HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102296CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 22, 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 Melissa Prindiville:
Present Absent
Diane Carlino Jeff Ornstein
John Glidden
Chris Jones
William Mignogna
John Nedvins
Tom Paganini
Thomas Pastore
Carl Sabatello arrived at 7:35 P.M.
Also present at the meeting were Assistant City Attorney Paul Golis,
• Planning and Zoning Director Richard Walton, Principal Planner Marty
Minor, Planner Bahareh Keshavarz, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and
Planner Edward Tombari.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Planning and Zoning Director. He gave
apologizes for Councilman David Clark who could not attend the
meeting.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison since Mr. David Clark
was not present.
Minutes of September 28, 1996 - Mr. Jones made a motion to approve the
minutes as submitted. Mr. Paganini seconded the motion, which carried
by 4 -0 vote. Mr. Nedvins, Mr. Glidden, and Mr. Mignogna abstained
from voting on the motion, as they were not present at the September
28 meeting.
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• October 22, 1996
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 Marty Minor reviewed the staff report dated October
17, 1996, and advised that staff recommended denial of this petition
to the City Council because of unfinished landscaping in the southwest
corner required by the original PUD, and because the requested
Homeowner's Association letter of approval had not been provided.
Mr. John Nedvins stepped down and was replaced on the Board by
Chairman Carl Sabatello at 7:35 P.M.
Chairman Sabatello commented that it had been his understanding from
the last meeting that the petitioner was going to meet with the City
staff to clarify who had the authority to approve what would be built
on this property prior to coming back before the Planning and Zoning
Commission; and therefore questioned why this petition was on the
agenda. Principal Planner Minor explained that it had been staff's
desire to work out the outstanding matters prior to presentation;
however, the petitioner had requested that this petition be presented
to the Commission for resolution. Assistant City Attorney Golis
reported that he had spoken with the attorney for the applicant as
well as the attorney for the Homeowners Association, and had received
the entire Declaration of Westwood Lakes. Attorney Golis explained
that the issue and concern had been whether the Homeowners Association
Board would be required to provide an agreement and approval for
amendment to the PUD. Attorney Golis stated that according to the
City Code, all owners of property within a PUD must approve an
amendment to the PUD; and explained that Tract A is a common area
owned by the Homeowners Association. Therefore it was Attorney Golis'
opinion that the Board of the Homeowners Association had the right to
submit a letter to the City stating whether they approved or
disapproved the proposed project. A letter of approval dated October
1994 had been rescinded by a later letter from the Homeowners
Association Board then in power, and the City had requested a new
letter indicating specific approval of a specific site plan by date
and page number, which had not been provided. Director Walton
explained that the letter which had been received was general and did
not refer to a specific plan. Attorney Golis recommended that a clear
recommendation be made to the City Council regarding any other
unsatisfied aspects of this project besides the letter, since it was
believed that the letter would never be forthcoming; and stated that
the City Council might have a different view regarding whether the
letter was necessary. Discussion ensued, during which Chairman
Sabatello expressed concern that the Planning and Zoning Commission
would be reviewing the petition, making recommendations and
conditions, and if the Homeowners Board of Directors approved
0 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
• October 22, 1996
something different then everything would have to be reviewed again.
Chairman Sabatello stated that it was not the policy of the Planning
and Zoning Commission to send an application forward without approval,
however, the petitioner had asked for a vote one way or the other.
Chairman Sabatello stated that he did not wish to hear comments from
the petitioner, however, the other members of the Commission agreed
to hear the petitioner's comments, with the stipulation that those
comments be limited to why the petitioner wished to move forward.
Vice Chairman Carlino questioned whether the petitioner and the
homeowners association should be working this matter out among
themselves and then presenting it to the Commission, to which Director
Walton responded that would be best for everyone.
Ray Kennedy, agent for the Petitioner, was reminded by Chairman
Sabatello to confine his remarks to why the petitioner desired this
matter to move forward. Mr. Kennedy explained that the original
Homeowners Association Board had approved the plans, the Commission
had also recommended approval of the plans with changes, that the
petition had been postponed for revision of the plans and during that
time a new Homeowners Association board came into power. Technical
issues requested to be changed had been submitted to staff, and
petitioner was seeking approval of those changes at tonight's meeting.
Mr. Kennedy advised that there would be no letter forthcoming from the
Homeowners Association Board, but the applicant could provide
everything else the Commission had requested, and wished to move
forward to decide whether the letter was needed. Charles Cacciabeve,
• attorney for Weyerhauser Real Estate Company, current owner of the
property, explained that Weyerhauser and a subsidiary company, Babcock
Company, were in litigation with the Homeowners Association over a
number of issues, including construction on other pieces of property.
Attorney Cacciabeve explained that the petitioner had attempted to
secure the letter and as late as the previous day representatives of
the petitioner had met with representatives of the Board and their
attorney, and while it appeared the Board was in agreement with the
plans, the Board wanted the applicant to fix all PUD issues throughout
the entire development, on property they had never owned. Attorney
Cacciabeve explained that the petitioner and the Homeowners
Association were in litigation over that issue, and the petitioner
would never get the letter without paying approximately $250,000 to
fix all the PUD issues. Attorney Cacciabeve advised that his
position, contrary to the recommendation made by Attorney Golis, was
that the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions governing the
Homeowners Association specifically provided for the approval, and an
easement had been granted and recorded for the petitioner to build
wherever they wanted. Attorney Cacciabeve stated that he had sent a
letter dated September 17, 1996 to the City outlining the position
that the letter was unnecessary.
Attorney Cacciabeve explained that the reason the petitioner thought
they should have a decision one way or the other was that the letter
would not be forthcoming because the petitioner did not intend to pay
out $250,000 to correct problems on property never owned by them.
Chairman Sabatello questioned whether that issue should be worked out
0 3
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
October 22, 1996
first, to which Attorney Cacciabeve responded that the petitioner
believed they were entitled to a decision from the City as to whether
they would approve or disapprove the plans based upon the merits of
the plan, and if the Commission believed that the Code required the
letter must be given, the application could be denied and move
forward, after which they could either build or not build their
project; but would not remain in limbo waiting for a letter which was
never going to come, which the petitioner viewed as the same as a
denial. Attorney Cacciabeve commented that the technical issues
raised at the last meeting had been addressed to the satisfaction of
staff, and the letter issue was still remaining.
Chairman Sabatello commented that his concern was that this was a very
technical issue which was beyond the Commission's expertise and that
was why direction was requested of the City Attorney, and also that
giving a recommendation to move forward could create additional
technical problems.
Chairman Sabatello called for comments from the other Commission
members strictly regarding moving this petition forward without the
letter of approval from the Board of Directors of the Homeowners
Association. Mr. Glidden questioned whether the letter was needed
because it had been requested or whether it was required by ordinance,
to which Director Walton responded that it was both, and the Code said
that all property owners must be a part of the petition. Discussion
ensued regarding the previous approval letter which was later
rescinded. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that limbo was being
created, that the petitioner had a legal issue with the Homeowners
Association which they must work out, and commented that the question
was really whether they worked it out before or after coming to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Glidden commented that if the
Code clearly stated that City approval could not be given without the
letter, then there was no issue.
Director Walton read from Section N of the City Code.
Mr. Jones questioned the petitioner's objective. Attorney Cacciabeve
explained that Weyerhauser Realty Company had a contract to sell this
project built according to the plans before the Commission. The
closing of that contract was contingent upon City approval. It was
the intent of the purchaser to build the project. Attorney Cacciabeve
reviewed the petitioner's position that they had a recorded easement
to build and as current owner had the right through the Declaration
of Covenants to proceed. If a denial was received by the City, the
petitioner could then decide whether to abandon their plans to build
or to seek a decision from the Court whether Attorney Golis was
correct, or the petitioner was correct, or there was a different
interpretation by the Court. Attorney Cacciabeve stated that as late
as the previous day the plans had been presented to the Homeowners
Association Board and their attorney; and they agreed that the plans
were okay but had not changed their position that the petitioner must
correct all outstanding PUD issues. Attorney Cacciabeve requested
that the Commission narrow the outstanding items for this position to
4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 1996
the one issue of the letter and act upon that issue so that this
petitioner would not remain in limbo.
During discussion, Mr. Glidden commented that he had read the Code
section which basically said that there must be an owners' agreement
to submit the plan and get it approved, and the owners' agreement was
defined as agreement by all owners within the PUD which included their
commitment to develop their property and maintain it, and by their
successors, whether it was the greater PUD or a part of the PUD. Mr.
Glidden commented that a parallel illustration would be if Llwyd
Ecclestone wanted to build out the last remaining parcel in PGA
National, and questioned whether he would have to get consent of all
the property owners throughout PGA to build that project. Mr. Walton
responded that if he built outside of the pod into property he did not
own that he would have to obtain that consent. This applicant was
building outside their property as to ingress and egress (landscaping
and driveways).
Attorney Golis advised that the Public Hearing was closed at the last
meeting and there was no need to reopen.
Mr. Paganini made a motion to deny Petition PUD -95 -01 because of lack
of a letter from the Board of Directors and the opinion of staff and
Counsel. Mr. Pastore seconded the motion. During discussion of the
motion, the maker of the motion was asked if he were suggesting that
the petition be moved forward with a denial. Mr. Walton explained
• that regardless of what was done, this was only a recommendation to
the City Council to act. Mr. Glidden pointed out that the staff
recommendation was to recommend to the City Council denial of this
petition or in other words to move forward with denial, and questioned
whether the motion was to follow staff's recommendation. Mr. Paganini
clarified that the motion was to follow staff's recommendation.
Discussion ensued regarding the fact that there were various
possibilities of what could happen to this petition, but that it would
be subject to staff review and decision whether to present it to the
City Council. Mr. Glidden commented that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had not reviewed any of the exterior, so that the
Commission was moving it forward with the recommendation for denial
because of the one issue; and requested that the motion be amended to
state that if the letter was obtained that the Planning and Zoning
Commission have an opportunity to complete their review of
architectural and planning issues. Chairman Sabatello clarified that
if the letter of the Homeowners Association Board approved this
petition then the Planning and Zoning Board would have the opportunity
to review the architectural and planning issues. Mr. Glidden made a
side comment that the roof plan did not match the elevation. vice
Chair Carlino seconded the amendment, which carried by vote of 7 -0.
Chairman Sabatello stated that the amendment to the motion had been
approved and called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by
a vote of 7 -0.
Chairman Sabatello recapped for the petitioner that the petition was
denied from the Planning and Zoning Commission based technically upon
t5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 22, 1996
the letter.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
•
0 6
Planning & Zoning commission Minutes
• October 22, 1996
•
•
There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino,
seconded by Mr. Pastore, eadunanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:15 P.M. xt meeting will be held November 12,
1996.
APPROVED: X—�
Car / abatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice
Wil iam Mianoana
(Absent)
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
John Nedvins, Alternate
elissa Prindiville, Secretary
7