Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 121801i CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING December 18, 2001 MINUTES The Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Dennis Solomon at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Charles Wu announced this special meeting had been called to hear the Christ Fellowship petition; however, because of an error in the advertising on the applicant.'s part, that item could not be heard tonight, and would be scheduled on the January 8 regular meeting agenda. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll. Present Ahcant Dennis Solomon, Chairman Alternate David Kendall Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Chairman Pro Tern Barry Present Joel Channing John Glidden Dick Ansay Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, and City Attorney Len Rubin. Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest; Mr. Volonte was seated in his place. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition DRIIPUD- 01 -01: Regional Center NOPC_for Parcels 27.09 and 27.13 Urban Design Studio, agent for Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., is requesting a Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) and an amendment to the Planned Community District (PCD) for the Regional Center DRI located at the northeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate A]A to allow certain land -use conversions, roadway reconfiguration, an increase in the total commercial square footage permitted by the development order of the Regional Center DRI, and the establishment of a conversion matrix. (6- 42S -43E) t Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report and explained that the petitioner had changed their application to conform to the policy directions given to them by City Council, and these new items had not been heard by the Commission when they approved this petition. The City Council had requested three items: that the applicant eliminate residential uses west of the lake and south of Gardens Parkway; that the applicant limit the number of commercial /retail uses within the DRI along PGA Boulevard; and that the applicant maintain, where possible, office/business mix within the DRI. Mr. Benothman explained that affected areas within the DRI were the neighborhood parcel, parcels 27.05 and 27.06, and the applicant's desire to relocate "B" to "C ". Mr. Benothman reviewed the current Exhibit H Plan and the proposed changes. Kenneth Blair, Catalfumo Construction and Development, explained there had not been a residential component in the Menin project but it was allowed there and it was moved to Centex. Mr. Blair confirmed that all traffic generation was within allowed limits. Mr. Blair explained that previously letters were entered into the record written by the Forbes people who owned the mall and owners of 3801 Building and the applicant had met with both of them and was working with them. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Rick Warner stated he was present on behalf of 3801 Investors, Ltd., and confirmed they had met with the petitioner. Mr. Warner questioned why fix something that was not broken; that the investors of 3801 PGA Boulevard believed that the regional center was growing the right way and did not believe the addition of an entertainment center was the right direction or consistent with the original intent of the DRI which was to provide high - quality jobs to the residents of Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Warner expressed his opinion there was plenty of retail and office buildings would provide higher quality employment, and commented that the 3801 investors did not believe the direction should be changed. Mr. Warner commented on traffic and the neighborhood center which was now being integrated into the retail center and would attract people from outside the development which was not the original intent, and requested internal traffic issues be studied. Mr. Warner requested this petition not be approved Mr. Warner explained the 3801 investors were a partnership made up of several owners and their building was fully leased. Linda Monroe stated she was representing only herself. Ms. Monroe questioned if the original intent of the DRI was being met. Ms. Monroe read from the application for development approval when the project was originally approved, which had been incorporated into the original development order, page 27 -1: "A park of 20 acres will be provided on the site and be open to the general public. This park is intended to be a central . core area park and will include water and land area for recreational purposes. The park is conceived to be a passive public recreation area. The facility will include pathways, walkways and jogging trails, benches, landscaping and lighting." On page 12 -3: "At the heart of the center is proposed a mayor park 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 with lake, paths, seating, and lawn areas. This park is the focal point of a continuous system of open space which permeates the residential neighborhood north of the site, a network of separate pathways combined with sidewalks to encourage walking and biking throughout the center." Ms. Monroe asked the Commissioners to think about what a 20 -acre major park was to them and commented she had raised this question to the representatives of the developers and to the City Council, who had asked staff to look into that but she had not yet received a response as to the location of the 20 acres with the exception that the property owner representative indicated small portions which she did not believe could be considered a major park. Ms. Monroe indicated she wanted not less than 20 acres of major park as was the original intent. Ms. Monroe expressed her opinion that throughout the buildout of the DRI purchasers of parcels within the DRI should be able to rely on the surrounding uses remaining. Ms. Monroe indicated that she personally would not object to a theater complex and meeting place for the public using retail space, and it was the magnitude of the proposed conversion from office /research to retail that bothered her. Ms. Monroe also commented regarding Legacy Place that they had approval and the ability to go forward and doing conversions at this time was not a mandate and she hated to create more intense competition for them at this time. There were no further comments from the public. Mr. Tarr asked for staff comments on the park mentioned by Ms. Monroe. Mr. Benothman explained the 13.5 acre park was included in the 20 acre park, leaving 6.5 acres - -and the applicant in this NOPC proposed to add three acres around the lake as a system of trails open for public use, as well as 30,000 square feet of pavilion for public use to be included in the Menin project. Mr. Tarr noted that 30,000 s.f. would be approximately =;/4 acre. Mr. Benothman clarified there would also be 1.5 acres of passive open space on the art /cultural use parcel for passive public use and that staff's position was the 20 -acre park requirement was satisfied by this plan. Mr. Tarr asked if it was not staff's position that there should be 20 acres of hard land for a park, to which Mr. Benothman responded the requirement was for land and water to make up the 20 acres. Mr. Tarr commented Mr. Warner seemed to have a problem with traffic by conversion of the neighborhood parcel and asked for staff's position. Mr. Benothman explained that the present location of the neighborhood commercial would not generate external trips; but now the applicant proposed to move a parcel to the Menin project and Mr. Warner's group and others believed that by moving the parcel there would no longer be residential in the original location and therefore should not have a 100% internalization rate. Staff had also taken this position initially, but had subsequently placed restrictions on the neighborhood parcel on certain types of uses so as not to be an extension of the theater complex, that these would be two separate projects for the purposes of trip generation. Mr. Ansay requested and received clarification that parcel 2 would be designated as office /hotel /community use and would be combined with the remaining acreage of parcel 7, so would be non - residential as requested by City Council. Mr. Kunkle questioned if table 3 on Exhibit A in the packet was the conversion matrix. Mr. Benothman explained table 1 was the proposed conversion matrix and was used to achieve the square footage in table 2 which was actually what the applicant proposed to have as minimum and maximum of each approved use within the DRI. Mr. Benothman • explained that table 3 was included as a part of the trip generation analysis using the maximum scenario for their conversion, and even if the applicant used the proposed maximum conversion they were still within the proposed minimum and maximum square footage in table 2. Mr. Kunkle commented table 3 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 went to an upper limit of 4.6 million square feet but the conversion matrix went to 5.3 million total square feet and asked what the maximum potential was that was requested. Mr. Benothman explained it was in Exhibit H. table 2: 5,305,000+ square feet. Following further discussion of this matter, Mr. Benothman explained that it was not possible that the applicant would reach the proposed maximum buildable square footage; however minimums and maximums must be established, and table 3 was only one proposed scenario. Mr. Kunkle asked for the applicant's response to whether this was a long -term beneficial change or short -term opportunistic, and indicated he would hate to see the second and subsequent tenants not be the caliber of the first tenants. Mr. Blair responded that currently in Palm Beach Gardens, with the processes required of developers, he believed there was no need to worry about something not being up to the stature of the existing buildings, that there was a lot of office space in the area, and there was no additional retail in the area, so this request would equalize the mix more, which he believed would be a long -term benefit to the City. Mr. Channing commented an entertainment center had been discussed a long time ago, and that two years ago this same property owner had asked for conversion from office to 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial in the southeast quadrant of the mall and asked if this proposal included the Menin project, which Mr. Benothman confirmed. Mr. Blair described the entertainment center which had recently been before the Commission, indicating that it had involved 100,000 s.f . of office, new 200,000 s.f. retail (included in this request), 25,000 s.f. retail relocated from . the 27.05 parcel, plus the 26,000 of neighborhood commercial, making a total of 251,000 s.f. retail and 100,000 s.f. of office use. Mr. Benothman indicated the state ADA application called for a 20 acre park including both land and water, and included 13.5 acres of lake plus 3 acres around the lake, plus 30,000 s.f. of pavilion, plus 1.5 acres in this proposed project. Mr. Channing asked if there was enough room left for the Class A market in this area, to which Mr. Blair responded by indicating the parcels marked as office use. Mr. Channing indicated he liked what was going on around the lake and would have liked to see that throughout the entire area which he believed was the original intent; he was not happy with the park space and the way it was integrated into the project; and stated he did not want anyone to refer to a sidewalk as connectivity. Mr. Kunkle asked where the 20 -acre park was originally, which Mr. Benothman pointed out, and clarified that it had always included the 13.5 acre lake. Chair Solomon received clarification from Mr. Benothman that nothing in this plan was inconsistent with the City's vision plan. Linda Monroe asked where the 20 acres was previous to this proposal and requested confirmation that prior to this proposal there were 6 -7 acres plus the lake plus this proposal would add 3 additional acres, bringing the total to 23 acres. Mr. Blair suggested Dodi Glas of Urban Design Studio address that issue. Ms. Glas described the locations of the park space, addressed Ms. Monroe's comments, and explained that the total came to 24 -1/2 acres. Mr. Solomon confirmed with Ms. Glas that parcel 7 would add 1 -1/2 acres. Mr. Channing commented that before going further he would like to see a master plan showing the whole mall project at a large scale showing all the parks in order to understand what the public would experience. Chair Solomon commented he thought a rather full explanation of the proposal had been made and the public comments had been excellent. Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that the proposed uses would not be problematic and the property owner's request was not unreasonable and was consistent with the original plan. Chair Solomon commented that • something started 20 years ago would obviously be subject to changes in market conditions, political and socioeconomic conditions and changes nearby and off site, and he did not believe the Commission El • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 should micro - manage. Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that the applicant was trying to meet market conditions in a reasonable way, that there would be a reasonable number of jobs of all kinds, that the public wanted a certain amount of entertainment, and some of the uses called for some jobs not at a high - paying scale but people needed those types of jobs also, and the City still had a lot of control over the individual parcels and how they would ultimately be used as well as their architecture, the site and landscape planning, etc. Chair Solomon stated he was in favor of moving the project forward. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tarr commented the park issue was cloudy to him and he agreed with Mr. Channing's request to show the park areas on a master plan. Mr. Tarr stated he believed the fundamental issue for the City was this was a trade -off of 200,000 s.f. of office for 200,000 s.f. of entertainment —if that was within the scope of the City's plan that was fine, but if it was not —based on Ms. Monroe's comments —then maybe that was not the proper direction. Mr. Tarr commented office /research use would bring companies and jobs and therefore people to live in this area as opposed to entertainment which would bring people from all over just for the night or to go out to eat. Mr. Tarr commented there were two issues not totally resolved —(1) the park issue which would be a great amenity to the City and if there was a way to get • more land than the 30,000 s.f., which the Commission could not see because they had nothing to look at; and (2) he could live with the entertainment assuming that was what the City wanted. Mr. Ansay favored the plan, and expressed his opinion that taking the lead in this type of entertainment would only enhance bringing in high quality companies because companies relocated in areas where their employees wanted to live. Mr. Ansay stated he understood the parks totaled 24 -1/2 acres which were now conceptual, and would have to receive'approvals, so he felt comfortable the City would get what was important as far as overall parks, therefore he would support this plan. Mr. Present favored entertainment to keep the mall area alive and provide a balance with Legacy Place. Mr. Present indicated he believed the developer would do the right thing, that the Commission would get another chance to see how the park areas were developed, and although it would be nice to see it he was inclined to move it along and get another shot at it at City Council level and as the parcels were developed. Mr. Channing made an impassioned plea, clarified he liked the entertainment center, liked what he had seen so far, but this was the last chance for the Commission to really had a say in the master planning of this project, and if the rest turned out to be hum -drum it would be a result of what was done tonight. Mr. Channing stated he wanted the opportunity to really study the master plan to make sure the public element of this was really well done in order to uniformly end up with a great asset. Mr. Channing commented it would not hurt the applicant to allow time to study this further. Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that the proposed plan was a net gain, that the Menin project was very exciting and unique, and approving the concept did not mean it would happen. Chair Solomon commented that time is money and he would hate to hold up the applicant for something that did not trouble him personally. Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council conditional approval of Petition • DRI/PCD -00 -01 in accordance with staff recommendations with the following modifications as proposed by staff and illustrated to the Commission in reference to the approval: 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 1. Reconfiguration of the alignment of Victoria Gardens Drive. 2. Relocating the two -acre Neighborhood Commercial parcel (Parcel 6) west of the water management tract, east of Victoria Gardens Drive, and south of Gardens Parkway. 3. Redesignating the current Neighborhood Commercial parcel as a two -acre Multifamily Residential (an increase in residential acreage but not in number of units). 4. Eliminating residential uses on Parcel 4 and redesignating the parcel for Retail /Office /Hotel, per City Council direction. 5. Removing the already approved 25,000 square feet of retail on Parcel 27.05 and allocating it to Parcels 27.12 and 27.14 (Menin project), per City Council direction. 6. Reconfiguring Parcel 7 as a 1.5 -acre parcel for passive open space connected to the water management tract in addition to providing a 3 -acre area for active open space with improved pedestrian walks and public gathering areas primarily around the lake. This includes street furniture and covered public space. The applicant has also agreed to provide a 30,000- square -foot pavilion for public use to be located west of the lake. Park furniture, landscaping, and maintenance of the pavilion will also be provided by the applicant, per City Council direction. 7. Designating the remaining acreage of Parcel 7 for Office /Hotel /Community Use and combining it with Parcel 2 immediately to the south. 8. Increasing the square footage of retail commercial uses by 200,000 square feet. 9. Limiting the conversion matrix to those parcels so identified on Map H. The conversion of retail commercial has also been limited to only Parcels 27.12 and 27.12 (Menin project). 10. Amending Condition number 1 of the Development Order of the Regional Center DRI to establish and adopt a conversion matrix containing conversion rates for the approved uses. This would allow the conversion of one use to another without having to initiate an NOPC, provided the various regional and state agencies are notified of such conversion. The applicant has included residential uses into the matrix to provide for its possible conversion into retail and or office. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr stated he would not vote in favor until the park issue was cleared up, and questioned if the motion should include the • issue of the state. Mr. Benothman commented in the staff report staff recommended conditional approval provided no objections were raised by state or regional agencies. Mr. Tarr asked if that 6 �J • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 meant if there was any issue it would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Benothman indicated it meant the issue would have to be satisfied by the applicant but it would be up to the Growth Management Director whether it would be brought to the Commission. Mr. Benothman explained once an objection was satisfied the state would send a letter stating it was no longer objecting; and that it was before the Commission now because the Growth Management Director felt the Commission should review the changes they had not reviewed before. Motion carried 4 -3, with Mr. Volonte, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Tarr against the motion. Mr. Tarr stated he was not against the entertainment center but wanted better clarification of the park and the benefits to the City. Mr. Volonte stated he agreed with Mr. Channing and wanted to see what would happen with the park issue. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wu asked the members to mark their calendars for the regular March 11 meeting to be moved to Monday because of the election. Chair Solomon complimented staff and Mr. Benothman for handling a very complex presentation. 7 • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes December 18, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held January 8, 2001. APPROVED: 'tf!)y Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Alternate David Kendall Betty Laur, ISecretary for the Meeting Dpc 19 01 03:42p Lisa 561 - 684 -6890 p•5 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME -FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE en, B. Jon Planning and Zoning MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A B Huntley Circle UNIr OF: XX CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY Palm COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED December 18, 2001 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE XX WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the lawwhen faced with a measure in which you have a conflict will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. 9 ,,`'f Dec 19 01 03:42p Lisa 5G1- GB4 -GB90 DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on Deop, t t v , 200 : 10 A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or XXX inured to the special gain of Menin Development Corporation, by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of ny interest in thel measure is a follows: Regional Mall NOPC 12 Date Filed Si nature p.7 NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. L: WDMIN%PERSONALUGHN1P8Z1NOPCCON Page 2