Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 112602CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 26, 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 that since the last meeting, City Council had approved Evergrene Parcel 8, and two comprehensive plan amendments —one to amend the urban growth boundary and another to update LOS tables for school concurrency. The City Council had approved Gables parcel A and parcel B by 3 -2 vote with concerns regarding monitoring to justify a traffic light and adding a condition that the applicant was to install the light when warranted; also, the passive recreation area was deleted. Councilmember Russo and Vice Mayor Sabatello had been opposed. The City Council had approved the Old Palm Golf Club Parcel D. Changing 27.05 and 27.06 from one building to two with slightly revised architecture and upgraded landscaping was unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of November 12, 2002: Mr. Channing made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. DISCLOSURE OF EX -PARTE COMMUNICATION Mr. Channing reported he had met with Urban Design Studio regarding Donald Ross Village. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the, Planning and Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency, and Land Development Regulations Commission: PrPCPnt Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Vice Chairman Barry Present Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden Absent Dennis Solomon Alternate Ernest Volonte Alternate Douglas Pennell Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 Joel Charming Dick Ansay Steven Tarr Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Kara Irwin, Planners Jackie Holloman and Natalie Wong, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney Len Rubin. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P&Z) Petition PUD -01 -04 Donald Ross Village Mixed -Use PUD Rezoning A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L.C., to allow for the development of a mixed -use Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 102,000 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 foot financial institution with drive - through, 13,000 square feet of restaurant space, a 93 -room hotel and 156 multi family residential dwelling units located on 45.37 acres on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard. The PUD approval would include a re- zoning from the existing zoning designation of Planned Development Area to Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development.. Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the staff report and answered questions from the Commission. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Hank Skokowski made a brief presentation and indicated that the applicant agreed with all conditions of approval. Mr. Skokowski stressed the importance of the gas station /convenience store to the site and advised there was a clear need since the Amoco service station /convenience store across the street had double the normal gas and convenience store sales. Chair Kunkle agreed the orientation of the gas station was correct. Mr. Tarr requested deletion of condition 29, commented that nowhere else in the City were there signs basically saying warning: muggers ahead, or walk with a partner. Mr. Tarr commented he hated to see that in the City and requested that either be deleted or find out why this was a high crime corridor and eliminate that problem. Mr. Tarr commented that the landscape plan was really loaded with palms and not many canopy trees for shade. Mr. Tarr questioned the list of permitted uses referred to on page 17 of the staff report, to which the response was that came from the LDR's and Mr. Benothman indicated Mr. Tarr would be given the current LDR's. Mr. Tarr requested 1 -2 shade trees in the sitting areas. Mr. Ansay indicated he was uncomfortable with the one -way road into the service station /convenience store off Donald Ross because people would try to egress. Mr. Present agreed with Mr. Ansay and stated he also had a problem with a sign that said to walk with someone. City Forester Hendrickson agreed that the entry cut into the preserve area. Mr. Present recommended the meandering walk be closer to the road to correct the safety issue, recalled that he had seen a sign in Montreal which said to watch for pickpockets, Pa Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 and commented that putting up such a sign could cause problems. City Forester Mark Hendrickson commented the police had concerns about the meandering sidewalk through preserves, although there had been no incidents to date, and advised this was a SEPTED recommendation. Mr. Channing commented the ideal SEPTED project was a prison and it was not appropriate for them to review this. The City Attorney advised that SEPTED was done because City Council wanted them to review all developments. Mr. Channing did not agree with SEPTED, and stated an in -only entrance should not be necessary. MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to approve PUD -01 -14 with deletion of the in -only entrance on Donald Ross Road and with deletion of condition 29 and condition 43 and he would like to see more deciduous trees at the main parking commercial area but did not want to bog the project down. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr commented he would like to add another lane to have one in and one out for convenience of the residence, agreed with shade trees, and recommended Mr. Kunkle designate the shade tree locations. Mr. Present requested to add to the motion realignment of the walkway closer to Donald Ross Road to provide visibility. Mr. Kunkle agreed with others to delete the gas station entrance. Mr. Channing commented that perhaps he had been hasty in deleting the gas station entrance and would agree to withdraw that condition. Mr. Kunkle stated he agreed with the original motion. Mr. Skokowski commented the demand for the service station was there and by removing that entrance the traffic would come in the main entrance, and the applicant had tried to minimize it because it was through a preserve. Mr. Tarr commented there was no median cut so anyone coming eastbound off I -95 would have to come to the main entrance, and expressed his opinion there should be a way in and a way out, but at minimum a way in. Growth Management Director Charles Wu commented that staff preferred the least amount of curb cuts, but still preferred a curb cut in to be there for environmental reasons. It was clarified that Mr. Channing did not take out of his motion deletion of the in -only access. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition ZON- 02 -01: First Union /Wachovia Bank Building Rezoning A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for Narragansett Realty II, Inc, for a rezoning of the First Union /Wachovia Bank building (aka Admiralty I building) from General Commercial (CG -1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay with an underlying zoning district of General Commercial. The 2.51 acre site is located at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Military Trail. Mr. Glidden rejoined the Board. Planner Natalie Wong presented the project and confirmed that the sole purpose was for the sign. Ms. Wong explained that by rezoning to a PUD when future land uses wanted to come in the City would be able to work with developers, and PUD was encouraged by the code and was consistent with the PGA k, Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 Overlay. Mr. Wu advised with status quo it would not be necessary to change to a PUD; however, a PUD allowed sign waivers and staff was comfortable with this request because it was compatible with other signs in the area. Mr. Tarr commented his office was in this building and a sign at the top of the building would make it a landmark so he could tell people where he was, since the present sign was not visible. MOTION: Mr. Tarr made a motion to approve Petition ZON -02 -01 as per the staff recommendation and with one condition that the applicant maintain the road shoulders parallel to the site along Military Trail and PGA Boulevard. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Glidden commented that code did not guarantee an aesthetically pleasing sign. Mr. Wu advised the sign would be given to the Commission as an FYI. Motion carried 4 -2 with Mr. Channing opposed because he believed the sign code should be followed, and Mr. Glidden opposed not because he was against the sign, which he felt was okay with the specified size, location, color, etc., but because his recollection had been that the code had been intentionally modified by this Commission when the LDR's were changed to allow for a sign higher than four stories, but the reference to four stories had been removed from that section of the sign matrix in the code. Chair Kunkle requested that staff do research on this issue prior to bringing a graphic of the sign to the Commission. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LPA) Petition LU- 02 -01: Small -Scale Land -Use Amendment for Parcel 4.01 A request by Donaldson Hearing of Cotleur- Hearing, on behalf of Centex Homes, for a small -scale land -use map amendment to change the current land -use designation of an 8.18 -acre parcel from Commercial (C) to Mixed -Use (MXD). The subject parcel, known as Parcel 4.01, is located at the southwest corner of Central Boulevard and Donald Ross Road. And Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition PUD- 02 -04: Legends at the Gardens Mixed Use PUD Rezoning for Parcels 4.01 / 4.10 A request by Cotleur- Hearing, as agent for Centex Homes, for a property rezoning from Planned Development Area (PDA) to Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MXC /PUD) to allow for the development of 19,375 square feet for professional office use, 19,375 square feet of retail space, and 186 dwelling units on 21.72 acres of land. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Central Boulevard and Donald Ross Road. Senior Planner Kara Irwin provided review of both petitions concurrently. Mr. Tarr noted apparent inconsistencies in the staff report for the small -scale land use map amendment which Ms. Irwin explained that in these land use amendments the original submittal has the maximum allowable use under the code; however, the forbearance agreement numbers were the reality and she had used both to Cl Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 show the differences. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that only the proper numbers should be used in order to avoid confusion. Chair Kunkle stated he hoped using off -site mitigation was not becoming a trend. Mr. Present commented he would prefer not to ever again see in a staff recommendation that it was based on a precedent and he wanted every case taken on its own merits and he would not vote for anything if he was afraid it would set a precedent for something else in the future. Mr. Present commented that the Commission was going to do what was right for the community. Donaldson Hearing introduced the project team for Legends at the Gardens and reviewed the project. Mr. Tarr expressed concern regarding the safety of having high voltage wires along the side, which Mr. Hearing explained they were up high and the corridor was 200' wide, so the wires were 75' from any structure. Mr. Hearing reported that all studies to date across the world had been non - conclusive as to any danger. The City Attorney verified that was correct, and noted this had been addressed with FPL when they applied for their substation on PGA Boulevard. Mr. Tarr's second concern was whether there would be a deceleration lane into the office building entrance on Donald Ross, to which the response was, yes. Mr. Tarr asked if the entries for the residential and office would be shared and the response was a second entrance had been added. Mr. Tarr indicated he was in favor of the project since it provided more affordable housing than other recent projects. Mr. Ansay noted that adding designs to the garage doors had helped. The two sign faces on entrance signage was questioned. Mr. Hearing indicated they were actually asking for less signage than the code allowed. The connection from residential to the office site was discussed. Mr. Present indicated he did not see interconnectivity but saw the office building parcel as an add on. Mr. Present commented the plan made sense to the developer and the City was not really benefiting. Mr. Present indicated he had a problem with the office parcel entrance even with a decel lane and a problem with a shared entrance off Central Boulevard, and with the price range of units he did not see why the community should be gated. Mr. Present indicated there were a lot of issues and he did not think it worked. Mr. Hearing responded the traffic stacking and entrances had been reviewed with the City Engineer who indicated it would work, and requested a favorable recommendation to City Council. Mr. Present indicated he did not think this 2 -story office building would work and he thought it would be spun off by this developer, and he expected it to come back as a totally different project. Planner Irwin confirmed if it came back that would be a PUD amendment, which would open the whole project up again for scrutiny and conditions of approval. Mr. Channing reported ex -parte on this project since the architect had come to his office. Mr. Channing indicated the garage elevation had been greatly improved. The number of trips was confirmed by Mr. Hearing. Mr. Channing indicated he believed an office building would be feasible, he felt access from both streets was a plus, and understood the off -site mitigation since there was not much preserve area. Mr. Channing asked the price of the units, to which Mike Nissenbaum of Centex Homes responded that the price would probably range from $140,000 to $150,000. Mr. Glidden indicated he was pleased with the residential product but requested the roof plans be re -drawn before presentation to City Council. Mr. Glidden pointed out the larger tower elements intersected with the ridge of the roof which should be corrected. Mr. Glidden commented on the office building that only perimeter parking on an island could be approved, but he agreed the site plan concept was fairly good and it had plenty of room for the building to be developed into something other than a box. Mr. Glidden stated the site plan was appropriate for a retail /office project. Mr. Channing indicated there was a serious problem with the elevations and the way the plans were drawn R Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 regarding the garage walls and roof and stated he would like to see this project again. Mr. Glidden also discussed the problems with the plan and indicated he would prefer to make a recommendation with direction to the applicant to correct the plans. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearings open on Petition LU -01 -01 and PUD- 02 -04. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearings closed. MOTION: Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend approval to City Council for Petition LU -02 -01 with staff recommendations. Mr. Tarr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. MOTION: Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -02 -04 with all the staff conditions and the following additional conditions: 1. The Site Plan for the office /retail shall not be formally approved other than its general configuration of building and parking, with the intent to come before the Commission for a complete review including all necessary architecture, site plan, and a building footprint that had more matching to it; 2. The roof plans for the residential units shall be modified to be drawn accurately in conformance with any of the the intended elevations and /or plan configurations; that on the 8-unit building and 10 -unit building that the projection of the rear balconies of the end unit C in both cases be extended further beyond the wall of the adjacent unit by at least 24" so as to create a more pronounced break in the hip roof when it was re -drawn correctly; and that the corner roof element on the rear of those units shown in the roof plan be drawn more specifically to demonstrate that the corner building roof does not intersect with the hip ridge on the corner of the building. Further, that any low one -story roof projections shown in elevations be more fully shown in the roof plans to demonstrate their location and geometry. Mr. Tarr seconded the motion. The applicant indicated they understood the motion and indicated they would meet with Mr. Glidden to assure consensus. Mr. Wu confirmed the motion was fine since it approved the office building conceptually. Mr. Present commented he thought there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the commercial. Mr. Channing agreed with Mr. Glidden's comments and pointed out that there was not sufficient information. Mr. Glidden added another condition: 3. That there shall be more detailed focus on the rear elevation and a new perspective rendering of the front elevation in order to make City Council comfortable. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 Mr. Tarr seconded the amendment. The vote on the motion was 5 -1 with Mr. Present opposed. Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition SP- 02 -16: Restaurant Demolition and Costco Wholesale Parking Lot Expansion Eleanor B. Halperin of Counsel, agent for Costco Wholesale, Inc., is requesting a site plan amendment to an approximately 11.14 -acre site at 3250 Northlake Boulevard to allow the demolition of a vacant restaurant building, the expansion of the parking lot, and the construction of a cart storage area adjacent to the north elevation. Planner Jackie Holloman reviewed the conditions of approval. Ellie Halperin spoke on behalf of the applicant and indicated Costco only objected to condition 4: The City shall continue to hold the previously submitted $16,242.20 in an escrow account for the beautification of road shoulders and median adjacent to the Costco property. In accordance with Ordinance 36, 2002, the approved landscape plans for the median (Resolution 106, 2000) and proposed road shoulder landscape plans, including the meandering sidewalk and irrigation, prepared by Seminole Bay Land Company dated July 11, 2002, shall be installed within 60 days of issuance of the demolition and clearing permit for the proposed parking area. Mr. Wu indicated staff was amenable to deleting the word "meandering" from the sidewalk, and would release the $16,242.20 back to the applicant when landscaping work began. The City Attorney reported there had been a major amendment to the City's code so it did trigger a median landscape requirement and since the money was placed in escrow; staff's position was to hold the money until landscape work in the median was started by Costco then refund the money back to the petitioner. Attorney Halperin commented the money was to be used by the City for any landscape requirements when the tire store application was approved and was not to be held in escrow for Costco to do the work or to add to it. City Forester Hendrickson indicated the City could give the money back and /or ask for more escrow so the additional landscaping for this project could be done that the tire store application two years ago was one issue and the restaurant demolition and parking lot addition was another. The City Attorney clarified that since they had come back for the parking lot, that was the second trigger. Attorney Halperin indicated at the time the $16,242.20 was placed in escrow it was the full amount that Costco was to pay and that amount was to be matched by the property owner across the street, so in lieu of that the applicant elected that the funds remain in escrow. Mr. Hendrickson advised that the first applicant on the block usually furnished the landscaping and the 50/50 was usually just maintenance, and the project across the street had not yet been approved. Mr. Glidden wanted to make sure there was a solid landscape buffer, which was verified by Mr. Kunkle. Mr. Channing indicated he thought it would be fair for the applicant across the street to pay 50% of the landscape installation. Mr. Wu indicated staff did not want to set a precedent, but staff would look into logistics of requiring the project across the street, when it eventually got built, to reimburse Costco 50% of the median landscape installation. Mr. Tarr recommended working with Costco because they could sell the outparcel to 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 another fast food restaurant but were doing the City a favor by installing a parking lot. Mr. Present indicated a snap decision could not be made on this, what would happen if no project was approved across the street, research should be done before changing a City policy, and the parking lot would benefit both Costco and the City. Discussion ensued. Mr. Hendrickson advised that 60 days after demolition the median landscaping would be required. Attorney Halperin commented the condition of approval for the last application required that $16,242.20 be placed in escrow prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; that condition had been complied with, and Costco should not now have to do the work and contribute more funds. Chair Kunkle advised that the applicant was back for a major amendment, to which the applicant responded that was a disagreement. Ms. Holloman presented the approved median landscape plan. Mr. Hendrickson indicated that now more landscaping was proposed for the road shoulder. Mr. Channing indicated he wanted to change "first come, first served" to first come, first taxed" and stated he knew it was City policy to have the first one do the work. Mr. Charming commented he believed it to be fair for a second party to recompense the first when they derived benefit from prior installation, but did not propose to settle that issue tonight. Mr. Charming commented that here there was a situation where the applicant was doing something to help the City in terms of beautification and it was the least the City could do to add a condition that the developer of a project across the street must reimburse them for what they had done, even if it was only for this applicant since they were doing something for the City. Further discussion ensued. MOTION: Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -02 -16 with staff recommendations except that condition 4 shall be re- worded as follows: The City shall continue to hold the previously submitted $16,242.20 in an escrow account for the beautification of the median adjacent to the Costco property. That money will be applied to improvement of the median when the median is ready to be constructed, and when and if the applicant for the property on the north side of Northlake comes to the City for site plan approval, it will be the City's intent to require that applicant to pay half the cost back to the Costco owners. With regard to the proposed road shoulder landscape plan and not the median landscape plan, the applicant should complete the work within 120 days of issuance of the demolition and clearing permits for the proposed parking area. Mr. Charming seconded the motion. Mr. Tarr asked who would pay for the shoulder landscaping. Costco indicated no problem with that. Mr. Glidden noted he had omitted "meandering" . Mr. Glidden stated the requirement for meandering sidewalk versus straight sidewalk shall be waived. The applicant stated they were okay with the motion so long as the existing sidewalk remained the same. Mr. Hendrickson advised the landscape plan may not work with a straight sidewalk. Mr. Glidden added that the existing sidewalk be allowed to remain and the landscape plan be modified without deleting any materials subject to approval by the City Forester. Mr. Charming seconded the motion. Mr. Tarr asked if there was a way to make the sidewalk slightly meandering, a middle ground. Mr. Wu indicated this was straight zoning where meandering sidewalks were not required and could not be pushed since Costco did not want a meandering sidewalk. Mr. Ansay suggested a set number be established for the reimbursement by the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 second development. Mr. Present agreed with Mr. Ansay. Mr. Glidden asked who would install the landscaping in the median. Mr. Hendrickson indicated he preferred the developer to pay half. It was clarified that the motion was retainage of the $16,000 until the median was completed according to the approved plan and at such time as it could be landscaped, Costco would do the work and be reimbursed 50% by the developer across the street. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council (P&Z) Petition MISC- 02 -21: Oakbrook Square Shopping Center Master Signage Program Equity Equity One Realty and Management, Inc, agent for Mr. Doron Valero, is requesting approval of a master signage program for existing retail shops within the interior courtyard at Oakbrook Square Shopping Center, which is located at the northeast corner of PGHA Boulevard and U.S. Highway One. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the staff report. Annette Stouffer, Atlas Sign Company, described the proposed font which was being proposed as the standard letter font. Mr. Tarr indicated the style of font did not match the architecture. Ms. Holloman noted this was the font shown on the elevations for a prior approval. Mr. Glidden commented a font with a serif would be more traditional and nicer looking. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that the problem was with placing the signs on the raceway, which he thought looked bad, and he preferred not to see the aluminum raceway. Mr. Glidden indicated upper and lower case with letters not to exceed 18" would probably be okay. Ms. Stouffer clarified the signage requested was only for the interior courtyards. Mr. Glidden indicated he wished to see the major tenant come back for sign approval. Ms. Stouffer indicated a raceway was proposed because of the tight space, and produced photographs. Mr. Glidden commented the raceway barely worked above the arches and there was not enough room in the portion where there were moldings. Mr. Glidden advised the Commission could not approve signage in that area since no signs were shown there. Mr. Glidden noted that hanging signs down in between the columns in that area would work, perhaps, but in that area there was not room for a sign, and if the applicant drew in a sign between the molding that would not be approved. A different font varying the stroke width was discussed by Mr. Channing. The letters did not bother Mr. Channing but he was against use of channels and preferred raised letters out from the surface. Mr. Channing commented the applicant must either consider placing hanging signs below or block letters might look okay in between the moldings but nothing was presented. Ms. Stouffer commented when raceways were painted the same color as the building they were almost not visible. Mr. Channing did not agree with using raceways when individual letters could be used. Mr. Channing commented he could be happy with the font but without a raceway; and the applicant needed to show what the signs would look like in between the molding. Hank Snitzer, Equity One, indicated the best way to blend all the signs was using raceways and if someone had another suggestion they would be happy to consider it. Mr. Snitzer asked if the applicant could get approval for channel lit letters tonight, and advised that they would go with those for their present tenants, and would have to reconsider the Z Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 signage for the area with moldings when they got tenants for those shops. Mr. Present asked what would happen if a tenant needed a dual bay. Mr. Snitzer noted such a tenant would have to take one arch for their sign. Mr. Ansay commented Duffy's sign was very recent and asked why it was now being requested to be red. Response was the former Roly's sign had been green and Duffy's had just replaced it in that color. Mr. Tarr discussed the font shown in A -2 were different in the retail client page. Mr. Tarr favored signs hanging down instead of messing up the stucco. Mr. Tarr asked why the font could not be matched to the "Shoppes of Oakbrook" which was a good looking font. Ms. Stouffer explained that portions of the stroke were too narrow to accommodate lighting. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that green was appropriate for Duffy's sign. Mr. Benothman commented staff felt the color was not compatible. Mr. Tarr indicated he thought the proposed font was cheap looking and would cheapen the appearance of the building, and stated he was okay with the monument sign. MOTION: Mr. Charming made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of only one element of Petition MISC- 02 -21: the condition and the signs shown on Sheet A -1 with deletion of the raceway, and approving A -1 and A -2 only with regard to the condition shown on sheet A -1. Any other conditions shall be presented at a later time. The proposed raceway shall be deleted. All other issues including more than one color or more than one font shall be looked at when the applicant returns. Mr. Glidden seconded the motion. Mr. Tarr asked why the applicant would be coming back. Chair Kunkle clarified the applicant was getting partial approval for a specific sign in specific locations as detailed on Sheet A -1. Mr. Channing clarified the applicant had shown him one condition which was deletion of the raceway, which was all he intended to approve now; there were other conditions that he believed they must come back with, and anything not shown on Sheet A -2 was not approved. Applicant confirmed the approval was for channel lit letters. Discussion ensued whether to approve anything else; Mr. Charming stated that he wished only to approve one kind of sign at specific locations. It was clarified that the names shown on the drawing were not the actual clients. Motion carried by 5 -1 vote with Mr. Tarr opposed. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LDRC) Petition LDR- 02 -07: Special Events Amendment A city- initiated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances, chapter 78 "Land Development ". Section 187, Special Events. The Objective of the Amendment is to update and provide regulations on permit review procedures, application requirements, and general standards for special events that occur within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Planner Natalie Wong presented the request. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 MOTION: Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LDR- 02 -07. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LDRC) Petition LDR- 02 -09: Non- Commercial Messages A City- initiated request to add a new section to the sign code division of the Land Development Regulations entitled "Non- Commercial Messages." The objective of this amendment is to correct any disparity in the sign code, if any, as it relates to the regulation of commercial and non- commercial speech. Growth Management Director Charles Wu presented the request, intended to avoid constitutional challenge. The City Attorney noted the billboard industry had been successful in setting aside other sign codes, which this language was intended to prevent. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LDR- 02 -09. Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Tarr requested a copy of the correct LDR's with the next meeting package. Mr. Tarr asked if the applicant tonight needed to be here to get a sign on the 6`h floor. Mr. Benothman reported a second floor height had been found in the code, and the applicant did need the change to PUD in order to have the sign on the 6`h floor. Mr. Benothman indicated that if a sign was higher than the second floor a waiver would be needed, which the City Attorney clarified. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tarr expressed concern that he had advised the applicant he would need to come before the commission. Mr. Benothman indicated the PUD was needed because it could not be waived under straight zoning. Mr. Present requested direction from the City Council regarding gated communities. Mr. Present indicated he saw no reason to have Legends at the Gardens gated, and soon everything would be gated whether units were $100,000 or million dollar homes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Present commented it had been a poor design for mixed use. Mr. Benothman advised that there was pedestrian access from the residential to the office building parcel. Mr. Tarr commented Mr. Ansay commented he believed communities felt favorable toward gated communities because if gated they alleviated all their responsibilities towards maintenance, etc. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Board. IN Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held December 10, 2002. APPPOVFr)- Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Barry Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Steven Tarr Dick Ansay 13