REVIEW COMMENTS
I
-,t. I
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 94-024
FROM:
J. Scott Miller
::::r:a:~g::Yden~/~~)
Acting Planning & oning Director
TO:
DATE: January 18, 1994
SUBJECT: City Response to Palm Beach County Regarding Density
Bonus Proposal for Loos Property
As directed by Carrie Parker, I have attached a letter prepared by
Michael Rumpf for your signature, if acceptable, that responds to
Palm Beach County's request for City comments regarding a density
bonus proposal for the Loos property. In July of 1993, the city
commission denied an annexation and land use amendment/rezoning
application for this property located on Congress Avenue, south of
::;il ver Lake Estates. Due to the City 1 S denial of Mr. Loos I
application, Mr. Loos is petitioning Palm Beach County for a
development order.
I relayed to Carrie that Commissioner Katz had asked that he be
copied on this response to the County. Since the response
represents a City position, Carrie advised me to draft the letter
for your signature, to include all the commissioners on the xerox
copy list.
please advise.
TJH:frb
Attachment
xc: Mike Rumpf.
A:94-024.frb
~,": /,1 1 9 .I1f"o.4"\. ~
" ; \ j '",; -,"
loJ....... !
.f"I-'
~t'~!it,.,~. ""~ '.J'vlj~
%e City of
'Boynton 'Beach
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadt. 'Bouf.e.vara
P.O. 'Bo'(310
'Boynton 'Bead:", ~CorUfa 33425-0310
City 1faf[: (407) 375-6000
~5U: (407) 375-6090
January 18, 1994
Mr. Howard Tupper, Senior Planner
Palm Beach County Planning Div1sion
800 13th Street, P.B.I.A.
West Palm Beach, Fl 33406
RE: Gemstar Homes Voluntary Density Bonus Proposal (No. 1058.1)
For the Loos Property
Dear Mr. Tupper:
Comments relative to the above referenced request could address two
issues. The first, and principle issue is whether the applicant
should be submitting applications to Palm Beach County and not the
City of Boynton Beach and, the second regards the appropriateness
of the ultimate density allowed on the subject property as would be
granted by the voluntary density bonus program. Although I feel
the former issue is the only one to address at this time, I will
include some general comments relative to their proposal in case
such comments are pertinent to your analysis.
As you are aware, the Loos property is unquestionably a contiguous,
unincorporated pocket, located wi thin the City's Annexation Program
area. In addition to being coterminous on three sides of the
subject property, access to this enclave is only through the City
of Boynton Beach. Along with all other enclaves within the
Annexation Program area, the City desires to have this enclave
annexed and designated with a land use classification which is
either consistent with the City's Future Land Use Map, or
compatible with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, since the
applicant must attain an agreement for water service with the City
prior to receiving development approval, which also serves as an
agreement for annexaion, the City has established a means for
annexing this property. Therefore, despite the City's denial of
the previous requests on the subject property, the City does not
feel that it is an option of this applicant to circumvent the
City's Comprehensive Plan and review process by submitting
applications to Palm Beach County.
~merica 's (jateway to the (julfstream
TO: Mr. Howard Tupper
-2-
J an . 18, 1 9 9 4
with respect to the development proposal, it is my understanding
that, if approved, the voluntary density bonus program would allow
the subject property to be developed at a maximum density of 6.63
dwelling units per acre (assuming that your recalculation of award
is acceptable to the applicant). Given that this represents only
a decrease of 0.63 dwelling units per acre below the density which
was last requested for this property (and denied by the City
Commission), and given that the City Commission based their
objection, in part, on the incompatibility with an adjacent
residential development (which has an approximate density of 3
dwelling units per acre), the City Commission would likely oppose
this new request. Although this is only an assumption based on
speculation, I am confident that the City Commission desires to
have this enclave annexed, and review any related development
proposals.
I believe I have adequately responded to your request; however, if
additional information is needed, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
J. SCOTT MILLER
City Manager
TJH: frb
XC: City Commissioners
Tambri J. Heyden, Acting Planning & Zoning Director
A:Gemstar.frb
Board of County Commissioners
Mary McCarty, Chair
Ken L. Foster, Vice Chairman
Karen T. Marcus
Carol A. Roberts
Warren H. Newell
Burt Aaronson
Maude Ford Lee
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
Department of Planning, Zoning & Building
Department
;'@~owrn
00
33425
f;,I,,,:,.."r~.
(l ~
; I p j
iUU
I
RE:
,Gems tar Homes Proposed Development
Dear Mike,
I am enclosing a copy of the Gemstar Homes proposal to develop 156
single-family residences on property that is within the city of
Boynton Beach annexation area. Although the site is only 18.69
acres, and has a land use designation of Medium Residential-5,
therefore with an entitlement density of 4 units per acre, or 74
dwelling units, nevertheless, the property may qualify for a
Voluntary Density Bonus Program (VDBP) award. Such an award can
authorize up to one hundred percent increase in density beyond the
entitlement.
A copy of the Unified Land Development Code, Section 6.9, is also
enclosed for your information. You will note that the "payment in-
lieu-of construction" allows up to sixty-eight percent increase in
density through an in-lieu payment to the Housing Trust Fund (see
p 6-421, sub-paragraph 2). The applicant is pursuing this option,
paying an equivalent amount into the trust fund for affordable
housing to be built elsewhere in the county, and seeks approval for
a total of 156 single-family, zero-lot line units.
Since the property area is less than the 20-acre minimum, and the
entitlement density of 74 units is below the 100-unit threshold
requirement for a planned development district designation
(reference is the ULDC, Table 6.8-4), the corrected calculation of
the maximum number of allowable units is 18.69 acres X 4 units per
acre = 74.76, and 74 units X 1.67 for a VDBP award = 124 total
allowable units. This would be a density of 6.63 units.
We note that this property was the subj ect of an annexation
petition which was subsequently denied by the city. The record of
that hearing indicates that the proposed density of 7.26 units per
acre was deemed to be incompatible with the surrounding
communities. This new proposal is for a lower density.
The question concerning annexation remains. It is likely that the
Boynton Beach Water utilities Department will require a voluntary
agreement to annex in exchange for a concurrency approval. If so,
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
@ printed on recycled paper
800 13th Street, PBIA West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (407) 233-5300
Rumpf/page 2
then would it be appropriate for the county to process a Voluntary
Density Bonus award, authorizing a density of 6.63 units per acre
on property that would subsequently be annexed and which might be
incompatible with the surrounding area?
The county staff would appreciate receiving the comments of the
city planning staff concerning this proposal, before we respond to
the applicant.
7~ZS'
Howard Tupper, senior planner
pc: Orran Hudson, principal planner
File:\hmt\wpdata\vdbp.1
Enclosures
Klldey & Aaoclet..
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(4071 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
October 25, 1993
Mr. Howard Tupper, Senior Planner
Palm Beach County Planning Division
800 13th Street, P.B.I.A.
West Palm Beach, Fl 33406
RE: Gemstar Homes Voluntary Density Bonus Project
Our Project i: 1058.1
Dear Mr. Tupper:
Thank you for taking time to meet with me on October 21, 1993 to
discuss the Voluntary Density Bonus program and process. As
requested and pursuant to section 6.9.G.1. Voluntary Densitv Bonus
of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), please find attached
a complete application for the Voluntary Density Bonus Program.
For your information, the subject parcel of land is 18.69 acres in
size and located on the west side of Congress Avenue approximately
0.5 miles south of Golf Road. The property is owned by John T.
Loos, the property control no. is 00-43-45-31-00-000-504.0 and a
legal description is included on the "sketch of survey" which is
attached with this application. As indicated in the application,
the adopted land use designation for the subject property is MR-5
and the property is currently zoned AR-Agricultural Residential.
Using the Voluntary Density Bonus (VDB) provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and ULDC, the applicant is requesting a 67%
increase in permitted density (i.e. up to 8.35 d.u./ac.). In other
words the project is to consist of up to 156 single-family, zero-
lot-line units.
As you know, the VDB Program is designed to assist in the
construction of very low and low income housing in Palm Beach
County. The incentive is an increase in permitted density (a
density bonus) for a specific development in exchange for either:
(1) the construction of very lowlor low income housing on-site or
off-site; (2) a payment in-lieu-of construction into the Housing
Trust Fund; or (3) a combination of construction and an in-lieu
payment. At this time, the applicant proposes to proceed with the
payment in-lieu-of construction option. As previously mentioned,
~_._---~_..~_._-"..-
Mr. Howard Tupper
October 25, 1993
Page 2
I have included a "sketch of survey" of the land proposed for
development, and a site development plan will be submitted when an
application for development approval is submitted to Palm Beach
County. Also, for your reference, the last recorded warranty deed
is attached, showing proof of ownership, the legal description and
proof that the lot has been in it's current configuration since
August 1, 1987.
with regard to existing utilities on the parcel and provisions for
water and sanitary sewer service, the "sketch of survey" does not
indicate any existing public or private utility easements, however,
the property is located within the City of Boynton Beach service
area for water and sewer service. In fact, a 36-inch force main
flowing to the north exists in the westerly right-of-way of
Congress Avenue adjacent to the site. As shown on the survey, a
City of Boynton Beach utility Department lift station is located
adjacent to the subject property north property line in the south
east corner of Silverlakes Estates. A 16-inch water main is also
located in the westerly right-of-way of Congress Avenue adjacent to
the property.
In summary, the existing lift station should be adequate to serve
the proposed development under the requested density. An
engineering analysis of the existing pumps and flow rates should be
performed during the design process to determine if an increased
pump size or other modifications to the lift station are required.
The existing water capacity also should be adequate to provide
water service to the proposed development under the requested
density. For your reference, I have attached a copy of a City of
Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum (#93-132)
dated July 8, 1993, from the City's Senior Planner. Page 6 of this
memo states that "sufficient capacity exists to serve this
property" with water and sewer. The project subject to this
petition is only requesting twenty units more than that included in
a recent annexation application to the City of Boynton Beach (more
on this issue later).
wi th regard to previous development orders approved for this
parcel, there are none. However, this parcel was the subject of a
site Specific Land Use Plan Amendment application for
unincorporated Palm Beach County (Case No. 95 RES 1) in 1991-1992.
This application, however, was withdrawn by the applicant prior to
review by the Board of County Commissioners for approval to
transmit the request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) . The application was withdrawn due to several reasons,
including environmental wetland concerns raised by the County
Department of Environmental Resouce Management (ERM), and,
according to the County's staff report, "approval of the future
land use map amendment would discourage annexation and the cost
Mr. Howard Tupper
October 25, 1993
Page 3
effective and efficient delivery of public services."
Subsequently, the property owner had a detailed Environmental
Assessment prepared to respond to future concerns. In doing so,
data was reviewed by (ERM) and it was determined that the subject
property is not located on the Environmentally Sensitive Lands
maps. Additionally, it was determined that the property was not
located within any established "zones", (cones of influence) around
public water supply groundwater wells and therefore would be exempt
from the wellfield protection ordinance. In summary, the
assessment's conclusion stated that the site is undergoing an
environmental habitat value degradation due to encroachment of
exotic plant species and oxidation of muck soils among other
reasons. Furthermore, any proposed development activities would
include site evaluations by various regulatory agencies which in
turn would determine the site environmental habitat quality and
quantity characteristics. Additionally, site development plans
will be reviewed to ensure environmental habitat value under
existing conditions would be comparable or exceeded under a
developed situation. with regard to the concerns raised by County
staff pertaining to the land use amendment, the property owner made
application to annex into the City of Boynton Beach.
Although the County Staff report for application No. 95 RES 1
reflects no comments received from the City of Boynton Beach or the
Village of Golf, comments from the City of Boynton Beach were
ultimately received stating that this parcel, located in a "City
Planning Area", should be annexed and placed in their low density
residential land use category. The City further stated that the
property, "should generally be limited to single family detached
dwellings." In fact, the County Planning, Zoning and Building
Department recommended that the property owner be advised to
investigate the possibility of being annexed into the City of
Boynton Beach. The proposed Future Land Use for this application
was HR-8. , and County Staff's "Professional Opinions or
Conclusions" stated that, "both the subject property's future land
use designation and proposed future land use designation are
compatible with the surrounding future land uses."
In response to the issues raised during the amendment process
regarding annexation, the property owner filed a petition for
annexation into the City of Boynton Beach. During the application
review process, City staff supported the projects's request for a
gross density of 7.26 du/ac., pursuant to City R-l zoning to allow
single family detached dwellings. In fact, the staff report
prepared by the City Planning Department recommended approval of
all requests based on numerous findings including the fact that
"the proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and, would
not effect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties."
Mr. Howard Tupper
October 25, 1993
Page 4
Additionally, from an assessment and a field visit made by the
City's Forester/Environmentalist, the site was determined not to be
environmentally sensitive (see attached memo #93-132). Due to
neighborhood opposit:i.on from the Silverlake Estates development
this petition was denied by the City Commission on July 21, 1993.
In response to additional documentation required by the VDB
application on page 2 of 6, A., B., C., are not applicable since
the property owner has opted for the payment in-lieu of
construction. The proposed development, in response to item D. on
page 3 of 6, is located within the Urban Service Area (this
property is designated MR-5, an urban land use category). with
regard to item E., the total density (permitted and bonus) of the
development will neither exceed 100 percent of permitted density
nor 18 units per acre. The proposed development is requesting a 67
percent increase in permitted density which equates to 8.35
d.u./ac. with regard to item F., the proposed development will
promote the Housing Element policy encouraging the equitable
dispersal of lower income housing by providing a monitary
contribution into the Housing Trust Fund which allows the County to
construct lower income housing opportunities in areas needing of
affordable housing.
Should this project proceed as planned, we are aware that the
General Application submittal will require Threshold Review and a
certificate of Concurrency Reservation prior to Development Review
Committee approval. We have had a Traffic Statement prepared for
this site very recently and there appears to be no Concurrency
problems at this time.
Because this petition proposes to provide a payment-in-lieu
contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, we are not responding to
the standards established for VDB projects such as availability of
mass transit, commercial and employment opportunities, integration
of unit types within the development, and income distribution
within the development. We have investigated these standards in
our research, however, because this project is not providing the
affordable units on site, these standards are not applicable.
For your use, attached please find EXHIBITS A & B. EXHIBIT A
pertains to an analysis of surrounding land use categories, zoning
districts, and developed densities/unit types/intensity. EXHIBIT
B is an analysis of the Payment-In-Lieu of calculations based on
the 1992 Palm Beach County Regular Real Property Tax Roll.
In summary, the petitioner has addressed the environmental issues
pertaining to the property and has proceded in good faith to follow
recommendations made by both Palm Beach County and the City of
Boynton Beach. Due to the denial for annexation by the City of
Boynton Beach, and in accordance with the previous County staff
Mr. Howard Tupper
October 25, 1993
Page 5
recommendation, the property owner respectfully requests the
increased density through the Voluntary Density Bonus Program.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
C7{.J. dY/C//) / l-e-,tt" -'--
/' ,'_ 'x2 _ , ' r, )
</" /! Ii ' - ( . ,(- d __ :L-
Lindsey A. Walter
LAW/rnun
cc: Jack Loos, DI-Mar Properties
George McArdle, Gemstar Homes, Inc.
EXHIBIT "A"
ANALYSIS OF SURROUNDING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS,
ZONING AND DENSITIES
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
ZONING
1.
2.
3.
4.
North
South
East
West
North
South
East
West
DENSITY
North
1.
2.
South
3.
East
4.
West
BOYNTON BEACH - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(MAXIMUM 4.84 DUlAC)
BOYNTON BEACH - LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL AND
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(MAXIMUM 10.8 DUlAC)
BOYNTON BEACH - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(MAXIMUM 10.8 DUlAC)
PALM BEACH COUNTY - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 5
(MAXIMUM 5 DUlAC WITH A PUD)
PUD (BOYNTON BEACH)
C-3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND R-3 MULTI-FAMILY
(BOYNTON BEACH)
R-3 MULTI-FAMILY (BOYNTON BEACH)
AR - AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL
(PALM BEACH COUNTY)
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (3.5 DUlAC)
EXISTING ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY (30
BEDS/AC.) AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES
(4.0 DUlAC)
EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES (ACROSS
CONGRESS AVENUE) (10.28 DUlAC)
VACANT
EXHIBIT "B"
PAYMENT IN-LIEU OF CONSTRUCTION CALCULATIONS
* Appraised Value of Loos Property:
Acreage of Loos Property:
Appraised Value of Loos Property
per acre:
$432,720.00
18.69 Acres
$23,152.49
Number of units permitted at current
Land Use Designation MR-5:
93
Number of Units permitted at 67%
increase of MR-5:
Number of Units increase:
156
63
Number of Acres necessary to build 63
units at MR-5:
12.6 Acres
Payment in-lieu of Construction:
$23,152.49 * l2.6 ac
= $291,721.33
* Based on attached 1992 Palm Beach County Real
Property Tax Roll
LAW/cdd\aexhibit.025
.,.""f........l> ','
.; ,".
PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION; 800 13 STREET, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406
Application for the Voluntary Density Bonus Program
Reference is to the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development
Code, Section 6.9. Pursuant to this regulation, the following is
the application for requesting an increase in permitted density for
a proposed project. Please complete the following items which
pertain to your proposed development.
John T. Loos, a married man
Name of property owner. P.O. Box 399. Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33302 305/525-5222
Name of agent Kieran J. Kildav/Kildav & Associates. Inc.
Address of agent 1551 Forum P1 ace. 81 dg. 100A
Wfl "t Pa 1 m Rflfla r:h, FI 33401
Proposed project description See attached
Telephone 407/689- 5522
A congregate living facility is to be included:
yes
no l
The proposed development units are to be rentals:
yes
no ..!-
Select the option(s) that is/are intended for this project:
The construction of very low and/or low income housing on
site;
The construction of very low and/or low income housing
off site;
JL A payment in lieu of construction, into the Housing Trust
Fund;
A combination of construction and an in-lieu payment.
The land use designation is
MR5
Atlas sheet # 95
The permitted density (units or beds per acre) is 5 du/ac (as a PUD)
The bonus density (units or beds per acre) will be 3.35 du/ac
'l'he proposed density (permitted + bonus) will be R 15 cill/ar:
The % increase in density (bonus / permitted) will be 67%
A. If the percent increase in density is up to or equal to
67%, then indicate which of the following is applicable,
otherwise go to "B." below:
~----~._._--
VDBP Application Form / Page 2 of 6
The required 20 percent of the total units that are
affordable units is to be constructed on site;
'l'he required 20 percent of the total units that are
affordable units is to be constructed on a site approved
by the Planning Director;
X- The required affordable units will not be constructed,
but an in-lieu payment will be made to the Housing Trust
Fund;
Some of the required 20 percent of the total units that
are affordable units is to be constructed on site, or
another site approved by the Planning Director, and an,
in-lieu payment is to be made to the Housing Trust Fund
for the remaining required units;
The CLF total. beds will include 20 percent for residents
who qualify as having very low income.
B. If the percent increase in density is more than 67 %,
then indicate which of the following is applicable:
The very low and/or low income for-sale housing units are
to be constructed on site;
The very low and low income rentals will be constructed
on site, and:l0 percent will be very low income units.
The CLF total~beds will include 20 percent for residents
who qualify as having very low income.
Please attach documentation, including written statements, to
demonstrate that your, proposed project will comply with the
following standards established by the Board of County
Commissioners and which will be taken into consideration for
awarding bonus density under the VDB program:
N/ A A .
That the very low/or low income housing shall not be
concentrated within one area of the development or one
neighborhood 'but rather shall be distributed and
integrated throughout the development or area.
N/A B.
That the very low and/or
not differ materially in
area options to the
development.
low income housing units will
their variety of bedroom and
remainder of the proposed
N/A C.
That the development shall be within 3/4 mile, or a
fifteen minute walk, of a mass transit stop, or a
commercial and employment center which offers varied
shopping and pharmaceutical service for the intended
VDBP Application Form / Page 3 of 6
residents of the proposed development.
D. The proposed development is to be built within the Urban
Service Area.
E. The total density (permitted and bonus) of the
development will neither exceed one hundred percent of
the permitted density nor 18 units per acre. CLF's will
not exceed 75 percent of the permitted standard density
of the existing land use designation nor 45 beds per
acre.
F. That the proposed development promotes the Housing
Element policy encouraging the equitable dispersal of
lower income housing within the community.
Please include the items indicated on the attached list of the
contents of the "General Application" submittal required for the
development application (identified in Article 5.3 of the Unified
Land Development Code). "
I agree and certify that no occupants of units of very low and/or
low income housing constructed pursuant to this VDB program shall
be subject to restrictions beyond the income qualifications as'
defined in the Palm Beach County comprehensive Plan. Furthermore,
I agree and certify that I will document in the public record a
guarantee, in a manner acceptable to the county attorney, that the
household(s), upon entry to the unites), shall meet the definition
of very low or low households as specified in the comprehensive
plan Housing Element. ~'
Signature of the applicant,_///"u.x>a-
leran 1 nc.
Date of application October 22, 1993
Attachment: List of contents of the "General Application" for
development approval.
Note: Please submit the ,completed application to the Comprehensive
pianning Section of the Planning Division at your earliest
convenience. For assistance in its completion, call (407)-233-5361
or 233-5335.
VDBPFORM/12-92/hmt
...,. "" .
'-' ,-' '" ','
.., ,.., , ,.. ..' <.'
..J r 0- ,~' .. ~ } .. . l. "
~
0 0 C- O
0 <:> <:> Q
'" ....'" N I
... ....t- .. co ....
0 .... 0 .. N~ ,.. ,...... '"
~ to .... ..'" '" ,.. :)
~ .,... N tI' "'... ~ ~A
0'" .. 0'" oD N ....... r ....
-. 00 r ,.,
.... N
.~ NN r r ,- .. 3$ Ii
~ '"
"" .... )()( ",,,, x'" xl<
L:I )( ",<< ",<< <<'" '" <<
C 4:' ...... J 0-0- J 0- ... J ..... J
.. -; << << << <<
"x .. ,,::r. .. ... XX .. 0- X 1 .. 0-
W... 0 W'" .. 0 ...... 0 ...... .. 0 3 tv
~'" ... ~... J .. ~... ... .. ~... ... ..
~ ,.,0 ,.,0 ... ,..,0 ... ....0 .,..
"..... "..... .. "..., .. ".", ..
" ..0 ..0 .. ..0 .. ..0 .. 1};
'" . r'" r'" ... r>ll ... r'" ...
c ;
~ ".". ".". ".", ".",
.... ~ ~
tI' tI' -' ... ... .... tI'tI' 0 0 00 0 0 00
N N NN ... ... ...r- N N NN 0 0 00
-~ N N NN ,.. ... ...t- 0 0 ::>0 . :*
N N NN 0 0 00
0 N ... ,.. ,.,... N N NN
I N NN r ~ r r G
'"",..
lOW
,~ l' ""
,. ,;~ ' ... JJ .,. JJ .,~.l JJ oil .....
~ '-,:y ~ <<<< " ..<< Cc " c.
.,J ,..", .,J ,..", ,..", .,.. ,..",
.,...c .,..... ., ... C
D Jt.....- &X x..... ,,1 & _...'~ ,,1 X..... "S
u c:lO ...... c~O ",V c =,0" ....... c :lO "'....
,i' ......... ~.,. ..J~" ~... .....," ...- ...-'" <:#-
:r: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ;~~ ,~.( 0 0 0 0
IJ 0 0 0 0 _ i" .~. 0 0 0
1& lU ~ So >' oJ '" )< ... '" ....~ ... '" ... ...
~ ... .." ...... ...
0 _Ill 0 OX tI' ...X ,.. ... N
t: '%' " 0 U 0 au 0 0 .-
..J ' \ .....,......... ~ .,. 0 ". r
c II, .J" :r: ,10 0 rOO r
,.. el ~ _N ,N ,
1- O~III'" .. . .. .. ..
1.... "',"'" 31'" ..
,~ tU....ca. '" ... '" .
:It";S ,.. ... '" "'.... -,... :It 0 0
~\ ~ ...... ...:It'" . 0
lit O. 0 0 N ... "tI" ... ..
... .J"or- 0 '" oo..tI" 0 .
0...... 0 rr ~ ~
\!\ oc..."''' " . N o. N'. ..
... :l0-'" -'" .. ".,... ,...
~ .....c:t ..0 0 .- 0 .- 0
... ...f" 101'" .,... ...
..J :r: ... .J'" .,..,. .,..,.... "",
~ ...",0 o- W ". III 10 ...
.. "r- .. -... . _...0. -... .. ...
.... ........ ....- f"\-. CO'O 0
~ ~\ ,.......0. ". .. ". .. r .. 0
.. ,.. . r )- , rW" ~,..
.....It)olt tI'" tI" '. .,....
loC'l ~ ......101 ,.~_\al.I r' .... ".-...
t)oo....'" ..J . :It.J , ... . ... .
\ ~\ -...... .,.e _w'c _w2C ..os. ..
...:11.".'" CO''''.''' ...",.'" ...",,,, 0
>II '" N ."
... N 0 N
r r f"\ ".
... '" M ". ... ... c CO' 0
M .. ... ... .... 0 ... "" 0
I- ..
e '6.' fI' . .- .,.
u
!"'- '", ...
0, ,.. . . u
,% ... III ..
. '~ .. ,..
c ... c .
~ - .. .J ... ... '" .. ..
~ OU ... "'... ... .....
.:It W'" \Iji!\~,. .U ...
~ - ..... :r: wS S ..
jOlU ".u
'V ""lIt.e c"e ...:r:u
,.,., u'" w ",It"" ......e ...
4''''' 401"'..... :l0" ...... '"
...-. ell
o :c~. ...e..J ",u Q ...
. olt It :a1t ..
-- ~'" ",uO ..",0 ,..".0
D'~, ..J. ... '" :l ... '" ... ... .,. ..
..."",,,,,It ... ......, ... ~_It ... .-
O,~ c&"'''' " :IN'" . ...,..", II. C
:l:llr-O ... 01"'l0 V cli'O V :l
...10 ool"'l- oil. "'_.. C .N" oil. c:t
u..4 0 0 0
'T B~
0 '" lI'
u..1llC ... '" 0 ...
0'% 0 .,.
0 M ... 41'
0 ... :r 0 :r
UJ~ 0 ... 0 ...
:r . r 0
0 "" o '" , r
....... 0 r o r '" 0 ." r
<(0 ... . ".. r 0 r 0
;, ". N ". N - 0
....... 0 .... N ;, 0 N
0 '" 0 0 I"'l
"'~ .,. .,. .,. tI'
<I r r t' r tI"
'. Z v ~, '.' r
.... " .... " ...
r 0. f"\ , I"'l '- '"
1 0. ~ .. , 0.
r
0 <> 0 c-
o 0 0
~ 1'.' 0 0
'\ ""-
~---~- .~~------------
/f
/'
I
t
.,
INCOME CATEGORY OF HOUSING IN TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS:
CATEGORY VERY LOW: LOW: MODERATE: HIGH: TOTALS:
Rental 2,617 4,926 1,383 --- 8,926
Percent R: 29% 55% 16% 0% 25%
Owner 1,985 8,726 6,385 5,615 22,'711
Percent 0: 9% 38% 28% 25% 75%
TOTAL: 4,602 13,652 7,768 5,615 1,637
14.5% 43.2% 24.6% 17.7% 100%
Methodology for Category Assignment - Note, all data based on 50%, 80%, 80-
120%, and > 120% of 82.3 (2.5 persons oer household) percent of median income
of $43,100 and the Rental and Owner occupied datebase prepared by the
Planning Division.
.
1. Rental: (a) very low rent category was established at "less than $449" (50% of
median rent is $431.25), however, 67% of the $400 to $449 bracket in the IIRental
Occupied Housing Units by specified rent, Palm Beach County, 1990, table went
to Very Low income category and 33% went to the Low income category;
(b) low and moderate rental category break is $650 to $699 - 80% of
moderate income rent is $690.00 - housing units in this category are split with
80% of the $650 to $699 bracket, per the above referenced table, going to Low
income category and 20% going to the Moderate income category;
(c) Moderate rental category starts at the 80%/20% split of the $650 to
$699 bracket;
(d) assumed to be no high income units due to lack of any information
in database for price of units above $1,000 (high rental category reaches $1035);
2. Owner: (a) Very low and low category break is established at less than $60K-
(50% of median for sale price is $53,875); however, 33% of the $50K to $60K
bracket per the "Specified Owner Occupied Housing Units by value of unit, Palm
Beach County, 199011 table, went to the very low income category and 67% went
to the low income category.
(b) Low and moderate income break is within the $75K to $100 K (60% of
median income is $86,200); however, 50% of the $75K to $100K bracket went to
the low income category and 50% to the moderate income categtory.
(c) The moderate/high income break is within the $125K to $150 K
category because 120% of the high income owner is $129,300; 20% of this $125K
to $150K bracket went to mederate income category while 80% went to the nigh
income category.
* based on total number of rental units and total number of owner occupied units
expressed in a percentage of the total number of housing units within the tract.
.
RENTAL.NFO
-
00
+-'
.c
:J
0)
en C
'00 .00
.~ 6
C I
<( (i)-g
o 0.-
+-,00.
c) .-I :J
a>-C)
C/)ooc)
ooa>O
a>E-
EOsg
cI C
:J "- a:a>
tro
OUi-o
o.EC
ga>ro
0) <!J -g
C .-
._ 0.
00 :J
:J c)
o c)
I 0
_lU
ro+-'
+-,c
o a>
I-a:
ro ..
'E.c
a> .Ql
a:I
_I...:
ro a>
'E-o
a> 0
a:~
ro
E~
a> 0
CI:.-I
>
ro
C ~
0> 0
CI:.-I
I...:
-0>
ro c
~~
L-
a> ..
c.c
3: .Ql
OI
L- I...:
a> a>
c-o
3: 0
02
"-
a> L-
C a>
~ ~ ~
oS
>
L-
a>
C ..
3: 3:
oS
I
0...
0...
10
10
<0
gJ
...-
...-
~
~
C\I
00
C')
r-
10
C')
C\I
'"
C\I
<0
C\I
...-
10
ro
'"
C\I
C\i
~
C\I
<0
...-
C\I
C\I
(j)
o
...-
...-
10
.;t
C\I
...-
C\I
C')
...-
C')
'"
...-
00
C\I
00
(j)
.;t
C\I
~
10
10
C')
<0
...-
v
V
<0
<0
10
,.-
'"
00
,.-
(j)
(J)
o
C\i
10
00
~
C\I
.;t
C')
V
<0
(J)
'"
~
C\I
10
C\I
C\I
00
C\I
C')
(J)
10
C\i
<0
~
C')
,.-
,.-
(J)
C')
C')
.;t
C')
'"
C')
C\I
..-
LO
V
LO
00
~
10
(J)
..-
(J)
LO
o
C\i
'"
"""
C\I
..-
o
..-
LO
C\I
M
o
C\I
..-
<0
v
00
'"
LO
,.-
...-
~
...-
o
'"
..-
...-
C')
M
...-
...-
<0
C\l
~
C\l
..-
C\l
.....
...-
v
o
LO
C\l
'"
10
(J)
10
co
(J)
...-
o '"
'" 0
C\I ...-
10
(J)
...-
M
LO
gj
...-
LO
0>
co
00
<0
...-
M
o
~
0> ...-
v 00 0
...- ..- C\l
00
":
..-
(J)
..-
00
'"
..-
10
00
<0
..-
C\I
C')
o
v
M
C\I
C')
..-
.....
<0
'"
..-
~
C')
M
C\I
...-
v
0>
...-
00
C\I
00
LO
V
...-
o
00
C\I
(J)
~
0>
'"
<0
o
M
C\i
o
.;t
co
C')
o
..-
10
C\I
10
C\I
...-
<0
LO
0>
..-
co
<0
...-
or-
LO
'"
M
.;t
o
v
or-
..-
C\I
o
C\i
C')
M
..-
C')
C\I
v
(J)
<0
..-
ro
LO
C')
..-
<0
C\I
.....
..-
l{)
l{)
~
<0
C')
C')
v
..-
C\i
10
0>
<0
10
C\I
0>
0>
...-
...-
t;
'"
<0
<0
...-
'"
v
'"
~
C\l
10
'"
C\I
'"
0>
C\i
N
~
00
00
C\I
.;t
or-
"""
C\I
C\I
<0
C\I
v
00
.....
<0
LO
,.-
00
00
~
o ro
00 ~
10
M
00
L-
g
~
'"
,.-
,.-
LO
,.-
iij
+:i
C
Q"-
ooW
~~
,.- (i) 0...
<0 0
.9
:=..
m
E
~~
L-
ro
Ui
E
~
C')
C\I
00
o
C\I
(J)
,.-
LO
C')
(J)
,.-
C\I
,.-
v
C'J
C\l
CO
T'""
ro . . 0> <0 ~ '" M '" LO 00 '" LO 0> 10 00 C\I
0. 00 0 C') !;;t ,.- 0 0 M LO LO <0 ,.- '" 0>
+-' M C\I 0 0 LO 0> 00 r.... r.... M r....
o 0 ,.- 0> ,.-
1-0... <0 C\f ..f M- LO 00 10 C') C') to <0 C') v- C') ,.-
00
:J .i-l M V 10 <0 ~ 00 0> C\I C') .;t LO C\I
00 ,.- ,.-
C ~ 0 0 0 0 q 0 ,.- 0 0 0 0 q 0 0
a> "- <ri <ri ex> 0) (J) (J) 0) 0) 0 d d d ,.- C\i C\i
Ul- 10 10 10 l{) LO l{) t.O t.O <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0
E
L-
'+-:
..-
a:
o
I-
U
W
(f)
_ro
ro.....
..... C 10
o a> t--.
I- c: (\J
ro ..
..... ..c
Co>
a>.-
C:I
_t.:
ro a>
....."0
C 0
~~
ro
c~
a> 0
C:-!
>
ro
c~
a> 0
c:-!
t.:
_a>
ro c
.....3:
~o
L-
a> ..
c..c
~:f
L.. t.:
a> Q)
C"O
3:0
o~
L-
a>
c ..
3: 3:
oS
>
L-
Q)
c ..
~~
T""
T""
~
T""
T""
(\J
T""
0>
C')
T""
v
10
(\J
C')
t--.
t--.
C')
T""
o
C')
(\J
C')
~
T""
T""
(\J
T""
CD
0>
o
T""
V
10
T""
C')
T""
V
o
0>
V
0>
C')
V
(\J T"" t--.
ro T"" 0>
10
C\J
CD
C')
T""
(\J
(\J
t--.
0>
10
~
~
C')
o
ro
T""
10
T""
T""
(\J
T""
ro
(\J
T""
C')
I'
10
C')
T""
V
C\J
T""
CD
o
0>
ro
o
T""
C')
C')
t--.
10
t--.
o
10
0>
V
ro
C')
C')
(\J
o
C')
10
C')
o
T""
(\J
~
CD
~
(\J
C')
ro
T""
CD
o
C')
V
t--.
CD
V
ro
T""
T""
10
o
~
V
T""
C')
o
C\J
C')
C')
C\J
o
T""
(\J
V
o
C')
o
(\J
T""
CD
10
V
CD
10
(\J
t--.
(\J
(\J
T""
10
(\J
T""
T""
(\J
C')
C')
o
~
0>
C')
C')
V
T""
ro
(\J
C')
CD
o
T""
C\J
(\J
(\J
10
0>
C')
(\J
~
C')
t--.
T""
CD
I'
T""
~
T""
0>
T""
t--.
ro
V
C')
o
CD
10
C')
ro
I'
T""
T""
o
0>
T""
o
t--.
T""
(\J 0
o T""
ro C')
C')
T""
V
10
C')
10
~
V
o
10
0>
10
CD
ro
T""
(\J
(\J
T""
(\J
o
T""
C\J
V
T""
ro
10
T""
C')
t--.
V
V
V
(\J
CD
C')
(\J
0>
o
(\J
0> T""
CD V
T"" T""
~
T""
V
. . t--.
I 10 (\J V CD 0 t--. t--. ro C') CD ~ ~ 0> t--. 0>
a.. CD T"" 10 ro V 10 CD C') 0> ~ ro CD LO
a.. T"" C\i C\i T"" C\i C\i C\i C\i C\i T"" ("'j ("'j T"" T"" CD
V
(\J
ro . . C\J ~ CD CD 0> T"" t--. V 10 0> V 10 (\J 0 0
a. ro 0 (\J t--. 10 CD 10 0 0 C') 10 C') C\j T""
..... 0_ C') 0> 0> t--. 0 T"" T"" C') t--. 0> 0> 0> LO
o 0 0
I-a.. C\J ~ (\J C\i" (\J C\i" C\i C') (\J- C') v- C\i" (\J ...-. T""
CJ)
:) (W) (\J C') V (\J LO C') (\J (W) CJ)
Cl)t T"" T"" T"" ro
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c ro C\i <ri <ri uj <ri r--.: 0> o:i o:i .....
a> L- ~ CD LO ro ro ~
01- CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD LO t--.
(\J
I'
o
ro
0>
V
o
(\J
LO
0>
10
ro
(\J
(\J
C')
C')
LO
(\J
o
(\J
t--.
C')
I'
T""
0>
T""
t--.
CD
(\J
CD
(\J
0>
ro
C')
ro
C')
T""
CD
(\J
0>
v-
CJ)
t--. en
T"" ~
CD ro
C\i"2
L-
o
.....
~ ~
gj
iij
.+:l
C
~(\J
enW
10 ~0
co - <(a..
ui -CI)-
o
.9
:=-
CI)
10 a>
ro E
C') Q
cD..L.
L-
ro
.....
CJ)
E
~ :B
ro-
10
ro
0>
T""
E
L-
-
~
o
.....
g
CJ)
Board of County Commissioners
Mary McCarty, Chair
Ken 1. Foster, Vice Chairman
Karen T. Marcus
Carol A. Roberts
Warren H. Newell
Burt Aaronson
Maude Ford Lee
j
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
Department of Planning, Zoning & Building
January 4, 1994
Michael Rumpf, senior planner
Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
RE: Gemstar Homes Proposed Development
Dear Mike,
I am responding to your telephone call during my recent vacation in
which you asked for a status report about this proposed
development. The enclosed letter from the Kilday and Associates
Agent Lindsey Walter will explain this best, I believe.
We have heard from Golf Village Administrator John Mosher. He
indicated that the proposed development is acceptable to him (and
I presume to the village residents). I will continue to keep you
informed of significant change in this application.
sincerely yours,
r
rn
senior p
00
.
Enclosure
.
File:\hmt\wpdata\vdbp.3
'\-'
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
@ printed on recycled paper
800 13th Street, PBIA West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
(407) 233-5300
. ""'.
.. -'
- ..------ -- ,----,,---------
Klldey & Assoclet..
Landscape Architects/ Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
December 29, 1993
Mr. Howard Tupper, Senior Planner
Palm Beach County Planning Division
800 13th Street, PBIA
West Palm Beach, FI 33406
Re: Gemstar Homes Voluntary Density Bonus Proposal
Our Project No.: 1058.1
Dear Mr. Tupper,
This letter shall serve as a follow up to your December 7, 1993 letter and
subsequent conservation with our office concerning the status of the above
referenced project.
At this point in time, we have provided our client with your comments and are
awaiting direction on how to proceed with the current application for the Voluntary
Density Bonus Program.
As discussed with you, several options available for this project include the
following:
1. Amend the, current application by adding land area to meet the
Planned Unit Development minimum acreage threshold of tNenty
(20) acres as set out in Table 6.8-4 of the Unified Land Development
Code. This request would still include a "payment in-lieu of
construction" for additional density.
2. Amend the current application by requesting a one hundred percent
(100%) density bonus and agreeing to construct very low and/or low
income housing on site equal to at least twenty (20) percent of the
total number of units proposed.
3. As stated in your letter, amend the current application to reflect a
sixty-seven percent (67%) density bonus above the four (4) dwelling
units per acre standard density. This would equate to 18.69 acres
x 4 units per acre = 74 x 1.67 = 124 units. This request would still
,/lot".
RECEIVED
DEe 311 11193
Mr. Howard Tupper
December 29, 1993
Page 2
include a "payment in-lieu-of construction" for additional density and
would not require affordable housing on site.
Our office will be in contact with you once a decision has been made by the
property owner on how they wish to proceed with this project. However, in the
meantime, please feel free to contact me or Kevin Ratterree if you have any
questions or require further information
,Sincerely,
0>',~doyt{ c.c-;t;1!6
Lindsey A. Walter
LAW/dmn/tupper.d29
cc: Jack Loos
George McArdle, Gemstar Homes, Inc.
Kilday & Auociatu
Landscape Architects/ Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 · Fax: (407) 689-2592
Client:~.
Project: G-.r.rJ2-~ C2--t:~..
Project No.:/cJ:50./
Date: /c?2 - / (;;, .- ,23
To:
Subject:
#L<'X2~/ ~-J ~~~ ~ ~~
~~---:nJ A-0, 4- ~~~/ ~--0'" ?,.-/95!.3
y'~Cl C/
~&/~-QJU ~U ,--<,---~;'2-C~~~~~~/ ,~~ ~d
~_ci/rl-a<)?l.c~_V ~€-/ _~<-e<:6~:? C--a~~,~
~.4_ ~/::7 Z ~A~ . // L-::~ -
~.-/ t_A=--<:~ ~ . c~-&L./cu>?te<X:/ 2'7 ~J
~L/ r~---v;Y ~ -t:~vJ- ~~u .
~~02-' /rl-<;1'--~/ ~~ ~ ~-U/~
-e"~~ ~/ 0-/ (~~ -CL~~.1 ~-
~U'J ~ ~7/C:-:5 (3-5cr:v/~)
crv ..A-/c.'?-v - ~ c-<--<~/V~.-/. ~ ~
~ ~ ~a..c~--,~ -GL-~h c~ ~~~d"~
f,~ t"". il"'. k"IiUte. .h
~l(}:~tr"IV&U
DEe 17 1993
"l
,
1':-,," ....;~; .',?i:~~} '1.nl~S.IOU
r' '{.""~..J.tj..t,'E1.~.,,, ...l~\!1! . 1.
o Phone Call
o Site Visit
o Meeting With
o
Signe~~Q. u/~
"'" "
;1
I
:~
..;
1
:J
'"
z
~
~ z
~z O~
au N<<
o
TO> 0
'N
,
~ 0
Lol 0
1Il>--
...'" ,
... , 0
000::>-0
,. >--
N az
'Ula::~O
00
IIl>-U
UlUlLl.. Oc..:t
w :rO<I:
-...JOUN
M--Ul(I:OZ
7" w:rO
l::rWCQ Z
""
;T_..J:QO
I ..JIe
-W3~~0'\
rlUlIXll..%O"'I
_M
en
,
...en
ON
,
_r-
o
I' 00 0
0:) NN 0
..... ,...,...... 0
N NN co
N MM 00
" TT N
'"
o
Q:
M
....
'"
Q:
a.
~
o
,.
o
'"
.
o
o
o
,
o
o
en
'" <X
I::
LolQ:
a:: l/}::;)U
a. 1Il~
Q.. <<<1:>->
<I :C>IX:lQ..
r-
L&J V'I V.
N T
Ul......M....
Lollll
.-'....1
OZ::l_
ZU..JQ"'l
M
wo
uo
~o
D' 0
0.0
M
"'
,.
M
T
o
o
Ill>
N
en
en
M
o
N
o
M
M
M
<..Q
OQ
UQ
Q'"
LolIXl
t-1Xl
<1:,
"'-
WI"'
<:>0
<1:'"
Q. -
'-
Lol
~
>- <I:
"''''
zen,",
:.:.......
o a
-,x::>
OQ:
U> '" ~
o
00>-
~11.'"
~'. .....
a"'
a"'
"'"'
C'l-
zo
W
:=>
~
.;[
:>
'"
If'
D'
0>
>-
U
lL
N
'"
>-
t:>
'"
)-
Lol
U
~
I>:
a.
III
>-
~
z
::>
N
Lol
:J:
>-
'"
'"
J:
>-
<:>
z:
u
~
-,
Q
Q:
z
Cl
>-
a.
It:
U
lJ"
Lol
t:>
W
ul
::I
:E:
'"
CI
~
'"
Cl
Z
LolO
::IN
__r-
Q:N
>M
,.
o
N
r-
N
M
:T
wo
UO
1>:0
11.0
o
,,.
t:>N
Q:
t-
Lol
'"
'"'
Q:
I:
(I)
>-
Z
Lol
E:
...' 0
:.., ~
::I
,
t:>z
Q:U
'" 0
UO
,",0
11.0
o
o
M
Q.U
>--"
(l)M
>- 0
zeo
::l_
J:
>-
lL
W
'"
t-
Z
o
'"'
...
'"
<I:~
zz
00
~z
>-
I1.W
~'"
",a;
ULol
Ill'"
LolU
CIa;
'"
o
'"
we.
(1)0
::I'"
~'"
'"
,
0-
zo
,
:T
o
l
Kilday & Auoclates
Landscape Architects/ Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407)689-5522 . Fax: (407) 689-2592
December 8, 1993
Ms. Dodi Glas, Manager
Commission on Affordable Housing
Division of Housing & Community Development
3323 Belvedere Road
Building 501
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Mr. Howard Tupper
Palm Beach County Planning Department
800 13th Street, P.B.I.A.
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Re: Gemstar Homes (Loos) Voluntary Density Bonus Application
Our Project No.: 1058.1
Dear Ms. Glas and Mr. Tupper,
This letter shall serve as a response to your conversation with Kevin Ratterree of
our office requesting additional documentation for the above referenced
application. Pursuant to your discussion, you requested that our office address
Section 6.9.G.5.b. and 6.9.G.5.e. of which both are standards set for Voluntary
Density Bonus application review purposes.
The first Standard, 5.b. states the following:
b. The development shall be within a 3/4 mile (fifteen (15) minute) walk
of a mass transit stop, or a commercial/employment center which
offers varied opportunities and positions for full-time employment, or
retail grocery shopping and pharmaceutical service for the residents
of the proposed development.
In response to this standard, we offer the attached letter from Palm Beach County
Co-Tran dated December 1, 1993 indicating that the proposed development will
be located within a 3/4 mile (fifteen minute walk) of a mass transit stop.
Additionally, the proposed development will be located within a 3/4 mile (fifteen
Ms. Dodi Glas
Mr. Howard Tupper
December 8, 1993
Page 2
minute walk) of the Lawson Industrial Park located to the southeast of this parcel,
Woolbright Office Plaza located to the north, South Tech Educational Center
located behind Lawson Industrial Park to the southeast and Manor Care Adult
Congregate Living Facility & Nursing Home located immediately south of the
subject parcel. All of the above existing facilities offer varied opportunities and
positions for full-time employment.
The second Standard, 5.e. states the following:
e. The application shall provide written justification of how the
proposed development promotes the Housing Element policy (2-g)
in the Comprehensive Plan which encourages the equitable
geographic distribution of affordable housing to disperse lower
income households.
In response to this standard, our office conducted a Housing Sector Analysis in
an effort to identify existing imbalances of housing opportunities within a sector
area boundaries.
This analysis was prepared using the 1990 Census Data (Census Tracts),
Population Facts (1990 Census Report) report prepared by National Decision
Systems (attached), and the STF-1A file for Specified Owner Occupied Housing
Units by Value of Unit and Rental Occupied Housing Units by specified rent
(attached for your reference) Palm Beach County 1990, which was produce,d by
the Palm Beach County Planning Division, Research and Analysis Section.
A sector is defined as a census tract(s) which lie (s) totally or in part within a three
mile radius of the proposed development. In this case, the sector(s) include
occupied database obtained from the Planning Division, STF-1A, percentages of
housing opportunities were generated for each income category of housing: The
results are attached for your reference.
As you shall see in the attached documentation, we have determined that there
is no additional need of affordable housing units when looking at a combined
rental and owner unit total. (57.7% of existing very low and low income vs. 42.3%
of existing moderate and high income category housing). However, when looking
at existing owner unit totals, we find a very small difference between existing
affordable (very low and low income) and existing moderate high income units
- Ms. Dodi Glas
Mr. Howard Tupper
December 8, 1993
Page 3
(47% vs. 53%). Therefore, because the proposed development at this time calls
for single family/owner occupied units, it can be determined that this development
will have a negligible impact on the balance of affordable and unaffordable
housing opportunities in this sector.
Our office has also conducted an inventory of the surrounding area to determine
whether the proposed development's density will be compatible with adjacent
developments. As shown on the attached Exhibit "A", there are numerous single
family and multi-family residential developments with densities ranging from
approximately 3.0 d.u./acre to the north to over 8.0 d.u./ac. to the southwest and
nearly 10.0 d.u./ac. to the east. The proposed density of 8.35 d.u./ac. falls within
the density of the immediate area and should be considered compatible with the
existing adjacent land uses.
We trust this answers any questions you may have pertaining to this petition,
however, please feel free to contact this office if you require further information.
Sincerely,
____.~ ~.. !. //L
(~:':./[.,.1"'I.<:>~L( _ (Vc.:CJC{{,)
Lindsey A. Walter
.
LAW/cdd\aglas.d03
cc: Jack Loos
George McArdle
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Project Name Total No. Total Density Approximate
of Dwelling Acreage Sales Prices
Units
1) Estates of Silverlake 169 83.0 +1- 2.9 $135,000.00
(w/o lake area)
2) Golfview Harbor Estates 147 13.6 10.8 $71,500.00
3) Townhouses of Goltview Harbor 72 6.94 10.37 $62,500.00
4) Villas of Golfview Harbor Condo 40 4.3 9.3 $62,500.00
5) Lawson Industrial Park N/A N/A N/A N/A
6) Regency Business Plaza N/A N/A N/A N/A
7) Manor Care ACLF/Nursing Home 120 (beds) 9.69 12.38 N/A
8) Palmland Villas 60 6.7 8.95 N/A
9) Chanteclair Villa Condos 156 22.68 6.87 N/A
LAW Icdd\suroundg.lu
"
~
407-23~j.1111 FAX: <107-23~l, 1140
BUILDING 5-1440. P,9,LA.. WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33406-1496 4~
>.~.;~ .),..:'~ ~ . ...~!,'~\;r~~~:t
December 1, 1993
Lir10sey A.. Walter
Kilday & Associates
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
RE: Transit Service in Proximity to Proposed Development Site
Dear Mr. Walter:
In reviewing your proposed development site off of Congress Avenue below Golf Road, CoTran
is proposing to implement transit service within 3/4 mile, more specifically, along Golf Road
to the entrance into Leisureville. I am enclosing a portion of the map of proposed service
depicting our proposed route 20, which would traverse east and west along Golf Road to the
entrance in Leisureville, then through Leisureville back out to Congress Avenue up to the
Boynton Mall. ·
The new system service design has service on various segments of Congress, but not necessarily
all of Congress Avenue in Palm Beach County. It is quite possible that the proposed system
design, once reviewed by many groups in Palm Beach County over the next six to eight months,
may bring about certain changes and recommendations that would include additional portions of
Congress Avenue, thereby bringing the service much closer to your development.
I trust the information provided above, as well as the attached proposed system map segment,
facilitates answers to your questions relative to transit near your development. Should you
require any additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
~ -----
/
,--.-
( "_' {, i (- _
'_ ..--' - .-' '..', - j . - f ~ -- -:: -i \ ,. ~ _
-, / --
Irving A. Cure
Executive Director
IAC/pw
PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. OPERATED BY FLORIDA TRANSIT MANAGEMENT. INC.
A1 W {:>.,Y
18
'0-/411
10TH 15 AVE
,i'
"
.'2
~
n::
-
~ RD
8.16
16
2
RD
~,
, '
);..:
-
~. .f,
:,;.~,
I.....
i:, .'
~.1'"
f.....
"
~ f&~
, .,..
18
!,t
Ll
~ ..
I:;
i'
f
1\
r~
i"
,
I OLBRiGHT
/
LOOS PROPERTY AHENDMENT/REZONING - Presentation to Board
Explain applicant/owner while pointing out location, size
and adjacent land uses.
Kieran Kilday agent for John T. Loos, is proposing to annex into
the city a vacant 18.69-acre parcel located on the west side of
Congress Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile south of Golf Road.
The annexed property would be reclassifi~~d from MR-5 (Medium
Residential in Palm Beach County) to Moderate Density Residential,
and rezoned to the City's R-l, Single Family Residential district.
The City's Future Land Use Map currently designates the property as
Low Density Residential.
These requests would increase the maximum, gross density allowed
from 4.84 dwelling units per acre according to the City's Low
Density Residential classification ef-~~-;Hrik~-~p-ae~e-~fi-~~
Beaeft-€etifi~y-k~-~~~&-eweii~ft~-tifl4~~-~-aepe to 7.26 units per
acre. This amendment represents an increase in maximum, potential
dwelling units from 93 to 136.
To allow this amendment, Planning Area 8.d of the Land Use Problems
and Opportunities section must also be amended, which currently
reinforces the Future Land Use Plan with a recommendation for Low
Density Residential land use.
Staffs review included the following major considerations:.
*The variation in adjacent land uses and land use patterns;
*The potential impacts of adjacent land uses upon the subject
property;
*The most appropriate land use given the: type and variation in
adjacent land uses; and
*The size of the subject property and proximity to Congress
Avenue;
I
{
Other secondary considerations included:
*Consistency with other Comprehensive Plan Objectives and
Policies;
*The Cityrs need for additional housing units; and
*The tBr.-rRli impact upon services created by the additional
dwelling units;
Page 2
As the staff report indicates. there are verv few policies
that address a chanqe in land use similar to this request;
As the Future Land Use Support Document indicates. additional
housinq units bevond those which would be allowed by densities
of the Future Land Use Plan will be required to meet the
demands at buildout; and
Facility capacity is available to serve the needs of the
subiect property (please note that althouqh the Solid Waste
Authority obiects to the amendment. Given the potential for an
increase to the solid waste stream, this obiection is
continGent upon an increase in solid waste beinq proiected.
Since the rates for solid waste vary for different residential
units. the ultimate impact upon solid waste facilities may
actually be similar, or onlY sliqhtlY hiqher to what would be
Generated by the existinG land use; however. impact is
difficult to determined at this time.
From what the plan indicates, this property received its original
Low Density Residential classification to assure consistency with
the adjacent low density subdivision to the north; however, in this
capacity the subject property is being used as a buffer for this
adjacent neighborhood, without addressing the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of a low density use adjacent to commercial and
high density land uses, and even to nearby industrial property.
This does not appear to be equatable land use planning.
For this reason, alternative land uses should be considered.
example, one that maximizes compatibility with all adjacent
uses, and as the applicant has indicated, onE~ which provides a
proper transition between land uses.
For
land
more
To summarize,
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and zoning Department recommends that the applications
submitted by Kieran J. Kilday/Kilday & Associates be approved,
based on the following:
1. The subject property is contiguous to the corporate limits and
is located within the City1s Reserve Annexation Area;
2. The 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
consti tute a grant of special privilege to an individual
property owner;
Page 3
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;
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.
\J
'J
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #93-147
FROM:
J. Scott Miller
~~
Christopher cutro
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
June 10, 1993
RE:
Loos Property
A request for annexation, land use plus amendment and rezoning
was submitted by Kieran J. Kilday, of Kilday & Associates, for an
18.69-acre parcel of land (known as the Loos Property) on the
west side of Congress Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile south of
Golf Road.
After review and a public hearing, a motion was made by the
Planning and Development Board to deny this request. The vote
was 3-3. A second motion was made to approve the request and
again the vote was 3-3.
Due to the fact that no action was taken on the proposal, this
item will be brought up again at the Planning and Development
Board meeting on July 13th. It is our recommendation that the
City commission table this item and reschedule it for their
meeting of July 20, 1993.
CC/jrn
A:LOOSPROP.JM
/
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 93-132
t'kUM:
chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
~~'.~
::senior Planner
'1'U:
DATE:
June 2, 1993
::sUBJ Ee'!':
Loos Property
Amendment/Rezoning,
Requests for Annexation,
and Text Amendment
Lana
Use
IN'l'RuvUC'I'lUN
Kieran J. Kilday, agent for John T. Loos, is proposing to annex
into rloynton 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 HAil). rl'he current land use
and zoning on this parcel is MR-5 (Medium Residential) and AR
(Agricultural kesidential), respectively. lncluded 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-~amily
kesidential 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 ~alm rleach ~ounty) 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 ::;upport Document, Section 8. Problems
and Opportunities, which limits this property to the Low Density
kesidential land use classification. This portion of the ::;upport
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 Bstates
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
Planninq Area 8.d consists of three (3) unincorporated
parcels located to the west and south of Silverlake
t;states. 'rhe larqer of the three. which is adi acent to
conqress Avenue. should be annexed and placed in the
Moderate Densi tv Res idential land use cateGorv. 'l'he
~Rese remaininq parcels should also be annexed, aRe 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
li,)rth.
Memo No. 93-132
-2-
June 2, 1993
~he following analysis is provided pursuant to the City's code of
urdinances (Appendix A, Section 9), and Florida Law with respect to
the transmittal and review of large-scale land use plan amendments.
~his 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.
CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING
'1'he land use and zoning in the surrounding area varies and is
presented in the table that followings:
j) 11'ed ion
,Jllrisdicl ion
Zoning
Land Use
Nllrth
Boynton l3ecwh
PUll
~states of Silverlake
(swgle-tamily hOllies)
Nortlleasl/
East
liarthe r sou th
Boyntun Beach
Boynton lleach
Boynton lleacll
Boynton Beach
J{-j
Golf VIew Harbour
(townhouses)
Sou t twas L
a-I
Vacant
~)UU th
N/A
L-28 Canal
C-3
Nanor Care
(Nursing hOJ1le/ACLF)
lial'ther' southwest Boynton Heacb
HUR
chanteclair Villas
(condominUlnts)
West
Palm Heach County
AK
Vacant
ANAL~~~~ PURSUANT TO SEC. 9.C.7 OF 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. IIWhether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with
applicable comprehensive Plan policies.. .il.
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. "Whether 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. "Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible w1tn
the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties,
01: would affect the property values of adj acent propertj,es. ii .
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. II
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.1I
An analysis on the availability of public facilitles is provided
below.
7 . f. IlWhether 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
si te. It is difficul t to estimate the costs and benefits of
developing this property based on land use and soil
characteristics; however, considering the size of the subj ect
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 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."
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 poten tial as it assumes
either higher net dEnsities (than allowed by the Future Land Use
Plan) on certain large properties (greater than 75 acres), or /
conversions to higher densities. This analysis also assumes
?
Memo No. 93-13::
-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 FLORIDl\ 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 subject property as Low
Density Residential, the request by the applicant is inconsistent
with the city's Future Land Use Plan.
Consistency witll 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 - I'.. .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. II;
Obi ecti ve 1.17 "Minimize nuisances, hazards, and other
adverse impacts. . . to residential environments by preventing or
minimizlng 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 addressed above within
pursuant to items 7.b, 7.e, and 7.g, Section
Ordinances.
the
9. C,
analysis
Code 0 f
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.. .";
Policy 1.19.5 ". . . 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... .";
In projecting future housing supply within the Future Land Use
Support Document, it was assumed that all vacant properties (less
than 75 dcres) would be developed either single family detached,
single family attached, or some combination thereof (see excerpt
trom Fu tnt'e :'ar.d Use Support DOCUlllen t in A ttachmen t "e"). S in,:;e
Hemo 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 - "... prohibi t 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 subj ect property
developable. Regardless of the land use designation on this
property, the muck would likely be removed to make the si te
developable.
Obiective 4.4 - "The City shall,.. .protect all remaining areas
of substantial native upland and wetland vegetation and
eliminate undesirable exotic tree species.lI;
Policy 4.4.1 - ".. .the city shall require...a detailed flora
and fauna survey on any "B or CII rated site...; and
Policy 1.11.14 - ".. .provide for open space preservation by
requiring the preservation of 25% of all "A", liB", and IIC"
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").
Although the assessment did identify several tree species that
would be preserved according to the City's Tree Preservation
ordinance, such enforcement would take place during the design and
construction stages of this project.
Obi ective 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 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 annexatjon
plan established pursuant to Policy 8.10.4.
LOC~1\ON-M~p
LOOS PROPE.R~.
:::::::>~-v; ~ ; :' \J
. '
. . J ~
:::'r."
~ ~'
:~ -;;J
,_...
~~-
~"
rf:J \~.:!
\L
--
'"
M" I:
.~
\ \ \ \
J-Jc1-- ~ '
'\ ..L
=-- - -=-J -
---
--'--
\J
~
'0 \18 t-/I\LES
'\\ \ \ \ \ \ '
\ _ ,,.. n(\ fEE.'
,,- .,
....... ".,. 1':; /
ATTACHMENT "Bit
(Future Land Use Support Document, pg.25)
v. LAND USE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
Residential Land
Pro;ected household arowth in the City and proposed annexation areas will
aenerate demand for an estimated 14.440 additional dwe11ina units by the
'{Year 2010. includina a 6.58-percent vacancy marain. This demand will
~ require all the remainina undeveloped residential land in the communU;:.:z.o
which totals an estimated 1.970 acres. Averaae aross density of ne~
residential development is 7.3 dwellina units per acre. versus
~pproximatelY 4.4 units per aross acre 1n 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, 1n 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 ho,""<
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
acres.
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
(2.31). and the resultant number of households (33.867) is multiplied by
the inverse of the seasonal vacancy rate fl/l-.0944)1 and the inverse of a
five-percent market vacancy fl/(1-.05) 1. 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 dwe1linas in the City.
and 1.767 dwellinas in the unincorporated areas east of Lawrence Road in
which annexation by the City is anticipated. A total of 14.440 additional
dwellinas could be built within the City and the unincorporated area east
of Lawrence Road (see Table !V-lOl. Addina the existinq and potential
dwellinas (23.217 + 1.767 +l4,440) Yields a total supplY of dwellinas 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 developrnen~
will take place within approved projects or will be infil1 development,
25
ATTACHHENT "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
Cvastal 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 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.
lFor vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an arsc
. 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
ATTACHJ>.1ENT "DIl
(Conservation support Document-Natural Resource Sites)
f-1r~~ .~. 'l'r-;: :;;A~~:T:=~H
_~ .tJ}1...s= d./~ 2 1-
~~-r-~~L f .r-" LeT:f ~ ....-.-.. ---
~~ J~ffL ~ ~
CI~~g- __fdl'ft~-';-
----- - f\ 1"-
---'-1 ~ 11 (F..'~~/'!I . .
\lV })1:;/ .'sf J elf /)
-- - - (\(~ v ~ i! t.-= H /
'l' . \ ( . ~-.:: - .
1 n \ V~ , :; II i" ( ( ,J I
\\ ~-J .t.. _~, ~! f3i1. 2 r==~ I
~ r~c" 1-:C;-JH- ~3~
ty- )l" tc I TlT i /
' ~ I L.::t'1 or- _~
( ~1'=~i'~~'~'-:r~tF ~~ ~~= ~I
u q~ II~~~ ,I : ~~~ ~~ ~'~7(O
c--,' 0;=." ~ "
) - II J - Dr:l AN .... I -=--
~..c 'Lrr"~ ~ I ---iiJ . L'
.? -- -, .
.> " II:\. l
D ~ 1i~ 1--1 - I- O/'!'~
F== ~4'"rT7 J ~ - 1-12 ~ r.;:.1
I ~ t.' I~ ~ ,/':>< ,- r- @ L..,."
18C1_~ I~~ 1r~iJ"~: ~ t
NIlE: sm U4llUTSIOE Of CITY- ~-Jh I~ ~~.JJ\r-.. :, ~
_ITKlRAMN FJlOM INVENTORY ":'::' ~,.:.~ --=- -- - . '!1113 ,/- lOUI UH All 36- t'
2L. +-~ ~ If' r:J : . 29
", ......... (J ~'.....:./.x: W; ;=- I I I
"Co '. ,... T fl. )" Pli I ,_ ::i.!~
~~. i .~.I' ...
-~ ~(. ~17f~~ ;1=[ If- ~ UJJ/J-; ,
I 1nJ(U ~t;:~ t::i= .. n == ill 27
21 -=; I I I -3l J ~ -:JI
.........b .. .' ~..-==.._____.. . 18 \ ,-,-.,..;;:-. ' I I I, == ~ :;:;-
It X -P~" o~ .> ~ 1:1 II Jr1=rl -:;-
IV~~~ m n I tO~5 ~ ___
"'" .~ t1 ~ r::=> I
. Q ~'Ia 20 . ~~ ~II~--
. .rl t:> I / _ .=-.~JI I I~'
Q . \~ 'rf1 q i!:?& J/ t
, 00 I '.1 - __ ~
. II: - ~ C1 .:;;:J
~___..JJ_____________J---
LEGEND
I:!J - NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
22 - NATURAL RESOURCE
REFERENCE NUMBER
. - "' B RAYED SITES
IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
SclU'.., ~ ClI EccIYS_ in PPn
Ileech County, PIIa.. III Reporl.
"'1llI'I 8Ild ""'In. Nr 1 Me,
waa. H, Keller .... ~
AdcilionlII_ by Or, Or_
........ ~ 1081.
~
-
I~
2]1
~
26
?o!F
....-
-25-
~ TBl H. KElllJl .11., D
ar.Jt1JW BwJtwn I ,J",.",.
Qn) $r'J/p. n.-/A
Table 2. Listing or Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites
Site
II
I
2
3
4.a.*
4.b.
4.c.
5*
6*
7*
8
9
10
11
12*
14*
~ IS.
G
11
i8
Geographic Area in Summary
Location Acres Evaluation
43-45-08-1 88.6 B
43-45-08-2
43-45-07-1
43-45-17-1
43-45-16-3
43-45-20-2
43-45-16-2
43-45-16-5
43-45-21-1
43-45-20-1
43-45-20-4
29.7
52.4
141.8
40.1
19.0
9.6
11.2
6.2
x
X
A
A
A?
A
43-45-30-1 21.6 D
43-45-20-5 17.1 D
43-45-29-1 ~S2..1 A
13*
43-45-32-1. -2.4&92SJ} A
43-45-32-3
43-46-05-1
43-45-31-1
43-45-31-2
43-45-30-2
continued ...
24.1
7.0
22.4
17.6
17.4
A
A
B
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.; Pan of the site is in the Quantum
Park DR! development Portions in Boynton Beach and
County.
Disturbed Florida Scrub corridor. County site ooEco-36
Quantum RR-195 Route".
Restricted access. South portion of Quantum DRI
development
Florida Scrub. County site ooEc0-36 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 bomer. County site OOEeo_ 34. I
Rolling Green Scrub". Endangered species total 8.
Florida Scrub. County site ooEco-32. Galaxy Scrub".
Endangered species IOtal 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-of-way. County site ooEco-32 Industrial
Scrub".
Dense stand of Melaleuca (Mtlaleuca quinquenervia).
Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), and Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). 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. lli
text narrative for additional infonnation.
South of Woolbri~ht Road. Pine Flatwoods and open
grassy; disturbed by previous clearing at ground level and
entry of ruderal species. County site "Ec0-70 N 195-RR 23
Rd Corridor". No on-site visit Endangered species IOtal 1.
A continuation of site ##13. County site "Eco-70 S 195-RR
23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit
Small disturbed Pine F1atwoods 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.
D
A
B
C
X
X
-23-
Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites
continued ...
Site Geographic Area in Summary
II Location Acres Evaluation
19* 41 -4 S 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
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
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
D
C
X
B
B
A
D
D
B
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Annotation
~orida Scmb, partly distuEbcd. Part of CouAty Eite "SlOg
:n DO)"Alen 7&11 Sl Strub". sndangered Epecies total 7.
Narrow band; apparently mostly Brazilian Pepper.
Development in progress. County site "Eco-85 Hunter's
Run Golf".
Cleared. Located in Huncers Run development .
Cleared and abandoned Florida Scrub; a few oales and
herbaceous plants remain. South of County site "Eco-29
Seacrest Scrub".
Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub, previously
cleared strips, heavily rc-grown with vines. Near County
site "Beo 29 W Seaaest Scrub". Endangered species total 1.
Florida Scrub and ecotone with Pine Flatwoods. County
site "Beo 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 "D". 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 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 development
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 uEco-35 Boynton 20 Ave-l St". Rated liB" due to
endangered species, otherwise much disturbed. Endangered
species total 7.
Disturbed Florida Scrub. County site "Be0-29 N Boynton
Water Tower". Endangered species lists - 2 species.
Florida Scrub. County site MEco-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 ttaversed
by roadways, little apparent tidal flushing.
-24-
ATTACHMENT IIEII
(Comment on Environmental Assessment)
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #93-193
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner ,
1--114//-"(
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist~ ~/
FROM:
RE:
Loos Property Land Use Amendment
Rezoning Analysis On Environmental Assessment
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
Ii.......~ -." '~'-r- ....~---.. .'~
I~~~; :',~; ..J _~_ 'J.
\r~ ...-
~ -..... '.' "" ,l...
. ~ \ .', ',,,,.t
;::t.:~ :.:"~i:';\.~ ':,~:i:'T,
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #93-193
RE:
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner, .l'J
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~9,4 /
Loos Property Land Use Amendment
Rezoning Analysis On Environmental Assessment
TO:
FROM:
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
RECEIVEi)~
APR 30 ..
PLANNING DEPT~
.
...
'"
- I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
FROM: Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner~~
DATE: April 15, 1993
SUBJECT: Loos Property Land Use Amendment/Rezoning -
Analysis on Environmental Assessment
This office is processing a land use amendment for the above-
referenced project, which involves an lS-acre parcel located on the
west side of Congress Avenue, approximately one-half mile south of
Golf Road (Southwest 23rd Avenue).
For your information, the applicant is requesting that his property
be annexed, and reclassified from Medium Residential (County) to
Moderate Density Residential (City). Moderate Density Residential
would allow an additional two (2) dwelling units per acre maximum
on the property (Medium Residential allows 3-5 dwelling units per
acre while Moderate Density Residential allows a maximum of 7.26).
Since an environmental study had done in the past, the applicant
has surveyed the site and completed a current environmental
assessment (see attachment).
Please review the attached environmental assessment and provide me
wi th your written comments which relate to the environmental
significance of this property as defined and preserved by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Since this request will be reviewed at public hearings, and
transmitted to the State in June, your response would be
appreciated at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any
questions, please call me at 738-7490. Thank you.
Attachment
A:LOOSLUEII.VI
---" t'1A'l'- H -';3 TLE 11; 00 ID: K I LDA'!' & ASSOC I ATES TEL NO: 407-689-2592
1:*945 P01
,.. ~....,....
v W~ 9f11J. V
1>01o~~'
\...~~~ \
I'~~. j
560 Village Blvd" Suite 315 · West Palm Beach, Fl33409 · Ph: 407-471-9863 · Fax: 407-689-3970
--rm.aJIDUK
~-=~=~===_&================-----=-~--===============--~=~~=======
DATE: May 7, 1993
TO: Jim Norquest
FROMt DQP9 Winter
RE: LooS Property (18% acre site)
Environmental Assessment
Jim.
Per our discussion/project coordination, we called Mr. Kevin
Hollihan (Urban Forester - city of Boynton Beach) with respect to
our Etnvircnmental assessment report/annexation.
Summ~lrizing discussions with Mr. Hollihan, please note the
following:
1. Mr. Hollihan has sent a memo to Mr. Mike Rumpf that he has
visited the site, reviewed our report, and has concurred with
our analysis ot the site.
.2 . Mr. Hollihan is indlcatin9 that future s1 te development I
annexation be required to satisfy Boynton BQach tree
protection ordinance rather than Boynton I S Environmentally
Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
J. In proceeding with site development, tree manaqement aspects
wjll need to be addressed as to identifying desireable trees
to be saved, to be relocated, or replaced, etc.
4. Also, a "quality/quantity" assessment of the impaoted,
identified environmental area will also be required for site
development. We indicated that this would, in our opinion,
be accomplished during pre-permit application/site development
planning concurrently with all applicable agencies at the most
appropriate time.
Chi! / Ftllti''''WI<'/lU/ ;' A,:,riotl'J{rcJf 1:II.1:il/ecriliF.: . Jr',lJc,. R"J(
W.,tl.ltlJ / up/,,"" !I.d>i,,,,, " Prujcrt /"''-'1111/111;'; / AI.PI,J,!.;<'fIle,;t .
Post-It'. brand fax transmittal memo 7671
'I'D
~
So
REC-l':-"n!, ,
. ~ i~.j'i.. .'\'
'#My ~l
PLANNi,';C
I
-
.,.. ":-..; '"
MA'(-11-'93 TLE 11: 00 ID: 1< I LDAY & ASSOCIATES TEL ~..[l: 407-689-2592
;;945 P'02
v
v
In closing, it appears Boynton Beach staff have no further
commEmts/concerns associated with "environmental assessment". Your
oftice will need to confirm the above with Mr. Mike Rumpf.
PleaEle advise it you need anything further with the annexation
process.
xc: .rack Loos
~
,\'hY\~ 1-0- t:; ~
[oos ~OP~\"=t '-u If /i2~"'C-.
% J<--t:..
5,-, r v6>r ~ b c. r-<2-V;- 'S 4! ..
----
~'-J"~~~' rc::"=(.~
:3
'{- ~ i' 3
t::rau. hsc::ss~~"'-~ b b@- c~(~I::e;Q ~/ W$""#.3.
)'rlr;
t::t'JL tJorrrk6C rh~ --!-i,e- -=;r' c.Jcr~ ~c- Y"c..v;~~
frr.. (<~<=^^- 5 :) c6...--..[;~ <YoA. 10 r' ( 1- s~ /F,>' .3
fZt~ --r ~ U~..V<=-v- cf ~rfVl..~v.::t::.
C~r or ~ (~-b~ rrov~.JJ4l.. ~ ..5<1e Krwc- ~ "'F-/::?-73
c (~C~ ne.~~~ ~e. o~ cz...~ .-..~ ~ q'Oc:l" -p~r-t:y
\~ -t;.f.c....=C~fcv--.. ""-~o-'7.5 .. J$
:Z:I?~~ crrf.~ of ~ +- f>(~1.~..,(L &c.-u~f;.v...
"i"-}2..0 -?3
k+~ ,$ .-to S~VlC-~ r-'~~~ (~-~((:f-( (~v-~)~\~o
t(-It;.-?.s
c/( ,,<2- ,.--lC1- + ~ /,j <!: '-YS fo--P --( (~J <,-12 5-;' ,5- - '7-3
Q ?/-- '-f~
~c~ '(l. ~.
ltero-"'7
he" ~""1
~<:r("Y
t,-K (<;'
q-/3-93
7-;)013
(71 c;,,/'{'\ tf
- /\/o,,,..100-{-';0'1-\ v~c::c,S t--~
~,-
(.r( y <; 1_ j-:-> .,. U
c/- :3
)'J ,,',.SC'':'
eG
- S...<~
kY)~I~-O
\
1
...
MEMORABDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 93 - 159
(~
TO: Mike Rumpf, Senior Planner
FROM: John A. Guidry, Utilities Director
DATE: April 15, 1993
SUBJECT: High Ridge Road Land Use Amendment
Loos Property Land Use Amendment/Rezoning
We estimate that the 1.6 acre parcel you identify in your April 12,
1993 memorandum would require approximately 3,300 gallons per day
of water capacity, and 1500 gallons per day of sewer capacity.
Similarly, the Loos property of 18 acres referenced in your April
14, 1993 memo would require approximately 56,000 gallons per day of
water capacity, and 25,000 gallons per day of sewage capacity.
As of February, 1993, our reserve capaci ty for both water and
sewage treatment were as follows:
WATER TREATMENT
Rated capacity =
Peak daily flow =
Committed capacity =
19 . 40 MGD
16.09 MGD
2.03 MGD
Uncommitted, unused capacity =
1. 28 MGD
SEWAGE TREATMENT
Rated capacity =
Average daily flow =
Committed capacity =
l2.00 MGD
7.67 MGD
0.91 MGD
Uncommitted, unused capacity =
3.42 MOD
As you can see, we have sufficient uncommitted, unused capacity to
service the subject properties.
Please refer any further questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella
of this office.
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Mike Haag
File (Concurrency)
RECEIVE!?
..\~~ 16
PLANNING DEPT.
-
,
f
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Pete Mazzella, utilities Department
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner ~
TO:
DATE:
April 12, 1993
SUBJECT:
High Ridge Road Land Use Amendment/Rezoning -
Analysis on the Availability of utilities
This office is processing a land use amendment for the above-
referenced project, which consists of a 1.6-acre site located on
the west side of High Ridge Road approximately 1,000 feet south of
Hypoluxo Road. The future land use designation requested, Low
Density Residential, is comparable to the land use designated by
Palm Beach County, LR-2.
For your information, the City would allow a maximum density of
4.84 dwelling units per acre on the site.
--..-----
,-, "
I respectively request a statement~~writing, which verifies that
there are water and wastewater ~ available to serve the
demands generated by the most intensive development scenario
permitted on this site. Please provide as specific a review as
possible, including the anticipated number of units and the
capacity available, before and after project development.
As you are aware, this analysis is required for transmission of
this amendment to the State for compliance review. If you have any
questions, please call me at (407) 738-7490. Thank you.
A,HRLUAUTI.LIT
,.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Pete Mazzella, utilities Department
Michael TN. Rumpf, Senior Planner ~
TO:
DATE:
April 14, 1993
SUBJECT:
Loos Property Land Use Amendment/Rezoning -
Analysis on the Availability of utilities
This office is processing a land use amendment for the above-
referenced project, which involves an la-acre parcel located on the
west side of Congress Avenue, approximately one-half mile south of
Golf Road (Southwest 23rd Avenue).
For your information, the applicant is requesting that his property
be annexed, and reclassified from Medium Residential (County) to
Moderate Density Residential (City). Moderate Density Residential
would allow an additional two (2) dwelling units per acre maximum
on the property (Medium Residential allows 3-5 dwelling units per
acre while Moderate Density Residential allows a maximum of 7.26
dwelling units per acre).
I respectively request a statement in writing, which verifies that
there are water and wastewater facilities available to provide
service for the maximum possible demand to be generated at this
site. Please provide as specific an analysis as possible,
including demand projections and capacity figures, as this analysis
is required for transmission of this proposed amendment to the
State for compliance review.
Since this request is to be reviewed at public hearings in June,
your response would be greatly appreciated at your earliest
convenience. If you have any questions, please call me at (407)
738-7490. Thank you.
A: :'OOS:'U'!'!. It.!
;lobi!, ~t.4rY,' Ut.t.1:t.t.t...-
~t.Sl>>t.~. l'r-annU\9 '
ora4Y S1Iann. l't,nance /
J01l. ''I~ ~T~oM
}lara ).1CD ~
(1tSBIl-
s
o
_0
~" .
):
-
~pt'.opt'.v.'l'S "r::rtaB 0
~1J}JAT1.O!l/~T1.aB 0
1!'C)tl 'loott l!1.LSS 0
,.cT1.0!l DES1.RED pR1.OR TO
SUBJECT: Attached letter frOl\l Mr. to Mrs. Michael \4UrphY
please re~1~ the attached letter frOl\l Mr. to MrS. Michael \4UrphY and
pro~1de 1nfo~at10n relat1~e to your department so that 1. may respond to
th )\Ur"lt' s 1. .,ould like to de~elop a salllPle packet ,,1th the basic
1nfo~a~1~n ~n "hat ser~1ces "e are going to pro~1de. cOl\lpar1Son of city ~s
county ta~eS SO "e can ha~e a generiC replY to all of theSe areas "h1ch
,,111 ha~e s1tl\11ar concerns, oradY, 1. "ould like yOU to take the lead in
utt1ng thiS 1nfo~at10n tOgether frOl\l the depar~nts. once"e ha~e it.
taura can assist in pUtting it in an attract1~e fo~at. Than!< you.
"':.\'''.........~ ..
. '. ~ ,..t _....
~ ~ ... .J
~ '. ..
..'''. . ..
...
.
......
~
ca'Crie pa'C e'C
Assistant city Manage'C
cp~jC
Attacb1t\ent
cc: LaUra 111d111er, 1'1.0
"
pspOitSB t
l' oJ-.2 f ,0>7'.]Jj, -:;#!~;1 (,Ik1<U!d.! uJ.
~"7 ;:;;rrr='~] ,,,(O~t. - -;l'! Jp/;t)
~/i ~7 J:./!f"'F';t: o' 51.. '% _>~1" j-o/-'i
.ij lqSFi-<>I';t f s~:r7
,~", -)>' ~
,-;? ft.9')r
.X' b,'6"
'--0' J: r i'f ,,-e" L
J_~1...~-..Jo-.;p~ . j.,-o~
)..-::t-~ Q ~ c:L ~~) "'l '" S
::=..
-
Si9nature-
Date (Action comPletedl-
~_._------_._------------
b/; 1;, . 0/: ~'..'S'-lo.~ $so>9
~ X..? ..).. "''''-''r!
~n~2:l"VH ~ 3:I(ljJo9
..).0 S3snOr+~~
~
.)''0 09' ~
5:;2- ! Lf"'" if'L
('f~;;:;> 9-'<'-~",i) sCl?J~t 'i>1
0mWCD
---;'r. iJl G m cIJ
/1/) CD
"j (jj}@]87fIll
'" r-:1 @
I ! 11 i ( r;:::}l rzj1
<.:'-' C!!J ~ { iiI7
~ L~J
~
<fJr(;'R>
(t~i
hl: -f? S-
--
7;f ":>7 ~o* 5'6-
CJ
f7
L.-,,-I
3):1 Y7<i 3n7r;
-fO sJ1-Y.LsJ
ol.J1
____ _____ __ ___ _r- ---
'~L? t 1 'h ( ~/~_
-----~~-_.. .._-
[,1'1.- r;J'L.
-J--- 1
(111- f 71. ~.~) ) 'f
\ "<!...1V I=> 5 .t-I "iI 11 ;
-
-'j~9';? ~
-----
. ~~Q~Sv;.a~~ ~p.J9
(:rz:r -f' :z;t:) '7 J / / ~'J,
: (JXY:>~25 '1rv
\
"
8.c. Property on southeast Corner of Golf Road and Conqress Ave.
This parcel occupies approximately 8.5 acres and ~s-e~rrefi~~Y ~
formerly shown in the Low Density Residential land use category
and R-1AA zoning district. 'i'lie-weS~e'f'R-kaif-e~-~ft:i:s-13'f'e13e'f'~Y-~s
a'f'~HaB~y-eefiStS~eR~-w:i:eft-13ei~e~es-~e'f'-~fte-ieeae~eH-e~-eemme'f'e~ai
ft:i:~ft-aeRs:i:~Y-'f'estaeRetai-Hse,-keweYe'f',-ieeaetR~-eemme'f'e~ai-~ses
ae-~ft:i:s-ee'f'He'f'-WeH~a-se~-a-13'f'eeeaeft~-~ep-eemme'f'e:i:ai-eeR~R~-ef-~fte
'f'ema~fttR~-eft'f'ee-Hftaevele~ea-eePHe'f'S~--eemme'f'e:i:ai-aeYeie13meRe-ei
eft:i:s-:i:Ree'f'See~:i:eB-we~ia-aise-eAaR~e-eke-pes~aeft~tai-eka'f'aeee'f'-ef
efie-Re~~ftBe'f'Reea,-aHa-ee~ia-e'f'eaee-~Raeee13~aBie-ieveis-e~
~Faff1e~-%fi-e'f'aep-~e-~pe~ee~-eke-'f'eS~aeRe:i:ai-efta'f'aeee'f'-ei-eke
apea,-eAe-hew-BeBs:i:ey-Res1aefi~:i:ai-iaRa-Hse-eaee~e'f'y-sRe~ia
eeRetR~e~ This property is shown in the Hiqh Density Residential
land use cateqory on the Future Land Use Map, in accordance with
the settlement and Stipulation Aqreement between Milnor
corporation and the City (see Appendix "0" to the Future Land Use
Element Support Documents). This aqreement specifies that the
property is to be developed as an adult conqreqate livinq
facilltv (ACLFl. and includes specific conditions for the use and
development of the property. The land use. zoninq, and the use
and development of this property shall be in accordance with the
above-mentioned Settlement and stipulation Aqreement.
.
B.d. 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.
8.e. Industrial P~operty Frontinq on East Side of South Conqress
Ave.
This is a highly visible corridor which lies across the street
from a low-density residential development; therefore,-approval
of site plans along this frontage should include strong
consideration of aesthetics. In particular, garage doors and
loading areas should not be permitted to face Congress Avenue.
Since the City's zoning regulations allow certain retail uses and
services related to home improvement (hardware, furniture, tile
and carpet stores, for example), it is expected that a large
portion of this frontage will develop for these types of u~es.
In order to enhance this area as a home improvement and design
district, the City's zoning regulations should be examined to
determine whether other similar retail goods and services should
be permitted on industrial parc~ls which front on thoroughfares.
Promoting home improvement and design uses along this frontage
would provlde a low-intensity commercial use which would avoid
the aesthetlc problems which often accompany both industrial uses
and conventional strip commercial development. .
8.f. Outparcel of Charter World
This is a small (3.7 acre site) which is in the High Density
Resi1ential land use category and R-J zonIng district. In order
~,:O 5'"_: :.--:, ::'~":: '1 ':.::.::::. : ::. ':.'; 'N 1 t:h the su r rounding lcw- rIse re side" t i a 1
APPENDIX A-ZONING
Sec. 5
faces a different street than the remaining lots in
the block, the front setback shall then be
maintained on both streets.
3. Off-street parking, As provided in section ll-H
hereinafter.
E. R-t SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
These district regulations will create a maximum of 7.26
dwelling units per acre.
1. Uses permitted. Within any R-1 single-family residen-
tial district, no building, structure, land or water shall
be used except for one of the following uses:
a. Any use permitted in the R-1-AAA, R-1-AAB,
R-1-AA or R-1-A district.
2. Building and site regulations.
a. The following lot and building requirements shall
be observed.
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot frontage
Minimum front yard
Minimum rear yard
Minimum side yards
Minimum living area
Maximum lot coverage
Maximum structure
height 25 feet
b. On corner lots, the side yard setback adjacent to
the street shall be not less than one-half (1/2) the
front yard setback. Where the corner lot faces a
6.000 square feet
60 feet
25 feet
25 feet
. 7 112 feet each side
1,000 square feet
40 percent
Supp, No. 44
1906.1
APPENDIX A-ZONING
Sec. 5
different street than the remaining lots in the
block, then the front setback shall be maintained
on both streets.
3. Off-street parking. As provided in section 11-H
hereinafter.
/'
F. R-2 SINGLE- and TWO-FAMILY DWELLING DIS-
TRICT. These district regulations will create a maximum
density of 9.68 dwelling units per acre. It is the intent to
accommodate a compatible development of higher density
buildings with commonly called duplexes together with
single-family dwellings but at no lower standards of
quality.
_ 1. Uses permitted. Within any R-2 single- or two-family
dwelling district, no building;..~e. land or water
shall be used except for one of the following uses:
a. Any use permitted in the R-I-AAA, R-1-AAB,
R-I-AA, R-1-A and R-1 districts.
b. Two-family dwellings.
c. Nursery schools, day care centers and other
preschool facilities* (see section 11-C)
lA. [Conditional uses allowed.] Those uses specified in
subsection 5 F.1. above which are followed by an
asterisk (*) shall be deemed to be conditional uses,
which may be considered and granted in accordance
with procedures set forth in section 11.2 of Appendix
A of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida.
2. Building and site regulations:
a. The following lot and building requirements shall
be observed:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot frontage
Minimum front yard
Minimum rear yard
Minimum side yards
4,500 square feet
per dwelling unit*
75 feet*
25 feet
25 feet
10 feet each side
1907
a~JY~
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 93-181
..
FROM:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
('\:_t~ ~
chrrsfopher cutro, planning and Zoning Director
'l'O:
DATE:
July 15, 1993
SUBJ'ECT:
Loos property
Annexation, Land Use Amendment/Rezoning, comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment
Kieran Kilday, agent for John T. Loos, is requesting that an 18.69-
acre parcel be annexed into the City, which is located on the west
side of congress Avenue, one-half mile south of Golf Road. This
property occupies a portion of enclave #9, as identified in Phase
1 of the city's annexation program.
The applicant requests that the annexed land be reclassified from
MR-5, Medium Residential (Palm Beach County) to Moderate Density
Residential, and rezoned from Agricultural Residential to R-1,
single Family Residential. These requests would change the
maximum, gross density allowed and maximum development potential
from 5 dwelling units per acre to 7.26 units per acre, and from 93
dwelling units (based upon the city's current "Low Density
Residential" land use classification) to 136 dwelling units,
respectively. 'Jlhe applicant has justified this land use change
based upon the existence of more dense and intense, adjacent land
uses in the Congress Avenue corridor, and upon the size and
developability of the site.
In addition to these requests, the applicant has also applied for
a comprehensive Plan text amendment in order to remove specific
language in the Problems and Opportunities section of the Future
Land Use support Document, which limits this property to the "Low
Density Residential" land use classification.
The Planning and Development Board reviewed these requests at its
meeting of July 13, 1993 and forwarded them to the City Commission
with a recommendation for approval. It should be noted that the
applicant, during this public hearing, made a verbal commitment to
submit an application to rezone the property to a Planned unit
Development (PUD) while these requests are involved in the state's
review process. 'l'he R-1 District was only to be a holding or
temporary zone, as the application for a PUD could not be prepared
in time to meet the city's deadline for submitting large-scale Plan
'amendments.
This item has been scheduled for City commission review on July 20,
1993. If approved by the city commission, the requests will be
transmi tted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for
compliance review.
C:LOOSCC