HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042401CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 24, 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 three petitions on which the City Council had taken
action since the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: Resolution 36, 2001 and Resolution 50,
2001, in which the oak preserve for the Kolter site plan was approved with the preserve increased to 12
acres, and Resolution 57, 2001, Mirasol Clubhouse Cart Barn, which was approved.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2001 meeting as submitted. Mr.
Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Mr. Channing made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2001 meeting with an amendment
on the first page to reflect that Chair Dennis Solomon had called the meeting to order rather than Mr.
Glidden. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent
Dennis Solomon, Chairman Alternate David Kendall
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tem
Joel Channing
John Glidden - arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
,ci
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Ed Tombari, City
Attorney Andrew Pineiro, Planner John Lindgren, and City Forester Mark Hendrickson.
Mr. John Glidden arrived at this point in the meeting, at 6:40 p.m.
Public Hearing
Petition VAR- 00 -09; Request for four variances from the Cio's Land Development Regulations for
the Crossroads at Northlake Shopping Center
Attorney Lee Worsham, agent for Massachusetts Life Insurance, is requesting four variances from
Section 156, Landscaping and Screening for VehieularAreas; Section 160, Minimum Landscaping
and Buffering Requirements; and Section 179 (Parking), Construction and Maintenance, of the Land
Development Regulations. The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and
Northlake Boulevard (19- 42S -43E).
Principal Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report.
• Lee Worsham, agent for the petitioner, described the proposed renovation. Mr. Worsham was requested
to focus on the two variance requests that staff was not recommending. The request for no wheel stops
was presented, and Mr. Worsham indicated there was a hardship because the project could not be
changed from straight zoning to a planned development since Home Depot would not agree, and pointed
out everyone would be better off without the wheel stops because of the number of accidents caused by
people tripping over them. The variance for landscape islands was presented, Mr. Kunkle requested
and received agreement from the applicant to limit parking behind the anchor building to employee
parking. Mr. Kunkle indicated he had no feeling regarding the wheel stops. Mr. Tarr indicated the code
seemed antiquated in this case because this project was only a renovation of a part of the site, and
requested staff's opinion regarding how stringent the requirement was regarding meeting the criteria for
variances. Mr. Tombari explained that this was a 30,000 square foot expansion, which went beyond the
scope of a renovation, and the site needed to be brought up to current code. The City Attorney explained
that the Board was required to follow the code, that each of the criteria must be met, and the standard
used by the Circuit Court was competent and substantial evidence. Mr. Present expressed his opinion
that wheel stops served a purpose and he did not feel they should be dealt with on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Present indicated this was an opportunity to allow this shopping center to come up to code to
compete with the newer ones and he supported staff's position on wheel stops. Mr. Ansay indicated he
also supported staff. Mr. Channing questioned how many parking spaces the applicant would lose if the
variance for landscape islands was not granted, to which staff responded approximately a half dozen.
Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that wheel stops were dangerous, especially at night, and that the
applicant should comply with the landscape island requirement. Mr. Glidden indicated he favored the
staff recommendation for the requested variances. Mr. Solomon requested the cost of the proposed
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
landscape islands and wheel stops. The applicant responded the cost of wheel stops would be $90,000
and $70,000 for the landscape islands. Rocky Biby spoke on behalf of the applicant, and explained that
because this was an existing parking lot and there would be a lot of cutting and patching in order to
install landscape islands and trenching to install landscape irrigation, expressed concern that the final
product would end up as a patchwork look. Discussion ensued. Mr. Channing questioned Growth
Management Director Wu whether he would recommend approval of the landscape islands based only
on common sense, to which Mr. Wu responded this case was difficult because it must be based on
straight zoning requirements, and commented that as much adherence to the criteria as possible should
be applied. Mr. Wu reported, just for information purposes, that the City Council had denied a PUD
waiver request for a wheel stop in an interior parking lot. Mr. Solomon indicated the patchwork
problem would resolve itself in a few years when the entire lot would need resurfacing. Donna Lintz,
513 Sandtree Drive, commented this renovation was an improvement and asked if this Commission
would address hours of operation by tenants in the shopping center, reported several problems residents
had experienced with this shopping center, expressed concern that a coat of paint would not fix all the
problems, expressed surprise that the entire parking lot was not to be repaved, recommended wheel
stops, and stated she was very concerned with the hours of operation. Hearing no further comments
from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tombari indicated hours of
operation could be discussed under the site plan review. Chair Solomon commented the staff report was
• reasonable, and there was a difference between variances granted under standard zoning and variances
granted within a PUD. Chair Solomon expressed his opinion that wheel stops gave a certain orderliness
to the project and also had other advantages, and he would adhere to the staff recommendation. Mr.
Ansay commented there must be an exceptionally good job of landscape screening behind the building
to block the view from Sandtree Drive, and asked for staff suggestions to make this a better project
other than just trying to enforce code. Mr. Tombari responded staff felt the landscape island variance
request could be further minimized. Mr. Kunkle requested the variances be voted on individually.
•
Mr. Kunkle made a motion that the applicant's request be granted for the variance for no landscape
islands on the parking area behind the building, on the two areas where they were presented. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to deny Petition VAR- 00 -09. Motion died for lack of a second.
Chair Solomon passed the gavel to Vice Chair Kunkle.
Chair Solomon made a motion to adopt the recommendation of staff for Petition VAR -00 -09 and
approve the variance with respect to 160(a) Minimum Landscape Buffers, and 179(I) Parking Stall
and Bay Dimensions, and deny the request with respect to the landscape islands and the wheel
stops. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
3
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent
Dennis Solomon, Chairman Alternate David Kendall
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tern
Joel Charming
John Glidden
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Petition SP- 00 -26: Reauest for four variances from the Citv's Land Development Re --ulations for the
Crossroads at Northlake Shopping Center
is Attorney Lee Worsham, agent for Massachusetts Life Insurance, is requesting a Site Plan
Amendment for a portion of the Crossroads at Northlake Shopping Center. The site is located at the
southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard. The 21.02 acre site will contain 174,371
square feet of retail space, an increase of 29,208 square feet. (19- 42S -43E)
•
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the issues to which the applicant had responded since the last
meeting.
Attorney Lee Worsham indicated the petitioner felt they had not had response from staff to their
comments regarding conditions of approval. Attorney Worsham indicated that condition (1) called for
unity of title, and the applicant wished to provide unity of control, which was typical of similar projects.
Growth Management Director stated unity of control would be acceptable to staff. Attorney Worsham
indicated that condition (3) which called for additional landscaping along I -95 right -of -way ramp which
was west of the old Albertson's building, and petitioner had already beefed up the landscaping on their
own property in that area. Mr. Tombari explained there was existing irrigation along the right -of -way
which could be continued farther south along the exit ramp at minimal cost to the applicant. Discussion
ensued. This petition was tabled until later in the meeting to discuss these issues with staff.
Public Hearing /Recommendation to City Council
Petition MISC- 99 -24: Marriott Monument Sign
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
Dave Clark, agent for the PGA Marriott, is requesting approval for a proposed monument sign at the
entrance to the site. The illuminated sign will be five feet in height and five feet in length. Approval
of the proposed sign requires a waiver from Section 136 of the City's land development regulations
regarding a minimum 50 foot setback from an interior property line. The site is located at 4000 RCA
Boulevard. (1- 42S -42E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report, indicated the setback was not met and this was a
hardship not created by the applicant. Dave Clark, agent for the applicant, indicated that the requested
sign would identify the project to help keep people from turning into the next property. Chair Solomon
declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the
public hearing closed.
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC- 99 -24.
Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Workshop
MISC- 00 -11- Hidden Hollow Time Extension
• Alfred J. Malefatto, agent forFercon 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 Trail. (230 - 42S -42E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report. Alfred J. Malefatto, agent for the applicant, reported
23 units had been built, so that the applicant was continuing in good faith. Miguel Nahm, Director of
Sales, indicated homes with lots were being sold, and not lots separately. Mr. Tarr questioned whether
if this was not approved if no more homes could be built, to which staff responded affirmatively.
Growth Management Director indicated this item had not been advertised for public hearing, so the
public hearing would be held in two weeks.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMITTEE
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
5
Absent
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
Dennis Solomon, Chairman Alternate David Kendall
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tem
Joel Channing
John Glidden
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Workshob
Petition TXT- 01 -02: Excavation and Fill
DiVosta and Company has requested an amendment to the Land Development Regulations to provide
a revision to Article IV, Section 93(j) (66) b 1, entitled "Excavation and Fill, and Borrow Pit
Operations" and subtitled "Operations Allowed."
City Forester Mark Hendrickson presented the request and explained that excavation and fill was not
allowed to be a stand alone project, but would be allowed with this language change. Mr. Hendrickson
• used "The Isles" project as an example, but explained that the text amendment would be applicable to
all developers. Mr. Hendrickson explained that now the developers could not even apply and would be
able to do so under the change. Mr. Solomon indicated he was not sure the code needed to be amended,
since the thought when the land development code had been adopted was that excavation and fill
operations as a separate business were not wanted, that this was being carried out under an approval
granted by City Council for "The Isles" project, and that the missing link was whether the fill would be
stored on other property within the City. Mr. Hendrickson clarified that this amendment would allow
storage on anyone else's property. Chair Solomon indicated he felt if that other person consented and
staff felt it was acceptable, he did not believe the language needed to be changed. Mr. Channing used
another example in which there was no development order, and explained that this language amendment
was necessary in order to allow that other site to accept the fill. Mr. Tarr suggested leaving the language
as it was and continuing the sentence to say, "subject to staff review on a case -by -case basis" which
would satisfy everyone's needs. Mr. Glidden described an example where the fill would be placed just
outside the notification area for the PUD and might be left for a long period, causing problems for the
neighbors who did not have a chance to speak against it- -which was a loophole in favor of not changing
the code, since with the amendment the property owner who was getting the fill would be a part of the
application. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that the appearance of a landfill would be created, and that
a convenient next -door situation might be best. Chair Solomon commented if the language were struck
as suggested by staff it would open the door for someone to go into the excavation and fill business. Mr.
Channing commented if notice was required around the area receiving the fill as well as the area the fill
would come from, there would not be a problem. Mr. Hendrickson explained if a petitioner for a PCD
such as "The Isles" had come in for approval and already had a site on which to store their dirt, it would
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
all be covered under one approval. The text amendment would allow an applicant who had not had a
site in mind during the PUD approval process to come back for a separate approval. Mr. Hendrickson
pointed out that most sites left within the City were zoned PDA, which meant they would have to be
approved either as a PUD or a PCD, and he needed to research to see whether or not an excavation /fill
application would actually have to be a PUD application if it was an application to solely bring in dirt.
If it did not have to be a PUD application, a worst case scenario needed to be developed, which he
envisioned as creating more work if the land had to be cleared, environmental assessments, buffering,
etc. had to be done. Chris Chew of DiVosta and Company commented there were two parts to this
request: (1) to remove the Code language prohibiting City Council from issuing a development order
solely to receive and stockpile fill on a property; and (2) to allow adjacent property owners that would
require fill for future development to store fill on their property. Mr. Chew explained the amendment
did not have much to do with the person trying to get rid of the fill. Mr. Chew indicated this was really
a win /win situation, and "The Isles" was a perfect example, since DiVosta needed to get rid of 738,000
cubic yards of excess fill and WCI needed several million yards of fill on adjacent properties. It was
much simpler for DiVosta to transport the fill to those who needed it who were in close proximity; and
it was much cheaper for the recipient to buy from someone who did not have to ship it from great
distances. Also, this amount of fill would place 41,000 trips onto City and County roads from the trucks
moving fill. Mr. Chew commented that when a developer came in to get permission to receive fill, he
would obviously have to demonstrate that it would not be an annoyance to surrounding residential or
is commercial properties,'would be properly screened, and would meet pollution control and stormwater
runoff requirements. Mr. Kunkle commented Mr. Chew had clarified an important point —that they were
selling the fill and not storing it on adjacent sites for DiVosta to move again in the future, which satisfied
his concern. Another concern expressed by Mr. Kunkle was that the fill could be sold to one developer,
then another, and he did not want to see repeat sales. Chair Solomon commented he did not know if the
suggested method of modifying the text would accomplish the scenarios described without opening the
door for someone to just start an excavation and sell fill, which was all they did, which he requested
staff to consider.
Reconsideration of Petition SP- 00 -26; Request for four variances from the Cia's Land Development
Regulations for the Crossroads at Northlake Shopping Center
Attorney Worsham indicated the staff conditions had been resolved. Chair Solomon commented that
the first condition had been discussed earlier in the meeting. Senior Planner Ed Tombari reported that
the applicant had agreed with conditions (2) through (7), with some clarification on (2) to specify types
of building permits, and was now clear as to the types of building permits they should pull prior to the
buildout dates, and that this was a condition standard with all projects. Mr. Tombari reported regarding
condition (8) that the applicant had agreed to replace the dumpsters with masonry structures at two
existing locations adjacent to the buildings which were to be modified. Applicant agreed to repair any
damage to the existing dumpster enclosures not adjacent to major construction areas. Mr. Tombari
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
reported staff agreed to eliminate condition (9). Mr. Tombari indicated the applicant, for condition (10),
had agreed to add additional landscaping consistent with existing landscaping in the right -of -way within
the I -95 right -of -way up to the north wall of the former Albertsons building. Mr. Tombari commented
that the applicant wished to discuss a possible cap of the I -95 right -of -way landscaping cost. Changes
in the building architecture since the last meeting were described by Architect Robert French with
Preston Phillips. John Glidden expressed his opinion this was a positive renovation, commented he had
had trouble reading the site plan and expressed hope that staff had been able to follow it. Mr. Glidden
commented that he had asked previously that the site plan be cleaned up, which had not been done,
because the applicant did not want to bear the cost of new drawings prior to presentation to City
Council.. Mr. Glidden indicated that the 1 -95 frontage needed to be screened to eliminate the view into
a service area. Mr. Glidden agreed with the architecture and requested landscaping be maximized at
the northeast corner of "A" building to improve the view when entering the center. Mr. Glidden
requested clarification regarding gutters and downspouts and was told that condition (9) in the staff
report had been eliminated and there would be interior drains. Mr. Glidden requested that an oak tree
shown in the elevation be changed from 12' to 16'. David Woodward, Landscape Architect, explained
that was an existing live oak which was large, more than 12', and the applicant was proposing to keep
it in its current location. Mr. Glidden requested language to provide replacement if landscaping
materials did not survive construction. Mr. Tarr commented in past meetings 4 -sided architecture had
been used, and that the back side of the building next to Sandtree Drive and the back side of the building
• next to the I -95 ramp did not have architecture consistent with the front. Mr. Tarr objected to heavy
landscaping along the 1 -95 right -of -way since that could be an area for homeless people to live. Mr.
Glidden commented that some of the problems were the result of existing conditions, and the City
should be thankful for the improvements. Mr. Glidden commented the 4 -sided architecture was in the
design guidelines, which had not yet been adopted, and which he believed would apply more to a PGA
project than to a Northlake Boulevard project. Mr. Tarr agreed, but stated he just wanted to be consistent
from project to project. Mr. Glidden asked how the unapproved variances would affect the site plan, to
which Mr. Tombari responded the site plan would have to be changed regarding landscape islands and
wheel stops. Steve Tart, with the management leasing and development team, commented the applicant
had worked to improve an existing situation and appealed to the Board to look at what was existing and
what was proposed, and explained that literally millions of dollars had already been spent, and the
project had been in process since October 1995. Mr. Tart indicated there were 12 -1/2 years left on the
Albertson's lease and many of the site plan modifications were a hardship on the lease, and appealed to
the Board for their support, since this project had gone to the limits that the applicant could provide. Mr.
Tart indicated he was opposed to the position the Board had taken regarding the landscape islands and
wheel stops, but believed the landscaping could be worked through with staff. Mr. Tart explained that
the wheel stops were very dangerous, reported a recent case where the person was in critical condition
from tripping over a wheel stop, and that Mass Mutual had been sued 7 times over wheel stops in the
past 12 months. Mr. Tart requested Board support for what had been agreed with staff. Mr. Tart
indicated applicant was ready to move on to City Council. Mr. Wu clarified that the wheel stop issue
stopped with this Board.
• 8
U
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition SP- 00 -26; with
the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall record a Unity of
Control document to ensure that the outparcel property shall remain under the same
ownership as the "mainline center" (Planning and Zoning).
2. The build -out date specified for this project is December 31, 2002. No building permits
associated with this development order shall be issued after that date. For the purposes
of this approval, "building permits" shall refer to and be limited to permits for original
new construction, in the case of the new anchor store and a new building on the outparcel,
and not to interior construction associated with new tenant improvements to existing
buildings (Planning and Zoning, Building).
3. The applicant, successors or assigns shall, in conjunction with County and State DOT,
install and maintain landscaping in the following rights -of -way (off -site) locations:
southern road shoulder of Northlake Boulevard between Interstate 95 and Sandtree Drive;
eastern road shoulder of Interstate 95 off -ramp onto eastbound Northlake Boulevard; and
median of Northlake Boulevard between Roan Lane and Sandtree Drive. In the event that
the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity, forms a special district pertaining to
the landscape maintenance of Northlake Boulevard, then the applicant, successor or
assigns shall automatically become a member of such special district. This condition may
be amended at any time by a separate agreement between the applicant and the City of
Palm Beach Gardens (Planning and Zoning).
4. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the applicant shall provide staff with an
overall tenant wall sign program that includes a consistency of lettering style, color,
materials, etc. (Planning and Zoning).
5. The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department through the construction plan
approval to ensure that Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principals are
carried out (Planning and Zoning, Police Department).
6. Prior to scheduling the City Council review, the applicant shall revise all pertinent plans
to address all minor outstanding comments raised by the City Engineer. Said revisions
shall be reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (Planning and Zoning, City
Engineer).
7. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the applicant shall revise the site plan to
X
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
indicate a location for art -in- public places (Planning and Zoning).
8. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the applicant shall revise the site plan to reflect that
the wooden dumpster enclosures at two existing locations adjacent to the buildings which
are to be modified would be replaced with masonry structures. Applicant shall repair any
- damage to the existing dumpster enclosures not adjacent to major construction areas.
9. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the west buffer as defined by staff in
discussions with the applicant and to be further reviewed by the City Forester.
10. Landscaping around the entrance to the project at the northeast corner of Building A shall
be installed as depicted on the drawings and if landscaping materials are lost during
constructions the applicant shall replace with materials of the same mass and scale.
11. Any gutters and downspouts facing Sandtree Drive shall be eliminated in favor of interior
drains.
12. More definitive exterior elevations showing dimensions of building heights shall be created
for presentation to City Council.
•
Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Channing recommended
that the elevations presented to City Council depict the landscaping up against the rear sides of
the buildings. Discussion ensued regarding wheel stops. Mr. Glidden discussed safety issues,
indicated he favored removing wheel stops, and questioned staff regarding the goal of the code.
Mr. Wu responded that the goal was to better position a car into the parking spot and to channel
cars into the appropriate drive aisle. The applicant stated they could work with staff to put wheel
stops in appropriate places. Mr. Glidden suggested if the Board rescinded their vote on the
variances and the applicant withdrew their petition, then by not requesting variances the
applicant might preserve their right to make that request again. City Attorney Andrew Pineiro
advised that the Board had already made the decision, the public hearing had been opened and
closed, and the only way to overturn the decision was to appeal to Circuit Court. Growth
Management Director Charles Wu advised if the applicant presented new evidence then the Board
could reconsider the variances, which might be new information regarding a portion of the wheel
stops or landscape diamonds in specific locations. Applicant commented that they had shared the
additional information with staff regarding their lease with Albertson's, and the Board's action
would in essence change the parking lot from the viewpoint of the lessee. Mr. Glidden suggested
if the applicant added some landscape diamonds that would prohibit people from cutting
diagonally through the parking lot, that might be a trade for some wheel stops. The applicant
indicated agreement with Mr. Glidden's suggestion and that they could come back to revisit this
issue. Chair Solomon commented the Board was very happy with the proposed project. Growth
• 10
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
Management Director Wu recommended bringing the wheel stop issue to a close before
presentation to City Council. Discussion ensued regarding re- opening the public hearing, and
Attorney Pineiro indicated he did not feel comfortable re- opening the public hearing with straight
denial to make a partial change.. Chair Solomon clarified that the site plan the applicant would
submit would be with all wheel stops shown, then the applicant would have to say to City Council
they were still looking for relief and would have to come back to Planning and Zoning. Mr.
Glidden submitted the following additional condition to clarify the situation:
13. The Planning and Zoning Board would be prepared to review a modified variance request
under a new application that eliminated certain wheel stops in favor of adding some other
landscape and or curbing into the site plan and suggested that the applicant prepare that
alternate plan to present to City Council for consideration in the event the modified site
plan was granted.
Mr. Wu commented this would put the City Council into a situation where they could be
approving a site plan which they had no guarantee that the Planning and Zoning Board would
approve, so it would be best to resolve the wheel stop issue first. Mr. Solomon explained that the
site plan submitted to City Council would show the wheel stops, which was the one approved by
• this Commission. Mr. Glidden added that an alternate plan would also be submitted that the City
Council might say if the applicant was able to get the variance they would think it was a better
plan and would allow it. Mr. Glidden commented it would be the same as an alternate elevation
to be approved for the applicant's discretion. Mr. Wu agreed that was not the most tidy way, but
probably the best resolution so that if the Planning and Zoning Board did approve a variance
there would be an alternate site plan. The applicant indicated they could be ready to submit both
plans to the City Council. Mr. Channing, as maker of the motion, accepted the additional
condition and Mr. Ansay, who seconded, also accepted the additional condition. Mr. Tarr
indicated he did not understand the process since the wheel stop issue had failed 5 of the 7
required criteria, according to the staff report, and if the proposal was changed to landscape
diamonds the Board had abandoned the criteria. Mr. Glidden responded that as an example, one
diamond would eliminate four wheel stops, which would meet the intent of the code to keep people
from driving diagonally through the parking lot. Mr. Kunkle commented the Board had some
flexibility to interpret the criteria in their own judgement, and $90,000 might be a hardship in Mr.
Tarr's judgement but might not be a hardship in staff's judgement. Mr. Charming commented
he did not like wheel stops and felt they were dangerous, but staff had made a recommendation
and pointed out that the City Council recently voted for wheel stops, so he would rather move this
petition along the way staff had presented it and in a way more consistent with what City Council
had done, and let the City Council deal with it; and expressed a desire to talk about wheel stops
at another time. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Glidden suggested the Commission look at the wheel stop issue to see if there were better ways of
• 11
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
solving it or providing alternatives, and if it was a safety issue it should be studied. Mr. Channing
suggested staff research this issue. Mr. Wu advised the petitioner that they would be scheduled for City
Council after staff had seen the revised site plans, master plans, and elevations. Petitioner expressed
thanks to the staff and to the Board.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Solomon requested that if the members of the Board had any questions as they reviewed their
packets, they should present those to staff prior to the meetings to save time at the meetings. Mr. Wu
explained that the project manager's name and phone number were indicated on each application and
requested any questions be directed to the appropriate project manager, and noted that in the future an
e -mail address would also be included. Mr. Wu advised that the questions would be in the public
domain and must be disclosed at the meeting so that everyone else would have the benefit of hearing the
questions. Mr. Wu clarified that the members could not e -mail each other, and that the goal was to have
as much discussion as possible at workshops so that by the time of the public hearing the public
• comments could be heard, then staff comments resolved, and the Commission could get on to a decision
right away, to accomplish the goal of more efficient hearings. Mr. Wu announced that at least thirteen
cases were scheduled for the next meeting.
Mr. Channing complimented staff on the clear, well organized, well thought -out, well presented and
unambiguous staff reports. Mr. Charming requested more attention to getting the applications in with
all the correct details, rather than caring whether one applicant did not want to spend money getting a
decent elevation so it could be properly reviewed. Mr. Charming indicated he was very pleased with the
way things were going and believed it would be easier to move things along through the process. Mr.
Glidden commented there were several vague things on the submittal checklist and that he and Mr. Wu
were working on getting it more consistent; and suggested the Board review the checklist sometime
soon. Chair Solomon commented when there was an applicant that the Board did not really know was
going to agree to the conditions, there should be more communication before the meeting to narrow the
gap of what the applicant agreed with, and if an applicant was not going to agree on certain issues then
perhaps the application should be delayed until the issues were resolved. Mr. Wu explained there were
two sides to the story of the last applicant since the applicant had chosen not to approach staff to have
discussion, and staff was always ready to discuss and come to resolution with applicants. Chair
Solomon advised staff that if they had not heard from an applicant a week prior to the hearing and did
not have a feeling how they would react to proposed conditions, then staff should reach out to the
applicant Chair Solomon commented the applicant did not have to agree, but knowing their position
ahead of time would help to move things along at meetings. Mr. Present questioned when there was a
• 12
0
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
long agenda with thirteen items whether time limits could be set to avoid late hours. It was agreed all
had learned from tonight's discussion. Chair Solomon suggested if there were 2 -3 items pertaining to
the same project, the public hearing might be kept open.
13
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held May 8, 2001.
APPROVED:
John Glidden, Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Elect
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tern
is Joel Channing
Barry Present
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
9 Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting
14