HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 112701•
•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
November 27, 2001
MINUTES
The Regular 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 indicated there was no report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Tarr requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney on how important it was that the minutes be
reasonably accurate, stating that some comments he had made during the discussion of the Christ
Fellowship presentation had been omitted or were incomplete; or if the minutes were to be a generality
of what went on. City Attorney Rubin responded that the minutes should be accurate and the
substantative points raised should be reflected; however, they were meant as a summary and not to be
verbatim. Mr. Tarr requested that the minutes be changed to include on page six his question to the City
Attorney regarding whether there was legal authority or a legal obligation for the Commission to grant
any of the requested deletions, and further to add the specific items which he had mentioned that he had
a problem defining. On page nine, Mr. Tarr indicated where the minutes mentioned he wanted
something clarified and referred to a member versus non member, he believed it had been more than
that -- affiliate versus non affiliate. The, last item Mr. Tarr requested be changed was a typographical error
on page nine which needed correction from "more" to "move ". Mr. Tarr indicated he would not want
to approve the minutes as submitted, that the other members might want to check to see if all of the
points they had made were listed, and inquired as to the procedure to go back to the audio to rewrite the
minutes. Growth Management Director Wu commented that the Recording Secretary could look at the
areas mentioned by Mr. Tarr and make those corrections and then these minutes could be revisited at
the next meeting. Consensus was indicated by the Commission.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll.
Present
Dennis Solomon, Chairman
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Joel Channing
Absent
Chairman Pro Tern Barry Present
Alternate Ernest Volonte
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
John Glidden
Dick Ansay
Steven Tarr
Alternate David Kendall
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Steve Cramer, Senior
Planner Edward Tombari, Planner Kara Irwin, and City Attorney Len Rubin.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition PUD- 01 -07: Batt School
A request by Mark Bradford of Cotleur- Hearing, agent for Robert A. Wilcox, for a rezoning from
Planned Development Area (PDA) to an underlying zoning of Public /Institutional (P 11) with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay for a 9.42 -acre site. The applicant is proposing to
construct a 50.203 square foot private school with gymnasium, football field, and track. The subject
site is generally located on the north side of Hood Road, west of the Interstate 95 overpass and east
of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike overpass. (35-4]S-42E)
. Growth Management Director indicated this was a followup to the September 25 workshop and that the
applicant had made the changes suggested by the Commission. Planner Kara Irwin presented the staff
report and answered questions from the Commission.
Mark Bradford of Cotleur- Hearing, agent for the applicant, introduced the project team. Mr. Bradford
reviewed the project and reported that the applicant had accomplished each of the four suggestions made
at the workshop: (1) to provide a vehicular roundabout so that people traveling north on the west access
aisle did not have to travel all the way to the rear of the site into the service court to turn around; (2) to
provide a vehicular connection from the front parking area on the west side to the west side north -south
access aisle; (3) to provide additional architecture on the east and west elevations; and (4) to provide a
traffic management study.
Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Glidden questioned whether 50' radius on the turnaround was adequate and suggested removing a
parking space or two to make it larger. Mr. Glidden asked what had been done regarding the suggestion
to place a fence around the lake, to which Mr. Bradford responded he believed the Commission's
preference was not to have a fence but to address the concern; the applicant's response had been to
provide a hedge along the north side of the lake where children would be dropped off, and there was no
fence along the front of the property. Mr. Glidden indicated his preference had been not to have a fence
. around the lake. Mr. Tarr requested a depiction of the view from the road, and indicated it appeared
there was a lack of canopy trees. Mr. Bradford explained that they could not place canopy trees within
2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
the maintenance easements around the lakes, which included the entrance to the project. Mr. Bradford
explained that at the entrance they had placed some low trees and a lot of color variations in the ground
plantings to make a nice entrance. Mr. Tarr commented he would like staff's position on placing some
kind of fence or barrier around a lake on a school site, or along the road. Planner Irwin explained that
the only barrier staff had been concerned about was at the corners of the dry detention area and as far
as fencing around the dry detention area they had not had a concern. Mr. Tarr commented that the area
was shown on the plans as a lake. Mr. Bradford explained that the original plan had indicated a dry
detention area but it was actually a lake, and there was a 6" high curb adjacent to the side which would
help prevent anyone from driving into the lake. Mr. Tarr stated he would like staff's position on having
two lakes on a school site. Planner Irwin asked if his concern was safety, to which Mr. Tarr responded
yes. Planner Irwin explained that had not come up during staff review, that safety had been discussed
regarding vehicles, that this was a private school and students would be dropped off and picked up, and
the lakes were not deep. Chair Solomon requested striping be shown on the next plan revision for the
turnaround. Chair Solomon asked if there was a deceleration lane for traffic westbound on Hood Road
turning into the site, to which Mr. Bradford responded one would be installed, that the right -of -way
would have to be dedicated so there would be some adjustment to the site, and it was verified that was
one of the conditions of approval. Mr. Bradford verified that one of the dead end parking areas near the
entry circle on the west side had been eliminated, and that downspouts were architecturally treated. Mr.
•
Glidden commented he had just received an e-mail from his office that indicated a 50' turnaround was
fine, but if the applicant could push it out a little without losing any parking spaces that would be fine.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -01 -07 with the
following conditions and waivers as recommended by staff:
Conditions of Approval
1. An exclusive right turn lane with minimum storage of 295 feet plus a fifty foot (50') taper
shall be provided along Hood Road at the eastern project driveway. This right turn lane
shall extend to the western project driveway.
2. Metal halide lighting in required.
3. Prior to review by City Council, a traffic management plan that reduces the waiting time
required for pick -up and drop -off shall be submitted for review by the Planning & Zoning
Division.
4. All classroom doors shall have windows 3" x 18" glass portals with wire mesh as
reinforcement.
5. There shall be no nighttime outdoor athletic activities on the site.
6. The total capacity for this site at completion shall be limited to a maximum of 225
Elementary - Middle School students and the 105 High School students. The total number
of students shall not exceed 330 as indicated in the traffic impact analysis. An annual
• report indicating the number of students shall be submitted to the City on or before
December 31" of each year, until the buildout date occurs. Any increase of enrollment
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
beyond the specified numbers contained herein shall require additional concurrency
review by the City and Palm Beach County.
7. Prior to issuance of the certification of completion for the athletic fields or certificate of
occupancy, whichever comes first, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install and
maintain in perpetuity, the Parkway System, including landscaping, irrigation, and related
amenities.
8. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all exotic vegetation shall be removed
from the site.
9. Prior to review by City Council, the City shall review and approve site details for littoral
zones, including their location, slopes and vegetation. As a requirement, at least 50% of
the shoreline shall be planted with wetland trees and /or aquatic plants at ten square feet
of littoral zone for every one linear foot of shoreline. There shall be a minimum of one tree
for every 80 square feet and plants shall be on three -foot centers, minimum. A sum total
of area(s) constituting no less than 15% nor more than 25% of the total shoreline distance
shall be constructed as littoral shelf at the ratio of 10 square feet of shelf per running foot
of shoreline.
10. The buildout date of this project is December 31, 2003 as referenced in their August 13,
• 2001 Concurrency Traffic Impact Analysis. For the purposes of this condition, the project
shall be considered built out if the student enrollment has reached the level as indicated in
the traffic impact analysis.
Waivers
1. Section 78- 319(a) — Minimum Landscape Buffer, to allow for a minimum 5 -foot rear
landscape buffer. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of 8 feet.
2. Section 116(a)(3)(a), Minimum Dimension and Total Area of Preservation Areas, to allow
for a minimum 78 -foot width The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of
100 feet in width.
3. Section 78- 154(8)(7) — Minimum Development Area, to allow a maximum development area
of 9.42 acres. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of 50 acres.
4. Section 78- 344(1), Parking Stall and Bay Dimensions, to allow for 9' x 18.5' standard
parking stalls. The Land Development Regulations require 10' x 18.5' parking stall
dimensions.
Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition PUD -01 -01 —Alta Pines (Parcel 4.07b)
A request by Codeur & Hearing, agent for Wood Partners, for a planned unit development approval
to construct 264 multifamily dwelling units. The 24.68 -acre site is generally located 1/z mile north of
the intersection of Military Trail and Hood Road, on the west side of Military Trail. (36 -41 S -42E)
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
Growth Management Director Charles Wu introduced the project and explained that although the
Commission had not previously seen this petition, it was on the agenda for public hearing and
recommendation to City Council to try to accommodate the applicant's schedule. Planner Kara Irwin
presented the project.
Donaldson Hearing, agent for the petitioner, introduced their project team. Mr. Hearing described the
experience of the developer, Wood Partners; pointed out the location of the project, provided project
information, and indicated they had gone beyond the requirement of preservation, project features of
preserves, gated entrance, and two amenities buildings. Mr. Hearing presented the master plan and
described the proposed architecture.
Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Glidden commented he had met with the client some time ago and made instructive comments, and
his concerns had been satisfied. Mr. Kunkle stressed the need for a long -term management plan for the
upland preserve areas and indicated he would like a condition of approval that would require a plan
acceptable to City Forester Mark Hendrickson. Mr. Hearing advised that had been submitted and
approved by the City's consultant and by the City Forester, and would welcome a condition of approval.
Mr. Kunkle expressed some concern to keep supplemental irrigation out of wetland areas, and asked
if sidewalks that connected internal to external areas were gated, to which Mr. Hearing responded they
were not gated. Mr. Charming commented this was a very good site plan. Chair Solomon inquired
about the number of external detached garages, which Mr. Hearing pointed out. Chair Solomon inquired
as to the anticipated rental range, which Mr. Hearing explained was high $800's to $1400, at
approximately $1 per square foot. The color schemes were described, and the actual material samples
were reviewed. Mr. Hearing advised that photometric plans had been submitted and met the City's
standards, and indicated that there would be lighting fixtures on the attached garages. Chair Solomon
requested addition of a minor architectural detail such as possibly a keystone in the center of the garages
that were a part of the buildings. Mr. Charming verified with Mr. Hearing that the mullion window
details would be as shown. Mr. Hearing indicated that the light fixtures and the shed roofs would also
help the architecture on the garages. Other items discussed were that construction would be done in one
phase with the linkage road at the beginning, that substantial amounts of preserve areas were located
along the perimeter roadways which took the place of berms, and the only berm would be building the
sidewalk to the elevation required by South Florida Water Management District Unit 2 criteria. Mr.
Charming was satisfied with using preserve areas in place of berms. The obligation of planting and
maintaining the median on Central Boulevard had been assumed by Benjamin School and San Michele;
and on Military would be coordinated by WCI with all the developers to utilize the design used by The
Isles. Mechanical equipment would be screened. Mr. Ansay commented he liked the project. Mr. Tarr
• indicated he was happy with the green space and questioned whether in the upland areas along Central
Boulevard and Military Trail there were any trees. Mr. Hearing responded those areas were heavily
5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
vegetated with pines and palmettos, and confirmed that the view from Military Trail would be woods.
Mr. Tarr questioned the method of garbage disposal, to which Mr. Hearing responded there would be
one trash compactor for the project, described its location, and the locations to pull off cars to drop trash.
Mr. Tarr indicated he supported this project.
Mr. Charming made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -01 -01 with
the following conditions and waivers:
Conditions of Approval
1. No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be issued until a
revised Surface Water Management System for Unit 2 has received final approval from the
City of Palm Beach Gardens and all other applicable governments and /or agencies,
including a schedule for implementing the plan and a definitive commitment for funding
the required improvements.
2. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the applicant shall:
a) Submit a revised Photometric Plan that meets the requirements of LDR Section 95.
Specifically, the applicant shall modify the plans to show no less than 1.0 foot -
candles in the vehicle use areas (i.e. drive aisles).
b) Locate all proposed easements (utility and drainage) as well as the existing
easements, on the plans. No vertical construction or plantings shall be permitted
within the drainage easements. The applicant shall indicate the proposed
locations of those easements on the plans.
c) Provide additional information regarding the interface of the proposed parking
with the preserves. The preserves are to be at natural grade. The parking lots need
to be filled to the 5 -year, 1 -day storm. Therefore, it appears that there will be a
change in grade at this interface. The applicant shall indicate the change in
elevation, slope, preserve drainage (if needed) etc., at these locations.
d) Show access to the lake maintenance tracts from the public road right -of -way. The
applicant needs to show the access to the lake maintenance tract on the plat.
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall:
a) Provide a letter of authorization from the appropriate utility owners allowing the
applicant to pave, landscape and place stormwater management features within
their respective utility easements.
4. The applicant shall indicate pedestrian access easements for the proposed sidewalks along
Central Boulevard and Military Trail. This easement needs to be shown on the plat for the
project. The plat shall be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded in the public
records of Palm Beach County prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this
project.
5. The applicant shall provide all of the necessary instruments, information and legal
. documentation to satisfy the Legal Positive Outfall requirement within the City of Palm
Beach Gardens within 45 days of the effective date of the Development Order for parcel
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
Waivers
1. Section 116(a)(3)(a), Minimum Dimension and Total Area of Preservation Areas, to allow
. for a minimum 52 -foot width. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of
100 feet in width.
7
4.07b.
6.
The plats for parcels 4.07b and the dedications for the drainage easements and roadway
easements shall be submitted and approved by the City, and placed in the official record
books of Palm Beach County prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The plats
shall show the recorded right -of -way and drainage easements and will need to be replatted
once the final drainage easement on Parcel 4.07a is confirmed.
7.
Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall remove all
exotics from the upland preserve area.
8.
No more than 1,423 new external daily trips (203 residential units) may be permitted until
contract has been let for the four (4) laning of Hood Road from Military Trail to Alternate
AlA.
9.
No more than 1,806 new external daily trips (258 residential units) may be permitted until
contract has been let for six (6) laning of Alternate AIA from Hood Road to PGA
Boulevard.
10.
No more than 1,806 new external daily trips (258 residential units) may be permitted until
contract has been let for the I -95 / Alternate AlA Flyover and interchange.
11.
No more than 1,806 new external daily trips (258 residential units) may be permitted until
contract has been let for reconfiguration of the Victoria Gardens Drive / PGA Boulevard
intersection to provide three (3) northbound left -turn lanes and one (1) northbound right -
turn lane. Should FDOT not approve this change in lane configuration, then one (1)
additional left turn lane should be provided at this location.
12.
An exclusive northbound left -turn lane is required along Military trail at the intersection
with the City Road.
13.
Right -turn and left -turn ingress are required along the City Road at the project access
driveway.
14.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit and before issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall conduct PM peak hour turning movement counts annually
during the peak season at the intersection of Hood Road and Military Trail. At such time
as the southbound left turn volume exceeds 300 vehicles per hour, an additional left -turn
lane (dual left -turn lanes) should be provided at this location by the applicant, successor,
or assigns prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
15.
The applicant shall conduct a traffic signal warrant study during peak season for the
signalization of the intersection of the proposed east -west roadway and Military Trail prior
to the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy. Should the warrant indicate a need for
a signal, the applicant, successor, or assigns shall be required to provide the full cost of the
signal, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
Waivers
1. Section 116(a)(3)(a), Minimum Dimension and Total Area of Preservation Areas, to allow
. for a minimum 52 -foot width. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum of
100 feet in width.
7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
2. Section 78- 289(2), Residential Identification Sign, to allow for a fourteen (14) square foot
building identification sign. The Land Development Regulations allow a maximum of four
square feet in area.
3. Section 78 -285, Permitted Signs for Residential Development, to allow an entry sign with
two sign faces. The Land Development Regulations allow a maximum of one (1) sign face
per development.
Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. Chair Solomon passed the gavel to Mr. Kunkle and requested
amendment of the motion to include the following conditions:
16. A long -term management plan for upland and wetland preserve areas shall be provided
which is acceptable to the City Forester.
17. Coach lamp fixtures shall be provided on the garages that are attached to residential
buildings.
Mr. Channing accepted the amendment to the motion; Mr. Ansay seconded the amended motion.
Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition PUD -00 -04 — Union Square Phase I Renovations (aka Tanglewood Apartments Planned Unit
Development)
A request by Al Malefatto, Esq., on behalf of CSC Tanglewood, Ltd., for a phased PUD Amendment
to allow for the renovation of 542 apartment units, additional landscaping, and entry reconfiguration
as part of phase I of the PUD amendment. The applicant shall be required to request additional
amendments to the PUD as part of phase 2 renovations. Tanglewood Apartments are generally
located on the east side of Military Trail, south of the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and
Military Trail (12- 42S -42E)
Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest, leaving six members seated on the Board. Growth
Management Director reported staff had tried to work with the applicant to resolve issues. Senior
Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report, and advised that the applicant wanted to do the
project in two phases; however, staff felt there was too much risk to the City not to address important
issues up front, that the $500,000 surety bond to complete the project proposed by the applicant would
not be sufficient, and that staff was therefore recommending denial of this petition. Chair Solomon
questioned how many tower units had been added; Mr. Tombari responded there would be two
additional tower units. Mr. Channing questioned the rationale for doing the project in phases, leaving
a lot of problems for later. Mr. Tombari indicated that initially the applicant wanted to start repairs
immediately and had come to staff to see if they could do this by building permit, but were advised by
staff that any changes to the exterior elevations would require site plan review by the Planning & Zoning
Commission, and in this case because it was a PUD would require a PUD amendment. Mr. Channing
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
responded the applicant had had a year to figure it out. Mr. Kunkle commented trees intended to be
preserved were counted as credits in the landscaping requirements and recommended a formula so that
vegetation that did not survive would be replaced with like or equal kind. Mr. Tombari indicated that
could be addressed by a condition of approval. Chair Solomon commented if the Commission wanted
to move this petition forward, there were no conditions of approval. Mr. Tombari explained staff had
not worked on conditions of approval, but they could be added tonight based on the Commission's
decision. Mr. Tombari indicated there were no conditions because of the recommendation for denial.
Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that even if denial was recommended by staff that proposed
conditions of approval were needed, and that this issue could be discussed under New Business. Mr.
Tombari explained the timing for the proposed phasing. Mr. Wu explained there was a problem
imposing a deadline for a project the City could not bond. Chair Solomon verified with Mr. Tombari that
staff had discussed with the agent their position that a $500,000 surety bond was not sufficient. Mr.
Ansay commented that waiver 5 indicated there were numerous reasons to grant the waiver, and
questioned those reasons. Mr. Tombari responded this would create a legal non - conformity because a
wall could not be constructed as required because of physical constraints. Mr. Ansay questioned why
the project should be done in phases. Chair Solomon requested Mr. Tombari give thought to possible
conditions during the applicant's presentation, in case they were needed.
Al Malefatto, Esquire, agent for the petitioner, introduced those present on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.
Frank Marooney Landscape Architect, and William Caldwell of Oliver Glidden Partners. Mr. Malefatto
indicated the petitioner felt by phasing, renovations could be started as quickly as possible to change the
appearance to look like the attractive architectural drawings prepared by OG &P. Mr. Malefatto
explained that in phase one the buildings would be completely renovated inside and outside, re -do
landscaping to be completely consistent with code, and to install a right -turn lane. Mr. Malefatto
explained that one of the conditions of approval to which the applicant was prepared to commit was that
within 120 days of City Council approval, or 50% of building permits (271 units) whichever came first,
submittals would be made for phase two items: signage, lighting, drainage to the extent it was necessary
since based on the engineering statement the applicant felt drainage was not an issue, and parking.
When repairs were begun, the owner would start increasing revenue, and the $500,000 bond would be
posted to guarantee that phase two items would come in on time, and the applicant was willing to
commit to a build -out date. Mr. Malefatto indicated he believed both phases could be completed within
18 months. Mr. Malefatto indicated landscaping along Military Trail had been upgraded since the
workshop meeting. Mr. Malefatto explained that since tile roofs would cost $850,000 more than asphalt,
the applicant would be using asphalt but was presenting some very attractive asphalt tile samples, and
noted that in Palm Beach adjacent to The Breakers, asphalt roofing was being used that was very
attractive. Mr. Malefatto indicated that the petitioners real motivation was to move on with the project
as quickly as possible, and he did not understand staff's concern with the phasing and the alternative was
that the project would look like it did currently, the owner would maintain it to current code, and
applicant was making roof repairs now.
• Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon
D
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Ansay noted it was very difficult to overrule staff when they recommended denial, and he did not
understand why the petitioner could not provide all of the data so everything could be finalized and
approved at one time, even if only part of it would be done at one time. Mr. Malefatto indicated the
phase two items would probably take another 6 to 8 months, that it had been six months to get to this
point, and the applicant wanted to get started to change the appearance of the project. Mr. Tarr verified
with Mr. Malefatto that the access from The Admiralty would remain. Mr. Tarr stated in his opinion
this was the biggest eyesore in the City and something should have been done three years ago. Mr. Tarr
commented almost anything would be better than what was being done now, because roofs could be
repaired but the fact was that the project would continue to deteriorate. Mr. Malefatto commented he
did not believe the hands of the Commission were tied, since they could make a recommendation to the
City Council to approve the petition with conditions and conditions of approval could be worked out
with staff. Mr. Malefatto commented that looking at the staff report from the workshop he believed most
of the waivers were recommended for approval at that time, but due to the fact the applicant wanted to
stay with two phases he believed staff had said it could not be done. Mr. Tarr asked the worst case
scenario if the project was phased as the applicant requested, to which Mr. Tombari responded that if
something happened after only two or three buildings were renovated, then there would be two or three
ibuildings that looked different, the parking areas would still need to be renovated, and the trash bins and
everything else would be like they were now, which would create even more of an eyesore. Mr. Tarr
asked if the developer and the lender wouldn't have enough interest in the project not to abandon the
project after completion of only 2 -3 buildings, which he saw could happen from a planning standpoint
but not from an investment standpoint, and if it did then the property would be foreclosed and another
developer would come in. Mr. Tarr asked how much effort had been made on both sides since the
workshop to resolve these issues. Mr. Malefatto indicated there was a meeting with staff but the owner
was adamant on the two phase approach, that they believed that with approval of the project they would
be able to get construction financing and it only made sense to complete the project after financing was
in place, and also the lender would require completion. Mr. Malefatto explained that the petitioner's
motivation was to move quickly to start enhancing the property. Mr. Wu reported an alternative had
been offered to the applicant which was to approve the entire project but to do the construction in phases,
and with the majority of financing put into construction, tangible results could be seen based on the
phased completed project as it progressed; however, staff felt it would be a disservice to the City to
review this project piecemeal, because part or all of a building might have to be lost, and it would tie the
City's hands if the buildings were renovated before all of the site concerns were considered. Mr. Wu
commented that even though staff had given positive feedback to the applicant at the conclusion of the
workshop, they had added a caveat that they would like answers to the phase two questions. City
Attorney Rubin noted there were certain criteria for waivers and staff's position was that without
information on the whole project it was not known if there was sufficient justification for the waivers.
The City Attorney advised the Commission could move forward if they desired and could come up with
ftheir own conditions or identify areas for staff to work on, and that staff's position of denial did not bar
them from approval. Mr. Tarr indicated he would be more comfortable with staff writing the conditions.
10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
Mr. Tarr asked if staff was against two phases if the applicant submitted a plan for phase one and a plan
for phase two, or if the project was so piecemeal it was really ten phases. Mr. Wu responded that staff
did not know what phase two would include, and therefore did not know if a $500,000 surety bond
would be sufficient. Mr. Wu indicated that for staff to be comfortable the whole project would need to
be presented and approved but the renovation could be piecemeal. Mr. Tarr asked if a larger bond would
work for staff, and suggested possibly the applicant and staff working out a percentage such as 85% of
the plan, but he supported staff at this point because he did not feel qualified to come up with conditions
and relied on staff to do that. Mr. Malefatto indicated the applicant had worked out some conditions of
approval and he felt the applicant could work with staff on the conditions, but he felt the key difference
was the fact that the applicant was not prepared to make a phase two submittal today. Mr. Malefatto
explained the applicant had looked at privatization of the road, which would take a lot of engineering
and the applicant was not even sure it was feasible, which would be a major phase two item and would
take months. Mr. Tarr commented it appeared that not enough communication or effort had been put
forth on the part of the applicant over recent months to sit down and iron out the issues one by one, but
it seemed it had been the applicant's intent to push forward to City Council, and he would have a hard
time approving that. Mr. Channing asked how long the present owner had owned this property, to which
Mr. Malefatto responded approximately ten years. Mr. Channing commented the property had been
cited for deficiencies for several years, and there were written requirements for all projects and their
phase two items were required of all other projects up front, and there had been plenty of time for the
applicant to conform to the submittal process. Mr. Channing indicated he had a problem putting up a
bond for unspecified and undesigned things, which could create a legal situation because if the project
was not completed then what was the City to do with the bond, and he did not want to see the City in
a lawsuit over things that were not clear. Mr. Channing commented the petitioner had decided an asphalt
roof was acceptable, but if the City allowed it in this project it should be allowed for every other rental
project in the City, which he was not inclined to do. Mr. Channing commented the petitioner had
indicated they had changed the parking along Military Trail to provide additional landscaping but he did
not see it on the plans. Frank Marooney, Landscape Architect, responded that the applicant had
submitted the changes and showed the new plan. Mr. Channing commented he believed that was the
least of the problems and he concurred with staff. Mr. Malefatto commented regarding why the
petitioner believed they should have two phases that this was not a new project; and regarding the roof
tiles -- asphalt tiles were permitted under City code, and the landscaping had been addressed. Mr.
Kunkle commented he supported staff, and commented that he was familiar with the Palm Beach project
using asphalt shingles and he had no problem with asphalt roofing. Chair Solomon commented that staff
made a recommendation of denial to the Commission, but the Commission was to use independent
judgment whether to accept the recommendation or do something different, and whether to impose
conditions. Chair Solomon commented he believed the applicant did not fully comprehend that they
were not being treated differently than anyone else. Chair Solomon commented phasing did not bother
him. Chair Solomon questioned if a commitment had been received from a lender to which Mr.
Malefatto responded he did not believe so and he was not involved in those negotiations. Mr. Tombari
indicated other rental projects approved with asphalt roofs had been older developments such as Gardens
of Woodbury, and all recent rental projects within the past ten years had used tile, but asphalt was a
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
permitted material. The City Attorney verified that asphalt was a permitted material, but explained that
all of these rental projects had requested certain waivers and the City, during the PUD process, had
obtained tile roofs in return; and if the whole project was not known it was tough to determine the
waivers. Chair Solomon indicated it would be desirable to get the work started since it was so unsightly,
that he could live with two phases, that a condition of approval could request another type of roof
material, and that City Council could change the Commission's conditions. Mr. Malefatto indicated the
applicant would welcome conditions including one for roof material, which could be revisited at City
Council level. Mr. Malefatto clarified that the purpose of the bond proposed would be to guarantee
performance that all required items for phase two would be submitted within a time certain and that
completion of the project would be in 18 months, but he had no authority this evening to accept a bond
amount higher than $500,000. Chair Solomon asked if the applicant could return in two weeks with
clarified conditions. Chair Solomon indicated it was very difficult with the recommendation for denial;
Mr. Malefatto indicated he could not recall a recommendation of denial in a very long time, and was
willing to work with staff. Mr. Wu explained that even with a recommendation for denial staff would
put together an ordinance with specific conditions for City Council action. Mr. Charming commented
the bond the applicant was proposing was to assure the rest of the submittals would be submitted and
not to bond the performance. Mr. Charming explained that normally when everything was designed and
• approved then the engineers /architects gave their estimates based on the cost to complete that work; and
this was only assurance to submit plans for the rest of the project. Mr. Channing commented he did not
have a problem with phasing but the applicant should complete the design for each phase and not leave
the City at risk. Mr. Ansay commented he understood the City code required submittals to be complete.
Mr. Tombari responded that initially this applicant had been given special consideration because of
Code Enforcement procedures to allow them to submit a PUD application in pieces to move forward to
Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Ansay stated he did not like the applicant using the leverage of
how the project worked and as far as he was concerned it could stay that way until the applicant
conformed. Mr. Tarr commented he did not agree with that and believed in this case there should be
differentiation between an existing project and one starting from scratch. Mr. Tarr asked the City
Attorney if what the applicant was asking would preclude the Commission from treating this as a
renovation. City Attorney Rubin advised the applicant wanted to do exterior elevation changes, which
in a PUD was a major modification and a major modification was treated just like a new PUD and
procedurally it was like a new application. Mr. Tarr indicated that was procedure, but logically -- because
people drove by this project every day —he encouraged staff to bend over backward as far as they could
to work with the applicant. Mr. Tarr stated his position that if there were further meetings he thought
special exceptions should be given to this project because of the location, visibility, age, size, and code
violations, even if a little risk was involved. Mr. Tarr commented that it might not be possible
financing -wise to do the project like the City would desire due to the project's age and condition. Chair
Solomon questioned whether the applicant would be willing to work further with the City or if they
wanted a motion tonight. Mr. Wu indicated the applicant had indicated they wished to proceed with the
two phases, which staff had been unable to work around. Mr. Malefatto commented in light of Mr. Wu's
response, the applicant would prefer a motion tonight, and as stated staff would still prepare an
ordinance that the City Council could approve and there would be conditions at that point, and that
12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
possibly the Commission could suggest tonight the types of conditions that ought to be included. Mr.
Malefatto requested a recommendation of approval. Mr. Tarr commented the Commission could vote
to deny but the application would proceed to City Council, and if that were the case he believed the
Commission should discuss tonight issues such as the roof so the City Council would know the
Commission's feelings on the issues; because the outstanding issue was on coordination of construction
and not a building issue, and the waivers and wall, etc, had not been discussed. Mr. Channing responded
that would be difficult because there was a host of issues the Commission did not even know about
because the applicant had not submitted all the information the Commission should have to consider.
Mr. Tarr stated he did not know how a submittal to City Council could work properly since the
Commission had not discussed all the issues. Mr. Charming agreed but indicated it could only be in
regard to the issues the Commission knew about —Mr. Tarr stated that was what needed to be done.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of Petition PID -00 -04 per
recommendation of staff and added that he believed there should be no reason given as to why the
applicant should not follow the City's development code and submit all of the plans necessary for review
before it was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Channing seconded the motion.
During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr commented if the Commission voted to approve the motion
and it went to City Council next , the City Council would have to assume the Commission was okay
with everything except the phasing, such as with the roof that Mr. Channing was against -- because it was
not brought up as an issue, a wall between the project and commercial had not been brought up, and site
plan issues had not been brought up. Chair Solomon asked if Mr. Tarr wished to propose an
amendment to the motion. City Attorney Rubin commented that he believed the motion was based on
staff recommendation that they could not evaluate the application because it was not a complete
application. The City Attorney advised that theoretically if this went to City Council and the Council
had no problem with the phasing, the City Council could send it back for Planning and Zoning to look
at. Mr. Tarr commented they could also just move it along with a roof Mr. Channing did not want. Mr.
Channing commented the idea of doing a project in phases did not bother him so much as the idea that
the Commission was not seeing the whole project, and if they came in with a complete design so the cost
would be known, the appropriate amount of bonding could be done so if something happened the City
could just take the money and complete the project according to the plans. Mr. Channing commented
the bond should not be just for completion of the plans, and if complete plans were offered then phasing
could be addressed. Mr. Tarr asked what would happen if there were no motion, or if the Commission
was obligated to make a motion, to which the City Attorney responded that if there were no vote or in
the event of a tie vote, this application would move forward to City Council with no recommendation.
Mr. Tarr suggested the Commission could send this to City Council with the idea that the Commission
did not have enough information to approve or deny because what had been submitted was not
acceptable to staff, and did not want to deny it because City Council could approve it with items the
Commission would not have approved if they had had a complete package, so Mr. Tarr indicated he was
in favor of saying the Commission could not make a decision, if that was legal. Chair Solomon called
for a vote on the motion. Mr. Tarr did not vote; the City Attorney advised that Mr. Tarr must vote. The
motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Mr. Solomon asked that the minutes show all of the discussion
13
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
that had taken place.
Recommendation to the City Council
Petition MISC- 01 -17: Signage, lighting and building colors for Legacy Place
A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for ORIX/TMK Palm Beach Gardens
Venture and PGA Gateway Ltd., for approval of the signage program, lighting plan, and building
colors for the commercial portion (parcels A, B & C) of Legacy Place, generally at the southeast
corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA . (6- 42S -43E)
Mr. Glidden re- joined the Commission at this point.
Senior Planner Steve Cramer presented the project request. Proposed signage was displayed, and Mr.
Cramer answered questions from the Commission. Mr. Cramer clarified signage locations for Mr.
Kunkle. Mr. Glidden indicated he had met with the applicant and noticed some architecture elements
that differed from plans on the table, and asked if staff had reviewed the drawings for differences from
the approved plans. Mr. Cramer indicated staff had not compared the plans but the applicant could be
asked if any changes had been made. Mr. Cramer indicated the application was for the signs to meet
code. Mr. Glidden indicated there needed to be a system to consider the material on which the sign was
to mounted, so that signage would not be overstated. Mr. Cramer indicated the dotted boxes shown
should be what code allowed and suggested this could be left for staff review. Mr. Glidden suggested
toning down some colors. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether there was uniformity of fonts and colors
irrespective of the stores, to which Mr. Cramer responded that a waiver was requested for different color
signage, and the Board needed to rule on the font tonight. Mr. Ansay commented there was four -sided
architecture and asked if signage considered that, to which Mr. Cramer responded that the applicant was
asking for more wall signs.
Marty Minor, Urban Design Studio, provided the petitioner's presentation. Mr. Minor advised that this
was a response to a condition of approval to come back with lighting, signage, and building materials,
and described the lighting plan. James Heller, Architect, addressed building colors. Banners were
discussed and Mr. Channing suggested different criteria be included such as for during different seasons
and not for advertising. Mr. Channing and Mr. Glidden commented they did not like the two green
colors presented. Mr. Channing suggested toning down building colors and that the applicant look at
the project in Juno Beach where intense colors had been used. Mr. Channing suggested at the
appropriate time to paint samples on outside walls for review by staff and the Commission. Mr. Heller
explained that was always done by this developer; Mr. Channing requested the Commission participate.
Mr. Heller agreed to a sampling of colors to be reviewed by the Commission. Awning colors were
described. Mr. Ansay suggested a coordinated signage program, uniform in appearance and layout.
Chair Solomon also requested uniformity in color as well as lettering. The applicant requested the
• Commission compare this to Gardens Mall interior signage which was not uniform, and indicated they
wanted as much uniformity as possible but also to allow national companies to use signage reflecting
l[l
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
their corporate identity. Chair Solomon indicated he thought it was more important to have uniformity
in an outdoor setting than indoors such as in Gardens Mall. Mr. Glidden requested recommending to
City Council approval of the signage program with the caveat that signage be depicted with Photoshop
and submitted to staff for review by this Board, and that signage be well -done. Mr. Heller indicated the
applicant wanted to limit the signage to be within the dotted boxes and would agree to Mr. Glidden's
recommendation. Mr. Heller indicated if a tenant had a logo used nationally that would be requested.
Awning signage was discussed; Mr. Cramer indicated that awning signage was not allowed by code.
Mr. Glidden encouraged the applicant to pick four colors for signage, to which the applicant agreed.
Mr. Glidden requested when drawings were presented the sign be shown on the whole building and also
any adjacent approved signage. Awning colors were pointed out on the elevations. Applicant verified
there had been no changes to the plans as approved by City Council. Mr. Glidden expressed concern
regarding who would have authority to change colors in the field. Mr. Heller suggested the applicant
could mock -up panels upon which to place the colors and the applicant and representatives from the
Commission could look at the colors together. Applicant verified that all signage was to be in
individual letters. Mr. Glidden indicated he wanted stipulated that every change of color must be at an
interior corner and that the applicant channel back any specific tenant sign approvals through staff to be
placed on a P &Z agenda to give the Commission the opportunity to review for approval. Mr. Minor
requested support for the size requested for the monument sign, and for tenant anchor signage. Mr.
Minor expressed hope that in the future the City would consider tasteful awning signs. Mr. Minor
indicated agreement with Mr. Glidden's comments. Mr. Minor requested the monument sign columns
be included; that anchor tenant signage be allowed to be increased, and that anchor tenants be allowed
signage on the entrance wall. The applicant noted additional light fixtures would be added in the interior
pedestrian courtyard plaza as the project progressed. Chair Solomon requested the applicant come back
with their requests stated as waivers and to show what signage would look like. Mr. Glidden
commented that signage could be presented at any time so the Board could see what it would look like,
if the signage package was approved with the caveat that the Commission reserved the right to see each
individual tenant sign. Mr. Cramer indicated staff supported two new waivers: (1) four wall signs for
Jacobsens; and (2) two signs for corner tenants. Mr. Glidden commented the only other thing was the
awning colors. Chair Solomon commented there should be a condition regarding some kind of
uniformity in colors and style. Mr. Glidden commented the applicant did not know all the tenants, and
he was more confident in seeing each one, and fonts and colors would change. Mr. Cramer commented
there were ten buildings and suggested each building could have its own sign program and the applicant
could bring each building program back to P &Z as opposed to each sign coming back. Mr. Glidden
commented the building tenants would not all be occupying the building at the same time. Mr. Tarr
commented the logo presented had a center portion which appeared menacing to him, which he had
verified with at least 12 other people, and that the center had a semi - swastika took Mr. Tarr indicated
he had discussed this with staff, one of whom described the logo as menacing. Mr. Tarr indicated he
had a problem with this logo being placed on banners and requested the logo be re -done. The applicant
indicated they had revised the logo, and Mr. Tarr indicated the revised logo was acceptable, expressed
. appreciation for the revision, and requested any motion incorporate the revised logo. Mr. Channing
indicated he would like criteria for tenant signage, at least loose guidelines to keep within a range —with
15
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
the knowledge that some tenants would have unique signage requests. Chair Solomon suggested the
applicant be given direction on the monument sign. Mr. Cramer explained a waiver would be needed
if the columns were included. Mr. Glidden commented that what was missing was: specificity as to
awning color, it was not within the purview of the Commission to do the waiver for the awning sign,
a waiver had been requested for more than allowable square footage which needed to be clarified, there
was no specificity as to sign font or color, or method of illumination other than three or four methods,
and suggested polling the Board to see who would need to have the applicant come back or who would
like to move forward. Chair Solomon added the logo question, which Mr. Glidden commented could
be brought back for approval. A poll indicated diverse opinions, and the applicant stated they would be
happy to come back to a later meeting pulling things together in more finalized form, even with them
going to City Council within a month if that was the Board's recommendation, and offered the following
items for consideration. (1) The applicant would agree to only permit individual letters; (2) signage
colors would be limited to four throughout the project; (3) lettering would either be self illuminated or
internally back lit —never any flashing signs of any type. Chair Solomon requested the applicant stop
at this point because there were so many items needed, including those the applicant was now
enumerating, that this should be done more in a more uniform fashion. Mr. Channing suggested the
applicant return. Mr. Minor asked if they could be on the December 11 agenda. Since the agenda was
full on that date, it was suggested this item be added to the Special Meeting agenda on December 18.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Glidden outlined what the applicant needed to have for the December 18
meeting: (1) Change the logo; (2) Specify 3 -4 awning colors and bring samples; (3) Specify 4 sign
colors and provide color chips; (4) look at the two green colors and move one notch back on the intensity
of the salmon color; (5) the two additional conditions; and (6) the waiver request on size of the
monument sign. The monument sign base was described by the applicant for Mr. Channing, who
showed the applicant his ideas regarding the sign. Mr. Ansay recommended an expert on color matching
and color schemes might make a presentation to the Board. Applicant indicated they had originally
presented many renderings in different colors but direction had been only that the Board did not like the
light blue. Applicant proposed the field sampling as discussed earlier. Applicant was advised they could
be on the December 18 agenda and staff would determine whether they would be first or second on the
agenda, and they would need to submit changes next week.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Wu explained that the Christ Fellowship Church item scheduled for December 18 was for the
southern campus only; and that the previous presentation had been for the northern campus. Items that
would be considered for the southern campus would include shuttlebus and simulcasting.
16
•
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
Chair Solomon discussed the question of whether staff should submit conditions of approval when their
recommendation was denial. Chair Solomon indicated he thought staff should provide conditions unless
the reason for recommending denial was because there had not been sufficient information. Mr. Wu
indicated staff would provide conditions in the future.
Chair Solomon commented he believed regarding the dotted lines depicting signage area that there
should be an understanding that even though the sign ordinance permitted a larger sign, the applicant
was agreeing to limit their sign size to the dotted lines depicted, which could be addressed as a condition
of approval. Discussion ensued. Mr. Channing indicated the size of the sign against the background was
the important part. Mr. Glidden suggested changes be made when the LDR's were revisited, and noted
there were many things such as how fat the letters were that the code just could not address.
Chair Solomon complimented staff on their work, and the recording secretary for a good job on the
minutes.
17
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held December 11, 2001.
n inn nv>~ n.
,rune uuen
J
Steven T
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Betty Laur, Se retary for the Meeting
In
Exec 19 01 03:42p Lisa 561 - 684 -6890 p.8
t� #_
FORM 80 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
AME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
B. Jahn
Planning and Zoning
MAILING ADDRESS
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A
8 Huntley Circle
UNIT OF:
XX CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Palm Beach Gardens
Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED November27, 2001
MY POSITION IS:
ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE XX
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8113
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.
•
•
se
q91 -AA4 -6890 P.10
C im U1 u.77 TJr I - -
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on November 2, 2001:
measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
MW inured to my special private gain; or
XXX inured to the special gain of Ceebraid Signal Corporation by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
Union Square (Tanglewood)
s
Date Filed Si nature
'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:1AD MIN%PE R SONALUGH NIP &z1TANGCON3
•
Page 2