Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 091206PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING September 12, 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 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Ms. Kara Irwin, Growth Management Administrator, reported that the September 6, 2006 meeting, City Council approved the reappointments of PZA members Craig Kunkle, Randy Hansen, Barry Present, Dennis Solomon, and Joy Hecht. City Council also approved removal of shared parking for Legacy Place; the amendment to development order changing platting requirements for Oak Park Office; and PGA Overlay revisions on first reading. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Mr. Hansen and seconded by Mr. Rubins to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2006 meeting as submitted. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. ROLL CALL: Debbie Andrea, Recording Coordinator 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 (1 sr Alt.) Amir Kanel (2nd Alt.) Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. LDRA- 06 -06- 000007: Amendment to Subdivision I. AIPP, See, 78 -261: See 78 -262 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. A City- initiated request for approval of a text amendment to Section 78 -261 and Section 78 -262, of Subdivision I. Art in Public Places, Code of Ordinances. This City Code amendment seeks to revise the art in public places program definitions, procedures, and requirements Chair Kunkle announced this item had been pulled from the agenda. Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes 091206 Page 1 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. CPTA- 06 -08- 000006: Future Land Use Text Amendment for Bioscience Mixed -Use Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council. A City - initiated request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a Bio- science Mixed -use land -use designation and criteria relative to workforce housing. Growth Management Director Kara Irwin presented the staff report. Changes suggested by the board were to show annual median income in the amendment, considering higher building height in MXD, to change the term at least Sl % gross square footage to read more than 50 %; add landscaping, architecture, and other considerations to the end of the last line in the first paragraph on page 9; in paragraph 3(b) second sentence on page 9 change the word minimize to enhance; in paragraph 3(d) on page 9 to change same exterior to something that meant nice and varied. An opinion was expressed that limiting height to four stories would be a step backwards, particularly along the I -95 corridor; that consideration should be given to cost incentives by governmental entities; that commitment should be made that some rental buildings remain rental; that plans for transportation corridors should be considered sooner rather than later; and to be careful not to require so many amenities in the workforce housing that living there would be unaffordable. Ms. Irwin clarified that all five Interlocal partners had agreed to provide workforce housing but each was tailoring the process to their own community. Ms. Irwin explained that the 20% would be more defined in the LDR's, that the waivers required justification and approval, and that environmentally friendly green building techniques had not yet been considered. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Eileen Tucker, Shady Lakes, advised there was a petition regarding height and density that would be presented to the City; she was against too many waivers, and stated the overall concept should be understood. Jody Barnett stated she was speaking as a private citizen and expressed her opinion this was premature and studies should be done before setting the path for workforce housing. Carolyn Chaplik, Hudson Bay Drive, noted people commute 1 -1/2 to 2 hours from a job; asked the difference between residential low and residential high; noted requiring 20% workforce housing would increase height restrictions; and suggested getting back to the forbearance agreement, and addressing workforce housing separately from biotech overlay. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Irwin answered questions from the board, explaining the uses that were protected by the bioscience overlay, and that the bioscience MXD was designed as an incentive to encourage developments with a predominance of bioscience uses. Ms. Hecht wanted City Council to know the percentage for workforce housing had been carefully developed. It was suggested that this matter be workshopped with staff and City Council, particularly in regard to changing height limitations; that certain things such as keeping rentals as rentals could not be controlled by the city, and that green construction be considered in the future. It was noted this section already existed within the comprehensive plan and only a subsection was proposed to be added. Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes 091206 Page 2 MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion not to move petition CPTA- 06 -08- 000006 forward. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion. During a roll call vote, all members voted aye except Mr. Solomon who voted nay. Therefore, the motion carried by 6 -1 vote. Mr. Solomon asked if this could still be considered by City Council. The City Attorney clarified that if the intent of the board was to proceed to City Council, the motion should have been to recommend to City Council that they not move forward, but the motion had been that this board not move forward. The City Attorney advised if this board did not move it forward it could not go to the Council, therefore, it would be next year before the City Council could act upon it. Mr. Present, the maker of the motion, clarified that his understanding was this board was only a recommending board so therefore by recommending it not move forward he had not meant not to move it to City Council, because they were the ones who had the say. His intent in making the motion was he felt this board was not ready to go, but if this would have a bigger effect the elected officials needed to make a decision. The City Attorney advised if that had been his intent, to recommend to Council that Council not move forward, then it could be brought to Council to say that was the board's recommendation. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to rescind the prior motion, seconded by Mr. Rubins. Motion carried 6 -1 with Mr. Hansen opposed. Discussion ensued. MOTION: Mr. Present moved to recommend to City Council that the Council not move forward with Petition CPTA- 06 -08- 000006 at this time. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion. There were four nay votes. Mr. Solomon stated he believed there was confusion; that the reason to move it forward was you could only go to the state for comprehensive plan changes once a year. The City Attorney advised that it was the duty of the board to move yes or no on things that come before the board and they could delay to consider further; but in this case that would be a one -year delay, not a normal delay. Chair Kunkle commented there had been two motions at opposite ends but both with the result that this board was not ready to move this to City Council. Mr. Solomon stated he had been under a misconception when he voted —he had wanted to move it on to City Council whether or not they voted to approve it, and asked to change his vote. The City Attorney advised he could change his vote —that a motion could be made to reconsider and have a change in the vote. Mr. Present stated to further clarify, that this was too big an issue and he had not wanted to delay it a year and in their wisdom, the Council should vote whether to move it forward or not. Following further discussion, Mr. Solomon stated he was in favor of forwarding this to City Council but was against the recommendation that they not approve it, which was the cause of his confusion. Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes 091206 Page 3 MOTION: Mr. Solomon moved for reconsideration and restatement of the motion so that whatever the outcome, the board would know what they were voting on. Chair Kunkle stated this was a motion to reconsider the prior motion. Mr. Kanel seconded the motion. Chair Kunkle stated this motion was to rescind the prior motion that failed by 4 votes to send to City Council. Chair Kunkle asked all in favor to rescind prior motion say Aye. There were only 2 votes Aye. Chair Kunkle stated that was strike three and it dies on the vine. The City Attorney stated this could not go forward to Council that was the result of the vote. 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 091206 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, meeting will be held September 2 APPROVED: the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next regular 2�- /417'tJ Amir Kanel Debbie Andrea, Recording Coordinator for the Meeting Note: These summary minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. and are not verbatim transcripts of the meeting. A verbatim audio record is available from the Office of the City Clerk. Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes 091206 Page 5