Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 051104• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 11, 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 There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Present Hansen requested a change to the April 27, 2004 minutes under Petition SP- 04 -01, 5' paragraph, I" line, to add the word "islands" between "four" and "with "; and a change under Petition LDR- 03-07, 3`d paragraph, line 1, to change 10" to 10'. Mr. Present moved approval of the April 27, 2004 minutes as amended with the requested changes. 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 Land Development Regulations Commission: • Present Absent Chairman Craig Kunkle Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Charming Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Michael Panczak Also in attendance were Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Michael Sanchez, Planner Jackie Holloman, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Engineer Dan Clark.. All those intending to speak at tonight's quasi-judicial hearing were sworn in. Ex -parte communication: Mr. Charming reported Mr. Rubin had called him. Mr. Solomon, Mr. Kunkle, and Mr. Present each reported they had had a telephone conversation with Mr. Rubin regarding the first item on the agenda. Mr. Pennell, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Panczak each reported no ex -parte communication. Public Hearing- and Recommendation to City Council. (P &Z) Petition PID- 04 -06: Villa--e Sauare Professional Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) Mr. Leonard G. Rubin of Boose, Casey, Ciklin et al, agent for Koloa Partners Limited, is requesting a PUD amendment to Village Square Professional Park PUD Phase H to allow a 1,810 square foot pathology laboratory in Building 600 located at the southwest corner of RCA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Road. • Planner Jackie Holloman presented the staff report, which recommended denial. Leonard Rubin spoke on behalf of the applicant, indicating proposed use of part of the second floor for a pathology lab was not a lab Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • as defined by City code since the sole function to be performed would be preparing slides of skin biopsies. The applicant's position was this was not a prohibited use and disagreed with staff that the PUD process was not the proper process. Mr. Rubin explained that it was acceptable to vary from the underlying zoning designation, that he believed this was a great use for the PUD since demand was minimal, turnaround time would be less, and accuracy would be greater, and this would take trips off the roadway. Mr. Rubin indicated this was just a technical issue and that the applicant would agree to conditions that would address whatever staff was concerned about in setting a precedent, and that this was a great use that took trips off the roadway. Carol Diaz, Lab Operations Manager, was also present to answer questions. Mr. Rubin testified that this started because the federal laws governing Medicare referrals changed, and to conduct their own pathology work it had to be done under the direct control of the medical practice and located in the same physical facility. This use would cut down on turnaround time to have slides read on -site, and increase accuracy, which was the benefit for the PUD. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Michael Grant asked if lab biopsies would only be from Dr. Schiff s office or also from other offices around the county. Carol Diaz responded that this practice had six offices, with the main office in Palm Beach Gardens, and a courier would bring biopsies from Mr. Schiff s other offices to this location for slides. The courier would make two trips per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Chair Kunkle noted to staff that they might need to look at provisions for a specialty lab niche in the code. Mr., Panczak asked how much additional biohazard waste would be generated, to which Ms. Diaz responded they would have one 5- gallon box once every two months. Mr. Hansen asked if this use was anticipated when this project was approved, which Mr. Rubin indicated he did not believe so; that a certain amount of medical uses were anticipated but this could not be • considered a medical office use because trips would not be added. Mr. Hansen commented it indicated in the justification that if this work was going to be performed it had to be in that facility, but the applicant had indicated they would bring in slides from other locations. Mr. Rubin responded that meant as long as a medical office was in the same building as the lab. Ms. Diaz confirmed that no other offices could use the lab. The applicant indicated that 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., were peak hours of operation, as well as one or two hours during the afternoon, and there would be only one or two technicians that would come in, so parking spaces would not be tied up. Mr. Benothman explained staff s concern about setting a precedent was that the applicant was using a provision in the code to undermine permitted uses; that it was either a medical lab or not, and if not, it was an extension of a medical use. The applicant had requested a pathology lab, which was not allowed, and use variances were not allowed. Mr. Benothman indicated the code could be amended or the PUD could be amended by converting the use to medical office, but the applicant did not want to exceed the trips currently allowed. Mr. Rubin responded this was something not contemplated by the code and use waivers from PUD's were allowed. City Attorney Tatum disagreed with Mr. Rubin, advising that the PUD ordinance limits uses. Mr. Benothman stated use variances were prohibited by code, they were only allowed in single family residential property. Chair Kunkle commented to Mr. Benothman that he was saying the Commission was handcuffed tonight. Mr. Benothman responded the Commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Pennell asked where the lab work was done currently. Mr. Rubin explained there was a temporary off - site location pending this application. Ms. Diaz explained that they were allowed a brief period of time for a temporary location under the law until this application was processed. Ms. Diaz commented there were only three employees and all they did was process biopsies to make slides. Mr. Pennell asked if the practice could function as it did now if this application was denied, to which Ms. Diaz responded it would be very iffy. Mr. Present asked the locations of the other offices and confirmed there were no pathologists on site at • those other offices; questioned the benefit if the biopsies had to be sent by courier and asked if the other offices would have to wait for the return. Ms. Diaz explained it now took ten days to get biopsy results and with an on -site lab results would be available the next day, which would allow critical treatment to start so Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • much earlier. Ms. Diaz confirmed there was no room for a lab at any of the other office locations, and that a few other dermatologists had on -site labs but most sent biopsies to large labs. Ms. Diaz indicated that the new rules were only effective last year and if a practice had been doing this previously they were grandfathered. Mr. Solomon commented that he was very persuaded by Mr. Rubin's argument, that this was a unique situation and to call it an extension of the medical practice really did not describe what was going on here. Mr. Solomon commented it was not reasonable that the applicant should be forced into another method of trying to do the same thing which could force them into problems. Mr. Solomon stated this seemed to be a reasonable request for a reasonable use and there were times when people serving the government had to be reasonable and have a broader view; that there were many things not contemplated when the code was drafted. Mr. Solomon pointed out this would increase the standard of care, and no neighbors had come forward to say it would bother them, and he saw no problem granting approval. Mr. Channing commented this did not have industrial characteristics and was not inconsistent with the use of medical office next door. Under a literal interpretation of the doctor's rights it would have to go into industrial, which seemed unreasonable, and overnight turnaround would be very nice. Mr. Charming indicated he was perplexed that it was proposed for the PGA Corridor Overlay that labs be allowed as a major conditional use, and he did not see the distinction. Mr. Benothman explained that the code did not allow it now but staff would support an amendment to the code. Chair Kunkle agreed with Mr. Charming and Mr. Solomon that this was not an unreasonable use. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that this should begin discussions about how the City should deal with specialty facilities because the Commission would see more of this. Concern was expressed that this applicant might expand in the future and a suggestion was made to limit future use and state what limited use would remain. Mr. Rubin advised Dr. Schiff had no intention of expanding and would agree to conditions of approval. • MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition PUD -04 -06 with conditions, the details of which could be worked out between the applicant and staff between this time and when the petition went before City Council, but the conditions would generally include that (1) upon any abandonment of this use of slide preparation the use shall revert to general office use; (2) there be a reasonable limit on the number of employees using that space, and (3) work and slides to be prepared in the space be limited to the use of physicians downstairs, and the affiliate practices. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Hansen asked if this were a lab function as part of the dermatology business if the Commission would be discussing it, to which Ms. Holloman responded this building was only allowed 5,200 square feet as medical office use, and if a lab was included as part of their practice that would increase the medical office use, which was not allowed. Mr. Present expressed concern about limiting the number of employees and instead suggested it be limited to the applicant's practice with no subcontract work from other dermatologists. Mr. Solomon indicated he thought staff could work out how many employees, whether it be number of people or just general terms. Mr. Channing asked what was to prevent this lab from serving 20 offices. Ms. Diaz stated there were no expansion plans at this time, but restricting the language would limit the doctor's practice. Mr. Channing commented he would not vote the same way if there were 20 more offices. Ms. Diaz indicated there might be one or two more, she could not say. Chair Kunkle asked staff to work on that, stating they had heard the Commission's concerns. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (LDR0 Petition: LDR- 04 -04: LDR Text Amendment — PGA Overlay Uses A City- initiated request to amend Section 78- 221(d)(1)b. of the City's Land Development Regulations • (LDR's), entitled Permitted and prohibited uses, in order to clarify the existing language relating to permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the PGA Boulevard Overlay. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the request. Staff reported a letter had been received that afternoon from H. R. Gonzalez stating they received the draft ordinance that afternoon and requesting this be tabled. Staff confirmed the normal public hearing and noticing procedures had been followed per code but drafts were not available early, probably by Thursday or Friday of last week. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Attorney Michael Morrell indicated his clients included four associations and 13 individuals who opposed this Commission's recommendation to City Council on the Borland Center project. Mr. Morrell stated they would have no objection to tabling this matter for discussion as recommended by Mr. Gonzalez, provided they be allowed to come back and address the matter also. Mr. Morrell advised they objected to the inclusion as a permitted use of 500 -seat capacity theaters. Mr. Morrell commented that this Commission had recommended to the City Council on February 24 that waivers be granted to allow a 500 -seat church, which was a use not authorized by the overlay regulation; commented that procedure had not been followed on February 24, and requested the Commission ask that the Borland Center application come back to them and that the code be permitted to allow the Commission to issue a waiver allowing a permitted use currently not permitted in the PGA Overlay. Mr. Morrell requested that be voted on tonight and advised that his clients would have no problem delaying this matter to come back for discussion also. Vito DeFrancesco, 1049 Shady Lakes Circle, asked how the Commission could approve the lab use and strongly felt it could not be allowed in the PGA Overlay. Brian Cheguis of Cotleur and Hearing spoke on behalf of Mr. Gonzales that he would like to withdraw the letter submitted that day and they had no problem with this matter proceeding. Attorney John Gary, representing The Sembler Company, requested action be taken tonight on this matter. Mr. Gary indicated his client's interest was in Legacy Place, and they did not want to get involved in the Borland Center matter, and there was time for that to be discussed before first and second readings at City • Council level. Mr. Gary expressed his opinion staff had done a good job of clarifying and identifying the uses permitted within the PGA Overlay. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Channing asked if it was coincidence that the size of the theater was 500 seats, to which Mr. Benothman responded that staff wanted to be consistent, and could not have a project proposing a 500 -seat theater and at the same time amend the overlay in which that parcel is located and prohibit it. Mr. Charming stated he assumed it was not the intent to take away rights from existing ordinances that had been granted to other projects, and asked that be added. Mr. Sanchez noted that would be addressed prior to City Council. Mr. Charming stated he was not trying to be humorous in his comment about the 500 -seat theater and wished the Chair would ask the audience to behave with decorum. Mr. Solomon commended staff for their work on this amendment. Mr. Solomon suggested art gallery might be expanded to include art studio; and photography sales might be expanded to include repair. Mr. Solomon commented he did not know what studio theater was or if it was one or two uses, to which Mr. Sanchez responded it was meant as two separate uses, studio professional and instructional. Mr. Solomon questioned not permitting a drive -thru for a drug store, which seemed to be the trend in drug stores. Mr. Sanchez indicated staff would be happy to provide more pleasing aesthetic views, and the City had limited drive thrus on other roads such as Northlake Boulevard. Mr. Solomon stated he understood that, but there could be a drive -thru in the back or on a side hidden by landscaping where it would not be seen. Mr. Solomon commented he understood not allowing drive -thrus at restaurants, but some restaurants had substantial takeout and allotted a couple of parking spaces to pull up to get pre- ordered food. Mr. Present asked the rationale for 40,000 s.f. down from 50,000 s.f. on single entity retail. Mr. Sanchez responded staff wanted to further limit big box retail. Mr. Present applauded staff, commenting this was a • good job and as things changed there needed to be a living document. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • Mr. Pennell commented he thought this was important because it clarified and it did not hurt anything done in the past. Mr. Pennell asked if a night club or bar would be permitted under the restaurant category. Mr. Sanchez responded that was a separate use in the permitted use table and were allowed only as a conditional use in CG and CG2. Mr. Hansen asked about a multiplex theater with four 250 -seat theaters, if that would no longer be allowed. Mr. Sanchez responded the 500 seats would be a combination of seats in a specific theater. Mr. Hansen asked how many seats were in the theater at Downtown at the Gardens, to which Mr. Sanchez responded the Gardens Mall and Downtown at the Gardens were not in the PGA Overlay. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition LDR- 04 -04. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon asked what about the comments made for consideration and possible inclusion, plus the City Attorney wanted to change paragraph number 4. It was agreed that would be included in the final text to City Council. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition SP- 03 -22: LeQacv Place PCD Site Plan Amendment (Commercial Portion) A request by Ms. Dodi Glas of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of The Sembler Company and PGA Gateway Ltd., for approval of a site plan amendment for the commercial portion (Parcels A, B, and C) of the Legacy Place Planned Community Development (PCD). Proposed is a mixed -use development consisting of 399,000 square feet of commercial space, 69,000 square feet of office space, and 6,000 square feet of outdoor restaurant seating space on an approximately 48.4 -acre site generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. • Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the staff report and confirmed for Mr. Pennell that outdoor restaurant seating was considered part of the square footage of the restaurant so long as they were serving food outside. Mr. Panczak asked if the applicant still intended to dedicate a portion of the Art in Public Places to the memory of Hank Skokowski, to which the response was they planned to dedicate at least one location to his memory. Chair Kunkle asked what the number of signs on a specific face would be, to which staff responded only one sign would be allowed on the face of each retail unit. Only corners 4, 6, 7 and 10 would be allowed two signs, with one on the side and one on the front, and the buildings would be single user buildings. Dodi Glas indicated the applicant would like direction about the sidewalk issue. Ms. Glas pointed out the changes made to the railing and wall along the lake, reported 9' parking spaces had been eliminated, and the only remaining major issue was the sidewalk locations. Ms. Glas reviewed the pedestrian links as proposed, commented that the applicant would add sidewalks on both sides in two locations, and that the applicant did not want sidewalks on both sides by retail buildings 7 through 10, or at the Alternate A 1 A entrance area. Mr. Channing indicated he was very pleased to see this project go through and following the PGA Corridor Overlay. Mr. Present commented if a 4`h floor were added to the parking garage, would that mean the second floor would be re- striped to 9 -1/2' spaces. Ms. Glas indicated the applicant would like 9' spaces in above the grade parking in the garage. Mr. Present commented he would not want the second floor, if it became for patrons use, for them to have to squeeze into 9' spaces if the intent was to move it up. Ms. Glas commented it was the intent on grade 2, because there was a preference by some for 10' spaces, to limit those areas where they had smaller spaces and maintain 10' spaces in primary parking areas. Mr. Present asked if the applicant had met with Palm Tran and School District planning. Ms. Glas confirmed they had met regarding the location and the easement area had been identified on the site plan. Mr. Present • expressed thanks for the package from Sembler, which reflected quality work. Mr. Present asked what would happen if some retailers who had the option to use national signage later left. Ms. Glas responded if Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • they were not national companies they must go back to what was identified by the sign code. Ms. Glas confirmed that the lettering sizes were consistent with code. Mr. Pennell asked if the landscape waiver was still being requested on the parking garage. Ms. Glas indicated that was still being requested, and expressed concern about trees and planters, and suggested their might be alternatives, such as planting ornamental trees on top of the garage, which would not address the code provision, but could be a compromise between some of the code provisions and the developer's concerns. Mr. Pennell commented he thought the Commission was looking to be consistent with landscaping used for parking structures in other projects. Ms. Glas commented there seemed to be perpetual problems with planters, but the applicant was taking this matter seriously, understanding that the City was interested in consistency. Mr. Hansen commented he was not in favor of any size parking spaces in the parking garage except 10' spaces. Ms. Glas explained that the rear of buildings along AlA and the rear of the parking garage were planted with extensive landscaping. Staggered plantings were used which could provide clear zones and angled entries, but viewed straight on the landscaping appeared thick and layered. At four stories the tower features would slightly project above the parking structure and the actual garage structure would be slightly below the roof area. Mr. Hansen concurred with staff on the waiver requests other than the sidewalk, and he agreed with the wider sidewalk at the Alternate AlA entrance. Mr. Hansen commented on the architecture that it was very good, but he still felt strongly that the elevations pointed out in the staff report needed to be further enhanced. Mr. Panczak commended the applicant for their efforts and asked staff's position on the sidewalk issue, to which Mr. Benothman responded that would be looked at before presentation to City Council. Mr. Solomon commented there had been a great deal of improvement, and asked about the exterior materials and colors. The applicant provided a materials and colors board. Alberto Ciko, who designed the • elevations, reviewed the color palette and the different materials that would be used throughout the center. Subtle colors with vibrancy and light had been chosen. Mr. Ciko commented there were a lot of pitched roofs, and towers, as well as flat roofs, and every effort had been made to conceal rooftop equipment located on the flat roofs. Mr. Solomon commented there was a lot of emphasis on awnings but there were some large areas that could use some embellishment —half the building was covered by awnings and the other half was plain. Mr. Ciko indicated the applicant recognized this and was already in the process of working on those areas. Mr. Solomon commented the parking garage looked a little weak and small compared to others, and asked if anything could be done with the towers. Mr. Ciko commented the towers housed stairways and they had tile roofs. Mr. Solomon suggested possibly enhancing the upper portions of the towers. Mr. Solomon commented regarding the waivers that he agreed with staff on denial of waivers 1, 2, and 9 but had been persuaded by Ms. Glas on the sidewalk issue. Mr. Solomon commented he had not seen any littoral plantings. Ms. Glas commented the lakes had natural areas and pointed out that the arrowhead lake had a soft natural side and a hardscaped side. Chair Kunkle expressed thanks for rescuing this project from what was originally presented. MOTION: Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -03 -22 with requested waivers and conditions as set forth by staff with the following exceptions: that the one entitled sidewalks, requiring sidewalk on both sides of the street in the one location as presented by the applicant along the entrance from Alternate AlA be on one side of the street and 12 feet wide as presented by the applicant, and that no parking spaces be less than 9 -1/2 feet wide anywhere in the project. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. Mr. Solomon asked where, if it was to be done, to fit into the motion some of the comments made and that the applicant was still looking at the elevations to fit in enhancements, etc. Mr. Hansen responded he believed that was part of the staffs comments, that that was a requirement, a condition of approval. Mr. Sanchez concurred, with the exception of the • parking garage, advising that there were no conditions of approval addressing the elevations of the parking garage. Chair Kunkle stated, let the record of tonight's meeting reflect that and that that be included. Mr. Channing asked staff how wide the parking spaces were in the parking garage Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • approved for Downtown at the Gardens. Mr. Benothman responded he believed they were 9 -1/2 feet. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Pennell asked if the parking spaces and landscape islands that were conditions of approval for the 600 building had been done. Mr. Benothman advised those would have been done under the old plan, otherwise no C.O. would have been issued. NEW BUSINESS Chair Kunkle commented the Commission had been presented with a request as they walked in the door to tonight's meeting, and had not had time to study it, so asked Mr. Benothman to agenda this for the next meeting. Michael Morrell commented as the filer of the request he wanted to make a quick notation for the record, that the request was a quasi-judicial request, and since Chairman Craig Kunkle did not make the disclosure of ex -parte communication he was going to make it. Mr. Morrell stated he spoke to Chairman Kunkle about this matter before the hearing and told him why he felt it was important this matter be considered by the Board before the May 20 hearing. He took it under advisement and he came down during the break and paid Mr. Morrell the courtesy of telling him that he had been advised by Counsel that they had not had enough time to look at the matter. Mr. Morrell reported he had told Chairman Kunkle that they had no procedures that required him to submit that request so many days in advance of this hearing, and since he only learned about the matter this morning he felt it was timely presented. Mr. Morrell stated he objected to the fact that the attorney advising the City Council was also the attorney who advised Mr. Kunkle, as he had represented in his conversation with Mr. Morrell. Mr. Morrell stated he had made that ex -parte communication disclosure for Mr. Kunkle and thanked him for the courtesy. • Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held May 25, 2004. //' APPROVED: Douglas Pennell etty Laur, Gecretary for the Meeting •