HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 012302•
•
•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 22, 2002
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Vice Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the
Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Board of Zoning Appeals, Local Planning
Agency, Land Development Regulations Commission, and Planning and Zoning Commission.
Present
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Chairman Pro Tern Barry Present
Joel Channing
Dick Ansay
Steven Tarr
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Absent
Dennis Solomon, Chairman
John Glidden
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planners Talal Benothman and
Steve Cramer, Senior Planner Edward Tombari, Planners John Lindgren and Kara Irwin, and City
Attorney Len Rubin.
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
Growth Management Director Charles Wu announced that since the last meeting, the City Council had
approved McDonald's at Promenade on January 10, and the City's CRALLS amendment to the
comprehensive plan on January 17. Mr. Wu reported that the Eckerd drug store at Promenade was still
under review because the City Council had concerns regarding access and had directed the applicant to
provide alternatives, which Eckerd's would have to approve. Mr. Wu explained that the stealth tower at
Westwood Gardens had been approved on first reading by the City Council on January 17. Mr. Tarr
requested an overview of the joint meeting with City Council, which only he and Mr. Ansay had
attended. Mr. Wu reported that City Council had believed the number of waivers to be excessive and
that staff was not providing ample case review of similar approved projects. Alta Pines and Evergrene
had been discussed. Consensus had been for staff to provide more information on waivers and what kind
of precedent would be set by granting waivers. Mr. Wu noted that McDonald's had withdrawn 2 of their
4 waivers, that waivers must be justified and staff needed to ask for something in return, as well as to
provide City Council with more information on waivers granted in the past. Mr. Tarr noted he had
0
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
indicated that was his understanding also, and Mr. Sabatello might be coming later or to a future
meeting. Mr. Present questioned why the City Council had passed the stealth tower ordinance on first
reading after Planning and Zoning had denied it. Mr. Wu explained the code could be interpreted that
the use could be allowed and there had been extensive discussion at the Council meeting whether the
code allowed it or not. Mr. Wu indicated the Council had passed the ordinance on first reading to allow
staff to go back to see if it could be allowed and there were 40 -50 people who were present and all
wanted it and about 502 people had voted in favor of it, which the City Council considered. Mr. Wu
commented it was now the task of staff to adjust the ordinance to not allow such a tower at a future date.
Mr. Ansay commented from listening to the City Council it had appeared to him they were not overly
excited about new creativity but would rather stay with the status quo as far as development was
concerned, and were not comfortable with new concepts unless there were really a lot of proven support
data, and that was one of the reasons why Evergrene did not get approved. Mr. Charming asked Mr. Wu
if he and staff would take positions on things they believed worth approving even though they did not
fall within all the guidelines. Mr. Wu responded absolutely, and that the Commission had more time and
opportunity to review the projects as opposed to the Council who only saw the final product. Mr. Wu
commented the challenge was to close the gap between the P& Z educational process and City
Council's educational process.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting minutes of 1/8/02: Mr. Charming made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2002
meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City Attorney Rubin swore in all those wishing to speak.
Vice Chair Kunkle, Mr. Tarr, Mr. Ansay, Mr. Volonte, and Mr. Charming indicated they had spoken
with Mr. Steve Mickley regarding the Bluffs Pre - School project. Mr. Present commented he had spoken
with Mr. Mickley and had driven by the Sunny Plaza project.
Public Hearing and Consideration for Approval
VAR -01 -07 - Sunny Plaza Sign Variance
The Marquis Corporation is requesting approval for two (2) sign variances to allow a ground sign at
the new Northlake Boulevard entrance to Sunny Plaza at 9089 N. Military Trail. The applicant is
seeking a variance from the required public road right -of -way frontage, and a variance from the
• required side setback from a non - right -of -way property line. (13- 42S -42E)
Planner John Lindgren presented the project and advised 6 of the 8 criteria for the public right -of -way
N
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
frontage had not been met, therefore, staff did not support this variance. Mr. Lindgren pointed out for
Mr. Tarr the 599' of frontage and verified that the gas station frontage could not be counted. Mr. Ansay
reported he had visited the site and questioned whether the petitioner was allowed to have a name on the
directional sign, to which Mr. Lindgren responded they could have a name or a logo.
Chuck Capella, Ferrin Sign Company, representing the petitioner, indicated a sign was needed on
Northlake Boulevard for safety and to show that entrance from another main area of traffic. Mr. Capella
reported they had had a similar case for NorthMil Plaza, which was only allowed one sign and had been
granted a variance, and they had tenants on their sign which Sunny Plaza was not requesting. Vice Chair
Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Vice Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Capella explained in response to Mr. Tarr's question that the
copy and logo only were internally illuminated. Mr. Tarr agreed that particularly at night a sign on
Northlake would be a way for drivers to know there was another entrance. Mr. Tarr suggested the
possibility of a sign size in between the 2'x2' sign allowed and the proposed sign. Mr. Present
disagreed, stating he saw this as a back entrance and suggested it should be a right turn only exit. Mr.
Capella commented it was both an entrance and an exit, and proposed deleting the word "entrance" or
• not illuminating it. Mr. Ansay asked what could be done with a 2'x2' sign that was allowed versus the
proposed sign to direct people to the location. Mr. Capella responded the 2'x2' size was too small and
ineffective, and could create a hazard. Mr. Channing commented he would not vote for this because of
the distance between the two signs and asked if the petitioner still had the option of having a 2'x2' sign
if the request was denied. Mr. Lindgren responded, yes. Mr. Channing noted that this project was
nothing like NorthMil. In response to a question whether the size of the sign could be negotiated, Mr.
Lindgren advised that size of the sign was not an aspect of the variance request.
Mr. Ansay made a motion to deny petition VAR- 01 -07. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. The
motion carried by 5 -1 vote with Mr. Tarr opposed.
REPORT BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:
Councilmember Carl Sabatello joined the meeting and advised that as a result of a conversation at the
City Council meeting there were plans to schedule a joint meeting with P &Z and City Council to go over
direction. Mr. Sabatello indicated that because the meeting might be a couple of months away, he was
here to advise what the City Council was seeing as problems and to discuss the differences of opinion in
recent applications. Mr. Sabatello commented that on the landscaping details along the wall on the
Evergrene PCD east boundary along the railroad, the City Council's concern was the angle of view —
that everything above one story was exposed to Alternate AlA. Adding trees was discussed, and the fact
that the proposed 12' tall live oaks at planting were slow growing, so it would take 15 -20 years to protect
the development from Alternate AlA. Looking farther down Alternate AlA at landscaping at Catalina
• Lakes and Gardens East Apartments you could see how the landscaping looked which screened the
architecture from Alternate AIA. Protecting the perimeter views of new and large projects from major
roadways was a big concern. Councilmember Sabatello explained that in one parcel of Evergrene there
3
0
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
were 2 -story homes with no room for landscaping except for an approximate 2' strip along the wall.
When maximizing density at least the views from the perimeter of the project needed to look as strong as
possible, and if the density was weakening the views from within the community that was a marketing
problem of the developer. Because many rear screen enclosures were unsightly, the City Council looked
for some type of interesting landscape plan to allow more screening, more trees, more upper buffering on
the roofs, and massing. In Parcel 4B of Evergrene with the front porch homes and alleys, Mr. Sabatello
explained that in the past the City had not accepted a lot of dead end streets without acceptable
turnarounds at the ends because of safety issues. Concerns regarding alleys were that a cross section was
much less than a typical road section in the City and there was not room to park in the 10' aprons, so
parking and guest parking would take place in alleys -- blocking access by others. It had been noted this
was the enforcement responsibility of the POA, but in reality when a problem occurred residents called
the police or the City and the City then tried to make things work where they really had no jurisdiction.
Some suggestions of signage had been made. Mr. Sabatello indicated there was so much concern over
the first project with alleys because precedent would be set and the operation of the site plan and how it
would work with the neighborhood must be worked out so that it would not fall back on the City and
create problems. Councilmember Sabatello noted one of Mr. Charming's projects in PGA National,
Villa de Este, had had a problem of fire trucks not being able to get through because of parking
everywhere, and that type of situation had been discussed. Mr. Sabatello indicated he had questions on
the open space calculations for Evergrene, and that when things like this were not of the norm, the
Commission must make sure they understood what staff was telling them and where the boundaries of
the open space were, and whether it was beyond the boundaries of the typical pod. In Evergrene the
calculation took in area outside the pod boundaries, creating questions. Mr. Sabatello noted that on-
street parking was being used for guest parking for the front porch homes, and it had been questioned
whether those spaces were assigned. Councilmember Sabatello commented a lot of this was coming up
before the City Council under the umbrella of the reason for this new creativity and density was new
urbanism, which the Council did not find to be true, since there was no pedestrian access to shopping,
theaters, etc., such as in Abacoa, and this was just a large lake and a future clubhouse center. Mr.
Sabatello commented that in the other parcels that were brought up, there was a fairly typical patio
product and one had building separation of less than 10' because of the family room section being
moved out a little, and the Council found that was not a reason for less than 10'. Mr. Sabatello indicated
if someone had a justifiable reason for less than 10' spacing the Council was open to listen, but density
was not a reason. Rear yards with landscaping where screen enclosures were added later, leaving only
one or two feet for landscaping, was not enough. Mr. Sabatello asked the Commission to come up with
a better plan to accommodate this for Council's review. Mr. Sabatello commented the Council had
discussed the Eckerd drugstore at Promenade. One item was 2 signs at 90 degrees — consensus of
Council was if an applicant asked for two signs and they were viewed from the same area that they be
the same size. A turning lane coming into the center past the Mobil station on the right with a left turn
into Eckerd's had been compared to another project in the City with concern that as people were turning
• left it would create stacking problems, and that had not been finalized. Mr. Sabatello commented there
had been 5 waivers for McDonald's at the Promenade and they ended up settling on 2 waivers, one for
the size of the sign at the drive -in window, and the City was looking at changing the code because of all
El
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
the items now offered by fast food restaurants. The second waiver had been for additional signage which
was reduced to just a simple "M ". Mr. Sabatello commented all the other waivers had gone away by
staff working with the applicant, and stressed that the City Council would ask for justification for
waivers in the future, but they were not close- minded if there was a real reason, if there was a tradeoff, if
it provided a better project, better servicing, etc.
Councilmember Sabatello indicated the following general items where the Commission needed to make
stronger considerations: screen enclosures, dumpsters, gates, landscaping, recommendations on colors
on repetitive homes, separations between same elevations, same color, some look, understanding that
some models become a dominant part of the community because they were more acceptable and sold
better. The City Council wanted sidewalks on the main roadways of the City or the main beltways
within larger communities to have green space between the curb and sidewalk and liked meandering
sidewalks. Bus stops within large communities should be developed in the plan to have shelter and
seating with the architecture tying back into the community. Median landscaping was a lot easier to
consider in the beginning of a project rather than to try to infill later, and better plans were needed.
Vice Chair Kunkle asked if a joint session would still take place. Mr. Sabatello responded affirmatively,
but indicated no dates were set. Mr. Tarr commented regarding the Alta Pines apartment project that he
had personally thought it was the best laid -out from the standpoint of buffering the view from the road,
since there were 100' buffers and the project would not be seen; and regarding the cell tower project the
Council had voted for and the Commission had voted down, that a precedent would be set so that any
community who wanted to cut down their assessments could get a tower. Mr. Tarr asked regarding
waivers within a large PCD or PUD such as Mirasol and it was later in the project and a tract had been
left to be developed, if the Commission was to consider justification for the whole PCD or just the parcel
for what the City could get in exchange for granting variance requests. Mr. Sabatello responded when
the Commission was making a decision and a recommendation to City Council, it was not a Commission
member's opinion of what he personally liked that should be considered —the code and rules and what
had been done in the past were to be followed. Mr. Sabatello explained that in the Alta Pines project the
concern had been density, that the majority of the City Council was not comfortable with density and
although it was not resolved, this might be an indication that the Council was trying to get less density in
projects. The Council had indicated they were not concerned about having density in order for a project
to work, they wanted the best project for the City, and were not concerned about hurrying a project
through the process, although they did not want to delay projects unnecessarily. Mr. Sabatello explained
that on the cell tower project it was to come back for a vote on second reading. There had been a very
long discussion on how the cell tower tied into the intent of the code and that was being further reviewed
by the City Attorney, staff, and each Councilmember. Mr. Sabatello indicated this was a unique
situation, and items that needed to be considered were distances from boundaries, properties affected,
and safety of the tower. Mr. Sabatello explained that the City Council was working very closely with
• staff to try to make the right decision. In response to clarification regarding Mr. Tarr's question on
waivers, Councilmember Sabatello commented waivers stand on their own, that justification had to be
proven, and a track record helped. City Attorney Rubin advised that there should be consistency within
5
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
pods in a PCD. Councilmember Sabatello commented the Council had asked staff to provide in the
packets comparisons of prior setbacks and other waivers that had been granted, and if 10' setbacks had
been approved 30 times in the past few years that was consistency. If someone asked for a 7' setback
and this was the first one, then it must be justified with a good reason. Mr. Ansay asked if the lot sizes
in Evergrene in the overall development were consistent with sizes approved in other developments, if
that would have made a difference to the City Council. Mr. Ansay explained the lot sizes had been
somewhat smaller since they had worked on the concept of a pod -type of development where they tried
to get more open space in a larger area and then tried to condense the development. Mr. Ansay
commented it appeared that previous projects had looked at larger lots versus the concept of more open
space and smaller lots. Councilmember Sabatello responded the City Council looked to see something
that all goes together —the size and massing of the homes on the lot - -that building separation and front
setbacks were important and had to be justified with a reason other than just getting a larger home on a
smaller lot. Mr. Present mentioned the massive wall at Frenchmen's Reserve looked out of proportion.
Councilmember Sabatello commented that was a good example that the whole field must be watched and
not just the ball, and that the City needed to be sharper and missed things sometimes, but he was still
confident it would look nice because of the quality of work provided by that contractor. Mr. Present
• noted he did not perceive that massiveness from the drawings. Councilmember Sabatello indicated the
City Council wanted pictures and elevations to match the landscape plans and always asked about
landscaping sizes with concern of the growth of trees. Mr. Channing indicated the comments from Mr.
Sabatello were very insightful and it sounded like the Commission had "goofed" on some of the items
mentioned, but he commented he would like to look at dead ends; Mr. Sabatello responded the City had
codes for how a road ended but an alley was different. Mr. Charming agreed that needed to be worked
on, and suggested submittal requirements might need to be revisited. Mr. Charming commented he
would like to use these projects as a starting point to go over what the Commission saw and what City
Council saw and possibly come up with a document to use as a reference in the future. Mr. Charming
indicated he saw room for more consistency, and wanted to see creative projects. Mr. Charming
commented he had thought the master site plan of Evergrene was fantastic and that it was worth a lot of
consideration towards other things they might have been asking for, especially the lake that they had
made open to everyone in the project as opposed to easily getting approximately $5 million in view
premiums if they had built around the lake. Mr. Charming indicated he thought there was a lot of
material to dig into and was looking forward to that. Mr. Sabatello commented the joint session would
be helpful to everyone, that he did not mean to ever imply the Commission had "goofed ", and that
everyone was trying to learn. Councilmember Sabatello indicated the City Council wanted creativity but
projects still had to meet basic tests. Mr. Sabatello commented the City Council was trying to be open
minded but to look at managing facilities after the building was completed and to look at problems that
would arise. Mr. Sabatello commented nothing was being done wrong, the City Council just wanted it
to be better, and to be in a better direction, and the efforts of the Commission were much appreciated.
R
C.
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition TXT- 01 -10: Comprehensive Plan TextAmendment regarding Northlake Boulevard Overlay
Zoning District
A City- initiated petition for a proposed text amendment to the Future Land Use Element in the City's
Comprehensive Plan in order to add an objective and policy to support a proposed Northlake
Boulevard Overlay Zoning District forNorthlake Boulevard between Military Trail and U.S. Highway
One.
Principal Planner Steve Cramer presented the petition. Vice Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing
open. Hearing no comments from the public, Vice Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed
Mr. Channing moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition TXT- 01 -10. Mr. Ansay
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition TXT- 01 -08: Floodplain Management Ordinance
A City- initiated request to enact a flood damage prevention plan that conforms with the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1986, as amended, and to adopt Foodplain management regulations that
meet the standards of the National Flood Insurance Program, which include the repeal of
Ordinance 4, 1987 and existing regulations; the revision of Section 78 -523, "Design Storm "; and
the provision of a new Subdivision VI in Division 9 of Article V of Chapter 78 of the City Code of
Ordinances entitled "Floodplain Regulations."
Planner Kara Irwin advised nothing had changed since the last presentation.
Vice Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Vice
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed
Mr. Present moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition TXT- 01 -08. Mr. Ansay
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Recommendation to City Council
7
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
Petition SP- 01 -28: Lot 12 within the NorthCorp Planned Community District
A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for NorthCorp Development
Corporation, for site plan approval of a 4,000 square foot office building on Lot 12 of South Park
Center Plat within the NorthCorp Planned Community Development (PCD). The 1.81 -acre site is
located east of East Park Drive at the intersection with NorthCorp Parkway. (7- 42S -42E)
Planner Kara Irwin presented the project and answered questions from the Commission. Ms. Irwin
explained there was only 74' for stacking because of aligning the drive to the existing roadway. Mr.
Tarr commented he was not a fan of 9' parking spaces, and asked how much open space would be
received in return for that waiver. Ms. Irwin responded the code required that the 10 -5" parking
spaces be met but code allowed for 9' spaces if 1.5 square feet open space was provided for every
square foot in reduction of parking space. Signage was reviewed. Mr. Tarr clarified for Mr.
Sabatello that he had said he was not in favor of 9' parking spaces and that was not his personal
opinion but was what he believed to be best for the residents of the City. Mr. Sabatello responded
the City Council was really interested in less parking and more green, and if this waiver was
requested the applicant must justify they could put in larger spaces; and after they showed that, the
• reduction would definitely go to open space. Mr. Tarr commented then the criteria should be if a
smaller space was acceptable just move on to 1.5' conversion; if it was a type of business with a lot
of in and out traffic a 10' space could be better. Mr. Sabatello indicated if the Commission thought
because of convenience or safety larger spaces should be used, it was the Commission's decision.
Marty Miner, Urban Design Studio, representing NorthCorp Development Corporation, noted this
was a previously approved site plan for a delicatessen, and the site plan and landscape plans had not
been changed except to stretch the building. Mr. Miner noted there was 88' at the entrance for
stacking, that the widest point of the parcel was 100', there was almost 1 -1/2 acres of open space,
and the applicant had agreed to the conditions of approval. Vice Chair Kunkle noted the landscape
plan referenced on the screen was different that the one just distributed; Mr. Miner clarified that the
one just distributed was the correct plan. Mr. Kunkle noted the one on the screen was better and had
more trees; Mr. Miner agreed to use the one on the screen. Mr. Minor indicated the parapet would
screen all equipment. Mr. Channing commented that the acoustics in the Council chambers were
terrible. Mr. Channing commented the parapet scaled about 3' and requested a condition that the
dimension of the parapet be in the plan. Planner Irwin advised that it was a code requirement that all
equipment be screened. Mr. Channing indicated he thought a study was needed of stacking under
different conditions, and was not concerned that this was under 100' because this was not on a major
roadway.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -28 with
the following conditions and waivers:
Conditions:
1. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant must submit a letter from Seacoast Utility
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
1. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant must submit a letter from Seacoast Utility
Authority indicating their authorization to build so close to their easement.
2. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site plan to include the
sidewalk and streetscape for the entire length of the project's frontage on East Park
Drive.
3.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, written permission from all easement holders
must be obtained for parking, landscaping or any other improvements in the project's
remaining easements.
4.
No development in Phase 2 can take place until the City reviews and approves a revised
site plan for that area.
5.
Prior to review by City Council, the applicant must revise the site plan and landscape
plan to comply with NorthCorp PCD's buffer and streetscape requirements, as approved
by the City Forester.
6.
Landscaping and sidewalk installation along East Park Drive, south of the termination of
the sidewalk and landscaping shown on the approved plans, shall be completed in
accordance with the NorthCorp PCD master landscape and streetscape program within
• 7.
two years of this approval.
Landscaping along the east and south property lines of this project, south of the
termination of the landscaping shown on the approved plans, shall be completed within
two years of this approval, in a configuration acceptable to the City Forester.
8.
Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, the applicant shall provide cross
sections of the east property line demonstrating proposed elevations and proposed
landscaping are compatible with the proposed 14.7' elevation at the west side of the
drainage ditch.
9.
The applicant shall submit a signed and sealed photometric plan for the proposed
parking structure prior to City Council review.
10.
The primary signage shall be located on the eastern elevation; the secondary signage shall
be limited to half the size of the primary signage.
Waivers:
1. Section 78- 344(1), parking stall and bay dimensions, to allow for 9' x 18.5' standard
parking stalls. The Land Development Regulations require 10' x 18.5' parking stall
dimensions.
2. Section 78 -285, Wall Sign, to allow for an additional wall sign on the west building
elevation limited to 21 square feet. The Land Development Regulations allows one wall
sign per building.
3. Section 78- 344(h), Off- Street Stacking Distance, to allow for a minimum 70.2 foot
stacking distance. The Land Development Regulations require a minimum 100' stacking
distance.
Mr. Volante seconded the motion. Mr. Channing requested an amendment adding the
following condition:
I
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
The parapet shall screen all mechanical equipment on the roof. The amendment was accepted.
Motion carried 6 -0.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 01 -32: Bluffs Preschool at Mirasol
A request by Steven A. Mickley, on behalf of Toll Brothers Communities, Ltd., to approve a site
plan for a 10,000 square foot child day -care facility located on approximately 1. 12 acres within
the Mirasol Planned Community Development (PCD). The Mirasol PCD is located along the west
side of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, between PGA Boulevard and Hood Road. (3- 42S -42E)
Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report. Steven A. Mickley, agent for the
petitioner, indicated they had worked to address concerns regarding architectural issues; however
there were still the issues of parking stalls and stacking. Mr. Mickley indicated he wished to address
the number of drop off spaces required by City code, and reported a traffic study had been done by
• Tom Toomey, the applicant's engineer. Mr. Mickley distributed copies of the report to the
Commission and staff. The one -day study had documented every car that went into the property, and
whether it went to drop -off parking or fixed parking. The approved site plan for the Jupiter school
was displayed and the similarities to the proposed Mirasol site were reviewed. Mr. Mickley noted
the numbers of children dropped off during the study. Mr. Mickley reported it was not uncommon to
have 15 % -25% absences, because of illness, family vacations, and the fact that not all people needed
to leave their children there full -time. The day of the report 68 students were dropped off by cars
and 9 by bus. At one point during peak time there had been 5 cars backed up in the drop off lane and
four cars in fixed parking. The Bluffs Preschool at Mirasol had a maximum of 240 students, while
the Jupiter school had a maximum of 105. Using 2.29 (240 divided by 105) the maximum stacking
for the Bluffs Preschool would be 12 cars and 10 in fixed parking. Mr. Mickley noted that the new
site had a bypass lane which would allow cars in the drop off area to pull out and leave before the
cars ahead of them left. Mr. Mickley commented with 24 fixed and 12 drive - through spaces less 15
spaces for employee parking, that would leave a balance of 21 spaces -12 for the drop -off lane and 9
for fixed parking. One issue was stacking off the right -of -way of Jog Road, and the other was the
number of spaces. Mr. Mickley explained two more employee spaces could be added for employees
in the Seacoast Utility easement. Blow -up illustrations of the area of stacking and of the parking
area were distributed. Mr. Mickley noted that 45% of the area was open space, and the benefit of 9'
stalls was that allowed open space to be used as playground area in order to meet Health Department
requirements. Mr. Mickley reported there was a 43' landscape buffer to the right -of -way of Jog
Road, and showed a depiction of the sizes of trees at planting. Mr. Mickley noted a management
plan would be needed because this was a larger school and a person would be on duty at the drop -off
area. Mr. Mickley explained that the site had been approved by Mirasol. Mr. Mickley reviewed
awards received by the Jupiter school.
in
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
Mr. Tarr indicated he had spoken with Mr. Mickey and had visited the Jupiter school. Mr. Tarr
reported he had gone to the school at peak time, 8:15 a.m., that day, and commented the Bluffs
school would be superior because of the bypass lane and sidewalk. Mr. Tarr reported 24 cars came,
and all parents walked their children inside the building. 14 had used the drop -off line, which was
parallel parking. 10 had parked in the fixed spaces. Traffic had never backed up into the road, and
only at one time were all spaces filled, but Marcinsky Road was not Jog Road and there would be
more of a stacking issue on Jog Road. Mr. Tarr calculated the parking requirement would be 48
spaces and they had 38 or 39, so he was a little concerned there might not be enough parking for the
employees. Mr. Tarr inquired whether there was a plan not to allow any cut through during drop -off,
which was verified by Mr. Mickley, who noted that the left turn in would be for emergency vehicles
only and it would be blocked by orange cones or something similar that could be knocked out of the
way in an emergency, and this would require all other traffic to use the full length of the whole drop -
off area. Mr. Tarr commented he also went to the City's pre - school on Riverside and they had no
back up problem because of extra spaces, still leading to the conclusion that this project might not
have enough spaces. Mr. Tarr commented parking spaces had been decreased in order to increase
open space, yet there was a waiver to decrease the landscape buffer, and questioned if the decrease
• had been included in the calculations for the open space. Mr. Tarr asked if stacking had been
approved by the City Engineer, to which Mr. Tombari responded there had been a memo at the last
meeting for this project and the engineer had indicated "not satisfied ". Mr. Tombari explained that
the engineer always marked the memos to staff "not satisfied" when a waiver was requested, since
the engineer was not able to comment on support for a waiver when the waiver request did not meet
code; however, the applicant had responded to some of the engineer's comments regarding stacking,
which was to add the staff only parking spaces to help create a longer stacking distance. Mr.
Tombari explained that also, the parking dimensions were consistent with all the other projects in
Mirasol, and if one looked in all those files they would see the memos marked "not satisfied ". Mr.
Tarr commented the Commission had just learned an hour ago from City Council that one of the
reasons for approving waivers was if they had been seen before, and he was curious where before
half the parking area was used for stacking distance. Mr. Tombari responded this had been done
once before in the City, and Sean Donahue with LBF &H had said this was a good compromise for
some of the stacking issues. Mr. Tarr commented this was a great spot for a day care center, but
based on comments from Mr. Sabatello he felt that if the City's position was that density was the
cause of a waiver, this was a perfect example of density causing the waiver. There was too large a
building which was causing not enough parking spaces, not wide enough spaces, and not enough
stacking and that was the only issue because if there was a smaller building there would be no
waivers needed, and the playground met Health Department requirements at the expense of parking.
Mr. Tarr indicated that he liked the project other than the number of parking spaces not being
adequate, that he could live with 9' spaces, but the stacking was questionable. Mr. Ansay asked if
stacking was looked at differently at a location like this than in a high use area, and noted that traffic
here was not as intense as in other types of businesses. Mr. Tombari responded that typically
stacking was based on the hierarchy of roads, and since Jog Road was to be 4 lanes that should be
planned for, however, he did not believe there would be as many trips as on Northlake or Military, so
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
this should fall somewhere in between a collector road and a major arterial. Mr. Present questioned
if condition 4, requiring a letter to be submitted to the City each August, was required of other
facilities. Mr. Tombari indicated another day care facility in the City also had this requirement. The
reason for the letter was assurance the school was not exceeding their approved enrollment because a
number of zoning issues were based on that number. Mr. Present indicated he had a problem with
the staggered drop -off because from a reality standpoint it would not work for parents to bring one
child at one time and another child at another time. Mr. Channing suggested reversing the parking
area and the bypass lane which would eliminate the stacking issue. Mr. Channing noted this might
cause two parking spaces to be lost but that it would be better than having a stacking problem.
Discussion ensued regarding this issue, and Mr. Channing offered suggestions for redesign. Mr.
Channing commented the elevation showed a soffit height at 14' with doors and windows at 10'
height, and that was not a scale for children. Mr. Channing indicated he would like to require a
stucco belt course 3' from the bottom all the way around the building, with a different color in that 3'
section to make it a little more in scale for the children. Mr. Mickley clarified for Vice Chair Kunkle
that the owner of this school was the same as for the Jupiter school. Mr. Kunkle indicated consensus
was it was a tight fit, and asked the applicant if they wished to proceed to a vote. The applicant
responded affirmatively. Mr. Tarr commented for the record he had forgotten to mention that
subsequent to the first hearing on this he met with Mr. Mickley and Mr. DiVosta regarding ideas and
they tried to figure out how to squeeze parking and provide stacking, and reported the applicant had
hoped to purchase additional land to the south. Mr. Channing asked staff if the Commission turned
down this application if that would preclude the applicant from coming back. The response was it
would proceed to City Council, and the applicant could work on the parking between now and the
City Council presentation.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -32 with
the conditions and waivers as recommended by staff. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion.
During discussion of the motion, a condition was added to require a stucco beltway 3' from the
bottom of the building as suggested by Mr. Channing. The vote on the motion was 3 -3;
therefore, the motion failed.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 01 -37: Site Plan Amendment for Parcels 27.051.06
A request by Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc, owner of the subject parcel, to
amend a previously- approved site plan. The proposed amendments pertain to replacing the
approved hotel building with three office buildings and other minor changes to the approved
office and retail buildings. The site is located along PGA Boulevard, south and west of the
Meadows Mobile Home Trailer Park and south of the Gardens Mall, within the Regional center
• Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Principal Planner Tala1 Benothman presented the request. Kenneth Blair, representing the petitioner,
12
LJ
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the request. Kenneth Blair, representing the petitioner,
indicated the window frame color white had been used by Wachovia Bank, and the others had
wanted that color also, so the frames and window colors had been changed. Mr. Channing noted the
architecture was very flat and a lot of the design was entailed in the details of how the petitioner
would create the joints in the stucco or precast panels, their depth, width, and texture, and how the
paint scheme would work with those changes. Mr. Channing noted that other than wanting to see
those specifics, everything looked fine. Mr. Blair explained the details, textures, and colors would
be exactly the same as approved for retail one, retail two, and the office building. Mr. Channing
noted the two -story building had a horizontal course of texture and the previous approvals did not
have that, and he wanted to see the details, textures, and colors. Mr. Blair indicated he could show
the colors tonight, but the two story building was the old building which was already approved. Mr.
Blair explained that the approval being asked for tonight was for offices 3, 4, and 5, which were all
one -story buildings. Staff verified that the 2 -story building had been approved. Mr. Tarr asked if the
architecture of the buildings was similar to offices 1 and 2. Mr. Blair responded by showing color
elevations of offices 1 and 2, and the new offices 3, 4, and 5. Mr. Tarr noted the windows were
plain. Mr. Channing commented he did not care for the architecture but it got approved and had
been improved a lot since it came in, and what was being shown was consistent. Mr. Tarr
commented this did not have quite the detail, but he was not that concerned because it would not be
viewed from PGA Boulevard. Mr. Present asked about the landscaping between buildings 3 and 4
and between 4 and 5. Mr. Blair explained there was a variety of foundation landscaping, and open
space. Vice Chair Kunkle commented the front half had landscaping, the back half contained a/c
compressors, and described how the landscaping would look. Mr. Kunkle commented that driving
in, one would look at a courtyard garden with some depth and would not see the air conditioning
compressors.
Mr. Volonte made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -37 with
the following conditions:
1.
Prior to scheduling for City Council meeting, the applicant shall provide screening
around all FP &L transformers and junction boxes.
2.
Prior to scheduling for City Council meeting, the applicant shall revise the landscape
plan to include trees in parking islands east and north of Retail Building 2.
3.
Prior to scheduling for City Council meeting, the applicant shall revise the landscape
plan to include two shade trees in the parking median northwest of Retail Building 2
and a landscape island for every nine parking spaces north of said building.
4.
Prior to scheduling for City Council meeting, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to screen the service area for Retail Building 2.
5.
Prior to issuance of the second Certificate of Occupancy of the new, three office
buildings, the applicant shall install and complete the northern and eastern buffers of
the subject parcel and install all landscaping for Minsk Gardens Boulevard.
6.
Prior to scheduling for City Council meeting, the applicant shall amend appropriate
Is3
U
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
plans to indicate compliance with all the recommendations of the City's Police
Department (see attachment in staff report).
7. Within three weeks of City Council approval of this petition, the applicant shall submit
to the City's Growth Management Department a 3.5 disk or other City approved
electronic media containing digital files of approved amendments to Parcel 27.05/.06.
Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
City Attorney Len Rubin announced that attorney Andrew Piniero would be attending more
meetings than in the past.
Mr. Channing complimented Mirasol, commenting that the public areas were beautiful.
Mr. Charming reported that in the last two weeks both he and his wife tripped over bumper logs in
parking lots and they should be banned.
Mr. Channing made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings go back to
starting at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Tarr seconded the motion, which carried 5 -1, with Mr. Volonte
opposed.
14
r�
L
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held February 12, 2002.
APPROVED:
Dennis Solonyon,
Craig Kunkle, Jr.,
[ ) )A
Steven Tarr
Dick ay
Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Be ty Laur, SVcretary for the Meeting
15