HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 032305PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
March 23, 2005
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Acting Chair Randolph Hansen 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. Mr.
Hansen was nominated by Mr. Solomon as Acting Chair for this meeting because of the
absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous vote.
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported City Council had approved
Frenchman's Reserve Pod C, except for one waiver requested for signage. Mr. Wu
indicated he would follow up with the project manager to find out if architectural changes
had been approved as recommended.
MINUTES
Mr. Pennell made a motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 2005 PZA meeting as
submitted. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board:
Present
Dennis Solomon
Randolph Hansen
Douglas Pennell
Charles Hereford
Jay H. Bramson (1St alternate)
Jonathan D. Rubins (2 °a alternate)
Absent
Chair Craig Kunkle
Vice Chair Barry Present
Michael Panczak
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council.
Petition LDR -04 -14 10rdinance 3, 2005: LDR Text Amendment — Necessary United
Control Documentation and Owners Agreements for Amendments to PCDs within
approved DRIB
A request by Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire, of Greenberg Taurig, P.A., on behalf of
Avatar Properties, Inc., to amend Section 78 -46, Code of Ordinances, entitled
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2005
Page 2
Application Procedures, to clarify the necessary unified control documentation and
owners agreements required for amendments to Planned Community Developments
(PCD) that are within approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRI); and to
amend Section 78-155, Code of Ordinances, entitled PCD Planned Community
Development Overlay District to clarify the aforesaid necessary unified control
documentation.
Talal Benothman presented the petition. Mr. Solomon confirmed with Mr. Benothman
that if this took place it would not apply to a small PUD that was not in a DRI under F.S.
380, but it would apply to DRIB which were PUDs. Mr. Benothman confirmed that this
only affected the three existing DRIs and any potential DRIs.
Attorney Alfred J. Malefatto spoke on behalf of the applicant and introduced members of
their team present to answer questions. The applicant explained that they had several
major applications pending for their project approval and the public would have ample
opportunity to comment on those. Neighbors had already begun to be contacted. Tonight
they were here for consideration of the amendment to the LDR which would allow this
project to move forward.
Acting Chair Hansen declared the public hearing open.
Steve Mathison, attorney for Frenchman's Creek, Inc, advised he had had extensive
discussions with Mr. Malefatto and they were working to address concerns together.
Tonight he was here to discuss this narrow issue and reported the position of their club
and POA was that the proposed amendment took away rights they now possessed. They
recognized the impracticality of having every single project owner signing a consent or
approving a petition before it could move forward, but felt it was important to make sure
they had unified control within the DRI and PCD. In this instance, they had the
Frenchman's Creek Master Association to which the marina property, the homes, and the
country club belonged. They objected to language as proposed and requested language
be added requiring consent of the Master Association. Regarding the State statute
referenced, Attorney Mathison advised that it did not specifically require the consent of a
Master Property Owner Association nor prohibit it. Attorney Mathison stated he had
lodged their objection and they would continue to work with the applicant throughout the
process.
Roy Flack reported he lived on Laporte Drive, which was the portion of Frenchman's
Creek most affected by the plans of Avatar. In the proposed changes the condition was
stated at the end of each of the three proposed amendments that if sufficient guarantees
for adequate operation and maintenance of common facilities in the modification are
provided to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Director, which implied that the
only issue was providing for adequate operation and maintenance. Mr. Flack stated he
believed that PCDs and PUDs were developed in accordance with a master plan, and if
there were significant deviation to that plan the people in the community had a special
interest, so there was good reason for the ordinances as drafted -- although it was very
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2005
Page 3
impractical to get every resident to sign off, but he believed there should be some
protection above just appearing at public hearings.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Acting Chair Hansen declared the public
hearing closed.
Mr. Hereford asked the status of all parties working together. Attorney Malefatto
indicated he believed a meeting of the minds was getting close and disagreement was on
the actual language of the ordinance, and they were trying to work out concerns. Mr.
Hereford asked City Attorney Tatum where her office stood. Attorney Tatum advised
that the language had been proposed by the applicant, but she had worked with staff
developing the language presented tonight and was comfortable with the language as
presented. The concern was that this applied to new projects under one owner, and years
later unanticipated problems arose when all properties had been parceled off to individual
owners, and a process was needed to get through that. Mr. Bramson asked if Avatar
owned this property fee simple. Mr. Malefatto responded no, it was under contract for
purchase. Mr. Solomon commented there were a few places in the ordinance that talked
about sufficient guarantees and probably the intent was guarantees satisfactory to the city,
and recommended the language be modified to add acceptable to the City of Palm Beach
Gardens. Mr. Benothman pointed out that was covered in the rest of the existing
sentence. The City Attorney advised it was difficult to anticipate any of the issues so
adding examples was not practicable, but language could be added to the satisfaction of
the Growth Management Director and also the City Attorney, if that would provide more
comfort. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that was not necessary, and that the idea of
modification was good because it recognized a horrific situation and this was a deficiency
that had existed, and thanked the applicant for bringing it to attention. The goal would be
to get more flexibility and reasonableness. Mr. Solomon commented he thought Mr.
Mathison conceded it was a good idea as well. Mr. Solomon stated he did not think
unified control was needed necessarily, and the language as it was left the door open for a
master property association, for example, to be the best choice in a given situation with
the Growth Management Director's approval. Limiting to unified control could be
counterproductive to the objective, which was trying to get flexibility. Mr. Solomon did
not agree that unit owners should have special standing above being able to speak at
public hearings. Mr. Solomon indicated he was in favor of the proposed language, and
the public would have plenty of time to state their concerns, since this was only the first
step in the process. Acting Chair Hansen indicated he believed the changes were
necessary and would provide needed flexibility, and he was in favor of it.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition
LDR -04 -14 /Ordinance 3, 2005. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion. Motion carried
by 5 -1 vote with Mr. Bramson voting against because he thought the association
which at one time controlled the whole property should have some say so on what
the project would entail, such as type of construction and density. Mr. Benothman
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2005
Page 4
commented the POA of Frenchman's Creek DRI would have three opportunities to
provide input at public hearings.
Mr. Rubins left the meeting at this point, at 7:12 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Wu announced that a Town Hall meeting was scheduled for next Thursday night at
the Burns Road Community Center at 7 p.m., and every board member was invited.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the board.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2005
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the me(
regular meeting will be held April 12, 2005
APPROVED:
Craig K
was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. The next
Betty Laur, 19ecretary for the Meeting