HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 020894CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chairman Jeffrey Ornstein at 7:30 P.M. in
the Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The roll was called by the Secretary and all members were present: Chairman
Jeffrey Ornstein, Vice Chairman Joseph Hamzy, Members Carl Sabatello, Alan Strassler,
Diane Carlino, Daniel Honig, Phillip Lyddon, and Alternate Member William Mignogna.
Also present in the audience were City Manager Bobbie Herakovich, Assistant City
Attorney Paul Golis, Council Liaison David Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham,
and Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chairman Jeffrey Ornstein distributed a memorandum from City Attorney Thomas J. Baird
regarding "the appropriate standard of review a reviewing court should follow for rezoning
• actions in the context of the deference a court must give to a legislative body on rezoning
actions" and "lobbying of members of quasi-judicial boards ".
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Mr. David Clark, City Council Liaison, gave the Commission a verbal report of City
Council's actions on certain Planning and Zoning items at its February 3, 1994, meeting.
He stated Council approved the rezoning and conditional use of the AT &T project;
approved the reinstatement of Gardens East PUD; and sent back to staff for further review
the covered parking structure guidelines.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES:
Mr. Joseph Hamzy made a motion for approval of the January 25, 1994, minutes. Ms.
Diane Carlino seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved by a vote of
7 -0.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Petition PUD- 93 -17, by Henry Skokowski,
agent for Canterbury Associates, to amend the Canterbury Planned Unit Development for
approval of a new model and modification to an existing model, building setback
modifications, and approval of revised landscape plans. Located within PGA National
• Planned Community District PGA Boulevard. (15- 42S -42E)
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the staff report dated February 3, 1994.
Mr. Joseph Hamzy asked if the Fire Department realized there was no access to the back
yards, and Mr. Ellington responded a 5 -foot side yard setback on the non -zero side is
proposed. Further, he stated staff has no concerns with the setbacks proposed.
Chairman Ornstein stated he was concerned about the zero setbacks since it would be
impossible to landscape.
Mr. Henry Skokowski spoke to the Commission on behalf of the petitioner regarding the
setbacks. Mr. Skokowski proposed a sixth condition of approval which would state, "Any
screen enclosures on a rear interior property line with a zero setback would require a 6 -foot
masonry wall."
Discussion ensued regarding access to the rear yards.
Chairman Ornstein suggested it might be helpful if there was a plan of 4 or 5 of the units.
• Mr. Carl Sabatello stated the petitioner should reconsider having access to the rear for
safety reasons.
Chairman Ornstein stated he would like to see a typical plan with landscaping for lots which
have a 0 -foot rear yard setback for the screen enclosure.
Mr. Daniel Honig stated he was concerned with maintenance personnel having access to the
rear yards via the garages.
Mr. Ornstein stated access to the rear yards should be revisited, a landscape plan for the
models with screen enclosures at the rear should be provided, and the plans should show
where landscaping will be installed at the rear.
Mr. Strassler suggested that instead of a wall on the property there might be some access
easements created between the groups of units from the street. Mr. Ornstein stated this was
not possible since the property was already platted.
Mr. Ornstein stated that on Sheet A -2 of the Ashley model quoins should be shown on both
sides of the corners.
0 2
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
Mr. Ornstein stated landscape plans were needed for the sides of the four different styles
of homes which do not have other buildings next to them.
A discussion ensued regarding the screen enclosure setbacks and landscaping at the rear.
Mr. Ornstein stated plants other than trees could be used inside the screened areas.
Ms. Diane Carlino stated no one other than the homeowners would see this area.
Mr. Joseph Hamzy stated he did not feel it was necessary to create separate landscape
designs for all the units, but was necessary for the units on the ends and common areas.
Mr. Hamzy believed, however, that landscape plans for back yards was absurd. Mr. Honig
stated he believed it was up to the individual homeowners as to how their backyards were
landscaped. Ms. Carlino stated she did not feel it was necessary to see the landscaping for
every model. Mr. Sabatello agreed with Mr. Honig. Mr. Lyddon stated he agreed as well.
Mr. Alan Strassler stated carrotwoods were still being shown in the buffered area although
these trees had been removed from the City's preferred species list.
Several Commissioners suggested that two two -story dwellings not be located side by side,
• but the petitioner stated there were already nine existing two -story dwellings.
Mr. Skokowski stated they were in agreement with the conditions of approval, but requested
that the northern buffer area west of Canterbury, Drive shall be completed prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the first home facing to the northern buffer. Similarly,
the buffer area east of Canterbury Drive shall be completed prior to the CO of the first
home facing the eastern buffer. The Commission agreed to this request.
Mr. Hamzy and Chairman Ornstein stated they wanted to see landscape plans wherever
corner or end parcels occur.
Mr. Sabatello asked that the locations of the windows, including banding or other treatment,
be shown on those units facing the streets. He was also concerned about the difference
between the elevations of the two -story units.
Chairman Ornstein and Mr. Sabatello requested a list, location, and notation on the plans
of materials to be used for the landscaping at the rear of the units.
In summary, the petitioner agreed to staffs five recommended conditions as follows:
1. Areas that have been allowed to be disturbed pursuant to the approved site plan, and
0 3
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
subsequently abandoned for any reason for more than three months, shall be seeded
with a ground cover or grass immediately upon request by the City or the City shall
have the work done at the owner's expense.
2. All landscape work shall be performed using current professional landscaping
standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all landscaping work,
and any work that affects the outcome of the approved landscape plans. The
Landscape Architect of Record shall notify the City prior to any modifications to the
approved landscape plan.
3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the Landscape Architect of
record shall certify in writing to the City that the landscaping has been completed per
the approved landscape plans. Any major changes to the approved landscape plans
shall be approved by the City Council. Once the City has the certified letter from
the Landscape Architect, the City Forester shall inspect the site for compliance.
Once compliance has been confirmed by the City Forester, the City Building
Department shall be notified.
• 4. Street trees and all associated lot landscaping, and any common area landscaping
adjacent to said lot shall be installed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of said lot.
Prior to final sign -off, the landscape Architect of Record shall inspect and certify that
all required landscaping is in compliance with the approved landscape plan(s). The
City Forester shall approve (sign -off) these areas as they are completed.
5. The northern buffer area west of Canterbury Drive shall be completed prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the first home facing to the northern buffer.
Similarly, the buffer area east of Canterbury Drive shall be completed prior to the
CO of the first home facing the eastern buffer.
The Commission agreed to the petitioner's request that Canterbury Drive would the
dividing line between for the installation of landscaping in northern and eastern
buffers.
In addition, it was the consensus of the Commission that the petitioner should make the
following changes:
Provide an access gate in the wall for the rear yards for safety and maintenance
reasons.
0 4
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
2. Provide landscape plans for the large, end parcels and the corner parcels.
3. Indicate where windows and banding will be located in those homes facing the
streets.
4. Provide a list and a notation of landscape materials to be installed at the rear of the
lots.
5. Submit a typical lot plan for lots which have a 0 -foot rear yard setback for the screen
enclosure. Identify where the required landscaping will be installed.
NOTE: Vice Chairman Joseph Hamzy stated he would not participate in the discussion of
the following two petitions, Grand Cay and Diamond Head at PGA, citing a conflict of
interest. Mr. William Mignogna, Alternate, replaced Mr. Hamzy for these two items.
• RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Petition PUD- 93 -16, by Frank Palen, agent
for PGA National Venture, Ltd., for a 55 single - family, detached zero lot -line residential
Planned Unit Development (Parcel M -3113) within PGA National Planned Community
District. (Grand Cay) (15- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated February 3, 1994.
Discussion ensued concerning maximum building coverage.
Mr. Frank Palen stated the petitioner accepted the conditions of staff.
Chairman Ornstein stated the petitioner had done a good job on this project.
Mr. Carl Sabatello requested that a notation be added stating trees would be located to
provide screening for two -story dwellings or any blank walls. Mr. Sabatello also requested
that all side elevations facing the roadways would be banded.
Mr. Sabatello stated Lots 1 and 55 needed tall trees.
Mr. Strassler initiated a discussion of the landscaping between Lots 50 and 52 on the "zero"
0 5
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
side.
Motion: Ms. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval of PUD -93 -16 to the
City Council with the following conditions:
1. Areas cleared for development and subsequently abandoned for any reason for more
than three months, shall be seeded with a ground cover or grass immediately upon
request by the City or the City shall have the work done at the owner's expense.
2. All landscape work shall be performed using current professional landscaping
standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all landscaping work,
and any work that affects the outcome of the approved landscape plans. The
Landscape Architect of Record shall notify the City prior to any modifications to the
approved landscape plan.
3. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the Landscape Architect of
record shall certify in writing to the City that the landscaping has been completed per
• the approved landscape plans. Any major changes to the approved landscape plans
shall be approved by the City Council. Once the City has the certified letter from
the Landscape Architect, the City Forester shall inspect the site for compliance.
Once compliance has been confirmed by the City Forester, the City Building
Department shall be notified.
4. Street trees and all associated lot landscaping, and any common area landscaping
adjacent to said lot shall be installed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of said lot.
Prior to final sign -off, the Landscape Architect of Record shall inspect and certify
that all required landscaping is in compliance with the approved landscape plan(s).
The City Forester shall approve (sign -off) these areas as they are completed.
5. Project shall abide by Resolution 2, 1993, which requires, prior to filing of the plat,
the petitioner shall post a bond for the installation of the infrastructure including the
common and project landscaping /buffer and entry feature.
Mr. Alan Strassler seconded the motion.
Mr. Carl Sabatello made an amendment to the motion as follows:
A note would be added to the landscape plan stating three (3) trees would be added
0 6
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
to the side elevations of Lots 1 & 55.
The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 7/0.
WORKSHOP MEETING: Petition PUD- 93 -15, by Frank Palen, agent for PGA National
Venture, Ltd., for a 50 single - family, detached zero lot -line residential Planned Unit
Development (Parcel M -2911) within PGA National Planned Community District. (Diamond
Head) (15- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated February 3, 1994.
A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the lack of a T -turn around between Lots 23 & 24.
Several suggestions were made as to how this could be accomplished.
Mr. Dan Honig stated he believed a safety hazard would be created if garbage trucks had
to back up in order to exit the street. Also, Mr. Honig said that both the Fire and Police
Departments had stated anytime a vehicle backs up a safety hazard is created.
• Mr. Alan Strassler also believed the backing -up of service vehicles created a safety hazard.
Mr. Phillip Lyddon stated he did not like the idea of any trucks having to back down the
street from the north end of the development.
Mr. Carl Sabatello believed a T -turn similar to the one at the southeast end of the street
could be created at the north end.
Mr. Frank Palen stated none of the agencies which reviewed the plans had a problem with
the design as submitted.
Mr. Ellington stated it was an acceptable practice in the County to not require turn - arounds
for service or emergency vehicles, and it had been allowed in the City.
Mr. E. Llywd Ecclestone stated that Palm Beach County did not require T -turn arounds for
service vehicles such as garbage trucks, and Waste Management had stated they did not
need a T -turn around in order to make their pick ups.
It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be some provision made for
vehicles to turn around at the end of the northerly street in order to be consistent with the
• 7
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
turn around provided at the southeast end of the street. The petitioner was directed to
work with staff with staff to solve this problem.
Mr. Carl Sabatello asked the petitioner if the landscaping and elevations which faced the
street would be the same as Grand Cay, and the petitioner stated they were the same.
In response to a question from Mr. Honig, Mr. Ecclestone stated there would be 6 -foot
concrete walls between the units along the property lines, and these would be shown on the
landscape plans.
Chairman Ornstein stated this item could be placed on the agenda for the next meeting
provided the petitioner submitted a revised plan by the end of the week.
WORKSHOP MEETING: Petition PUD- 93 -11, by George Morgan, agent for Gardens East
Plaza, Ltd., representing Florida Property Investment Partners, Inc., for Planned Unit
Development site plan approval to construct a 8,000 square foot retail building
• (Blockbuster Video) in an outparcel of the Gardens East (The Promenade) Shopping
Center. Located east of Alternate A -1 -A and north of Lighthouse Drive. (18- 42S -43E)
Prior to staff's presentation, Chairman Ornstein asked Mr. Morgan if the project would be
located on the site, and Mr. Morgan stated the building would be located on a different to
the north. Mr. Richard Walton stated there were different design guidelines for that parcel.
Further, Mr. Walton stated the property owner was directed by the City Council on
February 3, 1993, to share those design guidelines with the purchaser.
Chairman Ornstein stated that the building as designed may not be acceptable under the
approval for a different lot. Further, he stated if the agent wished to change the lot on
which the building would be located, then the petition would have to be discussed at that
time.
Mr. Ornstein also stated the Commission had previously made several comments concerning
the architectural features of the building, and this information was contained in the staff
report dated February 3, 1994. Further, Mr. Ornstein stated if the building was to be
relocated to another site, then the petitioner should start over with a new site plan.
Mr. Ornstein also commented that a corporate flag could not be flown on the site. Mr.
Ornstein stated he was not in favor of the blue awning. Ms. Diane Carlino stated the
• 8
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
Commission had agreed at a previous meeting that the blue awning would not be
acceptable.
Mr. Ornstein stated it was pointless to continue discussion of the item at that time since the
project was to be built on a different site.
WORKSHOP MEETING: Petition PUD- 93 -19, by James R. Brindell, agent for Mediplex
Group, Inc., a request for Planned Unit Development and site plan approval for two 174,000
square -foot medical office buildings, a 60,000 square -foot medical office building and a
70,000 square -foot, 120 -bed skilled nursing facility on a 15.6 -acre site. This site is located
at the northeast corner of PGA Boulevard and of Alternate AlA within The Regional Center
Development of Regional Impact (6- 42S -43E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the staff report dated February 3, 1994.
Discussion ensued concerning landscaping and the right -of -way for the flyover proposed for
• the PGA Boulevard and Alternate AlA intersection. Representatives of Mediplex gave an
explanation of what is proposed for the site and answered questions from the Commissioners
concerning the MacArthur Foundation's interest in the buffer area.
Mr. James Brindell, agent for Mediplex Group, introduced the various representatives who
were associated with the project.
Mr. Bob Miller, Senior Vice President for Mediplex, gave background information on the
corporation and explained the type of services which will occur within the complex.
Mr. Daniel Honig stated he would like to see an annual report on the corporation, and he
would like to see a description of a similar complex operated by the corporation.
Chairman Ornstein requested a presentation with pictures or videos be given showing
projects similar to Mediplex.
Chairman Ornstein requested a site plan showing how the facility will relate to the Mall as
well as 500 feet surrounding the remainder of the project.
In response to a question from Chairman Ornstein, Mr. Miller explained that Phase III is
a piece of property that is part of the total acquisition from the MacArthur Foundation, but
• 9
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
nothing would be built there. He further stated it related to a method of take down of the
property. Mr. Tom Hunt stated they would not have title to the property, but MacArthur
had granted them a license to install and maintain whatever vegetation was desired on the
Phase III property as long as it was consistent with the site plan.
Mr. Honig stated it was his understanding that the MacArthur Foundation was reserving the
right to receive the money for any take down by the County or the State for the Phase III
land.
Discussion ensued concerning the ultimate right of way of Alternate AlA.
Mr. Gene Diponti summarized their work with the Department of Transportation in
preparing concepts and preliminary designs for an interchange located at PGA Boulevard
and Alternate AlA. He displayed a design for a partial cloverleaf on the southeast section
of the intersection which they had recommended and DOT had accepted as the one
preferred for implementation.
• Mr. Carl Sabatello suggested that the same type landscaping installed in the median fronting
the Regional Center Mall be used for Mediplex on Alternate AlA.
Mr. Bruce A. Rendina, Executive Vice President, DASCO Companies (co- developers with
Mediplex), submitted a paper entitled "Project Information Brochure, Palm Beach Gardens
Medical Mall".
In summary, the Commission had the following comments:
1. An overall site plan was needed which would show how the Medical Mall relates to
the Regional Mall, including 500 feet around the entire area.
2. The landscaping in the medians should be comparable to that of PGA Boulevard
rather than the median in Alternate AlA fronting Gardens East Apartments.
3. A letter is needed from the Department of Transportation regarding the proposed
flyover and the maximum right -of -way required at PGA Boulevard and Alternate
AlA.
4. Consider relocating the Phase III dotted lines to provide for additional set backs to
the proposed buildings.
• 10
Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
5. A model is needed of the project, including a model of the flyover showing grade
changes.
6. Would like to see the corporation's annual report.
7. Provide a presentation of similar facilities constructed by Mediplex.
•
• 11
Minutes
• Planning & Zoning Commission
February 8, 1994
U
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. The next meeting
W111 be held February 22, 1994.
ac 'e Holloman, Secretary
• 12
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.A1: NAME —FIRST NAME— MID011 NAME NAME OF BOARtx COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEI
A MI, �) J p,&Vpt NG �, 2aNt w� Ce�u -t e-t tSSA otJ
MAILING ADDRESS 1'HE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMIssION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
�
,/� �j p �+ WH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
F L �L' &Ut- 'lIY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
I'I Tl (DUN rl
NAML (N PULITILAl. SUBDIVISION:
i'i`1 S $t r'1 + C- IL2 o r- PAL k' C3 Ci�Vcl--S�
DAZE ON WHICH VOIt (XYURRI-D)
MY POST ,'ION IS
2 C) Q ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM $111
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected boarc
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presente
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; althoug
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law
Your responsibilities under the lava when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly dependin
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please. pay close attention to the instructions on this fort
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
• A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure
to his special private gain. Each local officer also i, prohibited from knowingly Voting on a measure which inures to the speci;
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either °case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recordir
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whit
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to tl
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but mu
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, wheth
made by the officer or at his direction.
lF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHIC
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible f
• recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of intere
1 (IK \I 'in III-MA P
IVYOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minuu
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
hereby disclose that on 19
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or y
inured to the special gain of �/ • _�� fi7?��� , by whom 1 am retains
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
t�-A P (. 6 9 G(, G6-?r-
ei,q,g4,
Date Filed
C) N trHC—* P C -Pi c�—�
Signature
10 NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRI
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIN
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
E FORM 86 • 10.86