The URL can be used to link to this page

APPLICATION 7.B.2 NAUTICA SOUND f.k.a. KNOLLWOOD GROVES (PUO) MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION '. PLANNING' AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-492 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board FROM: Tambri J. HeYden-d~' Q ~A planning and Zoning Director t1''' DATE: September 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Nautica Sound (Knollwood Groves) - MPMD 95-006 Revise access points and unit type (replace mult-family with ~ingle-family detached units) and reduce lot size and front, side and rear setbacks INTRODUCTION Kilday and Associates, agent for Meadows Groves, Inc. and R. Bradford Arnold, trustee, is requesting to approval to modify the previously approved master plan for the Knollwood Groves PUD (to be renamed to Nautica Sound), as described in the attached report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-484). Nautica Sound is to be located on the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of Hypoluxo Road. After staff review, requests for master plan modifications are forwarded to the City Commission, prior to forwarding to the Planning and Development Board, for a determination that the changes requested are either substantial in nature or not substantial in nature. This request went before the City Commission on August 15, 1995. At this meeting the Commission stated that a determination of nonsubstantial could be made only if the minimum lot size of those lots that were 4,000 square feet were increased to a minimum of 4,500 square feet (76 "Z" lots were affected) and if 13 "Z" lots that were a minimum of 4,500 square feet were increased to a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Lastly the applicant had to remedy the problems raised by the Utilities Department. Commission action was tabled to the September 5, 1995 meeting to allow the applicant to revise his drawings and submit the changes to staff to review. RECOMMENDATION Based on the applicant's compliance with the Commission's provisos, the City Commission, at their September 5, 1995 meeting removed the request from the table. With a unanimous vote, the Commission made a finding of no substantial change regarding the modifications requested. Since the request would subsequently be forwarded to the Planning and Development Board for approval of the technical aspects within staff's comments, the Commission agreed that because of the changes that had to be made in order to make a determination of no substantial change that the Commission was conceding to a minimum building separation of 10 feet rather than 15 feet, no road connection to Hypoluxo Road and no minimum lot width. These concessions impact all staff comments, therefore it is recommended that this request be approved, subject to the attached staff comments in Exhibit liE" with the exclusions and revisions noted below. Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-485 with the r . _ .. - .. .-,.1~ ~':; 0f comments 1 - 5 and 7 and deletion of comment 8 (all other comments would still apply as written): 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 home/covered patio (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 , . TO: planning and Development Board -2- september 8, 1995 into the city at the R-1AAB zoning classification, it is recommended tllat 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-IAAB zoning district. Therefore, the proposed setback of 15 or 20 feet shall be increased to 25 feet. Of the three options available to the appl;~ant for buffering along the northwest property line where the subject property abuts the C-3 (Community Commercial) zoning district, the applicant has agreed to comply with a hedge maintained at five feet, installed at a height of 24 inches and planted 24 inches on center. . 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 \"lill be 40 feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. [Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development, Section 9. B.] 2. "Z" lot units shall have a minimum lot frontage of 40 feet and a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet. Zero lot line units shall have a minimum lot frontage of 50 feet and a minimum lot area of 5000 square feet. There appears to be a discrepancy in the information (chart vs. drawing) that was supplied to verify the number of lots having a minimum size required by the Commission which needs to resolved. The allowed frontage of a lot when shaped by a cul-de-sac or the frontage of any other irregular shaped lot, shall be measured at the setback line, and shall be not less than 75% of the required lot .cfrontage for the unit type. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. 3. Establish the rear building setback for all double frontage lots as twenty (20) feet which shall be measured from the rear property line. 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. No more than three of the same model type shall be built next to one another. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. 't 4 . Maintain the proposed fifteen (15) foot corner side building setback on all lots. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. 5 . Maintain a side pool and screen enclosure setback of twelve (12) feet for pools and ten (10) feet for screen u~~.!~ta.in the proposed seventeen (17) foot corner side setback for pools and fifteen (15) foot for screen enclosures on all back to back lots and 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. Page 3 TO: Planning and Development Board -3- September 8, 1995 7. It is recommended that the landscape buffei in Exhibit "B" be provided in a landscape buffer easement along the interior lot lines which abut the east, north (along the northern boundary of the northern entrance off of Lawrence Road), and west (along lots 261 287) perimeters of thp. proj ect. It is further recommended that the tree and shrub landscape material be native and the hedge material be native or 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. Since the project will be divided into two plats (a northeast plat and a southwest plat), an alternative to this timing of installation could be phasing by plat. Acceptance of this alternative will be determined with the forthcoming plat submittal or site plan submittal, which ever comes first. small trees and large canopy trees within the buffer may count for the "no net loss" of trees that are required by the tree management plan. All material shall be located within the easement and trees shall not be placed on a property line. Size and type of plants shall be determined at site plan approval. The landscape buffer along the south perimeter of the project, along Lawrence Road and along Hypoluxo Road shall be of the detail shown on the previous submittal. Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-295, 95-260 - delete comment 13 and 95-345. Fire Prevention Memorandum No. 95-316 - delete all comments and replace with the following: 1. Buildings shall maintain a minimum separation of ten feet. Police Department Memorandum No. 0156 - delete comment 2, No. 151 - delete all comments, except comment regarding telephone access for secured entrances would still apply. Building Division Memorandum No. 95-324, 95-287 and 95-270 would still apply. tjh Attachments xc: central Fi10 A:NSoundMP PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-484 Agenda Memorandum for September 5, 1995 city Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager ~Ir 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 .inqle-fami1y detached unit.) and reduce lot .1ze 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 Hypoluxo 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 "B" - 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'50'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 Commission would make a findin9 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 "Z" lots. 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" i8 a written deecr1pt10n prepared by the applicant's agent that desc~ibes 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 HZ" 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 maste~'plan (Exhibit "0") and the current proposed master plan (Exhibit "B"), 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-~he 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 squaie foot "Z" lots, the plan should specify the total area within ~ach 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~en ts) : 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. 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) . At this time the utility Department has no objection to the plan. Fire Department - Provide an ingress/egress on Hypoluxo Road and 15 foot separation between buildings. The ap~licant 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 ri;ht 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. Addi tional 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~~~nd is provided for your reference. On October Ilf 1989 the city Commission approved on second reading Ordinance No. 89-36 rezoning the subject property from AG (Agriculture) and R-lAAA (Single-family Residential) to PUD with a Land Use Intensity of 4 1LUI = 4). The rezoning master plan was approved subject to staff comments and is provided in Exhibit "F". A master plan modification for the PUD was requested in January 1990. The request included reconfiguring the boundary between the mul ti-family and single-family pods, changing the single-family pod to zero-lot-line units and establishing the following building and site regulations for the zero-lot-line, single-family units: lot frontage 50 feet, front setback 20 feet (on private streets), rear yard setback 10 feet 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 ':':::-:::- :.:~_'_ _",,-_ _ __ ~~...... un:: exhibit also includes the conditions of approval regarding lot size, lot frontage 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 des1Qn and construction of the Hiner Road extension to Lawrence Road from its existing terminus east of Congress Avenue for the PUD' s proj ected impact on Miner Road. The resolution also indicated that . . Page 4 Memorandum No. 95-484 Nautica sound the city supported the request of Rnollwood Grov.. for road/traffic impact fee credits to palm Beach county. This resolution agreed to recognize this payment of fees as commencement of the development, thereby vesting the 1991 PUD master plan. On August 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 reQulation. states that chan9.. developments shall be processed as follows: the' city's land in planned unit Section 12. Changes in plans. "Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the Planning and ~on~ng Board upon application filed by the developer or his successbrs 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 Staff 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. "A 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 reguJ ati nn!= "'-on other applicable City regulations to the same aegree that they are intended to control development on a lot-by-lot basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned un! t development, it is the intent of PUD reQulations to promote 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. Page 5 Memorandum No. 95-484 Nautica sound Section 9. Internal PUD standards. B. 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 abuttinq zon.... 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 ~ith median and turn lanes), requiring a crossing over the L.W:D.fi. 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-~nticipated 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 on 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 al ternate 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 t seen the most PUD approvals is the Lawr This area has become a monoculture of de~ of 5,000 and 4,000 square foot lots, yet remaining area within the City where laI could be developed compatible with the la. which spot the area and preceded the newer issue was discussed at a recent Commissior the Commission recognized the link that he on economic development opportunities. J minimum 6,000 square foot lot size was dis diversify the types of new homes 'that are. Regarding the requests to reduce the lot wi6 40 feet and 50 feet for the II Z II lots and Zero front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, reducl on interior lots from 15 feet to 10 feet an_ ~~uuce 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 ~esign - 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 forc~the City to eventually construct additional lift stations which the City mu.t 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 in the loss of a [ew 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 plans, cul-de-sacs have been omitted, lot type, size and location have changed; however, a utility plan was not submitted for this review. ~ECOMHENDATION On Tuesday, July 25, 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the previous master plan modification requ..t. The Board reoornm.nded 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 hav~ 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 Hodification,-and particularly, to enable review of the affects on the master plan of all proposed changes. TJH:meh Attachments xc: Central File . I NAII'neat . DOC " L0CATION MAr NAUT/CA SOUND (KNOlWOOD GROVES PUD) - ft. ~ . -.. -..., r~ I -""~ _'_ _ <" .,__..,:<:~ ,.......... r ~f/. k.:':::::',:,~~,~",:**: :"..~"'::~:: _ J . . 6 --,' " c'3 .... :~:'-i?i~~':!:l:i::::@ '~~~*4 _ 'I! :J I '::':.":':':":':':':':<:'''': :<.:.".:.~:< ",,~ , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:: ;::::::::::::::::' . - ~., ~ -. ;;.:::::::B:.:.:.:'.::!I''''....'~:. -<:::::<: t:auc IV'.. . ~ I ::::::::::" ". ': .... ..' ~.:. .::::::: ~ : "- ,,*,:, Y. :' ",'.' , ...>>.::: '/, - ~- -.,.:<<: . .' .'''.: .. ""': L U I: , /-. '" .. ~ , , -":'.',,, '.' .:. :"""'"'' ". b:.: .::. :.:.: . - . I .. 17~ :~'~:*::~~:::::~~.::.'r~::::i::::~::::~::::41.:~J.11~1:~~~>5 ;.-,~.~ ~~~, ~ . (I'. iI,.. ~,.~:,. : 1.~:~~:,~~~~:~~,:?:!*'@$.:~Ni:::::Mr.~~:::::1:~*~~,'*'t4"l."!.,w n u ~. ~~"lt)-v ~~_ 11";'7> I::: .g;,fHt@~ttit~~:1t:muwl~i~.ll~tnt:~ ~~t'-:;"-.n-'C" 0; :' ; _ ~J- ~l::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*:::ti..::::::N..:::::::Q':::::::ti:::::::t:::::W::::;:::::;::::::;a::;::~:m:::::;:; '::;;::::;;::~:::::' 1Ii-_-'!J' ~ ^~..or N:\ Y.' ',. '\)~:I "f p, .,.. r "":'-:-:':'::.".::.:.:..:.". '-'. :'., . -.. . :":':':":_:':":_' I:t. '-""I'''''' \ ~'. :;--: _ "-,,, c:- <:I-::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::..::...,.:....:................:, .....:l!':'t.. ...-....1'~: ,...-= =- . 1'1--? ,"'{ , _ '- _ . · qh~ AG ]\~i\~~~~ifi"jjlt\'~\III\\~i\~''I:ni;:,-=(~~ ~J.~:~;,,<; II ( ''% )l\:M;%Ril~ili'!~@mKMtltf~: d~Mr' 211. ~.. .~, ./ _ 1 I 4J. ~""-= /.;'? ~.._'~SJ · ';:;';::~:;";;.0' _.' 'd~I>YI~ 0& 111,/ i"!'!lJ/:', J S't:~ ,r!~~ I.' '=oft! = _ .' ,~. r'~UJ 0 /-, ~ ------ G l~ . 6:110,:.: .~ _"'_ )~. L?~/. ~" ;- , '~~- ~rj, ~ . lT~ )"'t:iiE,I Y'~~- ( ;,1', ~' "111/11/.... ',I (fAr' 7 ~oq;~-_ ' I:j r - '- "..'.......~I ,""fI_, h~\2 flJLj{AA.: ;I' . I ,_ '~i\IL~~r;_ ~ -. ,- , '" ,~~ ~t.\ tj ~CCIf{' I\~, J.l'~~r::Tl;l1ip," · '.1.1: 0 1--1:: 0;; ~ -"C~J-==]. ,. f:: II ' '''mIm 1=13 Ill, 11 ~ f-...~ 1 [4: ~. ,1\ '''''''- ') f~'i" I" 'n',",-'f"v " " II, L'--._ ' ':";;-'iill17ff;JilJjiJw~ f?;=:::-- _ _._.-::=; .~~:~~ - I--- ,,~ ,. ...qn'.... I~~ I , ~ "iJi .;>J - -.. "";~,"" ~ .~ ~ ~ '{ r 1:1. r-. 1 J )v: --- :~ 1:::.. .i< '" ~~ j.,. I~ . .....t!<-. '- ~'-l/t:0i11f, V 1\1 TO 1\1 .~ fJ1J, ~-'.w-: - 'l}~':~"':- ~ LU-," ~1~' )~ ~ )/ I se"'lI" S .. ~ ,t;e:~"; . f!'.- -~ ,tit; F: I:: '=' . II. "" I . i //~..!!J . - '/1< ii'" ; 1\<)< r.{hli;~ iri I,' / 1 ~ ~ l~~ ::) l. \' .,.,/~.~ !-!.oo "t:'TRLJs G.1.I:J\I au ~ ~Ilt ~ """eLl R ~~ '. '.' RT~ · .... · r::: 31 II; ~ puo LUI'4,O,..a:3. ~_'-= ' - · ~ - CITy L.IMlTs . q"~A _,_ ~' / =-l~~ ~fl~Jp" .I/l;..u.~ , :1;1::;>8"~ ~iHiltf B r~.., ~~(fi';;:; :.0 ~ 1.-.. .. . oiI'18"0 1/8 M/lE~V '\! ill 1/ - [) f) iltl/J D I '/,'", ',- . I J IJ111j /I 'I, ~."'I-. . _ _ _ ~- ~-II- Cj.~r~WJ'iY__-=:-- '...J'i71L 0 40Q 800 FEE;T , - -- - - - ~~ II TJ NN/N;: JJl!iPT: 8-qc;J_ c- Po '11, ~~J .". . " " ct."" c' r II ---=-,- , . E X H I BIT "B" , , IUt I, 0 ,"1" ' . d C .\. "" 11 I \' l\!ll · XI ff_~ + l' ~~~. ~~ " - ~ . ~ = >J...-" - Y - - - - ..._......J ' l'lA, ~ ~.. t ~ ~.~..~ l'... ~~~_~;~_~rM-~.~...~tia ~. i i\ ~., . I ~a.'.' 114 I . ;iTI\\:\ '1lI l ~ , , "', ,'. . ~ "':. U. ! "f ~., , t ~\\ I" 1Il leI \ ii " I r .. .,.. - , J' . \ m !\\ i.' ::. '..,.I.. ....~.) I.;'\. . :.~~'.' :'.~ II \T C C . lB: (;... ..... . .~. . .... i ~~. I \~ ..~.. ~---------- "?'..\' ~r0'1\ fill ~~~ IUIt.!.ft,." ~ i' I'~"p.- '" 0 r-,~J\-~ II .~ XI . ~.. _ _ " I , ~ air. ~ . I ...." I I- ~I ' I . ;. \. . m' "', \ ... - j .\' ~ ~.~ i ..... '. l!1 , 'i "0 1 II': l ." \ i~' . ~:. ~ \ !; '" 0...'..; . ,",:",7" '.~,*'. I '., .'. ' ,~ \~ \ \ .. .,: I % !'11 . '0 , : I : T ...' , I:" , '. ,. .. : ,.. , , I I ,!.; I ' .: /'\' .' " , \ ........ ~"".~ ~', . - : : f\ i \ I : '\ ',: r _ " , \ ~ ".>;.. \ . ~ ! ., 111111' a \I I ' ! I 118 ~ c______ I .~, ri=1It: ' · I il !l\~l . , "'\l!'l-l\; ~ \ \ Ii 1111+\ d,~ _'. .~ ~,' .---_~ :P IS:: . '1(':1 :il i\ I,!I , ~ ,,, * \j II , \,' \ \~ \, ~ : :' a ;'r;"fi;;.:: ,~"pl~~ .' .'~ j:h.:.;.; ~r.6; ~ 1- I/~j: I. - - --mi~\ \ ~ .( ~\-'o- ,,' 7 :.: '. "r;:nl" .~_.,~~; .'"'' ;i~ :'..:. -. '.':N~ ~ I ~ '. · '. ~j~ ' .~ ~~Hir }I I '--;-I:ll~,;,t:~~: ~, ,;.:. ~ '1 --,l'l~' ~l~ ~i , ~. '--J, :'I'~';' ,r: ;. ;;i;; ;;,;r; ;'I~i~: \ I~t'l'~' '~t)C: ..~~.' ,.' , , . . :"l:.J"~' ~,.i i~am~ - ri :: :' :~, r ~l' ~l'}'}'}'}I': Il~~ll I ',1 .. \.~~'< .' "., . ~/" 'o,~ . ~ I .' .."...,,:. , . . : . 1 t '. ':~ . ' _,~. "'. '. .. ..' 'I'~" I ," I. Co< .. ... : ~ .. · .. , .. .. : ' 0 · 0 \ .~. . . '. '. ., , .I )' ..' .' .. ~6 ! J -" jj:...~. ..: ..: ..... "~II ~ I ~~ \ ....'~....'~.. .'. ....,~....~..... ,. ~........~i:PIL.' ,.....,' ,':n~T11~~l;:~I~"~1';' ,u":'",,(\\I,1tlilllH ~\ I ~~f l:-~" ., ~ ",' ,," I ..~----~t:1 · I.' · . 1.: 'U'~" I ....J. 1 1~.~'~Ii~ ~ , I:. J~'" > . ". · '"T'" " , · , I l;... I .' I' ~. ,," 11, ' ,...., I: ...... . ~ I r\-' I I. :, : 11- c_-_/ '''/.llo..~ ;;:, '."; l< ') 1,..-..' ~. " il..!.....""~' 1........ :~. : "~ ' .-~, -;.~.,~ .' ~ \' 1. "t~. t- . iO'" It I ." .;. . I,' : .. r.'.';'" ,.,ftr'.-O ~, -. ..:-i ,.' .. I..~" l :~. '. ,I , ~. ~l '" .. · i " '" ' o. :. ': I. -,"" " II ~~~ c:.i. ] :~ ,I" ~ \ i · ,~,.: 'II~I ~l ~." hr: ,I, ... ~ ,.... p ~,-,"" . -" : a ' , I' - 0 0 c.:-< . ~",,'~ ... dO' ~ .. ,....., ~ ,: ,.'" ~!~ \ \1 :'1""'1", :,"~ .~ I , ' ~ II' ~. ' ~ I"'" 14 J.l:.i.~~ . " .. ~ · . . ',I' ~.~ ,,1\ ~ - ., -" ,.,' ........ ~ 0 II; =+:! . ....' ~ ~ r'tl i i:~ .:11: i ,~ t:. .,:: ::~-:-. .;:.;...;..;. W-H::l bp~~-~n L'~, ~ ..,~}~ ~~\ ~ . JI ........~,.......... .. . . ' '. ) . lI' ~.., t ...' II 0 · J. · .' : · . 0 \ ~\~.. nll'!:a I": A '. -. -- .- .. ....~~ ~.-.- m.1-" ...~ -' -- .....,' , '.,;' l..........!._..ll'Jl . I ,v' · T;: ;.:.:.:.; ,: ;.: .." 'R"'" :~f;. - - [ill' t~~. '~1~- '. -.~~1-~;. _..~-~:... \ · : ...-.... .~ >.___ ..~, _ _ _ ---1-"- _ · ,J ~ 'J>~'~ ,...... II 1 i' .' Jo. I I · I . , I' Uti' ~ \: .t iI / L-~ .._......' - -.- - ", - 'Ii!' 'I' I II JI' I I C \.' ~_......- - ...--'''::: ~ ~o 1\\ III "I IlL . II! 11 \' ~ t ~ I !IId!)\ ~ 80 '9 i I I "" lii'\ ~J . .. 'lit I ml, " ", I\i\\ \ e ~ ~ Il ' ' !I I \ - - - '( ',h" . ~ ,\ ._ . ~, . \III ; o' ' . II,,,' :1 I ~..PIlI'''''~ ,.J.~ ~u..... .;~.. ;,.:~~ '~- .... .... .' ~~~~- ~tl '11 ,~~_.._.."" ' . I'!ir_,--~ ~I ,_ ---..0;-... - ....-.-=.-.... ...,_......,,_. ...... ... \W;\\ ~i \ ;; \\\\ \\\\~~ \\i\ \,;\ \~ \~\ '\\' i\" ~~ ii\ \l\\ \\\~ \\' ,',\ ~\~\\ ,\'\ ,\ 1\\ \\\'\ \\ \h\ \\'. " -\\\ 1\\ \~ .\, , \. ~ I ~ \ ,,' \\, ~\ · · \ "4 ~ \ ~ l'\ \\ ' '\ \\\ \ . : ",\,\ \~ \ ~ \,t, \ ", ~l \.\ ~ ~1,~1\\\ ,~ :l\' , \ l\~\\\\ \~ \\\ \ ' ~ \' ~\ ~ \ ~n ", ~\ , ,,' ,} ~ \ ~ '!\ ..\' ~\ \ "-..~ ,\ \ \ ,\\ f \ \ ~ \: 0 '\\ I · ~ <11 \It \ I' ;\ 1\" \. ~~; \ ' 1\\ ,\ '~ \ \ ' ~ 11 ! ~ iit\\1 \ \t, \ ~ in~n~f'l'\ t \ 1\1\ " i '. \l~\ .~~ W\ V .;~\~\ \ \; ~ \\l\~il \\ \\ \\\\ \~~ \~\\ ~ \\\\ ~~ 't\\ ~ \\i\\\ ~\ : \ ,Ii)\" i\ ~i W\ \~\\ \\r.\ a\ \\\\ \~\l.\.~ \ ~~ \il n; \ \i~\t',,* \~ i, \,\; t\\~ \\~\, \\ i~\ .\i, \\\\ \ \t i\ \\\ l ~~\ ~ \I l'\ \\.\ \'\\ ','i' \~\,\1 \\ ','1\. t\,\\ \i','\ \ ~~ it 'il ", I \ ,., ,,' " ,I, \ I \ \ III i" I'~' \ \' \ \~ \~\\ \\\\ \\ \1\ \\' \~\\ \ ,; \\ \ , ll" "., I' ." 1\ "t I 1 \;" ,i \'i \ ~\ \ i " , ,1' I n \'i.G~~' \\\l!\\ i~~\\\ , , ~ \ ti , , , \\ Kllde, It ANoclat.. L.ndsc.pe Archlteata/Planner. 1651 Forum P'-ce Suite 100A We.t Palm aeach, Florida 33401 (4071 689-6622 · Fax: (407' 689-2682 August 30, 1995 Ms. Tambrl Heyden, Planning Director Mr. Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Development Adrninl.trator City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Re: Nautlca 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 revised 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 resubmlttalls a Master Site Plan which reflects the layout of the Individual lots, the Interior right-of-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 overal~i'eductlon 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 pr~viously proposed and 31 zero lot line units have , been eliminated. 2. The developer has agreed upon an acceptable location for the 11ft station with the City's Utilities Department and has also agreed to upslze the facilities to accommodate a small neighboring parcel to the northeast. The 11ft station Is located in the southwest corner of the top portion of the site. In ord~r to provide a more amenable plan for the City Utilities Department, four of the deeper cul-de-sacs have been eliminated. Ms. Tarnbrl Heyden Mr. Mike Haag August 30, 1995 Page 2 In response to Comment 7 of the Planning and Zoning Memorandum #95-421, a proposed typical dense landscape buffer has been provided for your review. I have spoken with both Mike Haag and Kevin Halllhan 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 Draposed 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, ~I~ Karyn I. Janssen Kilday & Associates, Inc. cc: Alan Fant, GL Homes Larry Portnoy, GL Homes Rick Elsner, GL Homes Chuck Justice, Lawson & Noble \. '., \ \\ i" . ~ - -- - , ~ ~ - - Ej - ~ - \~ ; \\ '- C) '- h \~ ))' i\ ~ - - n' fi~ ~ ~ ./ ~ \ --\ i ~ '"""" c - - c " ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ 7C r C C \ -\ C \ ...-\ - 1 - ~ ---- - \ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -\ U) --\ i - - tCfl - - - t -a ~ - - - - - ---...... Ol \ \ 0\ \ i E X H I BIT "C" 1\\\t \1\\' g ~ m ~ ~ '> ~ 1] S; Z ~..:::=:::.--=:_~.__..._...-:t:=_._._._._._._._- · . ,,~- '-'-'. . { t: \ I I \ I" I ' \..- \ \ \' \' \' \' \1\ l\ I ..I \ h,"lli1f,n \IU" \~ \In 111\l'~ ~I \" \ i ':. III \\ \ \ t\ \ \\ \ \ \ · U\ ". "'il'l .-~ I. Ui ~ \' "' ml'" ..I i I': \\ \\ '\ I i 11 ""' , i I '-' -------..---------- ----..-- {:'I"~ & 1 . II .--' ... - f:\ . \\ '. II,: _ 't-- nh .- ( . 'd ~ "'-= \..- \ 11 _: I n\f\\H \\',\'\\\\ ,in I Q'} . 'I \, I '\ .1 \ . ~ IlIliIIln 1,\. ,I \' I '.1 \ . . ,\ \ ~~ I I , I ii~lJ~""'1"I' iKnOnwood Groves pun " ~ .. 1I~1 .) ~~rton B.~h, fL I .,,' ..' "i. <.):: -;J .... PI.~\ .fti~._~ ' .' . . .~. . V""" . ,S 1I11S - nl~ .1'1 \\\\ \ \ \ 1f~ I~~ .....~ - \ , . II ,it II I I \ .\ I , . I I · . !l:nll. ,~l' I '- " tIfie City of 'Boy" ton t.Beac/i : @ '00 ,t;, '-'''!f''''''' '.Itar' 'touU""rd' " .. ".0. 2J"{J'O · r. ,', ," 'It&lY''h't1 'i1tlll~. :TW,u" JJ4U.OJ '0 ..:'. ,':". (ity:HiIIl:,"07}iJ".IIU 1:U: "oID;} 1.11';"19 0' OFFICE OF THB 'LAHHIHG DIRBCTOR March 13, 1991 Attn: H.. Anna Cotte.ll Urban Design studio 2000 'a1m leach Lake. Blvd. Suit. 600, The Concour.. West ,.Lm Beach, rl 33409-6582 REI Knollwood Grove. Ma.t.r 'Ian Modification - .il. Ho. 570 Dear M.. Cottr.ll. .1.... b~ .dvi..d that the City commi..ion at th.ir Febru.ry 19, 1991 meeting m.d. a finding th.t the ch.ng.. requ..t.d in the pod boundaries, ace... point. .nd unit type for the abov.-r.fer.nced project were not 8Ub.tantia1 in nature. Regarding the modlfica- tions to the approv.d ..tback., lot .iz. and lot width, the City Commis.ion made a determination of no sub.tantial chang. bas.d on your consent to comply with the following minimu. .tandards: 1. 6,000 squar. foot lot .h. 2. 60 foot lot width 3. 20 foot front yard .etback 4. 15 foot alde y.rd s.tb.ck on the non-zero lot line S. 15 foot r.ar yard ..tback 6. An 8 foot-pool .nd .cre.n enclo.ur. setbilck The Planning a_-Zoning loard at thelr March 12, 1991 meeting made a final d.t.~ination on this reque.t, inCluding compliance with the minilllUlll .tandard. .tated above, by approving this modification to the Knollwood Groves PUD ma.ter plan, subject to the att.ched statt comm.nt.. T~ese'comm.nt. .hall b. .ddr....d on the sUbmi.sion plan. for peellm~naey plat approv.l. Pursuant to Appendix 8-'lann.d Unit D.veloPMenta, S.ction 10.8.3, approval of thla mast.r plan modification and PUD zoning will expire on September 12, 1992 if a pr.liminary plat ha. not been submitted. An ext.n.ion to the lllaster plan approval for a maximum period of one year, may be filed not later th.n 60 days after the expir.tion of the mast.r plan, November 12, 1992 (Chapter 19, Section 19-12 of th., Cod. of Ordinano..) . axtenaLone mu.' ~. ,il.4 With 'h. .lann1n. D.pa~tm.n' Dy SUbmitting a letter of ext.ndon for review by the Concurnncr Review Bo.r4 and the Planning and Zoning Board. It you h.ve .ny qu.stions reg.rding this _tter, pl.... do not hesit.te to c.ll me .t (407) 738-7490. Very trUly your., Cl"-,t.Jw...... -.e~ CHRISTOPHER CUTRO, AICP Pl.nn1ng Director CC:frb Encs cc. Technic.l R.view loard n ,'" P( (f> C\. tlt\ I, Ii\! .Iit 1=' i " 11'11 :1 l"j' I~I II. I I I~ ~. Il.' P ~~~~: ~~__~ ~_~'''''''_~m l_J',L --==,_, .:!\. ~'~~~-N~~ ~ --::r~fii \1'11 f', :~ l.l!i!',i ; , ':." , f.'. :': ~\I, ~111LLJ t!,1 ...Jl _'" - " \ ~\\ ill, l'lh I \ , ., I: I ' 'I · I ..fT, ~,' 1\' ~I 'I' I~ i r:: i!i. ':.::.!.~..:::..:/ f~ .:.R:. ; ~~(~ \1 \ t III 'I ;, ~ . , . J1.H!i. " i' .... '..:::::: ::t-:" :::=.s.. .. · .11~l\\\ \.Ii i' I I \ I,~ · Elfll0 1 · , · · , I t' I ~~~,jl~l\r' A.t \ ~.: m I~.~., ;;----- --'.,.I----r=\~~~.:~c )~\\I~cii a ,~.!1....!- " 'II ~'~,' ~~'" \ -~ ' I I ~I::' '-'-_ 'I ~.~\,.. 1. ' ~ I ,::' -,' I ~ '.,....., ',', " '.\' " · I ~II' ~!. :. ' . . j ~ ~~~0 \ 'n' ,!I ~ ~I' \ ',;," ' " - "":' ' It ~ . ,.;..".i4I, ~~ ~'\ '". . J tll', ~:\ ~.:~ ,Or"', ! I' '., .:. ' I'\l:;;"' ,ltl' I J lli\' I .:: : I ::: I I' ... ' '.. . ~.: :~ ~ ," , ) i,' ,~. ::: : 'I, I .' , ~~.... ~ ~ ,Ill .. "'I ,I I , ~II '~ ~. -;::--; /' ~ -~\ · ': :,,: .; -;q:p \ J II!'. ,t~~ m l' ) I .. ", ~, l, '1 I ' I~' " JI I. 1\1, ~ I" 1p' } I _ :.' fj li-L-' ~ "- ,.- '-'hi ~ ' " II. jl !-illl r I II''=' i I.' J 1" 1'1 l:: \\\"1.; .:.,~:~.L~l;1l;~:-.:~I>-JU ~ 'f: I ,~~!Iill II "'!ll\ ~ih.i" ~i\6 n ~J -,\ .. . ~i' -.- ," ... "\" I.. ifir : 1--. ..tn"'J" J:...... ,.." : .. II' , ",' v....... ....~::', .' I'{"~' \ -; ''1J- ~ '-t~I--V:1 I- . $sl , " I~ ~! U' " ;. ;~./ "'il:" ~l:.:~:J:: .:: ::~lllik:.J ~ . - . . . . . . . ~: . ,l .I. ~- r.' - - f ~flCt' ~I!,: ' l i t .: ;lll!\: . '::'~7'i"h" I;' ,;" "." ~<l>;_. . - ~ ~: -' . = ;~; .I:';C ; ;{,~ 1:i:C ;',1 \1" 1\ \ 1 i '''''l~.'.~i\..'''''-' ,., .,:', · h.. hi '~fri."~:: :'::/;:::~ ":':l ~ :!"-iu::;";"':lr'T' 'f;=-j:~;: '}'.;' .,'; ::~;'fr: ~ \l"i\ · ) ~\'\ ~..::,~~.,.; .'~. :':~ 'J;3lICt:... l' ,._.,~' :....'l.J.....,~....,llliW:." \ 1'1' '. ....~.."C, 1 . ..' : ~ -~.' ". · '. -, ."" ." , i ' ~)~ .' ~ a'. 1 --,. u;I;L.I I - ..':' r '. r~ l~ rl . 1 ~ 't , l-i\ ' 'RI:, .. ,. ..-.., ' :. nil:. 'I' v. !, R -. ,- ",1'-;.-"" I..'.. · .., ' \' '11i f I\\:~~'.~-:., ,;. ~:.~r,\ I'~f~!lpdll t ~'i-~:;;;~:':' 'i:r~"{:: :,~'~::j:: ;.1.\,~ ~:.: I ,I : .';:..;"" ' .: " ,,' '~~ ., . ~.:,~ ..,'.. · ,.. ...~ ~~.., ~ ,I h 'Il' , r;r~-l'~ h.. .;.,"" .,,"", I" · i ;i \ i~~)>~~' ,,;,;t:~. ,}:., >/ ~ ..Irl----~m~\~ ~~ ~ ;j1~ ".\:';~'::Y:~"'t ",\ ~'\'''~~1I\ it ~I 1 ~ ",r.f.t~ ,. ..,o.~., ,'" ~' 'I "ill '!t-;-r I ,~ .' \...!"Tf. I ., ~, _ _ L.---'<~..'" to"".fi ~..'.'\' \ I J" II -';'1' N;~'.' :~' ,'. ::t...!. ~ I ;: 61 ~ 7-.&o~~O'1" :\1'" \., I II I · .,::::.,-1 .'~ II"~I .:: . .. I ":,..1 1 ~: ~~n.'W · 11 .1. I J 'i ~ : -;.J:T 1~'~ ..J::;"'I'~ I .,:r:'. · ':. :;: ;;' -~ : " ~" ., _.'11 . ,~ : ._ , ~. oi'::.-,l>, ,III. ...j '+: ..,~.,. "'F:::{- I i ',l,:,.I bi ~~!~I :rr' ': \' l~'l': !!;I~~ l_ ____:m~__..JJ ,H-W,!~: ~i ::-n f ft.;", ::~ : :: '1~ ",' :.t. .. f' c;.......' II. --- ,/.:T. -r '1:~ I ~~ ,;:., ___I__J. -or. ... ,L ': d '\' . '. \ ~t V>~i~ ::. ~ I' :1'~',,:'~:.~!.~:J:~~_..~~~..~-l:,..~~~.~..~-~ :~'lil:' ~1!i"...ltlt..~1;.::..-r~:' 1"'1,"\ ; , H ~ Iii I~ . r /. ' ;-;-; '" ,: ,,,; " -:. --,;. ~.- . ~-L~.w ~ -' = :f~, -' -,I.::-~.. ".:-- ..'" I 'r.~ ' '~~"1.. t.,; ~..., ':"- ~ : · ~Il ~~ :' .: 'JI~ ;t~~,~~:Hf1.1j~ ' · ~ ~~t( ~ ~c ':1; -' ',~ \ ~ i \I Ill!1 . l(;bl U \ ..-.- ~_......_, -.... - -" ..~r, ~ -10 Ii! i2~ ,i/~f)L ~~ M h ',"~ " '~I "t\' ~ 1:: I' g ~ & 8 ~ I In! i ~ I',:', · I li,ll · n,. 'Il~ " \ '" !l ~ !' I .1 ,~ I "' ~ "Ii '. · I ll~. g ]~ i ! ~ 'I ! ~ \ - - r I , 'I .l'jij . ~~q~i;i11 l'lii~~ !,Im! liE IIII ,. il,1 ! :~J .'1111' . H'I','ii "I " I. r:r - JIIo .t!'~". ~ f;' ":.::' .IJ:~ .u\.~. ...11'1..... .... . HAUTICA 80UIID r.LA.It..ll.... G,,'" '.U.D. h.wn'.n ",.,,,. ner.'" ....." .... "." .-- ..... .. ~.. '....n... ............t/t...-... m.~ ~U" ..... r;;;r ~..,.. ....... ,..... JUO' ,.." ..,...n .,..~"'l ..'-." .... ",,,," \ ! ~ \\~ 511 ~ ,Ii _ ,n.-, 1\ ,\1 ~ \ 1.~~ : \. '. ~. l i\ i i ,\'. '~\\,_ \\,\ ~~\ 1.\'\\ \ \\,- lll\: I: l tri\- w,' \ v\. \ ~\ · ~, : h\~',\ H1\ ~1l ~\.,qi\ \ \Ii ~ \\ ~..ft \ \ ~ \\4i . \ \It · ~ · ~ ". .~ t.i\ \q, 11' ~\. '.\' ~ ? - ~\~ \\ il., \i\i 1\ ~ \\\' ,\ l. ,\ ~ \\\ ,', W "';\\ \ W \ ; 'l \1"\" \i\\ ~ ii\ I i \ r\'\ \\ \~\\ 1\~' \ " \ \\, .. -\\\' \ ,\,\ \ ! \ \ \ ~ . " . \' ,~ 1 - \ 11 H . 1\,\1 \' "r ~-. .. '\l · \l~ t.~1 ---\-- \ '" - \ ~ ..\ ~ ~ ~ '0 ! ~ () ~ \~ \~ \ ~ i\ \r 0 . ~ \, \, ~ ~ \\ ~\ ~ \ ~- U'I \ ~ \\ . ~ ~. ~. \,. \ 0 :1 l~ l" ~ . \"_ 8 ~ ~ ~ (j) ~ \ \ ~ - \ \ \ _ a .!l 11 % (li\\ \ \ \t~ \ ,_ . . . ",\\19: · ! " _ _' Ii ~ \..1 " " _ 9 ,\ ' -'i.i~. \8 4 t W~ \ \ .i W~ ill \\\\ \' \iX~ \ t,\ \\ \~ \\\\ ~~\~~ \\ \~\ \\~ f~\ ~ ~\~~ ~\, i\ 9\ \\i\ 'Xl' \\\l\ il\ \\\\ r\\ "" ~ -~ ill l~\ \~ h l~~ ~\~t "~\, 'i\ i~\ .il, \\\\ \ \\ ~\ \\\ \, \ \\\\ \,' '~.' 1~ W "l\ ~\\ \ ~~ \i Ji, J', \ 1ft n\ \,\,\ \. \,\ \l~ i\~\ \ ~\ {\ \ \ ~\' \'\ ~N \~ \t' \, \\\, ,tt Ii 1 \ \ \ I~ i1q\ Ii .\\ It ~\ t - . "\ \J ~ \Ii \ ~\ ,1L ,,' 1 S' t 4~' 1 Ii S' 1 i It I ,...... fI .' ..0'* .,... . PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #95-485 FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Planning and zoning, ~1rector (:'fJHa- 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 previou81y approved PUD ma8ter 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- lot-line 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 f.et 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 northwe,~t property lines. Note: setback for residential buildings' is the distance, measured perpendicular, from the property 1 ine 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 1n 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-IAAB 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- 3 (community Commercial) zoning district is that a 5 foot high masonry wall; landscaped chain-link fenc~ 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 alon9 the east property line where the subject property abuts the ad1acent 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 (~C; :__~ :_~ ~__~ ~~lQ~c ~~ 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. 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 fiifteen (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-line 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 pool_ 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 qround 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 ,eno10sure 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 buf fer develops to form a consistent shape, the tree and hedge buffer landscape material for the entire buffer easement shall be installed pr;tor to the completion of the first house that has a landscape buffer easement located on the lot and/or prior to the completion of ihe proposed main access drive that is located at the northwest corner of the project. The dense landscape buffer shall be shown on the plans and be depicted as a grouping of 3 to 5, eight foot tall smalL tr,ees (silver buttonwood or yellow elder) then apprOXimately 30 feet away a grouping of 4 to 5, eight foot tall multi-stern (wax myrtle) shrubs. Incorporated into the l-ecommended buffer shall be one, eight foot tall canopy tree (mahogany or oak) spaced 70 to 80 feet on center. The buffer shall also have a continuous 2 foot tall hedge (cha1cas 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 II of trees that are required by the tree management plan. Note; the perimeter buffer landscape design proposed by the applicant (see EYh1hi~ IInll ol~n~ing 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. 8. Revise the plans to show a Hypoluxo Road ingress/egress to the project. The Hypo1uxo 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 tnose sheets (drawings) provided with the previous submittal (but are absent from the current revised master plan): 11. 12. 13. ~ 15. 16. 17. 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."; and On sheet 6 of, 8 move the 15 foot corner side setback symbol to the corner of the bUilding; specify on the master plan that 30 feet is the maximum height of the residential and recreation structures. submit for review all sheets and data that where included with the previous submittal. 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 t1lat: 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. Establish setbacks for structures proposed for perimeter common ground (e'9~ bus stop paviliQn and decorative fences). Indicate on note (D) that six (6) is the maximum height of the entry feature. Please note that as.ociation documents are required for the proj ect. The documents are r~viewed by staff and the legal department and required prior to',J;n.al, p~a): ~p~r..oval. [Land Development ~~~_:__~_~~, -~ua~~~~ ~.S - Planned Unit Development, Section 2. D.] 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 .,Kallt.lca.11l3 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 ~hose 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: "Subj ect to rear perimeter landscape buffer easement and other easements, .where applicable."; , I on sheet 6 of 8 and 7 of B 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."; and On sheet 6 of,S 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 t'hat 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 setbacks for structures proposed for perimeter common ground (e.~~ bus stop paviliQn and decorative fences). 15. Indicate on note (D) that six (6) is the maximum height of the entry feature. 16. Please not. that association documents are reqUired for the proj ect. The documents are reviewed by staff and the legal department and required prior to final plat approval. [Land Development Regula ;'~V&.'" \:..1&Cll..,...t:!L 2. ~ 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,H,..Uca.SD1 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-345 DATE: Tambri J. Heyden Planning & Zoning Director 1~&^(l~am Hukill, P.E. ~-Engineer September 8, 1995 TO: FROM: RE: NAUTICA SOUND I have met with the agents for subject project and reached agreement on the following two items: 1. The 8' bike path on Lawrence Road was a suggestion from the City Comp Plan not a condition based in the LDR, and probably will serve no useful purpose because it extends neither north nor south from Nautica Sound. However, a sidewalk is required. 2. The applicant will provide pedestrian access to the north so as to accommodate walkers to a new elementary school a short distance east of Nautica Sound if and when one is built. They will include in their POA documents an obligation to construct a sidewalk/bikepath to their property line prior to the opening of the school. The School Board, the County and/or the LWDD will have to extend the access from Nautica Sound as they collectively see fit. WVH:ck xc: Carrie Parker, City Manager C:NA UTICA .SNIl ---. OJ r~ -@ ~ ~W'" 11 'I ,u,', U 1,1 u' I J .....-------- PU:W,II~,'!G I\NO I ! , ...~.!Jl!j!ri~iQJ~L ..lJ7l-l.f.- ,I DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT B.aI...RINa DIVISION M.MORAHDUM 80. TO: Mike Haag zoning/Site Administrator " FROM: f)tlll::.m Hu kill, P.E. ~ Engineer DATE: August 31, 1995 RE: NAUTICA SOUND - THIRD RBVIBW We have today received a revised plan of proposed Nautica Sound and have reviewed it solely for determination as to whether it is a ma jor modif ication 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 poi~ts. 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 (':N^"SUlINIURU .' , BNGINBBRING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295 - fu August 9, 1995 ill AUG I 0 1995 FROM: Mike Haag _ite evelopment Administrator m V. Hukill, P.B. Bngineer NAUTICA SOUND - SBCOND RBVIBW TO: RB: 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 minimum 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 "proposed Meadows Boulevard" (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 road and therefor requires an 80 foot right-of-way. Chap. 6, Art. IV, Sec. lOB, pg. 6-11. E. Provide an eight foot bicycle, pedestrian path along Lawrence Road in confQrmance with the Traffic Circulation Blement of the City'S Comprehensive Plan, pg. 66. F. In specific response to Ms. Janssen's August 2 letter and specifically Bngineering Division memo 95-260, we submit the following: 1. Acceptable 2. Please comply. No commitments have been made for a 60 foot right-of-way, and it must be 80 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 . I 13. Unresolved WVH:bh XC: Ken Hall A,IlAUTICA.1 .~ .. "- .........., ....~ '. ....... '~""" " . 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 10' separation between zero lot tine 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, I n 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 I n regard to the following comments: 1) Developer understands that sitEl 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' rlght-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-of-way, 5) The developer's engineer has ,certified that the drainage plan will comply with aU City Codes and Standards and a copy of this letter has been attached for your review. Ms, Tambrl 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 project. 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 8' wide blkepath. 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 wilt connect Lawrence Road with the bus stop and the recreation area located within the central area at the site. The 50' rlght-of-ways located within the project have four feet wide sidewalks shown on either side of these right-at-ways.' . I 9) Soli borings have been completed and a copy of the Soli Boring Study has been attached to the resubmittal package, 10) A map indicating the location of the soli 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, Meadows Boulevard, will be constructed prior to the Issuance at 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 northeast 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 wilt 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 contact 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 he. 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. " DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260 TO: Mike Haag, Zoning/Site Administrator William HUkill, P.B., City Engineer July 26, 1995 ill FROM: if /I ,,., " ,- ". . . ,Wi DATE: PlANNING AND ONIN DEPT. (' - RE: NAUTICA SOUND - MASTBR PLAM MODIFICATIORS We have reviewed subject plan for proposed changes in access points, unit types, setbacks and lot/house sizes. Our conunents are as follows: 1. Acce.. point. - 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: . I 1. Site plan review' approval required. Chap.4, Sec.2, pg. 4-1 2. South road is a collector road by both PBC and FOOT standards (see FS 334.03(4)) and must be dedicated to City of Boynton Beach. Required ROW is BO'. Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec. IOU, 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.SA, pg.6-7 and Chap.23, Art.IIF, pg.23-B 6. Provide parking facility for recreation area including H/C,~t~ll. Chap.2, Sec.11H16e(12), pg.2-10B 7. Establish deed restrictions providing for a property owners association to pay for the operation of a street light system wi~hin the development. Chap.6, Art.III, Sec.14, pg.6-4 and Chap.S, Art.V, Sec.2A4, pg.5-9 B. Sidewalks are required on both sides of all local and collector streets. Chap.6, Art.III, See.1lA, pg.6-3 9. Provide soil borings. Chap.B, Art.III, Ala(3), pg.8-2 10. Provide a map indicating the location of the soil borings. Chap.8, Art.III,A1a(4), pg.8-3 11. Construct (to completion) the south road prior to i..uanc. of fir.e C.relficaee 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 conunence 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 outriqht or lOU may arrange with the County to move the pro]ect to it 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 , ... .. , 1:\ (0 !: I I' "I 11 ! I : ~ I I I~,: n W ffl !, . .."-..'1 i . I ... ~... .. . t I 'I i ~.. ., , ,',:, I ,-8", 'I, FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC TO: Planning Department FROM: Fire Department DATE: August 8, 1995 RE: Nautica Sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves) Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd HPHD 95-006 Buildings should maintain a minimum separation of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) . 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 thi~ development will extend over required limits (Hiner Road construction has been delayed again). Y"'''',- -.... .. """ ...~ ......--..... _......~Ug.i..I. I } ~ 1.1:c/ ~ ~I 7..s Wil 1aOm D. Cavanaugh, I'PO u<<tJ' ~lC~ ik1~ ~f(b?t 'It, (/~I jPrb )1 (' J .' · ;3:0- :'>C:vC~ f&-.- ' CeVl/71d1:Jh' 0(~ d Attachment: Security Gates cc: Chief Jordan File BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT ! I ....'.If-{f.~.-if f-wrr--~-'~ I! ;:'\11 . I ".-'.-;~~.l ~J t. ! ,I I I ,.... .~ --"--'n.r:mm,ir. ritlD .' __ ZI~U!Uq !~n~f, 1.,Ii,A.' TO: FROM: DATE: REF: TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT 31 AUGUST 95 , NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMI1TAL ' MEMO #0164 I ha~e reviewed ~he above plans (3rd ~~~I\) ~"f.~~{1 W'iQ~~in my eomment~ made on two prevlo~sly su~mltted memorand~~:~~d:,,<i~,~1I1 fi,9if ~rt.s of those earlier mcmOlandums. .~j C,:~:~ t.,./,/,,$(), .,j t' ,..-* )>. ( ",,- " d".". rJL'j \r~~'~' \0 I '" If''''''^'o-/ Respectfully, \<1' '-, _10) I-~~ 1'134--'~' ~ g L1 ,Q 0 ~ ~;Hl6;s 0 Police Department c:.~:::):.;).j { >> c:;::",.o,7 (:..."',....:.,'~,.... ...:...v.... ~ ..~ ~("~;: , /~~..,.,>~ ~~),. ' ' , .~~.~ {,~:;1= 0,0 /............ .....~ #::..^" '\ \, l./v"'7n) i~'} ~J \) t...! L " BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT TO: FROM: DATE: REF: TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT K AUGUST 95 NAUTICA SOUND - 2ND REVIEW . I MEMO #0156 I have reviewed t.h~ 2nd 8ubmi~tal Of~.~,~;a"'~oU~dj~a t~~,>,c.Q!!.'ments tha~ wer~ su~plied. It seems .that my ongmal suggestlo~s i~~'~:$~bloh,~ent ":1'"7,t~Dred. I stili mamtaln the followmg: lj ,. (w;.jY {., ,., ""'. If" t "...,'~,. v.l ," '~,,:~ $*-S . '" ..~~~.~... ')>:- I. Regarding the controlled 6ntr.'Jlcclexits, the developer (G.L~J~~s of Florida) has an attached letter describing twee JypeK of mechanisms of gated co~.: Uft'i'\ies. The first, SOS System(Siren Opcrable ~~~!cm;)~l feel is not something that is not )'0 Ie; both on a police stand point and the prospettiV1!' residents. Police respond to calls t~, uire a silent response (burglalies in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls. etc.) tHat activation of a siren at the entrance WOUld,not~P"pp~rt appr~, ~C11$. ,,,.i~,' of Cci\lliD',I~ A, IS~~"'::l:W.,P, 'I, ,~d not think that residents ,,:,ould appreciate t~c: p 1I~f:~~d ~r 1.~~~~~iment~9.!!~,yp.9ing t ir arT~1 b.y ~oundin~ their sirens. The second ree Ijlffic,qa~~,on ~fa ~px ~ '(keY .en~ry ste",lI:/Thls IS an antiquated method of access to a l~(teohlln\l , Ily~::Requlh the cltyUb: ontain n1I8ter keys to all gatcd communities is futile and supplying every-police officer and fire personcl with a key is out of the question. Maintaining Que.:maJter key requires the response to the p~I,f~ ~.. epartment to obtain the key first. and then td'the::&l,.'..'mmunity. This is not a ','timeIY" respotl' " r emergency vehicles. The third recommendatiq~.J,I.;'emote System" is not explained thoJ.eJ . ,l}l enough. It allows the city pcrsonal to remain iri,'tlloit~:ehicles whcn entering the comm~ft-.,.~ut docs not explain how. or who activates the gate fu~~ti(ilt\ I originally suggested a Jfst,f1i tijQiis similar to this; and is cun'ently being excepted in t1\\?,n!,lIe~.,. ated communities oOb., \:ltx1/The system works with telephone accessibility. The dispatqll "':~' ~J1QUCe~td..*,,:'Maln!.in the telephone number for tho gate and upon radioing that they (p6&ice r,rcall) ~:'".i~ at the gato, tho dispatcher then telcphones tho number to the gate, there 1 acQfati tllcgate for entrance. This matter needs to be clarified. 2, As stated in comments, the width of the existinp hridllc 011 Lawrpnee 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. 'don't see why the other entrance to the development on Lawrence Road should require a deceleration lane and not Meadows Blvd. Rcspectfully, Sgt. Marlon Harris , " >. BOYNTON BEACH PO~/CE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT TO: FROM: DATE: REF: TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING &. ZONING DIRECTOR SOT. MARLON HARRIS. POLICE DEPARTMENT 25 JULY 95 NAUTICA SOUND , . MEMO #151 i"-~';~::':~~:=:1. I haye reyiewed the aboye listed Pla;;~t1ltth)f9~~g: -The entrances/exits arc "car' Cqritf9lte~". I would ret~men<l;,'~at a telephone access also -$ t' 'i...~,..->" ..,.~. ~, '';.. be supplied for police and;,f~e emergency acccss. lfnot. so~pet~rlg comparable to this will be needed for emergencY"4~~SS. '\"/r:~::.::.:~ -Regarding the south ~l~ 10 the development, on Lawren,i R~, I would recommend a decelleration. right ha~\nutn lane. I believe this lane constructl~'1\ ight interfere with the bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, rig~t hand turn lane for the n0l1h entrancc!exli'~d3l\iS ShlotdJ.t~ apPI~~<; sou till' ,Dtl1,\\c!exit. -Due 10 the density - -;~~ed p .iir.t~ of I . ~~opm t. I J?ngIY belieye thaI an entrancclexit is nee ":frOril My j\U1((f.Roid. , ' e distatite, .dm::':botlt:projeeted entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd('?)) arc a great distance from the northern roadways in the deve'onmcn~rJ Emergency response to these roads~wi~lf9uire excess time, thereby requiring a IlYflo\,xo Road entrancclexit. This develop >, ~;"also in the extreme n0l1hem and western en~ of the city and a great distanco fro,~,! Q)iearost tiro station and nolice coverage. ~"'Q) tt"). ,.".~ I' (~ , ~:) r""A'" , <...' '... ." ) , ~,,<, ., '.'..... / . ...........w...... \; \.. ~>.,:v......,.<i' ""'~;,. I ;..~_.~. t:::.1 ...~::::.-:.~' \~<:) 1.1 ') ,t-'''':,''-..;' p {' ( l1 ',' ." f./ /} L1 ~~:--# Respectfully, Sgt. Marlon Harris Police Department . ..-...... ....-.-... :~ ~ BUILDING ,DIVISION MBMORANDUM NO. 95-324 i! ;11 j' m,JC1_ r~._n WI , I ;dl i: I 1 I .) I :-: ;.1;~~ 'uTi'- " ; I"r: "'" r:!l.~~ August 31, 1995 FROM: Tambri Heyden Planning & Zoning Director " Al Newbold Deputy Building Official TRC COMMBNTS - NAtrrlCA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL '. TO: 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. A~~-~' AN: bh Attachments/2 xc: William V. Hukill, P.E. NAUTICA BUILDING DIVISION MBMORANDUM NO. 95-287 August 9, 1995 From: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoni~g Director Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official To: Re : NAUTICA SOUND Master Plan Modification - 2nd Submittal Bast 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 ~hat 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 I AN:mh Att. Plans cc: william V. Hukill, P.B., Department of Development Director A,MAOTICA.TIIC " BUILDING DIVISION MBMORANDUM NO. 95-270 August 2, 1995 From: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director Al Newbold, Deputy BUilding'Official Master Plan Modification - 1st Review Nautiea South f/k/a Knollwcod Groves (PUD) To: Re: 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~f 250 Sq. Ft. maximum. 3. Bntrance signs,should not exceed 32 Sq. Pt. 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,IIAUTICA.TRC E X H I BIT "F" # . ' '~\il\r \\\\\ \\\ 'If o 1] C5 Z ,. .- ~ '> ~ :0 "'0 > Z i ii \' i ~ III · · I \ h ,'tutU II \1 U' , 'r 1\ III lU \1\'\\1\' I \,\1 I i III I II \\ \ \ \ ; t~\ II' "C,I~' ;lG~ i- &I~ \ I I IUII1I rrl lit. I" ss J I · · \U\... ~ -...-...- =.. ._. . _. WllMl-..~.--.. '''-1:..- " ,:"":'-'-'-'-'-'-'---'- ' - (' r r . ! I .-.-.. . 1\ ,\:: I , \ \B> ell OJ : '\1, I "I H I, \i' '\ ) : '\, ' . I J :l~ 'I : (fJ} L :.\ - "'" I 1\!1/ n~ f~=-= ~ I. \ I. I l!!li,m~ I ""iti\ i l\\\ft 1\\\ I fl~.~\\ ",,\\u \ '\\1\\"\\ ' \ \~~\l' .'\' \\\, I, \ \Ii h\ \ I~~' ' . .11' ,. I " III \ I un" II i l ~. II '. II , I 11 'I . "\ , \..:..; . . I) I i II I . I I I ____... ------.-.. ....----...- J. IV II '') i :II::!!! \ill ,III i \ i \1'0 \\\\ -Ift~ I \ I II " I i :Ir' .1 . I' I , \ ; .~,\ \~ \ "I" KnollWood Groves PUD I ~ l't """'..... ....... F\. Maet.r p'.n 1\'l,l\ 'I\\\~\I.\