Loading...
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