HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 081396CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 13, 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 Diane Carlino
William Mignogna John Glidden
Tom Paganini Chris Jones
Thomas Pastore
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
John Nedvins, Alternate
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark,
City Manager Bobbie Herakovich, City Attorney Tom Baird, Planning &
Zoning Director Richard Walton, and Planners Bahareh Keshavarz and
Mark Johnson.
• Chairman Sabatello welcomed new Alternate John F. Nedvins.
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 David Clark.
Minutes of July 23, 1996 - Mr. Ornstein made a motion to approve the
minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paganini. Three
members of the Commission, Mr. Pastore, Mr. Mignogna, and Mr. Nedvins,
abstained since they had not been present at the July 23, 1966
meeting. The motion therefore carried by 3 -0 vote.
•
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMKITTEE
Workshop Mee tang: Petition SP-96-0 , by Howard F. Ostrout, agent for
PGA National Ventures, LTD., requesting site plan approval for the
construction of 48 multi - family townhouses on 4 acres on Parcel M -3
within PGA National Planned Community District (PCD) . (10 -42S -42S)
Planning and Zoning Director Walton reviewed the staff report dated
August 1, 1996.
Attorney Steve Mathison, representing the Channing Companies,
introduced others present on behalf of the petitioner, who were Joel
Channing, Howard Ostrout, and Tim Messler, and the Project Architect,
Mitch Kunik. Mr. Mathison explained that the project was designed to
resemble a European village, with pavers, cobblestone streets, arched
entryways, barrel tile roofs, and great attention to architectural
detail. The petitioner had worked with staff to assure compliance
with codes and the only remaining issues were relating to setbacks and
to the provision of adequate backout access for cars within the
. overall project. Mr. Mathison explained that although the City
Engineer must compare the project to the Single Family Subdivision
Regulations, it was not intended to be a single family subdivision;
and that other projects such as Gardens East Apartments and Garden
Lakes had functioned very well not meeting those requirements, as they
too had not been intended as single family subdivisions. Because this
project was unique and a part of a PCD, Mr. Mathison stated that the
Committee had flexibility within the Code to waive the strict single
family subdivision requirements, and requested that they do so as long
as their questions and concerns and those of the City Engineer were
met and so long as they were satisfied with the plan.
Howard F. Ostrout, Landscape Architect and Land Planner for the
project, provided an overall view of the proposed community. An
arched, covered gate entrance would provide the feeling of entering
into a small enclosed village and pavers would be used in front of all
of the units to create a courtyard. The focal point inside the
community was a fountain piazza, seen from both the entrance and from
the units. A larger seating and sculpture piazza would be located
farther into the community. In order to create different spaces for
each area in the community, angled rather than straight alignments of
the layout for the 2 -story townhouse units were proposed. The major
planting would be Royal palm trees to provide an elegant, regal
0 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
feeling and also to help relate to the massive buildings within the
drives and courtyard areas. A common community area would provide
space for a small maintenance building. The site was located at the
entrance to the PGA National corporate center and surrounded by
amenities, with a golf course to the south, and the croquet facility
to the west. Mr. Ostrout described the proposed landscaping, which
would provide color throughout the community. Substantial landscaping
had been provided at the rear of the buildings as well as in front
because of the massiveness of the buildings. Patios would be
separated by a hedge, trees, and other plantings to provide privacy
for each unit. Another special feature was a proposed seating area.
The major issue which had been raised related to parking. A common
20 -foot drive had been created throughout the community, with two feet
on either side for curbing, so that in most areas the drive was more
than 20 feet wide. The parking requirement of 18 feet had been met.
Mr. Ostrout explained that open space concerns had been addressed and
had been increased to approximately 37% of the site. Proposed parking
for each unit was accommodated by a two -car garage and one and two -car
aprons totaling 172 parking spaces. Units without sufficient parking
room to meet requirements for three bedrooms would remain as two -
bedroom units.
• Project Architect Mitch Kunik described the layout of the 2 -story
1,750 square -foot units with attached 2 -car garages. Mr. Kunick
described the proposed architectural elements and explained that the
intent was to frame the outer courtyard, to keep continuity of scale,
and to retain the feel of a village. Colors proposed for the units
were described by Mr. Kunik. The same shade of barrel the roofing
material was proposed throughout the project, with all shutters to be
a patina type green, and all trim a light cream shade. Building unit
exteriors would be in various pastel shades. Mr. Ornstein questioned
that the entry gates shown on the plan did not match the elevation,
which Mr. Ostrout explained had been changed after review by the Fire
Department and that the Fire Department now had no concerns. After
discussion, Mr. Ornstein requested that corrections be made before the
next meeting, with an enlarged drawing of the entry gate area. Mr.
Kunik described the material used in the gate area, which would be
painted green. Mr. Ornstein stated that he liked the whole concept
of the project but expressed concern that the massive scale of the
gates would be overpowering and suggested that changes be made to the
design. Chairman Sabatello requested that the entrance walls on the
north and south of the entryway be shown on the enlarged drawing to
indicate how units 508 and 509 would be shielded. Mr. Ostrout
described the entry wall feature, how pedestrians would enter, the
0 3
• Planning a zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
entry gate pivot area, screening for units 508 and 509, and how
residents and guests would access the units. Mr. Kunik described the
exterior of units 508 and 509. Mr. Kunik explained that the windows
opposite each other with 8 -foot separation and the breezeway
connection on the non -zero side were acceptable according to Code.
Tim Messler, Project Engineer, addressed the concern raised by the
City Engineer regarding insufficient backup space by reviewing vehicle
sizes and turning radii for typical automobiles which would be using
the proposed parking areas. Mr. Ostrout explained that the worst case
scenario had been depicted. Mr. Messler clarified that it was
believed that an automobile would never be backing out onto the
roadway prior to having a good view of oncoming pedestrian or
vehicular traffic. Joel Channing explained that the majority of these
units would be purchased by part -time winter residents who were
expected to typically have one car and a golf cart; and responded to
Mr. Ornstein that consideration had not been given to making the units
smaller since the room sizes were felt to be right. Mr. Messler
explained that the design had not been constructed according to
subdivision regulations and that those regulations did not apply.
• Discussion ensued. Attorney Mathison explained that projects began
with the basic subdivision regulations, however, flexibility in
applying those regulations was allowed within a PCD. Planning &
Zoning Director Walton commented that his understanding had been that
this project would follow condominium and not subdivision
requirements, and that there was no code for a situation such as this,
and approval of a project like this would be through the PUD process.
If this were a platted subdivision the minimum right -of -way cross
section requirements would be much greater than the right -of -way
proposed for this project; and the setback from the edge of the right -
of -way to the unit's front - loaded garages would have to be 20 feet.
Discussion followed regarding whether this project should be
considered a condominium, during which Chairman Sabatello commented
that the petitioner would need to clarify the kind of project they
were asking for so that the Commission could apply applicable rules.
The lots were described as fee simple for the building footprint area,
with the driveways being common areas. Mr. Messler explained that
cars backing up would not really have a blind condition, and even if
they did that the short space would not allow speed and would be
comparable to cars backing up in a parking garage. Mr. Ornstein
suggested backing unit 202 farther east to gain space in the front,
to which Mr. Ostrout responded that the building could not encroach
onto the 20 -foot water management easement, and the dashed lines on
0 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
the plan referred to the 2nd story cantilever. Mr. Ornstein suggested
elimination of the north parking space in unit 201 and that a space
in another location be assigned to that unit. The problem of setting
a precedent for something less than Code was discussed. Chairman
Sabatello commented that the view and safety of backing up into the
traffic lane should be the focus, and a poll of the Committee resulted
in no objections.
Chairman Sabatello questioned how guest parking would be policed, to
which Mr. Mathison responded that the security guard could perform
that service. Chairman Sabatello requested that the petitioner
provide a mechanism for handling guest parking problems at the next
meeting. Petitioner stated that there was sufficient space for
garbage trucks to turn around. Chairman Sabatello commented that in
compensating for some items such as the view from backing vehicles,
that it was important to understand that it was done because of the
length of the roadway, the density, number of units, type of paving,
and differences in the site plan from a normal site. Mr. Messler
discussed the transformers, for which landscaping was provided. Mr.
Ostrout directed attention to the depiction of a typical transformer
area.
• Mr. Mathison commented that this had been a very productive workshop
and expressed appreciation that the Committee had considered the
uniqueness of this project. The following items were listed by Mr.
Mathison as items which needed to be addressed for the next meeting:
1. Elevations to be changed to be consistent.
2. Engineering questions to be answered.
3. Form of ownership to be shown and the effects of that form
on any applicable regulations.
Other concerns expressed were stacking on Avenue of the Champions and
the gate operation and the aisle swing.
Mr. Messler responded to drainage concerns that surface drainage off
into water around the project and piping would be used. Units would
be finished at an elevation of 19, and water elevation was controlled
at 141 -711, consistent with the rest of PGA National.
Recommendation to City Council: Petition SP-96-03, by G.S. cantelou,
agent for the Sports Authority Plorida, Inc. , to request site plan
approval for the demolition of an existing 20,284 square -foot office
0 5
• Planning a Zoning Commission minutes
August 13, 1996
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 - 43B)
Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton reviewed outstanding
concerns addressed in the staff report dated August 7, 1996, which
included traffic circulation and drainage. Chairman Sabatello
commented that he had hoped for a condition of approval allowing the
petitioner to work with staff to come up with a creative way of
satisfying drainage concerns without removing a lot of the vegetation.
Mr. Ornstein questioned why this item was on the agenda since drainage
had not been solved and the requested traffic report had not been
received. During ensuing discussion, Chairman Sabatello commented
that the solution was complicated by environmental problems and that
should be the only issue remaining for City Council consideration.
Mr. Walton clarified for the petitioner the role of the City's
environmental consultant in this matter.
Attorney William Boose introduced others present representing the
Petitioner, including Joe Pollock, Traffic Consultant; Pete Cantelou,
• Richard Firm, Project Architect; Kyle Kiberski, Territorial
Construction Manager with Sports Authority; and Mark Walker, vice
President for Real Estate with Sports Authority. Attorney Boose
addressed conditions listed in the staff report, and proposed that
additional language be added to Condition 3 that the City Engineer
review additional engineering data now available to reach a conclusion
satisfactory to both the City Engineer and the City; and questioned
clarifications of the easements referred to in Condition 4. Mr.
Walton responded that all easements should be shown on the boundary
plat, whether for access, drainage or utilities.
Attorney Boose addressed the two cross access issues: (1) a cross
access easement was now in progress with Costco which would be
provided in recordable form for review by the City Attorney; and (2)
a cross access as recommended by the Committee to the Northlake
Executive Center office building to the west of the site would be
shown on the Master Site Plan and the improvements would be made, to
prepare for future use. Attorney Boose reviewed a rendering of the
proposed project.
Chairman Sabatello commented that the building sign was still too
large. In response to Attorney Boose's request for an acceptable
existing large building sign, Toys R Us was referenced. After
• 6
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
discussion, Attorney Boose suggested that if the Committee was going
to recommend that this matter be reviewed by City Council that
consideration be given to reduction of the size of the Sports
Authority signage above the monumental entrance on the north side of
the building facing Northlake Boulevard. Chairman Sabatello requested
that a recommendation be requested and that the petitioner return to
this Committee for a review of the signage only. Attorney Boose
responded that the petitioner would try to be more responsive to the
signage issue and would add the condition to the list.
Attorney Boose discussed landscaping on the western elevation.
Chairman Sabatello commented that if any major changes were made to
the preserve that the Committee must review this item. Attorney Boose
responded that in such a case the petitioner agreed that the
landscaping plan on that elevation would be equal to what was shown
or better and would not be negatively affected by the solution to the
water management issue.
Chairman Sabatello inquired whether the petitioner could suggest a
creative way to resolve the problem of landscaping of the building to
the west, which was not a part of this petition. Attorney Boose
• suggested that if there was a violation of the Code that it be
referred to Code Enforcement, by which action the property owner
should become interested in solving the problem; and that Sports
Authority would volunteer to participate at that point.
In response to Chairman Sabatello's question of how the issue of the
fountain encroachment onto Sports Authority's property could be
handled, Attorney Boose explained that the present position of the
petitioner was that the fountain program was a Northlake Executive
Center amenity which should be completed by the Northlake Executive
Center developer or property owner, and that Sports Authority would
look to the City to set into motion proper procedures to bring that
development feature on that property to completion, after which Sports
Authority would voluntarily participate financially in the fountain
program. During ensuing discussion, Pete Cantelou explained that
there was presently a maintenance and cross access agreement for the
fountain, and that Sports Authority had given cross access in
exchange for maintenance of the fountain and landscaping. During
ensuing discussion, Mr. Walton commented that the maintenance
agreement showed an approved rear access, to which the response was
that access had expired. Mr. Ornstein recommended that staff review
the maintenance agreement. In response to one of the Committee
member's question regarding how the existing landscaping at Northlake
• 7
Planning & Zoning Commission minutes
August 13, 1996
Executive Center was deficient, Mr. Walton explained that the
landscaping had not been installed in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan.
Mr. Ornstein commended the petitioner for their efforts; however,
commented that this Committee had previously voted to deny this
petition for safety reasons, which he did not believe had changed; and
indicated that the connection to the Costco property should be in
alignment with the driveway in front of the Sports Authority and not
back in the middle of the building; and that a tie -in should be made
to the road behind Wendy's. Mr. Ornstein stated that he did not
believe this project was ready to proceed forward and could not
support the project at this time. Mr. Ornstein also stated that
unless the sign was reduced by half that he could not vote for this
project. Mr. Pastore expressed his opinion that the use was too
intensive for this location and that he was not in favor of the
project. Chairman Sabatello's comments included an indication that
he was happy that the petitioner had attempted to satisfy the
circulation but actually had no control over the exact location of the
cross access; that the building looked great; and his concerns were
the landscaping to the west and the signage. Chairman Sabatello
• requested that the monument sign be included in review of the signage.
Chairman Sabatello requested that the City Attorney review the
fountain maintenance agreement to assure that it was satisfactory.
In response to an inquiry by Attorney Boose, Chairman Sabatello
advised that at the present time the City Council made the ultimate
decision on signage. Regarding circulation and access, Attorney Boose
inquired whether Mr. Pollock should make comments at this time.
Chairman Sabatello indicated that if a poll were taken at this point
that four members were not concerned about circulation; however, the
petitioner was free to present Mr. Pollock's comments. After
discussion, an actual poll indicated that four members were in favor
of the cross access as presented: The Committee members indicated
that they had no problems with the monument sign.
Mr. Ornstein expressed concern with moving this petition forward since
staff was still looking for things that could affect this site plan.
Chairman Sabatello indicated that technical matters would not change
the Committee's decision, and if the site plan were changed then it
would come back before this Committee. Chairman Sabatello advised the
petitioner that the City Council would closely scrutinize the project.
Discussion ensued regarding the timing referred to in conditions one
and two. Condition one was discussed at length, after which Mr. Boose
indicated that the petitioner would accept the language recommended
by Chairman Sabatello: Prior to final approval by City Council, the
• 8
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
-10 August 13, 1996
cross access agreements for the future sidewalk and roadway
connections to Costco and the existing office building to the west
will need to be recorded and provided to the City.
After review of the fountain maintenance agreement, City Attorney
Baird commented that the Sports Authority was not named in this 1994
agreement and the document did not state `successors and assigns'; and
that the other property owner had responsibility for maintaining the
fountain. After discussion, it was agreed to expand Condition one
with the following language as stated by the City Attorney: Prior to
City Council review, the applicant shall provide a cross access
agreement for future sidewalk and roadway connections to Costco and
the existing office building which shall also address the fountain and
the fountain area subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
Attorney Boose pointed out that this wording provided a subtle change
in going from providing the access agreement, not having to have it
entered into by another party which the applicant could not control,
and that Sports Authority would do their part, which had been the
premise of their entire presentation. A lengthy discussion followed,
during which Chairman Sabatello requested this problem be solved, and
expressed his opinion that even if the fountain had to be reduced in
size to only be on the adjacent property the Committee wanted that
fountain maintained and landscaped as per approved plans so that Code
Enforcement could cite problems; however, the applicant should provide
their best efforts to have the fountain remain as is and landscaped
and maintained as it should have been under the original approval.
After further discussion, Attorney Baird commented that paragraph 6
of the easement agreement provided for a covenant running with the
land which meant that the successor, Sports Authority, could enforce
the agreement. The agreement provided that if RPS did not maintain
the fountain then The Sports Authority could maintain the fountain;
therefore, the code enforcement problem could be resolved with
assistance from Sports Authority. In the event the fountain was not
maintained, the City could notify both The Sports Authority and RPS
and ask The Sports Authority to enforce its covenant and its agreement
with RPS to require them to maintain the property. If RPS did not
maintain the property, under the agreement The Sports Authority could
maintain the property, resolve the problem, and bill RPS for the
maintenance. Attorney Baird stated that staff's first condition was
acceptable since it required that there be an agreement in place and
stated that the agreement provided the mechanism for the Committee to
require Sports Authority to enforce their agreement with RPS requiring
maintenance of that property. In response to Chairman Sabatello's
request for an easily understood and easily enforceable condition,
0 9
.`� Planning & Zoning Commission minutes
August 13, 1996
Attorney Baird explained that the easiest Condition was the existing
condition, that code enforcement would cite both property owners who
would resolve the problem among themselves since Sports Authority
would have the authority to correct the problem and then collect from
RPS. Attorney Baird stated that he was comfortable with the
maintenance agreement. Attorney Boose stated that Sports Authority
would accept any responsibility that they legally can in regard to
that fountain, the ongoing operation and maintenance of it, by
agreement or by other arrangements that can be made and approved by
the City. In response to a request for clarification, Attorney Boose
agreed that Sports Authority would assume responsibility for the
fountain if RPS did not.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to deny Petition SP- 96 -03. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Pastore. The vote on the motion was 2 in favor and
4 opposed.
". Mignogna made a motion to recommend approval of Petition SP -96 -03
to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, the applicant shall provide a
cross access agreement for the future sidewalks, fountain, and
' fountain area, and roadway connections to Costco and the
existing office building to the west will need to be recorded
and provided to the City. The Sports Authority acknowledges its
responsibility to maintain the front access area and fountain
and fountain area pursuant to that certain cross access
agreement recorded at ORB 8415 page 1649.
2. Prior to scheduling this project for City Council approval, a
traffic analysis of the exit from Costco will need to be
provided by the applicant and approved by staff. The analysis
shall include northbound stacking provisions and an overall
intersection performance analysis to verify that the existing
and proposed facilities are adequate to accommodate the
additional traffic from the Sports Authority.
3. The applicant has presented two concepts to manage s tormwa ter
runoff in the set aside area west of the building, neither of
which are satisfactory. The first concept provides for a
partial berm to elevation 13.0 to prevent runoff into the set
aside from the developed areas but does not prevent runoff from
the vacant wooded area. The second concept provides a berm to
elevation 13.0 around the entire set aside area but also a
10
,�w
•
49
Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
drainage inlet elevation 11.5 with ou tfal l pipe to the Dry
Detention Basin. The three following issues shall be considered
Prior to final civil construction plan approval and shall be
Conditions of Approval:
a. The off -site drainage area adjacent to the southwest corner
of the property needs to be identified and taken into
account in the drainage calculations. We do not recommend
a berm that would sever existing natural drainage patterns.
b. This project shall provide a pass through system for the
off -site drainage.
C. Jim Schnel l e, Environmental Consultant, should give
guidance in reviewing a drainage plan for this area such
that the hydrologic factors function with the ecological
system.
4. A boundary plat of the project, showing all easements and
relocation of easements, shall be prepared, approved by Council,
and recorded prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
5. If this project is not completed by December 31, 1997, a revised
traffic impact analysis shall be required.
6. All applicable permits will need to be obtained and submitted to
the City prior to plat recordation and construction plan
approval.
7. Palm Beach County will need to approve discharge of stormwater
to the Northlake Boulevard system.
8. A recommendation shall be requested from the City Council
regarding reduction of the size of the Sports Authority signage
above the monumental entrance on the north side of the building
facing Northlake Boulevard, which shall be subsequently reviewed
by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee.
9. Any major changes to landscaping within the preserve on the
western elevation shall be reviewed by the Site Plan and
Appearance Review Committee, and the landscaping plan on that
elevation shall be equal to what was shown or better and shall
not be negatively affected by the solution to the water
management issue.
11
• Planning & zoning commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
Mr. Paganini seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4 in
favor and 2 opposed.
Public Searing: Petition CU-96-03 by Stephen S. Mathison, agent for
Fondron Animal Clinic Inc., requesting a conditional use approval for
a veterinary clinic at Palm Beach Gardens Business Park. (1- 42S -42B)
Planning and zoning Director Walton reviewed the staff report dated
August 1, 1996.
Stephen S. Mathison, agent for the petitioner, briefly reviewed the
petitioner's request.
Discussion ensued regarding changing the wording in condition one
regarding soundproofing the building. In response to Chairman
Sabatello's question of how the problem of an animal relieving itself
on the property before it came into the clinic would be handled, Dr.
Mary Fondron explained that she had an agreement in her lease with the
• landlord which required her to clean up after the animals, and that
she requested the owners of the animals to report any incidents to her
so that she could have the area cleaned. The petitioner reported that
another clinic with which she was associated had been constructed
using soundproofing materials, which had worked well. Mr. Mathison
suggested the following language for condition three: There shall be
no boarding associated with the veterinary clinic except temporary
overnight hospitalization only when medically necessary. Mr. Ornstein
requested the addition of the following wording as a standard, since
another clinic which was approved with no boarding facilities was now
advertising boarding on television: There shah be no advertising of
boarding facilities by this petitioner.
Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open for Petition CU-
96-03. There being no comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello
declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to recommend approval of Petition C17-96-03
to the City Council, with the following conditions:
I. The construction plans shall demonstrate that the building is
soundproof, with said soundproofing to be such that adjacent
tenants are not disturbed.
• 12
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
•
August 13, 1996
2. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit and /or Occupational
License, the petitioner shall pay to the City all impact fees as
required by the Palm Beach Gardens Code. In addition thereto,
petitioner shall pay to Palm Beach County all of the impact fees
required by the County in accordance with the County Code.
3. There shall be no boarding associated with the veterinary clinic
except boarding necessary for medical needs of the patients.
There shall be no advertising of boarding facilities by this
petitioner.
hr. Paganini seconded the motion. i h?A;o 30 caa�;ied�by.,unam#moua 6 -0
vote.
Eli
Public Searing: Petition PUD - 9 6 - 02;_ by Anthony S. Oliver, 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 Planned Unit Development and the Flame Building
Planned Unit Development to seek site plan approval for 228,790 square
• feet of office, retail, and restaurant space. The two developments,
totaling 13.58 acres, are located a t the southwest corner of PGA
Boulevard and U.S. Highway One. (4- 42S -43S)
Planning and Zoning Director Walton listed changes made to City Centre
since the last meeting:
1. Two pieces of sidewalk connecting PGA Boulevard.
2. Information signs revised to meet code and locations given.
3. An additional wall- mounted sign was added to the eleven -
story building just above the entrance door.
4. An elevation was provided of the parking garage as viewed
from Ellison Wilson Road to show the visual impact.
5. A revised traffic report incorporating additional traffic
from the Regional Center.
Ed Oliver, agent for the petitioner, introduced those present on
behalf of the petitioner: Andrew Brock, Peter Brock, John Preston, Joe
Pollock, and Larry Smith. Mr. Oliver commented that the petitioner
had taken the direction given at the last meeting and had provided the
additional information requested. Mr. Oliver stated the petitioner
agreed with conditions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 as written. Mr. Oliver
requested that the language required for this project be added after
• 13
• Planning & zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
the word improvements. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Oliver
explained that he wanted to assure that the Ellison Road improvements
referred to in this condition were the improvements for this project.
Mr. Oliver discussed the note associated with condition 4. Chairman
Sabatello stated that it was the understanding of the Commission as
read into the record at the last meeting that the southern roadway was
not necessary to this project; and suggested that the note contain the
following clarification: the striping will be consistent to the
installation of that road. Mr. Oliver stated agreement to the
additional wording.
Larry Smith explained that he understood that condition 9 arose
because a reference to this improvement appears in the support
document attached to the Comprehensive Plan. Although discussions had
been held with Attorney Paul Golis the matter remained unresolved, and
Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission and the petitioner agree to
disagree on that requirement, which could be a policy decision by City
Council. Mr. Smith stated that the petitioner could not agree to
condition 9. Attorney Baird clarified that the City Attorney's office
had not changed their position and did not agree with the applicant
regarding condition 9.
• Mr. Smith discussed condition 5. Chairman Sabatello stated that the
Commission had discussed that this roadway was unnecessary, to which
Mr. Walton responded that the City Engineer disagreed. Mr. Ornstein
questioned what had happened to the condition regarding the tri -party
agreement. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant could not be
required to comply with a tri -party agreement which they did not know
whether they could enter into; that they would like to have the road
as much as the City Engineer wanted it, but would have to cross
property owned by someone else. Chairman Sabatello explained that
this Commission could not over ride the City Engineer's opinion. Mr.
Smith suggested an amendment to the condition, stated the petitioner
would build the part of the roadway on their property, but had no
control over opening or closing of median openings, or over the other
property owner. Mr. Smith recommended that the following additional
sentence be added to condition 5, since if the petitioner could enter
into a tri -party agreement that the problem of the private road would
not exist: This condition is subject to the execution and terms of the
tri -party agreement in a form substantially similar to the draft
previously presented to the City. Discussion ensued regarding the
condition. Andrew Brock commented that DOT would require a median
closing because of an unsafe condition and that it was not the
petitioner's desire to close the median. Chairman Sabatello responded
• 14
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
that the City Engineer was not comfortable with the traffic flow
proposed, and that the petitioner must satisfy staff and the City
Engineer with safety of the traffic flow. After further discussion,
Chairman Sabatello stated that the Commission must not be placed in
the position of dealing with a technical situation for which the
applicant was unprepared; that this was a technical situation which
the Commission was not able or responsible to handle. The petitioner
agreed to move forward. Chairman Sabatello clarified that the waivers
previously discussed had not been changed, and that petitioner agreed.
The petitioner agreed to all conditions and modifications discussed
to this point.
Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open. There being no
comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello declared the Public
Hearing closed.
Mr. Ornstein expressed concern that pedestrian interior circulation
had not been properly addressed, to which Mr. Oliver responded that
the circulation had been considered and the petitioner wanted the
circulation as proposed. Chairman Sabatello recommended that the
ficus and sausage trees be relocated on the site.
• Attorney Baird read the following language to be added at the end of
condition 5: Prior to being scheduled for City Council action the
applicant shall address to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the
potential closure of the median cut on U. S. Highway One which serves
the existing buildings of the City Centre project. Mr. Smith stated
that he believed this sentence should replace condition 5.
Chairman Sabatello clarified with the applicant that they had agreed
to the revision to condition 4, to the revisions to the note for
condition 4, to the revision to condition 2, to the addition to
condition 5, and had not agreed to condition 9. Mr. Smith clarified
that the applicant agreed with the addition to condition 5 but not to
condition 5; and also did not agree with condition 9.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to recommend approval of Petition PUD -96 -02
to City Council with the following conditions:
1. The two large Royal Palm trees missing from the south side of
Parcel "B" shall be replaced prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy.
2. The existing large ficus and sausage trees shall be relocated
and saved on site. If for any reason they should perish, they
• 15
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
will be replaced at a three to one caliper rating.
3. Stop signs, stop bars and right turn only signs shall be added
to the Civil Construction Plans as needed prior to the issuance
of the first building permit.
4. Palm Beach County shall have issued a permit approval of the
Ellison Wilson Road improvements required for this project prior
to the issuance of the next building permit for the project.
Proposed improvements for Ellison Wilson Road, subject to Palm
Beach County approval, shall be undertaken and completed with
Phase I Civil Site Improvements.
NOTE: The revised Master Plan "A ", dated July 26, 1996, has a
note added stating that the left turn lane to the four (4) lane
Target /City Centre roadway is to be constructed as part of Phase
4. This note conflicts with the above condition of approval and
should be removed prior to being scheduled for City Council.
This striping is consistent with the improvements required.
5. The north one -half of the proposed interconnecting road along
the south boundary, between Ellison Wilson Road and the south
entrance, and a new median opening serving said interconnecting
roadway pursuant to DOT Access Management Plan dated April 5,
40 1996, with which was transmitted to the City by William A.
Lewis, Jr., P.E., District Traffic Operations Engineer, shall be
completely constructed prior to the closing of the existing
median cut in U.S. Highway One that serves the existing
buildings or before the last building permit is issued for the
project. Prior to being scheduled for City Council action the
applicant shall address to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
the potential closure of the median cut on U. S. Highway One
which serves the existing buildings of the City Centre project
6. This project shall be platted and approved by City Council and
recorded prior to the issuance of the next building permit. Any
public improvements will be subject to appropriate surety.
7. A lighting plan that provides the required illumination of the
parking lots per LDR 159.110(D)(4) shall be submitted for our
review and approval prior to the issuance of the next building
permit.
8. The project shall be designed to contain all stormwater runoff
to meet the City's design criteria and performance standards and
the applicant shall obtain the necessary approvals for a
positive outfall before the next building permit is issued.
9. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the
• 16
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
six laning of PGA Boulevard between Ellison Wilson Road and U.S.
Highway One shall be completed by the developer. Should the
need for this improvement be eliminated, as evidenced by an
amendment to the Palm Beach Gardens Comprehensive Plan to remove
the facility need, this condition becomes null and void.
Mr. Mignogna seconded the motion, with which carried by a vote of 5
in favor, and one opposed.
:.
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
Chairman Sabatello questioned City Manager Herakovich whether the
Planning and Zoning Commission could become a part of the City's
expansion process into the temporary facilities. The City Manager
responded that proper procedures for landscaping, tiedowns, utilities,
etc. were being followed and that as soon as materials were available
• they would be presented to the Commission. In response to Chairman
Sabatello's concern that the City was sometimes perceived to operate
with a standard different than that required of applicants, the City
Manager commented that the City had been very responsible in following
its own Land Development Regulations in the development of new park
facilities. The City Manager assured the Commission that the site
plan for new city facilities would be reviewed by the Commission.
Chairman Sabatello inquired whether there was a way of assessing
future development and growth through individual building permits for
a contribution to a beautification fund. City Attorney Baird
responded that two ways such funds were obtained in other Florida
municipalities were through a public buildings impact fee or through
roadway impact fees, and that the landscaping would need to be
included in the capital improvement cost. Chairman Sabatello inquired
how fees could be increased to provide funds for improvements to
roadway medians. City Manager Herakovich reported that the City
worked closely with DOT and described a partnership plan with
residents to encourage planting trees from the City nursery. The City
Manager also reported that the Art Advisory Committee and the new
Beautification committee had recently met and agreed upon a City sign,
and had recommended that the art impact fee ordinance be amended to
• 17
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
allow the sign. The City Manager commented that the Blue Ribbon
Committee had recommended an impact fee for local roads, and described
the process for implementation. City Manager Herakovich reported that
beautification programs were carried out on neighborhood, county, and
State levels. A new position had been created for a City employee who
would work with neighborhood groups to initiate beautification.
Chairman Sabatello stressed the importance of Code Enforcement, and
referred to landscaping at the Anspach building which was not in
compliance. The City Manager commented that the best way to assist
staff was to report specific situations; that since the process under
State law took such a long time that the Code Enforcement Board was
being trained so that they would not grant unnecessary time
extensions; and that a new process was under consideration with which
would expedite resolution of violations.
Chairman Sabatello expressed his opinion that a decorative lighting
problem was developing within the City, with no enforcement procedure
in place. Chairman Sabatello explained that holiday lights were left
up and used for advertising purposes and were not maintained. The
City Manager offered to obtain information from other cities who had
• addressed this problem.
• 18
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1996
ADJOURNMMqT
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Mr. Mignogna, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:35 P.M. The next me in will be held August 27, 1996.
APPROVE D•
Carl SAZWEello, Chairman
(Absent)
Diane Carlino, vice Chair
(Absent)
John Glidden
wil iam Mignogna
Thomas Pastore
Tom Pagariini v
(Absent)
Christopher Jones
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
John Nedvins, Alternate
Melissa Prindiville, Secretary
19