HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 101095CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 10, 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 Pro Tem Daniel Honig at 7:34 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 Melissa Prindiville, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
Daniel Honig
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Phillip Lyddon
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
William Mignogna
John Glidden
Thomas Pasttore
Christopher Jones, Alternate
Tom Paganini, Alternate
• Also present at the meeting were Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis, Assistant City Manager
Greg Dunham, Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton, Principal Planner Bristol
Ellington, and Principal Planner Kim Glas.
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of September 26, 1995 - Mr. Honig made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mignogna. The motion was approved by a 4 -0 vote.
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Recommendation to City Council: 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.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
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, and answered
questions from the Committee.
Jeff Lis, agent for the petitioner, referred to item (3) of the comments and concerns raised by the
Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee at its September 26, 1995 meeting, and requested
that item (3) be deferred until a later date when the type of air conditioning system and its
location would be known. Discussion ensued regarding how to handle the screening problem,
which resulted in the Committee's decision to make a recommendation to the City Council that
air conditioning units shall be grouped into two areas with ten -foot setbacks from the front of
the building. Mr. Honig suggested that staff provide guidelines for future applications; Mr.
Mignogna requested this matter be taken up under New Business at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Lis explained that the petitioner did not wish to comply with staff recommendation (3)
requiring relocation of the northeast entrance to align with the proposed entrance for the Palm
Beach Community Church parcel because deliveries would then be routed through the project's
parking lot rather than an outside route. Mr. Lis requested that this project be allowed to leave
the entrance as proposed and that if and when the Palm Beach Community Church parcel was
approved that they be required to move the entrance along with improvements they would be
required to make to their parking lot. During ensuing discussion, Planning and Zoning Director
Walton explained that the City Engineer had recommended the entranceway alignment on the
site plan for this project. Mr. Honig suggested that the Committee's condition state that
petitioner be allowed to proceed with the site plan as shown subject to approval of the City
Engineer, verified by a letter from the City Engineer to accompany petitioner's presentation
before the City Council. Mr. Lis responded to Mr. Mignogna's concern that this entranceway
might connect to a future through street was unfounded, since the entranceway would only be
connecting to another parking lot and not to a through street. Mr. Lyddon commented that he
did not understand the reason for the proposed alignment if it was only an entrance to parking.
It was the consensus of the Committee to accept the City Engineer's written decision.
Mr. Lis discussed item (11) of comments and concerns from the September 26, 1995 meeting,
regarding the permitted square footage of the wall - mounted signs, and stated that the square
footages had been reduced to conform to City Code. Mr. Lis explained that the sign proposed
for the north wall of the building met square footage and lettering requirements, but that the
proposed logo was not permitted by Code. During ensuing discussion, comments were made
by the Committee that the logo was the same size and color as the lettering and therefore not
intrusive, and that this sign would face the interior of the property. It was the consensus of the
Committee to recommend that the City Council waive the requirement of one logo per building.
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
Yvonne Ziel, Traffic Consultant, described how the warrant criteria worked to determine
whether a traffic signal was required. Ms. Ziel explained that warrants 1, 2, and 6 were usually
the criteria which would allow a signal, and that none of those had been met according to
existing counts. Mr. Lis explained that the petitioner was waiting for counts by the City's traffic
consultant. Mr. Honig commented that upon completion of this project that many more cars
would be using this intersection, questioned who made the decision, and was informed that it
was the County. Mr. Hoenig expressed concern that if the next project was done by someone
else and this project had raised the counts so that a traffic signal must be installed then, that this
petitioner had no obligation to help fund the traffic signal. Planning and Zoning Director Walton
stated that he believed the real concern was that if no more applications were received for the
next five years and during that period a traffic signal was required, that there would be no one
required to pay for the signal. Mr. Lis explained that the cost for the light was included in the
bond; however, the cost for the warrant study was not, but was paid for with every application.
The decision of the Committee was to add "and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer" to
recommendation (1), after "shall be completed".
Mr. Lis stated that recommendation (2) required a Trip Generation Analysis from the City's
traffic consultant. Mr. Lis stated that the petitioner agreed to recommendations (4) through (7).
Mr. Lis stated that the average overall lighting of the parking lot pavement was 2.0 rather than
• 1.0 as required in (8), and that the petitioner agreed to recommendations (8) through (12).
Mr. Lis stated that Art in Public Places would be provided since the cost of the building would
be over $1,000,000.
Mr. Mignogna made a motion to include the following recommendations: (1) addition of and
approved by the City's Traffic Engineer after the phrase shall be completed. (3) addition of the
following: unless the City Engineer decides that the as requested location meets with his
approval. Addifio )dscaping o recommendations: (13) Screen the mechanical equipment in two
groups from line of�s (14) Allow the use of "3i" on the North Face of the building.
Revised wording fo (rior to final site plan approval, the landscape plan shall be revised
to meet the minimu� requirements for the change to the geo block grass parking
spaces from asphalt. Mr. Lyddon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
In summary, the final recommendations by the Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee were
as follows:
(1) The signal warrant study, to determine if signalization is required at the intersection of
Burns Road with Riverside Drive, shall be completed and approved by the City's Traffic
Engineer prior to final site plan approval by the City Council. If warranted, the Contract
shall be let for installation of a traffic signal at the Burns Road and West Park Drive
intersection including all appropriate pavement markings, signing, lighting and the like
1* 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
as approved by Palm Beach County, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots
6 and 7.
(2) A Trip Generation Analysis for Lots 6 and 7 shall be approved by the City traffic
consultant prior to final site plan approval by the City Council.
(3) Prior to final site plan approval by the City Council, the site plan shall be revised to
reflect the relocation of the northeast entrance to align with the proposed entrance for the
Palm Beach Community Church parcel, unless the City Engineer decides that the as
requested location meets with his appproval.
(4) Prior to the issuance of any building permits on Lots 6 and 7, a Unity of Title shall be
recorded on said lots.
(5) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any uses on Lots 6 and 7, the Contract
shall be let for construction of Riverside Drive (a.k.a. West Park Drive) as a two -lane
section as well as single northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound left -turn
lanes at the intersection of Burns Road with Riverside Drive.
• (6) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any uses on Lots 6 and 7, the Contract
shall be let for construction of the extension of Northcorp Parkway in a two -lane section
easterly to its proposed terminus at East Park Drive. These improvements shall be
completed and opened to the public prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
(7) Existing FP &L easements shall be abandoned and replaced with a 10 -foot Utility
Easement adjacent to the property line and on the property, not to be encumbered with
landscaping, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lots 6 and 7.
(8) The lighting of the parking lot pavement shall provide a minimum maintained horizontal
footcandles of 0.6 and an average overall of 1.0 in the general parking and pedestrian
area, certified to by the engineer -of- record as being provided by the lighting plan, prior
to the issuance of any building permits on Lots 6 and 7.
(9) Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the developer shall coordinate with
the Police Department on the acceptability of the placement of landscaping in proximity
to the lighting.
(10) Prior to final site plan approval, the landscape plan shall be revised to meet the minimum
landscaping requirements for the change to the geo block grass parking spaces from
asphalt.
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
(11) The Construction Plans for Lots 6 and 7 shall provide one -half inch of on -site dry
pretreatment prior to discharge into the master surface water management system by the
use of an underground exfiltration trench system.
(12) The traffic impact fees generated by the development of Lots 6 and 7 shall be placed in
the account for the improvement of Burns Road.
(13) Screen the mechanical equipment in two groups from line of sight.
(14) Allow the use of "3i" on the North face of the building.
FM. NUMNA041WINIQ
orksh : Petition DRI- 95 -01, by Hank Skokowski, agent for Martin Fein Interests, Inc, for
an amendment to the PGA National Resort Community DRI to change 20.815 acres of the
Commerce Park to residential land use for 298 apartments. (15- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Kim Glas reviewed the staff report dated October 4, 1995, and responded to
questions by the Commission members. Mr. Lyddon raised a concern regarding trip generation
per dwelling unit. In response to Mr. Mignogna's question, Ms. Glas explained recent events
regarding the western land which had been proposed for annexation, and the County's intention
to purchase the preserve area.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, responded to Mr. Honig that Martin Fein Interests,
Inc. was a contract purchaser from PGA National, and introduced Andrea Troutman, traffic
consultant with David Plummer and Associates, Sara Lockhart, land use planner with Urban
Design Studio, and Frank Palen, legal counsel for PGA National Ventures. Mr. Skokowski
reviewed visual displays, explained that PGA National was a low density PCD, was zoned PCD,
and was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Skokowski described the petitioner's
interpretation of wording within the Comprehensive Plan as there being no specific density
limitation requirement and if there were, it would be 15 units per acre. Mr. Skokowski reviewed
original densities and subsequent amendments, and explained that with approval of 298
apartments the density would only be 8 %, a relatively low percentage within the high density
designation. Mr. Skowski explained that the petitioner felt they had vested rights to a density
level since they were a DRI, and that the intrepretation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land
Development Regulations would apply to this project as far as how to interpret PCD and PUD
requirements. Roadway configurations were discussed. Planning and Zoning Director Walton
commented that the documents presented by Mr. Skowski should be presented to staff for
is 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
determination as to accuracy, and explained that all uses south of Hyatt Drive were all permitted
industrual uses, and that the petitioner's argument was that those uses were not heavy industrial.
Mr. Skokowski reviewed a comparative table of residential uses from industrial which has been
attached hereto and made a part of these minutes as "Exhibit A ".
Planning and Zoning Director Walton explained that the City Council had requested that the
petitioner meet with the PGA National Community to give them time to understand the project
prior to consideration by the City. The meeting had been held during the off season, and another
was set for October 17, 1995, organized by CAN (Community Awareness Network).
Traffic Consultant Andrea Troutman responded to Mr. Lyddon's trip generation per unit
question that the County regulation referenced seven trips per unit.
Comments by the Commission members were: Mr. Mignogna stated he was in favor of the
petition and would like to see it changed to a residential community. Mr. Pastore requested that
staff be comfortable with density, school, fire, and police, and the economic tax base of the City
with the loss of industrial property; and stated that he understood the marketability and
compatibility issues which were in favor of the petitioner. Mr. Lyddon expressed concern that
nothing had changed since the last time the Commission had considered this matter, and also
• stated that the Ecclestone organization must be given credit for creating a very fine operation at
PGA National, however, commented that this was only marginally if at all compatible with the
rest of the project. Mr. Lyddon also stated that the City would lose needed industrial land, and
that he believed some of the reasons given by the petitioner for considering a change from
industrial to residential were not supported by the facts and evidence. Mr. Lyddon expressed
his feeling that from a planning standpoint that density residential belonged east of the turnpike
and not west, that this would add to school burdens, and also to risk of human life with the
added distance to be traveled by the Fire Department. Mr. Lyddon expressed his belief that if
a change from industrial was warranted that a better use for the property could be found than
high density residential. Mr. Honig agreed with all of Mr. Lyddon's comments and stated he
was disturbed by a presentation which implied the creation of rights for dormotories in an
educational institute and by the implication that this project was like dormotories when there was
no educational institute other than the Montisorri school. Mr. Honig commented that when these
projects were originally designed and planned there had existed a whole different concept of the
usage of PGA National, and he believed that the developer had changed his rights by the manner
in which he had used his rights to build, and therefore he did not agree that residential
development was appropriate. Mr. Honig also commented he believed the developer had made
an error in judgement regarding marketability of the project by originally designating the area
as industrial. Mr. Mignogna questioned whether fire and safety impact fees must be paid, to
which Ms. Glas responded that the existing fire station at the north end of the project had been
credited to the entire project. Mr. Mignogna inquired whether this parcel had originally been
required as light industrial by the City. Planning and Zoning Director Walton explained that this
0 6
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
whole project had originally been sold by the developer as a mixed -use, full- service community
with a place to have your office near your home, and a place to shop near your home. Mr.
Skokowski agreed with Mr. Hong's earlier comment that the original industrial designation had
been bad judgement by the developer.
Workshop: Petition PLID -95-05, by LeRoy Sherman, agent for Development Ventures, Inc., to
rezone a 7.776 -acre parcel from the Palm Beach County zoning designation of RS, Residential
Single - Family, to the City of Palm Beach Gardens zoning designation of PUD, Planned Unit
Development, for the construction of 17 detached single- family custom homes. Located west of
Prosperity Farms Road and approximately 675 feet north of Burns Road. (8- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated October 5, 1995, and
highlighted areas of concern as the sidewalk along Prosperity Farms Road, interfacing of the
natural preserve areas to the buildable lots, responsibility for retention areas, and drainage
between the lots. Mr. Ellington confirmed in response to Mr. Lyddon that the petitioner had
agreed to provide a sidewalk where possible and was seeking approval from the County to move
an existing guardrail which would allow the sidewalk to continue the length of the whole parcel
along Prosperity Farms Road. Mr. Lyddon expressed safety concerns if there were no sidewalk.
• Mr. Pastore reported that a similar situation existed with another parcel which had been
reviewed at the last meeting.
Lee Sherman, agent for the petitioner, commented that there was a full sidewalk along the east
side of Prosperity Farms Road at the edge of the roadway, and explained that the petitioner was
willing to construct the sidewalk with the permission of the County to move the guardrail to
provide sufficient space at the northern end of the parcel. Mr. Sherman explained that a slight
change had been made to allow more room for a U -turn; the turnaround area had been
reconfigured to allow room for a large truck to back up; and the entry lane had been widened
two feet to accommodate cars turning in from Prosperity Farms Road, all with agreement of the
City Engineers. Mr. Sherman responded to Mr. Honig that the petitioner was prepared to go
forward with the conditions of approval by all of the various entities involved. Mr. Ellington
explained that many of the issues that would need to be worked out would be handled as
conditions of approval, while others would be worked out between Mr. Sherman and the City
Engineer and the City's Environmental Consultant through the construction plan stage as well
as through the construction of the development, and that all would have to be resolved prior to
issuance of the building permit. Mr. Sherman commented that he did not plan to plat until
construction was fmished in order to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Sherman explained
how the water from each lot would be drained so that the preserve areas would not be impacted.
Mr. Sherman explained that he would monitor the building of homes by purchasers and that his
signature would be required to assure compliance with internal rules. Other comments included
how conditions required by the City would be accomplished, that probable buildout would be
0 7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
not more than three years, that one -half of all lots were already reserved, that most building
would be done by only two builders, and fencing and adjacent parcel uses were described. Mr.
Honig suggested that the type of fencing be specified for the eastern property line so that if the
adjacent residents desired a fence in the future that this would not have to be brought back for
approval of the type of fencing. Discussion ensued regarding woodland banks and landscape
buffers.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Mignogna recommended that the City's Code be revised in regard to screening of rooftop
mechanical units. Mr. Honig discussed the possibility of a staff recommendation which would
not be a Code requirement, but stated it would obviously have more teeth if it were an actual
Code requirement. After ensuing discussion, staff was requested to write a proposed revision
• to the Land Development Regulations which would include grouping units and would prohibit
panels for individual units, to be submitted for the Commission's consideration at the next
meeting.
0 8
r:
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 1995
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Honig, seconded by Mr. Lyddon, and
unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. The next meeting will be held
October 24, 1995.
APPROVED:
(Absent)
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
(Absent)
John Glidden
IL i4JU
f'4"-J- 44e
Thomas Pastore
(Absent)
Tom Paganini, Alternate
Melissa Prindiville, Secretary
is 9
(Absent)
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
William Mignogna
(Absent)
Christopher Jones, Alternate
U
"Exhibit A"
CASTLE HARBOUR COMMUNITY
WHY SUPPORT THE CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL FROM INDUSTRIAL?
RESIDENTIAL
Residential will be under single ownership,
management and maintenance. A single master
plan ensures a high standard of development.
Residential development will be unified in design
and attractive.
Building coverage will be half that of industrial
buildings
Open space /green areas will be twice that of
industrial.
Residential uses produce no noise, pollution
and/or. other hazards.
Residential traffic is distributed throughout the
day. Peak hour traffic is reduced.
Residential development will occur in one phase
and Property Owners Association fees will be
paid in full at completion.
Managed rental units satisfy a growing demand
for rental housing.
Rental unit occupants are often prospective
homeowners and increase demand for PGA
National ownership.
Rental units provide housing opportunities for
extended family members - parents, grandparents.
Residential, under single management, qualifies
tenants and maintains high standards.
Residential use is compatible with existing uses:
Lexington Green, Cypress Point and the
Devonshire Nursing Home planned for Lot 1.
• Demand for rental housing is high. High
standards of quality are assured.
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial will be subdivided into 21 small lots
with different owners and a variety of industrial
tenants. All seeking individuality and thus
compromising a unified design.
Industrial development will be varied in design
and less attractive.
Building coverage will be twice that of
residential.
Open space /green areas will be half that of
residential.
Industrial activity generates noise and pollution
and is a potential hazard.
Industrial traffic peaks during morning and
afternoon rush hours.
Industrial development is piecemeal and Property
Owner Association fees will slowly grow over a
long period of time.
With industrial development, pressures to rent
individually owned homes will grow.
Industrial development may detract from the
attractiveness of PGA National as a primary
residence.
With industrial development, limited housing
opportunities preclude extended family members
from living nearby.
Industrial development will have diverse
standards for employees.
Industrial uses have not been established in the
area to date, but pose a threat to the quality of
life of neighboring residents.
Market demand for industrial is low. High
standards will be difficult to achieve.