General Concerns Held By PGA Coalition:

1. Enforcement of the Comprehensive Plan
2. Enforcement of the LDR
3. Enforcement of the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay District
4. Enforcement of the developer’s consultants and employees use of due diligence in the preparation of submitted documents to PBG in providing full and accurate disclosure regarding the Borland project.
5. Recognition that Gardens of Woodbury, Garden Lakes and Shady Lakes are residential developments that abut the Borland Center property.
6. Recognition that PGA National Golf Estates is located within 500 ft of the proposed Borland site.

Specific Concerns:

1. The site of the proposed development is designated "Residential Mixed Use" per the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR.  The Borland project as submitted requires a site designation of "Institutional NON-Residential Mixed Use" and thus is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR.
2. The regional theater of the Borland Center is a prohibited use on a Residential Mixed Use site according to the LDR.  As defined by the LDR, theaters are listed as "Cultural, Entertainment and Recreational", but not "Institutional" as requested on the Borland application.  Therefore, the application does not comply with the LDR.
3. The intent of a mixed use development is to buffer surrounding properties by placing lower intensity usages near existing abutting residential developments while locating the more intense uses away from them.  The proposed regional theater, the most intensive use element of the Borland project, is sited along the property line but has only 200 feet of the adjacent 2600-foot property line even partially buffered from the existing abutting residential properties.  This is in direct conflict to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR.
4. The existing wetlands on this property in their current location provide a buffer for the existing residential community to the west.  In the Borland Mitigation Statement submitted to the City on January 28, only upland preservation and mitigation were discussed; the wetlands were not mentioned.  In fact, the submitted Borland drawings depict parking in the general area of the existing wetlands.  This is in direct conflict to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR.
5. The existing uplands and wetlands, if maintained at their current locations on this development, could be used as open space.
6. Shady Lakes Drive has an existing 100-foot wide right-of-way.  The Borland project owns 50 feet of this right-of-way.  The LDR states that roadway right-of-way shall not be used for open space.  This project, as submitted, uses this roadway right-of-way for open space in direct conflict to the LDR.
7. Much of the open space designated in the Borland plan is disallowed by the LDR.
8. The regional theater in the Borland Center is to be 87 ft in height.  This building height is in direct conflict to the LDR and this would be incompatible with the existing abutting residential communities.
9. Adjacent residential buildings surrounding this site rise two stories or less.  The project’s proposed 4-story buildings are incompatible with the existing abutting residential developments.  Even though the PBG Code allows 4-story residential buildings, when the surrounding properties are comprised of single and two story buildings, 4-story buildings are incompatible with a 2-story neighborhood, and an 87-foot or 8-story building is unthinkable.
10. The existing abutting residential properties are Gardens of Woodbury, Garden Lakes and Shady Lakes.  The existing dwelling units per acre of these developments are 6.49 du/ac, 6.64 du/ac and 2.48 du/ac respectively (per developer’s waiver request, dated January 28, 2002).  Although two of the properties are zoned RM, their densities actually correspond to those of an RL-3 zoning.  The Borland development plan calls for 12 du/ac, which is overbearing and incompatible with the surrounding residential communities.
11. As proposed, the regional theater has 3000 seats and is designated "Institutional." The LDR prohibits traffic egress or ingress between an "institutional" facility and a local roadway such as Gardens Lakes Blvd. or Garden Square Blvd.  Further, the projected volume of traffic would be a nuisance and safety hazard to the existing surrounding residential area.
12. Truck traffic using Shady Lakes Drive to service this PUD would be a danger to existing pedestrian and residential traffic, and incompatible with the surrounding residential communities.
13. There are no turn/deceleration lanes proposed at the entry point to this PUD at Shady Lakes Drive.  This lane is crucial at Shady Lakes Drive due to the increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic that this PUD shall create.  A lack of this lane would be a danger to pedestrian and existing residential traffic, and incompatible with the surrounding residential communities.
14. Grass parking as proposed on this site is in direct conflict with the LDR.
 15. The developer has not proposed any type of permanent and effective noise barrier to shield the existing abutting residential communities. This omission would impose a nuisance on the existing abutting residential communities.
16.  Event management control officers (i.e.; City of Palm beach Gardens Police) likely will use sound emitting devices (i.e.; whistles, bullhorns, etc) to control traffic from events at the Borland Center (projected at 299 per year by the Borland traffic study).  This would be in direct conflict with LDR noise restrictions and would impose an unreasonable burden on the existing surrounding residential area and the families living there.
17. The Residential element of this PUD consists of rental units; therefore the residents would not have a sense of ownership in their development.  If this development fails and the residents do not have a commitment, the deterioration of the development could detract from the entire City.
 18. The developer’s presentations of the Borland project have not informed the public that their major highways, PGA Boulevard and Military Trail, will have traffic stoppages for each of the almost 300 events anticipated each year.  While the developers will pay for traffic management, there will be no compensation of the taxpaying public for their inconvenience and lost time.  While lauding the potential benefits of the project, the developer should be made to outline its costs to the public as well.
19.  The proposed aboveground parking facility provides an approximately equal number of spaces for the residential and business/commercial components of the project.  The residential spaces are needed, as the number of residential parking spaces in the on-ground parking is inadequate to accommodate the project design’s number of residents.  The developer has applied for a waiver to make all spaces in the aboveground facility the narrower width allowed for business/commercial spaces.  The LDR prohibits the use of narrower-than-code spaces for residential parking.
20. Concerns on shared parking plan:
    1).  LDR Parking Requirements Not Met By the Project:
        a).  Dwelling unit gets 2 spaces per DU,  Borland used 1.75/DU in shared parking plan.  This is in direct    conflict to the LDR.
        b).  Grocery store gets 5 spaces/100 sq ft, Borland used 4 spaces/1000 sq ft.  and lumped this item into "general retail".  This is in direct conflict to the LDR that requires line item disclosure of uses that are in excess of 25% of total land category use.
        c).  Restaurant gets 1 space/150 sq ft plus 1 space/250 sq ft for employees, this would equate to approx 10.6 spaces/1000 sq ft.  Borland used 4 spaces/1000 sq ft.  (Employee parking alone is 4 spaces/1000. This project lumped all retail uses into "general retail" which has a 4 space/1000 ft requirement but some included uses would require a much higher parking space allotment.  This is in direct conflict to the LDR.
        d). Size of uses listed in shared parking calculation does not agree with the submitted traffic report.  The banquet hall is shown as 500 seats on the traffic plan and 300 seats on shared parking calculation.
        e). Available seating was used to calculate the required parking spaces for the Borland Center, Small Theater and Banquet hall (i.e.; 3800 or 4000 seats) divided by 3 people per/car because the standard provided in the ITE Manual did not apply; however, employee parking was not considered.  The Kravis Center experiences a need for employees somewhere between 20% and 30% of the maximum seating capacity depending on the requirements of the event and performing group (i.e.; band, orchestra, size of performing company, in season, valet service, opening night, pre-performance party, etc.).  Using the above data, the provided shared parking calculation missed a very large group of employees (750 or more) who, mainly, would drive themselves to work.
The developer is requesting a waiver from the LDR minimum required number of parking spaces, and justifies it as follows:  "The reduction in parking provides additional opportunities for expanded open space, pedestrian connections, landscape area and public gathering places".  Our concern is that the developer stay within the LDR’s requirements by modifying the size of the revenue generating facilities rather than by reducing required parking spaces (including those for employees).
21. The LDR, section 78-221(b)(4) (waivers) requires that the city shall not grant any waiver which permits the establishment of a use not authorized by this division (78-221).  Within this division, 78-221(d)(1)b.1. states that permitted uses shall consist of specialty retail, corporate office complexes, campus industrial parks, community-serving public facilities and residential uses.  The Borland project proposes to construct and operate a 3000 seat theater, which by its very design and magnitude, relegates it as a public facility serving the region, not a public facility serving the community.  Clearly, the city must deny any waiver related to this issue because of this obvious use difference and the direct conflict to the LDR.
22. The LDR, section  78-221(d)(1)e. (nonresidential development) requires that the nonresidential development portion of the project shall blend into the landscape, deferring to open spaces, existing natural features and vegetation.  Clearly, the 3000 seat theater does not blend into the landscape, nor does it defer to open spaces, existing natural features and vegetation, rather, the proposed 87- foot tall theater dominates every surrounding residential building that borders its property and eliminates existing natural features and vegetation. This is in direct conflict to the LDR.
23. The LDR, section 78-221(f)(1)b. (infrastructure design) requires the project to integrate existing trees, understory vegetation, and the natural character of the land.  Note that it does not say "where possible", it says, "integrate".  The project does not integrate any existing trees, nor does it integrate any understory vegetation or any natural character of the land, rather, it eliminates them. This is in direct conflict to the LDR.
24. The LDR, section 78-221(g)(10) (buffer areas between uses) requires the project to provide buffers between uses.  There are no buffers between uses.  This is in direct conflict to the LDR.
25. The LDR, section 78-221(h)(1) (building design guidelines, general design) require that the project shall be designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment, both man-made and natural, and that the buildings of the project shall provide a positive impact on the surrounding environment.  Clearly, the design and placement of a 3000 seat, 87-foot tall theater is not compatible with the surrounding 1 or 2-story residential environment.  The proposed project imposes a negative impact on the surrounding environment. This is in direct conflict to the LDR.
26. The statement of ownership submitted for this project lists Palm Beach Community Church and Ram Development Company as the owners.   There is, and has been, a sign listing part of this site as "FOR SALE", contract pending.  If the affidavit of ownership is current, why is the mentioned sign still in place?
27. The build out date in the traffic report for the Borland project was submitted as the year 2003; and conditional concurrency for this project was granted based on that date.  Clearly, the 2003 build out date is not going to be met.  The traffic study needs to be rewritten to reflect a realistic build out date, and the conditional concurrency should be rescinded, as it is not based on a realistic expectation of traffic volumes.  Many other new projects due in 2004 and 2005 will contribute traffic on PGA Blvd, Military Trail and Alt A1A; and the Borland project will have to share with them the traffic space available at that time.
28. Issue regarding Residential element

Per submitted drawing;
256 du, shared parking currently listed at 217 du
Parking garage 1.34 acres
50% of parking garage is included for total residential acreage
685 parking spaces in parking garage
100% of water retention pond/surrounding land is in total residential acreage

        1. The developer has submitted drawings showing ground parking and 50% of parking garage required to satisfy the parking requirements for the residential element of this project.  In the shared parking plan, developer listed the required residential parking spaces as 380 spaces.  The developer needs to revise the acreage for the residential element to reflect an appropriate % of use of the parking garage or change the shared parking calculation to reflect 50% usage (342 spaces) in addition to the ground parking.
        2. The developer has included 100% of water retention pond/surrounding land is in total residential acreage.  This water element extends the entire length of the site.  The need for this feature was created by the density/intensity of this total project and not just the residential element of this project.  It is inappropriate to use a feature to generate additional acreage into a land use element if that feature does not provide 100% direct benefit from that feature or necessitated 100% of the need for that feature.
 

All of the above concerns center on the potential degradation of the quality of life of the surrounding existing residential communities and of all users of PGA Boulevard.  The Comprehensive Plan and LDR were designed to prevent degradation of the surrounding community while encouraging reasonable and compatible development; our concerns are the same.
 

Use your browser "Back Button" to return to the previous page