HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 072203CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 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.
RE, PORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator.
APPROVAL OF .MINUTES
Mr. Channing made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2003 meeting as submitted. Mr.
Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for Planning & Zoning Commission:
went
Chairman Craig Kunkle
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Alternate Michael Psnczak
Absent
Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden
Also in attendance were Principal Planner TaW Bewthman, Planner Brad Wiseman, City Forester Mark
Hendrickson, and City Attorney Christine Tatum
Recce nmondatiot{ to City Council (Pdjc2�
Petition SP- 03 -03: Evergrene Parcel S — Site Plan
A request by Samantha Gregory of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Watermark Communities, Inc,
for site plan approval of 77 zero lot line single-family homes on an approximately 12 -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
July 22, 2003
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the staff report. W. Hansen asked if other parcels in this development
with similar waivers had been approved as submitted when they were reviewed by City Council, to which
Mr. Wiseman responded no, that there had been back -to -side lot configuration issues. Mr. Present
expressed concern regarding three areas where lots appeared to him to have been squeezed in, as to
whether houses there might look into a neighbor's headlights turning in. Another area had a 10' green
space area that was a concern. Mr. Wiseman referred to the plan to show how these lots would appear.
Mr. Channing indicated he had no problem, but stipulating a minimum 20' distance between fences might
resolve the green space issue. Mr. Panczak asked if these waivers generally fell into line with the
proposed design guidelines, to which the response was affirmative. Henry Skokowski, agent for the
petitioner, explained that the requested waivers were the same as previously approved for other
Evergrene parcels, but in this case the numbers were better. Mr. Skokowski explained that the 10' open
space was intended for maintenance purposes; however, the applicant would agree to a condition of a
20' minimum. The two dead -end configurations existed in Parcel 413, which was previously approved.
The end lots in all cases were 5' to 10' larger than other lots and all of the lots were a little larger than in
the 4B parcel. These paired Z lots were 90% sold in 4B, which was why they were being repeated inthis
parcel. Mr. Solomon requested that the documents state that condition 16 regarding the timer clock with
photocell sensor that the electricity would be on all the time. The applicant agreed. Mr. Kunkle asked if
the maintenance access issues had worked out on other approved parcels. Mr. Skokowski explained how
this parcel had been improved for rear access, and confirmed that maintenance within the screen
enclosures was the responsibility of the property owner.
The City Attorney swore in everyone for this petition and the next petition at this time.
M ftUON
Mr. Channing made a motion to approve Petition SP- 03 -13. It was confirmed that the applicant
had stipulated the 10' open space area would be a minimum of 20' and that the unit owners may
not turn off the electricity to defeat exterior lighting. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendatipn to C,}tv Council Pr &z)
Petition SP- 0343:Legaa Place Parcel 28.01
A request by Catalfamo Construction and Development, Inc., for approval of a site plan 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 of PGA Boulevard
and Alternate AIA.
Mr. Channing stepped down due to conflict of interest.
F),
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2403
Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the project, compared the requested site plan to the
previously approved site plan and found it lacking in many areas, and reported that staff recommended
denial of this petition. Mr. Pennell asked if staff was comfortable with the approved site plan and the
architecture ofthe approved site plan. Mr. Benothman explained that the approved plan was the second
plan provided which ranked 7 or 8 on a scale of 10; that the first plan would rank about 9; and this plan
was totally unacceptable --a downgrade to the approved plan- -and would rank 3 or 4. Mr. Benothman
indicated the applicant could explain why they had wished to change the first plan.
Following a 5- minute break, Joey Eichner of Catalfumo Development presented the project on behalf of
the petitioner and noted that staff had compared this site plan to the previously approved site plan. Mr.
Eichner explained that the approved site plan was inadequate, dysfunctional, and would not be a
successfud project, and the City would be left with a City Place or an Abacoa, which were both struggling.
This plan had been designed for success. Mr. Eichner commented that their development finance
company was the largest in the country, and the architect, KA Architects, had designed both this plan, and
the approved site plan Mr. Eichner indicated that buildings were clustered in several areas, and that local
retail was positioned between anchor stores to create pedestrian traffic flow. The plan had been
developed for mixed use. Mr. Eichner described the proposed office buildings and commented that this
plan promoted pedestrian activity. Mr. Eichner expressed his opinion that the main street was very nice,
commented that they did not want to compete with Downtown at the Gardens, that their plan, met the
LDR's and would be successful, and this plan did not compete with other approved developments. Mr.
Eichner explained that there were linkage roads throughout the project and 4 -sided architecture lining
Legacy Avenue. Several service areas had been created due to recommendations of several large
suppliers. There were five different locations for enhancements. The overall theme ofmixed use worked.
Mr. Eichner discussed the orientation of the buildings, 4 -sided architecture, and pedestrian views. Mr.
Eichner explained that this style of architecture must be used because it must be consistent with the
approved residential already being built within this project. Mr. Eichner explained they were using ponds
for access points and the ponds had been placed along the outside of the project to enhance the
community, not just the project itself. Mr. Eichner reviewed the architecture, site plan, and requested
waivers. Mr. Eichner withdrew the parking stall width waiver request since all spaces were 10' wide.
Mr. Eichner discussed the architecture on the PGA Boulevard elevation
Janet Watson, 11129 Monet Terrace, requested that the Commission not allow strip malls behind her
home, and stated she preferred office buildings or boutiques. Ms. Watson advised she had lived in
Tanglewood ten years ago with the strip mall and that kind of traffic. Ms. Watson reported there were 52
apartment windows on the second and third floors now looking down into her home and back yard. Just
looking at the 8' wall on their side compared to the DiVosta project across the road, she stated she did
not believe enhancements would be above and beyond. Ms. Watson reported she and her neighbors
learned about this meeting at 5.30 p.m. tonight. Chair Kunkle explained that there would be a public
hearing. Fran Vogell, 11223 Monet Terrace wondered why Monet Terrace residents had not been
notified when the final plan for the apartments was approved that overlooked their properties. Mr.
Benothman explained that the apartments were a separate plan within a PCD, and notice was not
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2003
required; however, the City would ask the applicant to give a courtesy notice before this was heard by
City Council. Chair Kunkle indicated that all these materials were available at City Hall for residents to
see, and Mr. Eichner also extended an invitation to their offices for the public to come view the project
materials.
Mr. Hansen disclosed he had met with the applicant last Thursday and they had reviewed their proposal
with him. Regarding the approved site plan, Mr. Hansen reported he had suggested to the applicant that
buildings 200, 300 and 400 appeared to have more character on the sides that faced inward than along
PGA Boulevard and had requested that elevations be provided. Mr. Hansen commented that the
elevations emphasized his concern of repetitiveness and lack of detail. Mr. Hansen indicated that use of
linear parapet instead of hip roof was lacking. Mr. Hansen discussed the architectural character of
buildings closest to PGA Boulevard and that the repetitiveness bothered him. He liked the fact that
buildings 100 and 200 had been moved to PGA Boulevard with parking behind them, but stated there was
no connectivity and not a very powerful statement for PGA Boulevard. Mr. Hansen indicated he would
like more focal points and more integration of all the other buildings, and stated he did not have a
problem with the building layouts. Mr. Hansen agreed with staff that overall this was a downgrade and
there were opportunities for addition of architectural elements. Mr. Hansen commented that the staff
comments had been very specific and the applicant only really addressed the waivers in terms of specifics.
Mr. Pennell commented he felt strongly about the PGA Boulevard Overlay and there were not many
opportunities left on PGA Boulevard to do something strong and dramatic to make a statement about the
City. Mr. Pennell commented that Palm. Beach Gardens was different than Jupiter and West Palm Beach
and that he felt the architecture was repetitive. Mr. Pennell commented that the parking lots gave a strip
center feeling; that one of the things that shocked everyone when the land was cleared was the abrupt
change from green to brown. Differences in heights of the buildings and colors were important to make
this work. Mr. Pennell commented he saw this as pulling apart and it did not invite a person to walk.
Mr. Present disclosed he had met with the applicant and he appreciated the applicant addressing the
Commission's comments over the past several months. Mr. Present indicated he thought buildings 100
and 500 needed to be trophy buildings and that the main entrance probably should have art in public
places. W. Present expressed disappointment that this needed to be moved to City Council tonight. Mr.
Present suggested where there was a terminus between the 800 and 900 buildings, if the 1000 building
was turned to face the 900 building that would be more inviting, with two focal points inviting walking to
those two points. The 600 building stood on its own. Mr. Present commented the green space along the
avenue was done really well and that he did not know who would park by the lake. Mr. Solomon
disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Eichner on the telephone and Mr. Eichner had sent a package of
drawings. Mr. Solomon commented that Mr. Benothman had mentioned a number of outstanding issues
and on the basis of open issues alone this Commission would normally think there were too many open
items to pass this on to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Solomon commented that
the applicant did not listen to the Commission that much and had not been forthcoming in making changes
the Commission had suggested. Mr. Solomon commented one could not help but feel this was a step
down from the quality and interest in the architecture, etc., as pointed out by Mr. Hansen. Mr. Solomon
commented the windows were very plain and would benefit from banding except where there were
4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2003
shutters. Mr. Solomon commented that the clustering could be better, and that this was reminiscent of a
plan of 20 -25 years ago or a wholesale outlet along the turnpike. Mr. Solomon commented that the
architecture and focal point were good in the center, and the Commission had requested that also
somewhere else but that did not happen. Mr. Solomon concluded the project was lacking architectural
elements, that there were site plan issues as stated by staff and too many normal outstanding issues, and
therefore he was unable to support this with a positive recommendation. Mr. Panczak commented it was
almost two years to the day since the prior plans were approved, and asked short of losing their anchor
what had happened to make the prior plan obsolete. Mr. Eichner responded that lifestyle tenants felt that
without parking being at their front doors they would suer loss of business. Mr. Eichner eonunented he
had a tenant now that was in City Place who wanted to come to a place where there was parking in front
of the store. Mr. Eichner commented that retail stores were destination stores and needed parking
conveniently located. Mr. Panczak expressed his opinion this plan was very far off the mark and not
using the prior plan was passing up an opportunity to have an esplanade rather than a strip center feel.
Chair Kunkle reported he had met with Mr. Eichner and most of the time had been spent talking about
tenants and lifestyle retailers, and the mall upgrading to high class retail and not robbing smaller retail
stores to fill this center. Chair Kunkle expressed agreement that if this was a market niche that could be
achieved for Palm Beach Gardens this was what the Commission should be considering. Chair Kunkle
stated parking was a problem and the high cost of rent was a problem; that City Place was having
problems, and the similarity to the approved plan to that center made his nervous as to whether that
would be successful or not, but that was not his business. Chair Kunkle commented Mr. Eichner had
slipped and called it a shopping center, and would fill the space with whoever they could to get it filled.
Chair Kunkle stated he did not know the answer but appreciated the applicant's efforts and the dollars
they had spent, but it sounded like the applicant was not going to come away with a supported
recommendation tonight to proceed to City Council. Mr. Eichner commented he had heard constructive
criticism tonight and would like to recommend to Planning and Zoning Commission to see ifthe applicant
could satisfy their comments and come back before the Commission in 30 days. Mr. Benothman
commented he would like no time certain because the applicant had demanded this be a recommendation
to City Council even though staff had recommended it be a workshop. Consensus of the Commission
was for the applicant to bring back the project, to submit it to staff when ready, and that the Commission
would defer to staff as to the timing, and when Mr. Benothman thought it was ready to bring back he
would determine whether it should be a workshop or recommendation to City Council, and the applicant
agreed.
Mr. Channing re joined the Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to bring before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
RJ
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2003
Mr. Present commented he would appreciate it if Mr. Benothman would discuss with staff not to base
recommendations for waivers on a large amount of open space being provided throughout a PCD such as
a Mirasol where there were a lot of wetlands that were not practical for use or an Evergrene with a lake
that did not make economic sense to fill. Mr. Present stated those situations were different than when
open space was useable and it was misleading to use that as support for a waiver. Mr. Present stated he
would lice to see two calculations in the future: one calculation for the real open space and one
calculation for open space not economically practical.
Chair Kunkle congratulated City Forester Mark Hendrickson on a nice job on Central Boulevard.
Mr. Channing congratulated Mr. Hendrickson on Burns Road landscaping, commenting that it was now a
beautiful road.
Mr. Pennell inquired about landscaping at La -Z -Bay, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded that the width
and quantity was there but it now needed to mature.
L
i Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 229, 2003
PJOIWAENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next regular meting will be
held August 12, 2003.
APPROVED: ""-� a
Barry Presgfit, Vice Chair
O
Betty Laur, flecreta6 for the Meeting
7
V,
FORM
813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME FIRST ME —MID E NAME
NAME OF BOARD, COUNC OMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
MAILING AD RESS
/J
/ J
HE BOARD, COUNtIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHI I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY
1
COUNT
NAME OF OLITI AL SUBD��SION:
1
r
/ �„ A
`lG®
DATE ON W ICH VOTE OCC
RED
AX
MY PubrFION IS:
v
❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 813
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.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest 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
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law,
mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must 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 min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. H,
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and ;
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH T
TAKEN:
You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person re p`
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must 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 must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
JISCZSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INT REST
� , hereby disclose that on �'v� 20
(a) measure came or will come before my age cy which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicti g interemeas ure is as follow f
<7 /� Vo -S
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, 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 $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
AL,tC 20 03 08:40a Stacy 561 - 684 -6890 p.2
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, COUNCL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A
8 HUNTLY CIRCLE
UNITOF:
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 JULY 22, 2003 I MY POSITION IS: I
ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 813
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.
Roug 20 03 08:40a Stacy 561- 684 -6890 p.4
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on JULY 22, 2003:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
,_x potentially inured to the special gain of - Legacy Place by Catalfumo Constr. Several clients, by whom I am retained,
have expressed interest in acquiring the property to develop a quality urban project.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
- ----------
Date Filed Sig ature
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.
G:% ADMIMPERSONALUGHMP &Z%IegacycoMlld.wpd Page 2