The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS 7Al LOGS PROPERTY ANNEXATION/LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/ REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 93-132 FROM: chairman and Members Planning and Development Board ~~.~ Michael W.rR~~f Senior planner TO: DATE: June 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Loos Property Requests for Annexation, Land Use Amendment/Rezoning, and Text Amendment INTRODUCTION Kieran J. Kilday, agent for John T. Loos, is proposing to annex into Boynton Beach a vacant, 18.69-acre parcel located on the west side of congress Avenue, approximately one-half mile south of Golf Road (see location map in Attachment "Ail). The current land use and zoning on this parcel is MR-5 (Medium Residential) and AR (Agricultural Residential), respectively. Included with the annexation application is a request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive plan in order to change the designation on the property to Moderate Density Residential, and rezone it from the county;s zoning designation to the city's R-l, single-Family Residential district. This request would increase the maximum, gross density allowed on the subject property from 4.84 dwelling units per acre (5 units per acre in Palm Beach county) to 7.26 units per acre. This proposed change in land use represents a maximum increase from 93 dwelling units to 136 dwelling units that could be developed on this site. Lastly, a Comprehensive plan text amendment must accompany this amendment to the Future Land Use Map in order to delete language within the Future Land Use support Document, section 8. Problems and Opportunities, which limits this property to the Low Density Residential land use classification. This portion of the support Document was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan by reference and, must therefore be amended. The recommendation for Planning Area 8.d currently reads as follows: Unincorporated Parcels South of Silverlake Estates These parcels should be annexed and placed in the Low Density Residential land use category. Development of these properties should generally be limited to single- family detached dwellings, so as to be compatible with the one-story condominiums which lie to the south and the single-family subdivision lying to the north. To allow for the proposed Comprehensive plan amendment, the recommendation for planning Area 8.d would be amended to read as follows: Unincorporated Parcels South of Silverlake Estates PlanninG Area 8.d consists of three (3) unincorporated parcels located to the west and south of Silverlake Estates. 'rhe larGer of the three, which is adiacent to conGress Avenue. should be annexed and placed in the Moderate Density Res idential land use cateqory. 'The ~aese remaininG parcels should also be annexed, aHa but placed in the Low Density Residential land use category. Development of these properties should generally be limited to single-family detached dwellings, so as to be compatible with the one-story condominiums which lie to the south and the single-family subdivision lying to the north. Memo No. 93-132 -2- June 2, 1993 The following analysis is provided pursuant to the City's Code of Ordinances (Appendix A, Section 9), and Florida Law with respect to the transmittal and review of large-scale land use plan amendments. This analysis will focus primarily on consistency with the City's comprehensive plan objectives and policies, compatibility of the proposed amendment with the adjacent properties, and the demand for an increase in maximum density. CUR~ENT LAND USE AND ZONING The land use and zoning in the surrounding area varies and is presented in the table that followings: Jurisdiction Zoning Land Use Dlxection Nort~h Boynton Beach 1:'UD Estates of Silverlake (single-family homes) Nort.heast/ East. Boynton Beach J:{-3 Golfvlew Harbour (townhouses) Southeast Boynton Beach M-l Vacant South Boynton Beach NiA L-28 Canal t'arther south Boynton Beach c-3 ~lanor Care (Nursing homeiACLF) Farther southwest Boynton Beach HDJ:{ Chanteclair Villas (condominiums) West 1:'alm Beach County AJ:{ Vacant ANALYSIS PURSUANT '1'0 SEC. 9.C.7 OE' APPENDIX A. CODE OF ORDINANCES This section of the Code of Ordinances requires the evaluation of plan amendment/rezoning requests against criteria related to the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which could result from development of the property are as follows: 7.a. ilwhether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies.. .n. Although the Future Land Use Plan is proposed to be amended, the request is arguably consistent with all Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies (see below). As part of the request, planning Area 8. d of Section 8. Land Use Problems and upportunities, must also be amended to allow the proposed land use designation. Justifications for this proposed amendment, as provided by the applicant, include the necessity of a transitional zone between the commercial and high-density land uses to the south, and the low-density land use (Silverlake Estates) to the north. Furthermore, the applicant indicated that the R-l zoning would increase the economic feasibility of developing the site, as relatively high development costs are anticipated based on the size of the property and the presence of muck. 7.b. Jlwhether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare.; and 7.e. JlWhether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent properties.". Hemo No. 93-132 -3- June 2, 1993 As indicated by the list of various, adjacent land uses, there does not appear to be an established land use pattern in this vicinity. In addition to the commercial use and nearby industrial property, the subject property is bordered by three (3) different residential land uses with maximum densities ranging between 4.84 dwelling units per acre and 10.8 units per acre. Therefore, there exists no land use pattern nor district to determine the one (1) appropriate land use designation for the subject property. The subject property likely received its Low Density Residential land use designation in order to ensure compatibility with the adjacent, low-density development to the north; however, we must also consider the potential impacts of the industrial, commercial, and high density land uses upon the subject property if it is limited to Low Density Residential land use. A more appropriate land use designation would be one which is most compatible with all adjacent land uses, rather than with just one abutting property. 7. c. "Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable." There have been no changes in the conditions of this vicinity since the Low Density Residential land use designation was placed on this property by the Comprehensive Plan. Although this analysis contradicts the city's Comprehensive Plan, it is logical to assume that in certain locations more than one land use designation would be appropriate for a given piece of property. 7.d. "Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities." An analysis on the availability of public facilities is provided below. 7. f. "Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning." As indicated above, the property owner claims that development costs will be relatively high given the presence of muck on the site. It is difficult to estimate the costs and benefits of developing this property based on land use and soil characteristics; however, considering the size of the subject property and the underlying muck, the per unit costs will likely be higher than for a larger site such as the neighboring single-family subdivision. Furthermore, there are no low-density, single-family homes, with frontage on congress Avenue, that do not contain adequate buffering. such buffering on the subject property may be minimal due to the size of the property and since the property1s access is limited to congress Avenue (which will prevent total buffering of Congress Avenue as done at the adjacent single-family subdivision) . 7.g. "Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole." It may be unnecessary to attempt to estimate the relationship of this proposed rezoning, which consists of 18 acres of land, to the neighborhood and entire City; however, there may be a slight relationship between findings related to future housing supply and demand and item 7.g. The Future Land Use Support Document indicates that all remaining undeveloped residential land will be needed to meet the total demand for housing at build-out (see excerpt from Support Document in Attachment "B"). This analysis may be overestimating total development potential as it assumes either higher net densities (than allowed by the Future Land Use Plan) on certain large properties (greater than 7 5 acres), or conversions to higher densities. This analysis also assumes Memo No. 93-132 -4- June 2, 1993 something as uncertain as the conversion of most mobile home parks to permanent housing developments. Therefore, based on findings wi thin the Support Document, the proposed increase in maximum density will likely contribute to the needed, future housing supply. 7.h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. There are approximately four (4) properties within the city where a development of this density would be allowed. Of those sites, three have been master planned and the fourth is the large, vacant tract of land located at the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLORIDA LAW The Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan, including support documents, addresses annexation and land use plan amendments and specifically, the provision of housing choices and the conversion to higher densities. Consistency with the Future Land Use Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map establishes land use designations for unincorporated enclaves as well as for properties located immediately west of the City, east of Lawrence Road. Since the Plan designates the subj ect property as Low Density Residential, the request by the applicant is inconsistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies The following excerpts from Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies, address the subject requests and are analyzed below: Obiective 1.16 - 11.. .regulate the use, density, and intensity of land use, by requiring that all land development orders be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and other applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan.l1; Obiective 1.17 I1Minimize nuisances, hazards, and other adverse impacts. . . to residential environments by preventing or minimizing land use conflicts.l1; and Policy 1.17.8 I1Maintain and improve existing single-family neighborhoods, conversions to higher densities.l1. the character of by preventing These policies have pursuant to items Ordinances. been addressed 7 . b , 7 . e , and above wi thin 7. g, Section the 9.C, analysis Code of Obiective 1.19 - 11.. .allow a range of land uses for which the area, location, and intensity of these uses provide a full range of housing choices,.. .for both existing and projected populations.. .11; Policy 1.19.5 11. . . allow for a full range of housing choices, by allowing densities which can accommodate the approximate number and type of dwellings for which the demand has been projected... .11; In projecting future housing supply within the Future Land Use Support Document, it was assumed that all vacant properties (less than 75 acres) would be developed either single family detached, single family attached, or some combination thereof (see excerpt from Future Land Use Support Document in Attachment I1C"). since Memo No. 93-132 -5- June 2/ 1993 the proposed amendment would not restrict the property from being developed according to this assumption made in the Support Document, the requirements of Objective 1.19 and Policy 1.19.5 will be implemented. The following objectives, policies, and issues addressed below are either typically referenced by the Florida Department of community Affairs (DCA), or required by them to be analyzed in our review of proposed amendments: Obiective 1.2 "Coordinate future land uses with soil conditions so that urban land uses are prohibited in locations where it is not economical to remove or treat unsuitable soils. . . "; and Policy 1.2.1 - ".. . prohibit development of urban land uses where the removal or treatment of unsuitable soils would be uneconomical, provide that unstable soils shall be removed in all construction and land development sites where soils would affect the performance of infrastructure, drainage.. .". The subject site contains both Terra ceia and Okeelanta Mucks, both of which will likely be removed to make the subject property developable. Regardless of the land use designation on this property, the muck would likely be removed to make the site developable. Obi ecti ve 4.4 - "The City shall, . . . protect all remaining areas of substantial native upland and wetland vegetation and eliminate undesirable exotic tree species."; Policy 4.4.1 - ".. .the City shall require...a detailed flora and fauna survey on any "B or C" rated site...; and Policy 1.11.14 - ". ..provide for open space preservation by requiring the preservation of 25% of all "A", liB", and "C" rated sites.. .". A portion of the subject site is located within Natural Ecosystem Site #16 (see Attachment "D"). Ecosystem site #16 is described as disturbed Pine Flatwoods with exotic weeds. Pursuant to Policy 4.4.1, an environmental assessment was completed and, did not indicate the current existence of any species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. In addition, from the assessment and a field visit, the City's Forester/Environmentalist confirmed that the site is not environmentally sensitive (see Attachment "E"). Al though the assessment did identify several tree species that would be preserved according to the City I S Tree Preservation Ordinance, such enforcement would take place during the design and construction stages of this project. Obi ecti ve 1.11 - ". . . future land uses shall include provis ions for the protection of.. . archaeological resources and historic buildings.. .". The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that historical resources and archaeological sites be preserved and protected. However, the subject property is undeveloped and, there are no archaeological amenities known to exist on this site. Annexation The subject property is located within an unincorporated enclave within the City's reserve annexation/utility service area. This request for annexation is not only consistent with Florida Law, but is also consistent with the City's annexation plan established pursuant to Policy 8.10.4. Memo No. 93-132 -6- June 2, 1993 Availabilitv of Public Facilities Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9J-11 requires that the availability of public facilities be analyzed, and that the maximum potential demand upon publ ic facilities be determined. The following facilities were analyzed in order to ensure that capacity is available: Roads: The Palm Beach County Engineering Department reviewed the applicant; s traffic study and verified that capacity exists on Congress Avenue ~o accommodate this proposed amendment. wateriSewer: Water and wastewater demands were estimated to equal 56,000 gallons per day and 25,000 gallons per day, respectively. sufficient capacity exists to serve this property, as there is over one (1) million gallons per day capacity in the water treatment system, and nearly 3.5 million gallons per day capacity in the wastewater treatment system. solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority proj ected that the land use amendment would increase the potential for solid waste generation by 74.8 tons per year and would therefore have a detrimental affect on the solid waste system. They concluded their review of this proposed amendment by indicating that if the annexation were conditioned so that it would not result in an increase to the solid waste stream, the Authority would not object to the request. Drainage: The Lake worth Drainage District indicated that this property is wi thin their service area and, they will accept storm water, subject to consistency with District policy, into the Canal L-28. Recreation: The analysis of the impact upon parks and recreation facilities determined that these services are currently available and, that the proposed amendment would not lower the levels of service below the adopted standards. Consistency with the Future Land Use Support Document: The following excerpt from the Comprehensive plan Future Land Use Support Document only indicates that the request for Moderate Density Residential, which allows a maximum density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre, is similar to the current, average density of new developments or approved master plans within the City (it should be noted that this average may have changed since the Plan was adopted in 1989). Future Land Use Support Document. paqe 25 - "Average gross density of new residential development is 7.3 dwelling units per acre, versus approxima~ely 4.4 units per gross acre in 19 87 . II ; RECOMMENDATION The planning and Zoning Department recommends that the applications submitted by Kieran J. KildaYiKilday & Associates be approved, based on the following: 1. The subject property is con~lguous to the corporate limits and is located within the City's Reserve Annexation Area; 2. rl'he proposed amendment would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive plan objectives and policies; 3. The proposed amendment would not be contrary to an established land use pattern, nor would it create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, nor would it Memo No. 93-132 -7- June 2, 1993 constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner; 4. The requested land use and zoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities; 5. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and, would not affect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties; 6. The applicant has indicated that the property would be more physically and economically developable under the proposed land use and zoning; and 7. The proposed land use and zoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole. Attachments A: LOOSRI!P ATTACHMENT "A" (Location Map) L()C~1\ON M~P LOOS PROp~R~. --,::::::>~-..;0 :V:;;:.., ... u "" ..' ,.f [~ ~.. I ;1 f \ V~l ' \'<:1 ----------" .. ..). ' ------- :,... /".:..____ 40 0 '. '....,.~..;. ...~. .__~_~.~~...-r:- .: ___....~__- ~i ,-"".''-,' .:~.""""'~~~ . ~:~\I..__'l.>~~~' M ,:::r=:-'--\ .. ~.( .~ ' ~ ~. P. ~ ''. ~~ :;a .... . ....,J~ a--f ,- :.):f"" ~ ~ . ,! .:. r"",\\ ( " ". .,," ~ ~' ." ,. .1' ". . 'J \ . ':,';' .".......;,~\ , :, \~U/ .' ~N' 'l \ \~jC'~'~'. "\ . .,.' J " .' --- ----... \"-- ..,,~ /. 'm~ .. \' \ \ \ \ \ L- ~ \ .l.j-~ =- - -=--J ;:;:;:.;:-- ----=:::: i.- , . ';;Y ~.y t ~ \, '0 \/8 M\U~S '\\ \ \ \ \ \' . . _ i"6 . Q nO fE.E:! .,d( . Df!.. . 9> .'-- -"If'f" <y ... ATTACHMENT "Bit (Future Land Use Support Document, pg.25) V. LAND USE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS Residential Land Proiected household qrowth in the city and proposed annexation areas will qenerate demand for an estimated 14.440 additional dwellinq units bY the .{year 2010. includinq a 6.58-percent vacancy marqin. This demand will ~ require all the remaininq undeveloped residential land in the community. which totals an estimated 1.970 acres. Averaqe qross density of new residential development is 7.3 dwellinq units per acre. versus ~pproximatelY 4.4 units per qross acre in 1987. Thus. by the year 2010. t~~ citv will have reached buildout or saturation. 20ynton Beach is rapidly approaching the point at which all of the vacant residential land is either platted and under construction, or a subdivision master plan has been approved. In fact, of a total of 8,060 gross acres of land which are classified as residential, in the area east of Lawrence Road, there are only 607 acres (7.5% of residential land) where the parcel size exceeds 10 acres, for which there is no approved development plan (see Figure 7 in the Housing Element for the location of these parcels) Of these 607 acres, 331 acres lie within 3 parcels: Knollwood Orange Groves (115 acres), the property at the northeast corner of Old Boynton Road and congress Avenue (104 acres), and the undeveloped southern portion of Lake Boynton Estates (115 acres). Other major vacant parcels include the acreage adjoining High Ridge country Club to the south (68 acres), the parcel on the east side of Seacrest Blvd., near the southern city limit (55 acres), the undeveloped portion of Boynton West subdivision (36 acres), and the parcel which lies along the east side of High Ridge Road (35 acres). There are also two large mobile home parks--Whispering Pines (46 acres), and Sand and Sea Village (92 acres)--where the spaces are leased and which therefore might be redeveloped for permanent housing. The land occupied by these mobile home parks has not been included in the 607-acre figure. The remainder of the vacant parcels included in the 607-acre figure range in size from 10 to 24 a~res. Bovnton Beach is proiected to have a build-out (year 2010) population of 78.232. When this population is divided bY the 1980 persons per household f2.3l). and the resultant number of households f33.867) is multiplied bY the inverse of the seasonal vacancy rate fl/l-.0944}1 and the inverse of a five-percent market vacancv rl/fl-.05) 1. the resultinq number of dwellinq units which will be required at build-out is 39.365. Currently fi.e.. as of 1/1/86). there are 23.217 dwel1inqs in the City. and 1.767 dwellinqs in the unincorporated areas east of Lawrence Road in which annexation by the city is anticipated. A total of 14.440 additional dwe11inqs could be built within the City and the unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road (see Table tV-lO). Addinq the existinq and potential dwe11inqs (23.217 + 1.767 +14.440) Yields a total supply of dwellinqs of 39.424 at build-out. This number (39.424 almost exactlY matches the anticinated demand (39.365). Because such a large proportion of the potential residential development will take place within approved projects or will be infill development, 25 ATTACHMENT "C" (Future Land Use Support Document, pg.27) TOTAL, NEW HOUSING UNITS 14,102 100.0 Net Additional Housing Units -874*** 13,228 Source: Boynton Beach Planning Dept., 1988 * Defined as an attached dwelling unit that is under fee simple ownership, or a condominium unit where each dwelling unit includes a ground floor. ** Only approved ACLF projects are included in this figure. ACLFs and group homes are proposed to be allowed in a variety of zoning and land use categories, regardless of the dwelling unit type, so it would be meaningless to correllate the demand versus supply of land for this category. See the Housing Element for a detailed discussion of the need for and availability of sites for group homes. *** Assume conversion of sand and Sea Village mobile home park to rental apartments, and conversion of all mobile home parks within existing corporate limits to other uses, in accordance with the Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. Table 7 shows the number and type of dwelling units which could be built on vacant land and land for which redevelopment for residential uses is anticipated. Land use changes which have been proposed in the Coastal Area and in other areas of the City have been taken into account. The following assumptions were used in generating the figures in this table: Approved projects or phases of projects, or land which is shown on the Future Land Use Plan at a density of 7 dwelling units per acre or more were assumed to be suitable for any type of mult.iple-family housing, including rental apartments. This assumption is made because all types of multiple-family housing, including rental apartments, have been developed successfully at this density. For vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an area of 75 or more acres, it was assumed that 1/2 of the units available would be developed as mUltiple-family housing at 7 dwelling units per acre or more, 1/4 of the units would be developed as Single-family detached housing on lots of less than 6,000 square feet or less~ and 1/4 of the units would be developed as Single-family detached housing on lots of 6,000 square feet or more. These proportions are based upon approved master plans of eXisting Planned Units Developments with densities of 4-5 units per acre. {For vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an area of . less than 75 acres, it was assumed that the units would either be Single-family detached, Single-family attached, or some combination thereof. Where specific recommendations for dwelling unit type and densities are made under the "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" section, these specific recommendations were used. 27 ATTACHMENT "DIl (Conservation Support Document-Natural Resource Sites) r--fro- ~ -_~ r--: ~~~A~~:T~::~ ~-.J ~'1 .v 1.) ~ .Jj ) '\ \ J /,.. . ' FI GURE 4 - NA rURAL RESOURCES ,_ r rJl1 G".'''-. 2 L---;~:l~~:JC -J'ni,'! J -nJ ;::t e::,L --' T~? ~fL 9 [fer 1 III [ - ,J~l--~l'-l"-)~rs"-r. ~, ~1 ---I \W :r.: I' - . 't==::J __ _ I ~J if ,\f I ~Ir---i ., - :;~=; V 'lit l!F I l~ IT\V~.:) 11m, -J / ~ V ~...A .t.' _J '";:Jl ~.I 2 ~U ,/ . )r~c' -c.-JR= jr...-!-il ty- Ii' \f T T " i 3,/ __ ___.J~ ." I - I,. ~ CT --.... n~=====-=. r'~ -.:.. -= -:-~~ I-"':"_~ / o ! \.~~ Ii, ~ T I I . .:)1 f=i 1111 ~F'- 11/ f 111 -.?~ q ~l 40 U ~ ~ >kl- 'fr' 0'-- I HJ~I- ~ r I- -" ~ ~ 1 h Ii r-L ~~ 0, !if !Ja] (r;;] -In ~ -- 'M I - 0 ij~~ lL.c'r- ,1: H _ L. 1\ ~ 1L/"'" '~ - iJ I j\..l .;;;~...., r-r, In ~ I- : 12 I- 0 ii- 'oJ ,:100' f..:..1 t7 n,/ ~ ~- ~II tBC1~~ I~:~qf~\\,~;. Fj ~/;L_= IIJre :~~~~~:~~_ ~ ~ _ ~ _' IJ~\Er= rC!j t .:.:--:" _ _ __ _ - - . I itL....tliH II[ I ----. . r- ' ,.. " 13 3&- . tI I :;'l l.(. /.~.' ,.,,-- II! 'L - -, 1 III ~ " 29 ~~.\~ l~ $1:1' ,_';:C /~ ~4 ~ I ~!' "'-:;'1 '. _ ~.~- ="rr- qr -~ .' Iff -t rdi ~- ~, lfr1j ~Jkd}:!j rEi= " =- -::J n,ll/- 2t & . 18 -i I I T -3l - J A - 'J Iii ~\ ~~l~~~::-::>n~ '7"( ;"b~' ' J~/,= 1=1:::, ~ , '1 ""'"7 u L \ 15 L= " ~. 0 W" ,,~U . ~ I --- ~J.-i~;F1r-1f2~ .n~ "')~ ~ r.~n_1il 11- & . . ~ <3 \V n ~, i "' . 23 26 . 0 r. iJ .\~ 1(1' "--'<1\ l ~ { l-.?_ · ~9.__::jL________~~__ ~~- LE&END E!J - NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS 22 - NATURAl. RESOURCE REFERENCE NUUlIER . - A&BRATEDSITES IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP Sour..: --, cI E....ys_ in Palm Budl CoolnIy, PIlau III Report. '-1OlI1lld Auoln. U, 1088. W... H. ~ ~....... AdciIiDnlII r_ by Dr. ar... '-10ft. s..- 1_. 27 -25- MAL 1Bl H. ICEl.ilR .JI., Dl QMaJt1lll h-- "1_ cr.l"~ fJlrJ* Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites Site # 1 2 3 4.a.. 4.b. 4.c. S. 6. 7. 3 9 14. ~lS' o n IS Geographic Area in Swnmary Location Acres Evaluation 43-4S-08-1 88.6 B 43-4S.08-2 43-4S-07-1 43-4S-17.1 43-4S-16-3 43-4S-20-2 43-4S.16-2 43-4S-16-S 43-4S-21-1 43-4S-20-1 43-4S-20-4 29.7 52.4 141.8 40.1 19.0 9.6 11.2 6.2 x X A A A? 10 11 12. 43-4S-30-1 21.6 D 43-45-20-5 17.1 D 43-4S-29-1 ~S2..1 A 13. 43-45-32.1, -2,43.Q2SJl A 43-4S-32-3 43-46-05-1 43-4S-31-1 43-4S-31-2 43-4S-30-2 continued ... 24.1 7.0 22.4 17.6 17.4 A Annotation Pine Flatwoods and disturbed PF; pond with emergent vegetation. East of High Ridge Country Club. Lift Station #717 is located here. Residential development in progress. Cleared. Florida Scrub. County Site "Eco-87 Quantum NE Scrub". West of Highridge Rd.; Part of the site is in the Quantum Park DR! development Portions in Boynton Beach and County. Disturbed Florida Scrub corridor. County site "Eco-36 Quantum RR-I9S Route". Restricted access. South portion of Quantum DRI development Florida Scrub. County site "Ec0-36 Quantum High Risk". Part of Quantum Park development both east and west of Highridge Rd.; road clearing and development in progress. Composite of Quantum sites total 9 listed endangered species. Florida Scrub with disturbed borner. County site "Eco- 34, ' Rolling Green Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-32, Galaxy Scrub". Endangered species total 9. Florida Scrub site with scrub oaks of shrub and small tree size disturbed by ttails and disturbed borders along RR and 1-95 rights.of-way. County site "Eco-32 Industrial Scrub". Dense stand of Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenerviaJ, Australian pine (Casuarina equiselifoliaJ, and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). and area of grassy and ruderal species. A mix of Melaleuca and other exotics. Former Pine Flatwoods now crowded with weeds. 3 parcels. Disturbed Pine Flatwoods. Florida Scrub, and open grassy with ruderal species. Corridor, western border of I. 95. Ec0-31 Boynton 7th St Scrub right of way. lli text narrative for additional infonnation. South of Woolbrieht Road. Pine Flatwoods and open grassy; disturbed by previous clearing at ground level and entry of ruderal species. County site "Ec0-70 N I9S-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit Endangered species total 1. A continuation of site #13, County site "Ec0-70 S 19S-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit Small disturbed Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub. Caloosa Park. Cited for preservation due to location within a public park. Disturbed Pine Ratwoods with exotic weeds. Seen only from Congress Ave. Already Developed. Already Developed. A A B D A B C X X -23- Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites continued ... Site Geographic Area in Summary 1# Location Acres Evaluation 19* 4J-4S 29 2 20 43-46-05-3 21 42-46-01-1 22 43-45-06-1 23 43-46-04 24 43-46-04-4 25* 43-46-04-3 26 43-46-04-2 27* 43-45-34 28* 43-45-33-3 29* 43-45-33-2 30* 43-45-22-3 31 43-45-15 32 43-45.15 33 43-45-15-4 34 35 43-45-16-1 36* 43-45-33-1 37* 43-45-09-4 38 43-45-09 ~ 43-45-22 40 43-45-22 34.4 21.8 60.2 44.5 7.8 8.7 50.4 11.0 4.5 2.9 6.0 23.5 5.8 4.3 10.0 11.0 12.2 12.5 12.4 3.2 4.3 A C X X C C A C B A A A o C X B B A o o B Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. AnnOlation Florida 5~rub~ panly distumccl. Part of County site "licg.- ]1 BOyDlSA 7m St StAIb". linclaRgeRd specitl8 total 7. Narrow band; apparently mostly Brazilian Pepper. Development in progress. County site "Eco-85 Hunter's Run Golf". Cleared. Located in HunterS Run development . Cleared and abandoned Florida Scrub; a few oaks and herbaceous plants remain. South of County site "Eco.29 Seacrest Scrub". Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub, previously cleared strips. heavily re.grown with vines. Near County site flEco 29 W Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 1. Florida Scrub and ecotone with Pine Flatwoods. County site '"Eco 29 Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 12. Mangrove about 2 acres; 8 acres grassy ruderal; more than 1(1. developed. Beach and Strand (ocean face of dune) with expected species; dune back is landscaped, rates "0". Preservation of the Beach and Strand ecosystems in their native stare as far as this remains is recommended, as it is the only such site in the City. Sea oats and sea grape are protected by slate law. Endangered species total 1. Mangrove with about 1 acre disturbed. (Aerials overlap; site appears on section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove having western border of disturbed Swamp with intermixed ornamental exotics. (Aerials overlap; site appears on section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove: site proposed for CARL acquisition Mangrove protection law. Mature planting of tropical ornamentals. Former horticultural garden under developmenL Disturbed Florida Scrub, cleared grassy ruderal west of Federal Hwy; cleared east of highway. Cleared. Approved for Bond Open Space purchase. Not in City; withdrawn from inventory. Cleared and partiaUy regenerating Florida Scrub. County site '"Eco-3S Boynton 20 Ave.1 St". Rated "B" due to endangered species, otherwise much disturbed. Endangered species total 7. ~isturbed Florida Scrub. County sire "Ec0-29 N Boynton Warer Tower". Endangered species lists - 2 species. Aorida Scrub. County site "Eco-36 c Rosemary Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Abandoned mango grove and disturbed Florida Scrub. Abandoned mango grove. Area of secondary growth of black and white mangroves due to tidal flooding and deposition. Bounded or traversed by roadways, little apparent tidal flushing. -24- ATTACHMENT "E" (Comment on Environmental Assessment) RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #93-193 TO: Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner , Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ,;)(9i/- / ~~/ Loos Property Land Use Amendment Rezoning Analysis On Environmental Assessment FROM: RE: DATE: April 30, 1993 I have reviewed the above written document and field-checked it against the information in the report. I find it to be accurate and would only be considered under our Tree Preservation Ordinance. The property would not be considered environmentally sensitive. The following trees on the submitted assessment would have to be protected prior, during and after construction: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Wax Myrtle False Willow Dahoon Holly Red Bay Cabbage Palm (Myrica cerifera) (Baccharis angustifolia) (Ilex cassive) (Persea palustris) (Sabal palmetto) The trees should be included in the tree survey to locate for protection prior to site development and land clearing. Attachment KH:ad rL ,;; :~~;.,2_~"-, ~:--, " \r~- ~ '" l, '", '"..t .,.l.., ? ~ ,~'l:..,:;:~ ('~ p.::~;i .. ~ SAl LOOE FRCPERTY ANNEXATION/LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/ REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT . PLANNiNG AND lUNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NU. 93-16q '1'0 : Members of ~he Plann1ng and Development Board .fROM: Michael Rumpf, ~en10r Planner DA'l'E: July 8, 1993 ~UBJECT: Loos Proper~y - Reques~s for Land Use Arnendmen~ and Rezon1ng You will recall ~ha~ ~h1S i~em was brough~ before you for review in June and Slnce a majori~y decision could not be attalned, ~he applicant has resubmitted his requests. please note ~ha~ no changes have been made to the staff report. However, 1~ 1S again being provided in the event that the first copy is no longer accessible to you. MR:ald C:LOOS.K' -1- P LANNING AND ~ON LNG ul:: P Al{'l'MJ:.:N'l' Mt:MU.I{ANDUM NO. 93 -132 c.l{UM: chairman and Members planning and'Uevelopment Board ~~'.~ ~ienior planner '1'U: UAT't: : June ::., 1993 ::;Ul:>J i::C'l': Loos property AmendmentjHezoning, .l{eques~s for Annexation, and Text Amendmen~ Land U.:;':'- 1 r~'11l{UlJUl"1'1UN Kieran J. Kilday, agent for John T. Loos, is proposing to annex lutO tioyn~on Heach a vacant, 18.69-acre parcel located on ~he west side of Congress Avenue, approximately one-half mile sou~h of Golf rwad i see location map in At~achment IIAH j. r1'11e current land use and20ning on this parcel is M.I{-S (Medium l{esidential ) and. AR (Agricultural Kesidentialj, respectively. Included with the alHlE:Xation application is a l-eques\: t:o amend th,e r'u~ure Land Use Nap vi ~he comprehensive t'lan in ol'der to change the designat:L)l1 on the propert:y to Moderate Density Hesidential, and rezone it from t:he C0Uiit:y's zoning designation ~o the city's 1{-l, ::;ingle-t.amJly 1{~sident:ial district. 'rilis request would increase the maximum, gross density allowed on the subject property from 4:. 8ll dwelling units per aCl-e (5 un! ts per ,",Cl"e in palm .l:5each t.:ount.yj to 7.2.6 units per acre. Tbis Pl'oposed cLange irL l.:llld use n:~presents a maximum increase from 93 dwelling Ullits to 13G dwelling units that could be developed on this site. La.s t1 y, a comprehens i ve plan text amendment Ill11S t accompany thj s aluendlnent to t.he .I:'ut.ure Land Use Map in order t.o delete Idnguage \Ilithin th.e l:"ut\.u-e Land Use ::;UPP01-t Document, ::;ection 8. t'l'oblems and QPpol"nlllities, \-lhich limits this property to th~ Low Density ~e3idential land use classification, This portion of the ::;upport uocument was adopted as part of the Comprehensive plan by reference and, must t:.lierefore be amended. '{'he recommendation for Planning Area 8. d currently reads as follows: unindorporated Parcels Sou~h of tiilverlake ~sta~es These parcels should be annexed and placed in the Low Density Residential land use category. Development of these properties should generally be limited to single- family detached dwellings, so as to be compatible with t.he one-story condominiums which lie to the south and the single-family subdivision lying to the north. To allow ~or the proposed comprehensive Plan amendment, the recommendation for planning Area 8.d would be amended to read as follows: Unincorporated Parcels south of Silverlake Estates Planninq Area 8.d consists of three (3) unincorporated parcels located to the west and south of Silverlake i::states. 'I'he larqer of the three. which is adiacent to L:,)\1Qress Avenue. should be annexed and placed in the fvlodel-ate Densitv kesi.d8ntial land use cateQ01"v. '1'lle 't'he~e remaininq pal-eels should also be annexed, dlHi but placed in the LOW uensity Residential land use categor~. Developmem: of these propert ies should general 1 y be limited to single-family detached dwellings, so as to be cc.mp3tible Nit.h the one-story condominiums which lie to r.118 scuth and the single-family subdivision lying to the ,Kl-th. ,1 - . - .?-- . , ~"". :: ''';";:'. :~'~. -~~;\ - -. ~ '\ ': .:. >;;.. ,-. Hemo 1'10. 9j-l.3~ -2- June 2, 1993 The follcv.ling analysis is provided pursuant: co the city's code of urOlnances (Appen01X A, ~eccion 9), dnd ~lorida Law with respecc to chs tran3mictal and review of large-scale land use plan amendments. '.'his analy~,is will focus primarily on consistency with the Cityl s comprehensive ~lan objecclves and policies, compacibilicy of ~he proposed amendment with the adjacent propert:ies, and the demand for an increase in maximum density. CUKK~N~ LANU U~~ ANU ZUNING The land use and zoning in the surrounolng ai"ea val"ies and is pr~sented in the table that followings: II t I ee(lOII ,lItel srhCI 1011 f.oll j llr~ L:-1Il 11 II S E' ~l)l l.h lloynton ll~<:t( "(, I'LIIl I~stales of ~dV(~l"J;.lkl"~ (s lllG J e-1:1:-l1II1 J y IJOllles) NOt (IH~,"I:" I. i \';:1&1 UO)'ll tf 1Il lIe;jell 1~-3 (;0 J t\' 1. e\1I lIa rhOlll (L{l\\'lIhOllSl!S) ~;{j\11 II,.;ISI. Buynton Bertch ~1-1 VrtC,ltl L .'llIUlIl 1I0;.'IIt.OIl lle;.ldl Ni A \'-2l:l Callal 1":H'L.IIl~1.. SUII t.:h lluyntuII Beach c;-J ~Jan()I" Caee (r,uu; IIlg ilolUe i c\C1.1') l"i:lrl.1leL suuth\ve::;t Hoyntoll l.leac...:b III )[{ Chanteclalr vIIIRS (culldulU ilL HilliS) \,e~t \'a 11/1 l3each Cuunty Al~ Vacaut AN.L\L':{ :::;1;;:) PU1{~UAN'l' 'l'U ~~C. 9. c. 7 01::' APPENDIX A. COUI:; Uf' Of{DINANCI:;~ 'l'his sect:ion or the Code or ordinances requires the evaluation of plan amendment/rezoning requests against criteria related to the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. ~hese crit:eria and an evaluation of the impacts which could result from development of t:he property are as follows: 7.a. "whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable comprehensive Plan policies.. .If. Although che Future Land use Plan is proposed to be amended, the request is arguably consistent with all Comprehensive plan objectives and policies (see below). As part of the request, planning Area B. d of :::;ection 8. Land Use Problems and upportunities, mus~ also be amended to allow the proposed land use designation. Justifications for this proposed amendment, as provided by the applicant, include the necessity of a transitional zone between the commercial and high-density land uses to the south, and the low-density land use (Silverlake Estates) to the north. Furthermore, the applicant indicated that the R-l zoning would increase the economic feasibility of developing the site, as relatively high development costs are anticipated based on the size of the property and the presence of muck. 7. b. "Whether the proposed rezoning \'olould be contrary to the establi,shed land use patten1, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would consticute a grant' of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with the protect:ion of the publiC wt::lftii-e.; and 7. e. Hwhethel" the proposed rezoning would be compatible Wlt:n the cun:ent and fut:ul-e use of ad] acent and nearby pi"opertie3, 01." w()llld affect the prOpel"t.y values of adjacent propert:i.es. ii', -.3-- llemo Nt). 9:~-lJ2 "3 - June 2, 199:3 As indicated by the list of various. adjacent laud uses, there does not apLJear to be an established Lmd USE: pattern ill this vi..::inity. In addition to the commercial use and nearby industrLal property, the subJect property is bcrdered by three (3) different residential land UlO:~~; ',d th maximum densl ties ranging between L}. 84 dwelling units per acre and 10.8 units per acre. Therefore, there exists no land use pattern nor district to determinG th8 one (1) appropriate land use designation for the subject property. Tte sUbjact property likely received its Low Density Residential. 1 and us e des igna tiOll in order t.o ensure compatib i 1 i ty with the adjacent, lOW-density development to the north; however, we must also consider the potential impacts of the industrial, commercial, and high density land uses upon the subject property if it is limited to Low Density Residential land use. A more appropriate land use desiunatioll would be (;ne which is most compatible wi th all adjac211t land uues, rather than with just one abutting property. 7. c. "Whether' changed or changing condi tions make the proposed 1.-.;20ning desirable." There have been no changes in the conditions of this vicinity since t.he Lovl Dens i ty Res iden tial 1 and use des i <;Jna ti.on was pI aced 011 th i,,, property by the Comprehensive Plan. Although this analysis contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is logical to assume that in certain locations more than one land use designation wculd be appropriate for a given piece of property. 7.d. "Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities." An analysis on the availability of public facilitles is prOVided be 10\-J. 7. f. "Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the eXisting zoning." ,~s indicated above, the property owner claims that development costs will be relatively high given the presence of muck on the site. It is difficult to estimate the costs and benefits of developing this property based on land use and soil characteristi.cs; however, considering the size of the subject F'l-cperty and the underlying muck, the per unit costs will likeli' be higher than for a larger site such as the neighboring single-family subdivision. Furthermore, there are no low-density, single-family homes, \-vi th frontage on Congress Avenue, that do not contain adequate buffering. Such buffering on the subject property may be minimal due to the size of the property and since the property's access is limited to Congress Avenue (which will prevent total buffering of Congress Avenue as done at the adjacent single-family SUbdivision) . 7. g. IIWhether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole. 11 It may be unnecessary to attempt to estimate the relationship of this proposed rezoning, which consists of 18 acres of land, to the neighborhood and entire City; however, there may be a slight relationshi~ between findings related to future housing supply and demanj and item 7.g. The Future Land Use Support Document indicates that all remaining undeveloped residelltial land will be ne.2ded to meet the total demand for housing at build-out (see e:\cerpt from Support Document in Attachment liB"). This analysis may be ovei:estimating total development potE:lltial as it aSSllm,::~ E:ither higher net de:nsit.ies (than allowed by the Future Ldl1d US8 Plal~ I on C81-tain large properties (greater than 75 aCl:es), I)L- t."';I)I1'J,?r:::.LOi1S l(; 111011':::1- densities. This analYSis -:1180 asswll'.:-S -Lj- Memo No. 93-132 -4- J 1m e 2, 1 9 9 3 something as uncertain as the conversion of most mobile home parks to permanent ll,::lusing developments. Therefore, based on findings wi thin the Support DOClII1len t, the prclpoi::ed increase in maximum dens i ty wtll 1 ikel y con tr ibu te to the li.eeded, fu tUi-e hOLl.; ing supply. 7 . h. v-Shether there are adequate sites 1'31 SeWhel"e in the city f()l" tl18 proposEd use, in dL5tricts Hhere such use is a1 ready allowE:d. There are approxim~tely four (4) properties within the city where a development of this density would be all,-)wed. of those si.tes, three have ~een master planned and the fourth is the large, vdcant tl"act of land locat.ed at the northGast cornel- of Congress Avenllt:.:- and Old Boynton Road. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FLCRIDl\ LAVl The Boynton Eeach ComprehenGivE Plan, including sllpport do.::umentil, addresses anne~ation and land use plan amendments and specifically, the pr,:,vision of housiag choices and tte conven:iion to higllel- densities. Co~sistency with the Future Land Use plan 7he City.s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map establishes land use des igna t ions fOl" unincorpora ted l~nclave s as He 11 as fClr properties located immediately west of the City, ~ast of Lawrence Rvad. SinCE: the Plan designates t.he ;,ubject pl'Opel'ty as Lt)W Density Residential, the request by the applicant If.; il1collsistel1L with the City's Future Land Use Plan. Consistency witll Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies The following excerpts from Comprehensive Plan objectives al..d policies, address the subject requests and are analyzed below: Obiective 1.16 - I'.. . regulate the use, density, and intensity of land use, by requiring that all land developmerlt orders be c011sistent with the Future Land Use plan and other applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan."; Obiective 1.17 "Minimize nuisances, hazards, and other adverse impacts. . . to residential environments by preventing Oi" minir.1izll1g land use conflicts."; and Policy 1.17.8 "Maintain and improve the character of existing single-family neighborhoods, by preventing conversions to higher densities.". These policies have been pursuant to items 7.b, Ordinances. addressed above wi thin 7.e, and 7.g, Section the 9.C, analysis Code of ~ Obiective 1.19 - ".. .allow a range of land uses for which the area, location, and intensity of these uses provide a full range of housing choices,.. .for both existing and projected populations.. .n; Policy 1.19.5 ". . . allow for a full range of housing choicei, by allowing densities which can accommodate the approximate number and type of dwellings for which the demand has been projected... .11; In projecting future housing supply within the Future Land Use Support Document, it was assumed that all vacallt properties (less thall 7~ acres) would be developed either sinqle family det&ched, single ismlly attached, or some combinatioll thereof (s~e ex~e~pt 1'r.:-.m Flitlll'E- :~alid lISE: Sllpp.)rt D<::lCl\hlE:llt in A'ttachment "C"). ::; LIl.~o-: --~ - .~, .' Her.lO No. 93-132 -5- June 2, 1993 . the propo~ed amendment would not restrict the property from being d-2ve1,)ped accordinf:J tv this a::;sumpt ion made in the SUPP01-t Document, the requirements of Objective 1.19 dnd Policy 1.19.5 will be implemented. The following objectives, policies, and issues addressed belo\v aTe either typically ~eferenced by the Florida Department of Community i\ffail-s (DC;},.), or required by thtm to be analyzed in ou~ l"eview of propos~d amendments: Obiective 1.2 conditions so that wher-2' it is not soils.. ,"i and "Coordinate future land uses v.<ith soil urban land uses are pn:.hibited in locations econom ical to remove or treat uns ut tahl.:.' Policy 1.2.1 - ".. .prohibit development of urban land use::. where the removal or treatment of unsuitable soils would be uneconomical, provide that ullstablE: soils shall bE: removed in all construction and land development sites where soil~ would affect the performance of infrastructure, drainage.. .". The subj ect site contains both Terra Ceia and Okeelan ta Mucks, both of which will likely be removed to make the subject pi-Opel"ty deve lopdble . Regardless of the land use des igna t ion on tlll::i property, the muck would likely be removed to make the sit,:~ developable. Obi ecti ve 4.4 - liThe City shall, . . . protect all remaining areas of substantial native upland and wetland vegetation and eliminate undesirable exotic'tree species."; Policy 4.4.1 - ".. .the City shall require...a detailed flora and fauna survey on any liB or C" rated site...; and Policy 1.11.14 - ". ..provide for open space preservation by requiring the presel"vation of 25% of all "A", "B", and "e" rated sites.. .". A portion of the subject site is located within Natural Ecosystem Site ~16 (see Attachment liD"). Ecosystem site #16 is described as disturbed Pine Flatwoods with exotic weeds. Pursuant to Policy 4.4.1, an environmental assessment was completed and, did not indicate the current existence of any species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. In addition, from the assessment and a field visit, the City's Forester/Environmentalist confirmed that the site is not environmentally sensitive (see Attachment liE"). Al though the assessment did identify several tree species that would be preserved according to the Ci ty' s Tree Preservation Ordinance, such enforcement would take place during the design and construction stages of this project. Obiective 1.11 - "... future land uses shall include provisions for the protection of.. . archaeological resources and historic buildings.. .". The city's Comprehensive Plan requires that historical resources and archaeological sites be preserved and protected. However, the subject pro.perty is undeveloped and, there are no archdeological amenities known to exist on this site. Annexation The subject property is located within an unincorporated enclave within th~ City.s reserve annexation/utility servic~ area. This request for annexation is not only consistent with Florida La\'l, but is also consistent with th~ City's annexatjoll pldn established pursuant to Policy 8.10.4. -t- tvlemo NO. 9:;-132 -6- June ::., 1903 Availability of Public ~acilities l:'lorida Administrative Code, chapt~r 9.J-11 r~quires that the availability of public facilir.ies be analyzed, .:Ind r.hat the maximum potential demand upon public facilities be deten,lineci. The follm'1ing facilities vlere analyzed Iii order to eilSlll'~ t.hat capacity is avaIlable: Hoads: '1'he Palm Beach County ~ngineering Uepartment reviewed tlh? appli<:::antls traffic study and verified tbat capacity e~ists on congress Avenue to accommodate t.his proposed amendment. water/Sewer: Water and wastewater demands were estimated to 2C{ual 56,1)00 gallons per day and ~~, uuu gallons per day, respectively. ::;urrlcient capacity exists to serve t.his property, as there is over one (1) millIon gallons per day capacity in the water treatment system, and nearly 3.5 million gdllol1s per day capacity in tile wast.e\'1ater treatment systelll. ::;0110 waste: The ::;olid waste Authority projected that the 1 and use amendment would incl-eas e the paten ti al for sol id waste generation by 74.8 tons per year and would therefore nave a detrimental affl?ct on t.he s<jlid wa~.te system. Tiley c\)ncluded theil- review of tins proposed amendment by indicating that if the annexation were conditioned so that i~ would not resul t in an increase to the sol id waste stream, tile Authority would not object to t.he request. Drainage: '1'he Lake Worth Drainage District indicated thar: tins property is within their service area and, they vii] i accept s tOl"ll1 water, subj ect to cons is tency \'1i th u i s tr i c r. policy, into the canal L-28. l<ecreation: '['he analysis of the impact upon parks and recreation facilities determined that these services are currently available and, that the proposed amendment would not lcwer the levels of service below the adopted standards. consistency with the Future Land Use Support Docum~nt: '1'he follow1ng excerpt ft-om the comprehensive Plan Future Land Use ::;upport Document only indicates that the request for Moderate uensity Hesidential, which allows a maximum density of I.Lb d~elling uhits per acre, is similar to the current, average density of new developments or approved master plans within the city (it should be noted that this average may have changed since the ~lan was adopted in 1989). future Land Use ::;upport Document. paqe 25 - "Average gross density of new residential development is 7.3 dwelling units per acre, versus approximately 4.4 units per gross acre in 1987."; RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Uepartment recommends that the applications submitted by Kieran J. Kilday/Kilday & Associates be approved, based on the following: 1 . 'l'he slJ.bj ect property is con t1guouS to the corporate 1 imi ts and is located within the city's Heserve Annexation Area; 'l'he proposed amendment would be consistent wi th applicable ~onlpl"ehensive lJlan objectives and policies; j. The? Pl-oposed amendment would not be contrary to an established lcdld LISt:- pattern, .,101- would it create an isolated district unrel.=tted to adjacent alld nearby districts, nOl- Vlould it. .- 7- Memo No. 93-132 -7- June 2, 1993 constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner; 4. Th~ requested land use and zoning would be compatible with utility 5yst8ms, roadways, and other publiC facilities; 5. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and, would not affect the property values of adjacent or neatby pl-cpertie.:. ; 6. The applicant has indicated that the property would be more physically and e.::onomically developable under thE proposed land use and zoning; and 7. The proposed land use and zoning is \)f a scale which i3 reclsonably related to the needs of the neighborh()od and th,~ city as a whole. Attachments A.: r.(JOSREP - g- ATTACHMENT "A" (Location Map) -9- _~ -.J'-" .~... ,,,,, u L00S PROPE.K f'l ;;;J -- --'-' . ~ .. """ /' .~. \' \" \ r ~Jj.. ~, ~ -r-l ( , L\ .J..,J =-_ _j I ..-~r .-~~- (} t ~ J \/8. M\LES \ \ \ \. \ \ .' """.:- 400800 fEET ;' i'" ~ . , . """, ..,... ..... r:; / ATTACHMENT "BIl (Future Land Use support Document, pg.25) - JI- , I .r "1 V. ~AN~ U~t ~~~~tr AN~ ~~HAN~, AND tOCATION ~~~~I~LMLNT~ ~ Proiected household arowth in the City and proposed annexation areas will aenerate demand for an estimated 14.440 additional dwel1ina units bY the .{year 2010. includina a 6.58-percent vacancy marain. This demand will ~ reauire all the remainina undeveloped residential land in the community. which totals an estimated 1.970 acres. Averaae aross density of new residential development is 7.3 dwellina units per acre. versus APproximatelY 4.4 units per aross acre in 1987. Thus. by the year 2010. t~e City will have reached buildout or saturation. .Boynton Beach is rapidly approaching the point at which all of the vacant residential land is either platted and under construction, or a subdivision master plan has been approved. In fact, of a total of 8,060 gross acres of land which are classified as residential, in the area east of Lawrence Road, there are only 607 acres (7.5% of residential land) where the parcel size exceeds 10 acres, for which there is no approved development plan (see Figure 7 in the Housing Element for the location of these parcels) Of these 607 acres, 331 acres lie within 3 parcels: Knollwood Orange Groves (115 acres), the property at the northeast corner of Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue (104 acres), and the undeveloped southern portion of Lake Boynton Estates (115 acres). Other rnajQr vacant parcels include the acreage adjoining High Ridge Country Club to the south (68 acres), the parcel on the east side of Seacrest Blvd., near the southern City limit (55 acres), the undeveloped portion of Boynton West subdivision (36 acres), and the parcel which lies along the east side of High Ridge Road (35 acres). There are also two large mobile home parks--Whispering Pines (46 acres), and sand and Sea Village (92 acres)--where the spaces are leased and which therefore might be redeveloped for permanent housing. The land occupied by these mobile home parks has not been included in the 607-acre figure. The remainder of the vacant parcels included in the 607-acre figure range in size from 10 to 24 dCrt~S . Bovnton Beach is proiected to have a build-out (year 20l0) population of 78.232. When this population is divided bY the 1980 persons oer household (2.3l). and the resultant number of households (33.867) is multiplied bv the inverse of the seasonal vacancy rate [1/1-.0944)1 and the inverse of a five-percent market vacancy rl/(1-.051 I. the resultina number of dwellinq units which will be required at build-out is 39.365. Currently (i.e.. as of 1/1/86). there are 23.217 dwellinas in the City. and 1.767 dwellinqs in the unincorporated areas east of Lawrence Road in which annexation by the City is anticipated. A total of 14.440 additional dwellinqs could be built within the City and the unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road (see Table IV-IO). Addinq the existina and potential dwellinqs (23.217 + 1.767 +14.4401 Yields a total supplY of dwellinqs of 39.424 at build-out. This number (39.424 almost exactlY matches the anticipated demand (39.3651, Because such a large proportion of the potential residential development will take place within approved projects or will be infill development, 25 NOTICE OF A~-~\JEXATION, LAND U~-: AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT, AND ZONING CHANGE The city of Boynton Beach proposes to annex, change the use of land, amend the text within the Comprehensive Plan, and rezone the property indicated on the map below. A public hearing on this proposal will be held before the Planning and Development Board on June 8, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. A public hearing will also be held before the city Commission on June 15, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the agenda permits, at Ci ty Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. . -- I 1 - r. nil. t:I" Wi?-- '..::::-~ \..:,.oF ., ad == :---~ -~. C Ai/ilL 1-" 2. 7 QIj- ~1.ll.\ 1 LLa L~ ,; I _ . -/ ~/- .~ ,'" :~ ::::, L R3 crry ,t../M(75 -T-....,..;....&.- t.-2..8 -; ,/ (.J'- I ? '/ - .; J.. . " ---""::"~.I .._~~ !~~-! LaoS PROPERTY r G) 1 l 4-9~ JJ nfDI 111 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: John T. Loos Kieran J. Kilday/Kilday & Associates, Inc. Single-family residential development. A 18.69 acre parcel on the west side of Congress Ave., approximately 1/2 mile south of Golf Rd. Complete legal description on file in the Planning Department, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. PETITIONER: AGENT: PROPOSED: LOCATION: REQUEST: ANNEXATION: AMEND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: From - Medium Residential (County) To - Moderate Density Residential (City) AMEND TEXT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Text Amendment on file in Planning Department REZONE: From - AR/Agricultural Residential (County) To - R-1/Single Family Residential (City) REQUEST: REQUEST: REQUEST: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED TO APPEAR AT SAID HEARINGS IN PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY AND BE HEARD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THESE MEETINGS WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. PLEASE CALL (407) 738-7490 FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ABOVE MATTERS. ;\:1005.;\0 SUZANNE M. KRUSE CITY CLERK ~ Alt77aE 6: ZONING DIS17lJCTS s.c. 6.9 VDlwwI'Y DerulIV 1IottU6 SEC. ,., A. ,----./ VOLUNT~Y DJNSITY BONUS~ Puroose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the voluntary deniity bonus pro,ram is to provide for the constJuctiOD. of very low and low iDcomc bousiaa in Palm Beach Couaty. This is accomplished by providina for an increase in permitted dcasity (a deasity bonus) for a specific development in excbanae for either: (1) the constnactioD of very low andlor low income housing on site or off-site; (2) . payment in-lieu-of constructioD into the Housina Trust Fund; or (3) . combination of construction and an in-lieu payment. B. Authoritv. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt this section pursuant to Article VIII, Sec. 1. Fla. Const., the Palm Beach County Charter. Sec. 125.01, ~ BSL.. Fl.. Stat. and Sec. 163.3161, et. seq. Fla Stat. c. ADDlicabilitv. This section shall apply to all residential development within the urban service area of unincorporated Palm Beach County until such time as the Board of County Commissioners may adopt specific receiving areas pursuant to the recommendations of the Land Use Advisory Board Density Task Force, or in corY unction with the Transfer of Development Rights Study andlor the Urban Form Study. In cases of conflict between this section and other sections of the ULDC. the provisions of this ~tion shall prevail. D. General. A developer may request to exceed the existing permitted density up to one hundred (100) percent to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, or seventy five (75) percent of the standard density in the case of Congregate Living Facilities (CLFs), to a maximum of forty five (45) beds per acre, without filing a Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In exchange, the developer must provide for the construction of very low and/or low income housing units in Palm Beach County by complying with the cOlIJponent standards of this section. E. Provisions for the construction of very low and/or low income housilll. In exchange for the density bonus tbe developer must provide for the construction of very low and lor low income housing. Density bonus requests that exceed the existing permitted density more than 67 percent shall be required to construct very low and lor low income housing on-site. Density bonus requests up to and equal to a sixty-seven (67) percent increase over the existing permitted density shall provide housing pursuant to one of the three options provided for in this section: (1) constnaction of units on site, or on another site approvtld by the Planning Director; or (2) payment in-lieu-of construction into the Housing Trust Fund; or (3) a combination of (1) and (2). 1. Construction or unit... The dev~loper shall construct a required number of very low and/or low income housing units in exchange for the receipt of a density bonus. The minimum number of very low and/or low income housing units to be constructed shall be based on the foJlowing: ~. PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA LAND DBVELOPMENT COI)E SUPPLEMENT I - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 199J 6-419 ~ SEC. ,., AlmaE 6: ZONING DlstlUCTS S.c. 6.9 VoIuIua", DensIty lImtUl D. .----.;/ . VOLUNT ~y DJNSrrv BONUS. A. PlIQose and Intent. no purpose and intent of the voluntary deniity bonus proaram i. to provide for the coostnIctioD of very low and low income housing in Palm Belch County. This is accomplished by providing for an increase in permitted density (a density bonus) for a specific development in exchanp for either: (1) the construction of very low and/or low income housing on site or off-site; (2) . payment in-lieu-of construction into the Housing Trost Fund; or (3) . combination of construction and an in-lieu payment. B. Authoritv, The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt this section pursuant to Article VIII, Sec. I, Fla. Const., the Palm Beach County Charter, Sec. 125.01, ~~, Fl.. Stat. and Sec. 163.3161, et. seq. Fla Stat. c. ADDlicabilitv. This section shall apply to all residential development within the urban service area of unincorporated Palm Beach County until such time as the Board of County Commissioners may adopt specific receiving areas pursuant to the recommendations of the Land Use Advisory Board Density Task Force, or in coqjunction with the Transfer of Development Rights Study and/or the Urban Form Study. In cases of contlict between this section and other sections of the ULDC, the provisions of this section shall prevail. General. A developer may request to exceed the existina permitted density up to one hundred (100) percent to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, or seventy five (75) percent of the standard density in the case of Congregate Living Facilities (CLFs), to a maximum of forty five (45) beds per acre, without filing a Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In exchange, the developer must provide for the construction of very low and/or low income housing units in Palm Beach County by complying with the component standards of this section. E. Provisions for the construction of very Jow and/or low income housi",. In exchange for the density bonus the developer must provide for the construction of very low and lor Jaw income housing. Density bonus requests that exceed the existing permitted density more than 67 percent shall be required to construct very low and/or low inco~ housing on-site. Density bonus requests up to and equal to a sixty-seven (67) percent increase over the existing permitted density shall provide housing pursuant to one of the three options provided for in this section: (I) construction of units on site, or on another site approved by the Planning Director; or (2) payment in-lieu-of construction into the Housing Trust Fund; or (3) a combination of (1) and (2). J. Construction of unil~. Th~ dev"loper shan construct a required number of very low and/or low income housing units in exchange for the receipt of a density bonus. The minimum number of v~ry low and/or low income housing units to be constructed shall be based on the tQJlowing: ~. LAND DBVELDPMENT COIJE PALM BEACH COUNTY, FUJRlDA 6-419 SUPPLEMENT 1 - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1993 ow ..., /-" AR71CLB 6: ZOMNG DIS77UC1'S Sec. 6.9 VolImtano Dtmnw Bmvu a. DeMity boom reouest over '7 percent. Density bonus requests that exceed existing permitted density more than sixty seven (67) percent mlMt construct very low and lor low income bousina on site equal to at least twenty (20) percent of the total number of units proposed. rouodina down to the nearest whole number, with a minimum of One unit. (1) Rental developments sban include at least tell (10) percent very low income units. (2) For-sale properties may include only low income housin,. (3) CLFs shall include twenty (20) percent very low income bousina. b. Density bonus reauest UD to 67 percent. All density bonus requests up to or equal to a 67 percent increase over the existing permitted density may elect to construct twenty (20) percent of the total units proposed as very low and/or low income housing on site or on another site which the Plannin, Director detennines is consistent with and furthers the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element O~jective 2 addressing the Voluntary Density Bonus Proaram. and the geographic dispersal of lower income households. (1) (2) Rental developments shall include at least 10 percent very low income units. For-sale developments may include only low income housinJ. ~ (3) CLFs shall include twenty (20) percent very low income housing. c. Assurances of aft'ordahility. The developer shall provide languap, acceptable to the County Attorney, which guarantees for a period of at least fifteen years, how the affordability will be maintained for units required to be very low and/or low income pursuant to income categories and definitions of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. CLFs shall meet the definition of a very low income individual. A guarantee must be documented in the public record and may be in the form of a deed restriction to be recorded on the property and/or resale addendum to the sales agreement or eligibility requirements for rental property, or other method acceptable to the County Attorney. d. Income Qualifications. For units required to be very low and/or low income, a developer shall document in the public record a guarantee, in a manner acceptable to the County Attorney, that the household, upon entry to the unit, shall meet the definition of a very low or low income household pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. CLFs shall meet the definition of a very low income individual. .--- LAND DBVIlLOPMBNT CODE SUPPLEMBNT 1 - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORJDA 6-420 "--" A1f1lCLE 6: ZONING D1S77llCTS s.c. 6.9 V~ ~ lIt1Itu6 e. Limitations on aualifimdons. No occupantl of units of very low and/or low income housing constructed pursuant to this program. sball be subject to restrictions beyond the income qualificationa .. defined in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. f. Dispenal. The very low and/or low income bousing sball not be concentrated within one area of the development or one neighborhood, but rather sball be distributed and integrated throughout the development. g. DouslM ODDOrtunities. Developments that offer varied bedroom and square footage options shall include similar variation in the construction of very low and/or low income housing required in exchange for the density bonus. 2. Pavment in.lieu-of construction. A developer, requesting no more than a 67 percent increase in density, may elect to make a payment into the Housing Trost Fund in-Iieu-of construction of very low and/or low income housing units. 8. HousiM Trust Fund. The in-lieu payment shall be placed into the Housing Trust Fund and is subject to the provisions of Housing Trust Fund Ordinance and requirements of this section. b. Land Cost Model. The amount of payment shall be based on the Land Cost Model described below: (I) General. Th~ in-lieu payment shall be based on the most recent Palm Qeach County appraisal for the site of the proposed development. '~ ., (8) Calculation of the pavment. The appraisal value of an acre of the development site, as appraised for residential use, sball be multiplied by the additional acreage required to build the requested number of units when total acreage requirements of the development are calculated using the existing permitted density. (b) Pavment. The total amount of the in-lieu-of payment shall be established at the time of submittal of the General Application for development approval. (2) Receipt of Pavment. The in-lieu payment shall be pro-rated for eacb unit based on the total number of units to be built in the development. Payment shall be due prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project. The developer shall pay the pro-rated payment for eacb unit for which a building permit is to be issued. c. Use of in-lieu fees. All in-lieu fees collected pursuant to the Voluntary Density Bonus Program shall be subject to the conditions established in the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance. ~ SUPPLEMENT 1 . EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 199J PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-421 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ~ w ~ AR17CI..E 6: zpNlNG DISTRlCTS $ec. 6.9 VoluntarY lHMIv S- 3. Combination of coMtruction or units and the pavment in-lieu-of' coMlnIct.ion. Tbe developer, requesting no more than a sixty seven (67) percent increase in density, may elect to construct only a portion of the very low and/or low income unita required in conjunction with a paytnent in-lieu-of construction to account for the remaininl very low and/or low income units required in exchange for the receipt of the density bon~. a. Established pl'QDOrtion or conslnlct.ion to in-lieu paynient. The amount of in- lieu fee to be paid in conjunction with construction of very low and/or low income housing units, in exchange for the density bonus, &ball be bued on the percentage of very low andlor low, units to total units to be constructed, as follows: Percentage- of Amount of Very Low! Low Income. Payment in-lieu-of Units to he Constructed to be Paid to the Trust Fund Under 5 percent 1 00 percent At 5% up to 10% 7595 (I unit minimum) At 10% up to 15% 50% (I unil minimum) At 15% up to 20% 25% (I unil minimum) AI 20% & Owr 0% (I unit minimum) .-:-- , . Percentage of Ihe total numher of units proposed for the development. h. In-lieu puyment. The in-lidu payment shall he paid pursuant to the Land Cost Modd and procooures descrihoo in S~tion 6.9.E.2. F. Presuhmittal Conference. Prior to suhmittal of an application rt:questing a dt:nsity bonus, the applicant must attend a presuhmittal cont~rence with the appropriate PZB staff to review the requirements and procooures of the Voluntary Density Bonus program. G. Review of Land Use Compatihility. Any application for the Voluntary Density Bonus Program shall he reviewed for land use compatihilily and consistency with Compreh~nsive Plan policies. .r--. MND I)RVF.l..orMRNT com.; PM.M BEIlCII COUNTY. FWRmA SUrPI..EMENT I - RF,..,.;CTIVR n;RRUARY 16. 1993 6-422 '/ ~ , }i" < "'--' ,umCU 6: ZONING DIS77HCTS s.c. 6.9 VDllDlldnt IJeruUy BonuI 1. Submilsion of aDDUqtion. An Ipplication for tho V oluoWy Density Bonus Program shall be submitte!d to the Planning Division for review of land use compatibility and CODBisteocy with Comprehensive Plan policies prior' to submission of a General Application for development approval, at any time during the year, in a form established by the Planning Director and made available to the public. 1. Detennination of suffideoev. The Planning Director shan determine the sufficiency of an application for the review within five (5) working days from the receipt of the application. a. If it is determined that the application is not sufficient, written notice sball be sent to the applicant specifying the deficiencies within ten (10) working days of the determination. The Planning Director shall take no further action on the application unless the deficiencies are remedied. If the deficiencies are not remedied within twenty (20) working days, the application shall be considered withdrawn. b. If the application is determined sufficient, the Planning Director will proceed to review the application pursuant to the procedures and standards of this section. 3. Review and decision of the PlannilUl Director. Within fifteen (15) working day. after the Planning Director determines the application i. sufficient, the PWuUng DirectorsbaIl review the application to determine if the applicant bas complied with the component staadard. requited for a density bonua PUl'l1Wlt to Section 6.9.0.5. The Plaonioa Director shall prepare a report which outlines the conditions necessary for approval of the density bonus or outlines the justificatiQn for denial of the density bonus. The applicant will be notified of the completion of the report. . ,.) ~. 4. Review bv the Land Use Advisorv Board. Within thirty five (35) working days of the completed. Planning report, the Land Use Advisory Board (LUAB) shan consider the application, the Planning Director's report, the relevant support materials, and testimony at a meeting with regard to land use compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The LUAB shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application based on the standards in Section 6.9.0.5. Upon failure of the LUAB to make a recommendation within 35 working days, the applicant, with a report recommending the approval of the density bonus request, may proceed in the development review process pursuant to the procedures described in Section 6.9.L. By . mutual consent of the Planning Director and the applicant, the time frame for the LUAB review may be extend beyond thirty five (35) days. S. Standard'!. All applications for the voluntary density bonus program shall comply with these standards: a. The request for a density bonus shall be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUPPLEMENT 1 - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-413 '~. 6. Review or an ap~lication to proceed. The application shall be recommended for approval or approval with conditions by the Planning Director or the Land Use Advisory Board to proceed in the development review process as an applicant under the vohllllary density bonus program. o. bsuance of a recommendation to proceed. A report reconunendin, approval or denial of the request shall be issued by the Planning Director within seven (7) worlcin, day. of LUAB action or inaction. The report shall identify all conditions that must be fulfilled by the developer in order to receive the density bonus. The report sball also include any recommendations or comments of the LUAB. .. " i; :i i ,; AR11ClZ 6: ZONING DIS'llUCTS Ii 'I ~ : Ji; I: !: " ., ; ~ I !. ~ I 7. ..,., ~\ Sec. 6.9 VolwtMn DmIilY ltMus h. The development shall be within a 3/4 mile (fifteen (IS) minute] walk of. mass transit .stop, or a commercial/employment center which offers varied opportunities and positions for full-time employineat, or retail,rocery sboppin, and pharmaceutical service for the residents of the proposed development. The development shan be located pursuant to Section 6.9.C., Applicability. c. d. The density of the development shall not exceed a one hundred (100) percent increase above the existing permitted density up to a maximum of ei,bteeo (18) dwellina units per acre. CLFs shall not exceed a seventy five (75) percent increase above the standard density of the existina land use cateaory, up to a maximum offorty five (45) beds per acre. e. The application shall provide written justification of bow the proposed development promotes the Housing Element policy (2-,) in the Comprehensive Plan which encourages theequitahle geographic distribution of affordable housing to disperse lower income households. ~", -.*~-: 8. Appeals. Any applicant under the Voluntary Density Bonus program denied a recommendation to proceed through the development review process may request to appeal the decision to the Development Review Appeals Board. H. DevelQDment review procedures for voluntarv density bonus applicants. Upon the issuance of tbe preliminary report the applicant may proceed witb the development approval process pursuant to Section S.1 of this code and the procedures described berein. All projects shall be approved. approved with conditions or denied by the Board of County Commissioners subsequent to Zooin, Commission revit:w and recommendation, except those projects consistio, of ten (10) or fewer units only require Development Review Committee review and approval, approval with conditions or denial. . 1. Submission of veneral a~Dlication. Threshold Review shall be required pursuant to the criteria in Section 5.1 of this Code. In conjunction with the General Application submittal pursuant to Section S.l.C., an applicant for It density bonus must submit all necessary information and material as r~uired by the voluntary density bonus program. ,--- PALM BBACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-424 LAND OBVRLOPMBNT CODB SUPPLEMENT 1 - EFFECT/VB FBBRUARY 16, 199J ~ AR77CU! 6: ZOMNG DISTRICTS s.c. 6.9 VoIwIttuv lhn8lIY Boftw a. Detsmination 01 ~v. The PIInaiD. Dinctor 1ha11 determine tho auftlciency of tho application for tho VolUD&uy. Deaaity Boa... Propam within five (5) wortia. day. from the receipt of tho voluntary deaaity bon... proaram component of the Geaenl application from tho Zoaiaa Director.. provided for in Section S~ 1.0. Threshold Review S.d. (1) If it is determined that the application is not sufficient, written notice shall be sent to the applicant specifying the deficiencies within tea (10) working days of the determination. The Planning Director shall take no furtlier action on the application unless the deficiencies are remedied. If the deficiencies are not remedied within twenty (20) working days, the application shall be considered withdrawn. (2) If the application is determined sufficient, the Planning Director will notify the Zoning Director that the application is ready for review pursuant to the procedures and standards of this section. 2. Review and decision of the P1annil12 Director. Within fifteen (1S) working days after the Planning Director receives the voluntary density bonus pro,ram component of the application, the Plannin, Qirector shall notify the Zoning Director whether the application submitted complies with Section 6.9.M. (StllmJards). Written notification in the form of a letter of agreement, specifying how the applicant shall fulfill all requirements of the Voluntary Density Bonus Program, shall be attached to the general application or may be incorporated into a Development Agreement or other approved agreement required to fulfill the adequate facilities ordinance. L " 3. Threshold Review. In addition to the requirements of the Threshold Review Section 5.1.D., the letter of agreement, or other approved agreement specifying how the applicant fulfills the requirements of the Voluntary Density Bonus Program, shall accompany the adequate facilities component of the application prior to issuance of a Concurrency Reservation or Conditional Concurrency Reservation. Concurrency Reservation or Conditional Concurrency Reservation shall be based on the total density of the development including the density bonus to be granted pursuant to the voluntary density bonus program. 4. Review and recommendation of the DRe. The Development Review Committee (DRC) shall review an application for the Voluntary Density Bonus program to permit the use of the approved bonus density by providing nexibility in the application of the land development regulations in accordance with Sec. 6.S.L. Tbe DRe shall review the application;, the recommendation to proceed report, Development Agreement or other agreement. Tbe Development Review Committee shall then approve, approve with conditions or deny a project consisting of ten (10) or fewer units or recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of an application for more than ten (10) to the Zoning Commission based on the standards in this Section, Sec. 6.S.L, and Article S of this Code. LAND DBVBLOPMENT CODE PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ---.....:/' SUPPLEMENT 1 - EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 1993 f.415 \ '--'" All71CUlI: ZONING DISTRICTS !1ft. '.11 n../u of o...IMI__ &,., K. m.t. Approval of a voluntary deaaity bonus sba11 JfUlt the riaht to increase density ,in the development consistent with the terms approved in tho development order. The density bonus sball roo with the initial development order approval. . 1. Amendments to a voluntarY density bonus. A density bonus may be .meaded, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval, or as otherwise set forth in this section. 1. MaD desisrnation of a density bonlL4l develoument. A development which receives an approved density bonus shall be desianated by a symbol OD tho Land Use Atlas and the Zoning q\Wl sheets until the development is built-out. At that time tho Land Use Atlas and the Zoning quad sheets shall be changed to reflect the total density of the development including the bonus density. 3. Transfer of a density bonlL4l. A density bonus nms with the development order and may be transferred to a new owner of the development only if the new owner agrees to fulfill the all terms of the agreement made by the original owner. 4. Amendments to Concurrency Reservation. A developer shall amend the concurrency reservation to reflect any reduction in the total number of units to be built prior to application for subsequent development orders from Palm Beach County. 5. Monitori~. All conditions of approval shall be subject to being monitored. The developer shall supply all necessary information in a timely manner acceptable to the designated County monitoring staff. Failure to provide such information, in a timely manner. may result in a revocation of the density bonus. '. "-- . LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PALM BEACH COUNTY, noR/1M 6-411 '~ SUPPLEMENT 1- EFFECT/VE FEBRUA.RY /6, /993 , .. ., ..., ... ARTlCLB f: ZONING DISTRICTS ~ Sec. 1..1' TnI..~ 01 Dn8IJII__ 1&1tb --- SEC. 6.10 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - SPECIAL DENSITY PROGRAM A. Purpose and Intent. Tbe purpose of this section is to provide for an Interim Tl'IDSfer of Development Ripts (TOR) Program, includinS the establisbmeat of a TOR Bank, to f1cilitate both the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and to promote orderly Jrowtb in Palm Beach County. This is accomplished by aIlowin, development ri,bts to be levered from environmentally sensitive lands and transferred to sites where ldditioaa1 development can be accommodated. The Tl'IDSfer of Development Ri,bta proaram i. _peel to redistribute population densities, or development potential, to eacouraae the most efficient use of servicee and ficilities. Further, it is ~ purpose and intent of this ordinance to provide an alternative to the development of environmentally sensitive lands by establishin, a mechanism to seek economic relief from the limitation of development imposed on these lands. Tran$fer of Development Ri,bts can mitipte inequities. in the valuation of land by providinS a me., of compensatin, Iandowaer& whose property is restricted, by perrnittina the sale of development riShts, and makinS landowners in more intensively developed areas pay for the right to develop beyond the existin, density, by purchasing development rights. This Interim TOR program shall be repla~ by a permanent TOR program to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners upon completion of the Urban Form Study. All approv--rl development right transfers and certificates issued during the interim program shall remain valid and shall not be aff~ted nor changed by adoption of the permanent program. ~----- B. Authority. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adopt this section pursuant to Article VIII, Sec. I, Fla. Const., the Palm Beach County Charter, Sec. 125.01, et. seq., Fl.. Stat., and Sec. 163.3161, et. ~. Fla. Stat. C. ADDlicahility. This section shall apply to pro~rty in unincorporated Palm Beacb County which is located within designated sending areas, as defined in Section 6.10.0. Development ri,bts may be transferred from sending areas pursuant to the procedures contained in this Section, to property in unincorporated Palm Beach County which meets the qualifications to receive such density according to Section 6.10.1 and the standards contained herei~. In addition, Section 6.10. H shall apply to all . A" quality native ecosites purchased by the County, including those located within the incorporated area of the County. D. Definitions. The following terms, whtlnevtlr used in this section, shall apply only to the transfer of development rights procedures as provided for in this Section and shall be defined as follows. Other terms used in this Section shall have the meanings set forth in this Code, if defined herein. The definitions of this TDR Section shall apply in cases of word or phrase conflicts with definitions elsewhere in this codtl. -- LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUPI'UMBNT 1- EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 16, 199J PALM BBACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 6-428 .. V. . LAND USE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS Residential Land Pro;ected household qrowth in the City and proposed annexation areas wil~ qenerate demand for an estimated 14.440 additional dwellinq units bv the .lyear 2010. includinq a 6.58-percent vacancy maroin. This demand will ~ require all the remaininq undeveloped residential land in the com~unitv. which totals an estimated 1.970 acres. Averaoe qross density of _ew residential development is 7.3 dwellinq units per acre. versus ~pproximately 4.4 units per qross acre in 1987. Thus. by the year 2010. t~e City will have reached buildout or saturation. .Boynton Beach is rapidly approaching the point at which all of the vacant residential land is either platted and under construction, or a subdivision master plan has been approved. In fact, of a total of 8,060 gross acres of land which are classified as residential, in the area east of Lawrence Road, there are only 607 acres (7.5% of residential land) where the parcel size exceeds 10 acres, for which there is no approved development plan (see Figure 7 in the Housing Element for the location of these parcels) Of these 607 acres, 331 acres lie within 3 parcels: Kno1lwood Orange Groves (115 acres), the property at the northeast corner of Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue (104 acres), and the undeveloped southern portion of Lake Boynton Estates (115 acres). Other major vacant parcels include the acreage adjoining High Ridge Country club to the south (68 acres), the parcel on the east side of Seacrest Blvd., near the southern City limit (55 acres), the undeveloped portion of Boynton West subdivision (36 acres), and the parcel which lies along the east side of High Ridge Road (35 acres). There are also two large mobile home parks--Whispering Pines (46 acres}, and Sand and Sea Village (92 acres)--where the spaces are leased and which therefore might be redeveloped ~or permanent housing. The land occupied by these mobile home parks has not been included in the 607-acre figure. The remainder of the vacant parcels included in the 607-acre figure range in size from 10 to 24 dcres. Bovnton Beach is proiected to have a build-out (vear 2010) population of 78.232. When this population is divided by the 1980 persons per household (2.311. and the resultant number of households (33.867) is multiplied bv the inverse of the seasonal vacancy rate rl/l-.0944}1 and the inverse of a five-percent market vacancy fl/(I-.0S) I. the resultinq number of dwellinq units which will be required at build-out is 39.365. Currently (i.e.. as of 1/1/86). there are 23.217 dwellinqs in the City. and 1.767 dwellinos in the unincorporated areas east of Lawrence Road in which annexation by the City is anticipated. A total of 14.440 additional dwellinos could be built within the City and the unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road (see Table IV-IO). Addinq the existinq and potential dwellinqs (23.217 + 1.767 +14.440) vields a total supply of dwellinqs of 39.424 at build-out. This number (39.424 almost exactly matches the anticipated demand (39.36S). Because such a large proportion of the potential residential development will take place within approved projects or will be infill development, 25 -/1-- ATTACHloIENT "C" (Future Land Use support Document, pg.27) .- /3- TOTAL, NEW HOUSING UNITS 14,102 100.0 Net Additional Housing Units -874*** 13,228 Source: Boynton Beach Planning Dept., 1988 * Defined as an attached dwelling unit that is under fee simple ownership, or a condominium unit where each dwelling unit includes a ground floor. ** Only approved ACLF projects are included in this figure. ACLFs and group homes are proposed to be allowed in a variety of zoning and land use categories, regardless of the dwelling unit type, so it would be .meaningless to correllate the demand versus supply of land for this category. See the Housing Element for a detailed discussion of the need for and availability of sites for group homes. *** Assume conversion of Sand and Sea village mobile home park to rental apartments, and conversion of all mobile home parks within eXisting corporate limits to other uses, in accordance with the Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. Table 7 shows the number and type of dwelling units which could be built on vacant land and land for which redevelopment for residential uses is anticipated. Land use changes which have been proposed in the Coastal Area and in other areas of the city have been taken into account. The following assumptions were used in generating the figures in this table: Approved projects or phases of projects, or land which is shown on the Future Land Use Plan at a density of 7 dwelling units per acre or more were assumed to be suitable for any type of multiple-family housing, including rental apartments. This assumption is made because all types of multiple-family housing, including rental apartments, have been developed successfully at this density. For vacant acreage 1n the Low Density Residential category with an area of 75 or more acres, it was assumed that 1/2 of the units available would be developed as mUltiple-family housing at 7 dwelling units per acre or more, 1/4 of the units would be developed as single-family detached housing on lots of less than 6,000 square feet or less; and 1/4 of the units would be developed as single-family detached housing on lots of 6,000 square feet or more. These proportions are based upon approved master plans of existing Planned Units Developments with densities of 4-5 units per acre. {For vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an area of . less than 75 acres, it was assumed that the units would either be Single-family detached, single-family attached, or some combination thereof. Where specific recommendations for dwelling unit type and densities are made under the "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" section, these specific recommendations were used. 27 . J ~/-- ATTACHHENT liD" (Conservation Support Document-Natural Resource Sites) ~ IS--- r----o---O----:; -.-,'J II 't .r--r ) CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ':iL. _ j) CONSERVA TION ElEHENT - (~J1 d.'j; 2 y~, --.s.= I I ~'~~~~~-(j ~ Jjlll~. ~. ~~ IS~ ~It ___--1 I \..J 1]" ' /' i\.\ ~ m'l?' I Lt- "/ \C J' JJ::.38 c= r' . JJ- __.- ~II'~ '-. JijV < t . .-0; - Y ~ T -,--- 1- ~ i liJ if) . , d,~ ~r, l), n \V:J" "j r (j IfP (( tef' / \\ ~~ L' __4%~ t~t 2~P I ~ l~ IFfrrA\~1T IIII ~31i ~ -__.J~_____. __ ~ X IT :-;;__ -{. ~ I (' [ lJ'-'-\'filJ 'm- -,' '~~ ~~ ~';- ;~I 111- _ 7"'"' I ~10021- 40 iT ~ ~i U ' Vv~n ~ r - ~<- -, .,-LJ/f" q .r- I ~rr.t! - -\a~",," I - -; ~ -/- II i' 1 ;J.;;d~ ~ .....I.~ ..... I f' iil l!J OJ iFJ {n. "r . '? ~ lL.r'i~ HJ ! L. .). ,:..+--.-r L II\. l ~~~~::~ Jd~,rl1'W ~1=E12 - -}dili .'4 ~1":H~~~~'\l8I. r , ~11~~~ . 'l,.P,1f,'1 ,L.~ -'-'KUtl:tIbyDr.Ot_ 'r-:) I~ ;><y....'- \ "'-fi,[ ~~ ::;~;;:- _'~J;c~~I~~~~; ~M'~ 00 36- ~It ~-. ~'l ~~) Iff( j ~ ~ QI~29 c ,:::n 1=J.:::,:::>:x;:WWlII ,~ Ir l~ tZ-,\ ITlrp(( 'X,P1i! ,_ ,- j' r ~~\ 2i 21 & ,18 1 I I ---.J,::'_ mil J- 1==1 ~ t-~ IS~ ~-" ~ m~ JrRi If- f-4 ", ~m... M n 11"Uis t:= , " ~ . ':1 11 Q\J' t:> ~ \ ~~i1 20 . ~nJd_ r1r-]~ ~ ~- - 7~=-.f 22 on '" 1:" ' -- I l' ~ :7 .: ~r h\\ l,:) \P~. ~~; ~ rl'7. 23 26 ~ . <} . I ~ ! ....- \) 0;1 \~ rf1 <) '1 "Vi .. - ___ I , ~ I: ..... ~ <..:1 .::::::J e..9___-1J.________.________ ~_ l E ; END G:!]- NATURAl. RESOURCE AREJ.S 22 - NATURAl. RESOURCE REFERENCE NUIolBER . - 11& 8 RATED SITES IN PUBLIC CNYNERSHIP -25- kAt. rm H. KEJ.J...rn .Il.. I "-lILy e.~ I ,J........ Orw/ $r~ fkr/tII ,- It - Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites Site . Geographic Area in Swnmary 1# Location Acres Evaluation 1 43-45-08-1 88.6 B 2 43-45-08-2 29.7 X 3 43-45-07-1 52.4 X 4.a.... 43-45-17-1 141.8 A 4.b. 43-45-16-3 43-45-2()"2 43-45-16-2 40.1 4.c. A? 5'" 6* 43-45-16-5 19.0 9.6 7'" 43-45-21-1 8 43-45-20-1 11.2 9 43-45-20-4 6.2 10 11 12* 43-45-3()"1 21.6 D 43-45-20-5 17.1 D 43-45-29-1 ~i2.1 A 13* 43-45-32-1, -2,43.92iJ} A 14'" 43-45-32-3 24.1 A ~ IS' 43-46-05-1 7.0 B G 43-45-31-1 22.4 C n 43-45-31-2 17.6 X 18 43-45-3()"2 17.4 X continued ... A Annotation Pine Flatwoods and disturbed PF; pond with emergent vegetation. East of High Ridge Country Club. Lift Station 1#717 is located here. Residential development in progress. Cleared. Florida Scrub. County Site "Eco-87 Quantum NE Scrub". West of Highridge Rd.; Part of the site is in the Quantum Park DR! development. Portions in Boynton Beach and County. Disturbed Florida Scrub corridor. County site "Eco-36 Quantum RR-I95 Route". Restricted access. South portion of Quantum DRI development. Florida Scrub. County site "Ee0-36 Quantum High Risk". Part of Quantum Park development both east and west of Highridge Rd.; road clearing and development in progress. Composite of Quantum sites total 9 listed endangered species. Florida Scrub with disturbed border. County site "Eeo- 34, . Rolling Green Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-32. Galaxy Scrub". Endangered species tolal 9. Florida Scrub site with scrub oaks of shrub and small tree size disturbed by trails and disturbed borders along RR and 1-95 rights-oC-way. County site "Eco-32 Industrial Scrub". Dense stand of Melaleuca (Mtlaleuca quinquenervia), Australian pine (Casuarina equiselifolia), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus cerebinchifolius), and area of grassy and ruderal species. A mix of Melaleuca and other exotics. Fonner Pine Flatwoods now crowded with weeds. 3 parcels. Disturbed Pine Flatwoods. Florida Scrub, and open grassy with ruderal species. Corridor, western border of 1- 95, Eco-31 Boynton 7th St Scrub right of way. ill text narratiye for additional jnfonnation. South of Woolbri~ht Road. Pine Flatwoods and open grassy; disturbed by previous clearing at ground level and entry of ruderal species. County site "Eco-70 N 195-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit. Endangered species total 1. A continuation oC site 1113, County site "Ec0-70 S 195-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit. Small disturbed Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub. Caloosa Park. Cited for preservation due to location within a public park. Disturbed Pine Flatwoods with exotic weeds. Seen only from Congress Ave. Already Developed. Already Developed. A A A B D -23- /.,1"1.'- -- / I Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites continued ... Site Geographic Area in Swnmary # Location Acres Evaluation 19* 4345292 20 43-46-05-3 21 42-46-01-1 22 43 -45-06-1 23 43-46-04 24 43-46-04-4 25* 43-46-04-3 26 43-46-04-2 27* 43-45-34 28* 43-45-33-3 29* 43-45-33-2 30* 43-45-22-3 31 43-45-15 32 43-45.15 33 43-45-15-4 34 35 43-45-16-1 36* 43-45-33-1 37* 43-45-09-4 38 43-45-09 :Y} 43-45-22 40 43-45-22 34.4 21.8 60.2 44.5 7.8 8.7 50.4" 11.0 4.5 2.9 6.0 23.5 .5.8 4.3 to.O 11.0 12.2 12.5 12.4 3.2 4.3 A - . C X X C C A C A Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. - Annotation B Florida Scru~d~rt of COyllt14ilc "lico- 31 BoynLOn 7th St SC~Rgercd speciC&-tGtal-+. Narrow band; apparcmly mostly Brazilian Pepper. Development in progress. County site "Eco-85 Hunter's Run Golf". Cleared. Located in Hunters Run development. Cleared and abandoned Florida Scrub; a few oaks and herbaceous plants remain. South of County site "Eco-29 Seacrest Scrub". Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub, previously cleared strips. heavily re-grown with vines. Near County site "Eeo 29 W Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 1. Florida Scrub and ecotone with Pine Flatwoods. County site "&0 29 Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 12. Mangrove about 2 acres; 8 acres grassy ruderal; more than 1{1. developed. Beach and Strand (ocean face of dune) with expected species; dune back is landscaped, rates "0". Preservation of the Beach and Strand ecosystems in their native state as far as this remains is recommended, as it is the only such site in the City. Sea oats and sea grape are protected by state law. Endangered species total 1. Mangrove with about I acre disturbed. (Aerials overlap; site appears on section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove having western border of disturbed Swamp with intermixed ornamental exotics. (Aerials overlap; site appears on section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove: site proposed for CARL acquisition Mangrove protection law. Mature planting of Lropical ornamentals. Former horticultural garden under developmenL Disturbed Florida Scrub, cleared grassy ruderal west of Federal Hwy; cleared east of highway. Cleared. Approved for Bond Open Space purchase. Not in City; withdrawn from inventory. Cleared and partially regenerating Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-35 Boynton 20 Ave-l St". Rated "B" due to endangered species, otherwise much disturbed. Endangered species total 7. Disturbed Florida Scrub. County site "Ee0-29 N Boynton Water Tower". Endangered species lists - 2 species. Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-36 c Rosemary Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Abandoned mango grove and disturbed Florida Scrub. Abandoned mango grove. Area or secondary growth of black and white mangroves due to tidal flooding and deposition. Bounded or traversed by roadways, little apparent tidal flushing. A A o C X B B A D o B -24- - j€' -' ATTACHMENT "E" (Comment 011 Environmental Assessment) -/9-