Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 071205PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING July 12, 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 ADMINISTRATOR Senior Planner Kara Irwin reported a new activity that Growth Management was currently undertaking - -the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) -- assessment of the comprehensive plan, which must be done every seven years. Ms. Irwin explained that this would come before the board in October and was due December 1, 2006. Ms. Irwin reviewed the assessment procedure that would be followed, including focus on major issues. Issues identified by City Council at their retreat were a proactive plan for western growth, diversification of land uses, and development of a creative transit system. Ms. Irwin asked the board to think about major issues. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Panczak made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2005 PZA meeting minutes 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 Chair Craig Kunkle Vice Chair Barry Present Dennis Solomon Randolph Hansen Michael Panczak Douglas Pennell Charles Hereford Jay H. Bramson (1st alternate) Jonathan D. Rubins (2 "d alternate) Absent All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearings were sworn in. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 2 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, at 13601 N. Military Trail, Mr. Present recused himself due to a conflict of interest, stating he was employed by the School Board. Mr. Bramson was seated in his place. Chair Kunkle called for ex -parte communication. No ex -parte communication was reported. Tanya Deal, with the School District Planning Department, presented the proposed project and reviewed the State requirements for educational facilities. Ms. Deal described the proposed architecture and landscaping. Mr. Solomon asked if the air conditioning equipment would be located on the roof and noted that the parapet seemed very short to screen rooftop equipment. Mr. Sanchez advised that there was a condition of approval requiring all mechanical equipment to be screened from view. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hansen commended the applicant for making the architecture consistent with the architecture of the existing buildings, which he stated was good architecture, and for doing a good job on the whole project. MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CU -05 -01 with the conditions as stated by staff. Mr. Hereford seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Present re- joined the board at this point, and Mr. Bramson stepped down. Recommendation to City Council. Petition MISC- 05- 04 -02: Gardens Station — Master Signage Program Recommendation to City Council: A request by Kimberly Thaler 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 Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 3 (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. No ex -parte communication was reported. Kimberly Thaler, Cotleur & Hearing, presented a proposal which she advised had been revised as a result of feedback obtained at the last meeting. Ms. Thaler summarized the waivers still being requested: For Gardens Station East -2 tenant identification signs on the east elevation at the second story. For Gardens Station West – 2 tenant identification signs above the first floor, and a final waiver to allow building identification signs to be located above the first floor. Mr. Panczak requested a color rendering showing the landscaping, to see if the signs would be affected. Ms. Thaler showed the site plan and described the landscaping. Mr. Hansen asked the location of the tower signs on the site plan at the far ends, which Ms. Thaler pointed out. Mr. Hansen commended the applicant on doing a great job of responding to the board's comments from the last meeting. Autumn Sorrow presented the requested waivers and the staff recommendation for those waivers. Staff recommended denial of the two tenant signs above the second floor line on Gardens Station East, and supported the building identification sign and tenant signs on the banding above the second floor line on Gardens Station West. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC- 05 -04 -02 with one waiver, conditions of approval, and denial of one waiver as recommended by staff. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Chair Kunkle requested that staff bring up the whole signage issue at a meeting where there was a light agenda. Mr. Benothman advised that staff was currently working with the City attorney on a draft to amend the entire sign code, and that draft would be presented to the board for discussion. Recommendation to City Council. Petitions SP -05 -03 and MISC- 05 -04: University MRI – Site Plan and Si-ename Recommendation to City Council. A request by Cotleur & Hearing, agent for Avital Real Estate PGA, LLC, for site plan approval and signage for the second phase of Parcel 27.10B to allow the construction of a 9,400 square foot medical diagnostic imaging center to be known as University MRI – PGA within the Regional Center DRI. The site is located at 3502 Kyoto Gardens Drive. No ex -parte communication was reported. Brian Cheguis, Cotleur & Hearing, provided a history of the site, described the architecture, and reviewed the site plan. Four waivers were being requested —an Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 4 additional monument sign, additional tenant signage, additional principal tenant signage, and signage above the first floor. Mr. Cheguis advised that since staff was going to oppose the additional monument sign, they would like good frontage signage on both access sides. The applicant requested condition 19 be softened in respect to replacing all missing landscaping material on Phase I and II and that the applicant be able to work with staff on this issue. The applicant disagreed with the staff recommendation to reduce the tower height. Ed Oliver, Oliver Glidden architects, described the effect of reducing the tower height and strongly advised against the reduction. Mr. Hereford asked why the buildings were not aligned square to each other. The applicant advised that the east property line was not parallel, that underground utilities were already in place, and the building was parallel with the other property line. Mr. Pennell agreed with staff on everything except condition 20 and stated he felt the tower should remain as is. In driving by the site, Mr. Pennell noted the landscaping on the corner was weak and stated all landscaping should be brought up to par. Chair Kunkle questioned whether the board could impose a landscaping upgrade requirement on a non - owner. Attorney Stroud advised because this property was unified as one site the City could require the second phase to bring the first phase up to speed. Mr. Benothman advised that the phase one landscaping had not been done properly and that could be required now, before going on to City Council. Mr. Hansen recommended raising the arch over the entrance at the bottom of the tower, and changing the windows located within the arches to have arched tops, with which the applicant agreed. In response to Mr. Hansen's questions regarding signage, the applicant explained that they would like signage to be seen from the main entrance access and also from Kyoto Drive. Mr. Panczak asked if phase one signage was blue, which the applicant did not know, but stated their signage was blue because that was the color of their logo. Mr. Bramson suggested addition of a dummy window in the one recessed arch that did not have a window. The applicant explained that a trellis feature was proposed for that arch, since imaging equipment was to be located inside the building at that location Jackie Holloman presented the waivers and staff recommendation. Staff recommended denial of the requested monument sign at the corner because of insufficient frontage. Mr. Present stated he could not support another monument sign, but did support the tower element. Mr. Rubins agreed with staff on the sign but did not agree with staff on the tower. Mr. Bramson agreed with staff on the sign but wanted to see a depiction of the reduction staff was proposing on the tower. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Solomon asked if when phase one came in for approval, both phases had been under the same ownership. Discussion ensued. Mr. Benothman explained one had been sold, and legally the only thing the city could focus on was unity of control, not unity of title, and there was a POA on the site. Mr. Solomon commented on condition 19, trying to make the developer of phase two do landscaping work on phase one, and asked if official notice had been given to the owner of the phase one property. City Forester Mark Hendrickson explained that code enforcement was the last resort—that the city had an opportunity to work with both property owners through the development order to work things out, which was the simplest way to go, and all landscaping would be coordinated either before going to City Council or before the first CO, whichever was worked out. Mr. Benothman stressed the importance of resolving this before going to City Council. Mr. Solomon suggested changing condition 19 to say before the issuance of a building permit. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon commented on details in the phase one building that were not repeated in the phase two building. Mr. Oliver explained that he did not feel the architecture of the phase one building was correctly proportioned, which was why changes had been made in the phase two building; also the use of the phase two building did not allow as many windows. Mr. Oliver suggested banding the raised arch at the entrance. Mr. Hansen asked if the cost would be high enough to provide Art in Public Places. Mr. Benothman explained how the cost was calculated. Mr. Hansen recommended pulling the curb out to the wheel stops on the north side and on the entry side, and eliminating the wheel stops since they provided a tripping danger. The applicant agreed to make that change. Mr. Hansen summarized that the architecture would be changed to pull the entrance arch up and band it, and to provide a radius at the top of the other windows. Mr. Panczak agreed, and agreed with the second sign on the north elevation. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 05-03 subject to the staff report, but with the following modifications: 1. The applicant shall work with staff before submitting to City Council in terms of raising the arch element on the front of the building together with banding; all of the windows will have a radius head to match the radius of the arches. 2. Wheel stops shall be eliminated in favor of widening the sidewalk area consistent with Mr. Hansen's discussion and in a manner acceptable to staff. 3. Condition 19 shall be modified to require the applicant to take steps to make sure that all landscaping with respect to phases 1 and 2 is installed to the satisfaction of the City Forester prior to the time the first land alteration permit is pulled, and that the phase 1 landscaping to be replaced will be done by this applicant at the time the applicant starts the earthwork of clearing and grading of the site. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 6 4. Condition 20 shall be eliminated regarding scope and size of the tower, and its proportionality, recognizing it is to some degree subjective and people in good faith can disagree on it. Mr. Hereford seconded the motion. Mr. Benothman commented the west elevation would be seen. Mr. Kunkle indicated he was not concerned because of the landscaping. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council for Petition MISC -05 -04 to follow the staff recommendation to deny the monument sign, and with respect to the other two waiver requests to grant a waiver for the second tower on the north elevation and deny the second tenant sign on the non -entry side of the building, on the south elevation. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Hansen questioned when someone was coming to the second tenant, the only entrance that would be identifiable would be the entrance to the MRI facility, and although he was not in favor of all kinds of signs, in this particular instance because of the location of the entrance and the location of the secondary tenant it would make sense to identify them at their entrance, and also it would be hard to know they were in the building unless they had signage on the Kyoto Drive side. Mr. Rubins and Mr. Bramson agreed with Mr. Hansen. Mr. Present agreed with the tenant sign but stated he did not know why the tower sign was needed and would rather see the tenant sign at their entry. Mr. Pennell commented he thought the tenant sign was more important but he was willing to give both. Mr. Hereford stated he agreed with Mr. Pennell. The applicant stated they would remove the request for the tenant sign facing Kyoto Gardens Drive to have it over the tenant entrance, as Mr. Hansen suggested. Chair Kunkle summarized that would mean two tower signs and one tenant sign over their entrance, which the applicant stated was correct. Mr. Solomon stated he would amend his motion accordingly. Mr. Panczak seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Attorney Stroud advised that the applicant's request for the following three items to be postponed could be done by a single motion: Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Petition PCDINOPC- -04 -02 — Frenchman's Creek PCD/DRI — Notice of Proposed Change and PCD Amendment A request by Wendy Mahr of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc., for a Notice of Proposed Change and amendment to the Frenchman's Creek Development of Regional Impact/Planned Community Development to change the current boundaries by incorporating a 6 -acre parcel located along Donald Ross Road, as noted on the map below, changing the land use of said parcel and the land -use of approximately 8 acres of the marina from a Commercial (C) land -use designation to a Residential High (RH) land -use designation. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 7 Petition CP -04 -04 — Frenchman's Yacht Club Future Land Use Map Amendment A request by Wendy Mahr of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Avatar Properties, Inc., for a large -scale land -use map change for a 14.54 - acre parcel generally located at the southeast corner of Prosperity Farms Road and Donald Ross Road from a Commercial (C) land -use designation to a Residential High (RH)land -use designation. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. Petition ZON- 04 -01— Frenchman's Yacht Club A request by Wendy Mahr of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc on behalf of Avatar Properties, Inc., for a re- zoning and master development plan approval to allow the development of 188 multifamily dwelling units within four condominium buildings ranging from six to seven stories in height and 9,990 square feet of internal office /retail space for use by the marina to be called the "Frenchman's Yacht Club. " The 14.54 -acre subject site is generally located at the southeast corner of Prosperity Farms Road and Donald Ross Road. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open for the three agenda items. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle called for a motion to postpone. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to postpone Petition PCD /NOPC- 04 -02, Petition CP -04- 04, and Petition ZON -04 -01 to a date certain of August 23, 2005. Mr. Hereford seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the board. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. regular meeting will b4 APPROVED: The next 1 st Alternate Jay H. Bramson n lternate Jonathan D. Rubins " C7(�-�- B tty Laur, Wecretary for the Meeting FORM COUNTY 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NA a ME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE iL !✓NI NG Z. to N rj MAILING ADDRESS I �vl 4 ` -1 THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSIO , AUTHORITY R COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: W CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY / f i4' 1 COUNTY / ••ss" 2 l� /OC� NAME OrF PPOLI ICA UBDIVI ION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE CC RRED zelza MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must 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. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must 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 must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on S , 20 OS- (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special g in or loss of. whom I am *00 inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Au 9 /.V'- 4 Date Filed Signature 1�0�kj� by which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, 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 $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2