Loading...
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