HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 052300•
0
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING CONUMSSION
May 23, 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 Joel Channing at 6:30 P.M. in the Lobby ofthe Municipal Complex,
10500 North Military Trail, Pahn Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to approve the May 9, 2000 meeting minutes. Mr. Cruz seconded the motion.
During discussion of the motion, the following changes to the minutes of the May 9, 2000 meeting were
requested: On page 7, change Mr. Barry to Mr. Present; and City Engineer Rubin to City Attorney
Rubin. Motion carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMILSSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Joel Charming, Chair
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Absent
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
Ted Rauch, Ahemate
Barry Present, Alternate
Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney
Leonard Rubin, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, and Principal Planner James Norquest.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition MISC- 00 -02: Amendment to the Hibiscus Restaurant Planned Unit Development to Allow
Outdoor Seating
Attorney Lawrence W. Smith, agent for PGA Summers Associates, is requesting an amendment to the
development order to allow outdoor seating for the Hibiscus Restaurant located at the northwest corner
of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road. (5- 42S -43E)
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
Principal Planner Tim Norquest reviewed the staff report and reported letters of opposition had been
received from an attorney representing nearby homeowners and from County Commissioner Karen
Marcus.
Attorney Lawrence Smith, agent for the petitioner, explained that the request was to move 13 tables
outdoors on the patio west of the building on the water, and that there would be no increased seating.
Mr. Smith explained that Flagler Systems, who also operated The Breakers, was interested in obtaining
this restaurant and that the outdoor seating was important to them. Mr. Smith reviewed other conditions
of the original development order, including no outside entertainment, keeping windows and doors
closed, and keeping the noise level down, which he proposed as adequate safeguards for the outdoor
seating. Mr. Smith explained that the deck area was currently used as a staging area for diners, which
would continue, and that people could also eat outside. Mr. Smith reviewed the history of approvals for
different restaurants on this site, which originally included outdoor seating but was dropped when an Ale
House restaurant was proposed. Mr. Smith described the wall and landscaping buffer between the
restaurant property and adjacent neighbors.
Chair Charming declared the public hearing open. Richard Arnold stated he lived adjacent to the
restaurant and described the noise he could hear from the restaurant and how he was restricted in using
his yard and dock area because restaurant patrons could look out and see him while they were dining.
• Mr. Arnold reported he had remodeled his home at a cost of approximately $100,000; in reliance on the
development order which prohibited outdoor seating. Mr. Arnold stated that he did not want a standing
cocktail reception of 52 people next to his house every night, and that he intended to fight this request.
Mr. Arnold expressed his opinion that the restaurant was never busy enough to need the requested
staging area, and that his property would be devalued. Mr. Nedvins commented that in his opinion the
restaurant had not made a compelling argument why the tables should be moved outside, and everyone
should have the right to enjoy their property. Norman Sprague stated he and his wife Jane lived east of
Mr. Arnold and adjacent to the restaurant, and described the noise which came from the restaurant, and
expressed his opinion that the restaurant intended to use the outdoor seating as much as possible, and in
a couple of years might want outdoor entertainment. Mr. Sprague indicated he was against the proposal
and did not want to lose Mr. Arnold as a neighbor. Tom Fink, 1120 Crystal Drive, commented that he
had just purchased the property north of Mr. Arnold and had based his buying decision on no outdoor
dining or seating, and expressed his opinion that if people were now walking around outside with drinks
while waiting for tables they were already violating the development order. Mr. Fink stated this matter
would really affect property values. Jane Sprague commented she and her husband could hear the staff
since they congregated on the other side of the wall directly across from their home; that requested light
shields and shrubs had never been installed. Mr. Arnold spoke again and indicated he could hear noise
from the River House restaurant also. Mr. Arnold commented that he expected to have to call Code
Enforcement on a daily basis if the outdoor seating was approved. Mr. Smith commented that living in
Florida, people liked to dine on the water and it was natural for the restaurant to want to seat their
patrons on the water. Mr. Smith stated he was not taking lightly the neighbors' concerns; however, he
believed there were adequate safeguards in the development order.
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
Chair Channing declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Cruz questioned what the petitioner had done
to ameliorate the noise risk concerns of the residents, since the type of restaurant might be like an Ale
House. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that since this had all been heard and decided upon in the
past he felt it was unfair at this stage to permit this use. Chair Charming suggested that the applicant
should have first tried to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the neighbors that it was possible to have
outdoor seating without creating a disturbance.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommendation to City Council denial of Petition NMC -00 -02
at this time but without prejudice for the petitioner to come back. Mr. Kunkle seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
• Joel Channing, Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
John Nedvins, Vice Chair Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present, Alternate (arrived at 7:27 p.m.)
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00 -04: Parcel 27.JOB Regional Center
A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval of a proposed office development
with a total of 46,320 square feet of floor loor area. The site is approximately 3.2 acres and is located
within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) along PGA Boulevard and
Alternate AIA. The development consists of two buildings to be developed in two phases. Office
building one consists of a financial institution, with 4, 000 square feet, and a general office use, with
29,520 square feet, which are to be completed during phase one. Phase two consists of a medical
office use with 12,800 square feet within building two.. (06- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report, including issues which the petitioner had
satisfied since the last meeting. Staff support was acknowledged for the following requested waivers:
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
specialty pavers, reduction in the size of one loading space from 12'x35' to 12'x15 ; and ATM lane as
substitute for a required pass -by lane for the drive - through facility.
Mr. Present arrived at this point in the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Mr. Benothman explained that staff did not recommend approval of the following waivers unless the
applicant demonstrated innovation in design whereby minimum Code standards were exceeded: height
over 36'; two building identification signs; and two tenant signs for building two. Staff did not support
the requested waiver to allow reduction from 179 to 176 parking spaces or the request to allow a ground
sign at the entrance ofthe site. Concerns expressed at the last meeting included lack of comments from
the City Forester, which had now been provided; to provide berming along PGA Boulevard, for which
staff had provided photographs of the existing berming; a request to continue specialty pavers to Good
Samaritan and provide a vehicular connection, which were not shown on the site plan; and that staff
contact Dr. Gary in the Good Samaritan facility to ascertain the uses and number of patients, which staff
had done and had learned that approximately 63 patients per day and approximately 300 patients per
week visited that office. Another doctor had been found to receive approximately 400 patients per week.
Staffrecommended approval of amendment of Resolution 64, the master signage program, as requested
by the applicant to allow a proposed ground sign. Mr. Benothman explained that the applicant had
provided the exterior color, had extended the roof and changed the location of windows as requested.
Four parking spaces which the Commission had requested be removed or relocated were still on the
• plans. Copies of the proposed Resolution 64 as amended were distributed, with maps attached
indicating the current location of signs within the DRI and the proposed ground sign.
Mr. Nedvins questioned whether unity of title existed for Parcel I OB .or if it had been replatted into two
parcels, to which Mr. Benothman responded he would get further clarification. Mr. Nedvins requested
and received verification that recalculating the trip generation using 36 trips per thousand square feet
versus 9 trips that would reduce potential trip generation for future developments around the mall. In
response to questions from Mr. Nedvins regarding the three parking spaces which were removed, mr.
Benothman explained that staffhad requested the spaces be relocated, but not removed. Mr. Benothman
also clarified for Mr. Nedvins that the signage requested would mean the medical building (north
elevation) would have a building sign and a tenant sign. Mr. Nedvins expressed his opinion that the
names would be the same and therefore only one sign should be approved. Mr. Solomon noted that the
City Engineer did not consider the ATM lane an adequate pass -by lane, and questioned why staff was
satisfied with that, to which Mr. Benothman responded the Fire Marshall had expressed no concern. Mr.
Benothman also clarified for Mr. Solomon that the applicant was requesting a waiver for the three
parking spaces which had been removed.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the applicant, noted the petitioner had addressed concerns expressed at the
last meeting, and had toned down the building color Mr. Skokowski explained that a representative from
his office had met with Commissioner John Glidden and some of his suggestions had been used. Mr.
Skokowski explained that he believed a boundary plat had been done for the Good Samaritan parcel, and
0 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
if the land immediately north had not been platted it was surrounded by other boundaries. Mr.
Skokowski explained that the petitioner's site would be platted and would contain two buildings under
unified ownership; and ifthere should ever be a future sale of one building, under City requirements there
would be unity of control Mr. Skokowski commented that one of the conditions of approval indicated
that the property owner was responsible for maintenance of the boundary landscaping, and clarified that
the Regional Center Association was responsible; however, in the event that Association for any reason
did not continue that responsibility, then the property owner would agree to assume responsibility. Mr.
Skokowski discussed the three parking spaces for which a waiver was requested, and explained that
relocating the spaces would have compromised the site plan, and that justification had been offered for
the requested waiver. Mr. Skokowski explained that a substantial amount of floor area in this plan was
not useable; therefore, so much parking was not needed; and in the alternative, the mathematical function
used to calculate parking spaces could be based on general office use and no waiver would be needed.
Mr. Skokowski reviewed condition of approval number 6, and stated the plat should recognize the
building footprint, that the petitioner had no intent to subdivide, and a single plat would be filed.
Regarding condition of approval number 7, Mr. Skokowski indicated petitioner was fine with that
condition and if the requested waiver was denied based on wall thickness the medical use would be
changed and the waiver would not be needed. Regarding condition number 8, Mr. Skokowski expressed
his opinion that condition should be deleted since the building signage, Grand Bank. Center, was proposed
to be prominent on the tower facing PGA Boulevard, and tenant signage was only for tenants for ground
• floor access of the other side of the building, and three signs would never be visible at one time. Mr.
Skokowski noted that if Resolution 64 were amended no waiver would be needed Mr. Skokowski
explained that moving the ATM a couple of feet could make room for 100" stacking and the applicant
would not have to ask for a waiver. Mr. Skokowski discussed condition ten, regarding the four parking
spaces at the entry, and stated the applicant did not wish to change the plan; therefore, suggested either
deleting those spaces or designating the spaces for employee parking so that cars would not be backing
out into the drive between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Mr. Skokowski commented regarding condition 11 that
the petitioner did not think it was a good idea to have a vehicular connection to the Good Samaritan
facility and asked the Commission to modify or delete that condition.
Mr. Present expressed his preference for removing the first parking space or two and granting a waiver.
In response to the idea of one -way traffic flow, Mr. Skokowski suggested instead a cautionary sign to
yield to the bank traffic, and explained that smaller parking spaces were not an opinion in this community.
Mr. Present indicated he liked the architecture. Mr. Skokowski explained that the petitioner did not
desire to accommodate others by providing a vehicular connection to the Good Samaritan parcel, but
were willing to continue to provide a pedestrian access. Mr. Kunkle agreed with whatever the petitioner
thought best regarding the parking spaces, and requested clarification of the signage variance, to which
the response was that one building sign was allowed and the applicant was requesting two -one ofwhich
would be on the other side of the building; and that when a tenant had a ground unit with direct access
a sign over the door was allowed, and since these tenants were on the other side of the building they
would like a sign on that side. The resulting request was for a total of three extra signs. Mr. Kunkle
stated he had no problem with two building signs, but did not favor tenant signs on PGA Boulevard.
0 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
Phasing of the other building was said to have no requirements other than buildout of the DRI. The
applicant agreed to maintain the vacant land with bahia grass, irrigation, a berm, and plantings on a
temporary basis. Mr. Nedvins requested clarification on the signage, which was provided. Discussion
ensued. Each building was allowed a building identification sign facing the right -of -way, resulting in two
building identification signs facing PGA Boulevard, which was only one right -of -way. Tenant signage
was discussed. Mr. Cruz read aloud from the City code, and clarified that the side ofthe building did not
matter for tenant signage; but that there could be one per elevation per the code. Mr. Solomon requested
clarification ofthe architectural changes made since the last meeting. Architect Guy C. Pelletier pointed
out the changes on the plan, which included widened bands ofraised stucco supporting the arches, raising
the ground floor windows, and changing the color to a lighter shade ofyellow. Mr. Solomon agreed with
eliminating the first two parking spaces for safety purposes, agreed regarding condition number six that
the building footprint did not need to be on the plat, commented he saw no need for vehicular connection
with the next lot, and stated his preference not to have tenant signage on the PGA side of the building.
Mr. Nedvins stated he had no problem with 176 parking spaces or with no connection to the Good
Samaritan parcel, and commented he thought there should be one building identification sign on PGA
Boulevard but no tenant signage Mr. Cruz discussed the lack of a survey in the package in order to
confirm easements Mr. Skokowski confirmed that a survey had been submitted, and that the FPL line
had been installed outside the easement. Mr. Cruz inquired about paving and drainage, to which the
response was that there was a condition which prohibited moving forward until an amended drainage plan
• had been adopted. Mr. Cruz stated parking was not an issue for him. Mr. Cruz did not agree that the
banding was thick enough and requested bands be painted on all faces and that the painted band be
replaced with a real band. Mr. Cruz requested the thickness ofthe bands be shown on the plans and how
they intersected the arches, and that the vertical bands be greater than the horizontal bands. Mr. Cruz
requested the dimensions and detail ofthe cornice be shown on the plans. The number of condensers had
not been shown, which the architect explained would be dependent on the number oftenants. Mthe roof
pitch was to one direction, scuppers would need to be changed. Mr. Cruz questioned the lack of a traffic
report, which Mr. Benothman explained was required to be submitted before presentation to the City
Council. The landscape architect described the landscaping for Phase H. Although there was no
timetable for Phase H, Mr. Skokowski advised that the petitioner desired to move forward. The signage
issue was discussed again. Mr. Benothman described the trip generation condition. Mr. Cruz expressed
his opinion that it was very important for the Commission to see the traffic reports when looking at the
petition. Mr. Cruz recommended that tenant signage be over their entrances and that signage be limited
to the pedestrian side of the building. Chair Charming questioned how the applicant would satisfy the
traffic requirements, to which Mr. Skokowski responded they would use the trip generation rate the City
wanted them to use. Chair Charming requested finer clarification of the requested signage waivers.
Mr. Benothman reviewed the requested waivers. Removing two parking spaces was discussed again.
Mr. Skokowski stated agreement. Mr. Cruz questioned how the petitioner planned to resolve issues for
which there was concern since the Commission did not see the architectural plans, floor plan, and detailed
elevations at the last meeting and was presented with some information for the first time tonight. Mr.
Skokowski responded if concerns could be articulated the applicant had no problem with that. Mr. Cruz
expressed concerns regarding the reveals, depth ofthe banding, arches, cornice profiles. Mr. Skokowski
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
indicated the petitioner would agree to making the arches 3" deep and the bands 1 -1/4" deep. The
building construction had not been decided. Mr. Nedvins expressed his preference for precast concrete
construction. Trustee Randall Green advised that analysis had not been completed regarding which
building construction should be used. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cruz stated that the Commission should
know what the building was made of, and the materials used in other buildings around the mall were
discussed.
A poll was conducted regarding the signage. On a signage location drawing, Chair Channing labeled each
sign with a letter, and each Commissioner expressed their preference. The result of the poll was that
signs C, D, and E were favored, but the Commission was against A (tenant sign facing west) and B (a
second tenant sign).
Budding construction material was discussed again. A poll indicated the majority preferred precast
concrete construction. The City Attorney advised that the Commission's recommendation to City
Council should be for precast concrete, but that was not a basis for denial of the petition.
Mr. Nedvins made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition SP400 -04 with
the following conditions:
• 1. No building permits except for the clearing of exotic vegetation shall be issued until a
revised Surface Water Management System for Northern Palm Beach County
Improvement District's Unit 19 has received final approval from the City of Palm Beach
Gardens and all other applicable governments and/or agencies, including a schedule for
implementing the plan and a definitive commitment for funding the required
improvements.
2. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant must provide a revised trip generation analysis
using the current ITE trip generation rate for medical uses for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
3. Prior to City Council meeting, the landscape plan should be revised to reflect that the dead
pines are replaced by at least two of the existing Pines that are proposed to be removed.
4. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant should work with the City Forester to locate
the proposed berm around the existing FP &L box, so that the Oak and Pine trees can be
saved, prior to establishing the Saw Palmetto plants.
5. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant should revise the site and landscape plans to
reflect the 55 -foot buffer as a landscape easement. A note on both plans should indicate
that the owner of the subject parcel should be responsible for maintenance of said buffer.
The easement should also be reflected on the plat for the subject parcel when the said plat
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
is filed with the City.
6. The plat of the subject parcel should recognize the buildings footprints and indicate that
all open space and impervious areas are under common ownership.
7. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant must provide 176 parking spaces for the
subject development.
8. No second tenant sign shall be allowed. Approval is granted for the following signage
waiver:
Two building identification signs to be placed on the north elevations of each
building.
9. An amendment to the Regional Center DRI PCD must be filed with the City in order to
amend the Master Signage Program approved for the DRI by City Council Resolution 64,
1998 to allow a ground sign for the subject parcel.
10. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant must comply with or request a waiver for the
ATM lane from the vehicle stacking capacity requirement for drive- through facilities
required by Section 118 - 479(3).
11. Prior to City Council meeting, the site and the landscape plans should be revised to reflect
the removal or relocation of the four parking spaces located immediately adjacent to the
access driveway, as recommended by the Committee. N the applicant decided to delete
these spaces from the site and landscape plans, a waiver must be requested.
12. Prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy for building one or two, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall:
Either install landscaping and irrigation within PGA Boulevard in accordance with
FDOT's final plans, based on the 90% plans dated March 31, 2000, or if PGA
flyover is not complete, install landscaping and irrigation within 12 months of the
completion of the PGA Boulevard flyover improvements.
If by any other separate agreement between the applicant and the City, the above
mentioned landscaping and irrigation were installed by FDOT or any other entity,
the applicant would not be responsible for said installation.
13. Prior to City Council meeting, the applicant must obtain letters of approval of the revised
landscape plan from Seacoast Utilities Authority, Florida Power & bight, and Northern
• 8
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
Palm Beach County Improvement District.
14. The exterior building material shall be precast concrete.
Mr. Cruz seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, an amendment was proposed
by Mr. Cruz that the vertical stucco bands and arches be a minimum 3" depth and the horizontal
banding 1 -1/2" in depth, and that banding shall be painted on all surfaces. Mr. Nedvins accepted
the amendment. Chair Charming proposed an amendment to tone down the yellow exterior color;
however, this amendment was not accepted by Mr. Nedvins, since four members of the Committee
agreed the present shade of yellow was fine. Motion carried by vote of 5-1 with Chair Channing
opposed. Chair Channing indicated dissatisfaction with the quality of design.
Mr. Cruz questioned the fact that the traffic report had not been seen either by the Board or staff and
whether traffic reports should be required before an application was heard. Principal Planner Norquest
indicated that this was an exception. Mr. Cruz also raised the issue of lack of a survey and no statement
as to the nature of current easements, and questioned how possible title problems would be handled.
Principal Planner Norquest advised that title issues would be resolved when the parcel was platted.
OLD BUSINESS
• There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
ITEMS BY CM COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
0 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2000
01111"i ' 1 zM
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held June 13, 2000.
APPROVED:
•
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
Dennis Sol o
Craig K e, Jr.
Daniel Lee Cruz
(Absent)
Ted Rauch, Alternate
&.X,Ll p'ra4a.'-j-
Barry Pr s t, Alternate
A
Betty Laur
Secretary for the Meeting
10