Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 032001• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 20, 2001 MINUTES The Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Vice 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 February 6, 2001 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volante and carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2001 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volante and carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem Joel Charming Barry Present Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent John Glidden, Chairman Alternate David Kendall Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, Principal Planner Steve Cramer, City Attorney Andrew Pineiro, and Henry Iler, Consultant for the City. • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 Workshop Petition PCD -99 -02 • Master Plan for the Legacy Place (Parcel 28.01) 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 profes sional office space, 399,000 square feet of retail space, and 384 residential units at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate A IA. (6- 42 -43E) Henry Iler, Iler Planning Group, Planning Consultant to the City on this project, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Tarr questioned where the flyover would connect, to which Mr. Iler responded the flyover would be 28 " -30" high, would go over Alternate A1A, and would come down just west of where Victoria Gardens intersected PGA Boulevard. Mr. Cramer clarified that the flyover was basically PGA Boulevard at grade at Military Trail, elevated over the railroad track, and coming down near Victoria Gardens as Mr. Iler had described. Henry Skokowski, agent for the applicant, reported he had gone through the PCD conditions and that many were technical in nature. Regarding uses, Mr. Skokowski indicated the applicant wished to review those and bring them back at the next meeting, and that the applicant planned to meet with Mr. ller to work on some details. Architect Gabriel Salazar, and David Bader with KA Architects, architects for • the commercial development, were present along with Nick Mihelich, Landscape Architect, and were available to answer questions. Mr. Skokowski explained that density should not be an issue, and that high quality had been provided for every apartment dweller. Mr. Skokowski reported discussion at the National Planning Conference regarding fear of density, had been that many communities were struggling with zoning codes on mixed use developments, and that individual projects should not be looked at in an isolated fashion, but considered within their surroundings. Mr. Skokowski commented that the residential portion at 15 units per acre was contributing to the residential balance needed in the City Center area. Mr. Skokowski explained that the cross section submitted for Legacy Drive was Joe Pollock's recommendation, and that at the north and south ends Mr. Pollock recommended providing for turning lanes, therefore at those locations more than 68' would be needed. Mr. Skokowski indicated the petitioner wanted to hear any public input regarding the roadway. Mr. Cramer explained the public hearing had been advertised but the proper signage was not posted, so the hearing could not be closed at the next meeting but would need to be continued to the following meeting. Mr. Skokowski indicated the petitioner would like to get through the public hearing process, get the Commission's recommendation, and proceed to City Council. Mr. Skokowski commented it had been his understanding that their analysis for concurrency purposes required a two lane section and if that was what was constructed ,the petitioner preferred that the westernmost two lanes would be constructed first. The petitioner requested reserving their position on four lanes, which staff wanted them to build up front, and wanted to take into consideration any comments from residents. Mr. Skokowski noted the petitioner did not feel it should be their responsibility to construct two lanes at some point after buildout if the need was from another development. Mr. Cramer commented that as soon as this project was built two lanes would be required, that any additional traffic would go above that, that road impact fees would pay for • 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 the lanes, and that this petitioner could construct all four lanes at one time and get a credit back. Petitioner verified there had been no architectural changes since the last presentation; however, the site plan had been changed to modify the secondary entrance, eliminating the rotary and providing over 100' stacking and direct alignment visually of the bridge to the recreation facility. Some residential units had been shifted, maintaining a 15' landscape buffer along the roadway edge, except where it had to be less to accommodate left turn lanes.. Mr. Skokowski noted if left turn lanes were not needed there would be more room and the landscape edge could then be a continuous 15' buffer. Mr. Solomon requested clarification as to whether public comments should be taken at the next meeting since the hearing would be continued. Mr. Cramer commented if there were a lot of members of the public who wished to speak at the next meeting, the Chairman might want to take their comments at that meeting. Mr. King and Mr. Skokowski planned to attend the next meeting. Terry King; TMK Development, commented that he would like to hear public comments at the next meeting. Nick Mihelich reviewed common design features linking the project together, including architecture, pedestrian connections, fountains, lighting, hardscape, and site furniture. Mr. Kunkle commented he liked the parking lot tree concept of changing species per parking lot, which would provide a unique look. Mr. Kunkle noted a weakness in the project of the landscaping losing intensity moving from the central core to the perimeters, and expressed his opinion that the parking lot islands at the extreme end of Jacobsen's should be as well treated as the parking lot islands at the central core. Mr. Kunkle suggested eliminating sod and using ground covers • in all parking areas, and providing a serpentine hedge at the entry off PGA Boulevard. Mr. Kunkle pointed out other sections where the hedge could be serpentined, and suggested in one section sacrificing the meandering sidewalk and let it parallel the parking area to increase the green space to buffer the parking. Mr. Kunkle requested elevations of the 910 store showing the landscaping and the parking lot to the north; and the parking lot just south of the container store where the meandering sidewalk did not allow room to berm, and suggested a parallel walk in that location. Mr. Kunkle pointed out other planted areas where the same treatment that had been used in the Jacobsen's parking lot could be used. Mr. Kunkle commented the FDOT plans were very native, which was a drastic contrast to the interior landscaping, to which Mr. Mihelich responded that it was part of the concept to provide native plants on the perimeter and to become more tropical in the interior of the project. Mr. Tarr commented he was more interested in the view from the road to the project than the view from the homes to the road, and that he would like a wall. Mr. Tarr commented he was not sure he saw "great strides" in the density issue other than sidewalks connecting the residential and commercial, and the bonus was granted when the applicant went above and beyond to benefit the City, which he did not see in this case. Mr. Tarr commented regarding two lanes now and four later on Legacy Drive that during construction of the flyover Legacy Drive would be a cut through for everyone, creating extra traffic earlier. Mr. Tarr commented he liked this project, but there were not many ways to get around on a bicycle; expressed concern regarding how the intersection near the post office would work with seven roads coming into one intersection; and wanted to preserve the look of existing landscaping along PGA and Alternate A I A. Mr. Present commented to staff that the tertiary road got lost once it came into the project and then became an internal road, to which Mr. Iler responded that it had been shifted at the City's request and although it would never really act as a tertiary road it now would be used as a way to the post office, and • 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 served a dual purpose for the applicant and for the City - -the applicant still had a local access road and now it would serve some linkage function. Mr. Charming questioned why the applicant could not provide cross sections all the way down Legacy Drive, to which Mr. King responded the applicant wanted to hear public comments first. Mr. Charming commented that he did not think the density bonus was deserved, expressed concerns about the connector road, wanted a very in -depth walk - through of the landscaping in the public areas with large scale elevations showing buildings and cross sections and all around the perimeter of the project. Mr. Charming indicated he wanted to see how the public would see this project and interact with it, and commented the buildings in the shopping center did not appear to have enough landscaping. Workshop Petition SP- 00 -18: Site Plan Review for Legacy Place Commercial Parcels A, B and C 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 within three parcels designated on the Legacy Place PCD Master Plan. The 48.51 acre parcel is located at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate A1A. (6- 42S -43E) and Workshop Petition SP- 00 -20: Leeacv Place - Site Plan Application for Parcel D • Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting site plan approval fora 384 -unit rental apartment complex on 25.7 acres of land at the northeast corner of Alternate A]A and RCA Boulevard. (6- 42S -43E) Henry Iler, Consultant for the City, reviewed the staff reports for the two petitions. Mr. Iler explained that staff was trying to move the residential project up to the level of the master plan and commercial portions of the project, and that all three would be considered at the public hearing. Petitioner explained that while only the PCD required a public hearing, Legacy Drive affected the whole project. Mr. Cramer explained that the residential and commercial portions could be approved separately, but the master plan must be approved first. Mr. Skokowski explained that the density would be granted with the PCD and that by presenting the details of all three petitions the applicant was hoping to show the Commission they should not be afraid of 15 units per acre. Mr. Mihelich reviewed the residential site plan. The two compactor locations were pointed out, and plant materials and placement were noted. Mr. Mihelich reviewed the commercial plan, described plant materials and placement, and reviewed Mr. Pollock's design for Legacy Drive. Mr. Kunkle questioned the elevation of Legacy Drive versus the finish floor elevations of Monet Gardens homes, to which the applicant responded by describing the drainage. Mr. Solomon questioned how the installation of drainage would be affected if only two lanes were built in the beginning, and indicated that building all four lanes at once might be better. Mr. Cramer commented the petitioner and the staff had different views of the preferable cross sections for the roadway, so requested direction from the Commission regarding their choice. Mr. Kunkle commented that consistency of the appearance of the road was necessary throughout the community, which could require sacrificing green space, units, or asphalt. Mr. Kunkle expressed a desire to hear from the Monet Gardens 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes • March 20, 2001 residents regarding the size of the eastern buffer, and stated his preference for as much green as possible. Mr. Volante stated he would prefer a 4 -lane road; Mr. Present agreed. Mr. Ansay indicated he favored four lanes and that Legacy Drive be consistent with other City streets. Mr. Ansay commented he leaned toward landscaping to the east rather than a wall. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that Legacy Drive would be a major thoroughfare and should look like the other major roads, and that the space for the roadway, median, and buffers was limited because of too many units proposed for the space. Mr. Tarr commented that at the last workshop it had been expressed there was inadequate parking near recreation facilities, that there were one -way roads around the lake with parallel parking, and that his concern regarding the trash compactors was not their capacity but how the residents would get their garbage to the compactors. Mr. Tarr commented on the commercial portion of the project that all his previous comments applied, plus he was not in favor of the geometric shape of the lakes. Mr. Tarr expressed concern that parking for the 700 building was too far away; and commented that one exit off Victoria Gardens Avenue needed to have one lane in and one lane out. Mr. Mihelich explained that DOT did not allow for a curb cut so two lanes would not work. Mr. Tarr commented he saw very little green space in the entire commercial and residential projects. Mr. Charming commented the air conditioning units should be on the roofs; that the garbage solution could be as had been done by others; that the 7' side setback and 14' rear setback from Legacy Drive did not concern him; and requested staff and the petitioner and staff resolve their differences on the Legacy Drive cross sections before the next meeting. Mr. Charming commented regarding density that one of the best features of the new urban thinking of • having residential over commercial was that at night those residents could see the streets ,which provided security, and separating residential and commercial took away that benefit; therefore, he did not believe this project met the density bonus test. Mr. Charming commented he liked the project and believed after resolving a couple of issues it could be moved along. Mr. Solomon received verification from staff that the request for 9' spaces in commercial was unusual, but 9' had been granted in previous residential projects. Mr. Skokowski explained the thirty -two 9' commercial spaces would be used for employee parking. Vice Chair Solomon recapped the major issues of the roadway design for Legacy Drive and Fairchild Gardens and whether a wall would be added. Mr. Solomon indicated he favored building four lanes at once, that the bonus density did not bother him, agreed the residential portion was too tight, commented the open item of uses could be resolved, requested larger buffers around the residential area, commented the traffic flow and the guest parking could be better with fewer units, agreed that the architecture was good, commented that some waivers needed to be requested, stated that some sidewalk flow issues needed to be worked out, expressed his opinion that the location of the compactor at the entrance was not the right location, and commented that drainage issues were on the way to being resolved. Growth Management Director Charles Wu commented staff was conferring with legal staff regarding the public hearing and recommended not taking public comments at the next meeting but deferring them to the April meeting; and indicated that the applicant could confer with the public outside at the next meeting. Mr. Wu commented that because of the confusion with the advertising the petitioner had agreed to send new notices via certified mail; therefore, the recommendation was not to take public comments. Vice • 5 • 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 Chair Solomon indicated names could be taken from the public and those people urged to attend the following meeting. A break was taken at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:04 p.m. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem Joel Channing Barry Present Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Workshop Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2001 -2 Absent John Glidden, Chairman Alternate David Kendall (a) Petition LU- 00 -04: Parcel 34.01 Congress Plaza West Land Use Map Amendment A small -scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map requesting to change the designation of a 4.9- acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Northlake and Congress Avenue from Industrial to Commercial. Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the request, and responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Benothman explained that the applicant wished to combine the parcels within the City and Lake Park for one project and to use the development standards of Palm Beach Gardens; that the traffic study showed an additional 2,865 external trips and no adverse effects; and that the request had been submitted to the County, City of Lake Park, and IPARK, and there were no objections; and that the level of service on Northlake Boulevard was "D ". Discussion ensued regarding future possible extension of Congress Avenue farther north. Henry Skokowski, representative for the petitioner, explained the petitioner was trying to put the land together in a complicated situation and this was a land use plan amendment. Mr. Skokowski explained the majority of the land was already designated commercial and the petitioner wanted to change all of 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 it to be commercial. Mr. Skokowski explained that Joe Carasella was the applicant and he also owned land across the road. Mr. Ansay questioned whether the parcels in different municipalities had compatible zoning. Mr. Benothman explained that the Palm Beach Gardens land was industrial and the one in Lake Park was commercial. Mr. Tarr inquired if retail would include fast food, and expressed concern that could create a lot of traffic, to which Mr. Benothman responded that the traffic study was based on the worst case, which was retail and included fast food. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that the trips were very light, and that the designation should be commercial. (b) Petition LU- 00 -05: Parcels 31.08 & 31.11 Land Use Map Amendment An amendment to the Future Land Use Map requesting to change the land -use designations of Parcels 31.08 and 31.11 from Mixed Use to Residential High. The parcels total 80.5 acres and are located at the northeast and northwest corners of Central Boulevard and 1 -95. Mr. Benothman reviewed the amendment, indicated staff had no problem with the land use change, and noted that an environmental assessment had been obtained to assess suitability of the land for the proposed change and that this issue would be settled before the public hearing. Mr. Benothman explained that high density was more consistent with the vision plan than medium density and the adjacent parcels could remain low density. Henry Skokowski, agent for Watermark Communities, explained that the very high -end golf course community would be located across the street from BallenIsles, and would consist of 651 acres with only 450 dwelling units on the entire project, and that it was desirable to be surrounded by residential high. Mr. Skokowski explained that an existing forbearance agreement limited development to three units per acre and the planned community would have less than one per acre. It was explained that this was merely a planning exercise to meet State requirements. Mr. Channing commented this had originally been presented as a solution to traffic problems with down ramps from I -95 to Central, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that had been originally considered but the additional right -of -way at 1 -9.5 was wide enough for an interchange, which could still happen. Mr. Channing commented reducing densities instead of increasing them could be positive public relations for the City; Mr. Benothman responded the proposed change would meet State law requirements. (c) Petition LU- 00 -07: Parcel 4.10 Land Use Map Amendment An amendment to the Future Land Use Map requesting to change the land use designation of Parcel 4.10 from Mixed Use to Commercial. The parcel is located at the southwest corner of Donald Ross Road and Central Boulevard. Senior Planner Talal Benothman presented the proposed amendment and verified the gopher tortoises would be handled by mitigation. Mr. Kunkle requested the external trips in the chart on page 4 reflect actual trips. Mr. Channing indicated he was against this and believed this land should stay Mixed Use, and he commented that the last application should have compensation somewhere else, to which Mr. • 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 Benothman responded there was no basis for denial. Henry Skokowski, agent, explained that George Kelly was the owner of the property, that it was not an attractive parcel for residential with the surrounding uses, and that the net developable land was fairly low after meeting all the requirements of the City. Growth Management Director Charles Wu commented that it was believed he land use of Mixed Use regardless of its validity at the time of designation was meant to serve as a buffer to residential behind the Mixed Use land use, but Mr. Channing had raised a good point and staff would re- examine this issue. Mr. Channing commented that because Mr. MacArthur had controlled so much of the land in the City for so long, the City did not turn out like the areas to the north and south; and one of the things adopted in recent years was that mixed use was desirable, the value of land would adjust to the zoning, and it was the Board's business to try to make sure the City stayed beautiful. A Petition TXT- 00 -05: Parcel 31.01 Text Amendments An amendment to the City's Transportation Element requesting to delete roadway #18 and a portion of roadway #12, from the Turnpike to Central Boulevard, from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O), and to develop a link on the Conceptual Linkage Plan (Map 1) that traverses Parcel 31.01. iSenior Planner Talal Benothman presented the amendment and indicated staff had no problem at this point but would look for the traffic analysis to demonstrate that eliminating these two roadway segments in addition to the link would not lower the level of service on other roadways. Mr. Benothman clarified for Mr. Present that there had not previously been a plan to go over the Florida Turnpike and connect to parcel 31.0 1, and explained that none of this was part of the CRALLS. Mr. Tarr questioned if these roads were eliminated and the proposed project not built whether the roads would come back, to which Mr. Benothman responded they could be put back. Growth Management Director Wu commented there were draft plans to have this property redeveloped and that very shortly the Board would see plans for a gated community project. Mr. Solomon questioned why maintaining some public right -of -way would not be a good idea. Mr. Benothman explained how that would divide the proposed residential community. Future roadways were discussed. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion that clearing out the roads and coming in with new plans gave the developer and the City an opportunity to develop a fine product. iJ Petition TXT- 00 -06: Parcel 4.06 Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan Amendment An amendment to the City's Transportation Element requesting to delete from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan an east /west segment of roadway #15 between Military Trail and Alternate A ]A. The roadway segment to be traverses Parcel 31.01. Senior Planner Talal Benothman presented the amendment. Mr. Present commented it would be interesting to see how many and the locations of curb cuts, and that there would not be a railroad • 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 20, 2001 crossing anyway. Mr. Channing indicated that every time a railroad crossing was gained one could be re -used; that one would be gained because of the flyover, and that this was a location where it would do some good. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, explained that the plan was to create another railroad crossing 1/2 mile north from the flyover as part of the City's linkage plan, that the petitioner was waiting for concurrency, and that on the master plan on file with the City there were three access points for this property. Mr. Skokowski explained that the traffic that would occur on a public road through the property would be from outside the development, and a study had indicated it would not be sufficient to warrant bisecting the community. Mr. Skokowski indicated that there was a very large existing lake on the property, approximately 30 acres in size, which would be a community amenity with recreational features, and the petitioner did not want to separate this amenity from the community. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS IGrowth Management Director Charles Wu suggested an orientation workshop meeting for the benefit of the new members to review housekeeping matters, rules and procedures, the Sunshine Law, Quasi - Judicial proceedings, the role of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency, and Zoning Board; and more importantly, to obtain suggestions of how to improve the process and how staff could better serve the Commission. Mr. Wu indicated that packets would be targeted to go out on Thursdays and gave his phone number for members to call with any questions so that he could make sure they were answered before the meeting. Mr. Wu suggested 1 -1/2 hours maximum for the meeting. Members of the Commission expressed their opinion that this was a good idea; and Mr. Solomon suggested some written materials be distributed before the meeting. Mr. Ansay expressed a preference for a separate special meeting rather than having this session as a part of a regular agenda. Mr. Channing suggested that the City Council Liaison, Mr. Carl Sabatello, should attend. Mr. Solomon requested names and phone numbers of staff members so they could be contacted regarding agenda items. • L� • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes .March 20, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held March 27, 2001. APPROVED: John Glidden, Chair "40M I AIL Dennis .ON. Craig Kunkle i LJ�W Pro Tern Joel CWning Barry Present / Stevet"41 Dick Ansav Alternate ,01st Volonte Alternate David Kendall Aetty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting 10