HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 082200CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING CONIlVUSSION
August 22, 2000
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Chair John Nedvins at 6:30 P.M. in the Lobby ofthe Municipal Complex,
10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Growth Management Director
APPROVAL OF NUNUTES
Mr. Present made a motion to approve the August 8, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted Mr. Kunkle
is seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
John Nedvin.s, Chair
John Glidden, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem.
Joel Charming
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Also present were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, Senior Planner Ed Tombari,
Principal Planners Jim Norquest and Steve Cramer, Planners John Lindgren and Debra Northsea, and City
Attorney Leonard Rubin.
40
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
Public Hearing:
Petition VAR -00-05: Variance Request for 5632 War Admiral Road Steeplechase
Mr. and Mrs. Clay Harrow are requesting a variance to reduce side setback requirement in a
Residential Estate (Re) toning district from 20 feet to 12'-8" in order to construct a one -story, two-
bedroom, 709 square foot addition to the east side of a single family residence (23- 42S -42E)
Planner Debra Northsea reviewed the staff report. Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to approve Petition VAR -00-05 as submitted. Mr. Rauch seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING CON UMSSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
• John Nedvins, Chair
John Glidden, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tern.
Joel Charming
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Recommendation to Citx Council:
Petition SP -00-08: Site Plan Amendment for Lots 10 and 11 at the South Park Center in Northcoru
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting a site plan amendment for Lots 10 and 11 in the RCA Plat
of the Northcorp Planned Community District The applicant requests the approval of an additional
11 S parking spaces, including two covered parking areas consisting of six spaces in each area. The
site is located south of Northcorp Parkway on the west side of East Park Drive (07-42S-42E)
Planner Debra Northsea reviewed the staffreport, including requested waivers. Mr. Kunkle agreed with
staff recommendation of denial of the covered parking request due to the fact that permanence of the
structure was of concern and long -term visual appearance would be undesirable. Mr. Solomon disagreed
with staffsince the covered parking was permitted by code, lack ofmaintenance was a Code Enforcement
issue, and similar structures were located in other places in the City. Mr. Channing commented he had
originally been against the covered parking, however, now he did not believe the Commission should be
changing City policy, and if the Commission had an issue with vinyl-covered parking it should be taken
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
up with the City as a policy matter. Ms. Northsea verified that the applicant had not moved the covered
parking structure to 95' from the closest property line at the rear as requested at the last meeting. Mr.
Glidden commented that placing a scale on the drawings he had found the structure to be 95' from the
closest property lime already. Mr. Glidden agreed that the issue should be dealt with on a permanent basis,
and ifthe vinyl became discolored or ragged it could be dealt with by Code Enforcement. Chair Nedvins
questioned the members and found no other problems with the applicaiton, and found that at least four
Commissioners were in favor of approval of the covered parking structure.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -00-08 with
the following conditions of approval and waivers:
1 Prior to the construction review process, the following items will need to be addressed or
provided to staff:
a) Proposed and existing site lighting locations need to be provided on the Site and
Landscape Plans.
b) Resolve any conflicts with the placement of proposed light poles with the proposed
tree planting within the parldng lot expansion.
• Waivers:
1) City Code Section 179 Parking Stalls (LXl)b. Regarding Minimum Dimensions 10'
x 18.5' parking stall size reduced to 9' x 18.5.
2) City Code Section 180 (dXl) Number of Parking Spaces Provided greater than 10%
-57% more parking provided than required.
Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by 6-1 vote with Mr. Kunkle opposed.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to C(V Council:
Petition PUD -00-01: PUD Master Plan Approval for Beniamin Private Hl'--h School
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting a rezoning from PDA: Planned DevelopmentArea, to PIT.
Public or Institutional with a PUD: Planned Unit Development overlay district to develop a private
high school campus with 187,671 square feet of floor space, athletic fields and other amenities on
50 acres of land The site is located apprazimately 1/2 mile north of Hood Road on the west side of
Central Boulevard (7- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staffreport, reported that the petitioner had revised their plans
since the last meeting, and explained that staff no longer support waiver from Section 256 to allow for
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
a sidewalk on only one side ofthe "Conceptual Thoroughfare Road ", but believed sidewalks should be
provided on both sides ofthe roadway. Mr. Tombari explained that the sidewalk would be outside the
petitioner's land but that land would be dedicated to the City. Mr. Kunkle requested and received
verification that the sidewalk to the south would be ofno benefit to the San Michele project. Mr. Kunkle
questioned whether the Commission should move on this petition before adoption ofthe City's landscape
planting plan, to which Mr. Norquest responded that there was a condition of approval in which the
petitioner agreed to the plan once adopted by the City, and there would be an opportunity to adjust the
landscape plan submitted tonight. Mr. Solomon questioned why San Michele had no sidewalk on their
north side, to which Mr. Tombari responded that their lots did not face the roadway and sidewalks did
not benefit their residents; that there had been no waiver, and that their site plan had been approved
without sidewalks by City Council,
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, requested clarification of condition 7, and requested the build -
out date not be dependent on square footage but on student enrollment. Mr. Norquest commented staff
could work with the petitioner on this issue between now and submittal to City Council. Mr. Solomon
expressed concern this might not adequately protect the City. Discussion ensued. Mr. Skokowski
commented if the last building had not been built by the build -out date the petitioner would lose their
concurrency and it would be a burden to them, but they could get it reinstated. Mr. Skokowski requested
legal input regarding the value to the City and stated that petitioner's intent was to complete all building
• by the build- out date. City Attorney Rubin advised staffwould work with the petitioner to find a middle
ground to give both what they wanted. Mr. Skokowski provided background on San Michele and
explained they would have no use for a sidewalk, and commented it did not make sense for this petitioner
to have to pay for a sidewalk today that might sit unused 4-5 years until the next parcel was developed,
and suggested the sidewalk be required ofthe future development. Mr. Solomon commented it had been
a mistake not to require the sidewalk of San Michele and referring it to future development would
compound the problem. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the petitioner should install the
sidewalk. Mr. Kunkle commented that because the parcel to be developed in the future was very large,
he supported the waiver. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that more sidewalks would be needed in
the Briger parcel because it was so big and he did not support the waiver. Mr. Solomon noted that there
was no assurance only one developer would develop the Briger parcel Chair Nedvins expressed his
opinion that San Michele should have provided the sidewalk and that this petitioner should not be
penalized because it was overlooked. During a show of hands, only one Commissioner was in favor of
the petitioner installing the sidewalk. Mr. Skokowski discussed landscape issues, noting the petitioner
had added trees in the buffer and made changes in the median plantings, but the landscaping would be
subject to the City's new plan. Mr. Skokowski offered to include the following condition: Prior to
issuance of the first C, 0. the applicant shall submit the association documents to the City for review by
the City's Legal Counsel and the City Forester. The open space landscape maintenance and
environmental preserve management plan will also be subject to approval by the City Forester prior to
final approval of construction drawings or commencement of land alteration. The City shall review
these documents for maintenance and management language that meets or exceeds the City's guidelines
including landscaping in the City's codes. Mr. Glidden noted architectural changes had been requested
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
to make the field house and food service building garage doors disappear and to add landscaping; to
reconfigure the lake; and to move the ball fields north. Architect Mike Rossin stated agreement to all of
those comments, and explained that the backstops were not shown on the plans because it was unknown
how large Northern would be making the lake, and suggested a dimension of 100'. Mr. Glidden discussed
the size of the ahuninum outriggers, and requested they be 6" high and 10" wide. Mr. Glidden requested
additional landscaping to thicken the landscape screen, and that on the field house and food service
buildings the top band be raised to be even with the top of the garage doors and that the garage doors
be painted the same color as the adjacent stucco areas. Mr. Glidden discussed the elevations with the
petitioner, which did not reflect changes which had been requested. Mr. Kunkle noted the petitioner had
made a commitment to create landscaping screening with no see - through visibility.
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Nedvins
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -00-01 with
the following conditions of approval and waivers:
1. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant, successors, or assigns
shall install and maintain in perpetuity, the Parkway System, including landscaping,
• irrigation, lighting and related amenities to City specifications per the citywide
streetscaping beautification program, in the road shoulders and median within the right -
of -way, along Central Boulevard and the future East -West Roadway. The developer of the
undeveloped residential property along the east side of Central Boulevard, directly across
from the subject site, shall, at the time of development order, obtain 1/2 maintenance costs
of landscaping installed by subject petitioner, adjacent to their property. In the event a
Special Parkway District is formed by the City of Palm Beach Gardens, or another entity,
pertaining to the roadway maintenance around this project, the property owner, or its
successors, shall immediately become a member of said District. The exact location of
irrigation lines and electrical sleeving shall be determined at time of construction plan
approval.
2. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all exotic vegetation shall be removed
from the site.
3. Prior to site plan approval, the applicant must submit a letter from Northern Palm Beach
County Improvement District (NPBCID) that verifies the release of all tiestholdings that
NPBCID has or plans to have in the future with the lakes on the Benjamin School site.
Therefore, all lakes will be required to remain privately owned and maintained.
4. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the petitioner must make all minor amendments to
the site plan to address the City Engineer's concerns, as listed in his memo dated August
0 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
14, 2000.
5. Prior to scheduling for City Council, the petitioner must make all minor amendments to
the site plan to address Seacoast Utilities concerns, as listed in their memo dated August
7, 2000.
6. No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be issued until a
revised Surface Water Management System for Unit 2 has received final approval from the
City of Palm Beach Gardens and all other applicable governments and agencies, including
a schedule for implementing the plan and a definitive commitment for funding from the
required improvements.
7. The buildout date of this project is December 31, 2004, as referenced in their March 10,
1999 traffic impact analysis. The petitioner is directed to work with the City Attorney
regarding the build - out date.
8. Prior to the issuance of the permit for site drainage, the City shall review and approve
construction details for littoral zones, including their location, slopes and vegetation. As
a requirements, at least 50% of the shoreline shall be planted with wetland trees and/or
• aquatic plants at ten square feet of littoral zone for every one linear feet of shoreline. There
shall be a minimum of one tree for every 80 square feet and plants shall be on three -foot
centers, minimum. A sum total of area(s) constituting no less than 15% nor more than
25% of the total shoreline distance shall be constructed as littoral shelf at the ratio of 10
square feet of shelf per running foot of shoreline.
9. The field house elevation shall be modified to raise the top projected stucco band to be
concurrent with the head height of garage doors and garage doors shall be painted to
match the majority color adjacent to them (yellow).
10. The site plan shall be modified once the retention lake at the north end of site more clearly
determined to provide minimum separation between the softball foul line and the baseball
foul line of approximately 100'; and the inclusion of all backstops and protective netting
between the softball and baseball fields to extend a minimum of 25' in the air along the
east -west length of the baseball infield.
11. The design of the brackets shall be more clearly determined before City Council review to
provide for minimum dimensions of 6" in width and 10" in height, with further
clarification to be determined by the applicant.
12. The field house elevation shall be enlarged and colored for presentation to City Council.
40 6
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
CJ
13. Prior to City Council submittal, elevations shall be properly labeled.
14. Prior to issuance of the first C.O. applicant shall develop a plan satisfactory to the City
staff to provide management and maintenance of upland areas and preserves.
Waivers:
1. Section 76, to allow for a 53 -foot high structure to exceed code requirement by 8 feet.
2. Section 256, to allow for a sidewalk on only one side of the "Conceptual Thoroughfare
Road".
3. Section 180 (3) Number of Parking Spaces in excess of 10% required parking.
4. Section 282, Lake Maintenance Tract.
Mr. Glidden suggested the petitioner study the dimensions of the ball fields, but stated this was
not a condition of approval. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0
vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to OV Council.
Petition PUD -00-08: PUD Master Plan Approval for The Isles Residential Development
Cotleur & Hearing, agent for DiVosta & Company, is requesting a rezoning from Planned
Development Area (PDA) to Residential - Low Density 3 (RL-3) with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay district to construct 379 residential units. The 180 -acre site is located at the southeast
corner of Military Trail and Hood Road; on the west side of Alternate AIA. The site will contain a
5,300 square foot town center, a 1,600 square foot swimming pool, four tennis courts, and a 400
square foot maintenance building. (07- 42S -43E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report and explained that staff no longer supported any
connection between this project and Plat 4, and that the connection would be removed from the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Rick Greene, Vice President of DiVosta and Company, provided a power point presentation which
described the project, showed different models, designs, materials, varied landscape treatments, and a
typical designation plan. Also described was a town center with a town hall, post office, meeting rooms,
fitness center, community pool, tennis courts, and a tower which was intended as a focal point for the
community. Mr. Greene noted the petitioner had worked with the City and with NPBCID to resolve
drainage issues; that this development was intended to solve many drainage problems in Plat 4, and
development could not move forward until the drainage problems were resolved. Mr. Green explained
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
that the petitioner had provided additional lake storage area, although this had caused a loss of several
units. Mr. Greene explained that because the Palm Beach Gardens code did not address zero lot lime
developments, it was necessary to request setback waivers, which he presented and compared to those
in similar developments. Mr. Greene noted that additional guest parking spaces were not required by
code and that the applicant felt four spaces per unit in addition to the 44 spaces provided at the centrally
located town center were sufficient.
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open. Roger Blangy, resident of Plat 4, commented his
question had been answered and he thanked the Commission and the DiVosta Company. Carolyn
Chaplin, a Jupiter resident, stated she was 100% in favor ofthis project. Wes Ames, resident of Plat 4,
inquired about a landscaping berm, to which Mr. Green responded a landscape buffer would surround
the whole project and that there would be heavy buffering between this project and Plat 4 to the south.
Alex Perez, Garden Woods resident, stated his support for the project.
Mr. Charming made a motion to continue the Public Hearing for Petition PUD -99 -08 to the
September 12, 2000 meeting. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0
vote.
• Recommendation to City Council:
Petition SP- 00-07: PUD Master Plan Amendment for an Eckerd's Drugstore at the Promenade
Plaza
Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development master
plan approval to add a 14,090 square foot retail building (Eckerd's Drugstore) on Parcels 1, 2, and
3 in the Promenade Shopping Center (fka: Gardens East Plaza), within the Gardens East Planned
Community District. The 1.6 acre site is located on the east side ofAlternate AIA, appraximately 500
feet forth of Lighthouse Drive. (7- 42S -43E)
Commissioner John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest.
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report, and stated staffdid not recommend approval; however,
if approval should be granted staff recommended the 18 conditions in the staff report plus waivers as
noted in the report..
Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner, described architectural changes since the last meeting, and reviewed
proposed signage and parking. Mr. Nedvins and Mr. Kunkle questioned whether sufficient parking would
remain ifparcel one was developed. Mr. Kunkle noted that the parking analysis had been done during
summer months rather than in season when parking was a problem. Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion
that this was a shoehorn attempt that really did not fit, and stated he would not support the project. Mr.
Channing stated he would like to see a side -by -side presentation ofthe site plan and the original site plan
for the area. Ms. Glas explained there was no original site plan, only a master plan with elevations
• 8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
provided as guidelines for future expansion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Channing commented he was trying
to establish and see what the Commission should be judging this plan against, to which Mr. Norquest
responded a condition of approval by the City Council had specifically referenced the elevations provided.
Mr. Channing stated he wanted to see what the petitioner was proposing and how it related to the
existing center. During ensuing discussion, Ms. Glas noted the petitioner had attempted to be consistent
with the existing center. Mr. Norquest read condition 8 of Resolution 9,1994 regarding the previously
approved elevations. Mr. Rauch commented he did not see the interconnectivity ofthe original concept
and that there was conflict between the original plan and the existing center. Ms. Glas commented there
was not sufficient retail traffic to support placing retail businesses on the water. Mr. Solomon clarified
that there were two major factors.-how this project fit into the shopping center, and parking, and noted
that more often than not, parking was a major problem at that shopping center, and that one must many
times walk a long way to go to a movie at the theater. Mr. Solomon asked whether the petitioner would
be willing to build more parking spaces on the green area and forego additional parking, to which Ms.
Glas responded she would have to check. Ms. Glas commented parking had been investigated and that
parking at the rear had been closed off, which the petitioner recommended be opened to provide
additional spaces before looking at more parking on the green space. Mr. Channing inquired regarding
the size ofthe proposed drug store, to which the response was 14,094 square feet, or more than double
the size ofthe Eckerd's in the existing center. Mr. Nedvins expressed his opinion there was a flaw in the
original master plan in that in this quadrant there was not enough parking for a building that size which
• during winter months would create a serious problem. Mr. Nedvins commented this was a bad plan from
a planning standpoint, that he could not support it, and did not believe a building that size would work.
Mr. Channing commented that the Ale House was only approximately 6,300 square feet, and the
proposed Eckerd's was more than twice the other largest outparcel, that it was not consistent with what
the City Council had directed, and that he was sympathetic, but did not see connectivity. Ms. Glas
commented the petitioner would like to return one more time and try again to see if they could do
something to make the project more suitable. Mr. Channing advised that the petitioner would have to
take a radically different approach to deal with this adequately, and suggested the possibility of turning
the building. Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion that this project would compound the parking problems
and be a detriment to other tenants. Mr. Present stated his opinion that the Commission needed a
comfort level from the owner. Ms. Glas suggested the drive - through might be placed on the other side
of the building, and noted that the drive - through windows at drug stores were very successful.
Workshop:
Petition SP- 00-15: Site Plan Review - for Fire Station #4 at Gol�'Digest
Urban Design Studio, agent for Taylo- Woodrow, is requesting Site Plan Approval within a Planned
Community Development for a two -acre site providing for afore station and a community Policing
Station. The site is located within the Golf Digest Planned Community District, approximately 114
mile north of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Jog Road (3- 42S -42E)
Mr. Glidden re joined the Commission.
• 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report, including requested waivers. Mr. Tombari
explained that Mirasol would build this fire station at their own expense, the present fire station behind
Mobil would be abandoned and that parcel would be sold by the City, and the design of the new station
would be in keeping with Mirasol architecture.
Anne Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, described the site and location, explained that
the Fire Chief and staff had provided input for the design, and that the same architect and engineering
firms were used for all fire stations in the City. The Fire Department had established 36 parking spaces
as a minimum and had added S spaces because of the meeting room Ms. Booth described the
architecture, which was consistent with the architecture of Mirasol rather than that of other fire stations.
Ms. Booth explained that this station would also serve as a fire sub station. Ms. Booth commented that
the petitioner had worked with staff on the landscaping to place trees where they would be clear of the
fire trucks, described planting materials and layout, buffers, and proposed signage. Ms. Booth discussed
the ownership of common area and roadways. Mr. Booth noted revisions had been made to drawings
to include staff comments and could be submitted the next day, but that the Commission's comments
were also desired for inclusion. It was clarified that the large shower room was for the men and the
smaller one was for women. Mr. Kunkle suggested flying the State and City flags as well as the American
flag. Mr. Kunkle noted native plants were being used; however, the design was not conducive to native
plants, and continuity of appearance with what was around the station and when coming off the roadway
• was needed, as well as landscaping that would compliment the architecture instead of just trying to
achieve the lowest possible maintenance level. Mr. Channing commented he was not happy with the
architecture, and suggested he would like the smaller boxes to wrap around the larger one and to make
the wall thicker. Mr. Glidden commented the units on pads needed landscaping around them and he
would like Mr. Kunkle to look at the landscape plan for proper screening. Mr. Glidden recommended
a minor change on the site plan that the left -hand turns at the back ofthe driveway should make a radius
in two places. Mr. Glidden also recommended at the building entrance to raise the hip roofs up 3' and
move them out a couple of feet to make a legitimate portico. The other Commissioners expressed no
problems with the project.
Workshop:
Petition PUD- 00-02: PUD Master Plan Amendment to Expand St. Mark's School
Fannin&HoweyAssociates, Ina, agentforSk. Mark's Episcopal Church, is requesting aplanned unit
development amendment to expand the previously- approved A Mark's Playing Fields PUD to
include the St. Mark's Church and School site on the east side of Gardens East Drive, add an
additional school building of appraximately 14,000 square feet in size, and expand the church
building by 1,480 square feet. The 11 -acre site is located on the northeast and northwest corners of
Burns Road and Gardens East Drive. (7- 42S-43E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staffreport and noted the landscaping issue must be resolved before
the Planning and Zoning public hearing.
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
The Project Manager for Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. described the project, and explained that the
landscaping plan contained gravel that did not meet City code. Proposed changes were described which
would eliminate the decorative gravel and would be worked out between the City Forester and the
Landscape Architect. The petitioner wanted to make one large PUD overlay in order to accomplish
parking requirements. Mr. Charming requested and received clarification that the building roof was flat
and did not cantilever out, but that there was a stucco band around the top of the building. The Project
Manager verified that this building could be seen from the street. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion
that the building looked utilitarian. Mr. Nedvins questioned whether this architecture tied in with the
existing building, to which the Project Manager responded the look of the building was the same;
however, the other buildings had 8" of standing seam metal roof Mr. Channing requested a photograph
of the existing buildings at the next presentation in order to compare with the proposed building. Mr.
Glidden suggested the Commissioners all go look at the existing buildings and suggested the proposed
building needed work on the exterior, and if the scuppers and downspouts were changed to interior roof
drams it would be a great improvement. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the arch and gable at the
entry seemed to be separate elements, and should be improved. Mr. Glidden questioned why the
applicant was so far along on the plans, to which the petitioner responded their staffhad had the time to
go ahead, but they would be glad to make changes. Mr. Rauch commented the building left a lot to be
desired. Mr. Nedvins commented that condition one of Resolution 1 -1994 stated the school should not
• exceed 464 students without verification from the City; however, the staff report had noted the addition
would increase enrollment from 492 to 570. Chair Nedvins commented some mechanism should be in
place to prevent any private school from exceeding their cap on enrollment without notifying the City.
Melba Hardy, Head of School, explained there was a split session so that only half of the pre - school
enrollment was present on the campus at any one time. Chair Nedvins requested photographs of each
building laid out so that the Commissioners could tell how the whole campus was configured. Mr.
Norquest questioned whether direction was to hold another workshop, to which the response was
affirmative. Mr. Solomon requested that the petitioner help the Commission see the pedestrian walkways
from parking areas, etc., as well as exterior lighting. Mr. Glidden advised the applicant not to hesitate
to contact any member of the Commission for their input before coming back to the next workshop.
OLD BUSINESS
A handout update on items referred to City Council was provided to the Commissioners by Principal
Planner Tim Norquest. Chair Nedvins questioned the City Council's position regarding the outdoor
seating at Hibiscus Restaurant. Mr. Norquest explained it had been passed on first reading but the City
Council had made it very clear that it would not be approved unless compromise with the neighbors was
reached. Chair Nedvins questioned why the Legacy Place project had not come to this Board before
going before City Council. Mr. Norquest explained that the new City Code allowed very large projects
to have a preliminary workshop with City Council. City Attorney Rubin explained that this had been an
idea of the City Council so that applicants would not go too far afield, and was only a one -sided
presentation to make sure applicants were on the right track. Nothing was done at these preliminary
• 11
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
workshops that would affect presentation to this Commission. Mr. Glidden suggested the Planning and
Zoning Commission be invited to these workshops.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Nedvins questioned whether the Commissioners were utilizing the large plans provided with
packets that were delivered to the Commissioners' homes. Mr. Kunkle, Mr. Channing, Mr. Glidden, and
Mr. Present indicated they wanted the large plans. Mr. Lindgren commented he would provide both the
large size and 11" x 17" reductions in the next packets and asked those who preferred the reductions to
let staffknow their preference. Mr. Nedvins noted the Commission had asked some petitioners to make
changes which were not made on the plans. Mr. Glidden commented it would help to have reduced
renderings submitted with the drawings.
Chair Nedvins noted there were two vacancies, one for a permanent member and one for an alternate
member, and that he did not know when the present terms expired. Chair Nedvins asked the other
Commissioners to feel free to call him or Mr. Sabatello to address finding new members. It was
suggested that Mr. Rauch be moved to a permanent member, to which Chair Nedvins responded that two
people would still be needed.
Mr. Glidden commented he had sent a letter to Growth Management Director Manning regarding Code
Enforcement action on Hampton Inn's diagonal struts, which he recommended come back to Planning
& Zoning; on Plastridge hurricane shutter strips, which he recommended be removed; and on ABC
Liquors and the Shell station regarding lighting levels.
Mr. Present commented that at the Governing Board meeting discussion regarding Unit 19 at the mall
had lost direction and that Ms. Manning had brought the discussion back on track. Mr. Present
complimented Ms. Manning on her handling of the situation.
Mr. Channing complimented Chair Nedvins on running a tight meeting so that it ended at a decent hour.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
0 12
a
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no fiu*er business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held September 5, 2000.
APPROVED:
djins, Chair
An Gligen, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Ch Pro Tem
Joel Channin
Cram e,
Betty Laur
" C>*L,,(� -
Secretary for the Meeting
13
F: `FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
BOUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME —FIRST NAME— MIDULE NAME
MA C ADDRESS
CITY
DATE ON WHICH VOI'E OCCURRED
')/z w Q
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
• INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
1F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
NAME OF BOARQ COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTE
06�k
r0 ?1 &nl4ev
THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON
�dj
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
u
C'fl Y COUNTY ' ': OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
C'OUNTI'
NAA1 t OF POLITICAL. SUBUIVISIO
MY POSITION IS:
,.: ELECTIVE APPOINTIV
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
• INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
1F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
d ou should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
o should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
hereby disclose that on
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
I am retained.
•
Date Filed Signature
WICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), :A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE Oh EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000.
CE FORM 88 - 10 -86 PAGE 2