Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042203CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 22, 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 ADMINISTRATOR Principal Planner Talal Benothman provided updates for the following projects: (1) Old Palm PCD, Parcels A, B and E were approved on March 20 by.the City Council. Parcel A was approved 3 -2 due to a waiver for a turnabout less than 1500' as required by code, with Vice Mayor Sabatello and Councilmember Russo opposed because they believed this was a self - imposed hardship. Parcel B was approved 4 -1 with a cul -de -sac opened up to the roadway so residents would not have to drive all the way around to get to their homes. Parcel E was approved 5 -0. (2) Brio Tuscan Grille at Gardens Mall was approved 5 -0 by City Council on March 20. (3) Legacy Place Parcel D was approved by City Council on March 20, 2003, by 5 -0 vote. (4) Donald Ross Village PUD was approved by City Council on March 20 by 3 -2 vote with a right turn in lane, with Vice Mayor Sabatello and Councilmember Russo opposed. (5) An amendment requiring decals for boats and RV's in newly annexed areas was approved by City Council on April 10, 5 -0. (6) Costco /former Wendy's site was approved April 10, 2003 by City Council with no modifications, by 5 -0 vote. (7) Oakbrook Square Signage was approved by City Council 5 -0 but without a requested sign waiver. (8) Old Palm Golf Club PCD Parcel F2 was approved by City Council on April 10 by 5 -0 vote. (9) ,Parcel 27.04 within the Regional Center DRI was approved April 10, 2003 by City Council, by 5 -0 vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the April 8, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved as submitted upon motion by Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Present, and unanimously carried. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll: Present Absent Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 Chairman Craig Kunkle Douglas Pennell Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Randolph Hansen Alternate Michael Panczak Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition MISC- 03 -06: West Park Center at Northcorp — Amendment to Master Signage Program Neil Merin, agentfor Wackenhut, is requesting an amendment to the approved sign program for West Park Center to replace a tenant sign with a building identification sign. The sign will be located on the parapet above the third floor. The subject building is located at Lot I of the West Park Center within the Northcorp PCD, located on the east side of Interstate 95, south of RCA Boulevard. Staff requested this petition be postponed since all required materials had not yet been received. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to postpone Petition MISC- 03 -06. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Glidden observed that the proposed sign looked crowded. Workshop: (LDRC) Petition LDR- 02 -10: Valet Parking Ordinance A City - initiated request to amend the City of Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances, Chapter 78, "Land Development" by adding Section 78 -381, "Valet Parking," and by amending Section 78 -751, "Definitions," to provide for the regulation of valet parking operations within the City. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the proposed amendment. Chair Kunkle asked what problems had prompted this. Mr. Sanchez explained he did not know of problems but staff had been directed by City Council to create an ordinance. Mr. Glidden advised that this issue had been before the commission about 4 years ago and all these items had been discussed at that time, so apparently it had never become an ordinance, and asked if staff had referred back to those discussions, to which Mr. Sanchez responded affirmatively. Chair Kunkle asked how this would affect Carmine's at Harbor Shoppes. Mr. Benothman advised they had inadequate parking there and people parked in the valet spaces, which also happened at the other Carmine's across the street. Mr. Benothman reported that valet parking was not currently covered by the code, so the only chance to review it was when reviewing a site plan; therefore, City Council had directed staff to come up with an ordinance to address valet parking. Chair Kunkle asked if Carmine's would have to decrease their valet 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 parking. Mr. Benothman responded that this ordinance applied to existing as well as new sites. Chair Kunkle commented that those sites were more successful because they had valet and their business would drop. Mr. Benothman commented there was additional parking at the Prosperity Centre site behind T. J. Maxx and if Carmine's asked for valet parking the City would ask them to use that area. Mr. Solomon commented that in the Northlake area if there was compliance with the Northlake overlay then valet could be grandfathered. Mr. Glidden cautioned to be careful because businesses operating successfully that might not meet all aspects of this ordinance could have a drop in business, and if they were a PUD the commission might give waivers but if they were in straight zoning the commission's hands were tied. Mr. Glidden asked if an area was sectioned off for valet if those spaces would count toward the code requirement, which Mr. Benothman confirmed that they would count. Mr. Glidden commented staff might need to examine some things to see if the ordinance would work properly, and asked if a business which was required to have 100 spaces by code and had 130, would they be allowed to use 50% of the larger amount. Mr. Benothman confirmed they would be allowed to use 50% of the larger amount. Mr. Glidden asked if there were any restrictions to changing the roped off valet location. Mr. Benothman responded the ordinance would require use of cones instead of hard edges. Mr. Glidden asked about an off -site provision if someone met code on their site, for example with;100 spaces required and provided, and expressed his opinion they should be allowed to use 50 valet spaces on an adjacent leased site. Mr. Benothman agreed staff would look into that. Mr. Sanchez reported that could be done now, and was covered. Mr. Benothman commented that off -site parking had to be approved by City Council. Mr. Glidden commented that the loading zone for valet was limited to a 9' x 60' space and that needed to be minimum equivalent area because there would be different configurations. Mr. Benothman suggested width of one vehicle or length of three vehicles, etc., or equivalent thereof. Mr. Glidden commented there were probably other things the commission had not thought of, Mr. Channing commented he worried most about the things he had not thought of Mr. Solomon commented that on the applicability, staff might want to consider grandfathering in the Northlake businesses currently having valet that could not reasonably comply with the new ordinance to allow them to continue to operate, and the same thing with any business that had been approved by the City. Mr. Solomon commented there was no provision in the ordinance for insurance for the entity who would apply. Mr. Sanchez indicated the City Attorney would be consulted on this matter. Mr. Solomon commented if someone had a loss they would complain to the City Council, so a minimal amount of insurance should be required. A valet driver could hit a pedestrian or damage other cars, so there should be liability and property damage insurance that would cover this type of operation, and recommended $1 million/$2 million in the aggregate, with $500,000 in property damage and possibly umbrella liability with a minimum of $5 ,million. Mr. Solomon noted the ordinance talked about: this operation shall not interfere with certain things, and everything one did would have some interference, so suggested looking at the word "interfere" where ever it appeared in the ordinance. and adding "shall not substantially" or "shall not adversely" interfere. Mr. Solomon commented that where the ordinance discussed the four signs that could have a maximum of square footage you could not tell if that meant each sign or in the aggregate. Mr. Sanchez noted it should be "each sign ". Mr. Solomon commented he felt most strongly about conditions for issuance, and in (E) on 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 page six, it was saying that all the criteria had to be met, and (4) and (5) bothered him. (4) should be a factor for City Council and staff to consider —the mere fact of an objection should not disqualify valet parking; and (5) would be the same thing —that there could be some negative aspects but an overall look should be taken into account and reasonable judgment used by whoever was deciding, not automatic rejection. Paragraph M, subparagraph (2) on page 8: Mr. Solomon recommended changing 90 days to six months to reapply if they lost their valet parking. Mr. Present expressed his opinion there should not be automatic grandfathering in, but the operation should be looked at to make sure it met safety and other aspects, and make modifications before grandfathering in. Mr. Present stated he did agree with Mr. Solomon that consideration should be given to existing operations. Mr. Present recommended testing the ordinance to see how existing operations fit into this ordinance and it should be made user friendly, because if it were too restrictive in peak times people would do what they had to do to serve the customers. Mr. Present commented he worried about enforcement or placing an undue burden. Mr. Present commented he thought having an ordinance was good, and asked if there was a valet operation where there should not be one, such as where space was too tight, could they come to P &Z with a plan to correct the situation so that P &Z could override it. Mr. Sanchez commented staff considered adding that, so that existing grandfathered businesses could comply with P &Z's approval. Mr. Present recommended trying to help the businesses by giving them the right to come in for a limited number of valet spaces, and P &Z could help them out if possible. Mr. Present requested that staff go out and look at operations at different hours to see if this worked or what was being done, in order not to put the City into an enforcement mode. Mr. Sanchez advised that the proposed ordinance would be mailed to all the valet parking operations prior to the next review of this by P &Z. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Present on grandfathering and recommended looking at each situation. Mr. Hansen stated he felt 50% on single use, and 30% on multi- tenant was a very large number, and if a large number was reserved for valet and not used, that other customers might be frustrated. Mr. Hansen referred to page 3 under item (2) in terms of locations not closest in proximity, asked how that would be determined, and stated that needed more definition. Mr. Hansen'expressed concern regarding off site parking not more than 5 lanes of right -of -way, because crossing 5 lanes of traffic constantly to pick up and drop off cars was not very safe. Item (4), valet parking loading zone: Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that it should be made clear these loading zones should comply with the Florida Accessibility code, and advised that with this compliance in terms of valet parking, handicap spaces were not required by law; however, he did not think they should be eliminated even though that was allowed by law. Mr. Hansen explained the Florida Accessibility code also required an access aisle alongside the valet loading zone that was a minimum 5' width and 20' long and level with the ground where people were being dropped off, so he recommended staff consider the Florida Accessibility code. Mr. Hansen noted the Fire Department had expressed concerns about their ability to enforce the ordinance, and in paragraph 3 asked if Fire Department officials should be included. Mr. Sanchez indicated Fire Department officials should be included. Mr. Hansen stated he had the same concern that Mr. Solomon had brought up regarding item (4), insurance for the operator. He also questioned if the valet parking station appearance had been considered and if there would be control of temporary removable structures. Mr. Panczak asked if under this ordinance the 19 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 operator was going to be required to physically identify the parking spots he was going to use. Mr. Sanchez responded he would be required to identify the spots on a valet parking site plan and with signs or cones on site, and code enforcement would be relied on to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Panczak asked if there would be any special exception properties carrying blanket numbers, since he would hate to see, for example, someone like P. F. Chang using 30% of the Gardens Mall lot and asked if that would be up to the City to change. Mr. Sanchez responded that was why the language had been included that the percentage could be reduced at the discretion of the administrator. Chair Kunkle asked if the owner or the valet company would be the permit holder. Mr. Sanchez advised that the valet operator would hold the permit. Mr. Kunkle suggested the owner hold the permit so that the permit would go with the site instead of the operator. Mr. Kunkle asked if the clubhouse at Mirasol would need a permit, and was told them would. Chair Kunkle noted his number one concern was the existing operations and the added business that valet brings to those locations, that would have some difficulty complying. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that there should not be financial detriment because of a couple of complaints. Mr. Benothman explained that the objective had been to prepare a tough, tight regulation to take to P &Z for brainstorming. Chair Kunkle recommended meeting with the valet operators. Mr. Channing commented he thought the ordinance was well written and points brought up were valid. Mr. Channing asked if the City required insurance for other operations, to which Mr. Benothman responded yes, and gave an example of a current event requiring insurance. Mr. Solomon recommended also adding workers comp insurance. Mr. Glidden recommended allowing the commission to use their discretion in straight zoning areas for items within the ordinance. Following a short recess the meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Workshop: (P&Z) Petition SP- 03 -02: Legacy Place Site Plan Amendment A request by Ken Blair of Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., for approval of a siteplan amendment to Parcels A, B, and C of the Legacy Place Planned Community Development (PCD). The commercial portion (Parcels A, B, and C) of the PCD consists of office and commercial uses with a total of 468, 000 square feet (399, 000 square feet of commercial and 69, 000 square feet of office) on an approximately 48.4 -acre site located at the southeast corner of the intersection ofPGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. There was no staff presentation. Joey Eichner, Catalfumo Development, introduced the presentation. Mr. Eichner presented a video tour of elevations, proceeding east on PGA Boulevard from the top of the flyover, showing the Legacy Place buildings from SUV level with the view one would have one lane from the right. Panoramic views of specified areas were shown. The restaurant core was modeled after Mizner Park with the problems corrected. Mr. Eichner explained that the renderings were generated from actual CAD drawings of the center. Dave Bader, Architect with K.A., Inc., explained that regional malls had now changed to open air centers with living components, and were also called lifestyle centers, and new urbanism. Mr. Bader explained that in ;the past 3 -4 years projects had been going to main streets with parking conveniently adjacent to store entries. Maximizing parking in main streets led to 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 them becoming boulevards with two bays of parking on each side of the main street, and businesses along those streets were generally very successful. Mr. Bader advised that the goal was to create an environment that was very active. Their firm interviewed tenants after a year to gain input to improve future projects. Mr. Bader provided a sample colors and materials board and noted the colors were complimentary throughout the entire plaza. There would be a tenant handbook for signage with some leeway so the tenants could bring their products to the market. Attorney Michael Sabatello explained that the developer was asking for revised site plan approval for this site and not to change the PCD conditions. The same site data, overall tenant occupancy, and same restaurant, retail and office space would be used. The square footage on site and the tenant mix would remain the same. Important changes to the site plan were that the site now actively engaged PGA Boulevard by moving buildings closer to the street; an open air plaza environment had been created, and the space where Jacobsen's was to be had been eliminated. The buffer to protect Monet Terrace residents had not been changed. The amended site plan contained fewer waiver requests. All parking spaces were now at 10' and all sidewalks now complied with code, so waivers would not be needed for those items. Mr. Eichner showed the video again and noted one could not see into the plaza from the flyover. The site plan was reviewed. It was noted that buildings had been pulled up to PGA Boulevard, that there was no longer a view of a sea of parking, that square footage had not changed, that the approved plan had not been financially viable, and this was a more up -to -date concept than what had been approved. Mr. Glidden disclosed that he had met with the petitioner and reviewed the video and site plan a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Glidden reported his comments had been that given the amount of changes on this and without knowing City Council's direction, P &Z would be working in a vacuum to the extent that he knew the City Council had great interest in this project and he would have preferred to have a joint session with the City Council to explore this vision; and this was a lost opportunity. Mr. Glidden stated he would like that considered. The history of this project was difficult to ignore, and the challenge was to strike a balance between the retailers and City.Council. The P &Z Commission should not be hand - tied by what was approved. Mr. Glidden commented this was coming in as a conceptual review and the Commission had no idea where the buildings were that were referred to, and the perspectives were not keyed. Mr. Glidden stated there were no elevations or roof plans. Mr. Eichner responded that full packages were submitted to the City. Mr. Glidden stated he could not review because of not having full plans. Mr. Glidden requested that direction be established in a joint workshop with City Council. Mr. Glidden's comments on the site plan were there was linear retail frontage for a long distance with only two breaks, which was a weak point. A second weak point was the freestanding building on the west side of Victoria at the entrance. Another was the rear service drive. Mr. Glidden stated he did not see many things going on at the back of the shopping center. Mr. Glidden listed the stronger points as the PGA frontage, which was good, good architecture, and the two and three -level office buildings on the corner of PGA. Mr. Glidden indicated he would like both of those buildings to be three stories. Mr. Glidden asked for the ratio of shared parking. The applicant explained there was one other building with an actual second story, others went up 1 -1 /2 stories. Mr. Benothman advised that in mixed use they must provide 51 % of second story or something that looked like a second story. Staff was still reviewing this project for that. Mr. Glidden noted finances were important but there must be a balance struck between r Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 creating people spaces and spaces created by buildings juxtaposed to each other, and there had only been a token effort made. The challenge was the six' football fields of retail frontage that had no great variations, and nothing was happening plan -wise to break that up. Mr. Glidden stated the commission needed to know City Council's vision for this project. Mr. Channing agreed with Mr. Glidden. Mr. Channing reported he had met with the applicant twice and at both sessions there had been a hand -drawn elevation of the PGA Boulevard edge, which was not being shown tonight. Mr. Channing indicated he thought that elevation was outstanding. Mr. Channing commented that outside the food area the rest of it was not up to where he would like it to be, and it would be nice to take the PGA Boulevard edge and wrap it into the project, running a street through the project to Alternate AIA. Mr. Channing observed the new urbanist model was not working for the retailers. Running a street through and with a frontage area with an aisle and parking on both sides would not force the new urbanist model. Mr. Channing commented that the sensitive architecture that had been in the drawing was not being shown here tonight, and that the first design had been very good, much better than this one. The street going behind the buildings was an important linkage road and the buildings were right up to it, and that would need a lot of work. Mr. Solomon commented overall there was a let -down feeling compared to what it was before. The food area was exciting but was the only place for people to congregate, and there should be other opportunities in the southern portion and somewhere else. Mr. Solomon indicated he liked the building on the northeast corner but found the rest of the architecture unexciting, with not enough color variations, not enough roof variations, only one vertical tower which was not very tall and had a rather flat roof. More architectural elements were needed. There was no major focal point other than the restaurant area. Mr. Present commented there were three entrances coming down off the bridge and therefore three opportunities to catch attention with more money, architecture, design to make people want to turn in. On the Alternate A 1 A side, Mr. Present liked the water feature which was added giving a warm feeling between the retail and residential, and that drew the market into that entrance. Mr. Present commented there were other good things,; the core of restaurants was good, but he agreed the retail was too long. Mr. Present commented he could see 3 -4 valet areas and cross parking and asked how that would work here. Mr. Bader explained there could be a lot less valet parking here than at City Place and Mizner Park since here there was so much parking adjacent to the restaurants, and after listening to the ordinance tonight, suggested that the valet parking area could be on the back side which could easily accessed by the valet runners. Mr. Present suggested making a statement at the first entrance possibly with art in public places. Mr. Hansen indicated he had been unable to meet with the applicant but had left a message for the applicant that based on what was in the package he was unable to understand what was going on since there was no key provided for the site plan. Mr. Hansen concurred with the other commissioners that there was a missed opportunity in that this was a premier location in the City and this was not a world class design for avorld class site. Mr. Hansen commented there were good elements with a.lot of potential but pulling it off with an identity, solution, visual character that says this is the place to draw people into a world- class city had not been accomplished. Mr. Hansen commented that level of excitement had not been' achieved and it was the responsibility of the design team to pull this together. Mr. Hansen encouraged that this be thought of in those kinds of terms rather than comparing to Mizner Park and other projects in the area. Mr. Panczak complimented the applicant for a well conceptualized project, but agreed there was a lot of repetition, too long a linear frontage, and ,7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, April 22, 2003 i lack of paver detail in the parking area. Mr. Panczak recommended pavers wrap around the frontage of all the retail space. Mr. Benothman advised that staff had provided reductions in the packets of what the applicant had provided. Chair Kunkle commented! everyone was aware of parking problems at Abacoa and City Place and reported he had been unable to go to a restaurant as planned because there was no place to park. Chair Kunkle suggested the possibility that the next meeting be a City Council workshop with P &Z sitting in the audience in order to get direction and avoid having future meetings that might be a waste of time if it was learned later that City Council had a different concept. Michael Sabatello reported the applicant had been meeting with City Council members and their concerns were the same as those expressed tonight. Chair Kunkle commented he wanted to hear the City Council talk about this as a group and not through the grapevine. Mr. Sabatello asked for confirmation that the commission wished to move the focal point to the west corner coming down from the flyover or if they wanted focal points on both corners. Chair Kunkle responded that all of that had been heard tonight from different people and that clarity and discussion was needed from the City Council so they and the commission could work as a composite team. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held May 13, 2003. / /\. APPROVED: etty Lag, Secretary for the Meeting 19