HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 072396CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 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 Melissa Prindiville:
Present Absent
Carl Sabatello, Chair John Glidden
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair William Mignogna
Christopher Jones Thomas Pastore
Tom Paganini
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
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.
• Chairman Sabatello announced that new Alternate John F. Nedvins would
attend the next meeting.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
Planning and Zoning Director announced that Principal Planner Bristol
Ellington would be leaving and invited the Planning and Zoning
Commission members to stay after the meeting for cake.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison David Clark announced the appointment of
Alternate John F. Nedvins.
Minutes of July 9, 1996 - Vice Chair Diane Carlino made a motion to
approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Christopher Jones. The motion therefore carried by unanimous 5 -0
vote.
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Public Hearing: Petition PUD- 96 -02, by Anthony E. Oliver, agent for
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, Oakbrook Cor,porate Center Property
Owners' Association, Inc., and P.G. Partners is requesting to amend
the Oakbrook Center Planned Unit Development and the Flame Building
• Planned Unit Development to seek site plan approval for 228,790 square
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
feet of office, retail, and restaurant space. The two developments,
totaling 13.58 acres, are located at the southwest corner of PGA
Boulevard and U.S. Highway One. (4- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington explained procedure relating to
public hearings and reviewed the staff report dated July 18, 1996.
Chairman Sabatello commented that he did not understand what would
happen to Ellison Wilson Road via the tri -party agreement.
Planning and Zoning Director Walton commented that the time for the
original project had expired and an application had been made
requesting vested rights for that property, which would be acted upon
by the City Council. Mr. Walton reported also that this process would
be changed with amendments to the Code.
Ed Oliver, agent for the petitioner, introduced those present on
behalf of the petitioner: Andrew Brock, Henry Skokowski, Joe Pollock,
and Larry Smith. Mr. Oliver discussed improvements to the project by
making a brief comparison between the current plan and the previous
plan. Mr. Oliver then referred to pages 3, 4 and 5 of the staff
report which listed the petitioner's responses to the Planning and
Zoning Commission's discussion at the last meeting. Mr. Oliver
explained that the Target Road roadway was being provided voluntarily
by the petitioner so that when in the future the median was closed by
the DOT there would be an alternative route, and also would give the
• petitioner the ability to proceed without Target. Mr. Oliver
explained that the traffic configuration worked without the two lanes
to the south, which in the future would be controlled by DOT. Joe
Pollock, Kimley -Horn Associates, responded to Mr. Ornstein's question
that if DOT closed the median tomorrow the petitioner could construct
the median modification and the north half of the roadway to provide
access which would be lost, but were not initially required to do
that. Mr. Pollock clarified that if the median cut were closed the
petitioner needed to put in the northern two lanes of the east -west
corridor referenced as Target Road, and that the developer was not
required but would want to install the roadway. Mr. Pollock clarified
that this east -west corridor had not been included in his traffic
calculations. Mr. Pollock explained that a letter dated July 22,
1996, had been received from DOT which stated that the property served
by the existing driveway to U.S. One would be required to obtain a new
permit for that driveway upon either a 25% increase in traffic in the
driveway or an increase of 100 vehicles per day, at which time DOT
could force them to close the median cut. Mr. Ornstein questioned how
DOT would know when another building was constructed on the site, to
which Mr. Pollock responded that a traffic study and an application
would be required. Mr. Ornstein suggested that a condition require
installation of the road with the first building permit. Discussion
ensued during which Mr. Ornstein requested that Mr. Pollock supply the
City with separate traffic studies for building C and building D at
the next meeting. Andrew Brock commented that the median opening
would close if the traffic in this area increased 25 %, and expressed
confusion regarding why the City wanted installation of Target Road
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
to be a condition of the project, since it had not been used in the
traffic report, and was not a requirement for the project to move
forward. Discussion ensued regarding access points in the traffic
study. Chairman Sabatello expressed concern that this project might
be approved knowing there could be a traffic condition with which the
Commission had not dealt. After further discussion, Chairman
Sabatello asked whether if the median cut was closed by DOT would the
proposed east -west Target Roadway be required to be installed. Mr.
Pollock replied, no. Mr. Jones expressed the opinion that the roadway
was being installed as an additional alternative and clarified through
Mr. Pollock that the project could still function without the east -
west road. Mr. Pollock verified that election by the applicant to
install that east -west road had nothing to do with traffic reports
upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission would base their
decision. Access into the project from PGA Boulevard was discussed.
Mr. Ornstein questioned if all traffic went around to Ellison Wilson
Road whether that traffic would affect Ellison Wilson. Chairman
Sabatello commented that he wanted to assure that everyone was
comfortable that the closing of the median did not trigger any Target
east -west roadway; that DOT (not the applicant) controlled the median
closing; and that after either an increase of 100 trips or 25%
increase in traffic re- permitting would be required which would be at
the discretion of DOT. The petitioner was going to take the south
exit and voluntarily install the northern two lanes in the same phase
as the office construction, and those two lanes had nothing to do with
• the traffic counts or the traffic report. Mr. Pollock reported the
only thing in the traffic report relative to that road was that there
be a connection in place to provide a driveway connection for the
southern end of the project. Planning and Zoning Direction Walton
pointed out that the City Engineer had recommended condition 12: The
north one -half of the proposed interconnecting road along the south
boundary and the south entrance shall be completely constructed prior
to the closing of the existing median cut in U.S. Highway One serving
the existing building. Mr. Oliver stated the petitioner agreed with
the condition. Mr. Ornstein commented that according to the condition
then if the median cut were closed the next day then the Target Road
would be constructed. Mr. Brock stated that by agreeing, the
petitioner wanted to build that road, but it was not required. When
questioned by Chairman Sabatello whether the petitioner agreed with
condition 12, Mr. Brock explained the petitioner could not agree
regarding property they did not own, and therefore it should not be
a requirement. Mr. Brock stated that when they executed the tri -party
agreement they would agree at that time that when the median was
closed, to build the northern two lanes just as that tri -party
agreement stated. Mr. Ellington commented that staff was recommending
that the tri -party agreement be executed prior to City Council
approval of the project. Chairman Sabatello referred to the fourth
bulleted item on page 4 of the staff report and questioned whether the
applicant agreed to that item. Mr. Brock explained that the applicant
felt it was unjust to require such a condition since the road was not
a part of their site plan approval and nothing required the petitioner
to have that road, and the median cut was to be closed by DOT in their
• 3
Planning a Zoning commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
5 or 10 -year plan, whether or not this project was built. Chairman
Sabatello questioned whether the petitioner could agree to condition
12 if it were amended to say after the tri -party agreement is
executed, to which Mr. Brock responded that was correct. John Preston
commented that Mr. DiVosta owned that property and when he came in for
development of that property he would have the opportunity at that
time to make that decision regarding his property. Mr. Ornstein
objected that could be twenty years away, to which the petitioner
again expressed the position they did not own the property therefore
could not agree. Chairman Sabatello commented that the City Engineer
was recommending the condition. Larry Smith commented that the
petitioner could not agree to condition 12 as written - -that they could
not agree to a tri -party agreement that they did not yet have - -and Mr.
Smith felt it was neither fair nor legal for the City to require
something which was really not within the control of the petitioner.
Mr. Smith commented that he understood that if the north bound left
turn in off of U.S. One got closed that this project would work with
or without the Target Road. Chairman Sabatello agreed. Mr. Smith
concluded that the subject being discussed then made no difference,
if it made no difference whether the median cut were closed or open,
as far as this project was concerned. Mr. Smith commented that the
only portion of the Target Road was the western portion that this
petitioner agreed to in connection with the tower. Chairman Sabatello
stated that was absolutely correct; that the Commission understood
that the project worked without the Target east -west road, however,
• the problem was that the City Engineer was requesting that the tri-
party agreement be executed prior to City Council approval. Chairman
Sabatello commented that the Commission had never, since he had been
a member, overstepped any of the City's experts. Mr. Smith stated
that the petitioner could not agree to that since it was out of their
control, and could not be put into a position legally to be required
to abide by something not within their control. Mr. Smith explained
that the petitioner might never be able to come to terms with Mr.
DiVosta and his Target property via the tri -party agreement; that he
understood this road would be done but was not required from a traffic
standpoint for this project. Mr. Ornstein commented that only the
north two lanes were affected, so only the petitioner and Mr. DiVosta
would need to be involved in an agreement and Target would not need
to be a party to the agreement. Mr. Ornstein also explained that the
traffic study provided to the City showed the median cut, and the City
did not have a traffic study with the median cut closed. Mr. Smith
commented that Mr. Pollock could respond, although everyone had been
present when he had explained the situation earlier; and again
expressed the opinion that the Commission could not place the
petitioner in the position of having to have an agreement with Mr.
DiVosta. Mr. Ornstein speculated that if a traffic study showed this
project would not work with the median cut closed, then the project
would not move forward. Chairman Sabatello stated that Mr. Pollock
had been very clear and specific that the project did work without the
median cut, and the project did not need the east -west Target Road.
Mr. Pollock stated that was correct. Chairman Sabatello commented
that the Commission did not know why the City Engineer wanted the tri-
. 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
party agreement executed prior to City Council approval. Mr. Oliver
referred to page 2, item 5 of the City Engineer's letter, and pointed
out that the City Engineer had based his recommendation for a
condition of approval on Joe Pollock' s comments in a July 3, 1996 memo
to Ed Oliver. Mr. Brock explained that the applicant would be happy
to agree to condition 12 if it were amended to state after the tri-
party agreement is signed by the arties. Assistant City Attorney
Golis disagreed with the petitioners position that the City could not
require such a condition. Mr. Ellington explained that the concern
had been raised during discussions with Assistant City Engineer
Lynette Lanning that the petitioner was not providing a mechanism to
trigger installation of the road. Mr. Brock responded that he would
agree if DOT had issued a firm letter stating the exact terms of the
closing of the median, however, that was not the issue; and the
proposed private road had not been included in their traffic report.
Discussion ensued, after which Attorney Golis clarified that it was
his opinion that the City could require a condition for execution of
the tri -party agreement before the applicant could proceed. Chairman
Sabatello requested that the following three outstanding issues be
noted:
1. Staff position that the traffic report was not specific,
while Mr. Pollock believed that it was.
2. The City Engineer wanted the tri -party agreement to be
• executed prior to City Council approval.
3. The Assistant City Attorney wanted the tri -party agreement
to be executed prior to Planning and Zoning Commission
approval.
Larry Smith explained that the petitioner could not agree to execution
of the tri -party agreement prior to moving on, since the petitioner
did not have control over the other property owners.
Ellison Wilson Road improvements were discussed by Mr. Pollock, who
explained the improvements shown on the drawing and stated in
condition 11. Mr. Oliver stated that the petitioner would like
condition 11 to specifically state that Palm Beach County shall have
issued a permit approval of the Ellison Wilson Road improvements prior
to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy on buildings D,
E, or F; and the reason for that was that to move forward common
roadways must be constructed, which was technically a building permit.
Mr. Oliver also suggested that condition 11 continue by inserting:
Is required for City Centre immediately following Proposed
improvements for Ellison Wilson Road, and stated that the petitioner
agreed with the rest of the condition. This would allow the
petitioner to build the infrastructure and before the first building
was built the improvements would be done. During discussion, Mr.
Walton clarified in condition 11 the City Engineer was requiring a
permit for Ellison Wilson Road improvements prior to the building
permit, while the applicant was requesting that it be prior to their
0 5
Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
certificate of occupancy. Chairman Sabatello commented that the
biggest clarification should be the building permit for the first
building, with which the petitioner expressed agreement. It was
clarified that if Target went in first, they would construct the
improvements as designed by the County. Discussion regarding the left
turn lane ensued, during which Chairman Sabatello asked for
clarification from the City Engineer referencing the drawing, since
the left turn lane might be considered unsafe.
Larry Smith commented on the PGA Boulevard widening, and suggested
that the comprehensive plan should not contain conditions for
projects; therefore, the comprehensive plan should not be amended.
Also, according to the traffic report, this project did not require
6 lanes on PGA Boulevard. Chairman Sabatello commented on his
understanding that if this were in the comprehensive plan that the
plan would need to be amended to change it back. Assistant City
Attorney Golis disagreed with Mr. Smith and commented that the
comprehensive plan did contain conditions for projects and the options
were to amend the comprehensive plan or to comply with the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Smith agreed with Chairman Sabatello that
this issue should be decided outside this meeting, but pointed out
that the petitioner did not want to be delayed in the approval
process. Chairman Sabatello commented that a way needed to be found
not to ignore the comprehensive plan. Mr. Smith agreed and stated he
would discuss this matter with Attorney Golis.
• Mr. Pollock explained that the petitioner would comply with condition
10 to provide a revised traffic analysis including additional traffic
from the Regional Center, and that requirements for more than four
lanes would not be exceeded by construction of this project, the
Regional Center, Target, and other growth in the area. Mr. Oliver
expressed agreement with condition 10 as stated.
Chairman Sabatello stated that condition 16 was still in question and
would be discussed by the attorneys for the petitioner and the City.
Interior circulation was discussed and Mr. Oliver read a comment from
the City Engineer expressing the opinion that the rotary turning
radius questioned by Mr. Ornstein at a prior meeting was safe. Mr.
Ornstein expressed concern that there was no pedestrian circulation
going to the Target Road, no access from the PGA Boulevard sidewalk
into the project, and expressed dissatisfaction with the uninviting
entrance and that the diagonal pedestrian walkway focus stopped at
loading spaces and a dumpster and provided no interaction with other
areas. Mr. Oliver explained that the petitioner believed this was a
better plan than the prior plan, since it provided people spaces in
the middle of the project. Mr. Oliver stated that pedestrian access
had been provided to Target and pointed out connecting walkways within
the interior. Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Jones expressed concern that there
were no walkways off PGA Boulevard.
Mr. Oliver stated agreement with condition one. Mr. Oliver disagreed
• 6
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
. July 23, 1996
with condition two because of difficulty with planter box maintenance,
and stated that the petitioner would provide more trees.
Chairman Sabatello commented that in the past the Commission had been
fortunate in having models to help visualize the full perspective and
massing, and that it was difficult to determine from renderings how
much of the parking garage would be seen. Mr. Ornstein requested a
drawing from the perspective of Ellison Wilson Road. Henry
Skokowski clarified that from PGA Boulevard trees would be massed
continuously. After discussion, the petitioner was requested to
provide a clearer drawing of the building with an overlay to show
trees, which would also clarify the issue regarding planter boxes.
Mr. Oliver stated agreement with condition #3, and requested editing
language for condition #4 to delete in compliance with the City's Sign
Code and adding: in requesting a variance for the quantity of ground
signs in accordance with the graphics package presented. Chairman
Sabatello expressed disagreement with City signage approvals which
bypassed this Commission and was handled only at City Council level.
Mr. Oliver explained that Building Official Hanson had reviewed the
request and it would come back to the Commission. Mr. Skokowski
clarified that all signage design had been completed and only certain
signage locations had not been noted, and described the signage. Mr.
Ellington noted there was an additional waiver request for a side
setback. Mr. Ornstein commented that all exhibits must be updated and
. coordinated before any approvals would be granted. Another waiver was
requested for the location of the wall- mounted sign on the parapet of
the 11 -story office building. Discussion ensued regarding the
signage.
Mr. Oliver commented that condition 8 had been previously submitted,
that the petitioner understood condition 9, that condition 10 had been
previously agreed to, that 11 and 12 had been previously discussed,
and that 13, 14 and 15 were agreed to as written. Mr. Oliver
commented regarding confusion on condition 16, and stated that the
petitioner was aware that a waiver request for the parking garage
setback from Ellison Wilson Road and the signage waivers just
discussed were needed. Larry Smith suggested the following language
to be added at the end of conditions 12: subject to full execution of
a tri -party agreement mutually acceptable to all parties to the tri-
party agreement, and Petitioner shall use his best efforts to pursue
full execution of that agreement. Chairman Sabatello commented that
discussion between Mr. Smith and the City Attorney must be held
regarding condition 12. Mr. Smith questioned whether conditions 12
and 16 could be modified at this meeting so that this petition could
be moved along. It was the consensus of the Commission that the
members did not feel comfortable in moving this petition forward.
Mr. Oliver expressed the opinion that this project would be an asset
to the City. Chairman Sabatello thanked the petitioner for their
cooperation, and discussed and clarified the items which would be
needed for the next meeting, some of which were: review of the
• 7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1996
sidewalk plan design, a clean signage package, elevations and
landscaping for the parking garage, as well as all of the small items
which had been discussed.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to postpone this Public Hearing to Tuesday,
August 27, 1996. After discussion, Mr. Smith requested postponement
to August 13, which would require that all submittals be made by
Friday, July 26. Chairman Sabatello emphasized that because of lack
of staff, if submittals were not all made on that date that there
would not be sufficient time for staff review. Mr. Ornstein revised
his motion to postpone this Public Hearing to Tuesday, August 13,
1996, with the understanding that it might not happen. vice Chair
Carlino seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
OLD BIISINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BIISINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
C:
Planning 6 Soning Commission Minutes
July 23, 1996
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Vice Chair Carlino, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 P.M. CThh--n �xt meeting will be held August 13,
1996.
APPROVED:
Carl Sabatello, Cha
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
(Absent)
John Glidden
(Absent)
William Mignogna
Christopher Jones
10 9
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• July 23, 1996
•
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Vice Chair Carlino, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 P.M. The t meeting will be held August 13,
1996.
APPROVED:
I
r
Carl/Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
(Absent)
John Glidden
(Absent)
William Mignogna
Thomas
Tom
Chr
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
Melissa Prindiville, Secretary
• 9