The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS vIII. DEVELOPMENT PLANS E. cc: Planning PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTHENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-419 Agenda Memorandum for August 15, 1995 city commission Meeting '(; ~C-~ ' t FROM: carrie Parker city Manager 'l'ambri J. Heyden J9-.jJ Planning and Zoning Director ~ TC: DATE: August 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Nautica sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves PUD - MPMD 95-006 Revise access points and unit type (replace multi-family wlth single-family detached units) and reduce lot size and front, side and rear Setbacks NATURE OF REOUEST l:ilday and 1\sscciates, age:1t for Headows Groves, Inc. and R. B1-adfonl .ll.l-nClld, Tr~l::;tee, is requesting to modify the Kncllwood Grov~s master plan. The 111.82 acre project, proposed for a total of 43,1 single-family detached, zero lot line and "Z" lc,t units, is ZCJl1ed PUD and located 011 the east side of La\'ll'ence Road, apploxi:ui1t3l''{ 1,300 feet south of Hypoluxo Road (see Exhibit "}I," - locatic\ll ma~)). The ~.-equest.ed changes are as follows (see E:{}1ibit ".s l' '. I,? t t,~ ref requEs t and proposed mas tel' plan): Omi t cl 10 3-d on to H"lpol UX,) Road from which two proj eet entranCES i'lere planned to connect and replace it with a proiect entrance onto Lawrence Road. " Cllange the type of uni ts and lot size from E,O E in<;,l~- family detclched units on 6,000 ~quare foot lots and 38~ multi-fanily units tc 246 zerc lot line units on 5,000 .:;qud1e foot lets 3.nd 183 "Z" lot line units on 4,000 :::qUE>r8 [r)ot l')t:3; il reduction in jthe total number of U1J:ts flom 539 to 434. ? ...i. ?'3,j'_l'::~ the lot y.lidth fr)m 130 feet to 4C' feet for unit; and to 50 feet for zero lot line ~nits. n l"":' l' '-' let 1 . h:' ell: c -=- t h", f r '.) n t set b a c k f l' 0 Jl1 ::: 0 fee t t (J 1 5 fee t . S. Fe'luce the side setback ')11 interior l,)ts from 15 feet to 10 fe'~t. '5. Reduce tile ~ear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet 011 lots tlJ a t. de Hot back, to ')11e another. Delet~ the day ~are center use (southeast portion of the pl~oject) and repla:e vdtl1 a lake. BACKGROUND On 0ct)ber 17, 1989 the city Commission approved 011 second reading OrJi~1anc~~ No.'3~-'36 1ezoni11<;r tll':? subject property from AG (f-..:.Jric'l1+:ul"':d and R-IAAA (Single-family Residential) +:'0 PUD \lith a L:>.n:l TJ:;." :::llt'?llsity af 4 (LUI := 4). The rezonieg master plan vias 3PPl:O ,led :.-:'Jbject t:::J ~;taff comments cmd is provided in Exl1ibi:: "e", I. m3st',=,,-- VJ_ou In')dlf:.c:?ticm ff)I.- th~ rue was reques::-.ed in Jan1l2,ry l?9C. The request included rEC0nfiquring the boundary tetween the lOul ti- fi.1m-(..:.~Y and s:i,Lgle-family pC'C1s, changing the single-family pod t~: zeu'-lot-lill"? unitE' and establishing the foll()~ving buildillCJ and ::;ite 1'''CJU13tic'1l: f(ir tl1E'! zero-lot.-line, f~inCJl~"?-family 1Jnit.:::~: lot L:,)ntaJI';' re' f,?,"t, front setba-:k 20 fee~ (on priva:.e street::;), rear PagE :2 11emorandum No. <05 -'~ 19 August 1~. 1995 City Commission Meeting Nautica Sound 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, subj ect to staff comments. This master plan modification is provided in Exhibit "D" and is the current master plan. The exhibi t 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 ($10S,515) to be applied to the design dnd construction 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 the city supported the request of Knollwood Groves for road/traffic iElf- 2t~ t fee cred! ts to F aIm Beach County. This resolution agreed to re'~()gnize this paym~.?nt of fees as commencement of the development, thereby vesting the 1991 PUD master plan. On August ~, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. R94- 10(: 3C ~eptillg conveyance cf the property required of the PUD fCl- p~blic recreation purposes, The 5.0 acre park site is located in the f;OU th'"d:= t cornE-' l':)f the project. The site is adjacent to an >?>istir'q, lJlldr?velr)ped 4.02 acr9 public park sitE tr) Hhich it will 1),=, '::'Jilbill~c1 t.r:' meet thE' recreation level of service needs of the ne i.:-,U::'=-'lh')'.)d planning area that the PUD will impact. Chc1pt'=,:!..- :2.5, planned Unit Developments, of the city's land :1F.'\''?lOPlil''='llt regula,tions states that changes in planned llni t Cll?v',:'lopn\f.~llts ::;11al1 be processed as follows: ~(~t l)l.l,:~:~==~._Ch ~:!:Y e'~'-'i n pi ~) '! ~'ha'ige::: in plans applCi'led .3.S a part of the zoning te' PUD may be pe~rnitted by the Planning and Zoning B~ard upon application fi 1'?rl by t.:lv! deveLJper or his Sllccessors in interest, pl-i<n- to 1:' t'le e:{J;) il a tion of the PUD cl ass i f ication, but onl y I J.f tel' J a ~') 1 Eir;'Jillq that:: any :::1Jch cl1angl2 or changes are in accord "7ith eJ 1 , j Un:'gulatio:ls in effe'.::t when the char1ge or changes are requested 0/ I . ,);+' ) ellle', ~h",' int~~nt and p'Jrpose of the compl"E'hensive plan in effect {j/G I fY'v 8"/v c t th'? time of the propose':1 change. Substantial changes sha12- f)'J.... CJ ,.{J1'(, .')8 r-:!"-(1po~;ed as for a new application of PUD zoning. The " ~ '" '", determination of what constitutes a substantial change shall t J ()-, b0 VIi thin the scle discretion of the Ci ty Commission. Non- " ~\ ' ,,1';,0/ substantial changes as determil~ed ~y the city Cornmissi()l1 in LJJy-~",i- l.:lans ['hall not extend the, eXplratlon of the eighteen month '1 0J{ Vv',~ apprf)val fOl' the P~D classififation." + rt1~'/if' "'lift ('.U>Vw-- [ulJ1dj .k<- I~s t-/LC v If IV / V. U0rf" .., .~t:',:ff, ha~_ reviewed thi~: reque~:t for consistency Hi th the PUD II (. de~elupmelt standards, and the lntent and purpose of planned unlt Il~~ r cleveJ.?l'm'?llb,: as stated in the follO'.>1ing sections of Chapter 2.5 of I ~ the CIty's land development regulations: SectIon 1. Intent and purpose. "A el3.1111ed Unit Development Distl'ict (PUD\ is established. It i::- int-:!llc1E.d that this district be utilized to promote I?fficient and '~c0nomic3.l land use, improved 3.melliti,?s, al-'Pll)p]:iatE~ and llarnv:nio1l2 variety in physical development, cl'eati ve des ign, improved 1 i ,,'ing environment r orderly and Page 3 Memorandum No. 95-419 August 15, 1995 city Commission Meeting 1,lautica sound economical development adj acent and existing district is suitable conservation of land, City. in the City, and and future City for development, water and other the protection of development. The redevelopment and resources of the 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 "liew of the substantial public advantages of planned uni t development, it is the intent of PUD regulations 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 cocrdinated units. 3f?ction ~). Internal PUD standards. B. INTEPJIl\L LOTS AND FRONTAGE. wi thin the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards shall be required; provided, however, that PUD frontage on cledica sed publ ic roads shall observe front yard requirement~ in accordance with the zoning district the flJD use 11Jt)St ':lcsely resembles and that peripheral yards 2butting other 2'Jn1ng districts shall be the same as reql'ired in the abutting zone." ~,i t:l ~. e~;pe':t to the changes l'equested, the following evaluation is pr:)v Hled: 1 . ,-g,e P~~?~ 111 e!l t .) f _l:IYP9.l,Q}{'QRoad-CQJU1..E? c.t: ion ~l it 11 ,5\n Q t,h~ r en t ran;:~ ('ll LaTvre:1Co? Road This chal'.ge significantly redistributes fh<:> traffic trips originally appro'led to be shared by Hypoluxo Road and Lawrence Poad. As shown on the. approved master plan i!l E:c:hibi t "D", proj ect ar.::cess h1a8 plann~d for a new road onto Hypoluxo Road la four lane road with median and turn lanes), 1-'2quiring a crosE'ing over the L. W. D. D. L-18 Canal, from \-vhich ::\'-1::' proj ec t en tl-ances '-'lere pI anned. Also pI armed was one entrance onto "Neadows Boulevard", a public collector which is to be €xt~nded by the developer to connect to Lawrence Road (currently a two lane road which is on the county's five year plan for HiclE'ninq to four lanes). _~.~cause of the desire to have a ga ted community whic11_c:osts mOl~~=~It]:~a~gY-eaLEJ~-:ii~fmbe-r- _.. of entrance~; to _ s.e_cyie--'-alld to avoid the cost of the canal ~ (~L-'JSS illg,__th~ appl ica'11Epi"6posesa nev-T ent:i~9-J~E:; _ 611,1:0 ..__~awrence- Pc'ad Cllld one onto the e:~tinsion of l'l1eadows Boulevard" which ,,,----. --..--.- -.-'- -----,--- -"~1Il1 link to Lawrence Roaa:-- -..-------- ---, --- 'I'lliE'; cl!2111J'e. :coll':entrates proj~ct traffic onto Lawrence Roael _and compol.lnc1sthe tl"affic pi;oblem expressed by residents a;1ong_, Lawrel!C~' HCi'jcLdl1€tQ tlleC\nticipated addi tiol1 of 1,680 units unde::.- construe tion simultaneously on Lawrence Rog,g. ...~8.s--ll_ re~.;Jlt (}fpu]:::J,Jc comment and city support, the eount~T-' added -=1hl? \'-1lde11ing of La~i'1-ence F~oaci (:n to the' cOUlity' s fi'leyear ---J.:l:e:l.:_. Upon the county's re'Jfevj aT thetrafflcstatement (see ExT1Lbit "E" - Jetter dated August 10, 1995 from Dan Weisberg), t1lt?-/ haViO" indL~ated that the applicant f s analysis iE not d.;cep':able to address the timing of the PUD (an ultimate build-::.,ut I-,f tJ'!~ year 20(0) and the delay in vlidening of L'1\11'~nCe Road to fiscal year 1997/98. Palm Bpacl1 C'Junty state3 that :ollEtruction phasing of the PUD may be necessary due t~ the redistribution of traffic off of Hypoluxo Road, 11')1o'-7':"1.'e 1- tll\? appl iean t must rev i S8 his anaIys is to properl y address the annual growth rate of the traffic on Lawrence Road Il\fl"~{ fl ~J~,1 tN~VIJ4"'i 'J t'.f- in order to accuIA3tS~l y assess the need for phasing. Palm Beach county~note~ that with a project of this size, 1 t;__1s---de:sir:abl-e---fFem.-.....an n~rneer1ng des1gn standpoint tllat /-wilere there---is._..tJle. abili ty for access on two major-'- -tt1oi~-ollghfares, ~~tl}er--=-t-lia.il--.riisttne onp. rney are uS111g, that ~ bo-thbe ufiTlz'ed. This is als ue from a public safet ~pu u 1 1ty access standpoint, as well as for inte ratin eets wit the SU1Toun 1n ne wor. staff commp.n~ - flOlTft_lg..lml:>J_ic sa_~_~~ pu 1C U 1 1ty departments reflect a deSire to work-'with the applicant regardinq this issue, but ---rr-'-rs noted ....-- wi th an inc - res onse time- '._ ergencies9 _I.L.als.o eL;imil1att:l~ em qpportllll; ty to--E.Eovide --a 1 o <:'.Ll bY~ll:;!m- tllat ("nlllrl prnv; ne an al ternate means 1n tne . e~:en-t::-ofJl__J1l.9i2x~mergency at___th_~il1j:~rsec_ti~.?.! Lawrence ~ U~~ ,llcaa _a~l_d. HyE.ol!!2~-aa,--wnich has l1appene~ in t:h~.__12as~.- y.tf-\I ~~~ Z~;~~:~~~~l~;;Jtr~{'- ~H'~~.;~~"~ml~~ t~~:::~f<J:1~~:,~rv ~-;-&wyp (' ~'\~, v- t. ~'Jl_1ng-? 11': unit type_l _ lot _s;i~e-L...~ot width and setbacl:s - Over ~ ~ thp ~st fen to fifteen ears the pun ro sals within the \~ .. .. lP'''v'\ .2..i t ~- J:~9~ ,::, 1 e smaller and smaller lot sizes wi tl1 very LJ.l'qe homes and increase lot coverages (decreased permeabi 1 i ty) , _buil t closer and closer to proper tv 1 ines. The::; e sma 11 lot s wit h n a r row b u.iJ..din.g--B-e~.ax,atiQll~_JJ. 3. Y_~_l?Q_3_e';l_ ------- -----...---------.-----.---.. '.?-:~~r-.::::h2:1ginq pl:-Qblems for emerqency ppr~nnnel who must par}: ~l.21:'df=:__yel1i~l~---()n-_l..lar~~r;M.~ and mane,~~v_er__ ell1~Jj'~11CY '? q .! i pm E r: t v'i i t I} i I! __!J-g h t () pen in g S-_b.etwEelL_Ql1L!9- i n 9 s~ ~..h:t:iQ" '=:iUi- --i1l8 l"e aSTilg problem wi th small lO_tE;_!'lttll_11g],~l'.Q_~..iX2E tages. and --nlillow IroJlt_.p_uilding setbacks, is parking. nrive~iays--on- ~-se-Tl~t-s are. noFdee"!J-6E--rong -erlough tc>accommodate more than one. in sc'me cases two personal cars, not to mention quests. In additio~, most families have at least two ':f_:dlicle~ , .~.. \'E:l:~~~__ are par~ed continua~ 1 y, wi thin __tl:1_e_ ~,-tkCQ~C, blocKrnrr..Q_eeaoe-M v~]llc1es, end wHlllll ~w.ales .~ J __ c~~_::_.:!:~alT~~~:-..--~!:~:-~~-~~.!L.~~s ~_~ h t _lX~_ co s ~_~r-~am a g~~_:t <) b~ ~l . :~+t:(J: ~ T!lf'-' areci of tll~ city over the past . five_ tQ_t;.e_n_y~arF . that has ~ ~::.eE'n tl1<? mo.:: t PUDapproval-s- is th€-ar.e.a__QL_L.9J1i_Eirire~.~p:2)9-Q_~__ TIlis :lr~a has become a mcnocul ture of developments c0mpri SPrl , :.~!t : ,tj(jCJ c~O.Q.~~uare foot lCJ~, yet it is probably the r'?mainillg area within the city \"lhere larger lots and h'Jmes c'.:Hlld be developed! compatible with the larger lots and homes that spot the area. This issup t^las discussed at a recent Commission v.JOrkshop at which the Commission l-ecognized the ,~l]\. th~t lwul:i lug choices has_ on economic development __QQ'portUlnties. At that meeting ( a minimum 6 000 square foot lot S13e was aiscussed to be in to diversify tle types of Jew nomE~~:: tha t arE.' being buil t. ! 1<' " ,.1-- .or; I 'J ' . I~..:..__;.J- / "I. _., ",,1 ~,. , .1:-- . L Ii LVJi.2/\ 'fJ0 v /\%l;';::l~ ~, ~ __ . vw- 1/-'lI'-U..j\,]"-'" <i Regarding the request to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to AO~~ · JLr: 40 feet and 50 feet for the "Z" lots and Zero lots, reduce the { {/\ I ' front 5e tback from 20 feet to 15 feet, reduce the s ide setback .{, \ I U' ((In ll1t'?rlOr lots from 15 feet to 10 feet and reduce the rear t J y; 't. setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots that do not back to I~; /'''^- Il) one i:Ulotl~e:'..-, 8taff recommends that the 60 foot lot width '\'bY- ~vJ.-rJ\ l:enBil: in connection with the 6,000 square foot lot area. ~ " 1'1:121 e.:..ore, the red'.lction in front, side and rear yard setbacks 'l:to1 {; e,[~ff'~1~ l~,)~ffi! t:':)~:90~;?:~~,i?: :c~e~er 5 i te ~ ':..JllC repl ac ing it wi th a lqke. Pag? ,I Memorandum No. 95-419 August 15, 1995 City Commission Meeting Nautica Sound .:i. ,,--_l;r.:.ilit:!-degJ_gn - AmollC] the changes not specifically outlined Til t!,l::' applicaTi:t' s request is a si';rnificant alterat:Loll in the utility system design. As detailed in the utilities Page 5 Memorandum No. 95-419 August 15, 1995 city Commission Meeting Nautica Sound ~fc4J Department's 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 ce,nditioll of the pl-oject approval. The lift station location proposed is not efficient in that it would cause the city to have to have constructed additional lift stations which are costly to maintain. The several dead-end water mains proposed in the cul-de-sacs can be looped, but may result in the loss of a few lots. Lastly, it is important to note that lot size drlv~E the type of utility design. The utility Department notes that ~ven if looping of the utility system is agreed to, the :::mall lut size and narrow lots lends to an inefficent c1e::;ign of doublE'-barrelling piping in cul-de-sacs, which also villI cost the city more money to maintain as compared to other projects with the same density. RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday. July 2:-. 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review this master plan modification request. The Board ~ecommellds that the City Commission make a finding of substantial '::hange. E rom the above analysis, the basis for this recommendation i~, tlBt, a) the relocation of one of the entrances from Hypoluxo R')ad to Lav7rence P,Qad causes additional ~APS to be placed on LawrenCE R03.d and compromise~ public safety (a)better response time could be aclneved and foresl.ght for an 211 'i-nate emergency ronte ':o'Jld a'::C~Ol DI L"llEd if the Hypoluxo Road connection was not deleted), J) the reduction in lot width and lot area intensifies the P.!J!jr->c : from the st~ndpoint of efficiency of land al-ea, c~,sing t.he potentIal for parklng problems and overall congestion, lsY the Clia.l1~l ~ in t~l1i t type/lot size is contrary to the recent Commission s~ncensus to attract a variety of housing choiqes which is known to 11';\','::' . d clirt.=-ct linJ~ to economic development potential and @the appll::ant lias ilot addressed the 40 foot setback that is required cdC:1Cf tll'= east prl)pel.-ty line \l-1h""1e the subject property abutS' the lnulti-famlly p~oject to the east, which could cause a significant dlallqE' ill tll'3 lot: layoll t presented at this time. ['lle L: the nature of the above comments, the applicant may be subm~tting additiollal information to staff prior to the commission meeting. Therefore, a subsequent 2taff memorandum may be warranted for dlstributi~ll at the Commission meeting. If this request is determined to llot be a substantial change, it is recommended that app:'-':,val b~ ';.rr2nted subject to the applicable, attached staff CCLUmellt:~ j_~l E;{ilibit "F". ~ .'~ ~ ". (' 1 S {fluitr, ! CLivi, ~JK4~ c~^' J '6 ~~ T JE: clir.l Attachments xc:: central File LOCA1'ON t-AAf? NAU'T'CA SOUNO O<NOLWOOO GROVE.S pUO) put:) , ' " -- --- - )0 ,\.\3 ,~ --------- ao"N~O'" ,\ uFlseFl\ eS" PUt:) \...u\: 4.0 ~'\~~ , ,I' " sPo.\.Jsp.\..rt'O GAOVestf pUO' \-\J\~a.o ..:.-~ \L .~ . " -.. _"' \/.., . , . ' .' ': -- -=-----1 ~ ~ ~ _/\ to ...."'...... I Ms. Tambri Heyden July 10, 1995 Page 2 Pursuant to conditions of the previous approval, a 5 acre public park site is proposed and the land has been dedicated to the City in the southeast corner of the site and adjacent to Meadows Boulevard. A private community recreation facility of 3 acres in size has been incorporated in the interior of the site which will include a minimum of 5 amentities. The current approved plan for Knollwood Groves has no proposed landscape buffers, and only one setback has been identified on the west side of the property adjacent to the previously approved multi-family. The proposed plan for Nautica Sound will incorporate landscape buffers surrounding the entire perimeter of the project with the smallest buffer being 15' wide. The previously approved plan consisted of 22 acres of open space. The proposed master plan for Nautica Sound reflects a total of 30.97 acres of open space which amounts to a 70% Increase in the amount of open space proposed. Attached with this letter is a comparison of impacts for the project. You will note that in all areas, this project will reduce impacts from that previously approved, especially in areas of water and sewer capacity and population. Attached with this application is a full traffic statement which will be reviewed and approved by both the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County prior to the Technical Review Committee Meeting. Also included with this submittal are conceptual engineering plans, landscape plans, and typical lots. If you have any questions or concerns in regards to this applicaiton 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, ){tAMltt IJtN~'~ Karyn I. Janssen Kilday & Associates, Inc. Enclosures KIJ/cdd\cheyden. 710 cc: Alan Fant; GL Homes Larry Portnoy; GL Homes Rick Elsner; GL Homes Walter Keller; Walter Keller & Associates, Inc. . Chuck Justice; Lawson & Noble Received By: Date: -', o :J 0- ~ a: w en a: ::> z z o t- 5 m t- o: <( I o Z o en a: <( 0- ~ o o t- O w a 0: 0- ~.J iO 0) 0 0 (J) ~~ 0) (J) c: r- F- 0.. 0.. 0 LLO_ v~ 10 <x> co 0) 0 G G ~ wO:-!... q>- 0 <x> 0) <x> 0 <( 0 8 0) <!Jo..+ T-' "-+M I() 0.. 0.. - +0) I + I 10 M 0_ ~ Z<( ~ co ~ <(t- :J r- r- I C\J C\J Ien (J) I I . m O~ .... - ~ (J) m c: M ><"~ 0 <x>MV (J) ~",,(J) ->< \I ~ ~ ~~~ C t- ~ ><~ 0 .c.g::> (J)O<!J 0) ~ ~.J ~ \I (J)OG 0- C\J V ~~o O-i -:J 0- 0 -::J 0- 0 m lU.- C (J) [fi~ <X> ~ T-'C\J ~:9~ :J_ "CG<x> "CC)o 0- lU .c .- vt- r- ~o<x> LO ..- Vo - 0:- r- O)djE ~~ ~t\i~ o - ~- o..~ r- m 0) C\J~ o~+ m en a.. ~ T-' ::> 0 C\J~IO ..- en <( OC\JLO .J (J) ~ (J) C 0 0 ~ MCOO) (J) 0 i....m (J) OOC\JM C ~ F- ><110.. ><"0.. C\JLOIO 0 a: .c.g::> _(J) 0 G (J)OC) m I!! a.. ~~~ 0 0- a.. <X> 0) 00) <( :Jo..o -:J 0- 8 m <( I"- M OLO<x> la:9:t:: "CGf6 a.. LO r-M .c .- 10 "CGoo ~ ti r- manE 0 0) 0 - ~8r-: ..- I() MI"-~ W ..- m 0) -.:i IOC\J..- IOC\JO v ~ en 0- r- ~ 0)10+ r- ~OLO <( OC\JLO ..... i 0 oe! "C.c O)t- -0 0) 0 ~ c: 5..-(J)-o16 m +:!E~O(J)as . "E as c .c :J m-en "5,gmmo ..... lU a. 0 (J).c (J) 0) C) Oi ::J....-m .... a. .0Q)Q){ij .g C .c .c a.!3 ~ "C ~ .~ m Q) ~ .g> ~ c as Zm(Oa.OQ)"C 0 Q) ..1i} (J)f!> .. Q) "C c: c: m .- '0 b -en (J) ..... 00 -c: :J _ O'O'EI!!a.~lU :::> 0>- w .c= ZC>-Q)~Q)(J) a 0 cE I lU 0 a. C\I (J) C - ~as 5~ml"-~5.g 0: j!! 0LL. 0- Q) .- .... 0 C\I 0 as .c t- ..!.. -._ . N - 0) - as:J......C\J=O):J :J I "5 m . . J1~ m -0 '0 :JO'(J)(J)s"".Q .... 0) .~ ffi c: a.0'EQ) Oas 0 c: Q).- - <I) as oas:Ja;O)EO c:C <( ~:.::i:JJ1 :J E E 0.. 5 0.2 ~ lU c: 0) (i5 t- ._ ~ c: 0) Q) 0) i .- 0 "C ~ _ 0 - ~ g .-J- m :0 0 0 .... c: ~.- en 0 -.3.cE ~ 0 ... _ as ~ .- ~ a; .w o 0 t .... Q) ~E<I)MQ)~"5 lU lU ij:: m ::J ..Jert1lU .Q 1a ~ .0 0 C q ~ .... a. "5 "5 0 - m ~ a. ~ '""eO)OO 0 00 t- t- I t-JN<(<( <( .... ~ en 0- ._ 0 I() .c .... 0.. '"" (, NAUTICA SOUND, P.U.D. Projected Population Calculations 1990 Census of Boynton Beach Total Population 46,194 Age Population % of Population 0-20 21 - 54 55 + 9,721 18,204 18,269 21 39 40 434 d.u.'s x 2.5 persons per household 1085 Persons Aae = 228 Persons 423 Persons 434 Persons 0-20 21 - 54 55 + .21 x 1085 .39 x 1085 .40 x 1085 = TOTAL 1085 Persons Above based on % of population age' brackets, as determined by 1990 Census counts. L 1990 Census of Population and Housing 040 Florida 050 Palm Beach County 140 Tract 58.03 Total population............................ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( -, SEX Male. . . . Female. . AGE Under 5 years.. 5 to 17 years.. 18 to 20 21 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years and over.. Median age........ Under 18 years........ Percent of total population.. 65 years and over............... Percent of total population. HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households... Family households (families).. Married-couple families........... Percent of total households. Other family, male householder.. Other family, female householdcl'.. Nonfamily households...... ... ...... Percent of total households. Householder living alone....... Householder 65 years and over.. Persons living in households. Persons per household.... ..... GROUP QUARTERS P('rRons living in group quart~rs.... 1l1stitutiol1alized persons............. Other persons in group quarters. . .. . . . ...... RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN Whl t,e'. Black. Percent of total AOleriean llldillll, Eskimo, Percent of total population.. Asian or Pacific Islander....... Percent of total population.. alIter race..................... Hispanic origin (of Percent of total . . . . . ............ .... It... ...... .... It.... ...... It . . ....... . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . years. . years. years. years. years. years. . years. . years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ....... . . . , . , . . . . . . . ...... , . , . . . ....... , . ................ ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . , ... . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . , population. Ot' Aleut. . . . . . . . . . . ............ any l'nee).. population.. . . . . L Page 1 6,189 3,004 3,185 433 679 180 342 2,-334 674 296 351 597 221 82 35.6 1,112 18.0 900 14.5 2,671 1,826 1,486 55.6 . 101 239 845 31. 6 634 162 6,074 2.27 115 115 o 5,401 644 10.4 3 0,0 81 1.3 60 386 6.2 1990 Census of Population an~ou.in8 040 Florida 160 Boynton Beach city Total population.............................................. SEX Hal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r...l.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . ACE Under 5 year........................ J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 5 to 17 year..................................................... 18 to 20 y.ars...... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . 21 to 24 year............ 41....................................... 25 to 44 year.................................................. t . 45 to 54 year.................................................... 55 'to 59 y.ar.................................................... 60 to 64 year........ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 to 14 y.ars................ I' . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. . . . , . .. . .. . . .. . . 75 to 84 years.................................................... 85 years and over....................................,.. . , , . . , . , . . . Median a.e.............,.................."....... I . . . . , . , , . . . . . . . . Under 18 y.ars,......... I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Percent of total population..............,....................... 65 years and over.... . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . Percent of total population..............,....................... HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPB To'tal households.............................,................"..... r..ily households (f..ilie.)..................................... Harried-coupl. f..ili......................................... i Percent of ~otal hou..holds,............................... Other f..fly. ..le hou..holder................................ Other f..ily, f..ale hous.hold.r.............................. 'Monfaaily households."................................... . . . . . . .. Percent of tot.l hou..holds................................ Householder living .lon....................................... Householder 65 years and over........................ .... .". Persons livins in hou.ehold...................................... Person. per hou..hold............................................ CIlOUP QUARTEIlS per.ona living in Iroup quart.rs................................. Institutionalized p.r.ons.........,........................... O~h.r P4raona in group quart.rs............................... IACI AND HISPANIC OBICIN llo Wh 1 t.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of tot.l popul.tion................................... ".rican Indian, Bekiao, or Al.ut................................ Percent of ~ot.l population................................... A.ian or Pacific I.l.nd.r........................................ Percent of total popul.tion................................... Other race......................................................... Hispanic or II In (of any r.c.).................................... Percent of to~.l popul.tion................................... tr Pas. 1 46,194 21,575 24,619 2,695 5,710 1,316 1,980' 12,544 3,680 1,890 2,382 6,527 6,044 1,426 42.1 8,405 18.2 13,991 30.3 20,292 12,983 10,363 51.1 696 1,924 7,309 36.0 6,090 3,856 45,608 2.25 586 515 71 35,912 9,296 20.1 52 0.1 290 0.6 644 3,124 6.8 ,.', . \-; LATEST APPROVAL Permitted Uses In a PUD District, buildings, or structures, or land, or water shall be used only for the following purposes: A. Single-family dwellings; B. Two-family dwellings or duplexes; C. Multiple-family dwellings, townhouses, garden apart- ments and cluster housing; D. Private, nonprofit clubs, community centers, civic and social organization facilities; E. Private parks, tennis courts, playgrounds, putting greens, golf courses, driving ranges i and o,ther recreation facilities; F. Public utility buildings, structure., and facilities necessary to service the surrounding neighbQrhood; G. Houses of worship, schools, nursing homes, nursery schools, kindergartens and hospitals; H. "Neighborhood" commercial uses which are deter- mined at the time of zoning to PUD, to be compatible with the existing and future development of adjacent and nearby lands outside the PUD, I. Other uses of a nature similar to those lilted, after determination and recommendation by the planning and zoning board, a determination by the governing body at the time of zoning that the use or uses are appropriate to the PUD development; J. Permitted uses for a PUD District shall be specified in the application for zoning of land to PUD classifica- tion. K. Prohibited use. Any structure more than forty-five (45) feet in height and more than four (4) stories. L. Home occupations consistent with appendix A, section 11.D. are permitted without the necessity of being specified at the time of zoning to P.U.D. (Ord. No. 89-45, t 4, 12-5-89) :--\ I PRESENT SUBMITTAL Permitted Uses In a PUD District, buildings or structures, or land, or water shall be used only for the following purposes: A. Single-family dwellings; B. Two-family dwellings or duplexes; C. Multiple-family dwellings, townhouses, garden apartments and cluster housing; D. Private, nonprofit clubs, community centers, civic and social organization facilities; j E. Private parks, tennis courts, playgrounds, putting greens, gold courses, driving ranges and other recreation facilities; F. Public utility buildings, structures, and facilities necessary to service the surrounding neighborhood; G. Houses of worship, schools, nursing homes, nursery schools, kindergartens and hospitals;. H. "Neighborhood II commercial uses which are determined at the time of zoning to POD, to be compatible with the existing and future development of adjacent and nearby lands outside the POD; I. Other uses of a nature similar to those listed, after determination and recommendation by the planning and development board, a determination by the governing body at the time of zoning that the use or uses are appropriate to the POD development. J. Permitted uses for a POD District shall be specified in the application for zoning of land to POD classification. K. Prohibited use. Any structure more than forty-five (45) feet in height and more than four (4) stories. L. Home occupations consistent with Chapter 2, Section 11.D. are permitted without the necessity of being specified at the time of zoning to POD. , 1 'J . :1 ~t___l_l ,.~__tt__~__l\_l- _n_ \11 ~?z~ -~~~. AP" ~ill--~~:~'~:~::~:'\")~ ih1\, -~r":'~~ !~IPs . " . I ~-v. 'I I ~ a ' .' ~ 11 l · \'\' I'i \ ' :7.. ,:: ~'~ L~' -~l-~- I :' ~I \\ a ~ 1 i:l~ill :,t 1 \ I ':: ,1:' · ::l\ :.. f"l" J ", ~ \ \\~ ~ I \ I "c' ~i~ . , ''''. t",;!,.. ::~.J "..~L~ i.:. ,:.J~.." .~) It \' 1 ' .11 ~ .. \ t! .:: tn ' - - . - - ~.- :: - .~. , · '< \1 '\' ~ , , ~~. i ~.,~ ;'I:H;1; ;' ~ ~ ,:.;ti~~~ ~r ~a i\ I . I .::.. ,.____-y-- r ~~~\~... . ~ c a, i \~. rr:.~ '\l i iI - - - -rW\:' "~-I ~ \~~:o \ ~ful.~ \1 '" I :: 1 L- _ _ I it I~ \ ", \ .... t I I ,,\ c::' ' I" I \, , '" . ~ \' · 1 ~I'; ....-j\: \. .... .' _ ~ .....-'i\~ ' \ .iO, \-\ 1 \\~L_~_.U\, ~~ : ': ',. \ ... ~' . \l\\~~:L' \ \,~ 'i. IIi, ~\'~ \ 1 . \q~~,::-:--;- "r~ I' ~ r ',: ::,~~_ ~~~\:\t. '~11,1 1\11 . , .:: " ,:' ,..." " -- ~ ' " . I ' . .., " .,' .' · './ -... "". " . L n !~i\ . !~. ~7/ Ii C'.";" ~ .::l \ ;t:: .\ ~ ml h 1\ ,,~~ I,~ U \l~ , " . ~ ;i;J-: ~'" :-.....h' \is '. JI '! "l- j: !';I~l r ~ I\i~l i !,' I ~ \ rHo ~'~It '-- -J- -rtJj- - - ,J 'l~\: ~ 11;:' \ II l~l \\\~ n \\ \i ~ ,\\ I, \j \ \ih \ \ \., \ , ~' . "I' : I . 1 . I. " I II ... ' Ii -.J N~: IS .>>~ 1 V 1 1 \' I' 't \ " \~<:. . ~ -- .. .' , - ~~ 2 'I .. ~lQI.J' . . : " ". """ :~.."'-'''' " .' i,. '_ , ~,,; "". : · n M IJ:..... ~ : :;' . , . ell' r'. n'I\' \ r=- :: :_~: __~~.: 1:: :~' I' I. I' : ,:+=- ,~~I:- ff-r.+ 1- - -t"'" 1 -- iii' - - - -1--11-"=' I--=-~~~\ ' \ ~ J ~i ..1., 1,7:- ". .. fl:l/'" t -.- :1. ~ . I-r ~- "--l' _1 ,,"I' ' I ".. ~ ,,, = ..,.. '" ,," . . . . . . . · . . . , , " ' ) I~ ~,:: I I .':'(,,1 ,'j;' ';";__. ., ." ". ~ ffi. . . n . ,p ., , , ,f ;j: :i: .: :,: '. ;j.~ ' · ',' ',' .: ,I . I I ! ,~,,,. ,.:.' ".. ,."'" ,', ," ".,. \.'!). -" . ':' ..". . '.' . ., ' " '.'" ,,,,' , ' 1 ' "\' " h ,. ,w.... '.~ ."" n" "...... ....,-, ..' ' ) ,-;..: \ 0~~' .. ': _:." !\j .': cmJ r+:r\ \IlJ C' ,~:I.' ','" .. .,. ., .1.. ." \~I,~f.!ii'l I \ , lilll ^' ' '.-"'.ISl",;, '.' .....; i nlii 1 I-' .. 'il--' .~ I : :, J. / \.1 ..J . ,lit.", , i t11~:~~~'>:~~f~t:. ::::'.-~;~;t~~~~~;'J~!~.\lr. ~~i~:~(i::fc:~Lii.::.:,:.\\~\j':~\ : , ' " . , . ,'<':'-._".. . ~)v~...:"'.' '.., ~ql!;.. .;. ~\: .....f.' . t-.,.:: : -, ..:'. ~,i' ,- ~ .:~' ;: ~ 1 alt. !<\ ,. I Sl ' ~ · '" ,. ., ' ~""'.- I .... .~ . .. .\ ," .. - 0 I' I ~ · " " , ,_ ,. .' . '.' <. /~','" ...- ',,-'h G;'.J'V)<.1 ...,., ,. -- ....,,'. "., " :;;,\ · ii \ 1; i ..) ~ ' · .'jl~i-f . "~..' / ~ \:~l- -- - ~ N If '\ 'Y, "~ ::\: :;; r4"~ -Q6---;' 0{ . ~ ,.....; \ ~ 1~h\l\\ ~ It. 1 \;\n",,' ,~ '.~.~' ~,;", ,'" \ I' I, :....... I ,\ t' \.l~~: f>lO,~ !-l-' ~...;__-';.Jf"'#'. ~ ..... ...;.. \ I"" .' I ~'~'-~~ 1 : t,,":' ".!. ~ ,~~: ~ .-= --:.2J'tf .,;, ~ ~.. l' - ....~Ilit'itli:\. ,,;<.-:-r--..i'" i.-, . ,..'of",' "" "" ~' 1\' · .:'" ,J" :'....- "lii~1 .....! \\ . ':,' ~ ,,' .- ' ~ ' ~ \ \ .." "" ... t I d' V(.. - L..!... !I~ . :rr--;-r '11 \ I; I -0-:"_ l;:...I.,~ I I I ..: \il1ll ~' '11 lJL.!..-1 '=~ ': I " l~~I~1 ,~ ' 1 '.~ ~L.J ~ 1Li. ~~ ~. ~2 . \, ~ :: ,::.~ J ~ ~ \ .--.,~- !i 1 . ':\ :'. (I' V' ."" .,"::1 ::..""-.1.:' 1\ l~ , I' " ~ It' " ", .a-- I ' .. \ ~ ' '. , . t' '~ "... - ,~ ~ 11 : c' ~ ?:;~ I '. ' I' ':EJ.s- I ,:,\ H 1 · f 1m-:-.- I! ~~~_"I .. ,. ..: 'f\' - I ': '\ 0 ~~~~ :rr\ \' t:: ~;; t 1.- ________ -..... __;ra:t..::. L..!...i' ~ I I' i'::,:" 12~ II' ,:..~ 1:1, 5 z...~;::; : II \1.'!!. ~'~t -'l' \" ,-r;,' i:" L___ __J J ,. .., ~ ~ " ;, ft lti ~ ~':;;l r.. k, p' ',' .~,,__'I .~ i.' , . . . .j. . .. :--il Ji---!.---I+*\ i. , · · .', '-' ,;. ". ,~w " 'mi,',: ,~l t () j{. , " ;; I' .. ,,,.... ,.. '.'. '.'.' .'.' h .:J. · 'J .... ,..,.... . ' .. ." l\il' · ... \ I \ ., '" 'll' r I:r /. " . . . . c' .. h --, .,' '__nO "~:1'!~ .Pli:' < ,. , " ~, , .,,-,. ."' ~ . ,:J " I' .l m.-.....k..l h~t~ . ~ -" ITmIr-r ~~' ~' '; ':a.ji'.jf*!l: ~:~~- ~f-: : ~'l~: ';f::: ';':l;l~:: ~,:. \ ~i 1\ 1\ L -- - .fi'f~\ "- ..~ 'j j -ii", "~ ." -- H"'" - ,,0) I . lr' l~l & · n'~' --~ ......-...~-.,.. - -.., · ~ -':' t. ~ -10 i\l \ i ~ it ,IV r-r~ w 1'1' ~ i i !\i.l D.1 II 1\ \II~ I ~[gt,~ ;~~.l ~&"\'~ i '\'.1' ,!.i ,\~\ ; \', li~I\\' " " . & ' . .' ., .'l, I III ' : S J~ ~ ~~ 'I !t \ \ ~. , 'I '\'1 \ 0-1 1- KAUTlCA BOUID r,K,A. Knoll"oM Grote' P.U.D, ltovnton l~.rh. flond.. ....t~, !hho I't.n --- r~i\i\ ......: n,-r- , . :;a ! li llli 'Ili Ili'II''', IJlI!\ij" i1 t ,'tii', II\! 11\ \\b ',1 n'ls "1' I '~i Ii, Mi\\ . ;il1ti II \ - t ,"IdAy " ....ololn ..ono.CO'. ~l'Ch"'c'.I'.on"." U$' rOt'"",", flk!iu _10<1" w.~' po,rt1 ..och. ,_Wet )1-40\ (401\ '89-5522 .f..:(.07t 6S9-2! ~ ~ ~ o w (/) o ~ a: Q. t 1 '1 ~11 II . "ill ' ! ..' '1' I I . i ! II I ! &1 II I': i f~i ,S t~ I I i.:n i! 1 Iii i~1 ,!I, ,m _I ,{I li~ , I -1 I' 11". III' I' II. lJI [I III I it~i _f ~i ) I'll 11 11 ~11!J~1 ~a -I. i . )1 II I 1 ,.)1 ..11 f ..-1 If '1111 01 ~t~ !~i h 11m <!!i Ii! !i lil;J ~t!t N.! i' t~t .lil,~: ~lltU !Hl IlIII Ii 11m ;~tt ili! It i! ,;~ ! ~!l;;i 11' :~H 1:1~ iitf . i df'j1l-t' ;~ f ~~ 1'1 e:l ~ ~Vg' ~~:! j 'I~U !,f'ii ~iii I, i,1h h1 ,!H t~ L ~~ ~~ ~,_ . oolf 5 ' " ~ fO ~ U c t ~f!- .. E ; 'S ~.' !. .' g I _J. ~ ! ' · ,1 .. · · ... 1;/ 01"'" . ~ · · 0 · ..'. ~.I . 'I"'! V ~ jEl!. l <.. 1.1U3 - -.." -- -,ta:NN 4: iii 0 _ ~ g Z e 'll i : ~ J ~ :1 i 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ '. ~ ~ ~l' z I: '6 ;;, 'l ~ :21 ~) (f) S'" .!!t -Ii 8~ g i i il 0.: oE..1 o ~I ~ i- ~ E ~ ..t ~ l.. ED ~ Vi lIh ~ IiI: <t ~ 58 I 1 . o ~ -'- j!!" !C r- 0 g ~ t- ~ D: ... :J g I::: !" 0 <t ~ ~ z ... - N ~ I ,... 1;0 t fa t tU I " .,: Eh i ' i ,;1 1. I' II 1 ~ z- \ ... I. on :: 0 1 ~ t31' gOw I' 9 - I :1. ~ ." i 1- !! II i. Ii Ii! ~ i WI ! , " hr' ., - r , ,. · · > II' :0. t",e:J ~ -. ':;:: .. r, d I, II l! ! ~ ~ . . " JO" · ;;, ,j . _ . . ~ .'.. . ,.E l' "o~ .. t- -' ,a- ~ll I ;"l~ ~ ~SOr :;;,' .1 ~ ,- Ii ~ii~al~:; it~l _ II ..: l.ll I ". 10 RDe'I "t~ -'o~' _ ..n. 5 ~ - "5 EI\' 'l' loB tHE~ 'I ! 10 ~I"I~ .. 0 ;e;-: .,'-' ~ ...' . .... _..i, 1 ~ ., :{ i 1 ,il !H 1.11 _II) i ~ ;; in .Jot: EiE~ l"~ i ~ i ~ ::~ ~ ~ , _ ccc ~ ~ ".. ::::"",m t.. .. iii u !!!! II _ _ _ ~~~ 3. ~ 1 '5 j 5 1 1 ! .c t e .. I - - . .. i , " ~. . .. i ~ r II: 2 1 ~. ~ .. ~ ~ . . !l .... ~ g tX~ N Ig i -Ij~~ ' I~: '-Ifh J III I : ~1.; ~~I .sj~ ~ g l;( e ~ .::. ~ 0'" H \1 E; ; 1 ~l i ii ,~t I _ 1 I" II ~ I: t; ii! :It l: c : t '^ C' ~ ... ,,_ l Hli el:: b.!! l! U tl .. ... 0 t g ~ ~" '" r. - ; o~ ..;.,: it~ ~ \ 0 ___ a:" 1 !P.! lil~ 1 ,s 'Ee ~ .. E .. _ l;.c~ .. ~qlh I I ~o f, I l! &. ..'~ _ : 0 "( 0'2 I 3 t. : t!! .s.;t- .;! .! is f ~ ~ ~6 J a D-':> -,t>- 3 _ r;~ ~ . 1 ~ on l lr" i,l\ I\,t \\\\ ~~\\ I g ~ m ~ ~ 'J:' ~ .')3 "'0 ~ \\\\\\ \\~ ..1 \~t\h~ \11,\\1\\'\ In" II f {U\ ,~'\'\\l\i~ \ 11 ~i~l~ \ i ' 11 ll, \ , 1 n~ \\ , \ \'i,\ ". "';,'~. ;\1l~ IJ it:: ~, JU1t1\ III ,~Qi II \\ "I ~i t I" I ~..._..._...- =.. ,_,_,-::_,-~,---'-'-::;1;.:.-'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'- .. {L' I., \ .- 'l\ Ii' I i ~ .~ ' ~ ~ ~ \', '\ l~~~~. (l I I C.D \\ '\ ~l ~ ' ~ ,\. ~____-St-d' \--' tlf I' n ....- ~\. \ Ii \' (.. I \ \\ t '-' . -'I' II :. \\\\\\\\ ii\',\,\\ \\\\1 \U1{i,'\1 \1 \ '\ '~tH'\\. \ . I' · I I!' , . \"';1'51' "\ I ,\,,'~ ,1'\11\111 II' I I i1 \" ~ \ .l Ill' \, I -, i\ U~lj~.~~=~GrO:SPUD -> , ~ -; =0 --C ::?:: 1- 1> '1;,., ....- 5' CV ~ g'. ..-<;;;" .c - ~ - ~ ~ ~ C). . <"' \)J 1\ \ i \ \ \ , \ "-./ .t f\\ Ul- '~ll~' \\\\ &,'" .d~ I II i\ ' I · \ \ \ \ \ " , '-- .~ ~. 1\ 't 1\ " \\ '\ ! , , "- , t; i12~ ti\\~ II ~ l' I \ [~ Ii .' \ ,\\ \ I \ \\ .\ I, , , \ 1 I U\\II\' ~ ~ . \\\',t~.. . ( . .".... .... ~, :' . tJ ~~ ~:J~ ~ ~~~~( ~(s~~ ""-, '~ '\'lIn i\ 1""'1 I I 7 i ' I " ...'.1. ,otl ~ . 6>J..;.L....... ~ .. tITie City of 'Boynton t.Beacli " 100.r., '.Boynton '.SelIC' 'Boukvard' P,O. 2lo.{J10 ',Boy,."." 'BtlJdi, :J{oriJ.J )).,25.0)10 (.~jty ;}(ati: ,"07) ,)".8111 :I'.U': ,..,Oi) iJI.;"S9 OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR March 13, 1991 Attn: Ms. Anna Cottrell Urban Design Studio 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 600, The Concourse West Palm Beach, Fl 33409-6582 RE: Knollwood Groves Master Plan Modification - Pile No. 570 Dear Ms. Cottrell: Please be advised that the City Commission at their February 19, 1991 meeting made a finding that the changes requested in the pod boundaries, access points \nd 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 canply with the following minimum standards: 1. 6,000 square foot lot size 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 setback 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 Groves PUD master plan, subject to the attached staff comments. These comments shall be addressed on the submission plans for preliminary 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 19-92 of the Code of Ordinances) . Ixtenllon. mu.t be e11e4 with the 'lanning Department by SUbmitting a letter of extension for review by the Concurrency Review Board and the Planning 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, U,~~tJ-J"_ (~ CHRISTOPHER CUTRO, AICP Planning Director CC:frb Encs cc: Technical Review Board Board of County Comml81ionera Ken 1.. FOliter, Chairman Burt Aaronl;on, Vice Chairman Kar,m T. MarcLl~ Carol A, Roberts Warren H. NliIwell ~bry McC~rty M,,"clo Ford Loe County Admlnlstrato Robert W,.i$man Department of Engineer and Public Works August la, 1995 Ms. Tambrl Heyden, Director Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425.0310 RE: NAUTICA SOUND PUD (KNOLLVOOD GROVES) Dear Ms. Heyden: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has received and reviewed several traffic analyses for the project entitled Nautica Sound (Knollwood Grovesl. Two letters, dated July 10, 1995 and July 19, 1995, from Walter H. Keller, Inc., address the traffic generation associated with a proposed change in the development plan. They indicate that the proposed project will generate fewer trips than the approved project. The land uses in the proposed and approved project are as fo 11 ows: ProDosed Project 434 single.family dwelling units. Approved P~oiects~ 150 single-family dwelling units 3B9 multi-family dwelling units Total Residential 6,000 square foot day care center less 10% pass-by lotal Lass i nterna 1 Net ExtQrnal Irb.i 4,340 II:i.D.1 1.500 2.723 4.223 478 ~ 430 146 4,505 It has come to my attention that thG approved p~oject had proposed access on Hypolu~o Ro~d and Maadows Boulevard. ThA proposed project will have access on LawrencQ Road and Me.dows Boulevard. This will result in a redistribution of traffic. Tha Traffic PerformancQ Standards in Article 7.9 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code requirGs increases in traffic resulting from the rsdistribution of traffic to meet the requirements of the Standard. @ IIrlntod "" rrx:ydod _r -An Equal Opportunity - Affirmatlvi! Action Employer" Box 2.1229 West p..lm Beach, florida 33416-1229 (407) 684-4000 August 10, 1995 MS. Tambr1 Heyden NAUTICA SOUND PUD (KNOLLWOOD GROVES) page two The letter dated August 3,1995 from Simmons l White. Inc.. attempts to address th1s redtstr1but1on of traff1c. The analysis assumes a 11 annual growth rate on Lawrence Road through the year 2000. Given the large number of residential units 1 n projects approved on Lawrence Road. the 1% annuli 1 growth rate is not reasonable. The red1str1but1on of traffi~ may require this project to phase to the proposed w1den1ng of Lawrence Road. Recently, we discussed the advantages 1n the access plan in the approved project versus the access plan 1n the proposed project. Genera'ly, in a project this size. with potential access on two thoroughfare roadw~s, it is desirable to provide access on both thoroughfare roadway. Th1s would allow the project traffic to distribute before reaching the thoroughfare roadway system, and reduce the traffic on anyone roadway. If you have any questions, please contact me at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER ~ 'Jh~ Dan Weisberg, P.E. Senior Registered Civil Engineer File: TPS - Hun. - T~affic Study Review g:\user\dweisber\wp50\tps\boyn48 TOTAL P. 03 ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295 m ~ @ ~ l1 ~J ~ FROM: Mike Haag ;;;kite evelopment Administrator m V. Hukill, P.E. Engineer ~ NAUTICA SOUND - SECOND REVIEW PLANNING AND ZONING DEPt - f/! i LV -~ August 9, 1995 AUG I 0 /995 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 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 conformance with the Traffic Circulation Element of the City'S Comprehensive Plan, pg. 66. F. In specific response to Ms. Janssen1s 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-of-way, and it must be 80 feet as required in the Land Development Regulations. August 9, 1995 ~lOANNNING AND ING DEPT. BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287 To: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director From: Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official ~ Re : HAUTICA 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:NAUTICA.TRC 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 -',NAUTICA,2 FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDe TO: Planning Department FROM: Fire Department DATE: August 8, 1995 RE: Nautica Sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves) Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd HPMD 95-006 SECOND REVIEW 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 coAstruction has been delayed again). /,~,,? ~ ,;({'z;/(e-- avc~/{\ William D. Cavanaugh, FPO Attachment: Security Gates cc: Chief Jordan FPO II steve Campbell File SECURITY GATES AND EMERGENCY ACCESS: The Fire Department continues to have the opinion that security gates are detrimental to Fire and Rescue operations. The minimum perf~rmance for security gates is as follows: 1- Gates shall be openable by telephone, with a call from central Dispatch center. 2- when the gate is opened by the call from central Dispatch, it shall remain open until the emergency is over; at which time central Dispatch will be told, by officer in charge, to close the gate. 3- In case of a power failure the gate shall open automatically. 4- Appropriate "Hold Harmless" agreement re: damage to gates equipment, etc. ; - ..,<... ..... - . _ _ ~....t. .. . ~.... -.. .. _.. ..... ... - .. . . - '. MEMORANDUM UTILITffiS DEPT. NO.9' - 2~ 1 FROM: John A. Guidry, Utilities Director U August 10. 1995 m~ rn 0 \Yl [~ rn TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning Direct DATE: M1 1 0 1995 SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan Modification Second Review PLANNING AND ZONING DEfT. The resubmittal of the Magter Plan for this project only partially addressed our comments. We therefore offer the following clarifications: 1) Ocad--end water mains in cul-de-sacs - Several of these have been eliminated, but it appears feasible to also link the water mains in the cul-dc.. sacs between lakes 4 & 5 by traversing through the lake maintenance easements, and modifying side lot lines. We wish to State at this time that the narrowness of the lots impedes proper looping of the w~r distribution system. If said lot size is adopted on a large scale it would significantly increase our costs for maintaining adequate chlorine residuals in the ensuing dead-end lines. The presence of dead-end lines also increases the risk of service outages, and is contrary to local Health Dept. deSign standards. 2) The three options proposed for the automatic gate entrance would require the distribution of keys or remote control gate openers to several of our personnel. In our opinion, the procedures suggested could not he implemented without increasing our response time for water and sewer emergencies . We would highly reoommend the use of a telephone-based system similar to those approved elsewhere in the City. Such systems minimize the chance of lost keys, and compromised security. 3) We have no objection to the project not using the available gravity sewers. However, the sewer system must be designed deep enought or the lift station relocated, so as to provide ~,eEv~c~_!~~dj~cent parcels that are too small to Co.JDej)t. Phcne , .t ~..... - _ I., 11 Memo no. 95-251 August 10, 1995 page 2 justify their own lift station. The current plan does not lend itself to maximizing use of the existing systems, and also effectively restricts the extension of those systems to other parcels. In that lift station maintenance is a significant cost factor to this utility, and the proliferation of additional stations 3CIVCS to increase our operating expenses, we are seeking to minimize the number of stations constructed. The current layout Rlay increase the Cityls10ng term operating costs in order to reduce initial construction costs for the developer. We will therefore require the applicant to fund a feasibility study prior to their site plan submittal indicating the most cost-effective method for providing sanitary sewer for the area, including adjoining properties.(Sect. 26-28) It is our understanding that the applicant wishes to proceed with this master plan submittal without resolving the above questions, so as to determine the acceptability of the overall project layout. We therefore have no objection to the project moving forward with our comments. The applicant must understand, however, that significant changes in l~yout may be necessary to satisfy our comments (especially COlIunent no. 3). ' Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office. JAO/PVM be: Peter Mazzella xc: Skip Milor File ~. RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-361 -1nWl t~l FROM: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director John Wildner; Pads Superintendent t Nautica Sound PUD - 2nd Review lli AUG o. ~; TO: '" RE: DATE: August 8, 1995 The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the Nautica Sound PUD masterplan resubmittal. Comments covered in Recreation & Park Memo #95-345 appear to have been added. The project should continue in the regular review process. JW:ad REeREA TION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-345 DATE: July 31, 1995 TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director John Wildner, Parks superintendent( Nautica Sound (P.U.D.) FROM: RE: The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the Nautica Sound (P.U.D.) master plan submittal. The following comments are submitted: 1. Based on a revised density of 434 single family homes, the Recreation dedication requirement will be: 434 single family homes X .018 acre/D.U. = 7.812 acres. 2. A separate submittal (copy attached) lists five recreation elements: 1. Swimming pool 2. Recreation building 3. Tot lot ~ 4. Basketball court 5. Tennis courts 3. One-half credit fof private recreation provided: 7.812 acre divided by 2 = 3.906 acres. 4. Developers have already provided approximately five (5) acres ofland adjacent to Meadows I Park site. No further dedication or fee will be required 5. Prior to issuance ofbullding pennits, the developer must submit details for private recreation equipment demonstrating commercial grade material of sufficient size to provide for the numbers of residents indicated. JW:ad . RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-356 TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist r~ ~ Nautlea Sound PUD RE: DATE: ~ August 7, 1995 The applicant should show all trees planted on common prQperties or utility station (City) easement property or road cul-de-sacs. There should be no net loss of trees, however, none of the replacement trees can be placed on the individual lots (and count toward the no net loss). Please contact me to clarify this if there are any questions. The project should continue on the regular review process. K.H:ad rn l~@rnOWrn rn AUG - 9 1995 PlANNING AND ZONING DEPT. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #95-421 TO: Tambri J. Heyden Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Michael E. Haag Zoning and Site Administrator DATE: August 9, 1995 SUBJECT: 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 form 150 single-family detached units on 6,000 square foot lots and 389 multi- family units to 246 zero-lot-line units on 5,000 square foot lots 188 "Z" lot-line units on 4,000 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.) 1. Identify the appropriate setback dimension at the rear of all lots along the east and northwest property lines. The setback shall be the same as required in the abutting zoning district. Considering tt,he 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 setback of the lots along this property line where the subject development abuts residential or proposed residential land have a 25 foot rear setback. The proposed 25 foot rear setback matches the rear setback for the R-1AAB zoning district. Therefore, the proposed setback of 15 feet will be increased to 25 feet. A further requirement along the northwest property line is to have the setback for the lots number 22 to 29 that abut the C-3 Community Commercial zoning be changed from the proposed 25 feet to 30 feet. Thirty feet is the setback required for property C-3 zoning when it abuts a residential zoning district. The setback required along the east property line is 40 feet this setback matches the setback of the adjacent multi-family project. It is recommended that the setback along the northeast property line be established at 40 feet. Therefore the setback along the entire east property line will be 40 feet. [Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development, Section 9. B.] 2. Redesign the zero-lot-line and II Z II project to show single- family lots with 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 all lots. Establish the rear building setback for all double frontage lots as twenty (20) feet. Maintain the proposed fifteen (15) foot rear building setback on all back to back lots and maintain the 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. 4. 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. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-484 VIII. DEVELOPMENT PLANS D cc: Planning Development Agenda Memorandum for september 5, 1995 city Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager ,~fr Tambri J. Heyden planning and Zoning Director FROM: SUBJECT: August 31, 1995 Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves PUD - MPMD 95-006 Revise access points and unit type (replace multi-family with single-family detached units) and reduce lot size and front, side and rear setbacks (3rd review) DATE: 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. BA.CKGROUND 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 opportuni~yto modify the master plan to the degree that the Commission would make a finding of non-substantial change with regards to the proposed modification as it relates to the current approved Knollwood Groves master plan (Exhibi t "C"). Following the review of the master plan modification presented to the Commission on August 15, 1995 (Exhibit "0"), the Commission encouraged the appliCim....... .. Tf @n~rU1fm ~. the square foot area of at least 99 "Z" lots. I D 11 f i I : ; n : ; Sl="P 5 1995 t ... ! .---~~---........."'. .., >~. .,',..~ B.pIA/ Wf ..., 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 roads. As evident by viewing the previous proposed master plan (Exhibit "D") 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 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 comments): 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. ....~..3..:......:_..~.., ~ f h . ~:...:::..~::__': =-::-0 set ort 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 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 proj ect on Hypoluxo Road, show code required 40 foot setback along the east property line of the project, increase 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-1AAA (Single-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". 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-Iine units and establishing the following building and site regulations for the zero-Iot-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 :::::: =:.:::. =- :,"_"_ . __, subject to staff comments. This master plan modification is provided in Exhibi t "C" and is the current master plan. The exhibi t also includes the condi tions 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 flve hundred fifteen dollars ($108,515) to be applied to the design ~nd con~tr~ction of the Miner Road extension to Lawrence Road from ltS, eXlst~ng terminus east of Congress Avenue for the PUD's proJected lmpact on Miner Road. The resolution also indicated that .., .. Page 4 Memorandum No. 95-484 Nautica sound the city supported the request of Knollwood Groves 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 ~.O 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 pun will impact. Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of development regulations states that changes developments shall be processed as follows: the in City's planned land 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 Zoning Board upon application 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 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, appro~riate and harmonious variety in physical development, creatl.ve 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 of......... 0' .,........~~ T.T._"" r>~..~, ~:-~~nts are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations and othe~ applicable City regulations to the same degree that they a~e l.ntended to control development on a lot-by-lot basis. In Vlew of the substantial public advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent of pun regulations 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. Wi thin the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards shall be required; provided, however, that PUD frontage 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.D. L-18 Canal, from which two project entrances were planned. Also planned was one entrance onto uMeadows Boulevardl1, 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 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 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 lar~e vehicles on narrow streets and maneuver emergency equlpment 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 Sidtnalks 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 Utiliti~s Department comments, utility systems in adj acent proj ects 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 which 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 ...- .'-~..~~ ~:z ....w::: ul....i.lity Department). The several dead-end water mains proposed in the cul-de-sacs can be looped, but may result in the loss of 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 doubl~-barrelling piping in cul-de-sacs, which also will cost t~e C1ty more money to maintain as compared to other projects wlth 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. 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 II substantial II . 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 publ ic 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 consensus 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 liE II - 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 xc: Central File . : KAU'U eA 1 . Doe w ...", E X H I BIT "An '" ~<<4i', · .~. _, .. !:;:~-'6, ~~ ''';;;3'-' - ..~t.~i~' _ I' :1 i_~&..~:>:, lII,c 'X":.:-="';:":.':':I~"":':':'IO:'~"'::'~:::, IDUQ '''.'e' '11 . _. I" I :'';:~:::-';B'' ':!:I' . ::-;'0; .. ' .."..., ". . <<.. ....^...., ~ . ' .'<<.", , "'.: W. ' ;...:,. ", .:.:. .... . ". : .,...... '.... L U I.. . c..: ":':".: <.''', '>>.'. ./:: m~n.~W*,r tmwr ~,' c A..", :If;lW~Mtl~lKtn !I.o ~ ~~ ~1!1,.... **?:l:'~~~ ..< ~: '.' .,t~~. :7~1 '...~......... ~q 11~ r:: "~"'-?>~';:*'**'*"~i:td-#-~~*.... -"-' ~!,:'f:::l '~.z.~)- ..fig ~i[i.f~~III.~.~ri~l~f:~. ~~~~;; ( ~J ,,',.1.. to !l':::::"'::::<'::::,:,::::,,,,,,"~~_.,. ':":::':',:i:.::' ~ k", ,,' .' .'i= ' K''''::~::::::'':::'i;::'::::::~~1~~'~/.:':~:'*:''':<''':'>:~'''''Iill''''' ~ 'LY" ^ '-f,.. .;:.. ". ;' OIl,/::,.. A G "":::':"';"::>;:':i:<<*":::~",~>/,*,,::::::,,~,,:,,~_ m9.Ml I L-... ~ , , "" " , ' iM~ :III)llillltflilill!lii' I ~ '~~.~ 1 L ~.~ sJ-f -- ~~ .:......, - !z>,:i~'~_~ - .''''fl''''~~IT[p~,' "~~l~d ilJ9iJD"r.~:~;i~ >,'1= ~,:t : : '\~ r..'L ':- I · ~.. ;~lf?i.':1'tIr... I r fA '8 h fJJ~ 7~ Lb= j /:;.0 Y7 ~~ ...... ____ """"".~ : .. " - - L ,.. / rmID ........ , i H 1/- 'I I J J ~........ I N\ -~"""= - " I I "i' If T Tnrffi"-I/ d II'" \\...._ --------- . -- .~_.- '- -- 30 - ------ ;::,~III~r'l~~'"[Jjllill1J[17-r~7 c- ~ _. ,"r, QL G ,.. l"= <iir.:J. " "'. \~ \ ~ "',......;,;<; '-no ~...~- T-, . ~ ~1r) -J&....... __.~ r u ~~ -- '- ;: ,..~; '~~, ;~~ ,"- ;c.{ ....'1 (... . Pl ~<~': , ~~~~~':" ~~ ,~' ,,;'"~r:.~r~f ~ L.lJ'f,rwJ.~;".~ ',"/Ifi L-{;::. .~, 'f~~. r ~t:E)'~\fJ:''''''.e i ~ "'... -. : " ',. /~,~ - /i'Ll/fIll f .'1;:yr'/ '" fiT' I , . ,-.J ., ., , j,~,:,O "C''TFIl.JS Gl..LI:~~.. ""'. """I:L~~);"" An-- ......~.... ....w.. ......... _..~ '. ~ _ '-.:~ "'\;tt~ CITy LIMI T5 ~ ~r-~ . "'.. "'''' ;..'>-:::::' / '~~1;'J~s"_ " ~~8J'r.;,-h" .'. J/I~~ ~~o ~ I .-- o~B 1'0 1/8 MIlESV ~ J [) p ~rJ D : ill 1/ ',. , , 1 Ii 7/ ~ '..(,1- '0400800 FEr=T _ _ -"'~~ '~~l.:>.. . .... 1/ l'JCATION MA::> NAUT/CA SOUND (KNOlWOOD GROVES PUD) It; _ ~~ o ;;: \:. ~1 1': ~_ o.~ '-' w E X H I BIT "B" iUt i,.1 (') .-Il'~ . . I c: IH. I;~ fl I Ii Ift~11 ,:; :D I ri' it!t I. I a 15 tI!i lr~". I :D ,~~rl.~_~n:_i_ ,~__....l_t__h'_ _"_~ - --_~_"\ .~ l...II\" ': ~?~~~Ir'-:'l;:i~ \:1 ~\ if ~ 'I pal,ll' r'. · ~ :Jr. L~ r... ~- I : ~ \1 ,I" ~ ~. ';1/ . · I ( rl" -, J I I at; , I ':, !'i,.~.L ....~) r-7-t .!.~. . .~' ~;. ~~ I 0 I' \. I . : _ - '--- . -- ~'..J -. --. · ..' ~ I I' ~ j C ' ~ '-,Ii?-;..... "10". '1"" ." ...... '". a \ II ~ .11 );; t \ I · : If-T-. · · , .~. , '! I" · \, ~ l~ \~.I R;~ !~:In (A i 18 ~ ..---------- ;.~~.f;'~'~. ~~; '!.u ~ . .,~ tL.. I I I ""'i " . ~\' lfim ::0 ~ \ q., j , ; ., ~--," i \ ~\~.'~ ': ~. 'lifl51 ~ ~ I' ~'~. R;"' 1 _J -'-:" :.'~ I r--. a.l!' , L ,.,., r- / ~ · I~ I ~1 I__;__~" L, .:_" . ...-~.- h: 'm- · .'lHt: i \ \ It I; i ~ "I . " __ / . ~ . " tb 'I I 'I I ' . , P'- ~" I, \," : , :" '. 111!I!'! ,~ ,. 'I I : ~ 1 1 '--.1 ~ · ., -. 1!~ll I"pu ,~. p! I ~ 1\1 t-7-1 :. '-----_~ i ~~l ~ ~ 'I!; ii1~, ,. ,'II~~iA G~' '~ ~: "~l \', ~ l<t. · · . ~ '-,_ ,~\j .; i::-- 117'. SIll! .' 1'1 j'll i " I"~ I : I' ~ : ': . ::: -~- ~--~ ~.~. I/.~::.. - ~l · ~ f-:'- ~r l:::....iO--I-.,.~ ....: · :.i /.'~ Y l,/ I :~'," ", at EE '1'--'" '" "..,. I' ' : _ ' , .. - ~-..,..j - - __~llP. h .' ; lit · - L -f',\ ~_ ~. -. -- _~ '~~-~l '~ ~~ ~' .. I I · · · · It, ! - f:;1::; -I-' - -r~:: : ~~ ~.~ . l: I . ?A7" r Ii" '..: _ 1~lru'--" -- .- --" -. ..t_ 'I :. 1,1 1 1 1111 I . . . . . . . I \1 I A r--o-r.i I. . . _ .__~ ~..... . - . - - r:1 -, " I I ~ II.-l _ .: " l.. I 1".( :<\.'\::- ~ -.--. . ~ . - -- - -- - -" ' . . . r-;-r;" \ ,,' ~ ' '!;",::-s . :'---. ,--'<, ----- .--, , - . .' -. I 6' . ~ ;\~~,'\\, ~..\ ",' . .; . .. . ,;r,j i. ~ 'iiI: r;j :,:: ' i ,i,l. ;'.r;t;. ;;;;;,;u;,;. ;. ;:r : I~ ! p-p.1' ~'.,'X' , . '\-1, ~,ll I1lCEJI ........ . - " ~ fl r 11 I I ' J~"I: ~'.> :',,' , · .--, -t.!). ...~ - ! ,: I: · '~::1' :, : I 1.~II:\I~~ ,"~,~,.,.'.' .:\~ "-""..:18~i i I:,';: ....'.t..~L,~.....\.~.~.~...!':.. : I I '~"', ,'.. '. '\!!!! ," . . .: '" " .' ,~~. ;. " '. c.L' . . " ..: ..: ..'.. . :'''"1~ ,,~: ''< ~ ' '. ' ' 'I / A ..' . ',,:--11 ~ .', I :' PS" . - -J: : -- -. - - -- -_.-~II ill ;. , :... ~~ ". , .~_... . ~ ' . I ./", ~_"-'-: / 1 ,: I:' ,".'" li:.~. I · '~-;~ · I · ~ ~ I ~-~" al :~! )tl..,,'> , ;,,~) ..\ ,,/ . ," -- t: .;,':' ~:. -i.- ~.~' '; I ~; I : ~1 10... /~' Lr 1," i::. --.., .. ...J. ,r- i' ~ 'I I ~.t I _-';'~.:~,~ '.. ( ~I .,'" ,." ~ I: .~ ' : I .~ '-__ ~"W'" ...., ,', -1.....,' I' r-:Il. I . . ,J.. ,I s' : 'Y!":n'" ... ~ I ". e I' .: " I~,.... ,.... I ',.J '., I I ~ r~~~'~il r,', \~: :' b: l~J ~~ .d, i J.j, W- -,:: it "'~~~~~','''~ : :~~ ' 1: .: ~ ~ l I f\ \1 ~'.,' I~ . ~ I I ~ I :~. ~ ' il.. 111 .ri-L,J ~~, , " ~ "t ! 'r'\ I~ 5 i~:! . ~ III' ';1IJtT ~, -'~---1---~-- -' ~ '~: L- -..: IJ: - ~--~ 1i88':: .~:, It~1 ~ , ~: 'JI ~ h ~ ;:f>>~ . I ~~,~,~~.~ :_~ ~l~ -~ ~ ~t _'__~ -~ . ... ; ,tit ~ -.-} , r- ".- 1 .;.' · ~ :': ,.: \1: t. "l l Iii ~ I': V"';' .. ~ ;. x;..' ......., ;~:~;f;\:' ' - ~if.ii;~:;; "~:'::f;r: > ! . \ n --u':l'~~."'. ~~ :> == -;n .~;. ~~ ~ · ; ~~t4~~ ri"j~ .. ~ 'iL't~l~,J.j ~ "IOU';' ': ~ \ : i I ,. . I I ~ \ I ill -.....-. -- · il ',: ~ ~o II! i~& Ii I,' . Ill! ~; i q JL . ~111, uutll) \ ~ 8 ~ &\ . ~ ~ I Pi', I ~ ,t I Ii~~ .. , I~~I. ,. ii~11 i ~ -zJ & I, 1 II "J Ii ~ ,-;I J I lit,' 6 8 t l ~- 'I II \ _ ., t I -~!.I i o IS !. \ - - .- I .\N '~_ : i ~ :,:, "tI!r.;:'.~'.;r----' _ __ ~'-' .-... ~,R , -, O' ~ . Ill"'''''' ,.1.1.IaoU..od Groves P,U.)). 8omLoa ".ch. Florl!!_ W .t. r Sl C: PI ..." ..", \\ -a _ S \ ,. ,\\ $ \ ., -, \ t \ ' .\ '\\ \ ; \~ i~~ \ I~ ~\. \' Hi \ \ \" <.0 .r ~ ~ ~\- ~ ~\~~\\ \~ q'i ~ ~ \'t \i I~ ~'l\~" ~\" ~\\\', I l\ \\ 6 I \\ II' i ~ \t' ' . \n \\ l\ \"" I \J'~ ~ \ ~\l \ ~\ ~ "- ~ ,'\ ~ h\ f ~ \: ~ ~\\ \' l\~ ~\t \ . · \ \ \ ~\\I\ \, i \ r \ \ c .. .. ..: i!\\\' \ \~ \ ~ f ~ \":' \ ~ \, 11\ i \ \" i ':1 .,. ,. II" .. \ _ \1 -' \ .It · \' ~ If'1Sr'~' f l W\ \ \. W i\\ \\\\ \ \t,\~i \ l~ ' \t\\I\\\ \\ \\ \\\\ \~~ \~\~ ~ \\\\ \\~ \\i\ ~ ~f\~ ~~ \t\\i'~~~\~ '\" ,\1\ \ill\ \\\i\ ;\ \\\\ \\~\ \\\" \~ ~~ ni n~ ,. nl.', i\ \\\1 \1\) \t.l\t. {I ~\\ \1 . ,\\\ \ \ I i. \\~ \ , v...t \. hi\l till n~,s \\ t1 '~\ll..\ "t il ',\\ l ~~', la\ \'\'\ \\. ~ \\\\ \\\ \\l,\"\~ \\\, 'W \\h \ ~~ it ';.\ . I. I \ S" i \t' \f, \,'\\' \' .i\ i'\' ,~;.", \ \ \ \'~ ,\\ t~\l \\\ \\ \\' \\\\ \ \; \. · \ \ Ill,' \ ',\\ ii )\ " \,,' i ~ ~ _ \\, I \ 131 \ ~" d \\1 \ \ \_! ~ ~ l ~ \" , ~. ,\t' . t I i ll~ l \\;! '"7"\ ";;, \ ; ~ ~ \~\9.. \ I ~\\ \\1'\ \\\\ 1'i\~ .,. : 9.\: H\ ~ ,1 'n 1\ \~~\ \, i~i '.i\\ ~W \\ it\ \h \\\\ \~ lil \1' \n\ ,~\,\\ Wi\ \\,\ \':~ u\, "~l\tt \~ \~\t \~. \ t\ --\ Xl\ \ i Is . i ~\\ \i 'l"'. . \l 'l "" "''j..GS~' ~~\\\~\ ~l~\\\ I I I "j. I ~ I I I lWdey It AeeocI.... Landscape Archltectal Pl8nne... 1661 Forum PIece Suite 100A West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 14071 689-6622 · FIx: 14071 689-2592 August 30, 1995 Ms. Tambrl Heyden, Planning Director Mr. Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Developmeht 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 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 resubmittal is a Master Site Plan which retlects the layout of the individual lots, the interior right-ot-way configuration, pavement and sidewalks. This amended plan should address the major concerns ot 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 trom 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. w ,."" Ms. lambri 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 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 Rnd, 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, ~l~ Karyn I. Janssen Kilday & Associates, Inc. cc: Alan Fant, GL Homes Larry Portnoy, GL Homes Rick Elsner, GL Homes Chuck Justice, Lawson & Noble \ ~~ ~- 19 t~ ./ i m ~ ii >> !l_ a ii a ~ '- l~ >> il '- () )> '" ~'" (") z ./ ~ \ "' -\ Z ~ ~ -\ -\ -\ CJ ~ 0 CJ N \~ '" ~ 70 CJ \' r l~ a a -\ -\ .. r !::! - r i ~ z '" ~ ~ ... '" - --\ -\ fJ) (j) ~ ~ ~ ~ ... 1 ~ lUil ,ill IJ 1\ il \, ! ~ \ 5 i l:'. \ ~ i '- w E X H I BIT "e" \n~'\'r' ,i,!'., \\\ ,\\\\\\~\- \\\\\\\\\ \;h\~\\ \\\~\ \ t\ g ~ m ~ ; ~ m "0 ~ t'\ \ \ 1\ I ._ _ \ \ i -- -------- - ------ .-' ------- ~\ \ '--.../ '\1k ul l" '\~\' \,\\\ flil 1,\ \ \ ' , Ii \ " \' \ \P \\ \\ \\ \\ ~ . _I \ \it,\ii\~\tt \11\\" \\'\\" \\U \\'\'\\li~i ~ ~i~ \,' n ~ \ ,~,. '\ ' ~ \ 1 ,n ~ \ \ \ u 11 , at il ,,~'i\\ I" ,"ilGI 1111': IJ ,1~ IU111\ HI '1'. ~ \"1 ~, t I · , L\\\\...-...-"'- ~._._.__. ~..._..._..-:t:- --, ' -,,,,.:.-,_'_'--'-'_'_---'-" ' , , ' . - (' " . ' ~ 1\' ,'. I ) \ '-- , \ 0' 1~ ' : . t- 'I . I , . \ ~L \ (.n w-w-- .' 1Q ,\ ,. \ \ \\ t 0 . . _ \\\\\\\\ i \\\\\\\\\\\\' '" 'ul\i'" '\ ,it "h Ci1- ' I II '\ \ " I' , ), . , ' I"'H"" \I \ I \ \,1\. , !' 1 ,"1111 II l \ I "I ,I -, \\ ~U~l>~; j~:;;~Groves pUD 1\ \, \\ , , \\ '\ I , \ i~~ ti\\~ '"" - \ \. ~ li I \ f~ 1\ " \ 1 l \ \ ~ \ 1 \\ , \ \\ .1 i , , \' , , \ 1 1 \\\\\,\\ \\\\\\\\e ~~ . I '\1 l o~9 ~J .1":" .'......, IJ:..',.,,,.... ,...~r.',' ''''7,~. .... \ ' '-- , ~ ..""" tdte City of ~oynton '13eac/i 100 'E:.. '.Boynton 'BtilC/i 'Boukvartf P.O. 'BoOI0 '.s"y"tt>n 'Bcllt/i. :JCoriiA ))425-0) 10 ('jty:HiJJf: 140i).J4.8IU 1':U: "40i) TJI,.,U9 OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR March 13, 1991 Attn: Ms. Anna Cottrell Urban Design Studio 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 600, The Concourse West Palm Beach, Fl 33409-6582 RE: Knollwood Groves Master Plan Modification - rile No. 570 Dear Ms. Cottrell: Please 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 comply with the following minimum standards: 1. 6,000 square foot lot size 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 setback The Planning and Zoning Board at their March 12, 1991 meeting made a final determination on this request, including compliance with the minimUIII standards stated above, by approving this modification to the Knollwood Groves PUD master plan, subject to the attached staff comments. Thes. comments shall be addres.ed on the submission plans for preliminary 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 19-92 of the Code of Ol:'dinances) . Ixtlnllona mu.t be 'ile4 with thl Planning D.par~lnt by SUbmitting a letter of extension for review by the Concurrency Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (407) 738-7490. Very ~,..,,'~,. ....-,.-~ Ci.\...,-t.l.h... C~ CHRISTOPHER CUTRO, AICP Planning Director CC:frb Enes ee: Technical Review Board ..... ;~ 0:1) ((~ E X H I BIT "Dn i\\\ l. I r' b a ~ ,II. ,'I! ,01 I ~ I I!l\l l' j'i' '~I f- I ~ I~ t.~ 11\-\ I ~;JL ___'L 1 """,,,__L~ __J'L \L'-- i~\II~~ .\~~ ~ ~-~:t-~;:~~~\l~~ r ~~\"--":~ II'tle, rf . I :--' · I ~~ \ 'Ii Il ~~ ,~l ~ \ II ,b.'~' \~ \ "-~. ';, ,,": ~:i' ...;!. L'. -~J c~- I 1 ~\\ ~~l \ I l',hal \ \ \' ".111" · ;u . 1.lT. -. -,' I \ Vl Ill,' "l~ ,,,,- . ;;,I~ ',,:!,.. ..,,~..\I :'..~~~':'Ii,: .,: ~'."',j, · 'd- II \1 \' \ ' .1\ . \ Is:: ~. _ _ . : -; - ~., ,7 \ (' ,. I _ i t., \ 1 . ::'11'(;; :~ ;~r:l':l:' ;' ~ ~ ~: .;' ;~~~ ~; I \: · i\ I ~ ".~ ii I r ~', ':,\\~. l~ tot" '\ ~:: :: I :-----l--at----~~:~r"~:...~' RJe~~ & I':: :~-i-- ,.1 .I i i ~'!...',,, \ · ~ ' I ,:::' ~ I' l P. ~l S \ ,,:,. . <> \ \ ,:: I ': a '- - _ ,I 1 .~ \t · ";, " ,,\. \' \ :.,' ~, ,:" i , _J .-,-', ~'i.>' ' I \'! l'\ :' ~"I (~, ,::'. , \ ' ~/ Il\~ ' \ \ !t' t\~ :;l\~~' \ !---.--~,: ~~~_ ';---- Ii 2 ,!:l .' _~ ' 'I\'~:L:..,. , \t Ii' \ "\flT,C ___ ... 'll"' T~ --'" -~.:\. :'4 1 li.t!' \ " : ::. \'1'- ;::. ./ ~ ,'\ \1i...." ~ -~ ,'i\ :- ~\ 1\ '<II \&Ii I ' ~,: ' J' " ,)~~ r .. i ... 'I" " i~~\ ,~ ~~/., ; i-- ~:::; 1 1\\ ';: ~ l\a ~,t . \t l\tr'! ,~- if; ,,\ . ::', .:t.' .',......... p ',' 'I J... l.;\'i \. tg \\'llitl15 i,' I" ~l fl, '__ III \ii.-:-t- \ . I~~\ '"'1 ~~ I' }i.\1ll 'c\ ~ \ M. :;' ---,:.J--m---'--. _' ,\.: 8 !i; :. I \~! ll~~\ i~ 1\ 'i\ \~ ~l~. \W l&\~ h \ \ 1; , I , :: ' : I . . . I. ~_ ,\ I L I:: .~ .J -It l.~; ! l !/' \ "Olio' 1, .., \ ,~~:. __' __ _, - - '" " . . - I ~ ..,' . . " ", ~.. ,'. ""'- . , - < ." , ,~" . ~ .' -" ,..\ \ at I tra::ll\'~ ,;_:..:: :.T;J::.~::~:~I t.it.t.t'. ,; '\#---1 .~__-~:;'r ij- ~-t"- rr-tf-I-r.'- ~ .-~fl-l1-~r-~-=-W~~;;1 I J ~ ,,1 " -'~T:' :i:!;-:1 "j'-'~ .!I'.!I'.!I'.,...J.... -t. p ~ \~' ' .~ ~,::. :,' ! "_~:':: :: ::., ~'ffi- . - . - .= =~.= : = ;j: ;i:j;::~' "~1" 'l'~' . .~. · · " \, \ 1_ "'!1~" I .;'}V~., h :: :-:-:::r=;~-~- :;::: ,__ . ~ - -.:- - : 'S:~:::: :.::j:: : :: :~:: d: - ,i, . ! ~ I!! . I.... 7.,h ,. h ",.. ", ."""". j .cu. ..'_ ,.... ._._ ..". ~ '\ ._~l ' , ~ IV. . .....l-." ill. 'I" I"~ . i ' if -'-' , ,,-:'::; .,:1,~" , . n' ("r1" '~i'f' " , ~ , .',+ + r ~ '.';1\1 ' 1 J. : '4~:.""'. \- .' i' :~. 'I> ioI ,1~, I t:i:l ~....\ii ," "1'1" " ' · · ""p \ 1 ~~a\l\~ \ : V.\~l\II~W~;,~:~i. :;.~~~:~;~;~'~- ;l~! lr. ;gL\r:t;,,~;F~~.; ~ \::,~~\ \~\ j!\~\ ~ \ "'~ .. ,', '''" ',' ""'~:" . .. ~~~ 'r.;-r,r,:: . ....."...~ '~1:11' A~~:': h- . ';, ~ ':f' ::~ ~ 1 ~\t ~\ " ~ ' '. .,~. _ <, . ~",~ ," '. . ," '. ~ l ~ ,.. ~ ' : .. > . ' · · ,,,. ... , : ,,' · ;. , ~_:.~~~ , . --..:" .~, ,,,.,; . ;:, ,,__ '_'U w'.,..'.['V' , !+-it' · .....,..Y .1' '" ! ,q t Ii \ }~~If;~' · ';"W.'':' "~,,' // Ii l~----- \., 'fa ~:~: ~ ;~~bfA---"' · ~ .~ l~th\~\ ~' l:! 1 a r, '" I rot( "~';~':' ," ,t ~~ 1 -. ~ ~'--' J" \ · ,~, ' I I ~,~ I ~ !I.- c.:---j ,~ ~ ~~ .", \ n r;',., II.. ,:,' \ tt'i"-~' I .,::::, --":""I.i~, \ ~~I' 1\ t ""'''''',''' '. iJ ~ .:, ~, .;' ,,:'''., '" c..li :,. it 1-'" ." ':,.:. ,,, ':' ,\ ' '; i,l.1" ,0 ,\\ ~:, I:: '. \ "'i tll ~ 'l~~" \ I::'"'!: I \~l;\ ......~ ,,- oJ ,,\ -~ ~ \' ~~ .~\~ . !! af:-;- I J ~'" "I \~~_~:,:~,!1' ~ ~ yl ., .,,~ ':':~-i---CL-'\", ,~ . ,: 8 ~... \t" \~ \ . ",': . .. i I: \ .', \ '" ~ ' !:~. I ! .-:;W...l:' ~ I ': ,'~' ~ \ \ ;_ ~ ~; ~~ \,'~ .:: ~. P ,_ _ ___ _. _ ....-1c~:j . ;:" ;;, ,.~ ..;'; \ ~ Ii I ., ~.':: ::' ,...:J,: I,' \:. ~ Q:t,\ r, 2....1J\~ "A .~." ~ I ]".'f -~l . : \:' ~'\' , L___ __lIJ · ': "" L..' -.ti 'l~m'~' ':1 n Iii ~ lll~;;\n r..( ~& , P' ',: ,,;'..-\ ,: i.'.: . '.\'.1' , · · .f-.rl< ~IT" i," ",~. ';1, · ':: ',:' 'J..;' '"1'\ (' V> ~" . .. ;;; \' ',' ",_.. .. ',. u" ~.. ..... '.'. ~...u .. .. ",i~' -, ' ,.. . 0'. .,. :{: " "Iii" ',' '.' i' " rd. I ._ . . . .... ...... ,,-"""'~ ~ .. . - - ... .. ..u" ~m ..~. r ',t ., "uu'uk,.~\;~ ' ~ .-'-!fmJlrl~~'~rJxtt~tr;~1tttJl:(:r~.::.t:;~:~ \~\ ill .. hi~1 ~ \ .m.m_.. ! ~-_...:_,. - -.... 1" /~ ~ 1; Ii! ~h ii I' i\ 'T" f,1: U i ~li \a, ~ ~~\ 1\ \: \\~\\ ~ L ~ ~ i ~ i J i'l :;! I lit. I \ \1 !\\\: \ <5 \0 <.' ' ~. \ T ~ 1 Q " - ~ - \ \ ~ _ 0 o - .."", ..., '0 :n ~ o CJ) ~ ~ " ~ " -0 ~ ('.IC~ ~ ~~~~~lM::::= i L'::-~~t~~ ..,\tl\_l..-~~ t'l.n..rll~~ .. h"'~' "I - ..~ NAUTICA SOURD I'.K.A. Kno11\900a Grons p.1J.D. Bt'I,l(n\On \{t'D~h. flOrid" M,II!I\er ~ll(' Plan --- tirC' 5~~'t" $ , 'iI~'i~liUi1ra, 1\ !in ~~iri\'l' lldi','lS' i 'llu 1'1\" ,. t 'l~;l ib~h ! :~ ~ U"l Knday at A.,oclO'.' ....ndtcClP. ,.rchlt.eh/P~o"".rs '5~' fO,.",1TI PIOC" ~':~~ ~~\o,: hOl:h. Oorldo 3HO\ (401~ 6b9-~~:2 ~'oll',(401\ ~e9' ~ ~~ I!". "'!-'- ~ 00 .... ~ 0 ~ So. S' ~ r- 5 :i' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~.1 ~ =- 9. z ~ a: 'l f .8 ~ '<( c: V1 o ~ ^. It: I g.. -l"lgo o. _1. 30~-~I'.O!t -'21" .&-3- :::n; i:f5::ilUl a lij-. !!.~l-.. 3 .. :I It ~ 5"!!: _. .... .;2.0" i ~I=' .00....'11 at>> ~,.J- S .. _~. ~ 0 ~ 0:: i:1~::.... --- ....l,!:l2.1i q~a,,:.~ [~; ~l,!Q ,,\.11 .g3 g.aeo @~ 0.0... ~C7' 3n 1",.- H"~ il !..;~ q;r;c;: 1:: Il" 009 . II ~ :' ;; ~ *' { .. 3 .S,,11I=".~ 1~1i ~~ S:l .." - I : : Il ~ j~' ~~1 i 1:i1- :l~' ~ ~ ':5 of:1 a a . ~::3S H '4 ... ~ ~." l.~ ~Z ~ IA ~ ~ ~ : llllR ~ ~ 111 i" i 000 ~!H ~... .. -- Ii ~i;:l Q~j ;- ~1o~ ii}i J~.~ ::1;: ~':H : ~'-< 0 ~ >ol~ f IHi .. ~iiH != ,'( J! f9.~ t . l~a -j~ " ~1 ~~9. n ~ ~ ~ f n .. : ~ i , a " (II _ Q :taro .f:lf~ ~ ~ .. -! t l '!:'" ~ - ~ · 2.! a.. la~.. !ili I I~~:~ a i ~ ...r-iC!d 1" rlI" f ~ lJ;~i Q e. 3 a ~ _ 0'2.5- .. ~ H~ 11. A-I 5 ..~ :: 11 ~!Jo' 2';:i ;af7 -'R U!_ ;. H ~ :1 l~i :~~ h3 -p :~I ..c_ II ='0( a't ... -.. .t ~ .. .. ~ 3 .. 1 l'" ~8 o. I fi ~ ~!t ~ Ji5. 9~ !- ai If {g ~~ 3 "Ii _. ;;;i s. ls: ;;1 r-1 f i i .. . Ii f7 .. a f 1 '5 .. .. i i f7 R " g .. . j -N'"'!"- ~ '. C! I ;r II! ~ji ~ ll~ I -18 Ii ~ I j. ~ t ~l,a "! iii .~~ !l. atg j il::l t 1111 ~ Ix ~ Ulj i 2. .. !"~ f f !l. t I . f . " ! a - 1lI !-' - " Z ~ ~ 1> . N ~ C "i '" ~ .. ... -i :; 0 " 0 . -VI -6 ~ ~ ... 1> 1. tiil " 0 a I: ~I 111 en 8'2: H !;l 0 ~3 c ~ ~' C g3 l."" 3:i Z ~ ~8 i:!" 0 ~g i 3~ 3 1) 5' C af t: 3 Q '" C ;; ia p ~ C! 3 - n .. at a _ .. ~t en j . ei a -i n .. j[ 1> ~ ll.:c 1a- . .. Z N .. . 0 .i i= ~ 1> .l1o '" i }l] q .. ~ 0 q en j ~ 3 c 3 ~. ~ 3' c 3 <; i[ N .. 0 0 D C <; a ~ .. . .... ... t i ~ .. N~:r~~ - ~O'~;;~~ _ ..n. ~ . C ~ .~~!~~ ~ H a J - I! ~. : ~ i _ ~ Cl UI . i t 02lV'l J ~ lc~: ~ ~ ~ ~ii~ ~~r~ oZgl1o ..~ : lQi; ~ 4) C · lit a. Ii ~ Q!l::a ~. -: ~ I. 'C ~ 1Z. ! . - ;; -t 4 L....~ . "n iai~ itl! ~I~' R. ..,.-I~li ~i t. ;( 'l'j rIll -! . '-~ · . I; r." l' l'd-' it ~: : I; It!, .~Jlt ii Il!- l!i: itil t:! ~~llil ;1 :; !11I '1:1 lli~l ii rill 'itl .,: : 1: ~.: J~ i! !il; t.}~ iiHi H . m Hi. i!iI i ii :~~ tf ! ,~,~! j~,~; ~~!i; ili ,!Ii ~~il' t1tltil i;: f~ ila, f If. J,ialll r }I h f I r..r.a' · ! i jtl f!li Ii ' ~ Ii -[ii' I ~~ f! I I if~ .IJ ;;!l~; !:I !! il!- : II li i ~ ,J 3' } a:J I of i - ,,1! i J-..: i Ji~ if Ii Ii i :-.'- i ~i ~ 5 ~ .'" .. ~ 8 '" . g ~::: 5 It... '" -:: ~ 1- z ,,3' VI ~ ta h! a V!!U1 JjI>o Ul 0[1 ~17 ~g . ~! a- t 1: ::x C 1: C CJ " 1: 3: ~ - n ::I , ~ lIIIl 2 ,~ w WI E X H I BIT "En PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #95-485 FROM: Tambri J. Heyden planning and Zoning, ~lrector ~~fd#a- . Michael E. Haag . Zoning and Site 'nistrator 'l'0: 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 .1z8 from 150 sin91e-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 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- 3 (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, da~a and charts accordingly. 3. Change the front building setback from the proposed twenty (20) feet at the ~dLQye au~ ~~~....c~.. \~JI ~CCl.. aL 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. 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-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 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 plans 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 tree (mahogany or oak) spaced 70 to 80 feet on center. The buffer shall also have a continuous 2 foot tall hedge (chalcas or Florida pri vet) 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. Nntp.~ 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. 8. 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. II; 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, w~ere 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; 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 setbacks 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 association documents are required for the proj ect. The documents are revip.w~d bv staff and the legal department 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 .:!>Iautico.SOl ~ .."", DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. :mn W I,m J pliO' :; Iljh::':)) " FROM: Mike Haag Zoning/Site Administrator ~~m HUkill, P.E. /If!;ti Engineer August 31, 1995 TO: DATE: RE: HAUTICA 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 C:NAIJSOUNO.3RD ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295 August 9, 1995 ill~ ~D~J~ h, ~ AUG I 0 /995 FROM: Mike Haag ~ite evelopment Administrator m V. Hukill, P.E. Engineer NAUTICA SOUND - SBCOND REVIEW PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT. 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 requ1res 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 conformance with the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's 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-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 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 10' 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, Malavasi 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 site 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-ot- way. An initial meeting held on May 22, 1995, with the City Engineering Department indicated that the continuation of the 60' right-at-way would be acceptable: All required turn lanes and other improvements can be adequately provided within the 60' right-ot-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 developer's engineer has certitied that the drainage plan will comply with all City Codes and Standards and a copy ot this letter has been attached for your review. ~ ." 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 entrance 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 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' right-ot-ways located within the project have four feet wide sidewalks shown on either side of these right-ot-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, 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 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 will not negatively effect the capacity of Lawrence Road now or in the year 2000, which is the estimated build-out ot 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 comm::::-.~::: ~:-::-:-: ~~-:=- -r...v', -, -~..:-:, +h", ~o\IC:~!oper 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. .' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260 TO: Mike Haag, Zoning/Site Administrator William HUkill, P.E., City Engineer ill FROM: ,.II II @-r n.! ; ; U'I DATE: July 26, 1995 ~~~g~~o (" ~ - RE: NAUTlCA 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, pg.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 80'. 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. 5A, pg. 6-7 and Chap. 23, Art. I IF, pg.23-S 6. Provide parking facility for recreation area including H/C stall. Chap.2, Sec.11HI6e(12), pg.2-108 7. Establish deed restrictions providing for a property owners association 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 8. 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.8, Art.III, Ala(3), pg.S-2 10. Provide a map indicating the location of the soil borings. Chap.S, Art.III,Ala(4), pg.S-3 11. Construct (to completion) the south road prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy. ,... ...., Development Dept., Engineering oiv. 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 ", II t ,I: . ~- - ._- r~ (r) I. "1 r~ ., n ~\VL~~ , I : I' FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC ... -". - "-'._-,._-~._- ,', . I ',~ :":l j : r' l~: ,- 1 TO: Planning Department FROM: Fire Department DATE: August 8, 1995 RE: Nautica Sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves) Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd MPMD 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 this development will extend over required limits (Miner Road construction has been delayed again). J (' /) ...1~JJ, ~-> )yC0{}n,~ [T(J~ " CL?t/J~MA!A~ ~+~ d Attachment: Security Gates cc: Chief Jordan FPO II steve Campbell File Al~/ , - ,~~, '3/?/ h 5 Wil 1a;" D. Cavanaugh, FPO tiJ SH'. ~ ~cJt:~ ikfJ~ ~ ., ~~I , ( ~f{b/t&)f' ~(f '. j,fr'D .... ..., BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT ;. ,:~.i,l? .r:~ JLUI, ~l~ ; II II (J'.' I ". I. i:i~ 'JII'I~ . ~-"PlJ.TIim.IG AND . ~_I~~Uw.tll~f:>T. i'llv. 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 sUPmift~) aOP J::::still ,romu,tain my comments made on two previously submitted memorandum~,{';;:~~~~d\y<iu ,4rill ffQa' ~es of those earlier mcmorandum.<, l!Z (~3%V ~~ (/. "~::"'" ,.r rl:~::::~:::::} [Su f:::;.::;:~::;::::;~::;;;~::::;:J "<::::::::..D ~""i:~:':;:;:::::~:;:~:~ I t::::,::~::':::,:~;;~) ~ . ," , .. ':'" ..... .~.'.,..,.....:.... Respectfully, ,..,";;:':':~::::~::.~/L h?fJ7.:::::::,.,,,,iJ rlI \~S:':"::"'t,.:~:n;M' ':If .ra ~~j~ ~ .... g. GiI on.. Gt'I'aS Police Department BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT TO: FROM: DATE: REF: T AMBRI 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~lf'~~diiiirt~.fJ;'Q.!I1ments that were supplied. It seems that my original suggestions f9n!Uti:~y.:blopl.ent wF~A~ored. I still maintain the following: l'l ;"'~,:"":";;:::::::.:,:;:~:;/:' ...,.,,( ,,/,: ",', . . ...;.....;....:.-:..... ....:.;:.. "it .".,://':::;;'<:3' 1. Regarding the controUed &itrb,ce/exits, the developer (G.rS..I16~s of Florida) has an attached letter describing twee wPes of mechanisms of gated corrlriiuh~,ies. The first, SOS System(Siren Operable ~~.~temYI feel is not something that is not (a,vo~le; both on a police stand point and the prospdttivc" residents. Police respond to calls t~\.,~uire a silent response (burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) triat activation of a siren at the entrance would not;s'PPp.~ appr~~!Jf1 of c~~!~: Alsp~::f::w~:ld not think that residents would appreciate the Pqli.ce1~~d fire) dep~ent ~,~g.yMing t~qir alTo/pI by sounding their sirens. The second rec,1fili1e'9~tionlir~rT<ji'px B~'d{ey"'entry '*te~llThis is an antiquated method of access to a ia.tat~r)ity::.:ReqWtiri~the cityftb mlintain ntaster keys to all gated communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the question. Maintaining qp.e.:.ma..ter key requires the response to the P~Jt<<~:~epartment to obtain the key first, and then t(hh'f~:::Wlnmunity" This is not a "timely" resp~:*' tiJr emergency vehicles. The third recommendatiq.~.):i!temote System" is not explained thq,(~JgHl.)/enough. It allows the city personal to remain iri.'th,p!.~;y~hicles when entering the comm~~:~,.,.~ut does not explain how, or who activates the gate fub.ctiOtt, I originally suggested a &~st~:di ttiQt::'is similar to this; and is cun"endy being excepted in ih~~~j1er,~ated communities 0{t4~:,,:t:i!y~:::::/The system works with telephone accessibility. The dispatqh:~;f\)r,..PQ.!.ice :i(td,}~Jti.,main,f~in the telephone number for the gate and upon radioing that they (p61i'ce p~'cei)r ..t4,:irr.J~~ at the gate, the dispatcher then telephones the number to the gate, thereoy actijatihg thc"'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 Hartis ~ ..., "-. ". ~. 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 l.......::~::~:~::::::. 1 have reviewed the above listed plans ~g4:::r.~C9rriiie.d:;the,.fqUQwing: ....<::~;;:~~.:::~~~~:{~\ ,. .~\~. ~ .~f ":j~:'" ~:;~::;:~;;:~.~::. -The entrances/exits are "c~ c~6tt~~A;;':'" I ~'o~ld r~~;rl~'~<l;:tpat a telephone access also be supplied for police an4,::,(fe emc'rgency access. If not. sorpetljlri'g comparable to this will be needed for emergencY<'-@:,~i;'ess. .:\".,";:{':::..'.':::"'\ ft/;::'/ \ f ..:,.:,;;\. -Regarding the south ~~ftanVe to the development, on Lawren~,Rd.~. I would recommend a decelleration, right ha'Mf"fufn lane. I believe this lane constructi~~ ijight interfere with the bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, right hand turn lane for the north entrance/exilf"',mt:~~~s shorJd::::aJ.~. appl~.for.:::t~:: soutq"..rn.~~E.e/exit. ~ t~-:.:-:.:.:....~l.i :~ t...:...:.:.:...../.../ ~ 11 . ,.) ): !i if '\. "\ -Due to the density 4pf6j~ed p,qiiIatf.pp oft+,:::dev.clopmHt, I ~y~ngly believe that an entrance/exit is needCd::ft.Grf1 RtypblUX(f-Roid. Hllie distatiteTtom::,:.botlrprojected entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great distance from the northern roadways in the dcvelorm:1Cllt:Ji Emergency response to these roads ~n1;;r~quire excess time, thereby requiring a Hypoljixo Road entrance/exit. This developrn,ijrt'.i,$!!'also in the extreme northern and western Jimi~ of the city and a great distance fro9l.th~,.ht;iu'est fire station and police coverage, '"~~D ~~y Respectfully, Sgt. Marlon Harris Police Department BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-324 , ;; ) j m,,_,~__~_,[~\'!l rn 1 : ': 11 '.: I '; j ,\ - - : ,) ; ! --,--------_1 i ..::\';~~\~t)~_, V-l August 31, 1995 TO: Tambri Heyden Planning & Zoning Director FROM: Al Newbold Deputy Building Official RB: TRe COMMENTS - NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL 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. ;J AN: bh Attachments/2 xc: William V. Hukill, P.B. NAUTICA 'W' ...., BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287 August 9, ~995 To: From: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director 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. ~~ Al N bol ( AN:mh Att. Plans cc: William v. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director A:KAt1TtCA.TRC BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95 - 270 August 2, 1995 From: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official Master Plan Modification - 1st Review Nautica South f/k/a Knollwcod Groves (POD) 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 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 U1reccor A:NAUTICA.TRC ~ ...., E X H I BIT "P" ~W\ l\\~ ~\\\\\ 1\\'\\' \\\,\,\\ n. .- .. . \\ ~ C5 ~ ~ ~ 1ft ~ -0 ~ \\'\\\ \\' ..\~\~~\\i,\\t ~\\\\\\ \\' ,\\ ,n ~\\\\' , ~ \ I" \ i\ \ \ \ \ ' ~ .. , ~ .~\ ". ~~:.,t\ :~~ l~ .'~ \ ~\ IUill1 'Ill \ \\1 N\" ." ~\\ I \ ~":"":~,,,:::~_--::Cli;"';;,,,_._.:..._._'_._'_.__.: : --- "\ ' I ",' \ \ \~ \\d ~,\'.' \ '\ ~\,,~l~ \ " ,A III '--- \ \ ,111. \ iI, \ ,~ i t II '\ ~\ " . .~.'-.-----_. "'~_.- ~\\ '-../ \ '\ · f\I '\:" \ \ ' \\ \\~ ~' \, "'l '\\~, ~ ~'~,...... ~ ~'- .i ~."" · .~ , ," . v' \ . \./ ' "I ' \ f:l ", " II' \ \ (\l) ~_~~==t~ ~/ \\,\\1 \ \ \ \ 'it . l '-' "\.,, \'1' \ ",",,,,, \\t'\\\\ \ il\\\\ \{~\ ,~!,"" '. \\'\11\ h \.\~ \,,\,~ '~ i\.m\'~ ,\\'\\r \ \"l\ \ \\ \' ~~'}.Pl.\~' \\'~ \ ',\\ \ t\ 'I~'~~~\~\\ ~\ ~\\ \, \ ,'\ 1 , " I' ~ '\~' \ \ '\ , \\ 'it ....I!..... ,II , ;;$$11 \ t. \ ~. \ ,\\\\\tOO\\--OOd GTO"es ~UO \~ ~ \ ~\ \'1 lIO'I""'" ........ f\. ~. \ \., ~ p\8I\ . 1\ 't '\ " \\ '\ s 41j! \\\\ ,\,\ \\ \ r~O>"\\ w\ \ \ \ % ~'\r \ ,~.~. ; \ ~ I" ~ i \' "t ':lr \ \\ \\ \ ~ \ i\ \\ ; )- It: .,\tn\ \\ \'\\' , l \i\\'~~' ~' \ \W\~ ~~ \~t C I T Y 0 F BOY N TON TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA. B E A C H MEETING DATil a Tuesday, November 28, 1995 TIME a 9:00 A.M. !-~ PLACE: Conference Room 2nd Floor, Room 201, Mangrove Park School 1. Introduction 2. Old Business A. Master Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: Tara Oake PUD - Third Review LOCATION: Northeast corner of Woolbright Road and Knuth Road extended DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the previously approved PUD master plan to include elimination of the extension of S.W. Congress Boulevard, alteration of the location and type of recreation, a change in unit type from apartments to townhouses, establishment of perimeter buffer easements and certain setbacks, enlargement of residential Pod 1 and church parcel, and reduction in open space and retention area of Pod 2. NOTE: Item A. 1 - Written comments (on legal sized paper) and plans/documents are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, December 1, 1995 (three working days following the TRC meeting) . 3. New Business None 4. Other Business A. Final Plat 1. Nautica Sound, Plats 1 & 2 and related paving, drainage, water and sewer plans. B. Review after Final Plat 1. Sausalito Place - paving, drainage, water and sewer plans. NOTE: For Items 4.A.1 and 4.B.1, find attached Building Division Memorandum No. 95-439 for explanation of request. MEH:dim xc: Central File a :TRCMTGll. 28