HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 0724900
} CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 24, 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; Mike Rosen, Vice Chairman, Domenick Lioce,
Joseph Hamzy, Jack White and Alan Strassler, Members; Rebecca
Serra and Carl Sabatello, Alternate Members. James Leatherman
was not in attendance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 10, 1990 MEETING
The minutes of July 10, 1990, were unanimously approved as sub-
mitted.
ITEMS BY THE PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
Mr. Walton asked for direction from the Commission regarding two
petitions recently submitted to the Planning & Zoning Dept.,
1) "Hiliarities ", Conditional Use for operation of a performing
arts theatre, and 2) annexation petition submitted by the
MacArthur Foundation for vacant property, primarily west of the
current City boundaries.
After discussion, the Commission directed staff to advertise both
petitions for Public Hearing at the next meeting (to be held
August 14, 1990).
1
PUBLIC'HEARING - Z -89 -09 - Recommendation to City Council re:
(Wynfield PCD, F /K /A Millpond) Rezoning from Palm Beach County
designation AR, Agricultural Residential District, and RS, Sin-
gle- Family Residential district, to Planned Community District
(PCD) for a 1,700 -unit residential community and a 19 -acre vil-
lage center on 595.26± acres, located on the east side of Alter-
nate A -1 -A, west of Prosperity Farms Road, approximately one mile
north of PGA Boulevard, and south of Frenchman's Creek and
Frenchman's Landing. (Adv. 11/27/89) (Recessed from 12/12/89,
1/23/90, 2/27/90, 3/27/90 and 5/22/90 meetings)
Mr. Walton advised that the petitioner is requesting a two month
continuance. Mr. Walton reported that there are still major
issues to be addressed and staff does not support the petition-
er's request for another continuance. Mr. Walton added that
staff recommends denial of the petition, as currently submitted,
due to problems with coordinating issues with the County, and
that staff does not have needed information to properly review
the project. Information is still needed pertaining to enviro-
mental, traffic, design, & School Board issues.
The Commission, staff, and the petitioner reviewed the major
issues associated with this project, and discussed the options
available as to how to proceed.
Mr. Henry Skokowski, authorized agent for the petitioner, stated
several traffic studies have been submitted to the City, which
were evaluated by Mr. Ken Rogers, the City's traffic consultant.
Mr. Skokowski stated he sent a letter requesting that the City
not continue with the review of the traffic study since it has
been known all along that the project cannot meet the County's
standard, and there was no purpose in incurring additional fees
for consultants to review the report. Mr. Skokowski stated he is
2
• reasonably optimistic that the project can meet the new County
standards that may be forthcoming soon.
Mr. Skokowski distributed copies of the Wynfield staff report
dated 1/18/90, with a "Working List of Conditions" attached. Mr.
Skokowski stated the petitioner is in agreement with every one of
the 37 conditions, and felt these could be refined and used as a
base for recommendations for approval.
Mr. Skokowski, in response to questions by Mr. Lioce, stated that
he believes there is a question as to the validity of the circum-
stances under which the interlocal agreement was entered into
between the City and the County, and that this is a matter the
petitioner would have to resolve. Mr. Skokowski stated he thinks
the City entered into the agreement in good faith and he under-
stands that the City has every intention of living up to that
•
obligation.
A discussion ensued regarding postponing vs. moving the project
on to City Council.
Mr. Jack Halfaker, 2590 Lalique Circle, addressed the Commission
stating he would be opposed to the northern Hood Road alignment
for the following reasons: 1) the residents of the subject
project would not have access to the road or have the benefit of
services provided from the road, 2) R -O -W along Hood Road does
not permit buffering for the residents, 3) the road would have to
go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, and back to 4 lanes, 4) all traffic
would have to access onto Prosperity Farms Road., 5) additional
3
• traffic signals would have to be placed on Prosperity Farms Rd.
Mr. Mike Martino, 320 Balsam St., Mayor of Palm Beach Gardens,
addressed the Commission stating it is the opinion of the City
Attorney that the City cannot afford to continue holding Public
Hearings for this project and that a decision must be made.
Mayor Martino stated that perhaps the prudent course would be to
make a recommendation to the City Council at this meeting so that
the severe policy issues can be dealt with. It could then be
brought back to the Commission at the appropriate time.
Mayor Martino stated he wants the record to remain clear where
the directions are coming from. They are staff driven and not
Council driven at the moment. However, the City Council has gone
on record regarding the location of Hood Rd., and favors the
• northern alignment because right -of -way has been collected for
this purpose and the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates the road
•
should follow the northern alignment.
Pertaining to the traffic performance standards, Mayor Martino
advised that the County is procrastinating and may not come up
with a reasonable answer to the problem until October. Mayor
Martino stated the City intends to honor the agreement entered
into with the County.
Mr. Rosen made a motion to recommend denial of the above -
referenced petition to the City Council, based on the staff
recommendation dated 7/19/90.
Mr. Lioce seconded the motion.
4
• Chairman Ornstein stated he is in agreement with Mr. Rosen and
feels that the project should be moved on to City Council, as
requested by staff, the administration, and the City Attorney.
The motion for denial was defeated with a vote of 2 -5.
Mr. Lioce made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing to another
date.
Mayor Martino advised that since the Chairman closed the Public
Hearing, it cannot be recessed, however, the Commission has the
right to continue the discussion portion of the meeting, and its'
decision, to a time and date certain.
Mr. Lioce made a motion to continue the discussion portion of the
meeting to the next regular meeting, and that the recommendation
to the City Council will be made at that time.
• The motion was seconded.
•
Mr. Walton stated policy issues that must be reviewed by the City
Council are 1) environmental, 2) Hood Rd., 3) traffic performance
standards. Once these issues are addressed, a site plan can be
formulated, land use decisions and details can be resolved.
Mr. Lioce asked Mr. Walton to make the assumptions that 1) Hood
Rd. will go on the north side, 2) the petitioner will meet the
traffic performance ordinance, 3) that the City Forester has
already reviewed the significant environmental issues. With
these assumptions, Mr. Lioce stated he believes conditions can be
made to work. If the project moves forward with a denial,
written comments will not be forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Walton stated Mr. Lioce referenced "major" assumptions,
5
however, assuming those issues are resolved, the project can move
• forward.
Mr. White stated he agrees with Mr. Lioce and believes the
project needs to move forward.
Mr. Sabatello stated it is general practice for the petitioner to
take a gamble and assume the project will move forward. Mr.
Sabatello expressed concern that the 37 conditions have not been
worked on for the past seven months.
Mr. Walton advised that the "working" conditions were developed
in anticipation of moving forward to Public Hearing. At this
point, seven months later, additional information is still
needed. Mr. Walton advised that the petitioner has informed
staff not to do anything more with the project, and they are
requesting another continuance for another two months. Mr.
• Walton stated that if the Commission wants the petitioner and
staff to put together conditions for a project that will probably
never be built as the site plan is now, he will do his best.
But, his feeling is that this project will not be built as is and
producing more information on drafting specific conditions will
be a waste of staff time and petitioners' money, at this point.
The motion passed with a vote of 6 -1, with Chairman Ornstein
voting against.
PUBLIC HEARING: PUD -90 -12 - Recommendation to City Council re:
( Oakpark Office Park) - Request for a 5 -year extension of time
(to September 19, 1995) for the completion of Phase II of
the Oakpark Office Park Planned Unit Development, created by
Ordinance 18, 1981, to construct the remaining 17,172 sq. ft. of
the 69,346 sq. ft. approved office space. This property is
located, in general, on the west side of Prosperity Farms Road,
and south of PGA Blvd. (Adv. 7/9/90) (5- 42S -43E)
0
Mr. Alan Strassler stated he has a conflict of interest with this
• project and will not participate in the discussion or vote.
Ms. Serra, Alternate Member, joined the Commission, taking Mr.
Strassler's place.
Mr. Walton stated staff is recommending approval with 4 condi-
tions.
Mr. Strassler, authorized agent, stated the petitioner agrees to
all of the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Hamzy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
for the Oakpark Office Park extension of time with four addition-
al (in addition to the conditions of the original approval)
conditions recommended by staff in the staff report dated
7/19/90, as follows:
• 1. Prior to issuance of the first building permit or land
alteration permit, the petitioner shall be required to
submit a new buffer strip plan for the south and west buffer
of phase II, which shall show the removal of the Australian
Pine stand.
17J
2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or land
alteration permit, the petitioner shall be required to
submit a detailed landscape plan, with quantities, for phase
II.
3. The gopher tortoise population in phase II shall be protect-
ed during construction as per Florida Freshwater Fish and
Game commission standards.
4. The temporary sign for phase II shall be in accordance with
the City's sign code ordinance.
Mr. White seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a vote of 6 -0.
Mr. Strassler returned to his Commission seat.
7
• RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: (PUD- 90 -09) - Amendment to PGA
National Commerce Park PUD to construct two additional roads
running north /south on the north side of Hiatt Drive and to
subdivide four lots (lots 5 -8), totaling 20.82 acres, into 22
lots ranging in size from 0.5 gross acres to 1.439 gross acres.
(15- 42S -42E)
Mr. Lioce stated he has a conflict with the subject petition and
will not participate in the discussion or vote.
Mr. Walton reviewed the staff report dated 7/19/90 and stated
staff is recommending approval with ten conditions.
Mr. Hank Skokowski, authorized agent, distributed copies of
"Proposed Language for PGA National Commerce Park Amendment
Conditions of Approval ". Mr. Skokowski reviewed and discussed
each staff condition and proposed amendment with the Commission.
Mr. Walton advised that staff has not seen Mr. Skokowski's list
• of conditions and requested, and was given, a copy.
A discussion ensued regarding conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Hamzy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
for the amendment to PGA National Commerce Park PUD with the ten
staff conditions, modified as follows:
1. The petitioner shall immediately construct a temporary left
turn facility along Northlake Boulevard.
2. The petitioner shall provide a continuous fence and buffer
strip along the north property line, at one time, prior to
the issuance of the next building permit.
3. Prior to the issuance of the next building permit, the
petitioner shall submit a typical landscape plan for the
northern buffer strip, including the location of the fence,
for review and approval by the City.
4. The northern buffer strip shall be 30' wide with a minimum
5' high berm. This berm and vegetation shall be on the
commerce park property only and not be in a utility easement
• without consent of the utility companies.
8
5. Vegetation on the northern berm shall contain shade trees,
• screen trees, accent trees, and hedge of accent shrubs
throughout the length of the buffer area so as to create a
75% opaque screening effect immediately upon establishment.
This buffer strip shall be irrigated and maintained by the
Park of Commerce property owner's association.
6. The minimum 10' eastern landscape buffer strip shall be on
the commerce park property only and not in a utility ease-
ment without consent of the utility companies. The land-
scape strip shall contain a minimum of one (1) shade tree
every 30 feet on center and a hedge /shrub planted at a
minimum of two (2) feet in height immediately upon estab-
lishment to create a 75% opaque screening and shall be a
minimum of 5' in height at maturity. This landscape buffer
can be irrigated, maintained, and established by each indi-
vidual lot owner.
7. The minimum 10' western landscape buffer strip shall not be
within the 15' Water Management easement. This strip shall
be on the commerce park property only and not in the 22'
utility easement without consent of the utility companies.
This landscape strip shall have the same specifications as
did the eastern boundary.
8. Deleted
• 9. Underlying uses within the PUD are established by the City
of Palm Beach Gardens Zoning regulations for M -1 Research
and Light Industrial Park District and M -1A Light Industrial
District, except for the following uses, which shall be
excluded from the park:
- repair of and restoration of antique and race cars used on
racetracks
- Public eating places
- Convenience retail business or services
- Rental of recreational equipment and sales of related
supplies
- Microwave and television receiving and transmitting tower
10. The petitioner shall be responsible for the widening of
Northlake blvd. from Ryder Cup Blvd. to the Florida Turn-
pike. This shall be completed in conjunction with the
County's efforts to widen the roadway between the Florida
turnpike and Beeline Highway. should the timing of this
coordination with the County not coincide with the 5,098
dwelling unit (per the development order), the petitioner
shall provide the monies necessary, via letter of credit, to
construct the additional laneage.
Mr. Hamzy added the following condition:
wt
11. One ground sign only per parcel is preferred.
• Mr. Strassler made a motion to amend the original motion to
include the following as condition #12:
12. The petitioner will bring an overall buffer landscape plan
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval prior to
or simultaneously with the first site plan approval.
Mr. Rosen seconded the motion.
The amendment to the motion passed with a vote of 4 -2.
Mr. Ornstein stated he would like a comment regarding the left
turn lane included in the minutes and forwarded to the City
Council, as follows:
Trip generations could trigger the requirement for the
left turn lane, unless, as Mr. Getz has indicated, it will
be automatically triggered by the school. If Mr. Getz is
using the already approved trip generations, such as the
nursing home, then he might be asking for something which
could be postponed a year or so.
• The original motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6 -0.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL RE: PCD -90 -01 - Amendment to PGA
National PCD to change an 8.674 -acre parcel from recreation and
open land use to residential (units coming from other parcels but
the total not exceeding the total approved), with a maximum of
15 units per acre (Parcel M -37); and a concurrent amendment to
Condition 14 of the Development Order to amend the required
number of recreational areas based on built out projections.
(8, 91 10, 15 & 16- 42S -42E)
Ms. Glas, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report dated 7/17/90
with the Commission, and distributed and discussed staff
recommended conditions.
In response to a question by Chairman Ornstein, Ms. Glas stated
that David Getz, City Engineer, has determined there will not
be a significant impact on traffic.
• Mr. Hank Skokowski, authorized agent, presented a brief history
WE
• of PGA National Master Plan amendments.
Mr. Skokowski stated he can accept conditions 1 & 2, however,
condition #3 requires a minimum of one -half acre of recreation
amenities be provided in parcels M -29, M -30, M -31b and M -37.
This creates a problem for M -31b and M -37.
Mr. Skokowski suggested the following as a compromise:
• minimum of 1 acre on parcels M -29 & M -30
• minimum of 1/4 acre on parcels M -31b and M -37
Mr. Hamzy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
for the amendment to PGA National PCD with staff conditions 1 &
2, and condition #3 as modified:
1. The parks listed on the August, 1985 Recreation Analysis
continue to be credited in the same manner of 111 -acre
credits ".
. 2. Any future amendment to the PGA national Master Plan which
affects the total potential buildout unit count of 6,057
shall show the impact on the required recreation area based
on the "i acre of recreation area per 345 dwelling units"
condition.
•
3. Recreation amenities shall be provided in each of the four
undeveloped parcels (M -29, M -30, M -31b and M -37) to total
2 1/2 acres.
Mr. White seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6 -0. (Mr. Lioce was
not present in the Council Chambers.)
Chairman Ornstein stated for the record that Mr. Lioce has a
conflict with the above - referenced petition and will file the
required conflict of interest form.
11
• WORKSHOP: AB -90 -02 - Recommendation to City Council re: (Starwood
Annexation) Annexation of a 81.9± acre site located approximately
1,300 feet west of Prosperity Farms Road, immediately north of
Frenchman's Landing and east of Crystal Pointe residential sub-
divisions. (Postponed from 2127/90 and 3/27/90 meetings)
(29- 42S -43E)
Mr. Walton reviewed the petitioner's request and stated staff is
recommending the annexation be brought in with existing County
land use and zoning, with the land use being amended at the time
of rezoning. Mr. Walton stated staff is recommending approval
of this voluntary annexation.
(This petition has will be advertised for Public Hearing before
the Planning & Zoning Commission on 8/14/90.)
Staff asked the petitioner to clarify the application to state
•
forward, PUD and City land use can be discussed.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: PUD -90 -13 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Amendment to Oakbrook Corporate Center PUD to
consolidate the Financial Centre PUD and the Flame PUD, to modify
the approved site plan, to redistribute the square footage of
retail and office space and add two bank teller drive through
lanes, and to incorporate previous modifications to the approved
site plan. (23 & 26- 42S -42E)
Mr. Walton reviewed the petitioner's request with the Commission,
following the July 24, 1990 staff report.
Mr. Larry Smith, authorized agent for the petitioner, gave a
brief history of the project and pointed out the differences
between the originally approved site plan and what is existing
on site.
12
that County
land use and zoning will
be placed on the site with
•
annexation.
In the future, when the
petitioner
requests to move
•
forward, PUD and City land use can be discussed.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: PUD -90 -13 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Amendment to Oakbrook Corporate Center PUD to
consolidate the Financial Centre PUD and the Flame PUD, to modify
the approved site plan, to redistribute the square footage of
retail and office space and add two bank teller drive through
lanes, and to incorporate previous modifications to the approved
site plan. (23 & 26- 42S -42E)
Mr. Walton reviewed the petitioner's request with the Commission,
following the July 24, 1990 staff report.
Mr. Larry Smith, authorized agent for the petitioner, gave a
brief history of the project and pointed out the differences
between the originally approved site plan and what is existing
on site.
12
The Commission reviewed each modification that has been made on
• site, as listed in the staff report, which deviates from the
original approval.
It was the concensus of the Commission that the project, as it
exists, deviates substantially from the original approval and
will need at least one more workshop prior to being scheduled
for Public Hearing.
Mr. Smith advised that many of the site modifications were
necessary because of the D.O.T. improvements to U.S. Hwy. 1.
Several entrances from U.S. 1 were deleted and the arch on the
U.S. 1 side of the project was deleted. The arch on the east
side was also deleted in order to keep the symmetry of the
project. Most of the landscaping modifications were due to
damage from the freeze.
• The Commission expressed concern with the extent of site
•
modifications, which they feel should have been reviewed by
the Commission and the City Council, and also, that the changes
have significantly altered the design concept of the project.
With regard to the phasing plan, Mr. Smith stated it was never
the intent to develop the project in any particular order, but
a phasing plan has now been submitted. Mr. Smith advised that
all impact fees assessed for the project are currently up to
date.
Mr. Jeff Blakley, Landscape Architect, addressed landscaping
concerns and explained why some of the required landscaping
was not installed. Mr. Blakley stated, in his opinion, it was a
good idea not to install it.
13
It was the concensus of the Commission that any objections to the
landscape plan should have been raised at some point during the
PUD approval process, rather than intentionally ignoring the
approved plan.
After discussion, the Commission requested the petitioner provide
the following information to staff prior to the next workshop
meeting:
1. Address the redesign of the tower building.
2. Color elevation renderings of the project with the proposed
changes and of the originally approved project.
3. A plan depicting the approved site plan and an overlay
depicting the subsequent modifications.
This project will be scheduled for a workshop meeting upon
receipt of the requested information.
• ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss the meeting was
adjourned at 11:55 P.M. The next Regular meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission will be held Tuesday, Au ust 14, 1990.
- - - - -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- - --
"/-;u
/ - - - - - - --
EN % // DOY'SNIQ ) LIOCE
JEAN LONG, 15EC ARY
•
CARL SABATELLO
14