HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 022796Revised 3/11/96
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 27, 1996
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chairman Carl
Sabatello at 7:30 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.
The roll was called by Secretary Melissa Prindiville:
Present
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Tom Paganini
Christopher Jones
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
Absent
Thomas Pastore
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark,
Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, City Attorney Tom Baird, Planning
and Zoning Director Richard Walton, and Planner Marty Minor.
• ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
Planning and Zoning Director Walton announced that a joint workshop
of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council would be
held on March 7, 1996 at 7 P.M., one -half hour before the regular
meeting of the City Council, and that the purpose of the workshop was
to provide direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison David Clark congratulated new Planning and Zoning
Commission members Tom Paganini and Christopher Jones, and alternate
member Jeff Ornstein.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of February 13, 1996 - Vice Chair Diane Carlino made a motion
to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr.
William Mignogna. The motion was approved by a 7 -0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Recommendation to City Council: #96 -1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(MacArthur Parcel 13.01). (11- 42S -42E)
0
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
Planner Marty Minor reviewed the staff report and provided an overview
of the amendment.
Henry Skokowski stated that he represented Dexter Development Company,
the contract purchaser of the property, who had acquired the property
for a mixture of uses, which this land use plan amendment would allow.
Mr. Skokowski explained that the current land use only allowed low
density residential use.
Vice Chair Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval of #96 -1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council. Motion was seconded
by Jeff Ornstein and carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0.
Chairman Sabatello announced that the following workshop items would
be combined into one item for discussion:
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW
WorkshOR: Petition SP- 95 -08, by Raymond Royce, agent for John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Inc., representing Palm Beach
Communications Company, for Site Plan approval for the installation
of three, 400 -foot communication towers on a 36 -acre site located
approximately 2,000 feet north of and 700 feet west of the
intersection of Donald Ross Road and N. 69th Drive. (21- 41S -42E)
0 and
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop: Petition CU- 95 -05, by Raymond Royce, agent for John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Inc., representing Palm Beach
Communications Company, for Conditional Use approval for the
installation of three, 400 -foot communication towers on a 36 -acre site
located approximately 2,000 feet north of and 700 feet west of the
intersection of Donald Ross Road and N. 69th Drive. (21 -41S -42E)
Planning and Zoning Director Walton reported that Mr. Ellington had
recently been hospitalized but was improving. Mr. Walton reviewed the
staff report dated February 22, 1996.
Raymond Royce, agent for the Petitioner, introduced those present at
the meeting who would be available to answer questions on behalf of
the Petitioner, and provided a brief history of this petition up to
the current time. Mr. Royce reviewed the site and placement of the
towers and structures, and commented that by shared use, these towers
should accommodate the City's tower needs for several years. Mr.
Mignogna questioned whether the towers had been pushed farther west
to keep them away from the community and whether there were future
plans for other towers on this property. Mr. Royce commented that
there were no plans for any other towers on this property, and that
if others were contemplated or if any additional antennas not covered
in this application were desired, then new applications must be
submitted for review by the City.
• 2
Planning a Zoning commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
Mr. Gary Mitchell, an engineer, addressed a question regarding why the
towers would fall only within the specified radius by explaining that
control - failure tests had been conducted to assure how a tower of this
design would fall and calculations had been made and that data had
been presented to the City Engineer. Chairman Sabatello questioned
why language was used stating "should" instead of "would" when
referring to the area of fall. Mr. Mitchell explained that a
collision by a flying airplane might conceivably drag a tower, but in
most cases the reason for this type of tower to fall was wind and ice
loads. Mr. Rocky Bilby of Kimley Horn Associates explained that the
tower designer had certified his structural calculations, but because
he was registered in Illinois and not in Florida and because the City
required review by a Florida registered engineer, that Kimley Horn had
been hired to review and certify the designer's work, but could not
use "would" since some insurance companies might construe that to mean
a guarantee. Mr. Ornstein questioned that a tower might not fall
within 300 feet. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether Hurricane
Andrew had caused any changes in tower designs, however, none were
known. Mr. Glidden questioned the project location map, and Mr. Royce
verified that the westerly boundary could not move farther west since
the adjacent property had been sold to the County for a conservation
area. It was pointed out that the balance of the MacArthur property
other than for this application was zoned residential low density, and
that no master plan existed for the project. The access road from
Donald Ross Road was to be over an easement. Do we know the location
• of the easement? Is it in the best location? Mr. Mitchell explained
that he could think of no other scenarios which might cause a tower
of this design to fall other than wind or collision by an airplane,
unless six vandals positioned themselves one at each guy wire and all
cut the wires at precisely the same moment. Mr. Mitchell explained
that the tower design was for South Florida, for 110 m.p.h. wind speed
plus factors for height, gust, importance, etc., and that all complied
to standards for this area plus factors for safety were also applied
so that the tower itself would fail in a windstorm before the guy
wires.
Mr. Glidden asked that the following items be addressed at some point:
(1) what the weakest, lightest piece of the tower would be that might
be carried outside the fall area (Mr. Mitchell stated his personal
opinion that such an occurrance would be unlikely), and (2) the City
wanted to make sure insurance concerns were addressed; therefore a
Florida licensed engineer needed to certify that the tower would fall
within the specified range with exceptions listed, such as impact from
a flying airplane, etc.
Trisha Dahlan of Palm Beach Communications responded to Mr. Glidden
that phasing would be dictated by need, and that as a tower went to
capacity that another would be built. Ms. Dahlan explained that the
400 -foot height had been determined in designing to accommodate the
highest numbers and certain types of antennas. Mr. Jones questioned
lights on the tower, to which Ms. Dahlan responded that the tower must
be made visible to aircraft, and that this project would use strobe
lights which would be on both day and night but would appear red at
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
night and would beam upward rather than down; and that a red blinking
light would be at the top of the tower. Chairman Sabatello
questioned whether the lights would affect the environment, to which
Mr. Walton responded that more information was needed.
Environmental Consultant Ed Weinberg explained that impacts proposed
to wetlands were required to be mitigated and replaced in accordance
with the South Florida Water Management District Environmental
Resource Program permit, and that this project impacted approximately
one acre total, including the entry road, tower base, related
buildings, and construction of guy wire casements. Mr. Weinberg
explained that SFWMD required easement permits and did have
enforcement powers and monitored the permitted areas. The mitigation
would be in perpetuity, and maintenance of the road would be done by
those who used the road. Mr. Ornstein commented on the placement of
tower 2 and guy wires in the wetland area, and inquired as to the
effect on animals and birds. Mr. Weinberg explained that sandhill
crane nesting would not be affected since they looked for low
vegetation and hydrology of the wetlands, which would not be changed;
however that would not hold true for all animals and birds. Mr.
Weinberg commented that flashing lights at night would have little
noticeable effect from the ground. Vice Chair Carlino requested
elaboration on visual impact. Petitioner's representative referred
to six visual impact analyses which had been done from six different
• locations viewed toward the tower site, and confirmed that from
anywhere within Palm Beach Country Estates the towers would be
visible. Mr. Royce commented he had no knowledge of plans for a
perimeter fence and that then he last visited the property there was
a secured gate. Mr. Ornstein questioned the type of equipment planned
to be on the towers, to which Ms. Dahlan responded that it would be
primarily radio equipment, and that space leased for equipment could
only be used to accommodate non - interfering equipment (non- interfering
with other equipment on the tower and with surrounding homes). Ms.
Dahlan verified that in her experience the radio signals did not
affect birds. Mr. Ornstein questioned the land use for the balance
of the land. Mr. Walton explained that the underling zoning was PDA.
Mr. Royce commented that the MacArthur Foundation had no plans to
develop the rest of the property, which Mr. Ornstein noted that he
would like to know that from the MacArthur Foundation. Mr. Ornstein
commented that if the reason for going to 400 -foot high towers was to
get as much equipment as possible on a tower, then his suggestion was
to erect four 250 -foot towers, or some other configuration, to assure
that the towers would fall within a specified radius. Mr. Royce
explained that height was important in radio broadcasting. Mr.
Ornstein suggested four 300 -foot towers. Mr. Ornstein requested
clarification of notes 5 and 6. The engineer clarified that access
was needed to guy anchors, which access would consist of 10' wide
paths for maintenance access, with no large trees in the way, and that
access was needed from the base of the tower out to each guy wire.
Mr. Ornstein stated that a tree survey should be done, which could
result in the reconfiguration of the guy wires to avoid losing some
of the trees. The engineer explained that note 6 was to make sure
• 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
trees did not fall on the ground; and explained that the total acreage
of uplands proposed to be altered by this project was approximately
10% of the site, or 65% less impact than a typical site development.
Mr. Ornstein suggested that more studies might find ways to lessen the
impact even more. Mr. Ornstein requested that copies of aerials be
provided to the Board.
Chairman Sabatello summarized the comments which had been made by the
Board in order to provide clear direction to the applicant: (1) A
tree survey was not necessary, however, a comment had been made that
the applicant should place anchors in the best locations to preserve
the environment. (2) The question raised by Mr. Ornstein of four 300 -
foot towers versus three 400 -foot high would be the petitioner's
choice. (3) An absolute statement was needed that the engineering
would do what it was supposed to do. (4) This Commission did not
have power to provide relief on the setback, but could make a
favorable recommendation with the condition that the setback be
addressed by the City Council, and /or the condition that it must be
no less than 110 %, or could make a recommendation to deny.
Mr. Mignogna questioned whether if this Board granted approval that
would prohibit a residential development alongside this project, to
which Director Walton responded that it was his understanding that a
residential development would not be precluded at a later date. City
Attorney Baird advised that the practical result of approving this
• application would be that the City Council would have to deal with the
compatibility of an application for development of adjacent property,
and discussed the procedure that the City Council would follow. Mr.
Mignogna recommended that a geotechnical engineer should perform a
soils study. Trisha Dahlan explained how the antennas were used to
transmit radio waves. Chairman Sabatello stated that the soils study
would be very important and that there was a strong concern regarding
the setback of the tower, and requested that all information that the
petitioner could provide on those issues be available at the next
meeting.
After discussion, Chairman Sabatello announced that if the petitioner
supplied the requested material that this petition could be set for
Public Hearing.
Chairman Sabatello thanked all of the residents and County
Commissioner Marcus for coming to the meeting.
Public Hearing: Petition PCD- 95 -02, by Domenick Lioce, agent for CTB
Realty Ventures, Inc., to amend Ordinance 1, 1990 for the Northcorp
Center Planned Community District (PCD) . Located, in general, by RCA
Boulevard to the north, Burns Road to the south, Interstate 95 to the
west and the FEC Railway. (7- 428 -43E)
Planning and Zoning Director Walton reviewed the staff report dated
February 22, 1996.
• 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• February 27, 1996
Mr. Jeff Ornstein questioned whether the concept of the vacant piece
of land to the north providing their own roadway had been abandoned.
Director Walton responded that the central thoroughfare plan provided
for a local road into the piece of property to the north. Discussion
ensued regarding traffic patterns and the planned flyover for the
intersection of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AlA.
Domenick Lioce, agent for the Petitioner, discussed the proposed
amendment to the existing ordinance, which he explained would correct
the definitions of the 5% and 10 %, and establish the uses as listed,
which had been the two main problems; and explained that staff had
added additional conditions for landscaping and for setting up an
association to maintain the streetscape. Mr. Lioce commented that
the main problem was the use, and referred to the existing ordinance
which had set forth types of usage which would be allowed in addition
to office industrial. The Petitioner had understood that the 5% and
10% limitation would only apply to retail uses; however, the language
had been drafted so that the percentages applied to all uses listed
in paragraph 21. Mr. Lioce explained how the proposed amendment would
change the original ordinance, and that Petitioner only objected to
the last three items of the staff's retail list, i.e., hotel /motel,
art gallery, and fraternal organizations, since placing them in the
retail category with the 5% and 10% requirements would effectively
take those uses away from the Petitioner, who wished those uses to be
• limited to one within the project. During ensuing discussion,
Planning and Zoning Director Walton pointed out that existing uses
were up to 15% of the uses that exist on the site, and the limitation
in the existing ordinance was 10 %. Mr. Ornstein explained that the
original intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission had been to
limit non - industrial uses to 5% and 10 %, and they had discussed other
uses as being allowed, but had never discussed the existing RCA
building. Mr. Walton advised that it had been heavily discussed at
the City Council level. After further discussion, Mr. Lioce
summarized that the only difference between staff's proposal and
Petitioner' s proposal was that Petitioner wanted the three retail uses
of hotel /motel, art gallery, and fraternal organization to be allowed
one time only on the site. Mr. Lioce stated that this would not
create traffic problems, with which Mr. Walton agreed, but explained
that space would be taken for non - industrial uses.
Mr. Lioce commented that Petitioner agreed with conditions 1 and 2,
and would agree with condition 3 if it were tied to the same timing
as condition 1, since Petitioner wanted to build the parking lot at
the same time the road was constructed. Mr. Lioce commented that if
the parking plan required Lot 8 then it would be included. Mr. Walton
suggested the following language for condition 3: The eastern and
southern parking lots, required to meet the minimum parking for
Northcorp Center Plat shall be constructed and completed within one
year from City Council approval of said PCD amendment petition, unless
the improvements are completed by another entity. Mr. Lioce objected
to the language within one year. Chairman Sabatello suggested that
rather than providing the whole road within one year that the
intersection be completed, to which Petitioner did not agree.
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
After discussion of condition 4, Mr. Lioce stated agreement with
conditions 4 and 5. Mr. Lioce stated that there was a major problem
with condition 6. Mr. Lioce explained that the Petitioner was not in
agreement with conditions 7, 8 and 9. In discussion of condition 7,
Mr. Walton explained that all of Lot 8 would be needed for parking
requirements; Mr. Lioce's position was that there was no need to
address height requirements since any structure would have to come
back for site plan approval. Mr. Glidden suggested that condition 3
be reworded so that it would be very clear that a site plan approval
would be required which would define vertical and horizontal
parameters of certain parts of the project. Mr. Lioce commented that
Petitioner would agree that they would not permit a site plan
application on Lot 8 until the parking plan and site plan was
approved. It was suggested that change be added to the end of
condition 3, so that condition 3 in its entirety would read as
follows: The eastern and southern parking lots, required to meet
the minimum ,Parking for Northcorp Center Plat shall be constructed and
completed within one year from City Council approval of said PCD
amendment petition, unless the improvements are completed by another
entity. No site plan for Lot 8 shall be approved until the above
described parking plan is approved. Any site plan for Lot 8 shall
be in conformance with said parking plan. It was agreed to delete
condition 7.
• Discussion of conditions 8 and 9 resulted in a poll of the
Commissioners regarding whether they agreed to delete those
conditions. The results of the poll were four to remove 8 & keep 9;
one to keep both; two to remove both.
Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open. Hearing no
comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello declared the Public
Hearing closed.
Mr. Jeff Ornstein made a motion to recommend approval of Petition PCD -
95-02 with all of staff's recommendations with the following changes:
Item 3 be changed to read: The eastern and southern parking lots,
required to meet the minimum parking for Northcorp Center Plat shall
be constructed and completed within one year from City Council
approval of said PCD amendment petition, unless the improvements are
completed by another entity. No site plan for Lot 8 shall be
approved until the above described parking plan is approved. Any
site plan for Lot 8 shall be in conformance with said parking plan.
Item 6: taking the hotel /motel, art gallery /museum and fraternal
organizations and moving them down to items 5, 6 and 7 with only one
allowed in the project, delete numbers 7 and 8. Therefore, approval
was subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for any land uses
on Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, the Contract shall be let
for construction of East Park Drive in a two lane section from
Burns Road north to RCA Boulevard. The improvements shall
include one additional westbound right -turn lane as well as
• 7
Planning 6 Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
single eastbound and southbound left -turn lanes at the
intersection of Burns Road and East Park Drive. These
improvements shall be complete and open to the public prior to
issuance of any certificates of occupancy for land uses on the
foregoing Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13.
2. The site plan, lighting plan and landscape plan for the eastern
and southern parking lots in Northcorp Center Plat, including
Lot 8 of South Park Center Plat, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City within thirty days from City Council
approval of said PCD amendment petition. These plans shall be
in compliance with all applicable City Codes.
3. The eastern and southern parking lots, required to meet the
minimum parking for Northcorp Center Plat shall be constructed
and completed within one year from City Council approval of
said PCD amendment petition, unless the improvements are
completed by another entity. No site plan for Lot 8 shall be
approved until the above described parking plan is approved.
Any site plan for Lot 8 shall be in conformance with said
parking plan.
4. Replacement trees for Oak tree removal shall not be counted in
the total landscaping point value. If the parcel cannot support
• the total number of required replacement trees, the City may
permit the excess trees to be planted within the PCD common open
space or donated to the City for planting on public lands.
5. Within thirty days of City Council approval of said PCD
amendment petition, the Developer of Northcorp PCD shall submit
a plan to the City for review and approval regarding the
stockpiling of fill material within the PCD. This plan shall
include, but not limited to, the locations, heights from
existing grades and maintenance practices for the stockpiles
within the development.
6. Paragraph (Condition 21) of Section 4 shall be amended to read
as follows:
1121. In addition to the uses allowed in the M -1, Research and
Light Industrial Park District, the following uses are allowed
with the submission of each PUD (Please see Condition 6 for
clarity):
1. Retail:
Wearing Apparel
Toys
Sundries
Jewelry
Camera /Photos
Florist
8
Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
Gift Shop
Delicatessen
Bakery
Office Equipment
Food and Drug Sales (each food or drug store shall be
limited to a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft.)
Barber /Beauty Shop
Shoe Repair
Laundry /Dry Cleaner (serving general public)
Print Shop (serving general public)
Travel Agency
Restaurant
Retail Sale of Beer and Wine if in conjunction with
restaurant or convenience store
Bar /Liquor Stores, when approved by resolution of the
City Council
Laundromat
Car Wash
2. Health Club - One allowed in the project.
3. Day Care Center - One allowed in the project.
4. Commercial Recreation Including Ancillary Driving Ranges
- One allowed in the project.
•
5. Hotel /Motel - One allowed in the project, limited to a
maximum of 120 guest rooms or suites or a combination of
rooms and suites - One allowed in the project.
6. Art Gallery, Museum, Dance, Art or Music Studio - One
allowed in the project.
7. Fraternal Organization - One allowed in the project.
7. The Developer of the Northcorp PCD amend the "Declaration of
Protective Covenants for Centerpark ", as recorded in the Public
Records of Palm Beach County Florida, to specifically provide
that the Property Owner's Association named in said declaration
shall incur the entire coast associated with the construction of
a storm drainage pipe(s) within the recorded 50 -foot Drainage
Easement through the entire length of the Northcorp PCD, between
Burns Road and RCA Boulevard. This construction shall take
place if storm drainage pipe(s) is ever required by the City in
the future.
Further, in the event that said Association fails to comply this
requirement, the City shall have the right but not the
obligation to construct the necessary drainage improvements and
assess the properties in said Association.
Vice Chair Carlino seconded the motion. Mr. Glidden expressed concern
• 9
Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
that there was not sufficient information to include either item 8 or
9. Mr. Ornstein explained that he was making a recommendation to the
City Council which was that there was an existing drainage problem
which needed to be left in, and that item 8 had been discussed and
he believed there were better ways of handling item 8. Discussion
ensued regarding the reasons to leave conditions 8 and 9 in or out.
Mr. Lioce stated Petitioner would agree to leave condition 9 in. Mr.
Glidden stated he would withdraw his concern, and therefore the motion
stood as stated by Mr. Ornstein. The vote on the motion was 6 -1, with
Chairman Sabatello opposed.
OLD BIISINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BIISINESS
John Glidden requested clarification of the City's policy regarding
conflict of interest for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
with respect to representing private developers, and his understanding
that the ordinance required that members were not allowed to speak to
the Planning and Zoning Commission or to the City Council during their
time of service and for one year thereafter. Mr. Glidden requested
clarification at some point on how the conflict of interest issue
related to doing work for the City as a consultant. Mr. Glidden
suggested that candidates for the Board should be notified in advance
of their appointment that such an appointment would preclude them
doing work for the City. Attorney Baird responded that there were
no procedures or policies of law which would preclude a board member
from working for the City as a consultant; but a board member would
be precluded from working for the City as an employee.
City Council Liaison David Clark explained that the City Council had
contemplated, in order to achieve continuity, to go to an
organizational structure for the Planning and Zoning Commission in
which there would be a Chairman and a Chairman Elect, with the
Chairman Elect to take office as Chairman a year from the date of his
or her election as Chairman Elect, when a new Chairman Elect would be
selected. This would ensure a smooth transition from year to year
from Chairman to Chairman. Mr. Ornstein made a motion that Carl
Sabatello be re- elected Chairman and Diane Carlino be elected as
Chairman Elect. Mr. Paganini seconded the motion. After a short
discussion, the motion carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0.
• 10
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1996
•
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Vice Chair Carlino, nd unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 P.M. he next meeting will be held March 12,
1996.
APPROVED:
Carl T batello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
wi iam Mignogna
• (Absent)
Thomas Pastore
Tom Paganini
0 11