HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102202CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 22, 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
Growth Management Director Charles Wu reported the City Council had approved the
amendments to the LDR's for median landscaping within the City at their meeting on 10/17/02.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Meeting minutes of September 19, 2002: Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve the minutes of the
September 19, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Land
Development Regulations Commission:
P re. PP. nt
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden
Joel Charming
Dick Ansay
Dennis Solomon
Steven Tarr
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate Douglas Pennell
AhcPnt
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planner Edward Tombari, Planner
Natalie Wong, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney Len Rubin.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing
Petition PUD- 02 -05: Benjamin High School PUD Amendment
Public Hearing - Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for The Benjamin Private School,
Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Benjamin School Planned Unit Development (PUD), which
was approved by City Council by Ordinance 30, 2000. The proposed amendments consist of off -site
mitigation of the wetlandpreserve area, relocation and redesign of the athletic fields, relocation of the
field house and associated parking and minor modification to the approved architectural elevations.
The 50 -acre Benjamin School PUD is located approximately one -half mile south of Donald Ross
Road, on the west side of Central Boulevard.
Senior Planner Edward Tombari presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle questioned whether the
preserve had to be reviewed further by any jurisdictional agencies, to which Mr. Tombari responded he
believed South Florida Water Management District only. Mr. Tarr commented that justification for the
requested waivers was not in the staff report, and as a general comment he would like to see justification
as to why staff was okay with the waivers. Mr. Present expressed concern there might be insufficient
parking at events with a 500 -seat football field and gym. Mr. Tombari indicated he would research the
original application to see how that was addressed.
Hank Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, introduced Mike Rossin, architect for the project, who
explained that the question of parking was raised two years ago. The school had agreed not to schedule
two events at the same time, and there should be adequate parking for one event. A letter to that effect
had been sent to the city at that time, which should be in the file, and the project did have more parking
than required. Mr. Skokowski explained there had been mitigation with SFWMD —that the applicant
had given $1/2 million to SFWMD, and the 3 acres net buildable area gained would go to expand the
school recreation area.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Ansay asked if any bonding was required for the waivers, to which Mr. Skokowski responded yes, at
the time permits were issued. Mr. Glidden asked if the county located the mitigation area. Mr.
Skokowski explained that SFWMD picked the location in a wetland which was taken out of a bank and
became protected in perpetuity, and that the 8 to 1 ratio was a standard used by SFWMD. Mr. Present
asked what the standard was for mitigation, to which Jim Hutchens, representative for the applicant,
explained that the standard mitigation ratio which was followed by SFWMD was 4:1 for replacement
and then the value of the habitat was factored in.
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 229 2002
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -02 -05
with the requested waivers and the following conditions of approval:
1. All previous conditions associated with the subject site shall remain in force and in full
effect.
2. Prior to scheduling the City Council review, the applicant shall revise the plans to
provide for a cross section and revised site plan indicating the proposed transitional
areas.
3. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the applicant shall revise the site plan to
remove the encroachment of the retention pond easement into the preserve.
4. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the applicant shall revise the site plan to
relocate the proposed catch basin outside of the preserve area.
5. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the applicant shall revise the site plan to
address all minor engineering concerns raised in Sean Donohue's memorandum dated
October 10, 2002.
6. The build -out date for this project is December 31, 2004. No building permits shall be
issued after this date without an approved time extension by the City Council, pursuant
with Section 78 -61 of the Land Development Regulations.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Glidden. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon
requested including reference to the mitigation. Condition 1 was changed as follows
and the change was accepted by the maker of the motion, Mr. Present, and by Mr.
Glidden, who seconded:
1. All previous conditions associated with the subject site shall remain in force and in full
effect except to the extent modified by the revised site plan addition to the staff report.
Condition (6) regarding buildout date was deleted at the request of Mr. Tombari, who
explained the buildout condition was already covered through the original application
and that condition one actually covered it. Mr. Present and Mr. Glidden agreed with
deletion of this condition.
The vote on the motion carried unanimously 7 -0.
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION
Workshop
Petition LDr- 02 -07: Special Events Amendment
Workshop: A City- initiated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 78 "Land Development ", Section 187, Special Events, and Section 751, Definitions. The
objective of the amendment is to update and provide guidance on permit review procedures,
application requirements, and general standards for special events that occur within the City of
Palm Beach Gardens.
Planner Angela Wong presented the staff report and explained that the new procedure would mean
DRC members would not have to review each request..
Mr. Tarr commented the wording in the definition" a special event is one that substantially inhibits"
seemed vague and asked who made that determination if, for instance, his block decided to have a
block party. Ms. Wong responded that a block party was mentioned in the definition but in general
the Special Events planner with the DRC committee would determine what substantially inhibited
the regular flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Mr. Tarr asked if Borland Center or Christ
Fellowship would have to comply with five events per year. Ms. Wong explained that every site
plan was designed for a certain number of vehicles and if an event caused that number to be
increased over the allowable number then that would be a special event, and the entity would be
required to recognize they needed a special event permit. The City Attorney advised that if Borland
was approved as a theater their events would be a contemplated activity and not a special event. Mr.
Tarr requested the definition be tightened, who determines what substantially inhibits and what is a
special event versus what is approved for a site plan. Mr. Tarr commented that under residential, it
stated special events would be approved as long as they were on public property or private property
and asked what other kinds of property there were. Mr. Tarr questioned the statement there could be
only three special events per year, to which Ms. Wong responded that was per applicant. Mr. Tarr
requested that be added, and asked if the same person could have events under different names.
"No event shall occur consecutively" was explained by Ms. Wong to be events on consecutive days;
Mr. Tarr indicated that needed to be clarified. Mr. Ansay asked if there was a bond requirement or a
formula to determine the amount of the bond. Ms. Wong responded that currently a formula was
calculated by the Special Event Planner, and the insurance requirement would be for any event. Mr.
Present asked if the City had experienced problems with special events. Ms. Wong responded there
had been problems and citizen groups had expressed a need for more special event projects to be
allowed. Special Events Coordinator Ann Shelly, Public Information Specialist for the City,
reported specific instances that had raised problems — Nutritionmart had wanted to have a petting
zoo more than three times per year, the pumpkin patch at Trinity Methodist Church was not within
code —and noted there would still be some problems since the new process would take at least a
month and now events were free and people took advantage doing events at the last minute. Mr.
H
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
Present recommended Ms. Shelly do an over view of the proposed amendment to see if anything
could be added to make her life easier or if anything had been missed. Ms. Shelly responded she had
been working with Ms.. Wong. Ms. Wong commented people did not recognize the need for a
permit and the community would make it a point to get information out in any way possible and
circulate the applications to each DRC member so they would not have to wait for a DRC meeting
since they only met twice a month.. Mr. Present recommended sending a copy of the amendment to
everyone who had had events during the past two years.
Ms. Wong advised that the Board's comments would be included in the next draft. Mr. Solomon
recommended the definition be changed to place Special Event in quotes; deleting "temporary" from
temporary meeting; in the 3`d line add "public or private area "; add "could" so it would read "where
special event could substantially prohibit the usual flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic "; "Special
event shall include" add: ", but not be limited to ". Mr. Solomon commented that Mr. Tarr was right
and where it said "and other special events not specifically permitted by ordinance" at that point
exceptions should be made for every event that is to be excepted. On the next page, paragraph B,
"no person, firm, corporation ", include "group ". In the 3`d line: "unless special event permit has
first been obtained ", something was needed to do with timing of permit; and in the last part of that
sentence: "or participate in any permitted activity under this article or over objection of the permit
holder" seemed to run into some constitutional free speech expression and was vague and needed
focus. Next paragraph 3' line down: "unless waived by Growth Management Director" - criteria
was needed for that such as, "For best interest of public or reasonably required for either safety or
welfare ", and was a legal issue. The chart deadline needed explanation, such as "minimum advance
time for filing prior to a special event ". Under C1 — authority: "Evidence that property owner
authorizes the event," consider whether that could be obtained if the property was owned by the
county or State. Subparagraph 2: include equipment, fences. Next page paragraph 4, "on site signs"
asked for a general plan and there should be a detailed plan. #5 "on site signs" include copy and
graphics. #8 insurance: Should be $3 million with the City named as insured and the applicant to
provide a certificate of insurance with requirements that it cannot be cancelled or not re- issued
without 30 days written notice to the City. #9: bond, add: "or similar financial pledge acceptable to
the City ". #10 indemnification, call it "indemnification agreement "; four lines down: change the
language to cover liability that could happen before or after an event; in the last line in #10: add
"settlement ". E2 on the same page: "Management Director may" (there is no standard or criteria).
"Any event more than 10 days in length ", add "must be submitted to City Council for its approval ".
2"d paragraph #2, "Growth Management Director may ", add, "for good cause ". Next page paragraph
F — "issuance of special event permit shall be denied under the following conditions" — in #1 add
language regarding "notice and opportunity to cure ". Where four reasons were listed why an event
would be denied, add #5: "Such other reasons as the City may have to protect health, safety, and
welfare of the general public. Mr. Solomon also suggested adding something about revocation of the
permit once issued before the event. Mr. Pennell questioned whether adding review by DRC would
be a burden, to which Ms. Wong responded it would not. Mr. Pennell asked for if reasons should be
listed to deny an event permit to an unwelcome group such as Klu Klux Klan. Ms. Wong responded
5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
that any group could hold a special event if they complied with all the requirements and the DRC
would determine that, and described the makeup of DRC. Chair Kunkle confirmed with Ms. Wong
that any paperwork, including the indemnification agreement, would be designed by the City. Mr.
Tarr asked what provisions were made if someone did not apply, to which Mr. Wu responded it
would become a code enforcement matter, and such language might need to be added. Mr. Tarr
commented this might cause too much extra work for the City for something that might not be too
big a problem. Mr. Ansay recommended setting up a complete application packet which would be
given for the fee. Mr. Ansay commented that obtaining insurance could be very difficult at this time
and that would only get more difficult, so there must be good language as to the type of liability
insurance and how the company must be rated.
OLD BUSINESS
PUD Checklist: Mr. Glidden indicated he had marked many things that had not been changed and
asked that he be able to review this again. Consensus of the Board was for Mr. Glidden to meet with
staff to make changes and bring back to the Board.
Chair Kunkle indicated he had discussed 27.05 and 27.06 landscaping with Catalfumo and City
Forester Mark Hendrickson, and adjustments had been made. The palette had been changed to
match existing landscaping on PGA Boulevard.. The height of canopy trees had been increased to
16'; additional container -grown 6' -10' tall pine trees had been added; additional understory
plantings had been added; some of the understory species were changed to native species; and the
same changes would be made to the east end buffer area as the west end, and the east end buffer
would be planted simultaneously with the west end. Mr. Hendrickson was going to meet with La -Z-
Boy and the bank owners to ask for similar treatments there. Chair Kunkle indicated pavers at the
intersection had been agreed to by Catalfumo.
Mr. Glidden commented there had been several meetings on the Borland Center and staff's position
on the waivers was not to be provided until the public hearing. Mr. Glidden indicated he was
struggling to understand why staff was withholding their position because it felt like the Board was
operating in a vacuum, and asked if there could be one more meeting and then a reading from staff.
Mr. Wu explained that regardless of the staff recommendation on the waivers, the Board still needed
to review the site plan because it would go to City Council, and staff could provide more information
for future workshops. Mr. Wu cautioned it would be wise to go through this project very carefully.
Mr. Glidden clarified that Mr. Wu was saying if the staff recommendation was that the waiver for
use on the Borland Center did not meet the criteria, it was the responsibility of the Board to make
their own judgment on that. Mr. Glidden asked if the logic was that if the criteria were not met the
Board was reviewing all the details because the City Council ultimately had to judge it, and the City
Council might say the waiver was valid. Mr. Wu responded, yes. Mr. Glidden suggested having
three more workshops on the architecture would not be necessary if the applicant submitted good
information and it was incumbent upon the applicant to do so. Mr. Wu reminded the Board there
i!
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
had been seven workshops on Legacy Place and the majority had been about architecture, and this
was just as complex. Mr. Wu commented that the Board should get as much information as possible
and if they were not happy with what the applicant provided they should tell the applicant.
Mr. Wu indicated that the revised design guidelines would be provided at the next meeting. Mr.
Glidden requested everyone review the guidelines very carefully.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Wu announced Volunteer Recognition Night would be held at City Hall next Wednesday
evening.
Mr. Ansay requested the minutes of the last Borland Center workshop be available for the Monday,
October 28 workshop. Mr. Tarr noted the applicant provided information two minutes before the
meeting and the Board had no time to review it and everyone on the Board had requested many
things that had not been done. Chair Kunkle confirmed the Board had made a formal request to get
information ahead of time and if the information was not provided by Friday noon the workshop
would be delayed. Mr. Charming commented the applicant made a big thing about how long they
had been in the process, yet did not make any significant changes to meet the Board's suggestions.
Mr. Glidden commented if the applicant only submitted 2- dimensional black and white architectural
elevations without substantial presentation materials and no roof plans, etc., he did not want the
Board to meet, and commented that the applicant should provide 5 -6 color perspectives. Mr. Wu
indicated he did not feel comfortable making that decision. Mr. Charming indicated the matter had
been bothering him and he had made a comment that he did not like the architecture of the
commercial project, that he wanted quality architecture, and he did like the architecture for the
Borland Center, but no changes had been made for the commercial, and the applicant was not
responding to the PGA Overlay and was wasting the Board's time by not responding to the Board's
comments. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ansay commented the applicant was looking to spin this portion
off as quickly as possible in order to get funds. Mr. Tarr commented there were other issues besides
the architecture that were not cleared up, that projected events were far underestimated, no City
perspective had been received on traffic, and he did not think the Board had a grasp on the waiver at
all, and on what was allowed. Mr. Tarr indicated he did not see how this Board could pass this on to
City Council unless each issue was addressed, and the applicant wanted to bypass this Board and
move on to City Council. Chair Kunkle commented there was a request to take the waiver out of
this Board's purview and pass it to City Council, and this Board did not agree to that, and Mr. Tarr
was right that this Board must do as much as possible on the whole thing before moving it forward.
Mr. Tarr suggested the Board could withhold a vote and not move it to City Council, and require
more workshops. City Attorney Rubin advised there would come a time when the Board must make
a decision. Mr. Glidden commented it would not be appropriate for the Board to hold the applicant
up. Mr. Present commented that the purpose for workshops was for the Board to give comments and
opinions, and this applicant took the comments and sent a letter back defending what they had and
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
not making changes; and the applicant must come to workshops in the spirit of a workshop. Mr.
Solomon noted the Board had stated these things to the applicant at the last meeting. The City
Attorney advised to say it again. Mr. Solomon commented when asked about the site plan the
applicant had not shown an alternative but only said they had considered it. Mr. Pennell commented
there was a nagging question whether the project would work and the Board only had the applicant's
side that it would work. Discussion ensued regarding the freedom of religion act. The City Attorney
advised the safest course would be to treat the theater as any other auditorium that was leased out,
and not be more onerous on it because it was a church. Mr. Charming asked if it was a church, and
stated that was one of the questions —what it really was. Attorney Rubin advised it was a church and
an auditorium. Mr. Glidden commented staff was holding back because they did not want to
prejudice the Board but the Board needed to tackle the issues as best they could and get on with it.
Mr. Charming commented staff had had no more information than the Board. Mr. Glidden indicated
he was referring to interpretation of the waiver. Chair Kunkle volunteered to help Mr. Wu make the
decision on whether sufficient materials were submitted by the applicant to hold the workshop
scheduled for the upcoming Monday.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
be held November 12, 2002.
APPROVED:
Kunkle, Jr.,
was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will
Betty Laur, ecretary for the Meeting
we