REVIEW COMMENTS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tambri Heyden, Senior Planner
FROM: Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner
DATE: April 13, 1993
SUBJECT: BOYNTON SEACREST - Concurrency Analysis for Neighborhood
Parks
This concurrency analysis on the proposed development is being
performed pursuant to Chapter 19, Article VI. Concurrency
Requirements (Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances).
Boynton Seacrest is located within Park Planning Area #17.
According to Table 2, Neighborhood Park Needs Analysis (Recreation
and Open Space Support Document, 1989 Comprehensive Plan), and the
attached analysis for Planning Area #17, the current (1987) levels
of service for Area # 17 is 1.2 acres of park space per 1,000
persons, and a 1 mile walking distance. The acreage level of
service will then change to 2.6 acres per 1,000 persons in 1995, as
a result of the completion of Girl Scout Park. By the Year 2000
the acreage level of service is to change again to reflect the
addition of the required park dedication in connection with the
development of the S. Seacrest Boulevard Site.
Boynton Seacrest consists of 224 dwelling units. By applying the
persons per dwelling unit factor estimated by the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research (BEBR)--2.248--a population of 513
persons is projected. As the attached analysis indicates, this
development, when built-out, would lower the adopted acreage level
of service to 1.00 acre per 1,000 persons. The walking distance
level of service would not be affected by this development.
The impacts from additional development within Neighborhood Park
Planning Area #17 upon adopted levels of service were anticipated,
and in part, formed the basis on which these levels of service
issues were resolved within this planning area. Included within
the City's Comprehensive Plan are the following two policies that
address directly, or indirectly, the level of service condition
within Neighborhood Park Planning Area #17:
Policy 5.5.1 - subsequent to Plan adoption. .all residential
developments that exceed 100 dwelling units provide a
private recreation area, unless however, public parks are
located within one-half mile from the project. .
Policy 5.5.4 - Subsequent to Plan adoption the City shall
require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood
park site at the time that the following properties are
rezoned or platted for residential use:..., S. Seacrest
Boulevard, ...
Policy 5.5.1 does not apply to the S. Seacrest Site, as this site
is located within approximately one-half mile from the planned Girl
Scout Park. with respect to the dedication of public park space,
which is required by Policy 5.5.4, Boynton Seacrest is consistent
with this Comprehensive Plan policy as the master plan indicates
that 4.2 acres of the site is to be dedicated to the City for
eventual neighborhood park development (4.032 is the minimum
acreage required by code based on the number and type of units
proposed. This site would be acquired according to the
requirements of Appendix C. Subdivisions and Platting (Boynton
Beach Code of Ordinances).
The dedicated park site satisfies the specific requirement within
Policy 5.5.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, however, to ensure that the
adopted levels of service are met, either the Girl Scout Park or
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Richard staudinger
city Engineer
~~
Christopher cutro
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Senior Planner
DATE: April 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Boynton Seacrest (f.k.a. Cedar Grove) - File No. 697
Master plan (subdivision) - third resubmittal
The following list of planning and zoning deficiencies pertaining
to the above-referenced resubmittal (revised master plan received
March 30, 1993) takes into consideration outstanding comments from
my previous memorandum dated March 16, 1993 to you, issues arising
from new data provided with this resubmittal and two statements
made by the applicant's attorney, Jill Jarkesy, at the April 8,
1993 Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. These statements
were as follows: 1) the applicant would be resubmitting one last
time to incorporate on the master plan the issues discussed at the
TRC meeting and the agreements made pursuant to Jill Jarkesy's
letter of March 26, 1993 addressed to you and 2) staff should re-
review the 1992 ecological documentation submitted for the Cedar
Grove PUD rezoning and apply it to the subj ect request in an
attempt to meet the submittal requirements of the City's
Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
For the applicant's benefit, I have tailored the following list to
aid them in preparing revised plans by indicating which comments
from my previous memorandum have and have not been addressed, which
comments are new and suggested language to be added in the form of
notes in an effort to reduce the number of conditions of approval.
Comments from previous memorandum dated March 16. 1993
1. Comment #3 This comment has been addressed with the
exception of the location of all proposed drainage easements.
It appears that a drainage easement will be needed along the
rear of Lots 4 and 5 of Block 6 and possibly along the west
side yard of Lot 6, Block 6 to connect to the drainage
easement on Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Block 6. If so, show the
location and width of these easements. Appendix C
Subdivisions, Platting, Article VIII, Section 4.C.I0.
Regarding the impact drainage easements and setbacks will have
on the buildable area of corner lots and lots determined to
have two front setback requirements, a note can be added to
the master plan that certain of these lots will be limited to
two-story dwellings in order to meet the minimum living area
requirements of the zoning code. (See comment #13 below for a
new problem that has arisen as a result of the way previous
comment #3 was addressed.)
2. Comment #4 Palm Beach County's traffic comments have been
addressed with the submittal of "Addendum No.2" to the
November 9 I 1992 traffic study. Furthermore, Palm Beach
County has certified (letter dated March 24, 1993 from Dan
Weisberg to myself) that the proposed project meets Palm Beach
County's Traffic Performance Standards. For the record, it is
noted that neither the November 9, 1992 traffic study, which
was not updated, nor "Addendum No.2", prepared March 12,
1993, address my observation stated within comment #4 of my
previous memorandum that page 8 of the November 9, 1992 study,
II Proj ect Access II, last sentence, does not mention the S. E. 4 th
Street connection to the development. In addition, the study,
nor the addendum, reflect the new total number of units (224)
TO: Richard Staudinger
-2-
April 13, 1993
(cont'd. )
2. resul ting from the recent deletion of four single-family lots.
Therefore, it is clear that Palm Beach County was unaware of
this data when conducting their review, as evidenced in Dan
Weisberg's March 24, 1993 letter stating that the project
contains 146 single-family units and 81 mUlti-family units.
No master plan revisions relative to this issue are necessary,
however it shall be understood that despite the fact that the
project can be certified for 146 single-family units and 81
multi-family units, 142 single-family units and 82 duplex
units shall be certified for concurrency, consistent with what
is depicted on the master plan. Chapter 19, Article VI,
concurrency Requirements, Section 19-87(e) and 84(e). (See
comment #10 below for a change that has arisen as a result of
the reduction in units.)
3. Comment #6 - Jill Jarkesy's March 26, 1993 letter states that
they agree to put money, at the time of platting, into escrow
for a traffic light at the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard
and Mission Hill Road, until project buildout or until the
light is warranted, whichever comes first. Comprehensive Plan
Policy 1.3.1. and 1.3.7.
As agreed, a note can be added to the plans which states the
following: "At the time of platting, money shall be put in
escrow for a traffic light at the intersection of Seacrest
Boulevard and Mission Hill Road, until project building or
until the light is warranted, whichever comes first".
4. Comment #7 has not been addressed. The six "crosswalks"
depicted on the master plan are not running between streets,
but rather across a street. Contrary to Jill Jarkesy' s
statement (March 26, 1993 letter) that the master plan was
amended to show a pedestrian crosswalk and path going directly
to the public park between a publicly dedicated access tract,
what is shown on the master plan, in lieu of the previously
shown park access tract dedicated to the City between Lots 9
and 10 of Block 1, is an open space, owned and maintained by
the homeowners' association, adjacent to the public park.
staff continues to believe that "crosswalks" between streets
are necessary to provide safe circulation and access to the
proposed neighborhood park adjacent to the Boynton Seacrest
project. Therefore, it is recommended that they be
incorporated in the proposed lot layout and indicated as
ei ther easements or tracts of land dedicated and maintained by
the homeowners' association. Appendix C of the Code of
Ordinances, Article X, Section 3.D.2; Article IX, Section 11
and Article VIII, Section 4.C.10 and Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.11.9 and 2.4.4.
5. Comment #8 has been addressed. (See comment #11 below for a
new problem that has arisen as a result of the way previous
comment #8 was addressed.)
6. Comment #9 - Jill Jarkesy's March 26, 1993 letter states that
they agree to concurrency for neighborhood park facilities
being conditioned upon no building permits being issued for
the final 50% of the total number of units within the
subdivision until commencement of construction of either Girl
Scout Park or the park site dedicated to the City by the
Boynton Seacrest property owner. Chapter 19, Article VI,
Section 19-88(d) (5)c and d of the Code of Ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan Objective 9C.2 and Policies 9C.2.3, 9D.2.3
and 5.2.3. and recreation concurrency analysis dated April 13,
1993, from Michael Rumpf to Tambri Heyden.
As agreed, a note can be added to the plans which states the
TO: Richard Staudinger
-4-
April 13, 1993
( con t ' d. )
13. (10 feet along the rear of lots). Appendix C - subdivisions,
Platting, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10.
14. Consistent with statements made at the April 8, 1993 TRC
meeting, depict on the master plan and engineering plans that
the lift station will be located within a dedicated tract
separate from the property boundaries of Block 6, Lot 11,
rather than wi thin an easement encumbering said lot. Appendix
C - Subdivisions, Platting, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10.
15. Add a note on Block 1, Lot 3 and Block 10, Lot 24 that the
access point to the lot shall be a minimum of 180 feet from
the intersecting rights-of-way lines of Seacrest Boulevard and
the main project entrance; an access point arroW' could be
added on these two lots if preferred. Appendix C
Subdivision, Platting, Article X, Section 1 of the Code of
Ordinances.
,-
~~~2l4L
tjh
Attachments
A: BoynSea3
"
A cvrJm
c~_
n
GEE & JENSON
EnglneerscArchitectscPlanners Inc
April 15, 1993
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach. FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683c3301
Fax (407) 686c7446
Mr. Julian T. Bryan, III
Julian Bryan Associates
3191 Leewood Terrace L 136
Boca Raton, FI 33431
Re: Boynton Seacrest (AKA Cedar Grove)
Subdivision Master Plan
TAC Comments
Dear Mr. Bryan:
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) of the City of Boynton Beach met on April 8,
1993 to discuss the Subdivision Master Plan resubmittal for the Boynton Seacrest project.
Because this is a resubmittal, several departments reference comments previously
generated by staff during the October through March review period.
Comments are attached as noted below:
1. Planning & Zoning - Comments attached
2. Police - no comments
3, Fire - no comments
4. Building - no comments
5. Recreation & Parks - comments attached
6. City Forester - comments attached
7. Engineering - comments attached
8. Utilities - no comments
9. Public Works - no comments
In addition, I have attached an April 8, 1993 memo from the Planning Department
requesting additional time to review the environmental submittal in accordance with
Section 7.5-62 of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. These comments will
be completed and forwarded to you when available. The Planning Department expects
their review will be completed in time for the May 11, 1993 regular Planning &
Development Board meeting. However, they are not sure their comments will be
available in time to schedule a special Planning & Development Board meeting tm April
27th.
RECEIVED
APR IJ
PLANNING DEPT.
..
..
"
n
Mr. Julian T. Bryan
Julian Bryan- Associates
April 15, 1993 - Page 2
Once these comments are available, I will write a letter to the Planning & Development
Board with a recommendation. Regardless of the recommendation, the plan will be
forwarded to the Planning & Development Board no later than the May 11,1993 regular
Planning & Development Board meeting.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Gee & Jenson
Engineers-Arc. ts-Planners, Inc.
ICe; ,
W. Ric ard Staudinger, P.E.
WRSlbf
Enc!.
92-025/200
cc: Vince Finizio w/encl.
James Cherot w/encl.
Chris Cutro w/encl.
J. Scott Miller w/encl.
TRC Members
.
.J
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUMiM #93-164
FROM: ·
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent /~
Boynton Seacrest
(2nd Review)
/
41(;14,
TO:
Vincent Finizio, Deputy City Engineer
RE:
DATE:
April 12, 1993
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the latest
resubmittal for the Boynton Seacrest MasterPlan. All previous
comments have been corrected. The only additional remaining is:
Public Park Access: - A note must be included on the plan
providing for pedestrian access to the public park through the
Home Owners Association open space area north of the
subdivision entrance road.
JW'ad
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #93-166
TO:
Vincent Finizio, Deputy City Engineer
I~ ~ J.L-
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~:1~
FROM: ·
RE: Boynton Seacrest Master Plan Resubmittal (2nd Review)
(FKA Cedar Grove Subdivision MasterPlan
A Planned Residential Community)
DATE: April 12, 1993
1. The applicant will be required to meet the Environmental
Regulation Article I, Tree Preservation Sections 7.5-1 through
7.5-27 (pages 593-606). Specifically, the applicant must
fulfill the requirements of section 7.5-22, page 603, natural
growth to be preserved. This site has been determined to be
an environmentally valuable, nearly extinct ecosystem in South
Florida. Meet~ng these sections may affect the master plan
design resubmittal, as approved by the City. .
2. The applicant has verbally requested that the report:
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SEACREST BOULEVARD
SCRUB, (CEDAR GROVE SITE) BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
09 JANUARY 1992 prepared by Donald Richardson, PHD Ecological
Consultants, Inc. be submitted in total for the project FKA
Cedar Grove. This is to meet the requirements of Article IV,
environmentally sensitive lands, section 7.5-59 through 7.5-63
(pages 628-631). This report does comply with section 7.5-59
through 7.5-61(b). The applicant must also submit written
documentation to comply with sections 7.5-61 c,d through
section 7.5-63 (pages 630-631).
3. In accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan Ordinance #89-
38, adopted November 7, 1989 policy 4.3.5 page 67, the
applicant is required to designate a minimum of 25% of the
native plant community as a preservation area. The ecological
assessment document (#2 above) and the site data sheet
(revised 2-20-92) indicated the proposed location of the
Preserve 11.5 acres maintained by Cedar Grove H.O.A. will be
overlayed on the Boynton Seacrest MasterPlan resubmittal. The
purpose is to apply the comment made by the applicant at the
T.R.C. meeting on April 8, 1993 (see attached memo from Chris
Cutro, April 8, 1993 paragraph one) towards the location of
the preserve area in conjunction with the proposed blocks,
lots, and R.O.W. easements.
The following areas as shown on the Boynton Seacrest
MasterPlan resubmittal could not be preserved as indicated
u~der a tree management plan while simultaneously developed as
housing locations. The areas are: Block #l lots 30 31 32." tJo
Block #7 lots #1-24 inclusive; Block #8 lots #1-22 inciusive~
Block #9 lots #1-15 inclusive; Block #10 lots #1-6 inclusive~
50' R.O.W. easement between block seven and block eight t~
n~rth/south property line; 50' R.O.W. easement between block
elght and block nine to north/south property line; 10' non-
access and landscape/screening easement to north/south
property line.
KH:ad
n
GEE & JENSON
EnCJineers~Arctlltects~Planners, Inc.
March 18, 1993
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683~3301
Fax (407) 686-7446
Mr. Julian T. Bryan, III
Julian Bryan Associates
3191 Leewood Terrace L136
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Re: Boynton Seacrest (AKA Cedar Grove)
Subdivision Master Plan
TRC Comments
Dear Mr. Bryan:
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) of the City of BoyntOn Beach met on March 11,
1993 to discuss the subdivision Master Plan resubmittal for the Boynton Seacrest project.
Attached, please find the staff comments generated from this review. Because this is a
resubmittal, several departments reference comments previously generated by staff
during the initial October through January review period.
Comments are attached as noted below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning & Zoning - 9 comments
Police - no comments
Fire - no comments
Building - 1 comment
Recreation & Parks - 1 comment
City Forester/Environmentalist - 3 comments
Engineering - 5 comments
Utilities - 2 comments
RECEIVED
MAR \ 9 \993
n
Mr. Julian T. Bryan, III
March 18, 1993 - Page 2
Based on the extent of the comments from staff on this subdivision Master Plan
resubmittal, the plan will not be forwarded to the Planning & Development Board. Please
notify this office if you intend to withdraw the Master Plan, or wish to address staff
comments with appropriate revisions or additions to the Master Plan at a future TRC
meeting.
Very truly yours,
Gee & Jenson
Engineers-Archi s-Planners, Inc,
It!
W. Richar Staudinger, P .E.
City Engineer
WRS/bf
Encl.
92-025/200
cc: Vince Finizio w/encl.
James Cheraf w/encl.
vthris Cutra w/encl.
J. Scott Miller w/encl.
TRC Members
TO: Richard Staudinger
-3-
April 13, 1993
(cont' d. )
6. following: "No building permits shall be issued for the final
50% of the total number of units within the subdivision until
construction of either Girl Scout Park or the 4.032 acre
dedicated park site commences". (See comment #10 below for a
change in dedicated park acreage that has arisen as a result
of the reduction in total number of units.)
7. Comment #10 Jill Jarkesy's March 26, 1993 letter states
that they agree to the School Board's condition of approval.
Therefore, a note can be added to the plans which states the
following: "No residential building permits may be issued
until the developer and the school Board approve in writing an
agreement which assures that public school student membership
generated by the development will achieve school Board racial
balance goals". Appendix C of the Code of ordinances, Article
VIII, Section 4.G and Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.22.1.
8. Comment #11 Based on Jill Jarkesy's statement at the April
8, 1993 TRC meeting directing staff to re-review the 1992
documentation submitted for the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning and
apply it to the current request and given that Section 7.5-62
of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance provides the
staff 30 days upon receipt of this documentation within which
to complete its evaluation of environmental impacts, comments
regarding mitigation and scrub habitat preservation will be
forthcoming. As requested of Jill Jarkesy at the TRC meeting,
staff will need a letter confirming her statement which shall
reference the date and specific document to re-review.
9. Comment #12 This comment regarding submittal of a
management plan will be reiterated and incorporated with the
forthcoming comments discussed in item #8 above.
New comments arisinq from new data provided on 3/30/93 master plan
10. Due to the reduction from 228 to 224 in total number of units,
the minimum acreage required for park dedication has also
decreased from 4.104 acres to 4.032 acres, therefore the
acreage indicated on the park site along Seacrest Boulevard,
to be dedicated to the City, can be reduced accordingly.
Appendix C - Subdivisions, Platting, Article IX, section a.B.
of the code of Ordinances.
11. The fire hydrant locations shown appear to conflict with that
4 foot portion of the 8 foot wide bike path system which is
proposed to be located on private lots within a bike path
easement. Indicate on the master plan, by adding a note or
relocating the bike path or fire hydrants, how this will be
resolved.
12. Mr. Newbold's previous memorandum (Building Department
Memorandum No. 93-057), which was not addressed, inadvertently
lists Block 6, Lot 1 as a lot that will require front setbacks
on both street frontages, rather than Block 6, Lot 7. Add
arrows on each street frontage of the lots that will require
front setbacks on both street frontages. In addition, since
the front of all other types of corner lots will not be
determined until addresses are issued at time of building
permit, remove arrows shown on these lots.
13. Their is a discrepancy among the master plan, detail A-A of
the storm water management plan and the storm water management
plan, relative to the width of the proposed drainage
easements. The master plan shows 40 feet (20 feet along the
rear of lots), detail A-A does not label the drainage easement
width, although it appears to be 40 feet consistent with the
master plan, and the storm water management plan shows 20 feet
,.
n
GEE & JENSON
Engllleers-Architects-Planners. Inc
MEMORANDUM
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683-3301
Fax (407) 686-7446
TO:
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
W. Richard Staudinger, PE
City Engineer
DATE:
April 15, 1993
RE:
Boynton Seacrest
Subdivision Master Plan Resubmittal
TRC Comments, TRC meeting of April 8, 1993
The TRC has reviewed the revised Subdivision Master Plan submittal. This memo is for
your records. The Master Plan will be forwarded to the Planning & Development Board
meeting of May 11, 1993 or a special meeting of April 27, 1993, depending upon the
receipt of additional comments concerning the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance
contained in Chapter 7 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances.
The following comments are from the Engineering Department:
With respect to Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4 of the Boynton Beach Code of
Ordinances:
(C) 1 thru 19 - No objections
(D) No objection
(E) Master Stormwater Ma~agement Plan is acceptable with the following
modifications: !
!
1 - A Homeowners AssociJtion or other legal entity must be established to maintain
the drainage swale systems proposed.
2 - The entire Stormwater Management Plan must be constructed by the original
developer prior to any home construction.
.
3 - No fences will be allowed within the sloped sides or detention areas.
n
4 - Each lot adjoining a detention area will be required to have a grading plan
approved by the City that incorporates the detention area.
5 - Sufficient erosion control structures will be required on the construction plans
for swales in the transition areas.
6 - All swale areas, including site slopes must be contained in easements to
prevent oachments into the detention areas.
W. Richard Staudinger, PE
City Engineer
cc: Vince Finizio
.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Richard Staudinger
City Engineer
~~
Christopher cutro
planQing and zoning Director
Tambri J. Heydc~n TJ-f}
Senior Planner
TO:
THRU:
DATE: March-16, 1993
SUBJECT: Boynton Seacrest (f.k.a. Cedar Grove) - File No. 697
Master Plan (subdivision) - second resubmittal
please be advised of the following list of comments which itemizes
planning and zoning deficiencies of the above-referenced
resubmittal. For the applicant's benefit, I have indicated which
comments from my previous memorandum (planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum 110. 93-013) have been. addressed and which
cOlllments h<1ve not been addressed. Based on the nature and impact
of these deficiencies, it is recommended that the applicant
resubmit. If the applicant chooses not to resubmit, then it is
recommended that this request be forwarded to the April planning
and Development Board meeting with a Technical Review Board
recommendation of denial:
1. Comment #1 of my previous memorandum has been satisfactorily
addressed.
2. Comment #2 of my previous memorandum has been satisfactorily
addressed.
3. Comment #3 of my previous memorandum, pertaining to the wall
easement, has been addressed in part. Information needs to be
provided regarding ownership and maintenance responsibility of
the wall and associated easement and of the park access tract.
This can be addressed similarly to the master storm management
plan note pertaining to drainage easements. In addition, the
width of the proposed drainage easements shall be shown
pursuant to Appendix C - Subdivisions, Platting, Article VIII,
section 4.C.10. There is concern that these easements may
impact rear and/or side building setbacks.
4. Comment #4 of my previous memorandum pertains to the revised
traffic study for which comments from Palm Beach County had
not been received by January 21, 1993; the date of my previous
memorandum. Palm Beach County's traffic comments, received
on January 27, 1993 and faxed to the applicant the same day,
have not been addr~ssed to date, as well as the comment from
my previous memorandum which notes that page 8 of the November
9, 1992 study, "Project Access", last sentence, does not
mention the third access to the development, which provides an
additional connection to the surrounding street network via a
link to S.E. 4th street and indirectly to Gulfstream
Boulevard. Chapter 19, Article VI, Concurrency Requirements,
section 19-87(e) and 84(e).
5. Comment #5 of my previous memorandum has been satisfactorily
addressed.
6. Comment #6 of my previous memorandum that money be put into
escrow at the time of platting for a traffic light at the
intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and Mission Hill Road,
until project buildout or until the light is warranted,
whichever comes first, will be made part of staff comments for
consideration as a condition of approval, in the event the
master plan is approved, wh~n this r.equest is forwarded to the
TO: Richard Staudinger
-2-
Barch 16, 1993
(con t' d. )
6. planning and Development Board. Comprehensive plan Policy
1.3.1 and 1.3.7.
7. Comment #7 of my previous memorandum pertaining to crosswalks
between streets hilS not been addressed. staff has determined
that in blocks 900 feet in length or over (Block 1, 3, 7, 8
and 9), eight feet wide crosswalks/pedestrian paths between
streets, traversing lots within these blocks, are necessary to
provide safe circlIl c1tion aud dCC<:'SS to the proposed
neigliliorhood park adjacent to the Boynton Seacrest project.
Therefore, it is recommended that they be incorporated in the
proposed lot layout and indicated as either easements or
tracts of land dedicated and maintained by the homeowners'
association. Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances, Article X,
section 3.D.2; Article IX, Section 11 and Article VIII,
Section 4. C. 10 and Comprehens i ve Plan Pol icies 1.11.9 and
2.4.4.
8. Comment #8 of my previous memorandum pertaining to bike paths
has been addressed in part. Bike paths are shown, however
they do not meet the minimum width of eight feet required by
code. since this will impact either the 50 feet road width
proposed or necessitate a four feet wide bike path easement
along the frontages of applicable lots, provide two typical
road sections; one detail ing a four feet wide sidewalk on both
street sides and one detailing a four feet wide sidewalk on
one side of the street and an eight feet wide bike path on the
other side of the street. If the additional four feet for the
bike path is to be included wi thin the right-of-way, the-
applicable right-of-way widths need to be increased
accordingly. If the additional four feet is to be provided
via an easement, show the location and width of these proposed
easements. Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances, Article X,
Section 12 and Article VIII, Section 10. _
9. Comment #9 of my previous memorandum pertaining to
certification of concurrency for neighborhood park facilities.
condi tioned upon no building permits being issued for the
final 50% of the total number of units within the subdivision
until construction of either Girl Scout Park or the 4.2 acre
dedicated park site commences, will be made part of staff
comments for consideration as a condition of approval, in the
event the master plan is approved, when this request is
forwarded to the Planning and Development Board. Chapter 19,
Article VI, Section 19-88(d)(5)c and d of the Code of
Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan Objective 9C.2 and Policies
9C.2.3, 9D.2.3 and 5.2.3. and recreation concurrency analysis
dated January 21, 1993, from Hichael Rumpf to Tambri Heyden.
10. Comment #10 of my previous memorandum pertaining to School
Board racial balance goals has not been addressed. Add a
note, as recommended by the Palm Beach County school Board, _to
the master plan which states that no residential building
permits may be issued until the developer and the School Board
approve in wri tillg an agreement which assures that public
school student membership generated by the development will
achieve School Board racial balance goals. Appendix C of the
Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section 4. G and
Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.22.1.
11. Comment #11 of my previous memorandum pertaining to
preservation of scrub habitat has not been addressed. The
subject parcel is delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map as a "Conservation Overlay District" due to an
"A" (high quality) rating of the native, Florida Scrub
ecosystem on the parcel. The use and development of
properties delineated as a "Conservation Overlay District" are
subject to the recommendations contained in the Conservation
TO: H.ichard staudinger
-3-
March 16, 1993
(cont'd.)
11. and Coastal Management Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. In
dddi tion, applied. tiOllS for subdivision approval involving
proposed alterations of ecosi tes representing high quality
native Florida ecosystems must meet the requirements of
Chapter 7.5, Article IV of the Cod~ of Ordinances
Environmentally Sensitive Lands.
The Boynton Seacrest application does not meet the submittal
rt.?quirements of the Env ironmentally Sensi ti ve Lands Ordinance,
nor does it address detailed mitigation considerations for
loss of habitat and impact on endangered, threatened and rare
animal and plant species and species of special concern that
are known to exist on the parcel. Also, the application
submitted is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy
4.3.5 in that preservation of a minimum 25% of the total scrub
habitat of 45.69 acres (i.e. - 11.43 acres) is not reflected
on the master plan. Include a note on the master plan that
the preserve area shall be privately maintained.
12. Comment #12 of my previous memorandum pertaining to submittal
of a management plan, will be made part of staff comments for
consideration as a condition of approval, in the event the-
master plan is approved, when this request is forwarded to the
Planning and Development Board. This comment states that at
the time of applying for preliminary plat approval, a
management plan sllall be submitted for the preserve area and
any other common areas, including as much existing vegetation
outside the preserve as possible, which employs preservation
and relocation, rather than II cut and replace II techniques.
Designation of a transition buffer is recommended as a
rest~icted development zone to prevent significant adverse
effects on the protected environmentally sensitive zone. This
should be included in the management plan to ensure that any
portion of this buffer that is damaged during construction, is
restored and operating within a reasonable amount of time.
Comprehensive plan Policy 4.4.2.
tjh
Attachments
A:BoynSea2
.t:..U~L-; i.t:.L~h_C.!lll;L:D.'.2!li1:1()IU.JIIJlJN NO. .~J.=-~~lIC
1''-) :
1:1 ii; I Uif. i' I ,J
1 I I'.., I: j'I-II.II')
,'j' (H1 :
!: 1 RE JJI-:Pj:,K' ';li;;J','
I II, ;'j: :
HAf~(:H
J' 'J
"t: :
t-;O'{N'l'(HJ ~-j-:;.('f-{f,S'l' l. !:'K.~) l:EJ)AH C;HO\iE
1-1AS'I'EI~ \-.-';1.\:'1 SLJHt.i I ~;~l ot\]
~Jr; HhVj-; NO ()j-LJLC'J iCHl 'J'U \-"HA'l' is PHESEN'j'Ell ).\,'1' 'J'HlS 'J'ltvll<;; 1..8.:
Ll)'J' I,AYOU'j' A.ND S'l'ttt:L I' ~:()t.JNE~:'l'J(JN:';.
c-
/M~ 1YZ~~tf!~ c
~'J I LLl AI-I U ~~lJ(;H; FPO L
HOYN'l'ON BEACH}' JHJ:: IJEPAR 'J.1EN'I'
~) .:or
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 93-057
March 12, 1993
TO:
w. Richard Staudinger
City Enginee
THRU:
Don Jaeger
Building 0
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
~E:
TRC COMMENTS - MASTER PLAN REVIEW
BOYNTON SEACREST (f.k.a. Cedar Grove)
The Building Department's comment that the required 25 foot front
setbacks may cause problems with some lots was not corrected.
However, we have no objection to the project progressing. Please
inform the applicant of the lots that require two 25 foot front
setbacks. They are:
Block 1 - lots 5 and 32
Block 4 - lots 1 and 3
Block 5 - lots 1 and 3
Block 6 - lots 1 and 5
Block 10 - lots 1 and 18
;/t~N
Al Newb d
AN : bh
//
SEACREST
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #93-130
TO:
Richard Staudinger, C1ty Eng1neer
John Wildner, Parks s~perint~ndent .~
Boynton Seacrest Master Plan Resub~ssion
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
March 17, 1993
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the latest
resubmission for the Boynton Seacrest Master Plan.
All comments mentioned in Recreation & Park Memorandum #93-40 have
been addressed except item 2 location and configuration. The
layout of the proposed park property remains a concern to us. The
300' x 600' configuration is not suitable for an open playfield.
For safety reasons, we require an approximately 400' width which
will allow for use as a youth softball/baseball field, etc. with
sufficient buffering from the traffic on Seacrest Boulevard and for
the surrounding residences.
The developer has expressed an interest in meeting with us in the
next few days to further address this issue.
JW:ad
Gray-arc'
PO. Box 29..4
Hmllord. CT 06104 . 2944
CALL roll. FREE: 1.800-243-5250
REPLY MESSAGE
Fold Al (.) To Fit Grayarc Wndow Envelope" EW10P
REORDER ITEM" F269 .
I
I
FROM
TO
Christopher Cutro
Planning/Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan
Forester/Environmentalist
BOYNTON SEACREST
SUBJECT: -11asj:~l.aa...ReY.iew
& Resubmission - 3rd
FOLD T .
DATE:_l=J 2- 93
Review
Comments as previously submitted have not been
addressed by the applicant.
.-----~-~.
R~
..~. ~AR.~ 12
PL.f.1:!\ \ ~ NJ NG:. D6 PT.
PLEASE REPLY TO
.
SIGNED
--
-'
REPLY
DATE:
SIGNED
Itom" F269 Grayarc, P.O. Box 2944, H.1rlford, CT 06104-2944
o Wheel.. Group, Inc. 1982
THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED
. " ',"
, ":',
:1; ,-
, ..
I . . .
..I
.. ..
,..
., ...
.....' :
I .
~
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM ~92-349
TO:
Richard Staudinger, Engineer
Gee & Jensen Consulting Engineers
~
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
RE: Cedar Grove - Subdivision Masterplan
A Planned Residential Community
DATE: October 29, 1992
1. The applicant will be required to meet the Environmental
Regulation Article I, Tree Preservation Sections 7.5-1 through
7.5-27 (pages 593-606). Specifically, the applicant must
fulfill the requirements of section 7.5-22, page 603, natural
growth to be preserved. This site has been determined to be
an environmentally valuable, nearly extinct ecosystem in South
Florida. Meeting these secDions may effect the master plan
design as approved by the City.
2. the applicant will be required to mee~ the entirety of Article
IV, environmentally sensitive lands, section 7.5-59. through
7.5-63 (pages' 628-631). Meeting these sections may
dramatically effect the master plan design as approved by the
City.
3. In accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan Ordinance #89-
38, adopted November 7, 1989 policy 4.3.5 page 67, the
applicant is required.to designate a minimum of 25% of the
native plant community as a preservation area. The app~icant
does not indicate on the master plan the location of this
area.
KH:ad
Time: Forester/Environmentalist:
Secretary:
1/2 hour
15 minutes
n
GEE & JENSON
Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683-3301
Fax (407) 686-7446
TO:
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
W. Richard Staudinger, PE
City Engineer
DATE:
March 18, 1993
RE:
Boynton Seacrest (formerly Cedar Grove)
Subdivision Master Plan Resubmittal
TRC Comments, TRC meeting of March 11, 1993
The TRC has reviewed the revised subdivision Master Plan submission. This memo is to inform
you that the Master Plan will not be going forward to the Planning and Development Board's April
13, 1993 meeting because of the extensive number of serious comments by Staff not addressed
by the latest Master Plan submittal, including the sections of Chapter 7 of the Boynton Beach
Code of Ordinances (Environmentally Sensitive Lands). We have informed the applicant by
separate letter. The applicant can make corrections andlor modifications to the Master Plan and
resubmit to the office of the City Engineer, if he so chooses.
Please be advised of the following Engineering Department comments concerning the Boynton
Seacrest submission. These comments are sent to you for your files.
With respect to Appendix C, Article Vlll,Section 4 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, the
following comments are noted:
(C) 1 thru 8 - No comments
9 - SUNey of site has not been abstracted. Provide proper documentation with
resubmittal. No way to verify all easements are shown without a title search
(abstract).
10 thru 16 - No comments
17 - Utilities availability not addressed by applicant. Provide documentation as required
by this item. Coordinate with utilities, including City of Boynton Beach.
18 & 19 - No comments
(D) TIA submitted to Palm Beach County - Test 1 of Traffic Performance Standards failed.
Provide solution or modification of traffic generation and Palm Beach County approval in
writing.
~_._..,._,._-'------_._----~---_._-~--~
.'-(""
,-<-
GEE & JENSON
Engi neers- Architects-
Planners, Inc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
W. Richard Staudinger, P.E., City Engineer
DATE:
November 3, 1992
RE:
Cedar Grove - Subdivision Master Plan
TRC Comments
The TRC has reviewed the Master Plan submission. This memo is to inform you that the Master
Plan will not be going forward to the Planning and Development Board's, November 10, 1992
meeting because of the extensive number of serious comments by Staff. We have informed the
applicant by separate letter.
Please be advised of the following Engineering Department comments concerning the Cedar
Grove Submission. In addition, Vince Finizio has forwarded two comments to your attention on
Engineering Department matters. These comments are sent to you for your files.
With respect to Appendix C., Article VIII, Section 4 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances,
the following comments are noted:
(C) 1- Subdivision name appears to be a duplicate of an existing subdivision in Palm
Beach County.
2 thru 7 - No comments
8 - No roadway widths given
9- Survey & site has not been abstracted. Provide proper documentation with
resubmitttaJ.
10- Entrance right-of-way not defined. Mission Hill Rd. right-of-way not defined.
11- No connection into circulation of South Street system. Use one of the 3 streets
available to provide proper circulation and continuity of street systems.
12- Comments reserved until Palm Beach County review of Traffic Impact Analysis
is complete.
13 thru 16 - No comments
17- Utilities availability not addressed by applicant. Provide documentation as
required by this item.
18 & 19 - No comments
(D) TIA submitted to Palm Beach County - No comments
One Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923 . 407/683-3301 . FAX 407/686-7446
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-212
TO: vincent Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
~~
THRU: Christopher cutro
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Senior Planner
DATE: November 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Cedar Grove - File No. 697
Master plan (subdivision)
Please be advised of the following Planning and Zoning Department
comments with respect to the above-referenced request for master
plan approval:
1. Delineate and quantify the buildable area of each corner lot
and irregular shaped lot to establish setback lines and verify
conformance with the Zoning Code, "Building and Site
Regulations" (minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, minimum
living area and maximum lot coverage) for the R-lAA and R-2
zoning districts. Appendix C Subdivisions, Platting,
Article VIII, Section 4. C .10 and Article X, Section 7 and
Appendix A - Zoning, Section 5.C.2 and Section 5.F.2.
2. Delete the minimum lot size and setback site data from the
master plan and add a note which references the Zoning Code,
"Building and Site Regulations" for the R-1AA and R-2 zoning
districts and the swimming pool and screen enclosures
provisions. Appendix A - Zoning, Section 5. C and 5. F and
Section 11.E and F.
3. Add a note to the master plan site data that no structure
shall encroach an easement. Appendix C Subdivisions,
Platting, Article VIII, Section 4.C.I0 and Section 6.0.9.
4. Add a note to the master plan site data that a minimum of two
off-street parking spaces per unit will be provided. Appendix
A - Zoning, Section 5.C.3, Section 5.F.3, Section 11.H.4 and
Section 11.H.16.a(4).
5. Adjust the layout of Lot 30, Block 1 and Lot la, Block 9 so
that the lot lines follow the zoning district boundaries and
no lot is bisected by a zoning district boundary. Appendix A
- Zoning, Section 3.A.5.
6. Provide information regarding the unlabeled tract of land
south of Lot 6, Block 6, such as the purpose of the tract and
who will own and maintain this property. Appendix C
Subdivisons, Platting, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10.
7. Show the location of the required limited access easement on
Lot I, Block 1 and Lot 41, Block 9 along Seacrest Boulevard
and on Lots 1-14 within Block 9 along the F.E.C. Railroad.
Buffering (screening) required within this easement shall be
addressed on the preliminary plat plans. Appendix C of the
Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10 and Article
IX, section 3 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.6.
a. Palm Beach County's comments regarding the traffic study are
expected to be received no later than November 5, 1992.
Therefore, comments on the traffic study and concurrency
certification for traffic levels of service will be
forthcoming. It is noted however, that the total number of
dwelling units indicated within the traffic study (la7) does
not correspond with the total number of dwelling units
P & Z Memo No. 92-212
-2-
November 2, 1992
(cont' d. )
a. indicated on the master plan (228). This discrepancy impacts
the total number of trips per day generated by this proposed
subdivision. Chapter 19, Article VI, Concurrency
Requirements, Section 19-87(e) and 84(e).
9. Dimension the right-of-way width of the subdivision entrance
off of Seacrest Boulevard to verify that there is sufficient
room to provide the three lanes undivided section tapering to
two lanes undivided section as stated within the traffic
study. Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances, Article VIII,
Section 4.C.10 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.1 and
Objective 2.4 and 2.5.
10. Add a note to the master plan that the developer shall be
required to provide a southbound, left turn lane on Seacrest
Boulevard as concluded by the applicant's traffic engineer.
Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section
4.C.11 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.1.
11. It is recommended that money be put into escrow at the time of
platting for a traffic light at the intersection on Seacrest
Boulevard and Mission Hill Road, until project buildout or
until the light is warranted, whichever comes first.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.1 and 1.3.7.
12. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.9 and Appendix
C of the Code of Ordinances, Article X, Section 10 of the Code
of Ordinances indicate on the master plan at least one local
street connection to the south boundary of the subdivision to
establish and coordinate a citywide street network and provide
for continuity with the existing street system within the
surrounding area. .
13. Due to the length of Block 1, 3, 7, a and 9 (900 feet in
length or over), locate an eight feet wide crosswalk/
pedestrian path between streets linking the proposed
pedestrian system shown to the publ ic park site. Include
information regarding dedication and maintenance of these
crosswalks/pedestrian paths. Appendix C of the Code of
ordinances, Article X, Section 3.0.2; Article IX, Section 11
and Article VIII, Section 4.C.10 and Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.11.9 and 2.4.4.
14. Since there is an existing bike system on Seacrest Boulevard,
it is recommended that there be designated on one side of the
proposed outer-looping, local streets, a bike path connecting
the Seacrest Boulevard system to S.E. 2nd Street to the north
and to the south street connection discussed in item #12
above. Although it is unknown where the proposed utilities
will be located, there appears to be sufficient room for bike
paths to further the intent of Comprehensive Plan policies
1.11.9 and 2.4.4 and Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances,
Article IX, Section 11. .
15. Verify the park site acreage stated on the master plan. This
area appears to be less than 4.2 acres. Appendix C of the
Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section 4.C.18 and Article
IX, Section a.B and Comprehensive Plan Policies 5.5.4 and
9C.5.4.
16. In order to ensure that there are adequate recreational
facilities available to serve the proposed subdivision
concurrent with the impacts of the development, certification
of concurrency for neighborhood park facilities shall be
issued conditioned upon no building permits being issued for
the final 50% of the total number of units within the
subdivision until construction of either Girl Scout Park or
the 4.2 acre dedicated park site commences. (See attached
P & Z Memo No. 92-212
-3-
November 2, 1992
(cont' d. )
16. recreation concurrency analysis dated November 2, 1992.)
Chapter 19, Article VI, Section 19-aa(d)(5)c of the Code of
Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan Objective 9C.2 and Policies
9C.2.3, 90.2.3 and 5.2.3.
17. Add a note, as recommended by the Palm Beach County School
Board, to the master plan which states that no residential
building permits may be issued until the developer and the
School Board approve in writing an agreement which assures
that public school student membership generated by the
development will achieve School Board racial balance goals.
Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances, Article VIII, Section
4.G and Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.22.1.
1a. The subject parcel is delineated on the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map as a "Conservation Overlay District" due
to an "A" (high quality) rating of the native, Florida Scrub
ecosystem on the parcel. The use and development of
properties delineated as a "Conservation Overlay District" are
subject to the recommendations contained in the Conservation
and Coastal Management Elements of the comprehensive Plan. In
addi tion, applications for subdivision approval involving
proposed alterations of ecosites representing high quality
native Florida ecosystems must meet the requirements of
Chapter 7.5, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances
Environmentally Sensitive Lands.
The Cedar Grove application does not meet the submittal
requirements of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance,
nor does it address detailed mitigation considerations for
loss of habitat and impact on endangered, threatened and rare
animal and plant species and species of special concern that
are known to exist on the parcel. Also, the application
submitted is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy
4.3.5 in that preservation of a minimum 25% of the total scrub
habitat of 45.69 acres (i.e. - 11.43 acres) is not reflected
on the master plan. Include a note on the master plan that
the preserve area shall be privately maintained.
19. At the time of applying for preliminary plat approval, a
management plan shall be submitted for the preserve area and
any other common areas, including as much existing vegetation
outside the preserve as possible, which employs preservation
and relocation, rather than "cut and replace" techniques.
Designation of a transition buffer is recommended as a
restricted development zone to prevent significant adverse
effects on the protected environmentally sensi ti ve zone. This
should be included in the management plan to ensure that any
portion of this buffer that is damaged during construction, is
restored and operating within a reasonable amount of time.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.2.
20.
As referenced
Julian Bryan,
of $343.26
application.
in an April 21, 1992 letter from Chris cutro to
the applicant, there remains an unpaid balance
for processing the previous Cedar Grove
~ . ~
.~~. ., 1t'{irI-
Tambri J. ~den
tjh
Attachments
A:CedGrCom
..
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Senior Planner
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner ~
TO:
DATE:
November 2, 1992
SUBJECT:
CEDAR GROVE - Concurrency Analysis for Neighborhood Parks
This concurrency analysis on the proposed development is being
performed pursuant to Chapter 19, Article VI. Concurrency
Requirements (Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances).
Cedar Grove is located within Park Planning Area #17. According to
Table 2, Neighborhood Park Needs Analysis (Recreation and Open
Space Support Document, 1989 Comprehensive Plan), and the attached
analysis for Planning Area #17, the current (1987) levels of
service for Area #17 is 1.2 acres of park space per 1,000 persons,
and a 1 mile walking distance. The acreage level of service will
then change to 2.6 acres per 1,000 persons in 1995, as a result of
the completion of Girl Scout Park. By the Year 2000 the acreage
level of service is to change again to reflect the addition of the
required park dedication in connection with the development of the
S. Seacrest Boulevard Site.
Cedar Grove consists of 228 dwelling units. By applying the
persons per dwelling unit factor estimated by the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research (BEBR)--2.248--a population of 513
persons is projected. As the attached analysis indicates, this
development, when built-out, would lower the adopted acreage level
of service to 1.00 acre per 1,000 persons. The walking distance
level of service would not be affected by this development.
The impacts from additional development within Neighborhood Park
Planning Area #17 upon adopted levels of service were anticipated,
and in part, formed the basis on which these levels of service
issues were resolved within this planning area. Included within
the City's Comprehensive Plan are the following two policies that
address directly, or indirectly, the level of service condition
within Neighborhood Park Planning Area #17:
Policy 5.5.1 - Subsequent to Plan adoption..all residential
developments that exceed 100 dwelling units provide a
private recreation area, unless however, public parks are
located within one-half mile from the project..
Policy 5.5.4 - Subsequent to Plan adoption the City shall
require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood
park site at the time that the following properties are
rezoned or platted for residential use:. .., S. Seacrest
Boulevard, ...
Policy 5.5.1 does not apply to the S. Seacrest Site, as this site
is located within approximately one-half mile from the planned Girl
Scout Park. With respect to the dedication of public park space,
which is required by Policy 5.5.4, Cedar Grove is consistent with
this Comprehensive Plan policy as the master plan indicates that
4.2 acres of the site is to be dedicated to the City for eventual
neighborhood park development. This site would be acquired
according to the requirements of Appendix C. subdivisions and
Platting (Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances).
The dedicated park site satisfies the specific requirement within
Policy 5.5.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, however, to ensure that the
adopted levels of service are met, either the Girl Scout Park or
n
(E) Master Stormwater Management Plan is not acceptable. The applicant has indicated a .
new drainage concept is being discussed with SFWMD. Contrary to statements by the
applicant's attorney at recent meetings (see 2/12/93 letter attached), a SFWMD
conceptual permit has not been obtained. The Master Stormwater Management Plan is
incomplete and cannot be evaluated.
ARTICLE X, SECTION 1, ACCESS:
Access to Lots 1 & 2 (Block One) and Lots 25,26 (Block Ten) violates the above section as they
are less than 180 feet from Seacrest Blvd., a collector street. Modify entrance configuration to
comply with this design requirement. The plan as shbmitted does not, in my opinion, meet the
requirements of this section of the Code.
t?&~))~--
W. Richard Staudinger,PE
City Engineer
---
WRS/bf
92-025/200
n
GEE & JENSON
Engi neers-Architects-
Planners, Inc
November 3, .1992
Mr. Julian T. Bryan, III
Julian Bryan & Associates
3191 Leewood Terrace, L136
Boca Raton, FI 33431
Re: Cedar Grove - Subdivision Master Plan Submittal
Technical Review Committee Comments
Dear Mr. Bryan:
The Technical Review Committee (fRC) of the City of Boynton Beach met on October 27, 1992
to discuss the referenced submittal. Attached, please find staff comments from the following
departments:
1. Planning and Zoning
2. Police
3. Fire
4. Building
5. Recreation and Parks
6. City Forester jEnvironmentalist
7. Engineering
8. Utilities
Based upon the extent and range of these comments, the TRC is not recommending this Master
Plan submission be forwarded to the Planning & Development Board. Please
coordinate with Mr. Chris Cutro and myself concerning rescheduling this submittal for TRC review
after the appropriate corrections or responses are made to the enclosed staff comments.
Very truly Yours,
. ._~~- -;"" .
~
WRSjbf
Enc!.
92-049
cc: Vince Finizio wjencl.
Jim Cherof wjencl.
TRC Members
~'~w/encl.
J. Scott Miller wjencl.
One Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923.407/683-3301 . FAX 407/686-7446
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #93-099
TO:
Richard Staudinger,
City Engineer
f-
'*'}
/"7
/~ "
~7-P~~-:~"-
.F;;._
::r c;
FROM:
John A. Guidry,
Utilities Director
DATE: March 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Boynton Seacrest, AKA Cedar Grove
Master Plan - Comments TRC Meeting
March 11, 1993 - Resubmission
Utility memorandum #94-409, dated October 28, 1992, listed two
comments related to the initial master plan review (see copy
attached).
These two comments have not been addressed Or rectified.
Contact Mr. Mike Kazunas at 738-7465 if you need further
clarification.
19b
Attachment
xc: Mike Kazunas
P(~ter Mazzella
Vince Finizio
Tltilitv Enoineer - 1 hour
. .
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ANALYSIS: PLANNING AREA '17
Concurrency Analysis por CEDAR GROVE Alt. 12 - Public Recreation Provided,
Proposed No. of Units... 228 - No Private Recreation
Projected Population.... 513
Analysis of
Level of Service: 1987 11/1/92 1995 2000 2010
Population 4,983 5,496 6,224 6,261 6,289
Population Served by
Private Recreation Pacilities 1,853 1,853 2,890 2,890 2,890
Population Served only by
Public Parks and Facilities 3,130 3,643 3,334 3,371 3,399
Neighborhood Park
Acreage I Public I 3.70 3.10 8.10 12.90 12.90
LOS for Acres/1000 2.50 2.50
Population 1.20 1.00 2.60 3.80 J( 3.80
LOS for Hax1lluI
Walking Distance IDilesl 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 0.50 0.50
Existing and Puture
Public Parks and Facilities:
Forest Hills 3.7
Girl Scout 5.0
Little League [Districtl
. 11 acres
S. Seacrest Blvd. Site 4.2
Total Neighborhood Park Acres
3.7 3.1 8.1
(unchangedl
12.9
12.9
1980 Population
Under Age 18, and
Percent of Total( I:
697 (171
NOU:
-Par current population, the 1981 population vas used since the 1990 Census includes only year-round residents. In addition
no residential development bas occurred in this Planning area that vould significantly change the 1987 population.
-The population for Cedar Grove was estimated using BEBR's ppdu of 2.248.
...---..---. ~~-~---_.._-,---~~---,------
~
o
...
; ..
1 ~
...
oS' .
.;
,. ,..
". s~g~~
~~~.;o
::. --
~
~
...
..
...
..
'"
..
oft
...
III
\.\
f
.\ .\
'4 ..
.. \
\ 1
i
..
..
...
...
..
...
~
...
g
o
~
..
...
o
..
...
'"
c;.
'"
~
...
...
..
..
..
~
.,.
.
...
~
o
~
..
g
.;
8
.;
o
..
4
8
a
~
'"
,.
~~~ 'C
...~.; 0
.. -
1.
8.
o
~
~
o
o
4
".
..
'"
..
~'1
. ..
... ...
~i
..
..
~
..
g
o
~
.:.
o
...
~
~
o
~
...
..
1.
...
.
..
8.
o
::
...
'"
...
..
..
'"
o s
a
'" 8~5'- 8
.;.. ..... ~ -
...
..
...
g
o
8.
..
~\
...
s
o
...
~
'"
...
o
...
..
...
..
8
o
...
$
8
o
~
o
~
..
"..
~
..
8
o
8
o
g
o
8.
..
$,
o
'3
o
~
o
~
8
o
g.
o
o
8
o
,.
~ '35'-~ 8.
~ ..ic-:.f"'\ ---
-
o
8
o
o
8
ci
;
8.
o
g
..;
g.
o
8.
o
~.
...
8
ci
o
...
..0
g
o
...
...
...
...
,..
000
0' '" ..
""" ~ l
..
g
o
! ..
5\ ...... \ 3
.. "i TI: to ! ~ ..
i.:~~~~~~
...............
\'1~:t:.~ :..;
~ i a,i i ~ ~\ ~ "i
t
.\
..
ao
1.
...
..
~
...
'"
o
o
~
o
...
~
'"
..
1
..
!
s s
a a
..
...
85'-~ ~
;.~-! ...
g
Q
:. 8 ~ g
>> ..:. .; ...
~.
..
...
...
...
g5'-S
,:..,.i.a
..
~.
:)
.,.
~
8 8
o 0
5.
..
f:-
a
'"
.!,
..
~
..
~ ".
:0 i
'" ..
.,.
...
o
~ s s
... ,0 0
'"
..
to
i!.
..;
8 ~ ~ s.
.;.':' ~ ~
~
..
.;::
..
i
~
...
~ 8.
.:. ..
~
~
o
.,.
.,.
'"
...
~'J,5'-
~;..;.
..
~
.;
(
..
:. 888
.,. .; 0 0
,
8
o
~
...
...
~~~
Joe
--
,...
~
...
..
~
11'
~~~
~oo
....
... 8 g 8,
$ 0 0 0
'!.
....
~
o
8
o
.0 8 8. S
$ 0 0 0
...
...
...
..
c
o
...
~
s.
o
S
a
of:.
o
1.
...
..
~
..;
~
.:.
'"
".
...
'"
.0
70
g
o
~
o
...
'"
.,.
..
~
o
8.
o
~
..
,...
i
..
...
$,$,~ ~
0...0 0
.....
8 ~ g
000
4
0'
""'
'"
""'
8 ~
o CI
"..
~
...
~ '35'-8 8.
~ .i~~
-'
o
g
o
...
o
...
~
o
~
o
~
CI
~ g5'-~
.- i~~
:; ..
~~\~1\11
j,.r. 1:teio
.. ...... ... t
!'1a:t:,o.:..-
, ~... ~ ...
\'i:.~'i:e~'~5"i
.. \ .
,..,
~ ~~~
:...;
!: .
~ ..-;..1'3
1~lTfi\i'~
.. ... t.......t
a\'1i.cO~:''''
.:,..t~~;~'A~
i i. ",\1 :.\~ .. ~ ~
,... ,...
,... ,...
i~~~~
~;..;oo
... .... --
8 8 ~
000
,..
'31-i 5'-
...;~ 0
... .....
i1-~1-~
..4J~oo
.... .~ ...."
.,..
...
..
g
o
g
o
""
...
o
'"
.0
...
..
,...
'35'-~ 1-
~e4';' 0
... .....
..
.,.
'"
...
g.
o
8
o
~
..
...
...
...
..
~
o
g
o
~
...
5'-
..
o
g
o
o
g
o
5'-
.:.
~
o
,
o
...
...
l
o
...
s
.;.
5
...
9-
o
g
...
~
.,..
,.
~ 5\, ~ ~,
~ ~...'"
-
$,
o
,...
; ~~~
$,
o
s
o
'"
.,.
~
o
..
~
s S
a 0
s
o
~
o
""'
".
...
g
o
...
r-
...
g S
o a
.,..
...
.:.
,..
'" '35'-'3 5'-
~ ..~..o 0
....
... ~ '3 ~
~ .,.. .:. .;
.0 '35'-'3 5'-
1. .O'~..; 0
".
7-
""'
~
.,..
5.
...
...
...
o
g
.;
~
s
o
8
.;
s
o
..
~
s.
o
....
i ~5'-~
~ :;~~
5'-
.;
!:
o
~ ~
-; f. 1 .. 1 3
i~~t~\i~
!~i:t'gt:!
~1Jta" .II
~i.~li5\5'i
... \-
g
o
~
'"
...
~
..
s. s.
o 0
'!.
...
~
~
J
.
..
...
..
~
...
~
~
\
...
!..
i~
':I::,
it
...~
i...
~~
!!
!
. c:!.
.......
"5!A
....~
fl.
it\ to
!"'ii
~~l!
lao, !"
a...
!i~~
'1!\
\S~~
-t ," 1
i~:\!
;~..\\~
~t ~
5 s.~ \ ~
~\.....
,. ... t,. .
....., ~
Ii...\...
:i-... 'i
~ i. ..~
\'1: !..\
...u
,itP~
'i.~~~~
........ ...
".so.!
1 rf~. ~
t..!. '1
,~ \=J
'\ s.: · '
l e~~
...~r:
~~~ ~
... ,......
.. -:t , ~
~a';
~ fi
\.t.~
.! ~ t
\ 'i'
~~
~i
r
\~
~
...
1
..:.
~
...
~
...
~
...
o
~
.;.
~
~
~
...
~
~
o
...
~ .
~l
~!
... ... ..
j .. ...
i 1"~
9
..----------------------..
..---~_.--.__.-.-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
92-204
TO: Chris Cutro
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Lt. Donald Thrasher
Community Relations Division
Police Department
DATE: 2 November 92
SUBJECT: Master Plan-Cedar Grove
After review of the Master Plan on Cedar Grove, I make the
following recommendation:
1. No stop bars, stop signs, turn lanes indicated on the
plans in proposed (City Ordinance 5-142)
2. Unable to determine if proposed enterance/exit onto
Seacrest Blvd, alines with Mission Hill Road.
3. No egress/ingress for public park except from Seacrest Bv.
Recommend a different enterance/exit besides Seacrest Bv.
4. Number lanes on Seacrest Bv. Are there turning lanes at
enterance to this project?
5. In block six, there is an unmarked area, what is the
intent for this area?
Division
DT/dmj
FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-257 WDC
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
FIRE DEPARTMENT - WILLIAM D. CAVANAUGH
DATE:
OCTOBER 2B, 1992
RE:
TRC - CEDAR GROVE MASTER PLAN
IN ORDER TO FULLY EVALUATE 'rHE PROJECT, THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION IS REQUIRED:
STREET NAMES AND HOUSE NUMBERS SHOULD BE SHOWN.
WITHOUT A WATER MAIN PLAN FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS CANNOT BE
PLOTTED.
THIS DEPARTMENT STILL HAS CONCERNS WITH SEACREST TRAFFIC AT
PEAK HOURS.
/tCf~t4?tf~(
.., ;::,)T.
~
RECREATION , PARK MEMORANDUM #92-349
TO:
Richard Staudinger, Engineer
Gee & Jensen Consulting Engineers
~
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
RE: Cedar Grove - Subdivision Masterplan
A Planned Residential Community
DATE: October 29, 1992
1. The applicant will be required to meet the Environmental
Regulation Article I, Tree Preservation Sections 7.5-1 through
7.5-27 (pages 593-606). Specifically, the applicant must
fulfill the requirements of section 7.5-22, page 603, natural
growth to be preserved. This site has been determined to be
an environmentally valuable, nearly extinct ecosystem in South
Florida. Meeting these sections may effect the master plan
design as approved by the City.
2. the applicant will be required to meet the entirety of Article
IV, environmentally sensitive lands, section 7.5-59. through
7.5-63 (pages 628-631). Meeting these sections may
dramatically effect the master plan design as approved by the
City.
3. In accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan Ordinance #89-
38, adopted November 7, 1989 policy 4.3.5 page 67, the
applicant is required to designate a minimum of 25% of the
native plant community as a preservation area. The applicant
does not indicate on the master plan the location of this
area.
KH:ad
Time: Forester/Environmentalist: 1/2 hour
Secretary: 15 minutes
ENG~NEEIUNG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-302
TO: Christopher Cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
DATE: . October 12, 1992
RE: Technical Review Committee Comments
Cedar Grove Master Plan
Julian Bryan & Associates
1. In accordance with the City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of
Ordinances, specifically Appendix "C", "Subdivision & Platting",
Section 4. "Master Plan", Subsection 4Cl, the applicant shall
revise the master plan title, that being Cedar Grove, as according
to Mrs. Guersi Rivera of Palm Beach County Mapping there exists a
Cedar Grove situated in Boca Raton, Section 23, Subsection II,
Range 42, Township 47, therefore, this project's title does not
comply with Article VIII, Section 4CI. Revise project name
accordingly.
2. In accordance with Article VII, Subsection 4CB, the applicant
shall submit pavement widths for all existing streets adjacent to
the tract. Revise plans accordingly.
" " ." ~ 0 ~ J :t oj 2 J 6 . 2 ...
f I! \J II 'H~ U U 111 ".Hill U l: II ~ II I .; l: II I l: 1'.
IU ~lJtl?-I!i~
t.. U~
'.
TIlE SCHOOL BOARD
or PI\L.M CeACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLANNING, CONSTRUCTlO"J a REAl ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOUlEVARD
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33W5.SG1J
(4Q7) 434-e020 FAX <'07) 434-8187
OR. C. MONICA UHUiORN
1J\)"~P\lIiT1!~otIHT
OF 6CHOOI.8
October 26, 1992
He, Impact Analysis - a.dar Grove PUD, Boynton Beacl-REVISED
ThIs G\;alement 1" provided in fulfillment of Chnptcr 235. 93, Section 2, Florida stntute~ to
enGure that public oducation facilities are coordlnated wI plans for reEJdentIa1 development.
It address~s tha concerns of the Palm Beach County Sell 1 Board as they specIfically relate
to the anticIpated Impact of the coIUltructlon of 228 ~. gle family dwelling units located
withIn the Cedar Grove pun east or SeacrolOt Boulova and IOOUUl of S.Ii. 3110t Avenue in
Boynton Beach.
A study waG conducted utilizing demographIo multipUet"S' or Palm Baach CoWlty to estimate
the numbor of studenu: which would be genorated from thJ type of development. Information
was not received regarding the n~r of bedrooms fo In thete types of dweWng units.
For the purpose of thi5 analysis it is assumoo that: tho 22 clnglo family units will consist of
3+ bedrooms. Plrnming, CQnstruction and Real Bstate ost' tOG ga elementary, 39 middle and
36 hlgh Bchool studonts will 00 gonQrated by Ule projoct.
The geographic area 10 which these propooed dwe111ng unl will be located is preoently 5erved
by S.D. Spady Elementary, Carver MIddle, and Atlantic H gh School (see note 1). Following
19 II breakdown for euch 3choo1'5 current wew.berohip!o 5chool yenr 1992-03 WId current
pennlUlent cnpaclty.
S.D. Spady
Eiemeu lacy
C".orvcr
1-. iddle School
AthmUc
HJgh School
Current Memberslllp
Curront Pcr~ent Qlpuclty
593
G(j]
841
1,203
2,065
1,810
Students generated from tllLs development will further uv rcrowd tlle assigned Jllgl1 scllool1n
tile area.
The SChool Donrd places It5 cOllstructlon priorItIes in ar as Ulut 1acUltate the acJllevemcnt
at racial balance In pubUc schools.
The School Boon! requests that tIle developer provide sera egies wJthln the cedar Grove PUD
to assIst in aChJevlng Scllool Board. me1a1 bllloncc goals. 1 lie Sdloo1 Board wIll work wIth Ule
developer to accompllSh an agreement CQntalOlng suate s and steps to be taken to ensure
H: \lhu\wpSO\doo\d~\ctdrF102.pud
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard staudinger
City Engineer
~~~r~~
Christopher cutro
Planning and zoning Director
THRU:
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Senior Planner
DATE: April 26, 1993
SUBJECT: Boynton Seacrest (f.k.a. Decal' Grove) - File No. 697
Master Plan (subdivision) - Ecological comments
The following list of comments are those referenced in comment #8
and f9 of my previous memorandum dated April 13, 1993 addressed to
you and are generated by rereviewing and applying the 1992
ecological documentation submitted for the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning
to the current request (revised master plan received March 30,
1993) in order to comply with the City's Environmentally Sensitive
Lands Ordinance:
1. None of the documentation submitted to meet the submittal
requirements of Chapter 7.5, Article IV. Environmentally
Sensitive Lands, Section 7.5-61. Review procedures for
proposed land alterations, addresses Section 7.5-61(c)
"Project operation" and Section 7.5-61 (d) "Project
alternatives". Therefore, with no preservation shown on the
subject master plan, it is not known how loss of habitat and
development impact on the endangered, threatened and rare
animal and plant species and species of special concern that
have been identified on the property, will be mitigated.
2. The subject property is delineated on the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map as a "Conservation overlay District" due
to an ";0.." (high quality) rating of the native, Flroida Scrub
ecosustem on the parcel. The use and development of
properties delineated as a "Conservation Overlay District" are
subject ot the recommendations contained in the conservation
and Coastal Management Elements of the City's 1989
Comprehens i ve Plan. Since no preservation is shown, the
subject master plan is inconsisitent with Comprehensive Plan
Policy 4.3.5 which requires preservation of a minimum 25% of
the total scrub habitat of 45.69 acres (i.e. - 11.43 acres).
3. Operating under the same conclusions drawn in 1992 by staff
and Donald Richardson, the applicant's ecologist and preparer
of the January 9, 1992 ecological assessment rereviewed and
applied to the current request, at minimum, the following lots
(and street access to them) will need to be deleted from the
subject master plan. This determination was made be
overlaying the vegetation mapping required in Section 7.5-
61(b)1 of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance:
a) Block 7, Lots 1 and 13-24; inclusive
b) Block 8, Lots 1-22; inclusive
c) Block 9, Lots~3~15; inclusive
d) Block 10, Lots )-6; inclusive
~ ~;.. ~ ,..r >', ,.">.~. ';; . I v' r1JM ~; iN"
4. The applicant should keep:lin~mindwhen addressing the above-
referenced comments that although at time of preliminary plat
approval a management plan shall be submitted for the preserve
area and any other ocmmon areas, as much existing vegetation
as possible, employing preservation and relocation, rather
than "cut and replace" techniques, outside the preserve area
shall be saved. Des ignation of a trans i tion buffer on the
master plan and management plan is recommended as a restricted
development zone to prevent significant adverse effects on the
protected environmentally sensitive zone. This type of
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #93-088
TO: Vincent A. Finizio, Deputy City Engineer
FROM: Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director
SUBJ: Boynton Seacrest Master Plan Resubmittal (2nd Review)
DATE: April 6, 1993
The Public Works Department has no problems with the amended master
plan for second review as referenced above.
~
Public Works Director
RElcr
D~ ';h(~
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 93-085
TO: ALL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Deputy City Engineer
DATE: March 29, 1993
RE: Boynton Seacrest Master Plan Resubmittal (2nd Review)
Establishment of Technical Review Committee Meeting Date
The Engineering Department for the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
is in receipt of the Boynton Seacrest, fka Cedar Grove, amended
master plan for second review. A full set of plans is herein
transmitted with this memorandum for your review and consideration.
A meeting of the Technical Review Committee will be held on
April 8, 1993 at 9 a.m. in the Engineering/Planning Department
Conference Room, situated center area of the West Wing, 2nd Floor,
at which time factors to be considered in review will be discussed.
Formal comments shall be transmitted to the Engineering Department,
to the attention of Vincent A. Finizio, Deputy City Engineer and be
received no later than 5 p.m. on April 12, 1993.
Please return the plans with your staff comments.
Should you require any additional information or assistance, please
contact the undersigned at ext. 488.
,J~d-- ~ ~0
Vincent A. Finizio /
VAF/ck
cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
W. Richard Staudinger, P.E., City Engineer
Jim Cherof, City Attorney
Christopher Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director (for placement on
TRC agenda)
Attorney Jill Jarkesy via facsimile
attachment(s)
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
pg
FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 93-223
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 17, 1993
MASTER PLAN RESUBMISSION
BOYNTON SEACREST
S SEACREST BOULEVARD
(PLANNING DEPT. FILE #697)
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS AT THIS TIME.
4tJ/~-/f~
WILLIAM D CAVANAUGH, FPO I
BOYNTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
_..
H~~~t>
tAtty',
'il~Y 'I ... 'i t
PLA~"NING Dhil.
L' ?\.J\~\NING~~
-
-
,,------
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-277
TO: Christopher Cutro
Planning Director
October 5, 1992
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
RE: Cedar Grove
Master Plan Submission
Request to Place Submission on TRC Agenda
The Engineering Department for the City of Boynton Beach Florida is
in receipt of the above referenced submission which included the
appropriate filing fee pursuant to City Ordinance.
It is my understanding that the applicant, that being Julian Bryan &
Associates has submitted to your office a quantity of plans necessary
for transmittal to the Technical Review Cornrnitee membership.
Please place this matter on the next available TRC agenda. Thank you.
..
RECEIVE!)
0~o~.A~
..A 5
PLANN'NG OEPT~ \
.
-
-
cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
W. Richard Staudinger, P.E.
Julian Bryan & Associates, 3191 Leewood Terrace, Boca Raton, FL
33431
Note: The September 30, 1992 JBA letter addressed to Vincent Finizio
City of Boynton Beach FL, did not include a Traffic Report
which was referenced as being submitted. All documents other
than the traffic report were received October 2, 1992 (p.m.).
4J;RA'Y..A;'"./--!J / 0 /~/9Z