HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 011304•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 13, 2004
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 following cases were approved by City
Council: Evergrene Clubhouse PCD Amendment to extend completion date of the clubhouse to 4/15/04
with the addition that if they missed the deadline there could be no more building permits as well as no
more CO's; Land Transfer CP -03 -08 and CP- 03 -07; Downtown at the Gardens; and Fairway Office
Center Sign Waiver.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting as amended by
adding the following sentence on page 4: Mr. Hansen suggested that there be planters at the parking
levels to soften the garage; and by changing the date of the next meeting on the last page to January
13th. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning & Zoning Commission and the
Land Development Regulations Commission:
Present Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Alternate Michael Panczak
0,
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal
Benothman, Senior Planner Kara Irwin, Planner Natalie Wong, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and
City Attorney Christine Tatum.
Workshop (P &Z)
Petition PUD- 01 -13: Borland Center for Community Enrichment
A request by Cotleur and Hearing, agent for The Borland Center and RAM Development, for a
property rezoning from Planned DevelopmentArea (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned UnitDevelopment
(MXD /PUD) to allow for the development of Phase 1 of the project which includes 64,533 square feet
(500 -seat small theater, and 300 -seat banquet hall, Sunday School and accessory facilities) for a
cultural center and church offices, 64,025 square feet for retail space, 19.950 square feet for
restaurant space, 10,900 square feet for office space, and 205 rental units on an approximately 47-
acre site. The subject property is located along the north side of PGA Boulevard between Gardens
Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive. The revised site plan does not include the 3000 -seat
cultural center /Palm Beach Community Church facility.
Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the project, PUD -01 -03 and WAV- 00 -03. Mr. Hansen asked if staff
supported the uses within phase one, the 500 -seat theater, 300 -seat banquet hall, and church facility. Ms.
Irwin advised currently staff had not made a recommendation on the whole project. Mr. Benothman
• explained staff was not prepared to make a recommendation and input from the commission was
requested at this workshop. Ms. Irwin commented phase 2 was designated commercial in the land use
designation and requested the applicant designate that as open space for phase 1, which Mr. Benothman
further clarified. Ms. Irwin indicated concurrency had been received for phase 2 of the project as it had
been in the past. The land use was mixed use and zoning was a mixed use planned unit development.
Ms. Irwin explained the residential /non - residential designations within mixed use developments.
Mr. Glidden expressed concern with designating phase 1 as open space — applicant would be way over
the open space requirement and that would be a false read. Staff confirmed applicant met the open space
requirement just on the land now being developed. Mr. Glidden's concern was about calling it open
space and recommended language in the ordinance that advised it was called open space now, with
anticipation of future submittal of a building on the site.
Applicant Casey Cummings, President, RAM Development, requested the ability to address concerns
raised during the workshop at the end of the workshop, indicated applicant would be happy to meet with
staff to change the designation to open space and to have language they would have no right to build any
buildings in phase 2 without approval by the City, and stated they had no intention to leave phase 2 as
open space. Mr. Cummings introduced Don Hearing, who reviewed the site plan, and addressed changes
to the architecture..
Mr. Hansen commented the applicant was doing a great job addressing issues the Commission had
brought up— moving buildings to PGA Boulevard, and moving building J to the crossroads of the
. project —and indicated traffic on the alleyway was no longer a concern. Mr. Hansen commented he did
2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
not see any elevations of parking sheds for the apartment building. Applicant indicated those would be
provided in advance of the February meeting. Mr. Hansen commented it looked like that created a hard
edge along that portion of the project, which could have a significant impact, and it appeared to be a flat
roof, and architectural elements were needed along that edge. Applicant stated those buildings would
not have flat roofs and that edge would have character. Mr. Hansen commented on page 4 of 12, showed
cross section CC with a 5 -story building. Applicant indicated that was an old section and there were no
longer any 5 -story buildings, and they would correct that. Mr. Hansen liked the architecture but was
concerned with diversity of character throughout the project. Mr. Hansen indicated there seemed to be a
lot of repetitiveness, but building M was an exciting departure which started to express some diversity of
character, and recommended more of that type character be integrated into the overall concept. Mr.
Hansen expressed his opinion that Elevation No 1 showed repetitiveness and suggested introduction of
flower boxes, balconies, etc., or 3 -d elements at a different scale than the building elements to give
additional character. Mr. Hansen asked about the parking for the residential building. Mr. Cummings
responded the parking would be in three locations — surface spaces to the north and east of the three
residential buildings, in individual parking garages, and in a portion of the northern drive aisle on the
ground floor, which would be gate controlled. Mr. Hansen indicated the applicant had done a good job
of addressing previously mentioned issues.
Mr. Pennell asked how a pedestrian would enter the front of the project. Mr. Cummings described
• pedestrian connections, indicating there were 5 -6 areas where pedestrians could access commercial areas.
Mr. Pennell asked what the open space area would look like along PGA Boulevard, to which Mr.
Cummings responded it would be landscaped similar to other areas of the plan. Mr. Pennell asked if the
applicant had a solution to the mitigation rather than purchase of an off -site parcel, to address staff s
concern that there should be 50% preserved on -site. Mr. Cummings responded they felt very strongly
that their waiver justification for off -site mitigation with land on Beeline Highway or cash in lieu was
correct, and that the value of preserving a small area within a development was not supported by
environmental science. Mr. Cummings suggested preserving trees along Shady Lakes Boulevard in
addition to full off -site mitigation. Mr. Pennell noted he had been one of the few who felt the
performing arts center would work, but the applicant had made positive changes.
Mr. Present reported he had met with the applicant earlier that day. Mr. Present expressed his opinion
that instead of open space, phase 2 could be called future, which would not be misleading. Mr. Present
commented that upland preservation was different than preserving trees, it was preserving specific
uplands existing, on the site, and unless they could be preserved without messing up the thoroughfare,
etc., it did not make sense to preserve a little pocket. Mr. Present commented he thought upland
preservation was being confused with landscaping and natural vegetation, and he still had not heard
where on the site uplands were located that could be preserved —if they were located where a building
footprint was planned that would not work. Mr. Present indicated he thought preserving trees was a
good approach but that was something separate, and he thought 50% was negotiable —that if there was
an area that was .7, for example, that could be preserved it should be done; and just to take a percentage
of two acres did not work. Mr. Present requested the areas that could be considered for upland
•
3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
preservation be shown. Mr. Present asked if the applicant would be willing to have a setback buffer
along Shady Lakes Drive in phase 1, which he believed would be a comfort to residents on the other side
of the road, and trees and landscaping on a setback 75 to 100 feet in would have a chance to mature
before phase 2 was developed. Mr. Present advised he would like the connection to Central Boulevard
as on the thoroughfare plan to be a condition of phase 1. Mr. Present concurred with other comments
made and felt this was a good project from the phase 1 standpoint.
Mr. Glidden disclosed he had met with the applicant a couple of times several days ago and felt there
were a lot of positive things happening, especially with respect to addressing PGA Boulevard frontage
that was consistent with the overlay. Now that only a portion of the original project was being approved,
he had suggested to the applicant that they commit to designing foundations, columns and any other
structural elements in the garage to support a fourth story should that need arise in the future. Mr.
Glidden commented the westerly entrance off PGA Boulevard should have the semicircular design
feature completed. Mr. Glidden requested notes on materials used in the site plan, and the locations of
pavers, curbs, bollards, etc., noted where located on the site. Mr. Glidden expressed concern about
residential secured parking and felt the applicant should address some sort of provision to allow for
traffic possibly to exit under a peak hour scenario through the residential area after development of the
Borland Center by keeping the gates open. Mr. Glidden felt the City should preserve this option for
freeing up traffic after an event was over. Mr. Glidden advised that the drawings should have a
• numbering system. Mr. Glidden indicated the covered parking should have a pitched roof with barrel
tile, and received verification that the tandem parking spaces would be owned by the same party to
prevent blocking a vehicle. Mr. Glidden commented the rotunda detail seemed not in keeping with the
rest of the project and needed a roof overhang or deeper profile fascia element to give depth. Mr.
Glidden recommended that the rectangular building to the left of the rotunda have detail added in
keeping with the project and breaking up window sections with more horizontal mullions. Mr. Glidden
requested the previous west facing perspective be brought current. Mr. Glidden also requested the
circular stucco reveal be replaced with something else except on possibly every third square panel. Mr.
Glidden suggested that some of the tower elements should have additional reveals or moldings. Before
the next meeting, Mr. Glidden requested the applicant address their intent of how to deal with all the roof
water and to show the locations of interior drains, overflow scuppers, or scuppers and downspouts.
Applicant verified no signage was being submitted for approval at this time. Mr. Glidden advised the
roof plans needed more information—applicant should identify any notes and elevation flags to show the
height of the parapet wall and screening of equipment. Mr. Glidden requested the City Engineer make
sure there was adequate turning movement for oncoming traffic turns in the parking garage. Mr. Glidden
noted there was an elevation missing on each of the residential buildings. Mr. Glidden requested a
representative swatch through each building with the materials shown. Applicant indicated in the
residential buildings there were trash chutes into the trash room and that they would make sure those
were shown on the drawings. Mr. Glidden recommended the security gates for residential parking be
open for major event peak hour traffic to avoid choking off the drive way flow.
• Mr. Glidden left the meeting at this point at 8:20 p.m.
rd
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
Mr. Channing noted the three buildings in front along PGA Boulevard had different architecture and
those should relate better to the rest of the project. Mr. Channing commented he was not happy about
buildings backing onto PGA Boulevard, and that the best pedestrian connections were not along PGA
Boulevard. Mr. Channing advised that for the next meeting it was very important to make a very
complete submittal. Mr. Channing commented the color sketches were very nice and showed wonderful
detail and he wanted to see this sense of design and detail carried all through the project. Mr. Channing
advised the real issue for a lot of people had been traffic issues. Approval of the currently proposed
project would secure a development order for all of the project and Mr. Channing indicated he wanted to
be sure what was done was being done properly in the spirit of and complying with the land development
regulations.
Mr. Solomon reported he had had a telephone conversation with Steve Cohen, an attorney for the
project. Mr. Solomon commented the changes that had been made were very commendable and a great
step forward, both for the site plan issues and the architecture. Mr. Solomon questioned with the
Borland Center being removed if that would delay timing of a traffic light at Shady Lakes Drive. The
applicant advised that it was unknown whether the traffic generated in phase 1 and the project across the
street would trigger warrants needed for alight Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the residential
units were all acceptable. Applicant advised there would be elevators, and these would be luxury rentals
• with rents at the top end. Average unit size was 1,100 square feet and the market would most likely be a
mix of young professionals, empty nesters, and retirees. Mr. Solomon requested the details suggested
by Mr. Glidden be added.
Mr. Panczak disclosed that he had met with the applicant. Mr. Panczak commented buildings B and D
lacked symmetry and their distances from the street were not in the spirit of the PGA Boulevard overlay,
and reported that Mr. Hearing had explained that this was done for the type of tenant the applicant was
trying to attract. Mr. Panczak asked if the next meeting would be February 10, to which staff responded
that depended on when the submittal was done, and it would need to be done by January 19 or 20. The
issue of open space and specific language would be resolved with the applicant before a public hearing
was held.
Mr. Hansen reported he had met with the applicant for approximately five minutes.
Mr. Cummings responded with the following comments: The architect would look at the west end of
building G and the rotunda to see what architectural detail could be added; it was unlikely the applicant
would agree to not have secured parking for the residents or allow the gates to be open; applicant's
structural engineer would be consulted regarding the garage structure and they would respond at the next
meeting; notes would be placed on plans regarding materials and drawings would be numbered;
landscaping on both sides of the west entrance would be done; color sketches would identify which
buildings they related to; the development order would be very specific about what was included and
• what was not; the architecture would be reviewed to make the buildings more harmonious or varied;
E
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
applicant would look into timing of a traffic light, upland areas that might be considered for mitigation
would be shown on the plans; the applicant would be happy to consider two buffers for the project; to
show what areas they were committed never to build on and what areas would have future development;
on the issue of having Shady Lakes as a condition of approval the applicant was happy to grant right -of-
way to the City; if the City wanted to dedicate their impact fees to build that road the applicant would be
happy to accommodate that; if the City wanted the applicant to build the road using their impact fees
they would be happy to do so providing the cost did not exceed the amount of their impact fees;
applicant would handle the parking buildings; buildings B and D along PGA being different was because
they were trying to serve several masters, applicant would work with staff on the list of uses; and any of
their consultants were willing to meet any time to be able to be heard at the next meeting on February 10.
A 5- minute break was taken. Meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Second Workshop (LDR0
Petition LDR- 01 -11– Zero Lot Line 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, off -set zero lot line units, zipper lot line units, townhouses, and
single-family attached units, to be developed as a specific development within a PUD, PCD, or MXD
• Overlay District.
Senior Planner Natalie Wong presented the request. Ms. Wong advised that accessory structures
applied to any accessory structure you could think of, and Chair Kunkle commented room was left
for interpretation and something more should be done to define what was not allowed as an
accessory structure. Chair Kunkle commented fences should also be addressed, citing an example
where an owner wanted to put a fence on his property line, which no longer left a 10' setback
between houses. Chair Kunkle asked how a maintenance person would get to a pool in a zipper
configuration —they would have to have a gate where the 4' maintenance easement ended. Ms.
Wong explained there could be 14 attached townhomes in a row before a break.
Mr. Panczak asked if a developer proposed building something outside the five types that were
identified, if that would be considered on a case -by -case basis, and if there was sufficient language to
address that. Ms. Wong responded each case would be reviewed carefully and language had been
added that City Council approval would be needed. If setbacks exceeded those set for these models,
those would be carefully reviewed.
Mr. Solomon inquired about floaters as mentioned on page 15, part B. Mr. Hendrickson explained
that zero lot lines started at one side and in almost every case on the other side there would be one
single family home that did not use the zero lot lines. Mr. Solomon requested that be further
identified. Mr. Hendrickson indicated landscaping for end lots needed to be addressed differently
because those setbacks did not work for cul -de -sacs, etc. Mr. Solomon questioned the language
• requiring palms and asked if palms were favored over shade trees. Ms. Wong responded that had
6�
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
been decided based on open space constraints and palms were the only trees that would fit. Mr.
Hendrickson commented they were suggesting that even the street trees be palms, and gave an
example where only palms had been used because there was no room for trees. Mr. Hendrickson
explained shade trees were becoming a nightmare for HOA's after approximately 15 years and many
needed to be removed because they were interfering with utilities, etc. Mr. Solomon commented
there could be a townhouse project with the buildings all together which had common areas which
could have room for shade trees, and he felt flexibility should be maintained in this ordinance.
Mr. Present recommended testing the new requirements using 2 -3 projects approved during the past
couple of years where there had been a lot of variances, to see how they fit within the new
guidelines. Mr. Present commented there could be a liability issue if a fence was set back from the
property line. Mr. Pennell commented the original intention was to prevent cookie cutter
developments. Ms. Wong responded two variations at a minimum were required to prevent that,
which would be included in the design guidelines. Mr. Pennell commented it would be nice to have
a variance on types of trees.
Mr. Hansen commented this was really good, he liked that design guidelines would be a part of this
whole approval process and that might give an opportunity for projects that did not look like cookie
cutter developments even though they had a lot of similarity in the plans. Mr. Hansen commented
is one thing bothered him and referred to Figure D page 6 which showed townhouse units 10'
minimum from the garage door to the access alley, and commented he would like that to be at least
the minimum length of a car or nothing. Mr. Hansen questioned the meaning of the requirement for
foundation landscaping within 10' of all buildings, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded that was
similar to the present code for commercial buildings, and explained that the mass needed
landscaping around it just like a single family house that had foundation landscaping. Mr. Hansen
questioned using the language "within 10 feet ", which seemed confusing and could be interpreted if
some portions of the building had a property line for instance only 3 feet away, to mean no
landscaping was required in that area. Mr. Hendrickson advised staff would re -think that language.
Mr. Channing asked if there had been any complaints about trees at the Villa Est6 development, and
Mr. Hendrickson confirmed there had been complaints because trees were now interfering with
sidewalks, etc. Mr. Channing indicated he liked the look and trees should be maintained. Mr.
Hendrickson indicated if palms were objectionable they would try to keep enough right -of -way to
plant shade trees. City Attorney Tatum reported that in a couple of recent homeowner documents
they were building in easements so that years later when the tree matured, room had already been
allowed for its growth. Attorney Tatum advised that she and Mr. Hendrickson had been discussing
this as a mechanism for dealing with these situations, and even a palm tree would hang over a 5'
space, and people were cutting trees at the property lines in some of the older developments.
Old Business
7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
•
•
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
New Business
It was announced that in March the regular meeting date of March 9 fell on election day, therefore
the meeting would be held Monday, March 8. Financial disclosure forms were being sent by mail to
the commission members.
Mr. Hansen questioned if landscape planting had been required for a certain sign, which Mr.
Hendrickson advised he would check and get back to Mr. Hansen.
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
be held January 27, 2004.
APPROVED:
4ctei4-1
Betty Laur, gfecretary for the Meeting
was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. The next regular meeting will
Craig Kunkle, F, C-hA-9'ii ,
0