HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 0926000
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 26, 2000
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Vice Chair John Glidden at 6:35 P.M. in the Lobby of the Municipal
Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Pahn Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Kunkle made a motion to approve the September 12, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted Mr.
Solomon seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
-BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
John Nedvins, Chair - arrived at 6:40 p.m.
John Glidden, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem
Joel Channing
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planners Jim
Norquest and Steve Cramer, Planner John Lindgren, and City Attorney Leonard Rubin.
Consideration of Approval
Petition VAR- 00 -07.• Rear -Yard Setback Variance at 10874 Magnolia Street
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
PGA National Golf Club Estates
Ms. Anita C- Lanagan is requesting a variance from Sections 70(c) and 75 of the Land Development
Regulations to reduce a 15-foot rear setback requirement to six feet in order to relocate an existing
storage shed out of a six foot utility easement (12- 42S -42E)
Principal Planner Tim Norquest reviewed the stafi'report and noted that one letter of opposition had been
received. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether it was City policy to respond to anonymous complaints such
as the one that had initiated this proceeding. Mr. Norquest explained that a large number of Code
Enforcement cases were initiated in this manner.
Chair Nedvins arrived at this point in the meeting, at 6:40 p.m.
Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion that complainants should be required to file and sign their complaints.
It was noted that there were utilities within the easement. Mr. Glidden inquired whether the neighbor
directly behind the petitioner's property had been notified and had responded. Mr. Norquest confirmed
the neighbor had been notified but had not responded, and that the City had no photographs ofthe shed
from the neighboring properties.
Anita C. Lanagan, Petitioner, presented her request to move her shed forward out ofthe utility easement
and to reduce the 15 -foot rear setback requirement to 6 feet, to leave room in her back yard for her son
to play. Ms. Lanagan explained that the slab was there prior to the shed but it was not large enough, and
she had added two feet to the rear in order to accommodate the shed. Petitioner reported she had
signatures in support from two of the five neighbors that surrounded her home, and that one of the
properties was for sale. Ms. Lanagan commented that to the best ofher knowledge her shed could not
be seen from any ofthe neighboring properties. During discussion, the petitioner clarified that if she had
added the two feet to the opposite side ofthe slab the shed would not have encroached into the easement.
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open. Ms. Lanagan submitted into the record a petition with
signatures in support ofher request. Sue Williams, 10873 Magnolia Street, submitted into the record a
letter in opposition from another neighbor. Ms. Williams provided a letter from herself in opposition to
petitioner's request to each member of the Board, and read the letter aloud. Ms. Williams submitted to
the Board a copy ofMs. Lanagan's permit which she had obtained when she had added a patio to the rear
of her home. Ms. Williams spoke in opposition and indicated she wanted the full 15' rear setback, that
she could see the shed through the bushes at the rear ofher property, and that the petitioner had poured
the slab when she added the patio to her home and then added to the slab when she had had the shed
installed. Mr. Rauch questioned whether Ms. Williams would be satisfied ifthe landscaping were denser
so that she could not see the shed, to which she replied no, that she wanted the laws enforced Mr.
Kunkle questioned why this became a problem a year after the shed had been erected, to which Ms.
Williams responded a problem was a problem at any time. Mr. Channing inquired if Ms. Williams would
agree to moving the shed enough to place 4' of landscaping at the rear, to which the response was
negative. Additional discussion took place. Attorney Rubin advised that the guideline criteria the Board
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
must follow required that there be a hardship.
Joanie Phiser, Magnolia Court, questioned why she had not received notice of this hearing, and spoke
in opposition to the variance request, indicating Ms. Lanagan had had a tent in her front yard in the past.
John Galagher, another neighbor, stated he was reinforcing the other comments, expressed concern that
other people might want to install sheds ifthis variance were granted, and questioned whether sheds were
allowed in their development, to which the City Attorney responded affirmatively.
The petitioner responded to comments made by the neighbors, indicated that the shed was of good
quality, explained that she had not known a permit was needed for a shed because it was not attached to
her home, explained that the tent had been in her front yard in preparation for a yard sale, and that she
had no intention of degrading her property. Mr. Channing advised Ms. Lanagan how the shed could be
easily moved using a small tractor. Chair Nedvins questioned whether in light of the discussion the
petitioner was prepared to come into total compliance, to which Ms. Lanagan responded that she would
prefer the variance as requested. Ms. Phiser commented she had not been permitted to enlarge her pool.
Mr. Galagher requested and received clarification of the easement dimensions. Ms. Williams expressed
her opinion that granting the variance would cause their neighborhood to go downhill and that it would
set a precedent.
• Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing closed. Mr.
Channing expressed sympathy for the petitioner but found no hardship. Mr. Solomon did not think any
of the criteria had been met.
Mr. Channing made a motion to deny Petition VAR400 -07. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion.
During discussion of the motion, Mr. Rauch indicated he disagreed, commented that granting
variances was a tool for the Board to use, and if neighbors were willing to negotiate to block the
view he felt a variance should be granted. Mr. Channing noted the Board had approved a
variance about six months ago where technically there had been no hardship but no one had been
affected. Motion carried by vote of 6 to 1, with Mr. Rauch opposed.
Mr. Glidden advised the applicant that the denial meant she was only required to move the shed enough
to come into compliance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
. 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
John Nedvins, Chair
John Glidden, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem
Joel Charming
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Ted Rauch left the meeting immediately following the roll call, at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing/Recommendation to Cite Council.
Petitions SP -00 -12 & CU- 00 -01: Fire/Police Station No. 3 Site Plan and Conditional Use
Gee & Jenson, Ind agent for the Gty- of Palm Beach Gardens, -is requesting approval of a site plan
and conditional use for an 8,620 square foot firelpolice station that will include a 3,363 square foot
fire station, a 3,448 square foot truck bay, a 1, 809 square foot police sub - station, and a future 4,500
square foot training facility in Phase 2. The 8 -acre site is located on the northeast corner of Howell
Lane and Northlake Boulevard (14- 42S -42E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report and responded to questions.
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open. Mike Graham commented he had a nursery on the
property to the east and had just learned about the proposed station, indicated he had no objection, but
did have some questions, and was advised he could contact Mr. Lindgren. Mr. Graham was advised
there would be another public hearing at City Council level. Hearing no other comments from the public,
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing closed. Audrey Huggins of Gee and Jenson, agent for
petitioner, advised in response to a question from a Commissioner that no antenna tower was required
for this station. Mr. Solomon commented regarding proposed condition 8 that the dead -end parking only
used by City employees could cause problems since that would be all of the parking on the west side,
because the public would have to back out when they realized they could not park there; to which Mr.
Lindgren responded by indicating the public spaces. Tom Roloski, Gee & Jenson, explained the spaces
near the entrance were for handicap parking. Mr. Lindgren proposed use of directional signage to
indicate the public parking. Mr. Solomon proposed adding "the dead -end parking at the northwest
portion of the site" to condition 8. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that if the parking lots were full
people would have to back out onto Howell Lane, but deferred to the Police and Fire Departments to
know what was safe. Mr. Glidden expressed curiosity that no one had commented on the design, which
had been used before only with different materials.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -00-12 and
Petition CU -00-01 with the following conditions:
0 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
1. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the handicapped and
typical parking stall details so that the wheel stops have a minimum distance of 2.5 -feet
from the curb to the front of the wheel stop.
2. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the plans so that the note
regarding the parking spaces abutting grass areas with curbing shall comply with Sections
156(d) and (e) of the City's Land Development Regulations.
3. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site and landscape
plans so that safe sight triangles are shown at each site entrance (as required by Section
1560) of the City's Land Development Regulations).
4. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall either submit a new photometric
plan or show the light pole locations on the landscape plan that match those shown on the
original photometric plan.
5. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise all plans so that a stop sign
and stop bar are shown at the intersection of Howell Lane and Northlake Boulevard.
6. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise Sheet Number L1.5 and
move the proposed irrigation meter out of the highway median.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District Standard Permit. (Planning &
Zoning)
8. The dead -end parking at the northwest portion of the site shall only be used by City Staff.
(Planning & Zoning)
Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote.
Recommendation to City Council.
Petition SP- 00-09: PBG Business Park Amendment to Development Order Language
George G Kelly, IT , agent for Burns Road Associates, LTD, is requesting an amendment to
Condition #1 in Resolution 58, 1992, allowing the owner more flexibility in leasing space on the site,
without increasing traffic or parking demand No change to the site plan is being proposed The
9.04 -acre site is located at the Northwest corner of Burns Road and Interstate Highway 95. (12 -42S-
42E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report, and explained that the applicant wished to amend
condition #1 in Resolution 58,1992, to read as follows: Within the 34,240 square -foot office/warehouse
buildings (Buildings A&B), no more than 8,560 square feet (combined) of office and accessory retail
space and consumer service space shall be permitted; ofthis 8,560 office /retail space, no more than 7,075
square feet shall be accessory retail and consumer service space. W. Lindgren explained that this
language would give the property owner more flexibility in leasing space in buildings A and B without
increasing the required parking on the site or increasing traffic, or increasing the demand on services in
0 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
general, because office had both a lower trip generation rate and a lower parking demand than retail. No
changes to the site plan were proposed. Mr. Lindgren explained that the difference between accessory
retail and retail was the criteria of types and times of traffic rather than just the numbers.
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition SP- 00-09.
Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP-00-15.- Golf Digestrasol) Fire Station Na 4
Urban Design Studio, agent for Taylor - Woodrow, is requesting Site Plan Approval within a Planned
Community District for a two -acre site providing for a Fire Station and a Community Policing
Station. The site is located within the Golf Digest (Mirasol) Planned Community District
approximately 114 mile north of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Jog Road (3- 42S -42E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staffreport. Mr. Kunkle thanked the petitioner for addressing
the landscape issues. The Commission had no questions of staff or the petitioner.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition SP4)0 -15 with
• the following conditions and waivers:
1. Prior to submittal of boundary plat, the petitioner shall designate an easement to the
satisfaction of Seacoast Utility Authority for access to the on -site lift station. All other
outstanding engineering issues must also be addressed, prior to scheduling for City Council
review.
2. Prior to City Council review, the petitioner shall submit a site plan that demonstrates a
PCD drainage berm to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All other outstanding
engineering issues must also be addressed, prior to scheduling for City Council review.
3. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, an agreement for PCD buffer maintenance
between the City and the petitioner shall be executed.
Waivers:
1. Section 180(d) Parking in excess of 10% required by code. The petitioner is proposing
57% in excess of code requirement.
2. Section 136 Minimum of 300 feet of R -O-W required for one ground sign.
3. Section 135 (b) Off - premise signs prohibited. The petitioner is proposing one ground sign
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2100
off -site.
Mr. Glidden seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote.
Public Hearing/Recommendation to City Council
City Center Linkages Plan
A request by City staff to approve a City Center Linkages Plan for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
circulation within an area generally bounded by the Regional center planned development on the
north, Prosperity Farms Road on the eas4 RCA Boulevard on the south, and Military Trail on the
west
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report, and asked that the request be considered as
previously submitted rather than as submitted tonight, explaining that the modifications mentioned in the
staff report had been premature. Mr. Benothman apologized, and commented that staff considered the
road within the Coulter property within the Regional Center DRI to be an important policy issue which
should be debated and decided upon bythe Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, rather
than staff Mr. Benothman explained that the subject road was currently undergoing an environmental
review and it would be premature to determine the location and division of this road. Mr. Benothman
• explained that the County had requested that the City adopt the City Center Linkages Plan as a condition
for the proposed CRALLS designation on PGA Boulevard. The plan would achieve three objectives (1)
to provide an alternate roadway to the major arterials located within the City Center (PGA Boulevard,
Alternate AIA, and Prosperity Farms Road); (2) to plan for and provide for other modes of
transportation; and (3) to reduce the total impact of the CRALLS designation on the average of 3,000-
6,000 trips on particular segments. Discussion ensued. Principal Planner Steve Cramer explained that
the question before the Commission and the City Council was whether the link on the Coulter property
helped reduce traffic on PGA Boulevard. Mr. Channing recalled that this had been addressed by the
Commission in the past, and he believed the decision had been not to give up future linkages, to which
Mr. Benothman responded that it had addressed in connection with one of the two pending NOPC's for
the Coulter property and the primary linkage Mr. Channing was talking about was Kew Gardens Road
or a road that would loop to Kew Gardens and go farther north connecting to Atlantic Avenue. Mr.
Benothman commented that Mr. Channing was right that at that time staffhad recommended no deletion
of any roadway within the linkages. Mr. Kunkle questioned the County's timetable for approving this,
to which Mr. Benothman responded that the County wanted the City to adopt this prior to November.
Principal Planner Cramer distributed cross sections. Mr. Benothman explained that if adopted, this plan
would become part of the Comprehensive Plan so that any future changes would require an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan and would be reviewed by the County. Mr. Benothman explained that if the
City adopted this plan the CRALLS designation would be conditioned on the linkages plan.
Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing open. Roger Blangy, Garden Woods, distributed a copy of
a letter which he read aloud, and displayed maps to illustrate his points. Mr. Blangy explained that there
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
seemed to be lack of notification and due process for residents of Garden Woods, and expressed the
residents' concern that the railroad track crossing would be moved closer to them. Passage of the plan
would impact Garden Woods. Alex Perez, Garden Woods Association, explained their group had met
with the City, and re- stated Mr. Blangy's comments. Mr. Perez advised that if there was an opportunity
for out -of- the -box thinking still keeping the CRALLS designation on schedule and not disrupting the
flyover plans, their group would like to be a part of that process. Mr. Perez also advised that the
Winchester Courts development was becoming concerned. Nick Turgis, Lone Pine Road Property
Owners Association, commented regarding the modification that staffhad previously proposed leaving
that street on the plan as a public street. Mr. Turgis stated his group supported the City Linkages Plan,
believed it was a fantastic idea to let people go to and fro without having to get on major roadways,
would be a significant part of a downtown, and supported the plan as presented. Dodi Glas, Urban
Design Studio, representing Coulter, commented the modification shown in the staff report was based
on a compromise position of maintaining part of the public roadway network and allowing one portion
to be private, reported they had been working with staff, that additional conversations with the County
were needed, and they were trying to work with both the City and County to address all issues and not
to disrupt CRALLS. Ms. Glas addressed the roadway design sections, indicated that they understood
alignments as well as public easements would be allowed, that roadways in the case of public easements
would have to be designed to City specifications, and encouraged that the roadway sections be
maintained with the linkages so that roadways could be designed sensitive to the communities with which
they were developed to provide for a little more urban context in the design. Hearing no further
comments from the public, Chair Nedvins declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Glidden pointed out a roadway that did not go anywhere and thus did not take any traffic off PGA
Boulevard, to which Mr. Cramer responded that road would provide access to properties to be developed
in the future. It was clarified that future connections going through future parcels would have full public
right -of -ways with setbacks and that public roads would meet City standards, and modification would
be allowed to roadways within PUD's. Dan Clark, City Engineer, explained he was not sure what was
proposed for Legacy Place but capacity would be needed for two -lane and four -lane roads, and the
specific alignments and roadways would really be up to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council as projects moved forward. Mr. Clark advised that tonight's approval would only approve the
linkages plan and not cross sections, and the plan would be used to guide from point A to point B within
each development and for the level of traffic capacity through from point A to point B, but the cross
sections would be approved as projects came through. It was clarified that property owners of
undeveloped property where linkages were proposed would give the land and right -of -way to the City.
Mr. Channing recalled a prior meeting where City Engineer Len Lindahl had made a very impassioned
speech about not giving up potential future linkages. Mr. Cramer recalled that had been at a workshop
for the Coulter apartment project and had not been voted upon; Mr. Benothman recalled that at the
workshop staff had been directed to work with the petitioner to arrive at a solution to the road which
staffhad mentioned in the staffreport to be deleted. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that no linkages
should be given up. Mr. Present noted that Attorney John Gary had been present at the last meeting
representing landowners, and expressed surprise no one was present tonight. Mr. Benothman explained
• 8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
most of the developers assumed the road was deleted and their requests accommodated, which he
believed was the primary reason they were not present, and there had not been sufficient time to notify
them the situation had changed. Mr. Present questioned whether a vote should be held at tonight's
meeting. Dodi Glas indicated she represented the developers and it was their intent to work with staff
to remedy the roadway situations as developments proceeded with regard to their concerns. Ms. Glas
commented the developers understood the importance of the CRALLS designation to the City and did
not want to interrupt that process. Ms. Glas expressed hope that discussions with the County would
make clear there would be flexibility within developments. Mr. Benothman indicated as long as a right -
of -way was provided to the City that alignment would not be a problem, and applicants understood roads
must be built to City specifications. Ms. Glas noted it had been their understanding that both public right -
of -ways and public easements would be acceptable. Mr. Benothman explained there would be some
flexibility in that a particular road could be privatized and an easement granted to the City so that it
remained open. Mr. Channing inquired as to the prospect of getting a railroad crossing. Mr. Cramer
commented FEC did not want any additional railroad crossings but due to the fact of the flyover being
constructed, that one could be moved. Mr. Clark commented the City, County, and State had all filed
petitions with FEC in favor of that crossing.
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend approval to City Council to formally adopt the City
Center Linkages Plan with the clarifications and understandings set forth tonight, specifically to
• include the linkage in the northeast corner of the Coulter property which was in the materials the
Planning and Zoning Commission had seen previously but not in the package submitted tonight.
Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
A handout update on items referred to City Council was provided to the Commissioners by Principal
Planner Jim Norquest. Mr. Kunkle questioned the process regarding school concurrency, to which Mr.
Cramer responded Mr. Noble would attend the second meeting in October to discuss this issue with the
Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Norquest advised Plastridge Office project did not yet have a final certificate of occupancy, and
aesthetic issues in question were within the purview of this Board. The original architectural plans had
shown arches on the covered porticos and all ofthe windows were arched; however, as constructed the
building had no arches on the covered porch and some windows had arches and some did not. The other
issue was the hurricane channels attached to the building. Mr. Tom Lynch, owner of the project,
indicated that he had thought the architectural issues had been resolved and that the channels would be
no problem and indicated they had painted two of the channels that day. It was the consensus of the
Board that the arcade arches be deleted; and the channels be removed and attached before a storm.
0 9
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
Mr. Channing commented the City Grill had not followed the approved paint color. Mr. Norquest
responded that staff would follow up on that issue.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
•
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held October 10, 2000.
APPROVED:
•
Dennis Solomon, airyro Tem
J
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry
Ted Rauch, Alternate
A:!� � 1 01- fj
Bedy Laur
Secretary for the Meeting
•
11
r
.Y
To the Planning and Zoning Commission
The original Department of Transportation plan for the PGA Flyover, showed a railway
crossing in the southwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Alt Al A. In April 1999, right
after the change of ownership for the southwest and northwest corners of PGA Blvd and
Alt Al A, DOT changed their PGA Blvd Flyover plan and showed the provision for a new
railway crossing to be in the northwest corner of PGA Blvd and Alt Al A. According to a
City council member, it is Catalfumo that asked for the Parcel 5A location in the first
place, not the City.
The City is planning a 4 lanes road through parcel 5A (North West corner of PGA Blvd
and Alt AIA), in conjunction with a railway crossing on the east side of that property and
an intersection at Alt Al and Kyoto Drive. DOT will have to build a SW ramp railway
crossing overpass at a cost of about $500,000 to the taxpayers.
Our first petition against the railway crossing was in August 09, 1999. We are against this
railway crossing because it would only be 500 Feet from our neighborhood as compare to
1600 Feet now. It would be much noisier than now.
For a crossing 500 Feet from us, the Southbound trains will blow their horn at about 400
Feet from our neighborhood as compare to 1500 Feet now. The Northbound trains will
blow their horn at about 600 Ft from our neighborhood as compare to 1700 Feet now.
• The Department of Transportation is going to experiment at a railway crossing in Boca
Raton with a horn that will have the same sound as the actual train horn. There is no
guarantee that the Florida East Coast railway will accept the idea because they already
had a night ban on train horn and it was cancelled one year after it started due to the
doubling of accidents. But assuming that the City would be allowed to put horns at a
railway crossing in parcel 5A, it would not reduce the noise to our neighborhood even if
the horns were facing east and west. Remember the actual Southbound trains are blowing
their horn facing south, 1500 Feet from our neighborhood; we can hear the horn noise
loud and clear. Why should the residents of Garden Woods and Winchester Courts be
worse off than they are now.
In spite of our petition of Aug 09, 1999 and no prior meeting with City Officials,
Resolution 147 was passed by the City Council on Nov 18, 1999. It says that based on the
City and the developer desire, the City is asking DOT for a railway crossing in parcel 5A.
A second petition was sent to Mayor Russo on April 18, 2000.
A railway crossing east of parcel 5A would only benefit the occupants and customers of
that parcel of land, as it is zoned office and industrial buildings. Trips from parcel 5A
with a railway crossing and intersection would bring more congestion to Alt Al A, the
loop ramp and PGA Blvd, which is not recommended. The idea is to reduce traffic on
PGA Blvd.
•
Who is going to pay for a very expensive 300 feet bridge over a very deep lake, a 2800
Feet 4 lanes road through parcel 5A, a railway crossing and intersection at Alt Al and
Kyoto Drive. Is it going to be on the City's expense and will it raise our City taxes.
Furthermore, with our neighbors from Winchester Courts, we believe that the Military
Trail access to parcel 5A is for 2 lanes only. We do not think there is enough space for a
4 lanes access because there is already a very small approach on Military Trail. But if
there is a 4 lanes access road, the noise from heavy traffic going through will be very
disturbing to the residents of Winchester Courts leaving only 25 Feet away. They already
have the noise of Military Trail 60 Feet away and I -95 175 feet away. More noise is not
acceptable in that area.
Because of a bridge over the lake, the residents of Winchester Courts will lose the
beautiful view they now enjoy. For your information, according to City plans, Winchester
Courts own some part of the lake just north of the proposed bridge and the residents are
not pleased with any obstruction to their view.
Parcel 5A will already have a linkage road with parcel 5B, RCA Blvd and its railway
crossing. We believe another linkage with Kyoto Drive is not necessary. A 4 lanes road
and railway crossing in parcel 5A is not acceptable. A 2 lanes road in parcel 5A and a
railway crossing in parcel 5B, as shown in DOT plan of Oct 1992, would be acceptable.
It would save money to the taxpayers.
• There is some confusion on predicted trips for PGA Blvd. There is no doubt that it will
have to be an eight lanes traffic Blvd. Could the City by wrong on the necessity of a
railway crossing east of Parcel 5A.
Sincerely,
Roger Blangy (a representative from Garden Woods)
11658 Hemlock Street
Palm Beach Gardens
F133410
September 26, 2000
•