HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 0912950
40
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 12 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 the Secretary:
Present
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Christopher Jones, Alternate
Tom Paganini, Alternate
Absent
Daniel Honig
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
Phillip Lyddon
Thomas Pastore
Also present at the meeting were Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, Planning and Zoning
Director Richard Walton, City Council Liaison David Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg
Dunham, and Principal Planner Bristol Ellington.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Planning and Zoning Director.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison Clark reported that the Newsrack Ordinance, BallenIsles Parcel 6B, and
BallenIsles 25A had been approved, the Communication Tower Ordinance had been deferred,
and the RV /Boat parking deadline had been extended for one year.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES•
Minutes of August t 22, 1995 - Mr. Mignogna made a motion to approve the minutes as
submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Glidden. The motion was approved by a 5 -0
vote.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 12, 1995
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Workshop Meeting for Petition SP- 95 -03, by Donaldson Hearing, agent for CTB Realty
Ventures XVI, Inc., representing Palm Beach Community Church, XVI, Trustee, for site
plan approval for the construction of a 51,020 square foot church facility. Located on Lots
8, 9 & 12 of South Park Center Plat in the Northcorp Center Planned Community District.
(1,12- 42S -42E & 1,6- 42S -43E).
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 7, 1995, and explained
the background of the proposed parking spaces.
In response to questions from Committee members, Mr. Ellington verified that 75% of the
required parking was now on church -owned property; that City Council, staff, and the Site Plan
and Appearance Review Committee had all previously expressed concern and requested that the
petitioner consider down - sizing the building, purchasing more property to achieve 100% of
required parking, and stated that the City Attorney's advice had been to either revise the shared
parking agreement to run with the land or to downsize the building to provide the required
parking on site.
• Raymond Royce, Attorney for the Petitioner, explained that he had understood that 75% of the
required parking was acceptable; stated that all parking spaces including those located on land
not owned by the Petitioner would be subject to the PUD, commented that staff's concern that
the shared parking would run with the use should not be a problem since the shared parking
would be part of the PUD and since the site plan approval would be only for a church and the
City would have control over whether to change the use; and suggested that an express condition
be placed on approval which would state that approval was only for church purposes. Attorney
Royce explained that if the owners of the land used for shared parking wished to relocate the
parking spaces that they were required under existing covenants to provide a total of 950 spaces
on property contiguous to Parcel 2; and proposed that the church sign an agreement that they
would not modify any documents to relocate parking.
Chairman Sabatello posed a scenario in which Lot 10 (to the south) and Lot 7 (to the west) were
sold and developed before Lot 8, and both Attorney Royce and Assistant City Attorney Golis
verified that the shared parking on Lot 8 could not then be relocated unless those lots were
repurchased and any buildings torn down. Discussion of the shared parking agreement clarified
that church parking was allowed on Lot 8 only during certain evening hours and the 24 -hour
Sunday period, and that the agreement was in effect as long as the use on Lots 9 and 12 was for
a church. Donaldson Hearing explained that the church building probably could not be
converted to a future auditorium under traffic concurrency standards, but if it were that the
calculation for parking would be the same. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether the
0 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 12, 1995
Committee might cause a future hardship to the landowner if the Committee improperly
approved the petition with reduced parking, making it impossible for the church to sell the
property to another type of user in the event they could not find another church to buy it.
Attorney Royce suggested a condition of approval could be that the site plan approval was for
use as a church and no other use. Assistant City Attorney Golis expressed concern that the
language "non - exclusive parking" was referenced in the shared parking agreement. Mr. Glidden
verified that 261 spaces, or 75% of the required parking spaces, were located on church -owned
property, and that in spite of the fact that Lot 8 contained 294 spaces that the church only needed
85 of them to meet 100% of the code requirement. Mr. Ellington stated that suggestions made
at the Committee's May 23, 1995 meeting which would resolve the parking problem were to
reduce seating or to amend the PCD ordinance to request the ability to park within the required
PCD buffer.
Reverend Raymond Underwood commented that the 1994 average Sunday morning attendance
was 670, which was the only time that the shared parking would be needed, and that the largest
attendance was at the Easter Sunday service.
Discussion ensued regarding the concept of shared parking, and the use of the word "non-
exclusive" in the agreement. Chairman Sabatello suggested a condition restricting the use of the
church auditorium to evenings, Saturdays and Sundays, to which Reverend Underwood stated
the petitioner was agreeable since the petitioner had already committed to that in the shared
parking agreement. Chairman Sabatello stated that the shared parking was a great concept, but
that in this case the City would not have control over the shared parking agreement, and that a
condition of approval restricting use of the auditorium could be the answer. The petitioner
explained that the parking agreement did not allow pre - school during business hours, and that
any breach of the parking agreement would result in a $5,000 fine per occurrence. Mr. Paganini
questioned whether there might also be a shared parking agreement in existence by purchasers
of Lots 10 and 11. Mr. Mignogna suggested that the church might plan for more than one Easter
service which would reduce the parking required per service. Chairman Sabatello suggested that
the petitioner work with staff to arrive at a condition of approval restricting use of the
auditorium.
Mr. Hearing gave a presentation which included the expanded site plan and an overview of the
project.
Mr. Jones expressed concern with dead -end parking spaces. Mr. Hearing proposed designation
of those spaces as staff or visitor parking. Mr. Jones expressed concern with the size of the
building on the lot and minimal landscaping in the rear. Mr. Hearing explained that although
landscaping had been reduced in order to comply with 75% parking, the open space requirement
had been exceeded, and expressed willingness to increase the landscaping if a couple of parking
spaces could be deleted. Mr. Jones stated that the effect of the building mass on the neighboring
0 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 12, 1995
parcel to the rear would be overwhelming. Mr. Glidden agreed that such a huge building needed
an increased landscape buffer. Further discussion included the location of the loading area and
the location of the handicap parking spaces.
Discussion of the building ensued, which included a request by Mr. Glidden that a detailed list
of materials be added to the drawings, and that floor plans and roof plans be submitted.
Location of mechanical equipment was discussed. In response to Chairman Sabatello's
comment that a standard condition could be included to give flexibility in screening the
equipment, Planning and Zoning Director Walton stated that the City Council had requested that
no conditions be included which were code requirements; therefore, the petitioner needed to
show how they would accomplish location and screening of the mechanical equipment. Mr.
Glidden also commented that landscaping should be improved at the rear of the property, and
verified that the four -story glass atrium was all that went above the three -story level, and
requested a definition of the reveals (indentations in the EIFS system). Chairman Sabatello
stressed that full drawings of the air conditioning system must be presented and any changes
could not be accomplished through the Building Department. Mr. Mignogna commented that
the rear wall on the south elevation must be broken up by using different colors, banding, or
tiles, and that drawings must be submitted reflecting exact placement of those enhancements.
Mr. Glidden suggested that the entrance clerestory window above the third floor level would be
• an excellent spot for a major focal point rather than using only plain glass and mullions.
Chairman Sabatello verified with Mr. Hearing that the sign would be the only designation
indicating that this structure was a church, and that other symbols would not be added later.
Chairman Sabatello requested that the building mass be considered in relation to the lot size, and
that landscaping be increased over the entire site in order to soften the building. Chairman
Sabatello expressed his opinion that he would not support banding or color changes on the rear
wall, but would favor more substantial architectural features such as false balconies, railings,
or possibly continuing the glass from the north elevation to provide something that would be
more architecturally interesting. Chairman Sabatello stressed that size and massing of
landscaping was important on the rear elevation.
Planning and Zoning Director Walton expressed the opinion that parking should be further
addressed. Chairman Sabatello stated that his opinion was that this petition could not go
forward using the shared parking agreement as any part of the approval process, and that
approval must be conditioned upon matters which could be controlled by the City, such as
restriction of use for peak and off -peak times. Director Walton commented that the problem
with parking was only during peak time. Chairman Sabatello suggested language restricting the
use during peak time which would allow clear identification and enforcement, since only 85
parking spaces were involved. Mr. Glidden stated he fully supported shared parking, and felt
that the City possessed a degree of control through the PUD, but expressed concern with the
word "non - exclusive" in the shared parking agreement; and envisioned the worst -case scenario
® 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 12, 1995
to be if other uses also needed the parking on Sunday, however, commented that problem could
be solved by not granting the shared parking to another user. Mr. Glidden stated he was
comfortable with the 75% parking, and suggested a condition stating that restriction. Mr.
Mignogna stated his agreement with Mr. Glidden that the City did have some control, and stated
that he was comfortable with 75% parking. Mr. Paganini stated that he was also comfortable
with 75% parking. Mr. Jones stated he had no problem with the shared parking. Chairman
Sabatello stated he was most concerned with the language of restriction.
Chairman Sabatello thanked the petitioner for their efforts, requested that they work with staff,
and cautioned that all viewpoints had not been heard since some Commission members were not
present.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
• There was no new business to come before the Commission.
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 12, 1995
0
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. William Mignogna, seconded by Mr. John
Glidden, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. The next meeting
will be held September 26, 1995.
APPROVED:
Carl Sabatello,
(Absentl
Phillip Lyddon
(Absent
l
Thomas Pastore
(2-,�
Tom Paganini, Alternate
a e Holloman, Secretary
• 6
(Absent)
Diane Carlin, Vice Chair
(Absentl
Daniel Honig
59mm���"
Wifriam. Mignogna
Christopher Jones, Alternate