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