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