HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042396CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 23, 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 Jackie Holloman:
Present
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Tom Paganini
Thomas Pastore
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
Absent
Christopher Jones
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark,
Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, Planning and Zoning Director
• Richard Walton, Principal Planner Bristol Ellington, and City Forester
Mark Hendrickson.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Planning and Zoning Director.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of April 9, 1996 - Mr. Jeff Ornstein made a motion to approve
the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Diane
Carlino. Mr. John Glidden abstained from voting. The motion carried
by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Workshom: Petition SP- 96 -02, by Frank Palen, agent for Creative Trust
Inc. and Devonshire Venture Limited Partnership, to request an
amendment to the site plan for Parcel M -22 within PGA National Resort
Community. (16- 42S -42E)
• Mr. Ellington distributed copies of the City Engineer's memo dated
4/23/96, along with an elevation of covered parking. Mr. Ellington
k
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
reviewed the staff report dated April 17, 1996.
Discussion ensued regarding whether this request was a waiver or an
amendment to an approved PUD. Mr. Ellington explained that the City
Code did not contain a trigger point on a certain amount of approvals
to a site which would trigger compliance with all of the Code;
however, at any time an amendment occurred, staff brought to the
attention of the Commission how it deviated from Code. In this case
the number of units was not being increased or modified, however, the
location was being changed.
Frank Palen, Agent for the Petitioner, reviewed the location of the
covered parking, explained aesthetic concerns of The Island residents
which would be corrected by replacing the trellis parking structure
with a covered parking structure with a tile roof. Architect Gabriel
Salazar explained that the Dunbar Woods residents had been concerned
about lights on proposed recreational facilities, which had now been
moved back so that the buffer would be increased, and had also been
concerned with the view of the building, which was unchanged. Mr.
Glidden questioned phasing of the project, to which Mr. Palen
responded that Phase 1, 1A, and 1B would all be one phase. Mr.
Salazar verified that the new roof on the parking structure was to be
a full hip roof. Mr. Mignogna questioned whether the existing
building would be demolished before beginning construction, to which
• the response was that everything would be removed, including current
sewer and water systems, and the site would be re- engineered before
start of any construction. Mr. Glidden questioned the planning which
had led to the changed entry road, which he believed could cause
confusion, to which the response was that one consideration had been
the turning radius. Petitioner agreed to look into the matter to
assure sufficient turning room and to provide a focal point in the
center. Mr. Glidden suggested only a small focal point in order to
channel traffic to the appropriate side but not to divert a driver's
attention. Mr. Glidden discussed the water level of the proposed lake
and whether it might become a dry retention area in dry weather.
Chairman Sabatello requested that the original approval be checked in
regard to the waterways, and questioned why one area had been
eliminated, to which Mr. Salazar responded that there had been
accessibility and fire access concerns. Mr. Glidden objected to the
crank opposite the guard house. Mr. Paganini questioned when the
landscape buffer would be installed. Mr. Palen responded that the
conditions of approval required it to be installed in the beginning,
that landscaping match on both sides of the canal, and that there
would be enhanced buffering on the south side. Mr. Paganini
questioned the location for the Art in Public Places. Mr. Ellington
explained that staff would verify whether the art was a requirement
for this project, since it was residential. Mr. Ornstein observed
that the best thing this petition accomplished was getting rid of the
old building, and recalled that the water areas had originally been
intended as water features. Mr. Ornstein commented that he did not
believe this petition required a variance or waiver for the covered
parking since a PUD could deviate from the LDRs and staff comments had
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
explained the deviation. Mr. Glidden questioned the requirements for
numbers of handicap parking spaces and the number of spaces proposed,
to which the response was that requirements were set by the State and
Federal ADA as a certain percentage of the total count, and that the
Petitioner would check the proposed number to be sure they were in
compliance. Mr. Ornstein commented that the nature of the project
might dictate handicap spaces in excess of requirements. Mr. Salazar
commented that valet parking and group transportation would be
provided. Chairman Sabatello received verification that the location
of cooking, delivery facilities, etc., remained unchanged.
Chairman Sabatello clarified that the specific question in regard to
the waterway was the control of the water height and how it would be
controlled, and requested further detail from the petitioner. Mr.
Palen commented that all of the lakes were intended to be permanent
lakes and aerators would be in constant operation, and that the lakes
were not intended to ever become dry retention areas. Chairman
Sabatello clarified that the question was whether the water would be
maintained at a specific elevation.
Mr. Palen verified there would be no change in colors or architectural
style.
The guard gate house elevations were reviewed. Mr. Salazar stated
• that the gates would be swinging gates. Chairman Sabatello requested
that the type of gates be shown on the drawings. Mr. Salazar verified
that the finishes, colors, and textures would be the same as on the
buildings. Mr. Ornstein requested a detail of the geometry of the
gate house be provided at the next meeting, which would include a
plan, stacking, clearances between the curb and building, etc.
In summary, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee made the
following comments and requests of the Petitioner:
1. Clarify whether lake area adjacent to the new building will be
a lake or dry retention. Explain how the water level will be
maintained.
2. Guardhouse elevations should reflect gate details. Indicate bw
colors and materials match building. Additionally, provide
details of the northern gate system.
3. At Ryder Cup gatehouse, eliminate jog in the curb of the right
hand entry road.
4. For the northern -most curbcut, please provide documentation of
Northern Palm Beach County Water Improvement District
authorization to install a gate system.
5. Please clarify how there is an increase in open space of 6.2%
and an, increase in lot coverage of 16.7% as stated in #5 and #7
of the,project narrative dated March 4, 1996.
• 3
• Planning & zoning commission Minutes
April 231 1996
6. Verify,the number and location of handicapped parking spaces.
7. Provide notarized confirmation that the applicant has given ten
day notification of the May 14, 1996 Site Plan and Appearance
Review Committee meeting to all property owners within 500 feet
of the site.
8. Address comments of Assistant City Engineer Lynnette Lanning in
her memo dated April 23, 1996. Address comments of City Fire
Marshal Scott Fetterman in his memo dated April 15, 1996.
Address comments in Seacoast Utility Authority letter dated
March 12, 1996.
Workshop: Petition SP- 96 -03, by G.E. Cantelou, agent for the Sports
Authority Florida, Inc., to request site plan approval for the
demolition of an existing 20,284 square -foot office building and
subsequent construction of a one- story, 42,973 square -foot retail
building for Sports Authority. Located south of Northlake Boulevard
and immediately to the west of the Costco Wholesale. (19- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated 4/4/96.
Mr. Pastore' questioned whether Northlake Boulevard was a County or
• State road. Mr. Ellington responded he was unsure whether it was a
County road or possibly a State road maintained by the County,
however, turn lanes were conditioned to require approvals from Palm
Beach County. Mr. Ellington commented that the main access would
probably be from Burma Court, and that buffering would be needed for
residential properties. Mr. Pastore questioned the access to Costco.
Mr. Ellington reported that the Petitioner was working with Costco on
that matter and that staff had recommended that some access be
provided. Mr. Ornstein questioned the need for two curb cuts close
together and close to a traffic signal. Mr. Ellington responded that
both curb cuts were existing and that he would request that the City
Engineer review the matter to determine if one curb cut would be
sufficient. Mr. Glidden expressed the opinion that it would be safer
to use the existing entrance into Costco. Mr. Ellington responded
that would be up to Costco. Mr. Glidden questioned whether staff had
any concerns about the fact that the existing office building without
its mirror image second phase was now a dead -end parking lot in the
back. Mr. Ellington responded that staff had raised no concerns
regarding interconnecting between sites, however, City Forester
Hendrickson had raised concern regarding how this site was left with
the change in plans to the mirror image side. Mr. Glidden inquired
whether it would be a benefit if the driveway on the south side of the
existing office building were allowed to continue through and connect
to the driveway running north /south on the western portion of the
property. Mr. Ellington responded that it was always good to have
interconnecting exists.
G. E. (Pete) Cantelou III, agent for the Petitioner, commented that
4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
the Petitioner would be willing to reduce the parking island at the
northeast corner from three to two spaces and to replace with
landscaping. Mr. Cantelou discussed access and the necessity for the
two curb cuts; that there was no cross access agreement with Costco;
that the asphalt strip to which City Forester Hendrickson had objected
would be removed and replaced with a 12 -foot grass strip to be used
as an access easement for Seacoast Utility; and that the pond would
be enlarged sufficiently to take care of all stormwater for the site.
Mr. Cantelou explained that only six feet was available for
landscaping in front of the building. Chairman Sabatello advised that
the Committee would not waive landscaping requirements in order that
the Petitioner could construct a larger building. Mr. Ellington
suggested that since the buffer along Northlake Boulevard was in
excess of Code requirements, that possibly by reducing it more space
for landscaping could be realized in front of the building foundation.
Mr. Cantelou explained that the building could be shifted two feet
farther back. Chairman Sabatello advised that the Committee could not
judge whether two feet would solve the problem until they had seen a
completed landscape plan, which they would strongly review.
Chairman Sabatello called for comments regarding the site. Mr.
Pastore requested an explanation of the raised site. Mr. Cantelou
explained that the site would be raised so that the entire building
floor would be at the same elevation, and explained that the drainage
• flow of the undeveloped area would remain unchanged, and that SFWMD
did not recognize that area as flood plain. Mr. Cantelou responded
to Mr. Pastore that he would need to check the FIRM maps to ascertain
whether they showed the area as flood plain. Mr. Pastore requested
that the Petitioner take a closer look at the turn lane and
circulation regarding a vehicle traveling west on Northlake entering
the site, since it would be a lot safer to utilize the existing
traffic light. Mr. Cantelou advised that Costco had been approached
but they were not interested. Chairman Sabatello discussed the land
to the south of the 9' elevation area, which the Petitioner verified
was at a 9' to 10' elevation and was in its natural state. Mr.
Sabatello questioned what would happen to water drainage in the lower
elevations when development occurred to the west. Mr. Ellington
explained that was also a concern expressed by the City Engineer, and
that the environmental ordinance provided for continuous preserve on
adjacent properties. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage
problems which would need to be addressed by the engineers. Mr.
Pastore questioned the location of a 5 -foot sidewalk, to which Mr.
Cantelou responded he had been trying to leave the sidewalk centrally
located to avoid walking through parking spaces. Mr. Ornstein
expressed concern that the property to the far south was
unincorporated so that the City would have no control over that area,
which could have a major drainage problem. Mr. Cantelou explained
that all of the contiguous area was within the City of Palm Beach
Gardens.
Mr. Ornstein requested that the south parking lot on the adjoining
Northlake Executive Building property be tied into the Sports
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
Authority parking lot to avoid a dead end. Discussion ensued
regarding traffic. Mr. Cantelou explained that the County had refused
• requested access. Mr. Ornstein requested a traffic report regarding
• Burma Road access. Mr. Ornstein requested a complete landscape plan
and a complete architectural plan showing the remaining portion of the
project. Mr. Ornstein advised the petitioner that they would need
architecturally designed spaces in the parking lot to collect their
approximately 30 shopping carts. Chairman Sabatello commented that
language was needed regarding the Petitioner's commitment to control
the parking lot, and to collect the carts, and suggested that staff
check the Home Depot provisions in order to be consistent. Mr.
Ornstein stated that the elevations were incorrect, and that the
landscape plan could be greatly improved. Discussion ensued regarding
the landscaping around the building Chairman Sabatello suggested
photos be provided to help the Committee envision the natural areas,
and suggested that areas adjacent to the building could be landscaped
after construction ended. Mr. Ornstein commented that the view from
adjacent properties needed to be considered. Mr. Ornstein requested
that existing trees be shown on the plan and that the plans indicate
any trees which would be removed during construction and replaced; and
that photos of existing vegetation and a tree survey be provided.
Mr. Pastore questioned whether a pedestrian walk could be provided
between Costco and the Sports Authority, to which Mr. Cantelou
• responded that would be another cross access agreement which would
need to be approached with Costco. Mr. Ornstein commented that as had
been done in the past, the Petitioner could design a walkway to the
property line and the first time Costco came back for a request from
the City they could be required to match the access on their side.
Mr. Mignogna left the meeting at 9 P.M.
Vice Chair Carlino expressed her opinion that people would not walk
between the two buildings because of the nature of the businesses, and
questioned requiring the petitioner to provide a walkway to provide
cross access that might never be utilized. Chairman Sabatello
suggested that the Costco facility might someday house another type
of business, that requirements for different petitioners should be
consistent, and stated that the design to the property line should
reflect good planning. There was further discussion of how vehicles
would access the site from Northlake Boulevard.
Vice Chair Carlino left the meeting at 9:05 P.M.
Mr. Cantelou commented that Petitioner intended to make a donation in
lieu of providing an artwork to comply with Art in Public Places.
Mr. Glidden commented that he felt strongly that the driveway needed
to connect through unless the County absolutely would not approve it.
After ensuing discussion, the Petitioner agreed to address the issue
with the City Engineer and the County. Mr. Glidden commented that the
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
landscaping in front of the building must be very dense and healthy.
Chairman Sabatello referred to the existing 6 -foot concrete fence, and
questioned the requirements for such fences. The response was that
the fence was required to separate commercial from residential
property, and therefore was not needed at the southwest boundary of
this site since the adjacent land was commercial. Mr. Cantelou
responded to Mr. Ornstein that the site lighting fixtures would be 30
feet tall and that there would be security lights on the west side of
the building. Mr. Glidden commented that he had become convinced that
the County position on the parking lot connection behind the building
was correct.
Chairman Sabatello called for comments regarding the building.
Mr. Glidden discussed line of sight requirements for roof mounted
equipment, which were that the parapet must be as high on all four
sides as the highest piece of equipment. Mr. Glidden advised that a
screen wall was needed around the compacter. Mr. Ornstein objected
to the pink color. Architect Rich Furman pointed out wood stained
areas. Mr. Ornstein objected to the architecture, which he described
as a large box, and suggested that the architecture on the east and
west be changed. Mr. Ornstein objected to the palm trees shown on the
drawing, to which Petitioner's response was those were only
illustrations. Chairman Sabatello advised the Petitioner that any
• landscaping shown on drawings must match the landscaping plan as to
placement, size, etc. Mr. Ornstein suggested overlays to show both
the building and the exact landscaping as it would be installed. Mr.
Furman inquired since landscaping would obscure much of the building,
how that would affect the request to continue barrel tile around the
side of the building and to vary the plane of the building. Mr.
Ornstein objected to hiding a building with landscaping when the
purpose of landscaping was to enhance a building, and commented that
this was the City' s .opportunity to improve the south entrance into the
City.
During further direction to the Petitioner, Architect Furman explained
that the function as a retail building had dictated the focus on the
entrance. Chairman Sabatello assured the Petitioner that they were
not being singled out and nothing was being requested of them that had
not been required of other petitioners, and that architectural
enhancements were needed to the building. Mr. Ornstein requested that
elevations reflect the true color and expressed the opinion that the
sign was too large and therefore was not appropriate for the
understated look desired by the City. Chairman Sabatello suggested
that the front canopy and circulation pattern could be used to help
with architectural enhancements, and requested that directions on
drawings be labeled and referred to as north, south, east, and west
rather than left or right. Chairman Sabatello stated that the
Committee was interested in more creative landscaping and more massing
rather than straight lines of trees. Further discussion of
landscaping ensued. Mr. Ornstein suggested that the sidewalks lead
into the front entrance. When Chairman Sabatello questioned whether
• 7
• Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
anyone had any problems with the proposed landscaping along Northlake
Boulevard and in the parking lot, Mr. Paganini questioned whether a
berm was planned in front, and was told there was not room for a berm.
Discussion ensued regarding landscape requirements in parking lots.
Mr. Cantelou provided photographs of the areas under discussion.
Mr. Cantelou requested further direction in regard to landscaping.
A poll of the Committee resulted in 4 to 1 in agreement that
landscaping be increased around the building perimeter. Mr. Ornstein
requested better landscaping on the east and west perimeters, and Mr.
Paganini requested further work on the hedge line to soften the
effect. Mr. Pastore suggested that the overall site could be
enhanced. Chairman Sabatello requested that the perimeter of the
building on all four sides be enhanced. Mr. Glidden favored more
landscaping in front, but indicated he could not comment on
landscaping at the sides of the building since he believed the
elevations did not accurately reflect that landscaping.
In response to the Petitioner's question regarding further meetings,
Mr. Ellington advised that workshops would continue until this
petition was ready to be presented to the City Council. Chairman
Sabatello commented that the question of when this would go to City
Council could not be answered until at least after the next workshop,
and that at least one additional meeting would be needed at Planning
• & Zoning level, however, in the unlikely event that everything was
satisfied at the next meeting it would be possible to move forward to
City Council.
In summary, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee made the
following comments and requests of the Petitioner:
1. Remove asphalt at southeast corner of site and replace with
grass.
2. At northeast corner of site, reduce parking. island from three
spaces to two and replace with landscaping.
3. Increase the width of green area immediately in front of
building and add mass to landscaping pallet.
4. Tie south parking lot of Northlake Executive Building into
Sports Authority parking lot.
5. Address issue of shopping carts in parking lot.
6. Provide photos of the reserve area.
7. Improve landscaping of entire site, but particularly on the west
side of the building within the area to be disturbed from
construction.
8. The trees in the reserve area need to be identified on the site
plan as remain or remove.
• 9. Identify and design a pedestrian connection and curbcut to
8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
Costco to allow for future connection.
10. Provide light details. Show security lighting on western
elevation. Correct lighting located in the middle of parking
spaces.
11. The building parapet is required to be as tall as the tallest
piece of equipment mounted on the roof -- highest piece of
equipment will define the height of the parapet. Please revise
elevations accordingly.
12. Provide details of a screen wall to go around the compactor.
13. The east and west elevation of the building are long and
uninteresting. Consider redesigning.
14. Landscaping on elevations should be consistent with landscape
plan or provide overlays to represent accurate appearance of
landscape.
15. Elevation plans should be revised to reflect stem walls on the
west and south elevations.
16. Consider reducing size of sign on front elevation.
• 17. Make colors on rendering consistent with those on color chart.
18. Look at FIRM maps for flood plain.
19. Per Assistant City Engineer Lynnette Lanning's memo dated April
23, 1996, provide a cross section of the west side of the
property to offer visual concept of the proposed grade changes.
20. Address concerns of Seacoast Utility Authority in accordance
with their memo.
OLD BUSINESS
Assistant City Attorney Golis reported that he had provided a package
to each member of the Commission containing information from Carlton
Fields, attorneys representing Weyerhauser, as well as a letter from
Mr. Newman, the Westwood, Gardens Homeowners Association
representative. Attorney Golis stated he had sent letters to each,
outlining what was needed in a new letter, however, since there had
been a change in the Board they had requested a meeting. Also, the
condo documents he had requested had not been provided in full.
Attorney Golis stated that he would not attend a meeting, and would
require the new letter and condo documents as previously stated.
Attorney Golis informed the Commission that the Newsrack Ordinance
would go into effect September 7, 1997. Chairman Sabatello inquired
• whether there would be any reason to extend that effective date, to
which Attorney Golis responded that for newsracks on property annexed
E
• Planning & zoning commission Minutes
April 23, 1996
into the City the effective date was three years from the Ordinance
date of September 7, 1995.
Mr. Ornstein referred to an article regarding Exxon which indicated
that food and gas were two completely different markets, and commented
that the Shell station at PGA and Military wanted to expand in order
to get into the food market.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Ellington introduced Bahareh Keshavarz, new City Planner.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further bus' s, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Mr. Glidden, and unan' ous carried, the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 P.M. The next me w ng ill be held May 14, 1996.
APPROVED:
Carl abatello, Chairman
• Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mianoana
J
(Absent)
rhri ctnnhAr .TnnPC