HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 061300CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING CONIlVIISSION
June 13, 2000
N11NUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm FBeac rdens,
Florida, was called to order by Chair Joel Channing at 6:30 P.M. in the Lobby ofthe MComplex,
10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledg giance to
the Flag.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
Principal Planner Tim Norquest announced that staffwould present Zesfprojects acted upon by
the City Council at future Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Mr. Norquest reported that the
San Michelle project, proposed for the corner of Central Boulevard and Military Trail, had been denied
because the petitioner would not agree to the City's standard drainage condition, and because the City
Council felt that the project did not provide enough green space and park area for children to play. The
petitioner had requested reconsideration and had presented a redesigned plan eliminating one unit to
provide space for a park and extra landscaping, and had agreed to the drainage condition; whereupon the
City Council had approved the project. Chair Channing requested a report on the medical center at the
mall, to which Principal Planner Norquest responded that the project had proceeded through first reading
• with one City Council member absent; at second reading the architecture had been described as being too
much like the 3801 Building, and the petition had been tabled. Chair Channing asked the significance of
the CRALS denial by the County Land Use Board, to which Mr. Norquest responded that a local
businessman had made a case against CRALS, claiming it favored developers, and the Board had been
swayed by that; however, there was still support from County staff and from Commissioner Karen
Marcus. Mr. Norquest commented that in order to reverse this decision, public relations work would
have to be done to change the perception that CRALS benefitted only developers to the idea that it would
benefit the whole City. Chair Channing questioned whether this affected all projects. Mr. Norquest
explained that it depended on their radius of influence and whether the project touched the roadway, and
that the area covered was PGA Boulevard between Military Trail and Prosperity Farms Road. Mr.
Norquest commented that the City would have to rely upon County staff and Commissioner Marcus to
get this item approved, and noted that the County Engineering Staff supported it, which was in the City's
favor.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the May 23, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. Kunkle seconded the
motion. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
• The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
Present
Joel Channing, Chair
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry Present, Alternate
Absent
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
Daniel Lee Cruz
Also present at the meeting were City Attorney Leonard Rubin, Senior Planners Talal Benothman and
Ed Tombari, and Principal Planner James Norquest.
Chair Channing announced that this was his last night to serve as a member of the Commission.
A Request by City Staff for a Recommendation Regarding an Exterior Signage Package for the City
Hall Municipal Complex at 10500 North Military Trail
Building Official Jack Hanson presented the request, explained that several meetings were held last
• summer regarding an exterior sign package for the new Complex, that a bid package had been advertised,
bids had been opened and read into the record on June 1, 2000, and staff was on the threshold of
awarding the bid when it had been learned during review by the Growth Management Department that
this item must be presented to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. Building Official
Hanson explained that his instructions had been received from the previous City Manager, and that in the
future anything that Growth Management was involved with would come before this Board. Mr. Hanson
reviewed the proposed sign package, for which a drawing had been provided to each member of the
Board. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether the Signage was in compliance with the new regulations, to which
Mr. Hanson responded that the Police and Fire signs would be changed to one line and that the package
would then meet code. The sign for the parking lot off Johnson Dairy Road was described as an internal
sign, not a part ofthis package, and not illuminated, but visible from illumination provided by the parking
lot lighting. Vice Chair Nedvins suggested an informal study by the sign consultant as to whether
illumination was needed on the four exterior ground signs. Mr. Nedvins recommended an illuminated
sign on the fire department similar to that proposed for the police department to identify the building for
safety reasons. Mr. Hanson responded he would discuss this with ChiefBergel Mr. Nedvins requested
discussion with the City Manager also.
Vice Chair Nedvins made a motion to recommend approval of the Exterior Signage Package for
the City Hall Municipal Complex to the City Council with the following suggestions:
1. Revisit whether all ground signs should be illuminated.
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
2. Reconsider whether the Fire Department should be identified with an illuminated wall
sign.
Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote.
Workshop - Petition SP- 99 -18:
La Posada Senior Living Facility on Gardens Parkway at the Regional Center DRI
A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval of a senior retirement community
with 301 living units and beds and a two-story community center. The site is approximately 22.5
acres in size and is located within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DR1),
immediately north of the Gardens MaIL (06- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report, including staff concerns, waivers requested
by the petitioner, and outstanding issues.
Vice Chair Nedvins questioned whether the number ofparking spaces proposed was one per unit or one
per bedroom, to which Mr. Benothman responded that only one per unit for independent living was
• proposed by the applicant, and that the City Code for multi- family had been applied, which called for one
per bedroom. For skilled nursing and for Alzheimer uses more parking spaces than required by code had
been provided. Mr. Benothman explained that staff was not satisfied with the traffic information
provided. Mr. Kunkle requested full size plans be provided as part of the packets. Mr. Present inquired
about waivers, to which Mr. Benothman responded that the waivers on page 9 of the staff report were
not requested by the applicant. Mr. Present questioned whether the Seacoast Utilities issues had been
addressed, to which Mr. Benothman replied no response had been received from Seacoast regarding
whether the applicant's response to them was adequate. Mr. Present questioned how this project was
tied to the adjacent project. Mr. Benothman explained that a new loop road would link the projects and
that the second project would have to align with the project approved first. Mr. Benothman explained
that building heights were measured to the height of the towers. Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner,
pointed out the tower feature locations on a rendering. Chair Channing questioned the proposed parking
for independent living units. Ms. Glas responded that 1.25 spaces per unit plus guest parking was
provided. Vice Chair Nedvins received clarification that these units were apartments rather than
condominiums. Discussion ensued regarding differences in parking requirements between condominiums
and apartments.
Dodi Glas, agent, explained that La Poasada meant The Refuge and that the mix of housing types offered
different levels of service, including independent living, for which many different services were offered,
assisted living for those who needed assistance with daily living, and skilled nursing which included a
dementia unit to deal with Alzheimer patients. Ms. Glas explained that the site plan took advantage of
the water feature and that the project was linked by multiple levels of pedestrian walkways to the
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
surrounding neighborhoods. Pedestrian routes which could be utilized within the project were described
by Ms. Glas. A grotto at the community center provided a location to enjoy the water, and courtyards
with outdoor access and garden areas were provided in some units. In the independent living units, some
cottages were offered, whose residents would enjoy the same amenities and access to the site as those
living in the apartments. Ms. Glas explained that the sidewalk had been designed to take advantage of
the water management tract without disturbing the existing vegetation. Ms. Glas introduced Mark
Sheegan, Graystone Development Company, who developed these types of projects throughout the
United States; Tim Messler, Engineer; Joe Pollock, Traffic Consultant; Jay Bridge, Landscape Architect;
and Craig Davis, Architect for the project. Mr. Sheegan explained his company acted as consultants to
Westport Development, who had completed over 40 ofthese communities across the country in the past
15 years, with 20 more currently under development. Mr. Sheegan explained that this type of project
allowed aging in place, or moving from one level of care to another as needed in the same surroundings,
which was a less stressful way of aging. The minimum age for admittance was 62, and the average age
was 75. Mr. Sheegan explained that this was an upscale facility, and described the different levels of
living, the care provided, and the amenities offered. An entrance fee was escrowed and used to buy
down monthly charges. Mr. Solomon questioned the number of parking spaces required for the overall
project, which Mr. Sheegan responded was 507 with 451 provided. Mr. Sheegan explained that 405,6-
50% of couples had two cars when they moved in but within a few years only had one. Architect Craig
Davis pointed out there was no room for additional parking. Mr. Davis explained that there were
• elevators located throughout the entire complex, there were walkways on different levels, and residents
had the ability to walk from one end of the campus to the other under cover. Ms. Glas described the
locations of outer perimeter berms, and that the the remaining perimeter areas were landscaped.
Significant grade changes on the side adjacent to Mira Flores were described. Mr. Solomon requested
a berm of at least Y wherever possible to help screen parking and traffic, and that such a berm be located
along Gardens Boulevard, at least in the portion ofit west ofthe main entry, and also along the new loop
road. Ms. Glas described the walkway along Fairchild Gardens Avenue which connected to the north
into the other neighborhood, as consistent in width with that neighborhood's existing T wide sidewalks.
Sidewalk lighting was discussed. Ms. Glas clarified that there would be unified ownership. Mr. Davis
reviewed the site plan and described building materials as CMU with cement stucco, with concrete tile
roofs, and soffits and eaves of stucco with a finer texture. Areas in the marquee, pedestrian bridge,
community center, and covered parking would be cladded with rough -sawn stained cedar. Mr. Solomon
suggested a landscape island close to the entry be pulled back. Mr. Davis explained the concept was to
separate the buildings to encourage outdoor use, and space for emergency vehicles had been coordinated
with the Fire Marshall and the Police Department. Mr. Solomon noted the vehicles would have to back
out. Shutters were to be rough -sawn cedar and the developer was looking for a window manufacturer
who could provide windows featuring brown vinyl on the exterior rather than white. Mr. Solomon noted
the east elevation walls were plain, to which Mr. Craig responded the rendering referred to was of a cross
section, and described its use. At Mr. Kunkle's request, Mr. Sheegan described where the different levels
of care were located, and reported there were 18 beds for Alzheimer patients. Mr. Sheegan explained
that tenants agreed in their contracts to move to another care level when they could not perform three
of the required ADL's, and described how the rate for other levels of care was locked in. Jay Bridge,
• 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
Urban Design Studio, responded to Mr. Kunkle's comments that the landscape plans which were lacking
in detail that as the site plan was developed further he would be able to provide more details, but at this
point shrubs were shown as groups, and quantities were not yet identified. Mr. Bridge explained that
buffers would mimic those already at the mall, plus color would be added, and the next presentation
would include details. Mr. Present noted this was a good concept and that he was comfortable with the
project at first cut. Ms. Glas verified there were 242 independent living units. Mr. Present discussed
parking and observed fromhis family experience that a car represented independence, whichpeople found
hard to give up even though they might only take the car out three or so times a month, and that car took
up parking space. Ms. Glas clarified that Phase II consisted of only one apartment building with 36 units.
Mr. Benothman verified that 1600 units were approved for the DRI and 1708 were proposed, and that
additional units were in the NOPC and proposed to be converted from hotel rooms to units, which would
bring the total of approved units to 1,813, which was being handled through Coulter. Ms. Glas verified
that walkways were open to the public and described how lot coverage had been calculated. Chair
Charming requested and received clarification of the location of different care levels and the number of
tenants in each category, for a total of 242. The percentages for each care level were calculated based
on ages of seniors in the area as well as history from the company's other facilities. Chair Charming
requested berms on the south side of the new loop road be 3' high, and asked that all easements be
located up front. Ms. Glas noted that none of the utilities were located within the 15' landscape area.
Mr. Sheegan showed on the drawings how one could walk undercover through the whole project. Chair
• Channing expressed his opinion that people would want to drive to the community center. It was noted
that shuttle service would be provided. Mr. Davis clarified that a similar project in St. John's county was
currently under construction. It was clarified that this project was not required to have Art in Public
Places. Mechanical equipment was requested to be screened from view. Concern was expressed
regarding the issue of a couple having two cars and the dead end parking areas.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Solomon thanked Chair Charming for his service on this Commission.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
0 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held June 27, 2000.
APPROVED:
•
Joel Ch ' g, Chair
Jo ed ' s, Vice Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro ''em
Craig
(Absent)
Daniel Lee Cruz
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry t, Alternate
B6tty Laur
Secretary for the Meeting
•
0