HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 050900CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION
May 9, 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, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning welcomed back Vice Chair Nedvins, and announced
that staff was going to work on ways to coordinate with residents.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr.. Solomon made a motion to approve the April 25, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Cruz
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
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
Dennis Solomon
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry Present, Alternate
Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney
Leonard Rubin, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, and Principal Planners Steve Cramer and James
Norquest.
Public Hearing
Petition LU- 00 -02: Waterway Cafe Future Land Use Map Amendment
Kevin McGinley, agent, is proposing a small -scale future land use map amendment for the southerly
• LI acres of the Waterway. Cafe site at 2300 PGA Boulevard The subject property is currently
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
designated "Residential Medium" (W. The petitioner is requesting a future land -use designation
of "Commercial" (C) to reflect the primary use (5-42S-43E)
Principal Planner Steve Cramer explained that this petition had been continued from April 11, 2000, to
a date certain of tonight and that the applicant had requested indefinite postponement in order to bring
back comprehensive plan petitions with zoning petitions to be considered at one time. Mr. Cramer
commented that staff recommended the postponement as requested. Mr. Cramer explained that no
notice. had been required; however, the applicant had voluntarily sent out notices, and the City would
send out notices for the next hearing.
Chair Channing declared the public hearing open. Harry Munn, 23 Teach Road, commented he had never
been notified of any meetings and he lived immediately across the canal from the Waterway Cafe. David
Yew, East Teach Road, objected to the term "small" in describing this project, and stated this issue was
not small to him, to which Principal Planner Cramer responded that the term "small-scale amendment"
was a technical term
The process was described by.Mr. Cramer, who indicated that next would be a workshop zoning petition
with a public hearing and a small-scale amendment petition with a public hearing. City Attorney Rubin
advised that the present petition would be. dropped; therefore, the Board.did not need to take action.
• Chair Channing declared the public hearing closed. It was clarified that this petition could not be
continued to a date certain because the process was going to be changed and the item would be re-
advertised. Chair Channing commented the applicant would be well advised to meet with the neighbors
before the next meeting.
Public Hearing
Petition LC- 00-01: Parcel I &B02 Future Land Use Map Amendment
Kaliaash, Inc-, requesting a land use map amendment on beha ' of the owner, Watermark
Communities,Inc., for 85.1 acres of landlocatedapprovdmatelythree miles west of Beeline Highway
on the northern end of Northlake Boulevard The petitioner requests a land use change from
Industrial (I).to Residential Very.Low (RVL). (13- 41E,42S)
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report, explained that this amendment was a large -
scale comprehensive plan amendment because the area was larger than 10 acres, and indicated that staff
recommended approvaL Mr. Benothman explained that the applicant had been contacted and had
indicated they would not be present tonight.
Chair Channing declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Channing
declared the public hearing closed.
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve Petition LU -00-01 consistent with the staff
recommendation. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 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
Dennis Solomon
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry Present, Alternate
• Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00-04: Parcel 27.10E 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 area. 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. The site is
appraximately 3 2 acres and is located within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact
(PRI) along PGA Boulevard (06- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, and advised that staffrecommended approval;
however, a few issues had arisen on Friday prior to this meeting which were listed as outstanding issues
on page five of the staff report. Mr. Benothman reviewed the outstanding issues, and responded to
questions from the Committee. Mr. Benothman explained that the Fire Department had not submitted
a written opinion on the bypass lane; however, one was usually required. Mr. Benothman explained that
the signage waivers requested would be considered after verification had been received from the City
Clerk's office as to the original approved resolution and its exhibits, because what staffhad on file was
different than the information submitted by the applicant. Mr. Benothman explained that trip generation
for medical use was approximately 16 -18 trips per 1,000 square feet, and the City Engineer was still
conducting research on this issue since the applicant had used only 9 trips per 1,000 square feet. Mr.
Benothman explained that staff supported a recommendation of approval of this petition along with the
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
requested waiver allowing specialty pavers, provided the applicant adequately addressed the outstanding
issues identified in the staff report; however, staff did not support the waiver request for smaller size
loading spaces. Mr. Benothman explained that a standard condition regarding drainage within the
Regional Center DRI as formulated by the City Engineer would be included. Mr. Nedvins favored
consideration of approval after the, outstanding items had been addressed Mr. Benothman clarified the
trip generation for medical use issue, explaining that the City Engineer was inclined to accept the current
rates-used in the IDE manual, which were more realistic than the rates for office use including medical
use as required in the development order; and it was felt that the rate used by the applicant was too low,
although the applicant had provided justification that this medical use would generate approximately 10
patients per day. Mr. Cruz noted the absence of the City Engineer's report, the City Forester's report,
detail for the elevations,_ and color samples, Mr. Benothman responded that the City Engineer's
comments were attached to the staff report and the City Forester had had no comments. Vice Chair
Nedvins stated he. would like to hear the City Forester's comments regarding the landscape plan.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, reviewed a rendering of the building which he stated was
accurate as to colors; an overall site plan, and an overall landscape plan which included the size of
materials at planting and details. Mr. Skokowski commented that the elevations provided were of all
sides of the building and depicted architectural details. Mr. Skokowski explained that berming material
was not shown since it was a part of the parkway system; however, foundation plantings were shown.
• The Royal palms at the entrance would be 35' overall at time ofplanting. Mr. Skokowski described other
plant materials, and commented that the two buildings had been unified architecturally. Mr. Skokowski
requested approval of an amendment to change the two locations shown on the landscape plan for the
large multi trunk Paurotis palms, one to the center of the intersection of the pedestrian walkway and the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway, and the other palm to simply be moved forward. Mr. Skokowski defined the
location of the project property on the graphic presented, and indicated a potential connection to the
Good Samaritan medical facility. Mr. Skokowski explained that Grand Bank wished to establish a major
presence on PGA Boulevard. Bank President Russell Green was present at the meeting. The drive thru
facility consisted oftwo operable lanes, with the third being an ATM lane, which was proposed to also
be used as the bypass lane. Mr. Skokowski described the additional proposed paving, indicated that the
landscaping points were 50% higher than required, and commented that the Fire Department had been
represented at the DRC meeting and had presented no objections. Mr. Skokowski described the
petitioner's request to reduce the size of two of the three loading spaces, and explained that there was
an additional area which delivery trucks would probably use as a drop -off. Mr. Skokowski commented
there was no height restriction within the Regional Center. Mr. Skokowski commented regarding the
outstanding issues that these issues had only been identified recently and the petitioner had not had
adequate time to respond; and requested the Committee allow the traffic trips generation issue to move
forward to be decided by City Council. Mr. Skokowski explained that the medical use was oncology,
and overall trip generation compared to a regular medical office was substantially lower, and the
petitioner would agree to language to that effect. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the parking space
configuration and explained that petitioner preferred not to eliminate three parking spaces as
recommended by the City Engineer. Mr. Skokowski commented regarding the connection with Good
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
Samaritan medical facility that a vehicular connection had not been provided because it might encourage
people to park in the lot for a different building than the one to which they were going. Mr. Skokowski
explained. that the. petitioner had hoped to. receive approval at this. meeting, and offered to provide
language for conditions for this project. Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning responded
staff felt strongly that it was not proper to submit language recommendations which had only been
received by staff late that day, and explained that staff had worked diligently with this applicant to get
to this point, .and that any delays. were because the .petitioner and staff disagreed on certain issues.
Mr. Rauch expressed his opinion that this was a nice project overall, and inquired whether the parking
provided on the left side in front of Office Building I was primarily for overflow parking, since he
believed it would be awkward to walk from that lot to the Phase I office building. Mr. Skokowski
responded that Mr. Rauch was right in regard to crossing the traffic, however, the petitioner had felt
comfortable because of the location of the entrance and the continuous walkway provided. Mr. Cruz
commented on the lack of information provided and that he did not see 90 days worth of work before
him -that no floor plans were provided, there were elevations that he could not read, there were no color
boards, etc. Mr. Cruz questioned whetherthe City's code differentiated between types ofinedical offices,
to which Growth Management Director Manning responded that the code only differentiated between
medical office and general office, and did not break out the medical into other uses; however, because
this project was within the Regional Center she believed that there would be an opportunity to distinguish
• between the different types of medical uses. Mr. Cruz questioned the City's ability to monitor and police
the type of medical use. Ms. Manning responded that a lot of that was taken care of when the business
applied for an occupational license and certificate of occupancy. Mr. Cruz commented that different
types of oncology offices probably generated different levels of traffic, and expressed concern since
traffic was one of the criteria considered by this Committee in the approval process. Mr. Skokowski
clarified that the building height to the mid point ofthe sloped roofwas 53'. Guy C. Pelletier, Architect
for the project, clarified that the intention was that the height was to be 53' to the top ofthe parapet, and
the tower exceeded that height. Using the definition ofthe code to determine the height ofthe building,
the height was stated as an average of approximately 66' by the Growth Management Director. Growth
Management Director Manning clarified that there were several landscaping requirements along the PGA
corridor which the applicant had met. Mr. Skokowski commented that the circles shown on the plan
indicated existing materials. Mr. Cruz commented that the location ofthe FPL easement on the site plan
was not clear and questioned whether the FPL underground line was located outside the easement, to
which Mr. Skokowski responded the applicant did not know. Mr. Cruz commented on the lack of a
survey, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that a survey had been submitted. Mr. Cruz explained the
reason for his question was that the Committee looked for conflicts between landscaping and proposed
or existing easements, and also commented that landscapingmaterials appeared to be proposed along the
24" existing water main. Mr. Skokowski responded there were no conflicts between those landscape
materials and the water main, and described the existing landscaping in that area. Mr. Skokowski verified
that Seacoast Utility Authority was aware of the proposed plant materials. Mr. Cruz commented
regarding the connection to the Good Samaritan facility that he did not care whether or not there was
a connection, but believed the petitioner's argument to be flawed since if the concern was that people
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
would park in the wrong lot, a fence should be erected. Mr. Cruz questioned why the petitioner did not
offer to impose their own limitations on the medical office use, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that
however staff wished to structure a limitation was fine with the petitioner. Mr. Nedvins questioned
whether the oncology use would occupy the entire 12,800 square feet, and have 25 employees and a
typical daily patient load of only ten, which was verified by Mr. Skokowski. Mr. Nedvins questioned how
this medical office could pay the rent. Mr. Nedvins asked whether the oncology use was medical
oncology or radiation oncology. Randall Green, trustee and owner of the property, explained that a
combination of radiation oncology and chemotherapy was proposed. Mr. Green explained that the large
square footage and small number of patients was because there would be two concrete vaults for the
radiation which would have walls roughly 8 -1 /2 to 9 feet thick, typically with two doctors, and typically
containing 5 -10 chairs in the infusion area. Mr. Nedvins stated from his experience that with ten chairs,
10 to 100 patients could be seen each day. Mr. Green explained that most ofthe chemotherapy services
were taken care of next door at an affiliate of Good Samaritan. Mr. Nedvins advised the Growth
Management Director that there were some questions that needed to be answered regarding the
doctor /patient mix since he thought the load could be heavier than the petitioner believed. Mr. Nedvins
commented that with a medical use there was still the same ratio of handicap parking as for other
buildings, and his experience was that with medical use there was a lot heavier handicap usage, so an
adjustment might be needed in the City code. Growth Management Director Manning responded that
change could be made right away since the code was currently in the process of being revised. Mr.
• Nedvins stated he would hate to see anything except precast concrete used for the construction. Mr.
Nedvins suggested extending the pavers to Good Samaritan. Mr. Skokowski advised that Art in Public
Places was applicable to this project, but it was as yet undecided whether art or a contribution in lieu of
art would be.made. Mr. Nedvins stated his opinion that this would be a fine project but he wanted to see
it go through the process properly. Mr. Solomon questioned whether any recent approvals allowed an
ATM lane to serve as a bypass alternative, to which Planner Norquest responded that any drive -thru
facility was required by code to have a bypass lane which should be unimpeded, and staffneeded to look
at whether an ATM lane could be considered as unimpeded. Planner Norquest recalled only one bypass
lane situation during the past year, where a waiver had been granted for reduction of stacking distance
in the bypass lane, which was at the deli in NorthCorp. Mr. Solomon cautioned that with 2 -way traffic
throughout the parking lot there could be conflicts, and suggested a yield or caution sign, or one -way
circulation. Mr. Solomon questioned. the drop off area being used as a loading zone, to which Mr.
Skokowski responded it would commonly be used that way. Mr. Solomon commented that compatibility
or consistency with surroundingbuildings should be considered, and requested something to look at to
determine architectural and color compatibility. Mr. Solomon suggested that the walkway between the
two phases and the sitting area could be much more dramatic. Mr. Solomon noted the tower roof
appeared to be extended back in the Phase I south elevation; however did not appear to be extended back
in the main elevation, and in the site plan the roof appeared to have a square tower design. Mr.
Skokowski responded the back tower and the front tower roofs connected back as depicted in the color
drawings, . which was not useable space. Mr. Skokowski verified that landscaping and berming
requirements ofthe PGA corridor had been met, that most ofthat landscaping was existing, and that the
applicant would be filling in what was already in place. Mr. Skokowski verified this project would consist
•
6 .
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
of two phases under one ownership,. that there was no intent to subdivide, and a boundary plat would be
provided. Mr. Skokowski verified that the applicant was seeking approval for the signage locations
shown, whichwould require a couple ofvariances, but further research was needed regarding consistency
before details and colors could be submitted. Mr. Skokowski suggested that the petitioner might make
some signage decisions quickly so that the waivers and signage issues could be submitted for approval.
Mr. Skokowski commented building colors depicted were accurate and he would provide color and
materials samples. Mr. Kunkle suggested mirror imaging of the Royal palms at least on Phase II, and
possibly the foxtails on Phase I, and suggested an overall species fronting PGA Boulevard. Mr. Kunkle
disagreed with the petitioner's suggestion to center the Paurotis palm in the intersection, and suggested
book ending those palms at the little entry with some feature underplanting. Mr. Kunkle commented
there was inconsistency ofthe second floor window heights in both phases. Mr. Present commented 179
parking spaces were shown, which Mr. Skokowski indicated was the worst case, and that the count had
been calculated using the different rates in the City's code for office and medical uses. Mr. Skokowski
commented if there was ever a conversion of the oncology center to a regular doctor's office, the 179
spaces should be sufficient, and that iftrips were available in the future and ifthe uses could be converted
that the parking would be available to accommodate the changes. Mr. Present commented that one way
circulation around the ATM made sense and suggested one -way traffic flow in the northwest comer of
the bank. Mr. Present suggested the first four parking spaces were a dangerous use because of backing
out into traffic and asked that the petitioner look at the entry feature, which he believed to be dangerous.
• Mr. Present agreed that the proposed loading zone would work. Chair Channing commented this seemed
to be a workshop, which Mr. Skokowski acknowledged. Chair Channing questioned Mr. Kunkle as to
whether he believed the landscaping sufficiently screened the view from the street, to which Mr. Kunkle
responded affirmatively. Chair Channing commented the applicant was asking for a lower trip generation
rate for the specific medical use they had in mind, but had provided parking for 12,800 foot medical use,
which Mr. Skokowski verified. Chair Channing commented that if the City deemed the applicant's trip
generation rate to be wrong, then the applicant would take more of the trips allocated to the center, and
the_ applicant was condemning himself in the future not to be able to use the project as a true medical
office. Chair Charming recommended that the number of employees be counted and also the number of
people who signed in each day. Chair Channing commented he had no problem with the loading spaces.
Chair Channing invited staffto show why they did not think the bypass worked, to which Mr. Benothman
responded the matter had been raised by staffbecause code required it and the City Engineer had stated
it as a concern. City Attorney Rubin read the applicable code section. Chair Charming commented that
in his opinion the one lane worked fine and if there was concern then it could be stipulated as one way.
Mr. Benothman commented staff had not had sufficient time to look at this issue. Chair Charming
commented that a roof plan was definitely needed, and that rooftop equipment moist not be visible above
the Y parapet. The Architect explained that the item shown on the roof was an unuseable empty shell,
and verified the roof height. Chair Channing commented that a sample board was needed, that the
architecture should be the same as in the buildings in the previous application by the same applicant, and
that this was not the quality he wanted to see close to the street. Chair Channing commented that a
workshop had been held.
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
OLD BUSINESS
There.was.no old business.to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cruz stated he. had received a letter from Bud Stevenrock regarding an oak hammock. Chair
Channing commented he had also received that letter, which did not pertain to any oftonight's business.
ISMS BY CUX COUNCIL LIAISON
There were. no items by the City Council Liaison.
r�
U
is 8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was.adjoumed at 8:17 p.m. The. next regular meeting will
be held May 23, 2000.
APPROVED:
n
U
(Absent)
Ted Rauch, Alternate
P40-4,,-,
Barry Prese t, temate
14etty La
Secretary for the Meeting
•
a