HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 062805PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
June 28, 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 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.
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported the City Council had approved
two cases since the last meeting — Ordinance 1, 2005, which made changes to the LDR's
to conform with wireless communication, and Ordinance 4, 2005, future land use map
changes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2005 PZA meeting
minutes as submitted. Mr. Panczak 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
Vice Chair Barry Present Chair Craig Kunkle
Dennis Solomon
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Douglas Pennell
Charles Hereford
Jay H. Bramson (1St alternate)
Jonathan D. Rubins (2nd alternate)
All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearings were sworn in.
A motion was made and seconded that no response be made to the fax received from
Hometown News. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council.
Petition CO -04 -03 10rdinance 12, 2005: Property Maintenance Standards
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A City- initiated request
establishing a new Chapter 79 of the Code of Ordinances, to be entitled "Property
Maintenance Standards" repealing Section 86 -27, Code of Ordinances, entitled
"Housing Code Adopted ". repealing Article V of Chapter 34, Code of Ordinances
entitled "Weeds, Rubbish, Unsanitary Conditions ".
Code Enforcement Supervisor Kelvin Wise presented the proposed petition, which staff
felt was necessary to provide objective and specific standards for both commercial and
residential property maintenance, now lacking in current code, in order to maintain
integrity of neighborhoods. The proposed language was intended to provide minimum
standards for occupancy and maintenance, with inspections to be made by code
enforcement officers, and giving the Special Master jurisdiction to hear and judge alleged
violations of the code. Uniform sizes for address numbers were proposed. The goal of
the proposed Neighborhood Preservation Initiative would be neighborhood enhancement
to maintain and improve property values, working with resource partners who would
provide materials and labor for those residents who could not afford to purchase materials
or were unable to provide the labor. Mr. Wise reviewed the proposed public information
campaign.
Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the
public, Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Panczak questioned if liens placed on common property in a condominium
association would prevent a homeowner within that association from conveying his
property that was under contract for sale, and expressed his opinion that the city should
not prohibit people from selling their property, and that the City Attorney's office should
look into this matter. Attorney Stroud advised that she would look at that issue.
Mr. Hansen commended staff and commented he was glad staff did not support a color
palette since that would be hard to enforce. Mr. Hansen asked how far code enforcement
intended to go to keep properties free of hazards that could be caused by things such as
inadequate handrails or deteriorated treads or stair risers, or deteriorated wheel stops
which were not repaired. Mr. Wise advised that this ordinance would deal with surface
issues, however, if a condition arose that was hazardous, code enforcement would
address that issue in concert with the building and fire departments on the spot, and gave
Tanglewood as a recent example of working together to resolve such issues. Mr. Wu
advised that code enforcement, building, fire, and planning and zoning worked as a team
to enforce such matters.
Mr. Solomon commented staff had done a fine job, and expressed his opinion the Delray
Beach model was intended for properties in great need of upkeep and maintenance, while
our ordinance was aimed at everybody, since this would apply to all property within the
city. Mr. Solomon cautioned against unintended results such as minimum standards for
lettering on street signs and addresses on homes. Mr. Solomon explained that a duplex or
quadruplex was multifamily, and the proposed minimum 12" numbers would not be
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 3
appropriate for units right on the street. The object should be that the numbers were
clearly visible. Mr. Solomon asked staff to look at the external circumstances -- letters on
a garage 20' from the right -of -way did not have to be as large as if it were 50' back. Mr.
Solomon advised that the numbers on his townhome in PGA National were only 4" high,
so would be in violation of the ordinance if it were adopted with the currently proposed
4 -1/2" minimum size, and all those violations would have to be enforced. Mr. Solomon
proposed either doing away with minimum sizes or setting the minimum very low in
order to have latitude, stating that a quad unit did not need 12" high numbers.
Mr. Solomon indicated another area of concern was swales and standing water, and an
exception needed to be made accepting standing water in swales after a severe rain.
Regarding the matter of no storage of debris, Mr. Solomon recommended adding
language such as, except when being put out for SWA to pick up the next day, or for
some emergency situation. Mr. Solomon indicated perhaps a definition of a multifamily
building was needed. In the ordinance in 79- 5(a)(6), Mr. Solomon recommended
addition of. or otherwise approved by the city. In paragraph 7: period not to exceed 48
hours. In 79 (c)(a) page 6, this was again the size of lettering, for which Mr. Solomon's
recommendation was that readability was the key and if staff wanted a minimum to start
at 2 -1/2" or 3 ". Mr. Wu advised the minimum size for duplexes was 4 -1/2" and was for
public safety purposes for emergencies. Mr. Solomon commented it should be readable
but not overly large. Mr. Wu suggested 4 ", which Mr. Solomon noted would have to be
enforced. Mr. Present asked if numbers could be grandfathered, which Mr. Wu indicated
the board could discuss.
Mr. Solomon commented regarding the lien question that there were different types of
property ownership and if there was a lien where a unit owner wanted to sell, he believed
it would have to be resolved. A condo association could have property in its own name,
and there was also property owned in undivided shares in common property, where he
believed the title company would probably make an exception, so he did not foresee a lot
of problems with this issue.
Mr. Rubins questioned what would be done regarding landlords who had allowed
occupancy of a home by more than one family. Mr. Wise responded that was not covered
in this ordinance, but staff was in the process of developing an ordinance to regulate
rental housing and it would address occupancy levels. Mr. Wise indicated this new
ordinance could be given a higher priority if it was a concern of this board.
Mr. Bramson expressed his opinion that homeowner associations and members were
concerned with property values and would police themselves, and therefore there would
be minimum problems with HOA's. Mr. Bramson cautioned there could be a problem
with swales with the bubble -ups at the end of the swales and there might be a
jurisdictional problem regarding who was responsible to clean those out.
Mr. Hereford asked if "timely manner" for completion of upgrades and repairs was
defined as a result of previous experience. Mr. Wise advised that construction permits
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 4
were good for six months, however, timing was dependent on availability of materials,
etc., and it was considered to be a timely manner as long as continued progress was being
made. The Neighborhood Preservation Initiative could step in if a homeowner did not
have resources.
Mr. Pennell commented that over all, he thought the ordinance was very good and did
what was intended —to provide a way to improve standards of property maintenance in
the city —and just needed adjustments in a couple of areas. The ordinance would provide
a way to enforce and improve the city.
Vice Chair Present recommended a section regarding potholes be added before this was
presented to City Council. Vice Chair Present asked if changes had been made since last
meeting, to which Mr. Wise responded changes had been made but were not redlined at
this point; however, a redlined version would go to City Council, and was proposed to
be presented on August 8, but he would make the changes and come back to this board if
desired. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wise recommended hazardous conditions be included.
Mr. Present advised that the items discussed tonight should be added. Mr. Panczak
asked the City Attorney if this would be an amendable living document, to which the
response was yes, and it would have to come back to this board to be amended in the
future.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council adoption of Petition CO-
04-03 /Ordinance 12, 2005: Property Maintenance Standards, and that staff take into
consideration addition of the comments made tonight before going to City Council.
Mr. Hereford seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon
expressed his opinion the motion was too vague and ambiguous and needed specific
amendments. Mr. Solomon proposed the following amendments: For single family
and duplexes and townhouse units not stacked, minimum numbering of street signs
shall be not less than 3 -1/2 "; for multifamily buildings, 12" minimum, if those
buildings are less than 50' from the closest road right -of -way, could have smaller
sizes, 10" in height, if set back greater than 50' it could be something larger;
standing water in swales could be permissible 48 hours after cessation of a rain
event; give the city authority to say circumstances for storage of debris such as if
put out in anticipation of pickup the same or preceding day. Mr. Hansen stated as
maker of the motion, he did not accept the amendments and the motion stood as is.
The vote on the motion was 5 -2 with Mr. Present and Mr. Solomon against the
motion.
Mr. Hansen explained he was not in support that the motion should have been more
specific. He felt swales and storage of debris did not need to be included, and felt this
was too subjective. Mr. Present agreed. Mr. Hansen commented staff had heard the
board's comments and would take them into consideration and he saw no reason not to
move this on to City Council. Mr. Wise advised that per the City Engineer, swales were
designed to hold water up to 72 hours following a rain event. Mr. Wise also explained
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 5
that debris was already addressed in a very strict ordinance. Vice Chair Present
commented he thought staff would beef up this ordinance where needed before
presenting it to City Council.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Petition CU- 05 -01— William T. Dwyer High School Expansion — PUD Amendment
and Conditional Use Approval
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. A request by the School District
of Palm Beach County for approval of (1) an amendment to the William T. Dwyer
High School Planned Unit Development to allow for a new 49,138 square foot two -
story building, and (2) a Conditional Use for the entire school campus The William T.
Dwyer High School is generally located between Central Boulevard and Military Trail,
approximately one - quarter (114) mile south of Donald Ross Road.
Vice Chair Present declared the public hearing open. No members of the public came
forward to speak.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition CU -05 -01 to
a date certain of July 12, 2005. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council.
Petition MISC- 05- 04 -02: Gardens Station — Master Signage Program
Recommendation to City Council. A request by Kimberly Thayler of Cotleur &
Hearing, on behalf of PGA Development Associates, Inc., for approval of the Gardens
Station Master Signage Program. The Gardens Station Planned Unit Development
(PUD), approved by Ordinance 43, 2004 and Resolution 217, 2004, is a 7.6 -acre site
located south of Parcel 5B, north of RCA Boulevard, east of Loehmann's Plaza, and
west of the FEC Railway.
Vice Chair Present called for ex -parte communication. The only ex -parte communication
reported was by Mr. Hansen, who stated he had met with the applicant last week.
Jim Griffin introduced the Gardens Station Master Signage Program on behalf of the
applicant. Kimberly Thayler, Cotleur & Hearing, made a presentation for the proposed
signage and indicated the applicant was willing to compromise with staff to move
signage to lower floors so they would only be requesting four waivers.
Autumn Sorrow presented the staff report, and explained that for the Gardens East
building on the west elevation the two tenant ID signs above the second story required
waivers and on the east elevation the two signs requested required waivers. Staff
recommended denial of the waivers, as well as denial for an additional sign for the corner
bays. For the Gardens Station West building, staff recommended denial to have tenant
signage above the second floor line. Staff recommended conditional approval for the east
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 6
and west elevations only for one additional tenant sign per main fagade; therefore, staff
recommended approval with one waiver, conditions of approval, and denial of three
waivers.
Mr. Rubins commented the board had allowed waivers to have tenant signage on the top
floor of the Wachovia building, to which Ms. Sorrow responded that was a building ID
sign, not a tenant sign. Ms. Sorrow advised her presentation had not reflected the
changes that the applicant had proposed, since the proposed changes had not been
submitted in writing.
Mr. Pennell asked if any consideration had been given to landscaping placement where
the signage would go, and was advised the trees were palms only.
Mr. Solomon commented he had not seen justification in the package and too many signs
created visual pollution. Mr. Present confirmed with staff that justification for waivers
came from the applicant. Ms. Thayler advised that their original submittal included
justification in the project narrative. Staff apologized that the narrative had not been
included in tonight's package.
Ms. Thayler clarified the applicant was now only requesting waivers for Gardens Station
East -2 tenant ID signs for corner bays at the first story, on the elevation facing the
railroad track. Mr. Hansen commented he felt 36" was too high for the building ID sign,
and Ms. Thayler responded the overall height would probably have to be reduced. Mr.
Wu commented the building ID lettering might be crowded; also, the two towers were set
back so their signs were not as effective. Ms. Thayler advised that the setback was why
the applicant wanted the tenant ID signs on the 4th floor level. Mr. Wu commented staff
felt the towers were so set back, had been trying to reduce waiver requests, and the board
had frowned on corner units having signs on both sides. Ms. Thayler advised that on the
east building there were now only two tenant ID signs above the first floor, and on the
west building the waiver requests did not change. Mr. Hansen suggested smaller size
lettering placed on the first plane forward at the same level as the building ID instead of
on the set back towers. The applicant stated no objection, and Mr. Wu requested 24"
lettering, or 70% of that plane below the window and before the banding, whichever was
less, for that side of the building. Mr. Hansen asked for a maximum height of 24" and no
more than 50% of that plane, to which the applicant agreed. Mr. Hansen clarified the
applicant was dropping the corner signage on the east elevation. Vice Chair Present
commented he felt this was not the place to redesign signage.
Acting Chair Present expressed his opinion that the signage was not an integral part of
the design of this building, and this was unfair to staff. Mr. Present stated he was not in a
position to move this along tonight, and in the future he would like to see more thought
put into design when a building was designed. When code said not above the second
floor, that was what it meant, and he would like to send a strong message. He wanted to
see the ordinance changed or stop giving waivers after the fact.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 7
Jim Griffin commented this was down to a couple of minor items –on the east elevation
of Gardens Station East, two tenant signs facing Alternate AIA, and on Gardens Station
West they were requesting tenant signs on both sides but were requesting only lowered
signs.
Mr. Solomon commented the applicant's timing in making concessions was unfortunate.
In terms of the height of the building, he had not heard any mention of proportionality —
some kind of centering of the lettering. Mr. Solomon suggested moving this along to
City Council with approval of the staff recommendations and then the applicant could try
to convince City Council, which he felt would be preferable to making changes tonight.
Mr. Hansen commented he resented the Chair's implication that he did not care as much
about signage as the previous architect that sat on this board and he agreed signage
should be designed as an integral part of the building, which he had not seen in any
projects except "Seasons 52 ". Vice Chair Present commented he was sorry Mr Hansen
had taken his comments that way. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that no signage was
the best signage, and agreed that Mr. Solomon's suggestion was correct.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
MISC- 05- 04 -02: Gardens Station – Master Signage Program -- with all staff
recommendations including denial of three waivers and approval of one waiver,
recognizing that the applicant would make some changes to the signage and would
assert their position to City Council. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which
failed by a 3 -4 vote, with Mr. Present, Mr. Pennell, Mr. Hereford, and Mr. Bramson
opposed.
Mr. Pennell stated the board did not like waivers. He sympathized with the applicant,
and thought they should have the opportunity to come back to answer these things. Mr.
Pennell advised that the board would like to see less and better signs throughout the city
on all projects. Vice Chair Present asked when the applicant could come back, to which
Mr. Wu responded this could be on the next agenda if staff received revised plans, and he
thought staff and the applicant were very close to agreement. Mr. Griffin stated he was
fine with that and that the applicant was willing to drop a couple of items. Mr. Griffin
requested to be able to work with staff and come back to the next meeting. Mr. Griffin
also indicated there was a sign in RCA that was going to be changed to Implant
Innovations and that the location had been previously approved.
Following a 5- minute break, the meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Discussion:
Petition PCD- 04 -01: Cimarron Cove (Parcel 31.04) MXD rezoning of 50.58 acre site
Dodi Glas, of Urban Design Studio, agent for the applicant, Gardens 95 Limited
Partnership, L.L.C., is requesting approval for a rezoning to a Planned Community
District (PCD) to construct 253 townhomes, 10,000 square feet of professional office, a
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 8
12,000 square foot drug store, a 4,000 square foot bank, a 15,000 square foot
restaurant and 11,600 square feet of retail space. The 50.58 -acre site is located on the
southeast corner of Interstate Highway 95 and Central Boulevard.
Discussion:
Petition SP- 04 -05: Cimarron Cove (Parcel 31.04)
Dodi Glas, of Urban Design Studio, agent for the applicant, Gardens 95 Limited
Partnership, L.L.C., is requesting approval to construct 253 multi family units on
Parcel F within the proposed Cimarron Cove Mixed Use Planned Community District
(MXD PCD). The 24.17 acre tract is located on the southeast corner of Interstate
Highway 95 and Central Boulevard.
Dodi Glas presented the rezoning request and described the project. Ms. Glas explained
they had discussed architectural issues with Mr. Hansen and with staff, and wanted to
show the board where they were in terms of the site plan for a portion of the mixed use
community. Ms. Glas advised that these discussion items were intended as a workshop
and requested comments from the board.
Mr. Hansen commented he had been working with the applicant and with staff to get to
this point. Mr. Hansen suggested the color palette be changed. Mr. Hansen asked for
clarification on whether there was to be a fence, to which Ms. Glas responded if it was
decided to have a fence it would be ornamental wrought iron, and not a solid wall. Mr.
Hansen asked about the archway feature, to which Ms. Glas responded details would be
shown on revised plans. Mr. Hansen stated he thought the project was evolving and had
come a long way.
Mr. Bramson asked for the average square footage of the units and the estimated price.
Ms. Glas advised that the numbers could change because of the rising housing prices, but
the units were anticipated to be in the upper $200,000 range and the units had 1 to 3
bedrooms and ranged from just over 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Panczak asked if the community would be gated. Ms. Glas responded that it would
be a gated community with a call box, and pointed out the location on the plans. Ms.
Glas confirmed there would be no walls anywhere in the project. Ms. Glas described the
lake as a buffer for the residential portion of the project, and indicated there would be
plenty of connectivity. A gas station originally discussed would not be included. The
roadway through Sabal Ridge was discussed, which now was a dedicated roadway, but
Mr. Glas advised it might not occur. It was anticipated that the bulk of the traffic would
come from the south or from Central Boulevard.
Mr. Solomon commented this was a really challenged piece of property, and still had a
lot of problems. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion it was too dense —too many
buildings on a small piece of land, and he foresaw traffic problems, both internal and
external. Without having a regular street, he had safety concerns, and thought the
applicant should seriously consider having fewer units - -8 -unit buildings instead of 10-
unit buildings. Mr. Solomon commented there should be littoral plantings in the lakes.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 9
Ms. Glas confirmed for Mr. Solomon that the driving surface of the alley was 20', and
the total width was 24'. Mr. Solomon commented he hoped the applicant could get
additional connections. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the architecture needed
some thought. Looking from ground level up, you could see horizontal and vertical
planes, but there was nothing to break up the top ridge line of the buildings. The
architecture seemed to have no specific character just a lot of different elements thrown
in that did not seem to hang together —and there was an opportunity to do something
different. Mr. Solomon agreed that the color palette needed improvement. Ms. Glas
indicated the project might cost enough that there would be Art in Public Places. Mr.
Solomon expressed his opinion that there would be a real problem working with the
aesthetics and he would like to see improvement.
Mr. Pennell commented the applicant was varying the architecture to please everybody
and it was sometimes better to have it look the same. Mr. Pennell commented this might
be affordable housing in Palm Beach Gardens, that he knew it was a challenge, and it was
an interesting piece of property. Mr. Pennell expressed his opinion that what had been
done so far was quite good, and confirmed with Ms. Glas the location of sidewalks within
the project and which garages loaded on an alley, and that there were no walls. Mr.
Pennell asked if it was known where buildings would be placed on the commercial site.
Ms. Glas explained it was anticipated the commercial portion would develop internalized,
with an internal street for the buildings to front. There would be one north/south street
and one east/west street.
Vice Chair Present asked why a unit was located in the southeast corner, since that was
the future I -95 right -of -way, to which Ms. Glas responded the unit was not in the right -
of -way and the broken line shown on the plan was separating the land use designations of
MXD and RH. Vice Chair Present commented the architecture looked a little busy, and
there were quite a few dwelling units per acre. He would rather see a few less units and
make it up on the commercial site. The applicant had done a good job getting everything
to fit. Traffic could be a problem —there would be a long run to get out of the project.
Senior Planner Kara Irwin provided a brief presentation describing changes that had been
made and reviewing major issues.
Mr. Panczak noted the board had required two accesses for South Hampton. Ms. Irwin
commented staff felt having only one access was a concern.
Mr. Solomon requested that the next presentation show the exterior garage lights, and
suggested using curved railings and having some garage doors with glass in the top panel.
Mr. Solomon pointed out a couple of bare exterior walls that needed architectural
features. In one of the presentations it had been mentioned that some people might
convert their garages to living space, and Mr. Solomon advised the condo documents
should state that was prohibited. Also, the City Attorney should approve the condo
documents. Mr. Solomon stated these lakes were small, and that was more reason to
have less concrete.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 10
Mr. Bramson asked if there was a clubhouse. Ms. Glas explained that the pool cabana
had rest rooms and a tot lot.
Mr. Wu noted South Hampton had been required to have hurricane impact glass in the
windows. Mr. Hansen commented shutters were being shown as part of the design and if
they were workable as hurricane shutters he felt that was fine, but anywhere there were
no shutters there should be impact glass.
Ms. Glas confirmed for Mr. Hereford that signage would be integrated as part of the
project on commercial parcels A and B, and that the next -door Paloma project would
share the north/south roadway with this project.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Solomon commented he forgot to mention to Mr. Wise that the wording about a
building having primarily one color needed to have an exception stating unless
specifically approved by development order.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Wu announced he would be away at the time of the next meeting since he would be
going to India, but would be back for the following meeting.
Mr. Wu was commended for his response made to Hometown News. Mr. Wu advised
that credit should be given to Mr. Sanchez for that response.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2005
Page 11
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next
regular meeting will be held July 12, 2005.
APPROVED:
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair
A-"" , P"'- - - I—
Barry Present, ice Chair
H. Bramson
2nd Alternate Jonathan D. Rubins
Bdity Laur,-gecretao for the Meeting