Loading...
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