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