Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 112691CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 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 present were: Jeffrey Ornstein, Chairman; Mike Rosen, Vice Chairman; Joseph Hamzy, Carl Sabatello, James Leatherman and Alan Strassler, Members; and James Kuretski, Alternate Member. Domenick Lioce, Member, was not in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1991 • Mr. Joseph Hamzy made a motion for approval of the minutes of the November 12, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. James Leatherman seconded the motion. The minutes of the November 12, 1991 meeting were approved by a 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING: PUD -91 -09 - Recommendation to City Council re: (Admiralty II) Two -year time extension to the Admiralty II Planned Unit Development, created by Ordinance 15, 1987, for the development of a 160 -room hotel and 164,530 square feet in office space. Located at the southwest corner of Interstate 95 and PGA Boulevard. (Adv. 11/11/91) (12- 42S -42E) Mr. Bristol S. Ellington, City Planner, stated that staff recommends approval of this petition with no conditions. Chairman Jeffrey Ornstein opened the Public Hearing. Hearing no comment from the 1 public, Chairman Ornstein closed the Public Hearing. Motion Mr. Joseph Hamzy recommended approval of this petition with no conditions. Mr. Alan Strassler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 7 -0. WORKSHOP: PUD -91 -10 - Recommendation to City Council re: (Gardens Medical Park) Five -year time extension to the Planned Unit Development, created by Ordinance 17, 1983 and amended by Ordinance 28, 1985 and Ordinance 1, 1989, for the development of three medical and dental office buildings totalling 75,000 net square feet. Located north of Burns Road and approximately 1,000 feet east of Gardens East Drive. (7- 42S -43E) Since the petitioner was not present, the Commission decided to postpone this workshop until the December 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. • Chairman Ornstein adjourned the meeting at 7:34 P.M. • At 7:38 P.M., the petitioner, Mrs. Anna Maria Scheller, arrived and Chairman Ornstein reopened the Commission meeting in order to hold the above - referenced workshop. Mr. Ellington reviewed the staff report for the above - referenced project. He noted that the PUD is now owned by three separate entities. Each entity owns one of the three phases of the PUD. The first two phases have been constructed. The third phase, owned by the petitioner, has yet to be constructed. Chairman Ornstein asked if this project was under one ownership when it approved. Mr. Ellington said it was and that all the owners are bound by the PUD agreement. Mrs. Scheller asked the Commission to extend the PUD by five years because of the over -built market of medical office buildings in the City. 2 • • • Chairman Ornstein said the Commission does not usually extend a PUD for five years because that "is going out a little far." He added that this project has had eight years to be completed and that was long enough to develop the property. Mrs. Scheller said the original owner of the property did not want to split up the property so the petitioner and two other people formed a partnership to purchase the subject site. After the purchase and the PUD approval, the partnership was dissolved, she added. Chairman Ornstein asked that if the PUD is not extended would the petitioner have to come back with a new PUD request. Mr. Rich Walton, Planning and Zoning Director, said the petitioner would then have to come back with a PUD request and face concurrency review. Mr. Hamzy asked if there is a surplus of traffic capacity on Burns Road. Mr. Walton stated that he did not think there would be a problem after Burns Road is five - laned. Mr. Carl Sabatello asked if the petitioner is exempt from all impact fees. Mr. Walton responded that the City Council usually writes within its PUD agreements that the petitioner must pay the most current impact fees at the time of development. Mr. Sabatello asked if the PUD would have to bring the project, including landscaping, up to current codes. Mr. Hamzy said landscaping would not have to be brought up to date because it was approved by the original PUD. Mr. Ellington said the landscaping and signage plans for Phase 3 would have to go before the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee for approval. At that time, the Committee can decide if its wants the project to be updated to meet current codes. Mr. Walton, Mr. Ellington and the Commission discussed the ownership of the PUD. Mr. Walton said that the City was aware that this PUD would be split between three 3 • • owners. Mr. Sabatello said the Commission should look at the entire PUD and if some part of the project is deficient in its development then it should be required to address the deficiency. Mr. Alan Strassler stated that the Commission may want to consider widening the buffer along Burns Road after Bums Road is widened. Mr. Mike Rosen said that because this is a strange PUD that the Commission should receive a legal determination from City Attorney William Brant and schedule the petition for another workshop. Mrs. Scheller asked the Commission what the difference is from now and three years ago when the PUD was last extended. Chairman Ornstein said the PUD has been extended twice already and that he personally does not feel the PUD needs to be extended again. He added that the petitioner has not indicated that they are ready to build at any time soon. Mrs. Scheller asked what happens if the PUD expires. Chairman Ornstein stated that the property would probably revert back to its underlying zoning. Mrs. Scheller asked that if the PUD expires, would she have to come back through the entire PUD process in order to start development. Chairman Ornstein said she would. The Commission decided to hold another workshop for this petition at its December 10, 1991 meeting. Chairman Ornstein asked Mr. Ellington to have Mr. Brant provide a history of the approval of this project and its subsequent subdivision, a legal determination for setting requirements for the other PUD property owners, and a list of options of what would happen if the Commission denied the request. ADJOURNMENT 4 • There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 P.M. The next meeting will be held on December 10, 1991. r • James Kuretski i" Marty R.A. Minor, Secretary 5