Loading...
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