Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 101105PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING October 11, 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. Chair Kunkle welcomed new members Joy Hecht and Amil Kanel. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu welcomed the new members and announced they had been given orientation. Mr. Wu introduced Joyce Cai, new Principal Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen requested that on page 3 of the September 27, 2005 minutes, the words "the sign at" in the language "the sign at Walgreens" be removed, since that conversation had not been about just the sign. Mr. Hansen noted on page 5, the language "Mr. Hansen commented three handicap spaces were needed" was what he had said, but he should have said five were needed. Mr. Hansen requested on page 7, that the word "story" be inserted so that in the 6t' line down from the top the phrase would read "10'- 12' -20' story buildings ". Mr. Panczak indicated he believed that Mike Pfesser spelled his name "Gfesser ". Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2005 PZA meeting as corrected. Mr. Panczak 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 Jonathan D. Rubins Joy Hecht (1" Alt.) Amir Kane, (2nd Alt.) Absent Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 2 All those present who intended to testify in tonight's hearings were sworn in. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. Petition: LDR- 05 -09: Plat Process Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A City- initiated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Land Development Regulations to clarify the development order review process for subdivisions and plats. The purpose is to make Sections 78-41 and 78-43 be consistent with Section 78-423 and Section 78-444 of Chapter 78 by specifying that the City Council is the final decision making authority for approval of both subdivisions and plats. Principal Planner Joyce Cai presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Panczak clarified with Mr. Wu that the PZA board would have no input on a plat under this ordinance; however, it should be platted according to the site plan approved by the board. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LDR -05 -09. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition: PCD- 99-04: Parcel 5A — Rezoning and Master Plan Approval Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. Ryan Johnston, of Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., on behalf of PGA North IT of Florida, LLC, for approval of a rezoning from Research and Light Industrial Park (ML) and Planned Development Area (PDA) zoning designations to a Planned Community District Overlay (PCD) zoning designation with an Ml underlying zoning designation. The proposed PCD, to be referred to as "PGA Corporate Center," will consist of 240,000 square feet of office use and 600,000 square feet of industrial use including a maximum of 42,000 square feet of ancillary commercial use. The approximately 834 -acre subject site, referred to as "Parcel SA," is generally bounded by Interstate -95 right -of -way to the west and south, the Garden Woods and Winchester Courts residential developments to the north, and the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) right -of -way and Alternate ALA to the east. Chair Kunkle reported ex -parte communication that he had spoken to Ryan Johnston of Catalf imo on this project. No other ex -parte communication was reported. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 3 Ryan Johnston presented the applicant's request for re- zoning, summarized why the change in zoning would be beneficial, reviewed the conditions of approval and requested changes. Mr. Panczak asked about the plant materials that would be used in the lake maintenance easement on the north side of Kyoto Drive. Mr. Johnston pointed out an area that was to be landscaped with new plantings and advised it would be higher than the 8 to 10 feet coming off the bridge. Five cut - throughs for lake maintenance had originally been requested by the City Engineer, but this plan only had two and had been agreed to by the City Engineer. Mr. Hansen asked the character of the proposed sound barrier on the bridge. Mr. Johnston described the barrier, which would have a pattern created by a form liner on the side next to the residents, as requested by the City. Mr. Hansen indicated his personal observation was that it would be good if the City Council and staff requested an aesthetic treatment on the south side as well. Mr. Hansen asked how much room there was for ingress and egress to lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 at the end of the cul -de -sac. Mr. Johnston responded the amount of room had been determined to be sufficient and one of the conditions of approval was to provide cross access between parcels to allow traffic to flow out to an alternate route. Mr. Hansen indicated it seemed tight for large trucks, and Mr. Johnston indicated they would look at that. Mr. Solomon asked if the anticipated plat would show the access roads and individual parcels, to which Mr. Johnston responded the applicant would provide a subdivision plat essentially matching the plan shown and as they went through the process each parcel would be required to come back and replat on an individual basis, show easements, etc., and if there were any changes in the lot layout it would be replatted and have to come back before City Council. Mr. Solomon asked if it was planned to sell to one owner who would use the whole thing and not sell portions off that would then be further subdivided. Mr. Johnston responded it was his understanding of Florida Statutes that land could be subdivided according to metes and bounds at least once, and that further subdivision would require a complete replatting. Mr. Johnston advised that it was anticipated that each user would be allocated a parcel that would meet their size needs, so that the parcels would not have to go through subdivision and could be kept as is. Mr. Solomon commented the applicant had expressed objection to conditions 10 and 18, indicating their feeling it should be the property owners association rather than developer applicant that should be involved. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that in condition 10, it should be the applicant, not the HOA, to file an annual status report to confirm to the governmental agency they had complied with all the conditions, which was a method of accountability, and he thought a Chief Financial Officer of the applicant should sign a certification to the city stating compliance. In condition 18, Mr. Solomon felt it was the same sort of thing regarding maintenance of the landscaping, and recommended adding the word "perpetual" before maintenance. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that after Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 4 all the properties were sold the HOA would be considered successor to the applicant; but now the applicant should be responsible. Mr. Kanel asked how the piles for the bridge would be driven. City Engineer Dan Clark explained it was planned to jet the piles to within 2 -3 feet of their final resting place and then hammered in. Mr. Clark advised that a commitment had been made to the Winchester Courts POA Road Committee that the 10 -foot post and panel wall would be installed to separate them from the construction before beginning construction and appropriate monitoring for any vibration during construction. Mr. Kanel noted he would rather they be drilled in to prevent a lot of vibration to the homes. Mr. Clark advised the piles were fabricated and waiting to be installed so the process was far beyond that ability. Mr. Present asked the elevation of the bridge in relation to the two -story townhouses, to which the civil engineer responded the peak part of the bridge was about equal to the first -floor windows. Mr. Johnston responded to Mr. Present's questions regarding the lake that the applicant would be excavating the existing 7 -1/2 acre lake to 12.2 acres, and the banks would be graded to SFWMD standards. Access to existing facilities was described. Mr. Johnston advised the applicant was working with Seacoast Utility to provide an easement for access to their lift station. The project was anticipated to have a 5 -8 year buildout. The City Engineer advised the railroad crossing did not yet have plan approval which would be discussed with FEC next week; bridge construction could begin immediately, and he was optimistic construction on the roadway could begin in January and be completed in January 2007. The connecting roadway between this project and Parcel 5B was currently under construction and the permitting was currently taking place to continue access to Kyoto Drive. Mr. Pennell commented this had come a long way since the workshop, and it was nice to see it proceeding. Mr. Rubins advised most of his comments had been addressed by other members, and expressed his agreement that the applicant, not the POA, should be responsible in condition #10. Planning Manager Michael Sanchez advised outstanding issues had been addressed and staff would continue to work with the applicant prior to City Council. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Sharon Long, Garden Woods resident, expressed concern regarding the Kyoto Drive railroad crossing and did not want it to open until approval had been received to stop the train horns. Ms. Long questioned the conditions, which she noted were not published for the public. Ms. Long asked if there would be a traffic light at Military Trail, asked the dates RCA Boulevard would open, and expressed concern with the 62' high building at Downtown at the Gardens and stated they did not want to be looking at that to the south, and hoped that buffering would be high enough to cover that. Ms. Long asked if the landscape buffering would have plants Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 5 that did not require water and fertilizing, the types of businesses uses allowed, if there would be adequate parking, requested that the power lines would be buried, and that water retention would be adequate to prevent flooding. Chair Kunkle advised the project information was public record and could be requested, and Mr. Wu would send a letter answering her questions. Mr. Wu advised the staff report was now on the web site. Cyrese Colbert, 11163 Banyan, Garden Woods, noted the existing drainage canals were not shown on the plans, and expressed concern that going from light industrial to industrial was scary and she would like to know the difference, and that the upland preserve could be amended was also scary. Ms. Colbert expressed her opinion the maintenance should not be turned over until everything was sold; and advised that the road being used for construction was one the City had promised would not be used for construction again. Ms. Colbert asked the number of trees would be cut for the staging area, and asked what kind of landscaping was to be done in six months. The City Engineer responded there would be some clearing of the roadway on the eastern side of the lake and some staging of materials there, but on the smaller western side the materials would probably be brought in as needed. Mr. Johnston apologized he had not known the plan had an error and did not show the drainage canals, and explained the two canals would be joined into one. The light industrial use was not changing to industrial. The upland preserve was still required to be 10 acres and all Florida native species would be added. The easement on the north side might be abandoned to make the preserve larger. Mr. Johnston explained that the primary road for construction would not come from the plat 4 subdivision, and the primary access would be from the south from Parcel 5A. The bridge would be constructed from both ends to hasten construction. The vegetation to be added to the preserve had a 6 -month time frame. Jud Laird, Winchester Courts, asked if an environmental study had been done, because both the Audubon Society and the Florida Fish and Wildlife recommended moving the road. Chair Kunkle advised he could get a copy of the study. Mr. Pennell asked if the preserve and lake were placed there purposely as a buffer for the neighborhoods to the north because of Kyoto, which Mr. Johnston confirmed as to the buffer but advised the lake already existed. The residents were probably 400 -500 feet from Kyoto Drive. Mr. Sanchez explained the transfer from a PDA to a PCD at the request of Mr. Panczak, and noted this was currently zoned M -1, Research and Light Industrial Park, and that would remain. Mr. Solomon asked if the City had considered asking the applicant to treat the upland preserve as a conservation area; Mr. Johnston responded the preserve was already recorded as a conservation easement. Mr. Solomon asked if the conditions required a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions governing use and operation of the project that must be submitted to the City Attorney for review, which Mr. Sanchez confirmed. Mr. Sanchez advised that when this property was platted the preserve would be dedicated as a Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 6 preserve on that plat, and staff was satisfied that the PGA Overlay did not apply to this property. Mr. Solomon recommended the plans be revised to show the canals. Mr. Johnston advised the applicant had no problem being responsible for maintenance, and the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the canal. Architectural design guidelines were included in tonight's request for approval, but staff had asked the applicant to work further to refine those elements of styles to provide 4 -5 options to be available for each parcel as they came back for approval. Mr. Solomon noted no drawings were provided. Mr. Sanchez advised staff was leaving it to the applicant to provide the actual 4 -5 options. Chair Kunkle noted the board would see those options as each parcel came back for approval. Mr. Hansen read from the narrative portions which did not reference the PZA board review and approval. Mr. Sanchez verified every site plan approval would come before the PZA board. Mr. Sanchez confirmed the Art in Public Places would be 1% of all building costs on the entire project. Mr. Hansen commented on the architectural elements of style where the same thing was said in the verbal descriptions for several different styles, and if the applicant picked four with crossover language it was too limiting in terms of the potentional for architectural diversity on a property of this size. Mr. Hansen commented he was not sure why it was necessary to limit the options since each site plan had to come back for approvals. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion if there were going to be categories with verbal descriptions there should also be illustrations so that one could see what was really being described, but he felt having only a few options was too limiting. Mr. Panczak asked about the train horns that the first public speaker had referenced. City Engineer Clark reported the City had been trying for some time to get an agreement with FEC, FDOT, and the FRA to allow quiet zones at the railroad crossings within the City, which was currently stalled because of new law. The quiet zones were expected to happen but it was uncertain as to when. Mr. Kanel expressed concern about drainage. Mr. Johnston explained the drainage flow, and advised that a condition of approval required two fountains in the lake to provide aeration and act as a sound buffer. This was a part of Basin 2 and had received overall approval that it would handle the amount of water. Mr. Kanel asked for better guidelines for architectural design. Alex Perez, Garden Woods, requested addition of a condition that there be no construction traffic through the neighborhood. The City Engineer advised they would do their best, and Mr. Johnston agreed. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. iY Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Wu proposed withdrawing the design elements to be re- visited at a later date; the applicant agreed. Mr. Wu recommended a condition to require individual site plans to provide notice to the neighborhood; Mr. Johnston requested the notice be limited to the 500' radius and be sent by first -class mail rather than certified mail. It was clarified the 500' radius would be from the PCD boundary for any parcel within the PCD. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of Petition PCD -"-04 with the two waivers requested and the following changes: that a condition be added to clarify that each individual site plan project to be built would come back for PZA approval as to the site plan, signage, fighting, buffering, architectural review, landscaping, landscape irrigation, etc.; also that the design guideline aspect of the submission be withdrawn for now with City staff and the applicant being able to revisit that in the future if they desired; also with the additional condition that as each petition came in for site plan approval on the individual parcels that written notice be given to unit owners within 500' of the boundary of the PCD in advance so that those property owners had the opportunity to be present at the hearing and make comments. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion. Mr. Hansen asked for clarification as to whether the architectural guidelines would come back to this board Mr. Solomon clarified that he was suggesting staff could work on the architectural guidelines and they would not have to come back to the board; but the site plans and actual review process would come back to the board. Mr. Hansen requested an amendment that if there was amendment to the architectural guidelines that also come back to the board for approvaL Mr. Solomon agreed to the amendment. Mr. Wu advised staff could work with the timing. Mr. Rubins seconded the amendment. The vote on the motion carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS Consensus of the board was to cancel the November 22, 2005 meeting and the December 27, 2005 meeting. Mr. Hansen commented the list of terms with the packet showed he, Mr. Panczak, and Mr. Pennell were no longer on the board. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held October 25,Sf APPROVED: a] Barry Present, Douglas Pennell f Michael P c �l Afnif Kanel r Betty Laur, S cretary for the Meeting