HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 030601CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 6, 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 John Glidden 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
There were no announcements.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison. Chair Glidden noted he had marked up a submittal
check list for PUD, Site Plan Review, etc., to clarify Planning & Zoning requirements versus official
requirements, which he requested Mr. Cramer and Mr. Sabatello review and produce a clean copy.
• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Absent
John Glidden, Chairman Alternate David Kendall
Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tern
Joel Channing
Barry Present
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planner Steve
Cramer, Planner Kara Irwin, City Attorney Andrew Pineiro, and Consultant Henry Iler.
Workshop
Petition SP- 00 -20: Legacy Place - Site Plan Application for Parcel D (Residential)
Urban Design Studio, agent forBeztak Land Company, is requesting site plan approval fora 384 -unit
rental apartment complex on 25.7 acres of land at the northeast corner of Alternate A -1 A and RCA
:y
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
Boulevard (6- 42 -43E)
Principal Planner Cramer clarified that the commercial site plan had been continued to the March 20
special meeting, and that if the residential site plan needed to be continued it could also be discussed at
that meeting, as well as the Master Site Plan, if necessary. Henry Iler, tier Planning Group, Planning
Consultant to the City on this project, reviewed the staff report, and highlighted issues of the residential
density bonus, affordable housing, environmental preservation, the Legacy Drive corridor and its west
buffer, the south side RCA Boulevard buffer, and the north side buffer along the East -West Connector
Road. Mr. Tarr questioned the City's position on splitting the commercial and residential, noted that
the project seemed very cramped, and questioned what the applicant had done to deserve a bonus of
three points. Mr. Iler responded that the applicant had increased connectivity, located the East -West
Connector road at the City's request, provided several walkways, and explained that the code provided
for a density bonus if the project was implementing vertical and horizontal development. Mr. Iler
explained that the gross density figure was computed on the entire residential area plus Legacy Drive.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the applicant, introduced Nick Mihelich, Landscape Architect; Gabriel
Salazar, Architect; and Ed Amador, Beztak Land Company, who were present on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. Skokowski explained that at the beginning of the project a waiver for the residential
segment had been obtained from the City Council because the applicant wanted any residential to be
voluntary, and the original plans had shown a small portion of residential over commercial. Mr.
Mihelich provided an overview of the site plan. Mr. Salazar reviewed the architectural features. Mr.
Iler noted that the applicant was requesting a parking waiver for 9' spaces. Mr. Glidden expressed his
opinion that a good job had been done on the architecture, but that connectivity was an issue since this
was essentially two separate projects connected by sidewalks. Chair Glidden questioned whether people
would use the rotary, and expressed concern that stacking more than four cars at the security gate would
block the intersection. Chair Glidden noted there was only stacking for four cars at the security gate
without blocking traffic on Legacy Drive; commented the 100' stacking distance might not be needed
where there were driveway cuts but 100' probably was needed at entrances. Chair Glidden requested
discussion regarding when gates would operate and invited input from everyone about how important
they considered this issue. Mr. Kunkle commented the buffers were reasonable at this point, that the
Legacy Drive cross sections needed to be resolved and that Mr. Mihelich was working on that; and
commented that using oak trees in the median would sacrifice horizontal space on Legacy Drive that
might be needed. Mr. Charming commented he had thought that affordable housing was the only
justification for a density bonus, to which Mr. Cramer responded there were three types of bonuses —one
for affordable housing, one for environmentally sensitive lands, and one for mixed use developments.
Mr. Charming commented he did not understand why a density bonus was warranted when the
residential was split away from the commercial. Mr. Charming indicated he did not want to see any cars
inside the project from the main roads, and that berms, walls, or up -size landscape materials could be
used for screening. Mr. Charming commented regarding the architecture that he preferred real arches
rather than stucco arches over a square opening, and wanted the air conditioning compressors on the
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
roofs. Mr. Channing commented that the project was beautiful. Mr. Skokowski commented the entire
site, under the mixed use designation with the residential waiver that had been granted, could be
developed for all commercial uses; and that residential had been incorporated which was it very short
distance from the commercial and that the whole project had unified landscaping, signage, architecture,
colors, and streetscape lighting. Mr. Glidden questioned whether staff supported the concept that
because there was mixed use within the project that it qualified for the bonus or whether the mixed use
had to be vertical to qualify. Principal Planner Cramer responded the City Council had waived all
residential from this project, that the Comprehensive Plan required two uses for mixed use and there was
both retail and commercial in this project. Mr. Glidden commented the Commission would look to the
City to see if the requirement was met to have 15 as a density bonus. Mr. Solomon commented the site
plan was very tight; that it did not bother him for the applicant to have some bonus density because of
the mixed use; and that there were some strange traffic patterns with the traffic direction on the north
side of the lake going one way, then going on around the lake the traffic became two -way for awhile,
and then one way. Mr. Solomon commented that there were two different recreational areas and there
was not have parking near them; also, the applicant was required to provide 735 spaces and had provided
723. Mr. Solomon pointed out the tennis court was surrounded by buildings and no one had a view of
it, and there was no real parking there; and expressed his opinion that if the traffic flow from the
southwest lot could link up with the rest of the parking by going through where the tennis court was
located, it would create better traffic circulation and provide extra parking by eliminating some of the
buildings. Mr. Solomon favored keeping the extra buffer along Legacy Drive, and recommended
variety in the buildings and not having the same roof lines together. Mr. Present commented the project
would be an asset to the area and he liked the lake being the main amenity, but his main focus was the
connectivity and the parking lot for the commercial parking. Mr. Present noted that the applicant had
made great strides in breaking up this parking, which had looked like a big sea, but he believed there was
an opportunity to work on the connectivity coming in the main road and circling around, and suggested
providing more landscaping, and feathering it over to the next area, which could really connect the two
projects. Mr. Glidden noted regarding the site plan that connectivity was very casual with only
sidewalks, and the only thing left to work on was to create a major point of arrival in the center of the
project by using landscaping, walls, berms, and signage. Mr. Glidden requested renderings be provided
in 8 -1/2 "x11" size. Mr. Glidden commented if there were a choice of having a median either in Legacy
Drive or inside the project, he would choose Legacy Drive, and a buffer would be more important along
Legacy Drive than inside the project. Mr. Skokowski indicated work was in progress for Legacy Drive,
which the applicant would address later. Mr. Glidden indicated concerns with the intersection and
advised that the applicant would have to demonstrate how they would make it almost impossible to make
the wrong short cut, and if that could not be done the intersection should have stop signs. Mr. Glidden
recommended moving the gate at the Legacy Drive intersection to allow more cars to stack, and
expressed concern regarding stacking on the East -West Connector Road. Mr. Glidden indicated he
would like to see a policy about stacking in a gated section, that the answer might be that the gates
would only operate after a certain time at night, but the Commission needed to understand how that
• worked, that he had been involved in stacking at Bent Tree where there was stacking for 5 -6 cars and
3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
there were no problems, and asked everyone to think about this potential issue. Mr. Glidden indicated
he had no problems with the 9' parking space waivers, and requested documentation from the applicant
that this project was all right having 12 spaces short of the requirement. Mr. Glidden noted there were
dead ends but he did not have a problem since they were all destination dead ends. Chair Glidden
expressed his opinion that the architecture was excellent, and requested a blowup of representative areas
of each typical building with profiles of trim with all details, materials, and color transitions labeled so
that could be used as a guideline for other portions of the project, eliminating the need for blowups of
every building. Mr. Glidden requested copies of accurate color elevations before the next meeting, and
suggested toning down the colors. Mr. Ansay expressed concern with the proposed rotary connecting
the residential and commercial, and described how cars would use this as a cut through. Mr. Ansay did
not have a problem with the traffic through where the tennis courts were located. Mr. Ansay expressed
no problem with a density bonus, and commented if some driving could be eliminated that would help
with the roadways; agreed with Chair Glidden that the entry should be pushed back to allow for more
stacking, and indicated he would like to see the area from the residential to the commercial parking lot
softened. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that splitting the residential from the commercial and gating
the residential section defeated the purpose of mixed use, but in this case splitting made the project more
marketable. Mr. Tarr indicated he would like to see a lot more green, agreed the site was very cramped,
commented the architecture looked great, indicated there should either be more than two trash
• compactors for a development of this size or dumpsters should be added, received verification that if the
relocated oaks did not survive that the code required replacement, expressed his opinion that parking for
the clubhouse and pool areas was not adequate, and expressed his opinion that there was not sufficient
canopy effect in the perimeter landscaping. Mr. Glidden requested information on a comparable project
with the same kind of distance to the trash compactors. Mr. Present reported Cotton Bay project in West
Palm Beach had this type of situation and it was a nightmare, and he did not think it would work here;
and objected to the compactor location at the entrance. Mr. Salazar indicated the compactors were
totally screened and that details would be provided.
Workshop
Petition SP- 00 -13: Legend at the Gardens Regional Center
A request by Cotleur & Hearing, agent, for a site plan approval of a residential development
consisting of 166 condominium apartments on approximately 24.8 acres of land within the Regional
Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The subject site is immediately west of the Gardens
Mall on Fairchild Gardens Avenue and south of Gardens Parkway Boulevard.
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report and provided a NOPC presentation. Mr. Tarr
suggested changing the name of Legacy Gardens Circle to avoid confusion. Mr. Tarr expressed his
opinion that all the projects within this area should either be either gated or not gated.
• Donaldson Hearing, representing the applicant Centex Homes, described the overall project, explained
4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
that having the project gated was important to marketing this project, and described the landscaping and
the different types of units. Architect Don Lang described the architecture, which had been revised since
the original presentation. Mr. Hearing commented staff had identified the issue of project security,
which was important to marketing, and explained that it was not the applicant's intent to create an
isolated effect. Mr. Hearing requested direction as to how much guest parking the Commission would
like, and discussed a waiver request for parking setback for one building. Staff indicated that waivers
for additional parking and for the parking setback had not yet been requested. Chair Glidden noted the
NOPC had been moved on to City Council and that when this Commission had recommended the NOPC
approval this site was to be cultural and arts use or a mix of uses. Mr Glidden reported he had met with
the petitioner to discuss the architecture and they had then changed the design as presented tonight. Mr.
Ansay requested staff elaborate on the project planned for the west side of the lake, to which Mr.
Benothman responded that project was an entertainment center of a proposed project that because of
density issues would become a part of this site plan and the petitioner needed to work out the issues so
that nothing overlapped. Mr. Hearing indicated that the lake amenities would be shown to the
Commission. Chair Glidden indicated that it had been hoped that the lake area would at least have
continuous pedestrian experience all the way around with walkways, etc., but since it was no longer a
cultural site it did not work the same. Mr. Tarr agreed with the City's approach on the gated issue in this
area and recommended consistency with all projects either gated or not; and commented that in this case
• he would rather gate condominiums versus apartments if one had to be gated and the other not gated.
Mr. Hearing explained that restrictions on rentals would not be a problem. Mr. Tarr indicated he would
like more architectural detail, and would like the perimeter roads of Fairchild and Koyoto Gardens to
have canopy shade trees. Mr. Hearing indicated there were a number of different types of shade trees
and palms along the perimeter. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion that the buildings were too large for
the area and recommended four units per building. Mr. Present commented this was the wrong product
for this location and agreed with staff this was an enclave in the middle of the whole garden concept of
the DRI and that gating it would make it an enclave. Mr. Present indicated he would give more study
to the project, but felt the buildings were too massive. Mr. Hearing described the surrounding massive
buildings and explained that the project buildings were much smaller in scale, but invited further
discussion of breaking down the building mass as opposed to the size. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion
that the other buildings on PGA Boulevard were commercial and should not be considered for
comparison with residential buildings. Mr. Solomon stated he did not like the architecture and did not
think the buildings did justice to the site, indicated the residential use did not bother him, and
recommended obtaining a legal opinion on gating. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the revised
architecture was better than the original but did not seem to have a main theme and seemed very
nondescript, including the pool entry feature, which was the first thing one would see. Mr. Solomon
commented he did not see a sidewalk on both sides of the road between buildings 4 and 5, and
questioned what a seat wall was, to which Mr. Hearing responded it was a low wall, two feet tall, with
a cast stone cap that one could sit on, intended to define private or semi - private outdoor space from
public outdoor space but still to provide openness. Mr. Charming requested no fake arches, commented
he liked the rear and side elevations which were interesting and were much better than the front, which
•
5
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
was very flat and the garages were not wide enough. Mr. Charming commented the residential buildings
should look like they belonged to the mall. Mr. Hearing explained the gross density was 6.69 units per
acre, net density was 13.5 or "14, and the entire lake tract was included within the parcel boundary, but
it also served the overall common area of the Regional Center DRI. Mr. Hearing explained the lake was
being platted as a part of this application but it was owned by Northern. Mr. Channing indicated his
opinion that the architecture was not harmonious. Mr. Kunkle commented that having residential use
next to the mall and having the project gated did not bother him. Mr. Kunkle noted there were many
different window treatments on the buildings which could be unified and commented on landscaping
between the garages which was shown on the elevation and needed to be shown on the plans. Mr.
Kunkle expressed concern regarding the sameness throughout the project, and commented the applicant
had not taken advantage of the landscape palette mix which could be spread around and provide diversity
building to building. Mr. Kunkle commented the location of the air conditioning compressors would
make the back patios difficult to use because of the noise, and expressed his opinion that the decorative
fence treatment should be continuous. Mr. Hearing described the proposed columns, fencing, and wall
sections, and indicated those details would be provided in elevations and renderings at the next
presentation. Chair Glidden explained he had met with the applicant early in the process, and that the
architect had done a good job with what he had been provided. Chair Glidden expressed his opinion
there was not enough give and take in the facade, that the colors were too busy, requested that the
• applicant look at tying into the project across the lake like in Mizner Park and revising the six residential
buildings on the interior loop into taller buildings, since waivers were allowable above 36', and noted
that placing the density in the center of the project could relieve the perimeter. Chair Glidden suggested
this might be a community that wanted to take advantage of the entertainment feature across the lake
rather than be enclosed in a gated community. Mr. Charming commented the building itself was the
problem and if the corporate culture of this company was to provide a cookie cutter effect that was a
problem; and suggested looking into looking into something very sophisticated and urban. Mr.
Channing expressed agreement with Mr. Glidden's planning comments. Mr. Glidden commented there
was an opportunity to work with what was happening on the other side of the lake and to make this a
place where people really wanted to be, not because it was secure, but because it was in the middle of
what was happening; but if the petitioner wanted to continue with what they had, some of the roof offsets
were not enough, the architecture needed to be simplified, the fake arches needed to be changed, colors
needed to be toned back, and the density needed to be in the middle of the project. Mr. Hearing
requested the opportunity to come back in 2 -3 weeks for another workshop on a conceptual level. Chair
Glidden suggested the applicant come back with very loose informal concepts. Mr. Channing
commented this was a unique site and a very important part of the City, and that one way to look at this
would be to have fewer larger buildings that were well designed, more restrained, and treated
architecturally like the office buildings, so that security could be at the entrance to the buildings and the
project would not have to be walled in. Mr. Charming commented that the applicant needed to show
how this project was a part of everything around it and not just show an isolated project, by showing
lines of sight and connections, etc. Mr. Glidden commented the Commission would be more than
willing to react to some loose concepts but the applicant also had the right to stay with their present plan
0
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
and work through it to improve it, or to go with a totally different look. Mr. Present favored a different
look, but indicated a change should not change the market. Mr. Ansay favored starting over and
commented one or two larger buildings would be more compatible and that the buildings on the
perimeter were not the right buildings. Mr. Tarr indicated he did not want an apartment building look,
so preferred low buildings no higher than three stories, and he did not think the buildings looked that
bad, and he could go along with what had been done if it were taken to another level. Mr. Solomon
preferred a new approach. Mr. Kunkle indicated he could go with either direction. Mr. Channing
commented this was a very important site and suggested the petitioner let their architect play with it and
come back with more than one rough concept.
Workshop
Petition SP- 00 -26: Crossroads at Northlake Renovations
Lee Worsham of Ruden- McClusky, agent for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, is
requesting a Site Plan Amendment for the Crossroads at Northlake Shopping Center. The site is
located at the southeast corner of Interstate 95 and Northlake Boulevard. The 21 -acre site will
contain 174,371 square feet of retail space, an increase of 31,707 square feet. (19- 42S -43B)
• Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the site plan and explained that this was not a PUD because there
were four owners on this site.
Lee Worsham, representative for the applicant, explained that this was a renovation which would
subdivide the grocery store area and provide a new anchor; that the Shell station had been purchased;
and that the process of obtaining a new access had started in 1995. Negotiations with the County and
DOT had resulted in a new access from an additional right lane off 1 -95 and an extra lane extending to
Sandtree. Dave Woodward, Kimley Horn, described the site plan and landscaping. Jerry Phillips,
Preston and Phillips, Architect, reviewed the proposed architecture, and explained the new major tenant
would be located on the northeast corner. Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion that the project was very
nice, and recommended that some of the hedge along Northlake be serpentined.
Mr. Channing left at this point in the meeting at 10:15 p.m., and Mr. Volante was seated in Mr.
Channing's place.
Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion this was a great improvement and questioned what had to be done
to bring the back of the current Albertson's into compliance with code, to which Mr. Phillips responded
some landscaping would be added and that repairs would be made to the metal panels along the rear,
some would be replaced, and all would be repainted Mr. Phillips indicated that the soffit and fascia on
the front of the building would be repaired as required, described the steel columns along the small shop
space, and described the proposed lighting. Mr. Solomon suggested the space at the shops to the left
side of Albertson's might be long enough to repeat something vertical. Mr. Phillips expressed his belief
•
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
that the air conditioning units would be totally screened. Mr. Present commented this was a great
improvement and suggested the lake feature might be used as an amenity and connectivity provided with
some benches, etc., which could be used as a marketing tool. Mr. Ansay and Mr. Tarr indicated this was
a great improvement. The applicant clarified that Home Depot would be involved for site plan approval
only. Staff clarified that this was not a PUD, that it would go to City Council, and that variances would
stop at the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Glidden indicated this was a great improvement, but cautioned
that some issues not be overlooked. Mr. Glidden noted that the parking needed to be screened
completely from the 1 -95 ramp if the parking lot was treated as a service area; requested landscaping be
increased along Sandtree; requested that in the area shown in Perspective 2 on Sheet SK -5 tall
landscaping be placed against the building to soften it, that any parking spaces there be removed, and
that other landscaping be added; that coping be added at the top on the compactor building; and
suggested interior roof drains with two overflow scuppers and no downspouts to clean up the east
elevation of building 5 on Sheet SK -4. Chair Glidden indicated that when the petitioner returned they
needed more sophisticated drawings, drawn properly, being specific about materials, also making the
drawings tighter; and doing the same with the roof plan.
Workshop
• Petition SP- 00 -29: Frenchman's Reserve POD "G" (Toll Brothers)
Land Design South, agent for Toll Brothers Development, is requesting a site plan approval for an
11 -acre site within the Frenchman's Reserve Planned Community Development. The site plan
consists of 36 single-family dwelling units, 29 of which are to be zero lot line. Frenchman's Reserve
is located on the east side ofAlternateAL4 across from the intersection of AlternateAIA and Hood
Road. (31-4]S-43E)
and
Workshop
Petition SP- 00 -28: Frenchman's Reserve Golf Maintenance Facility (Toll Brothers)
Land Design South, agent for Toll Brothers Development, is requesting a site plan approval fora 3.14
acre Golf Maintenance Facility. The site will consist of two structures equaling 9,600 square feet
with parking, fueling, and equipment washing facilities. The site is located within the Frenchman's
Reserve Planned Community Development. The site is located south of the Cabana Colony canal,
just to the east of Alternate AIA. (31-4]S-43E)
Bob Benz, Land Design South, agent for the petitioner, indicated the PCD public hearing would be
presented to City Council at their next meeting. Jennifer Morton, Land Design South, described the Pod
"G" site plan and adjacent areas, and indicated there would be a model center similar to one built in Boca
Raton by Toll Brothers. Six models were proposed for Phase II and then new models would be
developed, so that in Phase III the actual Phase II models would be sold. Ms. Morton reviewed the
requested waivers, specifically for a 4 -foot instead of 5 -foot sidewalk, and to not provide off street
lighting in the parking area for the model area which was only open during the day. The rest of the
8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
waivers applied to the residential lots: a reduction in the front and side setbacks, an increase in building
coverage, and for screen enclosures that the proposed rear setbacks be zero when adjacent to an open
space area and Y when adjacent to a preserve. Zero lot line setback reductions were requested along
with increased building coverage increased and with the same screen enclosure setbacks as requested
for the residential homes. Ms. Morton reviewed the justification for the requested waivers. Principal
Planner Steve Cramer advised that staff was not supporting some waivers at this time. Mr. Present
questioned staff's position on mixing single- family residences with zero -lot line models in the model
row, to which Mr. Cramer responded that had been approved in the past. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern
with access from the golf cart garage on some of the single family homes and whether those further
increased lot coverage percentages and how that tied into the street or the driveway. Jeff Bartman,
Architect, explained the location of the golf cart garages depended upon the model, that some were on
the 10' side, some were on the front, and some were on the courtyard, and there would be pavers or
stabilization to drive on. Ms. Morton described the proposed maintenance area, and noted that two
waivers were requested which were supported by staff. Bob Benz explained that the petitioner had met
with adjacent residents and the Fire Chief had attended the meetings. Chair Glidden commented the big
issues would be noise and fumes. Mr. Solomon expressed concern about no lighting since work might
start before dawn and people might work after dark in the offices. Ms. Morton stated the petitioner
would look at that issue. Mr. Cramer commented that the next meeting would be a recommendation to
City Council.
• OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Glidden noted the Commissioners had received reduced plans, but could go to the Growth
Management Department if they wanted to pickup larger plans. Mr. Glidden noted that in the checklist,
the applicant was required to submit sets for each meeting, and that the plans from each meeting could
be saved so they would not have to submit so many; but the Commissioners needed to know which plans
they could mark on. It was clarified by Mr. Cramer that any of the plans could be marked on; Mr.
Glidden commented the 1 "1 "x17" plans could be taken home and marked on, and that this could be
discussed further when the checklist was discussed.
Ray Royce, Attorney for Toll Brothers, questioned if the applicant could be first on the next agenda
when they came back for recommendation to City Council, which staff indicated they would consider.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
0 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 6, 2001
•
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held March 27, 2001.
APPROVED:
John Glidden, Chair
Alternate Err&Kt Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
4'6r�- Aa�
Betty Lau P, Secretary for the Meeting
10
Barry.,Present
Stev arr
��5
Dick Ansay
Alternate Err&Kt Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
4'6r�- Aa�
Betty Lau P, Secretary for the Meeting
10