HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 070902CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 9, 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
There was no report due to the absence of the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting minutes of June 25, 2002: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 25,
2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote,
with Mr. Glidden and Mr. Present abstaining since they were absent from the June 25, 2002 meeting.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for Local Planning Agency and Planning and
Zoning Commission:
Present Absent
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden
Dick Ansay
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Steven Tarr
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Also present were Principal Planners Talal Benothman and Steve Cramer, Senior Planners Edward
Tombari and Kara Irwin, Planner Natalie Wong, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney
Marjorie Binder.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council
Petition CP- 02 -01: Magnolia Bay Future Land Use Plan Amendment
A request by Cotleur Hearing, on behalf of DiVosta & Company, for a Future Land Use Plan
change from Residential High (RID to Commercial (C) for the purpose of developing retail. The
5.2 -acre site is located at the northwest corner of Military Trail and Hood Road (25,26- 41S -42E).
It was announced that due to a procedural error not made by staff that this item would be continued
to the August 13 meeting.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Robin Chaney, President, Temple Beth David,
commented that a lot of their members were present tonight along with members of Gardens
Presbyterian Church to ask the City to deny this petition, and indicated they would all be back for the
August 13 meeting. John Fetzer, Gardens Presbyterian Church member, announced that he was
speaking on behalf of approximately 300 church members who supported the recommendations of
staff in opposition to the requested zoning change, and that he would reserve his comments to the
next meeting on August 13. There were no further comments by the public.
MOTION:
Mr. Channing made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition CP -02 -01 to the
meeting of August 13, 2002. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
7 -0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearke and Recommendation to City Council
Petition PUD- 02 -01: Magnolia Bay Planned Unit Development
A request by Cotleur Hearing, on behalf of DiVosta & Company, for a rezoning from Planned
Development Area (PDA) to Residential — Low Density 3 (RL -3) with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) overlay district to allow for the construction of a 159 single-family dwelling unit community
with an overall density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. The 83.84 -acre site is located on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Military Trail and Hood Road (25, 26- 41S -42E)
Senior Planner Kara. Irwin presented the project, and verified that the requested waivers that had
anything to do with development of the homes were the same as the waivers granted for The Isles, and
that lot coverage and lot sizes were exactly the same as in The Isles. Ms. Irwin also verified that this was
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
the first project presented since the traffic summit. Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing disclosed they had
each met with the petitioner to discuss this project.
Rick Greene, Vice President, DiVosta & Company, described the project as the sister project to The
Isles, located cattycornered to The Isles. Mr. Greene commented that traffic density concurrency of 423
units at The Isles had been reduced to 379 and that 890 trips had been saved, so that the net density was
still under the requirement for both projects. Mr. Greene commented they were not asking the City to
delete any linkage roads. Mr. Greene reviewed the site plan, noting the mix of products was virtually
identical to The Isles. Mr. Greene reported Waste Management had provided a letter indicating they had
no problem backing up trucks in the hammerhead cul -de -sacs to make their collections. Mr. Greene
requested a sidewalk be along only one side of the hammerheads. Mr. Greene indicated that landscaping
in the rear of homes would be upgraded from that provided at The Isles and additional landscaping
would be added along the lake banks. The applicant felt a second entry was not warranted and that they
could provide emergency access to the linkage road if necessary. Mr. Greene reported it had not been the
applicant's intent to omit the 1.14 preserve area on the site plan and expressed concern regarding the
condition of approval to provide Military Trail and Central Boulevard beautification plans. The
applicant requested more time on conditions that carried 6 -month time limits. Chair Kunkle indicated he
had reviewed the landscaping upgrades at The Isles and they compared to the photos provided by the
applicant. Mr. Greene indicated the applicant would like to work with City Engineering to provide more
landscaping around the lakes. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that the clubhouse timing of 50% was
far into the project and recommended something more restrictive. The applicant indicated that the
architecture would be wrapped around the buildings and there was a total of 10' between the houses.
Mr. Greene explained that colors for homes and roofs were pre - selected and a designation plan prepared
in order to achieve a mix of color. Mr. Glidden requested staff review the designation plan to see if it
was satisfactory. Mr. Solomon commented a lot of the conditions were a little loose and vague. Mr.
Greene verified that the 1.14 acre mitigation required in condition 1 would all be contained on this
property by shifting one of the property lines prior to presentation to City Council. Mr. Solomon
questioned the timing in condition 2 to which Ms. Irwin responded that since the Alta Pines project was
approved the City Council had required several items to be done within six months of approval, and
properties adjacent to this project had different conditions of approval to do their beautification. Mr.
Benothman clarified that the objective of this condition was to retain the already established landscape
theme and the language would be revised to make it clear. Mr. Solomon noted the applicant had
indicated there could be a problem with the 6 -month time limit in condition 3 because a water use permit
was a lengthy process. Mr. Benothman explained that conditions 3, 4, and 5 carried 6 -month time limits
which could not be modified by this Commission and the applicant must seek relief from City Council.
Mr. Solomon requested condition 4 be modified to make clear it was talking about perpetual
maintenance. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that condition 6 was too lenient in favor of the
applicant and suggested the last 10 -15 lots instead of the last lot. Mr. Solomon questioned condition 9,
above -ground culvert drainage, to which Mr. Greene responded it was temporary during construction and
would be incorporated into the lakes. Mr. Solomon indicated the condition should say something about
if acceptable to the City Engineer. Mr. Solomon commented he thought one entrance was fine and did
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
not support a second access so he was not in favor of number 10 as a condition. Mr. Solomon
commented that 12 and 13 referred to something not happening until the contract had been let and he
would like to say instead: until the contract had been let and construction commenced. Mr. Greene
responded that conditions 11 -15 were all conditions of traffic concurrency. Mr. Solomon noted that in
condition 18 no time period was specified. Mr. Benothman indicated build out date would be specified.
Mr. Present commented he supported a double entrance because traffic impacts have a cumulative effect
and because of the connectivity in the City's Vision Plan. Mr. Present recommended looking at
entrances on the linkage road. Mr. Greene commented the applicant could provide an emergency access.
Mr. Ansay commented the Master Site Plan showed the entire site and he was very uncomfortable not
knowing what would happen in the southwest corner where "commercial" was indicated. Mr. Ansay
commented this property was not zoned as commercial at this time and asked if that should be solved
before proceeding on the rest of the project. Response was it had nothing to do with this project and
"commercial" could be removed. Mr. Tarr indicated he had driven through The Isles and other projects
and still had concerns regarding the single access, that he believed two access points would be good
planning, and noted staff and the alliance board recommended two accesses. Mr. Tarr expressed concern
regarding the space for Waste Management vehicles to turn in the hammerheads. Mr. Tarr reported he
had observed one of their trucks in the cul -de -sac where he lived which was not in the shape of a
hammerhead with a center planter and it had to back up 4 times to turn. Mr. Tarr reported he had called
Waste Management and had been told they ideally would like to make one pass through for collection
and in a cul -de -sac their minimum requirement was 60' which would allow one turn without having to
back up. He had then mentioned The Isles and the hammerhead cul -de -sacs- and had faxed them a copy
of this plan. The Waste Management representative he had spoken to had indicated in his opinion this
was not safe, was a liability, and inconvenient for their drivers. Mr. Greene indicated how garbage
trucks could back up within the hammerhead. Mr. Tarr commented they could not turn within the radius
provided without backing up, and he had spoken with a planner for Jupiter who had indicated they had a
huge problem in Abacoa with dead ends. Mr. Tarr commented each of these hammerheads created two
dead ends. Problems in Abacoa included noise and riding over grass and making marks all over the
roads. Mr. Tarr noted the letter provided said Waste Management did not have a logistical problem, but
expressed his opinion that Waste Management wanted the City's contract so would not object to
collecting the garbage. Mr. Tarr commented having a "T" at the end of the streets was not a safe
condition and he would not support the project because of that. Mr. Tarr commented regarding the
landscaping that he hoped the view along Military Trail was not like The Isles without many canopy
trees lining Military Trail and Central Boulevard. Mr. Tarr commented palms were not in keeping with
the City's Vision Plan. Donaldson Hearing, Landscape Architect, responded The Isles did have canopy
trees but they were not large enough to be highly visible as yet. Mr. Tarr commented he loved the
canopy trees inside the project. Mr. Hearing indicated a different theme was proposed for this project a
natural pine buffer along the perimeter with sabal palms in the medians, and substantial pines and red
cedars within the project to set this project apart and to provide a more native landscaping palette. Mr.
Tarr commented he did not know how to read a landscape plan and had not seen the look of Evergrene
on this plan but if that was the case he was fine with it. Mr. Channing asked for the turning radius
required by a fire truck to which Mr. Hearing responded 20' inside and 45' outside, and there was 47' in
4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
these cul -de -sacs with the valley gutters. Mr. Channing indicated sympathy with the applicant regarding
the single entry and noted they were building a connector road.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Glidden indicated no problem with a single entry. Chair Kunkle questioned if there was an ongoing
maintenance management plan for removal of exotics. Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, responded there
was a required management plan for all preserves and suggested requiring removal of exotics at the last
CO so the HOA would have the property turned over to them free and clear of exotics. Chair Kunkle
indicated he was comfortable with the landscaping and it was great to see a more native theme and
continuity with other projects. Chair Kunkle indicated he had no problem with a single entrance and a
poll of the Commission indicated 4 members were okay with a single entry and three were not, so City
Council would have the final word on that issue. Chair Kunkle noted the applicant was moving the
property line over to comply with condition 1, that for condition 2 the applicant would have the same
plans as Evergrene and San Michele, that the 6- months in conditions 3, 4, and 5 could not be changed by
the Commission as it was a City Council requirement, and commented regarding the timing in condition
7 for completion of the recreation area. Mr. Greene responded that the applicant would not build the
project in phases but that it would all be done at one time and construction of the homes would take
approximately six months. Mr. Tarr commented he did not think the garbage men would walk 50' to
pick up a trash can and that their truck could not make the circle on his open cul -de -sac without backing
up less than 3 times. Mr. Ansay questioned if it was good planning to isolate out the commercial not
knowing what would be there, to which Ms. Irwin responded it could be removed from any of the plans
for this project and that it had no bearing on this PUD, but was a separate site. Mr. Ansay expressed his
opinion it would influence the applicant in trying for the commercial. Mr. Solomon agreed with
removing the commercial designation from these plans. Mr. Glidden indicated he realized it was a
separate parcel but if the zoning was not changed asked if the applicant would amend their plan to
provide access to units, to which Mr. Greene responded affirmatively. Regarding moving the property
line over, Mr. Glidden suggested one of the Commission's recommendations might be leaving the final
determination of that site to be subject to the outcome of the commercial designation. Mr. Glidden
recommended making a condition that portion of the site be held out for continuing study. Mr.
Benothman commented that would not affect this project going on to City Council and staff would do
that anyway, and would bring it before the Commission. Mr. Glidden recommended looking at that area
and leaving that position of the residential site flexible. Mr. Solomon asked if the residential portion
would be plotted, to which staff responded it would be and was a code requirement.
MOTION•
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -02 -01 with
conditions as set forth by staff except for condition number 10 which calls for an additional
entrance, and also with the understanding that staff and petitioner will work together to make
language changes discussed by the Commission which everyone seemed to be in agreement on, and
E
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
also subject to resolution at the appropriate time of the boundary line issue to pick up the upland
preserve. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried 4 -3 with Mr. Present, Mr. Ansay,
and Mr. Tarr opposed. Mr. Ansay indicated he would like to make a statement as to why the
votes had been no. Chair Kunkle indicated that had been covered in discussion. Mr. Solomon
suggested it was better practice to have discussion of the motion after it had been seconded. The
City Attorney asked how this had been handled in the past, and the response was it had been done
both ways. Mr. Tarr clarified that the Chair had gone directly from the second into the vote
without calling for discussion. Mr. Solomon commented he believed that Robert's Rules called for
discussion once a motion was on the table. The City Attorney asked if there was a motion to re-
open the matter. Mr. Ansay responded no motion to re -open the matter was being made, but that
he would like to make a statement as to why he had voted no. The City Attorney advised the
matter had been discussed but it could be allowed. Mr. Ansay stated he felt it was not good
planning until the southeast corner of the site had been figured out as to what would be done there
and he felt by isolating it and taking some of the land for additional park land that would narrow
it down and it was all hashed on the plan as part of this site plan. Mr. Ansay stated that was why
he had voted no. Mr. Present stated he had voted no because in the Vision plan there was
connectivity and he supported staff looking at it this way. Mr. Present stated he did not think
security was an issue here and he would like to see more connectivity and more friendly
neighborhoods. Mr. Tarr commented he had voted no and he had been clear on his reasons. Mr.
Tarr commented that after a second to a motion the Chair should ask if there was any discussion
on that motion.
It was announced that Petition MISC -02 -03 and Petition PUD -O 1 -14 would be discussed as one item.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Workshop
Petition AHSC- 02 -03: Parcel 4.04 — Center Fund Comprehensive Plan Waiver
A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military
L.C., to provide for a waiver from the requirements of Policy 11 L3 of the Future Land Use
Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow for the development of a non - residential
Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 45.37 -acre site is located on the south side of
Donald Ross Road, between Central Boulevard and Military Trail (25- 41S -42E).
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop
Petition PUD- 01 -14: Parcel 4.0214.04 — Center Fund Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L. C.,
rol
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
for a re- zoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Mixed Use, with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Overlay district to allow for the development of 75,500 square feet of retail space,
9,000 square feet of office space, a 3,236 square foot gas station/convenience store, a 4,000 square -
footfinancial institution with drive through, 19,500 squarefeet ofrestaurant space, a 101 -room hotel,
and 156 multi family residential dwelling units. The 45.37 -acre site is located on the south side of
Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard (25- 41S -42E)
Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Mr. Volonte was seated on the Board. Senior
Planner Ed Tombari presented the waiver request.
Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, introduced others present on behalf of this project. Mr.
Skokowski indicated the first criteria of infill had been met; that this property met the requirements
for "infill" but did not meet the requirements for "urban infill"; and this was a rapidly developing
area with the only the Brigger property not being developed. Mr. Skokowski commented there was
no mandatory requirement to having residential on the second floor so that waiver might not be
needed. Mr. Skokowski read the changed language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding this issue,
and explained that this was residential "for sale" housing. Mr. Skokowski indicated the point was
for the Commission to consider where this was applicable. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the project and
indicated all portions had been reduced since the concurrency application had been completed.
Danny Brown, Architect with Oliver Glidden, reviewed the architectural details. Mr. Skokowski
stressed that there would be a 100' preserve area which would obscure the view of the
gas/convenience store, and described the proposed residential buildings. Mr. Skokowski presented
two requested waivers. Mr. Skokowski indicated this was not the standard mixed -use urban project.
Mr. Tombari presented staff comments on the mixed -use planned unit development and the
requested waivers.
Mr. Solomon deduced that Marriott would be the hotel operator from the use of the word "courtyard"
hotel. Mr. Skokowski indicated that Marriott was one of the candidates but no operator had been
chosen. Mr. Solomon recommended dropping "courtyard ", and indicated he agreed with staff
regarding the waivers, that calling this an infill project was a stretch and an infill would be much
smaller. Mr. Solomon suggested this project might work better if it were split into two—one part
residential and one commercial—but there would be problems with buffers. Mr. Solomon expressed
his opinion that the mixed -use intent was to have vertical integration, and the wording "where
applicable" meant to him that not every building would have a residential component but some must.
Mr. Solomon indicated he thought there were too many entrances and deleting one or two would be
appropriate. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the architecture looked pretty good except for
some long stretches of roof lines, and that because of the large natural areas around the perimeter a
wall or berm might not be needed for screening but that a good aesthetic look was needed around the
project. Mr. Solomon commented the residential portion had a grid -like look and he thought more
could be done with that; there was not a lot of relief on the two -story building fronts; there was very
little guest parking; the gas station site would look better if the building was rotated to be in the
northwest corner because in case it could be viewed from the intersection it would be better to see
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
the building than the canopy with cars. Mr. Solomon commented he was not concerned about
Jupiter's comments that they would loose median landscaping, and that the signage seemed
reasonable. Mr. Skokowski indicated Art in Public Places requirements would be met by placing art
in some of the public areas. Mr. Solomon indicated connectivity was hard to see and the roof plan
sketch on page 7 did not match the architectural review. Mr. Channing questioned why this was not
a PCD, to which Mr. Benothman responded a PCD must be 50 acres in this area. Mr. Channing
asked why the applicant was seeking approval without the residential component, to which Mr.
Skokowski responded they were close to submitting the residential but submitting the rest of the
project separately would not affect anything and they wanted to start as soon as possible. Mr.
Channing questioned why there was a 55' buffer at Military Trail and learned it was a City
requirement. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that the architecture was great, connectivity was
confusing, he did not favor mixed -use waivers, and the applicant was not integrating as much as they
might if this was truly mixed -use. Mr. Channing commented the public realm was suffering and
when the applicant returned he would like much larger scale drawings of all the areas colored in so
the Commission could understand them. Mr. Present commented that from the hotel to A, B, and H
he liked the way that area was connected. Mr. Present requested that when the applicant returned he
would like to see the view and vistas from the road. Mr. Present commented the residential portion
seemed just stuck on the back and he thought the number of entries could be reduced to four,
eliminating the southerly entrance on the side of the hotel and the second entry on Donald Ross
Road. Mr. Present commented the bank was very hidden in a preserve, which was a security
concern. Mr. Present commented this project must be a destination so the applicant needed to work
on a pedestrian theme to keep the hotel guests within the project. Mr. Ansay summarized the
outstanding issues and asked why parking was not allowed on the sides of the road, to which Mr.
Skokowski responded the applicant did not think the project was large enough, and the applicant was
trying to achieve good visibility and connectivity with quality pedestrian spaces. Mr. Skokowski
commented that visibility would be mostly on the interior because the view was obscured from the
public roads. Mr. Ansay commented that the applicant should try to incorporate the residential and
use the architecture to create a theme for the development. Mr. Tarr commented the waiver requests
seemed close to those granted to Legacy Place, agreed with the applicant this was not an "urban"
infill and asked if there was a legal definition of infill otherwise. Mr. Tarr asked if only one of the
criteria was met if that precluded any consideration by City Council. Mr. Tombari responded that he
would have to research the waivers for Legacy Place and in regard to infill and urban infill, that the
comprehensive plan anticipated filling in older areas, that urban infill applied to redevelopment, and
this project did not comply with the urban definition. Mr. Tombari commented that he believed the
comprehensive plan gave the City Council flexibility to make those determinations. Mr. Cramer
advised that two of the criteria must be met for the infill waiver to be granted; Mr. Tarr indicated if
the applicant could not get the waiver then the entire project would change. Mr. Skokowski
commented that without the waiver the applicant would be forced to build some housing above the
retail. Mr. Tarr commented that the Commission was bound by the LDR's, the comprehensive plan,
and the law, and needed a legal definition of "infill" from the attorney and without that was wasting
their time. Mr. Tarr indicated he would be in favor of the waiver. The City Attorney advised that 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
of the 4 criteria must be met for the waiver to be granted and that based on the staff report the
applicant did not meet two criteria under the Florida Statute definition. Mr. Tarr assumed the
applicant did meet the waiver criteria for purposes of this review and suggested making a little Main
Street instead of making the road like a driveway, and moving the restaurants and building E toward
that street. Mr. Tarr commented he thought this was a good project and it should not be vertically
integrated. Chair Kunkle stated he agreed with the other comments and the only thing that made this
project different than Promenade was great architecture. Chair Kunkle commented he did not think
Military Trail should be treated as a second -class road to Donald Ross Road and the landscaping
should be preserved or planted and the dimensions picked. Mr. Channing commented he thought the
number of curb cuts were appropriate because the site was so large, and a main street designed with a
north access on Central Boulevard and a south access on Military Trail would relieve traffic and
encourage people to go through this project. Mr. Tarr asked if there was a certain percentage
required of vertical integration. Mr. Cramer responded the comprehensive plan used to require 25%
minimum of each building,which staff had been requested to reduce to something less than 25%
when Legacy Place came through, and that now it was completely separated into horizontal and
vertical, and there was no threshold except whatever the Commission wanted to set as a threshold.
Mr. Tarr commented that 8 -10 condos could be put on top of one commercial building in this project
and vertical integration would be met, with which Mr. Cramer agreed. Mr. Tarr commented he did
not think vertical integration in this project was necessary but in his opinion there was a way around
it if needed. Mr. Present commented that Evergrene and other projects coming in would be a part of
this project's target and this center should not only be a meeting place and center, but the
commercial should take care of the people. Mr. Skokowski commented he would provide sidewalk
details at the next meeting and would create more public environs with details provided. Mr.
Channing cautioned not to have too many curb cuts off the north side of the main street and to
consider putting buildings on both sides of the street.
Mr. Volonte stepped down and Mr. Glidden rejoined the Commission.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition MISC- 02 -02: Sign Package for San Matera Apartments at Palm Beach Gardens Regional
Center
A request by Dodi Glas of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Koller Development Company, for
approval of a master signage program for the "San Matera "apartments. The 995 -unit development
is located on 119 acres at the northeast corner of Kew Gardens Avenue and Gardens Parkway within
the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact. (5-42S-52E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari presented the request and noted that the only real issue was the logo. 1
Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner, presented variations from the original MacArthur signage program in
what was being proposed by showing photographs of existing signage that did not match the original
program. Discussion ensued. Ms. Glas indicated a preference for Option A but noted that staffwanted to
see the logo so other options were presented and reviewed, and a compromise of having the logo on the
Z
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
entry signage and not on the internal signage was suggested. Mr. Tarr indicated that he believed the
wavy lines that Ms. Glas indicated was a company logo was the problem.
MOTION•
Mr. Glidden made a motion to accept the compromise proposed by the applicant of having Option
A with the logo on the main entry signage and Option B for the internal signage. Mr. Solomon
seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion it was clarified that on the screen that
option A was marked B and option B was marked A.. Mr. Channing commented he had met with
the applicant and supported Option A at the main entry and he saw no need to carry the PUD logo
into a private area. Mr. Tombari commented that staff was concerned the interior signs would not
have a date palm logo and would be placed along public roadways. Mr. Present commented that
in the beginning, MacArthur did not intend to have residential development in the regional center
and that had changed everything; and the logo was still a part of the overall theme and the date
palm logo did not need to be on the interior signs. Mr. Present commented if staff thought a date
palm logo was needed he agreed but felt it should not be that big a deal. Mr. Tarr commented he
was going with staff but agreed this should be a non - issue. Chair Kunkle clarified that the motion
on the floor was for option B on the screen - -which had the flanking date palm logo - -to be at the
main entry, and option A sans the date palm logos to be the interior signs.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Mr. Tarr opposed, stating he concurred with staff that it would look
better to have signs be consistent on the public roads.
OLD BUSINESS
It was noted that discussion of perspectives showing accuracy in landscaping would be delayed until
the Growth Management Director could be present.
NEW BUSINESS
Natalie Wong, new member of the Growth Management staff, was introduced by Mr. Benothman.
Mr. Tarr brought up the subject of the article in that day's newspaper regarding trees being removed
by accident and expressed his opinion there should be huge fines in such situations. Mr. Benothman
indicated staff had felt they did not have the authority to discuss this incident in the absence of the
Growth Management Director and the City Manager and there was a lot more to it than had been
reported in the newspaper.
10
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2002
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting
be held July 23, 2002.
APPROVED: Z
Craig Kunkle, Jr.--,MaiN,
%14W 1
Barry Present ce Chair
adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next regular meeting will
Johi,Glidden! Chair Pro Tem
Dick Ansa�
Alternate
O
Betty Laur, ecretary for the Meeting
Volonte
11
' Rug 16 02 01:07p Lisa 561 - 684 -6890 p.2
t
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME -FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
GLIDDEN, JOHN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAILING ADDRESS
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A
8 HUNTLY CIRCLE
UNIT OF:
X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
Cm PALM BEACH GARDENS COUNTY PALM BEACH
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED JULY 9, 2002
MY POSMON IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 813
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city or other local level of government on an appointed or elected
board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who
are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are
mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the
disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict will vary greatly depending on
whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to
the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, orotherlocal public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE
WILL BE TAKEN:
You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible
for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency_
Theform should be read publicly at the meeting priorto consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
&Auq 16 02 01:07p Lisa
561 - 684 -6890
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
p.3
You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on JULY 9, 2002:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
X inured to the special gain of our Client, Sterling Corp. by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
PARCEL 4.02/4.04
9-/& - o--
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY,
REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
-1:WAWINIPERSONALUGH &Z14.02confl.wpd Pane ?