Loading...
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