HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102604PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
October 26, 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 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.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and Appeals
Board:,
Present
Absent
Barry Present Craig Kunkle
Randolph Hansen
Charles Hereford
Michael Panczak
Douglas Pennell
Barry Present
Dennis Solomon
Jay H. Bramson (15` alternate)
Jonathan D. Rubins (2nd alternate)
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
Charles Wu, Growth Management Administrator, reported two updates since the last
meeting. The Target project in the City of Palm Beach Gardens and the Town of Lake
Park at the southeast corner of Northlake Boulevard and Congress Avenue, had been
approved by the City Council on October 21, 2004. The Seacoast Utility new tower,
tank, booster pump, and signage had also been approved by the City Council on October
21, 2004
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Panczak made a motion to approve the minutes for August 24, 2004 as submitted.
Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Mr. Hereford made a motion to approve the minutes for October 12, 2004. Mr. Hansen
seconded the motion but questioned that there was no motion shown on page 5 for the
Bascom Palmer amendment petition. The Recording Secretary indicated she would
research the recording of the meeting for that motion. It was noted this petition had been
a workshop item; however, during the meeting the board had agreed to elevate it to a
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 2
recommendation to City Council. Attorney for the city, Nancy S , advised the
correction could be made tonight and the minutes approved as corrected. Mr. Hansen
was asked to state the desired correction; Mr. Hansen stated the correction was the Board
had voted to move the Bascom Palmer amendment forward as a recommendation to City
Council. The vote carried 7 -0. Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as
corrected. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
SWEARING IN OF ALL PARTIES
All those intending to speak to any of the cases on tonight's agenda were sworn in.
EX -PARTE COMMUNICATION
The following ex -parte communication was disclosed: Mr. Panczak disclosed that he had
met with the representative of Christ Fellowship Church on agenda item 3 that afternoon.
Mr. Solomon disclosed that he had met with Doug Rhudy on October 8 and had had a
telephone conversation regarding Legacy Place with someone the previous day. Mr.
Pennell reported he had spoken on item 1 to Len Rubin today, and on agenda item 3 on
October 12 had spoken with Don Hearing and Doug Rhudy. Mr. Hansen disclosed he
had spoken to Len Rubin yesterday and met with Mr. Rhudy and Don Hearing a week
ago. Mr. Present reported he spoke with Len Rubin today on Legacy, and over a month
ago before the election he met with the pastor and Don Hearing on Christ Fellowship.
APPEAL- 04 -01:
Appeal of Administrative Determination — Michaels Retail Store — Lezacy Place PCD
A request by Ms. Dodi Glas of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of The Sembler
Company, for an appeal to an administrative determination by the City's Planning and
Zoning Division, wherein it was determined that `Michaels' retail store is not a use
permitted within the PGA Boulevard Corridor Overlay.
Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the staff report. Mr. Hereford asked the size
of the buildings, which Mr. Sanchez responded 30,000 — 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hansen
asked if there was anything in the LDR's about a specialty department store, to which
Mr. Sanchez responded there was no definition. Mr. Pennell commented Loehmann's
was listed as a tenant and asked if it was defined as a department store. Mr. Sanchez
explained that it was considered a department store in staff's response letter to the
applicant, and this store would be located in the south portion of the site. Mr. Wu read
from the code regarding specialty retail. Mr. Sanchez commented it was staff's opinion
they should not determine how arts and crafts stores are an appropriate use within the
overlay; and clarified for Mr. Panczak that the item was here because it was the
applicant's opinion the proposed tenant was consistent with the permitted uses within the
overlay.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 3
Attorney Len Rubin, Boose, Casey, Ciklen, representing the applicant, introduced the
Director for Real Estate Sales for Michaels, Wendy Frost, and explained the types of
items sold in Michaels stores. Dodi Glas explained Sembler was the owner of the
property. Ms. Frost provided a presentation and presented examples of items sold in the
Michaels stores, and indicated the applicant's position was that they were consistent with
uses permitted in the overlay and were a specialty department store. Mr. Rubin provided
a summary which indicated Michaels was a specialty retail store and should be located in
the overlay. Mr. Panczak asked if Michaels was under arts and crafts in the yellow
pages, to which Ms. Frost responded they were clearly arts and crafts as noted in their
name, but the crafts they sold were associated with their primary uses of floral and
framing. Ms. Frost explained their promotional items, loss leaders, were featured in their
flyer to get people into the store. Mr. Wu commented their stores consisted of aisles and
aisles of items to put together and that is why staff categorized them as a crafts store.
Mr. Solomon commented this situation was hung up on semantics rather than reality and
the uses needed to be revisited, and any prohibition should be made very clear. Mr.
Solomon indicated his willingness to classify Michaels as a specialty department store or
specialty retail in order to approve this item.
Mr. Pennell commented he appreciated staff's position, but felt this store rose above the
others described, and asked if the signage would only be "Michaels ", to which Ms. Frost
agreed as a condition of approval.
Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Pennell the signage should be limited to "Michaels ". Mr.
Hansen felt it fell into specialty use category.
Mr. Hereford asked the time frame it would take to amend Ordinance 18, to which Mr.
Wu responded the board had the option to determine this use consistent with Ordinance
18. It would take 2 -3 months to amend an ordinance.
Mr. Bramson indicated he was constrained from asking questions since he was a friend of
the developer landlord from St. Petersburg.
Mr. Rubins indicated he did not believe it was a true comparison to compare Michaels to
the Rag Shop or JoAnn Fabrics, and other tenants shown in centers with Michaels stores
probably would not want to be in a center with a Rag Shop or JoAnn's. Mr. Rubins
agreed signage should be limited to "Michaels ".
Vice Chair Present commented the mix put together by the developer must be respected;
the board had learned about Michaels, the applicant had learned about the City.
Mr. Rubin commented this was a very important location to Michaels, and they believed
they were consistent.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Bramson commented Shell Oil Company started out as a gift shop about a hundred
years ago on the coast of England and put in a tank of gas so motorists could get back to
London, which was how their business had evolved.
There were no further comments.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion that this Board find in the matter of APPEAL -04 -01
that the use is consistent with specialty retail use in the PGA Boulevard Overlay,
and allow that use to move forward and be a part of Legacy Place with the condition
that all signage on the building be limited to "Michaels ". Mr. Pennell seconded the
motion. Mr. Bramson indicated he could not vote; the Attorney advised him unless
he had a financial benefit he must vote. The motion carried by 5 -2 vote, with Mr.
Panczak and Mr. Hereford opposed.
Workshop:
Petition: PUD- 04 -08: Southampton PUD (Parcel 31.02)
A request by Troy Holloway of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney, & Associates, Inc., on
behalf of Palm Beach Gardens Limited Partnership, for a rezoning from Planned
Development Area (DA) to Residential Low Density — 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Overlay6 to construct 245 three -story townhouse units on an
approximately 38.5 -acre site, at a density of 6.36 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Southampton PUD is located at the northeast corner of Central Boulevard and PGA
Boulevard.
Senior Planner Brad Wiseman the project. Attorney Ellie Halgren was present on behalf
of the applicant. Troy Holloway, Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, provided
a presentation on behalf of the applicant.
Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Greg Zele, 122 Bent Tree Drive,
commented an overriding issue for every resident of Bent Tree was that 3 -story homes
were completely incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Zele distributed a
handout of almost 150 signatures on a petition. The proposed height was 42' and nobody
wanted three stories. Tom Sosey, 149 Bent Tree, submitted his written comments into
the record and read them aloud. Mr. Sosey was opposed to the 3 -story homes along the
property border and requested a security wall be required, and that the applicant negotiate
with Bent Tree. Fran Heaslip, Bent Tree, also was opposed to the 3 -story homes, and no
security along the canal. Ms. Heaslip expressed concern about the re- created preserve
area that had been eliminated and expressed hope the rentals would not allow businesses
to be on the ground floor as had been done in Abacoa. Jose L. Proenza, 124 Bent Tree,
expressed his opinion a wall was needed and the same regulations should be used as
when Bent Tree and Shady Lakes were built.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Hansen expressed concern regarding perimeter locations of 3 -story homes including
PGA Boulevard, Gardens of Woodbury, and Bent Tree;and that there was no variation as
to mass and height on the 3 -story buildings which in his opinion were too much for this
development. Mr. Hansen had no problem with 3 -story buildings located along Central
Boulevard. Mr. Hansen expressed safety concerns and suggested a right -turn egress.
Attorney Halgren explained the applicant met with staff and discussed making the egress
a right turn only or emergency only. Mr. Hansen commented the egress would not work
with the existing curb cut and it must either be closed off or moved to where no one could
attempt a4& turn at that point. The 3 -4 steps into the townhouses were acceptable to
Mr. Hansen. Lighting must be provided; the guest parking around the lake would not
work; and parking spaces must be at least 9 feet wide. Mr. Hansen agreed with the
pathway, had no problem with number 8, and requested installation of accordion
hurricane shutters not be allowed. Mr. Hansen requested the type of hurricane shutters
that had to be put up and taken down, or suggested using impact glass. Mr. Hansen
agreed the floor plans must match the elevations, received clarification for the garbage
pickup locations, and agreed with the architectural comment for a roof overhang over the
bay windows.
Mr. Pennell commented he did not see any elevations of how this would look from PGA
Boulevard and it was very important that the precedence set with Old Palm be continued.
Mr. Pennell agreed with the suggestion to only have 2 -story units along the perimeters of
Bent Tree, Gardens of Woodbury, and PGA Boulevard, and agreed with Mr. Hansen's
other comments. Mr. Pennell stated he agreed guest parking was too far from many
units, and he liked the bay window roof suggestion.
Mr. Bramson indicated he had thought the 36' height was etched in stone; other than that
he agreed with staff's twelve items. Mr. Bramson commented he was against the 42.3 ft.
height.
Mr. Panczak agreed with Mr. Hansen's comments and felt there should be a wall.
Mr. Hereford agreed with Mr. Hansen and the residents. Mr. Hereford asked what was
expected from the environmental assessment impact study, to which Mr. Wiseman
responded there were minor comments from the City's environmental consultant, which
would be addressed by the applicant.
Mr. Solomon asked if the applicant was willing to provide a privacy wall. Attorney
Halgren explained that a wall would have to be on the south side of the existing canal
along the Bent Tree side and there were currently no plans for a wall. Mr. Solomon
stated agreement with Mr. Hansen's comments and requested the site plan be looked at
with respect to guest parking. Ms. Halgren commented there was no requirement to build
in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, but Mr. Solomon indicated that
should be considered. A ramp might be needed as well as steps. Mr. Solomon indicated
he did not like the architecture —it did not have much character and nothing to break up
the roof lines. He did not like the architectural element that extended above the rood line.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 6
The bay window hardly showed up, and the shutters were ugly. The balcony railing was
plain and could be curved to add character. Downspouts on the recreation building
should be internal. The colors should be toned down. Mr. Solomon commented he
would like something more exciting and imaginative along PGA Boulevard, and there
should be 2 -story buildings around at least three sides. Mr. Wu encouraged the applicant
to consider downspouts now, and commented it was troubling to staff as to how to
address downspouts from now on. Mr. Present commented it worked better to design
them from within.
Mr. Rubins commented he was a Bent Tree resident and had signed on page 4 of the
petition. He was concerned about traffic on PGA Boulevard, and thought a quality traffic
wall was crucial, and he was very concerned about the parking spaces.
Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, advised that the requested waiver for 55' of preserve
along PGA Boulevard would be eliminated as a waiver and treated as native buffer rather
than a preserve. Mr. Present commented he would rather see 3 -story buildings in the
middle transitioning down to 2 -story buildings along the perimeters. Since he was not
familiar with the developer, Mr. Present requested at the next meeting the applicant bring
some material or other elevations they had done. Mr. Present asked how 48 parking
spaces around the lake could be monitored, since an owner could park a second or third
car there and leave it for weeks. Signage should be similar to that of Bent Tree. Mr.
Present asked the reason for the extra parking around the lake, to which Attorney Halgren
responded it was for functions at the clubhouse and guest parking.
Mr. Bramson commented he was quite familiar with Abacoa where many people parked
in front of their homes and ignored their garages, and he thought the extra parking was
desperately needed.
Mr. Present commented the new project should upgrade from other neighborhoods along
PGA Boulevard. Attorney Halgren commented on the concern of the height of buildings,
and the applicant had met with the HOA board and addressed their concerns except for
the 3 -story buildings. Ms. Halgren explained how the buildings would be screened by
vegetation and distance from the adjacent developments. The wall would be considered,
but could not be on the outer perimeter because of Seacoast Utility easements. The
applicant met the 35' limit with buildings at ground level, and steps would add to the
height. The applicant was willing to consider wider parking spaces. Mr. Gentile
commented regarding guest parking spaces there were only 42 or 43 that were single
garage units and the high percentage of 2 -car garages would provide adequate parking.
Mr. Solomon commented an applicant could receive approval of this board but that did
not mean that City Council would also approve.
Mr. Wiseman clarified the single garage units would only have two spaces on site, and
some of the units were under the one space per bedroom.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 7
Presentation to Joel Channing
Former member of the Board Joel Channing was honored for his many years of service
on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Board. A plaque was presented to Mr. Channing
for upholding high standards.
Workshop:
PUD- 03 -01: Christ Fellowship North Campus PUD Expansion
A request by Mr. Doug Rhudy, of Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship, Inc., for
approval of an amendment to the Christ Fellowship North Campus Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow the incorporation of the 20 acres of land lying
immediately east of the existing North Campus into the PUD and to allow the
development of an approximately 159,180- square foot expansion to the North Campus.
The existing 20 -acre North Campus is generally located on the north side of Northlake
Boulevard approximately one (1) mile west of Military Trail.
Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the project. Don Hearing presented the
project on behalf of the applicant, and introduced others present for this project. Mr.
Hearing provided a project history and reviewed the proposed expansion planned in two
phases.
Mr. Panczak reported he had met with the applicant that day and his questions had been
answered.
Mr. Solomon commented the existing campus on the north was part of a PUD and asked
if the new area would be a PUD, to which staff responded it would be part of the existing
PUD. Staff confirmed there were no drainage problems on site and additional buildings
would not degrade the level of service on Northlake Boulevard.
Mr. Bramson questioned the roof material, which was metal.
Mr. Hereford indicated no objections as long as outstanding issues were taken care of.
Mr. Pennell had no additional recommendations.
Mr. Hansen reported he met with the applicant. Mr. Hearing indicated he had addressed
inconsistencies between rendered elevations and hardline drawings presented as part of
the package. Mr. Hansen's suggestions had been to raise vertical elements other than the
prayer tower to provide more emphasis. Mr. Hansen was not in favor of wheel stops.
Mr. Hansen recommended the applicant follow through on all suggestions made by the
board, and expressed his opinion many issues had been addressed quite well.
Mr. Present commented the project had come a long way to relieve traffic problems. Mr.
Hearing confirmed there were five services each weekend to meet the needs. This would
provide the ability to provide more transitional space which was driving the number of
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 8
parking spaces. The size of the auditorium would remain the same. The facility would
be more useable with the proposed improvements.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the board.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Solomon suggested new members receive copies of the design guidelines. Mr. Wu
indicated those would be included in the next package.
Mr. Solomon reminded the board there used to be a rule that handouts be provided ahead
of time. He did not mind handouts at the meeting unless they were too voluminous.
Mr. Solomon commented two architects had been lost from the board, but the other
members had the right to make any architectural comments.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the mee ing was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.. The next
regular meeting will be held November , 20 �
APPROVED:
Craig Kunkle, Jr.,
Barry Present, Vice Chai
Charles Hereford
;., w- k lterna e Jay H. Bramson
lternate Jonathan D. Rubins
Betty LaAr, Secretary for the Meeting
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Please Print
Agenda Item: 2 Date:
Name: J - Y'0 e h
Address: Z 4 e n4 Trr— e, I-1
rn z 4 av-
Approximate Length of Presentation (minutes) S H I 0
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Please Print
Agenda Item: Z Date: I �( Z� L o t
Name: Q/ t QS l l�3
Address:
Approximate Length of Presentation (minutes) _ �
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Please Print
Agenda Item• < ' Date: / L'
Name:
Address:
Approximate Length of Presentation (minutes)
SOUTHAMPTON TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
Planning & Zoning Workshop
October 26, 2004
(Comments by Tom Sosey)
My name is Tom Sosey and I live at 149 Bent Tree Drive. I am a resident of Bent Tree
and 1 want to thank the members of the commission for the opportunity to present these
comments and 1 ask that my written comments be entered into the record.
The developer of the proposed Southampton townhouse development recently submitted
revised plans to the Planning and Zoning Department of the City. While the revised
plans propose to correct some of the problems with the planned development, the
developer declined to act on other Bent Tree recommendations. I am upset for the
residents of Bent Tree who abut the proposed townhouse development and these
comments express my disappointment and propose some alternatives for consideration
by P8Z members to solve Bent Tree concerns.
Bent Tree Concerns:
Specifically, our main concern is that the revised plans continue to call for 3 story units
throughout the development despite the City Staffs' recommendation to build only 2
story units on the perimeter bordering the abutting developments. Further, no security
wall is yet proposed even though a gated entrance with a manned guardhouse shows on
the drawings. These Bent Tree recommendations had already been transmitted to the
City and the applicant at a Bent Tree Board meeting with the developer on August 4,
2004.
The placement of 3 story townhouse buildings along the property border facing 1 and 2
story single family homes in Bent Tree is not compatible, unacceptable and does not
meet city code. I request that the applicant be directed to site only 2 story townhouses
along the townhouse property border abutting Bent Tree. The existing residents of Bent
Tree bordering the townhouse development want to maintain the privacy they now have
In their backyards. They do not want the intrusion of others peering from their balconies
into their backyards. It is noted that the City of Palm Beach Gardens states in its Land
Use Regulations in Sec. 78 -141, Residential zoning district regulations, Table 10,
Property Development Regulations - Residential Zoning Districts, Note 4) "Maximum
building height is the lesser of two stories or 36 feet, excluding the RH zoning district". i
request that the city follow its code as written on this matter and not deviate by granting
any waiver to this section.
The requirement for a security wall would solve several problems. A security wall would
provide safety and security by preventing trespassing. A guarded entry gate is useless
if your back door is wide open.
The wall would also provide a barrier from headlights and streetlights shining through
the buffer zone along the canal into Bent Tree backyards. This proposed project has a
safety concern that must be addressed for both the existing residents of the abutting
developments and the future residents of the townhouses while the plans are in the
formative stage. The safety concern will grow considerably in the future when the
expansion of Central Blvd goes from 4-lane to 64ane. At that time the townhouse
residents will lose a portion of their parkway buffer along Central Blvd. The need for a
security wall will then become immediately evident. That problem can be solved right
now by requiring the applicant to build a security wall.
Unfortunately there are still several issues that we wish the developer would modify, but,
to date, we have been unable to capture his attention. They continue to show 3-story
buildings for all their units.
As residents In Bent Tree have already stated, three -story townhomes next to
predominately one -story homes is out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods
and should not be allowed. That is why the city code is in place. If variances are
required for 3-story townhomes, I recommend that they be denied. They should be
required to build what is appropriate and consistent with the existing neighborhood. If
the code was written requiring two stories, then they should have to live with that. They
purchased this property, I assume, with full knowledge of any such limitations. Please
do not degrade our properties by allowing them to change the rules after the fact with
inconsistent and harmful variances.
Proposed Alternative:
We know that Southampton wants a waiver from the code requirement that presently
permits the lesser of either 2 stories or 36 feet We believe that they want the waiver
because they will be able to make more money on their investment, so they have
proposed 3 story townhouses throughout the whole site. Bent Tree's main concern is
opposition of 3 stories along the border. Candidly, i do not foresee any impacts Bent
Tree would directly incur if there were 3 story townhouses throughout the interior.
Accordingly, I propose that Bent Tree be asked to negotiate with Southampton during
this workshop on this and another issue provided the City is agreeable, that is, if
Southhampton will agree to build only 2 story townhouses along the border of Bent Tree,
then Bent Tree will agree to not oppose letting them build 3 story townhouses on the rest
of the site provided that Southampton agrees to put up a security wall on all four sides of
the interior side of the perimeter buffers.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments.
Tom Sosey
148 Bent Tree Drive
Palm Beach Gardens, 33418
tel: 694 -6820