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