HomeMy WebLinkAbout092513 DRC - Avenir
TO: Robert Bentz
Land Design South of Florida, Inc.
CC: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: September 19, 2013
FROM: Kristin Tetsworth, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: AVENIR (fka Vavrus) – Development Review Committee (DRC) Committee
at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, September 25, 2013.
SUBJECT PETITION: The proposed development contains approximately 4,760 acres for a
mixed use community to be known as Avenir. The Applicant is requesting approval of 5
Development Applications including a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment, Land Development Regulation Text Amendment, Concurrency, and
Planned Community Development with Re-Zoning. The following two (2) applications are the
subject of this DRC memo:
I. CPTA-13-07-000025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
II. CPMA-13-07-000016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
The comments in this DRC Memo are based on the applications dated June 26, 2013 and deemed
sufficient by the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Planning & Zoning on July 10, 2013.
Planning and Zoning
1. Please provide a written response, comment by comment, with corresponding highlighted
text and/or plans, with any additional changes made from the previous submittal and clearly
identify all changes to the plans by either “clouding”, or highlighting, the location of all
changes to further expedite the review.
2. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment to change the current future land use designation from the Rural
Residential-10 (1 dwelling unit per 10 acres) and the Rural Residential-20 (1 dwelling unit
per 20 acres) to the proposed Mixed Use Community (MXC) designation. Based upon the
RR10 (1 du/10ac), combined with the RR20 (1 du/20ac), the proposed site would support a
total of 406 residential units. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
designation to the MXC designation will allow for 2 dwelling units per acre for a maximum
total of approximately 9,520 residential units if approved.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 2 of 14
Page 2 of 14
Future Land Use Element:
3. Proposed Objective 1.1.1.: Future Land Use Categories. The detailed location description
and size criteria is inappropriate to be included in this Objective as none of the other Future
Land Uses are described in detail in this paragraph. Please revise this Objective and remove
the added language because the criteria only fits Vavrus, and is self serving criteria.
4. Proposed Policy 1.1.1.16 Mixed Use Community (MXC). The proposed language is not
written in conformance with the other Future Land Use categories. Please reword the
description as “The Mixed Use Community (MXC) category is intended to accommodate
large scale communities that have…” In addition, the description must include minimum and
maximum density standards. The proposed Master Plan for Avenir does not meet the
description.
5. Policy 1.1.2.4.: Western Northlake Corridor Planning Area: The City of Palm Beach
Gardens, together with the City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County, conducted a
study of the Western Northlake Boulevard Corridor. The study examined the existing and
future land use designations along this corridor and made recommendations for this area to
remain rural in nature, to utilize an equestrian planned development concept, and not be
converted to an urban density. The Avenir proposal is not consistent with the Inter-local
agreement.
In addition, the Inter-local agreement recommended intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination in the review of development proposals in this area. The proposed plan is
inconsistent with the recommendations in the study. (Copies of the applications have been
transmitted to Palm Beach County and the City of West Palm Beach.)
6. Policy 1.1.2.8.: Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Applicant is requesting the UGB to be
modified without providing justification for re-aligning the boundary. The manner in which
the new boundary is described does not make sense and it needs to be graphically delineated
on a map.
7. Objective 1.1.3 together with Policy 1.1.3.1: Encourages infill and redevelopment of the
eastern portion of the City. The proposed development is outside the urban services boundary
which was specifically established to promote eastern growth and expansion.
8. Proposed Policy 1.1.3.2; Proposed Policy 1.1.3.3; and Proposed Policy 1.1.3.4: In each of
these Policies, the proposed language is insufficient and it is unacceptable to reference the
project specific development standards. The specific intensities need to be provided in the
Comprehensive Plan for all land use categories and any potential bonus categories. The
Comprehensive Plan needs measurable standards to evaluate Future Land Use Map
amendments. Revise the proposed text to include the required percentages of uses, lot
coverage, height and maximum density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre and remove the
statement “Established per adopted project specific Development Standards.”
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 3 of 14
Page 3 of 14
9. Goal 1.2.: Encourage development or redevelopment activities, while promoting a strong
sense of community, and consistent quality of design; and do not threaten existing
neighborhood integrity and historic and environmental resources. The Applicant has not
demonstrated how the community is compatible with the existing surrounding development.
Objective 1.2.3.: Issue development orders and permits for development and redevelopment
activities only in areas where public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards
(which are adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this Comprehensive
Plan) are available concurrent with the impacts of development. The Applicant has not
demonstrated that public facilities will be available to meet the adopted Urban LOS as
included in the CIE. The Applicant has failed to provide letters confirming that future
capacity is available from all service providers for, water, sewer, fire rescue, school board,
etc., to demonstrate that the proposed community meets the Urban LOS standards in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
10. Policy 1.2.4.4.(b).: In order to prevent urban sprawl and promote cost effective and efficient
service delivery, the City has designated an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which generally
coincides with the eastern boundary of the Loxahatchee Slough. The UGB is designated on
the Future Land Use Map (Map A.1.). The UGB divides the City into distinct areas, urban
and rural. These two distinct areas are designated with land uses (densities and intensities)
consistent with urban and rural characteristics and shall receive public services and
facilities at levels appropriate for such urban and rural uses, as defined in the Capital
Improvement Element. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map are inconsistent with the rural character that was envisioned for this area
regarding agricultural uses, equestrian uses and rural life style.
11. Policy 1.2.4.11.: This Policy encourages infill and redevelopment of existing properties
within the existing urban growth boundary. The Applicant of the Avenir community is
proposing to modify the urban growth boundary to provide for new homes and development
that is in direct conflict with this provision.
Transportation Element:
12. Objective 2.1.1.: To maintain specific level of service (LOS) standards on the roadways. The
applicant has not shown how it will maintain adopted LOS standards regarding the City’s
traffic circulation system and concurrency requirements.
13. Goal 2.2: Continue to develop and maintain sustainable, safe and efficient intermodal
transportation linkages through a balance of traffic circulation systems, public
transportation, and pedestrian and bicycle networks. This goal requires developments to
provide necessary linkages between all types of transportation which would include linking
to future train stations; the public PalmTran bus system; greenways and bicycle trails to link
parks and open spaces; equestrian trails; and pedestrian trails to promote walk-ability with
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 4 of 14
Page 4 of 14
the community. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate diversity in transportation options
for the residents.
Housing Element:
14. Goal 3.2: The Provision of Affordable and Workforce Housing by Preserving Existing Stable
Neighborhoods, Rehabilitating Neighborhoods that Have Declined, and Developing New
Residential Developments. The Applicant has not addressed workforce housing.
Conservation Element
15. Goal 6.1.: This goal mandates the City to preserve, manage, or restore the natural resources
in the City to ensure their sustainability, high quality, and critical value to the quality of life
in the city of Palm Beach Gardens. The one page Drainage Statement provided by the
Applicant is inadequate and does not provide the required level of detail that is necessary to
review the proposed 4,760 acre community. The Applicant has not taken an integrated
approach to the natural resources on site and has not identified the necessary infrastructure to
manage surface and sub-surface water resources in a manner which ensures their viability as
natural habitats and utility for possible recreational usage as well as potable water uses.
Please confirm the location of all positive outfall and discharge points. Please provide a
status update of possible permit applications in process with the various state reviewing
agencies.
16. Policy 6.1.1.4.: Through the continued implementation of land development regulations, the
City shall ensure that new developments and redevelopments are designed in such a manner
as to minimize the impact of such developments on the quality of surface and ground water
resources, and to further ensure that new developments and redevelopments do not exceed
the capacity levels for potable water and/or sanitary sewer services. Map A.1: Wetlands, of
the Comprehensive Plan illustrates the location of wetlands. The subject property includes,
but is not limited to, Freshwater emergent wetlands as well as Freshwater Forested Shrub
wetlands. Please provide a more detailed presentation of how the areas on Map A.1 will be
integrated into the “flow-way” system. Further, please demonstrate how the proposed Future
Land Use Map Amendment will further “green” initiatives such as Low Impact
Developments (LID) and the preservation of the identified wetlands, and conservation areas.
Economic Development Element
17. Objective 13.1.1.: Balanced and Diversified Economy: Palm Beach Gardens shall maintain
and expand a diversified economy by encouraging growth in targeted cluster industries that
provide high-wage employment and complement changing economic conditions by
supporting existing businesses and by retaining and improving resource-based sectors, such
as tourism, retirement, and recreation.
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 5 of 14
Page 5 of 14
In conformance with the intent of this Objective, please provide the potential uses to be
approved with this Comprehensive Text Amendment that will allow for a diversified
economy. Provide any letters of intent from potential companies that are interested in
locating here and provide an update of marketing techniques or activities that are being
utilized (such as a web site) to promote the economic viability of the proposed project.
The Avenir community is not consistent with this Objective because the majority of the
land development program is dedicated to residential units, without a clear program to
attract a balance of commercial and economic uses. The applicant’s justification
statement does not provide enough data to sustain or support the creation of a new
development with 7,600 residential units, (which will reach a population of 20,672 at
build-out when a 2.72 persons per household ratio is applied, based on the Retail Market
Analysis submitted by the Applicant). This is not consistent with the demographics as
presented in the Data and Analysis of the City’s Comprehensive Plan which documents a
ratio of 2.35 persons per household. Revise the projections based on the actual potential
estimated number of units, the possible conversion of retail square footage to 1,190
additional residential units, and the accessory units within the residential neighborhoods.
18. The proposed Avenir community does not further the goals, objectives and policies of the
State Comprehensive Plan Chapter 187, Florida Statutes.
A. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the State of Florida
Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187.201(7) Water Resources policies. Please address
how the proposed application is in compliance with the State goals, objectives and
policies in this regard in the State’s Comprehensive Plan.
B. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the State of Florida
Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187.201(15) Land Use policies. Please address how the
proposed application is in compliance with the State goals, objectives and policies in this
regard in the State’s Comprehensive Plan.
C. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with the State of Florida
Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187.201(16) Urban and Downtown Revitalization
policies. Please address how the proposed application is in compliance with the State
goals, objectives and policies in this regard in the State’s Comprehensive Plan.
19. The proposed Avenir community is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, FAC., and Section
163.3177(6)(a)9.b.(VIII), Florida Statutes.
A. The Applicant has not adequately justified the need to increase the density and intensity
of the site; the amount of housing requested; the transportation impacts; and the potential
negative environmental impacts that will result from the proliferation of urban sprawl as
identified in thirteen (13) characteristics included in Section 163.3177(6)(a)9(a), Florida
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 6 of 14
Page 6 of 14
Statutes. Please address how the proposed application is in compliance with the State of
Florida’s Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 in this regard.
B. The Avenir Community as proposed does not satisfy the requirement to identify at least
four (4) components of the eight (8) criteria to demonstrate that the proposed amendment
discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl as required by Section
163.3177(6)(a)9.b.(VIII), Florida Statutes. Please address how the proposed application
is in compliance with the State of Florida’s Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 in this regard.
C. City Staff has not had an adequate opportunity to coordinate reviews with surrounding
governmental entities, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, to fully analyze
the potential impacts and concurrency issues, environmental issues, and address what
mitigation measures will be appropriate. Please address how the proposed application is
in compliance with the State of Florida’s Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 in relation to
surrounding governmental entities.
20. The proposed Avenir Community is not consistent with the Vision Plan of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens adopted by the City Council.
A. The proposed mixed use community is not consistent with the Vision Plan for the City of
Palm Beach Gardens. Avenir as proposed is a satellite city and not inter-connected with,
or linked to the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Please address how the proposed
application furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Vision Plan.
B. The expected level of public out-reach to surrounding residents and stake-holders has not
been successfully achieved. Please refer to the letter from the Director of the Planning
and Zoning Department addressed to Jennifer Morton of Land Design South, dated
January 3, 2013.
21. The City of Palm Beach Gardens adopted a 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and
South Florida Water Management is in the process of updating the Lower East Coast Water
Supply Plan. These Plans have been developed in conformance with Chapter 163.3180 of the
Florida Statutes. The City does not own or operate its own potable water supply system and
relies upon Seacoast Utility Authority for the provision of potable water facilities and
services. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the policies and
recommendations of this plan. In accordance with the Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,
provide the required written confirmation of potable water capacity. In addition, revise the
proposed development standards to incorporate water re-use programs for both residential
and non-residential developments.
Parks, Recreation, Golf, & Public Facilities:
22. Upon review of the proposed Avenir Community compliance with the Recreation and Open
Space Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the following is noted:
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 7 of 14
Page 7 of 14
According to the application “a total of 115 acres of large public spaces is proposed within
the Avenir Community. These public areas will be developed for active and passive
recreational uses and be available to the public.” THIS COMPLIES WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OF AT
LEAST 105 ACRES.
23. Upon review of the proposed Avenir Community and compliance with Chapter 78 of the City
Code of Ordinances, the following is noted:
It is unclear in the application what will be the estimated new City of Palm Beach
Gardens permanent residents. The LOS standard of 3.7 acres of improved neighborhood
and community parks and other recreation and open space facilities for each 1,000
permanent City residents is the required standard. This cannot be determined at this
time. Please clarify the number of units and projected number of residents.
24. Only land accessible by all residents should be included in the calculation of total park land.
Forestry Comments:
25. Forestry has no comments on this application at this time.
Building Comments:
26. The plan does not show any Police/Fire/City Hall sub stations. Building or buildings will
need limited functionality to include phone, data, and communication and inspector services
on site. (This has been required for communities smaller and closer to our City Hall.)
Fire-Rescue Department Comments:
27. The current proposal exceeds the demands of Fire-Rescue services. The location as proposed
would increase the response times as established within the department’s accreditation
standard. The closest Palm Beach Gardens Fire-Rescue station is Station 3, located at 5161
Northlake Blvd., which has a travel distance of over 7 miles to the proposed entrance to
Avenir. Based on the proposed model, a fire station centrally located within the project
would best suit the needs of the community. Where is the petitioner proposing to locate the
fire station?
28. In the event the project changes from the current proposal does the petitioner have a plan if a
second fire station were warranted?
29. The City of Palm Beach Gardens currently operates five fire stations. With the additional
demands placed on fire services from the proposed project, what is the funding source for the
needed fire station and apparatus?
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 8 of 14
Page 8 of 14
30. The petitioner needs to provide a more detailed phasing plan. The plan will need to show the
completion of the operational fire-rescue station in the first phase.
31. The proposal does not reflect any additional civic facilities, such as an annex/governmental
center. Is there a proposal within the plan for an inspection branch? Such as building, fire and
code inspections.
Police Department Comments:
32. Staffing concerns involve the need for a functional police substation to exist in accordance
with National and State accreditation standards which would require personnel to staff units
including but not limited to Road Patrol, Traffic, Crime Prevention, Detective, TAC,
Records, Communications, Maintenance, and the lobby. Police patrol staffing requires
sufficient staffing for coverage of a minimum of two patrol zones year round, 24 hours a day.
33. A police infrastructure would be required to effectively provide a professional level of
service. This infrastructure includes but is not limited to equipment for police radios,
telephones, and electronic communications. This would require a variety of equipment
including a communications tower which has specifications that can be discussed in detail at
the proper time.
Engineering Comments:
34. Engineering has no comments on this application at this time.
Seacoast Utility Authority Comments:
35. Seacoast Utility Authority has no comments on this application at this time.
Geographic Information System Comments:
36. The Applicant shall submit a request for a residential Address Plan. The Addressing
Committee will not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has
received approval. There is a $200 fee to process the desired residential address plan.
37. The Applicant shall submit a request for a subdivision name. The Addressing Committee will
not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has received approval.
There is a $100 fee to process the desired name.
38. On Sheet # PMP.1: under the site Data, the total site area is listed as 4,770 Acres which is
inconsistent with the site area total of 4,760 acres and the recorded survey value of 4762.9
acres. Please clarify the difference.
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 9 of 14
Page 9 of 14
39. There is a situs address of 12001 Northlake Boulevard in place for the proposed Avenir Site.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Comments:
Comprehensive Plan
Conservation Element
• Policy 6.1.1.2. Wetland Protection.
Part b of this policy calls for a site plan to provide measures to assure that normal flows
and quality of water will be provided to maintain wetlands after development.
The Avenir project site contains approximately 1,983 acres of wetlands. The
development plan proposes to eliminate approximately 1,268 acres of wetlands, including
a large area of relatively high quality wetlands on the south side of the project site.
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Policy 6.1.1.2 because the development plan
proposes to eliminate, rather than protect and restore, significant areas of wetlands.
• Policy 6.1.4.1. Ecological Communities Protection.
Part d of this policy calls for the removal of native vegetation to be minimized in the land
development process.
The Avenir project site contains approximately 629 acres of upland natural communities
(pine flatwoods) and 1,943 acres of wetland natural communities (cypress, wetland shrub,
freshwater marshes, wet prairies). The largest expanse of natural communities that
remain relatively intact on the project site is an area of pine flatwoods surrounding wet
prairies on the south and southwest side of the project site. The site plan proposes to
eliminate much of this system of relatively intact upland and wetland natural
communities.
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Policy 6.1.4.1 because the development plan does
not minimize the removal of native vegetation in the land development process.
• Policy 6.1.4.5. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Part 3 of this policy calls for the City to have the option to designate the portion of the
plant community to be included in a 25 percent set-aside as a preserve area.
The Avenir project site plan was submitted to the City without giving the City the option
to designate the portion of the plant community to be included in the 25 percent set-aside.
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 10 of 14
Page 10 of 14
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Policy 6.1.4.5 because the City did not have the
opportunity to designate the portions of the plant communities to be included in the
proposed preserve area.
• Policy 6.1.4.5. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Part 4a of this policy states that development is prohibited in wetlands except when 1)
such an activity is necessary to prevent or eliminate a public hazard; 2) such an activity
would provide a public benefit that exceeds the benefits lost as a result of altering the
wetland; 3) such an activity is proposed for wetlands that are significantly degraded and
cannot be reasonably restored; and 4) such an activity is water dependent or, due to the
unique geometry of the site, minimal impact is the unavoidable consequence of
development.
The Avenir project site contains approximately 1,983 acres of wetlands. The
development plan proposes to eliminate approximately 1,268 acres of wetlands, including
a large area of relatively high quality wetlands on the south and southwest side of the
project site. There is no justification for eliminating many of these wetlands because: 1)
destruction of these wetlands is not necessary to prevent a public hazard; 2) elimination
of these wetlands would not provide direct public benefits that exceeds the public
benefits lost; 3) these wetlands are not degraded to the extent that they cannot be
reasonably restored; and 4) the elimination of these wetlands is not necessary as an
unavoidable consequence of development due to the unique geometry of the site. The
elimination of many these wetlands can be avoided by altering the site plan and designing
a more compact development.
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Policy 6.1.4.5 because the development plan
proposes to eliminate, rather than protect and restore, significant areas of wetlands that
are worthy of protection and can be avoided.
• Policy 6.1.8.5 Preserve Areas for Environmentally Significant Lands
Part 1a of this policy requires that lands to be set aside in preserve areas shall be
identified based on the quality of habitats, the presence of listed species, proximity to
other natural areas, and other relevant factors.
The Avenir project site plan includes approximately 1,890 acres set aside in what is
referred to as a flowway and ecological restoration area. This area includes
approximately 350 acres of lakes, 650 acres of wetlands, and 880 acres of uplands. The
880 acres of uplands includes about 214 of the 629 acres of pine flatwoods, the only
significant upland natural community occurring on the project site. The remaining 666
acres of uplands in the set-aside area are primarily pastures and other areas that have been
heavily impacted by agricultural activities. However, much of the relatively intact upland
and wetland natural communities on the project site were not selected for inclusion into
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 11 of 14
Page 11 of 14
the preserve area. The relatively intact systems of upland and wetland natural systems
should be valued as high quality habitat. The majority of the highest quality natural areas
could be preserved if the development program was concentrated in areas that have been
most impacted by agricultural activities.
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Policy 6.1.8.5 because much of the relatively
intact upland and wetland natural communities on the project site were not selected for
inclusion into the preserve area based on the quality of habitats.
Future Land Use Element
• Objective 1.1.1: Future Land Use Categories
The Future Land Use map designates the Urban Growth Boundary for the City. To the
east of the boundary are areas the City has designated as urban and to the west of the
boundary are areas the City has designated as rural. The Avenir project, which is
proposed outside of the Urban Growth Boundary in the western lands of the City, is
urban by nature and is proposing to amend the urban growth boundary of the City to
accommodate only the Avenir project area. This amendment to the growth boundary is
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the City’s objective of establishing an Urban
Growth Boundary and maintaining the western lands as rural.
The Avenir project site currently has two Future Land Use designations: RR10 (Rural
Residential one unit per 10 acres) and RR20 (Rural Residential one unit per 20 acres).
The two designations, given their associated acreages, could yield 406 dwelling units on
the property. The Avenir project is proposing 7,600 dwelling units. In addition, the
project Development Standards include a conversion ratio that would allow up to 35% of
the non-residential uses in the project to be converted to residential. This could yield an
additional 1,190 units. The Development Standards also allow for accessory units in the
Town Center and neighborhood districts which have not been quantified. All together,
the Avenir project could result in over 9,000 dwelling units where 406 are permitted
today.
The potential 2,200% increase in residential density at this location for the Avenir project
is inconsistent with the existing Future Land Use designations and the intent of the Urban
Growth Boundary. Permitting the conversion of non-residential uses to additional
dwelling units contradicts one of the project’s core goals: providing needed services to
the existing communities.
• Policy 1.1.1.15: Mixed Use Development (MXD)
The Comprehensive Plan provides a Mixed Use Development (MXD) land use category
to accommodate projects that incorporate multiple uses on a single parcel and are
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 12 of 14
Page 12 of 14
sensitive to surrounding uses and the desired character of the community. This category
is also intended to foster infill and redevelopment efforts within the City as well as deter
urban sprawl. The Avenir project is neither infill nor redevelopment by nature and the
applicant has chosen to propose a new future land use category, Mixed Use Community
(MXC), which meets the specific needs of the Avenir project alone.
The MXD category also stipulates appropriate ranges for the mix of land uses:
Minimum Percentage Mix
Residential: 40%-60% of the total Mixed Use acreage
Non-Residential: 35%-55% of the total Mixed Use acreage
The Avenir project utilizes approximately 47.7% of the total site acreage as residential
and approximately 12.6% of the total site acreage as non-residential uses. While the
Avenir project is not intending to utilize the existing MXD category, it is important to
note that the proposed project mix is inconsistent with the MXD category as it embodies
the spirit and intent of mixed use development for the City.
• Policy 1.1.2.4: Western Northlake Corridor Planning Area
The Western Northlake Corridor Planning Area is identified on the City’s Future Land
Use Map and was born out of the 1998 Western Northlake Corridor Land Use Study
(WNCLUS). The WNCLUS recommended that future growth outside the City’s Urban
Growth Boundary remain rural in nature and that the Vavrus Ranch site in particular
(location for the Avenir project) if developed in the future, be promoted as a rural,
equestrian community. The Avenir project is not rural nor is it equestrian-oriented and is
therefore inconsistent with the Western Northlake Corridor Planning Area.
• Policy 1.1.2.8: Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The City designates the Urban Growth Boundary on the Future Land Use Map. The
Avenir project is outside of the existing UGB and is proposing to change the boundary to
accommodate only the project site. No revised UGB map was provided.
• Objective 1.1.3. Manage Future Growth and Development
This objective specifies that the City maintain land development regulations to manage
future growth and development in a manner that provides needed facilities and services,
protects environmental resources, and encourages infill and redevelopment of the eastern
portion of the City. This Objective instructs the city to steer growth to the eastern portion
of the city in the form of infill and redevelopment.
The Avenir project is proposed in the western portion of the City outside the existing
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The development plan proposes 7600 dwelling units
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 13 of 14
Page 13 of 14
and 1,700,000 square feet of non-residential development on a 4763-acre site located
west of the Loxahatchee Slough, north of Northlake Boulevard, and south of the Beeline
Highway. The project is located in an area where a variety of facilities and services
would need to be provided to the site because they are not currently available.
The Avenir project is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.3 because it does not contribute to
infill or redevelopment of the eastern portion of the City. The Avenir project is neither
infill nor redevelopment. However, the project justification narrative states the project
site is an “excellent one in which to locate needed non-residential services and provide
adiverse range of residential opportunities to the community.” The proposed plan
contradicts its own justification by proposing an overwhelmingly greater amount of
residential than non-residential uses.
• Policy 1.1.3.1.i
This Policy describes strategies by which the City and the Comprehensive Plan shall
discourage urban sprawl by providing moderate densities and housing opportunities in
urban areas; promoting urban infill and redevelopment; providing location requirements;
maintaining a distinct urban and rural services areas; and directing public investment to
existing urban areas.
The scale and location of the Avenir project is contrary to all of these strategies and
therefore inconsistent with this Policy.
• Policy 1.1.3.3
This Policy establishes parameters for Planned Community Districts (PCD’s) including
density bonuses. The Avenir project proposes to establish density programs, including
density bonuses, for the proposed Mixed Use Community (MXC) within the submitted
Development Standards. The instances where density bonuses are discussed in the
Development Standards relate to the provision of mixed-use accessory units in the Town
Center Districts or accessory units for attached and detached housing within the
neighborhood districts. There are no density bonuses provided for affordable housing
units as outlined in this Policy.
• Policy 1.2.4.4(b)
This Policy describes the Urban Growth Boundary as a tool to prevent urban sprawl,
organize the City by distinct urban and rural areas, assign appropriate densities and
intensities per the urban and rural designations, and plan for appropriate services for
those areas. The Avenir project is outside of the existing Urban Growth Boundary and
proposes to expand the boundary to include only the property area. The request to
propose a growth boundary expansion, to accommodate a project of the scale and
location of Avenir, is inconsistent with this Policy.
September 19, 2013
CPTA-13-07-000025
CPMA-13-07-000016
DRC Memorandum
Page 14 of 14
Page 14 of 14
• Policy 1.3.6.3
This Policy promotes the aspects of multi-modal mobility including walking, biking, and
the use of public transit. The Avenir project clearly promotes all of these elements within
the project; however, it is unclear what, if any, positive impacts the project will have on
enhancing the use of existing transit service. In addition, the Avenir project does not
require residential uses in the Town Center District, which should be one of the project’s
most transit-supportive areas.
• Objective 1.3.8
This Objective states that the City shall proactively plan for future growth through
inclusive, community-based planning processes. This Policy was developed for precisely
the type and scale of project proposed for Avenir; however, the Avenir project was not
developed through an inclusive, community-based planning process and is therefore
inconsistent with this Policy.
• Policy 1.3.8.1
This Policy states that the City shall update its Vision Plan by 2009 to include a
Sustainable Development Goal. The Sustainable Development Goal emphasizes the
importance of protecting natural resources to the west of the City by promoting
sustainable redevelopment in the east of the City. The Avenir project, due to its scale and
location, is inconsistent with this Policy.
Traffic Comments, Pinder-Troutman Comments:
40. The methodology for the Future Land Use Map Amendment has been submitted and
accepted. The submitted traffic study was done without an accepted methodology and
therefore needs to be revised and re-submitted for review.
Additional conditions are forthcoming pending re-submittal.
City staff reserves the right to make additional comments throughout the review process.
TO: Robert Bentz
Land Design South of Florida, Inc.
CC: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: September 19, 2013
FROM: Kristin Tetsworth, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: AVENIR (fka Vavrus) – Development Review Committee (DRC) Committee
at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, September 25, 2013.
SUBJECT PETITION: The proposed development contains approximately 4,760 acres for a
mixed use community to be known as Avenir. The Applicant is requesting approval of 5
Development Applications including a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment, Land Development Regulation Text Amendment, Concurrency, and
Planned Community Development with Re-Zoning. The following two (2) applications are the
subject of this DRC memo:
I. LDRA-13-07-000048 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
II. PPCD-13-07-000005 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING
The comments in this DRC Memo are based on the applications dated June 26, 2013 and deemed
sufficient by the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Planning & Zoning on July 10, 2013.
I. LDRA-13-07-000048 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
Planning and Zoning
1. Please provide a written response, comment by comment, with corresponding highlighted
text and/or plans, with any additional changes made from the previous submittal and
clearly identify all changes to the plans by either “clouding”, or highlighting, the location
of all changes to further expedite the review.
2. The Applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the proposed text amendment
to the LDRs to create a new zoning district. The existing Code provisions, through the
PCD process in Section 78-155, already provide a district with the intent to encourage
ingenuity and imagination in the planning and development or redevelopment of suitable
large tracts of land to accommodate the various uses and activities associated with a
planned community and 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
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 2 of 16
Page 2 of 16
aesthetically pleasing and supportive of an enhanced quality of life. In addition, the
existing Code encourages the creation of development design standards.
3. The proposed new zoning category requires, at a minimum, intensity measures and
development standards, Code regulations, including but not limited to uses to be added
to Table-21, minimum parking requirements, property development regulations such as
setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, etc. The proposed zoning category submitted
does not include these minimum requirements. The applicant shall also provide a list of
permitted uses, minor and major conditional uses within the PCD.
4. The proposed text amendment to the LDRs geographically describes the subject property
so that the only site the new district applies to is the subject site. Please clarify if the
intent is to exclude any other sites from qualifying as an “MXC”.
5. The proposed text amendment provides for the Development Standards as submitted to
be adopted by the City Council, however, the applicant has proposed that waivers from
these standards can still be requested. Please clarify what waivers from the proposed
development standards will be required, or revise the development standards.
6. On page 36, under Section 78-249 (2) b., the revision proposed is in direct conflict with
Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.4.5., paragraph #3. Please make the appropriate changes
to be consistent as it creates an internal inconsistency.
7. Please correct the typo’s to the Section numbers at the bottom of page 18.
Forestry Comments:
8. Forestry has no comments on this application at this time.
Building Comments:
9. Building has no comments on this application at this time.
Fire-Rescue Department Comments:
10. Fire-Rescue has no comments on this application at this time.
Police Department Comments:
11. Police Department has no comments on this application at this time.
Engineering Comments:
12. Engineering has no comments on this application at this time.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 3 of 16
Page 3 of 16
Geographic Information System (GIS) Comments:
13. GIS has no comments on this application at this time.
Seacoast Utility Authority Comments:
14. Seacoast Utility Authority has no comments on this application at this time.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Comments:
Land Development Regulations
• Sec. 78-157. MXD-Mixed Use Development District
The Mixed Use Development District (MXD) is designed to accommodate multiple uses
on a single parcel and is intended for urban infill and redevelopment projects which limit
sprawl and utilize existing public resources such as roads and utilities. The Avenir
project is neither urban infill nor redevelopment and is proposing its own zoning district
that is specific to the Avenir site alone.
The MXD designation embodies the City’s position on mixed use developments, their
appropriate location and land use mix, and has provided clear instructions on how to
achieve those goals. The Avenir project is not consistent with the regulations established
in the MXD and therefore, has opted to create its own development rules specific only to
the project site. If a project of the scale and magnitude of Avenir were appropriate for
this proposed location, and was in keeping with the City’s position on mixed use
development, the MXD regulations would suffice.
II. PPCD-13-07-000005 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING
Planning and Zoning
1. The overall Master Plan is not consistent with the Development Standards as presented in
the applications. The Master Plan is not designed in concentric rings; does not promote
walk-ability; does not provide inter-connectivity between neighborhoods; and, does not
emphasize pedestrian amenities. Please address how the New Urbanism design form has
been applied and implemented in the proposed Master Plan.
2. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated how the design of the overall Master
Plan for the project will promote a harmonious transition to, and be interconnect with, the
existing development along the edge of the community.
3. The Development Standards created for Avenir are not consistent with basic “New
Urbanism Block Structure” design criteria. The block structure, as proposed, requires
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 4 of 16
Page 4 of 16
neighborhood blocks to be 1,800 linear feet (3 blocks long). In addition, blocks may
exceed this, up to 3,000 linear feet (5 blocks long). The only required break is a mid-
block pedestrian access of at least 8 feet in width. This does not promote pedestrian
walk-ability or discourage dependence on automobiles.
4. The proposed Development Standards provide that up to 35% of the total non-residential
square footage may be substituted for residential units at a ratio of 500 sf: 1 unit. That
would yield an additional 1,190 residential units. In addition, accessory units are listed
which have not been addressed. The conversion is problematic in that it provides for an
unclear threshold of maximum allowable residential units, which impacts the LOS review
and traffic concurrency review process.
5. The flow way system for storm water retention has been designed to encapsulate pods of
development, thereby creating barriers to pedestrian walk-ability which promotes a
dependency on automobile transportation. This is not consistent with the Development
Standards that were submitted as part of the application.
6. Both of the Town Center Districts are not easily accessible to the residential
neighborhoods, especially in the Northern Village. This is not consistent with the
Development Standards as submitted with the application.
7. The Western Northlake Boulevard Corridor Land Use Study (WNCLUS) examined the
existing and future land use designations along this corridor and made recommendations
for this area. On Map 9 of the WNCLUS a commercial node was envisioned to be
centrally located within the area along PGA Boulevard. The proposed Avenir community
is not consistent with the Western Northlake Corridor Land Use Study recommendations.
8. Pursuant to Section 78-155(d) Phased development, The Applicant has not provided a
phasing plan, and has not identified what major infrastructure will be constructed with the
initial construction phase as well as subsequent phases.
9. The Master Plan tabular data does meet the requirements of Section 78-155 with all land
uses, open space, schools, civic areas etc. included with acreage and percentages. Please
revise the tabular data to provide the minimum information.
10. Pursuant to Section 78-155 PCD Planned Community Development Overlay District
(PCD) Open Space Requirements: The Master Plan does not meet the requirements.
Revise the Preliminary Master Plan Tabular Data to provide for the acreage and
percentages of the community designated for each use shown on the color representation
of the Master Plan.
11. In addition to the aforementioned components of required open space in a PCD, an open
space determination shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 78-314
Minimum landscape requirements for residential developments contained in the LDRs.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 5 of 16
Page 5 of 16
12. The Master Plan as submitted does not provide for any civic sites to accommodate
necessary public services such as EMS/Fire Rescue, Police, Libraries, Parks, and other
civic uses.
13. Pursuant to Section 78-261. Art in Public Places requirements. The applicant will be
subject to the AIPP requirements in the LDRs.
14. Please provide a statement as to whether the Agricultural Uses currently approved for this
site will continue during development.
15. The North County Airport facility was approved as a DRI on February 6, 1990 which
includes an Inter-local Agreement between the City, and Palm Beach County, as recorded
in Palm Beach County Resolution No. R-90-294. The City agreed in that Inter-local that
no residential development or other development inconsistent with the proposed airport
facility shall be permitted inside the projected contour areas for the runways. The
proposed plan appears inconsistent with the Inter-local Agreement. See attached letter
from the Palm Beach International Airport dated August 21, 2013.
16. The Master Plan illustrates a large water retention area along the southern boundary of
the Northern Village. Please clarify that this will not be an attractant to birds and wildlife
that may negatively impact the operations of the North County Airport.
17. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated how the provision of basic services will
be provided. Please submit letters of capacity from all service providers to demonstrate
compliance with adopted Levels of Service standards.
18. The School District of Palm Beach County has reviewed the concurrency application
submitted to them and based on their analysis, the School District Planning and Real
Estate staff will be requesting an elementary school site, and funding for classroom
additions at possibly the elementary, middle and high schools at the time of development
order approval. Please provide documentation that the proposed school sites on the
Master Plan meet the location requirements for school sites. See attached letters from the
School District of Palm Beach County dated August 8, 2013 and August 30, 2013.
19. The development standards do not provide incentives to buildings that incorporate “green
building” concepts and/or designs or green building site planning concepts.
20. The applicant shall clarify who will be controlling, operating and maintaining the
common elements of the PCD such as the spine roads, the perimeter landscape buffers,
major drainage elements, etc. Declarations will need to be provided and reviewed by the
City attorney.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 6 of 16
Page 6 of 16
Forestry Comments:
21. Preliminary Master Plan
Under Site Area Breakdown, please provide:
a. Required upland preserve acreage
b. Provided upland preserve acreage
c. Wetland acreage
d. Lake acreage
e. PCD buffer acreage
f. Road right-of-way (ROW) buffer acreage
g. Required PCD open space acreage
h. Provided PCD open space acreage
i. Open space required per district by acreage or percentage
22. Please explain how a drainage flow way is established within a preserve or provide a
conceptual drainage plan.
23. Please indicate location of the archaeologically significant site(s).
24. Please provide the locations and widths of the PCD buffers and ROW buffers.
25. Please label Grapeview Boulevard on the western perimeter.
26. Please label the intended use (road and structures) shown within the preserve/flow way
located on the western side of the central preserve area.
27. Additional Plans Required
a. Please provide PCD overall landscape buffer plans. A typical 200’ long over-
head view and cross-section of each buffer is acceptable.
b. Please provide upland and wetland restoration plans and the locations where
restoration will be used. A typical 100’ by 100’ section is acceptable.
c. Please provide a lake littoral planting plan and conceptual location criteria.
28. Development Standards
a. Forestry has a concern that the proposed “Development Standards” are more
urban in design than any development the City has east of the current Urban
Growth Boundary.
b. The proposed “Sub-district Site Plan” review process described on page 1.2 has
no landscape standards. On pages 5.1 through 5.8, the “Landscape Principals and
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 7 of 16
Page 7 of 16
Objectives” have no landscape standards. Furthermore, on page 5.8, language
states that “for more specific design parameters, please see the individual district
landscape sections”, but on pages 3.1 through 3.8, the “District Standards” have
no landscape standards. Please explain or provide open space and landscaping
standards.
c. The proposed “Building and Lot Site Plan” requires compliance with the City’s
Article 5, Landscape Standards, however the applicant is proposing 0’ front and
side setbacks for retail buildings, mixed-use buildings, office buildings, live-work
townhouses, and townhouses. Please provide a narrative that lists all the
landscape waivers that one would normally request if the applicant was not
proposing “Development Standards”.
d. On pages 4.6 through 4.26, please provide road cross-sections that include utility
locations and landscaping plant pallet for all street types.
Parks, Recreation, Golf, & Public Facilities:
29. Consider the proximity of the residential units to the course. Issues arise between
homeowners and golfers frequently. Consider this in the design phase.
30. Consider consolidation of park land to achieve the scale necessary for organized sport
leagues and centralized recreation opportunities.
31. The preliminary master plan indicates that there are 115 acres of park land. Is the 75
acres of golf included in that calculation?
32. Is any of the park land indicated on the master plan allocated in gated communities?
33. The National Park and Recreation Association Three Pillars campaign promotes that
“local parks and recreation are the gateways to healthy, prosperous and connected
communities.” Conservation, Health and Wellness, and Social Equity are at the core of
the program. The developer is encouraged to embrace these concepts while developing
plans for the community.
34. Given the location of the project, the developer is encouraged to incorporate the natural
landscape into a comprehensive environmental accessible park program.
35. To maximize public private partnerships, consider integrating the universities
sport/aquatic/wellness amenities into the community as the health and wellness provider.
36. Based upon current trends, the park land provided for organized youth sport does not
seem to meet the needs of a 7,500 dwelling unit community.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 8 of 16
Page 8 of 16
37. Opportunity exists for recreational opportunities to be developed that would complement
the western location of the site. As an example, consider equestrian amenities, hiking,
and birding.
38. Consider some form of indoor and outdoor community gathering space.
Building Comments:
39. Please provide a phasing plan with a construction plan and schedule.
40. Please provide a detailed construction zone and dedicated roads for construction traffic.
41. Provide water structure locations for all canals.
42. The current density shows a formula that could add up to more units then they have
currently listed.
43. Clarify the road on the west side (near park) does not encroach on neighboring property
and what is the use for the road.
44. How will they get water service and has the correct authority approved this?
45. Will there be gated communities? If so they will require “click to enter” for emergency
vehicles to enter?
46. The developer is encouraged to host discussions with the Building Division early in the
process to establish a plan/approach for the construction review and inspection services
that will be necessary for a development of this magnitude.
Fire-Rescue Department Comments:
47. Based on the proposal submitted, will the project have areas of limited or controlled
access? If there is to be limited or controlled access areas, approved access controlled
devices shall be required by Fire-Rescue.
48. Fire-Rescue is requiring the submittal of the proposed fire hydrant layout for this project.
Police Department Comments:
49. This memo contains a series of comments and considerations for the Avenir project
proposed for the undeveloped area on the north side of Northlake Boulevard west of the
Beeline Highway on the property formerly known as the Vavrus Ranch. The comments
and considerations involve a combination of crime prevention and public safety points
involving Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 9 of 16
Page 9 of 16
50. Along with the listed CPTED comments, the Police Department is concerned about the
increased volume of traffic at the southern portion of the project where Northlake
Boulevard intersects and the northern portion of the project where Beeline Highway
intersects. Internal thoroughfares are also a cause for concern due to anticipated volume
and lack of proposed traffic calming features.
51. The following are recommendations and or conditions of approval which would be
applied at the appropriate time within the permit process:
a. Recommend a series of construction roads for ‘construction traffic only’ to avoid
conflict with businesses, schools and residents who have already moved in.
b. Phasing plans should include traffic management plan for construction vehicles
and deliveries.
c. Phasing plan would include approved construction site security plans to include
plans to secure construction areas from occupied areas.
d. Proper signage for each construction site for public safety response.
e. School construction should adhere to the Jennifer Lunsford Act if applicable.
f. Schools should be moved further from the center of the proposed communities and
closer to the edge. This reduces the opportunity for juvenile related criminal
activity throughout the neighborhoods.
g. Lighting shall be in accordance with City Municipal Code which recommends
IESNA standards.
h. Lighting considerations should include LED lighting or the equivalent at the time
of build-out.
i. Traffic calming within the community shall be implemented in the form of
approved methods, i.e. landscaped medians, cobblestone crossings, properly
shaped roundabouts, chicanes, etc.
j. Consider a design of the roadways for outside the Northern Village which will
allow passage for emergency vehicles and or convenience in the event the lanes
are blocked by an unplanned event.
52. The aforementioned will require detailed conditions of approval within each submitted
permit:
Structures, landscaping, lighting and the overall design will require CPTED conditions of
approval and inspections to monitor the series of target hardening strategies of CPTED
which include: Natural Surveillance, Access Control, Territoriality, Defensible Space,
Formal Organized Surveillance and Activity Program Support. These crime prevention
standards will be derived from the State of Florida Attorney General’s Office/ Crime
Prevention Training Institute, Florida State Statutes, City of Palm Beach Gardens
Municipal Code and the Florida Building Code.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 10 of 16
Page 10 of 16
Engineering Comments:
53. Drainage Statement - The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage statement
addressing all aspects of the project. The applicant shall include all impacts of the
project, including but not limited to, adjacent properties in which storm water will flow
through the project, type of structural controls, impacts to the adjacent water catchment
area and City owned golf course. Please include flow diagrams with both offsite and
onsite drainage basins, preliminary calculations and potential quantity of flow.
54. The applicant shall identify the agency that will be responsible for operating and
maintaining the Surface water management system and wetlands.
55. The applicant shall identify the agency that will be responsible for operating and
maintaining the roadway system within the project.
56. The applicant shall describe how the proposed golf course will interact with the City’s
existing golf course.
57. Development Standards - The applicant shall identify any and all differences between the
proposed design standards and Chapter 78 of the City’s Land Development Regulations
as it relates to street lighting, on-street and off-street parking, dead-end streets and cul-de-
sacs, storm water management areas and conveyance systems, lake maintenance tracks,
road surfacing and other improvements.
Geographic Information System Comments:
58. The Applicant shall submit a request for a residential Address Plan. The Addressing
Committee will not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has
received approval. There is a $200 fee to process the desired residential address plan.
59. The Applicant shall submit a request for a subdivision name. The Addressing Committee
will not approve any request until the site plan for the associated petition has received
approval. There is a $100 fee to process the desired name.
60. On Sheet # PMP.1: under the site Data, the total site area is listed as 4,770 Acres which is
inconsistent with the site area total of 4,760 acres and the recorded survey value of
4762.9 acres. Please clarify the difference.
61. There is a situs address of 12001 Northlake Boulevard in place for the proposed Avenir
Site.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 11 of 16
Page 11 of 16
Streets, Storm, & General Public Works:
62. There is concern that the impact of this community will stretch the current public works
resources to an inefficient point. Planning for the support system of equipment, facilities
and labor need to be considered.
63. Consider “leed” and “green” technologies especially for exterior lighting.
64. Consider providing fixed bus shelters for Palm Tran and/or School Buses.
65. How will the infrastructure maintenance responsibilities be allocated?
66. It is encouraged to utilize sustainable methods and materials in the planning and
construction of the infrastructure to reduce future maintenance costs.
67. The developer is encouraged to pursue green methods of solid waste collection and is
encouraged to plan for the utilization of the most efficient techniques to reduce solid
waste collection. An example would be placing solar panel operated solid waste
compactors for collection, or fixed single stream recycle collection bins in publicly
accessed areas (parks, pathways, town center, lakes, etc.).
68. Emergency management elements need to be considered. Issues such as harden shelters,
operations, and emergency response should be part of the community planning.
Seacoast Utility Authority Comments:
69. Once a conceptual site plan is approved, the applicant will need to submit a master utility
plan for approval.
Traffic Comments, Pinder-Troutman Comments:
70. The submitted concurrency analysis was done without an accepted methodology. A
methodology has now been established. The applicant shall be required to submit a
revised study in accordance with the agreed upon methodology.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Comments:
Master Plan and Development Standards
• Northern Village
The Northern Village should be removed from the plan. It is located directly west of the
North Palm Beach County General Aviation Airport will likely be impacted by its
existing and future functions. Additionally, this area could provide an important link
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 12 of 16
Page 12 of 16
between wetland conservation areas located to the east and west. This area could provide
an important role in water storage.
• Natural Resources Impacts
The Preserve area identified in the center of the site is well-positioned to maximize
wetland connectivity to adjacent properties. The location and form of the Southern
Villages utilizes the land best suited for development on the property. However, several
adjustments are recommended:
o The main north-south connection between the Beeline Highway and Northlake
should be located close to the airport property line to avoid bisecting wetland
areas.
o The development proposed in the southwest portion of the site (identified as
Workplace, Town Center, University, and Neighborhood Urban Districts on the
Districts Map) impacts high quality wetland and upland resources and should be
removed.
• Non-Residential Program
The proposed program suggests the project will include 1,700,000 square feet of non-
residential uses. This measure does not include the proposed hotel, university, or
schools, which are not assigned square footage as an intensity measure. The Market
Study suggests approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and restaurant can be
supported within the trade area, which is reflected in the program. No data is submitted
to demonstrate a demand for the proposed 1,200,000 square feet of professional office
and medical office uses. The Comprehensive Economic Development Impacts of Avenir
document provides information on the economic benefits of the project if the proposed
program is constructed and occupied, but does not analyze market demand for the
program.
It is important to consider the true market conditions for the proposed office uses. This
is especially important if a provision within the development standards allowing a
conversion of non-residential uses to additional housing units is approved. At the
proposed conversion, up to 35% (595,000 square feet) of non residential uses could be
exchanged to housing units at rate of 500 square feet per unit. This exchange could allow
1,190 additional units, increasing the total number of units from 7,600 to 8,790. If this
exchange was maximized, over 1 million square feet of non-residential uses would
remain available in the project. If 1.7 million square feet is not supportable, this increase
in residences is a likely outcome.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 13 of 16
Page 13 of 16
• Town Centers & Workplace Areas
The master plan proposes two nodes comprised mainly of Town Centers and Workplace
areas along Northlake Boulevard. The recommendation is to revise the plan to develop
only one location as follows:
o The plan should utilize the eastern Town Center/Workplace area. Almost a mile
of frontage along Northlake Boulevard ensures visibility and access to the
commercial uses. This location is more compatible with existing uses than the
western location. However, the proposed Workplace District impacts relatively
high quality wetlands, which should be mitigated by fully restoring the area
northeast of Southern Villages.
o The proposed development in the southwest corner of the site (identified as
Workplace, Town Center, University, and Neighborhood Urban Districts on the
Districts Map) should be removed from the plan for three reasons:
high quality wetland and upland resources are impacted;
Workplace District is located directly across Grapevine Blvd. from
existing low density residences;
There are questions about the viability of the office and university
program.
o The City’s current Mixed Use future land use requires a minimum percentage of
residential uses of 40%. The proposed Town center areas should meet this mix.
o Medical Arts district, if feasible, should be incorporated into the eastern Town
Center node and should meet the City’s Bioscience Mixed Use standard of
providing at least 5% in residential uses.
• University
Information regarding the feasibility of a university in this location is not provided. In
order best serve a student population, a higher education use should typically be located
close to main transit and transportation routes, as well as within areas with high
population concentrations. More accessible and appropriate locations are available in the
eastern areas of the city and neighboring municipalities.
Development Standards Review
• Article I – Administration
The illustrations and narrative of the project suggest the scale and program of Avenir can
be accommodated compatibly in the area due to its design quality and innovative form.
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 14 of 16
Page 14 of 16
The regulations proposed within Article III of the Development Standards are the
instructions that would ensure this intended outcome. Within the Approval Process
Section of the Administration Article, an important caveat to the Avenir District
Standards is included:
With written permission from the Town Founders, an applicant for either a Sub-district
Site Plan, or a Building & Lot Site Plan, may be permitted to use the requirements of
specific existing zoning designations as an alternative to the requirements of Article III,
District Standards and Article VI, Building Type Standards. All other standards in this
document shall still apply. This document supersedes any conflicts. Those existing zones
to be used as alternatives are specified by the Avenir district. Those are:
1. Town Center District (TC): CG-1, and CG-2
2. Workplace District (W): PO, CG-1, CG-2, CR, and M-1
3. Neighborhood Urban District (NU): RL-2, RL-3, RM, RH, and CN
4. Neighborhood General District (NG): RL-1, RL-2, RL-3, RM, and RH
5. Neighborhood District, (NE) (Southern Town): RE, RL-1, and RL-2
6. Neighborhood Edge District (NE) (Northern Village): RR20, RR10; RE, and RL-1
Since Article III contains the regulations related to building form, open space, and
parking quantity and location, substituting those instructions for the standard zoning code
could significantly alter the built form on the site. The City’s standard zoning
instructions are not the form-based regulations proposed for Avenir (i.e., City standards
utilize only minimum front setbacks, rather than both minimum and maximum). For
example, under this option, Intensive Commercial District (CG-2) may be substituted for
Town Center District (TC) or Workplace District (W).
CG-2 includes Auto Service Stations, which include gasoline sales. As currently drafted,
at the Town Founder’s approval, a gas station could be located within the TC or W
districts without utilizing the thoughtful design requirements for gas stations on page 3.11
in Article III that ensure compatibility with the intended pedestrian-friendly environment
and other uses.
Careful review of the potential built form under the City’s standard districts is
recommended prior to approval of the Development Standards. Also, approval from the
City of Palm Beach Gardens should also be required to utilize a substitute district.
• Article III - District Assignments and Permitted Density/Intensity (page 17)
The development standards state:
“Due to the long-term nature of the future build-out of the neighborhoods, a
district(s) location may be relocated or density/ intensity redesignated based on
future market conditions at the approval of the Town Founders or their designee,
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 15 of 16
Page 15 of 16
provided the total maximum approved site density/intensity remains the same as
the prior approved limits from the City of Palm Beach Gardens. In addition, up to
35% of the total permitted non-residential square footage may be substituted for
residential units at a ratio of 500 sf : 1 unit.”
As previously discussed, at the proposed conversion, up to 35% (595,000 square feet) of
nonresidential uses could be exchanged to housing units at rate of 500 square feet per
unit. This exchange could allow 1,190 additional units, increasing the total number of
units from 7,600 to 8,790.
• Article III – Accessory Units
The Development Standards allow accessory units in all districts with differing rules.
Within the single-family neighborhoods, accessory units are described as “guest quarters”
and limited in size. It is not clear whether these structures are true units or only satellite
bedroom suites, without kitchen facilities.
Within the Town Center, Neighborhood Center and Workplace Districts, upper story
units up to 1,200 square feet are considered accessory, and therefore, not counted toward
the maximum number of units in the program. This strategy intends to coax developers
to include residential components as a bonus. If the developers truly believe in the
superior quality of the environment they propose to build at Avenir, these mixed use
buildings will be desirable. This bonus strategy could result in many primary residences,
further increasing the number of units on the site beyond the proposed 7,600 (or 8,790
depending upon program conversion).
It is recommended that upper story units within the Town Center, Neighborhood Center
and Workplace districts should be considered as full units against the ultimate program.
Also, a study should be conducted to estimate the potential number of units possible
within the Town Center, Neighborhood Center and Workplace districts and determine a
pool of units for the program available in these areas.
• Article IV - Block Structure
The standards state that the maximum perimeter for neighborhood blocks shall be 1800
linear feet. Blocks may exceed this limit up to 3000 linear feet if the block is located in
the Town Center, Workplace, or Education Districts as the larger block size is intended to
allow space for mid-block parking areas.
The general standard of 1800 linear feet for the block perimeter is consistent with the
historical fabric of the more walkable areas in Palm Beach County. For example:
September 19, 2013
LDRA-13-07-000048
PPCD-13-07-000005
DRC Memorandum
Page 16 of 16
Page 16 of 16
Town of Palm Beach: 660 x 260 = 1840 linear feet
Grandview Heights Historic District: 620 x 260 = 1800 linear feet
However, the maximum perimeter of 3,000 square feet is large. Other local examples of
blocks that accommodate parking structures demonstrate that 2,300 linear feet should be
adequate to accommodate mid-block parking.
CityPlace (Macy’s block w/ garage): 2240 linear feet
Legacy Place: 1900 linear feet
Abacoa (TC Dr. & Chancellor w/garage): 1360 linear feet
It is recommended that the language be amended to provide a maximum block perimeter
of 2,200 feet and state that is to be used, “expressly to accommodate mid-block parking
solutions,” rather than “intended to allow space…” to clarify it is a regulatory standard.
• Connectivity
A fine grain network with a hierarchy of street types is demonstrated on both the master
plan and the Street Atlas. The Development Standards include flexibility for future build
out to allow the plan to adjust the design over time. In order to ensure some connectivity
is maintained, the standards require the number of connections among neighborhoods be
maintained. Other requirements, specifically those standards that require connections
among different neighborhoods are more suggestive than regulatory.
For example, stub outs “are encouraged” and “should connect” does not guarantee these
interconnections will occur as new neighborhoods are built. Generally, using standards
like “appropriate consideration of connectivity” can be difficult to measure.
It is recommended that the language be amended to state: “When a Sub-district Site Plan,
consisting of one or more neighborhoods, is submitted for approval, the street network
contained in those neighborhoods should shall connect to stub-outs of adjacent
neighborhoods or other rights-of-way that form the edge of the neighborhood(s) and shall
accomplish at least the number of connections provided on the Street Atlas.”
Additional conditions are forthcoming pending re-submittal.
City staff reserves the right to make additional comments throughout the review process.
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Aries Page, GIS Division
Bruce Gregg, Seacoast Utility Authority
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester
Tara Marchisello, Police Department
David DeRita, Fire Department
Scott Danielski, Community Services Department
Todd Engle, Engineering Department
Michael Landrum, CH2M Environmental Consultant
Andrea Troutman, Pinder-Troutman Traffic Consultant
Via PBG Email:
Patty Snider, City Clerk
Ray Ellis, City Clerk
Donna Kramer, City Clerk
David Reyes, Director of Parks and Public Facilities
Bahareh Wolfs, Development Compliance Manager
Jack Doughney, Deputy City Manager
Charlotte Presensky, Unified Services Director
Mike Morrow, Operations Director
Mike Kelly, Athletics Director
Max Lohman, City Attorney
Angela Brown, Operations Manager
Via Email:
Alan Boaz, Florida Power and Light
Gerald Gawaldo, Palm Beach County
Ken Roundtree, North Palm Beach Improvement District
Rick Kania, Waste Management
Booker T. Washington, Florida Power and Light
Brian Kane, Florida Power and Light
Daniel Turbet, Florida Power and Light
DATE: July 18, 2013
FROM: Kristin Tetsworth, Principal Planner
ktetsworth@pbgfl.com
561-799-4219 (direct line)
561-799-4281 (fax)
SUBJECT: AVENIR (fka Vavrus) – Requesting approval of 5 Development Applications listed
below for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, Land Development Regulation Text Amendment, Concurrency, and
Planned Community Development and Re-Zoning.
2
Please provide your comments on the subject DRC petition to the Planning and Zoning Department by
August 23, 2013. Please forward your comments to our office (Attn: Kristin Tetsworth
ktetsworth@pbgfl.com). Additional copies of the application are available in the Planning and Zoning
Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CONC-13-07-000024 CONCURRENCY APPLICATION
CPTA-13-07-000025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
CPMA-13-07-000016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
LDRA-13-07-000048 LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
PPCD-13-07-000005 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING
The proposed development contains approximately 4,760 acres for a mixed use community to be
known as Avenir. The Applicant is requesting approval of 5 Development Applications including a
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Land Development
Regulation Text Amendment, Concurrency, and Planned Community Development with Re-Zoning.
Thank you for your ongoing cooperation and assistance. Please contact my office at 799-4219 should
you have any questions or comments, and I can be reached via email at ktetsworth@pbgfl.com
Attachment: Complete Project Submittal by the applicant received by the City on June 28, 2013
cc: Natalie M. Crowley, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning