Loading...
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