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applicant had withdrawn the front setback request.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¢ra1Rl