Loading...
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