Loading...
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.