Loading...
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