HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092695•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 26, 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 Carl Sabatello:
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Tom Paganini, Alternate
Thomas Pastore
Absent
Daniel Honig
Christopher Jones, Alternate
Phillip Lyddon
Also present at the meeting were Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, City Council Liaison David
Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, and Principal Planner Bristol Ellington.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington announced that Planning and Zoning Director was absent
from the meeting.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison Clark reported recent City Council actions: (1) The City Council had
requested that the Don Olson Tire Building be turned 90 degrees inward toward the plaza and
that more architectural detail be added to the back which would face Military Trail; (2) The City
Council had continued the Public Hearing on the Communication Tower Ordinance; and (3) The
City Council had approved Ballenlsles PUD requests.
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES:
Minutes of September 12, 1995 - Mr. Mignogna made a motion to approve the minutes as
submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paganini. The motion was approved by a 4 -2
vote, with abstentions by Vice Chair Carlin and Mr. Pastore.
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Workshop: Petition SP- 95 -15, by Jeff Lis, agent for Daniel Catalfumo, to request site plan
approval for the construction of a one - story, 67,056 square -foot building. Located on Lots
6 & 7 of South Park Center Plat within the Northcorp Center Planned Community District.
(12- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 21, 1995.
Jeff Lis explained that he represented his tenant, Implant Innovation, Inc., a dental implant
company. Mr. Lis responded to Chairman Sabatello that reduction of minimum open space from
28% to 20% had been discussed by the City Council, who had indicated that this petition should
move forward. Mr. Lis requested site plan approval by this Committee with approval for a
waiver for a change to geo block with the understanding that if the City Council adopts the
amendment to the PCD reducing the open space requirement that the petitioner would be
allowed at their discretion to make the conversion from geotech to asphalt at that time. Mr. Lis
explained that the tenant had outgrown their present facility and badly needed additional
parking. Discussion ensued, after which Chairman Sabatello advised the petitioner that the
• Committee would make a recommendation for the City Council's decision.
Mr. Lis explained that the request for 4 ground signs had been made to provide clearer
identification for out -of -state doctors and visitors from other countries; and that the large amount
of parking was needed because of the tenant's current growth. Chairman Sabatello expressed
concern regarding reduced landscaping which would not offset the parking. Mr. Lis explained
that the City's landscape code point system would take care of that since as the open space
diminished the intensity of planting increased; and that in this case if there were no grass parking
spaces the open space percentage would be 22 %, which would be sufficient in any other PCD
within the City. Mr. Lis explained that the large building sign was proportionate to the design
and the wall space of the building, that the two wall signs and four ground signs had been
requested under the petitioner's interpretation of the code, and that further discussion would be
held with Building Official Jack Hansen. Chairman Sabatello requested that Building Official
Hansen add any comments to the file which would help the Committee in their final decision
regarding the signage.
Mr. Lis reviewed the comments from City Engineer Lynnette Lanning which were attached to
the staff report. Mr. Lis stated he had no problem with item one. Mr. Lis stated he would get
copies of the contracts requested in item two and would provide those. Mr. Lis reported that
Traffic Consultant Yvonne Ziel and Kahart Pinder were in contact and working out the
requirements of item three; and that Ms. Ziel would contact the City Engineer to provide the
calculations requested in item four. The permit issue in number five had been discussed in terms
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
of the geo block issue. Mr. Lis stated his engineers were in the process of preparing a point -by-
point to meet the footcandle requirement and that this should also satisfy the Police Department
request for more lighting in the parking lot area. Mr. Lis stated that the revised site plan would
show the number of bicycle parking spaces as required in item seven. Mr. Lis stated that a
warrant study had been submitted and that he would contact the City Engineer to determine the
problem so that item eight could be satisfied; and explained that the result of the study had been
that no traffic light was warranted at this time for the intersection of Burns Road and Riverside
Drive. Mr. Lis was told that item number nine was provided for clarification. Mr. Lis stated
that the petitioner would comply with item ten. Mr. Lis explained that all current FPL easements
would be abandoned and that FPL would install a 10 -foot utility easement adjacent to the right -
of -way on the new roadway alignment, which would be within the 15 -foot landscape buffer.
Mr. Ed Sabin, Executive Vice President of Implant Innovations, Inc., discussed the explosive
growth of the company and the parking required for employees and visitors. The grass parking
had been proposed in order to accommodate green space requirements, however, preliminary
research had indicated that with full-time use the grass would not survive. Mr. Sabin explained
the manufacturing facility was used for marketing purposes by conducting tours, and he would
like to showcase the facility with the requested signage. Mr. Sabin clarified that the average
• number of visitors per day would be 20 -30.
Mr. Mignogna inquired whether there was a parking area specified for bus parking. Mr. Sabin
clarified that the busses used were minibusses. Mr. Glidden clarified floor to area ratio and
pointed out that the median at the entrance projected into the drive aisle and suggested it be
moved back to align up with the other edge of the driveway. Mr. Glidden advised that specific
screening materials, colors, projected height, etc. for air conditioning units would need to be
addressed. Mr. Glidden requested roof and floor plans, and requested that a floor plan be
required with all applications. Mr. Lis clarified the landscape point system when open space
was reduced, and stated that no additional landscaping was planned in addition to code
requirements, and that the site was well vegetated, in response to concerns raised by Mr. Pastore.
Young Song explained the placement and types of plantings and trees, and pointed out the large
number of trees which had been preserved on the site. Mr. Ellington verified that the streetscape
would be in place prior to certificate of occupancy. Mr. Sabatello stated he wanted to make
sure that conditions were clearly stated so that there were no problems when the developer
applied to receive a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Pastore stated he would be extremely
surprised if traffic at Burns Road and Riverside Drive did not meet requirements for a traffic
light, since only two of the twelve criteria must be met. Mr. Ellington explained that BallenIsles
at certain phases was required to fund Bums Road improvements. Mr. Lis responded to Mr.
Paaganini that each of the lots within the PCD were assigned approximately 300 trips out of the
6,063 allocated, so that this project was assigned over 600 and would generate far less than that
so there was no need to go into the available pool of trips. Mr. Lis further explained the traffic
0 3
•
0
n
U
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
study. Mr. Sabin explained that employees would come from both north and south. Mr.
Mignogna inquired whether there would be interior drains in the building and after ensuing
discussion, Chairman Sabatello advised that drains and scuppers must be shown on the plan.
Discussion regarding landscaping included how existing trees might be saved, the size of live
oaks at planting, the type of hedge material and how long it would take the hedge to reach 30
inches in height when planted at the required spacing and height. Chairman Sabatello
questioned whether any landscape areas would retain water, and was assured by the petitioner
that there would be no depressed areas on the site. Chairman Sabatello stated that any roof -
mounted equipment and how it would be screened must be clear. Building colors, materials, and
textures were discussed, and the applicant was requested to provide samples at the next meeting.
Chairman Sabatello discussed the signage requested, and stated that usually the code was not
exceeded. Chairman Sabatello. advised that both Building Official Hanson's calculations and
a better reason than that the sign looked good would be needed. Chairman Sabatello asked
whether any of the Committee members agreed with having four monument signs. Vice Chair
Carlin supported three signs, omitting the one on the corner east on Riverside. Discussion of
the signs ensued. Mr. Lis suggested a compromise of two large signs and two smaller delivery
signs. Mr. Mignogna favored delivery signs rather than a third large sign. Chairman Sabatello
directed the applicant to pick the most important signs. Mr. Pastore indicated that two main
signs were sufficient; Mr. Paganini favored the compromise of two large and two small signs.
Mr. Mignogna questioned the vine shown on the drawing, to which Mr. Lis responded he
believed that was a standard planning detail and that there were actually no vines for this project,
but he would verify that.
Mr. Lis stated he would provide full responses to staff as quickly as possibly regarding
everything discussed. Chairman Sabatello advised that if everything was in order the Committee
would try to move the applicant through the process as quickly as possible, however, the burden
was on the applicant.
In summary, the following comments were made:
1. FAR shall be clarified as being .25 rather than 2.5 as was referenced on the site plan.
2. The median at the main entrance shall be adjusted to be in alignment with adjacent
median islands.
3. The type of air conditioning units shall be defined and clarified as to whether they will
be roof mounted. Screening shall be provided for all roof - mounted equipment and
Petitioner shall provide materials, colors, and color specifications to be used.
4. Petitioner shall provide a roof plan and a floor plan.
4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
5. Petitioner shall provide elevation plans for the delivery signs at the southwest and
northeast corner of the project site.
6. The warrant study shall be reviewed for compliance with criteria required for a traffic
signal at the intersection of Burns Road and Northcorp Parkway.
7. Building scuppers shall be identified on the elevation plans.
8. Live Oak size at time of planting shall be identified on the plans.
9. Type and height of the perimeter hedge shall be indicated on the plan to assure its
potential to screen parked cars.
10. An elevation shall be provided of the 3I location sign.
11. Building Official Jack Hanson shall be consulted concerning the permitted square footage
of the wall mounted signs.
12. A sample or picture of all exterior colors shall be provided for the next attended meeting.
• In particular, samples shall be provided of the blue color to be used for the window and
door trim.
Workshop: Pe iti n SP- 95 -16, by Sara Lockhart, agent for Shoppes on the Green, is
requesting site plan approval for the development of a 2,654 square foot Burger King
restaurant. The site is located within the Shoppes on the Green Shopping Center at PGA
National, east of Fairway Avenue, between the Great Western Bank and the First Union
Bank out - parcels.
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 21, 1995.
Sara Lockhart of Urban Design Studio, agent for the Petitioner, provided an overview of the
project, and explained that in 1994 the PUD for Shoppes on the Green had expired for the
second time and that in the reinstatement process the project had been evaluated for compliance
with the current land development regulations; and explained that if approved, this restaurant
would be in compliance with the minimum overall parking ratio of 4.9 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet. Ms. Lockhart requested that two signs be allowed on the front elevation, and stated
that otherwise the signage would meet code. Ms. Lockhart indicated that the turning ratio would
be adjusted at the exit of the drive -thru as requested by the City Engineer, and that the dumpster
angle would also be adjusted. Landscaping would screen the drive -thru from view of Fairway
Drive. A unified appearance with the shopping center would be achieved through matching the
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
existing architectural style and plant palette. Ms. Lockhart provided color and material samples.
Mr. Glidden stressed the need for maximum increase of the turning radius at the exit of the
drive -thru for safety purposes. Mr. Glidden also expressed concern that the traffic aisle from
Publix did not line up with the Burger King parking area and requested that the applicant study
that situation to see what could be done. Ms. Lockhart explained in response to Chairman
Sabatello's question regarding the purpose of the exit in front of the drive -thru, that the exit was
provided as an escape route. Chairman Sabatello requested that the escape lane width be
reduced to one lane width. Chairman Sabatello requested that photographs of existing
landscaping at the banks on either side of this parcel be provided in order to verify that proposed
landscaping for this project would be as consistent as possible with the existing streetscape.
Chairman Sabatello questioned combining directional and identification signs. Ms. Lockhart
requested the same consideration as Great Western Bank had been granted. Chairman Sabatello
requested guidelines for directional signs for this and future applications. Chairman Sabatello
requested that the applicant find out who would maintain the property and the landscaping. Mr.
Glidden pointed out that the drive aisle alignment of the exit lane discussed earlier differed on
the site plan and the master plan and requested the true alignment. Chairman Sabatello
questioned how trucks would be positioned to unload supplies, expressed concern that the trucks
would be unloading adjacent to cars waiting in line to order, and suggested moving the stacking
• lane to the south for ordering from the menu board. Chairman Sabatello suggested more
landscaping around the cooler area and the blank walls in the utility area, and requested the size
of delivery trucks so that the Committee could determine whether there would be a conflict with
truck traffic and the escape route. Mr. Glidden suggested moving the dumpster to face within
the restaurant area. Ms. Lockhart commented that the PGA National Homeowners Association
would be reviewing this project on Thursday. Further discussion ensued regarding large trucks
and whether they would damage the parking surfaces; and whether there was sufficient room in
turning radii provided at the drive -thru exit and at the menu order board. Mr. Mignogna
requested that Ms. Lockhart find out how mechanical equipment on the roof would be accessed.
Chairman Sabatello inquired whether any of the other Committee members had a problem with
the request for two signs on one elevation; all responded that they had no problems.
Workshop: Petition P� 95 -19, by Steve Doran is seeking site plan approval for the
construction of three attached multifamily units totaling 4119 square feet. The site is
located east of Gardens East Plaza and north of Lighthouse Drive at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Gardens East Drive and Firetree Road. (18- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 21, 1995.
Mr. Steve Yeckes, architect and agent for the petitioner, provided an overview of the project.
Mr. Yeckes stated that all of the requests by the Development Review Committee had been met
except two, and explained that one was the request for a sidewalk on Firetree Road. Since that
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
road dead ended into a canal and there were no other sidewalks in the area, and the applicant had
instead proposed a sidewalk along Gardens East Drive. Mr. Yeckes commented that the other
objection was to the request to redraw the site plan, and explained that it would be an extreme
burden. Mr. Yeckes stated that there was no intent to convert the dens into bedrooms. Also,
Mr. Yeckes explained that a hedge had been drawn in the wrong place on the plans, that
additional landscaping had been provided, and that the landscaping vastly exceeded code
requirements.
Discussion by the Committee included questions regarding the location of parking spaces and
air conditioning units, and the building fascia. Mr. Yeckes commented that the screen
enclosures had been corrected on the site plan and elevations so as not to protrude past the roof
line. Vice Chair Carlin inquired why a sidewalk had been requested on Firetree Road.
Principal Planner Ellington explained that even though there was a fence preventing vehicular
traffic that there was pedestrian access over the canal culvert, which people utilized to get to
Publix. Mr. Ellington commented that he would check with the City Engineer to see if there was
any concern with the proposed Gardens East sidewalk stopping at the southeast corner of the
project, with no sidewalk extending to Lighthouse Drive. Mr. Ellington explained that no
separate landscape plan had been furnished and that the applicant had been allowed to add
landscaping to the site plan, however, as more and more information was required to be added
to the plan per code requirements, it became very difficult to identify such items as parking
spaces and air conditioning units. Mr. Yeckes again expressed that it would be an extreme
burden to redraw the plan. After ensuing discussion regarding how this might be handled
without redrawing the plan, Chairman Sabatello requested that the irrigation lines and lines
connecting the trees be removed, and that shading be provided to identify hard areas such as
patios, sidewalks, driveways, etc., to which Mr. Yeckes agreed. The Committee requested that
if Queen palms were used that they be clustered, or if single trees were desired that another type
of tree be chosen. Committee comments regarding the sidewalk were that either walk was
sufficient, and that the City Engineer's decision would be acceptable. Chairman Sabatello stated
he saw no problem with backing out of the single drive onto that street.
In summary, the following requests were made of the petitioner:
1. An option was suggested to replace the Queen Palms with oak trees, however, if the
Queen Palms were used the Committee requested that they should be clustered.
2. The Committee requested that a sidewalk be provided along Gardens East Drive.
3. The Committee requested that the site plan be revised to eliminate some of the excess
information, such as the irrigation spray radius..
• 7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop: Petition PUD- 95-03, by Robert Bentz, agent for Dr. Mark Damerau, to rezone
a 5.15 -acre tract to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for an executive office park totaling
50,000 square feet. (8- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 21, 1995.
Robert Benz, agent for the Petitioner, described the office neighborhood concept within a PUD
envisioned for this project and reviewed requested waivers and reasons for their request. Mr.
Benz commented that the square footage would total approximately one -half of the square
footage previously approved for an expired PUD on this site, and that the development would
consist of eight office buildings designed to look like residential homes. Mr. Benz explained
that no office neighborhoods existed within the City, and that the Code did not address the
concept, making waiver requests necessary.
Chairman Sabatello requested that Mr. Benz list the waivers and the reasons he felt the waivers
were warranted. The following waivers were requested:
• 1. Waiver to required 15 -foot landscape buffers between the pro M line and building. Mr.
Benz stated that in this project property lines not only delineated the property of the
whole project, but also separated parking areas from the buildings. The property was
designed to be visualized as a whole, not as individual parcels divided by 15 -foot
landscaping buffers, but integrated with each other. With the required landscape buffers
around each unit, there would not be enough room to develop the property. The applicant
therefore requested a 5 -foot landscape buffer.
2. Waiver to reduce required setback along mangrove area to 40 feet from the 50 feet
required. This waiver was requested in order to preserve a larger number of mangrove
trees.
3. Waiver of requirement for sidewalk along Prosperity Farms Road. Mr. Benz explained
that the City Engineer had requested that the petitioner provide a letter from Palm Beach
County and the Department of Environmental Resources Management stating that they
would agree that the preservation of the mangrove hammock took priority over the safety
of pedestrians, which Mr. Benz felt would be impossible to obtain. Mr. Benz provided
photographs which showed that installation of a sidewalk would destroy a portion of the
mangroves. Mr. Ellington explained that a sidewalk was requested from other
developments along the roadway, so that eventually the sidewalks would link into a
sidewalk which would extend the length of the roadway.
•
8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
4. Waiver of required 15'x35' loading space for each office building. Mr. Benz explained
that this amount of loading space was intended for a large office building and that each
office building would be small, and a 15'x30' loading space on each parcel would require
so much land area that a large area of the parking and a portion of the buildings would
be lost, since there was not sufficient room to physically fit them on the individual
parcels.
Mr. Benz explained that the petitioner wished to have the option to reduce the size of the
buildings when a medical office use was proposed in order to maintain the same ratio of required
parking spaces as required for general office use. If the entire overall site at buildout consisted
of professional offices, Mr. Benz stated, an excess of 27 parking spaces would exist, and if it
consisted of medical offices the number proposed would be the correct amount. At the current
time it was unknown whether the offices would be medical or professional. Mr. Ellington
explained that other office buildings within the City were restricted to medical offices as a result
parking concerns.
Mr. Benz responded to Mr. Mignogna's question that the building which existed on the site
would be demolished. Mr. Mignogna's comment regarding requested waivers was that he would
definitely like to see the sidewalk along Prosperity Farms Road. Discussion ensued regarding
how the sidewalk could be positioned. Mr. Glidden commented that further research was
• needed to determine whether there was room to install a sidewalk. Mr. Glidden requested that
each building be brought before the Commission for architectural review, objected that there
were too many straight lines in parking, and recommended cross access easements for parking
to eliminate some of the dead -end parking. Mr. Glidden requested that massing shown in the
elevation be placed into perspective within the building pad, and did not consider the
landscaping between units to be a problem. Mr. Benz clarified that infrastructure, entry
landscaping, and trees along the streets would be installed for the whole project up front, but
landscaping for individual parcels would not be installed until that parcel was developed. Mr.
Ellington suggested a detailed phasing plan which would clearly depict buildout. Mr. Pastore
inquired whether the type of construction could be included within the covenants and
restrictions, to which Mr. Benz responded that was what the petitioner desired, and that approval
was desired for architectural requirements, so that each building submittal would have to
conform to the established general criteria. Architect Lance Cortamanch explained that the POA
would develop more stringent and detailed guidelines to be allowed within the development, and
would review each new parcel as it was developed. Mr. Glidden requested further information
on the building footprints. Mr. Pastore commented he considered the sidewalk issue the biggest
stumbling block because of the mangrove mitigation problem, and suggested wooden pilings and
a boardwalk. Mr. Paganini inquired as to market demand, to which Mr. Damerau responded
most people who had seen the concept were in favor of it. Chairman Sabatello commented that
he was not sure that the rendering depicted the true picture. Chairman Sabatello stated that he
believed each lot must be submitted for approval as it was developed. Concerns expressed by
Chairman Sabatello were in regard to common area of right of ways and streets with phasing,
40 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
proposed landscaping and maintenance, and dead ends and turnarounds which did not allow
traffic circulation to which a creative solution was needed. Chairman Sabatello commented that
he did not consider setback waivers as important as understanding the landscaping for each lot
and how it would tie in and screen parking from the other lots, and how control to avoid a poorly
maintained lot would be assured after the property had been sold. Chairman Sabatello
commented that other issues could be worked out as the development approval process
progressed. Mr. Pastore stated he was in full support of the project. Chairman Sabatello
commented that looking at parking circulation with all of the dead ends gave the impression that
too much was going on within a small piece of property, and that blanket approval would
probably not be granted. Vice Chair Carlin suggested that the green space might be used to
help circulation.
Mr. Ellington verified that the Commission had no concerns regarding the setbacks proposed in
the landscape buffer waivers but that dead -end parking spaces, traffic circulation, and
landscaping buffering of parking spaces concerns needed to be worked out. Chairman Sabatello
and Vice Chair Carlin agreed that the maximum professional office vs. medical office use must
be used, however, Mr. Glidden cautioned that flexibility would be lost by using the largest
building footprint. Mr. Glidden also commented that the Commission could approve criteria
which would help applicants understand what might be approved, and requested precise
• stipulation as to the percentage of one and two -story buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the
impact of two different uses in one building. Mr. Ellington stated that parking was based strictly
on square footage for each use. Mr. Glidden reminded the petitioner that elevators must be
provided in two -story buildings to conform to state handicapped guidelines.
In summary, the following comments were provided:
1. The Petitioner shall consult with Palm Beach County to determine the feasibility of
placing a sidewalk along Prosperity Farms Road.
2. The Petitioner shall determine the final footprint and clarify the number of stories for
each building site.
3. The Petitioner shall consider a cross - access parking agreement to ease potential parking
problems and to improve the flow of traffic.
4. A grassed easement shall be utilized to ease the flow of traffic.
5. An architectural review shall be required for each building.
6. The Petitioner shall provide a narrative indicating each waiver and its justification.
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
C
7. The Petitioner shall provide additional landscaping to buffer the parking lots.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
11
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 1995
•-
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino, seconded by Mr. John
Glidden, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. The next meeting
will be held October 10, 1995.
Carl Sal atello, Chairman
u
o —15
(Absent)
Phillip Lyddon
Thomas Pastore
Paganini,
441- /� !l
Alice Eve ard, Secretary
0 12
�la, �..
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
(Absent
Daniel Honig
William Mignogna
(Absent)
Christopher Jones, Alternate