Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 020100• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 1, 2000 MINUTES • C The Special 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 There were no announcements. ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR There were no items by the Growth Management Director. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Alex Bennett, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent Joel Channing, Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern Daniel Lee Cruz Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate Barry Present, Alternate John Nedvins, Vice Chair Dorothy Williams Also present at the meeting was Principal Planner Steve Cramer. Workshop Petition 7XT- 99 -I1: Land Development Regulations A request by City staff to adopt revised land development regulations. (Articles V -VIII of the draft land development regulations dated November 1999) Adult use regulations were reviewed. Adult entertainment and adult establishments were proposed as conditional uses in the industrial zoning districts. Consultant Marty Hodgkins explained that if such a business wanted to locate within the City, a reasonable opportunity to do so must be provided or the City • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 1, 2000 would run substantial risk of litigation. Discussion ensued. It was explained that just having the opportunity to rezone would not provide sufficient opportunity for a business to come into the City. A suggestion was made that the Commission recommend the current zoning be maintained with respect to adult uses and to hold that line as long as possible. It was explained that other municipalities were writing their regulations so that they were locating this type of activity to specific sites. The percentage of pornographic material that could be sold in businesses was discussed.. A request was made that legal counsel be present at the next meeting where the adult uses were discussed. Consensus was not to propose any zoning changes for adult uses until fiuther study could demonstrate where setbacks and distances would show where these uses would be located. Recommendation to staffwas to explore the possibility of locating such establishments in the western portion of the City, and possibly creating a separate zoning district. Mr. Hodgkins indicated that only minimal changes were proposed for landscaping, and there were no changes that had not been previously discussed. Mr. Hodgkins highlighted areas in other portions of the LDR's which needed fiirther review: Clarification was requested regarding zoning districts which would allow special events; exempt signs within malls; temporary sign requirements for political signs; and parking spaces. A member of the Commission objected to the use of lighted tennis courts within single- family residential zoning districts, • and Mr. Hodgkins was requested to explore ways to restrict such objectionable uses. In another section, the wording "acceptable to the City Engineer" regarding access was recommended to be changed to In accordance with City Ordinances and policies ". In Section 96 (b) wording "officer of utility company" was recommended to be changed to "officer or authorized representative ofutility company ". Language regarding signage for identification of a structure was questioned as possibly being too broad; therefore, Mr. Hodgkins indicated he would explore tightening that language. Section 97 (b) regarding patios was discussed, as well as architectural projections from buildings that did not extend to the ground in areas of encroachment, for which appropriate language was recommended. The requirement for vinyl coated chain link fencing was discussed. Consensus was to allow non - coated chain -link for single family and two - family residential, and vinyl coating for all other chain link fencing. Mr. Hodgkins was requested to research language regarding maximum 6 height of fencing or wall from finish grade around a property or other appropriate restriction such as consistent elevation, to keep fencing from being placed on top of a berm which would make it taller. Regarding the issue of special events, Mr. Hodgkins was requested to find a way to add language to location item (b) to allow types of events that churches, public or private schools, and parks or public entities might want to do in residential zoned districts. Requiring all berms to have a 4 to 1 ratio was discussed at length. Staff recommended a 3 to one ratio, which was accepted. It was agreed to change the language in item (f) Prohibited elements, on page 130, from `unfinished concrete or concrete masonry walls" to `unfinished concrete or concrete masonry walls excluding architectural concrete ". Following discussion ofwording to accommodate types oftrash receptacles near • 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 1, 2000 where people stop and sit, the language decided upon was "dumpsters or trash receptacles excluding approved street furniture ". The Commission discussed the 40 -foot greenbeh width requirement. Henry Skokowski suggested referring to established greenbelt areas from Military Trail to the Turnpike along PGA Boulevard and using sections as a pattern. Mr. Hodgkins was directed to conduct further research into this item, and to make a change regarding the greenbelt space between roadway edge and setback line, and to consider the concept that the 40 feet could be an average of 40 feet. Not allowing identical or similar buildings within the City was discussed. It was pointed out that this section referred only to PGA Boulevard. Roof overhangs wrapping around entire buildings were discussed, and it was suggested that `sunless designed otherwise" could be inserted. Defining line of sight views was discussed. The following definition to apply in all cases where line of sight was mentioned throughout the code was suggested: A horizontal line from the top of the appurtenance to the top of the screen. Other minor changes in wording in subsequent sections were recommended and noted by the consultant. It was recommended that the definition of deed restrictions be broad enough to cover a declaration of restrictive covenants for the property. On page 154(Fx5 )(a) the word "undivided" in the second sentence was recommended to be deleted since an interest in a lot might exist that was not undivided. On page 167 it was suggested `finless otherwise provided" be deleted, and it was requested • that research be conducted regarding the possibility of there being some limited restriction on awning signs that might be allowed. Decorative fabric banners on light poles were discussed. Mr. Hodgkins explained that such banners were typically installed by governmental entities or by special permit for special events. Staff explained that everything in the code was subject to waiver, and it was decided that banners architecturally integrated into a building or light fixture design be subject to approval by City Council. Language concerning landscaping around ground signs on page 174 was discussed, and it was pointed out that such landscape designs would be reviewed during site plan reviews. Recommended flag sizes for specific heights of flag poles were proposed to be 3' x 5', 4'x 6, and Y x 8, in accordance with standard sizes ofthe United States flag. The wording regarding logos was proposed to be deleted, to which Mr. Hodgkins responded he would check with legal counsel. Alternative language was proposed of changing "shall" to `nay"; and to consider logos as signage. Mr. Glidden commented on the current restriction of a building sign not being higher than the fourth floor, which did not look good on a building with more than four stories. Mr. Glidden suggested setting the fourth floor as a limit under the current signage size criteria and to allow signage to be at a higher elevation with a reducing size. Consensus was that there should be no more than one message, that the lettering should be limited to 60% of the surface on which it sits, and that this issue would be revisited. Page 176, interior signs, was discussed. It was suggested that wording be added to address quantity of signs allowed. Oakbrook Square was used as an example of a situation where if somebody was allowed to have a sign on the front facing U.S. One and they also wanted a sign at the entrance to the • 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 1, 2000 store and facing the interior courtyard, they should be allowed to have it. On page 178, political temporary signs, it was noted that language should recognize one sign per candidate or issue. 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 CITY COUNCII. LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. CJ • 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 1, 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be held February 8, 2000. APPROVED: • Joel Channinii, Chair (Absent) anie (Absent) Dorothy Williams Ted Rauch, Secretary for the Meeting • Pkt5 ,jT, ALTuzMA -t ,