Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 101403CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 14, 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 8:35 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2003 meeting as submitted. Mr. Pennell 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, Land Development Regulations Commission, and Local Planning Agency: Present Chairman Craig Kunkle Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Alternate Michael Panczak Absent Vice Chairman Barry Present Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Kara Irwin, Natalie Wong, and Michael Sanchez, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. Public Hearing and Recommendation to Citp Council. (P&Z) Petition CU- 03 -04. Howell Watkins Middle School Expansion — Conditional Use and Site Plan Approval A request by the School District of Palm Beach County (the "District') for approval for a Conditional Use and Site Plan to allow the expansion of the existing Howell L. Watkins Middle School (the "School'), including the construction of 172,749 square feet of new school space and the demolition of certain existing school buildings on site. The Howell L. Watkins Middle School is generally Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 located on the east side of Macarthur Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet north of Northlake Boulevard Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Sanchez confirmed for Chair Kunkle that the Commission's hands were tied on this application; that this was the way it would be built. Mr. Glidden compared bringing this application before the Commission to the time the City Hall was presented and the Commission was invited to look at it but no changes would be made. Mr. Glidden commented the idea of approving this when there were all kinds of things the Commission would normally comment on was more than hollow, asked if by approving this the Commission would buy into liability; and commented he was inclined to pass it along with no comments. Mr. Charming commented this was the same principle as the voluntary income tax. Mr. Solomon asked if architectural comments would be relevant; Mr. Sanchez commented the City Attorney had advised conditions of approval could be made so long as they were in accordance with State statutes, which he was unable to elaborate on, and the School Board was looking to commence construction subsequent to this approval. Chair Kunkle commented due diligence had been done and it was consistent with all the statute provisions that it needed to be, so it was done. Mr. Panczak asked if the color scheme would be the same as Independence, which was confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Glidden made a motion to pass Petition CU-03-04 on to City Council with no comment. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. City Attorney Christine Tatum advised that the law said the City could not deny a site plan for a school, but could approve the petition with conditions relating to compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods; and the Commission's authorization under City code required forwarding with approval or denial, and if the Commission felt conditions were appropriate they could recommend conditions. Mr. Glidden commented the Commission could not possibly evaluate this since there was so much information missing; however, they wanted to do the right thing for City Council. Mr. Channing commented the things the commission was allowed to look at were very narrowly constrained and those were the only things the Commission was supposed to comment on, so the Commission must go along with staff and if staff said it complied with the statute unless the Commission wanted to question that. Mr. Glidden stated he was questioning orientation of a baseball field that would send balls out into Bums Road. Attorney Tatum advised that school representatives were present to answer questions. Mr. Channing suggested approving with that comment. Mr. Glidden stated he would withdraw the motion. Mr. Charming proposed an amendment to the motion to approve with a comment that it would be nice if the State or School Board or both of them looked closer at the orientation of the baseball field. Mr. Glidden commented that was only one item; the comment could just say incomplete application. Mr. Glidden stated he did not accept Mr. Charming's amendment. Mr. Glidden withdrew the motion. MOTION: Mr. Panczak made a motion to recommend approval of Petition CU-03-04 to City Council. 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. Mr. Solomon requested as part of the motion that the City Council be advised while making the motion and taking a vote, the Commission felt it was not in the best position to make a full evaluation for lack of information that they would otherwise require. Mr. Glidden stated he would vote no, because there was not nearly enough information to make any kind of motion. The vote on the motion was 5 -2 with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Glidden voting nay. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business A staff - initiated request for direction and input on minor changes to the front elevation of the previously approved and constructed 45,144 square -foot office building g located within phase two (2) of Lots 4 and 5 within the South Park Center Plat of the NorthCorp Corporate Park. The site is an approximately 6 -acre tract of land located at the southern end of the NorthCorp Planned Community District, between Riverside Drive and East Park Drive. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the request for input from the Commission. Chair Kunkle asked how much it would cost to change the construction to the way it had been approved, and answered the question himself that it would be a ton. Mr. Panczak asked why the glass had not been installed as approved, to which Ms. Irwin responded that the justification provided by the applicant was that the glass with the sun would not allow sufficient cooling of the building. Mr. Hansen commented this was a significant architectural element and the Commission had not been provided with enough information and should have come back to the Commission for review before the change had been made, which he considered a change for the worse. Mr. Pennell commented he thought it contradicted having a P &Z and City Council approve anything, if the applicant was just going to do it differently. Mr. Solomon asked the City Attorney if the City had the authority to level a fine for this willful violation, to which City Attorney Tatum responded the applicant could be cited for violation of a development order condition, but they were requesting a change although after the fact. Mr. Solomon commented the problem was they did not come in ahead of time but went ahead and did it and now a CO was being withheld, which was very serious; and he wanted to see if there was some kind of mitigation they could do to make up for this. Mr. Channing commented this was getting away out of hand. Mr. Channing commented the black shape above the arch, which was supposed 3 Planning & Zoning Connnission Minutes October 14, 2003 to be glass, could be painted a dark color to match the glass and do the same thing under the arch, which would look like the approved plan. Mr. Channing commented that withholding a CO on something Re this was outrageous. Mr. Glidden confirmed it had been constructed not in accordance with the permit and he agreed with Mr. Channing's paint idea, and asked if they were going to want to do this to the other identical building. Jim Griffin, agent for the applicant, made a presentation, and explained that a tenant had been concerned the sun would overheat the upper elevator lobbies and the construction company had made what they considered to be a minor field change to accommodate their requirements, unfortunately not bringing it to the City for approval. All departments had signed off except for this change, and they would be happy to comply with whatever requirements the Commission decided. Mr. Present arrived at this point in the meeting at 9:07 and was seated in the audience. Chair Kunkle announced the Commissioners would comment and leave the decision to Mr. Wu, and expressed his opinion it should not have been brought to the Commission. Mr. Glidden commented he thought the north building should stay as approved and this building could be remedied by painting out the remaining stucco areas in a dark matching color. Mr. Glidden questioned what was screening the air conditioning units, to which Mr. Griffin responded a parapet wall, and additional screening screened the units, and he presented aerial photos to show that. Mr. Charming expressed his opinion that the architectural details that had been done in stucco and should have been glass should be painted out, and they should add a couple of nice size oak trees on the south elevation--perhaps in the parking island--as penance. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion they should put the glass in under the curved portion, plus if feasible, put glass right on top of the stucco to get back to the original look. Mr. Griffin responded that the whole area under the curved portion could not be all glass because the floor plate of the second floor would show. Mr. Pennell indicated he liked Mr. Solomon's idea.; and commented he did not know what the Commission could do other than slapping their hands. Mr. Griffin expressed concern there might be a problem in a high wind situation with attaching the glass directly on the stucco. Mr. Hansen disagreed, because he thought painting was an unsatisfactory solution that would not look good and it would look better left as is; however, he felt it should have been built as approved, and the excuses were weak. Mr. Panczak expressed his opinion that the issue was not paint, but starting on a slippery slope by allowing changes ad hoe at will on what was the architectural element of the building. Mr. Panczak indicated he liked the applied glass, but thought the applicant's feet should be held to the fire and it El Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 should be done as approved. Mr. Channing commented this was not a good design to begin with, so he did not care that much about the integrity of the original design, and the applicant could be required to provide 4 oak trees. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that Mr. Solomon's idea of applied glass would be almost legally correct, but he did not think it would look good and would look more awkward than paint. Mr. Charming commented the building was nothing to begin with and if it were well designed then they could be required to put it back the way it was approved, but it wasn't; and he recommended using a little Solomon-type judgment. M Planning & Zoning Comndssion Minutes October 14, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meet* g was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held October 28, 2003. APPROVED: (—��rrH Alternate Michael Panczak Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting R