CORRESPONDENCE
%e 'City of
t.Boynton t.Beac/i
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beacli 'Boulevard
P.O. 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Beacli, 1"Coritia 33425-0310
City!Jfaf{: (407) 375-6000
1".9IX: (407) 375-6090
April 27, 1995
H.P. Tompkins, Jr.
HPT Consultants, Inc.
2295 Corporate Boulevard N.W., Suite 117
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
RE: Initial Review Comments - Sausalito Groves
File No. NWSP 95-003
Dear Mr. Tompkins:
The City of Boynton Beach has completed its first review of the
documents submitted for the above-referenced proj ect. Attached are
comments made by the reviewing departments during their initial
review of your project.
In order to complete the review process, the site plan and
documents must be amended to comply with these comments within 90
days of the date of this letter. (If amended plans are not
submi tted in 90 days, a new application fee will be required.)
When there are comments made by the reviewers that you feel are not
applicable to the approval of the proj ect or will be addressed
separately and you have not amended the plans to comply with the
comment(s), you must prepare written explanation for each comment
stating why the comment is not applicable and return the
explanation with the amended plans and documents.
After amending the plans and documents, .please submit twelve (12)
complete sets (including surveys) of the plans to the Planning and
Zoning Department. When the amended plans and documents have been
submi tted to the Planning and Zoning Department, they will be
distributed to the reviewing departments for second, l"eview and
recommendation to the appropriate boards for approval or denial
(see attached meeting schedule). A recommendation for denial will
,be made if there are major comments that have not been addressed on
the resubmitted plans.
We have also enclosed for your convenience an approval schedule and
a checklist that contains information regarding the second
submission of the plans and documents for review.
.9I.mema s (jateway to tfie (julfstream
Page 2
Sausalito Groves
Initial Review Comments
April 27, 1995
If you should have any questions regarding the comments or the
approval schedule, please feel free to call Michael E. Haag, who is
coordinating the review of your site plan fOl' the Planning and
Zoning Department.
Very truly yours,
t ~~~O
---t!B'~-
/') f"
Tambri . Hyden
Plannin' a1 Zoning Director
TJH:dim
Atts.
A:l&LCO~LL~.Sau/T~C
CHECKLIST
The following list and information is provided as a checklist to ensure that
the submittal of amended pIano and documents is substantially complete for
review. Turning in this list and the appropriate plans and documents will
enable the submittal to be efficiently checked prior to being accepted by the
Planning and Zoning Department.
Project Name: Sausalito Groves
File No.: NWSP 95-003
1.
")
~ .
submit an amended Site Plan Review/Conditional Use application form that
reflects the changes that were made as a result of amending the plans
and documents to comply with the Code of Ordinances and the Technical
Review Committee comments. A copy of the original form with a
distinguishable symbol identifying the change(s) may be submitted or a
completed new form wi th the changes identified. If there a1"e no changes
required to be documented on the application form, a letter from the
applicant stating same must be turned in with the amended submittal.
submit twelve (12) assembled and complete sets of plans and documents,
including surveys that show compliance with the Code of Ordinances and
comments made by the Technical Rev~ew Committee. Two (2) of the sets
shall have the appropriate legible raised seal and signature of the
designer responsible for the drawing(s). Plans and documents shall be
assembled in twelve (12) individual complete packages with the title of
the project on all pages and/or sheets and each page or sheet
numerically numbered such as the following example: 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of
~
...J .
3.
Submit color photographs of the buildings on the site that are to remain
in their existing condition and photos of existing buildings that are
located on the sites that abut the perimeter of the subject property.
The minimum size is 5 II by 711. Each photograph shall be labeled to
identify the location of the existing structures with respect to the
location of the proposed project.
4.
Submit colored elevation view drawings - a colored duplicate copy of all
drawings of the elevation views of each side of all buildings and
signage associated with the project. The colored elevation views shall
match the elevations shown in the documents that were submitted for site
plan review. The applicable exterior surfaces as identified above shall
be colored with the color name and associated color reference number
identified. The type of exterior surface material shall be identified
next to the associated color. The colored elevation ,drawings shall have
compass direction or title of the side of the building identified. The
title block of the original drawing shall be shown. The maximum size is
24" by 36". Do not submit on board of any kind.
5 .
Submit color samples as an example of the proposed colors. Each sample
shall have attached a label that identifies the color by name and
numerical/letter code from an established color chart.
6.
Submit a 8 1/2" x 11" transparency of the landscape site plan drawing tu
':le used on an overhead Pl"Oj Ector at board meetings.
1995 REVIEW SCHEDULE
FIRST HALF
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL
*PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
ORIGINAL AMENDED CITY *COMM REDEV
SUBMITTAL PLANS *C.R.A.B. P&D COMMISSION AGENCY
DEADLINE DEADLINE HEETING MEETING MEETING & MEETING
Oct 24, '94 Dee 8, '94 Jan 09 Jan 10 Jan 17
Nov 30, '94 Jan 13 Feb 13 Feb 14 Feb 21
Dec 28, '94 Feb 10 Mar 13 Mar 14 Mar 21
Jan 27 Mar 13 Apr 10 Apr 11 Apr 18
Feb 27 Apr 10 May 08 May 09 May 16
........-=-----
Mar 31 C:!ay l!) Jun 12 Jun 13 Jun 20
Apr 27 Jun 09 Jul 10 Jul 11 Jul 18
NOTE: (1) TO FACILITATE THE PROCESSING OF THE REQUEST, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THE APPLICANT SET-UP, BY APPOINTMENT, A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE
DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT (407) 375-6260 PRIOR TO THE
SUBMITTAL DEADLINE DATE. THE MEEETING WILL ADDRESS CONCERNS REGARDING THE
TYPE OF SUBMITTAL, BOARD REVIEW SCHEDULE, SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES, FEE,
APPLICATION FORM, AND TYPE AND NUMBER OF PLANS/DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
BE SUBMITTED.
(2) IF A SUBMITTAL IS RECEIVED BY THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
DATE AND WITHIN TWO ( 2) WORKING DAYS FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL
DEADLINE, THE SUBMITAL IS DETERMINED ACCEPTABLE FOR PROCESSING, THE SUBMITTAL
WILL FOLOW THE APPROVAL SCHEDULE IDENTIFIED ABOVE. HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE
NOTED THAT THE AMENDED PLANS DEADLINE DATE ALLOCATES ONLY TEN (10) WORKING
DAYS FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE PLANS
THAT HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH THE TRC COMMENTS GENERATED FROM THE
REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS. TO KEEP THE-'REVIEW PROCESS ON
SCHEDULE THE AMENDED PLANS DEADLINE DATE IS STRICTLY ENFORCED. IT SHALL ALSO
BE NOTED, THAT PRIOR TO A PROJECT BEING RECOMMENDIiiO FOR APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT, AND B~ING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT BOARD OR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD, THE PROJECT
SHALL BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMIrTEE.
( 3) APPLICATIONS WHICH REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF. A' TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS, PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIAPL IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ORDINANCE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW
TIME. NOTE: REFER QUESTIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT.
(4) THE ABOVE DATES MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
A; 95review .1st
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-167
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
planning and ZOning~irector
Michael E. Ha~~1 1(s
Site and Zoning opment Administrator
TO:
DATE:
April 27, 1995
SUBJECT:
Site Plan
Project:
Location:
Review - 1st Review
Sausalito Groves
Near northwest corner Gateway Boulevard and
Lawrence Road
HP Tomkins - HPT Consultants
NWSP 95-003
Agent:
File No.:
The following is a list of 1st review comments regarding the site
plan review of the plans for the above-referenced proj ect. It
should be noted that the comments are divided into two (2)
categories. The first category is a list of comments that identify
deficiencies that are required to be corrected and shown in
compliance on the plans and/or documents submitted for second (2nd)
review in order for the project to continue through the site plan
review process. The second set of comment(s) lists recommendations
that the Planning and zoning Department staff believe will enhance
the proposed development. The applicant shall understand that all
documents and plans submitted for site plan are subject to
additional comments. I recommend that the applicant/agent contact
me regarding questions related to the comments. If the applicant
is not intending to correct code deficiencies, they should contact
me regarding the procedures, application forms, fees and submittal
deadline dates for seeking relief from the code requirement.
I. SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS:
1. On the site plan identify and label the property line of
the recreation site and satellite parking spaces.
Dimension the distance from the property line to the
leading edge of each parking lot, tennis court, entrance
wall/sign, recreation building, pool deck and pool,
shuffle board court and covered area adjacent to the
shuffle board court. If the recreation site and
satellite parking spaces are part of a larger plat,
identify the tract designation and perimeter boundary of
the tract (s) . Continue the fifteen (15) foot required
setback line around the perimeter of the recreation site
and show compliance with same for all recreational
facilities.
[Land Development Regulations (LDR), Chapter 4, Section
7. B. 1]
2. To properly evaluate the number of parking spaces
required for the recreation site, dimension the size of
the improved surface at the tennis court and shuffle
board areas. Also dimension the size of the roofed
structure adjacent to the shuffle board courts and the
pool. Within the boundary of the recreation building
identify the gross floor area of the building.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7. B.1]
3. Add to the tabular data the following:
a. total combined area in square feet of the
recreation site and satellite parking area,
b.
total square footage
percentage of site,
of pervious
area
and
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-247 WDC
TO:
Planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
April 14, 1995
RE:
Sausalito Groves, Recreation Bldg
600' West of Lawrence Rd on Gateway Blvd
NWSP 95-003
There is not adequate information presented in order to return an
opinion on this project.
~
FPO
r.-,--......
.il.r~l~I..lL@rtJ W ~ ~~ ~l.
,.t, l."
,.: r ,'r
; n. ~ ,
, 'Ul 1/ '
id' L APR I 4 JG95 I~I
. PLANNING ANn j OD I
ZONING DEPT. \' 9
:MEMORANDUM
Utilities # 95- 136
IfDJ II @ n WI II ,/ii)
1.1/1 APR I 8 1995 ~I
TO: Tambri 1. Heyden,
Planning & Zoni
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
Date: April 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Sausalito Groves, Recreation Site Plan, First Review
Staffhas reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments:
1. Water and Sanitary Sewer have not been provided to the above referenced project.
2. Show locations of proposed fire hydrant and water meter, (Sec. 26.16(a)).
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or
Peter Mazzella at 375-6404,
sm
xc: Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella tv--
File
.-/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-51
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director
SUBJ:
Site Plan Review - Salusalito Groves, Recreation Site Plan
DATE:
April 11, 1995
The Public Works Department has no problems with the above site.
~---.
. ~b rt Eichorst - -
Public Works Director
REier
[W~~ ;~ I i'::_,~1
I.. ~.."""'_V"'_"_<_~' ,
PLhiif,: p., '[ ,J .D! I
_ ZON!LSl iql..-...UW
u
rLf\WR"~Gjt1/T
7bU}NG'i ..,.
LJ
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-164
w rn
rn
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~t4-
Salusalito Groves
Recreation Site Plan
RE:
DATE:
April 19, 1995
This applicant should indicate the existence of any trees on the
site prior to the construction. The existing trees should be
addressed as part of the landscape plan.
KH:ad
eJfu: City of
!Boynton !Beach
-!;le. ~ ~
~~_(;-h, ~ve_
5; +e -pl tt..'\ [;4-
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
l'UtiIWL1> r:Depa.'ttmLn.t
124 Eut <WooIZ.u.1:Jht cRoa.d
!Bo.4n.ton !Buu:f.., 91o...u/a 33435
~honL: f407J 375-6400
9cf19(: f407/ 375-6298
August 3, 1995
Mr. Robert Rickel, President
Four Waves at Sausalito Place, Inc.
5701 North Pine Island Road, Suite 390
Tamarac, FL 33321
RE: Sausalito Place - Offsite water main improvements
Dear Mr. Rickel:
As you may recall, we sent you a letter dated June 26, 1995 regarding the timing of payment
for your development's fair share of the required off-site water main along Gateway
Boulevard. We have since received a check from your firm in the amount of $5,281.00 to
cover your share of the design and permitting for the off-site main.
We have not, however, received any confirmation from your office regarding the payment
for the balance of the construction costs. As we stated earlier, the balance of $35,206.00
will be due prior to the earlier of the following two dates:
1) A ward of contract for construction of the water main, or
2) Acceptance of the on-site water system for operation and maintenance by the City.
We anticipate that you will be undergoing platting procedures for this project. Be advised
that the off-site water main will be considered one of the required improvements for
platting, and that your firm must provide appropriate surety for same. The surety,
however, will not fulfill your obligation to make the cash payment as outlined above.
cIImnLca 'j, gahway to thE. gu[~tu.am
w
. t
w
Mr. Robert Rickel
August 3, 1995
Page 2
A copy of the preliminary cost estimate supporting the value of $35,206.00 is enclosed for
your convenience. If you concur with the above sequence of events, please so indicate by
signing this letter on the appropriate line below and returning the original to this office.
This will allow us to complete processing of your HRS permit applications and plans.
Please feel free to refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
Jo n A. Guidry
Di . ector of Utilities
Robert Rickel, President
Four Waves at Sausalito Place, Inc.
Attachments
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
William Hukill, Director of Development
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
Press Tompkins, P.E., HPT Engineering
File
COST ESTIMATE ~ OFFSITE WATER MAIN - SAUSALr 7JLACE/GATEWAY BLVD.
50 L.F. JACK & BORE N. SIDE GAT~AY
16"X8" TAPPING SLEEVE
8" TAPPING VALVE
8"WATERMAIN
8" GATE VALVES
8"45
8"TEE
ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING
TOTAL
UNIT
1
1
1
1485
3
3
1
TYPE
EA
EA
EA
L.F.
EA
EA.
EA.
UNIT COST
6250
1640
806
16
580
216
362
EXT.
6250
1640
806
23760
1740
648
362
35206
5281
$40,487
CJhE City of
!Boynton !BEach
w
...,
. ~ t . ..
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
CUtilUia. 7:u./= utrUf1t
124 .But 'WoofCt.ui:.t d?oad
:BoHntof1 :BuuJ:., 9fo'Luia 33435
fPhof1L: f407} 375-6400
9df!:'( f407} 375-6298
--=-
June 26, 1995
Mr. Robert Rickel, President
Four Waves Enterprises, Inc.
5701 North Pine Island Road, Suite 390
Tamarac, FL 33321
RE: Sausalito Place
Dear Mr. Rickel:
Thank you for your letter of June 23, 1995 . We are planning to proceed with the design of the off-site
water main along Gateway Boulevard as part of Palm Beach County's roadway improvements.
There are, however, a few points in your letter which need correction. More specifically, our code
requires that 15% of the estimated project cost be paid prior to design. This portion is intended to cover
the cost of design and administration. The entire construction cost is subsequently due just prior to the
earlier of the following two dates:
1) A ward of contract for construction of the water main, or
2) Acceptance of the on-site water system for operation and maintenance by the City.
I have enclosed a preliminary cost estimate for the portion relative to your project. In order for us to
continue processing this project we will require the amount of $7,672 at this time. This fee is strictly for
the offsite water main design and pennitting. It does not include any of the capacity reservation fee which
will also be due shortly.
Thank you for your continued cooperation. Any questions on this matter should be directed to Peter
Mazzella of this office.
Sincerely yours.
,':?~ ;/ 1. d//
;: f':;7/ / (/r.f~'" c,' ~
J'vJohn A. Guidry
Director of Utilities
Attachment
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: John Guidry
Skip Milar
File 1//
_ -fm~ ..i.:a'1 ~ ;u.t~tt"u.':I t,-, th~ ~; uLfit..~a11l
\'~
._..-(/ I J.\ .:,. .J
\ '
...; County Administrator
'"-"'--"
Board of County Commissioners
Mary McCarty, Chair
KeI'i L. Fosier, Vice Chairman
Karen T. Marcus
Carol A. Roberts
Warren H. Newell
Burt Aaronson
Maude Ford Lee
r~b
~fJ/~
\)
\;
I:V~ I
L/ ,..\/\ )
1)""1 :
I:) I
Robert Weisman
Department of Planning, Zoning & Building
May 6, 1994
Mr. Kieran Kilday
Kilday & Associates
1551 Forum Place
suite 100-A
West Palm Beach, FL
m
mowrn
ill
~MY I 8 1994
33401
RE: DRC COMMENTS - PETITION NO. DRC89-101
SAUSALITO GROVES SUBDIVISION - ORIGINAL DRC APPROVAL OF A
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, EXHIBIT 23. NOTE: THIS SUBMITTAL
INCLUDES THE REQUEST FOR HEALTH AND ERM THRESHOLD REVIEWS AND
ABANDONMENT REVIEWS OF ZONING RESOLUTION 90-370, PETITION 89-
101 AND ZONING RESOLUTION 93-371, PETITION 89-102
PCN: 00-42-45-13-07-001-0000
Dear Mr. Kilday:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) has completed preliminary
review of your application. Your petition is scheduled for the
May 11, 1994, DRC meeting. The meeting will commence at 9:00 a.m.
in Room A-lOG of the planning, Zoning and Building Department,
located at 3400 Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Florida.
The following conditions, comments and certification issues have
been identified by the Committee regarding your request. Please
contact the agency's representative listed below regar din g
certification issues prior to the meeting in order to avoid a
potential postponement of the item.
ZONING DIVISION (Ms. Rechenmacher, 233-5209)
1. This submittal includes a request to abandon petition 89-101
Sausalito Groves Mobile Home Park and Petition 89-102 Lawrence
PUD CLF Type 3. These two petitions also extinguished the PUD
Sausalito Grove and Petition 78-226 Ridgewood Grove PUD. Upon
the abandonment of the special exception and approval of
DRC89-i01, all previous resolutions, exhibits, and conditions
relating to the prior approvals for this site are null and
void. (Comment)
2. The existing special exceptions shall be abandoned prior to
DRC certification. (Certification Issue)
H:\DRC\COMMENTS\DRC89-101
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
PAGE 1
7
@ printed 0" recycled paper
3400 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (407) 233-5000
3. Prior to DRC certification or prior to submittal of a building
permit application for a model the site plan shall be amended
to indicate all dry model locations, parking, and landscaping
in accordance with 6.8.B.6.b. (2) (i)2), (Certification Issue)
4. The subdivision plan shall be amended to indicate names for
the streets internal to the residential project.
(Certification Issue)
5. Indicate typical townhouse separations on subdivision plan.
(Certification Issue)
6. Show access to the recreational area. (certification Issue)
7. Clarify housing type as townhouse or multifamily. A duplex is
considered mUlti-family and must meet multifamily property
development regulations. (Certification Issue)
. .
CONCURRENCY SECTION (Ms. Usher, 233-5214)
1. Exemption extension 0518004X1/0518005X1. Previous concurrency
approval: 203 Congregate Living Facility beds and 143 mobile
home units. Present concurrency approval under EQ94-07 is for
164 mUlti-family units. (Comment)
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY (Attornev Alterman, 355-2225)
1. Agent's authorization needs to be signed by Maurice Epstein
and Robert Epstein, as Trustee.
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (Mr. Choban. 684-4094) &
TRAFFIC DIVISION (Mr. Ennis. 684-4030)
1. The required 100 foot tangents for the intersections are
required to be measured from intersecting rights of way lines
rather than centerline of roadways. (Certification Issue)
2. Identify an appropriate number of lake access tracts on the
site plan. (Certification Issue)
3. Minimum centerline radii for a 50 foot right of way is 113
feet. Any deviations from the minimums require written
approval from the Director of Land Development prior to site
plan approval. (certifica~ion Issue)
4. A copy of the site plan for the project on the east side of
Lawrence will be required to be submitted for review to Land
Development. Land Development Division may require the
relocation of the entrance to this project to align with the
entrance to the proposed project on the east side of Lawrence
Road. (Certification Issue)
H:\DRC\COMMENTS\DRC89-101
PAGE 2
~
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Mr. Kraus, 355-4011)
1. The submitted Threshold Environmental Evaluation pursuant to
ULDC section5.1.D.5.b. is under review and must be completed
by ERM prior to certification. Any new issues identified by
the threshold review will be addressed at the DRC meeting.
(certification Issue)
2. A complete vegetation application, including the appropriate
fee ($720.00),must be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Resources Management prior to certification.
The fee amount represents the fee as calculated from the
approved Fee Schedule. This amount is subject to change if
delays occur. (certification Issue)
3. A Vegetation Permit is required. (VEGETATION TRACKING #VP94-
030) This tracking number must be clearly shown on the
Building Permit application to avoid delays in processing your
Vegetation permit. (comment) .
4. The site supports native vegetation to be preserved and
incorporated into the site design. The prohibited species
must be removed from the entire site. No site preparation or
vegetation removal is permitted until a Vegetation Permit is
issued by the Environmental Resources Manaqement (ERM)
Department. Failure to obtain a permit prior to commencement
of site alteration will result in appropriate administrative
enforcement actions necessary to bring the site into
compliance. Your vegetation application will remain valid for
six months on file with ERM. After six months the applicant
or property owner is required to inform our office in writing
that the site vegetation and layout information is consistent
with the original application on file. If site conditions or
modifications to site design are requested, a revised
vegetation application will be required. (Comment)
5. All new lakes not shown in their present configuration on
previously-approved site or master plans must comply with the
excavation criteria pursuant to ULDC Section 7.6. (Comment)
Please feel free to call the designated agent listed above with any
questions or comments concerning this petition.
sincerely,
l)Yt ~? ~0>t
Elizabeth D. Miller
Principal Planner
cc: Petition File
H:\DRC\COMMENTS\DRC89-101
PAGE 3
Cf
_' M ~ rD __
":::-ti-ti..:,.;., (c-T-c (~~-r:'S
/" '" cr~ ,.Jj .AJl~A .., .". f
... -~,.."'..~I..... I '"'.~ lJI.
ill
rn @ ~ U ";1] ~ ~~li
J"l!ARn. Ii
. -- I I
I
PLANNING AND c.. ~\..-Jl
ZONING DEPT. ~y;
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
LAWTON CHILES
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Secretary
Go\'emor
March 6, 1995
The Honorable Edward Harmening
Mayor, Boynton Beach
city of Boynton Beach
100 East. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Dear Mayor Harmening:
r'"'
c-
..
(1/'
,
The Department has completed its review of the adopted
~~comprehensive Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 094-54; DCA No.
95-1) for the City of Boynton Beach, as adopted on January 3,
1995, and determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter
163, Part II, Florida statutes, for compliance, as defined in
Subsection 163.3184(1) (b). The Department is issuing a Notice of
Intent to find the plan amendment In Compliance. The Notice of
Intent has been sent to the The News for publication on March 3,
1995.
Please note that a copy of the adopted city of Boynton
Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Notice of Intent must
be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except
for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the City of
Boynton Beach, City Hall, Planning and Zoning Department, 100 E.
Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida 33425.
2740 CENTERVIEW
FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OfFICE
27% Overseas Hi~hwav, Suite 212
\1Jf:Jtnon FloilrJJ ~ ]J050~2227
DRIVE. TALLAHASSEE,
SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY offla
P.O. Box 4022
8600 NW 36th Street
Miami, Florida 33159-4022
FLOR'DA 32399-2100
GREEN 5'NAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OFFICE
155 Easl Summerlin
Banow, Florida 33830-4&41
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-167
1st Review - Sausalito Groves
NWSP 95-003
c. total square footage of impervious area and
percentage of site and,
d. maximum height of structures excluding residential
buildings.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.E.]
4. On the site plan identify the dimension of the access
aisle or back-up space for both parking lots. The
minimum, width is twenty-seven (27) feet.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.2]
5. Specify on the plans the distance from Gateway Boulevard
to the card gate. Add a turn-around median cut before
the card gate to allow incoming vehicles that are not
entering the site to exit the site.
6. Omit the parking spaces that back-out onto the right-of-
way. Replace the omitted spaces to maintain the minimum
required number of parking spaces.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.2]
7. Show on the site plan the location, height, color and
type of material proposed for the fences at the pool,
tennis court, etc.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.3]
8. Provide floor plan and elevation view drawings of the
structure located adjacent to the shuffle board court.
Specify on the drawings the use and overall height of the
structure. Also, identify the type of exterior finish
materials including color name, color designation, and
manufacturer of each proposed color.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.D.l and 2]
9. Provide elevation view and section view drawings of the
entrance wall/sign. specify on the drawings the height
and type of finish material proposed for the wall
including color name, color designation and manufacturer
of each proposed color. Also, illustrate the sign and
identify the sign materials, sign area, sign colors and
indicate if the sign is illuminated.
[LDR, Chapter 4, section 7.B.3]
10. Show on the site plan the entire road leading to the
recreation site main parking lot. Specify on the plans
the width of the right-of-way and width of the pavement.
Also, specify the diameter of the cul-de-sac and show the
location and width of the sidewalk within the right-of-
way.
11. Identify on the site plan the surface material proposed
for the pool deck, sidewalks, shuffle board courts and
tennis court.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.]
12. Omit from the site plan drawing the landscape material or
show the material matching the material depicted on the
landscape plan.
13. Show on the site plan, paving and drainage plan, and
landscape plan the proposed location and overall height
of the site lighting poles and pedestrian lighting.
[LDR, Chapter 4, section 7.B.4]
14. Dimension on the site plan the minimum width of the
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-167
1st Review - sausalito Groves
NWSP 95-003
landscape strips required around the perimeter of both
parking areas. The minimum width of the landscape strip
when the vehicle use area abuts a right-of-way is five
(5) feet and two point five (2.5) feet when the vehicle
use area abuts an adjacent property.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.2]
15. Modify the landscape plan and plant list to indicate the
shrubs required around the perimeter of both parking lots
are space two (2) feet on center. Note fifty (50%)
percent of the total number of shrubs required to comply
with the code shall be a native specie. Use a
distinguish-able symbol to identify the required shrubs
on the plan. Provide a separate category on the plant
list to identify the required shrubs.
[Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6 (Native Specie
Requirement) and LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.C.1]
16. Identify on the site plan what the four rectangle items
are that are shown located west of the tennis court.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.l]
17. Show a sidewalk between the satellite parking area and
the recreation site.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.2]
18. Modify the landscape plan and plant list to indicate the
trees that are required forty (40) foot on center, along
the perimeter of both parking lots where the vehicle use
area (parking lot) abuts a right-of-way. Place a typical
dimension on the plan that represents the forty (40) foot
on center spacing. Note fifty (50%) percent of the total
number of trees required to comply with the code shall be
a native specie. Use a distinguishable symbol to
identify the required trees on the plan. Provide a
separate category on the plant list to identify the
required trees.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.C.1]
19. The master plan drawing for the project indicates there
is a required recreational amenity located near the
Lawrence Road entrance to the project. Show on the site
plan the amenity and the proposed gate house including
parking space. Also, provide a floor plan and elevation
view drawings of the guardhouse. Specify on the
elevation view drawings the overall height, type of
exterior finish material, including the color name, color
designation and manufacturer of each proposed color.
Dimension the distance the guard house is from Lawrence
Road and the distance it is from the duplex lot to the
north or south.
[LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.C. and D.]
20. The master plan drawing for the project indicates there
is a site wall proposed along the Lawrence Road and
Gateway Boulevard frontage of the project. Provide an
elevation view and section view drawing of the wall. On
the drawing provide a dimension from the property line to
the wall and indicate the overall height of the wall.
Indicate on the drawing the type of finish material
including color name, color designation and manufacturer
of each proposed color. Show and dimension the location
of the proposed wall on the site plan drawing.
[LDR, Chapter 4, section 7.B.3]
21. The master plan drawing indicates there is a five (5)
t,:.
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-087
April 11, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
RE:
TRC COMMENTS
SAUSALITO GROVES, RECREATION SITE PLAN
After reviewing the plans for the above referenced project, the
Building Division's only comment is that at time of permit, the
following must occur:
Show proof that the State Handicap Code has been met.
All signs, if any, must be site approved and comply with the
Boynton Beach Sign Code.
AN: bh
XC: William V. Hukill, P.E.
~r::::\
~V-\\~',,'
~-- ~~ \.s~- \.
,.,-....~. _ \2, _c._- . "
\-: .~:a<:,.,,;>IfIt< ,
" \ \\ ,,-- ''',
\ \-~: '\ [\?R \ \
~i>
GROVBS
ENGINEERING MEMO # 95-100
DATE: April 10, 1995
~ T AMBRI HEYDEN, P&Z DIR.
FROM: KEN HALL, ENG. AIDE PHONE: 407-37S-6283~
SUBJECT: SITE PLAN - SAUSALITO GROVES REC. AREA - 1ST REVIEW
The following comments and recommendations are submitted for your review:
1. The minimwn width of both parking lots shall be sixty-three (63') wide for 90 degree parking.
Art X, Sec. 5-142 (i)(1) and city standard drawing no. B-90013.
2. Show parking lot elevations for both lots on plans and drainage arrows showing flow path.
Art. 5, Sec. 5-142(f).
3. Indicate on plans the poles and luminaires for the subject site lighting for the parking areas and
the pedestrian paths. Art. X, Sec.5-142(a)&(b).
4. The plan is subject to P.B.Co. Eng. approval for work in their right of way.
5. The proposed recreational facility shall conform to the parking lot ordinance at time of
permitting. The plans shall show all the details, calculations, cross-sections, etc. for the following
required improvements: paving and drainage, site lighting, traffic control, curbing, landscaping,
and handicap parking. [t is highly recommended that the applicant obtain a copy of the parking
lot ordinance to facilitate the permit process.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
I . We would ask that you consider a curbed, landscaped traffic island in the middle of your
circular paved area for traffic control and esthetics.
2. Consider the use of D.O.T. approved pedestrian warning and crossing signage for the
pedestrian walkway.
KRHlkrh
sasulito.rc I
,"\~ rs((,)\rJP~ Rn fi~ryWn; ~I" n
,'S",v,\v). \.!; II II.
, .~. " ,. \
I H ; ~
~ , .' i \ ' \
. 'lAm 2 5 \::'Q:) , \ l' j:
id . I. '. , , \eo'''' I
t-t' . . 1'.d
j ~
.
---_.~-~--- ----- --~'----~ --,,--._- -'_._.._-_.~--
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMEN
Office of Professional Standards
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Tambri Heyden I D~__
Lt. James Cummin
20 April 1995
Salusalito Groves / New Site Plan
TRC Memo # 95-0131
I have no problems with the present plan the way it is designed.
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-174
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning D~'r ctor
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Sausalito Groves
TO:
RE:
DATE:
April 25, 1995
The Recreation & Park Department
submittal for Sausalito Groves.
submitted:
has reviewed the site plan
The following comments are
1. Recreation & Park Memo #94-418 remains in effect (copy
attached) .
2. Si te plan does not show details on the family picnic area.
This needs to be done if the developer is to receive one-half
credit for private recreation provided.
JW:ad
Attachment
~--~\~ "
r::~ fa <iU R ~ Us, \\ \ \
\ r \ \E, ~') lli,--- ..., I \ 11 \
\ \ ~ J r....--~-_, ~,... r, \\ "; \
\ \}U' APR '2. 5 \1 ,,<- ""
. \ ~~\f).p... \
~~,NH\I:\.,:~~~. r'V ~
.,.<~ir:l~\::':~.~:t~.:;.._--~...._.
~
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 94-418
TO:
Tarnbri Heyden, Director
Planning & Zoning
JohnWi~uperintendent AvJ
Sausalito Gro~~ d
November 21, 1994
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the annexation
request for Sausalito Groves, the fOllowing information is
submitted:
1. Based on 164 single family and duplex units, the recreation
dedication requirement is 164 d.u. X .018 acres/d.u. = 2.952
acres.
2. Plans indicate three private recreation amenities:
1. pool
2. tennis court
3. clubhouse
3 . By adding two additional pr i va te amenities, the developer
would be eligible for one-half credit towards the dedication
requirement. Due to limited space, suggested amenities could
be:
4. lighted shuffleboard courts
5. family picnic area
4. Assuming one-half credit for private recreation, the
dedication requirement would be 2.952 acres = 1.476 acres.
2
We recommend that this requirement be met with cash in lieu of
land.
JW: ad