Loading...
Minutes 03-12-02MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Larry Finkelstein, Chairman Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Michelle Hoyland Absent Jos6 Aguila Henderson Tillman I. Call to Order Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. 'Roll Call The roll was called and a quorum was declared present. II1. Agenda Approval: A. None Additions, Deletions, Corrections Quintus Green, Director of Development/CRA Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Motion seconded by Ms. Hoyland B. Adoption Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the agenda. DeMarco and unanimously carried. IV. Approval of Minutes (February 12, 2002) Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the minutes. and unanimously carried. Motion seconded by Mr. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 V. Director's Report A. Financial 1) February 2002 Financial Statement Mr. Greene reported on the following: Beginning balance - Interest income- Expenses- Audit fees* $ 350 Advertising** $4,673 Other Contractual Services - $13,532'** Office Supplies $ 35 Membership fees of $200 that were erroneously charged to the CRA have been eliminated - $6,214,987 5,576 -18,590 -200 Ending fund balance $6,202,173 *Ernst & Young are the CRA auditors **Includes costs for two public notices ($2,618.80) and advertising for the CRA Director position in three publications ($2,054.15) ***$1,531.94 for architectural renderings for the Riverwalk project and $12,000 for appraisal services for the six properties that are being acquired in the core area. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired if any progress has been made in locating a source that would return a higher interest rate on the fund's balance. Chairman Finkelstein reported that Diane Reese, the City's Finance Director, will be putting all the fund's money in the State Pool, which is now paying 1.98%. Sun Trust offered 2.15% on a liquid money market account. Chairman Finkelstein reminded the Board that the fund is paying monthly interest of $7,500 on the loan. Sun Trust was the only bank that Chairman Finkelstein spoke with. After discussion there was a consensus that the Board should look for the best possible rate of interest for the funds. Mr. Fenton suggested that a minimum of 20 basis points be secured before moving the funds and that the account would offer the same liquidity as the State Pool. Attorney Payne stated that a motion would be in order to authorize Mr. Greene to move the money if a source offering 20 basis points or more over the State Pool could be located. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 Motion Mr. Fenton moved to authorize Mr. Greene to move the Fund's money if a source offering 20 basis points or more over the State Pool can be located. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin and unanimously carried. Mr. Greene reported that arrangements have been finalized on wiring funds to the real estate administrator so that they can move forward with the option agreements. The real estate administrator has been scheduling appointments to make offers on selected properties. Chairman Finkelstein questioned if the Board authorized option agreements. He thought the Board would be purchasing property. Mr. Greene explained that in order to sign an option agreement, it is necessary to have funds available. Chairman Finkelstein thought that the procedure for purchasing property would be through the due diligence process. Mr. Greene stated that when a purchase option is signed that creates a contract to purchase, and the City will be purchasing all the properties that are offered options. All agreements entered into will come before this Board for approval. Mr. DeMarco inquired who would be holding the escrow money. Mr. Greene responded that the real estate administrator is also the escrow agent. Attorney Payne pointed out that these provisions are in the contract. B. Project Updates Mr. Green reported on the following: 1) Federal Highway: Staff is in the process of finalizing the standards and criteria for the mixed use and mixed-use light zoning districts. Staff is considering a new category called an "infill PUD zoning district" to accommodate development of property that is less than the five acre minimum for PUDs. 2) Heart of Boynton: Staff continues to work on the Plan Amendment for the April 2002 cycle for submission to DCA. The City Manager's Office is working with the County to produce a possible land swap to transfer the Cherry Hill public housing site to the City. 3) Ocean District: Phase 2 of the Ocean District planning process began with a workshop in-house in January. A community visioning session is being proposed for Thursday, April 11th to garner input from residents and businesses in the area. 4) Marina/Promenade/Riverwalk: Revisions to the Marina Development Agreement are tentatively scheduled to go before the City Commission on April 16th. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 The matter of acquiring property through eminent domain for the Promenade and Riverwalk will also be discussed at that meeting. An environmental assessment related to the proposed Riverwalk will be done through a sub-consultant of Anderson & Carr. Casa Loma Boulevard will have the first layer of paving completed by Friday of this week. 5) Way-Finding Signage: The Public Works Department is drafting a set of requirements with the City of Hollywood for the City's way-finding signage program. Future Agenda Items It is anticipated that at the April 9th meeting, there will be 11 items on the agenda: four zoning code variances, three new site plans, one annexation, one land use amendment and two conditional use requests. Commission Action At the February 19th Meeting, the City approved the zoning code variance and master site plan modification for McMillan Personal Watercraft with this Board's recommendations. Also approved was the Wooster Zoning Code Variance. At the March 5th Meeting, the Ordinances on first reading for the revision to the definition of building height, and amending the code to add "place of assembly" to the list of exceptions to maximum building height, were approved. Mr. DeMarco inquired if McMillan Watercraft will be permitted to do repairs on site and what was the outcome of the concerns that the Board raised regarding the color of the building. Mr. Rumpf responded that since the business is located in a C-4 zoning district, repairs are permitted. With regard to the color, there was a condition of approval that the applicant reduce the hue and intensity of the color blue that was presented. Staff is still working with the applicant to finalize the colors and some architectural details. Ms. Hoyland inquired where the April 11th workshop would take place. Mr. Greene stated it is scheduled for the Library Program Room and that more information will be made available Chairman Finkelstein recognized Assistant City Manager, Dale Sugerman, in the audience. 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency BoyntOn Beach, FL March 12, 2002 VI. Unfinished Business A. Executive Director Interview Procedures. The interview schedule was distributed and nine applicants are scheduled to be interviewed. One applicant did not respond and a second one declined. Mr. Greene reported that they are trying to better coordinate the interviews for Friday, March 15th, and they will be contacting the 8:00 a.m. interviewee to determine if his time could be changed to 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon. Mr. Greene noted that he has received only one response from the members of the interview panel with regard to the questions. He requested they be turned in as soon as possible. Mr. DeMarco inquired if background checks would be conducted on the applicants. Mr. Greene stated that once one or two finalists have been selected, the Police Department will conduct a complete background check, including criminal and financial. Mr. Fenton asked for a status report on the Old High School. Mr. Greene reported that the City Commission gave the Boynton Beach Historical Society, which has taken over the project to save the building, until July. They are required to provide the Commission with a monthly update of their progress. Ms. Hoyland inquired if the item would come back to this Board. Mr. Greene did not think this would .be the case. VII. Public Hearings: Zoning Code Variance: Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Mrkvicka Pamela Mrkvicka Pamela Mrkvicka 203 NW 3rd Street Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.J.1, limiting a wall to a maximum height of four (4) feet within the front building line to the front line to allow a 3.5 foot variance, and a six (6) foot high wall within the front building line. Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported that the finished grade of the lot is approximately four to five feet higher than the property to the rear or west. The wall will also provide minimum screening for security purposes. The Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12,2002 west part of the property is significantly lower than the east side of the property. There already is a retaining wall along the sidewalk on the southern and western property lines. There had previously been a 6' foot fence along the rear property line. The code only allows a wall, hedge or fence within the front setback not to exceed 4' in height. If the applicant constructs the wall at the maximum allowed by code, which is 4', that would only provide a one and one-half foot retaining wall measured from the inside of the yard. Common practice for the City is to measure a structure, fence, or hedge from the outside of the structure of the adjoining property. The applicant wants to go up an additional 3 ¼' to a maximum of 6', which would end at the front setback line so that the wall would not exceed the 4' measured frOm the outside of the front property line. Staff supports the request based upon a hardship. Joe Karam, a neighbor of the applicants who lives west of their property stated that he was not against installing the wall. He also has a 6' fence that runs along his property, but his property is 5' lower than the applicants' house. Mr. Karam stated that the wall was also necessary for security purposes to keep people from cutting through their property and leaving trash. Chairman Finkelstein closed the public audience. Ms. Hoyland inquired why the variance being sought was a 3½' variance because this would allow for a 7' wall. Ms. Hoyland felt that the variance should be for 2'. Stephen Leach, 203 NW 3rd Street, one of the applicants, responded that the height of the retaining wall measured from the south property line on the west side, which is already in place, has a maximum height of 2'7". Mr. Rumpf agreed with Ms. Hoyland's interpretation of the variance and felt it should have stated to allow a 3¼' increase or a 2' variance. Mr. Rumpf suggested that the motion state the wall would not exceed 6'. Chairman Finkelstein asked if the application was the result of a code enforcement action. Mr. Leach responded that the Code Enforcement Division has not cited them, and they have permits for everything that has been built. Chairman Finkelstein also asked if the line of sight at the intersection would be shortened due to the wall. Mr. Leach stated that the line of sight would be over 30', which is well within the 25' setback. Chairman Finkelstein inquired if the variance were permitted would it set a precedent for this size wall in the neighborhood since there are no other walls like this one in the neighborhood. Mr. Rumpf did not think this would be the case and that each application would be reviewed individually. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 Motion Mr. Fenton moved to accept the recommendation of staff with a condition that the wall would not exceed 6' in height from the surface area outside of the wall. Motion seconded by Ms. Hoyland and unanimously carried. VIII. New Business A. Parking Code Change - MLK Overlay Zone Mike Rumpf, the City's Zoning and Planning Director, presented the item and displayed an aerial photograph of Martin Luther King Boulevard and the surrounding area. The proposed change would affect the City's zoning regulations with regard to parking requirements. Mr. Rumpf stated that there are uses of existing properties being proposed along the MLK corridor and to hold them to current parking regulations may be overly restrictive, as well as detrimental in encouraging redevelopment of the corridor. Other than the CBD, all other areas in the City have a parking requirement that requires parking ratios must be met on site or within 300' from the property, but must be owned by the same property owner. Staff would like to open up the area to better utilize existing resources to allow flexibility in meeting onsite parking requirements. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that the MLK overlay section extends from Seacrest Boulevard and U.S. 1 and is approximately 2,100 feet long. The code change would provide additional parking options. Chairman Finkelstein asked Mr. Rumpf to point out the area that the MLK overlay encompasses. Mr. Rumpf explained that the overlay district covers the properties that front the MLK corridor between U.S. 1 and Seacrest Boulevard. The depth back from MLK Boulevard would depend upon the lot itself, Mr. Greene noted that in the Heart of Boynton Study, the MLK corridor is treated as a distinct entity. The overlay zone is entirely within the newly expanded core area for the CRA. Mr. Fenton inquired why the same parking requirements for downtown could not apply to the whole CRA area. Mr. Rumpf responded that the MLK corridor is a unique area unto itself and will have a combination of uses. There are currently 70 parking spaces along MLK Boulevard. It is intended to give special attention to the MLK corridor, but at this time the outcome is uncertain. The MLK corridor could emerge as a mini-activity center. Various parking options were discussed. Chairman Finkelstein inquired if the "fee-in-lieu-of" was ever considered. Mr. Rumpf felt this would be too complex a change to this corridor. Bob Katz, 206 SE 1st Avenue, said he is presently building a restaurant at 428 MLK Boulevard and that there is no shared parking along that corridor. The restaurant that he is constructing will have 23 parking spaces. There is a church 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 on MLK Boulevard that has some parking in a field and he is considering entering into a shared parking agreement with them even though the field is not paved. Mr. Katz noted that the 70 parking spaces on MLK Boulevard are already utilized by the current businesses. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that there is plenty of land available that could be purchased and used for parking. Mr. Katz did not think that the vacant lots along MLK Boulevard should be purchased for parking because he would like to see them used for development purposes. Mr. DeMarco inquired if the City owned any parcels along MLK Boulevard and Mr. Rumpf said the City owned some parcels, but he was not sure of their location. Mr. Katz asserted that the parking requirements in Boynton Beach are more restrictive than other municipalities and the code requires one parking space for every two and one-half seats. Mr. Katz noted that the MLK area needs a lot more assistance than the downtown area. Mr. Fenton inquired if the proposed parking code change would make parking more or less restrictive in this area. Mr. Rumpf responded that it would make parking less restrictive by giving a business owner the opportunity to find someone else who has a parking resource that could be used, rather than purchasing the property for parking themselves. Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Fenton suggested that the City start land banking properties for future parking. Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to recommend that Section 8.5(A)(9) of the Land Development Regulations be amended to allow for the sharing of parking resources within the Martin Luther King Boulevard Overlay District. Motion seconded by Ms. Hoyland and unanimously carried. IX. Other A. Florida State Statute #287.055 - Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act Mr. Greene reported that the City Attorney originally provided the enclosed summary of the legislation to senior staff. Mr. Greene included it in the agenda packet to notify the Board of the requirements of the Act and informed the Board that they are required to follow the regulations of this Act. Mr. Greene presented a brief outline of the Act and recommended that the members familiarize themselves with the regulations. 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, FL March 12, 2002 B. 2002 Review Schedules for CRA-related Applications Included in the agenda packet. Public Audience Xm None Xl. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (two tapes) (March 13, 2002) QUANTUM September 10, 2001 Mr. Michael W. Rumpf City of Boynton Beach Department of Development Planning & Zoning Division 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33425 RE: Quantum Park - Amendment #12 Dear Mr. Rumpf.' Addressed below are the staff comments provided on September 4, 2001. The comments are restated for convenience. Please note we have renumbered the comments, as the City staff comments duplicate comment numbers 25 thru 29, inclusive. Listed below are the attached documents referenced in the responses: 1. Revised Master Development Plan, revised September 10, 2001. a. Ten (10) copies 24"x36". b. One (1) each, ll"xl7"and8 ½"x 11". 2. Revised NOPC Application Page 5, revised September 10, 2001. 3. Revised Substantial Deviation Chart, dated September 10, 2001. 4. Pinder Troutman Consulting, Inc. letter dated September 7, 2001. 5. Two-page letter from SFWMD, dated February 7, 1997. 6. SFWMD no objection letter, dated September 6, 2001. 7. Olen letter, dated September 7, 2001. 8. Area Calculation Summary, dated September 6, 2001. Our responses are presented as follows. PUBLIC WORKS - General Comments: None RESPONSE: Comment noted. PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: See attached memo from August 29, 2001. Jeff Livergood, Public Works Director dated RESPONSE: See letter dated September 7, 2001, front Kahart Pinder, Pinder Troutman Inc. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 101 Bovnton Beach, FL 33426 (5611740-2447 · Fax: (561) 740-2429 e-mail: quantgrp@qgc.cc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 2 9/10/01 UTILITIES Comments: 1. Lots 7 thru 11, and Lots 23 thru 31, located on Quantum Boulevard (a total of 14 lots) were the subject of Quantum Park Amendment #11 :(MPMD 00-0007) to which we responded to in Utilities Department Memorandum #01-012, dated January 11, 2001. To recapitulate those comments, we stated that with the original DRI for the total park designated for Commercial, Industrial, Office, or a combination of Office and Industrial, and/or Office, Industrial and Commercial, both the water and wastewater systems to support these type of uses was designed and constructed for those anticipated uses. Four (4) lift stations were configured to handle the wastewater generation anticipated in the 550-acre park. RESPONSE: Comment noted. This comment does not contain a specific question or request any additional information. Therefore, please delete this comment. As previously stated, the propose revision to the land use to "Mixed Use (MU)" to include Office, Commercial and Residential uses could tax the utility support facilities to their limits. A proviso needs to be incorporated into each group of lot approvals process, that the design-engineering consultant shall demonstrate that sufficient utility system(s) capacity is available to support the proposed use, or they will provide the necessary upgrade(s) to allow for the proposed use. Failure to so could result in insufficient utility support to this park, affecting other current (existing) users. RESPONSE: Comment noted. This comment does not contain a specific question or request any additional information. Therefore, please delete this comment. o Applicant is requesting that Lot 34-C be converted to Industrial usage. In lieu that Lot 34-C was open space designated for dry retention (as an overflow from Tract "J"), applicant is required to demonstrate that the dry retention requirement get transferred. The partial letter from SFWMD (unsigned) does not indicate that the dry retention of Lot 34-C is no longer required, nor has the "As-Built Master Drainage Plan" from the engineer-of-record Rossi and Malavasi Engineers, Inc., ever been submitted to the City. It will be required to submit the back-up documentation to substantiate that the applicant's request for land use conversion. RESPONSE: The following is the demonstration that Lot 34-C is not needed as a dry retention area and as being unnecessary was not transferred to any other lot or location. F: ~Quantum L imited[nopc l 2EA G091 OO L doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 3 9/10/01 Prior to 1987 the area known as Lot 34-C was shown on the Master Development Plan as a Detention Area and was part of the surface water management system included in the SFWMD Conceptual ApprovaL In 1987 the SFWMD surface water management permit was modified. The modification eliminated the Lot 34-C area as a detention or retention area, added a water management tract, combined three drainage basins into two and revised the stage/storage assumptions among other modifications. The master development Plan continued to erroneously show the area of Lot 34-C as a detention area until Master Plan Amendment No. 9, when the erroneous label was removed. On June 30, 1988 Quantum Park Plat No. 3 was recorded in the official records of Palm Beach County following review and approval by the SFWMD, the L WDD and the City of Boynton Beach. The plat created Lot 34-C unencumbered by any dedication or reservation as a detention or retention area. The modified Master Drainage Phm as approved by the LWDD is submitted in support of the above demonstration. This drawing was recovered from the L WDD, as the City of Boynton Beach Utility or Engineering Departments could not produce a single drainage record drawing when requested. The primary surface water management system was subsequently constructed along with the roadways and lot areas. An engineer's completion statement was submitted to the SFWMD along with the requisite control structure record data after the completion of the construction of the primary surface water management system. The engineer states the system was constructed in substantial conformance with the approved construction drawings and the SFWMD permit. The project was field reviewed by the SFWMD field engineers and the letter submitted with the NOPC application was issued by the SFWMD acknowledging the engineers' statement and the completion of the construction. A copy of the signed two-page letter acknowledging the construction completion is attached for your record. Also attached is a letter dated September 6, 2001 from the SFWMD stating no objeCtion to the approval of the proposed changes. Lot 34-C was not par, t of the construction drawings or the permit as a detention area and thus was not constructed as a detention area. Lot 34-C is not needed as a detention area now or itt the future. Please delete this comment. F: [Quantum Limitedlnopc l 2EA GO91001. doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 4 9/10/01 4. This lot is also at the low point along Miner Road, which has roadway drainage structures and the discharge into Lot 34-C. The applicant does not indicate how he plans to treat this roadway drainage, both for the current two-lane roadway section and the ultimate four-lane divided roadway section. RESPONSE: The Development Order for Quantum Park only requires the dedication of Right-of-Fgay for Miner Road along an alignment through the Quantum Park property as determined by Palm Beach County. This condition has been satisfied. Miner Road was designed and constructed by Palm Beach County. The Miner Road drainage system does not discharge to Lot 34-C, nor is it required Or designed to discharge to Lot 34-C. Drainage easements in favor of Palm Beach County or the City of Boynton Beach do not exist through Lot 34-C or any portion of the primary surface water management system north of Gateway Boulevard within Quantum Park. The drainage system for Miner Road is clearly shown on the construction drawing on record at the Palm Beach County Engineering Department titled "Drainage Map, Sheet 2 of 37, Miner Road'; dated Dec'88. The drainage structure adjacent Lot 34-C is a manhole at a high point in the roadway. The Miner Road right-of-way is the only area included in the drainage area for the roadway. The drainage system discharges to The LWDD E-4 Canal, not Lot 34-C. Please delete this comment. o Quantum Lakes Drive, from Quantum Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard, contains both water and wastewater system segments, to which at least one-half of the dedicated right-of-way will be required to be utility easement(s). No anticipated permanent "park amenities" will be permitted on the utility easement(s), other that sodding and/or sidewalk. This department will require demonstration that "negligible impacts on the traffic distribution resulting from the roadway reconfiguration". Submitted traffic analysis by the consultant does not meet DRI traffic performance standards. RESPONSE: The proposed preliminary plat will include utility easements for the existing utilities within the proposed lots 100, 101 and 102. The Master Development Plan is not required to show easements of any kind and none or shown, either existing qr proposed. Any proposed construction within the cre(tted lots will be reviewed during the site plan review process and subsequent construction permit process. Easements, both existing and proposed, will be addressed at that time. Given the scrutiny of the plat review process, the site planning review process and the construction permit process, this comment is inappropriate at this time. F: IQuantum Lim#edlnopcl2EA GO91001. doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 5 9/10/01 With regard to the traffic analysis, the DRI performance standard is a 15% increase in external traffic. The analysis determined that there is not a 15% increase in daily or peak hour traffic. In fact, there is a projected decrease in both the daily and peak hour traffic. The specific impact of the road closure is the redistribution of eastbound Quantum Lakes Drive traffic generated by the office buildings on Lots 52 and 58 to Quantum Boulevard. These two developments generate an average daily total of 1062 trips. Combine the office traffic with the 1904 average daily trips generated by the 272 apartments within the Villas at Quantum Lake project and the resultant total average daily traffic projected to use the Quantum Boulevard link between Quantum lakes Drive and Gateway Boulevard is 2986 trips. What demonstrates the negligible impact of the proposed roadway abandonment is the comparison of the 2986 average daily trips projected on the roadway link at build out and the 32,500 daily trip capacity of Quantum Boulevard. The impact is further diminished by the fact that nearly all of the 2986 trips would be using the Quantum Boulevard link to Gateway Boulevard anyway. Please delete this comment. FIRE Comments: 6. Roads and hydrants must be in place prior to any construction above grade. RESPONSE: This is a site plan and site-specific development related comment. inappropriate as a condition for a Master Plan amendment. Please delete this comment. POLICE Comments: None RESPONSE; Comment noted. ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 7. Abandonment of a portion of Quantum Lakes Drive will require replatting of that portion of Quantum Park in accordance with the requirements of the LDR, Chapter 5, Platting. F: IQuantum L#nitedlnopcI2EAG091001.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 6 9/10/01 RESPONSE: A proposed preliminary plat is being prepared and will be submitted by separate application to the City of Boynton Beach for review and approval pursuant to the plat review process. Lot 34C (Notification of a Proposed Change, Section 5.4) is proposed to be changed from undesignated use to Industrial use. How will this change impact proposed open spaces and park areas within the development? RESPONSE: It is important to note, the land area for Lot 34-C was previously accounted for as a detention area and not as an open space or recreational park area. Therefore, there is no impact to the open space or the recreational park areas relative to the development of Lot 34-C. A similar example of no impact is the Sand Pine Preserve areas adjacent the Industrial Development and Mixed Use Development in the southern portion of the park. Please delete this comment. o Provide verification that Palm Beach County Engineering will permit a driveway opening onto Miner Road for Lot 34C. Show how a second ingress and egress point will be provided at the south end of the property for emergency services. RESPONSE: It is inappropriate to request verification from Palm Beach County Engineering for a driveway opening onto Miner Road for Lot 34-C as a Master Plan amendment requirement or even as a verification for site plan approval. Verification has not been provided within the development at the Master Plan stage for any driveway connection to any adjacent roadway. Furthermore, the permitting of a driveway opening is a site plan related issue and should be considered at that time. A second ingress and egress will not be provided for Lot 34-C. This is consistent with other lots within the development that do not have secondary access which are larger developments or larger lot areas than could be proposed or constructed on Lot 34-C. These issues are site-planning issues and are inappropriate for the Master Plan consideration. Please delete this comment. 10. If approved, an environmental assessment of Tract 34C will be required as part of any site submittal. RESPONSE: We request that comment #10 be deleted on the basis that this again is a site plan related condition. FUrthermore, the Development Order (DO) already requires an Environmental Assessment of each lot prior to development. Certainly, not prior to Master Plan approval, a land use designation or a change thereto. F: [Quantum Limitedlnopc l 2EA GO91OO l.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 7 9/10/01 Please delete this comment. 11. Abandonment of a portion of Quantum Lake Drive will isolate the dedicated roadway easement along the north property line of Lot 61. The Notification of a Proposed Change, Section 5.5, indicates access will be provided via a single entrance point at the intersection of Quantum Lakes Drive and Quantum Boulevard. Elimination of that portion of Quantum lakes Drive and the second access point will create an undesirably long trip for the most northerly residents of the proposed multi-family residential development and would create a hazardous situation for emergency services needing to access northerly portions of that same development. RESPONSE: Prior to responding to the comment it is important to correct two factual errors within the comment. Firstly, the identified "dedicated roadway easement along the north property line of Lot 61' does not exist. Secondly, the application for the NOPC in Section $.$ was improperly restated. The application states that the main access or entrance point at the intersection of Quantum Lakes Drive and Quantum Boulevard will be used by Lots 59, 60, and 61. In fact, a second access point is provided consistent with the approved site plan through the property to the north currently owned by Quantum Park and Village. Please refer to the letter dated September 7, 2001 from Mr. Mark Hansen, Olen Developments. The letter clearly indicates the intent to provide a secondary access. Please delete this comment. 12. Abandonment of a portion of Quantum Lakes Drive and reconfiguring a portion of it into Lot 101 will create an undesirably long trip for the most northerly tenants of the proposed new lot and will create a hazardous situation for emergency services needing to access northerly portions of that same development. RESPONSE: Stated in comment #11 and #12 is a concern contending long and undesirable trips to the remote section of the existing and newly created lots. We strongly disagree with this contention and request both comments be deleted, as many developments of over 500 acres have much longer distances to travel to exit the development. Furthermore, the access and travel routes of emergency vehicles are site- planning issues, not master planning issues. Please refer to the letter dated September 7, 2001 front Mr. Mark Hansen, Olen Developments. The letter clearly indicates the intent to provide a secondary access to northern portions of Lot 61 and Lot 101. Please delete this comment. F:lQuantum Limitedlnopc12EAGOglOOl.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 8 9/10/01 13. Reconfiguration of Lots 62 and 63 into a single Lot 102 would create the same situation described in the above Paragraphs 2 and 3 for the southerly tenants of the proposed new lot. RESPONSE: Our responses for comments #11 and #12 also relate to comment #13 and we request this comment be removed. In this particular case, the newly created Lot 102 is part of the larger 23 acre mixed use area. These htnds are under single ownership and are anticipated to be included into a single master plan for commercial, office and residential uses with proper emergency access and vehicular movements throughout the 23 acres with access from the Villas at Quantum Lake property (Lots 59, 60 and 61). Please delete this comment. 14. The Notification of a Proposed Change, Section 5.5, paragraph 3, represents the intersection of Quantum Lakes Drive and Gateway Boulevard as substandard and dangerous. This intersection has previously been reviewed and approved. Please provide additional information (accident data and standard drawings) supporting this statement. RESPONSE: Without regard for the previous review and approval, it appears from the memo written by Mr. Livergood P.E. (Public Works- Traffic Comments) the City staff supports our request for the elimination of the intersection and the abandonment of the roadway. Regarding the previous review and approval, the improvements within Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Lakes Drive were designed in 1986 and 1987 and constructed in 1988 and 1989. Many changes to the FDOT design standards and design criteria have occurred since that time. Palm Beach County has adopted an access management plan and has also adopted street landscaping criteria, "streetscape criteria': In previous incidents these criteria all have been applied to development plans (e.g. site plans and associated roadway improvements, etc.) presented to the City for review. The Palm Beach County streetscape standards and access management standards were adopted after the design and construction of Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Lakes Drive. Of particular interest and concern is the "hot right" front Quantum Lakes Drive to eastbound Gateway Boulevard. A yield sign controls this turning movement. In effect traffic is allowed to flow from Quantum Lakes Drive and merge into the right hand through lane .of Gateway .Boulevard with very little acceleration lane distance or adequate merging taper: It is this hot right that we feel is hazardous and believe is desirous to eliminate, particularly in light of the increased pedestrian traffic crossing this yielded intersection enroute to the new high school that did not exist when the roadway was designed. F: IQuantum Limited[nopc l 2EA GO91 O01. doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 9 9/10/01 We look to the City of Boynton Beach to provide any accident data or record drawings of this intersection, if any additional information or response is desired from the applicant. No additional information or response in our judgment is necessary. Please delete this comment. 15. If the areas MU101 and Lot 34C are new, developable parcels then an additional recreational fee (or land in lieu of fee) may be assessed based on the original calculations for the City Park. RESPONSE: The Park and Recreational Department address recreational fees and this comment in the Engineering section is inappropriate. Please delete this comment. 16. The creation of Lots 100 and 101 and the re-designation of Lot 34C from undesignated to Industrial will obviously increase traffic volumes. The Traffic Analysis (Quantum Park NOPC #12) states that" ..... will not result in an increase in daily or peak hour volumes". Although the analysis concludes that there are no increases and decreases in allowable development intensities, the analysis needs to further address local changes in traffic volumes that would result from the proposed changes. RESPONSE: The proposed change does not increase the vested traffic generation of the Park. An increase of developable area does not necessarily increase development intensities particularly if intensity is measured by traffic generation. Land area does not generate traffic; the office, industrial and residential buildings do generate traffic. The proposed change increases the residential units allowable within the Park and decreases the threshold of allowable office and industrial building area, on a traffic generation equivalency basis. The traffic generation equivalency is demonstrated by the submitted traffic analysis and supplemented by the attached letter from Pinder Troutman Consulting, Inc. Please delete this comment. 17. The Traffic Analysis (Quantum Park NOPC #12) acknowledges that the closure of a portion of Quantum Lakes Drive has the potential to impact the regional roadway network. The,analysis further states that diverted traffic will cause the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard to operate over capacity during the PM peak hour. The analysis proposes changes in striping and roadway widening to address this without providing a timetable. Please be more specific as to how and when this work will be incorporated into the planning process to minimize impact to the traveling public. Also please address the F: [Quantum Limited~nopc12EA GO91001.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 10 9/10/01 impact these proposed changes would have on access by emergency vehicles and law enforcement. RESPONSE: This comment has inaccurately stated the conclusions of the traffic generation equivalence data, the intersection analyses and the concluding statements. A roadway widening is not proposed or required as a result of the abandonment of Quantum Lakes Drive. The analysis and standard practice is very clear, the roadway restriping associated with the traffic signal will occur when warranted, not before the signal is warranted and preferably not after it is warranted. The accurate conclusions are provided below after the following discussion about the BGI approval conditions. Regarding the traffic signal warrants and the surety thereof, the BGI site plan approval conditions are of importance. The BGI site plan approval was conditioned requiring them to construct the traffic signal at the Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard intersection. BGI subsequently abandoned their development plans and sold the land. The subsequent development, a 336,500 sq. ft. warehouse project known as Gateway Business Center, was not conditioned by the City to construct or even provide surety for the subject traffic signal. We believe this oversight should not be at the expense of this applicant especially now since it has been shown that it is the Gateway Business Center and the Villas at Quantum Lake developments that at build out will warrant the signal The accurate conclusion is as follows, the Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard intersection was previously determined to warrant a traffic signal with the existing developments within the Park and the build out of the Villas at Quantum Lake and the 336,500 sq. ft. warehouse project (located at the northeast corner of the intersection). The analysis shows the traffic signal would be warranted prior to this proposed change. The analysis also concluded the existing roadway improvements are adequate at the time the traffic signal is warranted. The analysis also determined the intersection after the traffic signal is warranted will be over capacity during the PM peak hour only due to the projected increase in through traffic on Gateway Boulevard and NOT the traffic generated by Quantum Park or the diverted traffic caused by the roadway abandonment. This comment is further addressed in the attached letter dated, September 7, 2001from Pinder Troutman Consulting, Inc. Please delete this comment. 18. Identify'the tract shown as MU101 as MU60A and MU61A to show each lot's additional property due to the abandonment. Change MU100 to MU102A. RESPONSE: The Lot numbering strategy was discussed at a preliminary meeting with the City staffl The revised Master Development Plan reflects those discussions. The F: I Quantum Lim itedlnopc l 2 EA G0 91001. doc Mr. Michael W. Rump£ Page 11 9/10/01 further subdivision of Lot 101 into two lots is problematic as is the suggested ",4" designation. The ",4' designation is already used within the Park to identify lots totally encumbered by drainage easements and associated with developable lots with the same lot number. We reject the suggestion. Please delete this comment. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None RESPONSE: Comment noted. PARK AND RECREATION Comments: 19. The City Commission did exempt, from the Recreation Dedication Requirement, 272 units of the 1,000 units required in the most recent master plan revision. The developer did pledge, however, to provide appropriate public recreation facilities for these units. (To be determined in conjunction with the Parks Division.) The total recreation dedication requirement will be calculated as follows: 1,000 units -272 units = 723 D.U. 728 D.U. x .015 = 10.92 acres ½ credit may be given against the requirements of land dedication or payment fees. ½ private recreation credit will be calculated as follows: 10.92 acres / 2=5.46 acres An additional ¼ credit may be given for natural resources against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees. ¼ credit for natural resources will be calculated as follows: 10.92 acres / 4=2.73 acres The developer may want to consider dedication of the land, or a combination of dedication and fee. RESPONSE: The pledge of the applicant (not the Developer) referenced above is clarified as follows. The applicant pledges to provide recreational facilities for the remaining 228 residential units and the proposed additional $00 residential units as. amenities to the additional units, in the vicinity of the additional units and for the exclusive use of the residents of the additional units. The developer of the residential projects pursuant to market demands will determine the facilities. These recreational facilities will be planned and constructed as part of the segment of the mixed-use F: IQuantum Limitedlnopc l 2EA GO91001.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 12 9/10/01 development in much the same manner as the recreational facilities are being provided to the Villas of Quantum Lake. The discussion and expression of the intent of the City Commission was that Quantum Park in general should be exempt from the recreation dedication credit. The discussion by the Commission was that Quantum Park had provided more in the form of recreation and other benefits to the City to satisfy any potential recreation dedication requirement and therefore, no further requirement should be requested with respect thereto. This intent was further reinforced by the City Manager in recent discussions concerning the future planning and development of the Park. Please delete this comment. 20. Natural resource credit, if approved by the commission, is subtracted off the Recreation Dedication Requirement. RESPONSE: Comment noted, please delete this comment. 21. According to Chapter 1, Article V, Section 3, of the Land Development Regulation, the developer must provide 5 park elements in order to qualify for ½ credit for private recreation provided. RESPONSE: Comment noted, please delete this comment. 22. If the property is not further platted, recreation fees or dedications for the 728 non-exempt dwelling units are due before the issuing of their residential building permits. RESPONSE: Comment noted, please delete this comment. FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 23. I am requesting the applicant as a condition to the above Master Plan Modification to respond to my letter of May 14, 2001 (as directed by our City Manager) in reference to the Quantum Park-DRI Annual Environmental Areas Status Report. . RESPONSE: This request is inappropriate and should be deleted. The applicant is not responsible for addressing the requests of the City Forrester or any other agency or individual relating to lands owned by others, improvements or maintenance of F: [Quantum Limitedtnopc l 2EA GO91OO l.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 13 9/10/01 improvements upon lands owned by others, including the Quantum Community Development District ("QCDD") in this case. The referenced letter requests a written status of various management aspects of the sand pine preserve areas and the wetland areas within Quantum Park. The letter also request documents that should be on file at the City as the administrator of the DRI for the Park. Neither status reports nor the supply of documents are the responsibility of the applicant. The letter has been forwarded to the QCDD and we are aware the QCDD is working with Dr. Richardson to provide the requested status reports and documents of record requested by the City. We firmly believe the QCDD will comply with the request as they have with all other responsibilities within the Park. Please delete this comment. 24. Lot 34-C is shown on the Quantum Park Master Plan as a 6.58 acres detention (open spaces) area and is contiguous to the 25.7 acres Sand Pine Preserve. The land use change of Lot 34-C from detention (open space) to industrial, could affect the environmental quality of the contiguous Sand Pine Preserve when the owner develops the industrial tract. RESPONSE: Comment noted. As a site planning requirement, the impact to the sand pine preserve area to the west, the water management tract to the south, the adjacent vacant land to the east and Miner Road to the north (as discussed above) is required to be considered. The key here is these are site development related concerns and not Master Planning concerns. Lot 34-C is not encumbered by any existing or required drainage easement, plat dedication or plat reservation for use as a detention or retention area. The land use designation change is not a change from detention to industrial but a change described as follows: Lot 34-C is currently unrestricted by a "land use designation" as shown on the Master Development Plan Amendment No. 10 for Quantum Park. Currently, the land could be developed as allowed within a PID zoning district. We are proposing a change to restrict the. use of Lot 34-C to industrial uses subject to all current zoning, site planning, land development and building requirements. The Lot 34-C area (6.58 acres, as determined by survey) has been erroneously accounted for in the "open space" area total and the detention area subtotal. This proposed change application corrects that accounting. Please delete this comment. F: [Quantum L imitedlnopc t 2 E~4 GO91001.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 14 9/10/01 25. In December 1998 a 6-foot high chain link fence was installed around a) Lot 34-C (6.58 acres) and b) Water Management Tract "J" (6.16 acres) and connected to the existing fence around the perimeter of the c) Sand Pine Preserve (25.7 acres). This was to protect the environmental quality of the total of 38.44 acres in the three separate tracts, and suggest that the three tracts are all one and shown as open spaces / Sand Pine Preserve. The project should continue in the normal review process. RESPONSE: The assumptions, presumptions and implied conclusions as suggested in the above comment resulting from the fencing of the three identified areas are astoundingly inaccurate. To the best of our knowledge the acreage of Water Management Tract J is also stated inaccurately. The 6-foot high chain link fence as well as numerous "NO TRESPASSING" signs were installed by the QPPOA with the cooperation of the applicant to attempt to restrict the trespass of off the road vehicles and poachers illegally entering the properties and causing damage to the habitat and wildlife. Prior to this applicant's purchase of lands with in the Park, the illegal access and damage was occurring unrestricted. It was simply less expensive, less time consuming, provided better security and a better opportunity for monitoring the fence and access with the fence installed along the north and east boundary line of Lot 34-C. Furthermore, including Lot 34-C "behind the fence" also protected the Lot 34-C area habitat and wildlife from damage prior to the proper environmental assessment typically performed as part of the lot development process at the time a specific development is proposed. Please delete this comment. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 26. The Land Use Average Table is incorrect as shown on page 5 of the NOPC application. Amendment #10 was approved for 84.35 ac. of (OI) and 26.33 ac. of (OIC). Correct this information on the application. RESPONSE: The acreages reported for the OI and OIC land use designations are correctly reported in the application. The acreages reported in the comment above are incorrect. It appears something other titan the Master Development Plan of record for Amendment No l l~, as revised pursuant to the City Commission approval is being referenced. F: lQuantum Limitedlnopc l 2EAGO91OO t.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 15 9/10/01 Please delete this comment. 27. The Land Use Acreage Tables on page 5 of the application and on the Master Plan drawing shown a decrease in the (OIC) category (26.33 acres approved; 22.94 acres proposed) but the amendment does not propose a change to any (OIC) designated lot. Please explain? RESPONSE: A change is not proposed in the approved area designated for OIC development. The comment above is based on the same inaccuracy apparent in Comment No. 26. The application tabuhtr data and the revised Master Development Plan clearly show no increase or decrease in the land area designated for OIC development. Please delete this comment. 28. The Land Use Acreage Table on page 5 of the application and on the NOPC Master Plan #12 drawing is incorrect. The existing (MU) lots add up to 26.82 acres. Together they total 89.20 acres not 90.65 as shown on the plan. Please correct. RESPONSE: The total acreage proposed for Mixed Use (MU) development as a result of this application is 90.66 acres; this area is based upon surveys performed for the applicant. Attached to clarify the apparent area confusion is an "Area Calculation Summary': The Master Development Plan and the NOPC Application page have been revised to reflect the totals shown in the Summary. Please delete this comment. 29. Lot 34-C is shown having 6.58 acres in the application but 6.56 acres has been added to the Industrial category on the Master Plan. The development order and Master Plan Amendments through NOPC #8 have identified this tract as having 6.59 acres. To be consistent, use the 6.59-acre site area calculation. RESPONSE: The acreage of Lot 34-C is 6.58 acres based upon a survey performed for the applicant. Please reference the attached ''Area Calculation Summary': Please delete this comment. 30. (City's duplicate number 25) Lot 34'-C has been labeled on the Master Plan as "Detention" up through NOPC Master Plan Amendment #8. For some reason, the detention label does not appear on NOPC Master Plans #9 or #10 even though no change to the designation of this lot was proposed or approved in either amendment. This lot remains a Detention lot with no development designation F: [Quantum Limitedlnopc l 2EA GOg l OO l.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 16 9/10/01 assigned. Please indicate this in your application and provide data and analysis to support the elimination of this area for detention. RESPONSE: The detention label was specifically removed from the Master Development Plan, Amendment No 9, as was other inaccurate information to produce as accurate a plan as possible based on information and data acquired during the purchase of over two hundred (200) with itt the park by the applicant. It is important to note the Master Development Plan, Amendment No. 9 was approved by the City Commission with the removal of the detention label along with the removal and revision of other inaccuracies shown on Master Development Plan, Amendment No. 8. We object to the contention that Lot 34-C exists as a detention area and agree the lot exists without a land use designation. We contend that without a development land use designation and without an encumbrance for use as a detention area, the lot may be developed as allowed within a PID zoning district subject to all current zoning, site planning, land development and building requirements. Indicated in our application and reflected on the proposed Master Development Plan is the change to the use of Lot 34-C from an undesignated use to an industrial use by providing a land use designation. The request for additional data, analysis and supporting information regarding drainage encumbrances upon Lot 34-C is more appropriately provided by the Engineering Department. It is interesting to note the Engineering Department has not requested additional data or information in this regard. It appears the Engineering Department is satisfied with the description of the proposed change and the supporting documents submitted with the application. It also appears the Utility Department comments provide requests regarding the drainage encumbrances upon Lot 34-C. We have responded to the Utilities Department comments on this issue. Please delete this comment. 31. (26) Provide site area acreage calculations for proposed lots 100 and 101, RESPONSE: Attached is an "Area Calculation Summary': Please delete this comment. 32. (27) The Land use acreage Table on page 5 and on the NOPC Master Plan #12 drawing shows a net loss of 8.02 acres of open space. Does this reflect the 6.59 acre Detention lot (34-C) plus any open space associated with the elimination of the right-of-way? Please clarify. F: IQuantum Limitedlnopc l 2EA GOg l OO l.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 17 9/10/01 RESPONSE: Attached is an "Area Calculation Summary': Please delete this comment. 33. (28) Lots 73-A through 76 should be highlighted as committed development. Site Plan approval was granted on 8/7/01. This should also be reflected in the project traffic 2002 estimate in the Pinder Troutman traffic analysis. RESPONSE: The Master Development Plan has been revised as requested to show the committed development. The committed development upon these lots has been reflected as requested. The projected traffic from this recently approved project has not been included in the 2002 analysis. It is doubtful it will be constructed within the time period as the owner/developer currently has over 250,000 sq. fl. of similar space constructed and currently vacant. The projected traffic has been included in the 2006 intersection analysis. Please delete this comment. 34. (29) Lot 50-A should also be highlighted as committed development (Oriana Granite) Site Plan approval was granted on 6/6/00. This should be reflected in the project traffic 2001 estimate in the Pinder Troutman traffic analysis. RESPONSE: The Master Development Plan has been revised as requested to show the committed development. The committed development upon these lots has been reflected as requested. It is doubtful lot $O-A will be developed as approved. The contract buyer did not complete the transaction to purchase the property. The current landowner (the applicanO does not desire to construct the project. Therefore it follows the traffic has not been included in either the 2001 or 2002 project traffic for the purposes of the analysis. Please delete this comment. 35. (30) The Master Plan indicates that the acreage for the Industrial category is increasipg by 6.56 acres yet the allowable intensity for this catggory is decreasing by 375,354 square feet. Please clarify this inconsistency. RESPONSE: In applying the theory of "simultaneously increasing and decreasing intensities" using traffic generation formulas as the equivalency technique, no substantial regional intpact results front the proposed change. In this particular case, F: IQuantum Limitedinopcl2EAG09t O01.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 18 9/10/01 we are proposing the increase from 500 to 1000 residential units and simultaneously decreasing the allowable industrial square footage by 3 75,354 sq. ft. The apparent industrial area increase is addressed in the responses to other comments. Please delete this comment. 36. (31) The Master Plan indicates the acreage for the Office categories (O, OI) is decreasing; yet the allowable intensity for this category is increasing by 72,922 square feet. Please clarify this inconsistency. RESPONSE: The allowable threshold of office space is proposed to be decreased .by 72,922 sq. ft. The comment statement above is inaccurate. Please delete this comment. 37. (32) The Master Plan indicates a proposed new access from Miner Road for Lot 34-C. The traffic analysis must specifically address this access since it is not integrated into the traffic circulation system for the rest of the PID. How many trips are allocated for this site and how will it impact Miner Road? RESPONSE: The traffic generated from an industrial use upon Lot 34-C is minor and insignificant when analyzing the traffic issues relevant to the proposed change. On a regional basis, it is the peak hour movements that are of interest. The impacted intersections have been analyzed. The traffic generated by the entire development, which is not being increased, does not have a significant impact on either the Congress or High Ridge Road intersections with Miner Road. The traffic generation calculations for the overall development do not allocate trips to a specific lot. Each lot as it is developed is required to prepare a traffic statement identifying the traffic generated by the specific plan. A distribution of the generated traffic is also provided as part of the statement. Miner Road is a Plan Collector as designated by Palm Beach County. Its right-of-way is protected for a five-lane roadway section. It is constructed as a two-lane roadway expandable to the five-lane ultimate section. We anticipate the maximum traffic generated from Lot 34-C to be 700 average trips per day (6.58 acres x 0.35 FAR x 6.97 trips/lO00 sq. ft.). The connection of 700 trips per day to Miner Road with an ultimate qapacity of 32,500 trips per day is less than significaj, t. The significance is further diminished by the fact the traffic generated by Quantum Park, including the 700 anticipated trips from Lot 34-C, are already vested and properly included in background traffic of the regional roadway netWork. Please delete this comntent. F: ~Quantum Limited[nopct2E~4 G09i OOL doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 19 9/10/01 38. (33) The NOPC application page 9 contains two conversion formulas for residential units. They do not appear on the Master Plan. As shown they provide two different conversion formulas for the same use - Residential Unit. What is the purpose of these formulas? Please clarify this inconsistency or remove them from the application. RESPONSE: The formulas have been deleted from the application. Attached is the revised page. Please delete this comment. 39. (34) Approval of the Master Plan is contingent upon a finding of no substantial deviation by the City. This is based on the following sections of the Florida Statutes: a) Chapter 380.06 (19) (b) 9. An increase in the number of dwelling units by five (5) percent of 50 units, whichever is greater. b) Chapter 380.06 (19) (e) 5.c. No. withstanding any provision in paragraph (b) to the contrary, a proposed change consisting of simultaneous increase and decreases of at least two of the uses within an authorized multi-use development of regional impact which was originally approved with more than three uses specified in 380.0651 (3) (c), (d), (f) and g and residential use. c) Chapter 380.06 (19) (e) 5.b. Except for the types of uses listed in subparagraph (b) 16., any change which would result in the development of any area which was specifically set aside in the application for development approval or in the development order for preservation, buffers, or special protection, including habitat for plant and animal species, archeological and historical sites and other special areas The application as presented is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The applicant must provide additional information before determination of no substantial deviation is made. The additional information must include: A revised traffic analysis based on comments received from Palm Beach County and the City of Boynton Beach Technical Review Committee. Demonstrate how the proposed change from the Office (O) and Officq/Industrial (OD categories to the MU category is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Provide an updated analysis of the master drainage plan for Quantum Park clearly indicating the impacts that an industrial development on the current Detention Tract 34-C would have. F: IQuantum £imitedlnol~c t 2EA GO91OO l.do¢ Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 20 9/10/01 - Demonstrate how a net loss of 8.02 acres of open space will be mitigated. RESPONSE: Clear and convincing evidence is provided within the responses to these staff comments, the additional statements provided by Pinder Troutman Consulting Inc., the Area Calculation Summary and other documents presented for review. The demonstration that the land use designation changes proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan was provided and approved by the City Commission by virtue of Amendment NolO when the Mixed Use category including a residential component was added to the development. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is not an issue. The net loss of open space area is inaccurately stated above. As described in detail in other responses above, the land area of Lot 34-C (6.58 acres of the 8.02 acres) was effectively available for development and was not an "open space" when the plat was recorded and the SFWMD permit was modified. The remainder of the 8.02 acres relates to the portion of Tract Q, a Water Management Tract adjacent the link of Quantum Lakes Drive proposed for abandonment. This remainder area is incorporated into Lot 100 and Lot IOL We are not aware of any federal, state or local requirement to mitigate any loss of open space. Please delete this comment. 40. (35) Under the condition of Amendment #8 to the Quantum Park Development Order and Chapter 3, Article IV of the Land Development Regulations, a traffic analysis is required for this Master Plan approval. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis. In lieu of an independent traffic consultant, the staff and the Palm Beach County Traffic Division will review the traffic study.. : RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please delete this comment. 41. ao bo (36) The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic study and denied approval due to the following: The traffic generated by the high school (about 2,283 daily trips) should be counted as vested trips within the overall Quantum development traffic generations. Daily and peak hour trips related to "ADA Approvals" as presented in Attachments lA, lB and lC, must reflect the values of the latest NOPC approval. (Ref. Letter from Masoud Atefi, Palm Beach County to Michael Rumpf dated 8/20/01) Please respond to these comments and revise the traffic study accordingly. F: 1Quantum Limited~nopc l 2 EA GO91001. doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 21 9/10/01 RESPONSE: As a result of prior disputes and litigation, it has been previously agreed and determined that the trips generated by the high school would not count against future development within Quantum Park so as to resolve such disputes and litigation. A Settlement Agreement (as a result of the litigation) was entered into by the School Board of Palm Beach County and collectively with the QCDD, the QPPOA and the applicant. Confidentiality provisions of the agreement bind the applicant and the School District. However, a key element of the resolution of this litigation was that the City not count the traffic generated by the high school against future development within Quantum Park. The requested revisions to the Attachments listed above are not required for an analysis provided in support of a determination of no substantial deviation. The purpose of the NOPC traffic analysis is to determine if the proposed change results in a substantial deviation. Florida Statues Chapter 380.06 Section (19)(b)15 states that "A 15% increase in the number of external vehicle trips generated by the development above that which was projected during the original development-of-regional review" constitutes a substantial deviation. The data and analysis, as submitted with the application, demonstrates that the proposed plan represents a decrease in Daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation from the original development-of- regional review. Therefore, the proposed change is not a substantial deviation and, intersection and roadway link analyses for existing and future conditions are not required. Please delete this comment. 42. (37) The NOPC Master Plan submittal did not include a conceptual site plan or justification for the requested change. The city approved the Mixed-Use designation when it adopted Amendment #10 in March 2000. To date, no development has been proposed which combines all the uses required by the Land Development Regulations if the definition of a Mixed Use Pod in a PID. The only plans submitted and approved to date are for Villas at Quantum Lake (a.k.a. Grotto Bay) RESPONSE: Although we continue to "conceptually plan"for the development of the existing and proposed mixed-use areas, we feel it inappropriate to require such plans or justifications be provided as part of the change application. The existing Mixed-Use area is not part of this proposed change and the status of its development is irrelevant to this application. In fact, in some cases we are prohibitgd from disclosing the conceptual plans until such site plan is submitted for approval This comment does not contain a specific question or request any additional information. Therefore, please delete this comment F: IQuantum Limited[nopcl2EAG091001.doc Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 22 9/10/01 43. (38) The Villas at Quantum Lake site plan was approved with an access at the north end of the site from Lot 61 along an easement on lot 62 to Quantum Lakes Drive eventually leading out to Gateway Boulevard. The proposed Master Plan does not indicate this access. Please correct the Master Plan to reflect the approved access for the residential project. RESPONSE: The Master Development Plan has been revised to show the referenced access, Please delete this comment. 44. (39) The owners of the Villas at Quantum Lake project have contacted the city in writing regarding their concerns that any development on proposed lots 100 and 101, if not built in coordinate on with their project, may impact their access, frontage, visibility, setback, density, open space and existing views. Has the applicant contacted the adjacent property owner to discuss the impacts of this NOPC proposal? It is imperative that the adjacent property owners are apprised of and be in agreement with this proposed change. RESPONSE: The adjacent property owners to Lots 100 and 101 are not only aware of the proposed change, but have acquisition agreements with the applicant regarding the lots. We are not aware of any objection to the proposed change. Please refer to the letter dated September 7, 2001 from Mr. Mark Hansen, Olen Developments. The letter clearly indicates support for the proposed change and not an objection to the proposed abandonment, lot configuration or access arrangements. Please delete this comment. 45. (40) The proposed abandonment of a portion of Quantum Lakes Drive and the creation of Lots 100, 101 and 103 will require a replat of that portion of the PID plat. RESPONSE: This is also an Engineering Department comment also. A response is provided thereto. Please delete this comment. 46. (41) On June 25, 2001, a letter was sent to David B. Norris, Counsel for the applicant requesting several revisiorls to the Annual Stqtus Report for the Quantum Park PID DRI. To date, those revisions have not been made. Please revise the annual report accordingly and provide the revisions at the September 11, 2001 TRC meeting. RESPONSE: It is not the responsibility of this applicant to prepare, distribute or address comments relative to the Annual DRI Report for this project. The requirement F: iQuantum Lim itedlnolvc l 2 EA GO91OO l.doc 47. Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Page 23 9/10/01 to provide revisions to a document for which we are not responsible and to provMe the revised document in less than five (5) working days is absurd. The City's comments on the Annual Dill Report are a separate matter and it is grossly inappropriate to impose such a requirement upon the applicant. Please delete this comment. (42) Revise the Substantial Deviation Chart in the application for the Open Spaces category. The chart indicates N/C for the proposed change when the elimination of the detention area is proposed. Also review the numbers for the Industrial and Office categories, as they do not match the NOPC Master Plan #12 drawing. RESPONSE: A revised Substantial Deviation Chart is attached reflecting the responses contained herein. Please delete this comment. If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at any time. Sinc~ CC: David Norris, Esq. Cohen, Norris, et. al. Kahart Pinder, Pinder Troutman Consulting, Inc. Doug MacDonald Tom McGillicuddy F: lQuantum Limitedlnopc t 2EA GO91OO l.doc Land Use Acreage Table Land Use Designation Commercial (COM) Industrial (IND) Governmental/Institntional (G&I) Office (O) Office/Industrial (OI) Office/Industrial/Commercial (OIC) Office/Industrial/Hotel (OIH) Mixed Use (MU) Wetlands Roads Sand Pine Reserve Open Space Proposed Acreage Amendment No. 12 Existing Acreage Amendment No. 10 13.53 Acres 13.53 Acres 107.83 Acres 101.25 Acres 55.90 Acres 55.90 Acres 12.96 Acres 28.24 Acres 79.75 Acres 87.74 Acres 22.94 Acres 22.94 Acres 3.78 Acres 3.78 Acres 90.66 Acres 62.38 Acres 6.00 Acres 6.00 Acres 37.58 Acres 41.13 Acres 40.00 Acres 40.00 Acres 82.20 Acres 90.25 Acres Total 553.13 Acres 553.14 Acres NOTE: The Amendment 10 and Amendment 12 total areas differ due to the rounding of the individual Land Use Designation to the nearest 0.01 acres. F:\Quantum Limited~mnual DRILNotificationDRIrvl.doc 5 August 8, 2001 Revised September 10, 2001 to the acreage attributable to each described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements including locations, square foOtage, number of units; and other major characteristics or components of the proposed change; It is requested the development order language be amended to include the following provisions: Master Plan Amendment No. 12 to the Master Site Development Plan for Quantum Park, dated July 2001, is hereby approved. Development of the following Land Use Classifications should not exceed the following intensities without further City approval. Industrial 1,900,000 Square Feet Commercial (including Hotel & Rest.) 728,768 Square Feet Office 885,850 Square Feet One Hotel Room =268 Square Feet of Gross Leasable Commercial Area One Movie Theatre Seat =40 Square Feet of Office Gross Floor Area One Movie Theatre Seat =60 Square Feet of Industrial Gross Floor Area Residential 1,000 Dwelling Units F:\Quantum Limited~nnual DR15NotificationDRIrvl.doc 9 August 8, 2001 Revised September 10, 2001 09/~.0/'200~. 17:23 5E,~43dlBE, 3 P][ND£R TROUTYlaI'.! P,aa3£ PINDER TROUTMAN CONSULTING, INC. Transportation Planners and Engineers September 7, 2001 2324 South Congress Avenue, Suite 1H West Palm Beach, FL 33406 (561) 434-1644 Fax 434-1663 Email: pindertroutman@msn.com Ms. Lusia Galav City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FI_ 33425-0310 Re: Quantum Park NOPC # 12 - #PTC01-102 Dear Ms. Galav: The following responds to the City comments on the traffic analysis for the above referenced project. Public Works-Traffic - Jeff Liver~ood memorandum of August 29,2001 Response Quantum Lakes Drive Closure A full median opening exists at this location today. There has not been any accident history at this location that would warrant closure. However, it is recommended that the left turn exit from Parcel 100 not be allowed Traffic Signalization - Quantum Drive and Gateway Boulevard The Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) was not provided as a substitute for the signal warrant analysis. The signal warrant analysis provided in the report dated February 16, 2001 is still valid. The applicant cannot install a signal until it is warranted and has been approved by Palm Beach County. Therefore, it is recommended that monitoring of this interse~on begin in peak season 2002 to determine if signalization is in fact warranted. This is a condition of the current Development Order (DO). Monitoring should continue every peak season until the signal is warranted. Traffic Signalization - Quantum Drive and Congress Avenue The applicant would agree that monitoring of this interse~on should begin at the buildout of Parcels 32 through 38. Monitoring should be conducted during the peak season and continue until the signal is warranted. General The February 16, 2001 Intersection AnalYsis included proposed NOPC # 11 land uses. The original NOPC # 11 was for the Mixed Use (MU) designation. Therefore, the traffic from both the residential and non- residential uses on lots 7 through 11 and 23 through 31 have been included. Priffdpal KMP/Idr Letter C~lav 01-102 9-7~01 South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West P~m Beach, ~orida 33406 · (561) 686-8800 · FLWATS 1-800-432-2045 CON 24-05 February 7, 1997 Quantum Associates 2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1106 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Dear Sir or Madam: Subject: Boynton Park of Commerce aka Quantum Park Phase Construction Completion/Construction Certification Application Nos. 08296-D & 11207-F, SWM Permit No. 50-01503-S Palm Beach County, S16,17,20,21/T45S/R43E This letter acknowledges receipt of an engineer's Construction Completion/Construction Certification, record drawings and an As-Built Master Drainage Plan from Santiago Malavasi, P.E. of Rossi and Malavasi Engineers, Inc. pertaining to the subject project's surface water management system. District staff have reviewed the submitted information and it has been incorporated into the permit file. Per the referenced certification, our staff consider the Master SUrface Water Management System (including 8-onsite interconnected lakes totalling 67.81 acres, 6.92 acre dry detectiOn area and 3- discharge control structures serving the entire 578.3 acre industrial development) and the SUrface Water Management System for the Backbone Roadways at the Quantum Park project constructed in conformance with the permit. This satisfies the requirement of the referenced surface water management permit with regard to construction of the surface water management system and statement of completion and certification by a Florida registered professional engineer for the phases included in the above referenced application numbers. Furthermore, according to the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District, Rule 40E- 1 and 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code (40E-1.6107, Transfer of Environmental Resource, Surface Water Management or Water Use Permit; 40E-4.351, Transfer of Permits; 40E-4.61, Conversion from Construction Phase to Operation Phase, and 40E-4.81, General Conditions), upon construction completion and certification of the surface water management system, the Permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the responsible operating entity. Therefore, the subject phase of the Quantum Park project and the phase previously certified by engineer for construction completion (Quantum Park of Boynton Beach, Lots 12,13,14) shall be transferred to the entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the water management system. The required transfer shOUld be made via the enclosed transfer form. This form should be filled out and submitted, along with a copy of the recorded deed restrictions (including amendments, if any), as well as a copy of all recorded plats (if not previously furnished). It will then be processed and ,~ ~included in the District's permit finalization process. Please be aware that the permit file must contain documentation that applicable COnditions to the permit have been satisfied. · ,rni~ ~oard: Valerie Bovd, Chairman ~Villlam Hammond Eugene K. Pettis Samuel E. Poole III, Executive Director Frank \Vitiiam~,~n, Jr., \qce Chairman Betsy Kranr Nathaniel P. Reed M~chael Slam,ton, De?urv Executive Director \Villiam E. Graham Richard A. Machek Miriam Singer ' r ' Quantum Associates February 7, 1997 Page 2 Please submit the above or notify District staff within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Marissa Cruz, Staff Engineering Associate, at (561) 687- 6590, or the undersigned at (561) 687-6596. Sincerely, / ~q~i~id A. Azizi Staff Engineer Field Engineering Division South Florida Water Management District AHA Enclosure ¢: Santiago Malavasi, P.E., Rossi and Malavasi Engineers, Inc. Quantum Associates, Indianapolis, IN., w/Enclosure Catalfumo Management & Investment, Inc., w/Enclosure Southern Design Group, Inc. City of Boynton Beach Engineer Palm Beach County Engineer F.D.E.P. E.P.A. L.W.D.D. w/Enclosure B. Ratcliffe H. Schloss/M. Cruz Permit ~ile ' SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 · (561) 686-8800 · FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 · TDD (561) 697-2574 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 · www. sfwmd.gov LAN 01 September 6, 2001 Mr. Jim Snyder, DRI Coordinator Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 300 Stuart, FL 3341'6 Dear ~r: Subject: Quantum Park, DRI No. 84-173 Notice of Proposed Change In response to your request, South Florida Water Management (SFW. MD) staff has reviewed the August 8, 2001 Notification of A Proposed Change (NOPC).to a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI) submitted by Eugene Gerlica, P.E., for the above-referenced project. The.. primary purpose of the NOPC is to amend the Master Development Plan to_reflect changes in land use affecting various lots throughout the development and reconfiguration Quantum Lakes Drive to create two additional developable lots. After review of the documentation submitted, SFWMD staff did not identify any potential adverse regional water resource-related impacts that could, result from approval of the proposed changes. Consequently, the SFWMD has no objections to approval of the proposed changes. However, a modification to the project's Conceptual Approval (Permit No. 50-01503-S) may be required to address the proposed land use changes as they may impact the previously permitted acreage and land use assumptionS. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561) 682-6862. Sincerely, James J. Golden, AICP Senior Planner EnVironmental Resource Regulation /jjg C: Roger Wilburn, DCA Eugene Gerlica, PIE., Quantum Group GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Trudi K. Williams, Chair Lennart E. Lindahl, Vice-Chair Pamela Brooks-Thomas Michael Collins Hugh M. English Gerardo B. l~ernfindez Patrick J. Gleason, Ph.D., P.G. Nicolfis J. Guti~rrez, Sr., Esq. Harkley R. Thornton Henry Dean, Executive Director SEP 137 '01 01:55P1',1 THE OLEH COI',IP~HY P.2~ September 7, 2001 Ms. Lusia Galav, AICP City of Boynton'Beach Planning and Zoning Division 100 lB. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33425 Phone 561-742-6262 Fax 561-742-6259 RE: Villas at Quantum Lake (272 Apartment Homes) Additional Units - Quantum Lakes Drive Dear Msl Gatav: As a follow up to Erik Brueningsen's letter of July 10, 2001, please find enclosed a conceptual drawing reflecting additional bldgs. (42 units) site planned for that portion of Quantum Lakes Drive to be vacated. We have developed a plan that would utilize the easternmost lanes Of Quantum Lakes Drive for access to the additional units, thereby preserving the existing utilities (i.e. water, force main, FP&L, Bell South, .Cable TV) as well as the existing trees on the easternmost side of Quantum Lakes Drive. An existing 8" gravity sewer line Would have to be relocated to allow the additional development, The existing project (272 units) would proceed as de,igned scheduled, save for minor shifting of' building no, 4 (minor modification of existing site plan). We have located the top of bank an the significant trees ,.long the lake bank in an attempt to preserve the environmental plantings and to avoid impact to those plantings. . Olen would acquire that portion of Quantum Lakes Drive adjacent to the existing project and would coordinate the site plan subrnittfl for the addi~onal 42 units with the vacation process. I anticipate h~v~ng tl~o information for a site plan submittal to DRC by the end of this month, Our secondary access to Quantum Lakes Drive, will be modified by providing access to Quantum Lane along the sand pine preserve. The access will be provided through the easternmost portion of lot 62 and lot 66 connecting to Quantum Lane and High Ridge Road, This should resolve any issues relating to a secondary means of egress. The portion of Quantum Lakes Drive to be added to the Villas of Quantum Lakes would be platted by Quantum along with the balance of Quantum Lakes Drive and would reflect specific easements on the plat for the existing municipal Utilitie¢ addressing the IDeation of the existing hcilities. : ' U;~HEILA\CORRES~I~Quantura\OaI~,09070 l,doo 1062 Coral Ridge Drive · Oora~ Springs, Florida ~8071 (654) 341:3-4804 · Fax [654) 344-4608 SEP 07 '01 01:55PM THE OLEH COHPRHY P,B Pag~ 2 of 2 September 7, 2001 Ms, Lusia Galav / Villa~ at Quantum Lak~- Additional Units Once we have prepared a preIiminary plan and conceptual engineering, we will se'h~dule a meeting with ~taff as appropriate, Should you have any questions or concern~ in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Cc: Igor Olenicoff Doug McDonald U:~H~YZA\CORREShMI-hQuantum\Oalav09070 l.doe