HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 090898CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMiriISSION
September 8, 1998
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Diane
Carlino 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.
ITEKS BY GROWS 2%NAQHb9 T DIRECTOR
There were no comments by the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of August 25. 1998 - Mr. Masters made a motion to approve the
minutes of the August 11, 1998 meeting as submitted. Mr. Solomon
• seconded the motion. Motion carried by 7 -0 vote. Mr. Pisani
abstained.
:V"g M" I. • sue. , 1M
The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
1 Chair Diane Carlino
Joel Channing, vice Chair
John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem
John Nedvins
Ralph Pisani
Dennis Solomon
Alternate Richard Masters
Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne
Manning, City Attorney Carole Wallace Post, City Council Liaison Carl
Sabatello, Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro, Planner I Angela Csinsi,
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1998
and Planner I John Lindgren.
Workshop - Petition PUD -98 -03 - The Commons Parcel 1
A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) approval of a mixed -use project with 31 residential units,
14,212 square feet of general office, 5,267 of medical office, 10,667
square feet of general retail, 5,900 square feet of indoor restaurant
use and 2,260 square feet of outdoor restaurant use. The 7.304 -acre
site is located on the south side of PGA Boulevard, immediately east
of its intersection with Avenue of the PGA. (11-42S-42H)
Workshop - Petition PUD -98 -04 - The Commons Parcel 2
A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for planned unit development
(PUD) approval of a mixed-use project with 21 residential units, and
39,480 ,square feet of commercial business. The 8.997 -acre site is
located on the south side of PGA Boulevard, immediately west of Its
intersection with Hickory Drive. (11 -42S -428)
workshop - Petition PUD- 98 -06_ Thy Commons Parcel 3
• A request by Urban Design Studio, agent, for planned unit development
(PUD) approval of a mixed -use project with 53 residential units, and
72,450 square feet of commercial business. The 12.266 -acre site is
located on the south side of PGA Boulevard, immediately east of its
intersection with Hickory Drive. (12 -42S -428)
Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing stepped down due to conflict of interest.
Growth Management Director reviewed the staff reports dated 9/8/98 for
parcels 1, 2, and 3.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, responded to a memo from
City Forester Mark Hendrickson, who requested that it be noted in the
record that in Parcels 2 and 3 there was a deviation on the sidewalk
and landscape treatment within the established 55' greenbelt. Mr.
Skokowski explained that these landscape plans would supersede the
previous plans for these properties. In response to Mr. Hendrickson's
suggestion for a 151 hedge and a block wall in Parcel 2, Mr. Skokowski
explained that the petitioner planned to match the existing hedge and
believed there should be no wall separating parking lots. Mr.
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• September 8, 1998
Skokowski explained that the applicant was willing to comply with Mr.
Hendrickson's request for a sidewalk on Hickory Drive; however,
believed that residents did not want the sidewalk, and preferred to
leave this area as green space. Growth Management Director Manning
explained that some residents felt a sidewalk would encourage
pedestrian traffic, which they did not want; however, the City's
vision included sidewalks to encourage pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Skokowski discussed access for nine units where a court had been
planned with two driveways, instead of separate driveways into each
unit, and described the planned landscaping. Growth Management
Director Manning explained that staff would like to work with Mr.
Skokowski and the designers with some input from the residents and
bring back a detail plan for this area.
Mr. Skokowski described the proposed wall and landscaping, and
commented that one homeowner already had landscaping on his property.
Mr. Skokowski explained that the overhang of landscaping had been
unintentional and the full 8' required would be provided. Mr.
Skokowski commented that the applicant would be happy to comply with
• suggestions from the Police Department.
Mr. Skokowski reviewed the curb cut at the northeast corner, and
expressed the applicant's willingness to change the curb cut if
necessary.
In response to a comment that in Parcel 1 there was no residential
over commercial, Growth Management Director Manning explained this
requirement was met in the other parcels, and since this was a unique
project staff was trying to meet functionality. Ms. Manning requested
input from the Commission regarding placing apartments over commercial
in this area. Mr. Skokowski explained that since the mixed use area
was very small there would not be many apartments and that because
this plan had been submitted before the changes to the Comprehensive
Plan, there was no violation. Chair Carlino submitted a letter from
Longwood Condominium Homeowners Association, who supported the
project, and another from Tamberlane Condominium Homeowners
Association, who had concerns.
Mr. Masters commented Parcel 1 could not be separated from the other
0 3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• September 8, 1998
parcels and in looking at the parcels as a whole there was a good mix
of residential over commercial so that he felt the intent of that
requirement was satisfied. Mr. Masters expressed his opinion that the
Commission should be informed of the decision regarding the narrow
driveway in parcel 2 to determine traffic safety. Mr. Masters
complimented staff on this packet.
Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Masters that the intent of the requirement
for residential over commercial had been met looking at the parcels
as a whole. Mr. Solomon recommended a separate driveway for each unit
for the area in parcel 2 which had been discussed. Mr. Solomon
questioned whether the parcels would be platted, to which Mr.
Skokowski responded there would be plats. Mr. Solomon questioned
which parcel would be built first, to which the response was that had
not been decided. Mr. Skokowski explained that each parcel would
stand alone regarding drainage and would not be affected by phasing.
Access to PGA Boulevard from parcel 1 was discussed, and Mr. Skokowski
explained it was his understanding it was not necessary. Mr. Solomon
recommended installing a sidewalk in parcel 2 along the west side of
• the road. Setbacks were discussed. Mr. Skokowski explained that
awnings or balconies would encroach into the 55' setback area but
would provide an amenity for pedestrians. Growth Management Director
Manning commented that more specific drawings on those areas would be
developed and the goal was to get the best pedestrian walkways
possible. Mr. Solomon commented that the elevations could be
improved.
Mr. Masters questioned the status of covenants mentioned at the last
meetings, to which Attorney Post responded by explaining that
Attorney Steve Mathison was not proposing that the City be a party to
a 20 -year covenant that would impose this site plan upon the land, but
that if the petitioner wished to bind themselves to such an agreement
it would be an independent agreement between the developer and the
landowner. Attorney Post explained that the City had its own
mechanisms to assure that no arbitrary changes would be made to the
site plans.
The project architect displayed and reviewed elevations for the
project. Chair Carlino commented all the units looked the same, with
the same colors, to which the architect responded the intent was that
0 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1998
they look like high -end single family homes from the rear, and that
the petitioner would consider not placing identical units next to each
other.
Mr. Nedvins commented that the applicant had done a good job of
breaking up the roof lines. Mr. Nedvins received clarification that
there would be a uniform homeowners association between the
residential and commercial areas. Mr. Skokowski questioned how parcel
1 and parcel 2 could be connected to have more foot traffic between
the two, to which Mr. Skokowski responded there was a sidewalk which
ran along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Nedvins inquired why the petitioner had
not placed any apartments above commercial in parcel 1, to which Mr.
Skokowski responded that some neighboring residents had expressed
concerns. Mr. Nedvins commented that egress on PGA from parcel 1 was
a good idea but should be clearly identified. Mr. Nedvins commented
that on the sidewalk /curb cut issue he had no problem not installing
a sidewalk; that he believed it would be a mistake to create several
curb cuts; and that he favored one ingress and one egress. Mr.
Nedvins expressed his opinion that this was as good as any townhouse
project he had seen submitted in the past two years. The project
• architect stated that colored front elevations would be provided at
the next meeting, and that building colors would be varied. Mr.
Skokowski commented that the residential colors would be more subtle.
Mr. Pisani questioned why this project was submitted as three parcels
instead of one with phasing. Mr. Skokowski responded that parcel 1
was physically removed from the other two parcels so that it was
technically required to have a separate application, and also land use
patterns were separate. Mr. Skokowski expressed his opinion regarding
placing residential uses over commercial uses, explained that in this
area there were not many projects with these types of uses, and
discussed projects which had utilized this type of use successfully.
Mr. Pisani inquired as to the approximate distance from the curb cut
to Military Trail to determine whether right -hand turn traffic onto
Military Trail would be impacted. Mr. Skokowski estimated the
distance at approximately 1000 feet and anticipated no effect on
traffic turning onto Military Trail. During discussion regarding
traffic signals at the PGA Boulevard accesses, Mr. Skokowski commented
traffic signals were not proposed at this point but the applicant
would be happy to work with the City toward obtaining signals if they
0 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• September 8, 1998
were desired. Buildout according to the traffic analysis was in 2001.
Mr. Pisani requested the definition of RFP and requested acronyms not
be used in future meeting minutes.
Growth Management Director Manning addressed the issue of apartments
over commercial and commented that although there were not many in the
South Florida area that where it had been done it had been
tremendously successful. Ms. Manning commented that most projects
that had been done this way had been in areas that were more
urbanized; however, the City had a goal to provide all types of
housing to residents and this was one of the few opportunities
available to provide true urban apartment living for residents.
Growth Management Director Manning explained that the issue for the
City was to determine whether the applicant had enough, since eight
were provided in parcel 2.
Mr. Pisani complimented the petitioner on their plan.
Mr. Nedvins requested the City's position on signalization at the PGA
• Boulevard accesses, to which Growth Management Director Manning
responded it was not warranted at this time but the City would monitor
for increased levels of traffic, use according to demographic mix, and
traffic patterns.
Mr. Nedvins questioned whether there were plans for future development
of land near the Florida Turnpike along PGA Boulevard, to which Growth
Management Director Manning responded that land was being placed for
sale by the MacArthur Foundation and that closing on one parcel was
slated for November, 1998.
Growth Management Director Manning commented that the Public Hearing
could occur next if the Planning and Zoning Commission felt
comfortable. Mr. Solomon questioned how odors from restaurants would
be dealt with, to which Mr. Skokowski responded all garbage would be
contained within the buildings and no dumpsters would be used. Mr.
Masters recommended the applicant retain a good engineer who
understood filtration techniques, and suggested the applicant consider
refrigerating garbage.
Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing rejoined the meeting.
is 6
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1998
OLD BUSINESS
The Amendment to Church Regulations was delayed to the next meeting.
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
ITEMS BY CITY COONCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison Carl Sabatello reported the City Council had
approved the Viridian Office Building with very few comments except
they had requested that pavers be made a part of future submittals.
Other comments had been regarding the size and location of the signs.
City Council Liaison Sabatello commented the Commission had asked good
questions regarding the project before them this evening, cautioned
• that at the public hearing they make sure they understood concerns
voiced by residents, and recommended that good elevations and a roof
plan be provided.
City Council Liaison Sabatello reported the City Council had approved
the extension of time requested by Trinity Methodist Church, and
explained he had voted against approval because he was not comfortable
giving an extension prior to maturity or with the length of the
extension. During discussion of new information to be included in the
packets, Mr. Sabatello suggested the Commission members contact staff
with questions prior to meetings.
In regard to the proposed amendment to church regulations, Mr. Masters
expressed concern regarding how churches could be restricted to be
built only in certain areas. Mr. Sabatello responded the amendment
was being worked on, and Chair Carlino commented that could be
discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Solomon commented regarding the project discussed at this meeting
that in the summaries provided in the staff reports that sometimes it
0 7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1998
was hard to figure out the number of units, and pointed out a
misstatement under parcel 3, page 2, that incorrectly referred to
parcel 2. Mr. Nedvins recommended the three projects be consolidated
on one sheet, to which Mr. Glidden responded he would provide that
format. Mr. Masters commented on other locations within the country
where apartments were successfully located over commercial uses.
•
• 8
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1998
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Masters, seconded
by Mr. Pisani, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
8:00 p.m. The next meeting will be held September 22, 1998.
APPROVED: � �''-± .•� -Z.- C-G� J�-�,)
qi- an��arlino, Chair
Chair
Ralph Pisani
i
is Solomon `"J
e4 Pt-,,
Richard Masters, Alternate
, . A. s? -'Q
J c ie Holloman, Sec etary
• 9
' %Jwump ><, MWn1% LrJ%L, AMID v1 MR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
t A1.' NAME —FIRST NAML-- MIOI)t 1: NAM[ NAME OF 9OARlll COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMIT-
GLIQQFN, JOHN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
tHt BOARtx COUNCIL. COMMISSION,
NAILING AOURESS WHI ' 1 SERVE IS A UNIT' Of: AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE C
�`� "" ('I l Y COUNTY OTHER l0('At AIUENC'Y
cut�Nfl
C�� (�� NAML tN- PUt ITICA1. SUBDIVISION:
UAIE ON WHIC11 VOIL (W(URREU �/ City of Palm Beach Gardens
D MY PUSII'ION Is
c" � � ELECTIVE APPOINTIVt
WHO MUST FILE FORM ad
This form is for use by any person sen ing at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected boa, -
council. commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are present:
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; althoUz
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by la-
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depend;-
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this for-
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3943, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
*rson holding elective county, municipal, or other local public: office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure
s, special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the spec;_
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either cast. you should disclose the conflict'.
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure c
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recordin
the minutes of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whir
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to th
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 interest, but mu:
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication. whethe
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WH1Cl-
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fo
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
•, opy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
te four should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest
1 f 1N \I rN Ill•IIA ?A.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your convict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within IS days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minLa
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
1 �
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST C
_
-- hereby disclose that on J
. 19
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
vef- Tie c�M/r;;, an p� r��•
Date Filed Si ature
. by whom I am retainer
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1983), A FAIWRE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE
ISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING
PEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE Olt EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000.
E FORM tR • 1040 PA