HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 031296CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 12, 1996
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chairman Carl
Sabatello at 7:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex,
10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened
with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The roll was called by Secretary Jackie Holloman:
Present
Absent
Carl Sabatello, Chairman Tom Paganini
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Thomas Pastore
Christopher Jones
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark,
Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, Assistant City Attorney Paul
Golis, and Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton.
• ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
Planning and Zoning Director Walton announced that a revision had been
made to the minutes of the February 27 meeting to include direction
given to the applicant regarding the access road from the end of
Donald Ross to the Tower Site on Petitions SP -95 -05 and CU- 95 -05,
presented by Raymond Royce, agent for John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, Inc., representing Palm Beach Communications
Company.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
The recent Workshop Meeting between the City Council and members of
the Planning and Zoning Commission was discussed briefly. Chairman
Sabatello commented that the Commission would welcome items back which
became too involved at City Council level.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of February 27, 1996 - Mr. Jeff Ornstein made a motion to
approve the minutes as revised. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair
Diane Carlino. Six members voted in favor, with one abstention by
Mr. Pastore since he had been absent from the meeting.
•
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing: Petition POD- 95 -01, by R.0 Rathke, agent for
Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company and the Westwood Gardens Homeowner's
Association, for an amendment to the Westwood Gardens /Westwood Lakes
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 47 multi - family residential
dwelling units. Located on the south side of Hood Road and
immediately east and west of interstate 95. (35- 418 -42E)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington pointed out that the Agenda had
incorrectly listed this petition as a workshop, and that it was a
Public Hearing. Mr. Ellington reviewed the staff report dated March
7. 1996.
Ray Kennedy spoke as representative for the Petitioner. Mr. Kennedy
commented that the petitioner did not understand why anyone had
thought the roofing was to be asbestos shingles since they had always
planned to have tile, and stated that the colors proposed for the
buildings were the same as on the existing buildings. Mr. Kennedy
stated that the tile would be the same as on the existing buildings,
both in color and in style. Chairman Sabatello questioned the
difference between the requested dwelling units and the existing
homes, to which Mr. Kennedy responded they were completely different
since the existing units were quadraplexes, and the proposed units
were town houses in two different floor plans, with approximately
1,700 square feet. Since the petitioner was only purchasing the
building parcels and the surrounding land was common area owned by the
homeowners' association, Mr. Kennedy verified that any landscaping
would have to be approved by the homeowners' association, and that the
petitioner had a letter from the homeowners' association approving the
proposed berm. Chairman Sabatello expressed concern that the letter
might not provide sufficient assurance that the homeowners'
association was comfortable with the petitioner's plan. Planning and
Zoning Director Walton expressed the opinion that the letter did
express that they were comfortable and stated that the City Attorney
had reviewed the letter and stated that it met the requirements. Vice
Chair Carlino commented that although the homeowners were saying they
approved what the petitioner would like to do, they were also saying
better ingress and egress, and that with respect to landscaping the
Board would like to see the money paid by the developer for
improvements to recreational areas or to improve common areas, and
questioned how those improvements were to be accomplished, statomg
that she was not sure to what they had signed off. Mr. Kennedy
explained that presentations had been made to the homeowners
association and issues such as the berm had come about as a result of
those meetings. Mr. Kennedy verified in response to Ms. Carlino that
just what was on the plan had been agreed to by the homeowners
association, to which the audience reacted strongly. Mr. Ellington
pointed out that the residents did not necessarily agree with the
homeowners association Board. Chairman Sabatello stated that the
petitioner was asking for approval on what was in front of the
Commission, and there were areas outside that which were controlled
40 2
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
by a homeowners association, and the association was controlled by
their Board of Directors. Chairman Sabatello requested that the
Commission stay focused on the petitioner's request, and be sure that
documentation was proper; and if some residents did not agree with
their Board of Directors' actions that was another issue. Mr.
Ornstein questioned the letter, stating that it did not refer to the
site plan in any way, and stated that the letter pointed out five
things they would like, and that this letter was not a signoff to any
plan. Mr. Ornstein also stated he would not want to accept the
letter with it's comments about commercial property and rezoning,
landscaping, and that recreational fees be used for common areas,
since all recreation fees paid to the City were to be used for City-
wide recreation purposes. Mr. Ornstein stated he would not accept the
letter as sufficient for him to approve the site plan. Assistant City
Attorney Golis stated he had reviewed the letter but had not had
discussions with staff after the previous meeting, however, understood
that City Attorney Baird was of the opinion that the letter was
authorization to proceed on behalf of Westwood Gardens Homeowners
Association, which was in conflict with staff's understanding as it
related to Planning and Zoning. Chairman Sabatello questioned the
Assistant City Attorney whether some of the issues which were unclear
to Mr. Ornstein could be clarified at tonight's meeting and made a
part of the record, to which Attorney Golis' response was yes.
• Mr. Ornstein stated that in the past when multiple owners were
involved that they were both involved in the petition, and in this
case it seemed there were two owners - -one owning the buildings and one
owning the common areas - -who might not be in agreement. Mr. Ornstein
stated he would like to see a letter from the homeowners association
Board President stating they agreed to the site plan which was before
the Commission and that they would therefore install and maintain the
landscaping. Chairman Sabatello stated that the City Attorney had
reviewed the letter and was comfortable that it provided authorization
for this petition to move forward, and it was not the position of the
Planning and Zoning Commission to override that decision at this
point. Chairman Sabatello requested comments regarding what should
be added to the letter or to the site plan. Mr. Ornstein stated that
a letter must refer to that specific site plan by name, date, title,
etc. Mr. Ornstein raised a question regarding item 1, additional
parking areas requested, and whether the site plan had been revised
to include those or not; and item 2, better ingress and egress needed
clarification; and requested that items 3, 4 and 5 be removed from the
letter. A poll of the Commission indicated the other members agreed
with Mr. Ornstein and it was suggested that rather than bring this
petition back before the Commission that a condition be made requiring
the letter to address the site plan by date, sheet number, etc., and
that items 3, 4, and 5 be removed, if appropriate. Vice Chair Carlino
suggested that a condition state that prior to approval by the City
Council a revised letter would be required which would specifically
reference the site plan. Mr. Glidden disagreed, since the City
Council did not want to see petitions with many conditions. Mr.
Glidden pointed out there were height differences in the elevations
Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
and the roof elevations did not match
nothing was planned for the vacant
expanded and landscaping increased.
the a condition could be made that th
Mr. Ornstein agreed with Mr. Glidden
increased, especially in the rear.
the plan, and suggested that if
land that the berm should be
Chairman Sabatello suggested
Le area be sodded and irrigated.
that the landscaping should be
Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open.
David Huntoon, 12576 Woodmill Drive, spoke as resident, and commented
that Westwood Lakes was constructed in three phases which were in
litigation because of construction defects. Mr. Huntoon explained
that Mr. Kennedy's presentation to the Board of Directors had raised
some of the same questions from residents that had been raised by this
Commission, since his plans and drawings were inconsistent and he was
too vague. Mr. Huntoon stated that the residents were told not to
worry. Mr. Huntoon requested that the Commission strongly consider
their direction in making the Homeowners Association respond and
identify the areas in contention. A petition from 85 of the 100
owners in The Lakes had referenced issues of landscaping, fencing,
security for townhomes abutting the lake, no berms provided,
architecture to match existing architecture, provision for
recreational space, traffic congestion, an engineering study to
address storm water and sewage, and a committee from the Homeowners
• Association had been proposed to work with Mr. Kennedy to help address
these issues, which to his knowledge had never been done. Mr. Huntoon
explained the ingress and egress which was needed to alleviate traffic
congestion. Mr. Huntoon stated that three members of the seven Board
had objected to the letter. Mr. Ornstein questioned whether a
playground had been deleted, to which Mr. Ellington responded that
former Commission member Honig had suggested the addition of a
playground which the petitioner had chosen not to provide. Discussion
ensued regarding recreation. Mr. Mignogna questioned what Mr. Huntoon
had meant by the comment regarding security for townhomes abutting the
lake. Mr. Huntoon explained that with the proximity of the water that
small children could just go out their back door and fall into the
lake.
Ed Lyon suggested that a lot of the questions and concerns could be
cleared up easily if the applicant provided updated drawings, and
cited examples of problems which had resulted from drawings which had
not been updated. Mr. Lyon stated that this was not an appropriate
time for a public hearing on this petition because of the problems
with the letter and the drawings. Mr. Lyon expressed concern with
circulation within the development, and the major entrance road being
only 20 feet wide, when all other roads in the development were 25
feet wide. Mr. Lyon objected to guest parking in the limited open
space area. Mr. Lyon commented that this development should appear
compatible with the rest of the PUD, and that berms should be provided
similar to existing earth berms. Mr. Lyon explained that property
values had deteriorated and that the Commission was supposed to
protect property values, to which Chairman Sabatello responded by
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
explaining that the Commission was only charged with reviewing
petitions based on whether they satisfied the City's Codes, and
explained that the City could not be involved in a dispute between the
residents and their Board. Chairman Sabatello addressed the roadway
width, which Mr. Lyon clarified was only 20 feet. Mr. Lyon clarified
his earlier comment regarding the developer using open space to meet
parking requirements. Mr. Walton commented that the developer today
could go ahead and pull a permit for 46 units. Mr. Lyon commented
that drainage problems existed in the development and many homes had
flooded, and requested further study regarding drainage.
Elaine Estavar, 5166 Woodruff Lane, presented an aerial photograph to
show the traffic problems and the area presently used for recreation
by the children in the development.
Albert Whitehall, a resident, expressed concern that the developer was
trying to put too much into too little space, and that the buildings
would not be compatible with existing structures. Mr. Whitehall
commented that the Board meeting where the approval was granted was
not well attended and residents had not been notified of items which
would be considered. Mr. Whitehall expressed concern that residents
of the proposed buildings would have to back out onto the busy street.
A resident of 12629 Woodmill Drive also expressed concern with cars
backing out onto the street, and the flooding which had been caused
•
by drainage problems. This resident objected to the drawings, which
did not contain the square footage, proper landscaping, and did not
depict the true scale of the buildings, which she stated would be
huge.
Mel Boutet, 5548 Golden Eagle Circle, explained that the traffic
configuration had been known since the beginning of the PUD, expressed
his agreement that the landscaping was not proper and his belief that
another road could not added, and stated that the proposed buildings
were very similar to those shown on the original drawings for the
development. Mr. Boutet expressed his opinion that more lighting and
landscaping were needed, and expressed concern with liability if a
playground were added.
Anita Thompson expressed concern with the drainage problem in the
Lakes and described the areas which had been flooded. Ms. Thompson
stated that the outfall pipe belonged on Hood Rood, and was the
responsibility of the Badcock Corporation. Ms. Thompson stated that
the association documents required a 2/3 vote of both the Lakes and
the Gardens homeowners to approve any of the common area or to make
any changes to the PUD, and the Board of Directors did not have
authority in those matters.
Richard Coon, 12644 Woodmill Drive, stressed that there would only be
seven parking spaces for 47 units.
Chairman Sabatello closed the Public Hearing.
. 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
Chairman Sabatello summarized by commenting that the Commission agreed
that the letter must be clarified to be specific in outlining
everything the Commission had discussed. Chairman Sabatello commented
that the 2/3 vote as stated by Ms. Thompson would need to be verified
to determine whether the letter signed by the Board's president was
valid. Assistant City Attorney Golis stated he had not reviewed the
covenant documents. Chairman Sabatello stated the Commission would
not move forward until they were comfortable with the issues, and
mentioned the following additional issues: To make sure the City
Engineer understood the pavement width situation; assuming the Board
had authority and said they agreed to the landscape treatment of the
corner lot that it must be exactly depicted in a specific drawing;
massing of buildings; landscaping must be consistent to that of the
existing homes; both the front and rear landscaping must be addressed;
a separate overlay drawing must indicate the actual landscaping
stating the sizes of plants at a certain date and screening visibility
from the lake side to existing residences. Mr. Pastore commented that
the roadway width, traffic, recreation area, and drainage were all
approved originally and he did not believe this developer should be
held hostage to correct those items; agreed with comments made by
residents and added that their wall along I -95 was falling down. Mr.
Pastore recommended that all suggested changes be made on the
drawings, a clarified letter approved by the City Attorney be
obtained, and that landscaping be addressed more specifically along
• the rear lots and on the overall project on a drawing. Mr. Ornstein
commented that the three parking spaces could be in tandem, which he
did not like. Mr. Ornstein requested that the landscaping be
specified as to the common areas, which would require an agreement
between the petitioner and the Board of Directors; that landscaping
be improved; that exterior elevations be correct; and expressed his
opinion that a project like this should provide recreational
facilities. Mr. Jones agreed there should be more visitor parking
than shown and agreed that the landscaping needed to be improved,
expressed concern with trees proposed in easements, and stated that
he had a problem with cars backing onto the road. Mr. Glidden
requested a roof plan which would coordinate the elevations with the
site plan; suggested landscaping be substantially increased along the
backs of the units and also expand beyond the building footprints to
cover the front entrance area shown for no future development;
requested that the pavement width be confirmed; and stated that he had
a problem with the cars backing out onto the roadway. Mr. Mignogna
agreed with comments made by the other Commission members, and stated
he would definitely like to see a recreation area, which could be a
passive park. Chairman Sabatello commented that everything was as
originally approved except the request for one extra unit, and that
recreation should have been addressed earlier in the process.
Chairman Sabatello commented that the disagreement between the Board
of Directors and the residents was very unusual, and was not a good
situation. Chairman Sabatello expressed that the Commission would do
the best they could but must work within their purview. Mr. Ornstein
expressed his opinion that the three cars stacked in tandem in the
driveways was a major change from the two cars originally approved.
• 6
�• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
Mr. Ornstein made a motion that recommendation to the City Council for
Petition PUD 95 -01 be denied for the following reasons:
• Parking is a major issue and should not be approved as
presented.
• Legality, Unity of Title, Unity of Control and authority were
unclear.
• Landscaping is very poor.
• Architectural elevations are poor.
• Recreational uses are lacking.
Mr. Mignogna seconded the motion. Chairman Sabatello stated he would
not vote for the motion and recommended the public hearing be
postponed so that outstanding issues could be addressed. Vice Chair
Carlino and Mr. Glidden agreed with Chairman Sabatello's
recommendation, however, Mr. Glidden stated that issues such as
parking had already been approved and he would not be in favor in
requiring such changes in a redesign. The vote was only two in favor,
therefore the motion failed.
Vice Chair Carlino made a motion that the public hearing for Petition
PUD 95 -01 be postponed on the basis of allowing the City Attorney to
look into the matter regarding the legality of the letter from the
Homeowners Association Board of Directors and to allow the petitioner
time to complete an overlay to the elevations showing landscaping.
Mr. Glidden seconded the motion. Mr. Glidden requested an amendment
to the motion that a roof plan be submitted which reconciled the
elevations with what was on the site plan at the present time and that
the landscaping at the rear of the units be substantially increased.
Vice Chair Carlino seconded the amendment.
Vice Chair Carlino's original motion was restated by Chairman
Sabatello as follows: Postponement of the Public Hearing for Petition
PUD 95 -01 for the following reasons:
• The City Attorney shall review the Declaration for the
Homeowners Association for legality and authorized authority to
sign off the plans.
• An overlay to the elevations depicting increased landscaping for
front and rear elevations showing specific size of plantings is
to be provided.
• All landscaping which is contiguous to the buildings or is in
any common area outside the pods, which includes the corner lot
and any areas on the site plan, will be reflected on the plans
0 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
drawings and not in words.
• If the letter from the Board of Directors is found to be in
order it must specifically reference the new revised site plan.
• A proper roof plan for the buildings is to be submitted and site
elevations made to coincide with floor plans.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Ornstein. Mr. Ornstein requested an
amendment to the motion that the rear elevations of the units be
reworked in a creative architectural way to give relief so that there
would not be one straight wall plane on the rear. Mr. Mignogna
seconded the amendment. The vote on the amendment was 5 -2, with Chair
Sabatello and Vice Chair Carlino opposing. Mr. Ornstein requested a
second amendment to the motion that the site plan be changed to add
passive recreation. Mr. Mignogna seconded the second amendment.
During discussion, Mr. Ornstein defined passive recreation as grass
open areas where kids could play. The vote on the second amendment
was 2 in favor, 5 opposed. Chairman Sabatello called for a vote on
the motion with one amendment which was on the floor. The vote
on the motion was 7 -0 for approval.
Chairman Sabatello called for a motion to postpone the Public Hearing
to a date certain. Mr. Kennedy was given the option to provide a date
• or to allow readvertisement at some future time. Mr. Kennedy agreed
to readvertisement at a future time.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to table the Public Hearing for Petition
PUD 95 -01 until Petitioner had provided the requested information and
had readvertised for Public Hearing. Vice Chair Carlino seconded the
motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0.
Chairman Sabatello stated there should be a sign on the property.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Sabatello commented on the difficulty of staying focused in
a Public Hearing and commented that he tried to keep a direction, and
if the Commission did not have sufficient information he would prefer
to make comment back and get a consensus. Mr. Sabatello stated he
believed there should be specific direction as to what should take
place, and if staff did not feel the project was ready to go the
Commission should be notified, and the attorney should provide
direction as to legality. Discussion ensued regarding the public
hearing at tonight's meeting and the unique situation between the
residents and their Board of Directors.
•
8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 12, 1996
Mr. Ornstein announced that the City Council would hear presentations
at their meeting this week from three architectural firms being
interviewed to design a new City Hall complex.
There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino,
seconded by Mr. Jones, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 P . M . The next meeting will be held March 26, 19 9 6 .
•
• 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
i
APPROVED
•
e Holloman,
•
tes
r
Carl Sdbatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William M
(Absent)
ett orisKemn, Alterna
10