Loading...
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