The URL can be used to link to this page

CORRESPONDENCE ry ., I J). F. :-'1ARTI:\ PERRY :~onERT LIT SHAPIRO .10RDA;\; R. :-'IILLER' JILL A. JARKESY 5&w~ ~~,~,~g~,.9d '645.9. !H--, ~ ~ .9'~ 6{J(} ~.9.~5~~ TELEPHONE (407) 684-4500 FAX (407) 684-1008 . Al'~~IT1Tn I:'> flORIDA ...~~~ :"'l~ I Rk-r ur Cl)l.UMHlA August 26, 1992 Mr. Richard staudinger Boynton Beach City Engineer Gee & Jenson One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923 RE: Cedar Grove Investments/Rezoning Our File No. 3197.01 Dear Mr. Staudinger: On Friday, August 14, 1992, Press Tompkins of Carnahan Engineers and Julian Bryans met with you to discuss the Master Plan submittal for the Cedar Grove Subdivision. During this meeting there was a discussion regarding the pre-application procedure as set forth in Article XIII, section 3 of Appendix C-Subdivisions, Platting, City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Although the language of section 3 implies that the pre-application procedure is mandatory, you indicated that this pre-application procedure was an optional step and was not a prerequisite to the submittal of a master plan for a subdivision. In fact, it was acknowledged by the City staff that normally applicants submitting master plans would not utilize the pre-application procedure, but would rather sit down informally with the City Engineer and City Planner prior to submitting the master plan. We would greatly appreciate written confirmation that the pre-application procedure is not a mandatory prerequisite to the submittal of a master plan for a residential subdivision in accordance with Article XIII, section 4 of Appendix C. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, rp; a.#~ Jill A. Jarkesy JAJ: 1m cc: James Cheroff Christopher cutro CEOARGRV\staudinger.le ...~- .ltE~ ...:l.Io ~""' '" . n~;1'.. PL~HNM',u ....-- - ~ tk~ f1~ J f- U _ 6'>'- ~ci~ . rf 0- /~ f~~@ /5 r f c:-- (,p '" oL ~ f ",ck'iii! . ~ ~ ) QO ~ C"'V? - r-:l -:!]. ?? tiJ e=Jl ~ ~ --2 . . c-b Nl 4-='::E ~ ~ ~ ~ r: -g -.:. -: <i <i <i 'J ~ 7~ p: _ .a . - ("'W1 - <:r . . . rn - <r <r~~.....D . P- ~ \3 n rJJ.... c -1 (A,MM.IS.stO,J .Meent-J~~ J u L.'f 2.,', Itj"L AGE"" 1::>A 'leN\, "I t. B. I. July 21, 1992 GEE & JENSON Engineers-Architects - Aanners. I nc RECmvm- Mr. J. Scott Miller, City Manager City of Boynton Beach 1 00 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 JUl 21 .. PLANNING DEPT,' " \ - Re: Cedar Grove - SFWMD Permitting Requirements Dear Scott: In conjunction with my review of the water management plan for Cedar Grove, I spoke with SFMWD staff in the, Surface Water Management Division on Friday, July 17,1992. Our discussion concerned the District's requirements for a 25 year storm event to be used for retention/detention facilities and the placement of the berm in the residential areas as shown on the applicant's plans. Staff indicated that a berm might be permitted, but not as shown. At a minimum, dedication of a specific water management access tract or other separate ownership of the property upon which the berm is located, would be required to insure the integrity of the berm as well as access for maintenance purposes. This action could modify the layout or densities of the residential pods. Because of these comments, I suggested the applicant obtain a conceptual permit from SFWMD so the City can be certain what type of berm and water management facilities will be constructed on the site. I do not believe this is an unreasonable request to satisfy the requirement of Mr. Kazuna's letter of June 11,1992 to supply a conceptual drainage design with calculations. If you have further questions, or wish to discuss this matter, please call. Very truly yours, {C~~ W. Richard Staudinger, P.E. WRS:bf 92-049 cc: Chris Cutro One Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.1923.407/683-3301. FAX 407/686-7446 n July 21, 1992 GEE & JENSON Englneers- Architects- Planner::';,lnc Mr. J. Scott Miller, City Manager City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Re: Cedar Grove - SFWMD Permitting Requirements Dear Scott: In conjunction with my review of the water management plan for Cedar Grove, I spoke with SFMWD staff in the, Surface Water Management Division on Friday, July 17,1992. Our discussion concerned the District's requirements for a 25 year storm event to be used for retention/detention facilities and the placement of the berm in the residential areas as shown on the applicant's plans. Staff indicated that a berm might be permitted, but not as shown. At a minimum, dedication of a specific water management access tract or other separate ownership of the property upon which the berm is located, would be required to insure the integrity of the berm as well as access for maintenance purposes. This action could modify the layout or densities of the residential pods. Because of these comments, I suggested the applicant obtain a conceptual permit from SFWMD so the City can be certain what type of berm and water management facilities will be constructed on the site. I do not believe this is an unreasonable request to satisfy the requirement of Mr. Kazuna's letter of June 11,1992 to supply a conceptual drainage design with calculations. If you have further questions, or wish to discuss this matter, please call. Very truly yours, (,CM,~ W. Richard Staudinger, P.E. WRS:bf 92-049 cc: Chris Cutro RECEIVED JUL ~J I 9 ~ PLANNiNG DEPT. One Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923.407/683-3301 . FAX 407/686-7446 ~;l ~ ~~ ~~~ CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Qln~vlHIl& EfI8in"~ . S,,~ . Jl"'~ .. l../l...l P-loJl"M'lt Qatl.ltllllfts July 21. 1992 SRfIT VIA: PAX Mr.Rich.~d staudinger, P.E. City En9inee~ city of Boynton BeGoh P.O. Box 310 ~oynton Beach, Flo~ida 33425-0310 Re: Cedar Grove Drainage Dear Mr. Staudinger; pursuant to your letter of July 17,1992, to Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager, I take exception to several of your comme~ts. First of all I addressed all of Mr. Ka~unas' questions. Your opinion is that we did not adequately address Item No. 2(e) of Mr. Kazunas' letter ot June 11, 1992. Item NO. 2(e) requested ~OHCEr!VAL design of a ground water management plan, 1n particular, a8 it effect~ the preserve area. Th.e submitted drainage plan delineated .. berm seperating the developable area from the preservli! area. This historically has been required by the 6FWMD 1n order to prc~ide water quality for water entering into the preserve area. I hav= recei ved approval recentl y for several pro jects whi ch contain exactly the type of situation in which a similar berm was approved. Periodic breaks are made in the berm to allow for the water to ente~ into the preserve area. As the drainage plan was conceptual in nature. the breaks in the berm are usually addressed at time ot final engineering, in order to correspond with the individual pod site plan. The elevation of the berm was established at elevat10n 19.75 (+-) feet NGVD which would produce a berm of approX1mately 1.75' high. The intent of this berm was to follow tne contour of ehe land, thus only creating a 1.75 (+-) foot high berm along the enti re prasarve area. with brea.ks in the berm, I cannot forsee any nuisan~e waters beino created. In r..ponae to your concern of the alteration of the soils due to sodding and 1.nd~capin9, I do not for!ee this as any problem who~~oever, and I f..l this would have a very ~ealiqible impaet on the ~oil$ oapability to absorb the runoff. r -~ W1-:-1111 ~P!~!NVld J:JL 6191 West Atlantic Blvd. . P.O. Box 4399 .. Margate, FL 33063 · (305) gQ~~)}f.z-4178 J_ :C::0d: CiNZ....NZCiN. N'\rH'\rN"'\rO>l< Y'ld!3€;"'O :c::e '"j::C:: 'L,O Mr. Riobard staudinger, P.E. city Bngineer, City of Boynton Beach Ced.~ Greve Dr~in.ge ~ulr 21, 1992 Page 2 In response to your ~ecoJllIliimdation to secure II. conceptufi\l 5FWMO permit, I disagree with you. The ccncept~al permit would have to be based on a site plan which, in turn, would have to be ba5ed on zoning. Th1s is exactly what we are requesting of the City, a re-zoninq of the property. I am totally against sp~ndin9 my Clients money needlessly for a SFKMD conceptual permit on a site which has not received approval. It the re-zon1nq request is denied then a SFWMD coneeptual permit issued tor this site would become void. The site will have to be ultimately designed to meet all of the criteria of the SFWXD. I have no Objection to theC1ty making this a condition of approval, but at this point in time, I am only seeking City approval and I have met or exceeded the city req:uirements. If YOU have any questions or need additional informatio:o. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~... 0t H. P. Tompkins, Jr., P.!. Asst. Director of Engineering Land Development HE-fish ~C: Chris Outro, City of Boynton Beach Scott Miller, Oitr of Boynton Beaoh F. Martin Pe~rYI Attorney Richa.d etaudinger ~ Gee & Jen~en €Oo: ONZ.SSNZONS N...H...N....;:,>t< :n:o:9€ '1>'0 :c:e '.:c: 'L.,O ~....... ,f , ,n"--'I<' t'of11 .Jj, //~ I..jAA. {; f fi.x Cl"67l.;J "'.' CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulling Engineers · Surveyors · Planners · Land Development Consullants July 6, 1992 "'''-'1~1' .. .f"'; ',.;~.~..J !f J (", .......... # .p'" --"<:' -' ..,'. " @(,:> ;'~. ~O'f"To.t "'<.<'\ ".....-'.--...../ i.~...r:,. It eceivc d. ~;;~. '. :.\\ . ~ __ . '...... 0,' ...~ :. ~ <..,.). ." ~!~i JUt! -0: 7 lQ(.:\) . ; l_ ~~~ .J ,..': ~ . ..,' (\. ..a..;...... .-_ ...::- .' \ 0-,- C1ti'iiS,!NUft ~S' / 1-~ .. ,,0 " OW.'1iW:-"Ll ~ /', .'-i\.~t:" ',' ',', IlD::.r\,\.' >-' '~ ~---/ Mr. Michael E. Kazunas, P.E. City Engineer City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Re: Cedar Grove/Drainage Dear Mr. Kazunas: Pursuant to your letter of June 11, 1992, please accept the following responses to your comments: 1) Please find enclosed soil analysis by Fraser Engineering and Testing, Inc., consisting of four (4) Auger Borings, two (2) Hydraulic Conductivity tests and one (1) Double Ring Infi I trometer test. Signed and seal ed original s wi 11 be forwarded as soon as received. 2) a.) The site will not utilize a wet detention type of system, therefore proposed design water elevations are not applicable. 2) b.) As per the enclosed stage-storage calculations, the minimum finish floor elevation will be 19.5 N.G.V.D. 2) c. ) The stormwater management system wi 11 consist of a series of dry detention swales. As can be seen from the calculations, only 1.4 AcFt of runoff storage is required for the 3 YR-l DAY storm event. The drainage plan sheet has been revised to show this required dry detention area. 2) d.) Please find enclosed the revised drainage plan showing the required dry detention areas. 2) e.) As shown on the drainage plan, the dry detention area is located greater than 200' from the preserve area. South Florida Water Management District design cri teria uti I izes this distance as the safe distance required between water management areas and preserve areas so as not to affect the groundwater. 6191 West Atbntic Blvd. · P.O. Box 4399 · Margate, FL 33063 · (305) 972-3959 · FAX (305) 972-4178 Mr. Michael E. Kazunas, P.E. City Engineer City of Boynton Beach Cedar Grove July 6, 1992 Page 2 I trust these responses address all of your concerns. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, ........ c--\ ---\~ L-~ J H. ~. T~mpkins, P.E. ( Asst. Director of Engineering Land Development HPT/sh Enclosures cc: Martin A. Perry Jill Jarkesy Julian Bryan Cedar Grove Association, Inc. - ~,. . }. FRASER ENGINEERING AND 'liSTING, INC. 220 HlBISCliS STREET. Jl.'PITER. tl.ORIDA J38. ~O~t:: (407) 7~7698 ~ .J u 1 y 6, 1 9 9 2 Ca rnil!lam Associa tes Inc. 6191 W. Atlantic Blvd. Site 5 Margilte, Florida 33063 RE: Cedar Grove, Boynton Beach, Flcri~a ,PET ~ ,J 1 nnl", Ger. t lemen: As l-cquested by the client, Frilser EngineeJ!!ing and Testing performed four (4) Auger Borings, two (21 Hydraulic Conductivity Tc::;ts ilnd one (1) Double Ring Infiltrometer Test. The locations were located by the client. The boring l~ and te~t results are attached. Based on the soil profile, the water table elevations and the soil survey of Palm Beach County, Florida, we determine that the wet season water table in the high ridge area is 8.5 MSL and the wet season water iD the low area is 8.0 1'151. If you have any questions, please conta~ ~ at your convenience at my office. AHF/jw Client - 3 G I::OTI:;CH~tc AL ENC.I~f.ER1NG A1 FOUNDATION INVES1"'IGA.... INC. 1"15 W ~~""f""n C~nler Dr, Fraser, P.E. CONCRETE, SOIL & ASPHALT TESTING 3:1fM Indu!>lrial 33rd SI, Fen Pierce. FL n4~O '1'..'_~~"^,, 1I<rY\.2'~.90[ 1 --- -... "'- --- '01 ....., .. ~... . to ;,. ~ - .... ...... . . .... .... .. .' w .> .. .. cr ! j I.l.I ... '" .. . .: OJ ... II ~ . ~. r 'Q.. ... : '. <wi "' :. " t ," . ,.. :.' ., ,. -. - - -- - - -.. - -'. </I'" :l g o- s :)0 ~ ~ ~ ri ~ - .., ~ .. ., --"~ "'... ~.~V\ t"T-z .. """- <l; . : ...J . ..! . > ! ---------------~~ / I , , , /11' ./ , .. J' r4 ~ ,l I CIQ. t q:/ ,// _-.' :--'" -, .. -:';1' f/) ~ ~ o :: _I~ N~ ~~ .(/) - -- . ~ - "'--r'''; cO t- ' 1 .,. ~.~ ~.;;;~;}.~ , . " " . , f~. :' t ,/- ~ I,; ~,<! II ' , ' (jJ ; ! '- -'"1 ; , ~I .. ~ I " liF .. .., 1.9 . oti I ~ /~~ I /:/ I ~ ~'~(" ~ ~ .~..~~~,,~~~ I i1___ - -:- - )\-- -- - - -- -- ~-- - --...: :::-:: .. .,.., 1 V.I.$I^ 'fN3na " 0 ~ I I~T"---- I ~A:~ I' . ! 8 'f" ~ !sl ~ a , \ '-~~,'W> .... ~ .. .. . . l"t \, ,.'\ ~ '~~\ ~~'" '\,~~ '~. "\'~' \ i. ,.. ., III ~5 03> i: lI:~ ~ i ~~ OIl g .. .. i.*,' /. .. l , I ..~ ~ ... :).t' ,:/. . If I r ,... : -- ~~~ s. I ~ -. -.. ..... ---------- --. ", ',,' :.~. ,:;., . .---- -- ., . JI W l I ----.L -l43lt~S '41 ..... -- _ ' 11 S -- .-- ------- ... o z 3 ~ ~a. ~' C/l "'....-... l"l -; 1M , I 2. I ""''i. J.W10;:) 'l)1€ "'S ~.., f ! 1\ . 4. ; s: 'l ..... _'" 4( -t. '" .. ..... "" . ... Oll: ~ . .. ,... . < '" . ",,'" "-",, ...;) :1;'" --..... '. - .. ....... . '\: \ \' \ ] . . " ", r --__. I i ~ ! I I : . . ~ = . . . . -L ' . , i i - --- M31^ NYi;)O .f:J ' \.._-- I II~r--- I '" , 1 -----~ Ii'un. .. Mii(---O--- -- -0 Q I It I' il N o z ~ ... Go. --.. ... <It ... 1Ii ~ ~ ... III ... ..J ~ lJ ~~ :1 ~~ I~ l~ ~ 1 ~ ~. ~ 1; ::: . ~ . Is} ~ 2,)' /' " *0888-t9v-~0p Wd62:2~ 26. 90 inr tlrlH ll) 1, \7'1 -- --.- ~.-- o (1) (2) CE SIGNA nONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GROUND WATER ...... lOSS OF O~l/lllNG flUID D ROCK CORE .. UNDISTURBED ~t..'rlPl.E "), 3.51 7.0' 20.0' ...,.............. .-....... ........~... .,i...h ~ul-fa('C' org;P1;t-<=: White fine sand with trace of roots. Orange tiae sand White fine sand 80R~NG NO.: j 1 DATE DRILLED: 7/3L92 JOB NO.: J~1805 FF:..A~ER ENCf'.HJl.I~G '\"~:D TEsn:-.'c. I . tll'l H 111 <:'I ~.-., -. SC~irtiC... - -- - - --....- - ---_.-'"~.....- 20 - ----....- - - . 21 . .. 22 - .. 23 - - White Fine Sand 24 - 2S 26 26.0' .. 27 . Tan fine sand . 28 28.0' . 29 Brown f i.a sand . - 3 0 30.0' - ... Boring 'fe_inated at 30.0' . - Ground Wa_r Table - 29.5' . . .. - - .. - . . .. - .. . - (1) BOR!NG NO.: # 1 Continued DATE OAlllED: 7/3/92 JO e NO.: .J- HHi '1 (2) DESI~N~ nONS ~ OJ:\OUNO w"nA ~ lOSS OF OP.lllING FlUID C ~OCJC. CORt '( \:"-.lOIS1UFd!.(O ~.:..vn.E FR"q[R EHCf"-HRING 1,,~D TES'i~JC. l~, JUL 06 _'92_0~:31PM 49?-461-8880* UPtH o . . e'l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (1) (21 O(SIGN~ TlONS CROUND WATER ~ lOSS OF ORIlllt..jC HUIO J:] ROC":; CORE r'" "'"'. ~.., """, r r r" ,.. .. I l r' I:' .5' 3 - I . :, 7.01 18.0' DBC' "0,,", Gra P.l:- --.-...-- -- White fine .and with trace of roots Orange fine sand Whi te fine sa.nd Boring ~minated at 18.0' (Done by "hand - not accessible for rig Ground W~er Table - none encountered ... BOR!NG NO.: DATE ORILlED: JO B NO.: #2 7/3/92 J-1RO'i FP-."~H E:--;Cf',"EEP"I~JG '''D Tf.ST1~.jC. 1 CUl H (1) o - -r:-'. I') \ ~$('--"'110'" --..- --- - - - "..------ .-----...- ---- ---.- 1 1. 0 t 2 3 4 5 5.5' 6 7 9.0' - - - 8 9 Gray fine sand wit.h surface orCJi.1.nic.-s Whi te fiN sand Brown fine cemented sand (Hardpan) 10 10.0' Brown fine sand 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (21 DE SIGNA nONS ~ GROUNO WAlER It>- lOSS OF OFlllllNO FL UIO o ROC)'; COR!: ... -.... ,.,.--,...... ,. . C 1- J ,.. Boring ~e~inated at 10.0' Ground Water Table - 7.0' BOR!NG NO.: # 3 DATE DRILLED: 7/3/92 JOe NO.: .1-1 R05 FIt..l.~E~ El'~CI""(P,l~C ,~";D TESTi~JG. 1 .. ---------...------ . - ---..--.. J .~l~J:,-r:.'.II~~__ .~-.,...". r(rlH It) c2') . ~'" "t --- -- ----.. --- 0 - . Gray fine sand ...: J. t.ll !jurface organics 1 1.0' . Brown fine sand with trace of roots 2 2 0' .. 3 . . .. - . 5 . White fine sand 6 - 6.5' 7 . 7 . 5 ' Dark brawl fine sand 8 - Dark Mae fine cemented sand 8 . 5 ' (HardD&J1) 9 - Brown fine sand - - . 10.0' 10 . 11 . Boring 'r...minated at 10.0' .. 12 Ground Wetter Ti;ible - 9.0' - . 13 . . 14 - 15 . 16 - .. 17 . . 18 - . 19 . . 20 - (1) PI DESIGNATIONS CAOUND WA. TER ~ lOSS OF DRILLING flUID o AOCJl: CORE ,. \HI ;) 1 S T U F B [ 0 ~ ~ I,~ F L E #4 BOR!NO NO.: DATE DRILLED: 7/3/92 JOB NO.: J-1805 FJt~~E~ ENCI'.n9,nJG ~SD TfSTi:-"C. ~w_ _4 _ Rcpol1 C'lf f1YOR.^Ur,IC CONOUCTtVITY Clitnl Carnaham Associates Inc. D:uc July 3, 1992 FET #J-1805 Contraclor Client Site Cedar Grove, Boynton Beach Location #1 USUAL OPEN HOLe T~T Q I , . I N:.G. I WNrER TABLE " ,../I..,....W'. ..*"'..~.A'.. t ; ..,.r''''''''.I''''.''.~''.rI I d I : ' ,- I I , I I t , I I I I "2 1 as - K = 4Q 7fd(2H/ + 4BJDs + 13d) K ..::: HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 1.08xlO-3 CFS/FT. 2 FT. BEAD - "STABILIZED" -2 Q = FLOW RATE 2.37xlO CFS d ::;;: DIAMETER OF TEST BOLE 0.375 FEET HI "" DEPTU TO WATER TABLE 6.01** FEET Ds = SATURl\TED HOLF.: DEPTH 0.0 FEET, **Used for calculations - Actuar Wat.er Table - FRASER ENGINEERING ~~STING, INC. "0 UIPII.:'-"<; <:TP/OTT . "TJ:ITTJ:'J) Jl"! ~ '\J~~ JUPITER (~071 '~I.~t\'l" DEERFIELLJ C~U~I /1\1~.h\~5 DELRA Y I~O~I ~t.5.1: II ~dtjtd<.T 1..:1()i1 ;i\; ~:ti ~q ..on T l'II-.Ill'E: 1JI.Y.I.tGI.1!,( VI-,IIO Ilt:Al:lI. lJOr,1 SG7 lilt STU ^ RT: 130612s,,.m FRASER I ,GINEERING AND TESYlNr--INC. BfI,J INOUHRL\L Urd STRFCT FORT ,.F..Cf_ FLORIO" .1).\50 ~-::-~-..;....:.:.- Rcpnrl or UYDR}\l!I. I C CONDUCTIVITY CUe"1 Carnaham Assoicates Inc. "Ie July 6, 1992 Contractor Client PET #J-1805 Site Cedar Grove, Boynton Beach Location # 3 USUAL OPEN HOLE TBIT 'Q I , , ( .~G. 1 ,.. ." ". "" . . ~. , ,.,,,,, "" ~ " I" I ''''''.'''.~'d'''#.II..#'I''''t' I I d I . I I- I I I I I , I I I I 1 : I I I , I I I I I I I ~ 1 : I D. Wl\TER H l TABL~ 'Q K = 4Q -. 7fd(2H:l + 4aJ~ .. HId) K = HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 8.34xl~-4 CFS/FT.z- FT. HEAD Q = .STABILIZED" PLOW RATE 1.82x10--2 CFS d =: DIAMETER OF TEST HOLE 0.375 FEET H2 = DEPTH TO Wl\TER TABLE 6.0'** FEET Ds = SATURATED HOLE DEPTH 0.0 FEET *~Used for calculations - Actual .a~r Table ..--.....-------.--- JUL 06 '92 02:33PM 407-461-8880* P.1/2 FRASER ENGINEERING ANn 'JESTING, INC. 220 HIBISL:US STREET. JUPITEK. ~ 33458 Jl'PI rl:.K (411:'l "I{. -^"~ [ll:rRntL[lI)lI~j "'1~,'lJt55 DELRAY 14071 ~O~ 1:11 S'Il;ART 14ll7) l~.l.7111 FT. PIERCE 1.&o()'~33.(1O II ..l: Report of DOl.1BLC RING lNPILTROMETER TEST ASTH 1)-3385 Client Carnaham Associates, Inc. ate July 3, 1992 Contractor Client FET #J-1805 Site Cedar Grove, Boynton Beach Location #2 Elap!-Sed Quantity of Infiltratialll Rate Infiltration Rate Time (rni n. ) Water ( ml) (cmLhr.) (in./hrl 5 5110 8'.. 34.3 10 5250 89.1 35.2 15 5310 90.2 35.6 SOIL PROFILE: o - 611 Gray fine sand with roots. G" - 4' White fine sand with trace of roots 4 I - 6 I Orange fine sand 6' - 18' White fine sand Water table 28' Head of \<lJater Used 5" copies; Client - 3 PF ;'~::'~.-~- l, ..J..\ ....UJ <:r <T ~~~~~~~---~--~-Nrurororororol~ ~~~~~~~~Omm~~~00000~--Z~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G; f!I ~~~g~g~8~g~g~~~~g~gjg~g~ ~~~~~~~~~H~~~~H~~HH_~~ ~.... ..;. - ., 11 :j II 'I fej + - !I \I II II II !I ~ + \I \I II \I \I \I ',1 .j>- + ". 0 II \I \I JJ \I ::J II "J II U1 + 0 1/ :lJ 1/ q II II 11 II I 1/ ..., en+ '11 0 II ,1) \I <T II II II II -..j+ 0 II II II II \I II (0+ 0 1/ II II II II /I IJJ+ .=- /I II II II II II /I o ~ * * '" '" '" * i< '" .. * * * ~ * * * I : I ; I' i r ! -L,VI · G(. I \ Ir- I: :,: \ I " I i r X ~>- roruroroN~ro--~~-~~~-~--_~_ ~~~??~?~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~ ~NC'JU~O,~ro,=~~roc'Jt~roo~~~ O~O~,~~O~OUO~O~O~,=~O~O~ .__ l';" .;. .- c .'"' _ : : "- .; -'. ~ ~ :~ gt ~ :'" ::~ - '" fl) [I) rl) rl) i(l - ...... _ -. ..... __ .- ~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~'rJ~~??? ~W~O~~N~~~~O~~ro~'i~O~~C ~NO~~NO~~~O~J~ro~o~~~~UC II to il :t II ~ 1l1O II m 1\ 1\ < !I m !I II to II :t 1\ 0 111 n ~ 1l1O II m rl} ... ....,a. ...... .... """" .... ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~????? .j>-1JJ~1JJ.j>-1JJ~lJJcnW~~~WU1IJJW(DU1roOO OOOOOOO~O~IJJW(orocnow-..j~~-..jO I I i ~~~~~wwwrororo~~~1 I oenN-..jWIJJU1~-..j~O-..j~~(Den.j>-ro~ooo w~4~~~~~~~~ro~~1~~~~~ro~ ~roO-..jU1rooenro~en~W(DIJJ(DU10U1WroO II~ I~ ,f' i' i I ! .- -', .., '" '" c~ '" " .. .. .. .. .. .. '* .. :.+: ~ ~ ~ -" r.) rv * .. * * * .. * * * * * * * * * ~ rl) en 0 " ro Zo]UJ GJ III <:r <: III ill C("!-lC III 1J - :..... . " c- " iI ' ill UJO"> ." n <T . ! ,) U1 ;)1 -h-: <:r!lJ D!lJ u::: niJ a III r 1I 0 iI ~ \I !It cnenO"> II Ij <1"' I 0 C'ill II ....;; Ij <1" !It D \I lO n III . II :x:: II ... Cil II j !It cn~ II Ij <1"0 II I 0 "" ...., !It \I <1" !II .... lO I II lD II I II ! II iI II II II ;., ilEt.l ~ '; ;.. -..m <+.,. - - -- .- to- ..... - ..... ~ ..... to- '""" !- ..... ,..... f1) f"lj ro r!) r!) r)!"!) t !::J ???~:J~:~~?~?~?~~??P?~~~~~ ; 'I i~i1 ......j <:' n) t11 ......j C' ru 01 -.J C' ;-.i Ul "'.... .:) rl) U1 --....l '.:' ;-::i lfl <: . i -- "_~ ': :.r. :; r..~ :;, l~ C' Ul C ::..~ '.:' r..:-: 0 U~ <:' t.1 C ;~~ C C ~------~-~~-~~~~~ , " ,. " r .' T '" - Jl II H '" II II ,. II (.) + - II * II II 11 * II ~ II ~ + * ... '::0 II ". II ~ 11 * OJ II 2 II J II ,. lq + 0 " * 1) II i) II ,] " * II I II ... (ll + * 11 0 11 ".I II "'" II II " 11 '-1+ 0 II II " 11 " " Q:J + 0 II II " II " II \D + 0 II II " II II " .... II - '::0 I Wi i ~ J j '~ iI U1 II ct II ~ UI II m II II < II m II " U1 II ct \I 0 " l " ~ II in i II m J:'~ ruNru~rur)ru~~---~-~~~-~.-.......... ~~~????~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~ ~NO~GG)O~~~)O~~NO~JGruC~~ro O~O~O~O~O~C~C~C~O~O~O~ ........... .:: .- ~ "_'I - -- '-' "__ l' :::- -..., - ~ " -- - -,j r(1 flj fl) [I) f:.i J- ...... ...... - ,...... \0-"0 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~jr)~~?? t.D (.j -~ C. -t> Q:J n) In tD t.J -..j ,::;. ~ Q:J n) lD --I -..j 0 -l> .... C ~roo~~ruO~UroO~l~ro~O~~~~~O flj ..... .- ...... ..... ..... ...... ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~????? ~\D~t.D~tD~tD(llW""""""W~\DWQ:J~rooo OOOOOOO~O~\DWmro(llOw-..j....~'-IO ! I I I i (ll~~~~wwwrororo"""""" I O(llro-..jW\D~""'-I~O'-l~""Q:J(ll~ro....OOO I I It I I I I I I' . I . I I I" I . I, . I I. . wro~\Dm'-l(ll~'-Io~ro........~....ro'-l~'-Iroo ~roO'~NO~li~~~~i~~O~~IO ." , .. 0<< '. * '" co. * ,. ." '" ,. * ,. '" .... "- OJ ," fa:1 f(l * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ... (ll ro ZilUJ I:l III <+ < III !lJ ::= ~~ :: c d: '" :n iJ'l " :; >:"'t ~:" " -+,'1 & ~ ~ ~ m Ii I' il 1I II II II II II \I II II II II II II II II 1\ II " II r o ;t; m o !lI(Jl(ll(ll n <+ . I Cl C' !lI -ta ~ n <+!lJD lC Cl III :c .... Gl !lJUJ-l n ~ 0 I 0 rl- -..-S!ll rl-i I I F. MARTIN PERRY ROBERT LEE SHAPIRO JORDAN R. MILLER' JILL A, JARKESY 5&- tlQt- ~~~ ~~ Jfdk g ~~ !JJ5.d ~6"M gal.... JW",""", ~ JWk.( .9'~ 6"00 ?J.;;i gal.... ~, 5~ J.J4~ 176.d ~ TELEPHONE (407) 684-4500 FAX (407) 684-1008 . ADMITIED IN FLORIDA AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA c~.~,. . j I r <'J )" (. ~Oy N TOI( ',.'<(" C;j. '" '^ ,,' {\, '" 0""<<" '. ,., '. ~ Received ~ \:-""' - - '::}. , ...- 1 ~1c;.) JUN 1 a 1992 ':':;'1 \ -:~ ~ t:J~ :....../ . ".J. CITY ENGIN&:IILR ~ -. " .. '" \ 1-~o ,,-yO , '... . " ~8 ..1 ~ . '., ., '\ / ,"" EACT" . '., " ""..sJ~x'i;:'\ \....:~/ June 17, 1992 Mr. Michael E. Kazunas, P.E. City Engineer City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Re: Cedar Grove Investments, N.B./Rezoning Our File No. 3197.01 Dear Mr. Kazunas: On May 29, 1992, you sent correspondence to Mr. Julian Bryan indicating that the required drainage calculations for the proposed Cedar Grove Planned Unit Development Rezoning were not submitted to the City of Boynton Beach. On several occasions, engineers from Carnahan & Associates, the project engineer for Cedar Grove Planned Unit Development, met with you to discuss the drainage calculations that would be required for the project to move forward to the Planning and Zoning commission. Carnahan & Associates revised the submittal pursuant to the comments made by the city of Boynton Beach. Specifically, Carnahan & Associates prepared a Drainage/Soils Technical statement, which included drainage calculations and type of soils. This report was placed on the Master Plan itself. Furthermore, the Master Plan contained calculations of percentage acres of pervious versus impervious area. Carnahan & Associates also prepared a Master Drainage Plan which illustrates that drainage will be accommodated by roadside swale areas. The roads, including the swale areas, and typical street elevations were shown on the Plan, further illustrating that the drainage would be accommodated by the street system. It is our position that Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments of the City of Boynton Beach Code, does not require any of the submitted drainage calculations until such time as a rezoning is approved and preliminary development plans have begun. Further, it Mr. Michael E. Kazunas, P.E. June 17, 1992 Page 2 is our position that we have met the requirements of SSc of Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments. Our calculations, as well as Master Plan and Master Drainage Plan submitted, illustrate that the condition of the soil, ground water level, drainage, and topography are appropriate to both the kind and pattern of use intended. If you feel that the drainage calculations previously submitted are not in accord~nce 'with App~nd.j.:x B of "::.he City of ,Boynton BGacn Code, please indicate what additional calculations will be required for the City Engineering Department to make a determination that the drainage submission is complete and in accordance with Appendix B of the City of Boynton Beach Code. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 9u'a.~~ Jill A. Jarkesy JAJ:mkb cc: Michael Rubin Julian Bryan Press Tompkins cedargrv\kazunas.let gr~, ~, Jtdk c1 ~ .9d' - 'I/ie City of 'Boynton 'Beach (.J~ Letter of June 10, 199 Revision ~~~~~ f F:;;Jl"1 \. \ " ".' OFFICE OF 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Bead,. 'Boulevard P.O. 'Bo~31O 'Boynton 'Beadi, l'forilfa 33435.0310 City 9fa[[: (407) 734-8111 1".!U: (407) 738-7459 THE CITY ENGINEER June 11, 1992 Carnahan and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 4399 6191 W. Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 Re: Cedar Grove/Drainage Plan Submittal Dear Mr. Tompkins: This letter confirms our conversation of June 9, 1992 regarding the drainage plan submittal requested by City Commission at their May 19, 1992 meeting. Submittal requirements are outlined in Appendix B, Section 8.C and Appendix C, Section 4.E. To accomplish this, at a minimum the following will be required: 1) Test made to ascertain subsurface soil conditions and ground- water depth. Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.15. 2) Conceptual design with calculations addressing: a) Proposed design water elevations b) One hundred year storm elevations c) Storrnwater treatment methods d) Necessary percolation, detention and management areas e) Groundwater management plan, in particular as it effects the preserve area The project will remained tabled until the above is received and reviewed by the City. Submittal shall be in the form of seven copies, submitted to the City Engineer. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Kazunas at (407) 738-7487. Very truly yours, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA RECEIVED ~~. Michael 'E'-~..-iazunas, P . E . City Engineer MEK/ck cc: Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director J. Scott Miller, City Manager JUN 11 PLANNING DEPT. - - Jlmericas gateway to the gulf stream ~~;11- ---- rrFie City of ~tBoynton tBeac/i 100 T" 'Boynton 'Beac!i. 'Boulevard P.O. f}Jo~310 f}Joynton f}Jecu!i., :Fforitfo. 33435-0310 City :Jlaf[: (407) 734-8111 1'.9lX: (407) 738-7459 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER May 29, 1992 Julian T. Bryan III 3191 Leewood Terrace C-136 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Re: Cedar Grove Rezoning Drainage Submission Dear Mr. Bryan: City Commission at their May 19, 1992 meeting tabled the above item pending submission of the required drainage calculations. We have not yet received this information. Please contact Mr. Mike Kazunas at (407) 738-7487 if you need direction regarding this matter. Very truly yours, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA /,~r( ~ Michael E. Kazunas, P.E. City Engineer MEK/ck cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director RECEIVED JUN 11992 5lmerica's (jateway to tlie (julfstream ... ?:ne City of 13oynton 'Beacli , Pfannino & Zonino 'Departmtnt 100 'E, 'Boynton 'Beach 'Boulevara P,O. 'Bo;r.310 'Boynton 'Betuh, ::Florida 33425.0310 (407) 738.7490, :J.5U: (407) 738.7459 April 21, 1992 Mr. Julian Bryan 3191 Leewood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove pun (rezoning) File No. 654 Dear Julian: Please be advised that at the April 7, 1992 City Commission meeting the City Commission granted a continuance of the public hearing for the Cedar Grove rezoning as requested. However, as you know, the public hearing date was scheduled for the May 19, 1992 City Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m., not the April 21st date stated in your April 6th letter requesting postponement. Also, the City Commission granted the continuance subject to readvertising in the newspaper and remailing of notices to property owners within 400 feet, at the cost of the applicant. Our office, in conjunction with the City clerk's office, has remailed notices to property owners and has sent the new ad to the newspaper for publishing. Please submit a check payable to the City for $343.26 to cover all outstanding fees owed in connection with the postponement requests to date. A summary of the total amount due is provided below. CEDAR GROVE REZONING POSTPONEMENT FEES Dec. 5, 1991 letter of request for postponement of public hearinq to Jan. 14. 1992 Planninq and Zoninq Board meetinq & Jan. 21. 1992 City Commission meetinq Cost of Processing postponement Request (No Readvertising or Remailing Required): administrative postponement fee (postponement for a maximum of 3 months) = $ 25.00 (paid) JJ.merica's gateway to the gulfstream '"' TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -2- April 21, 1992 Jan. 1992 postponement of public hearinG to Feb. 11, 1992 PlanninG and ZoninG Board meetinG & Feb. 18, 1992 City Commission meetinG (no readvertisinG or remailinG required) Cost of Processing Postponement Request: administration covered under fee above = No charge Cost of Jan. 10, 1992 Notice to Property Owners within 400 feet - recommended by staff and agreed by applicant: postage for mailing supplies (provided by applicant) = $52.50 (paid) = No Charge Feb. 1992 postponement of Feb. 11. 1992 PlanninG and ZoninG Board and Feb. 18, 1992 Citv Commission public hearinGs to Feb. 27, 1992 PlanninG and ZoninG Board and March 3. 1992 Citv Commission meetinGs (PlanninG and ZoninG Board Granted continuance of PlanninG and ZoninG Board public hearinG to March 10, 1992, but Citv Commission denied continuance, reGuirinG readvertisinG and remailinG; City Commission public hearinG was scheduled for April 7.1992) Cost of Processing Postponement Request: administration covered under fee above = No Charge Cost of Feb. 21, 1992 Remailing of Notice to Property Owners: mailing labels (176) = $ 5.00 envelopes (176) = $ 3.00 postage (176 @ $.29 each) = $ 51. 04 copies (two-sided @ $.20 each) = $ 35.20 secretarial time ( @ $8.50/hr.) print labels (1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 type ad/notice ( 1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 labeling envelopes ( 1 hr. ) = $ 8.50 copying and stuffing and sealing envelopes (3.5 hrs.) = $ 29.75 Cost of Readvertising Ad in The Boynton Beach News newspaper on Feb. 27, 1992 and March 9, 1992: advertising fee (City paid as directed by the City Manager) = No Charge Subtotal = (+) $140.99 .. \ ,.. ,. TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -3- April 21, 1992 April 6. 1992 letter of request for postponement of April 7. 1992 City Commission public hearinq to April 21. 1992 City Commission meetinq (City Commission qranted continuance of public hearinq to May 19. 1992 city Commission meetinq provided that public hearinq date be readvertised and notice be remailedl Cost of Processing Postponement Request: administrative postponement fee = $ 25.00 Cost of April 17, 1992 Remailing of Notice to Property Owners: mailing labels (144) = $ 4.00 envelopes (144) = $ 2.50 postage (144 @ $.29 each) = $ 41.76 copies (two-sided @ $.20 each) = $ 28.80 secretarial time ( @ $8.50/hr.) print labels ( 1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 type ad/notice (1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 labeling envelopes (1 hr.) = $ 8.50 copying and stuffing and sealing envelopes (3.5 hrs.) = $ 29.75 Cost of Readvertising Ad in the Bovnton Beach News newspaper on April 30, 1992 and May 7, 1992: advertising fee Total = $155.00 = ( +) $444.80 (-) $101.54 Check received April 14, 1992 for $101.54 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE = $343.26 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (407)-738-7490. Sincerely, r:J,u;;t;P ~ Christopher Cutro, AICP Planning and Zoning Director A:CedGrvAd _ fJ1ie City of .---:'" 13oynton $eacn PCanning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E. tJ3oynton 'Beach. tJ30ulevanf P.O. tJ3o:t31O 'Boynton 'Beach., 'J[ori.da 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490, ~~: (407) 738-7459 April 21, 1992 Mr. Julian Bryan 3191 Leewood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove pun (rezoning) File No. 654 Dear Julian: Please be advised that at the April 7, 1992 City Commission meeting the city Commission granted a continuance of the public hearing for the Cedar Grove rezoning as requested. However, as you know, the public hearing date was scheduled for the May 19, 1992 City Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m., not the April 21st date stated in your April 6th letter requesting postponement. Also, the City Commission granted the continuance subject to readvertising in the newspaper and remailing of notices to property owners within 400 feet, at the cost of the applicant. Our office, in conjunction with the City Clerk's office, has remailed notices to property owners and has sent the new ad to the newspaper for publishing. Please submit a check payable to the City for $343.26 to cover all outstanding fees owed in connection with the postponement requests to date. A summary of the total amount due is provided below. CEDAR GROVE REZONING POSTPONEMENT FEES Dec. 5. 1991 letter of request for postponement of public hearino to Jan. 14. 1992 Plannino and Zonino Board meetino & Jan. 21. 1992 City Commission meetinq Cost of Processing Postponement Request (No Readvertising or Remailing Required): administrative postponement fee (postponement for a maximum of 3 months) = $ 25.00 (paid) Jlmericas gateway to tlie gulf stream TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -2- Ap r i I 2 1, 199 2 Jan. 1992 postponement of public hearina to Feb. 11. 1992 plannina and Zonina Board meetina & Feb. 1a. 1992 city Commission meetina (no readvertisina or remailina reauired) cost of Processing postponement Request: administration covered under fee above = No charge cost of Jan. 10, 1992 Notice to Property Owners within 400 feet - recommended by staff and agreed by applicant: postage for mailing supplies (provided by applicant) = $52.50 (paid) = No Charge Feb. 1992 postponement of Feb. 11, 1992 Plannina and Zonina Board and Feb. 18. 1992 city Commission public hearinas to Feb. 27, 1992 Plannina and Zonina Board and March 3, 1992 City Commission meetinas (Plannina and Zoninq Board aranted continuance of plannina and Zonina Board public hearina to March 10, 1992. but City Commission denied continuance, reauirina readvertisina and remailinq; City Commission public hearina was scheduled for APril 7, 1992) Cost of Processing postponement Request: administration covered under fee above = No Charge Cost of Feb. 21, 1992 Remailing of Notice to Property Owners: mailing labels (176) = $ 5.00 envelopes (176) = $ 3.00 postage (176 @ $.29 each) = $ 51.04 copies (two-sided @ $.20 each) = $ 35.20 secretarial time ( @ $a.50/hr.) print 1 abe 1 s (1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 type ad/notice ( 1/2 hr.) = $ 4.25 labeling envelopes (1 hr.) = $ 8.50 copying and stuffing and sealing envelopes (3.5 hrs. ) = $ 29.75 Cost of Readvertising Ad in The Boynton Beach News newspaper on Feb. 27, 1992 and March 9, 1992: advertising fee (City paid as directed by the city Manager) = No Charge subtotal = (+) $140.99 TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -3- April 21, 1992 April 6. 1992 letter of reouest for postponement of April 7. 1992 city Commission public hearino to April 21. 1992 City Commission meetino (City Commission oranted continuance of public hearino to Mav 19. 1992 City Commission meetino provided that public hearino date be readvertised and notice be remailedl Cost of Processing Postponement Request: administrative postponement fee = $ 25.00 Cost of April 17, 1992 Remailing of Notice to Property Owners: mailing labels (144) = envelopes (144) = postage (144 @ $.29 each) = copies (two-sided @ $.20 each) = secretarial time (@ $8.50/hr.) print labels (1/2 hr.) = type ad/notice (1/2 hr.) = labeling envelopes (1 hr.) = copying and stuffing and sealing envelopes (3.5 hrs.) = $ 4.00 $ 2.50 $ 41. 76 $ 28.80 $ 4.25 $ 4.25 $ 8.50 $ 29.75 Cost of Readvertising Ad in the Bovnton Beach News newspaper on April 30, 1992 and May 7, 1992: advertising fee Total Check received April 14, 1992 for $101.54 = $155.00 = (+) $444.80 (-) $101.54 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE = $343.26 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (407)-738-7490. Sincerely, r:Ju;;t;P ~ Christopher Cutro, AICP Planning and Zoning Director A:CedGrvAd A f~; t 2., 11q 2 ,~~ 1'1 S. L1Jke. D~; ve.- 1lr.u n ttlY) f3 el't"Ch ,~L 3 31./ =3 S -~7 , MClj6V J)-vl ;ne rVeiney- C, , -ht 'b OD.:J n T<f'n &4. d, 8O-!fn~ 73<-~, FL 33435 iX~y f\1~w Lr0C1ner: L aJ'>,\ WYlf-'1'j cchuLi.f Me. &acYr'sr Jcrnb lane(. I hope. J"'1A.. V-J.tI ryec.:f Me.. pvvpoS-eL hOUJin:;; deve,(opmf'nf c01cL all()~ -MG land t-o k Pu.v,{}'4J~L ~ an ehU~flJYlntMtfl1.-) prt'Jt:"-ue,.~ a 1/ " TheK P H'..- pJ-m~ of' hom('.!::. fwL Sale- and Vacant renm( ~nrf-s In fl,e. n-eiqiborntJoi c;t J rf' P. tll-i. # f) 3 tf h lJ me...s ti. hd.. d up !?t' l ~ S /,V () '-LId.. (] 01') 'j od cl TO Me- t" ;u sf 1';3 hOL{~;nL4 odd... an ed~ ~5o 350 La. vs J e ~ Gh m () Y'"r1 i N1 aM'" -f k v 110Dr] -to an al}-(~ cvvtxJd.1d Sea C'rl'..st Blud. u...~ ./ . 0.. ntl c*e s+~ 7 lIo L e ue,y a Y1 t:t/-I1e r p" e C€- lJ.f' DU~ e~tlaYtj~1-t.f1 5c~b. whL, P/oe5> euevLf ,tlua,' (a Me- b J f d-P 11 a!e ant ; a neL nO. Ut:- -/D fk.. hI.-{ i /f 0 n ? .Fvvz- +A.e k- ,IT' ~ J lJY1..d) L a, YY\ a .s J(jJ1!J GjOVl, -h, Con SIder -I'M- 1','71 pa Lf o.~ . ~-f 5 O~~ ve{ui) lwnr unA Ye.rf'c.j~ ,7, Ld hoA.k M tJe,Y" kJ~ /::iJ CQ I~ b~ f a~ [) ~ ) S'tl1lere~ . U . {v/ IS. K ~ ~ <;~.hni r ;)'\41'\ RECEIVED ~c, - JD LJ~ Ce.. ~"1 ~ t! 'M.~r, '~ r ~ f~ r\PR 7 PLANN\NG DE-Pi. -- - rA. ..- ~ k~JIl^- . ~ City of 'Boynton 'Beacfi 100 'E. 1Joynton 'Bead.. 'Boultvartl P.O. 'Bo~3 10 'Boynton 'Be",n, '.JCoritia 33425-0310 City 'Jfaf1: (407) 734-8111 '.JJU: (407) 738-7459 March 26, 1992 Lt. Col. R. Dan Dunford, Regional Director Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Everglades Region 551 North Military Trail West Palm Beach, FL 33415 Dear Lt. Col. Dunford: Thank you for your letter dated March 23, 1992 reference the importance of preserving the tract of land known as the Seacrest Scrub due to environmen- tal vegetation and habitat. A copy of said letter has been forwarded to the Mayor and each Commissioner for their review and infonmation. I wish to advise you that a public hearing on the application of Cedar Grove Investments on their request to rezone this tract of land to a Planned Unit Development and to allow for the construction of 234 dwelling units is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission at their regular meeting of April 7, 1992. Public input at this hearing is certainly welcome. Si ncerely, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH 7L~~ City Manager JSM:cd cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commission Chris Cutro, Director of Planning Central File ....... JII:',; ;- RECEIVED MAR 26 7 :; PLANN\NG DEPT. - ~mtrica's gateway to the (julfstream . . FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION DON WRIGHT Orlando QUINTON L. HEDGEPETH, DDS Miami MRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY Miccosukee JOE MARUN HILlJARD Clewiston BEN ROWE GaiDesviDe ROBERT M. BRANTLY, Executive Director ALLAN L. EGBERT, Ph. D., Assisbnl Executive Director EVERGLADES REGION SS 1 North Military Trail West Palm BelICh, FL nus (407) M0-6100 March 23. 1992 Mr. J. Scott Mi ller City Manager City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Dear Mr, Mil I er : The Florida Game and Fresh Water ~ish Commission (Comlii:::Clon) has learned that the owner of the tract of land known as the Seaerest Scrub is seeking Planned-Unit development aoprova: from the Boynton Beach City Commission. Whi Ie this agency does not o r d ; n a r i I y i n v 0 I ve its elf i n I 0 c a i : and - use de cis ; 0 n s, ! wo u i d ! ike to inform you of the significance of tne Seacrest Scrub to wi Id! ife in coastal southern Florida. In a recent study conducted by Ms, Joan Ber Ish, Commission research biologist, the Seaerest Scrub was Identified as one of Palm Beach County's few remaining areas of cr:tical ha~:tat for the s tat e - I ; s tea go ph e r to r- t Q I S e . G i ve nth e n e a r- V com 0 i e t f? : 0 s s o f e 0 a s t 'a i u pia n d h a b J tat : n SOU the r n F i 0 rid a and the pro s ::l e c t 0 ~ ~uture development, purchase and preservation of a network of s! tes such as Seaerest Scrub I sour aest !-loDe fo~ enst..:r i ng t"e continued presence of gopher tortoises in the reg on. Severa j other spec i es 0 f wi! d I j fe face t'le same ;::>red I carner,,::. inciuding the Florida scrub jay, Eastern indigo snake, gooner frog, and Flor Ida mouse, All Of tnese an,ma.s are! isted as Threatened or of SpeCial Concern. The Florida scrub jay is a classic e.x;amp!e of deci ining wi idi ife populations in our region, Once found all along the coastal ridge. they were extirpated from Dade County in the 1960's. from Broward County In the 1970's, and are perilously near e.>'.tirp:3tlon in Palm Beach County today. RECEIVED MAR 2S 1592 CITY lu t~NAGER.S OFFICE ~ Recycled (S\ Paper / ROBERT K SWARTHvL1T, INCORPORATED city planning consultants 400 South Dixie Highway, Suite 121 Boca Raton, Florida 33432-6023 (407) 392-5800 (305) 467-5800 March 12, 1992 Mr. Wayne Ezell, Editor The News 33 S,E. 3rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Dear Mr. Ezell: This letter responds to your March 10 editorial on the Seacrest Scrub in Boynton Beach. The comments are based solely on the information contained in your editorial, as I have no other knowledge of the relevant facts. Relevant facts not contained in your editorial might cause me to modify what I have written herein. Your editorial called upon local officials to delay rezoning of the Seacrest Scrub property in Boynton Beach. It says that delay is needed because the rezoning will push up the price and thereby make it more costly for the county to purchase the land for preservation. You point out that planning officials have recommended in favor of the rezoning because it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. What your editorial proposes is almost certainly illegal and would likely be to no avail. It is illegal because, according to numerous appellate court decisions in Florida and elsewhere, local units of government must zone according to reasonable plans and may not zone, or fail to rezone as in the instant case, with an eye to making property less costly to acquire for a public purpose. This goes to the heart of constitutional prohibitions against taking property without due process and just compensation. The action you propose would likely be to no avail because no court would recognize it as valid under the circumstances you describe. My understanding of these legal points is routine for a city planner; I would expect that this knowledge lies behind the action of local planning officials in recommending approval of the rezoning. The interest The News shows in environmental questions should be applauded. However, it might be hoped that your enthusiasm for the ,.... environment could be contained within the bounds of constitutional ';;1 protections for the right of people to be secure in their property. ~ Try to imagine what this right might mean for you. Imagine yourself ~ owning a piece of property which you had paid for at some sacrifice, U ~ , , .. '~ "'" . ~ z: 1 fi ~ 0.. r" 'I '" Mr. Wayne Ezell, EdlLor March 12, 1992 Page 2 Imagine that your property is surrounded by commercial uses or some other development, either planned or existing, and for that reason the comprehensive plan logically designates it for commercial use, even though it has been zoned for years for single family residential use. Now imagine that you apply for the commercial rezoning which the plan indicates is proper, but you are told that your property will not be rezoned because the city wishes to buy it for a fire station and it will be cheaper if the single family zoning is retained. Fire stations are worthwhile public goods and the city needs them. You, like all the other local tax payers, should have to put in your fair share toward the cost of the land. But should you have to pay a lot more than the rest of the tax payers just because you happen to own the property which the city wants to buy? Should your ownership of that property require you to subsidize its cost to your fellow taxpayers? This scenario is exactly analogous to the Boynton Scrub case you editorialized about. As an aside, you may want to know that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that property may be regulated in accordance with its capacity to sustain development in its natural state. The most comprehensive case that I know about on this point is Graham u. Estuary Properties. Deciding just how much regulation is appropriate under Graham can be a complex matter. The court set forth six different factors to be taken into consideration. In addition, the balance of interest test must be brought into play. That test holds that it is unreasonable and therefore invalid to make an individual property owner pay a high regulatory burden for a relatively small public protection. There was nothing in your editorial that suggested the balance of interest test or any of the six Graham standards as a matter for consideration in the Seacrest Scrub case. My guess is these questions were not involved. If they had been, then the comprehensive plan should have provided for lower density zoning in the first place. This letter is written for your own information and not with the intent that it be published, although I have no objection to its being published. Sincerely yours, ROBERT K. SWARTHOUT, INCORPORATED Lc~~~ Robert K. Swarthout, AICP RKS:tb ,- .~~ fJ1ie L~ity of ~oynton ~eacli Pfanning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beac/i 'Boulevard P.O. 'Bo{.310 'Boynton 'Beac/i, Jlorida 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490, T:U: (407) 738-7459 February 19, 1992 Mr. Julian Bryan 3191 Leewood Terrace L-16 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove - Rezoning File No. 654 Dear Mr. Bryan: The comments below from the Planning Department and the attached comments from other departments were generated as a result of the February 13, 1992 prehearing conference for the above-referenced request. These comments, with minor revisions, will be the conditions of approval that will be recommended to the boards, by staff. As previously discussed, it is encouraged that as many of these comments as possible, be addressed through submittal of 16 sets of revised plans by February 24, 1992, to reduce the number of conditions of approval. All comments below, identified with an asterisk, are comments which will have to be addressed on a revised master plan prior to applying for the next type of development order, therefore it is highly recommended that these comments be resolved now, with the next submittal, prior to forwarding this request to the boards. 1. A copy of the revised traffic study and letter from Palm Beach County were received. In discussing the study with Dan Weisberg of the County, it was noted that turn lane analysis had not been included in the study and based on the peak hour, southbound, left hand turn movements on Seacrest Boulevard of 90, which exceeds the County standard of 30, a left hand turn lane will be required. Dan Weisberg has conveyed this to the project traffic consultant and will be sending a letter regarding revising the study to reflect the left hand turn lane (transition lane) requirement. Please copy this department on the revised study and any correspondence relative to this issue. Chapter 19, Article VI, Concurrency Requirements, Section 19-87 (e), Section 19-84(e) . 2. Add a graphic scale to all drawings resubmitted. Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.3. * 51 me rica 's (jateway to tne (julfstream TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -2- February 19, 1992 3. The unified control documents, as required by Appendix B, Section 6 of the Code of Ordinances must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and certification by the City Attorney, prior to this request being forwarded to the boards. Therefore, please submit this data no later than February 25, 1992. 4. Note on the master plan that the 11.5 acre preserve area shall be privately maintained. (Depending on whether the City Commission decides to require land dedication or accept a fee to satisfy the parks and recreation dedication, there is a slight possibility that some arrangement may be desired to allow limited, guided access to the preserve area for educational purposes.) The future plat document will specify the responsible entity, as will the homeowners' association documents and tree management plan referenced in #5 below. * 5. Submit a tree management plan for the preserve area, PUD buffers and any other common areas, including as much existing vegetation outside the preserve as possible, which employs preservation and relocation, rather than "cut and replace" techniques. In addition, designation on the master plan of a transition buffer is recommended as a restricted development zone to prevent significant adverse effects on the protected environmentally sensitive zone. This should be included in the management plan to ensure that any portion of this buffer that is damaged during construction, is restored and operating within a reasonable amount of time. Conservation Element, Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4.4.2. and Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 7.5-6.1(b) and Appendix A, Section 9.C.4.d.(3) of the Code of Ordinances. At this point, it is recommended that a note be added to the plans that states the intent to employ these measures in the areas specified.* 6. Remove the three private recreation site notes and private recreation designation of the 1.3 acre tract on the master plan. Add the intended method (fee or land dedication) of satisfying the parks and recreation dedication and meeting the City'S neighborhood park level of service. staff's primary recommendation is that 3.2 acres, a credit of one acre for the preservation area, of the 4.212 acres computed for parks and recreation to serve 234 units, be dedicated along Seacrest Boulevard rather than accepting a fee. Acceptance of a fee, equal to the fair market value of 3.2 acres, is the second choice option. If the Commission grants more than one acre in credit for the preserve area, then staff's primary recommendation would be to accept the fee in lieu of land. TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -3- February 19, 1992 (cont'd. ) 6. In the event that the Commission approves the payment of the fee in lieu of land and the developer opts to provide private recreation to receive 50% credit toward the fee, staff's recommendation is that the market value of 2.1 acres be paid in fee. Furthermore, at least a portion of this private recreation area shall have access by all residents of the PUD and commencement of the private recreation shall take place within one year of approval of the first plat. The preliminary plat submittal shall show the number, size, type and location of the 5 recreational elements proposed. Appendix C, Subdivision, Platting, Article IX, Section 8; Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element, Policy 5.5.4 and Recreation and Open Space Element Support Documents, Volume 1/ pages 13, 40, 41, 44, 54, 56, 65; and Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Support Documents, Volume 1/ "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" Planning Area 4.i. (pages 79 and 80).* 7. The revised traffic study mentions that the project access road will be four lanes with a divided median. The proposed 60 foot right-of-way will not accommodate four lanes, drainage/swales, 8 foot bike path on one side, 4 foot sidewalk on opposite side and utilities. Although four lanes are not necessary, three.~anes - one into the project and two out of the pr6ject, transitioning into two lanes are recommended. Revise the right-of-way width and section accordingly. Appendix C, Article X, Section 10.B and C.* 8. Consistent with Policy 1.3.6 and 1.3.8, Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Appendix C, Article X, Section 10 of the Code of Ordinances, the proposed street layout, with two project access roads, is important in order to establish and coordinate a citywide street network and provide for continuity with the existing street system within the surrounding area. However, due to a possible visibility problem at the intersection of Gulfstream Boulevard and Ocean View, it is recommended that the road link to the south be via Buena Vista. In addition, the stretches of rights-of-way west and south of the intersection of the proposed 60 foot and 50 foot rights-of-way are needed as a public thoroughfares to provide alternate routes during utility and road repairs and emergencies, for fast and efficient public service, for park access if a public park is dedicated and to encourage socialization within a community (as opposed to walled, isolated developments). A major disadvantage with private streets is that future road maintenance costs are often underestimated by homeowners' associations who must maintain them and later seek to dedicate them to the public.* TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -4- February 19, 1992 9. Recommendations relative to the proposed access points from the various tracts are subject to change at the platting level based on the outcome of the project access points, the transition lane design and the public park dedication issue. 10. Specify on the master plan, the pavement and right-of-way width of the local streets in the pods. This width will have to be wide enough to accommodate two, 11 foot wide lanes, swales for drainage, utilities and sidewalks. Appendix C, Article X, Section 7 and 10.B and C; Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10.* 11. Illustrate with heavy dashed and dotted lines on the master plan, the location of bike paths and sidewalks to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian circulation which is integrated with the existing bike paths and sidewalks on Seacrest Boulevard and the residences to the south. . Sidewalks/bike paths are required on both sides of the local streets. Appendix B, section 10.A.3.(e); Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.11.9 and 2.4.4; Appendix C, Article IX, Section 11 and Article X, Section 10.T and Section 12.* 12. Transfer the two pages of housing type information to the master plan to eliminate the 8 1/2 x 11 inch attachments. Also, provide a tabulation of the percentages of total gross acreage devoted to the dwelling types, recreation, open space, preserve, etc. Appendix B, Section 10.A.3.(f).* 13. Reduce the north and south PUD buffer width to 15 feet and add a note to the typical lot layout sheet that this buffer is excluded from the private lot areas abutting the buffer.* 14. Staff supports the proposed lot size for the patio homes which is less than the traditional minimum of 6,000 square feet, provided the following information is added to the typical lot layout sheet to replace the notes currently on this sheet: a) If single family homes are constructed in the villa home tract, they will conform to the typical lot layout proposed for patio homes. b) Screened enclosures with hard roofs shall be constructed no closer than 15 feet from the rear property line. Screened enclosures with screen roofs may be allowed to be constructed within 8 feet from the rear property line. c) Highlighted language on the enclosed attachments.* sw-cerely-, &W,...#- ~~ ~i Tambri J ~eYd Attachments A:CedGrOK - I; , i ~ ' I! I t ~ I t ' I t I II l' \ : ld. ;i . r r ,~ ; , i t ! r ! . , See. 5 BOYNTON BEACH CODE' {, Minimum living area 750 .q per Maximum lot coverage 40 Max~mum structure 25 feet; "t. height. exceed'! (9 *For single family, ;IlIe R-l requirement. "'{c b. On corner lots, .the side yard set'" the street shall b~ not less than one;' front yard setback except where'~"4I faces a different street than the re ~ the block,' then the front set maintained on both streets. J t ..,."t>' 3. Off-street parking. As provided' ~ '~~', hereinafter. G. R-3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING'if These district regulations will create a JDAYil1lWD 10.8 dwelling units per acre. It is the intent of thia;-' provide a higher residential density which>"" vertical structures and flexibility in multiple~fl"'." and that a certain amoun,t of multiple-faDUiY ''>'C. necessary and desirable and can complement ~. if located appropriately and if properly desicn8d.' factors to be considered are: l'~~} The location and nature of the area. " :,.~.J\",<w: . ;Il~1 An area of substantial size to provide a graduation of uses to be considerate or to, '~ID adjacent uses or districts. , . , ,~;r:tf The proximity to large concentrations of actiVit!. business, employment, and other facilities 1IJMt.... Sufficient and definitive traffic arteries to ... service the area. .' ' \: '!ld; .' :..l ,> ' . Designs that provide light, air passage, water.", ingress and egress, parking and traffic circuJa .. space and on-site recreation, maintenance ' " , community meeting provisions for the inhabi . ( ,~ 1. Uses permitted. Within any R-3 m~ti "'" dwelling district, no building, structure, ~d}~ shall be used except for one of the folloWUII .r 1908 i.e' AnY ,. R-l' Mul' b, apal hoO: and . thel thei priv c. d. Goll sim e. Roo Conditi lA. which v to be c grantee section of the 4 2. Buildin a. For bOl Minim for ly dl Minin for bo9.1 MiniI fror Minir yarl Mini! yar Mini Yal Mini arE Max erl 11,' -'! t I ~11 '! 11 BOYNTON BEACH CODE .\ electrical interference detectable to the ~.'i , the lot, if the occupation is conducted in ~' , residence, or outside the dwelling unit if eo ' than 'a single-family residence. In the case terference, no equipment or process shall _ creates visual or audible interference in ' . vision receivers off the premises. :jfu~ 5. No traffic, shall be generated by a ho~e greater volumes than would normally be idential neighborhood, and any need for Par. " , by the conduct of a home occupation shaU street parking which complies with the C' Beach Parking Lot Ordinance. ",~ '. 6. All storage of materials or supplies used ~' pation shall be done within the living ~ unit, within the space limitations specified " above and shall not be visible from acij'" units. Contractors, tradespersons and the ~ ' their home garage or yard areas for sto" and supplies used in business activiti~s. ,:;' , ,f'f' 7. No sign or display shall be visible other " nated sign, not exceeding two (2) square fee~' on the exterior wall of the residence as cloSe the front entrance. ,:'It." 8. A panel, pick-up truck, van, or similar' , over three-quarter ton rated capacity may' residential zoning district. Such vehiclet h , used by a resident of the premises, and nO ,'. such truck shall be located on each plot.!. ' . : .,...... 9. A home occupation shall be subject to aq~ cense provisions defined in chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances.,~;' (Y SWIMMING POOLS. * Swimming"'" " located, designed, operated and maintained.. \ \ I , , ~ : .!l , i " .I .; i , I 1 [i \1 l i \ I \ , tl \ \ 1\ t ,J~ ...1 I I , i\ I \ ,1 I J Supp. No. 44 1944.2 . , . .. the ci' ~tll pI the -aP ~ ~han ~E ~rty bU, ~the buildl ts sha.ll ,ute nd pools ~ r. SCREE .,11~ and sel trtb;ck. No S tir:ht (8) feett ,!Iall be cons ;t.c, property front yardS. G. tOWN ~ ( rm to the du o . mum reqUlrem 1. Each to' priva.te l or neigh 2. Each to. cess frorr s. All outdo shall be adjoininl t Parking U. PROVISI' 1. All off-8 and lay< City of be appl therein. 2. All off- drained public, ~;PP. :-In. 35 CODE . . ,{, llies used in the h " ;';. }. . OlDe IVlng area of the dw.... ns specified in sUb~" ) from adjacent reside · :IS and the like shall n .as for storage of lD ' ~ctivities. a hIe other than a n~niii' ,n square feet in area, p' :ence as close as practi~ rally, I 5-123 et seq. APPENDIX A-ZONING Sec. 11 .jth the city swimming pool ordinance and shall be subject ; the approval of the building department. No swimming ;01 shall be constructed closer than eight (8) feet from any roperty line and no swimming pool shall be built in front ~( the building l!ne. On corner lots, property bordering both treets shall be considered as front yards. Location of above ~round pools shall'comply with building setback requirements. fF)SCREEN ENCLOSURES. All screen enclosures (screen ~ and screen roof) shall comply with building side yard setback. No screen enclosure shall bE:. constructed closer than eight (8) feet from rear property line anJ no screen enclosure shall be constructed in front of the building line. On corner lots, property bordering both streets shall be considered as front yards. G. TOWN HOUSE. All town house developments shall con~ form to the district zoning and shall meet the following mini~ . I mum requirements: .- 1. Ea.:h town house shall have its own lot area, each yard private and reasonably secluded, from view of streets or neighboring property, 2. Each town house shall have a direct automotive ac- cess from the off-street parking space to a public street. 3. All outdoor, rear yard areas used for drying of clothes shall be screened from view from the street and from adj oining yards and lots. 4. Parking space shall be provided for as by section ll-H. H. PROVISION OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES. 1. All off-street parking areas shall conform to the design and layout requirements of Chapter 5, Article X of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, and shall be approved according to the procedures contained therein. I, Ii . I , I I 2. All off-street parking facilities shall be maintained and drained so as not to cause nuisance or danger to the public, or to adjacent public or private property. SuPp. No. 35 i I i I . , I I 1945 ~%e City of tBoynton 'Beac/i LL.. I:l.t-. ~'- ~ t..t....tuJ J ~-- 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Boukvara P.O. 'Bo~310 'Boynton 'Beac/i., :Fforitfa 33435-0310 City Rail: (407) 734-8111 l'fJlX: (407) 738-7459 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER 02/24/93 Law Office of Perry, Shapiro, Miller & Jarkesy, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite #600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attention: Martin Perry, Esquire RE: Boynton Seacrest Submission of Master Plan Without Benefit of Fee Master Plan Submission Fee Received 02/24/93 at 4:00 p.m. Dear Mr. Perry: Receipt of Check tendered under protest acknowledged. Thank you. Very truly yours, TH\ C~TY OF BO~YNTO~ BEACH, ~-<--\- ~\ . ~- Vincent A. Finizio i Deputy City Engineer FL. RECEIVED r t.~ 25 PL~NN\NG DE.PT~ \ -- cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney W. Richard Staudinger, P.E. Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director ~ 5'lmerica's gateway to the (julfstream February 14, 1992 (V' f' IclffJ)-1J, TO: Honorable Mayor, City Commissioners, City Manager and Director of Planning RE: THE SEACREST SCRUB The traffic conditions along the two lane section of South Seacrest Blvd. are very poor. The amount of traffic generated by school buses and emergency vehicles, in addition to already heavy traffic on South Seacrest Blvd., makes turning left into and out of all the avenues and driveways extremely difficult. Add to that the flooding that occurs regularly, and you have the impossible situation of four lanes of traffic going into two lanes and, during flooding, into one lane. To add the road impact from an additional 234 dwelling units to an already bad situation should not even be considered. Sincerely, v61/Ltf'caHddl!-~ Warren A. Hollien 113 S.E. 29th Ave. Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Tel. #737-8467 .$.4' .a 1=1 ... HD$!If'IIL ... NflAJliJ., I{II1I .. 1# Irs. ... /flr/JltAI. ... AIIV6e~ plllell "'., SEACREST BLVD. NARROWS FROM 4 LANES TO 2 LANES AREAS THAT ~ FLOOD DURING ~ HEAVY RAIN~ PROPOSED IIPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT!! 1.- , 'f1' , :J~\ "I :~I\, '\ \ " .~ I ,I, ... e.u1J~ + $e~ool. ... e,JoIIJI.f.II J.t. J' A1I6' C \ , I' ... CHfJlUII .,. SCI/IO L - )//U $CN,,' ...ILtlYlt#fAA-y leI/'lL ~ -------- n GEE & JENSON Englncors.Arctlllocts-PlarH1Grs, Inc February 12, 1993 One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone (407) 683.3301 Fax (407) 686-7446 Mr. F. Martin Perry Perry, Shapiro, Miller and Jarkesy, PA 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 RE: Boynton Seacrest (A.K.A. Cedar Grove) Subdivision Master Plan Resubmittal Dear Mr, Perry: At the Planning & Development Board meeting of the City of Boynton Beach (2-9-93) your client was instructed to resubmit the referenced subdivision Master Plan to the City Engineer with a resubmittal fee of $1500.00, The Engineering Dept. of Boynton Beach has in its possession the required documents, but no fee has been submitted by your client. We cannot and will not begin review of this master plan until we receive the fee. We await your client's action on this matter. In addition, at the 2-9-93 Planning & Development Board meeting, you unequivocally stated that your client had already obtained SFWMD conceptual approval of the surface water management system (drainage), and had obtained Palm Beach County approval of an alternate test 1 traffic analysis of the Woolbright Road link between 1-95 and Seacrest Blvd. Please produce these documents for the City's use in reviewing the referenced subdivision Master Plan. We await your action in this matter. Very truly yours, GEE & JENSON ~;~Ianners, Inc W. Richard Staudinger, P.E. City Engineer WRS/lkh 92025/200 cc: J. Scott Miller Chris Cutro Dan Weisberg ~ Jim Cherof Vince Finizio Ken Todd, Jr. RECEIVED FEB 1 6 1993 3. ,( - IL;)-,v-- I €'../ ~ . l ~1,L; To the City Commissioners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager \ To Mr. C!1:rLs Gl!t.:ro, City planne:r/) ,City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box 31~ Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310/' ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,i.--L~ Februa:ry, 1992 RE: "Seacrest Sc:rub" rezoning (envi:ronmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. --~,.' -------- ~~---- - ~ .- -- ----- WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The highe:r density and the multi=family buildingS-a:re not compatible with sur:rounding neighbo:rhoods! !! is not fair to the community to sandwich ~ PUD between long existing single family developments. On March 12th, 1991 we voted for the $100 million bond issue. We want this environmentally sensitive land-pFeservear- The site plan needs to address the following problems: 1. More than one ent:rance from Seacrest Blvd. is needed for the fire and for the police. No turn lane is indicated on Seacrest Blvd. It is not clearly shown on the PUD if S.E. 2nd st. will be used by the development. 2. The preserve ~ (25%) should be calculated on the entire 53.69 acres as there are over 60 gopher tortoises, foxes, and raccoons who have made this entire property their home. The p:reserve requirement should be 13.42 acres instead of the 11.5 acres on the PUD. Will the public have access to the preserve? Is this the most environmentally sensitive area to preserve? 3. A city sewer line runs North and South in the middle of the property. Can the developer build on it and who will maintain it? Should the sewer line be relocated to be easily accessible by the City? 4. There is ~ water retention a.ea on the West side of the property. The rain flows from the top of the dune to Seac:rest Blvd. and to nearby homes. They have no water retention a:rea on the East side. The runoff may kill the scrub and endanger the animal habitat presently built in a dry su:rrounding. 5. There is no mention of relocating the animals. The extra raccoons, foxes, gopher tortoises, possums and other animals will not be able to live in the small preserve. 6. The:re a:re no dimensions and no layout of the lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. Name Street City 1. - :--7" - t) 'JA-<1 Zip Code Date & Phone No. ~ ZL~ ?I- 2. 36 r'f ,~. ~ ,~ p-. 3.~ ~,rL". _~ b,f j9f::L 1. "f 1.'"-,,, ' r: ~, . 1.1':, ' "fr'; :; .:3 Y3 ~ . ~~-- -JI . ?i ,:"~ ~ . I '. -=::: 4. n--r:-Y1'7/ 3 ~. -7z1ie City of 'Boynton 'Beach P!anning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E, 'Boynton 'Beacfr.. 'Boulevard P,Q. 'Bo~310 'Boynton 'Beadi, :Fforitfa 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490, J"jU: (407) 738-7459 January 30, 1992 Mr. Julian Bryan 319 Leewood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove PUD Rezoning - File No. 564 Dear Mr. Bryan: At the January 28, 1992 prehearing conference, staff concluded that the plans on file for the above-referenced request could not proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board due to several unresolved issues. It was determined that the comments below were critical and needed to be addressed by submitting seventeen sets of revised plans to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and comment by staff, prior to this request being forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. 1. Full-sized surveys were not submitted and stapled to previous submittals as referenced in staff comments dated October 4, 1991 and November 4, 1991 from the Planning and Zoning Department. Attach to each set of revised plans a full-sized survey which shows the existing utility easement where the force main is located. 2. The project access road off of Seacrest Boulevard does not align with Mission Hill Road. Revised plans shall show realignment of the project access road with Mission Hill Road. (3 A copy of the revised traffic study which addresses Palm Beach county's comments dated October 24, 1991 and Palm Beach County's response to the revised study were not received. Provide two copies of these documents. If a revised study has not been prepared, please submit three copies of the revised study directly to the Planning and Zoning Department so that we may coordinate the review. o Typical lot layouts were not included on the master plan sheet as referenced in previous staff comments dated November 4, 1991 from the Planning and Zoning Department. Provide on the revised plans a typical lot layout for all Jlmern:a's (jateway to the (julfstream TO: Mr. Julian Bryan -2- January 30, 1992 4. (cont'd. ) @ (9 unit types which indicates the proposed minimum lot area, lot frontage, building setbacks, minimum living area, maximum lot coverage, maximum structure height and setbacks for pools and screened enclosures with and without solid roofs. This application for zoning of land to PUD is not yet complete since unified control documents, as required by Appendix B, Section 6 of the Code of Ordinances have not been submitted for review and certification by the city Attorney. Provide documents which meet the requirements of this section. The proposed 2.0 acre public park located in the northeast ~orner of the site does not meet the level of service for neighborhood parks and relevant compreheusive plan policies and subdivision requirements. Revise the master plan to show a 4.212 acre park to be dedicated to the public, along Seacrest Boulevard, with access from the project access road If this is not acceptable, the second choice is to provide an on-site private recreation area to receive 50% credit with the remaining 50% of the dedication to be satisfied by payment, at time of final platting, of a fee equal to the fair market value of 1.58 acres of land. This incorporates a 25% credit towards the proposed preservation of 11.5 acres of environmentally sensitive lands. If the second option is proposed, the master plan shall be revised to show the number, size, type and location of the 5 recreation elements proposed, as well as a statment that all residents of the PUD will have access to at least a portion of the private recreation area. Also, a note shall be added which states that construction of the private recreation area will commence within one year of approval of the first plat consistent with the concurrency requirements in Chapter 19, Article VI, Section 19-85(b) of the Code of Ordinances. Please note that all comments from staff, generated from review of the plans currently on file, are due to the planning Department no later than Friday, January 31, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. These comments will be ready for pick-up or can be mailed to you on Monday, February 3, 1992. However, because of your intent to meet the next deadline of February 3, 1992 to submit revised plans, the above comments were identified as only those required to be addressed with your resubmittal. All remaining staff comments will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board as conditions of approving this request. Sincerely, c- d~~ 0-, !4tJ~. Tambri J. ~eYden Senior Planner A:CedGrPC Julian Bryan & Associates January 12. 1992 Mr. Christopher Cutro Director of Planning City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33425 Re: Cedar Grove Investments. Proposed PUD Rezoning (RESUBMITT AL) Dear Mr. Cutro: A ttached are 16 copies of Revised Master Plan and support documents for the above referenced tract, This major amendment to the originally submitted plan is based largely upon the requested update of the Environmental Assessment prepared in concert with Kevin Hallahan, your City Environmentalist, The total number of dwelling units remains at 234, however the mix and locations of each housing type has shifted. I believe that the substantial amount of time and effort expended by all involved parties will prove to have provided an end product that reflects the interests of all. Upon the completion of your initial staff review I would be pleased to discuss the package with you and provide any additional data you may require. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter, y, .~ .- .."",-,otrV" rm"';"~, "y:~.,..",!""",;r'(,' h' ,\1 " "..;'- '.!o J.'\J:':'LL~ - " cc: Cedar Grove Investments Michael Rubin Carnahan & Associates Iq~ JAM 16 I PLANNH~G DEPT. - -- .-" ~ land Development Consultants · 3191 leewood Terrace · l 136 · Boca Raton. Florida 33431 · (407) 338-0395 Pfanning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E. '.Boynton '.Beadt. '.Boulevara P.O. 'Bo~310 '.Boynton '.Beadt., :Fforitfa 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490, :F.9lX: (407) 738-7459 January 10, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN In December you were notified that the city would hold public hearings for a development known as Cedar Grove on the site known as the seacrest scrub. Subse~uently, these public hearings were conti~ued to January. We know now that the public hearing on January 14th before the planning and Zoning Board and January 21st before the City Commission will be continued until at the minimum February, if the applicant meets a submission deadline of January 17th. However, rather than rely on word of mouth regarding the status of this, we have decided that when the Cedar Grove application for zoning change is ready for public hearing, a new notice will be sent to you regarding the time and dates of the public hearing. We apologize for any inconvenience this series of continuance may have caused you and, if you should have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call us. Yours truly, ~~~ Christopher cutro, AICP planning Director CC:cp 5lmerica's (jateway to the (juifstream %e City of tBoynton tBeac/i Pfanning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E, 13oynton 13efUh 130ufevard P.O. 13o~310 13oynton 13efUh, ~foricfa 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490, ~5'lX: (407) 738-7459 January 10, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN In December you were notified that the City would hold public hearings for a development known as cedar Grove on the site known as the Seacrest Scrub. subsequently, these public hearings were continued to January. We know now that the public hearing on January 14th before the Planning and Zoning Board and January 21st before the City Commission will be continued until at the minimum February, if the applicant meets a submission deadline of January 17th. However, rather than rely on word of mouth regarding the status of this, we have decided that when the Cedar Grove application for zoning change is ready for public hearing, a new notice will be sent to you regarding the time and dates of the public hearing. We apologize for any inconvenience this series of continuance may have caused you and, if you should have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call us. Yours truly, ~L~ Christopher cutro, AICP Planning Director CC:cp 5l me rica 's (jateway to the (julfstream / i '. 'l~ City of 'Boynton 'Beach . 'Pfanning & Zoning 'Department 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Boulevard P.O. 130:(310 'Boynton 'Beac/i, Jlorida 33425-0310 (407) 738.7490, r:u: (407) 738-7459 November 4, 1991 Mr. Julian Bryan 319 Leewood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove Rezoning (PUD) - File No. 564 Dear Mr. Bryan: The comments below from the Planning Department and the attached comments from the Engineering Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Building Department, City Forester/Environmentalist, Fire Department and utilities Department have been generated after review of the above-referenced master plan submittal. 1. Palm Beach County's comments regarding the traffic study submitted ar~ attached. In addition to the comments from Dan Weisberg, it was noted that there is a discrepancy between the data supplied in the traffic study and the "Description of housing types" attachment stapled to the master plan with respect to the unit types and number of units of each type. Therefore, revise the traffic study accordingly. 2. Survey must show the existing utility easement where the force main is located. Full-sized surveys must be attached to eight of the seventeen sets of revised master plan drawings when resubmitted. Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.9. 3. Add a graphic scale to all drawings resubmitted. Appendix C, Article VIII, section 4.C.3. 4. The unity of title letter submitted does not satisfy the requirement for documents assuring unified control of the proposed PUD and the agreements required under Appendix B, Section 6. Satisfactory legal documents must be presented for review by the city Attorney. 5. utility plans shall be revised to reflect fire hydrant 51. me rica 's (jateway to tfu (jufjstream ~ -- Mr. Julian Bryan -2- November 4, 1991 (cont'd. ) 5. coverage of not less than 500 feet apart and no greater than 300 fe~t to the center of any lot and connections to mains no less than 6 inches in diameter. The system shall provide capacity for fire flow of at least 500 gallons per minute in addition to maximum day domestic requirements at residual pressures of not less than 20 pounds per square inch. Appendix C, Article X, Section A. 6. The master landscape plan shall include littoral zone plantings around the proposed lake. Contact City Forester for details. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 1.11.3 and 4.4.3. 7. Pursuant to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4.3.5, the City shall require preservation of a minimum 25% of all native plant communities (habitat to be preserved with intact canopy, understory and ground cover) which occur on IIAII rated ecosystem sites, such as the subject site. The specific location of the preserve are~ is to be determined as a result of the site survey. Contact the City Forester for his determination of the preserve location, since this may affect the layout of streets, lots, pods and the park (see also comment #10 below). 8. Preserve area shall be privately maintained. A management plan for this area must be submitted to the City Forester. This plan should also provide for the preservation of existing vegetation outside the preserve area rather than "cut and replacell technicques. Aerial photographs having a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet may be required by the City Forester for this purpose. Conservation Element, Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4.4.2. and Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 7.5-6.1(b} and Appendix A, Section 9.C.4.d.(3) of the code of Ordinances. 9. The transition buffer shown around the preserve area (the protected environmentally sensitive zone) shall be protected and not be disturbed by development activity if the acreage of this buffer is calculated as part of the required 25% open space preservation. It is recommended that a transition buffer be designated however, as a restricted development zone to prevent significant adverse effects on the protected environmentally sensitive zone. This should be included in the management plan to ensure that any portion of this buffer that is damaged during construction, is restored and operating within a reasonable amount of time. ,Revise notes on master plan accordingly. Future Land Use Element, comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.11 and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations proposed to replace the existing regulations. Mr. Julian Bryan -3- November 4, 1991 10. Concurrency review of neighborhood parks levels of service is to be conducted at the master plan level, however the master plan submittal does not address parks and recreation requirements. The Parks and Recreation Department has stated two alternatives and their preference (the choice of land, fee or both is the City's option) to meet the parks and recreation requirements. Recreation and Open Space Element, Comprehensive Plan, Policy 5.5.3, Code of ordinances: Chapter 19, Article VI, section 19-84(h)1 and Section 19-88(c)(2)d.5 and Appendix C, Article VIII, section 4, C.18 and Article IX, section 8. If private recreation is provided, the number, size, type and location of the 5 recreational elements proposed, needs to be specified on the master plan, as well as a statement that all residents of the PUD will have access to at least a portion of the private recreation area, unless similar public facilities (such as the public park discussed in the Parks and Recreation Department memorandum) are located within a 1/2 mile walking distance. Also, a note shall be added that states that construction of the private recreation area will commence within one year of approval of the first plat consistent with the concurrency requirements in Chapter 19, Article VI, Section 19-85(b) of the Code of Ordinances. If a public park is dedicated as stated in the Parks and Recreation Department memorandum and 25% of the total park land dedication of 4.212 acres is satisfied by crediting an equal amount of natural habitat, the park location and preserve area shall be adjacent to each other in order to incorporate the natural habitat into the public park development. 11. The road shown on the master plan functions as a collector since it is the principal entrance to the subdivision and to the streets providing circulation within the pods of the development. The minimum right-of-way width for collectors is 80 feet, with two or more 12 foot lanes. Revise the master plan accordingly. Appendix C, Article X, Section 10.B and C. 12. Consistent with Policy 1.3.6 and 1.3.8, Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Appendix C, Article X, Section 10 of the Code of Ordinances and the proposed revision to Appendix C, the proposed subdivison street layout shall be coordinated with the street system of the surrounding area, providing for continuation of existing streets and contiquity of street systems. In coordination with the Engineering Department and the Fire Department, connection to either S.E. 2nd Street, S.E. 31st Avenue, or both, is preferred (several existing streets on the master plan are mislabeled). As designed, the main road/cul-de-sac Mr. Julian aryan -4- November 4, 1991 (cont'd. ) 12. exceeds the length allowed in Appendix C, Article X, Section 1 and 10.D. providing a collector that connects to an existing street with local streets connecting to the collector to access the pods, will solve this problem (see also #13 and #14 below). In addition, the collector road is needed as a public thoroughfare for safety to provide alternate routes during utility repairs and emergencies, for fast and efficient public service, for park access if a public park is dedicated and to encourage socialization within a community (as opposed to walled, isolated developments). A major disadvantage with private streets is that future road maintenance costs are often underestimated by homeowners' associations who must maintain them. The city has been approached on several occasions by homeowners' associations with private streets, to dedicate their streets to the public, after the development has been established. 13. Pursuant to AppendiX A, Section 9.C.4.h.(11), all materials required for a subdivision master plan shall be submitted for a rezoning to a planned zoning district. Access points from the pods to the collector are not shown on the master plan. These access points must comply with the access requirements of Appendix C-Subdivision, Platting, Article X, Section 1. Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.12. 14. Specify on the master plan, the width of the local streets in the pods. This width will have to be wide enough to accommodate (2) 11 foot lanes, swales for drainage, utilities and any other necessary improvements (refer to Appendix C, Article X, Section 7 and 10.B and C for standards). Appendix C, Article VIII, section4..c. 10. 15. Revise master plan to show how vehicular traffic will be separated from pedestrian and other types of traffic as per Appendix B, Section 10.A.3.(e). Sidewalks/bike paths are required on both sides of all collector and local streets to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.11.9 and 2.4.4; Appendix C, Article IX, Section 11 and Article X, Section'10.T and Section 12. 16. Provide a tabulation determining the relationship of the development to the proposed LUI rating as shown in Appendix B, Section 4. Appendix B, Section 10.A.2 and 3(g). 17. Provide a tabulation of the percentages of total gross acreage devoted to the dwelling types, parks, open space preserve, etc. and incorporate the description of housing types on the master plan. Appendix B, Section 10.A.3.(f). Mr. Julian Bryan -5- November 4, 1991 18. Add a note to the master.plan that a minimum of two parking spaces per unit will be provided. Appendix B, Section 10.A.3.(d) and Appendix A, section 11.H.4 and 16.a.(1). 19. Specify a 25 foot PUD buffer along Seacrest Boulevard consistent with Appendix B, Section 9.B. The buffer area requirements in Appendix C, Article IX, Section 3 will be required on the preliminary plat. 20. Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10 requires the proposed layout of the.lots and blocks. Since the lot layout is--riot. illustrated on the master plan due to speculative development plans for the project, a note should be added to the master plan that a master plan modification will be needed prior to platting. At minimum however, a typical lot layout for all unit types is required indicating the proposed minimum lot area (the lot area for the villa homes has not been indicated), lot frontage, building setbacks, minimum living area, maximum lot coverage, maximum structure height and setbacks for pools and screened enclosures with and without solid roofs. The typical lot layout provided indicates that all units will be zero lot line; this should be clarified. Also, the number of one and two family villa homes has not been provided. 21. In the past few years, the city Commission has not approved lots smaller than 6,000 square feet, as recommended by the Technical Review Board (TRB). This lot size provides for 60 foot lot width, 20 foot front building setback, 15 foot rear building setback, 15 foot side yard setback for zero lot line units or 7 1/2 foot side yard setback for conventional units, 35% maximum lot coverage, eight foot setback for screened enclosures with screen roofs and a 15 foot setback for screened enclosure with solid roofs. This recommendation originated based on problems that developed within PUD's that were approved in the city in the early 1980's. The TRB's recommendation on the lot sizes proposed that are less than 6,000 square feet will be dependent upon how amenities (pools and screened enclosures) are incorporated in the design of the typical lot layout. Seventeen (17) copies of the master plan drawings, revised to address the comments above and stapled in sets, should be submitted to the planning Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 1991 for review by staff for the November 25, 1991 prehearing conference to be held at 9:00 a.m. in conference Room "Crt in the West Wing city Hall complex. Viewing of the Knollwood Groves master plan or the Boynton Nurseries master Mr. Julian-Bryan -6- November 4, 1991 plan, on file in the Planning-Department, may be helpful in addressing staff comments. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. sinc..erely, .. , /' . (\ ,,1 i j ~fl, 71..- {L/'lc :-!--,a.(~("lt /L Tambri J. Hgyden Senior Planner tjh Encs A:cedGrRej %e City of ~oynton 'Beach "'~~ pfanning & Zoning 'Departrrunt 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beacli 'Bou[er-Iard P.O. 'Bo{.31O 'Boynton '&adi, :.rforida 33./25-0310 (40i) 738-7./90, :.r:U: (407) 738-7459 November 4, 1991 Mr. Richard Walesky Director of Environmental Resources Management 311 South Dixie Highway, Suite 146 West Palm Beach, FL 33405 RE: Cedar Grove PUD - File No. 654 Rezoning Dear Mr. Walesky: Attached you will find copies of Maps A through E that were submitted with an application to Palm Beach County for alteration of environmentally sensitive lands; namely Ecosite 29 (Seacrest Scrub), to be known as Cedar Grove PUD. This is being sent to you pursuant to your October 4, 1991 letter to Christopher Cutro, whereby you had transmitted the application to the City of Boynton Beach due to the City's opt-out ordinance (Ordinance 90-1) and in which you expressed a desire to have the attached maps returned for your files, if we already had this information. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~"/' - (' .- ') / ,'. / i'1 . I ~/ of ~- iZ-7j 1//1/ ~.{/ ',) '.'>......:..>&; I ,;'[ C--7',j I .j Tambri J. 'Heyderi Senior Planner TJH/jm Encls. 5'lmerica's gateway to the yulfstream ~ , Board of County Commissioner, ~ Karen T. Marcus, Chair Carole Phillips, Vice Chair Carol A. Roberts Carol J. Elmquist Mary McCarty Ken Foster Maude Ford Lee County Administrator Jan Vv'inters October 24, 1991 Department of Engineering and Public Works Ms. Tambri Heyden City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: CEDAR GROVE - FILE N. 654 Dear Ms. Heyden: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic impact study for the project entitled Cedar Grove pursuant to the 1990 Traffic Performance Standards Code (Ord. No. 90-40). The proposed project consists of a 72 single- family dwelling units, 128 patio home dwelling units, and 34 villa dwelling units. The study uses the trip generation rate for residential condominium / townhouse for the patio homes and villas. This generation rate is used when there are multiple units in one building. The rate is less than for a single family detached dwelling unit. It is my understanding that all of the dwelling units are single family detached units, and the single family, patio home and villa designations refer to the size of the dwelling unit. In this case, the study must be modified by using the trip generation rate for single family dwelling units. Since trip generation is an early component of a traffic study, it is not possible to evaluate the study beyond this point. The study incorrectly describes Test 1 on page 15. The Level of Service Standard may be exceeded by 5% only on certain roadways listed in Table 3, not on all constrained roadways as is stated in the study. This 1/5 of 5% (ie. 1%) exceedance for anyone project is similar to the 1% tolerance of the standard for roadways beyond 1/2 mile from the project. If the total traffic on any roadways exceeds LOS D and the project traffic does not exceed 1% of LOS D, the study shoulo state that the roadway is more than 1/2 mile from the project. R.ECEIVED OCT 28 PLANNING DEPT, - ---'.""~""" ."..- au ~ printed on recycled paper "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" Box 21229 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33416-1229 (407) 684-4000 Tambri Heyden CEDAR GROVE October 24, 1991 page two If you have any questions regarding the determination of the County Traffic Division, please feel free to contact Dan Weisberg at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Jj-(V\- ?f-~ ~'\ Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E. Acting Assistant County Engineer CRW:DW File: TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review h:\traffic\diw\boyn8 H)/24/91 17'09 '6'255 ,'-)923 MiCHAEL A RUBiN idJ 00::: MICHAEL A. RUBIN, P.A. All".0RNEV AT LAW 4<20 SO. DIXIE HIGHWAY, SUITE 4B CORAl GABLES, FLORIOA 33140 DEOFlA M. RUBIN MICHAEL A. RUBIN ARI:A CODE 305 661-1029 FAX 255-8923 TRAN6MITTED BY F~X October 24, 1991 Mr. JUlian T. Bryan III JUlian Bryan & Associates 3191 Leewood Terrace Boca Ra~on, Florl~a J3431 Re: Cedar Grove Investments, N.V. 50+/- Acres, secrest Blvd., Eoynton Beachl Florida Dear JUlian: I was surprised by the request tor a unity ot Title for the above captioned property. The property was acquired by one deed and h~s only one owner. since final plans have not been adopted as yet, it would seem that this requirement is premature and I would be reluctant to advise our client to execute same at this time. l'.u\R : d r 10/17/91 05:46 '6'255 89_f,3 MICHAEL A RUBIN ~002 MICHAEL A. RUBIN, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 420 SO. DIXIE HIGHWAY, SUITE 48 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33146 DEBRA .... RUBIN MICHAEL A. RUBIN AREA CODE 305 661-1029 FAX 25508923 October 17, 1991 Mr. Julian T. Bryan III Julian Bryan & Associates 3191 Leewood Terrace Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Re: Cedar Grove Investments, N.V. 50 plus acres on Seacrest Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida Dear Mr. Bryan: This letter shall serve to confirm that you are, on behalf of Cedar Grove Investments, N.V., authorized to process rezoning applications and tender submissions related thereto for the above capt.ioned property to the appropriate governmental agencies in Palm Beach County. MAR:dr 100 'E, 'Boynton 'BetUh 'Boukvara P,Q. 'Bo~310 'Boynton 'BetUh, ~toritfa 33425-0310 (407) 738-7490 October 8, 1991 Mr. Dan Weisberg, Senior Engineer Palm Beach County Engineer's Office Traffic Division 160 Australian Avenue, Suite 303 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Re: Traffic Impact Study Cedar Grove - File No. 654 Rezoning (PUD) Dear Mr. Weisberg: Attached you will find a traffic impact study for the rezoning of a 53.69 acre parcel of land located on the east side of South Seacrest Boulevard, approximately 1,200 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard (S.E. 36th Avenue), to planned unit development (P.U.D.) to allow for the development of 234 single family dwelling units. Since this residential project will generate over 1,000 gross trips per day, requiring submittal of a traffic study to Palm Beach County, please review this project for compliance with Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance No. 90-40. If you have any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ,.--., J~f}. ;;L.JA_ / Tambri J. HeYde~~ Senior Planner TJH/jm Encl. 5tmerka's qateway to tfie yulfstream l~~Uv Board of County Commissione.. _ Karen T, Marcus, Chair Carole Phillips, Vice Chair Carol A. Roberts Carol J. Elmquist Mary McCarty Ken Foster Maude Ford Lee --, County Administrator Jan Winters October 4, 1991 Department of Environmental Resources Management Mr. Christopher Cutro Planning Division City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33435-0310 Dear Mr. Cutro: We recently received the enclosed application for alteration of environmentally sensitive lands. The property for which the alteration is proposed is known as Ecosite 29 (Seacrest Scrub) on the Inventory of Native Ecosystems in Palm Beach County. This site is one of the 14 high-quality sites recommended by a County citizens' advisory committee for acquisition with funds from the $100 million bond referendum approved by the electorate on March 12, 1991. We understand that the City of Boynton Beach passed Ordinance 89-46 on December 5, 1989, which was amended on January 16, 1990 (Ordinance 90-1). The stated intent of this ordinance is to provide for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands within the City of Boynton Beach. The ordinance was determined by the County Attorney's Office to be a valid opt-out ordinance from the County's Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance No. 90-47 under the County Charter. Therefore, the City's ordinance should take precedence over the County's and is applicable to the proposed action. We would be glad to assist your staff in the review of this application. We have kept one of the two copies of the application submitted to us for our files, and are returning the fee to the applicant. Only one copy each of Maps A through E was submitted to us, so we are providing these to you. If you already have this information, we would appreciate your sending the maps back for our files. Please contact Kathleen Brennan at 355-4011 if we can be of assistance in this matter or if you wish to obtain further information on the site from our office. Sincerely, Z7 .,_IJ ;j 7/L~ f1--~ 'ichard E. Wa1esky, Director~ Environmental Resources Mana~ent REW: kmb Enclosure cc: Robert Weisman, P.E. Senior Assistant County Administrator @ printed on recycled paper 3111 SOUTH DIXIE HWY., SUITE 146 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33405 (407) 355-4011 SUNCOM 273-4011 'R"EC"ElVED 9) q I oCt' , "I '" r'\~.pl'. pU\NNi',""" V ---------- %e City of r:Boyn ton r:Beac/i -...~--_... 100 'E. 'Boy II tOil '13ctUh. 'Boulevard (1'.0. 'Bo~310 'Boy" ton '13L'adi, :J{oriaa 33425.0310 City:J{al[: (40n 734.8111 ~:V:: (401) 738.7459 October 4, 1991 Mr. Julian Bryan 319 Leewood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, FL 33431 RE: Cedar Grove Rezoning (PUD) - File No. 6;St 5'\-'1 Dear Mr. Bryan: Please be advised that the submittal of the above-referenced application requires supplementing with the following information. The checklist, attached to the applications being returned, also summarizes, with handwritten notes, the additional information and materials required to complete this submittal: 1. Applications and submittal materials are required to be submitted in two copies (pages 1 and 3 of the rezoning application). Therefore, an additional copy of the items below is needed. I am returning the original copy of the documents below, provided with the submittal, except where noted, for you to make copies. a) survey (full size) - see also last page of this letter for additional copies required to be stapled to master plan drawings. (not returning original) b) list of property owners. c) statement justifying zoning and comparison of existing zoning with what would be allowed under proposed zoning - not returning original. d) traffic study (doesn't have to be bound) - not returning original. e) tax maps (full size) Showing 400 foot radius. f) application for alteration of environmentally sensitive lands. g) environmental assessment document - not returning original. jqmern:as (jateway to tne (julfstream C 6. 8. 9 . 2 . The proposed land use category on page 2 of the application, item # 15, has been completed as low density residential, implying that this application should include a land use amendment to change the medium density residential land use to low density residential land use. I believe the current land use will remain unchanged, therefore the application should reflect this. 3. page 3, items c. (3) and (5) have not been provided. Two copies are required of the agency agreement and statement of proof of Mr. Rubin's authority to represent the corporation or to verify that he is an officer of the corporation. 4. An affidavit verifying the accuracy of the property owners' list has not been provided as per page 3, item #e. A blank affidavit has been attached for your use. Two copies of the completed affidavit are needed. 5 . Page 4, items #h. (2) and (3) have not been addressed in the comparison of impacts statement prOVided or addressed as a separate document. Provide two copies of a statement indicating the proposed timing and phasing of the development and uses that will be excluded or amend the statement already provided that justifies zoning and compares eXisting and proposed zoning. Page 5, item #(8), population projections have not been provided. Two copies are needed. 7. Page 7, V, has not been Signed by agent and owner. Both copies of the application submitted are being returned for signing. page 6, item #11 - attached is a copy of the speCific requirements for rezonings to planned unit developments from Appendix B of the code of ordinances. From this list the following have not been provided: unified control documents (Section 10.A.l.), LUI rating statement (Section 10.A.2.) and that information required by Section 10.A.3(e), (f) and (g) to be on the master plan/site development plan. Page 6, item #11 - attached is a copy of the list of materials required for a subdivision master plan. From this list the following have not been provided. The Technical Review Board may determine, after their first review of the master plan documents, that other elements, in addition to the ones I have identified, have not been satisfactorily prOVided: proposed layout of lots (Section 4.C.10.), compliance with access requirements (Section 4.C.12.), utilities (Section 4.C.17.) - you may want to attach to the master plan, copies of the utility statement provided, parks and recreational areas (Section 4.C.18.) - reference Comprehensive Plan, and master storm water management plan (Section 4 .E.). I recommend viewing either the Boynton Nurseries or Knollwood Groves master plans on file in the Planning Department as a guide to supplementing the Cedar Grove master plan. Based upon the concurrency ordinance requirement to submit applications 30 days prior to a given deadline for the County to review the traffic study prior to the City processing the rezoning application and to allow for review of other levels of service, this application has tentatively been scheduled for the October 29, 1991 Technical Review Board meeting, a prehearing conference on or before November 25, 1991, a December 10, 1991 public hearing before the planning and Zoning Board and a December 17, 1991 public hearing before the City Commission. In order for this schedule to be adhered to, submittal of the information requested within this letter and 16 copies of the master plan with the stated attachment sheets (survey, vegetation analysis, drainage plan, utilities plan, etc.), stapled in sets, must be received no later than October 18, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, pi -.d'~' Q. P-t;~ Tambri J. He{den senior Planner TJH/cp Atts. -- - - -- - ----_._-------'---------~_..._--~~,_. Julian Bryan & Associates Septernber 20, 1991 Mr. Christopher Cutro Director of Planning City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Re: Cedar Grove Investments, Proposed PUD Rezoning Dear Mr. Cutro: I am pleased to submit on behalf of the above referenced owner's the attached application for rezoning to PUD. This request encompasses SOITIe 53.69 acn~s on the East side of Seacrest Boulevard and proposes 234 units at a density of 4.36 units/acre. The City adopted Corrlpreh~~nsive Plan shows a combination of low and medium density residential for this tract. A COITlputation of densities allowed yields approxin1ately 309 units. The present R-I-AA and R-2 Zoning would allow some 334 units. Upon the completion of your initial staff review I would be pleased to discuss the package with you and provide any additional data you may require. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~Y~y~] j Cc: Cedar Grove Investments Michael Rubin Carnahan & Associates land Development Consultants · 3191 leewood Terrace · l136 · Boca Raton, Florida 33431 · (407) 338-0395