5. ARC-23-099 274 MONTEREY RD. The applicant, Morton Pierce, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family residence with sitewide landscape and hardscape improvements.
 
Public Comment, Town of Palm Beach Admin
admin
almost 2 years ago
Monday August 21, 2023
To: ARCOM members
Re: ARC-23-099 274 MONTEREY RD
I strongly urge you to deny this application once and for all. The property owner and his architect have returned with new plans that are inaccurate, mis-leading, and not responsive to the clear directives ARCOM set forth when you voted to defer their last proposal, for the second time, in July. Please let me explain.
1.Inaccurate: These plans attempt to place the proposed project’s scale in context with the Monterey Road neighborhood. But the numbers they show are inaccurate. For example, these plans show 230 Monterey Road as 4,057 square feet. The Palm Beach Property records state this property is actually 3583 sq. Ft. (Overstated by 15%) These plans show 220 Monterey Road as having 5,012 sq. Ft. The Palm Beach Property Records show this property is actually 4411 sq. Ft. (Overstated by 15%) I could go on. Oddly, these mistakes all overstate the size of neighborhood properties.
“Is this your best work?”
2. Misleading: These plans systematically compare “apples & oranges” to justify the dramatic increase in building mass they want you to approve. On property after property referenced in the new plan, the architect states total square footage in existing properties comparison with his new plans plans’ “under A/C” square footage. That’s misleading.
For example: These plans list 282 Monterey Road at 4478 sq ft. The Palm Beach Property records show this address as having only 3448 sq. Ft. “Under A/C”. So these new plans make a misleading comparison that overstates the neighbor’s comparable square footage by 30%.
Or take the neighbor at 1105 North Lake Way. These plans state the sq ft. of the property at 2869 sq ft. Property Records show only 1925 sq ft “under A/C”. The new plans overstate this comparable number by 50%.
Similar overstatements can be found in the new plan’s square footage for other properties on Monterey Road: 249, 239, 266, 230, 220, etc.
And please consider this: The existing 274 Monterey Road property has 2877 sq ft “under A/C” These new plans are asking for 4313 sq ft “under A/C”. The owner is seeking a huge increase of 50% in mass, mainly on the more visible second floor. Intentionally or not, the misleading comparisons offered in these plans disguise the true problem ARCOM spotted in the last meeting. This design is simply too large, too massive for this neighborhood.
3. Not responsive to the clear concerns of ARCOM:
Two messages were delivered to the property owner and Mr.Perry at the July meeting:
“Put your plan on a ‘diet’.” (I.e…reduce the massing)
“Make the architecture fit the tree.” (Referring preserving the Queen Crepe Myrtle)
Clearly the diet hasn’t worked. This plan is only very slightly smaller than the July plan. And the misleading comparisons try to camouflage that bulk.
“Save the tree.” Despite many pages of landscape detail in this new plan, all that appears about that tree is:
“Existing Queen Crepe Myrtle to remain” No further detail or explanation is offered. Yet the construction plans call for a compacted gravel staging area during construction that will cover over half this tree’s root system. And the finished house and patio will cover a different half, again, when construction is completed. What confidence can you have that the property owner has truly acknowledged your concerns about saving the tree?
The new landscape plans also fail to mention that the owner plans to remove two more trees: a beautiful mature Tabebuia, and a handsome Hong Kong Orchid tree. Both are on the corner of the NE Monterey Road property line, far from the planned construction. They can be seen prominently in the plan’s aerial photos of the property. The landscape plans submitted make no mention of this. Those trees just “disappear” in the new plans. So, in other words, scrape the whole site.
Shouldn’t the property owner, at a minimum, be required to submit a signed landscape plan for protecting the Queen Crepe Myrtle during construction, and offering landscape remediation if it does not survive?
But enough is enough.
This is the third time the property owner and Mr. Perry have come before you. Their new plan is riddled with the same mistakes and problems, big and small, that caused you to ask for changes the last two times. No Monterey Road neighbor that I am aware of is in favor of this project.
And, I don’t think the owner and Mr. Perry are listening.
Isn’t time to invoke a “three-strikes” rule?.
I strongly urge you to deny this application.
David A. Kelso
255 Monterey Road
Received via email 8.21.23:
Monday
August 21, 2023
To: Town Council members
CC: John C. "Skip" Randolph
The sudden & dramatic demolition at the Playhouse, combined with confusing demolition administration and supervision at other sites in the Town has set off a host of questions. How could this have happened? Exactly who made what decision on demolition? Who signed off and why? Who supervised this work? Town officials and residents are now faced with a host of unpleasant, unintended consequences.
One big question has occurred to me:
Why did the Town Council approve the demolition of the Fatio House at 249 Monterey Road, when it had received a multi-million dollar commitment from the property owner to restore it?
In 2018, the property owner, Alex Griswold, filed a variance request for 249 Monterey Road. (See attached). On July 11th, Griswold and his attorney, Maura Ziska, appeared before the Town Council to present this request. During that meeting they proposed a specific quid-pro-quo:
“Please give me these variances and allow me to split and sell the newly created lot for development. In exchange, I will use those proceeds to restore the remaining Fatio House on my property.”
At this meeting, Griswold and Ziska presented the Town Council with extensive architectural plans that detailed his proposed restoration.
On October 24, 2018, Mr. Griswold and Ms. Ziska, appeared before ARCOM with the same architectural plans, and offered the exact same quid-pro-quo.
Both the Town Council and ARCOM accepted this quid-pro-quo and approved the variances that allowed the lot to be split, having received from Griswold, what was, in effect, a multi-million dollar commitment to restore a unique Fatio House on Monterey Road.
I found this all documented in the Town of Palm Beach meeting archives, agendas, and audio recordings available online.
After getting these variances, Mr. Griswold proceeded to sell the resulting new lot, and then sell his remaining property at 249 Monterey Road, pocketing the proceeds, without fulfilling any of his commitments to Town Council or ARCOM, made in the 2018 meetings.
Just a few days ago, the Town issued a building permit (see attached) to the new property owner, Michael Peacock, to demolish the Fatio House.
I can find no record of the Town Council discussing, or voting to give up, the explicit, multi-million dollar commitment they received from Mr. Griswold, in exchange for valuable variances granted to him in order to restore the Fatio House.
Why is the Town Council allowing this Fatio House to be demolished?
Why did the Town Council give up the multi-million dollar commitment to preserve it made by Mr. Griswold?
Great community concern is rising now about the granting, administration, and supervision of demolition permits.
Doesn’t this demolition permit deserve closer examination?
Just asking.
Respectfully,
David A Kelso
255 Monterey Road
Received 8.22.23:
Good morning and thank you for your response to my questions.
What is surprising is that misinformation contained in Mr. Perry's previous applications and frankly, the quality of the plans themselves, did not trigger efforts to check out subsequent proposed plans that he submitted. I won't belabor the obvious flaws in the plans submitted for approval at the May ARCOM meeting, which were apparent even to a casual observer.
While I may not have been present at all the many ARCOM meetings where 274 Monterey plans were considered, at all the ones I can recall, the individual listed as the licensed architect of record for all these plans did not present or speak. Was he ever present at any of the ARCOM meetings when 274 Monterey was on the agenda?
Has anyone in your department ever discussed any of the many 274 Monterey proposals with the licensed architect of record for this project?
I specifically recall speaking in person against plans presented by Mr. Perry in May for 274 Monterey, that were unanimously rejected by ARCOM for a variety of reasons and don't recall anyone else there representing the owner.
Despite the long and convoluted progression of this project, am I correct in assuming that what appears to be Building and Zoning's tacit approval for the most recent 274 Monterey proposal that is on the agenda for the August 23, meeting continues?
Please excuse the numerous inquiries; but, we are the ones who will be living next door to whatever ARCOM approves.
Thank you for your assistance.
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received 8.17.23:
Mr. & Mrs. Dunston,
Per our discussions today I am sending this email in regards to the items that we agreed on to be adjusted to the plans for 274 Monterey Road as well as conditions for the construction process on site.
#1 - The side yard setbacks on the East & West sides will become equal, which will change the West setback from 18’-5” to 19’-8” with the generator remaining against the wall of the garage and out of the 12’-6” required setback and the 2 A/C units will move to 9”-2” from the West property line. The three sided equipment enclosure consisting of a CMU walls will remain per plan with the West wall of the enclosure will be 7’ above your adjacent grade and the North and South walls will be at a height to screen the equipment as required by the code, with two solid access gates. The East setback will now be 19’-8” as well with the pool equipment remaining against the house and out of the required 12’-6” setback with the 2 A/C units being placed 5’ from the East Property line as required by code. The three sided equipment enclosure consisting of a CMU walls to remain per plan with the East wall of the enclosure will be 7’ above the adjacent grade and the North and South walls will be at a height to the screen the equipment as required by the code with two solid access gates.
#2 - Any digging or excavation for the pool or drainage system/exfiltration trenches on site that will require heavy equipment, removal of rock or coral beneath the existing grade will be completed off season between May 1st & October 1st.
#3 - The Egress route for vehicles will be changed to head out of the site east on Monterey to North Ocean Blvd. to avoid the turn onto North Lake Way and the damage to the properties at the intersection of Monterey and North Lake Way.
I did speak with Mr. Pierce and he agrees with this items and as discussed we understand your concerns about size and would like to hear what ARCOM’s opinions is in regards to that.
Thank you again for your time and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Kind regards,
MP
Michael Perry
MP Design & Architecture, Inc.
217 Peruvian Avenue, Suite 4
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Monday August 21, 2023
To: ARCOM members
Re: ARC-23-099 274 MONTEREY RD
I strongly urge you to deny this application once and for all. The property owner and his architect have returned with new plans that are inaccurate, mis-leading, and not responsive to the clear directives ARCOM set forth when you voted to defer their last proposal, for the second time, in July. Please let me explain.
1.Inaccurate: These plans attempt to place the proposed project’s scale in context with the Monterey Road neighborhood. But the numbers they show are inaccurate. For example, these plans show 230 Monterey Road as 4,057 square feet. The Palm Beach Property records state this property is actually 3583 sq. Ft. (Overstated by 15%) These plans show 220 Monterey Road as having 5,012 sq. Ft. The Palm Beach Property Records show this property is actually 4411 sq. Ft. (Overstated by 15%) I could go on. Oddly, these mistakes all overstate the size of neighborhood properties.
“Is this your best work?”
2. Misleading: These plans systematically compare “apples & oranges” to justify the dramatic increase in building mass they want you to approve. On property after property referenced in the new plan, the architect states total square footage in existing properties comparison with his new plans plans’ “under A/C” square footage. That’s misleading.
For example: These plans list 282 Monterey Road at 4478 sq ft. The Palm Beach Property records show this address as having only 3448 sq. Ft. “Under A/C”. So these new plans make a misleading comparison that overstates the neighbor’s comparable square footage by 30%.
Or take the neighbor at 1105 North Lake Way. These plans state the sq ft. of the property at 2869 sq ft. Property Records show only 1925 sq ft “under A/C”. The new plans overstate this comparable number by 50%.
Similar overstatements can be found in the new plan’s square footage for other properties on Monterey Road: 249, 239, 266, 230, 220, etc.
And please consider this: The existing 274 Monterey Road property has 2877 sq ft “under A/C” These new plans are asking for 4313 sq ft “under A/C”. The owner is seeking a huge increase of 50% in mass, mainly on the more visible second floor. Intentionally or not, the misleading comparisons offered in these plans disguise the true problem ARCOM spotted in the last meeting. This design is simply too large, too massive for this neighborhood.
3. Not responsive to the clear concerns of ARCOM:
Two messages were delivered to the property owner and Mr.Perry at the July meeting:
“Put your plan on a ‘diet’.” (I.e…reduce the massing)
“Make the architecture fit the tree.” (Referring preserving the Queen Crepe Myrtle)
Clearly the diet hasn’t worked. This plan is only very slightly smaller than the July plan. And the misleading comparisons try to camouflage that bulk.
“Save the tree.” Despite many pages of landscape detail in this new plan, all that appears about that tree is:
“Existing Queen Crepe Myrtle to remain” No further detail or explanation is offered. Yet the construction plans call for a compacted gravel staging area during construction that will cover over half this tree’s root system. And the finished house and patio will cover a different half, again, when construction is completed. What confidence can you have that the property owner has truly acknowledged your concerns about saving the tree?
The new landscape plans also fail to mention that the owner plans to remove two more trees: a beautiful mature Tabebuia, and a handsome Hong Kong Orchid tree. Both are on the corner of the NE Monterey Road property line, far from the planned construction. They can be seen prominently in the plan’s aerial photos of the property. The landscape plans submitted make no mention of this. Those trees just “disappear” in the new plans. So, in other words, scrape the whole site.
Shouldn’t the property owner, at a minimum, be required to submit a signed landscape plan for protecting the Queen Crepe Myrtle during construction, and offering landscape remediation if it does not survive?
But enough is enough.
This is the third time the property owner and Mr. Perry have come before you. Their new plan is riddled with the same mistakes and problems, big and small, that caused you to ask for changes the last two times. No Monterey Road neighbor that I am aware of is in favor of this project.
And, I don’t think the owner and Mr. Perry are listening.
Isn’t time to invoke a “three-strikes” rule?.
I strongly urge you to deny this application.
David A. Kelso
255 Monterey Road
Received via email 8.21.23:
Monday
August 21, 2023
To: Town Council members
CC: John C. "Skip" Randolph
The sudden & dramatic demolition at the Playhouse, combined with confusing demolition administration and supervision at other sites in the Town has set off a host of questions. How could this have happened? Exactly who made what decision on demolition? Who signed off and why? Who supervised this work? Town officials and residents are now faced with a host of unpleasant, unintended consequences.
One big question has occurred to me:
Why did the Town Council approve the demolition of the Fatio House at 249 Monterey Road, when it had received a multi-million dollar commitment from the property owner to restore it?
In 2018, the property owner, Alex Griswold, filed a variance request for 249 Monterey Road. (See attached). On July 11th, Griswold and his attorney, Maura Ziska, appeared before the Town Council to present this request. During that meeting they proposed a specific quid-pro-quo:
“Please give me these variances and allow me to split and sell the newly created lot for development. In exchange, I will use those proceeds to restore the remaining Fatio House on my property.”
At this meeting, Griswold and Ziska presented the Town Council with extensive architectural plans that detailed his proposed restoration.
On October 24, 2018, Mr. Griswold and Ms. Ziska, appeared before ARCOM with the same architectural plans, and offered the exact same quid-pro-quo.
Both the Town Council and ARCOM accepted this quid-pro-quo and approved the variances that allowed the lot to be split, having received from Griswold, what was, in effect, a multi-million dollar commitment to restore a unique Fatio House on Monterey Road.
I found this all documented in the Town of Palm Beach meeting archives, agendas, and audio recordings available online.
After getting these variances, Mr. Griswold proceeded to sell the resulting new lot, and then sell his remaining property at 249 Monterey Road, pocketing the proceeds, without fulfilling any of his commitments to Town Council or ARCOM, made in the 2018 meetings.
Just a few days ago, the Town issued a building permit (see attached) to the new property owner, Michael Peacock, to demolish the Fatio House.
I can find no record of the Town Council discussing, or voting to give up, the explicit, multi-million dollar commitment they received from Mr. Griswold, in exchange for valuable variances granted to him in order to restore the Fatio House.
Why is the Town Council allowing this Fatio House to be demolished?
Why did the Town Council give up the multi-million dollar commitment to preserve it made by Mr. Griswold?
Great community concern is rising now about the granting, administration, and supervision of demolition permits.
Doesn’t this demolition permit deserve closer examination?
Just asking.
Respectfully,
David A Kelso
255 Monterey Road
Received 8.22.23:
Good morning and thank you for your response to my questions.
What is surprising is that misinformation contained in Mr. Perry's previous applications and frankly, the quality of the plans themselves, did not trigger efforts to check out subsequent proposed plans that he submitted. I won't belabor the obvious flaws in the plans submitted for approval at the May ARCOM meeting, which were apparent even to a casual observer.
While I may not have been present at all the many ARCOM meetings where 274 Monterey plans were considered, at all the ones I can recall, the individual listed as the licensed architect of record for all these plans did not present or speak. Was he ever present at any of the ARCOM meetings when 274 Monterey was on the agenda?
Has anyone in your department ever discussed any of the many 274 Monterey proposals with the licensed architect of record for this project?
I specifically recall speaking in person against plans presented by Mr. Perry in May for 274 Monterey, that were unanimously rejected by ARCOM for a variety of reasons and don't recall anyone else there representing the owner.
Despite the long and convoluted progression of this project, am I correct in assuming that what appears to be Building and Zoning's tacit approval for the most recent 274 Monterey proposal that is on the agenda for the August 23, meeting continues?
Please excuse the numerous inquiries; but, we are the ones who will be living next door to whatever ARCOM approves.
Thank you for your assistance.
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received 8.17.23:
Mr. & Mrs. Dunston,
Per our discussions today I am sending this email in regards to the items that we agreed on to be adjusted to the plans for 274 Monterey Road as well as conditions for the construction process on site.
#1 - The side yard setbacks on the East & West sides will become equal, which will change the West setback from 18’-5” to 19’-8” with the generator remaining against the wall of the garage and out of the 12’-6” required setback and the 2 A/C units will move to 9”-2” from the West property line. The three sided equipment enclosure consisting of a CMU walls will remain per plan with the West wall of the enclosure will be 7’ above your adjacent grade and the North and South walls will be at a height to screen the equipment as required by the code, with two solid access gates. The East setback will now be 19’-8” as well with the pool equipment remaining against the house and out of the required 12’-6” setback with the 2 A/C units being placed 5’ from the East Property line as required by code. The three sided equipment enclosure consisting of a CMU walls to remain per plan with the East wall of the enclosure will be 7’ above the adjacent grade and the North and South walls will be at a height to the screen the equipment as required by the code with two solid access gates.
#2 - Any digging or excavation for the pool or drainage system/exfiltration trenches on site that will require heavy equipment, removal of rock or coral beneath the existing grade will be completed off season between May 1st & October 1st.
#3 - The Egress route for vehicles will be changed to head out of the site east on Monterey to North Ocean Blvd. to avoid the turn onto North Lake Way and the damage to the properties at the intersection of Monterey and North Lake Way.
I did speak with Mr. Pierce and he agrees with this items and as discussed we understand your concerns about size and would like to hear what ARCOM’s opinions is in regards to that.
Thank you again for your time and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Kind regards,
MP
Michael Perry
MP Design & Architecture, Inc.
217 Peruvian Avenue, Suite 4
Palm Beach, FL 33480