HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 012500• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING CONMMSION
January 25, 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
There were no announcements.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF NIINUTES
• Mr. Cruz made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2000 and January 11, 2000 meetings
as submitted Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote. Mr. Rauch
abstained.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONIIVIITTEE
The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Joel Channing, Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem.
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Barry Present, Alternate
Absent
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dorothy Williams
Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney
Leonard Rubin, Senior Planner Talal Benothman, and Principal Planners James Norquest and Kim Glas
Castro.
r�
LJ
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
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 -43E)
Planner Talal Benothman presented changes since the last workshop, and answered questions from the
members of the Committee.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, discussed changes since the last meeting. Mr. Skokowski
described the how the configuration of walkways had been changed by removing a sidewalk in the center
and including sidewalks fronting along three business sites. Mr. Skokowski stated objections in regard
to the subdivision issue, and expressed his opinion that the petitioner should be credited for having
multiple uses, and commented that after doing everything possible to achieve interconnectivity, , using the
old subdivision standards of installing hedges did not make sense. Mr. Skokowski explained that all of
the required parking for every use was provided fully on the property and questioned whether the City
should be in the business of dictating how an ownership structure was set up. The 35 -foot easement
between the project and Meadows Mobile Home Park was discussed. The petitioner requested that
single entity retail be allowed on this space. Loading zone space was discussed. Mr. Skokowski
• displayed retail one and two south elevations, and reviewed architectural changes.
Mr. Cruz commented that the petitioner was presenting the project as a unified site with the intent of
dividing it into several parcels, and if the project were presented as several parcels the approach would
be different. Mr. Cruz expressed his opinion that this was a mammoth issue and needed resolution, and
that the single entity retail was a diversion from the DRI. Mr. Cruz commented that the detail issues were
overshadowed by these larger issues which needed to be resolved. Mr. Cruz stated he was not happy
with the hotel architecture. Mr. Skokowski responded the uses of hotel, retail, and office were already
designated in the DRI, but the petitioner was asking for single entity retail because traffic trips had been
used. Mr. Cruz commented he did not believe he and the petitioner differed fundamentally on the use
of the property; however, expressed concern regarding the issues of single entity retail and subdividing
the property into pieces, which in effect would amount to single entity retaiL
Mr. Glidden expressed his preference for loading space for retail one to be back where it could not be
seen, all one material for the circular area, changing the roof slope, camouflaging the air conditioning
units, changing the canopy and suggested the chimney be straight. Mr. Glidden's comment on the office
building was that either the windows should be smaller or the stucco reveals should project out farther
and all line up. Mr. Glidden commented that the objection to single user retail was to avoid "big box"
architecture and discount -type businesses and he did not believe it mattered whether there were one, two,
or three tenants in retail two. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that the architecture should be looked
at rather than the user.
is 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
Mr. Solomon recommended additional workshops focused on the architecture. Mr. Solomon requested
a graphic of future parcels depicting lot lines, easement areas, parking areas, and ingress and egress. Mr.
Kunkle expressed his opinion that the architecture was bland and recommended additional workshops.
Mr. Glidden commented he saw no advantage to treating the project as a multiple lot project with
buffering of individual parcels, but felt it should be integrated as a whole with unity of control. Mr.
Glidden expressed his opinion that careful consideration should be given to parking, and recommended
discussion on whether there would be open parking within the project in areas other than the hotel
Chair Channing commented that in a PUD the issue of ownership was unrelated and questioned why
subdividing was a problem. Growth Management Director Manning explained there were engineering
and planning issues, and a solution would be similar to a condominium -to allow sale ofthe buildings with
the rest of the property being under unity of control Attorney Rubin explained that the concern was
what was best for the City in the future if certain buildings went into foreclosure. Chair Charming
commented that this arrangement might cause problems with lenders. Chair Channing expressed his
preference for berms along right -of -ways, including Minsk Garden Avenue, and pointed out that the
elevations on the bank were mis- labeled. Chair Channing requested an elevation of the entire site with
landscaping rendered at the correct size, and stated he wanted to see the architecture along with the site
plan. Chair Channing pointed out the elevations showed doors facing PGA Boulevard when they were
all to open away from PGA Boulevard. Chair Channing expressed his opinion that the buildings should
• look like single entity buildings to prevent a radical change from the existing mall. Chair Channing
recommended 12 loading spaces, expressed concern for the architecture and recommended use ofbetter
building materials, and also berming and a lot of landscaping. Mr. Skokowski requested clarification
regarding the architecture and single entity retail, to which Chair Charming responded with his opinion
they had nothing to do with each other and he would not want the building to look like three small
connected buildings. Mr. Charming requested perspectives in the future. Mr. Skokowski stated the
petitioner would come back with revised architecture and updated landscaping. Mr. Glidden asked that
staff develop a policy so that on perspectives the buildings could be seen without being covered up with
landscaping, to which Growth Management Director Manning responded that staff could clarify to
petitioners that perspectives ofbuildings were required. Ms. Manning expressed concern regarding the
35' setback, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that the petitioner was willing to provide easements.
Landscape Architect Garrin Owens described the proposed landscaping along PGA Boulevard, the entry,
and buffers. Mr. Kunkle suggested addition of some large flowering trees. Discussion ensued. Mr.
Owens clarified that a detailed perspective would be shown at the next meeting. Direction to the
petitioner regarding architecture was roof slope, different building materials on some elements,
clarification ofthe type ofproposed glass, continuity oftreatment around the entire building, clarification
of phasing, and mplementation of design elements. Comments to staff from members of the Committee
were not to restrict the petitioner regarding subdivision ofthe property. Planner Norquest indicated that
City Engineer Lindahl could explain the engineering issues. Ken Blair expressed his opinion that the
condominium solution was not viable. Discussion ensued. Mr. Skokowski commented that this issue
would not affect the architecture and therefore could be resolved before presentation to City Council, and
the petitioner would work to achieve a solo ion .
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
•
•
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Joel Charming, Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Barry Present, Alternate
Absent
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dorothy Williams
Workshop
Public School Concurrence
(Public School Facilities Element/Capital Improvements Element)
Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro presented this item and 'introduced Mr. Leo Noble, who had been
retained to coordinate development of the school concurrency proposal between the County and the
School District, explained the statutory requirements and showed slides. Mr. Noble explained the impact
to the City, and that there would be time to take care of growth in the City and in Abacoa before it
happened. Discussion ensued. Mr. Noble clarified that the main objective was to get new schools built
to avoid overcrowding, which Mr. Solomon felt could create a moratorium on new development. Mr.
Noble explained why a moratorium would be impossible, and verified that the concurrency agreement
required participation by 100% of the municipalities in the County. Mr. Kunkle stated he could not
support the agreement, which required the City to give control ofnew development to the School Board,
and to take on a partner who was promising to do better, and that once in a City would have a very hard
time getting out. Chair Charming commented that although he believed in concurrency, if the School
Board was doing their job this agreement would not be necessary, and to hold the private sector
responsible for the failure of the School Board to do its job made no sense. Mr. Solomon commented
that a project could be shut down even if everything else had been done right, which was a sword hanging
over developers' heads. Mr. Cruz commented he had worked for the School District Construction
Department for 1 -1/2 years and found it very disconcerting what was happening in the construction
program, which had been in turmoil for many years. Mr. Cruz expressed his opinion that it was too early
to ask for this and stated he had a great many reservations. Mr. Noble explained that the construction
program had been improved, that he had heard these same types of comments in other cities, and that
he would return for another presentation after hearing comments from all the cities. Taking some of the
threat out of the agreement was suggested.
4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Joel Channing, Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Barry Present, Alternate
Absent
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dorothy Williams
Workshop
Petition TAT- 99 -I1: Land Development Regulations
A request by City staff to adopt new land development regulations. (Articles I -IV of the draft land
• development regulations dated November 9, 1999, are scheduled to be reviewed)
Principal Planner Steve Cramer introduced this item.
Consultant Marty Hodgkins apologized that a document had been given to the Commission at the last
workshop which had contained errors. Mr. Hodgkins explained that all references to the Site Plan and
Appearance Board Committee had been eliminated since the functions ofthat Committee were being re-
assigned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hodgkins explained that on page 2, any use
established prior to the effective date was now considered a conditional use. On page 6, section 13, the
reference to Zoning Board ofAppeals was eliminated; however, the language allowing the City Council
to provide for a separate Zoning Board ofAppeals ifthey desired had been retained. The City Attorney
who was consulted regarding the remaining language, and stated it would be clarified. On page 10, a
table had been provided summarizing the way development applications were reviewed. On page 11, an
amendment to the number of working days generally established a minimum and maximum number of
days for an applicaiton to proceed through the development process. Mr. Hodgkins explained that the
two-week time period shown on page 16 allowed time for the staffto review an application to determine
whether the application was complete; and at the bottom of page 16 there was a reference to the DRC
certification and how the DRC Committee worked_ On page 18, a table was shown which summarized
the various types of requirements for submittal, into numbers would be inserted later. On page 26, a
summary page ofmaster plan and site plan requirements was presented. On page 32, differences in minor
and major site plans were discussed, as well as types of site plans which could be approved
administratively by staff On page 33, section 25 (b), major amendments for site plans, an attempt had
0 5
•
r1
U
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
been made to define major amendments. On page 35, item c, minor amendments were discussed. On
page 39, public notice requirement times were listed, which Mr. Hodgkins explained would be amended
so that it would refer to requirements of the State statutes. On page 54, private concurrency
requirements were addressed. A question was raised regarding hiring of a third party as referenced on
page 47. Growth Management Director Manning explained that a third party would be hired to confirm
the School Board numbers in regard to concurrency, which was the type of information referenced in this
section. On page 86, Mr. Hodgkins pointed out tables summarizing property development regulations.
On page 71 an error in a dollar figure was pointed out. On page 75, it was suggested by a member of
the Commission that a minimum refund be established if a building application was withdrawn; however,
it was explained that State statutes must be followed. Discussion ensued regarding return of fees. A
typographical error was pointed out on page 79 under zoning districts -that one R20 should be changed
to R10. On page 93 section 86, reference was made to the PUD overlay district and the underlying
zoning district. A member of the Commission referred to a prior discussion regarding thrift stores, and
Mr. Hodgkins explained that general requirement 2, page 90, which stated second hand merchandise in
commercial zones was not permitted, would be modified. On page 97, standards for waivers for PUD's
was presented. Minimum development sizes for PUD'S were discussed, and,it was requested this item
be discussed further at a later meeting. It was explained that language for development sizes for PUD
and Mixed Use developments had been taken from the Comprehensive Plan.
It was decided to meet again on Tuesday, February 1 to discuss this item further.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Glidden reported he had gone to Roly's restaurant with the awning manufacturer, building manager,
building owner, and restaurant owner. Mr. Glidden explained that there had been insufficient room for
the connector awning which he had recommended as a condition of approval, however, upon observing
the budding had been able to recommend higher placement of the awning which would allow a view of
the entire pediment, all ornamentation, the name, and the windows from the courtyard. Mr. Glidden
reported the petitioner had been agreeable to this solution. The City Attorney advised that the motion
could be amended by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee under Old Business.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAUKITTEE
The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
Joel Charming, Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
• 6
Absent
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
Dorothy Williams
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
Daniel Lee Cruz
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Barry Present, Alternate
Mr. Glidden made a motion to reconsider Roly's awning request. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Glidden made a motion to modify the previous approval to accept
the submitted drawing by the petitioner to float the awning canopy above the pediment mass at the end
of the courtyard by raising it in conformance with the drawing submitted to the City. Mr. Solomon
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
• There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
t
• 7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held February 8, 2000.
APPROVED:
Vice Chair
„ „ _ / I r
(Absent)
Dorothy Williams
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry Pre ,Alternate
Jacki oman, Planning Technician
•SecreWfor the Meeting
�3