HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 012301•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 23, 2001
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Vice Chairman 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
Interim Growth Management Director Steve Cramer introduced the new members of the Planning and
Zoning Commission: Regular Members Steven Tarr and Dick Ansay, and Alternates Ernest Volonte,
and David Kendall
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Present moved approval of the January 9, 2001 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Kunkle
seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Pri-ci-nt
Absent
John Glidden, Chairman- arrived at 6:40 p.m. Joel Charming
Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem
Barry Present
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planners Steve
Cramer and Karen Craver, Planning Technician Jackie Holloman, and City Attorney Len Rubin.
Public Hearing /Recommendation to City Council
Petition MISC- 00 -16: Bristol Club Unmanned Entry Gates
• A request by Bristol Club Homeowners Association for an amendment to a previously approved site
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
plan for Bristol Club, Tract M -25, PGA National Resort Community Planned Community
Development, to construct an unmanned entry gate system between Avenue of the Masters and
Governor's Court at the entrance to Bristol Club. (15- 42S -42E)
Planning Technician Jackie Holloman reviewed the staff report. Mr. Kunkle asked if the actual gate
design would come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission, to which staffresponded it would
go on to City Council.. Mr. Tarr questioned whether a new island was being added. Ms. Holloman
explained that was not a new island, but the turnaround break would be formed at the end ofthe median
100' from the right -of -way to the edge of the pavement. Interim Growth Management Director Cramer
clarified the location on the drawing, and advised that five cars could stack before the gate.
John Glidden arrived at this point in the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
George Perez, representative for the applicant, clarified that the 100' stacking distance went to the stop
bar and beyond that stop bar it was another 22' to the gate, allowing room for a car to turn if it did not
proceed through the gate. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether the PGA POA would approve the gate design,
to which Mr. Perez indicated that approval was still needed. Mr. Glidden noted the four pylons which
comprised the outer sides ofthe gate were sitting in the asphalt and questioned ifthe outside pylons could
be integral with the curb rather than interrupting the driveway. Mr. Perez indicated they had determined
• the design beginning in the middle ofthe road and the gate company had then determined the size ofthe
gate that would work, and they did not want to break the existing concrete curb and disturb the drainage.
Mr. Perez explained where the bike path was located. Another representative ofthe petitioner explained
an open pedestrian gate area was provided so that the residents would not need to carry clickers in order
to get through the gates and they would be walking on the same path where they currently walked. Mr.
Glidden questioned whether it would be better to walk on the grass on the outside of the driveway, and
commented it was odd that the pylons were sitting in the road. Mr. Glidden commented the pylons
actually impeded drainage now. Mr. Perez explained that the pylon started at the edge of the existing
concrete curb, so the flow of water was not impeded at all, and that the landscaping on both sides ofthe
road was not inviting to pedestrians. Mr. Perez clarified that people walked in the road now. Mr.
Glidden commented the width of the gate on the elevation was 20' -6 ". Mr. Perez verified that was
correct, which was the masonry opening size recommended by the gate company. Mr. Glidden
commented it seemed to him the pylons should have been absorbed into the edge of the driveway even
to the extent the two middle pylons might have been maintained in the island to create a way for people
to walk outside the gates. Mr. Perez noted it would have been ideal ifthere were sidewalks on both sides
ofthe road but there were none, and the landscaping did not allow pedestrians to walk there. Mr. Present
questioned the location of the walk path, to which Mr. Perez responded that the pedestrian gate was in
the center median, and noted the elevation was a drawing of only half of the elevation and the site plan
showed the whole thing. Mr. Ansay questioned whether people walked in the street. Mr. Perez indicated
people must walk across the road to get to the center median and then they could access the pedestrian
gate. Mr. Ansay asked if there were any markings, to which Mr. Perez responded there was only the
• striping and the stop bar. Mr. Tarr commented he had no problem with the pedestrian access because
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
it was no different than existed at the present, but expressed concern regarding stacking since the drawing
was not to scale, and asked if the top median was new. The second representative for the petitioner
explained that the top median was created fromthe end ofthe existing median; that the right-of-way went
to Avenue of the Masters, not just the median; and the distance for stacking was 100'. It was clarified
that only one car should access the gate at a time, but since there were two lanes someone else could be
in the other lane and go through at the same time by using their clicker, and that everybody would be
given clickers and a code.
Chair Glidden declared the public hearing open. Linda Siegel, a Bristol Club resident, requested the
Board to consider safety considerations and commented that if the gates malfunctioned that was the only
entrance. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Glidden declared the public hearing
closed. Mr. Cramer commented if the gates malfunctioned and were closed, emergency vehicles would
break the gates to get through or stop to break the Knox box to gain entry. Chair Glidden commented
that existing circumstances probably warranted working around what would be done if this were a new
project, expressed concern that there were no sidewalks, and suggested ways a sidewalk could be added.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of Petition MISC400 -16 with
the following conditions:
• 1. A Knox key switch shall be provided to allow for emergency access for fire apparatus.
•
2. Construction plans shall show pavement specifications for a local road as required by the
City's Land Development Regulations.
3. New columns shall match the existing columns.
4. Existing landscaping shall not be disturbed except for the relocation of one palm tree to
allow for the mandatory turn- around area for vehicles. City Forester shall approve
relocation of palm tree.
Mr. Present seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr commented he did
not know the City's position on other neighborhoods coming in with the same request if this
approval was granted. Mr. Cramer responded there was no established policy on gated
communities and others could ask for gates if they desired. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion
that a sidewalk needed to be added and stated he would have been more in favor of moving the
landscaping to one side and providing a sidewalk, and moving the pylons into the landscaped area.
Mr. Present commented there was no sidewalk now and having gates would actually slow traffic.
Motion carried by 6-1 vote with Mr. Glidden opposed.
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
Workshop
Petition PCD- 99 -02: Master Plan for the Legacy Place (Parcel 28.01)
Planned Communj& District
Urban Design Studio, agent for Onyx Development Group, Inc-, the applicant, is requesting master
plan approval for a 75 -acre, mixed -use planned community district containing appraximately 69, 000
square feet of professional office space, 399, 000 square feet of retail space, and 384 residential units
located at the southeast corner of the PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA intersection. (6- 42S -43E)
and
Workshop
Petition SP- 00 -18: Legaq Place Parcel 28. DI Parcels, A. B, and C
Commercial
Urban Design Studio, agent for Onyx Development Group, Ina, the applicant, is requesting site plan
approval within the Legacy Place Planned Community Development. The petitioner is proposing to
develop 399,000 square feet of retail , and 69,000 square feet of professional office within three
parcels, as designated on the Legacy Place PCD Master Plan. The 48.51 acre parcel is located at the
southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. (6- 42S -43E)
Henry Iler, the City's consultant for the Legacy Place project, indicated Patrick Cunningham of Michael
Redd & Associates was a part of the planning team, and they had prepared a staff report. Mr. Iler
• indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to initiate the review process. Mr. Iler provided
background for the project, described the layout of the preserve area and roadways, and indicated the
applicant had addressed many ofthe comments made at the joint Planning & Zoning Commission/ City
Council workshop. Mr. Iler commented an important element was the multi-story feature which was
52% of the first floor square footage - -half being actual second and third stories and half being an
architectural feature. Mr. Iler explained that the 900 building had been split into two parts since the joint
workshop so that now there were two buildingsr -the 900 building and the 910 building. The service drive
had been changed, and a very strong pedestrian crossing to Jacobsen's had been added between the two
buildings. Another important building was the Container Store building, in which a number of changes
had been made. Mr. Iler explained there were no rears of buildings in the traditional sense, but all four
sides were finished with architectural features and the Container Store building was now more compatible
with the rest of the center. The roadway connection between the residential and commercial areas had
been improved. An architectural rendering from the viewpoint of the flyover was to be shown.
Hank Skokowski, Urban Design Studio, reviewed further changes made since the last workshop, and
provided a site plan color graphic in handout form, and also provided background on the project for
benefit ofthe new Planning and Zoning Commission members. Mr. Skokowski indicated there were two
changes to the site plan: (1) Entrance to Fairchild Gardens did not line up well so the alignment had been
curved, and Fairchild Gardens was to be four lanes. (2) The east -west corridor would be added to the
City's linkage and would continue north and connect to the northern entrance of Fairchild Gardens. All
ofthe roads would be public access easements. Mr. Skokowski exhibited the community design graphic
• showing the view from the flyover, and described the items depicted on the graphic. A diagram of
4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
linkage roadways was shown and described. Since the first workshop the rotary had been eliminated, the
comer building 900 had been split into two retail buildings, service and loading areas had been improved,
and the Legacy Drive area of right -of -way dedication had been increased to 53' for 4 -lanes and sidewalk
plus an additional 15' of landscape buffer on the east side running the entire length of the residential
development which had been reviewed by Traffic Engineer Joe Pollock. Mr. Skokowski noted many
changes that were made had cost the project parking spaces and therefore requested the employee
parking spaces be 9 -1/2' instead of 10' wide, which was a waiver request. A pedestrian connection from
the commercial development to the main center had been provided, and fountains had been added to the
water bodies along PGA Boulevard and Victoria Gardens. Mr. Skokowski indicated he was looking for
consensus on some issues, including alignment ofthe east -west corridor, and stacking lessthan 100' since
the City had not adopted a standard to designate between stacking on main roads and on tertiary roads,
and this was not a major corridor. Mr. Skokowski indicated that the Jacobsen's loading area had been
shifted and a new entrance added. Mr. Skokowski explained that in the 2 and 3 story buildings only half
would be actual building stories and the other half would look like 2 and 3 stories but would actually be
architectural features. Mr. Skokowski noted that both Jacobsen's and Barnes & Noble would have actual
two stories. Mr. Skokowski summarized four issues he had discussed: (1) Legacy Drive and the
consideration requested for 53' right -of -way instead of 80% (2) the east -west connector and the desire for
a public access easement versus a full right -of -way dedication and a 30' minimum; (3) the 900 building
being split into two buildings; and (4) the revised entry area. Mr. Skokowski compared the old plan with
• the new site plan and pointed out changes, and commented that for the next meeting the landscape
elements would be updated onto the new color site plan and a stacking detail would be provided. Mr.
Skokowski explained that areca palms would be continuous along Alternate AlA to screen the residential
development to the east.
Ed Crisinski discussed the Container Store and Building 900 changes, described architectural features,
and noted that the screen wall for the 900 building and 910 building was much more architecturally
detailed. Large stucco towers had been added to the Container Store building. The screen wall for the
Container Store loading area had been architecturally enhanced. A photo rendering from the PGA
Boulevard flyover was presented and reviewed.
Chair Glidden commented that this was a workshop and that the applicant would come back for at least
one more meeting to present a full package, and a full package including the old drawings should be
provided for benefit of the new members. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that the changes were
downgrading the project and questioned the median shown on RCA Boulevard. Mr. Skokowski
indicated that RCA would be 4- lanes, undivided, and the median shown on the site plan was incorrect.
Mr. Cramer indicated staffwas supporting the median as on Legacy Drive. Mr. Kunkle commented this
needed to be worked out so that people would enjoy the same type of road as elsewhere in the City. Mr.
Kunkle questioned whether there were plans to change the overhead power lines on the east side of
Legacy Drive, to which Mr. Skokowski responded those were not on the petitioner's property. Mr.
Kunkle indicated there were a number of back yard treatments from the homes on Monet Gardens which
• would be visible from the roadway on the project and suggested a wall to provide screening. Mr. Kunkle
5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
expressed his opinion that the landscaping shown at 5 -year growth was small, and more fast- growing
plants were needed to make an adequate buffer since the ones shown would not be as immediate as
needed. Mr. Kunkle commented that the uniqueness ofthe project was getting lost with the architectural
changes.
Mr. Glidden commented the petitioner had done a good job on the vertical element on the larger
buildings, but the horizontal element was still on the light side on the massing for the 900 and 910
buildings. Mr. Glidden requested an enlarged site plan ofthe covered areas and major entrances with the
doors without the hatching. Mr. Glidden indicated a 60" floor plan would be sufficient. Mr. Glidden
requested the 2 -story areas be defined as to how to get in and out since no elevators were shown. Mr.
Glidden requested 8 -1/2" x 11" copies of the color drawings for the members and particularly the new
members. Mr. Glidden requested a materials board for the final meeting and commented that the towers
shown on the 910 building were really on the 900 building and requested that be corrected. Mr. Glidden
requested locations be shown where landscaping, paving, and walkways began and ended at the building
entries, to provide more of a connector cutting across the driveway between the 900 and the 910
building, that the 400 building be labeled, and that the size ofthe breaks on the 910 and 900 building be
defined. Mr. Skokowski explained that the numbers 15 shown on clouds throughout the plan related
to a narrative of the changes at those locations. Mr. Glidden requested the geometry of the two
northbound lanes of Legacy Place extending onto Fairchild Gardens through the intersection be changed
• to eliminate any sharp turns. Mr. Glidden questioned lighting in the parking diamonds. Mr. Skokowski
indicated the diamonds would have either a light pole or a tree, but not both, and light poles could be
located in other areas ofthe parking lot Mr. Glidden requested Fairchild Gardens and the east -west road
have the same name to avoid confusion. Mr. Skokowski indicated the east -west road could be called
Legacy Drive and the petitioner would revisit that issue. Drop -off areas were discussed. Mr. Glidden
indicated where he believed a drop -off area could be best located. Mr. Skokowski requested
consideration of a pull-off for occasional use at the main entrance. Mr. Glidden commented on rotary
traffic and recommendedthe medianbe eliminatedto facilitate traffic making a counterclockwise rotation.
Mr. Glidden noted petitioner would need to return with a signage presentation, and that some ofthe signs
looked too large to meet code. Mr. Cramer indicated that staffs preference for the buffer behind the
houses on Monet Gardens was a wall instead of only palm trees.
Mr. Solomon recalled there had been previous concern regarding the large parking area on the east side
ofthe 900 buildings including the parking area south of Jacobsen's, to which Mr. Skokowski responded
he had committed to looking at those details after the roadways were finalized. Mr. Solomon
recommended adding parking diamonds. Mr. Solomon echoed Mr. Glidden's comment that some ofthe
signage was probably too large. Mr. Skokowski indicated that to his knowledge there were no
unresolved drainage problems for this project. Mr. Solomon questioned staffwhether more lanes were
anticipated for the internal east west road. Mr. Cramer responded that road would remain two lanes.
Mr. Solomon questioned whether berming would be provided along Victoria Gardens area; Mr.
Skokowski indicated there would be berming provided.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
Mr. Present questioned staff as to the City Engineer's position regarding the east west connector road
being a public access easement as opposed to a right -of -way, to which Mr. Cramer responded City
Council had indicated through the Comprehensive Plan that a public easement access was sufficient. Mr.
Present indicated he was in favor ofthe waiver request for 9 -1/2' parking spaces in the employee parking
area. Mr. Present favored a median on Legacy Place and recommended revisiting this issue, and
requested addressing lights from cars shining into Monet Gardens at night, and questioned whether the
right turn only was a DOT requirement. Mr. Skokowski indicated that was what DOT would permit,
and responded to roadway configuration questions from Mr. Present.
Mr. Volonte commented he had no comments since he had not had an opportunity to study the drawings.
Mr. Ansay requested an explanation of how the architectural style had been determined, and indicated
he would like to see more pizzaz in the overall project. Architect Terry King explained that the
architecture was extremely detailed as would be shown in elevations not yet presented, and that the cost
per square foot was $55 -$60. Mr. Glidden noted the new members needed to receive a package so they
could spend some time studying the project. Mr. Ansay indicated he had no problem with the cost per
square foot, but wanted to see something more unique and compatible with the overall City of Palm
Beach Gardens. Mr. King commented he believed when Mr. Ansay had had a chance to review the
project in detail he would find that this project would set a new standard for the City which others
• throughout the nation would try to match. Mr. King explained that the buildings were 4 -sided with
details on all sides, providing a view from every angle. Mr. Glidden commented the City had a pattern
book containing certain architectural concepts/styles/massing, and to a large extent this project followed
the limes of that pattern book, but expressed concern that every project should not look the same. Mr.
Glidden commented the drawings needed to specify all the materials shown by means ofan accompanying
sample board. Mr. Glidden requested the petitioner go through the drawing ofthe Container Store and
review the materials. Mr. Crisinski reviewed the 700 building materials. Mr. Glidden indicated all
members needed copies ofthe color elevations to study before the next meeting. Mr. Ansay questioned
how staff felt about the current elevations, to which Mr. Cramer responded staff had accepted the
architecture, and that staff preferred a wall instead of a berm along Legacy Drive.
Mr. Tarr commented that in general, he liked the concept. Mr. Tan expressed his opinion that this was
a main street concept where people would get out of their cars and go from shop to shop rather than
destination shopping, and commented he believed that worked in this situation, except it seemed to die
out at Jacobsen's and the 900 and 910 buildings did not really tie in even though a walkway had been
added. Mr. Tan expressed his opinion that it was like two different projects with three small anchors
on one end, but there was great middle section; that Legacy Drive needed to be buffered; that he did not
see much green space in this project; that he would prefer live oaks or another canopy tree rather than
palms; that the intersection by the post office might have as many as seven cars there at one time and he
was not sure who would have the right -of -way. Mr. Skokowski explained this was similar to
intersections at the Gardens Mall. Mr. Tarr indicated this intersection would have much more traffic
• because of all the cars backed up at the post office. Mr. Skokowski indicated the roadway would be
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
moved approximately 75' west which should substantially improve the stacking at the intersection. Mr.
Tarr expressed his opinion this would be a major cut through and not just traffic for this project. Mr.
Skokowski agreed, and predicted a situation at the intersection that there would not be enough traffic
to obtain the necessary warrants to get a traffic signal but stop controls would be necessary. Mr. Cramer
indicated the City Engineer required a traffic study after the project had been open for one year to see
if a traffic signal was necessary. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that the rectangular ponds/lakes had a
very man -made look, that he was generally okay with the architecture, that this project should have very
unique entrances, that landscaping should tie into the buildings and create a unique place. Mr. Tarr
commented that Mayor Russo had referred to this project as Palm Beach Gardens' City Place, and it
needed to live up to that standard.
Mr. Glidden asked if the drive off Victoria Gardens was only vehicular and questioned if that warranted
a sidewalk. Mr. Skokowski responded by pointing out other access to walkways. Mr. Glidden clarified
that massing of 8" was not nearly enough. Mr. Glidden commented that the corner tower on the
Container Store Building was still on the same plane as the rest of the building and the elevation was
deceptive. Mr. Glidden commented the north elevation of Building 900 was a problem and questioned
whether the north setbacks on Building 900 were absolute setbacks. Mr. Glidden indicated if they were
not waiverable he would rather see the building pulled into the setbacks.
• Mr. Solomon commented now that the 900 building had been separated into two buildings, moving the
910 building farther east would really tie the flow of buildings all together. Mr. King commented this site
plan really worked and although moving that building farther east was fine in theory, as a practical plan
this site plan would work well because a gourmet grocery was planned which needed a lot of parking
directly in front of their front door. Mr. King indicated he would have the same comment in regard to
moving the 900 building.
U-]
Mr. Glidden commented there would be another workshop and that the more the petitioner could finnish
in the way of more informative graphics, mainly the color site plan and color elevations, especially to the
new members, that would help move the project along.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cramer indicated a special meeting would be held on February 6, and the Board would be polled for
conflicts.
Mr. Iler clarified that Legacy Place would be scheduled on February 13.
91
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
Mr. Cramer indicated the pattern book would be presented at the next meeting.
Mr. Cramer indicated that Interim City Manager Ferris had resigned as of February 2 to take a private
sectorjob.
Mr. Glidden welcomed the new members. Mr. Cramer indicated new members could call staffwith any
questions.
0
I[]
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held February 13, 2001. %
APPROVED:
Solomon, Chair Elect
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem
Joel Channina
Alternate David Kendall
Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting
10