Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Council Agenda 071802City of Palm Beach Gardens Council Agenda July 18, 2002 Council Chambers 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Council Member Clark Mayor Jablin Council Member Russo Vice Mayor Sabatello Council Member Delgado CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 18, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, MODIFICATIONS: IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS: a. Budget Presentation. b. Annexation Urban Service Report. V. ITEMS & REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL: VI. CITY MANAGER REPORT: VII. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: (For Items Not on the Agenda, please submit request form to the City Clerk prior to this Item) VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Resolution 104, 2002 – Appointing an Alternate Member to fill a vacancy on the Planning & Zoning Commission. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, appointing one alternate member to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning Commission; and providing for an effective date. b. Resolution 105, 2002 – Tanglewood West Road Closure. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, authorizing the temporary closure of the southern portion of Tanglewood West Road for construction activities; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. c. Resolution 116, 2002 – Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, Sunset Drive Annexation Urban Service Report. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, accepting the Urban Services Report for the annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive and directing City Staff to file the report with the Board of County Commissioners; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. d. Resolution 119, 2002 – Millage Rate. Consider adopting a proposed maximum millage rate for the City of Palm Beach Gardens for fiscal year 2002/2003; setting the date, time and place of the first budget hearing. e. Resolution 124, 2002 – Burns Road Temporary Closure. Consideration for authorizing temporary closures of Burns Road relating to ongoing construction activities. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Ordinance 29, 2002 – School Concurrency Tables (First Reading). An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for an amendment to the comprehensive plan of the City of Palm Beach Gardens by revising tables 11A and 11B of the Public School Facilities Element; providing for transmittal; providing for adoption; providing for codification in the comprehensive plan; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. b. Ordinance 3, 2002 – Parcel 16 Gables at Northlake (Second Reading). An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of an application from Gables East Construction, Inc. for approval of a rezoning of an approximately 240.65 acre parcel of land to Planned Community District (PCD) Overlay Zoning with underlying zoning of RL-3 (Residential Low) to allow for 450 multifamily dwelling units, 200 single family units, and 146 assisted living facility units and accessory structures located on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, south of Northlake Boulevard and north of the Beeline Highway, as more particularly described herein; providing for conditions of approval; providing for waivers; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. c. Ordinance 21, 2002 – PGA Plaza Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment (Second Reading). An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of an application for a rezoning of approximately 11.11-acre parcel of land from General Commercial (CG-1) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zoning District with a underlying zoning of General Commercial (CG-1), known as “PGA Plaza,” by approving the renovation of the parking and landscape areas to accommodate the intersection improvement of PGA Boulevard as required by the Regional Center DRI Development Order on the site located on the southwest corner of intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road, as more particularly described herein; providing for waivers; providing for conditions of approval; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. d. Ordinance 26, 2002 – PGA Blvd. Lane Reduction. (Second Reading). An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for an amendment to the Land Development Regulations of the City of Palm Beach Gardens by adopting a four-lane cross section for PGA Boulevard west of the Avenue of the Champions and revising the existing six-lane cross-section to apply to the segment west of the Turnpike and east of the Avenue of the Champions; providing for transmittal; providing for adoption; providing for codification in the City Code of Ordinances; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date. X. RESOLUTIONS: a. Resolution 101, 2002 – Crossroads at Northlake Amendment site plan amendment. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, providing for the approval of an application from Woolbright Development, Inc., for an amendment to the “Crossroads at Northlake” shopping center, located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard, to allow for the elimination of 36,500 square feet of previously approved, unbuilt anchor tenant space, the addition of 600 square feet to a 5,000 square-foot previously approved, unbuilt out- parcel, an additional 8,000 square feet of anchor tenant space, modifications to the parking lot, and façade renovations on an approximately 21.02-acre portion of the “Crossroads at Northlake” shopping center, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached Hereto; providing for conditions of approval; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. XI. ORDINANCES: (For Consideration on First Reading) XII. ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: a. La-Z-Boy Appeal. XIII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: a. Workshop - News-rack Regulations. b. Workshop - Stealth Tower. XIV. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: XV. ADJOURNMENT. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statute 86.26, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk’s Department, no later than 5 days prior to the proceeding at telephone number (561) 799-4120 for assistance; if hearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955-8771 (TDD) or (800) 955-8700 (VOICE), for assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Council, with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Subject/Agenda Item: Resolution 104, 2002, appointing an Alternate Member to fill a vacancy on the City of Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommendation/Motion: Motion to approve Resolution 104, 2002. Reviewed by~ City Attorney~._,~~’- Finance Other Growth Mgt. Director Originating Dept.: Planning Division Advertised: Date: Paper: [ X ] Not Required Affected parties [ ] Notified [ X ] Not required Costs: ~; N/A Total $ N/A Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: Council Action: [ ] Approved [] Approved w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Continued to: Attachments: 1.Resolution 104, 2002. 2.City Code Section 2-157. 3.Application from Douglas Pennell. [ ] None BACKGROUND The Planning and Zoning Commission consists of seven Regular Members and two Alternate Members who meet on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month to review development applications The current members of this board are: Craig Kunkle, Chair; Barry Present, Vice Chair; Dick Ansay; Joel Channing; John Glidden; Dennis Solomon; Steven Tarr; and Ernest Volonte, Alternate. The Planning and Zoning Commission also sits as the Local Planning Agency, Board of Zoning Appeals and the Land Development Regulations Commission, as governed by the Meeting date: July 18, 2002 Date prepared: June 26, 2002 City Code or Florida Statutes. In these capacities, this board makes recommendations to the City Council for most development applications. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission does make final determinations regarding minor site plans, variances and appeals of administrative determinations. There is currently a vacancy for an Alternate Member on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. David Kendell has resigned due to other commitments. His term would have expired on January 17, 2003. The City Council needs to appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of his term. The new member may then be reappointed for a new two-year term. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City staff is recommending that Mr. Douglas Pennell be appointed the fill the term of Mr. Kendell as an Alternate Member. A copy of Mr. Pennell’s application is attached. Staff has met with Mr. Pennell. We believe he would be a good addition to this board. Staff recommends approval of proposed Resolution 104, 2002, to appoint Mr. Pennell. g :\sc\text\pzappoint062602 2 June 26,2002 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA RESOUTION 104, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS,FLORIDA,APPOINTING ONE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 2-157 of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances provides for the appointment of Regular Members and Alternate Members to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, there is currently one vacancy for an Alternate Member on the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the appointment of the person named below to the Planning and Zoning Commission is in the best interests of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 2-157, Mr. C. Douglas Pennell is hereby appointed as an Alternate Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. David Kendell, which shall expire on January 17, 2003. Section 3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. ATTEST: MAYOR ERIC JABLIN APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: PATRICIA SNIDER CITY CLERK LEONARD RUBIN CITY ATTORNEY June 26, 2002 VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO AYE NAY ABSENT g:\sc~res~resolution 104,2002 Resolution 104, 2002 2 City of Palm Beach Gardens Advisory Boards/Commissions/Committees The City of Palm Beach Gardens has several boards, commissions and committees residents may serve on as volunteers. The following is a list of the boards and a brief synopsis of their responsibilities: Art Advisory Committee: Meets as needed (minimum once per month) to screen submissions of existing or commissionable works of art and makes recommendations to the City Council which are in compliance with the Art in Public Places Ordinance. Beautification & Environmental Committee: Meets at 5:30 p.m. on the 1 st Wednesday of each month. This board makes recommendations to the City Council regarding the beautification and maintenance of City property and the status of the environment throughout the City. Education Advisory Board: Meets at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd Wednesday of each month. This board makes recommendations to the City Council concerning issues in support of city schools and proposed educational legislation. ~ePalanning & Zoning Commission: Meets regularly at 6:30 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays ofch month. This board is vested with the jurisdiction of making formal recommendations to the City Council on matters pertaining to land usage, and is responsible for considering all site and appearance plans for new projects within the City. Planning and Zoning Commission members also have responsibility for Zoning Board of Appeals matters such as variances. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Meets at 7:00 p.m. on the 3 rd Monday of each month. This board makes recommendations to the Council concerning the development, operation, maintenance, financing, etc. of recreational amenities/programs. Pension Boards: Police, Firemen’s and General Employees. These boards meet at various times, usually once a month or once every 3 months, and make decisions regarding pension fund investment portfolios and other pension management issues. If you are willing to serve as a regular or alternate member of one or more of these boards, please complete the attached application form and forward it to the City Clerk’s Office, 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. ADMINISTRATION § 2-158 Secs. 2-138~2-155. Reserved. DMSION 4. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION* Sec. 2-156. Creation. A planning and zoning commission is created for the city. (Code 1987, § 32.50) ~Sec. 2-157. Membership generally. (a) The planning and zoning commission shall be composed of seven members and two alternate members. (b) Members of the commission shall be residents of the city. The members of the commission shall serve for terms of two years. (c) The city council shall appoint seven members and two alternate members to the planning and zoning commission by resolution; the alternate members shall serve as a member of the board and have a voice and vote in the meetings of the board when any regular appointed member thereof shall be absent from a scheduled meeting. The chairman of the planning and zoning commission shall certify in the record of the proceedings of the board as to which member is absent and the name of the alternate member who is sitting as a member for a particular proceeding or meeting. (d) Any member may be reappointed upon approval of the city council. Appointments to fill any vacancy on the planning and zoning commission shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. Any member who fails to attend two out of three successive meetings without cause and without prior approval by the chairman of the commission shall automat- ically forfeit his appointment, and the city council shall promptly fill such vacancy. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the city council, and may be suspended or removed for cause by the city council. (Code 1987, § 32.51; Ord. No. 3-1999, § 1, 3-18-99) Sec. 2-158. Service without compensation. Members of the planning and zoning commission shall serve without compensation. (Code 1987, § 32.52) *Cross references--Administration of land development regulations, ch. 82; buildings and building regulations, ch. 86; excavation and fill regulations, ch. 94; landscaping and vegetation protection, ch. 98; natural resources and environmentally significant lands, ch. 102; signs, ch. 110; subdivisions, ch. 114; zoning, ch. 118. State law reference--Planning, F.S. § 163.3161 et seq. Supp. No. 11 CD2:13 City of Palm Beach Gardens APPLICATION FOR POSITIONS ON ADVISORY BOARD (S) Please print In Black Ink Bbard(s) Applied fo~:Planning and Zoning C~ssion Name: (D/n0 C. Douglas Pennel~ Telephone: Day Home Address: 694-8686 Evening 694-1203 3 Glencairn .Road Palm Beach Gardens, FL. 33418 How long have you been a resident of Palm Beach Gardens7 3 years Palm Beach County7 27 years , Current Employer:River. House Restaurant Position: Corporate Officer/Managing Partner Please attach, a resume to your application or use space below to summarize qualifications and experience acquired that would be helpful to the Board(s) for which you are applying. Special Qualifications for specific board(s) (include past board experience) Assisted in planning and develo~nent ~f River House Restaurant property.on PGA B19d. and’the Intracoastal waterway. Have be@n managing partner ~xSr the pabst, eighteen years. Educational Back~ound Bachelor of Arts - Enqlish PennsYlvania State University Communi~ Acti~ties (Include offices held and committee service) Faith Lutheran Church, U~her ..,, CountyRestaur,ant Association Motel AssociationPa Beach ~ otel Date . ~/L~I gt ZOO:2_ Applications are valid for two (2) years from the date they are signed. Return to City Clerk’s Office, 10500 N. Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. ¯ CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 28, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Resolution 105, 2002: Tanglewood West Road Closure: Recommendation to City Council, a request by CSC Tanglewood LLC, to allow for the closure of Tanglewood West Road, a City of Palm Beach Gardens public right-of-way, during an approximately four-month construction period, to allow for the phased renovation of Tanglewood Apartment townhomes. Tanglewood Apartments is located just to the northeast of the corner of Military Trail and Johnson Dairy Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of Resolution 105, 2002. Reviewed by: Principal Planner "~-~ Talal Benothman~ City Attorney Finance NA Human Res. NA Submitte~ by: Growth/~l. ~a~atm~metnt Direct~’r~,~’(.~_ ~, Charle~. Wu, ~I~P - City Manag~ / Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project /~ Manager~ ~ ) Edward To~r~ICP Development Compliance Bahareh Wolfs, AICP Advertised: Date: Paper: Palm Beach Post [X.. [.. [.. [.. [.. [.~ t Required Affected parties: [ ] Notified [X] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total $ Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [X] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA P&Z Commission Action: [ ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [ ] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [ ] Continued to:__ Attachments: ¯ Resolution 105, 2002 ¯ Exhibit A: Area Map of Tanglewood West Road Location ¯ Request and Justification RESOLUTION 105, 2002 July 1, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF TANGLEWOOD WEST ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, CSC Tanglewood, Ltd., is in the process of renovating the existing residential structures along the southern portion of Tanglewood West Road; and WHEREAS, CSC Tanglewood, Ltd., has advised the City that it will be necessary to close this portion of Tanglewood West Road on a temporary basis in the interest of public safety; and WHEREAS, section 62-2 of the City’s Code of Ordinances authorizes the City Council to approve temporary or interim closures of public streets provided such closure serves a proper public purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the temporary closure of the southern portion of Tanglewood West Road serves a proper public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens hereby authorizes the temporary closure of the southern portion of Tanglewood West Road, as more particularly depicted herein as "Exhibit A", commencing on July 19, 2002, and ending November 30, 2002, or as soon thereafter as the construction is completed. SECTION 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. MAYOR ERIC JABLIN ATTEST BY:APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK LEN RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO Gled/2OO21tanglecloseres AYE NAY ABSENT EXHIBIT "A" AIRY R~OAD ROAD CLOSURE 4"-~E CE TVED : Jun-Z6-200? 6/26/02 04:29pm 3:52PM; F rom-GREENBERr. TRAURI G ->HP LASERJET 3150; #523; UIILLPlgLI1U ~,T T O ~ N ]E ~ -’; ¯ "r PAGE 2 T-ZTO P. 002/004 F-g4z By Fax and Mail June 26,2002 Mr. Charles Wu, A1CP C~ty of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Mihtary Trail Palm B=ach (3ardeas, FL 33410 Re: Union Square (f/kJa Tanglewood Apartments) Dear Mr Wu: Please accept thzs letter on b~:half of CSC Tanglewood, Ltd., as supplemental information regarding the attached proposed Resolution to temporarily close Tanglewood West Road in connectmn w~th the redevelopment of the Umon Square project. As you are aware, the redevelopment znvolves gutting the existing residential srcucturcs and redoing all of the major elements, Le., electrical, plumbing, roofing, air condmonmg, m addition to |econstructmg the interior and exterior walls. In essence, the temporary closure Is necessary in order to protect the pubhc d~rmg the reconstruction ~n this area. We anticipate that an approval by the City Cotmctl on July 18th will allow us to reopen this road by October 31, 2002. Please adwse dyou have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, "-’-- I;,-,. (-[:) ....’ .... Kara K. Baxter CC Mr. Adam Schlesmger David M. Layman, Esq. Barbara Sprtngthorpe, AICP CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Resolution 116, 2002mProposed Annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, & Sunset Drive Adoption: A City-initiated request to formally accept the Urban Services Report as a prerequisite to commencing formal annexation procedures. The Urban Services Report sets forth the plan for the City to provide City services to the area to be annexed, per the requirements of section 171.0413, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution 116, 2002, and direct staff to initiate the formal annexation process. Reviewed by: ~rincipal Planne~ Talal Benoth maC’, ,/~7:,/~ City Attorney ~’~" Leonard G. Rubin- Development Compliance- .- Officer Submitte~y: ~- Oirectc~ Charles K. Wu, AICP Approved b2y,~.,,.~/4 City Manag~~ Ronald M. Fer~ls /f Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project ~ Manager Kara Irwin Advertised: Date: Paper: Palm Beach Post [X ].~Not Required Affected parties: [ ] Notified [ X] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total $. Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating IX] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA [] Approved [] App. w/conditions [] Denied [] Rec. approval [] Rec. app. w/conds. [] Rec. Denial [] Continued to:~ Attachments: ¯ Resolution 116, 2002 ¯ Annexation Referendum Schedule ¯ Urban Services Report [ ] None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 3, 2002 Resolution 116, 2002 Petition AX-01-01 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Section 171.042, Florida Statutes, there are certain prerequisites to annexation, which must be undertaken by the City. Prior to commencing annexation, the City must prepare a report setting forth the plans to provide City services to the areas proposed to be annexed. The City must plan to provide for extending urban services on the date of annexation on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services that are provided within the rest of the City prior to annexation. BACKGROUND Late 2001, at the request of Mr. Terence Brady, a resident of Garden Oaks, the City Council directed staff to pursue the possibility of annexing the Garden Oaks Planned Unit Development. The Development had been annexed in the past, but was invalidated on March 9, 1988, by the Circuit Court. The annexation had excluded Mary Circle, which resulted in a violation of Florida Statutes. URBAN SERVICES REPORT Prior to commencing annexation, the City is required to prepare a report setting forth the plans to provide City services to the proposed annexation area. The City is required to file a copy of the report with the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, under Section 171.0413, Florida Statute. The report must include the following: A map of the municipality and adjacent territory showing the present and proposed municipal boundaries, the present major water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, the proposed extension of such mains and outfalls, and the general land use pattern in the area to be annexed. B.A statement certifying that the area to be annexed meets the below criteria set forth in section 171.043 of the statute. The total area to be annexed must be contiguous to City boundaries at the time the annexation proceedings are begun and reasonably compact and no part of the area shall be included within the boundary of another municipality. 2. Part or all of the area to be annexed must be developed for urban purposes. 2 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 3, 2002 Resolution 116, 2002 Petition AX-01-01 Co A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to the area to be annexed each major municipal service performed within the municipality at the time of annexation, such plans shall: Provide for extending urban services to the area to be annexed on the date of the annexation on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services are provided within the rest of the City prior to annexation. Provide for the extension of existing municipal water and sewer services into the area to be annexed so that when such services are provided, property owners in the area to be annexed will be able to secure public water and sewer service. If extension of major trunk water mains and sewer mains into the area to be annexed is necessary, set forth a method underwhich the municipality plans to finance extension of services into the area to be annexed. Once the report is completed and filed with Palm Beach County, the annexation procedures specified under Section 171.0413, Florida Statutes, may begin. REFERENDUM In the past, a referendum for annexation was required to be voted on bythe area proposed to be annexed as well as the residents of the City proposing the annexation. Currently, Section 171.0413, Florida Statute, states "The governing body of the annexing municipality may also choose to submit the ordinance of annexation to a separate vote of the registered electors of the annexing municipality." The City Council may or may not choose to do a dual referendum to involuntarily annex the proposed areas, but must consider that the Florida Statutes now give the City Council the ability to determine that the City will proceed with the annexation without placing it to a vote by the current residents. A general election is being held on November 5, 2002, on which ballot the proposed referendum will be placed. The adopted referendum language must be submitted to the Supervisor of Elections no later than September 3, 2002. In order to meet the aforementioned deadline, city staff has prepared a schedule, which has been attached to the staff report. 3 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 3, 2002 Resolution 116, 2002 Petition AX-01-01 ANNEXATION PROCEDURES The City of Palm Beach Gardens may annex contiguous, compact, unincorporated territory in the following manner: A.An ordinance proposing to annex the contiguous, compact, unincorporated territory shall be adopted by the City pursuant to the procedures for adoption of non-emergency ordinances established in Section 166.041, Florida Statutes. The ordinance will require two public hearings and must be adopted at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of referendum. B.Prior to the ordinance of annexation becoming effective, a referendum on annexation shall be held and, if approved by referendum, the ordinance shall become effective as provided in the ordinance. C.The City shall publish notice of the referendum of annexation at least once each week for two consecutive weeks immediately preceding the date of the referendum in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which the referendum is to be held. ANNEXATION AREA RESIDENTS Staff proposes to schedule meetings with the residents of the proposed annexation area after the resolution adopting the Urban Services Report is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. A notification letter will be sent to each site address as well as property owners within the annexation area. Staff feels that meeting with the residents will provide a better understanding of the needs, concerns, and expectations that will result from the annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution 116, 2002, and direct staff to initiate the formal annexation process. 4 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 3, 2002 RESOLUTION 116, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE URBAN SERVICES REPORT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF GARDEN OAKS, MARY CIRCLE AND SUNSET DRIVE AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO FILE THE REPORT WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, section 171.042, Florida Statutes, requires the City to prepare a report setting forth the plans to provide urban services ("Urban Services Report") prior to commencing the annexation procedures of section 171.0413, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared an Urban Services Report in connection with the proposed annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle and Sunset Drive, an area of contiguous, compact and unincorporated territory; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally accept the Urban Services Report as a prerequisite to commencing formal annexation procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1: The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a Resolution. hereby ratified and specific part of this SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens hereby accepts the Urban Services Report in connection with the proposed annexation of Garden Oaks, Sunset Drive and Mary Circle, and in accordance with section 171.042(2), Florida Statutes, directs City staff to file a copy of the Urban Services Report with the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 3: All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4: If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 3, 2002 Resolution 116, 2002 SECTION 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS~DAY OF ,2002. ATTEST: MAYOR ERIC JABLIN PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have approved this Resolution as to form. LEONARD G. RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY VOTE:AYE NAY ABSENT MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO 2 Revised: June 25, 2002 3. 4. 5. April 1 May 28 July 18 July 19 July 29 July 15 July 24 Aug. 1 Aug. 9 Aug. 30 Sept. 5 Nov. 5 Nov. 6 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS ANNEXATION REFERENDUM SCHEDULE FOR GARDEN OAKS, MARY CIRCLE & SUNSET DRIVE (Note: All dates are in the year 2002.) 60 days to complete draft Urban Service Report, and forward to departments for comments. 2 weeks for departments to comment on Urban Service Report. Present Urban Service Report to City Council. Submit Urban Services Report to Palm Beach County. Begin meetings with residents of areas to be annexed. (Send Courtesy letter to residents on July 19) Complete annexation ordinance and referendum language. Publish 1st public hearing notice in paper. (seven days before the first public hearing) Public hearing and first readings of annexation ordinances. (Effective date of ordinance after referendum.) City Council to review referendum language. Forward referendum language and associated materials to the Supervisor of Elections. Publish 2nd public hearing notice in paper. Public hearing and second reading of annexation ordinances. (five days before the second public hearing) Referendum. Effective dates for annexation ordinances. (The effective dates need to be in this calendar year for properties to be on the tax roll for the following calendar year.) CI TY OF PALM B E ACH GARDENS URB AN S E RVI CE S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE AREA INCLUDING GARDEN OAKS, SUNSET DRIVE, & MARY CIRCLE July 3, 2002 Prepared For: Growth Management Department 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................3 II. General Description of the Annexation Area .................4 A.L ocat/or~’. ................................................................4 B.Sut~ect Prqoerties - Existing Land Use" ................4 C Suly’ectPropoties - FutureLand Use ....................5 D.S,#~t Prq~i~ - Zo,~. ....................................5 E.Surrou~ting Future Lard Use R~ulatiom and Zordng Districts: 5 F.P~atio~’. .............................................................6 III. Compliance with Florida Statutes, Character of the Area to be Annexed IV. Invemory of Public Service Facilities ............................12 A.Pcca/~ l~ter Semi’. ..........................................12 B.Sardtary Sevz’r Semd~: ........................................14 C Park andRecreation Semdoes:. ...............................16 D.Polioe Pmtecio~’. ..................................................17 E.Fire Protectio~’. .....................................................17 F.Gxte E nf~’. ...............................................18 G.Gowral M ~ C, owmrrer~’. ...........................18 V. Cost Estimates for Providing Public Services ...............19 VI. Potential Sources o~ Revenue ~or Providing Public Services 19 VII. Conclusion .......................................................................22 I. Introduction This Urban Services Report sets forth a plan by which urban services will be provided to Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, & Sunset Drive and their residents, if annexed into the City of Palm Beach Gardens by referendum of voters residing within the area. The information contained in this document has been prepared pursuant to state statute requirements for involuntary annexation contained in § 171.042, F.S. As required by that section, the information listed must be provided or addressed in this urban services plan. (1)A map of the City and adjacent territory showing the presem and proposed municipal boundary. (2) A map of the general land-use pattern in the area proposed to be annexed. (3)A map indicating the location of existing major trunk mains for potable water and sanitary sewer interceptors and outfalls, and the proposed extension of such mains and out-falls, if required to serve the area proposed to be annexed. A statement certifying that the area proposed to be annexed is reasonably compact, is contiguous to the City, and meets the test for being considered urban or is undeveloped but is located between the City limits and an area developed for urban purposes. (5)A statement that describes the City’s plans for providing the area proposed to be annexed with those municipal services provided throughout the other areas of the City at the time of annexation. (6)A proposed timetable for constructing major water trunk mains and sewer mains to serve the area proposed to be annexed, if existing water and sewer mains are not available to serve that area. (7)Plans on how the City will fund the municipal facilities and services needed to serve the area proposed to be annexed. Section 171.042, F.S., also requires that a copy of this plan be submitted to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners prior to the City initiating formal proceedings and a voter referendum for involuntary annexation. II. General Description of the Annexation Area A. Location: Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, & Sunset Drive are three residential neighborhoods, which comprise the proposed annexation area. All parcels are located within unincorporated Palm Beach County. The 148.86-acre parcel bounded on the west byMilitary Trail, to the east by Interstate 95, to the south by Grove Park Elementary and Garden Walk Manufactured Home Park and to the north by Garden’s Town Square, Garden Park Phza and Dania Road, a residential community. Square Lake residential development is to the west of the development across Mih’tary Trail. B. Subject Properties - Existing Land Use: Garden Oaks is a built-out single-family home community. The Planned Unit Development was approved byPalm Beach Countyon December 12, 1989. The single-family development is separated into six major sections, which are accessed by a spine road around a central patio home parcel. There are four retention lakes provided on-site to deal with stormwater run-off; these lakes total 14.6 acres. The site includes an 8.0-acre recreation parcel with a swimming pool, pool house, tennis courts, and 4.5 acres of open space. According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, the l11.78-acre area contains 453 parcels, of which 418 are under separate ownership. The parcels are classified by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office as 418 zero lot line parcels and the remainder 35 parcels are Outdoor Recreation/Park Land, which includes common open space, lakes, roadways, and recreation area. Mary Circle is primarily developed as a single-family community. The development has no recorded plat, nor does the Palm Beach County Building Division have any records of initial development. The parcels are accessed from Military Trail via South Mary Circle, which turns into North Mary Circle. According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s information, the 7.46- acre area contains 50 parcels of which 50 are under separate ownership. The parcels are classified by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office as 46 single-family parcels, three vacant parcels, and one private school. Sunset Drive is primarily developed as a multifamily community located on a dead-end street. The development, referred to as the Kramer Subdivision after the developer, Arthur Kramer, has no development approval or recorded plat, nor does the Palm Beach County Building Division have any records of initial development. According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s 4 information, the 25.13-acre area contains 66 parcels of which 64 are under separate ownership. The parcels are classified by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office as 44 multi-family parcels (duplex and triplex units), 16 single-family parcels, one vacant parcel, one non-profit orphanage, one multistory office building and one retail store. Subject Properties - Future Land Use Garden Oaks has a PBC future land use designation of RH/8 (Residential High, which permits up to eight dwelling units per acre on parcels larger than ten acres). Resolution Number R-89-2232 approved this designation, on December 12, 1989. o Mary Circle has a PBC future land use designation of RH/8 (Residential High, which permits up to eight dwelling units per acre on parcels larger than ten acres). This area also has a CH designation, which allows for intensive commercial uses. Sunset Drive has a PBC future land use of RH/8 (Residential High, which permits up to eight dwelling units per acre on parcels larger than ten acres.) The two parcels located adjacent to Northlake Boulevard have a PBC future land use designation of CH/8 (Commercial High, which permits intensive commercial uses). D. Subject Properties - Zoning 1.Garden Oaks has a PBC zoning designation of RM (Residential Medium), which permits single and multi-family residential uses. 2.Mary Circle has a PBC zoning designation of RM (Residential Medium), which permits single and multi-family residential uses. 3.Sunset Drive has a PBC zoning designation of RM (Residential Medium), which permits single and multi-family residential uses. E. Surrounding Future Land Use Regulations and Zoning Districts: Major roadways bound the proposed annexation area to the north (Northlake Boulevard), east (Interstate 95), and west (Military Trail). There are two commercial developments (Garden Park Plaza & Gardens Town Square) and a residential street (Dania Road) to north that lie within the municipal limits of Palm Beach Gardens. To the south is a manufactured home community separated from the annexation area by a County Road (Park Avenue). 5 TABLE 1: Surrounding Existing & Future Land Uses & Zoning Districts DIRECTION NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST LAND USE Commercial (C) - Garden Park Plaza and Gardens Town Square (PBG) Residential Medium (RM) - Dana Road residential community (PBG) Park Avenue, ~hen Garden Walk Manufactured Home Community (PBC) Institutional (I) - Grove Park Elementary tLO.W. Interstate 95, across the interstate is Palm Beach Gardens Commercial (C) Crossroads at Northlake (PBG) Professional Office (PO) - Sandtree Office (PBG) Residential Estate (RE) - Square Lake residential community (PBC) ZONING ~ 1 (General Commercial) (PBG) RM (Residential Medium) (PBG) RM (Residential Medium) P/I ( Public / Institutional) C~ 1 (General Commercial) (PBG) PUD (Planned Unit Development) (PBG) RE (Residential Estate) F. Population: The existing population of the annexation area is estimated by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the average household size of 2.35 as established by the City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan. The property appraisers database identifies a total of 528 dwelling units (single and multi-family). Thus the population would be estimated 1,241 people (528 X 2.35 persons per household as established bythe City’s Comprehensive Plan). Map 1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP 7 I I I I Map 2 ANNE XA TION AREA l:ill is~hill ~l Map 3 PALM BEACH COUNTY_FUTURE LAND USE MAP OH/8 Map 4 PALM BEACH COUNTY ZONING DISTRICTS 1( III. Compliance with Florida Statutes, Character of the Area to be Anne xe d Chapter 171.043 Florida Statutes outlines the general criteria that an area being considered for annexation must satisfy before a municipal government can proceed with an annexation of an area by voter referendum. Chapter 171.043 requires that any annexation must be able to meet Subsections (1) and (2) as written belo~ (1) The total area to be annexed must be contiguous with the municipality’s boundaries at the time the annexation proceeding is begun and reasonably compact, and no part of the area shall be included within the boundary of another incorporated municipality. (2) Part or all of the area to be annexed must be developed for urban purposes. An area developed for urban purposes is defined as an area which meets any of the following standards. It has a total residential population equal to at least two persons for each acre of land included within its boundaries. (b)It has a total residential population equal to at least one person for each acre of land included within its boundaries and is subdivided into lots and tracts so that at least 60 percent of the total number of lots and tracts are one acre or less in size; or It is so developed that at least 60 percent of the total number of lots and tracts in the area at the time of annexation are used for urban purposes, and it is subdivided into lots and tracts so that at least 60 percent of the total acreage, not counting the acreage used at the time of annexation for nonresidential urban purposes, consists of lots and tracts 5 acres or less in size. Staff Response The proposed annexation area (Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, & Sunset Drive) is compact and lies solely in Palm Beach County. The subject site is isolated from the south, east and west by roadways, and the remaining side (north) of the area is contiguous to the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Thus, the first standard is met because the proposed annexation area is not within any other municipal boundary, is contiguous with the City of Palm Beach Gardens’ municipal boundary, and is compact. With an estimated population of 1,241 persons on this 148+ acre site, there are 8.39 persons per acre. Thus, this proposed annexation fulfills the second standard of development for urban purposes by having a population density greater than two persons for each acre of land included within the proposed annexation area. In summary, the proposed annexation meets the requirements of Chapter 171 conceming the character of the area to be annexed. 11 IV. Inventory of Public Service Facilities A. Potable Water Service: The City currently receives potable water service from the Seacoast Utility Authority (SUA). The areas to be annexed are within the water service boundaries of the Seacoast Utility Authority. There are two system improvements necessary to provide the same level of service to annexed residents as provided to current City residents. These improvements consist of the following: Mary Circle would require Capital Expenditure expenses estimated at $184,625.00 to provide service mains to an estimated 46 single-family homes. A $1,650.00 connection fee / meter cost per unit is also required. Total cost is estimated at $260,525.00. Sunset Drive and 40 th Terrace would require Capital Expenditure expenses estimated at $272,500.00 to provide service mains to 94 individually metered units. A $1,650.00 connection fee per unit is also required. Total cost is estimated at $427,600.00. Potential sources of these funds are various and include the following: City of Palm Beach Gardens Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Capital Improvements Budget. These improvements are currently unbudgeted expenditures in FY 2003 or beyond. 2. Residents could pay capital improvement fees sufficient to provide the service. 3.The City could create a special district or a special assessment to provide the necessary improvements. The City could apply for supplemental funds from such grant programs as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program or low interest loans for the residents. 5.Certain combinations of the above referenced resources. Since there is currendy no citywide requirement that existing well system be disallowed and property owners forced to hook up to SUA’s service, there would be no requirement by the City in newly annexed areas that the use of water well systems be discontinued. 1." Map 5 EXISTING WATER MAINS 13 B. Sanitary Sewer Services: The City currently receives sanitary sewer service from the Seacoast Utility Authority (SUA). The areas to be annexed are within the service boundaries of the Seacoast Utility Authority. There are two system improvements necessary to provide the same level of service to annexed residents as provided to current City residents, which consist of the following: Mary Circle would require Capital Expenditure expenses estimated at $170,620.00 to provide service mains to an estimated 46 single-family home. A $1,200.00 connection fee per unit is also required. Total cost is estimated at $225,820.00. Sunset Drive and 40~ Terrace would require Capital Expenditure expenses estimated at $418,750.00 to provide service mains to 94 individually metered units. A $1,200.00 connection fee per unit is also required. Total cost is estimated at $531,550.00. Potential sources of these funds are various and include the following: City of Palm Beach Gardens Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Capital Improvements Budget. These improvements are currently unbudgeted expenditures in FY 2003 or beyond. 2. Residents could pay capital improvement fees sufficient to provide the service. 3.The City could create a special district or a special assessment to provide the necessary improvements. The City could apply for supplemental funds from such grant programs as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program or low interest loans for the residents. 5.Certain combinations of the above referenced resources. Since there is currently no citywide requirement that existing septic system be disallowed and property owners forced to hook up to SUA’s service, there would be no requirement by the City in newly annexed areas that the use of septic systems be discontinued. INTERSTATE 95 Map 6 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAINS 15 Park and Recreation Services: The City currently owns and operates four neighborhood type parks for a total of 22 acres and six community type parks with a total of 127.9 acres. Private parks classified as neighborhood parks consist of 124 acres. The total of all publicly owned parks is 149.9 acres and the total of all privately and publicly owned parks is 277.62 acres. Local recreational needs are also provided through city-directed recreation program. The City organizes, schedules, and staffs numerous recreation programs and classes including arts and crafts, dance, athletics, exercise, community theatre, and continuing education classes. Annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive will require no addkional expenses, as all of these facilities are currently used by City and Palm Beach County residents alike. TABLE 2: Levels of Serdce for Recreational Facilities ( + 1,241 Persons) RECREATION FACILITY Shuffleboard Courts LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 1 per 4,000 1 per 7,500 Racquetball Courts 1 per 15,000 Basketball Courts 1 per 10,000 Soccer Fields i per 4,500 Softball / T-B~ll /1 per 6,000/1 per Baseball Fields 8,000/1 per 5,000 Roller hockey Rinks I per 20,000 Skate parks 1 per 30,000 Pavilions 1 per 10,000 Picnic Area 1 per 10,000 Vita Course / Jogging i per 30,000/1 per Trail 2O,OO0 Phygrouad/Tot Lot 1 per 7,000 Horseshoes INVENTORY (1) Golf Course (18 Hole) 8O i per 100,000 DEMAND (2)SUaVLUS (+) OR DEFICIT (9 +71 +1217 25 3 +23 11.5 4 +7.5 10 8 +2 23 18 +5 1 1 0 1(3)1 0 24 4 +20 6 4 +2 8 3 +5 13 5 +8 6 5 +11 per 7,000 Fishing Area (non boat)1 per 20,000 2 2 0 Boat Access 1 per 40,000 2 1 +1 Nature Center 1 per 90,000 1 0 +1 Community Swimming 49 +9,000 s.f.+45 Pools 0.25 s.f. per capka Recreation Centers 1 per 25,000 7 2 +5 0 +1/+3 152.5 acresPARKS Neighborhood Park / Community Park 1 public / 3 private 277.62 acres4.2 acres per 1,000 +125 acres Notes: (1) (2) The inventory of recreational facilities is for existing and committed facilities (including public and private). The demand for recreational facilities is calculated using the recreation level of service standards in Table 2 rounding down to the nearest whole number and a total population estimate of 36,299 for the City. This estimate is derived from population projections of 35,058 provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), University of Florida, and the additional population for the proposed annexation area of 1,241 persons. (3) A proposed public Skate Park is currendy under construction. Source: City of Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan Palm Beach County is currently responsible for providing park and recreation facilities for the residents of the subject area. The City of Palm Beach Gardens will provide park and recreational facilities for the residents of the subject area if they are annexed into the City. However, it must be noted that due to the proximity of the area to the City of Palm Beach Gardens, k is possible that these residents already utilize City Park and recreational facilities. Based on the existing population estimate of 1,241 residents for the proposed annexation area, the City’s existing park and recreation facilities are sufficient to accommodate this additional population and still maintain the level-of-service standards for park and recreation facilities adopted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This is determined by reviewing Table 2 above. Table 2 indicates the City’s adopted level-of-service standards for recreation facilities and the estimated demand on the City’s recreational facilities. The total population estimate for the City used in Table 2 includes the additional population of 1,241 residents of the proposed annexation area. D. Police Protection: Police protection for the annexation area is currently provided by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. If the area is annexed, the City of Palm Beach Gardens will provide police protection. The proposed annexation of the subject area will not exceed the established level of service (LOS) for police. The level of service is established by factoring the number of calls for service, average time for calls, administrative duties related to calls, and planned activity/neighborhood patrols into a formula to determine the required manpower for a population. The population estimate of the City of Palm Beach Gardens and the proposed annexation area is 36,299 (35,058 plus 1,241). There are 90 officers under the Chief of Police. Using the LOS standard, the City would meet the standard absent any additional population growth. E. Fire Protection: Palm Beach Gardens Fire Rescue is a full service fire rescue agency providing fire suppression, advanced life support including transport, fire inspections, fire investigations and community education. In 2001 the City’s average response time for emergency service citywide was 4.45 minutes. 17 Currently Fire Rescue maintains an Insurance Services Office Rating of Class 3 and the City is actively pursuing accredkation through the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. Addkionally, Fire Station Three, located on Northlake Boulevard, is under construction with an anticipated occupancy of July 2002. This fire station will be located approximately one mile from the proposed annexation area. Upon the effective date of annexation, Fire-Rescue Services will be extended in the same manner and to the same level of service as provided within current corporate limits. There would not be a need for increased Fire-Rescue Service if Gardens Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive were to be annexed into the City. E Code Enforcement: The City of Palm Beach Gardens Code Enforcement Division currently divides the 56- square-mile City into three (3) inspection zones. The neighborhood that is identified for the proposed annexation would be incorporated into Code Enforcement Zone 3, which is assigned to a specific Code Enforcement Officer. The Division consists of three full time and one part-time inspector and three marked vehicles. The City anticipates the need for an intense proactive education on the City Code Enforcement requirements on fences, setbacks, and parking of commercial and recreational vehicles in the older sections of the proposed annexation area. The City anticipates no adverse impact on the current workload by the proposed annexation. G. General Municipal Government: The City currently provides community development services through the Growth Management Department, which issues building permits, reviews site plans, issues certificates of occupancy, ensures that development complies with the City’s Comprehensive Development Plan and handles other issues relating to the development of the City. The Growth Management Department also provides for zoning regulation and rezoning of City land areas. The land use and zoning of the area proposed for annexation may be redesignated within one to two years of the date of annexation. Particular care will be exercised in redesignation, in order to assure that full developmental rights will be preserved for newly annexed areas. Further information on the proposed annexation may be obtained through the Growth Management Department. V.COST ESTIMATES FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES The preceding section indicates that the annexation of the proposed area properties will not require any additional funding in order to provide required urban services. As this report noted, that is because the annexation will not adversely affect established level of service for parks and recreation, police and fire protection, code enforcement, and garbage pick-up. The single cost to the City of Palm Beach Gardens will be for general government services. The per capita cost of the City providing general government services within the current municipal boundary is estimated to be $ 468.00 for the year 2001. This estimate is calculated using the following factors: ao Annual Audit Report 2001 Population projections of 35,058 provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), University of Florida, and the additional population for the proposed annexation area of 1,241 persons. The extension of urban services to the proposed annexation areas will not require any additional overhead. Estimated Total Costs: Table 3 below indicates the total estimated annual costs of providing additional public services to the proposed annexation areas at the time of annexation. TABLE 3: ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICE ESTIMATED COST Potable Water $ 0.00 Sanitary Sewer 0.00 Parks and Recreation 0.00 Police Protection 0.00 Fire Protection 0.00 Refuse Collection 0.00 General Government 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 VI. Potential Sources of Revenue for Providing Public Services There are various sources of revenue available to the City for maintaining the urban services needed for the annexation area. These revenue sources include ad Valorem taxes, one-half cent sales tax for local governments, state revenue sharing, communications service tax, and 19 franchise fees. Each of these revenue sources is based on real property values, utility service consumption, or population. If Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, & Sunset Drive properties are annexed into the City of Palm Beach Gardens, each of these factors are anticipated to provide additional revenues. A. Ad Valorem Taxes: It is estimated that the annual ad Valorem taxes that will be generated from annexing the proposed areas will be approximately $351,104. This figure is calculated by multiplying the total assessable value of $56,924,404.00 (accounts for properties with existing homestead exemptions) for the three annexation areas, as determined by the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser (See appendix A) multiplied by the City’s current millage rate (0.0057765) plus debt (0.0003914) of 0.0061679. B. One-Half Cent Sales Tax: In 2001 the City received $2,489,118 (Annual Audit Report 2001) from the State of Florida as its portion of the one-cent sales tax allocated to local governments. This amount is approximately $71.00 per capka, using the most recent population estimate of 35,058 permanent residents for the City as estimated by the City of Palm Beach Gardens Finance Department for budgeting purposes. Annexing the proposed annexation area properties will generate approximately $88,111 in additional revenue from the one-half cent sales tax. This figure is calculated by multiplying the 2001 per capita figure for the one-half cent sales tax of $71.00 times the estimated existing population of 1,241 residents within the proposed annexation area. C. State Revenue Sharing: In 2001 the City received $666,102 (Annual Audit Report 2001) in state revenue sharing, which equates to a per capita amount in $19.00. This per capita figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of state revenue sharing by the most recent population estimate of 35,058 permanent residents for the City. Annexing the proposed annexation area will generate approximately $23,579 in additional revenue. This figure is calculated by multiplying the 2001 per capita figure for state revenue sharing of $19.00 times the estimated existing population of 1,241 residents within the annexation area. D. Franchise Tax: In 2001 the City received $2,769,582 (Annual Audit Report 2001) in revenue from franchise taxes, which equates to a per capita amount of $79.00. This per capita figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of state revenue sharing by the most recent population estimate of 35,058 permanent residents for the City. Annexing the proposed annexation area will generate approximately $98,039 in additional revenue. This figure is calculated by multiplying the 2001 per capita figure for franchise 2( taxes of $79.00 times the estimated existing population of 1,241 residents within the annexation area. E. Communications Service Tax: In 2001 the City received $777,276 (Annual Audit Report 2001) in revenue from the communications service taxes, which equates to a per capita amount of $22.00. This per capita figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of state revenue sharing by the most recent population estimate of 35,058 permanent residents for the City. Annexing the proposed annexation area will generate approximately $27,302 in additional revenue. This figure is calculated by multiplying the 2001 per capita figure for franchise taxes of $22.00 times the estimated existing population of 1,241 residents within the annexation area. Table 4 shown below indicates the estimated annual revenue that the City of Palm Beach Gardens can expect to collect in the first year as a result of the proposed annexation. This table indicates the sources of revenue from ad valorem taxes, the one-half cent tax, state revenue sharing, franchise taxes, and the communications service tax. TABLE 4: ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR REVENUE REVENUE SOURCE E STIMATED REVENUE Ad valorem taxes $351,104 One-half cent sales tax $88,111 State revenue sharing Franchise tax $23,579 $98,039 Communications service tax $27,302 TOTAL $588,135 21 VII. Conclusion In conclusion, this proposed annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive, as shown in this Urban Services Plan, meets all the state requirements noted in Chapter 171, F.S., to qualify for annexation into the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The subject area is appropriate for annexation into the boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens because the subject area is compact and contiguous to the existing borders of the City of Palm Beach Gardens on the north and the east. In addition, the area can clearly be characterized as a compact urban location because of the average density of 8.39 persons per acre. Finally, the proposed annexation of Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive is financially feasible because the benefits of annexation will greatly assist any capital project necessary to provide for extending urban services on the date of annexation in the same manner as such services are provided within the rest of the City. Overall, the annexation of this property will be beneficial to the City of Palm Beach Gardens and the residents of the proposed annexation area. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Date: Meeting Date: 07/8/02 07/18/02 Subject/Agenda Item Resolution 119, 2002, Millage Rate Recommendation/Motion: Consider a motion to approve Resolution 119, 2002, authorizing the filing of a tentative operating millage rate of 5.9067 mills with the County. Reviewed by,~ City Attorne~’~ Finance~ ACM Other Submitted by: Allan Owens Department Director Approved_c~ Originating Dept.: Finance Advertised: Date: Paper: [ X ] Not Required Affected parties [ [ X ] Not required Costs: $. 0 (Total) $ 0 Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: various Council Action: ] Approved [] Approved conditions [] Denied [ ] Continued to: Attachments: Memorandum [ ] None w/ BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council APPROVED: Ron Ferris, City Manager FROM:Allan Owens, Finance Administrator SUBJECT:Millage Rates for Fiscal Year 2003 DATE: July 9, 2002 The City is required to file with the County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector a proposed millage rate that will be sent out on the Notice of Proposed Taxes in August. The Draft 2002-03 Budget distributed recently reflected a proposed operating millage rate of 5.90 and a debt service millage rate of .35, for a total millage of 6.25. While the total millage is correct based upon the final taxable valuation numbers distributed by the Property Appraiser on July 1, 2002, the debt service millage should be .3433. This would require the operating millage rate to be set at 5.9067, for the same total of 6.25 mills. Once we have filed a tentative millage with the County, these rates are the maximum that can be levied; they can be lowered at the budget hearings, but they cannot be increased. In addition, we need to notify the County of the date, time and place of the first public budget heating. These dates cannot conflict with the scheduled hearings of the Board of County Commissioners and the School Board. We have been advised by the County of the following dates for their hearings: Board of County Commissioners: School Board September 5, 19 July 29, September 9 The Board of County Commission’s scheduled dates fall on the same dates as our scheduled Council meetings; therefore, we are recommending that the meeting dates in September be moved to the 4tla and the 18th. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council set the tentative operating and debt service millages at 5.9067 and .3433, respectively, to file as the City’s tentative millage rates with the County, and set the date for the first public hearing on September 4, 2002. RESOLUTION 119, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A PROPOSED MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003; SETTING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE FIRST BUDGET HEARING; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, must determine a proposed millage rate within 35 days of July 1 as required by Section 200.065, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, must set the time, date and place of the first public hearing on the budget within 35 days of July 1 as required by Section 200.065, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, must notify the County Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rate and the time, date and place of the first public hearing on the fiscal year 2002/2003 Budget within 35 days of July 1, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and incorporated herein. Section 2.The Fiscal Year 2002/2003 proposed operating millage rate is 5.9067 mills. Section 3. The first public hearing on the Fiscal year 2002/2003 Budget shall be at 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, in the City of Palm Beach Gardens Council chambers. Section 4. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. All Resolutions or parts of Resolutions of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Resolution, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 6. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th Day of July, 2002. MAYOR ERIC JABLIN ATTEST APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK WATTERSON, HYLAND & KLETT, P.A. CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR JABLI N VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO AYE NAY ABSENT CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Ord. 29, 2002: School Concurrency Tables Transmittal Hearing/Public Hearing and First Reading: City-initiated request to amend the City’s Public School Facilities Element of the comprehensive plan by revising the tables of the Level of Service Standards (LOS) for schools, in accordance with the recommendations of the Palm Beach County School District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 29, 2002¯ Reviewed by: Principal Planner --~’~"~ Talal M. Benot~lCP City Attorney Finance NA Human Res. N~A Submitted by: Growth _ ~ Manag~r~~,,~tj~ l< ~ Directot~ j Charles K. Wu, AICP City Manag~.z~.#~ Ronald Ferri~ / ~ Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project --~.~ Manager Talal M. Benothman Advertised: Date: July 5, 2002 Paper: Palm Beach Post ,~] Required [ ] Not Required Affected parties: [X] Notified [ ] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: LPA Action: [X] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [ ] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [] Continued to: Attachments: Ord. 29, 2002 Exhibit A Tables 11A & 11B [] None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Ord. 29, 2002 Petition: CP-02-06 REQUEST Staff proposes the amendment in order to update LOS Tables 11A and 11B (attached) the Public School Facilities Element, in accordance with the recommendation of the Palm Beach County School District. The proposed revisions to the two above mentioned tables are reflected on Exhibit "A," attached. BACKGROUND The School District is required by the Interlocal Agreement, which established a countywide school concurrency for public schools, to review and update its Capital Improvements every year to reflect actual enrollment and potential capacity of each public school. As a result of the new populations projections and recommendations made by the Technical Advisory Group, formed in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement, the School District has advised local governments to amend the LOS for each school category within most Concurrency Service Area. PROCEDURE This is a request initiated by staff to formally amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning staff has forwarded comments and recommendations to the LPA. Acting in an advisory role, the LPA considers the recommendations of City staff and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for approval, and makes a final determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION The Local Planning Agency recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan on May 28, 2002, with a vote of 7-0. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 29, 2002 to amend Tables 11A and 11B of the Public School Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. G:Talal/CP-02-06-str-cc 2 ORDINANCE 29, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY REVISING TABLES 11A AND 11B OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, City staff has initiated an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Public School Facilities Element, by revising Tables 11A and 11B, as reflected on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the duly constituted Local Planning Agency for the City, conducted a public hearing and recommended approval and adoption of the subject amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has received public input and participation through public hearings before both the Local Planning Agency and the City Council, in accordance with Section 163.3181, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the adoption of the amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan is in the best interests of the residents and citizens of Palm Beach Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Council hereby amends the Public School Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan by revising Tables 11A and 11 B, as reflected on Exhibit "A" (as attached hereto and adopted by reference). Section 2. The Growth Management Director is hereby directed to ensure that this ordinance and all other necessary documents are transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other government agencies or departments in accordance with Section 163.3184(7) of the Florida Statutes and, together with the City Clerk, to ensure that this ordinance is codified as part of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Section 3. Should any section or provision of this ordinance, or any portion, paragraph, sentence, or work thereof be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, but only that part declared to be invalid. Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Ordinance 29, 2002 Section 4. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 5. In accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, the effective date of this ordinance shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or the date of an Administration Commission finding the subject amendments are in compliance. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF ,20O2. DAY OF ,2002. DAY OF ,2002. MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: BY: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Ordinance 29, 2002 VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNClLMEMBER CLARK COUNClLMEMBER RUSSO COUNClLMEMBER DELGADO AYE NAY ABSENT G:Talal/CP-02-06-str-Ord Stan(~rds for Tiered Level of Se, vice (PROPOSED) Table 11A EXHIBIT "A" CSA Facility Type Elementary 1 Middle High Elementary 2 Middle High Elementary 3 Middle High Elementary 4 Middle High Elementary 5 Middle High Elementary 6 Middle High Elementary 8 Middle High Elementary 9 Middle High Elementary 10 Middle High Elementary 11 Middle High 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 110 110 110 110 110 125 110 110 110 125 I 12o I 110 110 110 125 120 110 110 110 130 130 110 110 , 125 120 110 125 120 110 110 125 125 110 120 120 110 125 125 110 125 120 110 120 130 110 110 125 125 110 120 110 110 125 I 110 110 1 Tiered.xls Stan( , rds for Tiered Level of Se,vice (PROPOSED) EXHIBIT "A" CSA 12 Facility Type 2002-03 2003-04 I 2004-05 2005-06 Elementary 110 Middle 135 High 140 Elementary 115 14 Middle 140 High 115 Elementary 110 15 Middle 135 High 120 Elementary 130 16 Middle 125 i High 150 Elementary 110 17 Middle 110 18 120 ’1 110 120 110 110 140 110 115 110 135 110 120 110 130 110 125 110 150 110 High 115 110 Elementary 125 125 Middle 140 140 High 140 Elementary 110 19 Middle 110 High 110 Elementary 110 20 Middle 110 120 110 110 110 High 130 130 110 Elementary 110 21 Middle 110 High 110 Elementary 110 22 Middle 110 High 110 120 110 Elementary 110 23 Middle 110 High 110 2 Tiered.xls MA^iMUM UTILIZATION TABLJ: Standards for Utilization of Capacity (PROPOSED) EXHIBIT "A" Table 11B CSA 1 Facili~ Type 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Elementary 130 Middle 120 ;High 120 Elementary 120 2 Middle 120 3 5 6 8 9 10 130 110 High 125 120 Elementary 120 Middle 120 iHigh 125 125 120 ’Elementary 125 125 120 Middle 120 High 130 :Elementary 125 iMiddle 120 120 110 125 120 High 130 Elementary 125 Middle 135 High 125 i Elementary 120 130 125 130 125 120 120 120 120 Middle 135 135 120 High 120 Elementary 130 130 120 Middle 135 130 120 130 130 120High Elementary 130 130 120 Middle 140 140 120 High 120 Elementary 120 11 Middle 120 iHigh 120 1 Maximum.xls EXHIBIT "A" MA^iMUM UTILIZATION Standards for Utilization of Capacity (PROPOSED) CSA Facility Type 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Elementary 130 130 120 12 Middle 145 130 120 High 145 120 Elementary 135 135 120 14 Middle 145 145 120 High 120 Elementary 145 145 120 15 Middle 140 140 120 High 130 125 120 Elementary 175 175 120 16 Middle 150 150 120 High 150 150 120 Elementary 155 150 120 17 Middle 130 130 120 135 18 19 20 21 High Elementary 135 135 ¯ 135 120 120 Middle 140 140 120 High 145 125 120 Elementary 130 125 120 Middle 120 High 145 130 120 Elementary 120 Middle 120 High 145 130 120 Elementary 135 135 120 Middle 135 135 High 145 120 145 120 Elementary 120 22 Middle 120 High 120 Elementary 120 23 Middle 120 High 120 2 Maximum.xls Table llA Standards for Tiered Level of Service CSA 9 10 Facility Type Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High 2000-01 120 130 110 110 2001-02 I 2002-03 I 2003-04 I 2004-05 II 2005-06 110 125 110 130 130 110 11~5 115 115 1 I__Q.0 110 130 115 115 130 115 110 130 13_~5 110 130 120 110 130 125 110 125 120 135 125 120 130 115 110 130 115 130 135 130 120 130 125 125 120 120 125 120 110 115 11.__Q0 1 l__QO 115 110 115 130 110 130 120 110 12__Q0 1 I___Q0 125 120 125 120 110 125 120 115 115 115 110 12_~5 110 110 110 110 110 11__9_o Public School Facilities 12-3 11 14 1._fi 16 17 Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middl~ 135 125 12._~5 140 135 135 125 135 135 135 125 135 130 120 135 130 135 13__~5 125 125 130 135 135 125 135 130 135 125 13._~5 115 120 135 125 130 1 l___QO 125 12.~5 120 135 135 115 13_~5 130 115 125 13__~5 11____Q 110 110 115 120 110 115 110 11__QO 110 1 l___Qo 110 110 110 I10 120 11.__~5 110 135 120 110 110 13__QO High 145 120 12__0_0 110 18 Elementary 120 115 115 115 110 120 120 120 115120 Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary 120 120 14_~5 1 l___QO Middle High 110 16~5 13.__9_0 130 130 110 125 1 l___Qo 110 110 2O 110 130 130 130 11.__9_o 110 11_._~5 [110 21 16_A5 110 12__~512__~5 125 125 125 125 Public School Facilities 12-4 Countv wide Elementary 110 Middle 110 High 110 Elementary 110 Middle 110 High 110 Alternative 110 Schools Source: Based on data depicted in the School District of Palm Beach County FY2001-FY2005 Five Year Plan and FY 2001 Capital Budget, June 2000~ and the actual count of students in the second semester of the 2000-01 school year. Public School Facilities 12-5 Table llB MAXIMUM UTILIZATION TABLE: Standards for Utilization of Capaci ,ty CSA lO Facilit~ T,vpe Elementary Middle. High Elementary Middle~ High Elementary Middl~ High Elementary Middl~ High Elementary Middl~ High Elementary Middl~ High Elementary Middlg High Elementary Middl~ High Elementary 12000-01 165 13__9_o 120 120 130 120 120 130 120 15__~s 135 135 155 14__Qo 135 15__~5 135 120 160 135 12__QO 120 135 120 205 2001-02 125 125 120 12__Qo 130 120 120 130 120 150 135 135 15__Qo 135 135 145 13__~5 120 16__9.o 13_A 12__9_o 120 135 120 165 2002-03 125 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 130 120 120 130 120 120 120 160 135 120 120 135 12._9.o 12__0_o 2003-04 120 120 12__9.o 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 130 120 120 130 120 120 120 145 130 120 120 130 120 120 2004-05 120 120 120 12__0_o 12._9_o 12.~o 12__9_o 120 120 120 12__~o 120 120 120 120 120 12._~o 12_~o 120 12_~o l 2.__9.o 120 120 12__9.o 2005-06 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 12__0.o 120 120 120 120 120 120 12__0.o 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Public School Facilities 12-6 11 12 1._fi lO 17 18 19 2o 21 Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle 135 12.__Qo 245 125 150 145 135 14___0_o 145 135 120 245 125 125 150 145 135 135 145 135 120 120 120 120 125 145 135 ,1.3,5., 145 135 120 12__9_o 12__Qo 12__QO 120 12__~5 120 130 125 12_~o 12~o 12~o 12~o 12~o 12__~o 12_~o 12_~o 12_~_o 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High Elementary 16_A 180 130 135 200 14___Qo 135 205 175 145 130 130 160 120 1 2__Qo 170 140 130 170 165 120 180 130 135 120 125 13__~5 205 175 120 120 130 120 120 120 135 140 120 145 145 120 165 125 135 120 125 135 125 175 120 120 130 120 120 120 135 140 120 145 120 12_~o 14~o 120 120 120 12_~5 120 125 12___Qo 120 12_~o 130 12__QO 120 120 135 135 120 130 120 12__QO 12_~o 12o 12_~o 12_& 12___9_o 12o l 2___Qo 12o 12_~QO 12~o 12_~o 12~o 12_~o 12~o 12__9_o 12__9_o 12_~o 12___QO 12~o 120 120 12_~o 12~o 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Public School Facilities 12-7 Middle High 22 Elementary Middle High 23 Elementary Middle High County ’Alternative Wide Schools 155 145 120 120 3o__Qo 120 120 120 155 145 120 120 120 155 145 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 12_~o 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 20 120 120 120 120 120 12_~o 120 Source: Based on data depicted in the School District of Palm Beach County FY2001-FY2005 Five Year Plan and FY 2001 Capital Budgeh June 2000 Public School Facilities 12-8 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Ordinance 3, 2002 -The Gables Parcel 16 Planned Community District Second Reading / Public Hearing: Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for Gables East Construction, Inc. and Northlake Boulevard, L.L.C., is requesting to re-zone the subject development from a Planned Development Area (PDA) to Planned Community Development Overlay District (PCD) in order to construct 200 single family units, 450 multi-family units, and 146 Assisted Living Facility (ALF) units. The 240.65-acre site is located on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, south of Northlake Boulevard, and north of Beeline Highway. (22- 42S-42E) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3, 2002, with conditions. Reviewed by: Principal Planner Talal Benoth~ff~lCO- City Attorney, Len Rubin Development Compliance Bahareh Keshavarz, AICP Submitted by: Growtl~ Direct r~~ Charles-K. Wu, AICP Approved by: City Manage~, ~ Ronald M. Ferri~ / Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project ’/~"/~ ,~.~t~ Manager i" ~!~: ~/~’~ Kara Irwin Advertised: Date: July 8, 2002 Paper: Palm Beach Post [ J Not Required ected parties: [ X] Notified [ ] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total $ Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [X] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA P&Z Commission Action: [ ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [X] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [ ] Continued to:__ Attachments: ¯ Table 1 ¯ Table 2 ¯ Ordinance 3, 2002 ¯ Waiver Justification ¯ September 27, 2001 Letter from FDOT ¯ SFWMD Mitigation Plan ¯ Master Site Plan ¯ Landscape Buffer Plans and Sections City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002 PCD-00-04 BACKGROUND This is a vacant parcel of primarily unimproved land, which was in the past used for agricultural purposes. To the north of the site is the PGA National Planned Community District (PCD), which includes the PGA National Commerce Park, PGA National Park and the Preston residential neighborhood. To the south is a parcel of land approximately 78 acres, with a zoning designation of Planned Development Area (PDA) and a future land use designation Residential Low (RL), and owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT site is one of the alternatives for a future turnpike interchange. LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is zoned Planned Development Area (PDA), has a future land-use designation of Residential Low (RL), designated Residential Medium (RM) on the Vision Plan. applicant is requesting to rezone the site to a Planned Community District Overlay (PCD) with an underlying zoning of Residential Low Density - 3 (RL-3). CONCURRENCY The proposed project received concurrency certification, which included concurrency for traffic, drainage, solid waste, sewer and water, on December 14, 2000. The traffic concurrency is contingent upon conditions that will be incorporated into the approving ordinance. PROJECT DETAILS Building Site The portions of the site designated for development include parcel A, which is a total of 90.1 acres, and parcel B, which is a total of 9.85 acres. The applicant is proposing to set aside 143.5 acres of the total site for environmental preservation. The upland preserve set aside for the site is 28.3% of the total upland area, which exceeds the requirement of 25% set by the code. The remaining set aside will be for wetland preservation. Density The "Forbearance Agreement" limits the parcel to Residential Low (5 gross dwelling units per acre). The applicant is proposing to develop 796 dwelling units (450 multi-family units, 200 single-family units, and 146 assisted living facility units) on the 240.65-acre parcel for a .qross density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre. A majority of the development is proposed east of the Jog Road right-of-way, while all of the environmental preserves are located west of the right-of-way. The clustering of the majority of the development in one area allows for a larger preserve area as opposed to many smaller areas. Parcel A of the Planned Community District, currently under review by the Department of Growth Management, contains 450 multi-family units and 200 single-family units on a 90.1-acre parcel east of the public right-of-way set aside for a net density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre. 2 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002 PCD-00-04 Site Access The only access proposed to the site at this time will be from Northlake Boulevard, across from Hiatt Drive. A 120-foot right-of-way separates the single and multi-family parcel (Parcel A) from the Assisted Living Facility (ALF) parcel (Parcel B), and is designated to be the future extension of Jog Road; however, the right-of-way is not part of the subject site and is not required for traffic concurrency purposes. The proposed ALF portion of the site is located west of the 120- foot right-of-way. Should Palm Beach County construct this roadway, a secondary entrance will be constructed for the single and multi-family parcel, as well as the main access to the ALF parcel. Regardless of the status of construction of Jog Road at this location, an internal "spine road" off of Northlake Boulevard will be used to access all parcels within the proposed PCD. The spine road will intersect with the future Jog Road extension, and will provide access to the ALF parcel until the future of Jog Road is determined. Jog Road According to the applicant, the PGA National residents have requested that the applicant not include the extension of Jog Road in this Planned Community District. This request, plus the request of the SFWMD that the applicant locate all the residential development to the east of the Jog Road right-of-way, prompted the applicant to revise the Master Plan to remove a previously proposed access point at Jog Road. On the current plan, the applicant is proposing one access point on Northlake Boulevard to serve both Parcel A and Parcel B. Turnpike Interchange The adjacent parcel owned by the FDOT has been proposed for a turnpike interchange, but has met with resistance from the area residents. On May 21, 2001, the FDOT held a public hearing to inform the public that this location for the intersection was the most favorable alternative. In a letter dated September 27, 2001, the FDOT declared its intention to build the interchange on the adjacent parcel to the south that connects to Bee Line Highway. The applicant’s plans to develop Parcel B as an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) will proceed if the Jog Road extension is built through to Northlake Boulevard. At this time, FDOT only has plans to build Jog Road south of the interchange to Bee Line Highway, not to Northlake Boulevard. Without the extension of Jog Road, the applicant will consider developing Parcel B as single- family estate homes. Siclnac~e The applicant will submit signage details for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council with the individual site plan petitions. Landscaping/Bufferinq The applicant is proposing landscape buffers in excess of what is required by City Code. In the developed areas along Northlake Boulevard where a 15-foot buffer is required, a 55-foot landscape buffer is proposed. Between the rear of the proposed single-family development and City Council Meeting Date: July t8, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002PCD-00-04 the future 120-foot right-of-way (Jog Road) where a 15-foot buffer is required, the applicant proposing a 30-foot buffer. Adjacent to the Ronald Reagan Turnpike where a 15-foot buffer is required, a 15-foot landscaped buffer, in addition to a 120-foot canal right-of-way, is also proposed. Adjacent to the parcel owned by the Florida Department of Transportation where an 8-foot buffer is required, a 16-foot to 25-foot buffer is proposed. Phasing The proposed project will be built in one phase, beginning with Parcel A in the eastern section of the site and proceeding to Parcel B in the western section. Drainaqe Control elevations for the project will be divided by the future Jog Road extension to maintain the existing water elevation differential. The stormwater runoff from the project will be directed through a system of catch basins, swales and proposed lakes (wet detention ponds) for water quality treatment and quantity attenuation. The applicant received conditional drainage concurrency from the City Engineer on December 8, 2000, provided a legal positive ouffall is confirmed prior to site plan approval. The applicant is proposing to re-establish the existing outfall in the northeast corner of the site to provide a positive outfall for the site. The run-off will discharge through a control structure, east under the turnpike through an existing box culvert. Waivers Code Section Section 78-563 (c) - Lake Maintenance Tracts. Minimum Dimension Section 78-141 - Building Height Required 20 foot wide lake maintenance tract adjacent to water bodies 36 feet/two stories Provided Waiver Recommendation 15-foot lake (canal) maintenance easement 40 feet / three stories 5 feet One additional story SUPPORT WITH CONDITION OF APPROVAL(I) SUPPORT (2) The City Engineer is a consultant that provides strict technical review and support for the City, and therefore, does not support any requests outside of the Code requirements. The applicant has requested a waiver from the Lake Maintenance Easement (LME) requirement of 20’ to allow a 15’ LME. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the request based on the past approval of a 15’ LME for Petition SP-99-18 La Posada. The City Engineer does not support the request for the reduction, but requests that if approved, the LME meet basic design requirements, which all other projects are required to meet. The City Engineer has provided a condition of approval for the waiver request. The applicant has also requested a waiver from the maximum building height requirement of 36 feet to allow for 40-foot buildings within the multi-family units. The applicant has provided a 55’ foot landscape buffer along Northlake Boulevard to buffer the height of the buildings 4 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002 PCD-00-04 from the roadway, which is in excess of the 15’ buffer requirement along Northlake Boulevard, in return for the additional building height. Further, the City benefits by the preservation of 143.5 acres of environmentally sensitive land. Littoral Plantings Initially, to the objection of staff, the applicant proposed to provide all of the required littoral plantings within the on-site canal along the east property line and none within the central lake. After working with staff, the applicant consented to provide 60% of the required littoral plantings within the central lake and the remainder plantings within the on-site canal. The applicant contends that all the required littoral plantings in the lake would restrict the use of the lake as a recreational amenity for the site. The City has many examples of littoral planting adjacent to residential communities, which allow for pristine habitat areas for birds, enhanced water quality, and added safety for children, because of the embankment slope and plantings. These benefits would enhance the recreational opportunities for the residents. After working with staff to limit the waiver requests for the Planned Community District prior to review by City Council, the applicant has consented to withdraw the waiver from the littoral planting requirements for the lake amenity, reducing the waiver requests to two. As a result, the required littoral plantings will be provided within the central lake. Lake Maintenance Easement Initially, the applicant proposed a 10’ Lake Maintenance Easement (LME) for the canal inside the east property line, which staff could not support due to the physical constraints on the east side of the property line. The applicant revised the request to a 5-foot waiver from the 20-foot Lake Maintenance Easement (LME) requirement. The applicant included a turn-around at the south end of the lake maintenance easement for equipment access and maneuverability, per recommendation of the City Engineer. Upland Preservation The City Forester has proposed that the 146-unit Assisted Living Facility on Parcel B is not an appropriate use or density for an area considered environmentally significant. The City Forester prefers a lower site plan density similar to the mitigation plan proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (see attachment), which was submitted by the applicant to the South Florida Water Management District for permit approval. The alternate plan proposes seventeen single-family estate lots compared to the 146-unit Assisted Living Facility. Northlake Boulevard Medians Initially, the applicant proposed to only landscape the medians within Northlake Boulevard east of Ryder Cup Boulevard/Jog Road Extension to the Ronald Reagan Turnpike. During the Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing, the applicant compromised with the Commission by proposing to landscape the median within approximately 750 feet of Northlake Boulevard along the property line west of Ryder Cup Boulevard/Jog Road Extension without the required irri.qation. City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002 PCD-00-04 On February 21, 2002, staff recommended to the City Council that the applicant provide irrigation and landscaping within all the medians adjacent to the northern property boundary, as required by Code, to which the applicant has agreed. In addition, the applicant shall remove the exotics and restore the area to its natural condition, thereby enhancing the appearance of Northlake Boulevard. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A workshop for this application was held on October 9, 2001, at which time staff requested that the Planning & Zoning Commission provide direction for the applicant and staff on the issues of littoral plantings and the lake maintenance easement. The Planning & Zoning Commission was divided on these issues. On October 23, 2001, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application with staff’s proposed conditions and approval of the waiver requests by a 4-3 vote. Commissioners Steven Tarr, Joel Channing, and Dick Ansay opposed the motion because they believed the applicant should be required to landscape within the median along the entire length of the property line. The majority on the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the applicant work with staff to resolve the littoral planting and lake maintenance easement issues, but did not support staff’s position for the landscaping of the entire median along Northlake Boulevard. CITY COUNCIL On February 21, 2002, the City Council approved Ordinance 3, 2002, on first reading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3, 2002, with conditions. City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July t, 2002 Ordinance 3, 2002 PCD-00-04 EXISTING USE Subject Property Vacant/Undeveloped North PGA National Planned Community District (PCD) South. Vacant/Undeveloped West Vacant/Undeveloped East Turnpike ZONING Planned Development Area (PDA) Planned Community District Planned Development Area (PDA) Conservation Public/Institutional i I I LAND USE Residential - Low Density (RL) Residential - Low Density (RL) Residential - Low Density (RL) Conservation Public Code Requirement Site = Residential- Low Density Maximum Residential Density (RL): 5 d.u./acre Minimum PCD development size: 50 acres Unified Control: One property owner Community Serving Open Space: Minimum of 20% Community Serving Open Space: Residential Components: Minimum of 35% Upland Native Plant Community Preservation: Minimum of 25% identified Proposed Plan Residential - Low Density 3 (RL-3) 1.22 d.u./acre 240.65 acres One property owner Consistent? Yes Yes Yes Yes 69.8%Yes To be reviewed at site plan level Yes 28.3% (8.4 acres)Yes Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 ORDINANCE 3, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM GABLES EAST CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR A REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 240.65 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) OVERLAY ZONING WITH UNDERLYING ZONING OF RL-3 (RESIDENTIAL LOW) TO ALLOW FOR 450 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 200 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, AND 146 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNITS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE, SOUTH OF NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF THE BEELINE HIGHWAY, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (PCD-00-04) from Gables East Construction, Inc. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 240.65-acre parcel of land from Planned Development Area (PDA) to a Planned Community District Overlay Zoning District (PCD) with underlying zoning of Residential Low (RL-3), to be known as "The Gables", to allow construction of 450 multi-family units, 200 single family units, and 146 assisted living facility units and accessory structures located on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, south of Northlake Boulevard, and north of the Beeline Highway, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended approval of the Planned Community Development (PCD) known as The Gables; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2001, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed said application and recommended approval of the petition with the requested waivers subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the re-zoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to a Planned Community District Overlay Zoning District (PCD) with an underlying zoning of Residential Low (RL-3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified as true and confirmed and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Said Planned Community District is hereby approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: Transportation / Traffic Concurrency Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall: a)Provide the City with a plan providing an eastbound right-turn lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard; b) Provide the City with a plan providing a westbound left-turn lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard; and c)Provide the City with an updated Topographic Survey certified by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida. (City Engineer) Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install an eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard. (City Engineer) Surface Water Manaqement Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide recorded documentation abandoning the existing drainage easement 2 Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 = and recording the proposed drainage easement. (City Engineer) The applicant shall include a turn-around at the south end of the lake maintenance easement for equipment access and maneuverability. (City Engineer) Landscapinq and Maintenance = 10. Within six (6) months of the clearing permit, the applicant shall: a) Irrigate and landscape the Northlake Boulevard right-of-way medians adjacent to the entire length of the property in a manner that is consistent with the document cited as number 3 in Section 4; b) Subject to the City’s approval, bond the landscape improvements for Jog Road right-of-way, between Northlake Boulevard and Beeline Highway, based on the City’s Master Roadway Beautification Plan. The bond shall be released when the Jog Road landscaping is installed or the final residential Certificate of Occupancy for the PCD is issued, whichever occurs earlier; c) Install the entry features and landscaping off of Northlake Boulevard and the internal PCD system around the lake; and d) Install the PCD buffers. (City Forester) Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for a multifamily dwelling unit, the applicant shall remove all exotics from the upland and wetland preserve areas. (City Forester) The applicant, successors, and assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Northlake Boulevard and Jog Road right-of-way landscaping and irrigation within the medians and roadway shoulders adjacent to the property as described in "Exhibit A" once installed (City Forester). Clearing permit shall not be issued for the ALF parcel until after site plan approval for said parcel. (Planning & Zoning and City Forester) Based on City Council direction to provide adequate screening, but taking into consideration the placement of utilities, the applicant shall install sabal palms under planted with sea grape within the road shoulder of buffer section D-D, as depicted in Exhibit "B". (City Forester) Prior to December 31 of every year following said project’s approval, the applicant, successors or assigns shall submit to the Growth Management Department, Planning and Zoning Division, an annual report of the status of their project, including but not limited to the compliance or status of any conditions of approval placed on the 3 Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 project by this approval and any future approval until the project is completed. (Planning & Zoning) SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval: Section 78-141, Building Height, to allow for a maximum 40-foot building height for the multifamily residential structure. The Land Development Regulations allows a maximum of 36 feet in height. Section 78-563 (c), Lake Maintenance Tracts, Minimum Dimension, allow for a 15-foot wide lake maintenance easement. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum 20-foot wide lake maintenance easement. SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Community District shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City’s Growth Management Department: April 26, 2002 Master Site Plan by Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet. June 28, 2002 Perimeter Landscape Buffer Plans and Sections by Murikami, 3 sheets (MP-1 through MP-3). January 17, 2002 Median Landscape Plans and Sections by Murikami, 3 sheets (ML-1 through ML-3). SECTION 5. This approval expressly incorporates all representations made by the developer of its agents at any public meeting or hearing. SECTION 6. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the Ordinance. SECTION 7. All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption. 4 Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 PLACED ON FIRST READING THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2002. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. SIGNED: MAYOR ERIC JABLIN VICE MAYOR CARL SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER DAVID CLARK COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER ANNIE DELGADO ATTEST BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO AYE NAY ABSENT 5 EXHIBIT "A" Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 A, p~l Of lm’~d lyin.S ~ ~e~0n 22, Tov~_~p 42 South,. P, anf~e 42 Eas~ Palm Cotmw, Plorida~ more pe~tculad¥ descflbmi =s follow=: Commc, tw~ at the North one-quarter s~ction oornez Of said Seotion 22; thence South $8° 32’ 41" P~s~ aibng the North I/he of ~e Northeast one-qumler of said Seat|on 22, a distance of $4,1$4 feet~ thence South 01° 27’ 19" Weg¢~ a dt~L~mce o£ 124,00 ~e¢ w a point on th© South ~ght of ’Way lint of ~Vc~ ~dCe Park ~oad, also known as Northlake Botdevard, as laid og¢ arid in v~c, and ~ ¢onv©y=d to Talm B©a~h CounW by the Deeds recorded Jn O£f~oisl l~cords Book 1041~S, page 1~67 and Ofl’i¢ial Records ]~ook 10571, p~ge 599, public ~e¢o~ds of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence South 88° 32’ 41" P,~st along said Somh right of.ww line, a distance of 435.00 feet; ~hence Sou~h 89" 27’ 41" ~ a~oag said So~th fight o£ way line, ~ di~m~¢ of 250.03 fe~t; d~ence South 81P 32’ 4l" B.t ~lon$ ~|d S~uth right oi" w~y line, = distanoo of t$1.69 feet to th~ Point or Th~nc© condnu¢ South 88= 32’ 41" ]~ast ~long said South fight of way linc, n distance of 860.30 feet; thence South 82° S2’ 29" Eagt along said South right of way line, a of 376,81 fett~ thenoe South 88~ 35’ 07" ~ along said South right of way lint, a distance o£.193.9~ fcct to the Westerly limited m;ccss right of way lint o£ t~¢ State Parkway; r~cnc~ South 01e 35’ 30" West ~long said Westerly limited acc¢~s right w~y line, a distance of 1230.13 feet; thenoe North 8g° 24’ 24" West, a ~ of 649.37 feet; fl~vnce South 08= 34’ 49" East, a di~ce of 15.27 f¢~t to a point on the arc era now tangent cttrv~ centavo to the Southeast (add ~oint bea~ Noah 09° 06’ 15" West ¢rom redius point o£ the ntx~ deaor~bcd euzve); thsnoe Southwesterly, along the ~x¢ of said curve having a radi~ of 289.19 feeT, a delta of 35° 4:~’ 12". a~d an at¢ distanc~ of~180.46 fsot ~ a po~t ofnon=tanBea~y; thence North 40= 04’ 30" threat, a distance-of 204,21 feet to a point on the arc of a non-tangent curve concave to the Nozthw=st (said point bears Soud~ 53" 59’ 22" ]&ast from the radius point of the next described curve); Sotithwesterl),, along the ar~ of said cure© hav~ng a ~diu~ of 320.00 feet, a del~ of 27° 0L~ 27", and a~ avo distance of 150.93 feet to n point ofnon.-tangenvyi t~tmc~ North 27~ 56° 44~ West. a dis~lce o1’ 939.83 feet to a point on ~he ar~ of a ~o~,¢angPA~t curve ¢on~ave to the Southeast (said poin¢ be~ No~ 29° 2~’3~" W~t ~m ~v ~l~s point of ~e next ~bed ~e); ~¢n~ No,heavily, along &c ~ of ~d c~o h~ving a ~adi~e of320.~0 £~t, s d~m of 19¯ 57’ 25", ~ ~ ~ di~ce of 111.46 f~ to a point of now~geney; ~e~o¢ No~ 25 ° 43’ 5~" W~ a di~¢e o£ 115,1~ fe~ to bc~ni~ of a ~g~t cu~c concave W ~e N~ea~ ~ Ho~westedy, ~ong a~ of s~d cuw~ ~aving a r~i~ of 122.00 ~eeL s delta o£ 36" 27’ 34", ~d ~ ~ o£ 77-63 feet to a point of ~genty; ~ncc No~ 10~ 4T 4I" ~t, a £ee~ ~ence No~ 01" IT 06" ~L a~=~cv of 121,07 f~; ~=~ce ~, a dis~ec of 35,08 ~ to ~e Po~t of Be~i~, ~ " 6 EXHIBIT "B" Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 7 FIL~ No.529 I0/01 ’01 15:57 ID:URBAN DESIGN STUDIO WAIVER REQUEST FOR GABLES PARCEL 16 PCD May 23, 2001 R6,vised October 1, 2001 FAX: 5~"6890551 PP~E urban Urban Design Urban Planning Lend Planning Landscape Architecture Communication Graphics ~ake Maintenance tracts. ~Minimum dimension Section 78-561 oftbe City’s Land Development Regulations calls for a minimum 20-foot wide lake maintenance tract adjacent to water bodies. Along the eastern boundary of the Gables Parcel 16 site, there is an existing canal which provides for a minimum separation between the canal and the property boundary. This area is being expanded to provide an enlarged landscaping area and a 10-foot canal maintenance tract. This 10-foot wide tract will be gated to only allow maintenance vehicles to access the eastern side of the canal for the maintenance of the canal and the landscape buffer. There will be a T-turnaround at the southeast corner of the property to allow for maintenance vehicles to turnaround. Because of the unique existing conditions of the canal bank and our efforts to improve those conditions, we hereby request a waiver to allow a 10- foot wide canal maintenance easement on the eastern side of the site’s existing canal. Please note that the western side of the canal and the interior lake are all proposing 20-foot wide lake ~intenance easements. Buildine H,,ei~ht Section 78-131 of the City’s Land Development Regulations calls for a maximum building height of two stories/36 feet within the RL-3 zoning district. For the Gables Parcel 16 PCD, we are proposing the RL-3 district as the underlying zoning dis~et for the proposed PCD. However, there will be several types of building types proposed within the project. One of these building types will be a multi-family apartment units. These units, which will appear similar to townhomes, will have three-story features. We are requesting a waiver to all the maximum building height of 40 feet. This will allow for the three-story features within the multi-family apartment buildings and help provide for a variety of housing types on the site, which is consistent with Objective 3.1.1. of the Comprehensive Plan. To lessen any potential impact of the proposed waiver request, the multi-family buildings will be located at the northeast corner of the site, which is adjacent to Florida’s Turnpike and, across Northlake Boulevard, the PGA National Park of Commerce. For these reasons, we are requesting a waiver from the RL-3 building height limitation. 2000 Palm Beach LakeS Boulevard Suite 600 The Concourse West Palm Beach, Flodda 3340~-6582 561.689.0061~ 561.689.0551 fax Irvine, CA 7t4A89.8131 JEB BUSH GOVERNOR Florida Department of Transportation Turnpike District PO Box 613069 Building 5315, Mile Post 263 Ocoee, Florida 34761 THOMAS E BARRY, JR. SECRETARY September 27, 2001 Re:SR 710/Northlake Interchange Financial Project ID Number: 232074-1-32-01 FAP: TNPK-011-T (lnfo Only) Palm Beach County, Florida ¯ Dear Interested Citizen: The Department of Transportation (FDOT) Turnpike District has completed the evaluation of a proposed interchange with Florida’s Turnpike between the Beeline Highway (SR 710) and Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach County. After reviewing the preliminary engineering and environmental analyses, the numerous public comments rejecting a connection to Northlake Blvd and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) request for an interchange in accordance with their long range transportation planning, the Department is now ready to select a recommended project alternative. The attached sketch depicts the Department’s recommended interchange alternative. This alternative addresses the greater majority of comments received during the project development study by not connecting to Northlake Boulevard, while providing the interchange that the Palm Beach County MPO has identified as being x/ital to the transportation system of Palm Beach County. This recommended interchange alternative, to be processed as a Type II Categorical Exclusion, will now be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for Location and Design Concept approval. Once that approval is received, the project will then proceed to completion of final design. During the final design of this project, considerations will be given to the requests for visual and privacy barriers by the residents of the Steeplechase subdivision. Community meetings will be held with the Steeplechase residents to resolve and mitigate their concerns. The Department of Transportation thanks you for your interest and input into this important transportation project. You understand the importance of developing a project that is both in the public interest and meets the transportation needs of our state. As this project transitions from the Project Development and Environment phase to Design, you may still call me at 407/532-3999 extension 3802, or the Design Project Manager, Mr. Paul Staes at extension 3425, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Catherine J. Bradley, P.E. Project Development Engineer Attachment CJB/tt www.dot,state,fl.us (~ RECYCLED PAPER scale 1"=1500’ SR 710 / NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AT FLORIDA’S TURNPIKE PD & E STUDY FINANCIAL PROJECT NO. 232074-1 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL. PROJECT LOCATION MAP South Florida Water Management District Mitigation Plan West Palm Beach Water Catchment LUP: W Zone: W i /~m-/// Horseshoe Acces West LUP: PCD Zone: PUD Parcel 16 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Master Plan ’ ’|ill;’ i~ Ill! !,,,,~!~lllll ~’"~ ii-,,li!’i i!i!! I ml SE~ON Z~ Z Z m z z II )zm o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ml... I I i I i i i i i I I I I <.Ilfl| ,It~t llllillilllil’ Ill ill I i l~i I | Ill I i~,!,,i ,i,I ~,1 I, i l’,’~I,!1,I ~,~l! !,,111 ill,~l,,.l,..! ,, I i I il!~.l~ I, -i .....illl~ ,~ I~ ~ i I ~ t ! ~ I illl l i !I !,I ......I llili,i! i1~I!!I CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Ordinance 21, 2002 - PGA Plaza Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment Second Reading / Public Hearing: George Gentile of Gentile, Holloway, O’Mahoney & Associates, agent for William G. Lassiter, is requesting a rezoning from General Commercial (CG-1) to CG-1 General Commercial with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay for 11.11-acre site. The applicant is also proposing to renovate the parking and landscape areas to accommodate the widening of PGA Boulevard (Blvd), as required by the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) development order. The subject site is located at 2500- 2680 PGA Blvd, at the southwest corner of PGA Blvd and Prosperity Farms Road. (12-42S- 43E) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 21, 2002, with conditions. Reviewed by: Principal Planner’S_ Talal Benothm~P City Attorney Leonard Rubin Development Compliance Bahareh Keshavarz, AICP Submitted by: Growth Mana~e~’~ i~I~ ~, ~Direct(~.~ Charles K. Wu, AICP Ronald M. Ferr~s / Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project Manager Kara Irwin Advertised: Date: June 6, 2002 Paper: Palm Beach Post "~’~ot Required Affected parties: [ X ] Notified [ ] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [X] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA P&Z Commission Action: [ ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval IX] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [ ] Continued to: Attachments: ¯ Table 1 ¯ Table 2 ¯ Ordinance 21, 2002 ¯ Letter from Gunster Yoakley dated March 29, 2002 ¯ Site Plan Renovation ¯ Landscape Renovation Plan ¯ Justification Statement [ ] None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 BACKGROUND The existing PGA Plaza received Site Plan Approval from the City in April 1974, and was built in two phases, with the potential of three out-parcels along PGA Blvd. A building permit was issued for Phase I of the Plaza (59,320 square feet) on September 13, 1974. Since that time, number of out-parcels have received site plan approval. The entire site is comprised of approximately 112,222 square feet consisting of a 92,127 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 9,000 square foot bank out-parcel (currently Washington Mutual, permitted in 1974), second 2,800 square foot bank out-parcel (currently SunTrust, permitted in 1981), and an 8,295 square foot retail out-parcel (currently Pier 1, permitted in 1988). Since 1988, the applicant has also submitted four applications for administrative approvals of minor site plan amendments. The proposed PUD rezoning will accommodate the widening of PGA Blvd at the intersection with Prosperity Farms Road as proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation and as required by the Regional Center DRI development order. The request also decreases the existing non-conformities of the site. LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is currently zoned General Commercial (CG-1). The petitioner is proposing maintain the General Commercial (CG-1) zoning district with the addition of a Planned Unit Development overlay. The City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations require that all lands subject to the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay be rezoned to either Planned Unit Development or Planned Community District. The property presently has a future land-use designation of Commercial (C), and is designated as Commercial on the Vision Plan. CONCURRENCY The subject project was approved prior to concurrency requirements. The applicant is not proposing any additional square footage for the project; therefore, it remains vested in terms of concurrency. In terms of drainage concurrency, this site shall outfall at the northeast corner of this site into the Prosperity Farms Road drainage system. PROJECT DETAILS Existinq Conditions The applicant is proposing to renovate the parking and landscape areas by repaying the parking area, restriping to meet current code requirements, adding and reconfiguring the landscape islands, and adding additional landscaping materials. The applicant is not proposing to modify the existing structures nor increase the square footage of the existing buildings. 2 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 A condition of approval in the development order of the Regional Center DRI, Resolution 96, 1999, requires roadway improvements at the intersection of PGA Blvd and Prosperity Farms Road within eighteen (18) months of issuance of any permit that would result in the total development of the Regional Center exceeding 300,000 square feet. The widening of PGA Blvd / Prosperity Farms Road intersection requires a right-of-way taking along the PGA Plaza PGA Blvd frontage. Taking the needed right-0f-way will increase the existing nonconformities on the site with respect to parking and landscaping. The applicant proposes to decrease the nonconformity of the site by renovating the landscaping and parking areas. Site Access The existing site has several legal nonconforming drive ways that intersect with both Prosperity Farms Road and PGA Blvd. These drive ways are nonconforming in that they do not provide for adequate stacking distances. The petitioner is proposing to maintain the four entrances off of PGA Blvd and the two entrances off of Prosperity Farms Road, which will require waivers to the 100’ stacking distance requirement. The petitioner has reflected the future expansion of PGA Blvd on the site plan, which will require the taking of 0.3 acres from the northern portion of the site. S~clnacle The applicant has requested no modifications to the existing signage. Landscaping Renovation Due to the age of the existing site, this use has minimal landscape buffering. The existing landscaping does not meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Land Development Regulations. The site currently contains a few large oak trees; five (5) of which are being affected by the parking reconfiguration but will be relocated into proposed landscape islands. The applicant is adding additional landscape area along PGA Blvd, which will decrease the site’s nonconformity to the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay requirement of a fifty-five foot (55’) landscape buffer. The existing landscape buffer is less than five feet (5’) in width and has maximum width of ten feet (10’). PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay Section 78-221 of the City Code of Ordinances requires that all lands within the City that front or abut PGA Blvd, for a depth of 1,000 feet from the edge of right-of-way, meet various aesthetic design requirements. The proposed project does not meet these requirements. The PGA Boulevard Overlay requires structures or paved areas for motor vehicles to be set back 55 feet from the right-of-way, which the applicant cannot meet and therefore has requested a waiver from the code. The applicant is also seeking a waiver from the requirements of Section 78-221(g)(12), which requires a 12-foot wide multi-use pathway to be set a minimum of 10 feet from the curbing. The 3 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 Florida Department of Transportation is planning to expand the intersection of PGA Blvd and Prosperity Farms Road, which will result in a taking of property along the northern boundary of the site. Due to these constraints, a meandering 12-foot wide pathway would not allow for sufficient landscaping and berming. FDO T Taking After the widening of the intersection, the site’s nonconformity to the required 55-foot landscape buffer abutting PGA Blvd will be increased, by the FDOT taking, not because of any action of the applicant. The FDOT taking will also result in a reduction in open space and landscaping; however, the applicant is proposing to provide additional open space to make up the difference and increase the open space by 1.5% on site. Parking Lot Renovations The applicant is proposing to renovate the parking lot to decrease the current nonconformity. The site requires 551 parking spaces to support the retail, bank, and restaurant uses present on the site. The site currently has 476 parking spaces, which is a deficiency of 75 spaces. The applicant is proposing to repave the site, restripe the site, increase the number of parking spaces (52 additional parking spaces), redesign the parking spaces to a uniform dimension and improve the overall traffic circulation of the plaza. Navigating through and parking on the site is difficult because of a lack of adequate striping and wheelstops. Many of the patrons create their own parking spaces in the drive aisles. The proposed renovations to the parking lot would improve current conditions and enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists alike. Nonconformities There are several nonconformities on site that are being addressed with the modifications. Any element of the redeveloped site plan that is non-conforming shall be addressed with a waiver request. Waiver Requests Code Section Required Section 78-221(d)(4) - Special Front 55’ Setbacks Section 78-313 - Minimum Landscape Requirements Section 78-345 - Number of Spaces Required Section 78-344 (I)- Parking Stall and Bay Dimensions Section 78-319 - Minimum Landscape Buffer (Rear) Section 78-313 Required Landscape Points Min. 15% Open Space 551 10’ X 18.5’ 8’ 11,849 Existing 5~ (deficient 50’) 10.5% (deficient 4.5%) 476 (deficient 75) Varies 8.5’- 10’ X 18’- 20’ 0’ (VVall only) (deficient 8’) +4,032 (deficient +7,817) Provided 12.7’ 12% 528 9’X 18.5’ 7,337 Waiver 42.3’ 3% 23 spaces 1 foot in width 8~ 4,512 Recommendation Support Support Support Support Support Support 4 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 Code Section Required Existing Provided Waiver Recommendation Section 78-344(h)-15’Off-Street Stacking 100’(deficient 85’)35’65’Support Distance 3’5’3’2’Support(deficient 2’) 0 Islands Section 78-315(c) Minimum Size Landscape Areas Section 78-315(b) Landscape Islands Island Every 9 spaces O Islands (52 spaces) (Rear of bldg.) 5 Islands (Rear of bldg .) Support The applicant has provided adequate justification for staff to support all waivers, which is attached. STAFF ANALYSIS PGA Boulevard Median Landscaping Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has an approved milling project, which includes PGA Blvd directly adjacent to PGA Plaza. As part of the milling project, FDOT included the design and installation of landscaping in the right-of-way medians within the affected roadways. During the design, planning and approval process, the right-of-way directly in front of PGA Plaza was omitted since the taking for the roadway improvement was not finalized. As a result, the medians were not included in the proposal; therefore, the applicant shall have the responsibility of providing the design, installation, and maintenance of the median directly in front of the site. Watermark Communities Inc. (WCI) has consented to design and install the landscaping within the median since it is responsible for the roadway improvements, but will not maintain the median. The applicant has suggested that the Regional Center Property Owners Association take responsibility for the maintenance, since the roadway improvements triggered the requirement for the PUD application. Staff has worked with the applicant, WCI, and the Regional Center POA to resolve the issue. In the interest of facilitating the widening of the aforementioned intersection, WCI has committed to pay to the City of Palm Beach Gardens $5,000 toward the maintenance of the median landscaping directly abutting the plaza. The City will maintain the median in the future. Existing Nonconformities The reconfiguration of the parking area, wheel stops, and striping are needed to improve the circulation of the site to provide for the safety and welfare of the plaza patrons. The petitioner is also proposing improving the plaza lighting; the site currently has a late-night establishment and the improvements will benefit the aesthetics of the site as well as minimize safety concerns. Although the site does not meet the current minimum landscaping requirements, parking requirements, and lighting requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations, the petitioner is lessening the nonconformities of the site through improvements and waiver 5 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 requests. The Land Development Regulations encourage the lessening of nonconformities, especially on sites that are considered legal nonconformities. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On August 28, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application with staff’s recommended conditions and approval of the waiver requests by a 6-1 vote. Commissioner John Glidden opposed the motion because he believed the applicant could revise the site plan to increase the stacking distance at the entrances. Commissioner Glidden requested that the applicant work with FDOT to revise the location of the existing median cuts. The applicant revised the site plan to provide additional stacking distance at two of the three entrances on PGA Boulevard that did not meet the 100-foot stacking distance requirement. CITY COUNCIL On May 2, 2002, the City Council approved Ordinance 21,2002, on First Reading. On June 6, 2002, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 20, 2002, to provide staff with time to contact the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to determine the future plan for the widening of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road. On June 20, 2002, the City Council continued the public hearing to July 18, 2002, as requested by the applicant. The applicant requested a final determination regarding the median from FDOT, but was unable to get a response prior to the scheduled public hearing. At this time, staff is attempting to meet with FDOT and WCI to review the current plan prior to the scheduled public hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 21, 2002, with conditions. 6 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Ordinance 21, 2002 Petition PUD-01-05 EXISTING ZONING AND EAND USE DESIGNATIONS EXISTING USE LAND USE ZONING Subiect Property PGA Plaza North Bank of America Meadows Trailer Park South Prosperity Oaks West PGA Professional Plaza Palm Beach Community College East Speedway Service Station Commercial (C) Professional Office (PO) Mobile Home (MH) Residential High (RH) Commercial (C) Public (P) Commercial (C) General Commercial (CG-1) General Commercial (CG-1) Residential Mobile Home (RMH) Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with underlying zoning of Residential High (RH) General Commercial (CG-1) Public/Institutional (PI) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay with an General Commercial (CG-1) underlying zoning district Code Requirement Proposed Plan Consistent? Minimum Building Site Area for 11.05 acres YesCG-I: 1 acre Minimum Lot Width for CG-1 : 100 feet 362.21’Yes Maximum Building Lot 23%YesCoverage for CG-I: 35% Front Setback:Front Setback for CG-I" 40 feet 44.5 feet (existing building)Yes Side Setback for CG-1 :Side Setback:Yes15’25.1 feet (existing building) CONSISTENCY WITH THE CODE Side Setback (Side facing street) PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay for CG-1 : 55’ Rear Setback for CG-1 : 15’ 40.3’ Rear Setback: 80.8 feet No Yes PGA Boulevard Corridor 12.7’ feet (existing buffer NoOverlay Landscape Buffer: 55’increased) 7 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 ORDINANCE 21, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.11-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG-1) TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN UNDERLYING ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG-1), KNOWN AS "PGA PLAZA," BY APPROVING THE RENOVATION OF THE PARKING AND LANDSCAPE AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS OF PGA BOULEVARD AS REQUIRED BY THE REGIONAL CENTER DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER ON THE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PGA BOULEVARD AND PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN;PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (PUD-01-05) from Gentile, Halloway, O’Mahoney & Associates, agent, for approval of a rezoning of approximately 11.11 acres of land from General Commercial (CG-1) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with an underlying zoning of General Commercial (CG-1) allow the renovation of the parking and landscape areas, to accommodate the widening of PGA Boulevard as required by the Regional Center DRI development order, of PGA Plaza located at 2500-2680 PGA Boulevard, on the southwest corner of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as "PGA Plaza"; and Ordinance 21, 2002 Meeting date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2001, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said application and recommended its approval, including the requested waivers, subject to conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, hereby approves the rezoning of an approximately11.11 acre parcel of land from General Commercial (CG-1) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with an underlying zoning of General Commercial (CG-1), known as "PGA Plaza," and the renovation of the parking and landscaping areas, located at 2500- 2680 PGA Boulevard on the southwest corner of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Said Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: 1.Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit a revised Photometric Plan, which meets the requirements of LDR Section 78-182, Illumination of Buildings and Uses. (City Engineer) 2.Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Forester, a landscape plan for the median directly adjacent to the plaza along the plaza’s entire frontage of the PGA Boulevard right-of-way. (City Forester) 3.Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide surety for the installation of landscaping within the PGA Boulevard median directly adjacent to the subject site in the amount to be determined by the City Forester. (Planning Zoning) 4.Lighting locations shall not conflict with landscaping and shall include long-term tree canopy growth. (Police) 5.The applicant shall not increase the current restaurant uses within the Plaza without amending the Planned Unit Development and satisfying all applicable code requirements. (Planning & Zoning) 6.Prior to the issuance of the first building permit and within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this development order, Watermark Communities Inc., on behalf of the applicant, shall submit to the City the sum of $5,000 toward the maintenance of the median landscaping adjacent to the property on PGA Blvd. (Planning & Zoning) SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval: 1.Section 78-221(d)(4), Special Front Setbacks, to allow for a maximum 12.7’ landscape buffer. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum 55’ 2 Ordinance 21,2002 Meeting date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 landscape buffer along PGA Boulevard. 2.Section 78-313, Minimum Landscape Requirements, to allow for 12% open space. The Land Development Regulations requires a minimum of 15% open space on site. 3.Section 78-345, Number of Spaces required, to allow for 528 parking spaces. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of 551 parking spaces for the approved square footage and uses. 4.Section 78-344(I), Parking Stall and Bay Dimensions, to allow for 9’X 18.5’ standard parking stalls. The Land Development Regulations require 10’ X 18.5’ parking stall dimensions. 5.Section 78-319, Minimum Rear Landscape Buffer, to allow for a minimum 0’ rear landscape buffer. The Land Development Regulations requires a minimum eight (8) foot rear landscape buffer. 6.Section 78-313, Required Landscape Points, to allow for 7,337 landscape points. The Land Development Regulations require 11,849 landscape points. 7.Section 78-344(h), Off-Street Stacking Distance, to allow for a minimum 35 foot stacking distance. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum 100 stacking distance. 8.Section 78-315(c), Minimum Size Landscape Areas, to allow for a maximum three- foot wide landscape island. The Land Development Regulations requires a minimum of five (5) foot wide landscape island. 9.Section 78-315(b), Landscape Islands, to allow for 52 parking spaces without the five (5) required landscape island to the rear of the building. The Land Development Regulations require an island between every nine (9)-parking spaces. SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Unit Development shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City’s Growth Management Department: 1.January 8, 2002, Parking Renovation Plan by Gentile, Holloway, O’Mahoney & Associates, 1 sheet (SP-1). 2.January 8, 2002, Landscape Renovation Plan by Gentile, Holloway, O’Mahoney & Associates, 1 sheet (L-l). 3.Letter dated March 29, 2002, from H. William Perry to Charles K. Wu, 1 page. SECTION 5. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the Ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. 3 Ordinance 21,2002 Meeting date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THE 2 nd DAY OF MAY 2002. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. SIGNED: MAYOR ERIC JABLIN VICE MAYOR CARL SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER DAVID CLARK COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH R. RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER ANNIE DELGADO ATTEST BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORN EY VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO AYE NAY ABSENT 4 Ordinance 21, 2002 Meeting date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 EXHIBIT A THE SOUTH 400 FEET OF THE NORTH 450 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/, OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 42 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS THE WESTERLY 100 FEET THEREOF; AND LESS THAT PART CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2896, PAGE 579; AND LESS THAT PART CONTAINED IN STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 6411, PAGE 90 BOTH IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND LESS THAT PART LYING EAST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF PROSPERITY FARMS ROAD. GunsterYoakley ATTORNEYS AT LAW OUR ~ILE N|-IbtBER: 20804.00004 w~,’s o,=cr D,~L ~u~aa~: (561) 650-0651 w~R’s ~-,,~L ADo~ss:jnorquest@gunster.com March 29, 2002 VIA TELEC.OPY Charles K. Wu, Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: PGA Plaza Rezoning PUD 01-05 Median Landscaping Maintenance Dear Mr. Wu: As you may know, this Firm represents WCI Communities, Inc. ("WCI"). Please allow this letter to confirm that WCI is committed to providing certain intersection enhancements at the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road as referenced in the Development Order for the Regional Center which is Resolution 96, 1999, Condition 13.D.3. As you know, part of these intersection improvements include road widening and median landscaping associated with Petition PUD 01-05, PGA Plaza. Neither the landowner or any other party will commit to maintain the median in perpetuity. In the interest of facilitating the widening of the above intersection, WCI hereby commits to pay to the City of Palm Beach Gardens $5,000 toward the maintenance of the median landscaping associated with PUD 01-05. The purpose of this one-time payment is to reimburse the City of Palm Beach Gardens for its initial expenses in maintaining the median landscaping until this item can be incorporated as a regular item in the City budget. We will make this payment within two weeks of the final development approval of PUD 01-05. It is our understanding that making this one-time payment to the City constitutes WCI’s only commitment to this median landscaping maintenance and is in lieu of any other requirement by any party with respect to PUD approval, or otherwise, to maintain such landscaping. Please feel free to call me with any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, H~m~P~ESq., for WCI Communities, Inc. co:Frank Kurchinski, WCI Communities, Inc. (via telecopy) Cara Irwin, City of Palm Beach Gardens (via telecopy) Eleanor W. Taft, Esq. JN/j w: 636923.1 GunsteL ¥oaktey ~ Stewart. P.A. Phillips Point ¯ 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6194 ¯ (561) 655-1980 ¯ Fa×:(561)655-5677. www.gunster.com FOR1 LAUDERDALE ¯ MIAMI ¯ PALM BEACH . STUART / \ X \ \ \ ~GA Plaza Palm Beach Gard~. ~-’ori~a I II I \ \ \ II Palm Beach PGA Plaza Justification 1.Explain the nature of the request: The PGA Plaza is an existing shopping center located on the southwest comer of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road. The center was built in the 1980s. Over the years, a number of out-parcels have received approval for site plan modifications. The PGA Plaza is comprised of approximately 112,222 square feet consisting of 92,127 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant space, a 9,000 sq. ft. bank out-parcel, a second 2,800 sq. ft. bank out-parcel, and a 8,295 sq. ft. retail out-parcel. The property currently has 473 parking spaces on site for the existing commercial space. The proposed PUD application will accommodate the widening of PGA Boulevard at the intersection with Prosperity Farms Road as proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation and as required by the Gardens Mall DRI. The submittal also decreases the existing non-conformities by increasing the landscape area along PGA Boulevard, increasing the number of parking spaces, redesigning the parking spaces to a uniform dimension and improving the overall traffic circulation of the plaza. Based on current Land Development Regulations of the City of Pall Beach Gardens, the site plan is considered non-conforming. This non-conformity is due to the following site development characteristics: o This site is within the PGA corridor overlay and is required to have a 55’ special front setback adjacent to PGA Boulevard. A majority of the existing landscape buffer is less than 5’ in width and has a maximum width of 10’. The parking required for this commercial center is 551 spaces. The sizes of these spaces vary from 8.5’-10’ wide and 18’-20’ long. The parking provided on site is 75 spaces short as required by Land Development Regulations. 2.What will be the impact of the proposed change on the surrounding area? The proposed PUD application and the site plan modifications will not adversely impact the surrounding area. We are not increasing the square footage of commercial uses or increasing the traffic impacts. The site plan modifications will improve the traffic circulation and reduce the existing non-conformities on the site by expanding the landscape buffer to 15’, adding 52 parking spaces, redesigning the parking stalls to a uniform dimension. Describe how the rezoning request complies with the City’s Vision Plan and the following elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan-future Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Infrastructure, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvement. We are not proposing to rezone the project. o How does the proposed project comply with the City’s requirements for preservation of Natural Resources and Native Vegetation? (Division VII, Landscaping, Land Development Regulations) PGA Plaza, an existing retail center, is currently landscaped and contains a few large oak trees. In an effort to bring the site plan into compliance with the Land Development Regulations, additional landscape area is being added to the site and 5 existing large oak trees affected by the parking reeonfiguration are being relocated into the proposed parking islands. How will the proposed project comply with City requirements of Art in the Public Places? (Division V, Public Places, Subdivision I, Land Development Regulations) The project is an existing shopping center and we are not proposing to increase the intensity of the project. The site plan modifications are proposed to allow for the right-of-way expansion of PGA Boulevard at Prosperity Farms Road as proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation and required under the Gardens Mall DRI and to decrease the non-conformities of the existing site plan. 6.Concurrency Certification? This is an existing project approved under several development orders and site plan modifications. The concurrency for the project is vested through the previous approvals. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Ord. 26, 2002: PGA Blvd. Lane Reduction Second Reading: City-initiated request to amend the City’s Land Development Regulations, Section 78-231, by adopting a four-lane cross-section for PGA Boulevard west of Avenue of the Champions and revising the existing six-lane cross-section to apply only to the segment of PGA Boulevard bounded by the Florida Turnpike and Avenue of the Champions, per City Council direction. The City Council approved the proposed amendments on First Reading on June 20, 2002. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 26, 2002. Reviewed by: Principal Planner ~=~ Talal M. Beno~lCP City Attorney Finance NA Human Res. NA Submitted by: Growth~l~ . Manag~ Directo~jI ~’, L~ Charles K. Wu, AIGP Approved by! ~ f/ City Manage(..~ Ronald FerriC] / Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project Manager Talal M. Benothman Advertised: Date: July 5, 2002 Paper: Palm Beach Post [X ired ~quired Affected parties: [] Notified [X] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: LDR Commission Action: [ X ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [ ] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [] Continued to: Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Resolution 118, 1999 Letter to County None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Ordinance: 26, 2002 Petition: LDR-02-03 REQUEST The amendment is proposed to comply with the City Council directive to change the cross- section of PGA Boulevard to a four-lane cross-section west of the Avenue of the Champions. Please see Exhibit "A." Section 78-231, Parkway Overlay district, currently reflects this section as a six-lane cross-section west of the Florida Turnpike. This existing six-lane cross-section has also been revised to apply only to that segment west of the Turnpike and east of Avenue of the Champions. Please see Exhibit "B." BACKGROUND In 1999, the Palm Beach Gardens City Council passed Resolution 118, 1999, supporting a four-lane cross-section and urging the-County and other governmental organizations to amend their relevant documents to reflect PGA Boulevard with a four-lane cross-section, west of the Avenue of the Champions. The County’s Year 2020 Roadway Network by Number of Lanes and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2025 Cost Feasible Plan reflect PGA Boulevard as a four- lane cross-section west of Jog Road (Rider Cup Boulevard). The City of Palm Beach Gardens would like the four-lane cross-section to begin at Avenue of the Champions, which is east of what is currently reflected on the County’s Year 2020 Roadway Network by Number of Lanes and the MPO’s 2025 Cost Feasible Plan. The City Council is concerned that a six-lane cross-section west of the Florida Turnpike to Jog Road would likely require an encroachment into the residential areas of PGA National Planned Community Development (PCD) in order to accommodate the needed right-of-way for a six-lane cross-section. However, a four-lane cross-section provides the City with the opportunity to shift the proposed right-of-way to the north to protect the residential area in PGA National PCD. Another concern is that expanding PGA Boulevard to six lanes along that segment is not suitable because the area is primarily residential in nature. The two largest residential communities in the City are located along this segment of PGA Boulevard (Mirasol and PGA National PCDs). PROCEDURE This is a request initiated by staff to formally amend the City’s Land Development Regulations. The Planning and Zoning staff forwards comments and recommendations to the Land Development Regulations Commission (LDRC). Acting in an advisory role, the LDRC considers the recommendations of City staff and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the request for approval, and makes a final determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. 2 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: June 26, 2002 Ordinance: 26, 2002 Petition: LDR-02-03 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Commission held a public hearing on May 14, 2002, and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 26, 2002 to add a four-lane cross-section (Exhibit "A") and revise the existing six-lane cross-section (Exhibit "B") of Section 78-231, Parkway Overlay District, of the Land Development Regulations as noted above. G:TalaI/LDR-02-03-str-CC ORDINANCE 26, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS BY REVISING TABLES 11A AND 11B OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDINGFOR CONFLICTS;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, City staff has initiated an amendment to the City’s Land Development Regulations, Section 78-231, Parkway Overlay district, by adopting a four-lane cross section for PGA Boulevard west of the Avenue of the Champions, as reflected on Exhibit "A," and revising the existing six-lane cross-section to apply only to that segment of PGA Boulevard west of the Turnpike and east of Avenue of the Champions, as reflected on Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 118, 1999 supporting and urging Palm Beach County and other governmental agencies to revise their relevant plans to reflect PGA Boulevard with a four-lane cross section west of the Avenue of the Champions; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the duly constituted Land Development Regulations Commission for the City, conducted a public hearing and recommended approval and adoption of the subject amendment to the City’s Land Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the adoption of the amendment to the City’s Land Development Regulations is in the best interests of the residents and citizens of Palm Beach Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 78-231 of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Palm Beach Gardens is hereby amended to adopt a four-lane cross section for PGA Boulevard west of the Avenue of the Champions, as reflected on Exhibit "A", and revising the existing six-lane cross-section to apply only to that segment of PGA Boulevard west of the Turnpike and east of Avenue of the Champions, as reflected on Exhibit "B." Date Prepared: May 31, 2002 Ordinance 26, 2002 Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to ensure that this ordinance is codified as part of the City’s Code of Ordinances. Section 3. Should any section or provision of this ordinance, or any portion, paragraph, sentence, or word thereof be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, but only that part declared to be invalid. Section 4. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF ., 2002. DAY OF ,2002. DAY OF ,2002. MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: BY: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Date Prepared: May 31, 2002 Ordinance 26, 2002 VOTE:AYE NAY ABSENT MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO G:Talal/LDR-02-03-str-cc >0Lm C) O0 ~3 0 <_9 EXHIBIT "A" "OUl H_-II~’I ’o-sno ’lNd I~:gZ: ~0 Z00Z/~;0/90 ’~)N~Q’aueI~-OAII~VOd\0~00-6Z\:cl EXHIBIT "B" "OUl H-It]’] ’~)-sn£) ’l~ld O~;:Z~: LO ~00~/~;0/90 MILITARY TRAIL ¯ PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410-4698 March 21, 2002 Honorable Karen T. Marcus County Commissioner, District 1 Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-1989 Re:PGA Boulevard Four-lane Cross-section West of Avenue of the Champions Dear Commissioner Marcus: On behalf of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, we respectfully request your assistance in urging Palm Beach County planning staff to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan to modify the cross-section for PGA Boulevard from six lanes to a four-lane cross-section west of the Avenue of the Champions. The County’s Year 2020 Roadway Network by Number of Lanes and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)’s 2025 Cost Feasible Plan reflect PGA Boulevard with four-lane cross-section west of Jog Road (Rider Cup Boulevard). The City of Palm Beach Gardens would like the four-lane cross-section to begin at Avenue of the Champions, which is east of what is currently reflected on the County’s Year 2020 Roadway Network by Number of Lanes and the MPO’s 2025 Cost Feasible Plan. In 1999, the Palm Beach Gardens City Council passed Resolution 118, 1999 supporting a four-lane cross-section and urging the County and other governmental organizations to amend their relevant documents to reflect PGA Boulevard with a four-lane cross-section, west of the Avenue of the Champions. The City Council is concerned that a six-lane cross-section west of the Florida Turnpike to Jog Road would likely require an encroachment into the residential areas of PGA National Planned Community Development (PCD), in order to accommodate the needed right-of-way for a six-lane cross-section. However, a four-lane cross-section provides the City with the opportunity to shift the proposed right-of-way to the north to protect our residential area in PGA National PCD. Commissioner Marcus PGA Blvd. laneage March 21, 2002 Page Two Thank you for your kind and immediate attention to the above.. If you have any questions or need additional information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 799- 4120. City Manager tb/RF Attachment: Resolution 118, 1999 CC: Mayor and Council members Charles Wu, Growth Management Director Talal Benothman, Principal Planner Ed Tombari, Senior Planner Maria Bello, PB County Interim Planning Director George Webb, PB County Engineer Jim Harvey, Taylor Woodrow Communities September 23, 1999 RESOLUTION 118, 1999 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING A FOUR-LANE CROSS-SECTION OF PGA BOULEVARD WEST OF AVENUE OF THE CHAMPIONS AND URGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY AND PALM BEACH COUNTY ENGINEERING TO DEPICT THIS SEGMENT OF PGA BOULEVARD AS MAXIMUM FOUR LANES ON ALL TRANSPORTATION OR THOROUGHFARE PLANS AND TRAFFIC MODELS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens acknowledges the need to balance land use compatibilities and transportation needs; WHEREAS, the City has identified a future incompatibility in the potential six-laning of PGA Boulevard with existing residential uses; WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that a modified north county traffic study demonstrates only a need for four lanes on PGA Boulevard west of Avenue of the Champions; WHEREAS, the City desires a lower level of service on this segment of PGA Boulevard versus widening of the roadway beyond four lanes; and WHEREAS, the City believes that state and county plans should be modified to reflect a four-lane cross-section for this segment of PGA Boulevard. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens urges the Florida Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organization of Palm Beach Cotmty and Palm Beach County Engineering to depict PGA Boulevard west of Avenue of the Champions as maximum four lanes on all transportation or thoroughfare plans and traffic models. Section 2, The City Council directs the City Clerk to forward this Resolution to the Florida Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Palm Beach County. Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. THISINTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED . Resolution 118, 1999 Page 2 ATTEST: LINDA V. KOSIER, CMC, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFI,,CIENCY CITY ATTORNEY VOTE:AYE NAY COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO ’~... COUNCILMEMBER FURTADO COUNCILMEMBER JABLIN "’- COUNCILMEMBER CLARK ABSENT COUNCTLMEMBER SABATELLO__ CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Resolution 101, 2002: Crossroads at Northlake Site Plan Amendment Recommendation to City Council, a request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for Woolbright Development, Inc., for a site plan amendment to a previously approved site plan, to permit the elimination of a previously approved 36,500 square foot anchor store (unbuilt), an 8,000 square-foot addition to a major tenant space, the addition of 600 square feet to an approved 5,000 square-foot out-parcel (unbuilt), and architectural and landscaping amendments. The 21.02-acre site is located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard (19-42S-42E). RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution 101,2002 with conditions of approval. Reviewed by: Principal Planner__ Talal Benothm~ City Attorney V_~ Finance NA Human Res. NA Submitted by: Growth M a nag ~’I~ ~)~f.~j~ Directot, Charles K. Wu, AICP Approved by~-_-_~ ~ City Manage~,, .,-’/~ Ronald M. Ferri~ / Originating Dept.: Growth Manageme .1~ ~ Project f ~~ Manager ~ ~,,-~’! Edward To~::Lari,_,~’~ AICP Development Compliance Bahareh Wolfs, AICP Advertised: [X] Not Required Affected parties: [ ] Notified [X] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [X] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA P&Z. Commission Action: [ ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [ ] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [ ] Continued to:__ Attachments: ¯ Resolution 101,2002 ¯ Map 1 : Subject Site and Surrounding Uses ¯ Site Plans ¯ Landscape Plans ¯ Building Elevations City Council Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 Resolution 101, 2002 BACKGROUND The "Crossroads at Northlake" site plan was originally approved by the City’s Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee on April 1, 1986. The approved site plan included the following: ¯80,640 square feet of Home Improvement ¯11,182 square feet of Home Improvement Garden Center ¯63,349 square feet of Supermarket ¯100,100 square feet of Local Retail ¯Two 1.1-acre outparcel sites (square footage not indicated) The total acreage of the approved site is 31.88 acres. Both outparcels received approvals from the City in 1987 to construct fast food restaurants, Arby’s and Taco Bell. At the time of approval and construction, each outparcel was subdivided and sold to a separate property owner as a separate parcel. In 1993, the Home Depot received City approval for a 16,336 square-foot expansion. At the time of City approval, the Home Depot corporation subdivided its portion of the site plan (the building and a portion of the surrounding parking area and wet retention pond) and created a separate parcel. As a result, the site consists Of four parcels/lots including the 21.02-acre portion now owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, which has a contract for purchase with Woolbright Development. Woolbright Development is the applicant for this amendment. Since the four adjoining parcels were approved as one site plan, staff shall ensure that the proposed amendments to the 21.02-acre portion are consistent and compatible with .the other parcels contained on site. This development was most recently amended by Resolution 104, 2001, which was passed on July 5, 2001. This amendment provided for facade renovations, and an additional 29,208 square-foot expansion to the eastern building to provide for an additional "anchor" tenant space. The amendment also provided for the addition of a 5,000 square-foot out-parcel and a new entrance off of Northlake Boulevard. The proposed amendment shall eliminate a 25,600 square-foot expansion of the eastern tenant building, add 8,000 square-feet to the existing anchor store (closed AIbertson’s) and 600 square feet to the 5,000 square-foot out-parcel building. The total net reduction in square footage, as proposed by this amendment, is 15,761 square feet. 2 City Council Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 Resolution 101, 2002 LAND USE & ZONING The subject site is zoned General Commercial (CG-1), and has a future land-use designation of Commercial (C). This is a "straight-zoning" site. The site plan must meet all requirements described in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the goals, objectives and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Waivers are not permissible. Any deviation from code requirements would require a variance and approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant has not requested a variance related to this site. CONCURRENCY This is a reduction in square footage of general retail use from the approved 171,861 square feet to 156,100 square feet. Therefore, no concurrency review is required. PROJECT DETAILS Building and Architecture The applicant is proposing a renovation of the existing shopping center, which shall include a 600 square-foot expansion to the approved 5,000 square-foot "out-parcel" building (un-built) to be utilized for general retail. Also proposed is an 8,000 square-foot expansion to a principal tenant, in what used to be the Albertson’s Supermarket space. Overall, however, the total square footage shall be decreased by 15,761 square feet from the previous approval due to the elimination of the approved 36,500 square-foot eastern anchor tenant space. The applicant is proposing fa~:ade renovations to the existing plaza buildings that shall require new metal seam roofing, new tower elements, new stucco finish and shall also include minor features such as wall scones, metal grills, awning and aluminum shutters. The new colors proposed are "neutral weeling" for the main facade and "white dove" for trim. The applicant has provided color renderings and sample boards and materials prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and shall be available for review by the City Council. Site Access and Circulation Due to the expansion of the Northlake Boulevard/Interstate 95 intersection, the current owner was permitted by Palm Beach County and the State Department of Transportation to construct an entrance off of Northlake Boulevard. 3 City Council Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 Resolution 101, 2002 In addition, the applicant has relocated the main drive-aisles running in-front of the mainline center east and west buildings away from the adjacent buildings, to allow for additional foundation plantings between the parking area and the covered pedestrian promenade. Parking The applicant is proposing 150,500 square feet of "Shopping Center" use and 5,600 square feet of "General Retail" use. Section 78-345 of the Land Development Regulations require one space per 200 square feet of "Shopping Center" use and one space per 250 square feet of "General Retail" use. This equates to a total of 776 required parking spaces. The applicant has provided 853 spaces, for a surplus of 77 parking spaces. The existing owner has received variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for existing nine-foot-wide parking spaces to remain, with double striping. A parking detail has been provided indicating doubte striping and wheel stops, per LDR requirements. The Home Depot portion of the site plan has a surplus of 27 parking spaces, based on the parking requirements for "general retail" and "garden center." In addition to the 77 surplus spaces proposed by the applicant, the Home Depot/Crossroads at Northlake parking area has a total of 104 surplus parking spaces. Drainage The applicant shall utilize the existing drainage system, which has several large on-site wet-retention ponds. The proposed renovations will result in a small increase in impervious surface from the existing conditions, although the applicant is proposing additional foundation planting areas in front of both the east and west tenant buildings. The lot coverage shall decrease from 19% to 17% due to the removal of the east tenant store expansion. A Conceptual Drainage Plan indicating existing and proposed drainage facilities has been submitted to staff and has been reviewed by the City Engineer. Landscaping The applicant has estimated that 52,900 points of landscaping exist on site. Staff has requested that invasive species of existing vegetation, such as Bichovias and Eucalyptus be removed from site and replaced with species on the City’s preferred species list. The plans now propose 34,658 points of additional landscaping on-site. 4 City Council Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 Resolution 101, 2002 Section 78-324 of the Land Development Regulations require that the applicant provide for landscaping within the public right-of-way. The previous site plan amendment provided for landscaping within the Northlake Boulevard median and within the Interstate 95 ramp right-of-way. The applicant intends to provide for landscaping within the same areas, which include live oaks and ground cover within the Northlake median and a continuation of one landscape island to the two existing ones within the Interstate 95 ramp right-of-way. The current owner has secured an easement with the owner of the adjacent Arby’s restaurant to provide for seven-feet of landscaping, including ground cover and palm trees, along the eastern length of the newly constructed entrance drive. Said easement shall run with the land and be applicable to all successors, owners or assigns. Si_~naae Two monument signs have been proposed, meeting code requirement. These proposed signs shall replace two non-conforming pylon signs that were erected with the original plaza construction in 1987. The applicant has indicated locations of principal and minor tenant sign locations on the site plan. The applicant has provided a tenant sign program on the building elevation, indicating uniform color, type and style within the plaza. Staff shall review all sign permits for compliance with this program. The applicant has proposed only one wall sign on the "out-parcel" building. No monument sign is proposed for this site. L~ahtina Light poles shall be of a consistent height and style to those in the Home Depot portion of the parking lot. The applicant shall avoid conflicts between landscaping and lighting and shall adhere to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design program adopted by resolution by the City. Legal Non-conformities Variances have been granted to this site for two pylon signs (in 1986) and for 9-foot wide parking spaces and a 10-foot landscape buffer along Sandtree Drive (both in 2001). Variances run with the land, are therefore applicable to the current site development proposal. The applicant intends to replace the two pylon signs with conforming monument signs. The nine-foot wide parking spaces have been incorporated into the proposed site plan. City Council Date Prepared: July 8, 2002 Resolution 101, 2002 Northlake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District This application is not applicable to the requirements of the Northlake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District (NBOZD). The requirements of the NBOZD apply only if the improvements are greater than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed improvement value of the parcel, indicated on the most recent tax rolls of the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser. The most recent value assessed for this parcel is $9,057,921. The applicant has estimated renovations and construction costs to be approximately $2.2 million, less than 50% of the assessed value of the property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at its May 14, 2002 meeting. The Commission had concerns, including additional detailing on the western elevation of the old Albertson’s building, facing Interstate 95. The applicant has revised the building elevations to include additional banding along the fa(;;ade of the western elevation, facing Interstate 95. The Commission supported the proposed amendments and voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution 101,2002 with conditions of approval. G: Ed/2001/sp0205cc July 8, 2002 RESOLUTION 101, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM WOOLBRIGHT DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE "CROSSROADS AT NORTHLAKE" SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 95 AND NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD, TO ALLOW FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 36,500 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, UNBUILT ANCHOR TENANT SPACE, THE ADDITION OF 600 SQUARE FEET TO A 5,000 SQUARE-FOOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, UNBUILT OUT-PARCEL, AN ADDITIONAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF ANCHOR TENANT SPACE, MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT, AND FACADE RENOVATIONS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 21.02-ACRE PORTION OF THE "CROSSROADS AT NORTHLAKE" SHOPPING CENTER AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application (SP-02-05) from Woolbright Development, Inc., requesting a Site Plan Amendment to the "Crossroads at Northlake" Shopping Center, located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard, to allow for the elimination of 36,500 square feet of previously approved, unbuilt anchor tenant space, the addition of 600 square feet to a previously approved 5,000 square-foot out-parcel, an additional 8,000 square feet of anchor tenant space, modifications to the parking lot, and fa£ade renovations on a 21.02- acre portion of the "Crossroads at Northlake" Shopping Center, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the 21.02-acre portion of the "Crossroads at Northlake" site is currently zoned General Commercial (CG-1), and a future land-use designation Commercial (C); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient, that it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and has recommended approval of the amendment to the site plan known as "Crossroads at Northlake"; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said application and recommended approval subject to certain conditions stated herein. Resolution 101, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition SP-02-05 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida hereby approves a Site Plan Amendment to the "Crossroads at Northlake" Shopping Center, located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard, to allow for the elimination of 36,500 square feet of previously approved, unbuilt anchor tenant space, the addition of 600 square feet to a previously approved 5,000 square-foot out-parcel, an additional 8,000 square feet of anchor tenant space, modifications to the parking lot, and fa{;ade renovations on a 21.02-acre portion of the "Crossroads at Northlake" Shopping Center, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. Said Site Plan Amendment is approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: (2) (3) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Attorney and record a Unity of Control document to ensure that the out-parcel property shall be subject to conditions of approval for the "Crossroads at Northlake" development, including the "mainline center", Home Depot, Taco Bell and Arbys. Such conditions that may be shared among the multiple owners of the site plan include but are not limited to architecture, parking, landscaping, lighting, circulation, access and lighting. (Planning and Zoning) The build-out date specified for this project is December 31,2002. No building permits associated with this development order for new construction shall be issued after that date without an approved time extension. (Planning and Zoning, Building) Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion, the applicant, successors or assigns shall, in conjunction with the County and the State DOT, install and maintain landscaping in the following rights-of-way (off-site) locations: southern road shoulder of Northlake Boulevard between Interstate 95 and Sandtree Drive; eastern road shoulder of Interstate 95 off-ramp onto eastbound Northlake Boulevard; and median of Northlake Boulevard between Roan Lane and Sandtree Drive. In the event that the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity, forms a special district pertaining to the landscape and maintenance of Northlake Boulevard, then the applicant, successor 2 Resolution 101, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition SP-02-05 or assigns shall automatically become a member of such special district. This condition may be amended at any time by a separate agreement between the applicant and the City of Palm Beach Gardens. (Planning and Zoning) (4)The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department through the construction plan approval process to ensure that Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principals are implemented. (Planning and Zoning, Police Department) (5)In the event the existing live oak adjacent to the proposed trash compactor does not survive construction related to the renovations, then the applicant shall be required to replace the tree with one of comparable size and spread, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (City Forester) (6)Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall adequately demonstrate on construction plans that parking lot lighting is consistent in height and style with those existing within the Home Depot portion of the parking lot. (City Engineer, Building) (7)Prior to the issuance of each building permit for interior renovations for buildings A, B, C, and D, the applicant or its agent shall submit a breakdown by use of the gross square footage for lease of approved uses for review and approval by the Planning & Zoning Division. The applicant or its agent is limited to converting up to only 37,664 square feet for restaurant use, provided all applicable land development regulations, such as parking requirements, pertaining to said conversion are met (Planning & Zoning). (8)Within twenty-one days of the effective date of this development order, the applicant shall submit to the City’s Growth Management Department a 3.5" disk or other City approved electronic media containing digital files of approved amendments to Crossroads at Northlake (Planning and Zoning). SECTION 3. Construction of the site shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City’s Growth Management Department: 1.June 28, 2002, Site Plan, Urban Design Studio, 4 Sheets. 2.May 17, 2002, Landscape Plan, Urban Design Studio, 5 Sheets. 3.May 17, 2002, Floor Plans and Building Elevations, Oliver, Glidden and Partners, 3 Resolution 101, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition SP-02-05 Sheets A-1 through A-7. 4.February 28, 2002, Conceptual Drainage Plan, Kimley-Horn Associates, Sheet CDP. 5.March 8, 2002 Boundary Survey, Wallace Surveying Company, 1 Sheet. SECTION 4. If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 5. All Resolutions, or parts of Resolutions, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 6. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. MAYOR ERIC JABLIN ATTEST BY:APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK LEN RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO AYE \\FILE_SRV~COMPROG\Short Range\sp0026res.doc NAY ABSENT 4 Resolution 101, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition SP-02-05 EXHIBIT "A" 5 A I~rcd of lend in the Horthmet quarter of SecUon lg, To~m~ 42 ~uth, Range 43 ~a~ Pc~rn 8each ~unt~ flcx-k~ "~ng mare partk:~ady de~sed ax f~k)w-~ (~e N~ I~e of ~ Ig ~ ~m~ ~ b~ ~ ~ 01’ ~e ~1~ ~d ~ ~NT ~ ~HNI~ of ~ ~g ~ ~y R~ht-of-~y~ o ~an~ of ~ ¯ ~ce ~ 8~ ~ ~ £~ g ~tm~ ~ 421.11 f~ to o ~t ~ ~Ihe ~ld w~ ~d ~.~ f~ W~ of ~e (~ S~ of ~51 f~t to a ~K ~ ~ ~’~’ 18" ~ a d~ of I~ f~t to a ~ ~ ~ 0~’I~ ~ a dbt~ of 515.~ ~ ~ a po~ ~ce N~ 8~ ~’ ~ W~t a ~ of ~.~ f~ toa~ ~ ~ ~ 8~" ~" (~ a d~of ~ f~ ~ a ~ ~ ~th 8~ ~ ~" (~ a d~t~ ~ 4~.~ ~t to o.~t ~ ~ W~ ~t-o~y I~e ~ ~ ~ (, ~ ~ ~t ~ In ~ ~ ~ 0~ 1~ ~t ~~ ~ ~ ~’ I~ Weet a ~t~ of 20.~ f~t f~t ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~" 16’ 24’ ~t a dbt~ of577.79 ~ to a ~ ~ H~ 0~’ 12" [~t ¯ ~ ~ 32~ ~t to a ~ ~N~ 8~’ ~" ~. ¯ ~ of ~ ~t to a ~t on ~ (~t~ ~;9nt-or-~y I~e of ~t~t~e 9~ ~ N~ 15"~a~ ~g ~ ~cet~y N~t-of-Woy I~ a ~t~ce of LESS N4D EXCEPT the following deKrlbed parcal: A p~’~l of Ig~d In th; Nor~x~ l~J~’ter of Slatl~ 19. Town~Ip ~2 South, Rang~ 43 r.cet, palm eanch County, FIo~do. Being m~re portk~l~ly described os fallo~m: Commanclng ~ ~e Northmt Comer of ~id Sect~ 19; thence.South 88" 01 18 (~st. ~o~g the Ngrth II1~ of ~id Settle1 19. ,~w~..~. ,Hw4~h fine of SectJ~ 19 I’. o~l~l to beor S~uth 88" 01’ I,.8". Eaut and all other bearlng~ are ralatlvl thereto) amtance of 4~8.24 feet to a point; thence South 01" 58" 44" Welt a d;stonce of 100.0 feet to the Southerly R~ght-of--Wcly line of Ncrthlake B~levard; thence South 88" 01’ 16" (a~t. along NId Scuthctly Rlght-of-Wa./1.1~.. ¯ dl~tonce of 20~00 feet to a ~oum ~o ul Io r.cet o alltance of 200.00 feet to ¯ p~lnt; thenc~ Harth 01" 58" 44" East a distance of 200.00 feet to o point an laid S¢~thlt¥ Right-o.f;-Way line of NorthlakeBoule~wd; thence South 88" 01 16" Ecllt. along ~ Right-of-Way line, a di~tonce of 481.11 feet to a p~int an o line 8(~00 feet Wcetld¥ of and pclrallal with the ((lit line the weet one-half of laid Ncllhmt Quarter of $¢¢t1~ 19;. thence S~th 02".04’ 12" We~t a di~tan~ of 275.00 f~t to a I~int; thence S~uth 88" 01’ 16" E:a~t a cll~ton~ of 10.00 feet to o po~t; thonce Sauth 02’ 04’ 12" West a distance of 515.00~,.t. (th..~°L’~g 4 c~r,....~, g along th. c~,~ ~d conanue South 02" 06 12" W~t ¯ c~etance of 420.00 feet to apont; thance Scx~th 88" 01" 16" Eaxt a d~tonce of 10.00 feet to a poin~ thence South 02" 04’ 12" W~t a d~tance of 374.65 f~et to a point; thence North 87" 29’ 2.~ Wext a dbbx~e of430.00 feet to the P~CNT ~F KGNNING of the hereinafter 219.18 feet to a p~nt in the South~cet~ly gne of eoid Par¢~"~’, xaid I~e b,adng Noah 33" IS" 24" ~ thence departing from laid F~e Narth 02" 04’ 12" £aet o dlxtonce of 302.3~ font; thence South 87" 55’ 48" £aat a dbtance of 187.00 feet to a p~nt of ~t~Uon ~dth the Wlat Ik~e of sam Pared "B’; thance .cantinue Sc~th 87" 55" ~8" E~:t (the t~ _~n~ 2 ¢cur~ balng ~ong the Weetedy boundary of ea~_ Par~ "B’) a di~tonc~ of 36.00 feet; thence South 02" 04’ 12" Wext a ~etonce of385.00 feet to the P~INT ¢~ B~GNNING. C~11FICA~l I HER(~Y .* technical e effectl~ ,~. Profex~ona F~oddo C~ I L.., .,k ........................ ..........................= ............. ,~..I~. I~,!..,-.-o ............................. zz.I.~L. ,Lz .........~ ............-’-’~ !~ ...............~ ...........~.~ .,.. ....................... ~ ..............~, .......... ............. ........................,, ~, ................~ ........ ~ ~ Im Beach Gardens, Florida No hlake Commons~ ~ % ~e Plan I I I I I i :"i I,~" ’.’-I .0,~No~hlake Comm ns ~,,,~ ~~,~.~~m ..~’~ P~lm Beach Gardens, Florida ’S~te Plan INorthlake Commons Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Landscape Plan N87" l i No~hlake I ommons Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Landscape Plan ~I~, ~ ~l-rl -- ~o.oooo’ II 421.10’ Palm Beach Gardens, Florida "==’=~===’-~ Nortt lake Commons ’-""°::°-’~ m~ ~/= Landscape Plan {~m~=~ _.J- 421.10’ 251. Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Landscape Plan @@ @ @OQ@®@ ~ QQ@@O©@©,"~@@Q@ ~:, "__-_! z Norl;hlake Comm ns i "i~,,,,r,,!l!~,,~,,i,.~,~.,/,.l~I,,,.,r, ~.~,,o, ~o~ - Palm Beach Gardens, Florida ’ !lllflli Ii ~l,~lM Ii~ i.~ ~.l=l,fl,~t,I~~ ~1~~~ IDetail Sheet , ~,.,=~.,=~.v~ = P:\O1 \C1(S2"$110\Site *1 Plan Submit DWGsLXREFS\CRS-OUTP2.dwg, 04/19/2002"~9:20:26 AM I I I \ II // I I I II CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM MISC-02-10: La-Z-Boy Appeal Appeal Request: A request for appeal to the City Council by Mr. David Norris, legal representative of La-Z-Boy, to contest staff’s decision denying approval for two proposed tenants, Barney’s and Bennigan’s, to occupy space within the La-Z-Boy building on Parcel 27.06 located in the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI), along PGA Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the appeal request. Reviewed by: Principal Planner ~--~ Talal M. Beno~lCP City Attorney Finance NA Human Res. NA Submitted by: Growth_ /~ Managf’~r~t. I ^. Direct rd~,,I/L{tl/L~ ,~. Charles K. Wu, AICP Approved by........~ L.~ City Manag~$t(~-.~d Ronald Ferri~ ( Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Project Manager Talal M. Benothman Advertised: Date: Paper: [] Required ~Required Affected parties: [X] Notified [ ] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $ Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: LPA Action: [ ] Approved [ ] App. w/conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Rec. approval [ ] Rec. app. w/conds. [ ] Rec. Denial [ ] Continued to:~ Attachments: Appeal Requests Approval Requests Recorded Covenant [] None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Petition: Misc-02-10 REQUEST A request for appeal to contest staff’s decision denying approval for Barney’s Coffee and Tee Company and Bennigan’s, two proposed tenants, to occupy space within the La-Z-Boy building on Parcel 27.06, located in the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact. BACKGROUND During the review and approval process of the previously approved Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Regional Center DRI, the then property owner of Parcel 27.06, Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., agreed to a restrictive covenant, which was recorded with the County’s Clerk’s Office on May 29, 2002. The recorded covenant (attached) defines and limits the use of space to be occupied Parcel 27.06 by Lay-Z-Boy’s co-tenants and Lay-Z-Boy’s possible, future replacement tenants. The language further defines what "exclusive specialty retail" is and sets restrictions on the maximum number of establishments to occupy the building, in addition to establishing minimum and maximum square footage thresholds for each establishment. The covenant further states that prior to issuing an occupational license to any potential tenant, a designation of "Exclusive Specialty Retail" status must be obtained from the City’s Growth Management Director. Should the Director deny or refuse to grant said status, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. "The decision of the City Council shall be final, with no right of appeal," per the recorded covenant. Barney’s The applicant has requested the exclusivity status for a proposed tenant, "Barney’s" (attached). Staff has reviewed the request in conformity with the intent of the recorded covenant for Parcel 27.06, La-Z-Boy Building, and determined that while Barney’s is arguably a specialty retail store, it is commonly found in malls and therefore does not meet the intent of an "exclusive" retail establishment. Benniqan’s The applicant has also requested the exclusivity status for a chain restaurant, Bennigan’s (attached). Staff has reviewed the request in conformity with the intent of the recorded covenant for Parcel 27.06, La-Z-Boy Building, and determined that restaurants are not provided for in the covenant. Bennigan’s is a chain restaurant and does not sell specialty items or gourmet foods. City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Petition: Misc-02-10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the appeal requests because the nature of the proposed businesses to occupy the subject building do not meet the intent of the recorded covenant placed on the La-Z-Boy Building, located on Parcel 27.06 within the Regional Center DRI. G:Talal/MISC-10-06-str-cc ;EIVED: 6120102 Jun-ZO-OZ IZ:ZQpm FRED C, COHEN, P,A.=" GREGORY R. COHEN BERNARD A. CONKO" BLAINE C. DICKEN$ON DOMINIC S. LIBERI* RICHARD J. MEEHAN" ALFRED G, MORICIt DAVID B. NORRIS, P.A. I>ETER R. RAY KENNETH J. SCHERER, P.A. KYI.E A, $1LVERMAN" JAMES $, TELEPMAN’*" ROBERT M. WEINBERGER, P.A. 8RENT G. WOLMER, ~,A, Counsel "Boer0 Certified Real Estate 11:55AM; ->HP LASER,JET 3150; ff423; PAGE 2 F rom-C0HEN NORRIS SCHERER WE INBESGER 561-84Z-4104 T-138 C OgF .N WEINBERGER & WOLMER ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 20, 2002 P. OZ/OZ F-Z04 OF COUNSEL: RICHARD $o R.ACHLIN, P.A. RICHARD S, RACHLIN" "~,OARD C~R~’IFIED C~VIL TRtALA]-rORRI~¥ Charles Wu, AICP Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N, Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 RE:Palm Beach Furniture Company - Mall Properties Our file 92936.009 Dear Mr. Wu: I wdte you with regard to your June 11, 2002 letter wherein you reject several proposed tenants as not meeting the definition of "exclusive specialty retail". In particular, this letter shall constitute notice of appeal of your determination with respect to Barney’s As such, please schedule this for the next available Council meeting to hear the appeal. Of course, I would appreciate you advising me at which Council meeting this would be heard. I am sending this notice to you in letter form pursuant to our discussions. As such, it is my understanding that this letter is sufficient to initiate the appeal process. If I am mistaken, please let me know immediately so that I may forward today any other documentation that may be necessary. cc: Graham Larmer via fax: 844-2126 Very truly yours, RECEIVED: 6/18/02 11:03AM; ->HP LASERdET 3150; #394~ PAGE :36/18/02 11:33 FA~ 15614T19992 MERIN HUNTER CODM~ ~~1 MI~RIN*HIJNTt~R CODI~,..., INC. CO~ERCIAL ~AL ESTAT~ SERVICES, WORLDWIDE, June 17, 2002 FAX 561[471~992 URL http;//www, mhc~ea/.COm 1601 ,¢omm Place, Stlite 2OO West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mr. Charles K. Wu, AICP City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu: On behalf of ADF Companies (d/b/a Bennigan’ s) please accept tiffs letter as confirmation that are in receipt of your June 11,2002 letter. As suggested in flae letter, we are officially asking for an appeal to be heard by City Council as to our restaurant becoming a Teuant at the La-Z-Boy building on PGA Boulevard. Please advise us of the next available date that we can present our case to Council. Tbznk you in advance. Regards, NAI/1VIERIN * HUNTER* CODMAN, INC. ~’ .~;~ .........:...y’"~’~" ¯ Bmee H. Corn Director, Retail Sales/Leasing BHC:jg In over 300 Mewkets Worldwidt: NAI America NAI Asia Pacific NAI Canada NAI Europe NAI Latin America COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT 631 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408 BUS. (561) 848-6400 FAX (561) 863-9819 TOLL FREE (800) 634-1751 5/23/02 Charles Wu, AICP Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Re: 2845 PGA Blvd. Dear Mr. Wu, We are submitting Barnie’s Coffee and Tee Company to lease approximately 2,000 square feet at the above mentioned location for your approval. Bamie’s offers a relaxing atmosphere and a chance to sample specialty coffees and teas from around the world. We feel Barnie’s would be a good choice for this location. We look forward for your reply and are requesting a response by next Friday May 30, 2002. Si~/ely, .. ,/] Alan Masler Coldwell Banker Sent: Fax (561) 799-4281 Mailed Returned Receipt Requested Independently Owned And Operated By NRT Incorporated. COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT 631 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408 BUS. (561) 848-6400 FAX (561) 863-9819 TOLL FREE (800) 634-1751 5/23/02 Charles Wu, AICP Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Re: 2845 PGA Blvd. Dear Mr. Wu, We are submitting Bennigan’s Irish American Grill & Tavern to lease 6500 square feet at the above mentioned location for your approval. Bennigan’s offers upscale casual family dining, surrounded by that indomitable Irish spirit. We feel Bermigan’s would be a good addition to the family of restaurants existing in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. We look forward for your reply and are requesting a response by next Friday May 30, 2002. Alan Masler Coldwell Banker Sent: Fax (561)799-4281 Mailed Returned Receipt Requested Independently Owned And Operated By NRT Incorporated. ~~’rul~~ 1J.:24 I~’A~ 407 691L 3883 JEJ PA //-"~"BI]OH 13749 PABE 1358 // VcPe.othy H. 14ilken, C],r’k els eSex u iv p ~iaJlty Retail m rci establishments selling, at retail prices, items which fit into a single merchandise category or groups of categories and whose merchandise lines are more limited or focused in scope or include items which ar~ not . typically found in department stores or discount department stores and are not generally sold.at less than retail prices. I~xamples of Specialty Retail uses include but are not necessarily limited to individual stores limited to the sales of items fi-om m~chandise categories such as personal gifts, luggage, high-fashion apparel and accessories, computers and related equipment and supplies, home electronic equipment, housewares, linens, jeweh-y, gourmet food.s or wines or liquors, books, and china and crystal. No Exclusive Specialty Retail establishment shall be less than 2000 square foot or exceed 6500 square foot. In addition, there shall never be more than six (6) I~xclusive Specialty Itetail establishments in the 25,000 square foot building. Prior to the issuance of an occupational license, any such establishment shall obtain a designation of Bxclusive Specialty Retail status from the Growth Management Director. The Growth Management Director’s refusal to issue such a designation may be appealed by filing with the City Clerk a request for an appeal to the City Council within ten (10) days of the Growth Management Director’s written decision. The matter will be heard by the City Council on the next available City Council agenda. The decision of the City Council shall be final, with no righ( of appeal. ~005 PALM BEACH COUNTY- STATE OF FLORIDA I hereby certify that the toregojng.is aot the recor CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 WORKSHOP: TXT- 01-07 Newsrack Requlations A city-initiated request to amend section 78-221, entitled "PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay," and section 78-231 entitled "Parkway Overlay District" by providing for the use of modular newsracks and prohibiting the use of individual newsracks in these areas; and repealing section 78-701, entitled "Newsracks," in the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDR) and creating a new section 78-701, entitled "Newsrack Regulations." Reviewed by: City Attorney Finance Human Res. NA Submitted by: G rowth/l~ge~,en]: D i recto ~ ~j ~-, ~,~,~ Charles K. WLi, AFCP Approved by/~ j Originating Dept.: Growth Management: Finance: r,’, Costs: $ P roj ~"t’~< ~I~ ’~ Kelvin L. V~isel Code $. Enforcement Administrator Advertised: Date: Paper: [ X ] Not Required Affected parties: [ ] Notified [X] Not Required Total Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [ ] Other ~ Budget Acct.#: Land Development Regulations Commission Actions: [] Approved [] App. W/conditions [] Denied [] Rec. approval [] Rec. app. w/conds. [] Rec. Denial [X ] Continued to: TBD Attachments: ¯ Ordinance 6, 2002 ¯ Section 78-701 ¯ Section 78-221 ¯ Section 78-231 ¯City Attorney Memo 4/28/00 ¯City Attorney Memo 5/30/00 ¯Photographs ¯Map of Newsrack Locations ¯Sun-Sentinel Comments [ ] None City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT 01-07 REQUEST Staff seeks approval of Ordinance 6, 2002, which concerns the placement, style and appearance of newsracks in the public rights-of-way and the use of modular newsracks in the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay District and the Parkway Overlay District. BACKGROUND The City adopted its current newsrack ordinance in 1998 as section 309 of the Land Development Regulations (LDR), which was subsequently codified as section 78-701 the City Code. The purpose of the ordinance was to provide for the use of newsracks, to register newsracks within the City limits, to have distributors maintain the newsracks to acceptable standards, and by doing so, to improve the visual appearance of City streets and easements where such newsracks are located. In February of 2000, the City Manager’s, Office directed Growth Management staff to research the feasibility of replacing individual newsracks with modular newsracks within the city’s rights-of-way. The Code Enforcement Division was assigned to conduct research and implement the project. Staff purchased four modular newsracks on March 5, 2000, at a total cost of $9,414.00 from All Plastics, Inc., a local company. The modular newsracks were installed on June 5, 2000, at the following locations: 1.The Mail Kiosk located in the City Hall Municipal Complex; 2.The southeast corner of Hickory Drive and PGA Boulevard; 3.The rear of Garden Square Shoppes; and 4.MacArthur Boulevard at Lake Catherine. Staff anticipated that the media and the public would positively receive these modular newsracks. Staff’s position stated that use of the modular newsracks would reduce the number of safety inspections performed by Building Division personnel, compliance inspections by Code Enforcement, and registration application processing by Finance personnel. The next phase of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the modular newsracks and to report to the City Council with recommendations for further action. These recommendations were to include amendments to the land development regulations authorizing use of modular newsracks, additional locations, costs, funding sources, policies and procedures for removal of nonconforming newsracks. Due to staffing changes in the Growth Management Department, the second phase of the project has not occurred. City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 It is staff’s professional opinion that use of the modular newsracks yielded marginal success. The periodical distributors reported mechanical defects in the coin mechanisms, water leaks into individual cells and insufficient product capacity to supply customer demand. Consumers reported difficulty in accessing the papers, wet and unreadable newspapers and periodicals after heavy rains, and an insufficient supply of newspapers. Currently, only one of the four modular newsracks is in good condition and is regularly used by the public. The modular newsrack on MacArthur Boulevard at Lake Catherine has sustained some damage to one of the cells and is underutilized. The modular newsrack at the Mail Kiosk has recently sustained damage to two of the cell doors rendering them unusable. The modular newsrack at the southeast corner of Hickory Drive and PGA Boulevard has sustained significant damage to two of the four cells, rendering them unusable as well. Between September and November of 2000, staff made repeated attempts to resolve the complaints of unrepaired modular newsracks with Mr. Edwin Starr, President, of All Plastics, Inc. Mr. Starr was unresponsive and indifferent to staff’s requests for service. More important, staff became aware in February of 2001 that he is no longer in business, thus making access to replacement parts and repairs difficult, if not impossible. RESEARCH: Staff has reviewed newsrack ordinances from the Town of Palm Beach, the City of Sarasota and the City of Delray Beach. The ordinance from Delray Beach was selected as the model to draft Ordinance 6, 2002 for its clarity and appeal to the media. Key elements regarding installation standards, location and placement, independent modular newsrack suppliers by Request For Proposals (RFP), and newsrack improvement districts (designated areas that prohibit individual newsrack use) were adapted for use in the proposed ordinance. Staff met with Brian Schutt, Assistant City Attorney, Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator and Susan Passero, Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Delray Beach to review the methodology used in developing their ordinance and standards for issuing an RFP. Staff’s research among the surveyed municipalities using modular newsracks revealed no requirements for any type of screening. It should be noted that staff has concerns regarding the responsibility for maintenance (trimming, fertilizing, irrigation, etc.) of the screening material and compliance with the City’s adopted standards for Crime Prevention Through Environmental design (CPTED). The successful implementation of the proposed ordinance depends on the support and cooperation of the newspapers and periodical distributors. Therefore, staff conducted several telephone discussions with Mr. Carlin Clark, Distribution Manager for the Palm City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 Beach Post, and Mr. Fernando Alonso, Single Copy Operations Manager of the Sun- Sentinel, during the research process. Staff also consulted Mr. George Patton, of the Sun- Sentinel, on behalf of the free publications. Mr. Scott Birge, of Gold Eagle Enterprises, provided the technical specifications for the modular newsracks used in developing the draft ordinance. All of these individuals have expressed a willingness to work with staff on this project and have provided drafts of forms for registration, certification of compliance and others for adaptation. Staff mailed copies of the initial draft ordinance to the media representatives for comments on January 18, 2002. Staff received the attached comments from Mr. Alonso of the Sun-Sentinel on January 21,2002. Verbal comments from Mr. Ron Gayer of the Palm Beach Post and Mr. Birge are positive and support the ordinance, as drafted. Copies of the revised draft ordinance after the LDRC workshop were mailed to all of the above on July 2, 2002. Field inspections conducted by staff confirmed that the existing individual newsracks comply with the dimension requirements of the ordinance, as drafted. PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS: During the most recent research for the project, staff identified six areas that conflicted with the original direction taken by staff and with the intent and provisions of the code. These areas are: 1.Staff’s actions in 2000 conflicted with the intent of the code. Staff focused on aesthetics and did not address the primary goals to protect the health, safety and welfare of consumers, pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists. 2.Section 78-701(a)(2) in its current state does not define nor provide for the use modular newsracks within the City. A memorandum from Len Rubin, City Attorney, which is dated April 28, 2000, clearly stated these conflicts, which include size and placement requirements, removal of nonconforming newsracks, and policies and procedures governing its removal. Mr. Rubin recommended that the City revise the ordinance and adopt new standards before the installation of the modular newsracks. 3.Section 78-701(d)(4)is subjective in its determination of standards for maintenance, location and placement of newsracks. Staff recommends that modular newsracks be bolted to concrete slabs. Individual newsracks should be constructed to withstand winds of 110 mph, as established in Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code. 4.Section 78-701(d)(3) does not establish registration and inspection fee amounts. Staff proposes the inspection fee be set at $25.00 per modular newsrack or individual newsrack. This is consistent with fees collected for inspections by the Building Division. The proposed registration fee of $25.00 per modular newsrack or individual newsrack is a nominal fee to cover the cost of administering the ordinance. 5.Sections 78-701(d)(1 ) and (2) e should be amended to read Code Enforcement Special 4 o City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 Master instead of Code Enforcement Board. Section 78-701 does not define modular newsracks nor does it reserve the City’s right to require the use of modular newsracks in place of individual newsracks. Language to address this was drafted and submitted by the City Attorney in a memorandum, which is dated May 30, 2000. ANALYSIS: Staff’s research indicates that having independent modular newsrack suppliers (controlling entity), selected via an RFP, to administer the purchase, installation, space allocation, and maintenance of modular newsracks is a desirable solution. The City is relieved of the burden of purchasing and maintaining the modular newsracks. The RFP process would be completed within sixty (60) days of adoption of Ordinance 6, 2002. This would allow time for advertising, review of bids and selection and approval of a controlling entity. The individual cells within the modular newsracks will be owned by the periodical or newspaper in a manner similar to condominium ownership. All owners share in the cost of the pedestal, the concrete slab construction, installation of a paved shoulder area, and maintenance on a pro rata basis paid to the controlling entity. The periodical distributors and newspapers are individually responsible for their coin mechanisms. The City would collect an annual administrative fee for registration and inspection of each newsrack. The public benefits by having potentially safer and more convenient locations of the newsracks. The periodical distributors and newspapers benefit by having fair and equal access to the public rights-of-way for their products. PGA Boulevard Corridor and Parkway Overlay District It is staff’s professional opinion that this project would be most effective by making modular newsracks, as approved uses, in both the PGA Boulevard Corridor overlay district and the Parkway overlay district. Conversely, individual newsracks would become prohibited uses in these areas. Staff believes this method is both logical, compatible and enforceable, as found with modular newsrack projects that have been successfully implemented in the surveyed municipalities of Delray Beach, Sarasota, and the Town of Palm Beach. In addition, both districts, as currently defined in the City’s Land Development Regulations, sections 78-221 and 78-231, respectively, are ideal for such a project. The intent of the PGA Boulevard Corridor provides for "creation of a Main Street character which using planning and design standards will regulate uses within the corridor to create a specific character and aesthetic quality for the corridor, and promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City." Congruently, the parkway overlay district’s objectives are established "to provide residents with safe and aesthetic multiuse pathway system and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City." City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 The Parkway Overlay District contains the following major roads: Central Boulevard, Hood Road, PGA Boulevard, Donald Ross Road, Prosperity Farms Road, Military Trail. It is staff’s professional opinion that the use of modular newsracks within these districts is compatible with their spirit, character and intent. Both districts are highly visible and regularly traveled by consumers, pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists, elements that are highly desirable by the media. Use of modular newsracks in these districts also offers more convenience and accessibility by the public. Staff, the controlling entity and representatives from the print media could collaborate to determine the appropriate locations of the modular newsracks, thereby ensuring fair and equal access. Specific Newsrack Requirements Staff suggests that all modular newsracks be forest green in color, promoting uniformity and compatibility with the PGA Boulevard theme. Forest green is compatible with the Tree City USA designation of the City. Staff proposes that all modular newsracks installed in the City be bolted with stainless steel bolts, washers and nuts to concrete slabs specified in engineered drawings for wind load to be supplied by the controlling entity. This method provides a solid foundation and complies with industry standards and Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code. The vendor assumes the responsibility for pouring the slabs to industry standards. Building Division permit fees for each slab would be $25.00 for each site. Staff proposes that the controlling entity install a paved shoulder in order to protect the integrity and functionality of the adjacent swale areas. The City has such a stacking lane in PGA National on Avenue of the Masters as shown in the conceptual photograph attached to this report. A concrete block structure (CBS) enclosure was also located within PGA National on Ryder Cup Blvd. Staff does not support the use of such a structure as it may detract from the aesthetic nature of both the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay district and the Parkway overlay District. Prohibition of Individual Newsracks Currently, there are 22 individual newsracks in the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay district and four in the Parkway overlay district. These newsracks would become illegal uses in the proposed ordinance. The appearance of these multicolored, variable sized newsracks is contrary to the spirit, intent and character of both districts due to their lack of uniformity in City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 appearance and color. Since these individual newsracks are typically not secured to the ground, their installation method poses a potential safety hazard to the public. Staff has also determined that the existing individual newsracks are non-compliant under the existing ordinance because they lack the name, address and telephone number of the distributor. Also, the hold harmless agreements and certificates of insurance have not been filed with the City. Code Enforcement staff has not enforced this provision of the code because the registration fee was not established and no records for the individual newsracks exist. The individual newsracks presently located outside the aforementioned districts would be required to comply with the provisions and standards outlined in Ordinance 6, 2002 within six months of adoption by executing indemnity agreements, registering their controlling entities, paying all applicable fees, meeting the site regulations, wind load requirements etc. Newsracks currently located in enclaves scheduled for annexation would be allowed a six-month amnesty period as non-conforming uses from the effective date of annexation. At the conclusion of the amnesty period, all non-conforming newsracks would be required to comply fully with the provisions of Ordinance 6, 2002 within ten (10) days of the expiration date by submitting the required registration and insurance documentation, and complying with the inspection requirements in the same manner as those conforming modular newsracks and individual newsracks in the City. All modular newsracks would be required to comply with the standards and requirements outlined in Ordinance 6, 2002 within one (1) year of its adoption. Staff anticipates no significant budgetary impact associated with this project. Current staffing levels are sufficient to enforce the provisions outlined in the draft ordinance and administer the project. Staff proposes that this project be initiated and allowed to proceed for three (3) years which time it would be further evaluated for expansion on a citywide scale. If successful, individual newsracks would become nonconforming uses and would be replaced by modular newsracks. LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION: Staff conducted a workshop with the Land Development Regulations Commission (LDRC) on March 26, 2002. The Commission directed staff to conduct additional research regarding screening with landscaping as part of the Request For Proposal (RFP) to the third party vendor, control of content, and benches for public convenience. 7 City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Preparation Date: July 2, 2002 TXT-01-07 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council conduct a workshop and provide direction to staff. Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 ORDINANCE 6, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 78-221, ENTITLED "PGA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR OVERLAY," AND SECTION 78-231, ENTITLED "PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT," OF THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMITTED USE OF MODULAR NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE PGA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE PROHIBITED USE OF INDIVIDUAL NEWRSACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE PGA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEWSRACKS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF- WAY BY REPEALING SECTION 78-701 OF THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, ENTITLED, "NEWSRACKS" IN ITS ENTIRETY AND CREATING A NEW SECTION 78-701 OF THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, ENTITLED, "NEWSRACK REGULATIONS’"; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE; PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR SIZE, INSTALLATION METHODS, COLOR AND MAINTENANCE; PROVIDING FOR LOCATIONS; PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES; PROVIDING FOR SITE REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED NEWSRACKS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR NONCONFORMING NEWSRACK PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ordinance 6, 2002 WHEREAS, substantial growth in the number of newspaper operators and newsracks in the City has produced a significant increase in the number ofnewsracks installed in public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the installation and placement of newsracks in public rights-of-way have resulted in concerns by the public and the City with regard to safety, welfare, convenience and aesthetics thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens ("City Council") desires to impose such regulations to allow the safe passage of consumers, pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists on public rights-of-way, public sidewalks and bicycle paths in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of the freedom of the press and seeks in no way to restrain or abridge the constitutional rights afforded by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s objectives of safety and aesthetics are recognized as substantial governmental interests sufficient to permit reasonable regulation of the installation, maintenance, location and placement of newsracks; and WHEREAS, Section 78-701 of the City’s Land Development Regulations does not presently allow for the use of modular newsracks in the City’s rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City staff proposes the mandatory use of modular newsracks in lieu of individual newsracks within the PGA Boulevard Corridor and the Parkway Overlay District of the Ordinance 6, 2002 City consistent with the intent and spirit of the overlay district regulations per sections 78-221 and 78-231 respectively; and WHEREAS, on , the Land Development Regulations Committee held a public hearing and recommended its approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the public’s health, safety and welfare to establish regulations regarding the placement, type, appearance, servicing, and insurance of newsracks in, on and around public rights-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and confirmed and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby amends Section 78-221(d)(1) b of the City’s Code Ordinances amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2. PGA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR OVERLAY Section 78-221. PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay. (d) Site development guidelines. (1) District uses. a. Application. The City wishes to continue to preserve and promote the unique bo Ordinance 6, 2002 character of the PGA Boulevard .corridor, and to this end some uses shall be prohibited within the overlay which might be permitted in other zoning districts, which are not subject tO the overlay. Permitted and prohibited uses. Those uses permitted and prohibited within the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay are listed below. 1.Permitted uses shall consist of specialty retail, corporate office complexes, campus industrial parks, community-serving public facilities, and residential uses. In addition, automobiles may be leased or stored as an accessory use to approved hotels, and boats may be stored as an accessory use to approved marinas. Modular newsracks shall be permitted within the public rights-of- way of the PGA Boulevard Corridor in accordance with Section 78-701 of this chapter. Prohibited uses shall consist of auto, recreational vehicle, truck, and similar vehicle sales, storage, and repair; wholesale, discount, self-storage and outlet centers; discount department stores in excess of 50,000 square feet; single- entity retail establishments, unless otherwise provided in this division; intense commercial and industrial activities characteristic of the CG-2 and M-2 districts; and drive-in facilities unless as an accessory use to a bank. Ordinance 6, 2002 Individual newsracks shall be prohibited within the public rights-of-way of the PGA Boulevard Corridor in accordance with Section 78-701 of this chapter. Section 3. The City Council hereby amends Section 78-231(f) of the City’s Code Ordinances, entitled "Parkway development guidelines," to read as follows: DIVISION 3. PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT Section 78-231. Parkway overlay district. (f) Parkway development guidelines. (6) Newsracks a. Modular newsracks shall be permitted within the public rights-of-way of the Parkway overlay district in accordance with Section 78-701 of this chapter. b. Individual newsracks shall be prohibited within in the public rights-of-way of the Parkway overlay district in accordance with Section 78-701 of this chapter. Section 4. The City Council hereby repeals Section 78-701 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, entitled "Newsracks," in its entirety and hereby creates a new Section 78-701, entitled "Newsrack Regulations" to read as follows: Ordinance 6, 2002 DIVISION 13. NEWSRACKS Section 78-701. NEWSRACK REGULATIONS. (a) Purpose. The purpose of these newsrack regulations is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the regulation of placement, type, appearance, servicing, and insuring of newsracks and modular newsracks on within public fights-of-way so as to: (1) Provide for pedestrian and driving safety and convenience; (2) Restrict unreasonable interference with the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic including. ingress into and egress from any residence or place of business, or from the street to the, sidewalk by persons exiting or entering parked or standing vehicles; (3)Provide for the safety of persons and property during hurricane conditions; (4)Provide reasonable access for the use and maintenance of any facilities on the public rights- of-way and access to locations used for public transportation purposes~ (5)Relocate or replace newsracks and modular newsracks which cause visual blight or excessive space allocation on the public rights-of-way or which unreasonably detract from the aesthetics of store window displays, adjacent landscaping and other improvements~ (6)Remove abandoned, inoperable, damaged or defective newsracks and modular newsracks; (7)Maintain and protect the value of surrounding properties and prevent damage to grassed areas within the rights-of-way; (8)Reduce unnecessary_ exposure of the public to personal injury or property damage~ Ordinance 6, 2002 (9)Treat all newspapers and periodicals equally regardless of their size, content, circulation, or frequency of publication; (10)Maintain and preserve the freedom of the press; and (11)Cooperate to a reasonable extent with newspaper and periodical distributors. (b) Rules Ot%onstruction. For the purposes of administration and enforcement of this division, unless otherwise stated in this division, the roles of construction listed below shall apply to the text of this division. (1) (2) Control. If there is any difference of meaning or implication between the text of this division and any caption, illustration, summar7 table, or illustrative table, the text shall control. Definitions, words and phrases. The following words, terms and phrases, listed below, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: a. Advertising circular means any publication that contains only advertising and not news reports. b. Bikepath means that portion of a right-of-way improved, designed, or ordinarily used for bicycle traffic. c. Block means the surface on a sidewalk or swale of a public right-of-way between two consecutive comers on the same side of that public right-of-way. Ordinance 6, 2002 d. Cell means an individual module within a modular newsrack. e. City means the City of Palm Beach Gardens, a Florida municipal corporation. f. Controlling enti_ty means the person or entity responsible for placing and maintaining a newsrack or modular newsrack, the owner of the newsrack or modular newsrack, the lessee or licensee of the owner of the newsrack or modular newsrack, or the publisher of the newspaper vended within a newsrack or modular newsrack. The City may be a controlling entity if it purchases, leases or lease/purchases and maintains or subcontracts the maintenance of modular newsracks. g. Periodical means any advertising circular or newspaper that is published with a fixed interval between the issues or numbers. h. Newsrack means any type of unattended device including any self-service or coin- operated box, container, storage unit or other dispenser installed, used, or maintained for the display and sale of newspapers or other written periodicals, or for the vending or free distribution of newspapers or written periodicals. i. Modular newsrack means a connected grouping of six (6) to fifteen (15) modules or6~|~ pockets within a single structure, either self-service or coin-operated, which is installed as a single unit and used for the display, sale or distribution of newspapers or news j.Public right-of-way means that area dedicated to public use or otherwise owned by public Ordinance 6, 2002 ko mo (3) agency for public street purposes and shall include but not be limited to roadways, swales, alleys and bike paths and sidewalks. Roadway means that portion of the right-of-way improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic. Sidewalk means any surface within a right-of-way provided primarily for the use of pedestrians. Swale means any area within a right-of-way, which is not either a bike path, sidewalk, or roadway. The term shall also include any ~aded area or any area improved with sod material, which is designed to convey stormwater runoff and retain water for a brief period following a rainfall event. "And" and "either or." Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a provision involves two or more items, conditions, provisions or events connected by the coniunction "and" or "either...or," the conjunction shall be interpreted as indicated below. a."And" indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply. b. "Or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events may apply singularly or in any combination. c."Either...or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply, but not in combination. Ordinance 6, 2002 (c) Certificate of compliance required (1)The controlling entity of any newspaper, written periodical or advertising circular seeking to distribute from a newsrack or modular newsrack location within a public right-of-way within the City shall notify the Code Enforcement Supervisor or his/her designee of the location or change of location of each any such newsrack or modular newsrack by filing a certificate of compliance in accordance with the provisions of this section no later than fourteen (14) days before the placement or relocation of the newsrack or modular newsrack, Certificates of compliance forms may be obtained from the Code Enforcement Supervisor (2) (3) or his/her designee. The Code Enforcement Supervisor or his/her designee shall be responsible for reviewing the certificates of compliance to verify compliance with the provisions of this division. The controlling entity shall file with the Code Enforcement Supervisor a written certificate of compliance for each newsrack or modular newsrack, which shall contain the following information: a. The name, address, e-mail address, fax number, and telephone number of the controlling entity who is the owner or principal responsible for the newsrack(s) or modular newsrack(s). 10 Ordinance 6, 2002 b. The name, address and telephone of a responsible party whom the City may notify or contact at any time concerning the controlling entity’s newsrack(s) or modular newsrack(s), including notification for enforcement purposes. c. The proposed location of the newsrack or modular newsrack and reason for the proposed change of location, if applicable. d. The names of newspapers or periodicals to be contained in each newsrack or modular newsrack. e.A certification that the newsrack or modular newsrack is installed in conformance with (4) the provisions of this division in their entirety. f. An executed indemnification agreement and insurance certificate which shall be in form and content acceptable to the City and which certificate shall be renewed annually by the controlling entity at no cost or expense to the City and provide, among other things that the policy shall not be cancelled, terminated or be subject to a notice of non-renewal without at least 30 days written notice to the Ci _ty, with the City as certificate holder and additional insured in compliance with section (h). If a certificate of compliance for a newsrack or modular newsrack location is incorrect, or the newsrack or modular newsrack is not located, maintained, or installed in conformity with the certification of this section, the certificate of compliance shall be deemed denied, and an order to correct the violation shall be issued pursuant to section (j). Ordinance 6, 2002 (d) Standards_for size, installation, maintenance and color of newsracks and modular newsracks. (1)Any newsrack or modular newsrack which rests in whole or in part upon, in or over any public right-of-way located within the city shall comply with the following standards: a. A newsrack or modular newsrack shall not exceed fifty-four (54) inches in height, including the pedestal, if any, forty (40) inches in width, and twenty-four (24) inches depth. A modular newsrack shall not exceed the width of the concrete slab. b. The bases of the Modular modular newsracks shall be painted have gloss black bases. All other surfaces of the modular newsrack shall be painted forest green. c.Modular newsrack cells shall be arranged to provide an overall square or rectangular shape to the entire modular newsrack. d. Newsracks and modular newsracks shall carry_ no advertising except for the name of the publication being distributed and a cardholder kept in a clean, neat and untorn condition describing the publication being distributed. e. Coin-operated newsracks and coin-operated modular newsracks shall be equipped with a coin-return mechanism to allow an immediate refund in the event the newsrack or (2) modular newsrack is inoperable. The coin return mechanism shall be maintained in good working order by the controlling entity, at no cost or expense to the City. Each controlling entity shall permanently affix to its newsrack or modular newsrack a legible label which provides a 24-hour operable telephone number of a working telephone 12 Ordinance 6, 2002 service which the customer may call to report a malfunction, or to secure a refund in the event of a malfunction of the coin return mechanism. The label shall feature clearly on its face, the name and address of the controlling entity to give the notices provided for in this division. (3)The controlling entity shall maintain each newsrack and modular newsrack in a neat, clean and safe condition and in good repair at all times. Each newsrack and modular newsrack shall be maintained so that: a. It is free of graffiti. b. It is reasonably free of dirt and grease. c. It is reasonably free of chipped, faded, peeling and cracked paint in the visible painted areas thereof. d. The clear plastic or glass parts thereon, if any, through which the publications are viewed are unbroken and reasonably free of scratches, cracks, dents, blemishes, and discoloration. e. It is reasonably free of rust and corrosion of the visible metal parts thereon. f. The paper or cardboard parts or inserts thereof are reasonably free of tears, and are not peeling or tearing. g. The structural parts are not broken or unduly misshapen. h. The surrounding area upon which the newsrack or modular newsrack is placed is maintained in a neat and orderly condition. 3_3 Ordinance 6, 2002 Any newsrack or modular newsrack being installed, placed or maintained on a public right-of-waT, street, sidewalk, or other public property shall be installed in a safe and secure manner so as to prevent the newsracks or modular newsracks from being stolen or (4) becoming a hazard in severe weather. Individual newsracks shall comply with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code. At any time, the total weight of the newsrack shall not be less than one hundred twenty-five (125) pounds. A modular newsrack shall secured to a concrete slab as specified in engineered drawings which shall be submitted to the City for approval. j.In the event of the issuance of a hurricane warning by any entity with jurisdiction to issue such a warning, the newsrack shall be secured to the ground in compliance with Section 1606 of the Standard Building Code by the ovcn~ controlling entity, at its expense, prior to the hurricane warning. If the newsrack is determined to be unsafe or is not secured or removed by the controlling entity, the City may remove the newsrack pursuant to this subsection and charge the o-v6,a~ controlling entity for these services. The City may order the removal of modular newsracks and individual newsracks from public ri_~,,Jats-of-way and other City property where those existing modular newsracks and individual newsracks do not fully comply with the provisions of this division. (5) Ordinance 6, 2002 Modular newsracks shall not be placed on the concrete slab or sidewalk in a manner that would obstruct other modular newsracks on the same concrete slab or sidewalk nor may they (6) extend beyond the concrete slab or other applicable dimensions set forth in this ordinance. Newsracks and modular newsracks shall be installed and maintained in compliance with this (7) e-x4sting City ordinance. The owner controlling enti _ty of any newsrack or modular newsrack found in violation of the City ordinances is subject to the enforcement provisions of section (j) and subject to abandonment where indicated in section (i). The controlling entity of a modular newsrack or a newsrack shall not recover or collect from entities placing for distribution publications in a newsrack, or a modular newsrack payments in excess of the actual cost of the newsrack or the modular newsrack and the actual reasonable costs for maintenance. The cost of the modular newsrack may be prorated in proportion to the size of the individual module in a modular newsrack. The annual maintenance costs may also be paid in equal monthly installments. In no event, however, shall a controlling enti _ty collect payments over the actual costs referred to above, once recaptured. The controlling entity shall file a document with the Code Enforcement Supervisor illustrating the biannual cost computations on July 31 and December 31 of each year. Ordinance 6, 2002 (e) Locations for newsracks and modular newsracks. (1)Individual newsracks shall be prohibited in accordance with Section 78-221 (d)(1) b Section 78-231 (6) b of the City’s Code of Ordinances and shall be removed by the controlling entity at its cost, within one (1) year of adoption of this division. (2)Modular newsracks shall comply with the established standards and requirements within one (1) year of adoption of this division. (3)Individual newsracks located outside the PGA Boulevard Overlay and the Parkway District shall comply with the standards and requirements as set forth in this division within one (1) year of adoption of this division. (f) Administrative and inspection fees. (1)The controlling enti _ty of any newsrack or modular newsrack located on, any City right-of- way shall pay an annual administrative fee as established by the City Council. The administrative fee payable under this section are intended to defray the costs of administering this division and inspection ofnewsracks and modular newsracks located in the City. (2)The failure of a controlling entity of any newsrack or modular newsrack to pay all administrative and inspection fees shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of section (j). 3_6 Ordinance 6, 2002 (g) Site regulations. (1) Modular newsracks and newsracks shall not be placed, installed, or erected on any landscaped area within an improved public right-of-way or public property_. The landscaped areas include, but are not limited to, those areas in which the following ground cover material is placed: a. Decorative plants, or b. Native plants maintained to match the surrounding flora. (2)The placement of all newsracks and modular newsracks within the City shall comply with all ADA requirements. (3)Modular newsracks shall not be placed in any public right-of-way or on any City property unless installed on a concrete slab and securely affixed thereto. (4)Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be physically attached, chained or bolted in any manner to any physical object within the rights-of-way. (5)Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be located within fifteen (15) feet of a fire hydrant, fire call box, or other emergency facility. (6)Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be physically erected to obstruct the function of traffic control signals, traffic signs or pavement markings. (7)Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be placed in such a manner which obstructs the free pedestrian flow to and from a pedestrian traffic signal push button. In order to allow for Ordinance 6, 2002 the free pedestrian flow and handicap access to and from the pedestrian traffic s!gnal push buttons, modular newsracks and newsracks shall be placed at least thirty-six (36) inches away from such pedestrian traffic signal push buttons. (8)Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be placed, installed or erected directly on a paved surface which is intended primarily for the use of motor vehicles or bicyclists. (9)Newsracks that are placed on a sidewalk shall leave a clear area for traffic of not less than forty (40) inches in width. (10)Modular newsracks or newsracks which are placed on a bike path shall leave a clear area of not less than eight (8) feet in width. (11 ) Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be placed within the visibili _ty triangle as defined in the City’s Code of Ordinances. (12)Modular newsracks and newsracks shall not be placed, installed or erected any of the areas defined in this section. a. The area within fifty (50) feet of any railroad track. b. On any City property unless the location has been specifically designated by the City Manager or their designee. The City Manager or their designee shall designate locations at City facilities for the placement of modular newsracks or newsracks. The Cit,¢ mac prepare a map for each City facility illustrating the designated locations for the placement 3_8 Ordinance 6, 2002 of modular newsrack or newsracks. The location maps shall be available for inspection at the office of the Ci_ty Clerk. c. The area within the medians of a divided roadway. d. Modular newsracks or newsracks shall not be placed within a one thousand (1000) foot radius of another modular newsrack or newsrack containing the same newspaper, news periodical, or advertising circular except where separated by an intersection. Where warranted by the quantity of newspaper sales, the Code Enforcement Supervisor may allow a double newsrack or modular newsrack that otherwise complies in every_ respect with the provisions of this division. e. Modular newsrack and newsrack locations shall be a~eed upon by mutual consent of the City staff and the controlling " "entity, f. If more than one placement requirement, restriction, or if more than one prohibition or enforcement provision applies, the more restrictive requirement, restriction, enforcement provision, or prohibition shall apply. (h) Insurance, indemnification and hold harmless. (1)Every_ controlling entity who places or maintains a modular newsrack or a newsrack on a public right-of-way, public sidewalk, street or swale in the City, shall furnish to the Code Enforcement Supervisor or his/her designee, a current certificate of insurance on September 1 of every_ year. Such insurance shall be comprehensive general liabili _ty or commercial 3_9 Ordinance 6, 2002 general liability coverage establishing minimum limits of total coverage of~,_,,...,......eann ncm $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for Bodily Injury_ Liability and Property Damage Liability and shall name the City as an additional insured party. Such controlling entity may substitute reasonable evidence of equivalent self-insurance coverage or cash bond, for the above certificate of insurance, subject to the prior written approval of the Risk Manager and City Attorney. Insurance under this section shall run continuously with the presence of modular newsracks or newsracks on City rights-of-way, and any termination or lapse of such insurance shall be a violation of this division, and result in revocation of the certificate of compliance. (2)Evep¢ controlling entity of a modular newsrack or a newsrack who wishes to place or maintains a modular newsrack or a newsrack on a public right-of-way, public sidewalk, street or swale in the City, shall first execute a written indemnification agreement supplied by the City, under which i-t the controlling enti _ty agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any loss, liability, or damage, including expenses and costs, for bodily or personal injury_, and for property damage sustained by any person as a result of the installation, use and/or maintenance of its the controlling entity’s modular newsracks or newsracks within the City. The requirements contained in this subsection shall survive the removal of any modular newsrack or newsrack 2O Ordinance 6, 2002 and shall not be construed to affect in any way the City’s rights, privileges, and immunities as set forth in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. (i) Disposition of abandoned newsracks. (1)If any modular newsrack or newsrack installed pursuant to this division or covered by this division does not contain the publication specified therefor within a period of thirty (30) continuous days for a monthly publication, and fourteen (14) continuous days for all other publications, the Code Enforcement Division may deem the newsrack abandoned and take appropriate action under Section 705.103 Florida Statutes. (2)If fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the total cells in a modular newsrack remain emp _ty for fourteen (14) continuous days, it shall be deemed abandoned and posted as such. (3)If the controlling entity is not identified on the modular newsrack or newsrack, it shall be considered abandoned and posted as such. (j) Enforcement and penalties. (1)Ifa modular newsrack or newsrack is or has been installed, used, or maintained in violation of this division, a notice of violation shall be issued to the controlling entity. In addition, a copy of the notice shall be posted on the offending modular newsrack or newsrack. (2)If the controlling entity of a modular newsrack or newsrack ~¢,~ 1 ~ ~. ....fails to comply with the above notice of violation, a notice of ..........hearing before the Code Enforcement Special Master shall be issued to the controlling entity. 21 (3) Ordinance 6, 2002 In addition, a copy of the notice of heating shall be posted on the offending modular newsrack or newsrack. The City may remove a newsrack or modular newsrack whose owner controlling entity fails to correct a violation within the time specified by order of the Code Enforcement Special Master without cost or liability to the city. a. If the offending newsrack or modular newsrack is not properly identified as to the controlling entity under section (c) of this division and the controlling enti _ty is otherwise unknown, a notice of violation shall be posted thereon. b. If the violation is not corrected within the specified time, the City shall remove the newsrack. Any newsrack or modular newsrack so removed shall be stored by the City at the distributor’s expense for a period of thirty (30) days. The newsrack or modular newsrack shall be released to the controlling entity or upon a proper showing of ownership and payment of all storage charges. c. If the newsrack or modular newsrack is not claimed within the thirty (30) day period, may be sold at public auction in compliance with Chapter 705.103, Florida Statutes. d. The Code Enforcement Supervisor, in addition, shall provide the controlling entity, if known, with written notice of the auction by certified mail, return receipt requested. e. If a controlling entity has been ordered by the Code Enforcement Special Master to correct a violation of this division, the removal of the modular newsrack or newsrack 22 Ordinance 6, 2002 shall be stayed pending final disposition of an appeal, if any, to the circuit court as provided for in section 1-18 of the City’s Code of Ordinances and Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. (4)Any violation of this division shall be subject to penalties imposed under Article VII of the City’s Land Development Regulations and under provisions of code enforcement as contained in Chapter 2 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. (k) Noncon_forming newsracks. (1)Every_ individual newsrack that was lawfully installed within the City and outside the areas described in section (e) on the effective date of this division and which is a _type ofnewsrack not permitted by this division may be continued for a period of one (1) year, except provided in this subsection. a.Nonconforming newsracks shall not be enlarged or altered in any way except to bring the newsrack into conformity. b. If that newsrack is destroyed by any means to an extent of sixty percent (60%) or more its replacement costs at the time of destruction, the newsrack shall not be replaced except in conformance with this chapter. c. If any newsrack is removed for any reason, other than maintenance or name change of occupant, from its location and reinstalled, the newsrack shall conform to the requirements of this division. 23 Ordinance 6, 2002 (2)Upon expiration of the time period stated in subsection (1) herein, each affected newsrack shall be brought into compliance with the requirements of this division within ten (10) days of expiration. (3)Any newsrack existing on property annexed into the ci_ty that was lawful at time of annexation but does not conform to the requirements of this division shall comply with the standards of this division within one (1) year. The one (1) year shall commence on the the annexation ordinance is adopted. (4)The time periods provided in this subsection are for the purpose of amortizing the costs of a newsrack and any property rights created by virtue of lease of location and/or newsrack space. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 7. Codification. The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the code of laws and ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The sections of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such and the word "division" may be 24 Ordinance 6, 2002 changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 2002. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2002. ERIC JABLIN, MAYOR CARL SABATELLO, VICE MAYOR DAVID CLARK, COUNCILMEMBER ANNIE DELGADO, COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH RUSSO, COUNCILMEMBER ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY: PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 25 Ordinance 6, 2002 VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO AYE NAY ABSENT 26 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-701 (4) Enforcement. Place responsibility for enforcement of covenants. (5)Assessments. Provide for the assessment of each lot by the governing association for its proportionate share of maintenance costs. (d) Parkway system. Any development fronting on a road designated as a parkway shall install or develop a buffered multi-use pathway as provided in the comprehensive plan and division 3 of article V. The parkway shall include landscaped medians, a 12-foot pathway, and landscaped greenbelts. Preservation of native vegetation is encouraged. ................... (Oi,=d?NS?=l 7.:2000~07 ;~20~00)~ Sec. 78-682. Historical and archaeological sites. (a) Designation. The criteria listed below shall be used to designate a site of historical or archaeological significance in the city. (1)National listing. A site located in the city that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior pursuant to the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. (2)State listing. A site located in the city that is listed in the state master site file maintained by the Florida Department of State. (b) Application. Any development activity on a property that contains a site of historical or archaeological significance as defined in this subsection shall be subject to the prevailing state and federal regulations. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 308, 7-20-00) Secs. 78-683--78-700. Reserved. DMSION 13. NEWSRACKS ~Sec. 78-701. Newsracks. (a) Rules of construction. For the purposes of administration and enforcement of this division, unless otherwise stated in this division, the rules of construction listed below shall apply to the text of this division. (1)Control. If there is any difference of meaning or implication between the text of this division and any caption, illustration, summary table, or illustrative table, the text shall control. (2)Definitions, words, and phrases. The words, terms, and phrases listed below, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. a.Advertising circular means any publication that contains only advertising and not news reports. Supp. No. 10 CD78:373 § 78-701 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE b.Bike path means that portion of a right-of-way improved, designed, or ordinarily used for bicycle traffic. c. Distributor means the person responsible for placing and mo~taining the newsrack, the owner of the newsrack, or the publisher of the newspaper, news periodical or advertising circular vended therein. d. "Includes" shall limit a term to the specified example, but is intended to extend e.Newsrack meana any self-service or coin-operated box, container, storage ~mit or other dispenser located, placed, installed, used, or maintained for the display, sale or distribution of newspapers or other news periodicals or advertising circulars. f. Ri~ht-of-way means that area dedicated to public use or otherwise owned by a public agency for public street purposes and shall include but not be limited to roadways, swales, bike paths and sidewsli~a. g.Roadway mesns that portion of the right-of-way improved, designed, or ordi- narily used for vehicular tra~c. h.Sidewalk means any surface within a right-of-way provided for the primary use of pedestrians. i. Swale means any area within a right-of-way which is not either a bike path, : sidewalk, or roadway. The term shall also include any graded area or any area improved with sod material, which is designed to convey stormwater runoff and retain water for a brief period following a r~infall event. j."Used for" includes the phrases "arranged for," "designed for," "maintained for," or "occupied for." (3)’~4nd" and "either or." Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a provision involves two or more items, conditions, provisions or events connected by the conjunction "and" or "either... or," the conjunction shall be interpreted as indicated below. a."And" indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply. b."Or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events may apply singly or in any combination. c."Either... or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events shall apply singly, but not in combination. (b) Authority and legislative intent. This division is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to municipalities under Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and F.S. Chapter 166. This division is intended solely to further the public’s health, safety and general welfare by ensuring that newsracks are located so as to protect both Supp. No. I0 CD78:374 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-701 pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles and bicycles. This division is in no way intended to regulate or obstruct the free flow of information by the "press" or other print media. (c) Standards for maintenance, installation, location, and placement. Any newsrack located in whole or in part within the city |imits shall comply with the standards listed below. (1)Advertising prohibited. Newsracks shall not be used for advertising signs or publicity purposes other than to state the name of the newspaper or news periodical sold th~rem, or to advertise a section, issue or supplement of the newspaper or news periodical sold therein. (2)Maintenance. Each newsrack shall be maintained in a clean, neat and attractive condition and in good repair at all times. (3)Name of distributor. Each newsrack shall have affixed to it, in a readily visible place, the name, address and telephone number of the distributor of the newsrack. (4)Encroachments. A newsrack shall not be used or maintained if or when such equipment projects onto, into, or over any part of or on any roadway, bicycle path, or pedestrian sidewalk. (5)Installation. Newsracks shall not be installed, used, or maintained which, in whole or in part, rests upon, in, or over any public right-of-way or other public property, which may result in the following: a. Such installation, use or maintenance endangers the safety of persons or ¯ property; or b.When such site or location is used for pubhc utility purposes, pubhc transporta- tion purposes or other government use; or c. When such newsrack interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the ingress into or egress from any residence, place of business, or any legally parked or stopped vehicle; or d. When such newsrack interferes with or impedes the use of poles, posts, traffic signs, or signals, hydrants, mailboxes or other objects permitted at or near the location; or e.When such newsrack interferes with the use of machinery to maintain any sidewalk or swale; or f. When such newsrack interferes with the ordinary use of public property. (6)Swales. A newsrack shall not be permitted in any city-maintained swale when placement of the newspaper rack interferes with the maintenance or integrity of the swale. (7)Maximum dimensions. Newsracks, whether single- or double-wide, shall not exceed 54 inches in height, 45 inches in width, or 24 inches in depth. Supp. No. 10 CD78:375 § 78-701 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE (8)Walls. Newsracks placed adjacent to the wall of a building shall be placed parallel to such wall and not more than six inches from the wall. (9)Installation in rights-of-way. Newsracks shall not be chained, bolted, or otherwise attached to any fixture located in a right-of-way when such chaining, bolting or other attachment substantially increases dangers to the safety of persons or property. (10) Attachment on private property. Newsracks shall not be chained, bolted, or otherwise ....................~iR~dh~:~--~:~~ ~ ~ ~~~i~ :~~l=~lSj ~t~:~-i~ l’~§-~~:~t~i#f the ............... owner of such property or object is obtained in writing. (11)Multiple racks. Newsracks may be placed, chained, or otherwise attached to one another. However, not more than three newsracks containing the same publication may be joined or placed together in this manner, and a space of not less than 18 inches shall separate each group of three racks. For purposes of this division, one double-wide newsrack shall constitute two single newsracks. (12)Weight limits. Multiple newsracks permitted under this division, when empty and including any concrete or other base structure, shall not weigh in the aggregate in excess of 225 pounds. (13)Prohibited locations. Newsracks shall not be placed, installed, used, or maintslned within 15 feet of the following: a. Any marked crosswal~; b. The curb return of any unmarked crosswall~; c. Any fire hydrant, fire call box, or other emergency facility; d. Any driveway;, or e. Any sign marking a designated bus stop. (14) Separation. a. Not more than three single newsracks containing the s~rne issue or edition or the same publication shall be located the lesser of the following: on the same side of the street and within the same block or within 1,000 feet on the same side of the street. b.However, a distributor may locate newsracks in excess of this limitation by demonstrating a public need for the excess newsracks. A public need may be established by the following method, but such method is not exclusive. After notice to the city, the distributor may monitor the sales activity of the newspaper at a particular location for a period of one month. If, during that one-month test period, the distributor can demonstrate that the average circulation from that newsrack equals or exceeds 75 percent of the capacity of the newsrack, a public need is established and an additional single newsrack may be placed at the location. Supp. No. 10 CD78:376 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-701 c.This separation shall not apply in any area that is predominately developed for business or commercial purposes. d.For purposes of this subsection, one double-wide newsrack shall constitute two single newsracks. (15)Handicapped accessibility. The placement of all newsracks in this city shall comply with all local and state handicap accessibility regulations. a. Each owner of a newspaper rack shall execute a document, approved by the city attorney, agreeing to hold the city, its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any claim, demand, or judgment in favor of any person arising out of the location of any newsrack located upon, in, or over a public right-of-way or other public property. b.Each owner of a newspaper rack shall deposit with the city manager a certificate of insurance evidencing that a liability insurance policy has been issued in min]rnum amounts set by the city manager. The policy shall name the city as an additional insured and shall contain a provision that the policy cannot be canceled except upon five days’ written notice to the city of the fact of such cancellation. If such insurance is canceled at any time during the time the newsrack is installed or maintained on public property, the newsrack shall be removed in accordance with this division. (17)Location on private property. Any newsrack located totally on private property shall be subject to and comply with the provisions of this division contained in subsections. The distributor shall receive permission of the property owner for placement of newsracks on private property. (18)Abandonment. If a newsrack remains empty for a period of 30 continuous days, the equipment shall be deemed abandoned and may be treated in the manner as provided in subsection (d) for a newsrack in violation of this division. (d) Enforcement. (1)Violations. If a newsrack is or has been installed, used, or maintained in violation of this division, notice of violation pursuant to article VII shall be issued to the affected distributor. In addition, a copy of the notice shall be posted on the offending newsrack. (2)Failure to comply. a. The city may remove a newsrack whose owner fails to correct a violation within the time specified by order of the code enforcement board. b.If the offending newsrack is not properly identified as to the distributor under subsection (d)(3) of this section and the distributor is not otherwise known, notice of violation may be posted thereon. If the violation is not corrected within 30 days, the newsrack shall be removed by the city. Any newsrack so removed Supp. No. 10 CD78:377 § 78-701 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE shall be stored by the city at the distributor’s expense for a period of 90 days. The newsrack shall be released to the distributor upon a proper showing of ownership and payment of all storage charges. c.If the newsrack is not c|simed within the 90-day period, the newsrack may be sold at public auction and the proceeds applied first to storage charges and then paid to the city. At least ten days prior to the auction, the city clerk shall publish a .......................................description, of.the.newarack, the.lo~c.ation from :which..it~was r.emvved,,and a notice of the auction in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. do The city clerk, in addition, shall provide .the distributor or newsrack owner, if known, with written notice of the auction by. certified mail, return receipt requested: eo If a newsrack distributor has been ordered by the code enforcement board to correct a violation of this division, the removal of the newsrack shall be stayed pending final disposition of an appeal, if any, to the circuit court as provided for in section 1-18 of the City Code and F.S. Chapter 1621 (3)Fees. The owner of a newsrack shall pay to the city an annual administrative fee, as established by the city for each newsrack located within the city. All of the fees collected are to be used solely to defray the administrative expense of regulating the use of newspaper vending machines, pursuant to this division and shall not be placed into the city’s general revenue fund. (4)Safety. All newsracks which are potentially unsafe in severe weather conditions must be secured to the satisfaction of the building official in accordance with the standards of the building code. If the newsrack is determined by the building official to be unsafe and is not secured or removed by the owner, the city may remove the newsrack pursuant to this subsection. (e) Nonconforming newsracks. (1)Status. Every newsrack lawfidly installed within the city on the effective date of this division and which is a type of newsrack not permitted in this division may be continued for a period of two years, except as provided in this subsection. Nonconforming newsracks shall not be enlarged or altered in any way except to bring the newsrack into conformity. b. If that newsrack is destroyed by any means to an extent of 60 percent or more of its replacement costs at the time of destruction, the newsrack shall not be replaced except in conformance with this chapter. ¯ c.If any newsrack is removed for any reason, other than maintenance or name change of occupant, from its location and reinstalled, the newsrack sign shall conform to all requirements of this chapter. Supp. No. 10 CD78:378 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-711 (2)Expiration of nonconforming status. Upon expiration of the time period as stated in subsection (e) herein, each affected newsrack shall be immediately removed or brought into ~ompliance with the requirements of this division. (3)Effect of annexation. Any newsrack existing on property annexed into the city that was lawful at time of annexation but does conform to the requirements of this division, shall be removed within two years. The two years shall commence beginning on the date the comprehensive land use plan amendment affecting the property is adopted. amortizing the costs of a newsrack and any property rights created by virtue of lease of location and]or newsrack space. (f) Penalties. Any violation of this division shall be subject to penalties imposed under article VII and under provisions of code enforcement as contained in chapter 2 of the City Code. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 309, 7-20-00) Secs. 78-702--78-710. Reserved. ARTICLE VI. NONCONFORMITIES Sec. 78-711. Intent of article. (a) Lawful nonconformities established. Where there exist lots, structures, or uses of land and structures within the zoning districts established by this division which were lawful before August 18, 1994, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted as of that date, these lots, structures, or uses of land and structures may continue for up to seven years from August 18, 1994, or as otherwise provided by the comprehensive plan. (b) Continuation of lawful nonconformities. (1)Continuation permitted. Lawful nonconformities may continue beyond seven years from August 18, 1994, as provided herein, or as otherwise provided by the comprehen- sive plan. (2)City council approval. Nonconformities may continue provided the city council deter- mines that the existing nonconforming lot, structure, or use is compatible with surrounding properties. (3)Nonconformities review process. a. Development review process. The growth management director shall establish a development review process for applications to continue the use of lawful nonconformities. The development review process shall include an advisory recommendation by the planning and zoning commission. b.City council action. As part of development review, the city council may require modifications to the property or adopt conditions to increase compliance of the Supp. No. 10 CD78:379 § 78-711 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE nonconforming lot, structure, or use with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Modifications or conditions the city council may impose include, but are not limited to, the following: 1.Installation of additional landscaping; 2.Installation of additional parldng; 3.Removal or modification of signs; 4.Installation of additional screening and buffering; 5.Change location of d~lmpsters, recycling containers, and related equipment; 6.Alter hours of operation; and 7.Alter outdoor or security lighting. (c) Expansion of nonconformities. A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land, or a nonconforming use of a structure and land shall not be expanded, extended, or enlarged after the effective date of this chapter by attachment on a building or premises of additional signs or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited in the district involved. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 310, 7-20-00) Sec. 78-712. Nonconforming lots of record. If a lot of record exists which was platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach County prior to August 18, 1994, and does not conform to minimum area or dimensional requirements for the zoning district in which it is located~ the lot may be used for any use permitted in the district. A lot of record must comply with other density and land development regulations of the zoning district. Lots of record must be held in separate ownership and cannot help form or be part of a continuous frontage with other lots held in the same ownership. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 311, 7-20:00) Sec. 78-713. Uses with minimum lot sizes. Any use which requires a minimum land area or lot size shall not be located on a lot of record unless the lot of record complies with the minimum land area requirement. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 312, 7-20-00) Sec. 78-714. Nonconforming uses of land. If, onAugust 18~ 1994, a legal use of land exists, and such use would no longer be permissible after that date, such use may be continued for a period of seven years from August 18, 1994, or as otherwise may be provided, by the comprehensive plan, The use shall comply with all requirements of this chapter, and is subject to the listed below. Supp. No. 10 CD78:380 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 Secs. 78-192--78-220. Reserved. DMSION 2. PGA BOULEVARD CORRIDOR OVERLAY ~Sec. 78-221. PGA Boulevard corridor overlay. (a) Scope. The planning and design regulations established in this division shall apply to all lands within the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay. (b) Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this division is provided below. (1)Main Street character. The character, magnitude, aesthetics, and uses to be developed or redeveloped on PGA Boulevard are of special interest to the city because it is the city’s "Main Street." Accordingly, the purpose and intent of this division is to implement policies regarding the PGA Boulevard corridor as recognized by the city’s comprehensive plan. Policy 1.1.6.5 of the city’s comprehensive plan states that PGA Boulevard shall be developed using the techniques indicated below. a. Following completion of the PGA Boulevard/Alternate A1A urban interchange, a new CRALLS (Constrained Road way at a Lower Level of Service) level of service standard for PGA Boulevard shall be determined in coordination with the county, the regional planning council and the state department of transportation, with the maximum number of lanes being six. b.The city shall maintain the PGA design guidelines as regulations which require utilization of landscaping, boulevard strips, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, buffers, and setbacks to emphasize the various functions of PGA Boulevard as a divider of different land uses and as a center of the city. (2)Planning and design guidelines. The city seeks to encourage the development of specific commercial retail and office uses along PGA Boulevard because it is the city’s "Main Street." Because the PGA Boulevard corridor acts as a divider between land uses, it is necessary that the city ensure that adequate buffering is provided along this corridor in a consistent manner. In recognition of the city’s desire to create special character and aesthetics for this corridor, planning and design guidelines and particular uses are established for the PGA Boulevard corridor. The planning and design guidelines are intended to achieve the objectives listed below. a.Create a special identity for PGA Boulevard through the use of planning and design standards. b.Ensure high quality, architecturally compatible, consistently landscaped devel- opment along the corridor c.Regulate uses within the corridor which will create a specific character and aesthetic quality for the corridor. d.Ensure that new development or redevelopment projects preserve and enhance the existing visual character of the corridor. Supp. No. 10 CD78:185 § 78-221 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE e. Promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the city. (3)Use regulations. The use regulations in this division are intended to create an urban environment that displays the highest quality private and public-sector development, Further, innovative and alternative provisions which lend a sense of integration and connection to the properties along the corridor shall be encouraged. (4)Waivers. The city shall not grant any waiver which permits the establishment of a use not authorized by this division. (c) Applicability and effects. (1) Applicability. a.Standards. The standards contained in this division shall apply to all property which fronts upon or is considered by the city to be functionally oriented to PGA Boulevard. These standards may apply regardless of whether or not a property is primarily accessed via PGA Boulevard or where property may not be accessible via PGA Boulevard. b. Existing approvals. While existing development and approvals granted prior to August 18, 1994, are not required to comply with the standards, any ~mendments to previous approvals, redevelopment, or development approvals which have been granted time extensions for a previously-approved development plan or the continuation of a partially-developed development plan shall conform with these regulations. c.Affect on nonconformities. Nonconformlug buildings, lots, or uses shall be subject to the provisions of the overlay should they seek any exp~n.~ion or modification, or should they suffer damage in excess of 50 percent of their appraised value. (2)Boundaries. The PGA Boulevard corridor overlay consists of those lands fronting or abutting PGA Boulevard, including access drives, for a depth of1,000 feet from the edge of right-of-way, within the city limits. (3)Conflicts. To the extent that any conflicts occur between the standards of the overlay and this chapter or other regulations, the provisions of the overlay shall prevail. Additionally, where provisions of this overlay are not in conflict with other regulations, that which is more strict shall prevail. (d) Site development guidelines. (1)District uses. at Application. The city wishes to continue to preserve and promote the unique character of the PGA Boulevard corridor, and to this end some uses shall be prohibited within the overlay which might be permitted in other zoning districts which are not subject to the overlay. Supp. No. 10 CD78:186 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 b.Permitted and prohibited uses. Those uses permitted and prohibited within the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay are listed below. 1.Permitted uses shall consist of specialty retail, corporate office complexes, campus industrial parks, community-serving public facilities, and residen- tial uses. In addition, automobiles may be leased or stored as an accessory use to approved hotels, and boats may be stored as an accessory use to approved marinas. 2.Prohibited uses shall consist of auto, recreational vehicle, truck, and similar vehicle sales, storage, and repair; wholesale, discount, self-storage and outlet centers; discount department stores in excess of 50,000 square feet; single-entity retail establishments, unless otherwise provided in this divi- sion; intense commercial and industrial activities characteristic of the CG-2 and M-2 districts; and drive-in facilities unless as an accessory use to a bank. 3.The purpose and intent of this subsection is to allow a single-entity retail activity located within freestanding commercial structure as follows: (i) A single entity retail use is allowed when integrated into an overall PUD or PCD master plan or site plan; or (ii)A single entity retail use, not to be integrated into an overall PUD or PCD master plan or site plan, may be allowed subject to the standards provided herein. c.Exceptions for certain single-entity retail users. Single-entity retail users may be permitted in the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay, subject to the requirements of this division and the additional requirements listed below. 1.The building within which the single-entity retail use is proposed to be located, and the exact nature of the use, shall be approved by the city council. 2.If located within a larger development, the single-entity retail building shall be designed and constructed in a manner that reflects the same architec- tural style, color, materials, and treatments of the other buildings within the parcel. 3. ¯ If planned, located, and approved as a freestanding building on a separate parcel, a single entity retail building shall be designed in a msnuer that is consistent with the following standards: (i)The building shall be designed to appear as a structure containing multiple tenants or users; (ii)The design is compatible with the objectives of the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay; (iii)The design is consistent with the architectural style of adjacent buildings; Supp. No. 10 CD78:187 § 78-221 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE (2) (iv)The design enhances the appearance of the entire PGA Boulevard corridor; (v)The design provides great visual interest through such techniques as multiple roof lines, architectural details, use of pedestrian ~menities, use of exterior facade treatments, and similar elements which avoid the creation of monolithic structures; (vi)The design of the structure provides open space, landscaping, and similar ~menities of.a nature and extent that greatly exceeds the requirements of this chapter; and (vii)The design provides architectural treatments on all sides of a struc- ture, and screens or buffers all facilities such as loading zones, mechanical equipment, and trash and garbage containers. 4.The building within which the single-entity retail use is located shall not exceed 50,000 gross, square feet. 5.If located within a larger development, a single-entity retail building shall, at a m~rtimnm, share the following elements with all other buildings located within the same development: (i) Common adherence to all conditions of development approval adopted by the city; (ii) Shared use of common areas; (iii) Shared use of pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities; (iv) Shared use of all parking facilities and cross access with all vehicular use areas; and (v) Shared maintenance responsibilities for all common areas. d. Site development. Site development regulations shall incorporate design criteria required by section 78-48 of this chapter to enhance and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the city. e.Nonresidential development. Nonresidential development shall blend into the landscape, deferring to open spaces, existing natural features and vegetation. f. Commercial strip development discouraged. Mivimum lot sizes and limited access drives shall be used to reduce the potential for commercial strip develop- ment. Neighboring properties are encouraged to link their parking lots together and to share common driveways. g.Pedestrian amenities. Uses shall contribute to pedestrian-friendly focal spaces through the provision of well-designed walking paths, pedestrian spaces with furnishings, public art, generous plantings, marked crosswalks, and vehicular parking and circulation areas clearly separated from such pedestrian amenities. Special regulat.ions. The city comprehensive plan, including policies 1.1.5.1m1.l.5A, establish special regulations to guide the growth, development and redevelopment of the city. These regulations, pertaining to minimum size, gross density, and rezoning S.u.~p. No. 10 CD78:188 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 requirements, apply to properties within the PGA Boulevard corridor overlay. Devel- opment shall only be permitted within the overlay consistent with the objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. (3)Parkway. The portion of PGA Boulevard located between Central Boulevard and the Beeline Highway has been designated a parkway in the comprehensive plan and on the future land use map. The PGA Boulevard parkway shall have a minimum right-of-way/easement requirement of 400 feet. This right-of-way/easement shall be reserved by the abuttinglandowner or dedicated to the city within the overlay district. Within this right-of-way/easement sidewalks and pathways shall be provided. These pedestrian and bike facilities shall be provided as components of the city’s linkage plan, as described in section 78-231. (4)Special front setback requirements. a.Consistent with subsection (c) herein, all lands west of Prosperity Farms Road having frontage on PGA Boulevard shall be subject to the special front setback requirements listed below. 1.Structures or paved areas for motor vehicles, other than for ingress and egress, shall not be installed or constructed within 55 feet of the road right-of-way or future expanded right-of-way, whichever is greater. This requirement may be varied by the city council to allow art in public places, transit stops and pedestrian amenities such as meandering sidew~lt~s, kiosks, or signage within the setback. 2.The entire area within the required front setback shall be fully grassed and landscaped consistent with the requirements of division 7 of article V. 3.Within the 400-foot parkway portion of the corridor, if a greenbelt area at least 55 feel~ in width is provided, the 55-foot special setback shall not apply. (e) Rezonings. Every property owner seeking a development order within the PGA Boule- vard corridor overlay shall rezone the property to a PUD or PCD overlay zoning district. Property owners of existing developments shall undertake this rezoning at the time a modification of existing approval, time extension, site plan amendment, or development order change is initiated or aider suffering damage in excess of 50 percent of the appraised value. Uses permitted within the PUD or PCD shall conform with the comprehensive plan land use category, the underlying zoning district, and any development .order approved by the city council where not in conflict with the provisions of this overlay. (f) Boulevard landscape theme and parkway guidelines. (1)Tree preservation. a.Vegetation preservation. In an effort to preserve expansive open spaces and native vegetative communities, development shall be clustered to preserve large areas of open space and the existing natural vegetation shall be preserved whenever possible, except invasive exotic plant species. Supp. No. 10 CD78:189 §: 7.8r~]~PALM BEACI~. GARDENS CODE: b~. ~asVructure design. Infrastructure ~iga, ~ ~n~gral~e existing trees, understory vegetation, and the natural character of the land. During construc- ~a, e~sting natural vegetation sh .~.: ~ l~:~ioteq~& by ~he d~veloper’s implemen- tation of best management practices c.on,s..i~ent with di ~vi~..ions... 4 and 7 of article V. Drainage or elevation changes occurring d~g ~.~as~ctt~re insta!l.ation shal~ n.ot adversely impact tree preservati0r~ The ~.greenbelt of the PGA. Boulevard corridor can be a relocation site for t~¢es~ ~.d.. O~h~r: p~..an,t..a, being m~ved from ~j,~¢~_n..~. ~eve!_op~e.r~_t:.. ~.._c_.o..~...~m~t:ion.., e~p~.~s._’.m., s.h.~_~._., be. p!~c~..d .on the replacement of dead and ~mhealthy tre~ ~.d.. p~ts to, en~..ur, e in perpetuity that a substantial tree canopy rem~.i.n..a.. ~ee credits. Trees which have been. p~e~erve..d. ~t~ t.l~ PQABoulev.. ,a~d, ¢0rrido..r shall not be credited toward mee~n.~ ~ ~.~f:s~ e..~..~o~me~tal l~lyeservation r:~q~ements unless, approv, ed fo.~. ~t b$ ~!~ ~o,~t~ ~n,~=~.,.em~t, .di.’.r.ector, consistent with the standards of aection "/8-25.0~. Retention and dete~tion drain- age and stormwater control facilities shall not be located within the landscape/ buffer areas of the PGA Boulevard corridor. Existing natural vegetation shall be maintained or managed with the same standards set for new landscaping. The requirement of 100 percent irrigation may be waived by the city council within large clusters or stands of natural vegetation where it can be demonstrated that such coverage is not necessary. There shall be no construction within native vegetation areas without the city’s express approval. (g) Landscaping theme. (1)Installation and maintenance. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained consis- tent with division 7 of article V and the general guidelines in the city’s "Landscape Work Manual." (2)Materials. Landscaping within the greenbelt sh.al! be free form design using the following plant list: hve oak, slash pine, s.~w palm_ett.o, w.ax myrtle, .sabal palm, common grasses, and other materials ~p.p.roved by t~e dep~ent~. (3) Desk. Fre~ fo.rm design me..an..s new ~,e.e,~ pattern..s with multiple plant sizes, spacing, p!..~n~ ¢1 .u.sters, and ai~g!e planti, n...gs. Grass $hall be planted in all open areas. Mulch sh~! be used around all ~eea and p!ant~. The greenbelt shall have undulating berms, !oe.a.t~ed geae~,,a~l.~y ~eng n.’.8hts.of~y. ~rm- dows or voids in the landscaping, ff not in excess of 60 ~et, are a¢c.eptabl,e for scenic views of lakes, art in public places, or signage. No ~ .ru~. o...untable cu~rb,~ shall be used to ensure the installation and preservation of landscape ~ateria!s by separ~.’.tin, g !and- scape materials from roads or vehicular cir.,culation areas. (4)Materials and installation. All trees, plants and any other associated landscape or outdoor material shall be of Florida No. 1, or better, as classified by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consu.~er $_~.r~i,c~. ~ oew 1..a~n...dS~p~g ~h~ ~. b.e !00 percelat ~r~gated. The water source for i.~gag.o.a ~ha!! installation All backflow preventers, e!ectrical bo~es, lift ~ati.o,~ and any ether utility LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 (5) (6) (7) (8) structure shall be screened with landscaping. Intersections, entrances, and building frontage can be enhanced with additional landscaping not listed in this subsection with site plan approval. Pathways and sidewalks. Multiuse pathways and sidewalks shall meander around vegetation and berms throughout the greenbelt. However, sidewalks shall be setback at least ten feet from the exterior edge of curbing or paving, as determined by the growth management director. Nature trails may connect to the sidewalks. Pathways shall be illuminated pursuant to specifications approved during site plan approval. All landscaping, irrigation, berms, sidewalks, and lighting within road rights-of-way shall be approved by the appropriate jurisdiction. Maintenance. The responsibility for and cost of maintenance of the greenbelt, including right-of-way and medians, and buffer areas, shall be the responsibility of the fronting property owner unless otherwise determined prior to site plan approval. Corridor landscaping theme. The conceptual landscaping theme is illustrated in Figure 2. Additional intersection/entrance landscaping, which is required consistent with division 7 of article V, also shall be installed. Figure 2 Berms: Berming and mounding of the site shall utilize long and gentle slopes. As a rule, the. higher the berm, the gentler the slope shall be. Berms five feet or less in height shall have a maximum slope of 2:1. Berms greater that five feet in height shall not exceed 3:1 in slope. Supp. No. 10 CD78:191 PALM BEACH~ G~RDENS::(~ODE!: (9)F~ncesand :walls. Fences and walls shall’not!b~viSible from~any,..pub~id rights-of-way. All fences and walls shall be screened with vegetation from public view. (10)Buffer areas between uses. Buffers shall be provided between uses consistent with requirements of this chapter. Natural-vegetation and environmentally sensitive, preserve areas, where appropriate, are encouraged to be utilized::as buffers between uses. (11) ~arkw, ay. and boulevard greenbelt. a~Vegetation protection. Within.parkway rigl~ts-of~:way or. easements, ~, .eservation of:allsignificant vegetation, wettands~: and!!wil~l~f~.habitat~shall be encouraged, The. parkway rights-of-way or easements.shall ~se~e the functions noted-~below. i:.l~reservation of significant nativeecol~)gieal’;communitigs, 2~Location of bicycle and pedestrian circtfl~tionpatlis~ 3..Mitigation areas for natural areas disturbed elsewhere. 4.Buffering of adjacent land uses and developments. b.Design concepts. Consistent with comprehensive plan policy 1.1.6.5 and the corridor concept, a boulevard greenbelt including median landscaping shall be provided to produce the feeling of masses of trees forming green arbors inter- rupted by occasional views to open spaces and environmentally sensitive lands. As a general design principle, the density of vegetation should increase with the density of development. Priority should be given to retaining existing natural resources and mature trees. c.Perimeter landscaping. Landscaping along the parcel perimeter and major road edges shall be installed consistent with the provisions of division 7 of article V. Interruptions in perimeter landscaping shall :be permitted only by access drive- ways. and pathways. Structures or: paring areas:, are not~ to’be located in this landscape area. d~ t?~destrian:and bicycle facilities:: l~estrian~andil~ioycte~faeilities~.shall~be located ttiroughout the corridor andi. wtierever,-possible~ ~ shall::: lie, lhcated~ within~ the i~ouievard greenbelt. e,Mediaa~ landscaping. Median, land$caping~ shall~ l~e.: providedi to, continue and enhance the aesthetics anddiaracter:.of~the.corridor~ Mbdian~landscaping shall meet the requirements listedbelow, 1: Landscape design, materials, and! plants shall:-meet, the specifications of division 7 of article V and approvaliofithe department~ The useof!flowering trees, that are consistent with: the. o~erall~ corridor, landscaping~ theme, is encouraged. I~andsc,aped areas shall~be~rewal~ly~.:maintained~in~ a~ncat~.o~dedy?and-’, healthy appearance consistent~with~seetLom 7 8;3~.9..~ LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 f. Prohibited elements. The following elements are prohibited within the boulevard greenbelt: chain-link fences in public view, unfinished concrete or concrete masonry walls excluding architectural concrete, dumpsters, trash receptacles excluding city-approved street furniture, artificial plants or turf, decorative or commercial display objects, visible neon, elements with highly reflective or bright colored surfaces and other objects which are frivolous, distracting or not in harmony with the overlay landscape and design goals. g.Transit stops. Transit stops, where applicable, shall be provided by the property owner within the boulevard greenbelt. These transit stops shall provide a 144-foot taper in and out of the travel lane, on either side of a 12-foot by 50-foot transit vehicle stall. Transit stops shall include accessory structures such as kiosks, sheltered benches or other features. (12) Pedestrian and bicycle facilities. a. Facilities. Facilities for bicycles and pedestrians shall be provided along and within the corridor. These facilities shall be designed consistent with the standards adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transpor- tation Officials or other applicable agency. b. Parkway pathway. Within the parkway, a continuous, interconnected pathway at least 12 feet wide subject to the following: _ 1.the overall intent to maintain existing native vegetation 2.the overall intent to re-establish native vegetation; 3.to allow pathways to meander within the required 55 feet corridor area, provided the pathways are located at least ten feet from the edge of curbing or pavement, as determined by the growth management director; 4.to generally maintain a pathway located as far as possible from vehicular traffic; and 5.to allow installation of amenities such as benches, fountains, and arbors which enhance the pathway. This requirement shall be applied to adjacent properties not located with the parkway, as permitted by right-of-way and easement widths, to allow extension of the pathways. c. Shade trees. The pathway shall be landscaped with shade trees to provide a continuous canopy. These shade trees shall be supplemented with ground cover to provide visual and physical buffers between traffic and pedestrians. d.Street furniture. A bench or resting place shall be provided every 800 feet along the pathway. Every mile, further amenities such as drinking fountains, benches and shelters or kiosks shall be provided and are encouraged to be supplemented with small open spaces. (h) Building design guidelines. (1)General design. a.General design. Buildings shall be designed to be compatible with the surround- ing environment, both manmade and natural. A building shall provide a positive impact on the surrounding environment. Supp. No. 10 CD78:193 § 78-22!PALM BEACI~:.G ~’./~.DENS ,C-.Ot)E~ ¯ ’ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) do f. Visible facades. All building facades visible, fro~ pnbiic rights-of-way and adjacent properties shall be designed to create a harmonious effect with its snrroundings. This should not be constTued as creating look-alike buildings. Harmony shall be achieved through the proper use of scale, proportions, form, materials, texture, and color. Unity of character and design. Buildings or structures which are part of an existing or future complex shall have a unity of character and design. Design character. Thedesign character of buildings shall be such. that it is aesthetically pleasing and without cluttered forms having no apparent system of organization. Building materials and color. Building materials and color selection shall achieve visual order through the consistent use of compatible color palettes. Building elevations. All building elevations shall be treated equally as ff all sides were the front of the building. This requirement includes but is not limited to architectural elements, facade treatment, and landscaping. Identical buildings. Buildings and structures which, in the opinion of the city council, are identical or similar in design shall not be permitted. This does not prohibit the duplication of floor pl~n~ and exterior treatments in a planned nnit or planned community development where identical buildings can be used to create an aestheti- cally pleasing environment. The intent is to prevent the same building form and elevation repeated from one development to another and to encourage diverse architectural expressions along the PGA Boulevard corridor. Trademark forms and colors. Buildings and structures which use trademark or symbolic forms and colors and which have a negative impact on the Visual environment of the area, as determined by the city council, shall not be permitted. Architectural detail. Architectural design shall prohibit large expanses of blank walls with limited or no windows or architectural embeliishments~ Roof overhangs. Unless specifically designed other~vise, roof overhangs including mansard roof overhangs shall wrap around: the building so that there is visual continuity around the entire building. Mechanical equipment screening. The highest portion of mechanical equipment, such as backflow preventers, meters and valves for public utilities operations, satellite antennas, heating and ventilating, air-conditioning, or other utility hardware on roofs, ground, or buildings shall be installed at or below the lowest elevation or level of screening materials. Materials used for screening purposes shal|~ be compatible with the architectural.style, color, and materi:als of the principal buil~g. This equipment shall be loc~ted so as not to be visible from any sweet or adjoining property: Landscape scree~g ma~st include a dense planti.ng or ea~th. ~be~mi,ng- or both, as. established in. sections 78-313 and 78-314. § 78~22~~PALM BEACH C~ARDEi~S CO’DE¯ (i) Un~rg#ound utilities. All new, reconstructed; or relod~ited utilities within the PGA Boulevard corridor occurring as a result of development, including but not limited to electric, telephone and~’t~l~ViSion cable utilities shall bd’ plae~tl" tmde-i/g~6und: Costs for underground installation shall be borne by the developer. (j) Signage and lighting standards. (1)Signage. All signage proposed shall meet the requirements of division 6 of article V unless:restricted further.herein. (2)Building lighting. Building lighting shall be installed consistent with thg standards listed in section 78-182. (k) Access~entry drives. (1)Limited~ access. Access, including curb cuts, medi~ op6nings, sfgn_~-llzati0n, or entry drives shalll at a min~mnrn, be Hrn~ted to state department of transportation or Ps]rn Beach County controlled access criteria. The city engineer may provide additional standards or criteria to |]rn~t access within the corridor. (2)Shared access. Parcels and adjacent developments shall be encouraged to share access. This shall be accomplished through shared access agreements, service roads, or other means approved by.the city engineer. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 105, 7-20-00) Secs. 78-222--78-230. Reserved. DMSION 3. PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT ~Sec. 78-231. Parkway overlay district. (a) Scope. The parkway system requirements in this division ~hall apply to all roadways designated as parkways within the comprehensive plan or by the City of P~lm Beach Gardens Official Zonin~ Map. (b) Parkway: system. ObjeCtive 2.1.7, and policies 2.1.7.1, 2.:1.7.2, and, 2.1.7.3 of the city’s comprehensive plato require the development of a parkway systeix/to provide: city residents with an alternative mode of transportation which is safe"and ae~thetid~ as’ w~ll as t6 beautify the city’s arte~eS and protect residential araas: from th~ im’pAets ’of hi:gk]~,tra~eled arteries. (1)Parkway objectives. The objectives of the parkway overlay are established to accom~ plish the following: a. Preserve urban beauty through righ~-of-way landscaping requirements; b. Provide residents with a safe and aesthetic multiuse pathway system; c.. Provide a buffer between designated roadways’ and the adjacent development; d.E.i~mi~e~a perceived need. of u~in~: strip.co~i’ciM a~:a bdff~i arteviais:and: residential areas; and Sups Nd:-~o~cD78!i9~~ LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-221 (7)Gutters and down spouts. Gutters and down spouts shall be painted to match the surface to which they are attached. Gutters and down spouts may, however, be painted in such away so as to become a design element if the color is consistent with the color scheme of the building. (8)Service yards, storage yards, and loading docks. All refuse and waste containers, recycling or compacting containers, dumpsters, oil tanks, bottled gas tanks, service yards, storage yards, and loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard. All such service equipment and service areas shall be screened from view from any street or adjoining property by means of a wall, landscaping~ or other methods, approved by the city council. (9)Shopping carts. If shopping carts are permitted, shopping cart corrals shall be required, subject to the standards listed below. a.Screening. Outdoor cart storage areas shall be screened from view by means of a wall, substantial landscaping or other methods approved by the city council. b.Materials. The corrals shall be constructed of solid walls, and constructed of materials compatible with the primary structure. c.Landscaping. Shopping cart corrals shall be landscaped in a manner compatible with the overall landscape theme. d.Operations. Shopping carts shall not be allowed to accumulate in any outside area, including parking lots and loading areas, and shall be removed from cart corrals in a timely manner and relocated to storage areas. (10)Mailboxes. Mailboxes, including special drop boxes, may be clustered within buildings~.grouped under a kiosk, or individually freestanding. In all cases, the design and~,~ installation of mailboxes shall comply with the standards listed below. a.Approval. Mail boxes shall be approved by the city council and the U.S. Postal Service as to size, type, and location. b.Design and landscaping. Mail boxes shall be landscaped consistent with and architecturally compatible to the development. (11)Satellite dishes. Satellite dishes may be installed in any zoning district, provided the dishes are not visible from any street, and the color is compatible with the surrounding environment. Communication equipment~ such as dishes and antennas, is encouraged to be accommodated during the planning phase of a project. (12)Telephones, vending machines, newspaper racks, etc. All public telephones, vending machines, newspaper racks, and facilities dispensing merchandise or services on private property shall be enclosed within a building, enclosed within a structure, attached to a building, or enclosed in a separate area. Attached and freestanding buildings shall be landscaped consistent with and architecturally compatible to the principal structure. Supp. No. 10 CD78:195 § 78:231 PALM BEACH GARDENS CODE Beeline Highway north of PGA Boulevard to City Limits 300 Feet Hood Road west bf Central Boulevard to City Limits 200 Feet Future (unnamed) north-south arterial or collector between PGA Boule-300 Feet yard and Hood Road Future (unn-am~d) east-west ~erial or ~oll~ctor between Central Boule-300 F~et yard and the future north-south collector identified above Note: * Width of overlay measured from centerline of roadway. (f) Parkway development guidelines. (1)Parkway concept. Right-of-way and easements. Each parkway shall include a parkway right-of-way and easement as described below in conceptual cross sections. Installed within the parkway and easement shall be a multiuse pathway, pedestrian path, landscaped medians, linear parks, greenbelts and landscaping buffers. Concep- tual cross sections of a parkways are illustrated in Figures 3 through 12. The city council shall approve the ultimate cross section of each parkway link. CENTRAL ~I31JLEVARD 300’CONCEPTUAL PARK~/AY CROSS SECTION (45 HPH) Figure 3 Su~. No. 1’0 CD78:lgB LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-231 e. Promote and protect the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the city. (c) Standards and waivers. Specific standards have been created for the parkway overlay which are intended to provide a buffered multiuse pathway and landscaped roadway system. Although these standards are intended as a benchmark for development and shall be applied to the fullest extent possible, it is recognized that in some situations it will not be possible to comply with all of the standards. Therefore, the physical constraints of a particular site will be considered in determining which standards are applicable and the extent of compliance with the specific standards for each particular project. The standards may be waived only with the approval of the city council, subject to section 78-158. (d) Applicability and effects. (1)Applicability.’ The standards contained in this division shall apply to all roadways designated as a parkway by the city council, including all of the following: a. PGA Boulevard west of Central Boulevard; b. Central Boulevard; c. Donald Ross Road; d. Beeline Highway north of PGA Boulevard; e. Ho~d Road west of Central Boulevard; f.A future (yet unnamed) north-south artery between PGA Boulevard and Hood Road; and g.A future (yet unnamed) east-west artery between Central Boulevard and the future north-south artery. (2)Prior approvals. While existing development and approvals granted prior to August 18, 1994, are not affected, major amendments to prior approvals, redevelopment, and new development shall conform with the provisions of this overlay. (3)Conflicts. Where conflicts occur between the standards and requirements of the overlay district, this chapter, or other regulations, the provisions of the overlay district shall prevail. Additionally, where provisions of this overlay are not in conflict with other regulations, that which is more strict shall prevail. (e) Location. The parkway overlay shall consist of the road segments and dimensions as provided in Table 23. Table 23: Parkway Overlay District PGA Boulevard: West of Central Boulevard to City Limits 400 Feet Central Boulevards Donald Ross Road (All)300 Feet Supp. No. 10 CD78:197 §’ 78-231 PALM BEACH. [XllSTD~ 6 t.N~C R’~YdAY’. ¢¢mST~IT.D, ~ CENTR~tL~ 30fY C~NCEPTUAL PA~K~/A¥ CROSS. SECTION Figure 6 HOOD ROAD 200’CONCEPTUAL PARKWAY CROSS SECTION, (45 MPH) Supp. I’~o. lo CD78~200 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-231 CENTRAL BOULEVAR9 300’CONCEPTUAL PARKWAY CROSS SECTION (45 NPH) Figure 4 CENTRAL BOULEVARD 300’CONCEPTUAL PARKWAY CROSS SECTION (45 HPH) Figure 5 Supp. No. 10 CD78:199 § 78-231 PALM BEACH G~DEN~: CODE PGA 80ULEVARD(£sSt O~ Figure-i0 I DIqNALD REISS R~AD 300’ CDNCEPTUAL PARKWAY SYSTEM (45 HPH). Figure: 11. Supp..No. 10 CD78:20~-. LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-231 FUTURE ~RT~SOUTH AND EAST-~EST R~AD~AYS 300’ C~CEPTUAL PARKWAY SYSTE~ (45 ~H) Figure 8 PGA BOULEVARD(Vest r1~ Turnpike) 400’ CONCEPTUAL PARKVAY CRfISS SECTION (45 MPH) Figure 9 Supp. No. 10 CD78:201 § 78-231 PALM BEACH GARDENS ~CODE (3)Parkway improvements. a. All new development fronting along a parkway shall be required to install, develop, or otherwise provide for the implementation of the parkway system, as illustrated in the conceptual cross sections and described in this division. b. The city shall coordinate the installation of the parkway system with the development approval process. Proposed development fronting along a parkway shall prepare plans for the necessary improvements and install the facilities/ etements or provide the city with the appropriate amount of funds or surety to cover the costs of such improvements. c. For determination as to whether improvement of the parkway shall be conducted concurrent with development, or whether there shall be provision of funding or surety to the city in an amount equal to 110 percent of the cost of the needed improvements, the city hereby establishes a guideline threshold of one-half mile (2,640 linear feet). 1.Any property possessing at least one-half mile frontage shall install the required parkway improvements concurrently with development. 2.Any property possessing less than one-half mile frontage maybe required to install the improvements concurrently with development, or may be allowed to furnish surety as provided herein. 3.If monies in lieu of improvement are provided, the city will install the required improvements at a time in the future when a "llnk" or segment of the parkway can be achieved or when roadway improvements or develop- ment activities allow implementation of the parkway system. 4.The city council shall determine when parkway improvements are to be installed. d.The one-half-mile threshold is a guideline .and shall be used on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether the adjacent land uses or characteristics of the development require or warrant inst~ation of the necessary improvements concurrent with development. (4)Maintenance. Unless otherwise ~approved by the city council, the owner of the property, or successor thereto, with frontage along the parkway shall be responsible for the perpetual maintenance and irrigation of ~h’e parkway. In like manner, the owner of property with frontage along one side of the pm"kway shall share the responsibility of maintaining that portion of the median, .median landscaping, and irrigation, with the owner or owners of property along the other side of the parkway. (5)Other entities. If the city establishes a special district or other entity to assume responsibility of the parkway system, the owner of property with frontage along the parkway shall automatically become a member of the district. This requirement shall also be made a part of any property owners’ association documents for property affected by creation of a parkway. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 106, 7-20-00) supp. No, ~0 CD78:11)4 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-231 (2) Figure 12 b.Implementation. Implementation of the parkway concept shall require installa- tion of the improvements specified below: 1.Nonmountable curbing, acceptable to the city engineer, to allow landscaping buffers to be installed between the roadway and the pedestrian/bicycle pathways; 2. A meandering 12-foot multiuse pathway; 3.A six-foot pedestrian sidewalk on the opposite side of the artery from the pathway; 4. Landscaping of medians; 5.Preservation of native vegetation or installation of landscaping to buffer the artery and pathway from adjacent development and to provide a canopy for pedestrians and bicyclists; 6. Irrigation, where necessary, to ensure the viability of landscaping; and 7.Dedication of a parkway easement for those areas outside of the formal road right-of-way but within the 200- to 400-foot parkway. c.Views. Special views along the road and special public features such as fountains, art in public places, and pedestrian parks may also be provided within the parkway with city council approval. Landscape theme. A native pine-oak vegetative community shall constitute the landscaping theme of the parkway system. Plantings shall include but not be limited to live oak, slash pine, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, sabal palm, as well as grass. Clusters of vegetative communities as well as individual trees shall be provided, consistent with clear zone and sight distance criteria, in landscape medians to buffer the pathways from the roadway and adjacent land uses, and to provide a canopy. Supp. No. 10.CD78:203 M E M O R A N D U M WATTERSON, HYLAND & KLETT, P.A. To: From: Subject: File No: Date: Paul Friedman, Code Compliance Administrator Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney Z@~ Newsracks 319.058 April 28, 2000 You asked whether the City would need to amend its current newsrack ordinance prior to the installation of modular newsracks by the City. Because the current ordinance does not anticipate the use of modular newsracks, use of such units would appear to violate a number of provisions of section 118-308 relating to the size and placement of newsracks. Additionally, because the modular units would require the removal of current newsracks, the procedure that will be utilized to effectuate this transfer should be determined prior to their installation. Based on the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the City revise its current ordinance and adopt new standards prior to the installation of modular newsracks. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Nabar E. Martinez, City Manager P:\CPWinM-Iistory\000417A\443.1DC (scw) (319.058) X)(~/07 ’00 14:49 lD:Watterson HM1and Klett FI~X:S61-625-3427 PPlGE 2 M ~ M 0 R A N O U M WATI’KRSON, HYLAND ~ KLETT. P.A. To; From: Subject: Paul Friedman, Code Compliance Administrator Roxatme Manning, Growth Management Director Leonard G. Rubin, City Attorney(/.g~ Newsracks File No:319.058 Date:May 30, 2000 You requested that this office amend the City’s Newsrack Ordinance to incorporate the use of modular newsracks. Please be advised that the Newsrack Ordinance has been incorporated into the new Land Development Regulations that will be considered by the City Council for adoption next month. As such, any amendment to the Newsrack Ordinance must either be incorporated into the new Regulations prior to adoption or processed as a separate amendment after adoPtiOn. If you wish to incorporate such changes into the new Regulations, I suggest the following changes: 1.The following definition should be added to subsection (a) (2) of section Modular newsrack shall mean a connected grouping of nine (9) to fifteen (15) pockets within a single structure, either self-service or coLa-operated, which is installed as a single unit and used for the display, sale or distribution of newspapers or other news periodicals or advertising circulars. A new subsection (d) should be added to section 309 to read as follows (the existing subsection and all subsequent subsections should be re.lettered): (d)Modular newsraeks. The city reserves the right to require disuibutors to utilize pockets within modular newsracks in locations specified by the dry manager to replace existing newsracks or in lieu of erecting additional newsraeks. Such modular newsracks will be supplied, ....................... i,,~ta.cd and maintained by me c~ty; prowa~t, however, ~ii~(~h distributor will be required to provide its own coin mechanism should it charge a fee for its newspaper or other news periodical or circular. If you wish to incorporate this language Into the new Regulations, please contact me so that we may discuss whether It addresses all of your concerns. ee:Nabar E. Martinez, City Manager < 0 ¯ > Comments from Sun-Sentinel Femando Alonso, Single Copy Operations Manager January 21, 2002 Certification of compliance should be submitted prior to installation or relocation of a newsrack or modular newsrack. [Agreed. This has been incorporated into the ordinance.] ¯The City shall supply the Certificate of Compliance instead of allowing the distributor. [Agreed. A form has been drafted based upon the samples submitted.] ¯The Sun-Sentinel prefers to be their own controlling entity. [Administration desires this task to be assigned to a vendor via a Request For Proposal (RFP).] ¯Disagrees with the City as the controlling entity. [Administration wishes to retain this right if a vendor does not live up to the spirit and content of the RFP.] ¯Believes that fees should be specifically designated for administration and inspection fees. [Agreed. Fees are adopted by resolution and not included in the ordinance.] ¯ADA requirements for sidewalks are 36 inches. Why are we requiring 40 inches? [Our sidewalks are designed to be 60" wide per code.] ¯Bike paths require no less than 8 feet clearance. What are the City’s standards for bike path dimensions? [Bike paths and pathways are required per code to be 12 feet wide minimum.] ¯The Indemnity form should be supplied by the City. [Agreed. A form has been drafted based upon the samples submitted.] ¯There should be a date certain for removal of noncomplying, nonconforming newsracks. (10-14 days) [Agreed.] ¯Disagrees with the 51% criteria for an abandoned newsrack. [Objection is noted.] I l I m m CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Growth Management Department Staff Report Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 SUBJECT/AGENDA ITEM Stealth Tower Workshop Item for Discussion: Staff seeks direction from the City Council on whether or not to amend the Telecommunication Tower Ordinance to more effectively address current issues regarding location and placement of towers within residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Staff is requesting direction and guidance from the City Council. Reviewed by: Principal Planner_p~ Talal Benothm//~/~ City Attorney~ Finance NA Human Res. NA Submitte¢ ~y: Growt M ag Charles"K-~Wu, AICP Approved by~ ~f.===.~ City Manager .~ aonald M.l~err~ / Originating Dept.: Growth Management: PMr~JneaC;e r(/~ Edward To~I~ICP Advertised: Date: Paper: Palm Beach Post [X] Not Required Affected parties: [ ] Notified [X] Not Required FINANCE: NA Costs: $. Total $ Current FY Funding Source: [ ] Operating [X] Other NA Budget Acct.#: NA P&Z Commission Action: [] Approved [] App. w/conditions [] Denied [] Rec. approval .[] Rec. app. w/conds. [] Rec. Denial [] Continued to: Attachments: ¯Ordinance 24, 1997 ¯Telecommun- ications Act of 1996 Summary ¯Section 78-154 (~) ¯Section 78-155 (s) PUD and PCD language: Tel. Towers as Accessory Use City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Stealth Tower Workshop BACKGROUND The current "Telecommunication Tower Ordinance" was adopted as Ordinance 27, 1997 in response to growing concerns regarding the proliferation of telecommunication facilities. The proliferation of these towers is largely a result of the rapid growth in cellular phone use. The issue of cellular tower location within the City was debated in 1996, when an applicant proposed the location of three 125-foot telecommunication towers in the City, adjacent to a residential area in unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, the Palm Beach Country Estates community. Resident concerns included the aesthetic detriment of tower heights, visibility of such towers from residential areas and backyards, and a concern that a visible cellular tower may lower property values. Additionally, there were health concerns about electromagnetic energy being conducted in close proximity to homes. Although there is no conclusive evidence that close proximity to electromagnetic waves causes cancer, there is no substantial evidence that it does not. In 1996, the Federal Government passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, whose main purpose was to de-regulate the cellular/wireless phone industry and promote lower prices, better service, faster access to new technologies, and to promote the "removal of barriers to entry" into the businesses of telecommunication services..." While this may be construed as an attempt to remove or supersede restrictive zoning laws that prevent the construction of towers, the Act also states that "nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose ...requirements necessary to...protect the public safety and welfare .... and safeguard the rights of the consumers." Therefore, both sides on this issue may claim that the Act does not undermine their cause. A copy of a summary of the Act and relevant case law and discussion is attached for Council review. Ordinance 24, 1997 was drafted following the passage of the Federal Act and is consistent with the language provided in said Act. CHART OF PERMITTED USES The Chart of Permitted Uses provides for "Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" to be permitted in Commercial (CN, CG-1, CG-2, CR) and Industrial (M1, M1A) zoning districts, and as a conditional use in Professional Office (PO), Public/Institutional (P/I), Conservation and Planned Development Area (PDA). Telecommunication facilities are prohibited in all residential zoning districts. Telecommunication facilities are permitted in all zoning districts as an "accessory use." City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Stealth Tower Workshop TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ORDINANCE: SECTION 78-159 (64) Section 78-159 (64) is a footnote to the "Wireless Telecommunication Facility" use listed in the Chart of Permitted Uses. This section describes additional restrictions and requirements for telecommunication towers, that include: (1)For Conditional Uses: All towers and antennas for which conditional use approval is necessary shall be separated from residential land uses, as designated by the applicable comprehensive plan or land development regulations by the greater of 500 feet or 300 percent of tower height. Tower separation shall be measured from the base of the tower to the lot line of nearest residential use. (2)For Conditional Uses and Permitted Uses: ¯Setbacks: Towers must be setback from all tower lot lines a minimum distance of 110 percent of the height of the tower. Separations: Any tower shall be separated from any other tower by a distance of not less than one mile, as measured by a straight line between the bases on the tower. (3) Permitted Uses on Public Property: ¯Review proceeds to City Council within 30 days of date of filing the application. ¯City Council may waive or modify certain requirements contained herein, including setback and separation requirements. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AS AN ACCESSORY USE Section 78-154, Planned Unit Development, and Section 78-155, Planned Community District, both allow for telecommunication towers as an accessory use within a PUD of 50 acres or more, given that the tower site is at least 10,000 square feet in size with a minimum lot dimension of 100 feet by 100 feet. The telecommunication tower as an accessory use language was added to the PUD and PCD sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) during the July 2000 LDR amendments. The revisions to the LDRs were proposed to allow for more opportunities for the construction of telecommunication towers than the City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Stealth Tower Workshop Telecommunication Towers Ordinance provided, and that this was necessary to provide for adequate wireless phone service Citywide. This amendment was subsequently adopted by the City Council. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION The first application of the LDRs regarding the construction of telecommunication towers within PUDs occurred with the Westwood Gardens application. The application process created several challenges for staff, and are listed as followed: (1)It was not clear if the accessory use language automatically granted all PUDs greater than 50 acres the ability to construct towers of up to 150 feet with minimum restrictions and no deference to residential areas. (2)If telecommunication towers are automatically granted accessory use status in these PUDs, then are they still subject to meeting the requirements of the Telecommunication Tower Ordinance, at least as a Permitted Use? This connection is ambiguous in the present language. (3)Further definitions are needed regarding this issue. For example, "tower lot line" is not defined, so it was unclear if this referenced the boundary of the PUD or the area leased by the wireless service provider. (4)If wireless technology is greatly need by the residents of the City since the passage of the Telecommunication Tower Ordinance, and the population growth into previously undeveloped areas requires greater coverage, then should the City consider less restrictive regulations to allow for construction of these towers? (5)It is not clear if the only requirements that can be waived by the City Council are those associated with a permitted use on public property. This is the only subsection of the Telecommunications Tower Ordinance that is implicit about City Council waiving certain requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Section 78-154 (i) Communication towers and Section 78-155 (s) be revised as follows: 4 (1) City Council Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 1, 2002 Stealth Tower Workshop Any PUD (PCD) of 50 acres or more may allow fo r on e po tential communication tower site, to be identified on the master PUD site plan. The tower site shall comply with the standards listed below. The tower site shall be at least 10,000 square feet, with minimum dimensions of 100 feet by 100 feet for non-residential PUDs. Residential PUDs shall have a minimum distance of 500 feet from base of tower to nearest residential structure. (2)The tower shall be considered an accessory use in the PUD, and shall meet all requirements for ’Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" set forth in Section 78- (3) (4) 159 of the Land Development Requlations. In a PUD with mixed residential and nonresidential uses, a building at least 40 feet in height may substitute as a tower site. The City Council may waive or modify certain requirements for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, consistent with the provisions set forth in the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends that section 78-159 of the Land Development Regulations, footnote (64) subsection (c) Definitions be amended to add the following definition: Tower lot line means the parcel boundary described through a lease or purchase a.qreement, recorded with Palm Beach County, for the purpose of constructinq and operating a telecommunication tower facility. Tower lot lines shall delineate a "tower site" as required in section 78-158(i) and 78-159(s) of the Development Regulations. G:ed/2002/stealthwork.doc January l4, 1998 ORDINANCE NO 24, t997 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED "’ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTION I 18-309 ENTITLED "COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS", PROVIDING FOR A PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDING FOR PERMITTED USES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, PROVIDING FOR PERMITTED USES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE, PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF ABANDONED ANTENNAS AND TOWERS, PROVIDING FOR NONCONFORMING USES,PROVIDING FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES,PROVIDI-NG FOR SEVERABILITY,AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States adopted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, providing federal regulation &wireless telecommunications, WHEREAS, a technology of wireless voice, video and data communications systems rapidly became avadable, requiring land use facilities that impact planmng and zoning concerns ~n the City of Palm Beach Gardens ("City") and throughout the Umted States, WHEREAS, the Ctty finds that it is in the public interest to permit the siting of wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas w~thm the mumcipal boundaries, WHEREAS, the C~ty had prewously adopted a code section addressing the stting of wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, WHEREAS, the Act has caused the current code section to be invalid in certain portions, WHEREAS, the City has received and expects to receive addlt~onal requests from service Providers to site wireless Tdecommt~nications Towers and Antennas within the municipal boundaries and is authorized by federal, state and local law to regulate the siting of such Towers and Antennas, WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to provide reasonable accommodation to, and to promote and encourage fair and reasonable competition among Providers or providers of functionally equivalent services on a neutral and non-discriminatory basis, WHEREAS, it is necessary to repeal, ~n its entirety, the text of the existi~ag code section and replace it w~th new text, WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to establish appropriate locations in priority order of use, and, further, to develop the requtrements and standards to permit the siting of wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas within the municipal boundaries, w~th due consideration to the City’s master plan, zoning map, existing land uses and environmentally sensitive areas, ~ncludlng hurricane preparedness areas, and WHEREAS, through these regulated standards, ~t is the intent of the C~ty to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of its c~tizens and residents, the travehng public and others in such manner that will minimize both the number of Towers and Antennas and the adverse wsual impact and other potential damage by encouraging co-location and shared use of new and pre- e’~st~ng Tetecommumcations Facdities, through incentives, careful design, engineering siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflage techniques NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA Section 1. The title of section 118-309 of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended to read (added words underlined, deleted words swack) "’WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS " Section 2. The text of section entirety and replaced with the following 1t8-309 of the Code of Ordinances is repealed in its l~ttrpo,~e. The purpose of this section ~s to establish general guidelines for the siting of wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas The guidelines are intended to (a) protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City, (b) mimmize potential adverse impacts of Towers and Antennas on residential areas and land uses, (c) encourage the location of Towers in nonresidential areas and to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the commumty is minimal, (d) mmirmze the total number of Towers throughout the community by strongly encouraging the co-location of Antennas on new and Pre-existing To,~ers or other structures as a primary option rather than construction of additional single-use Towers, (e) encourage users of Towers and Antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the Towers and Antennas through careful destgn, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques, and (f) enhance the ability of the Providers to provide such services to the community through an efficient and timely application process In furtherance of these goals, the City shall at all times give due consideration to the City’s master plan, comprehensive plan, zoning map, existing land uses, future land uses and environmentally sensitive areas, including hurricane preparedness areas, m approving sites for the location of Towers and Antennas (b ) De./tmtton~. Notwithstanding the definitions included in Chapter 78 of the City Code of Ordinances, as used in ~his Section, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below, and shall control over any other definitions contained in the C~ty’s Code of Ordinances (1) "Alternative Tower Structure" means a structure that camouflages or conceals the presence of a telecommunication Tower For example, man-made trees, clock Towers, bell steeples, light poles, utility poles and similar alternative designs (2) "Antenna" means a transmitting and/or recelwng device mounted on a Tower, building or structure used in telecommunications [personal wireless] services that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, or radio frequencies, including, without hmttatlon, directional Antennas such as panel and microwave dish Antennas, and omni-d~rectional Antennas such as whips, but excluding radar Antennas, amateur radio Antennas and satellite earth stations (3) "Backhaul Network" means the lines that connect a provlder°s Towers/cell s~tes one or more cellular telephone switching offices, the pubhc switched telephone network, and/or long distance providers (4) "Broadcasting Facility" means any Tower built primarily for the purpose broadcasting AM. FM or television s~gnals (5) "’Equipment Cabinet" hereinafter "’Cabinet," means any structure used to enclose mechanical equipment to use with and/or service a Tower or Antenna (6) "Essential Service" means those services provided by the City and other governmental entities that directly relate to the health and safety of the City’s residents, including fire, police and rescue (7) "Extraordinary Conditions" means conditions which occur subsequent to hurricane, flood, or other natural hazard or subsequent to a defective finding on a previous inspection (8) "FAA’" means the Federal Aviation Administratton (9) "Fair Market Value" means the price at whtch a walling seller, or Tower operator, and wdhng buyer, or service provider seeking to rent space on operator’s Tower, will trade (10) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission ( ] ! ) "Guyed Tower" means a telecommumcations Tower that ~s supported, in whole or part, by guy wires and ground anchors (12) "Height" when refemng to a Tower or other structure, means the d~stance measured from the finished grade of the parcel to the highest point on the Tower or other structure, including the base pad and any Antenna (13) "Microwave Dish Antenna" means a dish-like Antenna used to link communication [personal wireless service] sites together by wireless transmission of voice or data (14) "Monopole Tower" means a communication Tower consisting of a single pole or spire, self-supported on a permanent foundation, constructed without guy wires, ground anchors, or other supports (15) "Lattice Tower" means a communication Tower that is constructed to be self- supporting by lattice type supports and without the use of guy wires or other supports (16) "Operator" means an individual, partnersbap, association, joint-stock company, trust or corporatton engaged in the control and/or maintenance of all mstrumentalmes, facilities and apparatus incidental to wireless telecommunication transmission, tncluding but not lircated to, a Tower, Antennas, associated buildings, cabinets and equipment For purposes of this Section, an Operator may or may not hold a sublease, license or title to the lot on which a Tower is sited (17) "Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas" means any Tower or Antenna for wtuch a building permit or special use permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this Section, Including all legally existing Towers and Antennas, whether permitted or not (18) "Provider" means an individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust or corporation, holding a license of the proper class, as prescribed and issued by the FCC, and authorized to offer telecommunicattons services to the public through radio transmission A provider is not necessarily an Operator as defined in this Section, however a Provider may obtain a license or lease space or eqmpment from an Operator (19) "State of the Art" means existing technology w~th that level of technological performance, capacity, equipment, components and service equal to or more advanced than the technology used by comparable facilities located in comparable communities in the state of Florida For purposes ofth~s definition, it ~s established that different types of facilities, i e PCS, cellular or EMSR, are not considered comparable to each other, only to those facilities ofa stmilar type (20) "~Stealth Facility" means any telecommunications facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment For example, architecturally-screened roof-mounted Antennae, budding-mounted Antennae painted to match the cresting structure, and Antennae ~ntegrated ~nto architectural elements (21) "Telecommunications Facility" means a facihty that is used to provide one or more telecommumcations services, including, without limitation, radio transmitting Towers, other supporting structures, and associated facilities used to transmit telecommunications signals, excluding amateur radio transmitting Towers and broadcasting facilities An open video system Is not a telecommumcations facility to the extent that it provides only video services, a cable system is not a telecommunications facility to the extent that it provides only. cable service (22) "Telecommunications Services" means the offering of telecommunication (or transmission, between or among points specified by the user of mformat~on, without change in the form or content of the information), for a fee, directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. Personal wireless commumcation servtces shall not be considered as Essential Servtces, public utilities or private utdlties (23) "Telecommunications Tower," hereinafter known as "Towers," means any structure, and support thereto, designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more Antennas intended to provide Telecommunication Services, includtng lattice, monopole and guyed Towers The Term includes personal wireless service fac~ht~es used for the provision of commercial mobde services, unlicensed wireless services (telecommunicattons services using duly authorized devices which do not requtre indtv~dual licenses), and common carrier w~reless exchange access service The Term does not include radio and television transmission Towers, amateur radio transmitting Towers. or broadcast factht~es (24) "Whip Antenna" means a cylindrical Antenna that transmits signals in 360 degrees (c)Apphca&hO, ( 1 ) New Towers and Antennas Applicants seeking to construct towers and/or antennas ~n the C~ty following the adoption of this section shall be subject to these regulations, except where specifically excluded (2)Broadcasting facd~t~es/Amateur Radio Station Operators/Receive Only Antennas/Remote Telemetry. Units This section shall not apply to any Tower or Antenna that is installed for the use of a Broadcasting Facility or is owned and operated by a federally-licensed amateur radm station operator or is used exclusively for receive-only purposes or is a remote telemetry umt antenna (3) Pree.xist~ng Towers or Antennas Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas shall not be subject to the requirements of this section, except where specifically provided (d)General reqmrements (1) Pre-Applicatlon Conference Applicants subject to this section shall request a pre- application cont}rence with the City The Applicant shall reimburse the C~ty for all costs and fees incurred by the C~ty as a result of the Pre-Application Conference (2) Inventory of Approved Sites Each applicant shall review the City’s inventory of approved sites and shall establish, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Growth Management Department, that no existing Tower, structure or State of the Art technology exists which can accommodate, or be modified to accommodate, the apphcant’s proposed Antenna because of one (1) or more of the following reasons (1) E×ist~ng Towers or structures located within the geographic search area as deterrmned by a radio frequency engineer do not have the capacity to provide reasonable technical service consistent with the applicant’s technical system, including, but not limited to, applicable FCC requirements, (ii) cresting Towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicable FCC requirements, (ii0 existing Towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant’s proposed Antenna and related equipment, (iv) the apphcant’s proposed Antenna would cause electromagnetic/radio ti’equency interference with an Antenna on an existing Tower or structure, or an Antenna on an existing Tower or structure would cause interference wtth the applicant’s proposed Antenna, (v) the t~es, costs, or contractual provisions required by the Operator order to share an existing Tower or structure or to adapt an existing Tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable Such determination shall be made by the Growth Management Department Costs exceeding new Tower development are presumed to be unreasonable, unsuitable, or (vi)such other limiting factors that render existing Towers and structures Tower or Antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unreasonable or unsmtable (3)Engineering Report All applicants for new Towers or applicants seeking to modify or reconstruct a Pre- existing Tower to accommodate additional Antennas shall submit to the Growth Management Department, an eng~neenng report certified by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Flonda If the City does not accept the report as provided as accurate, or if the C~ty disagrees with wireless telecommunicattons industry and unreasonable or the technology is unsuitable (vii)the cost of implementing State of the Art technology used in the within the scope of the applicant’s FCC license, is Costs of State of the Art technology which exceed new any part of the report, the time in which an application is processed pursuant to this Section shall be tolled pending further evaluation The report shall include (i)A site development plan, drawn to scale, including without limitation, a legal description of the parent tract and leased parcel, if apphcable, on-s~te and adjacent land uses, Master Plan classification of the site, future land use designation of the site, and a visual impact analysis or a photo digitalizatton of the Tower and all attachments, ~nclud~ng associated buildings and equipment containers at the property line, from four (4) points mutually agreed upon in a pre- apphcation cont~rence (ii) If apphcable, a narrative of why the proposed Tower cannot comply with the requirements of this section (iii) The type of Tower and specifics of design (iv) The current wind-loading capacity and a projection of wind-loading capacity using d~fferent types of Antennas as contemplated by the apphcant No Tower shall be permitted to exceed its wind-loading capacity as provided for by Southern Building Code (v) A statement that the proposed Tower, including reception and transmission functions, will not interfere wtth the customary transmission or reception of radio, television or s~milar services as well as other wireless services enjoyed by adjacent residential and non-residential properties (vi) A statement that all construction shall comply with all apphcable Budding Codes, associated regulations, and safety standards as prowded here~n For all Towers attached to exasting structures, the statement shall include certification that the structure can support the load superimposed from the Tower Unless specifically exempted by the provisions herem, all 10 Towers shall have the capacity to permit multiple users, at a minimum, Monopole Towers shall be able to accommodate two (2) users and, at a minimum, Lattice or Guyed Towers shall be able accommodate three (3) users (vii) A written statement addressing the applicant’s ability to share its proposed Tower, ~ncluding 1) the geographical service area requtrements, 2) any mechanical electrical incompaubility, 3) any restnctions or limitations of the FCC that would preclude the shared use of the Tower, (viii) Any additional information deemed by the Growth Management Director to be necessary to assess compliance with this Section (4)Aesthetics Towers and Antennas shall meet the following requirements Towers shall maintain either a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visualapphcable standards obtrusiveness B At a Tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend into the natural setting and surrounding buildings to minimize the visual impact C All Tower sites (the entire parcel(s) controlled by the Operator) must comply with City landscaptng requirements The Growth Management Director may require landscaping in excess of Code requirements in order to enhance compatibility with adjacent residential and non- restdentlal land uses All landscaping shall be properly maintained at the Operator’s expense to ensure good health and viability Telecommunication Facilittes shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the Telecommunication Facility consisting of the 11 base of the Tower and Antennas, Backhaul Network and any structure or Equipment Cabinet, from residential property Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maxLmum extent possible D If an Antenna is Lnstalled on a structure other than a Tower, the Antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the Antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible (5) L~ghting No signals, artificial lights, or illumination shall be permitted on any Antenna or Tower unless required by the FAA or the FCC If lighting is required, the lighting alternatives and design chosen must cause the least d~sturbance to the surrounding property, while maintaining comphance with federal standards (6) Setbacks Towers must be set back from all Tower lot lines a minimum distance of 110% of the height of the Tower (7) Separation Any Tower shall be separated from any other Tower by a distance of less than one (1) mile as measured by a straight line between the bases of the Towers (8) Setback and Separation Apphcability Tower setback and separation requirements shall be applicable to all Telecommunication Facilities located in the City, irrespective of municipal and county jurisdictional boundaries (9) Height provided below A B Towers shall not be constructed at a height in excess of the maximums capacity for a single user, up to one hundred (100) feet in height, capacity for two users, up to one hundred twenty five (125) feet ~n height, 12 C capacity for three or more users, up to one hundred fifty (150) feet in height (10) Local, State or Federal Requirements The construction, operation and repair of Telecommunications Facilities are subject to the review and approval of the City, and shall be performed xn compliance with all laws, ordinances and practices affecting such Facilities including, but not limited to, zoning codes, building codes, and safety codes, and as provided hereto All construction, operation and repair sh~ll be performed in a manner consistent with applicable industry standards, including the Electronic Industries Association Prior to the issuance of a budding permit by the C~ty, all Towers and Antennas must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA and the FCC, including emissions standards, and any other agency of the local, state or federal government with the authority to regulate Towers and Antennas If such applicable standards and regulations reqmre retroactive application, the Operators of the Towers and Antennas subject to this section shall bring such Towers and Antennas into compliance w~th such revised standards and regulations within s~x (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless d~fferent compliance schedule is provided by a controlling state or federal agency ( 11 ) Stgns No signs, including commercial advertising, logo, political signs, flyers, flags, or banners, but e~:cluding warning signs, shall be allowed on any part of an Antenna or Tower Any s~gns placed in "~iolatlon of this Subsection shall be removed immedmtely at the Operator’s expense Notwithstandtng any contrary provisions of the City’s Zomng Code, the following warning signs shall be utilized m connection with a Tower or Antenna site, as apphcable A If high voltage ~s necessary for the operation of the Tower or any accessory structures. "’IffIGH VOLTAGE--DANGER" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or wall surrounding the structure and spaced no more than forty (40) feet apart 13 B "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or wall surrounding the structure and spaced no more than forty (40) feet apart C The height of the lettering of the warning signs shall be at least twelve (12) inches The warmng signs shall be installed at least five (5) feet above the finished grade D The warmng signs may be attached to free standing poles if the content of the stgns may be obstructed by landscaping (12) Security Fencing Towers shall be enclosed by security fencing which measures not less than s~x (6) feet in height and shall be equipped with an appropriate antl-chmbing device (13) Non Essentml Services Towers and Antennas shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this Section and shall not be regulated or permitted as an Essential Service, public utility, or prwate utd~ty (14) Franchises/Licenses Operators of Towers or Antennas shall certtfy that all l¥anctuses/hcenses required by law for the construction and/or operatxon of a wireless communication system in the City have been obtained and shall file a copy of all required franchises/licenses with the Growth Management Department prior to the issuance &the building permit The certification shall be submitted annually to the Growth Management Department (15) _Pubhc Notice For purposes of this Section, and notwithstanding any other requirements with regard to public notice in the City’s Zoning Code, applicants shall comply with the public notice procedures of the Growth Management Department (16) Cost Reimbursement Each apphcant shall reimburse the city for all costs incurred by the c~ty for the rewew and processing of any apphcation submitted pursuant to this section, including, but not hmlted to, engineering and legal staff and/or consultants, and the cost of any 14 document or drawings associated therewith The petitioner shall reimburse the city within five (5) days of the date of receipt of an ~nvoice therefor Failure by apphcant to make such reimbursement when due shall abate the pending application until paid in full (17) Reporting Operators shall submit a report to the Growth Management Director certifying structural and electrical integrity every two (2) years The report shall be accompanied a non-refundable fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200 00) to reimburse the City for the cost of review (18) Inspections The City may conduct periodic inspections of Towers and Antennas, at the Operator’s expense, to ensure structural and electrical integrity and compliance with the provisions of this Section The City may require more frequent inspections should there be an emergency. Extraordinary Conditions or other reason to believe that the structural and electrical integrity of the Tower or Antenna is jeopardized There shall be a maximum of one inspection per year unless emergency or Extraordinary Conditions warrant (e) (’o-Locat~o~t of Antennas (1)Pursuant to the intent of this Section, applicants seeking to co-locate Antennas on existing Towers shall be entitled to the following incentives A A complete application shall be reviewed by the Growth Management Department within forty-five (45) working days of receipt B The Growth Management Director, at the director’s discretion, may waive certain reqmrements of Sub-section (d) C An application may be admimstratively approved by the Growth Management D~rector. or if not so approved within forty-five (45) working days, it shall be submitted to City Council for review 15 (2) An application for co-location may be administratively approved if the Tower which is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the co-location of an additional Antenna meets one of the following criteria a) it is the same Tower type as the original Tower, b) it is a Tower type which is less obtrusive, i e a Stealth Tower or a Monopole Tower, c) it as modified or rebuilt to taller height to accommodate the co-location of an additional Antenna(s), subject to the maximum height restrictions herein (this provision shall be applicable to utihty and power poles) (3) A Tower which is being replaced to accommodate the co-location of additional Antenna may be located onslte within fiRy (50) feet of the Pre-existing Tower After the replacement Tower is built, only one Tower may remain on the site A Tower built to replace a Pre- existing Tower shall continue to be measured from the location of the Pre-existing Tower for purposes of separation distances between Towers (4) Tenant Rental Fees Operators regulated by this Section shall not charge Provtders seeking to co-locate on a Tower in excess of the Fair Market Value for the space, as determined at the time of the request for co-location In the event of a dispute, the parties shall select an independent appratser to determane Fair Market Value If’the parties cannot agree on the selection of an appraiser, the City Manager shall select an appraiser All appraisals shall be performed at the expense of the parties (t)Antenna, Microwave Dts’h, and Cable A,ltcrocell Review A)An Antenna which IS intended to be attached to any commercial, industrial, professional, or institutional structure, including a utthty or light pole, may be approved as an admimstrative amendment by the Growth Management Director provided 16 The Antenna does not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the0) highest point of the structure, (n) The Antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations and all applicable building codes, (iii) To minimize adverse visual impacts, the Antenna has been selected based upon the following priority, (1) Stealth, (2) Panel, (3) whip, (4) Dish If the first priority not selected, the applicant shall demonstrate, in a manner acceptable to the City, why each subsequent priority cannot be used for a particular application B) Microwave dish Antennas may be administratively approved if they are fi) located less than sixty-five (65) feet above the ground and do not exceed six (6) feet in diameter, or (i0 located sixty-five (65) feet or more above the ground and do not exceed eight (8) feet in diameter Ground- mounted d~sh Antennas shall be located or screened so as not to be vimble from abutting pubhc streets C) Cable Mlcrocell Network Installing a cable microcell network through the use of multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached to existing wireline systems, such as conventional cable or telephone wires, or similar technology that does not require the use of Towers may be approved by the Growth Management Director as an administrative amendment (g) Permttted Uses on Pubhc Property (1) General This subsection is applicable to applicants seeking to locate Antennas and Towers on property owned, leased, maintained or otherwise controlled by the City or designated as P/I zoning d~stnct ("public property") The City Council reserves the right to modify or waive the 17 requirements for locating on public property and shall not be required to provide access to Ctty property (2) Standards for Approval A All applicants seeking to locate Antennas or Towers on pubhc property shall submit an apphcation, including all information requested in sub-section (d) herein to the Growth Management Department B Applications shall be reviewed by City Council within thirty (30) days from the submission of a completed application C At its discretion, City Council may waive or modify certain requirements of this Section, ~nclud~ng setback and separation requirements, as may be deemed appropriate D An application submitted by a public agency to locate a tower or antenna pursuant to this subsection may be administratively approved provided the tower or antenna is intended for use for public purposes only and is not intended or used for commerclal or financial gain (3) Lease Required for Use of City Property Prior to or concurrent with approval of an apphcation for construction, installation or placement of a Telecommunications Facility on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the City, the applicant shall execute a Lease Agreement in a form acceptable to the City The C~ty may require, as a condition of entering into a Lease Agreement with an apphcant, the dedicatlon of space on the Tower for public health and safety purposes, as well as property improvement of the site Any dedications and improvements shall be negotiated prior to execution of the lease The City may, in its discretion, provide a license agreement in lieu of a lease 18 No lease or license granted under this Section shall convey any exclusive right, privilege, permit or franchise to occupy or use the pubhc lands of the city for delivery of Telecommunications services or any other purpose, nor shall ~t shall convey any right, title or interest ~n the public lands other than a leasehold ~nterest, but shall be deemed only to allow the use of the public lands for the limited purposes and term stated ~n the lease or license conveyance of a title interest in the property (h) (1) No lease or license shall be construed as a Pernntted ~ rses on Private Property General The requtrements of this sub-section apply to applicants seeking to locate Antennas and Towers on private property The following reqmrements shall apply A Each apphcatton shall ~nclude the ~nformation as set forth in subsection (d), and a non-refundable fee of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500 00) to reimburse the C~ty for the costs of reviewing the application B The City shall respond to each apphcation within the time dictated by the nature and scope of the individual request, subject to the generally applicable time frames and pursuant to the intent of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but in no event more than forty-five (45) working days for administrative zoning decisions Building permit applications shall be processed within a reasonable penod of time C If an apphcation submitted pursuant to this Sub-section is denied, the applicant shall file an application for a conditional use permit pursuant to this section prior to filing any appeal based upon the denial 19 (2) use categories des~gnatlons Permitted Land Uses. Location of a Tower shall be permitted in the following land subject to the requirements here~n. Industnal and Commercial future land use Apphcat~on and Review a Applicants seeking to locate a Tower in the Industrial and Commercial future land use designations shall be subject to review by the C~ty Council through the site plan approval process Such applications shall include all the information described m subsection (d) b Alternative Tower Structure Locating an Alternative Tower Structure in the Industrial and Commercial future land .use designations may accomplish the purposes set forth herein and may be approved by the Growth Management Director as an administrative amendment (l)( "ondmonal Use (1) General The provislons listed in this sub-section apply when an application for the construction of a Tower or the placement of an Antenna fails to meet all of the criteria for approval as otherwise provided herein An application for a conditional use permit shall include all the information described m subsection (d) and any other reasonable information the City may require Such application shall require approval by the City Council The following provisions shall govern the ~ssuance of a Condmonal Use permtt A Compliance with the procedures and requirements for Conditional Use permits as set forth in the City’s Code of Ordinances B In granting a permit, the City may impose conditions, to the extent the City deems such conditions are necessary, to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed Tower or Antenna on adjoining properties 2O C Any Lnfonnation of an engineering nature that the applicant submits, whether civil, mechamcal, or electrical, shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer (2) Separation. All Towers and Antennas for which a condttLonal use permit is required shall be separated from residential land uses by a minimum of 500 feet or 300 percent of the height of the Tower, whichever is greater Tower separation shall be measured from the base of the Tower to the lot line of the residential land use (3) Factors Considered Granting Conditional Us e Pe rmits fo r To wers. In addition to any standards for consideration of conditional use permit applications pursuant to the Code, the C~ty shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a permit A Availability of suitable existing Towers, other structures, or State of the Art technologies not requiring the use of Towers or structures, as discussed herein, B Height of the proposed Tower, C The setback and separation d~stances between the proposed Tower and the nearest residential areas or residentially zoned properties, D Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties, E Surroundtng topography, F Surrounding tree coverage and foliage, G Design of the Tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness, and H Proposed ingress and egress to the site (j)Butldmg.~ or Other Equipment Focthtte,~. The following standards shall apply 21 (1) Antennas Mounted on Structures or Root~ops The Equtpment Cabinet used m association with Antennas mounted on structures or root~ops shall comply of the following A For buildings and structures which are up to four (4) stones high, up to 64 feet in height, the Cabinet shall not be located on the roof of the structure if it exceeds 100 square feet of gross floor area or three (3) feet in height unless it is completely screened from view according to the standards of this code or such screemng is architecturally compatible to the acceptance of the City B For all other buildings or structures, the Cabinet shall not occupy more than four hundred fit~y (450) square feet of gross floor area or be more than ninety six (96) inches m height or such screemng is architecturally compatible to the acceptance of the City C A structural analysis by a certified engineer of the supporting building or structure shall be submitted as part of the application D Cabinets shall comply with all applicable building codes, including minimum setback requirements, as provtded herein (2) Antennas mounted on utality poles or light poles The Equipment Cabinet used in association with Antennas mounted on utility poles or light poles shall be located in accordance with the following A In residential districts, the Cabinet may be located (i)In a side yard setback provided the Cabinet is no greater than e~ght (8) feet in height or occupies no more than three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, and located a minimum of five (5) feet from all lot lines The Cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen 22 hedge with an ultimate height of at least forty-two to forty-eight (42-48) ~nches and a planted height of at least thirty-six (36) ~nches 01) In a rear yard setback, provided the Cablnet ~s no greater than eight (8) feet m height or occupies no more than three hundred (300) square feet in gross floor area Cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen hedge with an ultimate height of at least seventy-two (72) inches and a planted height of at least thirty-six (36) inches B In commercial or industrial zoning districts the Equipment Cabinet shall be no greater than eight (8) feet in height or occupy more than three hundred (300) square feet in gross floor area The Cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen hedge with an ultimate height of at least seventy-two (72) inches and a planted height of at least thirty-six (36) inches C In all other instances, Cabinets shall be screened from view of all residential properties wbach abut or are directly adjacent to a Cabinet by a sohd masonry fence eight (8) feet in height and an evergreen hedge with an ultimate height of at least eight (8) feet in height and a planted height at least thirty-stx (36) ~nches (3) Antennas Located on Towers The related unmanned equipment structure shall not occupy more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of gross floor area or be more than eight (8) feet m height, and shall be located in accordance with the minimum yard requirements of the zoning district m which located Equipment not used in direct support of a Tower Facility shall not be stored or kept on the s~te of the Tower, unless necessary for ongoing repairs to the Tower (k)Abandoned Antem~cts and lbwers;Securl O, Fund (1) Abandonment Any Antenna or Tower that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned, and the Operator of such Antenna or Tower 23 shall remove the same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the Operator of such abandonment Fadure to remove an abandoned Antenna or Tower within the mnety (90) days shall constitute grounds for removal of the tower/antenna by the city at the provlder’s expense, as provided for herein If there are two or more users of a single Tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the Tower (2) Security Fund Every Provider, whether on pubhc or private property, shall establish a cash security fund, or provide the City with an irrevocable letter of credit in the same amount, to secure the payment of removing an Antenna or Tower that has been determined to be abandoned, as set forth hereto The amount to be provided for each Tower shall be Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000 00), the amount for each Antenna array shall be Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000 00) In altemative, at the City’s discretion, a Provider may, in lieu of a cash security fund or letter of credit, file and maintain with the City a bond with an acceptable surety in the amount prowded for here~n The Provider and the surety shall be jointly and severally liable under the terms of the bond In the alternative, at the City’s d~scretton, a Provider may, in lieu of the cash security fund, letter of credit or bond, file with the Ci.ty a corporate guarantee in a form acceptable to the City to be used as a security fund In the event the City commences removal proceedings pursuant to this subsection, upon five (5) working days notice to the facility owner, the City shall have the right to draw down funds from the security fund (I)Noncon.formmg ~ ~,es. (1) Pre-E~sting Towers Preexisting Towers shall be allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist Routme maintenance (including replacement with a new Tower of hke 24 construction and height) shall be perrrutted on such preexisting Towers New construction other than routine maintenance on a Preexisting Tower shall comply w~th the requirements of this Section (2) Rebuilding Damaged or Destroyed Nonconforming Towers or Antennas Preexisting Towers or Antennas which are damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt w~thout having to first obtain admimstrat~ve approval or a permit and without having to meet the separation requirements herein A Tower rebuilt pursuant to this sub-section shall be of the same type, height and intensity as the original Tower Building permits to rebuild the Tower shall comply with the then applicable building codes and shall be obtained within 180 days from the date the Tower is damaged or destroyed If no permit is obtained within 180 days or if the permit expires, the Tower or Antenna shall be deemed abandoned as spectfied herein (m) htdemnt.ftcatu)tt u~tdlnsurmtce The City shall not enter tnto any lease or license agreement untd and unless the City obtains the following 1 Indemnification Each Operator shall provide an adequate indemnity The indemnity must at least (a) Release the City from and against any and all liability and responsibility in or arislng out of the construction, operation or repair of the Telecommunications Facility Each Operator must further agree not to sue or seek any money or damages from the City in connection with the above mentioned matters, (b) Indemnify and hold harmless the City, its trustees, elected and appointed officers, agents, servants and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, or causes of action of whatsoever kind or nature, and the resulting losses, costs, expenses, reasonable attorneys’ fees, liabilities, damages, orders, judgments, or decrees, sustained by the City or any third party arising out of, or by reason of, or resulting from the Operator, or its agents, employees, or servants of the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Operator, and (c) Provide that the covenants and 25 representations rdating to the lndemmfication provision shall survive the term of any agreement and continue in full force and effect as to the party’s responsibility to mdemmfy (2) Comprehensive General Liability An Operator and its contractors or subcontractors engaged in work on the Operator’s behalf, shall maintain mlmmum insurance to cover liability, bodily injury and property damage Exposures to be covered shall include premises, operations, and certain contracts Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall be included, as applicable, in the lease agreement between the C~ty and the Operator (3) Other Requirements In addition to the foregoing, the following reqmrements must be satisfied (a) An Operator shall not commence construction or operation of a Telecommunication Faolity w~thout obtaining all insurance required under th~s section and approval of such insurance by the c~ty’s risk manager, nor shall an Operator allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work on Its contract or sub-contract until all similar such insurance required of the same has been obtained and approved, (b) The required insurance must be obtained and maintained for the entire period the Telecommunications Facd~ty xs in existence If the Operator, its contractors or subcontractors do not have the required insurance, the City may order such entities to stop operations until the insurance Is obtained and approved, (c) certificates of insurance reflecting evidence &the required insurance shall be filed with the Risk Manager The certificates shall be filed prior to the commencement of construction and once a year thereafter, and as prowded below in the event of a lapse m coverage, (d) These certificates shall contain a provision that coverages afforded under these policies v~lll not be canceled until at least thirty days (30) prior written notice has been given to the City, (e) Policies shall be issued by compames authorized to do business under the laws &the State of Florida, and (f) In the event that the insurance certificate provided indicates that the insurance 26 shall terminate or lapse dunng the penod of the lease or license agreement with the City, then in that event, the Telecommunications Facility Operator shall furnish, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of such insurance, a renewed certificate of insurance evidencing equal and like coverage for the balance of the period (n) Penaltte,~A violation of any provision of this section shall be subject to enforcement by the City’s Code Enforcement Department Section 3. The following terms and defimtions set forth in sectton 78-2 of the City’s Code of Ordinances are hereby repealed 1 Commumcatlon Tower 2 Guyed Tower 3 Monopole Tower 4 Rooftop-mounted communication tower 5 Self-support tower Section 4. Severability. The various parts, sections and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable If any part, sentence, paragraph, section or clause ~s adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent junsdict~on, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected thereby In the event of a subsequent change in applicable law. so the provision which had been held invalid is no longer mvahd the provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect without further action by the City and shall thereafter be binding under this Ordinance Section 5. Provisions of This Section to Control. 27 Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of the City’s Code of Ordinances, including the City’s Zoning Code, the provisions of this new Ordinance shall control Section 6. Repealer. Any ordinances or parts thereof In conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effectwe upon adoption PLACED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF ~.-~_t_ ’l.t4....~-’i.. ~,.~ ,1998 PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS, .~r/DAY OF -~.r~./,., : zt" ~ ,¢ , 1998 AS S ED AND ADO THIS.~/,~ DAY OF ..__.) o ,,~ t ¢ z7 t :4 1998 ~VI~:Z~R J~)S~P~ k RUSS0 COUNCILWOMAN LINDA MONROE /, VICE MAYOR LAUREN FURTADO C01z~ILMAN ’~RIC J/~LIN COUNCILMAN DAVID CLARK ATTEST LINDA V KOSIER APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORNEY 28 VOTE MAYOR RUSSO VICE MAYOR FURTADO COUNCILWOMAN MONROE COUNCILMAN JABLIN COUNCILMAN CLARK AYE NAY ABSENT G xShort Range\WIRE_TOWER5a v, pdt 31’-) 11481 29 ." THE TELECOMMUNICA~I~ONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BATT~I~FOR COMMUNI]Page 1 of 9 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITINGS: THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BATTLE FOR COMMUNITY CONTROL *SUSAN LORDE MARTIN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. LOCAL COMMUNITY RESIDENTS OPPOSE CELLULAR PHONE TOWERS III. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 AND ITS EFFECT ON LOCAL REGULATION OF CELLULAR TOWER FACILITIES IV. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SITING DISPUTES SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS I. Introduction The Telecommunications Act of 19961- (Act) was enacted by Congress on February 8, 1996, primarily to promote a pro-competitive, deregulatory environment for telecommunications providers that wouldin order to secure lower prices, better service, and faster access to new technologies for consumers,z- Universal service is also a cornerstone of the congressional plan.3- The Act’s chief method of accomplishing these goals is the "removal of barriers to entry’’4- into the businesses of telecommunications services, including those provided by local, and long distance telephone companies and video, cable, and wireless companies.-5 This plan sounds laudable and seems to be one to which most consumers would subscribe. Nevertheless, Congress recognized that difficulties might arise in its implementation if state and local governments attempted to exert their jurisdiction in ways that would erect or maintain barriers to telecommunications facilities.-6 One such problem involves the siting of telecommunication towers and antennas. This problem existed before the new Act became law and continues to create rancor and litigation. From one end of the country to the other, communities have been fighting against telecommunications companies that want to put facilities in their neighborhoods.7 The new law, rather than solving the problem, exacerbates it by providing ammunition for both sides of the controversy. On one hand, the Act states that "[n]o State or local statute or regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service;’’-8 while, on the other hand, the Act provides that "[n]othing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose ... requirements necessary to ... protect the public safety and welfare, ... and safeguard the rights of consumers.’’9 These provisions make it reasonable for telecommunications companies to argue that a local zoning ordinance cannot prohibit the construction of a tower in the location and of the dimensions necessary for seamless cellular phone service. Local residents, however, can also make a compelling argument that zoning rules limiting the size and placement of telecommunications facilities protect their economic and emotional welfare. http ://www.law.berkeley.edu/j oumals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 ¯ THE TELECOMMUNICA~ONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BATT~FOR COMMUNI Page 2 of 9 This article first describes the problem that arises when telecommunications companies seek to erect towers in order to provide cellular phone service. It then discusses the relevant provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the role of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implementing them. Next, the article surveys the cases that have dealt with the cellular tower issue. Finally, the article concludes that Congress should amend the Act to define acceptable methods of state and local regulation of communication facilities and to require that, in support of their applications for variances, communication service providers demonstrate that they have taken into consideration the interests of local residents in siting their facilities. Congress should also amend the Act to allow states and local governments to rely on evidence of health and environmental effects when making decisions about the location of communications facilities, even when that evidence contradicts FCC standards. In the meantime, the FCC and the courts should use their power to preempt state or local requirements only after giving due consideration to the rights and interests of affected local residents. II. Local Community Residents Oppose Cellular Phone Towers Cellular phone service was first offered in the United States in 1983.10 Since then, telecommunications businesses have been attempting to erect towers with antennas in or near almost every local community in order to provide service that reaches every area of the country.11 A few years ago there were several thousand telecommunications towers in the nation.12 Today, there are about 25,000.-13 Experts estimate that by 2002, there will be 100,000 towers.14 Although cellular phones have become very popular, and people want service with good sound quality, most are unwilling to obtain it if the price is living next to, or within viewing distance of, a tower.15 There are two primary objections raised to the proximity of telecommunications towers to residential neighborhoods. First, people are concerned about the health risks associated with electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phone facilities.16 Even though there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields are cancer-causing, particularly at the low levels emitted by cellular phone transmitters,17 there is also no conclusive evidence that they are not. In fact, many studies have found a correlation between exposure to electromagnetic fields and cancer.18 Therefore, with twenty-two countries still studying the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, people remain afraid.19 Second, people are concerned that proximity to a tower will lower their property values.20 The manager of a real estate brokerage office in New York has called the towers "the kiss of death," claiming that a home with a tower in its backyard can sell for twenty-five percent less than a comparable home without a tower.21 Homeowners are also concerned for their own visual comfort, because of the poor aesthetics of the tower facilities.22 The conflict between the goals of telecommunications companies and those of residents of local communities has created disputes that end up being resolved by courts. After the companies select sites that maximize communication distance and quality, local zoning ordinances frequently require them to obtain variances for non-conforming uses.23 It is not unusual for the community zoning board to respond to citizens’ complaints and deny the application for a variance. The telecommunications companies are prepared for this result and appeal the denial in court, where they frequently win.24 If the zoning board grants the application for the variance, it is likely that community residents will not appeal the decision because they lack the financial resources; if they do http ://www.law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 ¯ THE TELECOMMUNICA~ONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BATT~ FOR COMMUNI Page 3 of 9 appeal, they usually lose.25 The playing field is not level when local citizens, attempting to protect their physical, emotional and economic health, are required to battle in court against large telecommunications corporations with vast financial resources and experience in litigating these kinds of cases. Unfortunately, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does nothing to reduce the need for or likelihood of litigation when these corporations decide to erect cellular phone towers in residential neighborhoods. lII. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Its Effect on Local Regulation of Cellular Tower Facilities The Telecommunications Act of 1996 describes itself as "[a]n Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’’26 To accomplish those goals, the Act provides in subsection 253(a) that "[i]n general- [n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.’’27 When the House of Representatives was debating a version of the Act, some members, while agreeing that local communities should not be able to prohibit access to new communications facilities, expressed concern that the foregoing language might have the undesirable result of keeping counties, cities, and towns from enforcing their zoning and building codes.28 One member declared that nothing in the Act should "preempt[] the ability of local officials to determine the placement and construction of...new [cellular phone] towers. Land use has always been, and ... should continue to be, in the domain of the authorities in the areas directly affected.’’29 The Act does go on to say in subsection 253(b), that states shall maintain their ability "to impose ... requirements necessary to ... protect the public safety and welfare .... ,,30_ However, that language is followed, in section 253(d), by the warning that if the FCC31 "determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) ... the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.’’32 In its instructions to the FCC regarding the regulation of mobile communications services, Congress directed the Commission to consider "safety of life and property," "efficiency," "competition," and the provision of services to the "largest number of feasible users.’’33 Congress also specified that states and local governments could not keep companies from providing mobile services or regulate the rates they could charge, but states could regulate other terms and conditions of mobile communications services.34 Specifically, states and local governments can regulate "the placement, construction, and modification" of service facilities with the following limitations.35 State and local regulation may not "unreasonably discriminate among providers" or "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.’’36 Furthermore, when a communications service provider requests authorization to construct facilities, the state or local government must act on the request "within a reasonable period of time" and must support any decision to deny a request with "substantial evidence contained in a written record.’’37 Any provider issued such a denial or adversely affected by a failure to respond to such a request may, within thirty days, commence an action in any court with jurisdiction, and thecourt must hear and decide the case "on an expedited http://www.law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 basis.’’38 The Act also specifically prohibits states and local govemments from regulating the placement and construction of communications facilities, like antennas and towers, on the basis of the environmental effects of electromagnetic fields if the facilities meet FCC standards for emissions.39 If states or local governments ignore this prohibition, then any provider adversely affected may petition the FCC for relief.4° Both cellular phone service providers and local community zoning boards opposing proposed tower facilities can claim some support in the Act for their positions. The Act gives the latter the fight to use zoning regulations to protect the welfare of citizens threatened by towers; it imposes limitations, however, such that the advantage is clearly with communications corporations. Allowing states and local governments to regulate the placement of cellular phone towers, except when such regulation will have the effect of prohibiting the provision of cellular phone service, will give the service providers a very easy argument for having any regulation voided: if they are denied a variance to use the site of their choice, the service providers will assert that any other site would not be as cost- effective and, therefore, either they must be given permission to use their chosen site or they will not bring service to the local area. Moreover, requiring the expeditious resolution of these disputes gives a distinct advantage to the corporations that have staffs of lawyers and engineers, previously prepared research, and litigation experience with similar cases. Local residents have none of these, and very limited financial resources with which to try to match the corporations. To require that they quickly catch up to their opponent’s levels in research and expert support renders the residents position untenable in most cases. The Act pays lip service to the importance of local zoning regulation, sufficient to encourage litigation, but without any genuine recognition of the importance of a homeowner’s property values, peace of mind, and, particularly, health concerns. The Act denigrates health concerns by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health. That assumption is premature, given the large amount of ongoing scientific research on the subject and the lack of clear conclusions. The Congressional Conference Report indicates that the Act preempts state and local regulation of the environmental effects of electromagnetic emissions when it has requirements beyond those of FCC rules.41 This preemption discourages states from doing their own research on the health effects of these emissions because they cannot rely on the results in formulating regulations.42 That result does a disservice to the public. The FCC, in promulgating its rules setting a specific absorption rate limit for electromagnetic emissions at four watts per kilogram, noted that research in this area related to human health and safety is ongoing and that changes to recommended exposure limits are possible in the future.43 With that admitted uncertainty, it is unreasonable to limit what states and local governments may do to protect their residents. Some local governments have imposed temporary moratoria on the issuance of such permits, to allow themselves time to study the impact of cellular communications antennas and towers before granting permission for their construction.44 In early 1997, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association responded by filing a petition with the FCC for a declaratory ruling seeking preemption of such moratoria on the grounds that they violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and that the Act authorizes FCC preemption.45 The FCC should deny the petition using the reasoning articulated by the United States District Court for the Westem District of Washington in one of the few cases conceming the siting of telecommunications towers decided since the Act went into effect.46 IV. Judicial Resolution of Telecommunications Tower Siting Disputes Since the http ://www. law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 ¯ THE TELECOMMUNIC~ONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BAT~ FOR COMMUNI Page 5 of 9 Enactment of the Telecommunications Act Three months after the Act was signed into law, a federal district court in Washington State decided a case challenging a six-month moratorium on issuing permits for new telecommunications facilities established by the City of Medina.47 Medina has about 3,000 residents, and is approximately two and one-half square miles in area, zoned entirely for low-density residential use. It is a prime location for cellular phone towers, however, because of its proximity to a state highway and a bridge.48 For several years, Medina has had cellular phone facilities belonging to two service providefs, but after the Act became effective, the city expected additional applications for tower construction permits and feared becoming an "antenna farm.’’49 Five days after the effective date of the Act, Medina’s moratorium went into effect in order to give the city time to study the allocation of suitable sites.5° One month later, Sprint filed a lawsuit alleging that the moratorium violates the Act because any delay in its obtaining full cellular phone coverage in the region would cause it to lose a great deal of money resulting in irreparable harm to the company.51 The court noted that Medina citizens were concerned about the health hazards and negative aesthetic effects associated with cellular phone towers, but emphasized that if the city did not have time to study the appropriate siting of facilities, there may not be adequate sites for competing providers.52 Thus, without the careful allocation of sites, beneficial services might be rendered unavailable.53 The court provided an instructive analysis of the relevant portions of the Act. To Sprint’s claim that the moratorium "’prohibit[s] or [has] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,’" the court responded that the moratorium was not a prohibition, but merely a short-term suspension.54 To Sprint’s contention that the moratorium kept the city from "’act[ing] on’ its application ’within a reasonable period of time,’" the court averred that the language in the Act did not suggest that Congress "intended to force local government procedures onto a rigid timetable where the circumstances call for study, deliberation, and decision-making among competing applicants.’’55 The court concluded that the Act’s legislative history indicated that Congress did not intend to give preferential treatment to the telecommunications industry in the processing of zoning applications.56 Finally, the court held that Medina’s six-month moratorium on issuing new permits for telecommunications facilities for the purpose of information-gathering did not violate any provisions of the Telecommunications Act.57 Thus, the court interpreted the Act’s provisions in a light most favorable to the retention of some local control over the environment in which residents live, keeping the profit-making motives of telecommunications corporations from being the ultimate value in the regulation of telecommunications facilities. In BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, Georgia,58 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia interpreted section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Act, which requires denial of a telecommunications service provider’s application to construct facilities be "supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.’’59 In this case, BellSouth applied to the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners for a permit to erect a 197-foot monopole that would improve the quality of its cellular telephone service.60 In support of its application, BellSouth provided the following documents: a report by the Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation showing that the monopole was not hazardous to aircraft, a certified appraiser’s report concluding that monopoles did not decrease property values, a line of sight survey, prepared by Aerial Instrument Research Systems, http ://www.law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.htm1 3/26/2002 showing the visibility of a red balloon floated to varying heights at the proposed site, and a list of BellSouth’s unsuccessful efforts to find other suitable sites.61 Residents, on the other hand, submitted no documents, relying merely on a representative who attended a Board hearing and made conclusory expressions of concem regarding the monopole’s safety, health, aesthetic, and economic threats.62 Based on this record the court held that the Board violated the "substantial evidence" provision in the Act.63 The court then had to decide on the appropriate remedy.64 Although the Act allows anyone denied a permit for telecommunications facilities to seek relief "in any court of ’competent jurisdiction’," it does not specify the remedy for violation of the Act.65 The choices available to the district court were to remand the matter to the Board for it to make a decision supported by substantial evidence or to order the Board to issue the permit for the monopole. The court did the latter, explaining that the Act requires the court to "hear and decide such action on an expedited basis" and, therefore, a mere remand would thwart the intent of the Act to encourage the expeditious installation of new telecommunications facilities.66 This case illustrates why, in fairness and concern for citizens’ ability to exert their rights, the Act should give some deference to local governments in their disputes with telecommunications corporations regarding the location of telecommunications towers and antennas. BellSouth had knowledge, experience, legal counsel, and the financial resources to have experts prepare reports in support of its application for a permit to erect a 197-foot monopole. Local residents had none of those resources. That lack does not necessarily indicate that there was no substantial evidence to support their position, but perhaps merely that they did not know they needed it, did not know where to get it, or did not have the financial resources to pay for it. Moreover, in this kind of situation, government representatives may not be of much help, because they are also lay people with budgetary constraints and, therefore, they are no match for business adversaries.67 Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. v. County of Peoria68 also illustrates the poor preparation of the residents who opposed the construction of a 140-foot cellular transmission monopole. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois noted that the local zoning board received a petition signed by 200 people opposing the monopole, but that there was no indication of the basis for their opposition.69 A realtor with twenty-four years experience objected to the monopole because it would cause a decrease in property values, but offered no analysis, studies or examples to support the reasonableness of the objection.70 Lastly, the residents presented a survey that was meant to show that potential home buyers would not buy a home near a telecommunications tower.71 The court concluded that there was no evidence of the survey’s statistical or scientific merit, however, because there was no information on how the survey was conducted or how the respondents were chosen.72 On the other hand, Illinois RSA, the telecommunications provider, presented evidence from three certified real estate appraisers indicating that cellular transmission towers do not cause real estate prices to fall.73 One presented an analysis of similar tower sitings at other locations that indicated that towers did not have an adverse effect on property values.74 Illinois RSA had an engineer and surveyor present line of sight drawings demonstrating that the tower would not be visible from nearby residences.75 The Peoria residents also stated their concerns about the health effects of living close to http://www.law.berkeley, edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 "THE TELECOMMUNICA~ONS ACT OF 1996 AND THE BATT~ FOR COMMUNI Page 7 of 9 telecommunications transmission facilities, but the court held that under the Telecommunications Act, health effects could not be considered as long as emissions were within the standard set by the FCC.76 Thus, the court concluded that there was no substantial evidence, as required by the Telecommunications Act,77 to deny Illinois RSA’s request to construct its tower.78 It also concluded that the county of Peoria had violated the Act "in the most basic way" by not issuing a written statement containing the reasons for its denial.79 In deciding on a remedy, the Illinois district court, citing the Gwinnett County case, rejected the option of remanding the case to the county zoning board for reconsideration and a written decision.80 The court concluded that such a course "would be a waste of time and would frustrate the Telecom Act’s direction to expedite these proceedings.’’81 Instead, the court issued an injunction directing the county to issue a permit for the tower and to remove any obstacles to its construction.82 The United States District Court in New Mexico also cited Gwinnett County in providing mandamus relief for Western PCS 1I Corporation, a telecommunications company that had been denied a special exception request to mount antennas on an existing water tank by the zoning authority for Santa Fe.83 In this case, the Santa Fe zoning authority failed to comply with what the district court deemed the "most basic of the Telecommunications Act’s requirements," a written record supporting its denial of the company’s request.84 This led the judge to resist remanding the matter, because the court could not find the "substantial evidence" upon which the zoning authority must rely to sustain its denial of a permit.85 The only evidence submitted by those opposed to the antennas was the expression of "generalized concerns" by several neighbors.86 Moreover, those concerns centered on a "visual blight in the neighborhood," even though the antennas were going to be no higher than the already-existing water tank, they were going to be painted to match the color of the tank, and Western PCS was going to remove graffiti from the water tank.87 As presented by the court, the facts of this case make the objectors’ case seem very weak, but it is hard to know whether it was objectively weak or just poorly presented. In contrast to the federal district courts in Georgia, Illinois, and Mew Mexico, the state court of appeals in Wisconsin held that, in light of the Act, a remand to the local zoning authority for reconsideration of its decision to deny a permit for the construction of a 200-foot telecommunications tower was an appropriate remedy.88 The Wisconsin court considered the Act’s language requiring courts to hear these cases on an expedited basis, but did not relate that mandate to the remedies available to courts. The body of case law on the subject is still much too small to draw any general conclusions, but it will be interesting to note whether any pattern emerges of federal district courts construing the Act strictly, or of state courts deferring to local zoning authorities.89 These cases suggest that the Act has not sufficiently clarified the role of state and local governing bodies in making decisions about the siting of cellular phone towers to discourage litigation. To the contrary, the statute creates new questions about what constitutes "the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services," what is "a reasonable period of time" for acting on requests to construct telecommunications facilities, and what kind of regulating is actually left for local governments to do regarding such construction. The latter question includes the specific issue of what health and welfare or safeguarding the rights of "consumers" can mean, particularly when state and local governments cannot consider the possible effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields. V. Discussion and Conclusions http ://www.law.berkeley. edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text .html 3/26/2 002 Congress clearly intended for the 1996 Act to limit state and local regulation of the telecommunications industry.90 The idea was to eliminate regulatory barriers to promote competition in the industry in order to encourage technological advancement and to give consumers choices.91 In its zeal to accomplish these goals, however, Congress neglected to sufficiently consider the interests of local residents, other than the interests they have as consumers of telecommunications services, and the advantages given to the industry vis-~t-vis citizens.92 To rectify this oversight, Congress should amend the Telecommunications Act in four specific ways. First, the Act should clarify the conditions of mobile communications services that state and local governments can regulate. These conditions should include the siting of facilities and the specific form that the facilities take, although the regulations should not result in the barring of service in the area. It is reasonable for people to be concerned about the effects of proximity to cellular phone towers on health, their property values, and the aesthetics of a home’s landscape. It is unfair to dismiss these interests as merely symptoms of the "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome and, therefore, interests to be ignored when the proliferation of cellular phone sites is at stake. In fact, there is nothing in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that encourages telecommunications companies to take these interests into consideration in siting their facilities. Second, Congress should require service providers to include substantial evidence that they are requesting siting permits for the least intrusive facilities available in the least intrusive locations under the circumstances. Such a requirement, in addition to addressing some of the concerns of local residents, would promote the congressional goals of advancing technology and encouraging competition. There are many ways of making communications facilities less intrusive-hiding antennas is onc93-but they may be more expensive than the installation of a traditional 200 or 300- foot tower.94 For example, microcells do not have the same height and power requirements as macrocells, but a larger number of the microcells are needed to provide widespread coverage.95 Microcells do not have to be located on high towers; they can be installed in church steeples, on rooftops, and even inside offices where they would not be noticed.96 They can be attached to utility poles and lamp posts with cables running down to equipment located in underground shelters.97 There are also coverage enhancer systems that can reduce the number of necessary towers by one third to one half depending on the terrain.98 Third, the Act should allow state and local governments to rely on scientifically objective evidence of the health risks associated with electromagnetic fields when making decisions regarding the siting of communications towers and antennas. There are clear advantages to having a national policy on telecommunications. Nevertheless, because there are such wide disparities within the worldwide scientific community about the effects of electromagnetic fields (even at low levels) on human health, it should be up to local communities to decide how much risk they are willing to undertake. Finally, the Act discourages study and planning with its "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" and "within a reasonable period of time" language.99 This language should be clarified to allow a realistic amount of time for communities to plan for the best use of their resources. For example, companies can be required by zoning boards to share sites (known as co-location)lOO in an effort to reduce the number of towers, but for a local government be able to create such requirements supported by substantial evidence, however, it would need the time to study and formulate an all-encompassing plan for the community and potential permit http://www.law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martin/html/text.html 3/26/2002 applicants. Current language does not, of course, prohibit planning, but it encourages service providers to commence court actions when a permitting agency does not expeditiously grant a permit application. Legislative clarification is preferable to the ad hoc decision-making that courts will be required to do. Nevertheless, when judges are presented with these cases, they should keep in mind that the Act specifically allows local regulation of the terms and conditions of telecommunications services, and that the other provisions in the Act cannot render that provision meaningless. Congress could not have meant for the Telecommunications Act to imply that having cellular phone service is more important to a community than having the freedom to decide what health risks are worth undertaking or than maintaining the value of neighborhood homes: the most valuable asset most homeowners have. Nevertheless, as written, the Act does not give corporations that provide cellular phone service any incentive to work cooperatively with the communities they intend to make their customers. Congress has overestimated the role that competition would play in giving local residents input in the siting of telecommunications towers. Residents and cellular phone customers, particularly in more rural areas, have not had a variety of service providers vying for their business. When there is only one provider in the area, it does not have to curry favor with potential customers by being a good neighbor. With no evidence that Congress intends to amend the Act in the very near future, and because once towers are erected they are probably in place permanently, it will be up to courts to interpret the Act in an even-handed manner according to its language. If courts give local communities the leeway to regulate the terms and conditions of tower sitings in a thoughtful manner that will not prohibit the availability of service, the damaging effects of a poorly designed statute can be controlled. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/j ournals/btlj/articles/12_2/Martirdhtml/text.html 3/26/2002 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-155 (12)Mixed use open space. The open space requirements of this section shall apply to the various parcels within a mixed use PUD. However, a minimum of 15 percent of gross land area shall be retained as open space within a mixed use PUD. (13)Open space determination. Open space shall be provided consistent with the require- ments of section 78-314. (14)Waivers. A development order application for a PUD may request one or more waivers from the standards applicable to the underlying zoning district, subject to the provisions of section 78-158. (h) Storage areas. The city council may allow PUDs to identify on the master PUD site plan a parcel or area to be established for residents to store boats, recreational vehicles, trucks, or similar items that normally cannot be parked or stored at a residence. (1)Storage areas shall be screened with an opaque barrier consisting of fences, walls, berms, landscaping, or any combination thereof. The screening shall be at least six feet in height, and shall be consisteat with the landscaping and architectural theme for the PUD. (2)The PUD shall be at least 50 acres in size. (3)At least one storage space per ten units shall be provided. J (i) Communication towers. Any PUD of 50 acres or more may allow a potential communi- cation tower site, to be identified on the master PUD site plan. The tower site shall comply with the standards listed below. (1)The site shall be at least 10,000 square feet, with minimum dimensions of 100 feet by 100 feet. (2) The tower shall be considered an accessory use in the PUD. (3)In a PUD with mixed residential and nonresidential uses, a building at least 40 feet in height may substitute as a tower site. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 88, 7-20-00) Sec. 78-155. PCD--Planned community development overlay district (PCD). Y (a) Composition and intent. The PCD overlay district is composed of large tracts of land which are planned to function as a relatively self-contained and identifiable district, section, or neighborhood community of the city. It is the intent of the district regulations to encourage ingenuity and imagination in the planning and development or redevelopment of suitable tracts of land large enough to accommodate the various uses and activities associated with a planned community and to permit a large area to be developed under one master plan that includes a mix of land use types at different levels of intensity. The PCD overlay district also is intended to encourage the use of architectural and design features which are aesthetically pleasing and supportive of an enhanced quality of life. The PCD overlay district also is intended for development to occur in a manner that provides one or more specifically identifiable benefits to city residents. Supp. No. 10 CD78:99 LAND DEVELOPMENT § 78-155 (2) (3) (4) (5) Residential components. A minimum of 35 percent of the total land area of each residential component in a PCD shall be maintained as open space. Nonresidential components. A minimum of ten percent of the total land area of each nonresidential component in a PCD shall be maintained as open space. Mi~cl uses. Open space uses in those components of a PCD which contain both residential and nonresidential uses shall be at least 20 percent of the total area of such components. Adjacent open space. Any open space located adjacent to a residential or nonresidential use component within a PCD may, at the discretion of the city council, be credited toward the open space requirements of adjacent residential or nonresidential compo- (p) Open space determination. Open space shall be provided consistent with the require- ments of section 78-314. (q) Waivers. A development order application for a PCD may request one or more waivers from the standards applicable to the underlying zoning district, subject to the provisions of section 78-158. (r) Storage areas. The city commission may allow PCDs to identify on the master development plan a parcel or area to be established for residents to store boats, recreational vehicles, trt~.k~, or similar items that normally cannot be parked or stored at a residence. Storage areas shall comply with the standards listed below. (I)Storage areas shall be screened with an opaque barrier consisting of fences, walls, berms, landscaping, or any combination thereof. The screening shall be at least six feet in height, and shall be consistent with the landscaping and architectural theme for the PCD. (2)The PCD shall be at least 50 acres in size. (3)At least one storage space per ten units shall be provided. (s) Communication towers. Any PCD of 50 acres or more may allow a potential communi- cation tower site, to be identified on the master development plan. The tower site shall comply with the standards listed below. (1)The site shall be at least 10,000 square feet, with minimum dimensions of 100 feet by 100 feet. (2) The tower shall be considered an accessory use in the PCD. (3) In a PCD, a building at least 40 feet in height may substitute as a tower site. (Ord. No. 17-2000, § 89, 7-20-00) Supp. No. 10 CD78:103 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Cover Memorandum Date Prepared: July 16, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Resolution: 124, 2002 Subject/Agenda Item: Resolution 124, 2002/Blanket approval of temporary road closures related to the Bums Road Widening Project - City Project No. 2002-001 [ X ] Recommendation to APPROVE [ ] Recommendation to DENY Council Action:Reviewed by: City Attorney Engineering Submitt.ed by: ~.., Jack Doughney, Community Services Administrator Department Director Originating Dept.: ~rno~: lc~ MWa°nnag~ e r~0~ Community Services Dept. Advertised: Date: Paper: [ X ] Not Required Affected parties [ X ] Notified [ ] Not required Costs:$ N/A (Total) $. N/A Current FY Funding Source: N/A [ ] Operating [ ] Other Budget Acct.#: [ ] Approved [ ]Approved w/ conditions [ ] Denied [ ] Continued to: Attachments: Resolution 124, 2002 [ ] None Date Prepared: July 16, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Resolution: 124, 2002 BACKGROUND: The Burns Road Widening Project is currently underway to alleviate traffic within the City by providing an alternate east-west thoroughfare to PGA Blvd. Due to the nature of the project, temporary closures are required during various intervals of construction. To accelerate construction activities for the road, City staff has requested a blanket approval for temporary closures during the construction process rather than seeking City Council approval prior to every closure. The Contractors will inform all City departments at least one week in advance of any temporary road closings. In addition, the Contractors will be providing special signing at least three days ahead of the closings to notify the public and will be producing an MOT Plan for the closures. The next closure for Burns Road is scheduled for July 21st through July 25th, 2002 from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. at the 1-95 overpass. The Contractor, Hubbard Construction, will be installing lines and other utilities as required by the design documents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of Resolution 124, 2002 allowing temporary closures of Burns Roads as necessary for finite periods during the course of construction. 2 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA RESOLUTION 124, 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF BURNS ROAD RELATING TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDINGFOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City is in the process of widening Bums Road from Prosperity Farms Road to Military Trail from two to four lanes; and WHEREAS, the Contractors retained by the City have advised City staff that it will be necessary to conduct temporary closures of portions of Bums Road to install the required improvements and otherwise facilitate the ongoing construction project; and WHEREAS, section 62-2 of the City’s Code of Ordinances authorizes the City Council to approve temporary or interim closures of public streets provided such closures serve a proper public purpose; and WHEREAS, the temporary closure of Bums Road for finite periods will be necessary during the course of the project, which is scheduled to be completed by June 2003; and WHEREAS, it would be impractical to seek City Council approval prior to every temporary closure, and in an effort to avoid construction delay, City staff is seeking blanket approval for temporary closures during the construction process; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the temporary closure of portions of Bums road during the construction process serves a proper public purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed it to be in the best interest of the citizens and residents of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1: The foregoing "WHEREAS" clause is hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and is hereby made a specific part of this Resolution. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens hereby authorizes the temporary closure of Bums Road when necessary to install the required improvements and to otherwise facilitate the timely completion of the ongoing construction activities. City staff shall take all steps necessary to provide adequate public notice of such temporary closures during the entire course of the construction project. SECTION 3: All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4: If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. SECTION 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2002. ATTEST: PATRICIA SNIDER, CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have approved this Resolution as to form. LEONARD G. RUBIN, CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: MAYOR JABLIN VICE MAYOR SABATELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO MAYOR ERIC JABLIN AYE NAY ABSENT 4 © © m mm [] [] ¯[] ¯ © © 0 © © 0 0 0 C) c 3 I 0 0 0 0 !! ! 0 0 ~ JUL-18-0Z 04:00PM FR0~-Gary,Dytrych & Ryan, PA.5618442Z$8 To759 P_001/005 F-654 ary, D,t,.ych & Ryan ~ROI~.r.~$iONAL/~SSOCI~TION DY’I~¥CH1996 7oi U.& mGHWe, Y Oh’E, SUITE TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION,. DATE: July 18. 2002_ TO:Mr. Robest Hanna and Mr. Paul.Angelo: Jim Jacoby. Esq. & Mr. Ken a~.tr.- Fax No. ~_~ Mr. Chuck Hathaway end Mr. r~,c~ ~pr_e_ene 7~ax NO. Mr. ~g~awn Mdntym - Fax No. 239-278-003~ Mr. Joel Channing - Fax No. 630-8~_ 31 Mr. Hank Gonzalez - Fax No. 626-5998 Mr. Ca,say Cumnd~’qgs ~ Fax No_...6~1-67,~17 ,,,,, Mr. John Bills and Mr, wayne I=ai)o Mr. Tom Hamilton - Fax No. 833-4118 Mr. Cmk) Pema- Fax No, 622-1707 Mr. Eric Jablin - Fax No. 799-4111 or 627.4958 Mr. Dan Clad¢- Fax No. 689-8531 Mr. Ron Fetris - Fax No. 799-4116 NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 2.~._.. CLIENT: Developer Grou R _File No. 3,889.1 RE: " Palm Beach Gardens uralls - [ _ |FOR YOUR APPROVAL [ ~PER OUR DISCUSSION[-xx ]OTHER: A;.;a~hed is my memorandum with reqard to the me.etin,q I attended last Fdda¥. JulY-12, 2002._ I had t.o leave .th.e (~.,e.._ for th~L _P_.o~_.~V~iT’ Beach Monthly Msetie’.~4.t~¢~e this memo was finished, a~d I ask_~_ Sue to loneraro ~ to you wnnom my . CONFIDENTIAUTY NOTICE: THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF GARY, DYTRYCH & RYAN, P.A. WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION WAS INTENDED TO BE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) OR ENTITY(IES) NAMED ON N ~H~ET l YoU RE NOT ~4E INTEND~-O REC,PIENT B~ AWkRE THAT~ ~’~A~vNS~O~_~. R ~ ~.n~G Df~FTRIBUTION OR’ D IF YOU MAVE RECEIVm=D THIS TEL~G~L@GOp~ED ~NFOhMAT&ON ~ PROH|BITE-; .....................~h T~4AT ~ ~ N IN ERROR. PL~A~ NOI~FY US BY T~LEPMON~ ARRANGE POR ~H~ RE’T~I~VAL OF TH|= ORISINAL OOCA~MENTS AT NO 008%" TO YOU. BY: JOHN W. GARY, III. ESQUIRE PLEASE CALL: SUE AT OUR OFFICE IF TRANSMISSION IS ILLEGIBLE OR N~ROPERLY RECEIVED (561-844-3700) pARTY,FAX ’ JUL-18-OZ 04:00PM FROM--Gary,Dytrych & Rvan, P-A.5815442~$8 T-759 P_002/005 F-664 RI~nAP~ G, D¥~Y~/ ~0! U.~ HIGHWAY O~,U.. s~u~rl’g_ ~ MEMORANDUM DATE:July 18, 2002 TO:Developer Group FROM."John W. Gary, III, Esq. RE:Pahn Beach Gardens Cralls L As everyone is aware, the County pre,s, ented its pro,~pos.ed Amendment to the POA Cra_lls. to the.]_~nd Use Advisory Board CLUAW)on. ~.uly ~ ,.,m w.h!c.h the C,o,u~,W,_r_,e~_dh~s~~1s projects using the PGA Cralls bctwecn M, ditary ,.ra.], and ,Al.tcrn~t_e_~s_n_o.~.,.~..yk ....... determined by the County Engineer m me pcrrmmng and mnmng o~ ~yuL~, ~,,, ........... Military Trail and Alternate A1A- Even though I had several previous conversations with George Webb and the County staff in which they ha.d_in~.cted, th.a.t the~ .main, concern ya, s_ ~th_.C__ permitting ofthe railroad crossing and the annual tutoring rot t~yoto ~nve, racy expanoea melt concern during their presentation to the LUAB t.o i.ndu.de, any and a~.ll .perm.i~for K.yoto_D~n_’~ and also the City of Palm Beach Gardens obtaining uue to me ~gnt-ot-way. As wc nave discussed, they are attempting to justifying this proposal as simply a clarification of the existing Cralls. During my presentation to the LUAB, I stated this was not a clarification of the Cralls because the language as it exists is dear and also, Frank Duke explained it to the Commission explicitly during its adoption. This was an. attempt by. the~ .C.o.u~nty to [~gce additional restric, ti_o_n_s..~o_n, thePGA Cralls. After a thorough discussion, me Lutm voteo t, to ,t to recommend against the County’s nroposed changes. This issue will be presented to the County Commission at its transm-~itta~l hearing on July 24~, and even though there is a recommendation of disapproval from the LUAB, I know that we are all aware that the County Commission will be harder to convince. The County also presented to the LUAB an amended proposal to the transportation element of the County Comp Plan. I am attaching a copy of an amendment which the TPS Committee has approved (Exhibit 1). It differs from the proposal by the County in that in the last sentence the "New Policy 1.1n", the County has proposed to delete the words "and affected municipalities". This amendment, if approved, would have the effect of designating to the JUL-IG-OZ 04:00PM FROk(-Gary,Pytrych & Ryan, P-A.561644ZZ69 T-TOO P 0031005 F-684 The Developer Group Page 2 July 18, 2002 County only the approval of a Corridor Master Plan and would basically delegate the power to the County to dictate all planning and zoning in all municipalities or on any land expanding a zoad which needed the approval of the County corridor master plan. This wotfld include all land aad all municipalities. The League of Cities has sent a letter to the County objecting to the exclusion of the words "and affected municipalities" (a copy of which is attached). There have also been letters sent from various municipalities, and I also have been informed that the Economic Council is sending a letter objecting. It is extremely important, in my opinion, that we all attempt to contact the Palm Beach County Commissioners and inform them of our objections. I am also going to be presenting this issue to the Palm Beach Gardens Council at their regular meeting tonight. If any of you can be there to help support our position, I believe it would be very helpful. If’anyone has any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. JWG:sh enclosures Dictated but not read to expedite delivery JUL-1G-O2 Dd:OOPM FROM-Gar¥,Pytrych & Ryan, P.A.GGlOddZO66 T-TO9 P-OO4/O05 F-GOd EXHIBIT 1 A.Transportation Element, TPS Related Transportation Element IJlxlate REVISIONS: To revl~=a and update. ~ revisions are numbered below, and shown with the added text ~, and 1he deleted t~xt r, IR~J~eu¢ OBJECTIVE 1.1 Level of Ses’vlce Standards Now P~.l: Bulk:lOUt Analvsls. I.n, contdo.m where 1he a,dapled LO.~ _~.11 not be achic’~d ou~ tome_2025 Tran _scx~,ation,.System for Palm .Bpach ,C0untv Hiqhway Compormnt .pmpaR¢l. bY the Palm B.e.a..ch MPO tl~ ~ will Inslituto a process ~ develoo individual .Contdor,,Master PI _a~s,~ _to address each. proiecmd cord#or fallUl~. ~ ~ _ULDC~ .,sl~ll pEov~de, sBecific ~uidelln~,~, for bui,,kiout analysis alld~>m~ciGc timelines for_the .completion of the Corridor Maste~ Plans. The Corridor M~l~r PI~,. S ,~,’.II be ac,:omplished in coopemllon w)ll~ ,the. alfec~ed Ioc~! qo~m, ments and ~ ow[~srs wll~k) each..,Corrldor. ~t a mir~num. Iho Cor~dor ~daster P.~a~ wi!! consider mitigation .~t.hc~ds to ,maintai~ ¢~od mobility ,within the ~owido¢. i~dudk~ but rmt lirnlted to:_ land ~ mod~tio_n=, ¢onn~:tivity. mixed-use dcv~lm)me.ts, alternative modes, of trans .pp, rtatio~, and,i(cmased roadway cam~d.ty. _Once a _¢prddor Master Pt~ln has been adopted for a ¢x~rid~r. no proiect_..with sionlficant .traffic ,on the co.~pr shal~.be approved f0~ de~_ .Io~ment unk~ss. It compli~., wtt.h the Corddor Master_ plan..N~h, in,(I In (his !~, icy s~all be .used,,tp_lirnit ~ issuan~ of any Develop, meN: ,OrdelO_unti the._Con~or Ma~er Plan has tLeen adorned bvthe Couqtv aru;I. _affected mL~Cil:~alltfos. COrridor Master I~l,,,ns~=~ail be in place, by March 31.200.5. ¯ JLIL-18-OZ 04:01PH FROH-Garx,Oytrxch & Ryan, P.A.5G!8442368 T-TOO P.~OS/OOS F-GOd DRAirr LETYER TO COUNTY COMMISSION Palm Beach Cotmty/~rd of C~,~mi~sioners Go~emmemal Center 301N. Olive AveDue We~t ]’aim B~a~h., Florida ~34.01 T~S COII~L~I~ ]~omm~liorl On Addressi,~g Projected Long Term Road Yailm’es Deer Chairman Newell ~nd Members of the Board of County Commis~/oners; In ~he last few monrk~ a long range lzaa.~po~t~ion iasue ha~ been identi~ed. Spe~fically, ~he edopted MPO 2025 F’~ F,:aaibl~ Plan will n:sult in al~roxima~ly 15% of the read ]~nk~ in/he Cotmty failing t~ meet the Coenty’s adcrpted level of servi~e in 21Z25. If not comim:hen~iv©ly ~ tiffs probl~ra gould negatively impact ell of the ~ o~Palm Beach County. Sufffis proposing to delete d~e requirements that the mun/etpatities be invJuded in solving problems which may axise throuBh the adoption o~ the Corddor Master Plans. The only way Corridor Master Plato ]noeess can be successful is if there is full parmexship betweeu ~hc County and Xhe municip~dkies, as ~nend~d by tl~ TI~ Committee,. This ~p worked for se2mol eoncunency, and it would work far solving our mad problems. ’l’hexefore, we would urge you m ~ ~ T]~ Committee l~gomm..-ndcd language. Coun~ilmembem/Commissionc~ Land U~e Advisory Boa~d CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS MEMORANDUM ,d_ 7- TO: DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Ferris, City Manager July 18, 2002 Jack Doughney, Community Services Administrator Progress Report - Canal Restoration Project Thompson River Canal/Bellewood Canal The purpose of this memo is to inform you of the progress on the Thompson River Canal/Bellewood Canal Maintenance Projects. Staff members of this committee continue to meet weekly with LBFH, Inc. On July 15, 2002, a survey crew from LBFH, Inc. began work on the Thompson River Canal from Lighthouse Drive to Holly Drive and Military Trail to 1-95. Surveying is expected to take two to three weeks until completion. The actual staking will begin next week. Contracts are still being sought via an existing Indian Trail Improvement District and Palm Beach County contracts for the two canals. When the contracts are secured, they will be scheduled for City Council approval. During the week of July 1, 2002, Public Works videoed the canal embankments to identify and document existing right-of-way encroachments, and the environmental inspection was completed. A canal maintenance permit application was also submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. Public notices will be mailed to residents once the survey staking is completed, inviting them to a cookout/meeting at City Hall. At this meeting, the committee will have visual aides including a Powerpoint presentation, handouts and a question and answer session for the neighborhoods. For those residents unable to attend the cookout/meeting, Public Works staff will meet with them individually. The committee has set August 29, 2002 as the tentative date for this public meeting. JD/as Ron Ferds I I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Titcomb [Jtitcomb@co.palm-beach.fl.us] Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:54 AM Carla Valcarcel trelajw@bellsouth.net TPS Committee Recommendations & Submittals TPSMemoExhib TPSMemo.wpd it.DOC ** High Priority ** Dear City Managers and Elected Officials, At its meeting on July 10th, the League’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to endorse the recommendations of the county’s TPS (Traffic Performance Standards) Advisory Committee regarding projected long term Road Failures in Palm Beach County (ref. MPO 2025 Plan). Per the charge of the Board of County Commissioners, this committee (TPS) was convened make direct recommendations to the Commission on this issue. We have followed this issue through the process by attending TPS meetings, submittal to the LUAB (Land Use Advisory Board) and by reviewing the final draft reports to be submitted as prepared by County staff. The League has some concern that the content of the prepared back up and support materials may not accurately reflect the direct recommendations and agreed language as adopted by the TPS and County staff in attendance. We are therefore asking our municipal members to make yourself aware of this issue and take the following actions: i. Please review the attached draft letter and proposed TPS language. If you are comfortable with these documents, we urge you to send a similar letter to the County Commissioner(s) of your choice urging them to adopt the TPS recommendations. 2. In absence of sending a letter, please call your local County Commissioner, which you may have a personal relationship with, and express your views on this matter. The county staff has indicated concerns that involving the cities in long term planning and the "Corridor Master Plans," which coincidentally may run through multiple jurisdictions at any given sector of the county - will lead to unresolvable conflict situations and therefore the county should control this process as they believe they have charter jurisdiction for traffic performance standards. Most municipalities, as well as the county itself contains language currently in their respective Comp Plans addressing conflict and mediation of conflict through the Interlocal (Intergovernmental) Plan Amendment Review Coordination process (IPARC) and or the Multi- jurisdictional Issues Forum process. The League believes that the model, now successfully adopted in the "first-of-its-kind" School Concurrency Plan, a plan based on cooperative planning between affected parties, is the methodology to apply here as well. Ironically, the development of the Concurrency program was modeled in part on TPS issues and concepts. Time is of the essence! The LUAB meets Monday morning at 9:00 AM at the PBC PB&Z building and the Transmittal hearings for the County Commission, to include this plan in their submission to DCA, is Wednesday, July 24th at 9:30 AM. Cities deserve a voice in this critical issues that will impact them directly for years to come. As with school concurrency, joint planning, cooperative communication and conflict mediation is the key to successful outcomes on this and other tough regional issues. We are available at the League to help you with information, talking points, attending a meeting with your Commissioner or whatever else you may require to get the job done. On behalf of our Board, we thank you in advance for any support and suggestion you can prov±de. For the League Board, Yours Sincerely, Jamie Titcomb James S. Titcomb Executive Director Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. Tel. 561-355-4484; Fax 355-6545 www.leagueofcities.org Ron Ferris From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: James Titcomb [Jtitcomb@co.palm-beach.fl.us] Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:54 AM Carla Valcarcel trelajw@bellsouth.net TPS Committee Recommendations & Submittals TPSMemoExhib TPSMemo.wpd iLDOC ** High Priority ** Dear City Managers and Elected officials, At its meeting on July 10th, the League’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to endorse the recommendations of the county’s TPS (Traffic Performance Standards) Advisory Committee regarding projected long term Road Failures in Palm Beach County (ref. MPO 2025 Plan). Per the charge of the Board of County Commissioners, this committee (TPS) was convened to make direct recommendations to the Commission on this issue. We have followed this issue through the process by attending TPS meetings, submittal to the LUAB (Land Use Advisory Board) and by reviewing the final draft reports to be submitted as prepared by County staff. The League has some concern that the content of the prepared back up and support materials may not accurately reflect the direct recommendations and agreed language as adopted by the TPS and County staff in attendance. We are therefore asking our municipal members to make yourself aware of this issue and take the following actions: I. Please review the attached draft letter and proposed TPS language. If you are comfortable with these documents, we urge you to send a similar letter to the County Commissioner(s) of your choice urging them to adopt the TPS recommendations. 2. In absence of sending a letter, please call your local County Commissioner, which you may have a personal relationship with, and express your views on this matter. The county staff has indicated concerns that involving the cities in long term planning and the "Corridor Master Plans," which coincidentally may run through multiple jurisdictions at any given sector of the county - will lead to unresolvable conflict situations and therefore the county should control this process as they believe they have charter jurisdiction for traffic performance standards. Most municipalities, as well as the county itself contains language currently in their respective Comp Plans addressing conflict and mediation of conflict through the Interlocal (Intergovernmental) Plan Amendment Review Coordination process (IPARC) and or the Multi- jurisdictional Issues Forum process. The League believes that the model, now successfully adopted in the "first-of-its-kind" School Concurrency Plan, a plan based on cooperative planning between affected parties, is the methodology to apply here as well. Ironically, the development of the Concurrency program was modeled in part on TPS issues and concepts. Time is of the essence! The LUAB meets Monday morning at 9:00 AM at the PBC PB&Z building and the Transmittal hearings for the County Commission, to include this plan in their submission to DCA, is Wednesday, July 24th at 9:30 AM. Cities deserve a voice in this critical issues that will impact them directly for years to come. As with school concurrency, joint planning, cooperative communication and conflict mediation is the key to successful outcomes on this and other tough regional issues. We are available at the League to help you with information, talking points, attending a meeting with your Commissioner or whatever else you may require to get the job done. On behalf of our Board, we thank you in advance for any support and suggestion you can provide. For the League Board, Yours Sincerely, Jamie Titcomb James S. Titcomb Executive Director Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. Tel. 561-355-4484; Fax 355-6545 www.leagueofcities.org RECEIVED : FROM : 7/18/02 12:15PM; ->HP LASERJET 3150;#5; PAGE 2 FAX NO. : 5617532445 Jul.18 2~02 12:d3PM P2 COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL NRT NCIRTI I PAI.M BI(A{.JH. 1:12 334(1~R 13U.~. {561 ) fA× (561) 863-9.~9 TOI,I. I:Rlil,2 {8{}{}} 63,t-175] July 18, 2002 Mr. T.alal M.Benothman, A]CP Principal Planner City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Re: 2845 PGA Blvd. Dear Talal, Per our conversation, Bamie’s Coffee and Tea Comlyany does not wish to pursue space at the above mentioned location at this time. Yours truly,j Alan Masler AM/edw Faxed (561)799-4281 Independently Owned And Operated By NRT Incorporated. ADF Companies ADF Companies is a franchisee of Bennigan’s, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC*. The company operates 198 restaurants with over 5,000 employees in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama with regional offices in West Palm Beach, Chattanooga, TN and Fairfield, NJ. ADF Companies currently operates 37 Pizza Huts in the Palm Beach market, which include: JUPITER (2) JUNO BOCA RATON (4) LANTANA (2) ROYAL PALM BEACH JENSEN BEACH STUART (2) LAKE PARK PALM BEACH GARDENS BOYNTON BEACH (2) BELLE GLADE WELLINGTON OKEECHOBEE CITY VERO BEACH (3) MANGONIA PARK WEST PALM BEACH (5) DELRAY BEACH (2) LAKE WORTH (2) FORT PIERCE PORT ST. LUCIE (2) SEBASTIAN ADF is the 18~ largest franchised restaurant operator in the United States. *See appendix for a short history of each brand. RESTAURANT " FINANCE MONITOI Volume 14. Number 5 ¯ Restaurant Finance Monitor, 2500 Cleveland Avenue North. Suite G. Roseville. MN 55113 ¯ ISSN #I061-382X May 23, 2002 # 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMPANY REVENUE RTM Restaurant Group $720,000,000 Atlanta, GA NPC International 536,400,000 Pittsburg, KS Carrols Corp.381,000,000 New York, NY MAJOR CONCEPTS SENIOR EXECUTIVES 775 Arby’s 17 Sbarro 835 359 AmeriKing 379,000,000 373 Westchester, IL Harman Management Corp.345,000,000 230 Los Altos, CA 34 Boddie-Noell Enterprises 311,000,000 328 Rocky Mount, NC Sydran Services 275,000,000 267 San Ramon, CA M ason-Harrison-Jarrar d 269,000,000 266 Oklahoma City, OK DavCo Restaurants 217,000,000 157 Crofton, MD 44 Main Street and Main 212,000,000 65 Phoenix, AZ 5 Sybra, Inc.198,000,000 239 San Diego, CA Thomas & King 190,000,000 78 Lexington, KY 2 Restaurant Concepts 160,000,000 80 Atlanta, GA United States Beef Corp.158,000,000 Tulsa, OK Quality Dining 157,200,000 Mishawaka, IN Interfoods of America 152,000,000 Miami, FL Pilot Travel Centers, LLC.150,000,000 Knoxville, TN ADF Companies 146,000,000 Fairfield, NJ Nath Companies 144,000,000 Bloomington, MN Bridgeman Foods Inc. Louisville, KY 143,000,000 Cedar Enterprises 142,000,000 Columbus, OH Border Foods, Inc.140,500,000 Minneapolis, MN Kazi Foods, Inc.140,000,000 Studio City, CA B & B Consultants 133,000,000 Las Cruces, NM Fugate Enterprises 130,000,000 Wichita, KS 205 Pizza Hut Burger King Burger King KFC TB/KFC Hardee’s Burger King Sonic Wendy’s Friendly’s TGI Friday’s Red Fish Arby’s Applebee’s iHuddle House Applebee’s ~Arby’s Russ Umphenour - President Doug Benham - Sr. VP James K. Schwartz - President Troy D. Cook - VP/Finance Alan Vituli - Chairman - CEO Daniel Accordino - President Larry Jaro - President/CEO Michael Nicholas - VP Finance Jackie Yrujillo - Chairwoman James D. Olson - President William L. Boddie - President W. Craig Worthy - St. VP/CFO Matthew Schoenberg - CEO Steve Grossman, VP Finance Ralph Mason - CEO Gary Jarrard - President Ron Kirstien - CEO Charles McGuire - VP/Finance Bart A. Brown, Jr. - CEO Michael Garnreiter- CFO Rob Drechsler, CEO John Bicks - CEO & Chairman Mike Scanlon - CEO Sonny Beckley - VP/CFO Stephen A. Grove - CEO James Dickert - Director Jeffrey Davis - CEO P. Brett Pratt - CFO 115 Burger King 33 Chili’s Daniel B. Fitzpatrick - CEO John C. Firth - Exec. VP 168 Popeye’s 90 Subway 41 Wendy’s 184 Pizza Hut 13 Taco Bell Robert S. Berg - CEO Steve Wemple - COO Bill Haslam - President Jeff Cornish - CFO Donald Harty - President 133 11 138 Burger King Denny’s Wendy’s Mahendra Nath - CEO Patty Porteous - CFO Junior Bridgeman - President 122 Wendy’s Joseph D. Karam - Chairman David Karam - President 85 76 169 Pizza Hut Taco Bell KFC Lee J. Engler - President Lenny Newman - CFO Zubair Kazi - Owner/President Chris Scanlan - Vice President 141 Sonic Bobby Merritt - Owner Leslie Berriman - CFO 160 Pizza Hut Larry Fugate - President 53 Taco Bell Scott Crane- VP Operations ADF Companies PRINCIPALS The surviving principals of the ADF Companies have 60 years of combined multi-unit restaurant experience. Their experience includes serving as senior executives of publicly traded restaurant companies and owner-operators of multi-unit, multi-geographic, franchised restaurant concepts. Andy Romeo - (1931 - 2002) had over 45 years of industry experience. He owned and operated multi-unit restaurants in several regions throughout the United States. Andy was the least active principal, but an influential and guiding presence. Andy was the founding Chairman of ADF Companies. He greatly enjoyed spending winters at his home in the Breakers West. Don Harry- is the president of ADF and has 25 years of experience as a franchisee restaurant operator. Don is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. He also has extensive local store marketing experience, has utilized unusual approaches to build sales and has initiated many cause-related marketing activities. Don’s family resides in Wellington. Frank Levy - has over 35 years of industry experience. He has negotiated and developed over 400 restaurant properties throughout the United States. Frank is the Chairman at ADF. In addition to his duties as chairman, Frank is involved in the real estate and construction aspects of the business and franchisor relationships. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Two experienced Vice Presidents operate the ADF restaurants. Harry Harnett is responsible for ADF’s Pizza Hut (178 units) operations. Harry has over 27 years of restaurant experience and 20 have been with Pizza Hut. Michael Gross also has twenty-five years of restaurant experience. He is responsible for the Multi-brand Group which is comprised of Bennigan’s, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC and certain combination locations. The majority of his experience is large-scale quick service operations. He also has extensive multi-geographic and multi-brand urban operating experience. Michael is also an experienced local marketer and is president of the New York Taco Bell Co-op and vice chairman of the Bennigan’s Franchise Advisory Council. ADF Companies COMMUNITY FOCUS A significant component of ADF’s business strategy is to operate national brands as "neighborhood" restaurants. Managers and team members are recruited locally so that each restaurant looks and feels like the community it serves. ADF’s executive team has the opportunity to get acquainted with local officials, dignitaries, other merchants and parents during "dry runs" scheduled just prior to a restaurant’s opening to the general public. In addition, a worthy local organization is selected to receive a charitable donation in celebration of the "grand" opening. ADF encourages all restaurant managers to become active members of the community, supporting participation in several local, as well as, national organizations. ADF’s Bennigan’s restaurants have raised several thousands of dollars on behalf of the Max Foundation, a Long Island, New York group which provides support for autistic children. ADF would look to "adopt" a similar organization in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Partial listing of National and West Palm Beach County Organizations: ¯Max Foundation ¯March of Dimes ¯New York State Restaurant Association ¯Taco Bell Foundation ¯Treasure Coast Food Bank ¯Hospice & Homecare By The Sea ¯Congress of the United States, House of Representatives ¯Cub Scout Pack 208 ¯Palms West Hospital ¯Mothers Against Drunk Driving ¯St. Jude Catholic Church ¯Volunteers of Joy Foundation MAX FOUNDATION July 10th, 2002 Mr. Charles K. Wu Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu, On behalf of the ~ FOUNDATION, please accept this testimonial letter with regard to Bennigans, ADF Companies, Mr. Michael Gross-partner, and his exceptional staff, whom have been foremost community leaders supporting charitable endeavors throughout the New York, Long Island area. Their steadfast aid has enabled the ~ FOUNDATION to raise thousands of dollars for the programs we endorse for children with developmental disabilities. Their contributions through the "Dollar for Decals" awareness program, run throughout all three Long Island stores and has truly madea difference in the lives of our special children. This particular event that they have sponsored throughout the past two years, has allowed the Foundation to create our "Kaleidoscope Concert for Kids", which is performed by the Long Island Masterworks Chorus and Orchestra, and enables the Foundation to introduce children of all walks of life to the wonder of music. In addition to this invaluable opportunity, Bennigans has also listed the ~ FOUNDATION as its beneficiary of its "Split a Dessert"program, that collects additional monies that are applied toward our grant process. The MAX FOUNDATION3 mission to create and maintain an awareness campaign for the benefit of. children with special educational needs and additional focus on granting funds for programs which provide for these children, is enhanced through Bennigans committed involvement in our fundraising efforts. Our support of this company is wholehearted and we feel their presence in your area could only enhance your f’me community. If you have any questions about the integrity of ADF-Bennigans company, please feel free to speak to me directly. Sincerely, Teresa Korten Box 22, Rockville Centre, NY 11571- 516.763.4787. www.maxfoundation.org ¯ Email:kaleidptn@aol NEW YORK STATE NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT April 4, 2002 Donald Harty President ADF Companies 165 Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Dear Donald, It takes a special type of person to recognize when others are in need and then to go the extra mile to reach out and help. That is exactly what ADF Companies did. You went above and beyond the call of duty when you donated your generous contribution of $17,768.32 to the NYRED Fund. We are genuinely touched and greatly appreciate you assisting us in this important mission. I can assure you the money will go into the hands of the people who are Still struggling to move beyond the terrible tragedy of 9-11. Please extend a sincere thanks to all your staff and restaurant employees who took part in this very important effort. We would like them to know that their selflessness and generosity will not be forgotten. Sincerely, ROk ,. ~lc ~ampson President & CE0 New York State Restaurant Association e affiFia ted with t~e NATIONAL~ RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION July 12, 2002 TACO BELL i:OUHDATIOH Mr. Charles K. Wu Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu, By way of introduction i am the Executive Director of the Taco Bell Foundation. As brief background, the Taco Bell Foundation was founded by Taco Bell Corp. in 1992 as a 501(c)3 not for profit public charity in order to serve the communities in which we operate restaurants. In 1995, we made a conscious decision to focus our efforts on supporting America’s teens. As a result, we formed a special long-term relationship with the Boys & Girls Club of America, and together we created an initiative called TEENSupreme®. TEENSupreme encompasses a handful of programs aimed at providing the nation’s future leaders with self-esteem, values, leadership skills, character development, career exploration and employment preparedness. Since 1995 we have donated nearly $11 million in support of this program. And what makes our initiative most unique is the fact that funds are raised primarily in our restaurants, through the help of Taco Bell’s customers, employees, vendors and franchisees. ADF Companies has been a tremendous supporter of TEENSupreme since 1998, raising nearly $13,000 in their restaurants for this national initiative. They represent not only a strong fundraising partner for us, raising money in canisters in all sixteen of their New York restaurants, but they are what we here at Taco Bell call true Community Maniacs! Among other things, numerous times ADF has been called upon to donated food and beverages to various local Boys & Girls club events, and each time they do so without hesitation. ADF truly understands the concept of giving back to the communities that do so much for them and their business. Mr. Wu, ifI can answer any questions for you regarding TEENSupreme, or ifI may further recommend ADF as a stellar community partner, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Hillary H. Nt"olo Executive Director Enclosure /hhn 17901 Yon Karman ¯ Irvine, California 92614 (949) 863-8309 AS SEEN IN ~ ~~’~, Monday, March 11, 2002 ILLION For V, uf Supreme Support,,, Taco Bell FoundationTM would like to thank the millions of customers, franchisees and employees who have contributed to our TEENSupreme® program since its inception in 1995. Thanks to you, we have raised over $10 million to benefit at-risk teens, making Taco Bell Foundation one of the largest corporate sponsors of Boys & Girls Clubs in the nation. Your Spare Change is Changing Lives On your next visit to Taco Bell®, we encourage you to invest with us in America’s future. Simply drop your change into the TEENSupreme® dona- tion canister. Better yet, log on to our Web site at: www.teensupreme.org and make your tax-deductible donation online. Your supreme support is helping thousands of teens make positive changes in their lives. TEENSupreme° ~,,,BOYS 8, GIPJ~ CU.,q~TACO BELLOVN’U~JO~I:0UHDATION HOSPICE & HOMECA E BY THE SEA July 11, 2002 Mr. Charles Wu Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10600 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu: On behalf of the families, staff and volunteers from Bring Your Child to Work Day at Hospice & HomeCare By The Sea, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to Pizza Hut for their most generous donation of thirteen pizzas to Hospice & HomeCare By The Sea, which we received on March 27th. Hospice By The Sea has now served Palm Beach and Broward Counties for 23 years and has given a "special kind of caring" to over 30,000 patients and their family members. It is the support of our community, individuals and businesses such as Pizza Hut that has given us the privilege to offer a choice of care and to make a difference in the lives of those who have passed through our door. Thank you for honoring the care Hospice & HomeCare By The Sea gives to members of the community and their families and for supporting Bring Your Child to Work Day. Sincerely, TW:abk Trudi Webb President/CEO 1531 W. Palmetto Park Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33486-3395 561-395-5031 ¯ 800-633-2577 ¯ FAX: 561-393-7137 ¯ www.hospicebytheseafl.org A not-for-profit, communiO,-based organization, and a certified Medicare/Medicaidprovider serving the people of Broward and Palm Beach counties /-lPCS011096 1-1HA20500951 SC-02882 100% of all contributions ~-ill go to benefit Hospice & HomeCarc By The Sea. July 11, 2002 TREASURE COAST FOOD BANK, INC. 1102 South US 1 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 (772)489-5676 (772) 489-2988 FAX www.stophunger.org Mr. Charles Wu Growth Management Director City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Dear Mr. Wu: I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of the tremendous support the Treasure Coast Food Bank has received from ADF Companies via Pizza Hut restaurants. The Treasure Coast Food Bank has been providing food and personal items to nonprofit organizations in Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties since 1988. ~..~.During the past year, the Food Bank has managed to provide approximately 839,885 ¯pounds of product to an average of 134 nonprofit agencies which in turn were able to provide more than 1,259,828 meals to hungry individuals on the Treasure Coast. During the months of July 9, 2001 - June 28, 2002, the Pizza Hut stores #012559, #012572, #012573, #012576, #012577, #012578 and #012580 which are located in Jensen Beach, Stuart, Port St. Lucie and Vero Beach, Florida have provided approximately 5,514 pounds of product to assist the nonprofit agencies we service in those counties with over 8,272 meals. The donations were gratefully appreciated and on behalf of the hungry individuals assisted by the food, we would like to thank ADF for their commitment to the communities our organization services. There will always be people less fortunate than others, and thankfully there will always be people willing to share and assist. Without supporters such as ADF Companies, we would be unable to provide our services to the needy of the Treasure Coast. If you have any questions or would like to tour our Food Bank, please feel free to call me at (772) 489-5676. Executive Director The mission of the Treasare Coast Food Bank, Inc. is to improve the quality of life wilhin the seawiee district of Indian River, Martin, Okeeehobee and St. Lueie Counties. The Food Bank obtains, wardaouse~ and dislribta~ food and personal items to targeted individuais, non-profit 501c3 agencies and recognized denominntiertsthat feedpe~le at no charge. Additionally, the Treasure Coast Food Bank is a paaner in disaste~ servic~ relief for the service district. A UNITED WAY AGENCY ~.;i :l 02 01:55p March o? Dimes 561 686-8923 March oo of D rnes~ ~t¢~J Saving babies, together South Florida Palm Beach Division 1649 Forum Place, Suite 2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone WPB (561) 684-0102 Telephone Boca Raton (561) 276-2001 Fax (561) 686-8923 Hanna J. L. Fink Executive Director July 10, 2002 J.C. Palma Pizza Hut 134 NE 2"d Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 ]2ear J.C: Every day, babies fight for their lives. And every day, the March of Dimes helps them win. When you joined WalkAmerica, you became a hero for babies born too soon and too small because your efforts support cutting edge research and innovative programs that save babies’ lives. On behalf of the March of Dimes, I thank you for your in-kind donation to the South Palm Beach County WalkAmedca 2002 We are currently planning for WalkAmerlca 2003 and know you will want to partner with us again in our fight to save babies. I have enclosed collateral in which your organization was mentioned. As always we are looking for creative ways to thank our sponsors and i~-kind donors. Please give me a call or email with your ideas. In-kind donations to WalkAmerica have no tangible value and no goods or services were given in exchange for this contribution on which you place a value of $317.85. Again, thank you for the generous support of the South Palm Beach County Wa!kAmerica 2002 and we look forward to working with you in 2003. S~/.~ng babies, together Shanna St. John Community Director ~o.47 5519532393 AMERICAN HUTS May 16, 2002 PAGE 133 PLEASE RESPOND TO: 2236 P~,AYaUm4 BUILBm(~ W~SH~6"rON, DC ~1~ ~ ~I W, OA~o P~RK Su~ ~ ~, ~OALE, FL ~ ~RPORA~ WAY ~U~E ~ T~N~ (~1) ~-0~ FAX: (~t) Wo~d ~da Web P~ge: ~//~.~~/~.~ Mr. Tony Diaz Keg, ion Coach American Huts, Inc. ~.1. 52 W. Blue Heron Boulevard $-:5t~ 119 RNie~a Beach, Florida 33404 Dear Mr. Diaz:. Thank you very much for the gift certificates for Pizza Hut restaurants. I know the children will be.t~J’iIled. I hope you will let me know if you ever plan a trip [o Washington by yourself or with yotu" family so I can arrange for you to get tickets for a tour of the White House and any monuments you would like to see. Also, please feel free to contact me if I can be of service in muy other way. Thank you again! - District Representative PRINTEO ON RECYC~EO PAPER ~ ’/: :~’ ~--2 16:47 5618632393 AMERICAN HUTS PAGE 84 Cub Scout Pack 208 Mike Ashley, Cubmaster Rocky Paden, Asst Cubmaster Tom Peede, Asst Cubmaster 561/432-2790 Fax: 561/432-2791 E-mail: CubPack208@prodigy.net http :llpages.prodigy.net/cubpack208 May 20, 2002 Tony Diaz ~izz~ Nut Mr. Diaz: OF behaff of Cub Scout Pack 208, I would like to thank you for agreeing to donate 20 pizzas to our .Peck meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. Please accept this Certificate of Appreciation from our , s~,-,, and know that we so appreciate your thoughtfulness and the generosity of Pizza Hut. ........¯ .~. ¯ = .~. the important lessons we try to impart on our Cub Scouts is the idea of "doing a good turn." :gemmuni~ service, along with volunteedsm, is a vital part of Scouting. By your generous donation, we can nourish and inspire our Scouts to "do a good turn" for someone else. thank you for your generosity. Yours in Scouting, Ass:..,~ant Cubmaster JU~-I0-2002 11:~8 ~H PIZZ~ HUT#0125755 5617957801 P,01 I.c+xdh~td~ep+ 1:1. 33470+1150 Ph~+n~+ ~56 i ~ "7~tS+330ti~ June 7, 2002 Mr. Sam Ahasan Pizza Hut 11851 Southern Blvd. Royal Palm Beach, FL 33~11 !Dear Mr. Ahasan: On behalf of the Nursin~ extend our most hoartfelt Nurses Week 2002. Our week was filled with each one who received a p Again, thank you for you Palms West Hospital. Sincerely, Silvia Stradi, RN, MSN Chief Nursing Officer co: H. Rohan, CEO Staff at Palms Welt Hospital, I would like to tppreeiation for the lgifts which you donated for many activities to ~knowledge our nurses and ize was most appreciative. contribution and t.[e support of the nurses at ...-~. -.-, --,~-’,.~2 I1:42 5612766275 PIZZA HUT PAGE 81 Against Drunk Driving PALM BEACH 1489 N. Military Trail, Suite 20’~ West Palm Beach, FL 33409 (561) 683-5888 (800) 804-623 Fax: (561) 689-1874 email: pbcmadd@aol.com CHAPTER November 16, 2001 335 East Linton Bouicyard ~tray Beach, FL 33483 ~e:~.: Mr. Budzinski: Mothers Against Drunk Driv/ng Palm Beach County Chapter would like to say, for your kind support. Your generous contribution enables us to support your local[ enforcement as they conduct a sobriety checkpoint Fr/day, November 16, 2001. At :’~,zc!,z~,oint, law enforocment remove~l several impaired drivers offour roadways. ca~ ~ake a difference] ~.~.e mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drtmk driv~g, support ~?:.~.~ vSo~ent crime and prevent underage drinking. It is because of concerned ~.’.-_~!.~esses such as yours that we will be able to continue providing ’Once again, thank you for your contribution! Mothers Against Dnmk Driving working w/th you in the future. If you have any questions, we can be reached at 56 we of and regards, ~da M. Moaddeb O~-~ce .,Manager ~.A_DD Palm Beach County Chapter The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driolncj, support victlrn~ of this v~olent erime and prevent BOB LAKRITZ PAGE 01 12:17 5G1-362-5374__. Drunk Driving PALM BEACH COUNTY CHAPTER 1489 N. Military Trag, Suite 20’7 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 (561) 683-5888 (800) 804-6233 Fax: (561) 689-1874 email: pbcmadd@ sol.cora .Zv.T..~,,’.ch ! 5~.2001 ~.=:,~-HUt 9851 S. Military Trail Ste.D Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Dce.r 3~r Arellano: ~others Against Drunk Drying Palm Beach Cotmty Chapter would like to say, "Thank You" "~r you.," kind support. Your generous contribution enables us to support your local law e~:~e..."ce~ent as they conduct a sobriety 9heckpoint Friday, Mm’. ch 15, 2002, At the last C-:..~ckCc~t, le.w enforcement removed Sevend impaired drivers offour roadways. Together we ,:zt-. ~<e a difference! The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of ~.bi.s v~olent crime and prevent underage drinking. It is because of concerned eitizem and ;;.:.-.:.-’L~,cs~es such as yours that we will be able to continue providing community awareness. agama, thank you for your contribution! Mothers Against Drunk Driving looks forward to with you in the future. If you have any questions, we can be reached at 561-683-5888. Ni.khol R. Pdmm Program Director ....,...-,:.~~_~ ?a!m Beach Co~ Ch~r The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Drlvtng is to drunk driving, support victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. ZZA HUTGO FAX NO. :Jun. 08 200111:I3AM Pl St. Jude Catholic Church P.O. Box 3726 204 US Highway #1 Tequesta, ,Florida 33469 June 7, 2001 Pizza Hut 145 ~ndiantown Road -~-,Jupiter, Fl,o,.ri~d~.,. 33458-,_,.. ~._-.:~ ~~~ ~_-.-: .. ~i ~ .:-,. ---..-.. :-: :, .... To the Staff of Pizza Hut: I am writing this letter to say THANK YOU, for the marvelous work that the staff did on Monday evening, June 4, 2001, for St..lude Church. The staff, Diane, (Manager), Briar~ (Asst. Manager), Sandy and Jason (servers) did such an excellent job for our Party. Bishop Anthony O’Connel[ had a delightful time. The Confirmation students and their families did as well. Words can’t express our gratitude for your help and making our party the success it was. Thanks again, Gratefully, Rev. Julian P. Harris ~ Parochiat Vicar ~H/ls April 9, 2OO2 P ~z~za llut Attn: Jeanette Williams Promotions in Motion would like to thank you for helping to make our "Car-Nival" event a success. Our promotiong event was held at Florida Atlantic University on the Boca gaton campus March 27, 2002. This event attracted over 1,200 students. Thanks to your generous donation, our event was a great success. We hope that we were able to promote your business effectively, and can continue a further relationship in the future. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The General Motors Marketing Intemship class Promotion~ in Motion VOLUNTEERS.OF.JOY=FOUN~= 954 March 04, 2002 Volunteers of Joy Foundation is a non-profit organization created to roach out m the spiritual, moral andmaterial needs of ~ick children and teenagers ’~n hospitals arid related places. We work regularly in several hospitals tn South Florida, including Miami Children’s Hospital, J~ckson Memorial Hospital, Cleveland Clinic Florida and Children’s Home Society. We have also s~arted our work with kids and teens traumatized by violence In shelters tn Brooklyn, New York~ and also in different Hospitals in New Jersey. We would like to thank you for your kind and generous donation for the chtldron housed in Children’s Hom¢ Society in Miami. Volunteers of Joy had a wonderful afternoon with thekids them, We are sure it was an unforgettable experience for thcrn..They bad a lot of fun and loved the tasty Pizza Hut pizzasl It is through acts of g0neroslly like yours that we can move on towards the goal of taking a message of love and Joy to the needy children in our community. Everyone doing his part, gray pictures can be turned into colored ones. Thanks Pizza flat. Yours truly, M~m do Jesu~’]Faloao President of V.I’F ¯ .~.,.’v~/2~2 IG:a7 5ELSE32383 AMERICAN HUTS PAGE 82 ORD S FUNDEA S N ~a~u~21,2002 .A.t:: Tony Oiaz Saite 119 -".;52 .Blue Herrin Blvd. .R.".,,ie;’z, Beaoh FL 33404 Dear Tony, \~,=6lebrff¢’~o tligNordis fa/~tq~,.-We ffbuld like to tak8 this opportunityt0 thank you fdi y)/u/-,’idver~isem~nt’0"~/ ......... the Falcon Card for Forest Hill Itigh School. You have joined thousands of businesses nation,vide that have he!ped various schools, youth groups and civic organizations with their fundraisers by participating in our ,L::.~:e,a~t card program. @-;:: cencept is logical and simple: local families supporting local organizations creating business for local ~,erc~,ants! A~d it’s a winner! E.el,.-,,x: you wilt find the ad copy you gave me over the phone. PLEASE ILEVIEW IT CAREFULLY. UPON ,’.-?,_ECEI.PT, YOU WILL HAVE 24 HOURS TO CALL ME AT OUR TOLL FREE NUMBER (800-207-8992) I2 YOU NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS. You can also fax me directly at 954-452-1336. DISCOUNT IS GOOD DAILY. LrlNTIL 02/28/2003. Log6 Will Appear On Card Good At Participating Palm Cotmty Locations ¯ Buy Any Large Pizza At Reg. Menu Price Get A Medium ¯ .__1. Topping Pizza For 99¢ The following disclaimer will be printed on each card: PILESENT CARD BEFORE ORDERING. ALL OFFERS ARE FOR EQUAL OR LESSER VALUE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. VALID FOR CARl)HOLDER ONLY. NOT TO BE USED WIT]~ SALES OR OTI~.R DISCOUNTS. again, thank you for your participation. You will receive one sample card .for your own use. S~ncerely, Jodi Savitt Project Coordinator 1501 South University Drive ¯ Plantation, Florida 33324 ,, 1-800-881-KARD. FAX: (954) 452-1337 Brand l . sence Founded in 1976, Bennigan’s has become an eternal legend in the restaurant business. It’s an internationally known brand that stands for exceptional great American food, a friendly neighborhood tavern and a genuine upbeat atmosphere. Wherever there’s a Bennigan’s, there’s always a ~ reason to get together. So whether it’s time to celebrate a big event, rekindle old friendships or just an excuse to go out, Bennigan’s makes the most of every moment. We built our unique success by placing an equal emphasis on our food and beverage business. That’s why you’ll always find a full menu of tempting food and your favorite drinks- all served up with Irish American hospitality. Mission At Bennigan’s our m~ssion is to be the innovative powerhouse restaurant team, winning guests, placing people first and showing exceptional results. That means anticipating needs and exceeding the expectations of our customers by attracting, developing and investing in the best leaders in the business. And providing an opportunity for a wonderful working atmosphere with excellent rewards for all. We use that corporate philosophy to manage and measure the success of our business daily, as well as our long-term performance. The net result is nothing less than exceptional. BENNIGAN’S The story is told of D. Bennigan, an Irishman who came to the U.S. during the Great Potato Famine. He took a job as a bartender where his tall tales kept the customers coming back for more. But Bennigan’s dream was to have a place of his own. So he scrimped and saved, and during The Depression he bought an old bank building where he opened a tavern. To make ends meet, he also had to live in the building. But with a hearty laugh and a twinkle in his eye, he’d push aside his steamer trunks and cricket gear to make room for another table. "You may come into Bennigan’s place as a stranger," he’d bellow in his rich brogue, "but you’ll leave as a friend!" With a lot of hard work, the help of good friends and a little luck o’ the Irish, Bennigan’s place was a hit. Of course, Bennigan was dedicated to fun of every sort; he could always be counted on to sponsor the local softball and bowling teams. And after the big game, everyone gathered at Bennigan’s, where he honored the heroes by hanging their pictures and memorabilia on the walls. Bennigan’s today is what D. Bennigan envisioned it being years ago. Capturing the spirit of an authentic Irish tavern, the first Bennigan’s restaurant opened its doors in Atlanta, Georgia in 1976. The atmosphere is cozy and comfortable, complete with the polished brass of the old bank building and an eclectic collection of artifacts. The high energy and sense of fun emanating from the staff are contagious. Bennigan’s is now one of the leading restaurant chains in the casual dining segment, serving a wide selection of great tasting American food. The fact that it has the highest level of brand awareness in the markets it serves, demonstrates the tremendous amount of equity behind the Bennigan’s name and concept. Bennigan’s Grill & Tavern is one of the most enduring and popular full-service restaurant chains in the foodservice industry, serving guests in more than 300 restaurants in the United States and internationally. Founded in 1976, Bennigan’s is famous for its Irish-American hospitality and today boasts a 75-item menu of great tasting American favorites, as well as social, upbeat bar featuring the world’s best beer and drinks. September 4, 2000 Bennigan’s.. Solidifying "quality time" with branded foods and beverages. Bennigan’s Grill & Tavern, the 260-unit casual dinner-house chain that will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year, has upgraded its image to appeal to today’s customers who are seeking quality experiences in their limited free time. "We believe we are the concept that provides great ~merican food, world-class beverages and Irish hospi- ality to let guests maximize their quality time together with friends and family," says John Beck, vice president of marketing. Because the Metromedia Restaurant Group- owned chain has been around longer than some of its newer competitors, Bennigan’s executives have been working especially hard to rejuvenate their brand. "Our objective is to bring back Bennigan’s users who’ve grown up with the concept and to attract new users," Beck says. In conducting consumer research, Bennigan’s found that its target market of people 21 to 49 want to maximize their enjoyment of food and beverages in the limited leisure time they have available. The research also concluded that many con- sumers are delegating more of their buying deci- sions to well-known brands. "They are more com- fortable and feel brands offer higher value and quality, so we started integrating some well-known brands into our menu," Beck explains. So far, sales of branded alcoholic and non- lcoholic .beverages and desserts prove that con- ~mers are willing to trade up to recognizable brands known for quality, even if they may cost a bit more than non-branded items. In the dessert category, Bennigan’s offers five desserts, three of which contain branded ingredients: Twix Cookie Bars, Eli’s Cheesecake and Oreos. These desserts are Death by Chocolate, a mixture of two ice cream flavors, Twix cookie bars, a crumbled chocolate cookie crust and chocolate sauce; a low-fat Eli’s cheesecake, with or without strawberries; and White Chocolate Chill-out, containing two ice creams, crumbled Oreos and an Oreo cookie crust, dipped in white chocolate and accompanied by hot choco- late sauce. Each branded dessert sells for $3.99, compared to $3.49 and $3.69 for two non-branded desserts. In spite of the high- er price, the branded desserts are sale leaders, Beck notes. Since Bennigan’s introduced its "O’Yummy Desserts," they have comprised close to 10 percent of sales. A Bennigan’s favorite, the White Chocolate Chill-out dessert features crumbled Oreos and an Oreo cookie crust. USDA Choice beef, although not a brand per se, does represent a partnership with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and fits Bennigan’s position- ing as a restaurant that serves quality foods and beverages. The menu’s beef selections, from steaks to its Bennigan’s house-branded tav- ern burgers, specify that the beef is USDA Choice. The beverage category is where branded products real- boost sales of a newly promote. Cosmopolitan martini. Heavier flavor profiles are being intro- duced this fall, including more full-bod- ied beers and more traditional cocktails. This winter Bennigan’s will promote a line of signature Irish coffees. Helping to kick off spring is Bennigan’s Blarney Blast, centered on St. Patrick’s Day. Irish beers and spir- ly stand out, from IBC root beer and Evian bottled water to many beers, wines and spirits. Bennigan’s visually mer- chandises the brands in its menu and other point-of-pur- chase printed materials. Brand-name alcoholic beverages are especially aimed at newer customers in the 21-to-34-year-old age range who are single- or dual-income couples. Target customers are equally divided between men and women. Alcoholic beverage sales have risen slightly at Bennigan’s and else- where. "People are drinking less but more responsibly and better quality products," Beck observes. The Emerald Isle Margarita is Bennigan’s best-sell- ing cocktail. Its main ingredients are Cuervo Gold tequi- la and Triple Sec. Draft beers include Guinness, Bass, Killian’s, Samuel Adams, Foster’s and Budweiser, served in 16-ounce True Pint glasses, imprinted with Bennigan’s logo. A wide selection of bottled beers and wines also car- ries familiar brand names that are illustrated in the menu. Some beverage promotions change with the seasons in an effort to keep customer interest high. During this past summer, for instance, Bennigan’s used Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail in its Cape Cod Sunset with Bacardi Limon, Minute Maid Lemonade and Chambord. Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice, along with Smirnoff vodka and Grand Marnier, also is helping to its, including Baileys, Jameson and Bushmills, are featured. The chain also is researching other food brands to incorporate into the appetizer and entr6e portions of its menu. "They have to test exceptionally well from an oper- ations and guest standpoint," Beck says. In selecting brands to feature, Beck and his associates look for products that add value, enhance the guest experience and have a well- known awareness and great track record. Bennigan’s executives also look for turers who are willing to act as partners in helping to sell their products. For example, in developing the White Chocolate Chill-out, Oreo/Nabisco underwrote some of the merchandising costs. "There are a variety of things a manufacturer can bring to heighten sales and guest awareness via merchandising and point of purchase materials," Beck says. "Our top 10 beverage manufacturers do a quarterly report for us on how we are performing within the casu- al dining segment and what trends they are identifying for their brands," Beck says. They also help to develop recipes for products that fit the Bennigan’s profile. Bennigan’s expects to have 300 restaurants open by the end of this year. Domestic systemwide sales for 1999 were $460.3 million, up from $397 million the previous year. [] Select Franchise territories now available. For Bennigan’s franchise development information, please call (800) 543-9670 or visit our website at www.bennigans.com Reprintedby permission of Nation’s Restaurant News, September 4, 2000, © kebhar-Friedman, Inc., 425 Park Avenue, New York, N¥ 10022. #43578 Reprinted by Reprint Management Services, (717) 399-1900, wwvv.rmsreprints.com -- sales@rmsreprints.com G~.I LL ~- TAV E R ~e Hey Gang! This issue is all about our great brands and how each separate brand came to be. This is about our hedtage...who we are...where we are now and where we want to be. Future newsletters will be about our extraordinary brands, our exceptional employees and our devotion to customer mania. Our brands would not be what they are today if it weren’t for the dedication of our employees. If you have anything you want to share with the rest of us, please don’t hesitate to send your information to Kristina Szuba, marketing assistant at ADF Companies, at kszuba@adfmgt.com. Please participate and communicate your ideas...your input makes this newsletter possible! Thank you to all of our employees at Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC and Bennigans! BUT FIRST...CUSTOIVlER I~IANIA! WHAT IS CUSTOMER MANIA? We not only listen and respond to the voice of the customer, we are obsessed and go the extra mile to make them happy and we do it with a YES! attitude. What is the YES! attitude, you ask? It is the attitude you take on when you realize that our customers are our jobs, that our customers are important to each and every one of us and that we as individuals can solve our customer’s complaints. Just a few suggestions on bow you can improve your customer mania and build upon your YES! attitude: - Talk to at least 3 customers during every shift - Recognize and thank at least 3 customers during every shift - Always answer a ringing phone immediately - Ask your customers how their meal was, if they were greeted with a smile, if their food was to their satisfaction All of these suggestions are little things. If these little things are done, you are well on your way to being a... C US TOMER MANIA C! ADF Companies 165 Passaic Avenue 3rd Floor Fairfield, NJ 07004 973-8O8-9525 NOW SERVING CHICKEN SOUP AT PIZZA HUT!!! Hats offto RGM JeffRowe and the entire team at Jensen Beach Pizza Hut, store # 12559, for doing whatever it takes to make their customers happy. Several weeks ago, a family came into the Jensen Beach Pizza Hut for dinner. One person in the party could not eat cheese and was not interested in pasta or pizza without cheese. He just decided to sit with the party while they ate. The server was not going to let this happen. He offered the customer his can of chicken noodle soup so that he wouldn’t go hungry. The customer was so thankful that he was able to eat with his family thanks to the customer maniacs at Jensen Beach Pizza Hut. TACOBELLFOUNDER GLEN BELL TAVERN TURNS STRANGERS INTO FRIENDS The story is told of D. Bennigan, an Irishman who came to the United States during the Great Potato Famine. He took a job as a bartender, where his tall tales (and his tall drinks) kept the customers coming back for more. But Bennigan’s dream was to have of his own. So he scrimped and saved, and during the Depression he bought an old bank building where he opened a tavern. To make ends meet, he also had to live in the building. But with a hearty laugh and a twinkle in his eye, he’d push his steamer trunks and his cricket gear aside to make room for another table. "You may come into Bennigan’s place as a stranger, but you’ll leave as a friend!" With a lot of hard work, the help of good friends, and a little luck o’ the Irish, Bennigan’s place was a hit. Of course, Bennigan was dedicated to fun of every sort; he could always be counted on to sponsor the local softball and bowling teams. And after the big game, everyone gathered at Bennigan’s, where he honored the heroes by hanging their pictures and memorabilia on the walls. Bennigan’s today is what D. Bennigan envisioned it being a hundred years ago. Capturing the spirit of an authentic Irish tavern, the first Bennigan’s restaurant opened its doors in Atlanta, GA in 1976. The atmosphere is cozy and comfortable, complete with the polished brass of the old bank building and an eclectic collection of artifacts. The high energy and sense of fun emanating from the staff are contagious and just what D. Bennigan had in mind. TACO BELL: A DREAM BUILT ON SERVICE It was clearly a new era for Glen Bell after he established Taco Bell. No longer was it a case of providing the energy, determination and belief in an idea until it took off. Now, it was a matter of running a large company. "Once we got up to 100 restaurants, it changed for me. I hated the day when we had to start numbering the units. The business issues became linancial, we had really won the war as far as I was concerned. The stock market began to smile on fast food, and we were on the road to success." "1 had started Taco Bell in 1962 with 40 shares, each worth $100. It was entirely held by the family. In 1969, in order to go public, I we had to split that stock 30,000 to 1. It just shows that we had no idea how big things would get." In 1975, Glen tendered his resignation as Chairman of the Board. Three years later, he sold Taco Bell’s 868 units to PepsiCo., Inc. The deal was some six months in the making and ended with Glen Bell a major PepsiCo shareholder and millions richer. In 1977, the first international unit opened in Guam, and in 1984 Taco Bell replaced its original mission-style restaurants. Drive-thru windows were also installed. In 1988, Taco Bell launched the value initiative, lowering the price of new items and introduced Free Drink Refills. It also began the three-tier pricing strategy which remained the core of the value offering through 1994. In 1991, Taoo Bell established the Express business to achieve its vision of providing Taco Bell food "wherever and whenever people are hungry." Taco Bell’s compact carts, kiosks and in-line units began appearing in airports, gas stations, retail stores cinemas, stadiums, schools, etc. In 1992, Taco Bell responded to the needs of the ravaged, riot tom Los Angeles by building and reopening one unit in only 14 hours! In 1997, Taco Bell introduced its new multi-spot advertising campaign featuring the popular talking Chihuahua and TacoBell.com was born. In 1998, Taco Bell widely recognized for introducing the exciting taste of Tacos, Burritos, Fajitas, and Wraps introduces yet another distinctly different product into mainstream America, The Gordita. In May of 2000, Taco Bell celebrates its three-year association with America’s Promise - The Alliance for Youth. This has resulted in a nearly $6 million donation to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA), and the opening of 51 new TEENSupreme Centers at Boys Girls Clubs nationwide. Later that year, DIGIMON joins forces for an exclusive Kids Meal Deal, and Taco Bell introduces the Cheesy Gordita Crunch. FROM THE DESK OF JOE NOCERA...(Metro New York Region Coach for Pizza Hut) Achieving Customer Mania will be a journey. What will make our journey proceed faster is completely engaging all our Team Members. The intention is to create the environment where every Team Member comes to share the belief that they are our full partners in the business of serving customers. Although achieving 100% CHAMPS with every transaction is the target, we will make mistakes and it is imperative that our problem recovery process includes our Team Members. The experts have told us that Customer Mani~ cannot and will not happen unless our front line associates are empowered to solve customer complaints - and are able to do so on the spot without first seeking the permission of the manager on duty. By empowering employees, we are making them our partners. We are also satisfying customer complaints faster. Equally important, we’re sending our Team Members powerful signals that we trust them to make things right for our customers. Trust begets trust. Our Team Members are learning the important life skills of problem resolution, how to empathize and how to listen. Listen, Apologize, Satisfy, Thank (LAST) is a unique customer resolution process. Mania Mindset is 100% CHAMPS with a YES! We will not reach this goal unless our front line Team Members are empowered to become our partners in this quest. Each year, Pizza Hut recognizes its best Restaurant General Managers and Area Coaches at a national meeting held in their honor. The following are the RGM’s and Area Coaches who were honored this year... PATRICIA BAZEMORE-CANTRELL - DALTON, GA CINDY HYDE - KNOXVILLE, TN JOHN PARAGIANIS - QUEENS VILLAGE, NY JAMES PLATANIA - FORT PIERCE, FL TONI DOUGHERTY - KINGSTON, NY BETTY JO KEMPSEY- MONROE, NY JOE PICCIANO - GLENVILLE, CT TOM SERAFINO - LEVITTOWN, NY See upcoming issues for Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Bennigan’s recognition programs! IN MEMORY OF ANDY ROMEO 1931 - 2002 got something to say? contact: marketing assistant 973-808-9525 x.123 kszuba@adfmgt.co~ ADF Companies 165 Passaic Avenue 3rd Floor Fai~/~eld, NJ 07004 973-8O8-9525 *~ow.adfmgt.com A HEARTFELT LOSS FOR ALL THOSE WHO KNEW ANDY... A TRULY REMARKABLE MAN! ROMEO- Andrew A. Passed on Mar.2 in his 70th year, A man of great gusto, lover of life, successful in business, loyal friend, avid handball player and golfer. Loving husband and best friend of Lynne Romeo. Devoted father of Andrew Romeo, his wife Sandra, & Marco Romeo. Cherished grandfather of Adriana. Beloved brother of Barbara Polite. Also survived by many loving nieces and nephews. Graduated from Fordham in 1955 which he attended on a football scholarship. Remained active in the university’s Gridiron Club. Longtime member of the New York Athletic Club where he served as restaurant chairman and on its Board of Governors for 14 years. Soon after graduating from Fordham he joined the Hem & Hardart Company where he rose to EVP of Operations in a 14 year tenure. In 1970 he became divisional president of ARA, known as Aramark. In 1979 he became Chairman and CEO of B/G Foods, which doubled in size under his leadership and which he subsequently took private. Made numerous acquisitions and operated such restaurants as the Broadway Diner and the Landmark Oscar’s Salt of the Sea. Co-founder and Chairman of the Board of ADF Companies, a franchisee of 200 restaurants and the second largest Pizza Hut franchise. Andy’s larger than life personality and unforgettable sense of humorwill be greatly missed by the many who loved him. "The recent passing of our Chairman Andy Romeo is a heartfelt loss for everyone who knew Andy. We at"ADF" will miss him. This obituary that ran in the New York Times does a great job of summing up Andy’s Life. May God Bless him and his family." - Don & Frank NEW DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE SERVICES BRINGS ADDED VALUE TO ADF Michael Ryan was born in 1965 in his hometown of Saratoga Springs, NY. He has three brothers and one sister. He graduated from LeMoyne College, located in Syracuse, NY, in 1987 with a degree in Economics. His initial career was in sales and marketing which included a year and a half of self employment. After that, he became an Account Executive for NEC where he stayed for eight and a half years before he joined ADF. While employed at NEC, Mike was responsible for approximately 125 accounts includin( AVON products. His duties were divided between helping clients manage their unemployment cost control efforts and assisting small compa.nies in developing their Human Resource policies, systems and compliance efforts. Mike’s current duites at ADF include: * Supporting operations *Responding to employee concerns & issues *Managing ADF’s unemployment cost control efforts * Overseeing ADF’s benefit plans including health insurance, 401 (k) and disability plans * Working with operations to ensure compliance with government regulations * Overseeing ADPs workers compensation and training efforts *Responsible for working with operations to develop company policy ADF EMPLOYEES MAKE A DONATION TO THE NYRED AND WCFUFA FUNDS In response to the World Trade Center tragedy on September 1 lth, the New York State Restaurant Association became actively involved with the American Red Cross and their ongoing efforts at Ground Zero. Within a matter of days, numerous member restaurants exhibited endless generosity by providing much needed supplies and manpower. Unfortunately, this heinous act has also hit very dose to home. While there still isn’t an accurate count, it is estimated that 30-40 restaurants were destroyed or forced to close and that many restaurant employees perished in this nightmare. Given this unprecedented level of human and economic devastation to the restaurant community, the Association’s Board of Directors voted overwhelmingly to set up the New York Restaurant Employee Disaster Fund (NYRED). Further, they agreed to commit $100,000 from NYSRA’s Trustco Investment Fund to be used to match pledges made by the food service industry. ADF sent out the following memo to all employees. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. This is a time of great reflection for many of us. The tragedy we’ve all witnessed will forever be etched in our hearts and minds. Many people are hurting and in need of help. ADF, as a compan)~ has responded to this cr~ We’ve donated more then one thousand pizzas/burritos to the Red Cross and its volunteers during the rescue efforts. In addition, ADF Companies, on behalf of IPHFHA, will also be presenting a check in the amount ors 10,000 to "The Widows and Children’s Fund of the Uniformed Firefighters Association," But we can do more...we know that you all want to be able to help in some way --- so to that end we are asking those who wish to donate mones~..in any amount...even a dollar helps...will be able to do just that and have that money directly withdrawn from their paycheck in a 4 week pay period, (New Jersey stores amount divided by 2 weeks, NewYork/Connecticut divided by 4 weeks of pay). n addition, A DF will a lso b e matching up t o $25,000 of t hose funds that are donated. ADF will be presenting a check for the total amount collected to the New York Restaurant Employee Disaster Recovery fund to help support families that were affected in the restaurant business. This outreach is not just for management...but for all our employees...whether full or part time. Your store has received a release form that should be filled out by all those who wish to contribute. Those monies contributed will then be deducted from your paycheck over the 4wk pay period depending on your pay frequency. In total, the combined brands contributed $17,728.32. THANK YOU TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED SO UNSELFISHLY. YOU MADE A DIFFERENCE IN MANY LIVES! Volume 1, lssue The first Pizza Hut established in 1958 PIZZA HUT: A LEGACY BEGINS WITH TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS The legacy of Pizza Hut began in 1958, when two college students from Kansas were approached by a friend with the idea of o opening a pizza parlor. Although the concept was relatively new to many Americans at the time, the brothers quickly saw of this enterprise. After borrowing $600 from their mother, they purchased some second-hand equipment and a small building on a busy intersection in their hometown. The result of their entrepreneurial endeavors was the first Pizza Hut restaurant and the foundation for what would become the largest and most successful pizza restaurant in the world. Named "The Best Company to Work For" in Dallas/Fort Worth by D Magazine, Pizza Hut has been named the number one national pizza chain in America according to Restaurant Institutions’ "2001 Choice in Chains" survey. Pizza Hut is the recognized leader of the $25 billion pizza category and has been since 1971. At Pizza Hut, our culture reflects our values, the essence of what we believe in as people. It includes a shared vision of who we are and where we are headed. And it encompasses everything from the way we treat our customers to how we deal with our competitors. One of the most important values within the Pizza Hut culture is integrity. Our people are commited to providing uncompro- mising product quality, to offering customers the highest quality for the money and to provide service that is personal and concerned. In fact, our people strive to provide what we call "Customer Mania," the kind of service that will make customers tell stories to their family and friends about their experience with Pizza Hut. We, the employees of Pizza Hut, keep the legacy alive in all we do. From quality products to customer service and satisfaction, we strive to keep Pizza Hut the leader in pizza. DETERMINATION AND MOTIVATION: THE KEY TO KFC SUCCESS Colonel Harland Sanders, born September 9, 1890, actively began franchising his chicken business at the age of 65. Now, Kentucky Fried Chicken business he started has grown to be one of the largest retail food service systems in the world. And Colonel Sanders, a quick service restaurant pioneer, has become a symbol of entrepreneurial spirit. More than two billion of the Colonel’s "finger lickin’ good" chicken dinners are served annually, and not just in North America. The Colonel’s cooking is available in more than 82 countries around the world. At the age of 40, the Colonel began cooking for hungry travelers who stopped at his service station in Corbin, K~. He didn’t have a restaurant then, but served folks on his own dining table in the living quarters of his service station. As more people started coming just for food, he moved across the street to a motel and restaurant that seated 142 people. Over the next nine years, he perfected his secret blend of herbs and spices and the basic cooking technique that is still used today. In the early 1950’s, a new interstate highway was planned to bypass the town of Corbin. Seeing an end to his business, the Colonel auctioned off his operations. After paying his bills, he was reduced to living on his $105 Social Security checks. Confident of the quality of his fried chicken, the Colonel devoted himself to the chicken franchising business that he started in 1952. He traveled across the country by car from restaurant to restaurant, cooking batches of chicken for restaurant owners and their employees. If the reaction was favorable, he entered into a handshake agreement on a deal that stipulated a payment to him of a nickel for each chicken the restaurant sold. By 1964, Colonel Sanders had more than 600 franchised outlets for his chicken in the United States and Canada. That year, he sold his interest in the U.S. company for $2 million to a group of investors. The Colonel remained a public spokesman for the company. In 1976, an independent survey ranked the Colonel as the world’s second most recognizable celebrity. Until he was fatally stricken with leukemia in 1980 at the age of 90, the Colonel traveled 250,000 miles a year visiting the empire he founded. With his determination, motivation and $105 social security check, he made KFC what it is today. -~ Or mo rn z"o rn " MIN. Z m Z IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS: Budget Presentation. a. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council Please Print ,.. I ;” if! ;i’ Qy-l f ($( f &,J 1 / 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. Please Print COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council Subject: 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. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council 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. Please Print COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council Address: City: Subject: 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. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council Please Printn \ I 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. 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. • • • IN \{)1(-~<' . ~ ...... r: {'At e:%'1 :> R.e-"1 ,od-~ @ 1""'!·1-f ~ Meeting Date: July 18,2002 ~,' l/" Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 ORDINANCE 3, 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FROM GABLES EAST CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR A REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 240.65 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) OVERLAY ZONING WITH UNDERLYING ZONING OF RL-3 (RESIDENTIAL LOW) TO ALLOW FOR 450 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 200 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, AND 146 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNITS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RONALD REAGAN TURNPIKE, SOUTH OF NORTHLAKE BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF THE BEELINE HIGHWAY, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Palm Beach Gardens received an application {PCD-00-04) from Gables East Construction, Inc. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 240.65-acre parcel of land from Planned Development Area {PDA) to a Planned Community District Overlay Zoning District {PCD) with an underlying zoning of Residential Low (RL-3), to be known as "The Gables", to allow construction of 450 multi-family units, 200 single family units, and 146 assisted living facility units and accessory structures located on the west side of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, south of Northlake Boulevard, and north of the Beeline Highway, as more particularly described in Exhibit NA" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is sufficient; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has reviewed said application and determined that it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; and • • • Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18,2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD..00-04 . WHEREAS, the Growth Management Department has recommended approval of the Planned Community Development (PCD) known as The Gables; and WHEREAS. on October 23, 2001, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed said application and recommended approval of the petition with the requested waivers subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the re-zoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to a Planned Community District Overlay Zoning District (PCD) with an underlying zoning of Residential Low (RL-3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. The foregoing 'Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified as true and confirmed and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Said Planned Community District is hereby approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant, its successors or assigns: Transportation I Traffic Concurrency 1. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall: a) Provide the City with a plan providing an eastbound right-turn lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard; b) Provide the City with a plan providing a westbound left-turn lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard; and c) Provide the City with an updated Topographic Survey certified by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida. (City Engineer) 2. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install an eastbound right-turn lane and a westbound left-tum lane onto the project access driveway on Northlake Boulevard. (City Engineer) Surface Water Management 3 . Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall provide recorded documentation abandoning the existing drainage easement 2 • • • 4. Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18,2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PC[).{)0..()4 and recording the proposed drainage easement. (City Engineer) The applicant shall include a tum-around at the south end of the lake maintenance easement for equipment access and maneuverability. (City Engineer) Landscaping and Maintenance 5. Within six (6) months of the clearing permit, the applicant shall: a) Irrigate and landscape the Northlake Boulevard right-of-way medians adjacent to the entire length of the property in a manner that is consistent with the document cited as number 3 in Section 4; b) Subject to the City's approval, bond the landscape improvements for Jog Road right-of-way, between Northlake Boulevard and Beeline Highway, based on the City's Master Roadway Beautification Plan. The bond shall be released when the Jog Road landscaping is installed or the final residential Certificate of Occupancy for the PCD is issued, whichever occurs earlier; c) Install the entry features and landscaping off of Northlake Boulevard and the internal PCD system around the lake; and d) Install the PCD buffers. (City Forester) 6 . Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for a multifamily dwelling unit, the applicant shall remove all exotics from the upland and wetland preserve areas. (City Forester) 7 . The applicant, successors, and assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Northlake Boulevard and Jog Road right-of-way landscaping and irrigation within the medians and roadway shoulders adjacent to the property as described in "Exhibit A" once installed (City Forester). 8. Clearing permit shall not be issued for the ALF parcel until after site plan approval for said parcel. (Planning & Zoning and City Forester) 9. Based on C ity Council direction to provide adequate screening, but taking into consideration the placement of utilities, the applicant shall install sabal palms under planted with sea grape within the road shoulder of buffer section 0-0, as depicted in Exhibit "B ". (City Forester) 10. Prior to December 31 of every year following said project's approval, the applicant, successors or assigns shall submit to the Growth Management Department, Planning and Zoning Division, an annual report of the status of their project, including but not limited to the compliance or status of any conditions of approval placed on the 3 • • • ~dlnance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18,2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00..()4 project by this approval and any future approval until the project is completed. (Planning & Zoning) SECTION 3. The following waivers are hereby granted with this approval: 1. Section 78-141, Building Height, to allow for a maximum 40-foot building height for the multifamily residential structure. The Land Development Regulations allows a maximum of 36 feet in height. 2 . Section 78-563 (c), Lake Maintenance Tracts, Minimum Dimension, to allow for a 15-foot wide lake maintenance easement. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum 20-foot wide lake maintenance easement. SECTION 4. Construction of the Planned Community District shall be in compliance with the following plans on file with the City's Growth Management Department: 1 . 2. 3. April 26, 2002 Master Site Plan by Urban Design Studio, 1 Sheet. June 28, 2002 Perimeter Landscape Buffer Plans and Sections by Murikami, 3 sheets (MP-1 through MP-3). January 17, 2002 Median Landscape Plans and Sections by Murikami, 3 sheets (ML-1 through ML-3). SECTION 5. This approval expressly incorporates all representations made by the developer of its agents at any public meeting or hearing. SECTION 6. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect the remainder of the Ordinance. SECTION 7. All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption . 4 • • • Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2. 2002 Petition PCD-00~ PLACED ON FIRST READING THE 21 51 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2002. PLACED ON SECOND READING THIS DAY OF __ 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS SIGNED: MAYOR ERIC JABLIN COUNCILMEMBER DAVID CLARK ATTEST BY: CITY CLERK VOTE: MAYORJABLIN VICE MAYOR SABA TELLO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK COUNCILMEMBER DELGADO COUNCILMEMBER RUSSO DAYOF __ 2002. VICE MAYOR CARL SABA TELLO COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH RUSSO COUNCILMEMBER ANNIE DELGADO APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY BY: CITY ATTORNEY AYE NAY ABSENT 5 • • • EXHIBIT "A" Ordinance 3, 2002 Meeting Date: July 18, 2002 Date Prepared: July 2, 2002 Petition PCD-00-04 A perocl of land lying in Seotto~-il,. T~WMhlp 4i S~~ Ranse 42 East, Palm Beach Count)', PlorlcJa.: more pantcularly delcrlbcclas follow•: . Comrncnc.e at tho North one--quarter 3eetion oomer of said Soction 22; thence South 88° 3l' 41" East along the Nonh line of W: Northeast ono-quatiet ot said &otlon 22, a ditrtanco of 54.84 f~t' theoce South 01., 27' 19" West, a. dbtance of 124.00 fhet to a point on tho South right of wrry Uno of Welt Lake Puk Road. also known o.s Northlake Boulevard, as laid oUt and In usc, and as oonveyed to Palm Bea.;h County b)' tho Deeds teeorded in Official Records Book 10481, page 1167 and Official Records Book 10571, page 599, pubUc records of Palm Beach CoUllty, Florida; thence South 88° 32' 41" East along sa14 Sourh right of. way Une. a c:lislance of 435.00 feet; thence Soudl 89• 27' 41., Bait elong said South right of way line, a distance of 250.03 feet; dlence South 88° 32' 41"' Bast •long said South dght o£ way Unc, a distnnco of 181.69 feet to the Point of sesinnins; 'thence QOntinue South 88° 31' 41" East alonB said South rii:M of way line, a di~co of 860.30 f~ ~ee South U 0 52.' 2.9" ~ along said South right of way line. a distance of 376.81 feet; thence South 88° 3S' 07" East along &aiel South right of w~y Une, a disomce of.193.9cS feet to tho Westerly limited ~eSS right of way line of the Sunshine State Parkway; thence South 01° 35' 30" West along said Westerly limited access right of way line. a distance of 1230.13 feet; thenoe North ggo 24' 24" West, a distance of 649.37 foet: thence Soulh 08° 34' 49" East. a distance of 15.27 feet to a point on the arc of a DOn- tangent curve concave to the Southeast (satd point be::ll'a North 09° 06' 15'" West 1rom me rodius point of the next de,orlbed eU!Ve)i thenoe Southwesterly, along the uc of &aid curve having a radius of289.19 feat, a delta of3S0 45' 12". and an are distaneo of--180.46 feOt to a. point ()!non-tangency; tb~o North 40° 04' 30 .. West, a distance·ofl04.ll feet to a point on the arc of a non-tangent curve concave to the Northwest (said point bears Somh SJ• 59' 22" Bast from 11\e radius point of the next desaibed curve)~ thence So14tbwostorly, along tho aro of said curve having a ndiua of 320.00 feet, a delta of 2"JO 01' 27", and an BrO distance of 150.93 feet to a point ofnon-:-1engcncy; tb~ North 27° SIS' 44" West, a diswace or 939.83 teet to.a point on ~e arc or a non.-rangent ~e concave w the Southeast (said point bears North 29° 2S' 3~" West from the radl\18 point of the noxt described curve); thenQO NortheASterly. along the aro of said curve having a radius of 320.00 f~t. a delta of 19• 51' 26". ond an aro distance of 111.46 feet to a point of non-tangency; thonco Nol1h 2S0 43' 53" West_ a distanc., or 115,18 feet to 1bo ~linni~ of a umgcnt curve concAYc to tho Northeast: thcnco Northwesterly, alone the ·arc or said cutvc having a radius of 122.00 feet. a delta or 36• 27' 34 ", and an arc distance o£11-63 feet to a point of tangency; tl_lencc North 10° 43' 41" But, a distaa ~thence North 01° 17' 06" East, a distanco of 121.07 Kct; thence N"~l-tPW~ ll~ a diatance of3S.08 feet to the l'oin' ofBeglming . 6 • EXH\BlT "B" Ordinance 3. 2002 Meeting Date: July 18. 2002 Date Prepared: July 2. 2002 PetHion PCD-00-04 -------------------------------"1:--------''lr---------.......------ 5£C""TION D-D •• • 7