Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 022895• • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Vice Chairman Diane Carlino 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 Vice Chair Carlino: Present Absent Diane Carlino, Vice Chair John Glidden Phillip Lyddon Daniel Honig William Mignogna Thomas Pastore Christopher Jones, Alternate Tom Paganini, Alternate Carl Sabatello, Chairman Also present at the meeting were Mayor David Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, and Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis. ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR Mr. Richard Walton, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that Mr. Jones and Mr. Paganini had been given packets as were previously given to all other members of the Planning and Zoning Commission which contained a memo written by the City Attorney regarding exparte communication and the Resolution regarding conflict of interest. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Liaison Mayor David Clark reviewed action taken at the February 16, 1995 City Council meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 14, 1995 - Mr. Thomas Pastore made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Phillip Lyddon. The motion was approved by a 8 -0 vote. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Workshop Meeting, Petition SP- 94 -20, by Daniel Catalfumo, agent for CTB Ventures XVI, Inc., is requesting site plan approval for the construction of three buildings, totalling 107,300 square feet, consisting of 77,650 square feet of office space, 19,000 square feet of warehouse space and 10,650 square feet of "other permitted uses ". Located on Lot 1 of West Park Center Plat within the Northcorp Center Planned Community District. (12- 42S -42E) Mr. John Glidden and Mr. Bill Mignogna stepped down because of conflict of interest. Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated February 28, 1995 and reported that two items had not been adequately addressed by the petitioner. Elevation plans had not been revised to reflect how the roof mounted equipment would be screened, and the petitioner had not addressed the Fire Department's concern that the lighting under the parking structures was inadequate. In response to Mr. Dan Honig, Assistant City Attorney Golis explained that the City Attorney • had rendered an opinion on what an acceptable surety would be as recently as two months ago. Mr. Honig commented that it was very dangerous for a staff person to determine what an acceptable surety other than a bond would be and that he believed that the City Council should discuss at a meeting that opinion of Counsel should always be sought on this matter. • Mr. Lyddon commented that staff condition 16 only required approval from the Police Department. Discussion ensued as to the capability of the Police Department to review a lighting plan. Mr Honig suggested that Planning and Zoning Staff review the plan, explain and consult with the Police Department for their approval. Mr. Honig questioned City Forester Hendrickson regarding the survival of wax myrtles planted along a highway, to which the City Forester replied that wax myrtles were planted in the median of AIA in front of Gardens East apartments that were doing well, and that he was comfortable with the use of wax myrtles in this project. Jeff Lis, representative for the petitioner, commented that they had contacted the County Extension Agent who reported that wax myrtles could survive at the locations they were proposed in this project. Mr. Lis responded to the lighting issue that petitioner had agreed to provide ground lighting for the covered parking structures to comply with the request of the Police Department, and suggested that the Police Department monitor the site at night after installation of the lighting and prior to the issuance of the C.O. to determine whether the lighting met their safety standards, as they had done on other projects. Mr. Lis stated that petitioner was agreeable to working with the Police Department in this manner and with staff s implementation of this procedure prior to the issuance of a C.O. Mr. Lis clarified that petitioner's reading of condition #2 was that petitioner's responsibility was to provide outfall • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 capacity for lots 1 and 2 of RCA Boulevard Center through their site to the drainage infrastructure for the PCD, and stated that they would adjust the sizing of the drainage pipe accordingly. Mr. Lis stated that petitioner wanted a clear understanding that their site was not required to provide the infrastructure for capacity storage on petitioner's site for lots 1 and 2. Planning and Zoning Director Walton explained that this was a condition of the City Engineer and requested that petitioner work out any problems with the City Engineer before this petition was presented to the City Council. Mr. Lis agreed that the Committee would only approve this condition subject to clarification by the City Engineer. Mr. Lis stated that he had worked out agreement with the City Forester regarding condition #11, and that the rest of the conditions were acceptable to petitioner. Mr. Lyddon requested the addition of the following wording in condition 16: "Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the petitioner shall submit a ground based lighting plan for underneath the parking structures for review and approval of the Police Department and staff. Unscreened overhead lighting is not acceptable." Discussion ensued regarding standards. Planning and Zoning Director Walton stated a concern that there were no standards for staff to determine whether the ground lighting was acceptable and that by waiting until issuance of a C.O. that petitioner's grand opening might have to be delayed. Mr. Honig suggested a requirement that petitioner must submit a plan for the lighting underneath the covered parking structures and must guarantee that the lighting would be satisfactory to both the Police • Department and to the staff prior to issuance of the C.O. Mr. Lis stated that he had no problem with staff holding up issuance of the C.O. if the Police Department was not satisfied. Mr. Jones suggested that the type of lighting fixture be submitted also, to which Mr. Lis agreed. • Mr. Catalfumo suggested that the City Code regarding surety was outmoded, and explained that obtaining surety gave the City no real assurance that paving, drainage and landscaping would be installed since they could not come onto the petitioner's property to accomplish those improvements. He also explained that as an owner /developer /contractor he could not be bonded and therefore must hire site plan work done that he could have done himself at a lower cost merely to satisfy the City's bond requirement, and that on this project his costs for a bond which in practicality was useless would be $15,000 to $18,000. Assistant City Attorney Golis explained that the City Manager and Finance Director had consulted with the City Attorney's office regarding sureties and bonds, and that the recently adopted LDR revisions had addressed some of the concerns raised by Mr. Catalfumo. Mr. Honig stated that the City Attorney should study this matter and make recommendations to the City Council as to how to modify surety requirements. Planning and Zoning Director Walton commented that prior to adoption of the LDR revisions that the City Attorney along with the City Engineer, Finance Director and City Manager were heavily involved in discussions on this matter and that the new language had been added per their request. During discussion of ownership of common areas, Mr. Catalfumo explained that a requirement intended for residential subdivisions had carried over into commercial and that in discussions with the City Engineer's firm they had agreed that this was a problem for commercial sites. Vice Chair Carlino commented that plans did not address screening for roof mounted 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 equipment, to which Mr. Lis responded that he was agreeing to screen line of site with a material compatible with the buildings. Discussion ensued with petitioner taking the position that plans could only be provided at great cost and still might not show the exact equipment, and staff taking the position that providing plans for review was a standard requirement for all petitioners. During discussion that the exact roof mounted equipment was not yet known, Mr. Honig commented that petitioner could not provide the Committee with every conceivable piece of roof equipment at this point, and that he believed the condition prevented petitioner from getting a C.O. before all roof mounted equipment was screened. Mr. Lis stated that was the petitioner's position and also commented that this was not a lot different than the conversation two weeks ago and that Mr. Honig had touched on it very clearly, and it was not a whole lot different than the ground lighting situation. It was agreed that drawings would be provided within 60 days and that items would not exceed 15 feet in height from the roof line. Mr. Lis stated that petitioner had no problem that the trip count change had increased the impact fee but pointed out that the total amount of the bond which the City was holding covered the extra amount. Mr. Pastore requested a consensus of whether the lighting condition would be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy or to the first building permit. Mr. Lyddon stated his position that a • detailed plan was needed for staff review prior to presentation to City Council and that he had no problem with tying Police Department approval to the C.O. All other members of the Committee agreed that the lighting condition should be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy except Mr. Pastore who preferred that it be tied to the first building permit. • Motion was made by Mr. Honig to accept staff conditions with the following changes: Condition #2 subject to working out the wording with the City Engineer regarding the excess outflow. Condition #6 subject to being modified to 944 trips and $51,920.00. Condition #13 subject to modification that the petitioner shall post a bond for an acceptable surety subject to approval of City Attorney and continuing the existing "for the installation of, etc. ", and striking "Project shall abide by Resolution 2, 1993, which requires, prior to filing of the plat ". Condition #14 shall state: "The petitioner shall be required to return to the City for the approval of any uses other than uses as referenced on petitioner's site plan." Condition #15 shall state: "All roof - mounted equipment shall be screened line of sight from the ground using materials compatible with the buildings and such screening shall be reviewed for subsequent approval by the Site Plan and Review Committee within 60 days. Items on the roof shall not exceed 15 feet in height from the roof line." Condition #16 shall state: "Prior to the issuance of the first C.O., the petitioner shall demonstrate adequate lighting for underneath the parking structures for review and approval by the Police Department. If additional lighting is required, it shall be ground based and not overhead in the parking structures." Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Discussion included comments by Mr. Pastore who stated he was not opposed to this project and believed it ultimately would be a great project, and that since this would be a highly visible project that the Committee wanted to be sure it was acceptable at every level. Motion passed by a 6 -0 vote. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 Therefore, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee unanimously recommended approval of this petition to the City Council with the following conditions: 1. The proposed project shall be designed to meet all SFWMD on -site water quality criteria. The required one -half inch of on -site dry pretreatment shall be accomplished with exfiltration trench. All PCD drainage infrastructure, required to support the outfall of this project, shall be constructed by the developer of the PCD per SFWMD approved plans concurrent with the proposed development of West Park Center Lot 1. Certificates of Occupancy shall be withheld until the required PCD drainage infrastructure is completed and accepted for operation by SFWMD. 2. The petitioner shall design its on -site drainage system to provide sufficient capacity for on -site drainage development of West Park Center Lot 1 and to accept positive outfall drainage from RCA Boulevard Center Lots 1 and 2 for eventual outfall into the drainage basin located to the south of West Park Center Lot 1 which is part of the Master Drainage Plan for the PCD. 3. If required by SFWMD, littoral plantings within the water management lake tract of the West Park Center Plat shall be installed by the PCD developer prior to the issuance of • the Certificate of Occupancy for the first building to be constructed on West Park Center Lot 1. n LJ 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any land alteration in West Park Center Lot 1, the construction contract shall have been let for the addition of one (1) eastbound, left -turn lane to provide dual left -turn lanes at the intersection of RCA Boulevard and Alternate A1A, and said improvements shall be completed and open to the public prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall honor his commitment, stated in the letter dated July 30, 1992 from the FDER, to promptly replace any wells destroyed during construction on West Park Center Lot 1 in order to monitor compliance with the FDER Consent Order concerning fluorides in the ground water. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any land alteration in West park Center Lot 1, the developer shall pay all applicable impact fees, including Palm Beach County's traffic impact fees in the amount of 944 daily trips x $55.00 = $51,920. No credit shall be given toward this amount for the required construction of the addition of one (1) eastbound left -turn lane to provide dual left -turn lanes at the intersection of RCA Boulevard and Alternate A1A. 7. Areas that have been allowed to have vegetation or ground cover removed pursuant to the approved site plan, and subsequently abandoned for any reason for more than three months, shall be seeded with a ground cover or grass immediately upon request by the 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 City or the City shall have the work done at the owner's expense. 8. Prior to clearing or construction, trees designated for preservation shall be tagged or roped -off. Prior to land clearing, the developer shall erect and maintain protective barriers around the drip line of the trees to be protected. All work shall be inspected and approved by the Landscape Architect of Record and the City Forester prior to the issuance of any Building Department permit requiring land clearing. Section 153.20 shall also be enforced during construction. 9. All tree protection and landscape work shall be performed using current professional landscaping standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all tree protection efforts, all landscaping work, and any work that affects the outcome of the approved landscape plans. The Landscape Architect of Record shall notify the City prior to any modifications to the approved landscape plan. 10. All trees designed for preservation that die during construction or because of construction practices shall replaced using the following schedule: For every inch of tree caliper lost, three inches of new tree caliper shall be replaced with like specie. The minimum replacement tree shall be three inches in diameter. If the site can not support the total number of replacement trees as required above, City Council may permit the • developer to donate excess trees to the City for planting on public lands. n LJ 11. Prior to the issuance of each of the three Certificates of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect of Record shall certify in writing to the City that the landscaping has been completed per the approved landscape plans. Any major changes to the approved landscape plans shall be approved by the City Council. Once the City has the certified letter from the Landscape Architect, the City Forester shall inspect the site for compliance. Once compliance has been confirmed by the City Forester, the City Building Department shall be notified. 12. All applicable off -site landscape improvements, and sidewalks required by Resolution 65, 1992, otherwise known as the NorthCorp Streetscape /Buffer Plan shall be installed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy of the three buildings proposed. The landscape Architect of Record shall inspect and certify that all required landscaping is in compliance with the approved landscape plan(s). The City Forester shall approve (sign -off) these areas as they are completed. 13. The petitioner shall post a bond or an acceptable surety for the installation of the on -site infrastructure including the common and project landscaping /buffer and entry feature. 14. The petitioner shall be required to return to the City for the approval of any uses other than uses as referenced on petitioner's site plan. 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 15. All roof - mounted equipment shall be screened line of sight, from the ground using materials compatible with the buildings and such screening shall be reviewed for subsequent approval by the Site Plan and Review Committee within 60 days. Items on the roof shall not exceed 15 feet in height from the roof line. 16. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the petitioner shall demonstrate adequate lighting for underneath the parking structures for the review and approval by the Police Department and staff. If additional lighting is required, the lighting shall be ground based and unscreened overhead lighting is not acceptable. 17. Any additional signs which are not represented in the approved sign package shall not be allowed without approval by the City Council. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Meeting: On the Landscaping and Vegetation Protection Ordinance, Chapter 153 of the City Code, amending Section 153.36 (F) (1) entitled "Pruning ", and amending Section 153.15 (A) entitled "Minimum Landscape Requirements - Nonresidential Districts ". Regarding the proposed amendment to Section 153.36 (F)(1), City Forester Mark Hendrickson • explained that the City Council Liaison for the Code Enforcement Board, Vice Mayor Linda Monroe, had requested strengthening the pruning codes to allow the Code Enforcement Board the ability to assess one pruning violation per tree rather than one pruning violation per site, and that the City Attorney had been consulted for the proper wording. • City Forester Hendrickson explained, in response to Mr. Honig's question, that hatracking was basically cutting, topping, or shaping any major branch in accordance with the definition of hatracking by the National Arborists Association, and that City Code contained that specific definition. City Forester Hendrickson stated that the hatracking prohibition currently applied to non residential and to common areas of residential property, and applied only to shade trees and not hedges. He also explained that hatracking could stunt or kill a tree. Mr. Honig inquired as to other severe pruning practices such as bonsai. The City Forester explained that property owners could apply to the City Council for permission to use unnatural pruning such as topiary because of close proximity of trees to buildings, powerlines or use as accents. He explained that orange trees were not considered shade trees if they were grown commercially. In response to Mr. Honig's question whether a shopping center owner could remove a shade tree if it were dropping sap, the City Forester explained that a permit would be required which would usually carry conditions such as stating that the tree must be replaced. In regard to the proposed amendment of Section 153.15 (A), City Forester Hendrickson explained that this section referred to the Xeriscape concept in which the City tried to eliminate sod and create more ground covering other than sod that would require less water, and that the current language which stated that no more than 40% of the total required interior landscape area shall be covered with sod posed a problem with areas such as ballfields, etc. The proposed h • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 amendment would correct this problem by excepting such areas. Mr. Pastore made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission endorse the amendments to the Pruning Code as well as endorsing the amendment to the Minimum Landscape Requirement for Nonresidential Districts as presented by staff. Motion was seconded by Mr. Mignogna and carried by a 8 -0 vote. The amendments endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission were as follows: Section 153.36 (F) (1): F. The following are general pruning regulations: 1. Hatracking is prohibited except pruning that is required to keep utility line clear. Excessive pruning like hatracking may be considered tree abuse and a code ififfaetief}. violation by the City's Code enforcement Board. Each Tree hatracked shall be considered a clear and separate violation, with a maximum fine of $250.00 for each additional tree. In the event the City's Code Enforcement Board has made a previous determination that a • person has violated this Section of the City's Landscape and Vegetation Protection Code, then such person may be charged with a repeat violation. A maximum fine of $500.00 for each additional tree shall be set by the City's Code Enforcement Board for repeat violation of this Section. In determining the correctness of particular tree pruning techniques, the City shall use the current edition of the "Pruning Standards for Shade Tees ", published by the National Arborist association, or any future national standard on shade tree pruning. Tree replacement may be required by the Code Enforcement Board. L� Section 153.15 (A): A. No more than 40% of the total f equY ed ifitefief landscape area shall be covered with sod (grass), except those projects proposing playgrounds, ballfields, golf course, dry retention areas and the like. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to be brought before the Commission. E:3 0 0 C] Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 28, 1995 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to be brought before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. The next meeting will be held March 14, 1995. Absent Carl Sabatello, Chairman MWT A44-1. I Thomas Pastore m Paganini, Alternate azx-, �? 6��04 /- Alice Everard, gecretary E �(2-A� Diane Carlino, Vice Chair Daniel Honig r" William Mignogna Christopher ones, Alternate mou r%OK `LINTY, MUNICIPAL�AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS IA+." NAME -FIRST NAME-M1001 NAME - 11 f ICs. t, o�►�+R YV �u�.� �w�. C , NAILIN(: ADDRESS &;&' I )A N NH11V()Ik1(_lURRt) � �' OI: BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEI lotp& * ?Wklp& G^^k"* X THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR'COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 1Y ) COUNTY OTHERIOCAI AGENCY NAML. 01- PUL ITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY PUSII'ION IS: . ELECTIVE APPOINTI WHO MUST FILE FORM sd This form is for use by any Person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presentee with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with 'a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please. pay close attention to the instructions on this forrr before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES 0LECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local ufficer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia. gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING; TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure or which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whicf inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whop) he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but mus: disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whethe: made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICI- THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fo recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The foim should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest 1 f III M 4" 1141IA PA. IF .YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. •• You should complete the form and rile it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minute of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. • DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, \,Q 11-61 #A% C- PN% &90&0 Ok __ , hereby disclose that on Z ' ?► � 19 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: -01.6 OL49. Date Filed Signature , by whom I am retainec •NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1983), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5.000. E FORM so - I" P,