Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 021406PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING February 14, 2006 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: There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 24,2006: Motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting as submitted. ROLL CALL Debbie Andrea, 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 Michael Panczak Randolph Hansen Jonathan D. Rubins Joy Hecht (1St Alt.) Amir Kanel (2nd Alt.) Chair Kunkle announced with regret that Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu had resigned, and stated he was pleased to have had five years of untiring effort and professional service from Mr. Wu. Chair Kunkle commented he felt Mr. Wu had done a great job, and that the board members were all better at what they did as volunteers because of him. Mr. Wu would be missed, but the board wished him well in his future endeavors. All those intending to testify in any of tonight's hearings were sworn in. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (Rescheduled from 1124106) Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition: MISC- 05- 12 -01— Amendment to the Development Order of the Midtown (f k.a. The Borland Center) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 2 A request by Don Hearing, agent for the Midtown (f:k.a Borland Center) PUD, for approval of an amendment to the development order of the subject PUD to extend the deadline for installing all perimeter buffers adjacent to public rights -of -way. This amendment also includes a proposed date certain for the installation of the rear landscape buffer adjacent to the Garden Lakes PUD, the Military TraiUGarden Lakes Drive traffic signal, and the PGA Boulevard/Shady Lakes Drive traffic signal. The Midtown (fk.a Borland Center) PUD is located at the northeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive and consists of approximately 45 acres in size. During disclosure of exparte communication, Chair Kunkle announced he had met with Don Hearing last Friday and discussed the project. Chair Kunkle announced that letters had been received by all members of the board, one dated February 9 from Shady Lakes HOA, one dated February 3 from Garden Lakes HOA, another from Shady Lakes HOA dated January 30, and one from Woodberry Lakes HOA dated January 30. Mr. Panczak reported he spoke briefly with Mr. Hearing by cell phone, so the conversation was garbled, and Mr. Hearing had filled him in on what he was going to discuss tonight including turning lane, buffer issue, etc. Mr. Hansen reported he spoke to Mr. Hearing on Monday and they discussed the petition in terms of the extension of deadlines for installation of the buffers and traffic lights. Mr. Present advised he received a phone message from Mr. Hearing but they did not talk. Other members of the board who spoke were not picked up by the microphone. Donaldson Hearing spoke on behalf of the petitioners and introduced some of the team members present. Mr. Hearing described the project location and reported it was approved by Resolution 92, 1994 for which amendment was requested, as well as amendment to the companion ordinances implementing the PUD zoning on the property. Mr. Hearing highlighted the uses, for which amendment was not requested. Mr. Hearing's presentation included requests for an extension to the time frame for installing the landscape buffer, to set a specific schedule for implementing the traffic light at PGA Boulevard and Shady Lakes Boulevard, and to accelerate the signalization of Military Trail and Garden Lakes Boulevard. Mr. Hearing advised the light at Shady Lakes Boulevard and PGA Boulevard would be a yellow flashing lights since warrants did not exist for sufficient traffic to make it red, yellow and green; however, the light at Military Trail and Garden Lakes Boulevard would be red/green when installed and would be in place by February 2007. Ms. Hecht commented flashing lights did not help children cross streets and did not help cars. Mr. Hearing advised the developer had no control over when the light would be red /green and had been told warrants did not exist and would not exist. Mr. Hansen asked about the outfall and the drainage ditch. Mr. Hearing responded they would pick up the drainage in two catch basins in Shady Lakes Drive and were piping it, and they had been discussing a new easement with the Garden Lakes Homeowners Association and there would be a control structure for the water from the pipe and another control structure for the water from the lake; the water would never be commingled; both water flows would go into the EPB3 canal. If the HOA did not grant Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 3 that easement, they would use another easement, and there would be no open ditch. Mr. Hansen asked if there was any requirement for a buffer along the Garden Lakes side. Mr. Hearing indicated he had heard the HOA was going to allow the developer to put up fencing on their fence as a screen so they would not have to see the construction, but that was not a part of the condition of approval. Landscaping would then be done during the normal course of construction. There was a very specific buffer. Mr. Panczak confirmed his understanding that the request was not to have any specific dates for installation of landscape buffers and for everything to swing on the CO's. Mr. Hearing advised they would complete the buffers on the east and the west as quickly as possible in the normal course of construction. The fence with the Visquine would stay up until then. Mr. Kanel asked if the condition was that the fence would be erected right away, and asked if the adjacent neighborhoods approved. Mr. Hearing explained someone had spoken with the Garden Lakes community but there had been no correspondence with any other communities. Senior Planner Brad Wiseman presented the staff report. Staff recommended all buffers be installed before issuance of the first CO. Staff recommended a 6' fence with a privacy tarp be installed by March 17, 2006; and that the City inspections and permits not commence until the fence is installed. A permit for the fence was issued on February 3, 2006. Mr. Wiseman advised of the reviews required for the traffic signal at PGA and recommended a condition of approval requiring the installation by December 26, 2006. Mr. Wiseman reported staff recommended a condition of approval that the light at Military Trail and Garden Lakes Boulevard be installed by February 14, 2007. Chair Kunkle asked if the screening buffer would be similar to that at Baskin Palmer, which Mr. Wiseman confirmed. Chair Kunkle asked if the light at PGA would be flashing when installed by December 2006; Mr. Wiseman explained it would not be activated through a warrant but staff would try to get it activated through other methods. Dan Clark, City Engineer, explained there was not enough traffic movement coming from the side streets to warrant the traffic signal, and there would not be enough until the Borland Center was completed. Ms. Hecht asked, if once the fences were done all the way around the property, if the applicant did not have to right now worry about the water from the piping or the asbestos piping and could just go on with construction. Mr. Wiseman responded they could go on with construction but it was in their best interests to get the buffers done, and when he had visited the site the previous day they had been installing trees and other landscaping. Mr. Hansen confirmed the construction could keep going until the applicant needed an inspection. Mr. Hansen asked if another hurricane this summer delayed things, if there was a mechanism to change the dates, so that this extension did not have to be done all over again. Mr. Wiseman responded that was the reason no dates were tied to the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 4 landscape buffers. For the traffic signals there were several deadlines to be met and if they missed a deadline it would come back to this board. Mr. Clark indicated staff would support the applicant through the permitting process with other agencies, and was trying to help the applicant in any way possible. Mr. Panczak asked if the below grade inspections had been done on the site. Mr. Clark indicated they had not. Mr. Kanel asked if there were any technical issues such as utility issues that precluded installation of the buffer, to which Mr. Wiseman responded yes, if they installed the buffer now it would get torn up during installation of utilities and hardscape, and would have to be re -done. There were berms associated with the buffers, and staff advised the height of the berms varied. The 6 -foot fence would solidly screen the construction more adequately than the landscaping would have. The number of CO's anticipated in this project might be close to 100, and the anticipated date of first CO was sometime in August or September. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open and advised Mr. DeFrancesco that the City Attorney had advised this meeting was legal per noticing. Eileen Tucker, Shady Lakes, indicated she felt like she would be living in a prison with a wall and felt the light could have been installed by now. It appeared to her the City was looking to find a law to help the developer and she felt it was wrong to keep giving this developer everything he wanted. Barbara Paresi, Shady Lakes, commented the sidewalk was closed along PGA to Military Trail, which had been the only way for school children to get to the only safe crossing light at the corner, and asked if a developer -- could -- legally close a public sidewalk. Staff responded they had researched a temporary sidewalk but even that would have to be closed from time to time during construction, but the city would continue to work with the developer to try to find a solution. Elizabeth Murray, Garden Lakes, indicated she did not understand how underground items were beyond the developer's control, and read from research by LSU Hurricane Center regarding maintaining vegetation to reflect/deflect winds. Ms. Murray indicated she believed the former 30 -foot trees which had been destroyed had offered some hurricane protection, and the buffer would not offer the same height protection. Beverly Gregory, Shady Lakes, commented she had heard about a traffic light for 10 years and described what it was like for the residents of 97 homes in Shady Lakes to try to get in and out of Shady Lakes Drive. Steve Barnes, Shady Lakes, submitted his letters for the record, stated his opinion that no more permits should be issued until the buffers were completed, the proposed fence should not be allowed because there was no wind load testing on the screening, and objected to the fencing permit being given in 3 -4 hours, when the permit he had submitted for a gazebo had not yet been received. Mr. Barnes indicated the light should have been in by August 1 last year and since that date through January 24 this year there had been 66 traffic accidents from Central to Military, and only six accidents from Central to the Turnpike where there was a light for BallenIsles and Old Palm. Mr. Barnes stated the retention pond was now into the buffer zone and cut the buffer to 33 feet, stated the buffer was illegal and should have never been given a waiver. Attorney Ray Royce Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 5 objected that there was no basis to attack the development order which had been signed by Shady Lakes Property Owners. Mr. Barnes stated he did not sign. Mr. Barnes commented before the agreement with the city, the developers made an agreement with Shady Lakes, Woodberry, and the Coalition, and now they did not talk to any of them until they filed for something like tonight's hearing. Vito DeFrancesco, Shady Lakes, contended this meeting was illegal; that a table in the LDR's showed they were only on number 6 in the process. Mr. DeFrancesco quoted from the LDR's and concluded the meeting was illegal. Mr. DeFrancesco commented to give a fence in lieu of landscaping was ridiculous and suggested a compromise of forcing the developer to do the landscaping on the Shady Lakes and Garden Lakes sides. Mr. DeFrancesco noted that the main property owner of the shopping center had not been notified. Mr. DeFrancesco commented there was no reason the landscaping could not be done on the two sides. Mr. Tillman was sworn in. Mr. Tillman, Shady Lakes, indicated the developer had agreed to permit obligations and now was asking for relief, and the committee was bound to follow the law, and the developer thought he was above the law and did not have to comply. Mr. Tillman commented the committee was being asked to make them follow the law. Mr. Wiseman commented code required all property owners within 500' to be notified and the developer had gone farther by also notifying the entire communities which touched the 500'. Staff had found the shopping center label had been omitted from the list of property owners, had asked the applicant to notify the shopping center and get documentation in writing that they had been notified and were aware of the P &Z meeting, and Mr. Wiseman stated he had a letter from the shopping center confirming they had been notified, plus he had followed that up with a phone call to the shopping center and received confirmation they had been notified. Chair Kunkle announced a 7- minute break. Al Loomis was sworn in. Mr. Loomis, Shady Lakes, commented on the developer not doing the buffers on time, and to not do the work and ask for an extension now was not in the residents' best interest. Mr. Loomis cited another development that had complied and indicated this project should be required to do the same. Mr. Panczak asked if the possibility of a crossing guard at Shady Lakes Drive had been considered. Mr. Wiseman indicated it had been considered but the police did not consider that a safe alternative. The school district had been contacted regarding providing bus service. Mr. Clark confirmed that without this development and without a signal warrant, no traffic light would be being considered, so development of the site had accelerated signalization of that end of PGA Boulevard. Mr. Kanel expressed two concerns, the light and the buffer. Mr. Kanel indicated a flashing light only took 3 days on Haverhill after the death of a child and he did not want to wait until something happened. Mr. Kanel commented he had trouble with a CO being a deadline for the buffer and he did not see why the buffer could not be accomplished first. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Hansen commented he sympathized with Shady Lakes and Garden Lakes regarding the traffic situation, but they needed to understand that this board, City Council, and staff could only push to get it done and had no control to get it done, and the people should be calling FDOT, and County Traffic Engineering, who were the people who granted the traffic light. Mr. Hansen commented it was not pleasant to live next to a construction site but the quicker it was finished would be a benefit to everybody rather than stopping construction, etc. Mr. Hansen commented to put in a buffer now would not accomplish what the residents thought, and it would just get torn up and have to be done again. Mr. Hansen indicated staff was professional and he had no reason to doubt they were doing everything possible within the law. Mr. Hansen advised the developer did not make a penney until he got a CO, and he would be more interested than anyone in completing the buffers. Mr. Hansen indicated he was not sure the fence and screening would really be effective, and commented every one here lived on property that originally had to be cleared and must face up to that this was what occurred with progress, and for the city as a whole this project would be a positive thing. Mr. Hansen stated he supported staff's recommendations as to timing and thought that it would mean the project would get done quicker, and in the end everybody would be able to move on, and it would be a betterment for the city. Mr. Hansen commented that a permit for temporary construction fencing was not much of a permit and a gazebo was a more permanent structure and did require more of a review, so he thought some of the issues raised needed to be looked at in light of the real situation, which was that the sooner the project was finished it would be better for everybody. Mr. Solomon commented there was a lot of frustration involved, focused on traffic problems and the traffic light, and those traffic problems had existed before the project was there. As Mr. Panczak had indicated the best chance of getting the traffic light was completion of this project and as Mr. Hansen had pointed out, no one had more incentive than the developer to complete the project in order to start to make money. The problem with the signalization, which was a problem with every project, and was that the local government had no control, and he thought it was improperly controlled by the county and the state. Mr. Solomon stated he would like local municipalities to get together and have a conference and try to do something to get some local control over this. The major problem and frustration was over the signalization and no one in the city had any control of that. Mr. Solomon indicated the developer had had some unforeseen problems to deal with, and there were a lot of problems and multiple agencies to go through. Mr. Solomon commented everyone needed to have patience and when the project was finished property values would rise, and to stop construction would mean unsightly cinder blocks and would delay the project. Mr. Solomon supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Present asked staff regarding prohibited waivers what LDR Section 78 -178 and 78- 250 meant, and commented if waivers were prohibited this board needed to know, and he would like an answer for the next meeting. Mr. Present agreed there were things the developer could have done differently, but dealing with multiple agencies could be difficult, but on the other hand there were still blue roofs up and anyone who had dealt Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 7 with any of the agencies knew things did not happen quickly. Mr. Present felt the staff recommendation and what the applicant had agreed to was the best solution to get the project done. Ms. Hecht asked if when the project was finished if the City Engineer felt there would be enough traffic for an operational light. Mr. Clark stated he did not know for sure and would prefer get that answer for the next meeting. Ms. Hecht suggested that a compromise might be on the Shady Lakes side and Garden Lakes sides to install the berms, to put a sidewalk across PGA for the school children, and to have a construction entry behind Publix instead of on PGA. Mr. Wiseman advised the construction entrance was behind Publix, not on PGA. Mr. Wiseman advised a sidewalk was required within the required buffer so would be completed with the first CO, and buffers were required but it was just the timing of completion. Mr. Rubins commented this project was going to happen and no construction project was beautiful, but the important thing was to protect the safety of the children, and the city must do something to protect the children. Mr. Wiseman reported staff was looking into providing a safe alternative. Mr. Rubins stated he appreciated that but he believed the amendment should be approved with language to assure the safety of the children. Chair Kunkle suggested maybe someone else besides a police officer should talk with the school board, and noted there were private transportation options that could be explored. Chair Kunkle announced those residents who spoke during the public hearing now had an opportunity to ask questions. Barbara Paresi commented if the light were physically there, with the help of the city police, she believed the light could be warranted only for the school children since the sidewalk would not be there during 4 more months of school and all of next year. City Attorney Tatum clarified this part of the meeting was for cross examination, not for new questions. Vito DeFrancesco asked to cross examine Mr. Wiseman, and stated he would like to discuss Table No. 2, and asked if there had been a DRC approval certification letter submitted for this project on this particular item. Mr. Wiseman stated this petition was DRC certified. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if there was a certification letter. Mr. Wiseman stated there was no certification letter. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if there had been a P &Z workshop as required by Table No. 2. Mr. Wiseman responded a P &Z workshop was not required for this petition and read the language which said "may" not "shall" schedule a workshop. Chair Kunkle stated the City Attorney had determined this was a legal meeting. City Attorney Tatum advised Mr. Wiseman was attempting to answer, and a P &Z workshop was not required, and Mr. Wiseman was trying to explain that because of an amendment to the code that workshops were optional, and that was consistent with Table 2, and you had to look at the language as well as the table. Mr. DeFrancesco commented it stated major amendments were reviewed in the same manner as the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 8 original application, which referred to Table No. 2, and in part 78 -43 it said developmental order approvals shall be consistent with the requirements of Table No. 2. Mr. Wiseman stated it was. Mr. DeFrancesco asked the meaning of applicable. Mr. Wiseman responded applicable meant it can happen, and go back to the language within the code that said the Growth Management Department staff requires a P &Z workshop, the word said may. Mr. DeFrancesco asked what "shall be consistent with Table 2 and major amendments are reviewed in the same manner as the original application" meant — if there was a workshop for the original application and if that wouldn't mean there should be a workshop. Mr. Wiseman indicated the question of having a workshop had been asked and answered. Chair Kunkle indicated the legality was done. Mr. DeFrancesco commented the application for the fence came in at 11:56:14 and was given to them at 1:39:22, which had to be a new world record. Mr. Wiseman advised planning staff reviewed building permits and hand walked them. Mr. DeFrancesco stated Steve Barnes would like them to hand walk his. The City Attorney stated cross examination was not a time for Mr. DeFrancesco to be testifying, but was the time for him to address Mr. Wiseman's earlier testimony and he was limited to what Mr. Wiseman had testified to tonight. Mr. DeFrancesco discussed wetlands, to which there was an objection that had not been discussed tonight. Mr. DeFrancesco asked if they did not want to know the truth and wasn't that what they were trying to get to. Chair Kunkle commented they were trying to get to the end of a successful project and as the boardmembers had stated, the means to getting there was to push forward to get it done instead of trying to continue to delay things, and the sooner they could keep building, the sooner the residents would get the light, and the trees. Mr. DeFrancesco stated he respectfully disagreed. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC- 05 -12 -01 with the staff report as submitted. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which carried by vote of 6 -1 with Mr. Rubins opposed. Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition: SP- 05 -01: Parcel 27.09 – Gardens Pointe Recommendation to City Council: A request by Marty Minor of Urban Design Studio, agent for Gardens Pointe LLC, for site plan approval of 216 residential condominium high - rise units within two twelve -story towers, and 24 townhouses. The 6.6 -acre subject site is located at the northwest corner of Kyoto Gardens Drive and Fairchild Gardens Avenue (adjacent to the Landmark), which is within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). It was clarified this was not a public hearing. Mr. Wiseman reported the applicant had sent out notices to everyone within 500' of the entire Regional Center, so he would like them to know the new date of March 14, since they would not be getting a new notice. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 9 The board was advised there was no need to declare exparte communication, but a motion to establish a time certain was needed. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to reschedule Petition SP -05 -01 be moved to a time certain of March 14, 2006. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Panczak asked if the design of the new Evergrene sign at the corner of Hood and Central had been approved in the original sign package. Mr. Wiseman indicated he would look at the master sign package and get back to Mr. Panczak. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2006 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held March 14, 2006. //�111 APPROVED: it Kanel e bie Andrea, Secretary for the Meeting