HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 101502CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
October 15, 2002
MINUTES
The Special 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.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Local Planning Agency and the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
Present
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden
Joel Charming
Dennis Solomon
Steven Tarr
Alternate Douglas Pennell
Absent
Dick Ansay
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, City Attorney Len Rubin, Senior Planner
Kara Irwin, City Engineer Shawn Donahue, and the Traffic Consultant for the city.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Workshop
Petition WAV 00 -03: Comprehensive Plan Residential Waiver for The Borland Center
A request by Cotleur and Hearing, as agentfor The Borland Center and RAMDevelopment, to waive
the vertical integration of residential uses required by Policy 1.1.1.3 in the Future Land Use Element
in the City's Comprehensive Plan in order to allow for the development of a Non - residential Mined
Use Planned Unit Development on 47.1 acres of land The site is located along the north side of PGA
Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive.
City Attorney Len Rubin advised that the City's position was that the two agenda items could be
considered simultaneously, but concern had been expressed that if the applicant did not need the waiver
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
why should the site plan be considered. Attorney Rubin advised that the Board would make a
recommendation on each, and if no waiver was necessary a recommendation would still be needed for
the site plan, and it would still go to City Council. A recommendation from staff would be given at the
public hearing. The Board would take two separate votes, and the City Council would also consider the
applications concurrently. Attorney Ray Royce advised on behalf of the applicant that the originally
contemplated waivers might not be necessary. Chair Kunkle stated the intent was to move to public
hearing at the next meeting.
Donaldson Hearing presented a recap of the MXD waiver and explained that the request was for a waiver
from vertical integration, and this project could be residential MXD or non - residential MXD. Mr.
Hearing reviewed the waiver request and the requirements the applicant believed they had met. Mr. Tarr
commented to staff that at the last meeting of the Commission last week the Board had made a change
regarding residential and non - residential MXD and in Donald Ross Village the Board was not requiring
them to change to non - residential. Mr. Tarr stated he believed this issue was identical, and asked if this
became a non - residential MXD how could there be residences on a non - residential MXD. Mr. Wu
responded it was staff's position that the applicant had to go through the waiver to become a non-
residential MXD, and staff did not agree with Mr. Tarr's conclusion there could not be a residential use
in a non - residential MXD. Mr. Wu stated staff believed the site plan could be designed appropriately for
residential use. Mr. Wu advised that the Board might decide at site plan level that all these uses could
not harmoniously exist, which was the Board's purview, but staff believed the use could be used if the
site plan were designed appropriately, and having other uses could be considered on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Wu recalled that in the Legacy Place development that mitigating measures were taken so that the
uses could co- exist. Mr. Tarr commented he thought that error was being corrected, and he had read the
LDR's, and in what was listed for non - residential MXD in the percentages of minimum and maximum,
residential was not listed as a category. Mr. Tarr asked if it was the legal opinion of staff that the
applicant needed a non - residential MXD to avoid the vertical integration of residential, and, if so, was
residential allowed. Mr. Wu responded that if there was a non - residential MXD then there was no longer
a requirement to have vertical residential integration and the applicant had satisfied the non - residential
MXD site plan by having office use above retail use. Mr. Tarr stated that did not answer his question.
City Attorney Rubin asked if the question was, could residential be one of the uses in a non - residential
MXD. Mr. Tarr responded that in the LDR's they listed commercial, institutional, etc., and listed
percentages, and residential was not listed —thus the name non - residential. Mr. Tarr commented if one
read the LDR's the purpose of going to non - residential MXD was for areas like Legacy Place which are
primarily commercial areas where one would not have residential, otherwise the name would not be
residential MXD, and he believed this was the issue before the Board moved on. City Attorney Rubin
commented he understood the concerns, and thought the problem was that the Board was ahead of
themselves, that this would be addressed in the staff report when staff made a recommendation, that staff
had not made a recommendation yet, and Mr. Tarr was placing everyone in an untenable position since
staff in the past had taken the position that residential and non- residential could be included, and he
would look at that and address the concerns prior to the public hearing when staff had provided a
recommendation - -which he believed would be the proper time. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that now
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
was the proper time because if they did not go for a non - residential MXD and kept current zoning of
residential MXD there were certain uses the applicant had in their plan that were not allowed, such as
institutional. Mr. Tarr commented he therefore thought it was the entire issue and did not know how the
Board could even discuss site plan, parking, or traffic., and clarified that he was basically referring to the
theater and not the rest of the project. Mr. Tarr stated if it was allowed, he was fine with it. City
Attorney Rubin responded the applicant's position was they could meet the criteria for residential MXD,
which Mr. Tarr might not agree with, and it would be easier to address all the concerns when staff made
a recommendation. Chair Kunkle noted City Council had the final vote, but this Board must vote first.
Mr. Tarr commented the record should be clear on this, and it was a legal issue. Attorney Rubin advised
staff would have a position on this at the public hearing. Mr. Tarr asked if it were a residential MXD
would it be stall's position that the cultural center and/or church was an allowable use. Attorney Rubin
responded that would be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Pennell asked if there was a precedent.
Attorney Rubin responded there was no similar use within the city. Mr. Wu commented there was no
theater use, per se, but the residential MXD had been waived to call it a non - residential MXD to allow a
residential component. Mr. Pennell asked if the vote last week on Donald Ross Village was across the
board or only pertaining to Donald Ross Village. City Attorney Rubin responded that it was across the
board and was a text change situation for where there was a MXD that met the criteria of a residential,
but just did not have vertical integration, and none of the problems with land use. The issue Mr. Tarr
was raising was whether this one met residential MXD or not, so it was a little different. The City
Attorney explained that the LDR text change would allow projects for residential MXD to just get a
waiver for vertical integration. Attorney Ray Royce commented this property was not zoned residential
MXD, but was zoned PDA right now, and the comp plan showed it MXD —not residential MXD, or
non - residential MXD. Attorney Royce explained that the distinction related to certain intensity charts in
the code, and the applicant believed they could meet either one. There were no further comments. Chair
Kunkle announced the site plan would be considered.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop
Petition PUD- 01 -03: Rezoning and Master Plan Approval for The Borland Center
A request by Codeur and Hearing, as agent for The Borland Center and RAM Development, for a
property rezoning from Planned DevelopmentArea (PDA) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MXD/PUD) to allow for the development of 218,500 square feet for a cultural center and church
offices; 85,500 square feetfor retail space; 12,000 squarefeetfor restaurant space; 9,300 square feet
for office space, and 217 apartments on 47.1 acres of land. The site is located along the north side of
PGA Boulevard between Gardens Square Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive.
Donaldson Hearing addressed site plan issues. Mr. Hearing described proposed landscaping and
sidewalk improvements to Garden Lakes Boulevard, described site plan modifications to improve PGA
Boulevard and provide pedestrian activity which consisted of adding a building and moving the grocery
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
store to the rear of Garden Square, and explained that covered arcades or trellises were proposed to
connect buildings. An interactive fountain, which could be turned off for events in the plaza area was
proposed. Fountains, water features, and hardscape areas would increase pedestrian activity. Mr.
Hearing noted that the architecture was in progress and would be presented at a later meeting. Mr.
Hearing reviewed the actual project land use allocations, and noted the FAR was below that allowed by
the forbearance agreement. Land use information for the sample project was reviewed by Mr. Hearing.
Kahart Pinder, Traffic Consultant, presented a sample project with Borland Center traffic volumes, and
addressed driveway volumes, east -west traffic connectivity, an exit plan for major events, and the
proposed valet parking. Mr. Pinder reviewed the projects approved for concurrency after Borland Center
and advised that only one, Old Palm, impacted traffic on PGA Boulevard. Mr. Pinder discussed the
advantages of extending Shady Lakes Drive to 117'. Mr. Pinder indicated he would go through the
applicant's responses to Vito DeFrancesco's questions from the last meeting. Mr. DeFrancesco, who
was present in the audience, requested the questions not be addressed. Chair Kunkle commented that
the Board all had the written questions and responses, and could read them at their leisure. Mr. Pinder
summarized that some of the Board's questions had been answered, such as the east -west connectivity
and the valet parking. A question regarding the Sunday analysis had been provided in the traffic
operation study handout at the last meeting. Regarding updating the traffic management report to
correspond with the concurrency report, Mr. Pinder explained that these two reports covered different
time frames -- concurrency addressed average annual conditions and the peak hour traffic of the adjacent
street, while the traffic management report was prepared to address the worst case scenario at whatever
time. Therefore, traffic volumes from one report to the other could not be compared. Mr. Pinder
explained how the ITE manual had been used in the 24 -hour distributions and in categorizing this project
as retail. Mr. Pinder noted that Kyoto Drive had to be built because concurrency for several projects was
contingent upon that roadway. Regarding a traffic signal at PGA Boulevard and Shady Lakes Drive, Mr.
Pinder explained that DOT would not allow a light to be installed until warrants were met; however, a
peak hour analysis showed it would be warranted. Regarding eastbound traffic and stacking at Shady
Lakes Drive — Mr. Pinder indicated there was adequate stacking there during peak hours.
Chair Kunkle requested that at the next meeting new information be provided more in advance than at
6:30 p.m. the night of the meeting, since the Board had not been able to review the 40 new pages
received tonight. Chair Kunkle commented he was trying to understand the reality that this project
would bring to the city, and if it would work for the city, and commented that regarding the annualized
attendance at the main theater, he believed the theater would be more successful than that, and none of
the events were shown as sold out, which he expected would happen. 75% of events were shown at a
seating capacity of only 60 %. Chair Kunkle noted that more successful events would mean more cars.
Chair Kunkle commented that shown on the Sunday peak analysis there were 2,700 cars going in and out
in one hour, which was church traffic, and that was double the event plan. The most simple way to fix it
would be to make the second church service one hour later. Mr. Kunkle requested an answer at the next
meeting. Chair Kunkle indicated he had had trouble going back and forth between some of the charts,
and pointed out apparent discrepancies. Mr. Pinder explained that with retail uses there was pass by
capture traffic, which was traffic already on the road that would be using the retail component of this
4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
project, so for any project with a retail component the driveway volumes would always be higher than on
the road in front of it. Mr. Kunkle noted there still seemed to be a discrepancy, which Mr. Pinder
explained; however, the city's Traffic Consultant agreed the figure seemed to be underestimated.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Pinder explained further. Mr. Kunkle noted it appeared there would be 6,200
cars in and out on a normal Saturday —a non -event Saturday. Mr. Pinder responded the weekend had
been addressed based on a worst case scenario. Chair Kunkle noted event figures had been annualized,
spread over 365 days, when in reality it would be, 160 days. Staff verified that the number of parking
spaces would be addressed in the staff report. Chair Kunkle noted cars in each space would have to be
turned over six times on a Saturday, and discussed double counting. Chair Kunkle commented the graph
of the comparable project seemed to indicatedifferences of hundreds of cars looking at different sections
of the book. Mr. Pinder noted this was only two links which were only two pieces of the puzzle. Chair
Kunkle indicated he would call Mr. Hearing if he had questions on the new material submitted tonight.
Mr. Tarr commented it was mentioned based on his last comment that the comp plan said this was MXD
and not necessarily residential MXD, and he wanted the record to show that the comp plan says it is
MXD but requires one of the components to be residential in the underlying use, and allows the City
Council to waive that component and thus create a non - residential MXD. Mr. Tarr stated when you get a
PDA with an underlying MXD it was assumed there is a residential component and thus it is assumed it
is a residential MXD, which was why he referred to it as a residential MXD. Mr. Tarr's question to the
applicant was, what is the applicant's purpose in asking for a waiver. Attorney Raymond Royce
responded that the applicant was going to request the waiver that the city said they needed, and would
not ask for any waivers that the city determined were not necessary. Attorney Rubin had indicated he
would provide that interpretation. Attorney Royce indicated that he believed it was premature to discuss
the waiver. Mr. Tarr stated he liked the project overall, but was convinced this was not the proper site
for a theater. Mr. Tarr commented the issue that must be determined was compatibility. There would be
traffic no matter what was on the site. Mr. Tan asked what the compatibility was of having an 87' high
theater in this location, and stated he thought it was not compatible. Mr. Tan noted that the building had
been compared to the Admiralty Building, Doubletree Hotel, and the Radisson rather than to adjacent
land uses. Mr. Tarr commented he was concerned about parking which he believed was not enough, and
the Garden Square alley, for which landscaping did not help with exiting. Mr. Tan indicated at the
public hearing he would like answers to the following questions: Is this project as laid out consistent
with land use in comp plan, consistent with LDR's, compatible with the area, and consistent with the
PGA Overlay District and the design of PGA Boulevard. Attorney Rubin commented most of those
issues were planning rather than legal, and would be addressed by staff. Attorney Rubin also advised
that residential was a permitted use within institutional use. Mr. Tan commented the applicant had
stretched the written word by using the road right -of -way as boundaries in order to calculate 60%
residential, and creating a lake to meet required criteria. Mr. Tarr commented he believed there were
five pieces of land near the mall that would hold this cultural center. Mr. Tan asked if there would be a
4 -way intersection next to Cafe Chardonnay, to which Mr. Hearing responded that intersection would not
be 4 -way, and explained the circulation at that corner. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that it would
make more sense to place the 87' building on the eastern side of the project. Mr. Tan asked if the
applicant had met with neighbors since the last workshop to resolve problems, and commented that what
5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
was best for the neighbors should weigh heavily in any decision by the Board. Casey Cummings
indicated that during the past 14 -16 months the applicant had met many times with either the Coalition,
the PGA National Community Action Network, BallenIsles Government Affairs Committee, had
attended workshops and meetings, and since the last meeting they had received several letters and
questions, and he had engaged consultants to answer the questions raised. Mr. Cummings indicated he
had done everything asked except shrink the number of seats in the hall or move the project. Mr.
Cummings noted the 87' building had significant setbacks and was 450 feet from the nearest neighbor.
Mr. Pennell commented he liked the project, but everyone was concerned about the residents around it
and the project's impact on the city. Mr. Pennell noted there should be more parking and asked if a
deceleration lane at Shady Lakes Drive would be needed with the traffic light. Mr. Pinder indicated
projections did not show a need for a deceleration lane. Mr. Pennell commented he liked the new layout.
Mr. Present commented he would like consultants to work with staff to get to conclusions on this
project. Mr. Present commented he was looking for widened lanes to help relieve traffic on Garden
Lakes Drive rather than just landscaping. Mr. Present favored tying Shady Lakes Drive into 117', for
the better good of the whole City, and it was not on the plan, which he had previously requested. Mr.
Hearing commented it could be done if recommended by this Commission. Mr. Present stated he wanted
to see it on the plan and if it was not he would make a recommendation that it be included, and it would
relieve traffic and was supported by the thoroughfare plan. Attorney Royce commented if the Planning
& Zoning Commission wanted it the applicant would do it they would, but it was not their property.
Mr. Hearing addressed Garden Lakes Drive, which volumes did not support widening, but explained
that it could be made more aesthetically pleasing so it would be less like a dark alley. Mr. Hearing
commented that for the next meeting the applicant would do a cross section of that road and Mr. Pinder
would address specific traffic links there. Mr. Solomon recommended that the contract owner of the
shopping center be asked to do something on the east side of that road. Mr. Solomon indicated he liked
the project and believed it to be reasonable use of the land. Mr. Solomon stated the applicant had not
made many changes to the site plan, although many suggestions had been made, and the applicant could
have put residential units along Shady Lakes Drive. Mr. Hearing commented they had considered that
but needed to stand firm on the location of the residential units. Parking was discussed. Mr. Hearing
indicated he believed the shared parking concept would work and he would make a detailed presentation
at the public hearing. Mr. Pinder commented the traffic analysis had been done according to ULI
procedures as allowed by code. Staff had then requested the traffic analysis be according to city code,
and the applicant had not yet completed that analysis for the city. The applicant indicated they could
provide additional parking on site if necessary by adding another parking deck. Mr. Channing
commented the City's analysis of what the applicant presented was needed. Mr. Channing asked the
city's traffic consultant if the traffic worked and if traffic would look like the Kravis Center when an
event let out. Mr. Channing indicated he had an issue with compatibility. The city's traffic consultant
indicated she would need to look at Kravis Center but being located between I -95 and the Turnpike
would split the traffic and that would help. Mr. Channing commented a Shady Lakes Drive extension
could help traffic dispersal. Mr. Channing commented the depth of presentation was not sufficient to
proceed to public hearing; and commented he had questions regarding this being a religious institution
and whether if they wanted conditions changed later if that would be under the threat of the freedom of
I
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
religion act. Mr. Channing commented it was only the theater that was a problem —the questions of
compatibility, size, character, and scale - -yet he would like to have it in the city, but he believed
consensus with the neighbors would never be reached. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that more
in -depth presentations were needed for architecture, site planning, and parking before proceeding to
public hearing. Mr. Channing asked to see perspectives and roof plans, and commented that the
presentations so far had not complied with Mr. Glidden's checklist. Mr. Glidden commented in general
he felt the project was a good one with reasonably compatible use. Focus on the model project or what
could be approved without any waivers could have traffic as bad or worse than this project, and he was
very concerned that the Board understand the details of the traffic plan. Mr. Glidden requested a much
more definitive decision from the city's traffic consultant whether this worked. The city's traffic
consultant indicated she had worked on this project since inception. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that
the traffic signal would not have enough warrants to be installed. Mr. Pinder indicated he had only
looked at peak hour to see if it met warrants. For a previous project in this area, The Commons, signal
warrants had been met, and with this project both Shady Lakes Drive and Garden Lakes Drive would
meet warrants. Mr. Glidden described how he envisioned traffic after an event, and advised that Shady
Lakes Drive needed to be extended to relieve traffic. Mr. Pinder advised that two police officers would
be stationed at Shady Lakes Drive to control traffic until the warrants were met for that intersection, and
cones would be used out of the parking garage to control which lanes could be used. Mr. Glidden
wanted it clearly stated that a traffic signal at Shady Lakes Drive would be warranted within a short time
after the project was completed. Mr. Pinder indicated that was true. Mr. Glidden commented that some
time ago the Board had discussed Burger King for several meetings and had been so concerned over
whether they wanted it in the city that no one ever looked at the building, and he did not want that to
happen here. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that at the fountain he preferred the via and then a split
access. Mr. Hearing indicated there would be curbs at the pedestrian plaza and pavers to indicate
surface changes to control traffic. Mr. Glidden preferred not to have any vehicular traffic in that area.
Mr. Glidden commented the architecture of the retail needed work, and the Board needed hard copies of
a colored site plan, elevations, etc. Mr. Glidden commented overflow parking would be a disaster on
this site. Mr. Glidden recommended another parking deck as an advantage to the project with additional
landscaping so it would be available for additional future parking if needed. Mr. Glidden commented
there had been an exhibit that showed linear footage of the project and asked if the extra footage shown
besides the rectangle was needed to meet waiver criteria, to which Mr. Hearing responded with the
rectangle the applicant was close to 60% but with it was at 75 %. Mr. Hearing indicated Mr. Cummings
had requested he announce that the next presentation would be very impressive.
Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that a public hearing should be split between two nights. Attorney
Royce indicated the applicant wanted to get to the public hearing in order to get the staff report and then
all the issues could be addressed. A poll of the Board indicated the majority preferred another workshop
before going to the public hearing, and a date of two weeks from this meeting was suggested, which Mr.
Wu indicated staff would verify whether the chambers were available. Mr. Kunkle suggested the future
meetings on this project be every other Tuesday night on alternate dates from the regular meetings, and
noted that information should be given to the Board far enough ahead of the meetings so the Board
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
would have sufficient time to study the materials. Mr. Wu commented that it was important for the
applicant to make sure the city got everything they needed. Mr. Tarr asked when the Board could find
out what could be built on this property; the response was that would not be known until the public
hearing.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 15, 2002
ADJOURNMENT
There being no fur
be held October 2:
APPROVED:
E'7
regular meeting will