Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 022602_ CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING • • February 26, 2002 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Dennis Solomon at 6:30 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. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Charles Wu announced that since the last meeting, the City Council had approved the Banyan PUD and the Blood Bank building by a 3 -2 vote. Issues pertaining to traffic had been addressed by the petitioner. Concern regarding future phases had been expressed , and staff had provided guidelines in the ordinance to address that concern. The City Council had approved a western curb cut, and in phases 2 and 3 the applicant was to revise the traffic analysis. At the last City Council meeting approval had also been granted for an update of the site plan for Parcel 27.05 and 27.06 along PGA Boulevard, and the hotel had been changed to three office buildings. Mr. Ansay questioned the status of Eckerd's at Promenade. Mr. Wu explained that the City Council was concerned about vehicles on the south side of Eckerd's, next to the gas station, and the applicant was reconsidering whether to raise the median so that point could not be accessed. Mr. Wu noted that the City Council might approve this project at their next meeting if it had been revised to meet their requirements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of 2/12/02: Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2002 meeting as submi ±ted. Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. Chair Solomon abstained from voting since he had not been present at the meeting. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll: Present Dennis Solomon, Chairman Chairman Pro Tem Barry Present — arrived at 6:45 p.m. Joel Channing Dick Ansay Steven Tarr Absent Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman John Glidden • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Alternate Ernest Volonte Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Edward Tombari and John Lindgren, Planners Jackie Holloman and Kara Irwin, and City Attorney Len Rubin. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Recommendation to City Council Petition SP -01 -42 - Evergrene Clubhouse & Entry Features Tara -Lynn Patton, agent for Communities Finance Company, is requesting site plan approval of a 12,390 square foot community center and entry features at the three entrances (Hood Road, Military Trail, and Donald Ross Road) to the Evergrene Planned Community District. The 362.7 -acre site is bounded by Hood Road to the south, Donald Ross Road to the north, Alternate AIA to the east, and Military Trail to the west: (36&25-4]S-42E) Senior Planner John Lindgren presented the project. Mr. Present arrived at this point in the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Vice Chair Kunkle's comments were read into the record in his absence. Mr. Kunkle had expressed his opinion that this submittal was too non - specific, and requested that the applicant be more specific regarding the entry features. A comment was made that where there was more landscaping, a wall would probably not be used, only in areas of less landscaping. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, reviewed the amenities on the site plan, the clubhouse architecture, and entry features. The guard houses at Donald Ross and Hood Road were manned; but the Military Trail entrance had an unmanned card gate system. Mr. Skokowski commented regarding Mr. Kunkle's comments, and explained that in the early stages the applicant could not be more specific, but now could be because they now had an idea regarding existing vegetation. Street trees were planned to be oaks or magnolias. Mr. Skokowski requested flexibility in working with the wall and fencing, and indicated fencing would be used through the preserve areas, with the walls to be in less vegetated areas. Mr. Skokowski anticipated a 50/50 mix of fence and walls. Mr. Tarr verified with Air. Skokowski that prior to City Council there would be a plan itemizing specific vegetation. Mr. Skokowski responded that the answer was generally yes, but the applicant did want some flexibility so there would be some qualifications, but they would narrow down the selections of trees to oaks and magnolias. Mr. Tarr indicated it was hard from the information provided to get an idea of what people would see when driving by the project, since the drawings did not specify the types of trees. Mr. Skokowski recalled that at the PCD presentation a roadway cross section had been presented 2 . Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 of the road through the center of the community, which was to be curbed, and the intention was to minimize the infrastructure of the road construction to preserve as much vegetation as possible where it exists. Mr. Skokowski commented until that was laid out —and it was now in process —the petitioner would not know exactly what was there and would probably not ever produce an exact drawing. Mr. Skokowski advised that the petitioner had been communicating with the City's Forester, who understood the existing conditions and what the petitioner planned to do in the future. Mr. Skokowski advised the applicant would coordinate with the City Forester and any adjustments necessary would be made with his approval. Mr. Tarr recommended no left turn at one stop bar and no right turn at the other stop bar on the clubhouse site plan, to which Mr. Skokowski agreed. Mr. Lindgren verified that was in a condition of approval. Mr. Skokowski noted he had not been able to talk to Mr. Glidden regarding the architecture. Chair Solomon commented he had some concern about moving this on to City Council in view of Mr. Kunkle's comments and not having drawings that were more specific. Mr. Ansay inquired as to the type of fencing that was proposed. Mr. Skokowski indicated the fencing would be open railing and the wall would be solid. On a reduced set of drawings, Mr. Skokowski pointed out areas to the Commission where fencing was planned - -on sheet 2 of 6 of the entry drawings. Mr. Skokowski advised that since the drawings had been done, the petitioner had moved to the construction design phase and had made a decision on the large trees that would be used at the entrances. Landscape Architect Jane Krebs explained that the Military trail and Donald Ross Road entries would be through preserve areas and large character oaks would be used at those locations. Chair Solomon noted the Commission should • have drawings at the stage where they were making a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Krebs indicated drawings would be provided prior to City Council, and instead of the long list of plant materials now shown, they would narrow those selections. Mr. Skokowski indicated they were not able to be specific on the areas of transition into the preserve area, and he would like Ms. Krebs to provide a narrative to the commission regarding what was planned. Chair Solomon asked how many areas would be discussed; to which Ms. Krebs responded it would be all three entries. Chair Solomon commented this was significant and the Commission needed to see it graphically. Mr. Tarr agreed with Chair Solomon and stated he would also like good renderings. Mr. Tarr commented the applicant knew what was there and what they wanted to save, and he was sure some wetland surveys had been done that showed the existing vegetation, and Mr. Skokowski had been doing this a long time and he was wondering why the Commission did not have that information. Chair Solomon asked that Mr. Skokowski come back before the Commission with this in graphic form, and commented that to tell the Commission what they were prepared to do in the future was not very helpful. Mr. Skokowski requested that Ms. Krebs be allowed to go through the presentation, and that anyone making a motion could state that the representations made here and on the record would be the modifications the petitioner was to make. Mr. Skokowski indicated he would hope not to have to delay because of this item. Mr. Solomon indicated he thought the three entryways were significant areas and the Commission needed to see it graphically. Ms. Krebs explained that the plan shown indicated the location of trees that would be added, advised that a rendering could be provided, and that she could define for the Commission what trees would be used and then just labels would need to be added before City Council. Mr. Solomon asked if the specific type of tree and the size was called out. Ms. Krebs stated that was what the • applicant was prepared to provide before they went to City Council. Mr. Channing referred to sheet 2 of 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 6 with the fence and wall details, and asked if the site plan was specific where those would be located. Ms. Krebs responded that had been defined and there would be fence at the Military Trail and Donald Ross Road entries and a wall at the Hood Road entrance. Mr. Charming verified with Ms. Krebs that she was filling in the gaps in information verbally. Mr. Channing asked if there was a reason the applicant did not want to specify the types of trees right now, to which Ms. Krebs responded they were now specified but had not been when the drawings were made, so she could verbally describe that tonight. Ms. Krebs explained that the reason for so much flexibility was that some of the landscaping interacted with existing vegetation; such as slash pines, especially at Military Trail where the entrance came through a slash pine area. At the formal entry on Hood Road there would be mahogany trees in the median and large 18' nursery grown oaks on each side of the entry road. Mr. Charring asked if the plans were specific in size and quantity of trees. Ms. Krebs responded that a range of sizes had been given and the quantity was depicted graphically. Mr. Channing asked how this was normally done. Mr. Lindgren responded that he had discussed this with the City Forester, who indicated there was very little landscaping to be done at the Donald Ross Road and Military Trail entries, which were through preserves, and he had no problem with the palette of trees. A key of tree varieties and sizes was noted on the plans. Mr. Lindgren verified only the three entrances were being discussed. Mr. Channing indicated that he was comfortable letting the City Forester handle this. Mr. Present asked if the floating docks must be permitted and if they could be removed if they were in the way, which was verified by Mr. Skokowski. Mr. Skokowski clarified that no negative comments had been received from the adjacent • church or KOA. Mr. Tarr noted that it appeared the applicant had more specific information than had been presented to the Commission, and requested the Commission move the agenda along while the applicant located and labeled the trees on the plans. Mr. Tarr commented by the time a petition got to this Commission it was known what trees were being kept, etc., that the Commission should know what was being done and should know something specific; however, he hated for the applicant to have to come back. Mr. Solomon indicated he was not comfortable moving this petition forward without specific plans and renderings. Mr. Skokowski suggested that Ms. Krebs write a schedule for the three entries in a written format as to specific trees and what would be revised or specified before the City Council meeting. Mr. Ansay commented this Commission had been addressed by the City Council about being more specific and evaluating information more accurately before it was submitted to them; and it was hard for him to understand why a company like WCI had not provided the information in proper format. Mr. Tarr indicated if the applicant wrote on the drawing of the three entrances showing the location, species, and size, he would be in favor of passing this on tonight. Consensus was 3 -2 to let the applicant work on the plan and continue on with the agenda. The petition was tabled. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP-01-39: Laser and Surgery Center of the Palm Beaches A request by Cotleur & Hearing, agent for the Laser and Surgery Center of the Palm Beaches, for Phase 1 approval and conceptual approval forPhase H on a site consisting of 3.2 acres located within the Regional Center Development of Regional impact. The site is located in the southwest quadrant . of the intersection of Fairchild Gardens Avenue and Kyoto Gardens Drive and will consist of a total 9 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 of 29,800 square feet of medical and professional office. (6- 42S -43E) Planner Jackie Holloman presented the project. Mr. Craig Kunkle `s comments questioned whether the crepe myrtles were a deciduous variety and if so, if the owner aware of that; and asked if the intersection planting on the east side would match the Royal Palms on the northeast corner. Ms. Holloman explained that the City Forester had indicated the crepe myrtles would lose their leaves, and that the treatment on the east side would not match because there were oak trees there already, but he felt Royal Palms would be a better treatment. Mr. Solomon questioned why this was not a workshop, to which Ms. Holloman responded it was whatever the Commission preferred, and that this was a petition without many outstanding issues. Ms. Holloman verified that Mr. Glidden had not provided comments. Donaldson Hearing spoke on behalf of the applicant, introduced the project team, showed the site, provided project information, indicated the project would be constructed in two phases, and described the site plan. Architect Andy Burrell with Gould Turner Group, reviewed the architecture The roof was to be clay tile. Mr. Hearing described the proposed landscaping. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the architecture could be improved, and noted there were two porte cocheres. Mr. Hearing explained that one was for patients to be dropped off and one was for patients to be picked up, and there were no traffic conflicts between the two. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hearing explained that the City Engineer had suggested this configuration. The Architect indicated that Mr. Solomon's suggestions would not work with the architecture . Mr. Solomon questioned why the phase 2 building was oriented to line up with the east property line. Mr. Hearing explained this was for parking efficiency. Traffic configuration was discussed. Mr. Hearing advised that the City Engineer was not concerned. Mr. Solomon felt Mr. Glidden should have an opportunity to look at this before it went further, and noted it was an important site. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion the building was not articulated enough, there were too many arches, and the porte cocheres should be opened up. Mr. Present asked what the tactile warning surface was, which Mr. Hearing explained was an ADA required non -slip surface for a handicap ramp. Mr. Benothman commented the applicant had until 2003 to build phase 2, and after that could apply for a time extension. Mr. Hearing reviewed the signage at the request of Mr. Present. Mr. Hearing indicated the petitioner was considering placing art in front of the building, that this was a one tenant building, and that the fuel tank was under the generator at the rear of the building. Mr. Tarr commented he thought this was a good project, and he liked the 10' parking spaces. Mr. Tarr stated he had no problem with the architecture. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the architecture was very good. Mr. Benothman clarified that the signage on the building was in compliance with code. Mr. Tarr made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SO -01 -39 with the following conditions. 1. The future Phase II shall not exceed 9.455 square feet of medical use, shall be architecturally compatible with Phase I, and shall be reviewed and approved by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. • 2. During the construction of Phase I, the location of Phase II shall remain grassed. R Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 3. In the 20 -foot Seacoast utility easement along the west property line, root barriers are to be installed for all trees, the root balls of shade trees shall be located a minimum of seven (7) feet from outside the water main, root balls of palm trees shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from outside the water main, and no laurel oaks may be planted within the easement. The landscape architect of record shall provide a written certification of compliance with this condition prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 4. This approval does not include approval for any wall sign on the subject site, other than the one sign allowed by City Code on the north elevation. Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried 5 -1. Mr. Solomon voted against the motion because of the architecture. Mr. Ansay left the meeting at this point, at 7:50 p.m. A quorum was still present. Recommendation to City Council Petition SO- 01 -43: Mirasol Parcels 6, 7, 9 and 10 A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for Taylor- Woodrow Communities, Inc, to approve four site plans for a total of 141 single-family home -sites within the Mirasol Planned Community Development (PCD). The Mirasol PCD is located west of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, between PGA Boulevard and Hood Road. (4- 42S -42E) Senior Planner Edward Tombari presented the project. Mr. Solomon asked if there had been 50% coverage on a lot as small as 60' wide, to which the response was yes, in Parcel 4. Mr. Tarr commented he had a problem with the justification of the waivers, which was primarily based on the open space percentages, and asked if there was other justification. Mr. Tarr asked if it was Mr. Tombari's opinion that the waivers resulted from the size of the structures being placed on these lots. Mr. Tombari commented this was a trade -off of denser development within the pods for a large amount of preserve. Mr. Tombari advised that the City had agreed to that at the time of the Master Plan, and these waivers agreed with the concept of that plan. Mr. Tarr commented that 50% open space was really the only justification, and noted that in another project later in the agenda which was almost identical, staff had eight reasons why those setbacks should not be approved or have much tighter justifications for the waiver. Mr. Tarr commented the City Council had indicated density should not be a cause for a waiver and he felt in this case density was the only cause for the waiver. Mr. Tarr commented in tab 5 the staff report said it was "the City Council's opinion that waivers should not be approved for the purpose of approving a specific home type ", and the only reason he saw for this waiver was because they were putting huge homes on tiny lots. Mr. Tombari commented the difference here was that the master plan had already been approved for Mirasol, and the City Council had already signed Z • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 off on the concept of this development, while the other project still had to prove that their plan was what the comprehensive plan wanted to achieve. Mr. Tarr indicated he thought the City Council should play by the same rules even if this was a larger project but that unfortunately, politically, that probably would not happen. Mr. Channing commented he agreed with what Mr. Tarr was saying but not with his conclusions. Mr. Channing noted he had long been a proponent of things like this being allowed, but it was already violating the new setback rules. Mr. Channing stated he was in favor of this project, and he thought it was crazy to even question any project that had a lot of open space and then wanted higher density on a lot. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the problem was that the Commission and City Council needed to have a serious discussion about this and come up with final rules that would not be violated with every new project. Mr. Channing stated he was in favor of PUD development and he thought every one of the waivers was justified, but he thought they should not be waivers. Mr. Tarr commented this project had attached 800 -900 acres of wetlands that were not economically buildable, which he thought totally skewed the open space percentages. Mr. Tarr commented the statistics looked good on paper but the City was not benefiting from the open space because it was not where the people were . Mr. Present commented that he had a problem with the first waiver justification: "consistent with other previously approved single family parcels" which was not a reason for justification. Mr. Present indicated he agreed with a lot of Mr. Tarr's and Mr. Charming's comments, and that this looked like a cookie cutter concept. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the applicant needed to convince the Commission why it made sense. Anne Booth, Urban Design Studio, advised that all four of these parcels were continuations of projects that had already been approved, and that buildings were currently under construction on other parcels. Ms. Booth commented that the developer relied on the previous approvals in terms of the product and that he could go ahead and develop the same product type. Ms. Booth noted that every one of these parcels had either water, golf course, or preserve area open space around its perimeters. Open space calculations requested did not include the abutting open space. Mr. Booth commented that a PCD did not include development regulations, but encouraged people to come in with their own designs, etc. The give and take process determined the final project. Ms. Booth explained that there were no zero lot line codes, so the waivers requested provided for a housing type encouraged by the City but for which they were not yet ready to develop codes, since they wanted to decide on each development. Mr. Booth commented there was high quality of construction and landscape architecture currently under construction, which would be continued on these parcels. Ms. Booth commented Parcel 6 was a continuation of Parcel 4, and was being developed at much lower density than on the master plan. Ms. Booth requested flexibility as to the type of street tree to be used. Ms. Booth indicated the petitioner could not agree to condition number 2, and noted that condition was the result of requirements on a previous project and did not apply here. Ms. Booth explained that all of these units would include a pool constructed at the time of construction so the issue of access to the rear to install a pool was no longer necessary, plus there was a double access from either the lake or golf course side without having to go through a side yard. Mr. Tombari agreed. Discussion ensued. Chair Solomon questioned where the conditions of approval were for the previously approved projects from which these were continued. Ms. Booth commented that had not been researched. It was noted by Mr. Harvey that any other conditions 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 were already incorporated into the designs. Mr. Solomon received clarification that if any conditions had been omitted they would be added. Ms. Booth indicated the lots were not yet platted and the City Council must approve the site plan before they could be platted, and all lots were subject to the homeowners association documents. Chair Solomon requested a condition that the City Attorney review the plans and the homeowners association documents to assure they were covered, and requested a condition that the HOA would have the power to do external maintenance if the owners did not do it. Mr. Tombari commented re- examination of the other pods and the homeowners association documents and maintenance obligation would be added to the conditions. Another condition was not to have the same models side by side. Mr. Channing commented that pools could be dug with a machine with only an 8' access, or hand -dug with less access. Mr. Channing commented the only thing that mattered in lot coverage was the overall gross lot coverage so as not to limit projects to suburban prototype but to reallocate where things go to make it more interesting. Mr. Channing commented this had been coming up for the last eight years he had been on this board and he wanted a serious discussion so the City could get past it. Mr. Tarr commented this was suburbia, which he believed was why it had been so successful. Mr. Tarr commented with regard to parcels 9 and 10, why the setbacks could not be met on the 120' wide lots where he was sure 10,000 s.f. homes were planned. Ms. Booth commented the setbacks were only for the screen enclosures. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -43 as . recommended by staff. When asked if the motion included condition 2, Mr. Channing withdrew his motion. Chair Solomon passed the gavel to Mr. Present and made the following motion: Chair Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -43 with the waivers and conditions presented by staff with the exception of condition 2 and with additional conditions. Therefore, the conditions of approval were as follows: 1. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant needs to provide the following paving and drainage construction drawings for Parcels 6, 7, 9 and 10: • A typical lot drainage pattern detail for lots adjacent to a lake and for lots not adjacent to a lake (including lots adjacent to a preserve). • Horizontal control of the project sufficient to construct the project and determine the dimensions of site improvements. • A pipe joint wrap detail specifying that all pipe joints will be wrapped in filter fabric. • Any additional details shown on the site plans that will be necessary for the construction of the project. 2. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall revise the Paving and Drainage Construction drawings for Parcels 6, 7, 9. and 10, as indicated in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated February 5, 2002. r� LJ Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 3. Any conditions that should apply from prior similar parcel projects shall be applied to these parcels. 4. The requirement that these parcels be covered by the homeowner association documents and that the homeowners association shall have the power to provide maintenance to the exteriors in the event the owners do not provide maintenance, and design guidelines as incorporated in prior approved similar parcels shall be a requirement for these parcels. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by 4 -1 vote, with Mr. Tarr opposed. Mr. Present passed the gavel back to Mr. Solomon. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -35: South Trust Bank Regional Center Parcel 27.04 A request by Donald Hearing of Cotleur Hearing, agent for South Trust Bank, for site plan approval of a 14,000 square foot branch bank building on Parcel 27.04 within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact. The two -acre site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Kew Gardens Drive and PGA Boulevard. (6- 42S -43E) Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. It was clarified for Mr. Channing that the difference in the elevations was the signage on the tower. Donaldson Hearing indicated the applicant was South Trust Bank, verified that no waivers were requested, discussed requested signage, and asked for approval of the location for the ground sign. Architect Keith Spina, OGP, clarified that all the signage as requested was allowed by City code. Ms. Irwin indicated she did not agree. Chair Solomon indicated that rooftop equipment must be fully screened Applicant indicated the equipment was only on the drive - through portion. A condition that there be cross - access with the adjacent parcel when it was developed was requested. Mr. Solomon inquired regarding photometrics. Mr. Hearing indicated the only exposure was a light for the ATM, which the City Engineer had accepted, and a signed and sealed photometric plan would be submitted prior to presentation to City Council. Mr. Channing requested 3' berms around the parking lot and abutting public right -of -way, to which the applicant agreed. Mr. Channing commented he preferred scheme "B ", keeping signs low. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the sign was too big for the space on the south elevation. It was indicated that the "S" and "T" should be no higher than 33" and that the drawing by Signcraft was correct. It was noted that the rendering showed very little landscaping as viewed from PGA Boulevard and that was not representative of what the applicant planned to do, which would be done in working with the City Forester. Mr. Present requested and received clarification there was a total of three signs on the building. Mr. Spina indicated the applicant would like approval to put up the signs allowed by code and agreed that all could say the same thing. Mr. Tarr asked if the drawing dated October 2001 was the most current, to which the response was affirmative. 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 Consensus of the Commission was that the three signs all say the same thing and include the logo and that Scheme "B" be used. Mr. Wu asked if the applicant could change one sign to a tenant sign in the future. Ms. Irwin commented three directional signs were requested and the code allowed one directional sign. The applicant agreed to one directional sign to be placed at the entry. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -35 with the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site plans and landscape plans to eliminate the waiver to Section 78- 315(b). 2. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include the backflow prevention device. The backflow prevention device shall be screened from public view on three sides and shall not be placed in front of the main building entrance. 3. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall submit a revised Photometric Plan that meets the requirements of LDR Section 78 -182. 4. Site landscaping shall be properly maintained so as not to obstruct view of windows, building address numbers, and walkways. 5. All perimeter doors shall be equipped with hinges that utilize non - removable hinge pins. 6. All strike areas of perimeter doors shall be equipped with reinforced, case hardened strike plate. 7. The rear door shall be equipped with a peephole viewer. 8 The applicant shall provide numerical addresses with bi- directional visibility from the roadway and illumination for nighttime visibility. 9. The applicant shall install a high- resolution color digital video camera system with monitoring and photo processing printout capabilities above the exit doors, teller counters, and drive - through lanes for potential criminal activity detection. 10. The applicant shall install a money lever switch within teller cash drawers that will activate alarm system in emergency situations. 11. Prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy, potable water conservation devices shall be incorporated into project buildings, per Condition 12 of the Regional Center DRI. 12. Prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy, energy conservation measures identified in the Application for Development Approval (ADA) shall be implemented, per Condition 24 of the Development Order for the Regional Center DRI. 13. Prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy, the subject parcel shall comply with the energy plan established by the Property Owners Association Architectural Review Board (Board) for the Regional Center DRI, per Condition 25 of the Development Order of the Regional Center DRI. 14. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that a full line of energy - efficient appliances and equipment will be used in all buildings on site, per Condition 27 of the Development Order of the Regional Center DRI. • 15. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 City Engineer to ensure that the transition area at the entrance driveway connection to Kew Gardens Avenue effectively channels the stormwater runoff from entrance driveway connection. 16. This approval does not include approval for any ground or wall signage on any building on site. 17. There shall be a 3' berm between the parking lot and public right -of -way. 18. There shall be at least 6' stucco vertically where the building identification sign is centered vertically. 19. Signage shall be as depicted in Scheme "B" at the building entry. 20. Any adjustments in landscaping along PGA Boulevard shall be at the discretion of the City Forester.\ 21. Provision shall be made for cross - easement from this property to the adjacent parcel. 22. Only one directional sign shall be permitted. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Mr. Wu announced that the petitioner was ready to return before the Commission with Petition . SP -01 -42 - Evergrene Clubhouse & Entry Features. Henry Skokowski, agent, presented three graphics, one for each entry. The plant lists had been edited and the locations marked on the plans. Numbers, species, and heights of trees were noted on each plan. Mr. Skokowski agreed to a condition of approval that a rendering of each of these three entrances would be done prior to City Council. Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -42 with the waivers as listed in the staff report and the following conditions: 1. Prior to scheduling for review by City Council, the applicant shall satisfy all comments /concerns from the City Engineer. 2. Prior to scheduling for review by City Council, the applicant shall depict proposed water and sewer lines on the site plan and landscape plan. 3. Metal halide lighting shall be used for parking lot and pedestrian walkways. 4. Entry signage shall be lighted. 5. Numerical addresses shall be illuminated for nighttime visibility, and shall have bi- directional visibility from the roadway. 6. All exterior doors shall have security hinges. 7. All buildings shall have alarms. 8. Railing shall be used for the covered floating dock. i9. Circular drop -off area shall be one way with signage stating "One Way ". 11 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 10. The three exhibits submitted at the Planning and Zoning meeting of February 26, 2002 shall be added as a part of the record. 11. Renderings of the three entrance plans shall be submitted prior to presentation of this petition to City Council. 12. Locations of any changes in landscaping shall be approved by the City Forester. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. Workshop Petition SP- 01 -04: The Gables Parcel A Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for Gables East Construction, Inc., is requesting a site plan approval for a 90.1 -acre site within the Gables Planned Community District (PCD). The site plan includes 200 single-family homes and 450 apartment units. ParcelA is located on the northeast corner of the Gables at Northlake PCD. The Gables at Northlake PCD is located on the southwest corner of Northlake Boulevard and the Ronald Reagan Turnpike. (22- 42S -42E) Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. • Mr. Charming commented that the multifamily was very crammed, and it was the opposite of Mirasol with no big open space to make up for the density. Mr. Charming commented that after tonight he was inclined not to approve anything like this any more. Mr. Charming made a protest against dealing with variances, and commented there should be another way to deal with these items. Chair Solomon indicated a preference for sidewalks on both sides of the street rather than only one side, and commented there were no parks or open spaces. Henry Skokowski, agent, introduced Steve Bozak with Gables Residential, who talked about other projects they had developed and showed slides. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the parcel "A" plan, entry plan, lake amenity, central promenade, fitness center, recreational amenities, buildings, and typical lot landscaping. Mr. Skokowski indicated he would meet with Mr. Kunkle to review the landscaping, and noted the open space benefits to the City in return for requested waivers. Mr. Tarr commented regarding the open space statistics, commented that this development was crowded, that he was not in favor of the Mirasol waivers and he was not sure how the justification worked on single family lots. Mr. Tarr commented that the 10' front setback would allow not one car to fit front or rear. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion there was insufficient guest parking, that units only had one ingress /egress, that stacking should be doubled, that lots that backed onto Jog Road were too dense for the site, that density should not be a cause of waivers and in this case was the sole cause, and that the open space calculations were skewed by the preserve. Mr. Present commented that off -set parking might work, that more detail was needed, and that he had a problem with justification of waivers based on past projects. Mr. Present asked staff not to allow that justification in the future. Mr. Present commented that only one way in and out could • be a problem. Chair Solomon commented a sidewalk was needed on both sides of the road, and there 12 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 should be a 3 -4' berm with landscaping on top along Jog Road, or the applicant could consider a wall. Mr. Solomon predicted that traffic within the property would be tight and slow; and expressed his opinion that there should be a traffic light at the Jog Road/Northlake Boulevard intersection. Chair Solomon commented that if something had been done in the past that did not mean it should be done again. Chair Solomon noted that the elevations needed roof pitches. Mr. Channing commented because this was so dense he would like a large scale rendered site plan. Other comments were that the preserve area had not been integrated into the project, that the single family landscaping looked weak, and that this had an uphill battle based on Alta Pines. Workshop Petition SP- 01 -38: NorthMil Plaza Bank, Future DevelopmentArea #1 A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent forNorthlake Partners Joint Ventures, Ltd., for a site plan amendment, to permit the construction of a 3,600 square foot bank with drive though, consistent with the use permitted by Resolution 47, 1999 and Resolution 153, 2001. The proposed bank site is located in the northwest corner of the NorthMil Plaza Shopping Center, which is generally located at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Northlake Boulevard. (19- 42S -42E) Senior Planner Edward Tombari presented the project. Staff concern was expressed regarding the site configuration, stacking, and the fact that exiting was from a bypass lane. Suggestions were to have two lanes or reduce the ATM lane. Mr. Tarr commented that on the north side of the building there would be an exit only out to Military Trail. Mr. Tombari advised that would require a permit from DOT for an additional curb cut and staff could explore that. Mr. Tarr commented if that could not be done then vehicles could go out from the bypass. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, advised that the applicant could not ask for any waivers since this was straight zoning. Mr. Skokowski commented that the parking spaces where staff felt cars could be trapped were for employee parking and not for customers, and also that a SU30 vehicle would not be able to turn to get out. Mr. Charming recommended the plan be studied and commented staff had made some good points. Mr. Solomon asked if the number of drive through lanes were specified by the City, to which the response was, no. Mr. Skokowski verified that cross parking was available. Mr. Solomon noted the staff comments were valid and should be tried, and suggested the ATM could be placed so that people could park and walk up to it and not be placed in a drive through so that the outermost lane could be eliminated. Mr. Present staff comments were good but he had no problem with the project. The City Attorney commented that staff was advising this was a safety issue. Mr. Tarr asked if the biggest concern was that a bulb was there so that cars could not make a U -turn or a car could cut off another one in the bypass lane. Mr. Tombari acknowledged it was an awkward traffic situation and that City Engineering had expressed concern about trucks trying to make that U -turn. Mr. Tarr suggested switching the bypass with the ATM. Mr. Tombari indicated there was a clearance issue. 0 OLD BUSINESS 13 • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 14 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held March 11, 2002. APPROVED: 1 Dennis Solomon, 'r Crain Kunkle. Jr.. Vice Chair John G ' en n Stev n T r Dick Ansav 13etty Laui, Secretary for the Meeting 15