Loading...
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