Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 062596• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 25, 1996 MINUTES • El 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 Thomas Pastore Jeff Ornstein, Alternate Christopher Jones Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, Planning & Zoning Director Richard Walton, Principal Planner Bristol Ellington, and Planners Bahareh Keshavarz and Mark Johnson. 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. Minutes of June 11. 1996 - Mr. John Glidden made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Vice Chair Diane Carlino. The motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Public Hearing for Petition C77-9-6- 02 by Bonnie L. Mi skel, agent for Value Rent -A -Car, is requesting a conditional use approval for an existing automobile rental and storage of inventory at Holiday Inn hotel. (1- 42S -42B) Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated June 18, 1996. Bonnie Miskel, attorney on behalf, of the Petitioner, explained that another operator had conducted a rental car business at that location for approximately ten years. • After a short discussion, the following motion was made: Vice Chair Carlin made a motion to recommend Petition CU -96 -02 for approval with the following conditions: 1. The maximum number of rental automobiles to be stored shall not exceed fifteen (15) as designated on the site plan. 2. There will be no washing or waxing of vehicles on site. Mr. Jeffrey Ornstein seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0. Workshop: Pe ti ti on PUD-96- 02, by Anthony R. Ol i ver, agent for John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, Oakbrook Corporate Center Property Owners' Association, Inc., and P.G. Partners is requesting to amend the Oakbrook Center PUD and the Plame Building PUD to seek site plan approval for 228,790 square feet of office, retail, and restaurant space. The two developimento, totaling 13.58 acres, are located at the southwest corner of PGA Boulevard,and U.S. Highway One. (4 -42S -439) 0 2 • Planning & zoning commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Mr. John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated June 20, 1996. The turning radius was clarified at the request of Mr. Ornstein. Mr. Andrew Brock, Developer for the project, commented regarding concerns that had been addressed and improvements which had been made to the plan. Anthony E. Oliver, Agent for the Petitioner, introduced others present on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Oliver provided a handout which included a rendering from PGA Boulevard perspective, a list of positives of the project, and a chart of comparisons between their plan and the approved plan. Mr. Oliver pointed out significant specific changes which had been made in the plan to improve the project, of which the major change was elimination of the bank building on the corner. Mr. Oliver reviewed changes to the corner as a result of this change, which included changes in building heights, increased open space and pedestrian circulation, improved landscaping, • connection between parking and driveways, and traffic changes. Mr. Oliver reviewed exhibits which illustrated positives of the project including scale and size, reduced traffic trips with improved circulation due to fewer retail operations, three driveways on Ellison Wilson Road to facilitate entry and exit of the site, a reasonable distance between the 11 -story building and the office building, reduced lot coverage, slightly larger open space area, and reduced size of parking garage. Mr. Oliver discussed the 22 items raised by the City Engineer, explained that 14 had been satisfied, and of the remaining eight the Petitioner had agreed to satisfy seven. The one item in question was Item #3 which was the Petitioner's request for a second curb cut with right turn in only. Mr. Oliver explained that the Petitioner could not comply with two items on the staff report, number 6 and number 15. Mr. Oliver explained that there was insufficient stacking room to accomplish number six, which requested an entry as well as exit on Ellison Wilson Road. Mr. Oliver requested that the Petitioner's traffic engineer meet with the City Engineer to resolve traffic problems. Mr. Ornstein suggested a radius curve or raised median to satisfy item six. Discussion ensued regarding other possible options. Mr. Oliver suggested that the traffic engineers come up with the best way to handle the situation. The Petitioner explained that the portions of roadway for which they were responsible 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes • June 25, 1996 were two lanes, and that an additional two lanes would be added by Target. Mr. Ornstein questioned what would happen if Target was not built, to which the developer responded that an agreement was being worked out with Mr. DiVosta. Chairman Sabatello clarified that questions the City Engineer must answer were who determines the change in the median at Route One and when would it be constructed; who determines when the extension of the two lanes from their entry past DiVosta would be done; and questioned the time extension on the Divosta property. Mr. Walton explained that the City would have to be a party in any agreement in order to assure the proper future roadway configurations. The developer explained that even if DOT closed the median in the future, since the site plan would meet all requirements for traffic, zoning, and Code, the tri -party agreement was an added bonus option to'allow flexibility for northbound U.S. One traffic to enter into the development. Chairman Sabatello verified that what the Petitioner was saying was that buildout of this project did not need the eastbound connection to PGA Boulevard, only the two - lane connection to Ellison Wilson, and even if DOT shut off their entrance off U.S. One by closing the median, they still did not need that roadway. Chairman Sabatello stated this must be very clear in • the traffic reports. Mr. Oliver addressed item 15, and explained that existing wall - mounted building signage could not be changed because of existing tenant leases. Mr. Oliver commented regarding the parking in the rear of the buildings and explained that additional landscaping would be added along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Oliver clarified that staff report items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 16 had been done; that the Petitioner would agree to items 10 and 14; that a legal issue existed on item 17 but it would be done; and that a waiver would be requested for item 13. A waiver would also be requested for directional ground signage; however, the Petitioner agreed to reduce the size of signs. Mr. Oliver explained that the right -turn entrance proposed in Item 5 would enhance the project. Mr. Oliver commented that items 2, 6 and 13 referred to differences in design concepts. Mr. Walton commented regarding item 1 that inconsistencies existed in the plan regarding open space, to which Mr. Oliver responded that the amount of open space had been increased and the plan would be corrected. Mr. Walton commented that circulation of inner and external pedestrian traffic was piecemeal and should be tied together, to which Mr. Oliver responded there were one or two areas in which he would like to add sidewalks. Mr. Oliver stated the Petitioner was trying to do what was right for this project. 0 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Henry Skokowski reviewed an exhibit depicting open space between the two 2 -story buildings, possible addition of a fountain in the rotary area, a trellised area containing benches, and a specimen tree with nearby benches, all linked by pedestrian interconnective walkways. Mr. Skokowski discussed the specimen tree and explained that City Forester Hendrickson had suggested that an existing Banyan tree and a Sausage tree be moved, which would be very expensive and the trees would have to be extensively trimmed. Mr. Skokowski suggested that a much nicer tree could be installed for a much lower cost, Mr. Skokowski indicated that the existing trees could be saved at their present location. Mr. Skokowski discussed monument and gateway signage and explained that Mr. Brock had indicated he had no objection conceptually to incorporating gateway signage and identification for the City. Mr. Skokowski suggested that if the Commission felt comfortable with the idea of open space and a consistent design from a continuity standpoint of a gateway feature that the City Council should approve that detail design. Signage was discussed further, with direction requested for gateway signage. City Manager Herakovich explained that gateway signage was expected to vary in size from location to location and design criteria would be selected from by the • Art in Public Places Committee from concepts which had been submitted, and the Planning and Zoning Commission could attend their meeting to provide input. The necessity for flexibility was discussed. The City Manager requested that the applicant incorporate the chosen design criteria into their signage. Expanded landscaping on either side of a meandering sidewalk in and out of the right -of -way along PGA Boulevard was proposed by Mr. Skokowski. Chairman Sabatello expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the Petitioner to meet the Commission's recommendations made at the last meeting. Mr. Mignogna questioned whether landscaping along U.S. One would mimic that of PGA Boulevard, to which Mr. Oliver's response was that 90* of the U.S. One landscaping was already existing, and requested that 90W be allowed to remain and new landscaping only be installed at the corner element. Mr. Mignogna and Mr. Ornstein questioned why the parking garage could not have a 40 -foot setback. Mr. Oliver responded that the garage would have to be shortened and the height and slopes of the ramps would not work, and the traffic circulation outside the garage would change. Mr. Oliver suggested adding more trees rather than moving the parking garage. Mr. Ornstein expressed concern that the internal circulation did not work properly, and that the turn around was too small and in the wrong location, which caused numerous conflicts. Mr. Ornstein suggested doubling the 0 5 r • • Planning & zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 size of the rotary and moving it 50 feet to the north, opening obelisk area more, and bringing the green area to the corner. suggestion was made to reduce parking to increase green space. Ornstein stated that he could not support the right turn in off of Boulevard, that signage should reflect Code, that he would like City Forester's comments on the landscaping on the other side of sidewalk, that the trees should either be preserved or relocated, that he could not support the project without unity of title. the A Mr. PGA the the and Mr. Oliver reviewed phasing for the project at the request of Mr. Ornstein, as follows: First phase - Installation of feature element on the corner, perimeter landscaping along PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road, signage, entry elements, common road to and including the rotary, road off Ellison Wilson Road, and additional parking for Building A. P h ase tw o - 2 - story bu ilding an d al 1 im provement s within that parcel. Phase three - another building with its improvements, and extra parking on the south side of Ellison Wilson Road. Phase 4 - Office building and all elements on that site, including the garage. vice Chair Carlin expressed no concerns. Mr. Oliver responded to Mr. Paganini's request to review the arguments in favor of a right turn lane by explaining that traffic going north would have to cross over lanes and the entrance lane provided another way for cars to access, and to avoid the turn light and thereby avoid congestion. Mr. Walton commented that PGA Design Guidelines favored elimination of curb cuts and designing all projects to have unified access internally. Mr. Walton explained that the City Engineer's conversation with DOT had concluded that this curb cut did not meet DOT standards but they would make an exception to allow a curb cut for the corner parcel. Despina Veiolleux, Consultant with Kimley -Horn Associates, explained that the benefit would be additional access to Building "B ", however, Chairman Sabatello's suggestion of two right turn lanes was worthy of consideration. Mr. Oliver explained that the Petitioner believed DOT had approved the right turn lane and that it would improve site circulation; however, if it were very important to the City that it be deleted, the Petitioner would do so. Mr. Brock commented that studies indicated that the right turn in only provided a totally safe transition as to ease of access into the property. Mr. Paganini questioned whether extension of landscape to the corner would be possible if the right turn were deleted, to which Mr. Oliver responded that an effort had been made for the two buildings to embrace more landscaping, and that a more substantial amount of landscaping had been added since the last plan, and the two parking areas had been linked as a result of comments from the Commission. C. Planning & zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Mr. Oliver responded to Mr. Pastore that there would be no bank with a drive -up facility, and that at present there were no negotiations in progress with any bank. Mr. Pastore questioned paving provided along Ellison Wilson, to which the response was that paving was the minimum plan which would be completed during Phase one, and the Target project would provide ultimate buildout of the roadway. Mr. Walton commented that Ellison Wilson Road was a County Road and the County's plan had been approved, and that the City Engineer had requested a copy of that plan. Mr. Oliver verified that the parking garage would be constructed of poured concrete. Mr. Pastore indicated he could support the proposed size change for signage, but requested the setback meet Code. Discussion ensued during which Chairman Sabatello suggested that the various signs and their setbacks be identified so that it could be determined whether this was a problem. An opinion was expressed that the Petitioner was basically subdividing this project into three parcels. The petitioner's response was that the purpose of the PUD was to tie the parcels into one project, and that the petitioner was requesting an amendment to the PUD which would allow parcels to be sold and individual lots to be sold. Larry Smith is commented that a unity of control was as good as a unity of title for the City's protection that the project would be developed as approved; and also commented that the PUD unified developments; however, the new Code required subdivision which would contain protection for the City, and the applicant proposed to use the current restrictions on the property as a blueprint and to amend it to the new plan. Mr. Smith clarified that no unity of title existed at the current time, however, a unity of development did exist, for which the protection was the unity of control and the declaration. Assistant City Attorney Golis advised that it was his understanding that when a time extension had been requested on this parcel that the City Council had approved a unity of control. Further discussion ensued regarding unity of control. The future closing by DOT of the directional median on U.S. One was discussed, and possible triggers for the closing. Ms. Veiolleux verified that the east /west boulevard was tied into the Target project, that the northern two lanes were not necessary for this project, and that the painted median on Ellison Wilson would be replaced with a raised median at ultimate buildout. Mr. Ornstein suggested opening the open space between Building "B" • 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 and Building "D" on the front, which would allow people working in those buildings working in the project to walk through the project to the corner to Oakbrook. Chairman Sabatello polled the Commission regarding the waiver for a 20 -foot setback on the parking garage, to which no one expressed opposition, however, Mr. Ornstein requested additional landscaping buffer. There were no objections expressed to reducing 10 -foot parking stalls to 9 -foot stalls within the parking garage. No objections were expressed regarding increasing the quantity of ground signs from four to seven except that one Commission member recommended compliance with the setbacks if the number were increased in excess of code requirements. Chairman Sabatello commented that a possible setback waiver would be discussed when the location of each sign was known. Three Commission members opposed the turn lane to the east coming off PGA Boulevard into the project. Mr. Sabatello requested that the Petitioner discuss the turn lane once more • with the City Engineer. During discussion of the rotary,. Mr. Oliver commented that shifting the rotary to the north as Mr. Ornstein had suggested had been considered, and it was believed that the proposed configuration worked best for the site. Ms. Veiolleux explained that Joe Pollock's studies indicated that this configuration was the best. The applicant verified that there was a raised curb next to the sidewalk. Mr. Oliver also verified that the reason for the Petitioner's request to retain the existing landscaping on U.S. One and not on PGA Boulevard was that the reason for additional landscaping on PGA Boulevard was because of the PGA Overlay. A poll of the Commission members indicated that only Mr. Ornstein favored relocation of the Banyan and Sausage trees. Mr. Oliver explained that the objection to continuing landscaping to Brock Boulevard during Phase one was that the landscaping would be torn up to construct the office building. Discussion ensued regarding whether the existing landscaping would match the Phase one landscaping along Ellison Wilson Road. Mr. Brock explained that it would be blend but not match prior to ultimate buildout in the year 2006. Chairman Sabatello expressed concern that the landscaping would not match if Phase four was not developed, however that concern was not held by the other members of the Commission. -Chairman Sabatello questioned the reasoning behind placing the open space behind the buildings instead of locating both the parking and open space along PGA Boulevard. • 8 • Planning & zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Discussion ensued during which the Petitioner responded that the proposed location provided exposure for the buildings along PGA Boulevard as well as better internal circulation, and pointed out that the meandering sidewalk would be bermed which would provide dimension. Only two members of the Commission disagreed. Chairman Sabatello commented that the corner element at PGA and U.S. One had been increased in size, however, not substantially, and recommended fewer parking spaces and increased green space. Mr. Oliver agreed with a marginal increase. Chairman Sabatello requested one simple drawing with only the pedestrian walkways colored in to clarify the walkways. The applicant expressed understanding of where the Commission stood on all issues and that there were a few outstanding technical issues yet to be decided. Planning and Zoning Director Walton requested that the Petitioner provide written clarification of discussions regarding traffic issues so that the City could assign appropriate personnel to look at those issues. Chairman Sabatello stated that Brock Boulevard must be removed, and that the City Council would want to be very specific on what would trigger that boulevard, and what improvements must be made by this project regarding the connection into that boulevard. Mr. Oliver suggested that the • Petitioner provide a step -by -step process based on the letter from Kimley -Horn which must be approved or disapproved as a condition of approval. Chairman Sabatello stressed that the tri -party agreement discussed earlier must be finalized. Mr. Ornstein suggested that the points raised in the City Engineer's letter and staff report be placed on the plan so that they would no longer need to be listed in a letter. During ensuing discussion, Chairman Sabatello commented that there were three main issues - -the turn lane, the traffic circulation, and triggering of the improvements for the boulevard. Discussion ensued regarding moving forward, during which Mr. Brock requested that the project be moved to public hearing and that another workshop not be scheduled, since that would mean another month delay. Chairman Sabatello advised that there were technical issues which must be documented before the next step could be taken, and that every effort would be made to move this project as quickly as possible, just as all projects were moved forward as quickly as possible. Larry Smith advised that a public hearing could not be held in two weeks because of publication requirements, but there would be an opportunity for a workshop, and suggested that the matter be left to staff discretion so that if the required information came to them in time they could advertise for public hearing in a month. Mr. Ornstein objected that would place too much of a burden on staff. Mr. Walton explained there would not be time to get comments back and to write a report in two 0 9 • Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 weeks. Chairman Sabatello stated that no one understood the staff problems, and recommended writing a letter to the City Council explaining that more Planning and Zoning staff personnel were needed. Chairman Sabatello stated that petitions were being processed as fast as possible and could not be processed any faster because there were not enough people to work on them; and regulatory processes were becoming more lengthy and required more people to review them. Mr. Oliver clarified his understanding of the process. Chairman Sabatello cautioned that this was not a simple project, that staff must receive all of the proper approvals required from others before they could proceed, and that they could not assume what the Petitioner submitted to them at the last minute would be accepted by everyone else. Mr. Oliver commented that the Petitioner would deal with immediately with the three main issues. Discussion ensued regarding clarification to the Petitioner regarding moving forward. Chairman Sabatello thanked the Petitioner for their work to this point. After the Petitioner had retired, Chairman Sabatello commented that the Commission made every effort to assure that everything was done right during the process, and that developments came into existence • within the City; and expressed frustration that there were not proper personnel to make sure that developments were built properly and all the approved conditions were followed. Chairman Sabatello stated that the staff was growing but not necessarily growing where it should, and commented that working conditions and volume of work expected to be accomplished created excessive demands, and that people were needed to develop the City to the high quality expected. City Council Liaison David Clark commented that he would pass the Chairman's comment along to the City Council. There was no old business to come before the Commission. There was no new business to come before the Commission. • 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 o There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino, seconded by Mr. Ornstein, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. The next meeting will be held July 9, 1996. APPROVED: Carl Sabatello, Chairman Diane Carlino, Vice Chair w �Am J h Glidden • William Mignogna IW -,). Pd Thomas P ore 12 Torn' Paganini (Absent) Christopher Jones eff jOrnste`U, Alternate Melissa Prindivill6, Secretary • 11 IJ COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS I.A% NAME —FIRST NAME—MID01 E NAME NAME Of BOARU: COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE. JC+1 IV la .ANC: ADDRESS cot I N F UAl E ON WHIC11 Vol t (X'('URREU THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT' OF: ('11 V) COUNTY OTHER IOCAt AGENCY NAML UI• PUL ITICAL. SUBDIVISION: MY PUSI1,10N IS: . ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council. commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presentee with a voting conflict of interest udder Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; althougF the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please. pay close attention to the instructions on this forn- before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: • person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure: to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, 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 or 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 recording 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 whici inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the 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 muse disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICI- 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. Wcopy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest Ih1t \I rB 111.11A PA*i ` IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict 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 minute- or the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. l^ n DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S "INTEREST ( � hereby disclose that on UK)b 11� (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or �nured to the special gain of � C) LI V � KA ( 0 U91 r`ti-�� p �by m I am retained (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: �,- ?U P t) Fn C�F y2 ,aa� ^'T u s el-`A- X LW (C,�140ftolc- S/ORC I �j c� 0 Ayt6Ahp�r� c4ee- dti� 2� Date Filed Si nat e NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE •DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5.000. E FORM as • 10.0 P, j