REVIEW COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 97-053
r, (2 (jiJ R n 1117 re rn
l t>'f j ~ \~ l~~l L!; 1I \!J U; i
II'jr--'--~ I
I ') ;
uU! i:AR I 3 1997 ~
March 12, 1997
L_..
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
TO:
Marshall Gage, Police Chief
Carel Fisher, Acting Director of Public Works
John Guidry, Utilities Director
Charlie Frederick, Director of Recreation & Park
Jim Ness, Acting Fire Chief
John Yeend, P.E., Engineering Consultant
Kevin Hallahan, ForesterlEnvironmentalist
Michael Haag, Site Development Administrator
Don Johnson, Building Compliance Administrator
Ken Hall, Engineering Plan Check Inspector/Technician
FROM:
AI Newbold
Acting Director of Development
RE:
LAWRENCE LAKE DEVELOPMENT
Please review the attached letter and provide me with your comments and recommendation on
whether the cash bond can be returned. Thank you for your timely response.
~
AI New
~
AN:bg
Attachment
-r;: /I L A!t:J.veoZD
4c. r;/\J~ /J i R-t::.,-~A (),.c .Ll:;vc ~f::.;.J r
rPJtYJ i de-II#s'- 6, !:k4-G, IV Jl~
CvRf?~r /t.A/N'/I\/~ ~"R.I""V/af1>J\. (II4NIlII.1I4? 20,.,;. d ~
L>~ : J /;3/97
/f.,,6 '. C~;.I ~o - ~/:U~1lGt t.. #)4:;- LJ(;;.v~t.JJ??'1e,..Jr
/~.e #2~ AA:> /SSu~-s f'+4~o 1'z) ?pc tAJIl &N<O ~
1'7J.t: 'pl.4;IV"h.v" ?!NO ~fIJ;"'6 ~Crr4R~~T*
C:\BOYNTONIDOCUMEf-.l \LA WRLAKE, WPD
y h--~~ft7
D
LEvY, KNEEN, MARIANI, CURTIN, WIENER, KORNFELD & DEL Russo
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
..JEF'FREY 0 KNEEN
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.:
(sell 478-4711
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SUITE 1000
1400 CENTREPARK BOULEVARD
WaST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA. 33401
TELEPHONE (561) 478-4700
FAX NO. (5611478-5811
H. IRWIN LEVY
OF COUNSEL
March 10, 1997
m ~,~ ~,D;~ @
AtJflDING DIVISION
Mr. Al Newbold
Accing Development ~irector
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: LAWRENCE LAKES DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Newbold:
Thank you for your letter dated February 10, 1997, regarding
the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for
the last two lots in Lawrence Lake PUD. The purpose of this letter
is to clarify any remaining issues regarding tt.e completion of
Lawrence Lake PUD.
As you may be aware, my client, Lawrence Lakes Development,
Inc., purchased individual lots from the original developer of the
PUD. Lawrence Lakes Development, Inc., did not ass~me any of the
obligations or liabilities pertaining to the i~frastructure at the
PUD which was installed by the original developer; however, in the
interest of expediting the build out of this community. Lawrence
Lakes Deve:opment, Inc., cooperated with the City and the existing
reRidents regarding community issues. More specifically, Lawrence
Lakes Development, Inc., has posted a $24,000 cash bond with the
City to assure the completion of the landscaping improvements and
irrigation. This cash bond replaced the bond provided to the City
by the or=-ginal developer, T indus Investments, Inc., under 1 ts
Agreenent with the City dated July 13, 1994. Regarding the release
of this cash bond, I request that you provide me the City's
position as to any additional actions necessary by my client in
order to receive the refund of this bond. We would like to be
clear as to exactly what the Clty is expecting to be accomplished
at this tiwe in order to have the bond refunded.
Also, c:onsiderlng that this community has been built out,
except for the last two lots, we would request informati~n as to
whether or not the City considprs there to be any other open items.
Mr. Al Newbold
March 10, 1997
Page 2
We believe that it is standard practice for the City to contact all
relevant City departments to determine if there are any outstanding
inspections or other community issues that need to be addressed at
the completion of a community. We are not aware that this was
done, and we would request that, if there are any issues, these be
identified at this time.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in assisting us to
obtain this information. I will look fo r to earing from you.
JDK/jf
cc: Ms. Tambri J. Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Mr. Mike Haag, Planning & Zoning Department
H:\5293,Q01\J310LTR,CIT
,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
July 13, 1992
TO: Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Michael E. Haag, Zoning and site Development Administrator
RE: Technical Review Committee Meeting - July 9, 1992
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION - LAWRENCE LAKES PUD - Request to
change the front building setbacks from 25 ft. to 20 ft.
The original established rear setback of 15 ft. and side
setback of 7 1/2 ft. are to remain unchanged. Change the
rear setbacks for pools and screen enclosures with screen
roofs from 8 ft. to 3 ft. The remaining pool and screen
enclosure setbacks shall comply with the setbacks
established in the current zoning code. The request
included the removal of the recreation area and associated
amenities.
Upon review of the above referenced project, the following
comments must be addressed in order to conform with Boynton Beach
City codes. I recommend that the applicant submit plans showing
compliance with staff comments prior to building permits being
issued for homes at the subject property.
1. Submit a warranty deed verifying proof of ownership of the
subject property.
2. Specify on the sheet titled "Master Development Plan" the
height of the proposed decorative white wood fence and add
to the drawing a partial elevation view of the fence. The
information is needed to document the configuration of the
fence so that in the future when a drawing is submitted for
a fence permit, it may be compared to the approved drawing.
3. Revise the lot layout on the sheet titled "Master
Development Plan" to reflect the correct location and size
of the lots as shown on the final plat drawing of the
subject property.
4. Indicate on the typical lot drawing the side setback for the
pool and screen enclosure (screen roof). The letter
submitted for the proposed modification requested the zoning
code setback of eight (8) foot side setback for pools and a
seven foot six inch (7'6") side setback for screen
enclosures. Specify on the plan that the screen enclosure
is an enclosure with screen walls and screen roof.
5. The letter submitted for the proposed modification requested
three (3) foot rear setback for pools. To show consistency,
remove the word "deck" from the modification area
highlighted on the plan.
6. Amend the development data as follows:
i. Remove the text "recreation tract" and combine the
acreage and percentage of the recreation tract with the
perimeter buffer figures
ii. Reword the total number of units section to read total
project approved for 33 units (detached single family)
7. A call-out on the Landscape plan makes reference to Sheet
L-l, L-2 and L-3 for landscaping. sheet L-l was the only
sheet submitted. Submit all sheets that reference work in
the proposed landscaped area and revise the call-out
accordingly.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-180
TO: Christopher Cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
DATE: July 9, 1992
RE: Technical Review Committe Comments
Master Plan Modification/Lawrence Lakes
Applicant: Mr. George Fuller
Design Engineer: Enrico "Ric" Rossi, P.E.
Request to Modify Front & Rear Setback Lines
Request to Delete Recreation Facility Approved by Prior Commission
During the platting process relative to Lawrence Lakes, P.U.D., the
original applicant paid the City of Boynton Beach, Florida full
recreation fees, but depicted upon their plans the construction of a
tennis court, a pool, clubhouse and parking facility with handicap
stalls and associated sidewalk improvements.
Although it is the consensus of the Technical Review Committee that
this change is a minor one as a result of the developer originally
paying the full recreation fee, I feel it is necessary to provide the
following comments for consideration by the City Commission.
It is presumed that the aforementioned recreation facility was depicted
upon plans as an enticement for the City Commission to approve this
P.U.D. which is governed by the City's Code of Ordinances and applicable
P.U.D. regulations. As the P.U.D. regulations provide special consider-
ations and benefits to the applicant, reciprocally the City should also
benefit from a lesser impact upon public recreation and park facilities
by the construction and maintenance of the subject recreation area.
It is my understanding that the basic intent of the P.U.D. regulations
is to provide the citizens who reside within P.D.D. areas the benefits
associated with having a self contained subdivision which provides,
among other things, a suitable recreation facility such as the one
depicted upon the existing approved City plans.
It is my recommendation that the applicant's request for deletion of
the tennis courts, swimming pool, clubhouse and parking lot with
handicap parking facilities should be denied.
The following is a list of corrections that need to be made on the
submitted master plan:
1) The general note in the upper left hand corner of the plan
indicating a conflict in land ownership relative to a 25' wide
strip, shall be deleted as the original plat took this property
into consideration and did not include it within the boundary
survey.
2) Under the general note section, lower center portion of the plan,
Item #l specifies the placement of "Children Playing" signs along
the local streets. This comment shall be deleted as the City does
not advocate the "Children Playing" signs within public or private
roadways and the posting of such signs are inconsistant with the
Institute of Transportation Engineers publications relative to
this subject matter (see attached publications entitled "Won't a
Children At Play sign help protect our kids?" and "Why won't they
put up Children At Play signs?")
P}~CEIVED
JUl 9
P'_,:':_~.: ~,1 ~ ;\,\ G r'; r c~y.
Engineering Department Memorandum No. 92-180
TRC Comments/Replat of Lawrence Lakes, P.D.D.
July 9, 1992
Page #2
3) The master plan, as submitted, indicates the presence of
thirty-three residential lots which conflicts with the plat
document specifying the existance of only thirty-two lots.
Revise plans accordingly.
4) The legal description situated on the master plan, lower left-
hand corner, does not comply with the legal description of the
recorded plat document. Revise master plan accordingly.
5) The master plan's development data block, under Item #1, indicates
a total acreage of 13.54 acres which is in conflict with the
approved and recorded plat which specifies a total acreage of
13.343. Revise plans accordingly.
6) Within the development data block, Item #3, the master plan
indicates a density of 2.44 units per acre. This statement
conflicts with the original plat document which approved a lesser
density of 2.40 units per acre. Revise master plan to compliment
the approved recorded plat.
Regarding the requested modifications to setbacks, the Engineering
Department has no comments.
VAF/ck
attachments: Florida Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Publications.
Note: Should the City Commission rule favorably on the applicant's
request to delete the recreation facilities, the plat document
will have to be replatted to delete the recreational tract.
Additionally, the original approved set of "Sign-off" plans
showed sidewalks on each side of the entrance road. Revise
the Master Plan to indicate sidewalks on each side of the road
or a bike path on one side and a sidewalk on the other side.
Plans shall be revised accordingly.
.
I
.
~.
-
I .
-
J
._,
I e
-
.
m
I
-j
I
i
I
t
- 0
I
CtIILOQEN AT PLAY
WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS?
An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs
with "SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the
safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith
in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
Although some other states have posted such signs widely in resident ial areas, no factual
evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents,
operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs
attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the
desired safety benefits. I f signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an
added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice
results.
Because of these serious considerations, California law does not recognize, and Federal
Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools,
playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly
. justified.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travelways. The sign has
long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
)\L. f,
\' "..C.
kl/ -;-;--
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
I
I
~
"WON'T A 'CHILDREN AT PLAY' SIGN HELP PROTECT OUR KIDS?"
At first consideration, it might seem that this sign would provide protection for ~
youngsters playing in a neighborhood. It doesn't.
Studies made in cities where such signs were widely posted in residential areas
show no evidence of having reduced pedestrian accidents, vehicle speed or legal
liability. In fact, many types of signs which were installed to warn of normal
conditions in residential areas failed to achieve the desired safety benefits.
Further, if signs encourage parents with children to believe they have an added
degree of protection - which the signs do not and cannot provide - a great dis-
service results.
Obviously, children should not be encouraged to play in the roadway. The "children
at play. sign is a direct and open suggestion that it is is acceptable. to do so.
Federal standards discourage the use of .children at play. signs.
Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities
are available for use where clearly justified.
MEMORANOOM
UTILITIES DEPAR'lMENT NO. 92 - 267
'1'0 :
Christopher cutro, Plamring' and zo~'rector
John A. Guidry, utilities Director
July 13, 1992
FRCM :
DATE:
SUBJECT :
Master Plan Modification - Lawrence Lakes.
We can approve this project subject to the following conditions:
1) The contractor shall assume responsibility for proper abandonment of
water and sewer utility services to what was the recreation parcel. All
services shall be capped or plugged at the main under utilities
department inspection.
Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
File
RECEIVED
JUL 14 ·
PLANNING DEPT. .
'\
..
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #92-223
FROM:
Chris Cutro, Planning Director
John Wildner, Superintendent of Parks Jt~
Charles C. Frederick, Director of R~eation & Parks
TO:
THRU:
RE:
Master Plan Modification - Lawrence Lakes P.U.D.
DATE:
July 9, 1992
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the master plan
modification request for Lawrence Lakes P.U.D. The following
comments are submitted:
1. The full recreation impact fee of $28,000 was paid in
September, 1989 by a previous developer.
2. Original approved master plan for this site included a
swimming pool and other private recreation elements as part
of an entrance area to the development. Since the
recreation impact fee was paid in full, the private
recreation shown was not a requirement under the subdivision
ordinance.
3. The new developer's request to substitute a landscaped
common area at the entrance to this subdivision appears to
be a minor change and would not be opposed by this
department.
JW/CCF:cm
RECEIVED
JUL 9
PLANNING DEPT.
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-156
May 26, 1995
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
tiilJiam V. Hukill, P. E.
~rtment of Development Director
Lawrence Lakes Estates - Custom Lot #4
To:
Re:
It is my understanding that GRB Construction of Palm Beach
Gardens has applied for a swimming pool permit at subject
location. The fact that Permit No. 94-4334 for the residence at
that location in not finalized is not a factor in consideration
of the pool request, as the pool will generate a separate permit.
Nor is the fact that the pool is in a different location than
previously thought of any significance.
The pool application must stand on its own merit just as it would
if it had been submitted for a long-existing residence. If the
pool complies with all codes, ordinances, rules, regulations,
setbacks, easements, etc. a permit should be issued promptly upon
completion of plan review.
WVH : mh
cc: Carrie Parker, City Manager
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Mike Haag, Site
Milt Duff, Chief Plans Examiner
..~' ",.,~,.,.~..,....,., ._. .~. ... .........'"'--_.....~'--"'~--t
:'~,:' 0) ~ n \\11 rr; r""'~!
~J t5 U \.J ll; .nl~
.,=".,_,_~=c~,_~. I.,.,
i; ~ ~ ~ ' ~
f I H!
,) 0 IGOr'J ~;\
v ,~... '.,J ~._."'"
.".,"'_...........n...
r,l
;~:;~})'.~"~~
: :~. ~..:~.'.""".....,_"..,.,......\.,..,._'n....
A:LAWRBNCB.LIt
ROSSI AND MALAVASI
ENGINEERS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
~I~
..f t<.M+
~I:!..:Y
580 VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 140
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409.1904
(407) 689-0554
FAX: (407) 889.1109
c J ~/j
~ /t&C1evgCJ '.
Jt/J ;J11lJtyli,.; &Jdrfc$h.
mz 6de; -11- is r~
ATTN: Mr. Christo~her Cutro L "
Ci ty Pl anner VI 6J.;(;:/.-I!EK!--) , .
RE: LAWRENCE LAKES 0 r~/jJtl ~J U;/'oJU;
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION ;$~~ "i/Z <: ,4j(3.Jt:)6
Dear Mr. Cutro: ~A~~
ec. V(,.J(...e:' (Y/ pi 7+ 12
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am enclosing twelve
(12) copies of the Master Plan for the referenced project, on
which I have shown the following modifications.
June 17, 1992
City of Boynton Beach
City Planning Department
P.O. Box 31"
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
I. Request that the front minimum setback be changed from 25' to
2"'.
2. Request that the rear minimum setback for a screen enclosure
be set at 3 feet. (15' setback to the structure rema ins as
originally shown) .
3. Request that the recreation area be changed to show
"Landscaped Area".
The requested setback change is made to provide for swimming
pools to be constructed on the rear yard. Since all of the lots
abut the lake, there will be no impact to abutting lots.
As the developer, Mr. George Fuller, has explained to you, it is
difficult to justify maintenance cost for a swimming pool, bath
house and tennis court for only 32 lots.
Accompanying this application is a check in the amount of $5"".""
as filing fee.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
ENGI NEE,RS, INC
.-.----
/~< " ';. c:v:
/'.> , ~~ BO)'4'f-' ,,/;:)
l . ...~" ~" 0+ y,.
: . \ ~ ltCr:~_ <S' '(I
'J, J . - b~t,>> -.o'fI'C>d ir'" V::. ,,~. '
" .' ,"6V1Iff1 1 :r:- r .t;
\'i':ii, ~.~8 i$~g. C<.p
. .:. 'to OJ~. . ,'~ I--/
' '.; ;'b...: ~Q/'t<::t; -..J1t. /-, Cc, .
" ". .",.' . If> ...V' ,'C' ,..>!.,~..
'. .~'" ' .~, ,'."
.. "'., "ilICHI f\.O . ,<.......j
.' "","",";f.. ,/-
. ". "';;' \.,;Jv'
- --------'- --.
Ro s s i, P. E.
....~lr--r.\ \..:)
RECTIl \' ~.:.-./
JUC 1
ER/jh
cc: Mr. George Fuller
PLA!~hi, C,j DU~',
"-
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #92-235
TO:
Chris Cutro, Director of Planning
+<~tf
1/
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
RE:
Lawrence Lakes P.U.D. - Master Plan
DATE:
July 17, 1992
The developer originally preparing the Tree Management Plan has
not completed it in accordance with the attached memorandums.
The new developer must complete the Tree Management Plan for any
of the existing trees on the site. This information should be
part of the comments addressed prior to issuing building permits.
KH:cm
Attachment
....-- -
MEMORANDUM
co
Carrren Annunziato
Planning Director
DATI!
November 24, 1987
,.ILI!
~ _OM
Kevin J. Hallahan
Forester/Horticulturist
!IU8nCT Citrus Glen Phase I, II
and Lawrence Lake P.U.D.'s
I am working with the developer in preparation of the Tree Managerrent Plan
for these Planned Unit Developrents. The landscape architect will be
sending copies of this plan showing details and incorporation into the
HClIeOWI1er Association d.ocuIrents.
Li~ ~ ~U---
Vlll J. 1
KJH:ad
...
--
-- ~,-, ,-,-/.-
J......_--',_,_.. ,
,-
I
, ,
OCT ?:;
]:' ,?-.
'.......,1
M E M 0 ,R AND U M
PI ,., t ',',j'. .': ;' .'
L.r\L .1.\,-, vi.., I,
TO: Carmen Annunziato
Planning Director
FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan
Forester/Horticulturist
DATE: October 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Citrus Glen Phase I
Citrus Glen P.U.D. (Phase II)
Lawrence Lake P.U.D.
The following comments pertain to the Master Landscape
Plan for the above projects:
1. The developer should provide a more accurate tree
survey in conjunction with the aerial photograph
which addresses:
a. All species and quantities of existing tree.
b. Which trees will remain, be transplanted,
removed and replaced.
c. Which trees will be available to the City of
Boynton Beach and/or the School Board of Palm
Beach County.
d. A comprehensive Tree Management Plan for the
tract.
2. The littoral zone plantjngs around the lakes
should also address the following:
a. A littoral zone Management Plan document
detailing how to correctly manage this area.
b. A detail sketch of the littoral zone
plantings, showing how the materials will be
installed (species, locations, quantities).
This should be for field inspection when lake
plantings are completed.
c. This document should be referenced in the
Homeowner Association documents and comments
made to this effect on the approved plat.
d. All TREES so designated in the landscape plan
must be 8' in height at time of planting.
e. The installation of the littoral zone
plantings should be completed as the
particular lakes in question are complete and
graded.
.......--
....i
3. If any existing Citrus Trees are to remain or
transplanted to common areas in the P.U.D., a
special Tree Management Plan for these trees
should be compiled and also become part of
the Homeowner Association documents.
Referenced also on the plat.
4. A landscape buffer required between any
P.U.D. and an adjacent road R.O.W. where
applicable should be in~luded in the plan.
- ~ '''''~/'''''L --~
evin J a lahan"hl'
KJH:ad
DOC: CANNUN