Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092501• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 25, 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 a moment of silence for the victims of the terrorists on September 11, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. AGENDA Mr. Channing made a motion to consider the proposed architectural changes for The Grand at Mirasol as New Business. Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Charles Wu stated that Mr. Volante would be voting as a regular member in place of Mr. Craig Kunkle. Mr. Wu reported the City Council had approved expansion of Temple Beth David at their September 4, 2001 meeting. The City Council had also approved gates for Horseshoe Acres at their September 13, 2001 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the August 22, 2001 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Volante made a motion to approve the August 28, 2001 meeting minutes. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, During discussion of the motion, Mr. Present requested an amendment, since on the item regarding PGA Plaza Rezoning and Master Plan Review he had not questioned the access but had questioned the parking lot configuration. Mr. Volante accepted the amendment. Mr. Channing accepted the amendment. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote to approve the minutes as amended. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning and Zoning Commission. 1 • Plannin g Zoning & Zoni Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 Present Dennis Solomon, Chairman Chairman Pro Tem Barry Present Dick Ansay Joel Charming John Glidden. Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman David Kendall Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Attorney Andrew Pineiro, Principal Planner Karen Carver, Senior Planner Edward Tombari, and Planner Kara Irwin. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Public Hearing Petition WAV- 01 -01: Folsom Boat Waiver — 325 Azalea Street Pamela F. Folsom, Petitioner, is requesting a waiver from Section 78 -396 of the Land Development Regulations in order to allow for a watercraft and recreational vehicle to remain parked within a residential area, partially unscreened from the right -of -way, in front of a front building wall, and without a required City decal. The residence is located at 325 Azalea Street, within the "Plat I " neighborhood, east of Interstate 95 and south of Holly Drive. (18- 42S -42E) Attorney Pineiro swore in all those who planned to speak. Ex -parte Communication: Mr. Ansay visited the site on September 21; Mr. Tarr visited the site on September 24, and Chair Solomon visited the site on September 22. Growth Management Director Charles Wu asked if every member of the Board could base their decision solely on what they heard at tonight's hearing; all responded affirmatively. Senior Planner Ed Tombari presented the petition and indicated that staff felt the two required criteria had been met. Mr. Tarr requested clarification regarding whether the boat or RV or both were being addressed. The response was the boat and RV were being treated as one issue. Chair Solomon announced that a letter from the applicant and a petition signed by a number of residents in the neighborhood had been submitted. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Petitioner Pamela Folsom, 325 Azalea, who had been sworn in, commented she felt she would not have been in this situation if the City had provided adequate notice, that she had checked with the City twice before buying her property to be sure she was allowed 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 to park the boat, that she did not see the legal notice in the newspaper, and did not know a law concerning property could be changed in that manner. Ms. Folsom indicated she received a certified letter one year after the time period to request a decal had expired. Ms. Folsom explained that her neighbor did not like the boat but she had pictures of Mr. Franklin's boat parked in front of his house and he did not adhere to the 24 -hour parking time limit. Ms. Folsom indicated Mr. Franklin had obtained signatures from other neighbors but she had signatures from the other half of the neighborhood. Ms. Folsom commented she could not afford to store her boat elsewhere but wanted to use the boat when her health issues were resolved. Mr. Charming asked if she got a smaller boat if she would be willing to place it beside the screen enclosure, to which Ms. Folsom responded, yes. Mr. Ansay questioned why screening could not be provided, to which the applicant responded that there was not room. Mr. Tarr asked if when Ms. Folsom was notified of the new law in 1999 she had been given the option to pay and get decals, to which Ms. Folsom responded, no. Ms. Folsom advised the boat was fully operable and that she had obtained paint to re -paint the boat. Chair Solomon commented if the waiver request was granted there would be a non - conforming use so if either of these pieces of equipment were disposed of, they could not be replaced by something else, which Attorney Pineiro verified was correct. Sadie and Al Franklin, 323 Azalea, testified they had lived there 27 years and represented those in the neighborhood who would like the boat moved from Ms. Folsom's front yard. Mrs. Franklin testified that Ms Folsom had told them she had not used the boat in six years, and that they believed it was not operable and not safe. Mrs. Franklin commented they would be glad to remove the privacy fence and move it onto their property to allow room for Ms. Folsom to park the boat beside her house, and that last week Ms. Folsom had said she was planning to donate the boat and someone was going to donate another boat to her. Mrs. Franklin commented that she and her husband felt the presence of this boat or any donated boat would diminish the value of the neighborhood and was not in character with their end of the block. Al Franklin testified that the boat in the picture shown to the Board was his boat. The attorney advised that the picture must be entered into the record, and the picture and the handout from other residents were entered into the record by Ms. Folsom. Mr. Franklin testified his boat was not kept in front of his house permanently, but was there one day, and it was normally kept on the south end of his property. Mr. Franklin testified he had nurtured the hedge so it would screen Ms. Folsom's boat, and that it had to be trimmed in order to bush out. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Channing asked if the appearance and upkeep of the boat was a proper issue for the City to address, to which Code Enforcement Administrator Kelvin Wise responded that this was not a code issue and that the boat trailer had a legal valid plate. Mr. Tombari verified the registration had been updated and that staff had measured and verified the boat would not fit beside the house. In response to Mr. Glidden's questions, Mr. Tombari reported decals were renewable each year, and the delay in hearing this case had been partly due to an extension from the Special Master. The character of the neighborhood was taken into consideration, including the existence of similar boats in other front yards. Mr. Tombari indicated complaints from the neighbors were not relevant. Mr. Wu explained that this waiver would be transferable to another boat but would no longer apply to this property if Ms. Folsom moved away, and any new boat would have to meet code. It was clarified that the decal procedure was still in effect at this 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 time. The attorney advised that the Board could not condition approval only to apply to this boat and RV; therefore, a subsequent purchase would continue under the same waiver, but if the property was sold the subsequent purchaser would not gain the waiver. Chair Solomon stated this should be considered for revision in the regulations since it was not consistent with the way that real estate non - conforming uses were treated. Chair. Solomon passed the gavel to Chair Pro Tern Present. Chair Solomon commented he had seen the neighborhood, and had observed quite a few boats and some campers right up front for several streets around. Chair Solomon commented this boat could be repaired and covered, and he hoped Ms. Folsom would try to satisfy her neighbors on a voluntary basis. Chair Solomon stated he agreed with staff that the criteria for Petition WAV -01 -01 had been met and therefore moved to approve this waiver. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Glidden commented he was sympathetic to this request but the City was trying to do things such as setting design guidelines and standards to make the City look good, and boats and RVs in front of houses did not contribute to good looking neighborhoods, and his opinion was if the boat would not fit in the side yard it should be placed somewhere else. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that the ordinance should be changed, a grace period given, and then the City should not allow any boats in front yards, and should grant no waviers. Mr. Channing stated he wondered how many of the Board read the legal notices in the newspapers, and that, along with the character of the neighborhood, would decide his vote. Mr. Volante expressed his agreement. Mr. Ansay stated he was not in favor, that he felt the boat should be screened and at the side of the house in order not to add clutter to the neighborhood. Mr. Tarr agreed with Mr. Glidden this was not improving the neighborhood but commented that nobody read the legal notices and he believed Ms. Folsom should have been sent a letter so she could have obtained a decal, and he would vote to allow the waiver although he believed it was not in the best interests of the City. The motion carried by 4 -3 vote, with Mr. Ansay, Mr. Volante, and Mr. Glidden voting against the motion. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -22: Mirasol Clubhouse Phase 2 A request by Anne Booth of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Taylor - Woodrow Communities, for site plan approval for Phase 2 of the clubhouse parcel within the Mirasol Planned Community District (PCD). Phase 2 includes 65,400 square feet of "clubhouse" use in addition to 16,102 square feet of building space approved as part of Phase 1. Phase 2 shall include the main clubhouse and • dining building, fitness building, pool and spa, and 15 tennis courts. The 27.27 acre parcel is located approximately' /z of a mile north of the intersection of Job Road and PGA Boulevard. (30- 42S42E) 11 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 Senior Planner Ed Tombari presented the petition. Anne Booth, agent for the petitioner, explained this site was within the country club community, and described the clubhouse as Mizner style with barrel tile roof and consistent colors and materials with the other buildings. Ms. Booth reviewed the architectural details, and explained the applicant had withdrawn one waiver. Staff recommended approval of the remaining waivers. Ms. Booth presented samples of materials. Ms. Booth confirmed that Mr. Kunkle had reviewed the landscape plans and had no comments. Mr. Present noted 591 total parking spaces were planned, and asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Board if they wanted more spaces in the future or if approval of the number requested would lock in the total. Mr. Tombari responded the applicant would have to come back for an additional waiver. Mr. Tombari confirmed that the City Engineer had reviewed the lake maintenance easement and had no objections, and a letter from Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District indicated they had no concerns. Mr. Booth described the retaining wall, which would provide screening. Jeff Ornstein, Architect for the project, explained that there would be no food service inside the building, only poolside. Mr. Ornstein indicated rooftop equipment would be fully screened, and that the air conditioning units were on the ground and would be screened. Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of Petition SP -01 -22 with the four waivers as listed in the staff report and with the following conditions : 1. Prior to City Council review, the applicant shall define all equipment, including screening methodology. 2. Prior to City Council review, all lighted tennis courts shall be clearly designated on the site plan. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -16: NorthCorp Lots 4 and 5 A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of NorthCorp Development, Inc., for site plan approval for two identical 45,144 square foot office buildings within the South Park Center Plat of the NorthCorp Corporate Park. The petitioner is proposing to utilize both lot 4 and lot 5 for the building site area. The site is an approximately 6.0 -acre tract of land located at the southern end of the NorthCorp Planned Community District, between Riverside Drive and East Park Drive. (07- 42S -42E) Planner Kara Irwin presented the petition. Anne Booth, representing the petitioner, indicated she believed staff was now comfortable that the buildings had been best placed to preserve the large trees • on the site. The renderings presented had actual photographs of the trees superimposed over the buildings. Ms. Booth indicated the applicant agreed with the condition of approval to provide the same 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 arch on the west side of the building that was depicted on the east. Ms. Booth presented material samples and photographs of the building just north of the site, which had utilized the same building materials and colors as the proposed buildings for this project. Ms. Booth explained that additional notations and dimensions for architectural treatments had been added to the plans since the last presentation. Ms. Booth explained that potential tenants had expressed interest in the buildings being connected and the buildings had been located with that in mind; if the buildings were to be separated any further that would eliminate that option. The separation had met all required building codes. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the walls facing the adjacent buildings were just blank spaces with windows, and requested the petitioner look at a treatment to tie them together or provide warmth to make the area more welcoming. Mr. Channing indicated he did not like the buildings, which he considered boxy with not enough articulation, but he liked the building to the north. Mr. Channing recommended nothing less than 1" steps in the profiles since 1 /z" did not cast a visible shadow. Chair Solomon agreed, and recommended rotating one building. Mr. Channing commented he thought the orientation was right because it was practical in terms of heat loads. Mr. Glidden expressed no problems with the site plan, but expressed his opinion that the arches appeared to be half circles tacked onto the building. Jim Griffin, representing the developer, indicated a new set of drawings giving dimensions of the architectural elements had been provided, and agreed to extend the elements further and to mirror the east and west walls.. Mr. Griffin explained that Art in Public Places would be placed between the buildings and there would be meandering sidewalks, vegetation, park benches, etc., to provide a friendly atmosphere. In response to Mr. Ansay's question regarding the style of architecture, Mr. Griffin explained that the buildings were designed to be varied but in keeping with the other buildings in the park Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that the Board's decision was usually what was acceptable versus what they would like to see, and the Board should not be stating what they would like to see, but be sure the codes were followed. Mr. Channing apologized for his previous comments, stating there were many very good buildings that were boxy, but he thought this building could be improved. Mr. Glidden commented that design guidelines were being developed and if the Board could not critique here then the guidelines should be trashed, and this Board needed direction and guidance on this matter. Mr. Channing requested Mr. Glidden provide a critique. Mr. Glidden suggested the vertical and horizontal banding of the arch at the top of the stair tower be solid with the arch coming out of that, eliminating the crevices. Chair Solomon commented very good progress had been made on the design guildelines, but they were only guidelines and not mandatory, and they included looking for buildings to be interesting as well as functional, breaking up masses, etc. Mr. Griffin agreed to changing the arches at the top of the stair towers according to Mr. Glidden's suggestion. Discussion ensued regarding whether to have the applicant return with revised plans. Mr. Channing indicated he was not willing to hold up the applicant, and they should not be penalized because the City had no design guidelines to give them. Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -16 with the following conditions: 1. The top of the arches at the top of the stair towers shall be made a solid mass, with the curve for the arch at the bottom. 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 • 2. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall provide revised plans showing the same architectural treatments on the west elevations that are proposed for the east elevations. Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by 6 -1 vote, with Mr. Solomon opposed because of the architecture and the site plan. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition PUD- 00 -07: Oak Park Office Park A request by Edward Sooy of Alan Strassler Architects, for approval of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development known as the Oak Park Office Park. The 6.8 acre PUD is located one mile from the interseciton of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road, on the west side of Prosperity Farms Road. (05- 42S -43E) Mr. Ansay made a motion to continue Petition PUD -00 -07 to the October 23, 2001 meeting. Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Workshop Petition PUD- 01 -07: BATT Learning Center A request by Mark Bradford of Cotleur- Hearing, agent for Robert A. Wilcox, for a rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Public /Institutional (P /I) 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 located on the north side of Hood Road, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike. (35-4]S-42E) Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. Mark Bradford, agent for the applicant, reviewed the request and indicated others present on behalf of the petitioner included Roy and Judy Yarnoff, the school operators, Paul Neff, Architect, Kayhart Pinder, and Donaldson Hearing from Cotleur- Hearing. Mr. Neff reviewed the building architecture, indicated the library was an architectural statement of the school logo, described the colors and architectural elements, and presented a sample color and materials board. Mr. Tarr noted the drawing which was provided was drawn in different proportions than the plan. Mr. Bradford explained that was a prior drawing. Mr. Tarr expressed concern with placing lakes on a site with small children. The applicant indicated they were looking at fencing and that the lakes were required for drainage. Mr. Tarr indicated he would prefer the front building columns to be round instead of square. Mr. Ansay expressed concern that more accessibility was needed for emergency vehicles, to . which Mr. Bradford responded the Fire Department had made no comments during DRC review, but offered to check with them again. Mr. Present questioned why the site seemed to be a cut -out from other parcels, to which Mr. Bradford responded there were several constraints including wetlands and homes. 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 Mr. Present indicated this project seemed to be a total buildout with no room for future expansion. Roy Yarnell responded that the school was small, with 2 classes per grade K through 12, and the intent was to keep it that way, and that they wanted to keep the atmosphere the same. Mr. Glidden expressed concern with dead -end parking situations, particularly the long row of parking on the west side, and suggested moving building F a little farther south in order to create a circular turnaround. Mr. Glidden pointed out a dead end parking situation in the front, which he suggested could be linked back to the linear parking lot. Mr. Glidden noted any lost spaces could be added at the southeast corner of the front parking lot. Mr. Glidden suggested a sidewalk the full length of the parking lot and the sidewalk could be made wider to eliminate wheel stops. Mr. Glidden did not favor a fence around the lakes unless it was proven to be a problem. Mr. Glidden requested a roof plan at the next meeting and that the parapet wall be high enough to screen equipment. Mr. Glidden requested the sidewalk be continued between buildings C and A. Building D was described as 10' high masonry walls stuccoed and enclosing a steel building. Mr. Charming expressed his view that the architecture was a good example of neoclassic revival, that the building fronts had been handled tastefully, and that he did not favor fencing around the lakes. Mr. Charming proposed another turnaround east of building G. Chair Solomon echoed Mr. Glidden's concerns for traffic circulation and recommended the turnarounds proposed. Mr. Bradford indicated there would be a deceleration lane. Traffic access was one lane in and one lane out, and the western point was egress only, which needed to be on the plans. Chair Solomon suggested scoring or banding on the north and south elevations. Lighting for the athletic fields was discussed. An area east of building B was clarified to be open space natural area. Mr. Glidden requested downspouts be architecturally featured. Mr. Neff indicated there was no need for hurricane shutters since the glazing system met windstorm specifications. Mr. Glidden noted the City's ordinance on that would not be effective until January 1. Workshop Petition PUD- 00 -04: Union Square Phase I Renovations (a.k.a. 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 one of the PUD amendment. Tanglewood Apartments are located on the east side of Military Trail, south of the southeast corner of PGA Bouelvard and Military Trail, south of the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Military Trail (12- 42S -42E) Boardmember John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Senior Planner Ed Tombari presented the project. Al Malefatto, Esq., agent for the applicant, reported a mix of units had been used as the Board suggested, that requested waivers were basically requirements in order to fit into the existing site plan, and the applicant would work to fill in more landscaping as much as possible. A deceleration lane was being added on Military Trail, reducing the space for Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 landscaping. Within 180 days of City Council approval the applicant agreed to submit the plan for phase two, and indicated they would post a $500,000 bond as guarantee. William Caldwell, Architect, OG &P, described the architecture, new roofs, re -faced walls, tower elements, and presented a color scheme and materials board. Mr. Caldwell indicated new balcony railings would be an architectural feature. Mr. Caldwell described courtyards, and commented that dimensional asphalt shingles were planned for the roof material. Mr Malfatto indicated the following work would be done in phase one: the work on the buildings and the landscaping, beginning with the 30% of units now unoccupied, commented that all leases would be respected and tenants would be moved as needed; also due to improvements the rents would be raised. Chair Solomon indicated it was not this Board's concern regarding the applicant's relationship with their tenants. Mr. Malfatto indicated Phase 2 would include the deceleration lane, platting, repaving roads, lighting, and signage. Landscape Architect Frank Maroney commented trash would be collected in a central collection system to be distributed to the trash compacting facility instead of using individual dumpsters, but this had not been decided 100 %, and would be dependent on parking, to be studied and decided during Phase 2. Mr. Maroney explained that all landscaping possible would be added, that buffers would be considered, that a proposed parking structure on the north property line would be heavily landscaped, that FP &L power lines restricted planting large trees on the north property line, and that a new seagrape hedge was planned. Mr. Maroney indicated that there was very little space • along Military Trail, also with overhead powerlines, and a fence or wall with vines might be an option. Mr. Tarr indicated his major concern was the look from Military Trail, where there was very little landscaping. Mr. Maroney commented there were 674 existing native pine trees on the site, and 52 exotics were being removed. Mr. Tarr suggested adding a shade tree every 5 parking spaces. Mr. Maroney commented that smaller trees could be placed in landscape areas in lieu of parking spaces; however, that study was in phase 2. Mr. Tarr requested more landscaping along Johnson Dairy Road. Mr. Tarr commented his concern was the view from Military Trail and Johnson Dairy Road rather than the view from the apartments. Mr. Ansay preferred more tower buildings to provide diversity, and expressed concern regarding phasing this project. Mr. Malfatto indicated the $500,000 bond mentioned earlier would be in addition to any bond for platting. Mr. Present asked how the figure $500,000 had been determined without a budget, and commented some of the things in phase two could be started simultaneously with phase one —that he did not want to see a big gap between phases. Mr. Present requested a list of items to be done in phase two, to see what might be started earlier. Mr. Malfatto indicated the petitioner felt $500,000 would provide assurance to the City and a hammer to the client. Mr. Malfatto commented a 6 -month period between phases was an outside estimate, and the petitioner was hoping to start much sooner. Chair Solomon recommended the whole front line of buildings along Military Trail be removed in order to provide landscaping, which was probably not realistic, but the applicant needed to be creative in that area. Mr. Malfatto indicated the proformas had been based on the existing number of units. Mr. Solomon suggested removing only the northernmost building, containing ten units. Mr. Malfatto indicated he would discuss this with his clients. Mr. Solomon suggested a 50/50 balance between tower and non -tower units. Mr. Channing suggested parallel parking along both sides of the parking lot on Military Trail, there would be room for an 18' island, providing 10' along the front for a berm and landscaping, and if that did not accommodate all the parking there was room near building B -10 and east of B -10 between that and AA. Mr. Charming indicated he wanted the X aPlannin g & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 petitioner to study that, and also that the City did not allow asphalt shingles and he would not be inclined to approve a building that did not have a cement tile roof. Mr. Ansay suggested a decorative wall along Military Trail and indicated he would not vote in favor of asphalt shingles. Mr. Channing agreed with the possibility of a wall and landscaping. Mr. Wu indicated this project would not be on the next agenda. Mr. Glidden rejoined the Board. NEW BUSINESS The Grande at Mirasol Discussion Regarding Proposed Architecture Mr. Wu explained there were some housekeeping matters connected to the elevations for Mirasol, which could be approved administratively but the wanted to get authority from the Board to do so if this was desired; or these types of matters could be brought before the Board. • Anne Booth, agent, explained that the proposed modifications were in keeping with the style and theme of the previously approved plans, that the plans had been modified and the modifications had not been approved by the City. Ms. Booth explained that minor modifications could be approved administratively; major modifications required 14 criteria to be met by staff in determining whether the changes needed to go back through the whole process which would include review by this Commission and by City Council. Ms. Booth indicated the modifications of most concern to staff were where rear outdoor balconies now incorporated into the individual units, making the balconies shorter and longer and the roof line had been expanded. Ms. Booth explained that other changes were minor, and most of the plans and the concept had remained the same. Mr. Tarr indicated he liked the old architectural features better, and he felt this change was appropriate to get the Board's approval. Mr. Channing liked the new design better but personally felt staff should deal with these types of modifications administratively. Mr. Glidden and Chair Solomon indicated they liked the new plans better. Principal Planner Karen Carver noted the a/c units on the previous plan were spread out and were now located in a central area. There was consensus that six members of the Board were comfortable with the changes; Mr. Tarr was not. Discussion ensued regarding similar issues in the future. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that staff's role was to protect the City and if nothing was taken away and the look was the same, then staff should approve them administratively. Mr. Glidden agreed, encouraged staff to put such items on the agenda if they were uncomfortable, and indicated such items could be handled at the beginning of the agenda. Chair Solomon indicated he would prefer the materials to be included in the packets; Mr. Glidden felt that was unnecessary. Mr. Glidden brought up an example where he had heard a large circular paver feature had been removed from the Catalfumo project at the mall, and that should have come before the Board. Mr. Glidden asked Mr. Wu if that had been removed; Mr. Wu indicated he would have to 10 i Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 research to find out what had happened. Mr. Wu indicated it was a learning curve for staff as to how close they could get without violating the P &Z Board's approval. Mr. Channing indicated the Board had sent a mixed signal, that the apartments before them were a perfect example, and staff should have confidence that the Board would not second guess them, and in this case the design was just changed a little, no one was taking anything away from the City - -but if something was taken out then it should be brought before the Board. Mr. Solomon indicated confidence in staff but that this was enough of a change to bring before the Board. Mr. Charming commented now a mixed signal had been sent and staff would bring everything to the Board, which was not what the Board wanted. A poll indicated three members felt staff should have made the decision, which sent a mixed signal. OLD BUSINESS Report by John Glidden on the Design Guidelines Subcommittee Mr. Glidden reported the committee had had 4 -5 meetings and was 67.7% through the design guidelines and they were coming along well. The scope included all non - residential projects, and the big issue was a lot of buildings would not to comply, such as warehouse buildings, and it must be conveyed that the City was raising the bar high across the City for every project. Mr. Glidden noted there must be language included that there would be exceptions. Mr. Glidden explained that some areas were requirements using the word "shall "; in other areas when it was a general recommendation it usually referred to specific guidelines. General provisions had been completed; and architectural design was almost finished. Still to be considered were site design, signs, and roadways. The issue of existing projects not completed over a long period of time had not yet been decided. Mr. Glidden encouraged anyone to come to the meetings. Mr. Ansay asked if the committee was reviewing multifamily. Mr. Glidden responded no, and that wherever there was something that was a specific guideline that was an absolute it was being removed and placed in the LDR's since these guidelines were for recommendation only. Chair Solomon noted that Principal Planner Steve Cramer was working with the committee, which had saved money by not hiring an outside consultant. Chair Solomon announced the City's Annual Advisory Board and Volunteer Recognition night would be held October 11. Mr. Glidden commented there was a large group of volunteers working for the City that did not get invited —the people who volunteered on the PBGYAA. Mr. Wu noted that had been discussed but they were still not invited because it would break the Recreation Department budget, because there were approximately 600 people. Mr. Glidden commented there was a Board of 5 -6 people who oversaw the recreation, and those people were very offended they were not invited, and his wife was one of them. Mr. Glidden indicated he would let his wife go in his place. Mr. Wu indicated other alternative measures would be taken to recognize those volunteers. Mr. Tarr noted the Board's 0 invitations had included a guest. Mr. Wu announced that Principal Planner Karen Craver had given a month's notice and would be going 11 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 0 • to the City of Santa Barbara, and would be missed. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 25, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held October 11, 2001. APPROVED: Dennis Solomon, Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chair Alternate David Kendall 0 e=� O Betty La &, Secretary for the Meeting 13 -- ------ --------- - L kiil 1 • 0 S//3O/ T C, pl-dloipr�y OW17pl- 04d �o✓' o e FO 1 so f wly i kl � G�q ✓��' 70 �,e Tv Kee A el- Lt// ?ICfl t vel- be Ar 4l ,e 1 w I-vqS C A qh ' C-✓ ,�? be QllowP✓ `o e qS k"'qi7 y a14 Pr s A a v e , eems. I But, Kvt,,-j t--�� s 3z(, 1 `2>A4 A Z sr. :17 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 law when 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. • L� FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS E - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE G , B. John 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 Palm Beach Gardens COUNTY Palm Beach NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Palm Beach Gardens DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED September 25, 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 law when 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. • L� k► DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on September 25, 2001: (aWeasure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of Ceebraid /Signal Corporation, by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of ny interest in the measure is a follows: Tang lewood/U nion Square • Date Filed rwx�� Si ure 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:WDMIMPERSONALIJOHMPBZItang -con Page 2 9