Loading...
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