AGENDA DOCUMENTS
I
............,.~"
, ~111 ~ .'~~
.------- r
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-295
Agenda Memorandum for
october 3, 1994 City Commission Meeting
I
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
Tambri J. Heyden ~
Planning and Zoning Department
FROM:
DATE: September 29, 1994
SUBJECT: Boynton Nurseries PUD - MPMD #94-004
Revised density, unit type, layout, setbacks and roads
NATURE OF REQUEST
Kilday and Assoclates, agent for Boynton Nurseries, property
owner and G.L. Homes, contract purchaser of the Boynton Nurseries
PUD, located on the west side of Lawrence Road, at the northwest
corner of Lawrence Road and the L.W.D.D. L-21 Canal (see Exhibit
"All - location map), is requesting approval to modify the
previously approved master plan for the Boynton Nurseries PUD
(see Exhibit "BII - letter of request and Exhibit "C" - approved
and proposed master plans). The modifications are as follows:
1. Reduction in total number of units from 400 to 374.
2. Change in type of units. Original master plan showed
162 single-family units with a minimum 6,000 square
foot lot and 238 multi-family units. Proposed master
plan shows all single-family units, comprised of 231
IIZII lot units on 4,000 (40' x 100') square foot lots
and 143 zero lot line units on 5,000 (50' x 100')
square foot lots.
2. Phasing of the project into two phases. Phase I would
include all but 48 units; Phase II would include the
remain~ng 48 units. Even though there is a reduction
in the total number of units from the original
approval, due to the change in type of units (multi-
family generating fewer trips per day than single-
family), phasing is necessary with this modification to
avoid road improvements to the surrounding roadways.
3. An increase in the traffic impact to surrounding
roadways as described in item 2 above, a decrease in
water and sewer demand and a decrease in the population
growth anticipated.
4. Change in pod layout and size and access points to the
pods.
5. Establishment of the alignment and size (40 feet wide
with a four foot wide sidewalk on one side) of the
local streets (private) that serve the pods.
6. Alteration of the size (reduction from 5.3 acres in
total to 2.5 acres) and arrangement of the tree
preservation area.
7. Revisions to the master drainage plan (change in lake
sizes and locations).
8. Reduction in size, from 2.84 acres to 2.5 acres, of the
public park to be dedicated to the City.
9. Reduction in width, from 25 feet to 5 feet, of the PUD
perimeter buffer along the south boundary of the PUD.
,,): C 3rT le Pal'}~el-
-2-
September 29, 1994
10. A condition of the original master plan approval was
that prior to applying for preliminary plat approval, a
master plan modification would be required to establish
lot layout and setbacks. Therefore, this modification
establishes lot layout and the following, more
significant, minimum setbacks:
Building Setback - both type of units
a) front - 20 feet to the garage, but 15 feet to
the house;
b) rear - 15 feet for units that back up to one
another, but 10 feet for units that back up
to a lake, preserve, PUD perimeter or a
roadway;
c) side (non-zero portion) - 10 feet (13.5 feet
for corner lots);
Screened Enclosures - "Z" lot line units
d) rear - 0 feet when abutting a lake or
preserve;
e) side - 0 feet (? - could not ascertain from
plans), but 13.5 feet for corner lots;
Screened Enclosures - Zero lot line units
f) rear - 0 feet when abutting a lake or
preserve, 5 feet when units back up to one
another;
g) side - 10 feet, but 13.5 feet for corner
lots.
BACKGROUND
The Boynton Nurseries PUD master plan (valid for 18 months,
unless a preliminary plat is filed) was approved by the City
Commission on september 5, 1990, subject to numerous conditions.
Subsequently, a one year time extension and concurrency exemption
for traffic, drainage and neighborhood parks were granted through
March 5, 1993. A second one year time extension was granted and
lastly a third time extension. The current time extension and
concurrency exemption for the levels of service previously
mentioned, expires March 5, 1995. Submittal of a master plan
modification does not extend the life of a master plan.
Regarding the procedure for processing'master plan modifications,
Appendix B, Planned Unit Development, of the City code of
ordinances states that changes in planned unit developments shall
be processed as follows:
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
P: Carrie Parker
-3-
September 29, 1994
discretion of the city commission. Nonsubstantial 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 Appendix B,
Planned unit Developments of the code of ordinances:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established.
It is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development,
creative design, improved living environment, orderly and
economical development in the city, and the protection of
adjacent and existing and future city development. The
district is suitable for development, redevelopment, and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the city.
Regulations for planned unit developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations,
and other applicable city regulations to the same degree
that they intended to control development on a lot-by-lot
basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of
planned unit developments, 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 coordinated units."
Section 9.B. Internal Lots and Frontage. "Within the
boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards
shall be required, provided, however, that PUD 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."
Of the proposed modifications, only the changes in buffer width,
recreation, lot sizes and setbacks generated concern by staff.
Regarding the proposed width and treatment of the landscape
buffers, staff has encountered problems with peripheral landscape
buffers when they are incorporated as an easement on private,
homeowner lots, or even as a separate tract, dedicated to the
homeowners' association, that abuts homeowner lots. These
buffers frequently succumb to homeowner pressure to fence them
in. Landscaping within the buffers are then difficult to ensure
that they are retained as originally required. In addition, to a
preference for landscaping within dedicated tracts, staff is
recommending that the 25 feet, originally approved by the city
Commission, be provided around the entire PUD perimeter.
Regarding recreation, with the number and type of units shown on
the original master plan, the total parks and recreation
dedication requirement was 6.75 acres. Fifty percent credit was
allowed for the provision of a private recreation area, comprised
of five different recreational amenities, leaving 3.375 acres to
be dedicated as a public park. Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.5.5
requires park dedication of 6 acres/1,DDO persons (further
refined in Section 8, Article IX, of the Subdivision
Regulations). The private recreation facilities to be provided
satisfy the 2.5 acre/1,DOD population level of service for
neighborhood facilities, but not the total park dedication
requirement of 6 acres/1,ODD population satisfied by the public park.
~;~-:
,:~'~~':.'~f".
w
.----.
,.. .... ..
.,
, ..
'-
LNW
....~
. -
,"
N
ge
-
I
~
lOJ:
',,;
. .. ......
LAWSON, NOBLE & WEBB, INC.
'~
FAX COVER SHll--r
HIGHLIGHTS O~ SERVICES
E
:;:
-
ENG~"'EERlN'G:
SURVEYING:
.-
x
:c:
-
Residential and Commercial Site Developmem
MunicipaI/Public Works Engineering
Construction Engineering Inspection
Public and Private Highway Design
Stormwater Management Systems
Services District Engineers
Water Distribution Systems
Sanitary Sewer Systems
:;jght-of-Way Research/Map Preparation .
Homeowners/Condominium Documents
-.::
Boundary arid Topograph:c SL..:rveys ~
Building COilst:'UC::o:"', S~'"veys -=
Ex~e~ \\';::less Tes:"~o~.v ~
COilS:;~C::Q:,"" L2 \/c '...:: r--
Plat P:-ep2:'2::C:: =
Ti:le Resea:,c:-, _
DATE: e/z8/9>, FAX #:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TH\S COVER PAGE:
-,'
COPY TO FOllOW IN MAIL 0 YES ", ~O
,....-::
~/(..OI?'/ I;;s~c..__ ATTN.:
.
Cf/-f..,/CK. JU~-t'ICr;:. PROJECT #:
TO:
FROM:
-
-
.
~
0;:
......
~
~6~ -
-
-
-
-
-
-? ,~~ "?
L- 7 C-
-:;-
1:',412~' '"' ;&>IS(;/''/
'7 ~- IF J
/;,/4-Ci71 ~ R S C i./ ~ b.
~
:.;
:::
~
-
-
.
-
'!;
~
R EV/St::?:::, L c 7 S; 5:' 1/'4 Z E. hC7'";4- 4-e-S:
(t; 1'Y14-rc~ ,eev'/5~ S:/7E Pc..F1"v
MESSAGE:
.
""
-
-
.-
,...
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
C
N
~
.
SEP-05-' 95 TLE 15: 29 ID:
TEL NO:
1:1859 P02
...
..,
.."",
NAUTICA SOUND P.U.D. LOT COMPARISON SroDY
'Z' LOT UNES ZERO LOT UNE UNITS
PROPOSED RSVlSED PROPOSED REVISED
6-2-96 8-29-96 8-2..gf5 8-2Q..S)5
4,000 - 4,499 76 0 0 0
4,500 . 4,999 13 59 0 0
5,000 - 6,999 64 71 96 112
6,000 .. 6,999 19 1e 73 74
7,000 + 16 11 77 81
TOTAL '88 167 246 267
KIJ/Cdd\cnautICII, lea
Boulevard which was always intended to be a requirement to provide. On the proposed
master plan, there are only two access points; one off of Lawrence Road and one off of
Meadows Boulevard.
. Type of units and lot size - reduction from 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 and 188 Z lot line units on 4,000 square foot lots.
. Reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for the zero lot line units and from 60 feet
to 40 feet for the Z lot units.
. Reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet; the side setback on the interior lots
from 15 feet to 10 feet; and the rear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots that do not
back to one another.
. Elimination of the day care center.
In April 1994, the City Commission approved a resolution which entered the City and
Meadows Groves into an agreement to accept payment of $108,000 to contribute toward the
extension of Miner Road. This, in conjunction with the applicant already having dedicated the
five acre park site, vests the project for approval of the units.
Ms. Heyden stated that the change with respect to Hypoluxo Road significantly redistributes
the traffic of the project. Today she received a fax from Palm Beach County indicating that
this project will meet concurrency. However, it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
subdivision regulations to connect streets in a project with the existing street system.
Therefore, it is wise to connect wherever possible to major thoroughfares or major streets that
abut the project. She believes one of the reasons that the applicant does not want to provide
the Hypoluxo Road entrance is because there is a canal there and it would require a canal
crossing. It also would require one more entrance that would have to be gated to provide the
secured community that they have in mind. One of the advantages from a public safety
standpoint is that it would provide another access point to the project. She said the Police and
Fire departments tried to work with the applicant regarding public safety, but they admit that
this will increase response time. The Hypoluxo Road connection also provides an alternative
access route in the event that there is an accident at this intersection.
With regard to the change in lot size, unit type and lot width and setbacks, the pun proposals
within the City have included smaller and smaller lots with larger homes and increased lot
coverage. We have problems with zero lots. It is difficult for emergency personnel to get
between the buildings. The streets are small. It is difficult to park larger vehicles in those
streets and maneuver equipment within tight openings between the buildings. In addition,
when you have smaller lot sizes, you have less open space between the buildings and you have
less area for children to play. This forces the children out onto the street. Also when you
have smaller lot sizes, parking becomes a problem. Some of the units that are proposed have a
one-car garage. Usually these units do not have a lot of storage space inside and garages tend
to become storage areas and the cars are parked in the driveway. Typically families have
more than two vehicles and end up parking on the street, making it difficult for emergency
30
vehicles to pass. With regard to lot width and building separation, the Fire Department
indicated that a 15 foot building separation is needed rather than the proposed 10 feet.
Ms. Heyden visited this project and learned from the salespeople and the brochures that the
4,000 square foot lots run from $96,000 to $122,000. She said she was told that for a
$96,000 home, the income needed to qualify was $40,000 a year. She brought this up because
we recently had a commission workshop regarding economic development, PUDs and how the
PUD ordinance has failed us. The intent of the PUD ordinance was to encourage mixtures of
housing choices and open area. However, our PUD ordinance does not really have any open
area requirements and it really has not done anything to help us diversify our housing stock.
Along Lawrence Road we are seeing a concentration of lot sizes in the neighborhood of 5,500
and now 4,000 square feet with the Nautica Sound project. We are taking our cues from that
workshop where we had discussed a minimum of 6,000 square foot lot sizes, which was the
original lot size for this project. Ms. Heyden pointed out that there is a connection between
lot size and economic development.
Staff did not object to the elimination of the day care center. They are encouraged in PUDs
but not required.
With respect to utility design, there was a comment regarding the lift station location. The
Utility Department requested that is be relocated. Another issue the Utilities Department
brought up is that because of the cul-de-sac layout and the small lot sizes, the utility design has
to be designed for double barreled piping. Once the utility system is constructed and turned
over to the City, that requires more money to appropriate to maintain because there is twice as
much piping.
With regard to the fiscal impact, a switch from multi-family to single-family is an
improvement. However, when you compare the original proposal of the assessed value of
389 multi-family units to 188 Z lot line units, there is a difference of $16,400,000 assessed
value for the multi-family units and $12,000,000 assessed value for 188 Z lot line units. In
addition, it will cost more to serve the project in terms of utilities with the smaller lot size.
The Technical Review Committee recommended that the City Commission make a finding that
this is a substantial change because: (1) The relocation of the Hypoluxo Road entrance to
Lawrence Road causes additional trips to be placed on Lawrence Road and compromises
public safety; (2) a better response time could be achieved and foresight for an alternative
emergency route could be accomplished if the Hypoluxo Road connection was not deleted; (3)
the reduction in lot width and lot area intensifies the project from the standpoint of efficiency
of land area; (4) the change in unit type/lot size is contrary to the recent Commission decision
to attract a variety of housing choices which is known to have a direct link to economic
development potential; and (5) the applicant has not addressed the 40 foot setback along the
east property line. This is required by the PUD Ordinance and the lots do not meet that 40
foot setback. Ms. Heyden felt this would have a significant impact on the lot layout once this
31
comment is addressed. She said there was also a comment from the Engineering Department
regarding this road having to be 80 feet wide rather than 60 feet wide. Therefore, these lots
will be shortened by 20 feet.
Ms. Heyden advised that if a determination is made that this is a substantial change, the
applicant would have to go through the rezoning process. This would give the City the
opportunity to advertise a public hearing and notify adjacent property owners who may be
affected negatively. She stated that the project abuts three parcels on the west side. One of
them is Jonathan's Grove, which has a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. Another one is
a project which is in the County. The lots there are a half acre in size. The other parcel is a
project that has one or two single- family homes on it. A change could affect these properties.
The original plan with the multi-family had a minium 40 foot building setback. Now we are
looking at zero lot line homes with a setback with screen enclosures of up to 8 feet.
Peter Mazzella, Assistant to the Utilities Director, said there is a cost tradeoff from the
Utilities standpoint. The location of the lift station affects that cost tradeoff. Because of the
location of the lift station and the Z lots, a separate lift station would be needed. This means
additional costs for the City to maintain that lift station forever. In the previous master plan,
the road was adjacent to the property line, allowing easy access to adjacent properties. The
second significant change is the preponderance of cul-de-sacs in the layout. You cannot link a
water main down to Z lot lines because they do not line up. The houses are sitting on the lot
line and you cannot have a water main that close to a building. This would create twice as
much pipe on each of the cul-de-sacs. It is not as effective as a flow through system. In
addition, in reducing the number of units, they reduced the flow and income, and gave us
additional problems to deal with and a more expensive system to maintain. He saw this as a
substantial change.
City Manager Parker believed the applicant has agreed to relocate the lift station to address
this concern. Mr. Kilday advised her that a meeting between his engineer and the Utility
Department is scheduled for Thursday to work this issue out. He did not see this as a problem
that cannot be resolved. City Manager Parker advised that we are also going to upsize the lift
station to handle some adjacent development. She said the other concern the City had with the
double piping is that because this item was recently brought up, we were not sure that the
applicant had sized it on the lots enough to be sure there was enough spacing to do that. She
said the City is not going to approve the deadends on the utility piping. She stated that the
magnitude of the cost is not significant for one particular property with cul-de-sacs. However,
the Utiltity Department is concerned that if we constantly had these type of developments, it
would not relate to an interrrelated system that would allow flushing and flow to all parts of
our system.
City Manager Parker asked if the one car garage units are going to be deleted. Mr. Kilday
said that in Nautica, the one car unit currently represents 5 percent of the units. Ninety-five
percent have two car garages. The one car unit has two parking spaces in addition to the
32
NAUTICA SOUND P.U.D. LOT COMPARISON STUDY
'Z' LOT LINES ZERO LOT LINE UNITS
PROPOSED REVISED PROPOSED REVISED
8-2-95 8-29-95 8-2-95 8-29-95
4,000 - 4,499 76 0 0 0
4,500 - 4,999 13 59 0 0
5,000 - 5,999 64 71 96 112
6,000 - 6,999 19 16 73 74
7,000 + 16 11 77 81
TOTAL 188 157 246 267
KIJ/cdd\cnautica.lcs
/~)
c ~ ',. ,>F
"<~:",.,"~;/' ,~ ""\~
\ .J .:0 ':'
""\ g3 /:1f3R.f~
.\ /: ,.,'.,\',- \', /
" /': ,::',;>''>/
1:\", p,d",,~.f' -{'~(~.,' ~ ;JI'
", j"v,v
/,,'
/
.'.---.-.-.-.--------.--- --', -~---"'----.
~.
. we may get more gross dollars, she pointed out that homeowners usually take more pride of
their community and are committed. She also pointed out that the security and safety
problems, etc. She said the applicant is going to deal with the utility situation, so that will not
be a cost problem. They will resolve that to our statisfaction, upgrade that lift station and
move it so we do not have a proliferation of lift stations to maintain. With the exception of the
road, which the County has signed off on this morning, that goes into what the citizens require
in terms of security and gated communities versus the planning perspective of access. That is
two sides of that coin as well that the Commission has to deal with. The situation requires
City Commission discretion. There are no standards for determining if this is a substantial or
nonsubstantial change. The only thing we are struggling with from a staff perspective is that
4,000 square foot Z lots are very small and how do you try to diversify the housing stock with
that size of a lot when we do not control the type and quality of product that goes on that lot
after it is approved.
As Vice Mayor Bradley understands it, the purpose for determining whether it is a substantial
change or not is to give notice to neighboring parties. City Manager Parker stated that in
order not to bring the applicant back to square one, but we could table this until the next
meeting. In the interim, we could advertise a public hearing for the next meeting. She said a
rezoning would require first class letters to everyone within 400 feet, and we would not be
able to do that in a two week time frame.
In response to Mayor Taylor, Mr. Kilday advised that there are 188 Z lots and 246 zero lot
lines. The minimum standard for Z lots is 4,000 square feet and the minimum for zero lot
lines is 5,000 square feet, but most of the lots exceed the minimum standard. He gave the
following lot size information:
l o-t(~
/.j' . ~(5Ob S F
"""'- r quare ootage
".~ 4,000 to 4,500
(J.,. (j....t ( ~ __ ~ 4,500 to 5,000
b6.. '75 o<>d"" 5,000 and greater
.- , 7,000 to 8,000
8,000 to 9,000
more than 9,000
Z lots
Number of Units
,76
13
99-' ~ !...,
8
2
6
/J) --:>
~
.1 .....~,
Zero lots lines
Square Footage
Number of Units
5,000 to 5,500
5,500 to 6,000
22
74 (150 of these units exceed 6,000 sq. ft.)
35
f;"+
r:o '0 z ~
~ 5'
~ the side setbac~. Mr. Kilday said th(jO-~etback i~or zero lot lines in every
municipality in the County that he deals with. He said it would create a problem to start
squeezing the setbacks on the units.
Motion
J
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to find that the project is not a substantial ch~Jlie provided upon
the applicants providing us with an agreement that the 76 Z lots that currently exist in the
4,000 to 4,500 square foot range be rotated to the 4,500 to 5,000 sguare foot range.
In response to Commissioner Rosen, Mr. Kilday agreed to move thclJi u~n also.
t!-LS.~ ~
~~
0-("\0"-
Commissioner Jaskiewicz said the motion would also have to include utility concerns.
Vice Mayor Bradley amended the motion to include staff's comments regarding the Utility
Department's concerns, and that the applicant would look into swapping some of the lake
property for landscaped parking property adjacent to the playground.
t,'
V 1,
~\'4r (~_
~. C.
,I It!~'l \>~(
. ~< fJ?
\'J ,w
If',l:t
tof'
--,
< '
icant asked us to include the comments' Exhibit
we found this nonsubstantial. Mr. Kilday said there are 44 conditions in Exhibit .
agreed to all those conditions unless they were modified. The conditions that were modified
dealt with a couple of clarifications which are of no significance. The other ones dealt with
the lot size, frontage, and setbacks. fie assumed those would be replaced by the ne~
-,~~-
c,.9nditions that the Commission sugl!est~.
Attorney Goren said the 44 conditions are sizeable in content and there may be some items
within those 44 conditions, or within the ambit of what has been responded to in the cover
sheet, that may require some staff analysis that would be helpful to the Commission in making
a final decision. He advised that once the Commission makes a decision, they are bound by
that decision.
Vice Mayor Bradley withdrew his motion.
Consensus
It was the consensus of the Commission that they are in agreement with the main points of the
motion made by Vice Mayor Bradley.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to table this item until September 5. Mayor Pro Tem Matson
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
38
rnOOffi~~
E. Nautica Sound, formerly known as Knollwood Groves PUD - Master Plan
determination of substantial or non-substantial change
Kieran Kilday represented GL Homes. GL Homes is developing Nautica. They bought a
project which had a previous approval within the City. They modified that project and are
building a project made of zero lot line homes and Z lot homes. That project, which was the
Boynton Nursery pun, had originally been approved as a mixture of zero lot line homes and
multi-family. Mr. Kilday is present tonight on a modification of another project which his
client entered into a contract to purchase, which is Knollwood Groves.
At this point in the meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Matson returned.
Mr. Kilday displayed an aerial and pointed out the location and surrounding areas of this
project. He stated that a portion of the site abuts Hypoluxo Road and the other portion will be
constructed on Lawrence Road. He displayed several elevations to aid in his presentation. He
displayed the plan currently approved for Knollwood Groves. It contains 539 units. Meadows
Boulevard is a loop road; however, the City required that an extension be constructed to some
day tie into this project. Additionally, in this master plan, there was an east/west road running
on the property Fne. There was a requirement for the dedication of a five acre park site which
has been dedicated to the City. That was to be combined with the four acre park site that the
Meadows has already dedicated to make a nine acre community park. In addition to
dedicating the park, there was a requirement for the payment of impact fees in the amount of
$108,00 upfront. The original approval depended on a private owned and operated day care
center. The mixture of units in the original approval was primarily multi-family with 389
multi-family units and 150 single-family, zero lot line units.
Mr. Kilday displayed the master plan that is now being proposed. All multi-family units were
removed. This will be a 100 percent single-family project and will be entirely a sales project.
There are 434 units. The five acres which was dedicated was still shown. The private day
care center was replaced by lake area. A three acre private recreation tract was added to the
site to service the community. In the initial submittal to the City, there was only one point of
access which was off of Lawrence Road. Mr. Kilday indicated his intent to continue to build
the Meadows Boulevard extension which provides, besides Miner Road, another east/west
alternative to Congress A venue, as well as a way to connect with the Meadow Shopping
Center through the back road system. The Fire Marshal was concerned about access to the
site having only the one entrance off of Lawrence Road. Therefore, the plan was modified
and an additional access point was added on Meadows Boulevard. By providing this
secondary access, the entire project is linked together. he did not connected the project out
onto Hypoluxo Road. He felt that in terms of the potential for residents travelling east, that in
using the collector roads which were intended for collector use through Meadows, is the
appropriate way to go. Hypoluxo Road is envisioned as a major highway. The new approval
is a reduction of intensity over what is approved on the site.
28
Because of the change in circulation, he had to submit additional data to the County Engineer.
A letter was given to the City this affternoon saying that this project meets all County-wide
traffic performance standards.
Mr. Kilday had problems with some of staff's conditions. He said this project was originally
two-thirds multi-family and one-third zero lot line. The new plan is for all single-family.
Staff recommended that every lot be 6,000 square feet in size and a minimum of 60 foot
frontage. If he were to do this, this project would have to be built with multi-family. To meet
those standards, you would end up with a grid type design that would result in additional loss
of units and many of the amenities. There is a range of lot sizes throughout the community.
The net size of the lots is 6,100 square feet per lot when averaged out together, exclusive of
right-of-ways, recreation, and lakes.
The same rights-of-way that were in Autica have been maintained, with the same type of
curbing on the side of the asphalt. The sidewalk runs down one side. The separation between
garages is 80 feet. Mr. Kilday said this product is being built in Coral Gables and Pembroke
Pines and is being written up in the September issue of Builders Magazine.
Alan Fant, Vice President of GL Homes, reiterated the commitment he made a year ago when
he sought approvals at the Nautica stage. He said GL Homes is committed to develop and
build a first class development. He has 160 purchasers to date at an average price of
$130,000. The average household income of the purchasers is $59,000. Thirty-two percent
of the purchasers are from Boynton Beach. Twenty-one percent are from out of the state, and
8 percent of them are relocating from Boca Raton. The bus stop will be a covered pavilion to
shield the children when it is raining. There will also be seven parking spaces for parents to
watch the children get onto the bus, a bike rack, and an 8 foot bike path for children who want
to ride their bikes to the bus stop. There will be two guard gates (the main entry guard gate
and a secondary guard gate off of Meadows Boulevard as a result of discussions with the Fire
Department). Paver brick highlights the entry. He is considering raising the entry road so
that when you view the entry you will look over the rotunda and recreation site and into the
backdrop of the lake. There will be a first class clubhouse with an exercise room, a pool, a
tennis court, a playground, and a basketball court. Seventeen and a half acres of lake have
been provided. Several cul-de-sacs are being .offered in response to the buyers. There will be
246 of the larger product and 188 of the smaller product. Many of the larger lots are 125 to
140 foot in depth. Some lots are as deep as 170 feet as opposed to the standard 100 foot
depth. He is trying to get all different kinds of depths and all different kinds of lots for all
different kinds of people.
Ms. Heyden summarized the following changes:
. Omit a road onto Hypoluxo Road. This was the public road that was planned along the
east property boundary that was to connect to Hypoluxo Road. From this there were to
be two access points. The third access point to the project was to be off of Meadows
29
1.,~,,;ll!i;,,~F~65..68 s.t.
. " \:~..~ 5742.78 s.t.
: f3;~~ 5567.58 s.t.
~~4 - 5549.47 s.f.
~ot. 5- 5499.67 s.f.
~~ 6 - 5065.11 s3.
L.Qt 7 - 5065.11 s.f.
~f8 ~ 5065.11 s.f.
lot 9 - 5065.11 s.t.
Ulct4o.-5065.1, s.f.
,~<,~-.... . .. '.
~t11 :. 5065.11 s. f.
tb't 12 - 5775.'9 s.f.
Lot 13 - 5065.8.2 s.f.
lot 14 - 5065.11 s.f.
lot 15 - 5065.11 s.f.
tot 16 - 5065.11 s.f.
~ '
Loi.17.,. 5065.11 s.f.
('i'f"'" ... -' ~.' -
Lot 18 .:,J~065.33 s.t.
Lot 19 - 6838.54 s.t.
Lot 20 - 7047.47 s.t.
lot 21 - 7029.04 s.f.
Lot 22 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 23 - 5511.00 s.t.
Lot 24 - 7315.00 s. f.
Lot 25 - 5614.75 s.f.
Lot 26 - 7539.36 s. f.
Lot 27 - 5912.55 s.t.
Lot 28 - 7411.29 s.f.
lot 29 - 12633.00 s. f.
Lot 30 - 9327.42 s.t.
Lot 31 - 11446.30 s.t.
Lot 32 - 9743.10 s. f.
lot 33 - 5504.40 ,s.t...,
Lot 34 - 6663.05 s. f.
Lot 35 - 8435.99 s.f.
lot 36 - 9039.05 s. f.
Lot 37 - 6833.26 s.f.
Lot 38 - 7175.15 s.f.
Lot 39 - 12116.82 s.f.
Lot 40 - 10685.16 s.t.
Lot 41 - 12762.84 s.f.
Lot 42 - 12375.66 s.f.
Lot 43 - 7048.96 s.f.
Nautica Sound 1tJ1U4L "'c.&o -f:;;(j;/)~:;'
-0 &t ~") r~$VCb -&' O~L>
ZERO LOTS (50' units)
Average Jot area: 6,710.63 s.f. ~ VbCi <) (0 ceo ~ ,COt>
Total lot area: 1,791,739.16 S.T. 7 cO ..L
Total lots: 267 W.4 ~. 0 -,
,-,.
Lot 44 - 7818.58 s.t.
Lot 45 - 7527,81 s. f.
Lot 46 - 7214.56 s.f.
Lot 47 - 6901.31 s.t.
Lot 48 ~ 6588.11 s.f.
Lot 49 - 6329.36 s.f.
Lot 50 - 6262.75 s.f.
Lot 51 - 6262.50 s.t.
Lot 52 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 53 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 54 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 55 - 7687.50 s.f.
Lot 56 - 6262.50 s.t.
Lot 57 - 6262.50 s.t.
Lot 58 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 59 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 60 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 61 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 62 - 6262.50 s.t.
Lot 63 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 64 - 6262.50 5.1'.
Lot 65 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 66 - 6262.50 s.1'.
Lot 67 - 6668.46 s.t.
Lot 68 - 7359.12 s.t.
Lot 69 - 9266.35 s.f.
Lot 7 0 ~ 7747.5 1 s. f .
Lot 71 - 6264.01 s.f.
Lot 72 - 6262.50 s.f.
Lot 73 - 6289.83 s.1'.
Lot 74 - 6795.08 s.f.
Lot 75 - 7591.38 s.f.
Lot 76 - 8388.98 S.T.
Lot 77 - 8950.84 s.f.
Lot 78 - 7772.20 s.f.
Lot 79 - 8304.01 s.t.
Lot 80 - 9020.62 s.1'.
Lot 81 - 7945.16 s.f.
Lot 82 - 7105.74 5.1'.
Lot 83 - 6542.70 s.f.
Lot 84 . 8625.30 s.f.
Lot 85 - 13' 00.86 s.t.
Lot 86 - 14691.72 S.T.
Lot 87 - 9602.51 s. f.
Lot 88 - 6269.20 s.t.
Lot 89 - 6267.51 5.7.
Lot 90 - 6267.51 S.T.
Lot 91 - 6267.51 s.~.
lot 92 - 6267.51 s.t.
Lot 93 - 6267.51 s.t.
lot 94 .6267.51 S.T
Lot 95 - 6267.51 s.~.
Lot 96 - 6267.51 s.L
Lot 97 - 6267.51 S.7.
Lot 98 - 6267.51 S.7.
Lot 99 - 6267.51 S.t.
Lot 100 - 6267.51 5.7.
Lot 101 - 6267.51 s.L
Lot 102 - 6267.51 s.T.
Lot 103 - 6267.51 s.L
Lot 104 - 6267.51 s.~.
Lot 105 - 8430.77 s~.
Lot 106 - 5782.50 s. f.
Lot 107 - 5782.50 s. f.
Lot 108 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 109 - 5782.50 s. f.
Lot 110 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 111 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 112 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 113 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 114 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 115 . 5782.50 s.~.
Lot 116 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 117 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 118 - 5782.50 s.f.
Lot 119 - 5782.50 s. f.
lot 120 - 5782.50 s.~.
Lot 121 - 7395.52 S.7,
Lot 122 - 8007.54 s.f.
Lot 123 - 5511.00 5.1'.
Lot 1 24 - 5511 .00 s. f .
Lot 125 - 5511.00 s.t.
Lot 1 26 - 55 1 1 .00 s. t .
Lot 127 ~ 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 128 . 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 1 29 - 551 1 .00 s. f.
-J
~
__._~ry~(;ro lot areas - 8/28/95
Lot 130 - 7865.00 s. f.
.lot 131 ., 5511.00 s. f .
Lot 132 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 133 - 5511.00 s.t.
lot 134 - 5511.00 s.f.
lot 135 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 136 - 5730.58 s.f.
Lot 137 - 5517.18 s.f.
lot 138 - 7239.17 s.f.
Lot 139 - 5943.09 s.f.
lot 140 - 5511.37 s.1.
Lot 141 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 142 - 5511.00 s.t.
lot 143 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 144 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 145 - 5511.00 s.t.
Lot 146 - 5511.00 s.t.
Lot 147 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 148 - 6765.00 s.t.
lot 149 - 5511.00 s.t.
Lot 150 - 8505.70 s.f.
Lot 151 - 5941.96 s.f.
Lot 152 - 5931.22 s.f.
Lot 153 - 5786.95 s.1.
Lot 154 - 5575.67 s.f.
Lot 155 - 5548.72 S.T.
Lot 156 - 6771.09 s.t.
Lot 157 - 7951.22 s.f.
Lot 158 - 7315.00 s.t.
Lot 159 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 1 60 - 5511.00 s. f .
Lot 161 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 162 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 163 - 5625.37 s.f.
Lot 164 - 8173.71 s.t.
Lot 165 - 8221.66 s.f.
Lot 166 - 6565.79 s.f.
Lot 1 67 ~ , 0248.70 s.f.
Lot 168 - 10953.50 s. f.
Lot 169 - 7517.38 s.f.
Lot 170 - 5971.05 S'. f.
Lot 171 - 8001.71 s.t.
Lp-t '72. ~.5508. 76 s.l.
Lot"173 - 6700.58 s.f.
Lot 174 - 5890.88 s.t.
Lot175- .5260.50 s. f.
, ,,~~;... flV
tot 176 - 6081.92 s.f..
Lot 177 - 5955.83 s.f.
Lot 178 - 5382.75 s.f.
Lot 179 - 7106.88 s. f.
Lot 180 - 8059.89 s. f.
Lot 1-81 - 6328.29 -s~f.
Lot 182 - 8075.24 s. f.
Lot 183 - 5513.82 s.t.
Lot 184 - 7383.09 s. f.
Lot 1 85 - 9072. 9 2 s. f.
Lot 186 - 6349.73 s.f.
Lot 187 - 925750 s.L
Lot 188 - 7423.53 s. f.
Lot 189 - 8507,66 s.t.
Lot 190 - 14360.55 s.f.
Lot 191 - 8678.50 s.t.
Lot 192 - 5844.42 s. f.
Lot 193 - 6168.20 s.f.
Lot 194 - 5791.50 s.f.
Lot 195 - 5886.16 s.t.
Lot 196 - 5886.16 s.f.
Lot 197 - 5620.46 s.f.
Lot 198 - 5638.45 s. f.
Lot 199 - 6931.06 S.T.
Lot 200 - 7886.74 s.f.
Lot 201 - 5576.10 s.f.
Lot 202 - 6010.90 s.f.
Lot 203 - 6190.65 s.t.
Lot 204 - 6262.94 s.f.
Lot 205 - 5720.00 s.t.
Lot 206 - 7315.00 s.t.
Lot 207 - 5881.33 s. f.
Lot 208 - 6062.30 s.f.
Lot 209 - 6062.30 s.t.
Lot 210 - 6062.30 s.f.
Lot 211 - 5964.39 s. f.
Lot Z' 2 - 5511 .00 s. t.
Lot 213 - 6959.95 S.T.
Lot 214 - 5813.89 s.f.
Lot 215 - 5797.11 s.f.
Lot 216 ~ 5780.95 s.t.
Lot 217 - 7920.61 s.f.
Lot 218 - 6249.97 s.t.
Lot 219 - 7342.04 s.t.
Lot 220 - 7867.47 s.f.
Lot 221 - 10187.43 s.f.
Lot 222 - 7867.47 s. f.
Lot 223 - 7323.92 s.f.
Lot 224 - 5945.56 s.f.
Lot 225 - 7003.85 s.f.
Lot 226 - 7401.50 s.f.
Lot 227 - 5351.34 s.f.
Lot 228 - 6790.02 s.f.
Lot 229 - 5685.19 s.f.
Lot 230 - 5794.85 s.f.
Lot 231 - 6860.87 s.f.
lot 232 - 5614.62 s.f.
lot 233 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 234 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 235 - 5511.00 s.L
Lot 236 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 237 ~ 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 238 - 5511.00 s,f.
La, 239 - 7315.00 s.~.
Lot 240 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 241 - 7987.65 s,~.
Lot 242 - 8621.88 $.7.
Lot 243 - 5856.84 s. f.
Lot 244 - 5830.00 $.f.
Lot 245 - 6557.97 S.T.
Lot 246 - 5887.80 s.f.
Lot 247 - 8755.39 s.~.
Lot 248 - 6936.42 $. f.
Lot 249.. 7355.14 5.f.
Lot 250 - 7867.47 s.+.
Lot 251.. 10163.98 s.L
Lot 252 - 7867.47 s.f.
LOt 253 - 7310.46 s.L
Lot 254 - 5942.84 s.t.
Lot 255 - 7003.58 s.t.
Lot 256 - 7401.50 s.1'.
Lot 257 - 6120.48 s.f.
lot 258 - 5511.00 s.f.
Lot 259 - 5511.00 s.L
Lot 260 - 5628.32 s.f.
Lot 261 - 6267.51 s.t.
Lot 262 - 6267.51 s.t.
lot 263 - 62 67 . 5 1 s . f.
Lot 264.6267.51 S.7.
Lot 265 - 6267.51 S.7.
Lot 266 - 6267.51 s.L
Lot 267 - 6267.51 s.t.
c;^C,.5
c;;- C> 00
~C00
I 0 00 1:
~0'?
~ VSI r--el
-______.2n;Uimini'1rv zP..J_cd.ol.arpas - 8/28/95
, .
Lot 268 - 5491.21 s.f.
Lot 269 - 6847.31 s.f.
Lot 270 - 6108.54 s.f.
lot 271 - ,5428.28.s.f.
Lot 272 - 5541.95 s. f.
Lot 273 - 7096.51 s.f.
Lot 274 - 6195.30 s.f.
Lot 275 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 276 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 277 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 278 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 279 - 5604.00 s.f.
lot 280 - 5604.00 s.f.
lot 281 - 5604.00 s.t.
Lot 282 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 283 - 5604.00 s.f.
Lot 284 - 5604.00 s.f.
lot 285 - 5604.02 s.f.
Lot 286 - 5740.24 s.f.
Lot 287 - 7748.30 s.f.
Lot 288 . 6902.92 s.f.
Lot 289 - 5483.89 s.t.
Lot 290 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 291 . 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 292 . 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 293 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 294 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 295 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 296 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 297 - 5250.00 s. f.
Lot 298 - 5250.00 s.f.
Lot 299 - 5250.00 s. f.
Lot 300 - 5250.00 s.t.
Lot 301 - 5263.34 s. f.
Lot 302 - 8003.36 s. f.
Lot 303 - 6516.53 s. f.
Lot 304 ..5000.00 s.t.\
Lot 305 -,5000.00 s.t. t.
Lot 306 -.5000.00 s.f.~
Lot 307 -.5000.00 s.t."
Lot 308 -.5000.00 s.f.f
Lot 309 -.5000.00 s.f.~
Lot 310.05000.00 s.f.l
"'-"
Nautica Sound
"z" LOTS (40' units)
Average lot area: 5,408.15 s.f.
Total lot area: 849,079.79 s.f.
Total lots: 157
Lot 311 -'5000.00 s.f.1>
Lot 312 -.5000.00 s.f.q
Lot 313 -.5000.00 s.f.l<l
Lot 314 -.5000.00 s.f.I'
Lot 315 -'5000.00 s.f'll...
Lot 316 -'5000.00 S.T'I)
Lot 317 ..5000.00 s.L 1'1
Lot 318 - 7327.86 s.f.
Lot 319 - 5214.49 s.t.
Lot 320 - 4893.75 s.fA
Lot 321 - 4893.75 s.f.t~
Lot 322 - 4893.75 s. f.n
Lot 323 - 4893.75 s.f. 11
Lot 324 ~ 4393.75 s. f. llf
Lot 325 - 4893.75 s.f. Jc
Lot 326 - 4893.75 s.f. t.J
Lot 327 - 5866.48 s.f.
Lot 328 - 5559.74 s.f.
Lot 329 - 6195.37 s.f.
Lot 330 - 4500.00 s. f.z,t.,
Lot 331 - 4500.00 s.f.z.,\
Lot 332 - 4500.00 s.f.L'f
Lot 333 - 4500.00 s.f.1f
Lot 334 - 4500.00 s.f.L~
Lot 335 - 5372.11 s.f.
Lot 336 - 5090.40 s. f.
l:ot 337 - 4500.00 s.f.z.1
Loot 338 - 4500.00 s.f.u
~t 339 - 4500.00 s.f.lJ1
1,.-ot 340 - 4500.00 S.T. 3'"
40t 341 - 4500.00 s. f.}I
Lot 342 - 6795.54 s.f.
Lot 343 - 5982.54 s.t.
Lot 344 - 6672,87 s.f.
Lot 345 - 6255,19 s.f.
Lot 346 - 5549.51 s.f.
Lot 347 - 6724.37 s.f.
Lot 348 - 4500.00 s.f. ~l-
kot 349 - 4500.00 S.f. H
Lot 350 - 5372.11 s.f.
Lot 351 . 5090.40 s. f.
Lot 352 - 5563.93 s.f.
Lot 353 - 5132.10 s. f.
prgliminarv ";2''' lot areas - 8/28/95
Lot 354 - 6418.76 s.f.
Lot 355 - 10053.96 s.t.
Lo't 356 . 6909.27 s'.
Lot 357 - 7742.61 s...
Lot 358 - 11060.27 s.f.
~ot 359 - 4783.85 s.f. 3~
'~ot 360 - 4592.39 s. f. '\f
I.ot 361 - 4613.52 S.f.li-
la.ot 362 - 4634.75 $.f:p
I:.ot 363 - 4655.99 s.~.la
kot 364 - 4677.23 s.f.J'
1.0! 365 - 4698.46 S.7.~-<1
kot 366 - 4719.70 s.f.'1/
Lot 367 - 7116.58 S.7.
Lot 368 - 6660.64 s. f.
tot 369 - 4943.30 s.t. ut
I..ot 370 - 4640.13 s.f.lf~
I:,ot 371 - 4603,69 s.f. "'I
bot 372 - 4572,73 s.f.'4f
bot 373 - 4547.26 $.f. "#1.
l:ot 374 - 4527.28 s.f,"'7
lot 375 - 4512.78 s. f. \{t
~ot 376 - 4503.77 s. f. '1'
lo.ot 377 - 4500.24 s. f..>'b
l:ot 378 - 4502.20 s.f.n
l.."Ot 379 - 4509.36 s.t.s'-
llOt 380 - 4513'.13 s.f. n
Lot 381 - 6946.81 s.t.
Lot 382 - 11000,10 s.f.
Lot 383 - 5945.73 s.L
lot 384 . 5744.33 s. f.
Lot 385 - 5744.10 s.t.
lot 386 - 5744.10 s.f,
lot 387 - 5744.10 s.f.
Lot 388 - 5744.10 s.t.
Lot 389 . 5744.10 s.t.
Lot 390 - 5744.10 s.t.
Lot 391 - 5744. 1 0 s. 1.
Lot 392 - 7353.75 s.f.
Lot 393 - 7650.65 S.7.
Lot 394 - 6194.26 s.f.
Lot 395 - 5548.40 s.f,
Lot 396 - 5445.11 S.t.
-,
Where a project was platted and under construction as of December 31,
1986, or was platted and under construction since that date, the number
and type of dwelling unit was used. Where a master plan for rental .
apartments had been approved by this date, it was assumed that the parce
would be developed for rental apartments, since in virtually all cases,
master plan approval of an apartment project has indicated that the
project will, in fact, be undertaken.
For infill development, the most intense development allowed by the zon:~g
regulations was used.
A-~e!a!iea-exam~~a~~e~-e%-~e~!aeftt!ai-aeveie~meftt-~etent!ai,-by-t~e%f!e
anaiy!!~-~e~e,-!~-!~ei~aea-!n-~ae-~~~~e~~-sata7
SupplY and Demand and Location of Land for Sinale-FamilY Detached
Dwellinqs:
Between 1980 and 1986, 31.4% of the housing built in the City consisted of
single-family detached housing. The percentage of single family units
permitted has ranged from 59% of total units in 1984 to 25% of total un:ts
in 1986. In 1987 and the first eight months of 1988, 32.8% of the units
permitted were single family detached, which indicates that the 1980-1926
proportion is remaining fairly constant. There were 3,i9S 2.699 potent:al
units as of January 1986 for which development as single-family housing -
was fairly certain, and i,TT~ 2.281 units which could either be develo~ed
as Single-family detached units or as attached single-family units.
'(,' \,r f. Therefore, Single-family units could comprise up to 4,8TT 4.980 or 3476=.
/) ~",&i ~ percent of the remaining units in the City. For the purpose of
\ !~'
0...... -....----...., estimating the supply of units for attached single-family dwellings lit
J, 'has been assumed that Single-family detached dwellings will continue to
comprise.,~1.4% of the total demand for housing units. Multiplying 31.4%
by f4,i92 15,459 would yield a demand for 4,4~8 4,854 single-family
detached dwellings through build-out (bH~ia-eH~ year 2010). This number
(4.854). when added to the number of sinale-family detached dwellinqs
which are expected to be redeveloped for other uses (145 dwellinos).
Yields a total demand of 4.999 sinole-familY detached dwellinos, which
almost exactlY matches the supplY (4.980 dwellinos). ~ae~efe~e,-4,e7~
miB~s-4T428T-eF-44T-awe}}iB~s-eeH}a-Be-a}}ettea-te-~he-sH~~ly-e%-a~~aeRea
8~B~}e-!am~}y-~ft~~S~
It is estimated that, of these 4,87T 4.980 units, ~,TS2 3,261 units coul~
-pe l~ated onl:2~~ under 6~Jl.--sqllare feet, ~i'eee 1,594 -1ifiT'Es-COU1d occupy
lo.~s whlCh are 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, and 125 would OCCUpy lots of
-~---square feet or more. From these figures, it can be concluded that
the CIty's land use and zoning regulations do not create an impediment to
affordable single-family housing. Virtually all of the current
Single-family projects are located in Planned Unit Developments, where
gross densities range from 4 to 4.84 dwelling units per acre. At these
densities, after the area required for parks, rights-of-way, and water
management tracts is subtracted, ~he resulting lot size ranges from 5,000
.~O square feet. In fact, lot size does not appear to affect the
cost of~-tamlTy housing in current projects as much as the floor ~
----
28
~-"._.~..~..~-_.__...
-
~
.=/
~
',,-
"../"
../--J
,
/
;
RESEAR9B RELATED TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND 5ESID~TIAL E~S WITHIN
pag:l A-3/ /~~jor Projects" \,are /f{sted and #1 includes a
/" v/ mul ti-family elem e.p, t/>targeted for area north of
L...! Boynton Beach Bo*,levard and waterfront park,
adjacent to mangr es. Item #2 on the list is a
hotel recommenQe for the point position
overlooking th~/mfrina project (corresponding map
on page A-4). / I
"SummarY,,Of Riv. Plan Recommendaj,' ons" includes
as Item' #1 pnder "Land Use" < -a ecommendation
regardj,ng mi~~d used and reads"Enco rage mixed use
development /in Downtown Center /including. ..and
residential/uses. ". ./
Page A-1
Page A-2
/ ~
und,r paragraph "P)f~N DESC~.fpTION" ,
deo/cribes the res:j.dential e~'8ment as
project. ./ I
a table
100+ unit
/
/
Page C-3
Und~r lILand Us-e Patterns ','/ issues, problems, and
opp' tunitie~/ are desoribed through related
recom ndat0ns itemized,. as #1 through #12. Item
{#10 des . :pes 5 existing residential areas wi thin
, and adjac~t to the Downtown Center which ~hould be
preserved. ", . );
Page D-6
Item #i, under General "problem/Ar'eas - Land Use",
reads/Lack of mixed/use/res~~tial developments to
, dra~ people downt. 0 woyK, shop, a~~ live.
/ ,;,
~/er "Go s anc} Objec {ves", Objecitive #5 under
, "~nd "reads; "Ene rage mixed ~e dev~lopments
n the Downto center"j...1nclud1ng.. .and
Vresidential use;s".
I
other maps for references are found on pages Ff12 and F-19.
I
[
Page E-2
.
.
.
area, features, and type of construction of the unit, and the amenities
that are provided in the development.
There are no specific locational requirements which are recommended for
single-family detached dwellings, since single-family dwellings are
generally considered to be the most innocuous urban land use. As
discussed in the Existing Land Use section, Boynton Beach was established
as a primarily single-family community until the development boom of the
1970s. Therefore, the policies in this element include recommendations
that zoning and land use regulations preserve existing single-family
neighborhoods, particularly in the older areas of the City. It is
anticipated that much of the new housing which is being built along
Lawrence Road will be single-family detached housing. This type of
housing is the most suitable for this corridor, not only because of the
established character of the area, but also, because the market analyses
for these properties have indicated that single-family housing is the
highest and best use.
SupplY and Demand for Land for Rental Apartments:
According to a market study done for a rental apartment project to be
located in the northeastern quadrant of the City, 28.7% of the demand for
new housing in the city from 1987 through 1995 will be for rental housing.
This percentage has been applied to the potential number of new dwellings
in the city through build-out:
0.287 X 14,102 dwellings units = 4;e4~ 4.437 rental apartments needed
in City, and unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road, from 1987
through build-out (Year 2010).
Source (for percentage of total housing demand needed for rental
apartments) :
Reinhold P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., "Market Feasibility study of
Proposed Low-Income Boynton Beach Rental Development.", 1987.
The number of potential units in approved rental apartment projects, as of
January 1986, was %,356 1,747. This number, when added to the 4,845 5,583
potential units in the "multi-family unspecified" category gives a total
of 6;~e% 7.330 units which could be developed as rental apartments.
Subtracting 4,94~ 4.437 from 6,~9% 7.330 would allow a surplus of 2,%54
2,893 units which could be developed for attached single-family units or
condominium apartments.
The supply of land for rental apartments between Lawrence Road and the E-3
Canal has also been analyzed, since the City provides water and sewer
service in this area. From the same market study that is referred to
above, it can be concluded that 28.7% of the demand for units east of
Military Trail and 10.3% of the demand for units bewteen Military Trail
and the E-3 Canal will be for rental apartments. When these percentages
are applied to dwelling unit estimates made by Palm Beach County, a total
of 2,232 rental units will be required between Lawrence Road and the E-3
Canal from 1988 through build-out. There were apprOXimately 65 units
which were approved but unbuilt at the beginning of 1988, which would
yield a net demand of 2,197 units. There are a total of 2,736 potential
29
-
..
'_/
-----
.....,
,/
,/,/'.
RESEAR9H RSLATED TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND ~ESID~TIAL E~S WITHIN
pag;l A-3/ /~~jor projects"\are /Lsted and #1 includes a
/ :'/' multi-family elemelpt/~targeted for area north of
l..., L1 Boynton Beach B,o,*levard and waterfront park,
adjacent to mangr 'es. Item #2 on the list is a
hotel recommende for the point position
overlooking the//ntrina proj ect (corresponding map
on page A-4). / I
page A-I "sUmmarY,bf Riv. Plan Recommenda~,'ons" includes
as Item" #1 tmder "Land Use".. 'a ecommendation
regardj,tlg mix,,~d used and reads 1iEnco rage mixed use
development fin Downtown Center /including. ..and
residential/uses. " . /
Page A-2
.' " l
Und~r par~graPh "~li'~ DESC~{PTION" ,
de$"cribes .' the residential e1~ment as
proj ect. .. //' /
a table
100+ unit
/
/
Page C-3
Und~r "Land Use patterns','/ issues, problems, and
opp' tunities/ are described through related
recom ndat~ns itemize~'as #1 through #12. Item
#10 des 'pes 5 existin~ residential areas within
and adjac~t to the Downtown Center which ~hould be
preserved.-' ,
Item #l, under General "problem"Areas - Land Use",
reads 'Lack of mixed/use/resi~rftial developments to
'- dra~,people downt' 0 wo~, shop, aI1;~ live.
.. /
1"er "Go s and' Objec~{ves'" Objec'tive #5 under
, "~nd "reads, "Ene rage mixed ~e dev~lopments
, n the Downto center,.;".1nclud1ng.. .and
V residential use.s".
I
Other maps for references are found on pages Ff12 and F-19.
f
(,
Page D-6
Page E-2
Id3G 8NINOZ ~
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-399
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, ForesterlEnvironmentalist t< ~ ~
Nautica Sound
RE:
DATE:
August 31, 1995
The tree management plan is submitted for the project. The project should continue in the normal
reVIew process.
KH:ad
'l'HJ\CKING LUl~ - ~l'J'I~ PLAN lU:V.H;W ~U1:SM1'J"J'AJ.
PRuJ 1::C'1' 'l'l'l'LE:
LJESCRIP'l'10N:
fl'Y PE :
DA'l'E REC I D :
~"L~ .11 SOON~
~~]) ~tV Ea)
NEW SITE PLAN
AMOUNT:
FILE NU. :tI\P~b~
MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
RECEIPT NO.:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TWELVE (12) SETS SUBMITTED:
COLORED ELEVATIONS RECID:
(Plans shall be pre-assembled. The Planning & Zoning Dept. will number each
sheet of their set. The Planning Dept. set will be used to check the
remaining sets to ensure the number and type of sheets match.)
* ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPLICATION & SUBMITTAL:
DATE:
ACCEPTED
--DENIED
DATE:
DATE OF LETlfER TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING SUBMISSION DEFICIENCIES:
2nd SUBMIT'l'AL
ACCEPTED
DENIED
DATE:
DATE:
DATE OF SUBMITTAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER:
REVIEWER'S NAME:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Label TRC Departments on each set of plans)
DATE AND MEMO NUMBER OF MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM INITIAL REVIEW.
DATE SENT:
RETURN DATE:
MEMO NUMBER:
1st REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED
Util.
P.W.
Parks
Fire
Police
PLANS J:1EH'L~ / _D'"-.T..E /
'I ~/~/
/ /
+- C)S"-'ftJO /~/
t 6~~~j{1L~
"C"
e,
~
c..
a.
PLANS
Planninn
Building
Engineer
Engineer
Forester
y
y
y
MEMO It / DATE
/
qtt;- 3a f/ / fr~ I
<i~.a3..1 / ~
/
.!;ls-YaJ / 'Ital
/ "C"
1-
~=&
/
/~
TYPE OF VARIANCE(S)
DATE OF MEETING:
DATE OF LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING TRC REVIEW COMMENTS:
(Aesthetic Review App., dates of board mtgs. & checklist sent out w/ comments)
NINETY DAY CALENDAR DATE WHEN APPLICATION BECOMES NULL AND VOID:
DATE 12 COMPLETE SETS OF AMENDED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR 2nd REVIEW:
(Must be assembled. Reviewer shall accept amended plans & support documents)
COLORED ELEVATIONS REC I D:
MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM 2nd REVIEW.
DA'l'E SENT: MEMO It:
RETURN DATE:
2nd REVIEW RECOMMENDATION/DENIAL
PLANS MEMO i / DATE /"R/D" PLANS MEMO i / DATE /"R/O"
Util. / / Planning / /
P.W. / / auilding I /
Parks / / Engineer 1 /
Fire / / Engineer / 1
Police / / Forester / /
LETTER TO APPLICANT REGARDING TRC APPROVAL/DENIAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS
PLACED AT THE PROPERTY DATE SENT/SIGNS INS'l'ALLED:
SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETINGS: PAD
CC/CRA
DATE APPROVAL LETTER SENT:
A: 'rRACKING. SP
TR,"qKING LOG - Sl'llE PLAN REVIr- ,SUBMITTAL
PROJt:C'l' 'I'rI'IJE:
DEtiCRIP'l'ION:
'lIYPE:
DA'l'E REC; D:
NAUTICA SOUND Lk.a. KNOLLWOOD GROVES (PUD) FILE NO.: MPMD 95-006
HOUSING
NEW SITE PLAN x MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
7/11/95 AMOUNT: kECEIPT NO.:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TWELVE (12) SETS SUBMITTED:
COLORED ELEVATIONS RECID:
(Plans shall be pre-assembled. The planning & Zoning Dept. will number each
sheet of their set. The planning Dept. set will be used to check the
remaining sets to ensure the number and type of sheets match.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPLICATION & SUBMITTAL:
DATE:
ACCEPTED
DENIED
DATE:
DATE OF LET'rER TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING SUBMISSION DEFICIENCIES:
2nd SUBMIT'I'AL
ACCEP'I'ED
DENIED
DA'I'E:
DATE:
DATE UF SUBMITTAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER:
REVIEWER'S NAME:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Label TRC Departments on each set of plans)
DATE AND MEMO NUMBER OF MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM INITIAL REVIEW.
DA'l'E SEN'!':
?!I.3!Cfr
RETUkN DA'rE:
'1/ I~.r
MEMO NUMBER: 9~--..JS.3
~~ ~ ,-J;C/
1st REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED
util.
P.W.
Parks
Fire
Police
C'~,
',eYPE;
PLANS ~MO # / J;lJVJ'E I "9li
~ 2f1! / /2 7S / ~
~ .s-../~ /~/~
~ q.5'-:~q~ I =; I~
. q<)- :3 J) I :s I C
r ~/fl I 1 ~s I ~
UF VARIANCE(S)
Planning
Building
Engineer
Engineer
Forester
PLANS MEMO # I DATE I liCii
I I
l!/ a~iI:lj ~i C
~ () ~ --+f.Z:LI C,...)
I 'k 1-
Y 9'"C-J..3C> I 7. "1 / ~
DA'!'E OF MEE'I'ING: 7/c:J~-1,J,-
DATE OF LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING TRC REVIEW COMMENTS:
(Aesthetic Review App., dates of board mtgs. & checklist sent out wi comments
NINETY DAY CALENDAR DATE WHEN APPLICATION BECOMES NULL AND VOID:
DATE 12 COMPLETE SETS OF AMENDED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR 2nd REVIEW:
(Must be assembled. Reviewer shall accept amended plans & support documents)
COLORED ELEVATIONS REC' D:
MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM 2nd REVIEW.
DATE SENT: MEMO #:
RETURN DATE:
R~ gJ-gJq{
2nd REVIEW RECOMMENDATION/DENIAL
Utile
P.W.
Parks
Fire
Police
PyNS J?O # / DA~E /IIR/DII
~J / ~ 1/:/ /
)/D CP/h ,~~'Vrr / /
q,. -'0/ · i'l!{' i c.-
~ Cf~-sl(; / 'it> / c..
L- O/~(O / r. / C--/
PLANS MEMO # / DATE /IIR/D"
planning y~( _1'S ~).I / /
Building V J / ~/
Enginee:I ~ - / ~/
EJtginee q5<~ ~ . / / "
Fo~ter 15 -3s<t? 'Jw' "q'"j- / / c:....,.... "
LETTER TO APPLICANT REGARDING TRC APPROVAL/DENIAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS
PLACED AT THE PROPERTY DATE SENT/SIGNS INSTALLED:
SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETINGS: PAD
CCICRA
ehs/ 9~-/
,
DATE APPROVAL LETTER SENT:
A: 'rRACKING. Sf'
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-406
TO:
Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utilities Dept. Chief Field Insp.
Robert Eichorst, Public works Director
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Bill Cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer
Sgt. Marlon Harris, Police Department
Al Newbold, Building Division
William Hukill, Director of Department of Development
Kevin Hallahan,)~ester/Environmentalist
Tambri J.~~:~l~~~ng & Zoning Director
August 7, 1995
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES
2nd Submittal -
Master Plan Modification
Project
Nautica Sound
Location
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately
1,300 feet South of Hypoluxo Road
Applicant
Kilday Associates
File No.
MPMD 95-006
As agreed to by staff at the July 27, 1995 TRC meeting, find
attached the 2nd submittal plans for the Nautica Sound project. To
ensure that the project stays on track with the review time frame,
the plans and exhibits shall be reviewed and formal written
comments (on legal sized paper) and plans shall be transmitted to
the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department no later than
12:00 noon. AUGust 8. 1995.
The plans will be available in the Planning and Zoning Department
for sign-off.
Thank you for your prompt response.
TJH:arw
attachment
xc: (Memo Only)
Floyd Jordan, Fire Chief
Charlie Frederick, Recreation & Parks Director
Police chief
John Guidry, Utilities Director
Central File
.:nautiCB.Znd.~RC
7he City of
$oynton ':Beacli
TO:
FAX NO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
100 '1:. 1Jagnum 'lJuzdt '11aulr.vanl
P.O. 1JQ~310
1Joyntlm '11uzd:., 11arirfg. 33425-0310
City:JfDfl: (407) 375..(j()()()
::FJU: (407) 375-6090
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
'*!r~j~
,tLko \J D~L
o FCf ~ c2 .5- r :L
lA. .)1, Uo' / d~
a~ J~ IV) ~g'f [
~~.
ilL, AI\Jj iJ 9' j- -,;2.1- J 11:&1 L-
I~~ 'Ii 9J-~3YJ -~'lIk
LlJ.(hM;' '} j- -.287 - ~~
) /AJ/A.-l># '1J--;),:,,- t; ·
/vIfhr; q1)'3/6 TTre..o-{
NUMBER OF PAGES !NCr.UDIl'~G THIS COVER SHEET
C: FAXTRANS. frn
.~meri.cas (jauwap to t/i.t, (jul..fstream
- ---~--- ---
1-:;
~~ If. ..,.{
~ ~:J \
\ Tl i' -1 u. - a ~ '1' HU G .~ Q AM
....'\. J -J _, J ~ . _1;:1
BOYNTON BEACH UTIL1T1ES
FAX NO, 407 375 6298
P.
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 9~ - 2~1
/jJtfJ[flIJJJ
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director ~
August 10. 1995
m m rn 0 W l~
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning Direct
DATE:
00
A\lG I II l~,~j~
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan Modification
SeQond Review
PLANNING AND ''-...',
ZONING DEPT. ~
The resubmittal of the Master Plan for this project only partially addressed our
comments. We therefore offcr the following clarifications:
1) Dead-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 water 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 disu'ibution of keys or remote control gate openers to several of our
personnel. In our opinion, the procedures suggested oould not be
implemented without increasing our response time for water and sewer
emergencies. We would highly nKlommend 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.
Howevert the sewer system must be designed deep enough, or the lift station
relocated, so as to provide service to adjacent parcels that are too small to
. _~ .._., _. '4_" ._,_. ._.. ., . .-
Phone I
AV~-JU-~~ 1'8U 9:40 AM
BOYNTON BEACH UTJLJTIES
FAX l,W.
40" ~7C b~r'9'-'
I _I i :.J 1.. 0
P. ?
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 serves to increase our operating
expenses, we are seeking to minimize the number of stations constructed.
The current layout may increase the City's long 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 layout may be necessary to satisfy our comments (especially
comment 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 #95-345
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent ~
Nautica Sound (P.U.D.) ~
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
July 31, 1995
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 for 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 of building 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
/&/j}/{J
02~ ~~a:rLP /}ll
1.(2/1 ~
f/
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
August 9, 1995
[f, ~ [f U ~J m7rntl
. '~~il
I 'I
, I
_J
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re:
I!JIO'J
/J;fl(j#!l
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.
~I /
.' /1', _---- ;&:~,/
$fef~
Al N bola
/
I
AN:mh
Att. Plans
"
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:NAUTICA.TRC
August 9, 1995
[fJ[j]fjJ~
f~:~~'Iili-[[T-~n_l
" l0';j
j\l/ . " . . 1
f \ ,1,1 l: 1,/' '! )
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
TO:
FROM:
Mike Haag
~ite evelopment Administrator
m V. Hukill, P.E.
Engineer
NAUTICA SOUND - SECOND REVIEW
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
~
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. 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
RE: Nautica Sound -
August 9, 1995
Page Two
Memo 95-295 to Mike Haag
Second Review
/j)/jJ1iJ
....;.- I ;J r;')
LJ I ~.
I I
Ij
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
---------_..,_..._,---_.._--'-_..._--~-----
~
. '
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC
TO:
planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
August 8, 1995
RE: Nautica Sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves)
Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd
MPMD 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 construction has been delayed again).
,/ ,,'-~ " ./~~ (
/! / / /;{c.:..-ll( {I ~ (i~vC\ '- )
William D~cavanaugh, FPO
Attachment: Security Gates
cc: Chief Jordan
FPO II Steve campbell
File
llil[}J!liJ
(V@
_ _ _ _~._ __"._.n _
t
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 performance 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 overj
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.
\IDill~~~
~ City of
':Soynt:on ':Sea..
~,.
" .. ..~' ,",
!E"(4,,".rrg d<" :.on.tne -D.pan_,.."
zoo ':E:_ -BDynltC,. 'Beae:/i. 0ZIDu4va.rtf
P.O. '.8-.:;...1.10
!ZIoyn_.. -.Beac.Ii.!T4>ri.t:iG .1.1-42$-0-'.10
C4D7)37S-6260. PAX.(4D7):J75-6090
~~ ~~~.-........---~=--...--
C::::::~ ______ :E:.:B:~::EC~
:DATE. A~ L<i:.a- I 0_, \qq.s;-
FAX N1..JMBlER 'rRANSNX'r'.Z'%NG TO a I/J~ - ..2"57?..;;<
NUMElER OF PAGBS BB%NG TRANSM%'r".rB:D. -<..
(.:z:~c1ud~nq Co~_r L_~~_r)
'1'0..
'Jg;;~ ~ ~~--'=
il:?h::':; ... ~~ ~~T
FROM ..
RE:
~~
}-/"...i'VI ~ ........ 9.s- - ~
S_n~ By.
~U-.-t..S:"
C: B'A:K .'JM
.Pbn.erica'.s qar:eu-'ay '1:0 r:lie qulfsr:rea....
TRANSMISSION REPORT
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 2
*** SEND ***
INO REMOTE STATION I. D. START TIME DURATI ON #PAGES COMMENT
i 1 8-10-95 10:41AM 1 ' 15" 2
TOTAL 0 : 0 1 ' 1 5 " 2
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
v
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-356
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
J)\\ ~
Kevin J. Hallahan, F oresterlEnvironmentalist t- cJ N
FROM:
RE:
Nautica Sound PUD
DATE:
August 7, 1995
The applicant should show all trees planted on common properties 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.
KH:ad
I ill
AUG - 9 1995
w
~@~G~1~
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 251
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning Direct
~
I
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director ~
August 10, 1995
DATE:
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan Modification
Second Review
The resubmittal of the Master Plan for this project only partially addressed our
comments. We therefore offer the following clarifications:
1) Dead-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-de-
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 water 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 be
implemented without increasing our response time for water and sewer
emergencies. We would higWy recommend 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 enough, or the lift station
relocated, so as to provide service to adjacent parcels that are too small to
Q:Tie City 0/
q;Joynton. !Bea&n
~
.%DD!&. ~~~___
_0. ':ZIfN/C...,z.o
'II"Y"- '3I-.Ii. ~ ~4.1lS.Q.$.zD
CSq,:H&iEz (407') :l7S...tSDDD
!rAZz (<<17') .77.s.-t!i'D9o
EACSI_~~a ~RAN&H~aaXQN
TO:
it;;.; ?-a::.:~
6;Y 9-~..s-' 2-
h1.~ 'J~J _~ -~~
~ ....3/ _ _
-;::zJ zr - .... ~ / ~--1.
~~~ _A ..A 0 '61:. .-.r:~. W.
~~~~~ ~7~-- -
1':Vo"'~ . = . ~A' ~ . :~:p
. ~-~ ~ ~~-'
....A.X NO.
",ROM'
C.....TZ .
R.E :
Nt.1M.....s:R <.::JE PAGES .I:.NC~Ut:).J:.NGI TH.:I:S aeVERt SHEET ~
c. B'AJL'raANS . :J!!:r-.b
.ftI.1FU~Q'.;S ya.zD=Y 11:., t':/Us t;;....,(}F.:I1l:~Q.:rft
TRANSMISSION REPORT I
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 3
*** SEND ***
iNO REMOTE STATION 1. D. START TIME DURATI ON #PAGES COMMENT I
:
I 1 7-S1-95 11:SBAM 2'OS" S I
TOTAL 0:02'OS" 3
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
~ ~@~owrn ill
A.lJG _ 8 1995
PLANNING AND
ZONING OFPT.
/j}$
4/#
MEMO #0156 ?
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
8 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 2ND REVIEW
I have reviewcd the 2nd submittal ofNau'tlf'Sduij~i'J~ii1' the..comments that were supplied. It
seems .that my original suggestions J~:!!ij~y.l~lop.^Tent ~F~;t~llred. I still maintain the
followmg: f) :C}~:~:::::::::v t..:./:: '
~' .::' .....::::/......:...:.>~~:.
~~ ~~ .
1. Regarding the controlled ~rancelexits, the developer (G.C:~:,.If6~s of Florida) has an
attached letter describing tlyee iWes of mechanisms of gated conirlliirii,jes. The first, SOS
System(Siren Operable &9.YtemYI feel is not something that is not fAyoi\lPle; both on a police
stand point and the prospdttlv(!(residents. Police respond to calls tfi~t~uire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) th~t activation of a siren at
the entrance would not :spppprt appr~ of c~J.s. AlsD';:f::would not think that residents
would appreciate the p&li.c.~.:(~d fire} deP~,Auent ~$n~Wt~ing t'~ir ~;;:~~J.ll by sounding their
sirens. The second rec~tjiifieli;a.ation~:ira"'iir~x B~:(~"'entry ~ystem)llThis is an antiquated
method of access to a gated'cliliuuudiiv::.:::~Wrir4f the citylb th~t1talri' ntfster keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
question. Maintaining Qne,ma&ter key requires the response to the p(J'IW<)tepartment to obtain
;.' .....;0:..... .;d,::::- .::-
the key first, and then to,.thiNipmmunity. This is not a "timely" respoh~ f4r emergency vehicles.
The third recommendatiqu...}~emote System" is not explained thq,t~:njiJjJ~/enough. It allows the
city personal to remain ili"tn,pt,r.::y~hicles when entering thc comm~n~~.~ut does not explain how,
or who activates the gate fub.ttioit~ I originally suggested a ~.yst#tri t~f'is similar to this; and is
currently being excepted in tb~:'~Yver.gated communities oft~:t!1r;;::/The system works with
telephone accessibility. The dEip'atqti.6::r~Qlice jpd,.:fir~rmaihJ~in the telephone number for the
gate and upon radioing that they (pcill:ce p~c'~t)} ~V~:'!n.i.Y~a atthe gate, the dispatcher then
telephones the number to the gate, thereBY ac~latihg itiifgate for entrance. This mattcr needs to
be clarified.
2. As stated in comments, the width ofthe existing bridge on Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd
entrance would havc 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,
#m4
Sgt. Marlon Harris
--- ~
~:,<i ::~I =i?~ . 1]15
jJ i : 130 < .
< i . [; MrA& 'i'.A
----J I I 131 v I n"
I I I
i I ..... l-...
I !
I I I 132" I i
! I
II i :
,/" I I
I I
II
I '
I !
I )
!. I ,
~ ,
I
I
I.
I"
1
i
133 ~ j ,
134 .,. I
I i
135 v,
I
136 .... I I
. I
--_LJ
138
v I
13'1 v
140
\, I
I
141 It' I
.... 142 '" I
I,
I
"1
I
143 v 1
,
144 ", i
145
I I 146 ~
i
,
I ! 0Pf:N 9F'Aa
I
105 J :1
! j
I
I 104 ~
I ;
I
103 .J
II ! 102 ..
I I I
I :
I " 101 "
: ,
I
, ,
100 ..
, I
$lp6
PALM BfACH COL,N1Y
ZONING - AR
LAl'V l.JSE - HR8
RESI DENTI AL
-
ACQE:AGE:
LOCATION or F.P.& L. OH LINE
TO BE RELOCATED ARC\W THE
NORTHERN PEQIMETE'R a- THE PROPERTY
l'
~
~
\)
~
~
<ot
~ "Jr~n.- t>('4~ N1b~.hcA"t.e)l".J Mf qS -oofD
~ I s.r SI.lIS,"I11'~L.
z
~ TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
\U FOR...~ PLAN REVIEW () h L
z ..PI" I"A~ .1 tJ{4I//k,r
~ Bldg. _ IffA~~-t>ate 7/;S/'lS"fb MMP'
4: Date
Fire Dept Date -1 ];5 tj !1~(J
Eng. ~ Date -z..~ '&lSt.1/ ~~(.
t-..Utll. Dept Date 7~~ "740m.
~police Dept Dat9 7-~ ~9S"';tiJwIIl",Js
~P. W. De Date
~ity Planner Da
~Rec. Oir. Date
w Fores1Br
0)
"t"
('\l
()
z
A.Jdfe: Set: u.~R. FRo 10 LOA-/ 11Xs.
tJlI("tt':) 0d(, Ie} IfiCf 1)e;1au8i1/l::.
I1IlJStlfpj>/A,J AlIbi/" tJlN ~~s."-'
~ \
_"'-I CD ~ <( E 0'>
uu 0.. l.. 0 - co
o 00 0 <.0
>... <..> lL.. ~ 0..
o (/) ~
'"'0 -0 ,- (1)- ,.......
- C lO= (/) 0
- 0 Lf) :::s (1) .q-
::t: ..J ..- (/) ~ '-'
N
I
.
~ O~~ ~
~
z:::>-
-lJ~ !!:o
.
o Z~:! i!
ZJ:O
-<~z ~~
fF)
Ig
C ..J~Q
Cl.~
:J Q.<.- is
Uz
I-- W(/)w
I-CKj !Y
fIJ _z~ ~
cn:5o..
~
!Y
~
Y
....
.
'Q
.
:::>
.
s:a..
fn
CD
=-
C>
- . .... .."""'.....~
,.-.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-125
~~~WgE~10
TO:
Michael Haag, Site and Zoning Administrator
FROM:
Robert Eichorst, Public Warks Director
SUBJ:
Master Plan Modification - Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves
DATE:
July 17, 1995
The Public Works Department has no problems with the above site.
RElcr
- .-- ~. ...,...........
FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-~
October 9, 1992
.,
TO:
Planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
RE:
N.W. BOYNTON - .
BOUNDED by "HYPOLUXO & N. W . 22ND AVE
CONGRESS AVE. & LAWRENCE RD
The City has committed to providing certain services in this
area. Master and site plans have all reflected Fire Department
input pertaining to roads and water service. Presently, research
is being conducted pertaining to additional annexation in this
same area. Fire Department staff have consistently placed a high
priority on connective roads in this area. NOW, due to
circumstances, planning and expectations have sunk to a critical
level.
Examples: KNOLLWOOD GROVES - request to modify impact fees for
Miner Road.
LAWRENCE GROVE - previously released from agreement to
provide 60' right of way road connection with the
meadows; ie Bedford Blvd.
CITRUS GLEN - unfulfilled agreements with regard to
Miner Road.
Prior expectations by staff in the Fire Department were that
Miner Road would be complete at approximately the same time Fire
Station III was brought on line. It appears that several more
years will pass before this will be accomplished.
This situation is becoming untenable as response time elevates
along with additional value in the area served. It. is the
Department's position that NO EXCEPTIONS CONCERNING MINER ROAD BE
MADE and that THE PROCESS TO ATTAIN A COMPLETED ROAD BE
EXPEDITED.
~<<<- ~
William D.
We/1mb
Attachment: Response time stats
cc: Chief Allen
Chris Cutro
September 23, 1992
Page Two
The payment of traffic impact fees in advance of the commencement of
development was intended for use for the construction of a "missing" section of
Miner Road. The sections of Miner Road to which this "missing" section were to
have been connected have also not yet been built. Therefore, there is no necessity
to now pay fees for construction of a road which will have no utility until the
other sections have been constructed.
Please note also that growth in the west Boynton area has been significantly
below that which had been projected when the Knollwood PUD was approved in
1989. As verified by traffic engineer Fred Schwartz in the attached report, all
roadways in the area of the PUD are operating at or very near acceptable level
of service conditions. Allowing the delay of the payment of impact fees not
currently needed for immediately anticipated or warranted road construction will
have no negative impact on the ability of the existing roadway network to operate
efficiently or safely.
We would appreciate consideration of this modification request concurrent with
the City's review of our PUD extension request. We look forward to further
comments. Please feel free to call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
/j~,^~ G~UAwL(:
Anna Cottrell
Project Planner
Frederick W. Schwartz. P.E.
President
September 23rd, 1992
Chris Cutro
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Dear Mr. Cutro:
This letter is written to support a request by Knollwood Groves to extend the existing
PUD approval for the project and to modify certain developer agreement conditions.
Background
-
-
/~
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
~
.
~
Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Frederick W. Schwartz. P.E. September 23rd, 1992
President
Chris Cutro
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Dear Mr. Cutro:
This letter is written to support a request by KnolIwood Groves to extend the existing
PUD approval for the project and to modify certain developer agreement conditions.
Background
A traffic impact study was prepared fpr the Knollwood Groves development in June
1989. The development plan presented at that time included approximately 539
residential dwelling units and a daycare center. A 1996 build out was envisioned. The
development order conditions resulted in a requirement to pay $760,000 to improve the
roadway system in the area. This payment was approximately equal to the road impact
fees for the site and the applicant agreed to use these funds to pay the cost to construct
Miner Road between Sandlewood Drive and the Citrus Glen Plan Unit Development.
Other Developments
A major element of the 1989 traffic analysis was the cumulative traffic impact from a
large number of committed developments in the area. Various economic and market
conditions have caused these developments to significantly slow their pace of
development. Therefore, the traffic volume projections from the 1989' analysis have
proven to be overstated.
Current Conditions
Traffic count data from the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Department
indicate that all roadways in the area of the Knollwood Groves project are operating at
or very near acceptable level of service conditions.
. Lawrence Road is carrying approximately 7,750 vehicles per day with
the Level of Service liD" thresholds of 13,700 vehicles per day.
. Hypoluxo Road is carrying traffic between 18,000 and 25,000 vehicles
per day on the 4 lane section which has a carrying capacity of 30,200
vehicles per day.
One Clearlake Centre~ Suite 501
250 Australian Avenue. South~West Palm Beach~FL 33401
407-659~8328
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
I have reviewed the above listed plans..,~:?9::Er'~.~e9d:ih~f911Q;:ving:
-The entrances/exits are "card 6&~i~~~~~:~:;;'~'>~ ~'~~ld reb~~~~d::that a telephone access also
be supplied for police and,::lt~ e~e;gency access. Ifn~t sorpetlji:tfg comparable to this will
be needed for emergendY:',.a,'.:.'.C.:.'::~ss.:': ....,'."':,::::.:::::::\:
r~1
-Regarding the south ~'~ffan~e to the development, on Lawren~Rd.M, I would recommend a
decelleration, right hal\tffUfll lane. I believe this lane constructMn,: ijight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, right hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitr~d::1ltis shoJ1td:::a.l:~ applY"'fQt::t~, sout4....~n:tr.~pe/exit.
-Due to the density J~:fcii~'ed p~J:iiiit.~~~ Oft!iS:::dei:~iopmUt, I sJJnglY believe that an
entrance/exit is need~d::ff.6m Flypbiux6::'Roid. itrhe distan:tdftom:::,,:b&tltprojected
entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great dist~nce from the northern
roadways in the developwenL:\ Emergency response to these roads wjJ~;:"~quire excess time,
thereby requiring a ~'6~~xo Road entrance/exit. This develop~liW'also in the extreme
northern and western .llmt1;$ of the city and a great distance from th~,.;>>e:arest fire station
and poli ce coverage.L............:.,.:::>::::.':::.::,:..,
Respectfully,
~7JJa4n~
Sgt. Marlon Harris
Police Department
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT rn
TRAFFIC UNIT
muwRfn1
.u. 271995 ... '0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
I have reviewed the above listed plans.,,:~e9:::~t~~efd::the,::t,911Q~ing:
../:':;;;~"'::;:,,:,::~:::;~::':;"~>\.:../.:::::" .r l ..:l' ;:/:;i::~::::::>:
- The entrances/exits are "C~ cQiitr.:9U&d". I ~'oi.ld re~.9fiurten4::,tPat a telephone access also
be supplied for police an,q'(ire em~rgency access. If n'ot, sqmething comporable to this will
be needed for emergency".,i.c:Qess. .(;../,t::::..':......,::
{::' .:.::~::./ !~; (~;.....~\\~
-Regarding the south ~~~tranVe to the development, on Lawren~:.R~~d, I would recommend a
decelleration, right hatf<fmiO lane. I believe this lane constructi~:rl iUight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, right hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitr'and"this should:':alw applY"for:the soutb....e.ntra.n,ce/exit.
:~t:::,:.::.:::t}::: r:..::::.:::>..) 1 r'" ..:.:::~ .::~ ~:l'" ..:,..,<:\:
-Due to the developtneiifta'hdsizd! iiid"T~'s:projdc.tetF:de'nsity,:I:\vouldJecommend that an
entrance/exit be mad~::Att.ah~ble ti:bm:::ItfpoluxbiRoad. . t.::::::::::::::'::'::;;....:"
-::..:..;.~..:.:.:;:~..:::;:~:.;.::;:
.;...;.:....'..- ":~:~;.
;/0RespeCtfullY, d{C.;:,:,;:;;:::;';:::':ii
, Y1i,l .. ;;~,::::,>C
. / //~ \,.l,:::...:;::::.::}:::::~:
Sgt. Marlon Harris ,..
Police Department
a \{)
>>
f1J
[~0
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95 - 270
August 2, 1995
mrn@uwrnm
u AUG 3 1995
J
PLANNING AND ~f1
ZONING DFPT.
To:
Tambri Heyden, planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re:
Master Plan Modification - 1st Review
Nautica South f/k/a Knollwood Groves (POD)
The Building Division has reviewed the above plans and have the
following comments:
1. The side setbacks for screen enclosures for Z lots as
noted on Note #2, Page 4 of 8 is confusing. To avoid
problems at permit time, it should be detailed on
Page 6 of 8 and Page 7 of 8.
2. Project identification signs are limited to two with a
total of 250 Sq. Ft. maximum.
3. Entrance signs should not exceed 32 Sq. Ft. and 6 Ft.
in height.
4. Details for all signs must be submitted.
AN:mh
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:NAUTICA.TRC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260
TO:
Mike Haag, Zoning/Site Administrator
william Hukill, P.E., City Engineer
PZLANNING AND
ON/NG DEPt
-S:.s
FROM:
DATE:
July 26, 1995
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
We have reviewed subject plan for proposed changes in access
points, unit types, setbacks and lot/house sizes. Our comments are
as follows:
1. Access points - acceptable
2. Unit types - elimination of multi-family units acceptable
3. Setbacks - not acceptable
4. Lot and house sizes - not acceptable
Taken as a group, these modifications represent a major master plan
modification.
Other comments:
1. Site plan review & approval required. Chap.4, Sec.2,
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.IIF,
pg.23-8
6. Provide parking facility for recreation area including
H/C stall. Chap.2, Sec.11H16e(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.11A, pg.6-3
9.' Provide soil borings. Chap.8, Art.III, A1a(3), pg.8-2
10. Provide a map indicating the location of the soil
borings. Chap.8, Art.III,A1a(4), pg.8-3
11. Construct (to completion) the south road prior to
issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
Development Dept., Engineering Div. Memo No. 95-260
Re: Nautica Sound - Master Plan Modifications
July 26, 1995
Page #2
12. Provide easement onto Hypoluxo Road ROW for future
sidewalk/bikepath access to schools.
13. Cause actual construction to commence on widening of
Lawrence Road from L-19 canal to Hypoluxo Road prior to
issuance of initial Certificate of Occupancy. You may
fund design/construct the road outright or you may
arrange with the County to move the project to fit your
initial c.o. by fronting the cost for repayment in the
scheduled construction year. If you construct it
yourself, you may wish to obtain credits toward the cost
for the road impact fees you will owe.
The power line relocation should be coordinated with adjacent
property owners as well as the School Board, which owns an
elementary school site a few hundred feet east on Hypoluxo. Perhaps
the entire line can be relocated to the north property line to the
shopping area at Congress Avenue.
WVH/ck
C:NAUSOUND.MOD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260
DATE:
Mike Haag, zoning/Site Administrator
~m Hukill, P.E., City Engineer
July 26, 1995
rn~@~fi\VJ~rn
AUG - 2 1995
PLANNING AND ~
ZONING DEPT.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
We have reviewed subject plan for proposed changes in access
points, unit types, setbacks and lot/house sizes. Our comments are
as follows:
1. Access points - acceptable
2. unit types - elimination of multi-family units acceptable
3. Setbacks - not acceptable
4. Lot and house sizes - not acceptable
Taken as a group, these modifications represent a major master plan
modification.
Other comments:
1. Site plan reVlew & 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. lOU, pg.6-15
3. Need SFWMD and LWDD acceptance prior to Engineering
approval. Chap.6, Art.VII, Sec.4B, pg.6-24
4. County road entrance sign requires PCB approval
5. Provide Certification by Developer's Engineer that
drainage plan complies with all City codes & standards.
Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec.5A, pg.6-7 and Chap.23, Art.IIF,
pg.23-8
6. Provide parking facility for recreation area including
H/C stall. Chap.2, Sec.11H16e(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.11A, pg.6-3
9. Provide soil borings. Chap.8, Art.III, A1a(3), pg.8-2
10. Provide a map indicating the location of the soil
borings. Chap.8, Art.III,A1a(4), pg.8-3
11. Construct (to completion) the south road prior to
issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-330
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
~']~@:r;'l[1nr,:JW
O t,,; ~," i,,11 !? ,,' ~
Ul JU:'2~m51
f(\\ ~ ~ PWJNING AND ~ ,
(J f ZOi\i!NG DEPT. ~-x.
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, F oresterlEnvironmentalist
RE:
Nautica Sound (FKA Knollwood Groves) - Revised
DATE:
July 27, 1995
The applicant must submit an aerial tree survey of the existing citrus trees on the site. The healthy
trees should be documented by an expert in citrus tree care. The tree management plan should
indicate the quantity of trees which are to be preserved, relocated or removed and replaced. There
should be no net loss of trees to the site and citrus trees may be replaced with ornamental trees as a
betterment landscape plan. These documents should be part of the master plan modification
documents for the project and submitted prior to approval of the master plan. The project should
continue in the normal review process.
KH:ad
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-353
FROM:
carrie Parker, City Manager
Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Bill cavanaugh, Fire prevention Officer
Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utility Dept. Chief Field Insp.
sgt. Marlon Harris, police Department
John Wildner, Parks superintendent
Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
William Hukill, Director Department of Development
MiCha~~~~Site and Zoning Administrator
July 13,-1995
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Master Plan Modification - 1st Submittal Review
for Technical Committee Review
Project:
Nautica sound f . k. a. Knollwood Groves
(PUD)
Location:
East side of Lawrence Road, north of
Gateway and south of Hypoluxo Road
Applicant:
G.L. Homes of Florida II Corporation
File No.:
MPMD 95-006
Attached is a master plan modification submittal for the above-
referenced project for your review and recommendation at the TRC
meeting July 25, 1995. The agenda for this meeting will be sent
out separately. We would ask that you review the plan submittal to
determine the review comments for your department. Transmittal of
Plans and Comments to Planning and Zoning Department will be
indicated on the TRC agenda.
cc: (Memo Only)
Floyd Jordan, Fire Department
Charlie Frederick, Parks and Recreation Department
Tom Dettman, Police Department
John Guidry, Utilities Department
a: lat8ubTItC. .au
~8::;J ~'STb\?
yzp-Vw> k:7hi6
\0
-LoNY-? III OH~
f}-c2-t/.rC' d!- -'
d girl;:;
('(-~ ht~i:
thL.ft -fr!4:'~,
..
NAUTICA SOUND SECOND REVIEW COMMENTS
*
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
E.
Clarify that it is "Main Entry Road", not Lawrence Road.
F.13. Widening of Lawrence Road is still being discussed.
Letter from Weisburg sign-off on traffic.
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316
Condition 1 should read, Buildings should maintain a minimum separation @
Condition 2, requiring an additional entrance on Hypoluxo Road should be
deleted.
*
*
POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT MEMORANDUM NO. 0156
1.
G
A controlled entrance / exit system acceptable to the City will be installed.
.
DELETE - A right turn / deceleration lane onto Meadows Boulevard will not
be provided.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-421
C:J
~
~oAVJ-' .
*
DELETE - Meadows single-family units do not comply with the 40' setback
Mike is requesing within their own development. Want to go with setbacks
proposed.
2. DELETE - 60' min. frontage and 6,000 s.f. min. lot area condition.
~
4.
DELETE - maintain the proposed 20' front building setback at the garage
and the 15' front building setback at the building as shown on plans.
DELETE - maintain the side building setback of 10' for the non zero side
of the zero lot line units and maintain a 1 O'building separation setback b/w
the sides of all 'Z' lot units as shown on plan.
AMEND to maintain the side pool setback at 12' and the side screen
enclosure setback at 10'. All other setbacks listed are okay.
7. SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING: Provide 1 canopy tree every 20' o.c. and
a continuous hedge to be installed at 2' o.c. and maintained at 5 to 6 feet
within the landscape easements along the perimeter lot lines of the project.
(those not adjacent to roadways). .
8. DELETE - A Hypoluxo Road ingress / egress will not be shown.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
-I( Uz_
tyf-
~' , ~
~7L<...~~
Kilday & Auocletea
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
q/~lf~
~~
MEMORANDUM
September 5, 1995
City Commissioners
Karyn I. Janssen ~ \ ~
RE: Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves P.U.D.
Minor Master Plan Modification
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.13
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The petitioner requests that the following comments be either amended or deleted, as
indicated below, prior to the City Commission acting on this project. The proposed
changes are as follows: ... ) JL
tfI1t~ q-\~
tlK
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-485
1.
~K1
Show and identify the appropriate setback dimension at the rear of all lots along
the east and northwest property lines. Note: setback for residential buildings is
the distance, measured perpendicular, from the property line to the closest home,
/ covered patio structuro (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
maconry wall, landscapod chain linl< fenco or como other equivalent 5' tall buffer
be provided. hedqe maintained at 5 feet be provided and installed at a 24" heiqht
and planted 24" on center tl@ ingieatlJ .::." t198 G9 I ,(~;.t, IAI.J at:l8~"'111$8 ~- It is
recommended that ei e=:et:rHer easement 'plan proposed by the applicant or
identified in comme number 7 "'this memo be accepted for this required buffer.
The setback required g the east property line where the subject property
\V ~-J./7
r ~, · f^!W~' . r ~
\I'. ~ ,ft- Jrly 5..- i0 ~ :t ~
~~v' , (Yl~ 1'('
_ 1 iV "CV
J'vV r t ; I}/
V'- . JA'A \ \ \ 0 r
j).;.1,bt~L~v,1'-'
abuts the adjacent multi-family development shall be 40 feet' as required by .
Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development where the site is adiacent to the multi- .' .
family structures (lots 95-86). It is reoommondod that paroole in tho northoast
oornor of the projoot, that abut tho adjaoent uninoorporatod property, huvo a 40
foot setb3ck. Therofore the setback 310ng the ontire east property line 'Nill be 10
feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly. (Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit.
Development, Section 9.B.)
,
~1, to' ~
Memorandum
September 5, 1995
Page 2
. 2. ,~. ::e:i~7=::I~~~O:I~~t~;~:=:~~ ~6~~~~~U~:r=:g~~~~Ya~~~~~:~
~ ~~~- '. 'Z' Lot line Units shall have a minimum lot frontaqe
, '0 \ j (J" of fo 40 eet and a minimum lot area of 4 500 s.f. Zero Lot Line Units shall
\() "'~ have . Imum lot fronta e of fi 50 feet a d a mini um lot area of five
~~:,~ thousand (5000) square feet. ~
3~.3> Change Maintain the front building setback at from the proposed twenty (20) feet ,
at the garage and fifteen (15) feet at the building. to twenty (20) feet for both II (
v,St~ garago and building for all lots. Establish the rear building setback for all double ~
\ l' frontage lots as twenty (20) feet which shall be measured from the rear property.---- .
)' ~h. ~~e. Maintain proposed fifteen (15) foot rear building setback on all back to back
VU rr' ~ lots and maintain proposed ten (10) foot rear building setback for all lots that abut
")Y\ a lake maintenance easement, common ground or recreation tract. ^mond all
< plans, data and oha~E aooor~ingly. , #p }')UJ)L~~- ,-ti~~<[?-4
". :)h"d h~t ~ ~/ lv' IV M~ ~~l
4. Change Maintain the side bLiilifing ~ for he non zero side of the zero-Iot-
line units from at the proposed ten (1 O)'feet to fiftoon (16) foot and specify a fiftoen
Q flet ten (10) foot building separation setback between the sides of all"l" lot units.
~ ~aintain the proposed fifteen (15) fo .comer side building setback on all back ;': '
to bac~ lots. ,\-1 \f"
I~ lots. Amend all plane, datu and oharte acoordingly. ~
'i"- \J
5. '
R
. ~"
\vf" \
.
Change Maintain the side pool and screen enclosure setback fFem. at twelve (12)
feet for pools and ten (10) feet for screen enclosures to fifteen (15) feet for the non
zero side of all lots tho zero lot lino unite and speoify a fifteen (16) foot c.ide pool J
and screon onclosure soparation for all"l" lots. Maintain the proposed seventeen
(17) foot corner side setback for pools and fifteen (15) foot for screen enclosure /
on all back to back lots; hO':.'e'ler, establish a 20 foot cornor Bide setback on al~ J
other corner lote. 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 aocordingly.
\
t;\ A').1
~~~~\ ~:~--~ ~
~'~
6J{r~IJ,A ,~ \'
;a.A~
7// ",.qfC)'
--.J'.....
.A~7
\~'..~
\ \'t
,.J'd
r .... '-.......
'''~='J,I,,_..
-..... _.~ ---
___0.. __
\ r-
\ ----,-..., .. "
.c. .~
-----:,_>~ ..J
'__~J ..'
'iP~ 9 ~ i-.., . C"''::'
,110 ' j 1\)\' ') ~
.I' '~
. I
7. It is recommended that a dense landscape buffer be provided along the interior
~,. ot lines which abut the perimeter 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 de'/olops to form a consistent shape, the tree and l. r D
" hodgo buffor landseape matorial for tho ontire buffor oasomont shall bo installed /1/
1. ~,. ' prior to the completion of the firet house that h, as" a landscape buffer eaeement
W' locatod on the lot For lots adiacent to a landscaoehuffec-flasement. the
~ ~ landsca e buffer material will be installedot blot bC__.~ urrSnt with the ..
~,!, ~ / construction of each home. The landscape ma[ riatlocated adiacent to the main
~ . ~ '\," . access drive will be installed and/or prior to the compietion of the proposed main.
~~.~~~~~
}.; ,JJJ; myrtle) shrubs. Inoorporated into the recommended buffer shall be one, eight foet
tall canopy tree (mahogany or oak) spaced 70 to 80 feet on centor. The buffer ~ G.
shall also have a continuoue 2 foot tall hedge (ohalous or Florida privet) extending
along tho entire proporty line; however, the hedge may form a meandering shape
as viewed from above. The oontinuous hedge chall be m3intained at 6 feet tall.
The a foot tall bushy shrub plant and other trees described above may count for
t~~;of treee that are required by the tree management plan.
Note; the perimeter buffer landscape design proposed by the applicant (see
Exhibit "B" - Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-484) is
acceptable; however, all material shall be located within the easement and trees
shall not be placed on a property line. If this landscape design is approved, the
plans shall be modified to show the landscape material. It is further.
recommended that the specie and size recommendations identified above be
incorporated into the applicants' proposal at the site plan approval process.
Memorandum
September 5, 1995
Page 3
.w~
8.
Ro'.'ise tho plans to show a Hypoluxo Road ingrees/egreee to the project. The
Hypoluxo Road ingress,' egress was originally appre'Jed for the project to divert
trips to adj3cent roadwaye.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
~
)
E.
Provide an eight foot bicycle, pedestrian path along The Main Entry * .
Road in conformance with the traffic Circulation Element of the City'~
Comprehensive Plan, pg. 66.
Memorandum
September 5, 1995
Page 4
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260
13. Causo aotual oonstruotion to oommonoo on '.\'idoning of LG't.'ronoo Road from L
19 oanal to Hypoluxo Road prior to issuanoe of initial Certifioato of Oooupanoy,
You may fund doeign / oonstruot tho road outright or you may arrango '.vith tho
County to mO'lO tho projoot to fit your initial C. O. by fronting tho oost for
repaymont in tho sohodulod oonstruotion yoar. If you oonstruot it yoursolf, you
may wish to obtain oredits to'.vard the cost for the road impaot fees you will owe.
FIRE PREVENTION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316
1. Buildings should maintain a minimum separation of fiftoon foot (15') ten feet (10').
2. An additional ontranoo on Hypoluxo Road \\'ould roduoo tho responso time to tho
northern third of this projeot.
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT
MEMORANDUM #0156
2. /\s stated in oommonts, tho 'Nidth of tho oxieting bridge on Lawronoo Road and.
Moadows Boulevard entranoo 'Nould have to be widonod for a right turn /
deooloration lano. As ooneistont 'A'ith othor dovelopments on La'Nronoo Road,
deceleration lanes hays been required. I don't see why the other ontranoe to the
dO'/elopmont on La'Nronoo Road should roquire a doooloration lane and not
MoadowD Boulo'lard.
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT
MEMORANDUM #151
2. Rogarding tho south ontranoo to tho devolopmont, on LQlNrOnOO Road, I 'Nould
recommond a deceleration, right hand turn lane. I believe this lane oonstruotion
might interfero 'Nith tho bridge that oroeses tho oanal. Tho plane chow a
deoeloration, right hand turn Iano for tho north entranoo / exit, and this should alGa
apply for tho south ontranoo / oxit.
3. Duo to tho donsity & projootod population of this dovolopmont, I etrongly boliovo
that an entranoe/oxit ic noodod from Hypoluxo Road. Tho distanoo from both
projeotod ontranoos/exits (Lawrenoo Road and Meado'we BoulO'./Urd (?)) are a
great distanoe from the northern roadways in the de'/elopment. Emergency
responeo to thoco roade will roquiro oxooss timo, thoreby requiring a Hypoluxo
Road ontranoO/oxit. Thic dovolopment is alGa in tho oxtromo northorn and \flestorn
limits of tho oity and a groat distanoe from tho nearost firo station and polioo
coverage.
MEMORANDUM
l:TILITIES DEPT, NO. 9S . 278
TO:
Ta.mbri Heyden, P1annin~ Dir~~~'\ 1/#' ../
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director ~
September 1 t 1995
FROl\I:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan - third submittal
Please be advised tlut this office has no objection to t.~e Master Plan as revised.
You may refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella or Skip Milor of this
office,
JAO/PVM
be: Peter Mauella
xc: Skip Milor
File
NAUTICA SOUND P.U.D. LOT COMPARISON STUDY
'Z' LOT LINES ZERO LOT LINE UNITS
PROPOSED REVISED PROPOSED REVISED
8-2-95 8-29-95 8-2-95 8-29-95
4,000 - 4,499 76 0 0 0
4,500 - 4,999 13 59 0 0
5,000 - 5,999 64 71 96 112
6,000 - 6,999 19 16 73 74
7,000 + 16 11 77 81
TOTAL 188 157 246 267
KIJ/cdd\cnautica.lcs
Klkay .,. ANocI.t..
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 12, 1995
TO:
City of Boynton Beach Planning and Development Board
Karyn I. Janssen ~ \ J
RE: Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves P.U.D.
Minor Master Plan Modification
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.13
FROM:
================================================
The petitioner requests that the following scriveners errors be noted and corrected as
indicated below, prior to the Planning and Development Board acting on this project.
The corrections are as follows:
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-492
4. Maintain the proposed fifteen (15) foot corner side building setback on all corner
lots. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
5. Maintain a side pool and screen enclosure setback of twelve (12) feet for pools
and ten (10) feet for screen enclosures. Maintain the proposed seventeen (17)
foot corner side setback for pools and fifteen (15) foot for screen enclosures on
all baok to baok lots and othor 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.
KIJ/cdd\cboynton.912
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-538
FROM:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
Tambri J. Heyden ~
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
September 25, 1995
SUBJECT:
History of Meadows Boulevard Extended and Nautica Sound
Property Approvals
As requested on September 21st and further requested on September
22nd, attached is the information regarding the above for
tomorrow's meeting with residents of the Meadows.
A:MeadoMtg
XC: Central File
,
,
1974 -
1989 -
1991 -
1995 -
1974 -
v!.JAVt)1978 -
~~ <
.~t~ 1984-
\tlV ~
TIME LINE NAUTICA SOUND PROPERTY APPROVALS
Annexation (ordinance 74-31) zoning AG R1AAA
See Exhibit "A" - location map
Rezoning PUD from AG and R1AAA (ordinance 89-36)
539 residential units (389 multi-family and 150
single-family detached)
See Exhibit "B" - Master Plan Knollwood Groves
(original master plan)
Master Plan Modification (March 12, 1991 Planning and
Zoning approved)
539 residential units (reconf igured the boundary
line between the multi-family and the single-family
detached units)
See Exhibit "C" - Master Plan Knollwood Groves
(current master plan)
Master Plan Modification (September 12, 1995 Planning and
Development Board)
424 residential units (all units single-family
detached)
See Exhibit "0" Master Plan Nautica Sound
(current revised master plan)
MEADOWS Pun - MEADOWS BOULEVARD EXTENDED APPROVAL
Annexation (ordinance 74-31)
See Exhibit "E" - location map
Rezoning PUD from R1AAA (ordinance 78-52)
See Exhibit "F" - Master Plan Meadows 300
Plat Meadows 300 Plat No. 3 (which included: rights-of-
way; boundary plat of tracts N, M, E, L, G, and K; public
and private park)
See Exhibit "G" - Meadows 300 Plat No. 3
Exhibit "H" - excerpt from the city's comprehensive plan that
was in effect at time of approval of the Knollwood Groves PUD
and the Meadows PUD master plans requiring the Meadows
Boulevard "extension" be constructed.
,
,
d ~'
~ ..~e,1r--- --c;- ,';; ~I~l;::\
~ =-" ~~~'''~. "'1,~.~,;,.~;;'l';.zM'i.z~X~1.i" l\ll \, -
.;~-=.~ ~_ .' C3~~r*-t;i1~~rJJ~~m}, "lie I> . II
, :::-'l" '~i!;0.!1<<.$*, puO ",.e .~ ~ \.:
__ ~ \ . '!If.f ,,,. ::i~I,~Pfi \..U \. \to
. ."" ,"" ," '" .~, 'I' .,,'''''~'''' '~ ·
\/. / F4 '\ A ':@Il~!~f.*M~~~ii S 6.0 ~ ~
'" nre, :!;"M!/J/;~!jl/;;"~~~f;I/!.W}%M.!;fl~~7J!fii0.'::'fj.I;;/~' '}!f'. fl' ~ :=1: ~~."" \
. \\ \ r1\:' t. "frfj;~J~f:jf.%ff,~0i~_..l1~~~,~~f.ii.i% 1 !j.# I: , ~8"~>>>/t \
" ~ ~~1!1N...z~;f.~j~;;'7.b'~!.'~1.':!'fi::I~:~~ %:!'i;,;,;,Oii' ~r=-,j .~~ .,s,':
. I"~ . ~;~;;'1,ji.!4:14~~-ui:N~~"';';""~' :";7;0i;~..s~ =" '" J-8 " .:0-.\ \ \
'. . ~!.!";;'~:lfi,'j,,!,:.;t!!4"ii/;'!I':l/'i/~/1.~:/'7/.~;,/: .' '... ',;:8.1:;( ---' ,." ' '. .
\
. . c. . : ~Wj;1/fJl/%f;t?:'1//&.:if0;~WMM.;~t{?:; M%.f;< ,,.\., , ::'" ,,~-,.
n
-
..
_"'\
~>\\ ~:::: . .~~' ~ ,';'~ . - &;O~\ ..,~..=-~~
Ill' 1""(9/ ~ "u;",,'v; ~ (Q L~o9tJ :~
, : _ ,". _,,< '\I \ \ w'::;: \\\1.
~' ", ~ .I'P' > ~~ " \\"
. ,~r I.Y71 ,"'fT \ \ \ "\ ...t;. \ \ l ltY
": ::, ~\C~-' . ~ . ,- UJ1:kU" \ l<'..\,\:::.'V " ,\\\'-n.
, "n'" l' Tn'" .
.-:rV\~~~~;i~~\ l\'~\t:'~ =:--/" '/;::'f:1ft~~
,_ 1L,,"\"'~'I' ",' ,. l~l~
~ _ ...... l\" ,'_ ~. ,~ r\.. ~III
; .... '-"" '-- ~.", ,\FJO \.J" ~~
:: s'. ,'" ~~ ~~ ~ \\,,,,.. f/ .. p\D:....::-
_---- ..,;"..,/ ':1-,0:\'-- ~ '- .' 1\ ,._'1
60"i"''1'0l'1 '<... n~~'~~~.rt::l'C\ ~ - -::, -~. -4:J~
.-.luF4seF4\es".. \i:~~;~\;\{:\i~\\-,~'{I\t"{ \ ~w '" ~ .."^.~~~
puO .. ..c...."" __.' ......., Gl'~ ~~\,!:;\ -,::--J\..
,-u,.a.o puO \..u,.4.o.~ -~~'''I- % .Cf'f'/ 2t-1M1 f<>--:
~ : \:::
~ :. ~
~~~~
. " . ~.~~- ~II
." =-911lJ11
" ", =.:1' \ 1[ ·
. "".....,..... I\~A'i\' - \ p-; \
.... ....0"....- ~'fIm~\ ~
pUO \1 ~'~ \1 ~B\ \\ '0 1/\8 \'-A,I
.U\''''~\ \ ~~' (j. \?U~ '\\ \ \ \ \
__- ~ \~ 'Z'.A"tC-",,""'1-"r.;;;:;r ~J2.~'0 4008~3",
_.=-;;::;\ \~-i.~ 'ql \ \ / \\ \:::::"ie; r"",~~:C'"'il
LOCA'T,ON MAP
NI\U'T'CA SOUNO
l\(NOL\NOOO GRO\1E.S pUO)
iH" \ H ~ ..1 \ hil'H~~\iI \liun
\\ '\" \U \\I\'\\li~ I \il'
\ " I H , . " III \\ I \
\ 1 n I t\
\ ii', 1'1 ~'Ciltl C'4~ I" il~
, \1 IUIIII In l '1-
I' .<, ~'S J t I
,
~.:.::=::=-....:::_~..._.._...-:t::'
( t ': '; ,,:r'--'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'::
\\ \\.;~,' ~i \
o , \~l\~' ~' L "
~ \ 1 ~ e.11II '
G) \ 'I I III '
~ q' ' '1 \\ I
r f "I \ · · I t
~ \\ \ _________u__ --------, ~~ '--'
CJl \,~ \
~ i\ 'Ij~, 41' I '~ ~
~ i ,___ ~ Ii . Ii .Hi
:z:, 1 \ @ ~l t'i
......
\ I ~ "
i
III\IH, JII ,~ 'lili\H'1 \'\','\','-, lU','
IJ n 1111 "I I HI' 1,1
~1.1 ~\\€im W\\~H , 1\\\ i\ \1',\ '
H ",~\\\'~ ,1\, \\\\\. \\\\'t ,\ \
\\ 1.1
nil'" II i t
'~'\I\'~
\\1'\;,,'1
"\\\lh\
" . .",
\\n\\'\'
\;\\wn
,
. .
f. \\ \~ \ ,.,', KnoIVIOod 0r0V" pUD
t '~ '1 IIoYRIDR ....... fI. '
\, Maater Plan
.
~.
1\
'I
II
, .
tl
i\
r
;ag:l1
\Hi
,1'\
\ \
,
· \10 \\\\
~~i IIi I l \
, \. " I i :.0.
,I . II I \
t
1\'\'\ \\\\,.
~. . ..-.-
\\\\\\\f
,'W,\,-
I\"l\\'
~\\\\\\\
\tn\\ \\
\1
g
~
~
;
1A
~
-0
~
i~~
I\t
...,~
\ \ I
, \
1 I
WW\ \\\\\'\\, ~
, 1 \\1 I. o~ ~
i,:-! J:~- ",' ,; ~:, ';'f;. . .-..
..' .. I \i1 ..I P , l\i~ ~tI l\l\lU
\\' \~~ ~.\l\\
\ . ..," \
\ \ n~ \\
I \ ,_, ". ..u,-, C.~ I. i'S
, \\\ 'UWltt\ tll ! \1"
~\\ .., 5\; i ·
\
1\
"
\\
"
\\
\\
I
~",_",_",--,~",-",-'-'-1:.:"'
=__ __._----~. .:0.:--------------------' .
, - .,
. , .
(. I
\\ \ ','. ' '
~ \ ,-
~
\
I
\ \'-.>
.1
,
\\
\
...,. ~ ~
plJ\
~~ ~
:s-:t.(
~l;"
~ l.~,
_. :J .J'
l;~
;'li
i\'~~
'" ~ ")."
a "
.., ).
+
"d" .
,
\
"-
, i'
\ ,
------------------ -------
. i:'
.Il
.\
.~
\t \
\ . ...~~~ ." Q
C/ _ CD
~ ' ..~ ~'II\ ~
,t \ ,J ~
1\.\' ~'
'\! (n '
~D\ . 11
(' \\ \\
,l \~\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\. '
\ t\\ \ n\H" \
. \Um\'H \\, I \\,\ h\ '
\ -. ~ \ ' ~ II' \ \ .
~'iL,~~\ "'~' \,KnO\\WOOd GroveS pUD
~ ,. ~,. If,t\~on Beach. FL
Ill" ,,' . ,",:'"' ,;aflaS\er P\~'
~\";t';i.,~~...,,* ~"
\\\\
,\\\
\ \.
l =,
i\,"P .~,
~ 1"
. \
\ .
. . \
''-.- ,
~' J
t~. I \ ~ l1\li i
\\\~ \'L\ ,\ \ \~ . In \f.\,
1~\I oo~__,L._--.L\\ -- '~~___t_~L- -- :::~
~', ; ~.... m 1\ '
~ ~f:\.-:I i'.... 1 ~I I\\i-\--- -;;~ ~\n\~~~\\'
~ . ii ~ ,~l ~ lZ~,)i' ~., mil \ '.
l ~ . d"1.Y. ~. \I .Jr. L ~- , \ ~~ ~
.1"" .. . r. · i. ',' I '
1_ 1 1\ II . I II . . \. · · · .. . .. L
~ \1 Ii .. ,..---------- 1"-- ...- ... ~ · ~ "'.'
,," ." h ,;" \'\ ,lIt"
_, . ~~. '-'- i\ i l , ,'. ,; ~ . ' l I.- ~\
\1 .-_ _ \ . , 01. · t '
. 1\ ~I \ .... \t...... ~.. '" " '
, . ,'., . ".... ., ~ .
"l \1 l " ," ,~ " \1' ~.. " .
~., ~". \, ./ ". ,." 2 , ' "i. \.;. ~ I "l~" \ \
. ! .--- _ .... N If' .. ) \. . .. ·
..,.. I .--' .,.... .,,' ".,' \
. 1 . I' " .' , . ..,~ . .:.s. ' "
ill I . I ~.. . " Q ,",' .' '. a ·
\
.
.
\ I( . i I. ~_____..', t i' ,. ,. · 01 .ll i'\ '~' \ ~ ~..\
X ,l~~\ ~ ~. · · · , ;:r::1'---~ ... · ...J. .- ~_"i ; "1 ,/ \ ....
1 , ",,,,,.,,' O' .... 'h; '. '" m'" - . '" - - al'''~\
i.f . ,... ,I. [, ~ .- - ."il
\\ I., '~fi. ; ;C:N: ,:::..! ..'.~ ~ .'~' ..:." ~ · , ~. ~ ~.~ .~u~' n .J';P' m. · , · , ~ · · \,l\
,I l;' ro \ ........ ,. "" ' .. !.!!" ,- ..' ::f::fkl:" n . " .' · 1
~ 11 t!:! p... .': 1 ," "m I lii'~?' 1'- ,;" -- ','-. I "';' .,/:" " "i.:-::"" \1 ~
I & If' ...... ," I ~~R ..... ,,_Co' \ "I'. 'i' 't' · "1'\'1"1'. ~fl
~ ~~~ ~~~""l. . .. .' l\'. \ ....ml r-wrl G ~ I h 1 {~r. ~ ~ I 1
nI1\\'~~ '.' . .'\:." j ~!I ~l~ '.1 .' 1
\l.' ..~ :,' '. ".,' . . i' ~\' ',' ., ~ · ~. i' , I , , al' · · · , · · ,h · :' I
'll"'- .' .. '. " _..... . . ".. 1\ iii~ 1:--1 . . .... . - . .' ., -.-...... .,all \
~. ' ~~ ~ .'" . , . ....., -,. . ,...
. " . ~ . . '. ~ , );J. . .' . ~ . ~.- . q; r- r ".:~"" :1;" ".."~.RI\I \ 1
.. " . ' .' l" ,.< . h'~~ I - ,. · ,
,I \ ",....' '.;'.' . .1,." '~. __ .........-?-> "I · · · .. .. .. II · '-'h-i '
~ \ i\ ~~'~ '. ,...~/ l~i:---- ~tM1.-_.~ : L... ~ :: ~r ,-1 '., ~;:.; l\
:, , ~. .,~ . 1 ,....,. · '..1. <- ~ I . . >--\'
\1. \.,"~ ~" : . '. \ , I~' 'I .,' ,.. \ k JI :' . \
_, ~\1r"'i..'" _\~.". ,'\'. ~ G\ \ .,' :>~i&....: ~'.'
\ ~1'.'K' '~1" I!"'''' nt-"'" ., ~.
\ 1 \ "..' .. .' ".' , · "oi" Co . -::,... 1 ~ .,. -. .
\ \ 1\\'" .,.,' 1-. I ..~l.-"."'-"
I I d $ il'. , .' ------------- · . Co ,'. .
,\ t' 'l~''\l II '. ....~!.. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ .:. .~... " (~- \: ,~ '~.":.!) . -. .,":,:
U ,~ \ ". t I' . ." --' =F: . ~II
-J,.;.~ . '_ ~ ' ,~ ',' · · : · , · · " ':. ~ " ... ~ ' , ~ ' , ,'I1'I..' ~ ' , '1.'1'1' '
", . ~~ ......i~' -, - -"-. · -~..
~~8 6 q \\\ 1 \ '\\\ .:." it \ '\ "\
I~ Kj!'9 It' 1_.... · II \ - - - - .-
a'~ '! '~\ f'
~., .
~te""""~''''''' ,~;p.
-.. ...... ....----
, f- r-:
f
I
I
,
, I
;I
AG
'~_".l
,.,~>(.~
II
IIG.=W=
! " I,
I" '
,I l'l"_
'I i"-
~
.. -
_. .,..,.-----.....
'JTON
I LERIES"
ID
.4.0
.\LITO
!lOv ES"
,u
).0
~!
~II
I I
f1-~ i
~', I
..
- --.;;.
-l~1
- '---==
-
,-
- ..
LOCATION IvlAP
MEADOWS 300
~r-"--
')/
~I
"
'.
_tlJr.D~\J?,Q f!.[)^1">
~.IV ..0.1). CYrlVtU. ~- IS
..-
-:::::
C3
NIC
"1'"
PUC
R1A
e
~
~
':::
.~
"C
....
PUD
LUI: 4.10
'KNOLLWOOC
GROVEII'
.~ I
?-/1I
~, "". n, D. -
~~.~~!_-~ f
.~~'m
~ ~'l- ~
~ffit ' I .:.
"I\.~~I
.
111l~~
I'lO:
=
mil
111,1
=
~
'-'
I~'
'~
1-=11-' r
I -Ie:, J '~:rn-=u.:a
I
~~~WtU,~J~i~UJM~l!~
~~! .r'''/(' t:':\ ~~~~
ll- ~ ~:rfi-r0.:"<~' zX~~'-'-:l
~ T lu;lcll~:;:" .A ~,'~'lJ I
r.-.- .~.%.1~ ""~''''''i-''. -!..; -:...-' I
.. l;:r..~~J '~'f':' , ).J"~~~".""rl'lj. \' ,
I . I" j. I f.. I ,. j 'I 1 1=
GLEN 2" ~
LU114.0 I
.:s.
: l
1./
-
t:~
~
.. CITRUS
PUD
:-'7
-:"
-
'\1 ~
~ ~
!t'l I.-
~~
m~
R1AA
II
'" ...,'"
11..
(
..
~
/
I
,..- ... i1:
TTI:M ill ')
-CJ I
cal
U~G I
... : I
;;; ~ I II: =:
~.
.~L.-~' . "-, O. 1/8
~L r=; JIIII 'I
r;::a: ~
;::a:
I
.....;:".
I .
: .
P"~
. ,
..
;.
I;'
~
-~
'-
C.IL
H
......
(~F.'
-c"-="",,. -_1
. ~ - fj
n
n
NIC
c
.
/-
-I
f
w.
'h., \~~~'l1!~'
~'~.~')-~ I
~,~~~-,
MllE"SP ~
/
_ OIl... 0 It ItO" D ..- ... oJo ~------ -
~--~~.--.- ~~~~- -
_~____---= ,_ _-c--:-----:--
~"'= ,. ,"-=~""," =-...=< ~ ---= -=-=-
\
II \ \ ~\'l~
~ 1 \ . \ !'\~~
\:1 \ .,;.:P... \ -.'!. .!\\ ..... i:~
~ 1 \ "". . ..... Jl~' · I . lO_
t I" \ "'" \ H' > ...~~
n i: li:l~:)o \ \ - '" ~~~
o _ \ ,~ _ ---.. .-1;~"
z 1 \ ~;/~" // I~ u~~
~ \ i,," ". ,,/" ~~
Q .\ \ \ ./ ':1
I " \ ':!
'" I ,\ j/ ' ...!\\ ~~
m \~Jpp....--::......-,,\ (\ } 'l..;~ 0 '4"
II' ~.L " ~"'.~""I % I r
... i jI_ ' ~ ~",' i (l.rt;: . '!" ~:
.u"t ' !' -
\ ~\II~ ?----- . J;r- \
, ~. ,-~' , ->
!~I . '-~" l~
, 1"- -' '" \
\ I" ." l "- _/ ...:. ~ -... ", i
:~~~O ~---'-'Y }~
I \j "Ill .~) (') (,1 ~-l
1 f.e ./ /) ~ ~ 1
I ,~. \ ~
I __ ___ _-=---:-' -'-;0;--
_ __' .!-J!!.~J\:- '.J.~, . _".tl :c ':-'- =~=-~-
.1 I .- - - i~---~ ,-~~""~~ '"
o~ '44.0"
."
':10
,0 >
'" ;:. ." r" \
o > 0 < ,: I' . :> y' ~'"
-< '" '" !" \ II I ( /' ~ ,c . , .
~~: 1:; I \"'( ~ \
':! ~ ~ . :. ,____ 1 i/i -~i 0'
". 0 - ' - ........ ..... / .I . ~
~ c: 'i.: .~~./ 'M~ ^ 1=, i
'!- ::; 0 I J Q ~ ,r p'" ..< "
- I .. ~>. :-)',
... ." _ 'ts~;.C- . · %
% ~ $ ~~l: \ ' .. (t~I~Y~:' .......- ...
C' "" ,~.' t
,..,~~., I ".... '
, I .. · ·
I!! ~ '!--ofT.... \... I i...Q i
~ \~ ~ : ;ii~';' 'X ,
\1 \ t~ t\~ '., I~.'
~ ~, r.\ \1
, ~ JL~:.
jlI e ~-' ·
\~ ~ ~\tI V '_~'L U J( 0
" c: -:
...r<1I
i~l~.
~ ~ ~~
%
~
~
- '1'
o --J'
-n en
--'
:c ~~~
~~~
~rn "5-..........
i\~
ca
s:~ \~
-0')> ~'d
~o ~\ -
~~ ~\
~ ~
...1J\ ~
rn ~
"'c.,.) ...
'3
0
0
-. ...'"
'i:; ~"1' rn
;r:.
~
all.l4'
"
'\'~\ eiPP=~
rt1\\\\\ ~
\ \~~,
. ~ ~ l
\ "
~ ~e~~~~ ~
........ c>> ~ - '"
~\~~q~O~ ~
... _ .0,.0 ;a:.. c>> c,) "
o
~ J
~r-) s--
-
ao"D'9
~
.
.
.' .
.
. ]" {
PI
~
...0
:s
CD
~
:-l~P"';::~
c,.):.._Ult-:)CID
- -.
.
.:no~ Po
Q ,-'"
," _ " ~CD
~, .!"'.
,.. .... ,....
_ ::r ?,
r; 00
CD
-
~-
"G.."O.
."", "....,
.......
,
Jc---
\
.,.....
......
..
.
.
~..
.'"
..::0
~"
.
.-
.1
.-
o!:
.ft
.....
..
CoD
tn
tn
CoD
~
';
I.>
o
~
II'
"
..
.
.
..
.' "'"
..::0
~~
:"'"
.
.
.r-
~ .
..
..
~-!~
.....
:':'i
"I.
~.l
, ,
~
?..C
...~
..tn
~4
;!...
.eM
"
... c,r.
o..~.. ..
...
~
~
~
i
!lJ.
\
.....
.::0
~~
:...
.. .
.~
~ .
...
..
.. ...
:;.:..
~'"
.btl
1It"'~
..
...
CoD
tn
tn
CoD
~
~
"'"
~
~
QI
("O"_"At""\')
. otO t8"8''''
ttt. ,t'
t=' ....-- --
\
\
."", "....,.
~t..\ .i'r~\
. i1 :111
lllil~%%
%%%'~i"
t~. ~~,'\
lS\ ~\!.~
i\i ~;-,
~.. ~i~\
~ ;.~
e ~~
'?"
'" '"
.,,,. ...,,"0.... .....",,' ,,0. .'
....-....-
100,.33'
..
.
.
..
"'"
.::0
:",
.(\
:"'"
S 02038'211''14
..
.-
..
..
.
.."
o .
,.
i
~
..
:
:.
..
CIa
ci
..
eft
...
..
..
..
QI
~
Clt
!1tf:
ii'
...~:.
'ft
",
;::.~
iDi~
.,~
. N
.
':
",:11'"
::.:;'0
::-.
0'" CoD
~~~
,0
..
-------------/ -
I.I..a.'
,
..
$
..
\
:0':.
~.
\ ~
. .
...
. '
. ..
\~
$
~
-
868.90'
..
ft
,.
.
..
.
..
~
-.-
11:.
.~
~"l
%~
oW
:it \.-.
:~
\~
:c
"'~
If>
~.41!
~
:c
p
z.
C>
1ft
s
~
,
.t'
.- ..
i~
I>
...
1ft
...'"
. ell
!""'"
:~
..~
,
-
CoD
:z:
1ft
tn
"'"
..
o
'"
V'
,J ..
:.
. ,t. ::
::
:;
..
.9
..
, :1 li
;; a ~ I
:i III
~iiil
;1. n I
I!:! n I
1 I~; U I
i ~j Jill
~:i~!'
~:: t
:j Ii
'. I
:.
,.
.. '
.j ~ J
~
f .
~
". ~2t.
. '
~n
HI
=~~~Ia ~8~~'f.a ~~a~~~Sla ~2~~~~la
:i :t :l ~ r~ ~ ~:J :I ~ 1:1 ~!:J ~ ~ :!~;s l:l =:l:l ~ ~ ~ I ~
I~~l -'i ,. ...i.'. ~~l~~~
~"~" NHHN"N MM~~~~~ __._..
~nj!ll !ll ~51B 115ii!IIA ~B~I~~I!
s=~~ 1'1111 111111. _1.111
j!~A ~!~~JA If!I"! t2!ft.
lill lif' i~ ffflffl Ifllf.
_j_m.. i ~~I..n. I m..M~~ ~
~ ~SO~ N~ ~~M~ 'N"~.~~
1 1~11 ~: 11~1 ~11111
~ ~~~s ~~ ~~~~ =~~~~~ ~
il I
:: I
:: --..
:, N..~
:. ., " ., .,
,-
.. ~~:i~
,.
,.
:. ...
..
..
:: ih~
,.
..
::
:.
..
,.
,.
:1
:: I . I I I
,. IHU
.-
..
..
;.
.. jlJI
,.
,.
::
..
11 ~.-
:. i~nJ
,.
,.
.. I
..
..
.. !IJIJ
~ :.
; ..
,.
"
,.
..
..
:: ' I
:;
:.
.. ~ ...
. ;.;1 11 ~~JJu
· ~U IJ JI~
I.~!~JI i~HH
.h.j'
'11'j.! jJj;!!
!i~id - JjJ~3h
~UUf
M l~lrl
-
.-; I J
~1 lji ! I h .. ;~~J
j!l~JJ.~
J iuU
~J !u HuH
~
7.jjX~1 U~CLUO'l.U.(l'la. ..."'I1r1r.fHIJ"..
.. 1^.t\1 L f't.I "."J.e , ^"t\, la"^^"~I~' VIII I""u.'l"'I. u...."
r
Ave. and S.E. 19th Ave. wi I I be borne by the developers 01 the properties
which abut this street.
r
[
3.5.8.12. Construction of Roads--bv Oevelooers (new section)
[
The 101 lowing roads should be constructed by developers and at
the expense 01 developers. wherever possible:
~3.5.8.12.1. Connect Meadows Blvd. to Lawrence Road at two
locations. The two rlghts-ot-way which presently extend west from
Meadows Blvd. (In the Meadows 300 P.U.D.) should be extended through to
Lawrence Road as public roads. Construction of these roads Is desirable
In order to more 1ully Integrate 1uture developments Into the City.
These roads should be constructed by the developers of the properties
which I Ie to the west of the Meadows development.
[
[
[
3.5.8.12.2. Construct Knuth Road as a cOllector. from Old
Boynton Road to ~oolbrlght Road. Construction of Knuth Road wi II serve
to rei leve congestion on Congress Avenue and wll I provide access to the
property which lies along the western City limit. between Boynton Beach
Boulevard and ~oolbright Road. Knuth Road should be built as an urban
col lector In a minimum 60 foot right-ot-way. between Old Boynton Road and
the L-25 Canal, and an BO-f~ot right-Of-way between th L-25 canal and
~oolbrlght Road. The costs of acquiring the right-Of-way and
construction of the road should be borne by the developer. of the parcels
which I Ie along this corrldor~
,
[
[
[
3.5.8.12.3. Construct S.~. Congress Blvd. from Congress Avenue
to the future Knuth Road corridor, as a public street.
[
[
3.5.8.12.4. The recommendation that S.W. 8th Street be provided
as a col lector road between ~oolbright Road and West Ocean Orlve has been
deleted. since these this road would cross an area which Is the subject
Of a pending lawsuit.
[
[
3.5.8.12.5. The recommendation that a publ Ie collector road and
railroad crossing be provided to eerve the Industrial property ea.t of
the Seaboard Airline Railroad. between Boynton Beach loulevaro and
WOOlbright Aoad ha. been deleted. .Ince thl. road would cro.. an .re.
which Is the subject of a pending lawsuit.
3.5.8.12.6. Construct the fol lowing Streets In the northeastern
portion of the City: N.E. 4th Street from N.E. 16th Ave. to N.E. 20th
Ave.. N.E. 17 Ave. to N.E. 4th Street.
[
;1~
". ::j
197
[
.!
!
[
l
3.5.8.12.7. Construct S.~. 2nd Street 1rom S.W. 31st Ave to S.W.
34th Ave.
3.5.8.12.8. Widen the right-of-way and pavement on the etreet
which runs along the eBst elde 01 the new Post 0111ce. where thle etreet
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-484
Agenda Memorandum for
september 5, 1995 city Commission Meetinq
TO: Carrie Parker
city Manager
ft1I=.rr
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: August 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves PUD - MPMD 95-006
Revise access points and unit type (replace multi-family
with single-family detached units) and reduce lot size
and front, side and rear setbacks (3rd review)
NATURE OF REOUEST
Kilday and Associates, agent for Meadows Groves, Inc. and R.
Bradford Arnold, Trustee, is requesting to modify the Knollwood
Groves master plan. The 111.82 acre project, proposed for a total
of 424 single-family detached, zero,lot line and "Z" lot units, is
zoned PUD and located on the east side of Lawrence Road,
approximately 1,300 feet south of Hypoluxo Road (see Exhibit "A" -
location map). The original proposed revisions, plus changes
proposed by the applicant in response to the conditions by the
Commission (for determination of non-substantial change) are as
follows (see Exhibit "B" - letter of request and proposed current
revised master plan):
1. Omit a road onto Hypoluxo Road from which two project
entrances were planned to connect and replace it with a
project entrance onto Lawrence Road.
2. Change the type of units and lot size from 150 single-
family detached units on 6,000 square foot lots and 389
multi-family units to 267 zero lot line units on 5,000
square foot lots and 157 "Z" lot line units on 4,500
square foot lots; a reduction in the total number of
units from 539 to 424 (115).
3. Reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet for "Z" lot
units and to 50 feet for zero lot line units.
4. Reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet.
5. Reduce the side setback on interior lots from 15 feet to
10 feet.
6. Reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots
that do not back to one another.
7. Delete the day care center use (southeast portion of the
project) and replace with a lake.
BACKGROUND
At the August 15, 1995 City Commission meeting the request for a
master plan modification for the Nautica sound project was tabled
to the september 5, 1995 City Commission meeting. The request was
tabled to give the applicant the opportunity to modify the master
plan to the degree that the commission would make a finding of
non-substantial change with regards to the proposed modification as
it relate. to the current approved Kno1lwood Groves master plan
(Exhibit "C"). Following the review of the master plan
modification presented to the Commission on August 15, 1995
(Exhibit "0"), the commission encouraged the applicant to increase
the square foot area of at least 99 "z" lots.
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
Exhibit "B" depicts the current revised master plan into which the
applicant has incorporated changes that they request be deemed as
non-substantial. Included with Exhibit "B" 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 r~ad~. As evident by viewing
the previous proposed master plan (Exhibit "0") and the
current proposed master plan (Exhibit "B"), significant
changes have taken place in the north portion of the
project including road configuration, type, size and
layout of lots. A total of ten (10) lots were omitted
from the project. It is difficult to determine whether
the 99 "Z" lots have increased in size as recommended by
the Commission considering the areas of each lot are not
specified on the plan.
It should be noted that the tabular data indicates that
the minimum lot size for "Z" lots has increased from
4,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet; however, the lot
frontage remains 40 feet. Therefore, there is not
sufficient information to verify that the 13 "Z" lots
that 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 fQot."Z" lots, the plan should specify the
total area within each of the proposed 159 "Z" lots.
2. With respect to staff's review of the new plans regarding
original comments that would create a significant impact
on the layout of the project and general review comments,
the following is offered (see Exhibit "E" staff
com~ents):
Engineering - Increase the width of the proposed Meadows
Boulevard from 60 feet wide to 80 feet wide. The applicant
revised the lot layout along the north side of the proposed
right-of-way to provide 80 feet of right-of-way width.
Add! tional comments are set forth in Engineering Division
Memorandums 95-332, 95-295 and 95-260.
Utilities - Relocate the proposed lift station to better serve
future developments adjacent to the proposed project and omit
deadend utility lines in cul-de-sacs. This concern has been
addressed by the omission of several cul-de-sacs as a result
of the new loop road system and the plans show a lift station
site acceptable to the Utilities Department.
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica sound
The letter from the applicant indicated that the developer and
the city's utilities Department have agreed on the location
and size of the proposed lift station shown on the current
revised plan (based on utility drawings not included with the
submittal, but submitted to and veiwed by the utility
Department) . At this time the utility Department has no
objection to the plan.
Fire Department - Provide an ingress/egress on Hypoluxo Road
and 15 foot separation between buildings. The applicant has
not addressed these issues (see revised Fire Prevention
Memorandum No. 95-316).
Police Department - Provide access to the site from Hypoluxo
Road and install a north bound right turn lane into the site
on Lawrence Road. These comments have been disregarded (see
Police Department Memorandum #0164).
Planning Department - Provide an access to the project on
Hypoluxo Road, show code required 40 foot setback along the
east property line of the projec,t, ',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.
Addi tional comments are set forth in Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-485.
Please note the revisions that led staff to recommend the proposed
modifications be considered a substantial change are clearly
identified in the recommendation on page 7 of this memorandum.
The following text is from the previous staff report (Planning and
zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-419) revised with data from the
proposed plan, and is provided for your reference.
On october 17, 1989 the city commission approved on second reading
Ordinance No. 89-36 rezoning the subject property from AG
(Agriculture) and R-IAAA. (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
multi-family and single-family pods, changing the single-family pod
to zero-lot-line units and establishing the following building and
site regUlations for the zero-lot-line, single-family units: lot
frontage SO 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 ahd on March 12,' 1991, the
planning and Zoning Board approved this master plan modification,
subject to staff comments. This master plan modification is
provided in Exhibit "e" 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 AprilS, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. R94-39
which entered Meadows Groves, Inc., f.k.a. Knollwood Groves, into
an agreement to pay the City the sum of one hundred eight thousand
five hundred fifteen dollars ($108,515) to be applied to the design
and construction of the Hiner 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
Page 4
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica Sound
the city supported the request of Knollwood Grov.. for road/traffic
impact fee credits to Palm Beach county. This resolution agreed to
recognize this payment of fees as commencement of the development,
thereby vesting the 1991 PUD master plan.
On August 2, 1994, the city Commission adopted Resolution No. R94-
106 accepting conveyance of the property required of the PUD for
public recreation purposes. The 5.0 acre park site is located in
the southeast corner of the project. The site is adjacent to an
existing, undeveloped 4.02 acre public park site to which it will
be combined to meet the recreation level of service needs of the
neighborhood planning area that the PUD will impact.
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of
development regulations states that chao;es
developments shall be processed as follows:
the
in
City'S
planned
land
unit
Section 12. Changes in plans.
IIchanges in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD may
be permitted by the Planning and ~oni,ng 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.1I
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.
IIA Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It
is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development,
creative. design, improved: living environment, orderly and
economical development in the City, and the protection of
adj acent and existing and future City development. The
district is suitable for development, redevelopment and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the City.
Regulations for Planned Unit Developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations and
other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they
are intended to control development on a lot-by-Iot basis. In
view of the substantial public advantages of planned unit
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
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 clo..ly res.mbl.. 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 proj ect entrances were planned. Also planned was one
entrance onto "Meadows Boulevard", a public collector which is
to be extended by the developer to connect to Lawrence Road
(currently a two lane road which is on the county's five year
plan for widening to four lanes). Because of the desire to
have a gated community, costs of which are a function of total
entrances, and to avoid the cost of the canal crossing, the
applicant proposes a new entrance onto Lawrence Road and one
onto the extension of "Meadows Boulevard" which will link to
Lawrence Road.
This change concentrates project traffic onto Lawrence Road,
and compounds the traffic problem associated with Lawrence
Road as recently expressed by local residents in connection
with the anticipated addition of those 1,680 approved, and
partially constructed units on Lawrence Road. In response to
this identified need, the County added the widening of this
segment of Lawrence Road to the County's five year plan. From
a design standpoint" i.t 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
emerqencies. 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
leu-98 vehicles on narrow streets and maneuver emergency
equipment within tight openings between bUildings.
page 6
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica sound
Also, an increasing problem with small lots with narrow
frontages and shallow front building setbacks, is parking.
Dri veways on these lots are not deep or long enough to
accommodate more than one, in some cases two personal
vehicles, not to mention guest vehicles. In addition, most
families have at least two vehicles, so vehicles are parked
continually within the street, which causes a reduction in
road width, and within swales or over sidewalks which is
unsightly and causes costly damage to both.
The area of the city over the past five to ten years that has
seen the most PUD approvals is the Lawrence Road corridor.
This area haa 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 ~as discussed to begin to
diversify the types of new homes that are being built.
Regarding the requests to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to
40 feet and 50 feet for the "Z" lots and Zero lots, reduce the
front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet, reduce the side setback
on interior lots from 15 feet to 10 feet and reduce the rear
setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots that do not back to
one another, staff recommends that the 60 foot lot width
remain in connection with the 6,000 square foot lot area.
Therefore, the reduction in front, side and rear yard setbacks
will not be needed based on the lot size.
3. staff has no objection to omitting the day care center site
and replacing it with a lake.
4. Utility design - Among the changes not specifically outlined
in the applicant's request is a significant alteration in
utility system design. As detailed in the utilities
Department comments, utility systems in 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 to and veiwed by the utility
Department). The several dead-end water mains proposed in the
cul-de-sacs can be looped, but may result in the loss of a few
lots. Lastly, it is important to note that lot size drives
the type of utility design. The Utility Department notes that
even if looping of the utility system is agreed to, the small
lot size and narrow lots lend to an inefficient design of
double-barrelling piping in CUl-de-sacs, which also will cost
the City more money to maintain as compared to other projects
with the same density.
Page 7
Memorandum No. 95-484
Nautica sound
As evident from comparing the previous plans with the current
revised 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 "substantial".
From the above analysis, the basis for this recommendation is that
(a) the relocation of one of the entrances from Hypoluxo Road to
Lawrence Road causes additional trips to be placed on-Lawrence Road
and compromises public safety (better response times, and an
alternate emergency route are achieved if the Hypoluxo Road
connection was not omitted), (b) the reduction in lot width and
lot area intensifies the project from the standpoint of efficiency
of land area, causing the potential for parking problems and
overall congestion, (c) the change in unit type/lot size is
contrary to the recent Commission consens~s to attract a variety of
housing choices which is known to hav~ a direct link to economic
development potential and (d) the applicant has not addressed the
40 foot setback that is required along the east property line where
the subject property abuts the mUlti-family project to the east,
which could cause a significant change in the lot layout presented
at this time.
If this request is determined to not be a substantial change, it is
recommended that approval be granted subject to the applicable,
attached staff comments in Exhibit "E" - Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-485, Engineering Division Memorandum
Nos. 95-332, 95-295 and 95-260, Fire Prevention Memorandum No. 95-
316, Police Department Memorandum #0164, Building Division
Memorandum No. 95-324.
It should be noted that this recent submittal excluded 7 of the 8
drawings (elements) required for review of a Master Plan
Modification, and particularly, to enable review of the affects on
the master plan of all proposed changes.
TJH:meh
Attachments
xc: Central File
.: NAUTICAl. DOC
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-486
FROM:
Carrie Parker I.
City Manager e ~.~
~Pj)p.-
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoni ~ irector
TO:
DATE:
August 31, 1995
SUBJECT:
Copies of Development Plans of Current Projects
Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the
September 5, 1995 City Commission Meeting
Please find attached five (5)
current development projects:
sets of plans for the following
Master Plan Modification -
Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood
Groves (File No. MPMD 95-006)
Note:
Please return the plans/documents to the Planning and
Zoning Department following the meeting.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
TJH:bme
Attachments
a:CCPlan..815/P&D
/-
--
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-485
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning, ~lrector
~:fdHa-
Michael E. Haag .
Zoning and Site 'nistrator
TO:
DATE:
August 31, 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 from 150 single-family detached units on
6,000 square foot lots and 389 multi-family units to 267 zero-
lot-line units on 5,000 square foot lots and 157 "z" lot-line
units on 4,500 square foot lots, and reduce the front setback
front 20 feet to lS 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)
1. Show and identify the appropriate setback dimension at the rear of
all lots along the east and northwe~t property lines. Note:
setback for residential buildings is the distance, measured
perpendicular, from the property 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, data and charts accordingly.
3. Change the front building setback from the proposed twenty (20)
feet at the garage and fifteen (15) feet at the building to twenty
(20) feet for both garage and building for all lots. Establish the
rear bUilding setback for all double frontage lots as twenty (20)
feet. Maintain proposed fifteen (15) foot rear building setback on
all back to back lots and maintain proposed ten (10) foot rear
building setback for all lots that abut a lake maintenance
easement, common ground or recreation tract. Amend all plans,
data and charts accordingly.
RECREA nON & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-400
,: :..- !r:'I~.;"I~ 0 W rn ~I~-
, ." \" _._-_._~
. I 6
.' \t i
. I J' , /. .., ~
\., -
I
jiUi'NrTiNG AND
._,._,:~)~j!~G DEPT.
A..-d1iL
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
John Wildner, Parlcs Superintendent ~ ~ r'" J&J
Nautica Sound
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
August 31, 1995
There are no comments. The project should continue in the normal review process.
JW:ad
Q..I;t8'.U.t.~~;.
s~uaw1.I~~~:ni
awq:H.r.r.
'aw ~~~~uo~ as~ald 'a~U~~slSS~ ~a1.I~~nl 10 aq U~~ I 11
'OU1~aaw a1.I~ OU1MOII01 ~uaw~~~daa OU1UoZ
pue OU1UU~ld a1.I:+ o~ s~uawn~op/sueld a1.I~ u.1n=l.a.1 as~e"[d
:a~ON
(900-S6 aWdW 'ON alla) saAo~~
pOOMt"[OU~ 'e'~'J punos ~~l~n~N
- uO~~~~11~poW U~ld .1e:+s~w
6u~MOIIOl aq:+ .101 sueld 10 s:+as
:s~~a~o.1d :+uaWdOtaAap :+ua.1~n~
(5) aAl1 paq::>~~~~ PUll aseald
ou~~aaw uo~ss~wwo~ A:+l~ S66t 'S .1eqwe~das
aq~ ~~ Uo~ss~wWO~ A~~~ aq:+ Aq Ma~Aa~ ~Ol pelnpeq::>s
s~~a~o.1d ~ua.1.1n~ 10 sU~ld ~uaWdOtaAaa 10 saldo~
:J.~:3:.rans
566t JtE ~sn6nv
::3:J.va
.10~~e.1L,'~'UOZ pu~ oU~UU~td
~~ uepAaH '.r l~qw~.r.
-zJ V,.!
_,~~ ~ .1eoeu~w A:+l~
t .\' .1a~.1~d al.1.1e~
:Ho~a
:0.1
98t-56 'ON HnaNV~OH:3:H
.r.N:3:H.L~Vd:3:a ~NINOZ aNV ~N1NNV~d
-..---~
-----
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTHENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-419
Agenda Memorandum for
August 15, 1995 city Commission Meeting
TO: carrie Parker
city Managl:r
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden T9-.J.
Planning and Zoning Director
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
with single-family detached units) and reduce lot size
and front, side and rear setbacks
NATURE OF REQUEST
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 434 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 requested changes are as follows (see Exhibit
"B" - letter of request and proposed 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 246 zero lot line units on 5,000
squal-e foot lots and 188 "Z" lot line units on 4,000
square foot lots; a reduction in the total number of
units from 539 to 434.
3. Reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet for "Z" lot
units and to 50 feet for zero lot line units.
4. Reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet.
5. Reduce the side setback on interior lots from 15 feet to
10 feet.
6. Reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 10 feet on lots
that do not back to one another.
7. Delete the day care center use (southeast portion of the
project) and replace with a lake.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 1989 the City Commission approved on second reading
Ordinance No. 89-36 rezoning the subject property from AG
(Agriculture) and R-IAAA (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 "C".
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- famil y pods, changing the single- family pod
to zero-lot-line units and establishing the follOWing bUilding and
s 1 te regul ations fOl' the zel'o-10t-11ne, s 1ng1e- family units: lot
f~ontage ~o feet, front setback 20 feet (on priva~e streets), rear
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-419
August 15, 1995 city
Commission Meeting
Nautica Sound
economical development
adjacent 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
view of the substantial public advantages of planned unit
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
coordinated units.
Section 9. Internal PUD standards.
B. INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE. Within the boundaries of the
PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards shall be
required; provided, however, that PUD 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."
With respect to the changes requested, the following evaluation is
provided:
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 "D", proj ect 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 proj ect entrances were planned. Also planned was one
entrance onto "Meadows Boulevard", a public collector which is
to be extended by the developer to connect to Lawrence Road
(currently a two lane road which is on the county's five year
plan for widening to four lanes). Because of the desire to
have a gated community which costs more with a greater number
of entrances to secure 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 expressed by residents along
Lawrence Road due to the anticipated addition of 1,680 units
under construction simultaneously on Lawrence Road. As a
result of public comment and city support, the county added
the widening of Lawrence Road on to the county's five year
plan. Upon the county's review of the traffic statement (see
Exhibit "E" - letter dated August 10, 1995 fl-om Dan Weisberg),
they have indicated that the applicant t s analysis is not
acceptable to address the timing of the PUD (an ul timate
build-out of the year 2000) and the delay in widening of
Lawrence Road to fiscal year 1997/98. Palm Beach County
states that construction phasing of the PUD may be necessary
due to the redistribution of traffic off of Hypoluxo Road,
however the applicant must revise his analysis to properly
address the annual growth rate of the traffic on Lawrence Road
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-419
August 15, 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 ($108,515) to be applied to the design
and 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
impact fee credits to Palm Beach County. This resolution agreed to
recognize this payment of fees as commencement of the development,
thereby vesting the 1991 PUD master plan.
On August 2, 1994, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. R94-
106 accepting conveyance of the property required of the PUD for
public recreation purposes. The 5.0 acre park site is located in
the southeast corner of the project. The site is adjacent to an
existing, undeveloped 4.02 acre public park site to which it will
be combined to meet the recreation level of service needs of the
neighborhood planning area that the PUD will impact.
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of
development 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. II
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD
development standards, and the intent and purpose of planned unit
developments as stated in the follOWing sections of Chapter 2.5 of
the city's land development regulations:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It
is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious variety in phYSical development,
creative design, improved living environment, orderly and
Page 4
Memorandum No. 95-419
August 15, 1995 city
Commission Meeting
Nautica Sound
in order to accurately assess the need for phasing. Palm
Beach County further notes that with a project of this size,
it is desirable from an engineering design standpoint that
where there is the ability for access on two major
thoroughfares, rather than just the one they are using, that
both 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
for emergencies. It also eliminates an opportunity to provide
a road system that could provide an alternate means in the
event of a major emergency at the intersection of Lawrence
Road and Hypoluxo Road, which has happened in the past.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the Hypoluxo Road
connection no 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 increase lot coverages (decreased
permeabili ty), buil t closer and closer to property 1 ines.
These small lots with narrow building separations have posed
ever-changing problems for emergency personnel who must park
large vehicles on narrow streets and maneuver emergency
equipment within tight openings between buildings. 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 cars, not to mention
guests. In addition, most families have at least two
vehicles, so vehicles are parked continually within the
street, blocking passage of vehicles, and within swales or
over sidewalks, causing unsightly, costly damage to both.
The area of the city over the past five to ten years that has
seen the most pun approvals is the area of Lawrence Road.
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
that spot the area. This issue was discussed at a recent
Commission workshop at which the Commission recognized the
link that housing choices has on economic development
opportunities. At that rneetinq, 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 request 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 alteratioll in the
utility syatem design. As detailed in the Utilities
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,
KctVlj t 1 I Jtl!~tiMt1---
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:
L
1990 Census of Population and Housing
040 Florida
050 Palm Beach County
140 Tract 58.03
Total population..............................................
-
SEX
Male.
Female. .
AGE
Under 5 years..
5 to 17 years..
18 to 20 years.
21 to 24 years.
25 to 44 years..
45 to 54 years..
55 to 59 years.
60 to 64 years.
65 to 74 years...
75 to 84 years...
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 householdel'.
Nonfamily households..............
Percent of total households..
Householder living alone.......
Householder 65 years and over..
Persons living in households.
Persons per household........
GROUP QUARTERS
Persons living in group quart0rs...
Institutionalized persons........
Other persons in group quarters.
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
Whit0.
Black. .
Percent of total population.
American 1l1dil1l1, Eskimo, or' Aleut.
Percent of total population..
Asian or Pacific Islander......
Percent of total population.
Olller race....................
Hispanic origin (of
Percent of total
. . t..
. . . . .
, .
any race).
population.
L,
,
'i
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 Populat. .1 an......ousing
040 Florida
160 Boynton Beach city
Total population..............................................
SEX
Hal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
'....1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGE
Under 5 years.......................... I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 to 17 years........................ I . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18 to 20 years...................................................
21 'to 24 years...................................................
25 to 44 years..............................................,....
45 to 54 years...................................................
55 t.o 59 years....................................................
60 to 64 year....................................................
65 to. 74 years...................................................
15 to 84 years...................................................
85 years and over................................................
Hedian ase.................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under 18 years................................................ . . . . . .
Percent of total population......................................
65 years and over............. ........... ... .. ... ........ ... .. .......
Percent of total population......................................
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPB
Total households....................................................
'lUIIily households (families).....................................
Harried-couple f8Jllilies.......................................
Percent of total households................................
Other f8Jllily, .ale householder................................
Other family. fe.ale householder..............................
Monfaally households.............................................
Percent of total households................................
Householder living alone......................................
Householder 65 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Persons living in households.....................................
Persons per household.......................................... . .
GROUP QUARTERS
Persons living 1n sroup quarters.................................
Insti~utionalized persons.....................................
Other person. in group quart.rs...............................
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
~
Whit....................................... .......................
Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percent of tot.al population................................. I .
Merican Indian, Bskimo, or Aleut................................
Percent of total population...................................
Aaian or Pacific Islander. I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percent of total population...................................
Other race.........................................................
Hispanic origin (of any race)................................... .
Percent of total population...................................
Pase 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
42.7
8,405
18.2
13,997
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 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" 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;
1. Other uses of a nature similar to those listed, 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 pun 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 U.D.
are permitted without the necessity of being specified at
the time of zoning to P.U.D. (Ord. No. 89-45, ~ 4, 12-5-89)
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;
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. 11 Neighborhood 11 comrnercial uses which are determined 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 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 PUD development.
J. Permitted uses for a PUD District shall be specified in
the application for zoning of land to PUD 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 PUD.
" ' \ ~
t\~\ \i\ t, \, ,\; ,i. ',~\~l, Ii
11'\ '.l ~ i~ ,,1\ 'i', '.
tl_---~LL.--,.,111--il\'---LL --- '
r:~~/;fJ~~~~:\:-lt~'\~ ~ ~r;~ \\\\~
~ \ I ~:. ~~r::., \.~_.) _f'_- \ \ \\~~' I\il \ 1 \\~'l'
Ilt \' a I ~ ". rr ~\ \ I V' ,l\laa
~~ . ~ ~I~!"""~) ".,~L~J;\;':,' .. . . j ,,~f '" \ \ a'\
~' \ . ," 1iI" ' _' ,....:.: --': " ' ;;; " · ", Ii 1
I' \ · ," i ~ ~ ;'r:l;r:' ;"; '; ';1;' ~'1f":' ~ ~,\\ ill: \
~. " ::: .::: .-------t--r-----j. 'A~ "'". '.\~'\i
. \ ~ "'i-- ,A 1 l' <"V'G". ,. ..X, '~\~'
.1' , ,....:l-=- ,\ .' 6 \S......, \\ ~ .',\ 0- j,~ ~ ~1
_ \'\ ':: I :\ I '- _ _"., \I~ \ ......... \\ ,'\\\\ :- j,'":' . a I
~ ,.. , 1 1 . .. '''''- ,\ " ~ 1'1
~\\. ""'., " " 1 -" ....-,.~V"' · 1\ ,\l ,~,
, ,':.i, ~ ' :; __ ~" \ \\ 0 I' \ ,~l \';
i . . ____,iI . 'c, '" " , ' ' , ,~ , l L ,11 il\
~N \ ' ' .., ~ "" · ' -- · ,,,\,.. . 'I d
\1 .. ,I"" i'" ... .\. " -- !1!l'" · \ " ·
\\~~,\l\ \ \ : :;, \;'\; ;", .: ~ \ "~.: -~~ i:;;" .,\1 \ \1\1 11" \~ II
I!' .,' ~ ", -;::/ "t'~" ';', . \ ,\";: : \\ ~ I~.\ 1\ \\I:'! I\. a If'
I \ . :.... ~ ~ ~. '. ....,.,\,,:; , W. jI I \ ft. ': t.\' \ r 1'1 W\\I" ~:'
\ \ '. : ;;. ::' __j_~_ .~: ~ r: 1\1" \~\n,~1 \\ \\\t\ \\~ \~l \~t ~\t \\ \ 1\
, . , , " . " ' . '1' . __", . I'Ji" l II ~ j '" \1 . '\ ~, lJ' \ \ ~"l'"
l\ \ , · ::.'"-",, ,,' , ,,' '''',~ .! - - -" ,......." :..~ Ii', ~ · ~ ~ J:- ~ ' : :.' \' \
", p~''=-=- _ :: ," ,.~: .....;." . I;' er-... ~r-'" -- - - --....
~\ d' I\\' ?F,"':: ::~_ _.~"?"' r:: :: ." ,,', . ,\: ' :' . 1:: ~ I ;-1- ~ - -I- -1-n- - r..:\.-- --1r~;"I' .
~\~" .\' ,I,' ."" .:'\.: _ I.;' ~ .:(.~. . .0 . . . or. ~ . 1- t ~. .
\~ \.:, *" ~\; .1 ' .,;':: .:~;::,'~," ", ~",..:-,", ,~:'" = ,1: ;rl;i: A: :\;1~ ;1'; ;>', :j:' \ ,\. \
~,' 1-ot.I" . '" '/0..1. \, lor' ,"'~ .,"""'~rtf'i .___' ..'_ ,"'---- --,' ,~'-' ,.-e:,- l!o\ '\ .1.' I
j ~ ~\\~ ~~._,.... I ::, 1"" hi';: ~, ,,;;,;--:; .,,1\ 1(-':'" . -n . ("'H'P"!"" V" " "", " \ _~I\l i \
11:'~'" .>~,.'" ",";,", t' J \\h~;''': "..-.H \~?,; ~ \" 'fla4'~p, .~. \J" -' · .~.~.\ '.~\'i~\~ ~\ \
;G . ",". ,:~,,' . ')."h ' i i 1-"""'- - ' ~ ,"\-- ... , ,-,.. i" , ' ,,\ \ '~\ \~\I~ ·
H\" . '/.,'....., ' ., "" .\~Z " "~~.' l.I '" I...' -.:r. ':1 ~< <," ,,':' M '!,,' ,I, ,,\ ' ,,\; ,
Ot' \I\f~~ . "'-'~ ":: 'I. '" ~"~ .:{ I ,g' i ~""71' , it._ I -. ""i\I' c; -.' -; ~"..:--I"""'" :< :. :>' , I '~' ,
\~' '. ~_ "",. , ' " ,0 * ' ..' I"" ..;' I-~- '>A 'W ,~' \..'
. ',= ,. ,..i.,;,,'" ," ,,:" , '> t. 11 ".l~' I '~"~:T~l~:'f ~.:"'. ~..~' -!':~: ~:rn \ ~~ \ 2,
...~ \ '" '~"",' '. ::" ,~,' \ ,/~/.' ," ','L, . . ,'. :: f+.\l':.' '" "~' ' ,.-", · .T,' ",.
'. ' ?, . ,_ . ,'. .'. ",;&;' ,:" ," . G'tJ."i;1{'; i+-\l' .. .. ' '.(" ',,: \., ..\ ~
~ \ l~~V:~ . ?;~";,:.-'}' // " ~- --Cr1~' L :' >t:j\\, ~ r:':l\\1~--";~', \.J, ~\~~~1
i~ 'c s- _ ~ <. ~_' ,,'''' \ \\,' '1 I ",. \ F.f'i"i'>' ' ",;' --.. ,..-1- .: \ ,~., \
~ ~~o.~~r "', .~ ~:\ ~~\ yo>; \i : ~" ::,:: :r'.-l~.. ~;\\ 1'~"'ii" --'; "..;. ','.: .1. ',. ,\\ ~ .
i; ~~n.Y~ '!! lfttj':', 'J. ~. ,.. :,::,1'!P.- tw\;~+IIV .f''''':C-~ ,:~.: ~'\\ ,~I"
~. \" a . '\\ ,..., p . · .. .' T · ,~:I:'''' ~ . , -,.
. ~ 9 .., ,r' .... .., ' ' .2.ll ,.:., ," \ ' -~ ...!...t:' r:r'" ' ,~ ~ ~,'~
~ \\ r. ~ o~~~ \ \, ~ .:: ~P.:: c_ __-----------'- "" \\\ ,; .,.. :~:-'" (l;;J..\iI:h-:'-..!., ", I~\' \,
. ,'1iI ~... . .,,::---, 1 \' , ',,1' - -- -- ," ... ... ,. .j ~ "
\ f\ '\Ill. ~~.';:. l \I f' "},'\ ,; ~; ,~ ,,~:l::;, ~ " ~: +%. \\+-~ \ \ " : : ;l;\t l~l~ ,: -;; :;:-.; lA' 1\"
~ oz &"," to \\'\ · I' 'I"
\n l 0 \l ~ : ' i .'\ , \ . 1i \0 ' · i'l i 1\ !I!!
6 I~ ~ ~~ '!t~ \ - -- - ~ ' i \'
o _, · \' t'
'__& ~ _~ \ 1
IIAfI'ftCA 80mID f,1l..A. \I."."..... (b.... ,.\1.D.
I
)
]
)
~
o
;
.,.
~
':D
"'0
~
i
.--
Ro,,"\on \Wach. "ond"
",..\~r ~,,(O P\e.o
\ii'1"
.~~\\\
~~
~ \1-
\\ l{'; ilV it!\'~"l
\\~m 1-\1111\\
,~~\\~\\ \ll\\l
\ ~\\\\~ \\\~\'
I \\~\~\ \~,~\\
! :~ 1'1 ~I\ I
,
Ill'''' " ....oc\O'..
\.."..e.'. Arc""...t."'."'"
~I~ ','IJ!f:' ,\0<.
...st po''''' B.o~tl. no,~dO
(.401\ 689-5$'-'1 .fOll:(,01
--
,., ,.. ,.. '" .. ~ OIl OIl ~ tt -6
.'_ .._ ~ .. ~ " e e \ h . .\
I . 0 - - \~" -' · -' ~ ,. .. q'
.. .' .~ ~ ~ t t ." ~ \ · 'i · ~ - - ~ t\ ' -'
J \\ ~\\ ;a ~;., \",0;\ :,\ ,\ ; \i ~ ~ 1\,
\\ \",\~\~ \~., ,'\ \,Y', '\\. ~ '\\
~\~ \\\t!- W\ ~'_n ~>\\ \~ -' ii \l l:'
~<:\ \~ \~;. \\\\ ls.J~iii\l\ i. . Ii i;\ · il '
,.., ,~ .il' , ~ . :h" .l - ,. i · -,--
i\~':. -.:" Hi ",t\" " . \\\ \~ - -, ,. -\ - l
.. ~.. Q '\t '1 .j, i ' ..00.' t t' 1 \ ~
~ \ \\ 0 \. \ \ ,\.' . \\ \ \ ti ,~i u-
~\ !! 0; '\ \ \1 \~ \ \? \ ~ \ 1 ~ l \\ ;; \ ~ ,,\
\ ~ l '\ ~ 1\ , ~ : ,- i \
11' L . ~ . \" , it\ I · \
'" ,;\~i \\'" \~\t :\~. \ \
\\. \ \'" ~\\\. '. ~\\ \ .
H\ \\ '" .~ \,,' \
" ., ,', . .
~,Q ?.. i'l\ Q
o ". -,' \
~ ~\
i!:.~
~" \
'!.
\
?
~ \ ~ ~ \ z.
~ t
. ....
- ~ "\ ';l 6
~ r- 0 C'
~ \~ ~~ \
~ ):;>
(j)
i\ \.1 .' <2
"" ! %
<13 .. b
\~ \~
., g 1)
1\ "i c.
\. i ~
~ 3 - ~;,
....... "i ~ ~- ~
is ..,~ .
~ "I' \~ b
lI\i . c.!,
"i \~ ~
...... ':. ~ t
.'"
..
, ~ 0
~ (j)
i ~ \
"
\ :\
1. g
~ \
~ ~
.. ~
\ 'g ..
- \
~. 0 ..
l. [
. fi ~ 5 ~~ll,it \ tl ~
_ . _ _ _ ,.-1'. )'.
. . . ,,1\\0 ,,0
I " .' . ~ ,\ ""~~ ," ~
_ ii' -..~ &\t\ "l~ \i ~~i~\: ~ \~
t t ~\;~ \ \ .\ \~. ~ nl \\i\ \\ ~'i :\'-~ \ ~~
~\ \\ \\'-, \1\\ \W\ ~~. \'\l l\i\ ~\~\ -; ~'-\\~\ · \~\
\\., \\, h\ Ili\ \\ li. y" \\\\ \l. To" \\\ \\
i\ \\ \,\~i\\ \~\\ \\\\\ ~\ \\~\ \\\\ ,\~ ! ~~ \\\ J~~
\~ h :\,1 \"l' i\~i\ \\ U.. ~l\t ~'1. ,~\ \ ,\ 'i\ 9.\~
_\ 1 \,t\ it' ,~\~\ 1\ \\.: '1\\ 'i. \ ~~ \- J.
t. \, \ \ \ \~\(\ \~1l' \ \ \\~\~\ I >-, .\ '
lO \ '\, l, i \\ \:I \ .1 'X'\ \ ~i. {\ 1
\ ' \ t \~\ '~h \~ \1\ \\ \ \~ ,\ \ i" .
\ \ oi,l' ~i.\\ Ii ~t\ " ~~ i ~
__ \ \ 'i 1& , .3\ 1. "" it \l ..
\ os' ~ \\- a ~ \~ ~
\' 1 I~. . ,I.
1 \ i\,
.... .... .,. .' ." ....* ". .~. .
ftitt'PI'~
,.t!!.J1Jf
tiJI'H,!
, 1111'111
liil!!'I,
hHI~Ii!
I !!_{al
HII!}1I
Ih Iii
lll'"
1,.1\1.
,I .,
,inli
I'Ll ~
o
::D
~
Z
)>
r-
3:
)>
~
::D
"'0
):
Z
.
.. I
..
f
1'1" I
'I ~
., ~
jiiilllll
q 'Ill i
I ~ 1 I
I' ~I ;1:(
I U
r
;;
i
J
"111~iiiritll'Uln:JU!i
i~!.i"':i:~' l~ II" i
Iii gii'U'i -, ~ii D
I i r
t .;'
. Ii I I
ilP ~S~;::~~I ~~~ ~~ &~~
~n~lii ~n ~ ~~Ol
~!i --8 t ; ~
~h n
I
, B I
! ~i
1111
r
&~m___._____ .__._ ..
_._ --~-~_._~-:-m_m_--:-t:-:___'_____._.____ . _
r f " , ! f ---- ·
ii' 1\' :i', i' ~-i' 5
i !' i: 5 r; )
I I~ i,I , ,
.J 11 II t"
ill,II' rB' ~ " ~;i lD ~ I
II'" Ii ,r , .t ':' i
ii \'Ii I "ro>on ,~ ~ ~f ! I I
ii& ,';1 --- - - -- -- -.t-'.:-::=:_- 1 i v
\1 \'\. I ~ m
:;.~ I:
i\ ,~~,' ~i t.!~ =~Ii~
i I'~l,\ ~ .I!'" '~,~I
11 : i ~ ~~\'L . -'C i:.l \.,!
il : \ ~~.,~~~ .... . - I ~
~' ~ : ~._-......... ~ ~~
- " , . I , \ _..
i i i i i If 'i I
E ~ i I ~f e 1
r -~ .~It Ii liP I
~.l}m, qHHH ~~ fIUII,!! j ih11l1!l!
r~~ i . ~~~~~~ h II IllH I iill II III'
'.~ ~rj V,!ni Ii i~ .. i t U 'I II
,Ie ;t~r~~~r~E,.d! r- fHI; ~ ilf! t
e~GI;I~ igl~ ~; I leI I Ii) J~ ! e
T ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ (I. I I J l f ..
" Jp I i 5 I
II. J~~ I
~U~"'gl!l g ~
i
!l
1
--a=-- .
ii
II
,(
"
U
iI
~
~Q:g
UII
ell i
i i
j t :=. t 7;l"'~
I I!FO. ill
f I I ~ I'" 'OF'
J-;:: ..-' ~
I }J.~ = ~
. ff i . ~
I l~ it i i ~
II II I ~
- ~
...
~
~
~
frlil Knollwood Groves PUD
'" Boynton Beach, FL
Master Plan
'I!rp Ifl
""2
I I ·
~ i
i r
1111111' ~,
I mIl' ~g
f
AUG-10-1995 16:00
Board of County Commiuioners
Ken 1.. Foster, Chairman
'Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman
Karet\ T _ MarcLH:
Carol A. Roberts
Warren n. Newell
Mary MCC;1rty
Maude Ford Loe
22222222222222222
407 478 5770 P.02/03
County Administrato
Robert Weisl+\an
Department of Engineer
and Public Works
August lOt 1995
Ms. Tambri 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 (KKOLlWDOD GROVES)
Dear Ms. Heyden:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has received and reviewed several traffic
analyses for the project entitled Nautica Sound (Knollwood Gravest. 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 wil1 generate fewer trips than the
approved project. The land uses in the proposed and approved project are as
follows:
ProDosed Project
434 single-family dwelling units.
Trips
4,340
Approved Proiects
Trios
L@ss i nt~rna 1
Net Exte l"'n a 1
1.500
2.723
4.223
478
~
430
146
4,505
150 single-family dwelling units
389 multi-family dwelling units
Total Residential
6,000 square foot day care center
Less 10% pass-by
Total
It has coma to my attention that the approv~d p~oject had proposed access on
Hypoluxo Road and Mgadows Boulevard. Th~ proposed project will have access on
lawrencQ Road and Meadows. Bauhvard. This will result in a redistribution of
traffic. ThQ Tl"affic Performance Standards in Article 7.9 of the Palm Beach
County Land Developm9nt Code requires increases in traffic resulting from the
redistribution of traffic to meet the requirements of the Standard.
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmativt! Action Employer"
@ /.lrlntud"" rocydod ~r
Dox 21229 West Palm Beath, Florida 33416-1229 (4n7) 684-4000
-.
".--
H,'II'I"': '
Ill, It
lill'lilll-
111111p,
.. I I
1'.1\1,'1
,,,ll;I!'
'llll.'!
," .!_! at
i it ii f II i .. Iii i i, f Hi II i II I II j U ~ ~
1I11i I Ill: lilfW~ IIi i
" II ~;I' II i I
I I 1 : ~ ~
! I I II I' \
I 1 nl I
~ 11:1 ,,- &;;l:;eu l:lae I- u~
, I ItUltlU Ult ! ~~OI
, II ul $ 51 E I It
I
a -cr--'
111Il1I1
'\1111\1
111\
1\' '
II
11
II
'.
II
II
s
)
I
\....
~
I
';' i
I ~I I
.___ 11
_ _ _______ __ ___ I: \,
------- i I "--"
"fi)
i' :l~~. eB'~ ~
! :...~~' . Ii ell~ U
I --'. - ~ lli il II i: I!
1 '\. ill L I. . i \ i
I " ~..........._.:==-~~ ' ~
II I i - .~~. .~~...~..._;.~~.........~
~ ml (,' i;i ~ ir_. - I '
~r~ Ii if I t I
I -~ .
Iillil!! j iilhl'~ iiii'
.Hilal! I Ii I! .'Jli
r fa II ~ i JZ!! I .
. p u ~ P ii , . ! I I I I il j h
IUlflll', ~ f' I , I"
~II .. , III~~II 'u ti i I
Inl 1'1 ; rill,' ~Uftll j: m-!! G ~! I
-, ~t
i;lJ:,I. ~.::; J~~~=~Groves PUD
.: _.,.' .... .... ter Plan,\
. '.' ,.:Dl.~ ~._; .' ,c' .' . '!!P'" '
n
c
:D
:D
m
z
-f
3:
)>
CIJ
rri
:D
1J
5:
z
= Il :ill
Uti
Ii l i
i i
3:~~
l~~
~!f~ ~
n~
......-
i
I.
1
HiE
II .w , +i-
t · 'I '
. I '. I
I 11 I. I
II .1 i :
1 I' ,
I f
! I
llill If' E~
I It I 'I' Q,~ Q"
Ih ,. 9~~
. ~. ~ ; ..~~~ ~. ,:~...
'rlPlfl
f"', '
I I
;II ( .
I .'
!.~. ",!.
. &::l-..:..I.J....... it. _
AUG-10-1995 16:00
22222222222222222
407 478 5770 P.03/03
August 10, 1995
MS. Tambr1 Heyden
NAUTICA SOUND PUO (KNOLLWOOD GROVES)
page two
The letter dated August 3,1995 from Simmons & White. Inc., attempts to address
thlS red1str1but1an of traff1c. The analysis a$$um~! a 1% annu~l growth rate on
Lawrence Road through the year 2000. Given the large number of residential units
in projects approved on Lawrenc;e Road, the 1% l!l,nnual growth rate is not
reasonable. The red1str1but1on of traffi~ may require this project to phase to
the proposed w1dening of Lawrence Road.
Recently, we discussed the advantages 1n the access plan in the approved project
versus the access plan in the proposed project. General'y, in a project this
size, with potential access on two thoroughfare roadw~s, it is desirable to
provide access on both thoroughfare roadway. Th1 s woul d all ow the project
traffi c to di stri bute before reaching the thoroughfare roadway system, and reduce
the traffic on anyone roadway.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 584-4030.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~ 'JAr~
Dan Weisberg, P.E.
Senior Registered Civil Engineer
File: TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review
g:\user\dweisber\wp50\tps\boyn48
TOTAL P.03
E X H I BIT
"F"
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC
TO:
planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
August 8, 1995
RE: Nautica sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves)
Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd
MPMD 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 construction has been delayed again).
A>d~t{~~
William D. cavanaugh, FPdJ
Attachment: Security Gates
cc: Chief Jordan
FPO II steve Campbell
File
0.-
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
August 9, 1995
fr, rill ~ [] ~7 ~
/W ~ :J!J l~
I
i
I; "
, "~.- ~I
,. .,~
)LANNING AND .---
ONING DEPT.
FROM:
Mike Haag
Site Development Administrator
~i~ V. Hukill, P.E.
fjIJlg,,"F:;;'gineer
NAUTICA SOUND - SECOND REVIEW
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 ;equired 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
requ~res 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.
A~G-10-9S THU 9:39 AM
DOVNTnF B~I,rTJ1T l1T]: ]1'lEr
u llo. 1.,...\ .... 1". 'J l ..J l l ,.;)
FAX NO
407 375 6298
p
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 9~ - 2~ 1
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director U
August 10. 1995
oom
m n W iiJii]
UlIO~ !WI
d
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning Direct
DATE:
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan Modification
Second Review
The resubmittal of the Master Plan for this project only partially addressed our
comments. We therefore offer the following clarifications~
1) Dead-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-de-
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 water 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
line!! 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 be
implemented without increasing our response time for water and sewer
emergencies. We would highly recommend 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 enough, or the lift station
relocated, so as to provide ~.e~~c~._ ~9~dja..cent parcels that are too small to
CO.IOePI.
Pl10ne f
AG~-jU-~~ TEU 9:40 AM
b~0vpm10W PEArrr 'lITjLl'T'j~~
.J l..l I. lL if ~ ~ v.1, l ..: 0
FAX lEI.
4n'7n5 b':'Q~
- I _I, .... ~'-,
P. 2
Memo no. 9S-2S1
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 ~tatio:n:s :s~rves to increase our operating
expenses, we are seeking to minimize the number of stations constructed.
The current layout may increase the City's long term operating costs in order
to reduce initial construction costs for the developer. ~r e will therefore
require the applicant to fund a feasibility study prior to their site plan
submittal indicating the most cost-effective method for providing 5811itary
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 layout may be necessary to satisfy ojlr comments (especially
conunent no. 3).
Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
JAG/PVM
be: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
File
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-361
, n IIJ1
~-~,
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent t
Nautica Sound PUD - 2nd Review
~J
AUG (;
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
RECREA nON & 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 for 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 ofbuilding permits, 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
Kevin J. Hallahan, FnresterlEnvironmentalist r~ ~
Nautica Sound PUD
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
August 7, 1995
The applicant should show all trees planted on common properties 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.
KH:ad
........
ill ~@~G~l~ rn
AUG - 9 1995
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-421
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and zonin~ ~1~~ctor
Michael E. Ha~~~
Zoning and Si:e ~istrator
August 9, 1995
TO:
DATE:
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-Iine 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 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
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-Iine and "Z" 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-Iine 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.
Page 2
Memorandum # 95-421
Nautica Sound
MPMD 95-006
5. Change the side pool and screen enclosure setback from twelve
(12) feet for pools and ten (10) feet for screen enclosures to
fifteen (15) feet for the non zero side of the zero-lot-Iine
units and specify a fifteen (15) foot side pool and screen
enclosure separation for all "Z" lots. Maintain the proposed
seventeen (17) foot corner side setback for pools and fifteen
(15) foot for screen enclosures. 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 the off-site roadway improvements required
as a result of the City's and/or Palm Beach County'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. It is further
recommended that the tree and shrub landscape material be
native material and installed prior to the completion of the
first house that has a landscape buffer easement located on
the lot. The dense landscape buffer shall be shown on the
plans and be depicted as clumps of 6 to 8, eight foot tall
canopy trees (mahogany or oak) then approximately 30 feet away
a clump of 6 to 8, seven gallon size bushy (wax myrtle)
shrubs. The buffer shall also have a continuous hedge
(florida privet) running along the entire property line;
however, the hedge may form a meandering shape from above. All
of the tree and/or shrub material shall be maintained uncut
and the hedge material shall be maintained at 5 to 6 feet in
height. The bushy hedge material plants may count for the no
net less of trees as described in the forester's memorandum
no. 95-356.
8. Revise the plans to show a Hypoluxo Road ingress/egress to the
project. The Hypoluxo Road ingress/egress was original
approved for the project to divert trips to surrounding
roadways.
9. On sheets 4 of 8, 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 remove from note #3 the
text "or building".
10. 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."
11. On sheets 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 change the title of the perimeter
landscape buffer easement detail drawing to "Perimeter lots".
12. Amend the double asterisk note found on sheet 6 of 8 to read
as follows: "Subject to rear perimeter landscape buffer
easement and other easements, where applicable."
13. 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."
SEF- j -35 FF!
7' 18 ,\ !,~
'. ."1',
BOYNTON BEACH UTIL1TIES
FAX N'J.
407 375 6298
F.
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 278
TO:
c
Tambri Heyden, Planning Directo \
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director I
I
v
DATE:
September 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan - third submittal
Please be advised that this office has no objection to the Master Plan as revised.
You may refer any questions on this matter to Peter Maz:z:ella or Skip Milor of this
office.
JAG/PVM
be: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
File
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 278
;f,'On! ~ @ ~ n ~
li;~1
I~U SEP I m
I
, PLANNING AND '-
ZONING OEPT. -{Y,
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning Directo \
//
FROM:
DATE:
September 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan - third submittal
Please be advised that this office has no objection to the Master Plan as revised.
You may refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella or Skip Milor of this
office.
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
File
SEF- 1-35 FRJ 7: 18 AM BOYNTCN BEACH UTILITIES
RflY M0 din? ~7~ 6lno
4 ~ ~\. 1-' ~ , '"'I -',' ,_,I J -' " .J u
F
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 278
TO:
c
Tambri Heyden, Planning Directo ,
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director I
J
September 1, 1995
DATE:
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound Master Plan - third submittal
Please be advised that this office has no objection to the Master Plan as revised.
You may refer any questions on this matter to Peter Maz:z:ella or Skip Milor of this
office.
JAG/PVM
be: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
File
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-345
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & zoning Director
.~h(lfiam ~ukill, P.E.
~-Englneer
FROM:
DATE:
September 8, 1995
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND
I have met with the agents for subject project and reached
agreement on the following two items:
1. The 8' bike path on Lawrence Road was a suggestion from
the City Comp Plan not a condition based in the LDR, and
probably will serve no useful purpose because it extends
neither north nor south from Nautica Sound. However, a
sidewalk is required.
2. The applicant will provide pedestrian access to the north
so as to accommodate walkers to a new elementary school
a short distance east of Nautica Sound if and when one is
buil t. They will include in their POA documents an
obligation to construct a sidewalk/bikepath to their
property line prior to the opening of the school. The
School Board, the County and/or the LWDD will have to
extend the access from Nautica Sound as they collectively
see fit.
WVH:ck
xc: Carrie Parker, City Manager
C:NAUTICA.SNO
(....-.--
',,""'" r?@
, ~ I .
'.'~' ,L:l I
':i) 1--
, 111 ;
!1 i! .
<.. '_J I
l
,
~OW~~I
1
i'-""""~ ~ I
8 I"}"J' "
".'>'.' I
I
.J
PUd'~N!NG AND A
ZONiNG DEPT. ..Q7I1L
'~""'''"''''''''''''--'~'''-''-?...........-.---...
1
DA'rE:
September 8, 1995
-2
.;v1 {3(2- v} (J~ vk,~ .{
~ ( "prvCJt-6M /(('~t R- ,lOti..>'
O NAJ 11 tf 4 '::> Y , " c~A , ,pi.
,,(,0~~ N't:.vJ; (tl t./tJ"',(' f?t'
("D,fI' ijJ' ,JDI(,()'ft- I)(l.t
f; II'" ff'i t'
DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-492 , pJilf.P,(t.1), k~'t'
jlJCJJ i S'V''' I'"~
~/ LP'{ /500
() fL... tp6
\ /~t1
(] \OV, \ ^)
~.~. ~\ \If\'l' tl~ (:
\) 1~" 1 i)~ Vt-bl
MPMD 95-006 f~' ~{,rI'"
(replace mul t-family/'".1 6',
and reduce lot size 'fOG ~i;)l')ilaS
1) ....5'11
'fOil'--- "tl1
1t/l4
{;J,J >
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AND ZONING
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
Tambri J. HeYden-d'~ ' Q ~dtL...-
Planning and Zoning Director ~~ ,
TO:
SUBJECT:
Nautica sound (Knollwood Groves) -
Revise access points and unit type
with single-family detached units)
and front, side and rear setbacks
Kilday and Associates, agent for Meadows Groves, Inc. and R. Bradford
Arnold, trustee, is requesting to approval to modify the previously
approved master plan for the Y.nollwood Groves PUD (to be renamed to
Nautica Sound), as described in the attached report (Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-484). Nautica Sound is to be located on
the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet south of
Hypoluxo Road.
After staff review, requests for master plan modifications are forwarded
to the city Commission, prior to forwarding to the Planning and
Development Board, for a determination that the changes requested are
either substantial in nature or not substantial in nature. This request
went before the City Commission on August 15, 1995. At this meeting the
Commission stated that a determination of nonsubstantial could be made
only if the minimum lot size of those lots that were 4,000 square feet
Vlere increased to a minimum of 4,500 square feet (76 "z" lots were
affected) and if 13 "ZlI lots that were a minimum of 4,500 square feet
were increased to a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Lastly the applicant
had to remedy the problems raised by the Utilities Department.
Commission action was tabled to the September 5, 1995 meeting to allow
the applicant to revise his drawings and submit the changes to staff to
revievl.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the applicant's compliance with the Commission's provisos, the
City Commission, at their September 5, 1995 meeting removed the request
from the table. with a un~nimous vote, the Commission made a finding of
no substantial change regarding the modifications requested. Since the
request would subsequently be forwarded to the Planning and Development
Board for approval of the technical aspects within staff's comments, the
commission agreed that because of the changes that had to be made in
order to make a determination of no substantial change that the
Commission was conceding to a minimum building separation of 10 feet
rather than 15 feet, no road connection to Hypoluxo Road and no minimum
lot width. These concessions impact all staff comments, therefore it
is recommended that this request be approved, subject to the attached
staff comments in Exhibit "Ell with the exclusions and revisions noted
below.
Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-485 with the
following rewording of comments 1 - 5 and 7 and deletion of comment
8 (all other comments would still apply as written):
1. Show and identify the appropriate setback dimension at
the rear of all lots along the east and northwest
property lines. Note: setback for residential buildings
is the distance, measured perpendicular, from the
property line to the closest home/covered patio
(overhangs of less than 2 feet may encroach in to a
setback). The setback along the northwest property line
shall be the same as required in the abutting zoning
district. Considering the land located in Palm Beach
county along the northwest property line is being annexed
TO: Planning and Development Board
-2-
september 8, 1995
into the city at the R-IAAB 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. of the three options available to
the applicant for buffering along the northwest property
line where the subject property abuts the C-3 (Community
Commercial) zoning district, the applicant has agreed to
comply with a hedge maintained at five feet, installed at
a height of 24 inches and planted 24 inches on center.
The setback required along the east property line where
the subj ect property abuts the adj acent mul ti-family
development shall be 40 feet as required by Chapter 2.5 -
Planned Uni t 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
"1ill be 40 feet. Amend all plans, data and charts
accordingly. [Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development,
section 9. B.]
2. "z" lot units shall have a minimum lot frontage of 40
feet and a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet. Zero
lot line units shall have a minimum lot frontage of 50
feet and a minimum lot area of 5000 square feet. There
appears to be a discrepancy in the information (chart vs.
drawing) that was supplied to verify the number of lots
having a minimum size required by the Commission which
needs to resolved. The allowed frontage of a lot when
shaped by a cul-de-sac or the frontage of any other
irregular shaped lot, shall be measured at the setback
line, and shall be not less than 75% of the required lot
frontage for the unit type. Amend all plans, data and
charts accordingly.
3. Establish the rear building setback for all double
frontage lots as twenty (20) feet which shall be measured
from the rear property line. Maintain proposed fifteen
(15) foot rear building setback on all back to back lots
and maintain proposed ten (10) foot rear building setback
fOl- all lots that abut a lake maintenance easement,
common ground or recreation tract. No more than three of
the same model type shall be built next to one another.
Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
4. Maintain the proposed fifteen (15) foot corner side
building setback on alIA lots. Amend all plans, data and
charts accordingly. n
jll/st:t<r C.oF1-u1::.......
5. Maintain a side pool and screen enclosure setback of
twelve (12) feet for pools and ten (10) feet for screen
enclosures. Maintain the proposed seventeen (17) foot O~~
corner side setback for pools and fifteen (15) foot for~
SCl-een enclosures on all ~ . to Back ],..e.4;.s <<ftd G't:i're'l
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.
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-324
I' _..~~..'"'" R
r A~: :i~rn I~
L~m~~ J
1:!.,\!}j!~,lG !~Nn
'".~. .::)!~.b.ijDIET. ~
August 31, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
RE:
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.
A~~~
AN:bh
Attachments/2
xc: William V. Hukill, P.E.
NAUTICA
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
August 9, 1995
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re:
NAUTICA SOUND
Master Plan Modification - 2nd Submittal
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,300 feet
south of Hypoluxo Road
After reviewing the above referenced documents, it is
particularly noted in the printed documents that the Building
Division comments have been met as related to signs and setbacks.
Please note that the details for signs are not on the plans, only
in the written documentation.
1. Details for signs must be included in the final site
plan documents.
2. The 15 Ft. setbacks shown on the right corner lots on
Page 6 of 8, is not measured from the corner of the
building and, therefore, poses a problem for the
following lots: 30, 46, 69, 77, 98, 110, 147 and 169.
This could be rectified if the building was switched to
the opposite side or have dimensions corrected for
approval.
AN:mh
Att. Plans
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Department of Development Director
A:NAUTiCA.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 Knollwood 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 Director
A:NAUTICA.TIlC
l!itt'l'l''-
",!!",I'
t1,\'Hrl
,r ~lll~\
l\Hl!ll.
hHl~'i\
I !!_! at
Hllm t
Ulinlrl
r .. r
lit "\
(1'J'l.
.1 . f
linli
.1.{ ;
o
::D
C5
-
z
'>
r-
3:
'>
~
m
::D
""C
):
Z
~!
iili q Hi"1 liiliHHllU Un~i!
lll!il IIi !lifW, Ilf~
J if iil I i
! III ,a'
I I B f \
i In( I
I I U -
~ ~i ilP ~~g:;:~;;:~ ~!:!J~:ll~ ..~::
It I,ll ,,; m.!i~ ... .~ ii~
t $Si S; "
i
&Ul________m_ _____ --
___ -- -~--="'-- -T.tit~:Iiiiil.-:-~~t-:----
( f ;' .' '! --I f---------:,
~11 1\: li:\' t c.::3)~. 1\1 i
~ I:, S ri,:i ")
I 'i~l Iii ~ ~ 1
.J 1\ Ii! F1
:~ li\ ~ edm \..- I
\~il ,i\ $ i' r~j
1r: j; . r _ · S' i
:I~... \\:,I!i 1 1'1 I
,... , .""":!~__ ..1-. !! I
I~ :'! - -- u u -.- - :-::t--. --'9 I, i '-.J
\i >\~ I ' ffl
I ~~. i 'c ~
· ,l~:,*"" Ii ~n> .i ~
'<< !' @ ~1~,' . < Ii \ \
~!\\\ LL ~ I
i~~_ , t- ' ~:;:;~w=:;;-\ ~::;:;;- -..
j j iii 111 I j ~ I
(/ il il I 1 1
,~ .
~ . t' t I' up I
-gu;pn. ~HhIH e ~iip ir,
~. ~,Ili',i,~'lt,.1'P.i~ ~( 111in~,,! HllIl j!L
i~~ ~ ~~.~~~E f!~! I~!! ~ ilii llllK r
,.0 ~T'\ V,!B! hi i ~ .. i J 1:1 'I II
Ie n ~;" q p n ~~~ r- q ~! II' i' I
. ~~~~I: i~r " i!i (II i i \ ill i ! i
t ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ II' ' I i J ',..
. ..- _ J i ~ 'i; J
\ \ .. ~ ~; ,
~~~~~ ~~ g ~
IHI
IIII
i i
~.
J{
l~
JI
. (
'1
U
it
!l
;:nj!!
i
!l.
t
ill t 130' 'n. I .. ':;t.:J'Pt~
i If?'-'ll ~!i
i · ~.t-.~ iJ\~
I H "'_:;'
I It U t ~ $
~l (I [ ~
l'
"..
~
.
i;~ ~\ \A'., \ 'Ilil Knollwood Groves PUD
,~ I ~ \'1 Boynton Beach. Fl
. Master Plan
VPH\
~Igli ~
~ i j
~ l
~~m!fil en ~ \
=Hii II C
~:~~~ I tl ~ 8"
.1, I ~-
H! ! 0--'
01 -'
--,.,-----------~_.~~-~----_....--
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-260
Mike Haag, Zoning/Site Administrator
William Hukill, P.E., City Engineer
m ~ @ ~ D W ~ r
pi
,11
I; !
'I;
: ;, I U I
L.J
PLANNING AND .s..
ZONING DEPT.
July 26, 1995
NAUTICA SOUND - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
We have reviewed subject plan for proposed changes in access
points, unit types, setbacks and lot/house sizes. Our comments are
as follows:
1. Access points - acceptable
2. Unit types - elimination of multi-family units acceptable
3. Setbacks - not acceptable
4. Lot and house sizes - not acceptable
Taken as a group, these modifications represent a major master plan
modification.
Other comments:
2 .
3.
4.
5.
6.
7 .
8.
9 .
10.
11.
1.
Site plan review & approval required. Chap.4, Sec.2,
pg.4-1
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
Need SFWMD and LWDD acceptance prior to Engineering
approval. Chap.6, Art.VII, Sec.4B, pg.6-24
County road entrance sign requires PCB approval
Provide Certification by Developer's Engineer that
drainage plan complies with all City codes & standards.
Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec.5A, pg.6-7 and Chap.23, Art.IIF,
pg.23-8
Provide parking facility for recreation area including
H/C stall. Chap.2, Sec.l1HI6e(12), pg.2-108
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
Sidewalks are required on both sides of all local and
collector streets. Chap.6, Art.III, Sec.llA, pg.6-3
Provide soil borings. Chap.8, Art.III, Ala(3), pg.8-2
Provide a map indicating the location of the soil
borings. Chap.8, Art.III,Ala(4), pg.8-3
Construct (to completion) the south road prior to
issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
Development Dept., Engineering Div. Memo No. 95-260
Re: Nautica Sound - Master Plan Modifications
July 26, 1995
Page #2
12. Provide easement onto Hypoluxo Road ROW for future
sidewalk/bikepath access to schools.
13. Cause actual construction to commence on widening of
Lawrence Road from L-19 canal to Hypoluxo Road prior to
issuance of initial Certificate of Occupancy. You may
fund design/construct the road outright or you may
arrange with the County to move the project to fit your
initial C.o. by fronting the cost for repayment in the
scheduled construction year. If you construct it
yourself, you may wish to obtain credits toward the cost
for the road impact fees you will owe.
The power line relocation should be coordinated with adjacent
property owners as well as the School Board, which owns an
elementary school site a few hundred feet east on Hypoluxo. Perhaps
the entire line can be relocated to the north property line to the
shopping area at Congress Avenue.
WVH/ck
C:NAUSOUND.MOD
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC
.
, ! ...'~ ,JG."..RJ1~~Y1J~ ~i~
qt,
AUG 3 19'6 !! u
+~....J
,J
'\~ f,~") (J_
,~ f';7r'T .~
,.,.'J._,p",.....".... "~_'_.'I<,_,~__
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).
(' /) --tW:
~~
G1M/711JlA~ ~-t~ d
-I-/J
U1A LU
I ) - A ~~.
CZ ~I 75 Wil i/a~m D. Cavanaugh, FPO
~L~~
/(if(:Irvat<
Attachment: Security Gates
cc: Chief Jordan
FPO II steve Campbell
File
,:,,-, -'.15 0iJ ~ II \in R rn
,~ l', LSJ [.c; U ~J lti
. 'C~;-;~ I ~
PlMmlNG AND I
ZOJ~!.liG DEPT. '
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONrNG DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
31 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 3rd SUBMITTAL MEMO #0164
I have reviewed the above plans (3rd suJm:dtt~) iiq4 f::&i;HI Wl!itJ.Jain my comments made on two
previously submitted memorandu~;::;:;;~~~;e.d:;,y<iu :Will fiQd 9~tes of those earlier
memorandums.;";>""i;::;;::::::/:'{';;' .........:..:,"':;.;//; .,.;",
Respectfully,
I~W~
Police Department
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
8 AUGUST 95
NAUTICA SOUND - 2ND REVIEW MEMO #0156
I have reviewed the 2nd submittal ofN:~~i~~f'$otr9d~:ana t9.f.,:C.Qrtments that were supplied. It
seems that my original suggestions J~t':t9~~':::~yhlop'qient '-'i.~~,,4~pred. I still maintain the
following:,::,,:':: "';::::'::5::::::::::):;'" ........ '.,.
..):::'
.....,.. .' ..'
1. Regarding the controlled ~n..t.raJlce/exits, the developer (G.IS..I1bfJ:1~s of Florida) has an
attached letter describing tweelYiles of mechanisms of gated conirliUri~'Qes. The first, SOS
System(Siren Operable s'y.~temYI feel is not something that is not ~Ayo~le; both on a police
stand point and the prospdcHVl'residents. Police respond to calls t1i~~:J~uire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) that activation of a siren at
the entrance would not :~PPP:Qq appr,qQ1~i'op. of c9min~I.&. Alst.l~;;:t:WP'ijld not think that residents
would appreciate the p~li.ce..(4rtd fire) dep.~::finent M~.~Htu}ing t~d.ir arri~!ll by sounding their
sirens. The second rec9rfiliie'~qation::WirI<il'~x Bq~:,:(key"entry h~stem)(./This is an antiquated
method of access to a g:ated:.:tOi'im1urlity~:,::Iteqillririg:the city(tb lhAifi:rahi nmster keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
question. Maintaining 9ij.e",ma~ter key requires the response to the p~J:i~:':pepartment to obtain
the key first, and then td.the'::colnmunity. This is not a "timely" resp~:~: fQ'r emergency vehicles.
The third recommendatiq~..,.~,i~emote System" is not explained th9J,;pJiHt}"':enough. It allows the
city personal to remain in..th,p~r':Ythicles when entering the commu.A~.tr..~...p'ut does not explain how,
or who activates the gate fu9~tid~\. I originally suggested a .~.yst~pi tlj~fis similar to this; and is
currently being excepted in ttl~:,ne.:Wer.gated communities of'tl,?:~::C!1Y~::>:The system works with
telephone accessibility. The di'spatgii:F:::r~f::..pQ.I..ice~p4}jr~rihail1~in the telephone number for the
gate and upon radioing that they (p61i'ce ~#1i'c'6r)i: h~t~. arrj.Y~d atthe gate, the dispatcher then
telephones the number to the gate, thereby ac~latih~ itftfgate for entrance. This matter needs to
be clarified.
2. As stated in comments, the width of the existing bridge on Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd
entrance would have to be widened for a right turn/deceleration lane. As consistent with other
developments on Lawrence Road, deceleration lanes have been required. I don't see why the
other entrance to the development on Lawrence Road should require a deceleration lane
and not Meadows Blvd.
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
I have reviewed the above listed plan~..,,~p.;4::Fr..tx?,rrllferd::ihe::'[911Q.~ing:
- The entrances/exits are "ca,.ra J~~~~;~'~;;.:.''>; ~.~~ld re:c.~~~~<l"tp.at a telephone access also
be supplied for police and.l,e emeii~ency access. Ifnot, sOlpetljiiig comparable to this will
be needed for emergency'::4.~~ss. .:" .;t';::,.,.:,::::,.,,::\,
-Regarding the south :~rih'ati~~ to the development, on Lawren~;R~d, I would recommend a
decelleration, right hafiff'fiiffl lane. I believe this lane construcd~tl ijight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, right hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitrFd:~h:~s shor~d:::at~: appl~lo.r::t~" sout~...fntr~~~~/exit.
-Due to the density ~~f6j'~ed p~;:fri~t:j~9 oft.iS:::deV'~'lopmUt, I sJJngly believe that an
entrance/exit is need&tft61ii HypbiUXti'ltoid. llhe distan:te:!ftbttL"'botlt:projected
entrances/exits (Lawrence Road and Meadows Blvd(?)) are a great dist~!lce from the northern
roadways in the develop.p::tellt;::\ Emergency response to these roads ~;jPd~:quire excess time,
thereby requiring a HYfih~~xo Road entrance/exit. This developnlt#iNalso in the extreme
north em and westem "liJ.n.f!$ of the city and a great distance frow..th~..li:earest fire station
and police coverage. ,:.,........,..... ::;.::::.,:::::::. ....
Respectfully,
Sgt. Marlon Harris
Police Department
. .
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 ot 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
I n 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 ot the 60' right-ot-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-at-way.
5) The developer's engineer has ,certified that the drainage plan will comply
with all City Codes and Standards and a copy of this letter has been
attached tor your review.
Jq
'.
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-of-ways located within the project have four feet wide sidewalks
shown on either side ot 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 ot 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 of the project. Therefore, no
expansion of Lawrence Road is required In conjunction with this project.
Attached is a letter from the traffic consultant on this Issue.
In response to the last comment, the developer has made contact with the School
Board regarding the relocation of the power line and we are awaiting their
response. In response to comments from the TRC meeting, the developer 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.
30
r '
,m ow i~ Jw
.;~. ~
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO.
j
I
i
I
I"
, ~
95-332\.___
l
DATE:
Mike Haag
zoning/Site Administrator
~~m ~ukill, P.E.
{!!II!ffi Englneer
August 31, 1995
TO:
FROM:
RE:
NAUTICA SOUND - THIRD REVIEW
We have today received a revised plan of proposed Nautica Sound and
have reviewed it solely for determination as to whether it is a
major modification of the originally approved document. In our
opinion it is a major modification because no access is provided
onto Hypoluxo Road, thus greatly increasing traffic at the other
two access points. However, we have no technical objection to this
change.
Many conditions of our previous reviews have been incorporated,
some have not. All uncorrected conditions will require attention.
WVH:ck
C:NAUSOlJND.3RD
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-295
August 9, 1995
I~"-'---,-
Jll~r~Jl ~ @ ~ 0 ~ij ~ (
11 ;
AUG I 0 1995 ~I
FROM:
Mike Haag
Site Development Administrator
~J~ V. Hukill, P.E.
/!fJJJ/\"F:;;'gineer
NAUTICA SOUND - SECOND REVIEW
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPt
~
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
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
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-485
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zonin~ ~trector
~-;fdHd-
Michael E. Haag .
Zoning and Site 'nistrator
TO:
SUBJECT:
August 31, 1995
Nautica Sound - MPMD 95-006 Master Plan Modification
(Request to amend the previously approved PUD master plan to
omit the day care use, modify access points, change the type
of units and lot size from 150 single-family detached units on
6,000 square foot lots and 389 multi-family units to 267 zero-
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-lAAB zoning classification, it
is recommended that the rear setback be 25 feet for all lots along
property line where the subject development abuts residential
property, proposed residential property or commercial property.
The proposed 25 foot rear setback matches the rear setback for the
R-IAAB zoning district. Therefore, the proposed setback of 15 or
20 feet shall be increased to 25 feet. A further requirement along
the northwest property line where the subject property abuts the C-
3 (Community Commercial) zoning district is that a 5 foot high
masonry wall, landscaped chain-link fence or some other equivalent
5 foot tall buffer be provided. It is recommended that either the
buffer easement plan proposed by the applicant or identified in
comment number 7 of this memo be accepted for this required buffer.
The setback required along the east property line where the subject
property abuts the adjacent multi-family development shall be 40
feet as required by Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development. It is
recommended that parcels in the northeast corner of the project,
that abut the adj acent unincorporated property, have a 40 foot
setback. Therefore the setback along the entire east property line
will be 40 feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
[Chapter 2.5 - Planned Unit Development, Section 9. B.]
2. Redesign plan to show all lots which have a minimum lot frontage of
sixty (60) feet and a minimum lot area of six thousand (6,000)
square feet. Amend all plans, data and charts accordingly.
3. Change the front building setback from the proposed twenty (20)
feet at the garage and fifteen (15) feet at the building to twenty
(20) feet for both garage and building for all lots. Establish the
rear building setback for all double frontage lots as twenty (20)
feet. Maintain proposed fifteen (15) foot rear building setback on
all back to back lots and maintain proposed ten (10) foot rear
building setback for all lots that abut a lake maintenance
easement, common ground or recreation tract. Amend all plans,
data and charts accordingly.
Page 2
Memorandum # 95-485
Nautica Sound
MPMD 95-006
4.
5 .
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 iots. 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
privet) extending along the entire property line; however, the
hedge may form a meandering shape as viewed from above. The
continuous hedge shall be maintained at 6 feet tall. The 8 foot
tall bushy shrub plant and other trees described above may count
for the "no net loss" of trees that are required by the tree
management plan.
Note; the perimeter buffer landscape design proposed by the
applicant (see Exhibit "B" Planning and Zoning Department
Memorandum No. 95-484) is acceptable; however, all material shall
be located within the easement and trees shall not be placed on a
property line. If this landscape design is approved, the plans
shall be modified to show the landscape material. It is further
recommended that the specie and size recommendations identified
above be incorporated into the applicants' proposal.
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.";
On sheets 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 change the title of the perimeter
landscape buffer easement detail drawing to "Perimeter lots";
Amend the double asterisk note found on sheet 6 of 8 to read
as follows: "Subject to rear perimeter landscape buffer
easement and other easements, where applicable.";
On sheet 6 of 8 and 7 of 8 remove from Accessory Building note
#3 the following text "pergolas and gazebos". Also define
trellis as "A free standing structure maximum height of 6 feet
located only behind the front building setback line with a
configuration having a height and length and no depth (example
- similar to a fence."; and
On sheet 6 of 8 move the 15 foot corner side setback symbol to
the corner of the building;
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 reviewed by 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
a:Kautica.SD3
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-353
TO:
Carrie Parker, City Manager
Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Bill cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer
Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utility Dept. Chief Field Insp.
Sgt. Marlon Harris, Police Department
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
William Huki+l, Director Department of Development
~E;/..~r-
Michael ~aa'f1' Site and Zoning Administrator
July 13, 1995
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Master Plan Modification - 1st Submittal Review
for Technical Committee Review
Project:
Nautica Sound f. k. a. Knollwood Groves
(PUD)
Location:
East side of Lawrence Road, north of
Gateway and south of Hypoluxo Road
Applicant:
G.L. Homes of Florida II Corporation
File No. :
MPHD 95-006
Attached is a master plan modification submittal for the above-
referenced project for your review and recommendation at the TRC
meeting July 25, 1995. The agenda for this meeting will be sent
out separately. We would ask that you review the plan submittal to
determine the review comments for your department. Transmittal of
Plans and Comments to Planning and Zoning Department will be
indicated on the TRC agenda.
cc: (Memo only)
Floyd Jordan, Fire Department
Charlie Frederick, Parks and Recreation Department
Tom Dettman, Police Department
John GUidry, Utilities Department
.:1.t8ub'l'aC.H.u
, i\\
L,
}i
< ~'
V\\
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPAR1MENT m
TRAFFIC UNIT
m a w.r f? rnl
.u. 2 7 1995 i /1;,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
ZONING DEfT. j....
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
I have reviewed the above listed plans ~~;t~C9rririi;~~;ihe1QllQwing:
.:..,::j'~::;;;:iX:t",~>:";f: l "::;T' .:.<:;~;::::::}
-The entranees/exits are "c~ c~ti9tred". I would re~~en~JPat a telephone access also
be supplied for police aIW'fire emergency access. If not, sqme)ii1'ng comporable to this will
N ~ " .~
be needed for emergenCY4cqess. ,:::<..",:,[t:'\
-Regarding the south fiAlrarIJ:to the development, on Lawren~~, I would recommend a
deeelleration, right haMrttifn lane. I believe this lane constructftll\ ijight interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a deceUeration, rigfit hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitrF~~s sh<>rfd::~ applrFt.,,~~: sout1'~ex~______
-Due to the develOP~iZ~ ~'Proj~';'Sity,!: u1)}ecommend that ,;;,~ j,~"
rCClexlt be ma~lliIj ~clIl1xhIRoad. a l=/ ~ C .) ~'fj"
-------------~::;::::~:~~~1 - ." ---------- {{1jl)j .f
d!RespeCtfullY, ~dJ z ::::1 'i y
, ~., ,'::~:"":':., {::;i;:~~':::::::;~~::: .
./ /;a \~.::l) .~. ^~" ~<r
Sgt. Marlon Harris "",.."." /".f~~~~::~:':"", n. '...:..:,.::.....:,:,'.,',' ,..,...,....,.:',:...'::::::::::::::;::=: lr ,~~ ,
:,' f,.:..........,.,. . ,r-~~' I V' ~?
Police Department l,J ,/.:(""""':;;""} ~'.'.~., \:..;::,::::::::::::::,::::..,,:" \ J\ .Alr)" ~
"'-.;' ,(..:/' ...'...'. , .' {$" ~,,,~
L~ k Vi/' S G ) \ ~\ f
I' ."' If.}! H \ " . . 't (r l
,I)- V, .:(lA' "e 'JA"- '" V/}1/A fJ d." ! fJ ' J
v if) ,)IJ \ot'~ \\().' 11,u{JJL/ ~'
,( ,')) , t ,,{ ,
./ i .',' - " sS Ii I> " , ".... . fi 1;. #'
!) ." .~;t;/ l;-.,rr.I"~' '~FIl:J,~ DO . L
/-....'7Y !. VU ~ ,.t
~. {/ t, , K ~Ii .~ P r
/( L-~,', J fr',V /ll-t,i ~ I , (,~' \j~ -{:l-
y ." \, 1 r ~J/ 'i]' ~~/\
l, h L . ,(\) I y
/".7 P. ts~"'t VlH.- ,\', .;' \ I' I/X .'
./\ /oJ v f l' ~ t- . /'11' N, f'" ~ 'f l~,;;;
'/ I ,J > f hot' (/, I J J
")1\' Ill,.)\) A~j\ - {/', \'\ I
vv () It.. ,- fIJiI--' , (__" /,:.1' \ J
( r J.'" <a I'" f/vl \,
~ yilt.\LJ\. I
I I' \(.1
\ I h
1V\ I'I'!/'
t>J'-
~~- ~ ~!r~.f."" I/~~J~
s: " .- 7/1" r
.:.~ ~~/r7~F
;;I~ ~~, ;(~
v
PI ~t;;:U~1J ~ r~J- r
I~ ~ ~ p;rr~~)ur
· - p ~A~/L/ jkvd +
., ~ r-;J;v-n-~ ~#w-e- -/0
~k ~~~id~/~-
~~ -fIL ~-r 7- tf-t-- rnL- ~'~ #/ -f, ~
.~~ t(- Jf~<<!L ~ ~~.
:Jh ~~ -i~ -(tc. Hr-e A~~
/# "-, #A~/J '(
r /'\ "-fC~ fUr ~ - 11
tL
/'"
" ----.....
~, ~"'''''-'
~~,__--,". ~;r
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT m
TRAFFIC UNIT
&rnuwPf1~
.... 27/995 '~
j...
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
T AMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
25 JULY 95
NAUTICA SOUND MEMO #151
I have reviewed the above listed plans a'pq:::tCC9ni~;'~~::ihe::fQU9.wing:
",...:.:;;;::::::::;;:::::::;::::;\,:.,:,::\:, f J .'::).... .:,:::::::::::::;::::::::
-The entrances/exits are "el:\1ji CQti'tf.9U:ta". I w'ould re~oihiricncl:::tPat a telephone access also
be supplied for police a~:~:ftre em~rgency access. If not, sqJlle.thi'ng comporable to this will
be needed for emergencY::,~'Cqess. <:..,...,:/:~..:.....,:::
, ,n ;.:;:,.::.. :t :(" ...::..::::;\
-Regarding the south ~p~~Ve to the development, on Lawren('+.\R9~' I would recommend a
decelleration, right hafttlliifn lane. I believe this lane construct1Q'I\ hright interfere with the
bridge that crosses the canal. The plans show a decelleration, rig6't hand turn lane for the
north entrance/exitrand:Jhis shollld::::a.l:SQ apply"fQI::t.n~ sout1r"9ntr.a~e/exit.
ll..,...,.,...>.,,>l t,.,.""""...:.},): l 1:::) :j! :1 1 '.:.'\;.:\
-Due to the developbtenTl,:i\dsizd i.li(nt;~~:.projJcietFd~nsity,hlwoul.alecommend that an
:: ::: ,,:: .~ ::: :. ,,:: ,:: :: :: :: :: .;:" ;:.
entrance/exit be made:::a:v~mable ft6m::Hyp61uxbl~Road. t..:::::::::::::::::::::.:......
t:::~;::,:::;;~~:~;)
;:/{RespectfuIIY' ~{::::::;:'::::J
~~ ',.'::::;::::::::::::,.
.:. ...;......
~ \~~
, ' .~" :""".~}
Sgt. Marlon Harris '""",'
Police Department
,/)~::::~:;::~;:.,...:,':.:,:,:,...:..:, :~::;:~
{....r ..::,l.:.:.:t....,....;:...::,.;,..;:.:~,:..
:.(:...,..:t:~:.
:~~.~.J :;i:~~..i. . "
@li1
.";:::::'" ...;::..;....-:..-::..
~;;:::" ...;:::....
(~tj;
\~...):
ENGINEERING MEMO # 95-249
~ 11-';- -
/v{vno .
fu (Ie#- hj
eA' f I ~k-t '11.
{f/J
DATE: July 28, 1995
TO: T AMBRI HEYDEN, P&Z DIR.
FROM: KEN HALL, ENG, AIDE PHONE: 407-375-628~
SUBJECT: NAUTICA SOUND - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
COMMENTS
1. 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., P.B. County, S.F.W.M.D., and any other permitting agency shall
be included with your permit request.
2. Revise the forty, fifty, and sixty foot right of way details to conform with the city's required
minimum pavement widths (11' per lane). Chapter 6, ArtA, Sect. IOC, pg. 6-11, and City of
Boynton Beach standards drawing B-91 005. Chap. 22, Art. 1 , Sect.2, pg. 22-1.
3. SpecifY the proposed street names within the development including the "proposed Meadows
Blvd.". (Meadows Blvd. is the loop road in the Meadows development and cannot be used again).
4. Barricade the "proposed Meadows Blvd. at its eastern terminus. The 400 foot paved roadway
east of your proposed road is one of two that intersect Meadows Blvd. on the cast and run
westward to provide access to two, 24 acre parcels and neither one was designed to serve as a
collector road. The roads are dedicated, sixty foot right of ways shown on the plat of Meadows
300, Plat three. By virture of their reight of way width, they are classified as local roads and
neither should be used as a collector.
In addition, the Meadows Blvd. loop road currently serves nine separate communities with a
cumulative total of 845 residences and seventeen multifamily buildings with an estimated 400
plus units (Club Meadows). Meadows Blvd. is a 24' paved collector road designed to serve only
the aforementioned units and not a community such as Nautica Sound.
If the subject road is to remain, it can be reduced to a sixty foot right of way, but it shall require
stabilized shoulders per the city's code requirements as noted in note 2.
5. Provide an eight foot bicycle, pedestrian path along Lawrence road to serve the Citrus Park
Elementary School and Santluces High School and in conformance with the Traffic Circulation
Element ofthe city's Comprehensive Plan, pg. 66.
KRH/krh C: William Hukill, Dev. Oir. nautsnd.rev
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-345
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent ~
Nautica Sound (P.U.D.) ~
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
July 31, 1995
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 for 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 of building 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
[/
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
m
IL
~uW~fn)
Am-argre ~
August 7, 1995
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
FROM:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
~m~. Hukill, P.E.
WM EngJ.neer
NAUTICA SOUND - 2nd REVIEW
TO:
RE:
Last week Mike Haag chided me for having indicated 5~ hours was
insufficient time to review plans, even though that is exactly
how long I had. The good news is that with Nautica Sound you
have extended the deadline. The bad news is that you only
extended it ~ hour to six hours. And that includes an hour
during which I am meeting with - you!
Date stamps indicate you received the documents on August 3 and
they reached our office August 7. We will not be meeting your
noon August 8 deadline, but will attempt to complete the review
within 72 hours.
WVH:bh
XC: Mike Haag
Ken Hall
A:NAUTICA
"
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-406
FROM:
Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utilities Dept. Chief Field Insp.
Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Bill Cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer
Sgt. Marlon Harris, police Department
Al Newbold, Building Division
William Hukill, Director of Department of Development
Kevin Hallahan,)~ester/Environmentalist
Tambri J.~~:r~l~~~ng & zoning Director
August 7, 1995
TO:
DATE:
RE:
SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES
2nd Submittal -
Master Plan Modification
Project
Nautica sound
Location
East side of Lawrence Road, approximately
1,300 feet South of Hypoluxo Road
Applicant
Kilday Associates
File No.
MPMD 95-006
As agreed to by staff at the July 27, 1995 TRC meeting, find
attached the 2nd submittal plans for the Nautica Sound project. To
ensure that the project stays on track with the review time frame,
the plans and exhibits shall be reviewed and formal written
comments (on legal sized paper) and plans shall be transmitted to
the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department no later than
12:00 noon. Auaust 8. 1995.
The plans will be available in the Planning and Zoning Department
for sign-off.
Thank you for your prompt response.
TJH:arw
attachment
xc: (Memo Only)
Floyd Jordan, Fire Chief
Charlie Frederick, Recreation & Parks Director
Police Chief
John Guidry, Utilities Director
Central File
a:nautiea.Znd.7RC
August 7, 1995
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-287
FROM:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
~m V. Hukill, P.E.
IIIf$1!.. Engineer
NAUTICA SOUND - 2nd REVIEW
TO:
RE:
Last week Mike Haag chided me for having indicated 5~ hours was
insufficient time to review plans, even though that is exactly
how long I had. The good news is that with Nautica Sound you
have extended the deadline. The bad news is that you only
extended it ~ hour to six hours. And that includes an hour
during which I am meeting with - you!
Date stamps indicate you received the documents on August 3 and
they reached our office August 7. We will not be meeting your
noon August 8 deadline, but will attempt to complete the review
within 72 hours.
WVH:bh
XC: Mike Haag
Ken Hall
A:NAUTICA
v
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-316 WDC
TO:
Planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
August 8, 1995
RE: Nautica Sound (AKA: Knollwood Groves)
Lawrence Rd & Hypoluxo Rd
MPMD 95-006
SECOND REVIEW
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).
~ ," ">7 (
/tz /!t:c,,-- A'L{ a, r~~c.~ J .
Will iam 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 performance 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.
s~'
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-437
FROM:
Carrie Parker
City Manager ~
Tambri J. HeYde~f:~~
Planning and zoni~irector
August 14, 1995
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Copies of Development Plans of Current Projects
Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the
August 15, 1995 City Commission Meeting
Please find attached five (5) sets of plans for the following
current development projects:
Master Plan Modification -
Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood
Groves (File No. MPMD 95-006)
Conditional Use
McDonald I s/AmOCO Restaurant and
Service Station/Convenience
store (File No. COUS 95-002)
New Site Plan
LoDolce Warehouse (File No.
NWSP 95-006)
Note:
Please return the plans/documents to the Planning and
Zoning Department following the meeting.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
TJH:dim
Attachments
a:ee'lana.115/.6D
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-438
TO: Carrie Parker
city Manager
..---:;::: j I
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden 1fJ:..(;'t
Planning and Zoning D1rector
DATE: August 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Nautica Sound f.k.a. Knollwood Groves (File No. MPMD 95-
006) - Police Department comments missing from Commission
materials agenda
The attached memorandum, Boynton Beach Police Department Traffic
Unit, Memorandum No. 0156, dated August 8, 1995, regarding the
above-captioned was inadvertently omitted from the Planning and
Zoning Agenda Memorandum No. 95-419 for the August 15, 1995 city
Commission Meeting. Please distribute to commissioners.
TJH:dim
xc: Central File
a:CC815'ol.Nau
ill
rn@rno\VJrn
AUG _ 8 1995
ill
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
PLANNING AND
ZONING DFPT.
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 of Nauttc:!"5o\iiidiind tbe .,c.o.mments that were supplied. It
seems that my original suggestions Jgt:i~js~:~Y~oPpent ~F~Ai!tored. I still maintain the
following: -=':~ ..~~~../,.:~::::~.:~::~:~~::;;...... ... ~;~.../( ..~.'
.... . ...:....-;....:-...... .... ......'.~::...?~,'.
:i?" ,.J.... )',,'
1. Regarding the controlled &q,filllce/exits, the developer (G.IS;.If6:m~s of Florida) has an
attached letter describing. t!vee Wiles ofmeehanisms of gated coniW~\jes. The first, SOS
System(Siren Operable ~y's'em~1 feel is not something that is not t~yo~le; both on a police
stand point and the prospdttlV'{{residents. Police respond to calls tb~.:.Muire a silent response
(burglaries in progress, prowler calls, suspicious persons calls, etc.) t~at activation ofa siren at
the entranee would not t'ppp.~r.t appr~i~ of ctp~!~: Alsfl~j:::;W:~'l.ld not think that residents
~ould appreciate the pql~:~~~~d ~rel.~~'p~~llent ~'!!~,Y~9ing tijQir arr>>1 b?, ~oundin~ their
sirens. The second rec~q:uneI}Clatlon~l~ a^KJi'px Bqxr(~ entry ,ystemliThls IS an antiquated
method of access to a gated:~6uffurii4t::1teqilitinW the cityUb rb4tfitanf ntlster keys to all gated
communities is futile and supplying every police officer and fire personel with a key is out of the
question. Maintaining 9p,e..'~l!Jter key requires the response to the p.~J1.~):lepartment to obtain
the key first, and then to'llle::wmmunity. This is not a "timely" resp<#.W.ftJr emergency vehicles.
The third reeommendati~,Il...):~emote System" is not explained th'?JP.~'enough. It allows the
city personal to remain irft6.~ir~hicles when entering the comm~lt.".~ut does not explain how,
or who activates the gate fu~6iOtt~: I originally suggested a ,~fs.,ffi t9'tf1s similar to this; and is
currently being excepted in t~~~~eL~ated communities ott~t:!~i"The system works with
telephone accessibility. The d1"spat~:~~,pg~ice ii~~::~lttnna,"y. in.~n the telephone number for thc
gate and upon radioing that they (p61ice ,'tJice~ ~ye~ trri,~~ at the gate, the dispatcher then
telephones the number to the gate, there6~ actilatihk in'ifgate for entranee. 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.
#;4
Sgt. Marlon Harris
...,
"
MEMORANDUM
August 24, 1989
chairman and Members
planning and Zoning Board
Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director
RE: Knollwood Graves - Master Plan
1. Concerning the multi-family parcel (Tract A), a 40 foot
setback is required along the 80 foot wide collector road
(Section 9.B of Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments).
2. concerning the required setback abutting the AR-zoned county
pocket and Jonathan's Grove, a 25 foot setback is required
along Jonathan's Grove and is recommended along the AR-zoned
parcels, as it is anticipated that these parcels will be
zoned single-family residential when annexed into the city.
Otherwise, the AR zoning would necessitate a 100 foot set-
back (Section 9.B of Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments).
3. Concerning the single-family parcel (Tract B), a 25 foot
setback is required along Lawrence Road ( Section 9. B of
Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments).
4. Right-of-way to be dedicated for Lawrence Road and Hypoluxo
Road (if necessary) in accordance with the Palm Beach County
Right-of-Way Thoroughfare Protection Map, as referenced in
the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Report (Ordinance 86-54).
5. All necessary right-of-way must be dedicated and permits
obtained from the Lake Worth Drainage District. (See attached)
6. A road "stub" should be provided for a future road connec-
tion to the unincorporated and undeveloped parcel which lies
to the east. Said connection should be made across from the
entrance to the multi-family tract to form a proper inter-
section, if possible.
7. A dense vegetative buffer should be provided between the
multi-family tract and the existing and proposed single-
family lots which lie to the west.
8. Planned Unit Developments must be platted (Section II,
Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments). Only a boundary
plat shall be required for the multi-family parcel (Tract A)
and the day care center parcel. Replats of these parcels
shall not be required.
r-
Co. ~ (~ ")~ ..-;I:;-
CARMEN S. ANNUN~ATO
JJG:frb
Knlgrves
J-f'
, '\rf (I
r '{A., L\
II' 'I'
f\ ' /' ,^', l~ I-
..V ''.IV''\
"v .
n Ii' J
\
cl
"\
, s,~
rjt1 , r)
l !f t~
~rI' n,\
r f
~
TO:
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-30'rl--~ ,
/1 DJ' ,1.)13 fF [7 11."; f2 ,......
i _'__,L.:J I l' iF' I~j
!, i} ",' -"~'-'''''~-''-~;?l/!/!
"
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist /~ II-
Nautica Sound - Existing Citrus Trees
,j~>
RE:
DATE:
July 7, 1995
The attached letter indicates the actions the developer will be pursuing relative to the existing
citrus trees. If this proposal meets the intent of the comprehensive plan, I would like to approve
this as the tree management plan. Please contact me upon your review of the letter. tJJ{, 1/ ,/,
7/lo{q~-
Attachment
K.H:ad
Kllcllly It ~
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1561 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
14071689-5622. Fax: 1407) 689-2592
l"-
e::>
~
...-a
,....
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 5, 1995
TO:
Kevin Hallahan; City Forester
City of Boynton Beach
FROM:
Karyn I. Janssen; Kilday & Associates, Inc.
RE: Nautica Sound Site Visit
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.13
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Rick Elsner of GL Homes, Tom Dwyer of Knollwood Grove, you and I met at Nautica on
June 27, 1995 to view the condition of the Citrus trees on the Nautica Sound Site. We
drove to the two areas on the site that were discussed in the letter addressed to you
from Tom Dwyer dated June 21, 1995, a copy of the aerial photograph with the two
areas identified is attached. During the site visit, Mr. Dwyer noted that within these areas,
there were approximately 20% unhealthy Citrus trees. When counting the Citrus trees
from an aerial, there are approximately Five Hundred and Forty-Five (545) trees located
within these two areas. Once you subtract out the percentage of unhealthy trees, the
total then becomes Four Hundred and Thirty-Six (436) trees. This is the total number of
trees that the City of Boynton Beach will require GL Homes to replace when applying the
no net loss requirement; therefore, GL Homes will have to include 436 trees within their
site plan for the parcel. There are approximately 309 trees proposed to be planted within
the landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the property and within the recreation
area. This amounts to 70% of the required trees for the no net loss requirement. The
remainder of the trees necessary to fulfill this requirement will be placed within the
individual lots on the site. There are three trees minimum proposed for the Zero Lot Line
units and three trees minimum proposed for the 'Z' Lot Line units. The overall tree count
for the site will exceed the required 436 trees necessary to meet the no net loss
requirement of the City.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Rick Elsner; GL Homes
~. ~ rfJ :.) V) h -2-' \ J - ~ ~ .'\1 !
-z :~(~ t;.- q '- o;;.~
~ l .s: ~ -, V) ~ ~ )-.",.
. <-J ~ _ '. \~
t FROM: ~ Kevin l Hallahan, ForesterlEnvironmentalist r: .
~ RE: Nautica Sound pun - Master Plan Modification
B(!DATE: October 13, 1995
\-t
~~
~. The applicant has submitted a tree preservation/management plan for the site which is attached to this_
-----... '- memorandum. The project should continue in the normal review process. - I/J.A.l ~ ('.ar-u-;t.-
-.2.. /" / p J /tV-fY'-:~/ 0 -r'kr .:;
-- This management plan will require the installation of replacement trees as part of the proposed
\~ landscape plan. We are attempting to install these replacement trees on common property for the
~ projec this cannot be accomm ate ecause' , the re lacement trees wi I
\~ ~ be 70% of t e eXIsting quality ci s trees./ I WI coordinate this the site clearing permit.
\ \-:' KH:ad "/vr-~..
V)~
f~
~
~~ .\\ \v
- ~\l . W' IA./
-\ Y all:> ~ 0~\
~~ ~D r-1
sSJ. 0 \'-' I;
~~ \ x) ~
~ ~' -tL
~ ~ - ;fc. "htFh - ()..
~_Q, ,~ .--(YeU ~ ~
'\ r~ ~1 aA.0'
\ <\ f 51 {~" .f)1.J [J7L ~>1k. <""-;5~ c~ -;no+-Vc~
,: ~"; -1 ~ ~ 1 ~-5 ~. ~ 'if;; 5FI( ~'d- f~ 7o~
~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~.~ ~ ,\,,, (-/. AI' Q'0 sMp h-e/
~ ~ l_ . ~ '~'\.;;, .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ U/ ) .
~ 'u .~ ~ ~ ~ \' ~ ~ ~ ~ . \ '-.], / ' f~' f- crt y-n 4~
; ~ ~~ ~~, .~ ~f ~ ~~ '(tM_~ ~r:~'
~ }. ~ t q ~ ~;~'{": I~^-~.../ 1.4 ~
~ ': f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ tLN-- j~ ~~~~ II .
~. ~ J ~ ~ ;- ~ e. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~J- 1 ~ ~ ~
~~ ? ') ~ \" 1 ~ ~ ~ ~......I rr: ~ ~ /1 .-J-: J
"". :) ~ t' ~ ~ \"'i ~ ~ 'i ; ~"?~ _ /J e ' . ~..
~'J.J ~ ...J " ~ ~~ ~ v ~" -..(U
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ """ "-a\
~ 3-.. ~ {l. ~ ~" '", ~"
, , 1','.,
II ~;:
~:
--3
~
JLL-28-'95 FRI 12:01 ID:
TEL NJ:
~345 P01
~
-
..., It All.......
...... Arah/teo1l'....MIft
'111 Farurn ,....
8uh11CX)A
W... '11m BlIGh, FIofldI a:l4Ql
(401~ _ -- . F.IC 1<<J71 "2M2
~
-
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
July 5, 1980
Kevin Hallahan; City Forester
City of Boynton BMcn
Karyn I. Janssen; Kilday It ASSOCiates, Inc.
DATE:
TO:
RE: Nautloa Sound Site Visit
OUR PROJECT NO.: 1020.13
.
________&___~__~~_~~~===~_~_~_~~K~___.__________
Rick Ellner of GL Homess Tom Dwyer of Knotlwood Grove, you and I met at Nautlca on
June 2', ,ggs to view the condition of the Citrus trees on the Nautica Sound Site. We
drove to the two .r... on the alte that were dlacuaaed In the letter addreaaed to you
from Tom Dwyer dated June 21, 1995, a copy of the aerial photograph with the two
areas Identlfted 18 attached. OUl1ng the site visit, Mr. Dwyer noted that within these Breas,
there were approximately 20% unhealthy CltnJs trees. When counting the CltnJs trees
from an aerial. there are approximately Five Hundred and Forty-Five (545) trees located
within theM two areas. Once you subtract out the percentage of unhealthy trees. the
total then becomes Four Hundred and Thirty-Six (436) trees. This ls the total number of
trees that the City of eoyrnon Beach will require GL Homes 10 replace when applying the
no net 108. requirement: therefore, GL Homes will have to include 436 tre. within their
site plan tor the parcel. There are approximately 309 trees proposed to be planted within
the landscape buffers aunoundlng the perimeter of the property and within the recreation
arH. Thll &VT1ol.lnts to 70% of the required treeG for the no net 1081 requirement. The
remainder of the trees nvcfitHary to fulfill this requirement will be placed within the
individual lots on the site. There are three tA!8$ minimum proposeCJ for tne Zero Lot Line
units and three trees minimum propOsed for the 'Z' Lot Une units. The overall tree count
for the aile will exceed the required 436 trees necessary to mest the no nat loas
roql.llromont af the City.
If you nave any questions or concems, ptMS8 do not hesitate to contact me.
oa: Rick Elsner: GL Horn..
- . "'VV' V
~
MEMBER
FLORIDA
GIFT FRUIT
SHIPPERS
ASSOCIA TION
g7.0(JE~ [/ nc.
'.
8()S3 LA\\RE~CE RO,
BOY~TO~ BEACH FL 33436-1699
June 21, 1995
E~t8bll~hed 1930
i-l.()'il 'i:~-l..-l.'illll
iax: I-Wi) 73i-f:;'i( III
toll iree: 18001 222":Jtl~lh
Mr Kevin Hallihan, City Forester
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd
POBox 310
Boynton Beach, PI 33425-0310
Re: Knollwood Groves
Dear Mr Hallihan,
I was contacted by Rick Elsner, GL Homes of Florida and Karyn Janssen, Kilday &
Associates, Inc on Tuesday, June 20,1995 regarding the condition of the citrus trees on
the Meadowood Groves property. Holding a Masters Degree in Agriculture from the
University of Connecticut and drawing from my 23 years of experience in the citrus
producing industry, it is my expert opinion that the citrus trees located in Meadowood
Groves are of poor quality. The trees range in age from 30 to 60 years old and the grove
has not been properly cared for in the last 15 years. I am intimately familiar with the site
since I have been working in the groves for the past few years. I have been able to turn
two small areas of the grove back into production; however, if given the opportunity to
take any trees I wanted prior to development of the site, I would refuse them all. The two
small areas indicated. on the attached aerial are the only areas in which I would say there
are some citrus trees in marginal to fair condition. The trees in these areas have been
producing for me but, I believe there is no justifiable reason to preselVe them or relocate
them once the use on the site changes to residential
Furthermore, citrus trees do not belong in maintained common spaces of residential
developments. If the grass beneath the trees is continually mowed, then the snakes leave
the site and the rats move in, which creates an undsirable situation for all in the
community.
I hope this will answer any questions regarding the condition of the citrus trees in
Meadowood Groves. I will be more than happy to go out on site with you to point out
the conditions which I have discussed.
Thank you for your condsideration.
~cerely, /) ,
~A. ~-~~
om Dwyer //
Knollwood Groves, Inc
./
.-'-
Ly..1RA COei'-
'/1 to:: (-~ c.!ihj ,[,~
/ . J!
(I (~l &(/ rt.i f' Lf-V..
1 (/,..
, })L/--iJt2 d "t;...z( e'l, -
95-059
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO.
TO:
1~~~riaemA. Parker, City Manager
V~~ Hukill, P.E., City Engineer
March 6, 1995
00 " . i I i , ; @
~~~
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
TRAFFIC OBSERVATIONS - LAWRENCE ROAD
The 1994 average traffic count on Lawrence Road between' NW 22nd
Avenue (Gateway) and Hypoluxo has been reported to us by the County
to be 7972 trips. The current FOOT Level of Service Manual defines
the threshold traffic level for LOS D for 2 lane undivided streets
as 13,400 trips.
Those two numbers are important in studying Lawrence Road traffic
because the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division has
informed Mr. Hall of this office that widening of two lane roads in
the County system is not seriously considered until LOS D is
reached. Lawrence Road is a County road.
The Traffic Division has also opined that about 1000 more units can
be occupied on Lawrence Road before LOS 0 is reached. Well over
1000 more units have been approved by either the City or County, as
follows:
~ rVI l Lawrence Oaks
if" .... Nautica I
fa ~ Nautica II
/... -HeaeowlNuod GLU'v~
''l l- -S..I.tI8Wc~D 1lrov.e
. .r1",,()/t- Jonathan's Grove
" 'Il V i..- L~wrence Grove
,~\ ~ C~trus Glen
\ X v Citrus Park
\ G \ .
\
--178 units
177 units
197 units
(ake: Knollwood{);'('~,.;.539 units
nor~Por~ 185 unbuilt units, est.
164 unbuilt units, est.
32 units
75 unbuilt units, est.
20 unbuilt units, est.
113 units
TOTAL
1680 unoccupied units
The figure 1680 is not propounded to be exact, because each of the
entries marked "unbuilt units" represents our estimate of how many
units remain to be occupied in uncompleted developments. Traffic
from occupied units appears in actual traffic counts totaling 7972
trips. We believe it is reasonable to predict that when all
unoccupied units in all listed developments are in place, the Level
of Service Standard will exceed LOS Standard E, which is 15,000
trips. LOS 0 will be reached when approximately 2/3 of the 1680
future units are occupied.
.. ...--
'':':'C
AGEI\IDA- DO'ClIM'E"ITS
..
..
f
I
, PL~NNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-295
Agenda Memorandum for
october 3, 1994 city Commission Meeting
TO: carrie Parker
city Manager
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden ~
Planning and Zoning Department
DATE: September 29, 1994
SUBJECT: Boynton Nurseries PUD - MPMD #94-004
Revised density, unit type, layout, setbacks and roads
NATURE OF REQUEST
Kilday and Assoc~ates, agent for Boynton Nurseries, property
owner and G.L. Homes, contract purchaser of the Boynton Nurseries
PUD, located on i-,he west side of Lawrence Road, at the northwest
corner of Lawrence Road and the L.W.D.D. L-21 Canal (see Exhibit
"A" - location map), is requesting approval to modify the
previously approved master plan for the Boynton Nurseries PUD
(see Exhibit "B" - letter of request and Exhibit "C" - approved
and proposed master plans). The modifications are as follows:
1. Reduction in total number of units from 400 to 374.
2. Change in type of units. Original master plan showed
162 single-family units with a minimum 6,000 square
foot lot and 238 multi-family units. Proposed master
plan shows all single-family units, comprised of 231
"Z" lot units on 4,000 (40' x 100') square foot lots
and 143 zero lot line units on 5,000 (50' x 100')
square foot lots.
2. Phasing of the project into two phases. Phase I would
include all but 48 units; Phase II would include the
remain~ng 48 units. Even though there is a reduction
in the total number of units from the original
approval, due to the change in type of units (multi-
family generating fewer trips per day than single-
family), phasing is necessary with this modification to
avoid road improvements to the surrounding roadways.
3. An increase in the traffic impact to surrounding
roadways as described in item 2 above, a decrease in
water and sewer demand and a decrease in the population
growth anticipated.
4. Change in pod layout and size and access points to the
pods.
5. Establishment of the alignment and size (40 feet wide
wi th a fOUL- foot wide sidewalk on one side) of the
local streets (private) that serve the pods.
6. Alteration of the size (reduction from 5.3 acres in
total ~o 2.5 acres) and arrangement of the tree
preservation area.
7. Revisions to the master drainage plan (change in lake
sizes ~nd locations).
8. Reduction in size, from 2.84 acres to 2.5 acres, of the
public park to be dedicated to the City.
9. Reduction in width, from 25 feet to 5 feet, of the PUD
perimeter buffer along the south boundary of the PUD.
TO: Carrie Parker
-2-
september 29, 1994
10. A condition of the original master plan approval was
that prior to applying for preliminary plat approval, a
master plan modification would be required to establish
lot layout and setbacks. Therefore, this modification
establishes lot layout and the following, more
significant, minimum setbacks:
Building setback - both type of units
a) front - 20 feet to the garage, but 15 feet to
the house;
b) rear - 15 feet for units that back up to one
another, but 10 feet for units that back up
to a lake, preserve, PUD perimeter or a
roadway;
c) side (non-zero portion) - 10 feet (13.5 feet
for corner lots);
screened Enclosures - I. Z" lot line units
d) rear - 0 feet when abutting a lake or
preserve;
e) side - 0 feet (? - could not ascertain from
plans), but 13.5 feet for corner lots;
screened Enclosures - Zero lot line units
f) rear - 0 feet when abutting a lake or
preserve, 5 feet when units back up to one
another;
g) side - 10 feet, but 13.5 feet for corner
lots.
BACKGROUND
The Boynton Nurseries PUD master plan (valid for 18 months,
unless a preliminary plat is filed) was approved by the city
Commission on september 5, 1990, subject to numerous conditions.
Subsequently, a one year time extension and concurrency exemption
for traffic, drainage and neighborhood parks were granted through
March 5, 1993. A second one year time extension was granted and
lastly a third time extension. The current time extension and
concurrency exemption for the levels of service previously
mentioned, expires March 5, 1995. submittal of a master plan
modification does not extend the life of a master plan.
Regarding the procedure for processing master plan modifications,
Appendix B, Planned unit Development, of the city code of
ordinances states that changes in planned unit developments shall
be processed as follows:
section 12. changes in plans.
IIchanges 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
:c.
~ ~_ >B-.Ii; 'lDcouLoo~
!I!'.a. :1f-c..!I.zo ,
0Dn- !3~ ~ .$S4Z!T-O-'.zO
C't*!l ~ ("~7.) ..7$..6000
!F-""I..X. ,4(7) 37S~
FAC~XMILE TRANSMISSXON
TO:
~ L".::)l-r~ ;:\ t,oa. I te IP
kt"<~ <iit ~c.
&,. '8"9 - d2~ q;:2
.,'- a VVlo \or-', i i:-\-P----'1d P...N'l
Q-3o-QY
r<'...Jl) .. ) (~<::F>d ~a;j e..s ~ ~ I.J. ~~r ~~
, I
P ~~EZ'd 16jo +-t-t.(..s; a.. Yn .
I
I
!
+v.......c:;e
'AX NO:
J!'ROM :
DA"l.'X t
RE::
- --po ...' --r;; vvt \0 Y'(
J-h-r.en
1
NUMB' F~ R OF PAGE::$ X.NCLl,H::> ZNG- I 'rH.:t: IS COVER SHEET
'7
C: .l?AX'rlR.A.NS . :l!r.b
.fll........riGa S ~a.::z~y to em qut;j':stnano
TRANSMISSION REPORT
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 7
*** SENO ***
,--'---
! NO I REMOTE ST A TI ON I. D.
1--~lLDAY & b.SSOC
L-J..__
COMMENT ~ j
START TIME
DURATION I'PA~
5' 55" I 7
0:05'55" 7
9-30-94 'I: 35PM
TOTAL
XEROX TELECOPIER 7 20
drJ1
,if'::>
1 qt
~!vtrf
TO: Carrie Parker
-3-
September 29, 1994
discretion of the city commission. Nonsubstantial 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 Appendix B,
Planned Unit Developments of the code of ordinances:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established.
It is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development,
creative design, improved living environment, orderly and
economical development in the city, and the protection of
adjacent and existing and future city development. The
district is suitable for development, redevelopment, and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the city.
Regulations for planned unit developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations,
and other applicable city regulations to the same degree
that they intended to control development on a lot-by-lot
basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of
planned unit developments, 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 coordinated units."
Section 9.B. Internal Lots and Frontage. "Within the
boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards
shall be required, provided, however, that PUD 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."
of the proposed modifications, only the changes in buffer width,
recreation, lot sizes and setbacks generated concern by staff.
Regarding the proposed width and treatment of the landscape
buffers, staff has encountered problems with peripheral landscape
buffers when they are incorporated as an easement on private,
homeowner lots, or even as a separate tract, dedicated to the
homeowners' association, that abuts homeowner lots. These
buffers frequently succumb to homeowner pressure to fence them
in. Landscaping within the buffers are then difficult to ensure
that they are retained as originally required. In addition, to a
preference for landscaping within dedicated tracts, staff is
recommending that the 25 feet, originally approved by the city
Commission, be provided around the entire PUD perimeter.
Regarding recreation, with the number and type of units shown on
the original master plan, the total parks and recreation
dedication requirement was 6.75 acres. Fifty percent credit was
allowed for the provision of a private recreation area, comprised
of five different recreational amenities, leaving 3.375 acres to
be dedicated as a public park. Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.5.5
requires park dedication of 6 acres/1,OOO persons (further
refined in Section 8, Article IX, of the Subdivision
Regulations). The private recreation facilities to be provided
satisfy the 2.5 acre/1,OOO population level of service for
neighborhood facilities, but not the total park dedication
requirement of 6 acres/l,OOO population satisfied by the public park.
TO: Carrie Parker
-4-
september 29, 1994
To meet the level of service for parks and recreation in this
neighborhood, the public park site is needed in the northeast
corner of the project, as is proposed with this modification.
Since the minimum size required for a neighborhood park is 5
acres, the acreage acquired from Boynton Nurseries is to be
combined with the acreage (estimated to be only 2 acres) from the
future development of the Knollwood Groves property directly to
the north. This is the last opportunity for the city to acquire,
by dedication, enough park acreage to build a neighborhood park
in the vicinity of Lawrence Road. With the original master plan,
staff recommended that the Commission require 3.375 acres to be
dedicated as a public park. The master plan was approved
requiring 2.84 acres in public park dedication and a cash payment
equivalent to the value of the remaining .535 acres.
with the proposed decrease in number of units and change in type
of units to all single-family, the total parks and recreation
dedication requirement is 6.732, as compared to 6.75 acres with
the original master plan. The proposed master plan reduces the
public park dedication further to 2.5 acres, with a cash
equivalent of .866 acres to be paid to the City at time of
platting, putting the city at risk of not being able to assemble
enough land, given the Boynton Nurseries acreage and the future
Knollwood Groves acreage, for a 5 acre neighborhood park.
Regarding the proposed lot sizes and setbacks, Exhibit "D"
contains a chart listing the planned unit developments (PUD)
within the city that have been approved with minimal lot sizes,
lot frontages (widths) and building, pool and screened enclosure
setbacks. When comparing these minimums approved, to date,
within the City, with the minimum lot sizes, lot frontages and
setbacks proposed within the Boynton Nurseries PUD, it is noted
that no one PUD contains the minimums of all the various
characteristics (lot size, width and setbacks) proposed within
the Boynton Nurseries PUD. For example, the smallest front
building setback is currently 18 feet and is within Citrus Glen.
The smallest rear building setback is currently 10 feet and is
within Boynton Lakes. The smallest side building setback,
excluding the zero lot line sides for "Z" lots and zero lot line
units, is currently 10 feet and is within The Meadows (although
Lawrence Lake shows 7.5 feet, this is provided on both sides,
yielding a 15 foot building separation). The minimum lot size is
4,500 square feet with a 50 foot wide lot and is found within
Boynton Lakes. Regarding screened enclosures, the minimum rear
setback is 5 feet; 0 feet when abutting a lake area and is found
within Boynton Lakes and Citrus Glen, respectively. The minimum
side setbacl: for screened enclosures is 8 feet and is found
within Boynton Lakes (excludes same 7.5 foot stipulation
previously mentioned for Lawrence Lake and excludes the "Z" lots
at The Meadows, tract M, where such structures were permitted
prior to final approval and withdrawal of request and where the
unit is angled on the lot, so no building separation is visible
from the street).
Over the past ten to fifteen years, the PUD proposals within the
city have included smaller and smaller lot sizes, with very large
homes and increased lot coverages (decreased permeability), built
closer and closer to property lines. These small lots with
narrow building separations have posed ever-changing problems for
emergency personnel who must park large vehicles on narrow
streets and maneuver emergency equipment within tight openings
between buildings. 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 personal car, not to mention guest
vehicles. In addition, most families have at least two vehicles,
so vehicles are parked continually within the street, blocking
passage of vehicles, and within swales or over sidewalks, causing
unsightly, costly damage to both.
:1.' c:.'
,il ~ ~~. ~ . , ( [B.:"
\, ~ ~: ,,~L- ....
\ .- ~r-\:: ~ ".,' ;::.::," · .... L-
:\ s' \;~ (~),~ \:
,..--------1::: Xl+! r (tI><.) to
'... <-I '<.LJ.l:' C" ~ I..
'. 1 ~\~'-":"~. ~-'
'1~rwi ~7;;7-~ C'If~' t,~, ~-
,\ \ \ \ \\,,,,,,'(11 1 "J - ,,\~1~ {(
Q\~ '~.. '~~, ~
\Lt=r-,~l,J , ,\ \ . , l) '.
\.
~_\\., Iff'! 1 1771//'/1'1;'//' tN///'
.....~~11 jJ.' ,-,', ~~ '77/, / " ~)
\__ _/1 A'{ "" "",'1" T' '0 --W, 7,~t/ z'
I g " \ f ,T, ,\ ", I> ,,', I~ ' / n '/ ' ,
-"'J k _::::::--.' .... ~ I; ('}H, f / 'J '/
.. / r- " __~ ,_~ ....'...' 1/ ~ ~" ///
Kn~,'- _ ' " "....' /h"" "}'7,'/ /
\ _;" 1 A:'....Y IT~- ,_ ........ ,o;:~"'. ...,. n '/1 ///1; ,//1
/ /::';1?'l!' I,' '/' ' .,..,...." 'III '/
'\._l,~~~.rl\\\ft\ij /I ......-' ,.', '/1./1 ''il' ,///'/
\\-~~'~\~_I (~,>,\,S~~\ \ '77' 7~/~ '!JI//I Iii II;)~'/ ;~f;~/'~~/'~;/I~J/~m,~'/.%\1 ~,\p.p.
'. . ;.. ,',_ ' I-- 1//,/ '1/// ",'1/1 '/1/ 'I'J I u/'//. '" 'I, t,.~~i ~,.J'
_ @ "'> ~ ~ II '/, ,//1/111 /1//'. ' '
, , IW~~~rt; ~},_. >'~ VW/j//(IIf~ /// ~~ \ . J .,'~ ',I
'-Jr~~~~'~\ \~, ~. ", \ srtE. ~,~
~.._)
. . \\ ~
-,;Jv..' ~S> ~ F~'
. ~..,." '- ,~~ .. ..
~_ _---- 'T ,'\ \ ,," II"
_------:: lr"'l \ ~ ,'-. -. -, .J,\,-J~ tf-
, ' \ ; '-'1 \~. =---1 riJ~ I. ' 1\ :-IS: ~. - =- ~( \
\ \ \ ; \;J \ : . ~ 1'\\~\ ~ \\" ,c, \ \ \ ~ I~~I \) \~" \1, \ fl
\ \ : .. . ~, 3~~tr \ t:;l::::;: JI~-4'r\-
~... ~~. ~~.-~~- W- ~
~ \t I,~ <C'\ ~i i ,~~\\~~~\\i\\I\(ffi'\ '- .
'\1 \n~ ~ II ~;2,.'. ,.:>-i>,...." il-'TID.i
\ ~:.:- I:;;;;: ~""-' ".,.,' .' rl.' ,I'" 'fl'1lT'" n-f1\l
k::~~u II II II U r"'I~\\\\\\\1\ r~ ~",,;.,., ',\;;.~Yic ~\lID
\ \ () .... ~ )"', ~," \I" -.., ,-II ,~ '
. V~ ~, ......~ \ C'Ii'Tn-,'DJ"'c='" -, _,,;:;:>--"r'cn1 (III"" '
e.S ' ,-,,-,. .~A- rr 1\
'\ 18 MIL -: :::~~'~ ' ;" - ctLL
\?\\\\\ \ \ _ . '\ "~%{\\W~~u':t,.. ~/.. ;'/'- ,-- -_\, ~'\1
\ _ I ~80'yiJTO~~~~" I.'
AnO ./o.qq __-:--r,~" ,-' \ ,'1ft,!,
, ' ,,\ ,I i .
) 1, .,
LOCp....noN MP"'"
Bo"{NiON NURSE.R\E.S
..~,~'-'\
l-
~\
\
\ -~
~~'r "11__:;;:""
." ..' -
I ,.....
.uJ..
~\~ ..
a~ ""~.'
~M. H'
\f'~ "fH ~\
\
l-n
-rnl1
\\ \ 1
l' \
\ \ \ \
1
~
,
L-----
~ ~- --
- or
ct ~
.
~
~ '?
w.'
-
r-::::
'-~
1\
~
--
,- -,'
\ ~--~
, ~r~
-,4-,.;1 \\m~Ull...L~ 1
~
-. \ . ..-,
~ ~;_ .__ ._'~ 'I-- ...0;
~. ,;t::-. ') '-^ .l?
:=.-:::::~' "
t:::i ',;;r::: ,,~
" I rr j~~
r:--r'I'';~ ~"" ": ':' \.
", -{.:_ -->'It,} ";c', ? ; -'~\I
.~' ii.' " \ i'I" \ \ 1 ' 1;, ;.. '
,'crrALlS~
p\JO \..
PLANNING AND ZONING
LASERFICHE TEMPLATE
PROJECT NAME: No U t1 ca
PROJECT TYPE: \'Yln:::::;te_y r \n..n mod
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROJECT NO. \'f\Pmo q4- 004-
PCN:
DOC TYPE:
(RIGHT CLICK FOR PULL DOWN MENU)
STATUS: 1fcprOVf/{j
(RIGHT CLICK FOR P L DOWN MENU)
APPROVAL/STATUS DATE
[3 / 2q_/ q4
DESTRUCTION DATE:
/
/ (0+ Q)(X)Q
S :\Planning\Plann ing\Laserfiche template ,doc
-'
"
PLANNING Af'lD ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-312
I
Agenda Memorandum for
octoner 18, 1994 City Commission Meeting
TO: carrie Parker
Ci ty Mc;nager
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden 11-11
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: october 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Boynton Nurseries PUD - MPMD #94-004
Revised density, unity type, layout, setbacks and roads
Please place the above-referenced request on the October 18, 1994
city Commission agenda, for reconsideration by the commission,
under Development Plan, Non-consent agenda.
DESCRIPTION: This request to modify the 1990 approved master
plan for the Boynton Nurseries PUD, as described in the attached
report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 94-295),
went before the Commission on October 3, 1994 and with a 4 - 1
vote, the City Commission made a finding of no substantial change
regarding the modifications requested. In addition, the
Commission recommended to the Planning and Development Board that
comments 2, 3, 15, 16(a) and 17 of the attached Planning and
Zoning Department memorandum, dated September 29, 1994, be
deleted and that comment 14 be revised to require pedestrian
signalization only if warranted.
RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Appendix B (the city's planned unit
development regulations) of the code, the Commission's role in
reviewing a master plan modification is to determine whether or
not requested changes are substantial in nature, prior to
forwarding the request to the planning and Deyelopment Board for
final disposition. The commission may f~rward with their
determination recommendations for the Planning and Development
Board to use as guidelines for rendering a Board decision.
However, in light of the 1992 code amendment that made all
decisions by the planning and Development Board advisory to the
Commission, the City Attorney has determined that in the event a
Planning and Development Board action on a master plan
modification is in conflict with a previous Commission action, it
is in order for the Planning and Development Board to request the
City Commission to reconsider the conflicting recommendations.
At the october 11, 1994, Planning and Development Board meeting,
the Board unanimously approved the request, subject to all staff
comments, with the exception of comment 3 from the Planning and
Zoning Department memorandum, dated September 29, 1994. In
addition, the Board requested that the City Commission reconsider
their october 3, 1994 recommendation to delete comments 15, 16(a)
and 17 of the referenced memorandum and that the Commission
require compliance with Palm Beach County's pending traffic
clarification (comment 2 of the referenced memorandum). Attached
is a rough draft of the portion of the Planning and Development
Board minutes regarding the discussions and sentiments of the
Board with respect to the issues requested for reconsideration.
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
A:ReconBoy
B. Subd1v1s1on~
Master Plan Mod1f1cation
1. Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Boynton Nurseries PUD
Kilday and Associates
Boynton Nurseries
Lawrence Road and L.W.D.D. L-21 Canal; northwest
corner
Request for approval of an amended master plan
showing a reduction in number of units from 400 to
374, change in type of units from 162 single-family
units on 6,000 square foot lots and 238 multi-family
units to 233 "Z" units on 4,000 square foot lots and
143 zero, lot line units on 5,000 square foot lots,
establishment of lot layout and setbacks, altered pod
size and access points, change in buffer and road
widths and their ownership, revised location and size
of preserve and drainage areas and modified utilities
and landscape plans
Ms. Heyden stated that Kilday and Associates is requesting approval to modify
the 1990 approved master plan for the Boynton Nurseries PUD. This PUD is to be
located on the west side of Lawrence Road at the northwest corner of Lawrence
Road and the Lake Worth Drainage District L-21 Canal. She reviewed these
changes, which are listed in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No.
94-295 to the City Manager. One of the changes dealt with the reduction from
2.84 to 2.5 acres for a park. However, at the City Commission meeting, the
applicant agreed to dedicate 2.84 acres to the City for a public park.
Description:
On October 3, 1994, the City Commission voted 4-1 that the proposed changes are
not substantial in nature. In addition, they recommended approval of the staff
comments listed in the September 29, 1994 memorandum from Ms. Heyden to
Mr. Haag, except for comments 2, 3, 15, 16(a) and 17.
Comment 14 (pedestrian signalization) was revised to require signalization only
if warranted. This pedestrian signal was originally required. Since there is a
school directly across the street, staff felt this was necessary for safety
reasons. In addition, it is Comprehensive Plan policy.
Comment 2, which relates to traffic, ties into phasing. Staff is awaiting
clarification from Palm Beach County on this issue.
Comment 3 relates to the width of the buffer (five feet) proposed along the
south property line, as compared to the width of the other perimeter buffers
(twenty-five feet), all of which were originally approved at twenty-five feet.
If this Board detenmines that five feet is adequate along the south property
line, staff recommends that the second sentence in comment 2, which states,
"Clarify the difference between the five foot setback and the ten foot setback
shown on the plans", be retained as a condition of approval.
Comment 15 relates to the buffer. Staff recommends the buffer be dedicated as a
tract, rather than an easement encumbering the private lots.
Corrment 16(a) relatl:;;> to increasing the size of the "L" lots to 4,500 square
feet, with a minimum fifty foot wide lot and ten foot building separation. This
ties into corrment 17. Staff recorrmends a limitation be placed on the number of
two-story units that can be built in a row because from the street you see a
five foot building separation, not a ten foot setback. Ms. Heyden stated that
the applicant mentioned at the City Corrmission meeting that they have some
internal rules regarding mixing the units. However, she has not heard or seen
anything regarding those rules and does not know what they are. If this com-
ment, or some variation of this corrment, is not approved, then there is no
guaranty to ensure that those rules will be enforced.
Kieran Kilday represented GL Homes, the builder of this project. Mr. Kilday
stated that this property was approved in 1989 and has been through three exten-
sions. He explained the project in detail. He also explained the difference
between the zero and the HZ" lots and stated that this allows you to get more
architectural features in the buildings. The reason for having two-story and
single-story units is to provide a break in the height of the buildings. The
unit types have all been laid out so that there are individual breaks in the
building facade.
Regarding breaking up the unit types, Mr. Kilday advised that if there are
repeating units, they are required to be different colors. In addition, no more
than three units of the same type are allowed in a row.
Mr. Kilday advised that several issues were discussed at the City Corrmission
meeting. One was the minimum lot size allowable. The City Corrmission allowed
the HZ" lots, which are 4,000 square foot. The overall lot coverage of the pro-
posed project is no greater than what had been approved in 1989 and will not
exceed that amount. The accumulative square footage will be indicated on each
application for building permit and quarterly surrmaries will be provided.
A forty foot wide right-of-way is being proposed. Within that forty foot right-
of-way is a twenty foot paved area and on each side there is a two foot concrete
valley gutter which gives it a finished look. Then there is a six foot grass
median, in addition to a four foot sidewalk on one side of the street. There-
fore, even though the lot size is small, the distance between the walks is ex-
panded because of the larger, finished right-of-way between the units.
Mr. Kilday stated that oftentimes, the ten foot separation only occurs in one
small area between the units. In most cases, in front of the property, between
garages, the distance is much larger than ten feet. This gives variety in terms
of the look of the overall units of the project.
Mr. Kilday asked that the buffer area on the south line be reduced to five feet.
The units have a ten foot setback. He pointed out the location of the Lake
Worth Drainage canal. He is dedicating, as part of this approval, an additional
thirty-five feet to the existing fifty feet. Therefore, there is a considerable
green area distance between this project and the south canal.
Mr. Golden asked what the objection was to dedicating the tract as opposed to
the easement. Mr. Kilday stated that GL Homes has similar buffers in other
projects and has found that having the property owner own the tract, even though
it is an easement, works out better in terms of the long term maintenance
responsibilities of the project. In addition, the irrigation system of the
buffer is tied into each lot. This has not created any problems in other pro-
jects and has worked out well.
'From his experience, Vice Chairman Dube advised that nis homeowners' association
has a buffer in the easement that belongs to the property owners. It abuts Lake
Worth Drainage District property. Lake Worth Drainage District only cuts their
grass twice a year. Therefore, the homeowners' association cuts their grass for
them. The individual homeowners own the property beyond the Lake Worth Drainage
District, and the homeowners' association has to fight, argue, lien, and go to
court to get those hedges and trees trimmed and grass cut. Vice Chairman Dube
felt it needs to be a tract and needs to be maintained by the homeowners' asso-
ciation.
Alan Fant, Vice President of GL Homes, stated that there is a large perimeter,
and each homeowner likes to irrigate and take care of what is in his back yard.
Even if it is not his back yard, he perceives it as his. Mr. Fant pointed out
that if a homeowner does not irrigate or cut his grass, the homeowners' asso-
ciation has the right to do it. Vice Chairman Dube wondered who was going to
pay for that. In addition, he pointed out that the property owner has the right
to call the Police and have you removed from his property. Then the homeowners'
association has to go through the Court to obtain the right to go on the
homeowner's property to cut the grass.
Vice Chairman Dube felt the homeowners' association should cut the Lake Worth
Drainage District grass because if it is left up to the individual homeowners,
some of them will cut it and some will not.
Chairman Lehnertz asked if all of the buffer and landscaping is going to be
irrigated with City water. Mr. Fant answered affirmatively.
Mr. Kilday pointed out that the applicant has to put a buffer in to separate the
project from Lake Worth Drainage District property. He said some property
owners might want to seal themselves off with fences.
Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Kilday if he is willing to address all staff comments,
except the ones deleted by the City Commission, to staff's satisfaction.
Mr. Kilday answered affirmatively.
Ms. Heyden stated that although the City Commission did not delete it, there
was an objection to widening the driveways to eighteen feet. Mr. Kilday was
under the impression that the City Commission approved the sixteen foot wide
drive. He will clarify this with the City Commission and abide by their deci-
sion. Ms. Heyden thinks the City Commission inadvertently left out the driveway
issue in their motion. She felt the sixteen foot driveway is adequate for two
cars.
Chairman Lehnertz asked for clarification regarding the statement in Planning
and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 94-295 which states, "phasing is necessary
with this modification to avoid road improvements to the surrounding roadways."
Ms. Heyden stated that the difference between this proposal and the previous one
is only six units. She believes the Palm Beach County Planning and Engineering
Department will determine that phasing will not be necessary.
Chairman Lehnertz thought it was against the Comprehensive Plan and City ordi-
nances to irrigate common and buffer areas with City water. Ms. Heyden advised
that the City does not allow that. She explained that when the applicant goes
to pull a permit, a comment will be made that he has to pull it from a well or
lake. Chairman Lehnertz asked if the applicant is going to have to put in a
common irrigation system. Ms. Heyden said if it were on a dedicated tract, they
would have to. If it is on an easement, then most logically it would be irri-
gated from each individual lot. However, that sets you up for the buffer being
constructed on a lot by lot basis. Ms. Heyden stated that the purpose of the
buffer is to protect the adjacent property owners, not so much the people that
are going to live in the proposed project.
Mr. Rosenstock aske~ now the applicant intends to ir"gate the property where
the homes are located. Mr. Fant said he was not aware of the Boynton Beach
Code. However, he will abide by the Code and everything would have to be off of
a well or come from the lake.
In response to Mr. Rosenstock, Mr. Fant stated that one of the
not to have an eighteen foot driveway was based on aesthetics.
believes the driveway should match the garage door. He said a
door is sixteen feet wide and easily accommodates two cars.
reasons he chose
GL Homes
typical garage
In response to Chairman Lehnertz, Ms. Heyden said the City Commission had no
problem with it being treated as an easement rather than a dedication, and they
deleted comment 15. Chairman Lehnertz objected to deleting comment 15. He did
not feel that anything this size should be irrigated with City water.
Mr. Golden agreed with his fellow Board members about the landscaping and the
dedication of a tract for the landscaping.
Chairman Lehnertz expressed concern about aesthetics and growth. He referred to
page 6 of Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 94-295, which talks
about this area being one of the last areas in the City that could be developed
with larger lots and larger homes. He felt these houses are being shoved
together as close as possible. He said the Planning and Zoning Department feels
this situation is not aesthetically pleasing and affects the quality of life of
the people living there. Chairman Lehnertz stated that these lots have postage
stamp size lawns, which accounts for the problems with the driveways. He felt
the landscape buffer should be dedicated to the homeowners' association. He was
not sure why the City Commission voted to delete that. He felt the City should
have a way to enforce the developer not to have too many two-story homes in a
row. He felt the landscape plan is inadequate. It indicates 50 percent native
trees and 50 percent native shrubs. However, it does not indicate what kind of
trees and what kind of mixtures. It does not indicate what is going to be non-
native.
Mr. Walsh ecohed Chairman Lehnertz' feelings and the Planning and Zoning
Department's comments. He wondered when we are going to stop building houses on
top of each other. Aesthetics were important to him.
Mr. Rosenstock felt the City is becoming a ghetto and that the developers are
only interested in making money.
In response to Mr. Rosenstock regarding the landscaping, Mr. Kilday stated that
he is before this Board for a master plan approval. A conceptual landscape plan
was submitted per the Code. At the permit level, a detailed plan will be sub-
mitted.
Motion
Mr. Rosenstock moved that this Board defer 7.B.1., Boynton Nurseries PUD, back
to the City Commission and recommend the reinsertion of paragraphs 15 and 16
that they have deleted, and further ask for full compliance as our memorandum
states.
Vice Chairman Dube asked Mr. Rosenstock to amend his motion to reinsert comments
15, 16(a) and 17. Mr. Rosenstock agreed. Vice Chairman Dube seconded the
motion.
~r. Golden recommen~~d that approval also be subject cO compliance with any
recommendations from the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Department con-
cerning the phasing requirements. Mr. Rosenstock and Vice Chairman Dube agreed
to include this in the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
TO: Carrie Parker
-5-
september 29, 1994
The City has approved these proposals in an attempt to offer a
full range of housing choices to current and potential city
residents, so as not to exclude anyone group of people and
encourage population and housing diversity. In general, the
smaller the lot, the less expensive the dwelling and associated
land. This has a direct correlation with the type and number of
jobs available within the City, the percentage of the city's
population that both lives and works within the city, the type of
market that City retailers gear toward, the types of businesses
that are attracted to the City, etc.
Logically, the area of the City over the past five to ten years
that has seen the most PUD approvals is the area along Lawrence
Road (including Military Trail), between Hypoluxo Road and N.W.
22nd Avenue. This area has become a monoculture of developments
comprised of 5,000 and 5,500 square foot lots, yet it is probably
the remaining area, within the City or "annexable", with the
exception of a few infill areas within the City, where larger
lots and homes could be developed, compatible with the larger
lots and homes that spot the area. The City has not seen the
build-out of a development approved for lots 70 feet in width or
wider, and larger than 6,000 square feet, in over eight years
(Jonathan's Grove of 32 lots is an exception and is under
construction) .
For the technical reasons previously mentioned and to reconsider
the progression of smaller and smaller lot sizes, staff is
recommending that the approval of this modification to the
Boynton Nurseries PUD be, at minimum, consistent with the
majority of the PUDs within the City. Therefore, among other
specific recommendations relative to lot sizes and setbacks (see
attached Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated
september 29, 1994, comment 16 - Exhibit "Ell), staff is
recommending that the minimum lot size within the Boynton
Nurseries PUD be 4,500 square feet, with a minimum lot width of
50 feet. Further, staff is recommending that the rear setback
for screened enclosures, even those that abut lakes or open
areas, be increased to 5 feet, that all side, building
separations be maintained at 10 feet and that the rear setback
for screened enclosures that back up to other lots be increased
to 8 feet.
RECOMIvlENDATION
On Tuesday, August 23, 1994 and Tuesday, september 13, 1994, the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the master plan
modification. The TRC recommends that the City Commission make a
finding of no substantial change for the proposed modification,
and that the Planning and Development Board approve the request,
subject to the attached staff comments (see Exhibit "E"
Building Department Memorandum No. 94-210; utilities Department
Memorandum No. 94-301; Fire Department Memorandum No. 94-275 WDC;
Engineering Department Memorandum No. 94-289, 94-254, 94-255, 94-
263 and 94-288; Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No.
94-342, 94-320 and 94-340; and Planning and Zoning Department
Memorandum No. 94-256).
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
A: BoyNMPM1
,...-.
Kilday & Auoc18t..
Landscape Architects/ Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
August 4, 1994
Ms. Tambri J. Hayden, Planning Director
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: Boynton Nursery PUD
Minor Master Plan Modification Application
Our Project No.: 1020.7
Dear Ms. Hayden,
Please accept and process the attached information for a Minor Master Plan
Modification to the previously approved Boynton Nursery PUD located on the west
side of Lawrence Road, north of Gateway Boulevard. We are submitting this
Minor Master Plan Modification application on behalf of GL Homes of Florida, Inc.,
contract purchasers of the property, and Boynton Nurseries, owners of the
property. The original master plan, approved March 20, 1990, reflected a total of
400 units which were comprised of 162 detached units and 238 multi family units.
The proposed master plan reflects a total of 376 zero lot line detached units. The
overall master plan has been revised to delete twenty-four (24) units from the
original approval.
There are two (2) product types proposed, one a zero lot line product which
utilizes a 5,000 s.f. lot and the other a "l" lot product which utilizes 4,000 s.t. lot.
Details of typical units, setbacks, and open space areas are included with this
application. The site is divided into four (4) development pods, two (2) pods will
utilize the 5,000 s.f. zero lot line lot and two (2) pods will utilize the 4,000 s.f. "l"
lot line lot.
Access for the PUD remains as previously approved with two (2) access points
off of Lawrence Road. Also, a central loop road is maintained, similar to the past
approval. This road will be dedicated publicly with this approval. Also, pursuant
to conditions of the previous approval, a 2.5 acre public park site is proposed
adjacent to Lawrence Road in the northern portion of the site. A private
community recreation facility of 2.84 acres in size has been incorporated in the
interior of the site which will include a minimum of five (5) amenities.
Pursuant to on-site meetings with Kevin Hallahan, a preserve area which more
accurately represents preservation of significant existing vegetation has been
Ms. Tambri Hayden
August 4, 1994
Page 2 of 2
proposed along the southern portion of the property. The original proposal of a
preservation area within the perimeter buffers of the "tail"' of the site was not
appropriate due to the lack of existing vegetation in those areas.
Attached with this letter is a comparison of impacts for the project. You will note
that in most areas, this project will reduce impacts from that previously approved,
especially in areas of water and sewer capacity and population. The development
of this project will be phased. Phase 1 will be limited to 328 zero lot line units
which has traffic capacity equivalent to that which was originally approved. Phase
2 development of 48 units will be conditioned upon the contract being let for the
expansion of surrounding roadways. Attached with this application is a traffic
impact letter. A full traffic statement is being produced 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 home elevations.
If you have any questions or concerns in regards to this application, 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,
&k4Wlllil~A
Collene W. Walter
cc: Alan Fant; GL Homes
Larry Portnoy; GL Homes
Rob Rennebaum; Simmons & White. Inc.
Chuck Justice; Lawson & Noble
Application Received By:
Date:
. . .
-, .....
J.i~:.
~~~< 0
6~n..
:... "..
" ., .'. .
" .....,.'.. .
.... .....' ..
... '.....'.' . -,.
.", ........'. ..
. .......... ..
., ...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,
.. ......... '"
. . . . . . - , , . ,. ..
.." .....,... ....
.... ..
.. "' .... ...
.. .... .... .
::.:..:.:.;.:-:.::...:.....;.:
.. ....."...
.... ...........".
"," .,...... 0"
",. .........,.".
ci
::j
a.:
~
w
en
0:
::>
z
z
o
I-
Z
~
m
I-
0:
<:
J:
o
Z
o
en
0:
<(
n.
:::2:
o
o
I-
o
w
a
0:
n.
I> . ~
':(!l.
1:
.CD
$
4:.,
:3
. .. ~
..
...
:' .
,.;;.
it ~
.r~,< ~
..,HH:>
:.' ,. . .
<, ".;.
. ..
:..,.<,.....
";;.:".::""
,...",....:, .....
.",:::,:' .
<>.; .
...: '. ,',
.;
.0:
:'t:$.:
'CD. ...
"5' ...
.0::")::
,.
.
...
CD
~
CD
....
o
<
CD
,'t::
C/)
"'il
o
I-
'It
C)I
C\I<Oco
<0""(")
'T~C)I
<0
""
(")
<0
0""0
(")
8
'It
~O~
.... C\l
(ij"
:,
e.
Ul
1i
<
I:
CD
"E
CIl
eJ
~
I:
CIl
CD
Ul
:J
o
.I:
I:
~
I ';h
CD >- CD .'t::
=1:1:
I-~::J::>
U.o"
,!:; CD ...J ~
Ul1>>oO
~ ,!:; l6 ~
IC/)N<
.f!
I:
::>
OJ
:E
~
"'il
o
I-
o
'i
.t:!
E
CD
a..
....
.E
.'t::
.0
:c
x
w
"
III
.I:
ld
lj
CD $
CD Ul
C/)::>
....
.E
.'t::
.0
~
" $
~~
ldal
lj.t:!
CD E
CD CD
C/)o..
$
Ul
::>
CD
:is
CIl
~
;(
~
z
Ul
.~ .f!
;$3~
~....~....
,'5,'5
.....gC\l.g
IIl=CD=
:3 :J :3 :J
.I:lD.I:lD
a.. a..
~
z
OJ
I:
'~
.I:
a..
ad
OJ
I:
'E
i=
Ul
~
o
<
o
co
Ul"!.
,'t:: (")
I: II
:J Ul
co~
~o
,<
....0
CD~
:3 co
if~
Ul
~
o
<
<0
co
C\l
cri
o
;:
~
I-
Ul
~
o
<
~
Ul
~
o
<
o
.f! ~
I: II
:J Ul
co~
'It 0
'<
C\lo
CD....
:3 x
.I: co
a.. 'It
Ul
~
o
<
;:!:
'It
+
c
a..
eJ
o
co
'It
fIi
II
C
0..0
eJo..
oeJ
""0
C\lC\l
XIO
Ulr=
-:J 0
"....
<0
""
(")
II
o
0..0
eJo..
OeJ
~~
Ul -
-:J :8
"....
8
'It
"
a
E
CD
o
....
CD
a;
~
c
a..
eJ
8
co
of
II
o
0..0
eJo..
8eJ
C\l8
XC\l
Ul -
_ 10
:J,,"
"
<0
""
(")
II
o
a..
eJO
8~
~~
Ul -
- 0
-6 co
~
"
I:
CIl
E
CD
o
I
C/)
~
~
Q)
a..
~
Ul
I:
o
Ul l!!
gS;~~~
c.... 0
~ ~
~O i1)
<I~ . +
0C\i18
~ ~
~~~re~
a.. a..
~
....
~~~ +
<10 0 lB
C\l
"
UlOI:
I: -ij .2
OUla;
1:....l!!:J-
~ .E ~~ ~
EE~l6o..
0:J . a."
-O....UlCD
.5 0 Ul I: 'fi
I: !J CD 0 CIl
.2 Ul B ~ i
a; 1:'- a.
-~" CD
5. 0 .5 1q m
8.~aC\l.....
." e
~ colll:J
lD.....lO~ OJ
Z E 0'-1;::
o CIl'5 CD-
.. .... .... 1Il > J!l
lIl-I-~'-1D
o'iUl 111l
zl:iiJ1i3~ii
, .- I: > -
I:ElIl~~~
,2 CD 0 0 8 "
:!i Gl ..I: 1Il "
:J".I: -....1:
a." 0" 0 CIl
&alD31:g;~
.... III 0
...." I: Ul -r; .-
1Il1ll0:JcJjtil
~'5'E~';~
'e' 8" ~ l6 .... "'il
a.. CIllD a..9o
I
I
I
,ti
I
,~ I
!, : \
!~ Ii
~
~
~'
!r
~
t
I
i
I
,
"0
,l ~
U' a ;
ii' J: ~.
II CJ ~
III ! I
III
,
.
"N~ "...'
I.
If'" .. .'..~ ..~.. ) III
. .....,.,
.'..~ ,'., . ~.~.; ,I
lli'\:~. :.'." '::~'J;'" .
,.,,~, , ~ "'" ,.i..__ ' ,.'"
I~O#:'''''' -'~':';'f.1t~. ';~~~;i:\~ 55."1
" '.' "ro;, ",.,H ."f ~ i ~
, .... l" ,.' .... .,.. :II
1 ~ '. . ",:. ~"\"" ~t;" ._,.'... 't.' t I~I -nI
. .'. ' ,." . ".':f.f#. .', i ,. ..
I, ;..,,:..,'.'.'."..I:t. I J
k !, '!;:.J ~;iEi' ,. ': '~, .: II:
1.1';:, ." ";"'IIII~'~' ":l~i!i ;~s
, 'I'.~' s ,., ·
f..... .', .'j ~, . . . .. .' ::I
. . \ ~ :" ill ' I.. :: I 0
I " . , ' ", ",."! JI
~. .', ,,:' ,. ': -:~:'...J.~, I ..
I ..,. I ',...
. '.... ......
.~ . . :.: ,:' '. .<~'r~~"',: ':' ~:~;\
J ~ . . '. ~". ".' ,':... . {, . '. ~ .l',";\, . \'
, ....... . ''''~IIJ;.L :..,.....~\_,... "'.U...'"
~
'S I
,I,
· ,. 'J .' .. ..r I ~ f'
p!!ijl i!!,lllllllUlill~ll; i1ii iii"jilrl' ~~ ! J ~
nil., II , It I' 'l'If"~ , a
I!!!!!I ! !iiii I!. Hi; ! !!ih~J iii I J 'E
!:.u!,' I III 'I !f! i iii ! ::~II: hi;: ;"
",IJIi i It rllI:':1 ! "'1; " Ill!
i I ii' !I"II,II, I .., ~.
I ;1 ,I. Illle!"; ~ i:
.it1Ib!IU III !i~
. '.' I 'I
'Uill' ,
'1111 i III & III .. pi; II mm~ !i · 'ID III tllll:um.'I~
'1",'11 1!i I' .11!1' II'II~ i;, '11'1 II! d,!"'Ijll ~
I,ll t : Ii I i ,I b II g:d II QII , .:1:11
i. ' I iJ II.! I ... ili I' -,
',',' I I " , . _ II" g I.,'.; h II ,., ...-...-, .
I I . .. ., .. :; , , , .. II .,........... J
I, ~ Ii! H I ~ it ~I I : ; : : I ;1 U ........... ~
'-'I'lll d
I 1 I 'I ' . :: i I ! I ! ::::::::::1 I
I ~ · : · .. .. .......-. ;
...n
---
u...r
. ":.,
j
Ei"~
IIEg
If
i
" t!i
Ir~~~'
"
:. .';'~ ,)
I I . ~ ~.
I ,,"
It' :.
I It o.
I . 'I . ~::
! . -..1',
I. ," I
,~ 'j' ",
I ~I. . I .
:i I ;:i ;il
I I .,: I ..
I :. ''<''~'''~'' ;
I I ' J . .,,~ ":--, . 1 i
....-..... ~...~~ _..~...:..:~:::.. - , ~.-:-~- -"
- - -:I.,. " " .' ~..."... - "..n:- ~'..,'. t' . '- ~.jii.",,.,.;~..... ~ - '. _. ; '. )
'-- . . __'." :---'----- ~ ----- --,~'81~~~MJ_ '...~.. .""
, -.Iir ....-~'1IJ( ,-- - -,- - u_ ------
I ~I-'!;~~ t.I, 'I." h~c'.f:itf..~l'.1P,,'li~...
LI I r I! f] 'u,' 10".'0. _II4IIU,... '0''''0'' 'U'", nO_lOA
J
I'
,
I
. . ..': I : --".' -.-:-
, IIII iqllilll ~
t
~
}
(J
4
-
o
r-t-
-
Lf
~
~
'-..:/
- ":"" - ~ ( ~.Mii:i;""~ ,"A;C-- -=- ~ ~----,
~,~-"o- : " .,._ ", '" _.--:."' ODO. 'IV
.~ J!.. ~ ~ ~ ----------.:- ~ ~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ --, ~/o e~~,
I nom . I !!~ t ~~
III l !i!'i~' I o~ r~
%Oi!
_I m I ~~~~
inln~ ~." III eli~'
; ~ ~,~~
~.!~ iii' I is ~
p ~ I ~
~i . I ·
n L
\ ml i 1'1
L_, ~ ~s.\
I I ~ I; S
I I I i
L \ II;
----~
II m~ :~~ S il~~~~ I VI
:::j
~i m~ III Ji!!llllll!I!1 111:ii I m
c
~ m~ ~ ~m ;1~ s' l;~) ~
-- ~::;; i~i I~i i~~i~l~~! ii!i~ >
n .~:~ ~~ l.~! i~s 'fil
.. m ~~i i i I ~I ~~s
I -aN..
iH &~~ i "
Iii ';1 a ~
iit8ii i ; ~ - &igi~! i~
~11;t !: I~ i~i. 0
~M I e . ~C~:;iiii:i;~ n. .~ ~~
IIH i ~ ~A~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ i~
I~ .... .
~m I ~
AA~ ~~ i E..........- u
., I!ilB8BI~-~.B ,~
!~ .......~...
.i1
. < . .
i ~ ~~
U \:
l i!
j -.
_ i
I j
;
!
;
,
.
.
i
r;; ';H~,i
· 1~U:i~
tUi'
,iiil
i..i;!
:!ii~
Ii!::
!Ii!!
-H.ii
l/l
:::j
m
c
~ ~
~ I~~! ps IW ~. HII I ~~; .....!~ ~i~ ~Iiil~f II >
6 i' j!~ ~I .~~lli~ ~II III II!I . m~~ Ii i i ~ g:!l H
i ~I ~i !i i!;i ill . i5,1 !II ~~ii i !!I 1111111 Iii !~;il Ii
~ ~I ~a ~~ ~ I h ~I != ~I!! I IIi pi hi . ~~ 1~I~i ~;
I !; ;; i; I!I i!i II~I I~I ;111 ; ~I! !illi~1 !: i !~I ~~
I I~!i i i;l~ 1:1 I a I ~i31 i l;jS ~I;~! a :1 i=ii !i
II!' i U XIII! ~llln i Q~ I! I ail ~~~~ i!
o I 'a!i ! U. I !d I 1~1!l HI U ~ ~i
~. I~ I "Ii I 119 ~I Iii P~I i Ii ;
~ ~ ~I ~I ; illll II 1!lll ;I'! II I I:
8 1:: J i I h d I~~ I ~~~ n ~ ~~
~I! !
"'1' : I
I:
a
": _ "'C
~~~o
'"Sl '"0
i!!" J>
~~ ~ )>
~
; I
i
I
I (J)
o
)>
r
m
.l
"II
~d
!; ]I!
. ~
I
:
,
NOII'U'21-e: lUIO!' ~
~u~
b~'
.,~~
i! 0
~
Pii
;il~ II r
~~, ,
, .~
i! 0
~ !i;lP:
I ~~~lt
t<a :l~
;r !!!!
~ ~'i!
I I
I I
! ~I
! \0,
.I~I ~
I ~ I ~ ~.
I 1~
I "" \ 1 l
:1" \ \ \ ~ ' I
, !I~' .\~\ . ~r:"'--::D--~~:'" r----- L -----::1 ! I.
~ :;~~ \. \ . ~ ' m! ------- , :... ~-F-------=--=--=--=-;t:~=l
. a a ~~ ' V ~-_ // ~ 0 I- I :.. .... I I \: "
ii;:~i \ ,,\-----. ~ I~!"~ II:: t L_ ~~ IUUii;I:; i ~~
I,~~~ (--\ .\\\ ~:;:5 ~~i. -----------. ~!ii!illl.i:rl
;" I \ \\,\ 1]l~Z ~!I ~ ----- lr~l!r!~II'
, ~~ .~ \: \ <: i I ............ . . ~ .. 1
~ \. \: \ m S; CI, i: '-J i CI I
1~~~ll \ \ z · \ !: JU:Ci.. . 2 ~
.,.1 r I \ "~. \ --------~ JL ow "'..1 "'C II'
:J ."CI '\ ". ,_ tD.... I)
i ~ \ I \ ~., ~l\ \ t-~ '-' ..........:..--------.:-----'------~ 2~ i::O ' z
I .. ~. , -.:;.....,.. ----~." ... 0 i,'
~ I I' . , Y ... ";IE J> . i .
III 1IIIIilI I;! ("'''0 /(..=-----~;:c;~~~\ ';"lD ':,i
'I~~.' l___j o~=- 0 1 . 'j \ 11:
~OJ> 0 : . :: " ~ ,I
I I . ~ ~~. ~ "'C ,II
I I ~ I ~i i 0 : : ~~ ~ 0 i~ I '
i'liUJj(J~ r~ :';j it L :!~~l--;l]I:1
': ~~ J( IC:~=c- ~L --=;:C~i'iil:l!~~: \::1
, ~~~:: "~~J~,!g,.JS~~1 1: -o.~" ~~"";._",~-~~ __=Jl~l~~t U ol_U
( .'-i~ I ^Pfl I + - ~\V~~~:: ROAD -!T- -USTUNI!NE ~Stt u-;suf- - - 1
-;----- ,b -~i:i t~--1' '-n!!--~~--~~;irl~- :~ :cl - -~~
2~ ~"'.I ~ ",7V - ~ ,..~ hol'.2 ~~ =~
o ~~~ ~~~ ~ 5i " ~ ' .~~ .' '. = ~ !
i ~ i~~: : ~ tlo \7." 0
"
o
Q
=
- -- -- --
-~!~~~
~i;!;
~~ ~~
..~~
,."
lis
t:!
h
"
~lj
l~.!
, i
, .
i '
cole:
Date:
Drawn B :
File No
Drawing No.
Path:
Filename:
Sheet... L _Of:.... 3
~.9rI~!~~oR!i urseries PUD
MASTER PLAN
Kilday &: A..oclat..
Landscape Arehitects/Plcnners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Pclm Beach. Florida 3340 1
(407) 689-5522.Fox:(407) 689 2592
,>;"J~f""" tt
~.....~_... ~~
~__- 'i
, _ --<Mi tii\.rf"~'j 1l2.P.Jk-- - ~
_~~..::-.~~""".. '_~iTO
~ ~ c::-~::; ~ "--' .J-J.
~'l\\i1 \I 'tIt
. t '
,~ _ -jY' I II - '\
'* {i, _ ,.,' ~\ z- ,I 'i\"
W I ~ /': 'ltlDh ~,~ ~I \ ~",;;
*, f i,'\ ,1\011,11:\\' I ~ 1~ ~~~
~\ ?"A ~ ~ i I ~ It ;J;~~
~ ~ ,d' =~'~('I~~
~'. S *, a ' ~j;1~ \\\ \\ it W~\\\\~\ ri\i\\1 \ \~\\~ ~ ~, \\\1\\1\ \ W\ \
f'''' Id ~'.b " ".. \,1\ I\i\..il ' ii \II \\\\1' III ,i' \ \ Ii · \
i(~ l~ \\b, 'k'.\.~~1\1\'\~1~\\1\ \fa \\~t\ \~~\\\ \~ \,\ \n~ \\\
\ '" ,Q .""" ,~"I' ~~t ,I I" Ii' 'I " '1\ I' \11 \ i \ II I \'
\i ~ , ~ ~ t E ,I .2- -\-1 ~t \ \\ II\i II \11\ \\ it\ \~ ~ \, \ \\ \ \\
~" ,~, 1 -,-" ' \\\ ,\;J Iii .\~ ~\. 'w ' \. \\ 1 ~
. ~ Id' " =0' i i' \H ~ \' ~f \\ ~i' 1 \ \' I .
,\ ~ I ~ i ~l! "... ~ _, \ l \\ ',\~ \\ \.. t ~ \ . II · \ \\ \ 'i. & a i'
,I , ,..!.,' 1,' _, I"', Ii n \' \ \ \ 'l\ ~ ~ ~1 \ \ \
~\1 ~, '~"\\i'\ IU" \ \ ,.Ie ..,,~
~I ~ ~~\'\~~~~~ \' d; il~\ ! o' ~~
\ 'I \ ,~, Co' ~c =. \., <l 0'-
\ \\ I ~. ;I\\"i\~" 'iI.I. , · . ~, ~~~
\ \ ~ ~ If" ~ \ \1\' l" r ~~
~ ( 0 i~ JJ?<.' ~: ',\ IH ~\ \'\~ ~~
I " ~~ ~' ,\ (\ ,~,.... ~~ '
\ ~\ " ~~~;=cJ' '," .- \ ' \ \. ~ m/ \
\ ~I I 6 ,11,11'1" ;;; - - -::'.,---' ~. .'-- ~ ~ -- .'-"-- ,.'
_\ ~\ \ ~'Vp' ,,' .::. '", 0.\ J"Jn.1 . ,>:~,~ ,n "J 1h.. ,..,n .,)I,~.n. · ,~. ", ,.~1I.J. it1
\?'- ~ ~ / ~". ,\ \ -:<....-,,! '. ' ,. ,..' y ,,,'\
'; / _ f" !.\~ic;:!bf'l' ' ._ ,- .~ 'i:[ I,
\~ I l'cir' ~ J'?1 ~~~ _~'~.~ fA^ i:K", ...''Il\'l\''~''f\''''{\!l' "F "I!\'I!\'llilli\{i'l\'\\' ;; , ,,' ;',\
'(1\ ~\ L,b ~ " '''~s 't" e'C '. v;:---:.-----.:.::=-~ Q I 8 ~~ .~,~;d '':; ~i
i..' ~'~ ;;I ~,. ~~IJY/ ,~~ ~ 1r '.'~ ~" "
I" . ' =- ' . i;.); .....'.. I ,~"~,, :>= " m -' I '
d\'~ L,b . ,. "';;"';;", '''I · ^ , "s;c- -" \~ I p-, ~bo' \
I 't\'il;I\ ~,,,, ~ ' -".' U. '(a ~\\-~ l'\nnr~---lllJ ~ ~-B
I I"~ ,-",..,' ' ":"'" - ,I · , M t' '.~.~.~ .. - '~';?- \
\ ~r;~ Be \ f ""'0~ _ ;'~~, ",",,_ ~,i \ ~.I' , .. '10!1~ ~.. · ,lf7r Q ~ '
'5" ~ I 't ' t~" .. X :-. ' '" '. ,.,' ,'-~ -:Ll'(t'" ",...
\ ?~ ~T I~~ it.~/., ___ · , . >>,~> ~tiD\,~~. - J';UOfi,~Wj'11 ~ri(-~:::/ ~~\~
\W II, ' '- ",~ ,'ll' ~.. .'~" y:..--,,-:~n Ii 1i , I'~ 'Y, 1/' . . 'j' 0 [jii;;JA;"
.~~\ \ =;- ~~ ~. ~\?l" ~ ~~~.c, ~ .- '4 \. ' 1 ,~ ,"\\
q \ ~ ' ,~ l\~i -I ~'0 / ~~_ --;' ..~ " '" - nil
, ~" ~ \ ~ \IICiit (f0.~~' . \'-~\ \llB.\f~\B8 < - ~\r1:' . ~$ /, n~:
\ :; ~ p allcfT ~' ::) .:)L- ILl" ,,' 'G,;fJ ,I'
I ,~' I' ..~' ' ' .:::: ,1 .--c' .;,.' , <2 ~ tr~ ~\ '.
~ ~ . 4 --C ,'-' - . n · ' ,
\ I *, I' __L'O-J II .'.J 81 fr-i';,: 13':">-~; I-~. , ,I .\ ,1\';\;> 'Q " ",~--,',
','\ ~ ,\::r.\i' [}l ~ ~";I;" ' ~ - ,-- :.1 \'~ ,I --,- \",\
\ ~~\~'-" ,\" I~';I ,.\I:f\.'''\'~1 'I'~' .\\.\I.II...,,~1 ~ It.----::'--..\,
,,1 ' ... ,:~';C, . ~ ;;;fJuuL\' \f~nllr'-'" 11'--/.... ('"\\~~;.~~
'\ I [:/:>F;Finf1' "\Ie" ".\ . )\/ " .' ~~0)" I I I' .
\ \ v /Ylj[jl-:J "\1'\1'\ 0 ! i \-;;(~sroGt8GbW\j\) - \ \, \\ ~ \\\ \\1'
, I ( .~ ' r--~' ,," --" -- ,__.,---:;-' \:, h ~ ~~ \ \,,';
, ~ I i, ' Iii ~1li I' \, 1\1. 'o' · .: I ,I \
~\ 11'- '1 . W' ~,l.....-- ~-, _~~l ',I ,!t"'''~'''-'''U 111
, [---" ," ~, _ _ __ __~, ' ~ __ .__~::::. ~ = .~--:::.- = ~r ""'= ~ " -', '
_ --:: ::- ~ :::- -:::::-:;:::;'iV""" ~ .;:" ;;.;;;; -;;' ::- .:~ :;' -=-'7' ~ -0;::..:" .-
...____- . ~__ _ ..._____- _ __ _ _ ~i?-- ~-::;::/.Q;'~ - -- -~.;-~-.--. ,- -- - --
~_ _ _ _ _ - --IlJll~ r-'" - --;:: -- -- - ~ - - ;.:,. >>" f' \\'- --
, ~\" ,.,. ,0 . ",\' .tl' - - I
.' .,~\ \I'\'~'" I'" I W" ~ ,,;) ,
" I'" ,\,.'c .,10 ' " 't' ~ '
:, ." I, ~ '1'
, ,M"" , , I (:' r-~otri,
! , Jil,O~tn<URS~ 1I',\U,D, ' " "\" ..: A ~:--~
~"" ... 0""""" sffl'. f'LJ'J'! ' ' · . .~~oii>-....-
_ "","" ,~' . . < "__ f ~--
~
l\)
~
\J\
~
\)
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
t
-
(;)
't
cI
~
~
'-....--
--.-
----~ ,----
-------------- --------
\
'AO~ llt1.AClL~'"
.. 0'1 U'I Ill> W N ..... >tl
It c:
0
-<
" n tI:I tI:I X t-< f::"4
"
" .... 0 0 CD 111 111 >tl
'1
.. -rt -Zt< -Z~ -111 ~ "d~ "
;, N'i NO::S N 0 =0- '1 .....'1 0
... CD ~ CD' rt CD . rt NO CD 111 CD c...
.. 'itn '1 0 '1 0 =~ ::s rt::S ~
0 00'l::S 00'l::S tn 0 0 n
If G) )I If ........ :2: CD .....(1) 1-3
.......... ..... f::"4 ..... f::"4 0 0
W o (I) 0 111 0 111 X rt"d 1-3 t-< -G) ~
rt::s rt ~ rt ~ .... tnl1l ~ 111 N '1
tn tn (I) tn CD ::s -'1 ~ CD 0
~ tn tn .... 0 CD '1 < ~
51 CD 1-3 tn o CD
~ ~ ..... l:J"
rt 51 CD .....
rt X 0
.... txl '1 rt
::s ~ CD tn
lQ .... 111
..... '1
..... 0-
111 .... 0
~ ::s ...,.,
CD ..... N N lQ N N N - tl:I
CXl 0 0 0 111 0 0 hj c::
00 ..... - H
CD ..... f::"4
If ..... .... .... "C .... ..... ..... - t:1
If N 0 0 111 U1 ..... U1 U1 " H
'1 0 - Z
0 111 rt Q
rt tn ....:J
0 0 0 .... 0 - 00
111 0 111 U1 0 00 ~
tr' ::s tr' - t-3
~ ~ tI:I
rt .... .... .... If rt ....:J :to-
rt U1 U1 U1 .... ..... - n
...' 0 111 U1 U1 00 ~
::s If
IQ * N
0 n
..... H
111 ...,., t-3
~ tn 0 N hj to<
CD CD 0 0 - "d
CD rt 0 "d
- 0 c::
tr:I ~ "d ~ " t-< t:1
If ::s ::s CXl .... W CXl
CXl ...,., ...,., ~ 0- 00 00
0 0 (I) ~ tr:I
'1 '1 N - t-3 t-3
w 0 0 If f::"4 CXl CXl 00 tI:I tl:I
CD (I) t:1 * 111 - )I )I
0- 0- (I) ~ n n
"C CD ~ ~
CXl CXl CXl rt
If X CXl CXl 00 ~
* 111
X .... t:1
CD ::s
51 rt f::"4
0 (I) 0
N N ::s N N t-3
0 0 :#. PI 0 0 hj
= 1.0 ::s 00
II:> 0 trJ H
I CD - ZOO N
If U1 U1 I\.l CXl W 00 " nn tr:I
* 1.0 trJ - t-<" 00
CXl U1 111 Otr:l
tn ....:J ootr:I
...,., If (I) - C:Z
0 0 0 0 * 51 U1 0 00 "
'1 (I) - ~
::s
CD rt ....:J
X * .....
.... "d * U1 U1 cn
U1 CXl CXl I-'
111
::s
111
rt
.... ~
0
::s tr:I
U1 II:> II:> U1 0'1 U1 ~
~ Q
0'1 U1 U1 II:> II:> 0 ~
W 0 0 W 0 0
....:J 0 0 1.0 0 0 II
tn tn tn tn tn tn oo~
,Q ,.Q ,Q ,Q ,Q ,.Q !;c...
...,., ...,., ...,., H', ...,., ...,., "dO
rt rt rt rt rt rt tr:I"
t:1H
t-3
r~
"l-3hj
U1 U1 U1 U1 0'1 U1 Ocno
U1 0 0 II:> 0 0 Z "
t-3
0 0 0 W 0 0 )I "
0 0 0 1.0 0 0 tr:I
tr:I Q
c::
f::"4
:to-
"
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 94-210
September 8, 1994
THRU:
Tambri Heyden
Planning &jpJ:ing Director
Don Jaeger
Building 0 'cial
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
TO:
FROM:
RE:
TRC COMMENTS - BOYNTON NURSERIES PUD (2nd REVIEW)
LAWRENCE ROAD & LWDD, L-21 CANAL
The Building Department has reviewed the plans and documents
submitted for the above referenced project and has no comments.
We recommend that this project be forwarded through the approval
process.
AI&ft/~'
AN:bh
-.
~ ~ ~ ~
~
SEP \ ?- ;Qa~
NURSERY
MEMORANDUM
Utilities No. 94-301
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden,
Planning and Zon'
FROM:
John A. Guidry,
Utilities Director
DATE:
September 15, 1994
SUBJECT: Boynton Nursery PUD. Master Plan Modification - 2nd Review
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following
comments:
1. An 8" water main exists on Old Military Trail approximately
1000' north of this project's northwest property corner. Extension
of an interconnecting water main from POD A to this existing main
will be required when the infrastructure for POD A is built.
This looping of the main is required to maintain appropriate
chlorine residuals within POD A, which would otherwise be a
dead-end system for the forseeable future. The interconnecting
main must therefore be shown on the Master Plan. (Sec. 26-12,
26-16(a) City Code; Sec. 9(20) ECRII).
2. All other Utility concerns will be addressed at time of Health
Department Applications to construct water and sanitary sewer
systems.
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor
at 375-6407 or Peter Mazzella at 375-6404.
Ibks
Attachment
cc: Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzellaf/
Mark Law
File
.Ip~
rn
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 94-275 WDC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
September 19, 1994
Master Plan Modifications
Boynton Nurseries PUD
Lawrence Rd
We have no objections at this time.
~A
william D. C vanaugh, FPO
Boynton Beach Fire Dept.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-289
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & zoning Director
W~lliam I:Iukill, P. E. Q.K ~Jf .
Clty Englneer rV.
FROM:
DATE:
September 16, 1994
RE:
BOYNTON NURSERIES P.U.D. - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
We have no additional comments beyond those contained in our two
August 19, 1994 memos (94-254 & 94-255) and the August 23, 1994
memo (94-263) except for the attached Finizio memo (94-288).
WVH/ck
C:BNURSERY.P&Z
c: vincent Finizio, Dep. City Engineer
m
~ n w ~
rn
SEP I 6 1993
,
-- t. ,
_ ,'-..I>7v{,~' I'
I
! I ~
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-254
TO:
Mike Haag
~on'ng/Site Administrator
. 'am Hukill, P.E.
. ngineer
August 19, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
BOYNTON NURSERIES P.U.D. - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
We have reviewed subject documents with respect to those items
included in your memo of August l6, 1994, Part I, Section A,
Description and offer the following comments:
1. Survey must comply with Chapter 4, Sec. 7, Par. 7.1 of Land
Development Regulations, Part III, including, but not limited
to, deeds, easements or other instruments recorded in public
record.
2. Loop Road is a collector road by both Palm Beach County and
Florida D.O.T. standards (see F.S. 334.03(4). Required R.O.W.
is 80' (see Boynton Beach Code, Appendix C, Art. X., Sect. 10.
Par. B). It will be a public road.
3. Dedicate R.O.W. (public) for access road to adjacent property.
4. Provide drainage calculations.
5. Provide Certification by Developer's Engineer that drainage
plan complies with all City codes & standards (see Chap. 5,
Art. X & Appendix C).
6. Inlets must be in grassy areas unless adequate documentation
is presented to support something different.
7. Road serving Pods A, D and the recreation area appears to
exceed the maximum permitted ADT's (1500) and therefore is a
collector to a point past Pod D requiring an 80' R.O.W to that
point.
8. Provide Traffic Impact Statement.
Approval of the master plan modifications by the Office of the City
Engineer is subject to satisfaction of these conditions and
consideration of the recommendation cited by Mr. Finizio on the
attached list.
WVH/ck
C:BNURSERY.COM
xc: vincent Finizio, Dep. City Engineer
attachment: V. Finizio recommendations
, l
~f;r~,A~..-""\..
J
I .,. ,"
. ..'--" "(-- ~
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-255
TO:
william Hukill, P.E.
City Engineer
FROM:
Vincent A. Finizio
Deputy City Engineer
DATE:
August 19, 1994
Boynton Nurseries P.U.D. - Master Plan Modification
RE:
I would suggest that the driveway widths depicted on plan
attachments (15' wide) be widened to 18' to allow for the parking
of two motor vehicles in each driveway. If this suggestion is
adopted by the City Commission, it would abate the potential for
numerous motor vehicles parking along the roadway and on grassed
areas within this subdivision.
VAF/ck
C:BNURSERY.VAF
j: 1_ h',~fA.---- tJ 'A..-'-":-
J',) r; ,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-263
TO:
Mike Haag
.zon'ng/Site Administrator
. . Hukill, P.E.
Engineer
August 23, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
BOYNTON NURSERIES P.U.D. MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
In addition to our comments contained in the August 19, 1994 memo
to you (and attachment), we offer the following:
1. Developer to provide impact statement from Palm Beach County
School Board.
2. Developer to comply with March 1, 1990 comments;
a. Provide established centerline elevations for all adjacent
streets and rights-of-way.
b. Indicate the proposed layout of the lots and blocks.
c. Indicate on plans utilities such as telephone, power,
water, sewer, gas, etc. on or adjacent to the tract
including a statement on plans, that all utilities are
available and have been coordinated with all required
utilities. Section 4.C.17.
3. Developer provide commitment for perpetual maintenance and
irrigation of public rights-of-way.
WVH/ck
C:BNURSERY.PUD
xc:
Vincent Finizio, Dep. City Engineer
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
1.
2 .
3 .
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 94-288
William Hukill, P.E.
City Engineer
vincent A. Finizio
Deputy City Engineer
September 16, 1994
Boynton Nurseries, P.U.D.
Second Submission of Master Plan Modification
Kilday & Associates TRC Follow-up Letter dated 9/2/94
Reference Engineering Department Memo No. 94-255, dated August
19, 1994 wherein I suggest that driveway width depicted on
plans be widened from 15' to 18' to allow for the parking of
two motor vehicles in each driveway, has resulted in an
objection from Kilday & Associates (see page #6 - Kilday's
letter dated 9/2/94), however, I still recommend that the City
Commission compel the applicant to perform the suggested
modification as based upon my observations of P.D.D.s with
only one driveway over the past eight years, I have determined
that from a functional standpoint a single car garage with one
15' wide driveway, simply does not work. Inevitably, the
garages are utilized either for storage or are converted into
rooms with the resultant effect being that second motor
vehicles are parked in the roadway or along grassed areas.
This has been a major on-going problem for most Condominium
Associations and major Homeowner Associations, therefore I
believe that a 3' wide increase in driveway width is "no big
deal" when compared to the scope and nature of the problems
that will arise based upon the aforementioned scenario.
I am deeply concerned regarding the unprotected lakes along
Lawrence Road immediately in front of Citrus Park Blvd. and
the Citrus Cove Elementary School site. In my opinion, the
Master Plan should be revised to place a notation stating that
FDOT approved guardrails will be installed along the east side
of the subject lakes in accordance with Appendix C,
Subdivision and Platting Regulations, Section 3, Design,
wherein this code states that "where. . .lakes. . . are adjacent to
or exist upon the property to be subdivided, they shall...be
so designed and protected that they do not represent a hazard
to life and safety.".
The master plan should be modified to provide for sidewalks on
both sides of the internal roads as required by City code,
including the installation of handicap sidewalk connections at
all intersections including the pedestrian striping of the
proposed bike path thru the collector road points of
intersection at Lawrence Road.
Engineering Dept. Memo No. 94-288
Re: Boynton Nurseries
September 16, 1994
Page #2
4. The bicycle path referenced in the general notes on page #1 of
the master plan should be depicted on the plan and be
constructed, or if existing, constructed and/or repaired
concurrent with the development of this site.
5. I believe that deceleration lanes should be constructed along
Lawrence Road to facilitate vehicular movements into the
subdivision. Additionally, I have discussed this matter with
Mr. Andy Hertel of Palm Beach County Traffic Division and have
been advised that he has not yet received a copy of this
master plan which will impact Lawrence Road (a County rights-
of-way) and therefore the applicant shall, as a condition of
approval submit a copy of the subject plan to Mr. Hertel and
agree to comply with County comments (if any) prior to City
Board approval.
VAF/ck
C: BOYNNURS. COM
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 194-342
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Dir^~t)r
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent JfV-
Master Plan Modification: Boynton Nurseries PUD
Second Review
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
September 14, 1994
The Recreation & Park Department
MasterPlan for Boynton Nurseries PUD.
submitted:
has reviewed the amended
The following information is
1. Recreation & Park Memo #94-320 remains in effect.
2. Plan indicates the below listed elements:
A. Children's Play Area
B. Pool
C. Clubhouse
D. Tennis Courts
E. Basketball Court
3.
Developers are aware that, based on one-half credit
private recreation and the provision of 2.5 acres of land
public recreation, they will still owe .884 acres
recreation dedication fee in lieu of land.
for
for
of
4. Private recreation facilities and equipment provided must be
of commercial grade and of sufficient size and scope needed to
provide for the recreation needs of the residents of the
subdivision.
JW:ad
. .~ - .'.. .
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #94-320
~t
f) Gtlf~ . t
~~ [if v
TO:
Tambri Heyden. Planning & Zoning Director
VIA:
Charles C. Frederick, Director Recreation & Park (1 ((~
John Wildner, Superintendent of Parks ki
Boynton Nurseries. P .V.D. - Amended ~ter ~Plan
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
August 26, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the Master Plan (amended) for the Boynton
Nurseries P.V.D. The following information is submitted:
I. Park Land Dedication Requirement
376 single family units @ .018 acres each = 6.768 acres
2. Credit For Private Open Space
A. The Park Land Dedication Ordinance provides for up to 1/2 credit for private open
space if it provides a minimwn of five (5) local park basic requirements. The
developer has indicated he intends to apply for this credit. Before credit is given, the
developer must indicate details regarding type. nwnber. size, and location of the
private recreation facilities (per sub-division code. section 8).
B. Assuming half credit for private recreation facilities provided, (6.768 divided by 2),
the developer is required to provide 3.384 acres.
3. Location
The amended master plan shows that the 2.5 acres to be dedicated be located in the northeast
corner ofthe development. adjacent to Lawrence Road and abutting the Knollwood Grove
property to the north.
This location will allow for eventual consolidation of public park property to be dedicated
from the Knollwood Grove property if it is annexed and developed for residential use.
These combined properties would ultimately provide a neighborhood park of approximately
five acres which will comply with the level of service standards required in the parks and
recreation element of the comprehensive plan.
The remaining .884 acres required must be paid in cash at the time of plattin ~ m
~~m n
^, ft.~ ? i 1 1~0-1
o w rn
PlJ\NN1NG AND
ONING DEPT.
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *94-340
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist /~~~
Boynton Nurseries PUD - Second Review
TO:
RE:
DATE:
September 14, 1994
The applicant should show the following items at the preliminary
plat stage:
1. All existing desirable trees located outside the preserve area
should be quantified.
2. The existing desirable trees which are located in "greenspace"
areas should be shown to be preserved, not relocated or
replaced.
3. The existing perimeter desirable trees should be cleared of
exotic Florida Holly and underplanted with relocated saw
palmetto.
4. All undesirable trees should be removed from the entire site.
KH:ad
ill
SEP I 6 1993
ill
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
Michael E. Ha~e~
Zoning and site ~opment Administrator
September 29, 1994
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Boynton Nurseries PUD 2nd Review Master Plan
Modification of 400 units to 374 units, change in type of
units form 162 single-family units on 6,000 square feet
lots and 238 multi-family units to 231 HZ" lot units on
4,000 square feet lots and 143 zero lot line units on
5,000 square feet lots, including other changes
identified on the plans and letter describing the
requested changes.
File No. MPMD 94-004
please be advised of the following comments relative to the second
review of the above-referenced requested Master plan Modification.
1. On the master plan drawing add a general note indicating each
residential dwelling unit shall have two (2) nine (9) feet
wide by eighteen (18) feet long parking spaces.
2.
Add to the master plan drawing the phase
corresponding notes that reflect compliance
conditions of the original traffic analysis.
line
with
and
the
3. Change the setback along the south property line to depict no
less than 25 feet to correspond with the setback dimension
previously approved by commission. If the proposed setback is
approved, clarify the difference between the 5 foot setback
and the 10 foot shown on the plans.
4. On the dedicated park property show a dimension of 25 feet to
the abutting property lines.
5. Indicate on the typical screen enclosure setback notes and
drawings whether or not they apply to the "ZII lots. If they
do, add to the drawings a typical "Z" lot scrE~en enclosure
setback drawing. See recommendation number 16d and 16e.
6. Below each typical setback drawing identify the lot numbers
that they represent.
7. since it is known that if construction to the buildable area
for each lot would exceed the maximum allowed floor area for
the project, provide on each building permit drawing, area
computations and tabulations that track the disbursement of
the maximum allowed floor area.
8. Provide verification that the city Attorney has approved the
ownership documents regarding unified control of the
property/project.
9. The 1990 rezoning was approved subject to the conditions in
the attached traffic analyses prepared by Walter H. Keller Jr.
dated February 5, 1990 and May 3, 1990. The traffic
statement submitted with this request does not mention the
condi tions. Provide verification from Palm Beach County
Traffic Division and the project traffic engineer (Simmons &
White, Inc.) that the conditions listed in the analyses are no
longer applicable.
Page 2
Boynton Nurseries Comments
Master Plan Modification - 2nd review
10. with respect to condition 9 above, if any of the road
improvements referenced in the 1990 walter Keller Jr. traffic
analyses are still required, the issuance of building permits
for the residential dwelling units will be contingent upon the
assurance of the improvements in the County's five year
Transportation Improvement Program or posting of surety for
developer commitments, rather than being contingent upon the
letting of contracts for the required roadway improvements.
11. The private recreation facilities shall be bonded with
approval of the first plat and completed within 21 months of
approval of the first plat.
12. As was required of Citrus Glen and Lawrence Grove, southbound
right turn lanes shall be constructed at both project
entrances.
13. At both entrances show and construct a northbound left turn
lane on Lawrence Road into the site and separate eastbound
left turn and through/right turn lane exiting the site to
Lawrence Road.
14. A posting of a bond for 50% of the cost of the pedestrian
signalization for Lawrence Road shall be submitted with the
plat documents.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
15. To ensure that the perimeter landscape buffer material,
located on the individual platted lots, remains in a well-
maintained state, create and show on the drawings a landscape
tract (minimum width 15 feet) around the perimeter of the
proj ect. The tract, landscape material, and maintenance
thereof shall be dedicated to the home owners' association.
16. To be consistent with the majority of the other planned unit
developments located in the City, the following lot sizes and
setbacks shall be established for the project:
a. Modify your plans to show fifty (50) feet wide lot and
ten (10) feet building separation as the minimum lot
width and minimum distance between buildings for all "z"
lots. The minimum lot area shall be no less than 4,500
square feet.
b. To maintain frontage, show on the plan a minimum of 15
feet front building setback from both street frontage for
the following lots located in Parcel B: 81, 99 and 116.
Indicate on the plan the building setback for corner lots
shall match the fifteen (15) feet front building setback
on both street frontages, rather than 13.5 feet.
c. The building rear setback for all lots shall be no less
than fifteen (15) feet, except that when the rear
property line of a lot abuts a lake maintenance
tract/easement, preservation area, landscape tract,
and/or recreation area, the rear setback may be reduced
to ten (10) feet, ie; the rear setback for lots backing
up to internals roads would become fifteen (15) feet,
rather than ten (10) feet.
.....
. .
.j'
jP
, ..
'.
, . -
. ."
.,
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
TRAFFIC a: TRANSPORTATION · PLANNING · ENGINEERING · lAND DEVELOPMENT
February 5, 1990
Mr. Tunothy Cannon, Acting Director
City of Boynton Beach Planning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Borida 33425-0310
Re: Traffic Impact Review - Boynton Nurseries PUD
Attn: Mr. Jim Golden
Dear Mr. Cannon:
As per your request, the traffic impact study for the proposed Boynton Nurseries PUD
residential development prepared by K.S. Rogers, Consulting Engineer Inc. dated
December 26, 1989. has been reviewed. The initial part of the review focuses on the
technical merits of the study. Utilizing the results of this analysis, conformance to the
City's Comprehensive ~lan is evaluated.
Trip Generation
The project proposes the construction of 400 dwelling units including 162 single family
and 238 townhomes. A revised trip generation analysis indicates that the Applicant
has overestimated the projected number of trips. Table I provides a comparison
between the WHK and Applicant analysis.
Table 1. Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
WHK Analysis
Single Family
Townhouse
Total
Daily AM PM
Size Units Tri E uation/Rate Tri 5 I n Out I n Out
126 DU Ln(T)=.94Ln(#DU)+2.6 1.269
238 DU Ln(T)=.84Ln(#DU)+2.6 1.335
400 DU 2.604
27 73 85
17 89 87
44 162 172
50
43
93
Applicant Analysis
Single Family
Townhouse
Total
162 DU
238 DU
400 DU
10.00
7.00
1.620
1.666
3,286
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
ITE Trip Generation Manual 4th Edition
K.S. Rogers. Consulting Engineer. Inc.
The difference in the trip generation analysis is the source of traffic generation rates
and/or equations. The Applicant utilizes those rates provided by Palm Beach County
for use in the application of traffic impact fees. The WHK analysis is based on the
equations provided in the 4th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual. Both of these sources are acceptable.
10211 W. SAMPLE ROAD. SUITE 204 · P.O. BOX 9740
CORAL SPRINGS. FLORIDA 33075-9740
(305) 765-3822. (407) 732-7844 (palm Beacb)
. . .
"
, .
,
, .
~
......-:
...
.~
Walter H. Keller Jr.t Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
February S. 1990
page two
Trip Distribution
A trip distribution analysis was also performed as part of this review. The WHK-
analysis is based on a five mile radius of influence and employment data provided by
the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization. The results of the
analysis indicate some difference with the Applicant analysis. A comparison of the
results is provided on Table 2.
Table 2. Trip Distribution Comparison
Directic
WHK
A Heant
North
South
East
West
29.0%
34.0%
22.0%
15.0%
31.5%
26.0%
36.5%
6.0%
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr.. IDe
Kimley-Hom
Palm Beaeh County MPO
Trip Assignment
Based on the analyses of trip generation and distribution, a trip assignment procedure
was performed. Table 3 provides a comparison of the WHK and Applicant
assignments. The Table indicates that even though differences were found in both the
trip generation and distribution analyses the assignment volumes are comparable. In
most instances. the WHK assignment is lower than the Applicant's assignment.
Note, the Applicant does not address traffic on Boynton Beach Boulevard east of the
intersection at Old Boynton Road.
t
Background Traffic
The review's background traffic analysis is based on historical growth patterns in the
area. Traffic count data from 1986 through 1989 was obtained from Palm Beach
County and analyzed for average annual growth. Table 4 indicates annual growth
rates between 8.6% to IS.1 % on impacted roadways. The Applicant's study indicates
similar results ranging from 7.4% to 14.S%.
......-:::
. .
. ~:'l~~;:. ,
." """,f>1l'.~. ,\,-f'
. . .' '1~'~' "".;.
... .. ..'.~ :;:./ /....
.'
'." ,,' ""~.~...
- ,.....', '~' .~oit+'.
'. : 7~:' ;..~..~~~l~: _.~;~<.',~;.
" ,
, .
.d~ ~". ....... 'I,' ...... ~" '0': /,..
,"" "
.'
.... '
"
r'i~~:~' .
, ~~~.
~~~f.;.~t
:,.~:"",;
. " .' ~.
\
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
February S, 1990
page three
Table 3. Assignment Comparison
Deslll LOS
Roadwa From To T e
Miner Rd Lawrence Rd Congress Ave 2L 13,100 260 329
NW 2200 Ave Military Trail Lawrence Rd 2L 13.100 156 296
Lawrence Rd Congress Ave 2L 13.100 513 690
Congress Ave 1-95 4LD 30.000 212 164
Old Boynton Rd Lawrence Rd Knuth Road 2L 13.100 182 164
Knuth Road Congress Ave 4LD 30,000 182 164
Congress Ave Boynton Beach Blvd 2L 13,100 52 99
Boynton Beach Blvd Lawrence Rd Congress Ave 6LD 46.400 125 328
Congress Ave Old Boynton Rd 6LD 46.400 112 296
Old Boynton Rd 1-95 4LD 30.000 101
Lawrence Rd Hypoluxo Rd Miner Rd 2L 13.100 1328 1117
Miner Rd Site Entrance 2L 13.100 1588 1381
Sirc Entrance NW 22nd Ave 2L 13.100 1016 1742
NW 2200 Ave Old Boynton Rd 2L 13.100 312 758
Old Boynton Rd Boynton Beach Blvd 2L 13,100 156 493
Congress Ave Hypoluxo Rd Miner Rd 4LD 30.000 221 262
Miner Rd NW 22nd Ave 4LD 30,000 26 66
NW 22nd Ave Old Boynton Rd 4LD 30,000 208 493
Old Boynton Rd Boynton Beach Blvd 4LD 30.000 156 427
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr.. Inc.
K.S. Rogers. Consulting Engineer. Inc. r
.. .. . .
.' " .
.
.
.....-:::
" " '~~:.r:.
,~,,'l:~~../~:~.:^.~:t.~.~~'S,::~}~.~~,>i~.. :":::~-~ ~.$"~ ~"~'\~i~:
,'./\ ';., ,~'.V~i:ti'~"t""~~~~~/;,,,:~,~."'t"r~~~'~.~",
..' .!'~'. '~Nro:,~':\~b ';, ;'y-;,::,'" '.
..,..
.' -,'...
. ," \.. ,,'..
._ 't ~ "ill I'". J+' I
:., . ,......\. . '. .,
;,.....:.
'.....
:'. .~:.~:_~.
1',0 <'; .
. '
~ ..
, '
/, .-'
.,:~'~.,,<,
\
Walter H. Keller Jr.. Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
February S. 1990
page four
Table 4. Historical Trame Growth
1986 1987 1988 1989 Annual
Roadway Link ADT ADT ADT ADT Growth
NW 220d Ave W of Congress Ave 4.566 6.347 7.386 8.025 20~
E of 1-95 4.976 4.996 5.747 6.498 9.9%
Total 9,542 11,343 13,133 14,523 15.1 ~
Boynton Beach Blvd W of Congress Ave 22.486 22.442 24.945 27.36S 7.2%
E of Congress Ave 24.087 27.021 30.854 31.972 10.3%
W of 1-95 34.354 380510 41.022 43.886 8.3%
Total 80927 87,973 96,821 103,223 8.6~
Lawrence Rd N of Boynton Beach Blvd 3.703 4.386 5,486 8.680 32.0%
N of NW 22nd Ave 4.505 4.933 5.218 4.837 2.7%
N of Hypo1uxo Rd 4.168 5.018 5.188 5.232 7.4%
Total 12,376 14,337 15,891 18,749 14.4~
Congress Ave N of Boynton Beach Blvd 21.532 26.046 15.704 29.808 10.1%
S of Hypoluxo Rd 18.014 22.263 24.653 26.922 14.0%
S of LanWla Rd 19.198 21.730 23.923 28.263 13.4%
N of LanWla Rd Rd . 20.717 26.304 31.206 31.850 15.7%
S of 6th Ave 26.065 29.281 34.214 35.714 11.6%
Total 105,526 125,624 139,700 151,557 12.9~
Areawide Totals 208,371 239,277 265,546 289,052 11.s~
Sow'c:e: Walter It Keller Ir.. IDc
Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Works
Florida Department of Transponation
Total Traffic
The total traffic analysis provided in the Applicant's study is based on a 1992 build-
out of the proposed project. However, throughout the early sections of the Applicant's t'
study. the project is proposed for a 1993 build.out year. For comparison's sake, the
WHK total traffic analysis is based on a 1992 build out date.
The results of the WHK total traffic assignment are provided on Table 4. The Table
also shows the results are comparable in most instances where the Applicant
provides a projected volume. However, many of the links in the project area are not
analyzed by the Applicant. This is due to the Applicant's reference to the Palm Beach
County Traffic Performance Standards U 1 % link test" as opposed to the Traffic
Circulation Element Support Document of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Because of
the missing data, confonnance to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be based on the
WHK study projections of future traffic.