Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 072500• • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING CONIlMSSION July 25, 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 of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Pahn 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 MINUTES Mr. Channing made a motion to approve the July 11, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW CON MTITEE The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present John Nedvins, Chair Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem Joel Channing Craig Kunkle, Jr. Barry Present - arrived at 6:50 p.m. Absent John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Ted Rauch, Alternate Recommendation to City Councib Petition SP- 00 -03: Golf Digest Parcels H and I A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval for two residential parcels known as Parcels H & I in the Golf Digest Planned Community Development located on the north side of PGA Boulevard, west of the Florida Turnpike. Each parcel is 19.5 acres in size. The combined land area of these parcels totals 3&4 acres. The proposed development consists of 56 single-family custom home lots and 79 zero lot line single-family home lots. (03- 42S -42E) • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Principal Planner Steve Cramer reviewed the staff report. Anne Booth, Urban Design Studios, agent for the petitioner, noted concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting, and advised that design guidelines regarding color, elevations, and duplication of elevations within each pod had been provided. To address the concern regarding setbacks and the number of waivers, Ms. Booth commented that a chart had been prepared and was included in the staff report which identified and compared setbacks and waivers requested for this project to those of two approved projects, showing that these plans were consistent with other approvals. Ms. Booth advised that because of the evolution of the City's code, petitioner must now ask for these types of waivers and that as more petitions came before the Commission under the new Code they would see the same kinds ofwaivers. Ms. Booth explained the concept of consolidating open space under the control of the master association and individual homeowners associations in order to provide consistent landscaping. Ms. Booth advised that additional architectural plans had been provided. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the design guidelines should not be thought of as guidelines from which petitioners could deviate; but rather, as minimum design criteria with which petitioners must comply, and that the guidelines should be conditions of approval whether or not each was specifically mentioned. The petitioner agreed. Ms. Booth noted that there was flexibility on the part ofthe applicant to make minor architectural changes without coming back before the Commission, such as minor • deviations to windows, roof pitch, etc., but the main architectural theme must remain the same. Mr. Solomon questioned how staff would draw the line, to which Mr. Cramer responded that staff felt the guidelines were strong enough and staff would enforce them administratively. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that a change in roof pitch was a major component, to which the response was that roof changes would be limited to style —from hip to gable, etc. Mr. Solomon requested that there be an understanding that roofpitch was not an item that could be changed as a minor deviation. Mr. Solomon requested that there be an understanding that options in garage doors to provide some windows would be offered to purchasers. Mr. Solomon questioned lintels shown above some windows in some models. Architect Tim Harvey responded that was just an indication of a lintel which would be covered by stucco. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the glass block windows appeared to be floating and should have something to tie them to the building, to which the petitioner responded those windows were on the zero side ofthe budding and visible only to the adjacent owner. Mr. Solomon requested an understanding that if the glass block windows were placed other than on the zero side that architectural features must be added. Barry Present arrived at this point in the meeting, at 6:50 p.m. Petitioner explained that a design guideline was that architectural articulation visible from the street be returned a minimum of 4' on the sides of the buildings. Mr. Solomon responded that did not cover the window treatments. Ms. Booth explained the petitioner was planning extensive landscaping and that purchasers could add treatments as an option to their own home. Chair Nedvins recommended that such • items as the building returns be established as minimums within the design criteria guidelines so that such 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 items did not have to be discussed each time they were presented. Chair Nedvins questioned whether there were any concerns regarding installing working fireplaces which would cause chimneys above roof Tines. Since there were no concerns from staff or the Commission, Chair Nedvins noted that could be a part of the minimum design criteria so that it would not need to come back for future discussion, and requested an encompassing list of such items. Mr. Cramer commented that staff would start a list for residential projects. Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition SP400 -03 with the following conditions and waivers: 1. Prior to construction plan approval, the petitioner shall submit the site and landscape plans of Parcels H and I to Seacoast Utility Authority for review. 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the petitioner shall record City- approved plats for roadways providing access to the subject parcels. 3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the second phase of construction, the petitioner shall plat Parcel L • 4. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Parcels H or I, the petitioner shall install all the landscaping along the non -public roadways from the North -South Parkway to the entry drives leading into each parcel, including the rotary. Waivers: 1. A waiver from the maximum lot coverage requirements of 35% to allow a 50% lot coverage for Parcel H and 45% for Parcel L 2. A waiver from the side interior setback of 7.5 feet or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater, for both Parcels H and L 3. A waiver from the street side setback of 20 feet for four lots within both parcels. 4. A waiver to allow pools /screens and accessory structures within the side interior setbacks for both parcels. 5. A waiver to allow pools/screens and accessory structures within the rear setback for both parcels. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kunkle. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon stated • that he believed all four sides of the buildings should be consistent with regard to molding. 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Principal Planner Jim Norquest noted that the City Council members had also made that comment. The vote on the motion carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Mr. Present abstained because he had missed 80% of the presentation. Recommendation to City Council. Petition SP- 00-02: Gol�igest Parcels E. F. and G A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval for three residential parcels known as Parcels E, F, and G in the Golf Digest Planned Community Development. The acreage of each parcel is 8.9, f 1, and 13 acres, respectively. The combined land area of these parcels totals 28 acres. The proposed development consists of 141 zero lot line single-family home lots. (04-42S - -42E) Principal Planner Steve Cramer presented the petition and noted that the Golf Digest project was now known as MirasoL Anne Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, noted that comments for this petition had been the same as for the last petition, Petition SP- 00-03, and that petitioner had responded the same. Chair Nedvins commented that staff recommended not approving the rotary. Mr. Kunkle made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -00-02 with the • following conditions and waivers: 1. Prior to City Council meeting, the petitioner shall revise and make consistent the site and landscape plans with the parcel entry landscape plan. 2. Prior to recording the plat, the petitioner shall show the exact location of the proposed Seacoast Utility Authority easement and the subsequent monitoring well. 3. Prior to construction approval, the petitioner shall provide legal access to the subject parcels. 4. The approval of this project does not include approval of the rotary, which is outside of the boundaries of this project, as reflected on the newly revised Master Plan of the PCD. 5. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant shall revise the PCD buffer section by taking into account the Seacoast Utility site. 6. Prior to City Council meeting, the petitioner shall revise the site plan to show the location of the drainage pipes on the north buffer landscape plan to verify that no conflicts exist. 7. No large trees or vertical construction will be permitted in the drainage easements. • 8. The petitioner shall modify the Seacoast Utility Authority Waste Water Treatment Plant 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 site in order to alleviate storm water drainage incompatibilities. The petitioner must submit a development petition to the City for this work. The petitioner shall modify the petition to incorporate any modifications that are required to satisfy Condition 56 in Ordinance 8, 2000. 9. Petitioner shall comply with established minimum design criteria guidelines. 10. Petitioner shall offer options of some glass in garage doors. Waivers: 1. A waiver from the maximum lot coverage requirements of 35% to allow a 50% lot coverage for all three parcels. 2. A waiver to allow pools /screens and accessory structures within the side interior setbacks for lots within all three parcels. 3. A waiver to allow pools /screen enclosures or accessory structures within the rear setback for all three parcels. • 4. A waiver to allow lots with 48 -foot width. 5. A waiver to allow a reduction in the interior side setback from the required 7.5 feet to 0'10' setbacks. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. Recommendation to City Council. Petition SP- 99 -23: Golf Digest Parcels 1 -5 A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval for five residential parcels in the Golf Digest PCD. The acreage of each parcel is 7.8 (Parcel 1), 12.5 (Parcel 2), 15.1 (Parcel 3), 11.7 (Parcel 4), and 9.8 (Parcel 5). The combined land area of these parcels totals 57.1 acres. The proposed development consists of 114 zero lot line single-family home lots and 85 custom homes. (04 and 05- 42S -42E) Principal Planner Steve Cramer presented the request and explained that this was similar to the last two petitions. Anne Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, commented that the same information had • been submitted as for the previous two petitions. 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 Chair Nedvins noted that the waiver for an alternate method of roadway construction had not been recommended for denial in the staff report, however, it would not be approved. Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -99-23 with the following conditions and waivers: 1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the petitioner shall plat and dedicate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Spine Road and Jog Road. The petitioner shall also submit roadway construction plans for review and approval as well as complete the construction of the roadways for any of the individual parcels that these roadways serve. 2. The petitioner shall include in the homeowners association documents language that would project a designated shade tree on each lot for a formal street tree community program. The language must be reviewed and approved by the City Forester prior to recording the HOA documents. 3. Petitioner shall comply with established minimum design criteria guidelines. 4. Petitioner shall offer options of some glass in garage doors. • Waivers: 1. A waiver from the maximum lot coverage requirements of 35% to allow a 50% lot coverage for Parcels 3 and 4 and 45% for Parcels 1, 2, and 5.. 2. A waiver to allow pools/screens /accessory structures within the side interior setbacks for lots within all five parcels. 3. A waiver to allow pools/screens and accessory structures within the rear setback for all parcels. 4. A waiver from the side interior setback of 7.5 feet or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater, for Parcels 2, 3, and 4. 5. A waiver from the minimum lot width requirement of 65 feet for Parcels 3 and 4. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. Recommendation to City Council SP -00.07: Eckerds at Gardens East Plaza fPromenade) Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development approval to add a 14,090 square -foot retail building )Eckerd's Drugstore) on Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in the • 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 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 of Alternate AIA, approximately 500 feet north of Lighthouse Drive. (742S -43E) It was announced that this petition had been withdrawn from tonight's agenda. Workshop SP- 00 -08: Northcorp South Park Center Lot 10 /I1 Parking Lot Amendment 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 115 parking spaces, including two covered parking areas consisting of six spaces in each covered parking 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 staff report, and requested that the agent for the petitioner justify the 43% increase in parking. Mr. Present inquired whether the covered parking could meet hurricane standards, to which the response was that the structure could withstand 110 mile per hour winds and that the canopy would be removed. • Henry Skokowski, Urban Design Studio, agent, presented the request for additional parking for the previously approved office building, which would make the parking ratio 5.2 spaces per thousand feet Mr. Skokowski pointed out the two areas requested to have covered parking, explained the parking was not visible from any major roadways, and that the City code allowed the petitioner to ask for up to 5% covered parking but this request was for less. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that this was a reasonable request. Mr. Kunkle noted that upon entering the parking lot one must turn right and then immediately right or left again and questioned whether this area was to be used for visitor parking, to which Mr. Skokowski responded it would be used for employee parking and so that the cars would remain parked all day. Mr. Kunkle commented he could not support the covered parking which he felt looked cheesy. The petitioner verified that no handicap or delivery spaces had been given up for covered parking. Principal Planner Cramer clarified that under the new code section 190 paragraph (c) the petitioner was allowed to request up to 5% covered vinyl parking. Chair Nedvins stated he preferred a more permanent parking structure, however, the petitioner had the right to this type of parking under the code. Principal Planner Cramer commented that the request was for 43% more parking than allowed by the new code. Mr. Skokowski responded that the office standard adopted was 3.3 per thousand square feet per office, which was too low for a base, although that was the base used by West Palm Beach. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether this property should be platted as a lot, to which Mr. Skokowski responded it had already been platted. Chair Nedvins requested additional information before the next meeting such as that provided by Mirasol. Chair • Nedvins cautioned that a large amount of parking would limit the size of the budding and that the 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 applicant needed to be sure they needed the parking before going forward. Tim Griffin, developer ofthe project, explained that the 3.3 minimum requirement wasnot satisfactoryto their qualitytenant prospects Mr. Griffin explained that large private offices had given way to smaller offices and that each tenant wanted 4 -5 spaces minimum, and noted that the diference between the City's minimum and what tenants wanted needed to be recognized. Mr. Griffin stated the petitioner's request was market driven. Principal Planner Jim Norquest commented in support of Mr. Griffin that he had heard other office developers say the same thing and in his opinion staffneeded to look at the new code to see if it needed changing, since this was the fourth person who had made the comment. Mr. Solomon commented that another site might not justify the same ratio because of a different configuration. Mr. Griffin suggested that at another time the Commission might want to discuss a range such as a minimum of 4 to 6. Chair Nedvins commented he dealt with this problem every day as a commercial real estate broker, that he had addressed it with the City two years ago, and believed a new minimum was needed. Mr. Charming commented small office users wanted the minimum and in one case not even that much was needed; therefore, he favored leaving this issue up to developers since more or less parking was needed according to their tenants. Mr. Cramer commented staff was not opposed to the petitioner's request but just wanted justification such as excessive tenant demands or employee ratio. Mr. Nedvins commented that Mr. Charming might be right because no matter what was done someone would always request the opposite, and suggested 4-1/2 might be a good number. It was pointed out that large corporations were looking at alternatives ofhaving employees work at home with laptops, or two people using the same desk in different shifts, and the days . of the big office were gone. Staff agreed to look more closely at this issue. Mr. Present commented no one liked a sea of parking but neither did one like to have to drive around looking for a space to park, and favored a change if it could be justified. Mr. Norquest requested a recommendation to staff on the covered parking. One Commissioner wanted a building, one was against the covered parking, and three had made no comments. Mr. Solomon commented a modest amount had been requested and this was a good alternative to budding a parking structure. Mr. Channing commented the tenants would pay extra for covered parking which could justify building a parking structure. Mr. Nedvins summarized that three of the Commissioners were in favor of a more permanent structure, and suggested concrete block columns with stucco finish and a roof of barrel tile. Workshop Petitions Z -00 -02 and PUD- 00-01: Benjamin Private High School Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting a rezoning from PDA: Planned DevelopmentArea to PIV 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 approximately 112 mile north of Hood Road, adjacent to the western side of Central Boulevard (7- 42S -43E) Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staffreport and the requested waivers. Mr. Tombari explained that staff desired installation of irrigation, flowering annuals, and electrical service for uplighting in medians and would like to continue that practice throughout the City. Mr. Present inquired regarding the roadway connection that would be provided by the petitioner, to which the response was that a road • 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 would be built to go to the west and then north, making a loop up to Donald Ross Road. Henry Skokowski, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, presented the project, which would encompass 50 acres and provide a school for 490 students. Mike Rossin, Schwab, Twitty, Hanser Architects, reviewed the overall concept, explained that the campus would be screened from Central Boulevard, and showed perspectives from different angles. Mr. Rossin explained there was an FPL easement across the rear of the property, which would be heavily screened by landscaping. The palette ofproposed materials included stucco/block construction, mustard/offwhite colors with dark green roofs and window frames, and light green glass. Because a higher percentage of studentswould be driving cars than in a regular high school, a higher percentage of parking was requested. Chair Nedvins questioned whether a signalized light would be placed at Central Boulevard, to which Mr. Rossin responded that the applicant had not discussed this with DOT because DOT decided on their own where to put lights. A sample of the actual roof tile was viewed. Chair Nedvins requested more architectural plans than had been provided to the Commission, to which the petitioner responded that a full set had already been submitted, including floor plan elevations, roof plans, and landscaping plans. Chair Nedvins recommended that the petitioner be proactive by contacting Vice Chair John Glidden to discuss the roof plans, and Mr. Kunkle to discuss the landscaping plans before the next meeting. Mr. Rossin reviewed the proposed timetable for the project. The school was anticipated to open in the fall • of 2003. Petitioner requested that this project be kept on typical agendas, to which Chair Nedvins responded that the petitioner could speed the process by not having missing items and advised that a sequential building -by- building presentation would make the process move faster. Petitioner explained minor changes from the graphics to the detailed drawings, and advised that coordination ofthe graphics would continue. Jay Bridge, Landscape Architect, described the proposed buffers, including a 100' upland buffer along Central Boulevard Mr. Bridge advised that he anticipated preserving pine flatwoods and that from the street the landscaping would appear naturally wooded. Mr. Bridge described some grasses requested by the City along Central Boulevard. A member of the Commission questioned the location of signage on Central Boulevard, to which Mr. Rossin responded the signage would only be up near the front of the school and that the petitioner did not want a lot of signage. Mr. Bridge reviewed planting materials, which included blue phunbago and orange ixora to reflect the school's colors. Mr. Bridge advised that littoral plants and streetscape materials were not yet finalized. Mr. Rossin pointed out the location ofthe maintenance facility. Mr. Kunkle commented he was looking forward to detailed plans and asked who was responsible for upland buffer and upland preserve area maintenance, to which the petitioner responded that the Benjamin School would be responsible and that Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District would not be involved. Mr. Kunkle commented that the maintenance was key to median upkeep, and that he was glad the school was coming to Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Charming commented that this was a fantastic site plan and the school would be an asset to the City. Mr. Kunkle and Mr. Channing expressed their opinion that Donald Ross Road had turned out really good. Chair Nedvins advised the petitioner to be as prepared as possible for upcoming meetings. Principal Planner Tim Norquest advised that packages of plans had been handed out before tonight's meeting and that the Commissioners could take those to review before the next meeting. Mr. Skokowski explained • 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 that there would be no connection to San Michele, and described the central chiller and its location. Mr. Nedvins recommended ice storage for energy savings. The location ofthe existing traffic light south of Hood Road was clarified. Lighting plans included one plan showing photometrics and another just showing sports lighting for ball fields. Petitioner explained that light would not spill into adjacent residential areas, and that lights would be provided in the parking lot and along pedestrian paths to buildings. OLD BUSINESS Chair Nedvins complimented staff on the memo provided by Mr. Cramer containing responses to the Commission's comments at the last meeting, and recommended that staffhave one person tracking those issues. Mr. Channing agreed 100% and stated he really appreciated receiving the followup. Mr. Channing requested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they re -think covered parking. Mr. Norquest responded that staff would request guidelines from City Council since they had received mixed signals. Chair Nedvins commented he had driven by South Park and that the building architecture should never have been approved and was not what was wanted in the City. Mr. Solomon commented that the ugly sign on Military Trail by Abbey Road was gone. Mr. Norquest advised he had provided a memo on City Council actions from their last meeting, and that the most significant item addressed was that they had approved the new LDR's almost exactly as this Commission had sent them • Chair Nedvins suggested that the plan packages for Benjamin School be turned back in so that staffcould collate them and deliver them to the Commission members, and commented it would be okay to deliver them this Friday instead of the Friday before the next meeting. Mr. Channing questioned whether there were landscape plans for the Municipal Complex, suggested that an artist might do something to disguise the black pipe in front, and commented that this Board should have reviewed the landscaping. Mr. Norquest advised that the landscaping was being significantly changed. Mr. Present noted the City Council had approved the Grand Bank signage rejected by Planning & Zoning and requested any insight for this Board. Mr. Norquest explained that the City Council decision had not been unanimous, and that the majority considered the signage acceptable since they felt this was a minor tenant sign and it was on such a large complex with so many tenants, and also was angled from PGA Boulevard. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held August 8, 2000. APPROVED: • Chair A (Absent) Ted Rauch, Alternate Betty Laur Secretary for the • 11