Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 091305PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD • REGULAR MEETING September 13, 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. Hansen pointed out on page 10 of the August 23, 2005 minutes "motion carried by unanimous 3 -2 vote ", and requested removal of the word "unanimous ". Mr. Rubins made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2005 PZA meeting as corrected. Mr. Hansen 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 Randolph Hansen Dennis Solomon Michael Panczak Douglas Pennell Jonathan D. Rubins (2nd alternate) Ahsent Charles Hereford Jay H. Bramson (1St alternate) All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearing were sworn in. Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition PUD- 05 -03: Mirasol Walk PUD — Bank of America Recommendation to City Council: A request by Harry Hinds of H & T Consultants, on behalf of PBC -Three LLC, for approval of an amendment to the Mirasol Walk Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the construction of a 4,500 square foot • bank with three drive -thru lanes and an ATM on an approximately 1.28 -acre site. The Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 2 • Mirasol Walk PUD is located at the northwest corner of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and PGA Boulevard. The board members reported no ex -parte communication. Raul Lazano, Architectural Design Collaborative, provided a presentation on behalf of Bank of America for the proposed bank in the Mirasol Walk development. Mr. Lazano advised that the architecture, materials, and colors would mimic those in Mirasol Walk. Mr. Lazano commented that the proposed landscape plan exceeded city standards, and described traffic circulation. Mr. Panczak asked if the paint colors were consistent. Mr. Lazano responded that they were and the specs had been obtained from the developer. Mr. Solomon indicated staff was looking for some architectural enhancements. Mr. Lazano advised the staff comment was to accent the entrance to the bank, and the applicant planned to move the tower on center over the double door entrance. The north and west elevations were shown. Mr. Lazano explained that the additional architectural enhancement on the west elevation was the carry through of the colonnade in front of the building. He had spoken to the bank about both comments and was presently in dialog with the bank to resolve these issues. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion this should come back with the changes and a full presentation made, with color elevations of all sides. Chair Kunkle stated he was not is comfortable making a recommendation to City Council on something that would change significantly, and the applicant could return in two weeks. Mr. Present noted this was the second bank in this PUD and asked if both had the same type of clients. Mr. Lazano responded the banks were on independent outparcels and their customer base was totally independent. Mr. Wiseman explained that both sites would have plenty of parking and the PUD allowed two banks. Mr. Hansen agreed with Chair Kunkle that the applicant should come back. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion the original design had been better and he thought that pulling the roof line down was very weak. Mr. Hansen noted some of the characteristics that he felt should be picked up were, in addition to the entrance going back to the corner, the massing of the rooflines as on the original design along with tile, signage, and so on that were in the second design. Mr. Hansen indicated he did not have a roof plan and did not have a color rendering in his package. Mr. Lazano advised there was a stepped -down roof and the equipment would all be down in a pit. Mr. Hansen commented they did not have to have their building exactly like Suntrust. Chair Kunkle commented Mr. Hansen would be happy to disclose ex -parte communication at the next meeting, to which Mr. Hansen responded, absolutely. Mr. Rubins commented it was a very weak presentation and he would like to see color renderings of signage at the next meeting. • Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 3 • Chair Kunkle advised the applicant that the board would be ready to hear their presentation in two weeks. Workshop: Petition LDR- 05 -01: Tree Protection Workshop: Ordinance 26, 2005 provides for the amendment to the City's Code of Ordinances by amending Chapter 78, "Land Development," Article V, "Supplementary Regulations," Division 8, "Landscaping," relating to vegetation pruning and protection in general and during severe weather events, minimum landscape requirements for residential and nonresidential developments, foundation landscaping, stop work orders and amending Article VIII, "Definitions." This ordinance is also clarifying the City's exemption from the "Palm Beach County Countywide Prohibited Invasive Non - Native Vegetation Removal Ordinance." City Forester Mark Hendrickson provided the staff presentation. Mr. Hendrickson explained that the current code contained both pruning and tree protection standards for common open space within residential and non - residential neighborhoods but did not apply on single - family or duplex lots. Because a neighborhood had approached City Council last year after the hurricanes asking, staff to work on the codes to make that inclusion, and in this case a resident thad taken down large oak trees right before a • hurricane. Mr. Hendrickson explained that the two sections dealing with pruning and tree protection were proposed to be slightly changed to protect specimen trees (13" or greater in diameter) and pruning standards would apply to all property. Mr. Hendrickson provided a pictoral presentation. A stop work order was proposed, which the City could use to stop or prevent pruning or tree removal prior to a hurricane. Hatracking would not be allowed to occur. Mr. Hendrickson explained that hatracking was a health, safety, and welfare issue because the tree would not die, but would continue to create primary and second branches off each branch that was pruned, and when the tree grew, the wind could catch it like a sail and the root system would not be as strong, so it would be more likely to blow over. Pruning on one side would cause a tree to be lopsided and make it more likely to fall. It was better to remove a tree than to continually improperly prune. This ordinance would not replace common law that allowed a property owner to prune a tree hanging over his property. Mr. Hendrickson noted that neighborhoods were protected by correctly pruned trees since they slowed and channeled wind and helped protect in hurricane categories 1, 2, and low 3, to reduce damage. A large oak tree street tree which had been cut down because the homeowners association felt it was preventing the grass from growing was shown and discussed. The proposed code would provide a permitting process for removing a tree. Mr. Hendrickson commented the new ordinance would protect or replace the specimen tree canopy everywhere. • Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 4 • There were no codes that Mr. Hendrickson could find to protect from someone cutting a tree right before a hurricane with insufficient time for pickup or to have contractors batten down the hatches, so this code would be cutting edge. Once a tropical storm watch was in place, a stop work order could prevent someone placing a huge pile of trimmings before the watch turned into a warning, when it would be too late. Minimum standards for open space would be established in the original part of the city without active homeowner associations. It was proposed to keep 50% open space in the front yard facing the street, which would prevent someone from paving their entire yard. It was also proposed to add language that residential structures 3 stories or higher would require foundation landscaping. Mr. Hendrickson reported the City Council had directed him to opt out of the county's 2003 Countywide Prohibitive Invasive Non - Native Vegetation Removal Ordinance at the proper time, since the city's codes were sufficient for that, and he was taking this opportunity to do so. Mr. Rubins thanked Mr. Hendrickson for such a thorough presentation. Mr. Hansen asked how residents would be educated, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded that staff would begin after this workshop by sending a draft of the ordinance to landscape companies, homeowner associations, and anyone else who needed to review it. Public meetings would probably be held, and after approval of the ordinance there would probably be a grace, period which would allow time for public workshops at • homeowner association meetings. All avenues would be used to get the word out. Mr. Hansen suggested flyers could be mailed to all residents. Mr. Hendrickson indicated he expected announcements in the City's newsletter. Mr. Hansen commented this could become an enforcement nightmare. Mr. Hansen asked about the minimum open space requirements for commercial where the underlying zoning was residential. Mr. Hendrickson responded this would not affect any current projects; and to make something compatible that was allowed across the board, open space should be one of the elements along with all the other things that it should be compatible with, which is the underlying district that was regulating it. Open space could be pervious or impervious, and the definition would not be changed. The point that staff wished the board to discuss was whether they wanted a non - residential use going into a residential district and not to abide by the same codes that the residential use would have to abide by. Mr. Pennell recalled really large old oaks were cut just before the storm, and stacked out on the street, and asked if this code had been in effect what would have happened. Mr. Hendrickson responded that hopefully someone would have called the City and they could have gone out with a stop work order. Different scenarios were being discussed with the City Attorney. The case could go to Special Master and carry a $5,000 maximum fine per tree, or the person could apply for a permit to remove the tree, which would require replacement. Mitigation, enforcement, and removal with replacement were discussed. Mr. Hendrickson advised that the preferred species list of trees was available to the public upon request. • Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 5 • Mr. Present commented a lot of this had to do with education, and flyers sent out pre - hurricane season with enough time to start pruning would be a pro- active approach with or without an ordinance, and he felt the City was remiss if they did not do this. Mr. Present proposed education for tree trimming companies. Mr. Present commented on trees that were not replaced that were lost during the last hurricanes. Mr. Hendrickson explained the City was working with HOA's and if there was an approved landscape plan, at some point the replacements would be done. Mr. Present suggested educating with flyers in a mailing, and getting it to people annually before the season to promote trimming before the storm season. This could be coordinated with waste management and public works for a proactive approach. Mr. Solomon commented this could be emotional regarding people's property rights, which must be considered. Mr. Solomon commented he thought the open space aspect did not belong here but deserved a separate form and thinking, and urged staff to take it out of the ordinance and put it somewhere else. When one could prune or not, so that it was safe, was an issue that might be determined by whether it could be hauled away in time before a storm, and not just if there was a watch or warning. Residential lots with structures or if vacant should be visited, and perhaps apply the ordinance only where there were structures. What a stop work order meant should be described. In describing specimen trees the point that the 13" was measured should be noted. Mr. Hendrickson responded 4 -1/2' from the ground was code. Mr. Solomon asked staff to look at whether a landscape architect was being required where not necessarily needed. Mr. Solomon • commented he thought there should be an exception if there was a replacement tree, as to quality or size, but not necessarily the same type tree; and whether that should apply to anywhere on the lot or where visible from the street. Mr. Benothman noted single - family and duplex lots would be required to provide landscape plans under the new code. Mr. Solomon asked what would be grandfathered in, and stated it would be onerous after the fact. Mr. Benothman indicated it would be required if doing major renovations. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that was fine if they were asking for something significant and if it was reasonable to do, but if it was hidden and no one would see it he did not think it was right to require it just to make someone comply with the letter of the law. Mr. Solomon indicated he agreed with the foundation plantings if a 3 -story building had room for foundation plantings. Mr. Hendrickson advised this would only be for new construction. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that education must take place and could be done using pictures of good and bad examples, and the permit application should be user - friendly with no fee for the first 2 -3 years. Mr. Solomon indicated he had no problem with opting out of the county ordinance. Mr. Panczak asked if landscapers had to have an occupational license if they did not live in the City, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded they had to have a county license. Mr. Panczak suggested this could be an opportunity to educate them by telling them the right and wrong way to prune. Mr. Panczak asked if there was any opportunity to require tree trimming companies to obtain an occupational license. Whether the City had sufficient manpower for pre - hurricane enforcement was discussed. Mr. Hendrickson responded this was going to be done in baby steps and that enforcement would potentially triple if ispeople had a widespread problem. Mr. Panczak expressed his opinion that this should Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 6 • be a proactive campaign approach to say May and June were tree pruning months in the City, and asked if those were the best months. Mr. Hendrickson felt winter months were best, and stated education was the key to this. Chair Kunkle stated the ordinance should state `trees' rather than `vegetation'. Chair Kunkle commented it was a classic problem when street trees grew and it would be cheaper to remove the large trees than apply class 2 pruning. Chair Kujnkle advised that Class 2 pruning should start when the trees were 5 -6 years old, and trimmed every two years after that - -it would be less expensive initially, there would be a routine, budgets would work, the understory would continue to grow, roofs and sidewalks would not have to be pressure cleaned for mold and there would not have to be arguments as to whether a homeowner or the association would pay. A community that had not gone into that cycle could take out every other tree and it would not be missed —the street appearance would not change. The remaining trees should be class 2 pruned. Chair Kunkle asked that one - for -one replacement not be mandatory. Property values and enhancements of neighborhoods as a whole was the City's goal —not just the tree canopy of the street itself. Chair Kunkle asked staff to think about that, and commented it had been done in Jupiter Hills in Martin County. OLD BUSINESS • There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the board. is Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 7. LJ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, t eeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held Septe ber 17, 2005. APPROVED: • Craig Kunklevk. Chair Charles Hereford 1 st Alternate Jay H. Bramson ternate Jonathan D. Rubins 4-4b- Q 8; • Betty La W, Secretary for the Meeting