HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042704• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 27, 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
Scrinns Project Uvilate
Senior Planner Natalie Wong, Project Manager for the Scripps Project, gave a brief presentation on Scripps
and the upcoming comprehensive plan amendments regarding the Scripps project. The presentation was
provided to keep the Board updated, since the City was the applicant for the DRI. The project was
anticipated to provide over 44,000 jobs, with 499 firms in the cluster. Site development conditions were
reviewed. Ms. Wong showed the latest concept plan for the biotechnology research park and community,
reviewed the current proposed intensities, and explained the current processes which included OTTED
review, development of regional impact application for development approval, comprehensive plan
amendments, and a joint planning agreement/joint master planning with Palm Beach County.
Chair Kunkle congratulated Ms. Wong on her job working on this project and commented he saw no golf
courses. Mr. Panczak asked that the rendering locations be pointed out on the concept plan, to which Ms.
Wong responded that locations had not been pinpointed to date. Mr. Hansen expressed concern regarding
• traffic impact on PGA National and PGA Boulevard, and asked if Tri Rail was a possibility. Ms. Wong
responded the City had not yet met with Tri Rail; the cost would be approximately $150 million, but staff
was keeping an open mind to allow the opportunity to have Tri Rail and would work with the County and
all the agencies involved to see if it could be done. Mr. Hansen asked if the plan would be to connect at
PGA and Alternate AIA and continue along PGA Boulevard to connect with the technology park. Ms.
Wong responded that had not yet been planned. Mr. Hansen expressed concern that there would not be
room with six lanes and the railroad track. Ms. Wong advised that all options would be considered, along
with the possibility of a shuttle. Ms. Pennell asked if the new turnpike exchange would be in the City, to
which Ms. Wong responded that it would. Mr. Pennell commented the benefit of that was it would be a
major drop -off and on- loading point for this project that might take some pressure off PGA Boulevard.
Mr. Pennell asked if there was residential in the County's parcel or in the Gardens parcel. Ms. Wong
responded there would be some in the County parcel. Ms. Wong indicated it was anticipated that
approximately 25,000 people would live in the property. Mr. Present asked the location of the school sites,
which Ms. Wong pointed out. A high school was proposed on the County site; and a middle and an
elementary school were proposed to be located together on the Gardens site. The schools would not be in
the flight path. Ms. Wong announced that the Business Development Board would be hiring a master
developer, and she would check on whether the school site would be dedicated to the School Board. Ms.
Wong explained that the anticipated need for only one elementary and one middle school was based on
input provided by the School Board, and the school site of would be adjacent to a City park. Ms. Wong
advised that a whole new land use designation would be created for this site. Mr. Present encouraged light
industrial zoning since there would be some support facilities needed for the biotech park. Ms. Wong
indicated that had been discussed. Mr. Solomon asked about annexation, to which Ms. Wong responded
the City would likely annex Mecca into the City and was discussing that with County staff, but the joint
planning agreement would proceed even without annexation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Mr. Present requested a change on the first page, which indicated he had chaired the meeting; however, Mr.
Kunkle had chaired the meeting. Another requested change was to change I/I to MI under the item for
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 27, 2004
• workshop PUD- 04 -05. Mr. Pennell moved approval of the April 13, 2004 minutes as amended with the
requested changes. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning & Zoning Commission and Land
Development Regulations Commission:
Present Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle Joel Charming
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Also in attendance were Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Natalie Wong, and Planner
Brad Wiseman.
All those intending to speak at tonight's quasi-judicial hearing were sworn in. There was no ex -parte
communication reported by the Commission.
Recommendation to City Council. (P &Z)
Petition: SP- 04 -01: Frenchman's Creek Clubhouse Amendment
A request by Jennifer Morton of Land Design South, on behalf of Frenchman's Creek Inc., for approval
of a site plan amendment to the clubhouse facility at the Frenchman's Creek Planned Community
• Development. The Frenchman's Creek PCD is located east of Alternate AIA, north of Hood Road, and
south of Donald Ross Road.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Chair Kunkle stated he did not agree with staff regarding
denying one waiver since this project had plenty of landscaping. Mr. Panczak asked and received
confirmation that parking would be reduced by five spaces. Mr. Solomon requested the parking spaces be
pointed out.
Jennifer Morton, Land Design South, presented the project on behalf of the applicant, and discussed the
waiver requiring reconfiguration of the existing parking area. Ms. Morton advised the applicant was
present tonight to add parking, and both vehicular and golf cart parking spaces were being requested to
meet the needs of this PUD. Ms. Morton asked for reconsideration of that one waiver request.
Mr. Solomon asked if the applicant would be agreeable to put in 6 or 8 shade trees instead of the islands,
possibly locating 3 -4 on each side of the roundabout. Ms. Morton responded there was not enough width in
that area, but perhaps trees could be added in the large median island. Mr. Solomon suggested adding
shrubs in the roundabout as recommended by Chair Kunkle. Chair Kunkle commented this was absolutely
world class landscaping and the applicant should be allowed to build what they needed. Mr. Solomon
agreed. Mr. Benothman commented staff had recommended denial of the waiver because of a code
requirement that waivers had to be justified and staff believed there was not justification because there
were 121 parking spaces over the amount allowed by code.
Mr. Pennell commented in several other projects the Commission had held firmly to those requirements
and indicated his support for staff. Q
s51, ANv5 J►",npl�
Mr. Hansen also supported staff, agreed the landscaping was great, and commented he thought fourjwith
• two on each side would be great. Mr. Hansen commented the handicap spaces did not appear to be on an
accessible route. Jim Velda, Land Design South, explained there was a proposed access from those spaces
to the clubhouse area. Mr. Hansen pointed out one had to walk behind vehicles to get there and this plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 27, 2004
• did not meet the requirements of the ADA or the Florida Accessibility Code, and nine handicap spaces
were needed. Ms. Morton explained the required number of spaces was 379 therefore eight handicap
spaces were required. If there were 499 then nine would be required, since it was based on actual count.
Ms. Morton stated the applicant would work on the number and the accessible route issue with staff. Mr.
Hansen expressed his opinion that condition 9 needed to include ADA and Florida Accessibility Code and
the site should be designed to the worst case situation. Ms. Morton advised the applicant was requesting a
waiver to keep the handicap spaces at 9 -1/2'.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -04 -01 with the
staff recommendation of approval of all waivers except one denial and that the applicant provide an
accessible route from accessible parking spaces to the clubhouse, and additional accessible parking
spaces. Mr. Hansen commented there was an accessible aisle between each parking space and they
could be doubled up to provide space for the additional islands and additional parking spaces. Mr.
Hansen recommended on the islands that there only be four, to be dispersed on the two sides
symmetrically. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
Workshop
Petition LDR- 03 -07: City Code Amendment to Division 7 Signs (LDRC)
A City- initiated request to amend City Code Section 78 -284, 78 -285, 78 -751, and 78 -186. The objective
of this amendment is to clarify inconsistencies within the signage division, include additional prohibited
sign types, change permitted sign locations, and to allow for a fence height of IS feet for sports facilities
in residential and non - residential zoning districts.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the request. Mr. Benothman gave credit to former Commissioner John
Glidden, who had provided input.
• Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion this was a good idea; sign pollution could make the greatest
development look like garbage. Mr. Solomon requested considering whether the drive - through restaurant
menus fit into this category, and commented equitable grandfathering provisions were needed to give
businesses time to recover their capital and investment. Mr. Solomon recommended removing definitions
in front and when terms were first mentioned state, for example, raceways: "such as raceways as defined in
section below ". Other recommendations by Mr. Solomon included on page 4 to explain what was meant by
"affected building fagade "; on page 7 Section 78.751 in the definition of roof to replace "or" with
"including" and delete "of' in the next sentence. Mr. Solomon asked if a roof sign could be erected on a
flat roof and positioned vertically, and noted this definition might not cover that situation. On page 9,
Section A, there was a provision not to erect fences and walls forward of an existing building front setback
line and Mr. Solomon asked if staff wanted to consider the rear line also, and asked if walls could be `
constructed along the sides of property. \f,'lo�
beef
Mr. Present noted the provision under fences and walls that tennis court fences not exceed 10 and all other
athletic activities could be 15' and asked what would happen if there were another type of sport that only
needed a 10' height, and commented that needed clarification. Mr. Present advised that The Commission
had previously seen some of the signs being shown, but this was the first time they had seen signage
painted on and questioned if those had been approved. Mr. Benothman explained the Commission and City
Council approved the signage program for a parcel, then the applicant had applied for a permit for a painted
sign and could not be denied because code had been met. Mr. Present asked if everything would be
grandfathered unless an applicant came in for modifications. Mr. Benothman advised they would be
covered by the non - conforming portion of the code as it currently existed.
Mr. Pennell asked if Northlake Boulevard Overlay still existed. Mr. Benothman responded that it did, and
that this proposal would apply everywhere else because Northlake Boulevard had its own regulations and
the signs there were grandfathered for ten years. Mr. Pennell commented this change would mean fewer
• waivers which would be very helpful. Mr. Pennell noted the guidelines had indicated 80% coverage; Mr.
Wiseman advised the current code requirement was 70% coverage. Mr. Pennell asked if the windows
shown in the presentation that were covered with signs would have to wait until a new tenant came into the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 27, 2004
is space, which was answered affirmatively. Mr. Pennell asked what would happen if Shell wanted to use
their logo as a sign. Mr. Wiseman explained each sign would have to comply with this code. Mr. Pennell
commented on flat wall signs for ground floor tenants, and noted the Commission had been divided on the
Banyan Center. He suggested the code go farther and clarify more because that was 2 -story and the
Commission had approved by waiver the signs for the second floor. Mr. Benothman advised the applicant
had changed their mind and had withdrawn the second floor signs before the City Council's consideration.
Mr. Hansen noted on Table 24 under flat wall signs, staff had added to the wording "shall not exceed 36" in
height" "shall not exceed two lines of copy ", and asked if that meant there could be a 72" tall sign, to which
staff responded, no, that the total could not exceed 36" in a multi -line sign. Mr. Hansen requested that be
clarified for both 36" and 24" signs.
Mr. Panczak asked if the City had internal record keeping of permitted and non - permitted signs. Mr.
Benothman responded there were records of signs permitted so far. Mr. Panczak recommended offering
grandfathering to permitted signs; if the sign had not been permitted a notice of non - compliance could be
issued and the sign would have to be taken down. Mr. Benothman indicated something similar had been
done in the past and 7 years had been given for grandfathering.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
•
•
•
•
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 27, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
weting will be