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