Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092705PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD REGULAR MEETING September 27, 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 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 ADMINISTRATOR Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported Phase 2 of University MRI had been approved by City Council on September 15. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen noted the correction in the last minutes which stated 3 -2 vote in the correction to the prior minutes which removed the word unanimous should have been 5- 2. Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2005 PZA meeting as corrected. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7- 0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board: Present Absent Chair Craig Kunkle Vice Chair Barry Present Randolph Hansen Charles Hereford Dennis Solomon Michael Panczak Douglas Pennell Jonathan D. Rubins (2 "d alternate) All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearing were sworn in. Chair Kunkle announced the attendance summary had been very helpful, and Mr. Pennell's perfect attendance had earned him a gold star. All those intending to testify in tonight's hearings were sworn in. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 2 Public Hearinr and Recommendation to City Council: Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition: PLAT - 05- 05 -01: Sanctuary HOA — Request to re plat Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Resolution 128, 2005: A request by Sherry Hyman, Agent, on behalf of The Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association (HOA), to approve the Sanctuary Planned Re plat of Tracts "04"and "U- 3 ", consistent with City Council's approval of the Sanctuary Planned Unit Development amendment on April 7, 2005. No ex -parte communication was reported. Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, presented the staff report, explaining the approved Resolution 47, 2005 had to do with an open space tract through a preserve to create access from an internal road in The Sanctuary to the lake for lake maintenance. City Council had also approved changing open space into preserve status so that there was no net loss to the preserve. Tonight was to show the surveys of what had been approved. Mr. Hendrickson advised the final plat had to be approved by City Council, but there was nothing different than what had been done last April. Sherry Hyman, representing the applicant, commented the platting was totally consistent with code and the resolution. Chair Kunkle asked if this had the support of the HOA. Ms. Hyman responded affirmatively, and stated this was an association petition. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Mike Pfessor, 65 Princewood Lane, noted he had provided a handout to each member of the board and for the record. Mr. Pfessor stated there were five reasons why the final plat should not be approved. The conservation area was in no way to be altered from its natural state and activities prohibited were removal of trees, shrubs, and other natural vegetation. Mr. Pfessor commented the property was protected in perpetuity and that stood today. City Council did not take up that issue, and this board was not asked to take up that issue tonight, but if PZA approved it tonight that would not mean anyone could go out there and cut vegetation. Mr. Pfessor's second exhibit was a temporary injunction by a Court and he expressed his opinion this should not be on an agenda until there had been a decision by the Circuit Court whether this injunction was to remain. Mr. Pfessor expressed his opinion that 5 -6 code violations and comp plan violations were occurring on this property, and read from the code sections and from the management plan which he felt had been violated. Mr. Pfessor commented he owned four properties in Florida and was going through zoning approvals, which were highly scrutinized, but in this case nobody really wanted to deal with the code, comp plan, or covenant put on this property by the City Council. Mr. Pfessor asked that this be tabled until the Circuit Court had ruled, or to approve the plat on condition the covenant on the property must be complied with. Jeff Azis, 13 Princewood, stated he was against the rezoning, and that many members of the HOA were against it but the board was for it. Mr. Azis commented one of the reasons for the pathway was to run electricity to the lake, and utilities were not allowed, which he had not seen addressed, and stated it should not be allowed. Joy Hurt Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 3 commented she lived on the lake in the Sanctuary. There had been Open Space 6 for lake access but that had been replatted as a preserve, which they liked, but needed a way to get to the lake. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Hyman noted the applicant had already argued the amendment before this board and City Council, and on second reading it had been unanimously approved. They wanted to take the next step of getting the plat approved. This would be an actual replatting through the preserve. This matter had been brought before the Court by Mr. Pfessor, and had not yet been ruled on, but after all approvals were received then the Court would hear this matter. Chair Kunkle commented he had to have faith that the City's legal counsel had reviewed this and that it would not be on the agenda unless they felt it was proper. Mr. Present asked how this would be secured; Ms. Hyman advised there would be a gate. Mr. Hansen commented he was not sure of the motive of those against this because the benefit to everybody was to have a living lake, and he could not see anything negative. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of PLAT -05-01. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial) Petition: PUD- 04 -03: Legends at the Gardens AM PUD Amendment Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A request by Stephen Mathison, on behalf of Joel Prince, to allow for an amendment to the Legends at the Gardens Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD), which was approved by Ordinance 7, 2003 on March 6, 2003. The applicant is proposing to amend the master site plan to allow a 14,820 square foot retail building ( Walgreens) and an 11,200 square -foot general office building. The 21.72 acre subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Central Boulevard and Donald Ross Road. Ex -parte communication was reported by Mr. Hansen, who advised that about a year ago he had a conversation with Mark Weiner about Walgreens. No other ex -parte communication was reported. Brian Cheguis, Cotleur & Hearing, introduced the project team, provided a history of the site, and advised that the residential portion was currently under development. Tonight's proposal was to amend the master site plan to allow a 14,820 square foot retail building ( Walgreens) and an 11,200 square -foot general office building. An illustrative plan depicted the site. Mr. Cheguis reviewed the site plan and requested a second Walgreen's building identification sign so that there would be a sign facing each right -of -way. Mr. Cheguis asked for a waiver for reduced parking stall widths and in one area for 10 parking spaces in a row. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 4 Kara Irwin, Planning Manager, advised that the applicant had covered the issues, showed a photo of the existing signage, and commented staff would like the signage to be consistent between the residential and non - residential areas. Ms. Irwin explained that the applicant had worked with staff and had made concessions. Another issue was a directional sign off Central Boulevard which was being utilized as a monument sign showing location of the project, and staff did not agree with the placement of the sign on the site. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Panczak asked if the master signage plan for the project had been submitted. Ms. Irwin indicated it had not, and staff was asking for sign structure to be the same. Mr. Pennell requested further clarification. Ms. Irwin explained staff would like the style and the construction of the signs to be the same, and the directional sign should be inside the site. Mr. Present asked the height and nature of the preserve, if vision was blocked from the street -- stating his concern was from a security standpoint. Ms. Irwin responded the police had issues about not being able to see well into the site but would have access into the site. There had been SEPTED recommendations, with which the applicant stated they had no issues. Mr. Present asked why staff was supporting 9' parking spaces by the offices. Ms. Irwin explained the applicant had made concessions, and staff felt the large landscaping islands every 3 spaces was justification for the requested waivers; also, code allowed parking width to be reduced for office use and only 34 out of 106 spaces were requested to be reduced. Mr. Present expressed concern with 9' spaces and would like the 9' spaces to become 9 -112' spaces, and the rest to remain at 10'. Mr. Rubins agreed with Mr. Present on the parking spaces and commented he did not believe the sign on Central Boulevard was necessary. He felt that as much signage as possible of a commercial nature should be kept on Donald Ross Road and off of Central. Mr. Rubins asked the location of trash dumpsters, and asked if there would be pay phones, which could be a security issue attracting vagrants. Jeff Iravani, consultant for the project, responded that the dumpsters were in the southeast corner of the project but were not visible because they were enclosed. Mr. Iravani commented the hurricanes had thinned out vegetation, and he felt there was adequate lighting for security if there were pay phones. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Present regarding the parking space width and asked how the plan would not work if all the spaces were 10'. Mr. Cheguis explained the concern was to have enough buffering. Mr. Cheguis proposed having the 9' spaces used as employee parking so they would be filled all day. After discussion, Mr. Solomon stated he had to vote against this project for the 9' spaces. Mr. Hansen gave credit to staff for working with the applicant on this project, but stated this was a good example of MXD/PUD gone wrong. He saw no real integration of the commercial and residential portions other than a sidewalk that went around a wall. Mr. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 5 Hansen felt this location was wrong for the proposed commercial use to be Walgreens. Mr. Hansen noted one of the biggest problems was 2 -way traffic between the Walgreens building and the office building on the west side. There was also one -way traffic going against the 2 -way traffic that had to go into the drive -thru, causing a line of traffic going north, a line going south, and two lines of drive -thru traffic going back south. Mr. Hansen felt landscape islands with trees were not justification for 9' spaces and that they did not provide proper buffering. All the bad things for the commercial building —the service side of the building- -were facing the residential area, and would be the first thing one would see when entering the project off of Central Boulevard. The bougainvillea on the trellis placed for camouflage would all be gone with one freeze. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion this was an attempt to put some band -aids on what Walgreens wanted their building to look like, and was so contrived he felt it was not good architecture and did not work. The back side of the office building faced the FP &L substation, but the rats and squirrels probably would not care. Mr. Hansen commented the roof plans did not reflect all the characteristics, he did not support 9' parking spaces especially since half the office space was medical, he felt the circulation was terrible, the architecture did not work, and it was the wrong project for the site. Mr. Hereford commented on the south corner the islands were 6' wide, and asked if they could be reduced to 4' to solve the parking issue. Mr. Cheguis responded a sizeable tree would not grow in 4', and asked if the board would accept 9 -1/2' spaces. Chair Kunkle asked if both exits were right turn only, which was confirmed by the applicant. Mr. Panczak asked the ratio for parking spaces, which Ms. Irwin provided. Mr. Panczak asked if they would still be above their minimum parking requirement if the 34 9' spaces went to 9 -1/2' and as a result the project lost two spaces, making 104. Mr. Irwin responded the minimum was 106 spaces. Mr. Hansen commented three handicap spaces were needed. The locations of the 9' spaces was pointed out on the site plan, which were scattered. Mr. Cheguis noted the spaces in front of the medical offices were 10'. Mr. Solomon commented he thought the applicant should go back to the drawing board, possibly cutting the office building in half or eliminating it totally, and all spaces should be 10'. Mr. Solomon indicated he could support the second Walgreen sign on the east side of the building; otherwise, the applicant needed to go back to the drawing board and needed to beef up the landscaping. Mr. Rubins commented on the difficulty of having employees park in specific spaces in a retail center, and stated he could not accept that as an answer. Chair Kunkle advised the applicant could request a continuance and go back to the drawing board or have the board vote on this. The applicant preferred to move forward. MOTION: Mr. Hansen recommended to City Council denial of Petition PUD- 04-03. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Ordinance 31, 20051Peddon LDR- 05 -05: Amendments to the Land Development Regulations Providing for Mix -Use Height Limitations Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: A City- initiated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Land Development Regulations to provide for the maximum height limitation for non - residential development within the mixed -use zoning designation. Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained the proposed amendment had been sent to the affected parties, and the City had received input back and some objections. Therefore, staff requested this item be heard as a workshop, and proceed with the public hearing, but that the board take no action. The City Attorney advised the public hearing should be opened and conducted, and it could be continued if desired. Planning Manager Kara Irwin presented the proposed amendment, and reviewed current limitations for non - residential development within a MXD planned unit development overlay zoning district. During meetings with residents next to the Briger Tract, the issue came up regarding how tall a residential building in a MXD project could be, and with four stories the height could be 100', since only number of floors was currently regulated, not the overall height. Staff was directed to come up with a height limitation, and since 50' for a 4 -story building was mentioned in the meetings, they were proposing 50'. This could be waived during a PUD process. Staff also was proposing the same limitation on non - residential mixed use PUD. Ms. Irwin advised she had distributed copies of letters received containing comments. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Jeff Marshall with Catalfumo had provided a Ietter, and stated they objected to this amendment. He represented the RCA Center Project, which had approved structures exceeding 50', with only 3 stories, and was concerned how this amendment might change that. Catalfumo's rule of thumb for class A office buildings was to use 14' to 15' floor -to -floor levels, and 50' overall was far too low. Mr. Marshall thought the 4 -story limit was fine without a height limit, and a 4- story 100' tall building just would not happen because it was not economically feasible. The Baskin Palmer building was 42' and only 2 stories. Mr. Marshall commented he could come back with a list of recently approved projects and show how they all would not meet this code. Chair Kunkle requested he come back and provide that information at the next hearing. Ken Tuma, Urban Design Studio, had provided a letter, and echoed Mr. Marshall's comments. The City had the MXD ordinance to allow flexibility, and 50' height limitation on a 4 -story building was not realistic. Concern was expressed for buildings such as hospitals which required taller floor heights to accommodate medical equipment. Mr. Tuma requested further discussions with the staff. Mr. Hansen stated he was not in support of the proposed amendment, since he felt it was far too limiting, restricting creativity. He felt it was a reaction by the City Council to Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 7 comments by residents next to the Briger Tract and thought the appropriate safeguards were already in the LDR's to provide adequate buffers. He saw the opportunity in this parcel along I -95 to provide signature buildings a long way from any residential. With a 50' height limitation a pancake development would result, with all creativity taken away. In the workshop on the Briger Tract, Mr. Hansen commented he and others had talked about a tiered approach, moving from I -95 with 10'- 12' -20' story buildings as appropriate, working back down in height, density, and massing going toward the residential areas. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion there was an opportunity in that parcel to create a very exciting corridor along 1 -95 in terms of architecture and planning. Mr. Hansen felt the amendment was too limiting, that 50' was not a reasonable height for 4 stories for any kind of office building, so that would push development back to 3 or even 2 stories. If this area was looking for any research and development buildings and/or hospitals which might be a part of that, those typically had 10' ceilings and might have 6', 7', or 8' interstitial space to run all the mechanical equipment through. Mr. Hansen cautioned to look at the whole area inwards from both directions from I -95, and not to paint themselves into a corner for developments that would not work, and he felt a 50' height limitation was too arbitrary and did not make sense. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Hansen, commented he sympathized with City Council, but because a few people went ballistic it was felt something must be done. This would take away creativity and require a flat roof on everything, and maybe the nature and size of the buffer and setback should have something to do with the height, because one might feel very differently about the height of a building if there were a 20' setback than if there were a 100' setback. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion this was really counterproductive, and it would probably be better with no limitation at all. Mr. Wu advised staff had emphasized before City Council this could be dealt with in the master plan stage which was the appropriate avenue. City Council had been going to change the comp plan, and this was the best that could be done to hold that off in the comp plan and put it in the LDR's. Mr. Hereford noted it would only be applicable in 3 or 4 projects at most; and he concurred with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Solomon. Mr. Rubins concurred with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Solomon. Mr. Present commented City Council had to have more faith that staff would review projects and with line of sight and setbacks from adjacent property, it added to the creativity. Mr. Pennell thought there should be no height restrictions, and let staff handle each project on an individual basis. This would affect development, variety, and re- development; and going a little higher might allow all 10' parking spaces. Mr. Pennell stated there should be no height restrictions and if it was high and was a good use it should be dealt with. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Panczak commented he .also agreed with everything Mr. Hansen said except one thing —he was not sure 12 -1/2' per floor was acceptable for residential any more since he had to go on a roof at Mirasol the previous day and his 16' ladder only reached to the bottom of the rain gutter, so that might give an idea of height for commercial buildings. Mr. Wu indicated this would be reworked and brought back. There was a unanimous vote to continue the public hearing to a future date and time. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the board. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Rubins stated for the record that it had been a pleasure working with Mr. Hereford for the past year on this board, that he was not coming back due to another obligation, and thanked him for his contributions to the board. Mr. Panczak commented on the new Target building, which was nearing completion and looked awesome. It was nice to see the fruits of the board's work. Mr. Present asked Mr. Wu to report back regarding the project where the board had unanimously rejected it but the applicant wanted it to move forward. Mr. Present commented this would let the board know how the Council thinks. Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT There being no regular meeting APPROVED: onathan D. Rubins B tty Laur, cretary for the Meeting e next COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Request to Address City Council Please MMMM■ 2� OM�Jl Ma fflz i Subject: Members of the public may address the City Council during the "Comments by the Public" portion of the agenda and during "Public Hearings ". This Request to Address the City Council must be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the meeting. The time limit for each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. 0 9 ZC) (n D = C� C7 n O Cn Z Z (7 D JO Cn ���� �mNOOzc�i� -� cmi�� m O 0 m-� mX- �rDmO� mN `- Z M(-) Om oZ �n -4Z-- <�nn(� �n () D =N �nmmOm� -+-i --j c: -4 Z x O > Cl) 0cv' D.OZC zm 0 Z 0 -< m z c � Z- V:! (n p D 47 DC7 mom,^ M D n G o m m M n= p m x n v = m Co O D �mm (Oi)m(nn(zi>OV fit m ono c m O D Z n-�O om- 4 ;0xm�,° -zi D R-1 C-)mcno DyOX ;7 2 �0 Oy2= 4-lz�m m m ITl a� Z-, 2W0 oW o jm�� =0m zCZ< a) C0 C/) m�0rn -MO C =pm m C) O L m z c O M M it 00 c" 'SOD �'< Z(nmmo (�n m C" O m�oM M170 Dm -Do m m rn D.. rnp (� Zn(mi)�mCi0� o Cl) nno z Cl) 70 O- <mcn��= < cn =C XP F -40L =i: C) m rn 0 �q �mOz-�v00 z D a: �,�°z�nm0vz � �Z ;o m��0C)z00- 0 z n r�r�p Zmw (n O� p m <mo00 -4 D m D ao Z x O G) Zm M cnU) m0 -� ;E Cl m70oco2 -s-�0C m 03 ZOO =.rnr Mm(nm= > DD(7f7 m pZinC-) D m =zD - Dm� =(on�m � mm +Tl >KD Zr-OzmDO- m V r-un -4 moo -Axo m c) z0� -' Optn O 0D 70 �O7oCcmZZm m v C' =1 Q m- Omcmocn �✓' 0 �ODG)- �OcDi�z r- m!n'i ><F -1006 , O p x Z Z o cn 0rZ-0>cnZ> z C O P Z =(n r- Z O m D G v N p m O m X O n0 r0%zc 0 (zn -n-1" -4 -A momm m7j p A cn0Cn Xz�omz>cn Xu �• D > (n -4 n Z D w r O p r ADO 0�rn-A DnODM r w n O m O =rE:6 m Z n - o LU G7 m � O 0= 6200 z < Z O m -i m --1 Co m P-1 m =o 2ZC-) m o O z o 0 -nm 0D D O O C) Cn D C D O -4n� :EMM -0 0 z� z O G) zo U) - z - D > O N � m - �(n - X m C7 m O O r Z] >=m D X -i — io� C) zO3 m00 oo�z r O Z C r p m n u�i`�m-_+ .. 20 D O mDm ODm� P -U p 0 v �E W-1c. r p 2 C) O �O ' O� t M -4c�• gip= -4: 0�mi D p - ai m 0 C �n C)wcan c)6cn :--i c0C)mC zm —ter fl Ti m O z r -0 En m .> -i r >OCM- cn m CU m v` =�Zv M = C-) Cn -i pzD C mc00 G7�Vi �D 0 -u> x�io- m -103 -u z 0C D CDC) _Z C/3 >- c n �Xz_ - p -<0 r- 73 m� -n ZO cnmp0 -Z Xo- rnzDa)O o -v cnmZ D In�CJ� xNIR�Z' 6L IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502004CA005195XXXXMB MICHAEL M. GFESSER Plaintiff, SANCTUARY PSG HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Non Profit Corporation De�rtu&nI. f ORDER TI"tIJ C,,'UGF- miler coming before this Court on April 7, 2005, and the Court being fully advised in the premises it is: ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff shall not take any Depositions in this case until the Court allows same. 2. Plaintiff may request Interrogatories to Parties, Request for Admissions and the Production of Documents. 3. The Court grants Plaintiff a Temporary injunction prohibiting the alteration of Sanctuary PUD Preserve Tract U -3 Plat No. 2 from its natural state and prohibiting the removal or destruction of trees shrubs or other vegetation. 4. The Temporary Injunction shall remain until the Court dismisses it. 5. Plaintiff shall post a $100 bond with the Court. 6, DONE and ORDERE in Ch tubers at West Palm Beach, P im Beach Co , Florida this _ day of , 2005. Jukt& enneth . Stem Copies furnished to: Defendant's Counsel: L. Louis Mrachek, of Rage, Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A., 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suits 600, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Plaintiffs Counsel: Michael M. Gfesser, PA, 631 US Highway One, Suite 308, North Palm Beach, Ft. 33408 ¢S• 8 °° ° a Ssr' 88 25 10 W \� PCP PRM **% 00 O� R =80.00 ' CA =45'09'00' o L =62.83 BOUNDARY OF TRACT "U -3" THE- SANCTUARY REPLAT OF TRACT "0 -6" (PLAT BOOK 77, PAGE 117) PRM -3A » TRACT) '03 �s<e IS i _cl <I olof ono<:900 ♦ �,o� X0, ♦ <900 D.n I9 !,, 111 PRM `. \ �G oFQ��Q�G �"� o ( PRM 9, o, �G oFQ��Q�G �"� o ( PRM F-K- N I T5 JT 4 PULTE HOME CORPORATION THE SANCTUARY tJ �L �;► WETLAND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Pulte Home Corporation The Sanctuary Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Prepared By: Cheryl M. Carpenter Consulting Biologist 435 Beacon Street 4 g Tequesta, Florida 33469 1b 611 C v of P.B.G. JUN 29 1993 June, 1993 PLANNING Copyright, 1993 & „� ZONING E. PROHIBITED PRESERVE ACTIVITIES The upland and wetland preservation areas will be maintained in perpetuity or throughout the history of the project. The following activities are prohibited within the preserves: a. Construction or placing of buildings, roads, signs not related to preserve educational information, billboards or other advertising, utilities, and drainage easements, or other structures on or above the ground. b. Dumping or placing of soil or other substance or material as landfill or dumping or placing of trash, waste or unsightly or offensive materials. C. Removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation with the exception of exotic and /or nuisance vegetation removal. d. Excavation, dredging, or removing of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other material substance in such manner as to affect the surface. e. Surface use except for purposes that permit the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition. f. Diking or fencing, and any other activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation or fish and wildlife habitat conservatlon or preservation. g. Acts or uses detrimental to such retention of land under water areas. F. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Homeowners Association of record of The Sanctuary will be responsible for the financial obligation of The Sanctuary Preserve. Pulte Home Corporation will be responsible for initial implementation of the management plan prior to and during construction activities. G. ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGEMENT The Homeowners Association of record of The Sanctuary will be responsible for the long -term management of The Sanctuary Preserve. rI July 6, 1999 EX NlC31T s D CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 334144698 Ms. Beverley Jarnason The Best in Property Management P.O. Box 30154 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 Re: The Sanctuary PUD - Access to Lake Dear Ms. Jamason: I recently visited the Sanctuary community to review the proposed trail through the upland preserve next to the lake that Advanced Aquatics had partially flagged. After reviewing your January 29, 1999 facsimile, field conditions and the approved Sanctuary PUD plans, I can understand your lake maintenance dilemma. There are five j drainage easements around the lake. the easements are 12' wide so that heavy equipment and personnel can gain access to all drainage facilities, including the take. Normally, certain landscaping and fencing are allowed in easements because they can be removed and replaced or opened in emergencies. If obstructions occur in any easement that prevents general maintenance access, I would suggest working with the all property owners to resolve this issue. In the field, I also noticed that some property owners are installing landscaping within the 20' wide lake maintenance easement. The City permitted the developer to install clusters of Cypress trees around the lake, but access around the lake remained unobstructed. I would caution the Association about allowing property owners to landscape off their property for the same reasons as I discussed above. I have enclosed a copy of the Tract "U -3" upland ;reserve (formerly Tract "O -6") iaaguage. the language does not prohibit nature trails, but otherwise is very restrictive. An access for lake maintenance equipment is out of the question. the City also has concerns about the potential long term abuse by children and landscape maintenance crews, unless a raised five -foot wide boardwalk with rails can be built to direct all pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk to the lake maintenance easement. The City feels a boardwalk would be user friendly for all ages, and would be the environmentally correct approach to transverse this area. If the Association is interested in the boardwalk concept, the remaining location of the trail should be flagged, and an application for administrative approval by the City should be submitted with the boardwalk construction plans. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at '176 -1064. Sincerely, Aellv Mark I. Hendrickson City Forester cc: Jack Hanson, Building Official Tammy Jacobs, City Engineer • z` O m D 0 cn V) D --r m O n T r 0 v D I mo> f) v' v �oz = m N D2Nc0) m� 0 m m CD 70 mm O ..Z v O CD m m -'mLn r A NF_ 00 ONm A, r A a � n n 7Q !gyp = cxn7�p -1 n v r D O Q 3 o Q? �M A � Op =rnL 7C1 Q mZ c rn (1 0 X,. 0 ,, b nrn � A c°4 d o✓�Z OM G r"' O C') T'- .d 0 cn m o co co 1 � 8o2660w> zmW- OZai -1 ri) O r- O mODRDm n >Qmm0°D --' = j Z v m-j 5 c i O C "676- Z Z Ud z cn -c _ --+ mZZVX�zc M O O m m n v OmDzv-o- Cn. <cn�m0DZ Om� -p� m nv ZO�C Vjr.o C)mcnn 070 Oy = =i�zLm nv - m OMog� o�m m<vc =z z0�0 rnON cn D Z cn 7o to 2!_0OD -U .6O= zzwImcp::E v- ��- c>i��= o E:mOz =ivm0 - nMz mO -u z zm n o 0 C' m 0_ � D= - IZMED °— �<—�mzzrpm Dmc >oo�Zm 00cn0mo :� immmvcncno -in - m c- _2:CDm m— m= vco < o Dm Zortnc> 0°� Or-� m 0S mm: cn0 z -A D0-1 O X v z Z D 2 <crcn- zm rn M2mM< =v -IToxzzoc 00 ?� MCnx En Z z C) n= )z-�70o0 0 00 zi_ocZO= 0 Mxi:K m no oW�ZO -i z m0m�mm 7oz7om2Dccn Zl m (/) U) T <n -Di C 0 cl) v -i m A m O CA m CD c m v m v m m x m ao -c m m O r r O z G) v m 0 D _i O z Cn 0 70 0) n c C- Z m -4 n > >cn�D Z zDGarr- vo o � Z ��00 > rn-i m n ;u m Go -� cn n o coo x m m {n -- V) CO) m�mD =� p ai O ;a 3: z m 6zO p D o D O M < m r z Cl) m To -m+m�i m m < N �0 A = _ *r-i z 0z := v 5� Cl)ra = z0;0Z -� -4 v �-i O C> Cf) = =1 D C D = cn n < O m m v o z{�- m z0bz)o 0 M- O D D O N vu)�- o Cl) i��m C Q X r z v =m DO -4 — G) 0 -u -i )z G 0D moo Z 000� 7C n CO �Z0 oz m D P m -1 I x,00; -v 5:z�l cn W0= TO N J 0 0 CD j � -4c - . z NO` DO f CD m 0 c 0,1&cn" o b� COOME zm — mr �-i:�m- m O z r -0 T ; D"3 -i r D0M �TWm D49!�-k °MYo ZDG) C vZ im moo z>cn Z �D 0 ��� m�mo(1 vzC°�L �°0D C D C7 _Z �:cn c� Xmz_ =� <0 M v OD ;u mZD°co 0 comZ D (1)�o� 4 I I _- y • ��o' �� :��� 9 n ` r r Mor J��o•e r,_ an_ o;{ i jtl , Al t t� ig4 ch 1p t'• H 0 4 C mull 9�B � a �' `•,� D .Si 7 7 N " �� i '� •1 -.24 9R L C Z IG C1 11.05 1b. PC 14 JR '4] a �r ul is N N M � N O'