HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042799• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 27, 1999
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of April 13, 1999 - Mr. Masters made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1999
meeting as corrected after distribution. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion. Motion carried by 6 -0 vote.
Diane Carlino abstained.
Chair Channing requested that beginning with tonight's meeting that all comments be addressed to the
Chair in order to expedite agenda items.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
• The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Joel Channing, Chair
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern
Diane Carlino
Daniel Lee Cruz, Alternate
Richard Masters
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Also present at the meeting were City Attorney Carole Wallace Post, Principal Planner James Norquest,
Planner II Ed Tombari, Planner I John Lindgren, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and Melissa
Prindiville, GIS Technician.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP -98 -20 Sunnv Plaza Phase 2
Howard F. Ostrout Jr. & Associates, agent for The Marquis Corporation, is seeking to amend the
existing site plan approved on February 15, 1983, to build an additional 14,856 square feet of
commercial use The subject site is 3.44 acres and is located approximately 180 feet north of the
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
northwest intersection of Northlake Boulevard and Military Tram (13- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Norquest reviewed the issues which had been brought out at the April 13, 1999
meeting, and answered questions from the Committee members. Howard F. Ostrout, Jr., agent for the
petitioner, introduced Architect Ted Davis and Civil Engineer Timothy Messler who were present on
behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Ostrout reviewed each of the staff conditions and how the petitioner had
addressed each one. Mr. Ostrout explained that a 12' x 3 5' space would be provided directly behind the
12'x 35' loading space for maneuvering as required by code, but suggested that the code might need to
be addressed to require maneuvering space adjacent to rather than directly behind a loading space. The
recessed exit doors onto the rear drive aisle were discussed. Architect Ted Davis explained that the doors
could open in instead of out, and that there would be a low volume of traffic in that drive aisle.
Landscaping on the berm was explained. Architect Davis explained that handicap requirements would
be met at both front and rear entrances, and explained that since the doors were in pairs that he believed
it would not be necessary to splay the walls at a 45 degree angle on either side at the rear. Mr. Glidden
requested the signage letters in Phase H not be placed into boxes.
Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition SP -98 -20
with the seven conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Masters seconded the motion. During
discussion of the motion, Mr. Glidden recommended the signage in Phase H be changed to
individual letters in channels with the channels painted the same color as the building. Ms.
• Carlino amended the motion to add recommendation number 8, that signs shall be individual
letters mounted on an electrical channel box that will be the same color as the building. Chair
Channing recommended condition number 9 to be addition of two trees around the corner for a
total of eight trees and change spacing to no more than ten feet apart to create a buffer all the way
back to the existing one -story commercial building. Ms. Carlino accepted the amendments to the
motion, therefore the following items were approved as conditions.
1. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
revise the site plan so that the drive aisle width dimensions are exclusive of the proposed
4 -foot striped areas behind Buildings C and D. (Planning & Zoning, City Engineer)
2. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
revise the site plan to show the rear fence and hedge three feet from the property line
instead of the 5 feet currently shown. (Planning & Zoning, Seacoast Utility Authority)
3. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
revise the landscape plan moving the trees to the east to be in line with the existing tree line
to the north and outside of the proposed utility easement along the western boundary of
the site. (City Forester)
4. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
is 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
revise the landscape plan to show a root barrier, which shall be installed between the trees
and the Seacoast Utility Authority water line to the satisfaction of Seacoast Utility
Authority. (City Forester, Seacoast Utility Authority)
5. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
revise the site plan to eliminate the parallel parking space from within the 100 foot stacking
distance provided at the southern entrance. (Planning & Zoning, City Engineer)
6. Prior to scheduling this petition to appear before the City Council, the applicant shall
revise the site plan to show a revision to the proposed loading space on the west side of
Building D shall be revised to reflect a 12' x 35' maneuvering apron north of the 12' x 35'
loading space. (Planning & Zoning)
7. If the existing Pine trees, Oak trees and Sabal palms along the western buffer cannot be
saved, per the proposed plans, they shall be mitigated one for one at the minimum sizes per
code on site and the locations shall be coordinated between the City Forester and the
Landscape Architect of Record. This shall be resolved prior to scheduling this petition
before City Council. (City Forester)
• 8. Signs shall be individual letters mounted on an electrical channel box that will be the same
color as the building.
9. Two trees shall be added around the corner for a total of eight trees, and the spacing of the
trees shall be changed to no more than ten feet apart.
The motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP -97 -03 Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship
A request by Dave Gregg, agent for Christ Fellowship, Inc., to consider a petition for site plan
amendment for the existing Christ Fellowship religious facility to obtain site plan approval for the
existing second story, grass parking, and other site plan amendments. The petitioner is also
requesting approval of aground sign for the project The 5.43 -acre site is located on the south side
of Northlake Boulevard west of Military Tram (23- 42S -43E)
City Attorney Post explained that the conditional use petition would be heard by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the site plan petition by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, that the
petitions would be heard jointly, and that the petition heard by the Site Plan and Appearance Review
Committee would not be a Public Hearing.
3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
Principal Planner Jim Norquest reviewed the history of the site and listed the major concerns of staff,
including traffic, drainage, parking, use expansion, and septic tank issues. In response to questions, Mr.
Norquest explained that sanitary sewers were available on the north side of Northlake, that parking did
not meet code, and the dimensions of the eastern buffer had been verified. Mr. Glidden stated for the
record he had met with Alan Ciklin to better understand the issues. Shared parking was discussed.
Attorney Post explained that Gardens Presbyterian Church had shared parking with a temple. It was
clarified that the petitions were the church's response to discovery of code violations by the City and the
intent was to correct the code violations. Attorney Post explained that a subsequent purchaser would
be held to any conditions of approval granted. The original seating and parking requirements were
verified by staff. It was clarified that the church was presently operating at 800 seats and meeting
concurrency for parking by use of a shared parking agreement.
Attorney Alan Ciklin, agent for the petitioner, explained that the church was approved for 300 seats in
1991, and as they grew they added seats, which were today at 800; and along the way several building
permits had been granted for expansions which led the church to believe things were okay. Attorney
Ciklin explained that the church was trying to resolve issues on a temporary basis and when the new
facility was completed the issues would be finally resolved. Parking for the basketball court by employees
plus shared parking with the Nazarene Church now made up necessary spaces; however, when the new
facility was completed parking at a 1 -3 ratio would be then in effect with the appropriate number of seats.
• Petitioner requested being to operate they way they were at present until the new sanctuary was
occupied. Capacity for the septic tank system was discussed, and no problems had been experienced to
date. The plan was that when central sewer was available the church would hook up to that system,
which was believed to be by the time the new sanctuary was completed. Attorney Ciklin commented that
the drainage issue had already been resolved, and with completion of the new sanctuary both facilities
would be in compliance with all codes. Simultaneous broadcasting would not take place from one facility
to the other but the smaller campus would be used for other services, and if the church was sold the new
purchaser might use the smaller campus for a different purpose.
Attorney Post clarified this phase was not a public hearing but the next phase, consideration of the
conditional use petition, would be a public hearing, and all comments discussed during this phase would
be incorporated into the public hearing. Attorney Post advised that the Site Plan and Appearance Review
Committee could postpone their decision on this item, that the Planning and Zoning Commission portion
of the meeting could be opened, and that the public hearing petition could be heard. Mr. Cruz expressed
concern that compliance was possible but was not proposed to be complete at this time, and that there
were several voids in the plans. Diane Carlino agreed with Mr. Cruz's comments, but questioned
simultaneous services because of traffic concerns. Staff clarified there was never any intent to restrict
uses on the old property once the new facility was completed except for worship services. Attorney
Ciklin agreed to no simulcast or simultaneous worship services. Staff clarified that staff had never
considered that the property might be sold and another church might change the uses. Attorney Ciklin
commented the issue was whether all requirements were met regarding traffic, and there was no intention
of selling either campus. Mr. Glidden recommended each campus be considered as a separate facility
0 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
with each to meet traffic standards. Petitioner verified that each separate facility did meet traffic
standards. Cross traffic between the facilities was discussed. Attorney Ciklin stated the petitioner's
intent in regard to landscaping, paving, lighting and parking was to meet all code requirements. Mr.
Rauch recommended working with the petitioner in a positive manner and to deal with the facilities
separately. Mr. Masters questioned whether bathroom facilities had been added during growth of the
church to which Architect Glenn Pate responded the only interior modification made was a moveable
partition, and the original bathroom facilities met requirements for 300 seats. Mr. Masters requested
information as to the bathroom facilities required for the present 800 seats. Engineer Ken Kruger
clarified that one 8" gravity sewer pipe owned by Seacoast Utility was planned and individual connections
would be made from that pipe. Mr. Masters recommended phase one and phase two in regard to parking
flow be represented on paper. Mr. Nedvins expressed his opinion that the petitioner should come back
with all appropriate representations and plans showing their intent for the future. Attorney Ciklin
commented the simple way would be to come back in the first quarter of next year rather than phasing.
Diane Carlino made a motion to postpone Petition SP -97 -03 until after Planning and Zoning
Commission had heard the issue as a public hearing. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Joel Channing, Chair
John Nedvins, Vice Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
Diane Carlino
Daniel Lee Cruz, Alternate
Richard Masters
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Dennis Solomon
Public Hearing
Recommendation to City Council
Petition CU -97 -04 Palm Beach Gardens Christ Fellowship
A request by Dave Gregg, agent for Christ Fellowship, Inc., to consider a petition for conditional use
for the existing Christ Fellowship religious facility to increase the allowable number of seats from
300 to 800 (200 of which are temporary), to obtain a time extension for the existing modular units,
and to extend the time of expiration of the temporary conditional use until the certificate of
occupancy is granted for the north campus. The 5.43 -acre site is located on the south side of
Northlake Boulevard west of Military Trail. (23- 42S -43E)
0 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
Chair Channing announced the public hearing for Petition CU -97 -04 and continuation of petition SP -97-
03. Principal Planner Norquest stated his understanding of the petition, and Attorney Ciklin clarified that
his previous comments also applied to this petition.
Chair Channing declared the public hearing open. Joan Altwater expressed disappointment in progress
to date on this issue, expressed traffic concerns, requested no outdoor amplifiers, hoped that the 600 seats
would be reduced back to the original 300 seats on the south campus when the north campus was
completed, and that there would be no simultaneous use. Ms. Altwater demonstrated traffic flow
patterns on a map. Ms. Altwater referred to a published article from 1996 where the pastor had indicated
attendance at that time was 800 people. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Channing
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Masters questioned whether the existing building met code regarding adequate septic field and
fixtures for 600 -800 people. Mr. Rauch suggested possibly more frequent services to reduce the
number present at each service. Attorney Ciklin responded there was already a number of services to
accommodate more people and the church believed there were no problems regarding traffic or septic
tank system. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that phasing was not necessary because nothing about
the building would change; questioned the benefit of cutting off the shared parking agreement when the
• new campus was complete; recommended a time limit on temporary approval no later than July 1, 2000;
commented if restroom requirements were not adequate according to the building department calculation
that more should be added; recommended that a date could be set for sanitary sewer tie -in; recommended
an outdoor amplifier condition should be added, suggested all information that would be normally
reviewed for a site should be made available by the petitioner, commented that the east bound curb cut
could probably be both ingress and egress, and that the sites should be considered separately for traffic.
Mr. Nedvins recommended a master plan as if this were new construction. Attorney for the Petitioner
Alan Ciklin had requested that the sites be considered together, with which Diane Carlin agreed,
expressed concern that the uses were not written down, and recommended only approving the original
300 seats. Mr. Cruz stated his opinion that compliance issues should be resolved before considering the
conditional use request. Chair Channing expressed sympathy in regard to working out temporary
solutions but agreed this should be presented as a new application, requested the City Council's position
in regard to compliance, and requested clarification from staff regarding what was expected, to which
Principal Planner Norquest responded he believed the conditional use and site plan petitions must be
considered together.
The following items desired by the Commissions were listed:
■ Certification from the architect or mechanical engineer of record that the number of sanitary
fixture units satisfy the occupancy load for both short and long -term phases.
• Landscape plan.
• Photometrics if adding new lighting.
0 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
■ Access point to adjacent church
■ Checklist
■ All site plan amendments since original approval.
■ Clarification on uses on both sites
■ Clarification of covenants applicable if property sold . During ensuing discussion regarding the
appropriateness of this item, Attorney Post commented conditions of approval that run with the
land were approved every day. Mr. Nedvins expressed his opinion that what mattered was what
the petitioner was going to do to correct the violations.
■ Drainage plan, including response to comments by LBFH..
■ End use plan for this facility.
■ Interim uses
■ Timetable
■ Traffic engineer present
Mr. Cruz pointed out that variances were another avenue available to the petitioner if the petition was
not approved by this board. Chair Channing agreed that variances and/or covenants might be used to
meet concerns. Attorney Ciklin expressed his opinion that neither he or the Board were qualified to
address uses but that the traffic issue was concurrency, and that uses would be traffic driven.
Clarification was given to staff regarding what was expected. Mr. Glidden commented the traffic
• statement should take the worst case scenario- -one independent church on the south side and another
independent church on the north side.
Daniel Cruz made a motion to postpone consideration of Petition CU -97-04 until rescheduled by
staff. Mr. Glidden seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote.
Public Hearing
Recommendation to City Council
Petition Z -99 -01 City Initiated Zoning Changes
Staff is requesting liming changes to certain parcels of land with in the City of Palm Beach
Gardens The purpose of the changes is to update the consistency and accuracy of the
Official Zoning Map with the Comprehensive Plan.
GIS Technician Melissa Prindiville reviewed the staff report for this item.
Chair Channing declared the Public Hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair
Channing declared the Public Hearing closed.
Diane Canino made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition Z-
99-01. Mr. Nedvins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
Recommendation to City Council
Petition TXT -99 -02 Valet Parking Ordinance
City is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to include the
definition for the term "valet parking" in Chapter 78, and to include the definition,
applicability, and the permitting process for valet parking in Chapter 118 of the City Code.
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report for this item, reported staff met with users of
valet parking on 4/6/99, and answered questions from the Commission regarding the permitting
process and enforcement of violations. Mr. Lindgren explained that Code Enforcement had no
legal standing for enforcement, but the Fire Department could close down a business if fire lanes
were blocked in the event oft an unsafe situation; and the Police Department could cite vehicles,
not the property owners. Attorney Post explained that currently there was no authority within
the code for valet parking. Mr. Nedvins questioned the necessity of regulating this item since
no one had ever been killed or injured. Fire Marshall Scott Fetterman explained there had been
a situation where rescue vehicles had been delayed, that emergency situations did occur, and
having a process in place to correct problems ahead of time would be helpful. In response to
Mr. Glidden's question of what this issue was about, Planner Lindgren explained the ordinance
was intended to address getting emergency vehicles into a site when stacking of valet cars was
impeding the driveway and to avoid dangerous traffic situations impeding circulation in a
• parking area causing cars to stack out into the ingress /egress area. Mr. Glidden inquired
whether this petition addressed a case in which if emergency vehicles had access were other
parking spaces available for condensed parking, to which Mr. Lindgren responded it did not,
that the petition had been kept as simple as possible, and that there was language included
allowing additional off -site spaces at businesses which were closed. Mr. Glidden questioned
whether any other municipality in Palm Beach County had a valet parking ordinance, to which
Mr. Lindgren responded that the County did have such an ordinance, but it only related to the
percentage of a parking lot that could be used for valet parking. Mr. Masters questioned
whether Fire Marshall Fetterman would rather have an ordinance or the authority of the Fire
Department to remove vehicles obstructing emergency vehicles. Fire Marshall Fetterman
responded he would rather have an ordinance. Mr. Masters asked him to think about whether
he would like that authority within the ordinance. Mr. Nedvins questioned whether if a valet
license was issued with guidelines and the guidelines were repeatedly violated, the business
would lose that license, and whether it would be most effective to license the property owner,
the business, or the valet company.. Attorney Post responded that was one option, and
explained that some businesses had their own valet service, some hired a separate service, and
some used a combination. Discussion ensued. Mr. Masters commented it should be made
clear what was meant by the wording institution and private establishment. Chair Channing
described hypothetical situations where half of a drive aisle was blocked, and where more than
one car was waiting to be parked, and asked to staff to think about these and similar situations.
Another member of the board questioned whether it was in the best interest of the public to
have such an ordinance.
is 8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
Chair Channing declared the public hearing reopened. David Semadeni, Palm Beach Gardens
resident and secretary of the Palm Beach County Hotel & Motel Association expressed the 150 -
member group's concern regarding this ordinance. Mr. Semadeni expressed concern that those
who had made the few complaints which resulted in the penalizing of all had not been identified;
stated he had requested the identification of specific situations so that those situations could be
looked at and corrected, and that those valet operations which did not do a good job were
known to the Association. Mr. Semadeni objected that definitions within the ordinance were
not clear, and expressed the industry's fear of this ordinance which would open many things
plus taxation. Mr. Semadeni suggested valet parking was safer than regular parking and was
helpful to the public rather than a detriment, and a commitment had been made to move any
cars immediately which were impeding emergency vehicles. Mr. Semadeni explained that no
other municipalities in the county had such an ordinance regulating valet parking operations,
and the county's ordinance was only in regard to percentage of valet parking within a parking
lot. Mr. Semadeni commented that the group he represented believed this to be an ill -
conceived ordinance at this time and safety was also their main concern. Mr. Nedvins
questioned valet services which did not do a good job, to which Mr. Semadeni responded there
had been some and they had been removed. Mr. Semadeni stated his group would be delighted
to help formulate a set of guidelines for the ordinance and to identify the bad operators to see
if they could do something about them with the City. Mr. Semadeni stated they would like to
• look at the specific problems that exist in specific operations of properties and deal with that
situations. In regard to different situations that could occur, Mr. Semadeni stated his group had
no position at the present, and that the ordinance would deal with the operation of valet
parking. Mr. Semandeni explained that in operating a valet parking business that if a vehicle
blocked an aisle it should be moved for an emergency vehicle and if the fire truck had to
physically move it that was what would be done; that there was no way for valet parking to
stack every vehicle on demand; and that valet parking was a way of life in Palm Beach County.
Mr. Semandeni stated he had not seen this type of ordinance anywhere else. Mr. Masters
pointed out there might be instances where a business should not have valet parking because
of the physical configuration of the property, and questioned who would enforce that if the
hotel and restaurant associations would not police from within. Mr. Semandeni stated that went
back to the instances that had been cited, and they would very much like to know the specific
properties or restaurants to be able to come to the City to say that business or property was not
performing acceptably.
Roger Amidon, Palm Beach Gardens Marriott, explained their hotel had been doing valet
parking for nine years and had never been on the City's reported violations list. Mr. Amidon
expressed his opinion that Planner Lindgren when he indicated if cars were stacking up that
more valet parkers were needed, was trying to tell valet operators how to operate their
businesses. Mr. Amidon explained that they involved the Palm Beach Gardens Police
Department weeks ahead of special events at their hotel and contracted police to prevent safety
hazards, which worked very well. Mr. Amidon stated no answer had been received to his
0 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
request of which businesses were in violation. Mr. Amidon stated neither his hotel or the other
hotels stacked cars out into public areas. Mr. Amidon questioned whether the businesses in
violation hired their own valet parkers or whether they contracted that work. Mr. Amidon
expressed his opinion that the hotels within the area were doing a great job of running their own
valet businesses and recommended this be handled on an individual basis with violators.
Ed Oliver, representative for the owner of River House, Frank Callendar, expressed his opinion
there was not enough substance for this ordinance since complaints had been so few and from
comments made by the Board and the public. Mr. Oliver stated there had been no problems
with valet parking at River House for 15 years, and expressed concern how as an architect and
planner he would design projects under this ordinance. Mr. Oliver commented if cars were
stacked into the public right -of -way he believed the City did have the ability to control that
situation. Mr. Oliver recommended the City not have a valet parking ordinance.
City Attorney Post advised that legislation adopted by the City must be founded in some
reasonable basis, and the Board had the option of recommending approval as is or with
modifications or recommending denial to the City Council; or to continue this issue with clear
direction to staff as to how to proceed. Mr. Lindgren cited regulations of other municipalities
outside Palm Beach County. Mr. Glidden commented that the concept of not blocking
is necessary aisles for emergency vehicles to sites and buildings was valid, and an addition to code
that the primary ingress and egress to a site could not be blocked that would go a step beyond
the fire lane ordinance. Mr. Glidden objected to the cumbersome permitting process and
suggested having clearly delineated drop off and pick up areas and possibly a written agreement
with off -site parking. Mr. Masters was in favor of that approach and believed minimum
standards for a site to provide valet parking should be established with the help of the hotel and
restaurant associations, which might then be codified. Mr. Nedvins favored denial. Discussion
ensued.
Mr. Nedvins made a motion to recommend to the City Council denial of petition TXT -99-
02. Both Mr. Rauch and Diane Carlino seconded the motion. Mr. Cruz stated he would
not support denial because he felt the problems could be addressed. Chair Channing
commented he did not believe enough cause had been shown for licensing and permitting
and recommended that the City have the power to deal with cars blocking access in
parking lots. Mr. Channing stated he would vote against the motion because he felt it
deserved more of an answer than just denial. Mr. Glidden abstained from voting because
of a possible conflict, but commented he agreed with Chair Channing, and agreed
licensing was a problem area. Motion carried 4 -2 with Mr. Cruz and Mr. Channing
opposed and Mr. Glidden abstained.
orksho
10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
Petition TXT -99 -06 Development Review Process Text Amendments
Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide
revisions to chapter 114 entitled "SUBDIVISIONS ", and chapter 118 entitled "ZONING':
Planner II Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report for this item.
Mr. Masters commented adding a 10' minimum separation between mechanical gear in side
yards would actually make the distance between buildings between 15' and 16', and
recommended getting acoustical expertise rather than stating distances relating to where
mechanical equipment began and ended with respect to adjoining property, because even
increasing the distance to 16' with the wrong piece of equipment would not necessarily solve
the problem. Mr. Glidden recommended obtaining input from the private sector on this issue.
Henry Skokowski commented he was present representing the interests of Golf Digest,
Ballen1sles, and others, and he would mail a list of their comments before the next meeting.
Chair Channing commented on different configurations in different developments where homes
were close together. Chair Channing commented on the necessity of making sure staff had
sufficient time to review applications. Mr. Tombari clarified the item regarding amendments
to waivers to PUD and PCD. Chair Channing stated he wanted to be a part of the discussion
regarding the 12' item and also the 10' minimum separation between mechanical equipment in
• side yards. Chair Channing requested a followup to address the glare at the gas station on PGA
Boulevard. Mr. Masters commented certain photometrics could be required. Discussion
ensued. Mr. Glidden suggested going to the gas station to test the degree of photometrics. Mr.
Tombari explained the additional space between buildings was basically an access issue. Mr.
Masters recommended placing the burden of the acoustical issue on the petitioner. Mr. Cruz
recommended landscaping plans include graphic legends showing texture and style of trees.
Mr. Masters recommended 10 days for staff to respond rather than five days. On the separation
issue, direction to staff was to show diagrams and situations where access was a problem, and
a plan graphic.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Glidden commented the new City Hall had big bell exhaust fans on the police station which
were not screened, which would make it hard for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
require applicants to screen their rooftop equipment.
10 4k1 i l 1QT&V
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
• 11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
• ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Glidden, seconded by Mr. Cruz, and
unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. The next meeting will be held
April 27, 1999.
APPROVED:
John edvins, Vice Chair
J
Diane Carlino
(Absent)
Dennis Solomon
Richard Masters
Danie ruz, Alternate
Ted uch, Alternate
J c ' Holloman, Secretary
•
12
Jul -20 -99 11:26A P.01
r ^e►-� FAX TRANSMITTAL
OLIVER - GLIDDEN & PARTNERS IDATE� � � JOB NO.:
• ARCHITECTURE - INTERIOR DE.410 IATTENT!
JOB:
Telephone 561- 684 - 6841 RE: P lonn 1 C Jr,
_ _ 1{
Facsimile 561- 684 - 6890 C(
PAGES, INCLUDING COVER -
FAX # I 1
ORIGINAL SENT: r7 FED EX / UPS MAIL NOT SENT
COPIES DESCRIPTION
ror m aE3
AS REQUESTED El FOR REVIEW & COMMENT
REMARKS:
W aw of M&
JUl 201999
ZONIN �
8
COPY TO: SIGNED: J c�-)n den
1401 FORUM WAY, SUITE 100 . WEST PALM BEACH, FL 334 - 561 -684 -6841 . FAX: 561 - 684 -6800. E -MAIL: ogp6841Qacl.00m
•
�,. Ju.1 -20 -99 11:26A P -02
E16 /�'y /lyyy 15:15 4b!//�1t114 1"M rLLNVr41F4Q1 4:U'411AU rrWC U"i
f.
FORM
COUNTY,
•
1 b'I ♦ ♦11
1 \W
1
1,
86 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
%41111" 1 ♦nMl: NA Mt; U! 11117ARIXkXX1K('11. tV1MMrQ %10%- AUI1141KITY. Qtr tVMM17lEF
i fill . _ - ---) .. /� , . . _
IsAI'ION W"WR vttIfUt'n"La %t)
A . l n .w
eNl- r(IAR(),Ct>UN 71 iJMMI.II:IVN- Avltt W11 OR Co1RMAYEFoA
*14" 1 MIMI K A UNIT 01:
r a t11lJ11fT1' o of xtr 1 orwl- wGr♦CV
(101. •U1Y !IAMEO ►POI.iTt("At- !tUrD1Y 10N:
Q Y r 'O:s
4 M M
`Y A a tilER"rlvtii AIPa1♦fl�t
WHO MUST FILE FORM 41
This form is for use b� any person serving at the county. city. or other Ioe21 level of government on an appoint6d or elected board,
Council. commission, authority. or cotmnitttr. It applies equally to members of advisory and nom- advisory bodies who are presented
with a .opting connict of interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the gag when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason. please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing ;he mere side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WffN SECTION 142.3443, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS_
• A person holding elertilr:uunl►; municipal, or other local publicofrice %IL:ST ABSTAIN from .oting on a measure -A hich inures
to his special pri.aie gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knoslingly noting an a measure -A hich inures to the special
gain of a principal lusher than a go--crnment agency) b9 whom he is retained.
In e:ittttr east you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEI`Ci TAi►EN b% publicly stating to the a,•cmbly the nature of %our interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting: ono
WITHIN IS OOWS AFTER THE V017E OCCURS by completing and filing this form Mith the person responsible for mcarding
the Rtlinutes of the melting, who should incorporatc the form in the minutes -
APPO( `T>ED OFFICERS-
A person holding appointive county, municipal. or other Iocal public office %1L;ST ABSTAIN from voting on a measum which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in Which he has a conflict of intereu. but must
disclose the nature of the contlict befom making any attempt to influence the decision tn• oral or wrifttn communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction_
IF YOU iNTENO Tip MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INN.UENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT W641CH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and rile this form tbefore making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minute&
• A copy of the form .b041111 be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form % hould Ix read Publicly at the meeting prior (o eolt-wideration of the matter in -hich you have a conflict of iatef=-
•
Jutl -20 -99 11:26A P.03
nbiz�il��y i5:15 4ut((tIU14 PBG PLANNING 20NING PAGE 04
IF VOII MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT By DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You Should distlole orslly the nature Of your confliet in the measure before participating_
• j e You thovid Complete the form and rile it within IS days arter the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the rninistes
Ior the mertin& who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
0MLOA1R11 OF LOOAL 0FRCER'= 1 nnf
1, UVVwI
. hereby disclose that on - 19
(a) A measure cane or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or {' /
inured to s r c,
the pttitial sash of t+ , by whom I am retained.
(b1 Tht measure before my aWcy and the nature of my interest irk the measure is as follows:
E
JLuA
qq
Dart Filed 1 S' urt
NOTICE: UNOCA PROWSICKS OF FLORIO^ STATUTES ;112.317 (19851. A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
OISCLOSURE COHSTMiTfiS GROUNDS FOR AND MAY 6E PUN13WE0 BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING=
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR 511SPENS(ON FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000.
"FOR" 110 -I .41
•
t'AGG Z
26 -99 02:52P
UJ/ 17� 1777 iv: �1
„UIrr,1Ula
rD12 rt..,.u'rylIlls LlAV11Wa
P. 01
rwv= w
FORM 86 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
0 COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
1 \i1 �ASII / IM�a \ nl11 UU1116 1 \AMU VAN( U► PU^Rn, CARIN1('11 . ivK941N%I0 %- AU I14"It" 11. t'U1r N177L!
urea U►u ♦lalwt �� tNl 1t n. C'o1114t11. tY7 1(Ir. A111 0401111111 n fowMnTEE Ow .
(Y 1![7(11EQtE C4 w u1111'Of
p, h . • C"T , Q C'O W" o 01'"it I.0". AGE'%C y
•i
IT ON' WNK -N *t1'IF MCI 11140U
try Posrtto
n ELEMVE ^FP01% I'VE
W140 MUST F" FORM as
This form is for use toy am person serving 21 the county. city. at other locai level of government on an appointed or elected board.
council, commission. authority. or committee It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a v*(iq conflict of interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law wheft faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will wan greatly depending
on whether +you hold an e(wive or appointive position. For Ihis reason, please parr close attention to the instructions on this form
before .completing the re%clmc aide and filing the form.
INS'TRuCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH $MICH 112.3143, FLORIDA STATURES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elecii%e wunty. municipal, or other local public officc MIST ABSTAIN' from %ating on a measure which inures
to his special pri%we gain. Ea:h local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a 3o%crntrieet attert y) b. -Ahom he is retained.
In either case you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN b� pubiidy dating to the as.cmbh• the nature Of %our Interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining, from toting: dnd
WITHIN 1S DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form w ith the person responsible for warding
the minutes of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding 4poointi►c :ouniy. 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 knowingly toting on a measure V hick inures to the
sp'ecW gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holdins an appointive local office other—ise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest. but must
disclose the nature of 1h..ontli n before making am• attempt IC intlucace the dc6sloft b%' oral or written cameAunicition, whether
made by the officer or at his direction_
W YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE %AEETIAIG AT W141CH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and rile this form tberQrc making any attempt to influence the decisionl With the wrwn responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting. who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of ahu form .hou(d be provided immediately to the wher members of the agency.
• The form ohatsid ba read publiily at the metting prior to %mmideraiien of the (natter in which you have a conflict or interest.
Mlay -26 -99 02-53P
not t�� t��� tn: 3t utlI i�tt)tu P-02
row r�t_wvrvtr�u �Ur�ir�� PA(it= a5
FJF%*�OU ~MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFL UENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
ould disclose orally the. nature of your conflict in the measurc before participating.
uld complete the form and file it wilhin 13 days afla the vote occurs wifb the person rtayon�ible ror recording the rninut6
meeting, who should incorwate the form in the minutes._
�j
OIS MOWN OFF LOCAL Of I FICER'S *Mom oar
hereby disclose that on . 19. :
(al A measure came or wilt come before my agetxy which (chest one)
inured to rely spar;isl private fain: or
rinurcq to the spo►ial gain of . by whom I im retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as ro[lows:
cuv�n rpvcuuls e�, resM.uµr�vl'
a4Asv (,rerrµu�a,,u.� awed
*kJ_
CA
+e�,w� e�ASGctStrlR+ �p uwfr -Iluvl"
4� I w.1! vuu� wuyscPf 6hFuvivw
ctiu
voM✓ga«d d.�scussi6v� �h q
0�n3�lS'
All
Date Ftlstd natU�e
NOTICE. UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 4112.317 (1985). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED.
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR ANO MAY BE PUN15HED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL, OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN
SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED SS.OW.
R Far be. aat _ ►AC,i s