Loading...
Minutes 04-21-04MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON THE WINCHESTER PROPERTY HELD IN THE LIBRARY PROGRAM ROOM~ 208 S. SEACREST BLVD.~ BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORZDA~ ON WEDNESDAY~ APRIL 21~ 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Bob Ensler, Commissioner Carl McKoy, Commissioner .leffrey Livergood, Public Works Director Nike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Moderated by: Kurt Bressner, City Manager Also Present: Call to Order (~uintus Greene, Development Director; Marshall Gage, Police Chief; and Ed Breese, Principal Planner City Manager Bressner opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed the members of staff and the public who were in attendance. Twenty members of the public signed the sign-in sheet that was established to facilitate the ongoing dialog between the City and the residents on this topic. The total non-staff attendance at the meeting comprised approximately thirty-five persons. City Manager Bressner introduced the two Commissioners who were present, saying that the districts of each were contiguous to the property under discussion. City Manager Bressner drew the attention of the public to two handouts that were available: 1) a set of answers to a list of questions furnished to the City Manager by a spokesperson for the concerned citizens; and 2) a drawing of the Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) Envelope concept. City Manager Bressner suggested a format of his sharing the answers to the questions that had been submitted to him, followed by a question and Answer period at the end. City Manager Bressner expressed appreciation to the citizens who had thoughtfully provided him with a list of the questions and given him a few days to answer them. The City was not able to present a development plan at this meeting, but would share information with the citizens as it became available and as the process moved along. City Manager Bressner commented on the need for a review of the proposed project at the City, County, and State levels. City Manager Bressner advised that a compilation had been made of all documents that had been filed for this development, and for the Renaissance Common project, and the documents were available in the City Clerk's office. During business hours, interested persons can view this information and copies will be made for the cost of reproduction. When the staff Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 reports are completed, the City plans to post them on its Web site, in addition to making a paper copy available in the City Clerk's office. Staff has been asked to look at the old Motorola and Winchester properties as one property, as much as possible, since they impact each other as well as the surrounding properties. The preliminary plan speaks of a hub road that connects the properties. A bridge over the C-16 canal is another possibility. The impact of this development on traffic is a matter that is under review. City Manager Bressner addressed some highlights from the Questions and Answers document, and the following discussion was generated. Why does the City want to exchange Gateway Bou/evard for Old Boynton Road? If the City gets O/d Boynton Road, what do you/ntend to do w/th it? Mr. Livergood responded that the City had no plans to do this, although it had spoken to some residents about traffic problems on Old Boynton Road. City Manager Bressner stated that this would not be a staff decision and that any jurisdictional transfer would require enabling approval from the City Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners. What are the sim#arities and differences between Renaissance Commons and Tradewinds? Tradewinds was a multifamily development that was denied approval by the City Commission. The developer sued and won an $8M judgment against the City, and the City continues to pay against the debt that was incurred due to this judgment. A resident provided clarification that the question was asked due to a comment made by Commissioner McCray at a meeting. According to the resident, Commissioner McCray stated that the City was still paying for denying the Tradewinds project and he did not want to face the same thing with Renaissance Commons. There was some discussion over why the Tradewinds project was denied. City Manager Bressner did not think the cases were similar, but could not answer the question definitively at this time. Two comments were made from the audience to the effect that the City's development decisions should not be based on the fear of a lawsuit. Who must approve the DRI? (for Renaissance Commons) Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, responded, saying that a synopsis of the Renaissance Commons Amendments indicating processes and timelines was attached to the Q & A handout. If the Winchester property were to be classified as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), a different set of actions would take place since it would represent the creation of a whole new DR! instead of just a NOPC (Notice of Proposed Change.) NOPCs are intended to be used in 2 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 200~ instances where proposed changes do not generate additional impacts beyond a certain threshold, i.e. are relatively minor. The last time the City established a DR! was Quantum Park. When it changed some of its land uses from industrial to residential, it managed its traffic so that there would not be any net increase - this was done through a NOPC. When Motorola was converted from the Motorola Plant DR1 to the Renaissance Commons DR:[, all the umbrella thresholds were converted into other land uses. Based upon traffic and other impacts, they did not exceed those ceilings. If they did, not only would additional traffic have to be reviewed, a major change to the DR1 might be required. What P1arket Research do you have on Renaissance Commons? P/ease supply copies. City Manager Bressner stated that a Market Study of the Motorola Residential Community dated February 2003 was available in the City Clerk's office. What is the timeline for the development of the Winchester and Renaissance Commons property? Ultimate timelines are unknown. Known timelines are provided in the attachment to this Q IA A. The City will investigate the ultimate build-out date for Renaissance Commons. !t is too early to tell on the Winchester property. Has there been an analysis of the Net Tax Benefit for the Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? City Manager Bressner responded that a financial analysis had not been done. Would you provide to us a height setback graphic that is to scale - an improved version of the drawing provided at the last Commission meeting? Also, per SheLl, how can the property boundary be in the center of a Right of Way? Does that Right of Way include the center of a Canal? The Suburban Nixed Use Envelope handout visually depicts the property lines of the single- family residences, a 25 foot buffer section, and the distance to the building(s) on the Winchester property related to the height of the buildings. The buildings are arranged in a "wedding cake" fashion with the lower buildings on each end and the larger ones in the middle. For example, if the building height were 35 feet, there would be 105 feet between the shared property line and the start of the building, including the 25 foot buffer section. As the buildings get taller, they are farther away from the shared property line. Another chart was displayed showing the heights adjacent to Non-Single-Family and :[ntervening Buildings, or commercial developments. The measurement of the distance between the single-family residences and the proposed development was debated. Since the canals were not straight, the citizens wanted to know if the distance could be increased in cases of uneven canal courses. City Manager Bressner stated that the properties should have property pins in their rear yards and the 180 feet measurement would begin at the property lines and proceed due west to the Winchester 3 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 200~ development. A Sky Lake resident referred to the required 30-foot setback and asked if that was consistent with requirements on the development side. Would the development be pushed back proportionately? City Manager Bressner stated that to avoid confusion, the City would prepare another exhibit that would show how the distances would work with the :~80-foot canal right-of-way in place. The drawing will be specific to the Sky Lakes/Winchester Property area and will show the canals in question. In response to another question from a resident, the City will also verify the widths and rights-of-way for the C-16 and the lateral canal. What are the criteria to determine building height exception in a $1~IL/? No height exceptions are allowed in a SMU. What are the ramifications of building lower (2-story) adjacent to single family neighborhoods? City Manager Bressner responded that the ramifications might include smaller unit sizes, less open or green space and/or fewer units, as a rule of thumb. Is it possible for the builder to build lower building heights (max, 45 feet) and have less common area (green space) to achieve developer's profit margins? The answer was that this must be addressed with the developer. Using planning principles, though, the higher the building the greater potential for more green space. It is a matter of how much is too high and where it is located. Some balancing must be done. How is C-3 Zoning on the Winchester Property any different than strip cente~ you wish to get away from? The response from staff was that it was not different. C-3 zoning allows strip centers and big box super centers. In response to a question from the audience, City Manager Bressner stated that the Winchester property was not zoned C-3 at the present time. The developer would have to ask for commercial zoning. He said that was a good question because in what he had seen so far, there were 39 acres on Congress and Old Boynton Beach Road being shown on a very preliminary plan as Commercial or C-3 and the property behind that going to the east and to the north up to the C16 canal was identified as SMU, and that is 67 acres. The developer does not have the zoning for either one of these. They have submitted a request for Land Use Amendment and Rezoning for both parcels and the City has just begun its review. Copies of their application for Land Use Amendment and Rezoning for both parcels are available at the City Clerk's office. How long is the turnaround from application to decision? Mr. Rumpf responded that it normally took about eight months. This was because there was a Large Scale Land Use Plan Amendment being processed in addition to the Rezoning. There was an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan involving property in excess of ten acres. has to be reviewed by the State before the City adopts ordinances, assuming they do not have any problems with it. After the City's review, it is transmitted to the State and there is a final Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 review period and processing of the ordinances. The Motorola amendment that was submitted in the April 1 cycle should be adopted by .lanuary 1, 2005, if approved by the State. Mr. Rumpf stated that if anyone heard of an ORC report coming out, this was the Official Recommendations and Comments Report from the State. The report might have "no comments," "comments and objections," and/or "objections, comments, and recommendations." The City answers the objections, if any, and sends back the missing information, for example. Tf it is approved by DCA, it will be found "In Compliance" and they issue a Notice of Intent as notice of formal approval or disapproval. City Manager Bressner said that for a project this size, considering past practice, how soon after a project like this is sent to the State does the City get the preliminary review. Mr. Rumpf said it could take up to three months. City Manager Bressner said it might not come in until June, but when it did, it would be added to the data collection in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Rumpf said that DCA's review was not of the zoning per se, but of the land use. They look in the analysis for the maximum impacts based upon the requested land use. They are concerned with the impacts on roads and infrastructure and what thresholds are allowed. Is there a conflict between $1~U (no gas stations a/lowed) and C-3 Zoning (a/lowing gas stations?) City Manager Bressner stated that unless it was ruled out as part of the Site Plan process as a Condition of Approval, gas stations are allowed in C-3 Zoning Districts. He was not saying that there was going to be one. A resident asked to see what was allowable under C-3 zoning. City Manager Bressner said that was on the City's Web page and could be accessed via the City Clerk's page, Ordinances, City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, and Land Development Regulations, Zoning. Mr. Rumpf added that at the end of Chapter 2 there were supplemental regulations that included Iocational requirements for gas stations. Gas stations are only allowed at intersections, not to exceed two per intersection, cater-cornered to one another, and intersections of continuations of four-lane roadways or greater, not two-lane roadways. City Manager Bressner will obtain the Iocational requirements for gas stations in the C-3 Zoning District and include it in the compilation of documents in the City Clerk's office. What types of positive tree cover different/a/is planned between the Renaissance Commons and Winchester property lines and/ts immediate neighborhoods? The City was not familiar with the term "positive tree cover differential" and asked for clarification. A resident thought that the question referred to what kind of landscaping buffer or trees would be available to differentiate the Winchester or Motorola properties from the existing single- family residences. City Manager Bressner stated that this was driven by the site plan. Mr. Rumpf said the SMU was meant to provide flexibility in landscaping. The City had a kind of comfort level with this 5 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 issue given the existing trees on the properties and the intent of the developer. Right now the buffer requirement states a minimum perimeter buffer 25 feet in width shall be provided surrounding the project. All buffers abutting rights-of-way of arterial roadways shall include a landscaped berm. Trees along street rights-of-way are required and shall be regularly spaced. The spacing of trees shall be a minimum of 30 feet on center. Commissioner Ensler remarked that the trees would be about 200 feet away from their homes due to the 180-foot right-of-way for the Water District. The canal right-of-way would look just as it did now. A resident said she had noticed that along the Renaissance Commons project, the trees had been moved to a position beside Congress Avenue. They looked great, but they wanted them to look great from the back, which they faced 24 hours a day. She also remarked that a four-inch tree caliper was too small. City Manager Bressner reiterated that this was a site plan issue and that the Commission had typically asked the developer to "raise the bar" on similar issues. He thought it was a good thing to get the concerns out in the open now so that they could be considered when the project came to the Planning & Development Board and the City Commission. A resident said that the way she read the ordinance, there was only a requirement for landscape buffers along arterial roads, and no requirements next to neighborhoods except for the 25 foot buffer strip. This was very offensive to her. City Manager Bressner stated that the City would have to take a look at the ordinance and how it affects this particular piece of property and deal with it either through an amendment to the SMU or as a site plan issue. If issues were raised that the City could mitigate, the City would work on it. What act/on will be taken to prevent roden~ and snakes from entering adjacent properties? City Manager Bressner said this was not known at present. According to staff, this had not been a significant issue in prior developments. Several residents commented that this had been a big problem during the construction of the Boynton Beach High School and they were concerned about it. City Manager Bressner concluded the review of the Q & A highlights and asked the residents to E-mail him with their questions as they thought of them. He promised that staff would do its best to answer all the questions put before them. At this time, City IYanager Bressner opened the floor for further questions from the public. Commissioner Ensler commented that the Commission had the power to change some things, but not others, particularly when the law was concerned. He said that the Commission had to be careful that it did not take rights away from the residents or the developers. The residents asked Commissioner Ensler to name contacts in the City. Commissioner Ensler responded that they could call the City Manager or Michael Rumpf on any issues related to the 6 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 property. Also, when the plans are drawn up, the project will be brought before the Planning & Development Board and the Board will look at this issue and discuss it in an open forum. ]~n this quasi-judicial venue, the residents will be able to ask questions and make comments to the developer, staff, and the Planning & Development Board. The recommendation of the Planning & Development Board is forwarded to the City Commission, who then reviews the project again. This is the second formal opportunity available to the public to make their views and wants known. The informal method of telephoning the City is available on an ongoing basis. Kim McGow~ 945 LeGrace Circle, stated that if a potential developer bought a parcel of land, they must know what the current zoning is. She did not understand why the City would be liable under any circumstances if they simply kept the developer to the current zoning laws. City Manager Bressner responded that this was a legal question. The person desiring to purchase the land for a particular use has to prove their case for the rezoning of the property and this is a public process. Persons can ask to have their property rezoned and to have the Land Use designation on it changed. Ms. McGow did not understand the City's obligation to create a different zoning or to approve different zoning. Mr. Rumpf responded that the City had no obligation in this regard. Debbie Coles Dobay, 1062 N.W. 6~ Avenue, stated that in talking to Massoud Atefi, a Senior Traffic Engineer at Palm Beach County, she learned that there was a strict process that was adhered to in traffic reviews, and that reviews were done by many agencies including the City of Boynton Beach, the County, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. She asked Mr. Atefi about the possibility of trading Old Boynton Road with Gateway Boulevard. He told her that Old Boynton Road is a County Road and will never be a local road because its traffic capacity dictates that it is a County Road. It was over the limit of a municipal road. Ms. Dobay asked about the future of Old Boynton Road and offered two suggestions. The first suggestion was that Old Boynton Road be made into a traffic-calming road with a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The second suggestion was that the north-south road on the Compson property be made a one-way road from Old Boynton Road to Congress Avenue, directing the traffic to Congress Avenue. She stated that she did not believe that anyone wanted Old Boynton Road to be widened, even if the developer bore the cost. :It would add unwanted traffic and reduce property sizes along the road. Ms. Dobay asked the City what the concerned citizens could realistically do about Old Boynton Road. City Manager Bressner suggested that if she wanted the City to look at this, she could put her suggestions in a letter to the City and the City would investigate the suggestions. City Manager Bressner pointed out the methods the County employed to do traffic counts and measurements and noted that this information was available to the public on the County's Web site. 7 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 Grace Brindisi, :1.65A High Point Boulevard, asked what the total population would be in the combined developments and what percentage would be seniors. She was concerned about having to build another school. City Manager Bressner stated that the City did not know the bedroom mix or density of what would be allowable on the property at this early stage. The total population had to be calculated in order to answer questions about water flow, utilities, and other impacts. However, the specific mix or population targeted by the developer would probably not be known until at least two months into the review process. The number of dwelling units will be known, but not the specific mix. The developer's proposal for rezoning of the 60 some acres has a unit number of 1,678 but this is not necessarily what he would be allowed to build. Traffic issues might not warrant the developer being able to construct that number of units at all. Nike Fitzpatrick~ 175 S.W. 2nd Street, thanked the Commissioners for meeting with the public on this issue. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the developer was legally entitled to anything more than the current zoning. City Manager Bressner stated that they might ask for more than the zoning calls for. He asked if the developer would have any recourse if the City stuck to the current zoning. Mr. Rumpf said that to develop the property under the current zoning, Land Use Classification Moderate Density Residential, it would be 7 units per acre. City Manager Bressner stated that he could not answer this question and the City Commission could not answer it because Mr. Fitzpatdck's question was positioned to assume that there would be litigation, and this was unknown. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he had heard the justification for giving higher density than the current Medium Density Residential was that it would bring in more taxes to the City. The implication is that if more taxes were brought into the City, there would be some net benefit to the current citizens of Boynton Beach. Mr. Fitzpatrick did not believe that this would occur. Mr. Fitzpatrick listed a number of reasons why he did not believe that higher density in this project would provide benefits to the City. He also detailed many reasons why he felt it would be a detriment to the City as a whole. The zoning guarantees the developer profit from 777 medium density homes, and using $30K per home, this would be $23M. Mr. Fitzpatrick thought this was not a high enough profit for the developer and that he was trying to change the zoning to increase his profit margin well beyond that number. Mr. Fitzpatrick did not mind someone making a windfall profit, but he minded if the profit was made at the expense of degrading his quality of life. Tt would do this by increased traffic, more crowding at the beaches, another library, more ugly buildings, and things of this nature. He preferred to see open spaces. His proposal was to give the developer $35M of profit in commercial property and have the rest of the land for a park. He thought that 40 acres of Commercial on Congress Avenue would allow them to have 67 acres of park across from Sky Lake. He implored the City Commission to "hang tough" so that the City could have some green space. There was a considerable demonstration of responsiveness from the audience at this point. 8 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 Bill Walton, 308 Venice Drive, expressed concern about Old Boynton Road, saying that there were six to eight developments along it and only one access to get the people in and out. He hoped that the developers would take this into consideration and not access their development via Old Boynton Road. The property in question could be accessed from Congress Avenue instead, using the existing traffic lights. Carter St. Clair, Stonehaven, asked the City Commission why it would rezone the land. Did it have something to do with a greater development plan? Was it historical? Did the Commission have to work with developers to make the most of the lands it had? When the City has to decide about rezoning the Winchester property, what would lead to the actual rezoning? Why doesn't the Commission hold back and say it would only allow single-family homes there? Ts the City obligated to do the zoning change? Commissioner McKoy stated that there was no obligation. A developer had rights and the citizens had rights. The only obligation the City had was to listen and respond to requests. Mr. St. Clair said that C3 zoning would cause a lot of concern to the residents. Tf the City decided to allow SMU on the Winchester property, some people might like that, but he wanted to know how the City would justify it. Commissioner Ensler said that the residents had certain rights and the developers had certain rights. One of those rights is to say, "! would like to do 'X' with my property." The developer brings his request to the City, who reviews it and forwards it to the Planning & Development Board with a recommendation. The Planning 8, Development Board hears the staff recommendation, listens to the public, discusses it with the developer, and comes to a recommendation that is forwarded to the City Commission. Citizens have a right to speak at both meetings and citizens also sit on the City Commission and the Planning & Development Board. Sometimes requests are denied and sometimes they are approved. Sometimes the Planning 8, Development Board will allow something and the Commission will deny it. Commissioner McKoy stated that compromises are reached and both parties speak about how they can come together and make the project work. City Manager Bressner said that each case is handled on its own merits. Until the facts are known, the Commission was not in a position to say what was going to happen. A resident who had spoken earlier asked a question about the site plan for the old Motorola property and the proposed master plan for the Winchester property. When she read the SMU ordinance, she saw various percentages of green space in the ordinance, depending on whether it was a single-family residence, a townhouse, or a mixed-use condo dwelling. She did not understand how the site plan on the 87 acres of the Old Motorola property could be 1551 units if the green space that was in the ordinance was being granted. City Manager Bressner said that an answer would have to be given to her in writing. Mr. Rumpf said it was a design issue and that densities were maximums but the designer had to take into account many things. Tt came down to the ultimate design. There are parking requirements, landscape requirements, setbacks, and many other factors. 9 Meeting Minutes Winchester Property Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 21, 2004 She thought that the proposed 75-foot height limit was to maximize the green space but then the City allowed the height limit and reduced the green space too. She also wanted to know how they could have more conversations about density and height exemptions. Mr. Rumpf said it was more related to footprints and land area percentages, and not a factor of height or people. City Manager Bressner hoped that the City had provided satisfactory information to the public and encouraged them to keep the questions coming. Adjournment Since the Library was closing, the discussion concluded at 8:32 p.m. City Manager Bressner stated that another public input meeting would be arranged. C1TY OF BOYNTON BEACH Recording Secretary (April 23, 2004) Co-m mis~cx~er` -~.~/~' 10 Wednesday, April 21st, 2004 Questions for Kurt Bressner's Meeting At the Boynton Beach Library Introduction: The following are responses to questions submitted by residents before a meeting on April 21, 2004. The format and content of the questions are from a list submitted by the residents. Staff has endeavored to respond to the questions based on available information as of today, April 21, 2004. A word about documents is in order because there have been numerous requests from many parties for documents. At present, the City Manager's Office is coordinating the production of documents related to the development of the former Motorola and the Winchester parcels. Paper copies of these documents are being kept in the City Clerk's Office for public inspection and copy requests can be made of any documents based on payment of the appropriate amount for the document(s) requested. Several residents have requested to be made aware of the review process by e-mail. Staff is developing a means of providing such a notification procedure. However, the details have not been worked out. My hope is that all the documents related to the development review of both of these parcels can be converted to electronic format and be made available via the City's Web Site. We would still maintain a paper copy of the documents via the City Clerk's Office. The responses to the questions submitted to date are shown below in italic print. In addition, we have shown the responding department(s) in each question. Respectfully, Kurt Bressner City Manager Boynton Beach, FL April 21, 2004 Is there an overall proposed site plan (36"x 24") for Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? If so we would like to see and have at least one copy. Response: There is no combined master plan for both of the developments on one sheet. have the site plan(s) for Renaissance Commons and a very preliminary site plan for the Winchester property. (Response from City Manager) We Why does the City want to exchange Gateway Blvd for Old Boynton Road? If you get Old Boynton Road, what do you intend to do with it? Response: The City has no plans to enact a road jurisdiction transfer with Palm Beach County. However, this is possible. Presently, Gateway Boulevard is maintained by the City of Boynton Beach and Old Boynton Road, east of Congress Avenue, is maintained by Palm Beach County. It may be beneficial for the City and County to exchange these two roads in the future because Gateway Boulevard functions more like a regional arterial roadway and Old Boynton Road has Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 1 characteristics normally associated with a local collector roadway. Again, no plans are in place at this time and no discussions are ongoing. (Response prepared by Engineering Department) What are the similarities and differences between Renaissance Commons and Tradewinds? Response: Tradewinds was a multi-family development, which was denied approval by the City Commission. The developer sued and won an $8,000, O00judgrnent against the City. The City was required to borrow money for the payment of the debt and is still paying this debt. In the intervening period of time, the Florida Legislature has approved legislation regarding development rights of property owners, generally known as the "Bert Harris Act." It is not known if there are differences or similarities between Tradewinds and Renaissance Commons other than the history of the Tradewinds development lawsuit. There has been no statement by the developer of Renaissance Commons referencing either the Tradewinds lawsuit or the Bert Harris Act (Response by City Manager and Finance Departmen0 Who else must approve this project (DRI)? Response: (attached is a synopsis of the Renaissance Commons Amendments indicating processes and timeline). Only the City must approve the DRI. However, the State (DCA) may object to the action of the City and appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudication Commission. (Response by Development DepartmenO What date was Renaissance Commons DRI submitted to DCA? Response: November 12, 2003. (Response by Development Department) What Market Research do you have on Renaissance Commons? Please supply copies. Response: Copy provided to the City Manager's Office by Development. (Response by Development DepartmenO What is the timeline for the Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? Response: Ultimate timelines are unknown. The previously mentioned attachment provides the known timeHnes. Additional phases of Renaissance Commons are still to come. Nothing has been started on the Winchester site, therefore it is too early to establish timetable.. (Response by Development Departmen0 Has there been an analysis of the Net Tax Benefit for the Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? Response: No. (Response by Development Department) Would you provide to us a height setback graphic that is to scale? (Improved version of drawing provided at last Commission Meeting) Response: Copy provided to City Manager's Office.. (Response by Development Department) Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 2 Per the SME, how can the property boundary be in the center of a Right of Way? Does that Right of Way include the center of a Canal? Response: The property boundary is not in the center of the R-O-W. The height setback envelope for mixed-use structures adjacent to developed single-family residential zoning is measured from the common property line when the SMU and the single-family development abut. The measurement is from the centerline of any intervening right-of-way, when the two districts do not abut. The right-of-way would include the centerline of the intervening street or canal . (Response by Development Departmen0 What are the criteria to determine building height exception in a SMU? Response: There are no height exceptions allowed in SMU. . (Response by Development Department) What are the ramifications of building lower (2-story) adjacent to single family neighborhoods? Response: Ramifications may include, smaller units sizes, less open or green space and~or fewer units.. (Response by Development Departmen0 Is it possible for the developer to build lower building heights (max 45 fi) and have less common area (green space) to achieve developer's profit margins? Response: This can be addressed with the developer. Generally, however, the taller the building the less land area and the greater the amount of open space for a given square footage of building area. At a maximum floor area ratio of one (relationship between the land area and the total square footage of all the buildings), or 43,560 square feet of floor area per acre of land, a four-story building only occupies ~ the land area of a 1-story building and a 6-story building occupies only 1/6 the land area that a 1-story building would occupy. Staff cannot speculate on developer's profit margins. (Response by Development Department) Who is paying for the infrastructure including sewer, water, roads, underground utilities, and reclaimed water pipes of the Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? Response: These are costs normally borne by the developer. At this time, it appears that the internal roads and landscaping for Renaissance Commons will be owned and maintained by the developer and subsequent property owners associations. The recycled water pipes are also privately maintained. Water mains and sanitary sewer systems are usually transferred over to the City for ownership and maintenance. Storm water pipes and retention basins are typically maintained privately with easements granted to the City. There are no details or infrastructure information available for the Winchester property. (Response prepared by Engineering Departmen0 What steps are going to be taken to protect surrounding areas subject to flooding by increased watershed? Response: The developer will be required to contain/retain runoff on-site to the minimum requirements of the LDR. Additional conditions may be imposed by other governing agencies such as the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the Lake Worth Drainage Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 3 District ( LWDD), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and/or Palm Beach County. All storm water will either be stored or detained on site thus minimizing the impact to adjacent properties. (Response prepared by Engineering Department) Who pays for the common areas in a SMU? Response: It is customary that the common areas are constructed, paid for and maintained by the developer. Staff will review the specifics of proposals at site plan review. (Response by City Manager) How is C-3 Zoning (Winchester Property) any different than strip centers you wish to get away from? Response: It isn't different. C-3 zoning allows strip centers and big box super centers. (Response by Development Department) Is there a conflict between SMU (no gas stations allowed) and C-3 Zoning (allowing gas stations)? Response: The C-3 zoning can be used to develop those uses and patterns of development that the SMU does not permit. Adequate buffering between the C-3 and any residential portions of an abutting SMU would serve to reduce any potential conflicts.. (Response by Development Department) What type of positive tree cover differential between the Renaissance Commons and Winchester property lines and its immediate neighborhoods? Response: We are not familiar with the term "positive tree cover differential" What is it? (Response by Development Department) What types of streetlights are allowed in an SMU? Response: This is a site plan issue. If the streets are private, there is flexibility in the design and style of the street lighting. If the streets are public, the City uses the standard streetlights that are maintained by Florida Power and Light. In the past, the streetlights and parking lot lights have been reviewed to make sure the height, intensity and direction of light is not intrusive to adjoining residential areas. All streetIights, parking lot lights and building lots will be carefully evaluated during the review process. (Response prepared by Engineering Department) What types of steps are going to be taken to prevent direct physical damage to aquatic habitat and wildlife along the canals? Response: These issues will be addressed in part during the permit process with SFWMD and L WDD. An environmental review is also instigated by the City Forester in connection with site development of open spaces such as this. (Response prepared by Engineering Department) Is developer of Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties, going to clear land in phases to prevent erosion and keep dust to a minimum? Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 4 Response: When the developer applies for Clearing & Grubbing, Exc. & Fill, or other site activity permits he is required to provide an Erosion Control pIan in accordance with the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Failure to control erosion during construction may result in Code Compliance action and/or action by SFWMD. (Response prepared by Engineering DepartmenO Who will install and maintain silt screens along the down slope edges of the canals to control perimeter sediment? Response: When the developer applies for Clearing & Grubbing, Excavation & Fill, or other site activity permits he is required to provide an Erosion Control plan in accordance with NPDES requirements. Silt screens will be a requirement of the Erosion Control plan and the developer will place and maintain them. Failure to control erosion during construction may result in Code Compliance action and/or action by SFWMD. (Response prepared by Engineering DepartmenO What material and height is required for building fence around the perimeter of construction area? What and who is required to keep construction area free of debris? Response: The fence cannot exceed 6feet in height and debris is allowed on an active construction site. It is the responsibility of the contractor(s) to maintain the site. (Response by Development and Engineering Departments) What actions will be taken to prevent rodents and snakes from entering adjacent properties to Renaissance Commons and Winchester property? Response: City staff does not have comment on this question. This has never been a significant issue in prior developments that we are aware of. (Response prepared by Engineering DepartmenO Will irrigation be prohibited from all canals for Renaissance Commons and Winchester properties? Response: Irrigation has the potential to come from three sources: well, canal, or reclaimed water. The reclaimed water is not yet available that far north. The most likely source for irrigation water will be from the canals or well water. Final determination will be made by the SFWMD by permit. The City does not have the authority to prohibit use of canal water. (Response prepared by Engineering Departmen0 What is the City's ordinance for days, hours construction work can occur? Response: Section 15-8.5 & 15.8.8 City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances specifies that, except for Sundays and legal holiday, construction is permitted any day. However, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. the sound level must not exceed 60 decibels, and from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. the sound level must not exceed 55 decibels. (Response by Development DepartmenO Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 5 What are plans for crime prevention near Renaissance Commons, Winchester and surrounding areas? Response: Typically, new development is reviewed to determine whether there will be a significant increase in volume of business~residents~traffic to determine if any increase in staffing would be immediately required. The nature of the development needs to be assessed as their design and target (customers, residents, businesses) will also affect law enforcement service needs. The proposed development does not appear at this stage to present any significant requirements for staffing increases, as we feel current staffing levels will adequately address the needs. This will have to be monitored and assessed annually, as is done with the rest of the city during budget preparation. (Response prepared by Police Department) What are the noise ordinances and curfews for the SMU? Response: The noise ordinances for the SMU are the same as those covering the rest of the city, as outlined in City Ordinance ~001-55. There are no curfews applicable in the City of Boynton Beach. The City's Noise Ordinance covers construction activities and is found in the Code, Chapter 15-8. It allows "noise"from 7.'00 a.m.-10 p.m. Monday- Saturday. (Response prepared by Police and Engineering Departments) Are there any outside amphitheatres being proposed in either Renaissance Commons or Winchester properties? Response: None have been submitted in any approved plans. (Response by Development Department) *We have numerous questions regarding specific conditions on setbacks, building heights, landscaped buffers, berms, general landscaping, lighting, parking garages in the SMU ordinance. Response: Understand and as development details become known during site plan review, these issues can be addressed. Please find a current listing of paper documents on file at the City Clerks office as of April 21, 2004..lis additional documents are filed, they will be added to the file at the City Clerk's Office. (Response by City Manager) Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 6 Renaissance Commons Amendments DRIA/NOPC Development of Regional Impact Amendment/ Notice of Proposed Change Application Submitted DCA-TCRPC- City of Boynton Beach November 12, 2003 P & D Review February 24, 2004 City Commission First Reading Ordinance March 16, 2004 Applicant Requests Postponement March 31, 2004 Second Reading Postponed April 7, 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Application Submitted November 12, 2003 P & D Review February 24, 2004 City Commission Transmittal Hearing March 16, 2004 Amendment Package Transmitted to DCA March 24, 2004 Second Reading To Correspond with Comprehensive Plan Amendments Adoption DCA Review and Comment Period Response within 60 days (early June 2004) City Commission Adoption Hearing Within 60 days After Receipt of DCA Comments (by late July 2004) Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 7 Renaissance/Winchester Documents - As of April 21, 2004 All charges aa'e plus tax Document Source Date Pa~es Cost Renaissance Commons DRI Development 1 15 cents per Master Development Plan page Compson Associates $0.15 Renaissance Development 6-10-03 5 $5.00 per Overall Site Plan page $25.00 Renaissance Development 11-3-03 1 $5.00 Site Plan Phase II Renaissance Development 11-3-03 2 $10.00 Site Plan Phase III Renaissance/ViaLago Development 2-25-04 3 $15.00 Overall Site Plan Phase IV Preliminary Plan for Winchester Development 3-26-04 1 $5.00 Parcel Boynton Place I & !! Rezoning Master Plan City of Boynton Beach Development 113 $16.95 Comprehensive Plan 2003 Peak Season Daily Volume - PBC Website 1 15 cents traffic www.pbcgov.'co m/cng Traffic Study - taken by machine PBC Website 1/12/04 60 $9.00 Traffic Study - taken by hand PBC Website 1/12/04 66 $9.90 City of BB Charter Code of 15 20 cents Ordinance Book double double sided sided copies $3.00 Site Plan Review Application for Planning Dept 4/9/03 8 $1.20 Renaissance Commons Site Plan Review application for Planning Dept 9/10/03 14 $2.10 Renaissance Commons Phase II Site Plan Review application for Planning Dept 9/10/03 19 $2.85 Renaissance Commons Phase III Text Change to the Comp Plan to Planning Dept 3/10/04 14 $2.10 establish a mixed use-suburban land use - Boynton Place/Winchester Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 8 Land Use Amendment & Planning Dept 3/10/04 60 $9.00 Rezoning - Boynton Place Land Use Amendment 8,: Planning Dept 3/10/04 38 $5.70 Rezoning - Boynton Place I Land Use Amendment & Planning Dept 3/10/04 39 $5.85 Rezoning - Boynton Place II Suburban Mixed Use Development 1 $5.00 Heights adj to non-single family Dept & intervening building Suburban Mixed Use Development 1 $5.00 Heights/setbacks envelope adj to Dept single family homes 3 x height -- setback Market Study- Motorola Development 2/2003 102 $15.30 Residential Community Dept Renaissance Commons Development 7/15/03 8 $1.20 Development Order Dept Renaissance Commons Development 12/2/03 6 $0.90 Development Order II Dept Renaissance Commons Development 7/15/03 7 $1.05 Development Order III Dept S:CM/Joyce/Renaissance/Winchester-kb Response to Resident Questions April 21, 2004 9 gNZ~ A~U~dO~d