HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 110805PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
November 8, 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 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR:
Charles Wu reported City Council had approved the following cases: Gardens Station sign package
(with denial of two signs); the LDR change to allow additional workshops prior to formal hearings; and
Old Park Phase 11.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 11, 2005 & OCTOBER 25, 2005
Mr. Hansen requested a correction to his correction for the September 27, 2005 minutes.
Mr. Hansen had requested that the word "story" be inserted so that the phrase "10' -12'-
20' buildings would read "10 -12 -20 story buildings ", however the correction read "10%
12'-20' story buildings ". Mr. Hansen requested that the "foot" signs be removed. Mr.
Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2005 PZA meeting as
corrected. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2005 PZA
meeting as submitted. Mr. Present 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
Absent
Chair Craig Kunkle Douglas Pennell
Vice Chair Barry Present
Dennis Solomon
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Jonathan D. Rubins
Joy Hecht (I" Alt.)
Amir Kanel (f' Alt.)
All those present who intended to testify in tonight's hearings were sworn in.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 2
Recommendation to City Council:
(Continued from 10125105)
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition: PUD- 05 -03: Mirasol Walk PUD- Bank ofAmerica
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
Mirasol Walk PUD is located at the northwest corner of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike
and PGA Boulevard.
Mr. Hansen disclosed as ex -parte communication that he had met with the applicant and
received e-mail. Chair Kunkle stated he had as well.
Karen Anderson, Architectural Design Collaborative, presented a revised elevation and
design for Bank of America. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion this was a huge
improvement. Ms. Anderson reviewed the requested waivers.
Mr. Hansen commented that the applicant had contacted him shortly after the last
meeting and he had met with them. At that time, they had made significant
improvements to the design, and continued to do so until resubmittal.
Mr. Kanel asked if there was an emergency generator, to which the response was no.
Locations of a/c units were pointed out on the roof plan. Mr. Kanel asked how the
utilities would be maintained. Chair Kunkle explained those were within dedicated
easements. Mr. Wiseman commented that there were no conflicts with landscaping and
the building could not go on top of existing utilities. Mr. Kanel asked if there would be
an ATM. Ms. Anderson explained there was one in the drive through and two in the 24-
hour interior vestibule.
Mr. Solomon complimented the applicant on a tremendous improvement; Mr. Rubins
agreed. Ms. Hecht asked if this would become a prototype, however, Ms. Anderson did
not think so.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
PUD -05 -03 consistent with the staff report including the three waivers. Mr. Rubins
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
(Continued from 10125105)
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition: PUD- 05- 07 -04: The Pointe
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 3
Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council: A request by Anne Booth of
Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Pointe Property Development L.L. C., for a rezoning
from Professional Office (PO), to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay with an
underlying zoning designation of Professional Office (PO) to construct 150,000 square
feet of office space and a four -story parking garage on an approximately 9.18 -acre
site. The proposed Pointe PUD is located between Interstate -95 and Military Trail.
The following ex -parte communication was reported: Mr. Hansen reported he met with
the applicant. Mr. Solomon reported he met with John Glidden. Chair Kunkle reported
he met with John Glidden. Mr. Present reported he met with Dodi and had a phone call
and e-mail from John Glidden. Another member of the board reported he met with Tim
Page. Mr. Kanel reported he met with Dodi Glas and Charles Wu.
Attorney Steve Mathison introduced the project. Architect Keith Spina outlined the
architectural elements and described materials and colors. Anne Booth, Urban Design
Studio, described efforts to accommodate neighboring communities. Ms. Booth advised
that specimen trees would be planted in order to provide the immediate effect of height
and shade, and described the other landscaping. Ms. Booth described the requested
signage and requested signage on 3 sides of the building, and indicated it was imperative
to have signage visible from the I -95 access. Ms. Booth explained that with a Class A
building a major tenant would want signage. Ms. Booth asked for input from the board
on the signage. Ms. Booth indicated the project was to be developed in two phases.
Attorney Mathison commented the design team was the same team that had worked on
PGA Commons and the results spoke for themselves.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open.
Dr. Robert Davis, 118 Orchid Cay, BallenIsles, commented there was nothing on the plan
about the utilities. Dr. Davis expressed his opinion the zoning should be changed so that
all electric utilities in the future would be placed underground for aesthetics and to
prevent hurricane damage.
John Chaplik, 715 Hudson Bay Drive, The Isles, expressed concern regarding
ingress /egress and urged the City Engineer to be sure traffic flowed properly overall. Mr.
Chaplik commented a solution to workforce housing could be raising the quality of the
workforce by using buildings like this to attract high end work force. Mr. Chaplik
commented that projects like this were what the City needed to attract value added jobs
and urged the board to work with the economic development board.
John G. Lernihan reported he owned a condo in Sabal Ridge, and expressed his opinion
this was a very attractive project but was in the wrong place. Mr. Lernihan indicated he
respected the board members and hoped they would turn this project down. His opinion
was that the project should be in the west end of PGA Boulevard, not on a cloverleaf
which would create hazardous conditions.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 4
Eugene Nowak, 11574 Ficus Street, Garden Woods, commented the original application
was for 150,000 square feet and was now up to 275,000 square feet, huge signs, four
stories, and the waivers were developer created. Mr. Nowak felt the project was too
much for the site and asked that the board look at what the city would get from the
waivers.
Carolyn Chaplik, 715 Hudson Bay Drive, commented this was an unusual property and
the only kind of building that could go there was an office building. Ms. Chaplik
commented the building had excellent design, and 4 stories would provide a better sound
barrier for the residents. Ms. Chaplik advised she lived within walking distance.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing
closed. Ms. Booth commented all utilities would be underground. Ms. Booth reviewed
the requested waivers. Ms. Booth verified the total square footage was 150,000.
Mr. Rubins commented this had been an excellent presentation and asked the parking
ratio. Ms. Booth responded it was 3.8 per thousand. Mr. Rubins advised the typical class
A office building was at 4.0 or more, and he agreed class A office buildings were needed
in Palm Beach Gardens to attract high -end tenants, and the applicant might want to be at
4.0 or higher. Mr. Rubins stated he agreed with the signage; that one of the marketing
tools was to be able to attract large national tenants, some of whom felt signage was a
requirement.
Mr. Solomon verified with Ms. Booth that phase one was Building A and no portion of
the parking garage. Ms. Booth explained there would be handicap spaces built on the
land area in the corner that would be removed when the parking garage was built in Phase
2. All code requirements for parking would be met with Building A. Exotics would be
removed with all native trees left. Platting would be done so that there could be separate
owners for Buildings A and B. Ms. Solomon expressed his opinion that someone going
north or south could definitely see the signage on the north and south and he did not
believe signage on the west was necessary. Ms. Booth confirmed that staff's only
problem was the number of signs requested.
Mr. Present commented this was the only land left for an office north of PGA Boulevard,
and he agreed this was properly zoned. Positioning the buildings along the on ramp of I-
95 left more open space and the design felt right. Mr. Present indicated he had a problem
with the requested signage because The Point would speak for itself —there was nothing
else around it —and people would have no problem finding it.
Mr. Hansen commented this was a well- conceived project and the placement of the
buildings along the edge was an excellent design decision, and an example of the kind of
good architecture and height appropriateness that could be created along the I -95
corridor. Mr. Hansen did not agree with Mr. Rubins' opinion on signage, but agreed with
staff's analysis on this and concurred with comments that this would be very identifiable
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 5
and people would have no problem finding it. Mr. Hansen commented he did not support
three tenant signs. Mr. Hansen commented on the architecture, which he felt was very
good and had very nice details, and recommended holding the developer's feet to the fire
to be sure all the details remain intact and got built. Mr. Hansen confirmed with the
applicant that the curved sections were to be segmented. Charles Wu confirmed that any
downgrading must come back for approval.
Mr. Panczak confirmed with the applicant that all the requested signs were the same size.
The lake maintenance area was described. Mr. Panczak asked if there was 12' of clear
paver brick for a vehicle, and was told the benches might intrude on that, but it was felt
there was sufficient space for maintenance.
Mr. Kanel liked the idea of trading open space for height, and asked about the drainage
plan for this area. Ms. Booth explained this was part of Unit 2A of the Northern Palm
Beach Improvement District. City Engineer Dan Clark answered questions about the
runoff flow. Mr. Kanel indicated he agreed with staff on the signage.
Brad Wiseman, Senior Planner, advised that staff supported the project and
recommended two signs per building - -one on the east elevation and one on the west
elevation, both principal identification signs, which were allowed to be 36" in height and
at the top of a floor. Ms. Booth confirmed the developer would be responsible to
maintain the landscaping along I -95.
A poll of the board indicated everyone favored 4 signs except Mr. Rubins, who favored 6
signs.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition
PUD- 05 -07 -04 as presented, including the architectural details in the renderings
presented and in the construction documents, and with the recommended approval
of the waivers from staff and the waiver for one additional principal sign at the
upper level, for a total of two signs per building, maximum 36" high, meeting all the
code requirements for each building. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
(Continued from 10/25/05)
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
PCD- 04 -10: Parcel 31.04 — Rezoninz and Master Development Plan Approval
SP- 04 -05: Cimarron Cove — Site Plan Approval
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 6
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Marty Minor,
of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Gardens 95 Limited Partnership, L.C.C., for
approval of a rezoning from a Planned Development Area zoning designation to a
Mixed Use Planned Community District (MXD PCD) Overlay zoning designation
and approval of a the Planned Community District (PCD) master site plan and the
site plan of the residential portion of the PCD. The master development plan allows
for the development of 11,600 square feet of commercial retail, 15,000 square feet
high- turnover restaurant, 4,000 square foot bank with drive -thru, a 12,000 square
foot drugstore, 10,000 square feet professional office use and 252 residential
dwelling units. The approximately 50.58 -acre subject site, referred to as "Parcel
31.04," is located on the southeast corner of the Interstate 95 and Central Boulevard
intersection and the future I -95 interchange.
Ex -parte communication was reported: Chair Kunkle and Mr. Panczak reported they had
met with the developer. Mr. Kanel reported he had met with Dodi Glas. Mr. Hansen
reported he had several meetings with the applicant and with staff.
Dodi Glas described the project, which had been presented in June, and indicated some
changes had been made.
Kara Irwin, Planning Manager, explained the staff recommendation for denial. Major
outstanding issues reviewed by Ms. Irwin were the residential density, residential
parking, architectural diversity and community character, mixed use, and upland
preserve. Staff recommended denial of all requested waivers.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public,
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Panczak confirmed with staff that the preserve minimum width was 25'.
Mr. Hansen stated the meetings with the applicant had primarily concentrated on the
building design. Mr. Hansen stated a lot of time had been spent on the architecture, and
he was happy with the architecture, except he was not happy with the colors. Integration
of the commercial parcel with the residential parcel had also been discussed, which he
thought could work, and it was in the hands of another developer to do that. Mr. Hansen
felt the issues brought up by staff were justifiable and still needed to be addressed by the
applicant. Mr. Hansen questioned if this project was like the er-pr ject with the
access to 3 -story buildings being an alleyway. Ms. Irwin responded the alleyways were
similar but there would be no on- street parking or other access to the 7 buildings in this
project. Mr. Hansen requested the applicant be required to put the road in.
Mr. Present commented he did not believe the board's concerns were adequately
answered from the workshop, and his concern was this was like an infill property and you
had to get through the adjacent property to get to Military Trail, and not knowing how it
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 7
would look and would fit in. Ultimately a few buildings would be lost to make this an
integrated project, and he did not think it was there tonight.
Mr. Solomon commented staff had gotten this right —it was a seriously substandard
project for Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Solomon agreed the board had expressed a lot of
concerns last time and the applicant had not made a genuine effort to make the project
better and meet legitimate concerns. The road was only one issue —there were issues
with the site plan, the tightness of it, the architecture being seriously deficient, too much
sameness, and the applicant had not taken the opportunity to really make the project
better. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the project did not work in a reasonable
way, the colors were not good, and it was an easy decision not to approve this because of
what the applicant had presented.
Mr. Rubins commented the colors were not good, and he stated he agreed with Mr.
Present and with Mr. Solomon.
Ms. Hecht expressed concern with health and all the other things that came into play.
Mr. Kanel expressed surprise the developer had not put all the residential units in the
back and designed the commercial buildings higher and closer to I -95 and Central
Boulevard to buffer noise for the residential units and gain open space. Mr. Kanel
commented there was not enough parking and expressed agreement with staff.
Ms. Glas advised the applicant would withdraw for the moment, and come back.
Attorney John Gary asked to discuss not being in compliance with the comp plan. Chair
Kunkle advised that could be addressed when the project came back.
(Continued from 10125105)
Evaluation and Appraisal Report Workshop:
Identification of "Wor Issues" to be included in the Evaluation and Appraisal
Report for the City's Comprehensive Plan process per the requirements of Chapter
163.3191, Florida Statutes.
Kara Irwin, Planning Manager, reviewed major issues: To proactively plan for western
growth, review the policies relative to western development in order to better plan for
future needs relative to levels of service that are currently set in the comp plan, whether
those could be met, evaluating those, and looking at the future of the City in regard to
western development, and whether new policies were needed. Another major issue was
to diversify land uses for future development, looking at whether the current mix of uses
was adequate, and also looking at eastern redevelopment policies. The next major issue
was to develop a creative transit system to address future traffic needs. Another major
issue was to maintain the City's roadway linkages, and the last was to reevaluate the
City's proposed level of service criteria for public parks. Ms. Irwin asked for input from
the board.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 8
Chair Kunkle suggested Ms. Irwin schedule individual meetings with board members, sift
through the information, and bring back individual comments for a collective consensus
from the board.
Mr. Solomon commented on two points for consideration — traffic signalization —to try to
find a way to solve that issue so that the city would have more say so in approval of
traffic signals; and on transportation to have some kind of bus activity, possibly working
with the county to utilize existing busses.
Workshop:
(Continued from 10/25/05)
Petition: SP- 05 -01: Gardens Pointe (Parcel 27.09)
Mr. Wu advised it was the board's option whether to hear this as no staff report had been
prepared. Staff was generally pleased but felt the building was a little bulky.
Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, presented the project, the last within the DRI, which
consisted of twin towers just under 140' tall, wrapped with 24 town homes. Mr. Rubins
indicated he did not like the dark color, and asked why the garage was darker,
commenting he would be concerned with safety and security.
Mr. Solomon recommended no 9' parking spaces, commented the height would take
some thought since the nearby 190' building had been intended to be the last tall
building. Mr. Solomon indicated much more architectural treatment was needed to make
the building stand out, and suggested making it heavier and more substantial at the
bottom and adding vertical elements, and commented that the roof line was weak. The
architect for the project responded there were pitched roofs, hips, no flat roofs that could
be seen from the exterior, and the mechanical equipment was behind the roof that was
visible.
Mr. Present noted the board had been led to believe the 17 -story Landmark building was
the last tall building that could be built, and here was another one. Ms. Glas explained
that comments were given at the time the NOPC was approved and the height restriction
of 140' was established. There had been multiple public hearings at that time. Mr.
Present commented the public would not remember, so some PR work was in order.
Mr. Kanel asked if there was traffic concurrency, to which Mr. Wiseman responded that
was taken care of through the regional center DRI PCD. Mr. Kanel expressed concern
about the height, and commented the townhouses would be dwarfed by the towers. Ms.
Glas explained in response to Mr. Kanel's question about garage lighting that they would
request a waiver to exceed the required 10 footcandles, to provide more light than the
requirement. Mr. Kanel was concerned with too much light —Ms. Glas explained this
lighting would only be interior. Mr. Kanel asked if flashing red lights would have to be
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 9
on the building for airplanes; Ms. Glas noted that type of light might be more appropriate
on the neighboring building, which was 50' taller.
Mr. Panczak commented the project was beautiful and the roof line had delineation. Mr.
Panczak recommended not having the checkerboard pattern.
Mr. Hansen commented he sat with the applicant and they had been responsive to
comments, commented this was a very exciting project, and there was much more detail
than showed up on the elevations on the screen. Mr. Hansen requested 10' guest parking
spaces. Mr. Hansen commented he had no issue with the height but did not like the color
scheme and felt the checkerboard pattern and the colors chopped it up too much. Mr.
Hansen indicated he felt this was the appropriate location for a building of this height.
Mr. Wu commented on access easements around the lake and brought to the attention of
the board that there were conflicting interests —the public access and also using the
lakefront as an extension of the front yards of the homes. Mr. Wu indicated staff felt the
building was too bulky and encouraged a slender tower with shorter towers on the side,
and also agreed with Mr. Solomon that the roof line did not show delineation.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the board.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the board.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the ee ng was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. The next
regular meeting will be held December W12A05.
APPROVED:
Craig
T2-- prnc -tf 1 1inn 01—;i
Michael Panczak
Amil Kanel
4Ze2:j,e
Betty La , Secretary for the Meeting