Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042302CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 23, 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 Craig Kunkle 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 Principal Planner Talal Benothman reported that since the last meeting, the City Council had approved the following projects: Mirasol Parcels 6, 7, 9 and 10; and Lot 12 in Northcorp PCD. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of April 9, 2002: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. SWEARING IN OF SPEAKERS City Attorney Len Rubin swore in those who planned to speak. EX -PARTE COMMUNICATION None of the Boardmembers declared any ex -parte communication. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Land Development Regulations Commission: Present Absent Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Vice Chairman Barry Present. Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden — arrived at 6:35 p.m. Joel Channing Dick Ansay Dennis Solomon Steven Tarr Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 Alternate Ernest Volonte Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Edward Tombari and John Lindgren, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney Len Rubin. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Public Hearing and Consideration ofApproval (Continued from March 26, 2002) Petition VAR -02 -02 - Front Setback Variance for 10840 Magnolia Street, PGA Golf Club Estates Gary and Claudia Douglass, as the property owners, are requesting a variance from Sec. 78 -141, Table 10, of the City Code, which requires a 25 foot front setback for residential properties located within Residential Low (RL -2) zoning districts. The petitioners are seeking an 8.6 foot variance to allow for a 16.4 foot front setback at 10840 Magnolia Street within the PGA Golf Club Estates. Alternate Ernest Volonte was seated since Mr. Glidden had not arrived; however, Mr. Glidden arrived shortly and joined the audience for this item only. Principal Planner Talal Benothman explained that the Board had requested alternative plans to show a minimum variance, and that all criteria except minimum variance had been met. Of the two alternatives presented, staff recommended Altematiave No. 2 showing a 19 -1/2' setback, which would require a variance of 5 -1/2'. Gary Douglas reported he had reduced the width and had recessed the garage as far as he could without closing off the bathroom window. Mr. Douglas explained that with this new plan the large oak might not have to be moved, but he would relocate it if necessary. Mr. Ansay asked if skylights had been considered for the bathroom, to which Mr. Douglas responded no, but a skylight would have to be almost at the peak of the roof. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Lynn Huber commented she had spoken at the last public hearing and was still not satisfied with the plan, since ventilated fans and skylights could be used in the bathroom in order to push back the second garage further. Ms. Huber reported a neighbor who lived closer than her to the applicant had not received a notice. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney advised that it was possible to write a variance for the actual structural encroachment instead of a swath across the entire property. Mr. Glidden spoke from the audience and agreed with Ms. Huber's comments, and expressed his opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission should not be dealing with this. Mr. Channing commented that the site plan showed this lot only touches the minimum setback at one corner and the Board had approved something similar a long time ago at Frenchman's Creek. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the applicant had tried to make a good faith effort and he did not believe this would hurt the neighborhood. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Channing, commented that he believed the applicant had met the requirements for a variance, and that the hardship 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 was due to the irregular shaped lot and only one small portion was encroaching. Mr. Solomon noted that the adjacent property owner had not objected, and stated that he was in favor of the most minimal variance. Mr. Present stated agreement. Mr. Ansay indicated he had a difficulty with hardship being proved inasmuch as there were alternatives. Mr. Tarr questioned if the proposed length was normal for a garage, to which Mr. Channing indicated it was. Mr. Tarr indicated he was not a fan of granting this but there had been no objections from the immediate neighbors. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve Petition VAR -02 -02 using Alternative No 2 which was for a 5 -1/2' variance, with the condition that the existing oak tree either be saved or relocated on site. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Volonte stepped down and Mr. Glidden was seated. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Workshop Petition SP- 02 -14: Site Plan Review for Evergrene Parcel 3 A request by Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Community Finance Company (a subsidiary of Watermark Communities, Inc.), for approval of a 12.25 -acre site for 80 single-family "Cluster Homes" homes within Parcel 3 of the Evergrene Planned Community District (PCD), which is bounded by Donald Ross Road to the north, Alternate AIA to the east, Hood Road to the south, and Military Trail to the west. Senior Planner John Lindgren presented the request. Henry Skokowski, agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant and described the project. Mr. Tarr questioned how emergency vehicles and garbage service would be provided, to which Mr. Skokowski responded the Fire Department was comfortable using the hammerhead areas to back up and in the tightest areas could back up onto grass, and the garbage trucks would have a similar ability to maneuver. Mr. Tarr commented that if this neighborhood was designed for families that could be dangerous, that every two of six units had no guest parking, and the hammerhead courtyards would be used for extra cars and guest parking. Mr. Tarr stated he also was not a fan of so many waivers, particularly with justification being on the open space. Mr. Ansay requested the size of the single family homes, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that model was approximately 1,250 s.f. and contained two bedrooms. Mr. Skokowski advised that parking would not be allowed in the hammerhead courtyard areas, for which the homeowners association was responsible. Mr. Present suggested lots 16 and 17 and lots 29 and 30 have front garages since they were not on hammerheads. Mr. Present commented the idea of extra parking between lots 8 and 9 and lots 13 and 14 might become private parking for those lots only. Mr. Skokowski advised he would let the board know the prices of the units at the next meeting. Mr. Solomon asked if there were sidewalks. Mr. Skokowski responded there were generally sidewalks on only one side and described the sidewalk locations. Mr. Solomon 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 commented he had problems with the concept —that the clusters did not bother him in concept but he had the same concerns expressed by Mr. Tarr with the garbage trucks backing up and there could be a safety issue involving children. Mr. Solomon commented it would have been better to have both pedestrian and vehicular connectivity between the pods that there was no reasonable way to walk through this development—and suggested taking 2' easements from the side of each lot side to provide walkways. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that in Exhibit B. the limitations on reuse were meaningless, and worst of all, the applicant had inadequate parking. Mr. Channing commented the applicant was pushing the envelope, that he liked the approach, but thought it was a bad idea to have units without aprons; that there were no walls or opportunities for landscaping to provide privacy, requested a large drawing of a cluster to show how all windows line up with each other, that drainage easements occupied almost all the space and landscaping was the most important thing at this density, noted noise /access problems with a/c units, and commented he had no problem with dry models so long as a demolition bond was obtained. Mr. Glidden commented there were two separate communities with no physical link inside the project, and suggested removing the units on lots 17 and 29 in order to link pedestrian access with the possibility of picking up some parking as well. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that the south side of the project was lacking the most in parking and that there was an area in the landscape island closest to the main perimeter drive where 6 -8 parking spaces could be picked up. Mr. Glidden commented that only the 3- bedroom plan 2 model would have a problem regarding overflow parking in the hammerheads, which could be solved if every house had the ability to park in front of it Mr. Glidden commented regarding the staff recommendations that information from the police department's letter was mimicked into the final list of conditions and a lot of items in the police department's letter did not have much to do with Planning & Zoning or site plan approval, such as locks on doors and which way doors opened, and suggested all these things be covered in an ordinance with which everyone must comply so they would not need to be included in conditions. Mr. Charming commented if one came into this development by accident they would have a hard time getting out, and suggested removing the dead ends in favor of cul -de -sacs or to tie them together. Mr. Channing commented there was only one place in the middle where one could do a loop, and the idea of connecting pedestrian or vehicular traffic was very good. Mr. Charming expressed his opinion that this needed a lot of study. Chair Kunkle requested that the applicant bring to the next presentation illustrations for one and two story models showing how screen enclosures would work. Mr. Skokowski advised there were no pools, only spas. In response to Chair Kunkle's comment that the landscaping lacked specificity, Mr. Skokowski indicated that would be worked on. Chair Kunkle noted the Board had received a large set of plans at tonight's meeting, and requested whatever could be done to get plans to the Board in advance of meetings. Mr. Present suggested lots 49 and 50 could have open space and 4 parking spaces between them, and commented that was one of the longest rows and if the applicant could move parking spaces back and give up some open space there would be more room to turn. Mr. Skokowski explained that the dead ends were less than 300' in the hammerheads and that these turns were acceptable according to code. Mr. Ansay requested more connectivity, and noted the Commission had forwarded a project to City Council where the Council had continued the roads. Mr. Tarr commented that lots 17 and 29 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 would make a nice road to connect the two parcels as well as 53 and 78. Mr. Tarr suggested the possibility of bringing the garbage to the main road for pickup. Mr. Wu suggested a 3 -D or isometric of a courtyard or a cross - section to show proper perspective. Mr. Skokowski indicated there was a sketch showing massing. Accuracy in depicting perspective was requested. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Workshop Petition LDR- 02 -04: Northlake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District A discussion of theproposedNorthlake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District prepared by Michael Redd & Associates for the Northlake Boulevard Corridor Task Force. Chair Kunkle commented that it was a great accomplishment to get four governmental agencies to agree on a set of guidelines and he did not think the Committee could improve on them. Mr. Wu asked if the Board would like a formal presentation. Mr. Glidden suggested putting the guidelines into play to see how they worked and come back to this in a year. Mr. Solomon indicated he did not totally agree because he thought areas could be clarified and augmented, and that this was still in a draft stage, and he felt Steve Cramer should gather comments and share those with the committee to determine which things had merit and which should be left as is. Mr. Wu responded that this was already out of the hands of the committee, and was ready to be considered for adoption. Mr. Wu advised that there was an avenue for this group to make amendments for improvements but they could not water it down. Mr. Wu advised there was zoning in progress with an expiration date, which he believed to be in a couple of months, although that might be extended. Mr. Present commented when he met with Mr. Cramer there had been a map showing zones 1, 2, and 3 which was not included in tonight's handout and which he felt would be a good exhibit to be included. Mr. Ansay questioned whether the property owners had provided any real input. Mr. Wu responded that at every monthly meeting the consultant had tried to allay their concerns and there were public comments and reviews at each meeting. The committee had tried to accommodate the concerns. Mr. Wu commented there would be another direct mailing to property owners within Palm Beach Gardens, and there would be another series of meetings to adopt this as part of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Tarr questioned if each of the four entities would interpret the guidelines in their own way, to which the response was yes. Mr. Tarr asked what would happen if Palm Beach Gardens decided to amend it and whether the other entities could be contacted to see if they wanted to amend also. The City Attorney advised that if one entity made an amendment they could do so and the more restrictive requirement would always control, so that was not an issue, and one municipality could pull out and not be bound at all. City Attorney Rubin commented that this effort could only make things better. Attorney Rubin commented it was a significant feat to get four entities to work together in this manner. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that this was very good considering there were four entities involved. Mr. Glidden commented it would be good to get it into play to see how it would work and asked if there was a scheduled time to revisit it. Mr. Wu explained that would be up to the City Council. Mr. Glidden commented he would like this group to consider adoption with a specific 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 time frame no longer than a year and to take careful notes during that time and then study and review. Mr. Wu advised this item could be fast tracked within the P &Z process. OLD BUSINESS Chair Kunkle inquired regarding an update on the Seacoast Planting Guidelines. Mr. Benothman explained that staff had met with Seacoast officials last week and they had claimed the guidelines were not new, but that this was just a new interpretation of those regulations, and they would be in full force. Mr. Benothman noted that one of the rules was to keep a 20' line between easements and landscaping, which was not the City's vision for landscaping, and would cause problems with the City's code requirements; and staff would meet with Seacoast again to work out something. Mr. Kunkle recommended going back to see how this had been adopted and whether it was an ordinance or guidelines that were flexible. NEW BUSINESS During discussion of whether there were graphic requirements for development applications and a checklist of things that needed to be submitted, Mr. Glidden noted he had provided comments on this subject about a year ago, which he would find and share with staff. Mr. Glidden commented that a lot was not clearly spelled out in the current checklist, and a lot of redundancy, but most of all it had a lot of design instructions that did not belong in the checklist and should be in the guidelines and ordinances. Chair Kunkle commented he would like to see Mr. Glidden's comments, and that the goal was to get consistent packages from every applicant Mr. Tarr recommended requiring drawings of streetscapes with 4 or 5 homes in a row and that they be drawn to scale. Chair Kunkle requested that Mr. Glidden provide his comments at the next meeting. Mr. Tarr commented that the snacks were very poor tonight and a little pan of goldfish crackers would not have been acceptable if this had been a 4 -hour meeting, and a couple of candy bars would be welcome when meetings ran late. Mr. Glidden reported an e -mail had been circulated this week from Planner Kara Irwin regarding perspectives and a directive from City Council that anything in a perspective must be accurate, including landscaping. Mr. Glidden commented that he did not disagree that the City could not let people overly enhance a rendering to make a building look better by putting in more landscaping than was really there; however, when perspectives were done architects took landscaping away so the building could be seen and sometimes a tree might be 3 or 4 feet out of place, but the comment he had read was either give it to the City 100% accurate or don't give it at all. Mr. Glidden commented he had responded that the perspectives were essential and as an architect he prided himself on being able to read plans but he had to work at it. so he assumed people not in that Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 profession must benefit even more from 3- dimensional drawings. Mr. Glidden stated he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to go on record to strongly encourage the continued use of perspectives, even with a little bit of latitude regarding landscaping but with the caveat that no one should add landscaping to enhance the presentation of the product. Mr. Channing commented previously there had been a standard that landscaping must be drawn at 5 -year growth, which was fair, and this would be a radical departure. Mr. Glidden commented he believed the City should be a little forgiving in regard to 3 -D drawings and be glad they were getting information with which to understand the building, and the Commission should look past the landscaping and look at the architecture. Mr. Tarr commented the drawings should be at the proper scale in relationship to roads and buildings. Mr. Glidden commented there could be certification required that the drawing was accurate. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 23, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held May 14, 2002. APPROVED: 'les� A /> Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Auk. Dick Ansa; �, Alternate Hnest V X-4� O Betty La Mr, Secretary for the Meeting