HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 061290CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
• JUNE 12, 1990
REGULAR MEETING
The Regular Meeting 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; Joseph Hamzy, Jack White and Alan Strassler,
Members; Rebecca Serra and Carl Sabatello, Alternate Members.
Domenick Lioce, Mike Rosen, and James Leatherman were not in
attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF APRIL 24, 1990 & MAY 22, 1990
• The minutes of April 24, 1990 were unanimously approved as sub-
mitted, with a vote of 6 -0.
The minutes of May 22, 1990 were unanimously approved as amended,
with a vote of 5 -0. Ms. Serra abstained stating she was not
present at this meeting.
SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW
(Discussion Only)
SP -90 -07 - (PGA Gulf Service Station and Snack Shop) Site
plan review for the remodeling of the existing 1,776 sq. ft.
service station building (to be replaced with a snack shop),
reorientation of the pump islands, and construction of a 4,128
sq. ft. canopy at the PGA Gulf Service Station located on the
northeast corner of PGA Blvd. & Military Trail. (1- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the petitioner's
• request, as stated in the staff report dated 6/7/90.
1
• Mr. Ellington advised that the petitioner has revised the site
plan to provide for a landscape strip in front of the existing
station, to continue on to the point where the sidewalk ends.
The dumpster has been relocated to the western side of the 4
parking spaces. It will be necessary to relocate an existing
light pole, telephone, and air pump.
Mr. Ellington advised that the petitioner plans to remove a
portion of the landscape island near the entrance, off PGA Blvd.
The petitioner has explained that an application will be submit-
ted to the F.D.O.T. requesting approval of this modification.
Staff recommends the island remain as is until the expansion of
PGA Blvd. takes place. F.D.O.T. approval will also have to be
obtained for a sign within the right -of -way.
• Regarding the comments submitted by Mr. David Getz, City's Engi-
•
neer, Mr. Ellington advised that staff has clarified for Mr. Getz
that the 5' setback is from the canopy overhang to the property
line. The actual request is for a 12' setback from the property
line to the column. Mr. Getz also has a concern with the site
design, which necessitates all vehicle maneuvering to be done
off -site into the R.O.W. Mr. Getz has recommended this project
not be approved.
Mr. Ted Davis, Architect, reviewed all site plan elements. Mr.
Davis stated the proposed changes to the site will increase
efficiency of the operation, improve circulation and provide a
safer environment.
2
0 In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Davis stated that
the setback for the canopy will be 5' from the property line on
the east end. However, he was informed by Mr. Jack Hanson,
Building Official, that the setback measurement is not taken from
the canopy itself, but from the structural support for the cano-
py. This results in a setback of 2016" on the east end and 37'
on the west side, as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Davis distributed photographs depicting the requested design.
During discussion, the Commission expressed the following con-
cerns:
1. The project cannot be properly reviewed until comments are
received from F.D.O.T. pertaining to the proposed modifica-
tions in the R.O.W., including the proposed sign, off -
site maneuvering, and ultimate R.O.W.
• 2. The site is too small to justify the uses.
0
3. Reduce the number of proposed pumps from 6 to 4 and decrease
the aisle width between the pumps.
4. Questioned the adequacy and location of the parking spaces
and circulation.
5. The canopy, as proposed, is too close to the property line.
6. Does not feel there is justification for expansion of the
retail space.
The Commission directed the petitioner to submit F.D.O.T.
comments pertaining to the modifications proposed in the R.O.W.,
and the ultimate R.O.W. for N. Military Trail and PGA Blvd.,
prior to the next site plan review meeting for this project.
3
• SP -90 -08 - (Ra Co Amo, Inc.) Site plan review for the construc-
tion of a 38,500 sq. ft. building, restructuring the parking
configuration and adding landscaping to the 7.422± acre site,
located south of Burns Rd., west of Interstate 95. (12- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the petitioner's
request for modifications to the site, as stated in the staff
report dated 6/7/90. Mr. Ellington advised that the petitioner
will be providing a 15' landscape buffer along portions of the
site, however, in the area of the curb cut closest to I -95, the
petitioner is proposing only an 8' buffer. Staff recommends that
15' be provided. Mr. David Getz, City's Engineer, has raised a
concern with the adequacy of the stacking distance at this east-
ernmost entrance, which will decrease after the widening of Burns
Road, and recommends that two parking spaces be removed in order
• to maintain a 20' setback from the property line.
•
Mr. Ellington reviewed the recommendations submitted by Mr. Mark
Hendrickson, City Forester, in his memo dated 6/1/90. Mr.
Ellington said that the Fire Department has recommended the fire
hydrant be relocated from the front of the site to south of the
building to provide better accessibility. The Police Department
has expressed concern with site lighting.
Mr. Steve Brock, Project Architect, reviewed the site plan with
the Commission. Mr. Brock explained that parking cannot be
provided along the eastern side of the site due to the Seacoast
Utility easement and possible damage to their pipes. Mr. Brock
requested that the proposed parking spaces along Burns Road be
allowed to remain.
4
•
•
During discussion, the Commission requested, and the petitioner
agreed to the following:
1. Redesign the parking spaces located at the easternmost
entrance to compact parking spaces (9' x 181) in order
to increase the landscape buffer along Burns Road.
2. Provide a 4' hedge on top of the 2' berm proposed along
Burns Rd.
3. Show the ultimate right -of -way line for Burns Rd. on plan.
Mr. Brock identified the location of a Seacoast well site and
stated a piece of mechanical equipment will be placed there to
strip contaminants from the water. Mr. Brock advised that the
storm water retention is shown as wet, however, he will be
working with the Water Management District to see if this is
acceptable, or if it has to be dry.
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed fence. The Petition-
er advised the Commission that it is important that the fence be
provided due to security problems experienced on the site.
Mr. Brock presented a scale model of the site incorporating the
proposed modifications.
The Commission directed staff to schedule this project for Final
Site Plan Review on June 26, 1990.
Chairman Ornstein adjourned the Site Plan and Appearance Review
Committee meeting and called to order the Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: POD -90 -03 - Recommendation to
City Council re: (PGA National Shoppes on the Green) Reinstating
the expired Planned Unit Development (PUD) for PGA National
Shoppes on the Green within PGA National Planned Community Dis-
trict. (10- 42S -42E)
5
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the petitioner's
• request for a reinstatement of the PUD, as stated in the staff
report dated 6/7/90.
Ms. Sara Lockhart, of Urban Design Studio, authorized agent for
the petitioner, stated the applicant believes he will be able to
rectify the current parking situation and maintain the required
4.9 spaces per 1000.
Mr. Hank Skokowski, of Urban Design Studio, addressed the Commis-
sion stating he would like to clarify for the record that as long
as the 4.9 spaces per 1000 is maintained, it will not be neces-
sary to seek approval from the City for those approved portions
of the site.
Mr. Alan Strassler moved to recommend approval to the City
Council for the above - referenced petition with the following
• conditions:
1. At the point any building permits are requested or
applications for site plans on the remaining outparcels
are submitted, the petitioner shall maintain the parking
ratio of 4.9 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area for the
overall development.
2. There should not be a building permit pulled until the
parking is also submitted to the Building Department, in
accordance with the approved site plan.
Ms. Rebecca Serra seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6 -0.
L
- PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: Recommendation to City Council re: (PGA
National Commerce Park PUD) - Amendment to PGA National Commerce
Park PUD to construct two roads running north /south on the north
side of Hiatt Drive and to subdivide 4 lots (lots 5 -8), totaling
20.82 acres, into 25 one -half and one acre lots. (15- 428 -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner reviewed the petitioner's
request to amend the PUD, as stated in the staff report dated
6/7/90.
Mr. Ellington advised the Commission of several concerns raised
at the DRC meetings. Mr. David Getz, City's Engineer, in his
memo dated 6/6/90 indicated he is currently reviewing plans
pertaining to the adequacy of water flow and fire hydrant place-
ment. Mr. Ellington added that staff is requesting verification
from the petitioner that all sign -offs have been received from
Seacoast Utilities. Included in Mr. Getz memo was a concern
• regarding the traffic analysis. Uses have been approved for the
site that are higher traffic generators than normally allowed in
the Light Industrial District. Mr. Getz is requesting that the
petitioner revisit the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Mr. Ellington stated that Mr. O'Neal Bardin, with the Northern
Palm Beach Water Control District, has indicated he plans to
contact the agent for the petitioner regarding the driveway to
the NPBWCD building.
Mr. Ellington reviewed the recommended conditions submitted by
Mr. Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, in his memo dated 5/29/90,
which included a recommendation that fencing be provided at the
northern property line to prevent trespassing and dumping
7
on the site. Mr. Sabatello requested clarification from staff on
• several of Mr. Hendrickson's recommendations.
Mr. Sabatello asked if the turn lane to go westbound into the
community can be tied into the widening of Northlake Blvd. Mr.
Rich Walton, Planning & Zoning Director, responded that this will
be determined by Mr. Getz' review of the traffic study.
Mr. Hank Skokowski, with Urban Design Studio, briefly reviewed
the history of the project, explained to the Commission his
understanding of the discrepancy between the M -1A zoning designa-
tion in the Resolution approving the PUD, and the M -1 designation
on the Development Guidelines, and stated he will be submitting a
list of requested uses from the M1 -A zoning designation.
Mr. Skokowski stated he has discovered a letter from Kahart
Pinder to the City, as part of the original approval in 1986,
• recommending that concurrent with the 4- laning of Northlake
Blvd., a left turn lane be constructed, and until this construc-
tion has taken place, the project be will be restricted to 50% of
its development area. This letter will be forwarded to Mr. Getz
for review.
Mr. Skokowski responded to staff concerns:
1. The project engineers will continue to coordinate with the
Fire Department on the adequacy of water flow & placement of
fire hydrants.
2. The petitioner will be responsible for any modifications to
the NPBWCD driveway that results from changes to the road.
3. Pertaining to Mark Hendrickson's recommended condition #2
(setbacks & easements): The project engineer will re-
evaluate all easements on the preliminary plat, but the
petitioner would like to maintain the established setbacks
• unless precluded by easements.
8
4. Regarding fencing: The
departmental assessment
trespassing or dumping,
provide complete fencini
site at the time of the
for that area, and will
petitioner does not agree with the
that there is a major problem with
but the petitioner would agree to
I along the northern boundary of the
first development application
be responsible for its maintenance.
5. Regarding the gatehouse: It is the petitioner's opinion
that it is a POA decision as to when, and if, the manning of
the gatehouse is required, and should not be a condition of
this approval.
6. Regarding other areas of landscaping: Mr. Skokowski stated
that in the past he has been afforded a fair amount of
flexibility, with good results, and would like that to
continue. Several of Mr. Hendrickson's recommendations
would dictate a plan, prior to determining the uses for the
individual sites. Mr. Skokowski stated he believes the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council should
have the opportunity to consider the appropriate archi-
tectural screening on a case -by -case basis.
7. Mr. Skokowski stated he would not be in agreement with
recommendation #7 through #11.
Chairman Ornstein stated that although he agrees with Mr.
• Skowkowski on these points, he has a problem with the proposed
small lot concept for the Commerce Park. He further stated he
believes the entire area should be fenced, as soon as development
occurs in the northern portion of the site.
Mr. Strassler stated he is in agreement with Chairman Ornstein,
however, he would support this concept because there doesn't seem
to be a need for the larger lots in this area.
Ms. Serra suggested Mr. Skokowski check to see if this site was
required to have water quality pre - treatment before going into
the overall water management system. Mr. Skokowski said he would
research and advise.
Mr. Hamzy expressed concern with the small lots proposed for the
• west side of the project due to the lack of vegetative cover to
P]
protect the view from Northlake Blvd., and suggested larger lots
be considered in that area. Mr. Hamzy stated he does not share
Chairman Ornstein's concern with regard to the security fencing.
Fencing would be a problem, visually, in front of the ACLF. The
canal will offer a certain amount of security. Mr. Hamzy stated
that if a fence was provided somewhere other than on the property
line, the buffers on the north side could screen the fence as
well as the uses from the residential area.
Mr. Sabatello stated he does not object to the smaller lots, as
this concept would afford the developer the flexibility he needs.
It was the concensus of the Commission that Mr. Hendrickson's
recommended conditions 7 through 10 be eliminated, and #11
modified as requested by Mr. Skokowski.
Mr. Skokowski stated he will submit a traffic report to staff,
• . prior to the next meeting, giving them time for review.
L'
The Commission directed the petitioner to return for Recommenda-
tion to City Council on June 26, 1990, providing that all re-
quested information has been submitted.
WORKSHOP - 2-89 -12 - Recommendation to City Council re: (Caballo
Pointe) - Rezoning from Palm Beach county zoning designation
AR /SE, Agricultural Residential with a special Exception to allow
expansion of existing commercial horse stables, to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and site Plan approval for 26 single- family,
zero lot line patio homes (4.8 du's /acre) with underlying zoning
of RS -3, Residential, Single - family District. (23- 42S -42E)
Mr. Strassler stated he has a conflict of interest with this
project and that he has filed the appropriate form and will
refrain from the discussion.
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the petitioner's
10
request for rezoning to PUD, as stated in the staff report dated
6/7/90.
. Mr. Ellington reviewed the site plan, pointing out the modifica-
tion made since the last review by the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission. Mr. Ellington stated the Police Department has recom-
mended that the lighting in front of lot 10 be located between
trees rather than under a tree, and would also like to see east-
bound and westbound turn lanes.
Mr. Ellington advised that Mr. David Getz, City's Engineer, is
recommending that a left turn lane be constructed on Northlake
Blvd. Mr. Getz is also requesting a review of the sign -off by
NPBWCD regarding the 40' encroachment of the existing canal
outside of the 50' drainage easement. Mr. O'Neal Bardin, with
NPBWCD, has advised that this has been resolved.
Mr. Michael Houston, representing the petitioner, reviewed all
• site plan elements and, for clarification, stated the setbacks
•
for a regular pool will be 51; an ornamental splash pool can be
closer to the property line.
Mr. Houston stated he has responded to traffic and drainage
concerns raised by Mr. Getz, and that the Police Department's
concern over the light fixture will be addressed and will not be
a problem.
Regarding the stacking, Mr. Houston said he has always antici-
pated that a left turn, westbound into the project, would be
provided. Also, providing a right deceleration lane would not be
a problem. These will be shown on the site plan at the Public
Hearing.
11
Mr. Houston requested the Commission consider modifications to
the site plan to allow 2 -story homes on the west side of the
site, since they would overlook the church parking lot, and
rather than staggering trees along the eastern and western
boundaries, place trees 20' on center.
The Commission expressed concern with the proposed 3' setback on
the zero side of the lots and suggested the petitioner consider
going to a true zero -lot -line design. The Commission indicated
that an easement for roof overhangs and maintenance can resolve
the petitioner's concerns. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Hamzy expressed concern with the noise generated from spas,
if placed closer to the adjacent home. Mr. Hamzy stated he does
not know if the request for 2 -story homes on the west side is
• valid, but has no objection to revising the staggering of trees.
•
Mr. Sabatello stated he has no problem with the 2- story, as long
as it does not affect the privacy of homeowners.
Mr. Houston advised it has been determined that there will be a
single builder for the project.
Mr. Rich Walton, Planning & zoning Director, pointed out that lot
6 will be a problem since the house will be on the edge of the
development.
Mr. Hamzy stated there should be a wall that connects the zero -
lot -line corner of the building to the rear property line for
privacy between lots 5 and 6.
12
Mr. Walton requested the petitioner submit revised plans as soon
• as possible to allow adequate time for review.
(This project has been advertised for Public Hearing on June 26,
•
1990.)
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Hamzy asked staff why some minor planning issues are going
before the City Council without first being reviewed by the
Commission. Mr. Walton advised that Mr. Brant, City Attorney,
has determined that minor modifications would go directly to the
City Council rather than through the entire review process.
Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss the meeting was
adjourned at 11:05 P.M. The next Regular meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission will be held Tuesday, June 26, 1990.
ASSLER / i
--- - - - - -- - - - - - - --
JEAN LONG, SEC ARY
� a
- - -- ------------------
C SABATELLO
13
_CC+UNTY, MUNICIPAL,
ivAS? A E —FIRST NAMU— MIDDLE NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
AND OTHER LOCAL PYAMP OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCI , COMMISSI AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTE
OT-( of +�AI.M 1'ViG1 o*ew+f�(� , opoiWitiz, k -&)V ,
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
( -I 1 Y % COUNT 'V OTHER I.O('A1 AGENCY
ril COUNTY NAML• Of- Pot ITICAL SUBDIVISION:
DAIE ON WHICH Volt CX'CURRkD
MY PUSI 1*10N IS:
JUG1�� 0 ELECTIVE APPOI
V l _
WHO MUST FILE FORM 1111111
This form is for use by any person sen ing at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. 11 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 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 inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
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 on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
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 which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
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 must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible.for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
WA 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 interest.
1 hlt�1 �H In.xh PAGE I
�,.IF RU 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 minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
•
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, hereby disclose that on 19 q p
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
X inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of __.___.�_ — , by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
J V N+t✓ ) 2, ) °) °k::)
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
•DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
E FORM 89 • IU•66 PAGE