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