The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS ~Q.,-. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR CEDAR GROVE I I" :! . . II .',. ,;.;. ~oI " j I.; BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA REVISIONS 1 2 3 I>"T~ NOVEMBER 11, 1991 JANUARY 9, 1992 FEBRUARY 24, 1992 - ---- --~ -- ----- -- ~ --- '. ,,~ A ~ 6L!2--- __.0/~~)-,..._.__. ... WAEL F. MAJDALAWI, F.E. FLORIDA REG. NO. 42646 ZftY'h~ TABLE OF CONTENTS , ,.! ;! :,',..PAGE ,.,. '0 INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY OBJECTIVE 1 ~ I I"; TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS 3 STUDY AREA 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 6 FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 6 PROJECT ACCESS 8 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 9 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION 11 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 12 FUTURE TRAFFIC 12 ., LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 15 - TEST 1 (LINK/BUILDOUT TEST) 15 - TEST 2 (MODEL TEST) 17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 NUMBER 1 2 NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . ", LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION 11 TEST 1 ANALYSIS 16 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE LOCATION MAP 2 STUDY AREA 4 (RADIUS OF DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCE) EXISTING TRAFFIC 5 EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY 7 ,..' , BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 10 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 13 TOTAL TRAFFIC ;~4 I f' I :.'; il ,\" "- ""01 ~ I ,.; INTRODUCTION Michael RUbin, P.A. retained Carnahan and evaluate the traffic impact associated with residential development of Cedar Grove. Ass.ociates to the proposed The 50 Acre site is located on the east side of Seacrest Boulevard north of N.E. 8th street, east of Mission Hill Road and south of S.E. 23rd Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida. The location map is shown in Figure 1. . . . Cedar Grove is proposed to be completed by 1995 based on an estimated buildout period of 4 years. STUDY OBJECTIVE This traffic impact study will be prepared in accordance with the 1990 Countywide Traffic Performance Standards Code (Ordinance 90-40). The conformance with the Code consists of meeting both Test 1 (Link/Buildout test) and Test 2 (Model test) as outlined in Article V of the Code. The following analysis is presented as outlined in Article VI (Traffic Impact studies) of the Code. The traffic impact study will evaluate all roadway links or intersections within the Radius of Development Influence and Model Radius of Development Influence of the proposed project. The traffic impact study is also referenced as the Level of Service Impact Statement" in the Traffic Circula~ibn Element Plan of Palm Beach County. 1 . ,~, ~L.I eO'lN10t'l eEl'C,", e\..~O 1111 1111 II I I 1111 "" It II II III I 1111 HII II" 1111 "'1 1111 "" "" "" 1111 1111 ," , , 1111 1111 I" I "" 1111 , , " , ,,' : 1 1111 tIt I It) , ll' , "I' "" ,11 , , , t't , "" "" , "I , ".11 I , t'l \ \\ \ III' U II II ...... 1111 "" t- 1111 Z 1111 /T' I" I "'-J.. II II .....J "II L- HIt .-- , H' <I.: "t, If If If If N.E. 81'"' S1 t t , I "" 1111 "" "" 1," I" I 1111 II" , , H , I I I I, " I I I I 1\\\ , \ " \ . ~ l ...oo\..e~lG\'\1 ~()IIlO s. E. ~3f'O AVE ~ \ S11E. N.E. 41~ Sl ~ e ~ ~ ~ i \ u. ~ ~ ui~ i A1\.ItN1'1C AvE ~ t ~ ~ . . \&J u.l . . ~ ~ ~.l.S. z,,'''''' <I.: W U '0 . .. I ,'.~ 'c ,.,.'\ LOCPill ON l-\Plf' .. CAflllAI'\I'N AllO ASSOCIA1ES, WC. COllS\l\..1111G EllGlllEERS flGUftE. 1 .-....------------ TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS StudY Area The study area is based on the radius of development influence for Test land Test 2, which is outlined in Table 2A of the Traffic Performance Code. Table 2A relates the maximum radius of development influence distance to the net trip generated by the site. the net trip generation from the site, as outlined in Project Trip Generation section of this traffic stu~~, iS,estimated to be 2355 daily trips. As outlined in Table 2A, the radius of development influence distance for 2355 net daily trips will be 2 miles. The 2 miles distance will be measured in road miles, not in geometric radius,' beginning at the site's access .on Seacrest Boulevard, and terminating at the adjacent roadway links 2 miles away from the site. Based on the above the 2 mile radius of development influence distance was measured along the adjacent roadway network and the study area is shown in Figure 2. r " I 'I :' ',~ i,: ,'" ,,', ..., Existinq Conditions Existing traffic counts for all the roadway: links within the study area were obtained from the latest tr,C\tfi~~ 'Volume counts conducted by Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Figure 3 shows the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the available 1991 Traffic Volumes. 3 '. " BOYNTON BEACH BLVD OCEAN AVE ~ ~ I I I I I .; H ".' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I / I / / / I I I I / I I I I I I I I , , I I , I I I I I I / / I I / , I I I , , , I , I , I , , , I I , I , / I I / I / / / , I I I I , , , I , , I / I I I I I / , , , , , \ , . I I I I I I I I .~ 111I ~. 11II ~ I I I I J.-: 1111 ~ III' ~ 1111 c:s I I I I I I I , I I , , , I , I IIII r .. I I I I -..........; , I I I --...:::; I I I I L 1111 ~ 1111 ~ I " , I ~ /11/ "'-- 'I, " " /',' i::::::! I, I, ~ J J " ""-- J I I I I I I I I I ., I , , , , ~ t , , N.E. 4TH ST to- (I') . UJ ~ I ATLANTIC AVE LEGEND. EFFECTED ROADWAY LINK V /l STUDY AREA ~ % Ii; ~ ~ W i . I.LJ . Z . ,~I . STUDY AREA (RADIUS OF DEVELOPMENT INFLUENC~) FIGURE N.T.S. CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES. "(NC.' ~. CONSULTING ENGINEERS J, 2 BOYNTON BEACH BLVD t ; t I I 0 I i i ~ J i -.. iii .. U.140" J #, .. 11.0..... WOOLBRIGHT ROAD . ~ I .. ....0 .. S.E. 23RD AVE ~ ocP .~ ~ , N.E. 4TH ST ~t !"" 'i~ ...'" ~~ .. II.no .. ATLANTIC AVE LEGEND- "13,382" EXISTING AADT TRAFFIC N.T.S. t~ : ~ "" ,; . Ji .. t.nl .. ~t t~ N.E. 8TH ST ~t CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS !l l ~ l ~ w . z w . z EXISTING TRAFFIC OCEAN AVE I / I / / / / / / / I / / I / / J / / J / J I I J I J I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I J I I J I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I / , I , I , t I , I I I I / / /1// .~ 1111 ~ I I I / '-L.... I , " 1.--: "~'I ~ , , 'I :::--J //11 c::s , / I I I I I , , , I , , , , I III1 (' .. I I I I ----...;J , I I I "-...:::; I I I I '-- , / / I ~ 1/11 :s;:: 1111 ~ I I I I '-L.... " " ,',' i:::::! , , I I IIII ~ , I I / I I J / I J I J \ I II ' I , , ., !, I .,...'.,. FIGURE . .~, :. 3 r "I :! Transoortation System :' ',: l: ... ,:.:.' '~oI Existing lane geometry for all effected roadway links within the study area were field investigated to verify existing conditions. Seacrest Boulevard currently exists as two lane undivided section adjacent to the site then expands to ,four,. lane undivided section north of S.E. 28th Avenue. S.E. 23rd Avenue exists as two lane undivided section from Federal Highway (US 1) to Congress Avenue. Woolbright is a four lane divided section from Federal Highway (US 1) to Congress Avenue. Federal Highway (US 1) exists as a four lane divided section. N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 8th Street are also two lane undivided sections. Figure 4 outlines the existing lane geometry withih the study area. Future Roadway Imorovements I Palm Beach County "Five Year Road Program" and Florida Department of Transportation "Transportation Il'ClprOvement Program" were consulted to obtain the funded roadway improvements anticipated to be completed by project's buildoutyear. The following outlines the status on the adjacent roadway network within the study area: Seacrest Boulevard is not listed on the Five Year Program of l?alm Beach County and therefore no future improvements are anticipated by the project.'s buildout year. S.E. 23rd Avenue is also not listed on the Palm Beach County Five Year Road Program and therefore; will remain as existing two lane undivided section. Woolbright Road is also not scheduled for construction improvements during the buildout year of the project. Federal Highway (US 1) is not listed on the Florida Department of Transportation Five Year Road Program and therefore no future improvements are anticipated during the project's buildout period. 6 , I' I . , BOYNTON BEACH BLVD :. ',~ .ii,: ,i.: ,,',' ;, OCEAN AVE ~ I I I I I ~ I I I 9 I I I I I I ~ I.,: I I I . I I I I LIJ ~ I I I I 4LD I I 1 I (/) 4LD 2LUD I I I I (/) WOOLBRIGHT ROAD , , , I ~ I , , I 1 I I I ~ 9 I I I I >- I I I I 2LUD . ~ I I I I S.E. 23RO AVE 2LUD I I I I I I I I J I I I I J I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ( , , I I , , , , J , I I , , I I SITEI I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I C I I J I ::J I I I I UJ ..J ~ I I , ~ N , J I t , , , J ~ ~ 1 I 1 1 C //11 ~ ~ :3 / / I / .... . ///1 ~ ~ N UJ 1/1/ ~ . Z III/ g Z I I I / 1/11 c::s / I I I , , I I 2LUD 2LUD ' , I , .. I I , ..;.. ., I, I , I ~ 'N.E. 8TH ST I I I I N.E. 4TH ST ' , 'I '-.....:; 2LUD 2LUD I I I I I--... , I / / ~ I I / I I;, / ~ I / C c '/',.. I, 1 / ::J I " ,',' i:::::! ..J ~ N , I I I ATLANTIC AVE "" ~ ~ ~ I II I / I I I LEGEND- I I I I ~ ~ ' t , I I t t I 2LUD-2 LANE UNDIVIDED , . . 4LD-4 LANE DIVIDED LIJ LIJ . . z z . ,~, EXISTING LANE GEOMERTY FIGURE N.T.S. CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4 Future .Roa~way. Improvem~n:t~l.gQJlti~ued) 1-95 is currently listed on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Adopted Work Program and 'anticipated to be constructed by 95/96 Fiscal Year. FDOT is current 1 y proceeding wi th the design plans and is anticipated to be completed by 1992. The improvements consist of adding 2 HOV 1 anes, which wi 11 make the facility eight-lane expressway. I All other roadways within the project's qrea of influence are not listed for future improvements dn the Palm Beach County Five Year Road Program or the Florida Department of Transportation Transportation Improvements Program. Based on the above determination, future roadway improvements are not anticipated within the project's area of influence with the exception of 1-95 interstate improvements. Project Acces~_ r\..c t-f rlAZ The primary an~ss to Cedar Grove I ~il;l be via an access roadway on ~"'B"'oo;ulevard consist;i.ng, o.f,;, t.hree lanes undi vided section tapering to two 1 anes undivided section. The three lanes will consist of one through lanelfor inbound traffic and two left plus through and right lanes foi;~utbound traffic. , .j ~\ , ",,# 5' '( \(}-~ ~~ ~I ~ The proposed access will align with the existing Mission Hill Road on the west side of Seacrest Boul evard .., Mi,.$sion Hi 11 Road currently joins North Swinton Avenue. 8 ~"'-'-'__'_____'_'_______'_'_""'_m~_~_._____....__~_____,_.__ ____ _.,_.____.___~__~___ ; ,~ II.. Background Traffic An investigation of background traffic growth was conducted within the study area utilizing the "Compound Growth Rate - Traffic Performance Standard (1986-1990) II as provided by Palm Beach county. the compound Growth Rates are estimated utilizing the increase/decrease of average daily traffic over the most recent three-year period. Palm Beach County requires that Engineering judgement be exercised in the utilization of the historical growth rates. This studr considers such evaluation in determining the background traffic. In addition to the compound growth rates, the study includes all major projects that could have impact on the roadway network wi thin the study area. Palm Beach county IIMaj or proj ects Mapll was consulted to determine the location of such projects. The major projects are: (1) (Residential) Quail Lake West - located at the northwest corner of s. W. 23rd Av;enue and Congress Avenue. (2) (Residential & Commercial) Woolbright Place - located at the" nbrthwest corner of Woolbright Road and 1-95. I The impact from such developments was incorporated in the background traffic estimation. Figure 5 outlines the total background traffic within the study area. .., , , ,.I ; I . .' .... .;.;.. :. ~ j J.: 9 1 ,. J ;: " .; i: .:'~' ::.. I,. : ,', BOYNTON BEACH BLVD t c ~ t . I 10 . .. ~ 10 ui ~ ! > .. 21,II~'" ~ << (I) "17,0" .. WOOLBRIGHT ROAD I .. 11,101 .. S.E. 23RD AVE ~ I I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I / , , , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I / / I I I / / I I I I I I I I , I I , I / / / , , , I / / / / , , , , I I I I I I I I I / , I / / / / / / / / I / / / I , , I , , t It, I I I I I 1111 ~ 1111 ~ 1111 ~ , , I, 1.--: 1111 ~ I I I I :::::-...J 1111 c::s I I I I , , / , , , I , , , , , './11/ r" 1111 --.; "'/ '-...- IIII~ "'l .~ 'III s:;;;. /'11 ~ I I I ~ " " ,',' i::::! I , , , "" ~ , ,," I I I , I I I I , II.., \ ' t , OCEAN AVE I I ".- I'" .. /0,1" 11 ~ I 1 .- "j .. ~ , I SITE I ., , I ~t ~1It ...111 %~ ..... ;~ t~ ! ~ g -~ " i ",' ,fIt . . N.E. 4TH ST ... 14,111'" ~t .. 'P,741 .. t~ N.E. 8TH lOST ~t ATLANTIC AVE LEGEND- "us.zss" TOTAL BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (ADT) ~ ~ ~ << ui . % . UI . % BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FIGURE N.T.S. CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5 Projeot Trip Generation Trips were generated for the project under morninq:peak hours, afternoon peak hour and daily conditions. Trip generation characteristics were obtained for Single Famil}l, l?ati.o~. homes and Villas using the Institute of Transportation Engineers:(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide generation rates for Patio homes and Villas. The rates were based on single family residential units based on City ,.pf. Boynton Beach requirements. The following average trip generation rates were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual: Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) Daily AM Peak PM Peak T T T = = 10.062 ex) -0.754 ex) 1:005 ex) = Where : T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends X = Number of Dwelling units The above trip generation rates were applied to the units and the projected total trip volumes were tabulated on Table 1 below. TABLE 1 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION '. TOTAL TRIPS AM PEAK PM PEAK LAND USE SIZE HOUR HOUR,,, DAILY SINGLE FAMILY 72 DU 54 72 725 PATIO HOMES 128 DU 96 129 , 1288 '.. ~ VILLAS 34 DU 26 34 342 TOTAL: 176 235 2355 11 project Trip Distribution and Assignment Distribution of new project trips was based on a review of Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning organization socioeconomic data and engineering knowledge of the area. The socioeconomic data are available through the attractions "ZDATA2 files" of the Florida Urban Transportation Model structure (FSUTMS) for all zones within the transportation study area. The attraction files include all commercial, industrial and service employment within the study area. Based on the available data, the fOllowing distribution was obtained: TRIPS DISTRIBUTION DIRECTION PERCENTAGE 27% 38% 10%' , , 2.2.l TOTAL: 100% North East South West The distribution rates were based on the p~e~,i~!e that the percent of site traffic produced is directly proportional to the attraction size and inversely proportional tQ."the. squ~re of the distance from the site to the attraction. . ., ." ... ., j. The assignment of site traffic was performed assuming the shortest and fastest path that drivers would more-frequently favor in their intended movement. By applying the distribution and assignment characteristics to the roadway network, tne anticipated assignment rates were depicted in Figure 6. ,.! Future Traffic The total 1995 traffic volumes for the residential development are illustrated in Figure 7. The total traffic volumes are the summation the assigned project traffic, the projected 1995 background traffic growth and the existing 1991 trafFic volumes. I The future traffic volumes will be the basis for determining level of service compliance. 12 ;' '. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD t ~ .t af M to- ri r I . J J UJ ~ "~X .. "16"" .. I WOOLBRIGHT ROAD "'X .. S.E. 23RO AVE OCEAN AVE ~t t~ ~~ R i ~... ... . ~~ Ji .,'; ;.t; I" ! ," "2X .. N.E. 4TH ST .. 5X .. N.E. 8THST , ,: "2X .. 28~1 ATLANTIC AVE "1":( .. .. 8X ... !t .~ ~ << LEGEND- ~ ~ .. 5:( .. . . PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT UJ UJ . . z z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I , , , I , , , I I , I I I , , I I I I I I I I I I I , , , , I , I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' , , I I I , I , t t , , I , , , I "" ~ "" ~. "" -... I I I I 1.---: 1I11 ?':' I I I I :::-.J 1111 c:::s I I I I , , I I I I I , I I I I . .,' , " r .. , " '"-..) 1,111 ~ I I I I '-- I111 ~ I I I I ~ 'II, ~ "" -... " " ,',' f::::::! , I I I I I I I ~ I I , I , , I I , , , I I , , t \ I" , , .~, " TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT FIGURE N.T.s. CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES. It:JC..' CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 BOYNTON BEACH BLVD ~ I . - ..17.... .. .. 11.170 .. S.E. 23RD AVE 1 ,,0 ti -I' i' t ~ o .. - ~t !ii ~; .... ~~ N.E. 4TH.ST ..14.&11.... '. ATLANTIC AVE LEGEND. "'U5.33IJ" TOTAL PROJECTED TRAFFIC (ADT) N.T.S. !t .....10:5 ... WOOLBRIGHT ROAD ~ ar I Ilt . . ! . I J;; OCEAN AVE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I / I / / / / I / I I / / / / I / / I I / / / I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 .. I I / I / I / I I I / I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I / / I / / I / I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ~ ~ I I I I I , t t \ \ 1 I 1// 11// .~ 1/11 ~ I I I I "'1:: I I I I I.'""""': 1111 ~ 1111 ~ 1111 c:::s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I IIII r .. I I I ~ """-J I I I I "-...:; 1 1 1 1 L I I I I ;:;;::- I I I I :s:;;::: I111 ~ / / / I '-&.... " " ,',' i::::::! , , , I '1" ~ , I / I I I I I / I I / I t t , \ ' , , t ~t !i .. ;, lL t~ ~ ~ i~ 1 I ,.' I~ FIGURE CARNAHAN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULT I NO ENO I NEERS IIi I 7 .. '. 'n ... ~t t~ N.E. 8TH ST ~ ~ ~ ~ w ui . . z z TOTAL TRAFFIC ,,';.11 ,". ....' :.... ), Level of Service Analvsis . 110: This traffic analysis must demonstrate compliance with the standards contained in Article V of the 1990 Palm Beach Countywide Traffic Performance Code. The Standards consist of complying with the adapted level of service for two tests: Test 1 (Link/Buildout Test) or Alternate Test 1 (Peak Hour Test) and Test 2 (Model Test) . The following outlines the analysis for each test: Test 1 (Link/Buildout Test) The analysis consists of projecting the project's new trips on the major thoroughfare links within the project's radius of development influence and evaluating the level of service for the total traffic. The total traffic consists of projects traffic, existing traffic, background traffic and approved projects as of the buildout period. The standard states that the level of service may be exceeded by a total of (5%) five percent of level of service D. This (5%) five percent consists of the cumu~ative traffic from all projects permitted after February 1, 1990. ';;, Provided that no one project may use more than on-fifth of the five pe~cent or one percent of the total available on any link within the project's radius of development influence. From Table 2A (Maximum Radius of Development Influence for Test 1) of the code, ,the net trip generation is 2355 trips/day. Therefore, the maximum radius of development influenc~'is 2 miles and all the roadway links within the 2 miles distance must meet Test 1. Meeting Test 1 consists of relating the projected total traffic to the Level of service D average daily traffic. This could be accomplished by evaluating the projected total traffic, as shown in Figure 7, and the average daily tra.ffic..for Level of Service D as tabulated in Table 1A of the 1990 Palm Beach Countywide Performance Standards. Table 1A of the Standards relates the Level of Service D to the facility type as obtained from the FDOT Manual for group D. The comparison is outlined in Table 2 as Test 1 Analysis. Table 2 outlines that N.E. 4th Street exceeds the allowable Level of Service. The exceedence is due to background traffic growth and not due to project's traffic. However, the project's traffic of 118 vehicles per day does not exceed the allowble 1/5 of 5% tolerance, which is 137 vehicles per day and N.E. 4th Street is not a directly access link to the site. 15 nBU 2 USt 1 AKALYSIS II, I ROADIfAY PROIl TO EIlST BACKGROUND 'ROJICT . TOUL EXIST PROJ. ADt GROWTS SUB-tOtAL tUPPIC fRAFPlC LOS D vlc SIACRlST BLVD. I.E. 8 SUEn S.E. 23 AVIIIOl 8795 1231 10.026 .13U 11368 13700 .83 ,. "" SEACRIS' BLVD. S.E. 23 AVIIIOE IfOOLBRIGH! 18286 2560 20846 589 2H35 24160 .89 SUCREST BLVD. IfOLLBRIGST OCIAX AVENUI 15301 1224 16525 118 16643 24160 .69 X.SIfUTOX AVE. ATLAK'l'IC AVIBUE H.I. 4 STREET 9825 1376 11201 I "7'07;: 11908 13700 .87 ..SilnOll AVE. I.E. 4 STRIE! .. I. 2 AVElIUI 3557 498 405'5 ' ".: 23'~, 4291 13700 .31 .. ... OS 1 (OKE NAY) X.I. 4 STREET H . E. 8 STREET 11922 1253 U175 100 ' 13275 16900 .79 " 100 us 1 ..E. 8 Sfun 5.1. 23 AVEIlUE 21575 2268 23843 ' 23943 30200 .79 US 1 S.E. 23 AVEIIUE IfOOLBRIGHT 24302 2554 26856 ' ~ '283 ' 27139 30200 .90 OS 1 IfOOLBRlGB! OCUli AvnOE 25062 2634 27696 165 27861 30200 .93 1-95 ATLANTIC AVENUI h'OOLBRIGRr 126000 10386 136386 94 136480 110700 1.23 1-95 WOOLBRIGHt BOYKTOlt BUCS 120000 9892 129892 212 130104 110700 1.18 OLD DIXIE 1.1. 4 STREET ..E. 8 STREET 11232 1180 12412 100 12512 16900 .74 (OK! iAY) I, OLD DIXI! II.E. 8 STREET US 1 1558 421 1979 0 1979 13700 .14 WOOLBRIGHT CONGRESS AVENUE 1-95 21084 6011 27095 71 27166 30200 .90 " WOOLBRIGHT 1-95 SEACREST BLVD. 26840 1986 288261' 377 29203 30200 .97 WOOLBRIGHT SEACREST BLVD. OCEAN BLVD. 9543 1308 10851 I 94 10945 13700 .80 S.E. 23 AVEKUE CONGRESS AVENUE 1-95 9930 1575 11S05 165 11670 13700 .85 S.E. 23 AVEKUE 1-95 SEACREST BLVD. 10720 563 11283 165. 11448 13700 .84 S.I. 23 AVINUE SEACREST BLVD. US 1 7718 524 8242 589 8831 13700 .64 N. I. 8 STREET SilIllTOIl BLVD. OCEAN BLVD. 6373 1373 7746 47 7793 13700 .57 , , I ~ '." J.E. 4 stR!E? 1-95 sWlno. BLVD. 13260 873 14133 118 14251 13700 1.04 Test 1 (Link/Buildout Test) (continued) 1-95 is currently exceeding the allowable level of service. However, the project will place a maximum 212 vehicles per day of the allowable 1107 vehicles per day or 1% of level of service D. Northeast 4th street allows 137 vehicles per day and the project places 118 vehicles per day. 1-95 north and south of Woolbright exit allows 1107 vehicles per day, the project places a maximum 151 vehicles per day. Therefore, according to the code this project will. not. be required to address the subject link of 1-95. In addition to the above determination, Palm Beach County Table 1 (Existing Network Deficiencies - 1988 ~"Test, 1") was consulted to outline any links that are operatin~ below Level of Service D. It was found that the 1-95 was listeq as backlogged. A backlogged facility is a facility that is operating below the allowable level of service and is not listed on the five year road program or constrained. Therefore, ba'sed on the above complies with Test 1 requirements. determination" ,t~e project " " ~ Test 2 (Model Test) The analysis consists of obtaining the project's, net trips as projected in Test 1, determining the model radius of development influence from Table 2B (Maximum Radius of Development, Influence for Test 2) of the code, and evaluating the level of::service for the total traffic. The total traffic differs f.rom Test, 1 buildout traffic and is defined as model traffic. Modei'trafficconsists of anticipated traffic as assigned by the FSUTMS model on the future 2010 roadway network resulting from all' approved (both built and unbuilt) projects. Similar to Test 1, the .s,tandard 'allows the level of service to be exceeded by 5% of Level of Service D pending no one project can utilize more than 1% of this 5%. In addition, Test 2 requires all projects that generate more than 7,000 net trips/day to utilize the model for traffic assignment and Level of Service determination. Based on Table 2B of the code, the maximum radius of development influence for the generated 2355 vehicles per day is 1 mile. Therefore all roadway segments within 1 mile from the site needs to not exceed Test 2 capacity. The Palm Beach County Table (Test 2 - Roadway capacity Exceedences - June 1991) was consulted to discover that none of the roadway links within 1 mile from the site was on the list. Based on the above determination, the project complies with Test 2 requirements. 17 .. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the transportation analysis for Test 1 and Test 2, the proposed residential development of Cedar Grove conforms with the established 1990 Palm Beach Countywide Traff~c Performance Standards. It is acknowledged that the proposed d~elQpment will utilize a portion of the 1/5 of 5% allocated on fu~ure constrained roadway segments. .' According to the palm Beach dcounty Traffic Ordinance, the available capacity can be allo ated for this development prior to future background developments growth based on the assumption of first-come-first-served application filed basis. Therefore, Carnahan and Associates recommends that a transportation concurrency compliance be granted f'o'r the Cedar Grove residential development. " . I l.; 'Af,v.,G ~ " \\ lJv" ~.~ cp, d~ ~ \rJ'V \,,~ _.~ /\,V"' v/7 ~\~ .Y 'fY ~\~11 #{ 'l'- 11'-0--- IAV'~~ K -y ~ :JY0? ~ ,): ~\ YJt t f' i ;! .,'; i: j,. J ," 18 '. ~~li _ ,~ ~,.~ -1F------~. :J: . .', . u ,...,'~ \J...,J.i\", . ,'.'J.. ?r:;" ",. 1" ':. ,."""......,..,. " .j I' ,." i - .f) ':.'., ,\ '~ ,,; "f:t1i,.li<,. \.~ ~ - .:;tt' i" . \, \ ,) f, f,- J;,<, ,1_ ~ -j T <<$ :j~,) iL, J ' '., JI')) \ ) , it ~ }. \ \'~ ~\'!' \ .,: I, ~ ,7 .:. \ \\ t_ " ,(l/'I1'J' I I)l}~ . (\ ,i.../ )~t,ll \ ,,') Jtll r \ , \ , \ -.- .( -'- c'----// \\\, ) ,", . r>' \. \ \\ 'j;' l'i, I!" \ . t- "f\J1 . IJ I, , ", ' 11 . ~ ).1' , 'J ! ., . ; J -'i -4 n tJ;' r ~)J" }f-, ~ .~~~ I J '! ... 'J" 3/'}') , ;! '1\ ~, "',\t. . );.;..f ~, ~ L ..~ (' \} ).11 I ~ " /; (I ~+,- rYj,)f V 1'1,., i I'/'; \ V l~,i 'J\' ~- "J'~' ,\. ) - \- > " " " .' . (i' - (j..d,' 'I ) I }) I -,' -' I I ) (Jrr, )..l;r il!~L Ii t, r ! Lu/Y-', / \~<[." ~~,-~ \ ~ >.. ,:t.' )/J /.tJir' , 7 j ) I' \) \ ,11, / I' }_I._.' I!\;'\J ~.[\' ~~J.>-i..'L \ r..., }uYO : (, ,-' \ J, 1 ~. \ '. " 1'\ ~~);i., '/ Jr) ,l.l',~ I"~ i, I. ;\,\)/_>)0._ !I 1ltJl, ]j 1 ' 1 \ n r' . 1 '-, ! ~'~ ~ 'C ,...... ->- ,~ '..../04' J:j .,.1(JN.t_ )J..J<:'~.L t[ {,'\ -'u'Ah--' l,' 'I .. r 1.'.'. 1 \ J.!'r ..\......' ~ "'/ f :'r /1 C -- 1(, ( \.' ,( , ';"'.f/i i /1.\. '\ !~.~ /'0' :tri~,\ L.4L~ ~ rt:b--ft42".( i i Ii +( 1 l' .. I"~ \ )j.~. .. I.. \ I, I Y,", -~~ l_ -.u ~ , . fv~- . ---:--+--- , \ . ...-\ ! I ......~ -.. ,'( 1;1 \ /~. . ., '(.. +" \.,tr \' J ~ . ~\ "~ 'r,' ,to , ' '\\ ; _.~ , I i ' ).) ., . , \ ~\~"'H'f~. ir-l, , , 't " iJ~~ ~A~.. JJ; ,,:,( .- ...1 ~ " ,y j~- J... r I -\..-'" , (. a~ y1v~ J f- U _ 6->'- y;;.~ cL ~ . rf II, f/l~@ /6 r'- ru--G ~ ~ ) ~ ('V? CV7 rJ. "::!2 ~ ;fA ~r1 '2 .....: ..j; ~ C'Yl ~....D. - ~ 4. _ _ oMn N) ra . r-: ~ - (""1 --: :l'" ....,~ ~ .. ::l-- <:J' <i <f ~ <i <i ~~ j j-;z ~ ~ ~ ~ ._~._.._.,_._- -----~-- - ), }" r' ff/ : .j ., r I ,;"j' -." J' : . \~ " \ \ \ \ 1./ f,j' Vi. j .~ r ,~) I \6 IS- O ..~~;:~-, '=/ii5fr~~ .....-. ~.,--;"--':"', j-: .I f' / I I ~./' /------~.-"'. Il ,- , i I / i i I i I I ! l i i i i \ ij ,., 1:1/? /) , ; Ij' '_/ ,{ ; / 1/ " , , (J ;//1 * _r'" ___ ,..,.:;;;:,- I ""-1' I~ i - .. \l r 111. 'JJ1fiJ/l- u-J!.r5 11ft-' ~ fVf~ ~ .\;\y~r,J;CJ 1JV G I.ft--.J 1- U_ . "I .~y;,t:]y'~ld- / ,., 5r- f.' ~'n? ')/;J!Gi,.{i. ~ ~ ,w~",.",' -'j .> t' L- ;;?Ji-. ~ Ie v . u fu1 jYi;l1:tL 10 M4lY' ~/7Il-cb.v/,d- I - ( r)' .1 2 j~. ~ t;;~' bJs :y'Y, , v~jI ~L{ Jr., v..t-r~~ ( IAffrKc. ~ f/ ~ f1;'!;;/~ ~ \ ' ',~ ,'~ l'LA,,...1v'tt 't'(J~' ~ -.. sYI7.~ (f _ -" '1';'.("/:k-'--4"; ~v~":A fJ1' r ~;c ,r 'r~A ~~yc~----"-'~~' j~~S O~&, ~ I zK ) i-- I u, J# ('Il< ,., .J.0 "^' I iw ,';". , -' . 'I " ~ ~ ' , :j, ..:.( ... ~t f' [1 ' 1'- ........ f 1 I (~(...' 1, I (j,r/ ) V -/ t' A.;, {!JlJv )"')'j r . J //./ Jr ,..l . ),jyv, :.Iy"I' ,/1 Ii' ri' ,.fi ~,..\, 1 . II!J J) ~'rl~' . . {p~$ u~,;. ,~I.. 0' . J f .. ;,/.. L- ' i :( /\ -iJ, r (, ) . /, '{1' .. J ! v /- ?\,.4".1''v II',./'\ f..x,' ...... :"' r ....v/ \.. l (VJ ~/ ~ tPJ ;t'::i2t ~ f: if' ''', ! \ ; ; \ i I V' J J 1/l/LtI./Y}1/t'-,i: . ~ r U (I. ' ,.' ~-' t1i1j'/'<~v",~''t; -t_,~ '-... :\~j ~ ;---1 ()A.l.1/'A', ..~ . -t.. v' , ) ~-\... ./'1 \ i I ,. '. j dL-,L .-../v~, .:- /. ':, j; .' /-y' ) I'"" fA)'. "- ,'f C/ '--" \.....-/' '~_. ~.~"~. t. (e C.'" ( ( \... ,y' (ll'i .r: t1VVV I tiV , .~. ...) \...../. ">'",, , " Ii' /) l' I'"~ :V I ; I . ,',". . " I\)cl.......l.:. !,' 'f ,,"../ ,!i _ . 'll . j . 'I "--O' \.......! i.A..~ - . j / \ ,) '( .,; 'f'-i \ ~ v ~ ;r0/l>' ^ . ri r. ~/\.... l-4l/r '. J 'I '1 ,..... '{ / .. ,/ [' . v // : /A / , .,.- ,~./ :1 \ ) /J , .. / J i." ~_ i . {}.0'~v . ,( J' /:"~' I'":' ' 4,Jo\ I ~ 1 " J ~~f'v.1 \ / i. ,~~ (. .." ',' i .' i \ 1 ': l ~ -...-<.....------..--------- o ,: n?/.~ ~,,~/'I~~ ~2:~~,~~z I,I?"I .Ad;~Zfj rI U~~ ~, i, tq " ' bl'P ~.rr.{~;(. ~4\ ( . n ;L. I .. / ,r1. . OZ. f. 1- ~ k ~ ~ ~ r s 4.J ::::tf.::- (,,:;/ c;L ~ 4 I ~, .~' (1S~ ~/~ 3, B, Z . z~:J .. 8,02-" 5, 3~ 15. 0l.J.' - '? E~I8~1-~ -::: 5# ~, 4-~ /- 1/, :3 ./(l~i1:~f ,~~ 4-,3, I~~ ~ ifrr- ~ ~'. ~ ~~'1{YI' 1.". 2__ -= ~. ~ /- ~ ~ ~ fUd ~~'~/~r(J-~ aj( ~ tJf, /) A~~ .~ ~ ftih- .,tAt- ~ of~~-p- - _ f-~,Q-~ ~.J~ ~ ~ &c;.&----- ~~1..~.t/_- tJ,L .~ ~?5 ~ at::- ys"!" 'Il>1~ 1.!j,0 -- ~4 -?u-~ ~.J 1- " ?> l/ 7 , - t)~ yA VVVb'r ~ d-)~ < 1. ,;-~~ ~ --.\W~~~. H-- ~ q < ?, ( 9- -' 1 J ").- f 4'1 ~ - k':l - / :2~ 4" 1- ?fr. -,; ;~~ tf)., 4. f~ - 3~ A.~ - 19 # It-l~' ( - <ic 6 '. rx:;? - .,-<,.-. ------ __ ,i j Ie - ~ .... , -) ,. [ ~ J-L t.~, )~' t~ , .J"~' ,.,. '"..-/'-'1 ,~ 10 ~ .\," "('\ t~1 \- ~ ~. }J:\.\, : J'^ . ~teN,.'r"' fr.., I . ~ t. '1 '~Af .- - fi' (, '! ) ,,) t) (. .^. / ,'..'_ ~\. - ry\6j ~tJQJ.j~1 If ~.t\~,~~_ IL" Lv;., \, -- LIf./;l.- "': 1" . j) J' t.J) \ " I ~ .~ t, ---+-- )rJ--> \ ~ ~ p , I,. 1 r' ,.:, 'I' " - \ .~ ", .., '.r--' '} j } r - } '>.,). \ j \ ,\.... ~,. ,',...... -~-.f' jr-\ ,~_J ~ \.' , ) . ,.\./ 1 J > I I ,U . \ ,1', ) ,:-(" , . --t;:- (~, \ f' --"',\!. . frO i",)/ ....c.{~-t~, \. ~ r .11 .' .!~'. f' .~.'~ J L1i:J- ~ ~ur\~.~0~S,~' \. fl" \~. 'JJ ,e. -~ ~" \ ' n'~ 'r.:,~ , ~~ ~ . ,/ ! - l/ '1_ ~~___~__~_r ''',. '. (h, C,y-.J}/' j ( U I ,i--h I J:J pi,1 J \ 'i .~, I, -.., , '; ...... .__ f (. .- ~ : , ; , ' }J" t,'I\, ~.Jc. MEMORANDUM NO. 92-113 June 2, 1992 V. DEVELOPMENT PLANS B.1 Cedar Grove/Seacrest Scrub At the last regular City Commission meeting of May 19, 1992 the City Commission moved to table the application of Julian Bryan for a request to rezone property on the east side of South Seacrest Boulevard so that staff could require the applicant to providEl the necessary and additional support studies with respect to drainage for the proposed site and unified controls. As of the other day the Engineering Department had not received any drainage plans for this proposed development; therefore, this application is not ready to be pulled off the table for further discussion and action. JSM: j c cc: Planning Engineering PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMO NO. 92-056 TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager ~~ FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director DATE: April 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD We have received the attached request for a continuance of the Cedar Grove PUD. If the City Commission choses to continue this item I would strongly suggest that the public hearing be opened, the staff be allowed to make its presentation, the public be allowed to speak and then continue the meeting. This will enable us to go right to rebuttal by the applicant on the 21st of April. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions on this matter. CC/crnc C:CEDRGR 0'V06/92 04: 16 e255 8923 MICHAEL A RUBIN ~~~ CHRIS CUTRO 1a1002 MICHAEL A. RUBIN, P.A. ATT~/lEY AT LAW 420 SO. OIXI: HGHWAY, SUITE 48 CORAL GABLES. FLORIDA 33145 DEBRA M. RUBIN MICHAEL A. RUBIN AREA CODE 30S S8HOh FAX 2ll5-etZt TJlUI8JUft.D BY JlU UD BILBD April G, 1992 xr. Christopher cutro Director of community Developement city of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning Dept. 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 ReI Cedar Grove Investments, N.V. Public Hearing date: 4/'/92 Agent: JUlian Bryan Project Name: Cedar Grove PUD Dear Mr. cutro: Please be advised that the above-captioned project is presently scheduled tor public hearing on April 7, 1992. We are requesting at this time, that this matter be removed from the April 7, 1992 public hearing calendar and be rescheduled for the April 21, 1992 public hearing calendar. Our cancellation and rescheduling request is due to Mr. Julian Bryan, our agent and consultant, cein; unexpectedly called out-at-town to testify, under subpoena, in a trial in North Carolina. AS a result of Mr. Bryan's presence being required in saie! trial, Mr. Bryan will be unable to attend the currently sch.duled April 7, 1992 public hearinq. Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter. /' dr eel Hr. Julian Bryan (Transmitted by Fax) .-._-~--_.._---~---------_._-_._---_._._"--- PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-053 FROM: J. scott Miller, city Manager ~t1~ Christopher cutro, Planning and Zoning Director TO: DATE: April 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD The subject property is located on Seacrest Boulevard at Mission Hill Road. The 53 acre site is also known as the "Seacrest Scrub" and contains an ecosystem known as Florida scrub. This site has been designated for purchase by Palm Beach county under the environmentally sensitive land bond program and an Florida Community Trust application has been filed to provide for state purchase of this site by your office. The backup for this item was forwarded to your office on an earlier date. At this point in time staff has no changes or modifications that we wish to make to that backup. After a lengthy review by staff which included at least three Technical Review Committee meetings as well as many other individual meetings and phone calls the committee found the application to be complete and reviewed the application for compliance with the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan and the Code of Ordinances and prepared comments on the PUD. The recommendation by staff for approval is based on consistency with the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan and the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances and is not to be taken as an endorsement of development over environmental preservation. At its meeting of March 10, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this petition. The Board after a lengthy public hearing which included presentation by staff, the applicant and the general public forwarded the petition to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial. This item has been scheduled for city Commission review on April 7, 1992. CC:cp C:Cedar.cp t" (\ , \1f.,(t\/,~_ ~,-~ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-061 ."""Jr, -{ J' 'J \ .~ ..; '... \(,! TO: J. Scott Miller City Manager FROM: Michael E. Kazunas City Engineer /ilGa DATE: March 19, 1992 RE: FEBRUARY 18, 1992 CITY MANAGER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WARREN' A. HOLLIER LE'ITER CEDAR GROVE (SEACREST SCRUB) The Engineering Department has investigated the site, focusing on the drainage and traffic issues mentioned in Mr. Hollien's letter. The nature of our response was discussed with Mr. Cutro and it was decided to respond after the Pub~ic Hearing so that the meeting's input could also be incorporated into the letter. Regarding the traffic issues, Seacrest is scheduled for widening in the year 2000 according to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County has reviewed the developer's traffic impact study and has determined that a turn lane is needed to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development. Residents in the area, especially those exiting at Mission Hill who attended the Public Hearing, did not fully understand the concept of level of service "D" required by the Comprehensive Plan. The definition of level of service "D" is: "Approaches unstable flow, tolerable speeds can be maintained but temporary restrictions to flow cause substantial drops in speed. Little freedom to maneuver, comfort and convenience low. " This is the current conditions accurately described in Mr. Hollien's letter and reflected in the statements of those attending the meeting. The traffic analysis reviewed by Palm Beach County, states the impact of the development will not degrade this level of service. Regarding drainage, this site must be reviewed for permit by South Florida Water Management District. Their regulations are more restrictive than ours regarding off-site discharge. Their regulations require on site retention of the difference between the predevelopment and post development runoff for the 25 year - three day design storm. In layman's terms the community could expect to see an increase in site runoff only once every 25 years. This, along with the requirement of an improvement to Seacrest Road by the addition of a turn lane which will address related roadway drainage, should result in an overall improvement to existing drainage conditions, not a degradation. If you have any further questions regarding this site, please do not hesitate to call. RECEIVED MEK/ck cc: Christopher Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director MAR 20 1:'~ PLANNli~G DEPT. ~ebruary 14, l~~L 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, . .II ~~?_J 1, . L( LCVri-'/;:~ .'\- Warren A. Hollien 113 S.E. 29th Ave. Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Tel. #737-8467 AREAS THAT ~ FLOOD DURING 4 HEAVY RAIN~ Cl H' S,';,.L ~ AI/llJ '//A.t _ II"', SEACREST BLVD. NARROWS FROM 4 LANES TO 2 LANES PROPOSED "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" .,.~. ""_ AJU-. ., tU(}~ . $c~ DOL , f..HII~O' J.t. J' All'. , C HIIIl.eH -i- !ell" ~ ~ [UmUIfIl~ fCJ("l. RtCLi VED FEB 14 1992 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE - Jllt-JI IC/I,,, e:daJI. ~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #92-044 FROM: J . ~cott Mil~Ejr, City. Man,a,ge:r: , ~~d~ f1. i./c Ljtl~'-rL ~ {}i 1.4t- U4LJCL~. cnrl.stophFr Cocro tr'-" r PI~ning and~zpning Director J~O. M~/:;'J Tambri J.~eyd~n~senior Planner a(... t'-z.O-- TO: THRU: DATE: March 13, 1992 Please be advised that Commissioner Aguila has requested a copy of the attached Planning and Zoning Board agenda materials for the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning request. These materials are transmitted to your office for distribution to all the commissioners. It was our intent, as standard practice, to forward the agenda materials for the Cedar Grove rezoning, with a memorandum requesting placement of this public hearing item on the April 7, 1992 City Commission meeting, no later than March 27, 1992. Since these materials transmitted by this memorandum will have been received by your office prior to March 27th, the cover memo only remains to be forwarded. TJH/jm Atts. A:CEDARGRO.JM RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *92-082 FROM: Chris Cutro, Director Planning Department 11 Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist J<ln Cedar Grove - Master Plan I t1 Environmental Assessment Report TO: RE: DATE: March 4, 1992 The applicant has addressed all of my previous TRC comments as shown on the revised set drawings. The environment assessment report addresses the comments not shown on the plans (second memo. ) . KH:ad RECEIVED -.- PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM #92-073 RE: Chris Cutro, Director of Planning John Wildner, Parks superintendent~ Cedar Grove P.U.D. - File 654 Rezoning - (Review of Revised Plans) TO: FROM: DATE: February 27, 1992 The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the most recent revised plans for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. The following comments are submitted: 1. Recreation and Park Memorandum #92-063 remains in effect. 2. Concurrency certification for neighborhood parks was prepared by Mike Rumph of your Department. JW:ad CC: Charles C. Frederick, Director Recreation & Park Department RECEIVED FEB 't.1 PLANNII'~G DEPT. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT TO: Sue Kruse, City Clerk Tambri J. Heyden, Senior Planner ~41 February 25, 1992 FROM: DATE: RE: Cedar Grove PUD Rezoning - File No. 654 Attached are plans and documents for your files for the above referenced project. These supersede those now in your file. TJH/jrn Encls. A:KRUSECED.JM -~--_.---~-------_._-----~- TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM February 25, 1992 TO: Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official Bill Cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer Pete Mazzella, Asst. to Utilities Director Lt. Dan Remchuk, Police Department John Wildner, Parks Superintendent Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist Mike Kazunas, City Engineer Tambri J. Heyden, Senior Planner~ Cedar Grove PUD - File No. 654 Rezoning (review of revised plans) FROM: RE: Please review the attached revised master plans for Cedar Grove. As discussed at the February l3, 1992 Technical Review Board meeting, the purpose of this final revision is to reduce the number of staff comments to date, prior to forwarding to the boards. This project has been scheduled for public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board on March 10, 1992 and by the City Commission on April 7, 1992 and will not go back to the Technical Review Board for discussion. Therefore, comments generated through this review are due to the Planning and Zoning Department no later than 5:00 p.m., February 27, 1992 and shall be concise, including code citations and recommendations. Concurrency certifications for drainage, traffic and neighborhood parks, stated in a separate memorandum from staff comments, are also due at this time. If, after your review, you find that all comments from your last memorandum are still outstanding, with no new comments, please transmit a brief memorandum indicating same. In addition, please come to the Planning and Zoning Department to sign the Planning and Zoning Department set of plans. Be sure to indicate "memo" after your signature if you are recommending approval subject to conditions. Technical Review Committee Page 2 NOTE: All plans distributed to Public Works, Fire, Police, Forester/Environmentalist and Community Improvement with this memorandum and future memorandas/agendas must be returned (intact) to the Planning and Zoning Department no later than the day comments are due. Returned plans from these departments only are needed to circulate to Planning and Zoning Board members. ,- t4 ~~~ ,. ~ Tambri J. HeyM. TJH/jm cc: City Manager Don Jaeger, Building Official Ed Allen, Fire Chief Charlie Frederick, Parks & Recreation Director Edward Hillery, Police Chief John Guidry, Utilities Director Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director Tambri Heyden, Senior Planner Steve Campbell, Fire Department Central File City Commission Project File Chronological File A:TRCREVW.JM /) -- C'1,1t.2.A:.1<~7 I _Ltc 6 d tU.- 6.J.-.t'L T-L- PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-042 DATE: J. ~ott. Miller-f/_City Manager -J~J'vk O. HU:4~' Tam~i '!. .H~d:.,nl &Senior) Planner ~-. ~ " ,dtl-n~~ n. ~~-;'-- -b'~ {]{iA_~ ,e;-p?'(LL- {!a_,7;~- Cliristopher/cutrgv,- Pl~ing and ~orilng Direc~or February 13, 1992 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting March 10, 1992 Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Board met on Tuesday, March 10, 1992 and took the following action: 1. After conducting a public hearing, the Board denied the rezoning request submitted by Julian Bryan for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. The motion was made by Mr. Lehnertz and seconded by Mrs. Stevens. The vote was 4-3 with Mrs. Huckle, Mr. Rosenstock and Mr. Cwynar dissenting. CC/jm A:PM92-042.JM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-026 TO: Christopher Cutro, Director of Planning FROM: Michael E. Kazunas, City Engineer /?l ~U- DATE: February 12, 1992 RE: Technical Review Committee Comments Cedar Grove "Master Plan" (third submission) Julian Bryan & Associates This memorandum shall replace Engineering Department Memorandum No. 9l-223CC (10/24/91) and 92-0l6CC (1/30/92). The applicant for the above referenced project shall submit the following technical information and plan revisions: 1. Indicate on plans all existing streets and alleys on/or adjacent to the tract, including name, right-of-way width, street or pavement width and establishing centerline elevations. Existing streets shall be dimensioned to the tract boundary. Reference City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting Regulations, Section 4, "Master Plan", Subsection 4CEJ inclusive. 2. The applicant shall indicate on plans the location of utilities such as telephone, power, water, sewer, gas, etc., on/or adjacent to the tract, including existing or proposed water treatment plants and sewer treatment plants. The master plan shall also contain a statement that, "all utilities are available and have been coordinated with all required utilities". Reference City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting Regulations, Section 4, "Master Plan", Subsection 4C17 inclusive. 3. In accordance with City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting Regulations, Section 4, "Master Plan', Subsection 4D, the applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis which complies with the provisions of this section. 4. Street rights-of-way widths shall compy with m1n1mum City standards and plans shall depict the separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian and other types of traffic. Reference City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Appendix "B", Section 10, "Procedures for Zoning of Land PUD", Subsection 10A3(e). As a fifty foot (50') roadway rights-of-way is depicted on plans without benefit of a detailed cross-section (as was provided for with the sixty foot (60') rights-of-way cross-section), the applicant shall provide a section "B - B" through the proposed fifty foot (50') rights-of-way depicting mountable curb, sidewalks on both sides of the roadway and fully sodded grass swales. Reference City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", Article X, Section lOB, "Street Right-of-Way Width". 5. The arrangement of streets within the proposed subdivision shall provide for the continuation and projection of existing streets situated within adjoining subdivisions. The City of Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting Regulations, Article X, Section 10, "Streets". 6. The drainage master plan provided is insufficient for detailed review. A statement of "compliance with the City of Boynton Beach drainage standards and related ordinances in effect at the time of review" should be added to the plan. The statement referring to the 3 year - 24 hour storm event can remain. The soil conditions and site topography appear adequate to address all future drainage concerns. MEK/ck RECEIVED FEB 1 3 1992 SITE OEVEL. soYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA tp d unh.-dl.JC ?() i .~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-029 TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager ~~ FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director DATE: February 12, 1992 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting February 11, 1992 Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Board met on Tuesday, February 11, 1992 and took the following action: 1. Continued the public hearing for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. rezoning to March 10, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. due to the Technical Review Committee's determination at the January 28, 1992 Technical Review Committee meeting that the revised master plans submitted by the applicant were incomplete and did not address unresolved issues, therefore could not be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for action. (PM92-032) 2. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously approved the parking variance request for Atrium Place, subject to proviso. The motion was made by Mr. Lehnertz and seconded by Mr. Collins. 3. Unanimously approved the request for a one year concurrency exemption time extension for the Boynton Nurseries P.U.D. as submitted. The motion was made by Mr. Collins and seconded by Mrs. Huckle. (PM92-031) CC/jm A:PM92-029.JM PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-032 TO: J. scott Miller, City Manager ~~ FROM: Christopher cutro, Planning and Zoning Director DATE: February 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD This rezoning was continued by the planning and Zoning Board to its meeting of March 10, 1992. Staff recommends City Commission should continue this item to its meeting of March 17, 1992 or to another date after the seating of the new commission members, if so desired. Two questions have been raised regarding Cedar Grove which we would like to answer. The first is the number of extensions that this petition has received. After a pre-application meeting with the applicant, an application and drawings were filed. Based on the application a legal ad and legal notice were prepared, advertised and distributed. The second review by staff indicated that major comments had not been addressed and a continuance was recommended. It took some time for the applicant to fully address the comments which caused additional continuances to be requested. We are confident that this petition will move to the planning and Zoning Board at its March lOth meeting. The second question is the purchase schedule of the county for this site. It is our understanding that appraisals on the site have been requested and that these will be forwarded to the state of Florida as part of the Florida Community Trust purchase application in May of this year. From that point the final approval will take approximately one year with money becoming available in May of 1993. Finally there is a possibility if a parcel is threatened with development, that the County will purchase the property and seek reimbursement through the Florida Community Trust Program. I hope this information is of some help to you. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. CC:cp PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM NO. 92-018 TO: MIKE HAAG - ZONING & SITE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ROBERT EICHORST - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1992 SUBJ: MASTER PLAN - CEDAR GROVE Public Works does not have any comments on this Master Plan. RE:he cc: file ..~.;~.., ~~' ,;,~"Ji';:.''1I1f ;;.,;..."",,~~-:.Jo':l- ~ r _ "-;~ Cityi~6~i~~sioners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box.3l0 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 February, 1992 REI .Seacrest Scrub. re~onin9 --- (environmentally sen8itiv~ land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the multi~mily buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhOOds! It is ~ fair to the community !2 sandwich ~ EQQ between long existing single family developments. ~ March 12th, 1991 we voted for the $lOO million ~ issue. ~ ~ this environmentally sensitive land-preserv~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The site plan needs to address the following problems: 1. More than one entrance 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 preserve 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 no water retention area on the West side of the property. The rain flows-rrom the top of the dune-to Seacrest Blvd. and to nearby homes. They have no water retention area on the East side. The runoff may kill the scrub and endanger the animal habitat presently built in a dry surrounding. 5. There is ~ 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. There are no dimensions and ~ layout of the lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. Name --p Street . City Zip Code Date & Phone No. 1.'1'77cuj-JrUAr1wddt, d~.{jdJ:?6d~ 4!~~ 73.:l-~2$ 2.h"-r'-~Q"tTw"'D~ ,1~ ~ ~ ~'Q 3:1l(~0?{~ ~ed ~anu C24/ ~ #-~'\ " # d . ,. ~C:J 4. ()Q~~~ ~~~ / f J ~ " -'l ,...~, 12y/ ). I ~/l-/ If-- .,,' /' \ 3" ..., >. /- SITE DATA 53.69 ACRES 234 UNITS 4.36 UNlTSI ACRE 2.1 AG.- PRIVATE STREETS FEE IN LIEU PAID FOR PUBLIC PARK 8.00 AC.- DISTURBED PERIMETER LAND 11.5 AC.- NATURAL PRESERVE 2.95 AG.- PERIMETER & ROADWAY BUFFERS 39.04 AG.- GROSS RESIDENTIAL AREA 45.69 AG.- UNDISTURBED LAND owner' consultants OWNER, CEDAR GROVE INVESTMENTS N,V ";>0 S DIXIE HIGHWAV CORAL GABLES, FLA 33 q6 I I , I I I i I \oil. -...,' ... ..,~. ~ ..10 I --1 I I I I ! , SURVEYOR, LAWSON i NOBLE ''10' CORPORATE DRIVE 90VNTON BEACH, FlA 33435 ENGINEER. CARNAHAN i ASSOCIATES ,;'.' W ATLANTIC AVENuE I.IA.RGATE FlA. 33063 .AND DLANNER . JULIAN BRVAN i ASSOCIATES ] 19' LEEWOOO TERRACE aOCA RATON. FlA 33431 site notes - ;:jutfers snown to contain no bUildings or parking - preserve area to remain undisturbed - '# SeaCr8st Scrub he BOYNTON 'BEACH - A residential development on a 5 Scrub bas been set for Marcb 1 Money from a $100 milliOI March to save 31,000 acres of rei available to buy the land south 0 Seacrest Boulevard. / I I-I I i I SKY RANCH ESTATES I:~ I I ~ I I I I ~-, t' I I ie: I I ; I I I I I I I I I 10 0 f f oj I I I I I I 1.101>..1 I n - -'. . -- - . .,..~. .. . -- .' ".-----_.----------------').---- I II j I r / 1\ ! ," I II I i ~.'I U '01 ;.1 " I~! I',' ~ ~I ~, :gl II ....., , II " I " , , ~I - SINGLE FAMILY HOMES - " : ' !~ I 14 80 acres " 79 unitS \.. "\ I~ 25' max. lIe'gllt. 35-.. max. lot coverage II (detaelled. lee sImple. 6000 s.I. avg. lot) [I II I I ( ) / ./ / /' / . W / , : -I '- - - /' ,;'.. /' , ,.._~--~- --... , /_.~'// :t--------_.... -----1::). ./ .' ..,,, "', . I ',_........ ,;.... "" I ,----+ ::--------..... --...... ~, "0--- ./'/. <!'.?-f ~.. r - - --..::::----...--.'--.. ~r/~ ././ ./ / " ~ 1..J <I); I /- - - -- ....... ~..;.---........ ~.~ .; '//' ~/ ~l If" '-....;,-........,~~')~q'~......... 8,#;-' -- - --~/ '4 ~ 01 pnva1e "eereallon '- '--."' - ________ :::..------ ( ~ <: " , 3 ac '- :---.........------- _ -~ W'i'''- --...--.............~.\ ,"'i I - - -C.;;;';;- - .: ~ -:... ~ - - "rt., 1"Ir" 1:;\ \: I . ,J:1 , , I i !~l r'\ I :~l <).:"! ::./ il-../ I " f!II I. i '\ J :\ , \ i ' t ' \ ;, I L_.--:ij' ,_____ o . L I 1 ~ I I I !II I I I >~I I I z;1 I :'1 g 25' max, (CSetaclle - preserve area to oe flagged anQ fenceo cUring construction - oufters along north & South P;I 10 oe landscaped With trees & heOge J . - ~ --?SCf?r:s -,1'~; e ,:)LJO ~"I -,:::...-2 ..::-=: _t :r"\E ~r '.tate '-ec~eat\or. area - .; ~-':~r~c: =..... ~. . .:. -:' '.~.F -::-':'-:-:.~. ~., ~~~-: IV', :-)fT;rT'erce Wltr.lrl one v'E-dr Jf f!rs~ alar 300rOvdl -,.- ",: :;.03: -:,~cr'~'o" . ,.0 S .-.p 'ecu,'€a '€cr€atlon €leme(l~S te De ,certified C_-"","" A.PAQOA.......CS.'Nc.. _Al._JOH. .....c. " . 3, Ie - rLr"^- i-{./r . ~ ~1,L February, '1992 RE: .Seacrest Scrub. rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. .--- It is ~ 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-preserved""r - - - The site plan needs to address the following problems: 1. More than one entrance from Seacrest Blvd. is n~eded 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 preserve 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 no water retention aIea on the West side of the property. The rain flows-rrom the top of the dune to Seacrest Blvd. and to nearby homes. They have no water retention area on the East side. The runoff may kill the scrub and endanger the animal habitat presently built in a dry surrounding. 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. There are no dimensions and ~ layout of the lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. Name Street City .L.-~ 7"- ~ .,~ Zip Code Date & Phone No. ~ ~r-~ 71- 2. 3 6 'j 'I ,.J." ~ ~ H-. 3.~~ ~/::r~- _ ~ b/ )9.9:2.. 1. .... \. ~~~- ~:.-" 3 3 ~3 ~ ~ r' ~ ..~ - f"" .. ~. . -- -~..- 4. 77-r::Y9 7/ 3 . ~ I I fE C1-lyV~ ~</ 01 3/" /fa: BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-031 February 4, 1992 TO: Chris Cutro Planning Dirt~tor THRU: Don Jaeger Building Of cia1 FROM: Al Newbold Deputy Building Official RE: TRB COMMENTS - JANUARY 28, 1992 MEETING CEDAR GROVE - REVISED MASTER PLAN Please be advised that in order for the Building Department to issue the required permits in the Cedar Grove PUD, the approved master plan needs to show the following: 1. The dimension of the lots. 2. The maximum buildable area. 3. Setback for the structures, including screen enclosures and Florida rooms. Please note that the comments made in my October 28, 1991 memorandum (copy attached) are still of concern. Al~~/ AN: bh Attachment/1 CEDAR. DOC ?- BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-390 October 28, 1991 TO: Chris cutro Planning Director FROM: Al Newbold Deputy Building Official RE: TRB COMMENTS - OCTOBER 29, 1991 MEETING MASTER PLAN - CEDAR GROVE Upon review of the above referenced project, the following comments must be addressed: 1. All buildings shall comply with Table 600 of the Standard Building Code for the type of construction as follows: a. Type V - 3-hour rated walls with no openings for buildings which are 0 - 3 feet from the property line. b. Type VI - 1-hour rated walls with no openings for buildings which are 0 - 3 feet from the property line. Both type V and type VI buildings with 15 foot side yards must comply with the code regarding percentage of openings. 2. Specify which buildings will have 20 foot or 25 foot front yard setbacks and which will have 15 foot or 20 foot rear setbacks. ~~ Al New AN: bh XC: Don Jaeger CEDAR. DOC RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #92-031 FROM: Michael Haag Zoning & Site Development Coordinator Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalistf(~j7L Cedar Grove TO: RE: DATE: January 31, 1992 The applicant must coordinate a tree survey of the property with the submitted Ecological Assessment (January 9, 1992). I am now reviewing the assessment for compliance. KH:ad - _._---------,._------_._._-~_.__._-- MEMORANDUM Utilities #92-040 TO: Christopher Cutro. Planning Director FROM: John A. Guidry, Director of Utilities DATE: January 29. 1992 SUBJECT: TRB Review - Cedar Grove (Revised Master Plan) We can approve this project subject to the following conditions: Previous comments dated October 30, 1991, not revised by this review, still apply. Extend gravity sewer south to property line and design to allow usage by adjacent property. Force main may require relocation to accommodate site grading. Field locate force main and correct easement to reflect actual location if necessary. Looping of waterline to north must be shown on plan whether constructed now or in subsequent phases. Bonding for its ultimate construction will be required. 19b xc: Mike Kazunas File 1\J]CElYen Ff8 II .~ PLANNING ' DEPr.: ! "~i '\ FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-201 TO: CITY PLANNER 1:"ROI"I: FIRE DEPARTMENT DA'I'.':.:: ,JANUAE'{ ::: 9 199) Tl". r,L. CED]~E GROVE S. SEACREST BOULEVARD THERE: AIU': TWO PEOELEMS C(JNCERNl~JG THIS PHOJECT. THE :-'IRST :-fA? 'I'D DC' ,-!l':!:'H THE WATER ::'JUPPLY. THE W,ll.TER HAIN :':'YSTErvl PROPO::::ED HA:: .n. DEAD END THJ.I.T 3HOUU: FE l:XTENDSD INTU \r,',zi.TER f'-1Al.t,JS CON".::'IC;LJC~US 'Tel 'THE P_POPERTY.. 'l'HE SECON'J CDNCERj',; 1:':-; w rTH A::CE:=-S Ir',]'.;'O 'l'HE PP.DJE':CT. 'l'HE 5EC:r:'ICJI'~ CJf' ::~EJ\C~REST 1:~OULE'.1ARD ~rHAT 130FiJi::f~S rrHIS PRCJPERTY H~:;S l~~f~r::>J A '.I'H.A.FF-=C: BGTTLENEC]:C FUR SEVEE,c.L YE.li.RS. IT is OCH CDNCERN TEA.T SHOIILD A EESCUE (JR ~IRE CALL COME ~N A~ A PE~K HOUR; ';'EAl:'FH:-WISE; WE H"ll.Y BE UNABLE TO FR(J\J~_lJI< APPr~OPHJ ,c.TE :c:ERVICE. Ell'HER A SECOND ACCESS AND/OR IMPROV~M~NTS TO SEACREST BOULEVARD SHOULD BE 14A:JE t,S PAET C'F' THi:3 PEG,gCT. ~v NAu,"~;~a;/--~ BOy!'rrmJ BEf~C':E FIRE DEPARTt'lENT ~~c: c~:hief Allen f'j 1e ce.da.rgrv. v'Id,:: ,.........r l.-'~ RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *92-022 TO: Chris Cutro, Planning Director ~ John Wildner, Parks Superintendent Charles C. Frederick, Director CD ~7 Recreation & Park Department c-~ Revised MasterPlan: Cedar Grove P.U.D. FROM: THROUGH: RE: DATE: January 24, 1992 The Recreation & Park Department masterplan for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. submitted: has reviewed the revised The following comments are 1. Recreation & Park Memorandum #91-461 (copy attached) remains in effect. 2. The size of the proposed City park is unacceptable. As previously indicated, the recreation dedication required by the subdivision regulations is 4.212 acres. Based on no more than one acre credit for natural habitat preservation, the minimum acceptable park dedication is 3.212 acres. 3. The location of the proposed park is unacceptable due to its limited access through established residential neighborhoods and no access through the proposed P.U.D. 4. The proposed configuration of the site (a relatively narrow rectangle) and location next to the habitat preservation severely limits its recreation potential. 5. A 3.212 acre site located adjacent to Seacrest Boulevard and the P.U.D. access road would provide much greater potential for the neighborhood recreation Level of Service required by this part of the City and provide an opportunity for the developer to participate in the planning of an attractive recreation facility for his potential customers. 6. Another alternative for the developer may be to pay the full recreation impact fee based on 4.212 acres. Attachment(s) JW:ad "k~: A" . t .JL..~:...{":;'.; ;:; , " ,) \W.:. \ ~lI'C'"' [.);\ 1 ;..~ ~ 'lH ~.~ \,.. lo,',,*' ~....,,'\) ~ ' Ir~.J..I....,jt<'~ t ' - r- ! - RECREATION , PARK MEMORANDUM 191-461 FROM: Chris Cutro, Planning Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent ~. Charles C. Frederick, Director c:l_'-r:: Recreation & Park Department ~ ~ TO: THROUGH: RE: Cedar Grove MasterPlan (Rezoning) DATE: October 31, 1991 The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the MasterPlan for the Cedar Grove -P.U.D. The fOllowing comments are submitted: 1. This site (South Seacrest Boulevard) is discussed in both the recreation and open space and the future land use elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan as the future location of a 5 acre neighborhood park. (Copies of the appropriate pages are attached. 2. Art. IX, Section 8 of the City subdivision regulations requires that "park and residential land for residential subdivisions be dedicated in accordance with the general standard of 6 acres per one thousand (1,000) persons,". This MasterPlan calls for a total of 234 single family and duplex units to be constructed in the P.U.D. Based on an average household size/d.u. of 3.0 for single and duplex units the following formula applies: .0180 (average acreage requirement/d.u.) x 234 d.u. = 4.212 acres. 3. This same section allows the City the option of requ~r~ng either land (or a fee in lieu of land) and allows the City the option of granting up to one-half credit for private recreation provided. 4. As indicated by the comprehensive plan, a neighborhood park site (approximately 5 acres) is needed in order to maintain the level of recreation services for this area. It is our recommendation that the entire 4.212 acres be provided for the recreation dedication - in order to meet our LOS requirements for this part of the City. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Kruse, City Clerk Tambri J. Heyden, Senior Planner .~+1 January 21, 1992 Cedar Grove (PUD) Rezoning FROM: DATE: RE: Please find attached revised plans and documents for your files for the above referenced request. TJH/jrn Atts. A:KRUSE.JM - rrhe rCity of tBoynton tBeac/i ~~ 100 'E. 'Boynton 'BelU/i 'Boulevard P.D. 'Bo;r..31O 'Boynton 'Buu/iJ florida 33425-0310 City J{af[: {407} 734-8111 1>lX: {407} 738.7459 March 5, 1992 Mary Lois Caudill 3114 Chapel Hill Blvd Boynton Beach, FL 33435 RE: Seacrest Scrub (Proposed Cedar Grove PUD) Dear Ms. Caudill: Acknowledgment is hereby made on receipt of your petition dated February, 1992 relative to the proposed rezoning of the Seacrest Scrub area so to accommodate the development of Cedar Grove PUD. A copy of said petition has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Commissioners so that they are aware of your feelings on this development matter. I wish to advise you that the public hearing on this rezoning application is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 1992 at 7:00 PM in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. You may wish to be present at this hearing to voice your opposition. Sincerely, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH - ------ ~!. ;' 7"-:'-- _.:::'" -~- J. Scott Miller City Manager JSM:cd cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commission, w/attachment Chris Cutro, Planning Director, w/attachment Centra 1 Fil e RECEIVED tAMS PLANNING DEPT. ~m.erica s gateway to the gulf stream PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-013 TO: J. Scott Miller, city Manager THRU: Christopher Cutro, Planning DirectorJlf~ FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, Senior Planner"/94J DATE: January 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 14, 1992 Please be advised that the Planning & Zoning Board met on Tuesday, January 14, 1992 and tOvK the folliwng action: 1. Removed from the agenda the public hearing for the Cross Creek Centre parking lot variance as a result of the applicant withdrawing the request. 2. Continued the public hearing for the Cedar Grove, P.U.D. to the February 11, 1992 meeting at 7:00 P.M., as a result of the applicant not resubmitting a revised master plan for review and recommendation by the Technical Review Board to the Planning & Zoning Board. PM# 92-008. 3. Unanimously made a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed amendment to Appendix A-Zoning to modify the regulations governing service stations and convenience stores, subject to proviso (that the words "major repair" be changed to "minor repair", a clause be added stating that the definitions are for the purpose of these regulations only, "non" be changed to "not" under 3.A.4.4, and that the words "maintained at 36 inches" be added to F.2.a. relative to continuous hedges.) PM# 92-009. 4. Recommended denial and found the proposed amendment to Appendix A-Zoning, to allow go-cart tracks, miniature golf courses and game rooms as a conditional use in the M-1, Light Industrial, zoning district, to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was made by Mrs. Greenhouse and seconded by Mr. Howard. The vote was 6-1 with Mr. Lehnertz dissenting. PM#92-017. 5. Unanimously made a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed amendment to Appendix C-Subdivisions, Platting, Article XII, regarding the acceptance and maintenance of required improvements, subject to proviso. The motion was m~de by Mrs. Greenhouse and seconded by Mrs. Huckle. PM#92-014. 6. Unanimously made a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed amendment to Appendix A-Zoning, Section 4.F, regarding height limitations and exceptions. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Howard. PM#92-016. 7. Unanimously made a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed amendment to appendix A-Zoning, Section 6.D. to eliminate the sale or rental of new or used automobiles, bOrts, recreation vehicles, utility trailers and commercial trucks as a permitted use in the C-4 zoning district. The motion was made by Mrs. Greenhouse and seconded by Mr. Collins. PM#92-015. 8. The Board requested that the city Clerk's office redistribute the memorandum regarding board member absenteeisms to all the board members. CC:cp A:PM92-013-cp PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-008 (AGENDA MEMORANDUM) TO: J. Scott Miller, City ~anager FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning Director'~AI DATE: January 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD The Planning and Zoning ~taff is requesting that this item, which has been scheduled for a public hearing before the City Commission on January 21st, be continued to February 18, 1992. The applicant has not submitted all the information required for a PUD review and, for that reason, such a continuance is appropriate. This petition has been scheduled for City Commission consideration of January 21, 1992. CC/jm Encl. A:PM92-008.JM PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-339 (AGENDA MEMORANDUM) TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager '-n ~ t .,4iJ - ll...... )\. '- ~(~V" FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning Director DATE: December 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD Rezoning The above-referenced applicant has requested a continuance on his request for rezoning until the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on January 14, 1992. Please continue this item on the City Commission agenda for Tuesday, January 21, 1992, under Public Hearings. CC/jm A:PM9l-339.JM 6, cI CVz-- ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT. MEMORANDUM NO. 91-323 FROM: ~~iller, City Manager ~ t::> Christopher Cutro, Planning Director TO: DATE: December 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 10, 1991 Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Board met on Tuesday, December 10, 1991 and took the following action: 1. Continued the public hearing for the Cross Creek Centre parking lot variance to the January 14, 1992 meeting at 7:00 p.m., as per the applicant's final request for another 30 day postponement. 2. Tabled the determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed amendment to Appendix A-Zoning to amend the regulations governing service stations and convenience stores until the amendment is presented to the Board in ordinance form. In addition, the Board directed staff to formulate language to include specific landscape buffer criteria, a 6 foot rather than a 5 foot concrete wall and to change "larger" to "wider" under the locational standards. The Board reiterated their desire to exclude T-intersections as an allowable location for such uses. 3. After conducting a public hearing recommended approval of Ray F. Flow's request for conditional use approval of an existing day care center, subject to proviso. Motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Howard. The vote was 5-1 with Mr. Rosenstock dissenting. (PM91-324) 4. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of Kilday and Associates' Mall South request to show annexed land as Local Retail Commercial, to rezone from AR in Palm Beach County to C-3 and AG and to amend the Traffic Circulation Element Support Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include Winchester Boulevard as a city collector on the Future Functional Classification Map and as a 4-lane divided road on the 2010 Roadway Design Map, subject to proviso. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Cwynar. (PM91-325) 5. After conducting a public hearing, recommended approval of the City's water treatment plant expansion request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential to Public and Private Governmental/Institutional, amend Area 4.e of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove obsolete text and rezone from R-2 to PU, Public Usage. The motion was made by Mr. Howard and seconded by Mrs. Huckle. The vote was 5-1 with Mr. Hinson dissenting. (PM91-326) 6. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended denial of the City's North Federal Highway request to amend Area l.i of the Future Land Use Element Support Document, to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed rezoning and to rezone from C-4 to C-3. The motion was made by Mr. Cwynar and seconded by Mr. Hinson. In addition a motion was made by Mr. Howard and seconded by Mrs. Stevens recommending that the City Commission, an alternative to rezoning from C-4 to C-3, investigate an aesthetic/landscape overlay district for the C-4 zoned area of North Federal Highway. The vote was 4-2 with Mr. Cwynar and Mrs. Huckle dissenting. (PM91-327) Planning Dept. Memorandum #91-323 Page 2 7. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #13-A request to amend Area 7.a of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed rezoning and to rezone from R-2 to C-1. The motion was made by Mr. Cwynar and seconded by Mr. Hinson. Mrs. Stevens was out of the room during the making of the motion. (PM91-328) 8. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #1 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and to amend Area 4.b of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed land use. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Howard. (PM91-329) 9. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #3 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to amend Area 4.h of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed land use amendment. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Hinson; Mr. Cwynar was out of the room during the making of the motion. (PM9l-330) 10. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #10 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and to amend Area 4.a of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed land use amendment. The motion was made by Mr. Howard and seconded by Mr. Hinson; Mr. Cwynar was out of the room during the making of the motion. (PM91-331) 11. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #20 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from High Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial and to delete Area l.g of the Future Land Use Element Support Document. The motion was made by Mr. Hinson and seconded by Mr. Howard; Mr. Cwynar was out of the room during the making of the motion. (PM91-332) 12. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #21 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from High Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial and Low Density Residential and to delete Area l.h of the Future Land Use Element Support Document. The motion was made by Mr. Howard and seconded by Mrs. Huckle; Mr. Cwynar was out of the room during the making of the motion. (PM91-333) 13. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #25 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Office Commercial to Local Retail Commercial and to amend Area 3.f of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed land use amendment. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Cwynar. (PM91-334) Planning Dept. Memorandum #91-323 Page 3 14. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #26 request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Local Retail Commercial to Office Commercial and to amend Area 3.f of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that is inconsistent with the proposed land use amendment. The motion was made by Mr. Howard and seconded by Mrs. Huckle. (PM91-335) 15. After conducting a public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the City's Application #16 request to amend Area 1.a of the Future Land Use Element Support Document to remove text that recommends R1A zoning for a portion of the Lakeside Gardens subdivision. The motion was made by Mrs. Huckle and seconded by Mr. Howard. (PM91-336) 16. Continued the public hearing for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. to the January 14, 1992 meeting at 7:00 p.m., as per the ~ applicant's request for a 30 day postponement. (P~9/-339/ 17. Unanimously recommended approval of the request for a six month concurrency extension for Boynton Lakes Plaza. The motion was made by Mrs. Stevens and seconded by Mrs. Huckle. (PM91-337) CC/jm encls. cc: Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Development Administrator A:PM91-323.JM December 2, 1991 GEE & JENSON MEMORANDUM FROM: Chris Cutro, Planning Direct ~ W. Richard Staudinger, t;~gV~ Cedar Grove TO: RE: To date, I have not been contacted by Julian Bryant nor has any information requested concerning drainage issues for this site been submitted to my office. Please keep me informed if your office receives information related to the TRB comments on drainage. WRS:kvc ~l]~jjf~~ -- RECEIVED DEe !,~ PLP\~~NiNG DEPT. RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 191-468 TO: Chris Cutro, Director Planning Department FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan Forester/Environmentalist f<~# RE: Cedar Grove - Rezoning Application DATE: November 6, 1991 The applicant must resubmit a more detailed and comprehensive environmental assessment since the document submitted was completed in 1987. 1. The number of endangered, threatened or protected plant and animal species has changed since 1987. 2. The two agencies that should be notified of the new environmental assessment findings are the State Fish & Game Department, and the State Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. There are other regulatory agencies which oversee specific flora/fauna species found on properties. Those agencies should receive a copy of the new environmental assessment if species under their regulation are found on the site. 3. The location of the preserve proposed on the submittal reveals an existing utilities (underground) line which would impact the preserve if repairs to the utility line were necessary. The acceptable preserve would not be allowed to have any construction equipment inside this fenced area at any time. 4. A compilation of the new environmental assessment and the tree survey would be necessary to prepare a tree management plan. This document would accurately depict the 25% preserve area, the total quantity of existing trees, quantity of preserved, relocated and removed trees. The plan would be based upon review of the required environmental agencies as discussed in item #3. KH:ad RECEIVED NQV 5 PLANNING DEPT. .. FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-219 WDC TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1991 RE: TRB - CEDAR GROVE 3200 S. SEACREST BLV AT THE PRESENT TIME THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS TWO MAJOR CONCERNS: 1. AN ADDITIONAL CONNECTION IS NEEDED TO INTERCONNECT THE ROADWAY SHOWN TO EXISTING STREETS IN THE AREA. 2. THERE IS A CONCERN THAT WATER LINES AND FIREFLOWS WILL BE INADEQUA'rE. /;;~ /J _/ /(/t1! OUc7~Zd/L;/L W.D. CAVANAUGH,tI' FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER I FIRE DEPARTMENT TRB REPRESENTATIVE xc: chief Allen f"ile cgrove.wdc .-:--- RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *91-461 FROM: Chris Cutro, Planning Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent ,~ Charles C. Frederick, Director ~~J1~~ Recreation & Park Department ~ ~ TO: THROUGH: RE: Cedar Grove MasterPlan (Rezoning) DATE: October 31, 1991 The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the MasterPlan for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. The following comments are submitted: 1. This site (South Seacrest Boulevard) is discussed in both the recreation and open space and the future land use elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan as the future location of a 5 acre neighborhood park. (Copies of the appropriate pages are attached. 2. Art. IX, Section 8 of the City subdivision regulations requires that "park and residential land for residential subdivisions be dedicated in accordance with the general standard of 6 acres per one thousand (1,000) persons,". This MasterPlan calls for a total of 234 single family and duplex units to be constructed in the P.U.D. Based on an average household size/d.u. of 3.0 for single and duplex units the following formula applies: .0180 (average acreage requirement/d.u.) x 234 d.u. = 4.2l2 acres. 3. This same section allows the City the option of requiring either land (or a fee in lieu of land) and allows the City the option of granting up to one-half credit for private recreation provided. 4. As indicated by the comprehensive plan, a neighborhood park site (approximately 5 acres) is needed in order to maintain the level of recreation services for this area. It is our recommendation that the entire 4.212 acres be provided for the recreation dedication - in order to meet our LOS requirements for this part of the City. RECEIVED t ~: tt.\.....t ~ ~:;v~ ... ...,. I PLANNING DEPT~" --... - 5. The comprehensive plan also discusses the possibility of granting up to 50% credit towards the recreation dedication requirement for the preservation of the natural habitat. Again, because of the lack of neighborhood recreation facilities for this area, our recommendation would be that only a small percentage of credit (if any) be granted towards the recreation dedication requirement. If the developer wishes, he may apply for credit based on shrub habitat preserved. We would recommend that credit be granted for no more than one acre and then only if the developer can demonstrate that potential recreation use remains. 6. Our main concern for this MasterPlan application is that sufficient land (approximately 4 - 5 acres) be provided for a neighborhood park site which does not destroy shrub habitat but still allows active recreation. JW:ad FwrtlJ.~ t. i.A,.H~ ~S& ~ ~~mtN; .~ 4.f. Commercial and Residential Properties in Vicinity of Golf Road and S. Seacrest Boulevard In order to ensure compatibility with nearby residences, the C-l zoned lots at the northwest corner of S. Seacrest Blvd. and Golf road should be limited to 1 story buildings. Due to the shallow lot depth and proximity to single-family dwellings, the C~1 zoned parcels which front on Seacrest Blvd., north of S.E. 27th Avenue, as well as those which front on S.E. 23rd Avenue, should be limited to 2 story (25 foot) bUildings. Commercial zoning should not be permitted to extend to the west, along the south side of Golf Road, or along Seacrest Boulevard, north of S.E. 21st Avenue. Commercial zoning of these parcels would create an intrusion into the adjacent residential neighborhoods, and is not warranted, due to the availability of other commercially-zoned parcels in the vicinity. The C-2 district which extends along the west side of the FEC tracks, north of S.E. 23rd Avenue constitutes an existing commercial intrusion which should be minimized. It is therefore recommended that the parcels which lie to the north of S.E. 22nd Avenue, be changed from the current Local Retail Commercial land use and C-2 zoning to an Office Commercial land use category and C-1 zoning, and be limited to 1-story buildings. The demand for retail stores is expected to be minimal at this location; therefore, it would be desirable for these properties to be used for offices, which is more likely due to their proximity to the hospital, rather than for marginal retail uses. 4.g. South Seacrest Boulevard, South of Bethesda Memorial Hospital As with the remainder of Seacrest Boulevard, there may be pressure to change the current residential zoning to commercial zoning, particularly office commercial. There is already an adequate supply of commercially-zoned property in the vicinity, so allowing additional commercial intrusions into this single-family neighborhood is not warranted. It is also recommended that, on the existing C-l zoned parcel at the northeast corner of Seacrest Boulevard and Gulfstream Boulevard, the maximum building height should be limited to 2 stories (25 feet) in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. 4.h. R-2 Zoned Lots in Vicinity of S.E. 34th Street The lots which are located in the vicinity of S.E. 34th Street where it terminates at the FEC tracks have been developed for single family dwellings. In order to preserve this small subdivision as a single family neighborhood, the land use should be changed to Low Density Residential and the zoning changed to R-IA Single Family Residential. 7 4. i. Vacant 55-Acre Parcel on East Side of S. Seacrest Boulevard This property is one of the few large undeveloped parcels lying east page 79 f fA 1 c.419 t. 1..A.N ~ ~ J I e (.8,.,1A/f. of Interstate 95. It is not coincidential that the property also contains the lar;est remaining area of Florida scrub in the City': As noted in the Conservation Element, this is an "A" rated area of natural habitat, which therfore warrants preservation. Through a combination of different measures, the City should attempt to preserve as much or this property as possible, through clustering of buildings, park dedication, and possibly, outright purchase. As noted in the Recreation and Open Space Element, a neighborhood park should also be dedicated on this site, preferably, along Seacrest Boulevard. If a park site is .acquired, the Future Land Use Map for this site should be construed to be in the Recreational land use category. 4.j. Unincorporated Parcel at Northwest Corner of FEC Railway and Gulfstream Boulevard This property should be annexed into the City prior to providing water or sewer service. The portion of this parcel abutting the FEC tracks for a depth of approximately 175 feet should be place in the Medium Density Residential land use category and R-2 zoning district, which would allow for the contruction of a row of duplexes similar to that which exists further to the north, along S.E. 2nd Street. The property which lies to the west of this line should be placed in the Low Density Residential land use category and R-1A zoning district. 4.k. Delray Beach Fraternal Order of Police Property This property is an unincorporated enclave which should be annexed and either placed in the Low-Density Residential, Public and Private Governmental/Institutional, or Recreational land use category depending upon the anticipated future use at the time of annexation. The zoning district will depend upon the land use category which is assigned to this parcel. 4.1. Unincorporated Parcels in Vicinity of Lake Ida Those parcels on the west side of Lake Ida, north of the L.W.D.D. L-30 Canal and the adjacent right-of-way for Interstate 95 should be annexed. The existing industrial parcel along Interstate 95 should be annexed as a nonconforming use in a Low Density Residential land use category and an R-1AAB zoning district, since this is an inappropriate location fo industrial uses. Those parcels to the north and south of the existing industrial parcel should also be placed in a low-density residential category and developed for single-family detached housing. The small parcel abutting the east side of the Lake Eden subdivision should also be annexed and placed in the same land use and zoning categories as the adjacent incorporated properties. page 80 V I i"'''' II~" I . -. - \ , 10. Pioneer Canal EXDansion Approximately O.S acre was recently acquired adjacent to the existing park for additional parking and picnic areas. Short-range development is planned with a completion date of 1995. 11. Rollina Green School ImDrovement {1995l Phase 1 development will include facility and site improvements, and two tennis and two racquetball courts. Phase 2 will include lighting for all tennis, basketball, and racquetball courts, athletic field renovation, and a fitness trail. Phase 2 should be completed by the Year 2000. S. Seacrest Boulevard Site (20001 This site is planned to be dedicated as a result of the development of a 49-acre site located on S. Seacrest - Boulevard, north of Atlantic High School. Because of the projected future need for recreation facilities within this area, additional acreage should be acquired and combined with the dedicated land in order to provide for a minimum 5 acre park site. A portion of the scrub which occupies this site will require preservation, inaccuracies with the Conservation Element. Although this could be utilized within a park design, the scrub habitat should not be included a~ dedicated park area if it would completely prevent the development of active recreation facilities. 13. Sand<< Sea Mobile Homes Site {2000l Dedication of a park site is contingent upon the conversion of the mobile home park to single- or multi-family dwellings. Although the existing park is not expected to be redeveloped until after the Year 1995, park development is not expected until nearly 2010. If the entire site were developed for multiple-family dwellings, and 50% credit were received for private recreation facilities, approximately 4.5 acres would be dedicated for future park development. 14. Sara Sims Park EXDansion Area {1995l I A 0.4 acre site was assembled from adjacent lots which were purchased through the Community Development Program. Initial facility development, also to be funded by a Community Development Grant, will include landscaping, two basketball courts, two racquetball courts, and a ' horseshoe-throwing pit. 15. Wilson Park Expansion {2000l Approximately six adjacent lots have been identified for future expansion east of the existing park. AcqUisition of these lots will alleviate the conflict between park patrons ~ 11 , ,.. , - f'-' c.- ,I : , '~.~ ..... . .J; 1 ,J'" ~' ' \ , L"" f( ::. ;;;. rr (.1-'1 ' ' . vMlN'.,J '" ~J' I''"'C,>1IA1'1 F. Park Dedication ~ The city recognized the potential for parks and recreation deficiencies, due to population growth, and therefore implemented a recreation impact fee and incentives for private park development by 1979. The impact fee and private park incentives includes both a requirement for public land dedication (or dollars in lieu there of), and an incentive for ,developing private recreation areas to serve residential projects. However, in order to relieve the congestion of existing facilities, avoid congestion at future facilities, and maximize the use of future dedicated sites, incentives and r~~~irements should be incorpor_a.ted ,withIn..the dedication requir-ements to -ens'ure that a4ejlu,a ~e_ pr i v a t~__ r,ec re.a t'io!i...t~c fi.1 ties _ are -~P-i9V ided ;-- dedi c~~ ~~ public sites and private parks are adjacent to water resources, ~~Q.at_4!!d~ca,ted_.par_k _~J_tes are ~ey'_e)...9.p_~].~_ ~9.r_ active recreation facilities. Altnough most residential projects do provide some recreation facilities, ~vate recreation areas should be required in all developments that exceed 100 dwelling unl~s, and that are located beyond a one-half mile walking - dts~ance from the nearest existing or planned neignborhood park. Furthermore, these private parKS and recreation Iacilillc~ snould be of a size ~that will adequately serve the residents of the development. In order to receive 50% credit toward public park dedication, the size or number of these private facilities should be required to meet, at a minimum, the per capita standards set forth in this element. Private parks should also, where possible, be located adjacent to a body of water. Since the City retains the option of requiring a fee in lieu of land dedication, the city will be able to balance its future dedicated park inventory with funds for facility development and acquisition of additional park acreage. It is projected that the Subdivision and Platting Regulations will require the dedication of over 12 acres of land and between $400,000 and $900,000 in lieu of land within the existing City boundary through the year 2010 (see Table 11), based upon the remaining undeveloped land zoned for residential use. G. Provide opportunities for nature study. Host of the Intracoastal Waterway shoreline in Boynton Beach has been altered, cleared, and bulkheaded. The loss of natural shoreline vegetation, principally mangroves, has decreased the biological productivity of the waterway, eliminated the beneficial filtering process, reduced the wildlife habitat potential as well as the natural storm protection that this natural vegetation provides. Development has also encroached upon environmentally sensitive areas inland, again caustng irreversible damage. Unique flora and fauna exist in the coastal region which are part of a complex system. This integrity of the natural Florida environment has been greatly disrupted by both encroaching development and invading exotic plant species. There remains; however, one mangrove cluster, and several areas of 54 fifvcf(ffi4I'"'''''' 1" J,f1\wQ ""t "'.....W";N( . , ecosystems are partially protected by land development regulations that require 25\ of all native plant communities which occur on a site be preserved. At present, the two major neighborhood areas where future parks and recreation facilities will be needed (Area '11 and Area '17), contain undeveloped parcels occupied by scrub habitat. Because the scr~_habitat ~nnot be relocated, park developmen~snaI1--~ncorporate the-- preservation of a site for scrub habitat. Particularly with the S. Seacrest Boulevard Site, recreation facilities should either be planned around the scrub to be preserved, or located on a nearby site wh1ch serves the same park target area (ie. S.E 2nd Street S1 te). ~ddi tion ,the....-aDtount of the n.atut'A 1 h.abllat ~uiLed_foI-dedication) that-1~__~rad1tad-t~wa~~u~~~ park ded1cat._ion requ,~rement should not exceed 5". -- -- --- . ----- ., . tt<" -\.-' .~. ,~ ~ \.:' - #J I ,.. . ~ fl t... t.r ~ e~ lI' ~~ (/" ( \,;,...- , ""..\ ,(~- d,.\ < ' (; '{'~,l 56 RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 191-453 TO: Chris Cutro, Planning Director ((~H FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist RE: Cedar Grove DATE: October 30, 1991 1. The applicant should coordinate a review of the site with my office in conjunction with the Environmental Assessment submitted to the City. The assessment should be updated and reflect conditions which may have changed since 1987. 2. The applicant will have to secure permits from all appropriate environmental regulatory agencies. 3. The applicant must prepare a tree management plan designating how existing trees will be relocated prior to construction. KH:ad 1f) T; .P1..' l..~' ~.,.;-""--r~_, ," "" ( ( ~ ( :~.' ... . ' BUILDING DEPARTMEN~ MEMORANDUM NO. 91-390 October 28, 1991 TO: Chris Cutro Planning Director FROM: Al Newbold Deputy Building Official RE: TRB COMMENTS - OCTOBER 29, 1991 MEETING MASTER PLAN - CEDAR GROVE Upon review of the above referenced project, the following comments must be addressed: 1. All buildings shall comply with Table 600 of the Standard Building Code for the type of construction as follows: a. Type V - 3-hour rated walls with no openings for buildings which are 0 - 3 feet from the property line. b. Type VI - 1-hour rated walls with no openings for buildings which are 0 - 3 feet from the property line. Both type V and type VI buildings with 15 foot side yards must comply with the code regarding percentage of openings. 2. Specify which buildings will have 20 foot or 25 foot front yard setbacks and which will have 15 foot or 20 foot rear setbacks. ~~~ Al New AN:bh XC: Don Jaeger CEDAR. DOC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Kruse, City Clerk FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, Seni~r Planner DATE: October 25, 1991 RE: Cedar Grove P.U.D. Rezoning - File No. 654 Accompanying this memorandum, you will find a copy of the application and supporting documentation for the above-referenced request. A check in the amount of $2,000 to cover review and processing of this application has been forwarded to the Finance Department. The legal advertisement publicizing hearings for this request before the Planning and Zoning Board on December 10, 1991 and City Commission on December 17, 1991 will be forwarded to your office after review by the City Attorney and City Manager. ?'\ " c:{i..~v. 0t~~. Tambri J.. TJH/jm Encls. ENGDlEERDIG DEPAR~ JlEM)RAIIDUJI MO. 91-223 October 24, 1991 TO: Christopher Cutro Director of Planning FROM: Vincent A. Flnizio Administrative Coordinator of Engineering RE: Technical Review Board Comments Cedar Grove In accordance with the provis~ons set forth in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Code of Ordinances, specifically Chapter 19-17, "Plan Required" and Chapter 5, Article X, "City of Boynton Beach P3.rking Lot Regulations" f the applicant shall provide the following information, technical data and plan revisions. 1.) In accordance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph B. The developer shall retain the services of an engineer or surveyor registered in Florida, to prepare the master plan of the subdivision and shall employ a land planner, landscape architect, architect or other technical or professional services to assist in the physical lotting patterns and site p~an. The master planshall be coordinated with the major u~ility suppliers involved with providing services. 2.) In accordance with Appendix C, Sectlon 4, paragraph C.,item 4, the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the follOWing: Name, address and telephone number of the developer, along with the name and address of the engineer and surveyor responsible for the plan, plat and supporting data. 2.) In a=co~dance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph C.,item 5.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city en~ineer, shall contain the following: The location and names of adjacent subdivision, if any, and plat book and page reference. 4.) In accordance with AppendiX C, Section 4, paragraph C. ,item 6.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: The tract boundary with bearings and distances along with a written description. 5.) Place a note on plans stating that in conjunction with the preliminary plat process and associated submissions, the owners shall give notice in writing to the Palm Beach County School Board of their submission and agree to abide by the requirements set forth by the School Board. RECEIVED NOVS PL1\!!\fIN~Na DEPT. a \ - . I 10. ) 11. ) 12. ) Cedar Grove cont'd. 6. ) In accordance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph C. ,item 8.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engIneer, shall contain the following: All existing streets and alleys on or adjacent to the tract including name, right-of- way width, street or pavement width and established centerline elevation. Existing streets shall be dimensioned to the tract boundary. 7. ) In accordance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph c. ,item 9.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the follOWing: All existing property lines, easements and rights-of-way, their purpose, and their effect on the property to be subdivided. 8. ) I~ acccrdance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph C.,item lO.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: The location and right- cf-w~y width of all proposed streets, alleys, right-of-way, ease~ents anj theIr ?urpose along with the proposed layout of the lots and blocks. In accordance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph C.,item 11.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: The incorporation and compatible development of present and future streets as shown on the official city map when such present or future streets are affected by the proposed subdivision. In a:cordance WIth AppendiX C, Section 4, paragr3ph C. ,item 12.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: Access points to collector and arterial streets showing their compliance to the access requirements estsblished by this ordinance. In accordance with AppendIX C, Section 4, paragraph C.,itern IS.the master plan, when submItted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: Generalized statement of subsurface conditions on the property, location and results of tests made to ascertain subsurface soil conditions and groundwater depth. In accordance with AppendiX C, section 4, paragraph C./item 17.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: Utilities such as telephone, power, water, sewer, gas, etc., on the proposed or adjacent tract including existing or proposed water treatment plants or sewerage treatment plants. The master plan shall contain a statement that all utilities are available and have been coordinated with all required utilities. 13.\ In accordance with AppendiX C, section 4, paragraph C.,item , . Cedar Grove cont'd 18.the master plan, when submitted to the office of the city engineer, shall contain the following: Sites proposed for parks, recreational areas, and schools. 14.) In accordance with Appendix C, Section 4, paragraph D., a subdivision that generates three thousand (3,000) vehicle sIngle-directional trips per or two hundred fIfty (250) sinle- directional trips in a one hour period must submIt, along with the master plan, a traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a professional engineer competent in traffic engineering and shall be used to determine the number of lanes and the capacity of the street system proposed or affected by the development, and the phasi~g of Improvements. 15.) Ad] acent street patterns must be addressed. Circulation as proposed is inadequate. 16.) Applicant is to supply a 24"x36" survey indicatir:g topography on the site and adjacent call outs of platted subdivisions. 17.) 40 I and 50' right-of-ways as shown on the r;la.r: are not a1.1 oW3bl e. A 60' minimum is required. Also, 3. cul-de-sac radii shculd be agreed to and Indicated on the drawing. 20.) A SOlIs statement is required. No submitted. The applicant indicated that the site fer the design sterm. Applicant design storm is being used. drainage plan was no flows would leave is to ir.di:ate which l}~ _~D~'~ Vince Fini3t:- c:J A.C.E. IC". ard stau Gee & Jensen Consultin~ngineers PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCY REVIEW FROM: Vincent Finizio, Adm. Coordinator of Engineering w. Richard staudinger, City Engineer ~~ Christopher cutro, Planning Director TO: DATE: october 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD - Request for concurrency Review of Drainage Level of Service Standard Pursuant to Section 19-88(d)(4) of the City of Boynton Beach Concurrency Management Ordinance (Ord. No. 90-18), please review the proposed Cedar Grove PUD request for compliance with the adopted level of service standard for drainage and reply to our office in memorandum form (separate from the regular Engineering Department staff comments memorandum). To help facilitate the review of this application and for record-keeping purposes, the memorandum should include the following: 1. A statement that the Engineering Department has reviewed the subject project for compliance with the drainage level of service standard: and 2. Determination of whether the drainage level of service standard can be met; and 3. Itemization of the improvements and/or public facilities that are to be constructed in order to meet the level of service requirement, timing of construction, and responsibility for construction. For your convenience, the drainage level of service is specified in section 19-84(d) of the Concurrency Management Ordinance which states: "Drainage Level of Service shall mean that drainage facilities for development projects shall be designed for a three (3) year design storm for a duration of the time of concentration for the watershed, for development projects which are subject to South Florida Water Management District design and/or permitting requirements, and shall mean that drainage facilities for all other development projects shall be designed to accommodate the first hour of a three (3) year storm on site." Thank you for your cooperation.