HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092794• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 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:
Present
Jeffrey Ornstein, Chairman
Diane Carlino
Phillip Lyddon
Daniel Honig
William Mignogna
Thomas Pastore, Alternate
John Glidden, Alternate
Absent
Carl Sabatello
Michael Posner
Also present was Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham.
Chairman Ornstein welcomed John Glidden, newly appointed Alternate to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, to the meeting.
ITEMS BY PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR:
Richard Walton, Director, Planning and Zoning Department, reported that the vacancy left by Marty
Minor would be filled soon. Director Walton also announced that postponement of Agenda Item IX
had been requested. Since the postponement request had not been made by the applicant, Chairman
Ornstein stated that Item IX would not be postponed.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
There were no items by City Council Liaison since Mayor David Clark was absent from the meeting.
Chairman Ornstein announced that the Planning and Zoning portion of the meeting, Agenda Item
XIII, would be considered next.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Recommendation to City Council: Swimming Pool Ordinance
Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham explained that the recent amendment of Palm Beach County's
swimming pool ordinance had prompted the City Council to request staff review of the City's
existing swimming pool ordinance to determine how present barriers could be improved against
possible accidental drownings, particularly of small children.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• September 27, 1994
Building Official Jack Hanson informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that staff
recommended requirement of self - closing and self - latching doors leading directly from a
building /dwelling to a pool or spa, with the latching device installed at least 54 inches above
the floor; that this mandate would apply to all new pools and remodeling projects and would
be enforced on complaint or existing code enforcement.
Chairman Ornstein voiced concern that government trying to regulate parental responsibility
would have the effect of taking away diligence of a parent or guardian since they would come
to rely on the required mechanical device. Building Official Hanson stated the hope that such
an ordinance would instill awareness in the parent, and that as plans were reviewed by the
Commission that they bring to the applicant's attention the need for safety barriers for a pool.
An EMS representative present at the meeting stated that ideally three layers of protection
should be provided, rather than the two required by the County and one required by the City
of Palm Beach Gardens.
Mr. Daniel Honig questioned how all of the people in the City would be notified of such a
requirement, and was advised that would be done during plan review and building inspection.
Mr. John Glidden questioned whether any kiddie fence products would meet the proposed
requirements to which Building Official Hanson responded he knew of none. Mr. Glidden also
voiced concern that in case of an accidental drowning an ordinance would have been violated
which would be an incredible liability issue and possibly a criminal offense, which should be
examined by an attorney. Mr. Honig also urged legal analysis of the proposed regulation and
• how it would affect City residents.
Mr. Phillip Lyddon strongly objected and stated he believed the Ordinance would be
unenforceable, because many people would disable the self - locking device after inspection in
order to keep their doors open, and that the Ordinance would be attempting to legislate
parental responsibility and to compel residents to alter their Florida lifestyle by forcing them
to live indoors with air conditioning year round. Mr. Lyddon commented that the audible alarm
in his own home worked well to bring attention to the fact that a door had been opened.
Mr. William Mignogna stated he agreed with Mr. Lyddon, but believed the ordinance would
be good if it saved even one life.
Ms. Diane Carlino stated she also agreed with Mr. Lyddon in that she was concerned about an
ordinance which would not be enforced and any legislation that should be the responsibility of
a parent or guardian.
Following further discussion of the self - locking patio doors requirement, the following motion
was entertained:
Motion:
Ms. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval of the Swimming Pool Ordinance
to the City Council, but with Section 158.50.11 Doors being a recommended use rather than a
• 2
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
use. Mr. Daniel Honig seconded the motion.
Building Official Hanson requested to speak, which was granted by Chairman Ornstein. Mr. Hanson
stated that this motion would accomplish nothing and that he took exception to the statement that
the proposed Ordinance requiring self - locking and self - latching doors would be unenforceable.
Building Official Hanson stated he would argue before the City Council to keep that requirement in
the Ordinance. Mr. Glidden stated his position that an Ordinance was for requirements, so that he
was not in favor of a motion which only made recommendations; and that more than one option to
accomplish the goal needed to be included in any Ordinance that might be passed. Mr. Pastore and
Mr. Mignogna also stated they would be in favor of the ordinance as it was presented.
The vote was 4 -3 in favor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Ornstein called for approval of the minutes which had been omitted earlier in the meeting
in error.
Minutes of September 13, 1994 - Diane Carlino moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr.
John Glidden stated that he had not been notified that he was a member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission at the time of the meeting and therefore objected to being shown as absent in the
• minutes. Mr. Daniel Honig made a motion to approve the minutes, striking John Glidden as
absent. Chairman Ornstein stated there was already a motion on the floor and called for a second.
The motion was seconded by Mr. William Mignogna. The motion was approved by a 6 -0 vote,
with one abstention by Mr. John Glidden, as he was not present at the September 13, 1994 meeting.
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW
Recommendation to City Council: Petition P- 4- S, by David Porter, agent for Gregory
Bills, representing R.J. Gator's Restaurants, for site plan approval for the renovation of the
exterior of the former Palm Beach Cafe restaurant. Located at 4364 Northlake Boulevard.
(24- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 22, 1994.
Chairman Ornstein stated he did not think the colors would blend with the clay color tile roof.
David Porter, agent for the petitioner stated the building would be screened by landscaping.
Chairman Ornstein observed that the building colors were still too "loud" and were not in keeping
with the standard established for Palm Beach Gardens and that as an architect he had a problem with
landscaping being used to hide a building.
Mr. Phillip Lyddon stated the new colors were infinitely better and, therefore, acceptable to him.
.0 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
Mr. Honig stated he was troubled by the colors and believed a better representation of the actual
colors was needed. He also said he did not believe pink and turquoise with a red roof would go
together, and would like to see them all together.
Mr. Tim Timoeto, who stated he was the owner of R. J. Gator's, addressed the Site Plan and
Appearance Review Committee, and commented that the R. J. Gator's restaurant in Jupiter, had the
same colors as proposed for the Northlake Boulevard location with the same terra cotta tile roof, and
for eight years had provided 50 to 75 jobs for the area which was a point he felt had been
overlooked, and that he felt the building might have been overlooked in the past. Further discussion
of the colors ensued which resulted in a consensus of 6 -1 in favor of all pink being changed to match
the red of the roof, and the petitioner agreed to bring a roof tile to City Planner Ellington within two
days.
Motion:
Ms. Diane Carlin made a motion to recommend approval of this petition to the City Council with
the following conditions:
1. All tree protection/relocation and landscape work shall be performed using current
professional landscaping standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all
tree protection efforts, all tree relocation work, 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.
2. All trees or plants designed for preservation/relocation that die during construction or because
of construction practices shall replaced using the following schedule: For every inch of tree
caliper lost, three inches of new tree caliper shall be replaced with like specie. The
minimum replacement tree shall be three inches in diameter. Palms shall be replaced with
like specie one for one with a minimum 10' height. Shrubs shall be replaced with like specie
one for one with a minimum 30" height. If the site cannot support the total number of
replacement trees as required above, City Council may permit the developer to donate excess
trees to the City for planting on public lands.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission and /or 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. All tree protection/relocation and landscape work shall be performed using current
professional landscaping standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all
tree protection efforts, all tree relocation work, 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.
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
5. Any pink color depicted on the striped awning and elsewhere on the plans or drawings shall
be changed to match the same red color as the roof of the existing shopping center.
Mr. William Mignogna seconded the motion.
Chairman Ornstein stated he was totally opposed to the colors.
The motion was approved by a 6 -1 vote, with Chairman Ornstein being opposed.
Recommendation to City Council: Petition SP-94-10, by Maria Young, agent for Goldcoast
Beef, Inc., for site plan approval to change the colors of the exterior finish of the Arby's
restaurant. Located at 3802 Northlake Boulevard within the Crossroads at Northlake
Shopping Center. (19- 42S -43E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 22, 1994.
Mr. C. B. Turner, President of Gold Coast Beef, explained that the requested red, gray and white
was a general change in the appearance of Arby's restaurants adopted over the past few years. Mr.
Turner responded to Chairman Ornstein's question regarding the roof paint that a base coat was first
applied so that the paint would adhere to the metal roof, and then the final color coat was applied.
• Motion:
Mr. Daniel Honig made a motion to recommend approval of the above - referenced petition to the
City Council with no conditions.
Ms. Diane Carlino seconded the motion.
The motion was approved unanimously with a 7 -0 vote.
Workshop: SP-94-07, by Henry Skokowski, agent for PGA National Venture, Ltd., to
amend the residential Planned Unit Development approved for Parcel M -31B (Grand Cay)
within the PGA National Community. (15- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 22, 1994.
Discussion ensued regarding the reduction of number of dwellings, increased lot size, and smaller
side yard setbacks. Chairman Ornstein commented that with the proposed 5 -foot side yard setback,
a two foot roof overhang would leave only six feet between two two -story houses, thereby creating
a tunnel effect that the Committee had sought to avoid in the past.
Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, explained there would only be approximately ten lots in that
situation because of the fanning of the lot line which would provide more room on most of the side
yards, and that not all the homes would be two stories. She stated that the developer was asking for
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
the change from zero lot lines because the market had indicated the people who purchase homes near
a championship golf course wanted larger lots and larger houses. Ms. Booth stated they would
prepare open space calculations for the Committee's consideration. Chairman Ornstein requested
they also provide guidelines for two -story home setbacks. Mr. Glidden requested a depiction of
typical footprints on the lots. Ms. Booth explained there would be a consistent architectural theme
throughout the project with all homes being concrete block construction with stucco finish, Spanish
S -tile roofs, and that color samples of the roof tiles would be provided to the Committee. Chairman
Ornstein commented that developers usually stated that two dwelling units of the same plan and color
could not exist side -by -side, etc., and some guidelines were needed.
Mr. Glidden questioned how the amount of open space was determined, which was explained by
Chairman Ornstein that the open space was green and included the pool.
Mr. Honig stated he would be adamantly opposed to reduction of the side yard setback from the
presently approved ten feet down to five feet, and that reducing the number of units in this case does
not reduce the coverage and that it is in the interest of the developer to build larger houses, and not
in the interest of the residents who would eventually live there. Ms. Booth clarified that the
previously approved zero lot line provided for ten feet between buildings, or 5 feet on each side
yard. Mr. Honig explained that he had misunderstood, and would then be in favor of increasing the
existing 5 -foot setback, although possibly not to as much as 10 feet.
The Committee discussed the above - mentioned petition and had the following comments:
• 1. Guidelines should be submitted which would indicate no two -story structures would be
located side -by -side unless the setbacks were increased.
2. Footprints of structures showing square feet should be shown on some lots to indicate how
they will appear when placed side -by -side.
3. Open space should be calculated and compared with previous plans.
4. Color samples of roof tiles are required.
5. A statement is required stating same colors or same models of homes will not be located side -
by -side.
6. Consideration should be given to increasing side yard setbacks.
or h P- 4- 8, by Kurt Cooper of Hutcheon Engineers, agent for Trinity United
Methodist Church, to construct a portion of the parking area as shown on the approved
conceptual master plan, and a change to the phasing plan. Located at 9625 N. Military Trail.
(13- 42S -42E)
Alternate John Glidden did not participate in the discussion or vote on this petition since he is the
architect for the project.
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 21, 1994.
Mr. Kurt Cooper, agent for the petitioner, introduced Ed Oliver, Architect, who stated the church
attendance had not decreased during the summer as in previous years, and increased attendance
necessitated a larger parking area. Mr. Oliver described the master plan, and stated that it had been
approved without wheel stops as required in staff's condition 1, and requested that the requirement
be deleted. Mr. Oliver explained that petitioner had met the requirements as stated in conditions 2
and 3. Mr. Oliver objected to the use of the word "temporary" in condition 4; however, Mr. Honig
recommended the following wording: "At the time of further site plan review of Phase 2A and 2B
areas these phases may be reevaluated and amended to be consistent with the approved Master Plan. "
Chairman Ornstein stated that the word "temporary" should not concern the petitioner since everyone
understood the intent. Mr. Oliver requested language to the effect that portions of Phases 2A and
2B do require permanent consideration and that petitioner understands it is necessary to come back
for approval of those areas that require approval. He stated his concern was that once they put the
road in they would not want to move it, and with the substantial amount of money being spent, the
word "temporary" implied that changes might be required.
In response to Planning and Zoning Director Walton's concern, Mr. Honig reworded his proposed
language as follows: "At the time of further site plan review of the areas of Phase 2A and 2B, the
areas within these phases may be reevaluated and amended to be consistent with the approved Master
Plan. " Director Walton stated that since the approved Master Plan was conceptual it doesn't relate
• to the code and that codes in place at the time they come back for any changes to that plan must be
met; and since this parcel was straight zoning no deviations could be taken from staff
recommendations. Chairman Ornstein stated this committee therefore did not have the power to grant
petitioner relief from the wheel stops and their only recourse would be to go before the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
City Attorney Baird responded to Chairman Ornstein's question whether since City Council had
specifically granted approval of the conceptual Master Plan without wheel stops whether the
petitioner was now required to provide wheel stops since current code required them, by stating he
believed the petitioner must comply with all current code requirements.
Mr. Oliver agreed that the petitioner would agree to all staff conditions with the deletion of
conditions 2 and 3 since they had been satisfied.
Mr. Pastore questioned drainage for stormwater, which was explained by Mr. Cooper that it would
be taken care of by filtration with outfall to go into the canal.
Mot-ion:
Ms. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval of the above - mentioned petition to City
Council with staff recommendations the following conditions which consist of the staff conditions
excluding items 2 and 3 which had already been satisfied:
1. Prior to the petition's approval, the plans will be revised to show wheel stops or curbing per
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
code.
2. Phase 2A and 2B shall be considered temporary, and at the time of further site plan review,
areas within these phases may be reevaluated and amended to be consistent with the approved
Master Plan.
3. Areas that have been allowed to have vegetation or ground cover removed pursuant to the
approved site plan, 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.
4. Prior to clearing or construction, trees or native areas designated for preservation shall be
tagged or roped -off. Prior to land clearing, the developer shall erect and maintain protective
barriers around the drip line of the trees to be protected. All work shall be inspected and
approved by the Landscape Architect of Record and the City Forester prior to the issuance
of any Building Department permit requiring land clearing. Section 153.20 shall also be
enforced during construction.
5. All tree protection and landscape work shall be performed using current professional
landscaping standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all tree protection
efforts, 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.
6. All trees or plants designed for preservation that die during construction or because of
construction practices shall replaced using the following schedule: For every inch of tree
caliper lost, three inches of new tree caliper shall be replaced with like specie. The
minimum replacement tree shall be three inches in diameter. Palms shall be replaced with
like specie one for one with a minimum 10' height. Shrubs shall be replaced with like specie
one for one with a minimum 30" height. If the site can not support the total number of
replacement trees as required above, City Council may permit the developer to donate excess
trees to the City for planting on public lands.
7. Prior to the use of the parking area 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. ,
8. All applicable conditions from Ordinance 2, 1992 and Resolution 6, 1993 shall apply to
Phases 2A and 2B.
9. Permits from NPBWCD and SFWMD regarding stormwater outfall shall be submitted to the
City and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final construction plans.
0 8
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
10. Prior to approval of final construction plans, stormwater retention calculations shall be
submitted to the City and approved by the City Engineer.
Mr. William Mignogna seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved with a 6-0 vote. (Mr. Glidden did not participate.)
Recommendation to City Council: Petition P- 4 -12, by Stephen Mathison, Agent for
Frenchman's Creek Property Owner's Association, for the creation of a Parcel for the
construction of a 1,876 square foot permanent residential resale facility. Located within the
Frenchman's Creek Planned Community District. (30- 41S -43E)
Chairman Ornstein and Mr. Daniel Honig did not participate in the discussion or vote of this
petition. Mr. Ornstein was the architect for this project, and Mr. Honig is a resident of
Frenchman's Creek. Although the City Attorney determined Mr. Honig did not have a conflict, he
chose not to participate.
Ms. Diane Carlino chaired this item.
A presentation and discussion ensued regarding the proposal to construct an additional sales center
at Frenchman's Creek.
• Mr. Steve Mathison, agent, requested he be allowed to speak after Mr. Ellington's comments, and
before the developer's comments, to which the Committee agreed.
Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 22, 1994, and stated that the
interpretation of the letter attached to the staff report from Sally Black of Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council was in question. Mr. Ellington stated that Ms. Black's letter indicated that as
long as the proposed re -sale facility was for the exclusive use of selling homes located within the
development that it would not require any DRI amendment or notice. A condition #8 not in the staff
report was proposed by Mr. Ellington that a lighting plan shall be submitted for review by staff prior
to submittal to City Council.
Steve Mathison spoke as attorney for Frenchman's Creek Property Owners Association, who would
be the owners and operators of the proposed permanent re -sale facility being opened by the Property
Owners Association as a service to the residents of Frenchman's Creek, and stated it will be used
strictly for resale of existing homes of residents within Frenchman's Creek. Mr. Mathison stated
his client agreed to all of the conditions in the staff report including condition #8, added by Mr.
Ellington earlier in the meeting. Mr. Mathison stated he had learned that a request for postponement
would be made tonight, and stated he wanted to make it clear that this was a request for
postponement of a facility that would serve the residents of Frenchman's Creek by a developer who
currently operates a sales facility within Frenchman's Creek. Mr. Mathison stressed that the POA
had met all of the application requirements, had worked with staff on this project, had obtained two
letters from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council signing off on this project, and that the
Association desired to move forward with this petition. The association had held a vote regarding
0 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
moving forward with this re -sale facility which was overwhelmingly in favor of moving forward.
Mr. Lyddon stated the only planning he could see which would affect the economic issues would be
what would happen if the re -sale facility should be an economic failure. Mr. Mathison responded
that since it was to be owned and operated by the Association as a service for the residents that
whether it made money was not really an issue; but if the Association decided to use the facility for
another purpose that it would have to go through the approval process to make the change.
Mr. Greg Kino, attorney with Boose, Casey, Ciklin, spoke representing the developer, and stated
that approximately 180 residents out of a total of 500 who voted, had voted against the re -sale
facility. Attorney Kino requested postponement until a November meeting in the interest of fairness
to give residents who had not yet arrived for the season an opportunity to make a decision. Attorney
Kino pointed out in the second paragraph of Ms. Black's letter that she referred to `the change from
a temporary sales facility to a permanent re -sales facility' indicating she was under a mistaken belief
that this is a temporary facility that is being converted, and he suggested that this should go through
the normal process which would review the proposed change.
Acting Chair Carlino thanked the attorney for his comments and stated she believed that the
Committee was not here to determine who was right and who was wrong among the residents, but
to determine whether to recommend this to the City Council. In response to Mr. Glidden's question,
Attorney Kino stated the residents opposing the re -sale facility felt substantial damage would be done
to the value of the four lots directly across the street from the proposed site which were purchased
• by the successor developer for the purpose of constructing residential homes after the temporary sales
facility was no longer needed; these residents were also concerned since during peak season the
driving range was overcrowded so that the back of this open space had been used as another driving
range - -which would be lost; they questioned the necessity of two sales facilities within the same
development; and requested if the Committee did not agree to postponement that a condition be
added that no C.O. would be issued until March, 1996, when the current facility would be closed,
or earlier if the remaining six lots were sold.
Planning and Zoning Director Walton reported he had a lengthy conversation with Sally Black after
receiving her second letter, with the result that he had been told that Treasure Coast would not
require this matter to be subject to DRI review or notice and the only condition was that the facility
be solely for resales within the development.
Attorney Mathison urged the Committee to proceed and stated if the developer had any issue with
Treasure Coast that he should take it up with Treasure Coast.
City Attorney Baird stated his interpretation of Ms. Black's letter was whether the request was for
a temporary or permanent facility that as long as it was for a facility that served only the resale of
units within the PUD which was approved by the DRI that would not be a change in use that would
trigger review requirements under DRI. In response to Mr. Lyddon's question whether this held true
whether this property was designated open space or temporary re -sale facility on the master plan,
City Attorney Baird responded the property owner has the ability to request change in use designated
on the master plan, and whatever the original designation was, it could be changed so long as it met
the City codes, the standards of the DRI law, and received approvals of appropriate agencies,
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
including the City Council.
Mr. Walton stated that Ms. Black had provided a copy of her letter to Lynn Zippay, Department of
Community Affairs, who reviews DRI applications for Palm Beach Gardens.
In regard to condition #8 regarding lighting, Mr. Glidden received affirmative response to his
questions whether lighting would be reviewed by staff and whether it would be done on a residential
level - -not on a commercial level. Mr. Glidden also questioned whether the curbing at three locations
on the site plan met the requirement of protection to landscaping requirement, which was determined
that this curbing should not stop where shown but should run continuously to the property line.
Motion:
Mr. William Mignogna made a motion to recommend approval of the above - mentioned petition to
City Council with the following conditions:
1. This facility shall be restricted to resale of residences within the Frenchman's Creek
Community.
2. The 1,000 square -foot expansion (Phase II) shall return to the City for site plan approval.
3. Areas that have been allowed to have vegetation or ground cover removed pursuant to the
• approved site plan, and subsequently abandoned for any reason for more than three months,
shall be sodded immediately upon request by the City or the City shall have the work done
at the owner's expense.
4. Prior to clearing or construction, trees or native areas designated for preservation shall be
tagged or roped -off. Prior to land clearing, the developer shall erect and maintain protective
barriers around the drip line of the trees to be protected. All work shall be inspected and
approved by the Landscape Architect of Record and the City Forester prior to the issuance
of any Building Department permit requiring land clearing. Section 153.20 shall also be
enforced during construction.
5. All tree protection and landscape work shall be performed using current professional
landscaping standards. The Landscape Architect of Record shall monitor all tree protection
efforts, all tree relocation work, 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.
6. All trees or plants designed for preservation that die during construction or because of
construction practices shall replaced using the following schedule: For every inch of tree
caliper lost, three inches of new tree caliper shall be replaced with like specie. The
minimum replacement tree shall be three inches in diameter. Palms shall be replaced with
like specie one for one with a minimum 10' height. Shrubs shall be replaced with like specie
one for one with a minimum 30" height. If the site can not support the total number of
replacement trees as required above, City Council may permit the developer to donate excess
• 11
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
trees to the City for planting on public lands.
7. 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.
8. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review by staff prior to submittal to City Council.
9. The curbing at each of the three locations shall run continuously to the property line.
Mr. Phillip Lyddon seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved by a 5 -0 vote. (Chairman Ornstein and Mr. Honig did not
participate.)
Workshop: Petition SP-94-11, by John Luedtke, agent for the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, for the creation of a Parcel for the construction of 352, two -story,
apartment units. Located within the Regional Center Planned Community District. (6 -42S-
• 43E) (Bayshore Club)
After distributing plans, Mr. Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated September 22, 1994.
Mr. Rhett Roy, Landscape Architect for the petitioner, stated he would give the presentation since
Mr. Bob Koch, Architect, present at the meeting, was suffering from laryngitis, and explained that
the voluminous drawings represented approximately 40 % of the completed plans, and that there were
numerous building types.
Chairman Ornstein stated that since time was short that the Committee would only have time to
consider the site plan at this meeting.
Chairman Ornstein stated a big concern was the dumpsters. Mr. Roy explained Waste Management
standards had been followed in determining the number of dumpsters, but that their next step which
involved discussions with Waste Management to work out details might determine that more
dumpsters were needed. Chairman Ornstein stated his position that one dumpster per community
was insufficient. Discussion ensued regarding the distance people would be willing to walk to
deposit their garbage into a dumpster, and also the safety factor to consider when walking a long
distance carrying a large amount of trash, and crossing streets where there was traffic. Petitioner
requested standards in feet, to which Mr. Ornstein replied he did not know the proper number of
feet, but knew the proposed one dumpster per cluster was inadequate. Mr. Glidden suggested two
large dumpsters per cluster as an improvement. Another suggestion was using smaller dumpsters
with more frequent pickup.
is 12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
Mr. Ornstein questioned whether the petitioner had any problem with moving the unit on the south
side which staff had determined to be too close to Gardens Parkway, and was told the unit would
be moved.
Mr. Glidden questioned the goal of extending the water body under the road into the circular form
by the tot lot. Mr. Roy stated the objective was to expand the water body so that it would be more
of an amenity to the community. Mr. Glidden requested the status of the car port quantity issue and
requested research as to whether the PUD had the ability to relax those numbers. Mr. Ornstein
objected to the covered car ports that were close to the entry roads. Mr. Honig requested a
rendering showing the car ports. Mr. Mignogna requested newspaper rack locations be shown.
The Site Plan & Appearance Review Committee, in reviewing only the site plan for this project, had
the following comments:
1. Additional dumpsters should be more conveniently located within each cluster of buildings.
2. The unit on the south side was located too close to Gardens Parkway and should be moved
back.
3. The number of covered parking spaces was excessive, and those located beside the Loop
Road were not acceptable because of their visibility.
• 4. Newspaper rack locations should be identified.
The petitioner stated they would be changing their plans to address the concerns raised by staff. The
Committee asked them to correct the plans and submit them to staff as soon as they could. Once
the revised plans were submitted, the item would be rescheduled for a workshop.
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Ornstein announced that due to the lateness of the hour that any Old or New Business
would be considered at the next meeting.
• 13
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. The next meeting will
be held October <11, 1994. -
\ I Absent)
Jeffreys O stein, Chairman Carl Sabatello, Chairman-Elect
\I
r
Carlin Phillip Lydd n
el Honig {
(Absent)
Michael Posner
a k , Secre
4� �
William Mignogna
• 14
Thomas Pastore, Alternate
r1QV- 17 -194 TH1J 17:15 ID:OLIVER GLIDDEN TEL N0:407- 684 -5890
1
• OLIVER * GLIDDEN & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, INC.
1401 FORUM WAY, SUITE 100
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
407 .684.6841 / FAX 407 - 684 -6890
L�
0
October 3, 1994
Jeffrey Ornstein
Chairman
Palm Beach Gardens Planning & Zoning Commission
10500 North Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Dear Mr. Ornstein:
4059 POI
1 6LIVER
GIDDEN
AN16L�. *QWN
NOV IT 14W
City Of P.B.G.
PLANNIMP,
ZCi i; ?iu
Thank you very much for my recent appointment as an Alternate Member of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. I took forward to serving the City in this capacity. With respect to the
September 13, 1994 meeting, i wanted to point out that I was out of town out and I did not
receive written notification of my appointment until after I had already left, therefore, I was not
aware of the meeting. I presume that this would nullify any "absent" designation for that
meeting. Furthermore, I wanted to advise you of my schedule relative to the end of November
and the end of December, I will be out of town for the November 22, 1994 and December 27,
1994 meetings.
I would also appreciate being provided with whatever written information is currently available
regarding the rules and regulations of the Commission including information relating to the
procedures for conflicts of interest should that situation arise in the future.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Very truly yours,
01 IDDEN, A.I.A.
00
Principal
JG: *FtWn*rsxst1pOgpit.Yt7
a 2N, f
members of the a m 0 r I c a n institute of architects
FORM 86 MEMORANDUM
OUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.A %T NAME -FIRST NAME- MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
-3 Q_!�_ _-t _e 0 r N S`t� .r 1 I 11k 4 N ay (;► � %ZuA.) W 6F GCWM /S S oti
MAILING: ADDRESS
kl-71� DWS4
I'ITl
�•g•�i F
DATE ON WHKII VOI1 O(�(URRH)
.
COON r1
THE BOARD COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
('11 Y COUNTY OTHER IJDCAl AGENCY
NANIL 01• PUL ITIC'AL SUBDIVISION:
1'ALM DeA Gt4 COA S
MY PUSI VION IS:
WHO MUST FILE FORM Rd
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
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 law when faced with a measure in which you Have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION !12.3143, 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 is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia
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 of
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 recordin,
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 whic
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to th
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, %heth(
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHIC1
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 interes
1 hRNl 4111 Ill." P,
IF YOU 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 IS days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutr.
• of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1. 1�5T6 1 il1 .� , hereby disclose t hat on 7 19
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or /' /�
inured to the special gain of 'F(umt po'S CrulG / 1"o r �I YS �ISS��• , by whom I am retained
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
2w, AYE, � �
I-0, Est 6 IIA-Pw r �Q
cis fwIl.T7w v.,v � FR�,y, -r 5 CI%!c Pv0124✓ ,
g -9
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1 .317 811), 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 Olt EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION
SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 115,000.
E FORM le • tare