HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 050801CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION
May 8, 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.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Growth Management Director Charles Wu reported that Alternate David Kendall, who had been absent
for several weeks due to a prior commitment, was present
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT
Growth Management Director Charles Wu reported that since the last Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting the City Council had approved the master site plan, the residential site plan, and the commercial
site plan for Legacy Place. The traffic study had not warranted four lanes of traffic on Legacy Drive, so
there would be two, with four lanes on Fairchild Gardens. The buffer wall would be 8' in height, but only
6' would be visible from Legacy Drive, and would extend around the comer onto Fairchild Gardens to
. the first home. New information that came to light between first and second readings was a BellSouth
Tine on private property, which the City Council had requested that staffhave moved where it belonged.
Mr. Wu reported that Vice Mayor Jablin had commended the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
work on this project.
Mr. Wu announced a special joint workshop with the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
to be held June 21. The purpose of this meeting would be to give direction regarding design guidelines.
Mr. Wu reported staffhad a draft of the guidelines and needed direction. A poll revealed that only one
member, Mr. Ansay, would be unable to attend the special workshop meeting.
CM COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to approve the minutes ofthe April 17, 2001 meeting with changes on page
one to show that Mr. Dick Ansay was present and Mr. Steven Tarr was absent, and correction of titles
on the signature page. Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
.• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent
Dennis Solomon, Chairman Mr. Joel Channing
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tem
John Glidden
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planners Ed Tombari and Talal
Benothman, City Attorney Len Rubin, Principal Planners Steve Cramer and Karen Carver, and Planner
Kara Irwin.
It was announced that the following item had been withdrawn:
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
• Awed J. Malefatto, agent far Fercon Florida, Inc-, is requesting a 2-year time extension to complete
the construction of 51 single-family residential units in the Hidden Hollow Planned Unit
Development (PUD). The 12.3 -acre site is located on the south side of Northlake Boulevard, 112 mile
west of Military Tram (23- 42S -42E)
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
Petition PCD- 01 -01: Mirasol Master Plan- Amendment
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requestingan amendment io theMirasol Planned Community District
(PCD), on behalf of the owner, Taylor Woodrow Communities at Mirasol, Ltd The request is to
modify the PCD to change the public golf course to a private course; remove nine holes of gold; and
reconfigure several residential pods. No changes in number of residential units, commercial square
footage, location of major parkways or location of PCD buffers. Mirasol is located between PGA
Boulevard and Hood Road on the west side of Florida's Turnpike (3 &4- 42S -42E, 33 &34 -41S- -42E)
Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report.
Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, explained changes in the site plan from public to private golf, reduction
of 9 holes, and providing a roadway connection; and that there was consistency with the previous plan
with the same number of dwelling units, no increase in traffic, the same main roadways, entrances, and
buffer, the majority ofthe parcels remained unchanged, the drainage concepts were the same, the teaching
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
academy was relocated to the central core ofthe expanded clubhouse. Improvements to the plan were
described as better roadway /pedestrian connectivity, and an increased preserve area. Ms. Booth
described modification to condition 28 to allow the school site to revert to the developer if the School
Board did not use the site by March 2006. Ms. Booth explained that the developer would continue to
work with the School Board to try to resolve this issue prior to presentation to the City Council. Other
requested changes in conditions were that the condition regarding landscaping ofHood Road be required
in 90 days instead of 30; and to clean up language in the first condition regarding the role of Seacoast
Utilities. Mr. Tarr questioned the change in the market from public to private golf. Ms. Booth
commented that the cost that would have to be charged for public golf had become prohibitive and that
there had been no benefit given to the developer in the original approval because the original plan had
been for a public golf course. Mr. Present questioned relocation of lots closer to the wastewater
treatment area, to which Ms. Booth explained that on the original plan more lots had touched the
Seacoast property and there was a condition of approval requiring disclosure to homeowners that the
wastewater treatment area was there and could create odors, and also explained that a substantial buffer
was planned. Ms. Booth explained that the teaching academy was still open for the public and that the
academy was still happy and very much involved. Mr. Glidden asked staff if there were any other
alternatives to the scenario of having the school site revert to the developer if the school was not built
and suggested possible expansion ofthe park. Mr. Glidden asked that staff and City Council think about
that option. Ms. Booth explained that the developer was committed to no access from Hood Road and
• the plan for the park exceeded impact requirements for the project, so that there would have to be some
type of compensation to the developer if the land was used as parkland. The school site would satisfy
school impact fee credits and if the site reverted back to the developer, the developer would be required
to pay the impact fee credits to the School Board in return for the dedication of the land back to the
developer. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that,the applicant had done what they were supposed to
do and had voluntarily offered the school site, which was great, but if for some reason the School Board
did not utilize the land, the City would lose an important piece of property which could be of use and
benefit to the public. Mr. Glidden asked if there was a date by which the developer had to provide the
PGA Boulevard widening, to which Ms. Booth responded the end of 2004 and the buffer was to be
completed prior to the first C.O. of the abutting parcels according to a phasing plan. The roadway
construction would begin after a certain number of trips and had to be completed by the end of 2004.
Mr. Wu advised the City would work with the applicant to come up with a reasonable schedule. Ms.
Booth stated the road was a one -year project and buffering was to be completed prior to the 250th
C.O. — approximately 10% ofthe dwelling units. Chair Solomon commented ifthere was a revision ofthe
school site it could not exceed the allotted trips. Discussion ensued regarding densities if the site
reverted, and Ms. Booth indicated that a change in use for the parcel would result in the applicant
coming back before Planning and Zoning for site plan approval. Chair Solomon declared the public
hearing open. John Hannon, 86 Dunbar Road East, Marlwood Estates, stated he was a member of the
Board of Marlwood Estates, the neighborhood directly across the street from Mirasol. Mr. Hannon
explained they had not been -good neighbors to date, there would be a 200% increase in density to the
area, that two lanes on PGA Boulevard had been narrowed to one lane, and expressed concern there
would be serious accidents because of lack of proper signage. Mr. Hannon reported the applicant had
• 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
burned to clear the land, even though they could not get permission to bum. Mr. Hannon commented
that FPL was building a new substation 300' feet from existing homes and suggested it be placed on the
developer's site beside their golf maintenance facility. Andy Dalsey, PGA National resident, commented
that residents on PGA Boulevard and others not on PGA Boulevard wanted to know the status of a plan
for a privacy wall to buffer the south side of PGA Boulevard from the increased traffic. Chair Solomon
stated he did not recall that it was a requirement on this developer to install a wall on the south side. Mr.
Tombari commented that condition 13 ofthe original approval addressed a wall and beautification at the
time ofwidening PGA Boulevard in 2004. Mr. Dalsey indicated the County had committed to participate
in the beautification. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public
hearing closed. Mr. Tarr asked if it was too late to do anything about things promised but not delivered
to the City. Mr. Tombari explained that there had never been a commitment to a public golf course, that
the City Council had an interest in maintaining a golf training facility, that the applicant had met all legal
dedications, and that the master plan had changed three times. Mr. Tombari stated that the applicant was
not exceeding traffic concurrency, and that the entrances remained the same. Mr. Wu commented that
the FPL substation would be considered at another time. Chair Solomon commented the DOT might be
willing to participate in the landscaping. Mr. Tombari responded that the burden was on the applicant.
Mr. Ansay asked how the impact fees were calculated if the property reverted back to the developer.
AttomeyRubin explained that impact fees were paid when permits were pulled so ifthere was an increase
in impact fees the developer would pay the increased fees in effect at that time. Ms. Booth commented
262 single family dwelling units could fit on the site at the maximum of 8 units per acre. Ms. Booth
commented the developer had been working with the Master Association at PGA National regarding the
landscaping and was happy to learn there may be additional funds for that work. Mr. Present commented
that work on this project had gone on for a long time, that in the beginning the applicant had indicated
their developable area was tight, and all of a sudden now 9 holes could be taken out and more housing
put in, and he indicated some of his prior decisions had been predicated on the big picture which was
public golf. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that this was a major change in the eleventh hour and it
hit him wrong that something like this just came up when the developer should have known the facts all
along. Mr. Glidden stated he understood Mr. Present's position, and was curious about construction,
which he verified with Ms. Booth that infrastructure was in place in accordance with the original plan but
the developer had not started construction on any of the changes presented in this plan. Mr. Glidden
recognized that someone could change their mind in favor of a better idea. Mr. Glidden expressed strong
concern regarding the school site reverting back if the School Board did not use that land. Ms. Booth
indicated the School Board wanted to have a school on the site but could not agree with the developer
on timing, and also indicated that the City Council had discussed moving this school to another property
to the east and there were some boundary limitations on that. Since the School Board had indicated there
might not be a school on the site for 20 years, the developer wanted accountability that something would
be done by 2006. Mr. Glidden asked that this issue be looked at here or passed to the City Council. Ms.
Booth clarified that the reverter language was in condition 28, and that the School Board agreed to the
reverter clause but would like an additional two years. The school site would be dedicated but there was
a question of whether it would be built, but the developer was happy to have a school go there. Mr.
Glidden expressed his opinion if the School Board wanted two more years that should be granted.
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition PCD-01 -01
with the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall obtain conceptual approval of a revised
Master Drainage Plan from the City Engineer, Seacoast Utility Authority, and the South
Florida Water Management District.
2. Within 90 days of City Council approval, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape
plan indicating additional landscaping within the swale area of the Hood Road Parkway
right -of -way.
3. The 72 conditions in Ordinance 8, 2001, with amendments as proposed in the staff report
reflecting the conditions which have been fulfilled to this point in the development of the
PCD.
4. Condition 28 in Ordinance 8, 2001 shall be modified to change the date from March 31,
2008 to December 31, 2008.
• Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by 6-1 vote, with Mr. Present opposed.
Mr. Present commented to staff that he knew their hands were tied when an applicant came in with a
change and stayed under the numbers, but that when the Commission had worked on a major project for
a year, such as Mirasol, and the applicant made a major change like this at the eleventh hour that staff
should have the right to go back and look at all ofthe waivers, since the Commission had made decisions
looking at the bigger picture and they should have the right to look at the whole picture again. Mr.
Present stated he was miffed at the change and the Board should have the right to look at the whole
picture and make tradeoffs.
Recommendation to City Council
SP- 01 -15: Site Plan Amendment for Building 800 at Village Square
Glen Welter, agent for Professional Park, Ltd, is requesting a site plan amendment for architectural
details, foundation landscaping, site irrigation, and other improvements for Building 800 in the
second phase of the Village Square Professional Par/ The site is at the southwest corner of RCA
Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road (8-42S - -43E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staffreport. Glen Weller, agent for the applicant, reviewed changes
that had been made and indicated the petitioner had problems with the staff recommendation. Mr. Kunkle
commented the porch dimension was different than existing porches, to which Mr. Weller responded that
was the case on two buildings only, and this building had an elevator and stairs inside for single tenant
use. Mr. Kunkle indicated he wanted to see continuity of appearance, and that he hoped the architecture
0 5
. Planning _& Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
would not slide on other buildings. Mr. Kunkle requested the buffer height be specified. Mr. Weller
indicated there was no specific maintenance plan for the mangroves. Mr. Glidden commented the
petitioner had done a good job on the park. Mr. Glidden indicated this building would be seen from
Prosperity Farms Road from the rear, and suggested on the rear (east) elevation that the two masses
which came out a couple of feet and move them together toward the center one window bay which
would allow the fascia to be higher as done in the other buildings. Mr. Weller agreed to the proposed
change.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -15 with the
following conditions:
1. All tenant signage shall include the following elements established in Ordinance 10,1999:
• Colors to match building colors
• Material and style to match building materials and style
• Letters to be a maximum height of 9 inches
• Maximum sign panel to be 12 square feet per sign
• No more than 3 signs will be allowed per building
• Sign panel mounting to building shall be adequate to withstand windloads per Palm
Beach Gardens Building Division standards
• 2. To slightly modify the east elevation to move the two slightly projected building masses
approximately one window bay toward the center of the building, allowing the fascia to be
raised approximately 18 inches.
Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 01 -I1: Site Plan Review for Ballenlsles Parcel 21
Urban Design Studio, agent for Dexter Development Company, is requesting site plan approval for
a 748•acre site within the Ballenlsles Country Club Planned Community District. The site plan
includes 23 semi- custom Single Family Modified Zero Lot Line homes. The parcel is located on the
west side of Eastlslan"venue, approximately 314 mile from the intersection of Ballenlsles drive and
east Island Avenue 03114- 42S -42E)
Planner Kara Irwin reviewed the staffreport. Ann Booth, agent for the petitioner, spoke on behalf ofthe
petitioner. Mr. Tarr questioned if the plan had been approved by the development, which Ms. Booth
confirmed that the New Construction Committee had approved the-plan. Chair Solomon questioned how
many different models were proposed, to which Ms. Booth responded there were combinations of one
and two -story models which could be modified by the purchasers and the applicant would like approval
of the design guidelines with the prototypical models. Discussion ensued. Ms. Booth clarified that if
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
modifications were made outside the guidelines that would have to come back for this Board's approval
as well as getting approval from the New Construction Committee. The models were reviewed. Chair
Solomon requested some limitations on the number of identical models in a row. Mr. Glidden
commented the applicant was not limited because these were custom single family homes. Ms. Booth
clarified that the design guidelines were part of the conditions of approval and the same units which
looked identical would not be side by side, and that colors and roof tile would be changed in all cases,
and that the applicant could work to come up with a more specific guideline before presentation to City
Council.
Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -01 -21 with the
requested waivers and the following condition:
1. The developer shall attempt to more specifically design the characteristics which would
vary units adjacent to each other by color and architectural style more specifically before
City Council review.
Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council_
• Petition SP- 00 -28: Site Plan Review for Frenchman's Reserve Golf Maintenance Facility
Land Design South, agent for Toll Brothers Development, is requesting a site plan approval for a
3.14 -acre Golf Maintenance Facility. The site will be comprised of two structures totaling 9,600
square feet as well as parking, fueling, and equipment washing facilities. The site is located within
the Frenchman's Reserve Planned Community District, south of the Cabana Colony cana4 and just
to the east of Alternate AIA. (31- 41S -43E)
Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staffreport. Agent for the applicant, Bob Benz, described
the project through a power point presentation.
Mr. Kunkle expressed concern for the neighboring homes in terms of lighting and noise early in the
morning. Applicant clarified the light poles were Win height and that there was a 48' buffer, and that
landscaping would be installed along the fence. Mr. Wu commented the applicant would consider a 12'
light pole. Discussion ensued. Mr. Benz commented that more lights would be needed if the poles were
lowered. Mr. Kunkle indicated the applicant could request a photometric waiver for reduced lighting.
Mr. Benz clarified there would be no lights on the building and that the lights that would be added in the
parking lot would be for employee security. Mr. Glidden commented he did not want it to be very light.
Mr. Present commented the landscaping was more than adequate. Mr. Benz explained that a memorial
placed on the Frenchman's Reserve property several years ago at the site where a murder of children who
lived in Cabana Colony had taken place would be moved to the maintenance facility site, and that the
parents of the children had been contacted and knew of the opportunity to move the memorial-
0 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SR400 -28 with the
following condition:
1. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall revise the site plan and the conceptual
water, sewer and drainage plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. There shall be vining on the perimeter fence.
3. Light poles in the parking lot shall be 12' in height.
The following waivers were also approved:
1. Section 161 Foundation landscaping and plantings. The applicant is proposing no
foundation landscaping around the base of the structure. The LDRs require that all one -
story buildings have a five -foot wide landscaped foundation planting area.
2. Section 179 Construction and maintenance. The applicant is proposing 9.5 -feet wide
parking stalls. The LDRs require parking stalls be a minimum of ten feet wide.
• 3. Section 75 minimum side setback. The applicant is proposing a side setback of 12 feet for
Maintenance Building B. The LDRs require a minimum side setback of 10% of lot width
or 19.5 feet.
4. A photometric waiver for the parking lot lighting was approved.
Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00 -29: Site Plan Review for, Frenchman's Reserve POD "G"
Land Design South, agent for Toll Brothers, Inc-, is requesting site plan approval for Parcel G of the
Frenchman's Reserve Planned Community District. Parcel G shall contain 29 zero lot line dwelling
units and seven non zero units. The proposed density for the site is 3.27 dwelling units and seven
non zero units. The proposed density for the site is 3.27 dwelling units per acre. The 11.00 -acre site
is bounded by Frenchman's Reserve Pod A (undeveloped) to the north. Alternate AIA to the west,
Frenchman's Reserve GolfMaintenance Facility (undeveloped) and Cabana Colony to the south and
Frenchman's Reserve Upland Reserve to the east (41- 34S -42E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report and indicated all waiver issues had been resolved
with the applicant. Bob Benz, agent for the petitioner, described the project, indicated agreement with
all waivers, indicated landscaping would be presented in approximately a month, and presented
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
prototypical landscaping and architectural elevations. W. Benz indicated this parcel would be under the
master association and that possibly parcel F which had larger lots might have a sub association and larger
assessments. Chair Solomon questioned the responsibility for exterior landscaping and exterior home
maintenance. Mr. Benz explained that some ofthe homes would do their own maintenance and for some
the maintenance would be included, and that all homeowners were responsible for their own exterior
building maintenance. Chair Solomon suggested the developer insert a disclaimer in the sales contract
ifthey would be retaining flexibility to change configurations, to which Mr. Benz responded there would
be no future changes. Mr. Tarr indicated it was a shame to put such large homes on small lots, but they
would be behind gates. Mr. Kunkle complimented the petitioner on the phasing plan, and Mr. Benz
clarified there would not be a problem with second story residences looking down on pool areas of other
homes. Mr. Glidden commented on the 60' turn radius, which was explained by Mr. Benz. Screen
enclosures were discussed, with the setback requirements.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP400 -29 with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall indicate how the stormwater runoff
from lots 33 and 34 will be directed to the street and not impact adjacent wetlands.
0 2. Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall revise the site plan to address all minor,
outstanding engineering concerns.
The following waivers were approved:
1. Section 75, Rear Setback, to allow for a three -foot rear setback for parcels adjacent to a
preserve area, and to allow for a zero -foot rear setback for parcels not adjacent to a
preserve area.
2. Section 75, Side Setback, Screen Enclosure, 80 -foot lots, to allow for a 3 -1/2 -foot setback
from one property line.
3. Section 265, to allow for four -foot sidewalks on either side of the street. The Land
Development Regulations require five -foot sidewalks on both sides of the street.
4. Section 75, Side Setback, to allow for screen enclosure setbacks of seven feet for 65 -foot
zero lot line homes.
Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
• 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent
Dennis Solomon, Chairman Mr. Joel Channing
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tem
John Glidden
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Public Hearing/Recommendation to GO Council
Petition LU- 00 -04: Parcel 34.01 Congress Plaza West Future Land Use Map Amendment
Urban Design Studio, agent; is proposing a small scale, future land -use map amendment from
Industrial to Commercial for a 5-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Northlake Boulevard
and Congress Avenue.
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, agent for
the applicant, indicated she was present to answer questions. Mr. Benothman explained that an interlocal
agreement would be needed with Lake Park and development ofthis site would be based on Palm Beach
Gardens requirements. Maximum density was discussed. Mr. Benothman explained the traffic study.
Mr. Present requested and received clarification that this project would use up trips for other parcels, but
there would be no degradation of level of service. Mr. Wu indicated the worst case scenario was shown.
Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LU -00-04 to
change the land use designation of the subject parcel from Industrial to Commercial use. Mr.
Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0.
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
Petition LU- 00 -05: Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 Future Land Use Man Amendment
Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing a future land use map amendment from Mixed Use to
Residential High for 80.5 acres of land located at northeast and. -northwest corners of Central
Boulevard and I -95.
• 10
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May S, 2001
Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained that thiswouldbe a large scale Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report. Dodi Glas, agent, indicated this
parcel was subject to the forbearance agreement which had established the density. Mr. Kunkle
questioned if thi s would not be 12 units per acre but the maximum potential under this change, which was
verified. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair
Solomon declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LU-00-05 to change
the land use designation of the subject parcel from Mixed Use to Residential High. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Volante, and carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Urban Design Studio, agent: is proposing a future land use map amendment from Mixed Use to
Commercial for 13.5 acres ofland located at the southwest corner of Donald Ross Road and Central
Boulevard,
• Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained that this would be a large scale Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, and indicated thisparcelwas also
subject to the forbearance agreement and the maximum density and 'intensity was limited to 25 %, on
which the impact analysis was based. Mr. Benothman stated that before presentation to City Council,
staff would add a note to the future land use map that this parcel's intensity was limited to 25 %.
Additional traffic trips were discussed. Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner, commented that the same
person owned the commercial triangle as well as this site, which was planned to be developed as one
parcel. Mr. Glidden asked if this had come before the Board at the request of the property owner, which
was verified by Ms. Glas. Ms. Glas addressed the land use of this site compared to nearby parcels.
Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon
declared the public hearing closed.
Chair Solomon passed the gavel to Mr. Kunkle, and made a motion to recommend to City Council
approval of Petition LU- 00-07, Parcel 4.10 subject to staff recommendation of receiving no
objections from the City Traffic Engineer to the proposed amendment. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Ansay, and carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
Petition 7XT- 00-05: Parcel 31.01 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing to delete a roadway segment and a portion of another from
the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan, and to delete a pedestrian link that traverses through
• 11
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
Parcel 31.01 from the Conceptual Linkage Plan. Parcel 31.01 is proposed to be developed by WCI
as one Planned Community District (PCD) comprising several parcels.
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report, and distributed a letter from the Palm Beach
County Traffic Engineer confirming staffs conclusions. Mr. Benothman clarified there was no
connection between the City's thoroughfare plan and the overlay linkage plan which applies to the area
around Gardens Mal Mr. Present commented he would stay away from the financial justification since
he believed development would occur with or without the proposed deletions. Chair Solomon
commented he was in favor of the staffrecommendation since the land was to be developed as one parcel
and therefore deletion of the roads would not matter. Mr. Kunkle commented he hoped there were
multiple ingress/egress points when the site plan was presented. Mr. Tarr questioned whether there was
a way to approve the deletions so that the roads would be put back ifthe project did not get built. Mr.
Benothman responded that the City Council could reinstate the roads in the future.
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition TXT- 00-05, Parcel
31.01Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Motion was seconded by Mr. Ansay and carried by
6-1 vote with Mr. Tarr opposed. Mr. Tarr indicated he did not favor granting approval without
a condition that the roads would be put back if the project did not move forward.
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
Petition TAT- 00-06: Parcel4. 06 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to ConcWtual Theneu g hfarePlan
Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing to delete a portion of roadway #15 from the City's
Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan. The segment is proposed to be deleted from military Trail to
Alternate AIA. `
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, and explained that approval had been received
from the City Engineer late that day and that the County Engineer had not objected but requested access
remain, which would be addressed at site plan review. Mr. Kunkle indicated page one of his staff report
did not appear to have the same boundaries as the graphic being shown, which Mr. Benothman explained
was an error and the staff report boundaries should go all the way to Donald Ross Road. Mr. Present
expressed his opinion that once a railroad crossing was given up, it could not be reinstated on the map
and recommended looking at the big picture to see what the loss in connectivity would be in the future
by cutting east -west connections and cross railroad connections. Mr. Present indicated that when the
Commission had looked at the new DiVosta project on Hood Road he had not been in favor of only one
access point, that a railroad crossing had been given up, and there was only one access point into the
project off Military Trail, and he wanted to be sensitive to the effects these kinds of actions would have
on future connectivity. The City Attorney advised that the City had never had a railroad crossing at this
location or at The Isles -that although it was shown on the map that did not mean there was actually one
there, but removing one on the map would take away the potential for a future railroad crossing.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Benothman responded there were already two railroad crossings north and south
• 12
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
of Roadway 15, and this road segment was not intended as a reliever for Donald Ross Road or Hood
Road because these roads were designated as local roads, which primarily provide access into individual
lots. Tara Patton, WCI Communities, commented that the FEC would not commit to granting a railroad
crossing due to the fact that there were two full crossings nearby.
Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition TXT -00-06 as
outlined by staff. Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by 6-1 vote, with Mr. Tarr
opposed for the same reasons he had stated in the previous petition.
Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing a future land -use map amen dmen tfrom Rural Residential -
10 to Golf and to amend the City's land -use designation of Golf for 27.5 acres of land located along
Beeline Highway appradmately 1,800 feet northeast of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and
Beeline Kghway.
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, and reported the City had received an official
objection from Palm Beach County late that day through IPARC that the proposed amendment added
trips on Beeline IIighway, which had special status through FIRS, and adding even one additional trip
on this road would constitute a lowering of the level of service. Mr. Benothman reported the petitioner
had not done a 20/20 traffic analysis as the County required, since the City's Comprehensive Plan did not
require one, and _it did not seem fair to require the petitioner to do a 20/20 traffic analysis for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, since there was nothing to prevent then requiring a 20/50 analysis, etc.,
and there might not be an end to this. Mr. Benothman explained that the petitioner was not requesting
approval from the County, but from the City. Staff had discussed this issue with DCA, who was in
support of the City's position. Mr. Kunkle asked if the text amendment had to be approved in order to
approve the land use change, to which Mr. Benothman responded affirmatively, explaining that the
petitioner had a PUD application pending review and proposed to build up to 13,000 square feet of golf
testing facility on the area. Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion that the text amendment might be too
broad. Mr. Benothman explained there was not a loophole since City Council approval was required.
Industrial golf related use which could affect air and water would have to be approved by Planning and
Zoning and by City Council. Chair Solomon questioned whether this land was within the airport overlay
district. Marty Miner, Urban Design Studio, indicated part ofthis land was within that district, that there
was a concurrent PUD process for this site, that the tallest structure was 50' in height which was a
weather tower to gauge wind and temperature for hitting golfballs, and that height was acceptable to the
North County Airport. Mr. Miner explained that the other structures would be one story. During
ensuing discussion regarding the objection by the County, Mr. Benothman explained that the site plan
had received concurrency from the County. Mr. Present questioned whether this tower could lease space
for microwave antennas, etc., which Mr. Benothman indicated would be a site plan review question.
0 13
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LU-00 -06 for Parcel
18.80 with staffrecommendations. Mr. Kunkle 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 commented regarding Mr. Present's comment earlier in the meeting regarding projects that took
a long time and that had many waivers granted, that the newer members ofthe Commission did not know
what had been granted previously to the developer, which was why he had asked that question to see if
the City had been given anything in return. Mr. Tarr indicated that Mr. Present had made decisions based
on what was initially proposed, and that it was not fair to new members to vote for an amendment or a
waiver when they did not know the history of a project. Mr. Tarr stated he agreed with Mr. Present that
the Mirasol project had made a great change, that Mirasol had originally proposed public golf and
affordable homes, and now half of their homes could not join the golf club. Mr. Tarr expressed his
• opinion that in such situations there should be a summary in the staff report of the history of the project
for the new members. Growth Management Director Wu noted Mr. Tarr's comment, and reminded the
Commission members they could call or e-mail him or the project manager with any questions. Mr.
Solomon commented some changes could be a benefit to residents of a development but indicated the
members would not know the importance of changes and more exchange of information would be
beneficial. Mr. Kunkle noted that the original player was Golf Digest. Mr. Glidden commented that if
two private golf courses had been proposed in the beginning this would not have even been a
consideration, so it was a matter of relativity. Mr. Ansay commented the Board wanted the project to
be successful and it was not to the best interest of the City to steer them in the wrong direction or a
direction where they might not be as successful as they could be. Chair Solomon commented the changes
were market driven, and requested more information in the future. Mr. Present indicated he had not
called staff to ask questions because his position had not jelled until he got to the meeting and saw the
presentation, making him wonder if this major change had been on the drawing board months ago and
was just now presented, and he felt the City had lost on some ofthe waivers previously granted. Mr. Wu
indicated past waivers would be- presented in the future. Chair Solomon recommended the waiver history
be done for the City Council presentation on this project. Chair Solomon complimented staff on their
other work aside from this issue.
14
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held May 22, 2001.
APPROVED:
John
Steven
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ero& Vo lonte
Alternate David Kendall
Acai L7�
Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting
15