The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes P&Z 041001f i CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 10, 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 There were no announcements. 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 6, 2001 meeting as submitted. Mr. Volante seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Volante made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 20, 2001 meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Dennis Solomon, Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tern Joel Charming Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent John Glidden Alternate David Kendall Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planners Steve Cramer and Karen Craver, City Attorney Andrew Pineiro, City Engineer Dan Clark, and Consultant Henry Iler. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition DRI -00 -01 and PCD- 00 -01: Regional Center Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) - Parcels 27.09 & 27.13 Urban Design Studio, agent for Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., is requesting a NOPC and an amendment to the PCD for the Regional Center DRI located along PGA Boulevard and bounded by Prosperity Farms Road to the east, Alternate AIA to the west, and Atlantic Avenue to the north. Principal Planner Steve Cramer reviewed the amendments in the staff report. Mr. Kunkle requested an illustrative plan of the approved NOPC's and their locations. Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner, explained that the conversion matrix established minimum and maximum uses, and that additional commercial may or may not occur but this provided flexibility for the remaining parcels. Mr. Cramer verified for Mr. Tarr that staff was happy with the conversion matrix. The location of the old parcel seven was discussed. Chairman Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition DRI -00 -01 and PCD- 00 -01. Mr. Kunkle 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 Dennis Solomon, Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tern Joel Channing Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent John Glidden Alternate David Kendall Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval Petition VAR- 00 -09: Request for Variances from Four Regulations of the City of Palm Beach 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Gardens Land Development Regulations to redevelop the Crossroads Shopping Center at I -95 and Northlake Boulevard. Attorney Lee Worsham, agent forMassachusetts Life Insurance, is requesting variances from Section 156, Landscaping and Screening for Vehicular Areas; Section 160, Minimum Landscaping and Buffering Requirements; and Section 179 (Parking)< Construction and Maintenance, of the Land Development Regulations in order to redevelop for the Crossroads Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard (19- 42S -43E). Mr. Ansay made a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of April 24, 2001. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Dennis Solomon, Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tern Joel Channing Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent John Glidden - arrived at 7:40 p.m. Alternate David Kendall Postponement of Public Hearing to April 242001 Petition MISC- 99 -24: Marriott Hotel Monument Sign Dave Clark, agent for the PGA Marriott located at 4000 RCA Boulevard, requests approval for a monument ground sign to be located at the entrance to the site. The proposed illuminated sign will be five feet in height and five feet in length. Because of the configuration of the site, the proposed sign cannot meet the 50 foot side setback required by Section 136 of the City's Land Development Regulations; approval of the proposed sign would include a waiver of this requirement. The site is located approximately three miles from the intersection of I -95 and PGA Boulevard, on the southeast side of I -95. (1- 42S -42E) This item was dropped. Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained that no motion was needed because this item would be re- noticed. 3 J Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition PCD- 99 -02: Master Plan for the Legacy Place (Parcel 28.01) Planned Community District Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting master plan approval for a 75 -acre, mixed use planned community district containing approximately 69,000 square feet of professional office space, 399,000 square feet of retail space, and 384 residential units at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. (6- 42S -43E) and Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 00 -I8: 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) and 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 for the City Henry Iler of Iler Planning Group, reviewed the staff reports for all three petitions, highlighting the issues of mixed use density bonus, Fairchild Gardens /Legacy Drive corridor, linkage plan and bicycle facilities, and requested waivers. Mr. Iler explained that staff was not recommending waivers 5 or 6, concerning the bikeways. Mr. Tarr questioned whether at the time a couple of years ago when the City Council had split up the vertical and horizontal integration the density bonus had been discussed. Mr. Iler responded that he did not know. Mr. Tarr asked whether the fact that the vertical requirement had been waived allowed the bonus, which read vertically and horizontally, to remove the vertical part of the requirement so that only horizontally became required to achieve the bonus. Principal Planner Cramer responded that the density bonus was for mixed use to have a combination of at least three uses- commercial, office, and residential - -and a density bonus could be granted with either vertical or horizontal integration. Mr. Channing commented he would not go against staff on the density bonus issue. During review of the commercial parcels, Mr. Iler indicated the same issues were outstanding and that staff was not supporting the lighting plan being submitted after approval instead of prior to approval, and was not supporting waivers 6 and 7 since those plans had not been provided. During review of the residential parcel, Mr. Iler indicated the same issues were outstanding. Dan Clark, City Engineer, reviewed the section for Legacy Drive that was favored by the City, which would allow four lanes to be constructed initially since if only two lanes were built the roadway would be at or over capacity when 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 the project was built. A letter from Commissioner Karen Marcus supporting the Monet Terrace residents' request for 2 lanes and a buffer wall was read into the record, which has been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Minutes of Monet Terrace Homeowners Meeting for April 1, 2001 were reviewed, which also expressed the preferences of the residents, which has been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Nick Mihelich, Urban Design Studio, provided an overview of all three petitions. Henry Skokowski described the petitioner's proposed roadway cross section for Legacy Drive, which was designed for four lanes but proposed that only two lanes be built initially. Mr. John Glidden arrived at this point in the meeting, at 7:40 p.m., and was seated in the audience. Mr. Mihelich reviewed the landscaping for the petitions, and Architect Gabriel Salazar reviewed the architecture for the residential portion of the project, indicating that details and colors had been used throughout both the commercial and residential sections to give the appearance of the same "Village" effect. Attorney for the petitioner for the commercial site, Larry Smith, provided comments on the proposed conditions of approval for the PCD, starting with condition 1 and 2, which would be fine tuned with staff. Staff verified they would work with the applicant on the permitted uses. Attorney Smith explained that the transportation section, conditions 6 through 13, would also be worked out with staff. Mr. Smith noted an agreement had been obtained with DOT regarding access points and he believed those conditions regarding access points and drainage easement had been satisfied and that those might be requested to be deleted before submission to City Council. Another condition, #22, would need more discussion with staff because it put an uncertain potential burden on the applicant regarding what is a negative drainage impact, which was unclear to the applicant; therefore, Mr. Smith proposed that the applicant's engineer work out design criteria and replacement language with the City Engineer. Mr. Smith addressed condition #42, and indicated he was opposed to recording zoning resolutions which would encumber the title and proposed working out a solution satisfactory to the City Attorney. Henry Skokowski addressed site plan review conditions, noting that on page 7 of the PCD staff report there was a reference to a waiver for the bike path, and proposed a bike path from RCA to Victoria Gardens, and along Alternate A1A for which the applicant would agree to making the sidewalk 8' wide in order to also accommodate bicycles, and which would extend all the way through the project. Mr. Skokowski indicated a pathway connecting to Jacobsen's would also be widened to 8'. Mr. Iler responded that staff was comfortable with that proposal, indicated staff would work out replacement language, and recommended that waivers 5 and 6 therefore be stricken. Mr. Skokowski indicated that in condition #4 the reference to commercial /retail should be changed to office /retail. On page 9, transportation section 6, the reference to 302,000 S.F. office should be corrected to retail; on page 10 the applicant would like the last item in the grouping needed corrections consistent with the public facilities agreement; and in the last line referencing "Alternate AlA -PGA Boulevard or mix of residential and" requested the words "residential and" be deleted to be consistent with the public facilities agreement. Mr. Skokowski indicated that condition #17 on page 12 needed substitute language dealing with the alternate 3' grade 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 separated bikeway and the wording "through the residential project" needed to be clarified. Mr. Skokowski noted that condition #23, dealing with surface water management areas referenced slopes of 8 to lwithout encumbrances, and that their plans did contain a few areas which did have a few encroachments and requested that their plans be accepted and proper waivers be granted so that the proposed design could be retained. The applicant expressed concern regarding wording in condition 27 that prior to the first building permit, review must take place by the County regarding the alignment of Legacy Drive, and suggested that the alignment not be subject to change at that stage. Mr. Skokowski referenced condition #35 and requested the ability to work with staff on reasonable phasing. Mr. Skokowski requested that the platted open space tract referenced in condition #40 be changed to open space easement. Mr. Skokowski requested the following changes in the conditions of approval for the commercial parcel: (1) Waiver #6, page 5 —the applicant agreed to provide a CD -ROM for the foundation and plaza planting intentions and requested the waiver be deleted; (2) requested the ability to submit signed and sealed lighting plans later in the process because of changes; (3) requested condition #7 requiring a landscape island diamond every other parking space be deleted; (4) requested "consistent with the approved plan" be added to condition #10. Mr. Skokowski requested the following changes to the conditions of approval for the residential area: (1) wording in condition #2 (H) regarding pavers to delineate driveways be changed since the plans were to provide continuous concrete driveways; (2) requested the sidewalk referenced in conditions #5 and #6 be maintained at 6' and the second portion of condition 5 be deleted and requested the ability to confer with staff regarding the timing referenced in condition 6. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Brian Rooney, 11110 Monet Terrace, indicated he was spokesman for the homeowners, who requested a 2 -lane roadway and an intense landscape buffer between the road and the homes. Mr. Rooney explained that the residents had originally wanted a wall but had changed their request to a landscape buffer. Mr. Rooney indicated he saw no reason for 4 lanes to be built until a later date. Janet Watson, 11129 Monet Terrace, indicated that her primary concern was the safety of her children playing in her back yard and requested a 2 -lane roadway with a sufficient barrier to block a speeding car from her children. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Volonte indicated his support for the staff proposal of a 4 -lane roadway, and for a wall with landscape buffering. Mr. Volonte stepped down and Mr. Glidden was seated on the Board. A break was taken at this point, from 8:50 to 9 p.m. Mr. Charming expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to approve petitions with so many loose ends, and asked where the petitioner stood on the Legacy Drive cross - section design. Mr. Skokowski responded the public wanted two lanes and did not want a wall and the only other difference between their design and the City's was the petitioned did not think a left turn lane was necessary at a stop intersection. Mr. Solomon indicated Mr. Rooney had expressed preference for a landscape buffer, but Mrs. Watson had requested a wall for the safety of her children. Mr. Charming commented he had 6 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 asked for elevations of buildings in the commercial section to understand the screening and wanted to see the scale of the buildings and how the landscaping worked. Mr. Channing indicated he wanted the landscape diamonds every other or every third parking space. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the office space over some of the buildings needed to be built when the buildings were built. Ed Cirzinski indicated that some was to be completed initially and some later,and on the second and third floors of buildings mentioned where there was going to be a total of 25,000 square feet on each floor, 10,000 square feet would be held in reserve for the future.. Mr. Channing indicated willingness to move this along against his experience and better judgement with the understanding nothing would ever come to the Planning & Zoning Commission in this shape again. Mr. Ansay commented that he preferred a landscape buffer along Legacy Drive, and felt installing four lanes immediately could create more traffic. Mr. Ansay indicated the bike lanes were a good idea and that having both sides landscaped the same way would look more neighborly and more compatible. Mr. Tarr clarified with the residents who spoke that they wanted a wall if the road was 4 lanes and landscaping if the road was 2 lanes. Mr. Tarr commented that the road would be a huge cut through, especially during construction of the flyover, and his preference if he lived next to the road would be to get all the construction done at once, and commented that it should be 4 lanes and should have a wall. Mr. Tarr indicated he liked the PCD changes and was ready to move the commercial part of this project along but not the residential, and was uncomfortable with so many unresolved issues but if they were minor issues they could be handled by staff or if not staff should bring them back. Mr. Tarr expressed concern with the intersection at Legacy Drive and Fairchild Gardens but indicated he thought no turn lane would be necessary. Mr. Tarr indicated he did not favor the bonus density, which was the root of the problem causing the residential section to be so cramped that it did not allow enough room on Legacy Drive. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that this community did not qualify as an urban residential community. Mr. Tarr agreed with the change proposed for the bike paths. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that diamond landscape islands every other space was not reasonable. Mr. Tarr was opposed to only two trash compactors, limited parking for recreational areas, the tight circulation, and commented the residential portion just did not work. Mr. Present recommended waiver #1 containing the right -of -way range from 64' to 53' be reworded to be more clear. Mr. Present commented Legacy Drive would not be a highway, but a 4- lane divided road like Holly Drive, that landscaping would soften the median and buffer, and the residents could come back later and ask for a wall if they desired one, and the residents did not need to fear the road if it was built right. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the diamonds should not be requested at the eleventh hour. Mr. Glidden commented this was a good project and that substantial improvements had been made, but during the last two months the response from the petitioner had lessened, that if this were to move forward the open -ended issues must be decided, and indicated his opinion that the legal /compliance /certificates of occupancy /permits could be worked out with staff. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that there was a lack of interface between the residential and commercial areas. Mr. Glidden suggested building the median and the two inside lanes and adding the two outside lanes on Legacy Drive later, and commented a wall would provide a sufficient barrier but adding landscaping could be added to soften it, and suggested designing a wall section and a landscape section and letting each homeowner have the one they preferred. Mr. Glidden did not favor diamond islands 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 every other parking space. Mr. Glidden commented that phasing of the upper story office space needed to be a condition of approval. Mr. Glidden requested dimensions to scale be added to the plans before presentation to City Council, and that a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission review the plans before City Council presentation. Mr. Glidden requested a blowup of 3 -4 buildings, commented the material for the decorative brackets was not noted and that materials for other items were not noted on the plans. Petitioner agreed to provide a typical building blowup and submit it to a member of the Board for review. Mr. Glidden requested foundation plantings be placed where they would count against the precast concrete base, and during discussion of colors noted they were not defined, that there should be agreement on where to stop and start colors, and colors should only transition at interior corners, and the colors should be softened. Mr. Glidden expressed his assumption petitioner would meet code and have no rooftop equipment visible. Mr. Glidden indicated he was unhappy the developer had not complied with his request for something to formalize the situation where there was only horizontal interconnectivity at the intersection to the residential area, to which Mr. Skokowski responded the petitioner had looked at locating three oaks there and adding more specialty pavers and seating on low walls. Mr. Skokowski stated the applicant would return for signage approval and that would include the corner to which Mr. Glidden was referring, and Mr. Glidden commented there could be a condition nothing was to be built in that area until it was approved. Mr. Skokowski clarified that the construction was stucco on lath on steel studs which Mr. Glidden indicated expansion joints would be important and asked that those be addressed in a sample elevation, as well as the interior roof drains. Mr. Glidden requested correction of a 2' gutter dimension on the right -of -way section, verified that staff was comfortable with the bus stop issue and requested addition of the following language "with pull -off lanes where necessary ". Mr. Iler indicated the petitioner had had no response from Palm Tran documenting adequate transit service, who would have to provide a letter to the City. Mr. Glidden noted on page 14, condition 30, it was stated parking lots should not be visible, and questioned from where —to which Mr. Skokowski responded this was more defined in the site plan. Mr. Glidden commented the petitioner stated they were going to tie the residential and commercial together with colors and materials but it was not spelled out, and requested adding a condition such as " in order to maximize the integration of the residential and commercial projects the following building and site materials shall be consistently selected with regard to colors sizes and shapes; specifically: (1) pavers in the vehicular area; (2) pavers in the pedestrian area; (3) pedestrian light pole's and fixtures, (4) accent features such as precast medallions (5) stucco colors, (6) roof tile, (7) directional signage and (8) directional control signage, and that prior to City Council approval the two developers shall cooperate to create and present a materials board to demonstrate the integration outlined above." Mr. Skokowski indicated petitioner would accept that condition of approval. Mr. Glidden requested the Photoshop presentation bright colors be toned down. Mr. Skokowski indicated the colors would be toned down but the material board was not available for this meeting. Mr. Kunkle commented he thought the Growth Management Director should not have brought this tonight for recommendation to City Council because there were too many unresolved issues, and he would not vote to move the project forward tonight. Mr. Kunkle clarified he had no problems with the density bonus, that 4 lanes on Legacy Drive with no left turn lane at the stop was okay, that there were two issues on the wall- safety from cars entering back yards and children to 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 wandering from the yards.to the road - -and a fence might be appropriate. Mr. Kunkle commented that depiction of views or not into the project was needed. Mr. Kunkle asked if the comments on landscaping from the last workshop had been incorporated into this submittal, to which Mr. Mihelich responded the foundation plantings had been added to the illustrative graphic for each building, and that graphics would be produced for a typical building as installed, on all four sides and not at 5 -year growth. Mr. Kunkle did not was not in favor of the landscaping diamonds. Mr. Glidden commented to staff regarding expediting this project, to which Mr. Skokowski commented the PCD was the most critical. Mr. Solomon commented that it was apparent it was not right to go on because of so many outstanding issues, some not big, but some which were significant. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the density bonus issue was now past; and that the petitioner should agree to the staff cross section for Legacy Drive and that four lanes should be constructed immediately. Mr. Solomon indicated he favored the proposed bicycle linkage, but that it was very uncomfortable for all of the Commissioners to move this project to City Council with all of the things they did not know, including colors and the phasing for office space. Mr. Solomon commented the Commission needed to know about materials and colors, that the integration between the two projects was important. An informal poll indicated six members favored the staff recommendation for four lanes immediately; and six members were in favor of an intermittent wall worked out by formula with the hope expressed that the people who wanted the wall got a wall section.. Mr. Wu questioned whether four lanes were desired all the way to PGA Boulevard, to which the response was affirmative. Mr. Ansay confirmed with staff that Fairchild Gardens east and west would stay at two lanes. Following discussion of a wall along Legacy Drive, Mr. Solomon advised Mr. Skokowski that the Commission was willing to move the master plan forward with the petitioner coming back to address the site plan reviews for commercial and residential, agenda items 7 and 8. Mr. Kunkle made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCD -99 -02 with the conditions and waivers presented in the staff report and the comments as noted throughout the last half hour. Mr. Present seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Iler summarized the changes that had been discussed during the last half hour: 1. Delete waivers No. 5 and No. 6 regarding bike paths in favor of a path along Alternate AIA. 2. Add a waiver No. 8 to allow 11' buffer on the east side of Legacy Drive. 3. Condition No. 6: Applicant wanted to replace the word "retail" with "office ", and take out the words "residential and ". 4. Condition No. 16: add "bus pull out lanes where necessary would be recommended by the transit agency ". 5. Condition No. 17: Modify the language to locate bike path along Alternate AIA instead • 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 of through the residential project. 6. Condition No. 40: Change the word "tract" to "easement ". 7. The staff cross section for Legacy Drive shall be used except for using an intermittent wall or as an alternative a continuous wall. 8. The phasing of the PCD buffers shall be concurrent with construction. 9. The applicant will submit a phasing plan to track discussions and representations made at this meeting with respect to the commercial space on the second and third floors of buildings mentioned where there was going to be a total of 25,000 square feet on each floor and hold 10,000 square feet in reserve for the future. Mr. Kunkle accepted the amendments. Mr. Present seconded the motion as amended. Mr. Tarr commented he was uncomfortable with the applicant discussing future plans_with only one member of the Commission prior to City Council presentation unless at the time the petition went to City Council it was noted in the recommendation to that only one member and not the whole M Planning and Zoning Commission had approved specific items. Chair Solomon responded those were not PCD issues and commented that Larry Smith was not comfortable with condition 22, however that was not included in this motion, and that would have to be addressed in the future outside the motion.. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. During discussion of when to consider the site plan petitions, agenda items 7 and 8, it was decided to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2001. Mr. Charming indicated he would not be able to attend but commented that meeting should not be to work things out but that staff should have worked out everything that could be worked out before hand, and there should not be a repeat of what had happened at tonight's meeting. Mr. Present commented if Mr. Wu did not have answers then the meeting could be cancelled. Mr. Ansay commented everyone should address their concerns. Chair Solomon discussed the diamond issue in the parking lots and stated the Commission was past that since the applicant had made revisions to the parking lots, and on a voluntary basis they could add more landscaping. Mr. Glidden commented there should be a token representation by the developer to add some landscaping in the parking lots, perhaps in the bad areas. Mr. Glidden commented the colors were too strong. Developer Terry King clarified what was expected for the next meeting: architectural detail with accompanying vocabulary on one to two buildings with material samples and colors and the accompanying landscaping. Mr. King agreed to pick out key areas to add landscaping in the parking lots. Mr. Glidden indicated the building colors represented in the presentation were too strong, to which Mr. Skokowski responded the petitioner agreed to tone down the colors. Mr. Skokowski clarified other 10 so Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 items to be covered: phasing information on the office; details of the architecture and a prototype as far as banding and other treatments and dimensions; the special intersection design detail requested by Mr. Glidden; tone down colors; provide a common material board; provide more information about the landscape elevation looking into the project; and the list provided by Terry King. Mr. Skokowski presented the color board for the residential project. Mr. Kunkle requested an elevation on the RCA Boulevard buffer north side looking into the project, and also looking into the commercial areas. Mr. Glidden requested staff work on the language for the integration paragraph. OLD BUSINESS Growth Management Director Charles Wu provided an update on recent City Council actions for the Speedway project, which was approved except the City Council wanted staff to work with the applicant to move their sign to accommodate them; for the Mirasol Parcel D project, which Planning and Zoning had voted 5 -2 to recommend approval and the City Council had unanimously approved; and for the StainSafe project, which Planning and Zoning had recommended 7 -0 and the City Council had approved without comment. NEW BUSINESS soThere was no new business to come before the Commission. so 11 r Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held April 24, 2001. APPROVED: Z" � -� Barry Present Steven Zara' Dick Ansa i Alternate V'nest Volonte Alternate David Kendall 61e?�-- d�t� 14 tty Lau /,Secretary for the Meeting 12 i April 10, 2001 so r To: The City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida From: The Homeowners of Monet Terrace We, the undersigned homeowners of Monet Terrace request the following: 1. We request that the proposed road adjacent to our properties be a two (2) lane road. 2. We request that an extra dense landscape buffer be installed in lieu of a concrete barrier wall. ''.4,) I-fA, tea' C ft • . tii� &rv--- mcmg-t 7emsr J14)lqo 04%10 /2001 TUE 15:06 FAX 355 6094 Board of County Commissioners Warren H. Newell. Chairman Carol A. Roberta Vice Chair en T. Marcus ary McCarty Burt Aaronson Tony Masilotti Addle L. Greene K. MARCUS WPB April 10, 2001 Mr. Dennis Solomon, Chairman and Commission Members Planning and Zoning Commission City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -4698 RE: PCD - 99 -02 - Legacy place 46 Dear Chairman Solomon and Members: Zoo County Admints Robert Weisrr At tonight's meeting, you will be reviewing the Master Plan for the Legxy Place project. As the District One County Commissioner, representing the unincor porated residential neighborhood Immediately east of this project, I would like to voice my comments. The residents on Monet Terrace and I support a two lane road connecting RCA Boulevard to PGA Boulevard through the Legacy Place project. In addition, they are requesting a wall be built to buffer their homes from the project, which I strongly support. The residents have also requested that the wall be landscaped and trey have agreed to maintain the landscaping. Lastly, they would like the wall to be con ;tructed prior to the road being built. This is an established residential community whip;. ;h would be severely impacted by the additional traffic that will use the proposed new v road. I think a wall is a reasonable request. Thank you for taking the time to consider these requests. JK erAly, ly T. Ma rcus ty Commissioner CC: Charles Wu Growth Management Director "An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer" P.O. Box 1989 'West Palen Beach, Florida 33402 -1989 (561) 355 -2001 Fax; (561) 355-3990 prfnrad on recYdtV mver .. «. :..-s, .... ,... 11,04/06/2001 FRI 15:09 FAX 955 6094 _ -- - - _ -- - - -- R r t]6 K. MARCUS WPB X002 P O1 02:41p Bryant and Kim Roane,-.j [561) 776 -2994 P -1 Monet Terrace Homeowner's Meeting The Monet Terrace Homeowner's meeting was held on Sunday, April 1, 2001 at 3:00 PM: I. Proposed Road behind homes on the west side of the road A. Agreed to DEMAND a 2 lane road over a 4 lane road providing more buffer between the residerift homes and the proposed road. B. Agreed by a vote of 6 to 2 (went side of the road) to request a noise buffer wall be installed instead of landscaping only. 1. Will request that the wall be landscaped and residents will be responsible for maintaining said landscaping in easement. 2. Will request that the wall be provided before donstruction begins. II_ Quality of water A- Proposed to request waiter (no sewer) lines to be provided to each residence due to the concern of deteriorating water quality with proposed development. Ill. Establish developer's responsibility A. Agreed on a need to establish responsibility for homeowner's well damage such as collapse due to proposed development. O B_ Agreed on a need to establish responsibility for storm water drainage problems due to proposed development. Post -It° Fax Note 7671 7671 Dade - (o pea 0. a. To G, D& F1 1 1 f From .1 as Co./oGar. Co. Phone a +1 r-� Phone N V-- k ,3 gg— &oQ Fez B Neighbors in attendance were: Lucas, Rooney, Catotak, 7akubowsld, Miler, 11222, Heston, 11115,MAinx Watson, Masco, Carr, Vogek 11241 i U4 /lU /YUU1 TUE 15:Ut{ lAX 355 6094 R. Uilcus WPB 4002 Boird of County Commissionets Watrer► H. Newell. Chairman Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair Karen T. Marcus ARNKMCCUW ft April 10, 2001 Mr. Dennis Solomon, Chairman and Commission Members Planning and Zoning Commission City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 -4698 RE: PCD - 99 -02 - Legacy Place Dear Chairman Solomon and Members: County Adminbuator Robert weisman At tonight's meeting, you will be reviewing the Master Plan for the Leg; lcy Place project. As the District one County Commissioner, representing the unincoi*porated residential neighborhood immediately east of this project, I would like to voice my comments. The residents on Monet Terrace and I support a two lane road connecting RCA Boulevard to PGA Boulevard through the Legacy Place project. In addition, they are requesting a wall be built to buffer their homes from the project, which I strongly support. The residents have also requested that the wall be landscaped and they have agreed to maintain the landscaping. Lastly, they would like the wall to be con strutted priorto the road being built. This is an established residential community which would be severely impacted by the additional traffic that will use the proposed new road. I think a wall is a reasonable request_ Thank you for taking the time to consider these requests. R.T. Marcus itv commissioner CC: Charles wu Growth Management Director 'An Equal Opportunity A&Tnative Action Employer" P.O. Boat 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 -1989 (561) 355 -2001 Fax (561) 3553991: pamsdon.aoyeredpspar wwwpbcgovcom