HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 041701N
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 17, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
The Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Chair Dennis Solomon at 6:35 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
City Attorney Len Rubin reported that at the last City Council meeting the Council had considered a
waiver for the Legacy Place PCD Master Plan from the time requirement in the City Code of 23 days
between recommendation of a petition by Planning and Zoning and presentation of that petition to City
Council, and the waiver had not been presented to Planning and Zoning for their consideration because
it was a processing waiver. Attorney Rubin explained that the purpose of the time requirement was to
protect staff, and in order to negate any possible challenge it was being presented to the Commission for
their consideration at this meeting.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a waiver for Petition PCD-
99-02: Master Plan for the Legacy Place (Parcel 28.01) Planned Community District; Petition SP-
00-18: Site Plan Review for Legacy Place Parcels A, B, and C (Commercial), and Petition SP -00-
20: Legacy Place Site Plan Application for Parcel D (Residential) from the 23 -day Code
requirement between Planning and Zoning recommendation and presentation to City Council.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Volonte and carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent.
Dennis Solomon, Chairman John Glidden
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Alternate David Kendall
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tem Joel Channing
Alternate Ernest Volonte Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Steve Cramer, City
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2001
Attorney Len Rubin, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and Consultant Jill Quigley.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00 -18: Site Plan Review for Legacy Place Parcels A. B. and C (Commercial)
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting site plan approval to develop 399,000 square feet of retail
and 69,000 square feet of professional office space, within three parcels designated on the Legacy
Place PCD Master Plan. The 48.5 -acre parcel is located at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard
and Alternate AIA (6- 42S -43E)
Growth Management Director Charles Wu reported that staff had met with the applicants regarding
outstanding issues since the last presentation and that Mr. John Glidden had been present. Summary
minutes of the meeting were provided to the Commission. Consultant for the City Jill Quigley of Iler
Planning Group, reviewed the staff report for the commercial petition containing the changes since the
last meeting. Ms. Quigley explained the introduction had been modified to reflect submission of a
revised site plan, which had not undergone staff review; therefore the conditions in the staff report were
still based on the site plan dated February 7, 2001. The paragraph on Legacy Drive had been reduced
to one sentence indicating that the issue was addressed in the PCD Master Plan; in addition, the cross
section in the April 12 staff report had been removed. Waiver request No. 6 had been amended to reflect
the submission of revised foundation planting plans. Proposed condition No. 1, added in the April 12
• staff report, required a revised site plan showing a Y grade separated bikeway adjacent to the sidewalk
along the East -West Connector Road and its northern extension from the East -West Connector Road
residential project intersection into the main commercial center; from which the requirement to stripe
the bikeway had been removed. Condition No. 2 of the April 12 staff report was no longer included.
Ms. Quigley reviewed changes in the other conditions of approval and noted staff recommended
approval of the Legacy Place commercial site plan application and the associated waivers, subject to the
proposed site plan conditions in the April 17 staff report. Principal Planner Steve Cramer clarified that
the conditions were based on the plans submitted that morning, and that staff would review them more
closely before submittal to City Council.
Nick Mihelich, Urban Design Studio, described the applicant's responses since the last meeting, noted
that site plan changes had been amended in the plans which had been submitted; commented that all the
elevations for the 200 Building showed landscaping with sizes at planting; described special treatment
of the intersection interface of retail and commercial which included specialty pavers, relocated live
oaks, and a seating wall; noted the submitted plan had not contained the hedge along the lake at PGA
Boulevard, reviewed the proposed landscaping and one segment of a repetitious fence which would
allow visibility into the site along RCA Boulevard. Hank Skokowski indicated applicant was in
agreement with all conditions. Mr. Skokowski observed that the applicant had tried to unify the corners
of the intersection design, that a condition of approval addressed bus stops, and the Legacy Drive wall
cross section would be included for the City Council. Mr. Skokowski indicated that Jim Heller,
Architect for the commercial section and Gabriel Salazar, Architect for the residential section, had
0 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2001
worked together to unify the colors and the applicant would be returning for final color delineation for
all elevations and all walls. A sample material board was submitted. Mr. Skokowski indicated all
changes had already been addressed and the applicant had no problems with the conditions. Mr.
Skokowski explained that the roof tile was intended to be multiple colored and the applicant would be
coming back for that item. Mr. Solomon questioned whether it was the applicant's intent was to come
back for the intermittent landscaping as suggested by Mr. Glidden. Mr. Skokowski expressed the
applicant's concern regarding dealing one -on -one with individual residents to develop a plan for an
intermittent wall. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon indicated applicant should consider letting the City
Council know they might want a continuous rather than intermittent wall with landscaping to address
safety concerns of the residents, and that it might help to have a specification sheet plus a photo of that
type of wall at from another project. Mr. Kunkle indicated it could be an appearance disaster to have
individually designed intermittent wall sections by the residents, and favored a continuous wall for
safety. Mr. Skokowski verified that the as planted appearance on the elevation for Building 200 were
prototypical of all the buildings in the plaza, and new planted material at the 900 building would be the
same. Mr. Kunkle encouraged the applicant to bring in this type of graphic earlier in the process in
future projects. Mr. Kunkle requested that the plain circle symbol be a 48" as planted specification. Mr.
Skokowski explained that the applicant had requested no left turn lane at the Fairchild Gardens
intersection since they preferred a 4 -way stop, while staff wanted to have thru traffic north - south. Mr.
Kunkle agreed with a 4 -way stop. Mr. Mihelich indicated a 48" as planted specification as requested
• by Mr. Kunkle would add $7,000 in landscaping costs, which was agreed to by the applicant, and
discussed specific areas where this would apply. Mr. Ansay indicated he favored a continuous wall
along Legacy Drive, and favored including a design for a left turn lane on Legacy Drive because it
would probably be needed in the future. Mr. Ansay indicated he agreed with the staff recommendation
for the commercial site. Mr. Solomon commented he believed the Commission had approved a left turn
lane in their approval of the PCD Master Site Plan, which Mr. Cramer verified. Mr. Present commented
the special treatment of the intersection was a vast improvement, and indicated he favored a continuous
wall along Legacy Drive with landscaping to break it up, noting that each resident had the opportunity
to put fences up in their own yards. Mr. Present expressed his feeling that the wall design should address
safety, security, sound, and blockage on behalf of the residents. Chair Solomon indicated it this project
had not been fast - tracked by waiver of the 23 day time period, the applicant would have been requested
to provide cross sections. Mr. Cramer indicated that although this was not a public hearing, residents
were present who wished to speak. Brian Rooney commented the residents appreciated the City keeping
them in mind during the construction, and that at a meeting the previous night, 98% of the residents
expressed desire for a continuous wall along Legacy Drive and extending around the corner on Fairchild
Gardens, and requested the wall be installed prior to construction. Robin Heston expressed agreement
With the other residents for an 8' wall since the wall would shrink two feet. Mary Geany indicated she
favored a continuous wall to be erected prior to construction and extending around the end of the street.
Janet Watson requested an 8' continuous concrete wall to provide privacy because of the slope of her
back yard.
0 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2001
Mr. Wu requested that any motion clarify the wall issue from the prior meeting.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -00 -18 with the seven
requested waivers and 13 site plan conditions presented in the revised staff report of April 17,
2001 as well as the following additional conditions:
14. The April 17, 2001 memo from John Glidden shall be added.
15. The plain circle legend circle on the plans shall indicate a 48" as planted specification.
Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
The April 17, 2001 memo from John Glidden has been attached to and made a part of these minutes as
Exhibit "A ".
Mr. Ansay made a motion to reconsider the motion for the wall treatment along Legacy Drive
passed at the last meeting to be changed to a continuous wall, 8' in height, which shall be built in
advance of construction. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion. Mr. Ansay verified he had voted in
• favor of the motion he was modifying. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Ansay clarified that
the wall shall be built when the applicant was prepared to put in Legacy Drive. Motion carried
by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00 -20: Legacy Place (Site Plan Application for Parcel D (Residential)
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting site plan approval for a 384 -unit rental apartment complex
on 25.7 acres of land at the northeast corner of Alternate AIA and RCA Boulevard (6- 42S -43E)
Consultant Jill Quigley reviewed the changes from the April 12, 2001 staff report as presented in the
April 17, 2001 staff report, and noted staff recommended approval with.the proposed waivers and
conditions.
Hank Skokowski indicated the applicant agreed to all conditions. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether on
the RCA Boulevard elevation it was the intent of the City that the look through areas be at the column
and fence areas, to which Mr. Mihelich responded that the hedges would be maintained at C height. Mr.
Kunkle requested that be noted on the plans as a reference for a future maintenance code requirement.
Mr. Kunkle requested that the Legacy Drive landscaping match on both sides. Staff clarified for Mr.
Present that if radius was not sufficient to allow turning by a garbage truck that the area would be
expanded. Mr. Skokowski verified the project would be built in one continuous phase. Chair Solomon
0 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2001
asked if a timing requirement between the residential and commercial should be made Mr. Ansay
indicated that was an excellent suggestion to provide teeth to make sure it was built as proposed since
the applicant was being given a bonus. Attorney Larry Smith, representative for the commercial
developer, indicated that such a requirement would present a problem since the commercial developer
did not want to be tied to others. Mr. Skokowski indicated he hoped the Commission believed both
developers intended to move forward after the amount of effort that had been expended. Mr. Ansay
indicated if only one moved forward he would rather it be all commercial than residential. Mr. Solomon
commented more thought should have been given to what would happen if the commercial moved
forward and the residential did not; indicated that he did not want any last - minute surprises, but that this
was something staff should bring up for consideration by the City Council.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -00 -20 per the revised report
prepared April 17, 2001 to include the four code waivers and the nine site plan conditions as stated in
that report. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Chair Solomon complimented staff on a fine job.
OLD BUSINESS
• There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
0 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 17, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held April 24, 2001.
APPROVED:
John id , Chair A n
Joel Channing
, ptn
Barry Pre t
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate rnest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
4zzzl- C��
etty Lad, Secretary for the Meeting
0 6
Apr 17 01 03:19p Lisa 561 - 684 -6890 p.1
OLIVER - 1GLIDDEN & PARTNERS
A R C H I T E C T U R E - I N T E R I O R D E S I G N
"EXHIBIT A"
MEMORANDUM
April 17, 2001
TO: Steve Cramer
FR: John Glidden
RE: Legacy Place - Planning & Zoning Review
VIA: Facsimile, 799 -7289
Ed Olivcr
John Glidden
Daniel Drown
Keith Spina
City pf P.B.G. ,
pPR a 2001 it
.PLANNING
�OfdIiVG �\
As I will not be able to attend the special P & Z meeting to review the Legacy Place project this evening,
I wanted to offer a few general comments and observations that come as a result of following the project
over the past number of P & Z meetings as well as the meeting held at the City today.
A number of my previous concern have related to the final selection of colors and finishes on the project -
especially as they serve as a tool to horizontally integrate the residential and commercial components.
In discussing this at the meeting held at the City today, it became apparent that a number of these
decisions would be best made outside the upcoming recommendation to City Council by the Planning and
Zoning Board of the overall site and building solutions. In that regard, if the developer is in agreement
with addressing a number of design issues as a follow up review and approval - including signage and
graphics, site lighting, final building colors for the commercial component, final selection of roof tile
material / color blend - that might be a more appropriate way of coming to a final agreement on what
works best for the project.
with regard to other issues, I also have the following comments:
1. With regard to the intersection design at the linkage point between the residential and
commercial properties, I have reviewed the proposed improvements and am in general
agreement that it meets the objective we are looking for. The introduction of large trees
and low planter walls, in addition to full development of the pavers at both pedestrian and
vehicular areas work well to make a major statement at that location and I think is a
positive addition to the project.
2. Regarding representation and /or location of bus stops, I feel that it is important that the
project be prepared to commit to the creation of bus stops but I understand that getting the
quantity and location of these without proper input from the agency which regulates it is
difficult. Therefore, I am in agreement that the language and the condition ought to
reference the developer's commitment to provide one or more bus stops to be located at
a further date and to provide for pull -off areas if and when appropriate. Plus shelter should
1401 FORUM WAY, SUITE 100 *WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401561- 684 - 6841 *FAX: 661-684.68goOE-MAIL:ogp@ogparchitects.com
. .,,Rpr 17 01 03:19p Lisa 561- 684 -6890 p.2
Page 2
be provided as appropriate. All of this should be at the discretion of Staff once the final
information on quantity and location by both Palm Tran and the school system is defined.
3. Landscaping/wall along Legacy Drive: having heard a discussion between the City.and the
developer, as well as from Staff and the local residents, I would suggest that language
along the lines of the following be considered as the condition, "the buffer area to the east
of the Legacy Drive extension shall be further designed and configured in a way that
provides for intermittent elements of landscaping/small berms and landscaping /walls. This
design should recognize vehicular and pedestrian activities which occur on the east side
of the right of way (such as the major entrance of the residential component) but the
developer should also attempt to make some provisions for individual homeowner input
regarding the issue of wall versus landscaping o individual parcels. This process of
obtaining input should be allowed to occur over a very short period of time so as to not
unduly inhibit the petitioner's ability to complete the design ".
This language may or not be appropriate considering the fact that the PCD portion of the
project has already been reviewed and approved and recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board. However, it may apply to the site plan approval portion of our
proceedings.
4. Regarding my previous comments about the intensity of a number of the colors on the
commercial project, this would not be a concern at this time if the petitioner is willing to
bring the color /roof material issues back along with signage and /or lighting. However, if
for some reason the issue of color is to be decided this evening, I would hope that a
considerably subdued selection would be required - especially on the red and yellow colors
and the building facing AIA.
In general, I have reviewed changes to the residential project and have no issues with the current
submittal. In general, 1 feel that there has been a considerable effort to address the issues of my
concerns and believe that the overall project will be a very positive landmark within the City of Palm Beach
Gardens and I would hope that we are able to move forward. Again, I am sorry I won't be able to be with
you this evening, but I am sure that the Board will do it's ususal exemplarily job in handling this petition.
cc: Charles Wu
Dennis Solomon
Hank Skokowski
JG: Ijg1G: 1ADMI "ERSONALUGHN\PdZ1LEG0417.MEM
•
END OF MEMO