HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 011403CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 14, 2003
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle 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.
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
Principal Planner Talal Benothman that since the last meeting, City Council had approved the Oakbrook
PUD on December 19 by 3 -2 vote, with the two opposed because they thought there should not be an
outparcel. Mr. Glidden noted that the tower on the corner of the existing retail was to be the same size as
the tower on the freestanding retail building, but it did not end up that way, but it was better than
nothing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting minutes of December 10, 2002: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the
December 10, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Land
Development Regulation Commission:
Present Absent
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden
Dennis Solomon
Dick Ansay
Steven Tarr
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate Douglas Pennell
Also present were Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Kara Irwin, Planners Jackie
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
Holloman and Brad Wiseman, and City Attorney Len Rubin.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z)
Petition PUD -0I - 11:Mirasol Walk –Planned Unit Development
A request by Audrey Huggins of Gee & Jenson, Inc., on behalf of North American Properties -
Investors Inc., to develop a commercial Planned Unit Development named Mirasol Walk. The
proposed development consists of]] 7,695 square feet of retail space. The 24.57 -acre site is located at
the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and the Ronald Reagan Turnpike.
Chair Kunkle announced that this hearing would not take place tonight, and would be readvertised and
rescheduled at a future date.
Recommendation to City Council (P &Z)
Petition SP- 02 -25: Mirasol Parcel 24 -Site Plan
A request by Anne Booth of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Taylor Woodrow Communities, for
site plan approval of 50 zero lot line homes on Parcel 24 of the Mirasol Planned Community
Development (PCD). The 12.7 -acre site is surrounded by a golf course on the west, water on the east,
and the Maintenance Facility to the North.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Mr. Wiseman clarified that there were no new waivers —
that these were the same as approved on previous parcels. There were no comments or questions from
the Commission.
MOTION:
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition SP -02 -25 as
recommended by staff with the waivers and conditions of approval. Mr. Solomon seconded the
motion. Mr. Tarr stated he was opposed for the same reason he had opposed every other Mirasol
project, because of too many setback waivers, with homes too close to the golf course, and that the
justification of the open space was not valid justification for all the waivers. The motion carried 6-
1 with Mr. Tarr opposed.
Consideration of Approval /Final Order – Quasi Judicial Hearing (P &Z)
Petition SP- 02 -20: Village Square Professional Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) Phase II,
Building 600 Minor Site Plan Review
Mr. Glenn Weller, SouthCap Properties, Inc., agent for P.F. Park, Ltd., is requesting site plan,
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
architectural, and landscape plan approval forBuilding 600, Village Square Professional Park Phase
II, a previously- approved 2.23 -acre Planned Unit Development located at the southwest corner of
RCA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road.
City Attorney Rubin swore in all those who intended to speak to this petition. Planner Jackie Holloman
presented the project. Glenn Weller spoke on behalf of the applicant and responded to Mr. Present's
questions that the project was going very well, but slow, and this was the last building for right now
since a traffic analysis was needed for the final building. Mr. Weller explained that the colors would
match the other buildings, that everything was leased except two small spaces, and the buildings and
parking circulation worked reasonably well. Mr. Glidden commented he thought the park had turned out
nice due to preservation of trees and that the architecture had gone down since the first building. Mr.
Glidden requested one parking spot in front of the building be eliminated to provide an entry point for
people entering from the parking lot, and that a 5' walk and landscape strip be added. Mr. Glidden
pointed out that elevations did not match the roof plan. Mr. Glidden suggested (1) the front and rear hip
roof elements be raised so that ridge lines intersect at the same vertical elevation; (2) the two stair towers
be raised; and (3) one parking space in front be replaced with a landscape area and a 5' walkway. Mr.
Weller stated all three items were acceptable. Mr. Weller confirmed there would be no covered parking.
MOTION:
Mr. Glidden made a motion to approve Petition SP -02 -20 with staff comments and the following
three additional provisions:
1. Parking in front of Building 600 shall be shifted slightly and once space eliminated to allow
for a 5 -foot walkway and 5' landscape area.
2. Hip roof elements on the front and rear of the building shall be shown properly on the roof
plan for final submittal and the ridge line of the two masses on the front and the rear shall
meet an elevation equal to the ridge line down the center of the building.
3. Stair tower elements on either end of the building shall be raised up on the fascia line to be
approximately 18 inches above the other fascia line.
Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LDRC)
Petition LDR- 03 -01: Annexation Area Nonconforming Uses
A City - initiated request to establish a program for the issuance of nonconforming use registration
decals for recreational vehicles ( "RV's ") and watercrafts owned by city residents and parked in
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
their front yards within newly annexed areas and also to make allowances for the most recently
annexed area commonly known as Garden Oaks, Mary Circle, and Sunset Drive.
Senior Planner Kara Irwin reviewed the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr.
Solomon asked if there should be a definition of newly annexed areas, to which Ms. Irwin responded
that the 90 days limited the areas. Mr. Solomon responded that a newly annexed area would be any
area annexed after the date this ordinance was passed. Mr. Solomon recommended adding "after the
annexation" on page 2 in paragraph 3 at the end of the sentence which began "Non- conforming use
registration will automatically expire on the 91" day ". Discussion ensued. Attorney Rubin advised
that a resident could replace their RV or watercraft but the permission did not go with the property,
and the intent was that the decal could apply to a replacement only and there was currently no time
period spelled out as to how long one could wait before purchasing the replacement. Mr. Solomon
expressed his opinion that needed clarification and Mr. Present agreed. Ms. Irwin commented that
there would be 90 days after sale of a boat to replace that boat. Mr. Ansay asked if there were size
restrictions for RV's or boats. Mr. Irwin clarified that tractor trailer size or commercial boats would
not be allowed, only recreational vehicles. Mr. Ansay suggested a sundown on the decal practice.
The City Attorney responded this was the approach that City Council had taken and would apply to
any area annexed. Mr. Pennell commented that Garden Oaks Homeowners Association probably
would not allow this anyway. It was clarified by Mr. Glidden that this only applied to newly
annexed areas and areas annexed in the future, and that the City Council had just directed staff to
insert language to cover newly annexed areas and did not direct them to change anything, but there
were a few loopholes. Mr. Glidden asked if the decal went with the boat and not the owner; Ms.
Irwin clarified that the decal went with the address. Mr. Glidden stated his opinion there should be a
maximum size on RV's. Mr. Glidden asked if anyone from the City went out to inspect boats or
RV's that were purchased as replacements. City Attorney Rubin indicated there was only a
paperwork change. Mr. Glidden suggested that any replacement should have to be done with the
City within 30 days and that inspection should take place. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that
when replacing, a resident should not be allowed to keep increasing the size. Chair Kunkle asked
what happened if one had a second boat, to which Ms. Irwin responded one could only have one boat
and one RV and all had to meet the same requirements. Chair Kunkle suggested allowing one to
downsize but not increase the size. The City Attorney advised there were currently no size limits
except it could not exceed the height of the principal building. It was decided to bring this back at
the next meeting. Mr. Present suggested that the application form include the size and require a
picture to be attached. Ms. Irwin responded that proof of registration was required and must be
reviewed every year, but she was not sure of the procedure. Mr. Present requested that be checked
before this was brought back.
MOTION:
Mr. Ansay made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition LDR -03 -01 to a date
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
certain of January 28, 2003. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LDRC))
Petition LDR- 02 -05: Telecommunication TowerAmendments
A City- initiated request to amend certain sections of the Land Development Regulations as they
relate to telecommunication towers and related facilities, specifically Sections 78 -154 (i), 78 -155 (s),
and 78 -159 (footnote 64).
Planner Jackie Holloman reviewed the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Chair
Kunkle asked whether if these amendments had been in place the tower in Westwood Gardens could
have been installed. Mr. Benothman responded that tower would not have been installed.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of Petition LDR -02 -05 as
submitted by staff. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. Mr. Charming asked if this was within a
PUD, to which the response was, yes. Motion carried 7 -0.
OLD BUSINESS
PUD Checklist - Planner Wiseman indicated this was on the agenda to give the Commission an
opportunity for any changes or suggestions before it was handed out to the public. Chair Kunkle
thanked Mr. Glidden for his work on the checklist. Staff confirmed that all items discussed had been
added.
NEW BUSINESS
a) Legacy Place PCD — Residential Site Plan Modif cation
The applicant proposes three modifications to the site plan They consist of eliminating
one swimming pool and expanding the other remaining pool, eliminating two drive -thru
lanes by one of the interior gates to the site, and eliminating some of the columns between
the fence provided along Fairchild Gardens, RCA Boulevard, and Alternate AL4.
Principal Planner Talal Benothman explained that staff had not been comfortable making the
proposed changes to the residential portion administratively. Mr. Benothman reviewed the
three proposed changes: (1) to eliminate one swimming pool and extend the second
swimming pool; (2) to eliminate some of the fence columns in the fence on Alternate AIA,
RCA Boulevard, and Fairchild Gardens; and (3) to eliminate one drive through the site.
E
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
Mark Stering, representing the developer for the 384 Legacy Place luxury apartments,
described the three proposed changes. Chair Kunkle advised that the Commission needed to
see the old versus the new proposals. Mr. Benothman commented staff had thought the
applicant would bring a landscape architect or agent and give a power point presentation.
The applicant responded he did not have a power point presentation but did have a plan.
Chair Kunkle advised that visual imagery was needed to compare what was approved versus
what was being requested, and requested the following items be provided: the approved and
proposed site plan and the approved and proposed elevations, and stated that staff should
make a presentation.
b) Mr. Tarr expressed concern that the developer of Old Palm had removed too much
vegetation. Mr. Tarr indicated that he had thought the wall would be hidden behind
vegetation, but from the amount removed, a lot more of the wall would be visible than
anticipated. Mr. Tarr commented that the PUD checklist contained a requirement to identify
trees, and recommended that on plans the applicant be required to identify plants in the
upland preserve, rather than just noting "Upland Preserve ". Mr. Tarr stated this vegetation
removal was not as bad as Legacy Place, but it was a shame what had been done compared to
what was presented to the Commission. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that the developer
should not have been allowed to do this and trees should be tagged for removal. Mr. Tarr
commented the vegetation did not look like what was presented or how it should look, and
shame on the Commission if that was what they had approved. Chair Kunkle commented
that the City did not require as built mapping of existing vegetation which was intended to be
saved or a complete landscape plan of the entire Central Boulevard frontage, but instead,
typical sections were presented for approval. Chair Kunkle agreed with Mr. Tarr and noted
that a Bears Club treatment would be acceptable along Donald Ross Road but help might be
needed to achieve that appearance. Mr. Channing agreed it was a shock to see what had been
removed, but he had seen what was cleared and did not recall seeing anything except exotics,
and he would like comments from the City Forester. Mr. Channing commented that a
detailed plant survey might cost more than it was worth but might be the only way to know
what was there, but pending comments from the City Forester there was no way to tell what
had been done. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that a more detailed plan should have been
required, that Mr. Skokowski had described a secluded look, and Mr. Tarr had thought a lot
of pines would be left, and moving the wall closer to the road might not have been done if the
Commission had known so much vegetation would be lost. Mr. Benothman commented that
the Old Palm PCD had been approved with a condition that required the applicant to
completely screen the wall along PGA Boulevard, and along Central one would see the wall
for the first two years but after that it must be completely screened, and as to the landscape
plan the City Forester was monitoring the site daily. Mr. Benothman advised that Mr.
Hendrickson would be present at the next meeting to answer questions, and that to his
knowledge WCI was living up to the approved plans. Mr. Glidden commented you could not
evaluate this at this early stage, and that the new checklist on page 8 (E)(6) contained
0
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
language requiring an applicant to address existing landscaping. Mr. Glidden suggested the
following additional language: "The applicant may be required to provide a certified tree
survey along buffer areas of the project at the discretion of the City Forester." Also to add a
sentence to address perimeters to adjacent property. Mr. Present noted what was being
proposed would probably save some good caliper trees, and the City's language had been lax
in this area. Chair Kunkle suggested requirements per Durham specifications. Mr. Glidden
noted that he had brought up the idea of developing architecture on that wall particularly at
the corner of Central and PGA Boulevard, and the applicant had indicated it was designed so
no one would see the wall. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that people would always see
the wall, especially at the top, and the Commission should be aware of that during reviews.
Mr. Benothman advised that the applicant was proposing a monument at the corner of
Central and PGA Boulevard. Mr. Charming commented that he only saw invasive species
removed and recommended leaving this up to the City Forester, and expressed his opinion
that having the City Forester present would accomplish proper compliance better than
requiring a tree survey. Mr. Benothman advised that since this was a PCD buffer the
applicant had to install the buffers within six months. Mr. Present commented that a tree
survey was expensive and agreed with Mr.. Tarr that once large trees were removed they did
not come back; and proposed that the City Forester should have input into mitigation. Mr.
Tarr commented that the checklist could state that trees of a certain caliper must be labeled as
existing and be saved. Chair Kunkle recommended asking the City Forester to address this at
the next meeting and make a recommendation that would help him. Mr. Channing requested
that Mr. Tarr reserve judgment until the Commission could hear from the City Forester. Mr.
Tarr commented that when the Commission reviewed the plans the specifications were not
known and he had asked for them. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that the ideas
expressed tonight would make this better and the Commission would continue to make
improvements.
There were no additional business items.
%/
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held January 28, 2003.
enviznXIPn-
Craig Kunkle, Jr.,
Barry
Johh Gliddefi, Chair Pro Tem
Joel Charming
Dennis Solomon
Steven Tarr
etty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting