Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 031102� r i i • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 11, 2002 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Dennis Solomon at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for Board of Zoning Appeals and for Planning and Zoning Commission: Present Absent Dennis Solomon, Chairman John Glidden Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman Chairman Pro Tern Barry Present — arrived at 6:35 p.m. Joel Channing Dick Ansay Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner John Lindgren, Planner Kara Irwin, and City Attorney Len Rubin. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Charles Wu announced that since the last meeting, the City Council had approved the proposed change for Regional Center DRI which shifted uses; Hungryman Slough zoning change from PDA to Conservation; Eckerd site plan in Promenade shopping center after applicant agreed to close the access point from the driveway; Evergrene Parcel 4B; and the Flood Plain Ordinance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of 2/26/02: Mr. Present made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The City Attorney swore in all those who wished to speak. Public Hearing and Consideration ofAyyroval Petition VAR -01 -08 -15 Brighton Court Donald W. Schaefer, as the property owner, is requesting a variance from the Planned Unit Development rear setback requirement offive feet, as approved by Resolution 40,1985, as a waiver to City Code Section 78 -141, Table 10, which requires a 25 foot rear setback for properties in Residential Medium (R* zoning districts. The petitioner is seeking a five foot variance to allow for a zero foot rear setback for a screen enclosure. The subject property is located at 15 Brighton Court in PGA National. (10- 42S -42E) The following members of the Board disclosed ex -parte communication: Mr. Ansay reported he had spoken to the applicant to make an appointment but was unable to see him. Mr. Tarr reported he had • visited the site and met with Mr. Schaefer and inspected the site. Mr. Channing reported he did not speak to anyone but he had built this project and that would not affect his decision. Planner Kara Irwin presented the request and explained that Buddy Brown, Building Inspector, had found the screen enclosure not built to permit specs. Ms. Irwin reviewed the criteria required to grant a variance and staff's conclusion that none of the criteria had been met. Ms. Irwin reported that the HOA had given approval for this applicant to use the common open space. Buddy Brown, Chief Building Inspector and Plan Reviewer, testified that the structure was built over the property line and that the contractor had been notified prior to construction that it could not be built on someone else's property even though approval had been received from the HOA. Petitioner Donald W. Schaefer, indicated he disagreed with Mr. Brown's account of when he had gone for a permit, stated he had a safety problem with his grandchildren in the pool, that he had permission from the HOA to remove the wall, that he had received all proper approvals from PGA National, that when he learned the wall was built past the property line he had contacted Northern Palm Beach County Water Improvement District and then went to a contractor to have a screen enclosure built The contractor had made an error by going by a markup on the plan and he believed there had been lack of communication from the foreman to the owner. After the enclosure was installed, the building inspector had said a 5' setback as marked on the building permit was needed. Mr. Schaefer testified that at that point he had gone to the Building Department where he was told he must apply for a variance but he had been discouraged by staff from day one. Mr. Schaefer commented he had decided to pursue a variance, and that the City Forester had found Northern did not own the easement but that it was owned by the • homeowners association. Mr. Schaefer testified he had not yet installed shrubs along the screen for 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 privacy. Mr. Schaefer showed photos of other homes along the canal to show their screen rooms that went back to the wall originally. Mr. Solomon clarified with Mr. Schaefer that his point was there were other screens that went to the walls without a 5' setback. Mr. Schaefer continued that when he first went to the City to check this out, Ms. Irwin showed him the original plans and on the plans the 5' setback referred to golf course lots. Mr. Schaefer explained that his property was on a canal and not near the golf course. He was told that did not matter; that it was a 5' setback for everyone. Mr. Schaefer stated he knew staff was doing their job, and that PGA National did not even know they owned the land that there had been a lot of confusion. Mr. Schaefer noted a special condition had been the walls were attached to a building structure and he had permission to take it down; that his property was on a canal and not a golf course lot. Mr. Schaefer reported staff did not visit his home until that day; that Mr. Ansay called Sunday morning at 10 a.m.., but he worked on Sunday and could not meet with him; that Mr. Tarr did come, and he would have been happy to show staff other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Schaefer referred to literal interpretation of the code, referencing the letter from the City Forester, who agreed it was against code but in the last paragraph of his letter stated: `With that said, the City has approved privately owned screen enclosures within common open space after setback issues had been resolved. Attached is a copy of an "Easement Agreement" and "Notice of Encroachment Permit and Easement. " If the encroachment is approved and new setback standards are allowed, these documents may be useful for the HOA and petitioner. ' Mr. Schaefer reported neighbors who visited his property thought this would be an enhancement. Mr. Schaefer commented all other landowners can utilize the • common area and he had agreed if the easement ever needed to be used he would dig out the slab. Mr. Schaefer indicated he was requesting the minimum variance, that there were other places that did this, and that he was into a financial hardship. Regarding public welfare, Mr. Schaefer commented that the overall effect would not harm anyone and would help the community look better. Mr. Schaefer stated he was being denied an improvement that other homes were enjoying. Mrs. Vinnie Schaefer testified that prior to the old screen being removed there had been one foot between the pool and screen and their idea had been to move the screen back a distance to prevent this hazardous condition for their grandchildren. Mrs. Schaefer reported their dog had fallen into the pool from that side and they wanted to make it safer with the screen back farther. Mr. Schaefer commented he did not understand why he had been discouraged from applying for a variance, and this had become a large expense to them. Chair Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Solomon declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tarr questioned Inspector Brown where he would have allowed the patio to be widened to at the time the permit application was made. Mr. Brown explained that the screen was not up at that time, and the existing screen enclosure was close to the pool. The slab had been poured without an inspection, and he had explained to the contractor, Palmcoast Aluminum, that he had found it was beyond the property line. Mr. Brown stated there should be a 5' setback from the property line. Mr. Tarr commented it had already been at maximum setback and that being the case, why had they gone through this exercise and why had they received a permit. Mr. Brown responded the permit was to repair the screen at the same • exact spot it was and that had been explained to the contractor —that there must be a 5' setback. Mr. 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 Brown explained that the units that had walls had the walls attached to the home and they were 5' from the property line, and that it was permitted to place a wall on a property line. Mr. Tarr commented the slab and screen were now there and asked what the resolution would be if this request were denied. Mr. Brown explained they would have to change it, that the slab could go to the property line, and that the slab was not an issue. Mr. Tarr asked if the resolution would be to take down the screen wall and put it where it used to be, to which Mr. Brown responded that the screen company could put the wall back to the setback. Mr. Tarr noted no one was speaking against this and offered a possible solution to avoid cost and litigation —to issue a fine to discourage future residents in this area from doing this and to allow the construction to remain. The City Attorney advised the Board either had to grant the variance or not and could not create a lesser variance. Vice Chair Kunkle commented he understood how Mr. Schaefer could think it was part of his yard, but that the City's problem was not Mr. Schaefer's biggest problem, since he did not believe the HOA had legal ability to allow him to go over the property line and onto common area. Mr. Kunkle commented that a future property owner would have a title problem. The City Attorney agreed these could be potential problems. Mr. Kunkle indicated he would like to see surveys of comparable houses on comparable canal lots that Mr. Schaefer was replicating. Mr. Kunkle stated he agreed this would create no harm or problems to others, but he needed more answers in order to grant the variances. Mr. Schaefer commented he had to go through the HOA Board who verified ownership and rights, and these variances had been granted in the past. Mr. Kunkle noted that the letter written by the City Forester was not in the packets. Ms. Irwin provided the memo and explained it had been written to advise how, if the variance was granted, the petitioner could get 2' over the property line. Ms. Irwin provided Mr. Hendrickson's letter to Mr. Kunkle, which has been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Channing commented the privacy wall was 2' outside the property line; and that there were 12 lots that originally had walls because the canal was very unsightly. Mr. Channing asked if staff had done an inventory of the other 11 lots Ms. Irwin responded she had been there twice and did not see any other structures coming out to the property line. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that if 10 out of 12 had removed the wall it might not be an issue. Ms. Irwin explained that others had removed their walls and had fences and shrubs and that the picture shown seemed to meet the 5' setback. Ms. Irwin indicated she did not know of any other structures built beyond the property line. Mr. Charming asked for clarification of the survey, and it was confirmed that the original wall was 2' beyond the property line and Mr. Schaefer had built to that point. Mr. Schaefer showed a picture depicting property that had built an enclosure to where their wall used to be; Mr. Channing asked how Mr. Schaefer had his wall removed. Mr. Schaefer explained he got permission from PGA National and a friend of his with a license removed the wall. Mr. Schaefer advised he personally poured the slab. Mr. Channing asked how far it was from the edge of the water in the pool to the edge of the slab —Mr. Schaefer responded 7' at most, Inspector Brown advised it was 8' or more. Mr. Channing stated it sounded like the applicant knew he was doing something he should not do; Mr. Schaefer responded that he had gotten all the permits and approvals, and that the contractor did it. Mr. Channing stated his opinion that there needed to be new surveys done because if everybody else was doing something like this it could change the picture. Mr. Ansay commented to staff on the difference between a waiver and a variance, and that more criteria was involved with a variance. Mr. Ansay indicated he thought the Board should just stay with the criteria and unless conditions of the criteria were met the Board could do nothing except deny the 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 request; but if there were more homes that had changed things like Mr. Channing had said, he felt it should be approved differently. Mr. Ansay commented unless conditions could be met he would have a difficult time approving this petition. City Attorney Rubin noted that was a good point, that if there was a wholesale situation to a whole row of homes there could be a wholesale waiver. Mr. Schaefer asked why this had come this far since the original plan showed a 5' setback for "golf course lots ". Chair Solomon commented the petitioner could have sought legal advice, and explained that the Board had strict criteria and he did not think any of the criteria had been met. Chair Solomon indicated the fix was simple —that the slab did not have to be cut back just adjust the screen enclosure. Mr. Solomon stated he had not seen the HOA approval. Mr. Schaefer indicated he had sent it in months ago. Mr. Schaefer provided a copy of the document to Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Solomon commented it would have been good to have had this document in the packets. Mr. Solomon indicated he had a problem with this request since the pictures the applicant showed were not identified, there was no survey, the street addresses were not shown, and he did not know if there were any other applications with the City to change any of the setbacks on other properties. Mr. Ansay commented even if the HOA had approved it, that had no bearing as to what the variance would be, and the Board had to follow variance criteria from the City. Mr. Tarr commented that the City Attorney had mentioned if all 12 homeowners along that stretch all decided to get an approval of a setback like this there could be a wholesale waiver, and asked if this request could be withdrawn and a waiver request submitted. Mr. Tarr also asked how many homeowners it would take to turn the variance into a waiver. City Attorney Rubin responded the consent of the HOA would be needed plus at least half of the members, and if anything else was found wrong in that area, that would be looked at also. Mr. Channing commented he thought it was important for the Board to understand what had happened along those 12 lots before voting on this petition, and it could be an improvement on what was there, even for the people across the water; plus there was the tree falling in the forest concept. Mr. Charming expressed his opinion that it was important to know what had happened in that area and what it all looked like before passing judgment. City Attorney Rubin commented each property would have to be measured on its own merits —that just because someone else did it did not mean these people could do it; and if the Board wanted to continue in order to obtain more information that would be fine. Chair Solomon commented there was rio reason to continue it because if one person may have done something it did not bear on this particular petition. Attorney Rubin advised that the Board must look at the criteria and because one person did it that would not justify this one. Mr. Channing made a motion to continue Petition VAR -01 -08 until more evidence could be obtained about what had happened in that row of 12 homes. Motion was seconded by Mr. Kunkle. During discussion of the motion, Chair Solomon stated he was not in favor of the motion, that he believed the criteria must be strictly met and none of it had been met. Mr. Present expressed concern that even if it was found there were others, the petition would have to be to open the PUD and he was not sure what a delay would accomplish. Mr. Channing commented he was only looking at two things— aesthetics and common sense. Mr. Channing commented that if the Board found other propertieswhich had done this and granted all of them changes to their setbacks that would have no bearing on someone on the other side of town who wanted to do the same thing, who submitted proper application and was denied properly. City Attorney Rubin advised Mr. Channing that unfortunately neither aesthetics or common 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 sense were in the criteria for a variance, and the Board must base its decision on the testimony given. Mr. Ansay reported he went out and looked and there were no other structures back farther than allowed, and this was built on someone else's property. Mr. Tarr agreed with Mr. Channing on obtaining additional information, but also agreed with the City Attorney, and he believed the HOA would have to determine if considering these 12 homes would open up the entire PUD, so he believed legally the Board was bound to adhere to the criteria for a variance. Mr. Tarr commented that being the case, although he would have voted in favor of granting the variance to the Schaefers, he now believed because of what he had heard that the Board could not grant it, and having the additional information would only open up a waiver situation, which was not what the Schaefers were applying for. Mr. Tarr commented the Schaefers could go back to their HOA with the 12 homeowners and determine with staff's help whether it would open a can of worms and maybe it would not; and recommended some consultation before the Schaefers ripped out their screen. Mr. Tarr commented that although he would prefer that the applicant did not have to tear down their screen room, based on the advice of the City Attorney, he believed continuing the application would not achieve the Schaefers being able to be approved at the next hearing but only achieve them being able to apply for a waiver instead of a variance. Mr. Tarr stated that therefore he could not vote for the motion although he agreed with it. The vote on the motion was 2 in favor, 5 against, therefore the motion failed. Mr. Ansay made a motion to deny petition VAR -01 -08 based on staff recommendation and based on the fact that none of the variance criteria had been met. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion. Mr. Tarr requested an amendment to change the language of the motion since he did not agree none of the requirements had been met, but agreed the petition could be denied based on staff recommendation. Mr. Ansay stated he would accept that amendment because that had been staff's recommendation —to deny because none of the criteria had been met. Mr. Ansay amended his motion to deny petition VAR -01 -08 based on staffs recommendation. Mr. Volonte seconded the amended motion. The vote on the motion was 5 in favor, 2 against; therefore, the motion passed. Mr. Schaefer requested permission to speak. Mr. Schaefer commented that from the outset there was a problem with the Building Inspector and the contractor, and he received no help from the City. Mr. Schaefer stated no one ever came out there until today; Mr. Ansay called to make an appointment but never called back; and if he had had help —if somebody would have said addresses, surveys, etc., were needed, he could have proven a lot more. Mr. Schaefer stated there was a wall right next to his house that went straight across. Mr. Schaefer commented this was the first time he ever had to apply for a variance, he had received no help, he had been discouraged, and had no contact with the City. Mr. Schaefer stated he wanted that on the record in case he had to get an attorney because all these people would have to be involved. Mr. Schaefer commented there was absolutely no guidance, all he was told was he shouldn't do this, they were never approved, and that was right, and stated for the record it was handled very poorly, very unprofessionally, and he was embarrassed for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION rol • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 Consideration for Approval Petition SP- 01-41: Shopping Center Renovations at 9506 North Military Trail A request by Anthony Walsh, agent for Murry Cohen, for minor site plan approval of renovations to an existing shopping center at 9056 North Military Trail (near the northeast corner of Military trail and Northlake Boulevard) that include painting the building, some minor changes to the building elevations, and the addition of some landscaping on site. (13- 42S -42E) Senior Planner John Lindgren presented the project. Chair Solomon noted architectural details had been discussed at the last presentation. Mr. George Lott, on behalf of owner Murry Cohen, reported extensive conversations with staff and commented the awning would be remove and roof equipment screened per code, and advised that the applicant had agreed to the suggested color scheme complimentary to NorthMil Shopping Center, and had agreed to add landscaping. Mr. Lott commented that Anthony Walsh, contractor for the project, was also present. Mr. Volonte asked if rooftop equipment would be screened from view on the north elevation, to which Mr. Lott responded the equipment would be screened according to code. Chair Solomon asked if Mr. Glidden had made architectural suggestions. Mr. Lott indicated he understood Mr. Glidden had commented regarding screening the rooftop equipment and that the code did not require a parapet, only proper screening. The City Attorney advised • this was straight zoning so the Board could only get into architectural aesthetics in a very limited way. The City Attorney commented that the applicant had agreed to general aesthetic improvements, and the Board could not re- design this project or require or mandate screening in a certain way so long as the code requirement of screening was met. Chair Solomon noted there were long expanses of roof line without real articulation, which would not be accepted in a new project. The City Attorney noted this was not anew project. Murry Cohen explained they were spending extra money for screening, that he had spent over $100,000 to improve this derelict center. Mr. Cohen listed the improvements he was doing, including landscaping, to make this a center for upscale tenants, and stated his intention to keep it that way. Mr. Cohen showed a rendering of the improved center. Mr. Solomon stated he had no problem with what Mr. Cohen was doing to improve his property and noted the City had an interest as well, so they were very happy with everything Mr. Cohen was doing. Mr. Solomon commented he had just been focusing on one area to refresh his memory of what had been done at the last meeting. Mr. Lindgren showed and discussed Mr. Glidden's drawings. Mr. Channing asked the City Attorney to clarify what the Board could do architecturally for this project. City Attorney Rubin advised the Board had certain powers to regulate general aesthetics such as telling the applicant the project should be compatible with nearby colors but in straight zoning the Board could not dictate the architecture. Mr. Channing commented the shame of it was that the drawing that was given to the applicant would have been a big improvement to that center and probably would have cost less than what they were doing. Attorney Rubin noted no design guidelines had been adopted at this point. Mr. Chen commented they had looked at doing that but the cost would have been excessive. Mr. Tarr commented he believed the applicant had done a good job under the straight zoning, and it was a good improvement. Mr. Tarr requested a canopy trees on Military Trail. Applicant agreed to provide one live oak at the northwest corner. Mr. Tarr commented it was not required but he thought oaks would look much nicer than only h Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 palms. Mr. Ansay commented this project had come a long way and had needed a lot of attention. Mr. Ansay suggested painting the inside wall as viewed from the parking lot at Albertson's the same color as Albertson's, which the applicant agreed to do. Mr. Cohen explained that the entire building would be painted. Mr. Walsh commented that every exposed stucco surface would be painted. Mr. Present complimented the applicant on the improvements and questioned whether there was sufficient lighting for tenants beyond the pizza store. Mr. Cohen explained there would be clusters of lights and new trackway lights. Chair Solomon commented that he was happy to see the applicant make these improvements and although it would have been nice to improve the west elevation more, the Board's ability to demand that was questionable. Mr. Ansay made a motion to approve Petition SP -01 -41 with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all approved plans and color samples for this petition, including a site/landscape plan and elevations. 2. All landscaping is shown on a conceptual basis, and will be field located by the applicant and the City Forester to ensure that the landscaping does not interfere with any easements or water lines (including existing water meters, backflow preventers and fire hydrants). 3. All mechanical equipment (roof- -top or ground mounted) shall be screened per Section 78- 377 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs). 4. Applicant shall place a live oak tree at the northwest corner of the property, subject to the City Forester's approval. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. Workshop Petition PDC- 00 -03: Parcel 31 Old Palm Golf Club Planned Community Development A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design, agent, to rezonefrom a Planned DevelopmentArea (PDA) to Planned Community District Overlay (PCD) with an underlying zoning of Residential Low Density 3. The vacant, 651 -acre parcel is located east of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and north of PGA Boulevard The applicant proposes to construct 333 single family residential units, including 34 cottages and caritas, integrated with a private 19 -hole golf course and eleven lakes on site, plus a clubhouse, sales center, maintenancefacilities, golfservice area, and threepractice holes. (35-41S- 42E) Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the project. Mr. Tarr questioned whether the site plan would be approved at the same time as rezoning of the PCD, to which Mr. Benothman explained that the Board would be giving conceptual approval by approving the master plan. Mr. Kunkle disclosed that he Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 had met with Mr. Skokowski on this project last week. Henry Skokowski, agent for the applicant, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Skokowski addressed wall areas that went through preserves and noted that upland preserves should not be bisected. Mr. Skokowski indicated he had discussed alternatives with the City Forester, and would work on this. Mr. Skokowski discussed the I -95 interchange and reviewed the layout of the master plan showing development, preserve area, drainage, access points, etc. Mr. Skokowski presented information regarding the I -95 interchange which he noted would be provided to staff. Mr. Skokowski explained that when Central Boulevard was built, the right -of -way had been widened anticipating an interchange on this side of I -95 therefore the right -of -way was sufficient to construct a diamond type of interchange. That type had been built at Gateway Boulevard. The applicant indicated they would follow through and get confirmation from DOT to assure that type of interchange would be constructed rather than a cloverleaf or flyover, which they did not expect. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the perimeter buffering along the turnpike, along the Westwood Gardens property line, along I -95, along Central Boulevard, and along PGA Boulevard. It was anticipated that the wall would be 10' high. In areas with fencing instead of a wall it was anticipated there would be a 6' high chain link fence. The existing native plants would be maintained and modified at the entrance. Mr. Skokowski explained that in the Mirasol project an understanding had been established with the City Council that open space requirements could be averaged. Here the standard was 185' along PGA Boulevard and their buffer ranged from 100' to 270' with 185' average. There would be no elevations or rooftops seen from the roadway. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the wall and fence and walkway areas, and described the entry treatments. The PGA Boulevard entrance would align to the entrance to BallenIsles. Mr. Skokowski described the gate house and reviewed the Central Boulevard entrance plan. Mr. Skokowski explained that vegetation would be reviewed during the next presentation. Mr. Skokowski described this project as very low density with only 333 homes on 600+ acres. The project was planned to be very exclusive and expensive. The applicant requested a sidewalk on only one side of the road because of the lack of demand for walks in this type of community. Mr. Volonte commented he had a problem with 8' -10' high walls to which Mr. Skokowski responded that because of the turnpike more noise control was needed and that all walls would be set back and screened from public view by vegetation. Mr. Channing questioned the height of the Bear's Club wall along Donald Ross Road, which Mr. Skokowski indicated he thought was 10' high. Joe Pollock, Traffic Engineer, explained that the type of interchange had not yet been determined and the process now underway was a part of the settlement with the State relative to the CRALLS issue on PGA Boulevard —that the County had agreed to undertake an interchange feasibility study at the County's expense and assuming this interchange was feasible then a decision would be made to go forward through an appropriate funding mechanism, which had not yet been determined. Mr. Pollock estimated the study could take 18 months but the whole process to get an interchange could take 5 -10 years or longer depending on the financing, and the initial processes could take 5 -7 years. Both state and federal highway regulations would have to be met. Mr. Pollock advised there was a meeting next week with FDOT and this issue would be discussed. Mr. Kunkle commented that he did not want another situation looking down on the roof of a maintenance building. The location of the Central Boulevard entrance was pointed out. Mr. Skokowski advised there would not be enough traffic to warrant a signal. • 6 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 The intent was to go through the gate to gain access to the sales center. Mr. Kunkle commented he had no problem with a sidewalk on only one side, and would have no problem with no sidewalks in a community like this since the golf course would be used for exercise and the residents would use golf carts to get from place to place within the community. The preserve areas were discussed. Chair Solomon asked if a tunnel was provided to get from the driving range to the other side of Central Boulevard. Mr. Skokowski indicated Central Boulevard would be raised so that one could go under the roadway. Vehicular access into the property was described. Mr. Solomon noted that deceleration lanes were needed for safety, especially if an interchange was built. Mr. Solomon discussed drainage. A WCI representative clarified that Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District had no drainage obligation, but that the one Master HOA would be responsible for drainage and the City Attorney would review the documents. The HOA would also be responsible for maintenance and repair of drainage facilities. Mr. Skokowski advised that this project had concurrency except for school concurrency and this project was not likely to impact public schools. Art in public places was not a requirement. Mr. Present requested and received clarification that the landscaping at the entrance had been agreed upon. Mr. Present disagreed with higher walls along PGA and Central Boulevard and requested justification why the walls should be higher than 6'. Mr. Present commented he was concerned about the interchange and was not convinced the interchange would be a diamond. Mr. Present indicated he wanted to be very careful that the City's options were not eliminated and it would behoove both the City and WCI to allow more land for the interchange. Mr. Pollock noted the applicant would have a much better idea after next week's meeting with the District Secretary regarding that situation. Mr. Pollock provided history of the plan for the interchange, indicating it had been on and off the MPO's plans over the years. Mr. Present advised that traffic and major intersections were his major concerns, and he thought the City should err on the cautious side. Mr. Pollock expressed his opinion that the densities and intensities for this project were probably much less than envisioned by Mr. MacArthur. Mr. Present questioned the outparcel near Westwood Gardens, to which Mr. Skokowski responded it was a Seacoast Utility facility. Mr. Present noted the golf course maintenance facility was located built right below the overpass. Mr. Skokowski explained that the BallenIsles maintenance facility had been there before the roadway was expanded and this would be very different. Mr. Present requested birds -eye elevations. Mr. Ansay asked if the 78 acre vs. the 81 issue had been resolved, which was confirmed by Mr. Skokowski. Mr. Ansay favored a sidewalk on only one side of the roadway. Mr. Ansay questioned what criteria determined the type of interchange., to which Mr. Pollock responded primarily traffic volumes getting on and off 1-95 as well as distances to interchanges at Donald Ross and Military Trail, and the diamond type was predominant along I -95 in Palm Beach, Dade, and Broward Counties. Chair Solomon commented he had no problems with sidewalks on one side of the road. Chair Solomon recommended a real good disclosure that the HOA was responsible for the maintenance of the golf course facility in the purchase and sale contract and requested the purchase and sale contract be submitted to the City Attorney for review. Mr. Ansay asked what criteria determined wall heights. Mr. Skokowski responded that there was definite criteria for noise. Mr. Tarr indicated this was the first project he had seen that deserved almost any waivers they would want. Mr. Tarr stated he was fine with the walls and sidewalks as requested. Mr. Tarr commented he hoped the I -95 interchange never -got built. Mr. Channing stated he agreed with Mr. • Present regarding traffic being critical and stated it needed to be done right. 10 • 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 OLD BUSINESS Chair Solomon commented that the Tanglewood project looked absolutely horrible and asked what could be done. Growth Management Director Wu responded that there was an increase in interested buyers for the property, and Union Square was scheduled for presentation before the City Council, meanwhile, they were making sporadic renovations as they occurred, and any code violations would be looked at by the City. Mr. Present commented that at the last meeting he had commented he was not happy with the justification being "you have approved it before" for a waiver. Mr. Present clarified there was nothing wrong with that, but in order to come up with that justification full backup was needed to see what the facts had been to verify why it was done before. Mr. Wu expressed staff agreement with that policy. Mr. Present stated he wanted to see all backup on why it was previously approved. Mr. Ansay asked how the City could emphasize to an applicant that variances were very difficult to obtain unless they could meet all the criteria, and it was expensive. Mr. Ansay commented in his experience there were no gray areas and if an applicant brought it on themselves it was very, very difficult. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tarr commented the new office building at PGA National had a new satellite dish that was not buffered. Mr. Wu explained there were certain sizes of dishes that did not have to be screened per federal law. Chair Solomon commented the POA might require screening. 11 of Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 11, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held March 26, 2002. APPROVED: A Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Joel Channing Steven Dick Alternate 4aE, C��ep� etty La , Secretary for the Meeting Volonte 12 Memo to File 1 From: Marls Hendrickson, City Forester /)VA_ Subject: VAR- 01 -08, 15 Brighton Court, Barclay Club at PGA National, Screen Enclosure Setback Date: December 12, 2001 I have reviewed the above - referenced petition and provide the following comments for the December 13, 2001 DRC meeting: It is my understanding that the petitioner has constructed a screen enclosure south of Lot 7, Block J of the Barclay Club at PGA National. This not only an infraction of the required screen enclosure set back per lot, but an encroachment into common open space owned by the Barclay Club, Homeowners Association (HOA). South of Lot 7 is Tract 0- 5, which is dedicated to the HOA for open space purposes. As City Forester, I am totally oppose to private property owners, intentionally or unintentionally, enclosing common property for private use. The eight -foot wide Tract 0- 5 is the Barclay Club's buffer area:' In this case, I recommend removing the screen enclosure from Tract 0 -5. The,request for a zero setback for a screen enclosure should be from the petitioner's existing property line. With that said, the City has approved privately owned screen enclosures within common open space after setback back issues had been resolved. Attached is a copy of an "Easement Agreement" and "Notice of Encroachment Permit and Easement." If the encroachment is approved and new setback standards are allowed, these documents may be useful for the HOA and petitioner. -� o2_(17