HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 081004PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
August 10, 2004
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board 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 City Council had approved
by 3 -0 vote on August 5 the amendment of uses to the PGA Corridor Overlay; by 2 -1
vote had approved changes to the alcohol license distance operation code; and had
approved 3 -0 the Borland Center rezoning and site plan.
Mr. Wu announced that Susan Bell, Public Information Coordinator, was sitting in to
record tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Solomon moved approval of the July 27, 2004 minutes as submitted. Mr. Panczak
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Susan Bell, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and Appeals
Board:
Present Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
All those present who planned to address public hearing items on tonight's agenda were
sworn in.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Petition LDR -04 -10
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 2
Ordinance 38, 2004 amending Sec. 78 -92 "Schedule of Impact Fees" and Sec. 78 -93
"Independent Calculations" of the Land Development Regulations updating the City's
impact fees for roads, parks and recreation, police, and fire rescue.
Finance Director Allan Owens provided the staff presentation. Dr. Jim Nicholas,
consultant on impact fees, answered questions.
Mr. Hansen commented this put a greater burden on developers and ultimately on
consumers and asked if there had been any consideration given to credits. Dr. Nicholas
explained the fee program was intended to be somewhat affordable housing friendly and
that low end of the market was of greatest concern. In response to whether fees could be
made exempt, Dr. Nicholas explained that should be referred to legal counsel, but he did
not recommend it; however, a large number of jurisdictions including Palm Beach
County had set aside funds to pay all or a part of the impact fees for affordable housing,
and this is what he had recommended to the City. Mr. Hansen asked why hotels and
motels were considered residential in parks and recreation. Dr. Nicholas responded that
tourists came who were not just in and out, but who used recreation facilities, but that
varied by the nature of the hotel or motel and its location Anyone could apply for
reduction by demonstrating their facility had no impact. Mr. Hansen noted because of the
breakdown of categories, impact fees could be greatly reduced by just building more
square feet. Dr. Nicholas explained that square feet per thousand were used and that
could happen if the square footage was close to the breakpoint. Mr. Wu reported
independent calculations can be done; the burden is on the applicant; however, staff could
make changes.
Mr. Present asked how this compared to other local cities. Mr. Owens reported not all
cities did this and Palm Beach Gardens was higher than other cities but the survey was
not yet completed. This should have been down two years ago. Mr. Owens explained
this was based upon the City's unique situation and not on what other cities did, and
reflected the level of service this City needed to maintain.
Mr. Solomon questioned if the occupants category was correct. Dr. Nicholas responded
census and building permit data had been used, and the numbers were county -wide.
Occupancy data would be updated within the next two years. Mr. Solomon asked what
would happen if two individuals contracted a very large house with a builder and made a
case that their number should be 2 instead of 3.49, to which Dr. Nichols responded that
had been a case before the Florida Supreme Court in which the court said the nature of
the particular occupants should not be considered and might be illegal; rather, you must
deal with the typical or average occupancy for that type of home. Mr. Solomon asked
about adult communities with one or two people living in a residence. Dr. Nicholas
explained that had also been a court case and the court had said if by deed restriction
occupancy was restricted, the local government must respect and adjust that. Mr.
Solomon hat suggested a category to recognize that possibility. Dr. Nicholas explained
that the County had done that on their road impact fees. Dr. Nichols explained credit was
a reduction in cost that would be shifted to a new user; Mr. Solomon requested a footnote
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 3
of explanation for this item. Police and fire impact fees were discussed, which were very
heavily dominated by residential. Parks were 100% residential, subject to hotels. Roads
had a different number for each land use. Mobile homes were proposed to be based on
size. Mr. Solomon asked if a way could be found so as not to provide incentive for big
box construction. Dr. Nicholas responded some communities used a flat per square foot
fee for commercial office sectors, and the small number of impact fees was not enough to
provide much incentive. The fees presented were based on the county's model. Mr.
Solomon recommended background data regarding percentages for uses be included in
the staff report.
Mr. Charming described the current system, which Dr. Nichols explained was an
improvement driven system but this was a needs driven system. Police and fire costs to
respond to a call were calculated, and roads were calculated on a per unit cost. A single
family home would have an afternoon automobile trip to it which would require a
quantity of road to accommodate the car — approximately 6 feet for every home.
Therefore, the calculation was figured on 6 feet of road.
Mr. Wu indicated these fees were collected with building permits.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Rick Orzoni, Director of Governmental
Affairs for Gold Coast Building Association, expressed concern that impact fees would
almost double on residential homes, and requested time to review the calculations and
assumptions and provide input. Concern was also expressed with the short time before
implementation, and he asked for consideration of 50% increase and the rest in 90 days.
Anne Booth expressed the same concern regarding implementation and asked for
consideration of a phased implementation process. John Chaplik, Hudson Bay Drive,
The Isles, asked if Scripps had been considered in the figures, to which the response was
that all future growth had been considered. Mr. Chaplik noted many residents were
snowbirds and asked if that had been considered. Mr. Wu explained that could change
throughout the year and it was confirmed snowbirds were subsidizing some of the cost
for full -time residents. Mr. Chaplik asked how user fees were accounted for. Mr. Wu
explained user fees were strictly operating costs while impact fees were capital costs.
Mr. Wu reported a public meeting had been held that afternoon with at least 30
representatives of the building community and staff had received very good feedback
regarding implementation and phasing. Hearing no further comments from the public,
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Solomon asked if staff was in favor of the incentive at each threshold to build more
square footage in order to reduce impact fees. Mr. Wu responded unless staff was
advised otherwise by the consultant, the report would move forward as presented. Mr.
Present was uncomfortable moving this along without analyzing phasing. Mr. Wu
commented staff would decide how to calculate that and encouraged recommendation of
approval to City Council with recommendations, and Council could give direction to staff
on first reading and it could be changed before second reading. Mr. Pennell
recommended the motion reflect this group's concerns. Mr. Wu confirmed the board was
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 4
sitting as the Land Development Regulations Committee. Mr. Hansen expressed his
concern of being uncomfortable passing this on. Mr. Wu indicated this could move
forward with a strong statement regarding phasing. Mr. Hansen asked if this was so
urgent it could not come back to this board. Mr. Wu indicated it was to be done in
August and September. Mr. Channing commented he agreed with delay in
implementation and not differentiating based on square footage for office space and he
felt very strongly about those items. Mr. Channing indicated he would like more time to
study this and expressed concern this would encourage large buildings. Chair Kunkle
commented the timing and implementation was City Council's concern.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
LDR -04 -10 but with the indication to be made known to City Council that this
Board had several concerns they wished City Council to address:
1. That there be some reasonable delay in phasing this new charge — perhaps
between 120 to 150 days from the filing of a completed application for a
building permit.
2. That City Council consider making a revision in the non - residential
component part which would do away with the incentive to have larger
buildings as opposed to smaller buildings, either by making it neutral or
having an incentive the other way if there was a rationale to support it.
3. That City Council build in from the beginning that an adult community
intended for residents 55 years of age or older which is restricted by deed
restriction or some recorded covenant that it be presumed to be two
occupants but that the City have the ability to contest that if they know it is
not true.
4. That for additional clarification when this moves on to explain how the credit
works.
Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Present
requested additional work on incentives for builders to promote affordable housing
in the 800 to 1300 size. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that might make it more
complicated and it might be better for the City to treat affordable housing in a
separate way without piggybacking it on this. Mr. Present commented the numbers
needed to be reworked so as not to be so loaded on the low end. Mr. Panczak asked
if there was any concern to shifting so much financial burden to residential so that
when the City eventually ran out of land the City was setting itself up for budgetary
shortfalls, and how other cities had addressed budget shortfalls once they were built
out. Dr. Nicholas responded that was the operating budget; this addressed the
capital budget, and available data indicated the overwhelming demands were
coming from residential and not non - residential. His job was to incorporate that
data into the calculations. If this was not done, anyone could challenge to get a
reduction, which would probably be successful. When the City's growth was over,
diversity in the tax base would be needed without over - domination in residential
development. Dr. Nicholas stated he had no choice in what he could present —he
must include the data. Mr. Channing commented it was actually cheaper to build a
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 5
larger building than smaller building per square foot and wondered if it would
make a difference to change the motion to state strongly recommended. Mr.
Present commented this affected both younger people and retirees. Dr. Nicholas
commented without considering impact fees, housing was expensive and imposing
fees made the problem worse. In Florida this was due to the demand for low taxes,
and every jurisdiction had the same problem with providing affordable housing, so
most took a fund they had set up from either general funds, shift funds, or creative
funds, which was used to pay impact fees for affordable housing, removing it as an
impediment. Sometimes it was 100 %; sometimes not, and that was the most
common thing being done in Florida and around the country. Palm Beach County
did this and it was the best way. Broward County exempted certain size units, but
that was not recommended because if challenged there was no defense. The best
way to establish a fund was from general funds but alternatives could be presented.
Mr. Pennell agreed with the premise behind this and the shift to residential, but the
four concerns expressed in the motion by Mr. Solomon was this board's way of
expressing concern regarding how this would affect everyone. Chair Kunkle asked
Mr. Wu to express this board's concerns to City Council. Motion carried by
unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Workshop:
Petition: PUD- 04 -10: Waterford Hotel PUD Agreement
A request by Marty Minor of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Savol of Florida, Inc.,
for approval of an amendment to the Waterford Hotel Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to allow for a 1,828 square foot restaurant including 733 square feet of outdoor
seating. The Waterford Hotel PUD is located on the east side of US Highway One
approximately 1/le of a mile south from PGA Boulevard, at 11360 US Highway One.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project.
Chair Kunkle suggested any comments could be changed by the traffic study and that this
project was not ready for the board to consider. Marty Minor, Urban Design Studio,
commented the parking study called for 91 spaces and the City Traffic Engineer's
comments regarding night meetings that would require spaces would not change that
number. Chair Kunkle responded his isstie was with DRC certification to say it had met
a preliminary level, then it came to the board, so this was ahead of the game. Mr.
Charming asked if there were any issues that would create a catch -22 so the applicant
could never come before the board. Mr. Wu responded if staff and the City Engineer
could not agree on the parking study, denial would be offered to the applicant and due
process by a waiver or contingency plan. Mr. Solomon commented the board had
rejected other buildings with parking problems and this applicant might consider greatly
reducing the size of the restaurant to make it work. Chair Kunkle stated he did not want
to second guess the City Engineer.
Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 6
Workshop:
Petition: PUD- 04 -14: Mirasol Walk PUD — Sun Trust Bank
A request by Nelly Williams of Wedding Architects, on behalf of PBC -Three LLC, for
approval of an amendment to the Mirasol Walk Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
allow for the construction of a 4,279 square foot bank with three drive -thru lanes. The
Mirasol Walk PUD is located at the northwest corner of the Florida Turnpike and
PGA Boulevard.
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project, and answered questions from the Board. A
waiver for additional parking was being sought to meet demand and there were cross
walks for pedestrian access.
Nelly Williams made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Wu confirmed for
Mr. Channing that a workshop was mandatory. Mr. Solomon asked if there would be an
ATM; the applicant explained there would be an ATM on an exterior wall with a night
drop next to it. Mr. Solomon requested more one -way arrows on the driving lanes. Mr.
Present commented this was what the Board had requested. Mr. Pennell clarified with
the applicant that one sign shown as being on the west was actually on the east. Mr.
Hansen supported the waivers and commented the least articulated elevation faced PGA
Boulevard and the dumpster enclosure was there. The applicant indicated it would not be
visible from the road because of the hedge, which had been confirmed by the City
Forester. Mr. Hansen clarified the handicap spaces on sheet SP -2 were correct. The
applicant explained landscaping would also screen view of the drive through.
Public Hearing:
VAR-04-05: 4342 Fuschia Circle South — Setback Variance
A request by Dorothy S. Wilson of 4342 Fuschia Circle South, for approval of a
variance from Section 78 -141, Residential Zoning District Regulations, to allow for a
screen enclosure to encroach 3 feet into the rear yard setback and 9 feet 6 inches into
the side yard setback. This property is located at the southwest corner of Honeysuckle
Avenue and Fuschia Circle South.
There was no ex -parte communication. Planner Brad Wiseman presented the variance
request. Five letters and a petition with approximately 60 signatures, including the
adjacent neighbor, had been received, with all supporting the variance.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public,
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to approve VAR- 04 -05. Mr. Panczak seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 7
Petition PUD -04 -16 & PUD- 04 -17: PGA Commons Planned Unit Development
Parcels 2 & 3
A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for Joel Channing, Trustee of the PGA
Commons Land Trust, for an amendment to two previously approved Mixed Use
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) to allow for modifications to the square footages of
the approved uses for the project. The projects were approved through the adoption of
Ordinance 8, 1999 and Ordinance 9, 1999 on February]], 1999. The subject sites are
located on the south side of PGA Boulevard, east and west of Hickory Drive.
There was no ex -parte communication. Mr. Wu announced that Mr. Channing had
stepped down due to conflict of interest. Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project.
Mr. Hansen asked for clarification of the condition not to increase medical office space
but 6,000+ square feet was being added on parcel 2 and it was only being decreased by
360 square feet on parcel 3. Mr. Wiseman clarified that restaurant, which created higher
parking and traffic demand, was being decreased, and that after this change staff would
not have power to decrease medical use without City Council approval.
Marty Minor, Urban Design Studio, made a presentation on behalf of the applicant and
stated this change would lessen daily trips by 71, and the number of buildings had been
reduced. Mr. Minor clarified for Mr. Solomon that a 2 -story building was being changed
to a 3 -story building. Eight residential units were being omitted on parcel 2, but other
vertical integration was provided on parcel 3. Mr. Solomon observed that other projects
had been approved that had no vertical integration. Chair Kunkle expressed hope this
project would be successful.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public,
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
PUD- 04 -16. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0
vote.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
PUD -04 -17 with staff recommendation. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Solomon commented when dealing with a screen enclosure request it would be good
to have a sketch of the size and height, whether it was right off the patio, and the color.
Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that the possibility of West Nile virus or mosquitos
should not be opened up as a justification for obtaining a variance.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 8
NEW BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the meeting.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2004
Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
will be held August 24, 2004.
APPROVED:
was adjourned. The next regular meeting
8110)df
p,6 d
�,d
C7 79f If,?
�r
A,g 111,211
Uri u.1J
MY14
Mad,
.1 ri'm
9�J 14qo
Cie
1100
011AI Cs� P40
i6Oo2- LO
7
61-
f 7
VIkA
e-r,4 l C-
Vm 0
e /M40'" • 41&4f
Cr.&M)( -4,let*-S
rKk6J,
-one rrc
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL_ PUBLIC OFFICERS
1 \SI NA \II IIRNI ♦% \II \(11)IHI NAME %AMEO#- HOARD.(' OI IN( If. (' OMMISSIO \,AUIIIORIIY.ORCOM Mill LE 1
TO CrL C H a dl 0 o A; -eA U
\I • \II IN(. %0DRI SS I Ht )ART). COUNCIL. 'OMMISSION. Atll HORITN OR COMMITTEE ON
WATCH 1 SERVE IS A 11N11 OF
O Cny O COUNTY O 01 HER I.00AL AGENCY
Cl IN COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAI. SUBDIVISION:
HATE 0% WHICH %'OfF O('CVRRFb
i MY POSITION IS:
O ELECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county. city, or other local level of g. C/Nt_ _ La, r)s
ee.
council. commission. authority, or committ It applies equally to members of advisor
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3113. Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a ct M
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay ch g { t U o p t Z •
before : ompleting .he re\erse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.31-d
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective :aunty, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABST
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly votif
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case. you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly hating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence *the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSIQN AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the-measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTERESTS"
hereby disclose that on P,-AC,
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
Q�H
C�rnrn��S eLanVa
gL
by whom I am retained.
tZI
Date Filed Signature; /
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §x,2'.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55,000.
CE FORM 88 - 1AI PAGE 2