HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda P&Z 120908AGENDA
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9,2008 AT 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALLTOORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLLCALL
REPORT BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR: KARA IRWIN
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
Regular Members :
Craig Kunkle (Chair)
Douglas Pennell (Vice Chair)
Barry Present
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Joy Hecht
Amir Kanel
Alternates:
Donald ban (1 Alt.)
Joanne Koerner (2"d Alt.)
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
December 9,2008
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearing;)
CPTA-06-12-000008: City-Initiated Amendment to the Future Land Use Element of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan
A City initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment to the Future Land-Use Element to
add a definition and provide criteria for areas highly suitable for office; and provide
policies to increase the DRI thresholds for office, encouraging development that will
expand the economic base of the City.
1.
Project Manager: Stephen Mayer, Senior Planner smaver@ubgfl.com (799421 7)
2.
Final Action:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearing)
PVAR-08-07-000006 Consideration of Approval:
A request by Maureen Barber, tenant and applicant, on behalf of Beatriz Escobar, owner,
for the following two variances:
A variance from Section 78-316 (j), of the City Code and the Evergrene Planned
Community District (PCD) Parcel 8 development order, Resolution 20 1,2002, which
requires a ten (10) foot minimum separation between structures and a preserve area.
The petitioner is requesting a variance of ten (10) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall
fence at the rear property line, which is adjacent to an existing preserve and requires a
ten (1 0) foot setback; and
A variance from the Evergrene Planned Community District (PCD) Parcel 8
development order, Resolution 201, 2002, which requires a six (6) foot clear zone in
the side yard. The petitioner is requesting a variance of six (6) feet to allow a four (4)
foot tall fence at the side property line, which requires a six (6) foot setback from the
side property line.
0
The Evergrene PCD is located south of Donald Ross Road, between North Military Trail
and Alternate A1 A.
Project Manager: Kara Irwin, Growth Management Administrator kirwin@ubefl.com (7994243)
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearing)
REZN-08-11-000005: Waterway Cafk City-Initiated Rezoning
A City-initiated request, for the rezoning of one (1) parcel of real property from
Residential Medium (RM) to General Commercial (CG-1). Said parcel comprises
approximately one and 50/100 (1.52) acres, more or less, in size; such parcel of land
being located on the south side of PGA Boulevard approximately % mile east of
Prosperity Farms Road, informally known as the Waterway Cafk Restaurant.
3.
Project Manager: Richard Marrero, Senior Planner rmarrero@ubafl.com (7994219)
2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board
December 9,2008
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearin@
MISC-08-10-000051: LA Fitness Plaza Miscellaneous Petition
Dodi Glas, agent for Fairway Shops JV, is requesting approval of a miscellaneous
petition for LA Fitness Plaza, formerly known as Shoppes on the Green, to update the
plaza’s exterior colors, materials, signage and refresh existing landscaping. The site is
located south of PGA Boulevard on the east side of Fairway Drive in PGA National
Planned Community District (PCD).
Project Manager: Kate Wilson, Planner kwilson@ubafl.com (799-4235)
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearing;)
MISC-08-05-000045: Northcorp Corporate Park PCD: Master Signage Program
Amendment
A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur & Hearing, on behalf of NorthCorp Corporate Park
Property Owner’s Association, for approval of an amendment to the Master Signage
Program for the Northcorp Corporate Park Planned Community Development (PCD),
generally bounded by the Gardens Station PUD to the north, Interstate 95 to the
west, Burns Road to the south, and the FEC Railway to the east.
Project Manager: Richard Marrero, Senior Planner rmarrero@ubgfl.com (799-4219)
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Public Hearing;)
LDRA-08-03-000018: Code Amendment to Section 78-159, Table 21, Amending
Chart of Permitted Uses.
A request by Johnston Group Land Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of
Riverside Drive Investors, LLC (“Applicant”), the owner of property in the M1-A “Light
Industrial District” within the City of Palm Beach Gardens, to amend the City’s Land
Development Regulations (“LDRs”) in order to allow retail sales to the general public as
an accessory use so long as such use is clearly subordinate and customarily associated
with the principal use and to allow Instructional Studios and Professional Studios as
Minor Conditional Uses in the M-1 A Light Industrial District.
Project Manager: Kara Irwin, Growth Management Administrator kiwin(iicMl.com (799-4243)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Floridn Statute 286.26, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to
participate in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk’s O$ce, no later than five abys prior to the proceeding, at telephone number (561)
799-4120 for assistance; ifhearing impaired, telephone the Floridn Reby Service Numbers (SOO) 955-8771 (TDD) or (800) 955-8770 (VOICE),
for assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board, Local Planning Agency, or Lmd
Development Regulations Commission, with respct 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 mu&, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based Exact legal description &or survey for the cases may be obtainedfrom the fires in the Growth
Management Deprtment.
CO~O~PZ agenda 12-09-2008.do~
3
A CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410-4698 c-
DATE:
TO:
FROIM:
MEMORANDUM
December 9,2008
Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Members
Growth Management Department
SUBJECT: Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting
Tuesday, December 9,2008 - 6:30 P.M.
Enclosed is the agenda containing the items to be presented on Tuesday, December 9,
2008. 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 Growth Management Department staffreport for the items to be heard.
As always, the respective Project Managers’ telephone numbers and email 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 4 will call to confirm your attendance.
Kara L. Invin, AICP
Growth Management Administrator
t CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE: December 3,2008
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Members
I Stephen Mayer, Sr. Planner 3 fl
SUBJECT: Request postponement of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
(Future Land Use Element)
Petition: CPTA-06-12-000008
I cc: Kara L. Irwin, AICP, Growth Management Administrator
At the December 9, 2008, Planning, Zoning and Appeals (PZAB) hearing, please be
advised that the City of Palm Beach Garden’s staff will be requesting the Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment to the Future Land Use Element (CPTA-06-12-000008) be
postponed to January 13, 2009. The privately-initiated Comprehensive Plan Text
amendment proposes to add a definition and provide criteria for areas highly suitable for
office.
The petition has been advertised for the December 9, 2008, PZAB hearing and must be
opened for public hearing. Staff requests additional time to prepare a comprehensive
analysis of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text changes.
Staff will be present to answer any questions that the PZAB may have. Please contact me
at 799-421 7 if you have any questions or require additional information.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Paper Palm Beach Post
Date: 10/3/08
AEeCtedparties:
M Notified
[ ] Not required
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07-000006
fidget AEC~#:
NA
Su bj ect/Agenda Item:
Petition PVAR-08-07-000006: Residential Variance - Rear Fence Setback
1609 Nature Court, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Public Hearing & Consideration of Approval: A request by Maureen Barber, tenant and
applicant, on behalf of Beatriz Escobar, owner, for the following two variances:
A variance fiom Section 78-316 (i), of the City Code and the Evergrene Planned
Community District (PCD) Parcel 8 development order, Resolution 20 1 , 2002, which
requires a ten (10) foot minimum separation between structures and a preserve area. The
petitioner is requesting a variance of ten (10) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at the
rear property line, which is adjacent to an existing preserve and requires a ten (10) foot
setback; and
A variance from the Evergrene Planned Community District (PCD) Parcel 8 development
order, Resolution 201, 2002, which requires a six (6) foot clear zone in the side yard.
The petitioner is requesting a variance of six (6) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at
the side property line, which requires a six (6) foot setback fiom the side property line.
The Evergrene PCD is located south of Donald Ross Road, between North Military Trail and
Alternate A1A.
0
[ ] Recommendation to APPROVE
XI Recommendation ti
Reviewed by:
City Attorney
MaxLQhman
Development && Bp
Compliance
BaM Wolfs, AICP
Appmved By:
RonaldM. Ferris
NIA
City Manager
DENY
Originating Dept: I Finance:
GMA 1 FkesPaid[Yes]
[ 3 Legislative
[XI PublicHearing Fmding source:
[ loperating
Mother NA
PZAB Action:
1 IApPmved
[ ]App.w/conditim
1 ]Wed
[ ]continuedto:
Attachments:
Variance Application
Applicant Narrative
Lot4Surveys
Photos
Finalorder
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07MN)o6
FINK ORlXR-08-07-000006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject petition is a rear yard setback variance request for lot four (4) of Parcel eight (8),
within the Evergrene Planned Community Development (PCD). The requested variance will
allow the Applicant’s existing four (4) foot fence and gates to remain on the rear and side
property lines, where a ten (10) foot rear setback and a six (6) foot side clear zone are required.
If this request is granted, the applicant is willing to remove the fence and gates at the end of her
lease (October 14, 2009). However, a variance runs with the property upon which it is granted
and, it is Staffs professional opinion that the requested variance does not meet the eight (8)
variance criteria, as listed in Section 78-53 of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
Therefore, staff recommends denial of the subject petition.
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2001, the City Council approved the Evergrene Planned Community
Development through the adoption of Ordinance 43, 2001, which consists of 905 single-hily
dwelling units and 132 multi-family dwelling units on a 366 acre site.
The 7,745 square foot subject property is located at 1609 Nature Court within the Evergrene
PCD. Construction of the one (1) story residence was completed in 2003 and consists of 2,5 12
square feet. The subject site has a RM (Residential Medium Density) Future Land Use
designation and is zoned as a Planned Community District Overlay (PCD) with an underlying
zoning of Residential Low Density - 3 m3), which is consistent with the Evergrene Master
Plan designation of Residential Low (RL).
Directly prior to the applicant’s (Ms. Barber’s) occupancy of the subject property in April 2008,
the applicant contracted Bulldog Fence Company to install a fence at the rear of the property.
The applicant desired to install the fence on the rear property line, as opposed to the required ten
(10) foot setback line. The applicant contacted the HOA to request approval to set the fence at
the rear property line. The Evergrene ACC (Architectural Control Committee) approved the
request to move the fence back ten (10) feet, and locate it abutting the preserve area, directly on
the rear property line (see attached survey). The Evergrene ACC approved the fence with the
condition that two (2) five (5) foot wide gates be installed at both sides of the property to allow
access to the recorded drainage easement. The fence was subsequently installed directly at the
rear of the property with the two (2) gates; however, no permit or zoning approval was applied
for or requested fiom the City.
Approximately two (2) months after the fence was installed, in an attempt to rectify their
oversight, the fence contractor applied for a permit with the City’s Building Division. The
application was denied by the City’s Development Compliance Division, prompting a request for
a ten (10) foot variance. Additionally, the Evergrene PCD Parcel 8 site plan requires a six (6)
foot side clear zone, fiom which, the Applicant is seeking a variance.
1
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07400006
F‘INAL 0RD~-08-07-000006
Section 78-3 16Q)
Preserve Areas -
Minimum Separation and
Parcel 8 Site Plan -
SITELOCATION
10 Feet 10 Feet
Parcel eight (8) is located within Gardens Preserve in the northeast portion of the Evergrene
PCD. The subject lot is bordered to the southwest by Tract “C-8,” which is platted as preserve
and recorded in Palm Beach County’s Oficial Records Book (see attached survey), and is
surrounded by residential homes on all other sides. The Applicant’s rear property line is
approximately 389 feet fiom the nearest residential home to the southwest.
Rear Fence Setback
Evergrene PCD
Parcel 8 Site Plan -
Side Clear Zone
REOUEST
NjA 6 Feet 0 Feet 0 Feet
The applicant is requesting a ten (10) foot variance fiom Section 78-316G) of the LDRs,
regarding the setback requirement adjacent to a preserve area and the established rear setback for
the site plan for Parcel 8, to allow a fence and gates to be located at the rear of the property.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance fiom the Evergrene Planned Community
Development (PCD) Parcel 8 Site Plan, which requires fences to maintain a six (6) foot side
clear zone in the side yard.
Section 78-158(g) of the LDRs allows owners of single-family homes within a PCD to apply for
a variance to the applicable PCD Development standards in-lieu of a development order
amendment to the entire community.
0 Feet 10 Feet
VARIANCE CRITERIA
Section 78-53(b) provides that as a basis of approval, the Board must find that the applicant
complies with glJ eight variance (8) criteria. The following illustrates Staff‘s analysis of the
required variance criteria:
1. Special Conditions:
Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same zoning district.
2
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR4847Mw)06
FINAL ORDER-08-07-000006
Applicant’s Justification
The rear yard is approximately I4 feet in depth @om the rear properg line to the covered
patio). The applicant states that if the IO’ setback where to be observed only a 4’ rear yard
would be provided for by fencing the rear yard ne applicant conten& that some properties in
the area are not required to adhere to this IO ’ setback, while other properties are. The applicant
states that the pie shape lot contributes to the unique situation.
StafYs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
Parcel 8 contains 105 single-family homes that are placed on SO’ X 105’ minimum sized lots.
Properties in the surrounding area have rear yards of similar size and shape. All Properties
abutting preserve areas, which include the homes on either side of the applicant, are subject to
the minimum required rear setback of ten (10) feet for fences. Therefore, it is Staffs
professional opinion that no special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to this
land or structure.
2. Hardship:
The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship, and are not created
by any actions of the applicant.
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant states that the fencing setback creates a small sized backyard which provides for
limited use of the property and does not allow for adequate area to play and exercise hgs. In
adlition, the applicant contends that the HONACC approved the fence to be located along the
rear property line.
Staffs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
Staff cannot find adequate justification that shows that a hardship exists for this site. Although
the site is pie-shaped, it is consistent with other lots within the development that are under the
same regulations. Therefore, it is Stas professional opinion that no hardship exists that are
peculiar to this land or structure.
3. Literal interpretation:
Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this
chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
3
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR48-07M)0006
FINAL, ORDER4847-000006
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant feels that literal interpretation of the regulation does not provide them the right to
_Irully enclose the rear yard of the property as enjoyed by other homeowners in the neighborhood
that do not back up to apreserve.
Staff‘s Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
As previously stated, all properties within the surrounding area are subject to this same ten (1 0)
foot rear setback requirement when abutting a preserve area. Neighboring properties have
adhered to this setback requirement (see affachedphotos); as a result, the required ten (10) foot
setback would not deprive the applicant of any rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same zoning district similar to the subject property.
4. Special privileges:
The grant of a variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied to
any other owner of land, buildings, or other structures located in the same zoning district.
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant provides no real justi$cation for this criterion. The applicant only indicates, “not
every property in the community is the same” and ‘Zny neighbors not only approve of my fence,
they want to do the same. ”
Staffs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
Neighboring properties have adhered to this setback requirement (see attached photos); the
granting of this variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege denied to other
property owners in the same zoning district. Granting of this variance will be a detriment to the
accessibility of the property during an emergency situation, which is why the setback exists
adjacent to the preserve.
5. Minimum variance:
The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the land,
building, or structure.
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant argues that with the configuration the home on the pie-shaped lot, this is the
minimum variance required to make adequate use of the property. The applicant conted that
the fence configuration on this property is morebnctional and aesthetically pleasing than others
in the surrounding area.
4
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petitiox PVAR-08-07400006
FINAL ORDER-08-07-000006
Staffs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
It is Staffs professional opinion that the fence can be installed in compliance with the required
setbacks, and the applicant can make use of the yard the same as other property owners in the
surrounding area. Staff does not believe this is the minimum variance required to make
reasonable use of the land.
6. Purpose and intent:
The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
chapter and land development regulations.
Applicant’s Justification
ne applicant states, “What I have done is in harmony with this community and this particular
lot.
Staffs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
It is the purpose and intent of these required setbacks to serve as access points for Fire Rescue in
case of an emergency. As the existing fence blocks the access points, the grant of the variance
is, inherently, not in harmony with the intent of the LDRs.
7. Financial hardship:
Financial hardship is not to be considered as sufficient evidence of a hardship in granting a
variance.
Applicant’s Justification
The applicant has identified the $5,000+ cost of the fence and the potential cost of moving to a
new home m$nancial hardships. Additionally, she has indicated her intent to pursue BulMog
Fence Company for any/all expenses incurred
Staffs Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
The applicant has identified the cost of the fence and the potential cost of moving to a new home
as financial hardships, and in-turn, as arguments for this variance request.
8. Public welfare:
The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental to public welfare.
5
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07400006
FINAL ORDER-08-07-000006
0 Applicant’s Justification
me applicant asserts, ‘‘The public will not be afected by this at all, just me and my dogs. ”
Stas Findings DOES NOT COMPLY
The applicant has provided sufficient justification that the requested variance would not
negatively impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood. However, it is Staf€‘s professional opinion
that in case of emergency, the fbnctionality of these setbackdaccess points to all homes within
the area will be compromised and could result in injury to the area, and subsequently, the public
welfare. Additionally, the applicant has identified several other property owners in the
surrounding area that are interested in installing similar fences, which would only fiuther restrict
access to the preserve area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After a detailed analysis, Staff finds that the proposed variance requests do not meet the eight (8)
criteria found in Section 78-53 (b) of the LDRs required to grant such a request. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of Petition PVAR-08-07-000006.
If the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB) finds for approval of the petition, Staff
recommends the following condition of approval:
1. The fence and gates located within the required rear setback of ten (10) feet shall be
removed at the end of the applicant’s lease (October 14,2009).
0
6
DATE
LANDSCAP@ VARIANCE
ED:
ApplicantfAgent Date
Permit #
The owner understands that all
Ownersignatwe . ' U
July 35,2008
RE: 1609 Nature
rida
Dear sirs:
TMs fetter is to info
authorize Maureen 8a
wing the
Sincerely,
BEKCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION State af Florida
County at ~iam.S Dade
Notarv Seal
MAUREEN BARBER
1609 Nature Court
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33418
(561) 389-7600
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Building and Zoning Department
Attn: Doug Wise
To Whom It May Concern,
I am requesting a “temporary variance” for the property located at 1609 Nature Court, Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida 33410. I am currently renting this home in the Evergrene subdivision. I have an 18
month lease with the owner that will end October 14,2009. Prior to moving in I had made
arrangements with the owner (Beatriz Escobar) to have a fence installed for my dog’s protection. I
contracted with Bulldog Fence Company to install the fence. They installed it right away; initially they
placed it 10 feet in from the preserve based on a drainage easement. When this was done I was
stunned at how close to my house the fence was. I could barely open the screen door without hitting
the fence. I asked the fence company not to set the fence posts in concrete while I approached the
Architectural Committee. I immediately went to the clubhouse at Evergrene. I spoke to the man who is
in charge of the ACC here in and asked him to come to the house and see what an eyesore this was. He
came over right away and agreed that it was way too close to the house. He then contacted the board
and who ever else he needed to contact. About three hours later he came back to the house to let me
know that it was alright for me to have it moved back as long as I had two 5’ gates installed on either
side in order to allow access to the yard for the drainage easement.
Approximately two months after the fence was installed, Mr. Charlie Mancini showed up at my door
telling me that Bulldog Fence Company had not legally applied for permit. Apparently they applied for
permit almost two months after the fence had been installed, the building department denied the
permit at which time Bulldog Fence cancelled their request for permit. About 1 hour after Mr. Mancini
left my house, I got a call from him telling me that the fence was illegal and that I had to have it
removed immediately. Without going into detail I will tell you that Mr. Mancini was very unprofessional
and very rude. He made false accusations about me illegally representing myself as the owner of the
house and when I became upset and started crying (I couldn‘t help it), he said to me, in a very nasty
tone, “you’re only upset because you aren’t getting your own way.
While I was still very upset over Mr. Mancini’s call I get another call from the fence company telling me
that they are coming to take the fence down. I was panicked and in shock that this was all happening.
The reason I moved into this house is because I was allowed, to have a fence put up.
Here is what I am requesting. I am asking that you PLEASE allow me to keep this fence while I am
renting this property. I back up to a preserve where the fence in not at all visible to anyone other than
me. I am the end of a CUI de sac so my next door neighbors can barely see the fence. I absolutely have
to have a fence for my dogs, especially in this location. I have an 11 year old Weimerainer and a 7 year
old Basset Hound. My dogs will bolt after anything they see. This preserve is loaded with wildlife. In
addition to keeping my dogs safe I also want to keep the critters in the preserve safe.
If I am forced to have the fence removed, I will be forced to move. I paid $4000.00 deposit to move into
this hause, I paid Bulldog Fence over $5000.00 to install the fence and gates. I have lived here since
April and I really do not want to have to do this all over again. If I am forced to move I will be forced to
file a lawsuit against Bulldog Fence Company, go after their license and ask to be reimbursed for all my
expenses, moving, etc. I really don't want anyone to get hurt because of this situation if it can be
avoided. This has been a nightmare for me. I know that it is also a nightmare for Bulldog Fence
Com pa n y .
My neighbors are not at all opposed to the fence, as a matter of fact two of them wanted to do the
same thing. I will provide you with letters or signatures from everyone on the cull de sac approving my
fence.
1 will provide you a letter from Bulldog Fence Company that they will remove the fence at the
termination of my lease which is October 14,2009.
I thank you all for your time and consideration and ask that you PLEASE approve my request.
0
Sincerely,
Maureen Barber
1609 Nature Court
Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33410
(561) 389-7600
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Evergrene PCD PL5 LOT 4
OWNER: Beatriz Escobar
Quito, Ecuador
P.O. BOX 1707-9065
cc via e-mail:
Beatriz Escobar
~ @ Bulldog Fence Company
MA Colucci-Russell, Atty.
PVAR-08-07-000006
Residential Variance - Evergrene PCD
ResponseIJustification to Variance Criteria bv Maureen Barber, Applicant - sent via email on
812 512 0 0 8
VARIANCE CRITERIA
1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Special conditions and circumstances ex.,, which are peculiar .a the land, structure or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same zoning district.
The backyard of this home is approximately 14' deep. I understand that when this
subdivision was first being considered the developer (WCI) and the City of Palm Beach
Gardens decided at that time that there would be a 10' drainage easement in the back of
this property. In order to have a fence enclosed yard this restriction would require a
fence to be approximately 4' from the house. It is also my understanding that this
particular lot has this setback while others that are very comparable do not have the
same restrictions. It seems somewhat random to me that while one house has this
restriction, other similar homes do not. The configuration of this property is a pie
shaped lot. The fence that I have installed is barely visible on the side yards. The back
yard is 100% preserve and visible by no one other than myself. I can not understand
WHY this is a property has this 10' restriction when it is extremely private and not visible
to anyone else.
2. HARDSHIP:
The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship, and are not created
by any actions of the applicant.
My situation that I see as a hardship you may not. Everyone's hardship can be as
individual as the person. Here is mine. I moved to this house after my divorce with the
full intention of having a fenced yard. I need a yard for my dogs. I have an old dog that
gets overheated on a leash and therefore I can not walk him in the heat. My dogs have
always had a yard to romp in, to chase lizards in, etc. I can not let them out without the
safety of a fenced yard. I paid to have a fence installed in this yard. I had the
HONArchitectural Committee approve the fence being place at the property line when it
was installed. I had NO idea that Bulldog Fence Company had NOT legally applied for a
permit. I paid over $5000.00 to have this fence installed only to be told three months later
that it was illegal. I was insulted on the phone by Mr. Charlie Mancini before I even knew
what hit me. He was a very nasty man, extremely unprofessional and had no right to talk
to me the way he did. I have an 18 month lease on this property and am willing to have
this fenced removed at the end of that lease (if necessary) but until that time I am asking
that the City of Palm Beach Gardens allows me to keep the fence for the safety of
my dogs.
e
e
I e
PVAR-08-07-000006
Residential Variance - Evergrene PCD
.The only financial hardship that I havelwill incur with what I spent to have this fence
installed ($5000.00+) and what it will cost me to move, which is what will happen if I can
not have a fenced yard. I plan to go after BULLDOG FENCE COMPANY for whatever
expenses I incur since they are 100% responsible for this issue.
8. PUBLIC WELFARE:
The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental to public welfare.
No, the public will not be affected by this at all, just me and my dogs.
97 AT PAGES 144 THROUGH 147, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH ‘COUNTY, FLORIDA.
NOTES
1. NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.
WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION.
RECORD.
ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE PER THE RECORD PLAT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, AND OTHER SIMILAR MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD, AN APPROPRIATE TITLE VERIFICATION
NEED BE OBTAINED.
BUILDING TIES ARE PERPENDICULAR OR RADIAL TO THE BOUNDARY LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LltdE OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 41 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST,
BEARING SOUTH 8931’14“ EAST, ACCORDING TO THE PLANE COORDINATES SYSTEM USING THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM
OF 1983,1990 ADJUSTMENT, AS ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY SURVEY SECTION.
ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE RELATIVE TO THE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 AND ARE BASED ON
PALM BEACH COUNTY ENGINEERING BENCHMARK “HOMECOMING: PBC BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE 17’ EAST OF THE EAST
EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF MILITARY TRAIL, % MILE SOUTH OF DONALD ROSS ROAD, 222 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO A
SCHOOL; ELEVATION: 13.322 FEET
9. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING THE GROUND ELEVATIONS ONLY AT THE
POSITIONS SilOVV” AND IN NO WAY INMCATE ELEVATIONS AT ANY OTHER POINTS THAN AS SHOWN HEREON.
10. FLOOD ELEVATION INFORMATION:
A. COMMUNITY NO. : 120192 E. SUFFIX :B
E. FIRM MAP INDEX DATE : JUNE 2,1992 F. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION : N/A
C. FIRM ZONE :B
D. PANEL NUMBER : 0120
11. ADDRESS: 1609 NATURE COURT, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410
12. AREA OF THIS PROPERTY IS 7,745 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
13. THIS SURVEY IS CERTIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING:
2. THIS SKETCH IS THE PROPERTY OF CARNAHAN-PROCTOR-CROSS, INC., AND SHALL NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN
THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RESTRlCTlONS OF 3.
4.
5. THIS SKETCH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE SEARCH. FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
6.
7.
8.
.
LENDER: BANKUNITED FSB
BUYER: BEKCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION
TITLE CO: THE TITLE CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC. 3.
4. UNDERWRITER: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
B ::
AB BREVI AT I 0 N S
A = ARC LENGTH
A/C = AIR CONDITIONER SLAB
ADJ =ADJACENT
B.C.R. = BROW~RD COUNTY RECORDS
B.D.I.C.
(C) = CALCULATED
CA.T.V. = CABLE JUNCTION BOX
C.B.S. = CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE
= BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE
C.L.F. = CHAIN LINK FENCE
C.M.E. = CANAL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
CH. =CHORD CONC. = CONCRETE
D = DELTA (CENTRAL ANGLE) D.E. =.DRAINAGE EASEMENT
E.O.P. = EDGE OF PAVEMENT
E.O.W.
EL.
F.F.
F.P.L.
FND.
GAR.
H.C.
WR 8 C.
WR
L.E.
L.M.E.
(MI N.G.V.D. N.T.S.
NID
= EDGE OF WATER = ELEVATION = FINISHED FLOOR = FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT CO. = FOUND
= GARAGE = HANDICAPPED = IRON ROD AND CAP
= IRONROD = LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
= LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT = MEASURED = NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM = NOTTO SCALE .. . -
= NAIL AND DISK
N/T = NAILANDTAB
O.R.B. = OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK
P.B. = PLAT BOOK
P.B.C.R. = PALM BEACH COUNTY RECORDS
P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING
P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
P.R.M. = PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT
PROP. = PROPOSED
PVMT. = PAVEMENT
R . = RADIUS
W = SIDEWALK STY. = STORY
T.O.B. = TOP OF BANK
U.E. = UTlLrPlUSEMENT W.L.E. = WATER LINE EASEMENT
W.M.M.E = WATER MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE
RMI = RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENT
S U RVEY OR’S C ERTl FlCATl ON
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREON COMPLIES WITH MINIMUM TECHNICAL
STANDARDS FOR SURVEYS AS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 61G17-6, FLORIDA ADMlNlSTRATlVE CODE,
DATE OF LAST FIELD WORK: 12-19-03
LANDON M. CROSS
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
FLORIDA LICENSE NO. LS 3348
w:\projecls\990901 bhUegalsUot004.doc
NOTE: GOPHER TORTOISE
IN TRACT C-8, DO
I1 -- --
FENCE LOCATED ES NOT ENCROACH TRACT C-8
'410 LOT (EVERGRENE PLAT TWO (--*--a- 0,400 PLAT BOOK 95, PAGES 29-54 I . J3'3U"
L 110.4 7'
P 2 /:H=108.23' Rm 158.00'
I
PAVER
PATIO COVERED
,k 22.00' khi. 15.33' erne 0 -' 0 ?'9 -0
SF2-PL5-RA-SPANISH 40.00'X62.33' 2505 SF.
ONE STORY C.B.S, RESIDENCE
F.F. EL:(14.64'1
GAR. EL.a(l4.14') C
-! a
7
3 C 0 V E R E D ENTRY
U LOT 3
0 40' 03'30" L.37.05' R 53.00' CH- 36.31'
DONALD ROSS ROAD
THIS SURVEY
a
a
a
-
W I-
z lr
W c
-1 a
I
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07-000006
1609 Nature Court - Site Photos
Standing at southeast corner of property - looking west, along the rear property line
I
Standing at southeast corner of property- looking south, towards the preserve area
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition : PVAR-08-07-000006
1609 Nature Court - Site Photos
I
Standing at southeast corner of property - looking north, towards the front
I I 2
Standing at southwest corner of property - looking east, along the rear property line
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petit ion : PVAR-08-07-000006
1609 Nature Court - Site Photos
, 5. .
Standing at southwest corner of the property- looking west, towards neighbor's rear fence
Standing close to southwest corner of property, along the rear property line - looking north, towards
the front/side of the property
Meeting Date: October 14,2008
Petition: PVAR-08-07-000006
1609 Nature Court - Site Photos
Standing at west side property line - looking south, towards the preserve area
ORDER OF THE PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
0
PETITION NUMBER PVAR-08-07-000006
IN RE:
1609 NATURE COURT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 4, OF EVERGRENE PCD PL 5, COUNTY OF PALM BEACH, STATE OF
FLORIDA, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16411, PAGE 1468, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ORDER DENYING VARIANCE
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon the above application, and the City of Palm
Beach Gardens Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board, having considered the testimony and
other evidence presented by the applicant, city staff, members of the public and other
interested persons at a hearing called and properly noticed, hereby makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The public hearing was properly noticed in accordance with Section 78-54 of the
City’s Land Development Regulations.
2. The property which is the subject of said application has a required 10-foot rear
setback pursuant to the Evergrene Planned Community Development (PCD) Parcel 8 Site
Plan Approval and the Land Development Regulations Section 78-316 G), made a part
thereof by reference.
3. In accordance with Section 78-158 (g) of the Land Development Regulations,
variance requests from the applicable PCD development standard(s) are allowed for single-
family homes.
4. This applicant seeks a Variance pursuant to the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
5. Under the provisions of such regulations, the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board
has the right, power and authority to act upon the application herein made.
6. The City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board determines
that the requested variance fiom the minimum rear setback standard does not meet the
criteria set forth in Section 78-53 (b) of the City’s Land Development Regulations:
a) Special Conditions and circumstances exist;
b) A Hardship exists from circumstance not the result of actions of the applicant;
c) Literal Interpretation would constitute an unnecessary and undue hardship;
d) No Special Privilege conferred;
e) Minimum Variance;
f) In harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Land Development Regulations;
g) Variance not a result of a Financial Hardship;
h) Not detrimental to public welfare.
IT IS THEREUPON CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the City of
Palm Beach Gardens Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board as follows:
1. The application for Variance, Petition PVAR-08-07-000006, with reference to the
above-described property in the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, is hereby denied to
permit the following:
A variance from Section 78-3 16 (i). of the City Code and the Evergrene Planned Community
District IPCD) Parcel 8 development order. Resolution 201.2002. which requires a ten (10)
foot minimum separation between structures and a preserve area. The petitioner is reauesting
a variance of ten (lo) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at the rear property line. which is
adjacent to an existing preserve and reauires a ten (10) foot setback: and
A variance fiom the Evergrene - Planned Community District (PCD) Parcel 8 development
order. Resolution 201. 2002. which requires a six (6) foot clear zone in the side yard. The
petitioner is requesting a variance of six (6) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at the side
property line. which reauires a six (6) foot setback from the side property line.
0 2.
The decision has been based upon our opinion that the additional area needed to effectivelv
and safelv build a fence does not create a special condition or hardship. This decision
would confer upon the aDplicant a special privilepe through the literal interpretation of the
Code. It is also our opinion that this request is neither the minimum variance needed. nor is
it in harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Land Development Regulations.
The reasons for the denial of this variance are as follows:
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of October 2008.
~
Chair Mr. Craig Kunkle
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board
City of Palm Beach Gardens
ATTEST BY:
Debbie Andrea
Recording Secretary
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: November 21,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: REZN-08-11-000005
SUBTECTIAGENDA ITEM
REZN-08-11-000005: - Waterway Cafb City-Initiated Rezoning
Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council: A City-initiated request, for rezoning of one (1) parcel
of real property from Residential Medium (RM) to General Commercial (CG-1) zoning district. Said parcel
comprises approximately one and 50/100 (1.5k) acres, more or less, in size; such parcel of land is located on
the south side of PGA Boulevard approximately ?4 mile east of Prosperity Farms Road, informally known as
the Waterway Caf6 Restaurant.
[ X ] Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
Interim City Attorney:
Max Lohman, Esq.
Development Compliance:
N/A
Bahareh K. Wolfs, AICP
Growth Management
Planning Manager:
Natalie Wong, AICP
Approved By:
City Manager:
Ronald M. Ferris
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
Project
Manager:
Richard J
Senior Planner
[XI Quasi - Judicial
[ 3 Legislative
[XI Public Hearing
Advertised:
Date: November 29,
2008
Paper: Palm Beach Post
[XI Required
[ ] NotRequired
Affected Parties:
[XI Notified
[ ] NotRequired
FINANCE:
Senior Accountant:
Tresha Thomas
Fees Paid [ X 3 Yes
Budget Acct.#:
NIA
PZAB Action:
[ ] Rec. approval
[ ] Rec. app. wl conds.
[ ] Rec. Denial
[ J Public Workshop
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
0 Ordinance 17,2008
e Ordinance5,1987
0 LocationMap
0 ZoningMap
0 FutureLandUse
Map
Date Prepared: November 21,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: REZN-08-11-000005
-
North PGA Marina
south
Pirates Cove Residential Community
The Waterway Caf6 was originally developed in the 1980’s on approximately 1.67 acres. Subsequent to the
original opening of the restaurant, the property owner purchased the additional property to the south that had
five (5) residential homes on the site.
General CommercialPUD
Overlay Commercial (C)
(CG-l/PUD)
Unincorporated Palm Beach
County Zoning
Residential Single Family (RS)
Low Residential-3 (LR-
3)
Ordinance 5, 1987 approved a Conditional Use (CU) of Commercial Parking on the Residential Medium
(RM) site. The houses were demolished, and the parking lot and landscaping that currently support the
Waterway Caf6 parking needs were constructed. The one (1) structure that remained on-site, an existing
single-family home, currently functions as an ancillary office to the restaurant use. The public access rights-
of-way to the private residences were abandoned by the City through Resolution 52, 1985.
N/A NIA East
Intr acoastalw aterw a y
West
Residential Medium (RM)G~~~~~~ Commercial (CG-l)
Commercial (C) &
Residential Medium General Commercial (CG- 1) &
Residential Medium (RM) (RM)
t -
On September 4, 2008, City Council adopted Ordinance 17, 2008, which approved a small-scale City-
initiated Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendment to change the existing Residential Medium (RM) FLU
designation to Commercial (C) in order to be consistent with the commercial uses on-site. There are no
proposed modifications to the site with this request. However, an administrative amendment application is
anticipated to be submitted to the City by the owner for outdoor seating and tiki bar subsequent to the
rezoning approval.
LAND USE & ZONING
The land-use designation of the site as shown on the City’s Future Land-Use Map is Commercial (C). The
site currently has a zoning designation of General Commercial (CG-1) and Residential Medium (RM). The
portion of the site that is designated as Commercial is approximately 1.67 acres and is located on the
northern side where the existing restaurant building is located. The RM portion of the site, which is
approximately 1 .5-acres, provides parking, landscaping, open space, outdoor seating, office and storage uses
directly related to the restaurant. The existing structure which remains on the RM parcel is directly affiliated
with the restaurant operations and is a legal non-conforming use. The City has initiated a rezoning of the
subject 1.5-acre parcel to General Commercial (CG-1) zoning district in order to be consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation of Commercial (C). The zoning and land-use
designations of adjacent properties are as follows:
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Waterway Cafe General Commercial &
11,354 square-foot restaurant use Residential Medium (CG- 1 & Commercial (C)
1.135 square-foot outdoor seating RM)
2
Date Prepared: November 21,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: REZN-08-11-000005
0 TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY
Traffic Performance Standards (TPS) was adopted by Palm Beach County in 1989. The site was approved
prior to TPS so the restaurant use is vested for the existing square footage until such time a major increase in
intensity or significant redevelopment occurs within the zoning district.
EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES
It is important to note that the subject site has several non-conformities that are on-site, however, the subject
rezoning will not be expanding any of the non-conformities. The applicant has been advised that at the time
of a major redevelopment of the site the existing non-conformities will be required to be brought into
compliance with any applicable zoning Codes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City has initiated a rezoning of the subject 1.5-acre parcel to General Commercial (CG-1) zoning district
in order to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation of Commercial
(C). Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Petition REZN-08-11-000005.
0
3
1
Date Prepared: June 13, 2008
ORDINANCE 17,2008
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA ADOPTING A SMALL SCALE
AMENDMENT TO ITS COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATES SET FORTH IN CHAPTER
163, FLORIDA STATUTES, SPECIFICALLY S ECTlO N
163.31 87( I)(c), ET SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, PURSUANT TO
PROVIDES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S FUTURE LAND
USE MAP DESIGNATING ONE (1) PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY ONE AND 50/100 (1.502) ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, IN SIZE AS “(C) COMMERCIAL”; SUCH PARCEL
OF LAND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PGA
BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY % MILE EAST OF PROSPERITY
FARMS ROAD, INFORMALLY KNOWN AS THE “WATERWAY
CAFE RESTAURANT”; PROVIDING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES;
PROVIDING A CONFLICTS CLAUSE AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
CITY-INITIATED APPLICATION NO. CPMA-08-06-000009, WHICH
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
WHEREAS, the State Legislature of the State of Florida has mandated that all
municipalities draft and adopt comprehensive development plans to provide thorough
and consistent planning with regard to land within their corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, all amendments to the Comprehensive Development Plan must be
adopted in accordance with detailed procedures which must be strictly followed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has initiated application number
CPMA-08-06-000009, which provides for a small scale amendment to the City
comprehensive development plan which meets all the requirements of a “small scale”
development as defined in Section 163.31 87(l)(c), Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens has held all duly required public
hearings in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and its Code of Ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the proposed amendment to the
current comprehensive development plan to guide and control the future development
of the City, and to preserve, promote, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Date Prepared: June 13,2008
Ordinance 17,2008
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA that: b
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, hereby adopts
an amendment to its current Comprehensive Development Plan dated January 1990 by
providing for the land use designation for one (1) parcel of real property comprising
approximately one and 50/100 (1.50k) acres, more or less, in size and amending the City's
Future Land Use Map accordingly, which amendment consists of changing the existing
map to the one which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof and of the
current Comprehensive Development Plan. A copy of the Comprehensive Development
Plan, as amended, is on file in the office of the City Clerk, City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida.
SECTION 3. The City's Growth Management Administrator is hereby directed to
transmit one (1) copy of the amendment to the current Comprehensive Development Plan
to the State Land Planning Agency within ten (1 0) working days of adoption, along with a
letter from the Mayor or his designee indicating the number of acres for the amendment
submitted, the cumulative number of acres involved in small-scale developments within
the City of Palm Beach Gardens that the City Council has approved during the past
calendar year, a copy of the executed adopting ordinance, ordinance effective date, a
copy of the public hearing notice, a completed copy of Form RPM-BSP-Small Scale-I, and
small scale development amendment application number in accordance with Rule 9J-
11.015, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the above shall also be sent to the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and to any other unit of local government that
has filed a written request for same.
SECTION 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict be and the same are
SECTION 5. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion
thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. This amendment shall become effective thirty-one (31) days after
adoption. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on
this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If the
Ordinance is timely challenged by an "affected person" as defined in Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, the amendment does not become effective until a final order is issued
finding the amendment in compliance.
26
27
28
29
30 hereby repealed.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
2
Date Prepared: June 13,2008
Ordinance 17, 2008
PASSED this A/L‘ day of m(,1/.(r , 2008, upon first reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ‘ivt day of SLP r%4.4vt , 2008, upon h
4 second and final reading.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 9
/A DT. 1 -
Eric mlin, Mxr /’
FOR AGAINST ABSENT
/
/
// L/
Robert G. Premuroso, Councilmember
26 ATTEST:
-7 LI
28
29 BY:
30 Patricia Snider, CMC, City Clerk
31
32
41
42
43
44 b G:\attorney-share\ORDINANCES\2008\0rdinance 17 2008 - final version.docx
3
,
t
ORDINANCE 5, 1957
\r'
March 31, 1907
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, ANNEYING A PARCEL OF
LAND LOCATED OH FORMER BwARD DRIVE , AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIEED IN EXHI-
BIT "A" ATTACHED HEReTO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
ANNEXATION THEREOF THE ZONING CZASSIFI-
CATION OF RS-3, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TOGETHER WITH A CONDITIONAL USE THEREON PERMITTING COMMERCIAL PARKING UNDER CHAPTER 159.061 OF TITLE XV OF THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE, IS HEREBY ESTAB-
LISHED AS THE ZONING THEREON; AND, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HERE- WITH; AND, FURTHER, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEReOF.
BE IT ORDAItJED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA:
Section 1. A parcel of land located on former Barnard --
Drive, and more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
is hereby annexed into the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
with the same legal force and effect as if said Lands were
originally part of the territory of said City,
Section 2. Simultaneously with the annexation of --
the aforesaid lands, the zoning classification of 85-3, Single-
Family ResidentiaI District, together with the conditional use
thereon permitting commercial parking under Chapter 159.061 of
Title XV of the Palm Beach Gardens Code, is hereby established.
The aforesaid described lands fall under the purview
of Chapter 163, Florida Statutee, permitti- procedural exemp-
tions for modification to Comprehensive Land-Use Plan change.
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to modify the
Comprehensive Land-Uee Plan Hap by reflecting the changes thereto
provided herein.
Section 2. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section k. This Ordinance shall be effective upon
date of passage.
J PLACED ON FIRST READING ON T€E 3 DAY OF APRIL, 1987.
PLACED ON SECOND READING 017 THE
.PASSED M7D ADOPTED TRE Td DAY
7
, 1987.
._---
COUNCI~I
&
VICE-MAYOR
ATTEST :
/a.
COUNC ILWI
i !
THL SOUTH 100.0 FEEI OF THF K. i/4 or THE N.E. 114
OF THE S.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 5. TOWNSHIP 42 SQL’TH, MNCE
43 EAST, LYINC WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY.
CONTAININ(. 1-15 ACRES (50,047.50 SQ. FT.) MORE OR
LESS.
SUBJECT TO ALL RESLRVATIOKS, RtSTRICTIOWS AND
RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
r
'd
L
Jefferson F. Vander Wok
Post Office Drawer D
Delmy Ekach. Ftorida 33444
Richard 0. Breithart, Esq.
818 U.S. Highway one, Suite::%
North Palm Beach, FL 83408
Dear Richard :
I am writing to confirm my understanding of the agreements reached
between myself, representing Waterway Cafe, and you as representative
of the adjoining residents in Pirate's Cove. These agreements were
reached in specific response to a petition signed by most of these
residents, dated January 19, 198!, and a subsequent letter from you,
dated January31, 1987. The items we covered are as follows:
1) At the option of the adjoining residents, we agree upon their request to build two 15-20 foot block walls, one each between the three westernmost houses on our property. The objective would be to reduce noise if other
actions we have taken do not render it unobjectionable. We think that
if more of a noise iarrier is needed, additional landscaping might
prove more effective.
from outside the restaurant - including employees leaving at closing time - in order to reduce any diseurbance to neighbors.
3) We agree to discourage the use of the Port Royal Canal by restaurant customers and to take any steps requested to terminate live-aboard
situations that might exist at any of the docks on our property.
4) We anticipate that in time the residences on our property will be
raised to provide more parking to the west and additonal restaurant
facilities on the Intracoastal. We agree that until this takes place we will not change the present usage of these properties. At such time
as the housees may be raised, either partiaJly or in their entirety, we agree to construct a&-@foot masonry wall, the exact height to
be determined by the City. This wall will follow the 1 e of the
existing Mall on the west and be set back at least l& P-2 ee from any
seawall. Further, we agree that the south wall of any restaurant
facilities built along the Intracoastal will have no openings or
"people exposure" across the canal to the south.
We also agree to landscape and maintain the areas between the masonry
wall and the seawalls on the south and west of our property - after consulting with the adjoining neighbors about the design of both the
landscaping and the wall. We would hope to accommodate any reasonable
requests made by our adjoining neighbors. In this regard, we suggest
that this landsca ing might include a row of trees or a hedge that
might grow to I!?- 1 0 feet. Conceivably, these might be planted in the
near future so that their maturation process could proceed immediately.
We would appreciate any suggestions your clients may have relative
Relating to the above, we shall attempt to control sound emanating
- -
'J 7: *'.
'v
Richard 0. Breithart, Esq.
May T, 1% Page i
to this possibility and to the type of plant materials that might be
used.
& We agree to consult with the city concerning the use of the Adam's
property on Kidd Lane and to the west of Kidd Lane and to abide by
their desires in this matter
&Finally, we will strive to malntain open comnunications between
our adjoining neighbors and not only our op-site managers but, if they
cannot or do not take any appropriate actions, with ownership. In this
regard, I attached a number of postage-paid envelopes, pre-addressed
to myself, that can be distributed to your clients and used as needed.
In answer to a question raised in your most-recent correspondence, I am told that a commercial boat dtd come into the Port Royal Canal
recently and, I assume, docked on our side. I am not familiar with all of the circumstances, but the story I have heard is that their
use of the canal resulted from mechanical problems and that there stay
was brief. Whether someone at the Waterway Cafe sanctioned their visit, I am not sure. We will instruct those who may be concerned with lfke
situations in the future to discourage this kind of thing.
I am also aware of a recent noise cornplalnt by one neighbor to the west. The problem seems to have been a lack of awareness on the part
of a new floor manager that it was our policy to close all wall openings on the west side of the buildfng during periods when we have entertainment.
Such oversights may occur now and then, but I believe our communication
arrangements should provide a prompt solutlon.
If this concurs with your understanding of our agreements, I would
appreciate your acknowledging the encloed copy and returning It to me in the attached envelope.
JFV' hr
Encl bsures
_. I. * __ ... Acknowledgement
Richard 0. Breithart, Esq.
a
Page 1 of 1
L’
0 1110 LL I c sl, t ___. t 010 n
U ti' =. 2 tn
rc
A
Dill . 5 -.__ .-
rg
'- I
I
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: November 24,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition #: MISC-08-10-000051
SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM
MISC-08-10-000051 LA Fitness Plaza Miscellaneous Petition
Recommendation to City Council: Dodi Glas, agent for Fairway Shops JV, is requesting
approval of a miscellaneous petition for LA Fitness Plaza, formerly known as Shoppes on the
Green, to update the plaza’s exterior colors, materials, signage and refiesh existing landscaping.
The site is located south of PGA Boulevard on the east side of Fairway Drive in PGA National
Planned Community District (PCD).
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Reviewed by:
Interim City
Attorney
R. Max Lohman, Esq.
Development
Compliance
Bahareh Keshavarz-Wolfs,
AICP
Planning Manager -L&
Natalie Wong, AICP
Administrator
Kara L. Irwin, AI
Senior Accountant
Tresha Thomas
Approved By:
City Manager
Ronald M. Ferris
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
Manager & Project
Kate Wilson
Planner
[XI Quasi -Judicial
[ ] Legislative
[ 3 Public Hearing
Advertised:
[ ]Required
[XI Not Required
Affected Parties:
[ ]Notified
[XI Not Required
FINANCE: NIA
Costs: $ NIA
Total
$ NIA
Current FY
Funding Source:
[ ] Operating
[XI Other3
Budget Acct.#:
NIA
PZAB Action:
[ ] Rec. approval
[XI Rec. app. wl conds.
[ ] Rec. Denial
[ ] Continued to:
Attachments:
9 Project Narrative
9 Reduced Plans with
proposed colors
Date Prepared: November 24,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition MISC-08-10-00005 1
BACKGROUND
On February 1, 1979, City Council approved the PGA National Resort Community, a Planned
Community Development (PCD) with the adoption of Ordinance 34, 1978. Subsequently, the
site plan for Shoppes on the Green was approved by the City Council as a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) through the adoption of Resolution 1, 1986. The approved PUD is
approximately 16.55 acres and consists of 76,280 square feet of retail, a 41,255 square foot
supermarket and a 13,054 square foot drugstore.
On August 19, 1986, Resolution 37, 1986 was adopted, which approved the architectural
elevations and color treatments of all buildings proposed in the Shoppes on the Green PUD.
On October 9, 2008, the Addressing Committee approved a request to change the plaza name
from Shoppes on the Green to LA Fitness Plaza.
LA Fitness is proposing to occupy the 41,255 square foot tenant space that was originally
approved for a supermarket, formerly occupied by Publix. Renovations are currently taking
place, and the tenant plans to open in March of 2009. 0 LAND USE & ZONING
The subject site has a Planned Community Development (PCD) zoning with an underlying
zoning of Commercial (CG-1). The future land use designation of the site is Commercial (C).
CONCURRENCY
The subject request does not affect the project’s concurrency approval.
PROJECT DETAILS
Building Site
The subject request is for modifications to the existing paint colors and materials of the plaza.
The following paint colors are proposed for the exterior of the plaza: Rockport Gray, Minced
Onion, Lenox Tan, Springfield Sage, Tree Moss and Deer Trail (see attachment). To further
enhance the existing faqade, aluminum canopies will replace existing awnings, stone veneer will
replace existing tile located below store windows and a cornice trim to enhance roof line. No
changes to the approved site plan are being made with this request.
Signage
Updated signage is proposed throughout the plaza. Each tenant will be given two (2) signs, one
(1) attached to the wall and one (1) underneath the canopies visible to pedestrians within the 0 2
Date Prepared: November 24,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition MISC-08-10-00005 1
plaza. Three (3) types of exterior signs, which are permitted by code, are proposed; wall signs,
box “A” signs and box “B” signs (please see attached plans). The proposed wall signs are
similar to the illuminated signs currently within the plaza. The tenant name will not exceed
10’6’’ in length and will contain no more than two (2) lines of copy, which is consistent with the
City’s Code. Box “A” signs will be single face illuminated cabinet signs with 12 inch letters.
Box “B” signs differ from box “A” signs in that they are smaller in width. Box “B” signs will be
attached to the proposed metal trellis.
Pedestrian signs or under canopyblade signs will hang from the ceiling outside the tenant bays.
Steel tubes will be used to attach the canopy signs to the ceiling. Tenant signs will have Kestral
Script lettering, be painted bronze and have raised white lettering.
The major tenant signage is proposed to be a 5’ by 30’ illuminated sign containing 3’ channel
letters. The major tenant sign will bronze with raised white lettering and is consistent with
Section 78-285 of the City’s Code for principle tenants.
The applicant is also proposing to update the entry sign. On the existing cabinet cut, the
applicant proposes to replace the existing faces with a new retainer system and push-thru copy.
The panel will include two (2) colors: holly green vinyl overlay and satin finish and Match Porter
6919 stucco finish (please see attached). To update the three (3) tenant spaces on the entry sign,
the applicant is proposing to remove the existing faces and replace with three (3) new routed and
backed-out cuts. All of the proposed signage is consistent with the City’s Code requirements.
LandscauindBu ffer ing
The applicant is proposing to replace and restore deteriorated landscaping material throughout
the site. Proposed enhancements will be in accordance with the approved landscape plans.
Parking
The proposal will not be altering the existing site plan, therefore parking will be unaffected.
Site Access
The site currently has three (3) points of access from Fairway Drive and one (1) point of access
from Fairview Lane. No changes to the existing access are proposed.
Phasing
The improvements will be completed in one phase.
Drainage
The applicant is not proposing changes to the existing drainage system.
Waiver Requests
The applicant is not requesting waivers.
3
Date Prepared: November 24,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition MISC-08-10-00005 1
COMMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC)
On November 13, 2008 the subject petition was reviewed by the DRC committee. To date, no
objections have been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of petition MISC-08- 10-00005 1 with the following condition:
1. Any changes to the approved landscaping related to conflicts with Seacoast Utilities
Authority shall require review and approval from the City of Palm Beach Gardens.
4
Subiect Property
Commercial
North
Commercial
South
Residential
- East
Residential /
Golf
- west
Professional Office
TABLE 1
PGA National - PCD Overlay
Mirasol- PCD Overlay
PGA National - PCD Overlay
Ballenisles - PCD Overlay
PGA National - PCD Overlay
5
Date Prepared: November 24,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition MISC-08-10-00005 1
C-Commercial
C-Commercial
Residential - Medium (RM)
Residential - Medium (RM)
Golf
C-Commercial
PROJECT NARRATIVE
LA FITNESS PLAZA
October 20,2008
Updated November- I4. 2008
Request/Location
On behalf of the applicant Fairway Shops JV, Gentile Holloway O'Mahoney &
Associates, Inc., acting as agent, is requesting a Miscellaneous Petition to review the
request of updating the faGade and overall appearance of the main commercial center
within the PGA National DRI formerly known as Shoppes on the Green. As you may
recall, the site was recently approved to allow an LA Fitness facility to be located within
this center, within the same footprint of what was once the Publix store. With the new
anchor in the center, the applicant would like to take the opportunity to refresh the overall
architecture of the center.
0 With this application the applicant will be requesting the following:
Change colors of building and barrel tile roof to an earth toned pallet of greens,
tan and browns;
Replace existing vinyl awnings with new updated continuous aluminum canopy;
Add new updated cornice trim profile over existing stucco bands at parapet top;
Replace existing ceramic tile accents with new stone veneer and painted stucco
planter knee walls;
Replace the wood trellis with aluminum structure;
Update under canopy lights with recessed light fixtures; and
Revise handicap parking spaces to comply with ADA requirements.
Update signage;
Landscaping material will be replaced and restored as well. No site plan layout changes
are proposed.
e
Impact of Proposed Application
The proposed upgrading of the existing center gives a needed boost to the existing
businesses and surrounding PGA community. The effort goes hand in hand with bringing
in a new anchor business. The effort only serves to improve the existing commercial
center and the PGA corridor.
LA Fitness Plaza
Project Narrative
October 20,2008 UpdatedNovember Id, 2008
Page 2
Site History
This center is within the PGA National which is a DRI that was determined to be built
out in 2005. The site plan was approved by Resolution 1, 1986 with 150,000 square feet
of commercial use.
Access
The site is located on Fairway Drive just south of PGA Boulevard. There are multiple
access points on Fairway and the site backs up to Florida‘s turnpike. No changes are
proposed.
Landscaping
As a part of this application, the landscaping will be refreshed. New planting materials
will be used to replace tired or missing material. Some newer plant species will be used
to help update the center and address any maintenance issues. Planters and foundation
plantings will be addressed. Mature quality landscaping material will be maintained with
the basic design. The site layout will not be changed,
Architectural Elements
The primary focus of the petition is improvements to the visual appearance of the center
which is need of refreshment. A new palette of earthtone colors of tan, green and brown
will be used to paint exterior elements of the buildings as well as upgrading some the
features like lighting, awnings, building trim, and signage.
Signage
As was previously mentioned the name of the center is no longer Shoppes on the Green,
it has been changed to LA Fitness Plaza at PGA National. Due to the change in the
center’s name, the signage will need to be replaced. The under canopy signage, as well as
the signage located on the building’s awnings, will also be updated to become consistent
with the colors of the faqade changes and updating of the building. Although the signage
will be upgraded and refreshed as part of this application, the style and theme of the will
remain intact.
Addressing
The addressing and individual suite numbers for the building will remain as they
currently appears, on or above the tenant doors.
Concurrency
The PGA DRI was deemed built out in August 2005 in Resolution 107,2005.
Surrounding Uses
No change in use is being proposed.
U:\CLIENT FILESLA fitness PGA Shoppes 08-0307\AAarchilecture080307.3\Subrnifled
DocurnentsWesubrnittaI 1 1 I408\narrative-revised.doc
LA Fitness Plaza
Project Narrative
October 20,2008 UpdaredNovember 14, 2008
Page 3
Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations
I I ZONING
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
TO THENORTH :
GUS slut ion. PGA Bvld;
Mirusol Wulk
Planned Community
Development (PCD)
PCD:
General Commercial
TO THE SOUTH :
PGA National- wafer
Residential
PCD
FDOT Right-of-way TO THE MT:
Florida’s Turnpike I TO THE WEST: I PCD I PGA Nutional- Bascom I
FUTURE LAND USE
Commercial
DRI/ Commercial (C):
Commercial
DRVResidential Medium
FDOT Right-of-way
DRVProfessional Office
Conclusion
The pending application provides an opportunity to revitalize an important commercial
center in the community. The application respects the character of the center while
celebrating the new anchor and revived interest in the center. Please accept this request
on behalf of our client and contact Dodi Glas, Meghan Liller or Ben Dolan should you
require any additional material.
UKLIENT FILES\LA fitness PGA Shoppes 08-0307MAarchitecture080307.3\Submined
DocumentsWesubminal I 1 1408\narrative-revised.doc
e
3NI ANWdWOD N31S Ajtrkl)l- ti 3 /. I /
h
I
L
a I ,
1 7
II
T cs s
N
.. - ..
a
a
N
A
-e
1 !
L
I 1
I
i
U I
SIGN SEPERAnON HEIGHT VARIES Mi% CEILING HEIGHT TO MAINTAIN 8' ABOM - I I I I I It I: i r w I 03 Nlf I I II 111
/ /
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
e e \\ \
c CANAL
i
b
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
.-
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA
I
6 5 9
& ! ! b
;o’
4,
m x W
3
VI -. 0 3
77 f rt- f FD’
5 CANAL Florida’s Turnpike
Existing Zoning : Wni ncorporated
Future Land Use: Turnpike
Existing Land Wse: Turnpike
DA P-l '3
u
m b
m 3
5
I
I
3 13
I .. 1.. 1. . .. P IP
IQ ID Ei /r
P hi k: ID
4
I 1 I
1111111111111111 I* m mw ~ 1 -+- I-""
jI
i! .ji PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovations
7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL p 1
n
I
PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
m
0
0- 0 0 / ... .. IpIr
,$ '%
'\
'\ /
I IHi i 'I
I 11 $- In -1 0
6
g: !! 2 ' 1 PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovations 2; PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
YI gt g,O
t 7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL , $2 LO
> *I.> I_I"*.< *u BO"* NY. 140 W. ?.om -.*=n. J.L 13.11 ,o",lr",ao.~~r.l,"rruln.nal
1 It I \ / I
U 6: i 5'.0"
'7 I
4 I,
I.
1-11 1-11 11111111
2: $1; PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovations
7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
Lrn 48
I I I f /J 1
f
k : AD no
:$ DVI $! 2?
y ;
PGA 7070 National - 7170 Fairway Shops - Drive, Exterior Palm Cosmetic Beach Gardens, Renovations FL i; PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
_1
Y9 bo I i 87.2 GI".", *. W"" NR (.D W. P.kn8.r." rl lYtl ,b"llr",da.~~"ll.."," ,I*,
bo 00 _.
w
MR WlwtDCU 7
A H C F I T L C T U H C
PGA 7070 National - 7170 Faifway Shops - Drlve, Exterior Palm Cosmetic Beach Gardens, Renovations FL PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
.U lum uf E.E 11-19 0 \ J '\@ ', \ \ \ \ I
I I.
IUJ
I' I
I
Irn :
4
P !
:
PGA 7070 National - 7170 Fairway Shops - Drive, Exterior Palm Cosmetic Beach Gardens, Renovations FL
. I "1 5: ,> ,< , .I IC'..
is !! .I 0
x PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
~ :s b:
10 U
a ll -+ \ \. 'T
'\\
'1
I
I II
I I
I I
I I I
I
I
a
1 1111
A -. A
~ ~
Q
I
PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
m g
YIe < Pr 1
I
IP I i
PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovatlons
7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL j
, ...
?.,.SF .,,.. ,"*LY"". Y" 1.0 w.P.lm8..cn IL $).?I ,~~l.rr,a~.~Oa~ll."",~ "_l
4 II +------ 7 6 z Z w- m m I MlM UL M 1111 // ,/
1-1 I1 I
bJ L
v-
4
.?
b 51P A ii c H I r E c T u H I: -ID
DO vo
!? 2'"
,
~ n
S!
7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive. Palm Beach Gardens, FL $6 ~ PGA NATIONAL SHOPS PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovations
n: .B
Z$
YP 'gs
I I
I
\
4; ggt PL m' &y t-" 21
2" ;!
0 z PGA NATIONAL SHOPS $2
> 'Io
a0 8%
a.2
VI- 53 i n
YP r 5
PGA National Shops - Exterior Cosmetic Renovations
7070 - 7170 Fairway Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, FL . . r: ;! bo z
a,.zs'""","mm"" NU 1.0 w P.,lll8...ll PI 11.11 ,lrl,,.",O."~~PII."Llln ll",
CUI SL I.'
Y m::
\ '. --t--- \ 4
?
. I 1
N
I=
II
I-
@$
V
2 2 i PGA 7070 National - 7170 Fairway Shops - Drive, Exterior Palm Cosmetic Beach Gardens, Renovations FL PGANAT
60 00 .t
2) p.0 e 5 (I7.2F,"".,**Blrr, NO 110 w.P.lme..cn FL 11.31 ,~~ll."'~O"~D"~.ll.oulnns,
ONAL SHOPS
ylo YO
40 :m Fb a z2 i PGA 7070 National - 7170 Faiiway Shops - Drive, Exterior Palm Cosmetic Beach Gardens, Renovations FL G PGA NATIONAL SHOPS
~
.
mo La
bo
Z 0 icI h q Z -I v
T Ii
h 0 E
8 5
5 A -l n Z + h E; v 1 . Y I I m X - v, 4 I. . 3 0 Z - Z . Y 1 n ?- n > 0 m I '0 I .. .. .I m 0 .,-. . .. 4 -...
i I -..
I
R
m E. m E.
ru C
3 3.
5 n W
U a
2
5
4
N ID
W z z n 0 r?
VI a U
3 m
ID 3
P.
n
4
K
5
sb
E. # n
3 n
ID
U
F v, + A m > A c. Y . n I m X v, -I - - m > -I io v) h 9 io m v I- m < 3 - 0 Z n . Z n I u m
W R
"0 4
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition #: MISC-08-05-000045
SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM
MISC-08-05-000045: Northcorp Corporate Park PCD: Master Signage Program Amendment
Recommendation to City Council: A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur & Hearing, on behalf of
NorthCorp Corporate Park Property Owner’s Association, for approval of an amendment to the
Master Signage Program for the Northcorp Corporate Park Planned Community Development
(PCD), generally bounded by the Gardens Station PUD to the north, Interstate 95 to the west, Burns
Road to the south, and the FEC Railway to the east.
[XI Recommendation to APPROVE with two (2) waivers
[XI Recommendation to DENY two (2) monuments signs
Reviewed by:
Interim City
Attorney
R. Max Lohman, Esq.
Development
Compliance
AICP
Growth Mana&
Administrator
Kara L. Irwin, AICP
Senior Accountantw& fl
Tresha Thomas
Approved By:
City Manager
Ronald M. Ferris
Originating Dept.:
Growth Management:
Project
Senior Planner
[XI Quasi - Judicial
[ ] Legislative
[ 1 PublicHearing
Advertised:
[ ]Required
[XI Not Required
Affected Parties:
[ ]Notified
[XI Not Required
FINANCE: NIA
Costs: $ NIA
Total
S N/A
Current FY
Funding Source:
[ ] Operating
[XI Other3
Budget Acct.#:
NIA
PZAB Action:
[ ] Rec. approval
[ ] Rec. app. wl conds.
[ ] Rec. Denial
[ 3 Continued to:
Attachments:
0 Waiver Justification
Program
9 Proposed Sign
Program
0 Site Plan and
Landscape Plan
9 Resolution 11,2006
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: MSC-08-05-000045
Sign Size # of Faces Quantity Dimensions
Monument 46 square feet 2 1 Height: 20 feet
Sign #1 Width: 2.3 feet
Monument 75 square feet 2 1 Height: 25 feet
Sign #2 Width: 3 feet
BACKGROUND
Letter Height
12-inches
12-inches
The NorthCorp Corporate Park Planned Community Development (PCD) was approved by the City
Council on January 18, 1990, through the adoption of Ordinance 1, 1990. The ordinance (1) united
all lands comprising the former RCA site into one development order; (2) provided an approval
mechanism for future petitions within the PCD; (3) assigned site-specific restrictions to certain lots;
(4) established maximum trip generations for the development; and (5) established time-certain
conditions of approval for certain road and drainage improvements.
Since its approval several lots have been developed within the PCD. Current tenants within the
NorthCorp PCD include, among others: Catalfimo; Wackenhut; Anspach; Hilda Flack Interiors;
Hampton Inn; Marriot; and 31 Implant Innovations.
LAND USE & ZONING
The Future Land Use Map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the NorthCorp PCD as
Industrial (I). The site has a Planned Community Development (PCD) Overlay with an underlying
Research & Light Industrial Park (M-1) zoning district.
PROJECT DETAILS
There are four (4) types of signs being proposed with this request: five (5) directional signs, twenty-
five address signs, one (1) twenty-foot monument sign and one (1) twenty-five-foot monument sign.
The applicant is also requesting approval to replace the existing street signs within the PCD to
incorporate the corporate park’s logo (see attached signage package).
Monument Signs
The applicant proposes two (2) monument signs with the subject request. The proposed twenty-five
foot monument sign is to be located on the west side of the corporate park adjacent to Interstate 95.
The second monument sign, which measures twenty feet high, is proposed along the east side of the
property adjacent to Alternate AlA. It should be noted that the applicant has requested a waiver to
exceed the maximum height and copy area permitted for non-residential monument signs (please
see waiver section).The monument signs have the following measurements (see table below):
Directional & Address Signs
The plan proposes five (5) directional signs and twenty-five address signs. The directional signs are
proposed to replace the previously approved directional signs located in common areas and the road
medians, which are landscaped and maintained by the NorthCorp Property Owner’s Association. In
addition to the directional signs, the applicant proposes address signs to assist vehicular traffic with
2
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: MISC-08-05-000045
finding their intended destination. Due to the size of the signs and number proposed, the applicant
has requested a waiver to exceed the maximum allowed by the City's code (please see waiver
section).
Sign Size Faces
Directional 22 square feet 1
Address 7.5 square feet 1
All signs will incorporate the NorthCorp logo which will be treated with a patina finish. The sign
faces are proposed to be white and the text will be black. The directional and address signs have the
following measurements (see table below):
Quantity Dimensions Text
Width: 4 feet
Width: 4 feet
5 Height: 6 feet 8 inches
25 Height: 2.3 feet 9 inches
Waivers
The Applicant has requested approval of waivers from the following Code sections:
Section 78-285:
Building
Directional
Sign
Section 78-285:
Non-residential
ground sign
1 per building
Max. 4feet in
height
Maxsize of4
square feet
Maxsizeof60
square feet
MaxHeightof
10 feet
Max width of 15
feet
0 22square
feet in size
0 6-foot high
75 square feet
25-fOOthigh
46 square feet
20-foot high
0 18 square
feet
0 2 feet
0 25
Address
signs
15 square
feet for copy
areas
15 feet for
height
10 feet for
height
(1) Approval
(2) Denial of the
waiver for the
proposed square
footage and height of
both monument signs
3
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: MSC-08-05-000045
WAIVER CRITERIA: 0 Section 78-158 (i). Criteria. A request for the City Council to approve a waiver from one or more of the
standards and requirements applicable to a planned development, PUD, or PCD shall comply with a majority
of the criteria listed below (staf's recommendations are in italics).
1.
2.
0 3.
4.
5.
6.
The request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The subject waivers for the building and directional signs request do not interfere with any
Comprehensive Plan policies.
The request is consistent with the purpose and intent of this section.
Staff believes that the address signs and directional signs are consistent with the purpose and intent
of City Code Section 78-271. It is staff's professional opinion that the address and directional signs
will fither the concept of creating a corporate park identity and assist vehicular trafic in finding
their intended destination within the PCD with ease.
Stafdoes not believe the waiver to exceed the maximum height and copy area for a monument sign
is consistent with the purpose and intent of this section. City Code Section 78-158 states,
".. . encourages applicants to propose innovative, creative, and utilize planning, design, and
architectural concepts that will benefit the City". It is stafs position that the proposed monument
signs do not bring any architectural beneJit to the City or enhance the corporate park identity. Staf
believes the Code requirements for ground signs are adequate to create signage that is attractive
and creative. Furthermore, staffwould be in support of the monument signs if they were constructed
consistent with the City Code criteria and were complementary in design to the other signs located
within the PCD.
The request is in support of and furthers the City's goals, objectives, and policies to establish
development possessing architectural significance, pedestrian amenities and linkages, employment
opportunities, reductions in vehicle trips, and a sense of place.
The subject request does not conflict with any of the City's goals, objectives, andpolicies to establish
development possessing architectural significance, pedestrian amenities and linkages, employment
opportunities, reductions in vehicle trips, or a sense of place. Staff believes the proposed ground
monument signs do not create any additional architectural significance to the corporate park or
create a sense of place.
The request demonstrates that granting of the waiver will result in a development that exceeds one or
more of the minimum requirements for PUDs.
It is stars opinion that the granting of the waiver to allow for address and directional signs will
assist vehicular traflc in finding their intended destination within the corporate park. However, staf
does not believe granting the waiver to exceed the maximum height and copy area for ground
monument signs willfirther the idea of creating a corporate park or sense of place.
The request for one or more waivers results from innovative design in which other minimum
standards are exceeded.
It is staff's professional opinion that the waiver requested for the ground monument sign is not a
direct result of innovative design, but instead a request to add additional signage along the adjacent
roadways.
The request demonstrates that granting of the waiver will result in preservation of valuable natural
resources, including environmentally-sensitive lands, drainage and recharge areas, and coastal areas.
The subject request is not applicable.
4
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: MISC-08-05-000045
The request clearly demonstrates public benefits to be derived, including but not limited to such
benefits as no-cost dedication of rights-of-way, extensions of pedestrian linkages outside of the
project boundaries, preservation of important natural resources, and use of desirable architectural,
building, and site design techniques.
It is stars professional opinion that the waiver request for the ground monument signs do not
clearly demonstrate a public benefit. Staff evaluates signage waivers based upon the purpose and
intent of signage, as defined in City Code Section 78-271. Section 78-271 states, “The purpose of
this division is to create a legal framework for a comprehensive and balanced system of signage to
facilitate an easy and pleasant communication between people and their environment and to avoid
the visual clutter that is potentially harmjid ... ” The applicant has stated to staf that the proposed
monument signs would be an architectural benefit to the City and a means of wq$nding @lease see
attached waiver criteria justijication). Staff believes that the monument signs could be constructed in
accordance with the design criteria set forth in the City Code, and be just as effective without the
need of waivers. The proposed twenty and twenty flve-foot monument signage is visual clutter and
reminiscent of a pole sign. Furthermore, it is stafss opinion that approval of the monument signs
could set a precedent for similar requests from developments within the City that want to increase
visibility along major arterials.
7. a
8. Sufficient screening and buffering, if required, are provided to screen adjacent uses from adverse
impacts caused by a waiver.
The applicant does not propose any reductions to the buffers from the original site plan approval.
9. The request is not based solely or predominantly on economic reasons.
The applicant has not stated that the request is based solely or predominantly on economic reasons.
10. The request will be compatible with existing and potential land uses adjacent to the development
site.
The applicant does not propose any changes to the land use or zoning which would result in
incompatibility to the surrounding areas, however, staff believes the proposed monument signs are
inconsistent with the existing character of the PCD and adjacent land uses.
1 1. The request demonstrates the development will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this section, and that such waiver or waivers will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
It is stafss professional opinion that the waiver request for the monument signage is not an
innovative architectural concept that will benejit the City. StafSbelieves that the proposed waiver for
the monument signage is not to enhance the corporate park, but to serve as a means of additional
advertising and is not consistent with the purpose and intent for waivers to the planned unit
developments or the City’s sign code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed building directional and address signs placed
within the corporate park; however, staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed monument signs.
This approval shall be in accordance with the following conditions:
1. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the Applicant shall properly dimension the distances
from the monument signs to the nearest parking area, curb, sidewalk or property line on the
landscape plan.
5
Date Prepared: November 4,2008
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: MISC-08-05-000045
2. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the Applicant shall submit plans specifically indicating
the locations of the proposed signs marked with a dotted line around the proposed locations
for clarity purposes.
3. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the Applicant shall submit plans showing the quantities
on the plant list.
4. All landscaping around signs added or modified by this petition shall be fully irrigated.
5. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the signs, sign locations may be adjusted so
as not to block views for traffic, conflict with utilities or trees, and shall be approved by the
City Forester.
6. The monument signs, referenced as “Icon Identity Monument” in the attached Master
Signage Package, shall not include tenant signage on either of the signs.
6
Cotleur& Hearing Landscape Arckitectcrc I Land Plantierr; I En\iironmentai tcnsultants
Commerce Lane. Suite I . Jupiter, FL . 33458 . Ph 561.747.6336 . Fax 561.747.1377 . www.cotleufhearing.com . Lic # LC-COO0239
NorthCorp Corporate Park
Master Signage Plan
Justification Statement
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of NorthCorp Corporate Park Property Owners Association, the applicant, we
propose the second phase of the master signage program for directional, address and
icon identity signage throughout the NorthCorp Corporate Park. The park is located
south of RCA Drive, north of Burns Road, east of Interstate 95 and west of Alternate
AI A.
APPLICATION
1. Miscellaneous Petition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,650.00
PROJECT CONTACTS
APPLICANT
NorthCorp Corporate Park P.O.A.
Jim Griffin, Director
3950 RCA Boulevard, Suite 5000
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 3341 0
561.427.3993
Jegriffin28@aol. com
AGENTLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Cotleur & Hearing, Inc.
Don HearingIAlessandria Kalfin
1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 1
Jupiter, FL 33458
561.747.6336
Dhearing@cotleur-hearinq.com
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Glen Welden & Associates, LLC
Glen Welden
349 Knollwood Drive
Anderson, S. Carolina 29625
864.353.8026
designGWA@aol.com
Page 1 of 4
NorthCorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
CH Project #: 07-0805
Pre Application 05.02.08
Submittal 9.26.08 a
HISTORY
The first phase of the master signage plan for NorthCorp Corporate Park was approved
in 2006 by Resolution 11, 2006 to permit four (4) monument signs for the park. The
signs are located at each entry and serve a great purpose for automobile users coming
from outside of the park. The request at hand would further the intent of the monument
signs by providing additional signage for automobile users once they enter the park. The
park is extensive and includes over twenty buildings. In the past it has been difficult for
a driver to find his way to a building once inside the park; especially since there are over
four road names and numerous addresses within the park.
REQUEST
The applicant is proposing the addition of directional signage throughout the NorthCorp
Corporate Park within phase two of the master signage plan. There are four types of
signs being proposed with this request; a 6-foot directional sign, a 2.3-foot address sign,
a 20-foot icon identity ground sign and a %foot icon identity ground sign. The applicant
is also requesting to replace the existing street signs within the park. The new street and
stop signs will portray the NorthCorp logo. The plan proposes five (5) directional signs
(to replace the existing 5 directional signs), twenty-five (25) address signs, and two (2)
icon identity ground signs. The directional signs will be used in common areas and in
road medians landscaped and maintained by the NorthCorp Corporate Park property
owners association. These signs have the addresses of multiple buildings with arrows
pointing in the direction in which the building is located. The address signs will be
located in front of each building to identify its address. The &foot icon identity sign will
be located along the interstate 95 boundary and the 20-foot icon identity sign will be
located along the Alternate AIA boundary.
a
Width: 4-feet
Width: 4-feet
Width: 2.3-feet
Width: 3-feet
Address 7.5-SF 1 25 Height: 2.3-feet 9-inches
Icon Identity 47-SF 2 1 Height: 20-feet 12-inches
Icon Identity 75-SF 2 1 Height: 25-feet 12-inches
The signs will be architecturally consistent with the four existing monument signs
approved in 2005. All signs will have the NorthCorp logo which will be treated with a
Patina finish. The sign face will be white and the text will be black. The directional sign
and the icon identity sign will have colored trim specified as PMS 415-C and PMS 420-
C, in the same tone as the Patina finish.
Page 2 of 4
NorthCorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
CH Project #: 07-0805
Pre Application 05.02.08
Submittal 9.26.08 a
WAIVERS
Per section 78-285, the applicant will require with the proposed
signage request. NorthCorp Corporate Park is the only corporate park within the city
limits. This characteristic requires flexibility to adhere to the code requirements which
were not designed for corporate parks but for other commercial uses. Section 78-278 of
Division 7 Signs, states “that the city council may, at time of development order approval
or development order amendment, grant one or more waivers to the requirements of this
division applicable to a PUD, PCD, or site plan within a PCD.” And further more “The city
council may vary the size, setback requirements, and number of permitted signs in a
PUD, provided the city council determines a PUD application complies with the general
intent and purpose of this division.’’
1. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the Building Directional Sign requirements.
The code states that a directional sign is to be a maximum of four (4) square feet in
size and four (4) feet in height. The proposed directional sign will be 22-square feet
in size and six (6) feet in height. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 18-square
feet in size and 2-feet in height. The increase in size for the dicectional signs is
justified because they will be used for vehicular traffic opposed to pedestrian traffic
as the code may have once intended. It is difficult to see all the text on a sign that is
only 4-feet tall while sitting in a car, specifically at the bottom of the sign. The 6-foot
tall sign will allow the text to be higher and easily read by a driver passing by. Please
note these signs are to replace the existing directional signs which are larger then
the code requirement as well.
The proposed signs are completely consistent with the directional signs found at
each entrance of the Gardens Mall and within Downtown at the Gardens. These
directional signs are essential for NorthCorp to assist in the way-finding for visitors
due to the vast acreage on which the park sits. The companies in NorthCorp rely on
signage such as this to keep their existing business and to promote new business.
2. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the Ground Sign requirements. The code
states that ground signs are permitted to be a maximum of 60-square feet in size and
10-feet in height. The signs proposed are 47-square feet and 75-square feet in size
and 20-feet and 25-feet in height. The applicant is requesting a waiver for a
maximum of 15-square feet in size and of 15-feet in height.
The icon identity signs proposed are very similar in height and mass as the spire
located within Legacy Place on the northwest side of the project. They are consistent
with all of the building heights within the park as well as the height of the interstate
sound wall per the exhibits provide. The applicant feels that these signs are
imperative due to the location of the corporate park. The park sits in a pocket of Palm
Beach Gardens which is hidden on one side by interstate 95 and on the other side by
the FEC railroad tracks. There is no identification from interstate 95 or from
Alternate AIA; the two corridors that make the park property so valuable. The park is
isolated from PGA Boulevard as well as from Northlake Boulevard; the two central
corridors of Palm Beach Gardens. The icon identity signs proposed will assist in the
identification of the park from the interstate as well as from Alternate AIA.
Page 3 of 4
NorthCorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
CH Project #: 07-0805
Pre Application 05.02.08
Submittal 9.26.08
I Section 78-285, I I E Table 24:
Permanent Signs: 14 SF in size 1 22 SF in size
I EZ:na, - I 4 feet in height I 6 feet in height I sign
18 SF in size
2 feet in height
60 SF in size Max 75 SF in size 15 SF in size Section 78-285,
Table 24:
Permanent Signs:
Ground Sign 10 feet in height Max 25 feet in height 15 feet in height
CONCLUSION
The applicant would like to remind staff that NorthCorp Corporate Park is the only
corporate park within the city limits. This characteristic requires flexibility to adhere to the
code requirements which were not designed for corporate parks but for other
commercial uses. Per section 78-278 within Division 7 Signs states “...the city council
may, at time of development order approval or development order amendment, grant
one or more waivers to the requirements of this division applicable to a PUD, PCD, or
site plan within a PCD.”
The request for additional signage and required waivers is consistent with the City’s
Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan of Palm Beach Gardens.
The proposed new signage is consistent with the existing approved signage and will not
create negative visual impacts on or off-site. The applicant believes that premier tenant
occupancy is directly tied to their ability to have clear identification of their facilities to the
general public. The petitioner shall work closely with Staff to ensure they have all the
necessary information and material to review and recommend approval of this request.
Page 4 of 4
Northcorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
Waiver Criteria Justification Applicant’s waiver justification
Section 78-158
(i) Criteria. A request for the city council to approve a waiver from one or more of the
standards and requirements applicable to a planned development, PUD, or PCD shall comply
with a majority of the criteria listed below.
(1) The request is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.
The request is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. Policy 13.1.1.2 of the Economic
Development Element states that “The City shall assist the retention and growth of existing
businesses within the City, particularly those that provide high-wage employment of that
support or complement those employment sectors.” The PCD consists of 1.3 million square feet
of high quality office and light industrial space providing for thousands of jobs in the City of
Palm Beach Gardens. The waivers that are being requested to provide lenience of the signage
code have a direct relationship to the retention and growth of existing businesses within the City
- specifically existing businesses in the Northcorp Corporate Park. Without the leniency and in
turn the additional signage, the existing businesses will have a difficult time growing in the city.
Eventually this may conflict with the city’s goal to retain existing businesses as well. The
requested additional signage will continue to build a sense of business park “community” which
will provide for the attraction, retention, and growth of business within the city.
(2) The request is consistent with the purpose and intent of this section.
The entire site has been previously approved as a planned community development and
therefore meets the intent of this section. The petitioner is not requesting a modification to the
site that would change the PCD classification. The applicant is requesting that these waivers be
granted in order to improve the existing PCD. Section 78-155 (a) Composition and Intent, states
that the PCD overlay district should function as a self-contained and identifiable district of the
city. Furthermore, the section states that the regulations should encourage imagination and
ingenuity. The proposed signs are consistent in their intent to identify the Corporate Park as one
self-contained district. The designs of the two monument signs are imaginative and original.
(3) The request is in support of and furthers the city’s goals, objectives, and policies to
establish development possessing architectural significance, pedestrian amenities and linkages,
employment opportunities, reductions in vehicle trips, and a sense of place.
The request does not conflict with any of the city’s goals, objectives, or policies to establish
development possessing architectural significance, pedestrian amenities and linkages,
employment opportunities, reductions in vehicle trips, or a sense of place. The waiver request
supports development possessing architectural significance and a sense of place. The monument
signs identify the corporate park with a unique architectural design theme consistent with the 0
Page 1 of 3
Northcorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
Waiver Criteria Justification
October 31,2008
first phase of signage. The theme is carried through out the park and provides visitors and the
park's workforce with a sense of community.
(4) The request demonstrates that granting of the waiver will result in a development that
exceeds one or more of the minimum requirements for PUDs.
Due to the waivers relationship to signage, this criterion is not applicable to the request.
(5) The request for one or more waivers results from innovative design in which other
minimum standards are exceeded.
The request for the waiver results from innovative design. The proposed signs have been
designed to reflect signage in an artistic manner. The signs have been designed by Glen Welden,
a well known sign designer in the City as well as the southeast region of the country. The signs
are 25-feet in height but they are a maximum of 4-feet wide. The signs were designed as
slender, curvature structures that would be viewed as picturesque monuments that represent a
high quality corporate park.
(6) The request demonstrates that granting of the waiver will result in preservation of valuable
natural resources, including environmentally-sensitive lands, drainage and recharge areas, and
coastal areas.
This criterion is not related to the request.
(7) The request clearly demonstrates public benefits to be derived, including but not limited to
such benefits as no-cost dedication of rights-of-way, extensions of pedestrian linkages outside
of the project boundaries, preservation of important natural resources, and use of desirable
architectural, building, and site design techniques.
As discussed previously, the applicant believes that the design of the monument signs is of
desirable architecture. The applicant also feels that the signs provide a great way-finding public
benefit to city residents and visitors.
(8) Sufficient screening and buffering, if required, are provided to screen adjacent uses from
adverse impacts caused by a waiver.
The applicant is required to sufficiently buffer the proposed monument signs with appropriate
landscape material. The proposed landscape plan reflects the required amount of foundation
planting for both signs.
(9) The request is not based solely or predominantly on economic reasons. a
Page 2 of 3
Northcorp Corporate Park
Miscellaneous Petition for Signage
Waiver Criteria Justification
October 31,2008
The request is not based solely on economic reasons. As discussed earlier, the park is a true
community district of the city; one that deserves an identity and to that extent identification.
Currently there is no identification for the park outside of its boundaries. If the City is to support
the park and its businesses, it is imperative that the park is provided with identification from
outside of its boundary. This is the only way that residents and visitors of the city will ever truly
see the park as a community, versus a group of commercial buildings. The monument signs
proposed will allow residents and visitors of the city to identify the park from Interstate 95 and
from Alternate AIA, in addition to providing way-finding identifiers within the park, as a true
planned community development.
@
(10) The request will be compatible with existing and potential land uses adjacent to the
development sit e.
The park is surrounded by compatible land uses to the north, south, east, and west (beyond
Interstate 95); general commercial, professional office, industrial, public institutional, mixed use
and high density residential. The proposed signs are compatible with the existing building style
and height in all districts.
(11) The request demonstrates the development will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this section, and that such waiver or waivers will not be injurious to the area
involved or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The request will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this section. The request
will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to public health, safety/ or welfare. The signs are
composed of high quality design and will signify an important planned community within the
City. They will provide unity for the corporate park and will entice interest by residents and
visitors who are unaware or unfamiliar with the park. The proposed monument signs will help
the park become what it should have always been - a destination within the City of Palm Beach
Gardens.
Page 3 of 3
z 9 rn ..
..
: I' .." ,'.
on
mo -E
W
0
?? ruc.
00
Vlr c.
m 0 I * -.-.-._. .-.-.-. -.-.- 0 8 a 0
0 u n I _--- I I I I rn z -i T I
L
I
SU&ET9 ...@
9
v, 3 E
D 5 r $
D U
- 4 U R ul ul IW z
5
I?
z U P
L U 1 2 r
t Q
I s 5% 4 a h P 7 8 g h c G C a I I- o 'F 2 . I
"i
L'
I
c2 =! I1 I--
h) L
Way Finding Concept ' " NORTHCORP __ - _. __ - -
~OIIPORATE PAKK
1 i a 5 9 1 II
U
d
4 n
rt n ? 5'
N er
1 .~ . .. ... . ..~.~ . .- . . . . ~~ . . . .. . -~ ~. ~ .. . .- .~ ..-. . .. . . . . ~. _.. ... . .. i -- --
I YORTHCORP 1 Building Identity Concept
'ORPORATE PARK
L
w s
NORTHCORP .-
CO 1x1 '0 K AT E PA I< K
1 I Icon Identity Monument 25'
I I I I -.____-
I
I
Y
.I
Icon Identity Monument 20' it-,
:Cf I
El- r?
0
b 0
s
------I
V,',,'.
'/'
h
-I I 7
- NORTHCORP ~ Traffic Control Signage
IRPORATE PARK I
7 0 .. -.r u 3 0 3 5
(D 3
4
0 0 3 T3
-.
v) 0 3
0”
rt 7
(D
Z 2
((1 4 P Ol
1
N cn 7 0 -
0 0
cn
v, 0 S
0"
L
Palm Beach Gardens, Flonaa
0 0 0 5 3 0
S 5
(D 3 rc
-. 3
0 5
2.
v) 0 3
0”
rc ZT
(D
3 T c rc
Q
3
cc)
-.
I#-
__
I I
B
II
0 0
0 0 3 U
9) 2.
L 3
I
n -. 3 a
a CD 3
v)
"I 1
I
0 '%-
E
7 0 2 3 8 4
3 0 3 5
(D 3
cn a 3
rt-
-.
0 3 a P
3
0
a a,
(D 3 v,
I I ---
Palm Beach Gardens, fiorida
Date Prepared: December 21,2005
RESOLUTION 1 I, 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
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA APPROVING A MASTER SIGN
PROGRAM FOR THE NORTHCORP CORPORATE PARK
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PCD), GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY THE GARDENS STATION PUD TO THE
NORTH, INTERSTATE 95 TO THE WEST, BURNS ROAD TO THE
SOUTH, AND THE FEC RAILWAY TO THE EAST, AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the NorthCorp Corporate Park Planned Community Development
(PCD) was approved by the City on January 18, 1990, through the adoption of
Ordinance I, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Crty has received a request by Kimberly Thaler of Cotleur
Hearing, on behalf of John C. Bills Enterprises, Ltd. / NorthCorp Ill Ltd., for approval of a
Master Signage Program for the NorthCorp Corporate Park Planned Community
Development (PCD), generally bounded by the Gardens Station PUD to the
north, Interstate 95 to the west, Burns Road to the south, and the FEC Railway to the
east, as more particularly described herein; and
WHEREAS, the subject has a Planned Community Development (PCD) Overlay
zoning designation and an Industrial (I) future land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application,
has determined that as conditioned it is sufficient and is consistent with the City’s Land
Development Regulations and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and has recommended
approval thereof: and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board reviewed the subject
petition at its December 13, 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 Petitioner and other interested parties and the recommendations of
the various City of Palm Beach Gardens review agencies and staff; and
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.
Date Prepared: December 21,2005
Resolution 11,2006
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
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 request by Kimberly Thaler of Cotleur Hearing on behalf of
John C. Bills Enterprises, Ltd. / NorthCorp 111 Ltd. for approval of a Master Signage
Program for the NorthCorp Corporate Park Planned Community Development (PCD) is
hereby APPROVED on the following described real property, subject to the conditions of
approval provided herein, which are in addition to the general requirements otherwise
provided by resolution:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS FOUND ON THE PLAT OF RCA BOULEVARD CENTER;
THE PLAT OF NORTHCORP CENTER: THE PLAT OF WEST PARK CENTER; AND
THE PLAT OF SOUTH PARK CENTER.
SECTION 3. Said Master Signage Program is approved subject to the following
conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, its successors, or assigns:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the signs, the Applicant shall
publicly record easements at the locations of the signs dedicating the
maintenance of the signs and associated landscaping to the RCA Boulevard
Drainage Association, Inc. (Planning & Zoning)
2. The base for the new directional bollard signs shall be comprised of
simulated coquina stone finish. (Planning & Zoning)
SECTION 4. The master signage within the NorthCorp Corporate Park Planned
Community Development (PCD) shall be constructed in accordance with the following
plans on file with the City’s Growth Management Department:
1. Master Signage Program Site Plan and Landscape Plan: Sheets 1 through
4 of 4, prepared by Cotleur Hearing, received and stamped by the City on
December 21,2005.
2. Elevations: Sheets 82 & 84-1, prepared by Glen Welden & Associates,
Inc., received and stamped by the City on December 21,2005.
SECTION 5. Said approval shall be consistent with all representations made by
the Applicant or Applicant’s agents at any workshop or public hearing.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
2
Date Prepared: December 21,2005
Resolution 11,2006
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
a
la
PASSED AND ADOPTED this [yf day of %W=$- ,2006.
ATTEST: Y
BY:
PatriciaSnidar, CMC, City Clbk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
28
38
VOTE:
MAYOR RUSSO
VICE MAYOR JABLIN
COUNCILMEMBERLEVY
COUNCILMEMBERVALECHE
COUNCILMEMBER BARNETT
-- AYE NAY ABSENT
d
\\pbgsfrle\Attorne~ttomey~shareViESOLUTlONSWorthcorp MS Reso 1 1,2006.doc
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Reviewed by:
City Attorney
R. Max Loban, Esq.
Developmat comgliance
NA
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: LDRA-0&03-000018
Originating Dept.:
GrowthManagement:
project a
Manager
L. Irwin
GMA
SubjectlAgenda Item:
LDRA-OS-05-000015: Code Amendment to Section 78-159, Table 21, Amending Chart of
Permitted Uses.
Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council: A request by Johnston Group Land
Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Riverside Drive Investors, UC (“Applicant”), the owner
of property in the M1 -A “Light Industrial District” within the City of Palm Beach Gardens, to amend
the City’s Land Development Regulations (“LDRS”) in order to allow Instructional Studios and
Professional Studios as Minor Conditional Uses in the M-1A Light Industrial District.
[ X ] Recommendation to APPROVE
[ ] Recommendation to DENY
Bahareh Keshavarz-Wolfs,
AICP [XI Legislative
[XI PUblicHearing
Advertised
Date: 10/17/08
Paper: PB Post
[ X ] Required
Administrator
Kara Irwin, AICP
Approved By:
Ronald M. Ferris Affected parties:
City Manager
Eynana Dept.:
NIA
Allanowens
Administrator
Senior Accountant:
Tresha Thomas
Feespaid [ ]Yes
Funding Source:
Budget Acct.#
NA
PZAB Action:
m/A] Approved
m/A] App. w/ umditions
m/A] Denied
[ ]Rec.approval
[ ] Rec. app. w/conds.
[ ]Rec.Denial
m/A] Continued to:
Attachments:
Applicant’s Narrative . Appticant’sLette!rto
revise request . IndustrialDistrict
Regulations
Table 21
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: LDRA-08-03-000018
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), specifically
to the chart of permitted uses in Section 78-159, to allow Instructional Studios and Professional
Studios as permitted uses in the M-1A Light Industrial District.
The Applicant is requesting to add “Instructional Studio” and “Professional Studio” as permitted uses
within the M-1A zoning district in order to accommodate prospective tenants for their sites in Palm
Beach Gardens.
PROPOSED CITY C ODE AMENDMENT:
Instructional Studio and Professional Studio Uses
The Applicant is requesting approval to add “Instructiom Studio” and “Professional Studio” as
permitted uses within the M-1A zoning district. Staffis agreeable to the addition ofthe uses to the
M-1 A zoning district, but recommends that the uses be categorized as minor conditional uses in order
to allow staff the ability to evaluate the impacts of the additional uses on the zoning district. Staff
recommends approval of a text amendment in which Section 78-159 is amended to state the
following: (Deletions are stm& new language is underlined):
0
Section 78-159, Table 31: Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Use Chart
*******
Section 78-159. Permitted uses, minor and major conditional uses, and prohibited uses.
(i) Aakiitionul standzrh. The following standards apply to specific uses as indicated in the “Note”
column of Table 2 1. a *******
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: LDRA-08-03-000018
Page 3 of 5
(44.1) Studio. Instructional. A commercial establishment providing traininn or instruction for
compensation in martial arts, exercise, rn astics. and related activities shall be allowed within the
Lirrht Industrial District (M-1 A) as a minor conditional use. Such instructional studios shall comply
with the criteria listed below:
a. All studio activity shall be located indoors,
b. Bicycle parking. Growth Management staff may require bicycle racks or similar
equipment as required by the use.
c. Hours of Operation. Growth Management staE shall have the ability to limit hours of
operation to 7:OO a.m. to 1O:OO p.m, when the proposed use is located adjacent to a
residential zoning districts in order to minimize impacts on adiacent residential zoning
districts and uses.
d. At least 80 percent of the occupanq. excluding common areas (bathrooms. hallways,
etc.) shall be used for instructional area.
e. Such use shall permit competition provided that noncurrent parking ameements that
provide for adequate parking facilities are in force and effect.
f TrafEc impacts. Growth ManaPement staff shall have the ability to request information
regarding the tflc impacts and require conditions to mitigate the impacts of such
impacts.
(44.2) Studio. Professional. An establishment used in the Practice of artistic pursuits. including
instruction for fine arts. music. photomaphv. paint in^ sculpture, drama speech and dance shall be
allowed within the Light Industrial District (M-1A) as a minor conditional use, Such professional
studios shall comply with the criteria listed below:
a. All studio activity shall be located indoors.
b. Bicvcle parking. Growth Managem ent staff mav require bicycle racks or similar
equipment as required bv the use.
c. Hours of Operation. Growth Management staff shall have the ability to limit hours of
operation to 7:OO a.m. to 1O:OO p.m. when the proDosed use is located adjacent to a
residential zoning districts in order to minimize impacts on adiacent residential zoning
districts and uses.
d. At least 80 percent of the occupancy. excluding common areas (bathrooms. hallways,
etc.) shall be used for instructional area.
e. Such use shall permit competition provided that noncurrent parking ameements that
provide for adequate parking facilities are in force and effect.
f Traf€ic impacts. Growth Management staff shall have the abilitv to ,request information
regarding the traf€ic impacts and reauire conditions to mitigate the impacts of such
impacts.
*******
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: LDRA-O8-O3-OOOO 18
Page 4 of 5
Staff Analysis
The two proposed uses are currently permitted within the City's commercial zoning districts (CG-1
and CG-2). The Professional Studio use is also permitted within the Professional Office (PO) and
Public & Institutional (P&I) zoning districts within the City. Currently, these uses can function within
the commercial zoning district as permitted uses with minimal impacts and do not require any
standard conditions of approval or impacts to mitigate. The proposed uses can also be appropriate
and compatible within the M-1 A zoning district, which have similar parking demands as a majority of
the permitted uses already within the M-1A zoning district. Staff agrees with the Applicants
statements regarding the appropriateness of the industrial structures for uses as opposed to the
restrictiveness of the typical commercial bays. While these uses can hction within the commercial
district, facilities within the M-1A zoning district would provide more flexibility.
In order to support the uses within the district, staff proposes notations as part of the minor
conditional use approval process to allow staff to have the ability to control any potential negative
effects of the proposed uses and their unknown impacts within the M-1 A zoning district.
CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICE3 WIT" THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed LDR text amendment permits Studio, Instructional and Professional as minor
conditional uses within the M-1A zoning district, which is consistent with the Goals,
Objectives, and Policies of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. An example of some of the
goals, objectives and policies that are consistent with and furthered by the proposed
amendment, are listed below.
Economic Development Element
Policy 13.1.5.1.: The City shall encourage balance and growth in retail trade and services by continuhgto
support existing regional retail services while implementing planned growth patterns to fbster
neighborhood-based services to serve local needs.
Staf'f Analysis of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: As noted in the staff analysis, the code
amendment creates opportunities to support existing and future services that may in turn foster new
markets for neighborhood-based service. The text amendment is specifically addressing the opportunity to
serve a local need for art and physical activities.
Overall, the applicant's request is consistent with the character and composition of the M-1 A zoning
district and stafF can support the text amendment with the conditional use limitations.
Meeting Date: December 9,2008
Petition: LDRA-08-03-000018
Page 5 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends APPROVAL of the Studio, Professional and Instructional uses within the M-1 A
zoning district.
J HNSTON GROUP
JUSTIFICATION FOR LDR TEXT AMENDMENT
USES WITHIN THE M-1A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT:
Ancillary Retail Component of Uses Already Permitted;
Studio, Instructional; and Studio, Professional
Revised September 10: 2008
REQUESTS
Johnston Group Land Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Riverside Drive Investors, LLC
(“Applicant”), owner of industrially-zoned property within the City of Palm Beach Gardens, hereby
respectfully requests an amendment to the City’s Land Development Regulations (“LDRs”) to provide
for (I) uses that are already allowed within the City’s M-1A Light Industrial District to be permitted to
offer the sale of items to the general public so long as such sale is clearly subordinate and customarily
associated with the principal use; and (2) Instructional Studios and Professional Studios to be
considered Minor Conditional Uses in the M-1A Light Industrial District (“District”).
ANCILLARY RETAIL COMPONENT OF PERMITTED USES
Uses Permitted wrtk#he M-rwral Dam a .. . ..
The following is a list of the permitted and conditional uses of the District as established in the City’s
LDRs. As a reference for a subsequent section of this narrative/justification, uses that by their very
nature would contain a retail component, whether as the principal use or a use that is ancillary to, yet
customarily associated with, the principal use have been identified in bold italics.
Auto Repair, General
Auto Service Station and Minor Repairs
BarberIBeauty Supplies and Equipment Sales
Bicycle Sales and Repair
Farm Equipment and Sales
Feedstore
Landscape, Nursery, and Garden Supplies
Lumber Yard and Building Materials
Machinery, Tools, and Construction Equipment Sales
and Service
Medical and Dental Supply Sales
Motorcycle Sales und Service
Pet Grooming Shop
Restaurant, General
Animal Boarding Kennel (Conditional Use)
Auto/Truc& Body Repair Shop
Paintlng and Decorating Contractor
Picture Fruming
Print Shop
Lawn Mower Sales and Repair
Self Service Storage
Office, Professional and Business
Veterinary office and Clinic (Conditional Use)
College or University, Public or Private
Post Office (Conditional Use)
Churches and Places of Worship (Conditional Use)
Post Office, Accessory
Satellite College or University (Conditional Use)
Schools, Public and Private (Conditional Use)
Golf Course, Public or Private (Conditional Use)
Park, Public
Building Supply, Wholesale
LDR Amendment Justification
September io, 2008
Page 2 of 5 - 0 Automatic/Self-Serve Car Wash
Boat Repair
Buslness, Trade and Vocuffonal Schools
Cold Storage Facility
Data Processing Service
Day Care, Child and Adult (Conditional Use)
Dry Cleaning
Electronic Repair
Express or Parcel Delivery Distribution Center
Housekeeping and Janitorial Services
Laboratory, General
Laboratory, Dental or Medical
Contractor‘s Storage Yard
Laundry, Linen Supply and Cleaning Service
Locksmfth
Machine Shop
Motion Picture Studio
Accessory Uses
Satellite Dishes, Accessory
Trakrs, Sales
Florist
Food Products, Wholesale Storage and Sales
wholesak and Warehousing, General
Furniture Manufacturing, Repair and Restoration
Laboratory, Research and Development
Orthopedic Brace Manufacturing and Repair
Printing and Publishing
Sporting Goods Manufacturing
Tool Manufacturing
Toy Manufacturing
Well drilling Company
Automobile, RV, and Boat Storage, Commercial
(Conditional Use)
Freight Depot
Utility Plant and Major Substations (Conditional Use)
Utilities, Minor
Wireless Tele-communication Facilities
Mobile Home, Temporary (Conditional Use)
Trailers, Construction
Retall Uses wlt&h&.e Mi-A &kb&WdlndustrlalDistr&
As evidenced by the uses listed above in bold text, the City’s LDRs currently allow for uses within the
District that contain a retail component. However, the classification of certain uses listed above, as
established in the City’s LDRs, does not specially identify that such use may offer the sale of items to the
general public, when in fact such use customarily contains an ancillary retail component. For example, a
“Pet Grooming Shop” or a ‘Veterinary Office or Clinic” would customarily offer the sale of accessories
for pets to its patrons; a “Golf Course” would generally contain a pro shop that offered the sale of golf
equipment and accessories to its patrons; a “Picture Framing” establishment would generally offer the
sale of picture frames to its patrons; an “Automobile Repair” establishment may offer the sale of auto
accessories to their patrons; a building materials “Wholesaling” business may offer the sale of certain
merchandise directly related to its wholesale b usiness to the public as a supplementary component of
their primary wholesaling business; a “Self Service Storage” business may offer the sale of boxes, tape,
padlocks and associated items, and so on. Due to the fact that (I) certain uses in the district do not
specifically identify the ancillary retail component of such uses; and (2) there is not a specific provision in
the LDRs to allow for such retail uses that are subordinate to and customarily associated with a principal
use permitted within the District, it has been the City’s position in the past that certain retail uses that
are ancillary to a permitted use within the District are not allowed.
0
Based on the information contained in the preceding paragraph, the Applicant is requesting an
amendment to the City’s LDRs to include specific language that will allow for uses already permitted in
the District to offer the sale of items to the general public so long as such sale is clearlv subordinate to
the principal use. The Applicant understands that the City may not desire to open the door for uses
within the district to contain a retail component that would create a substantial draw of patrons to the
site above and beyond that which would customarily visit the light industrial use(s) on-site. Accordingly,
LDR Amendment J ustiication
September io, 2008
Page 3 of 5
the applicant is proposing the following language that strictly limits the scope of the ancillary retail
component, yet allows light industrial uses to offer the sale of items to general public as an ancillary and
customary component of their business:
Sec. 78-151. M-iA-Light industrial district.
(a) Composition and intent. The M-iA light industrial district is composed of land and structures
suitable for light manufacturing, wholesaling, and similar uses. These districts shall have convenient
access to present and future arterial roadways, highways, and railway lines. These districts are
usually separated from residential areas by business districts or by natural barriers. The district
should be buffered from adjacent residential and nonresidential uses through the use of opaque
walls, landscaping, berms, or any combination of such techniques.
(b) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are described in the chart in Table 21. Uses permitted in the
district may offer the sale of items to the g eneral public so long as such sale is clearly subordinate
I to and is cust-ed with tbe prinw permitted wtbm the 7orhg
district. Notwithstanding the precedi 0 c ‘de e
atr to th 0’ site at is outsid t e
industrial character of the district. whether or not such sale IC considered Wrv to the
use, is ~rohibited. Anv floor area directlv assmted with such Der-md
sale that would not otherwise exist for the principal use. including any area utilized by employ ees
of the Prw -
rowt h f€Ws G
Manafement Administrator may request demonstration of same p rior t o t h eiss u an c eor re newalof
rn occupational license for the principal use
(c) Property development regulations. Property development regulations, including building site
area and width, lot coverage, required setbacks, height limits, etc., are provided in Table 12.
(d) District setbacks. The minimum setback for principal and accessory structures abutting a
residential district shall be 75 feet. Sec. 78-151. M-iA-Light industrial district.
.. ..
.. .. ..
a,
..
The Applicant is the owner of property within the City that is zoned M-1A and contains approximately
100,ooo square feet of vacant space. When entertaining prospective tenants, the Applicant has found
that several business that would currently be permitted with the District customarily have a small
component of their business that involves the sale of items to the general public. It is not the intent of
the Applicant to change the composition or character of the District with the proposed amendment. It
is merely the Applicant’s intention to have the ability to inform prospective tenants that the customary
sale of retail items as an ancillary component of their business is permitted within the District, subject to
certain restrictions. The proposed text amendment provides for same while providing the City the
assurance that businesses will not abuse the allowance by establishing a retail use that is neither
customarily associated with the principal use nor consistent within the character of the District.
It should be noted that the proposed text is either consistent with or more restrictive than certain other
municipalities in the area in terms of the percentage of ancillary retail allowed as evidenced below:
1. Palm Beach County: The Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (“ULDC”) states
that “Accessory uses and structures shall not exceed 30 percent of the GFA and or business
receipts of the principal use or uses, whichever is more restrictive. It should also be noted that
LDR Amendment Justification
September io, 2008
Page 4 of 5
the ULDC also states that (1) the retail sale of building supplies (as an example) is permitted only
as an accessory use in an Industrial Zoning District (demonstrating that the County allows
ancillary retail in it’s Industrial District); and (2) the retail sales of building materials (lumber and
allied products) may be conducted in a wholesale establishment but must be clearly accessory
to the primary use.
2. Tm: As a policy set forth in February of 2000, the Town of Jupiter allows up to 20%
of the floor area of a particular use in its Industrial Districts to be allocated to accessory retail
sales so long as such retail sale in clearly subordinate and incidental to the industrial use.
Given the fact that the LDRs currently do not provide for accessory retail uses in the District, the City
and its businesslproperty owners are at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting certain light
industrial uses, such as a tile wholesaling business, that would customarily contain a retail component
that is ancillary and customarily associated with the principal use. Yet, such a use would be a perfect fit
within the District if it were permitted in its entirety. The proposed Code language will bring the City
and its property owners more in line with the current market demands for certain uses without
compromising the intent of the District.
The proposed amendment is well supported and will be a benefit to the City and its residents.
JNSTRUCnONAL STUDIOS AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIOS
The LDRs define an “Instructional Studio” as “a commercial establishment providing training or
instruction for compensation in marital arts, exercise, gymnastics, and related activities,” and define a
“Professional Studio” as “an establishment used in the practice of artistic pursuits, including instruction,
for fine arts, music, photography, painting, sculpture, drama, speech, and dance.” Currently,
Instructional Studios and Professional Studios (collectively “Studios”) are neither permitted nor
conditionally permitted in the District. Rather Instructional Studios are only permitted in the General
Commercial (CCi) and the Intensive Commercial (CC2) districts; and Professional Studios are only
permitted in the General Commercial (CGi), Intensive Commercial (CG2), Professional Offlce (PO) and
Public/lnstitutional districts.
As previously stated, the Applicant is currently performing renovations to two sites within the District
comprising almost 100,ooo square feet of industriallofflce space that will be available for lease to
individual tenants. The Applicant has recently been approached by multiple prospectlve tenants that fit
the description of either an Instructional Studio or a Professional Studio but has had to turn them away
since said uses are not currently permitted in the District.
As reflected on the map found on the following page, the City‘s Mid District is generally bounded by
Burns Road to the north, the Thompson River to the south and west, and the FEC Tracks to the east, in
the “heart” of the City. Existing uses within the approximately 22 parcels that comprise the District
include but are not limited to office, light industrial, retail, personal service, medical office, and schools.
The District is not comprised of heavy industrial uses that would be incompatible to uses that fit the
description of Professional and/or instructional Studios. In fact, the existing fabric of the District which
is generally comprised of older, industrial-type structures lends itself to Studios since such uses (I) may
not find it feasible to locate within commercial centers which are generally higher in cost on a per-
LDR Amendment Justification
September io, 2008
Page 5 of 5
square-foot basis than light industrial sites; and (2) often require large interior spaces typically found in
the District’s industrial buildings. Further, the District is located within close proximity to residential
areas within the City which could be well served by Studios located within the District.
a
It is for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraph that the Applicant is proposing an amendment
to the LDRs to allow for Professional Studios and Instructional Studios to be considered permitted uses
in the Mi-A zoning district. Studio uses are consistent with and will be a compliment to the other uses in
the District and will not alter the character thereof.
In summary, the Applicant is working diligently to secure tenants to occupy nearly 100,ooo square feet
of space in the City and feels that the aforementioned amendments to the text of the City’s LDRs are
critical to the success of Its projects. The proposed amendments will have a positive effect on the
properties within and adjacent to the District and will encourage businesses to locate to the City that
may not otherwise do so given the existing limitations in the City’s Code with respect to uses In the
District.
JOHNSTON GROUP . _.
Land Development Consultants, Inc.
November 25,2008
Ms. bra Irwin
Growth Management Administrator
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Re: Petition LORA~O5-OOOOlS: Follow up to November 13,2008 Meeting
Dear Ms. Irwin:
This letter is a follow up to the meeting held with you and the Cii Attorney, Mr. Max Lohman,
on November 13,2008 to discuss the above-referenced petition (“Petition”). We, on behalf of
Riverside Drive Investors, LLC (“Applicant“), want to thank you both for taking the time to meet
with us to discuss staffs interpretation of the City‘s Land Development Regulations with
respect to accessory uses permitted in the Research and Light industrial (M-lA) District
(“District’). It is our understanding based on Staffs input during the meeting and the items
contained in the Staff Report for the Petition dated October 22, 2008, that the existlng
language in the LDRs allows for the following within the District:
1. Accessory retail sales so long as they are customary and incidental to and support the
principal use and are not prohibited by the definition of the principal use, such as In the
case of the Whdesole and warehousinp, peneml use that requires sales directly to
retailers for resale to consumers.
2. Retail sales of building supplies that fit the definition of Lumber yard and building
moteriuls (defined as “an establishment engaged in the sale of construction and home
improvement materials, induding tools, fasteners, plumbing supplies, electrical supplies,
kitchen and bathroom fixtures, lighting supplies, garden supplies, paint, glass, wall
paper, floor coverings, and related items”).
Given Staffs confirmation of the above and understanding Staff% position that a blanket
allowance of accessory retail sales within a wholesale use could allow uses within the M-lA
zoning district that don’t necessarily meet the definition of accessory uses established in the
LDRs, the Applicant hereby withdrawals the component of the Petition related to accessory
retail uses.
With regard to the component of the Petition related to Professional and Instructional Studios,
the Applicant has reviewed the additionai standards for such uses proposed by Stgff and
601 Heritage Drive, Suite 127 - Jupter, FL 33458 561.691.4552 p - 561691.4553 f * irif~~;olinstongroupint.com - www.johnstongroupinc.com
Ms. Kara lrwln
November 25,2008
Page 2 of 3
proposes the following modifications thereto (language to be added is mder lined; language to 0
be deleted is s#We&w@ 1:
(44.1) Studio, Instructional. A commercial establishment providing training or instruction for
compensation in martial arts, exercise, gymnastics, and related activities shall be allowed within
the tight Industrial District (M-lA) as a minor conditional use. Such instructional studios shall
comply with the criteria listed below:
ADDkUnt'S comment Any accessory retail.sales would be required to meet the City's
definition of accessory uses as noted in the Staff Report and in item #l above.
Therefore, this standard should not be required.
B 2. All studio actlvity shall be located indoors.
eb. Bicycle parking. Growth Management staff may require bicycle racks or similar
equipment as required by the use.
B_c HOUK of Operation. Growth Management staff shall have the ability to limit
hours of operation to 7:00am to 1000Pm ww DmDosed use is located
adiacent to residential districts in order to mlnimize impacts on adjacent
residential zoning districts and uses.
e& At least 80 percent of the occupancy, gxcludinn common areas (bathroom
hallwavs. etc.1 shall be used for instructional area. #e. Such use shall permit competition provided that nonmcurrent parking
agreements that provide for adequate parking facilities are in force and effect. ef. Traffic impacts. Growth Management staff shall have the ability to request
information regarding the traffic impacts and require conditions to mitigate the
impacts of such impacts.
(44.2) Studio, Professional. An establishment used in the practice of artistlc pursuits, including
instruction for fine arts, music, photography, painting, sculpture, drama, speech, and dance
shall be allowed within the Ught Industrial District (M-lA) as a minor conditional use. Such
professional studios shall comply with the criteria listed below:
ADRkunt's corn- Same comment as noted under Studio, Instructional.
b g. All studio activity shall be located indoors.
sb. Bicycle parking. Growth Management staff may require bicycle racks or similar
equipment as required by the use.
dg. Hours of Operation. Growth Management staff shall have the ability to limit
hours of operation to 7:00am to 1O:OODm w hen the DroDosed use is loca ted
adiacent to residential distrlcts in order to minimize impacts on adjacent
residential zoning districts and uses.
Ms, Kara lrwln
November 25,2008
Page 3 of 3
e& At least 80 percent of the occupancy, gxdudlna common areas (bathrooms,
ballwavs, etc.) shall be used for the PrinciDal commnent of the use in&wtkd
#g. Such use shall permit competition provided that nonscurrent parking
agreements that provide for adequate parking facilities are in force and effect.
g f. Traffic impacts. Growth Management staff shall have the ability to request
information regarding the traffic impacts and require conditions to mitigate the
impacts of such impacts.
aFea.
Again, we appreciate the Gtfs efforts in providing the Applicant a clear understanding of the
City's position on accessory uses within the District. Should you have any issues or concerns
with the items contained in this letter, it would be appreciated if you could contact our office to
discuss.
Regards, wfi Michael nchez
Senior ProJect Manager
c Rie Drive Investors, LLC
ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Sec. 78-150. M-1-Research and light industrial park district.
(a) Comwtion 1Md intent. The M-1 research and light industrial park district is composed of land and
structures suitable for light manufacturing, research and educational facilities, wholesaling, and similar
uses, developed in a planned park-like development, and compatible with adjacent residential and
nonresidential uses.
(b) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are described in the chart in Table 2 1.
(c) Property ukwbpment repWons. Property development regulations, including building site area
and width, lot coverage, required setbacks, height limits, etc., are provided in Table 12.
(d) District b- sethach. The minimum setback for principal and accessory structures abutting a
residential district shall be 75 feet.
(e) General requirements. Retail sales and consumer service establishments are allowed as accessory
uses to any permitted or conditional use. However, the commercial uses shall not occupy more than five
percent of the gross floor area of all buildings on any lot or group of contiguous lots in common
ownership or approved as part of one development order approval.
(ad. NO. 17-2000,§ 84,7-20-00)
Sa. 78-151. M-1A-Light industrial district.
(a) Composition andintent. The M-1A light indhal district is composed of land and structures suitable for light manufacturing, wholesaling, and similar uses. These districts shall have convenient
access to present and future arterial roadways, highways, and railway lines. These districts are usually
separated fiom residential areas by business districts ar by natural barriers. The district should be
buffered from adjacent residential and nonresidential uses through the use of opaque walls, landscaping,
berms, or any combination of such techniques.
@) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are described in the chart in Table 2 1.
(c) Property development rephiom. Property development regulations, including building site area
and width, lot coverage, required setbacks, height limits, etc., are provided in Table 12.
(d) DjWct setkch. The minimum setback for principal and accessory structures abutting a
residential district shall be 75 feet.
(Ord. NO. 17-2000, 0 85,7-2040)
Sec. 78-152. M-2-Heavy industrial district.
(a) Cornposition and Went. The M-2 heavy industrial district is composed of land and structures occupied by or suitable for heavy manufacturing and related activities. Located for convenient access to
present and future arterial roadways and railway lines, these districts are usually separated from
residential areas by business districts or natural barriers. The district should be buffered from adjacent
residential and nonresidential uses through the use of opaque walls, landscaping, berms, or any
combination of such techniques.
(b) Permitted uses. Permitted uses m described in the chart in Table 21.
(c) Rwperty hZopmeni re~Z~~~. Property development regulations, including building site area
and width, lot coverage, required setbacks, height limits, etc., are provided in Table 12.
(d) District sefhch. The minimum setback for principal and accessory structures abutting a
residential district shall be 75 feet.
(Ord. NO. 17-2000,§ 86,7-20-00)
0 http ://library 1. municode.com/default/DocView/ 1 284 1/1/140/144 10/24/2008
PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE
Table 21: Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Use Chart
P = Permitted Use C = Minor Conditional Use C* =Mqjor Conditional Usc
Blank = Prohibited
PUDs and PCDa = Permitted Ueee by Demlopment Order Approyjd by City Council
Mobile Home pmf
Adult Enbdmhmeat
Antique Saop
Autamobile Dealenhip
Auto Rental, Accamory
PP
PP ,
PP
PP
I
-- .. .. .. ., . .
PP
PP
P
P
PP
P
P
P
gc
~
c)
Supp No. 17 CD78:116
LAND DE,mLOPMENT REGULATIONS p 7aim
0 Supp. No. 2!2 CD78:117
Q 78-159 PALM BEACH GABDENS CODE
Supp. No. 12 CD78 118
0 supp. No. 22 CD78:118.1 a
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Supp. No. 21 CD78:119
c
5 78-169 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE
L
dupp. No. 21 CD78:120
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULA"IT0NS
Supp. No. 17, Rev, CD78:121
F'ALM BEACH GARDENS CODE
0
Supp. No. 17, Rev.
'J
CD78:122
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4 78-169
Supp. No. 17, Rev. CD78:122.1
t; LANDDEVEUlPMENT Q 78-169
Paasengar Station
Supp. No. 17 CD78:123
5 78-159 PALM BEACH GARDEN8 CODE
B
(i) Additional 6td. The following atan* apply to epeei8c UW%B indicatal in the
(1) Home Oec~pati~~. Home oceupationa are commercial or occupational wea performed
in a reaideatial dwelhg unit by a dmt or family member. Home oceupatione are
subject to the etandards listed below,
"Note. column of Wle 21.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f;
g.
h.
Only la* residents of the dwebg unit shall be engaged in the occupation.
The use of the premises for the home occupation ehall be clearly incidental and
eubordinate to ite uee for residential purposes by its occupants. The use ehall not
change the residential character of the premisea.
There shall be no change in the outaide appearance of the building or premiees,
or other visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation.
Hame occupations shall not be conducted in any acce8sox-y building or structure,
or any open porch or carport which is attached e0 and part of the principal
structure.
Home occupation shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the floor area of the
dwelling unit, excluding any open porch, attached garage, or similar BPRCCJ not
suited or intended fbr occupancy as living quarters.
Traffic shall not be generated by the home occupation in greater volumes than
would normally be expected in a reeidential neighborhood.
Vehicle parking shall be located on the same lot or premiae as the home
Occupation.
Equipment or processes which create noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or
electrical interference detectable to the normal semses at any lot line shall not be
used in a home occupation. In addition, equipment or processes shall not be used 0
Supp. No. 17 CD78:124
650 Evergrene Parkway
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Tel: 561-626-1981 Fa: 561-626-7186
December 8,2008
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Planning and Zoning Board
Re: Fence variance request
Maureen Barber
1609 Nature Court
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
I had previously written to the Planning and Zoning Board denying a variance request to
Maureen Barber who has asked to be allowed to have her fence remain in its current
location.
First let say the original denial of this variance was a misunderstanding on my part. I
was led to believe that Ms. Barber’s fence was placed 10’ outside the property line, into
the preserve, which would be unacceptable to our community guidelines. Upon my
personal inspection of Ms Barber’s property I found her fence runs along the property
line, inside the tortoise fence, and that she has allowed for sufficient access to the
property by the placement of two five foot gates installed on both ends of the property
line. I understand that the original planning of this particular property location calls for a
10’ drainage easement along the back property line which is accessible by the 10’
opening of the gates.
The Architectural Committee of Evergrene and I both feel that this fence is not infringing
on any one’s property line nor is it obstructing access to the property. The configuration
of this particular CUI de sac does not allow this fence to be visible to anyone but the
property ownedtenant and immediate neighbors who I am told are all in favor of the
fence remaining as is.
Ms. Barber also told me that the City Forester feels that in the event of a fire in the
preserve there is not ample access to this property. We did not find this to be an issue
as there are many other ways to access the preserve other than Ms. Barber’s side yard.
Please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions.
Sincerel\y2 i
lfvv;fle Master Association \
L
. ..
December 9,2008
Mr. Richard Marrero
Senior Planner
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-4698
Re: NorthCorp Corporate Park Master Signage Plan MISC-08-05-000045
December Sth, 2008 Planning, Zoning, & Appeals Board Meeting Postponement
CH Project #07-0805
Dear Richard:
Please accept this letter as your written authorization requesting postponement of the NorthCorp
Corporate Park Master Signage Plan agenda item from the December 9, 2008 Planning, Zoning 8t
Appeals Board (PZAB) meeting to the January 13, 2009 PZAB Board meeting. We would ask that
Staff open this item for discussion and close it allowing it to be postponed to the above referenced
January 2009 date. The project team would like to take this additional time to resolve final issues
with the application. We hope to move forward to the above referenced Planning, Zoning Appeals
Board meeting.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alessandria Kalfin, Land Use Planner
Cotleur & Hearing, Inc.
cc: D. Hearing / J. Griffin
1934.Comrnerce Lane - Suite 1 L Jupiter, FL.: 43458.: Ph 569.747.6338 * Fax 561.747.1377 - www.wdeurh.eadng.com Uc.# LC-CO~Z3B ..
I 1.2/09,’2008 18 33 FAX 5618200381 CASEY CIKLIN LUBITZ a001/003
CASEY CIKLIN
LUBITZ MARTENS & OTONNELL
515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1700
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Fax: (561) 820-0381
Le*fe MARkA
~~(w+.MJ, L*inS kMPdr
kTmm A ficw .~4‘-ll
=&6( Y “P pLo
UMWr’Acf we. Phone: (561) 832-5900 &W-ba- Ii-Oms
\
To :
Fax No.:
Matter #:
From:
COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE 18 ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATloN
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTlM NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE Is NOT THE
INTENDED RCCIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DlSTRlHUflON OR COPY Of TH19
COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL
SERVICE. THANK YOU,
’. 12,?09,?2008 18 33 F84X 5618200381 CASEY C1KLII.I LUBITZ @I 002/003
~nw orws
CASEY CIKLIN LUBITZ MARTENS & O’CONNEJL
A PAIWN LRBM I P INCLU DI NO PROFE9510NAL ASlOG IATl ON 3
LINDA DICKHAUS AONANT, P.A.
BRUCE G. ALeXaUDER, P.A.
JERALD 8. BCCR, P.A.
JOHH D. DOYKIN, P.A.
JESSICA n. CALLOW
PATRICK J. G46EY, P.A.
RICHARD R. GH4VEb. P.A.
PATRICIA k. CHRI8TUN8Ct4, P,A.
A!AN J. GIKLIN, PdAs
ROBERT L. CRANE, P.A,
RONALD E. CRESCLNZO, PAs
JEFFREY M. OARBER, P.4,
ABWLLT N. OIROL*MO
JAEON 8. WA#LLKORN. P.A.
CHRISTINL H. HOKE
W. JAY HUNBTON, 111
RICHARD A. JAROLLM, PA,
DRIAN 8. JOSLYN, P.A.
OWZOORY 5. KINO, P.A.
CHMLCI A, LUEIi7, P.4,
JASON C, MAlER
RICHARD L. MARTENS, P.A.
BRIAH M. O’CONNELL, P.A.
PHIL D. O’CONNELL. P.A.
CHARLES L. PICKET
NlCHOlAS J. PURVIS
MATWEW N. THIBAUT. P,A.
DEAN VCQOILN, P.L.
OARY WALK. P.A.
JOHN Ip. YOUNO, P.A.
PHILLIP D. O’CONNELL, SR. (I 907- I OB71
OF COUNSEL
.__
MICHAEL J. HONCHIOKi PaAn
hlCHAEL J. KENNEDY, C.A.
JOHN L.REMSEN -_
5 IO NORTH FUCLER DRIVE, STC. IO00
WEbT CALM BUCH, FLORIOA 31401-4343
TELEPHONE: IE~I I axz-rmoo
FACSIMILE: me I t wweoo
December 9,2008
VIA FACSIMILE-799-4281
AND E-MAIL,
Richard Mmero
City Planner
Palm Beach Gardens Growth Management Department
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Re: Petition No. REZN-08-11 c000005-Waterway Cafe
Dear Richard:
This firm represents Mary Ellen Carroll who resides in Pirates Cove directly adjacent to the
Waterway Of&, I understand that the above referenced rezoning petition is an effort to rezone the
subject site consistent with the Commercial land use that the City recently assigned to this property;
however, 1 also understand that the driving force behind the Commercial land use and rezoning
application is to rectify a previous expansion of the restaurant that was done without City approvals.
You have stated that the outdoor seating approval that the Waterway Cafe is seeking is handled
administratively. While I appreciate the efforts that you have indicated you are making to try to make
the outdoor seating area compatible with the adjacent single family community, once the rezoning is
granted, there does not appear to be much leeway the City has in denying that illegal use, Additionally,
we are concerned that the city is giving up a lot of control over what could be redeveloped on this entire
parcel once it is rezoned to General Commercial.
It is our strong suggestion that a resolution of what is appropriate for the outdoor seating area is
reached between the Waterway Caf6 and the adjacent community prior to rezoning the property to
General Commercial. As you well know, thisparking area and outdoor seating area was previously
single family dwelhgs and was zoned Residential Medium. The reason for that zoning classification is
apparent a6 there should be some type of buffer between this intense commercial use and the single
13:i09/'2008 18 33 FAX 5618200381 CASEY CIKLIN LUBITZ @ 003/003 t
Richard Marrero
December 9,2008
Page 2
family homes, Also, it should be explored what the long term ramifications are of rezoning this parcel
to General Commercial adjacent to single family residential
I thank you for your willingness to include us in the discussions on the proposal for the outdoor
seating area and look forward to understanding the long term impacts from the rezoning prior to that
step being taken, Once again, we ask that the rezoning application be postponed at this time,
n
GSK:sme
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Address City Council
I Please Print F
Name:
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
I
1
,/
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request to Address City Council
Please Print
Members of the public may address the City Council during the “Comments by the Public”
portion of the agenda and during “Public Hearings”. This Request to Address the City
Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes.
PVAR-08-07-000006
1609 Nature Court
Evergrene Single-Family Parcel
Residential Variance
Variance Request
Code Section Required
by Code
Required
by PCD Proposed Variance
Section 78-316(j)
Preserve Areas –
Minimum Separation
and Parcel 8 Site Plan –
Rear Fence Setback
10 Feet 10 Feet 0 Feet 10 Feet
Evergrene PCD
Parcel 8 Site Plan –
Side Clear Zone
N/A 6 Feet 0 Feet 0 Feet
Existing 4’ Fence
Required Location
Preserve Area
Site Location
VARIANCE CRITERIA
•Hardship
•Special Condition
•Literal Interpretation
•Special Privileges
•Minimum Variance
•Purpose and Intent
•Financial
•Public Welfare
Letter of Objection
•Letter of objection from the Evergrene
Master Association dated September 18,
2008.
–Adhere to strict fence regulations;
–Provides for clear passage for public safety;
and
–Separation between residential yards and
helps prevent spread of non-native invasive
species.
Staff Recommendation
Staff finds that the proposed variance
requests do not meet the eight (8)
criteria found in Section 78-53 (b) of the
LDRs required to grant such a request.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of
Petition PVAR-08-07-000006.
Condition of Approval
In the event that the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board (PZAB) finds for approval of
the petition, Staff recommends the following
condition of approval:
•The fence and gates located within the
required rear setback of ten (10) feet shall
be removed at the end of the applicant’s
lease (October 14, 2009).
Request
A request by Maureen Barber, tenant and applicant, on behalf of Beatriz
Escobar, owner, for the following two variances:
•A variance from Section 78-316 (j), of the City Code and the Evergrene
Planned Community District (PCD) Parcel 8 development order,
Resolution 201, 2002, which requires a ten (10) foot minimum separation
between structures and a preserve area. The petitioner is requesting a
variance of ten (10) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at the rear
property line, which is adjacent to an existing preserve and requires a ten
(10) foot setback; and
•A variance from the Evergrene Planned Community District (PCD) Parcel
8 development order, Resolution 201, 2002, which requires a six (6) foot
clear zone in the side yard. The petitioner is requesting a variance of six
(6) feet to allow a four (4) foot tall fence at the side property line, which
requires a six (6) foot setback from the side property line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The lot is irregularly shaped,thereby creating a
special condition to the lot,which restricts the
petitioner’s full enjoyment of his/her home;
Justification of the request is not based on financial
hardship;
Request is consistent with the purpose and intent of
promoting the safety and welfare of the public;and
Granting the variance would not confer special
privilege upon the petitioner.