
This section establishes the methodology for determining the proportionate fair-share obligation of
the applicant. Development trips, roadway segments, and corresponding eligible improvements used
for proportionate fair-share calculation in this section are identified using traffic concurrency, the
CIE, and subsection (c) of this ordinance.
In the context of the formula, the term “cumulative” includes only those trips from the stage or phase
of a development being considered in the application. The trips expected to reach the failing
roadway for this calculation are those identified in the development’s traffic impact analysis.
Concurrency is evaluated based on the total trips impacting the peak hour of the failing roadway.
Assumptions used in the proportionate fair share calculation will be consistent with those used in the
concurrency management system. Under the definition of “development trips” only those trips that
trigger a concurrency deficiency would be included in the proportionate fair-share calculation.
The cost utilized for the proportionate fair-share calculation should be today’s cost estimate of
tomorrow’s cost. Upon acceptance by the City Engineer of a proportionate fair-share contribution,
the applicant would not be responsible for any subsequent cost overruns or inflationary factors
associated with the project beyond that date.
A proxy for market value has been provided to allow applicants to proceed without the added cost of
an appraisal. An acceptable measure is anywhere from 115% to 120% of assessed value, in the
assumption that market value typically exceeds assessed value by 15% to 20%. The subject
ordinance includes 1 15% of the assessed value.
0
The proposed ordinance also incorporates an option of the City to require an environmental
assessment for land dedication. This clause assists in protecting the City from receiving land
unsuitable for development.
(g.) Impact Fee Credit for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation
1. Proportionate fair-share contributions shall be applied as a credit against road impact fees to
the extent that all or a portion of the proportionate fair-share mitigation is used to address the
same capital infrastructure improvements contemplated by the Citywide Impact Fees
Division contained in this chapter.
2. Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contribution will be determined when the
transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for the proposed development. Impact fees
owed by the applicant will be reduced per the Proportionate Fair-Share Agreement as they
become due pursuant to the Citywide Impact Fees Division contained in this chapter. Once
the credit has been exhausted, payment of road impact fees shall be required for each permit
issued. The impact fee credit shall be established when the proportionate fair-share
contribution is received by the City, or when the fair-share amount is secured by Performance
Security.
8
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
3. The proportionate fair-share obligation is intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of a
proposed project. As a result, any road impact fee credit based upon proportionate fair-share
contributions for a proposed project cannot be transferred to any other project.
Staff Comment:
The intent of the impact fee credit is that any credit would be provided as the impact fee is earned
and not necessarily when the proportionate fair-share contribution is made. Since proportionate fair-
share projects are narrow in scope to the impacts of a specific project on a defined facility, impact fee
credits can not be transferred to any other project.
(h) Proportionate Fair-Share Agreements.
1. Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement (“Agreement”), the applicant
shall receive a certificate of concurrency approval. Should the applicant fail to apply for a
building permit within 18 months, then the Agreement and the certificate of concurrency
approval shall be considered null and void, and the applicant shall be required to reapply.
2. Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full no later than the
issuance of the first building permit, and shall be non-refundable. If the payment is
submitted more than 90 days from the date of execution of the Agreement, then the
proportionate fair-share cost shall be recalculated at the time of payment, pursuant to
subsection (0, and adjusted accordingly.
3. In the event an Agreement requires the applicant to pay or build 100 percent of one or
more road improvements, all such improvements shall be commenced prior to the
issuance of a building permit and assured by a binding agreement that is accompanied by
a Performance Security, as determined by the City, which is sufficient to ensure the
completion of all required improvements. It is the intent of this section that any required
improvements be completed before the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
4. Dedication of necessary rights-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to a
proportionate fair-share agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first
building permit but shall not include a building permit issued for a dry model.
5. Any requested change to a development subsequent to a development order may be
subject to additional proportionate fair-share contributions to the extent the change would
generate additional traffic that would require mitigation.
6. Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-share agreement
at any time prior to the execution of the agreement. The application fee and any
associated advertising costs paid to the City will be non-refundable.
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
The City may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements for selected comdor
improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on improvements to a
shared transportation facility.
7. 0
Staff Comment:
Applicants for proportionate fair share agreements will need to obtain development order approval
and subsequently apply for a building permit within 18 months from concurrency approval. Should
the applicant fail obtain a development order within the specified time frame, the concurrency and
fair-share agreement shall expire.
It is intended that proportionate fair-share contributions be paid in a timely manner and that they
reflect actual costs as closely possible. This subsection provides that if an applicant chooses to
submit their proportionate fair-share payment more than 90 days after the execution of the
agreement, the City will recalculate the fair-share obligation to capture any changes in improvement
costs. For comparison purposes, Palm Beach County’s proposed proportionate share ordinance
allows for payments no later than 180 days from agreement execution. It is staffs professional
opinion that 90 days is a more appropriate time frame to decipher actual costs.
It is plausible that the City would desire to facilitate multi-applicant fair-share agreements on
transportation facilities that need improvement. This subsection would encourage and allow for
public/private agreements among several developers on a corridor that coordinate with each other
and the City on improvements needed for them to achieve concurrency. Such agreements would
accommodate unique opportunities for coordinating among several entities, both public and private,
to accomplish a needed transportation facility improvement.
0
(i) Appropriation of Fair-Share Revenues
1. Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project account for
funding of scheduled improvements in the CIE, or as otherwise established in the terms of
the proportionate fair-share agreement. Proportionate fair-share revenues may be used as the
50 percent local match for funding under the FDOT TRIP, or any other matching requirement
for State and Federal grant programs as may be allowed by law.
2. In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the CIE, then the revenues
collected for its construction may be applied toward the construction of another improvement
within that same corridor or the Urban or Rural Impact Fee Benefit Zone that would mitigate
the impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c) 3.
Staff Comment:
This subsection outlines the method for appropriating revenues from proportionate fair-share
contributions. It directs revenues to the facilities for which they were collected unless the terms of
the agreement dictate otherwise. Note two establishes parameters for re-appropriating revenue if an
improvement is removed from the CIE. Specifically, it requires another improvement to be
identified and added to the CIE to mitigate transportation deficiencies within the same corridor.
10
Date Prepared: October 4,2006
Meeting Date: October 24,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
Section 78-751. Definitions
Concurrency means a condition where roadway, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, potable water,
schools, and parks and recreation facilities have or will have the necessary capacity to meet the
adopted level of service standards at the time the impact of a new or expanded development project
occurs.
Staff Comment:
This definition amendment is also in response to growth management legislation requiring local
governments’ definition of concurrency to be consistent with the State’s definition. The inclusion of
“schools” into the City’s definition will provide consistency.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3 1,2006.
11
1
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
ORDINANCE 31,2006
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONCURRENCY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; CREATING A NEW SECTION 78-86,
CODE OF ORDINANCES TO BE ENTITLED “PROPORTIONATE
ORDl NAN CES, ENTITLED “DEFINITIONS” ; PROW Dl NG FOR
CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
FAIR-SHARE PROGRAM”; AMENDING SECTION 78-751, CODE OF
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Chapter 78, “Land Development
Regulations,” of the City Code of Ordinances, which includes Division 3 entitled
“Concurrency,” on July 20,2000, with the adoption of Ordinance 17, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the 2005 amendments to the State of Florida’s growth management
legislation directed local governments to enact concurrency management ordinances by
December 1, 2006, that allow for “proportionate share” contributions from developers
toward traffic concurrency requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to create a
Proportionate Fair-Share Program consistent with Section 163.31 80( 16), Florida Statutes;
and
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, this Land Development Regulations amendment petition (LDRA-06-
09-000009) was reviewed by the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board, as the duly
constituted Land Development Regulations Commission, at a public hearing on October
24,2006, which recommended its approval by a vote of - ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Ordinance is in
the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. A new Section 78-86, Code of Ordinances to be entitled
“Proportionate Fair-Share Program” is hereby created to read as follows:
1 e
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 4
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Section 78-86. Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
(a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish a method whereby the
impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative
efforts of the public and private sectors, to be known as the Proportionate Fair-Share
Program, as required by and in a manner consistent with Section 163.3180(16), Florida
Statutes. Proportionate Fair-Share payments shall be distinct and separate payments from
and shall not be considered the same as impact fee payments. Impact fees are imposed
by the City to replace capacity utilized by growth and to provide funding for long-range
transportation plans. Proportionate fair-share is assessed to pay for specific deficiencies
to the transportation network resulting from development and enabling development to
meet level of service (LOS) concurrency requirements. Proportionate Fair Share enables
development to meet concurrency requirements by proportionately paying for
improvement projects.
(b) AppIicabiIity. The Proportionate Fair-Share Program shall apply to all developments
that fail to meet the standards of this division on a roadway within the City that is not the
responsibility of Palm Beach County or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
The Proportionate Fair-Share Program does not apply to Developments of Regional
Impact (DRI) using proportionate fair share under Section 163.31 80(12), Florida Statutes,
projects exempted from this division, or for projects that received traffic concurrency
approval prior to December 1 , 2006.
(c) General Requirements. An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation
concurrency requirements by making a proportionate fair-share contribution for impacts
of new development on City roads that have or will have an LOS deficiency as defined
in this division, pursuant to the following requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
applicable land development regulations.
Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer‘s fair-share
obligation shall meet the City’s design standards for locally-maintained
roadways.
The scope of the project shall provide for no less than the capacity necessary to
address the transportation concurrency needs for the next five years after the
execution of the fair share agreement
The road improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS is specifically
identified for construction in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in
the Capital Improvements Element [CIE) of the Comprehensive Plan. The
provisions of subsection 4. a. may apply if a transportation project or projects
are needed to satisfy concurrency and are not presently included within the
City’s CIE.
2
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31, 2006
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
a. If an applicant meets the criteria contained in subsection (c), and the City’s
CIE does not include the transportation improvements necessary to satisfy the
LOS deficiency, then the City may allow transportation concurrency
improvements and funding for the project through the proportionate fair-share
upon compliance with the following criteria:
(1) The improvement shall not be contained in the first three years
of the City’s five-year schedule of capital improvements in the CIE;
(2) The City adopts by resolution a commitment to add the
improvement funded by the developer‘s proportionate share
assessment to the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the
CIE at a point no later than the next scheduled annual update. To
qualify for consideration under this section, the developer shall be
required to submit for review and obtain the City’s approval of the
financial feasibility of the proposed improvement pursuant to
Section 163.31 80, Florida Statutes, consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and in compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
(3) The City agrees to enter into a binding proportionate fair share
agreement;
(4) The City agrees to amend the five-year schedule of capital
improvements in the City’s CIE at the next annual review or if the
funds allocated for the five-year schedule of capital improvements
in the City’s CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a
transportation improvement required by the CMS to make the
project concurrent, the City may still enter into a binding
proportionate fair-share agreement with the applicant; provided,
however, that the proportionate fair-share amount in such
agreement is sufficient to pay for one or more improvements which
shall, in the opinion of the City Council, alleviate the concurrency
concern and the CIE is amended accordingly at the next annual
review.
(d) lntergovernmental Coordination. Pursuant to policies in the lntergovernmental
Coordination Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the City shall coordinate with Palm
Beach County and other affected jurisdictions, such as FDOT, regarding mitigation to
impacted facilities not under the jurisdiction of the local government receiving the
application for proportionate fair-share mitigation. An interlocal agreement may be
established with other affected jurisdictions for this purpose.
3
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
6 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 6 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
(e) Application Process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In the event of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the
applicant shall have the opportunity to satisfy transportation concurrency
through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program pursuant to the requirements
of subsection (c).
Prior to the submittal of an application, eligible applicants shall schedule a
pre-application meeting with the Growth Management Department.
Subsequent to the pre-application meeting, eligible applicants shall submit a
completed development application and all documentation requested by the
City. The City shall establish applicable application fees for the cost of
reviewing the application. If the impacted facility affects the Strategic
lntermodal System (SIS), then FDOT will be notified and invited to participate
in the pre-application meeting. The City shall also have the option of notifying
and inviting Palm Beach County.
The Growth Management Department shall review the application and certify
that the application is sufficient and complete within 14 working days. If an
application is determined to be insufficient, incomplete, or inconsistent with
the general requirements of the Proportionate Fair-Share Program as
indicated in subsection (c), then the applicant will be notified in writing of the
reasons for such deficiencies. If such deficiencies are not remedied by the
applicant within 30 days of receipt of the written notification, then the
application will be deemed withdrawn and all fees forfeited to the City.
Pursuant to Section 163.31 80( 16) (e), Florida Statutes, proposed
proportionate fair-share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the
SIS requires the concurrency of the FDOT. The applicant shall submit
evidence of an agreement between the applicant and the FDOT for inclusion
in the proportionate fair-share agreement.
When an application is deemed sufficient, complete, and eligible, the
applicant shall be advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair-share
obligation and binding agreement will be prepared by the applicant and
delivered to the appropriate parties for review, including a copy to the FDOT
for any proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation on a SIS facility, no later
than 60 days from the date at which the applicant received the notification of
a sufficient, complete, and eligible application. If the agreement is not
received by the City within these 60 days, then the application will be deemed
withdrawn and all fees forfeited to the City.
No proportionate fair-share agreement will be effective until approved by the
City Council through a miscellaneous petition.
4
Date Prepared: September 29.2006
Ordinance 31,2006
(f) Determining Proportionate Fair-Share Obligation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 3‘: 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
1.
2.
3.
4.
Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include,
without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of
land, and construction and contribution of facilities.
A development eligible for participation under the Proportionate Fair-Share
Program shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair share.
The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation for the
impacted facilities shall not differ regardless of the method of mitigation.
The methodology used to calculate a development’s proportionate fair-share
obligation shall be as provided for in Section 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes,
as follows:
The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development
expected to reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build
out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the
peak hour maximum service volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from
construction of an improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS,
multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer payment, of
the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS.
OR
Proportionate Fair-Share=Z[[(Development Tripsi)/(SV Increasei)] x Costil
Where:
DevelopmentTripsi = Those trips from the stage or phase of
development under review that are assigned to roadway segment ‘7’’ and
have triggered a deficiency per TPS;
SV lncreasei = Service volume increase provided by the eligible
improvement to roadway segment ‘7” per Section 3;
Cost1 = Adjusted cost of the improvement to segment ‘7”. Cost shall
include all improvements and associated costs, such as design, right-of-
way acquisition, planning, engineering review, inspection, administration,
and physical development costs directly associated with construction at
the anticipated cost, including contingencies, in the year it will be
incurred.
For the purposes of determining proportionate fair-share obligations, the City
Engineer shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual and/or
anticipated cost of the improvement in the year that construction will occur.
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 @ 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
39
40
41
42
43
44
5. If an improvement is proposed by the applicant, then the value of the
improvement shall be based on an engineer's certified cost estimate provided
by the applicant and reviewed by the City Engineer or other method approved
by the City Engineer.
6. If the City has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-
share payment, credit for the dedication of the right-of-way shall be valued on
the date of the dedication at 115 percent of the most recent assessed value
by the Property Appraiser, or at the option of the applicant and in-lieu of the
1 15 percent of assessed value option, by fair market value established by an
independent appraisal approved by the City at no expense to the City. This
appraisal shall assume no approved development plan for the site. All right-
of-way dedicated shall be part of a roadway segment that triggered the
deficiency per TPS and shall not be site-related. The applicant shall supply a
drawing and legal description of the land and a certificate of title or title search
of the land to the City at no expense to the City. If the estimated value of the
right-of-way dedication proposed by the applicant is less than the City-
estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for that development, then
the applicant shall also pay the difference. Prior to purchase or acquisition of
any real estate or acceptance of donations of real estate intended to be used
for the proportionate fair share, public or private partners should contact the
FDOT for essential information about compliance with federal law and
regulations. The City shall also have the option of requiring an environmental
assessment for right-of-way dedication.
(g ) Impact Fee Credit for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation.
1.
2.
3.
Proportionate fair-share contributions shall be applied as a credit against road
impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the proportionate fair-share
mitigation is used to address the same capital infrastructure improvements
contemplated by the Citywide Impact Fees Division contained in this chapter.
Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contribution will be
determined when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for the
proposed development. Impact fees owed by the applicant will be reduced
per the proportionate fair-share agreement as they become due pursuant to
the Citywide Impact Fees Division contained'in this chapter. Once the credit
has been exhausted, payment of road impact fees shall be required for each
permit issued. The impact fee credit shall be established when the
proportionate fair-share contribution is received by the City, or when the fair-
share amount is secured by Performance Security.
The proportionate fair-share obligation is intended to mitigate the
transportation impacts of a proposed project. As a result, any road impact fee
6
Date Prepared: September 29.2006
Ordinance 31,2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 @ 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
credit based upon proportionate fair-share contributions for a proposed
project cannot be transferred to any other project.
(h) Proportionate Fair-Share Agreements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement (“Agreement”), the
applicant shall receive a certificate of concurrency approval. Should the
applicant fail to apply for a building permit within 18 months, then the
Agreement and the certificate of concurrency approval shall be considered
null and void, and the applicant shall be required to reapply.
Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full no later than
the issuance of the first building permit, and shall be non-refundable. If the
payment is submitted more than 90 days from the date of execution of the
Agreement, then the proportionate fair-share cost shall be recalculated at the
time of payment, pursuant to subsection (f), and adjusted accordingly.
In the event an Agreement requires the applicant to pay or build I00 percent
of one or more road improvements, all such improvements shall be
commenced prior to the issuance of a building permit and assured by a
binding agreement that is accompanied by a Performance Security, as
determined by the City, which is sufficient to ensure the completion of all
required improvements. It is the intent of this section that any required
improvements be completed before the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
Dedication of necessary rights-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to a
proportionate fair-share agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of
the first building permit but shall not include a building permit issued for a dry
model.
Any requested change to a development subsequent to a development order
may be subject to additional proportionate fair-share contributions to the
extent the change would generate additional traffic that would require
mitigation.
Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-share
agreement at any time prior to the execution of the agreement. The
application fee and any associated advertising costs paid to the City will be
non-refundable.
The City may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements for selected
corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on
improvements to a shared transportation facility.
7
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(i) Appropriation of Fair-Share Revenues.
1. Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project
account for funding of scheduled improvements in the CIE, or as otherwise
established in the terms of the proportionate fair-share agreement.
Proportionate fair-share revenues may be used as the 50 percent local match
for funding under the FDOT TRIP, or any other matching requirement for
state and federal grant programs as may be allowed by law.
2. In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the CIE, then
the revenues collected for its construction may be applied toward the
construction of another improvement within that same corridor or Impact Fee
Benefit Zone that would mitigate the impacts of development pursuant to the
requirements of subsection (c) 3.
SECTION 3. Section 78-751 , Code of Ordinances, entitled “Definitions” is hereby
; new language is amended to read as follows (deleted language is
underlined):
Section 78-751. Definitions
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in these land development
regulations, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this chapter, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
****
Concurrency means a condition where roadway, wastewater, solid waste, drainage,
potable water, schools, and parks and recreation facilities have or will have the necessary
capacity to meet the adopted level of service standards at the time the impact of a new or
expanded development project occurs.
****
SECTION 4. Codification of this Ordinance is hereby authorized and directed.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank)
a
Date Prepared: September 29,2006
Ordinance 31,2006
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 @ 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
PASSED this day of ,2006, upon first reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2006, upon
second and final reading.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
BY:
Joseph R. Russo, Mayor
Jody Barnett, Vice Mayor
Eric Jablin, Councilmember
David Levy, Councilmember
Hal R. Valeche, Councilmember
ATTEST:
BY:
Patricia Snider, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY:
Christine P. Tatum, City Attorney
FOR AGAINST ABSENT
\\PbgsRleV\ttorneybttorney_share\ORDI”NCES\Prop Share Ord FinaLdoc
9
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3180 : Online Sunshine Page 1 of 14
The 2006 Florida Statutes
~ ~~~ w - View Fntire
COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ChaDter
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PROGRAMS
163.31 80 Concurrency.--
(l)(a) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, schools, and
transportation facilities, including mass transit, where applicable, are the only public facilities and
services subject to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis. Additional public facilities and
services may not be made subject to concurrency on a statewide basis without appropriate study and
approval by the Legislature; however, any local government may extend the concurrency requirement so
that it applies to additional public facilities within its jurisdiction.
(b) Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring level of service for
automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and trucks. These techniques may be used to evaluate
increased accessibility by multiple modes and reductions in vehicle miles of travel in an area or zone.
The Department of Transportation shall develop methodologies to assist local governments in
implementing this multimodal level-of-service analysis. The Department of Community Affairs and the
Department of Transportation shall provide technical assistance to local governments in applying these
methodologies.
(2)(a) Consistent with public health and safety, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, adequate water
supplies, and potable water facilities shall be in place and available to serve new development no later
than the issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
Prior to approval of a building permit or its functional equivalent, the local government shall consult
with the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies to serve the new
development will be available no later than the anticipated date of issuance by the local government of
a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. A local government may meet the concurrency
requirement for sanitary sewer through the use of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems
approved by the Department of Health to serve new development.
(b) Consistent with the public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section, parks and
recreation facilities to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction no later
than 1 year after issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent. However, the acreage for such facilities shall be dedicated or be acquired by the local
government prior to issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share shall be committed no later than the
local government's approval to commence construction.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App - mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
& Constitution :View
(c) Consistent with the public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section, transportation 0 facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years
after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent that results in traffic
generation.
(3) Governmental entities that are not responsible for providing, financing, operating, or regulating
public facilities needed to serve development may not establish binding level-of-service standards on
governmental entities that do bear those responsibilities. This subsection does not limit the authority of
any agency to recommend or make objections, recommendations, comments, or determinations during
reviews conducted under s. 163.3184,
(4)(a) The concurrency requirement as implemented in local comprehensive plans applies to state and
other public facilities and development to the same extent that it applies to all other facilities and
development, as provided by law.
(b) The concurrency requirement as implemented in local comprehensive plans does not apply to public
transit facilities. For the purposes of this paragraph, public transit facilities include transit stations and
terminals, transit station parking, park-and-ride lots, intermodal public transit connection or transfer
facilities, and fixed bus, guideway, and rail stations. As used in this paragraph, the terms "terminals"
and "transit facilities" do not include airports or seaports or commercial or residential development
constructed in conjunction with a public transit facility.
(c) The concurrency requirement, except as it relates to transportation facilities and public schools, as
implemented in local government comprehensive plans, may be waived by a local government for urban
infill and redevelopment areas designated pursuant to s. 163.2517 if such a waiver does not endanger
public health or safety as defined by the local government in its local government comprehensive plan.
The waiver shall be adopted as a plan amendment pursuant to the process set forth in s. 163.3187(3)(a).
A local government may grant a concurrency exception pursuant to subsection (5) for transportation
facilities located within these urban infill and redevelopment areas.
0
(5)(a) The Legislature finds that under limited circumstances dealing with transportation facilities,
countervailing planning and public policy goals may come into conflict with the requirement that
adequate public facilities and services be available concurrent with the impacts of such development.
The Legislature further finds that often the unintended result of the concurrency requirement for
transportation facilities is the discouragement of urban infill development and redevelopment. Such
unintended results directly conflict with the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan and the
intent of this part. Therefore, exceptions from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities
may be granted as provided by this subsection.
(b) A local government may grant an exception from the concurrency requirement for transportation
facilities if the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the adopted local government
comprehensive plan and is a project that promotes public transportation or is located within an area
designated in the comprehensive plan for:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfim?App - mode=Display - StatutekSearch - String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3 180 : Online Sunshine Page 3 of 14
1. Urban infill development,
0 2. Urban redevelopment,
3. Downtown revitalization, or
4. Urban infill and redevelopment under s. 163.2517.
(c) The Legislature also finds that developments located within urban infill, urban redevelopment,
existing urban service, or downtown revitalization areas or areas designated as urban infill and
redevelopment areas under s. 163 7517 which pose only special part-time demands on the
transportation system should be excepted from the concurrency requirement for transportation
facilities. A special part-time demand is one that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during
any calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volume hours.
(d) A local government shall establish guidelines in the comprehensive plan for granting the exceptions
authorized in paragraphs (b) and (c) and subsections (7) and (1 5) which must be consistent with and
support a comprehensive strategy adopted in the plan to promote the purpose of the exceptions.
(e) The local government shall adopt into the plan and implement strategies to support and fund
mobility within the designated exception area, including alternative modes of transportation. The plan
amendment shall also demonstrate how strategies will support the purpose of the exception and how
mobility within the designated exception area will be provided. In addition, the strategies must address
urban design; appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density; and network connectivity
plans needed to promote urban infill, redevelopment, or downtown revitalization. The comprehensive
plan amendment designating the concurrency exception area shall be accompanied by data and analysis
justifying the size of the area.
(f) Prior to the designation of a concurrency exception area, the Department of Transportation shall be
consulted by the local government to assess the impact that the proposed exception area is expected to
have on the adopted level-of-service standards established for Strategic lntermodal System facilities, as
defined in s. 339.64, and roadway facilities funded in accordance with s. 339.2819. Further, the local
government shall, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, develop a plan to mitigate any
impacts to the Strategic lntermodal System, including, if appropriate, the development of a long-term
concurrency management system pursuant to subsection (9) and s. 1633177(3)(d). The exceptions may
be available only within the specific geographic area of the jurisdiction designated in the plan. Pursuant
to s. 163.3184, any affected person may challenge a plan amendment establishing these guidelines and
the areas within which an exception could be granted.
(9) Transportation concurrency exception areas existing prior to July 1, 2005, shall meet, at a
minimum, the provisions of this section by July 1, 2006, or at the time of the comprehensive plan
update pursuant to the evaluation and appraisal report, whichever occurs last.
(6) The Legislature finds that a de minimis impact is consistent with this part. A de minimis impact is an
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display - StatuteMearch - String.. , 1 0/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3 180 : Online Sunshine Page 4 of 14
impact that would not affect more than 1 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of
service of the affected transportation facility as determined by the local government. No impact will be
de minimis if the sum of existing roadway volumes and the projected volumes from approved projects on
a transportation facility would exceed 110 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of
service of the affected transportation facility; provided however, that an impact of a single family home
on an existing lot will constitute a de minimis impact on all roadways regardless of the level of the
deficiency of the roadway. Further, no impact will be de minimis if it would exceed the adopted level-
of-service standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes. Each local government shall
maintain sufficient records to ensure that the 110-percent criterion is not exceeded. Each local
government shall submit annually, with its updated capital improvements element, a summary of the de
minimis records. If the state land planning agency determines that the 1 IO-percent criterion has been
exceeded, the state land planning agency shall notify the local government of the exceedance and that
no further de minimis exceptions for the applicable roadway may be granted until such time as the
volume is reduced below the 110 percent. The local government shall provide proof of this reduction to
the state land planning agency before issuing further de minimis exceptions.
(7) In order to promote infill development and redevelopment, one or more transportation concurrency
management areas may be designated in a local government comprehensive plan. A transportation
concurrency management area must be a compact geographic area with an existing network of roads
where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available for common trips. A local
government may establish an areawide level-of-service standard for such a transportation concurrency
management area based upon an analysis that provides for a justification for the areawide level of
service, how urban infill development or redevelopment will be promoted, and how mobility will be
accomplished within the transportation concurrency management area. Prior to the designation of a
concurrency management area, the Department of Transportation shall be consulted by the local
government to assess the impact that the proposed concurrency management area is expected to have
on the adopted level-of-service standards established for Strategic lntermodal System facilities, as
defined in s. 339.64, and roadway facilities funded in accordance with s. 339.2819. Further, the local
government shall, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, develop a plan to mitigate any
impacts to the Strategic lntermodal System, including, if appropriate, the development of a long-term
concurrency management system pursuant to subsection (9) and s. 163.3177(3)(d). Transportation
concurrency management areas existing prior to July 1, 2005, shall meet, at a minimum, the provisions
of this section by July 1, 2006, or at the time of the comprehensive plan update pursuant to the
evaluation and appraisal report, whichever occurs last. The state land planning agency shall amend
chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to be consistent with this subsection.
(8) When assessing the transportation impacts of proposed urban redevelopment within an established
existing urban service area, 11 0 percent of the actual transportation impact caused by the previously
existing development must be reserved for the redevelopment, even if the previously existing
development has a lesser or nonexisting impact pursuant to the calculations of the local government.
Redevelopment requiring less than 110 percent of the previously existing capacity shall not be
prohibited due to the reduction of transportation levels of service below the adopted standards. This
does not preclude the appropriate assessment of fees or accounting for the impacts within the
concurrency management system and capital improvements program of the affected local government.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App - mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes 8L Constitution :View Statutes
This paragraph does not affect local government requirements for appropriate development permits.
(9)(a) Each local government may adopt as a part of its plan, long-term transportation and school
concurrency management systems with a planning period of up to 10 years for specially designated
districts or areas where significant backlogs exist. The plan may include interim level-of-service
standards on certain facilities and shall rely on the local government's schedule of capital improvements
for up to 10 years as a basis for issuing development orders that authorize commencement of
construction in these designated districts or areas. The concurrency management system must be
designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities. The
concurrency management system must be financially feasible and consistent with other portions of the
adopted local plan, including the future land use map.
(b) If a local government has a transportation or school facility backlog for existing development which
cannot be adequately addressed in a 10-year plan, the state land planning agency may allow it to
develop a plan and long-term schedule of capital improvements covering up to 15 years for good and
sufficient cause, based on a general comparison between that local government and all other similarly
situated local jurisdictions, using the following factors:
1. The extent of the backlog.
2. For roads, whether the backlog is on local or state roads.
3. The cost of eliminating the backlog.
4. The local government's tax and other revenue-raising efforts.
(c) The local government may issue approvals to commence construction notwithstanding this section,
consistent with and in areas that are subject to a long-term concurrency management system.
(d) If the local government adopts a long-term concurrency management system, it must evaluate the
system periodically. At a minimum, the local government must assess its progress toward improving
levels of service within the long-term concurrency management district or area in the evaluation and
appraisal report and determine any changes that are necessary to accelerate progress in meeting
acceptable levels of service.
(IO) With regard to roadway facilities on the Strategic lntermodal System designated in accordance with
ss. 339.61, 339.62, 339.63, and 339.64, the Florida Intrastate Highway System as defined in s. 338.001,
and roadway facilities funded in accordance with s. 339.2819, local governments shall adopt the level-
of-service standard established by the Department of Transportation by rule. For all other roads on the
State Highway System, local governments shall establish an adequate level-of-service standard that
need not be consistent with any level-of-service standard established by the Department of
Transportation. In establishing adequate level-of-service standards for any arterial roads, or collector
roads as appropriate, which traverse multiple jurisdictions, local governments shall consider
compatibility with the roadway facility's adopted level-of-service standards in adjacent jurisdictions.
http:Nwww.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App - mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes
Each local government within a county shall use a professionally accepted methodology for measuring
impacts on transportation facilities for the purposes of implementing its concurrency management
system. Counties are encouraged to coordinate with adjacent counties, and local governments within a
county are encouraged to coordinate, for the purpose of using common methodologies for measuring
impacts on transportation facilities for the purpose of implementing their concurrency management
sys tern s .
(11) In order to limit the liability of local governments, a local government may allow a landowner to
proceed with development of a specific parcel of land notwithstanding a failure of the development to
satisfy transportation concurrency, when all the following factors are shown to exist:
(a) The local government with jurisdiction over the property has adopted a local comprehensive plan
that is in compliance.
(b) The proposed development would be consistent with the future land use designation for the specific
property and with pertinent portions of the adopted local plan, as determined by the local government.
(c) The local plan includes a financially feasible capital improvements element that provides for
transportation facilities adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local government has not
implemented that element.
(d) The local government has provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a fair share of
the cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed development.
(e) The landowner has made a binding commitment to the local government to pay the fair share of the
cost of providing the transportation facilities to serve the proposed development.
(12) When authorized by a local comprehensive plan, a multiuse development of regional impact may
satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the local
government's concurrency management system, and s. 380.06 by payment of a proportionate-share
contribution for local and regionally significant traffic impacts, if:
(a) The development of regional impact meets or exceeds the guidelines and standards of s. 380.0651
(3)(h) and rule 28-24.032(2), Florida Administrative Code, and includes a residential component that
contains at least 100 residential dwelling units or 15 percent of the applicable residential guideline and
standard, whichever is greater;
(b) The development of regional impact contains an integrated mix of land uses and is designed to
encourage pedestrian or other nonautomotive modes of transportation;
(c) The proportionate-share contribution for local and regionally significant traffic impacts is sufficient
to pay for one or more required improvements that will benefit a regionally significant transportation
facility;
http://www.leg.state .fl. us/Statutes/index.cfm?App-mode=Display-Statute&Se~rch-String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 31 80 : Online Sunshine Page 7 of 14
(d) The owner and developer of the development of regional impact pays or assures payment of the
proportionate-share contribution; and
(e) If the regionally significant transportation facility to be constructed or improved is under the
maintenance authority of a governmental entity, as defined by s. 334.03(12), other than the local
government with jurisdiction over the development of regional impact, the developer is required to
enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to transfer funds to the governmental entity
having maintenance authority or to otherwise assure construction or improvement of the facility.
The proportionate-share contribution may be applied to any transportation facility to satisfy the
provisions of this subsection and the local comprehensive plan, but, for the purposes of this subsection,
the amount of the proportionate-share contribution shall be calculated based upon the cumulative
number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from
the complete buildout of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour
maximum service volume of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement necessary to
maintain the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer
payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted level of service. For purposes of this
subsection, "construction cost" includes all associated costs of the improvement.
(1 3) School concurrency shall be established on a districtwide basis and shall include all public schools
in the district and all portions of the district, whether located in a municipality or an unincorporated
area unless exempt from the public school facilities element pursuant to s. 163.3177(12). The
application of school concurrency to development shall be based upon the adopted comprehensive plan,
as amended. All local governments within a county, except as provided in paragraph (f), shall adopt and
transmit to the state land planning agency the necessary plan amendments, along with the interlocal
agreement, for a Compliance review pursuant to s. 163.3184(7) and (8). The minimum requirements for
school concurrency are the following:
(a) Public school facilities element.--A local government shall adopt and transmit to the state land
planning agency a plan or plan amendment which includes a public school facilities element which is
consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(12) and which is determined to be in compliance as
defined in s. 163.3184(1)(b). All local government public school facilities plan elements within a county
must be consistent with each other as well as the requireme.nts of this part.
(b) Level-of-service standards. --The Legislature recognizes that an essential requirement for a
concurrency management system is the level of service at which a public facility is expected to operate.
1. Local governments and school boards imposing school concurrency shall exercise authority in
conjunction with each other to establish jointly adequate level-of-service standards, as defined in
chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, necessary to implement the adopted local government
comprehensive plan, based on data and analysis.
2. Public school level-of-service standards shall be included and adopted into the capital improvements
element of the local comprehensive plan and shall apply districtwide to all schools of the same type.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App-mode=Display-Statute&Search-String.. . 1 0/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View
Types of schools may include elementary, middle, and high schools as well as special purpose facilities
such as magnet schools.
3. Local governments and school boards shall have the option to utilize tiered level-of-service standards
to allow time to achieve an adequate and desirable level of service as circumstances warrant.
(c) Service areas. --The Legislature recognizes that an essential requirement for a concurrency system is
a designation of the area within which the level of service will be measured when an application for a
residential development permit is reviewed for school concurrency purposes. This delineation is also
important for purposes of determining whether the local government has a financially feasible public
school capital facilities program that will provide schools which will achieve and maintain the adopted
Level-of-service standards.
1. In order to balance competing interests, preserve the constitutional concept of uniformity, and avoid
disruption of existing educational and growth management processes, local governments are encouraged
to initially apply school concurrency to development only on a districtwide basis so that a concurrency
determination for a specific development will be based upon the availability of school capacity
districtwide. To ensure that development is coordinated with schools having available capacity, within 5
years after adoption of school concurrency, local governments shall apply school concurrency on a less
than districtwide basis, such as using school attendance zones or concurrency service areas, as provided
in subparagraph 2.
2. For local governments applying school concurrency on a less than districtwide basis, such as utilizing
school attendance zones or larger school concurrency service areas, local governments and school
boards shall have the burden to demonstrate that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the
greatest extent possible in the comprehensive plan and amendment, taking into account transportation
costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as other factors. In addition, in order to achieve
concurrency within the service area boundaries selected by local governments and school boards, the
service area boundaries, together with the standards for establishing those boundaries, shall be
identified and included as supporting data and analysis for the comprehensive plan.
3. Where school capacity is available on a districtwide basis but school concurrency is applied on a less
than districtwide basis in the form of concurrency service areas, if the adopted level-of-service standard
cannot be met in a particular service area as applied to an application for a development permit and if
the needed capacity for the particular service area is available in one or more contiguous service areas,
as adopted by the local government, then the local government may not deny an application for site
plan or final subdivision approval or the functional equivalent for a development or phase of a
development on the basis of school concurrency, and if issued, development impacts shall be shifted to
contiguous service areas with schools having available capacity.
(d) Finuncial feusibility. --The Legislature recognizes that financial feasibility is an important issue
because the premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and
maintain the adopted level-of-service standard. This part and chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code,
contain specific standards to determine the financial feasibility of capital programs. These standards
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App - mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 31 80 : Online Sunshine Page 9 of 14
were adopted to make concurrency more predictable and local governments more accountable.
1. A comprehensive plan amendment seeking to impose school concurrency shall contain appropriate
amendments to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan, consistent with the
requirements of s. UL3177(3) and rule 9J-5.016, Florida Administrative Code. The capital
improvements element shall set forth a financially feasible public school capital facilities program,
established in conjunction with the school board, that demonstrates that the adopted level-of-service
standards will be achieved and maintained.
2. Such amendments shall demonstrate that the public school capital facilities program meets all of the
financial feasibility standards of this part and chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, that apply to
capital programs which provide the basis for mandatory concurrency on other public facilities and
services.
3. When the financial feasibility of a public school capital facilities program is evaluated by the state
land planning agency for purposes of a compliance determination, the evaluation shall be based upon
the service areas selected by the local governments and school board.
(e) Availability standard.--Consistent with the public welfare, a local government may not deny an
application for site plan, final subdivision approval, or the functional equivalent for a development or
phase of a development authorizing residential development for failure to achieve and maintain the
level-of-service standard for public school capacity in a local school concurrency management system
where adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the
issuance of final subdivision or site plan approval, or the functional equivalent. School concurrency shall
be satisfied if the developer executes a legally binding commitment to provide mitigation proportionate
to the demand for public school facilities to be created by actual development of the property,
including, but not limited to, the options described in subparagraph 1. Options for proportionate-share
mitigation of impacts on public school facilities shall be established in the public school facilities
element and the interlocal agreement pursuant to s. 163.31777.
1. Appropriate mitigation options include the contribution of land; the construction, expansion, or
payment for land acquisition or construction of a public school facility; or the creation of mitigation
banking based on the construction of a public schoot facility in exchange for the right to sell capacity
credits. Such options must include execution by the applicant and the local government of a binding
development agreement that constitutes a legally binding commitment to pay proportionate-share
mitigation for the additional residential units approved by the local government in a development order
and actually developed on the property, taking into account residential density allowed on the property
prior to the plan amendment that increased overall residential density. The district school board shall
be a party to such an agreement. As a condition of its entry into such a development agreement, the
local government may require the landowner to agree to continuing renewal of the agreement upon its
expiration.
2. If the education facilities plan and the public educational facilities element authorize a contribution
of land; the construction, expansion, or payment for land acquisition; or the construction or expansion
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfin?App_mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
of a public school facility, or a portion thereof, as proportionate-share mitigation, the local government
shall credit such a contribution, construction, expansion, or payment toward any other impact fee or
exaction imposed by local ordinance for the same need, on a dollar-for-dollar basis at fair market value.
3. Any proportionate-share mitigation must be directed by the school board toward a school capacity
improvement identified in a financially feasible 5-year district work plan and which satisfies the
demands created by that development in accordance with a binding developer's agreement.
4. This paragraph does not limit the authority of a local government to deny a development permit or
its functional equivalent pursuant to its home rule regulatory powers, except as provided in this part.
(f) Intergovernmental coordination. --
1. When establishing concurrency requirements for public schools, a local government shall satisfy the
requirements for intergovernmental coordination set forth in s. 163.3177(6)(h)l. and 2., except that a
municipality is not required to be a signatory to the interlocal agreement required by ss. 163.3177(6)(h)
2. and l.b~(6), as a prerequisite for imposition of school concurrency, and as a nonsignatory, shall
not participate in the adopted local school concurrency system, if the municipality meets all of the
following criteria for having no significant impact on school attendance:
a. The municipality has issued development orders for fewer than 50 residential dwelling units during
the preceding 5 years, or the municipality has generated fewer than 25 additional public school students
during the preceding 5 years.
b. The municipality has not annexed new land during the preceding 5 years in land use categories which
permit residential uses that will affect school attendance rates.
c. The municipality has no public schools located within its boundaries.
d. At least 80 percent of the developable land within the boundaries of the municipality has been built
upon.
2. A municipality which qualifies as having no significant impact on school attendance pursuant to the
criteria of subparagraph 1. must review and determine at the time of its evaluation and appraisal report
pursuant to s. 163.3191 whether it continues to meet the criteria pursuant to s. 163.31777(6). If the
municipality determines that it no longer meets the criteria, it must adopt appropriate school
concurrency goals, objectives, and policies in its plan amendments based on the evaluation and
appraisal report, and enter into the existing interlocal agreement required by ss. 163.3177(6)(h)2. and
163.31777, in order to fully participate in the school concurrency system. If such a municipality fails to
do so, it will be subject to the enforcement provisions of s. 163,3191.
(5) lnterlocal agreement for school concurrency.--When establishing concurrency requirements for
public schools, a local government must enter into an interlocal agreement that satisfies the
requirements in 5s. 163.3177(6)(h)I. and 2. and 163.31777 and the requirements of this subsection. The
http://www.leg.state .fl. us/Statutes/index.cfm?App~~node=Display~Statute&Search~String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 31 80 : Online Suns ... Page 10 of 14
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3 180 : Online Suns ... Page 11 of 14
interlocal agreement shall acknowledge both the school board's constitutional and statutory obligations
to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a countywide basis, and the land use authority of
local governments, including their authority to approve or deny comprehensive plan amendments and
development orders. The interlocal agreement shall be submitted to the state land planning agency by
the local government as a part of the compliance review, along with the other necessary amendments to
the comprehensive plan required by this part. In addition to the requirements of ss. 163.3177(6)(h) and
163.31777, the interlocal agreement shall meet the following requirements:
a
1. Establish the mechanisms for coordinating the development, adoption, and amendment of each local
government's public school facilities element with each other and the plans of the school board to
ensure a uniform districtwide school concurrency system.
2. Establish a process for the development of siting criteria which encourages the location of public
schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent possible and seeks to collocate schools with
other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers to the extent possible.
3. Specify uniform, districtwide level-of-service standards for public schools of the same type and the
process for modifying the adopted level-of-service standards.
4. Establish a process for the preparation, amendment, and joint approval by each local government
and the school board of a public school capital facilities program which is financially feasible, and a
process and schedule for incorporation of the public school capital facilities program into the local a government comprehensive plans on an annual basis.
5. Define the geographic application of school concurrency. If school concurrency is to be applied on a
less than districtwide basis in the form of concurrency service areas, the agreement shall establish
criteria and standards for the establishment and modification of school concurrency service areas. The
agreement shall also establish a process and schedule for the mandatory incorporation of the school
concurrency service areas and the criteria and standards for establishment of the service areas into the
local government comprehensive plans. The agreement shall ensure maximum utilization of school
capacity, taking into account transportation costs and court-approved desegregation plans, as well as
other factors. The agreement shall also ensure the achievement and maintenance of the adopted level-
of-service standards for the geographic area of application throughout the 5 years covered by the public
school capital facilities plan and thereafter by adding a new fifth year during the annual update.
6. Establish a uniform districtwide procedure for implementing school concurrency which provides for:
a. The evaluation of development applications for compliance with school concurrency requirements,
including information provided by the school board on affected schools, impact on levels of service, and
programmed improvements for affected schools and any options to provide sufficient capacity;
b. An opportunity for the school board to review and comment on the effect of comprehensive plan
amendments and rezonings on the public school facilities plan; and
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App~mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
~~ Statutes Constitution :View Statutes
c. The monitoring and evaluation of the school concurrency system
7. include provisions relating to amendment of the agreement.
8. A process and uniform methodology for determining proportionate-share mitigation pursuant to
subparagraph (e)l.
(h) Local government authority.--This subsection does not limit the authority of a local government to
grant or deny a development permit or its functional equivalent prior to the implementation of school
concurrency.
(14) The state land planning agency shall, by October 1, 1998, adopt by rule minimum criteria for the
review and determination of compliance of a public school facilities element adopted by a local
government for purposes of imposition of school concurrency.
(1 5)(a) Multirnodal transportation districts may be established under a local government comprehensive
plan in areas delineated on the future land use map for which the local comprehensive plan assigns
secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to assuring a safe, comfortable, and
attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit. Such districts must
incorporate community design features that will reduce the number of automobile trips or vehicle miles
of travel and will support an integrated, multimodal transportation system. Prior to the designation of
multimodal transportation districts, the Department of Transportation shall be consulted by the local
government to assess the impact that the proposed multimodal district area is expected to have on the
adopted level-of-service standards established for Strategic lntermodal System facilities, as defined in s.
339.64, and roadway facilities funded in accordance with s. 339.2819, Further, the local government
shall, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, develop a plan to mitigate any impacts to
the Strategic lntermodal System, including the development of a long-term concurrency management
system pursuant to subsection (9) and s. 163.3177(3)(d). Multimodal transportation districts existing
prior to July 1, 2005, shall meet, at a minimum, the provisions of this section by July 1, 2006, or at the
time of the comprehensive plan update pursuant to the evaluation and appraisal report, whichever
occurs last.
(b) Community design elements of such a district include: a complementary mix and range of land uses,
including educational, recreational, and cultural uses; interconnected networks of streets designed to
encourage walking and bicycling, with traffic-calming where desirable; appropriate densities and
intensities of use within walking distance of transit stops; daily activities within walking distance of
residences, allowing independence to persons who do not drive; public uses, streets, and squares that
are safe, comfortable, and attractive for the pedestrian, with adjoining buildings open to the street and
with parking not interfering with pedestrian, transit, automobile, and truck travel modes.
(c) Local governments may establish multimodal level-of-service standards that rely primarily on
nonvehicular modes of transportation within the district, when justified by an analysis demonstrating
that the existing and planned community design will provide an adequate level of mobility within the
district based upon professionally accepted multimodal level-of-service methodologies. The analysis
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?A~p~mode=Display - Statute&Search - String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3180 : Online Suns ... Page 13 of 14
must also demonstrate that the capital improvements required to promote community design are
community design features within the district provide convenient interconnection for a multimodal
transportation system. Local governments may issue development permits in reliance upon all planned
community design capital improvements that are financially feasible over the development or
redevelopment timeframe for the district, without regard to the period of time between development
or redevelopment and the scheduled construction of the capital improvements. A determination of
financial feasibility stfall be based upon currently available funding or funding sources that could
reasonably be expected to become available over the planning period.
0 financially feasible over the development or redevelopment timeframe for the district and that
(d) Local governments may reduce impact fees or local access fees for development within multimodal
transportation districts based on the reduction of vehicle trips per household or vehicle miles of travel
expected from the development pattern planned for the district.
(16) It is the intent of the Legislature to provide a method by which the impacts of development on
transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors.
The methodology used to calculate proportionate fair-share mitigation under this section shall be as
provided for in subsection (12).
(a) By December 1, 2006, each local government shall adopt by ordinance a methodology for assessing
proportionate fair-share mitigation options. By December 1, 2005, the Department of Transportation
shall develop a model transportation concurrency management ordinance with methodologies for
assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation options. 0
(b)l. In its transportation concurrency management system, a local government shall, by December 1,
2006, include methodologies that will be applied to calculate proportionate fair-share mitigation. A
developer may choose to satisfy all transportation concurrency requirements by contributing or paying
proportionate fair-share mitigation if transportation facilities or facility segments identified as
mitigation for traffic impacts are specifically identified for funding in the 5-year schedule of capital
improvements in the capital improvements element of the local plan or the long-term concurrency
management system or if such contributions or payments to such facilities or segments are reflected in
the 5-year schedule of capital improvements in the next regularly scheduled update of the capital
improvements element. Updates to the 5-year capital improvements element which reflect
proportionate fair-share contributions may not be found not in compliance based on ss. 163.3164(32)
and 163.3177(3) if additional contributions, payments or funding sources are reasonably anticipated
during a period not to exceed 10 years to fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities.
2. Proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be applied as a credit against impact fees to the extent that
all or a portion of the proportionate fair-share mitigation is used to address the same capital
infrastructure improvements contemplated by the local government's impact fee ordinance.
(c) Proportionate fair-share mitigation includes, without limitation, separately or collectively, private
funds, contributions of land, and construction and contribution of facilities and may include public funds
as determined by the local government. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App - mode=Display-Statute&Search-String ... 10/3/2006
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0163->Section 3 180 : Online Suns ... Page 14 of 14
shall not differ based on the form of mitigation. A local government may not require a development to
pay more than its proportionate fair-share contribution regardless of the method of mitigation.
(d) Nothing in this subsection shall require a local government to approve a development that is not
otherwise qualified for approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and land
development regulations.
(e) Mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the Strategic lntermodal System made pursuant
to this subsection requires the concurrence of the Department of Transportation.
(f) In the event the funds in an adopted 5-year capital improvements element are insufficient to fully
fund construction of a transportation improvement required by the local government’s concurrency
management system, a local government and a developer may still enter into a binding proportionate-
share agreement authorizing the developer to construct that amount of development on which the
proportionate share is calculated if the proportionate-share amount in such agreement is sufficient to
pay for one or more improvements which will, in the opinion of the governmental entity or entities
maintaining the transportation facilities, significantly benefit the impacted transportation system. The
improvement or improvements funded by the proportionate-share component must be adopted into the
5-year capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive plan at the next annual capital
improvements element update.
(g) Except as provided in subparagraph (b)l., nothing in this section shall prohibit the Department of
Community Affairs from finding other portions of the capital improvements element amendments not in
compliance as provided in this chapter.
(h) The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a multiuse development of regional impact
satisfying the requirements of subsection (1 2).
History.--s. 8, ch. 93-206; s. 12, ch. 95-341; s. 3, ch. 96-416; s. 1, ch. 97-253; s. 5, ch. 98-176; s. 4, ch.
99-378; S. 2, ch. 2002-13; S. 6, ch. 2002-296; S. 5, ch. 2005-290; S. 11, ch. 2005-291; S. 18, ch. 2006-1;
S. 3, ch. 2006-220; S. 3, ch. 2006-252.
Copyright 0 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature Privacv Sbternent Contact Us
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfin?App - mode=Display - StatuteMearch - String ... 1 0/3/2006