Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 020800• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 8, 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 Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ANNOUNCEMENTS Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning announced that moving into the new building would be accomplished within the next two weeks and meetings would be held in the new Council Chambers. 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 minutes of the January 19, 2000, special meeting as submitted. Mr. Cruz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3 -0 vote. Mr. Present made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2000 regular meeting as submitted. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Alex Bennett, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent Joel Charming, Chair John Nedvins, Vice Chair Daniel Lee Cruz John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern Craig Kunkle, Jr. Ted Rauch, Alternate Dennis Solomon Barry Present, Alternate Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney Leonard Rubin, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, Principal Planners James Norquest and Steve Cramer, and Planner I John Lindgren. • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 Public Hearing /Recommendation to City Council Petition PUD- 99 -06: Doubletree North PUD Amendment Urban Design Studio, agent for AGLP Investments No. 2 L.P., is requesting a planned unit development amendment for 25,000 square feet of retail and 8,115 square feet of restaurant use, for a total of 33,115 square feet. The site is located on the east side of Military Trail 650 feet north of PGA Boulevard. (1- 42S -42E) Chair Charming stepped down due to conflict of interest. Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report prepared February 1, 2000. In response to questions from Commissioners, phasing, buildout dates, and traffic impacts were discussed. Concern was expressed regarding phasing with long open ends and that a point would be reached one day where approved projects would be delayed because thresholds for traffic or other items had not been met. Other concerns were regarding traffic and stacking. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, discussed changes since the last meeting, including the character of the building, sidewalks, and redesign of the existing curb cut. Mr. Skokowski explained proposed changes in landscaping; however, stated he would need to do further research regarding the petitioner's position on staff condition one. Mr. Skokowski requested clarification of staff condition 5, • to which Mr. Lindgren responded irrigation was requested for the landscape material near the I -95 exit with the same maintenance level as currently provided by Doubletree Hotel. Mr. Skokowski commented he would work with staff on this issue. Mr. Skokowski discussed condition 6 and requested that a public hearing not be required in the future for the restaurant. The landscape architect reviewed proposed landscaping for phase one. Screening of rooftop equipment was described. Discussion ensued regarding the berm and signage. Existing easements were described. A condition requiring resolution of possible conflicts in proposed landscaping and easement requirements was requested. A suggestion was made that possibly existing landscaping along I -95 could be utilized in the petitioner's design. Berming was discussed. Petitioner explained that ,the landscape plans depicted plants at sizes which would be reached in five years. Preserving trees on -site was suggested. Mr. Skokowski clarified that a jack and bore would be needed to cross a roadway to install landscaping. Mr. Solomon declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Solomon stated he was not comfortable with the petitioner working with staff and then proceeding to City Council without returning to this Commission since there were so many open questions. Mr. Solomon requested landscape elevations for landscaping, both on the project site and off -site, depicting actual size and future projected sizes, and showing the location where staff wanted the landscaping extended and where the petitioner proposed to stop. Mr. Skokowski clarified that the Military Trail landscaping would be fully irrigated and that the area in question regarding irrigation was near the exit ramp of I -95. Mr. Skokowski explained that on the I -95 right -of -way, if Doubletree had been irrigating that section, then the petitioner would continue to irrigate there. Mr. Solomon commented that replatting should take into account possible future sales of buildings. Mr. Solomon commented that the petitioner's request not • 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 to have a public hearing when a restaurant was added in the future should be addressed by legal counsel. Mr. Cramer explained that in the past City Council had considered allowing a miscellaneous petition whereby the Planning and Zoning Commission looked at the elevations and the Council approved the elevations, with no public hearing involved. This issue was to be clarified. Mr. Solomon requested a clear overall drawing showing phase I and phase II portions of the project; and photographs and architectural drawings. The landscape architect reviewed proposed lighting for the project. It was noted that Art in Public Places requirements would be met. Mr. Cruz favored the petitioner returning for another meeting to address unresolved issues. Mr. Cruz requested additional landscaping near the restaurant along the west side facing the parking area. Mr. Cruz moved that the Public Hearing on Petition PUD -99 -06 be continued to February 22, 2000. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE The roll was called by Alex Bennett, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent • Joel Channing, Chair John Nedvins, Vice Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Ted Rauch, Alternate Daniel Lee Cruz Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Barry Present, Alternate Workshop Petition SP- 99 -19: Northcorp Delicatessen (Lot 12) Urban Design Studio, agent for Northcorp Center, Inc., is requesting major site plan approval for Lot 12, which is a parcel within the South Park Center Plat of the Northcorp PCD. The 1.81 -acre site is currently vacant. This application requests the approval of a 2,625 square foot delicatessen on the north end of Lot 12. The site is located on the east side of East Park Drive at its intersection with Northcorp Parkway, on the east border of the Northcorp PCD. (7- 42S -43E) Principal Planner Jim Norquest reviewed the staff report. Henry Skokowski, representing the petitioner, presented the project. Mr. Cruz questioned why staff believed having two signs did not meet code. Mr. Norquest read from the code and explained the staff position that only one sign was allowed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cruz indicated no problem with the • 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 requested load zone waiver or the pickup window but suggested a condition tying the pickup window to a requirement for no call box and menu board, requested detailed articulation of the elevation on the plans, and suggested architectural features be added to the windows to create interest. Mr. Solomon indicated he had no problems with two signs, or the compromise proposal to finish the southern portion of the landscaping within two years. Mr. Solomon pointed out that the word "not" should be deleted from the third sentence in condition 3. Mr. Glidden stated he agreed with the comments that had been made, and suggested the awning be extended and that the roof go all the way around with no opening in the roof. Mr. Kunkle and Mr. Present indicated no concerns. In response to a question regarding berming, Jim Griffin explained that the easement contained utility pipes and the utility companies would have to agree to any berming, and the only berming required for NorthCorp was the berming along Burns Road. Mr. Norquest explained that the City had adopted a streetscape code. Chair Charming recommended banding in a different color around the windows and a change in stucco texture all around the drive - through window on the east elevation, expressed no problem with the requested signs, and favored a berm along the east property line if the utility companies would allow it, or if not, a larger hedge. Mr. Kunkle recommended more intermediate size plantings rather than a larger hedge. Clarification was given to Mr. Skokowski regarding suggested roof and window changes. Chair Channing withdrew his request for berming along the east property line in favor of Mr. Kunkle's suggestion for more intermediate plantings. The process for this application was explained as a requirement for the NorthCorp project. Mr. Channing recommended that color chips be added before • presentation to City Council. Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition SP -99 -19 with the following conditions: 1. The City's Traffic consultant is reviewing an updated traffic statement submitted by the applicant. This review must be complete prior to City Council approval. 2. The 50' drainage easement must be formally abandoned before City Council approval. 3. A letter from Seacoast Utility Authority must be submitted indicating their authorization to build so close to their easement. 4. The sidewalk and streetscape should be installed for the entire length of the project's frontage on East Park Drive. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, written permission from all easement holders must be obtained for parking, landscaping, or any other improvements in the project's remaining easements. 6. No development in Phase 2 can take place until the City reviews and approves a revised site plan for that area. • 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 7. The project must comply with NorthCorp PCD's buffer and streetscape requirements. 8. The following waivers are approved: a.. The code requires 100' of stacking for the pick -up window. The site plan provides about 60'. 2. The sign code allows only one wall sign on the building. The applicant proposes two. 3. The proposed loading zone is 12'x Winstead of the required 12'x 35', and the required 12'x 35' maneuvering apron behind it is substandard. 9. The sloped tile roof and stucco parapet wall shall continue unbroken along the north elevation. 10. The plans shall be modified to show the profile of all columns and pilasters. 11. Two horizontal mullions shall be provided at each window, evenly spaced to create three flat panels with a 6" wide stucco band in the same color as the columns around the perimeter. • 12. Add a third pilaster/beam detail at the center of the east elevation (about the drive -in window). 13. Landscaping along East Parkway Drive as well as the landscaping along the railroad right -of -way shall be completed in accordance with the NorthCorp PCD Master Landscape Plan within a period of no longer than two years. 14. The drive -in area shall be restricted to not allow a call box or menu board. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Workshop Petition SP- 99 -05: Site Plan Applications for Parcels 27.05 and 27.06 in the Regional Center DRI A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for site plan approval of a mixed -use development consisting of three land uses with a total floor area of 185,070 square feet. The 16.19 -acre site is located within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact(DRI). (5- 42S -043E) Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, discussed changes made to the site plan since the last meeting. Mr. Cruz questioned waiver requests and signage, and received clarification. Mr. Cruz requested that details regarding cornices and other treatments be added, and that the roof plan louver screen and window grilles be shown on all elevations, • 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 and expressed concern that the hotel building did not work with the rest of the site. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Cruz that the project had come a long way except for the hotel. Mr. Glidden expressed the same sentiments regarding the project and the hotel. Mr. Glidden commented on roof slopes, particularly on the north elevation of retail one, which was explained by Mr. Skokowski, and Mr. Glidden questioned whether the parapet wall screened the air conditioning equipment from view. Mr. Glidden discussed signage and recommended signage issues be resolved by this Board. Mr. Kunkle commented the office one and two interior elevations still appeared a little industrial, but better, and agreed with the others that the hotel did not fit comfortably. Mr. Present requested an update regarding cross parking and platting, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that the City Engineer had researched how the County was handling the same types of problems and that they were going to require a boundary plat to establish a unified parcel entity. Mr. Skokowski expressed his opinion that after a boundary plat had been established with documents containing all provisions for infrastructure and provisions for establishment of a unified parcel entity responsible for all common area maintenance, that the City should then be comfortable with a metes and bounds property description for all sales to a third party. Chair Charming agreed the site plan worked but expressed disappointment with the architecture of the office buildings and the hotel. Mr. Glidden pointed out that the degree of the arched element on the office buildings was dramatically different from that of the retail buildings, and requested the radius of the retail 2 arch be changed. Mr. Glidden recommended discussion regarding the hotel noting items that could be done to make it more compatible. Ensuing discussion included Mr. Glidden's opinion that roof • pitches were not accurately depicted, that there were still some pitches at 8/12 against 6/12 that might be an issue, as well as the height, mass, roof, and lack of architectural details. Mr. Cruz expressed his opinion that the problems could not be isolated to 5 or 6 items. How to achieve compatibility for the hotel building was discussed but not resolved. Chair Channing suggested using a local architect do working drawings. Discussion ensued regarding whether to deny, approve, or pass this on to City Council, and Mr. Skokowski commented that either specific direction was needed from this Board or to pass the project on to City Council for their opinion. Staff advised this was a workshop and that staff conditions had not been included in the staff report. Ken Blair, Catalf imo, explained that the hotel tenant was a national chain and they considered the building architecture part of their image. Comments were made that national chains were capable of granting leeway in design. Mr. Cruz commented that he would not vote favorably for this project until changes had been made on the hotel. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Solomon commented that anything learned while reviewing petitions should be incorporated into the new Land Development Regulations. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion regarding projects with is 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 8, 2000 multiple buildings that a boundary plat should include building numbers and a replat should be required for sales to third parties. Growth Management Director Manning requested further discussion for her understanding of this issue, to which Mr. Solomon responded he would discuss it with her following the meeting. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Liaison Carl Sabatello reported a new member was being sought to fill the vacancy on the Commission, and advised the Commission to continue their recommendations for projects and send the best product possible to City Council. Councilman Sabatello reported that during review of a recent project by City Council, concern had been expressed that rear elevations with details needed to be shown as well as front elevations. Discussion ensued regarding making comments to express concerns regarding projects. Councilman Sabatello thanked the Commission for their work. C: • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 89 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held February 22, 2000. APPROVED: • • John vins, Vice Chair John dden, Chair Pro Tern (Absent) Ted Rauch, Alternate Z:-- l'i", 621 BarryPrese . Alternate Alec Bennett � " Secretary for the Meeting % .1 eFEB, 9. 20001 2:53PIi 4e77CHANNING CORP PBG PLANNING ZONING NO, 0118 P. 2_ 92 I FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR � COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS - 1 AMI 11111\t♦"0 N1f91NI 11 G 1 /t1 1 tC I i I 1110%, WHO( *" VIVIA (AY't�11 W AUI �T1.441MI A 4 -r 2jv%i" 1144- VAJAN11. (1KINVII. ('t!M 1 'K)O. AUI 4.011111 (10.0 wNien t wanva 06'% 11NIt t1Y7 hf/Cttt q t'tYU>'nY b O1N�114,oCAi.ACE.KY !1AME t9F iOe.17tCAl. RUltptvtelpll; tev hear sow ek n ri,f:(Ylve �A.rot,sivE s E WHO M1J$T Fill FORM E8 'this form is for use by any' person serving at the county, city or ether local level of ga►Ytoment on An appointed or elected board. � doune7, commisabn. authority. or commitice It applies equally to members of advisory and non•a4visory bodies who ate presented rh a voting tconfict or interest under Section. 112.3141, Florida Statutes. I i �:ur responsibilities tinder the low when faced with a measure in which you have a conf$ct of interest will vary greatly depending � ­htiher you hold an stective or appointive position. For this reason. please pay close aitcnilon to the instructions on this form *rare completing the revere side and filing the form. IMPRUOVIONS1 FOR COMPUAMCE WiTH SECYIOM 111Z.3143, FLORIDA VATUTES � L.ECTIED ofnczft person holdlntt elective county, municipal. or other I&W public office VEST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures j his special private :pin. Each local officer also is prohibited rmm knaNin$ly voting on a ineasure which inures to the special � gain or 10114011111 (other than a tovernment agency li by wham he is retained. i t either cast. You /hould disclose the eonnict; PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN b %- publid , itasinV to the as,embli the nature of .our interest in the measure on which you are abstaining froth %*tith=; erwd I 'WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form whh the person responsible for recording ' the minutes or the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. *PPOINTEO OFFICERS; � AIi person holding .►ppoinlive county. municipal. or other local public office MUST ,ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which Inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from lnowingl�• voting on a measure Mhieh inures to the spcial pain of a principal (other than a so•'erntnen( agency) by whom he is retained. A werson holdinj an Appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter In wisich he has a conflict or inhcrest. but must df lose the nalulY of 1110 conllici before making altr attempt to influence the decision by oral or %%rittcn communication. whether atka by the officer or at his difeo(ion. I IV YOU INTEND TO ` AKE ANY ATTEMPT To INFLUENtCIc THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE %IEETING AT WHICH TkE VOTE WILL OL TAKEN: Moo tthisow eotnfsle(e am file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for IPcording the minaret K the meeting. who will incorporate the fiato in the minutes. • �1 COPY of the ARM %h oultl be pnWitled immediately to the other Ineenbers of the agency. t fe(•1a vhould be matt fitbliuly at the "Celina prior to comilletation of the flatter in which you have a conflict of Interest. i • 'FEB, 9, 220001 2;84PNI d077CHANNING CORP PBG PLANNING ZONING NO. OI18 P. 3- 03 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING; is• You should +11WOC orally the nature of your coafi{iet iA the measure before paticipating. ! 0 You 0hould complete the forth and de a within I S days ether the vote occurs wijyt the person responsible for recording the minute • Of the meeting, who should incorporate the forth in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFF(CER';11HRREIiT A As As m V 1. , heteby disclose that on la) A measure cute or will tonne be re my agency which (check ens) inured to my spwial private gain: or I w inured to the SP4061 gain of . by whom t am retained. _ -I(b) The Measure before my agency and the nature of my iatereu in the measure is as follows: t) kk o i0, 77- �.e- I I II l i Filed '11: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLaRIOA STATVTE,s` ty.3N t19esl. A ILUR'E TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED :LOSURF CONSTITI,i'1"ES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: EACHMENT, REMOVAL Oft SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN AIRY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIC. PENALry NOT T4 EXCES D 53.010. ►� s • I