HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 022205PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 22, 2005
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 DIRECTOR
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu provided an update on four cases for
comprehensive plan changes related to the Briger sites. The City Council had approved
map changes, future land use changes, capital improvement changes and changes to the
conservation element, 4 -1 to transmit. Mr. Wu reported the Board of County
Commissioners had chosen the Park of Commerce as the Scripps site.
MINUTES
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of January 25, 2005 PZA meeting as
submitted. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2005 PZA meeting
as submitted. 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 and
Appeals Board:
Present
Absent
Craig Kunkle, Chair Jonathan D. Rubins (2nd alternate)
Barry Present, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Douglas Pennell
Charles Hereford
Jay H. Bramson (1 S` alternate)
All those intending to speak were sworn in.
There was no ex -parte communication reported by boardmembers.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2005
Page 2
Recommendation to City Council.
MISC- 04 -40: Mirasol Town Square — Master Signage Program
A request by Brian Cheguis of Cotleur & Hearing, on behalf of Palm Beach
Acquisitions, for approval of the Mirasol Town Square Master Signage Program. The
Mirasol Planned Community development (PCD) is located at the northwest corner of
the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and PGA Boulevard.
Senior Planner Brad Wiseman presented the request, and recommended approval with
approval of 7 waivers and denial of 4 waivers. Mr. Hansen asked if the signage type
style was correct on Buildings B3 and B4, to which the applicant responded the font
might change. Mr. Hansen indicated the signage did not seem to meet the requirements
for spacing and it seemed like 18" letters were too large for the space. Mr. Wiseman
explained there was an additional condition of approval which required no more than
70% of the stucco area be used and limited the vertical and side areas. Mr. Wu
recommended modifying this in the motion so there would not be a conflict between the
language and the graphic. Mr. Hansen also questioned Building D west elevation for
which a waiver was requested up to 36" high, and asked if smaller letters could be used.
Mr. Wiseman explained they could have two rows of 18" lettering, but still could not
exceed 70% of the area and had to comply with the top, bottom, and side restrictions.
Exact size, scale, length times width, actual height and width of the building had to be
submitted for a sign permit. Chair Kunkle commented this was a very nice site plan and
good architecture, but the buildings were plastered with confusing signs, and he thought
the whole project had been degraded. Mr. Wiseman responded the address signs had
been required by the police department.
Brian Cheguis spoke on behalf of the applicant, agreed with staff on all the sign
conditions and commented the applicant would be happy to reduce the size or numbers
required by the police department. Mr. Cheguis explained they had no problem working
with the City Forester to be sure the Building C signage was framed by the landscaping,
and they had reduced the size of the tenant signage. The applicant requested tenant
signage facing Jog Road. The applicant requested tenant signage on the north and south
sides of Building D. Chair Kunkle questioned the proposed tenant mix. Buildings facing
Jog Road would be retail and the rest of the site was medical or special office uses. Only
Building A had committed tenants. The applicant's justification for signage on the sides
of buildings with no parking was to make sure each tenant had a sign and if there was not
room on the front, pedestrians and traveling vehicles would still see the back signage. On
the back of Building D, the applicant was not pushing for those signs.
Mr. Present expressed his opinion that because signs were affixed directly to the facade
was not justification, they were still above the second floor; and he did not think putting
smaller signs up than required was good justification for allowing more signs. Mr.
Present commented coming with 26 waivers was a waste of time and the sign ordinance
might as well be thrown away. Mr. Present stated he was prepared to deny this
application and have the applicant re -work it to follow the City code. With only one
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2005
Page 3
four -story building people would have no problem finding that building.
Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Present and commented the applicant should have
withdrawn signage that staff did not recommend approval for, so that so many signs
would not have been presented. Mr. Solomon commented a lot of the signs appeared too
large for the space and were not proportional to the background, and the drawings should
be to scale with exact spacing shown.
Mr. Pennell agreed with the other comments and commented the main thing was the
overwhelming number of waivers requested. Mr. Hansen agreed, and commented this
was difficult to evaluate because of the large amount of signage, which was not shown so
that it could be clearly understood what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Hansen
questioned the address signs listing the building name and also the numbers, stating it
seemed redundant because the buildings already had the building numbers somewhere
else. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion to have the number over the entrance took away
from the beauty of the entrance, and asked if that could be altered. Mr. Wu responded the
Board could express their opinion, but from the point of the police, when they entered
into a complex with a number of buildings it was easier to identify the building code as
opposed to looking at a series of addresses, and this had been done strictly for emergency
purposes. Mr. Hansen asked if building had to be spelled out, to which Mr. Wu
responded it did not and staff would work with that.
Mr. Bramson concurred with the other comments that had been made and stated he was
against this because they were ignoring City code. Chair Kunkle commented there were
inconsistencies with some of the labeling and signage. The applicant agreed to make
corrections and re- present at a later date.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council.
Petition LDR -04 -14 10rdinance 3, 2005: LDR Test Amendment — Necessary Unified
Control Documentation and Owners Agreements for Amendments to PCDs within
Approved DRIs
A request by Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., on behalf of
Avatar Properties, Inc, to amend Section 78 -46, Code of Ordinances, entitled
Application Procedures to clarify the necessary unified control documentation and
owners agreements required for amendments to Planned Community Developments
(PCD) that are within approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRI); and to
amend Section 78 -155, Code of Ordinances, entitled PCD- Planned Community
Development Overlay District to clarify the aforesaid necessary unified control
documentation.
Chair Kunkle announced this public hearing had been continued from January 25, 2005
and was still open. There were no comments from the public. Staff recommended
continuation to March 23, 2005 and reported notices did not go out.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2005
Page 4
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to continue Petition LDR -04 -14 /Ordinance 3, 2005 to a
date certain of March 23, 2005. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous 7 -0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Wu announced that election day was two weeks from now and suggested canceling
the next meeting and reconvening on Wednesday, March 23 in case a runoff was
necessary. Mr. Present commented he would be out of town.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Present reported he and Mr. Solomon had attended the City Council meeting last
Thursday night, and one of the items had been to change the land -use designation for the
district park in the comprehensive plan from Residential Medium (RM) to Conservation
(CONS). Mr. Present requested this be brought back before the PZA board. Because of
discussion that took place at the City Council meeting he felt this board had not received
a full package when it was presented to them and they had given their approval with a 7 -0
vote. Mr. Wu explained that the City Council had voted to withdraw that entire
application and it would not come back, and the land would stay at RM zoning, and
further negotiations would take place between the City and the county and the residents.
Mr. Wu indicated he would like this to come to this board for site plan approval. History
of original negotiations had not been included in the staff report for this board or for City
Council since that was not a part of the planning request, but the City Council had
recalled it from their own memories.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2005
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. The next
regular meeting will be held March 23, 2005.
APPROVED:
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair
BA �K- � 2 �6 � � -
tty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting