HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 121305PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
December 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 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR:
Charles Wu reported City Council had approved the following three cases: (1) Ordinance 33, 2005 —a
housekeeping matter to clean up the code that required a plat to go before P &Z and City Council, now
they would all go straight to City Council; (2) Frenchmans Yacht Club — with encouragement to the
developer to meet with adjacent residents; and (3) Parcel 5A.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 8, 2005
Mr. Hansen noted the correct spelling of Coulter should be Kolter. Mr. Hansen moved approval of the
November 8, 2005 meeting minutes; motion was seconded by Mr. Pennell and unanimously approved.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board:
Present
Absent
Chair Craig Kunkle Michael Panczak
Vice Chair Barry Present
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Jonathan D. Rubins
Joy Hecht (0 Alt.)
Amir Kanel (2nd Alt.)
All those intending to testify in any of tonight's hearings were sworn in.
Public Hearin:
Petition: LDR 05 -04: Targeted Expedited Permitting Program LDR change
Recommendation to City Council: Ordinance 1, 2006 /Petition LDR 05 -04:
A City- initiated request to amend the Land Development Regulations by creating a new
Section 78 -57 entitled Targeted Expedited Permitting Program.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 2
Economic Development and Marketing Director Delores Key presented the staff report.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. John Chaplik asked if the City's position
was firm not to add financial incentives for employers and if new employees were
defined as new to Palm Beach Gardens and if a $45,000 salary was out of date
considering the rise in housing values. Ms. Key responded that it would take a
community -wide referendum initiated by City Council to add financial incentives; jobs
new to the local community would be considered new employees; and that $45,000 was
considered outdated and the figure should be a median salary rather than cost of living,
and discussed workforce housing. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair
Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Solomon asked what an expedited permitting program did —Ms. Key responded it
would be prioritized at the City and get all staff comments within five days. Mr.
Solomon asked if this would take staff time from other applicants, and expressed his
opinion it was not really necessary. Ms. Key confirmed that the goal was to increase the
tax base through these incentives, and at the present time there were approximately 3%
value added employers within the City, and there should be 15% to 20%. Mr. Solomon
suggested a deadline date for giving priority. Mr. Wu indicated when there were enough
value added jobs, City Council could pass a resolution to stop giving priority.
Mr. Present asked what surrounding cities did regarding targeted permitting. Ms. Key
indicated Palm Beach Gardens would be the first to adopt this type of program and do it
on a legal basis.
Mr. Hansen asked how long a DRC review took at the present time, which Mr. Wu
indicated was 2 -3 weeks, depending upon whether the application was complete or had
concurrency, etc. An applicant for this program would be reviewed in 5 days and put at
the top of the pile in the building department for permitting and revisions.
Mr. Kanel asked if government agencies such as the Corps of Engineers could provide
help, to which Ms. Key responded those would be in the form of grants to help operating
costs and explained how confidentiality agreements could affect qualification of a
business or individual. Chair Kunkle cautioned that staff might have to stand firm since
applicants might strong -arm them to get higher priority. Mr. Wu indicated applicants
were always interested in reducing their application processing time, and staff always
told them of this program and got them into this process if they qualified. Mr. Present
recommended placing this on the web site.
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
LDR- 05 -04. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
Recommendation to City Council - Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 3
Identification of "Major 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.
Planning Manager Brad Wiseman presented the staff report update since the last meeting,
and asked for final comments. Mr. Hansen commented he thought what was proposed
looked very good, that workforce housing was a good addition but would take creative
planning to accomplish. Mr. Hansen felt the western growth needed to be carefully
looked at and proactive, with as much conservation as possible for quality of life.
Mr. Pennell reported his meeting with staff had been very good, and he thought
affordable housing was the biggest challenge. Mr. Pennell described a program in
Aspen, Colorado which allowed purchase of affordable homes with five years before they
could be sold, and then everyone sold and took their profits, and commented he did not
know how a builder could be forced to build inexpensive homes.
Mr. Kanel quoted from page 13 "the city shall maintain adequate infrastructure to
accommodate managed growth" and discussed bringing utilities to the western area,
noting he had seen nothing on the plans for utility easements. Mr. Kanel commented
there was a huge area, No. 5, on the road map where people had to go around gated
communities. Mr. Wu explained No. 5 was owned by the State and County and was
conservation area and could never be developed, and existing land uses were shown for
the Vavrus property until the actual use was known.
Mr. Solomon asked the plan or concept for western growth. Mr. Wiseman indicated that
policy would be addressed by City Council after the Scripps location was decided; at
present it was rural level of service. Mr. Solomon stated he had a problem with the
sentence: Develop policies that require developers to implement the transit system
during the development and review process. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon felt that
was unfair to developers and it should be deleted. Mr. Wu responded staff had no
problem deleting that sentence. Mr. Solomon commented attainable housing and
affordable housing had been used —Mr. Wiseman indicated those would be changed to
workforce housing. Mr. Solomon suggested the City could work with agencies with the
authority to issue bonds, which would allow a developer to build less expensive housing.
Ms. Hecht asked if there was already a transit system, bussing around the area, for
Downtown at the Gardens. Mr. Wu responded the City would be conducting a study to
determine how successful a transit system could be.
Chair Kunkle felt there should be consideration for future intent for a transit system,
which might include designating land for a future bus stop. Mr. Wu advised that PZA
would continue to see this report over the next 18 months.
MOTION:
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council the Evaluation
and Appraisal Report subject to the PZA discussion and elimination of the sentence
"Develop policies that require developers to implement the transit system during the
development and review process." Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition: MNSP- 05 -05 -01 & ABAND- 05 -01: Gardens Home Mrmt Svcs
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Urban Design Studio, agent for
John C Bills, Trustee, is requesting a minor site plan amendment to allow the
conversion of a former fire station to a professional office, The applicant is also
requesting the abandonment of the north/south portion of Fairview Lane in order to
provide required parking and buffer for the site, The .737 -acre parcel is located
generally at the southwest corner of PGA Boulevard and the Florida Turnpike within
the PGA National Resort Planned Community Development.
No ex -parte communication was reported. Anna Booth, Urban Design Studio, presented
the proposed project and reviewed five requested waivers.
Mr. Hansen asked if the City received any compensation for an abandonment that ended
up in the hands of a private landowner. Mr. Wu responded such payment had not been
considered. Mr. Hansen encouraged City Council to consider payment for abandoned
land. Ms. Booth indicated the underground fuel tanks would be removed and the
applicant would meet all EPA requirements. Mr. Hansen requested 10' parking spaces,
and requested the air conditioning units be removed from the roof.
Mr. Pennell stated he agreed with staff on the waivers and he also agreed with Mr.
Hansen.
Mr. Present complimented the applicant on creative use of a former fire station.
Mr. Kanel expressed concern regarding contaminants from the fuel tanks. Jim Griffin
responded that the tanks belonged to the Palm Beach Gardens Fire Department and when
they abandoned them they had filled them with sand and cut off the hoses and pipes and
there was no issue except the applicant was going to remove what was left. Mr. Kanel
agreed with Mr. Hansen to remove the air conditioning unit from the roof and place it on
the ground.
Mr. Solomon commented this was one of the less visible sites in the City, and there was
not much more to be done; and abandonments by municipalities were generally not
compensated —the general rule was adjacent property owners would acquire to the
centerline of the road. Mr. Solomon requested the applicant work with staff to improve
the screening or find a place for the air conditioning unit on the ground.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Rubins asked if the previous sign letters had been 12 ", which was confirmed by the
applicant. Mr. Rubins indicated he agreed with Mr. Hansen regarding the air
conditioners.
Ms. Hecht asked if the a/c units could go on the concrete slab where a generator was
shown. Ms. Booth indicated there would not be a generator, and asked if the board could
support an additional waiver for landscape screening around a/c units if they were located
in the 5' landscape space in the rear between the building and the loading area. The
board indicated they would support that waiver. Mr. Wu asked if it could be screened
with a fence. The applicant indicated they would work with staff.
Mr. Kane] asked who would be responsible if contaminants were found in the future; the
response by the City Attorney was that the current and prior property owners could be
liable.
Mr. Griffin indicated he appreciated the comments, and they had found a way to reverse a
blight on the City.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of ABAND -05-
01, abandonment of the north /south portion of Fairview Lane in order to provide
required parking and buffer for the site. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
MOTION:
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition
MNSP- 05- 05 -01, with waivers and conditions as recommended by staff, with one
exception: that the air conditioning units be removed from the rooftop and placed
on the ground, and a satisfactory location would be to place them on the north side
of the building between the loading space and the building wall and be screened
with a fence. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition: MISC -05- 06-05: NorthCorp Corporate Park
Recommendation to City Council. A request by Kimberly Thaler of Codeur & Hearing,
on behalf of John C Bills Enterprises, Ltd / Northcorp III Ltd, for approval of a
Master Signage Program for the Northcorp Corporate Park Planned Community
Development (PCD), generally bounded by the Gardens Station PUD to the
north, Interstate 95 to the west, Burns Road to the south, and the FEC Railway to the
east.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 6
No ex -parte communications were declared. Kimberly Thaler of Cotleur & Hearing
presented the petition.
Ms. Hecht indicated she liked the signs but felt they were too close to the road; the
applicant responded they met code. Mr. Rubins commented this was good work, Mr.
Pennell thanked the applicant for working with staff, and Mr. Hansen questioned how
many numbers would be on the bollards.
Jim Griffin responded on behalf of the applicant, indicating that as few numbers as
possible would be used on these signs in order to direct people to the buildings. Mr.
Hansen requested on pages B4 and B4 -1 in the wording "dimensional base optional" that
the word "optional" be removed, which was agreed to by staff and the applicant.
MOTION:
Mr. Rubins made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition
MISC -05- 06-05. Ms. Hecht seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
Following a short break, the meeting reconvened.
Workshop:
Petition: LDR- 05 -06: Off-Site Mitigation
Workshop: Ordinance 30, 2005 provides for the amendment to the City's Code of
Ordinances by amending Chapter 78, "Land Development, " Article V, "Supplementary
Regulations," Division 5, "Natural Resources and Environmentally Significant
Lands," relating to approval criteria for proposed land alteration, alternative forms of
mitigation, and amending Article VIII, "Definitions "
City Forester Mark Hendrickson provided an update since the last presentation, advising
the board had seen this in the comprehensive plan, and he had mimicked the terms
approved in the comp plan and placed them in the LDR's. Highlighted were that this
amendment would confirm that money in lieu of would not apply west of the urban
growth boundary, and would make it difficult in other parts of the city; that one could not
do 100% off -site mitigation anywhere within the City —if the 25% required was 40 acres
or more, 50% must stay on -site; and the biggest portion of this amendment was to clarify
and clean up the appraisal process.
Mr. Solomon referred to page 4 of the staff report, section 78 -250, preserve area
requirements, minimum requirements – 25 %, and asked how this would affect someone
coming in. Mr. Hendrickson explained that there was very little land within the City that
would have 100% of the entire site that would be environmentally significant and all
uplands. On every project with environmentally significant lands, staff evaluated the
environmental assessment, classifying the Florida native eco- systems which resulted in
classification as an upland or wetland. The 25% set aside was 25% of the viable upland
habitat on that site. Mr. Solomon asked if there was an appeal to the 25 %, to which Mr.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 7
Hendrickson's response was the environmentalist for the city and the environmentalist
for the applicant worked out the acreage and they were usually pretty close. Mr.
Solomon commented he could see an appeal was not needed. Mr. Solomon referred to
page 6 paragraph D, which read: fee simple market value shall be determined by an
independent appraiser, and asked who selected the appraiser. Mr. Hendrickson
explained that if the developer had selected an appraiser who was a member of the
appraisal institute and was an independent State certified general property appraiser, that
would be acceptable to the City. If the City was uncomfortable with the appraisal they
could ask for another one. Mr. Solomon commented the words "acceptable to the City"
should be included. Mr. Wu indicated that could be added. Mr. Solomon asked if the
language: the cash payment shall be equivalent to the average per acre appraised value
of the whole property at the time of development approval was what Mr. Hendrickson
had been referring to when he said the appraiser was supposed to make a judgment on the
value of the property based on if it was developable, which was confirmed.
Mr. Present commented this included both upland and wetlands. Mr. Hendrickson
responded it was really clarifying that mitigation was possible. Mr. Present commented
he agreed with the appraisal approach, and the big point was the City was almost at
buildout and on redevelopment this would protect the City's uplands. Wetland values
were established by wetland mitigation banks, but uplands were more difficult, and the
City should let developers know up front the City's position so as not to get into too
much discussion of values.
Chair Kunkle announced there would be a public hearing and then this would go to City
Council.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the board.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Hansen commented that in the approval of Downtown at the Gardens this board did
not see Cheesecake Factory in the plans. Mr. Benothman responded staff had approved
that, and explained that staff was now authorized by code to approve additional square
footages, in amendments to site plans, and each storefront in Downtown at the Gardens
would have their own architectural design.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2005
Page 8
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
regular meeting will be held January 10,0(7(.
APPROVED:
The next
r
Li2
it Kanel
Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting