Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 112895• 0 • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 28, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chairman Carl Sabatello at 7:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The roll was called by Secretary Melissa. Prindiville: Carl Sabatello, Chairman Diane Carlin, Vice Chair John Glidden Daniel Honig Phillip Lyddon William Mignogna Thomas Pastore Tom Paganini, Alternate Christopher Jones, Alternate Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, City Attorney Tom Baird, Principal Planner Bristol Ellington, and City Forester Mark Hendrickson. ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reported that Planning and Zoning Director Rich Walton was ill. Mr. Ellington suggested that the Commission might want to cancel the meeting scheduled for December 26, 1995, since several members would be out of town. Vice Chair Carlino made a motion to cancel the meeting. Mr. Honig seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0. M 0 _ 41 VKOLN rav-11MI411—we Irl R1# c City Council Liaison Clark stated he had no items to report. • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 1 1 �t _V Minutes of November 14, 1995 - Vice Chair Carlin made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Honig. The motion was approved by a 7 -0 vote. SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Recommendation to City Council: Eetition SP-95100, by Jeff Lis, agent for Daniel Catalfun o, to request site plan approval for the construction of a two- story, 47,000 square - foot building. Located on Lot 2 of South Park Center Plat within the Northcorp Center Planned Community District. (12- 42S -42E) Committee Member John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest, and subsequently left the meeting. Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated November 22, 1995. City Forester Hendrickson provided a brief history of the Code violation discussed in the staff report, in which he explained that the developer had removed vegetation without a permit from land which was now a deeded drainage easement. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he had requested that the brush be cleared which had been pushed aside and that the easement be seeded with grass. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether the petitioner had had any part in this violation to which City Forester Hendrickson responded that the petitioner had not been involved and the violation was committed solely by the developer. The violation included two issues: If this project received approval the offense would be a violation of the PCD required minimum 15 -ft. landscape strip along I -95 within which all native vegetation must be preserved and blended with the new landscaping. If, however, the project did not receive approval, the offense would encompass all clearing for this project. City Forester Hendrickson recommended to the Committee that they accept Condition 10 of the staff report which stated, This petition shall not receive final site plan approval by the City Council until the landscape plan reflects the mitigation for the vegetation destroyed due to the land clearing prior to permitting. Mr. Hendrickson explained possible mitigation alternatives. Jeff Lis, agent for the petitioner, commented that the staff report indicated petitioner's legal counsel had argued that there was a technical error in the citation and clarified that the petitioner did not hire any legal counsel in connection with this matter and had agreed to cooperate fully with any requirements imposed by the City in order to rectify this situation. in addition, Mr. Lis explained the circumstances of how the violation had occurred, and stated an honest mistake had been made, and that petitioner was willing to mitigate to correct the mistake. Mr. Lis stated that he accepted Condition 10. Mr. Lis clarified that in two places the developer had removed saw palmettos is 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 which would not have already been removed if the site plan was approved, and that no trees had been removed. Mr. Lis stated that in his opinion the building was a one -story building which had the outside appearance of a two -story building. Principal Planner Ellington commented that no floor plan had been received so that staff could verify that the building was in fact only one story. Mr. Lis pointed out wording on the elevations which indicated the upper level windows were for future knock -out as required, explained that this was a warehouse facility with loading docks, and that if the tenant's business grew to the point that additional space was needed then a second floor would be built and the downstairs offices moved to that floor. Discussion ensued regarding the addition of the mezzanine and the way parking calculation would be done to accommodate future expansion. Mr. Lis explained that including the proposed mezzanine, the building was 47,000 square feet, and that he believed it was unfair to limit the amount of office space within the building as long as the offices were ancillary to the function of light industrial. Mr. Ellington commented that staff's concern was the addition of square footage within the building while reducing the maximum number of employees in order to keep the amount of parking the same. Mr. Lis commented that he could not predict how many employees would occupy the building in the future, and that there were probably many other buildings within the City where the percentage was as high as 50% office space to industrial so that if the percentage was limited • in his building the City should enter all other buildings which had existing businesses to determine whether they were still in compliance. Mr. Honig. agreed that the number of employees could not be projected into the future and that tenants would not lease there if parking was insufficient. Mr. Lyddon questioned whether Code Enforcement had authority to go into businesses to count employees. Mr. Ellington responded that they did not. Vice Chair Carlin commented that the City had no way to enforce the maximum number of employees. Mr. Ellington explained that office use was a permitted use on this site, but the traffic impact analysis had been based on the building being completely industrial, and suggested a condition stating that offices shall only be ancillary to industrial uses. Mr. Lis agreed to such a condition. Mr. Lis commented on his position that the building was one story, and explained that if and when Decorators Unlimited decided to move offices upstairs that the window spaces would then be knocked out and the building would become two stories at that point. Mr. Lis explained that there were different building codes which applied to one versus two story buildings, mainly to do with exterior fire exits. Mr. Lyddon commented that the space within the building would be used, whether it was called a one or a two -story building and that fire exits should be provided. Mr. Lis stated that fire exits and also an elevator were provided. Further discussion ensued regarding the mezzanine and the knock -outs for future windows. Mr. Ellington explained that this was an issue for the Building Department, and that the petitioner must satisfy the code. Mr. Lyddon requested a condition limiting the number of employees. 0 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 Mr. Lis discussed condition (9) to allow the waiver request to allow the Decorator's Unlimited wall - mounted sign proposed for the north elevation. Chairman Sabatello stated that if this waiver were granted that there was a strong chance that another such waiver would be requested for another project, so that the reason for the request should be clear, which in this case was visibility. Mr. Lis explained that this site was behind a hill from I -95 and that the sign would be appear at guard -rail height from the roadway. Mr. Honig suggested a condition to allow the waiver due to the unique proximity to I -95, so that the waiver would not apply to the next project which did not have that unique proximity. Mr. Lis requested that the screen wall not be limited to aluminum, but to materials compatible with the building. Mr. Lis stated that all ten conditions as drafted were fine with the Petitioner. Mr. Ellington clarified that condition (5) would not be included in final submittal to City Council if it was determined that Petitioner had complied. During discussion by the Committee regarding screening of roof - mounted equipment, Mr. Lis stated the Petitioner had no problem if the Committee wished to use the same condition approved for Wackenhut Center as described in the staff report with a change from 15 feet to 5.6 feet and removal of lift station since there would not be a lift station on this site. Discussion ensued regarding the enforcement of parking. Mr. Lyddon commented that he was • not comfortable with the parking issue, stated that there should be an enforceable standard for parking, and if wording was on the plans which was stated in such a way that it was enforceable that he was satisfied. It was pointed out that the wording was on the site plan. Vice Chair Carlin made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -95 -20 with the following conditions: 1 . This petition shall not receive final site plan approval by the City Council until the Council grants approval of the proposed PCD amendment petition. 2. The construction of Riverside Drive (a.k.a. West Park Drive) as a two -lane section as well as single northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes at the intersection of Burns Road and Riverside Drive shall be completed and opened to the public prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. 3. The construction of the extension of Northcorp Parkway in a two -lane section easterly to its proposed terminus at East Park Drive shall be completed and opened to the public prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. 4. Existing FP &L easements shall be abandoned and replaced with a 10 -foot Utility Easement adjacent to the property line and on the property, not to be encumbered with landscaping, prior to the issuance of any building permits on Lot 2. 0 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission NVrnutes November 28, 1995 5. The lighting of the parking lot pavement shall provide a minimum maintained horizontal footcandles of 0.6 and an average overall of 1.0 in the general parking and pedestrian areas, certified to by the engineer -of- record as being provided by the lighting plan, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the developer shall coordinate with the Police Department on the acceptability of the placement of landscaping in proximity to the lighting. 7. The Construction ,Plans for Lot 2 shall provide one -half inch of on -site dry pretreatment prior to discharge into the master surface water management system by the use of an underground exfiltration trench system. 8. The traffic impact fees generated by the development of Lot 2 shall be designated by the Building official to be placed in Palm Beach County's account for the widening of Burns .Road. 9. Allow the waiver request to allow the Decorator's Unlimited wall- mounted sign on the • north elevation of the building due to unique visibility from I -95. 10. This petition shall not receive final site plan approval by the City Council until the landscape plan reflects the mitigation for the vegetation destroyed due to the land clearing prior to permitting. 11. All roof - mounted equipment shall be screened line of sight, from the ground using materials compatible with the buildings. Items on the roof shall not exceed 5 ft 6 inches in height from the roof line. Ground equipment shall be screened with like landscaping required around the dumpster enclosure as depicted on the petitioner's site plan. 12. Office space use shall be limited as only ancillary to the industrial use. Mr. Honig seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote of 7 -0. Mr. Mignogna left the meeting at 8:50 P.M. FO (, 1 1 1 u_i►I_ 1 • 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 Public Hearing: Petition PUD- 95-039 by Robert A. Bentz, agent for Dr. Mark Damerau, to rezone a 5.15 -acre tract to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for an executive office park totaling 50,000 square feet. (8- 42S -43E) Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated November 22, 1995. Chairman Sabatello questioned whether the Commission had the flexibility City -wide to amend a PUD and conduct a review of each lot specifically for the use requested. Mr. Ellington responded affirmatively. Mr. Honig stated that it appeared each building would be a separate entity which would provide its own parking facilities. Mr. Ellington responded that these would be fee simple lots which could possibly be developed by eight different developers. After ensuing discussion, Chairman Sabatello commented that each lot must satisfy its use in regard to setbacks and parking. Bob Bentz, with Plan Design South agent for the Petitioner, provided a brief history of the project and commented that only one issue was unresolved, which was overall parking for the overall property. Mr. Bentz explained that Dr. Mark Damerau's intent was to provide a warm atmosphere for people visiting medical and other professionals and therefore had designed the office park to resemble a residential neighborhood, and that Dr. Damerau would occupy one of the eight buildings. Mr. Bentz commented that at the last meeting there had been three • unresolved issues: (1) sidewalk (2) whether architectural review for individual buildings would be required, and (3) parking. Mr. Bentz stated that Petitioner had agreed to come back through the process for architectural review and landscape review for each individual building, and that the Petitioner wished to rely on plans previously submitted in order to proceed with construction. Mr. Bentz stated that the sidewalk issue had been resolved. In regard to the remaining issue of parking, Mr. Bentz distributed a chart from the ITE (International Traffic Engineering) manual which identified parking requirements for medical office buildings throughout the United States, which generated the highest requirements for parking. Mr. Bentz asked that the Commission members keep in mind that this project would not consist totally of medical office buildings, therefore less parking would be needed than for a total medical office complex. Mr. Bentz suggested that a total of 48,700 square feet, which would be a slight reduction from the current request, would comply with ITE guidelines and would be a good compromise in regard to the parking for the overall project, so that less review would be needed by the City than if each individual building were reviewed for parking. Mr. Ellington stated that the City needed adequate assurance there would be sufficient parking throughout the development in order to avoid wars among the fee simple owners. Mr. Bentz discussed the need for an overall policy rather than for individual lots since there was cross access parking. Mr. Bentz requested that condition (6) be changed to allow mangrove trimming according to the rules established by the State of Florida. City Forester Hendrickson expressed concern that the is 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Nfinutes November 28, 1995 State statute allowed pruning so that the mangroves would not look natural. Petitioner suggested that a pruning and maintenance plan be submitted for approval by the City Forester prior to issuance of a State permit. Mr. Honig questioned how parking could be controlled. Mr. Bentz explained that there would be a correlation between square footage and parking on each individual site. Mr. Bentz verified that rights to park at each individual office facility would be limited to the people coming to that facility. Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Sabatello declared the Public Hearing closed. Chairman Sabatello expressed his opinion that each lot should stand on its own and be subject to full review for parking, setbacks, elevations, site data, etc. Chairman Sabatello commented that the one -way access would be changed on the site plan at a later date and would not delay a decision. Principal Planner Ellington requested a separate condition requiring Petitioner to work with the • City Forester on the building foundation landscaping to avoid a separate review. Chairman Sabatello commented that the access roadway needed to be identified since it would go in first, along with the entry and landscaping, and that the first building would set the palate for the whole project; that the circulation pattern for cross access would not be complete until all of the buildings were finished; and that everything must work together. Mr. Bentz stated that was why an overall site plan approval had been requested by the Petitioner, and would be happy to return for architectural and landscaping review for each individual parcel. Mr. Honig inquired whether a set of rules had been submitted to staff that would govern the relationship of the parties within the POA, to which Mr. Bentz responded that guidelines patterned after a residential development had been submitted. Vice Chair Carlino favored approval of the site plan with each parcel to return for review, and parking per lot rather than with the ITE calculations. Mr. Iyddon questioned whether a condition was needed to state this would be subject to the City approval of the POA documents and easements to service all of the areas, and whether the timing of construction of all of the internal roads should be considered. Mr. Bentz reviewed the construction timing for the roadway system. Mr. Bentz stated that the building footprints would always remain as shown on the plan and the parking areas could not be changed. Mr. Honig stated that with the designation of the common area roadway, the assurance that buildings would never exceed the existing footprints, and all the buildings would be designed similar to the concept presented, he saw no reason for review of each individual building since it was basically the concept as a custom home development, and he would be willing to agree to the same parking ratio established for the Good Samaritan • 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 medical building, which was 4.11. Mr. Honig made a motion to move forward with the following conditions: I. The site development plans shall be revised to reflect the following: a. The parking spaces be set at 4.1 spaces per thousand square feet of each building, recognizing the amount of space in the Good Sam project b. The elimination of the one -way exit from the parking lot serving Lot 7. C. Chat all buildings shall be no greater than the envelope as presented on the site plan drawing. 2. A permit or a binding wetland determination shall be obtained from applicable agencies prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project (SFMWD dredge and fill permit and or ERP's wetland delineation). 3. A waiver of the 15 -foot minimum, 25 -foot average upland buffer from the wetland and • barrier to 8 feet is granted pending a permit or a binding wetland determination from FDEP, provided to the City regarding the wetland delineation boundaries and the use of a structural barrier in lieu of an upland buffer to prevent impacts to the wetlands. 4. Landscaping approval for each of the buildings shall be subject to approval of the City Forester and staff. 5. The minimum 15 -foot right -of -way (R.O.W.) landscape buffer /natural area within Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be dedicated as an easement to the Property Owner's Association (P.O.A.). If the mangrove area is removed, all or in part, the R.O.W. buffer plan shall be installed by the P.O.A. within 60 days of a City request. 6. The mangrove trees shall be maintained in a natural condition and shape. A maintenance plan shall be submitted by the Petitioner for approval by the City Forester prior to permitting by the State. 7. If the foundation of a building is less than 15 feet from the top of bank, the construction drawings must show how the top of bank will be permanently secured and not subject to erosion or other physical modifications. 8. The delineation and use of the Shared Access Easements shall be shown and described on a Record Plat of the subdivision, and the safe corner at the northeast corner of the N • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 property shall be dedicated to Palm Beach County, prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 9. A sidewalk is not required to be constructed adjacent to this property on Prosperity Farms Road and RCA Boulevard. In lieu of constructing a sidewalk, funds in the amount of $13,897.50 shall be provided by the developer to the City to be utilized for pedestrian pathways elsewhere in the City. These funds shall be provided to the City prior to the first building permit. 10. Easements and Property Owners documents shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. Vice Chair Carlin seconded the motion. Discussion of the motion included comments by Chairman Sabatello, who disagreed with granting full flexibility in regard to architectural design and landscaping on each lot with only a few elevations in the file, which he stated would make monitoring difficult. The motion carried by a 4 -2 vote. Chairman Sabatello and Mr. Lyddon opposed the motion. • OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 28, 1995 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlin, seconded by Mr. Lyddon, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. The next meeting will be held December 12, 1995. Carl gabatello, Chairman 40 k -M IN 101, On "M i 09 i Thomas Pastore Melissa Prindiville, Secretary 10 Diane Carlino, Vice Chair Daniel Honig William Mignogna Msen1) Christopher Jones, Alternate b 'V \V N QL- r i U V d •p C ' d u� u° 1. pq E OX N ab orb to v NO � p h � > `1 14 a N N O r-1 a 3 a � � � b •41 O z 4 u 14 a N N O r-1 a V k 3 jA-4AAi er b�� ++� V O► 43 44 COL 4' o •mob � ub v V D Q" o v 1 V �dum� 0 0 b�ur4 >b u 4J 90 1 b�0 m a, o x 4j 0 �� m v,obo b o� ab ro 0$4$4 (do ,41r4w �e �V43 l 4j P 44A r�E O to C b to r. of 14 Im j laNC4lgm ,q A 14 •rl V AObr•1•ii d1 U tv 41 • •r l 1, z= wpa 0 0 � b •41 O z 4 u to V k 3 jA-4AAi er b�� ++� V O► 43 44 COL 4' o •mob � ub v V D Q" o v 1 V �dum� 0 0 b�ur4 >b u 4J 90 1 b�0 m a, o x 4j 0 �� m v,obo b o� ab ro 0$4$4 (do ,41r4w �e �V43 l 4j P 44A r�E O to C b to r. of 14 Im j laNC4lgm ,q A 14 •rl V AObr•1•ii d1 U tv 41 • •r l 1, z= wpa 0 0 CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS 10500 N. MILITARY TRAIL, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 Phone: 775 -8295 FROM THE DESK OF RICHARD F. WALTON DIRECTOR % PLANNING &, ZONING la 4 I lt�e Z, /,0(//, -�e�z 1, �C5 - 0 1E • •• JUHO FAMILY PRACTICE Family Medicine Urgent Care Sports Medicine 10 December 1995 Ms. Bobbie Herakovich City Manager Palm Beach Gardens, Florida CC: Mayor Joe Russo Vice Mayor Linda Monroe Former Mayor David Clark Councilwoman Lauren Furtado Councilman Eric Jablin Thomas Baird, City Attorney Greg Dunham, Assistant City Manager Carl Sabatello, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Jeffrey Ornstein, former chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Planning and Zoning Commission Board Members: Diane Carlino William Mignons Phillip Lyddon Thomas Pastore Mr. Jack Dillon, President, Cypress Hollow Homeowner's Association Mr. Bill King, Legal Counsel, Cypress Hollow Homeowner's Association All Cypress Hollow Homeowners Dear Ms. Herakovich, /0- 6 e C, cl-ft-S7-- $ : /5 f1A , Z C'o, AjA, J55r -, The following is a chronology of my experience in relation to the buffer zone to be placed by BallenIsles along the border with Cypress Hollow. The original PCD proposal passed in 1989 called for a perimeter buffer (Perimeter Buffer System "C ", see attached) to be placed along the border between BallenIsles and Cypress Hollow. This buffer was to be 25 feet wide, and included a 6 foot chain link fence 12 -15 feet off the property line. It was with this plan in mind that many of the homes in Cypress Hollow were built. In early 1994, BallenIsles requested an amendment to their original PCD. The requested changes were several, including reconfiguration of some interior parcels and preservation of some Australian Pine trees in various areas. It was at this point that I became involved, chiefly in an attempt to preserve the Australian Pines along the border with Cypress Hollow. I made several trips to the Palm Beach 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101 Page 2 Gardens Municipal Complex requesting all documents and discussing plans with all involved staff members. • On March 3rd, 1994 I requested a copy of the planned perimeter buffer zone from BallenIsles, and was faxed 2 drawings showing the original plans (attached). I discussed these plans at length with both BallenIsles (Nader Salour) and with city staff members, specifically City Forester Mark Hendrickson. On March 7th, 1994, City records show BallenIsles submitted the requested PCD changes, which included an unannounced change to the buffer plan drawings. The new plan drawings were altered in the following fashion (see attached): Drawing Number 1, relief view: The fence, previously drawn in at 12 -15 feet off the property line was erased, and the following statement was added below the picture: "A 6' chain link fence shall be constructed on property line except where an existing abutting wall or fence is already in place." Drawing Number 2, overhead view: The fence was erased, yet the following 2 statements were left on the altered plan: "Existing & planted shrubs shall form a continuous screen along both sides of fence." • "New shrub masses shall be planted in overlapping drifts to completely screen fence." These altered plans were not revealed to me or any of the Planning and Zoning Commission members. When I requested these plans in April of 1994, I was shown and given copies of the old perimeter buffer plans. • Also in April of 1994, I invited City Forester Mark Hendrickson to my home. We surveyed the Australian Pines along the border, and measured and marked the property line behind my home. I then handed him the end of my tape measure and walked 12 feet into the woods on the BallenIsles side of the line to see exactly where this fence would be placed. I asked Mr. Hendrickson if our measurement was correct... "So this is where the fence will be ?" He responded affirmatively. On May 18th, 1994, I wrote a letter to all Cypress Hollow Homeowners describing the situation with the Australian Pines and with the planned buffer zone and fence. I included a copy of the plan as I knew it (the original 2 drawings) as well as a copy of the layout of Cypress Hollow, and I invited anyone interested to join me at the city Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled the next week. On May 23rd, I obtained a copy of a memorandum from the Planning and Zoning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission (dated May 19th) which included as discussion the following statement: "The revisions proposed to the PCD include... Amendment to the buffer details to allow for location options for the fence required in Buffers A and C, including a provision to allow that the fence be waived should there be an existing fence or wall on adjacent property..." 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101 Page 3 When I asked Mr. Hendrickson what was meant by this wording, he explained to me that BallenIsles wanted the option to dogleg their fence to any fences along the property line to avoid the situation of two fences 12 feet apart with a "no man's land" between. There is only one fence in Cypress Hollow on • this property line. I had no objection. On May 24th, 1994, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I made a slide presentation on the topic during the public discussion of Petition PCD -94 -02 . Present at the meeting were: Jeffrey Ornstein, Chairman Carl Sabatello, Chairman-Elect (and developer of Cypress Hollow) Board Members: Diane Carlino (Cypress Hollow Resident) William Mignona (Cypress Hollow Resident) Phillip Lyddon Thomas Pastore, alternate Thomas Baird, City Attorney Mayor David Clark, City Council Liaison Greg Dunham, Assistant City Manager I handed out copies of my letter to the Cypress Hollow homeowners to all commission members and city representatives including the proposed Perimeter Buffer plan as I knew it. I showed slides of the two original drawings, and talked about them in detail specifically showing the fence that was to be 12- 15 feet off the property line, and was to "bend to preserve existing trees 4" caliper and above" as described in the overhead drawing. I also showed several slides of the buffer zone erected between BallenIsles and The Hunt Club. As an example of what our buffer was going to look like, Mark • Hendrickson had directed me to look at this buffer since the plan for the two was the same. I showed these slides to display what we felt was unacceptable in terms of landscaping... the fence was in no way obscured, and the 1 foot tall hibiscus seedlings certainly didn't meet our expectation of " a continuous screen along both sides of the fence." The following is an excerpt transcribed from the tape made of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 24, 1995: Mr. Jeffrey Ornstein, chairman: "It would help if you would clarify what the speaker talks about along Cypress Hollow." Mr. Hendrickson, City Forester: "Just let me talk about the buffer, seeing as that's what the residents are concerned about, and then remove everything beyond the 25 foot buffer, if you're talking about not doing anything to the Australian Pines at all." [paper shuffling] Ornstein: "The 25 foot buffer is from the property line to the BallenIsles side for 25 feet, then it is clear to put the fence in and put the approved buffer landscaping in. My question is: If there is a reason we, the city, demanded that the developer produce a buffer plan is to protect the adjacent property, and here we have • an adjacent property that is completely built up, and, I may be wrong, and that is why I'm asking the 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101 Page 4 question. But if the residents living there don't want the buffer, why do we as the city demand that they do that? But the buffer we're talking about also is the same type of buffer that we saw around the Hunt Club." • Hendrickson: "Not exactly." Ornstein: "Close ?" Hendrickson: "With two major differences. The pictures that you saw were taken from Cypress Hollow in which the Cypress Hollow residents had taken down the ficus Hedge that was required." Jeff Presser, Cypress Hollow homeowner: "Not Cypress Hollow, The Hunt Club." Hendrickson: "That was supposed to be a supplement to the 25 feet of landscaping. In essence, the difference is that the fence was supposed to be within the middle. Because they already had a fence, and had a hedge, there was, um, I won't say less, but a modification to the Buffer'C' plan [paper shuffling], especially because the total perimeter by the landscaping when it's installed, because the residents are closer is a combination of the Hunt Club and the 25 feet on JDM. What you would normally have seen a 6 foot hedge was required plus the 25 foot landscaping strip, which was just put in last year as I have assured you. If you eliminate the 6 foot hedge, the ficus hedge, you add it to the 25 feet along Cypress hollow with a fence down the middle of it, with a berm, you have, um, the variation that I'm talking about. So, • uh, the only difference that I'm hearing, though, is that at least if you want to leave the Australian Pines and put the berm, that is pretty simply done. I mean it's almost like it was existing native vegetation, you'd leave it. It's only the removal of the Australian Pines and the Brazilian Pepper, well actually you'd be tearing up the grass they've been mowing now, and all the on -site improvements that Cypress Hollow has made." Ornstein: It looks like if they remove all the Pepper and the Melaleuca there's going to be some massive holes in that stuff." Hendrickson: "But then they come back and put the buffer down" [unintelligible question about Buffer "C "] Hendrickson: "I can't answer your question as far as why, um, Buffer 'C' is along Cypress Hollow because I wasn't there during the original approval, but I feel that it follows closely what was designed around the entire JDM concept was to have a buffer adjacent to already developed -- and I assume, but I could be wrong, that the residents in Cypress Hollow during the approval of JDM had some input at that time, and may be reversing their thoughts because they may have thought that the Australian Pines were supposed to • remain originally and we're making an emphasis of eradicating them now." 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101 • Page 5 Ornstein: "Thank you, you answered my question." All buffer concerns addressed, Ms. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval of -94- 02 including, among other conditions, the recommendation that "all exotic vegetation shall be removed with the exception of the Australian Pines located east of the future entrance to BallenIsles and north to the boundary of the Hunt Club." Moving the fence to the property line was never discussed or revealed in any fashion to the public or the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Between this meeting and the next City Council meeting, Mark Hendrickson took it upon himself to ignore the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission and without explanation presented to the City Council a different plan recommending "that the pines only be allowed to remain within the 25 -foot buffer..." instead of all the way to BallenIsles Drive (see attached Memo to City Council from Planning and Zoning Staff, June 9, 1994. This same memo was sent again, re- dated, on June 30th). Because of this unexplained apparent reversal of recommendations approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission I made certain to attend all public meetings, including City Council meetings, and spoke publicly when permitted. We were able to convince the City Council to reverse Mr. Hendrickson's staff -level reversal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, preserving the Australian pines from 100 feet east of BallenIsles Drive to the border with Cypress Hollow (see letters I wrote on June 15th and July 5th, and 1 st and 2nd readings of Ordinance 15, 1994, • attached). At no time during any of these discussions at City Council Meetings or in my discussions with various staff members was it ever mentioned that the fence was to be placed on the property line. This past Friday, December 1, 1995, I received a certified letter from BallenIsles Construction Supervisor George Galle stating that they were about to erect a fence "on the property line." This was the first I or anyone else in Cypress Hollow heard about a fence being erected on our property line. When I learned of the change, I confronted Mr. Hendrickson, who became quite angry and stated "you knew about this all along, now you're just upset because it's finally happening." I object to the plan to place a fence on our property line strenuously, citing the following considerations: 1. I feel we have been purposely deceived about the nature of this plan by both BallenIsles and The City of Palm Beach Gardens, specifically City Forester Mark Hendrickson. 2. The new, altered Perimeter Buffer Plan "C" contains a major change, the moving of a fence from 12- 15 feet off our property line to on our property line. Such a change should be advertised and should be specifically mentioned in the wording of any proposed ordinances. As read and passed, Ordinance 15, 1994 does not include this information, only a vague reference to "location options for fence" as • described above. 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101 Page 6 3. The new, altered Perimeter Buffer Plan "C" as passed in secrecy violates our state "Government in the Sunshine" Law. • 4. The new, altered Perimeter Buffer Plan "C" is now internally inconsistent, stating that a fence should be erected on the property line, yet also stating quite clearly that landscaping "shall form a continuous screen along both sides of the fence ... to completely screen fence." Does the city expect BallenIsles to dig up our property and plant on it? 4. The homes in Cypress Hollow were planned, approved and built with respect to Ordinance 8, 1989. This ordinance called for a fence 12 -15 feet off the property line. The change now means that several homes along the border with BallenIsles will now have structural elements (walls, pool screen enclosures, etc.) within 7 feet of a black vinyl chain link fence, with no guarantee of any landscaping on our side of the fence, since to landscape would mean these people wouldn't be able to walk around their own homes. This clearly will impact property and resale value. 5. The Cypress Hollow Homeowners' Association has never been informed by the City or BallenIsles of any plan to place a fence on our property line. When planning a fence on a property line, it is appropriate to get the other property owner's permission. If BallenIsles now plans to place a fence off the property line, how far off? An inch? A foot? More? If they place it off the property line, or if they don't landscape both sides, will they be in violation of the PCD? Because of these and other concerns, I would like to ask the City of Palm Beach Gardens to intercede in this matter to stop BallenIsles from erecting a fence on the property line until such time as appropriate, reasonable plans can be formulated, agreed upon and approved. This matter is of the utmost urgency as • BallenIsles has already staked the property line and intends to begin fencing the property this week. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me at the office as soon as you finish reading this letter, or you may call Mr. Jack Dillon, President of the homeowner's association at 626 -4160. 0 Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Presser, M.D. 5589 Cypress Tree Court Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 (407) 775 -7068 (Home) 13205 U.S. Highway One, Suite 105 Juno Beach, FL 33408 (407) 691 -0100 FAX (407) 691 -0101