Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042595CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 1995 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 Chairman Sabatello: Present Absent Carl Sabatello, Chairman Phillip Lyddon Diane Carlino, Vice Chair Christopher Jones, Alternate Daniel Honig William Mignogna Thomas Pastore John Glidden Tom Paganini, Alternate • 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 There were no items from the Planning and Zoning Director. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items from the City Council Liaison. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of A nn '1 11; 1995 - Ms. Diane Carlino made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas Pastore. The motion was unanimously approved by a 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Public Hearing: Ordinance 7, 1995, an ordinance amending Chapter 159 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled "Zoning Regulations": to create Section 159.087, entitled "Newsrack. " • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 City Planner Bristol Ellington explained that the revisions to the ordinance in the staff report dated April 20, 1995 had incorporated the comments raised at the April 11, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and that the changes to the text were identified by bolding and strike out. Changes since the staff report were: Deletion of the last three sentences under Section 159.087(6)(1), beginning with "The placement... ". Assistant City Attorney Golis explained that this section was deleted based on a court case brought against the city of Coral Gables where the decision was that size and color of lettering on newsracks could not be limited since that would limit freedom of expression. Discussion ensued regarding screening, sizes, and colors and previous court cases in which newsrack ordinances had been challenged. Ms. Diane Carlino questioned whether the City could enforce landscaping and shielding of newsracks if it would obstruct the view of the lettering. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether there could be a restriction to a blend of colors. Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis replied that the court did not rule in favor of color restrictions for newsracks or signs on newsracks. Attorney Golis recommended that Section 159.087(8) Application and Issuance of Certificate of Compliance be eliminated with the exception of the fees section and the insurance section. Mr. Daniel Honig suggested that the City adopt an ordinance resembling the one adopted by the City of Coral Gables as it has already successfully weathered legal challenges. Chairman • Sabatello suggested the ordinance should be as detailed and specific as possible to avoid being challenged. Ms. Diane Carlino questioned whether the City of Palm Beach Gardens would be ready to spend funds necessary to defend any challenges and how far the City would be willing to go in its defense, since some challenges had gone to the Supreme Court. Ms. Carlino objected to establishing an ordinance which could not be enforced. Mr. Honig questioned whether requiring applicants to obtain approval of the Commission for color, design, structure, etc. would be too restrictive for the free dissemination of news under the first amendment rights. Ensuing discussion included a suggestion by Mr. Honig that staff review the Coral Gables newsrack ordinance and present the distinguishing factors to the Commission, to which Chairman Sabatello objected, since he considered it would be a waste of time to continue making changes since an ordinance could not be developed that could not be challenged. Chairman Sabatello commented that he did not believe the City Council would approve this ordinance if there were questions in regard to possible challenges. • Chairman Sabatello questioned Attorney Golis as to whether the ordinance was developing in an appropriate manner. Attorney Golis indicated that the City's ordinance is more extensive than other local ordinances. Mr. Honig suggested that the comfort level needed by the City Council to pass this ordinance would be achieved if Attorney Golis could present prior court decisions that would support the City's right to require each element of the ordinance, so that when challenged, a summary judgement could be obtained and the expense of a lengthy legal battle would be avoided. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission was to request Attorney Golis to draft an outline of an ordinance following those guidelines. 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 Mr. William Mignogna pointed out that the verbiage at the bottom of page 9 which read "each newspaper publisher ", where the words "newspaper publisher" had been deleted, needed some replacement. It was decided to use the wording "for each location." Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open. There being no comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Sabatello stated that the Public Hearing for Ordinance 7, 1995 would be postponed to a date certain of May 23, 1995. Workshop Meeting for Petition PUD 94 -17, by Lawrence Smith, agent for the American Financial -Downs Partnership, is requesting Planned Unit Development approval for the construction of a restaurant building on a 2.947 -acre site. Located generally at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Road. (5- 42S -43E) Chairman Sabatello verified that each member of the Commission had received a copy of a letter dated April 25, 1995 from Attorney Gerald Rossow. • At the request of Chairman Sabatello, City Planner Bristol Ellington addressed only the items that had not been resolved from the staff report dated April 20, 1995, and reported that the main unresolved issue was the adequacy of parking spaces. Planning and Zoning Director Walton stated that since the number of parking spaces would affect the site plan that a consensus was needed on that issue. .7 Lawrence Smith, agent for the petitioner, requested that the Commission accept the petitioner's employee count and approve scenario "B" in the staff report to allow 7 parking spaces out of the 14 required for the office to be shared with the restaurant to allow 100 seats upstairs. During ensuing discussion regarding shared parking, Mr. Smith explained that although staff was not generally in favor of shared parking that the petitioner believed this situation was unique in that at least half of the office would be vacated at the peak restaurant hours. Mr. Jack Miller and Mr. Tom Patterson addressed the restaurant operation, the number of people who would work in the corporate office, and the number of employees needed to operate the restaurant at their busiest time, which would be on Fridays. The number of employees for Panama Hattie's restaurant as shown in the staff report chart for comparison purposes was felt to be incorrect. Mr. Smith commented that the code stated there was a formula to determine the number of parking spaces based on the number of employees; however, the code did not have a provision for a formula to calculate the number of employees. Chairman Sabatello proposed that seating be reserved in the same way parking was reserved and that an affidavit stating the number of employees be supplied by the petitioner after a specified period of operation, upon which that number would be inserted into the formula to determine the amount of parking at that time. Director Walton explained that this project did not fall under regular zoning code since it was a t3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 PUD, and that an approval would be granted based on a certain number of employees, and a certain number of seats, which the applicant would expect to rely on; however as the project changed the number of seats might change, or a band might be hired, etc. and a legal ruling might be needed to determine whether the project needed to comply with code as time went on or with the PUD rules. Mr. John Glidden discussed that since the petitioner was willing to limit the number of seats and the City had a process by which to monitor that number, he believed that the real issue was not shared parking but the ratio of cars per seat. Director Walton explained that the monitoring process was first a letter of notice of the violation with 30 days given to comply, then Code Enforcement would allow another 30 days. Chairman Sabatello suggested that the burden be placed on the petitioner and restaurant operator rather than having the City monitor for numbers by establishing contingency seating which would be released as the formula was proven over time. Mr. Miller requested that under that type of scenario that if petitioner could prove within a defined time period that they could operate with 35 employees at peak times that the second floor seating be raised to 79 without shared parking or 100 with shared parking. Chairman Sabatello explained that the formula would be used only for existing parking. Mr. Bristol Ellington recommended that if the Commission determined that 35 was the appropriate number of employees that shared parking not be allowed; that seating on the second • floor be reduced from 100 seats to 79 seats; that no monitoring program be institued; and that petitioner apply for an amendment to the PUD at a future date when it was determined by the City Engineer or an independent agent that petitioner could operate with no more than 35 employees. Discussion of possible overflow parking ensued and Chairman Sabatello stated that the Commission had no control over that. • Chairman Sabatello indicated he would like to see a stipulation in the PUD triggering a consequence should the petitioner's project create additional problems, such as more employees, parking problems, etc. and suggested that a concept wherein if the PUD were approved for 50 seats on the second floor and non - shared parking, and if over time that counts of employee and on -site parking were proven true then that figure would be raised to no more than 79. Planning and Zoning Director Walton explained that he was still troubled by the numbers since all three of the restaurants in the staff comparison had substantially less seats and more parking. Ms. Diane Carlino expressed concern that under Chairman Sabatello's concept the Commission would be making the decision of how many employees were needed, objected to a monitoring program and a requirement that the applicant return at a future date, and recommended that the Board's decisions be based not on conjecture but strictly on the information provide by the petitioner and the formulas used by staff to determine required parking. Mr. Honig agreed with Ms. Carlino, cautioned that restaurant conditions periodically change and that a new owner's number of employees would have to be dealt with by the licensing department in the future, and suggested the issue of shared parking be waived and that petitioner be restricted to on site parking only. Mr. Glidden pointed out that this applicant deserved a decision and discussed this project's ratio in comparison to the surrounding restaurants as shown on the chart prepared by staff. Mr. Smith requested that the Commission keep in mind that the figures for Panama Hattie's were incorrect. Mr. Glidden suggested that the focus of limitations should be according to the number of seats on 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 the second floor, and that if a monitoring program were initiated it should be supervised through an independent agency. Ms. Smith explained that other restaurants operated by the petitioners were not free standing so that their numbers could not be used for comparison purposes. Consensus of the Commission was in favor of Mr. Ellington's proposal to approve this petition for 79 second -story seats and no shared parking with the office use, and that if petitioner wanted to demonstrate in the future by having an analysis done by the City's Engineer or an independent consultant, and they could then return to the City with an application to amend their PUD. Chairman Sabatello warned the petitioner that there would not be this type of discussion at the next meeting, which would be a Public Hearing. In order to avoid this type of problem in the future, Mr. Glidden suggested and Chairman Sabatello directed staff to create a provision within the code addressing number of employees and their effect on parking requirements of restaurants. Attorney Golis indicated that it was legally possible to require, as a condition, a reduction in number of seats when there was an increase in number of employees. Director Walton stated that the Commission had not considered the possibility of the petitioner having met the code and a problem could develop later due to patrons that did not use seats. Mr. Honig discussed possible overflow parking into the adjacent neighborhood streets and expressed concern that none of the issues discussed was directed toward avoiding that situation, and stated that he would like to see any rules /restrictions regarding • overflow parking associated with this PUD to carry over to all future property owners. is The conclusion of the overflow parking discussion was that staff would work with the City Attorney to create language to the effect that if overflow parking went into the adjacent residential area that would violate the PUD and trigger some consequence. Mr. Honig suggested that the petitioner also work with staff and the City Attorney before the next meeting to arrive at acceptable language. Chairman Sabatello indicated that petitioner needed to provide a clear statement/details regarding the handling and performance of exhaust and garbage in the garbage enclosure. After discussion, it was agreed to request a condition requiring no odor emanating from the garbage enclosure. Mr. William Mignogna questioned whether the west balcony would be used. Ingress and egress in balcony areas was explained by the petitioner. Discussion resulted in requirement of a condition that no tables, seating, or umbrellas would be placed on balconies. The Commission was pleased with the revised rooftop design; however, found that the internally illuminated sign was not permitted by code because of its location above the roof, as well as possibly square footage since it might have been measured wrong by staff. Mr. Honig objected to the sign and stated he would vote against the entire project if the sign were insisted upon, with which other Commission members concurred. The consensus of the Commission was that they would be in favor of the sign if the square footage complied with code and if the sign were mounted on the pitched area of the roof. 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 Planning and Zoning Director Walton pointed out that the original PUD contained a condition regarding nightclub type operations. Mr. Smith explained that the issue of noise created by a band had been discussed with the neighbors, and Mr. Miller had told them that the reggae band planned for Sunday afternoons would not play after 9 P.M., and Mr. Smith planned to consult with a sound expert that week to find out what additional measures could be used to control sound. Mr. Glidden recommended that a decibel level be established for the project. In response to Mr. Honig's question as to what the neighbors had asked for, Mr. Smith explained they wanted noise control, view control, privacy, odor control, and no parking on their streets. One neighbor stated they were also concerned with traffic on Ellison Wilson Road and the traffic lanes that would be created. Chairman Sabatello advised the petitioner that the Commission members were not sound experts and therefore it was up to the petitioner to provide expert opinion or examples that the Commission would be able to use as a frame of reference. Director Walton stated that the nightclub ordinance also prohibited outside serving of food and alcohol, which Mr. Smith stated the petitioner objected to since they would be serving from their pavilion. The petitioner agreed with the Commission's suggestion that food and alcohol could only be served within the building footprint. Music and entertainment noise discussion included the difficulty of controlling sound by establishing a decibel level, the possibility of setting a cutoff time, and the sound being magnified across the water. Mr. Honig suggested that petitioner arrive at an agreement with the neighbors concerning noise before the next meeting. Chairman Sabatello commented that the City must be satisfied with the noise level. Mr. Smith explained that the staggered height of the wall between the project and the adjacent residential property had been reconsidered to jog to accommodate the existing trees on the property line. Chairman Sabatello advised that would be acceptable to the Commission and stated that if it would be even better if the neighbors agreed. In response to Chairman Sabatello, Mr. Smith indicated that the petitioner had clear direction to proceed. This item will return for Public Hearing on May 23, 1995. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. C4 e W, W Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 1995 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, upon motion by Ms. Diane Carlino, seconded by Mr. John Glidden, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. The next meeting will be held May 9, 1995. Carl Sabatello, Chairman rz (Absent) Phillip Lyddon "7r J. Thomas Pastore Tom Paganini, Alternate RIP r �1 Holloman, Secretary 7 Diane Carlino, Vice Chair aniel Honig William Mignogna (Absent) Christopher Jones, Alternate