HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 031003CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 10, 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 introduced new City Attorney Christine Tatum. Mr. Wu
reported that since the last meeting the City Council had approved four cases: a small scale land use
plan change, Legends at the Gardens, rezoning for Burns Road Recreation Center, and Mirasol
Clubhouse Phase 1I1.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Present
Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle Dennis Solomon
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden.
Joel Charming
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Alternate Michael Panczak
Also present were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman,
City Forester Mark Hendrickson, Planners Natalie Wong, Jackie Holloman, and Brad Wiseman, and City
Attorney Christine Tatum.
Recommendation to City Council (P &Z)
Petition SP- 01 -03: Evergrene Parcel 6 — Site Plan
A request by Samantha Gregory of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Watermark Communities, Inc,
for site plan approval of 74 single-family homes on a 14.79 -acre parcel in the Evergrene Planned
Community Development (PCD). The Evergrene PCD is located on the east side of Military Trail,
north of Hood Road, and south of Donald Ross Road.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Samantha Gregory spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.
Panczak referred to lots 2, and 3 backing up to lot 6 and 35, 36, and 37 backing up to lot 34 and
indicated he would leave it to the architects to voice any concerns regarding the closeness of these lots.
Ms. Gregory responded that lots 35 and 36 were separated from 34 by open space and a 24' drainage
easement; and that lots 2 and 3 were staggered and broken up from lot 6 with landscaping. Mr. Hansen
indicated the proximity of lot 6 to 2 and 3 was his biggest concern. Mr. Hansen questioned why there
were constantly so many waiver requests for setbacks, which Chair Kunkle indicated would be discussed
under New Business. Mr. Present stated he planned to support this request but it was a good opportunity
to discuss the comment that lots were designed for greater open space in areas that would serve the
whole community, that it should be a developer's comment and not a staff comment, and was a
misrepresentation since this parcel had an existing lake and a lot of open space. Mr. Present stated he
would like to see the amount of open space from the beginning, that the lake was not going to be filled
and the wetlands and uplands were not going to be paved, and when there was 50% or 55% from the
starting point it was not like there was 100% filled land and then a lake was to be dug, and he felt there
should be truth in development from staff. Mr. Present indicated he had stated before that statements
like "it had been done in other projects" was not justification to do it again —other projects may not have
had 62% open space and he felt projects should be carried on their own merit. Mr. Channing commented
lots 2, 3, and 6 with the setbacks being shown could have 6' separation between screen enclosures at the
closest point and requested 15' separation between screen enclosures be stipulated. The applicant
agreed. Mr. Channing stated it was very important to have an even - handed approach in approving
projects so it was appropriate to state what had been done on other projects so as not to appear to grant
favoritism. Mr. Glidden suggested a possible option for lots 2, 3, and 6 to increase the rear setback to
10'. Mr. Glidden suggested wrapping architectural details around the sides a minimum distance on
French Country and Spanish Colonial models. Mr. Glidden pointed out waivers were being requested
because the City did not yet have a zero lot line ordinance, and comparisons to other approved projects
were okay. Mr. Channing commented it was hard to have an ordinance encouraging creativity.
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -03 with 15 -foot
total separation between screen enclosures as well as extension of corresponding setbacks and
wrapping architectural details around the sides of buildings a minimum distance. Mr. Pennell
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council (P &Z)
Petition SP- 02 -22: Site Plan Amendment – Parcels 27.05/06
A request by Ken Blair of Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., to amend the
previously approved site plan for Parcel 27.05/06 by replacing Office 2 building with two
single story office buildings totaling 19,978 square feet. Parcel 27.05/06 is approximately 17
acres and is located along PGA Boulevard within the Regional Center Development of
Regional Impact (DRI).
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the staff report. Ryan Johnston, with Catalfumo
Construction and Development, presented on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Present asked how the areas
between offices 8 & 9 and 6 & 7 related to each other, to which the applicant responded that between
those offices there was electrical conduit and no room for sidewalks, so these areas would be used for
emergency access. Mr. Solomon's written comments were provided: a suggestion that pavement on the
west side of the west building be extended at the dead end area for ease of vehicles being able to back up
and turn around; to show roof pitch on drawings; that all roof top a/c and mechanical equipment be
adequately screened by the parapet wall; and the building/tenant signs be sized to meet code and be
proportionate to the space where the signs would be mounted. Mr. Johnston commented the asphalt
could be extended a little on the south without encroaching on the 55' setback. Mr. Charming confirmed
with the City Forester that he was satisfied with the foundation planting. Mr. Hendrickson indicated he
was comfortable with the landscaping as enhanced and he would check to be sure the La -Z -Boy building
landscaping had been enhanced. Mr. Johnston confirmed the air conditioning units were fully screened.
Mr. Johnston explained the signage, with which Mr. Channing agreed. Mr. Channing commented the
elevations were a definite improvement from what was previously submitted Mr. Johnston stated roof
pitch would be shown on drawings when resubmitting and increasing length of the turn around would be
stipulated. Mr. Benothman stated there was a condition of approval addressing the parking area.
MOTION:
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -02 -22 with all staff
conditions including a stipulation that signage width and height be limited to that shown on these
drawings. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council. (P &Z)
Petition SP- 02 -28: Parcel 27.04 North
A request by Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., agent for Mall Properties, Ltd., for
a site plan approval of a 24,000 square foot office building on Parcel 27.04 North within the
Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The 2.20 -acre site if located in the
southeast corner of Kew Gardens Avenue and Minsk Gardens Avenue.
Planner Natalie Wong presented the project. The City Forester indicated he was satisfied with the
landscaping. Justification was presented for the tenant sign to be immediately above the second
floor. Ryan Johnston presented on behalf of the applicant. It was confirmed that the large building
matched the South Trust Bank materials. Mr. Pennell commented he was glad to see increased
parking, and questioned if the master landscape plan was accurate since it showed trees for the
project at La -Z -Boy. It was confirmed that landscaping had been certified. Signage was discussed.
There were no medical or dental offices because more parking would be required and additional
traffic requirements would need to be satisfied. Mr. Solomon's comments were to check for proper
screening of roof top a/c and mechanical equipment by parapet; and have plant /tree vegetative
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
screening of south elevation from PGA Boulevard to the same degree as the proposed approved
building plan for the parcel contiguous to the west including any berms. Mr. Channing requested
stipulation signage be no larger in width and height than as shown on the elevations, to which the
applicant agreed.
MOTION:
Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -28 with
staff comments and waivers. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-
0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council. (P &Z)
Petition SP- 02 -31: Parcel 27.09 Site Plan Review
A request by Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney, agentforMall Properties, Ltd., for Phase I approval of
a two-ph ase site plan for the construction of th ree professional office buildings totaling 60, 000 square
feet on a 6.64 -acre site known as Parcel 27.09, which is located at the northwest corner of Fairchild
Gardens Avenue and Kyoto Gardens Drive within the Regional Center Development of Regional
Impact (DRI).
Mr. Glidden stepped down not because of a client relationship but because his firm designed the original
Viridian building for their client, Paul Hanna Management. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the
project. Mr. Solomon's comments were read into the record: Add benches to walk way adjacent to the
lake. Ifon land controlled by Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, applicant to workout
such approvals and get a permit from Northern to make the installation. Building and tenant signage to
be properly sized to proportionately fit the surface to which attached. In one longer stretch ofparking
lot spaces, add landscape diamond with tree. Mr. Hansen asked if the requirement for setback to the
buffer area had been satisfied, to which the City Forester responded that by moving the buildings 8' back
that had satisfied his concern. George Gentile represented the applicant. Mr. Kunkle asked if a different
situation was being created by having identical structures, to which Mr. Gentile responded that identical
buildings for this site would provide architectural diversity from the rest of the area. Mr. Panczak
expressed his opinion that good staging had been provided to go from the Mediterranean look to ultra
modern coming behind it, and Mr. Hansen agreed, stating he supported the project. Mr. Pennell agreed.
Mr. Present asked how much was left for the future, to which Mr. Gentile responded about 1 -1 A acres of
land was left, on which two more office buildings would probably be built and more parking would have
to be provided. Mr. Channing questioned the 36" signage channel lettering; the applicant responded this
was not on PGA Boulevard and was allowed by the LDR's. Mr. Gentile confirmed for Chair Kunkle
that the future building area would be seeded and become grass area following construction. Mr. Wu
indicated this was not a public hearing but as in the past, public comments could be taken. Mr. Bob
Shaw, owner of Viridian Office Center, objected to the project on the grounds that he had paid $90,000
for this site plan plus a lot of money for other items and felt he had bought rights to these plans and no
one had consulted him regarding using that site plan for this building and two other buildings, and the
value and uniqueness of his building had been damaged. Mr. Shaw provided a letter the applicant's
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
attorney had written to him, which he stated threatened to sue him if he spoke to this Commission. The
City Attorney indicated this was really a contractural dispute. Mr. Wu confirmed there would be no
public hearing for this petition but that there would be an opportunity for comment at City Council level
and asked staff to make sure Mr. Shaw knew when it would be on the City Council agenda.
MOTION:
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -31 with all
staff recommendations and waiver requests. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. Mr. Channing
requested the third and fourth buildings be differentiated by color from the first and second
buildings, to which the applicant responded that would be considered. Mr. Hansen indicated
unless the owner had purchased the copyright, the architect had the right to the plans. Mr.
Hansen agreed with Mr. Channing's comment and requested it be brought back so the
Commission could see changes. Mr. Gentile stated the applicant would like to move on to City
Council but would look at differentiation of colors for the two back buildings as well as additional
landscaping. Mr. Panczak agreed with the previous comments. Mr. Channing suggested changing
the color and the glass and the powder coating. The architect indicated he would like to provide
different color renderings for City Council to choose from, and preferred that the green glass
remain and to work with paint colors, stating the aluminum banding could be a different color.
The glass characteristics were discussed. Mr. Channing recommended working with the original
architect to have them come up with suggestions for colors and the applicant agreed. Mr.
Channing proposed an amendment to the motion to stipulate that the applicant would consult with
the original architect to come up with at least two other color schemes to present to City Council
for the third and fourth buildings, the two on the lake, to let Council decide on the color scheme.
Mr. Pennell seconded the amendment. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
Following a short recess the meeting was reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Glidden rejoined the
Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Planner Natalie Wong presented information to provide notice of the workshop for PGA National
Montessori School, to revoke an amended site plan petition. Ms. Wong noted that concurrency
expires August 29, 2003 and that the Commission would see this at their next meeting.
Mr. Wu advised that the City Council would like to avoid waivers but their position was to review
projects on a case -by -case basis, and stated that when similar waivers had been granted in the past
5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
those were reviewed in the same context. Mr. Wu indicated that in commercial PUD's the City
Council wanted to minimize waivers and staff tried to reduce some in the DRI review. They would
like to review signage in this context as well, such as two -sided signage for properties facing two
directions, and four -sided architecture. Regulations for zero lot line, zipper lots, and townhome
projects were being developed with standards above and beyond what was done in the past and
should be presented in approximately two months. Mr. Glidden noted PUD waivers were a two -way
street and the Commission might grant waivers in order to get something else they wanted. Mr.
Present commented the regulations would raise the bar to provide creativity and objected to
previously granted waivers being taken out of context, and indicated approval should be on the right
issues. Mr. Charming commented the developer at Evergrene gave up a huge amount of money by
not building around the lake and had worked hard to provide creativity, and that was the type of
project that should be granted waivers. Mr. Pennell commented he found justification for the
waivers when staff brought up others justified for the same reason since they did a lot of work on
them, and if staff denied waivers it told the Commission there was not a good reason for the waiver
request. Mr. Hansen indicated he had asked about the waiver procedure because it was confusing,
and concurred that if there was a creative situation that a waiver could be justified. Mr. Hansen
noted this was a learning process which would take awhile and he had just asked a question of why
this was being done as it was, that he did not want:to stifle creativity. Mr. Panczak commented he
had had the same questions asked by Mr. Hansen, and that having a template to work from would be
helpful. Chair Kunkle commented a complicated factor in the waivers was the calculation of
densities, but he was encouraged because everyone here was doing what the City wanted,
questioning things and using reasonable judgment, and encouraged each member should vote their
conscience.
on
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held
March 25, 2003.
APPROVED:
Crain Kunkle. Jr Chai
4-e-� C4-z-(�
etty La , Secretary for the Meeting
7
` FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
GLIDDEN, JOHN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAILING ADDRESS
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE 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 March 10, 2003
MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8113
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 772.3143, 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 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.
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.
IF Y61U MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
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 March 10. 2003:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to the special gain of . by whom I am retained.
X was a petition that had a potential to appear as a conflict of interest even though it was not.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
PARCEL 27.09 Office Project
This application contained a building design that was previously done by our firm. We subsequently transacted with
another Architectural firm to allow them to use the CADD disks of the Design and since that transaction have no
financial interest in this project.
March 11, 2003
Date Filed
Sig
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.