Loading...
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