Loading...
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