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