Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda P&Z 071012A G E N DA CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 10 , 2012 AT 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS • CALL TO ORDER • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • ROLL CALL • ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, MODIFICATIONS • REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING : NATALIE CROWLEY • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 06/12 /2012 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD Regular Members: Alternates: Michael Panczak Robert Savel (1 st Alt.) Randolph Hansen Roma Josephs Douglas Pennell Charles Hathaway Howard Rosenkranz 1. Recommendation to City Council (Public Hearing) - QUASI -JUDICIAL HEARING SPLA -11 -08 -000026 - Downtown at the Gardens Shared Parking A request by Downtown at the Gardens Associates, LTD for approval of a shared parking study and modification of a condition of approval related to site lighting. Downtown at the Gardens is located at the southeast corner of Alternate A1A and Gardens Parkway and is approximately 49 acres. Project Manager: Kathryn DeWitt, Senior Planner, kdewitt@pbgfl.com 2. OLD BUSINESS 3. NEW BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board July 10 , 2012 2 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statute 286.26, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk’s Office, no later than five days prior to the proce eding, at telephone number (561) 799 -4120 for assistance; if hearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service Numbers (800) 955 -8771 (TDD) or (800) 955 -8770 (VOICE), for assistance. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning, Zon ing and Appeals Board, Local Planning Agency, or Land Development Regulations Commission, with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings; and for such, they may need to ensure that a verbatim re cord of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Exact legal description and/or survey for the cases may be obtained from the f iles in the Growth Management Department. g:\p&z_share \administration \pzab agenda \p & z agenda 2012 \pzab 07.10.2012 \pzab agenda 07.10.2012 word format.docx PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING Page 1 06 -12 -12 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 1 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD 2 REGULAR MEETING 3 June 12 , 2012 4 I. CALL TO ORDER 5 T he regular me eting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Panczak . 6 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 III. ROLL CALL 8 Members Present: 9 Chair Michael Panczak, Vic e Chair Randolph Hansen, Joy Hecht, Roma Josephs, Dou glas 10 Pennell, Charles Hathaway, Howard Rosenkran z. 11 Members Absent : None. 12 Also Present: City Attorney , Keith W. Davis ; Development Compliance & Zoning Manager, 13 Bahareh Wolfs ; Principal Planner, Richar d Marrero; Senior Planner, Kathryn DeWitt; Planner, 14 Tamashbeen Rahman. 15 IV. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, MODIFICATIONS 16 None. 17 V. REPORT BY DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE & ZONING MANAGER, 18 BAHAREH WOLFS . 19 A written report was provided to the Board. 20 VI. APPROVAL OF MI NUTES April 10, 2012 Meeting Minutes. 21 Board Member Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 10, 2012 22 meeting . 23 Board Member Pennell seconded. 24 Motion passed 7 -0 . 25 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 26 Those preparing to give testimony were sworn in. 27 1. Recommendation to City Council (Public Hearing) - QUASI -JUDICIAL HEARING 28 MISC -12 -04 -000084 Gosman Parcel A request from Downtown at the Gardens Associates, LTD 29 and IMI Kyoto Gardens I LLC to extend the temporary parking use on the Gosman property for a 30 per iod of three (3) years. The Gosman property is located at the southeast corner of Kyoto Gardens 31 Drive and Alternate A1A within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). 32 Chair Panc z ak opened the public hearing. 33 Petitioner: Kevin Berman , Down town at the Gardens . 34 Staff Presentation: Senior Planner, Kathryn DeWitt . 35 Public comment: None. 36 Chair Panc z ak closed the public hearing. 37 Board Member Hansen made a motion to recommend denial of MISC -12 -04 -000084 . 38 Board Member Pennell seconded. 39 Motion to d eny failed 3 -4 with Chairman Panczak, Board Member Rosenkranz, Board 40 Member Hecht and Board Member Josephs voting nay . 41 Board Member Rosenkranz made a motion to approve and modify the duration of time from 42 three years to one and one -half years for item MIS C -12 -04 -000084 with one condition . 43 Board Member Hansen seconded. 44 Motion passed 4 -3 with Board Member Hansen, Board Member Hathaway and Board 45 Member Pennell voting nay. 46 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING Page 2 06 -12 -12 2. Recommendation to City Council (Public Hearing) - QUASI -JUDICIAL HEARING 1 PUDA -12 -05 -000038: Midtown Planned Unit Development Amendment Mainstreet at 2 Midtown, LP and Palm Beach Community Church, Inc. are requesting to amend the approved 3 signage package for the Midtown Planned Unit Development (PUD). The amendments include the 4 addition of a new monument sign, addition of tenants to the existing monument signs, and a waiver 5 to allow a changeable copy sign within the interior of the PUD. 6 Chair Panczak opened the public hearing. 7 Petitioner: Ale s sandria Kaflin , Cotleur and Hearing . 8 Staff Prese ntation : None . 9 Public Comment: None. 10 Chair Panczak closed the public hearing. 11 Board Member Hansen made a motion to approve PUDA -12 -05 -000038. 12 Board Member Hecht seconded. 13 Motion passed 4 -3 with Chair Panczak, Board Member Pennell and Board Member 14 Rosenkran z voting nay . 15 3 . Recommendation to City Council (Public Hearing) - QUASI -JUDICIAL HEARING 16 PCDA -12 -04 -000014: Evergrene Planned Community Development (PCD) Amendment A 17 request by the Evergrene Master Association, Inc., for an ame ndment to the Evergrene P lanned 18 Community Development (PCD) to approve a waiver from Section 78 -316 (j), Minimum 19 Separation, for Parcels 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. The Evergrene PCD is located at the southeast corner of 20 Donald Ross Road and North Military Trail. 21 Chair Panczak opened the public hearing. 22 Petitioner: Jennifer Morton , Land Design South . 23 Staff Presentaion: None. 24 Public comment: None. 25 Chair Panczak closed the public hearing . 26 Board Member Pennell made a motion to approve PCDA -12 -04 -000014. 27 Vice Chair Hansen seconded. 28 Motion pass ed 7 -0 . 29 VI I I. OLD BUSINESS 30 None. 31 I X. NEW BUSINESS 32 Board Member Hecht a nnounced her retirement and thanked everyone for the opportunity to 33 serve. 34 Development Compliance & Zoning Manager, Bahareh Wolfs a nnounced Director of 35 P lanning and Zoning , Natalie Cro wley will return next month. 36 37 38 39 (The remainder of this page intentionally left blank .) 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING Page 3 06 -12 -12 X. ADJOURNMENT 1 Board Member Pennell made a motion to adjou r n the meeting. 2 Board Member Rosenkranz seconded. 3 Motion passed 7 -0. 4 Chair Panczak adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m . 5 The next regular meeting will be held on July 10 , 201 2 . 6 Approved: 7 8 9 10 Michael Panczak, Chair 11 12 13 14 Randolph Hansen, Vice Chair 15 16 17 18 Roma Josephs 19 20 21 22 Douglas Pennell 23 24 25 26 Charles Hathaway 27 28 29 30 Howard Rosenkranz 31 32 33 34 Vacant 35 36 37 ATTEST: 38 39 ____________________ 40 Donna L. Kramer 41 Municipal Services Coordinator 42 43 Note: these minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. and are not verbatim transcripts 44 of the m eeting. 45 All reference attachments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 46 Note: all those preparing to give testimony were sworn in. 47 PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD July 10, 2012 Downtown at the Gardens Shared Parking Study . SPLA -11 -08 -000026 Request Approval of a shared parking study for DTAG Change to the current mix of uses Modification of conditions of approval related to lighting Location Map Background 1995 – Amended FLU designation of the DTAG site from RM to PO 2003 – DTAG site plan was approved with a shared parking study Several amendments approved modifying the mix of uses and number of cinema seats on site 2009 – The shared parking study was replaced with parking regulations from City Code Shared Parking Study The proposed study will… Allow medical office square footage Increased utilization of the parking garage Approve a Mitigation Plan for the site Shared Parking Study What is a shared parking study? Code regulations for parking evaluate uses individually Ex.) Required parking for a school + Required parking for a church = Total A study analyzes parking demands for the site as a whole A study recognizes the complementary nature in which certain uses operate Ex.) Schools operate M -F and churches operate Sat. and Sun. Therefore, they could share the parking spaces and have little overlap. Shared Parking Study DTAG is currently parking by City Code Section 78 -345 allows the Applicant to utilize a shared parking study City is in agreement with the Applicant’s proposed methodology Waiver requested to use alternative methodology Shared Parking Study Methodology Analysis of existing demand and vacant square footage Existing demand – evaluates the demand generated by the existing uses on the site Vacant Square Footage – evaluates the number of parking spaces required for the vacant / unoccupied square footage on the site Existing Demand + Vacant Square Footage = Total 2,026 spaces + 313 spaces = 2,339 spaces 2,375 parking spaces exist on site Mix of Uses Proposing to modify the current mix of uses a)8,590 SF of retail / restaurant converted to medical office 1,874 SF of professional office converted to medical office b)Medical office can increase up to 27,558 SF c)Increase in 2 nd floor offices will increase the utilization of the parking garage PROPOSED USES Use Square Footage Neighborhood Commercial 26,000 Retail, Restaurants 230,479 Cinema 68,087 Professional Office / Medical Office 12,442 10,464 22,906 Total 347,472 Mitigation Plan Created to ensure proper implementation of the proposed study and overall parking operations on site 1.Monitoring 2.Failed Study Option #1 3.Valet Operations 4.Surety for Additional Parking 5.Failed Study Option #2 Mitigation Plan – Part 1 Monitoring New study required every year for 5 years First study will be submitted one year from date of approval Study will be based on the same methodology Allows the City to monitor the parking operations of the site Mitigation Plan – Part 2 Failed Study Option #1 Failed study is one showing that number of parking spaces on site is not sufficient to meet the demands of the shopping center If a study fails, the Applicant can assess any unoccupied square footage as a means to address the shortfall in parking Similar to the way the shopping center currently operates City would not issue building permits or C.O.’s for any vacant areas Mitigation Plan – Part 3 Valet Operations Significant valet operations occurring on site Numerous parking areas are blocked off 36 spaces at SW corner 42 spaces on W side 232 spaces in first floor of garage 160 spaces previously available on Gosman property Requesting a 3 -year extension If denied, 40 more spaces will be blocked off at SW corner Most ideal parking areas are on the southern portion of the site and 1 st and 3 rd floors of the garage Mitigation Plan – Part 3 Valet Operations Staff is not supportive of any increase to the amount of valet areas on the site if Gosman extension is not approved Staff is proposing restrictions as the amount of spaces that can be reserved for valet and where the valet is located No valet parking on the 1 st or 3 rd floors of the garage Convenient access to tenants (Cheesecake, Dirty Martini, 51 Supper Club, Movie Theater) This restriction will help improve utilization of the garage The Applicant is not in agreement with these restrictions Mitigation Plan – Part 4 Surety for Additional Parking The Applicant is required to provide surety for cost of additional parking spaces within 30 days of approval of the petition The number of additional parking spaces provided is the amount needed for the site to be completely parked to code Total Parking Required by Code = 2,471 Number of Existing Spaces = 2,375 Deficit = 96 Mitigation Plan – Part 5 Failed Study Option #2 If a study has been found to fail, the Applicant can provide development plan showing a location(s) for the 96 additional parking spaces The Applicant has submitted plans showing these spaces to be located as an addition to the existing parking garage 3 - story addition at the southeast corner of the garage Will match colors, materials, style of existing garage Proposed Garage Expansion Mitigation Plan – Part 5 Failed Study Option #2 Parking is poorly distributed on the site Staff recommends that any additional parking spaces be located at the south end of the property Adding parking to north end will exaggerate poor distribution Applicant is not in agreement with staff’s recommendation Existing lease restrictions City is not privy to these leases Mitigation Plan Two remaining points of disagreement Location of additional parking spaces Applicant is proposing an expansion to the garage Staff recommends providing additional spaces at the south end Valet Operation Applicant continues to consume prime parking spaces Staff recommends limitation on the number of spaces blocked -off Staff recommends prohibiting valet on 1 st and 3 rd floors of garage These restrictions have been included as conditions of approval Waiver Code Section Requirement Proposal Waiver Staff Support 1 78 -346(a)(4), Shared Parking Amount of parking to be provided based on code criteria Adopt a specific methodology Adopt a specific methodology Approval The Applicant is requesting one (1) waiver due to the alternative methodology submitted for the shared parking study Modification to Conditions Applicant is request to modify two (2) conditions of approval related to lighting Resolution 120, 2005 41 . “All lighting for parking lots and pedestrian walkways shall be metal halide , L .E .D . or equivalent, as approved by the Police Department .” (Police) 49 . “The lighting design for the two parking structures shall incorporate both vertical and horizontal luminance ; provide lighting into the edges of parking stalls and over parked vehicles ; provide vandalism resistant lighting fixtures ; provide metal halide , L .E .D . or equivalent, as approved by the Police Department ; provide lighting fixtures positioned to minimize glare ; and provide lighting fixtures around the exterior of both structures .” (Police) Will provide more flexibility as lighting technology changes Recommendation Staff recommends approval of petition SPLA -11 -08 -000026 with the specified conditions of approval Conditions of Approval 2.Within 30 calendar days from the approval date of the subject petition, the Applicant shall submit surety based on 110 percent of the total combined approved cost estimates and shall be posted with the City. The form of surety shall be as required by the City Attorney. (Planning and Zoning, City Engineer) 4.The Applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide to the City an annual parking study to determine the actual peak season parking demand on the site for a period of five (5) years, beginning one (1) year from the date of approval. The parking study shall be based on the methodology accepted by the City set forth in the approved Parking Study and shall be reviewed and accepted within 30 calendar days by the City’s Traffic Engineer. (Planning and Zoning) 5.In the event the annual parking study indicates the existing number of parking spaces on site to be an insufficient amount, the Applicant shall meet with City Staff and provide a report to the City within 30 calendar days demonstrating a plan of mitigation. 9.No more than 310 parking spaces shall be designated and/or utilized as valet parking on the subject site at any given time, unless approved in conjunction with a special event. As part of the 310 parking spaces, no more than 36 parking spaces shall be designated and/or utilized as valet parking within the southern portion of the site as defined in Exhibit “TBD”. (Planning and Zoning) 10.Valet parking is prohibited from being located on the first or third floor of the parking garage. (Planning and Zoning)