HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092496• CITY OF PALM BRACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 24, 1996
• 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
Diane Carlino 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
Diane Carlino Carl Sabatello
Chris Jones John Glidden
Tom Paganini William Mignogna
Thomas Pastore John Nedvins
Jeff Ornstein
• Also present at the meeting were Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis,
Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, Principal Planner Marty Minor,
Planner Bahareh Keshavarz, and City Forester Mark Hendrickson.
Principal Planner Marty Minor explained that he was filling in for
Director of Planning and Zoning Richard Walton, who was ill. Mr.
Minor stated that he was now the Principal Planner in charge of
current planning, and looked forward to working in that capacity.
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
Minutes of September 10. 1996 - Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the
minutes as submitted. Mr. Pastore seconded the motion, which carried
by 4 -0 vote. Mr. Ornstein abstained from voting on the motion, as he
was not present at the September 10 meeting.
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMKITTES
RffCUN3MNDATX0X TO CITY COUNCIL: Pe ti tion SP- 96 -12, by Sara Lockhart,
agent for Apple South, Inc., seeking to amend the approved Site Plan
for Northlake Square. The amendment would allow the construction of
one res tauran t in place of a restaurant with drive - through and an
office building. Northlake Square is located on the northwest corner
of Northlake Boulevard and Shadberry Street. (18 -42S -438)
Principal Planner Marty Minor reviewed the staff report dated
September 17, 1996.
City Forester Hendrickson reported on the status of landscape
replacement at Pep Boys and explained that he would review this entire
site for landscaping compliance before a c/o would be granted to
Applebee's. Mr. Ornstein questioned whether the repair of Pep Boys
landscaping could be a condition prior to issuing a building permit,
rather than a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Minor explained that
since there was only one irrigation system for the entire site that
there was a possibility of plants dying as a result of cutting
• existing lines to accommodate Applebee's landscaping; therefore, he
preferred to check the landscaping before c /o, and problems in the
meantime could be handled by Code Enforcement.
Henry Skokowski, acting as agent for the petitioner in the absence of
Sara Lockhart, requested further review of the awnings, since the
petitioner preferred striped awnings. It was pointed out that the
petitioner had been requested at the last presentation to bring a
picture of a typical Applebee's restaurant to this meeting, to which
Mr. Skokowski responded that he had not been aware of that request.
Mr. Jones expressed his preference for a solid awning; and requested
clarification regarding the type of blocks around the base of the
building, which Mr. Skokowski verified were split faced block with
stacked bond. Mr. Ornstein expressed his preference for solid green
awnings. In response to Mr. Ornstein's question regarding retention
ponds shown on the future Congress right -of -way, Engineer Tim Messler
responded that those areas would be eliminated at the time of the
Congress Avenue extension. Signage was discussed. Mr. Skokowski
described the sign as having a red Plexiglas face with internally lit
channel letters and a red light at night. Mr. Ornstein inquired
whether the City Code allowed the wording Neighborhood Bar & Grill,
which Mr. Skokowski responded that it did; Mr. Ornstein expressed his
preference for deletion of that wording. Mr. Paganini expressed his
0 2
Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
preference for the striped awnings, and also received confirmation
that roof mounted equipment would be adequately screened. Mr. Pastore
questioned the type of ventilation system which would be used, to
which the response was that two mushroom- shaped fans would be located
on the rooftop, screened from view. Mr. Pastore expressed his
preference for solid color awnings. Vice Chair Carlino questioned why
the applicant had not addressed the 9 -foot parking spaces referred to
in the staff report, to which Mr. Skokowski responded that the
applicant had relied on the original site plan approval which had been
granted to the whole site. Mr. Ornstein requested that the plan
clearly state the parking spaces would be double striped.
Vice Chair Carlino advised the applicant that the poll was 3 to 2 in
favor of solid awnings.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
of Petition SP -96 -12 with deletion of the words Neighborhood Bar &
Grill from the sign and with the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Paganini. seconded the motion. After discussion and a poll of the
Committee regarding the proposed signage, Mr. Ornstein amended the
motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition SP -96 -12
is with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, the landscape architect
of record shall certify in writing to the City that all the
landscaping and irrigation is completed as approved for this
petition. in addition, prior to the issuance of the Applebee's
Certificate of Occupancy, the entire Northlake Square's
landscaping shall be inspected by the City Forester for
compliance with all approved landscape plans.
2. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, a Lighting Plan is
required per LDR 159.11(D)(4).
3. All landscaped islands need to be curbed and noted so on the
Civil Construction Plans as Type D Curbing- Typical.
4. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit the South Florida
Water Management District Permit Modification shall be submitted
to the City.
5. Awnings shall be solid green.
Mr. Pastore seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous
• 3
• Planning a zoning commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
5 -0 vote.
RBCOJMWWATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Petition SP-56-08, by Howard F.
Ostrout, agent for PGA National Ventures, LTD., requesting Site Plan
approval for the construction of 46 multi- family townhouses on 4 acres
on Parcel X -3 within PGA National Planned Community District (PCD) .
(10-42S-42B)
Principal Planner Marty Minor reviewed the staff report dated
September 19, 1996. Mr. Minor explained that a sixth waiver for the
five -foot sidewalk would be needed in addition to those listed in the
staff report.
Discussion ensued regarding the staff recommendation to remove the
gates because of stacking concerns, and whether to raise the sidewalk
to the pool.
Attorney Steve Mathison, attorney for Channing Corporation, introduced
Howard Ostrout, agent for the petitioner and Planner for the project,
Engineer Tim Messler, and Joel Channing, principal of Channing
• Corporation. Mr. Mathison explained that this project had been
planned to resemble a European village, that comments and suggestions
had been addressed, and that by eliminating two units the most
pressing issue of maintaining minimum 20 -foot parking spaces had been
accomplished, except for units 101, 102, 103 and 104, which were
located on a very limited dead -end access tract. Attorney Mathison
requested that a creative solution be worked out in regard to the
staff condition regarding removal of the proposed gate system.
Howard Ostrout, agent for the petitioner, reviewed the site plan and
changes which had been made since the last presentation. Mr. Ostrout
described architectural features of the project for the benefit of
those who had not been present at the prior presentation of this
petition. Mr. Ostrout displayed and discussed streetscape and gate
entry elevations, as well as other various elevations. Mr. Ostrout
explained that the landscaping elevation reflected actual planting
sizes and did not include existing Oak trees or an existing Ficus tree
because if they had been shown the buildings would be completely
screened. A very elegant Royal Palm landscaping theme had been used,
with Royal Palms lining the streets.
Mr. Ostrout commented that the petitioner had no problems with staff
conditions except with condition 6, and explained that traffic for
0 4
Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
this size project did not warrant a problem with stacking. A
compromise solution was suggested for the Committee's consideration
of scheduling the gate so that during daytime hours they would
automatically open and would be operated by use of the call box during
evening hours. Residents would have their own gate activators. Mr.
Pastore noted that no provisions for a U -turn at the gate had been
provided, to which Mr. Ostrout responded that turning room was
provided at the call box area. Mr. Pastore questioned whether there
was a raised elevation around the recreation building. Mr. Ostrout
responded that the applicant preferred not to raise the elevation in
order to provide more turning room.
Mr. Pastore questioned why an unlit bollard was shown on the plan,
which Mr. Ostrout explained was just to protect the FPL transformer,
and that there were lighted bollards at the piazza area. Mr. Pastore
requested information regarding the rear setbacks. Mr. Ostrout
described the 20 -foot maintenance easement and how the patios had
been designed without walls and with landscaping going into those
areas which was allowed so long as a 12 -foot drive was maintained.
Mr. Paganini expressed his opinion that the 4" raised pathway was
• unnecessary, and his desire to see the entry gates open during the
day. Mr. Pastore expressed concern over how the gate schedule would
be enforced, and stated that he did not have a problem with the gates.
Mr. Ornstein commented that he was concerned with stacking, and stated
that a requirement for the gates to be open during the day could be
handled by Code Enforcement. Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Jones agreed that
the 4" raised pathway was a safety hazard. Mr. Jones expressed his
opinion that the entry gates were not a problem. Mr. Pastore pointed
out that this would be a four -way stop so that drivers would have an
opportunity to take necessary precautions. Mr. Ostrout reviewed the
sidewalk along the other side of the street on Avenue of the Champions
and explained pedestrian access to the project.
Vice Chair Carlino advised the applicant that the consensus of the
Committee was not to raise the pathway by 4 inches, and that the gate
could be left the way it was.
Attorney Mathison commented that this was truly a unique development
and thanked the Committee for their consideration for the special
problems. Attorney Mathison explained that the applicant would like
to proceed with submittal of plans to pull permits for dry models
before actual City Council approval. This would be done at the
applicant's sole risk, in order to allow more time so that they would
• 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
be able to show their product during the season. Principal Planner
Minor explained that this had been done before, and that the risk to
the applicant was that if City Council did not grant approval the
applicant would lose all fees which had been paid. Mr. Minor
commented that the City Engineer would be looking at the access and
parking for the models.
Mr. Pastore made a motion to recommend approval of Petition SP -96 -08
to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy, the
landscape architect of record shall certify in writing to the
City that all the landscaping is completed per the approved
landscape plans.
2. Prior to the scheduling this petition for a City Council
workshop, the petitioner shall submit a revised site plan and
elevations plan indicating the location, size, and the
construction material of the bollards provided at transformer
and handhole facilities.
• 3. A Subdivision Plat shall be submitted showing (1) what areas
constitute the fee simple lots, (2) access parcels, (3) common
areas, easements, and other encumbrances for the proposed
subdivision, approved by the City Council and recorded prior to
the issuance of the first Building Permit.
4. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit, the
Subdivision Plat, approved by Council and recorded, shall show
the reduction of the width of the water management easement from
30 -feet to 20 -feet and the dedication of additional access
easements with the acceptance thereof by the NPBCID.
S. Prior to the City Council approval of the Subdivision Plat, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the NPBCID permit that allows
patio and landscape encroachments in the water
management easement.
6. The raised walkway between units 301 and 208 shall be lowered 4
inches.
Mr. Paganini seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion,
Mr. Ornstein requested addition of a sixth waiver in regard to the
sidewalk looping around the middle section rather than the entire
0 6
• Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
project. Mr. Pastore stated that he would amend the motion to include
the sixth waiver as requested by Mr. Ornstein. Mr. Ornstein seconded
the amended motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote.
PUBLIC SEARING: petition PUD- 95 -01, by Ray A. Kennedy, agent for
Westwood Townhomes, 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- 41S -42E)
Principal Planner Minor explained that this Public Hearing was a
continuation of the hearing of March 12, 1996, and reviewed the
associated staff report dated September 19, 1996, including six
reasons for the March 12 postponement.
Vice Chair Carlino questioned why'this petition was back before the
Commission when previous items had not been addressed, to which Mr.
Minor responded that the applicant had formally requested that the
• petition come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a
decision. Discussion ensued regarding insufficient information to
perform a review, and the option of denying the project.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to table Petition PUD -95 -01 until all
material requested at the last meeting was provided to staff. Mr.
Jones seconded the motion. Assistant City Attorney Golis was
questioned as to correct procedure in this matter. Attorney Golis
explained that he had discussed this petition with Planning and Zoning
Director Walton regarding whether this should be considered by the
Commission. Attorney Golis had made a recommendation to present this
petition to the Commission with the express understanding that the
applicant would have an opportunity regardless of how the Commission
votes, to then proceed to City Council. Attorney Golis stated that
he understood that the City Council did not want to operate that way,
however, when considering the applicant's situation and the staff
recommendations, there were some items at an impasse, such as the
request for a letter from the homeowners association subsequent from
the October, 1994 letter, which would simply not be forthcoming.
Attorney Golis stated that it was therefore his recommendation to go
forward with the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ornstein stated that the only item at impasse was the letter and
• 7
• Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
there was no reason staff could not have been provided with the other
requested items; and expressed his opinion that this petition should
be tabled until staff received the all of the items requested with the
exception of the letter. Mr. Pastore stated he had no problem
hearing from the applicant. Mr. Paganini commented that he would like
to hear public comments. Mr. Jones agreed that the items should have
been presented to staff to provide a basis for the Commission's
review; however, he was willing to hear public comments with the
exception that points which might be brought out which could develop
into legal matters between the different associations and the
developer, and explained that the Commission could not vote on
specific items. Mr. Pastore questioned whether the Commission could
complete the Public Hearing and recommend that the applicant return.
Mr. Ornstein commented that the Public Hearing could be continued.
Vice Chair Carlino verified with the Commission members that with the
exception of Mr. Ornstein, the consensus was to proceed with the
public hearing.
Vice Chair Carlino declared the Public Hearing open for Petition PUD-
95-01.
• Ray Kennedy, agent for the Petitioner, introduced the Petitioner's
attorney, Charles J. Cacciabeve. Mr. Kennedy reported on the items
which had been requested at the last meeting, other than the letter.
Mr. Kennedy reported that item 2, the overlay to the elevations, had
been completed and submitted to staff. Mr. Kennedy explained that in
regard to item 6, which required that the rear elevations be reworked,
that at the last meeting it had been brought out that the applicant
was confined to the existing pod, and no rework had been done because
in the opinion of the applicant they had submitted the final design
in accordance with the previously approved letter. Mr. Kennedy
reported that item 3, which requited landscaping to be reflected on
the plans, had been completed, submitted to staff, and reviewed by
City Forester Hendrickson, who had indicated he found no problems.
Discussion ensued regarding why the rear elevations had not been
reworked. Mr. Kennedy contended that they could not be changed
without going outside the existing pod, which had been inherited by
the applicant from a previous approval. Mr. Jones and Mr. Ornstein
made comments indicating that the applicant could make changes to the
design of their units within the pod.
Vice Chair Carlino explained that this Commission could only review
the plan and could have no input or decision regarding any legal
battle in which the applicant was a participant. Therefore, with
• 8
• Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
nothing to review at this meeting, the Commission had been placed in
a rather precarious position.
Attorney Cacciabeve, representing Weyerhauser Real Estate Company,
referred to his letter to the City dated September 17, 1996, which had
been provided to the Commission members. Attorney Cacciabeve stated
that both landscaping issues had been addressed and dealt with by
staff; the rear of the buildings was kept within the previously
approved plat by the County; and that Mr. Kennedy had met with staff
to determine the alleged discrepancy between the roof plans and the
floor plans, and no one knew what the discrepancy was. Attorney
Cacciabeve stated the applicant had no objection to a conditional
approval being given requiring that the plans must match. Attorney
Cacciabeve commented that the letter from the Board of Directors of
the Homeowners Association had been a condition of approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission; however, the letter could not be
obtained, and he had explained in his September 17 letter why that
letter from the Board of Directors was not necessary. Attorney
Cacciabeve reviewed that portion of his September 17 letter. Attorney
Golis commented that there was a need for a revised letter because it
was required by City Code Section 118 -50 (4)(n), and read that Code
• Section into the record. Attorney Cacciabeve requested that the
Commission members read the Declaration, which he stated specifically
provided consent. After further discussion, Vice Chair Carlino
advised Attorney Cacciabeve that he and the City Attorney must reach
agreement on this issue since the Commission would not go against the
opinion of the City Attorney. Attorney Cacciabeve responded that the
applicant then respectfully requested denial. Mr. Ornstein commented
that the Commission did not have sufficient information to deny the
project.
Mr. Ornstein commented that the roof plan shown did not agree with the
elevations presented in the package, and that the applicant's
architect would know what that meant. Mr. Ornstein explained that the
Commission did not approve plans or give recommendations until all
items were corrected; and that conditional approvals were not granted.
Mr. Ornstein suggested that units could be made 58 feet deep instead
of 62 feet deep to provide more room at the rear so that the rear
elevations could be reworked, presented to staff, and then presented
to the Commission.
Principal Planner Minor clarified that item 3 had been complied with
and had been included in the list of conditions in error.
• 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
vice Chair Carlino declared the Public Hearing open. Cari Podesta,
5515 Golden Eagle Circle, explained that although she was a resident
of Westwood Gardens that she was speaking only as the attorney for the
Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. Ms. Podesta stated
that any other comments from board members would be made as residents
and that she was the only representative speaking at this Public
Hearing for the united Board representing the entire development. Ms.
Podesta stated that she had received Attorney Cacciabeve' letter that
morning wherein his client had admitted they were the successor
declarant and developer of Westwood Gardens PUD for purposes of the
homeowners documents, which she believed was relevant to the position
of the Homeowners Association as to why they could not to consent to
the petition as presently presented. Ms. Podesta agreed with the
position taken by the City Attorney, and stated that the Association
was objecting to the petition because of their ownership of common
area Tract A, which was a part of the petitioner's proposed
development. Ms. Podesta explained that the County had not required
completion of the common area of the PUD and if the City did not
require its completion in connection with the proposed petition, then
the Homeowners Association would be liable to complete landscaping,
irrigation, paving and drainage, and lighting at a cost in excess of
• $240,000. Ms. Podesta stated that the Homeowners Association would
have no objection to the project if the petitioner acknowledged their
obligations as successor developer and completed the PUD.
Allen Fried, 12605 Woodmill, addressed safety considerations regarding
the number of driveways on the through street where the proposed
project was located. Mr. Fried stated that this street would have
twice as many driveway entrances as any other through street in the
subdivision; and commented that the proposed parking arrangement would
have a detrimental effect.
Ed Lyons, The Lakes, expressed concern that the roadway into the
development as shown on the applicant's landscape plan was only 20
feet wide, with a series of driveways along it, as well as additional
parking, and the mail box drop area was on the narrowest road. Mr.
Lyons commented that traffic problems would affect property values
negatively, that no stormwater study or provisions for enlarging the
retention pond had been made to prevent flooding, earth berming to
match existing earth berming throughout the development had not been
added, and expressed concern with some of the types of plants
proposed. vice Chair Carlino commented that the Commission did not
have the necessary tools to answer Mr. Lyons' questions, but would
take note of them and proceed accordingly. Mr. Lyons read into the
• 10
•
r1
U
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
record comments from a letter from resident Albert Whitehall, which
has been attached to and made a part of these minutes.
Alfred Johnson, Westwood Lakes homeowner, expressed concern regarding
safety hazards because of the dangerous proposed parking and traffic
pattern, and the associated liability.
Sam Thompson, Woodmill Drive, expressed concern that the barrier wall
had been installed without the acoustic tiles called for in to
specifications, so that noise from I -95 was now a serious problem.
Bonnie Sanchez, Westwood Lakes, commented that all the existing homes
had patio areas and no such recreation area was included in the units
in the proposed plans. Ms. Sanchez recommended that the buildings be
reduced in size to provide space for recreation and parking.
Brenda Hines, Woodmill Drive, expressed concern that if the applicant
had not followed through with requested items from the March meeting
that they could not be expected to follow through with compliance in
the development of their project. Ms. Hines also stated that traffic
was a problem.
Charles Cacciabeve responded to Ms. Podestals comments that the
applicant should be required to complete PUD issues by stating that
Weyerhauser had never owned that property and that this was a legal
issue; that a previous developer owner had been provided by Palm Beach
County with a letter that all PUD issues had been appropriately
completed and a $240,300 bond had been released; and at a later date
another bond had been required by the City for another developer who
had built the units in the area known as Little Beruit. Mr.
Cacciabeve stated that it was the applicants position that they were
not responsible for the completion of PUD issues, and that the number
of driveways fit the plat and the required density. Assistant City
Attorney Golis referred to Mr. Cacciabeve's September 17 letter, and
commented that he saw no relevance in the 1993 letter Mr. Cacciabeve
referred to, since that was two years after the property had been
voluntarily annexed into the City.
vice Chair Carlino declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to table this project until further
information was received regarding issues brought up at the last
meeting which had not been addressed by the petitioner, and until
there had been sufficient time for staff review.. Mr. Paganini
11
Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Jones
commented that the applicant had requested a yes or no vote. vice
Chair Carlino questioned whether the applicant was prepared to move
forward to City Council with a denial. Attorney Cacciabeve discussed
the applicant's position and stated they did not want to waste
everyone's time by returning with the same issue still outstanding,
i.e., that they did not have a letter. Mr. Ornstein stated that his
motion had nothing to do with the letter, that the project in its
current form was not acceptable, that the Commission did not have
enough information to vote on the project either to approve it or to
deny it, and until such time as the information was received it was
his opinion that this project should not continue. Mr. Jones stated
that he would not vote to deny on only the letter but on all of the
rest of the merits of the project because he had no further
information and did not like many of the issues in the existing plan.
Mr. Jones expressed concern that even if all of the other issues were
worked out between the applicant and the Commission that it might not
matter because the letter would still be an issue. The vote on the
motion was only one in favor, four for denial. The motion therefore
was not approved.
• Mr. Jones asked the petitioner whether they intended to do anything
further, to which Mr. Cacciabeve, response was that they had complied
with the two landscape items from the last meeting and there were two
other items unrelated to the letter- -the roof plan discrepancy and the
rear elevation - -which the applicant would be happy to work on with
staff; however, questioned whether the Commission would then add other
issues regarding the driveways, recreation, etc., which had previously
been resolved. Mr. Jones explained that the public hearing was held
in order to hear public concerns and therefore the applicant would
probably have additional issues to address. A poll of the Commission
members indicated that additional issues would need to be resolved
even though they may have been previously discussed.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to table the project until all information
needed to make a decision was received. Mr. Jones seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 5 -0.
During discussion regarding proper procedure, it was pointed out that
the public hearing had been closed so that this petition would be
brought back as a recommendation.
• 12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
� Vii'•' = ' ' - �!_ ='F�
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
is
0 13
R
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
"9 kelIFIC,
There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Ornstein, seconded
by Mr. Jones, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 P.M. The next meeting will be held October 15, 1996.
APPROVED: (Absent)
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, vice Chair
(Absent)
John Glidden
(Absent)
William Mignogna
•
Thomas Pastore
Tom Paganini
Chris op r Jo es
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
.(Absent)
John Nedvins, Alternate
/ Secretary
• 14
STATP141ENT Or ALBERT WHITEHALL
Mr. Ivlayor and Council iviembers:
• Since I cannot attent tonight's meeting, I have asked my
friend, Ed Lyons, who used to be a city planner, to tell you
what I want to say:
How long is it, Dir. -Mayor, since you told this applicant to
get in touch with some community leaders and try to work out a
mutually agreeable solution? If there has been any such meeting
I have not heard of its
I was one of the small group of homeowners who objected to the
proposal because the proposed barracks -like buildings would not
harmonize with our community of quadruplexes,
When the applicant first presented his , phis at a meeting of
the Home Owners Association, one resident asked: :Wouldn't you
have to back your car into the street to get it out ?"
The applicant answered "Yes"
Our community has 27 quadruplexes -- 108 residence units.
• These are all built on short streets running North and South. The
road on which the applicant proposes to builck onnects with a wider
street running East and West, and crossing all the short streets
on which residences are built. When that streetreaches the edge
of the Lake area, it becomes a two lane road that goes straight
North to the entrance oft Hood Road. That road is Not a street;
it is a two lane road the carries 75;o' or more of the traffic in sand
out of our community.
The proposed buildings are Buildings the same width as the lot
they are on with 12 units per building (11 in some)They are huge;
two full stories in height, the two buildings on each side of the
road would make the road look like a tunnel -- and d4rk.
i But the project would change the whole nature of our co:mnunty
with its four hudge buildings and no space between for light and
air. And when our residents hit the area where cars will have to
back out into the road, I predict that will be an increase of
profanity, and a surge in the business of auto body repair shops/
• The plan is fatally flawed. It should be rejected.
The applicant has fallen into the trap of building bigger
buildings to get a higher price, It should not ave been attempted.
AZ �
I
• 12589 Woodmill Drive
Palm Beach Gardens
Florida 33418
September 24, 1996
To: The Members of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission, Meeting
on Tuesday, September 24, 1996
at &:30 p.m. in Palm Beach Gardens City Hall
Re: Proposed construction of 47 blockhouse tenements adjacent
to the main entrance to the Westwood Lakes division of the
Westwood Gardens Homeowner's Association.
I am the owner of unit 38C in the Westwood Lakes division.
I call the Commission's particular attention to the traffic and parking
congestion - and the attendant safety problems - that would be created
by the present design for this proposed construction. The idea that each unit
would have three parking spaces - one in the garage and two in tandem
• immediately behind - can only have been prompted by the lack of judgment
or greed of the developer.
Nothing of this design was contemplated or described to me at the time of my
purchase. Indeed assurances were given that any housing development of the
area under consideration would conform to the general style and living
arrangements of the existing "quads" although - due to space limitations - not
necessarily "quads" themselves.
You will no doubt hear from other concerned owners in this division about
potential problems of drainage and irrigation - to say nothing about the esthetics
of the "blockhouse" design. But unless you require revision of the proposed
parking spaces and traffic patterns you will - should you accept the design -be
creating a significant problem for us and a dangerous safety problem about which
you can expect to read frequently in the local press.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. & Mrs. Alfred J. Junz
is
CAm A. PODESTA, P.A.
11382 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 227
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Cari Sussman Podesta
Attorney at Law
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Carl Sabatello
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Palm Beach Gardens
10500 N. Military Trail
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 334104698
Re: Westwood Gardens Homeowners Association,
"Petitioner ") Petition PUD -95 -01 ( "Petition ")
Dear Chairman Sabatello:
September 20, 1996
,; 0�40Cv
Telephone (561) 627 -0469
Fax (561) 625 -0901
XV-
Rathke (collectively,
• My office represents the Association. This letter is intended to address the Petition
referenced above as it relates to certain rights and obligations of my client arising under the
declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions ( "Declaration ") for Westwood Gardens
(which includes the development known as Westwood Lakes). As of the writing of this
letter neither myself nor my client have had the opportunity to review the plans submitted
by the Petitioner so we are not prepared and will not speak to the merits of the plans (this
is not" to say that individual homeowners will not be asking to address the merits of the
plans). The Petitioner has not submitted nor presented the newly revised plans to the
Association for its prior review or approval.
To the extent that this letter conflicts with prior letters sent by or on behalf of the
Association, including prior counsel, the current Board of Directors intends for this letter
to supersede any and all prior correspondence on this subject. I would also like to take the
opportunity to inform you that nothing contained herein will come as surprise to either the
City or Weyerhauser. My office has met and discussed the contents of this letter with
various members of the City staff, including Assistant City Manager, Greg Dunham, and
Planning & Zoning Director, Rich Walton. My office has also communicated with Charles
Cacciabeve, Esquire, of Carlton Fields, the attorneys for the owner of the subject property,
Weyerhauser Real Estate Company.
Now, to the matter at hand. The Association's approval of the Petition is required
for the following reasons: (i) the City's code requires all affected property owners to consent
17J
C i
Chairman Sabatello
Page 2
• to the Petition and the plans require the use of common area Tract "A", which tract is
dedicated by the plat of Westwood Lakes to the Association and pursuant to the terms of
the Declaration is owned by the Association; and (ii) if the Petitioner asserts that it is not
the Declarant under the Declaration, then Article X of the Declaration requires the
Association to approve all structures erected upon a Lot and all landscaping planted outside
of any building. Again, as of the writing of this letter, these plans have not been submitted
by the Petitioner for approval by the Association.
Pursuant to the terms of the Declaration, the Association is charged with operating
and maintaining the common area, which by definition includes the subject common area
Tract "A ". As a pre- condition for the Association's approval of any plans to develop the
subject property, it has the fiduciary duty to eliminate any potential exposure for the P.U.D.
deficiencies which exist within this same common area Tract "A ". In support of this, and as
an example of what I am referring to, I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated February 15,
1994 by City Forester, Mark Hendrickson, citing as a compliance violation the failure to
follow the P.U.D. landscape plan by installing landscaping in that portion of Tract "A" that
runs along I -95 east of privacy wall parallel to Woodmill Drive and the southern buffer
adjacent to the units constructed by Dominessy Custom Builders, Inc. on behalf of Forest
Lake Homes, Inc. This same letter was sent by the City to the Association, as the owner
of Tract "A ", and Forest Lake Homes as the City believed that all parties may have liability
for the violation. Code enforcement proceedings were deferred because the City was unsure
• as to who of the three was the responsible party. As a second example, I refer to the fact
that the Florida Department of Transportation has issued a citation for violations of state
law for the wall that was defectively constructed and installed by Dominessy on Tract "A ",
which wall is not only encroaching into the I -95 buffer but is falling down and is need of
replacement. There are numerous additional deficiencies arising under the original P.U.D.
plans as more fully detailed in the Association's report prepared by the consulting
engineering firm of Four Jay's. The estimated cost to bring these deficiencies into
compliance is in excess of $200,000.00.
Pursuant to the terms of the Declaration, the Association is not responsible for
development of the common areas, including Tract "A ". The Association is obligated only
to operate and maintain the common areas and common area improvements once they are
completed by the developer /declarant. Pursuant to the terms of the P.U.D., the developer
is likewise responsible for the installation of missing landscaping and the buffer wall which
is failing down along I -95, and other improvements and appurtenances for common area
Tract "A ". If the City were to approve the subject petition without requiring the Petitioner
to correct the existing P.U.D. deficiencies with respect to Tract "A ", then the City will have
no choice but to require the Association, as the owner of Tract "A ", to correct them at an
incredible expense to the homeowners of Westwood Gardens and with a resulting windfall
to Weyerhauser, as successor developer to The Babcock Company. By requiring the
Petitioner to correct these deficiencies as a condition of your approval of the Petition, the
City would be properly enforcing the terms of the original P.U.D. approval and sparing the
• homeowners of Westwood Gardens from an unfair and incredible financial burden.
Chairman Sabatello
Page 3
• It is imperative for the City to understand that the Petitioner does not have the right
under the Declaration to proceed with the Petition unless and until it acknowledges that is
the successor declarant and successor developer. If necessary, the Association can provide
the City with support of its position that Weyerhauser is a successor developer of the P.U.D.
and, as such, is legally responsible to the City and the Association for properly completing
the P.U.D. This is true even though Weyerhauser's predecessor in interest, The Babcock
Company, had an agreement to allocate the burden of developing the Westwood Lakes
common area, including Tract "A", with the co- developer of Westwood Lakes, Forest Lakes
Homes, Inc. (or, technically, its predecessor in interest, Westwood Lakes, Inc.). Neither the
City nor the Association are parties to this agreement and are not bound by the terms
thereof. There is only one P.U.D. approval and only one common area Tract "A" and it
would be wrong for the City to allow the Petitioner to sever them into two for the purposes
of approving the subject Petition.
For all of these reasons, the Association respectfully requests that the Planning &
Zoning Commission include as a condition of its approval the requirement that the
Petitioner correct all existing deficiencies in the P.U.D. The Association will be happy to
assist City staff in enumerating the exact nature of these 'deficiencies. Thank you for your
consideration of this request.
Nothing contained herein is intended to be a waiver of any right which the
• Association or any member of the Association may have to make further objections to the
Petition should the Petitioner take the position that it is not the successor declarant under
the Declaration and successor developer of the P.U.D.
Respectfully submitted,
Cari A. Podesta
Enclosure
cc: Board of Directors, Westwood Gardens Homeowners Association, Inc. (via hand
delivery)
Planning & Zoning Commission Members (via hand delivery)
Charles Cacciabeve, Esquire (via telecopy and U.S. mail)
Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager (via hand delivery)
Rich Walton, Planning and Zoning Director (via hand delivery)
Tom Baird, City Attorney (via telecopy and via hand delivery)
•
4
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
February 15, 1994
10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL • PALM BEACH GARDENS. FLORIDA 33410.4698
Mr. Gary M. Brandenburg, Esquire
Carlton, Fields, Ward et al
P.O. Box 150
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
RE: Westwood Lakes Unfinished Landscaping
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
It is my understanding that your firm represents the Babcock Company. Based upon our
information, the Babcock Company is the developer of the Westwood Lakes /Gardens
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Landscaping was not installed per the PUD landscape
plans. Specifically, the landscaping along Interstate Highway 95 east of a privacy wall, along
Woodmill Drive, and the southern buffer adjacent to the units constructed by Dominessy
•
Custom Buildings, Inc.
The developer of a PUD has the responsibility to install landscaping per the landscaping
plans, which have been submitted, reviewed and approved by the County. The City may
enforce the County approved PUD as a successor local government per Chapter 171.
Failure to install landscaping per the PUD approval is a code violation. Unless
arrangements, which are satisfactory to the City, to correct the violation are made with this
office on or before February 28, 1994, the City will take enforcement actions to address the
violation.
It is my assumption that you are meeting with us on Wednesday, February 16, 1994, to
address your client's compliance with City Codes as described above. If this was not the
case, then please be prepared to discuss this matter at our meeting. If you cannot be
prepared to discuss this matter, then I would suggest you postpone our meeting until such
time as you are prepared. Failure to respond to the afore - mentioned violation, may result
in a summons to appear on the March 1994 Code Enforcement Board's agenda.
Sincerely,
Ad4ki- X40,�
Mark I. Hendrickson
City Forester
• cc: Bobbie Herakovich, City Manager
Thomas J. Baird, City Attorney
l