REVIEW COMMENTS
_I
rr"r-'
1
.J
1
I
.j
i
1
.1
-j
.
~
.... .. - ".'-q, ,-",:w"",~-"-""",,'-~j
-- ..... .., '~.":~' ~~..: 1
--'1',
~ ~-' ......... .
_.~ "
= ~
,-:4
,- ", ~
· . ,~;~~~~6~-.-~~
J
"
,
;
1
1
)
i
r-~.~
; I i
-:
~'..;I
y
J
~
1
,~
A
.j
~
~
,
i
1
"I
"
,- ~l
,~
~
i
i
. ,., "/.. -. ~
1i"1+.I~ "'-"i.t'~r'if""'C!'~~Ge'~~ ~A,
. MPM})~'
A PPl...1 C A tlI
ME-ADO\VS, PHASE- - III
~PLA f BOOK. 55, PAGE III)
CITY Of- eoYNiON 6CACH
ZONING; - PLO
!..Af'l) USf: - WI 3.36
~esl 0ENi1 Al.
1-,'"
:: 2
--
."~ 'J.. f~..,": i.
E t ~::;./ .;~";1."'~;{
U5TINC:: 4' S1DEYMJ:. - -f'O '.
j ___ .. f
-----
r']r;;-:Si~r
1t4G: ,.' S1Dr:"H.l
1RN6lTION FtCIJ1 5' TO 4'
PUBLIC PARK
J\VS 300 - PLAi NO.3
AT BOOK 45, PAGE: 1'16)
-
-r!ki~
.
-s:
.
~
.
~
-=a
2
=:>
o
c:n
cO
"'d
J~'~
~2
......
o~
I I ~
E-I~
=:>0
~f
2
-'..,
i:t;:z
<f)~
~~
o;~
-u\1.
u~
~~
~
\,
~
\
--r
\
,
,
--~._--
I, -'
1-'--
I
I :
-+ ------r-
------- ,-"-- I
I
f
i
I
I
i
!>.,
~
I
" "I
i:':: lJ.
' , ':, ':" " j
,..~~, ...
, 1'_
I'
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-324
i OCT 2 7
1 ~.
L__~\fB)t~]i~~
August 31, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
TRC COMMENTS - NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITl'AL
RE:
When I reviewed the plans for Nautica Sound's ,first two
submittals, there were 8 sheets. Since most of my comments
addressed sheet 6 of 8 and only one sheet was submitted on the
3rd submittal, I cannot determine if the new changes in lot size
and count addressed my first comments: Therefore, my first and
second comments are attached and should be met before permitting.
~
Al New '1
AN: bh
Attachments/2
xc: William V. Hukill, P.E.
MAI1TICA
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
August 9, 1995
From:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
To:
Re : NAUTICA SOUND
Master Plan Modification - 2nd Submittal
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet
south of Hypoluxo Road
After reviewing the above referenced documents, it is
particularly noted in the printed documents that the Building
Division comments have been met as related to signs and setbacks.
Please note that the details for signs are not on the plans, only
in the written documentation.
1. Details for signs must be included in the final site
plan documents.
2. The 15 Ft. setbacks shown on the right corner lots on
Page 6 of 8, is not measured from the corner of the
building and, therefore, poses a problem for the
following lots: 30, 46, 69, 77, 98, 110, 147 and 169.
This could be rectified if the building was switched to
the opposite side or have dimensions corrected for
approval.
~~
Al N bol
t
AN:mh
Att. Plans
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:.AUT%CA.TIt.C
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-400
! ....',' ~ i~ [~ n "\7 ~ ~
O li; .J -, 1I t !~; n
~~r-~~-I~~~ 1 ~
L~~.~~" ........, I
Dl" ''''I'I~ "'t} ~
l" !;:i f,;ll ~"'.,~ ,.li!~
L..~,", z,~) Lt::i!,' UIJ:.;. " I ,..
Mike Haag
zoning/Site Administrator
W11j~m ~ukill, P.E.
fJjt1I\Englneer
October 12, 1995
NAUTICA SOUND THIRD REVIEW
We have once more reviewed subject development and have the
following responses to Engineering Memo 95-295:
WVH/ck
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F. 2.
F. 5.
F. 6.
F. 8.
F.12.
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
Acceptable
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
xc: Ken Hall, Engineering
C:NAUSOIJND.3RD
-
JUL-28-'95 FRI 12:01 ID:
TEL NJ:
**345 Pel1
--
v
,....
..., . .,IIMN
UndIa_ ArClhlteotl/PIIMlft
,.' FaN", ,...
luhI'CIDA
Wte1 Pel", INCh. FtondII M4Q1
(40'7~ _ --. Fla: 1401) -,2MZ
....
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
July 5, 1 W5
Kevin ..a.llahan; City For_tar
City of Boynton Beach
Karyn I. Janssen; Kilday a. ASSOciates, Inc.
DATE:
TO:
RE: Nautlca Sound Site Visit
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.13
,
-------_&_---~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~-~~----------------
Rick Elsner of GL Homes. Tom Dwyer of Knollwood Grove, you and I met at Nautlca on
June 27, 1991) to view the condition of the Citrus trees on the Nautioa Sound Site. We
drove to the two arMS on the alte that were dlecu..ed In the letter Idd.....ed to you
from Tom Dwyer dat<<t June 21, 1995, e. copy of the aerial photograph with the two
areas ldentlned Is attaChed. Dur1ng the site visit, Mr. Dwyer noted 1hat within these areas,
there were approximately 20% unhealthy CitnJs trees, When counting the Citrus trees
from an aerial. there are approximately Five Hundred and Forty-Five (54e) trees located
within theu two areas. Onee you subtract out the percentage of unhealthy trees, the
total then becomes Four Hundred and Thirty-Six (436) trees. This is the total number of
trees that the City of 8cynton Beach will require GL Homes to replace when applying the
no net 108. requirement; therefore, GL Homes will have to include 436 trees within their
site plan tor the parcel. There are approximately 309 trees proposed to be planted within
the landseap. buffers surrounding the perimeter of the property and within the recreation
arM. Thl. CIITIounts to 70% of the required treG$ for the no net lose requirement. The
remainder of the trees necea5ary to fulfill this r8quirement will be placed within the
individual lots on the site. There are three tre8$ minimum propOSed for tne Zero Lot Line
units and three trees minimum proposed for the 'Z' Lot Une units. The overall tree count
for the aite Will exceed thQ required 438 trees necessary to meet the no nat loss
roqulroment of the City.
If you nave any questlon$ or concems, please do not hesitate to contact me.
00: Rick EJener: GL Hom..
~ .__ v
8053 LAWRE:-\CE RO,
BOYi\TO:\, BEACH FL 33436-1699
June 21, 1995
"'/ /1
f7.0UE1. .!J nc.
.~
MEMBER
FLORIDA
GiFT FRUIT
SHIPPERS
ASSOCIA TION
Established 1930
14071 73.+-.+SI)()
iax: 1.+071 737-67(}(J
toll iree: (800\ 222-96'::J6
Mr Kevin Hallihan, City Forester
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd
POBox 310
Boynton Beach, Fl 33425-0310
Re: Knollwood Groves
Dear Mr Hallihan,
I was contacted by Rick Elsner, GL Homes of Florida and Karyn Janssen, Kilday &
Associates, Inc on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 regarding the condition of the citrus trees on
the Meadowood Groves property. Holding a Masters Degree in Agriculture from the
University of Connecticut and drawing from my 23 years of experience in the citrus
producing industry, it is my expert opinion that the citrus trees located in Meadowood
Groves are of poor quality. The trees range in age from 30 to 60 years old and the grove
has not been properly cared for in the last 15 years. I am intimately familiar with the site
since I have been working in the groves for the past few years. I have been able to turn
two small areas of the grove back into production; however, if given the opportunity to
take any trees I wanted prior to development of the site, I would refuse them all. The two
small areas indicated, on the attached aerial are the only areas in which I would say there
are some citrus trees in marginal to fair condition. The trees in these areas have been
producing for me but, I believe there is no justifiable reason to preserve them or relocate
them once the use on the site changes to residential.
Furthermore, citrus trees do not belong in maintained common spaces of residential
developments. If the grass beneath the trees is continually mowed, then the snakes leave
the site and the rats move in, which creates an undsirable situation for all in the
community.
I hope this will answer any questions regarding the condition of the citrus trees in
Meadowood Groves. I will be more than happy to go out on site with you to point out
the conditions which I have discussed.
Thank: you for your condsideration.
~cerely, /) ,
~x- ;:?-c -r/"? ~
om Dwyer //
Knollwood Groves, Inc
~~ - 4-85 ~ qS'" -4q'L
I ~ 0'",
2) Or~ (
0)--~'~ "tJ~~1 (- (<1 ($ Do rl6l-E F"4~.
~) _6~
"?J - O~
G) ~ '- O(r( -~~r )t1Pt'o~~ I TfJI!1rppIC ~tvP,,/
'1) '7 \'fE, fW-l /'<1>ffloVArt-",
&] \ d~
(0) ~
LL )- o~
tZ ...1:
i \~ ~ \'1,ost1rEUL ~~CApe PtAtJ. - o~
~Q\'4-<\ ~otv?\~ ~~cYv~s ... e>\~
.. i\ pt;v~7 ",.".Jr- P,IN () J '? I(;N~ . NO ~.:>
~ I"') "'~.. ":~ [14< €,'~'l c l,,-
tC, No ~tr~~~I4\-V w,!o \'1.,<J. AS'7K.. {)PC-s.
17. A revised master plan reflecting~all staff_comments and conditions
approved by the city Commission and the Planning and Development
Board, ~hall Q_ submitted in triplicate to the Planning and Zoning
Dept. prior tQ ~nitiating the platting process.
,
45' .. ~'4-: eJtt,
rtc.-}
~c.e~~~ )
C;, tJor ~ S~~AL- ~ ~~A<(3~
(
C1l'f c..on'1 177 (~ - 0 '<..
.0 lA1J
0>0 A-R.D -7
tJ() ~ ~S I f1 { ,.;()'ft:!!, ~
,.~ r~~ ' ., !:
\"", 1',1
'" _ ,i:,:; ~
l..'"
OCT I 3'
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-469
1'~
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist /L-- ~
Nautica Sound pun - Master Plan Modification
RE:
DATE:
October 13, 1995
The applicant has submitted a tree preservation/management plan for the site which is attached to this
memorandum. The project should continue in the normal review process.
This management plan will require the installation of replacement trees as part of the proposed
landscape plan. Weare attempting to install these replacement trees on common property for the
project. If this cannot be accommodated because of the site constraints, the replacement trees will
be 70% of the existing quality citrus trees. I will coordinate this with the site clearing permit.
KH:ad
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 96-262
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
.--:A
Tambri J. Heyden//9-kJ
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
DATE:
May 15, 1996
SUBJECT:
Copies of Development Plans of Current Projects
Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the
May 21, 1996 City Commission Meeting
Please find attached five (5) sets of plans for the following
current development projects:
Conditional Use
St. Joseph's Episcopal Church and
School
COUS - 96-002
New Site Plan
Nautica Sound (FKA Knollwood Groves
PUD)
NWSP - 96-001
Knuth Road PCD Service Station
NWSP 96-003
Major Site Plan
Modification
Boynton Beach Mall
Department Store F
MSPM 96-001
The Vinings at Boynton Beach -
Phase II
MSPM 96-003
Note:
Please return the plans/documents to the Planning and
Zoning Department following the meeting.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
TJH:bme
Attachments
a:trans21.MAY/P&D
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-484
Agenda Memorandum for
September 5, 1995 city Commission Meeting
TO: Carrie Parker
city Manager
fYlI=.lr
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: August 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves PUD - MPMD 95-006
Revise access points and unit type (replace multi-family
with s1n91e-family detached units) and reduce lot size
and front, side and rear setbacks (3rd review)
NATURE OF REOUEST
Kilday and Associates, agent for Meadows Groves, Inc. and R.
Bradford Arnold, Trustee, is requesting to modify the Knollwood
Groves master plan. The 111.82 acre project, proposed for a total
of 424 single-family detached, zero.lot.line and "Z" lot units, is
zoned PUD and located on the east side of Lawrence Road,
approximately 1,300 feet south of Hypo1uxo Road (see Exhibit "A" -
location map). The original proposed revisions, plus changes
proposed by the applicant in response to the conditions by the
Commission (for determination of non-substantial change) are as
follows (see Exhibit liB" - letter of request and proposed current
revised master plan):
1. Omit a road onto Hypoluxo Road from which two project
entrances were planned to connect and replace it with a
project entrance onto Lawrence Road.
2. Change the type of units and lot size from 150 single-
family detached units on 6,000 square foot lots and 389
multi-family units to 267 zero lot line units on 5,000
square foot lots and 157 "Z" lot line units on 4,500
square foot lots; a reduction in the total number of
units from 539 to 424 (115).
3. Reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet for "Z" lot
units and to'SO feet for zero lot line units.
4. Reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet.
5. Reduce the side setback on interior lots from 15 feet to
10 feet.
6. Reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots
that do not back to one another.
7. Delete the day care center use (southeast portion of the
project) and replace with a lake.
BACKGROUND
At the August 15, 1995 City Commission meeting the request for a
master plan modification for the Nautica Sound project was tabled
to the September 5, 1995 City Commission meeting. The request was
tabled to give the applicant the opportunity to modify the master
plan to the degree that the Commiesion would make a fincUn9 of
non-substantial change with regards to the proposed modification as
it relates to the current approved Knollwood Groves master plan
(Exhibit "C"). Following the review of the master plan
modification presented to the Commission on August 15, 1995
(Exhibit "0"), the Commission encouraged the applicant to increase
the square foot area of at least 99 "ZI1 lots.
f
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
Exhibit "B" depicts the current revised master plan into which the
applicant has incorporated changes that they request be deemed as
non-substantial. Included with Exhibit "B" is a written
description prepared by the applicant's agent that describes the
changes that have been made to the plan.
Following review of the plans submitted by the applicant's agent
the afternoon of August 30, 1995, staff offers the following
summary with respect to the changes the commission encouraged,
staffs review of the changes, and staffs review of the current
revised plan as it relates to their original comments:
1. The commission encouraged the applicant to increase the
size of 76 "z" lots from a minimum of 4,000 square feet
to a minimum of 4,500 square feet and increase the size
of 13 "Z" lots from a minimum of 4,500 square feet to a
minimum of 5,000 square feet. To achieve the larger lot
size the applicant modified the internal road network
system by reducing the number of cul-de-sacs from 11 to
7 which resulted in providing a loop road system with
lots fronting on the loop road~. As evident by viewing
, .
the previous proposed master 'plan (Exhibit "D") and the
current proposed master plan (Exhibit liB"), significant
changes have taken place in the north portion of the
project including road configuration, type, size and
layout of lots. A total of ten (10) lots were omitted
from the project. It is difficult to determine whether
the 99 "Z" lots have increased in size as recommended by
the Commission considering the areas of each lot are not
specified on the plan.
It should be noted that the tabular data indicates that
the minimum lot size for "Z" lots has increased from
4,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet; however, the lot
frontage remains 40 feet. Therefore, there is not
sufficient information to verify that the 13 "Z" lots
that the Commission intended to be increased to 5,000
square feet and included with the 4,500 square foot "Z"
lots has been provided. To ensure that the proper
balance of 5,000 square foot lots is included with the
4,500 square foot "z" lots, the plan should specify the
total area within each of the proposed 159 "Z" lots.
2. with respect to staff's review of the new plans regarding
original comments that would create a significant impact
on the layout of the project and general review comments,
the following is offered (see Exhibit "E" staff
com~ents):
Engineering - Increase the width of the proposed Meadows
Boulevard from 60 feet wide to 80 feet wide. The applicant
revised the lot layout along the north side of the proposed
right-of-way to provide 80 feet of right-of-way width.
Additional comments are set forth in Engineering Division
Memorandums 95-332, 95-295 and 95-260.
utilities - Relocate the proposed lift station to better serve
future developments adjacent to the proposed project and omit
deadend utility lines in cul-de-sacs. This concern has been
addressed by the omission of several cul-de-sacs as a result
of the new loop road system and the plans show a lift station
site acceptable to the utilities Department.
J
. ,
page 3
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
The letter from the applicant indicated that the developer and
the city's utilities Department have agreed on the location
and size of the proposed lift station shown on the current
revised plan (based on utility drawings not included with the
submittal, but submitted to and veiwed by the utility
Department) . A.t this time the utility Department has no
objection to the plan.
rlre Department... Provide en ingre../egr... on Hypoluxo Road
and 15 foot separation between buildings. The applicant has
not addressed these issues (see revised Fire Prevention
Memorandum No. 95-316).
police Department - Provide access to the site from Hypoluxo
Road and install a north bound right turn lane into the site
on Lawrence Road. These comments have been disregarded (see
police Department Memorandum #0164).
planning Department - Provide an access to the project on
Hypoluxo Road, show code required 40 foot setback along the
east property line of the projec,t, ,~ncrease the lot size to
6,000 square feet, increase the' lot frontage to 60 feet,
increase the front setback to 20 feet and provide 15 feet as
the side setback or building separation for all interior lots.
These comments reiterate comments made and approved on the
previously submitted and approved master plans for Knollwood
Groves. The applicant has not addressed these issues.
Additional comments are set forth in Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-485.
Please note the revisions that led staff to recommend the proposed
modifications be considered a substantial change are clearly
identified in the recommendation on page 7 of this memorandum.
The following text is from the previous staff report (Planning and
zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-419) revised with data from the
proposed plan, and is provided for your reference.
On october 17, 1989 the city Commission approved on second reading
Ordinance No. 89-36 rezoning the subject property from AG
(Agriculture) and R-IAAA 1single-family Residential) to PUD with a
Land Use Intensity of 4 (LUI = 4), The rezoning master plan was
approved subject to staff comments and is provided in Exhibit "F".
I ,
A master plan modification for the PUD was requested in January
1990. The request included reconfiguring the boundary between the
multi-family and single-family pods, changing the single-family pod
to zero-lot-line units and establishing the fOllowing building and
site regulati'ons for the zero-lot-line, single-family units: lot
frontage 50 feet, front setback 20 f.et (on private .tr..t.), r.ar
yard .etbaok 10 fe.t and non...zero side setback 15 feet. On
February 19, 1991 the city Commission made a finding of "no
substantial change" for this request and on March 12,' 1991, the
Planning and Zoning Board approved this master plan modification,
subject to staff comments. This master plan modification is
provided in Exhibit "C" and is the current master plan. The
exhibit also includes the conditions of approval re;ard1nq lot
size, lot frontaqe and setbacks for the 150 single~family detached
zero...lot-line units within the project.
On April 5, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. R94-39
which entered Meadows Groves, Inc., f.k.a. Knollwood Groves, into
an agreement to pay the City the sum of one hundred eight thousand
five hundred fifteen dollars ($108,515) to be applied to the design
and oonstruction of the Miner Road extension to Lawrence Road from
its existing terminus east of Congress Avenue for the PUD's
projected impact on Miner Road. The resolution also indicated that
~
\
I ,
page 4
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica sound
the city supported the request of Knollwood Grove. for road/traffie
impact fee credits to Palm Seaeh county. This resolution agreed to
recognize this payment of fees as commencement of the development,
thereby vesting the 1991 PUD master plan.
On ~ugust 2, 1994, the city commission adopted Resolution No. R94-
106 accepting conveyance of the property required of the PUD for
public recreation purposes. The 5.0 acre park site is located in
the southeast corner of the project. The site is adjacent to an
existing, undeveloped 4.02 acre public park site to which it will
be combined to meet the recreation level of service needs of the
neighborhood planning area that the PUD will impact.
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of
development regulations states that chanQ8s
developments shall be processed as follows:
Section 12. Changes in plans.
the city's land
in planned unit
"Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD may
be permitted by the Planning and zonl,ng Board upon application
, I
filed by the developer or his successors in interest, prior to
the expiration of the PUD classification, but only [after] a
finding that any such change or changes are in accord with all
regulations in effect when the change or changes are requested
and the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect
at the time of the proposed change. Substantial changes shall
be proposed as for a new application of PUD zoning. The
determination of what constitutes a substantial change shall
be within the sole discretion of the City Commission. Non-
substantial changes as determined by the city Commission in
plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen month
approval for the PUD classification."
ANALYSIS
staf'f has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD
development standards, and the intent and purpose of planned unit
developments as stated in the following sections of Chapter 2.5 of
the city's land development regulations:
"
section 1. Intent and purpose.
"~ Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It
is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development,
creative, design, improved, living environment, orderly and
economical development in the city, and the protection of
adj acent and existing and future City development. The
district is suitable for development, redevelopment and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the City.
Regulations for Planned Unit Developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations and
other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they
are intended to control development on a lot-by-lot basis. In
view of the substantial public advantages of planned unit
development, it is the intent of PUD regulation. to promot.
and encourage development in this form where tracts suitable
in size, location and character for the uses and structures
proposed are to be planned and developed as unified and
coordinated units.
t 1
Page 5
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica sound
B.
section 9. Internal PUD standards.
INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE. within the boundaries of the
PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards shall be
required; provided, however, that PUD frontaqe on
dedicated public roads shall observe front yard
requirements in accordance with the zoning district the
PUD use most closely resembles and that peripheral yards
abutting other zoning districts shall be the same as
required in the abutting zone."
The following analysis consists of evaluations corresponding with
each significant issue:
1. Replacement of Hypoluxo Road connection with another entrance
on Lawrence Road This change significantly redistributes
the traffic trips originally approved to be shared by Hypoluxo
Road and Lawrence Road. As shown on the approved master plan
in Exhibit "C", project access was planned for a new road onto
Hypoluxo Road (a four lane road with median and turn lanes),
requiring a crossing over the L.W:D.O. L-18 canal, from which
two project entrances were planned. Also planned was one
entrance onto "Meadows Boulevard", a public collector which is
to be extended by the developer to connect to Lawrence Road
(currently a two lane road which is on the county's five year
plan for widening to four lanes). Because of the desire to
have a gated community, costs of which are a function of total
entrances, and to avoid the cost of the canal crossing, the
applicant proposes a new entrance onto Lawrence Road and one
onto the extension of "Meadows Boulevard" which will link to
Lawrence Road.
This change concentrates project traffic onto Lawrence Road,
and compounds the traffic problem associated with Lawrence
Road as recently expressed by local residents in connection
with the anticipated addition of those 1,680 approved, and
partially constructed units on Lawrence Road. In response to
this identified need, the county added the widening of this
segment of Lawrence Road to the County's five year plan. From
a design standpoint~ it is desirable that where there is the
ability for access oh to two major thoroughfares, both should
be utilized. This is also true from a public safety and
public utility access standpoint, as well as for integrating
streets with the surrounding road network. staff comments
from the public safety and public utility departments reflect
a desire to work with the applicant regarding this issue, but
it is noted that this comes.with an increased response time to
emergencies. It also eliminates an opportunity to prOVide a
road system that could provide an alternate route in the
common event of an accident at the intersection of Lawrence
Road and Hypoluxo Road. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended that the Hypoluxo Road connection not be
eliminated.
2. Change in unit type, lot size, lot width and setbacks - Over
the past ten to fifteen years, the PUD proposals within the
city have included smaller and smaller lot sizes, with very
large homes and increased lot coverages (decreased
permeability), built closer and closer to property lines.
These small lots with narrow building separations have posed
ever-changing prOblems for emergency personnel who must park
large vehicles on narrow streets and maneuver emergency
equipment within tight openings between bUildings.
Page 6
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
Also, an increasing problem with small lots with narrow
frontages and shallow front bUilding setbacks, is parking.
Driveways on these lots are not deep or long enough to
accommodate more than one, in some cases two personal
vehicles, not to mention guest vehicles. In addition, most
families have at least two vehicles, so vehicles are parked
continually within the street, which causes a reduction in
road width, and within swales or over sidewalks which is
unsightly and causes costly damage to both.
The area of the city over the past five to ten years that has
seen the most PUD approvals is the Lawrence Road corridor.
This area has become a monoculture of developments comprised
of 5,000 and 4,000 square foot lots, yet it is probably the
remaining area within the city where larger lots and homes
could be developed compatible with the larger lots and homes
which spot the area and preceded the newer development. This
issue was discussed at a recent Commission workshop at which
the commission recognized the link that housing choices have
on economic development opportunities. At that meeting, a
minimum 6,000 square foot lot size was discussed to begin to
diversify the types of new homes that are being built.
Regarding the requests to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to
40 feet and 50 feet for the "Z" lots and Zero lots, reduce the
front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, reduce the side setback
on interior lots from 15 feet to 10 feet and reduce the rear
setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots that do not back to
one another, staff recommends that the 60 foot lot width
remain in connection with the 6,000 square foot lot area.
Therefore, the reduction in front, side and rear yard setbacks
will not be needed based on the lot size.
3. Staff has no objection to omitting the day care center site
and replacing it with a lake.
4. utility design - Among the changes not specifically outlined
in the applicant's request is a significant alteration in
utility system design. As detailed in the utilities
Department comments, utility systems in adjacent projects were
designed to integrate with the utility system in Nautica Sound
,
through the location of gravity sewers and lift stations. The
lift station location proposed by the applicant violates
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.14.3 which requires that utility
sites (parcels dedicated to the city for lift stations) serve
the project and surrounding land uses, as a condition of the
project approval. The lift station location proposed is not
efficient as it would force the city to eventually construct
additional lift stations wh'1ch the city must maintain. The
letter from the applicant indicated that the developer and the
City'S utilities Department have agreed on the location and
size of the proposed lift station shown on the current revised
plan (based on utility drawings not included with the
submittal, but submitted to and veiwed by the utility
Department). The several dead-end water mains proposed in the
cul-de-sacs can be looped, but may result 1n the 1088 ot a few
lots. Lastly, it is important to note that lot size drives
the type of utility design. The utility Department notes that
even if looping of the utility system is agreed to, the small
lot size and narrow lots lend to an inefficient design of
double-barrelling piping in cul-de-sacs, which also will cost
the City more money to maintain as compared to other projects
with the same density.
(
Page 7
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
As evident from comparing the previous plans with the current
revised plana, cul-de-sacs have been omitted, lot type, size
and location have changed; however, a utility plan was not
submitted for this review.
RECOMMENDATION
On Tuesday, July 25, 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met
to review the previous master plan modification request. The Board
recommended that the Commission find the changes "substantial".
From the above analysis, the basis for this recommendation is that
(a) the relocation of one of the entrances from Hypoluxo Road to
Lawrence Road causes additional trips to be placed on Lawrence Road
and compromises public safety (better response times, and an
alternate emergency route are achieved if the Hypoluxo Road
'connection was not omitted), (b) the reduction in lot width and
lot area intensifies the project from the standpoint of efficiency
of land area, causing the potential for parking problems and
overall congestion, (c) the change in unit type/lot size is
contrary to the recent Commission consens~s to attract a variety of
housing choices which is known to have a 'direct link to economic
development potential and (d) the applicant has not addressed the
40 foot setback that is required along the east property line where
the subject property abuts the multi-family project to the east,
which could cause a significant change in the lot layout presented
at this time.
If this request is determined to not be a substantial change, it is
recommended that approval be granted subject to the applicable,
attached staff comments in Exhibit "E" - Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-485, Engineering Division Memorandum
Nos. 95-332, 95-295 and 95-260, Fire Prevention Memorandum No. 95-
316, Police Department Memorandum #0164, BUilding Division
Memorandum No. 95-324.
It should be noted that this recent submittal excluded 7 of the 8
drawings (elements) required for review of a Master Plan
Modification, and particularly, to enable review of the affects on
the master plan of all proposed changes.
TJH:meh
Attachments
~
I
xc: Central File
.,NAUTICAI.DOC
( r
E X H I BIT "A"
,.
,
.ilo
LUCAT/ON MAP
NAUT/CA SOUND
(KNOLWOOD GROVES PUD)
-~
---.. ~ -- --------,.
-
PUCJ
- - -
~G
--~
':lYI\ITOI\I
II=iSEJ::ues "
r:>>u D
JI:q .0
~ "-2[: < ~........
IAlL.T'CJ
JJ:lOves"
Jo,
:5.0
,'--1.
~ .\
, I,)
-- ..... ,....'
___U ~
~ .
E X H I BIT "B"
~
,
,
~ 0
,:11" . . I c:
11. ill 'I i " Iml : :c
!:e& Ii' '1'. I 'I'~' i!~' II :xl
. ~rl..&J--:L._JQWll___~__J'J __u__~ ,~
\0""- '. . ---
", \ ~,/ Nil, Ir-:i-~i~~:\ '~~ I! ~
\1 . I ,~\ ~ . \l ~ Lt '~. J ~- I I ~\L~ I . . en
I I Ii' ,i (. 'I". - - I' I IJI I m
iiil. ' I .:!, i~.~.L ....~.) t-;t. , , . x.~;, l~ , C
.1. I" " . -... ... .' n n . . . .,. \, I 5:
. . ('m .. .. .. _ .,..... . ..'! ~ \1;. >
I ~h-j <h G--uou--- ..F~r[-';'j\ \~ 'Ii ml~ ii1
i 1" ~ ' p= i' I a · ','~~~ n 11,11111 :n
" , ~ ; 1 ..... _ , '_ II \' J1~ ~ :,~ I II :,' 'l]
~ II I , " . ' \ f j I ~. .. . ..J I \ ". \11 r
:1 l ~: :1' '" m/' II .~ \-:-':, .'1 " >
II . : I.' .... '. I , " ~- _J I' ',' 1 I I
nr" i I ~ \1" -.". /' G \ ,"~'\ - :-":' ~ 'I: ~ , I", GII' I~ I I
I'~. III; ". ~,J 'P\ ' .." \ \-- I., I ~b ' 'I ' I ,
, I" I ., ' , ~ ~I" ,Dr.-' l ' ,
I ' I p': \ r.- L_ __ __ I '--oi' c.: j )::;::" 1 pi' ii l!j',!1 f ~ "i\l!l A ,5. W. \ ~
" \','11' ! l. . , ;r~ ", II; -T!:~ 'I' I~'I ii" ,d g k 'i~ "161m,' 1.\ I
1 'T'Il!I~" .. _' .~l.:L,,~,j: -,_ ~ ~ . ~ -' · :e~ q I' II roo! \
~ '~~:j9.' _ ". :.. I.~I -:". '=- ~t~"..lErr ....... I i ~ I / "'..
II IT' ; I Ii; ;. ;'[~> .~I.'J'l , .~. P. 'fl ~r;~ ;1; ;-,rrn,.- - _-:.- -=-l!i' I
l{ \ ~ ~L~- I . '~7':~ ,rii-. _. .~~ uJ I ~~~ -- -. .... '. - -11.~, ~:l~fl 11 · ~I. 1 · ;r.t,l~ ~J.Jr\ "\' "
I k-1 W-' .,." .. .. " ~~.n .. '."" ..1~1":'T\'il'
"'1,11 ~, . . . I, ..." ~ ': I' - """' : L L L : ' 1 ,
,~ '" ~,,\..'-l: ,'", '" ,.' . '~-' ,', I'~"i -Ti',' I .....; , l' · · I , · "." · .,. · · , · i ' : .. ,
,I ..~~... . '. - ". I .~.. ~= f-r.:-i' . '.. " . ) I' I
, ,~. ' , ". '. . " ..' .' ~" ,,!) \ ,: I. _~., ,.- . ''- . ", . -- .J IIIlr
11 ~ "~~" ":'.'. 'I.. ..' ;< c..'. , ~ ....... ~ L-w;-'q +7- - ~ ' rt.. -:r -n~;:l"T'~: ~... ,.:.~, I'!
i', \ ~i ~ ) ~' ~..,) '"-'. ,~~ \....." I ~r-,'---"".1--H " :.1 :: ,I....r 't Ii' .~ 'f'~' 'f' · ~ ~ It~ll~ :
, ' ~'" ~'lA;:ot,.'" __ /.1;' " ..,,'~ \1' t .._-~ i2- -:-o-i ~ hrl -, \ ~ :' .I!:i I
~L '~~';.A'~ ~. < II f":.' ~ 'l..o.!. - ~ 'to..;'- : }~f..:h ~...,..: I ,~
.~ '7ffi-:iIP 'V;~ '\. "'. \. '., \ ,a~ r. 1 ~ . , -.~-.rf! Ira f.. ~ :~'r~d ...L ;-,;,T<. -.-: :,,1;' "\
.. I ~I I', ' , .. , ,=. ,. ., I. . ~, '", ,.~.' ~., ~ ,
!! IS · I_ . I .: ~, ! J' ~. -I l ~ ' : '- - :! ~ II ~...".. ',:' : ,I~~' "
~. ... i J 1 \ ~ .. ' ~ I' 1 I "I :-~j- -"'1&:...--'1 ~ J.~ I ~ ~,
j' ,i li',i: ~ I:~l .(1' I =Rl~~ ~~, -------'i ~--r' ~ i I.: ~~:I'.~ '+,:i_~I"; ::r~ :' : I,~~i\~\~~
',JP If n:ll~ i I i~ ..:::~~; :::: ':"1'~':~ l~'.~~:' :~,~ ~~~~;: ~L~ ~':~~r-tfi"~~~e='['ij-~~: :!:"'.'~-.... .<: \ ~,i ~
........~.... .J. . t___ I · · · · I · I · 'J II ,I "..'Jo!J .. I'" .. · · ,I' '~~-~i~;F;}~T.' 'r.r. ,..;: ,I
-..._ ;.; _ _ _ _ _ _ I\: =i-~ .:'1::'rJ..J .1':' -~ 'i .. .~ 'PJ ' !: , ,
il Ii '1~1 '.-r- I ~ - -;...:- - i_. . c.- ~ ",:- '''!. I:
~~~a~ \~i I ~I.. ~"!Iil J" ~ t ~,";, I-I ~"\,,I\
~ ~ ~ ... , I ehl ,
0. ~ ij .,' - - - .- ~ 'I.~
~... i' . ·
- ..
(II1II. \!!_....,:..~~1\.....~~.;:v,;., '~.~--". ":" "-:-~. t
&;.... ....!!":~_~f~r- ~:. .&lII!'"".... ,,' -r.r.';':''-;::.II..~.,
. I" ..' ., .
~~;.\\.~~\ \ ; ~
\\\\ \\,\\;x~ W.\
~9.\ '1\ ill{
\ "\\ .~ \~\ \\\\
" ,0 9.\\
~\~: ...~ '\\ ~\
\\\\ \:" itl \,\t
\\\' ,I, \\\' \;\\,
\\\\\' \\
,r\\\ \~\\
"'I 15 -\\t
i\\ \~ ' ,
, l~
\1.~S'"
\\\\~\\
Jl~\\\\
\\
: 11 ~ Hi ~~: \ "4 ~ \ ~
"\1>\",\,' \\\' ' : 1 ,,~ \\ \ ~
\.\~ ~, . ~ \\ \\.. ~
~ li~'\\\ \\~ \i\\ ~
~\h 't \ \\ ~\ f,
H\, \\ t~' ,i ~
\ \\\ \ '\' ,~
h\ · ',~ g
~\ \. . l\ W
~\\ \ \ \ \
'\' \ ~ \
'~ ',\
~ 11 ! ~ 'i~\\\1 \ \~ \ g
\\\C\lf~;,r\ ~ .1\\\ " "\', \\.\ ,~\\ W\ V 'tJ'\~\ \ \; l' ,
\\,\\{~I \\ ~ \\\\ \r~ W~ ~ \\\\ ~~ r\\ ~ \~\~ ~ ~~
nj~,. \\\~ ~\ ~\' \~i\\ \X\\ \\\1',\ ~\ \\\\ \i~\ ,\,-\ ~ ~.~ ~\i l\~~
\ 11t i~',~ \. h ,\ till \\~ I \\ u\ "l' n \ \\.t .\\
l ~ t \~\'\ \' '. ~ W\ \,' I\\~\ It \\' t,\\ \\\\ \ ~~ \'. "\
. '\ '1 \ I~' \r. \I~ \\\\\ \i \\\ h~ i'\' \ '~~ i\ \
\' \ \,\ \\\ \\\\ \\ \" \\\ ~~\\ I \i It l
\ \\\,~ '~31 '\ ~'\\ It \~ t i
\ \~", \'i I \i '
1 i h l
n
,'1
E X H I BIT "e"
~
,
,fro
':,:V' ":, :' ",
',' C',:J' 'lYt .,
'.: "'~' ,~,':.-
'_1',;. .:. .' .
~.?\> ~".,
, ~ ....."<.~
~-
\
KUdev It Aaoclet..
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
August 3D, 1995
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
Mr. Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Development Administrator
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Ae: Nautica Sound F.K.A. as Knollwood Groves P.U.D.
Minor Master Plan Modification-City Commission Meeting Follow Up
Our File No: 1020.13
Dear Ms. Heyden and Mr. Haag,
Attached please find twelve re\lised Master Site Plans addressing those site planning
issues that were raised at the City Commission meeting of August 15, 1995.
For the record, the request of this application is for a minor amendment to the previously
approved Master Plan for Knollwood Groves P.U.D. Included with this resubmittal is a
Master Site Plan which reflects the layout of the individual lots, the interior right-at-way
configuration, pavement and sidewalks. This amended plan should address the major
concerns of members on the City Commission. The following is an overview of the
modifications that have been made to the Master Site Plan.
1. The minimum lot square footage has been increased from 4,000 square feet to 4,500
square feet. In turn, the number of lots under 5,000 square feet has been reduced from
89 to 59 lots. The number of lots in the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot range has been
increased from 160 to 183 lots. The total lot number has been reduced from 434 to 424
which is an overall reduction of 115 units from the previously approved Master Plan of
539 units. The breakdown between zero and "Z" lots has also been altered. There are
now 21 more zero lot line units than previously proposed and 31 zero lot line units have
been eliminated.
2. The developer has agreed upon an acceptable location for the lift station with the
City's Utilities Department and has also agreed to upsize the facilities to accommodate
a small neighboring parcel to the northeast. The lift station is located In the southwest
corner of the top portion of the site. In order to provide a more amenable plan for the
City Utilities Department, four of the deeper cul-de-sacs have been eliminated.
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Mr. Mike Haag
. August 30, 1995
Page 2
In response to Comment 7 of the Planning and Zoning Memorandum #95-4211 a
proposed typical dense landscape buffer has been provided for your review. I have
spoken with both Mike Haag and Kevin Hallihan regarding this issue and I believe the
attached proposed plan should be an acceptable alternative. The majority of the plant
material will be native and, as indicated, the plan does offer some diversity of design.
Attached with this letter is a revised Master Site Plan and a proposed typical dense
landscape buffer. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the material attached
or if you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you in advance for your past time and future consideration for this project.
Sincerely,
kavrv~ I ~
Karyn J. Janssen
Kilday & Associates, Inc.
-
,
cc; Alan Fant, GL Homes
Larry Portnoy, GL Homes
Rick Elsner. GL Homes
Chuck Justice, Lawson & Noble
~
- ---
\
~
\
\
~
\
~
- ---
- ---
~ i
.... ~
~ - --- ~
- -- if) ~
\- if)
. - \-
C. ...,. "5 :z
r t-
D T-. \ ::>
~ - --- ~
~C:l.\,) -
~ - ~ -
~u-~ ~
~~t - -- \-
C) r-
~ ~ 0
~~\ , ~
0
~~ 01. - - -- ~
4,(.) ~ 0
\..)if)~ C) \-
~~a - --
~4 ( \- "Z
~'l ~ - --- \U
~li \~ ~ ~
\..) -?
~\ .4. CZ
\\ -,
D CZ
-'Ii - --
~! - - --
~ ~
- --
- --
(
\;
~l
-li
~t
.----------
Hillillltr
hl,':;I'I-
IIIIJ I,
,I I '1'1
/,.'Ih'
11111;ll.
"II' .,1
;'11,1 .i
.. .
iillIH r
plllll
111111
1,.1,1.
.1 .,
liHIi
." ;
(1
c
:c
:c
m
Z
-t
3:
)>
CJ'J
~
"0
!;
Z
~r~
~fi~
1'~
~
I i :t==! Ii
:t[U=dJ J~
'I -W ~ ++ i
If iil i I
I II ,1 i
J - I
I I
I I
!I~~J!~
""'1 q' 'lo, -<en fi~HJ Il?-<-<<n
IHIII II I o. I ii~li!jlll- iil ni~
U'III UI: lilflf'; ,- "ill
I' n ~~I' i I i I
I I , ,.a ~
! I H f' I
1 ~ nl I
I~ :"I"~fli HI ~;c:;~~~~ ~~!:: ~~ u~
. ~ l>l;l:1:1:1:1:1: 1:U ! ~~~
&:~i ~a$~ e i,.~
:...,moo b
.,..,..,..,.
i
)
I
\......
~
I
.~, of
( ~I I I
_--!'........ - ".L- , I I
,-------==:-=.-.:::::-::-:-:t.------- 1 i "----'
~ti)
'; ~
r ~
II;. I I
I- i i
, I
~ i
~~.:::=:=E=TMitiiaIiiL-:-..._.::.-...=$-:- -
( ji' W'I ' i -----------': ;
'I Ii fi' I
~ \ ':1 i
II :
l (~
\1 \~ (
:'~, ~-
I i ~ '~" ' ~, e
1 i , ~~' ~ i e .,~ )>
I 1-- I" '. . ~ l;n
f}\ : i ~ J ~\ '<
If : ,I IlL I
i~'l' ~::::~~=, ,.;.
( ,', ( \
, I' i Ii Ig
r /.- ~~ I !I
i p ~
, Jim", j nthl' ~ I,il i I
luifaul1f 111,11
J filii; I ,I:!! I .
fiJi;pUJ ' I, I II J,. !s
. .HIlI'''' I (' I.'a .'
I]'ill " 1lill~fjll Ii-! III I
I~~I 1 i :r~m~ill j awl!; I ~! I
-~ Itli1
~ 0 '"
i,:.i1;,,' ~,,'.'..,,:~ l~~~~2~~LGroves PUD
~l~~,~.~,.. *'''~' '!~ter PI~\
r
\-.
I
f
i
ll.
,
'11P f 'I
I. 'f ·
I J ·
~ f '
i '
~~L .
II
I-
)1
.(
1,
'I
1\
i
!l
\2:.
\~
\
~~~
po-- '^
~?
;r::t:.~
~,."
t> '2.. I'
N~-4-
<: -.
-, .:s ..tI
tft.~
;"'~
it~~
~;:; ~
~ "1\
:s '>-
~
..:f, .
lIB
- ! ~ -
H j
. = ~
I 1
"~_U_ ~. __~_~ -_.~ ---..~---"~---.-.--~--.-..-
'l1ie City of
'Boyn ton t.Beac/i
"
100 'I;, '.BOY'''OIl '.Btlllli '!oulcvard'
1'.0, :Bo-tJIO
'.B"y'II.,,, 'B(lJtli.1'CoriJ.J JJ"25'OJJO
l'il!l j{lJfl: l"07} iJ-4.' J J J
:1':u: "-IOi} 1)4,;"59
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Harch 13, 1991
Attnl Hs. Anna cottrell
.Urban Design studio
2000 Palm B..ch Lak.. Blvd.
Suite 600, The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Fl 33409-6582
REa Knollwood Groves Haster Plan Modification - 'ile No. 570
Dear Hs. Cottrelll
Plea.e b~ advised that the City Commission at their February 19,
1991 meeting made a finding that the changes requested in the pod
boundaries, access points and unit type for the above-referenced
project were not substantial in nature. Regarding the mOdifica-
tions to the approved setbacks, lot size and lot width, the City
commission made a determination of no substantial change based on
your consent to camply with the following minimum standards:
1- 6,000 square foot lot she
2. 60 foot lot width
3. 20 foot front yard setback
4. 15 foot side yard setback on the non-zero lot line
5. 15 foot rear yard setback
6. An 8 foot pool and screen enclosure setbiick
The Planning and Zoning Board at their March 12, 1991 meeting
made a final determination on this request, including compliance
with the minimum standards stated above, by approving this
modification to the Knollwood G.oves PUD master plan, subject to
the attached stan comments. The.. comments shall b. addre..ed
on the submission plans for prelim~nary plat approval.
Pursuant to Appendix B-Planned Unit Developments, Section 10.B.3,
approval of this master plan modification and PUD zoning will
expire on September 12, 1992 if a preliminary plat has not been
submitted. An extension to the master plan approval for a
maximum period of one year, may be filed not later than 60 days
after the expiration of the master plan, November 12, 1992
(Chapter 19, Section 19-82 of th., Cod. of O&'dinano..>> .
*H~.n.lon. mu.. b. fl1ed with the .1.nn1n9 D.p.~tm'ftt DY
SUbmitting a letter of extend en COI: nvhw by thl concunenClr
~.view 8e.~4 an4 the 'lanning and Zoning Board.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call me at (407) 738-7490.
Very truly yours,
eJ.l..,-'t.J\l"'- e~
CHRISTOPHER CUTRO, AICP
Planning Director
CCafrb
Enes
eel Technical Review Board
:<tb'~'
10
B){U1.B1.'!
.
,
,'u "
,0
.
..
'_~.' '\ 'i \'\ \N~ i~
(~~~ '\\: ,.1' ,'. \\~.\ \\1
." \ ... I \\ ,:\ 'I"
ii,;\ ':\ i ,'l.i \111 t \ 1 \
,,'. ,,-,_.!~, ! ".~,C' ,p.' i '!l .._ ,I. L D..' . -'
. <? == .. -= ."" ..' - ..?j!-~'"'
\'\" (_. _' ., ,''''' ~"r.F'''- ' - ...T. - - --~, [1;1' - - . ~, "
!:'~; \~,_ ~_.____. ~'~\' T---f"~ (1I'~ rr\\ J Il\\~
~J \f, " -';;;;.i./\ 0- · Y ;'\i ~:" I;' ~: ~ " ~ ~ ~ \.\:1.
\\' , -\...~ ~,~.". L..l_..Lo~ \ \ II " II \ 1\\\\\
.\\\\~ _\ 8\.;, ',i,";. .j., ,.) \~' \ 1,'\\\
~il\\' iilM : ',,,, '2C:'2~0"0"+; ,..;, · ~ ~\1 ',\ ti \\ ~
1:\:\ ,~\.\,\(~:~ti;:nr{~~~-~:~;~~~' ~~3~\"~ ,\~~ ~~I
\ \~. ,._.,_ ~ . '\ ~"' ': :v.. ~ \ ·
\ L II ~ :: i I \t ,,\ ~< -A';": ~~. ------
, \...... ,-~ '. ..' ," ,.,.. , .\ -,
~ . I' ~ '-~' ':: '. ,- - \ .1' \ \ i ," ,,,.' \' \ ". \
~ '-: \ \ : ':( -\~. " \ '"~ ~;.-;-.; \ ,,~ \~\
" ......., ;". t"1 1 -,) il -:, . t--- ' ' .h .'
-r . ..',., . . ",,,' ' \ \tl '.
~ '~\ It ~ ,~'~ ~ ' , .. m'\ ,... ~\ I I Ii: 1\ :' '. ~ \i \\\ U\
~ ~\~\ \ . ::', r=~..;-;:-- , . :~" I . .,'~ .' ,)\'",,, . '\\i "
, .. .., ,"' ., '" = ,~ .
'\l~~\ ,; ,';", "" ;-, ' , ~; I .. ii}"~ /: ','., \\ i'l' ,~\;\ 1\ ~
\~"\~\~, '~l~' .._,' ;.. ,',,;. ",(;,: -\ Ii .~.\ · 111\1\" t\\' If
\~ 11\\ '''::iL1- ; ,"'" h\i, ' t;: II : ,.~ 11 t \ .h, ,: E'I~! Ii \ii .I \i \\,,! \; Oci
~~ \~, :,\ ~I ~~~_~_ _~_' to hrl: :~ _ ~ \\ t~)n\'~:\r \\ \\\i~ \~' \1\ \W'~'\~ H \1 ~\\,,'~I\.~
I" -\-,-'::, \. . , .., --. t": n ";" I ' J .. \, II'" 'I \I)I~} \ \' '~i'l
~\ \ ' ,;h~"~ _~ "" ---\I "I '< i\'\)':\- -ff;P--.f.~"~~~o\-' JI">'~'r.'--rI11ti ~ J - Di B ~~~~'"\
all ' :r-;-:;\I'\ P"" ::: _=__~_-'-'-' ~.' ..1'. -. l'l: I~ '". " ..." · -- n,F\-\--r-i --m-- -.\ g.,"l\
, ~!". " .f _..~..." ,:J- "'\" ~", - .\....,. :j",j'.... '..' .I,t It' "\
\\ ~. t;'" . ,"'ti;'~":~:'" ~f{\-' . ;,".'" '''','.'' """,iU;l;;'l\',; : ''. 1. '
_. ' .. \1.... ,.' 'I I'" ,.".' ~""" ,..__",,'-Y 1 i'i'J ' . - ' - -' ~ ~ ""';!,i '\ ," !
: ,"!I II ',' :' I;, " "," .1' :c;;;,~~"'" ';-" ,\7C;-- ';"" . ,','FH'I"I' + ''1'f'f' .'1"\'1''''': \ ,\;\\,
~ '~\ .y\;~"~'.' . ,. ..' U ,.\ ' rnn@'1;.~'" ...' ,.' .--..1"". .j'l' .\. -H' ' , ' 'I-' i""'"
-"- "'~" '11."" . ' "," . . i ' , .."..."" . t:ti.\ \ "" .:' ,\ " ..;. ;'i'l'i'
\\~~~\~~~,:~.~<. ' ,:...-:.jH tll!;!..~'~ ~i 2,--\\ i',\r: ':', \'J,,:([r{~r~j.{.t.}, \ \~\, ':\\\
\\l\I;' " .H' ,,,' ., ". . .' I, \ ,ii" i l~'''''1' ,fl."" ~ I ~ ~"T' \ -,' ioJr .; ,~" \' ~
~. \1'. ,'" ' ../, , ,.." ," · ~'WN.~ \' IT:a.::J -ft, \ -.. ~.. It, I -. \!.'S
\\'~ ' _ 7' _' ,.' .~:), . .,. , ~~ "" ...1 "" ....,., ,'-' U\~. 'l .~.,. ~' ~ ";' ':'T' \ %~
\ '" "'. . ' :.,,,~., .,.. ~. ,,~,,"" '," .... '" ,C " 'i--' ':' i" . . . · · 7' .." ,'. ,.
,\ , ~ . '" . ~. . ...'I~' ,I',' ,._......'." ,:'1"" ,y,\-: ..,. .. .,. ' If .,. ., ..' .11,.1
~i \ ~,,~~" · ~~)\.t~'~' /' ~ ti-----,' · '\ ,,\i:t.: I\tf; (4-v..[~--\'A' \ : ..f,~\~;~\~\.\
" , ~~".. p'''~ ;~~., (. f.- ~ i\ ...' k-'., , I" . 1: " · -t-H\\I; l,:'
II- ' . >' ... VA~' . '1.' ,\. i\'" ~eW!'\\ir""~' I ~," T~"L""'" \\\ .....\\
_~ L:;.;.i..;.-~l ...~ ~,\..'~" .' ~. ,,.,,,,' .;:LJ, ,""" \i\li~~~\ · \': . ':,: ~",:'" ~\\ ';,
~ r>>"'O' \'''' --", ,', ' << I \ .. ,~~ \~ \ ~ ..."'\ ,""'~~ :,"7'" ' ~: ,.:.. .,~
't. c<lO ~ . 11' I - ~ ... .. ': 1, ,.LJ:"....,. no" ~ =- I
~ \' ...... \ \\ .... J ," ' ,,----.. I" ~...,. ~,\ i"'" I" .L'..' "-'
-; \ \~~. \ \ '. ".' '1'" ~ : o. , . ,,' \ H' -.-1\.' \\~;..rlY _~ .~~~\~... ,~ rt~'\
11 \' ,\I' .. &~ \ . ,. ~ ::: L..' \. IJ ." " ~~ \\' :",;"~\:\'" · I " ~' 1\' 1
~ '~" l:I ~I'( :~\\~ ..?" _ __--------,. - · ",'~~ ,'c' , ,~, ~\T"" "
. ,: " . L.- "II"'!! 0:>-' T.l I ' " \ :\, l_' :,,' \ I --~ -- · .:;;., ':,' .~ \', "t ,i~
, 1\ I. H~. n :. \" 1"'),. ".~\ ~ \~.L~ ~~:J~J."~ '..,:. .-f:1 ,i' en, \ ' : : : :a~ r~ :1 .: ';, ';,', ''7'' : \\'1
\ ~ ~. .::.~ \ \'2:-'~' c-' ~. "''-' c'- ..,~~dl\;:'"," ~ ' ~.- - - .-' .- "'--''-;::';'~ ~/ \ I;t
_ .'l ~ '\' ",,, ~ ~ \ ' nO \\ \
U' \0 \t, ,.1' , . ' I' ..r ,. ",> \:I ~\\t .:
() 1" ilL< .. \, \ .,,' ,g' 'to .n ~ · · ,\" 1
,. OZ .," 1 .' ,,' ..', .., ,,'\ ,"
r- \ 0 0 ~ ..' ".1 ..' I . " 'I<" ,'. ,\'
'" " .' ;! ~. :. ' W'" ,.
-, "., '< \. 'p' \ ,,, \
-"- t''''- :<' r-- - - ---...
,,0 --' ·
,,' .' '
6" . \ '
()
':,....'!'i~
hH!11
i>~i\\\
I\1
t~.:~~,ni;l~.~.~i
." ~:.., ';0,.. I...... ~ -10&
i; ~/o;~ .~a\ !.~:~;~i
u~~~~~.r.~~ >-~hi'1
h;;H~\l n I'"
,"~r \I'~ ..~ ,%~!
, >11" ,1 ., ....
1 ~!~ \;'t :\ ~..\.
\ ~..~,~ \"':\
, I'! .~\ ~! ii"
i ~~, \', :n i
. ',; "l" i
1
\\
,,\tOOY &:: ....oelo'.'
LdnOll;<lC. ..r.:lll,..:h/t'
1S~' ~nr,Jt-" I-'Iot"
~~,<l~ \ l,111>
.". ~I l-'~' ", t<"<.l'-- \ · !tJ'
IiAIlTIGA SOlltID y$.A. K..n....a &,.", p.Il.D,
"~----,,----------
II" ">>"" \" 111\ t \,q It\"
Z <ft..
~ VI!'> - !;'
~ '"
,.,
;,
:z
...
VI
~ a~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ f~5
~ .g ~ I f.g
!l 0'" -;""
~ al~o[l
.1 5~~i~Ui
: ~ ~ ~ ~ It ~.
":. ~ I ?
~ 0 '"
. ~ ~ 0
~. tt Xl
,~ jO
~ vo~
. c. .:(1'\
. g ~ 1
~ 3 Q
n ,,0
. w ~ loll
,0 _lit
:''1 .j "-"
9 'j :l"
. S ..;
; ~ ~ ~
l~ 1 ~
53 ~
.J] ..[
J,'-
,
lO
A"
. C
3 -
. Zi
, j
-,e.
,
:;-".1-
lO!
2.~i
ooi
~g~
0'"
, ..
a.o~
~c
l!.... !l
=~~
~.~ ::
~~
o ~
..
.. I
" -,
" ,
n n
:.C
;!C-
1
~-
,
o '
if
~ ':
::a,
~ "E ~1:~
~R~ B ~ ~ ·
~ l]J ...... a
i ~ ~;; : i- ? a
:tor- ~ if:
~~~ al f" ~
C 5 ~ 2,411~.!
S Q (') 0 · 2. tI
.. 503."
o ... ~.:s c ·
ga I g~3H
oi ~NO(O
it..: ~ Oi,.:';g,!
f ;t ~~!liaa
& ills!"~~i
~ : <<72.[
~ if..
e. g.~'"
- ~-3
~ :i ~
.. &~~
o3!
-~ .
a~;
"0"
-:00
~..~
Il -
fti
j 5'~
",0&
Hi
i~!
~i~
" .f
~ .'
..
"
~
a
~ 3' 3
[;~ Ii
~:;;~
!'Q. a
Qaj ~
~303
~;;~I>
Q:-.l Q'
j~:~
~~ sfto
g'~ g,g
:i~': "
" 0 it C
I>oa /;1
':I <:= Q
~l3-3 a
g ... ~~ ,XI
.. a a. <:'
~~~~ ~
'" _1"1 t)
1 Q e i
~g,,~
~a:a~
..n~' .-
o!:t
';;l1. ~f~
gf'" ~ """
0. !:l ~ o:lr '" "" iIi TI
J~~ " a-i ~@'I? ~ ~II O! !" " Z
, ~ ~ 0 ~:"~Ia: ~ '"
K ~gg~2. V) 0 l>
iJ.~ !, 0 _ 0 'i .... g c
, :a ~ ~ ..., ,., n
'" ...
VI Q."~ .- 0 -t
a:- ," .. ~ 0 n
.. - ~ .. ... gO !; 0
I" iI O'!' .0'"
g ! e- N- .. C ,.,
~_ 0 ~ I _Ul C'l l>
.0 t _2- 0'5 .. J: 0
1Il-'~ .. lr' '"
0'5 Pi (J)
i l!!.... "1 ;0'" 01> 9.3 !J: !"
gg 0.1> :;' 5" 0
pt :~S 2.. c ~ ~.
~3 C
n aH! i ~ 33
~ .'" ~ g, ,. Z
Ul~~ ~ ,,0 ~U'l
PI ll::: :u ~8 30 0
'" 0 ~,~ cO
~ :E 30 1]
~g ~ '" ~g g~ r:
30. (> ~ ". .g
-~ " .. 30- n" 9
, ~i g ..+ .'" ,,9. 0
0 ,-
g, :E :0 0
;; ",0 (J)
_0 .0' 0-
2.'" !"~ .. '" n~ j2: -t
t ~ ll-<,
" f ~~' !" .. l>
... 0 .'"
c 5 2.. i .. z
c . .,2 .
.. 0
Z .. ' +- ~~ 00
:1 ~ . l l]J ~ l>
i ~ ..
i IIJIU '" .. ~
. .8.
191 . 0
{ = q (J)
3 ~ i:
!l
I
~ !: i
.. l i
i ~ f
0
'0 0
9: ~
~
!"
-
'" : l; Ik! 'kL -r:J"'F,, II
.., ,p;! ~.
, 0
o! ... "''''
:::"~t
IXI- 33~'"
5,~
l! ' , 3 r-
'" g
nS , a
:7c - 0
." ,
:1" "
o · ;; I
,l!i ~ '"
iD , - N
"lr - ~
~a ,
" ,i' a, S
..," ,
a::
i~ 3 :1:;- c:
-,
~~ 53 z
I PI
i7 !. It .. .
z
;; , 0
j " ~
10 .-
. sa
. c
f 0::
" iif
0
a. .
3
.
.a
- - ..
. [
w ,
...
III
n
ill
,.,
z
i
..
I
I
[
ii:
.
Ii
'"
..
I
t
I
~
-
!" .0 G1-
_ ." _ ~ ""'ic
: . 1--' .' ..h ' ·
~ ' ...C:7 Cl ...(1 Ii i ~ ll'_!!.nL. !
i ,(" ' .. · · f' ....- ~
-1 (' ':l' t t; SF!! '!'.' · I ..g:.. ~
il !~ IIi: PH IWI -j iili ~l); UHi ii i~~i~;
ii !~ :(11 itU .r~!f h 11:- 1m iFt .I ~~oti'
J' l' J~li; :h~ Ih!1 51 1111 lit! Iii: t; ~iilJt
i.l IlSi .f"'J~ l~I" If 3 Ja:r Q 1 l~ Dl'
if r l'lil'f !ll~ ,111:;1 if ~'~i Ii 111,111,1 r i1 Iii
J- 1.J" : I lfl'f' "1 -Jl" t. J- ,~~
J; ; )1 Ii I:! fiiil i~ III' 11(1 I ~i1 ~ ~i i~
I : i J :J] _,I f r I} !tIlt. [~g 11-
f i ~ f 2 1:1 ~! Ii Jl i'! I' i .; a ! ll.~ S
;.. i lfl j'~' l~j:"~ Jl~ U. ill-} i i2.. fj
i .. - c. ;; il i ; =- :0 in 0; .. . K:" I i a
. . ,--,..."......--
..' , _ ",' _' . _ . .' . .. 0
, .,_. _ ',' -I .., i ·
, .' I l' i ~ s. ' - ! , .' i
iil .. ~~: :~ a_~ J~~ IS
!l "... ~ g ~ :r a i !l
~ ~ . 9:" !"
s
i
u ~
~, ~
" i~;
~ i~
'" :!:l
~ ':
~ l'"
lit
,,6"
JJ~
Ifg
iil
~ll
(i
i
I
:B
~
~
lY
~
:D
'"0
~
2
?-
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-485
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and ZOning", ~1rector
4?fdHa-
Michael E. H~~1
Zoning and Site ~nistrator
TO:
SUBJECT:
August 31, 1995
Nautica Sound - MPMD 95-006 Master Plan Modification
(Request to amend the previously approved PUD master plan to
omit the day care use, modify access points, change the type
of units and lot size from 150 single-family detached units on
6 000 square foot lots and 389 multi-family units to 267 zero-
1~t-1ine units on 5,000 square foot lots and 157 "Z" lot-line
units on 4,500 square foot lots, and reduce the front setback
front 20 feet to 15 feet, reduce the side setback from 15 feet
to 10 feet and reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet
on lots that do not back to one another.) - (3rd review)
DATE:
1. Show and identify the appropriate setback dimension at the rear of
all lots along the east and northwest property lines. Note:
setback for residential buildings is the distance, measured
perpendicular, from the property line to the closest structure
(overhangs of less than 2 feet may encroach into a setback). The
setback along the northwest property line shall be the same as
required in the abutting zoning district. Considering the land
located in Palm Beach County along the northwest property line is
being annexed into the City at the R-1AAB zoning classification, it
is recommended that the rear setback be 25 feet for all lots along
property line where the SUbject development abuts residential
property, proposed residential property or commercial property.
The proposed 25 foot rear setback matches the rear setback for the
R-1AAB zoning district. Therefore, the proposed setback of 15 or
20 feet shall be increased to 25 feet. A further requirement along
the northwest property line where the subject property abuts the C-
j (Community Commercial) zoning district is that a 5 foot high
masonry wall, landscaped chain-link fence or some other equivalent
5 foot tall buffer be provided. It is recommended that either the
buffer easement plan proposed by the applicant or identified in
comment number 7 of this memo be accepted for this required buffer.
The setback required along the east property line where the subject
property abuts the adjacent multi-family development shall be 40
feet as required by Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development. It is
recommended that parcels in the northeast corner of the project,
that abut the adj acent unincorporated property, have a 40 foot
setback. Therefore the setback along the entire east property line
will be 40 feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
[Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development, Section 9. B.]
2. Redesign plan to show all lots which have a minimum lot frontage of
sixty (60) feet and a minimum lot area of six thousand (6,000)
square feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
3. Change the front building setback from the proposed twenty (20)
feet at the garage and fifteen (15) feet at the bUilding to twenty
(20) feet for both garage and building for all lots. Establish the
rear building setback for all double frontage lots as twenty (20)
feet. Maintain proposed fifteen (15) foot rear bUilding setback on
all back to back lots and maintain proposed ten (10) foot rear
bUilding setback for all lots that abut a lake maintenance
easement, common ground or recreation tract. Amend all plans,
data and charts accordingly.
Page 2
Memorandum # 95-485
Nautica sound
MPMD 95-006
4.
5 .
oe.c. 8 .
p~
~C;--4tt'1
Change the side building setback for the non zero side of the zero-
lot-line units from the proposed ten (10) feet to fifteen (15) feet
and specify a fifteen (15) foot building separation setback between
the sides of all "Z" lot units. Maintain the proposed fifteen (15)
foot corner side building setback on all back to back lots,
however establish a 20 foot corner side setback on all other
corner lots. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
Change the side pool and screen enclosure setback from twelve (12)
feet for pools and ten (10) feet for screen enclosures to fifteen
(15) feet for the non zero side of the zero-lot-Iine units and
specify a fifteen (15) foot side pool and screen enclosure
separation for all "Z" lots. Maintain the proposed seventeen (17)
foot corner side setback for pools and fifteen (15) foot for screen
enclosures on all back to back lots; however, establish a 20 foot
corner side setback on all other corner lots. Maintain the
proposed ten (10) foot rear pool setback for back to back lots and
maintain the seven (7) foot rear pool setback for all lots that
abut a lake maintenance easement, common ground or recreation
tract. Also maintain the proposed eight (8) foot rear screen
enclosure setback for all back to back lots and maintain the
proposed five (5) foot rear screen enclosure setback for all lots
that abut a lake maintenance easement, common ground or recreation
tract. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
6.
Show on the plans all off-site roadway improvements proposed and/or
required as a result of the City's evaluation of the traffic
conditions.
7.
It is recommended that a dense landscape buffer be provided along
the interior lot lines of the project and that the material be
located within a landscape buffer easement. It is further
recommended that the tree and shrub landscape material be native
and the hedge material be moderate drought tolerant. To ensure the
buffer develops to form a consistent shape, the tree and hedge
buffer landscape material for the entire buffer easement shall be
installed prior to the completion of the first house that has a
landscape buffer easement located on the lot and/or prior to the
completion of the proposed main access drive that is located at the
northwest corner of the project. The dense landscape buffer shall
be shown on the p1an~ and be depicted as a grouping of 3 to 5,
eight foot tall small trees (silver buttonwood or yellow elder)
then approximately 30 feet away a grouping of 4 to 5, eight foot
tall multi-stem (wax myrtle) shrubs. Incorporated into the
recommended buffer shall be one, eight foot tall canopy tJ.-ee
(maho9any or oak) spaced 70 to 80 feet on center. The buffer shall
also have a continuous 2 foot tall hedge (chalcas or Florida
privet) extending along the entire property line; however, the
hedge may form a meandering shape as viewed from above. The
continuous hedge shall be maintained at 6 feet tall. The 8 foot
tall bushy shrub plant and other trees described above may count
for the "no net loss" of trees that are required by the tree
management plan.
Note; the perimeter buffer landscape design proposed by the
applicant (see Exhibit "B" Planning and Zoning Department
Memorandum No. 95-484) is acceptable; however, all material shall
be located within the easement and trees shall not be placed on a
property line. If this landscape design is approved, the plans
shall be modified to show the landscape material. It is further
recommended that the specie and size recommendations identified
above be incorporated into the applicants' proposal.
Revise the plans to show a Hypoluxo Road ingress/egress to the
project. The Hypoluxo Road ingress/egress was originally approved
for the project to divert trips to adjacent roadways.
Page 3
Memorandum # 95-485
Nautica Sound
MPMD 95-006
9. Submit for review typical lot drawings showing the approved
setbacks for all lots.
10. The following comments are still valid which relate to those sheets
(drawings) provided with the previous submittal (but are absent
from the current revised master plan):
On sheets 4 of 8, 6 of 8 and 7 of 8, remove from note #3 the
text "or building";
On sheets 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 amend the text shown on the
perimeter detail drawings, at the rear landscape easement to
read as follows: "Width of landscape buffer easement and
other easements, where applicable.";
On sheets 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 change the title of the perimeter
landscape buffer easement detail drawing to "Perimeter lots";
Amend the double asterisk note found on sheet 6 of 8 to read
as follows: "Subject to rear perimeter landscape buffer
easement and other easements, where applicable.";
On sheet 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 remove from Accessory Building note
#3 the following text "pergolas and gazebos". Also define
trellis as "A free standing structure maximum height of 6 feet
located only behind the front building setback line with a
configuration having a height and length and no depth (example
- similar to a fence.lI; and
On sheet 6 of 8 move the 15 foot corner side setback symbol to
the corner of the building;
11. Specify on the master plan that 30 feet is the maximum height of
the residential and recreation structures.
12. Submit for review all sheets and data that where included with the
previous submittal.
13. It is recommended that all trees required by the tree management
plan be shown planted~in either a landscape buffer easement, common
ground, or added to the required lake planting material. It is
further recommended that the master landscape plan include a
tabular summary of the trees required for the tree management plan
and that they are shown and identified with a distinguishable
symbol on the plan.
14. Establish setback. for structures proposed for perimeter common
ground (e.g. bus stop pavilion and decorative fences).
15. Indicate on note (D) that six (6) is the maximum height of the
entry feature.
16. Please note that as.ociation documents are required for the
project. The documents are reviewed by staff and the legal
depart~ent and required prior to final plat approval.
[Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit
Development, Section 2. D.]
17. A revised master plan reflecting all staff comments and conditions
approved by the City Commission and the Planning and Development
Board, shall be submitted in triplicate to the Planning and Zoning
Dept. prior to initiating the platting process.
MEH:dim
xc: Central File
a:Naut.lca.SD3
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO.
-.;rn'l,@ I rn:n Wi irn I
; , ,...,,'.. ' ....., ~
; , . I .
t, ,
" j '~ .' ,"'. (,{J'. i
,fi Ah~i' ,.; tilL;.)) II.
I ~ '
95- 332 \;_~_,.,_,li~J .:1'
FROM:
Mike Haag
Zoning/Site Administrator
~, " m ~ukill, P.E.
(I!~ Englneer
August 31, 1995
TO:
DATE:
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND - THIRD REVIEW
We have today received a revised plan of proposed Nautica Sound and
have reviewed it solely for determination as to whether it is a
major modification of the originally approved document. In our
opinion it is a major modification because no access is provided
onto Hypoluxo Road, thus greatly increasing traffic at the other
two access points. However, we have no technical objection to this
change.
Many conditions of our previous reviews have been incorporated,
some have not. All uncorrected conditions will require attention.
~
,
WVH:ck
e:N^II~()lJNI).3IUJ
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
August 9, 1995
FROM:
Mike Haag
Site Development Administrator
~ ~. Hukill, P.E.
[1{llg\E~gJ.neer
NAUTICA SOUND - SECOND REVIEW
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPI
TO:
RE:
We have again reviewed subject development and have the following to
offer:
A. All plans submitted for specific permits shall meet the City's
code requirements at time of application. These permits include,
but are not limited to, the following: site lighting, paving,
drainage, curbing, landscaping, irrigation and traffic control
devices. Permits required from agencies such as the F.D.O.T.,
Palm Beach County, S.F.W.M.D. and any other permitting agency
shall be included with your permit request.
B. The 40, 50 and 60 foot right-of-way details conform with the
City's required mini~um pavement widths (11' per lane measured
from the center of valley curb). Proposed Meadows Boulevard
detail is not acceptable. Chap. 6, Art. 4, Sec. 10C, pg. 6-11.
c. Specify the proposed street names within the development
including the Ilproposed Meadows Boulevardll (Meadows Boulevard is
the loop road in the Meadows development and cannot be used
again). Chap. 6, Art. IV, Sec. 10Q, pg. 6-14.
D. Proposed Meadows Boulevard is a collector rQ.~ and th.r.~or
requires an 80 toot right-of-way. Chap. 6, Art. IV, See. lOB,
pg. 6-11.
E. Provide an eight foot bicycle, pedestrian path along Lawrence
Road in conformance with the Traffic Circulation Element of the
City1s Comprehensive Plan, pg. 66.
F. In specific response to Ms. Janssen's August 2 letter and
specifically Engineering Division memo 95-260, we submit the
following:
1 . Acceptable
2. Please comply. No commitments have been made for a 60 foot
right-af-way, and it must be 90 feet as required in the Land
Development Regulations.
Engineering Division Memo 95-295 to Mike Haag
RE: Nautica Sound - Second Review
August 9, 1995
Page Two
3. Acceptable
4 . Acceptable
5. The Lawson and Noble certification refers to sections of the
Code of Ordinances repealed April 4, 1995. Please comply
with our note 5, (95-260).
6. Acceptable if statement is correct.
7. Acceptable
8. Acceptable to use single 8 foot bike path.
9. Acceptable
,10. Acceptable
11. Acceptable
12. Please comply
~
,
13. Unresolved
WVH:bh
XC: Ken Hall
A:NAUTICA,2
. .
Ms. Tambri J. Heyden
Mr. Mike Haag
August 2, 1995
Page 4
4) Details for all signs will be submitted during the Site Plan Review process.
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM - 95-311
1) The applicant would like to proceed to City Council for review of the project
showing a minimum separation of 10 feet between buildings. A la'
separation between zero lot line units Is an Industry standard for most
municipalities in South Florida. The proposed houses meet all City
Building codes and fire rated codes for buildings with a 10' separation.
2) As aforementioned, the applicant would like to proceed to City Council for
review of the project with only two (2) entrances to the project, the main off
of Lawrence Road and a secondary entrance off of Meadows Boulevard.
In response to the Minor Road issue, the aforementioned information obtained
from Palm Beach County and Rossi, Malavasl should address this concern.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM., 95-125
No comments to respond to.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM - 95-260
In regard to the following comments:
1) Developer understands that sit~ plan review and approval are required and
it has been so noted on plan pursuant to Planning and Zoning
Department's comments.
2) The south road, Meadows Boulevard, exists to the east as a 60' right-of-
way. An initial meeting held on May 22, 1995, with the City Engineering
Department indicated that the continuation of the 60' right-of-way would be
acceptable. All required turn lanes and other Improvements can be
adequately provided within the 60' right-of-way.
~
3) South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District
acceptance will be acquired prior to Engineering approval.
4) There are no signs proposed In any County right-ot-way.
5) The d$veloper's engineer has ,certified that the drainage plan will comply
with all City Codes and Standards and a copy of this letter has been
attached for your review.
"10
. ,
Ms. Tambri J. Heyden
Mr. Mike Haag
August 2, 1995
Page 5
6) The appropriate parking spaces and handicap parking spaces have been
provided for the recreation area and are shown on the Site Plan.
7) Deed restrictions will be established to provide for a property owners
association to pay for the operation of a street light system within the
development at the time of plat approval.
. 8) Two (2) four foot wide sidewalks are shown on either side of Meadows
Boulevard. An eight foot wide bike path is shown on the south side of the
entranoe road Into the proteot. The north side of the entry road does not
provide any connections to uses within or adjacent to the ,project. Palm
Beach County allows developers to combine two 4' wide sidewalks Into
one S' wide bikepath. Therefore, the developer requests that the City
review this eight foot wide bike path similar to what is allowable in Palm
Beach County. This bike path will connect Lawrence Road with the bus
stop and the recreation area located within the central area of the site. The
50' rlght-of-ways located within the project have four feet wide sidewalks
shown on either side of these right-of-ways.' '
9) Soil borings have been completed and a copy of the Soil Boring Study has
been attached to the resubmittal package.
10) A map indicating the location of the soil borings has also been provided
and is attached to the Soil Boring Study.
11) The developer agrees to comply with this request. The south road I
Meadows Boulevard, will be constructed prior to the Issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy. However, this is contingent upon the fact that no
other access points will be required, including no access point off of
Hypoluxo Road.
12) An easement onto Hypoluxo Road right-of-way for future sidewalk/bike path
access to schools is being addressed subject to Florida Power & Light
(FPL) approval. Such an easement, if approved by FPL, will be located
in either the northea~t or northwest corner of the site and will be
encumbered by the FP&L easement.
13) The Impact on Lawrence Road of the elimination of the Hypoluxo Road
entrance has been reviewed by our traffic consultant. The redistribution of
trips will not negatively effect the capacity of Lawrence Road now or In the
year 2000, which Is the estimated build-out of the project. Therefore, no
expansion of Lawrence Road Is required In conjunction with this project.
Attached Is a letter from the traffic consultant on this Issue.
In response to the last comment, the developer has made "antsot with the School
Board regarding the relocation of the power line and we are awaiting their
response. In response to comments from the TRC meeting, the developer has
decided to use both ,steel and concrete poles. With the use of these poles, there
are no anchors or tie downs necessary. Therefore, additional easements for these
poles will not be required.
1,1
E X H I BIT "F"
~
~,
\ \ ( \
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260
FROM:
Mike Haag, Zoning/Site Administrator
william Hukill, P.E., City Engineer
July 26, 1995
m
-I j'
~'fi~',!;
f I;
L'i : ,
J I'
11
i
rn@~n~J~
TO:
DATE:
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
c
--
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
We have reviewed subject plan for proposed changes in access
points, unit types, setbacks and lot/house sizes. Our comments are
as follows:
1. Access points - acceptable
2. unit types - elimination of multi-family units acceptable
3. Setbacks - not acceptable
4. Lot and house sizes - not acceptable
Taken as a group, these modifications represent a major master plan
modification.
~
Other comments:
,
1. site plan review & approval required. Chap.4, Sec.2,
P9.4-1
2. South road is a collector road by both PBC and FDOT
standards (see FS 334.03(4)) and must be dedicated to
City of Boynton Beach. Required ROW is BO'. Chap.6,
Art.IV, Sec.10U, pg.6-15
3. Need SFWMD and LWDD acceptance prior to Engineering
approval. Chap.6, Art.VII, Sec.4B, pg.6-24
4. County road entrance sign requires PCB approval
5. Provide Certification by Developer's Engineer that
drainage plan complies with all City codes & standards.
Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec.5A, pg.6-7 and Chap.23, Art.IIF,
pg.23-a
6. Provide parking facility for recreation area including
H/C stall. Chap.2, Sec.llH16e(12), pg.2-10a
7. Establish deed restriction. providing for: a pX'opert.y
owner. alsoeiation to pay for the operation of a street
light system within the development. Chap.6, Art.III,
Sec.14, pg.6-4 and Chap.5, Art.V, Sec.2A4, pg.5-9
a. Sidewalks are required on both sides of all local and
collector streets. Chap.6, Art.III, Sec.l1A, pg.6-3
9.' Provide soil borings. Chap.a, Art.III, Ala(3), pg.8-2
10. Provide a map indicating the location of the soil
borings. Chap.a, Art.III,Ala(4), pg.8-3
11. Construct (to completion) the south road prior to
issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
Development Dept., Engineering Div. Memo No. 95-260
Re: Nautica Sound - Master Plan Modifications
July 26, 1995
Page #2
12. Provide easement onto Hypoluxo Road ROW for future
sidewalk/bikepath access to schools.
13. Cause actual construction to commence on widening of
Lawrence Road from L-19 canal to Hypoluxo Road prior to
issuance of initial Certificate of Occupancy. You may
fund design/construct the road outright or you may
arrange with the County to move the project to fit your
initial c.o. by fronting the cost for repayment in the
scheduled construction year. If you construct it
yourself, you may wish to obtain credits toward the cost
for the road impact fees you will owe.
The power line relocation should be coordinated with adjacent
property owners as well as the School Board, which owns an
elementary school site a few hundred feet east on Hypoluxo. Perhaps
the entire line can be relocated to the north property line to the
shopping area at Congress Avenue.
WVH/ck
C:NAUSOUND.MOD
~
,
'I F' rrj f' ~ w m
n " _,!~", L) ..,_ t~,_..<_...,._.t,
). J
Iii
! II "II, t;
. , . 1\ ii, . ~ I
, ,
'. ,...."..,-.---,,,-1
,'J :,': I":j,'>l 0
' :, liF:!. 'if"
, .... >. ~. ~.
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC
TO:
Planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
August 8, 1995
Nautica Sound (AKA: Kno1lwood Groves)
Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd
MPMD 95-006
RE:
Buildings should maintain a minimum separation of fifteen feet
( 15 I ) .
An additional entrance on Hypoluxo Road would reduce the response
time ,to the northern third of this project.
The connection to Meadows Boulevard and extension of the roadway to
Lawrence Road will greatly improve response time to this project.
It should be noted that until Miner Road is completed to Lawrence
Road, response time to this development will extend over required
limits (Miner Road construction has been delayed again).
~ ~itJ:
0~YlJ ~d
Attachment: Security Gates
oe: Chief Jordan
FPO II Steve Campbell
File
k~U'
, " C~'C/
r:; 1-51 /75 Wil {am D, Cavanaugh, FPO
U-utX SHC~ ~
4/Jj)(}~A @/
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
, ' .. ,--'.---~ ----, -" - .,- ,,-~_..-
II !'i\_rn"",~_,.~=_rr,Jl,'~ ~ ill]
d 11111 'I'" ' I I("'~
~ I II! ~~l~~~ ,j';:) ~.)
. PII.i I r! I~JG ANI)
7iliil!'lG I1fPI i'1lv--,
~,..._.....--,_..~......._... ..... -. "f'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT, MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
31 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL MEMO #0164
.::::'~"'~:::;~:':~:~:'(.
I have reviewed the above plans (3rd subm:i1t~) ana {:::IitHI tI1~iQtain my comments made on two
....... ......... ,......: .:.~ :::....:-..;.. ....;..
previously submitted memorandum~:':;:::4t.tae~,c.d:::yciu ,Will tiQd (;()ples of those earlier
memorandums. .,.,:,',.,',:,::(:;:.:,~::,')::.;:::::::;::::::::;::::::;::://" "M,.' ,/::,//' '"",;: ':::":,
-..:': ..:l;.;.......~:};::~.
. . -:(' ..:::~t....:....
*':"':",:,..::'::;;::- ." ,
. , .. '.,,' :l:;,,:f:~.,,::,.',,'::',',""'<::;::,,~:.~,\:,::.:
r:;,',:,"',.~:::':.:::::::::::::l .. ' :
, Respectfully, \';;:::::i \)
~1'~"I':::::::::~"':':'~ r':':"':"""':,"~,,\ ~
....,...~ , ' "' '. \
, l
! :::" w ,.,' ,',/ jl i~
ii' .l i
tJ Sgt. Mal-I d::Hirns t:~
Pol ice Department
(al~
':', ,':
1 /(~~(fj..'
! i, ( ""W;':' ,;,'
l.J """w,',#""
~I''':;::::;:::::;::~^':~ ~.':'''''I;::::::;;';:::'''''~'
~ '1 ~ i ''U
~"""'~''''''';''' ) :i! ....r..,.............. '"
-c-: ...:...
..............,..~.. ~. l. .................,..~. ,....
, ::: ...-=:. ~. ~: '0 .::. '::
~, ~, I d :' J
t,~::,:::;:;:::::::> r~ J. ,~::::::,:;:;:;:::,/ [l
t::::::::::::::::::::i;~::j
,::.,;",.,.,.",.::!i.J
~:....:....;.~......
~
l?ltj;
.......~:
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
8 AUGUST 95
NAUTlCA SOUND - 2ND REVlEW MEMO #0156
,,~;""""",..............~
I have reviewed the 2nd submittal of~~y!i:gtt":~ou,d~~nd tp9,,J;Qpmcnts that were supplied. It
seems that my original suggestions f9.r::tljj~t~~yblop'rjcnt w~;qA~ored, I still maintain the
following: ..':' ':"':: ,..,';.,-:':"" ..::::':>':" '...", ," ':' "",:
.l":.::;" t.....:.;.~:..:.':... ......:.;::. ';',':',
,': .:. '.., ..:::.... \:~..;::;..
ti.: ~ ./:., .......
1. Regarding the controlled en.tr'apce/exits, the developer (G.D~,..a6i'hes of Florida) has an
attached l~tter describin~,.~,Jee Jrpes o~ mechanism~ of gate~ con#~ri~~~es. The first, SO~
System(Slren Operable ~y.stcm,.l feel IS not somethmg that IS not (~yotAJJle; both on a polIce
stand point and the prospdttiV','r'residents. Police respond to calls tha.t.,I~uire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons caUH. etc.) tHat activation of a Hiren at
the entrance ~ould not PPPll~~l appr,~cm~i~ of c~vDnll~~;, Alsr~:~t::;w~~,!d not think ~hat re~idents
~ould appreciate the p~I!:~~::~~~d ~re?~~p~!~ent ~'!!9,9~,9mg t~qlr arr~1 b,y ~oundm~ their
sirens. The second rec~lf1melldatlOnp~ a KP9x Bq~r(key entry ~ystem)t}Thls IS an antiquated
method of access to a g~ied~t0fumu4iiy::::::Reqilltidg.the cityrto Ihi:tifitAf.lf n1$ter keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
queHtion. Maintaining 9u,e",~~!ter key requires the response to the p.9:~:iCk:'f1epartment to obtain
the key first, and then td,thff:wmmunity. This is not a "timely" respq~~9 ,HI' emergency vehicles.
The third recommendatiq,n.;...,,~'emote System" is not explained thqWdg\ily:' enough, It allows the
city personal to remain ili-'t~p~r.::~~hicles when entering the comm~~!J~,;-.,,~ut does not explain how,
or who activ.ates the gate ~~~~iO~\ I originally sugg~s,ted a.,~stF{!i ~!l.'-t::is similar to this; a~d is
cun'ently bemg e.x~~pted m th~;~)\'e~,,~~ted cO~~~~ltles ~rt~~\~l;lX~i The system works with
telephone accessl blhty, The d'spat~,~;r~J;,:,~llce ,.,~:::~'tlH,"~Il\!.Jm the telephone number fOl' the
gate and upon radioing that they (poUce ~?icc')l ~pt"",~~;!:y:~d at the gate, the di,spatchel' then
telephones the number to the gate, thcl'e6"9 ac~'.fatlhg the gate for entrance, This matter needs to
be clarified.
2, As stated in comments, the width of the existing bridge on Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd
entrance would have to be widened for a right turn/deceleration lane. As consistent with other
developments on Lawrence Road. deceleration lanes have been required. I don't see why the
other entrance to the development on Lawrence Road should require a deceleration lane
and not Meadows Blvd.
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO'#ISI
I have reviewed the above Iistcd plans ~,n4::rCC9rri~:'~~::ite,JQUp.wing:
l;;;:;::::::::;;;~~::::::'::::::~::"":>;" i',."J '::;/',l:::;::::::;;~:::i
-The cntranees/exits are "clJ.r:_ contt-gUe'd". I would r~9tnrrlendA~at a telephone access also
be supplied for police an~;l,e e~crgency access. Ifnot, sorpet~j;rig comparable to this will
be nceded for cmcrgcncy.::~ct~css. ::; ':~'/""'\...
U::';:,,::., t i:""""""~:\
-Regarding the south ~!iltaTiVe to the development, on Lawren4\Rq~d, I would recommend a
decelleration, right hahtflum lane. I believe this lane construcdQ" ijight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a deccHeration, rig}jt hand turn lanc for the
north entrance/exitrilttd::l4.is shoptd::at~ appIY"'fQ:r::t~ south.."'~nt.r.i!n:~e/exit.
! t".".,,^,:::!;) ~ t.,<,<,~,,:;t) ! L,..""."",,;,),) Ii "\,\
-Due to the density ~proJt~~ed PQ~.ulatlp'p oft6,"de\iclopm~Ijt, I stf~ngly believe that an
entrance/exit is need.dttftbrtl Fly~iux6':Roid. hlhe distatU:e!ftom::;::b~tltprojected
entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great distance from the northern
roadways in the develon.went-:J Emergency response to these roads ~~Jt.,'t~;quire excess time,
thercby requiring a Hyp'6~~io Road entrance/exit. This developrr#/fWalso in the extreme
nortbem and western Jimf'tS of the city and a great distance fro91" thc.,,:~'arest fire station
and police coverage. 'i"",,"'.;:::':;:;;::~>\~ ~:;;;~:::'::::>;.,.,.;<
t { "'\, ", ,1 " J ~.,:
'\;~ n ~::~~", [(""",1/'
'~',,<<::';..~l I'!"~'.""~' ~::) o:""":~:~><><"""""';
,r"';~~"""",~--, r~' .,1"'>.....', "::, ,,!'
l:,J l:/"."Z:) t,l t,~>:::::::::::::;::::;j .,
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
Police Dcpal1ment
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-324
'I -,,") rn rt1 rn n \Yl rn r
! I r'".'-'. '-,._._-~
'! 11 ' . I ...
i, I I'! I" '\ I' :; .'t.
, , t I ,'......'
I< "I' .,
~., ..' "'" .-..,--....-....-----....
"I ..~~11'1'"' ~~"1
j" ,",! d '1;',\.1 /\1/: ,'1.
.:'':i::.i IiITf:...-.~
August 31, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
RE:
TRC COMMENTS - NAUTlCA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL
When I reviewed the plans for Nautica Sound's first ~wo
submittals, there were 8 sheets. Since most of my comments
addressed sheet 6 of 8 and only one sheet was submitted on the
3rd submittal, I cannot determine if the new changes in lot size
and count addressed my first comments. Therefore, my first and
second comments are attached and should be met before permitting.
~~
Al New' I~~-' ~~.
AN: bh
Attachments/2
XC: William V. Hukill, P.E.
~
II
NAUTICA
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
August 9, 1995
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re : HAUTlCA SOUND
Master Plan Modification - 2nd Submittal
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet
south of Hypoluxo Road
After reviewing the above referenced documents, it is
particularly noted in the printed documents that the Building
Division comments have been met as related to signs and setbacks.
Please note that the details for signs are not on the plans, only
in the written documentation.
1. Details for signs must be included in the final site
plan documents.
~,
2. The 15 Ft. setbacks shown on the right corner lots on
Page 6 of 8, is not measured from the corner of the
building and, therefore, poses a problem for the
following lots: 30, 46, 69, 77, 98, 110, 147 and 169.
This could be rectified if the building was switched to
the opposite side or have dimensions corrected for
approval.
AN:mh
Att. Plans
cc: William V. Hukill, P.R., Department of Development Director
A:NAOTICA.TRC
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95 - 270
August 2, 1995
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re:
Master Plan Modification - 1st Review
Nautica South f/k/a Knollwood Groves (POD)
The Building Division has reviewed the above plans and have the
following comments:
1. The side setbacks for screen enclosures for Z lots as
noted on Note #2, Page 4 of 8 is confusing. To avoid
problems at permit time, it should be detailed on
Page 6 of 8 and Page 7 of 8.
2. Project identification signs are limited to two with a
total of 250 Sq. Ft. maximum.
3. Entrance signs,should not exceed 32 Sq. Ft. and 6 Ft.
in height.
4. Details for all signs must be submitted.
AN:mh
cc: William V. Hukill, P.R., Department of Development Director
A:NAUTICl\.TIlC
----~--_.__._-_.- -- ---~
~
\\
.
1
\ \ \ \ \~ \\1 ,. \ ~ \lh\\\\\\tt \\i\\' \
I ' u' H' ..~.~'\ &'<~' .~"
, ~\ "'hit'" \ 'i~;.
\\ \ ' . \ " ", .
\\ ,\ #"
\
'...lm..._..._...-..........---..-...-1::" · .
co'- -~' <,,:-...,-....-.......-...'..'..'
I;'\::~\" ~ '\ .'
\\ '\ '\ \ ~. "
) 1 \' ~ \....
\ \ ~ \\,CD :~~~Li\.
\\ \ '
\\ '~~.", l A" ,J"P
,>/ ~~\ ~ .il
\\ .\ @l L-~.~-'"=\'--
il '\ ,n
~\/ \i~ \\
l '--' i'\' ,i \'i' \
i\~~\ '~,\" \\\\\\\ \ ~\\\ \\\
W\l~fMl ,',1 ...' ,.,h' \ \
\\1\\ H , ~. I~~ \ \\ \
~ Hii'... '
~~ \ \ \t\\\KOO"""OOd GfO"es pUO
\ ~\ \~ ,,~!lO'InIOI' sea"'" f\.
~. ~ \lJ\as\ef PlaO
1
,
,
--0---"
~
-
~
%
~
;
in.
~
"0
~
\
i\
"
\\
"
\\
i\
s:
lSll~!l
\\\\
\\'\
\\
\ lfi ~~
\ Ii'- \' · \\ ·
\ \\ ,\ '\ ~ ;;
t\ \\ ~
\
\\~~.\
\
\
,,\t{l\ \\
t. \\1
\ \
\ t
----.'
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEHORANDUH NO. 95 -. 5 'j 8
TO:
Robert Eichorst, Public Works
Al Newbold, Building Division
wllliam CavaLaugh, FIre Prevention officer
Sgt. Marlon Harrls, Police Department
John Wildner, Parks SuperIntendent
Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utilities Chief Field Insp.
Bill HukIll, DeveIO~~Department
MIchael E. Haa~
51 te and Zonll~~ D~~opment AdmInIstrator
DATE: October 10, 1995
FROB:
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound PUD - Master Plan ModifIcatIon
(sign-off)
- File # MPMD 95-006
The amended Master Plan for NautIca Sound PUD has been submitted
for fInal sIgn-off by the Technical Review CommIttee. Three (3)
set3 of plans, each reql.uring your unconditional sIgnature, are
avaIlable In the Planning and Zoning Department. A copy of tlk
orIgInally reviewed plans, staff comments and CIty CommiSSIon and
Planning and Development Board approval of the Haster Plan
Modiflca~lons wIll be available for your use to perform the reVIew.
Please reVIew and sign-off each of the three (3) sets of plans, NO
LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., OCTOBER 16, 1995. If the pla1~s are not Iii
complIance with your staff comments or City regulations, sign tlie
plan~ ":;u,QJect to memo" Tn f"lCi U tate the sIgn-off process,
please resubmIt written comments addressed to tile Planning and
20111ng Director, NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., OCTOBER 16, 1995.
It should be noted that the applicant is preparing plat documents
that will be processed through the Development Department. The plat
and construction documents shall coincide with the SIgned-off
Master Plan, any major deVIation aesired by the developer must be
approved by the Technical Review CommIttee.
Thank you for your prompt response to thIs request.
~
MEH:bme
cc: Floyd Jordan, Fire Chief
Charles FrederIck, Recreation & Parks DIrector
Thomas Dettman, Police Chief
John Guidry, UtilitIes Director
Tambrl J. Heyden, PlannIng & Zoning Director
Pete Mazzella, Assistant to Utilities Director
Steve Campbell, Fire Department
Central File
a:wj,ljjQinc..f.bet
lID) lli @ lli n Wi ffi,~
Ul) .ZI. ~
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISlON MEMORANDUM NO. 95-44
PlANNING A~D
ZONING DEn
TO: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM: ~W~lliam I:Iukill, P.E.
f- Clty Englneer
DATE: November 22, 1995
RE: NAUTICA SOUND - RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS
The final outstanding comment of the Engineering Division most
recently articulated in our November 14, 1995 letter to Kilday has
been resolved to our satisfaction. The pedestrian access easement
to the Hypoluxo Road corridor now occurs on the master plan excerpt
forwarded to us today. You may eliminate the "with comments"
approval on your copy of the master plan if in fact this note
appears on your copy.
i"
WVH/ck
C:NA UTISNU.COM
NOV-22-'35 WeD 09:18 ID:KILDAY ~ ASSOC
TEL NO:407-689-2592
l:U26 P01
I &., . A..oci.t.1
l.cmdsccpe Architects/Planners
1551 F orlJm P loee
Suite 100A
West Palm Becch. Florida .33401
407) 689-5522 .Fox:( 407) 689-2592
TO:~
F~ NUMBER: ~1S- ~\~l
DATE: ~ '
FROM: ~~._~
1D)~@~O\Yl~~
In] NOV 2 2 1995 ~
ENGINEERING
FAX TRANSMISSION
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
~~~~~~~-~
Attr ~'r ~I~~. Lh~~ .MU,L.\.J ~r'~- ui-
~ WmJo 6~~~". ~-- V~~
~ V'~... rJl'\ a:JLJ fALb.,~() AI ~ ft\:bk. tUt'
\~ t.......~~I. ~v Il"c l8'I_"'~""
~4~. Call "",,- ~I..~- V.,JI"~ ~ ~ ~
a;.t ~W\ ~~ ·
~ FAX COpy WILL BE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
_ ORIGINAL OOCUMENT TO FOLL..OW IN MAIL
NUMBER OF PAGES: _ (INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET)
CUENT NAME: ~ --Y. ~ ...-
PROJECT NUMBER: It?~. t ~
, , ,,'.-ow '. I, -4 1 r 1 .
NOV-22-'95 WED 09:19 ID:KILD~Y & ~SSOC
TEL NO:407-689-2592
1:;126 P02
oYNr
~\.) ,?t-
(..... --. ~
o . ''';::;
~ ,I ~ ,-ry
~
DEP~ or DEVELOI'MEr\.J
< .
...........~
_ . 't
100 ..._ "".OD ...ok .1.4.
P. O. 110. 310
aOYDtoD ".ab, 'lo~id. 33121-0310
~ :..:
November 14, 1995
~ilday & Associates
1551 rorum Place, Suite lOOA
W.lt Palm a..ch, Plorida 33401
Attention: Kieran Kilday
Re: Nautica Sound
Dear Mr. Kilday:
The Nov. 10 letter Bent by your otfice is a little puzzling to me
inasmuch as you refer to our lack ot reeponse to an OC'C. '0 lettel"~ .........
That particular letter arrived in the Engineerin9 Division Nov. 6 an~ on
my de.k Nov. 7. If an urgent respon.e was expected, you could have 80
informed me on Nov. 7 at the Commission meeting which we both attended.
Since I was in morning meetings both Nov. 8 and Nov. 9, and out of the
otfice on both afternoons, it was not possible to respond on those two
days. N'OV. 10 was a Ci.ty holiday. Nov. 11 & 12 were weekend days.
Your Nov. 10 leeeer arrived today.
One tinal comment, pleaee, Some of the dates appearing on documenes
coming into the City associated with this project have 80me
di.concerting date atampa. In addition to those mentioned hereinbefore,
the original certification referred to 1n the Oct. 30 letter i. deted
Auq. 2~ but didn't arrive here until Nov. 6.
When you have corrected the rectified master plan to incorporate theee'
comments we will consider our requirements satisfied. Your continuln~
cooper~tion i. appreciated.
Very truly yours,
.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
.$~A?Ji-~~
William Hukill, P.E.
city Bngineer
WVHlck
xc: Carri. Par~.r, City Manaqer
Tambri Heyden, Planninq , zoning Direceor
aick Ellner, GL Homes
C:NA UTISHIJ....
..olle:
(t07) 375-1280
rAXI (101) 375-'317
., " .,,,,, '_'If' _.~. .
. , " .
" ' ')..
, ~,
NOV-22-'95 WED 09:19 ID:KILDAY & ASSOC
~ ,: II II II I i ~
I,' I <3 at ..1 I
f I I
I I I
I J)G I I
I I I
. I
,~.- !, ~ '. II
I ....I I I
f ;;{II\
~ I
, '-> ~ I lei
Q ~ I J i ~~
Q I I i
~ J'
. I
! : ft II ~ i~~
~ ,. b I i~~~
i: ~~: I:! I~!i~
~ i, ~, I I i~~~i
I :1 I! l!l!~!1
t .. I 5ti~>-
~ ~ii9~
: ~ ~- I
10 .~
I (\I ~ ~I I
i ()~"'II I
Inn. "" :
1 <3al-' , t
\ r1tl-
: l:: .:--
\ I
. ~
· :1
\ s
f
1D
TEL NO:407-689-~92
**126 P03
,
,
I
I
. .~ ff.
.., , \\J
~~
-".....
,~
, ,-
,
, ,
, .
I
I
,
..' i
'.:, .~.~;
,',:". ... I
-' " ',',: t
,
" I
.' ,.
..... ,,:.
.,',' ' I
.~....Io' ;:. .... I
..', .,..
,. ~ ~.' .
. . .
.~~,~, I
'1"":""''\:'
. oJ ....' .
',;: ~~.:" I
t " ,r','"
, ~~:;~;;:,<~ i
t ~ ,., I
\', ~.,' r
~~;~;.;~ r-
'. I': .... \ .'
, . """i"'~ \' ".
~~. ,1.00: :.
. , I
r./'J
\-.
-~
<( · 3<
U
<(\-"'-
D 35
~ ~ ': ('f")
"-..) · N ~
C1- ~~ ~
C'J1'~
\!)
-
~
~
1
"
",\ ,~ .~.~
:'-;It.j{~ .
.,. ::~';'
h.t '",.
'- .. ...... .
I
I
I
J
,
I
,
,
I
I
\
,
I
1
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
," ' . \
' .
\ .:..,...-';
I,~~':'.~ '
:' ,~~i,'..,:.
I :.c: ' ':' .
i .;.;~,:.:''t ." .
" ' :;':' , ,
I", .,'....
..~'~ ,~'i:.1 .
, ,. '..:~ ,:t1r'~' ~.
~~ - -
I r -7;;'59-;; -.&~;; 70 ~.:- - -:.!
i~ I I, ~ 'ii
l~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ !]
! ~ ; ,
'tr ........,............J. v-
'"
~(\: ," ' l
,.0, "
l:"
~.
~ \ t \ i~
4 '0'1, -i.. ~
.~ "
~-"------------
LN\\'
. . . . . . . . .....
Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc.
EN'GINEERS · PLANNERS. SURVEYORS
October 30, 1995
City of Boynton Beach
Engineering Division
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
;
,~
Attn: Mr. Bill Hukill, P.E.
Re: NAUTICA SOUND
L.N. & W. Project No. 95-181
Dear Mr. Hukill:
In reference to your memo to Mike Haag on October 12, 1995 for the above
referenced project, we offer the following responses in the same sequential order to
the outstanding items:
A. The proposed construction plans and plat will be submitted to your office next
month and will meet the applicable codes.
E. The construction plans will depict a required 5' sidewalk along Lawrence Road
throughout the frontage of this site.
F-5. See attached certification letter by the Engineer of Record.
F-12. The proposed plat will depict the location of the pedestrian easement.
Sincerely,
c ~-I/~
Chuck Justice
Project Manager
CJ:jhj
cc: Mr. Mike Haag, City of Boynton Beach
Ms. Karen Janssen, Kilday & Associates
JHJILANDI95-181 IHUKILL 1,030
LAWSON, NOBLE & WEBB, INC. 420 Columbia Drive' West Palm Beach, FL 33409' (407) 684-6686' Fax (407) 684-1812
LAWSON, NeBLE & ASSOCIATES 590 NW Peacock Boulevard, Suite 9' Port SI. Lucie, FL 349813' (407) 878.1700' Fax (407) 878,1802
LN\\'
. . . . . . . . .....
Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc.
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS · SURVEYORS
August 25, 1995
City of Boynton Beach
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435-0310
Attn: Mr. William Hukill, P.E.
City Engineer
Re: NAUTICA SOUND
L.N. & W. Project 95-181
Dear Mr. Hukill:
The master plan is in compliance with Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3 of the City of
Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations for the master plan requirements.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~?)
Ronald 'W. L1:::ls., P.E.
Project Manage:-
RWL:jhj
cc: Karen Janssen, Kilday & Associates
JHJ\LAND\95-181 \HUKILL.825
LAWSON, NOBLE & WEBB, INC. 420 Columbia Drive' West Palm Beach, FL 33409. (407) 684-6686' Fax (407) 684-1812
LAWSON, NOBLE & ASSOCIATES 590 NW Peacock Boulevard, Suite 9 . Port SI. Lucie, FL 34986 . (407) 878 -1700 . Fax (407) 878-1802
KI....y 8- AuocIlttee
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-259l
MEMORANDUM
BUILDING
Date:
November 10, 1995
Karyn I. Janssen, Kilday & Associates ~\ ~
[011 ~ @ ~ 0 WI ffi m i,
I nIl U
JUL!! i\lnv 2 I 1995
: I
i
~'"
PLANNING AND
~,._<"....,JO~DEPT.
From:
To:
AI Newbold, Building Department
City of Boynton Beach
Subject:
Nautica Sound PUD
Our File No.: 1020.13
On September 5, 1995, the City Commission approved the Master Plan for Nautica
Sound and the project then appeared before the Planning and Development Board on
September 12, 1995. A set of rectified Master Plans were submitted to the City on
October 6, 1995. As per my conversation with Dan DeCarla on November 7, 1995, it
appears that you still have outstanding comments. I spoke with you on November 2nd,
and you indicated that you would review the plans to see if we have addressed all of the
outstanding comments.
Memo 95-287:
Comment NO.1: Details will be included with our Final Site Plan Documents.
Comment NO.2: The 15' comer setback was a graphic error and has since been
corrected.
Memo 95-270:
Comment NO.1: The side setback note was removed from page 4 of 8 and is
now detailed on page 6 of 8 and 7 of 8.
Comment NO.2: Only two project identification signs will be provided and they
will be limited to 250 sq. ft
Comment NO.3: The entrance sign will not exceed 32 sq. ft. and 6 ft. in height.
Comment NO.4: The details for the signs will be submitted at the appropriate
time with the Site Plan.
Memorandum
November 10, 1995
Page Two
If you believe that some of these comments are still outstanding, please feel free to call
me at 689-5522. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would visit the Planning and
Zoning Department and delete your note IIwith comments, II from the Master Plan
Submittal Set so that it may be rectified.
cc: Rick Elsner; GL Homes
Chuck Justice; Lawson, Noble & Webb
Carrie Parker; City of Boynton Beach
a:KIJ\kfj\cnewbold. no9
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM RO. 95-324
\ Uj~~-~ '
i ~" 1 .:
.. j
,;jU,
1 L
i
I
.....
PLi'.iH.,'ii':J ;'-, ~'
ZO'IF ," :,,-:,': ",yr:v
~ ~,~~..\~~~~--";.~.~:~.-:-~......-._--.
August 31, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
RE:
TRC COMMBNTS - HAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITl'AL
When I reviewed the plans for Nautica Sound's.first two
submittals, there were 8 sheets. Since most of my comments
addressed sheet 6 of 8 and only one sheet was submitted on the
3rd submittal, I cannot determine if the new changes in lot size
and count addressed my first comments ~ Therefore, my first and
second comments are attached and should be met before permitting.
~
Al Ne~
AN: bh
Attachments/2
xc: William V. Hukill, P.E.
~rJU -
~
9S-2'1L)
IIAUTICA
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
August 9, 1995
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re : NAUTICA SOUND
Master Plan Modification - 2nd Submittal
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet
south of Hypoluxo Road
After reviewing the above referenced documents, it is
particularly noted in the printed documents that the Building
Division comments have been met as related to signs and setbacks.
Please note that the details for signs are not on the plans, only
in the written documentation.
1. Details for signs must be included in the final site
plan documents.
2. The 15 Ft. setbacks shown on the right corner lots on
Page 6 of 8, is not measured from the corner of the
building and, therefore, poses a problem for the
following lots: 30, 46, 69, 77, 98, 110, 147 and 169.
This could be rectified if the building was switched to
the opposite side or have dimensions corrected for
approval.
AN:mh
Att. Plans
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:.AUTICA.TIlC
BUILDING DIVISION
MBMORANDUM NO. 95-270
August 2, 1995
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Master Plan Modification - 1st Review
Nautica South f/k/a Knollwcod Groves (POD)
Re:
The Building Division bas reviewed the above plans and have the
following comments:
1. The side setbacks for screen enclosures for Z lots as
noted on Note #2, Page 4 of 8 is confusing. To avoid
problems at permit time, it should be detailed on
Page 6 of 8 and Page 7 of 8.
2. Project identification signs are limited to two with a
total of 250 Sq. Ft. maximum.
3. Entrance signs should not exceed 32 Sq. Ft. and 6 Ft.
in height.
4. Details for all signs must be submitted.
AN:mh
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:.AI7TICA,TJtC
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEER~G DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO.
, I "'\ ~ r';J ~ ;- ,-' i ,; ~
'10 I ;-~?_,~~~- -. ,-,- '---.
f lii!'l '
t n 1
~ I if i ; _...!{~..-
IUUI Lc __, ,
:)1 ',"''1::.--::,'.:'-, ,?
95-400 L 'Z6\::"~I: ~~~~
Mike Haag
zoning/Site Administrator
~lji~m ~ukill, P.E.
fJIffI'Englneer
October 12, 1995
NAUTlCA SOURO ~IRD REVIEW
We have once more reviewed subject development and have the
following responses to Engineering Memo 95-295:
WVH/ck
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F. 2.
F. 5.
F. 6.
F. 8.
F.12.
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
Acceptable
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
xc: Ken Hall, Engineering
C:NAUSOIJND.3RD
,- 'm
J
~-~11995
;m
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
31 OCTOBER 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 4th REVIEW MEMO #0181
Attached you will find my previous meI.P9.nJrt4~"';~~~dm&.tl!.!S site. In reviewing minutes from
the last City Commision Meeting, ikM?:P.~tjJllat ~.~tica $.ol~tepresentatives wish to abandon,
or contest my concerns for this#OJt~:::::::l:::tnaintairi 'all of.my':'previo~ comments and concerns
and leave the issues to be ~d~ upon'by city commision." .,..J'"'":::::::;>}
~'...::...;.. ..:....) .:::..:........:{::.:..~~:-.....:..
:-': ""<:-.;f ~~ f.;......;~~~\.
~,(.iI~,..~:.f7 . . .. .
.. :\..,.,l,:,::".., \~~.;~:::
~;':::'~"",,",,'Qv.......;l r
<:~ '::.. ''\ '::::
, ..,~ ~:::~.
.:......;..v~.......;....:.;....
. . . .
. ..
::: ::.:.:.:.:.:.~;....:... ":;.
:~: L..............:.~~~.../
" .....
i i[,::':'::'::,:::)")~
, ..
, ...
:.:.:0;.;.:.:.:.:.;.:........,..
ri::~\
Ii t::4~::1
t~;::::~..l ~:11
.............................
Ii .','.',..',w",... .", 'I r'~' .::::
~: f"''Sgf' Marldd HarriSii
r;:j~ L} r::~ L::~:;:;::~:;:.i' [)
...........:....~.;..~:
L:.~,<<<\<'"",.,.'"
.. >
'>
"
~~
....~....:^~.... ?
t..~...~
/"."......
~ ,~.~..x:~..
\\ .,,\
\~~:~:~:::~):
.....,...
::;. :~:::::~;:::::~::.....
::~:::,/r ,-:;'.:}:r:~~:::::;::;')
'.' '.'
@]))
~~ ;ff
:Ii:::;:i. {:?:::::~~:::::::~;:::l \<>
;: ';: \ >..;.......;..;..~::>::..
::::: ':<.-:.;..........;..;..:....
::.....::.
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
31 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL MEMO #0164
..;.................:........
I have reviewed the above plans (3rd Sl!,~~l,) ~ f=:;:Stih w.~.i.p.,~in my comments made on two
previously submitted memorand~(\b.Jtacne.d'>.yqu :Will fiijd 9Wtes of those earlier
d .~.:;. ~:;:.:~::::.::~?~:::.-:;..:::::~~:::.:::.. .:0.....;.:.. ,:::r .~/' --=....;.::
memoran urns ".~ ".,',..'.."',,. .. ,
. i~r ::-:.....;....:..:..~... .....;~.;::'
;::...~:t
~..;~.... ...:~..-=:~.
r:'!::!T
)..'..oW.v.''''':'\''
. ....,w,.:;.
... '-'" ...~ .
~ ~.~~./~
~J~~~~~) tJ
:::....:....:....~..~::::}
'J)
.. (?~\~\
\\. ::,>,
. ~,=..-:..i J
.:.:.....;o;......-::=-.
...:........ ";';'~:'
,(::':~::::l:::<,,'"
',' ,': :',
:;' .{.....::~.\
.:..: .:.'.;
\~\. :~ \
Respectfully, \:;::;:i:, \i
...................'-:... .......... ........ ~..........................;..:...
~~ Q re~[J 0
Police Department
.:::..~.....~:' :~::.
l/l ~;' ~\; ~!:
~i r .rri/
(>.~:,.~;::;.,::;:>{
,.., l::,:::~,:::".:..;,:,~.'::::,:,:::,' ..,,~:,:,~,::,~,~:~:,,::,:,;.:'h':'.,;,,^.'.':',:',.:~::.:.::'~::,;:':-:>:.~.({J
b7rlJ "-,,
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
8 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 2ND REVIEW MEMO #0156
I have reviewed the 2nd submittal of1":!~i.;~f'~ott~fd:[:~i~rt~.t::::~~ents that were supplied. It
seems ~at my original suggestio?s !.~~:!~:~~v.:etOP91ent ~,F~~~ored. I still maintain the
followmg: ,i:r:? (:,.".::;:::::::::;::~.<.. {.,..j:: /<~,,':::::;;:',:;;l'
1. Regarding the controlled tn.tr~ce/exits, the developer (G.ll\lfoih~s of Florida) has an
attached letter describing tl,yee jypes of mechanisms of gated cortirli~rii,ies. The first, SOS
System(Siren Operable ~2b);1 feel is not something that is not t~:vo~le; both on a police
stand point and the prospeetwe"residents. Police respond to caDs thftt:~uire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) tbat activation of a siren at
the entrance would not ~ apprwen~~p of c~:i~:{li:rn:'l,!~:; Alsp;tw:~!d not think that residents
~ould appreciate the p~l!:~~~d ~re?~:~ent ~!!gY:~,9ing t~+r amta,i: I b?, ~oundin~ their
SIrens. The second recQ~qationll$ a Klil>x BQ?q;'(Irey entry ~tem)llThIs IS an antIquated
method of access to a gatat~ilmturtity::1t~qUliidg:the city1:tb tbIib:tilh{ nmster keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
question. Maintaining 9}J.,e<~,ter key requires the response to the pp.Ji~::pepartment to obtain
the key first, and then td1lle''fPInmunity. This is not a "timely" resPcm'W' f4r emergency vehicles.
The third recommendatiQ.Ilf..'lemote System" is not explained th~J;~nigijJ}lenough. It allows the
city personal to remain irf"'t~~:::y~hicles when entering the coIIIImip~:!y',;,,!>ut does not explain how,
or who acti~ates the gate ~t.€ti,;&f\ 10, riginally sugg~s.ted a..~:y's~,' ~".t:lis similar to this; a~d is
currently bemg excepted In ~:~)Ver$ated commumties of~<,~>" The system works WIth
telephone accessibility. The dispatqhF;f(,)~"p'Q.!,ice jpd.}jt,ribah~~~n the telephone number for the
gate and upon radioing that tbey (p&u'ce p~c'er):: ~y~. arriY~ atthe gate, the dispatcher then
telephones the number to the gate, thereBy acrllatihg thcrgate for entrance. This matter needs to
be clarified.
2. As stated in comments, the width of the existing bridge on Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd
entrance would have to be widened for a right turn/deceleration lane. As consistent with other
developments on Lawrence Road, deceleration lanes have been required. I don't see why the
other entrance to the development on Lawrence Road should require a deceleration lane
and not Meadows Blvd,
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
....~.............:........ .
I have reviewed the above listed plans a.ud:::tetx;urtrt[endihe,.,[QUowing:
:::<,::;::::::;:::;::;:::;:::::::::;;;:;:::",.,,:::::~"'i!:,."".t ";::;t'./;.~:;:~:;:"
-The entrances/exits are "c~ cqntf9lte'd". I would retQrnmend,::d.tat a telephone access also
be supplied for police an4.fte eiIie;gency access. If n~t, sotpetijidg comparable to this will
be needed for emergency~..a~Cess. '\....}t',.,,:,\.,
.....~.l. ::' ":-:>''':'';;'.\
;~!' ::.~~ 1 ~ .'\\
-Regarding the south ~fitnm~~ to the development, on Lawren~,R&d, I would recommend a
decelleration, right habHliifu lane. I believe this lane constructi~l\, ilfight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleratiOll, rigHt hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitrpnd:1hjs shor~d::at~ applr'f.or::~:: sou~~e/exit.
-Due to the density l~~~ed p!J.iHiti~~ Oft!~::de~:~iopJJt, I sJJnglY believe that an
entrance/exit is need.dtt:~ l1yPbiuxO:~R:oaa. ~trlhe distafibelt.om:::~tl[projected
entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great distance from the northern
roadways in the develo~p:leD:t:.,\ Emergency response to these roads ".'j.A;'r~,uire excess time,
thereby requiring a Hyp, w~.. .- 0 Road entrance/exit. This develOP, rrQrt,;: :,::"/~:~ralso in the extreme
northern and western,~ of the city and a great distance froW the..,~'arest fire station
and police coverage. t,...>~._.<."., \'>::"':'~,,:.,
(("<\\ <0. 4;:"~~2;):'
\\, " ..,+; F""..~".
~ frtj) n y ~~/
. .:~.f ::.....:;
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Hams
Police Department
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-475
, .,., '-13-:n'tl/
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
John Wildner, Parks SUPerinrenden~
Nautica Sound
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
October 13, 1995
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the master plan for Nautica Sound. We have no
recreation related comments at this time. The plan may continue through the normal review process.
JW:ad
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-469
J~ -"v/
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist jL.. ~
Nautica Sound PUD - Master Plan Modification
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
October 13, 1995
The applicant has submitted a tree preservation/management plan for the site which is attached to this
memorandum. The project should continue in the normal review process.
This management plan will require the installation of replacement trees as part of the proposed
landscape plan. We are attempting to install these replacement trees on common property for the
project. If this cannot be accommodated because of the site constraints, the replacement trees will
be 70% of the existing quality citrus trees. I will coordinate this with the site clearing permit.
KH:ad
-
JLL-~d- '::I::' I"~J .I..::; L11 1J.);
ICL I'<U.
14~::, t-'1:::J1
. '
v
..., . ........
"'11'" Arohlteotl/....MM
,.' FaNrn PIlI.
luItI'CDA
WIIt'llm BlIGh, ~ N4C)t
(4011 _1122 . F..: 1407J _ B1
~
~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
July 5, 1 eve
Kevin Hallahan; City For.tar
City of Boynton Beach
Karyn I. Janssen; KIlday &; ASSoCiates, Inc.
FROM:
RE: Nautlca Sound Site Visit
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.1S
I
------------.-----------------------------------
Rick Ellner of GL Homes, Tom Dwyer of Knollwcod Grove, you and I met at Nautlca on
June 27. 1 sm! to view the condition of the Oitrus trees on the Nautica Sound Site. We
droV8 to the two area. on the alte that were dlacua.ed In the letter addreued to you
from Tom Dwyer dated June 21. 1995. a copy of the aertal photograph with the two
areas Identlned 18 aaached. Ourtng the site visit. Mr. Dwyer noted 1hat within these areas.
there were approximately 20% unhealthy CltnJs trees. When counting the CltNS trees
from an ..-tal. there are approximately Five Hundred and Forty-Five (Me) trees located
within theM two areas. Once you subtract out the percentage 01 unhealthy trees, the
total then becomes Four Hundred and Thirty-Six (436) trees. This is the total number of
trees that the City of eoynton Beach will require C3L Homes 10 replace when applying the
no net 1088 requirement; therefore, GL Homes will have to include 436 tre. within their
site plan for the parcel. There are approximately 309 trees proposed to be planted within
the landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the property and within the recreation
area. this amounts to 70% of the required treec for the no net 10M requirement. The
remainder of the trees necessary to fulfill this requirement will be placed within the
Individual lots on the site. There are three tre8$ minimum propOSed for tne Zero Lot Line
units and thre. tree. minimum Proposed for the 'Z' Lot Une units. The overall tree count
for the .fta will exceed the required 436 trees necessary to Meet the no n.t loss
requlromont af the City.
If you nave any question. or concerns, pleese do not hesitate to oontact me.
00: Rick El8ner; GL Horn..
.~
MEMBER
FLORiDA
GIFT FRUiT
SHIPPERS
ASSOCiA TiON
8053 LA\\'RE\'CE RO,
BOYr\TO;\J BEACH, FL 33436-1699
June 21, 1995
J'toCJE.1. !l nc.
'-
E!tebll!hed 1930
I..tOil 71..t-..t"-1 III
fax: (..tOil i37,G7()/)
toll free: (8001 222-96%
Mr Kevin Hallihan, City Forester
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd
POBox 310
Boynton Beach, Fl 33425-0310
Re: Knollwood Groves
Dear Mr Hallihan,
I was contacted by Rick Elsner, GL Homes of Florida and Karyn Janssen, Kilday &
Associates, Inc on Tuesday, June 20,1995 regarding the condition of the citrus trees on
the Meadowood Groves property. Holding a Masters Degree in Agricuhure from the
University of Connecticut and drawing from my 23 years of experience in the citrus
producing industry, it is my expert opinion that the citrus trees located in Meadowood
Groves are of poor quality. The trees range in age from 30 to 60 years old and the grove
has not been properly cared for in the last 15 years. I am intimately familiar with the site
since I have been working in the groves for the past few years. I have been able to turn
two small areas of the grove back into production; however, ifgiven the opportunity to
take any trees I wanted prior to development of the site, I would refuse them all The two
small areas indicated, on the attached aerial are the only areas in which I would say there
are some citrus trees in marginal to fair condition. The trees in these areas have been
producing for me but, I believe there is no justifiable reason to preserve them or relocate
them once the use on the site changes to residential
Furthermore, citrus trees do not belong in maintained common spaces of residential
developments. If the grass beneath the trees is continually mowed, then the snakes leave
the site and the rats move in, which creates an undsirable situation for all in the
community.
I hope this will answer any questions regarding the condition of the citrus trees in
Meadowood Groves. I will be more than happy to go out on site with you to point out
the conditions which I have discussed.
Thank you for your condsideration.
=-;cerely, /7 ,
~~ ;Wc~~
om Dwyer //
Knollwood Groves, Inc
~
Kllcl8y &- Auoc....
landscape Architects/ Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A k'Wl
West Palm Beach, Florida r:: 1
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2692
October 6, 1995
m p~u~, lli I rnl
, I 0 "~ I.!!J
'iOi~il"\.. ~ , ~J'
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director
Planning & Zoning Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: Nautica Sound
Rectified Master Plan Submittal
Our File No. 1020.13
Dear Ms. Heyden,
Please accept and process the attached four (4) Rectified Master Plans. The comments
approved by the City Commission on September 12, 1995 have been incorporated into
the revisions of this plan. We are submitting the Rectified Master Plan on behalf of G L
Homes of Florida, Inc., owners of the property. The Minor Master Plan Modification
approved by the City Commission on September 12, 1995 reflects a total of 260 zero lot
line units on a minimum 5,000 square foot lots and 157 z-Iot line units which will be
located on a minimum of 4,500 square foot lots. I have included four sets of plans in the
hopes that two sets with the appropriate signatures may be returned to us so that we
have an original copy for our files and one original for the owners of the property, G L
Homes of Florida.
If you have any questions or concerns in regard to this submittal, or if you need any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this project.
Sincerely I
~I~
Karyn Janssen
cc: Rick Elsner
Larry Portnoy
Alan Fant
KIJ/jb/heyden.o06
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO.
, '-<l r;; I ~ 2 :~ , I'; j"
jln t5 '~J ,e I ,I,'
! j LJ"" '1;-- ~.; ~-.. .., ".._, ---I
: J t" 1
Iii: I ('f?- .
jUU1~" '
I ...........j.
95-400 r,L.\i:t:Ii':oJ ;'\;.!iJ .,^"""""
\-.~_ ~ ZIC~:~'.~,~~ :",::2d~~:-~
Mike Haag
Zoning/Site Administrator
~lxj~m ~ukill, P.E.
~Englneer
October 12, 1995
NAUTICA SOUND THIRD REVIEW
We have once more reviewed subject development and have the
following responses to Engineering Memo 95-295:
WVH/ck
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F. 2.
F. 5.
F. 6.
F. 8.
F.12.
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
Acceptable
Please comply
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable subject to compliance with Engineering
Memo 95-345
xc: Ken Hall, Engineering
C:NAUSOlJND.3RD
I ill
MW -111995
;illi
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
31 OCTOBER 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 4th REVIEW MEMO #0181
{;.....,,;;:~::::.:::'
Attached you will find my previous mew~n:4~: r9:rdmgJij,!S site. In reviewing minutes from
the last City Commision Meet.ing, il::~~J~illt ~.~ica ~b~~l'~presentatives wish to abandon,
or contest my concerns for thls,,:p-oJ~ct,~~:::::l~ti1amtam all oftQy prevlOP.$. comments and concerns
and leave the issues to be dec~ uponby city commision.' <'-2~,
f"li:"""",/J \\: \ t
:;'':'::'.r.~.:....;........:}l ,-, "'kt
y ~ectlU I~~~
" , ~ ',I,'''e~~.~::~:..;:;,'J: . . ,~;(;t)
!:"',,~,,':,::,,l';.~:,:,::,',:,::~,:,:.,..:.~:.',,',~,,[,j,:,',,;':,.:1 ',:,:~:~,. ~ r.''''".'...:.:.''::,;.'''!: ~ r''8gt:''''~arIJJ Hj~;:
::.,~ :~:..:~~:.~.~ -," :~:- ,; t:o:;:;:::;:::::::~;:..i ;;CJ tJ t;;; t~.::;:;:::::::::::~~~~..l r:;]
c::~~)
.-:-..~ ~
CJ~
,'::'::'
I /,-
~/'
l'lJ/Z
n (~J\)
))40/A ^, ~r;\, (I
, ~rOX,~ ~
\ U (> ~" 1--- {<> "
--0 '
~'\Jy
-
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POllCE DEPARTMENT
31 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL MEMO #0164
..::=-.......;"::-.-:.;....~:.
I have reviewed the above plans (3rd sulmtiftlll.) aqd f;:StilI W1!ipJ:ain my comments made on two
previously submitted memorand~<>A.~~~dU :~ill fiQd ~tes of those earlier
memorandums. ...,/::} :::,;::::.~::!!:;::;::::;:{r,:'.'.:"~,:: ':::::::,//' .':..." . :b.,
.. ,.;." .... '';;''~:'
,:/",1:::..,.", ,:('" .,::<~:,.,
..:...;::-.... .....:~:. .;~., '":.' ".
i~: .{:-....;::~:.::::
\:~:\ \~:\
Respectfully, '::::;;::::\ \l
":-;0;
::.{.
.~;:. .:: ::
{...:.::-:;..:-;..:....:.;}J
:;.-:.;...... ./
;~~{ .......;....;...;."
. ,',
, ..
.: .:.:.;.:.;.:.;.;...... '.:.
;: ::: . '::. ~.
-: .:. .: .:.
. ., , 0"
j ::;:::::::::::;:;:~:~;~:;;::::
:. :.: ;.,.;
[~:. .:~::;::;::;:::~:~:~~~:.l
;~[""~:::;~~::~:::~;::'::\.
~~: t..............-:..:~~~:./:
ii r.w.........;...:~~;.~J
r::!! ~l:.:.:;:~;::;::;~::~::;::~...:..
rT:::;::::::;;:~::\ ., ",
,J ~~~jJ) tl
Police Departmen!,..,.
@/J)
/::;....:;.. .:::::.......;.:;.~,::.
'.:.. ..~...
...~:~: .:~~..
i~?~~"w,,\~ ~:;:~~~.
<::;:,,:::::, ~::,.,::::;:::;::P~
~,:,::~ .:', ::::~.:;;:;:::;::::;:;~~:~;:~:::\:::::;~::.
.. . -. ::.';':~
~ % \ \........-:..:....::~.:~/
~ ~ .:...:.~.........:..:..:...
::....;:.
......;....;....:....;....;......~:
:.' ....,..~.....
~:, .:....;O'...:.:.:~.. ',,:.
"'):\:!
(..;O'..:....,.'..,.::'
:.:.:.......
;~ ..::.....:..:.:..::..
.;. .: .~ ':'.
~\::::~::::,.,...:.,.:::,)
:.:.....
:.. ..:......
:.' ....;,...,:,.....,.,..
II [Ii)
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
8 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 2ND REVIEW MEMO #0156
............:.......
I have reviewed the 2nd submittal ofN~:qlr~ou'd::and tb.,~,,:cQmments that were supplied. It
seems that my original suggestions J~r:i!i~~~ielop.,qi.ent ~F~:,:j,j!tDred. I still maintain the
following: ,/;::? ,:";;:;::::.:~::::;::::::::~~:.":, "'" '::::::,.,,:/:' '.,:,:
....'.. .'.
1. Regarding the controlled ~;ir~ce/exits, the developer (G,L:;;::It6t~1.~s of Florida) has an
attached letter describing t\vee tYPes of mechanisms of gated cortiWuni~ies. The first, SOS
System(Siren Operable s'Y.~t~ni):I feel is not something that is not r~yo~le; both on a police
stand point and the prospettlV'ff residents. Police respond to calls th4t)~uire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) that activation of a siren at
the entrance would not :~ppp:P.rt appr~()J1 of clJi1Jtin~l~;. Als~~::l:::W~,ld not think that residents
would appreciate the p41i.ce,..(~rtd fire) d,ep~tAl1ent ~~~,~il9ing t~~ir aITi,-J~1 by sounding their
sirens. The second rec9rpmel)a,ationlifa]{~:9x Bq)qr{ke,(entry $ystem)l)this is an antiquated
method of access to a g~lt::~tv:::lleqWring:the cityttb rhitifit1ihl' nmster keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
question, Maintaining 9.p.c.,m~Jter key requires the response to the p~H~~pepartment to obtain
the key first, and then t<hBe:'<<lInmunity. This is not a "timely" respohsij' N'r emergency vehicles.
The third recommendatiq,Ik",,'lJemote System" is not explained thqJ.;.~JiHl~ienough. It allows the
city personal to remain in:'t'l\p~!::y~hicles when entering the comm~f!y~",~ut does not explain how,
or who activates the gate fuQptiQ:q\ I originally suggested a ~ys~pi tiWi':is similar to this; and is
currently being excepted in thCt:~~e}.$ated communities of'~~:.:C!!y;;~:/:The system works with
telephone accessibility. The dispatqhF;f~,PQ~.ice :ipd,Xtf.&:'mai=n,f!in the telephone number for the
gate and upon radioing that they (p6li'ce ~,tc.et)} h,~y~. ar.n.Y~a at the gate, the dispatcher then
telephones the number to the gate, thereBY ac6.yatihg itie''i~ate for entrance. This matter needs to
be clarified.
,.;.' :'.
2. As stated in comments, the width of the existing bridge on Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd
entrance would have to be widened for a right turn/deceleration lane. As consistent with other
developments on Lawrence Road, deceleration lanes have been required. I don't see why the
other entrance to the development on Lawrence Road should require a deceleration lane
and not Meadows Blvd.
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 IDLY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
..................:.........
I have reviewed the above listed plan~,,:,~~;e~,nii~e+d:th~:::t9.u.p.~ing:
..:.<::;;~.<;:..:.:~:::;~::.;;..:\.:..;..)::.. r t ../" .:.};i~~>::::::;::
- The entrances/exits are "ca.I:d c'o.6ii9n&l". I w'ould r~~en4:::1J.tat a telephone access also
be supplied for police an4,lfe emergency access. If not, sOllletIli:rtg comparable to this will
be needed for emergency,4"cy,ess.'\"".,,)::,"',',::::\,
"::.':-' :;" ,.;'.' .'<. ~:.
-Regarding the south ~~IranQ~ to the development, on Lawren~ ~~, I would recommend a
decelleration, right hritrflifu lane. I believe this lane constructi~~, ijght interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, right hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitrand::'h,is shollld:~ apply"'f.o:r::t~ soutlrw.it@ll,pe/exit.
ii .L""."".J)' ! L,<.~.~.,.~.J ; ; ..) :l ii l "',\,'\
-Due to the density ~pfoj'~f;ted p~pii1alii>~ oft6~::deV'elopmMt, I sif~ngly believe that an
entrance/exit is needcl1::ft6rti RyPbiux6~0i4. Ollie distahbe:itf.ottt:::':hoth::projected
entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great dist~nce from the northern
roadways in the develoP.J.uent.".'::: Emergency response to these roads w::j~::'i'~:Quire excess time,
thereby requiring a Hyp'~ijio Road entrance/exit. This developn#NW'also in the extreme
northern and western ,limft,S of the city and a great distance froW th~ji~:arest fire station
.~-::"~::.:'o":>"
........ r::;:~
::::~:':/':<''''''")~~;;~~~:::;:.,.),
....:...:: :: .;:
....:-.::.
;~"':::
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
Police Department
!~! D rn~, ~ 0 W ~ ~l
I " I' aii "
ILant' I- ~ r '"
I'\J'- ....... . ,-
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-44
PLANNING A~D
ZONING DEPt
TO: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM: ~ W~lliam J:!ukill, P. E.
t- C.l.ty Engl.neer
DATE: November 22, 1995
RE: NAUTICA SOUND - RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS
The final outstanding comment of the Engineering Division most
recently articulated in our November 14, 1995 letter to Kilday has
been resolved to our satisfaction. The pedestrian access easement
to the Hypoluxo Road corridor now occurs on the master plan excerpt
forwarded to us today. You may eliminate the "with comments II
approval on your copy of the master plan if in fact this note
appears on your copy.
WVH/ck
C:NA UTISND,COM
--------~---~-~-- ---
NClJ-22-'35 WED 99:19 ID:KILD=lY 0. ASSOC
TEL NO:407-689-~92
;:;126 P0l
I &'1 . Allo;i.t..
LQndsccpe Architects/Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 1 OOA
West Palm Beach. Florida 33401
407) 689-5522 eFox:(407) 689-2592
TO:~
FAX NUMBER: ~1C; - lea!;.{
DATe: ~ .
FROM: c...,~1._~
00 Hl IH \lJ ~ 00
I!
NOV 2 2 1995 u
ENGINEERING
FAX TRANSMISSION
SPECIAL tNSTAUcnONS:
~~.~ ~~~;-~
Ak ~lr ~I~~. Lh~~ ~\..J t..r'~- ui:-
~ \4~" "11\ ~ LJ A~..,~~ 41. ~ ~h:Jc~- ~
\~ lIo.... _.J;,..1l ~ lI!I..c ~n 4~ ~ .
.eI v' ~
J~_~ ~ "'..... ~'....~--'" V.1~"""" ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~~.
~ FAX COpy WJLL BE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
_ ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO FOLl.OW !N MAIL
NUMBER OF PAGES: _ (INCLUDING THE COVER SHEEl)
CUENT NAME: ~ ~ If- ...-
PROJECT NUMBeR: 19~. t ~
I , r' ..._' ~ .
-- NCV-22-'95 WED 09:19 ID:KILDAY ~ ASSOC
TEL NO:407-68~592
1:ll2E P02
OYfviO
~"., - <1--,
""'.' '-."~
4 ',,_
o ~, ) ~ :':;;
. , >. ~
,.' ~
.. / ......- Y' .
J . _ .
DEP~ OF DEVELOP.ME1\.J
Ndvember 14, 1995
Kilday i Associatee
1551 rorum Place, Suite lOOA
W.lt Palm a..Ob, 110rida 33401
A~t.ntion: Kieran Kilday
Re: Nautica Sound
100 ..., 807DtOD ...ok .1.4.
P. O. 110. 310
.OJD~DD ".a~, Plo~ld. 33425-0310
Dear Mr. Kilday:
The Nov. 10 letter Bent by your ottice i~ a little puzzling to m.
ina.much as you refer to our lack of re.ponse to an Oct. 30 lette~~ ..-.-
That particular letter arrived in the En9ineerin9 Division Nov. 6 and on
my d.sk Nov. 7. If an urgent response wes expected, you could have 80
lntor.med me on Nov. 7 at the comro,ission meeting which we both attended.
Since I was in morning meetings both Nov. 8 and Nov. 9, and out of the
office on both afternoons, it was not posBible to respond on those two
days. NOV. 10 was a City holiday. Nov. 11 & 12 were weekend days.
Your Nov. 10 l.eeer arrived today.
With re8pect to the comments in our latest memo, Mr. Justice did not
re.pond tor 18 d8Y., not countlnq the week it took tor hi. letter to
arrIve here. AS of Oct.. 12, four COlllllents remained. Tbe first,
lettered A, was clearly lnformational only. The second wes lettere~ B,
and wae resolved in writinq on Sept. 8., The third, letter 5 w
t on Au . 9 and res onded t in the Oct. 30 letter The fourth,
l.tt.r.~ Fl , va. aummarized on July 2 ~n emo , but has It 1
not .hown up on ~he maeter plan.
One final eomment, pleaee. Some of the dates appearing on documen~a
coming into the City a.sociated with thia project have 80me
d1.eo~e.rtin9 da~. atampa. In addition to those mentioned hereinbefore,
the original cert1fication referred to in the Oct. 30 letter is dated
Aug. 25 but didn't arrive'here until Nov. 6.
When you have corrected the rectilled master plan to incorporate the..
comments we will consider our requirements satisfied. Your con~lnulnq
~oope.ation i. appreciated.
Very trul~ your.,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, PLORIOA
~~~;(tA#
William Hukill, P.!.
CIty Engineer
WVHlck '
xc: Carrie Parker, C1ty Manager
Tambri Heyden, Planning' Zoninq Director
Rick E18ner, GL Homee
..', -....-
C:NAUTI3tCJ)-.J:aOlle: (t07) 375-f280
fAIt (407} 375-'357
tlC')-22- '35 WED e9: 13 ID:~: r LMY &1 ASSOC
1 : n II II. ,-
I, I <7Ql..J t :
I. I I
, I I
I' ., I J)Q I :
" . I I I
,~. ~ I ~ .' , I
~:<;',~~ , -1 ' I J
'... ": .1' . -1' . I
. I, ~ I:
\..)~ I IQ
q~ I, 1 ~~
Q II ~
~ I'
!C..J J
Q; ,
>- \11(; II
,; ~gl/ I
i~ ~ti I I :
:1 ~\nl :
I ' co' ':
~I' I
J · ,
I g. f
1 "~~ I
, ~~~II :
.,,('1')* f J
I ,-,-., I
, n II, 111' :
i <3~...l I :
i r1tL
: ~::.
, ,~:.:";" j I I
I ~
I :1
, S
(
k)
, . It .
, . ,
" '
I.. . ~
..<,.,,:~~; I'
. ",:1
. I
.' " ,
'\.' .
::~~':. ,,' "
. ,.
, .' t
; , ,
~.,' ,
.; ,~~~~~
..J t., .
.:: '~~;. "
, " ,,'
',..;.:.... "
'110 ',.'" .
..~... .
, , ' I
\ ",-
.".
'0" ;~..
. . . . .
,:~;~,:~. 1'~ ,'" .
~ .1" .
~,"::.:,~" ," ',.
. .'~l~'" .
.~; .... :
I
I
,',"
;. , ~i(; /~~. .
, ,t:."\ " .
, :;'.' I
II' of' ....
.1,.. ..-!;,~ "'. , .
i }S',:::,,;'" :,
"
!Ii;~
II~i;
l!!;:~Vj
S'~~tJ
tlD~~~
TEL NO;407-E8~2592
1*125 P03
I
,
I
I
,~(f.
.,w
~~
~....
'cr
, ,-
I
,
. t
I
I
I
(/)
\-0
-0
<t · 3<
o
<(\-'
D :3~
C) s: -:: ('j
~~~~
Nf'\.O
~
~
~
1
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&l:' in -- - - --- _ _
I r -1;;'~;; -'OCL-;; -; ~: - --?
! . ~ ~ ~.--_..- ~
:. ,",.~~.":, ;," · ;.,:",': ',:;, :.' of: ',' ' "
..,'-"" ;...... .;, ..' ,<'\~ ~ ,:.., ' ., ~: ( .....,~~~...:. ,.....;., '. :t
: ~~~':O'. .-;,}.\, .,..~;;.), "';";1~1:':-:"'\'~";'
. \f\ t'. :, .." ~:' " '-; "",,. ,.1'1<:; ~~, '~'.
~~,~, . '0 .' ',:' \, .' 0 .' 0 :"
" N~ft'\~ gO, ' . . ,~. '....0; .:..,:' ,..',
. "~;...I~.." 0 - . .
--' ,,_.,"
. ,.,,"~' ~ .. " '
.~... ..' ' ," .
: :;;\\~,~":,\L'~~ '. ':."..\ '..'<:-~., i ~ " ~~
, :-.:. ~ L . AI.., ,..' " "," t .
:,. ~~&~:~ ,-~-~e~. :' .~,~~<;~:~,:.'.;.:~\~, G 'i ~I~
_.' '.. ': ::it .'.~, ." ". 'or ' '"'
.............-.. '. U . ..' " '.' ,. " " -......
. .~-"." ~ . " . ""' ~ --
I~'\: I ~
Ulli
(.3 at .
4:. O~,~
'.
t' l
::l. 0
1!\I
.-
-_.~~ ----~_..---------._-------
1~
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-738
FROM:
Bill Hukill
Director Department~evelopment
{~
Michael E. Haag-fL~'
Current Plannin~~dinator
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
December 26, 1995
SUBJECT:
NAUTICA SOUND/KNOLLWOOD GROVES PUD
Accompanying this memorandum you will find documents regarding
development plans that have received final determination.
PROJECT NAME: NAUTICA SOUND/KNOLLWOOD GROVES PUD
Type of Application:
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
Planning and Zoning
Department File No: MPMD 95-006
Staff Report/Comments/P & D Agenda:
Control Plans Attached:
Color Elevation Drawings:
Board of Adjustment Approval:
Planning and Development
Board Approval:
City Commission Approval:
Resolution No.: N/A
Ordinance No.: N/A
N/A
8 Sheets of 8
N/A
N/A
9/12/95 Meeting Minutes
9/05/95 Meeting Minutes
Rectified Master plan set to Applicant: 12/19/95.
MEH:TJH:arw
Attachment
a:trnsmttl.NAU
u