Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 111301• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 13, 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 6:30 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 reported that the City Council had approved the Mirasol Clubhouse site plan at their November 1, 2001 City Council meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the October 23, 2001 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Channing made a motion to approve the October 29, 2001 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll. Present Dennis Solomon, Chairman Chairman Pro Tern Barry Present Joel Channing John Glidden Dick Ansay Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Alternate David Kendall Absent Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planner Edward Tombari, Planners John Lindgren and Kara Irwin, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney Len Rubin. • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -10: McDonalds within the Promenade Plaza A request by Manny Mele, representative for the McDonald's Corporation and agent for owner Harvey Wolfe, for site plan approval for an outparcel renovation at the Promenade Plaza, to allow for a McDonald's Restaurant. The site plan includes the addition of second drive -thru window (127 sf.), additional signage, and five waiver requests from the Land Development Regulations. The 0.98 - acre outparcel (Parcel 5) is located within the Promenade Plaza Shopping Center located at 9880 Alternate AIA. (7- 42S -43E) Planner Kara Irwin presented the staff report. Since the last meeting the applicant had revised elevations to keep the building as it is and the existing roof material was now proposed to remain. Architect Orlando Alonzo, Jr., indicated that the applicant had met all suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. Glidden stated he had no major issues but questioned the location of the awning, which was pointed out by the applicant. Mr. Glidden noted that the color of the awning needed to be stipulated in the motion. Mr. Glidden requested a 5' sidewalk connection at the southwest corner from the front sidewalk along A1A entering the site, and requested that staff look at where a sidewalk might be located so that someone walking from the shopping center could access the site. Ms. Irwin noted that would be brought to the attention of Engineering to be studied. Mr. Channing asked if there would be a block wall around the cooler, to which the architect responded yes. Mr. Tarr indicated he would like the golden arches logo on both front and back sides on the gable walls. Planner Irwin noted that a waiver would be needed for that; that the front gable was obscured by large oaks and the applicant felt the monument sign would be adequate in front, but that staff could support such a waiver. Chair Solomon indicated an extra logo on the front would not bother him. Mr. Channing stated that he preferred not to have another sign in front. Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -10 with the following conditions: 1. The vinyl covering for the drive -thru canopy shall be permitted, provided a minimum 17- ounce reinforced grade or equivalent is used. 2. Lighting locations shall not conflict with landscaping (to include long term tree canopy growth). 3. Landscaping shall not block view of windows and walkways. • 4. The rear door shall be equipped with a 180- degree peephole viewer. 5. For potential criminal activity detection, the applicant shall install a high - resolution color N • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 digital video camera system with monitoring and photo processing picture printout capabilities for cash register and rear door areas. 6. All perimeter doors shall be equipped with hinges that utilize non - removable hinge pins. 7. Glass perimeter doors shall be equipped with case hardened guard rings to protect the mortise lock cylinder. 8. The applicant shall install an alarm system. 9. All parking stalls shall be double striped. 10. If applicant wishes to move the logo from the west to the east inside gable they shall be allowed to do so. (See amendment below) 11. Applicant shall install a 5 -foot wide sidewalk into the actual driveway area on the southwest corner from Alternate AlA. ! 12. The color of the canopy awning shall match the color of the building. Waivers 1. Section 78 -285, Menu Board, to allow for a maximum 43.3 square foot menu board. The Land Development Regulations allow a maximum of 20 square foot area for a menu board. 2. Section 78 -182 (f)(4) Illumination of uses and buildings, to allow for a maximum 36.4 -foot candle within the parking area. The Land Development Regulations require a maximum of ten (10) foot - candles. 3. Section 78 -315 (b), Landscape Islands, to allow for eleven (11)- parking spaces without a landscape island. The Land Development Regulations allow a maximum of nine (9) parking spaces between landscape islands. 4. Section 78 -182 (d), Illumination of uses and buildings, to allow for a maximum 13.2 -foot candle at the property line. The Land Development Regulations require a maximum of five (5.0) foot - candles at the property line. 5. Section 78 -285, Wall Sign, to allow for an additional wall sign on the south building elevation. The Land Development Regulations allows one wall sign per building. • Mr. Volonte seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr made an amendment to allow the logo on the front of the building also. A poll of the members indicated 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 a majority in favor of the amendment. Mr. Glidden accepted the amendment; Mr. Volonte seconded the amendment. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition PUD- 01 -03: Christ Fellowship PUD Amendment A request by Joe Ryan of Christ Fellowship Church for approval of a PUD amendment to allow for the elimination or amendment of certain conditions of approval regarding operational procedures and activities on site. The Christ Fellowship Church (North Campus) is located on the north side of Northlake Boulevard, approximately one and one -half miles west of Military Trail (14- 42S -42E) Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report. Attorney Alan Ciklin, representative for the petitioner, commented on the conditions of approval which the petitioner wanted to be deleted, and explained that none of these conditions were required of other religions institutions, all the conditions dealt with regular church events, and each to some degree hindered the ability of the church to carry on its mission. Attorney Ciklin advised that the Police Department recommended approval of the request to use a shuttle bus between the two campuses for safety reasons; that the courtyard between buildings A and B was where the requested sound amplification would be used for wedding ceremonies; that more seating was needed to accommodate those who now had to stand, that the simultaneous broadcasting was proposed for between the two campuses and it would spread out traffic and parking. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Joan Altwater indicated she had previously sent a letter and that letter and the response from Mr. Wu had been provided to the Commissioners in their meeting packets. Ms. Altwater commented that she was a member of the original negotiating team of a group of concerned citizens who had worked with the church during their approval process, and that as a member of the Board of Directors of Cypress Hollow she had fielded complaints and concerns of adjacent residents. Ms. Altwater stated her opinion that adding additional seating and the other proposed changes would violate the original agreement with the residents and expressed concern regarding future traffic problems. Ms. Altwater was not in favor of holding outdoor services. Joe Cole expressed concern regarding traffic and parking, and his opinion that a small microphone would not be sufficient for outdoor events. Mr. Cole indicated he was a member at St. Ignatius and they had people standing during special services. Mary Helen Johnson stated she lived right across the church property line and expressed her opinion that • the proposed amendments would affect the residents' quality of life and questioned whether property values would also be affected. Ms. Johnson indicated that the police were not able to adhere to the requirement not to hold traffic for more than 90 seconds, that a policeman was almost hit by a car, and S • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 that she did not want non- religious functions added to the site. Ms. Johnson opposed amplification devices, and expressed concern that granting the petitioner's requests could set precedent for other churches. Susan Buckley indicated that residents going to other churches were impeded because of the traffic to this church, that the 90- second rule was not followed, and questioned why amplification would be needed in a courtyard setting. Paul Aleskovsky indicated he was a member of the original negotiating tea, that amplification had no place in a residential neighborhood, that parking was difficult, predicted that temporary structures would be needed if services were held outdoors, and expressed his opinion that the original agreement should remain. Michael Hiscock expressed his opinion that other religious facilities did not have these restrictions because none were as large as this church, and reported that the church had expanded parking to adjacent property which he believed should be included in any change. Keith Paulus, President of Hunt Club Homeowners Association, indicated many of their members had serious concerns regarding the petitioner's request and that only a small number of those residents were present tonight. Mr. Paulus indicated he was concerned about the staff recommendations since the original intent of these restrictions had been to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Paulus reported that their management company had sent letters to the Chief of Police regarding parking on Hunt Club Lane and he was concerned that the staff report had not contained enough research. Mr. Paulus opposed each of the proposed amendments. Amir Kanel stated he was on the Board of Directors of Steeplechase and was a member of the original negotiating team. Mr. Kanel explained that agreement had been reached by negotiation to get something everyone could live with and the church had agreed. Mr. Kanel expressed concern that the planned turnpike exit would put more traffic on Northlake Boulevard and that should be considered also. Mr. Kanel stated he agreed with the previous comments that no changes should be made. Mike Tonks, resident of Steeplechase, stated he was on the original negotiating team and neither party got everything they wanted but had reached agreement on something everyone could live with and which kept the church from destroying the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tonks expressed concern that if the requests were granted the church would be back in six months requesting more changes, that these changes could affect property values, and noted that the original concept of the church was that only 1/3 of their members were Palm Beach Gardens residents. Marilyn Jacobs, BallenIsles resident, commented that each time the church agreed to something they came back to ask for changes under the guise of being a good neighbor, and she was upset by their lack of good faith. 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 Bill Groot stated he lived immediately east of the church, and that the church property had not been zoned residential but was agricultural for 50 years. Mr. Groot supported the church's requests, and commented on how much good they did with young people. Joe Cole spoke again, commenting that BallenIsles and Cypress Hollow did not come back to request changes but the church did. Mike Tonks commented the property was originally zoned agricultural but it had to be changed to residential in order to then become a PUD. Ed Kint, Hunt Club Lane resident, expressed opposition to the proposed changes. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tarr asked the City Attorney if the City had any legal obligation to allow any of the changes requested in terms of any repercussions back if they were denied and if so what the authority on those would be. City Attorney Len Rubin commented that included in the packets was correspondence from Attorney Ciklin back when this first started citing a new federal legislation, a religious land use and intitutionalized persons act, which basically stated if one placed a substantial burden on a religious institution or the exercise of their religious function, one must have a compelling governmental interest and it must be narrowly drawn. The City Attorney urged the Commission to consider the church's requests, and whether there were genuine health safety welfare issues to justify the conditions. The City Attorney indicated there was no litigation pending, but that there were statutes that the church could utilize at a future date. Mr. Tarr commented that in the City Attorney's response back to Attorney Ciklin he had stated he did not believe this was retroactive. Attorney Rubin responded he had researched that again that day and an answer would not be known until a judge gave a ruling, but at present there was no definitive authority, and the petitioner's position was that the continued application of these applications of approval made it fall within the provisions of the act, and although he did not agree, the answer would not be known until a court ruled. Mr. Tarr questioned whether in the opinion of the City Attorney the conditions which the petitioner was asking be deleted were a hindrance to their normal course of business. The City Attorney responded he could not answer, that was a question of fact, and was a determination this Board must make and that City Council must make; that the Board would have to see what the restrictions were and whether there were legitimate reasons for the restrictions, which was what staff had tried to do. Mr. Tarr questioned why there were negotiations during the original approval process since no waivers had been requested. Mr. Tombari responded that the project had met all development standards but the PUD process gave the City the right to conduct negotiations, which were a result of concerns expressed by the residents. Attorney Rubin clarified that this had been a conditional use but since it did not go through conditional use approval the City could look at impacts • to surrounding communities. Mr. Tombari explained that the City had limited the number of seats for churches in residential areas to 1,000 in year 2000, therefore, this church would not be allowed today. Mr. Tarr stated he agreed with most of what the public had said about making a deal, that he believed n • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 it was wrong to come back, and he believed staff was looking from a definition and legal standpoint instead of what is reasonable for neighborhoods. Mr. Tarr indicated that if the Commission approved the changes, he had problems with the language that staff had agreed to in terms of defining many things, defining what a non - member was, what a non - member event was, what the word "affiliated" means, what a church function was, and what an administrative function was; and expressed his opinion to the City Attorney that if these were put in, a definitions page would be needed with definitions, especially for the word "affiliated ". Mr. Tarr asked if a friend who visited the church could hold his wedding there, and commented that in addition, by eliminating the six events there was no limit, which he thought was not fair to the people living nearby. The City Attorney commented that from a traffic concurrency standpoint, this had been approved as a religious institution, although it was hard to define non - religious use, it was clear that the church could not be rented or leased out for non - religious events, and the problem had been how to restrict the religious events on site when the church was approved as a religious institution; and that other churches in the City were not limited to only six events per year, and that Trinity Methodist had been approved for 2,100 seats without any such additions. Mr. Tarr indicated he believed it would be all right to ask for changes to an agreement 15 years later when circumstances had changed, but not one year later. Attorney Ciklin commented he was involved with the so- called negotiations and they had turned out fruitless because the residents ended up opposing the • church; and the conditions had come about as a result of City Council actions at the public hearing. Attorney Ciklin explained that the Mayor had said 1750 seats were enough —that had not been based upon an agreement with the residents. Attorney Ciklin commented that this was about religious freedom and some of the conditions hindered that right. Attorney Ciklin advised that the 1750 seats did not preclude people from standing and asked what good it did to have 650 people standing; and also commented it might discourage people from coming back. Attorney Ciklin noted that the Police Department recommended using the shuttle bus, and that traffic would not be increased as a result of the proposed amendments, and that according to a study the church had had done the value of nearby homes had increased. Mr. Glidden commented that this Commission originally turned down this project and that the restrictions had been instituted in an abundance of caution because it had been so emotional. Mr. Glidden stated the Commission needed to look at the performance of the church, that he wanted to make sure any of the violations noted were carefully cited, that he had timed traffic stops and it had always been 90 seconds when he checked, that the Police Department wanted the shuttlebus for safety and that should not be an issue. Mr. Glidden indicated nearby residents had a right for noise not to exceed a certain level and commented that noise levels were set by code. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that this church should be allowed to perform like other churches regarding special events, that the City and the church should identify as many of these events as possible. Mr. Glidden stated these restrictions were originally placed because of fear of the unknown and the Board should focus on performance and a common sense approach as to what would work. Mr. Channing indicated he was on the Commission during the approval process, which had been very emotional, and expressed his opinion that some of the requests were over reaching - -such as the six events per year - -and the wording was susceptible to being abused. Mr. Charming commented that a restriction of 1750 seats was very clear and went to the heart of the size of the institution that would be allowed, so he was not in favor of increasing the number of seats. Mr. Charming indicated he believed staff had done a good job on a very II Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 difficult issue. Mr. Present questioned the present 1,000 seat restriction, to which Mr. Tombari responded that churches with prior approvals for more than 1,000 seats were grandfathered in. Mr. Present commented everyone must be open minded and willing to listen to the reasons for the proposed changes, and he did not think of this as a religious issue, only a size issue, and the complexion of the neighborhoods must be preserved. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that when a different level of growth was reached it might be time for the church to move to another location. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion that the church was really not compatible with this neighborhood, and commented that he would have a difficult time supporting the request because he felt it was not good planning for an area previously zoned residential. Chair Solomon commented this was a difficult situation for a lot of the reasons stated, that staff had done a fine job, and that any property owner had the right to make reasonable use of their property. Chair Solomon asked if traffic was the control for size and number of seats, to which Mr. Tombari responded the staff analysis was based on the traffic study and the religious use, and having enough parking to accommodate accessory use. Mr. Tombari stated off -site parking was not permitted. Since Attorney Ciklin advised that a traffic light had not been explored since 1999, Chair Solomon asked if the applicant would participate in a warrant study. Attorney Ciklin explained that the amount of traffic would not warrant a light because traffic generated by the church was not at peak hours, and the policemen were the traffic control devices. Attorney Ciklin clarified that the six events per year were only for regularly scheduled events, and any other special events would require a special events permit from the City. Mr. Ciklin indicated the church would be willing to participate in installing a traffic light if it was warranted, but not to pay the full price of $250,000 which would be required for the concrete arms required by the County. Mr. Ciklin also indicated the church would be willing to provide more buffering from the Hunt Club. Chair Solomon commented if this request was approved he did not see it as getting rid of all controls but going to other methods of control. Mr. Tarr commented he believed it was good to have the church there, and that he was okay with the shuttle and the simulcasting, but had a problem with allowing 700 more seats when a new church could not have 1,001 at this time. Mr. Tarr asked if the applicant would be willing to limit outdoor services to weddings only and at certain times, to which Attorney Ciklin responded they would be happy to work with staff on parameters for noise and they were only asking for such functions in the courtyard area, which could accommodate approximately 200. Mr. Tarr suggested there may not have been many complaints because the restrictions were working. Mr. Ciklin noted the church was very concerned about the neighbors complaining and at the September 12 service there had been 2400 people. Attorney Ciklin explained the building was designed for 2500 seats and parking and concurrency had been met for 2500 seats; and the theory had been to see how the church operated with 1750 seats and if not a problem this could be revisited. Attorney Ciklin indicated the petitioner had no problem working with staff on the issues but they would like to move ahead in the process. Chair Solomon advised the public that what this Commission did was not final and was a recommendation to City Council, and that they would have another opportunity to comment before the City Council. City Attorney Rubin noted staff had struggled over the proper language, that the church could not be used for non - religious events, and could not be • used as an auditorium. Mr. Wu urged the Commission to consider fairness, whether other churches were being treated similarly, and to base their decision on data and analysis. Mr. Wu stated that the facts were: the church did have adequate parking for the fixed and moveable seats to be used at the same time; they Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 did have concurrency to have concurrent events at all facilities; they had addressed staff's traffic concerns regarding exiting and accessing the site. Mr. Wu commented that it must be considered whether these conditions hindered the church's functions, weighed against whether the City had compelling government interest to regulate that, which was the toughest part. Mr. Wu commented that arbitrary capriciousness of these conditions must be considered —the staff had serious internal issues of how the number 1750 seats was determined and how six events had been set. Mr. Wu indicated staff totally understood the residents' comments regarding the applicant coming back to request changes; however, the applicant had that right. Mr. Channing commented restricting the use of an outdoor courtyard was over reaching because the church had to live by the same performance standards regarding noise as the neighbors. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that since the City Council had set the number of seats, this Board should not change that but City Council should revisit that issue and make a decision. Mr. Glidden asked for a poll to determine if the members felt more homework should be done and this petition brought back, or how each felt about the individual components requested. Mr. Ansay asked staff about the 2500 seat issue, to which Mr. Tombari responded that the project was based on square footage and seating could be expanded and still meet the fire, safety, and parking requirements and not violate any of the original approvals. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCD -01 -03 as proposed by staff with the exception of Ordinance 20, 1997, condition 12 regarding maximum number of seats to be left at 1,750. Mr. Present seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Channing was requested to consider deferring the decision on the number of seats to City Council. Mr. Channing indicated he would defer the decision of the number of seats to City Council. Mr. Glidden clarified it was his understanding that Mr. Channing was making a motion for recommendation of approval based on staff recommendation with the exception of the number of seats which the Commission would not make a specific recommendation on with the intent that be left to the judgment of the City Council; the Commission would further stipulate that prior to City Council consideration, staff and the applicant would try to create a clearer definition of what would constitute a special event. Mr. Channing and Mr. Present agreed. Mr. Tarr commented this motion would allow unlimited number of events if they were able to determine the events were affiliated with their ministry and would make outside amplification unlimited. Mr. Channing indicated he was comfortable if they wanted to marry a couple every day, and regarding the noise issue they would have to adhere to the performance code. The City Attorney noted that in discussion with the applicant, staff would see how to determine if religious events were within their scope; Mr. Glidden suggested defining what the facility could not be used for. Mr. Tarr asked if the motion could include that the definitions, particularly in condition one, be clarified significantly more in terms of what the definition of member versus non - member was, and he wanted the motion specific regarding certain terms within the recommendation. The City Attorney indicated that was included in the motion; the verbiage might change, but it was understood as to the intent and what was within the scope of this approval and what was not; that perhaps the word "affiliated" was not the best to be used, but staff would work out the language. Mr. Tarr questioned whether this application should come back before the Commission after E • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 staff had re- worked the language. Chair Solomon indicated he would like to move this along because of other items on the agenda. Mr. Channing asked for a comity, and stated he thought the items being discussed were things where it was tried to be worded in the best way one could but sometimes these things were tested in the event they were used in the name of religion or something else, but he did not believe it was possible to start making a list of what was prohibited. Chair Solomon commented if Mr. Channing wished this to come back before the Commission for them to look at the language, then it could be added. Mr. Channing stated he did not believe it was necessary and he was satisfied with the motion. The vote on the motion was 6 -1, with Mr. Tarr opposed because of the failure of language within the motion to properly and clearly define the definitions within the restrictions. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition CU- 01 -05: Excavation and Fill for Parcel 4 in the Evergrene PCD A request by Communities Finance Company for a Conditional Use for an Excavation and fill operation on approximately 362.72 acres of land bounded by Alternate AIA on the East, Military Trail on the west, Hood Road on the south, and Donald Ross Road on the north. (25 & 36- 41S -42E) City Forester Mark Hendrickson presented the request, and explained that if the PUD for Evergrene was not approved this petition would be withdrawn. Mr. Hendrickson explained how this request would benefit the project. Tara Patton, WCI, indicated that WCI would like approval to proceed with this to help drainage. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CO -01 -05 with the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to clearing, vegetation that could be saved shall be tagged for preservation (protective barriers installed if necessary), or relocated to within the proposed PCD buffers, preserves, holding areas or other anticipated open spaces to protect them from future development. 2. The applicant shall take extreme caution when filling in and around preservation areas to ensure the protection of root zones under the canopy drip line area. Slit fencing shall be used around all preservation areas. No detrimental changes in pH and topography /drainage may occur which results in a disturbance or destruction of the preserve areas. Applicant's Landscape Architect and /or environmental consultant shall monitor protection of preserve and buffer areas during excavation and fill operations. 3. If after any excavation and fill work occurs, the land remains vacant for more than three months, the area shall be seeded with a groundcover to prevent soil erosion. 4. Applicant shall comply with Section 78 -1590) 66 c of the Land Development Regulation entitled "Permits, plans and specifications, surety, and permit fees for excavation and fill [to] • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 operations ". 5. Enforcement of violations that occur within approved preserve areas and any other open space shall be handled under Division 4, Sections 78 -243 and 78 -244, and Section 78 -302 respectively. If appropriate and agreed upon by both the City and applicant, resolutions to a violation may be part of the adjacent site plan approval within the PCD. 6. No clearing of vegetation shall occur on areas of the site that are not specifically indicated as stockpile areas. This permit does not include the filling of parcels. 7. The applicant shall not stockpile soil in a manner that is visible from the surrounding roadway network, including Alternate AIA. 8. The applicant shall limit the stockpiling area to a maximum height of 20 feet with side slopes no steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. 9. This applicant shall use Best Management Practices, as generally accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency and /or the local regulatory agencies, to protect the disturbed areas from pollution and erosion. 10. The City Engineer and the City Forester shall have the ability to make field modifications to the Construction Plans. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition PCD- 99 -08: Evergrene Planned Community District PCD A request by Communities Finance Company for a property rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Planned Community District (PCD) and master plan approval for 905 single-family homes and 132 multifamily homes on approximately 302.72 acres of land. The site is bounded by Alternate AIA on the East, Military Trail on the west, Hood Road on the south, and Donald Ross Road on the north. (36 & 254]S-42E) Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest and Alternate David Kendall was seated in his place. Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report. Mr. Tombari and Henry Skokowski, agent for the applicant, indicated the applicant was in agreement with the intent of all conditions but there were still technical issues to be worked out. Mr. Tombari indicated staff supported all nine waivers requested., and reviewed the items the Board was being asked to approve. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the master plan, described sidewalk locations, upgraded buffers along the east side which included a reduced wall height to 10' and added palm clusters. Mr. Skokowski described • the collector roadway network and access points, upland preservation areas, sales center /administration building architecture, and reported the applicant had worked with staff. Mr. Skokowski requested that this applicant be treated fairly regarding landscaping for roadways, and advised that pending 11 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 improvements to Alternate A1A would include drainage improvements and two lanes would be added from the existing center median. Mr. Skokowski indicated he wanted to make sure final conditions included a pro rata sharing of costs which was fair and consistent with that required of other projects. The buildout date was discussed and Mr. Tombari indicated there were provisions for extensions. Mr. Skokowski requested that the record be clear that the petitioner could pursue time extensions. Mr. Skokowski read aloud condition 22 regarding substantial completion of the spine road and requested that consideration be given to the point that a paved road was not needed to allow emergency vehicle access. Regarding conditions 22 and 23, Mr. Skokowski commented that those conditions said the applicant must have substantially completed the connector road and all infrastructure in the development before they could get a building permit to construct a home, and indicated that was not consistent with what was allowed in other communities. Mr. Skokowski asked that "building permit" in these conditions be changed to Certificate of Occupancy ". Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Charming expressed concern to staff regarding not issuing a building permit until all of the infrastructure was completed. Mr. Tombari explained there were engineering concerns and staff did not want construction vehicles or purchasers driving in unsafe conditions. Mr. Charming indicated a stabilized base should be sufficient. Mr. Skokowski verified that his client was willing to provide a demolition bond. Mr. Present inquired what the land where the sales center was located would be used for after the project was finished, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that it would become open space and could be used for school bus stops. Mr. Present indicated he was in agreement with the road issue if only construction vehicles were allowed. Mr. Ansay requested clarification regarding the landscaping from Hood Road to Donald Ross Road along Alternate AlA. Mr. Skokowski explained there was not much chance the applicant could do anything because of the redesign of the roadway. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion that the petitioner should work something out with the City regarding the issue of obtaining a building permit before all infrastructure was completed since he felt it should be accessible to everyone. Mr. Tarr indicated he had no problems but would like to have seen a graphic of the view from Military Trail, and stated he would like a meandering sidewalk along Military Trail. Mr. Skokowski explained that sidewalk would be meandering. Jane Crouse with the landscape architecture firm explained how the sidewalk would be laid out. Mr. Skokowski gave Mr. Tarr additional plan views and sections showing the sidewalk. Mr. Wu indicated a meeting had been scheduled to resolve the building permit issue. Mr. Tarr indicated he would abide by staff's decision on that issue. When asked if Mr. Kunkle had requested any landscape changes, Mr. Skokowski responded that they had discussed the maintenance of the upland and preserve areas, and the differences in sections that were due to drainage. Mr. Skokowski explained there would be a boundary plat filed for the whole project and on each section. In response to Chair Solomon's questions regarding roadway . completion, Mr. Skokowski indicated that the City required a surety bond for completion of infrastructure; Chair Solomon then commented commencement of some homes should be allowed before 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 the final lift of asphalt. Discussion ensued. Chair Solomon suggested the applicant be allowed to pull only a certain number of building permits until the road was paved, and that permits could be pulled with a stabilized roadway. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the City was exercising too much caution, and that other communities did allow building before infrastructure was completed. Mr. Channing commented bonds were required from underground subs and the City also got bonds, plus if the applicant was willing to put up a demolition bond that should be sufficient, and it was not fair and very costly for the applicant if they were not allowed to begin building. Chair Solomon requested the City Attorney explore the possibility of allowing the applicant to get building permits up to a certain number. Mr. Ansay indicated he had no concerns because of the bonding required. Mr. Wu again commented that if the Board concurred the applicant's position was correct this would be resolved at the meeting which had been scheduled. Mr. Skokowski requested direction to develop language more workable to all parties. Mr. Tarr agreed items 22 and 23 could be worked out between staff and the applicant. Mr. Present questioned the City Attorney regarding the sidewalk meandering off site onto the road right -of -way, to which Attorney Rubin responded that an easement was granted for public use. Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCD -99 -08 with staff recommendations as shown in the staff report including waivers numbers 1 through 9 and conditions of approval numbersl through 61, with work to be done on conditions 22 and 23. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendations to City Council Petition SP- 01 -23: Evergrene Parcel 4B & Petition SP- 01 -24: Evergrene Parcels 1, 2 & 7 A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Communities Finance Company for approval of 77 single-family units and 63 multifamily units within parcel 4B, and 320 single - family homes in Parcels 1, 2, and 7. The proposed dwelling units will be within the Evergrene Planned Community District (PCD), located between Hood Road and Donald Ross Road, and between Military Trail and Alternate AIA. (36 & 25-4]S-42E) Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report, and indicated that since the last meeting the applicant had provided design guidelines. Mr. Skokowski discussed both applications. Chair Solomon clarified that two separate motions would be needed. Mr. Lindgren indicated that for SP- 01 -23, the condition regarding the size of numbers in numerical addresses had been resolved. Mr. Skokowski commented that the applicant preferred the word "bonding" to "letter of credit ", which they would work out with staff. Chair Solomon verified with Mr. Skokowski that the multi - family units were condominiums. Mr. Skokowski indicated there would be one association for all the condos plus a master association for the whole project, and that the draft documents had been provided to the City Attorney. Mr. Lindgren commented that the guidelines would be an exhibit to the resolution. Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that the guidelines were very skimpy and he was not too happy with the degree because there could be many of the same homes on the same street. Mr. Skokowski indicated each one must satisfy 13 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 all the conditions. Chair Solomon commented there should be disclosure to buyers, to which Mr. Skokowski agreed and stated they would agree to a condition requiring reasonable disclosure. Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -23 with staff recommendations as listed in the staff report of eleven conditions and waivers plus an additional condition: 1. Prior to scheduling for review by City Council, the applicant shall address all DRC "clean up" comments. 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall: a. Identify the drainage patterns for the open space areas and the lots that will direct runoff to the front and those that will split the runoff between the front and back. b. Submit a drainage plan that specifies RCP to be used under all load- bearing surfaces. C. Submit a temporary model parking lot site plan, parking space details, pavement marking details, pavement cross - sections, landscape plan, and photometric plan for an administrative review and approval by the City. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide a letter of authorization from all utility owners allowing landscaping within their easements. b. Apply for, obtain, and submit to the City, a Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District Standard Permit. 4. The applicant shall post a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit for the models homes for the purposes of demolition and lien protection to remain in effect until the plat is recorded. The amount of the letter of credit shall equal a total of 1/3 of the hard costs of construction of all of the proposed models. 5. Lot 57 shall be restricted to a 2 -story model, and include a three -foot landscape buffer adjacent to the wall to the east of the lot that shall be maintained by the property owners association. 6. All lighting shall be metal halide. 7. Landscaping shall not conflict with lighting (including long term tree growth). S. A timer clock or photocell sensor engaged lighting shall be installed above or near entryways to residences and all sidewalks. 9. Street and pedestrian walkways shall use lighting that is no greater than 14 feet in height. 10. Numerical addresses shall be illuminated for nighttime visibility, shall have bi- directional visibility from the roadway, shall be a minimum of 6 inches in height for single - family units and a minimum of 12 inches in height for multifamily units. 11. The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of annual school boundary assignments for students from this development in a manner required by the Palm Beach County School District. 12. There shall be reasonable disclosure of design guidelines to purchasers. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Skokowski reviewed Parcels 1, 2, and 7. Mr. Skokowski explained that because of trees in the right - of -way there was not sufficient room to provide sidewalks on both sides of the road. Mr. Charming made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -24 with staff recommendations as listed in the staff report of ten conditions and waivers plus an additional condition: 1. Prior to scheduling for review by City Council, the applicant shall address all DRC "clean up" comments. 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall: a. Identify the drainage patterns for the open space areas and the lots that will direct runoff to the front and those that will split the runoff between the front and back. b. Submit a drainage plan that specifies RCP to be used under all load - bearing surfaces. C. Submit a temporary model parking lot site plan, parking space details, pavement marking details, pavement cross - sections, landscape plan, and photometric plan for an administrative review and approval by the City. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall: a. Provide a letter of authorization from all utility owners allowing landscaping within their easements. b. Apply for, obtain, and submit to the City, a Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District Standard Permit. 4. The applicant shall post a letter of credit prior to the issuance of a building permit for the models homes for the purposes of demolition and lien protection to remain in effect until the plat is recorded. The amount of the letter of credit shall equal a total of 113 of the hard costs of construction of all of the proposed models. 5. Lot 57 shall be restricted to a 2 -story model, and include a three -foot landscape buffer adjacent to the wall to the east of the lot that shall be maintained by the property owners association. 6. All lighting shall be metal halide. 7. Landscaping shall not conflict with lighting (including long term tree growth). 8. A timer clock or photocell sensor engaged lighting shall be installed above or near entryways to residences and all sidewalks. 9. Street and pedestrian walkways shall use lighting that is no greater than 14 feet in height. 10. Numerical addresses shall be illuminated for nighttime visibility, shall have bi- directional visibility from the roadway, shall be a minimum of 6 inches in height for single - family units and a minimum of 12 inches in height for multifamily units. 15 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 11. The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of annual school boundary assignments for students from this development in a manner required by the Palm Beach County School District. 12. There shall be reasonable disclosure of design guidelines to purchasers. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tarr stated he personally took exception to being hurried during any discussion period during a motion, particularly one of importance to many homeowners in the City, for the sole purpose of moving on to the next agenda item. Mr. Channing commented it was the duty of all members to be very tolerant and to function as a congenial group. Mr. Present thanked Mr. Wu for staff focus for the church petition. 0 Mr. Wu asked members to confirm attendance with Katherine for future meetings. • 16 is Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 13, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held November 27, 2001. APPROVED: D-6nnis Solomon, Chair John Glidden Alternat rnest Volonte Alternate David Kendall 0 4_�� Betty Laur, 'ecretary for the Meeting 17 cM�` eamerunsaaen ' CITE'' OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 -4698 �a • NOTICE The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of November 13 will begin at 6:30 p•m• as usual because Christ Fellowship had already prepared their public notices announcing that time for the meeting. Beginning with the November 27 Planning and Zoning Commission. meeting, all meetings in the future will begin at 6:00 p.m. 10/31/01 jh