HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 051303J
i
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 13, 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
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported the City Council had unanimously approved
the Harbour Oaks project, formerly known as San Matera.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the April 22, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved as
submitted upon motion by Mr. Channing, seconded by Mr. Hansen, and unanimously carried.
SWEARING IN
The City Attorney swore in all those intending to speak on agenda items 1, 2, and 3.
EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Glidden reported he had met with Steve Mathison regarding item one. No other ex -parte
communication was reported.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll:
Present Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle
Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Alternate Michael Panczak
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal
Benothman, Senior Planner Michael Sanchez, Planners Natalie Wong and Brad Wiseman, and City
Attorney Christine Tatum.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z)
Petition PUD- 03 -03: Amendment to Banyan Tree Planned UnitDevelopment (PUD) — Phases I & H
A request by Stephen S. Mathison, Esq., on behalf of South Florida Blood Banks, Inc., for approval
of an amendment to the Banyan Tree Planned Unit Developm en t (PUD) to allow for modifications to
the previously approved Master Plan. The approximately 12.64 -acre Banyan Tree PUD is generally
located on both the northeast and northwest corners of MacArthur and Northlake Boulevards.
Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the project. Mr. Glidden inquired if there were any drawings
of the sign showing the sizes, to which Mr. Sanchez responded the sign was shown on the site plan and
condition 7 required the applicant to submit the: sign dimensions prior to City Council review. In
response to Chair Kunkle's question, Mr. Mathison pointed out the five sign locations. Mr. Mathison
reviewed the history of the Blood Bank and indicated this would be the headquarters and would bring in
excess of 180 jobs to the city and assure safe blood for residents. Mr. Mathison explained that the
amendments before the Commission were the result of requests made by City Council members and the
neighboring HOA's. The amendments included additional right -of -way along MacArthur Boulevard
and an increase in the height of the buffer wall along the boundary next to the homeowners from 6' to 8'
above ground level. Also requested were improvements and enhancements to the monument wall signs.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Mr. Lou Saturino, President of the Property Owners
Association at Lake Catherine, clarified the location of the buffer wall. Jeff Ornstein, Architect,
explained that the wall would turn down the west property line about 100'. Hearing no other comments
from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hansen commented that the site plan showed the wall at 6' in height and the materials shown for the
wall were not correct. Mr. Mathison stated the applicant stipulated for the record the sign dimensions
and materials and they would be added to the plans. Mr. Hansen inquired about the temporary pond on
the adjacent property, which Mr. Mathison explained was to comply with South Florida Water
Management District comments in their permit. Mr. Ornstein further explained the SFWMD
requirement and that when the second parcel was developed the pond would not be required so would go
away. Mr. Present asked if the city had a policy for non - profit organizations to waive fees or if that was
done case by case. Mr. Wu indicated it was a policy by the City Council and this commission had no say
in the matter, so should let that pass on to City Council. Mr. Present asked if the applicant had
considered placing the entrance walls closer to the building. Mr. Ornstein indicated this placement had
come from the President of the Blood Bank, and this was really a sculpture garden. The wall on the part
B parcel would remain since the parcels were under the same ownership. Mr. Solomon asked what the
two entry monument signs would say. Response was each sign would have the name of a major donor in
16" letters. Mr. Solomon made the following comments: that he was not in favor of granting waivers
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
for signs along Northlake Boulevard, that he thought this was overkill and more than was needed, that he
did not think the justifications were well founded, that he did not think increasing the wall height was
justification for sign waivers, and that the City Council would have the final say. Mr. Channing asked
what material was to be used in the walls. Mr. Ornstein advised they would be marble clad. Mr.
Channing requested that marble be used that would go with the building, not white marble. Mr. Glidden
expressed his opinion that the walls framing the entrance were okay but he had a strong interest in the
proportions. The wall was shown as 6' tall and 40' long on the site plan but scaled out at 53' long. The
applicant indicated the city had a plan that was fully dimensioned. Dimensions were discussed. Mr.
Ornstein advised the top part was 24" and 16" lettering was proposed. The applicant agreed to clarify
that before going to City Council. Mr. Glidden stated he would like a drawing submitted to scale and
where it could be seen. Mr. Benothman indicated that condition 7 required that to be done before City
Council review. Chair Kunkle requested that before City Council review there be a firm decision as to
the type of marble and that the applicant bring that for approval and make sure of the dimensions.
Elevations were requested to be fully defined. The plaques from donors would be bronze, placed on the
marble. Chair Kunkle asked if the approval included the statuary, to which Mr. Benothman responded,
yes. Mr. Ornstein explained they were working on their Art in Public Places requirement and were
considering several sculptures, which would go before the Art in Public Places Committee. Mr.
Solomon commented there was something that struck him as not right about the entry signs, that they
would be financial, promotional, fund raising, which he did not consider appropriate. Mr. Mathison
explained it was not their intent to raise money; that the intent of the sculptures and the walkway was to
encourage people to walk and use the area. Chair Kunkle indicated he liked this, and that the applicant
had raised the bar for Northlake Boulevard with this project.
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD- 03 -03. Mr.
Pennell seconded the motion. During discussion of-the motion, Mr. Hansen pointed out that the
proportions, materials, finishes, etc. that had been discussed were not as shown on the site plan
and the details needed to be developed consistent with the rendering. Mr. Pennell commented that
an issue with Northlake Boulevard was gathering places for people, and this was a good example
to set. Mr. Solomon noted the motion did not include materials for the sign or letter sizes. Mr.
Kunkle noted that Mr. Mathison had stipulated for the record and that could be left to staff. Mr.
Glidden requested the following addition to the motion: To modify the site plan to reflect how the
sidewalk connects the two signs on the rendering. Mr. Sanchez responded that the City Engineer
had safety issues with pedestrian walkways far away from the right -of -way. Mr. Glidden stated he
did not see that as a safety issue. Mr. Glidden requested another addition: that precast concrete
cap would be used, with the front of the wall and the two ends to be marble in a color compatible
with the building and the back would be stucco; that maximum letter size shall be not greater than
16" if the available vertical wall for that lettering is 24 ". Mr. Present and Mr. Pennell accepted
the amendment. Mr. Present recommended extending the sidewalk back to the parking lot and
was shown that it did extend to the parking lot. Motion carried 6 -1 with Mr. Solomon opposed
because he was not in agreement with waivers one and two or the text on the entry wall signage
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
showing names of people making contributions.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. W &Z)
Petition DRI17VOPC- 03 -02: PGA National Time Extension
A request by Dodi Glas of Urban Design Studio to amend the Development Order of the PGA
National Development of Regional Impact (DRI) by extending the build -out date from August 29,
2003 to August 29, 2005. The petitioner is requesting a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) for a
two-year time extension. The PGA National DRI is located on the south side ofPGA Boulevard, west
of the Turnpike, north of Northlake Boulevard, and east of the C -18 canal
John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest and Mr. Panczak was seated in his place. Senior
Planner Natalie Wong presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Joan
Elias, 1009 Diamond Head Way, President of CAN at PGA National, expressed thanks to the members
of the P &Z Commission for their hard work as volunteers and stated that CAN supported this petition.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Channing asked how many units had been built at PGA National, to which Ms. Glas responded there
were 6,900 originally which was dropped to 5,400 and then dropped again to 5,237, which was the
amount that would be built and that only 20 had not been built at this time.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition DRI/NOPC -03 -02
as recommended by staff. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion,
Mr. Hansen asked why this was only being extended for only two years. Mr. Benothman
explained that the applicant had requested a two -year extension. Mr. Present asked which
properties were still unbuilt, which Ms. Glas identified. Ms. Glas explained that under Florida
Chapter 380 if a time extension was not in place the unbuilt lots would be identified and they could
then not be built on; and that the applicant knew they needed to look at a long term issue, and
would pursue that. Mr. Benothman explained that if the applicant had requested seven years
extension this would be presumed to be a substantial deviation and the entire DRI would have to
be reviewed again. The vote on the motion carried unanimously 7 -0.
Recommendation to City Council. (P&Z)
Petition SP- 03 -06: Mirasol Parcel 23 -Site Plan
A request by Anne Booth of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Taylor Woodrow Communities, for
site plan approval of 40 zero lot line homes on an approximately 10 -acre parcel in the Mirasol
Planned Community Development (PCD). The Mirasol PCD is located at the northwest corner of
PGA Boulevard and the Ronald Regan Turnpike.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Mr. Wiseman confirmed this was a repeat of Parcel 19 and
the requested waivers had been granted for other parcels.
0
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
MOTION:
Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -03 -06 as
presented. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Mr. Solomon suggested offering an option of some
glass in the top panel of the garage doors. Anne Booth indicated that would be possible if the glass
met hurricane wind load requirements, and she would take this back to the designers for
consideration. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council. (P &Z)
Petition MISC-02 -20: Architectural Design Guidelines
A City - initiated request to adopt Design Guidelines for Non - Residential Development within the City
of Palm Beach Gardens
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu explained that there would not be a power point
presentation since this was mainly text, that Mr. Glidden had provided many examples throughout the
city which were applicable, and indicated that staff recommended approval. Mr. Solomon commented
he had been Chair of this commission at the time the subcommittee started studying this issue and the
city had hired an outside consultant to provide the initial draft. Following a joint P &Z and City Council
meeting, the subcommittee had begun work Mr. Solomon thanked the participants, particularly Mr.
Glidden, Mr. Charming, former Principal Planner Steve Cramer, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Kunkle. Mr. Solomon
expressed his opinion that this was a fantastic product and recommended passing this along to City
Council. Mr. Glidden commented he was not sure he agreed with the concept of design guidelines since
they could stifle creativity, and read the opening statement on the first page, recommending that certain
sentences be highlighted in bold type, emphasizing that the guidelines were not intended to direct
architects and developers toward specific design solutions, particularly those depicted as illustrative
examples within the document which were presented to assist the public in interpreting the language
with which they were associated; that it is the City's desire that design professionals use these guidelines
to assist them in formulating creative and innovative solutions for project designs, and not to convert
these images into a specific design for new and /or remodeled projects. More specifically, the design of
each project should integrate principles and concepts derived from these guidelines into solutions, which
respond to the special and unique opportunities and constraints that accompany each building type and
site. Mr. Glidden stated that staff must tell people these were intended to be guidelines and not
directives, and noted that since there would be things in these guidelines that would not work on a real
project that they should be revisited after a 6 or 8 -month period, and staff should take notes during that
time about what worked and what did not work. Mr. Glidden stated that everyone should be very
focused on the second paragraph under purpose and intent, which applied the guidelines to the whole city
rather than only to PGA Boulevard. Chair Kunkle commented that the bottom line was if a project was
submitted that technically complied but was ugly, the commission would tell them it was ugly, just as
before the guidelines. Mr. Glidden indicated it was his intent on signage that examples of an overdone
sign and one that was the maximum allowable be shown, but would leave it to Mr. Wu whether to insert
9
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
the diagrams. Mr. Panczak complimented staff and the people who worked so hard on this. Mr.
Channing commented that Mr. Glidden put in more time than anyone. Mr. Present recommended that
the second and third sentences in the first paragraph be highlighted in bold. Mr. Pennell commented he
had seen how this worked from the commission's work and was already being put to use. Mr. Hansen
commented these were the best design guidelines he had seen, that he had confirmed with Mr. Wu that
this was truly a guideline and not to be part of certification but questioned the use of the word "shall ".
Mr. Glidden responded there had been a definite philosophy to use the word "shall" whenever it was
general but to use "should" whenever it was a specific. Mr. Wu commented only pages 1— 3 describing
the intent used "shall" and everything after that used "should" except for code references. It was
confirmed that everything in terms of the process would work the same and this was not a part of the
checklist process. Mr. Wu noted that next month an amendment to the LDR's would be presented to
acknowledge that these guidelines existed and encouraging people to follow it, and City Council would
be asked to adopt this in a resolution rather than an ordinance, to become a guideline and not a
requirement. Chair Kunkle commented the guidelines should save time and money for everyone. Mr.
Glidden volunteered to have his office retouch the photograph of the Wachovia sign to delete the
raceway behind the sign, since the guidelines discouraged the use of raceways.
MOTION:
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council adoption of petition MISC- 02 -20,
Architectural Design Guidelines. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. Mr. Glidden proposed an
amendment to bold the second and third sentences in the first paragraph on page one, to bold the
first sentence in the second paragraph on page one, and to allow Mr. Wu to use his discretion on
inserting supplemental signage graphics. Mr. Channing and Mr. Pennell accepted the
amendment. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Workshop: (LDRC))
Petition LDR- 02 -11: Zero Lot Line and Townhouse Regulations
A City- initiated request to create zero lot line and townhouse regulations in the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs). The objective of the amendment is to establish development standards to allow
for single-family zero- lot -line units, offset zero lot line units, zipper lot line units, townhouses, and
rowhouses, to be developed as a specific development within a PUD, PCD, or MAD Overlay districts
Senior Planner Natalie Wong presented the request, and called for comments regarding the proposed
traditional zero lot line regulations. Mr. Kunkle asked if a courtyard pool home would be allowed, to
which Ms. Wong responded, no, not as proposed. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that was a very
successful floor plan design in some areas and that some ability to design a courtyard home with a pool
in front was needed. Mr. Present asked if this document would be sent in draft form to companies that
did a lot of work for their comments. Ms. Wong indicated that a draft with the commission's comments
would be sent out to developers with one month to respond. Mr. Hansen commented there was nothing
to address roof overhangs. Ms. Wong explained that was in the LDR's but it could be included in zero
lot line regulations. Mr. Channing commented that pools in front should not be precluded and he would
0•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
want to keep an open mind when creative designs were presented. Mr. Hansen agreed with pools in
front but not screen enclosures. Ms. Wong requested comments on the proposed offset zero lot line
regulations. Mr. Kunkle recommended the same comments regarding pools in front and roof overhangs.
Mr. Hansen recommended addressing the building rear setback when pools were in front. Mr. Channing
noted it was hard to talk about this in the abstract, and one of the better homes he had built had a pool in
front and a 10 -foot rear setback, but was in a development where rear yards were not the focus, but to try
to be specific right now would not be possible. Chair Kunkle asked if these regulations were too rigid
and if they should be guidelines. Mr. Channing responded he would love to have a philosophical
discussion about the role of government but there was not enough time so he was resolved to have
established guidelines and then to look at each project on its merits. Chair Kunkle noted this would be a
baseline. Mr. Hansen stated he agreed with Mr. Channing that flexibility was needed, that sometimes
wider shallower lots would work better, etc. Mr. Hansen suggested that minimums be established. Mr.
Present commented this came about because too many waivers had to be granted for everything and
repetitive waivers should be taken care of but waivers for other items could still be granted. Ms. Wong
requested comments regarding accessory structures and zippers. Chair Kunkle questioned how to
service the pool in the back yard, to which Ms. Wong responded there was an easement from the
adjacent property. Mr. Kunkle commented there was usually a wall or fence rather than a gate. Mr.
Channing described two different ways of access that he had used. Chair Kunkle requested to make sure
language was provided for back yard accessibility. Mr. Hansen asked if z -lots were the same as zippers.
Mr. Channing explained that zippers were lots that interlocked. Mr. Pennell, Mr. Channing, Mr. Hansen,
and Mr. Panczak agreed that overall this was very good. Mr. Solomon commented homeowner
documents would need to be created to describe access easements and those would be reviewed by the
City Attorney. Chair Kunkle asked if the city should have some boilerplate language for party walls.
Mr. Solomon responded that would be in the homeowner documents which the City Attorney would
review. Mr. Pennell asked where a pool could be in the townhouse design, to which the response was
they would have a community pool. Anne Booth indicated they would provide comments regarding
requiring a privacy wall to go all the way to the rear property line. Ms. Wong commented that it was
currently a requirement to have a wall and staff would look at the issue raised by Ms. Booth.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 13, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held May 27, 2003. A
APPROVED:
Alternate Michael Panczak
13etty La i#, Secretary for the Meeting
U
a
as
a
w
F
w
F
w
O
U
a
MI_�Ws
O
b0
CSt
t�
b
MI_�Ws
b0
b
a
MGM
•O
"p
a�
bQ
Ri
^C
Gr
U
a
a
h
C
w
w
0
U
0
A
v
v
V
0
a
a
w
0
w
a
��YyYyy
d
d
May 20 03 09:45a OLIVER GLIDDEN ARCHITECTS 5616846890 p.2
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL. PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLC NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
GLIDDEN, JOHN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAILING ADDRESS 7HE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTCC ON WHICH I SERVE IS A
8 HUNTLY CIRCLE UNIT OF;
X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY PALM BEACH GARDENS couNTY PALM BEACH NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED May 13, 2003 MY POSITION IS; ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city or other local level of government on an appointed or elected
board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who
are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are
mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the
disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict will vary greatly depending on
whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to
the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUSTABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE
WILL BE TAKEN:
You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible
for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
Ma9 BO 03 09;45a OLIVER GLIDDEN RRCHITECTS 5616846890
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
P.3
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL. OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on May 13. 2003:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or 'O
pv inured to the special gain of our client, '�6 fC " -W,(�~ by whom 44retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
PGA NATIONAL t% G !o -'
. E
7
Date Filed , Signaturel
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY,
REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
Page 2