Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 062502CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 25, 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 Craig Kunkle 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. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Charles Wu reported that since the last meeting the following projects had been approved by City Council: Parcel 11 at Mirasol, and the San Michele amendment after the applicant had withdrawn the front setback request. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of June 11, 2002: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by 5 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Land Development Regulations Commission: Present Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Dick Ansay Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Steven Tarr Absent Chairman Pro Tem. John Glidden Vice Chairman Barry Present Alternate Ernest Volonte Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Edward Tombari, Planner Jackie Holloman, and City Attorney Len Rubin. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 02 -12: Site Plan Approval for Frenchman's Reserve Pod B Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 A request by Bob Bentz of Land Design South, agent for Toll Brothers Development Company, for site plan approval for a 11.78 acre residential parcel within the Frenchman's Reserve Planned Community District (PCD), Pod B shall consist of 45 zero -lot line, single-family homes on 65' by 140' lots. The Frenchman's Reserve PCD is located just east of the intersection of Hood Road and Alternate AIA (31- 41S -43E) Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report. Jennifer Morton, Land Design South, represented the applicant and presented the project, describing the waiver requests for setbacks as consistent with approvals granted in other pods in this development. Mr. Solomon questioned who was responsible for the maintenance for the landscaping outside the lot line on the golf course. Ms. Morton reported she believed it was the HOA. Mr. Tombari responded that the gold course and the pods were both maintained by the same management company and that there were no easements because the golf course HOA and the pod HOA were the same entity. Mr. Solomon requested that be clearly defined. Mr. Tombari clarified in response to Mr. Ansay's request that only pod "F" did not have a zero foot setback. Mr. Channing did not agree with having a zero foot setback. It was explained that the zero foot rear setbacks were only on lots that backed up to either the golf course or a lake. MOTION• Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -12 as recommended by staff with one exception that the rear setback must be a minimum of 3' for any lot. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Chair Kunkle questioned if this motion would make this pod inconsistent with other approved pods in this development. Ms. Morton verified that the applicant had been granted approval for zero foot rear setbacks in other pods and would like to maintain consistency throughout the community. Mr. Channing commented he would rather go back and review the other approvals. Mr. Solomon commented that he had not fully understood the motion and had thought it was to approve the petition consistent with staff recommendation. Mr. Solomon stated he would not vote for this motion because he felt there should be consistency. Mr. Tarr indicated he was in favor of letting the applicant finish the project this way because of prior approvals although he was not in favor of zero foot setbacks. Mr. Tombari verified that zero foot setbacks had been approved in this project in pods A, G, and D. Mr. Channing stated he still was not in favor of zero foot setbacks. Mr. Ansay expressed his opinion that the project should have consistency. The vote on the motion was one in favor and 4 against, including Chair Kunkle, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Ansay, and Mr. Tarr. The motion therefore failed. MOTION• Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -12 as recommended by staff including the requested waivers. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried 4 -1 with Mr. Channing opposed. The following conditions of approval were approved. 1. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the petitioner shall provide all 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 homeowners association documents language for review and approval by the City Attorney and City Forester, including language designed to protect a designated shade tree on each lot for a formal street tree community program. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall make provisions in the homeowners association documents to provide means of access to rear yards through common areas, lake maintenance easements and golf course areas, as applicable, for future construction or reconstruction by an owner, if access is not possible within the owner's property. Such access shall be subject to limitations, conditions, restrictions and requirements, determined by the association and governmental entities having jurisdiction. 3. Street trees and street lights shall be field located to avoid conflicts between lights and landscaping, including long term tree canopy growth. 4. The applicant, successor, or assigns shall consider the following Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines: (a) If the front entry door is a solid door and has a side panel window, the side window should be located on the opposite side of the door handle and door lock. (b) All sides of the house, including porch areas, are to be equipped with electrical outlets to help facilitate motion sensor security lighting. (c) Entry doors that swing inward are to be equipped with metal frames or other protective measures to "target harden" the doorway and discourage forced entry. (Double doors, glass doors, or specialty doors are exempt from this provision). (d) Out - swinging exterior doors are to be equipped with security hinges. (e) Alarm panels are to be kept out of view from windows. 5. Prior to scheduling for City Council review, the City Engineer must approve all plans pertaining to the retaining wall located along the rear property line of lots 40 through 45. 6 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any home with a zero -foot rear setback screen enclosure, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the previously approved "Alternative Landscape Plan" indicating additional landscape treatments adjacent to the screen enclosure. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (Continued from June 11, 2002) Petition PCD- 00 -03: Parcel 31 Old Palm A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for WCI Communities, to approve a rezoning and master site plan for a proposed residential Planned Community District (PCD), known as Old Palm Golf 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Club, consisting of approximately 651 acres. The current zoning is Planned Development Area (PDA), and the proposed zoning is Residential Low Density03 (RL -3), with a Planned Community District (PCD) overlay. The subject site is proposed for 333 single-family residential units, including 34 cottages and casitas, and is bounded by PGA Boulevard to the south, Central Boulevard to the east, and the Florida Turnpike to the west. (2135- 42S/41S -42E) Mr.Ansay disclosed that he had talked to Hank Skokowski regarding this project. Principal Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report and reported that a workshop had been held on March 11. Mr. Benothman reported that staff did not support three requested waivers; i.e., providing a sidewalk on only one side of the spine road; a wall along PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard; and 70' and 62' right -of -ways for a collector road. It was reported that a letter from the county had just been received requesting conditions of approval to be imposed on this project in regard to interchange right - of -way at Central Boulevard and I -95. A copy of the letter, dated June 21, 2002, has been attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Tarr asked where the right -of -way would be along I -95, which Mr. Benothman explained would be 50% however, the interchange study had not been completed, and the plan assumed the interchange design was a tight diamond. If more right -of -way was requested later then the wall would have to be removed. Mr. Tarr requested and received verification that the sidewalk waiver request involved only the spine road. Mr. Ansay questioned why staff did not support a wall on PGA or Central Boulevard. Mr. Benothman explained that no other walls were visible on PGA Boulevard and this would be visible, that he was not comfortable with any wall if it was visible. Mr. Benothman advised that the county's right -of -way request was vague because the interchange study was not yet complete and additional right -of -way would be invasive to the project. Mr. Benothman verified that staff would have no objection to walls on PGA Boulevard if they were hidden. At Mr. Tarr's request, Mr. Benothman pointed out the 62' and 70' right -of -ways which were along the spine road; and verified that he was okay with a 6' or 10' high wall along the turnpike, and was okay with a wall along I- 95 since those walls were needed, but did not support any wall on PGA Boulevard even set back 100' because it would be visible, and noted that a wall could be broken up with fencing and columns. Chair Kunkle commented that the applicant's landscape plan depended on the existing natural material to remain viable throughout and after construction and asked if there was a buffer management plan, to which Mr. Benothman responded there was none of which he was aware. Mr. Benothman commented that wherever buffers existed the applicant was responsible for their care and upkeep. Mr. Channing requested and received clarification that the proposed sidewalk along one side of the spine road was 8' wide in lieu of having two sidewalks each 5' wide. Hank Skokowski provided an updated presentation and explained that the buffer area at the interchange area was tapered on each side of Central Boulevard to accommodate a future interchange. Mr. Skokowski indicated that the applicant accepted the conditions proposed by the County regarding the right -of -way being dedicated. Mr. Skokowski discussed the frontage on PGA Boulevard which would be setback 100' and proposed a 500' segment of wall in one area and no wall west of the entrance off of PGA Boulevard. The proposed wall along Central Boulevard was broken by sections of open rail 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 fencing where there was a preserve area. Mr. Skokowski commented that this wall would provide a noise buffer from traffic on Central Boulevard, and where the wall was visible there would be an attractive element with vertical columns and the wall would be obscured 75 % -80% by landscaping. Mr. Skokowski reviewed changes and updates to the plan since the last meeting, including reductions in heights of proposed walls, addition of ornamental fence connections for preserve areas, the requested median and overpass conceptual landscape plans within public road rights -of -way had been submitted for review, and deceleration lanes had been added at the three project entrances. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the proposed buffers, the entry from PGA Boulevard, architecture of the gatehouse, and location of the maintenance facility. Mr. Skokowski requested that approval not restrict the number of homes in the project. Mr. Skokowski indicated that the spine road was a 2 -lane local street in terms of traffic numbers rather than a true collector road. Mr. Skokowski reported he had discussed with staff conditions 4, 13, and 15 and that the applicant had concerns regarding being able to comply with the 6- month time frame in each of those conditions. Mr. Skokowski requested longer time frames and clarified that the applicant agreed with the other requirements in those conditions. Mr. Skokowski requested that condition 7 be deleted if the Commission agreed with the applicant's position regarding the walls. Mr. Skokowski proposed new language for condition 23 that non resident golf memberships would also be permitted as long as the total number of external trips for the project were not exceeded. Mr. Skokowski requested that the requirement referenced in condition 41 and 55 "prior to scheduling before a meeting of the City Council" be changed. New language proposed by the applicant for condition of approval 41 was "Seacoast Utility Authority well locations and configurations within the PCD buffer system shall be restricted to those shown on the PCD master plan and any revisions thereto shall be subject to Growth Management Department approval." Mr. Skokowski requested that condition 55 be changed to be prior to approval by the City Council. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion there were too many open issues for the Commission to vote to move this project on at tonight's meeting, and listed seven major areas which needed discussion: walls, number of cottages, right -of -way justification in writing was needed, minor changes to conditions 45 and 46 adding that the applicant was continuing in good faith after something had commenced, all the conditions with 6 -month time frames needed to be changed to time frames that were realistic, transitional golf course use needed better language, and the project should not be held up from scheduling for City Council presentation because of the well relocations. Mr. Solomon indicated that the wall presentation had not been well described to the Commission; that the tremendous number of lineal feet had not been adequately considered. Mr. Solomon indicated the Commission needed renderings of the wall in sections, and the number of feet of wall should not be too long before being broken by a vertical column, fencing, etc. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that there should be a lot more vertical railings, that the Commission needed to see the capstones, and clarified that he did not care about the north boundary or along I -95, but the applicant needed to provide graphics of the walls and landscaping proposed for PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard. Mr. Solomon requested materials, renditions, and better graphics. 61 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Mr. Ansay commented he would like more effort to go into buffering the wall so it could not be seen. Mr. Ansay indicated that he did not care what the wall itself looked like if it could not be seen, and design and efforts should be in not seeing it. Mr. Ansay had no problem with a sidewalk on only one side of the spine road, and asked why effort was not being made to accommodate a traffic calming road. Mr. Benothman indicated staff s objection was because justification for the requested waiver had not been provided. Mr. Ansay stressed that he would like effort put into hiding the wall, which he felt was needed for security, and commented that the permanent design for landscaping was too obscure. Mr. Tan commented that this project had many benefits to the City and the City should work for this development. Regarding the right -of -way issue, Mr. Tarr suggested 80' was too wide within the walls of a community. Mr. Skokowski indicated he was okay with providing written justification to staff. Mr. Tan expressed his opinion it was a lot more convenient to walk on one wide sidewalk than to have two smaller sidewalks because there was room for people on bicycles, skateboards, etc., to pass those walking. Mr. Tarr indicated he would favor sidewalks on both sides in the areas where the homes were located. Mr. Tan commented that the wall on PGA Boulevard should be hidden; but he had no problem seeing some wall on Central Boulevard if it was decorative and broken up every 100' to 150' using some gate fencing, and he felt that issue needed to come back before the Commission. Mr. Tan asked if a lot of waivers would be requested for the pods, to which Mr. Skokowski responded yes in some pods and no in others, and the overall answer was less than usually requested. Mr. Tarr commented he was okay with one sidewalk, okay with the collector road waiver if justification was provided that was acceptable to staff, okay with 10' and 8' walls so long as a better plan was provided for PGA Boulevard and Central Boulevard, and agreed with Mr. Solomon to limit the number of golf memberships for a certain number of years. Mr. Channing commented if Chair Kunkle agreed that something could be done to make a wall invisible set back 100' then he felt the Commission should accept it. The City Engineer explained for Mr. Channing the issue of the collector road, that it was a collector road because it collected traffic from the pods with homes and staff was asking for j ustification from the applicant to show that the road right - of -way could be reduced because of less traffic. Mr. Skokowski indicated the applicant could comply with that justification. Mr. Channing commented regarding the 6 -month time frames that staff should allow leeway so long as the applicant was pursuing these issues. Mr. Wu commented that the 6 -month times were the result of City Council policy and staff would be happy to work with the applicant if City Council agreed the time should be changed. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that if outside play was needed for the golf course that it should be allowed. Mr. Channing questioned why the well relocations were required before scheduling for City Council. Mr. Benothman explained that staff believed before taking the presentation to City Council that they should have a comfort level the relocations were as approved by them, that there were several locations within buffers, and the applicant should at least give a level of certainty that there would be no changes. Mr. Benothman indicated staff was willing to work with the applicant to come up with different language satisfactory to the Commission, and that the City Forester had suggested that if the buffer system changed the applicant should be required to come back to the Commission for review. Mr. Skokowski stated he agreed. Chair Kunkle commented he had no problem with the sidewalk or with the right -of -ways. Chair Kunkle commented a lot of the existing landscape material would have to be removed and the applicant needed to give the Commission a better level of comfort on that. Mr. Skokowski commented the applicant agreed that PGA Boulevard was most 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 critical and would landscape so that the wall could not be seen, and suggested a condition requiring no visibility for the wall in that location. Mr. Skokowski requested the applicant be able to submit wall plans for Central Boulevard within six months, to come back before the Commission with the signage package for approval, and to be able to proceed now with the buffer system. Mr. Tarr indicated he was okay with the wall being approved later but he would like the exact location of the structure of the wall and to see where the jogs were. Mr. Skokowski indicated he believed the applicant could work with staff to accomplish Mr. Tarr's request. Mr. Skokowski commented that the applicant wished to move forward with land development of the buffer system, not construction of the wall, and requested that the wall design including the location which would always be set back 100' to be able to come back for approval. Mr. Wu indicated the Commission should consider if they wanted this control to go to staff. Mr. Skokowski commented that the 6 -month issue would go to City Council in terms of the uniqueness of this project, that condition 7 of whether to have walls or not was a simple decision, that the two conditions relating to having to do the items prior to presentation to City Council could be decided, and that golf membership details needed to be worked out with staff and with the City Council. Chair Kunkle advised the applicant they needed to bring back something that gave a better comfort level to the Commission regarding the appearance from the street, and more graphics of appearances on PGA and Central Boulevards; that more drawings were needed with different views and perspectives, and this could be pushed to City Council next time. Mr. Skokowski commented they were willing to come back on the wall. Chair Kunkle commented the Commission was not going to vote tonight, and that would give the applicant additional time to work with staff. Mr. Wu advised that the public hearing must be continued to a date certain, and the next agenda was full. Chair Kunkle responded this needed to get on the next agenda even if it was full. Mr. Wu advised regarding staff s tight schedule because of the upcoming July 4 holiday. MOTION• Mr. Solomon made a motion to re -open the public hearing and to continue the public hearing for PCD -00 -03 to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting of July 23, 2002. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr questioned why not let the applicant move ahead with the rest of the project since he was willing to table the walls, and bring that issue back. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that the Commission had previously received direction that they should be comfortable with what they moved along to City Council and would be moving the wall along without knowing its location, configuration, or treatment. Mr. Tarr commented he expected this project to have a wall and that the issue was whether there would be no wall at any locations since the applicant was willing to bring back the design and location for later consideration. Mr. Channing indicated that the wall was the most important feature as far as the City was concerned and the applicant should have come prepared to show the wall. Mr. Channing advised the applicant when they came back to have plans and sections that showed how they will deal with situations that may arise, and commented that the City Council was looking to the Commission to filter this out. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Channing, and commented it would be quite unusual to come back with a significant feature of the project. Mr. Ansay commented he was not in favor of the wall, and would like effort to be toward proper screening, 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 but would go along with the Commission to come back. Mr. Ansay stressed that the wall must be screened so well that it could not be seen from PGA Boulevard or Central Boulevard. Mr. Skokowski commented the applicant was willing to incorporate the issues of the height, design, and location of the wall if the Commission was willing to allow the project to proceed. Chair Kunkle called for a vote. Motion carried by 4 -1 vote with Mr. Tarr opposed. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Public Hearing and Consideration ofAnuroval Petition VAR- 02 -01: Variance Petition for Citibank Monument Sign A request by Atlas Signs, agent for Citicorp Business Services, for approval of a one foot variance from the 1 S foot front setback requirement for ground signs and a seven foot landscape variance from the 10 foot landscape requirement, to allow an existing, nonconforming ground sign to be updated and relocated to lessen the nonconformides. The subject site is Citibank at 11521 U.S. Highway One. (13- 42S -42E) Mr. Ansay disclosed that his son and daughter -in -law owned the adjacent property to the west of this site known as Eagle Cleaners. The City Attorney swore in those who intended to speak at the public hearing. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the variance request. The City Attorney advised Mr. Ansay that he did not have a conflict of interest due to his son and daughter -in -law owning the adjacent property. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Solomon moved approval of Petition VAR -02 -01 with recommendation of staff that the non- conformity for Citibank at 11521 U.S. Highway One would be lessened as follows: • A reduction of the minimum setback of 15 feet from the right of way to allow a 14 -foot setback, which represents a one -foot variance from the requirement of Section 78 -285 of the Land Development Regulations; • A reduction of the minimum 10 -foot landscape area, to allow a three -foot landscaped area for the east (front) and north sides of the sign, which represents a seven -foot variance from Section 78- 287(c)(2); based on the following findings of fact: 1. The widening of PGA Boulevard created the non - conformity by actually moving the right - of -way closer to the location of the sign. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 2. Justification of the request is not based on financial hardship. 3. Request is consistent with the purpose and intent of promoting the safety and welfare of the public. 4. Petitioner is proposing to lessen an existing non - conformity by relocating the sign an additional 9.5 feet from the PGA Boulevard right -of -way and 16 feet from the US. Highway One Boulevard right -of -way. In addition, the overall dimensions of the existing sign and the sign copy area will be reduced; and 5. Granting the variance would not confer special privilege upon the petitioner. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council Petition LDR- 01 -12: Zoning Text Amendment Regarding Temporary Mobile Homes. Construction Trailers, and Sales Trailers A request by City staff to amend City Code Section 78 -159, Permitted Uses, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses, note (67) entitled "Mobile Home, Temporary", by amending Table 21, "Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Use Chart",, and by amending Article VIII, "Definitions," Section 78 -751. Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained this would allow staff more latitude to approve these types of requests administratively and that changes between the staff report and the draft handed out tonight had been highlighted in yellow. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the request and reviewed the changes. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Michael Sabatello spoke on behalf of Centex Homes and advised that they had submitted written comments, many of which had been adopted by staff. Mr. Sabatello requested that sales trailers be permitted to remain on site until the last closing of the last retail unit. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tarr asked what would happen under Mr. Sabatello's suggestion when a project lingered on 3 -4 years, and indicated he leaned toward staffs language because of that. Mr. Ansay commented he would be in favor if language could be generated to accommodate Mr. Sabatello's request. Mr. Solomon indicated that this was a balancing act between the developer, property owners and buyers, and some trailers stayed for lengthy periods; that now in PGA National some lots were just being built on for the first time. Mr. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Solomon expressed his opinion that overall this was a great step forward and commended Ms. Holloman for her work. Mr. Solomon noted that the general contractor might want their name on the trailer also. Chair Kunkle commented that Jupiter Hills, which had been there 23 years, had just signed for a temporary sales trailer, and congratulated Ms. Holloman on her work.. Mr. Channing asked in the case of a project that was completed but not sold out how further extension could be obtained. Mr. Wu noted that one 6 -month extension had been included, and that staff respected Mr. Sabatello's suggestion but it could not be enforced since normally staff did not know when properties were sold. Mr. Tarr asked what would preclude the developer from not finishing a portion of infrastructure or common space so a sales trailer could stay. Mr. Wu commented that projects expire with a build- out date. MOTION: Mr. Solomon moved to approve Petition LDR- 01 -12. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Wu reported City Council had directed staff to proceed with zero lot line guidelines, which would be the job of the new planner who was to start work July I "- Mr. Wu asked if the Commission would like a workshop or a special meeting for Bourland; consensus was to hold a special meeting on either July 30 or August 6, which would be determined by e- mailing the Commissioners in order to obtain a quorum. Mr. Ansay requested an update on Tanglewood. Mr. Wu reported the applicant felt they could not get a favorable vote from City Council so had negotiated with staff. Staff had agreed to allow whatever could be done under straight code, which was just removing and replacing the facades and mansards. Work to date had been reviewed and was substantially better than before, and foundation landscaping would be added. Mr. Wu explained that when the applicant was ready for the rest of the project, such as abandoning the public streets, they would have to renovate all the buildings in Tanglewood, but they were showing some good faith efforts. Mr. Tan asked on the City Council vote of 3 -2 on zero lot lines if those voting against were against zero lot line products or against having LDRs. Mr. Wu commented that Councilmember Russo had concerns about codifying the zero lot lines into the code; Vice Mayor Sabatello felt that zero lot lines should be viewed in context of a master plan community; and staff felt they could incorporate these concerns into guidelines. NEW BUSINESS 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Mr. Tarr commented that time had been wasted on Old Palm tonight and asked in the future when a project came to staff if it would be possible for staff to foresee what was missing so that the Commission would not have to go through this again on a project, only to continue it, and have to go through most of it again because some members were not present. Chair Kunkle commented that applicants were going to come in with the least they could and take their best shot since they were working under so much pressure. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held July 9, 2002. APPROVED: " R'� z � � IAZ' �0?' Barry Prese , V' e Chair Alternate 4zt:;�v O ot,,L 43etty Lauio Secretary for the Meeting Volonte 12 "JUN -21 -2002 14:21 FROM -THE MITCHELL GROUP 5518330821 T -838 P 002/005 F -841 �nn+►roa on tecyroao PROOF June 21, 20D2 DepsKmen% of EagA eariet and lnbillc•WbrW PO. Scot 21229 IMerr Palm Beaeh, PL 33416•-1229 (561) 684.4000 Mr, Charles Wu Growth Management Administrator wurwco.Palm•bttkh,fLus City of Palm Beach Gardens 10500 N. Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 RE: INTERCHANGE RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTRAL BOULEVARD AND 1 -95 WCI OLD PALM-PROJECT lsawas o� 1Caunry Dear Mr. Wu. `"arren 1t" mwK `g'ai'n Please consider this letter a follow-up to my letter of Junes 10'h and a ce,o1 A. ,. vice char meeting which you attended on June 19'" with Mr. Walker of my staff, representatives of WC1, the FDOT, RS &H (consultant), and members of '"°°'°' �'��`'� your staff. At this meeting a plan showing the right -of -way anticipated to NWjMcCaury be required to accommodate a "tight diamond" interchange at 1 -95 and Central Boulevard was presented. This plan shows the additional right-of- way required as four long narrow triangles, one in each quadrant, with the sengrMntlosci maximum height being approximately 50'. (See attached pian.) Addis`'' Greene It is requested that the following conditions be imposed as part of the development order approving Old Palm: 1. The additional right -of -way as shown on the attached plan shall be counw a bmur shown on the plat as, road right -of -way and dedicated to Palm Beach County, Rrftm. ldbsmar 2. The developer shall, prior to the first Building Permit, convey to Palm Beach County by road right -of -way warranty deed the addttional right-of-way shown on the plat, free of all encumbrances and encroachments.. 3. The developer shall disclose to all potential purchasers that there is an interchange with 1 -95 planned at Central Boulevard. 'An equal OPpdrrunlry {/Arrm4tive Action Eu9pleyn'' �nn+►roa on tecyroao PROOF JUN -21 -2002 14:21 .r' FROM -THE MITCHELL GROUP 5618330827 7-838 P 003/005 F -841 June 21, 2002 Page 2 Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Your assistance and co- operation in this matter of mutual Interest is appreciated. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER George T. Webb, P.E. County Engineer GTW:CRW;ph Pc: Charles Walker, P.E., Director - Traffic Division Steve Carrier, P.E-, Roadway. Jeff Bowen, RSBH Paul Angelo, WCI John Krane, P.E., FDOT, Fort Lauderdale Filer. Roads - central 9oulamrd General - I -8s & central Boulevard t%tMffld%c Ml86&centra1Rl