Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 082305PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING August 23, 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 There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Present made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2005 PZA meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Rubins 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 Michael Panczak Douglas Pennell Charles Hereford Jonathan D. Rubins (2°d alternate) Absent Randolph Hansen Jay H. Bramson (1' alternate) All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearing were sworn in. Public Hearing and JkggW CUdation to City Council: Ordinance 27, 20051,PeWon LDR- 05 -03: Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Providing for Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Public Workshops as Part of the Development Review Process Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A City- inidated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Land Development Regulations to provide opportunity for resident input into the development review process for neighborhoods adjacent to proposed development through a noticed public workshop before the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 2 Senior Planner Kara Irwin provided a brief synopsis of the revised ordinance- -to have a public workshop before the PZA board prior to the board making a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Solomon referred to the chart under Table 2, asking if the board was okay with code "d ", subject to discretion of the Growth Management Director, or if criteria for that was needed. Ms. Irwin reported the text had been changed over the years and the chart had not been updated, so she had updated it to reflect current policy. Discussion ensued. Mr. Benothman explained that current code had criteria for minor and major site plans, and also under that provision of the code it gave the Growth Management Director discretion to deem a site plan minor to major. Chair Kunkle stated, the judgment was to upgrade and not to bypass. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Ordinance 27, 2005/Petition LDR- 05-03. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition MISC- 03 -14: Donald Ross Village Amendment — signage for residential portion Recommendation to City Council. A request by Marty Minor, of Urban Design Studio, agent for Donald Ross / Military, L C, for the consideration of a residential sign package for Cielo Homes, the residential development within the Donald Ross Village Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Donald Ross Village Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved by Ordinance 53, 2002, is a 45.37 -acre site located on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard There was no ex -pane communication. Marty Minor gave a presentation on signage and amenities. It had been required by the original development order that the applicant come back for approval of these amenities. The residential signage off Military Trail was presented, with the word " Cielo" (Spanish for heaven). The petitioner was asking for two signs instead of the one allowed, because of the curve, so that the name could be seen from both directions. Landscape points had been exceeded by 150% in this project. The landscape architect provided answers to landscaping questions. Bus shelter location was identified; two trellises were located at the entrance to the residential homes; pedestrian arches were proposed and the locations identified; trellises and pavers also provided identification. Ms. Rubins noted the architecture, colors, and landscaping looked very nice, and agreed with the additional sign. Mr. Hereford confirmed with the applicant that the sign on Military Trail would be different, since it was for the whole Donald Ross Village. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 3 Chair Kunkle asked if the landscaping was accurate on the rendering, which was confirmed by the applicant. Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC- 03-14. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition SP -05-05: Downtown at the Gardens – Proposed changes to the approved site. landscape & engineering plans Recommendation to City Council: A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur Hearing, agent, for approval of a site plan amendment to the previously approved Downtown at the Gardens, which consists of office, retail, and entertainment center uses on an approximately 35- -acre site (two parcels). The applicant proposes to modify the Lake Improvement Plan by taking out the raised stage; children's garden, and landscaping, the landscape plan by reducing the number and changing the approved plant species, remove the approved video wall sign, add a right inlright -out access point onto Gardens Parkway from second garage floor, remove approved service court gates, request waivers to reduce the parking stall width from ten to nine (limited areas) and nine and one half within the remaining parking areas of the site. The applicant is also proposing to defer the installation of the raised stage and children's garden to a time specific Downtown at the Gardens is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gardens Parkway and Alt A4 -A within the Regional Center DRI. There was no ex -parte communication. Donaldson Hearing spoke on behalf of the petitioner, listing items for discussion. Mr. Hearing announced the grand opening was planned for November 10, 2005, and displayed the site plan. Mr. Hearing requested elimination of the approved video wall sign, proposed addition of a right turn lane out only, and asked for conceptual approval. Mr. Hearing explained that the lake plan could not be built until after construction of the Landmark project was completed, and the same would be true of the Cotleur project; and Menin would like to wait on completion of the lakeside pavilion for 12 months. The pedestrian bridge that connects Landmark with this project would be built prior to the first CO for the Landmark building. Landscaping down the vias deviated from the landscape palette, and there were 93 new parking spaces. Mr. Hearing requested elimination of service gates. Three sign waivers were requested — an increase in the lettering size for the Cobb Theater building, and two approved principal tenant signs on the bridge from 36" to 42 ". Additional square footage totaling 1,032 square feet was proposed, to be used for offices. Mr. Panczak asked the height of the wall on which 66" lettering was proposed, and was told it was 71'. Mr. Panczak asked why the video sign wall was going away, to which Mr. Hearing responded it could not be done technically. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Present was against reducing 9 -1/2' parking spaces to 9' for the valet area, which would only gain ten spaces between the two areas. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the public's cars needed to be protected and he was getting nervous that too much might have been approved if parking was not going to work. Mr. Pennell confirmed with Mr. Hearing that the contingency parking agreement still existed. Mr. Hereford asked if there would be floodlights to illuminate the building where the larger lettering would be, and was told the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Rubins had the same question about lights, felt the lettering size was a big increase, and that most people already knew the theater was there. Mr. Rubins questioned why this had not been brought up earlier. Mr. Hearing responded the tenant brought it to the petitioner's attention, and they then realized it really should be bigger to be proportionally right. Chair Kunkle asked if Landmark and Coulter were accepting the conditions that applied to them, to reimburse the applicant after construction had completed the lake plan, to which Mr. Hearing responded they had filed an application so that condition could be amended into their development order. Mr. Benothman commented the contingency parking plan conditions would be carried forward. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the applicant should remain responsible for the lake plan as written; the right turn out was a good idea; deferring the lake pavilion and bridge made this project have another phase; gates were not a problem; if the City Forester was satisfied with the landscaping it was no problem. Mr. Solomon commented deleting the video wall really bothered him and it was not right to eliminate it and very disappointing. Mr. Solomon was not in favor of reducing the parking stall sizes, and if there was that much concern about parking perhaps the applicant needed to build above grade parking now. Mr. Solomon commented that more than 9 spaces in a row with landscape diamonds was fine. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the increase requested for the large sign letters was too much, and perhaps 54" letters would work. Mr. Solomon had no problem with the additional square footage or with the other sign increase. Chair Kunkle stated he agreed with Mr. Solomon regarding the 9' spaces, and on the video wall sign, and asked for an explanation of the problem with the video wall sign. Mr. Benothman responded that the original condition stated the video wall sign must not be viewed from any public right -of -way or parking lot because it was prohibited by code and City Council could not grant a waiver from that. Now the applicant had stated they Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 5 could not completely screen it and it could be viewed from maybe PGA Boulevard and Kyoto Gardens Drive and Fairchild, so they were proposing to take it out. Ron Jacoby, one of the two partners of Downtown at the Gardens, spoke regarding the project and stated staff was very protective of the City's interests. Mr. Jacoby discussed the parking and asked for the same consideration given to other applicants who were granted 9' spaces. The video wall would have been immense and so high in the air that no one in the plaza would be able to see it; and they had not originally realized that the Cobb Theater letters needed to be larger to be in proportion. M TI N: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 05-05, with the following exceptions and limits: 1. Not to change the obligation of the lake park responsibilities from the current developer, notwithstanding the fact there will be agreement with participation of the other two developers. 2. Not to approve elimination of the video wall. Applicant shall work with staff on that to reduce the size and lower it or come back with something better architecturally to fill the space. 3. Reject the 9' wide parking spaces. 4. Permit increase on the Cobb signs on the east and west elevations to from 42" only to 52" and not 60" or 66 ". Mr. Hereford seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Rubins indicated he had no problem with most of the motion, but had a problem with keeping the developer on the hook when there were bonds and other developers; otherwise, he supported the motion. Mr. Pennell commented that he agreed with the staff recommendation. Mr. Present clarified that the applicant could still work with the other developers, Mr. Solomon just wanted them on the hook in case it did not work out with the other developers. Mr. Panczak agreed with Mr. Pennell. Motion carried by 4-3 vote, with Mr. Rubins, Mr. Pennell, and Mr. Panczak opposed. Following a 5- minute recess, the meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. Public Hearin and Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Ouasi Judicial) Petition 04 - -02 — Frenchman's Creek PCDIDRI — Notice of Plronosed Change and PCD Amendment Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. George Gentile of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, Ina, for a Notice of Proposed Change and amendment to the Frenchman's Creek Development of Regional ImpacManned Community Development (DREPCD) to change the current boundaries of the PCD by incorporating a 6.05 -acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Donald Ross Road and Prosperity Farms Road into the PCD and to allow for the approval of a Use Conversion Matrix for the DRI. The Frenchman's Creek Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 6 DRI/PCD is generally bounded by Donald Ross Road to the north, Alternate AIA to the west, Hood Road to the south, and Prosperity Farms Road and the Sanctuary residential development to the east AND Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Ouasi Judicial) Petition ZONISP- -0401: Frenchman's Yacht Club — Rezoning and Master Plan Approval Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. George Gentile, of Gentile, Holloway, O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc, on behalf of Avatar Properties, Inc, for a rezoning and master development plan approval to allow the development of 113 multifamily dwelling units within four (4) condominium buildings ranging from four (4) to five (S) 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 It was announced that the petitions for Petition PCD/NOPC -04 and Petition ZON /SP -04- 01 would be heard simultaneously. The following ex -parte communications were reported: Chair Kunkle had met with the applicant and had received a phone call from Commissioner Marcus. Mr. Rubins and Mr. Present had met with the applicant. Mr. Solomon had met with Mr. Malefatto and George Gentile. Chair Kunkle announced that the time limit for public speakers would be 2 minutes. Attorney Al Malefatto spoke on behalf of Frenchman's Yacht Club, describing the predevelopment project history, including many mitigating efforts, and reported that the project would consist of 113 units. Mr. Malefatto advised that with any further reduction in the number of units the project would not be viable, and the applicant had withdrawn the waiver request for 9' parking spaces, to go with 9 -1/2' wide spaces, and with that change they were in full support of the staff report. George Gentile presented the Frenchman's Creek proposed NOPC change, to add land with commercial development, and described subsequent reductions in size of the development. The NOPC change had been approved by DCA and by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as a minor deviation. Mr. Gentile reviewed the proposed site plan for the marina, club, commercial, and residential units. Mr. Gentile reviewed the requested waivers. Architect Paul Twitty described the proposed architecture. Mr. Gentile reported efforts and meetings with surrounding developments to work out differences. Mr. Hereford asked if the applicant had ever received a letter from Frenchman's Homeowners Association. Mr. Malefatto reported a letter was received from the POA Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 7 agreeing that the application to go forward, and they were still in negotiations with this organization. Mr. Hereford suggested rearranging so that building one would not have to go into the DRI parcel. Mr. Gentile responded they had not looked at pushing it into the development further. Mr. Pennell asked if residents of Frenchman's Marina would be in the Frenchman's Creek Homeowners Association, to which the applicant responded there would be a separate association for the condominiums but it had not yet been decided whether it would be a part of the association. The applicant confirmed there was enough distance from Prosperity and Palmwood to have a traffic signal at this property, and both the applicant and Palm Beach County would contribute to that signal. Mr. Sanchez commented that the signal must be installed prior to CO with painted mast arms. Mr. Present asked if there were any parcels left in the DRI that had not been built on, to which Mr. Malefatto responded he did not believe so. Discussion ensued. Mr. Present asked what happened to the remaining unbuilt units. Mr. Malefatto commented he believed they were still out there. Mr. Benothman advised the original resolution was attached to the staff report, and older DRI's usually got approval for many more units than would be put on site. Palm Beach Gardens had 3,600+ units in their portion. Mr. Present asked if this would come back before the board. Mr. Benothman responded only if there were vacant parcels, but he thought this was the last one, and it could not come back for an extension. Mr. Panczak asked how many spaces in the center section were allocated to commercial. Mr. Gentile explained they were all commercial; there would be parking spaces allocated on the site for marina spaces. Attendants would bring people to the boat slips by golf cart. The roof design was described by the architect. Mr. Benothman advised there were no additional staff comments on the NOPC other than those in the staff report. Mr. Sanchez discussed the requested waivers, stating that staff felt the waivers were justified. Mr. Sanchez noted outstanding issues, including staff request to break up the mass of the large building, to identify assigned parking on the plan, to identify the method of parking for service contractors to the marina, to identify signage for commercial uses on site, and other minor issues, to be resolved prior to City Council approval. Mr. Sanchez advised that letters received to date on this project had been distributed to the board members, and one had been from Mr. Bramson, who had two issues —one was the amount of parking that would be allocated to the marina, which he felt was 67 but failed to realize that the additional parking was going to be allocated to the marina; and the other was how service contractors could park to service boats at the marina. Mr. Hereford asked who owned the parcel next to the bridge. Mr. Sanchez responded that was the preserve for Frenchman's Creek and was owned by the county. Mr. Hereford asked if by incorporating additional land into a DRI, developers did not have to Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 8 follow a planning process. Mr. Benothman explained that anyone could add land to a DRI, which allowed them to take advantage of the vested rights of the DRI such as height, density, and vested trips. Staff confirmed for Mr. Pennell that the architectural conditions were part of the approval, and 17 parking spaces were reduced to 11. Along the main drive spaces would be 9 -1/2' wide, but there would still be 9' wide spaces in the garage. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Susan Parker, Miller Drive, expressed concern with 5 -story buildings, and the density and heavy traffic that would be generated. Dan Sealy, resident in the neighborhood north of the project, noted the applicant had met with them and reduced the units, but he still felt it was too large and would produce too much traffic. Chris Searcy, a resident on the north side across from this project, expressed traffic and density concerns, as well as aesthetics of 5 -story units. Neil Gaeta, President of the Cove Owners Association, expressed agreement with those who had already spoken, and reported their community had changed the land use to lower density and felt this applicant should do so also, as well as reducing building height. They felt commercial use was what should remain on this site. Dave Aronberg, with the law firm of Greenspoon Marder, noted that he was speaking on behalf of Rebecca L. Henderson from their firm who had been unable to attend. Attorney Aronberg read into the record a letter from their client Herb Gordon of 1921 Le Bateau Drive in Frenchman's Creek, expressing his concerns in objecting to the project. Casey Steinbacker, President of North Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce for a growing number of requests that would be coming before the board that very limited commercial spaces be converted to residential. Dawn Warbell, from the adjacent neighborhood, expressed density and building height concerns. Lou Gaeta, Northlake Boulevard, was not against the project but expressed concern as Chair of the PGA Corridor Association and Vice Chairman of the City Council's Economic Development Committee, to taking commercial properties off the market to make them residential, which would consume many more services than they produced in tax dollars. Terry Kirchoff, Hope Lane West, felt this should stay a community of residents and not have this density and traffic. Lynn Surback stated her house faced the back of a 5 -story building, expressed concern for the two schools in the area and the church because of increased traffic; and commented that she felt more retail was not needed. Ray Verry, Port Circle, stated he would see this project from his front yard and 4 and 5 -story buildings did not fit into this neighborhood, and it was already difficult to exit from their neighborhood, and the light needed to be installed when construction started. Robert Warbell, Waterway Manor, Miller Drive, commented the signs posted for this meeting were too small and did not comply with code; and commented there was an extra story for parking in addition to the 4 and 5 stories, and he was not in favor of the project. Letters had been received from Lisa M. Miller in opposition; from William and Harriette McAnally and John and Julie Kime stating concerns of Paradise Point, from Nigel J. Taylor expressing opposition; from Commissioner Karen Marcus asking that concerns of the communities be kept in mind; Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 9 from Helmut and Heidi G. Klemisch, owners of KBM Consulting, Ltd. in opposition; and from Jay F. Higgins and Gail J. Higgins in opposition. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Malefatto clarified the parking story was included in the 4 and 5 story buildings; and that much more commercial could be on this project under current City codes, which would cause increased traffic, and the applicant was actually reducing that. A member of the audience asked that the City's Traffic Engineer be consulted regarding the traffic. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion the project was good looking but driving over Donald Ross bridge he would be looking up to rooflines because the buildings were higher than the bridge, which he considered a problem and a major character change for this road. Mr. Present commented no one was present from Frenchman's, so they must be in agreement, and asked about meetings with other neighborhoods. Mr. Gentile responded there had been four meetings with the neighborhood to the north coordinated through Commissioner Marcus' office, and there had been many more with Frenchman's Creek. Mr. Present commented this property was unique because it was at water level, and asked at what level the project would be seen from Prosperity Farms Road. Mr. Gentile explained because the right -of -way was tremendously landscaped, there was only one opening, through which one could probably view a building a little above second floor or at third floor. From the Donald Ross Road bridge at the bridge tender's building, the buildings would be just a little lower than that, so the view would not be roofs, but would be buildings and boat masts. Mr. Gentile showed a graphic depicting the view into the project from the community across the street, showing how much of the 4 story buildings above parking would be viewed. Joel Wantman, the engineer designing the roadway, described the signalization and showed how the phasing program would work to allow traffic flow and cross movement. Mr. Solomon asked the level of service on Donald Ross Road and Prosperity Farms at the project location. Yvonne Zeil, traffic consultant, advised that the current LOS was `B ", and would not change with this project. Mr. Benothman noted trips were not currently vested. Mr. Solomon commented this was a reasonable use and the project was nice, and the developer had made a genuine effort to be sensitive to the competing interests, and 113 units were not a lot, considering everything. Mr. Solomon felt the project was significantly separated from the project to the north, and urged that the building mass in buildings 2 and 3 be broken up on the north and south sides with architectural features. Mr. Solomon commented something would be built on this land at some time, and any project would add traffic. There would be further opportunities for the residents to be heard at City Council. Mr. Pennell noted originally this was 7 or 8 stories and there had been a progression of making this fit with the land, and it was a nice looking, quality project. Mr. Pennell felt residents who did not like it now would like it after it was built, and he felt it was a good use of the land. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 10 M TI N: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCD/NOPC- 04-02. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition ZON /SP- 04 -01, with 4 waivers instead of 5, removing the parking waiver, and with the change from 17 spaces to 11 spaces, a waiver for 9' spaces underneath, and a waiver for 9 -1/2' spaces instead of 10' along the main drive. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unaawwq* 5-2 vote, with Mr. Hereford and Chair Kunkle opposed. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the board, except the letters everyone had received inviting them to a zoning party. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Septembo 13, 2005. APPROVED: Charles Hereford 1 st Alternate Jay H. Bramson Alternate Jonathan D. Rubins etty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting