Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 032204• U • 'CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 22, 2004 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Vice Chair Barry Present 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 There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2004 meeting as submitted. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning & Zoning Commission: Present Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Absent Chairman Craig Kunkle Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden Michael Panczak Also in attendance were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Kara Irwin and Michael Sanchez, Planner Autumn Sorrow, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. Public Hearing (BZA) Petition VAR -04 -01 11 Giles Road — PGA National Ms. Beth Zelinka is requesting a variance from Sec. 78 -141, Table 10, of the City Code which • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 requires a 20 foot rear setback for residential properties located within the Residential Medium (AM) land -use designation. The Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow for a proposed first floor addition to encroach 5.0' into the rear setback. The subject site is located at 11 Giles Road within Plat 2 of the PGA National Planned Community Development (PCD). City Attorney Christine Tatum swore in everyone intending to offer testimony in this quasi-judicial hearing. Planner Autumn Sorrow presented the staff report and indicated staff felt all required criteria had been met. Ms. Sorrow announced one letter had been received from the PGA National POA, which supported this variance request. Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to approve Petition VAR- 04 -11. Mr. Hansen asked the purpose of the nurse's room, to which Ms. Zelinka responded it would be a room where a nurse could stay with a kitchenette and storage for formula and medications. Mr. Wu explained there was no problem with having a kitchenette since there was no oven, and therefore it was not considered a second kitchen. Mr. Solomon verified with staff that notices were sent out and this public hearing had been properly advertised. Ms. Zelinka stated no neighbors that she was aware of had any problem with the proposed variance. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by • unanimous 5 -0 vote. Public Hearing and recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition DRIINOPC-03 -03 Regional Center DRI A request by Mall Residence Hotel LLC, owner of the subject site, to amend the Development Order of the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and the Planned Community Development (PCD) by amending the land -use conversion matrix to allow the conversion of Hotel rooms, Business Office, and Research and Development Office square footage to Multifamily Residential dwelling units, and modify the required minimum and maximum thresholds in the Range Of Floor Spaces Allocation For Land Uses Chart accordingly. The purpose of the proposed modifications is to allow for the development of 238 condominium or condominium hotel units on Parcel 27.09 located immediately south of the Landmark residential development. The Regional Center DRI is located at the northeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA, and extends eastward to the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road. Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the staff report, which recommended approval of the request. Mr. Solomon questioned where the conversion came from, to which the response was it was coming from business office, business research and development, and hotel -3 uses. Mr. Benothman was asked why almost 1 -1/2 units of residential came from one hotel room. Mr. Talal responded it was all based on the traffic generated for each type unit. Mr. Pennell asked about the twin buildings previously proposed for this site and was told that project had been withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. • Benothman explained that a preserve (the lake plan with landscape buffer) had been approved with 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 approval of Downtown at the Gardens. Mr. Pennell recalled that one of the justifications from the Landmark project height and setback was that there were only 166 units left in the DRI, and that was the reason for allowing them to go forward, but now that seemed not to be true. Mr. Benothman explained that staff did not make that argument —that argument had been made by the petitioner's agent, and this petition was to give the applicant the option to have residential instead of other uses. Mr. Channing commented he voted against Landmark because he felt it was far too intense, too tall, a bad precedent, and he believed those who voted for it believed it was the last opportunity for residential units at the mall, and he thought there were a lot of representations that Landmark would be the last project there. Mr. Benothman commented he believed smaller towers would compliment Landmark, while one or two - story buildings next to it would look quite odd. Mr. Solomon discussed rounding, commenting he believed there could be 237 not 238 units, and advised staff take that up with the City Attorney. Mr. Benothman explained if this request was approved the applicant must come back to City Council to have any conversions approved. Mr. Solomon commented he also voted against Landmark, that it was too intense and too much building for the size of the land. Vice Chair Present confirmed this request if approved would allow 36 units per acre and Landmark was probably 42 units per acre. Condominium hotel unit/time share form of ownership would not be rooms, but would be units. If the hotel use was converted in conjunction with the other two uses the ratio would be higher because of internal capture, but if converted alone, the ratio would be lower. • Ryan Johnston, agent for the petitioner, indicated they were not involved in the Landmark project but were looking for the opportunity to present a site plan with residential uses for consideration by the City. Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments by the public, Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Solomon, made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition DRI/NOPC- 03-03, to approve the conversion consistent with the staff report. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -2 with Mr. Channing and Mr. Pennell opposed. Mr. Pennell stated he was opposed because of the density issue and he thought the Board had been convinced of one thing with Landmark. Mr. Channing stated he felt as if he had been had. Workshop: (P &Z)PUD -03 -10 Donald Ross Village MXD PUD Amendment. A request by Urban design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L. C., to allow for an amendment to the Donald Ross Village Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD), which was approved by Ordinance 53, 2002 on April 10, 2003. The applicant is proposing to develop phase Hof the subject site with a 93 -room hotel, a 13,500 square foot retail building, a 18,387 square foot medical office building, and a 20,000 square foot fitness center. The 45.37 -acre subject site is located on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard. • Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, spoke on behalf of the • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 applicant and described proposed changes from the original approved PUD. Mr. Hansen commented he liked the entrance and paving and the whimsical characteristics of what the applicant was proposing, but was not in favor of 9' hotel parking spaces. Mr. Hansen had no problem with 5 stories for the hotel. It was verified for Mr. Hansen that ten parking spaces in a row were only in one location and he had no problem with that. Mr. Hansen commented he was a little concerned about whittling away at the preserve area. Ms. Glas confirmed the sidewalks would reduce the preserve area. Danny Brown, Oliver Glidden, responded to architectural questions and confirmed the windows did have muttons and some had p -tacs. Mr. Hansen pointed out the proportions of the entry feature were different on the plans than the elevations. Mr. Brown verified the elevation drawings were correct. Mr. Hansen commented signage above the fifth floor was not shown on the elevations. Mr. Brown responded the signage was shown on the west elevation, Sheet A -4, and only one sign was requested above the fifth floor; also, the applicant intended to upgrade the elevations. Mr. Hansen requested 4 -sided architecture with variety be provided on Building K, and questioned the design of the windows, to which Mr. Brown responded his company was not doing architecture for the interior space but would coordinate with the interior architects to place the windows. Mr. Hansen commented on Building J north elevation that there were awnings over all the windows and doors with muttons, opening out onto balconies, which was not consistent with the renderings. Mr. Brown explained the intent was to have awnings over doors only on the second and ground levels. Mr. Hansen commented the Building I elevation needed work. Mr. Brown confirmed the arches on • the rotunda were rounded like on the elevation. Mr. Charming asked how much parking was in the commercial portion. Ms. Glas responded that a shared parking study provided for 670 spaces and the applicant was providing 759 spaces on the site. There were 779 spaces required on the site, all commercial. The applicant was 59 or 60 spaces short of code requirements. Ms. Glas commented all the spaces were 10' except for the hotel portion. Mr. Channing commented the color was bland but that was the right of the applicant. Mr. Channing did not agree with 9' parking spaces, but would be willing to approve 9 -1/2' parking spaces. Mr. Channing commented the applicant must provide 4 -sided architecture. Mr. Channing commented this was beautiful and a very good project. Mr. Charming commented whoever dreamed of asking for preserve credits for the 2' overhang deserved creative recognition, but no way. Mr. Solomon commented the site plan was good. Regarding the waivers, Mr. Solomon commented it would be good if FPL did not need an easement, and it was good the Seacoast easement could be under the sidewalk. Mr. Solomon was not in favor of 9' parking spaces for the hotel, and was bothered by a request for 5 stories on the hotel in an area that was 3- story, and considered that precedent setting. Regarding signage, Mr. Solomon stated he was inclined to go along with the City's regulations. The one area with ten parking spaces in a row before getting to a landscape diamond did not bother Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon agreed there was a need for architectural elements on the south elevation of Building I, and commented on Building J if the awnings were not going to be on the upper story windows the applicant might consider adding the arch feature on top • of the windows as was shown on the ground floor. Building K needed more architectural • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 differentiation out from the building, and the long run needed to be broken up with architectural details. Mr. Pennell agreed with the other comments and agreed with the first two waivers. Ms. Irwin confirmed the City Forester did not agree with the Seacoast easement being under the sidewalk. Mr. Pennell favored 9 -1/2' parking spaces at the hotel. Mr. Pennell commented some of the parking might be misplaced. Shutters were mentioned in the waiver, but none were shown on the hotel. Mr. Channing commented the PGA Office Building project had requested 5 stories and ended up at 4, and the landscaping was the dominant item in the City and a 5 -story building would overpower the trees. Mr. Channing commented Landmark would single - handedly dominate everything in the City; but in this project the 5 stories would not matter in terms of the perception of the City. Mr. Channing agreed with Mr. Solomon that the long run on building K needed to be broken up. Mr. Present stated he could not support 9' spaces, and could not support 5 stories because hotel rooms would look into residents' patios, back yards, or windows, and this was not a hotel commercial area. Mr. Present noted he would have preferred to have the hotel in the northeast corner of the siste plan with the retail, instead of buried in a nice preserve next to residential. IS Ms. Glas explained the 12' Seacoast easement would be under a 12' sidewalk and they would have an agreement with the property owner as to who was responsible to replace the sidewalk if it ever had to be torn up to work on the utility lines. Ms. Glas commented FP &L had an alternate location for their easement, and that there had been meetings with the utility companies to try to establish easement locations earlier in the application process in the future, preferably following the DRC meetings. Ms. Glas commented regarding the 5 -story issue that the MXD district had provisions for 4 -story buildings and the residential developer supported 5 stories. Ms. Glas indicated direction had been received for 9 -1/2' spaces, that there might have to be more tree diamonds in order to have larger parking spaces. Mr. Hansen commented he would rather have 10' spaces. Mr. Hansen indicated in the back area he did not have a problem with 10 spaces in a row. Mr. Hansen commented the 5 -story hotel design was equivalent to a 4 -story office building, so he did not have a problem with a 5 -story hotel. Workshop (P & Z) Petition: PUD -04 -04 Parcel 5B — Rezoning- and Site Plan Approval. A request by Mr. William D. Waters of REG Architects, Inc., on behalf of RCA Center II, LLC, for approval of a rezoning from a Research and Light Industrial Park (MI) zoning designation to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (3MIPUD) Overlay zoning designation to allow for the development of approximately 150,000 square feet of retail use, 100,000 square feet of office use, • and 50,000 square feet of industrial use. The approximately 30.03 -acre subject site, referred to as 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 Parcel 5B, is generally bounded by the PGA Flyover to the north, the FEC Railway to the east, the proposed Garden Station mixed use development to the south, and RCA Drive to the west. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the staff report, and advised that the purpose of this workshop was to request guidance and direction prior to resubmittal. Parcel 5B had been preferred by City Council over Parcel 5A for a Tri Rail station. Mr. Pennell asked what uses were being requested that did not coincide with the PGA Boulevard Overlay. Mr. Sanchez indicated there were several and were not narrowed down to light industrial uses. Rick Gonzales, REG architects, pointed out the locations for proposed art, explained the intent was to make this project comfortable for pedestrians. Mr. Gonzales indicated the model was used to see massing, and pointed out specific points on the model. Jeff Marshall, representative for the developer, Catalfumo, commented they could fix pedestrian connections, they were confident the 50' right -of -way was in compliance with code, and they wanted pedestrian friendly intersections. The landscape /DOT /drainage buffer issue would be addressed at the next submission by requesting a waiver that would allow overlapping easements with the buffer is an additional 10'. This would mean there would be 155' from Alternate Al to the edge of their parking lot and 55' from the edge of the tracks to the parking lot, which would be green open space. They were doing this because FDOT had been unresponsive to their request that they abandon this easement. Regarding the landscape median issue —Mr. Marshall commented they were following the roadway section provided to the south between Hilda Flack and Hampton Inn. Mr. Marshall indicated the applicant would like to further address the uses with staff. Mr. Present commented he met with the applicant. Mr. Solomon commented he met with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Thompson February 27. Mr. Solomon commented the median and right -of -way issues were serious and he was inclined to agree with staff on those issues, at least on the north -south road, and asked the applicant to reconsider. Mr. Solomon commented the site plan was generally good, especially adding the staff's suggestion for two additional links. Mr. Solomon did not like the architecture, commenting it was unimaginative. Mr. Solomon commented the main focal point, the curved item on top of the building, should be stronger and more impressive and the architecture was not the quality of other architecture along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Solomon indicated he would like to see some fresh architectural ideas. Mr. Pennell commented the list of uses would be addressed later, that he was in favor of staff s position for 80' right of way, and for the landscape medians - -which were very important for the roadways. The east -west connection did not need medians. Mr. Pennell liked the architectural style, but felt it was monotonous in color and there could be small architectural details added. Mr. Pennell commented he favored a pedestrian connection in the parking lot, and felt the center of the parking • re • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 lot could be a possible location for art in public places. Mr. Pennell commented the applicant needed to provide connectivity to comply with the PGA Boulevard Overlay. Mr. Channing commented this was a good presentation, and that this was the best staff he had ever seen, and he was with staff on everything. Mr. Channing commented that having a 20' landscape buffer on the east side would only allow 5' in which to plant trees, which was not good, and they would look like a line of soldiers. Mr. Channing commented regarding the architecture that one rendering showed pedestrian friendly connections and the next one did not show any of that along RCA Boulevard. Mr. Charming felt the color was okay. Mr. Channing commented that the building in the entry drawing looked like the Alamo, but it looked nice. Mr. Channing commented he expected very detailed elevations and drawings when the applicant returned and he wanted dimensions and materials included. Mr. Channing commented it was mandatory wherever a car could drive between buildings that there be 3' berms, nicely landscaped. Mr. Channing agreed with Mr. Solomon that there was too much flat roof. Mr. Channing commented on pedestrian connectivity, which he felt must be a nice pedestrian experience as opposed to just making it physically possible. Mr. Marshall commented the landscape buffer to the east would not look like a line of trees because there was existing vegetation. Mr. Channing asked for photographs and any kind of study that would • indicate improvement. Mr. Hansen commented overall this project had a lot of very positive aspects, including the frontage along RCA Boulevard, and the clustering at the intersections. Mr. Hansen asked if building 10 was the proposed industrial use, to which the applicant responded that would probably be the most appropriate spot if that type of use were included. Mr. Hansen agreed with staff on 80' right -of -ways and median landscaping. He felt the east -west road median landscaping was more important than north - south. Mr. Hansen suggested the 3 -story building #2 that was off by itself be pulled in. Mr. Hansen agreed there was too much flat roof. Mr. Hansen requested more detail next time, commented some of the facade edges were very thin, and commented the elements that project above the roof line needed a 3 -D aspect to get depth. Mr. Hansen indicated he had no problem with the colors. Too much repetitiveness in the windows could be changed to enhance the architecture. • Mr. Present commented the names Gardens Station West and East looked like they were already planning a Tri Rail station. Mr. Present agreed with an 80' right -of -way for this major connector road. Mr. Present commented he had struggled with the T- intersection and pedestrian traffic back and forth, and that might not be in the right place, and asked the applicant to look at that again. Mr. Present encouraged the applicant to meet with Tri Rail and make this a train station location, which would benefit all of north county, and it should be looked at from that perspective. Mr. Present commented this would be a major connector and should be looked at from above, from the perspective of the flyover. 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 • Mr. Solomon stressed that rooftop mechanical equipment must be adequately screened, and suggested paver treatments similar to those at the key roadways be used at the south end of the north/south portion. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Wu announced a special workshop on March 30, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. at Lake Park with the Lake Park Commission regarding Target. • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was be held April 12, 2004. APPROVED: at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair v zy" (aj — Barry Prese ice Chair A6561V 7' John Glidden, Chan Pro Tern Joel we