HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 121295• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
December 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 Secretary Jackie Holloman:
Present
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
John Glidden
Phillip Lyddon
Christopher Jones, Alternate
Tom Paganini, Alternate
Absent
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
Daniel Honig
William Mignogna
Thomas Pastore
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark, Assistant City Attorney Paul
Golis, Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton, Principal Planner Bristol Ellington, and City
Engineers Len Lindahl and Lynnette Lanning.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
Planning and Zoning Director Walton announced that the December 26, 1995 meeting had been
canceled.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison Clark reported that the Ale House PUD application had received approval from
the City Council at their last meeting by a 3 -2 vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of November 28. 1995 - Mr. Lyddon made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Paganini. The motion was approved by a 5 -0 vote.
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
r o : Petiti on SP-95-24, by Henry Skokowski, agent for NWD Ventures Corporation,
• is requesting site plan approval for the construction of two 3 -story medical office buildings
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
totaling 67,980 square feet on a 7.01 -acre site. Located in the PGA National Office Park
within the PGA National Planned Community Development. (10- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated December 7, 1995
Architect Don Dwore introduced those present who would make statements in support of the petition
in addition to consultant Henry Skokowski: Richard Foley, Architect, Gabby Presley, Administrator
of Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, and Landscape Architect Jay Bridges. Mr. Dwore explained that
the proposed clinic would be strictly an outpatient facility.
Mr. Henry Skokowski commented that this was the second office building in an area zoned for
offices; agreed with staff recommendation for a right turn lane at the entrance and possibly a left
turn lane going north, for which analysis would be provided by traffic consultant Kahart Pinder;
reported that the location of the dumpster had been agreed upon; commented that parking stall sizes
had been dimensioned incorrectly on the plan and that landscape buffers would be added; and
discussed the number of signs which would be allowed. Architect Richard Foley displayed and
discussed building materials, design drawings, proposed signage, lighting system, and color scheme.
Principal Planner Ellington commented that the roof height was 42', and the penthouse height was
52.6', which was above the 36' maximum height allowed by Code, therefore a waiver request
would be needed. Ms. Presley explained that the second phase would not be built until there were
• enough patients to warrant another building. Mr. Glidden questioned what was included in the
building heights. Planning and Zoning Director Walton explained that if roof - mounted equipment
was included in the penthouse area and exceeded 4' in height that it was included in the building
height measurement, and if less than 4' in height it would not be included. Mr. Foley responded
to Mr. Glidden that the material for the floating cap piece would be the same type of white metal
used in the canopies and would appear similar to the mullion system. Mr. Foley explained that the
canopy system would be aluminum covered with a roofing material. Mr. Dwore explained that the
14' floor heights would accommodate wiring, ductwork, etc. Mr. Glidden stated that the elevator
lobbies were required by Code to be closed off and questioned the open design. Mr. Foley
commented the elevator shaft had a 2 -hour fire rating. Chairman Sabatello questioned the height
of the Good Samaritan building near the mall and requested information regarding the height and
zoning approved for that building in order to compare with this building. Chairman Sabatello
commented that he believed the drop off of the building was weak, and objected to the painted metal
of the canopy. Chairman Sabatello advised the petitioner that if only one member of the Committee
commented regarding a specific item they should consider it as one opinion in deciding whether to
made a change, but if several members commented regarding the same item they should consider
it a consensus and take a stronger look at that item. Mr. Dwore commented that the petitioner was
considering increasing the plaza area in order to have a larger area for vehicles dropping people off.
Mr. Glidden agreed with Chairman Sabatello's comments regarding the canopy and suggested that
the canopy volume be decreased in the redesign of the entry area. Ms. Presley responded to
Chairman Sabatello's question regarding valet parking that they did have valet parking at their
building in Miami and would probably offer it later at this building. Chairman Sabatello discussed
signage, and stated he saw no reason to grant approval for one sign on the north and another on the
east when the one on the east could be moved closer to the comer to allow visibility from both
• 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
directions, and suggested decreasing the size of the signs. Mr. Foley explained that the set off panel
with graphics inside it was not a standard logo, but that different ideas were being tested, and
indicated that further work and discussion would be done on the signage; but indicated that the
petitioner would like to have signs for both directions, and the signs were of the same precast
material as the building.
Chairman Sabatello polled the Committee members regarding the entry canopy and all agreed with
the suggested changes discussed earlier.
Landscape Architect Bridges displayed and reviewed the landscape plan. Mr. Lyddon questioned
what would happen to the landscaping when PGA Boulevard was widened. The Landscape Architect
explained that he assumed the bulk of the widening would come from the median. Mr. Lyddon
commented that if the roadway widening and the parkway concept had been taken into consideration,
then he was comfortable with the landscaping. Chairman Sabatello discussed location of the
backflow preventor and suggested it be located to accommodate landscaping; and requested that the
hedge around the dumpster be maintained at 5 feet instead of the 3 feet proposed. Chairman
Sabatello requested that the sidewalks along PGA Boulevard and the west side of Fairway Drive be
shown on the plan rather than described in words, so that the actual locations in relation to other
items could be viewed and to assure there was sufficient room. Mr. Lyddon commented that the
entryway was fairly tight. Chairman Sabatello commented that the landscaping plans should be
• representative of the true sizes of plants so that the Committee could envision how lush the
landscaping would actually be.
Chairman Sabatello requested additional parking in Phase One to avoid having no excess parking at
buildout. Mr. Foley explained that the Petitioner had negotiated the purchase of additional land
which changed the whole parking picture. Mr. Lyddon agreed with Chairman Sabatello that
additional parking should be added in Phase One. Chairman Sabatello suggested that part of the
parking spaces for Phase Two be built in Phase One. Chairman Sabatello stressed that the petitioner
should work with staff to determine the ultimate right -of -way of PGA Boulevard. Director Walton
stated that staff needed all existing buildings, driveways, and curb cuts currently surrounding the
property to be included in the plans. Mr. Lyddon commented regarding traffic that he believed a
left turn into the facility would be necessary since traffic was becoming very dense in that area
especially during the winter months. Chairman Sabatello suggested that turn lanes at each exit would
help traffic flow. Director Walton explained that the required traffic report would address traffic
at ultimate buildout of the whole shopping center and the timing for installation of roadway
improvements. Mr. Lyddon commented that there was community concern regarding the traffic
which would be generated by this project. Chairman Sabatello commented that he favored ground
signs rather than wall signs. Mr. Glidden questioned whether the south entrance would be
considered the main entrance and if so, suggested that a considerably larger radius at that entrance
would be appropriate, and also possibly having the median at that entrance. Mr. Glidden requested
that the alignment to the shopping center entrance be shown; discussed the left turn lane in on
northbound Fairway Drive; and commented that the hard right turn now required at the south
entrance should be aligned or angled with the north /south lane. Mr. Jones questioned the location
of handicap parking to which the response was that it could not be any closer to the front door.
• 3
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
Chairman Sabatello welcomed the petitioner to the City.
Workshop: Petition SP- 95 -08, by Raymond Royce, agent for John D. And Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, Inc., representing Palm Beach Communications Company, for Site
Plan approval for the installation of three 400 -foot communication towers on a 36 -acre site
located approximately 2,000 feet north of and 700 feet west of the intersection of Donald
Ross Road and N. 69th Drive. (21- 41S -42E)
Chairman Sabatello announced that this agenda item would be combined with the following item
listed on the agenda for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
or h : Petition CU- 95 -05, by Raymond Royce, agent for John D. And Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, Inc., representing Palm Beach Communications Company, for
Conditional Use approval for the installation of three 400 -foot communication towers on a
36 -acre site located approximately 2,000 feet north of and 700 feet west of the intersection
of Donald Ross Road and N. 69th Drive. (21 -41S -42E)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated Decembe 7, 1995, and reported
• that a letter had been received from residents of Palm Beach Country Estates expressing concerns
regarding the application.
Attorney Raymond Royce provided a history of the application; stated that his client wished to
operate an AM -FM radio station; explained the difficulty of finding a location due to various types
of restrictions; commented that the most remote location possible had been chosen; indicated that
at the initiation of this application the City did not have an Ordinance regulating such towers, which
had subsequently been passed; and stated that the applicant felt they were in compliance with the
Ordinance. Attorney Royce used the site plan to demonstrate the size and type of tower, and
described it as a pencil -type tower. Mr. Royce commented that no people would be located on the
site. Mr. Royce addressed the concerns which had been expressed regarding possible radiation
hazard and reviewed the Ordinance requirements in that regard.
Chairman Sabatello explained that because of the limited responsibility of the Site Plan and
Appearance Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission, issues that met Code requirements
and satisfied staff would not be pursued; however, the City Council might discuss those matters if
they were of particular concern to them. Chairman Sabatello commented that a shell rock roadway
might not be acceptable; however, that would be addressed by the City Engineer. Rocky Biby of
Kimley Horn explained that fences were proposed around the base of each tower which would
encompass the buildings and tower base, and would be 15 feet away from the buildings. Chairman
Sabatello questioned the locked gate at the entrance to the property and how it would impact
emergency services, and advised the applicant that this must be worked out. Mr. Biby explained
that fences were not proposed around the guy anchors, and if all of the guy wires were cut by
vandals the towers were designed to buckle within themselves when falling, so that the area impacted
• 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
by the fall would be contained and would not affect neighboring properties. Mr. Biby responded
to Chairman Sabatello that guy wires were not fenced on other towers. Chairman Sabatello
requested that the petitioner provide an expert to explain common practice regarding fencing the guy
anchors and why they were not fenced. Mr. Glidden commented that vandalism seemed to be the
worst scenario that might occur. Trisha Dallen, Palm Beach Communications Company, explained
that everything was housed within the buildings so that no supplies were stored outside. Ms. Dallen
explained that the tower was proposed to remain ,galvanized steel with strobe lights during daytime
hours and red beacons at night to alert aircraft.
Mr. Jones questioned what else could be built on this land to which Director Walton responded the
land use was designated at one residential unit per acre for this parcel and for the surrounding land;
however, if this application was approvied nothing else could be done on this particular parcel.
Also, Director Walton stated that the land to the west had been purchased for preserve area, so
nothing could be built there even though its land use was one residential unit per acre. Mr. Glidden
commented he would like to be sure that the guy wire base was protected to prevent vandalism
which could cause a tower to collapse, particularly when there was nothing to stop children from
entering the area to play. Chairman Sabatello stated that this board was unfamiliar with this type
of petition and therefore did not want to set requirements which were not normally done, and
requested that experts respond to questions in order to provide documentation for the record.
Chairman Sabatello stated that concerns were protection for guy wires, coordinating the MacArthur
• gate and the applicant's property, and maintaining the road to remain passable for emergency
vehicles.
Susan Stechnij, President of the Palm Beach Country Estates Land Owners Association, commented
that their letter had been submitted because they believed that the documentation necessary for this
project to proceed had not been fulfilled, and requested that the process be stopped until the
questions to which the City Council had requested answers were provided. Ms. Stechnij stated that
information had not been provided regarding radio frequency interference, site analysis had not been
conducted from the nearest homes affected, environmental impacts had not been considered, etc.
Chairman Sabatello stated the points of concern were listed in the letter, which had been made a part
of the file, and that staff would request further information from the applicant if the points did not
meet Code as required by the Ordinance. Chairman Sabatello assured Ms. Stechnij that if other
issues were of concern, those items would be addressed by the Commission after staff review if they
were within the Commission's purview, and if not, would be addressed at another level, but all
concerns would be addressed at some point in the process. Ms. Stechnij reported that Palm Beach
County Commissioner Marcus had encouraged the purchase of this land by the County to be a part
of the Slough.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing: Petition PDC- 95 -02, by Domenick Lioce, agent for CTB Ventures, Inc_, to
amend Ordinance 1, 1990 for the Northcorp Center Planned Community District (PCD).
Located, in general, by RCA Boulevard to the north, Burns Road to the south, Interstate 95
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
to the west and the FEC Railway. (7- 42S -43E)
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated December 7, 1995.
Attorney Dominick Lioce, agent for the petitioner, agreed that the petitioner must provide drainage
sufficient for 28% open space and suggested that this issue could be handled with a condition that
the petitioner must provide drainage for not less than 28% pervious area. Mr. Lioce commented that
the traffic issue raised by staff was whether or not usage within the existing buildings, most
particularly the NorthCorp building, have uses which if calculated by the most current traffic
calculations would exceed the amount of traffic which would have been grandfathered in 1990 when
the project was approved. Attorney Lioce explained that petitioner had only requested that the
approved existing uses not be capped by the 5 % on retail, and had only listed those uses that did not
increase traffic materially more than the existing uses in the office /industrial category by adoption
of the amendment to the PCD, which was approximately 9 -10 trips per thousand. Mr. Lioce stated
that it was the opinion of Traffic Engineer Joe Pollock that this issue did not apply to this
application, and that the new traffic study requested on the entire 100 acres was not appropriate since
a cap had been previously approved. Mr. Lioce stated that the petitioner did not believe that they
were in violation of the County traffic ordinance, and if so, that would be a Code Enforcement
issue. Mr. Lioce commented that Kahart Pinder agreed with Mr. Pollock's opinion that the overall
traffic in the already grandfathered in building which exists there now is not affected by the proposed
• amendment. Mr. Lioce verified Chairman Sabatello's summary that the applicant did not have a
problem with the drainage and did not agree with the position of the staff on the traffic. Director
Walton provided a history of the project, and explained that the issue of traffic at Alternate A I A and
PGA Boulevard had never been resolved, and had not met DRI requirements. Subsequently, the
City had opted to help the property owner by dropping the DRI process and using an alternate
process in which several resolutions had been granted by the City which split the property into four
plats, and granted a PCD approval and land use designation for industrial. This process had been
rushed so that it could be completed before adoption of traffic performance standards, and everyone
had agreed that the ordinance would need to be subsequently updated to be sure everyone understood
it the same way. Director Walton explained that the current issue was a land use designation of
industrial, were restricted to mostly industrial in the development, and were required to furnish a
list of tenants to the City to assure that they stayed industrial. Director Walton stated that the City
did not receive any tenant listings until this application was presented, and during review of the
listing staff had found the number of trips to be well beyond the number vested. The 6,000 trips
allocated for the vacant portion had been based on the approved amount for the existing buildings;
therefore either the number of trips for the vacant land needed to be reduced or analysis of the
surrounding road system needed to be undertaken to determine whether background traffic had not
grown as much as projected so that it might be absorbed. In either case, staff needed further
information before they could recommend approval of this application. Director Walton referred
to the drainage issue and stated staff did not agree that drainage could be worked out as each parcel
progressed, but believed that an adequate lake must be provided in the beginning. Mr. Lioce
clarified that petitioner was in agreement conceptually with 28.75 acres pervious open area, which
was 28% of the total 102.69 acres as required by staff, but still had to determine the area which
would be pervious, and would agree to such a condition. Mr. Lioce made further comments
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
regarding the traffic issue and stated that if the NorthCorp building was not in compliance with the
ordinance, that was a Code Enforcement issue and did not affect the Petitioner's request to shift
non - affected uses known to create no more traffic than the office /industrial uses. Director Walton
expressed disagreement, which precipitated ensuing discussion. Chairman Sabatello questioned
whether conditions could be added to the requested amendment to satisfy the traffic issue, if traffic
was determined to be an issue. Assistant City Attorney Golis disagreed that this would be a Code
Enforcement issue and stated that the PCD could be amended to address traffic concerns, and was
within the Planning and Zoning Commission's purview.
City Engineer Lindahl discussed drainage and explained that the design parameters and criteria for
the surface water management system had been agreed upon; however, the actual location had not
been determined. The City Engineer explained that the Planning and Zoning definition of the lake
surface was open space, while the surface water management system definition of the lake surface
was impervious; and the definitions still needed to be collated and laid out on a plan to be sure that
open space requirements under Planning and Zoning definition and the perivious requirements for
surface water management were both met. The City Engineer explained that diligent efforts had
been made by everyone involved to resolve this matter, and that final resolution had been been
delayed since the planner working on this had taken some leave. Chairman Sabatello commmented
that more information seemed to be needed than previously indicated. City Engineer Lindahl
responded to Mr. Jones' question whether regulatory requirements had changed since inception of
• this project that the requirements had not changed; however, other changes had occurred so that the
design hydraulics were unable to achieve the elevations originally anticipated in the developed areas.
City Engineer Lindahl explained that City Traffic Consultant Kahart Pinder had agreed with the
computations that totaled the traffic being generated by the existing RCA complex and had agreed
that the proposal regarding changes in uses in this application did not materially affect that
computation since in the development order there was a number specified of 6,063 trips. The City
Engineer indicated his agreement with Mr. Pinder, and explained that the requested traffic analysis
would provide the answer to what impact the additional 1,516 averave daily trips being generated
above the vested amount of 2,848 would have on surrounding roads. Traffic Consultant Joe Pollock
of Kimley Horn commented that the PCD had a limitation on the total number of trips that could
be generated by vacant land uses so there would not be any traffic increase associated with the
amendment as proposed. Mr. Pollock indicated his belief that there was no traffic issue regarding
the vacant land use. Chairman Sabatello commented that was one issue on which everyone agreed.
Mr. Pollock stated that the unresolved issue which had been presented related to the existing
building, and that he had been traffic engineer on this project since inception and reported that there
was no real vesting associated with the existing building, but that it was done as a part of the PCD.
Mr. Pollock responded to Chairman Sabatello's question whether the 6,063 number was established
based on the count in the existing building by explaining that the traffic associated with the existing
building was on the road system at that time, and the two went together in the sense that the number
of trips for the vacant land was added to the network, but there had never been a clear definition of
the number of trips really vested or associated with the existing building. Mr. Pollock explained that
the number of 1,516 ADT had come from a calculation made three weeks ago, and the method used
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
to arrive at that number would not even apply under today's traffic performance standards rules and
regulations. Mr. Pollock commented that the number did show, however, that there was more
traffic associated with the building today than was assumed in 1990, and the traffic study had been
started in August of 1989 before the project was approved in January 1990. Mr. Pollock clarified
for Chairman Sabatello that under today's rules the traffic on the roadway system would be used,
to which Chairman Sabatello responded that he did not understand why that was not being done.
Mr. Pollock stated that the traffic performance standards clearly state that projects approved or in
existence prior to February 1, 1990, are not subject to re- review under the traffic performance
standards, but are vested. After further discussion, Mr. Lioce stated that all uses being applied to
the property exceed the 5 % cap in the original ordinance, but as amended today, the latest draft of
the application did not allow any uses within the building that were not allowed in 1989. Director
Walton disagreed, stating that they were allowing uses in terms of percentage. Discussion ensued
regarding whether additional uses were being requested, with which Mr. Pollock disagreed. City
Engineer Lindahl reported he had also been present at inception of this project, and explained how
the 6,063 figure had been determined.
After further discussion, Mr. Lioce clarified that initially there was not an application for a PCD,
but that there was a DRI application that had been withdrawn because of problems being experienced
by John Bills. The bank had foreclosed the property and wanted to subdivide and sell parcels. The
City had initiated an application to zone the property and a development order was put into place.
• All of the properties were not placed into a PCD in the ordinary sense - -the development order affects
all four plats, but the two properties which were in a separate parcel which had existing buildings
on them have none of the restrictions on them except for the use restriction, which is permitted. The
road impact of traffic only applied to the raw land. Mr. Lioce stated that the five uses which were
already approved within the park, none of which created higher traffic than the existing industrial
use, should be freely permitted throughout the park; with the other 27 named uses limited to one per
parcel and included under 5% or 10% caps.
Chairman Sabatello stated that the Commission could not make a proper recommendation since
disagreement existed.
Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing for Application #PCD -95 -02 open to the public.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Lyddon commented that this ordinance was not well conceived and in his opinion the requested
amendment would change the industrial use into other uses. Mr. Lyddon stated that if he were going
to make such a change that he wanted everyone involved to clearly explain how such an action
would not adversely affect an already questionable traffic and drainage situation. Mr. Paganini and
Mr. Jones agreed with Mr. Lyddon. Mr. Glidden stated he would like to sort through the points,
get the agreed upon points out of the way, and focus on the disagreements. Mr. Lioce stated he
agreed on the drainage engineering. Mr. Lioce stated the petitioner could provide the materials that
staff was requesting regarding drainage but that no traffic information was required since traffic was
vested. Chairman Sabatello advised that a statement was needed from the City Engineer that what
the petitioner was saying was correct, and recommendations needed to be prepared by the staff with
• 8
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
which the City Engineer and professionals would be in agreement so that the Commission would
have a basis to proceed.
Mr. Lyddon made a motion that this matter be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis requested the opportunity
to question Mr. Lioce. Mr. Lyddon withdrew his motion to allow Assistant City Attorney Golis to
speak.
Assistant City Attorney Golis asked Mr. Lioce to clarify whether in his opinion condition 21 as it
exists (the listed uses) under the current ordinance referred to ancillary uses not limited to a 10%
cap, and if so, to please provide supporting information. Mr. Lioce stated that in his opinion,
Section 6 of the existing ordinance limits all of the uses in condition 21 to 5% caps. Assistant
Attorney Golis then questioned Mr. Lioce's interpretation of the following language in condition
21: The following are uses allowed with submission of each PUD in addition to industrial and office
and other M -1 uses. Mr. Lioce responded that the way he understood the existing ordinance, all
would be limited to the 5% and 10 %.
Mr. Lyddon made a motion to reinstate his previous motion that this matter be continued to the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 9, 1996. Mr. Jones
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
Mr. Lyddon requested copies of documentation for review prior to the next meeting. Mr. Lioce
suggested that a copy of the existing ordinance, a copy of the most recent draft of the recommended
amendment, and the master site plan be provided.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
• 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
December 12, 1995
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, upo on by Mr. Glidden, seconded by Mr. Jones, and
unanimously carried, the meeting w djou ed at 11:10 P.M. The next meeting will be held
January 9, 1995.
APPROVED:
Carl Sa ate lo, Chairman
Diane �
h
(Absent)
Daniel Honig
p
• Phillip Lyddon
%"kie Hollom , Secretary
(Absent)
William Mignogna
(Absent)
Thomas Pastore
Christopher Ain -, ternate
Tom Paganini, Alternate
10