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 ,